Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

livingontheland - [Livingontheland] Firms Seek Patents on ‘Climate Ready’ Altered Crops

livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Healthy soil and sustainable growing

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Tradingpost" <tradingpost@lobo.net>
  • To: livingontheland@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [Livingontheland] Firms Seek Patents on ‘Climate Ready’ Altered Crops
  • Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 20:49:29 -0600


Published on Tuesday, May 13, 2008 by The Washington Post
Firms Seek Patents on ‘Climate Ready’ Altered Crops
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/13/8930/

A handful of the world’s largest agricultural biotechnology companies are
seeking hundreds of patents on gene-altered crops designed to withstand
drought and other environmental stresses, part of a race for dominance in the
potentially lucrative market for crops that can handle global warming,
according to a report being released today.0513 05 1 2

Three companies — BASF of Germany, Syngenta of Switzerland and Monsanto of
St. Louis — have filed applications to control nearly two-thirds of the
climate-related gene families submitted to patent offices worldwide,
according to the report by the Ottawa-based ETC Group, an activist
organization that advocates for subsistence farmers.

The applications say that the new “climate ready” genes will help crops
survive drought, flooding, saltwater incursions, high temperatures and
increased ultraviolet radiation — all of which are predicted to undermine
food security in coming decades.

Company officials dismissed the report’s contention that the applications
amount to an intellectual-property “grab,” countering that gene-altered
plants will be crucial to solving world hunger but will never be developed
without patent protections.

The report highlights the economic opportunities facing the biotechnology
industry at a time of growing food insecurity, as well as the risks to its
public image.

Many of the world’s poorest countries, destined to be hit hardest by climate
change, have rejected biotech crops, citing environmental and economic
concerns. Importantly, gene patents generally preclude the age-old practice
of saving seeds from a harvest for replanting, requiring instead that farmers
purchase the high-tech seeds each year.

The ETC report concludes that biotech giants are hoping to leverage climate
change as a way to get into resistant markets, and it warns that the move
could undermine public-sector plant-breeding institutions such as those
coordinated by the United Nations and the World Bank, which have long made
their improved varieties freely available.

“When a market is dominated by a handful of large multinational companies,
the research agenda gets biased toward proprietary products,” said Hope
Shand, ETC’s research director. “Monopoly control of plant genes is a bad
idea under any circumstance. During a global food crisis, it is unacceptable
and has to be challenged.”

Ranjana Smetacek, a spokeswoman for Monsanto, said companies deserve praise
for developing crop varieties that will survive climate change.

“I think everyone recognizes that the old traditional ways just aren’t able
to address these new challenges. The problems in Africa are pretty severe,”
she said, noting that Monsanto and BASF are participating in a project,
funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to develop drought-resistant
corn that would be made available to farmers in four southern African
countries royalty-free. “We aim to be at once generous and also cognizant of
our obligation to shareholders who have paid for our research,” Smetacek said.

Gene patents allow companies to limit others from marketing those genes. The
35-page ETC report, “Patenting the ‘Climate Genes’ . . . and Capturing the
Climate Agenda,” documents about 530 applications for climate-related plant
genes filed at patent offices in the past five years. A few dozen patents
have been issued; hundreds of others are pending.

Of the 55 major gene families at the heart of those applications, BASF filed
21, the report says. Other major players include Syngenta, seven; Monsanto,
six; and Bayer of Germany, five.

Among the report’s concerns is the breadth of many applications. Protective
genes are usually discovered in one variety of plant, and after minimal
testing they are presumed to be useful in others, Shand said. In one typical
case, a BASF patent claim for a gene to tolerate “environmental stress” seeks
to preclude competitors from using that gene in “maize, wheat, rye, oat,
triticale, rice, barley, soybean, peanut, cotton, rapeseed, canola, manihot,
pepper, sunflower, tagetes, solanaceous plants, potato, tobacco, eggplant,
tomato, Vicia species, pea, alfalfa, coffee, cacao, tea, Salix species, oil
palm, coconut, perennial grass and a forage crop plant.”

Publicly funded developers of freely accessible plant varieties could succumb
to biotech’s market dominance, the report warns. One of the biggest is the
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, which runs 15
research centers worldwide and is funded by several international aid
organizations. CGIAR has long emphasized non-biotech breeding to develop
varieties ideal for subsistence farmers and their local conditions.

Facing big budget cuts from its traditional funders, CGIAR is now a central
player in the Gates-funded collaboration with Monsanto and BASF — a project
that a CGIAR spokesman defended as a “global public good.”

Other experts said that both sides have oversimplified the pros and cons of
biotech crop patents.

“I don’t mind Monsanto developing these tools. I mind that we don’t have an
economic ecology that lets other companies compete with them,” said Richard
Jefferson, founder and chief executive of Cambia, a nonprofit institute based
in Australia that helps companies worldwide sort through patent holdings so
they can build on one another’s work instead of stymieing one another.

Under the current system for patenting genes, he said, “the little guys shake
out and the big guys end up in a place a lot like a cartel.”

Jefferson characterized the ETC report as extreme in its anti-corporate views
but praised it for drawing attention to what he said is a real problem of
corporate consolidation in the seed industry. Happily, he said, patent
offices are “getting a lot better” about not allowing overly broad gene
patents.

Jonathan Bryant, managing director of BASF’s U.S. division, said plants have
tens of thousands of genes, most of them unexplored. “I think there’s still
plenty of opportunity for many companies and institutions,” he said. “We’re
all looking to bring our technology together for a common good.”




  • [Livingontheland] Firms Seek Patents on ‘Climate Ready’ Altered Crops, Tradingpost, 05/13/2008

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page