Healthy Skepticism Library item: 17575

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Schofield H
Legal fight over Plumpy'nut, the hunger wonder-product
BBC News 2010 Apr 8
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8610427.stm

Full text:

Should a revolutionary humanitarian food product
be protected by commercial patent, when lifting
restrictions might save millions of starving children?

That is the moral conundrum at the heart of a
bitter transatlantic legal dispute. On one side
are the French inventors of Plumpy’nut, a peanut
paste which in the last five years has
transformed treatment of acute malnutrition in Africa.

Nutriset, the Normandy-based company, says the
patent is needed to safeguard production of
Plumpy’nut in the developing world, and to stop
the market being swamped by cheap US surpluses.

And on the other side are two American
not-for-profit organisations that have filed a
suit at a Washington DC federal court to have the
patent overturned. They say they are being
stopped by Nutriset from manufacturing similar – and cheaper – peanut-based food products, despite
the proven demand from aid agencies.
“By their actions, Nutriset are preventing
malnourished children from getting what they need
to survive. It is as simple as that,” said Mike
Mellace, of the San Diego-based Mama Cares Foundation.

Wonder-product
For Nutriset’s general manager, Adeline Lescanne,
such accusations are unfair and distressing. “No
child in the world has even been denied access to
the product as a result of the patent issue,” she said.

“If they had – how would any of us be able to go to work in the morning?”
The one point of agreement between the two
parties is that Plumpy’nut is that rare thing: a wonder-product.

A blend of peanut-butter, powdered milk, sugar
and vegetable oil fortified with vitamins and
minerals, the paste won its glowing reputation
during a 2005 food crisis in Niger.
“Before, we had to hospitalise malnourished
children – which is a huge drain on resources.
With Plumpy’nut, largely because it does not have
to be mixed with clean water, the children can
stay at home,” said Stephane Doyon, nutrition
team leader at Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders).

“In 2002 it took 2,000 staff to treat 10,000
children during a famine in Angola. In Niger we
needed just 150 staff for the same number of
patients. Thanks to Plumpy’nut, mass treatment is suddenly possible.”

Such has been its success that in the aid world
Plumpy’nut is today the standard “ready-to-use
therapeutic food” (RUTF), with Nutriset and its
partners providing some 90% of global supply.

But it is this near-monopoly which is now being challenged.
For Mike Mellace – whose proposed alternative is
called Re:vive – it is absurd to be barred from
making something which is in essence very simple.
“Plumpy’nut is not some secret formula. Basically
it’s fortified Nutella. Anyone with a basic
knowledge of peanuts could have developed it!” he said.
“But at Nutriset they do all they can to stop
people competing. We have had cease-and-desist
letters from them, and lots of other companies around the world have too.”

African production
According to Mellace, worldwide demand for RUTFs
can only be met if supply is opened up – especially in the US, with its large peanut industry.
He cites UN figures showing that while 26 million
children currently suffer from malnutrition, only
between one and two million are receiving Plumpy’nut or equivalents.

At Nutriset, they do not dispute the figures – but they do offer a very different interpretation.

First, the patent is not universal. In a dozen
countries such as Niger, Malawi and Kenya,
Nutriset has set up a network of partnerships and
franchises so that Plumpy’nut can be made locally
and with locally-grown produce.
“Our motto is nutritional autonomy,” said
Nutriset’s communications manager, Remi Vallet.
“We want poor countries to be able to produce the
nutrients they need in a sustainable way.
“If the US companies were able to beat the
patent, the global volume of RUTFs would of
course go up. But it would also mean the end for
our local partners in Africa, who wouldn’t be
able to compete. That is not what we want.”

As for the question of demand, Nutriset says it
and its partners have plenty of spare capacity.
“It is true that something like only 5% of
malnourished children are getting RUTFs. But the
problem there is not lack of production. It’s
because at the moment there is neither the
international funding nor the systems in place to
provide RUTFs,” Mr Vallet said.

‘Aggressive’
Underlying the Nutriset position is concern over
the United States’ historic policy on food aid,
which remains heavily influenced by domestic agricultural lobbies.
The US is the world’s biggest food donor, but
laws there require that 99% of aid money be spent
on American-grown surpluses. Nutriset believes
its would-be competitors in the US are trying to
cash in on this opportunity – to the huge
detriment of local producers in Africa.
That argument holds little water for Mellace, who
notes that Nutriset has itself just opened a
joint venture in Rhode Island. The not-for-profit
company called Edesia will be America’s first ever RUTF producer.
“They come here and get a $2m USAID grant to set
up a factory, and then they stop us producing
basically the same thing. They are talking out of
both sides of their mouth!” he said.

Mellace’s case against Nutriset was given added
force after Medecins Sans Frontieres also
criticised the French company for a “policy of
aggressive protection ofâ •œ patents”.
In a letter sent in November, the charity accused
Nutriset of invoking patent rights to block a
Norwegian competitor from transporting a
Plumpy’nut equivalent via Kenya. The dispute was
subsequently resolved amicably.
“We are not against patents per se,” said
Stephane Doyon of Medecins Sans Frontieres.
“But we do believe that in a domain as sensitive
as humanitarian aid they need to handled with extreme flexibility.”
At Nutriset they say they agree.
“We know a patent for a life-saving food product
is not the same as a patent for a toaster,” said Remi Vallet.
“It needs special management, and we give it.”
“We are confident that we are acting for the best,” said Adeline Lescanne.
“Our goal is long-term – so that governments in
the developing world can eventually take charge of nutrition by themselves.”