GMOs: The Scary Reality of Plant Patent Law

There has been quite a bit of information in the media surrounding GMOs. Some people champion them as a way to end world hunger and a necessity for modern agriculture. Some, (like us) aren't so sure.  Naysayers fight for labeling, boycotts and in-depth safety research.

This interesting article from Slate raises a different type of concern altogether. Frederick Kaufman urges us to forget about labeling and focus our efforts on what he considers to be the more important matter at hand.

In his sub-title, he tells us: "If the food movement really wants to improve the food supply, it needs to follow the money instead of wasting its time on labels."  Kaufman, the author of "Bet the Farm: How Food Stopped Being Food", tells us his tale of woe from the inside of the genetic modification industry.

He tells us:

"GM foods' effect on health is uncertain, but their effect on farmers, scientists and the marketplace is clear. Some GM foods may be healthy, others not; every genetic modification is different. But every GM food becames dangerous- not to health, but to society- when it can be patented. Right now, the driving force behind the development of new genetic crop modification is the fact that they possess the potential to be enormously profitable... Thats the gist of early American patent law...and the reason why molecular biologists are spiking grapes with jellyfish genes and pulling all-nighters in pursuit of the square tomato." (full article)

He goes on to summarize how patent law and Monsanto's utilization of it, putting pressure on American farmers and ruining the food system.

"The impact of these laws has been enormous.  In essence, plant patent laws created the industrialized food system that the modern food movement rightly decries."

Kaufman tells the story of interesting (potentially beneficial?) GM research that is being done and patented on rice by researchers at UC-Davis, but not being pursued by Monsanto because its not as profitable. Now, arguments like this are difficult because of course, Monsanto, like most companies is for-profit. Why would they pursue potentially less profitable GM options? However, the reason this argument remains compelling is that they are constantly chirping about how GM foods will stop hunger and save lives, just like this rice has the actual potential to do (if deemed safe). 

He summarizes the thrust of the piece in the closing:

"If the goal of the American food movement is to offer an alternative to Big Food, if the goal is to foster small farmers worldwide, to develop better connections between rural and urban environments, and to support sustainable farming techniques- then labeling GM foods, as California's Proposition 37 would have done, will not come anywhere close to doing the job. In order to overhaul the food system, the food movement must think strategically. To the Monsantos of the world, food has become a source of wild profit and a legal construct to be defended at all costs in court. That means the time has come for the food movement to take on patient laws. Instead of tilting at the windmill of food labels, food nonprofits should hire a fleet of I.P. lawyers and send them to Washington to demand reform of the Plant Patent Act. When there's less profit in genetic modification, things will get better for consumers, farmers, and scientist-pretty much everyone except corporate executives."

The article makes for an interesting read. What do you think? Should the food movement focus on GMO labeling so we can make informed decisions or is that the least of our problems? Does Plant Patent Law worry you more?

Labels: farmers, food movement, GMO, monsanto, non-GMO