SIX BILLS TO TREAT GM ILLS
Phillip B.C. Jones
Just before the August recess, Presidential candidate Congressman Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) introduced six bills intended to provide a regulatory framework for genetically modified (GM) plants, animals, and bacteria. The legislation contains an assortment of changes, including mandatory labeling for GM food, increased liability and a new tax for agbiotech companies, extra hurdles for GM food approval, and a moratorium for GM crops that produce pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals.
H.R. 2916 ("Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act") would amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to require the labeling of food that contains GM material or that is produced with GM material. Food would not have to be labeled, however, if it is served in restaurants or contains adventitious GM material amounting to one percent or less. This legislation is
based on the theory that consumers have a "right to know" whether their food contains or was produced with GM material, a notion rejected by at least one federal appellate court. H.R. 2916's labeling requirement also runs against the grain of the Bush administration's dispute at the World Trade Organization against the European Union's similar mandatory labeling regulation.
In an attempt to raise the bar for approval of GM food, H.R. 2917 ("Genetically Engineered Food Safety Act") would amend the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
to require the Food and Drug Administration to regulate GM material in food as a "genetic food additive." According to the bill's drafters, this classification would give the
FDA discretion in applying additional factors to evaluate the safety of GM food.
H.R. 2918 ("Genetically Engineered Crop and Animal Farmer Protection Act of 2003") is intended to grant extra protection for farmers and ranchers who have been harmed economically by GM seeds, plants, or animals, and to ensure fairness in dealings between these individuals and agbiotech companies. The bill lists four actions of biotech companies that have allegedly eliminated farmers' basic rights: patenting seeds, depriving farmers the right to
save seed (presumably, derived from patented material), unreasonable seed contracts, and intrusion into everyday farm operations. A loss of markets and a potential increased liability caused by GM crops are also a concern here.
To address these matters, H.R. 2918 would prohibit certain provisions in a contract for the sale of a GM animal, GM plant, or GM seed to a purchaser for use in agricultural production, including: a provision that prohibits the purchaser from retaining a portion of the harvested crop for future planting by the purchaser or that charges a fee to retain a portion of the harvested crop for future planting; a provision that shifts any liability from the biotech
company to the purchaser; and a provision that requires the purchaser to grant the seller's agents access to the purchaser's property. The bill also requires the Secretary of Agriculture to issue rules that compel effective mitigation strategies for any GM crop that is a
predominately outcrossed pollinator. H.R. 2918 would further amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act to establish a plan to prevent the development of pests resistant to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin. After establishing the "resistance plan," the agency must revoke all registrations for Bt toxin-producing plants that are not in compliance.
H.R. 2919 ("Genetically Engineered Organism Liability Act of 2003") establishes that a biotech company is liable to any party injured by the release of a GM organism into
the environment if that injury is the consequence of the genetic engineering of the organism. "Injury" includes any liability of a person who uses the company's GM organism
in accordance with applicable Federal and State law. For the purpose of this bill, a biotech company is not only a company (or individual) engaged in the business of genetically engineering an organism, but also a company (or individual) that is obtaining the patent rights to such an organism for the purposes of commercial exploitation.
Modestly titled "Real Solutions to World Hunger Act of 2003," H.R. 2920 aims to ensure that efforts for ending world hunger through the use of GM animals and GM crops actually help developing countries while protecting human health and the environment. The bill would make it unlawful for a person to ship to a foreign country any GM animal, GM plant, or GM seed that the person knows, or has reason to believe, will be used by the ultimate purchaser to produce an agricultural commodity if: (1) the GM material was denied Federal approval for
commercial marketing in the United States, or the GM material was the subject of a withdrawn application for Federal approval; or (2) the government of the foreign country has not
certified that ecological impacts related to the importation of the GM material have been mitigated to the satisfaction of the foreign government. H.R. 2920 would also create a tax
for agbiotech companies, which would be used to promote the development of sustainable agriculture techniques that do not use any GM material.
H.R. 2921 ("Genetically Engineered Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crop Safety Act of 2003") would prohibit the open-air cultivation of GM pharmaceutical and industrial crops, prohibit the use of common human food or animal feed as the host plant for a GM pharmaceutical or industrial chemical, and establish a tracking system to regulate the growing, handling, transportation, and disposal of pharmaceutical and industrial crops and their byproducts. The bill would forbid the cultivation of a pharmaceutical crop or industrial crop until the final regulations and tracking system are in effect. The Secretary of Agriculture would have to identify the "common foods," which cannot be genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals, and to establish the tracking system. H.R. 2921 would derail the U.S. Department of Agriculture's current efforts to regulate GM plants that produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds.
All bills have been referred to House committees for review. The Thomas website (http://thomas.loc.gov) is a good place to keep track of the bills' progress.
Defragmenting Public Sector Patent Rights
Four years ago, Professor Ingo Potrykus (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich) and Dr. Peter Beyer (University of Freiburg, Germany) announced their creation of Beta-carotene-enhanced golden rice. They had developed the GM rice to help prevent vitamin A deficiency in the poor and disadvantaged of developing countries, a goal that could be realized if subsistence farmers obtained the rice free of charge and restrictions. But then Potrykus and Beyer found themselves entangled in a patent thicket. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications ran an audit of intellectual property rights and found that the researchers had used 70 patented inventions belonging to 32 companies and universities, and that some of the materials had been used under agreements that restricted further dissemination. Eventually, Potrykus and Beyer overcame their limited freedom to operate by acquiring free licenses for humanitarian use to cover all
of the intellectual and technical property. The lesson was not forgotten, however.
A recent study by the University of California, Berkeley, revealed that public sector researchers have created about 25 percent of patented agbiotech inventions. This intellectual property is highly fragmented across institutions and much has been licensed under terms that might restrict access to the technologies. Representatives from 14 universities, foundations, and non-profit research institutions decided that a collective management regime was needed to assess freedom to operate issues, and to overcome the fragmentation of public sector intellectual property rights. To develop a strategy and to implement it, they established the Public-sector Intellectual Property Resource for Agriculture.
PIPRA has three near-term objectives. One objective is to review public sector intellectual property licensing practices and to seek a series of best practices that will encourage the greatest commercial development of publicly funded research innovations while retaining rights for public research institutions.
The second objective is to develop a public intellectual property asset database that will provide an overview of intellectual property rights currently held by the public sector, including current information about licensing status. This should enable public sector researchers to evaluate freedom to operate obstacles at the initiation of their projects.
The third objective is to explore the possibility of making technology "packages" available to member institutions and to the private sector for commercial licensing or
for designated humanitarian use. These patent packages could include complementary sets of key technologies, which reduce the transaction costs associated with negotiating a large number of licenses. Various U.S. industries have used this patent pooling strategy during the past 150 years, not always with the federal government's approval.
Additional information about the initiative can be found on the PIPRA website (http://www.pipra.org).
Selected References
Atkinson RC, Beachy RN, Conway G et al. (2003) Public sector collaboration for agricultural IP management. Science 301:174-175, July 11.
Potrykus I. 2001. Golden rice and beyond. Plant Physiol. 125(3):1157-1161.
Phillip B. C. Jones, PhD., J.D.
Spokane, Washington
PhillJones@nasw.org

ISB News Report
207 Engel Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061
The material in this News Report is compiled by NBIAP's Information Systems for Biotechnology, a joint project of USDA/CSREES and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, or Virginia Tech. The News Report may be freely photocopied or otherwise distributed without charge.
ISB welcomes your comments and encourages article submissions. If you have a suitable article relevant to our coverage of the agricultural and environmental applications of genetic engineering, please e-mail it to the Editor for consideration.
Ruth Irwin, Editor (rirwin@vt.edu)
To have the News Report automatically e-mailed to you, send an e-mail message to
news@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu
and type subscribe newsreport [your name] in the message section. Do not include a signature file or additional text. To unsubscribe, send e-mail to news@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu and type unsubscribe newsreport [your name] in the message section, or e-mail isb@vt.edu with your request.
Connect to http://www.isb.vt.edu for internet access to ISB News Reports, textfiles, and databases.
Information Systems for Biotechnology, 207 Engel Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, tel: 540-231-3747, fax: 540-231-4434, e-mail:
isb@vt.edu