A company is fighting the FDA for the right to produce Genetically engineered salmon. The "safe to eat" aspect being the main argument. Besides that reason, I believe there is the bigger issue of if this fish were to somehow be leaked into the wild and atler existing salmon fisherys, then the issue of Corporate rights comes into play. where a corporate entity could legally say that no one could legally fish for salmon anymore without either paying a "rights" fee or suffer prosecution for theft of corporate property. The same goes for selling the product or basically anything involved in any aspect of the industry.
I really don't see this as a problem because we've been eating genmod stuff for years - alot of the crops have been genmodded for better harvests, resistance to disease and bugs, more vitamins, etc. We all haven't turned into mutants so I don't see how this salmon would be worse. Not to mention this would help save the current wild stocks of the same food
As long as it doesn't turn people into zombies, I am good. Or if it does, make sure they are the slow moving zombies. The fast ones scare the crap out of me.
I actually was thinking that the main point of my post was the secondary problem of corporate rights and the problems this can cause in the sense of Property rights of geneticly modified products. there is already an issue of cross pollenization of crops and trees in these types of issues.
No Frankenfood for me, thanks. Think I'll stick with natural foods as God made them, with the possible exceptions of pasteurized milk and the occasional can of Niblets.
Reminds me of that shark toothed demon fish that got loose in the wild, I think the damn things can even walk on land. Other genetically altered living things like love bugs brought to us by the genius' of the U of Florida students. They were supposed to eat mosquito's, but I guess they felt they needed genitals as well? So they do nothing but screw eachother and ruin the paint on our cars.
Ant, you're the lawyer. Is there any credence to lightning's concern regarding corporate ownership? i'd think the public domain, or whatever the terminology is, of fish in the water would override a flimsy claim of ownership over all salmon because they might be offspring of the genetically engineered fish that got loose.
Genetic engineering is just that "engineering" a genetic code to become something entirely different. The problem being...( that has already proven to be an issue in crops where corporate ownership is concerned, where a farmers corn crops were contaminated and overtaken by gen mod crops thus became a legal issue of ownership )....is that with corporate rights being raised to the level beyond public or personal rights that once a genetically engineered "bio organism" is trademarked or patented, they OWN it. If the offspring of wild salmon were have the same altered genetic code as the modified salmon then the offspring become the PROPERTY of the corporation....and the claim wouldn't be "flimsy" due to the legality of DNA proof where rules of law are concerned.
I know that the topic is actually regarding patent issues, but Ant opened the door on something. Yes, it's true that genetically modified foods have been around for years. Now do some research into the harm that gen-modded seeds are causing. Companies like Monsanto gen-mod their seeds to be able to withstand their herbicide Roundup, which is toxic in the water supply. Not only that, it then leads to the creation of "superweeds" which will require an even more toxic herbicide which Monsanto will be only to eager to sell. Meanwhile, this drives the small farmer out of business and/or makes them beholden to companies like Monsanto, ConAgra, & Pioneer. Screw those big corporations. Buy local, eat organic. They absolutely DO NOT have the welfare of you or anyone else in their sights, only profits. Buying into eating food grown or "created" by large corporations only widens the gap between healthy vs. unhealthy, mega-profit corporations vs. community, being a cog vs. being an owner in a better future.
The claim would absolutely be flimsy because there's no real way of knowing if the fish I pull out of the ocean is indeed an offspring of the engineered fish that got loose unless I take it into a DNA lab to get it tested. Somehow I doubt the government starts requiring DNA tests for every fish we catch when we go fishing. Are you basically telling me that I can genetically engineer a fish and throw it into the ocean then suddenly I own every fish of whatever species I choose to engineer in the ocean?
Ok.....once again let me clarify things for you. "YOU" cannot genetically modify anything....you don't have the money or means to do so for one thing but a corporation that has already spent half a Billion dollars to do so, can. The instance where this becomes an issue is...( as to the point I was trying to make about crops but you obviously didn't get ) ....that if a commercial salmon farm that uses open water fisheries were to become contaminated then the offspring would be technically the property of the offending corporation.. Also to make another point clearer for you. it isn't a matter of a "person" catching a fish ( although there is precedent for that in the U.S. history where clothing is concerned ) but the taking over of private farms or just legally extorting money from them. The person who owns the farm and harvests the fish wouldn't be taking it in for DNA testing but the corporation would be in their rights to demand the fish be tested on grounds of theft of their trademarked and or patented property
