| Rayne Today Searching for dharma, in spite of the weather...
RantsCounterRants: The Protest for Wild Rice… Following is the text of an e-mail I received from Organic Consumers Association this morning. The reasons for protest are explained in the body of the suggested letter below. My largest concern is for the contamination of existing wild rice genes with adulterated, modified genes from modified plants. Wild rice is not consumed by humans alone, but by many different wildlife. There is little published information about the intent behind the modifications or the impact of modifications on humans and wildlife. In addition, there are legitimate concerns about the ownership of genetic material (both before and after modification) that is public domain and/or managed/owned by indigenous peoples, as well as its potential threat to biodiversity and to preservation of existing wild rice genes. Please consider helping this cause by sending a letter as indicated below. Thank you. = = = There is currently a patent application for wild rice being considered by the US Patent Office. Your voice is needed in helping secure the rejection of this patent on wild rice. Below is an email from Winona LaDuke about what you can do to help stop this bio-piracy. Tom Taylor Organic Consumers Association Tel: 612-331-7309
= = =
Dear Friends, I write with promising news. The US Patent Office is in the final stages of rejecting patent application with Serial Number 09/839,813. This application pertains to ongoing research in 1. James E. Rogan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the Email: James.Rogan@USPTO.gov 2. Nicholas Godici, Commissioner for Patents. Email: Nicholas.Godici@uspto.gov 3. Stephen G. Kunin, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. Email: Stephen.Kunin@USPTO.gov or to Steven.Kunin@USPTO.gov 4. John J. Doll, Director, Email: John.Doll@USPTO.gov Send letters as soon as possible to each of the individuals listed above. Your effort will help to ensure that the patent for the results of this disquieting research is denied. Your ongoing support of the campaign to protect manoomin is essential. Miigwech, Winona LaDuke >> Dear Honorable Mr. Commissioner et al.: We are writing to express our strong concern about a pending US Patent Application that claims a method of using Manoomin, our wild rice, in order to make another type of rice, and the plants and seeds made thereby. Wild rice is central and sacred to the heart and spirit of the Anishinaabeg and other Indigenous peoples in the We understand that there is a patent application presently pending in the US Patent Office. It has a Serial Number 09/839,813 and was filed on The plants made by these techniques are fertile, and it is not clear what sort of genetic pollution may be incurred were they to be introduced near genuine Native wild rice. Since the claims of the patent application specifically refer to "progeny" of the plants which the 'inventors' have made in the lab, then any wild outcrossing of these plants into our Native wild rice stands, would mean that the 'progeny' would be covered by patent claims. This is intolerable to us. Furthermore, there may be serious negative impacts upon our natural stands of wild rice by such outcrossing. Genetically modified rice of the sort claimed in the subject patent application has the potential to irreversibly alter natural strains of wild rice. This biological concern, is in fact within the purview of the USPTO. This is because a patent is not some inherent right but is actually a government subsidy (in the form of a limited monopoly) given as a positive incentive to a patent applicant. However, the new 2002 corporate plan of the USPTO reminds one that patents must always be balanced with the Public Interest. This is found in Appendix C of the Fiscal Year 2002 Corporate Plan: "The Under Secretary and Director champions intellectual property rights and forges a balance between the public's interest in intellectual property and each customer's interest in his/her patent and trademark." Thus the USPTO respectfully must consider what negative effects fall upon others, whenever a patent is granted. We understand that as of this date, patent application 09/839,813 is under Final Rejection status. Due to this status, the Patent Examiner has a very high degree of discretion (under "Rule 116", 37 CFR 1.116) to not entertain any further arguments or amendments by applicants. We very respectfully urge the Patent Office to use this very high degree of discretion to maintain the rejection of the claims of the patent application. Doing so would indicate to the public that their interest is being taken into account. Furthermore, should patent applicants re-file the case as a continuation application of some sort, we very respectfully urge the patent examiner to not be browbeaten into acquiescence by the persistence of a patent applicant. Reasons already exist on the record for rejecting these claims, and these are not diminished upon re-filing of a claim. Finally, any claim to "progeny" plants respectfully must be rejected outright, since after many generations of interbreeding of the claimed plant with natural rice, the resultant progeny would be indistinguishable from natural, prior art rice. Director J. Doll understands this line of argument, as he has taken this precisely this position in the reexamination proceedings on basmati rice (see paper mailed 27 March 2001 in Reexamination Control No. 90/005,709 first filed Apr. 28, 2000) <<  comment []RantsCounterRants: A chance to be an activist… Today’s rant concerns genetic modification of foods. I received an e-mail this morning asking for my help regarding wild rice. After reading the entire e-mail, I am considerably freaked out. I hope I’m not alone, and I hope you’ll think about helping. First, some education and discussion: It’s entirely true that humans have been modifying their foods since they first selected only the tastiest fruits and grains. However, humans now must consider stopping the excess of genetic modification. A recent example shows the inherent dangers of today’s current genetically modified (GM) foods. Starlink, a GM corn created by Aventis, contaminated other corn in 1999 and ended up in the food chain although it had not yet been approved for human consumption. Starlink corn allegedly made its way even into tortilla chips and shells; it’s speculated that Starlink ended up in 50% of the corn crop in the How did this happen? Starlink corn was not labeled properly and was milled in with other corn. Measures have been taken to prevent this from happening, but it’s not 100% error proof. A greater concern is that humans simply cannot provide 100% control on the spread of pollen. Corn or other plant pollen can end up spreading to other nearby crops, sharing the modified genes with plants intended for human use. Even with unmodified crops, pollen spread can be dangerous; the entire indigenous gourd crop was exterminated in This same problem has already occurred with rape seed plants; crops cross-pollinated, farmers have been forced to destroy contaminated crops. Next time you buy canola oil, think about the rape seed plants from which that oil was harvested; was it contaminated, or no? Quite frankly, you’re probably consuming GM vegetable oil, regardless of the contamination issue. Think a bit further out: we’ve already been implanting animal genetics into plants. One example is a gene which in insects causes them to glow in the dark; in plants, it’s intended to help mark specific genes that have been modified. What happens if genes from different animals combine because of inadvertent, unintended cross-pollination? And are plants with animal genes actually vegetable or animal? (If you’re a vegetarian, you’re freaking out right about now. I was freaked out way back about the Starlink contamination.) Do we have these answers? Have biotech companies found or made these answers for us? Personally, I don’t think we’ve had enough public debate about genetic modification of foods; we haven’t thought out all the risks. For instance, do we really understand why plants and animals are separate? My understanding is that plants do not have the same rate of genetic change and evolution in nature that animals have; what are the repercussions if plants were to have this same rate of change? At what point do plants become conscious? At what point do we stop all modifications except those that occur in nature? We’ve allowed private parties, corporations, to completely take over the management of the genetic material of this planet. How do we, the public, feel about all of this? I think it’s time to stop. No, I’m not some anti-technology fruitcake. I love technology as much as the next geek. But I also have a healthy respect for the power of genes, and a healthy fear of our own human pride and stupidity. We simply do not know how genetic modification will play out – companies researching GM products work under simple premises, like, “improve crop yields” or “increase vitamin A content”. They don’t share with the rest of the affected community how modifications on a single corn plant, for example, may change the rest of the entire corn genus. They simply don’t think that way. I was taught in college that good business ethics means making decisions which yield long-term shareholder value. The challenge is that shareholders may not be impacted as quickly as stakeholders – other people who are affected by the outcome of any action taken by a company. In the case of GM foods, we the consumer and the farmer, are impacted long before the shareholder sees the full extent of the damage wrought. We the stakeholders could be diseased or dead, before the impact is felt on the shareholder’s wallet, never mind long-term value. We stakeholders must insist that biotech firms act ethically, with stakeholder value in mind. That’s not to say that shareholders should not profit, but their gains should not come at a loss to the biology of this planet. I’m leaving this rant for now; I’ll return to post more about wild rice later today and to ask your assistance. If you live overseas or outside the continental US, feel free to help. Pollen from our crops can easily mingle with your plants, giving you no say over your food stuffs. You are a stakeholder, too. - - - For more information about GM foods: Genetically Engineered Organisms Public Issues Education Project (GEO-PIE) Site produced by http://www.comm.cornell.edu/gmo/gmo.html Organic Consumers Association (also provides information about shade-grown coffee) – Activist organization: http://www.organicconsumers.org/ Friends of the Earth – Activist organization who discovered the Starlink contamination (this link to UK-based group): comment []
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
