biopiracy

1. BIOPIRACY
BY NEELANJANA PAUL

2. Introduction:
Developed countries are exploiting developing
countries’ genetic resources and indigenous
communities’ traditional knowledge in the name
of patent on inventions derived from those
genetic resource and traditional knowledge.
This leads to the biopiracy where after
exploiting the genetic resources and traditional
knowledge the patentee does not give any
authorization or compensation to the country
from where it ha exploited the genetic resource
and indigenous communities’ traditional
knowledge.

3. Definition of biopiracy:
It can be defined as (unauthorized or
uncompensated) appropriation and commercial
exploitation of genetic resources in Developing
Countries and/or traditional knowledge of
indigenous communities by corporations, mostly
from Developed Countries, which seek then
“monopoly control”, usually patents, over these
resources or inventions derived from these
resources.

4. How does it happens?
An inventor, claims their ‘intellectual property rights’ over a
particular product, usually by taking patent that protects their
product by allowing the inventor to prevent other people from
making, using or selling the product without permission.
 The inventor applies for a patent from the governments of the
territories over which he wants to assert his rights to prevent
others from using his invention, to apply for an international patent
that will apply in as many countries as the inventor chooses. This
is all perfectly legal.
The problem arises when the product is based on plants whose
unique properties are the result of years of breeding by farmers
whose investment and work is unacknowledged and unrewarded –
stolen, in effect. In these cases the patent holders have failed to
obtain the farmer’s permission.

5. Traditional knowledge:
Traditional knowledge refer to indigenous
communities, comprising “knowledge,
innovations and practices of indigenous and
local communities embodying traditional
lifestyle”.
Traditional knowledge is based on experience
and is usually passed on through generations.

6. Criticisms of biopiracy:
Biopiracy is said to be unfair, unethical and a threat to the
existence of indigenous cultures.
It is also claimed that indigenous communities are bared from
using or exporting their biological resources and traditional
knowledge that they have developed. Ultimately traditional
knowledge would become extinct.
The companies that take genetic resources from indigenous
communities and develop products (e.g. drugs) based on those
resources and traditional knowledge, however, could own patents
enabling the company to sell the invention back to its “true
inventors”.

7. Examples of biopiracy:
Neem
Turmeric
Basmati rice

8. Neem:
Botanical name is Azadirachta indica.
Neem act as anti bacterial, anti parasitic, anti
fungal, anti protozoal and anti viral thus helps in
protection from all the microorganisms, which are always
ready to invade in our body causing serious ailments.
The neem tree is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent
and parts of South and Southeast Asia.
In 1994 the multinational corporation W.R. Grace and
the US Department of Agriculture was granted a patent
by the EPO “covering a (special) method for controlling
fungi on plants by the aid of a hydrophobic extracted
neem oil” that is diluted with a certain percentage of
water.

9. A member of the European Parliament of the Green Party
joined by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology,
and Natural Resource Policy from India and the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movement (IFOAM) based in
Germany filed an opposition to this patent.
The opponents claimed “that the fungicidal effect of
hydrophobic extracts of neem seeds was known and used for
centuries on a broad scale in India” both in traditional medicine
to fight human skin fungi and in agriculture to protect crops. The
opponents also claimed that the invention lacked the two major
patentability requirements “novelty” and “inventive step.
The EPO withdrew the patent grant in 2000, finding it lacked
novelty.

10. Turmeric:
Botanical name is Curcuma longa.
 In Ayurvedic medicine, turmeric has been used to aid digestion
and liver function, relieve arthritis pain, and regulate menstruation.
Turmeric has also been applied directly to the skin for eczema and
wound healing. Today, turmeric is used for conditions such as
heartburn, stomach ulcers, and gallstones. It is also used to reduce
inflammation, as well as to prevent and treat cancer.
In 1995 the USPTO granted two Indian nationals at the University
of Mississippi for a “method of promoting healing of a wound in a
patient” by “administering a wound healing agent consisting of an
effective amount of turmeric powder”. The patent applicants
recognized the traditional use of turmeric in India but claimed that
they had been the first who administered.

11. This patent was challenged by the Indian Council for
Scientific and Industrial Research (“CSIR”) in 1996 on the
ground of prior art.
In the re-examination process the CSIR claimed “that
turmeric has been used for thousands of years for healing
wounds and rashes and therefore its medicinal use was
not novel”.
The USPTO upheld these objections and revoked the
patent in its entirety in April 1998. It based its decision on
the grounds of lacking novelty and obviousness of the
invention.

12. Basmati rice:
India is the second largest producer of rice after China.
In 1993, Basmati rice attracted the highest premium
because it is very-long grained rice, with an aroma of its own
which enhances the flavors it’s mixed with.
Basmati rice means the "queen of fragrance or the
perfumed one." This type of rice has been grown in the
foothills of the Himalayas for thousands of years.
In late 1997, an American company RiceTec Inc, was
granted a patent by the US patent office to call the aromatic
rice grown outside India 'Basmati'. RiceTec Inc, had been
trying to enter the international Basmati market with brands
like 'Kasmati' and 'Texmati' described as Basmati-type rice
with minimal success.

13. The Council of Scientific and Industrial
Research in India [CSIR] challenged the rice
patent.
The Indian government, a strong advocate of
geographical indications for food products,
claimed victory when the USPTO limited the
number of claims granted to RiceTec.
 RiceTec still has a patent and can still call
its rice Basmati.

14. Conclusion:
 Biopiracy may or may not harm biodiversity, but it certainly
hurt the chances of sharing in a fair and equitable sharing of the
benefits of using natural products.
At the community level, to document the traditional knowledge
of plant products has many benefits. This may include traditional
consumer protection against false claims about the so-called
'new' products, processes and uses.

Secondly, we need new laws to provide adequate protection in
the traditional resource use by people with few resources.
There are international organizations that are working in this
direction, such as the World Intellectual Property Organization of
the UN.