Thai Jasmine Rice and The
WTO:
Bio-tech and patents on life
By: Marissa Vahlsing
mvahlsi1@swarthmore.edu
Swarthmore
College
Background:
Thai Jasmine rice- or Khao dawk mali- may
be coming to a US farm near you. This strand of rice which has been grown and
cultivated by farmers in the Isaan region of Thailand for over 500 years has
become a topic of controversy among the Thai people and a US bio-tech agency in
Florida. At present, Thai Jasmine rice is grown by 5 million Thai farmers, and
makes up more than 90% of the Thai rice that reaches the US each year.
Traditionally, this sacred strand of rice has been limited to the paddyÕs of
Isaan where the soil is just right for growth (dry and saline). Furthermore, it
is regarded as a symbol of local wisdom and culture for the people of Isaan and
of greater Thailand. However, two American scientists are about to change that.
Chris Daren and Neil Rutger, of the University of Florida, obtained a
germoplasm of the rice and have genetically modified it with gamma rays so that
it can be sustained by the wet and swampy fields of southern Florida. If Daren
and RutgerÕs project is successful, then a United States Biotech company may
take over the Thai farmersÕ traditional role as the sole growers and merchants
of this prized strand.
Concerns:
The 5 million
Thai farmers who cultivate this rice are highly dependent upon the sales made
from its exports for their income. Often, these farmers, who inhabit the
poorest region of a struggling Asian country, are indebted to the government on
account of ThailandÕs debts to larger international banks, and thus only see a
small portion of the earnings made from the rice to begin with. On average, the
monthly income of an Isaan farmer is equivalent to $200 US. If Daren and Rutger
are able to grow and market a modified strand of the jasmine rice in the US,
the 5 million Thai farmers might be put out of business by the country that is
now their best customer, the United States. As a result, both the Thai farmers
and many of the Thai people in general are outraged. On November 9, 2001, in
Bangkok, 1500 Thai farmers and activists took to the streets to protest against
the United States and the policiesÕ of the WTO (World Trade Organization) under
the TRIPS agreement that allow such a manipulation of indigenous agriculture to
take place. This is not the first time that the US has sold and marketed
Thailand or AsiaÕs culture with their own products, or products sold under the
pretense of Asian origins. In 1998 there was a controversy over the legitimacy
of a US corporation (RiceTEch)Õs use of the name ÒJasmatiÓ to market a rice
they claimed to be a combination of IndiaÕs Basmati and ThailandÕs Jasmine
rice. The issues not only involved the branding of Asian Culture, but the
falsepretences of the Jasmati riceÕs origins. Although the rice was advertised
as having Indian and Thai origins, it was really a genetically engineered
hybrid strand joining Italian Beratone and American Della rice. Thus, it is not
shocking that the Thai people are outraged at both the US Biotech companies
that promote and carry out this Òbio-piracyÓ but with the International patent
standards on agriculture that allow this to take place.
Legal Issues and Terms:
The
TRIPS agreement of the WTO which governs this type of transaction involves
Trade related aspects of international property rights, as denoted in its
title. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPs) was signed at the end of the GATT Uruguay Round in 1994 and came into
force in 1995. It is administered by GATT's successor, the World Trade
Organization. TRIPs was strongly resisted by the South, as it forces all WTO
member states to extend intellectual property rights to plant varieties, the
basis of food security and health care. Until now, Asian countries have
prohibited patents on life forms because corporate monopolies touching peoples'
basic needs are dangerous. Also, many Asian cultures are based on a holistic
view of and respect for life, which Western technologies and property systems
fundamentally disregard.This agreement imposes uniform standards for
intellectual property protection around the world. Consequentially, the TRIPS
standards are the standards that allow patenting of life forms and agriculture
to take place. Under this agreement, in order for a life form to be patented as
property of an individual, company or country, it must be genetically altered
in some way so that they are distinctively different from the original organism
found in nature. ÒAs a result, a country like Thailand has no authority to
patent its jasmine rice as it already exists. It could only patent a new
variety of it that altered one or two genes within the genome. This gives
global biotech and drug companies the advantage for once their products are
patented they can claim monopoly rights so that anyone wishing to use their
product will have to pay the owning company. By building seed monopolies
Biotech companies can further control the process of food production requiring
farmers to buy seeds expanding their input costs significantly. By giving
advantage to TNCs TRIPs implicitly favors the economies of the developed world,
as almost all of the companies large enough to do global research on biological
resources are based in the North. This is explains why a farmer from Isaan held
a sign in Bangkok protesting the WTO TRIPs agreement reading "TRIPs: Seeds
of Colonization."Ó [i]
Thus, a few main legal and ethical questions can be gleaned from
this situation. First of all, the very way in which the germoplasm of rice was
obtained by Daren and Rutger and brought to the US is still under heated
debate. According to Daren, the rice germoplasm was acquired from the
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in the Phillipines, which is a
non-profit organization that operates under the World Bank. It was originally
created with the intent of promoting food security and eradicating poverty.
The institute itself holds a germoplasm strand of nearly every rice found
around the world. However, rather than protecting the rights and needs of the
impoverished farmers, many people claim that the IRRI instead favors
agro-industrial organizations by Òlending itself to BiopiracyÓ. [ii] According to
IRRI standards, anyone who obtains a strand of rice from their bank must sign a
mutual transfer agreement (MTA) which mandates that the recipiant agree not to
patent or monopolize the donated seeds from the institute. However, when Daren
borrowed the germoplasm of the Jasmine Rice he neglected to sign such an
agreement. This obscures the issue even further. However, whether or not the
IRRI aided Daren in a form of Bio-piracy may be reserved to another debate. At
present, the most crucial issue involved is whether or not the genetic
modification and patenting of life forms is ethical or just, and what its
implications are for the small scale indigenous farmers around the world who
may be put out of business by larger Bio-tech corporations.
Questions brought up in class discussion:
* Why should we
give monopoly rights to a handful of plant breeders and nothing to the millions
of farmers who nurtured and developed the materials these breeders rely on?
*
Are
patents on life forms ethical or just? If so, should there be limits?
*
In
the US, there is a very thin line between invention of a life form and
discovery of one. While in less developed countries, the gap is recognized as
much wider by their legal standards. What are the implications of differentiating
between an invention and a discovery? Why is this important?
*
If
TRIPS have be shown to undermine sustainable development objectives, including
eradication of poverty, meeting health needs, conserving Biodiversity,
protecting the environment and economic and cultural rights, is it the
responsibility of the developed countries to protect the developing ones from
such policies?
*
How
should we judge intellectual property rights on indigenous and traditional
knowledge?
*
Is a
innovative competition across cultures for new and better technologies
necessary? Should there be a limit on such competition to protect those
countries with fewer technological capabilities?
* Can we rely on
the international market economy to protect the lives and needs of the
impoverished farmers who are adversely affected by the ÒfreeÓ market
competition for new technologies, even on things such as life forms and
agriculture?
Good sources of reference:
If you wish to learn more about this issue, or to link up with
other international activists to help the Thai Farmers of Issan, you can:
* Write a letter to your trade
representative urging them to further revisethe WTO TRIPs agreement, calling
for all biological resources to be void from the TRIPs agreement
* Write a letter to Chris Deren at:
5881SW Market St
Palm City, FL 24990-5124
or email him at cwd@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu Urging him to sign a formal
agreement with the Thai government saying he will not sell his rice to a
company who may control over his new strain of rice.
* Write a letter to the United States
Department of Agriculture urging them to halt all research that will threaten
the export viability of crops from the developing world, which millions of
farmers depend on. Send to:
Office of the Administrator
Floyd P. Horn
Jamie L. Whitten Building 302-A
14th and Independence Ave
SW Washington 20250
Or email him at admars@ars.usda.gov
Organize teachings, rallies, actions in your local communities
about the current context of Biotech corporations and their attempt to seize
jasmine rice from poor farmers in Thailand.
For more information on the WTO's TRIPs agreement see:
*
www.grain.org/publications/chapter5-en-p.htm
* www.grain.org
* iisd.ca.trade/trips.htm
* www.attac.org/nonewround/wto/wto02.htm
* flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws/2001/64/trips.html
For more information on the patenting and genetic engineering
being done on Asian rice see:
*
www.grain.org/publications/rice-en-p.htm
*
www.poptel.org.uk/panap/archives/la-thais.htm
* www.biotech-info.net/thai-farmers.html
* www.american.edu/TED/thairice.htm
*
www.eftafairtrade.org/Document.asp?DOCID=202&tod=4553
For more information on the WTO and Globalization in general
see:
* www.wtowatch.org
* www.globalizethis.org
* www.focusweb.org
* www.ifg.org
* www.wtoaction.org
* www.wto.org
* www.canadians.org
Contacts
to NGOs working on this issue:
In Thailand
Biothai (The Thai Network on Community Rights and Biodiversity)
Witoon Lianchamroon
Tel: 6622952-7953
Fax: 6622952-731
biothai@pacific.net.th
RRAFA (Rural Reconstruction Alumni and Friends Association)
Ms. Walaiporn Od-ompanich
Tel: 662935-2981
Fax: 662935-2980
rrafa@loxinfo.co.th
International
ENGAGE (Educational Network for Global and Grassroots Exchange)
In Thailand: Peggy Reents at pareents@yahoo.com
In USA: Chris Westcott at cwestco@hotmail.com
EFTA (European Fair Trade Association)
Belgium
Elisabeth Piras
Tel: (+32) 2 213 12 46
Fax: (+32) 2 213 12 51
elisabeth.piras@skynet.be
ETC (formerly known as RAFI)
The Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration
USA
Hope Shand
Tel: (204) 453-5259
Hope@etcgroup.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Thai Jasmine Rice and the threat of the
US Biotech industry
Chris Wescott, December 18, 2001
www.globalexchange.org/wto/rice/121801.html
[ii] Ibid