GENTECH archive
[Index][Thread]

RE: Monsanto's "Submarine Patent" Torpedoes Ag Biotech

Folks

This is another case of the anti-GMO press not telling the whole truth, and
using the opportunity to bash Monsanto for no good reason.

This story confirms to me that many "scientific writers", and I use that
term loosely, are not fully conversant with the technology upon which they
"report".
No wonder the general public is left in fits!!

There are many other ways to use selectable and screenable markers in the
production of transgenic plants not covered by the patents mentioned in this
article. These patents will in no way halt or monopolize GMO's in plants.
For example, go to http://www.nbiap.vt.edu/cfdocs/fieldtests1.cfm and search
for field trials by gene using NPTII, a typical antibiotic resistance
marker.  You'll find 3041 applications for field testing, many of which are
Monsanto.  Now search for phosphinothricin acetyl transferase (PAT), and
you'll find 2081 fields trials...this is a herbicide resistance marker.  So
many field trials are being done without using antibiotic selectable
markers.  Why on earth would Monsanto NOT use a technology for which they
have been granted a patent on, as opposed to using some other company's
patented selection protocol?  The reason why there are more trial
applications with NPTII is because it was the first chimeric selectable
marker ever used with plants to select transgenic events (Paszkowski,
Shillito, Saul, Mandak, Hohn, Hohn & Potrykus 1984 Direct gene transfer to
plants EMBO J 3:2717-2722).  Use of PAT came much later (Spencer,
Gordon-Kamm, Daines, Start & Lemaux 1990 Bialaphos selection of stable
transformants from maize cell culture TAG 79:625-631).

This patent was filed in 1983, and remains unchanged from that initial
filing.  This is old technology. While it is true  that some organizations
still use antibiotic resistance markers (ARM's ) as selectable markers for
transgenics, the industry has long since moved past their use.  There are
many other more efficient methods of selection both in culture and in the
field.  And, ARM's probably do not have the market acceptance with the
public.


Jerry

"...everything is everywhere, the environment selects..."
Beijernick




>-----Original Message-----
>From: Deborah Mokma [mailto:dmokma@jeffnet.org]
>Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:14 PM
>To: gentech@gen.free.de
>Cc: recipient list not shown
>Subject: Monsanto's "Submarine Patent" Torpedoes Ag Biotech 
>
>
>More evidence that Monsanto is NOT an altruistic company with 
>great concerns
>for feeding the world. Rather, they are a profit-driven 
>corporation whose
>every action is in THEIR best interests. Any data, research, 
>conclusions etc
>originating from Monsanto should be treated with suspicion.
>
>D. Mokma
>***********************
>
>
>Rural Advancement Foundation International
>www.rafi.org  |  rafi@rafi.org
>News Release - 27 April 2001
>Monsanto's "Submarine Patent" Torpedoes Ag Biotech
>
>Monsanto & Syngenta Monopolize Key Gene Marker Technologies
>
>Note: RAFI's concern about monopolization of gene marker systems and
>other basic research tools should not be interpreted as support for the
>technology or for genetic engineering. RAFI is not 
>fundamentally opposed
>to biotechnology, but we have profound concerns about the way it is
>being foisted upon the world. In the current social, economic and
>political context, genetic engineering is not safe, and involves
>unacceptable levels of risk to people and the environment. For 
>RAFI, the
>fundamental issue is control. Monopolistic control of marker gene
>systems, as discussed below, illustrates how a handful of Gene Giants
>are using intellectual property as a powerful market tool to stifle
>innovation, shackle public sector research and foster ever-increasing
>industry consolidation.
>
>
>A new US patent, awarded to Monsanto on 16 January 2001, has 
>blind-sided
>biotech scientists and threatens to knee-cap public sector research
>because it gives Monsanto exclusive monopoly rights on a crucial method
>of identifying modified plant cells in the laboratory.
>
>US Patent No. 6,174,724 covers all practical methods of making
>transformed plants that employ antibiotic resistance markers.  The
>technique, though controversial, has been used in virtually all
>commercial GM crops. The patent is valid only in the United States.
>
>"The technique is so widely used that it could be a nightmare for
>biotech researchers," says Hope Shand, Research Director of RAFI, "It's
>as if Monsanto had just patented the yellow pages as a method for
>finding a telephone number.  A technique that everyone thought was in
>the public domain is now the exclusive property of Monsanto - and the
>only practical alternative is patented by Syngenta."
>
>"It appears to be just another nail in the coffin of public sector
>researchers' ability to produce transgenic plants with freedom to
>operate," observes Gary Toenniessen, Director of Food Security for the
>Rockefeller Foundation.
>
>Monsanto's controversial patent, "Chimeric genes suitable for 
>expression
>in plant cells," is described by patent experts as a particularly
>sinister "submarine patent." The term refers to a patent claim on a
>technology that is already widely used by competitors. When 
>the surprise
>monopoly surfaces, the patent holder is positioned to demand licensing
>fees and royalties from its competitors - or to deny access to the
>technology altogether.  It's not the first time that Mighty 
>Monsanto has
>torpedoed its competition. For example, industry analysts 
>speculate that
>AgrEvo's herbicide tolerant soybean program was stopped dead in the
>water after Monsanto's CaMV 35S promoter patent issued.
>
>Monsanto originally applied for its patent on antibiotic resistance
>markers in 1983; a series of delays kept the patent under 
>wraps until it
>surfaced recently without warning - long since the technology has been
>routinely used by researchers around the world.1
>
> "It raises very sharply the question of what we should do about
>patented research tools," remarks Professor John Barton, an 
>intellectual
>property specialist at Stanford Law School.  Barton refers to 
>Monsanto's
>new patent as only the most recent in a line of extremely broad patents
>covering biotech's most basic enabling technologies.
>
>Breeding Controversy: Why are antibiotic resistance marker genes so
>widely used? And why are they controversial?
>Genetic engineering is an imprecise technology. Antibiotic resistance
>markers, or selectable markers, are routinely used by genetic engineers
>because they provide a cheap and easy way to find out whether 
>a new gene
>has been successfully transferred to a plant cell.
>
>Scientists commonly introduce antibiotic resistance marker genes along
>with the primary gene of interest. To identify the cells that have been
>successfully transformed, scientists simply expose all the cells to the
>antibiotic and only the cells that have the antibiotic resistant marker
>gene will continue to grow.  If the marker gene is present, so is the
>new gene. The technique is known as "negative selection."
>
>The use of antibiotic resistance markers is controversial. If 
>the marker
>gene remains in genetically transformed plants that are released in the
>environment, there is concern that the presence of antibiotic 
>resistance
>markers in soils and food may decrease the efficacy of widely used
>antibiotics, or increase the speed with which disease-causing pathogens
>become resistant to antibiotics. Last year the European Union proposed
>new rules banning antibiotic resistance genes in GM crops. Government
>regulators are thus forcing the biotech industry to phase out 
>the use of
>antibiotic resistant genes in commercial GM crops.  But marker 
>genes are
>still widely used in transgenic (GM) crops and in laboratory research.
>
>Syngenta's Alternative - Patented Positech:   In March 2000 Syngenta
>unveiled a new marker gene system called "Positech," that enables plant
>cell transformation and selection without the use of antibiotic
>resistance marker genes. The Positech marker system gives plant cells
>the ability to digest mannose, a carbon source. Only the plant cells
>that can digest the mannose-based food source will be able to 
>grow - all
>the others (the non-transformed plant cells) will die. The Positech
>system is an example of what is known as a "positive selection"
>technique. According to scientists interviewed by RAFI, 
>Syngenta's broad
>patent covers, in effect, the entire concept of positive 
>selection. (The
>Positech technology - US Patent 5,767,378 and WO9420627A1 - was
>originally claimed as an invention by scientists at Denmark's 
>Danisco (a
>sugar company), who then sold the patent outright to Sandoz, 
>which later
>became Novartis, which last year became Syngenta.)
>
>Syngenta claims that it will make Positech "widely available" to both
>industry and academic researchers through "simple licensing
>procedures."2 It also boasts that it will provide Positech 
>"royalty-free
>for subsistence farmers in developing countries" through local
>institutes or companies.
>
>"The reality is totally different," explains RAFI's Shand. "Public
>sector researchers who seek to license Syngenta's marker system must
>abide by a Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) that gives Syngenta first
>rights to any results and prohibits the sharing of resulting materials
>with third parties. By licensing Positech under this type of MTA,
>Syngenta has a significant number of public sector researchers who are,
>in effect, doing research for Syngenta!"  Will Monsanto follow suit in
>the licensing of its broad submarine patent?
>
>Like all of the Gene Giants, Syngenta is desperately seeking moral
>legitimacy, especially in the wake of its Golden Rice misfire. The
>company thus claims to make Positech available royalty-free to
>subsistence farmers in the developing world. But the reality is that
>many poor countries do not recognize Syngenta's patent. Governments (or
>companies) have every legal right to utilize any technology 
>not patented
>within their territories.
>
>With the power of monopoly patents, Monsanto and Syngenta have
>essentially "locked up" all currently viable marker selection
>techniques. In addition, MTAs are being used as a powerful 
>market weapon
>to control potentially lucrative scientific advances.
>
>Scientific Apartheid:  "The biotech industry perpetually promises that
>it will deliver for the public good, but the biotech research agenda is
>virtually monopolized by corporate science in service to the 
>Gene Giants
>- not to poor farmers or the environment," states RAFI's Shand.
>
>All methods of producing genetically modified crops are covered by
>multiple and overlapping intellectual property constraints.  
>All methods
>of delivering DNA to plant cells are also proprietary, usually covered
>by multiple patents.  The irony is that many of these "inventions" were
>made at public institutions with public funding and then exclusively
>licensed to companies who use them to capture more public sector
>research results.
>
>Consolidation Countdown: 5-4-3-2-1:  Armed with obscenely broad patents
>on basic enabling technologies, a handful of Gene Giants are legally
>empowered to determine who gets access to proprietary science, and at
>what price. Not surprisingly, today's GM harvest is characterized by
>uniformity and concentration on a global scale:
>
> * Five major Gene Giants  - Pharmacia (Monsanto), DuPont, Syngenta,
>Aventis, Dow - dominate agbiotech.
> * Four industrial crop commodities (soybeans, maize, cotton, canola)
>accounted for 100% of the commercial GM crop area in 2000.
> * Three countries (US, Argentina and Canada) accounted for 98% of the
>global transgenic area in 2000.
> * Two genetically engineered traits - herbicide tolerance and B.t.
>insect resistance - accounted for virtually all of the 44.2 million
>hectares devoted to GM crops last year.
> * Two patents controlled by Monsanto & Syngenta have "locked up"
>currently viable marker selection techniques - a basic enabling
>technology for agbiotech.
> * One company's GM seed technology (Monsanto's) accounted for 94% of
>the total world area devoted to commercial GM crops last year.
>
><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
>subscribe or help is:
>
>              GENTECH-REQUEST@gen.free.de
>
>The searchable WWW list archive is available at
>
>              http://www.gene.ch
>