by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In our May 16, 2013 blog article entitled, Would You Like A Patent With Your Genetically Modified Baby?, we detailed how Myriad Genetics obtained patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 human genes.  In doing so, Myriad Genetics gained the exclusive rights relative to these vital genes, that indicate a significantly increased hereditary risk in developing ovarian or breast cancer.  The Association For Molecular Pathology legally contested the right of Myriad Genetics to hold such patents and exclusive rights, by litigating the issue all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.   

Today the US Supreme Court in the case of Association For Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, ruled that said patents were invalid.  Essentially the court found that by Myriad Genetics separating and identifying these genes, that in and of itself did not warrant the grant of a patent.  The court appeared to acknowledge the need for unrestrained research of the BRCA genes and that the granting of exclusive rights contradicted the public good.

This decision marks a significant blow to the Biotech industry and a victory for the people.  Perhaps the lower courts, including the US Court of Appeals that ruled in favor of Monsanto in the case of Organic Seed Growers and Trade v. Monsanto (See our June 10, 2013 article), will now utilize the Supreme Court's logic and sensibility in their own future cases.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The court system in this country appears to consistently support Monsanto, as shown once again in today's US Court of Appeals decision in Organic Seed Growers and Trade v. Monsanto.   

Monsanto owns multiple patents relative to their Round Up Ready glyphosate seeds, which organic farmers go through great lengths and expense to avoid use of and contamination from.  Notwithstanding, as a result of the prevalence of genetically modified seed use in this country, wind blown contamination of our organic farms is inevitable.  As is often the case, when an organic farm is contaminated with Monsanto's Round Up Ready genetically modified seeds, Monsanto actually sues the organic farmer for patent infringement and consistently wins! 

In the above referenced case, organic farmers were essentially seeking a declaratory judgment from the court to rule that if an organic farm is the victim of wind blown genetically modified seed contamination, that  such an occurence is not an infringement of Monsanto's patents.  This became necessary as the Monsanto threat of law suits had become financially disabling to many of our organic farmers.  Although the organic seed growers wanted Monsanto to provide a binding covenant no to sue, Monsanto refused stating it is not their policy to sue farmers with trace amounts of their patented genetically modified seeds.

The US Court of Appeals affirmed in favor of Monsanto stating  that Monsanto expressed no intent to sue farmers who had crops containing trace amounts (less than 1 %) of their genetically modified patented seeds.  That although this was not a covenant not to sue, it is still binding upon Monsanto as a matter of judicial estoppel.  

Unfortunately this decision does not preclude Monsanto from suing organic farmers who are found to have more than trace amounts (1 % or more) of the genetically modified patented seeds among their crops.  It also sidesteps and fails to address the proverbial elephant in the court room.  That is, when Monsanto's deviant seeds contaminate our organic farms, the organic farmer is the victim who has sustained real damages and not Monsanto.  To consistently hold in favor of Monsanto when they sue organic farmers who have been victimized by wind contamination, is injustice at the highest level.  

 Our courts need to stop maintaining the Monsanto status quo and trying to avoid decisions on the real Monsanto issues.  Perhaps as the list of countries that refuse to buy our genetically modified food products increase, so will the court's willingness to make the tough decisions before economic ruin ensues.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.  
 

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

During the period of 1998 to 2005, Monsanto legally conducted genetically modified wheat experiments in open fields across 16 US states, as sanctioned by the USDA.  After the experiments concluded, not only was GM wheat not approved commercially, but the experimental GM wheat contaminated other wheat fields.  Genetically engineered wheat has been found in the wheat fields of Oregon and is believed to exist in up to 15 other states as well.

If you are wondering why you should care about this, remember that GM food is considered dangerous to your health in many countries around the world.  In fact GMO label laws exist in at least 50 different countries world wide (not in the US) and GMO's are banned and illegal in 27 different countries (not in the US).  Some countries have even resorted to burning genetically modified corn fields to eliminate the risk of genetic contamination.  Approximately 150 tonnes of wheat is traded annually and almost one third of that is imported by Asia, which is prediminantly supplied by US wheat.

As a result of the genetic contamination of our US wheat fields, Japan has just cancelled a large US contract to purchase wheat stating, "We will refrain from buying western white and feed wheat effective today."  Accordingly, US wheat is considered suspect at best by many countries around the world, posing a huge threat to the livelihood of our wheat farmers and our already fragile economy.

The genetic modification of food in this country is a multi-billion dollar business headed by Monsanto Corporation and company.  Reportedly, almost 80% of the food available for purchase in US conventional food stores, contains some form of genetic modification.  Over the Memorial Day weekend, there was an organized world-wide "March Against Monsanto" that took place in 52 countries and 400 cities around the world.  It was one of the largest organized demonstrations of all time, yet it recieved minimal press and news coverage in the US.  Could it be that the whole world, except the US, is crazy when it comes to GMO's?  It's time for Americans to wake up and smell the "genetically modified coffee".  If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.

In order to effectuate change our voices must be heard.  Contact your Senators at www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and express your opinion today.  You may also call NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who voted against the Sanders Amendment to the Farm Bill to afford states the right to decide for themselves on whether or not to pass GMO label laws, at       1-202-224-4451 (DC Office) or 1-212-688-6262 (NY Office).

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In response to the proposed King Amendment to the Farm Bill which would eliminate state rights, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed an Amendment to uphold state rights.  The Sanders Amendment sought simply to allow states to decide for themselves, as to whether or not they wanted to protect their residents with a GMO label law.   

Sanders opined, “Monsanto and other major corporations should not get to decide this, the people and their elected representatives should... The concept we’re talking about today is a fairly commonsense and non-radical idea... All over the world, in the European Union, in many other countries around the world, dozens and dozens of countries, people are able to look at the food that they are buying and determine through labeling whether or not that product contains genetically modified organisms.”

The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly voted against the Sander's Bill 71-27, delivering another blow to consumer and state rights.  The U.S. GMO policy is well behind the rest of the world.  Countries in the European Union, first began requiring labeling in 1997 and reportedly 64 nations now require GMO labeling.

If you believe in state and consumer rights and your right to know what is in the food you feed your family, contact your state senators and apprise them of your disapproval with the results of the Senate vote on the above matter.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

The tide has turned in the consumer fight to have GMO Label Laws in place, as upwards of 30 states are working toward enacting such laws.  The Biotech Industry headed by Monsanto and company, have apparently realized that defeat is inevitable on the state level.  As a result, they have turned to a heavy congressional lobby to avoid fighting on a state by state level to get their way.   The outcome is the King Amendment to the 2013 Farm Bill, as recently proposed by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).

If the King Amendment is passed, it will prohibit a state's right to pass laws governing the production or manufacture of any agricultural product, including food and any animals raised for food, that are involved in interstate commerce.  This will also effectively stomp out state rights as granted by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.  The 10th Amendment sets forth that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved for the states or the people.

Are we no longer a government by the people and for the people?  Is there no limit to the hippocracy coarsing through the veins of our elected officials?  It is time for the people of this great country to wake up and smell the pesticide, for it is generously laced within our food.  Take the time to contact your state congressional and senatorial representatives and let your voice be heard.  Our future generations will be shaped upon what we do and fail to do today.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq. 

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

We have the technology for genetically modified seeds, food, animals and reportedly even for humans.  The technology, known as cytoplasmic transfer, was reportedly put to use in or about 2001 when upwards of 30 genetically modified babies were born.  The process essentially blends the genetic material from multiple mothers into a single egg, which is then fertilized with the sperm from a male.  Promulgated to be a credible solution to infertility, the process was banned by the FDA in that genetically manipulated embryos are considered a "biological product".

Although the current prohibition on this technology which has untold ramifications is difficult to police, a contingent of the scientific community strives to eliminate the prohibition and  gain world wide acceptance.  If acceptance of this technology is obtained, it is likely that attempts to obtain patents will either precede or follow.  Biotech companies have already secured patents on everything from genetically modified seeds to engineered animals.  Even human genes have already been patented such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are two genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.  Myriad Genetics, the private biotech company that holds these patents, has the right to prevent anyone else from testing, studying or doing anything with these genes without Myriad's consent.  

As explained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) grants patents on human genes, which means that the patent holders own the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences, their usage, and their chemical composition. Anyone who makes or uses a patented gene without permission of the patent holder – whether it be for commercial or noncommercial purposes – is committing patent infringement and can be sued by the patent holder for such infringement. Gene patents, like other patents, are granted for 20 years."

Biotech companies continue to dominate and amaze us,  from "Round Up Ready" seeds that produce food with genetically built in weed killer, to cloning animals for would be human consumption with potentially devastating health consequences, to genetically modified babies.  One could only imagine that if the biotech industry has their way, the technology for human cloning is on the horizon or perhaps already exists.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

There is a classic Three Stooges episode called "Disorder In The Court" in which Curly tells the Judge, "Truth is stranger than fiction Judgie Wudgie."  It appears that Curly was correct, as the title question to this article is on track to be a reality in less than 10 years. 

Dr. Mark Post of the Netherlands, among others, have been working on perfecting the technology to grow synthetic beef.  In fact the world's first "test tube burger" is likely to debut in London before the end of this year.  Although the cost to develop the first "test tube burger" has exceeded $300,000, the progress made to date indicates that synthetic beef may be available in food stores near you within the next decade. 

In order to create a synthetic burger, stem cells are first extracted from bovine muscle tissue.  The cells are then grown under tension in strips stretched upon velcro boards.  When maturation is attained, approximately 3,000 muscle strips are minced together with 200 fat strips to create a synthetic burger. 

Proponents of the technology claim it may be the solution to world hunger.  Opponents to the technology question the safety and health risks of the synthetic "frankenbeef" and whether or not proper studies will be performed before it comes to market for human consumption.  Further, that once it does come to market, will regulations and laws be in place to require labeling and proper warnings.  Whether or not consumers will accept the idea of synthetic beef, remains to be seen. 

This developing technology begs the question as to whether or not the 1973 movie entitled "Soylent Green", starring Charlton Heston and Edward G. Robinson in his final film, really was fiction.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In the Matter of Norse Energy v. Town of Dryden, the Appellate Division upheld town zoning ordinances barring hydraulic fracturing.  Fracking or hydraulic fracturing is the controversial process of extracting natural gas from shale rock layers deep within the earth.  The process entails, among other things, deep drilling that frees gas from within the rock by injecting wells with high pressured water that is laced with toxic chemicals.  Opponents maintain that the process contaminates the water supply, impairs the health of local residents and is damaging to the environment.  Proponents maintain that the process is a safe and effective  method to tap into an unused energy source.

In the court's decision Justice Karen Peters stated, "While the Town's exercise of its right to regulate land use through zoning will inevitably have an incidental effect upon the oil, gas and solution mining  industries, we conclude that zoning ordinances are not the type of regulatory  provision that the Legislature intended to be preempted by the [Oil, Gas and  Solution Mining Law]."  

Norse Energy argued that NYS Environmental Conservation Law 23-0303(2) superceded all local laws and ordinances relating to the regulation of the oil, gas and mining industries.  The court rejected this argument, finding that the Town ordinance did not regulate but rather established permissible and prohibited uses of land within the Town.  The court concluded that, "We find nothing in the language, statutory scheme or legislative history of the
statute indicating an intention to usurp the authority traditionally delegated
to municipalities to establish permissible and prohibited uses of land within
their jurisdictions. In the absence of a clear expression of legislative intent
to preempt local control over land use, we decline to give the statute such a
construction."  Norse Energy respectfully disagreed with the court's decision and plans to appeal.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.  

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

Recent movements and propositions in the U.S., may lead one to believe that GMO label laws in our country are inevitable.  If GMO label laws are passed, it undoubtedly would significantly reduce the profit margin of the Biotech Industry.  But the Biotech Industry in the U.S., is way too big and powerful to let anyone or anything cut into their profits.  In an effort to stay ahead of the impending curve, the Biotech Industry is now working on their next GMO project to help maintain their high profit margin and control over the food supply. 

This new project is known as Naturally Enhanced Organisms (NEO).  NEO is to be displayed in a green and leafy emblem on future food products and has supposedly been psychologically tested to inspire consumer confidence.  NEO food products will contain 2 parts "natural" material and 1 part genetically modified material.  It is in this way the food will conform to a new regulation that states a plant or seed is only considered genetically modified, if the genetically modified material makes up 50% or more of the total material.  In that NEO food will maintain a 2 to 1 ratio, it will not be considered genetically modified and therefore not require any legally imposed GMO label.

If this new plan is implemented, it will successfully circumvent GMO label laws before they are even passed.  It seems now that if the Biotech Industry can't stop certain laws from being passed, they will simply change definitions of terms within the law to suit their greedy purposes.  This is all too similar to the Dairy Industry's petition to the FDA, to effectively change the definition of Milk to include chemical sweeteners such as aspartame and sucralose without the need to list such on the label (See our February 26, 2013 blog entitled "Dairy Industry Petitions FDA To Approve Unlabeled Chemical Sweeteners").

The new NEO foods will still be one third genetically modified which means, among other things, that one third will still likely be sprayed with glyphosate or 2-4-D, which is the active ingredient in Agent Orange.  But that is just the "icing on the potentially toxic genetically modified cake."  Food label laws in the U.S. will not be enough to safeguard consumers.  In order for consumers to have a fighting chance, we need full disclosure food label laws that will remove once and for all, the veil behind which Biotech and Corporate America hides. 

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In the days of old, a student would give the teacher an apple as a nice gesture.  But today, if the Biotech Industry gets their way, that same gesture may be equivalent to the apple the Witch gave to Snow White.