Miss Piggy Owes Monsanto Royalties
I don't know who I trust less, the Greenpeace "every gene is bad mojo" organization or the Monsanto "we have patented eating so cough up some dough" corporation. I have always had a problem with patenting genes that you only discovered. If nature has been using something for ages it constitutes prior work in my mind. Putting a Phillips screw in a car should not allow the manufacturer of Phillips screws to patent cars, especially if they did not invent the Phillips screw to begin with. So why should putting a mouse gene in a pig allow you to patent the pig. (God help me I just linked to Greenpeace. I am officially a left-wing moonbat*.)
All you would need to do is have one Monsanto pig get into your population and you would be violating Monsanto's rights. This means pig farmers will need to do DNA tests on every pig they buy and every sample of hog spunk they get for inseminations. Thank you Monsanto.
There is a simple solution to this. Ban the patenting of naturally occurring DNA. Some say this would hold back bio research but I doubt it. The agriculture industry wants to have the best, cheapest and safest products so they have an interest in pursuing this research whereas Monsanto and co. only have an interest in creating and selling technology and charging ongoing royalties. Monsanto is 1% innovation 99% litigation.
*Incidentally, Wikipedia is debating on whether moonbat should remain included as an entry (moonbat is often but not exclusively used for left-wing types) while wingnut (most commonly but not exclusively used for right-wing types) is not contested. If you were to combine the genes of a moonbat and a wingnut would you get a moonnut or a wingbat?