Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:55:51.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of Genetically Modified Crops and Intellectual Property Rights on Agriculture in Developing Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 May 2017

Olaitan Oluwaseyi Olusegun  and
Ifeoluwa Ayokunle Olubiyi
Olaitan Oluwaseyi Olusegun*
Affiliation:
Afe Babalola University
Ifeoluwa Ayokunle Olubiyi*
Affiliation:
Afe Babalola University
*
[email protected]
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Food is essential for human survival. When the right quantity and quality is taken, it ensures growth and an adequate supply of nutrition to the body, which results in basic effectiveness in all spheres of life. Genetically modified crops have the potential to alleviate hunger and provide more food, especially in developing countries that have high levels of hunger, malnutrition and poverty. Although the debates on genetically modified crops generally focus on intellectual property, other issues include health and environmental concerns. This article examines these issues with the aim of providing holistic knowledge of the subject matter, which is important for stakeholders, particularly in developing countries, in deciding to protect plant variety rights. The article concludes that it is essential for developing countries to consider food security issues in fulfilling their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.

Keywords

Genetically modified cropsintellectual property rightsagriculturedeveloping countriesfood security
Type
Research Articles
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 61 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 253 - 271
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © SOAS, University of London 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Senior lecturer, Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti – Department of Public and International Law.

**

Lecturer I, Afe Babalola University, Ado-Ekiti – Department of Private and Business Law.

References

1 See the Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition of 1974; International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, art 11; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, General Comment No 6 on art 6; Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons of 1975; Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women of 1979; and Declaration on the Right to Development of 1986, which provides for a right to adequate food. See also Blakeney, M Intellectual Property Rights and Food Security (2009, Cab International)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 1 and 8.

2 Blakeney, ibid.

3 Gordan, C “Genetically modified crops: Risks and promise” (2000) 4/1 Conservation Ecology 1 at 2Google Scholar.

4 Ibid.

5 Blakeney Intellectual Property Rights, above at note 1.

6 Falcon, WP “Sustainable science for a sustainable environment: Comments on searching for sustainability ” (2001) 27/1 Ecology Law Quarterly 1163 at 1164Google Scholar.

7 Gordan “Genetically modified crops”, above at note 3.

8 Shelton, AM “Risks and benefits of agricultural biotechnology” in Ahmed, FE (ed) Testing of Genetically Modified Organisms in Food (2004, Food Products Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar 1 at 1 and 2.

9 Catacora-Vargas, GC Genetically Modified Organisms: A Summary of Potential Adverse Effects Relevant to Sustainable Development (Genok Biosafety Report, 2011, Centre for Biosafety)Google Scholar at 7; RW Herdt “Assisting developing countries towards food self-reliance”, available at: <http://www.pnas.org/content/95/5/1989.full> (last accessed 20 March 2017).

10 Catacora-Vargas Genetically Modified Organisms, above at note 9.

11 Oil currently serves as a main source of income in Nigeria. Increasing agricultural output would supplement the income from oil and also reduce the effect that pollution has on the environment from gas flaring and oil bunkering. Poverty levels will also reduce if people have sufficient food to eat at low cost.

12 Oczek, JP “In the aftermath of the ‘terminator’ technology controversy: Intellectual property protections for genetically engineered seeds and the rights to save and replant seed” (2000) 41/1 Boston College Law Review Google Scholar 627 at 635.

13 Nelson, GC “Traits and techniques of GMOs” in GC Nelson (ed) Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics (2001, Academic Press)Google Scholar 7 at 8.

14 Gordan “Genetically modified crops”, above at note 3.

15 Catacora-Vargas Genetically Modified Organisms, above at note 9.

16 Cohen, JI “Poorer nations turn to publicly developed GM crops” (2005) 23/1 Nature Biotechnology Google ScholarPubMed 27 at 32.

17 Egypt, Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Argentina, Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines and Thailand.

18 Cohen “Poorer nations”, above at note 16.

19 Ahmed, FE “Detection of genetically modified organisms in food” (2002) 20/5 Trends in Biotechnology CrossRefGoogle Scholar 215 at 215.

20 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) Agriculture at a Crossroads (global report, 2009, Island Press) at 590. See also Shelton “Risks and benefits”, above at note 8.

21 Kariyawasam, K “Legal liability, intellectual property and genetically modified crops: Their impact on world agriculture” (2010) 19/3 Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal Google Scholar 459 at 459 and 460.

22 Cockburn, A “Assuring the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods: The importance of an holistic, integrative approach” (2002) 98 Biotech Journal CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed 79 at 79 and 80.

23 Ahmed, R and Shaba, NJ “GM crops introduced in agriculture: A critical appraisal in determining legal liability & effective measures preventing GM contamination” (2015) 20/12 IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science Google Scholar 38 at 38.

24 N Millis “Genetically modified organisms” (2006), available at: <http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/c4e4d913-0e4d-46f0-a41d-940a34885c7b/files/gmo.pdf> (last accessed 31 March 2017).

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Lawrence, S “Brazil surpasses US in new transgenic crop plants” (2008) 26 Nature Biotech CrossRefGoogle Scholar 260 at 260. See also Kariyawasam “Legal liability”, above at note 21.

28 Souza, H “Genetically modified plants: A need for international regulation” (2000) 6/1 Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law Google Scholar 129 at 138.

29 T Ilori “The challenges of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in Nigeria”, available at: <http://abusidiqu.com/challenges-genetically-modified-organisms-gmo-nigeria-tomiwa-ilori/>  (last accessed 20 March 2017).

30 Gordan “Genetically modified crops”, above at note 3.

31 M Kallmann “Genetically modified crops and the future of world agriculture”, available at: <https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/220/47331.html> (last accessed 20 March 2017).

32 Kariyawasam “Legal liability”, above at note 21 at 461.

33 FAO “FAO director-general stresses benefits of biotechnology in fighting hunger and malnutrition and calls for open debate on potential risks” (press release, 14 May 2001), available at: <http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/OIS/PRESS_NE/PRESSENG/2001/pren0131.htm> (last accessed 20 March 2017).

34 Nelson, GC “Introduction” in GC Nelson (ed) Genetically Modified Organisms in Agriculture: Economics and Politics (2001, Academic Press)Google Scholar 3 at 5.

35 Millis “Genetically modified organisms”, above at note 24.

36 GC Nelson and A de Pinto “GMO adoption and nonmarket effects” in Nelson (ed) Genetically Modified Organisms, above at note 34, 21 at 60.

37 Nelson “Introduction”, above at note 34 at 7.

38 Hamilton, ND “Legal issues shaping society's acceptance of biotechnology and genetically modified organisms” (2001) 6/1 Drake Journal of Agricultural Law Google Scholar 81 at 83.

39 The importance of risk assessment is reflected in arts 15, 16 and 22 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, 2000, which recognizes the need to increase scientific capacity in risk assessment and risk management methods. Steps towards achieving this include hazard identification, exposure and effects assessment, and risk communication. See Hayes, KR et al. “Environmental risk assessment for transgenic fish” in Kapuscinski, AR, Hayes, KR, Li, S and Dana, G (eds) Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Methodologies For Transgenic Fish (2007, Biddles Press)Google Scholar 1 at 4 and 14; IAASTD Agriculture at a Crossroads, above at note 20 at 94.

40 For example, plants such as canola have a high risk of outcrossing within species; this could be controlled by ensuring that the pollen of the GMO is sterile. See Nelson and de Pinto “GMO adoption”, above at note 36.

41 Gordan “Genetically modified crops”, above at note 3.

42 Ibid.

43 BA Garner (ed) Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed, 1999, West) at 824.

44 Tritton, G Intellectual Property in Europe (3rd ed, 2008, Sweet & Maxwell)Google Scholar at 7. See also World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) “Intellectual property handbook: Policy, law and use” (2008), available at: <http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/489/wipo_pub_489.pdf> (last accessed 20 March 2017), explaining (at 3) that IPRs “do not apply to the physical object in which the creation may be embodied but instead to the intellectual creation as such”.

45 WIPO, ibid.

46 Ibid.

47 See generally Adewopo, A Nigerian Copyright System: Principles and Perspective (2012, Odade Publishers)Google Scholar at 151–55.

48 OA Osunbor “What is intellectual property?” (paper presented at the Workshop on Ideas, Inventions, Manufacturing, Finance and Intellectual Property Law, Lagos, 2–5 December 1991) at 5.

49 Sterne, L Tristram Shandy (Everyman ed, 1912, JM Dent and Sons)Google Scholar, quoted in Guobodia, D “Fair dealing and copyright in Nigeria” (1989) 2/4 Business and Property Law Journal Google Scholar 35 at 40.

50 Fox, HG Monopolies and Patents (1947, The University of Toronto Press)Google Scholar at 201.

51 Id at 203.

52 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art 27(2).

53 Anderfelt, U International Patent Legislation and Developing Countries (1971, Martinus Nijhoff)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 41.

54 Adewopo Nigerian Copyright System, above at note 47.

55 The Holy Bible, Amplified version, 1 Timothy 5:18.

56 [1954] 347 US 201 at 219.

57 Adewopo Nigerian Copyright System, above at note 47.

58 Id at 154.

59 Osunbor “What is intellectual property?”, above at note 48.

60 Adewopo Nigerian Copyright System, above at note 47.

61 D Kuyek “Intellectual property rights: Ultimate control of agricultural R&D in Asia” (2001), available at: <https://www.grain.org/article/entries/30-intellectual-property-rights-ultimate-control-of-agricultural-r-d-in-asia> (last accessed 20 March 2017).

62 Stein, H “Intellectual property and genetically modified seeds: The United States, trade and the developing world” (2005) 3/2 Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Google Scholar 160 at 169.

63 Satoko, K “GMO trade in the context of TRIPS: From the perspective of an autopoietic system analysis” (2011) 10 Ritsumeikan International Affairs Google Scholar 243 at 248–50.

64 Oczek “In the aftermath”, above at note 12 at 637.

65 GMO Literacy Project “Biotechnology intellectual property law”, available at: <https://sites.psu.edu/gmoliteracyproject/current-legislation/biotechnology-intellectual-property-law/> (last accessed 31 March 2017); Stein “Intellectual Property”, above at note 62 at 165.

66 Strauss, DM “The application of TRIPS to GMOs: International intellectual property rights and biotechnology” (2009) 45 Stanford Journal of International Law Google Scholar 287 at 289.

67 Blakeney Intellectual Property Rights, above at note 1 at 28.

68 Emphasis added.

69 The acronym UPOV is derived from the organization's French name: Union Internationale pour la Protection des Obtentions Végétales.

70 TRIPS, art 27.1.

71 Id, art 33.

72 Id, art 28.

73 Kariyawasam “Legal liability”, above at note 21.

74 Monsanto Canada, Inc and Monsanto Company v Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises [2001] FC 256 (Can). See also Schmeiser's appeal in Monsanto Canada, Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 SCR 902, 2004 SCC 34.

75 [2000] WL 33953542 (ED Mo 2000).

76 Copyright Act, Cap C28, LFN 2004, sec 16(3) provides: “Where, in an action for infringement of copyright, it is proved or admitted that an infringement was committed but that at the time of the infringement the defendant was not aware and had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that copyright subsisted in the work to which the action relates, the plaintiff shall not be entitled under this section to any damages against the defendant in respect of the infringement, but shall be entitled to an account of profits in respect of the infringement, whether or not any other relief is granted under this section.”

77 Oczek “In the aftermath”, above at note 12.

78 Kuyek “Intellectual property rights”, above at note 61.

79 Ohlgart, SM “The terminator gene: Intellectual property rights v the farmers’ common law right to save seed” (2002) 7/1 Drake Journal of Agricultural Law Google Scholar 473 at 473.

80 H Stein “Intellectual property”, above at note 62 at 168.

81 Strauss “The application of TRIPS”, above at note 66 at 300.

82 Oczek “In the aftermath”, above at note 12.

83 Id at 651.

84 Id at 656.

85 UPOV 1978, art 6; UPOV 1991, arts 5–9.

86 UPOV 1978, art 5.

87 UPOV 1991, art 14.

88 UPOV 1978, art 5.3.

89 UPOV 1991, arts 14.5 and 15.

90 Helfer, LR and Austin, GW Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface (2011, Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 383.

91 UPOV 1978, art 5.1.

92 Helfer and Austin Human Rights, above at note 90 at 384.

93 UPOV 1991, art 15.2.

94 Helfer and Austin Human Rights, above at note 90 at 384.

95 Blakeney Intellectual Property Rights, above at note 1.

96 Satoko “GMO trade”, above at note 63.

97 Ibid. Zarrilli, S “International trade in GMOs and GM products: National and multilateral legal frame works” (UN Conference on Trade and Development, Policy Issues in International Trade and Commodities Study Series No 29, 2005)Google Scholar at 1.

98 Kariyawasam “Legal liability”, above at note 21.

99 Satoko “GMO trade”, above at note 63; “Current intellectual property rights, especially those for GMO seeds, threaten poor farmers, food security and the right to food” (21 October 2009) World Hunger Notes, available at: <http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/09/global/united_nations.htm> (last accessed 20 March 2017).

100 Kariyawasam “Legal liability”, above at note 21.

101 Blakeney Intellectual Property Rights, above at note 1.

102 “Current intellectual property rights”, above at note 99.

103 “Do seed companies control GM crop research?” (1 August 2009) Scientific American, available at: <https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research/> (last accessed 20 March 2017).

104 Satoko “GMO trade”, above at note 63.

105 Ibid.

106 Helfer and Austin Human Rights, above at note 90 at 381.

107 Kariyawasam “Legal liability”, above at note 21.

108 Helfer and Austin Human Rights, above at note 90 at 380.

109 Id at 380.

110 Stein “Intellectual property”, above at note 62.

111 Strauss “The application of TRIPS”, above at note 66.

112 Hamilton “Legal issues”, above at note 38; Helfer and Austin Human Rights, above at note 90; Oczek “In the aftermath”, above at note 12.

113 UPOV 1978, art 9; UPOV 1991, art 17.

114 Institute of Development Studies “Democratising biotechnology: Genetically modified crops in developing countries”, available at: <www.ids.ac.uk/biotech> (last accessed 20 March 2017).

115 Helfer and Austin Human Rights, above at note 90 at 387; Strauss “The application of TRIPS”, above at note 66.

116 Satoko “GMO trade”, above at note 63.

117 Dan, L and Flitner, M “Intellectual property rights and plant genetic resources: Options for a sui generis system” Issues in Genetic Resources (no 6, June 1997)Google Scholar, available at: <https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/_migrated/uploads/tx_news/Intellectual_property_rights_and_plant_genetic_resources_497.pdf> (last accessed 20 March 2017). The Oncomouse is a genetically modified mouse which is highly susceptible to cancer. The introduction of certain oncogene triggers the growth of tumours, hence it is useful for research on cancer.

118 Strauss “The application of TRIPS”, above at note 66 at 307.

119 See generally “Bioethics and patent law: The case of the oncomouse” (June 2006) WIPO Magazine, available at: <http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2006/03/article_0006.html> (last accessed 20 March 2017).

120 Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office, decision of 6 July 2004, T 315/03.

121 Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patent) 2002 SCC 76.

122 The term “ordre public” is derived from French law. It expresses concerns about matters threatening the social structures that tie a society together, in other words, matters affecting public policy or morality.

123 Gordan “Genetically modified crops”, above at note 3.

124 Blakeney Intellectual Property Rights, above at note 1 at 28.

125 Gordan “Genetically modified crops”, above at note 3.