21.03.2001

[This is from Abdelgadir Ageeb in Canada. Participants are reminded to briefly introduce themselves in their first posting to the conference...Moderator]

The genetic blueprints of microbes, plants, and animals are engineered to improve the speed, efficiency, and productivity of crops and livestock. This fledging new technology has great benefits on one side and complex risks, dangers, and misgivings that might accompany the new technology on the other side. The transformation of global agriculture to a soil-less, efficient, abundant, and cheaper production of crops and fiber is anticipated. Also, "super animals" with enhanced traits for milk, meat, and wool production will be effectively produced in the near future. Production of novel transgenic animals is underway to serve as "chemical factories" to produce drugs, medicine, and as organ "donors" for human transplants.

There is no doubt that the developing countries will benefit from the new technology and food shortage may not be the primary concern of nations. However, there are also fears associated with the new technology revolution. Apart from human health and environmental impact concerns,

1) The giant multi-national biotechnology companies are trying to control over the future world economy. The rare genetic traits of plants and animals are the fuel and the driving force of the biotechnology revolution. The Southern Hemisphere is effectively the pivot or center of the diversified genetic resources. There is a general tendency and desire by the biotech companies to commercially enclose the global gene pool and modify it into a commodity for marketplace.

2) The biotech companies are seeking patent protection over their "inventions". The formation of the Intellectual Property Committee (IPC) by coalition of major biotech companies is not more than further planning to control the centers of genetic diversity. However, IPC makes no allowance for indigenous knowledge of native peoples in these countries. Many examples of the use of indigenous knowledge by the biotech companies can be found:

a) the rare perennial strain of maize that is resistant to leaf fungus was discovered in central Mexico. It solved the devastating effects of leaf fungus to U.S corn crop.
b) The rosy peri winkle plant was discovered in Madagascar rain forests. The plant contained a genetic trait used to treat certain kinds of cancer.
c) Thaumatin, a plant native to west Africa, contains protein the sweetest substance on earth. It is used by the native people as a sweetener for food. [Thaumatin is a natural sweetener found in the fruit of the West African plant, sweet prayer or katemfe...Moderator] d) Curare, an important surgical anesthetic and muscle relaxant, is derived from plant extract used by Amazonian Indians to stun prey.

The giant biotech companies are patenting these genetic resources and making billion of dollars profit but the countries where the genetic material is taken from have not received a penny compensation for the use of their natural resources. There is no doubt that the biotech companies are risking financial resources and years of research to bring about new valuable products and thus seeking patent protection. The same way, countries of the biologically-rich regions should protect their natural genetic resources and the indigenous knowledge of their native peoples. A sort of compensation and "share" has to be arranged and guaranteed.

The biotech companies will control the world's food and medicine in a decade or so. The differences between "invention" by the biotech companies and "pirating" of genetic resources and indigenous knowledge of native peoples are not quite clear. The darkest side of patenting of the "inventions" by the biotech companies is deprivation of the developing countries of their ability to use their natural resources. The lack of financial ability of the developing countries to purchase the biotech-invented products could jeopardize the existence of many peoples in the developing world.

Abdelgadir A. Ageeb
Quantitative Geneticist
Freelance,
Canada.
E-mail: aageeb@sympatico.ca

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 11:50 AM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: General comments on the Background Document

My name is Saliem Fakir, and I am currently the director of the South Africa Country Office for the World Conservation union.

I don't necessarily share Robert Lettington's assertion [Point 1) in message of 20 March...Moderator] that society loses a little by the granting of patents. Changes in IPR law over the last decade or so, show that the common interest principles that used to be a strong feature of different IPR mechanisms is losing ground for a IPR system that is conveying a stronger favour for private interest.

This has led some to comment that, in general, IPRs reflect a wider societal and political issue in that the notion of common property is fast being eroded by the ethic of private property. Soon people will forget that we had common property regimes and that the only legitimate type of property is private property. Property regimes, are a reflection of larger ideological movements. This ideology manifests as the idea that to house everything under a private property, is by nature efficient, just and leads to greater equity. Not much has been invested in coming up with suitable models of common property or hybrids of these. Because the prevailing ideology discounts such notions completely, by not putting a premium on possible mechanisms that continue to preserve in one way or the other the ethic of common property.

Some may argue that Gareth Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons is the final deadly blow to the idea of common property. But, there is much to common property than Hardin's theory does not adequately represent or has had the fecundity to grapple with. We must examine the ideological imperatives as to why common property systems or patent systems that allow greater access are being undermined for more restrictive measures? In the realm of intangibles, the boundary between what is private and common is a grey area, an area which has no boundary, which makes it all the more spurious to claim that one's right over the knowledge as a private entity should take precendence over the collective. To add insult to injury, discoveries are being raised to a higher altar of protection. This essentially, amounts, to use more emotive descriptions, to a form of expropriation of collective knowledge, by private firms, or the privatization of the collective. This is even tantamount to the expropriation of nature's information, when nature is there for the benefit of entire humankind.

Corporations would like to argue that patents are a way of rewarding their investment in research and development (R and D), which is of benefit to humankind. Well, patents serve two useful outcomes: guaranteed monopoly, and raising share value. If one compares R and D cost to spending on branding then one can see that in fact what the companies are protecting is not returns for R and D, but marketing cost.

Saliem Fakir, South Africa
sfakir@icon.co.za

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 1:49 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Animal genetic resources // Africa

This is from Clemens Wollny. I am working in the SADC (Southern Africa) region since the end of 1993, involved in the coordination of postgraduate training programmes in agriculture in SADC.

The failure of existing property rights systems in plant genetic resources (see Lesser 1998) to provide protection and benefits to local and indigenous communities is one of the more contentious issues of the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). [I assume the reference is to William Lesser of Cornell University, United States. Links to some of his publications can be found at http://www.cals.cornell.edu/aem/faculty_profiles/whl1.html ...Moderator]. IPR protection is applicable to animal genetic material with unique characteristics or for characteristics which can be induced through technological procedures, as specified by national and international patent regulations. A financial system would be then required to assist local and 'indigenous' communities, and procedures and regulations for the actual transfer of genetic material needs to be worked out. However, I have little hope of getting such a system functioning in the developing world.

The actual separation of ownership of genetic material from ownership of knowledge is a conceptual issue, which requires further discussion. 'Indigenous' knowledge: how do we define it? It could be even argued that a policy claiming property rights - in whatever form - for Farm Animal Genetic Resources (FANGR) material appears to be of little practical benefit for the livestock owner in developing countries. At present, the bulk of the genetic material is of no known use or function and has no present market value. The Boorola gene or the Tuli breed, which are often used as an example, have most likely not generated billions of dollars of profit. [The Boorola gene is a high fertility gene in sheep ; the Tuli is a cattle breed found in Southern Africa......Moderator].

Restrictive national policies on international research of animal genetic resources and their exchange are short sighted. We had cases where genuine research was prevented. Recently, policy statements providing a framework for the use of genetic resources, intellectual property rights and biotechnology were issued by the CGIAR centres (CGIAR 1999). The value of such a statement is to ensure that important genes or gene combinations are maintained in the public domain.

The problem in the discussion on IPR is that claiming unspecific property rights for the protection of indigenous genetic resources, which cannot be enforced, would appear to be quite useless and even counterproductive to research and development. Most African countries have no infrastructure to implement legislation on IPR for FANGR. On the other hand, national policy makers must be sensitised on the optional value of FANGR. A precautionary measure (e.g. applying a safe minimum standard of maintaining the FANGR as any other natural resource) would enable policy makers to develop adequate access legislation and genetic material transfer agreement as a response to new discoveries in biotechnology in future.

Clemens B A Wollny
Animal Scientist and Technical Advisor
SACCAR (Southern Africa Centre for Agricultural Research)
Botswana and
University of Malawi, Africa
clemenswollny@malawi.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod2
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 2:26 PM
To: 'biotech-room2@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: General comments on the Background Document

I am Derek Burke, the retired chair of the UK Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (1989 -1997) and an author of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics Report on 'Genetically Modified Crops: the ethical and social issues'. (to be found on the Web at www.nuffieldfoundation.org). I have followed the previous conferences and while my interests lie mainly in the European scene, I do want to correct a statement made by Robert Lettington [in point 6) of his message of 20 March...Moderator] in the first email of the series.

He makes two statements about golden rice which are not correct, and I suggest we would do well to have this sorted out at the beginning of this debate.

The first is about patents; a little while ago I shared a platform with Ingo Potrykus, the academic scientist who developed golden rice. He told me definitively that all the patent rights held by others had been donated and that the product is free of residual rights.

Secondly, the 9 kg figure for the amount that is said to be needed to supply an adequate intake of Vitamin A comes from Greenpeace and is incorrect. Potrykus has recently submitted a letter, entitled "New data on Vit.A uptake by children: Potrykus demands an answer from Greenpeace", about this to the email network run by Klaus Ammann out of Berne. (klaus.ammann@ips.unibe.ch). [Further comments on the amount of golden rice that should be consumed will not be discussed in this conference, as the focus here is IPRs...Moderator]

Professor Derek Burke
13,Pretoria Road
Cambridge CB4 1HD,
United Kingdom
Tel/Fax 01223 301159
email dcb27@cam.ac.uk

Return to Logs of Conference 6 or go to the main Forum pages. Note: you must join the Forum to participate in these discussions.