Intellectual Property Rights and the Politics of Food - The Oxford Topic of Food, Politics, and Society - page 394

The TRIPS agreement has provisions that include compulsory licensing to pro-
mote competition, protect public interest and prevent anti-competitive measures.
But their scope is limited and any policy has to be compatible with the provisions
of the TRIPS agreement. Compulsory licensing has hardly been used in agricul-
tural biotechnology, although it has been used by many countries to facilitate
access to intellectual property in pharmaceuticals. Vitamin A deficiency among the
poor has not been considered a health emergency that would compel compulsory
licensing, but that option is legally available to governments, as is the case with all
technologies.
Since the 1980s the agrochemical and seed industries have undergone a mas-
sive transformation, including horizontal and vertical integration. The result is
increased market power in the hands of a few players. It is estimated that the top
four pesticide firms control about 60 percent of the global market, and the top
four seed firms control 56 percent of the global seed market (based on sales of the
branded seeds). Global expansion of private seed companies has been facilitated by
globalization of intellectual property regimes through TRIPS and other agreements
and by the decline of public-sector activity. In the United States, it is estimated that
85 percent of transgenic cotton patents and 70 percent of non-corn transgenic plant
patents are held by the top three companies. Cross-licensing of transgenic technol-
ogy and acquisition of seed companies have helped the dominant players to consoli-
date and expand their hold.23
his trend was predicted by Jack Kloppenburg in First the Seed, which traces the his-
tory of commodification of germplasm and chronicles the rise of the agricultural bio-
technology sector. According to Moschini (2010, 9):
For some of the main US crops, the consolidation that has occurred in the seed
industry over the last 15 years has been accompanied by remarkable changes
driven by the advent, and strong adoption, of GM crops and by the increased
role of IPRs.
This consolidation has raised concerns about abuse of monopoly position and devel-
opment of cartels in the agriculture input industry (Matson, Tang, and Wynn 2012).
In many developed countries today, farmers are more dependent on external inputs
than they were a century ago; seeds are no exception.24 The quantum of saved and
reused seed is likely to decline further with continued consolidation in the seed
industry and the farm sector. For some this is a welcome trend; farm sector output
has grown many times over even with fewer farmers and farms. The story is different
in developing and least developed countries, where the farm sector is still a major
sector in terms of employment and livelihood and serves as an important contribu-
tor to GDP.
The impact of intellectual property rights on food security and small and medium
farmers is a much debated issue. Linkages to questions of human rights and food secu-
rity, the right to food, and the right to enjoy the benefits of science have been prominent
(De Schutter 2011, 2014; Helfer and Austin 2011). This debate should be seen in the broad