Diamond v. Chakrabarty
- In 1972, Chakrabarty developed a strain of bacteria that could degrade oil; his patent was rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office since ‘living organisms are not patentable.’ In 1980, the Supreme Court decided that a patent may be obtained on ‘anything under the sun that is made by man.’
- This was not the first patnet on a living organism; 1873, Pasteur obtained a US patent for a purified yeast cell.
- This decision was seen as opening up the floodgates for biotechnology
Europe
- From market promise to popular rejection – biotechnology in Europe, with food processors rejection GM ingredients, retailers not stocking GM food, and EU moratorium on new crop approvals
- Up to 1995: developing counter discourse challenging “expert knowledge,” and influencing regulatory frameworks
- Counter-discourse: initial openness to biotech in the 1970s and early 1980s, with growing elite (scientists, academics, social activists) rejection of quality of life change – part of anti-nuclear, anti-capitalist movement; institutionalized in political discourse through the Green Party in Germany; through political engagement, able to shape process of regulation; Monsanto cultural mistakes: initial foothold in Britain challenged by bST protests in the late 1980s;
- European Patent Directive – concern over impact of Diamond vs. Chakrabarty in Europe led to establishment of the patent directive in Europe, also to have uniform policy in EC nations; passed in 1997, but only after initial rejection; after passage, however, issue of who regulates: DG XII or DG XI – Directorate-General for Science Research and Development (XII) or DG for the Environment (XI); issue of lead agency in interagency power struggle strongly shapes how policy is implemented;
- Process-based system vs. product-based system; process-based meaning the genetic modification itself and all organisms, vs. product-based approach of piecemeal approval of each particular food or medicine; DG Environment became lead agency, which resulted in leaning towards environmental protection and process-based approach
- After 1995 with arrival of first GM crops in Europe, activists targeted GM food as risky, unhealthy, and linked to industrial agriculture; focused on commodity chain; and Monsanto cultural mistakes
- Bt corn and soybeans by Monsanto – started the road to market closure, with activists getting retailers to not sell GM foods
USA
- Activism within the US grew slowly until 1998; as foreign markets started to close to US biotech, industry mobilized to shape regulation
- US government’s strong support of biotechnology industry
- US consumer culture – more about convenience and price, largely not caring about GMO’s
- Regulatory system: under EPA or Ag/FDA – as opposed to the European approach, lead agency was Department of Agriculture; emphasis on product-based “substaintially equivalent” approach instead of process-based approach
- Coalition of farmers and biotech companies – closer relationship than in Europe; farmers seen as main consumers instead of wider food-eating public
- Irony of success of US activism seen in Cartegna declaration, but limited success within the US; Cartegna Protocol on Biosafety is an add-on to the Convention on Biological Diversity; pushes for the precautionary principle
- Signed by 168 countries – guess who didn’t sign?
- Monsanto problems with finance market – takeover and release, with large drop in value
Case Study: AquaAdvantage Salmon
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/11/13/gmos-innovation-crisis-aquabounty-salmons-20-year-odyssey-nets-regulations/
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm472487.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-B1BwDGEPE