THE TURMERIC LATTE & TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE: UNPACKING ‘BIOPIRACY’
INTRODUCTION
That hot mug of golden turmeric latte you may be drinking? It is delicious and these days people appreciate it more because of the health. But have you ever thought about how that colorful spice made it to where it is and the information incorporated about its application? This leads to one of the more significant and, more often than not, controversial matters of biopiracy. It is where the knowledge of the indigenous population that has evolved over centuries about how to use biological resources such as plants gets patented by companies without adequate accreditation and sharing of profits. Consider it biomass at grand scale intellectual property theft.
THE TURMERIC TALE: A BITTER PILL
Turmeric (Curcuma longa) a common folk medicine in Indian families over one thousands of years was extolled in Ayurveda as yet another anti-inflammatory and antiseptic agent. It has been utilized by Indian communities to treat wounds, promote digestion and as a cooking spice, generation after generation. These were followed by a US patent granted in 1995 (to two researchers at the University of Mississippi Medical Center) to use turmeric in wound healing. This raised anger in India. The Council of scientific and industrial research (CSIR) in India retaliated by providing evidence of how turmeric has been used traditionally over the ages such as ancient writings and documented studies. The patent came to an end in 1997, following a very expensive, protracted legal battle where the US Patent and Trademark Office recognized the prior art. This case of turmeric was considered a precedent of the biopiracy. A traditional knowledge that is highly diffused and spread was literally and mostly monopolized by parties that are not members of the community that produced the same, and there is never a want of sharing in benefits.
THE NEEM NARRATIVE: A TREE OF MANY USES
The neem tree (Azadirachta indica) is another powerful example which is referred to as the village pharmacy in India. Its different parts, such as leaves, seeds, and bark, have been put into many uses over the centuries: as an organic pesticide, in folkloric medicine against skin complaints, and even toothpaste. During the 1990s, the US and Europe Patented a number of neem-derived pesticides and fungicides. Once again this elicited outcry amongst the Indian farmers and right-to-know activists who contested that this knowledge was not new and had long been practiced in India. Indian environmental activist and scholar Vandana Shiva rose to prominence because of her opposition to patenting neem as an exemplar of how traditional knowledge is exploited. Although some of the neem patents were contested and overturned, this case demonstrated the endangering nature of traditional knowledge in the context of the current intellectual property conventions internationally.
THE INTERSECTION OF IP AND CULTURAL HERITAGE
A major contradiction between the ideals of intellectual property rights under which novelty and individual innovation tend to be valued and the multigenerational, collective attributes of traditional knowledge can be highlighted by biopiracy. The indigenous communities preserve the knowledge on the biodiversity which is widespread with a lot of knowledge not only on how to exploit it but also through a careful study and experimentations which involves centuries to develop. Applying a patent to such knowledge at their expense and even without their benefit-sharing only impairs their rights and can have the negative effect of reducing their access to such resources and even to the possibility of their own economic growth. Within the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the sovereign rights of the states over their biological resources are acknowledged and through recognition of such rights, it is stated that sharing of the benefits that accrue because of the utilization of these resources should be on the basis of fair and equitable procedures. Nonetheless, it is still difficult to implement and enforce these principles.
MOVING FORWARD: TOWARDS RECOGNITION AND BENEFIT-SHARING
The struggle against the biopiracy still continues. An increasing number of people all over the globe are proposing that the protection of traditional knowledge should be incorporated by the following mechanisms:
- Traditional Knowledge Digital Libraries (TKDL): India has led the way in coming up with digital libraries containing traditional knowledge in convenient formats so that they are recorded with patent offices across the world to prevent issuance of erroneous patents.
- International Negotiations: Negotiations are taking place at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to work out international legal instruments to protect traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions as well as genetic resources.
- Community Protocols: Building upon aboriginal community desires to record and formalize their knowledge and give consent to how the knowledge can be accessed and utilized.
- Benefit-Sharing Agreements:There should be benefit-sharing in relation to traditional knowledge or other related biologic resources by ensuring that a reasonable part of the merits are given to the native society once they are commercially exploited.
The examples of turmeric and neem are harsh reminders about having to respect and honor the traditional knowledge of indigenous people. We all have the luxury of indulging in the gifts of nature, but we must not forget then need to recognize and appreciate the intellectual heritage of the people who have always known nature in their secrets. Next time you mix up your turmeric latte, have a second though about the complicated interplay between tradition and innovation and the desperation we face to find practices that can be as fair as the global stage.
CONCLUSION
Turmeric and neem are not unique cases and stories, although their hindrances are indicative of a much larger, systemic issue between global commerce, intellectual property, and human rights. Bio piracy is not only taking the potential profit away, but also invalidating decades of indigenous science, demolishing cultural heritage and endangering the very biodiversity these people have nurtured throughout their history.
The struggle against this injustice is the struggle of need of recognition and respect. It requires the international community to abandon selfish and western-centric understanding of the concept of invention and accept the relevance and importance of communal, intergenerational systems of knowledge.
The answer is actually in ethically, rather than in terminating research or closing the door to innovation. To do this, strong international legal systems are needed that require prior informed consent and fair benefit-sharing as exemplified by efforts such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the establishing of Traditional Knowledge Digital Libraries. Finally, it takes two to save traditional knowledge. It demands that the corporations be more responsible towards its customers and that the governments provide greater legal safeguards and that consumers become more aware. The value of this ancestral wisdom cannot be overstated. We need only to remember that one of our custodians must feel respected and rewarded so that we can develop a world where innovation and tradition can work off of each other, and not be at odds as it is currently the case.
Author:–Shubhangi Maske, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing.
REFERENCES
- ANIL K. GUPTA, Protecting Knowledge of the Poor: What Options Do We Have?, in BIODIVERSITY AND THE LAW 191 (2001).
- Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%201760/volume-1760-I-30619-English.pdf.
- Chakravarthi Raghavan, US Patent Office Revokes Patent on Turmeric, THIRD WORLD NETWORK (Aug. 1997), https://www.twn.my/title/tur-cn.htm.
- “Neem” Patent Revoked, BIOTECHNOLOGY & DEV. MONITOR, no. 42, June 2000, at 20, http://www.biotech-monitor.nl/4208.htm.
- Graham Dutfield, TRIPS-Related Aspects of Traditional Knowledge, 33 CASE W. RSRV. J. INT’L L. 233 (2001), https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/jil/vol33/iss2/4.
- Michael F. Brown, Can Culture Be Copyrighted?, 39 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 193 (1998), https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/204721.
- Ikechi Mgbeoji, Patents and Traditional Knowledge of the Uses of Plants: Is a Communal Patent Regime the Answer?, 9 IND. J. GLOBAL LEGAL STUD. 163 (2001), https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol9/iss1/7
