In theory, patents represent a bargain between the innovator and society. Society gets access to inventions of the innovator in return for allowing a monopoly to the innovator, who can exclusively financially benefit from the utilisation of the innovation for a limited period of time, usually 17 to 20 years in the case of patents. Most countries at an early stage of development do not allow, or place restriction on, patents on food, chemicals and pharmaceutical products. Such prohibitions are rooted in concerns that considerably higher prices on essentials such as food and medicines might pertain if strict monopolies were allowed.

Prior to the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations, levels of patent protection varied considerably. However, during the Uruguay round, the US pushed for harmonisation of intellectual property rights laws, including patent law, under the auspices of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), to which all members of the WTO must adhere. This agreement imposes much more stringent levels of patent law than are currently the case in developing economies, including allowing of patents on plants and animals.

A recent survey found that over 80% of patents covering genetically modified food were owned by a mere 13 commercial organisations. Monsanto alone has spent over $8 billion since 1996 acquiring seed and biotechnology companies, and it is now the second largest seed company in the world. Such monopolies have profound implications for access to food and medicines in developing countries.

In addition to implications for food and medicines, neither the TRIPs Agreement, or the EU Bio-patenting Directive offer any protection against biopiracy, the appropriation of indigenous knowledge for private profit. Genetic resources are regarded by corporations as raw materials for exploitation: The minister of State for Science and Technology in Japan stated in 1984, "virtually all species of organisms will become the targets of stocking". Of the medical compounds used in western medicine, 7,000 come from plants. The worth of developing country genetic material has been estimated at a value of United States (US) $32,000 million per annum (RAFI, 1994).

In February 1999, discussions will begin at the WTO in relation to the patenting of plant varieties. At present, under Article 27.3(b) of TRIPs, States may exclude plants and animals from patent protection, but not plant varieties, for which States ‘shall provide protection either by patents or by an effective sui generis system’. This TRIPs review will decide the rights of countries to determine (or not) their own patent laws, by changing Article 27.3 (b).

The EU will be formulating its common position in the coming months. The EU Bio-patenting Directive is likely to form the foundation of the common position. The position of the EU, and of the US, is not only that it should be possible to patent life forms, including plants and animals, but that all countries should be bound by the same rules on Bio-patenting. However the Directive is not unanimously supported in the EU. The Netherlands and Italy are appealing the Directive to the European Court of Justice on a number of grounds.

In 1998 VOICE launched a public awareness campaign to highlight the grave implications of the EU Bio-patenting Directive for consumers, farmers, and the environment, both in Europe and the developing world. VOICE has called on the Irish Government to join with the Netherlands and Italy in appalling the EU Bio-patenting Directive. In the coming months VOICE will be continuing to campaign on bio-patents and the serious implications of these for developing countries.