Patent 1:
Soybean
Patent 2:
Bacteria
PD writes:
Supposedly we can't patent what is found naturally in nature because we didn't invent it.
Not according to the Supreme Court.
wiki writes:
The bacteria drew international attention when he applied for a patent -- the first-ever patent for living organism. He was initially denied the patent by the Patent Office because it was thought that the patent code precluded patents on living organisms. The United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals overturned the decision in Chakrabarty's favor, writing:
“ ...the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of patent law. ”
Sidney A. Diamond, Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court case was argued on March 17, 1980 and decided on June 16, 1980. This patent was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court (Diamond v. Chakrabarty), in a 5-4 decision, when it determined that
“ A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under [Title 35 U.S.C.] 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within that statute. ”
Prof. Chakrabarty’s landmark research has since paved the way for many patents on genetically modified micro-organisms and other life forms, and catapulted him into the international spotlight. The "oil-eating bacteria" has been used to clean up many toxic oil spills, including the one caused by the Exxon Valdez disaster.
And then there's this:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/crpohlf.php
Canada’s ruling on 5 December 2002 makes her the only industrialized country to prohibit patents on higher life forms...Canada allows single-celled organisms, such as yeasts and bacteria, and GM crops to be patented. It also allows patents for modified human genes and cell lines. The Supreme Court, Canada’s highest court, however conceded that ownership of more complicated life forms is a radically different concept, thus ending the legal battles over the oncomouse.
No mice, just prokaryotes and plants.
PD writes:
Does the synthetic have the same side effects as the natural, is it absorbed into the body the same as the natural?
Yes.
Structurally = atoms in the molecule are arranged in the same shape
Functionally = molecule acts the same in biological processes
Chemically = molecule acts the same in chemical reactions
www.doctoryourself.com writes:
Most vitamin products, even those sold in health food stores or by distributors, contain synthetic vitamin powders...Vitamins can legally be called “Natural” even if made in a laboratory.
Pure Appl.Chem., Vol.74, No.10, pp.1957-1985, 2002.
NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC SUBSTANCES RELATED TO HUMAN HEALTH
Chemical substances can be characterized in many ways, one of which is whether they occur in nature or not. Human health is impacted by a wide variety of chemical substances, including those essential to human life, such as vitamins and nutrients, medicines, and toxic materials. Understandably, there is a vital interest in this subject on the part of the general public. A popular view holds that natural substances are innately superior to man-made or synthetic substances with respect to their effects, good or bad, on human health. This can extend to so-called nature-identical materials that are natural substances produced synthetically in an identical molecular form. The purpose of this article is to explore the subject by reviewing, in an illustrative manner, drug substances, herbal medicinal preparations, vitamins and nutrients, and toxic substances, with a view to providing an informed, rational perspective.
Natural substances that are also available in an identical molecular form by synthesis, represent another distinct category. A typical example is vitamin C, which is produced commercially by synthesis, and the synthetic substance is referred to as a nature-identical vitamin.
The chemical structures of these compounds are identical with the corresponding natural substances (nature-identical) or derivatives that are hydrolyzed to nature-identical compounds in the body.
In conclusion, from the examples presented in this article, it is clear that natural and synthetic substances have the same properties with regard to efficacy and safety, in terms of their impact on human health. The actions of individual substances are determined by their molecular structures and dose, not whether they are of natural or synthetic origin.
If the molecular structure is the same (as it is with vitamin C, vitamin A, vitamin E, etc.), it is the same substance.
This is a technical report that is 30 pages long. It's a free .pdf if you are interested.
From that same report:
Herbal medicine preparations (HMPs), as they are generally known in most countries, are classified as botanical dietary supplements (BDSs) in the United States, where they are not subject to the same safety and efficacy regulations that apply to prescription and over-the-counter drugs. The United States is presently experiencing an unprecedented boom in their use. Between 1990 and 1997, purchases by the general population increased by 380% [40]. In 1998, the total market was worth USD 3.87 billion, and the herb with the highest annual percentage increase (2801%) was St. John’s wort [41].
Big AlternaPharma!
Edited by molbiogirl, : sp
Edited by molbiogirl, : html added
™ Version 4.2
