I am no expert in the legal issues here, but Monsanto, Dow, Sygenta, etc. have been copyrighting genes to food crops as I understand it. However, these crops that they are utilizing, corn for example, represent an intellectual property. These are not wild, unaltered species, but species that have been transformed through thousands of years of plant breeding by indigenous peoples. It seems to me that these genes then, again say of commercial corn, should actually belong to the indigenous peoples if anyone, and more likely should belong to a creative commons. After all, we are currently only adding our own little breeding piece to a process that has taken thousands of years to undertake. Thought?
I believe that the modified gene that is inserted usually contains a characteristic that contains a trait from another species and such a transfer is not possible naturally. For eg Bt cotton contains a gene from bacteria.
Ah. So they are patenting naturally occurring genes? Or they are patenting the combination of that gene in the cotton?
Natural genes are not patentable. Only synthetic ones. To certain extent,the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) addresses the issue of sharing benefits of modern technologies in plant breeding and agbiotech. However, implementation is an issue. See the following link for more insights into the issue http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/publications/data/2002-08-02AnilKGupta.pdf.
Thank you Deepthi. The article seems essentially like a call for good conduct for bioprospecting within India. It did not seem to address the actual patenting of the genes, but in that case only the natural products themselves. Is this concept widely applicable outside of India?
What Biotech companies do is file for a patent for the INNOVATION, consisting in this case of GM plants the introduction of a gene or genes from another species. The patent represents the Property Right which is valid as long as the innovation is functional, i.e. if Monsanto has a Patent on Transgenic Soya Seeds, the patent is valid for the seed, but not for the by or co products.
At this respect, there was a leading case Ruling at the European Court of Justice about a claim that Monsanto filed against Cargill and Cefetra, because of the imports of RR Soya from Argentina, where Monsanto did not have a valid patent for this innovation. The ruling is available at the ECJ website and dates from July 2010.
Hope this information is useful
Thank you Alejandro. This is helpful in my understanding how they go around the issue of patenting the gene.
Don't mention it, Noa, hope it helps.
Let me know if I can be of any further assistance; I represented Argentina during the final stage of this case. It was a leading case, where it was defined the scope of the Patent along the agrifood chain. Helpful not only for Argentine farmers, but also for farmers around the world, because it's a very important precedent.
Regards, Alejandro
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Agriculture