Sugar is a chemical, a single molecule. Pork is, as I say, a part of a pig, if that pig has genetics that are directly modified, then it isn't a pig any more. You seem to have failed to address that the definition of "corn" changes (or should change) if a company modifies that organism enough to gain a patent on it. If nothing else, there should be a patent number somewhere on that label, don't you think?
I would gladly pay extra for the "additional burden" of printing the label with the words "NO GMO"......thank you
That why I buy organic, today it stands for NO GMO's......buy organic.....
There is no patent on you or me, there is on that corn. Obviously both Monsanto and the government thought it was different enough from corn to issue that patent.
still missing the point here! IF, the company that made the corn so different that they asked for and were issued a patent things it is so different than corn that it deserves a patent, then it is ... wait for it.... NOT CORN. It is something else, something that is patentable, if it were simply corn, even simply corn with an unusual ability to resist herbicides, then it would not be patentable. If I breed any crop without actually directly modifying the dna, I cannot patent it.
Use it how you wish.
How does one get a patent on maize?
Ok, then how is it that Monsanto is suing and winning for patent infringement on farmers who have unitentionnaly bred their corn with Monsanto corn? It may still be biologicaly "corn" but it is not legaly the same thing any longer.
I am not arguing the definition of "natural", as we are indeed a part of the "natural world" and so what we do must be as well, but so are the consequences of our "natural" acts. I am aware of what changes genetics but my point still holds in law. Now are you saying that I can patent a tomato I cross bred in order to get a white fuzzy fruit?No we got your point. Did you get mine?
Are there 2 horses? The natual one and the ones we crossbred,, line bred, and keep careful note, and horrid culling, to be that. No. Just a horse. If we inject a glowing gene we can patent a glowing horse. So What? It is still a horse. Wake up.
How much does 1, stand to stud, cost for Derby Winner? Is it patented? Could have been but the law changed. Now after over 200 patents on human raw genes, those last ones are expiring. No more. New law.
You have no basis in patent law for what you are hand waving about. Life has been patented before. Bring facts not pleas for understanding of a fractured point of view.
Not only that you are sadly uninformed that virus is modifying all genetic code, constantly and is a main driver of evolution. In fact we find ancient virus sequence in human DNA.
False argument. You think everything can drive the genomes but us. Perhaps it is our job now, also.
