Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: The USDA's new labeling for genetically modified foods goes into effect Jan. 1. [View all]Tumbulu
(6,301 posts)153. Here is a link to a thorough discussion of the topic
https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/63/3/1069/473047
This is from the discussion towards the end:
The USA is considered to have the most liberal patent law. In 1980, the Supreme Court in Diamond v Chakrabarty (see note 15) had to consider whether a genetically engineered bacterium, capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil, was patentable. The patent examiner in that case had rejected the application on two grounds: (i) that micro-organisms are products of nature and (ii) that as living things they were not patentable subject matter under the US patent law. The Supreme Court brushed aside these concerns, famously referring to the objective of Congress that the patent law was to include anything under the sun that is made by man as patentable. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the micro-organism qualified as patentable subject matter. However, the Court also noted that the patent claim under consideration was not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a non-naturally occurring manufacture or composition of mattera product of human ingenuity (see note 16). In other words, some human intervention was required to render a biological innovation as patentable.
The European Patent Office focuses upon the necessity for a claimed invention to have a technical character. Rule 27 Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents defines patentable biotechnological inventions as those which concern:
(i) biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process even if it previously occurred in nature;
(ii) plants or animals if the technical feasibility of the invention is not confined to a particular plant or animal variety;
(iii) a microbiological or other technical process, or a product obtained by means of such a process other than a plant or animal variety.
This requirement that inventions have a technical character was considered by the EBA in the Broccoli and Tomato cases to be an important matter in its consideration of whether plant breeding methods were patentable. In examining the historical documents which led up to the formulation of the EPC in 1960, the EBA observed that, with the creation of new plant varieties for which a special property right was going to be introduced under the subsequent UPOV Convention in 1960, the legislative architects of the EPC were concerned with excluding from patentability the kind of plant breeding processes which were the conventional methods for the breeding of plant varieties of that time. These conventional methods included, in particular, those based on the sexual crossing of plants deemed suitable for the purpose pursued and on the subsequent selection of the plants having the desired trait(s). These processes were characterized by the fact that the traits of the plants resulting from the crossing were determined by the underlying natural phenomenon of meiosis. This phenomenon determined the genetic make-up of the plants produced, and the breeding result was achieved by the breeder's selection of plants having the desired trait(s). That these were processes to be excluded also followed from the fact that processes changing the genome of plants by technical means such as irradiation were cited as examples of patentable technical processes.
The EBA also referred to the explanations given in the memorandum of the Secretariat of the Committee of Experts for agreeing to the replacement of the words purely biological by the word essentially was deliberate as reflecting the legislative intention that the mere fact of using a technical device in a breeding process should not be sufficient to give the process as such a patentable technical character. The EBA concluded that the provision of a technical step, be it explicit or implicit, in a process which is based on the sexual crossing of plants and on subsequent selection does not cause the claimed invention to escape the exclusion if that technical step only serves to perform the process steps of the breeding process (see note 17).
Conclusion
The determination of the EBA was that a process for the production of plants which is based on the sexual crossing of whole genomes and on the subsequent selection of plants, in which human intervention, including the provision of a technical means, serves to enable or assist the performance of the process steps, is excluded from patentability as being essentially biological within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC. Thus the EBA confirmed that classical plant breeding is excluded from patentability. On the other hand, if a process of sexual crossing and selection includes within it an additional step of a technical nature, which step by itself introduces a trait into the genome or modifies a trait in the genome of the plant produced, so that the introduction or modification of that trait is not the result of the mixing of the genes of the plants chosen for sexual crossing, then that process leaves the realm of the plant breeding and, consequently, is not excluded from patentability. This principle applies only where the additional step is performed within the steps of sexually crossing and selection, independently from the number of repetitions, otherwise the exclusion of sexual crossing and selection processes from patentability could be circumvented simply by adding steps which do not properly pertain to the crossing and selection process, being either upstream steps dealing with the preparation of the plant(s) to be crossed or downstream steps dealing with the further treatment of the plant resulting from the crossing and selection process. The EBA noted that, for the previous or subsequent steps, per se patent protection was available. This will be the case for genetic engineering techniques applied to plants which differ from conventional breeding techniques as they work primarily through the deliberate insertion and/or modification of one or more genes in a plant.
This is from the discussion towards the end:
The USA is considered to have the most liberal patent law. In 1980, the Supreme Court in Diamond v Chakrabarty (see note 15) had to consider whether a genetically engineered bacterium, capable of breaking down multiple components of crude oil, was patentable. The patent examiner in that case had rejected the application on two grounds: (i) that micro-organisms are products of nature and (ii) that as living things they were not patentable subject matter under the US patent law. The Supreme Court brushed aside these concerns, famously referring to the objective of Congress that the patent law was to include anything under the sun that is made by man as patentable. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the micro-organism qualified as patentable subject matter. However, the Court also noted that the patent claim under consideration was not to a hitherto unknown natural phenomenon, but to a non-naturally occurring manufacture or composition of mattera product of human ingenuity (see note 16). In other words, some human intervention was required to render a biological innovation as patentable.
The European Patent Office focuses upon the necessity for a claimed invention to have a technical character. Rule 27 Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents defines patentable biotechnological inventions as those which concern:
(i) biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process even if it previously occurred in nature;
(ii) plants or animals if the technical feasibility of the invention is not confined to a particular plant or animal variety;
(iii) a microbiological or other technical process, or a product obtained by means of such a process other than a plant or animal variety.
This requirement that inventions have a technical character was considered by the EBA in the Broccoli and Tomato cases to be an important matter in its consideration of whether plant breeding methods were patentable. In examining the historical documents which led up to the formulation of the EPC in 1960, the EBA observed that, with the creation of new plant varieties for which a special property right was going to be introduced under the subsequent UPOV Convention in 1960, the legislative architects of the EPC were concerned with excluding from patentability the kind of plant breeding processes which were the conventional methods for the breeding of plant varieties of that time. These conventional methods included, in particular, those based on the sexual crossing of plants deemed suitable for the purpose pursued and on the subsequent selection of the plants having the desired trait(s). These processes were characterized by the fact that the traits of the plants resulting from the crossing were determined by the underlying natural phenomenon of meiosis. This phenomenon determined the genetic make-up of the plants produced, and the breeding result was achieved by the breeder's selection of plants having the desired trait(s). That these were processes to be excluded also followed from the fact that processes changing the genome of plants by technical means such as irradiation were cited as examples of patentable technical processes.
The EBA also referred to the explanations given in the memorandum of the Secretariat of the Committee of Experts for agreeing to the replacement of the words purely biological by the word essentially was deliberate as reflecting the legislative intention that the mere fact of using a technical device in a breeding process should not be sufficient to give the process as such a patentable technical character. The EBA concluded that the provision of a technical step, be it explicit or implicit, in a process which is based on the sexual crossing of plants and on subsequent selection does not cause the claimed invention to escape the exclusion if that technical step only serves to perform the process steps of the breeding process (see note 17).
Conclusion
The determination of the EBA was that a process for the production of plants which is based on the sexual crossing of whole genomes and on the subsequent selection of plants, in which human intervention, including the provision of a technical means, serves to enable or assist the performance of the process steps, is excluded from patentability as being essentially biological within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC. Thus the EBA confirmed that classical plant breeding is excluded from patentability. On the other hand, if a process of sexual crossing and selection includes within it an additional step of a technical nature, which step by itself introduces a trait into the genome or modifies a trait in the genome of the plant produced, so that the introduction or modification of that trait is not the result of the mixing of the genes of the plants chosen for sexual crossing, then that process leaves the realm of the plant breeding and, consequently, is not excluded from patentability. This principle applies only where the additional step is performed within the steps of sexually crossing and selection, independently from the number of repetitions, otherwise the exclusion of sexual crossing and selection processes from patentability could be circumvented simply by adding steps which do not properly pertain to the crossing and selection process, being either upstream steps dealing with the preparation of the plant(s) to be crossed or downstream steps dealing with the further treatment of the plant resulting from the crossing and selection process. The EBA noted that, for the previous or subsequent steps, per se patent protection was available. This will be the case for genetic engineering techniques applied to plants which differ from conventional breeding techniques as they work primarily through the deliberate insertion and/or modification of one or more genes in a plant.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
180 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
The USDA's new labeling for genetically modified foods goes into effect Jan. 1. [View all]
brooklynite
Jan 2022
OP
"or come with a phone number or QR code guiding consumers to more information online"
not fooled
Jan 2022
#8
There is a fundamental difference between conventional plant breeding and gene splicing. nt
PufPuf23
Jan 2022
#25
Mmmm. So the packaging might NOT be labeled at all and we have to look up a QR code?
TeamProg
Jan 2022
#10
We continue to live through the Rump changes. They last at least 2 years after leaving office.
keopeli
Jan 2022
#11
What measuring system are you using? Acres of crops grown there were engineered
Tumbulu
Jan 2022
#37
I believe most people go by acres planted to the crops, but I am glad to know how you calculated
Tumbulu
Jan 2022
#52
Good idea to eat organic sugar! Louisiana & Florida ripen sugar cane with Roundup
womanofthehills
Jan 2022
#78
We know they are getting cancer from Roundup because of all the billions Monsanto has paid out
womanofthehills
Jan 2022
#88
Link??? There are thousands of links because there are so many cases and awards
womanofthehills
Jan 2022
#75
A few sources below - I see it as a percent listed on so many sites - probably higher numbers now
womanofthehills
Jan 2022
#95
Lots of links and quotes, but nothing that supports the original assertion.
NurseJackie
Jan 2022
#98
Don't know what that means, but if you are unaware of which crops are engineered
Tumbulu
Jan 2022
#93
OMG! According to the US Dept of Agriculture, I was wrong - more like 89 to 94%
womanofthehills
Jan 2022
#96
It's sad you don't think a company that knew their product caused cancer is not an enemy
womanofthehills
Jan 2022
#140
Sorry. The continual splitting of hairs does not make weak arguments any stronger.
NurseJackie
Jan 2022
#145
I will share my distinction between the technology used in Ag versus Pharmaceuticals
Tumbulu
Jan 2022
#47
Aside from obtaining kick backs, some short sighted scientists support GMOs
Farmer-Rick
Jan 2022
#34
It's slanderous? Why not sue the 107 Nobel Laureates who signed on to their objections to...
NNadir
Jan 2022
#54
It's a 62 billion dollar industry according to the Organic Trade Association
Major Nikon
Jan 2022
#129
The total industry within which organic ag finds itself was 1.1 trillion dollars
Tumbulu
Jan 2022
#142
The OP is about the USDA labeling of foods that have ingredients from genetically engineered crops
Tumbulu
Jan 2022
#144
Genetic engineering is a well established science. Just about every protein drug is made using it,
NNadir
Jan 2022
#70
Here we go with the "Golden Rice" again!! - FDA said it doesn't have enough nutrients
womanofthehills
Jan 2022
#102
Thanks Kali, I spent quite a bit of my free time ( which I don't have much of)
Tumbulu
Jan 2022
#138
Perhaps you can explain why the plants produced by genetic engineering have been awarded
Tumbulu
Jan 2022
#152
I think someone has just lost the "high-ground" when it comes to being offended at snark.
NurseJackie
Jan 2022
#157