In the article “The link between patenting life forms, genetic engineering and food security” (Review of African Political Economy, 1998) the author, Wangari Mathai, concludes that transnational corporations should be restrained to patent seeds using genetic engineering biotechnology. She supports her argument with the following claims. Firstly she reasons that corporations gain private monopoly rights on the raw biological materials by confiscating human resources without prior consent. Subsequently, the development of alternatives to the patented material is deliberately blocked. Secondly, Mathai highlights patenting a reason for food insecurity among farmers due to un-reusability of patented seeds. The seeds developed by genetically engineered technology does not germinate after harvesting, thereby, forcing the poverty ridden farmers to purchase seeds every season from the corporation. I agree with Mathai to some extent; however I feel that some of her reasoning requires further elaboration to make her argument more convincing. In my opinion, the author has failed to highlight on the fact that there might be a possible loss of cultural value and traditional community knowledge with limited or no compensation.

Patent monopolies on plant varieties threaten developing countries in three ways. First, by increasing prices so far that most citizens have zero access to these new developments; second, by blocking local production whenever the patent owner so chooses and lastly, by forbidding the farmers to continue breeding the seeds. However, the author has not provided enough evidence to substantiate her stand. For instance, Monsanto, a monopoly corporation in the United States, grows approximately 95 percent of all soybeans and approximately 80 percent of all corn from seeds genetically altered. An investigation by the Associated Press has revealed that Monsanto dominates the “multibillion- dollar market” for genetically altered seeds by exerting control over the survival of smaller seed companies. This indicates that Monsanto can increase the price of the genetically modified seeds without the fear of any competition. This subsequently would upset both the farmers and the consumers.

Mathai then associates the problem of food security with genetic engineering. Biotechnological norms today ensure that produced seeds are infertile as they are injected with the ‘suicide gene’. Because of this she claims that farmers are drawn into a financially vicious cycle- as a new stock of seeds would have to be purchased for every crop planted. Furthermore, to compensate for these financial woes, farmers turn to money fetching cash crops. However, this black and white picture of the poor farmers and the rich corporations that the author has given may not be true. She has not taken into account of Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which was enforced in 1993. According to the convention, it is compulsory for the corporations to ‘share equally’ the benefits arising from the commercial utilization of the genetic material with either the local communities or the government which provide them with such resources. For instance, W R Grace, a US patent, started importing neem seeds because of its medicinal value. The corporation had no intention of compensating its holders and developers in India. Hence, the patent was cancelled in accordance with CBD, which proclaims equitable sharing of benefits.

The author explains that the patent claimed by transnational companies is bound to disturb an established system somewhere in the world, be it related to food, medicine, livelihood or lifestyle. However, she has failed to analyze the loss of national wealth due to patenting by transnational corporations. For instance, an American corporation, RiceTec Inc., got its monopoly on some varieties of basmati rice. This had grave ramifications for India and Pakistan because not only they lose out on the 45,000 tonne US import market, which forms 10 percent of the total Basmati exports, but also its position in crucial markets like the European Union. Moreover, Dr Vandana Shiva, director of a Delhi-based research foundation, claims that:
“theft involved in the Basmati patent is, therefore, threefold: a theft of collective intellectual and biodiversity heritage on Indian farmers, a theft from Indian traders and exporters whose markets are being stolen by RiceTec Inc., and finally a deception of consumers since RiceTec is using a stolen name Basmati for rice which are derived from Indian rice but not grown in India, and hence are not the same quality”
In addition, there might be a possible loss of cultural value and traditional indigenous knowledge. Moreover, Mathai has overlooked the influence of changing climate on the seeds. The genetic diversity of plants and the practices of farming communities are the most important resources for adapting local agriculture to a changing climate, although biotech proselytizers have been preaching that only genetic engineering can beget crops that will survive climate change.

The threat from biopiracy lies in four facts: that knowledge and / or genetic resources belonging to a region, community or country is stolen or claimed as one's own; that the use of this knowledge or genetic resource in the area of its origin or traditional usage may be hampered or sought to be prevented; that the patent holder will unfairly profit from the patent. Moreover, it is wrong for biotech companies to convert the world's natural genetic resources into private monopolies--but the wrong is not a matter of taking someone else's rightful property, it is a matter of privatizing what ought to be public

Words : 878