resource management and (5).Role as a bioreactor to produce raw materials for pharmaceuticals and other industries.
For critics, there are four main objections:
(1) Consumers do not have sufficient information about Genetically Modified Organisms; (2).There may be potential detrimental effects from eating GM foods, while there have not yet been objective studies to identify such effects, if they exist; (3).There may be unexpected environmental problems; (4).Genetic Modified crops may violate certain religious beliefs and traditions.
5. LIABILITY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION
Liability and redress is usually conceived as a tool to provide compensation for harm caused by a person or entity engaging in an activity which can have negative consequences for individuals, a community or the environment in general. In the context of genetically modified organisms, however, another type of liability linked to Intellectual Property Rights is also relevant. The type of liability which is referred to here is patent liability which provides that any user, conscious or unconscious, of an invention may be held liable for damages to the patent holder for using a patented invention without approval. Therefore, under patent liability, what is at stake is not the liability of the entity commercialising a product but the liability of the user of the product. The fact that environmental liability and patent liability both potentially apply in the context of genetically modified organisms implies that there is scope for clashes of liability in case the two do not lead to the same results. The relationship between the patent holder and user of genetically modified patented seeds is relatively intricate. Difficulties arise from the fact that patent holders cannot stop genetically modified seeds intentionally introduced into the environment from contaminating other fields and the environment in general. This type of contamination is the one that may trigger the liability of the patent holder in case of socio-economic or environmental damages. At the same time, contamination of other farmer’s fields can also trigger patent liability. This constitutes a novel situation where a patented invention can be acquired involuntarily by a farmer who may either be indifferent to the genetic contamination or seek to eliminate it in the case of an organic farmer. From the point of view of the patent holder, the simple presence of a genetically modified seed on the land of a farmer who has not purchased the seeds is an infringement of the patent as evident from the Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case in Canada. 6. LIABILITY ON GENETIC MODIFICATION (GM) CONTAMINATION: Genetic Modified crops cause widespread contamination of other crops and wildlife Genetic Modified seeds and crops can easily cross contaminate wild and domestic plants through wind-borne pollen, seed dispersal, volunteers, and horizontal gene transfer. They can also contaminate related and unrelated species, including soil micro-organisms and bacteria living in the guts of humans and animals through a process called horizontal gene …show more content…
Such activity was unanimously found by the United States Supreme Court to constitute patent infringement in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013) . The case began in 2007, when Monsanto sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman who in 1999 bought seed for his second planting from a grain elevator – the same elevator that he and others sold their transgenic crops . The elevator sold the soybeans as commodities, not as seeds for planting . Bowman tested the new seeds, and found that as he had expected, some were resistant to glyphosate. He intentionally replanted his harvest of Genetically Modified seeds in subsequent years, supplementing them with more soybeans he bought at the elevator . He informed Monsanto of his activities . Monsanto stated that he was infringing their patents because the soybeans he bought from the elevator were new products that he purchased for use as seeds without a license from Monsanto; Bowman stated that he had not infringed due to patent exhaustion on the first sale of seed to whatever farmers had produced the crops that he bought from the elevator, on the grounds that for seed, all future generations are embodied in the first generation that was originally sold . In 2009 the district court ruled in favor of Monsanto; on appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the verdict . Bowman appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted review , then unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit on May 13, 2013
For critics, there are four main objections:
(1) Consumers do not have sufficient information about Genetically Modified Organisms; (2).There may be potential detrimental effects from eating GM foods, while there have not yet been objective studies to identify such effects, if they exist; (3).There may be unexpected environmental problems; (4).Genetic Modified crops may violate certain religious beliefs and traditions.
5. LIABILITY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION
Liability and redress is usually conceived as a tool to provide compensation for harm caused by a person or entity engaging in an activity which can have negative consequences for individuals, a community or the environment in general. In the context of genetically modified organisms, however, another type of liability linked to Intellectual Property Rights is also relevant. The type of liability which is referred to here is patent liability which provides that any user, conscious or unconscious, of an invention may be held liable for damages to the patent holder for using a patented invention without approval. Therefore, under patent liability, what is at stake is not the liability of the entity commercialising a product but the liability of the user of the product. The fact that environmental liability and patent liability both potentially apply in the context of genetically modified organisms implies that there is scope for clashes of liability in case the two do not lead to the same results. The relationship between the patent holder and user of genetically modified patented seeds is relatively intricate. Difficulties arise from the fact that patent holders cannot stop genetically modified seeds intentionally introduced into the environment from contaminating other fields and the environment in general. This type of contamination is the one that may trigger the liability of the patent holder in case of socio-economic or environmental damages. At the same time, contamination of other farmer’s fields can also trigger patent liability. This constitutes a novel situation where a patented invention can be acquired involuntarily by a farmer who may either be indifferent to the genetic contamination or seek to eliminate it in the case of an organic farmer. From the point of view of the patent holder, the simple presence of a genetically modified seed on the land of a farmer who has not purchased the seeds is an infringement of the patent as evident from the Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case in Canada. 6. LIABILITY ON GENETIC MODIFICATION (GM) CONTAMINATION: Genetic Modified crops cause widespread contamination of other crops and wildlife Genetic Modified seeds and crops can easily cross contaminate wild and domestic plants through wind-borne pollen, seed dispersal, volunteers, and horizontal gene transfer. They can also contaminate related and unrelated species, including soil micro-organisms and bacteria living in the guts of humans and animals through a process called horizontal gene …show more content…
Such activity was unanimously found by the United States Supreme Court to constitute patent infringement in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013) . The case began in 2007, when Monsanto sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman who in 1999 bought seed for his second planting from a grain elevator – the same elevator that he and others sold their transgenic crops . The elevator sold the soybeans as commodities, not as seeds for planting . Bowman tested the new seeds, and found that as he had expected, some were resistant to glyphosate. He intentionally replanted his harvest of Genetically Modified seeds in subsequent years, supplementing them with more soybeans he bought at the elevator . He informed Monsanto of his activities . Monsanto stated that he was infringing their patents because the soybeans he bought from the elevator were new products that he purchased for use as seeds without a license from Monsanto; Bowman stated that he had not infringed due to patent exhaustion on the first sale of seed to whatever farmers had produced the crops that he bought from the elevator, on the grounds that for seed, all future generations are embodied in the first generation that was originally sold . In 2009 the district court ruled in favor of Monsanto; on appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the verdict . Bowman appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted review , then unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit on May 13, 2013