Agricultural Technology Could Feed Rising Population, But Who Will Own Crops? 20/03/2009 by Kaitlin Mara for Intellectual Property Watch and Catherine Saez 3 Comments Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)The genetic revolution has come to food, as debates over how to deal with future pressures of population and climate change look to agricultural technology in hope of answers. But questions still remain over who owns the technology, who will do the research, and what forms of – and even whether – biotechnology is appropriate to human needs and the needs of smallholding farmers. “Agriculture has to stop being a problem; it has to become a solution,” said Ioan Negrutiu, biology professor at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in Lyon, France. Solutions will rely on industry, said Jérome Péribère, President of DowAgroSciences US. “Science is going to make it happen, or it won’t happen.” These questions were discussed at two sessions of the 8-11 March BioVision life sciences conference in Lyon. “There are two forms of regulation” on this type of science: biosafety, and IP rights, said Piet van der Meer of the Public Research and Regulation Initiative, a foundation which attempts to bring public researchers into regulatory debates relevant to biotechnology development. Of course in agriculture, “it’s a bit more complex than just IPRs” he added. The Geneva-based International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), access and benefit-sharing frameworks such as under the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources, and farmers’ rights also play a role. There are serious questions over “who then owns these new varieties” of plants, said Janet Cotter, senior scientist at the Greenpeace International Science Unit at the University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. The Need For Seeds and the Role of IP “We need to double global food production in about 40 years,” said Willy de Greef, secretary general of Europabio, an association of European biotechnology firms. “We need crops … [that can] adapt to suboptimal, unpredictable climactic conditions.” “IPR is crucial for innovation, [and] for protecting and advancing crop genetics,” said Michiel van Lookeren Campagne, head of research of Bayer CropScience’s BioScience Business Unit, saying “in countries such as Argentina, which has a poor IP regime, companies like ours are placing very little emphasis. It is hard for them to get modern agricultural technology” as a result. Others had more mixed views. Van der Meer said that on the issue that “you ask one public researcher and he loves it [IP] and another hates it because it impedes her research.” His Public Research and Regulation Initiative has recently begun a working group on IP rights and plant genetic resources. Where intellectual property may play a key role is in determining what kind of agricultural solutions get explored and promoted. Organic farming, and other forms of low-input agriculture, could help increase food security, said Cotter. However, she later told Intellectual Property Watch, “the business model is lacking there.” Van Lookeren Campagne explained “we don’t breed for organic farmers because we can only sell that seed once.” And “businesses will invest in R&D if there’s added value in that R&D.” The difficulty, said Cotter, is that “you want incentives for innovation. But you also want farmers to save seed.” Many basic patents are in public hands, said de Greef, so it could be possible to carve out rights from that intellectual property for humanitarian causes. Picking The Right IP Plant variety protection is a more variegated than just patent protection. Two major international agreements – the UPOV agreement, the World Trade Organization Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement – regulate a series of IP rights for plant varieties, including plant breeders’ rights, patent protection and the poorly-defined sui generis (or in-kind) proposals for protection (see the 2004 Food and Agriculture Organization report “Intellectual Property Rights In Plant Varieties” for more detail). “Diversity is key” in crop technology, said Marion Guillou, CEO of public agricultural research centre Institut National de Recherche Agronomique (INRA) in France. “But you need to know what you have and what your freedom is to use it.” There are special rights on plant varieties, she explained. Seed breeders in the US use patents to protect their innovations, but European seed breeders rely more on plant breeders’ rights (a type of IP protection that notably exempts those who wish to use a protected variety for further research), Guillou said. INRA prefers this approach as it does not restrict use of genetic resources for further breeding. INRA does use patents but never on a gene sequences, she said. INRA also is coordinating a patent pooling project. Launched in 2006, it aiming at setting up a collective network for the management of patents and other exploitable assets held by European public research organisations in the field of agricultural biotechnologies, Guillou said. Technology, Tradition, Or Both For Agricultural Future? “No single technology can solve these complex issues by itself, neither organic nor biotech,” said van der Meer. “Biotechnology alone cannot build the future of all agricultures,” added Negrutiu. But to the extent that biotechnology is part of the future, there are different forms it might take. “Our planet needs GMOs [Genetically Modified Organisms] urgently,” said Marc Van Montagu, chairman of the Institute of Plant Biotechnology for Developing Countries in Belgium. He discovered with his colleague Jeff Schell the gene transfer mechanism between agrobacterium and plants, which resulted in the creation of transgenic (or, genetically modified) plants. The increase of global meat consumption will bring the need for more crops, he said. “With GMOs we can grow plants organically, with less fertiliser, less pesticides … they are very ecological plants,” he said, adding they could provide sustainability and support biodiversity. Patents are the only way to get the industry’s interest, he added, but the fact that there are so many patents is leading to a setback for research. INRA does not work on GMO innovations any longer due to the public perception of this technology in Europe, Guillou said. They are working more on genomics (the study of the genomes of organisms) and gene markers. “There are other ways for innovation than GMOs,” she said. Marker-assisted selection – which uses knowledge of genetics to improve on traditional plant breeding – is one such area. Marker-assisted selection is “more of a grey area” for patenting, said Cotter, but its ability to work with the complexity of a genome – in which a gene’s position might be just as important as the trait expressed in isolation – is more applicable to modern agricultural needs. “GM crops aren’t part of the future,” she added. It is not about being for or against GMOs, “we have to get out of the extremes,” said Timothy Hall, acting director for biotechnologies, agriculture and food research at the European Commission. A package of technologies should be used, including traditional agriculture. Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Related Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.Catherine Saez may be reached at csaez@ip-watch.ch."Agricultural Technology Could Feed Rising Population, But Who Will Own Crops?" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
S TREND says 22/03/2009 at 10:48 am The Future of Food I urge everyone to watch the Documentary, “The Future of Food” on Link TV. The schedule is as follows and is aired on; DIRECTV Channel 375 | DISH Network Channel 9410: (IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO WATCH IT LIVE, THEN I URGE YOU TO VIDEO TAPE IT, OR USE YOUR TIVO, DIGITAL VIDEO RECORDER WITH DISH NETWORK OR DIRECTTV) This is TOO important to miss. Airdates; Time-zone: P M C E for viewing of “The Future of Food” is as follows: *Sunday, March 22nd 05:00 am *Sunday, March 22nd 04:30 pm *Monday, March 23rd 10:30 am *Monday, March 23rd 11:00 pm *Tuesday, March 24th 08:00 pm *Thursday, March 26th 08:00 pm *Friday, March 27th 04:00 am The trailer for “The Future of Food” can be viewed at http://www.thefutureoffood.com/trailer.htm which will give you an idea how important this video is. This video is also for sale at ww.thefutureoffood.com/ About the interviewer: Andrew Kimbrell Andrew Kimbrell is the director of the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. He is an attorney, activist, and an author. Andrew Kimbrell discusses the following: • What is bioengineering? • Patenting • Global effects of GMOs & Patenting • The Revolving Door • The Future of Food Synopsis of the film, “The Future of Food”: Wheat Harvester in Saskatchewan, Canada. There is a revolution happening in the farm fields and on the dinner tables of America — a revolution that is transforming the very nature of the food we eat. “THE FUTURE OF FOOD” offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade. From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply. Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, “THE FUTURE OF FOOD” examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world’s food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Additionally, live bacteria and fungus are being used (bio-control) for eradication of crop diseases; i.e.; fungus, bacteria, as well as used for insect control. To see a photo of this at microscopic level, please see the link; http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2001/01/29/BU138020.DTL&o=0)/ppBIO-PESTICIDE WHERE ARE THE MICROORGANISMS FOR BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS FOUND? Are you aware where these microorganisms are sought? Biotechnology companies have made very public just where they search for these microorganisms (novel); in soil, plants, plant roots, lichen, leaves and/or it’s litter, mulch and other decaying organic matter, fruit, bird feathers, dead insects, lake beds, forests, dunes and ocean caves, animals from terrestrial sources, marine sources (sponges, sea urchins, etc.) insects of all kinds, rain forests, jungles, dry creek beds, orchards, farm fields, and gardens. They have published they have microorganisms from New Zealand, the Amazon, Mexico, Honduras, and Micronesia to name just a few, and this is only what has been published. Our food; Spinach, lettuce, tomato’s, peppers, peanuts and now alfalfa have been invaded by e-coli and salmonella. ALL of these crops have had bio-control products used on them. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Prior to this there was the scare about melamine with regard to food safety. Melamine too can be associated with bio-control products. Biotechnology companies have been using melamine for micro capsule’s (of fungus, bacteria, virus) for long term pest control in biopesticides, biofungicides, bioinsecticides etc. for a long time. (Microcapsule according to claim 21, wherein said capsule shell is formed by condensation of formaldehyde with at least one of urea and melamine.) ___ I refer you to only one patent which reveals this; United States Patent 6506397 – which in part states: Abstract: The present invention features a sustained-release microcapsule for long-term pest controlling. In general, a microcapsule has a capsule core including active pest-control ingredients and diluents, and a capsule shell which physically separates the capsule core from the surrounding medium. Diluents are arranged to entrap active ingredients therein and to provide resistance to mass transfer of the active ingredients therethrough. The capsule shell generally includes the shell pores and provides additional resistance to mass transfer of the active ingredient therethrough. Diluents are selected from a class of material such that the mass transfer resistances existing in the capsule core and/or capsule shell depend on the temperature of the surrounding medium. 23. Microcapsule according to claim 21, wherein said capsule shell is formed by condensation of formaldehyde with at least one of urea and melamine. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ What is the ecological effects of these microorganisms mixing with the microorganisms that are endemic to the United States? With the use of bio-control products, once they are in our native soil… they don’t leave. And also of importance is the material used to make the capsule shell for the delivery of bio-control product; formaldehyde, urea, and melamine. What are the ecological effect of our farm soils from these? And last, but not least I wish to reference the Netherlands, Institute of Food Safety report that was written in 2006 which clearly indicates that the ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASE OF CERTAIN GENETICALLY ENGINEERED (GE) ORGANISMS and natural organisms (or of natural origin) for the purpose of plant disease and/or insect control is being found to not be as safe as had been expected with regard to human health and the environment. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Netherlands, Institute of Food Safety report EXCERPTS: Appendix 2: Case study on pesticides of natural origin M. J. Groot, G.A. Kleter The common assumption that “natural” means safe is not always true. Some organic pesticides are non-toxic to humans, but others are as toxic, or even more toxic than many synthetic chemical pesticides. Organic pesticides may form an emerging risk due to unexpected toxicity because of intrinsic factors or due to different behavior in the environment. In this study, two types of organic or biological pesticides are discussed: 1) pesticides based on plant extracts and 2) pesticides based on viable micro-organisms (bio-pesticides). The latter group of pesticides is formed by the bio-pesticides, which are based on living micro-organisms used for control of disease. Moreover, the regulatory position of bio-pesticides in the EU is discussed. Classes of biological pesticides Sudakin (2003) divides bio-pesticides into 3 classes: 1) microbial pesticides like bacteria, fungi, algae, viruses, and protozoa; 2) genetic incorporation of DNA in plants to protect against insects; and 3) biochemical pesticides that consist of naturally occurring chemicals that are active against pests. In this review, only the first class is discussed in the section about bio-pesticides, whereas the third class is discussed in the section about pesticides based on plant extracts. The GMO-based pesticides fall beyond the scope of this review. Introduction The recommendations on the issue of pesticides of natural origin include: 2c) to take into account that living organisms used as biopesticides may constitute new hazards because of their ability to multiply after application. Biopesticides Biopesticides are an important group of pesticides that can reduce pesticide risks. In general, they have a narrow target range and a very specific mode of action, are slow-acting, have relatively critical application times, suppress rather than eliminate a pest population, have limited field persistence and a short shelf life. Moreover, they are regarded as safer to humans and the environment than conventional pesticides and as presenting no residue problems (Dewhurst, 2001). Mechanisms of action Biopesticides can suppress pests like insects, weeds, and plant pathogens by producing toxins specific to the pest causing a disease, preventing establishment of other microorganisms through competition, antagonism, and hyperparasitism of certain microorganisms (Montesinos, 2003). The most common approach is to proliferate and apply high numbers of pest antagonists or pest pathogens that directly attack the target organisms. Insect viruses, weed pathogens as herbicides, and several insect- or pathogen targeted bacteria and fungi have been tested (Gerhardson, 2002). Several of such commercial products are on the market, such as a preparation of the fungus Conithyrium minitans for pathogen sclerotia, a strain of Bacillus subtilis against fungal pathogens and, most popular, strains of Bacillus thuringienses for insect control (Gerhardson, 2002). Another method is selective protection of the infection sites, which can overlap with the pest attacking approach. Here microorganisms are used that can colonize specific substrates or sites where they can compete for nutrients, space, or siderophore production with the pathogens (Raaijmakers et al., 1995). Residues of biopesticides When viable micro-organisms are used after application the organisms may grow or multiply and change morphologically or biochemically due to environmental influences. This is in contrast to non-viable residues, which decrease in time. This effect has to be monitored closely. Bio-pesticides’ unpredictable behavior in the environment may pose an emerging risk. Discussion Although natural pesticides are generally less toxic than synthetic compounds, unnaturally high levels of natural toxins could cause adverse effects on the environment. Microbial bio-pesticides have a lower risk of insect resistance than chemical insecticides and their use is increasing (Sudakin, 2003). Bio-pesticides have the ability to multiply and may alter after application which may give rise to new risks. Microbial pesticides may affect the health of the consumer or people exposed to them in several ways including infectious and immunological mechanisms. These organisms are very complex and ill-understood concerning working mechanism, toxin production, specificity, and fate in the environment. This means that they may present a new type of hazard both for the environment and public health (Sudakin, 2003). General recommendations on organic pesticides Bio-pesticides containing living organisms may present a new type of hazard both for the environment and public health due to their ability to multiply in the environment and need further investigation. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Clearly, the world needs to stand up to the corporations who have now put our very existence at risk. Without food we die; everything dies except bacteria and fungus. Is this what you want to leave to your children and grandchildren? Everyone has to find their voice and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Lincoln said, There is a court of law, and then there’s the court of public opinion. Are we going to be shoved around to the point of extinction, or are we going to stand up to the wrongs that has befallen the citizens of this world and try to undo what has already been done? We are not lab rats and our lives count too…. each and everyone of us. Reply
[…] Intellectual Property Watch | This work is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 […] Reply
[…] Perhaps i’m over exaggerating, but what if patented genetic modified seeds would spread and a farmer would grow them? Of who would his crops be, even if he has never bought those seeds? I have searched for studies about what i’m thinking and these are some things that i have found http://www.ip-watch.org/2011/03/30/us-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-gmo-patents-demand-right-to-conventional-crops/ http://www.ip-watch.org/2009/03/20/agricultural-technology-could-feed-rising-population-but-who-will… and for your information, this is how it’s spreading: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gmo/full_en.pdf . […] Reply