By being able to take the genetic material from one organism and insert it into the permanent genetic code of another, biotechnologists have engineered numerous novel creations, such as potatoes with bacteria genes, “super” pigs with human growth genes, fish with cattle growth genes, tomatoes with flounder genes, and thousands of other plants. At an alarming rate, these creations are now being patented and released into the environment (for more information on Genetic engineering, visit our GE crops page).
Despite biotech industry claims that GE seeds are needed to feed a growing population, genetic engineering could actually lead to an increase in hunger and starvation. Biotech companies like Monsanto force growers to sign a “technology use agreement” when growing their patented GE crops which stipulates, among other things, they the farmer cannot save the seeds produced from their GE harvest. Half the world’s farmers rely on saved seed to produce food that 1.4 billion people rely on for daily nutrition.
For example, in 1998, African scientists at a United Nations conference strongly objected to Monsanto’s promotional GE campaign that used photos of starving African children under the headline “Let the Harvest Begin.” The scientists, who represented many of the nations affected by poverty and hunger, said gene technologies would undermine the nations’ capacities to feed themselves by destroying established diversity, local knowledge and sustainable agricultural systems[i].
The Patenting of Seeds
The idea of patenting plant material was initially brought before Congress in the first decades of the 20th century by seed dealers eager to get intellectual property rights over their new hybrids. However, Congress consistently refused. Lawmakers rejecting the idea of patenting as it would make the saving and sharing of seed and research on this germplasm illegal. However, seed dealers and researchers continued pressure on policymakers for some form of plant protection. Congress continued to refuse patenting but in 1970 Congress passed the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) which allowed for a plant breeder to obtain a Certificate of Protection (COP), not a patent, for a new plant variety. This COP provided up to 20 years of protection giving the breeder control over the sale of that variety. Again, this was not a patent. The COP, unlike a utility patent, allows the farmers to save seeds on their own farms; and permits unrestricted research on the new protected seed variety.
Then in 1985, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under the Reagan Administration allowed a patent on a sexually reproducing plant., making for the first time, seeds and seed reproducing plants patentable. It based its decision on the 1980, Supreme Court Chakrabarty decision allowing the patenting of a genetically engineered microbe. These patents (a policy which has never been approved by Congress), prevents a farmer from seed saving, bars small scale sale of the seed, as well as preventing research on the new patented seed variety, except if the farmer or researcher is willing to pay the patent holder. In 2002, a U.S. Supreme Court Case (J.E.M. Ag Supply, et al. v Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl, Inc) the Court held (in an opinion written by former Monsanto attorney Justice Clarence Thomas) that even though Congress had never approved the patenting of seeds, and had specifically decided against it in favor of the PVPA, it remained legal for the Patent Office to patent seeds because Congress had not passed a law specifically against it. As a result of the patent decision, several thousand plant varieties have been now been patented. This includes both genetically engineered and conventional hybrid varieties.
Prior to the 1985 patent decision, farmers were able to save their own seed and even sell it to other farmers without fear of legal prosecution. Since the patent office decision, companies like Monsanto who have been granted patents on seed have the right to sue farmers for saving this seed, either intentionally or unintentionally due to genetic pollution caused by pollen drift or other causes. Monsanto alone has threatened untold thousands of farmers with litigation, collected patent fees from large numbers of farmers and taken more than a hundred to court. There persecutions and prosecutions have led to farmers paying tens of millions of dollars to the company.
Public interest groups including CFS have been successful in challenging individual plant and animal patents. We have seen successful challenges to patents on basmati rice, broccoli and other crops. Also patents on dogs, rabbits and human genes have been successfully challenged at the Patent Office or in court. However the real solution to the patenting problem is for Congress to effectively reverse the 2002 Supreme Court decision and pass legislation affirming that the PVPA is the sole means for protecting property rights in seeds in the US. Far, food safety and environmental groups have already attempted to get such an amendment passed but without success. There needs to be a major push towards this goal in any patent reform legislation being considered by Congress or alternatively in the next farm bill. Finally of course it is vital that both nationally and internationally the US be a partner in declaring a permanent ban on terminator technology. Currently the USDA is part owner of the major patent on terminator technology which is politically and ethically repugnant.
The next few years will be critical in saving organic seeds and biodiversity from the control and manipulation by major corporations. The organic movement must take the lead in preventing new GE crops and the contamination that comes with them. We also need to make the concerted effort to take back the control of our seeds from the major chemical companies and forever ban the patenting of seeds or the destruction of their fertility through terminator technology.
Publications
CFS Seed Update presented at the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010)
Patent Watch Project
Conventional seeds hard to find, in demand. A collection of articles and reports
Select Media Articles on Center for Food Safety Recent Legal Victories on GMO Crops
[i] “Let Nature’s Harvest Continue!” African Counter Statement to Monsanto, at the 5th Extraordinary Session of the FAQ Commission on Genetic Resources, June 12, 1998.
Genetic Engineering and Patents
By being able to take the genetic material from one organism and insert it into the permanent genetic code of another, biotechnologists have engineered numerous novel creations, such as potatoes with bacteria genes, “super” pigs with human growth genes, fish with cattle growth genes, tomatoes with flounder genes, and thousands of other plants. At an alarming rate, these creations are now being patented and released into the environment (for more information on Genetic engineering, visit our GE crops page).
Despite biotech industry claims that GE seeds are needed to feed a growing population, genetic engineering could actually lead to an increase in hunger and starvation. Biotech companies like Monsanto force growers to sign a “technology use agreement” when growing their patented GE crops which stipulates, among other things, they the farmer cannot save the seeds produced from their GE harvest. Half the world’s farmers rely on saved seed to produce food that 1.4 billion people rely on for daily nutrition.
For example, in 1998, African scientists at a United Nations conference strongly objected to Monsanto’s promotional GE campaign that used photos of starving African children under the headline “Let the Harvest Begin.” The scientists, who represented many of the nations affected by poverty and hunger, said gene technologies would undermine the nations’ capacities to feed themselves by destroying established diversity, local knowledge and sustainable agricultural systems[i].
The Patenting of Seeds
The idea of patenting plant material was initially brought before Congress in the first decades of the 20th century by seed dealers eager to get intellectual property rights over their new hybrids. However, Congress consistently refused. Lawmakers rejecting the idea of patenting as it would make the saving and sharing of seed and research on this germplasm illegal. However, seed dealers and researchers continued pressure on policymakers for some form of plant protection. Congress continued to refuse patenting but in 1970 Congress passed the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) which allowed for a plant breeder to obtain a Certificate of Protection (COP), not a patent, for a new plant variety. This COP provided up to 20 years of protection giving the breeder control over the sale of that variety. Again, this was not a patent. The COP, unlike a utility patent, allows the farmers to save seeds on their own farms; and permits unrestricted research on the new protected seed variety.
Then in 1985, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under the Reagan Administration allowed a patent on a sexually reproducing plant., making for the first time, seeds and seed reproducing plants patentable. It based its decision on the 1980, Supreme Court Chakrabarty decision allowing the patenting of a genetically engineered microbe. These patents (a policy which has never been approved by Congress), prevents a farmer from seed saving, bars small scale sale of the seed, as well as preventing research on the new patented seed variety, except if the farmer or researcher is willing to pay the patent holder. In 2002, a U.S. Supreme Court Case (J.E.M. Ag Supply, et al. v Pioneer Hi-Bred Intl, Inc) the Court held (in an opinion written by former Monsanto attorney Justice Clarence Thomas) that even though Congress had never approved the patenting of seeds, and had specifically decided against it in favor of the PVPA, it remained legal for the Patent Office to patent seeds because Congress had not passed a law specifically against it. As a result of the patent decision, several thousand plant varieties have been now been patented. This includes both genetically engineered and conventional hybrid varieties.
Prior to the 1985 patent decision, farmers were able to save their own seed and even sell it to other farmers without fear of legal prosecution. Since the patent office decision, companies like Monsanto who have been granted patents on seed have the right to sue farmers for saving this seed, either intentionally or unintentionally due to genetic pollution caused by pollen drift or other causes. Monsanto alone has threatened untold thousands of farmers with litigation, collected patent fees from large numbers of farmers and taken more than a hundred to court. There persecutions and prosecutions have led to farmers paying tens of millions of dollars to the company.
Public interest groups including CFS have been successful in challenging individual plant and animal patents. We have seen successful challenges to patents on basmati rice, broccoli and other crops. Also patents on dogs, rabbits and human genes have been successfully challenged at the Patent Office or in court. However the real solution to the patenting problem is for Congress to effectively reverse the 2002 Supreme Court decision and pass legislation affirming that the PVPA is the sole means for protecting property rights in seeds in the US. Far, food safety and environmental groups have already attempted to get such an amendment passed but without success. There needs to be a major push towards this goal in any patent reform legislation being considered by Congress or alternatively in the next farm bill. Finally of course it is vital that both nationally and internationally the US be a partner in declaring a permanent ban on terminator technology. Currently the USDA is part owner of the major patent on terminator technology which is politically and ethically repugnant.
The next few years will be critical in saving organic seeds and biodiversity from the control and manipulation by major corporations. The organic movement must take the lead in preventing new GE crops and the contamination that comes with them. We also need to make the concerted effort to take back the control of our seeds from the major chemical companies and forever ban the patenting of seeds or the destruction of their fertility through terminator technology.
Publications
CFS Seed Update presented at the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010)
Patent Watch Project
Conventional seeds hard to find, in demand. A collection of articles and reports
Select Media Articles on Center for Food Safety Recent Legal Victories on GMO Crops
[i] “Let Nature’s Harvest Continue!” African Counter Statement to Monsanto, at the 5th Extraordinary Session of the FAQ Commission on Genetic Resources, June 12, 1998.