transhumanism

MORE CHALLENGES TO MON(STER)SANTO’S SUPREMES

September 25, 2013 By Joseph P. Farrell

According to RT, the issue of GMOs, and the "GMO-military-industrial-patent" complex is not going to go away any time soon. Only this time, there's a hitch:

US farmers challenging Monsanto patent claims appeal to Supreme Court

I hope you read that carefully, and saw what the hitch was. When Dr. Scott D. de Hart and I were researching and writing Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas, we spent some time - an entire chapter in fact - examining how the whole idea of the patentability of genetically modified crops came about, while, at the same time, normal regulatory procedures were relaxed by bought-and-paid-for agencies of various governments. The key to the regulatory relaxation was the evolution of the principle of "substantial equivalence," which was developed precisely in order to side-step such regulatory testing, which would conceivably have been very long term(as one would only expect as common sense from the introduction of modifications of the human food supply, and hence the implicate potential of bad effects on human health). Substantial equivalence simply meant that GMOs were, in effect, the very same organism as the non-GMO crops they were designed to replace, say, wheat. The nutritional function and benefit was "substantially equivalent," and hence, regulations could be relaxed.

But, as we also pointed out in Transhumanism, the advocacy of this doctrine soon involved the agribusiness giants in a philosophical, and legal, contradiction, for at one and the same time, they were attempting to patent their concoctions, and hence, gain the ability to reap royalties from the sale of their seeds, a portion of which could not be harvested for replanting without payment of additional fees, where a portion of  conventional non-GMO seeds were traditionally husbanded for replanting in future crops. So much for substantial equivalence.

When it came to the four principles of American patent law, the focus has thus far been on the intervention by the hand of man, and the ability to replicate a process or technique to achieve results otherwise not accomplished by nature. By this criterion, GMOs were clearly patentable. But there was another criterion in play as well: utility or usefulness. A product had to provide some utile benefit in order to be patentable.

Here, you'll note, is precisely where the latest opposition to GMOs to come before the courts is addressing the whole contradiction:

"While the Court of Appeals correctly found that the farmers and seed sellers had standing to challenge Monsanto's invalid patents, it incorrectly found that statements made by Monsanto's lawyers during the lawsuit mooted the case," said Daniel Ravicher, Executive Director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) and lead counsel to the plaintiffs in the case, OSGATA et al v. Monsanto. "As a result, we have asked the Supreme Court to take the case and reinstate the right of the plaintiffs to seek full protection from Monsanto's invalid transgenic seed patents."

Ravicher says the company’s patents on genetically-modified seeds don’t meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law. The plaintiffs’ filing cites evidence proving that the genetically-engineered seeds have negative economic and health effects, while the supposed benefits for food production and avoiding toxic pesticides are weak.   (Boldface emphasis added)

Now, I have about as much faith that rationality and reason will prevail with the Supremes as it did in Dred Scott. The real test, of course, will be the market, and whether or not Duponzanto and Mon(ster)santo will accept the labeling of food containing their GMOs'.

I'm not holding my breath on that score either.

See you on the flip side.