TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Consultant
SUBJECT: The Plumpy’nut Controversy
DATE: December 8th, 2014
INTRODUCTION
I would like to bring to your attention the trending controversy that has come about on patenting of Plumpy’nut®. A background check on developing countries has confirmed that less children are dying due to severe malnutrition and thus, showing the benefit of this Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food, RUTF (WHO 2010). Therefore, before further discussions about the patenting rights, I would like to give a small review on the impact of Plumpy’nut.
FACTS SUMMARY
A few facts revolving around the now popular Plumpy’nut are as follows: * It is very easy to make, even in developing countries, as all is needed is peanuts, powdered milk, sugar, minerals and vitamins to make a paste-like substance full of calories and nutrients to aid the poor and undernourished people. * The product is reaching out to about 2 million children in Niger but there are almost 105 million children across Africa, Haiti and other 3rd world countries that the product hasn’t yet reached. * Nutriset has Plumpy’nut patented in France in 2010 as its intellectual property, having developed it in 1977 and later by the U.S. in 2002 (USPTO, 2009). * Over 10 countries have companies that bear Nutriset’s licenses to produce Plumpy’nut (Nutriset 2010). * UNICEF gets 90% of its Plumpy’nut supply from Nutriset.
ETHICAL DILEMMA
Business ethics entails the study of what is right, wrong, fair, reasonable and acceptable in the domestic and international business world. Ethical problems and controversies therefore tend to pose a great concern and require different points of view in every case. In this case, the ethical dilemma revolves around the manufactures of Plumpy’nut, their rights to patent it and the hardships faced in third world countries in gaining access to it (which is what prompted other companies to fight against the patent).
ETHICAL ISSUES
With this simple breakdown of the impact of Plumpy’nut in several African countries written in the factual summary above, a few ethical issues arise from it and are broken down below: * Recognizing the work of inventors: this is usually done by giving them 20 years’ patent rights so that they can benefit from their work before allowing its duplication. The patenting policies governing the replication of this product manufacturing in developed countries is thus an ethical issue affecting of the manufacturers and inventors of the product, in this case, Nutriset. This is because, they need to be credited for their work since without this product, and millions of lives of children would still be at risk. Throwing away the patent policy will probably affect their business structure. * Humanitarian need to help prevent death of children: This is another ethical issue that counters the need to pay Nutriset and leave them the manufacturing rights all to themselves because the current production does not meet the targeted 100% population (UNICEF 2009). Their thousands of metric tons of Plumpy’nut can’t reach out all over developing countries which make up most of the world’s population today. This now gives a chance to neighboring investors to question the moral ethics in patenting the product. * Slander and Political Propaganda: This third ethical issue now targets the company as seen in the recent attacks in newspapers and Internet campaigns. These have so far prompted Nutriset to give user-agreement-patents to local companies for more distribution to humanitarian organizations. The quality may be compromised in the long run, but the court cases and bad publicity have put the company in the limelight, not as life savers but as deterrents to the same. The price will have to go down as a lot of competition will be encountered from the developed countries if the patent rights are overthrown.
SOLUTIONS
On the first ethical dilemma, I believe the Board should seek to get a pricing from the French and U.S. governments for the innovation in order to compensate the research work done and the great innovation. Is Nutriset more concerned with the benefits from Plumpy’nut only? Is expanding the business and getting more international support a solution to the patent policy? If so, the company can sit and draft new rules that counteract all negative limelight focused on them and offer to work with the humanitarian groups to boost production, Secondly, the patent probably stands in the way of saving more lives in the hard-to-reach regions and as a result, I would recommend you to think of ways in which the humanitarian issues are addressed so that the Company does not give the impression of obstructing healthy living. Is revising the patent an option? Provided it doesn’t affect the company goals, its amendment would work in favor of both the company and the public.
Lastly, Nutriset should seek further measures to curb the ongoing online controversy, not in the business view but in a more humanitarian approach. Campaigners should counter the ill publicity with amended policies or better still, educational material on patenting and the recent online changes made.
CONCLUSION
The question now becomes: would you rather save the company’s reputation and products altogether or is there going to be a compromise in the final press conference requested by the New York’s Times? Pursue other alternatives to the patent as the incentives explained above and avoid any statements that suggest a “money comes first” kind of approach. Address your genuine concern for the poor and attempt to lift the rules only in favor of developing countries just like you have for the 10 or so African nations. Plumpy’nut has saved many malnourished people, therefore let this be the guiding business spirit and let long-term considerations be made.
References
New York Times Magazine: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05Plumpy-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&. Accessed on 8 December 2014
The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/plumpynut-the-lifesaver-that-costs-well-peanuts-8783650.html accessed on 8 December 2014
World Health Organization, WHO 2010 report. Health in Central and West Africa. Web, 8 December 2014.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO 2009. Patent Full Text and Full Page Image Database 12 December 2009. Accessed on 8 December 2014.
Nutriset Website accessed on 8 December 2014.
United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF. A Supply Chain Analysis of RUTF for the Horn of Africa. “The Nutrition Articulation Project” May 2009 Print.
