There has been significant discussion around Bill Gates, biotech companies, and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including microbes, for various purposes like improving agricultural yields, sustainability, and even carbon capture for carbon credits for commercial gains and possible future issues.
This is what I found on this topic.
Gates has been involved in funding and supporting technologies aimed at addressing global issues like food security and climate change. His involvement through organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has led to investments in innovations for genetically modified crops and soil management technologies.
Concerns have been raised about large-scale patenting of natural systems and the control over essential biological processes by large corporations. Patenting genetically modified microbes for agriculture or environmental management could allow companies to claim ownership over critical parts of the ecosystem.
Critics argue that these patents could allow big corporations to monetize natural resources, driving their asset values up at the expense of farmers, indigenous people, and the general public. There’s concern that this could also lead to reduced biodiversity, over-reliance on synthetic technologies, and further concentration of power in the hands of a few elite players.
The focus on GMO microbes as a solution to everything from soil depletion to climate change, while innovative, has led to fears of "patenting nature", where companies can essentially control key aspects of global ecosystems by owning the technology or biological processes involved.
The concept of "patenting nature"—where companies and individuals secure intellectual property rights over biological processes, plants, and now genetically engineered microbes—raises several concerns. The elite of the industries, including powerful figures like Bill Gates, are seen as central to this movement, where innovation in the biotech and agricultural sectors could lead to the monopolization of natural resources.
Here’s a deeper look at these issues:
1. Bill Gates and GMO Microbes
Bill Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has long been involved in agricultural and environmental innovation, aiming to solve global problems like food insecurity and climate change. His support for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) includes crops that can withstand drought, resist pests, and enhance yields.
Recently, however, there’s growing interest in genetically modified microbes to improve soil health, increase carbon sequestration, and boost agricultural productivity.
For example, Gates is a major backer of Pivot Bio, a biotech company that has developed genetically modified microbes to enhance nitrogen fixation in crops like corn, reducing the need for chemical fertilisers.
(There is a shortage of fertiliser components and the GMO microbes are more financially rewarding just the PowerPoint, Excel and Microsoft that the whole world pays to use. This is the whole world will pay for these in the future).
While this is touted by Gates' companies as a solution to reducing pollution and increasing sustainability, it comes with the concern that such biotech companies are essentially privatizing processes that were previously part of the natural ecosystem—like microbial nitrogen fixation—and monetizing them.
2. Patenting Life and Genetic Resources
One of the most contentious aspects of this trend is the patenting of life forms. Under current intellectual property laws, companies can patent genetically modified organisms and even natural organisms that have been altered through genetic editing. This has led to the control of essential biological processes by private companies. For example:
-
GMO crops: Companies like Monsanto (now Bayer) have patented genetically modified crops like Roundup Ready soybeans and Bt corn, giving them control over how these seeds are used, grown, and distributed. Farmers are often forced to buy new seeds each season because the patented seeds can’t legally be saved and replanted.
-
Genetically Modified Microbes: With microbes being used to solve various agricultural and environmental issues, companies can patent microbial strains designed to perform specific functions, like breaking down pollutants or increasing nutrient availability in soils. This means that soil regeneration, once a natural process, could become controlled by corporations that hold these patents.
-
Earthfood Comments: The natural microbes like Earthfood is now in danger of extinction in some applications/regions. Earthfood can clean up a mining site of sulphuric acid that is how powerful the microbes are and generous to the earth for our human health from the ground up, naturally better. What will these artificial GMO microbes do to the human health over time. Remember 'Round-Up' as 'safe' yet the formaldehyde constituents is known as a human carcinogen sprayed over the foods has increased of cancers skyrocketing over the last 50years. Micro-dosing glyphosate daily in grain foods particularly has made a sick and tired humanity since then.
3. Inflating Asset Values
The use of GMOs and patents allows biotech companies and wealthy investors to inflate the value of their intellectual property. When a company controls the patents on genetically engineered organisms that are essential to agriculture or environmental remediation, the value of those patents—and the company—hockey-stick curves upwards.
As a result, the asset base of these companies can grow exponentially, making GMO technology and microbial engineering not only a solution but a highly profitable business.
Investors like Gates are positioned to profit immensely from the value of these patented technologies. As the world increasingly faces challenges like climate change, soil depletion, and food insecurity, the demand for such patented solutions grows. Critics argue that this leads to concentration of wealth and control in the hands of a few, while small farmers, indigenous communities, and the broader public bear the consequences of monopolized natural resources.
4. The Ethical and Environmental Concerns
There are several ethical issues tied to the patenting of GMOs and microbes:
-
Reduction of Biodiversity: As genetically modified crops and organisms become more dominant, biodiversity may decrease. Natural strains of plants and microbes might be edged out by these engineered organisms, leading to a loss of genetic diversity, which is critical for ecosystem resilience.
-
Dependence on Corporations: Farmers, especially in developing countries, could become dependent on patented technologies, leaving them vulnerable to price hikes, restrictive contracts, and loss of sovereignty over their land and crops.
-
Environmental Risks: While GMO microbes may offer solutions to soil health or climate change, they could also introduce unintended ecological consequences. Microbes don’t adhere to boundaries, and genetically modified strains could interact with natural ecosystems in unforeseen ways, potentially disrupting soil ecosystems or altering nutrient cycles in damaging ways.
-
Consolidation of Power: The concentration of agricultural and environmental technologies in the hands of a few corporations, supported by billionaires like Gates, raises concerns about economic justice and food sovereignty. If a small number of companies control the world's seeds, soil health solutions, and climate technologies, the power dynamics could disproportionately affect small farmers and indigenous communities.
5. Alternative Models
Many advocates for sustainable agriculture argue for open-source or community-based approaches to food production and environmental remediation. These models focus on regenerative agriculture that works with nature, preserving biodiversity and using natural microbial populations rather than patented ones.
Some communities are also working to resist corporate control of genetic resources by using traditional, non-patented seeds and farming methods that promote biodiversity and local resilience. These approaches emphasize local ownership and stewardship of natural resources, rather than centralizing control in the hands of multinational corporations.
The trend of patenting genetically modified microbes and other organisms as solutions to global challenges has sparked significant controversy. While figures like Bill Gates and other elite investors argue that these technologies are essential to solving food and environmental crises, critics contend that such patenting is a form of monopolizing nature, potentially limiting access to essential resources, reducing biodiversity, and concentrating wealth and power.
As we look to the future of agriculture and environmental sustainability, the question remains: should nature itself be subject to intellectual property laws, or is there a more equitable way to harness the power of the natural world to solve global problems?
This issue touches on the balance between innovation, equity, and the natural world, and will likely continue to evolve as new technologies and economic idea of a GMO microbial or mycelial network spreading across land and potentially imposing a perpetual subscription fee for unregistered use or unintended growth on land is an extension of current concerns about biotechnology patents.
Although I haven’t come across a case that exactly mirrors this scenario, it reflects concerns about how patenting natural systems—like genetically modified (GMO) organisms—can blur the lines between innovation and overreach.
Here’s how this issue could theoretically unfold, and parallels that already exist I believe:
1. GMO Crops and Seed Patents: Precedent for Subscription-Like Fees
There are already precedents in GMO crops, where companies like Monsanto (now Bayer) have enforced strict patents on genetically modified seeds. Farmers who use these seeds are required to sign contracts agreeing not to save or reuse seeds from one growing season to the next.
If GMO crops inadvertently spread to neighboring farms due to cross-pollination, farmers who didn’t purchase the seeds have been sued for patent infringement, even though they didn’t intentionally grow the GMO crops.
In these cases, even if a farmer doesn’t buy the patented GMO seeds, the company that owns the patent still claims ownership over the crops that contain their patented genes, and the farmer may be liable for compensation.
This is somewhat akin to a "perpetual subscription", where the farmer owes money because the patented organisms are on their land, regardless of consent or intentional use.
2. Microbial Networks and Patenting Mycelium
With GMO microbes and mycelium networks, this concept could expand. If a company develops and patents genetically modified microbes or fungal networks that can enhance soil health or perform environmental remediation, those organisms, like natural ones, could spread beyond the boundaries of the land where they were intentionally introduced.
Microbes, fungi, and mycelium can travel through soil, water, and air, colonizing new areas without anyone necessarily noticing.
If these patented organisms spread to neighboring farms, forests, or even public land, the question arises: Does the company that owns the patent have the right to charge landowners for the use of their organisms, even if those landowners didn’t want or ask for the organisms to be there?
Perpetual subscription fees could, in theory, be applied in a similar way to how GMO seed companies charge for the continued use of their patented products. The company could claim that since the genetically modified mycelium or microbes are performing their patented function on someone else’s land—such as improving soil health, carbon sequestration, or nitrogen fixation—those landowners are receiving a benefit and must pay for it.
3. Legal and Ethical Implications
The scenario you’re describing raises significant legal and ethical concerns:
- Involuntary Use: If patented GMO microbes or mycelium spread to land without the landowner’s consent, does the company have the right to enforce payment? Could this be considered a form of biological trespassing?
- Control of Natural Processes: By patenting biological organisms like microbes or mycelium, companies may effectively be controlling natural processes that previously occurred freely in nature. This control could lead to significant power imbalances, where landowners are forced to pay to manage their land, even though they had no say in the introduction of these organisms.
- Enforcement Challenges: How would companies track the presence of their patented microbes on private land? DNA testing or soil analysis might be required to detect the presence of patented organisms, but this would raise privacy concerns for landowners and could lead to disputes about whether the organisms are benefiting the land.
4. Potential for Future Models: Licensing and Subscriptions
In the biotech space, there’s growing interest in using licensing models where landowners or farmers pay an ongoing fee for using patented organisms. This has already been seen in the agricultural industry with software as a service (SaaS) and intellectual property (IP) licensing for crops, and the model could easily be adapted for microbial systems. For example:
- Soil Health as a Service: A company could offer a subscription model where landowners are charged annually for the use of GMO microbes that enhance soil fertility, fix nitrogen, or break down toxins. This would create a steady revenue stream for the company and, in theory, provide long-term benefits for the landowner. A bit like Microsoft and the subscriptions of all their products PowerPoint, Excel and Word the income from around the world yearly is astronomical. The GMO microbes will be worth more money than countries put together.
- Enforced Licensing: If patented microbes spread beyond the land where they were initially applied, companies could argue that the landowner must now pay a licensing fee because their soil is benefiting from the presence of these organisms.
5. Real-World Example: CRISPR and Gene-Edited Microbes
The rise of CRISPR technology and gene-edited microbes could accelerate the use of licensing models for biological processes. CRISPR has been used to modify microorganisms to perform functions like breaking down plastics, detoxifying soil, and even fixing carbon.
These gene-edited microbes can be patented, and companies could attempt to enforce licensing fees for the use of their technology if the microbes are found on other people’s land.
While no current case exists where landowners are forced to pay subscription fees for the unintended presence of patented microbes, the legal framework for such scenarios could develop as microbial technologies advance and the use of GMOs expands beyond crops into microbial ecosystems.
6. Resistance and Alternative Approaches
There is growing resistance to the idea of patenting life, particularly microbes and natural processes. Many advocates for open-source biology and regenerative agriculture argue that biological innovations should remain in the public domain, accessible to everyone rather than controlled by a few powerful companies.
Groups like the ETC Group have long campaigned against the patenting of genes and organisms, arguing that this practice commodifies nature and leads to power imbalances.
Additionally, in some countries, there are legal protections in place to prevent the monopolization of certain biological resources, especially those that have been used traditionally by indigenous or local communities.
While the scenario of landowners being forced to pay perpetual subscription fees for GMO microbes or mycelial networks isn't a widespread reality yet, it's a concern that stems from current practices in patenting and licensing natural resources.
With genetically modified organisms becoming more sophisticated and potentially spreading beyond their intended areas, the legal and ethical debates around the control and commercialization of nature are likely to intensify.
If companies begin enforcing licensing models for their patented microbes on unintentional land, it could lead to significant challenges for landowners, ecosystems, and biodiversity. We may see more debates about the boundaries of biotechnology, patent law, and biological sovereignty in the coming years.
Earthfood living microbes are Mother Nature's repair tool kit and so much is reliant on the planet to have them in the soil for our own health, the soil health, plant health, insect and animal health and the planet health.
I really fear that the GMO microbes will be the destruction of small farmers and human health over time, and the corporate-government overreach will be beyond imagination.
Bron