MYTHS OF PATENTING GM SEEDS AND MONOPOLY RIGHTS

1. Myth - Granting monopoly rights is an incentive to investors for innovation and technology transfer

  Reality - The worldwide promotion of monopoly rights as an incentive for investment on research,  innovation and transfer of technology is the arguments given by the WTO and MNCs. However, different studies have shown that concentration of the seed industries is resulting to less competition and less innovation and it has limited the choices for farmers instead. It proves that granting of the patents rights is not a necessary condition to promote transfer of technology (ToT). Therefore, it is vital to rethink about other appropriate incentive mechanisms for the investors to recognize their investment and contribution rather than of granting monopoly rights.

2. Myth - GM seed is the solution to feed the increasing population

Reality - Worldwide promotion of GM crops is in increasing trend and having multiple impacts on biodiversity, farmers’ rights, local autonomy and national sovereignty. Worldwide food insecurity and hunger is in fact the manifestation of inequity in production, distribution and benefit sharing mechanisms. Gene and trait specific GM crops are claimed to be insect pest resistant however, different studies have shown that these crops are not necessarily more productive compared to indigenous varieties but it requires high investment to prevent damages done by pests. For example, ‘international agriculture trade is worth around US$ 600 billions and pest damage to crops worldwide also runs into billions of dollars’vii and cost of pest management in GM crops even increasing. Hence, GM seed is not an ultimate solution to minimize cost of production, enhance productivity and feed the increasing population of the world.

3. Myth - Global trade as a solution to deal with climate change and price hikes

Reality - Promoting diverse and non-gene pollutant seeds has potential to make agriculture sustainable, promote healthy ecosystem through carbon sequestration and low carbon emission. Viable local food production system to a large extent can deal with negative impacts of global food insecurity and price hikes. Likewise, developed countries failed to implement their commitment of providing 0.7% of their GNP as development aid towards developing countries. Likewise, equitable investment in research and development, production technologies and optimize profitable marketing mechanisms is still a challenge especially in the mountain region of developing countries. Therefore, increasing trend of securing monopoly rights over “climate ready” genes kinds of initiatives within the trade package cannot be an only solution to deal with food security of poor people in the global south. Therefore, promotion of fair trade with equitable access to opportunities and benefits created by globalization can be more responsive to climate change and price hikes than to simply advocate for free trade.

STOP PATENTING OF SEEDS

Negative Effects of Patenting Seeds

Effects of Patenting on Seeds

India is an agricultural land and more than 65% of people are engaged in Agriculture. since the beginning of farming, farmers have sown seeds, harvested crops, saved best part of the harvest for seeds and exchanged seeds with neighbours. Every ritual in India involves seeds, the very symbol of life's renewal. The farmers saved money by avoiding the annual cost of buying new seeds. In 1996, when Monsanto introduced its first genetically-modified seeds and, although a legal precedent for seed patenting had already been established, it was then that it first entered into common practice.

Environmental Issues

Firstly The Monsanto establishes its market in developed countries only and after LPG Regime in 1996 it also entered in Indian market. The Scientists has expressed great trepidation over the widespread use of genetically-modified crops, and have noted the specific dangers that Monsanto's Roundup Ready brand of crops pose to the ecosystem. The use of these crops, engineered to resist specific pesticides, increase sales of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. These crops can transfer their tolerance trait to nearby weeds and plants, unintentionally creating wild genetic hybrids which can then go on to thrive alongside the desired crops. Over time, the selection pressure intensifies in local flora, and farmers must increase herbicide use to curb the growth of unwanted species. Through increases in use due both to market factors and the resultant increase in other plants' resistance, farmers have to expose the soil to heavier levels of glyphosate-based herbicides, permanently altering the natural balance of the ecosystem.

Depletion of Natural Resources

As of 2010, six biotech and chemical companies owned 77 percent of the world's patents on living organisms. These companies were DuPont, BASF, Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow. Only 9 percent of similar patents were in the public sector. These patents extend beyond the genetic material of the seeds themselves, and also claim potential ownership of the crops they produce, and even to the food and feed products produced after harvest. Civil groups have urged the United Nations biodiversity conference to recognize such patents as a threat to biodiversity, as they can potentially place control of most of the world's biomass into these six companies' hands. This would include control of food, feed, fibers, fuels and plastics created from patented plant material, and could potentially give the patent holders control over both the supply and use of raw materials which go beyond plants and trees, to microbes, waste from livestock, food processing and garbage.

Supply, Competition and Price Controls

Once patent holders own the majority of the planet's seeds and biomass, they can easily manipulate available supplies in order to drive up market prices, should they find it a profitable practice, and those without access to these artificially limited resources then suffer. In the case of Monsanto, roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S. in 2010 were patented by the company. Monsanto fell under allegations that the company was using its dominance to prevent new biotech firms from achieving notable distribution of their products, and this decline of competition also increased the ease with which the patent holder could increase their selling price, making food more difficult for consumers to afford.

Cross-Pollination and Contamination

Because crops are farmed in open fields, where insects and the wind carry pollen from one farm to another, cross-pollination is not just a potential concern. It's a reality. As the genetic stock from patented crops mixes into unmodified fields, the offspring produced contain some patented genetic material. This occurs without the consent, let alone the intentional involvement, of the farmer who grew unmodified crops. But, regardless of that farmer's wishes, he now possesses illegally obtained patented crops.

Legal Action Against Farmers

Some farmers have reported being sued over unintentional cross-pollination. Monsanto charged Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser, for example in 1998 when his canola crop was found to be contaminated with Monsanto-engineered genetic material from nearby fields. He was ordered to pay $15 per acre, and a federal judge also ruled that all of his profits from that year owed to the biotech firm. As biotech companies gain the legal right to contaminate farmers' crops, then sue them for damages, small farmers and those who specialize in organic food production face costly legal battles which can hinder their living, if not bankrupt them altogether, and further diminish the diversity of food supplies and the freedom of consumers to avoid patronizing agribusiness companies whose motives and trustworthiness they find questionable.

Conclusion

These are some of the negative effects of Patented seeds i.e., Genetically Modified Crops. so its a kind appeal to all the Mankind around the world to stop using GM crops and protect Mother Nature and Food security for all Humans.

N.R.P.AYYANAR  M.A. M.L.,

AN APPEAL TO SAVE FOOD SOVEREIGNITY

AN APPEAL TO SAVE FOOD SOVEREIGNITY

 

 For several years, patents on genetically modified seeds and animals have been granted worldwide. The damaging impacts on farmers, who are deprived of their rights to save their seeds, and on breeders who can no longer use the patented seeds freely for further breeding, are well known.

In Canada and the US, for example, the multinational seed company Monsanto has sued many farmers for alleged patent infringements.1 The same company has also filed court cases against importers of Argentinean soy to Europe.2 Furthermore, the possibility of patenting seeds has fostered a highly concentrated market structure with only 10 multinational companies controlling about half of the international seed market. Many farmers organisations and NGOs around the world are fighting against these patents. Because genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are still not grown in most countries, or only used in a small number of crops, the negative impacts of these patents are not being felt everywhere.


However, there is an alarming new trend for patents not only to be claimed on GMOs (such as Round-up ready soybeans), but also on conventional plants. For example, patent claims have been made for soy beans with a better oil quality3 covering parts of the plant genome when used in conventional breeding and technologies to improve conventional breeding (such as marker assisted breeding).

Some of the most threatening examples in this context are patent applications from Syngenta which claim huge parts of the rice genome4 and its use in breeding of any food crops that have similar genomic information to rice (such as maize and wheat).

The European Patent Office has also granted a patent on aphid resistant composite plants which are based on marker assisted breeding5. Other recent patent applications by Monsanto on pigs are also related to normal breeding methods6, indicating the increasing danger of agricultural genetic resources becoming monopolised by a few multinationals on a global scale.

Soon the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office will decide on another patent of this kind - for a method of increasing a specific compound in Brassica species7.


This decision will determine the patentability of conventional seeds in Europe.

Whereas patents on conventional plant varieties are normal practice in the US, many other countries, especially developing countries, do not grant patents on plants or animals. But as the recent history shows, the standards defined and used at the European, Japanese and US patent offices influence international regulations (the WTO agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, TRIPS , and the World Intellectual Property Organisation, WIPO). Patent offices all over the world are pushed to adapt their regulations and practices either through the international regulations or by bilateral agreements. India, for example, has just passed a third patent amendment in order to adapt its law to the TRIPS regulations.

This frightening new trend in patent policy will affect many more farmers and breeders, than has been the case with GMO patents. Any remaining farmers rights and breeders' access to plant varieties and animal breeds for breeding purposes, will disappear everywhere. These patents will destroy a system of farmers' rights and breeders' privileges that has been shown to be crucial for the survival of farmers and breeders, for food sovereignty, and for the preservation of biodiversity in agriculture. The vast majority of farmers in developing countries are small-scale farmers, completely reliant on saving and exchanging their seeds. In order to secure the continued existence of independent farming, breeding and livestock keeping and hence the food security of future generations, we, the undersigned farmers, researchers, breeders and civil society organisations from all over the world, restate our rejection of any patents on life, and urge policy makers and patent offices to act swiftly to stop any patents being granted on conventionally bred plants and animals and on gene sequences for use with conventional breeding technique, as well as on methods for the conventional breeding of plants and animals. We also urge companies not to apply for any patents of this kind.