Is patenting crops really about feeding the hungry? A response

Last week Michael Gilbert from the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics wrote a story for The Conversation about the role of patents in plant breeding. It is a contentious area, the whole patenting of genes thing, and I for one am uncomfortable with the concept of being able to patent a gene. Understandably, there was a response to Michael Gilbert’s article – link below.

The Conversation 29 September 2011 Luigi Palombi

TechNyou

Michael Gilbert had a convincing argument although unlike Luigi Palombi I wasn’t confused by article nor did I find it incomprehensible, but that doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with the use of patents applied in this context. I can see how used judiciously they might be useful to society, but I remain to be convinced about their overall worth in the context of this discussion.  But I am the first to admit that I am outside my area of expertise here. Patent law, law full stop, is not something I stay up late at night reading about.

A few more points

I am unsure about Luigi’s following comment: ” First, Gilbert says this rice is “patented technology”, which begs a question about what the patentable part of it is since rice as such exists in nature.“  It is not the rice itself that is being patented, but the technology that is in it – ie the gene construct or technology used to generate that novel trait. That patentable “bit” is then bred/introduced into other relevant cultivars.

Also I am unsure what loss of biodiversity has to do with patents and GM crops. As mentioned it is the gene construct or technology that creates the novel trait that is patented not the actual crop. That trait is transferred into the relevant cultivars of the numerous seed breeding companies. Sure monoculture and loss of biodiversity are a problem, but they are  irrelevant to the GM argument.

Final point.  Luigi suggests that  if people aren’t getting enough iron and zinc in their diets there are other grains such as amaranth, which contains 14 times the amount of iron, and wheat which contains 12 times the amount of zinc, than white rice.  ie Just make sure people eat a more balanced diet. Yes this is true and I am sure  Michael Gilbert acknowledges this as I know nearly everyone else I know working in this field does including Alex Johnson who leads the team that created the iron-rich rice. But it is not as simple as telling people to eat a balanced diet because it is better for you, otherwise nutrient deficiencies would have ceased to be a problem long ago. Not everyone has access to or can afford a balanced diet, brown rice doesn’t store very well…and a host of other reasons prevent access to that proposed balanced diet. And none of these people are suggesting that their iron-rice rice (or other nutritionally-enhanced crop) is going to solve the problem either. It is simply one other tool that can be used to help the situation – along with trying to find ways of ensuring they get a varied diet, fortification of appropriate foods,  improving education, eliminating poverty….and so on.