In Response to Wangari Mathai’s Article on the Effect of Patenting Life Forms

Wangari Mathai, in ‘The link between patenting life forms, genetic engineering and food security’ (1998) concludes that patenting life forms and genetic engineering poses a threat to global food security. Firstly, she accuses biotech corporations of abusing patents on their merchandise, particularly seeds, to establish their monopoly on agriculture of developing countries. She amplifies this by stating that corporations, doing so, violate farmers’ right to sustain biodiversity and make them rely on the corporations’ products. She asserts patenting also prevents poor farmers from affording genetically modified seeds, and may cause their governments to run into debts by spending on food for their people. Although I find her argument convincing in general, several points need correcting and improving.
Indeed, the author successfully supports her claims that biopiracy should not be practised by biotech corporations. She initially terms biopiracy as an action in which a patent is granted on corporations' products identical to those which farmers have developed via conventional methods for centuries. Here, the definition of biopiracy is not distorted; it fits another by Kumar (2009):
[Biopiracy] is the use of intellectual property systems to legitimize the exclusive ownership and control over biological resources and biological products and processes that have been used over centuries in non-industrialized culture.
To justify her claim, the author further reasons that biopiracy blocks the development and expansion of similar products, and correctly exemplifies this with the basmati rice case. In this case, to prevent others from growing, exporting, and even using other lines of basmati rice, the Texas-based Rice Tec Inc. obtained a patent on their lines of basmati rice and grains (United Kingdom Parliament, 1999). In fact, the lines to be patented were not invented but originated in India, and their traits were similar to those of the traditional Indian rice (Shiva, 2009). The patent on Rice Tec’s lines of basmati rice is thus biopiracy. The author’s reasoning is therefore valid, with a strong example to support her argument.
However, the author falls short in her allegation that thanks to patenting, corporations can completely impede future research on their protected products. Nevertheless, according to Dratler (1991), the patent on one product does not exclude the right to improve that product, providing the person who seeks improvement can obtain permission from the patent holder. Thus the claim that patent holders can negate others’ right to modify their products needs amendment. Actually, she may better the argument by hedging her condemnation and casting doubt on the possibility that corporations can grant improvement-seekers such permissions. Indeed, there may be a slim chance that corporations agree to do so, since cases of their prohibitions on independent research are reported by Ananda (2011).
Besides, although the author’s argument that it is unacceptable for farmers to be dependent on corporation’s seeds is generally credible, there is room for improvement. She starts the argument by saying that saving seeds is a practice that has been kept since the past. This claim is true, especially for the case of poor farmers who depend on seed saving for the next season (Shand & Mooney, 1998). She further provides two examples to reveal how corporations coerce farmers into buying their seeds. The first one is cases of farmers being sued for re-using patented seeds. The example is a strong one, since such cases were observed in Tennessee (Little, 2004), and Canada (Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, 2001). It also agrees with a report by Novak (2010) stating that farmers, afraid of legislative entanglements, are forced to buy seeds from biotech corporations. The other regarding the use of ‘terminator technology’ to make plants sterile after harvest, however, is not well-chosen due to the lack of evidence of its being utilised. Indeed, Rizvi (2006) demonstrates that there have been debates over its usage: some countries do not approve of it; others are reluctant to legalize it. Additionally, Monsanto Inc., a transnational biotech corporation and the technology patentee, states that it only signs treatments with farmers not to exploit the seeds after harvest and does not apply the technology to its seeds (Monsanto Inc., 2002-2011). Whether the technology is being used in reality is, thus, unclear, which plagues the author’s argument. In fact, by rejecting the aforementioned example and using better ones, she can improve it. Namely, besides producing seeds, Monsanto Inc. manufactures herbicides only its seeds can withstand (Novak, 2010). The unique chemicals prevent others’ seeds from being sown; consequently, farmers must purchase the same seeds from the corporation for next season (Novak, 2010). Including such examples may reinforce the author’s argument and makes it more convincing.
In conclusion, at times the author is able to demonstrate a valid argument backed up by persuasive illustrations, as shown in her position against the practise of biopiracy by corporations. Nonetheless, the author’s accusation that corporations can hinder future research on patented merchandise requires correction and improvement. Finally, by choosing better examples, her argument may be enhanced, which has been demonstrated in her stance against farmers’ dependence on corporations for seeds. Indeed, should such amplifications be incorporated, Wangari Mathai’s argument would be an influential one.