India’s Fight Against Agricultural and Medicinal Plants’ Biopiracy: Its Implications on Food Security, Traditional Rights and Knowledge Degradation

Abstract

At present, about two-third of the Indian population relies on indigenous knowledge of biological resources and have conserved their knowledge and culture through their traditional lifestyles and local economies. More than 7500 species of plants are utilized for the traditional purposes in India. The economic value of traditional knowledge in the herbal medicine and pharmaceutical sector is estimated to reach around 5 trillion by 2020. Since Indian agriculture is highly rich in biodiversity, it becomes an easy prey of biopiracy in agriculture-based business corporations. Biopiracy term is generally used when multinational corporations or companies profit from the medicinal and agricultural uses of plants known to indigenous or native societies and fail to compensate those communities. Traditional Knowledge (TK) plays a key role in the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. There is a threat to the future of TK due to globalization of production systems and the distance between the holders of knowledge and its exploiters. Many cases have been registered in India where attempts have been made to steal the indigenous knowledge from India due to its easy access which affect food security, livelihood of indigenous people and even cause changes in consumers’ choice. Indian government challenged many patents in the last two decades by providing numerous research papers predating those patents and these patents were thus rejected. India is the pioneer country in the world to have set up an institutional mechanism – the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) – to protect its TK.

Full text

International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology
Citation: AEB: 11(6): 881-887, December 2018
DOI: 10.30954/0974-1712.12.2018.9
©2018 New Delhi Publishers. All rights reserved
AGRICULTURE POLICY
India’s Fight Against Agricultural and Medicinal Plants’
Biopiracy: Its Implications on Food Security, Traditional
Rights and Knowledge Degradation
Bhavika Sharma1*, Shalini Singh Maurya2 and Jesmita Brahmacharimayum2
1Department of Environment and Climate Change, Haryana (Chandigarh), India
2ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, 218, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun (Uttarakhand), India
*Corresponding author: sharmabhavika57@gmail.com (ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0067-9469)
Paper No. 754 Received: 08-08-2018 Accepted: 27-11-2018
ABSTRACT
At present, about two-third of the Indian population relies on indigenous knowledge of biological
resources and have conserved their knowledge and culture through their traditional lifestyles and
local economies. More than 7500 species of plants are utilized for the traditional purposes in India. The
economic value of traditional knowledge in the herbal medicine and pharmaceutical sector is estimated
to reach around 5 trillion by 2020. Since Indian agriculture is highly rich in biodiversity, it becomes an
easy prey of biopiracy in agriculture-based business corporations. Biopiracy term is generally used when
multinational corporations or companies prot from the medicinal and agricultural uses of plants known
to indigenous or native societies and fail to compensate those communities. Traditional Knowledge (TK)
plays a key role in the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. There is a threat to the future
of TK due to globalization of production systems and the distance between the holders of knowledge
and its exploiters. Many cases have been registered in India where aempts have been made to steal
the indigenous knowledge from India due to its easy access which aect food security, livelihood of
indigenous people and even cause changes in consumers’ choice. Indian government challenged many
patents in the last two decades by providing numerous research papers predating those patents and
these patents were thus rejected. India is the pioneer country in the world to have set up an institutional
mechanism – the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) – to protect its TK.
Highlights
mThis paper addresses the issue of biopiracy of agricultural crops and medicinal plants and its
implications on food security, indigenous rights and knowledge degradation.
Keywords: Biopiracy, Biodiversity, Traditional Knowledge, TKDL
Biopiracy in the Indian Agricultural Sector
A major fraction of the world’s population, mostly
the underdeveloped areas and rural communities,
still rely on the indigenous medicinal knowledge
of locally available plants for not just their medical
requirements (Shankar 1997; Bhaacharya 2014),
but also for food and agriculture (Bhattacharya
2014).Traditional knowledge not only includes the
recorded knowledge of plants for medicinal use,
but also takes into account the oral knowledge that
has been passed on from ancestors (Bhaacharya
2014). There has been great scientic interest in
the lifestyle, knowledge and culture of indigenous
people since the traditional knowledge acquired by
rural communities over a number of years forms
their basic cultural identity. The people living in local
communities maintaining fairly traditional lifestyles
are termed as “indigenous people” (Andrews
2012). A majority of the Indian population (70%)
is dependent on land-based occupations, forests,
wetlands and marine habitats for ecological and

Sharma et al.
882
Print ISSN : 1974-1712 Online ISSN : 2230-732X
cultural sustenance (Kothari and Patel 2006). With
an estimated 163 horticultural and crop varieties
which have originated in the country, India is one
of the world’s eight major centers of crop diversity
and has centuries’ old traditional knowledge
(Sudha 2014). Even today, about two-third of
Indian population relies on indigenous knowledge
of biological resources and have conserved their
knowledge and culture through their traditional
lifestyles and local economies. More than 7500
species of plants are utilized for the traditional
purposes in India. The plant genetic resources were
considered to be a common heritage until the last
century (Brush 2005). Common heritage refers to
“the treatment of genetic resources as belonging
to the public domain and not owned or otherwise
monopolized by a single group or interest” (Brush
2005; Andrews 2012).
Biopiracy and food security
Biopiracy will increase the dependence of farmers
on corporations for their agricultural inputs such
as seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides.
Developing countries would face the challenges
even more, since farmers of such nations cannot
aord to buy seed each year and segregate a fraction
of their harvest for planting in the next growing
season (Yusuf 2010; Bhaacharya 2014). Biopiracy
can have a devastating eect on the economy and
food security of the farmers in developing countries
which can ultimately destroy the locally adapted,
traditional crop varieties which are cheaper
alternatives (Bhaacharya et al. 2013). Since Indian
agriculture is highly rich in biodiversity, it becomes
an easy prey of biopiracy in agriculture based
business corporations. For instance, Monsanto tried
to extend their reach to the Indian population by
selling genetically modified brinjals in the form
of Bt Brinjals, in spite of the fact that India itself
grows more than 2500 unique varieties of brinjals.
The Indian National Biodiversity Authority (NBA)
filed a legal action against Monsanto (and their
collaborators) for accessing local eggplant varieties
for development of their genetically engineered
version of eggplant without taking any prior
consent of the competent authorities, which is
considered an act of biopiracy. The law mandates
that “when biodiversity is to be accessed in any
manner for commercial, research and other uses,
local communities who have protected local varieties
and cultivars for generations, must be consulted and
if they consent benets must accrue to them as per
the internationally applicable Access and Benet
Sharing Protocol.” (Ministry of Environment and
forests 2010; Bhaacharya 2014).
DISCUSSION
Traditional Knowledge Degradation
The people using the Traditional Knowledge (TK)
are the same who are actually holding it, using it
sustainably through generations and communities.
It is closely related and intertwined with the
communities involved and the resources available
in the environment around them. Modern system
of knowledge (which is actually developed through
years and not generations) and its exploitation are
a result of the industrialization process, where
production and not sustainable utilization is the
answer (Kaushik 2004; Gupta et al. 2015). Both
modern and traditional knowledge are prevailing
factors in production; thus, local communities and
people are been exploited in an unsustainable
and inequitable manner. The holders of TK lack
the awareness to protect it through modern
legal systems and they do not even seek due
compensation for its use (Kaushik 2004). These
situations in today’s world when combined together
may lead to the unfortunate consequence of
disappearance of overall TK (Kaushik 2004 and
Gupta et al. 2015). There is a threat to the future of
TK due to globalization of production systems and
the distance between the holders of knowledge and
its exploiters.
Another known aspect highlighted in both the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and
the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic
Resources (IU) of the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) is that the TK plays a key role in
the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Numerous activities and production based on TK
are the important sources of income, food, and
healthcare for large parts of the populations and
communities, trailing to development of the country
also. Thus, TK is being rapidly lost as traditional
communities are integrated into the wider societies,
and the local ecosystems are been degraded (Twarog
and Kapoor 2004).

India’s Fight Against Agricultural and Medicinal Plants’ Biopiracy...
883
Print ISSN : 1974-1712 Online ISSN : 2230-732X
India’s Combat against Biopiracy
Many cases have been registered in India where
aempts have been made to steal the indigenous
knowledge from India due to its easy access which
aect food security, livelihood of indigenous people
and even cause changes in consumers’ choice. The
persons involved in plundering natural resources
from the developing and less developed countries
prosper, while the persons from whom benefits
are derived suer since they are paid only pey
amounts and sometimes are not even paid at all
(Bhaacharya 2014). ‘Biopiracy’ term is generally
used when multinational corporations or companies
prot from the medicinal and agricultural uses of
plants known to indigenous or native societies and
fail to compensate those communities” (Dwyer
2008; Andrews 2012). Alternatively, it refers to
“appropriation, generally by means of patents, of
legal rights over indigenous biomedical knowledge
without compensation to indigenous groups who
originally developed such knowledge” (Sudha 2014).
There have been a number of cases of biopiracy
of traditional knowledge from India, commonly
observed in plant varieties such as Haldi (Turmeric),
Basmati, Neem etc. (Bhaacharya 2014). According to
a study conducted in 1999, global market value of
industries using biological and genetic material is
estimated between $500-800 billion. The economic
value of traditional knowledge in the herbal
medicine and pharmaceutical sector is estimated
to reach around 5 trillion by 2020 (Sudha 2014;
Shah 2014). A few instances of biopiracy have been
presented in Table 1.
Dr. V.K. Gupta, Senior Advisor & Director of India’s
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)
at the Indian Council of Scientic and Industrial
Research (CSIR) (India’s largest state-owned
research body), has evolved Traditional Knowledge
Resource Classification (TKRC), an innovative
structured classification system for systematic
arrangement, dissemination and retrieval. TKDL is
a unique tool that plays a critical role in protecting
the country’s traditional knowledge. The TKDL
has been patterned on the International Patent
Classications and has been ratied by the World
Intellectual Property Organization. TKDL has now
become a database containing 34 million pages of
formaed information on some 2,260,000 medicinal
formulations in multiple languages, bridging the
linguistic gap between traditional knowledge
expressed in languages like Sanskrit, Arabic,
Persian, Urdu and Tamil, and those used by patent
examiners of major intellectual property (IP) oces.
These have been translated into English, French,
German, Japanese and Spanish (Gupta 2011).
India is the pioneer country in the world to have
set up an institutional mechanism – the TKDL – to
protect its TK. India’s TKDL is a powerful weapon
in the country’s ght against erroneous patents,
also referred to as “biopiracy” (Gupta 2011). Now,
India is in a position of global leadership in the
area of Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual
Property Right. Several other countries are seeking
India’s support in establishing similar systems for
themselves like Republic of South Korea, Thailand,
South Africa, Mongolia, Cambodia, Nigeria, African
Regional Industrial Property Office, SAARC
member states, etc.
International and National conventions and
acts related to Biopiracy
The problem of unfair exploitation of bioresources
and traditional knowledge of indigenous
communities and disregard to their customary laws
and practices has been arising and this makes it even
more important to respect and protect the rights of
such communities over such resources. Initiatives
are being taken at both national and international
levels to frame policies and acts for designing a
protection system that does not compromise with
the indigenous values, cultural heritage and free
sharing of knowledge, resources and innovations
over such resources that have been transferred
from one generation to another. Communal control
of such knowledge need to be emphasized and
each country should nd its own options that can
only be governed by the international frameworks
(Shamama 2008).
Patenting of edible plant resources, mainly wheat,
maize, rice, and potato, which constitute more
than 70% of our food supply will pose a threat
to the consumers. The problem of intrusion of
national sovereignty arises due to biopiracy when
a government or a corporation from other countries
utilizes and benefits from the patent varieties
of genetic resources which are derived from the
traditional knowledge acquired from another
sovereign state. However, in the past few years,

Sharma et al.
884
Print ISSN : 1974-1712 Online ISSN : 2230-732X
Table 1: List of Biopiracy cases of India
Sl.
No.
Common name Indigenous use Pantentee Action by the Indian Government
1Haldi / turmeric
(Curcuma longa)
Treatment for sprains,
inammatory conditions
and wounds
Two scientists from the University of
Mississippi were granted US patent 5,401,504 on
the use of turmeric in 1995
The US Patent and Trademark oce
rejected all patent claims related to
turmeric aer the Indian government
challenged the patent by providing
numerous research papers predating
the patent, proving that turmeric has
long been used to heal wounds in
India.
2 Neem (Azadirachta
indica)
As an air purier and
eective medicine for
almost all types of
human and animal
diseases because of its
insect and pest repellant
properties
A US timber importer began importing neem
seeds to his company headquarter in Wisconsin
since 1971 aer he studied its curing properties.
Using neem extract, he successfully extracted a
pesticidal agent called Margosan-O. In 1985, the
bio-pesticide derived from neem tree received
clearance from the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
In May 2000, a coalition of groups
successfully overturned the patent
held by the US company, WR Grace
and the US Department of Agriculture
over the Indian neem tree. The Patent
granted to WR Grace & Co. UK and
US department of Agriculture was
revoked on Challenge.
3 Rice (Basmati) Unique Aroma and
avour
On 2 September 1997, Texas based RiceTec Inc.
was granted patent number 5663484 for a new
plant variety that is a cross between American
long-grain rice and Basmati rice. RiceTec
claimed that the new varieties have the same
or beer characteristics as the original Basmati
rice and can be successfully grown in specied
geographical areas in North America.
By mid 2000, the Indian government
challenged some of the claims of
the RiceTec patent and the world’s
largest importer of Basmati rice, Saudi
Arabia (UK recognized that Basmati
rice is unique to Northern India and
Pakistan).
4 Jamun/ blackberry Control of diabetes Cromak Research Inc. (US Patent 5900240). The
edible herbal compositions compromising the
mixtures of the mentioned plants are used to
reduce sugar levels.
The medicinal use of jamun; bier
gourd or karela; brinjal or eggplant
has been clearly indicated in the
Wealth of India, compendium of
Indian medicinal plants, and Treatiseon
Indian Medicinal Plants I which has no
reference in the patent granted.
5 Karela/ bier gourd
6 Baingan/Brinjal
(Eggplant)
7 Aswagandha
(Withania somnifera)
Treatment of insomnia,
depression, gastric
ulcers and convulsions
Natreon Inc., US Multi National (EP 1906980)
Patent granted to Relive International Inc. as a
supplement for healthy joints, US patent oce
also granted a dozen patents on Aswagantha
centered ndings
Out of several patents granted in
favour of Ashwagandha, India was
successful in revoking only one. In
order to crush their aempt, Indian
authorities replied back on 6th July
2009 by submiing evidences from
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library
(TKDL) and some documents dating
back to 12th century. As a result of
the breathless eorts, on 25th march
2010, EPO decided to dismiss the
American’s rm claims over the Indian
Ginseng.
8Tea Patent applied by George Williamson & Co. UK
(Method of manufacturing and packaging)
All the Indian tea majors had led
their objections at the concerned
patent oce in Chennai in 2012. The
case has also evoked strong resistance
from the tea industry. (Mahuya Paul
2013).
9 Hessian (Jute Cloth) Use of hessian cloth
to cover waste and
dumping grounds
Patent granted to UK rm by the European
Patent Oce
The patent was revoked on challenges
by Jute Industrial research Association
of India.

India’s Fight Against Agricultural and Medicinal Plants’ Biopiracy...
885
Print ISSN : 1974-1712 Online ISSN : 2230-732X
developing countries have voiced their concern in
the international arena.
With the advent of technological interventions and
globalization, the intellectual property rights of
indigenous people have been treated as a vital issue.
Patent protection for plant varieties is provided
by various international conventions such as the
International Convention for the Protection of
New Varieties of Plants (1961, as revised in 1972,
1978 and 1991), the International Undertaking on
Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(1983), the Food and Agriculture Organization
10 Ginger (Zingiber
ocinale)
Treatment against cough
and cold
Patent granted by US patent oce on eight
ginger formulation, Nicholas John Larkins
The ve year old aempt to pirate
India’s traditional knowledge was
struck down by UK patent oce in
2011 when Department of Ayush
and Council of Scientic Industrial
Research (CSIR) intervened with
evidences with age-old ayurveda
and unani books dating back to 18th
century. Kounteya Sinha, 2012.
11 Indian Wheat
variety, Nap Hal
Monsanto, the biggest seed corporation was
assigned the patent (No. EP 0445929 B1) on
wheat on May 21st, 2003 by the EPO under the
simple title, “plants”
On January 27th, 2004. The Research
Foundation for Science, Technology
and Ecology along with Greenpeace
and Bharat Krishak Samaha led a
petition at the EPO challenging the
patent rights given to Monsanto,
leading to the patent being revoked.
(Vandana Shiva 2012).
12 Aa (Chakki) A staple food and
ingredient within India.
ConAgra led a “novel” patent (patent
no 6,098,905) claiming the rights to an aa
processing method, and was granted the patent
on August 8th, 2000.
The method that ConAgra is claiming
to be novel has been used throughout
South Asia by thousands of aa
chakkis, and so cannot justly be
claimed as a novel patent. (Vandana
Shiva 2012).
13 Mint and
Andrographis
Novelty in utility for the
therapy of H5N1 avian
inuenza
Livzon Pharmaceutical Group Inc, Guangdong,
a Chinese company (European patent # 1849473)
India thwarted a major aempt at
bio-piracy by successfully blocking
Chinese bid to patent by providing
proofs of formulations from ancient
Ayurveda and Unani scripts were
excavated dating back to 9th century
by the joint venture of CSIR and
India’s TKDL.
14 Gheekawaar (Aloe
vera)
Treatment of obesity Cognis IP Management Gmbh, Germany TKDL evidences based on
Rasendrachintamanih (time of origin
16th century) and other Ayurveda and
Siddha books were submied on 20th
July, 2009. The applicant withdrew
its claims/patent application on 27th
November, 2009.
15 Anar (Punica
granatum)
Anti-diarrhoea Toyoharu Hozumi, Takao (Matsumoto): US
Patent 5411733
—
16 Herbal Products:
Amla, vasabr,
saptrangi, bel etc.
—Natreon Inc was granted patents for 13 claims
of Amla by US Patent Oce, application also
led with European Patent Oce.
—
17 Pepper Treatment of skin
conditions
Patent granted by US patent oce to Raman;
Amala Lin; Zhixiu Robert; Charles Hider
—
Source: Shiva 2012; Mathew 2013; Bhaacharya 2014, Verma et al. 2014 and Gupta et al. 2015.

Sharma et al.
886
Print ISSN : 1974-1712 Online ISSN : 2230-732X
(FAO) Resolution 5/89, the 1994 Trade Related
Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), and the
International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources
for Food and Agriculture (ITPGR), 2001 and The
Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources
and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits,
2010 (Andrews 2012; Sudha 2014) Additionally,
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
was adopted at the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development (UNCED) in
Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) in the year 1992, which
aims at conserving biodiversity through economic
incentives and is considered as a powerful tool
that can be employed for enforcing the rights of
indigenous people. This convention “recognizes
the intimate relationship between preservation of
biodiversity and the protection of the traditional
knowledge of indigenous populations” (Powell
and Chavarro 2008) and considers plant genetic
resources as tradable commodities which are subject
to national sovereignty rights (Aoki 2009). It also
includes the concept of national sovereignty over
plants and animals as a basis for informed consent
and benet sharing (Andrews 2012). It is the rst
international treaty which provides opportunities
to biodiversity rich countries to recognize benets
arising out of the utilization of their bioresources
(Bhaacharya 2014).
At the National level, India enables provisions for
protecting the traditional knowledge through the
Biological Diversity Act, 2002. Other acts include
The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 and The
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights
Act of 2001 (PPVFR Act) (Sudha 2014).
CONCLUSION
Patenting of vital plant resources poses a threat to
the consumers and with the advent of technological
interventions, the intellectual property rights of
indigenous people have become a vital issue.
However, with spread of awareness, the patent
protection for various plant varieties has been
provided by several national and international acts
and conventions in the recent past.
REFERENCES
Andrews, D. 2012. Traditional Agriculture, Biopiracy and
Indigenous Rights, 2nd World Sustainability Forum, 1-30
November, 1-12.
Anup, S. 2002. Food Patents–Stealing Indigenous Knowledge?
Genetically Engineered Food, hp://www.globalissues.
org/EnvIssues/GEFood/FoodPatents.asp (Retrieved
on 03-07- 2018)
Aoki, K. 2009. Symposium: When Worlds Collide: Intellectual
Property at the Interface Between Systems of Knowledge
Creation: Panel II: Knowledge Creations Systems on the
National Stage: “Free Seeds, Not Free Beer”: Participatory
Plant Breeding, Open Source Seeds, and Acknowledging
User Innovation in Agriculture. 77. Fordham L. Rev. 2275.
Bhaacharya, S. 2014. Bioprospecting, biopiracy and food
security in India: The emerging sides of neoliberalism.
International Leers of Social and Humanistic Sciences Online
23: 49-56.
Bhaacharya, S., Chaopadhyay, D.J. and Mukhopadhyay,
A. 2013. Changing Dimensions of Food Security in a
Globalized World: A Review of the Perspectives for
Environment, Economy and Health. International Research
Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2(3): 67-73.
Brush, S.B. 2005. Biodiversity, Biotechnology, and the
Legal Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Protecting
Traditional Agricultural Knowledge. 17 Wash. U. J.L. &
Pol’y 59.
Gupta, V.K. 2011. Protecting India’s Traditional Knowledge.
In World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
Magazine, edt Catherine Jewell C, 3, 5-8.
https://www.business-standard.com/article/specials/
uk-firm-seeks-patent-for-ancient-indian-tea-
process-198021301052_1.html, UK Firm Seeks Patent For
Ancient Indian Tea Process, Mahuya Paul, 26th February,
2013 (Retrieved on 13-08-2018)
http://www.law.kyushu-u.ac.jp/programsinenglish/new-
delhi/india/VKGuptaCV.html (Retrieved on 18-06-2018)
hp://www.tkdl.res.in/tkdl/PressCoverage/Timesondia_
Ahmedabad.pdf, Kounteya Sinha, India foils British
pharma firm’s bid to patent ginger, Times Nation,
4thJanuary 2012 (Retrieved on 03-07- 2018)
http://www.thecitizen.in/index.php/en/newsdetail/
index/1/7840/biopiracy-from-neem-to-rice-to-aa-gates-
and-monsanto-inuence-ipr-policy. Biopiracy From Neem
to Rice to Aa! Gates and Monsanto Inuence IPR Policy,
Vandan Shiva 31st May, 2016 (Retrieved on 03-07- 2018)
https://www.thehindu.com/2004/10/12/
stories/2004101203391400.htm. India wins patent case
on jute, Indrani Dua, 12th October 2004 (Retrieved
on 13-08- 2018)
hp://www.tkdl.res.in/TKDL/Conference/pdf_les/Report_
of_Conference.pdf (Retrieved on 18-06-2018)
Kothari, A. and Patel, A. 2006. Environment and Human
Rights. National Human Rights Commission, New Delhi,
pp. 55.
Mathew, B. 2013. Traditional Knowledge Misappropriation
and Biopiracy in India: A Study on the Legal Measures
to Protect Traditional Knowledge. International Journal
of Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research
2(12): 202-210.

India’s Fight Against Agricultural and Medicinal Plants’ Biopiracy...
887
Print ISSN : 1974-1712 Online ISSN : 2230-732X
Ministry of Environment and forests. 2010. National
consultations on BT brinjals: A primer on concerns, issues
and prospects. Centre for environment education, India
(Retrieved on 13-07- 2018)
Powell, S.J. and P.A. Chavarro. 2008. Seventh Annual
Conference on Legal & Policy Issues in the Americas:
Article: Toward a Vibrant Peruvian Middle Class: Eects
of the Peru-United States Free Trade Agreement on Labor
Rights, Biodiversity, and Indigenous Populations. 20 Fla.
J. Int’l L., 93
Shankar, D. 1997. Traditional Medicine and Biopiracy. Ancient
Science of Life. 17(1): 67-71.
Shamama, A. 2008. Biopiracy and Protection of Traditional
Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights and Beyond.
Indian Institute of Management Calcua Working Paper
Series, Wps No. 629/ September 2008.
Sudha, P.S. 2014. Combating Biopiracy of Indian Traditional
Knowledge (TK) – A Legal Perspective. Bharati Law
Review, 42.
Verma, M., Chauhan, I., Kumari, R. and Sharma, M. 2014.
India–victim of bio-piracy. Indo American Journal of Pharma
Research, 4(01): 1-14.
Yusuf, M. 2010. Ethical issues in the use of the terminator
seed technology. African Journal of Agricultural Research
9(52): 8901-8904.