October 13 to December 1

Ines Doujak

Victory Gardens

-

™ Biopiracy / external and internal conquest

Political and social hegemony has always extended to control over water, food and land. Transnational corporations are the ones now appropriating and exploiting nature and native knowledge of how to utilize it – a practice known as biopiracy. This refers to genetic or biological resources being patented and used without the consent and financial compensation of the land of origin, the local communities or the indigenous peoples who previously maintained and used those resources. Biopiracy concentrates on the “mega diversity” countries of Mexico, India, Brazil, Indonesia and Australia, known for their exceptionally high level of cultural and biological variety.The access to and development of cheap fossil and biological raw materials, as well as the progressive capitalization on social areas that have not yet been directly exploited for monetary gain, are distinguishing features of Fordism. This process is also referred to as “internal conquest” in analogy to the “external conquest” of colonialism, and, like the latter, opens up new opportunities for capital expansion. Systematic, and just as illegal, was the biopiracy that historically took place and is still being practiced in the botanical gardens of the North. Under the pretence of conducting scientific research for collection purposes, purportedly for the good of all humanity, thousands of samples of southern flora and fauna landed in the laboratories of multinational corporations. In many cases, the samples became part of the repertory of these laboratories, which used them for commercial purposes and patented the substances therein. Some botanical gardens, including the Missouri Botanical Garden, the New York Botanical Garden and the Kew Royal Botanical in England, openly collaborated with commercial enterprises. Contracts exist between them and corporations such as Pfizer, Merck, Phytera, Monsanto and Pharmacia, ensuring the steady supply of samples for bioprospecting. Biodiversity is threatened today by a series of factors, including genetic contamination through the cultivation of genetically modified plants, trade in endangered species, and the disappearance of traditional cultures. Monocultures are a major component of globalization and are always associated with political violence.

™ Biodiversity
Some 90% of the world’s remaining biodiversity is found in tropical and subtropical regions in developing countries, most of them in the southern hemisphere. Biodiversity is threatened today by a number of factors, including global warming (CO2 emissions), unbridled industrial logging, the degeneration of landscapes into steppe, oil production, mining, genetic contamination (through the cultivation of genetically modified plants), trade in endangered species, and the disappearance of traditional cultures. Although the loss of biodiversity has a global impact, those hardest hit are the indigenous and village communities whose entire economies and very subsistence depend on it. The vanishing of indigenous cultures at the same time means a reduction in the cultural abundance of humanity as well as the loss of traditional knowledge needed for the sustainable exploitation of biodiversity. At the turn of the last century, it is estimated that some 10,000 languages were spoken on the planet, of which only about 6,700 survive today. Anthropologists predict that 90% of the languages spoken today will have died out by the year 2099. As the result of this cultural erosion, by the mid-21st century almost all of the world’s ecosystems will be inhabited by people who do not command the indigenous language for protecting and utilizing their systems’ remaining diversity.

™ Chinese medicinal plants / nano level (China)
Yang Mengjun has applied for 466 patents on traditional Chinese medicinal plants at the nano level. The plants are simply ground down to a fine powder with particles smaller than 100 nanometers (one nanometer = one billionth of a meter). Yang secured monopoly patents on the plants’ bark, roots, fruit and leaves. These have been used for centuries in Chinese medicine. Yang now owns more nano patents than anyone else in the world. Nano technology manipulates material at the level of atoms and molecules, the building blocks of the entire natural world, and thus offers new possibilities for control through monopolies – not only of higher life forms, but of nature itself. Advances in nano-scale technology go hand-in-hand with far-reaching patent claims, not only to DNA, but to the very atoms and molecules of which DNA is made.

™ The pig (sus scrofa domestica)
The patent applications were published in 2005 at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Geneva. There are more than 160 countries and territories mentioned where the patent is sought including Europe, Asia and America. WIPO itself can only receive applications, not grant patents. The applications are forwarded to regional patent offices. The patents are based on simple procedures, but are incredibly broad in their claims. In one application (WO 2005/015989) Monsanto is describing very general methods of crossbreeding and selection, using artificial insemination and other breeding methods which are already in use. The main “invention” is nothing more than a particular combination of these elements designed to speed up the breeding cycle for selected traits, in order to make the animals more commercially profitable. Monsanto isn't just seeking a patent for the method, they are seeking a patent on the actual pigs which are bred from this method. Patent application WO 2005/017204 refers to pigs in which a certain gene sequence related to faster growth is detected. This is a variation on a natural occurring sequence. It was first identified in mice and humans. Monsanto wants to use the detection of this gene sequence to screen pig populations, in order to find which animals are likely to produce more pork per pound of feed. (And that will be Monsanto Brand genetically engineered feed grown from Monsanto Brand genetically engineered seed raised in fields sprayed with Monsanto Brand Roundup Ready herbicide and doused with Monsanto Brand pesticides). Further examples of patent claims: * Claim 16 asks for a patent on: “A pig offspring produced by a method …” * Claim 17 asks for a patent on: “A pig herd having an increased frequency of a specific gene…” * Claim 23 asks for a patent on: “A pig population produced by the method…” * Claim 30 asks for a patent on: “A swine herd produced by a method…” This means the pigs, their offspring, and the use of the genetic information for breeding will be entirely owned by Monsanto, Inc. and any replication or infringement of their patent will mean royalties or jail. Monsanto notes that “The economic impact of the industry in rural America is immense. Annual farm sales typically exceed $ 11 billion, while the retail value of pork sold to consumers reaches US$ 38 billion each year.”

™ Cell line (for T-lymphocytes)
John Moore is the first human to be partially patented. Stricken by leukaemia, he had to have his cancerous spleen removed in 1976. His doctor discovered lymphocytes (white blood cells) in the diseased organ that produced unusual immunological substances and proceeded to have these patented. Shortly thereafter, he sold the patent for around 35 million euros to a biotech company. Moore brought a suit against the patent, claiming a share of the profits. The US Supreme Court ruled that a person has no implicit right to his own body tissues since such a right would hinder scientific progress. Today, a drug is on the market that makes use of the anticarcinogenic properties of Moore’s spleen cells. Sales of medications based on human gene functions earn the companies involved several hundred million dollars every year. In 1984, patent US 4438032 was issued to the University of California.

™ Pau Brasil (Caesalpinia echinata) Brazil
Biopiracy in the Amazon region began almost immediately after the “discovery” in 1500 by the Portuguese of the secret of how to extract a red pigment from Pau Brasil (brazilwood) – a secret they actually stole from the indigenous people of the region. This pigment was then used as a dye for high-demand luxury textiles like velvet. The highly profitable monopoly held by the Portuguese crown stimulated other nations to smuggle this prized wood out of Brazil. The unsuccessful attempt of a French expedition led by Nicolas Durand de Villegaignon, vice-admiral of Brittany, in 1555, to establish a colony in present-day Rio de Janeiro was motivated in part by the bounty generated by economic exploitation of brazilwood. Excessive exploitation (it has been estimated that in the last two centuries, more than 50 million trees were destroyed) finally led to a steep decrease in the number of brazilwood trees in the 18th century, causing the collapse of this economic activity. Emblematic of today’s situation, in which flora and fauna are continuing to vanish, the wood to which Brazil gave its name has disappeared entirely there – and has been preserved only in a few botanical gardens in the North.

™ Maize (Zea mays) Mexico
5,000 years ago, maize was already the staple food of the Incas, Mayas and Aztecs and it is still one of the most useful plants on earth today. According to the Mayan creation myth, the first men were made of yellow and white maize. Columbus brought maize back to Europe, from where it spread to the rest of the world. In 2000 the US DuPont corporation was granted patent EP 744 888 by the European Patent Office (EPA), comprising all maize plants that exceed a certain proportion of oil and oleic acid. This does not refer to genetically engineered maize, but to the oil content in natural or conventionally cultivated maize. DuPont lays claim to the entire product chain – foods such as vegetable oil, animal feed and maize processed for industrial use. The patent’s protection is not tied to a specific production method. The decisive factor is solely the higher oil content, regardless of the way in which the maize was produced. The company has thus staked out a very wide-ranging area, securing for itself the right to maize plants and uses that are perhaps as yet unknown. The patent covers even the normal crossbreeding and selective breeding of maize plants in order to achieve a higher oil content: as well as planting, pollination and harvesting as part of conventional cultivation. In addition, the patent covers plant varieties (i.e. commercially available crop seed) which, according to patent law, cannot be patented. If the patent in its present form were defended, DuPont would have a monopoly. Farmers all over the world would feel the repercussions in the form of trade restrictions, licensing fees and the loss of marketing rights. Progress in plant cultivation would be hindered. Far-reaching dependencies could also arise for food producers. The DuPont patent on maize with higher oil content was revoked by the European Patent Office (EPA) in 2003, but is still in effect in the USA.