Monsanto now overriding natural law by attempting to patent multiple common vegetables, fruits

Global biotechnology megalith Monsanto is no longer content with simply manipulating and patenting its own genetically-modified (GM) counterfeits of nature. According to a new petition created by the human rights advocacy group Avaaz, Monsanto is right now attempting to exploit little-known loopholes in European law for the ultimate purpose of patenting common fruits and vegetables that exist naturally in nature - and the president of the European Patent Office (PAO) has apparently given his blessing to this malicious endeavor.

Just when we all thought that corporate agriculture could not get any more predatory and deranged in its pursuit of power over the food supply, fresh news emerges about Monsanto's attempts to play the role of God by claiming ownership of natural fruits and vegetables. According to Avaaz, Monsanto is using PAO's application process to file for patents on things like natural cucumbers and tomatoes, and unless a cohort of proactive European nations takes action now to stop this effort, the multinational corporation could soon assume control over the conventional food supply.

"Companies like Monsanto have found loopholes in European law to have exclusive rights over conventional seeds, so we just need to close them shut before they set a dangerous global precedent," explains the petition. "And to do that, we need key countries like Germany, France and the Netherlands - where opposition is already growing - to call for a vote to stop Monsanto's greedy plans."

You can read and sign the Azaaz petition here:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_nm/?bigwYcb&v=26065

The petition, which has already been signed by more than 2.1 million people as of this writing, is simple: It calls on the leaders of these three important countries, and the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organization, to amend European patent law to block these egregious loopholes. With enough signatures and a groundswell of grassroots opposition, the hope is that these countries will take swift action to protect the God-given right of people everywhere to access nature freely without having to get permission from a corporation with an extensive track record of deception and fraud.

"Since the year 2000, there have been more and more patents granted on plants and animals derived from conventional breeding" in the EU, explains a recent report put forth by the group No Patents on Seeds entitled President of the European Patent Office gives green light for patents on plants and animals: Patent office ignores the position of the European Parliament. "Presently, there are around 100 such patents on plants, and around 1,000 applications have been filed."

You can read the full No Patents on Seeds report here:
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

Your help needed to stop the approval of Monsanto patents on dozens more plants

This is heinous news, but it gets worse. According to the same report, Monsanto, Syngenta, and various other biotechnology companies are in the process of filing for many more patents in 2013, and have no intention of stopping until they own every plant in existence. No Patents on Seeds says dozens of new patents covering species like broccoli, onions, melons, lettuce and cucumber are set to be approved in the coming weeks and months.

But you can help stop these evil corporations from achieving global domination of the food supply by signing the Azaaz petition and raising awareness about Monsanto's covert control agenda:
http://www.avaaz.org/en/monsanto_vs_mother_earth_nm/?bigwYcb&v=26065

Continue Reading: http://www.naturalnews.com/041485_Monsanto_patents_GMOs.html#ixzz2blEC05fz

Genetically modified babies? - New science lets parents select child's genetic sequence, rearrange DNA

New science is emerging and converging which allows parents to pre-fabricate the genetic sequence of their children. New generation gene sequencing, coupled with in-vitro fertilization will allow parents to choose the genetic makeup of their child. A new controversial procedure called mitochondrial transfer will allow parents to create genetically superior embryos by buying DNA from a "superior" mother and then transplanting it to their select embryo. Playing God, parents can literally select their own designer babies, choosing superior and acceptable gene sequences, selected to suit personal preferences.

First genetically modified baby is born

The first genetically modified baby was born this year, May 28, 2013. The parents, Marybeth Scheidts, 36, and David Levy, 41, utilized next generation gene sequencing and in-vitro fertilization to bypass natural reproduction.

After their standard visit at the fertility clinic, the parents went into the lab and were given 13 IVF embryos to choose from. After removing certain cells from the 13 embryos, physicians sent the select embryos to Oxford for genetic screening.

After their screening, only 3 of the embryos possessed the correct number of chromosomes required for absolute healthy fetal development. The other 10 embryos could have developed into normal babies, but the select three superior embryos have a better chance of developing into healthier babies.

Oxford fertility expert Dagan Wells said they can't make embryos "better than they were in the beginning," but he did say genetic sequencing "can guide us to the best ones."

Conceived life frozen in time

Here's where the controversial part comes in. The manipulated embryos, consisting of only a few cells are official, conceived human life. All of these embryos have the potential to continue developing into babies. The only thing holding them back is implantation in a mother's womb.

Essentially, at this stage, physicians are holding life hostage in their hands and manipulating it to perfection before it can be re-released into a mother's womb.

The infertile woman, Marybeth Scheidts, was not only able to conceive with the help of doctors, but was able to choose the genetic sequence of their child, and that's exactly what happened. Of the 13 embryos, Marybeth chose one of the acceptable and superior ones, and nine months later, their little Connor was born. The family has already selected another one of the superior lab embryos and are already expecting their second child.

Essentially, humanity has learned how to freeze life in time and manipulate it to perfection.

But what about the other 10 embryos that don't have the correct number of chromosomes for superior human traits? Is it ethical to conceive life and then control it, filing it away in a freezer if it is deemed not "acceptable?"

Shouldn't life be protected once it's conceived? Shouldn't life be left unmodified and natural and people loved for who they are?

Rearranging DNA to create super babies

Continue Reading:
http://www.naturalnews.com/041493_genetic_modification_babies_gene_sequence.html#ixzz2blA5YSdv

Biotech companies could become real-life 'Body Snatchers' - are patents on people next?

If big, bad biotech companies keep getting their way in patent cases, next on the agenda could be patenting people. In the same way their genetically modified (GM) crops have quietly invaded our food supply, the biotechnology industry has also been secretly invading our bodies for years, with perhaps yet another unaddressed potential scare imminently on the horizon. As the risks and dangers inherent in the consumption of genetically modified foods become clearer and more hotly debated, an even darker agenda may simultaneously be lurking. Though current opponents continue raising consumer awareness by taking up the loudspeaker against a biotech industry gone wildly unchecked - as with California's GMO labeling initiative, Proposition 37 - companies like Monsanto may, in fact, be preparing for a surprise attack on a whole other level.

Think science fiction turned fact. Think rise of The Body Snatchers... only in your home.

Upcoming Supreme Court decision could pave the way for Monsanto to claim patent rights on newborn children

When the Supreme Court hears Monsanto's case against 74-year-old Indiana soybean farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman this winter, they will have to consider the future of patent laws in this country - specifically, those related to genetic engineering. The issue on the table in that particular case is whether Bowman infringed on Monsanto's patent policy by harvesting and planting seeds that had (unbeknownst to him) been contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified version of the same crop. The biotech giant holds a policy forbidding farmers to save seeds from their GM crops for replanting, thereby requiring farmers to purchase new seeds every year. With the blessing of patent laws currently in place,Monsanto aggressively enforces this policy, filing about 145 lawsuits annually, against increasingly disgruntled farmers.

Bowman had appealed to the Supreme Court after first losing against Monsanto in the lower courts in 2009, when he was ordered to pay Monsanto more than $84,000 in damages and costs, and after losing again last year in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The latter court ruled that next-generation crops grown from the contaminated seeds Bowman planted constituted "a newly infringing article."

The words themselves may not seem frightening, but their implications very well could be. Though it may be difficult to imagine this already disturbing scenario getting even worse, what could be at stake in this game very soon might be much, much more than just the future of food and the livelihoods of farmers. Make no mistake, these issues are central and very important, but consider for a moment that studies indicate this type of contamination occurs not just in the fields where seeds are sown, but in the bellies of folks who eat that GM crop.

In the process of genetic modification - considered by many to be a gross violation of the natural world - biotech companies like Monsanto take a gene from soil bacteria, known as Bt (a naturally occurring toxin-producing pesticide) and then forcibly, and imprecisely, deposit that gene into the DNA of the food itself - the soy, corn, sugar beet, etc. But because the bacteria pesticide is now part of the very genetic structure of those GM crops, the technology does not wash off in the sink; instead, it breaks open the stomachs of whatever insects might eat it, killing them. And then humans consume it and are told it is safe for them. Makes sense, right?

Wrong. Not only might the covert introduction of genetically modified crops into our food supply back in 1996 account for the striking increase in gastrointestinal illnesses, autoimmune diseases, food allergies and various other health conditions since that time, according to physicians, it may also have transformed our bodies into human factories for the ongoing and experimental growth of toxic alien DNA.

Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology, has cited studies indicating this deadly toxin actually transfers to the DNA of human intestinal bacteria, where it continues to self-replicate. What this means is that people may have this dangerous GM protein continually produced inside them, long after abandoning the consumption of genetically modified foods. Perhaps even more shocking is the news - according to a Canadian study published in the journal Reproductive Toxicology - that same toxic Bt gene has now turned up in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses. It's a revelation which the UK's Daily Mail reported "appears to blow a hole in" any prior safety claims regarding GM foods. Responses to the study are serious and far-reaching, triggering some countries to place a ban on imports and some to call for further investigation.

But what are the longer term implications of this particular brand of reckless and irresponsible technology? So long as there is continually self-replicating Bt toxin (the patented property of Monsanto) growing inside the human population and its unborn children, might those children not soon be under threat of similar patent infringement claims as are the next-generation crops grown from farmer Bowman's contaminated seed? According to the aforementioned court decision, is the GMO-contaminated child growing in the belly of a pregnant woman not also considered "a newly infringing article"? At what point must ordinary American citizens begin to prepare themselves for lawsuits from Monsanto claiming ownership over their children - or even themselves?

Perhaps the ideas seems a bit far-fetched, but in a nation whose legal and judicial systems so far persist in allowing, protecting and upholding patents on living organisms, this quite conceivably becomes the most controversial dialogue of a not-too-distant, and horrifying, future. The already delicate and dicey issues of abortion and women's rights would take a whole new direction. And unless more reasonable limits are quickly imposed on the biotech industry, Americans may soon find themselves hiring defense attorneys to argue exactly why their children (contaminated by this genetically modified "alien" DNA) should not be considered the exclusive property of Monsanto and friends. Accidental contamination seems not to have stopped their insidious reach so far.

Continue Reading:
http://www.naturalnews.com/041518_biotech_body_snatchers_gene_patents.html#ixzz2blBaOW6E