Corporate Patents vs People in GM Rice

[Guest guest]

> 8 Jul 2004 14:52:38 -0000

 

> Corporate Patents vs People in GM Rice

> press-release

>

>

> Rice wars Rice, the staple food crop for more than

> half the

> world's population, among them the poorest, is the

> current

> target of genetic modification, an activity that has

> greatly

> intensified after the rice genome was announced two

> years

> ago (see " Rice is life " series, SiS 15, Summer 2002

> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews/sis15.php ). Since

> then, all major biotech giants are investing in rice

>

> research.

>

> At the same time, a low-input cultivation system

> that really

> benefits small farmers worldwide has been spreading,

> but is

> dismissed by the scientific establishment as

> " unscientific " .

> This is one among several recent innovations that

> increase

> yields and ward off disease without costly and

> harmful

> inputs, all enthusiastically and widely adopted by

> farmers.

>

> A war is building up between the corporate

> establishment and

> the peoples of the world for the possession of rice.

> The

> food security of billions is at stake, as is their

> right to

> grow the varieties of rice they have created and

> continue to

> create, and in the manner they choose.

>

> This extended series will not be appearing all at

> once, so

> look out for it.

>

> Fantastic Rice Yields Fact or Fallacy?

> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/RiceWars.php

> Top Indian Rice Geneticist Rebuts SRI critics

> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/TIRGRSRI.php

> Does SRI work? Corporate

> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DSRIW.php

> Patents vs People in GM Rice

> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CPVPIGMR.php

>

>

> ISIS Press Release 08/07/04

> Corporate Patents vs People in GM Rice

> ***************************************

>

> Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Lim Li Ching get to the bottom of

> current

> attempts by corporations to usurp rice varieties

> through

> genetic modification

>

> A fully referenced version of this article, the

> fourth in

> " Rice wars " series, is posted on ISIS member's

> website.

> Details here http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.php.

> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/CPVPIGMRFull.php

>

>

> Has the International Treaty sufficient bite to

> protect

> Farmer's Rights?

>

> In 1998, masses of angry Indian and Thai farmers

> took to the

> streets of their capitals to denounce US company

> RiceTec

> Inc's claim of monopoly rights over their basmati

> and

> jasmine varieties of rice. US breeders had acquired

> samples

> from Philippines-based IRRI (International Rice

> Research

> Institute), which holds a large seed bank of Asian

> farmers'

> varieties. That was among the first warnings of a

> corporate

> agenda to usurp and control rice varieties created

> and used

> by local communities for thousands of years.

>

> The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources

> for Food

> and Agriculture, which came into force on 29 June

> 2004,

> facilitates " the free flow of genetic material to

> plant

> breeders " as well as to farmers and research

> institutions.

> This is achieved through a Multilateral System for

> Access

> and Benefit Sharing, which covers a list of 35 food

> crops

> and 29 forage crops, among them rice.

>

> The Treaty clearly acknowledges the contribution of

> farmers

> to agricultural biodiversity and recognises Farmers'

> Rights

> to save, use, exchange and sell seeds. This is an

> important

> milestone in international law. However, it falls

> short of

> unambiguously banning patents on plant genetic

> resources,

> leaving farmers' varieties in international Gene

> Banks under

> the CGIAR (Consultative Group on International

> Agricultural

> Research), which come under the Treaty, just as

> vulnerable

> as before. The text clearly states that no

> intellectual

> property rights (IPRs) may be taken out on the plant

> genetic

> resources and their components that are exchanged

> and as

> covered in the Treaty; but this is qualified by

> limiting the

> condition to resources " in the form received " .

>

> In short, this could leave the door open for

> unscrupulous

> patenting of plant genetic resources that are not

> " in the

> form received " , for example, if, after they have

> been freely

> exchanged within the Multilateral System, they are

> genetically modified.

>

> As the Treaty has just entered into force, its

> continuing

> interpretation and how it is implemented will need

> to be

> monitored closely, to prevent powerful countries

> (and their

> corporations) getting rights to extract and

> privatise

> genetic resources covered by the Treaty. It is also

> crucial

> to strengthen the primacy of Farmers' Rights over

> IPRs.

>

> Gene-patenting and corporate rice research This

> fight will

> be critical as biotech companies are increasingly

> muscling

> in on rice research. " The advent of biotechnology

> has caused

> a spurt in patents on gene products associated with

> rice, "

> said Ronald Cantrell, director of IRRI. The

> sequencing of

> the rice genome has not only opened up largely

> untapped

> commercial possibilities but has also set the pace

> for

> potential IPR disputes between corporations and

> governments.

> " I'm really concerned that we should have enough

> public

> sector research that would generate knowledge,

> putting it in

> the public arena, and we should make sure that the

> private

> sector is properly regulated, " he added.

>

> The Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture,

> despite

> its honourable name is part of the biotech

> multinational

> Syngenta, and is now a member of the CGIAR. In one

> fell

> swoop, the private sector has become part of the

> network of

> international agricultural research centres, paving

> the way

> for it to participate in policy making and

> determining the

> kind of research that gets funded. This, critics

> say, turns

> the once publicly funded research body into " an

> agricultural

> research outsource for the multinational

> corporations " .

> Although the Syngenta Foundation doesn't currently

> contribute to IRRI, there's no doubting the interest

> of the

> corporation in rice research.

>

> An article published in the New Internationalist in

> September 2002 commented: " The multinational

> biotechnology

> industry has global rice production in its

> gunsights. It is

> manoeuvring for control through intellectual

> property rights

> (IPRs), such as patents, and legislation is quickly

> being

> pushed into place in Asia and around the world to

> satisfy

> industry's demands. "

>

> GM rice versus people's sustainable agriculture All

> this is

> coming at a sensitive time, as farmer-led movements

> for

> sustainable agriculture are also in ascendancy. For

> example,

> MASIPAG, the farmer-scientist network, is a

> farmer-led

> community-managed breeding and conservation effort

> on rice

> and vegetables throughout the Philippines. It

> started in

> 1986 and now involves 50 trial farms. Some 543

> farmer-bred

> lines and 75 varieties of rice are grown and further

>

> improved by well over 10 000 farmers throughout the

> country.

> The Nayakrishi or 'New Agriculture' Movement in

> Bangladesh,

> where farmers typically use hundreds of varieties of

> rice,

> and have little trouble surpassing the productivity

> of the

> industrial model.

>

> Asia produces over 90 percent of world's rice

> supply, and an

> estimated 140 000 different varieties of rice have

> been

> created by small farmers in Asia.

>

> In the 1950s, the US put rice production at the

> centre of a

> strategy to address food insecurity and political

> unrest.

> The resulting campaign led by the Rockefeller and

> Ford

> Foundations, known as the Green Revolution,

> transformed rice

> production dramatically. Traditional farming systems

> and

> varieties were replaced by a package of credit,

> chemicals

> and high input varieties. By the early 1990s, just

> five

> super-varieties accounted for 90 per cent of the

> rice-

> growing area of Malaysia and Pakistan, and nearly

> half the

> rice lands of Thailand and Burma.

>

> Several major transnational seed corporations -

> Aventis,

> Dupont, Monsanto, Syngenta - now have rice

> programmes. Rice

> is self-pollinated, making hybrid rice seed

> production

> costly and difficult, and nearly all rice in Asia is

> still

> grown with farmer-saved seed. The seed industry

> believes

> that the combination of genetic engineering and

> patents can

> overcome this hurdle.

>

> " Through patents and contractual agreements, seed

> companies

> will seek to prohibit farmers from sharing or saving

> seed,

> control what pesticides are used and even assert

> ownership

> rights over the harvest. "

>

> In October 2001, an ActionAid study found that of

> the 250

> patents on rice, 61 percent are controlled by just 6

> seed

> companies, three of them also the world's largest

> pesticide

> corporations.

>

> After the rice genome sequence was announced. Dr.

> Steven

> Briggs, head of genomics for Syngenta, told the New

> York

> Times that while the companies would not seek to

> patent the

> entire genome, they would patent individual valuable

> genes.

> He indicated that Syngenta and Myriad were well on

> their way

> to finding many of those.

>

> China a major player Meanwhile, the Chinese

> government,

> which has invested considerable public money into

> the

> sequencing of the rice genome, thereby breaking the

> 'knowledge monopoly' hitherto held by the developed

> countries in the West, is reported to be ramping up

> efforts

> to commercialise GM rice.

>

> Chinese researchers have developed several GM rice

> varieties

> resistant to the country's major rice pests and

> diseases,

> such as the lepidopteran insect stem borer, bacteria

> blight,

> rice blast fungus and rice dwarf virus (see

> " Promises and

> perils of GM rice " , this series). " Significant

> progress " was

> also reported for drought- and salt-tolerance. Zhen

> Zhu, a

> leading rice scientist and deputy director of the

> Bureau of

> Life Science and Biotechnology of the Chinese

> Academy of

> Sciences, told Nature Biotechnology that " China [is]

>

> technically mature [enough] to commercialise several

>

> varieties of its GM rice " .

>

> China's biotech budget for 2001-2005 is $1.2

> billion, a 400%

> increase compared with 1996-2000, and about $120

> million out

> of the current budget is devoted to GM rice

> programmes, Zhu

> estimates, and more will be allocated to field

> trials of GM

> rice. At least 10 new field trials for GM rice are

> expected

> this year, keeping the planting level comparable to

> 2003 of

> at least 53 hectares.

>

> In the United States, USDA authorized 10 GM rice

> field

> trials over 11 hectares in 2003 and 12 trials over

> 45

> hectares in the first quarter of 2004, 90% of which

> done by

> Monsanto.

>

> China will be closely watched by both the developed

> and the

> developing world. China's activities in GM rice have

> gone on

> simultaneously with extensive trials in sustainable,

> low

> input rice-growing systems that benefit small

> farmers (see

> " Fantastic rice yields fact or fallacy "

> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/RiceWars.php and " Does SRI

> work? "

> http://www.i-sis.org.uk/DSRIW.php

> this series).

>

> Huanming Yang, Director of the Beijing Genomics

> Institute in

> China, the lead author of a paper on the rice genome

>

> sequence published side by side with Syngenta's in

> the

> journal Science two years ago, told ISIS recently

> that he is

> " strongly opposed " to patenting the rice genome.

>

> " As one of the important sequencing centres [of the

> rice

> genome], we think it should be covered by Bermuda

> Rules and

> should [be] made freely available. That is the

> reason that

> we have released the rice genome sequences, " Yang

> said.

>

> The 'Bermuda Rules' refers to guidelines for

> releasing human

> sequence data established in February 1996 at a

> Bermuda

> meeting of heads of the biggest labs in the publicly

> funded

> human genome project. The rules require the labs to

> share

> the results of sequencing " as soon as possible " ,

> releasing

> all stretches of DNA longer than 1 000 units, and to

> submit

> the data within 24 hours to the public database

> known as

> GenBank. The goal, as stated in a memo released at

> the time,

> was to prevent the sequencing centres from

> " establishing a

> privileged position in the exploitation and control

> of human

> sequence information. "

>

>

>