By Charles Choi
The Scientist Inc.

Greenpeace, Indian groups challenge company's rights to strain known as Nap Hal

Greenpeace is challenging patent rights to a wheat strain granted to Monsanto, the world's largest genetically modified (GM) seed company, on grounds of “biopiracy.” The dispute continues the environmental group's demands against patenting of any plants, animals, humans, and genes.

Greenpeace says the patented variety of wheat possesses genetic characteristics originally derived from a strain known as Nap Hal used to make chapatis, the flat bread traditional to northern India.

“Monsanto is trying to get ownership of the specific genetic traits of Nap Hal,” Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaigner Christoph Then told The Scientist. “It's robbery of generations of effort in cultivation of Indian farmers.”

The company vigorously denied the allegations. “The people opposing the patent allege there's nothing novel here. But it is indeed a novel invention,” Monsanto Europe–Africa's Director of Public Affairs Thomas McDermott said. “The patent has been granted, and we will defend it.”

Nap Hal has less gluten than other wheat varieties, which gives it lower viscoelasticity, meaning it expands less during baking. This makes it perfect for crisp breads such as chapatis.

Unilever obtained Nap Hal seeds from public seed banks and bred a variety dubbed Galatea from it. Monsanto acquired Galatea when it bought Unilever in 1998. The European Patent Office granted patent number EP445929 for the strain last May. The Unite States had issued Unilever patents regarding low-viscoelasticity wheat strains in 1998 and 1999.

Greenpeace filed legal opposition to the patent at the European Patent Office on January 27, with the support of the India-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology and the Indian farmers' organization Bharat Krishak Samaj.

“The technical features of the plants described in the patent are typical of seed which is grown normally and not allowed to be patented,” the opposition stated. “The patent owners have not added anything new to what is state of the art; they have merely described known features of wheat plants in such a way that they are supposed to look as if they are new.”

The activists added that “keeping the patent would mean illegal monopolization of important genetic plant resources,” and could block cultivation of all related varieties.

Monsanto denied the patents would be used to block Indian farmers from using their Nap Hal seed.

“Indian users can use Nap Hal for chapatis or whatever else, now and just as they've always been used to,” McDermott told The Scientist. “The idea that Indian farmers would have to pay royalties to use Nap Hal, that's just inflammatory and ridiculous.”

While the patent applies in 13 European countries as well as Japan, Australia, Canada and the United States, it was not granted in India. This means Monsanto would not have control over their new variety there, McDermott said. But the company has not commercialized Galatea, and “Monsanto is planning to exit the wheat business in Europe,” McDermott said. “There should be no controversy at all.”

“Indian farmers should worry about this,” Then said. “It's their effort stolen from them. Indian farmers and politicians should at least now be warier of the implications that could come up in exclusivity of patents. It might prove relevant for all export facilities of the wheat from India. In a larger context, this controversy is relevant for all farmers.”

Then said he felt confident Greenpeace will win “on the point that this patent clearly covers plant varieties, which cannot be patented in Europe.”

“There are some funny things with how Europe runs patents. They allow patents on plants but not on plant varieties,” said patent agent Peter DiMauro of the National Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, DC.

Then said the European Patent Convention forbids patents on plant varieties, but the European Directive from 1998 allows patents on plants that are not a variety. “In fact, nobody can draw a clear line between these two legal frameworks,” Then said.

“You can claim something higher than the taxonomical status of a plant variety, but can't claim anything limited to a plant variety,” DiMauro told The Scientist. “It's logical insanity.”

Links for this article
“Greenpeace and Indian farmers raise objection against patent on Indian wheat,”
Greenpeace press release, January 27, 2004.
http://www.greenpeace.org/deutschland/?page=/deutschland/pe/gen technik/27-01-04--einspruch-gegen-patent-auf-weizen

European Patent Number EP0445929, November 9, 1991
http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=EP0445929   

US Patent Number 5,763,741, June 9, 1998
http://patft.uspto.gov/ 
 
US Patent Number 5,859,315, January 12, 1999
http://patft.uspto.gov/ 

Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology
http://www.vshiva.net/ 

©2004, The Scientist Inc. in association with BioMed Central.