September 2, 2010 | Read Time: 2 minutes
This Sunday’s New York Times magazine has an article about Plumpy’nut, a paste made of peanuts that has been credited with significantly reducing death rates during famines in Africa.
Anderson Cooper, in a “60 Minutes” segment, has compared the paste to penicillin, saying it “may just be the most important advance ever” in fighting childhood malnutrition. Plumpy’nut has gotten lots of raves from aid workers, too, who are using it in their programs.
But the Times article draws attention to a debate about a patent for Plumpy’nut held by the French company Nutriset, which first produced and sold the paste. Plumpy’nut is relatively expensive ($60 per child for a two-month supply), and critics contend that, as a lifesaving product that some describe as essentially fortified peanut butter, it shouldn’t face the same restrictions about who can make it.
The debate resembles arguments over the affordability of patented AIDS drugs in Africa.
“We were concerned because of the way Nutriset was managing their intellectual property,” says Stephane Doyon, a nutrition specialist with Doctors Without Borders, in the Times article. “We felt that there was the possibility for the creation of a monopoly.”
Two nonprofit groups in Texas—Breedlove Foods and Mama Cares Foundation—have filed a lawsuit against Plumpy’nut, seeking to have the patent invalidated. But even some of Nutriset’s critics question the motivations behind the lawsuit, saying the American groups may themselves be primarily seeking a chance to profit. They also point out that the United States has a history of dumping its agricultural surpluses on poor nations.
Nutriset defends its efforts to protect its intellectual property, arguing that it is building a network of producers of Plumpy’nut in African countries. It says a big company like Coca-Cola or General Mills could come in and put its local producers out of business.
What do you think of Plumpy’nut’s patent?
