The Hindu Business Line : Is rice now <I>Oryza MNC? </I>

Rice, the principal food for more than 2.5 billion people in China, India and Indonesia, is more than just a grain. It is the essence of life in Asia, an unstated religion. But as the world commemorates the International Year of Rice 2004, a leading agribusiness multinational has claimed ownership of the grain.

THE launch of a high-yielding dwarf rice variety by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) on November 28, 1966 marked the beginning of Asia's struggle for freedom from hunger. Perhaps drawn by the promise of the `miracle rice' — the IR8 rice variety — the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) labelled 1966 the International Rice Year.

Thirty-eight years later, as the United Nations dedicates 2004 to the world's most important staple food once again, celebrating it as the International Year of Rice, the starchy grain has undergone a complete metamorphosis.

In 1966, the miracle rice seeds that ushered in the Green Revolution belonged to the species Oryza sativa — mankind's precious heritage. Since the time the Indica variety of wild rice was grown on the northern and southern slopes of the Himalayas — some 15,000 years ago — rice has been regarded in India as God's greatest gift to mankind.

That was the period when rice was freely available to farmers, consumers and scientists.

The tussle over the monopoly control of rice extends to its 12 chromosomes. These chromosomes contain 430 million base pairs of DNA, and are expected to have about 50,000 genes.

Syngenta, in collaboration with Myriad Genetics Inc, US, has beaten Monsanto in the game by sequencing more than 99.5 per cent of the rice genome. Syngenta has made it clear that it will restrict access to the genomic map and expects proprietary control over any research carried out with the information.

Top executives of Syngenta have already told The New York Times that while the company would not seek to patent the entire genome, it would try to patent individual valuable genes. They categorically stated that Syngenta and Myriad were well on their way to finding many of those.

First, Monsanto, which made international headlines in April 2000 for announcing to share its working draft of the genome map with international researchers sequencing the rice genome under a publicly funded International Rice Genome Sequencing Project (IRGSP), and then Syngenta, made clear their efforts to seek patents on genes with visible commercial output. The race is, thus, on to draw proprietary control over something that exists freely in nature.

There are conflicting reports of the latest tally of patents over rice genes. According to some researchers, more than 900 genes have been patented. Earlier, GRAIN had compiled a list of 609 patents on rice genes drawn till September 2000, 56 per cent of which were owned by private companies and research institutes of the West.

At the top of the list was the American giant DuPont, with 95 patents, followed by Mitsui, Japan, with 45. In the next three years, especially after the mapping of the rice genome, a majority of the patents would surely be in the possession of a handful of agribusiness MNCs.

Unfortunately, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), which governs the 16 international agricultural research centres for public good, has welcomed the recent developments in rice.

Nor have the Convention on Biological Diversity, the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), the FAO or the UNDP stood up against what are seen as questionable designs of the private companies in the name of research and development.

The quest for control over rice brought MNCs to India too. In 2002, stung by criticism, the Indian arm of an MNC had to pull out from a controversial research collaboration with the Indira Gandhi Agricultural University (IGAU) at Raipur.

The collaboration would have given the company commercial rights to over 19,000 strains of local rice cultivars held by the university.

These rice varieties were painstakingly gathered by the agricultural scientist R. H. Richharia in the 1970s. In exchange, the university would have received an undisclosed amount of money and royalties.

Environmentalists and some scientists had opposed the deal on the ground that Prof Richharia's collection is a national wealth and not the private property of the university and that opening the database to an MNC is a "sellout".

"We are very disappointed to see the misleading and false accusations that were made (against the collaboration)," a company official was quoted as saying.

Dr Patrick Mulvany of the Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) has closely followed the biodiversity trail. "Not just national collections, but also CGIAR genebanks (which contain over 600,000 plant accessions) will come under increasing pressure from multinationals in the next year or two, to exchange the genetic resources in genebanks under public control for traitorous pieces of silver," he warns.

Accordingly, as "Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture" are defined in the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources' Article 2 as "any genetic material of plant origin of actual or potential value for food and agriculture," it should be quite clear that IPRs are not allowed on these genetic resources.

However, the eminent Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, set up by the British government, has already jumped the gun and interpreted Article 12.3(d) as meaning that patents can be taken on genes derived from the seeds kept under the rules of the multilateral systems (those 35 genera of food crops, including rice, wheat, maize and potatoes, and 29 forages covered by the MLS in its Annex 1).

Dr Mulvany explains: "The crucial words `in the form received' mean that material received cannot be patented as such, but they do allow patents to be taken out on modifications (however defined) to that material" (CIPR report Ch 3). In simple words, even the CIPR has failed to foresee the underlying threat to food sovereignty, not realising that such an interpretation will lead to scientific apartheid against the developing countries.

As a result of private control over genes and biological processes, farm research in the public sector will be rendered redundant. It has already happened in the rich industrialised countries where universities have increasingly gone private or are surviving on private funds.

To begin with, rice research will be the biggest casualty for the developing countries. With a few private companies vying for the crumbs, rice is essentially in the grip an MNC.

(The author is a New Delhi-based food and trade policy analyst. Response can be sent to dsharma@ndf.vsnl.net.in)