Patent Grab


In Geoffrey Lean’s article in The Independent, “Biotech Giants Demand a High Price for Saving the Planet: Companies Accused of Profiteering as They Attempt to Patent Crop Genes,” he found, through a Canadian organization’s report (ETC Group) that biotech companies are filing hundreds of monopoly patents on genes that help crops resist climate change.  The new investigation has concluded that nine biotech firms have filed at least 532 patents around the world on about 55 different genes offering protection against heat, drought, and floods.

If granted, the companies would be given control of crucial natural raw material needed to maintain food supplies in an increasingly hungry world.

The ETC Group report says some of the applications are sweeping. One would cover more than 30 crops from oats to oil palms, triticale to tea, and potatoes to perennial grass—“in other words, virtually all food crops.”  The report also asserts that the “corporate grab on climate-tolerant genes” means that “a handful of transnational companies are now positioned to determine who gets access to key genetic traits and what price they must pay.”

Small farmers in developing countries will be particularly hard hit by such “climate-change profiteering.”  Patenting will make the crops expensive and ensure that poor farmers have to buy them every year by prohibiting them from saving seeds from one harvest to grow for the next.

We typically think of drought resistance, salt resistance, and bio-fortification related only to GE crops.  However, the real breakthroughs in agriculture in 2007 were in sustainable and organic farming, not genetic engineering. Conventional, non-GMO breeding techniques are making remarkable progress in developing crops that can tolerate heat, floods and drought.

Some of the non-GMO breakthroughs include: 

  • salt-tolerant wheat to bring life to “dead” farmland

  • improved corn harvests

  • drought-resistant corn

  • beta carotene-rich sweet potatoes

  • allergen-free peanuts

  • iron-fortified corn

  • solutions for fuel, and more.  

The non-GMO solutions also bring with them none of the uncertainties that surround GMOs. 

The ETC Group report claims that “the patent grab is sucking up money and resources that could be spent on affordable, farmer-based strategies for survival.”  It concludes:

These patented technologies will ultimately concentrate corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit independent research, and further undermine the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds.

If the biotech industry is now patenting all the “climate change” traits allowable, then the non-GMO farmers would not be able to use “their” traits for drought resistance, etc., and produce non-GMO solutions. 

Time and time again, we can connect the dots and the biotech industry’s motivation is clear.  Seems so obvious, yet much of the public still has no idea what is really going on.


“If food processors decide to stop accepting GMO crops, the ag biotech industry is basically done”


We need to know we are being played and that we have the power to end agricultural biotech by putting pressure on food processors and manufacturers. 

 If food processors decide to stop accepting GMO crops, the ag biotech industry is basically done. 

This was said by Dr. Thomas J. Hoban, professor of sociology and anthropology, NC State University, during a presentation in 2006 to the Association of Agricultural Production Executives (he gave the same presentation to the USDA’s Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology, as well as to other organizations). 

With a background in sociology, Hoban’s work has focused on “how people understand and respond to controversial changes and environmental issues” such as biotechnology.  He was a member of the USDA’s Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology and the US government’s (taxpayer funded) National Science Foundation even funded his team to the tune of $99,940 to conduct a survey about public attitudes and biotechnology. 

What did Hoban learn about U.S. attitudes toward biotechnology? 

  • More consumers are opting out of the industrial food system in favor of booming organic market

  • Growing sense among consumers and food industry that risks are not being addressed in open manner

  • Confidence in U.S. government has dropped significantly in recent years

  • Animal cloning and biotech will further undermine consumer confidence

What strategies does he suggest to U.S. governmental agencies, food organizations, and the biotech industry to reduce GMO backlash with U.S. consumers? 

  • Spend more time and money educating  consumers and the food industry about biotech
  • Recognize that many consumers now have concerns over biotechnology

  • In order to promote consumer demand  (instead of just holding off rejection) he says one message should be used — tell people “Biotechnology reduces the use of chemical pesticides.

In a blog post in March, I asked,  

Why is it that people continue to mistakenly assume genetically engineered crops feed the world and help the environment by reducing pesticide use?  Perhaps because the government and the biotechnology industry expend questionable efforts to “educate” consumers, the media, and politicians with propaganda championing GE food as safe and necessary. 


In reality, genetically engineered crops have led to a large increase in pesticide use and have failed to increase yield or tackle world hunger and poverty, states a report by Friends of the Earth and the Center for Food Safety. 

How does Hoban suggest the U.S. government and biotech industry prevent further rejection of biotechnology?   To be profitable, he says they must respect the needs and concerns of the food chain (not consumers, but food processors).

  • The food processing, retail and service sectors have significantly more market clout than the agricultural and biotechnology sectors combined

  • So far, biotech has only meant headaches and costs for the industry (no real benefits in sight for years)

  • If food processors decide to stop accepting GMO crops, the ag biotech industry is basically done

Because there had been consumer resistance due to labeling and information available in Europe, many of the same companies that use GE ingredients in the U.S. are GE-free in Europe:  Coke, General Mills, Kelloggs, Heinz, Hershey, Kraft, McDonalds, Burger King, Nabisco, Nestle, Pepsi, and others.  We, too, can be GE-free if there is enough consumer awareness of GE food.   

Another case of consumers making a difference in the U.S. is with rBGH:

As of March 2008, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. announced that its store brand milk in the U.S. would come exclusively from cows not treated with GE cow growth hormones (rBGH). 


Grocery chain Kroger Co., with 2,500 stores in the U.S., began in February selling only milk produced without the use of rBGH.  Safeway Inc., with more than 1,700 stores, switched its in-store brands to non-rBGH milk and back in January, Starbucks has only used non-rBGH milk in its stores. 


As the largest grocery retailer in the U.S. with more than 4,000 locations, however, Wal-Mart was the “big get” for consumer advocates.  The retailer said that its change was prompted by consumer demands. 


As consumers become aware, big changes can happen.  Your dollars and your voice wield the most influence. The U.S. government and the biotech industry know this.  


Stop buying GE foods and contact food processors and manufacturers and let them know we do not want GMOs in our food.   


Hoban is right, “If food processors decide to stop accepting GMO crops, the ag biotech industry is basically done.”  You choose with your money spent AND when you voice your opinion to food companies.  You can make a difference.


US, Canada, Australia the only countries that won’t endorse international hunger project


I mentioned in a previous blog post that Monsanto, Syngenta, and BASF withdrew from a major international project to plan the future of agriculture because the initiative failed to endorse GE crops as a means to reduce poverty and hunger.   


That project is the United Nations’ International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), which focused on the problem of how to feed the world’s growing population.  It was a four-year, $10-million project based on the work of 400 scientists and experts from around the world.


In April 2008, governments and scientists from around the world gathered in Johannesburg, South Africa to debate this project and the final report. 


Adopted by more than 60 countries, the final report calls for a fundamental change in the way we do farming to address rising food prices, hunger, social inequities, and environmental disasters.  

The final IAASTD report acknowledges that GE crops will not play a substantial role in addressing the key problems of climate change, biodiversity loss, hunger and poverty. 

According to Jan van Aken, Greenpeace International sustainable agriculture campaigner who attended the UN’s IAASTD meeting, in Taking stock of agriculture,

The agriculture of the future is one that works with nature and the people—not against them.  Millions of farms on all continents already prove that ecological and sustainable agriculture can provide sufficient food, increase food security, replenish natural resources and provide a better livelihood for farmers and local communities.

Today’s chemical-intensive agriculture is more like mining than farming. While it may provide short-term gains in production, it is not sustainable in the long term and compromises the dwindling agricultural area upon which our future food supply depends.


It also fails to meet the needs of local communities for livelihoods, food security and a healthy, diverse diet.…This means [we need to divert] funding away from GE crops and industrial farming towards more sustainable farming techniques.

Conspicuously, the only three countries at the meeting that refused to endorse the report were the U.S. (home of the biotech industry), Canada, and Australia.


Chris Gupta, Canadian health researcher and educator had this to say:

…We have today and have had for many years, not some time in the future, known how to literarily double our food growth in half the foot print—to do it organically, produce clean free energy as a byproduct, do it sustainably, and clean up the environment to boot!


All this and more using tried and true time proven permaculture and biodynamic methods already in public domain—so who is stopping us? 

Australia, the US, Canada and their cronies…. Could it be stealing markets from fossil fuels, cleaning environment and an abundance of nutrient rich foods that keep us healthy are a little too threatening for the predatory corporations? They have usurped our tax dollars to deliberately create unconscionable wars and scarcity and environmental damage for personal gain…

GE crops have never been about feeding the world, helping consumers, reducing pesticides, and sustainability.  As I go into detail in Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food, the U.S. government and the biotechnology industry expend questionable efforts to “educate” consumers, the media, and politicians with propaganda championing GE food as safe and necessary. 


Yet, in 2006, the USDA acknowledged that GE crop yields are not greater than those of conventional crops.  In addition, a compelling number of studies by independent scientists demonstrate that GE crop yields are lower than, or at best equivalent to, yields from non-GE varieties.


In the meantime, your health has been unnecessarily risked by this unproven technology.  GE food has NEVER been proven safe for human consumption.  According to independent scientists, human health effects of consuming GE foods can include toxic and allergic reactions, antibiotic resistance, immune suppression, and other serious illnesses.


It’s no wonder the report representing more than 400 scientists from around the world does not endorse GE crops as a means to reduce hunger and poverty.  Even less surprising is that the U.S. government does not agree with IAASTD’s report.


You will not hear about this in the mainstream media.

Food Matters: the film

Please check out the compelling trailer of “Food Matters,” a documentary that was released on May 30th.  Food Matters is a culmination of teachings from leading authorities in nutrition and natural healing from around the globe.

From the Food Matters blog:

With nutritionally-depleted foods, chemical additives and our tendency to rely upon pharmaceutical drugs to treat what’s wrong with our malnourished bodies, it’s no wonder that modern society is getting sicker. Food Matters sets about uncovering the trillion dollar worldwide ‘sickness industry’ and gives people some scientifically verifiable solutions for curing disease naturally.

In what promises to be the most contentious idea put forward, the filmmakers have interviewed several world leaders in nutrition and natural healing who claim that not only are we harming our bodies with improper nutrition, but that the right kind of foods, supplements and detoxification can be used to treat chronic illnesses as fatal as terminally diagnosed cancer.

The focus of the film is in helping us rethink the belief systems fed to us by our modern medical and health care establishments. The interviewees point out that not every problem requires costly, major medical attention and reveal many alternative therapies that can be more effective, more economical, less harmful and less invasive than conventional medical treatments.

Anita Wilson, Executive Director of the Gerson Institute in San Diego was kind enough to forward the link to me and mentioned that it had footage of Charlotte Gerson. 

While you can see the trailer for Food Matters, you can watch the film online (a one-time view) for $4.95 or you can purchase the DVD for $29.95. 

I think it’s a film done very well–and that it most certainly supports the Gerson Therapy and Orthomolecular Medicine (nutritional therapeutics) in general.  

It makes a strong case, to put it mildly, for anyone not convinced (or possibly on the fence) that nutrition is needed to get healthy vs the pharma disease model that just plain does not work regarding health and prevention.  

Charlotte Gerson’s comments made a strong impression, as well as references to Max Gerson and the Gerson therapy.  I’d say the majority of the weight of the film was given to Andrew Saul, and he is a terrific, factual, clear speaker. 

While I already understand the message of the film and speaking to me was speaking to the choir (and didn’t need to be sold on it), it was still interesting to hear/see the information–framed in the way it was and to hear some of the statistics that were given.  It’s nice to see a film done like this that supports what we have known all along. 

And it is one that will be a bridge to those who are now ready to hear it.