Patents in Biotechnology: Potential Impacts on Life Expectancy and Hunger

As changes in food requirements and healthcare continue to be major issues across the globe, the biotechnology industry is escalating its role as a leader in adaptation. From genetic engineering to gene mutation, the biotechnology industry is devising new ways for us to think about our health and agriculture. As the biotechnology industry expands this scientific creativity, it is simultaneously pushing the boundaries of genetic patenting. However, could these new ideas in patenting also alter the way we understand life expectancy and hunger?

In a recent article in the American Bar Association Journal, Brendan Smith notes how biotechnology patents may be reducing the life expectancy of one cancer patient. The patient possesses a mutant gene that has been patented by one biotechnology company “pre-empt[ing] research over an entire body of knowledge,” according to Chris Hansen from the American Civil Liberties Union. Consequently, to determine if this mutated gene puts her at risk for breast cancer, she is obligated to pay this company the costs for genetic testing necessary for treatment, some $3,200 (US). Sadly, she cannot afford the amount and her life is at risk.

The difference between human and plant genes is slim, although patents associated with their technology have differed. In the past, patents on plant seed utility have been more relevant to farming with genetically modified plants than genetic patenting itself. Farmers have been more likely to be threatened by patents driving seed use than costs associated with genetic research. For example, a Canadian farmer was sued for patent infringement for unlicensed seed use in the Canadian court case, Monsanto Canada, In. v. Schmeiser.

However, suppose farmers become inundated with crop threatening plants, or “super-weeds” possessing patented mutated genes, like the gene in the cancer patient. And, suppose the farmer wanted to prevent damage to his crops from the mutated plants, similarly to the cancer patient trying to prevent life damage from the cancer gene. Perhaps, because of the patent, the costs associated with testing and research to remedy his crops would be, also, so pricey that the farmer would not be able to pay.

According to Brian Johnson, an ecological geneticist from England, an event like this would be possible. “Super-weeds” have the capability of multiplying rapidly, threatening and destroying crops and surrounding farm lands. For food growers providing crops to low income countries, such a case would be detrimental. Not only would a scenario like this destroy food crops, but conversely could cause soaring food prices if testing and research were to occur. This could potentially lead to increased hunger or even agricultural land use changes.

Innovations in the biotechnology industry have vast societal impacts. Yet, debates over the patents protecting this industry underscore the risks and opportunities associated with its new technologies. Timely research and stakeholder involvement are undoubtedly essential for better understanding this industries limitations and capabilities, particularly in its contributions to human health and the environment.

by Candy Schibli

Greenpeace Releases Annual Green Electronics Rankings

Greenpeace International has released its annual "Guide to Greener Electronics" where it ranks leading electronics companies on their policies towards toxic chemicals, recycling and climate change. This year, PC makers made up the bottom of the list, Apple floated somewhere in the middle and cell phone makers got the highest marks. Below is the list with each company's score from 1 - 10 (10 being the best) with the brief explanation of the score provided by Greenpeace.

• 7.45 Nokia - Scores top marks for leading competitors on toxic phase out.
• 7.1 Samsung - Holds second position for commitment to reduce absolute emissions.
• 6.5 Sony Ericsson - Up two places with better product energy efficiency reporting.
• 5.7 LG Electronics - Up two places but needs to eliminate hazardous chemicals from all products.
• 5.5 Toshiba - Moves up two places with an extra point for promising to cut GHGs.
• 5.5 Motorola - Scores higher and climbs two places because of use of renewable energy
• 5.3 Philips - Falls from 4th to 7th position and needs to put its commitment to responsible recycling policies into practice.
• 5.3 Sharp - Rises from 9th to joint 7th place with its energy efficient products.
• 4.9 Acer - Put out 16 new models of a monitor that are almost free of hazardous chemicals and climbed two places from 11 to 9 but still needs to sort out the power cord.
• 4.9 Panasonic - Advance from 12th to 10th place for energy efficiency and PVC-free product range, but still bad on e-waste.
• 4.7 Apple - Drops one position to 11th with no change in scores but gets kudos for their green MacBook.
• 4.5 Sony - Plunges from 5th to 12th place for inadequate commitments on eliminating hazardous chemicals, e-waste policy and cutting GHGs.
• 3.9 Dell - Stays at 13th place because of backtracking on toxic phase out.
• 3.5 HP - Is at 14th position and has no products on the market free of toxic substances.
• 2.5 Microsoft - Loses a point for a poor recycling policy but stays in 15th position.
• 2.5 Lenovo - Down two places with no set timeline for toxic phase out on all products.
• 2.4 Fujitsu - Debuts second from last with no products that are free of hazardous chemicals.
• 1 Nintendo - Stays put in last position with a glimmer of hope with partially PVC-free consoles.

As you can see, this year PC makers were highly criticized for either backtracking on commitments to remove hazardous chemicals from their products or not producing a policy to do so at all. You can download a PDF of the full scorecard here.
via Greenpeace International

Written by Megan Treacy

Pacific Northwest Forests Could Store More Carbon, Help Address Greenhouse Issues

The forests of the Pacific Northwest hold significant potential to increase carbon storage and help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in coming years, a recent study concludes, if they are managed primarily for that purpose through timber harvest reductions and increased rotation ages.

In the complete absence of stand-replacing disturbances – via fire or timber harvest – forests of Oregon and Northern California could theoretically almost double their carbon storage.

Although it isn't realistic to expect an absence of disturbance, the estimates were based on average conditions up until now that include variation in forest biomass, age, climate, disturbances and soil fertility. If all forest stands in this region were just allowed to increase in age by 50 years, their potential to store atmospheric carbon would still increase by 15 percent, the study concluded.

That would be a modest, but not insignificant offset to the nation's carbon budget, scientists say, since this region accounts for 14 percent of the live biomass in the entire United States.

The findings were made by scientists in the College of Forestry at Oregon State University, as the result of almost two decades of analysis of 15,000 inventory plots in a large region, through several different projects, as part of the North American Carbon Program. The scientists, who said they have often been asked what the theoretical potential was for storing carbon in these forests, conducted the analysis using inventory data that captured current variation in biomass due to many factors. Read more

Adapted from materials provided by Oregon State University, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.