What was invented what stolen?

Greenpeace and monsanto are arguing over wheat and biscuits

That the environmental protection organization greenpeace of the work of the european patent office is equally critical of it as a considerable part of the product range of the gentech and agraries monsanto is clearly known. Nevertheless, a coarse part of the clashes plays around gene-manipulated plants or patents on life if not excluding, then without real sympathy of the public. In the present case, there could be some other, because behind the patent ep 445 929, with the inconspicuous name "plan" is provided, do not hide (for the time being abstract) claim to any organisms, but very comprehensible economic interests.

The patent that the company monsanto on 21. In may 2003, it refers to the intersection of a traditional indian wheat variety with other, also non-maculated plants, but not only includes the wheat itself, but also the further processing levels up to "crunchy, flour-mounted, edible products such as biscuits or a similar". Monsantos press spokesman andreas thierfelder, greet the claim of his company against telepolis as follows:

Of course, the patent claim is based on present insights, but it is an original invention. And that a company that has invested a lot of money into the invention, research and development now tries to secure the exclusive marketing rights for a certain time to pay the costs, is natural.

The accusation of biopiracy, which greenpeace had raised on monday ("monsanto deflawed indian farmers who have attracted these special wheats over centuries.") does thierfelder strictly return:

The indian hal nap wheat is a variable phanotype, but our crossing is aimed at a new product that has particularly good baking properties. These are required by the manufacturing industry, which depends so far on chemical. The indian farmers do not build the wheat because they are about these special properties. The first invention is therefore obvious.

Greenpeace sees the natural. Patent expert christoph then says in conversation with telepolis:

From a new idea here can not be a speech. It does not matter whether the indian farmers grow their wheat in consciousness that he has these baking properties or not. The hal nap wheat, which is characterized by a high pure bulge, is the breeding performance of a very specific region, its special qualities are also scientifically occupied.

In addition, then acknowledges the far-reaching consequences of patent ep 445 929. Monsanto will not only be able to sue the farmers who grow and sell the wheats, but also cones against bakery and supermarkets, which produce or distribute intermediate and end products: "it is undoubtedly intended to control the entire chain of value chip."

Greenpeace therefore prepares an objection against patent division in the next few weeks. The chances of success rates christoph then principles positively: "i ame that in this case we have very good arguments." on the "opposite" in any case, one depends on a long and uncomfortable negotiation. Although andreas thierfelder sees the procedure optimistic about the procedure, but also calculates the case that monsanto is patent "in the worst case" can not enforce or have any restrictions.

But even then the success of greenpeace only a drop on the hot stone. Christoph then will not deliver that the ratification of the controversial eu directive from 1998, which is obviously intended by the federal government, which is obviously intended by the federal government, which can no longer be made or at least appropriately controlled:

This patent shows how urgent a legal general prohibition of patenting genes and living beings and seeds is. The german federal government complies with complicity if she is not active now and patents stops living in europe.

At monsanto, however, nobody seems to be expected that the government of environmental protectioners and human rights people still see. On the other hand, the serenity of the agilen cross drivers barely love themselves: "that greenpeace is already trying to mobilize the public is completely legitimate."