Members Of Human Rights Expert Committee At UN Question Patents On Food

07/08/2009 by Kaitlin Mara for Intellectual Property Watch 7 Comments

A group of experts working as a think-tank for the United Nations Human Rights Council raised the issue of patents and food at a meeting this week. Meanwhile, a new report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food expected to be available at the end of August will focus on the intersection between intellectual property and the human right to food.

“Right to food is one of the human rights that was most violated,” despite its being “Millennium Development Goal number one,” said Jean Ziegler, the vice-chairperson of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee and the former UN special rapporteur on the right to food from 2000-2008. The expert body met from 2-7 August in Geneva.

The world produces enough food to feed twice its human population, yet one billion people still lack access to adequate food, Ziegler added, according to an unofficial record of the event.

The advisory committee takes its mandate from the HRC, and covers a variety of human rights issues. Its latest task on the right to food is to “examine discrimination in the context of the right to food; best practice in terms of policy; and strategies to combat discrimination,” according to a 5 August unofficial record.

To that end, there were two reports produced by the committee, one on Noma [pdf] – a disfiguring and usually fatal disease affecting primarily undernourished children between the ages of 1 and 6 years old – and one on the exploitation of so-called “peasant farmers” [pdf]. After some debate over whether or not these reports had satisfied the mandate, expert members of the committee discussed other ways in which discrimination harms the right to food.

Jose Antonio Bengoa Cabello, the advisory committee’s vice-chairperson, said good practices must include “addressing issues related to toxic food, genetically modified seeds; education systems and food security; peasants’ control of intellectual property related to food; microfinance for poor women, which gave very good results; and good practices related to the urban poor,” according to a 6 August press release.

At least two experts called into question the impact on food security of other international bodies, such as the World Trade Organization. “The policies of the World Trade Organization could be seen as discouraging food security and production,” said Dheerujlall Seetulsingh, the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission of Mauritius, according to the 5 August unofficial record.

And “the issue of patents and copyrights in the production of food and the ownership of scientific agricultural data developed by developing countries and then appropriated by richer countries” should be further examined, he added.

Seetulsingh also called on governments and international organisations to “provide incentives and scientific know-how for small farmers to produce” staple crops, especially where the climate had made such production difficult.

Melik Ozden of the research institute Centre Europe-Tiers Monde (Europe Third World Centre) spoke of the Via Campesina, an international movement for the rights of farmers.

“Farmers had always been and continued to be the primary victims of the violation of the right to food,” Ozden said. “Thousands were killed each year defending their right to land, water, seeds, and means of production. For decades, these crimes had been committed in the name of neo-liberal policies for the benefit of international organisations.”

“Via Campesina had been created to defend the rights and liberties of millions of farmers, with and without land, and to defend them from criminal liberalisation of the food market as promoted by the World Trade Organization. Via Camepesina thought the current system of defence of human rights was insufficient to defend farmers, who were expelled from their lands, killed, and deprived of seeds through patents,” Ozden added, according to the unofficial record.

There were also several mentions of genetically modified organisms, which have historically caused debate not only due to concerns about their health and environmental impact but over the ability to then own seeds.

The conclusion of the advisory committee was to request the HRC assign the task of coming up with a comprehensive study on discrimination and the right to food to the committee’s drafting group on the right to food.

Special Report on the Right To Food

Meanwhile, also expected to report to the HRC soon is the new UN special rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier de Schutter. His 2009 report focuses on intellectual property rights in the food system. It is currently in the editing process, and is expected to be available by the end of August, secretariat sources said.

In 2008, de Schutter submitted an interim report [pdf] on the right to food via the director general to the UN General Assembly. In it, he said that the requirements of the WTO Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement “will have considerable implications across the food system.”

“The result of the strengthened protection of intellectual property rights at the global level, if it is indeed extended to plant varieties and seeds, would be to reinforce the control of corporations claiming such rights in the global food system,” de Shutter’s report said.

Patenting plant varieties in particular would cause dependence on the part of agricultural producers on prices set by companies, and a decrease in biodiversity due to increased use of a single kind of seed.

The new report will be an in-depth examination of IP and food, including recommendations to ensure the balance between protecting intellectual property and protecting the right to food and the rights of farmers is maintained. The report is expected to be delivered to the General Assembly in October, according to a source.

Kaitlin Mara may be reached at kmara@ip-watch.ch.

"Members Of Human Rights Expert Committee At UN Question Patents On Food" by Intellectual Property Watch is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Comments

wackes seppi says

09/08/2009 at 5:21 pm

No doubt interesting, but does it – “it” being the first part on the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee, the second being obviously a filler – warrant a piece?

The catchy title “Members Of Human Rights Expert Committee At UN Question Patents On Food” is in any event hyperbolic. Reading the daily press releases from UNHCHR, one would indeed be hard pressed to find any “questioning” of patents.

The final outcome of the meeting on the right to food was, as reported: “The Committee recommended that the Council assign the task of the preparation of the study on ‘Discrimination in the context of the Right to Food’, as mandated by the Council in its resolution 10/12, to the existing Drafting Group on the right to food.” (See: http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/D4B3C094E06CF8CBC125760B0048884F?opendocument.) Big deal!

There is no reference in the daily press releases to substantive discussions on the right to food, yet alone “patents on food” (whatever that means).

Jose Antonio Bengoa Cabello did not make any substantive recommendation, as suggested by the passage in IP-Watch “good practices must include”, but described the layout of a proposed document. The chapeau of his intervention, as recorded, reads (sic): “…said with regard to the study on discrimination in the context of the right to food, he stressed that this was a guide framework and not a recommendation. The Working Group on the right to food proposed a framework which included focus on three main themes: …. The second theme of focus was on good practices: … addressing issues related to toxic food…”

As for Melik Ozden, Dheerujlall Seetulsingh – the only speaker who referred to intellectual property, but in terms of “further examining” rather than “questioning” – and Jean Ziegler, there is no way of knowing more from the UNHCHR website since the 5 August press release (assuming there was one) is no longer online.

Reply
Eduardo dela Pena says

10/08/2009 at 6:48 am

Pls consider the human right of DVD , Music CD owner on WTO decision for Antigua to violate US copywrite protection. Consider also the US small farmer breeders right to livelihood per articles on.Economic recovery for the rural areas and small businessmen”at 333chamfil.
surf: US vs Antigua WTO online gambling Bush Uigea for proof of this article. Cockfighting federal law appear similar unfair trade.
Need Pres Obama attention.
US lost to Antiqua in the UIGEA unfair trade dispute. US offered the small Caribean Nation $500.000 compensation and refuse to pursue online horse racing.
The World Trade Organization panel awarded the right for Antigua to violate US copyright protection. Antiqua can now produce copies of U.S. DVDs and music CDs without having to worry about copyright infringement up to $21 million every year.
It’s a landmark moment for global trade. Mark Mendel, lead lawyer quote “That has only been done once before and is, I believe, a very potent weapon.”
In response to the arbitrator’s decision the U.S. has requested Antigua hold off on imposing sanctions authorized by the WTO until Washington can revise its commitments to the organization. What happen if Antiqua decides to implement the WTO decision? ZookZ (zookz.com) has announced plans to capitalize on the 2007 WTO ruling
Comment: Using US patent rights a ” stake” in global trade issue should be a concern of Congress in Patent Reform Act of 2009.
The simmering dispute escallated into Goliath.- Recent development in the fight against the UIGEA have mushroomed into:
a) word that the Poker Players Alliance (PPA) is considering filing a class action lawsuit against the government over the UIGEA.
b) Violation of Trade Agreements. June 14, 2009, Amy Calistri
On June 10th, the European Commission released a report finding that U.S. online gaming laws and their enforcement are in violation of the World Trade Organization’s General Agreement of Trade and Services (GATS)..
The report made it perfectly clear that there are high costs associated with U.S. infractions, citing the losses in revenue and stock market capitalization incurred by European companies who had to vacate the U.S. market.
c).Seven countries now including Australia, Canada and Macau have filed compensation claims against the United States in its ongoing internet gambling WTO case with Antigua and Barbuda.
Rep Barney Frank Statement on European Commission’s Report on U.S. Internet Gambling Laws.
. The report concludes that the U.S. measures constitute an obstacle to trade that is inconsistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules …..”This is further argument for repealing the law which currently restricts the personal freedom of American adults to gamble online.
Comments: If on line gambling restricts personal freedom of American, does cockfight does the same? But online is funded by the rich and cockfighting by the poor. Gambling research on the bible: God wagered with Satan on the Book of Job.

Of Pres Obama’s Spirit of innovation, applied on [deleted] level Bush: Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act: American , Texan can certainly invent humane non lethal cockfighting glove to satisfy the animal lovers and restore the 3,000 years historical sport. Sen Frank Shurden of Oklahoma state legislation on non lethal cockfight was logical and futuristic.
An Inventor, author of this article awaits the USDA reply from his offer to ease the suffering of Rural America from escallating unemployment. which resulted from legislation prohibiting breeders’ interstate and foreign transport of their product.The inventor narrates the economic situation and solution for job creation in its articles on 333chamfil.newsvine.com entitled “Economic recovery for the rural areas and small businessmen” and “Challenge to athletics, couches”. The Rooster Electronic Invention can be jumpstarted anywhere and can apply online license in the Carribean but prefer US. Surf Yahoo.video for prototypes and search for cockfighting alternative, cockfight skills and High score wins. The invention proposes an ONLINE Roosterbox. Browse : roostertronic2.webs.com
Intellectual Property Office Phil.* Rooster Electronic Boxing * Application No. : 1200002498 * Published IPO Official Gazette *Inventor : Eduardo De La Peña
　
　

Reply
IDBIIP says

25/08/2009 at 2:13 pm

> yet alone “patents on food” (whatever that means)

One would presume that means patents on genetically modified organisms. You know, like modern Monsanto seed patents.

I’m pretty sure that there are more than a few famous cases of it, like the one where some farmer availed himself of the patented seeds because he used Roundup, and the genetically modified seeds that blew onto his property were bred for Roundup resistance.

And that’s just the most infamous case. I’m sure you can find more if you want to.

Reply
wackes seppi says

26/08/2009 at 5:27 pm

Many thanks for this explanation. But “patents on food” also includes, for instance, a patent on a process for the production of chewing gum, and even on the packaging of such chewing gum, etc.

The point here is that the reporting standards for journalists require them to “make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent.”

Reply
Kaitlin Mara says

28/08/2009 at 3:21 pm

Dear Wackes (if this is your real name),

Thank you for your comments. To briefly respond:

First, we didn’t consider either part of the article to be filler. Rather, we thought both the report and the mention during the Advisory Committee meeting were part of a trend of human rights bodies at the UN discussing IP issues (see our other articles on related topics here) that we thought worth calling our readers’ attention to.

Secondly, the 5 August document to which we refer was not a press release (and we didn’t call it that) but an unofficial record of the discussions sent to journalists. This may be why it does not appear online. We have quoted from it accurately.

Thirdly, “Patents on Food” was an editorial decision, and we do not consider this headline misleading. As the other unknown commentator, IDBIP, noted, patents are sometimes on genetically modified organisms and as you noted, patents are also sometimes on the production processes for food. Packaging of food, I believe, would generally fall under the trademark or industrial design category. In this particular instance we are discussing the relationship between patents and the right to food.

I hope this helps to answer your questions.

Best,
Kaitlin

Reply
Zenebe Bogale says

26/11/2009 at 7:01 pm

IP needs to be protected strictly in this modern time.The practice is not being effective.AS on one hand it is significant for developement of technology and on the other hand modern technology paved the for infringementof IP right it needs great work at international level.

Reply