 |
|
Neem trees being planted.
|
When
American Indians gather plants for herbal remedies they take only what they need
and in doing so they offer a prayer or a chant. Tis Mal Crow, a Tennessee
Cherokee healer, says, “From any one area we limit the amount taken. Food and
herbs are taken only at certain times of the year” (Bergstrom p.1). When
Muslims eat or harvest food they are also instructed to show it respect.
Rasulullah (saw) said: “There is none amongst the Muslims who plant a tree
or sow seeds, and then a bird, or a person or an animal eats from it, but is
regarded as a charitable gift from him” (Bukhari 3:513). However, the
International corporate world wants to change this respect by patenting foods
that grow on farms around the world. Patenting food items makes them less
available to local populations that need them, creates food shortages where none
should be, and causes inflation in crop prices. However, although some people
have been successful in fighting the numerous patents submitted, the issue is a
continuing and uphill battle in the International market. The attempted patent
of neem seed in India is a good example of a parent successfully fended off,
however basmati rice and other crops have not fared as well in the biopiracy
war.
The
fight for rights to the neem tree started when opposition to chemical man-made
products led to a corporate enthusiasm for the neem. In 1971, US importer Robert
Larson began importing neem seed to his company in Wisconsin. From tests
conducted, a pesticidal neem extract “Margosan–O” was developed in 1985
and received EPA clearance. Three years later, Larson sold the patent to
multinational W.R Grace and Company. Since 1985, over a dozen patents
transpired, taken out by U.S. and Japanese firms on the neem extract. Grace then
approached several Indian manufacturers in order to buy-up their technology or
to stop production of value-added products so that they could concentrate on
supplying Grace with the raw material. Grace managed to convince Margo Ltd. of a
joint venture to process neem seed for export.
The
rest of India was not as enthusiastic about stopping local production of neem
products. Indian healthcare is largely accounted for by indigenous systems of
medicine that utilizes 7500 species of plants in decentralized cottage
industries. This provides 70% of their livelihood. Under Indian law,
agricultural and medicinal products are not patentable. For over 2000 years neem-based
bio-pesticides and medicines have been in use in India. Many complex processes
were developed to make them available for specific functions. The local
organization “Boycott of Foreign Goods” encouraged local development
resulting in more pesticides, medicines and cosmetics, which went onto the
market. The common knowledge of its benefits is why the Indian Central
Insecticide Board did not register neem-based products under the Insecticides
Act of 1968.
|
|
Patents are stealing the hertiage of many farmers. |
Graces’
aggressiveness to close the local markets, therefore, provoked intense
objections from local scientists, farmers and activists. Indian scientists
argued that the patent Grace had claimed involved the natural chemical as a
stable solution, which did not make it an invention but qualified it as an
extension of traditional Indian processes. To support this, Dr. V. Sharma of the
Malaria Research Institute commented, “ We have discovered the repellant
action of neem oil. There is no question of anybody else in India or outside
taking a patent in this aspect of neem oil. I would like the discovery to be
used as widely as possible to prevent nuisance from pests, and in the prevention
of diseases transmitted by them”. Grace’s patent was finally thrown out when
200 organizations from 35 nations mounted a legal challenge in the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (PTO) against W.R. Grace on the basis that the knowledge
was available at the time of patenting (healthlibrary, p. 1-4).
In
1994, Indian farmers formed a mass demonstration against the proposed GATT
Uruguay Round agreement. In Delhi 200,000 gathered demanding that the draft
treaty be translated into all Indian languages. In March 1994, India’s Upper
House of Parliament forced the government to defer indefinitely a patent
amendment bill to bring the Indian Patent Act in line with WTO. By October 1994,
half a million gathered in Bangalore carrying branches of neem. They voiced
fears of multinational companies entering the Third World markets on their
experience.
Another
victory occurred in February 1995 when the European Patent Office withdrew key
elements of a patent. The patent was granted to Belgian - Plant Genetic Systems
and U.S – Biogen Incorporated for GM herbicidal resistant plants. They ruled
that a patent could not extend to a whole plant but only to genetically
engineered genes. At the UN’s Women’s Conference in Beijing 118 groups from
27 countries signed a declaration demanding a “stop to the patenting of all
life forms, which is the ultimate commodification of all life-forms which we
hold sacred”.
Another
success came to Bolivia in 1998 when the Bolivians successfully defeated
Colorado State University’s application for a U.S. patent on quinoa, a
valuable staple food native to the Andes (Khor, p.1, 3, 4). In addition, the
Indian government successfully overturned the U.S. patent for the spice
turmeric, useful for healing wounds. Written evidence was provided using ancient
Sanskrit text and a paper published in 1953 in the Journal of the Indian Medical
Association (Knight, p.2).
Campaigns
like these, however, are an uphill struggle reliant on the will to defend ones
rights. “It is very expensive to challenge patents on a case-by-case basis,”
said Shiva and Ruth Tripathi of Action Aid.
|
|
Rice is a staple in many countries. |
In
the case against the Basmati rice patent, for instance, U.S. lawyers demand a
deposit of $500,000 from Pakistan and other countries that grow basmati rice to
challenge the patent (Raghavan, p.2). Asia accounts for more than 90% of the
worlds rice production and accounts for 80% of Asian daily calories intake.
India alone produces 200,000 varieties of rice. In the 1960s, while scientists
from the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) n Manila encouraged use of
chemical fertilizers and pesticides to increase yield, they developed hybrids
IR8 and IR64.
Although
the wealth of knowledge and expertise of the communities went into those seeds
the final result provided the platform for an IRRI gene bank. IRRI is funded by
Australia, Britain, Canada and the US who receive billions of dollars in annual
returns from crops obtained through IRRI. Despite the fact that the U.N. and
F.A.O. stated that IRRI seeds are not patentable, the material became patented.
However, governments and corporations are far removed from what the farmers see
on the ground. It was the farming communities that had to cope with IR8 in 1966
when high distribution of the seeds caused common rice diseases. IR64 was to
compensate for this, but in fact reduced the rice yield (Madeley, p.24, 27). The
hybrid IR20 was vulnerable to grass stunt virus and brown hopper insects. The
super hybrid IR26 caused an increase in disease and pests in the Philippines and
proved too fragile for the island’s strong winds (Primal, p.5).
The
situation peaked when the U.S.-based International Center for Technology
Assessment (ICTA) and the Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology
in India wanted to stop rice millers, producers and trade associations from
marketing low quality U.S. aromatic rice under the name ‘basmati’ and
'jasmine’ in order to get premium prices. India sells $300mn of basmati rice a
year. “The current US policy of allowing virtually any aromatic rice to get
labeled ‘basmati’ or ‘jasmine’ is nothing short of criminal,” said
Andrew Kimbrell of ICTA. RiceTec sells ‘Texmati’, American basmati, and ‘jasmati’,
American jasmine (Knight, p.1, 2).
Push
came to shove when the Indian government challenged the patents in the U.S. As a
result, RiceTec withdrew 4 of the 20 claims and patents; however, it left intact
their exclusive right to grow ‘basmati’ in the Americas and the Caribbean.
RiceTec’s patented basmati comes from Indian basmati crossed with a long-grain
and semi-dwarf variety. This far from qualifies as an invention when farmers do
this all the time. Action Aid provided evidence of biopiracy in 62 patents that
are for naturally occurring compounds, genes and gene sequences. Also, Action
Aid’s database survey discovered patents on cassava, cocoa, jojoba, millet,
nutmeg, rubber, sorghum and sweet potato. All of these are staple foods and
therefore important to the countries from which they come (Raghavan, p.1, 2).
Rasullulah (saw) said “A time will come when upon the people when one will
not care how one gains one’s money, legally or illegally” (Bukhari
3:275). In modern markets genes are sold and exchanged without informed consent
to private individuals. The hunt for ‘green gold’ has attracted corporations
to places like North Africa using the springboard of trade to access the genetic
resources of other African countries (Wynberg, p.1). The lack of ethics in
science and business may price their customers out of the market and increase
the likelihood of economic collapse of the countries from which these plants
came. In Islam, charity is not just about giving of material things; it is also
about the respect for resources even when they are not one’s own.
**
Note. Details on genetically modified crops currently under trial can be found
on GeneWatch.org.
Sources:
