|
|
|
BIOTECHNOLOGY |

Who
controls
the rice genie? |
| In January 2001, the entire genome of
rice was mapped, the first major cereal crop to have its genetic code unraveled. This feat
was accomplished by Myriad Genetics of the US and Syngenta of Switzerland. These two
companies now hold the key to the future of rice harvests in Asia. |
The Patent and the Poor
So the rice genome doesn't go to Asia. Big deal. The
developed world is patenting most of the developing world's biodiversity anyway. So what's
so different this time around? Well, the difference is that 80 per cent of the world's
rice is grown by small-scale farmers in low-income and developing countries. And they
can't afford to pay for new expensive technology. Syngenta had declared that it
wouldnt be patenting the rice gene, but would patent "any useful processes that
may be related to the gene". But it's not as simple as it sounds.
Controlling the Rice Gene
The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Trade
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) gives multinationals the right to
claim absolute ownership over rice through patents.
Today, there are more than 600 biotech patents on rice genes, plants and breeding
methods all over the world. Western corporations and research labs hold 90 per cent of
these patents. So in effect, they can control and force Asian farmers to pay for the use
of genetic resources and knowledge which originated from them.
The famous Basmati case is one such example (See
box Basmati Blues).
Another example is the promise of "Golden rice". This rice is genetically
engineered to produce high levels of beta-carotene, which helps reduce Vitamin A
deficiency, a leading cause of blindness among poor Asian children.
But even the patent for that is with the West.
| Chinese
scientists bred the world's first hybrid rice in 1974 |
Power to the Farmers
Most genebanks are held by corporations which the common
farmer has no access to. Community genebanks, on the other hand, secure people's control
over genetic resources. Seeds can be produced locally, protecting the farmers' autonomy.
At WSF 2003, Canadian farmer
Percy Schmeiser gave a moving testimonial on patents. But who is he? In 1998, Schmeiser
was sued by Monsanto for patent rights violations, allegedly for using Monsanto's
genetically modified rapeseed without legally purchasing it. Schmeiser claims the rapeseed
came to his farm as a result of "contamination" wind blown seeds from
other farms taking root on his soil. Monsanto says how the seeds got there doesn't matter, it's their
property and they asked for $400,000 in damages for patent infringement! |
One such bank is the Konkan rice project in Maharashtra. It started when farmers
noticed stagnation in rice yields, despite putting more fertilisers, pesticides and
herbicides. They found that rice cultivation based on minimal genetic diversity led pest
proliferation, which in turn called for more pesticides.
So some 250 seeds of indigenous varieties in the region
were collected, catalogued and stored. The project, which evolved under the guidance of Dr
RH Richharia, breeds hybrids to improve productivity. Several successful crosses have been
performed. Cloning technology is practiced for large-scale multiplication of rice seeds.
And all this is easily accessible to local farmers.
There are more than 600 biotech
patents on rice genes, plants and breeding methods
It is in community genebanks that the Asian farmers have the best chances for
controlling future rice yields.
Thats the best chance that they can take on the multinationals and protect their
own interests.
Basmati
Blues
In 1997, RiceTec, an American multinational, was granted the right to call a variety of
aromatic rice 'Basmati'. Since Basmati has been grown for centuries in the foothills of
the Himalayas, this flagrant act of biopiracy was met surprise and angry protests in India
and Pakistan. But at stake is the multi-crore rupee export market to West. India alone
exported 8.48 lakh tonnes of basmati rice in 2000-01. (RiceTec filed for the patent in
1994, but the government of India did not take any action for the 3 years that the patent
was pending)RiceTec also chose to name a brand 'Jasmati', even though it has no genetic
relation to Thai Jasmine rice or Indian Basmati. Thailand claims that the usage of the
term will purposely mislead consumers into believing that its rice is a cross between the
two varieties.
More than five million farmers in Thailand depend on Jasmine rice for a living. Their
livelihood is in danger if RiceTec eats into the Jasmine rice market. |
| Community
genebanks could protect the farmers' autonomy |
|
|