Fwd: OCA MI: Stop The Bio-Piracy of Wild Rice

[Guest guest]

listserv wrote:Tue, 28 Jan 2003 01:49:00 -0600

listserv

OCA MI: Stop The Bio-Piracy of Wild Rice

angelprincessjo

 

 

 

Hello Jo,

 

There is currently a patent application for wild rice being considered by

the US Patent Office. Your voice is needed in helping secure the rejection

of this patent on wild rice. Below is an email from Winona LaDuke about

what you can do to help stop this bio-piracy.

 

Tom Taylor

Midwest and Southeast Field Organizer

Organic Consumers Association

Tel: 612-331-7309

 

Dear Friends,

I write with promising news. The US Patent Office is in the final

stages of rejecting patent application with Serial Number 09/839,813. This

application pertains to ongoing research in Australia, where scientists

have been " shooting " DNA from wild rice into the DNA of other plants and

animals. You can act now to help secure the rejection of this patent

application by emailing the letter below [also attached] to the

Commissioners at the patent office. Email your letters to each of these

people:

 

1. James E. Rogan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property

and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

 

Email: James.Rogan

 

2. Nicholas Godici, Commissioner for Patents.

 

Email: Nicholas.Godici

 

3. Stephen G. Kunin, Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.

 

Email: Stephen.Kunin or Steven.Kunin

 

4. John J. Doll, Director, Technology Center 1600

 

Email: John.Doll

 

Send letters as soon as possible to each of the individuals listed

above. Your effort will help to ensure that the patent for the results of

this disquieting research is denied. Your ongoing support of the campaign

to protect manoomin is essential.

 

Miigwech,

Winona LaDuke

 

 

Dear Honorable Mr. Commissioner et al.:

 

We are writing to express our strong concern about a pending US Patent

Application that claims a method of using Manoomin, our wild rice, in order

to make another type of rice, and the plants and seeds made thereby.

 

Wild rice is central and sacred to the heart and spirit of the

Anishinaabeg and other Indigenous peoples in the United States of America.

It is hard to overstate how close to the core beliefs of our people is the

status of wild rice: it is a gift given to us by our Creator and we are its

custodians. The Anishinaabeg territories are the center of origin for

natural diverse original strains of wild rice. Wild rice is an essential

part of Anishinaabeg sustenance and survival, and its integrity is

threatened by corporate control and genetic engineering. The right and

responsibility to protect wild rice for future generations is an inherent

right of the Anishinaabeg and is further protected by our treaty rights

with the State of Minnesota and the United States of America.

 

We understand that there is a patent application presently pending in the

US Patent Office. It has a Serial Number 09/839,813 and was filed on 20

April 2001, with the named " inventors " being Henry et al. This patent

application greatly concerns us. The patent application claims a method of

gene transfer of the DNA from wild rice (Zizania palustris) into another

form of rice, and also a transgenic plant, its fruit, its seeds, and its

progeny, made by this method of gene transfer.

 

The plants made by these techniques are fertile, and it is not clear what

sort of genetic pollution may be incurred were they to be introduced near

genuine Native wild rice. Since the claims of the patent application

specifically refer to " progeny " of the plants which the 'inventors' have

made in the lab, then any wild outcrossing of these plants into our Native

wild rice stands, would mean that the 'progeny' would be covered by patent

claims. This is intolerable to us.

 

Furthermore, there may be serious negative impacts upon our natural

stands of wild rice by such outcrossing. Genetically modified rice of the

sort claimed in the subject patent application has the potential to

irreversibly alter natural strains of wild rice. This biological concern,

is in fact within the purview of the USPTO. This is because a patent is not

some inherent right but is actually a government subsidy (in the form of a

limited monopoly) given as a positive incentive to a patent applicant.

 

However, the new 2002 corporate plan of the USPTO reminds one that

patents must always be balanced with the Public Interest. This is found in

Appendix C of the Fiscal Year 2002 Corporate Plan:

 

" The Under Secretary and Director champions intellectual property rights

and forges a balance between the public's interest in intellectual property

and each customer's interest in his/her patent and trademark. "

 

Thus the USPTO respectfully must consider what negative effects fall upon

others, whenever a patent is granted.

 

We understand that as of this date, patent application 09/839,813 is

under Final Rejection status. Due to this status, the Patent Examiner has a

very high degree of discretion (under " Rule 116 " , 37 CFR 1.116) to not

entertain any further arguments or amendments by applicants. We very

respectfully urge the Patent Office to use this very high degree of

discretion to maintain the rejection of the claims of the patent

application. Doing so would indicate to the public that their interest is

being taken into account. Furthermore, should patent applicants re-file the

case as a continuation application of some sort, we very respectfully urge

the patent examiner to not be browbeaten into acquiescence by the

persistence of a patent applicant. Reasons already exist on the record for

rejecting these claims, and these are not diminished upon re-filing of a

claim. Finally, any claim to " progeny " plants respectfully must be rejected

outright, since after many generations of interbreeding of the claimed

plant with natural rice, the resultant progeny would be indistinguishable

from natural, prior art rice. Director J. Doll understands this line of

argument, as he has taken this precisely this position in the reexamination

proceedings on basmati rice (see paper mailed 27 March 2001 in

Reexamination Control No. 90/005,709 first filed Apr. 28, 2000)

 

List of recipients:

 

1. James E. Rogan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property

and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office

2. Nicholas Godici Commissioner for Patents

3. Stephen G. Kunin Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy

4. John J. Doll, Director, Technology Center 1600

 

http://www.organicconsumers.org

Campaigning for food safety, organic agriculture, sustainability, and

fair trade

 

PLEASE FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO YOUR FRIENDS WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED.

==========================================================

 

You may review your subscription information with the OCA

http://www.organicconsumers.org/update.htm

You are d as: angelprincessjo

(if you forgot your password, there is a link to retrieve it).

You can then update your listing and

select the type(s) of OCA activities that interest you (or ).

 

 

 

 

The complete " Whole Body " Health line consists of the " AIM GARDEN TRIO "

Ask About Health Professional Support Series: AIM Barleygreen

 

" Wisdom of the Past, Food of the Future "

 

http://www.geocities.com/mrsjoguest/AIM.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now