GMOsux's picture
How can you say GMO are the same as non GMO to get FDA approval, yet get a patent because they are different?? This screams government corruption and warrants an investigation on why this was approved.

A:Expert Answer

There are two separate concepts here. Patents are sought to protect intellectual property and have been available on seeds and plants since the 1930s. These patents reflect the novel use of plant breeding, including genetic engineering techniques. They do not indicate that the food produced from those plants is somehow different from other varieties of the plant. FDA looks at the safety, nutrition and composition of a GM seed or crop, as compared with that of a non-GM seed or crop. FDA and food safety regulatory authorities around the world have determined that foods made with GM crops are as safe and nutritious as foods made with non-GM ingredients and are not significantly different in terms of their composition.

If you’d like to know more about plant patents, check out this detailed response from law professor Drew Kershen.


jtrav21's picture

@GMOsux - the criteria for evaluating nutritional equivalence is based on comparing the nutritional composition of a GMO variety compared to a wild-type variety. A transgenic variety with a new protein expressed in the plant does not necessarily produce grain, seed, or fruit with any changes in the nutritional composition. Thus, you can have a unique performance trait (e.g. BT or glyphosate resistance) and no measurable change in nutrition. This is the primary basis of FDA review of transgenic crops.

Pleaseanswer's picture

Nutritional equivalence huh? I don't think everyone would agree that should be the only determining factor then:
We are talking about long term affects to the human race, I think some caution is justified.

jtrav21's picture

All GMO crops that are commercialized are reviewed by the FDA, USDA and EPA. I also believe this indicates that caution is justified and is followed.

rickspalding's picture

Actually the FDA doesn't look at the safety. They go off the companies' own "testing" Cathleen is a perfect example of BIOTECH pushing blanket statements with no actual substance. If a patent is needed, then the entity is obviously different than what mother nature has provided. Cathleen likes to avoid the logical flow and create a never ending loop. It's like asking if an omnipotent God can create something large enough he can't lift.

lucyinthesky's picture

Caution is justified & followed? I don't think so!!
Do you know about THE REVOLVING DOOR?
It's where key people in both the FDA and EPA have held important positions at Monsanto, or it's where they gain an important position at Monsanto shortly after their biotech related regulatory work in the government agency is completed. If this is not a major conflict of interest... I don't know what is.
This screams government corruption and DEFINETLY warrants an investigation!!!
Check out this link for more details on the revolving door:

Community Manager's picture

RE: rickspalding
Please be mindful and respectful of the experts working to answer this community's questions.

gmosrock's picture

The FDA looks at nothing.

Veronica's picture

The FDA is a joke, they obviously don't have the publics best interest in mind. In one question section you say there is no difference and in another you talk about it's uniqueness which gets the patent. It can't be the same or it would never be patented. There are contradictions all over the place. Referring over and over to the FDA makes you look bad. We are educated informed consumers, we know the connection.

rickspalding's picture

Community Manager, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what I said. Please provide a cogent response of what I said that is offensive. I show respect to others that have earned my respect. Not to those who obfuscate the situation with no transparency. A good example of this would be the BIOTECH industry on GMO's for the last TWO DECADES.

InterestedBystander's picture

You don't like the FDA because they don't currently support you position. This may change someday if the science does prove that transgenic crops are harmful, at which point you will praise the them for seeing it your way. This is the problem when science and politics mix.

Please don't send me a link to some discredited French study about rats. I'm already aware of most of the low quality studies that suggest genetically engineered crops are harmful.

WhiteStar's picture

I find it very interesting how many answers to the publics very good questions are full of lies... It's like the federal government is answering the questions... sadly some less fortunate people will believe some of these lies. But, the good news is GMO'S WILL BE OUTLAWED by THE PEOPLE in the Near Future, Why? Because WE HAVE THE POWER TO DO SO! You can bet People who know the dangers of GMO'S, as well as the people involved in the industry producing these death products... wouldn't be caught dead eating this food. How come you are not allowing people to "Thumb up" or "Thumb down" these answers? Maybe you don't really want to know what we think. Maybe this is just another dog & pony show that you folks are so good at. I do understand you are doing your best to make the most money you can no matter who is warned in the process, but, come on.... have some common sense, don't you care about your children & their children & their children???

jtrav21's picture

WhiteStar - can you specify which "lies" you are referring to? I am a trained biologist, and I'm quite comfortable with eating plants with genetic modifications.

Community Manager's picture

@WhiteStar If you aren't here to ask questions and have a dialogue, this site may not be for you. Please remember to post constructive comments which focus on the facts. We encourage you to view our House Rules to learn more about how this community is managed: We do reserve the right to remove any posts that don¹t adhere to the guidelines and to block anyone who violates them repeatedly.