The Texmati rice controversy represents a significant dispute in the global agricultural and intellectual property landscape. It brought to light complex issues surrounding traditional knowledge, geographical indications, and the commercialization of agricultural products. The conflict primarily involved a U.S. company, RiceTec, and the traditional basmati-producing nations of India and Pakistan, highlighting the economic and cultural value attached to specific crop varieties.
The Origin of Texmati Rice
Texmati rice is a hybrid variety developed by RiceTec, an American company founded in 1988. The company developed hybrid rice seeds. Texmati was created by combining long-grain American white rice with traditional Basmati rice. It aimed to produce a rice with Basmati’s aroma, nutty flavor, and fluffy texture. RiceTec marketed Texmati under its RiceSelect brand for North American grocery stores.
The Core of the Basmati Dispute
The Basmati controversy centered on RiceTec’s attempt to patent and market its hybrid rice varieties as “basmati.” In 1997, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted RiceTec a patent for “Basmati Rice Lines and Grains.” It covered specific hybrid varieties with characteristics similar to traditional Basmati. This sparked strong opposition from India and Pakistan, traditional Basmati cultivators for centuries.
Basmati rice holds deep cultural and economic significance. Its unique qualities—long grain, distinct aroma, and delicate texture—stem from the Himalayan foothills’ conditions. The dispute revolved around Geographical Indications (GIs), an intellectual property form for products whose qualities stem from their geographical origin. India and Pakistan argued “Basmati” is not generic but linked to their heritage and growing regions. Granting a patent and using the “Basmati” name by an outside company was seen as “biopiracy” and a threat to farmers.
Legal and International Confrontations
The patent grant triggered legal and diplomatic challenges. The Indian government, through APEDA, challenged the patent by filing a re-examination request with the USPTO. India submitted scientific evidence, arguing RiceTec’s claimed characteristics were inherent in existing Basmati varieties. Activists and civil society organizations supported this, condemning the patent as an appropriation of traditional knowledge.
The legal battle focused on broad patent claims for rice plants. Arguments asserted RiceTec’s varieties were not novel and “Basmati” was linked to the Indian subcontinent. India also raised the issue at the World Trade Organization (WTO), citing a violation of Geographical Indication principles under the TRIPS Agreement. This pressure and re-examination aimed to protect India and Pakistan’s rights to the Basmati name.
The Resolution and Its Aftermath
Pressure led to a resolution. In 2002, the USPTO issued a Re-examination Certificate, canceling 15 of RiceTec’s 20 patent claims, primarily those for rice plants. The patent’s title was changed, removing the “Basmati” reference. While RiceTec retained some claims, it could no longer use “Basmati” in advertising, though it markets “Texmati” as “long grain American Basmati.”
This outcome was a victory for India and Pakistan in protecting the Basmati name. The controversy highlighted the importance of geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural products, prompting India to strengthen its IP laws. It also highlighted the need for developing countries to safeguard traditional knowledge and indigenous products. The dispute set a precedent in international intellectual property law, demonstrating the power of collective action and scientific evidence against perceived biopiracy.