On 2 September 1997, RiceTec registered patent 5663484 with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), listing twenty claims to prove the originality of its “basmati rice lines and grains.” This hybrid of American long-grain rice varieties and Pakistani basmati, crossed with long-grain and semi dwarf varieties, was developed over 10 years of traditional breeding. Four years later, however, the corporation is engaged in a bitter dispute with basmati farmers in India, where vehement claims of bio-piracy are rife. According to the action groups involved in the case, RiceTec is capitalising on the bio-heritage of the sub-continent.
At first glance this is an age-old story of the powerful and influential versus poorer, traditional communities. An issue that highlights cultural difference, global trade issues, potential corporate domination of smaller, sub-Continent producers and intellectual property rights, the battle for basmati is still awaiting closure. Some say it is still even waiting for attention. But what exactly is basmati? What is the patent worth to RiceTec? And what has the battle come to represent in India? In short, is this bio-piracy or regular business practice?
Go deeper with GlobalData
Basmati basics
Literally translated, the word basmati means “queen of fragrance” or “fragrant earth.” It defines a slender, long-grained variety of rice that elongates to twice its length when cooked and remains soft and fluffy in texture. More specifically, basmati rice has an amylose (starch) content of around 22%, a nut-like flavour and a distinct aroma caused by the presence of the compound 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline. Basmati rice has been grown in the Punjab region of India and Pakistan for thousands of years, leading many to assume the word indicates not only physical characteristics but also geographical origin.
Enter RiceTec
With this in mind, some industry observers were surprised when RiceTec, “truly a tiny company based in a tiny Texas town” and owned by Earl Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein, was awarded a patent for the breeding work that produces its own basmati rice, thereby securing a monopoly on breeding its variety of the rice in the Western Hemisphere. However, the company claims it in no way anticipated the furore this unleashed in India, because it had produced “novel rice and grains” from a generic type of rice, and is appealing for calm and understanding in an increasingly heated debate, fuelled by protest from campaigners for the developing world.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDataBacked by the USDA and the US Rice Federation, RiceTec argues that basmati is a generic term, not indicative of a specific breed. “We had never heard anything to the contrary and have lots of historic evidence that it has been used generically by Indian scientists, chefs and others for decades,” explained the company’s PR counsellor Bruce E Hicks explained to just-food.com. “Just as durum wheat refers to a class of wheat, basmati refers to a class of rice,” he added.
The argument may well stand unchallenged if it were not for the impact of geography on the issue. RiceTec argues that basmati rice is in no way indigenous to the Indian/Pakistan sub continent. “There is no geographical appellation for basmati,” said Hicks, “basmati ‘originated’ in the Punjab, but we do not believe it is exclusive to that area.” This assertion is attacked however by those who argue that the “Kallar tract” land in Pakistan and many districts in India have been exclusively devoted to basmati production for decades if not centuries. Also, many international buyers recognise basmati in terms of its geographical origin, particularly the European Commission, the UK and Saudi Arabia.
If the campaigners are right in linking historical precedence with official geographic recognition, then any patent concerning basmati appears to contravene article 22 of the WTO agreement on patent regulation, the Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights agreement (TRIPS)1. This was the case put to the Earl of Liechtenstein last September by four NGOs. The convener of the Gene Campaign, Dr Suman Sahai, led the NGOs with “concrete evidence” that the patent was invalid, however Hicks argues that they “do not have legal – nor knowledgeable in some cases – standing.”
What’s the patent worth to RiceTec?
RiceTec, which was formed in 1987 as a division of Farms of Texas Company and went independent in 1990, is a frontrunner in the development of commercial hybrid rice varieties, enjoying annual revenue of approximately US$10m. It has expressed interest in the lucrative basmati market for over 20 years. In 1998, a report for the Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy – South Asia, for the Sustainable Development Policy Institute2 claimed that it has legally passed off its rice under similar sounding brand names. The “Texmati” product, for example, which is not covered by the patent, has been on the market for more than two decades. “Kasmati” is the brand name for the basmati covered by the patent and “Jasmati” was penned as the brand name for a Jasmine rice. The company did indeed face marketing difficulties in several European countries where authorities expressed concern over consumer confusion.
With a patent in place for the first time however, action groups maintain that it is technically possible for RiceTec to make more authoritative corporate claims of the superior quality of its Basmati 867 to the detriment of the original Indian and Pakistani rice, a potentially crippling situation for third world farmers. If RiceTec can legally pass off its basmati as superior to or even the same as the rice produced by sub-continent growers, many campaigners believe this is evidence of bio-piracy.
The Indian Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA) filed a re-examination request with the USPTO on 28 April last year. It resulted in RiceTec’s withdrawal of four claims concerning the rice’s chalkiness from the twenty registered last autumn, but while the other sixteen remain, Indian farmers are anxious to prevent any corporation potentially monopolising the basmati market. In a “notice served to bio-pirates,” protesters warned RiceTec of the “trade war and cultural war you have unleashed… [by] falsely claiming our collective, cumulative knowledge of Basmati to be your own invention.”
RiceTec consistently argues however that its “patent in no way adversely impacts Punjab farmers” and maintains that the “very valid” patent deals with “the processes of its breeding work and the product of that breeding.” But what happens when that product goes head to head with the more original article from the sub-Continent? The company has not patented the term basmati, but still uses it widely; together with dozens of other US rice producers. And while the rice is given some degree of authority by its protecting patent it is also supported by the leverage, branding and marketing clout of a western corporation, extensive when compared to the farmer-producers of the sub-Continent.
What’s basmati worth to India?
Basmati rice is an important commodity in India and Pakistan, where total exports reached 606,000 tonnes in 1999-2000. The major export markets are the Middle East, Europe and the US, the destination for 10% of the exports, and farmers fear that any such patent will threaten these exports. “Any fear is unfounded,” says Hicks, but it does serves to serves to show how the rice dispute touches more deep-rooted issues, notably the infringement on the economic rights of traditional communities by other corporate heavyweights, often expressed through global conventions and trade bodies.
Uzma Jamil argues that RiceTec owes recognition or remuneration to the traditional producers of basmati, and is wrong to utilise the genetic resources of the basmati-producing countries in name, model or inspiration. He continues by stating it is wrong for RiceTec to be able to defend its action within national US patent legislation. In response, Hicks points out “seeds are placed in the different international seed banks for others to utilise to create something new or better.” In many ways this is no different to the way that many food products initially peculiar to one region or country have been adopted by manufacturers around the world, yet Indian and Pakistani rice growers believe this case is different.
It may be possible for the farmers or their supporting NGOs to contend the patent clauses with reference to TRIPS or the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), but these have yet to be fully instituted in Third World legislation. In TRIPS, there is a warning that Members must protect plant varieties “by patents” but this has not yet occurred. According to CBD article 8(j), parties must “respect […] and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles.” To date however little attention has been paid to the work of groups such as Pakistan’s Rice Research Institute (RRI), which officially first developed Basmati 370 in 1933.
Where do we go from here?
Campaigns figure prominently around the world, with a number of groups lobbying to raise awareness and force the withdrawal of the sixteen remaining patent clauses. Zoë Elford, a campaigner with ActionAid, explained to just-food.com: “Campaigning is extremely important in order to alert the USPTO of the situation. Patent law should not have been changed [developed] in order to support corporations such as RiceTec.” ActionAid took up the basmati cause in January 2000 and plans to continue until the patent is overturned, currently focusing on the application for further re-examination submitted to the USPTO in April of last year.
RiceTec is disparaging about the work of such groups. “ActionAid and other groups, which have said they would fight the patent, have yet to take actions other than publicising themselves,” commented RiceTec’s Hicks, adding: “Some of the groups challenging RiceTec are doing so only to further their own agendas, having nothing to do with basmati rice.”
Such groups do have an important role however in highlighting the rights of sub-continental communities, which are often threatened by poor legislative backing, a lack of comprehensive cataloguing systems and few patenting mechanisms. There are 27 varieties of basmati rice bred by Indian farmers and campaigners welcomed news last September that the Indian government would soon be registering standards for 12 varieties of basmati, of which eight are exported, and identifying a laboratory to preserve traditional basmati through DNA tests. Quality testing units and certification have also aided in the sourcing of previously untapped markets for Third World commodities, for example Canada and South Africa.
Provisions in the global conventions such as TRIPS and CBD give local communities potential leverage against major corporations, but need to be strengthened by national legislation if biotechnological inventions are to be officially recognised. Regional cooperation may also be strengthened with networks of NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and private sector groups around the world.
Claims of bio-piracy are undeniably inflammatory. Companies will always exploit the potential of their chosen product to the limit; it would be unnatural for profit-making bodies not to consider protecting their interests as a primary priority. However, until the issue of patenting legislation is further highlighted and a global consensus on the scope and breadth of such laws is established, arguments such as this one are destined to rumble on. In the meantime, those so readily labelled bio-pirates by campaigning action groups must be prepared to defend their standard business practice on many different levels.
1 TRIPS article 22(1) states that Geographical Indications “…identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality of that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of that good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin.”
2 The full report, authored by Uzma Jamil on 8 October 1998 can be read on the website of the Sustainable Development Policy Institute, at: http://sdpi.org/ceesp/pub/basmati.htm
By Clare Harman, just-food.com journalist
