Bio-piracy must be reversed. India needs to keep challenging American efforts to steal their herbs, just as they have done successfully with Tumeric. Americans, and people world wide need to grasp the implications of this situation. People world wide who value health freedom, and the right to use herbs should all be rooting for India as they attempt to force changes in US patent law through the WTO. If the WTO Dispute Settlement Body doesn't assist them, their bias will become transparent. Long live a sovereign India,(Canada),(America),(UK),(Japan). To HELL with the medical industrial complex! Freedom loving people world-wide must unite behind health freedom, and against the so called "New World Order". People world wide must back IAHF, and help spread THE WORD: GOD holds the patents on herbs, and despicable companies like PHARMA-PRINT Inc. can take a flying leap! LIFE over money. You can't EAT money. > > >Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:13:54 +0000 (GMT) >From: buddha >Subject: (en)Tumeric and Biopiracy by Vandana Shiva >To: a-infos@tao.ca >Sender: owner-a-infos@tao.ca >Reply-To: a-infos-d@tao.ca > > > A > AA > AAAA The A-Infos News Service > AA AA > AA AA > INFOSINFOSINFOS http://www.tao.ca/ainfos/ > AAAA AAAA > AAAAA AAAAA > >Subject: Tumeric and Biopiracy by Vandana Shiva >Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 >From: The Gaia Foundation (by way of Reclaim >The Streets ) > >(note: Turmeric, Curcuma longa---A medicinal herb long used by >practitioners of ayurvedic medicine in India - the ground roots are >applied to wounds to promote healing - turmeric had been patented by >researchers from the University of Mississippi (US). The US patent granted >the university monopoly rights over "a method of promoting healing of a >wound by administering tumeric to a patient afflicted with a wound." The >patent has been successfully challenged by the Indian Council of >Scientific and Industrial Research.) > > > THE TURMERIC PATENT IS JUST THE FIRST STEP > IN STOPPING BIOPIRACY > by Dr.Vandana Shiva > >Two major decisions have revived the intensity of the patent debates that >came to the centre stage of national politics during the finalisation of >the Dunkel Draft Text of the GATT agreement and the subsequent coming into >force of the WTO. > >The first is the WTO ruling against India in the US-India dispute on Trade >Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs, includes medicines, biotech, >and seeds) > >The second is the decision of the US Patent Office to revoke the turmeric >patent on the basis of a challenge filed by the Indian Council of >Scientific and Industrial Research. > >The WTO dispute panel is putting pressure on India to adopt US style >patent laws. However, as the turmeric patent, makes evident, the US >patent system has its own weaknesses which allow biopiracy to be practised >as a rule. The withdrawal of the turmeric patent is only a first step in >reversing biopiracy. > >Patents on Neem, Amla, Jar Amla, Anar, Salai, Dudhi, Gulmendhi, >Bagbherenda, Karela, Rangoon-ki-bel, Erand, Vilayetishisham, Chamkura all >need to be revoked. > >The US needs to revoke all patents based on indigenous knowledge and >"prior art". In addition, the U.S. also needs to change its patent laws >which allows biopiracy by non-recognition of foreign prior art. > >Patents are supposed to satisfy three criteria of: > >Novelty >Non-obviousness >Utility > >Novelty implies that the innovation must be new. It cannot be part of >`prior art' or existing knowledge. Non-obviousness implies that someone >familiar in the art should not be able to achieve the same step. Most >patents based on indigenous knowledge appropriation violate the criteria >of novelty combined with non-obviousness because they range from direct >piracy to minor tinkering which involves obvious steps to anyone trained >in the techniques and disciplines involved. > >In the US, many distortions in law exist facilitating the patenting >process for companies such as those in the pharmaceutical industry. One >such distortion is the interpretation of `prior art'. It permits patents >to be filed on discoveries in the US despite the fact that identical ones >may be already existing and in use in other parts of the world. > >Section 102 of the US Patent Act does not state a general definition of >`prior art', but a very narrow rule bound method to be used by low level >patent examiners for determining which materials will defeat a patent >application by violation of the novelty and non-obviousness criteria. >Prior foreign activity anticipates a US patent only when the foreign >activity is fixed in a tangible, accessible form such as a published >document or a patent. However, prior foreign knowledge, use and invention >are all excluded from the prior art related to a US patent application. > >Unless Section 102 of the US Patent laws are changed new examples of >biopiracy will continue to occur. > >The phenomena of biopiracy makes clear that it is not just Indian patent >laws that need changing. The US laws also need to be changed to fit into >a fair and honest global IPR system. The WTO which has been established >to set up a multilateral rule based system has a role in ensuring that the >inequity and injustice that biopiracy exhibits is removed from the IPR >regimes of all member countries. > >India needs to make a submission to the WTO to initiate proceedings to >change US patent laws to give India adequate protection against biopiracy. >This will serve India in two ways. If we get a ruling in our favour, the >world will have solved the problem of piracy of indigenous knowledge of >the South. If India's submission is not accepted, and a panel is not set >up to investigate the inherent weaknesses and inadequacies of the US >patent system, the bias of the WTO towards the powerful countries will >have been rendered transparent. > >The hurry with which the WTO has given a ruling on the US-India TRIPs >dispute is an example of the built in bias of the WTO. > >The first submission of the US to WTO against India's "patent protection >for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products" was made on 6th >March 1997. > >The submission addresses Article 5 of the Indian Patent Act which excludes >from the scope of patentable subject matter pharmaceutical and >agricultural chemical products. > >Article 5 of the Patent Act provides > >"In the case of inventions-- > > (a) claiming substances intended for use, or capable or being used, as >food or as medicine or drug, or > > (b) relating to substances prepared or produced by chemical >processes (including alloys, optical glass, semiconductors and >intermetallic compounds), no patent shall be granted in respect of >claims for the substances themselves, but claims for the methods or >processes of manufacture shall be patentable". > >In particular, the submission states, > > India has not yet made available product.patent protection for >pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals, and thus has chosen to >take advantage of atleast part of the exclusive marketing rights. >Thus, India has violated its obligations under Article 70, paragraphs >8 and 9, of the TRIPs Agreement to (1) establish a mailbox system in its >law, and ensure that no applicants are denied eligibility for patent >protection because of the delay in establishing the mailbox system, >and (2) establish a system for the grant of exclusive marketing >rights. > >India has upto 1.1.2005 to make available product patent protection for >pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals. We need to utilise this >transition period to the fullest to ensure that our patent laws do not >violate the "order public" or have a negative impact on animal and human >health or the environment. > >Article 27.2 of TRIPs allows exclusions on grounds of public morality. > > "Members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention >within their territory of commercial exploitation of which is necessary to >protect "Order Public" or morality, including to protect human, animal or >plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, >provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation >is prohibited by their law." > >Quite clearly, exclusive marketing rights (EMRs) cannot be granted for >products which would violate our public morality, our environment, our >public health and nutrition, and our socio-economic and technological >development. Clauses 70.8 and 70.9 of TRIPs which required an instant >creation of a mail box arrangement and granting of EMRs when the WTO >agreement came into force thus in effect negate the transition period >available to countries to evolve legislation appropriate to their >contexts. This is further complicated by the fact that without changes in >US patent laws many patents are based on biopiracy. > >Should India give an EMR to a corporation which has a pharmaceutical >patent or an agrichemical patent based on indigenous knowledge systems of >India or should the system to prevent biopiracy to put in place first? > >Suppose a corporation like W.R. Grace applies for an EMR for neem based >pesticides in India - will India grant it? Suppose a corporation asked for >EMRs for hepatitis drugs derived from Phyllanthus Niruri, is it in our >interests to give such EMRs? (Neem is a tree that grows all over India, it >is used for a huge number of uses from birth control to pesticides) > >Unless we have a system in place which prevents the granting of EMRs on >the basis of patents obtained through biopiracy, EMRs will basically >become an instrument of destruction of our economy. > >We have a legitimate method under our international legal obligations to >stop biopiracy and protect our indigenous innovations. We need to evolve >legislation to first protect our own innovations. Foreign claims to >innovation should be protected after our own systems have been put in >place. > >The Convention on Biological Diversity does allow us mechanisms to frame >laws to prevent biopiracy. In particular Article 8 (j) recognises that: > > "subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain >knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local >communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the >conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and >promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the >holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the >equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilisation of such >knowledge, innovation and practices." > >It is India's interest to implement our national biodiversity legislation >before granting exclusive marketing rights or changing the Indian Patent >Act. The determination and will to defend our national interest and our >public interest and protect our innovation should be stronger than the >determination and will to defend the US interest and protect US biopiracy. >This is a real test of our freedom and sovereignty. We need to do a rapid >stock taking of the scale and extent of our biodiversity based economy >which in my assessment accounts for two thirds of our productive economy >but is invisible because it is the economy of people our centralised >planning has rendered invisible. We need to show how much the potential >loss to India is both in the form of global markets or domestic markets >due to biopiracy by countries like the U.S. We need to go through this >exercise to protect our sovereignty and make our rightful claims with >trading partners. The exercise of the potential loss due to biopiracy >also needs to be done to avoid unnecessary and illegitimate trade action >by the US due to the TRIPs dispute ruling. > >When US was introducing Intellectual Property Rights in the Uruguay Round, >as a new issue, the US had accused the Third World of `piracy'. The >estimates provided for royalties lost in agricultural chemicals are USD >202 million and USD 2,545 million for pharmaceuticals. However, as the >team at RAFI, the Rural Advancement Foundation International >, in Canada has shown, if the contribution of Third >World peasants and tribals is taken into account, the roles are >dramatically reversed: the US owes USD 302 million in royalties for >agriculture and 5,097 million for pharmaceuticals to Third World >countries, according to these latter estimates. In other words, in these >two biological industry sectors alone, the US owes 2.7 billion dollars to >the `Third World'. This debt will not be paid by the US unless we have our >biodiversity legislation in place. > >India needs to take stock of her biodiversity based economy both for >ecological survival and economic and political survival of India's freedom >and sovereignty in the 50th year of our independence. > >It is not the US submission, or the ruling of the WTO Dispute Panel, which >will determine whether we will act as a sovereign country. It is the >parliament and people in whose hands the exercise of our sovereignty lies. > >**************************************************************************** > > > ****** A-Infos News Service ***** > News about and of interest to anarchists > >Subscribe -> email MAJORDOMO@TAO.CA > with the message SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS >Info -> http://www.tao.ca/ainfos/ >Reproduce -> please include this section > > > >