Subject: NGO body moves Supreme Court on basmati patent issue From: jit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 1998/03/13 Message-ID: <6eaf5b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: alt.india.progressive DECCAN HERALD Wednesday, March 11, 1998 NGO body moves Supreme Court on basmati patent issue NEW DELHI, March 10 (PTI) A non-governmental organisation (NGO) has petitioned the Supreme Court to direct the government to challenge the patent given to a Texan-based company for basmati rice in an US court or move the dispute settlement body (DSB) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). In a writ filed on March 5, the petitioner, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology also urged the apex court to direct the government to protect the country`s biodiversity in conformity with the convention on biological diversity (CBD) and other such conventions to protect biodiversity. Stating that the government had not enacted any legislation to protect the biodiversity, the foundation, headed by noted ecologist Dr Vandana Shiva, urged the court to issue directions to the government to lay down guidelines to protect the life and livelihood of the people till a suitable legislation was brought into force. The patent given for basmati rice by the United States patent office to Ricetec Inc. Co was in violation of the sovereign rights of the country, which included indigenous and inherent knowledge systems of the people of which farmers were a part, the foundation said. Basmati had been grown by traditional methods by Indian farmers, who had developed various varieties that were being exported besides being consumed domestically. In view of this, the government had to protect the sovereignty and inherent rights of the people by taking action against the Texan company, which was permissible under law, the petitioner said. The government`s inaction had led to lack of suitable legislation to make India`s traditional food security system, grains and medicinal plants part of the biodiveristy under the sui generis options of the trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPS) in accordance with convention of biological diversity (CBD). Pointing to Article 27.3(b) of Trips, the petitioner said it paved way for WTO members to exclude from patentability, plants and animals other than micro-organisms and essentially biological processes for production of plants and animals other than non-biological and micro-biological processes. But the members could provide for the protection of plan varieties either by patents of an effective sui generis system or any other combination, the foundation said, adding that the Rome declaration on world food security had recognised that environment and biodiveristy of countries had to be protected as it was sovereign and their inherent right. While Trips provided for exclusion from patentability the biodiversity and indigenous knowledge of the signatory country, other conventions created an obligation on member countries to protect their environment and biodiversity, the petitioner said. The convention on biological diversity (CBD) stated in its preamble that ''states have a sovereign right over their own biological resources``. Article 8(j) of the convention provides for countries, in tune with national legislation, to respect, preserve and maintain knowledge of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity besides promoting their wide application. As per the convention, it was obligatory on the part of India to enact such legislation so that its environment and biodiversity became exclusively the rights of the country for protection from violations and invasions through biopiracy. The patent given to the American company could force Indian farmers to either stop basmati cultivation or pay royalty to the Texan firm, the petitioner contended. The petition is likely to come for hearing soon after the holi holidays.
