A heated debate over the patenting of pigs

Pork is the world’s most widely consumed meat protein and demand continues to grow as consumer incomes rise in countries such as China. So it is understandable that a company like Monsanto is looking for ways to capture a piece of that action.

Specifically, the company wants to patent a package of breeding techniques linked to identifying genes linked to desirable traits, and breeding animals to carry those traits with a more efficient device for artificial insemination.

The Monsanto system wouldn’t place a patent on pigs per se, but on various genes, traits and methods used to create them.

Similarly, patents the company holds on its Roundup Ready system — which makes crop tolerant to the popular herbicide glyphosate — do not patent the crop, but rather, the crop’s response to its herbicide.

But they do allow the company to control how the farmer uses a crop carrying its technology. For example, a farmer who grows a Roundup Ready crop cannot save seed produced by that crop to grow the following year.

The same fears arise when considering a patent on the method by which a pig was bred or specific traits that pig exhibits. “Any pigs that would be produced using this reproductive technique would be covered by these patents,” said Monsanto spokesman Chris Horner in a report.

Monsanto has successfully pursued farmers in the courts accused of using its plant-based technology without permission. Would the same happen to hog farmers?

Greenpeace portrays the patent application filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization as a blatant attempt to gain control over the world’s food supply. The patent could potentially stake a claim on pigs in more than 160 countries.

It is warning that “Monsanto's aggressive patent practices covering genetically modified (GM) crops and normal seeds threaten biodiversity, endanger world food security and ruin the livelihoods of farmers.”

“Monsanto is once again trying to control the food we grow. This is patenting life. This is abuse of patent laws and it is an outright offence to farmers world-wide,” Greenpeace spokesman Eric Gall says in a release.

“If granted, U.S.-based Monsanto will be in a position to prevent breeders and farmers from breeding pigs with certain characteristics or methods of breeding, or force them to pay royalties. The patents cover methods of conventional breeding and also the screening for naturally occurring genetic conditions that can make pigs grow faster,” a Greenpeace release says.

It’s worth noting that there is a correlation between the public fear and outrage generated by these issues and Greenpeace’s revenues. But that doesn’t mean they are wrong.

Likewise, Monsanto — the company that led the way introducing genetically modified field crops, the company that first proposed the concept of Terminator genes (seeds that won’t reproduce), and the company that is now trying to patent pig breeding — has become a bit of a poster child for critics highlighting the perceived evils of big business.

In reality, Monsanto is simply doing its job on behalf of its shareholders.

There is big risk and a large price-tag associated research and development, which is one reason why governments have tended to pass the responsibility over to the private sector. Only a tiny fraction of the avenues explored ever develop into a profit-making venture. Companies doing research for profit must have a means by which they can capture value from their effort. The question of whether what can be done should be done is left largely up to governments.

Of course, one of the biggest risks for Monsanto is that it will wallow around in the patenting no-man’s land for so long its technology is overtaken by other developments.

Who says people will be eating pork made from pigs in the future anyway, especially if new theories being tested by University of Maryland researchers take flight.

Researchers there say the concept of tissue engineering, as opposed to genetic engineering, would allow companies to manufacture meat in the laboratory instead of the barn — and free society from weighty ethical debates in the process. Scientists argue the technology already exists to grow processed meat such as a chicken nugget — without the chicken.

“With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world's annual meat supply. And you could do it in a way that's better for the environment and human health,” said researcher Jason Matheny in a BBC news report.

Sounds a bit mushy you say? Apparently, that’s still a bit of a problem.

And what this all means for the price of pork chops or the plight of farmers is anybody’s guess.

Laura Rance is associate editor of the Farmers’ Independent Weekly (). She can be reached at 792-4382 or by email:

Source: Brandon Sun