No patents on life!

The European Council of Ministers approved the proposed European Biotech Patent Directive on 27 November which will allow all living materials to be patented. As it now moves back to the European Parliament for a final vote, Liz Hosken reports on the controversy it raises.

The contention of a wide grouping of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and scientists is that the proposed European Biotech Patent Directive distorts the definition of invention, placing it on the same level as discovery, allowing industry to gain monopoly control over the ingredients of society's food and medicines. A joint NGO-scientists statement expressed deep concern on this issue: "The implications of granting patents-monopoly rights-over biological resources, goes to the very foundation of society's access to, and control of, food and medicine. The consequences for the biodiversity rich, financially poor South are enormous."
    The present European Biotech Patent Directive will fundamentally change the allocation and control of resources upon which all our lives depend, by allowing commercial interests to monopolise the elements of life: genes; cells; human, plant and animal parts, whole organisms and even species. It is the eternal struggle between the powerful who wish to control the resources and the forces in society which are responsible for maintaining the balance of power.
    The distortion of invention leads to another distortion. Granting monopoly rights on the genetic materials which the companies wish to mix and match into commodities, makes it very difficult for other researchers or companies to use the patented materials to develop other products. This blocks competition in the development of other products and creates market monopolies. The pillar of the free market economy is, we are told, competition, as it allows choice and controls quality and prices. The proposed Directive will effectively encourage companies to develop genetically engineered (GE) products.

Difficult to predict
There are many forms of biotechnology which are new and as yet untested, especially in the areas of genetic engineering. Most groups are not against some aspects of its careful and responsible development. They are against special rights being given to this new experiment so that genetic engineering is promoted over other tried and tested traditional methods and technologies, without sufficient checks and balances.
    A recent example cited by Greenpeace involved the development of a bacterium engineered to degrade the herbicide 2,4-D in contaminated soil1. Unfortunately, one of the by-products of the degradation, 2,4-DCP, built up in the soil and turned out to be toxic to soil fungi even at low concentrations. Soil fungi aid soil fertility, and may protect plants from disease. The build-up of the 2,4-DCP was completely unanticipated.
    In various written statements, submitted to the EU governments, scientists have expressed their grave concerns over the impact of biotech patents on the food chain. They emphasise that there are strong scientific reasons to believe that GE foods will have hazardous consequences, because mistakes or problems will be self-replicating, unlike chemical pollution.
    There has been no independent scientific evaluation of the impact the EU Biotech Patent Directive will have on food and health. NGOs insist that it would be utterly irresponsible therefore, for European governments not to consult in depth with concerned scientists and interest groups, and commission independent studies.

Commercial interest
An industry claim which needs to be properly evaluated, is that GE foods are required in order to feed the world. The agri-business industry is about to launch a huge offensive in Europe to persuade governments that without GE foods, the burgeoning population, mainly in the South, will starve. Therefore these governments must stop being selfish and support GE foods.
    From an analysis of the research priorities of the agri-chemical industry, (which now includes the agri-gene industry), it is clear that investments in food commodities will have wide-industrial application. As industry admits, they have to recoup that investment, so their products will probably not go to hungry mouths, since these cannot pay.
    A critical question raised by concerned groups is that the UK government has not evaluated the sweeping claims made by industry that there will be 'no cures without patents,' nor the claim that the biotech industry needs patents in order to promote innovation, competitiveness and jobs in Europe. Most evidence actually indicates the opposite: allowing patents on living materials in Europe will in effect lead to US and other foreign companies extending their existing patents into Europe. Patents are no guarantee of jobs because they are about monopolising markets, and not linked to place of operation. Patents diminish the need for companies to research because they block competition, so there is no pressure to produce. There are many more arguments.
    The Directive, many believe, will in fact lead to greater monopoly rather than more competition. There may also be increasing numbers of legal challenges from Southern countries and indeed within Europe, due to the contravention of international agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine.

Wrong signals
Messages to the European governments from Southern government negotiators, scientific advisers and NGOs, warn that the proposed Biotech Patent Directive sends a very negative signal to the South and to the international negotiations at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and the CBD. If passed, the Directive would force Southern governments to develop much tougher legislation governing access to genetic resources, sharing financial benefits of inventions with farmers and local communities, prior informed consent and farmers' rights. The proposed Patent Directive does not comply with the commitments made by the EU and the European Governments to implement the CBD framework agreement by integrating it into all legislation relating to biological materials. In fact, the European Commission deleted the article complying with the CBD on prior informed consent and declaration of place of origin, which Members of Parliament (MEPs) included in their proposal. Also it does not provide an obligation for patent holders to share benefits with the suppliers of the biological material. This issue of benefit sharing has formed the basis of all international negotiations recently to ensure equity in the development of Southern countries' sovereign resources and the conservation of the biological diversity on which we all depend.
    Messages from Southern groups caution European governments that the proposed Biotech Patent Directive could have serious implications for international relations, especially between the EU and a growing group of developing countries.
    NGOs insist that the decision on the Directive is a question of ethics, equity, justice and democracy. These issues have to be looked into thoroughly.
    The bottom line for most NGOs is that there should be no patents on life, or on any components or derivatives thereof. Most believe there is a need for a Directive, given that Biotech is here now. However, the legislation should be of a totally different kind, where genuine inventions are rewarded through a system appropriately developed for living materials. Time and public consultation are required, both North and South.

1. Genetic Engineering: Too Good to go Wrong? Greenpeace, Cannonbury Villas, London, 1997.
Liz Hosken is Director of the Gaia Foundation, 18 Well Walk, London, UK.

[This article first appeared in Pesticides News No. 38, December 1997, page 14]