Nestle patenting uses of Nigella sativa - Is this true?

Certainly is saturation coverage at the moment.
The only slight bunk I could find is that it's not 'fennel' (Foeniculum vulgare) as we know it but nigella sativa, or black cumin. It is known as fennel flower though.

I don't know if it's even possible to claim a natural product as a patent unless you change it somehow. Or is it okay to patent a *use* of a naturally occuring product? Does that restrict others from using it?
Also, bastards.

Edit...
Can someone patent a naturally occurring substance?
Not in its natural state. However, a natural substance that has never before been isolated or known may be patentable in some instances, but only in its isolated form. A variation of a naturally occurring substance may be patentable if an inventor is able to demonstrate substantial non-obvious modifications that offer significant advantages in using the variant.
Content from External Source

A biological patent is a patent relating to an invention or discovery in biology. It can be a composition of matter, a method for obtaining or using one or more thereof, or a product combining such things. As with all utility patents in the U.S, the patent provides the patent holder with the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or importing the claimed invention for a limited period of time - for patents filed after 1998, twenty years from the filing date.[1] Natural biological substances themselves can be patented (apart from any associated process or usage) in the United States if they are sufficiently "isolated" from their naturally occurring states. Prominent historical examples of such patents on isolated products of nature include adrenaline, insulin, vitamin B12​, and gene patents.
Content from External Source
 
Nestle has responded.

Here is a tip to use:
Whenever you want to search for the opposition about an assertion, add a keyword selected to elicit an opposing viewpoint on the assertion such as ~hoax, scam, debunked or rebuttal~, which might help find results which contradict the assertion.

I used ~Nestle patent hoax~, and this was within the google results.
The embedded link within the quote below has more details and I expect that sumofus, who began the petition is already aware that they are spreading misinformation. Sad to see that but it happens all too frequently, and has fooled nearly 1/4 million people.

Is Nestlé trying to patent the fennel flower, also known as Nigella sativa or black cumin?

Nestlé is not trying to patent the fennel flower.
We made patent applications for a compound that can be extracted from Nigella sativa (also known as fennel flower, black seed and black cumin) or from other plants, to help treat or prevent food allergies.
The patent, which has not yet been approved, would not prevent the use of the fennel flower plant for any other purposes, including in traditional and natural remedies.

Read more about Nestlé and biodiversity - Fennel flower plant extract
http://www.nestle.com/aboutus/ask-n...trying-to-patent-fennel-flower-nigella-sativa
 
The response from Nestlé is not convincing. Remember we are dealing with big corporates with slick PR departments. There is always a chance that the briefing document given to SumOfUs was not factual - but it's pretty good, and unless you have loads of time to research this, the best option is to accept it. If Nestlé is correct they have nothing to worry about. SumOfUs will have raised the issue with the patent authorities, and that's good for society.
 
Patents covering processes for extracting certain compounds from plants are rather common. Those patents do not mean that the plant itself or common extraction methods such as alcohol tinctures are also patented. One example is a patent for extracting active compounds from common medicinal plants such as German chamomile, skullcap and valerian, using high pressure superheated water instead of alcohol. It does not prevent us from growing the aforementioned plants in our garden or making alcohol based tincture or tea for medicinal uses. Nor does it prevent other companies or persons from making and selling alcohol tinctures or other extracts or the dried herbs. Per patent law, patents are granted only for novel processes and unique uses that are only possible as a result of those novel processes.

http://www.google.com/patents/WO2010034971A2

Thus as the subcritical water extracts of the herbs as described in this invention are demonstrated to exhibit a composition essentially similar to that of the corresponding methanol or aqueous alcohol extract, then it can be expected that these extracts will exhibit comparable pharmacological activities to these and to the compounds contained therein. In addition to the above claims relating to the extraction of the plant material, as the water solubility of many of the active compounds is low, both oral formulations and topical formulations which improve the bioavailability and hence efficacy of the extracts are included.
Content from External Source
Nestle has discovered a compound in Nigella sativa that may be effective at treating or preventing food allergies by stimulating certain receptors. The patent would cover the use of certain compounds to stimulate specific receptors for the purpose of treating food allergies.

Nestle has
... found that thymoquinone, which can be found in Nigella sativa seed extract, stimulates specific receptors in the body, which may help to treat or prevent food allergy.

The patent, which has not yet been approved, relates to the use of compositions that provide molecules that stimulate these receptors for the treatment of food allergy.
Content from External Source
 
Thanks for your response solrey. It's not the legitimacy of the patent process at issue, it's the prevalence of Biopiracy. This is a commercial activity that not many people are aware of (including me up until a few days ago) - so I've started to notice it, and am pondering the ethics.

There seems to be plenty of examples around, for example:

In 2000, the German company Schwabe made significant profits on Umckaloabo, a product derived from the geranium, without compensating local communities. It then filed patents claiming exclusive rights to the medical use of the plant.

In 2010, however, the patents were cancelled following appeals from theAfrican Centre for Biosafety in South Africa and the Berne Declaration in Switzerland, calling the patents "an illegitimate and illegal monopolisation of genetic resources derived from traditional knowledge and a stark opposition to the convention on biodiversity".

Bélier said the law would help to protect biodiversity and ensure that people from the region are adequately compensated for their resource and their traditional knowhow.
 
Hi bild - Thanks for the link to the relevant patent (or one of them). I'm not a patent lawyer, so I can't comment on the broadness, or otherwise, of the claims. But these two look quite general:

1. Use of an opioid receptor stimulating compound for the preparation of a composition to treat or prevent food allergy.

4. Use in accordance with one of the preceding claims, wherein the opioid receptor stimulating compound is provided as a component of a plant or a plant extract, for example from Nigella sativa, Eupatorium ayapana, Satureja montana, Thymus or a combination thereof.

My main concern is that when issues of biopiracy get to this level of detail - 99% of the general public will lose interest in it. That's why we need organisations like Sumofus to keep an eye on global corporations.
 
Hi bild - Thanks for the link to the relevant patent (or one of them). I'm not a patent lawyer, so I can't comment on the broadness, or otherwise, of the claims. But these two look quite general:

1. Use of an opioid receptor stimulating compound for the preparation of a composition to treat or prevent food allergy.

4. Use in accordance with one of the preceding claims, wherein the opioid receptor stimulating compound is provided as a component of a plant or a plant extract, for example from Nigella sativa, Eupatorium ayapana, Satureja montana, Thymus or a combination thereof.

My main concern is that when issues of biopiracy get to this level of detail - 99% of the general public will lose interest in it. That's why we need organisations like Sumofus to keep an eye on global corporations.
The question is not about the need for organizations like Sumofus. The quetsion is whether Nestlie is trying to patent Nigella sativa and about the legitimacy of Nestlie's patent application claims. The short answer is yes. This makes Nestlie no different than any other company that tries to patent the medical applications of chemical contained in plants. If the claims that Nestlie's patent application covers nothing new are correct the application will be denied. If Neslie's claims are true and the have applications for the compounds that meet the definition of novel (see below) the patent will be granted.

upload_2014-2-7_8-32-29.png

Nestlie seem to be focused on specific allegies rather than general use.

The present invention relates generally to the field of food allergy and nutrition. It was found that the stimulation of opioid receptors could be used to treat or prevent food allergy. One embodiment of the present invention concerns hence the use of an opioid receptor stimulating compound for the preparation of a composition to treat or prevent food allergy.

Food allergies represent a significant health problem of our society today. Food allergies affect all age groups, but in particular children. Nowadays around 6 to 8 percent of all children suffer from at least one food allergy. Being allergic to certain products, such as wheat or cow's milk, for example, makes it difficult to provide the body with all required nutrients in sufficient amounts. Adults are slightly less affected than children, but still around 4 percent of all adults suffer from food allergies. Obviously, it is also important for adults to provide the body with all necessary nutrients to maintain a good health status.
Content from External Source
http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/...=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCTDescription

5. Use in accordance with one of the preceding claims, wherein the food allergy is selected from the group consisting of dairy allergy, egg allergy, peanut allergy, tree nut allergy, sesame allergy, corn allergy, rice allergy, buckwheat allergy, parsley allergy, seafood allergy, shellfish allergy, soy allergy, wheat allergy or combinations thereof.
Content from External Source
They also have specific symptoms they want to alleviate:

6. Use in accordance with one of the preceding claims, to treat or prevent the symptoms of food allergy, for example symptoms selected from the group consisting of tissue swelling; itching of the mouth, throat, eyes and/or skin; nausea; vomiting; diarrhea; stomach cramps and/or abdominal pain; nasal congestion; wheezing; scratchy throat; shortness of breath; difficulty swallowing; or combinations thereof.
Content from External Source
http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/...&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=

If you read the supporting documentation you will see that the process is working the way it is supposed to and two of the five claims for novelty and inventive step have already been shown to be inadequate (last page).

http://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000015663534.pdf

In my opinion if organizations like Sumofus are going to be the self appointed police they need to go into more explanation of what the corporation are trying to achieve and why. That would allow people to make an informed decision.
 
Sumofus's campaign does not come at zero cost. I came aware of this issue when a colleague posted the Sumofus Nestle claim on Facebook. The overview note was along the lines of: Nestle is an evil corporation, run by a nazi, they are trying to buy up and privatize our water supply, and now they are trying to own plants.
Misinformation such as the claims made by this petition can be refuted but it's very difficult to go back and extract that out of people's minds. If you google this issue, you'll find the Sumofus claims and exact wording are now very widely distributed and will be considered a truth by many.
 
Apparently Nestle is seeking patent of certain properties of black cumin and gene patents are nothing new. http://www.business-standard.com/ar...patent-bid-raises-hackles-114010700965_1.html

To my knowledge, Nigella Sativa currently has 5 FDA separate patents in the USA for the treatment of:


1. Inhibition of cancer cell growth, Patent no.- US5,653,981, Inventor- R. D. Medenica.
2. Diabetes, No.-US 6,042,834, Inventor – Wasif Baraka.
3. Improvement of the Immune System, No.- US5,482,711, Inventor – R. D. Medenica.
4. Viral Infections, No.- US 6,841,174, Inventor – S.I. A. Shalaby and E. M. A. H. Allah.
5. Psoriasis, No.- US 6,531,164, Inventor - H.H.R. Crede.


Amazing stuff!

http://www.academia.edu/1647372/Black_Cumin_-_A_review
 
The actual patent claim is documented here: patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2010133574&recNum=1&tab=PCTClaims
If Nestle is attempting to patent the fennel flower, then it's clearly not this particular claim. And if it's not this patent claim, then it should be up to the conspiracy theorists to identify the particular claim they are talking about.

To the best of my knowledge when I last reviewed Nestlé's application, sometime ago, it was not to patent the fennel flower - that in itself as a patent claim would be rather difficult as they did not manufacture or invent the flower - rather it is a naturally occurring product. An inventor can only apply for patent of his invention, and I believe that Nestle application is only with respect to a particular, formerly unknown usage of the naturally occurring product which would firmly qualify under intellectual property laws in most jurisdictions. Clearly, Nestlé's actual claim differs significantly from the outcry/claims of the conspiracy theorists. I believe the original poster had, following our posts, seen the clarity between the two and had learnt the difference and made a clear comment/apology to that effect.
 
To the best of my knowledge when I last reviewed Nestlé's application, sometime ago, it was not to patent the fennel flower - that in itself as a patent claim would be rather difficult as they did not manufacture or invent the flower - rather it is a naturally occurring product. An inventor can only apply for patent of his invention, and I believe that Nestle application is only with respect to a particular, formerly unknown usage of the naturally occurring product which would firmly qualify under intellectual property laws in most jurisdictions. Clearly, Nestlé's actual claim differs significantly from the outcry/claims of the conspiracy theorists. I believe the original poster had, following our posts, seen the clarity between the two and had learnt the difference and made a clear comment/apology to that effect.
NeoMike seems to be the one misconstruing the intent of the patent. The claim of biopiracy doesn't seem to be supported.
 
Slightly unrelated, maybe core influence.....


Herbal remedy proponents have pointed to the benefits of Nigella Sativa.
And this is but one source (although with a bad reputation here, WorldTruthTV)...

A link supporting various claims is...
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article...-has-prophylactic-effect-chemical-war-victims
....where a study of "war victims" is focused on.

I am suspicious of the accuracy in the GreemMedInfo link, where a study is pasted there, as evidence.
I'm afraid my comment there may get deleted, so here it is....


nigella.png
 
Last edited:
Back
Top