Genetically Modified (GM) Food

Picciotto, Sol s.picciotto at lancaster.ac.uk
Mon Mar 1 11:05:00 PST 1999


Just a couple of comments on the IPR (intellectual property rights) aspects. Though I'm generally sympathetic to the arguments of those wanting to try to restrict Monsanto from subjecting science to profits, I'm not sure that blocking patent protection would help. A requirement of patent protection is publication of the specification, so at least it becomes public knowledge - the alternative is commercial confidentiality. I suspect that Monsanto has a lot more up its scientific sleeve than it has publicised. If a particular technology is hard to keep secret (because reverse-engineering is possible), then this creates an incentive to speed up commercialisation, get the products out quick, to keep ahead of the competition. Although the ideological support for IPRs is commonly said to be the need for the incentive of monopoly profits to encourage innovation, I believe there is some economic research that indicates that without such protection the incentive to innovate may be as high or higher. Authors like Doug don't really need copyright as an incentive to keep writing, and they could get an income through control of initial publication of their texts. Mass-market authors and publishers would have reduced incomes without copyright protection, as they would be forced to issue cheaper editions.

On a point made earlier in this debate, patents can be both for a product or process. The main issue in relation to GMOs is the fundamental one that patents are only available for new inventions, not discoveries. This translates into the distinction made in the TRIPs agreement, which allows WTO members to exclude from patentability 'plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and micro-biological processes' (although plant varieties can be protected either by patents or by specific provisions). Can any more scientifically-minded contributors here comment on whether this distinction between biological and microbiological processes is valid?

Based on this, the EU last year passed a Directive giving patent protection to biotechnological inventions, but excluding 'essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals'. It specifically includes 'biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by a technical process' presumably meaning a DNA string, though the other requirements of patentability would have to be met, i.e. industrial applicability - you have to show what it can do.

But countries can still refuse patent protection where exploitation would be considered immoral - and the EU directive says cloning human beings comes into this category.

cheers

sol


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Henwood [SMTP:dhenwood at panix.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 1999 3:57 PM
> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: Re: Genetically Modified (GM) Food
>
> Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> >The way out of this quagmire is to destroy the copyright and patent
> >laws that form the legal foundation for this corporate exploitation.
>
> As someone who earns a living of sorts as a writer, I'm not too
> enthusiastic about junking copyright law. Is there any way to undermine
> Monsanto without undoing us humble scribblers?
>
> Doug



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list