# The Plumpy'nut Patent Debate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 10, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633 "2010-04-10T13:37:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/41 "2010-04-11T11:57:20Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > So…he started with peanuts… No, he did not. He started with peanut butter, powdered milk, and multivitamins, and ended up with a mixture of peanut butter, powdered milk, and multivitamins. > [@](#): > > That’s not impressive? Do you think that there was no skill or consideration that went in to the making of the product? That I can tell, it was formulated by a doctor for this specific task who also had knowledge of the economics of production to be able to come up with something that was ideal. It’s not his fault that it ended up tasty. If the product had ended up as something that came in a pill form but was _just as easily produced and made of common materials_, would you still be debating that it wasn’t innovative? Yes, I would. Unless the unpatentable ingredients react in some way that makes them superior taken together compared to being taken separately, the company has not done anything more innovative than solving a linear equation to find out how much of what ingredients match the (also unpatentable) dietary requirements. > [@](#): > > For instance, let’s say that you have a favorite brand of glue. So far as you’re aware, it’s synthetic as all hell, and yet beats the pants off all the competitors and costs half as much. Then you find out that it’s just tree sap mixed with powdered charcoal. Does that change your perception? No, it wouldn’t. The difference is that in your example, tree sap and charcoal _together_ have superior qualities to tree sap and charcoal _individually_. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/42 "2010-04-11T13:37:03Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Isn’t the entire purpose of a patent to incentivize innovation? I don’t see how protecting a glorified food recipe with a handful of ingredients, none of which are original, serves that purpose. > > It seems like mixing peanut butter, powdered milk, and vitamins is way too obvious of an idea to be considered an “invention.” This, I don’t know enought about to comment on. This is why I said,“…at leat on that argument.” I don’t agree the patent should be voided because it’ll help lots of people if it’s free. If the patent was imporperly granted under the usual IP rules, sure, cancel away. I just don’t know what the rules are. What are they? ---
**Author:** ![Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/43 "2010-04-11T13:37:45Z")
> [@Odesio](#): > > If the U.S. patent was granted in 1998, when does it run out? From [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States): “For patents filed on or after June 8, 1995, the patent term is 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. application to which priority is claimed (excluding provisional applications).” The only US patent I’ve been able to find for Nutriset is US Patent No. 6,346,284, which has an earliest US application date of July 14, 2000. So that patent will expire on July 14, 2020 (assuming there are no [terminal disclaimers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_disclaimer) that shorten the life of the patent). [QUOTE=Blalron] I’m all right with patents as long as they aren’t for things that are ridiculously obvious and that any idiot could have come up with. The question earlier about why nobody came up with it before? Just because nobody cared to do so, doesn’t mean that it’s not obvious. [/QUOTE] The fatal flaw in your reasoning here, IMO, is that the evidence suggests that Plumpy’nut wasn’t ridiculously obvious and that any idiot could not have come up with it. According to the article linked in the OP, even the people who don’t think Plumpy’nut should be patented agree that it’s a wonder product that saves millions of lives. [Nutella](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutella)’s been around since 1963 and was based on an earlier product that dates back to 1949. Yet people have been working for decades to solve the problem of malnutrition in Africa and other places, so clearly they cared. The '284 patent itself lists 26 other US patents that were issued on nutrition and related subjects between 1963 and November 1997 (when the inventors of Plumpy’nut filed their first patent application in France), yet none of them apparently discloses the recipe for Plumpy’nut (and it’s not just that those earlier patents didn’t try to claimit - they apparently didn’t disclose it at all, at least not to a level of detail sufficient to establish obviousness to the patent examiner). It seems to me that if “any idiot” could have created such a product at the time the inventors of Plumpy’nut filed their patent application, one of those caring people would have done it. Hell, why didn’t Bob Geldof do it back in 1984, if any idiot could, instead of putting out that stupid Christmas song? From a legal perspective, that’s a huge blow against an argument that the patent was obvious despite what you or I may think about it. The Plumpy’nut patent may well get invalidated in court as an obvious invention. But so far, I’m not seeing any evidence that makes that conclusion inevitable. [QUOTE=Blalron] Here’s a very simple invention which has literally saved millions of lives: Oral Rehydration Solution. The ingredients are: Water, sugar, and salt. Those who have defended that Plumpy’nut Patent: Do you think that the ORS solution is patent worthy? [/QUOTE] In a general way? Sure, that type of solution is patentable if it meets all of the requirements for patentability. But in that particular case, I don’t know what the prior art would be at the time of filing the application or how the claims might be written to show that the claimed invention is novel and distinct from the prior art. But there’s nothing in the solution itself that says to me “this can’t be patented.” It could well be an effective combination of specific levels of water, sugar, and salt that nobody had tried before. ---
**Author:** ![Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/44 "2010-04-11T13:50:26Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > I don’t want to hijack the debate so I will keep it short: > > 1. It’s an obvious method that any competent tech person could come up with > 2. Automated phone order entry systems I wrote before the internet was used by the general public allowed a person to key in their customer number and order products by utilizing their previously entered shipping, billing and credit card information (not an exact example, but substantially similar). This type of problem solving is basic for any competent tech person and there are probably tens of thousands of examples of similar functionality. It simply does not rise to the level of “non-obvious”. > > NTP was granted a patent on sending text data over a wireless communications network and device. The mildly confusing nature of this involves the following question: > > 1. If text data over a wireless communication network is so non-obvious and novel, why did we build wireless communication networks in the first place, to send all other types of data but e-mail? Thanks for the response, **RaftPeople**. I have no reason to doubt any of that, but would expect that someone made those arguments to the PTO during the re-exam process. I haven’t been following the case closely enough to know why those arguments weren’t heeded (assuming they were made). ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/45 "2010-04-11T15:49:13Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > I know this is going to sound harsh, but I think it’s ridiculous to encourage population growth in areas that are incapable of sustaining it. The French have the right idea - produce it locally - that way the population can’t grow beyond what the local resources are capable of supporting. This is a bit off topic, but I have to admit I’m getting a little sick of these topics always partially verring into “The poor people have too many kids.” The country particularly noted in the OP’s link, Niger, is not even close to being overpopulated. Niger has 15 million people in a country twice the size of France, which has 65 million people. Even granting that much of the country’s eastern half is arid, Niger is by no stretch of the imagination overpopulated. Spain, which is equally blessed with land you can’t practically live in, has a population desnity eight times greater, and no starvation. The reason people starve in Niger is that the country does not have anything resembling a functioning state. The government, such as it can be described, has been a shifting cast of characters who have been fighting internal wars against different groups of their own people off and on since independence. The starving children you see in the pictures aren’t starving because there are too many of them; they’re starving because one or more governmental faction is trying to murder them through starvation. **Almost all African famine is the result of war or governmental incompetence.** People would have starved there even if there were only half as many of them. There is no connection between the number of people a country has, either in absolute terms or density, and the likelihood of famine. Famine is a failure of governance. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/46 "2010-04-11T16:12:14Z")
I think the thing is is that this wasn’t just a matter of coming up with a mixture of ingredients that was nutritious. It was a matter of coming up with a mixture of ingredients that was: Shelf-stable for years Cheap to manufacture Light weight enough to transport cheaply Nutritionally dense Needed no preparation And, on top of all that, it needed to be something that severely malnourished children could keep down digest easily feed to themselves eat even if weak, wounded, toothless, etc. That’s an extraordinary list of criteria. There are literally thousands of potential ingredients. Coming up with the exact things in the exact proportion and the manufacturing method that allows the whole process to cost less than plain powdered milk is a tremendous accomplishment and, regardless of where one falls on the patent issue, is not something any “idiot” could do. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/47 "2010-04-11T16:33:21Z")
Because I was burning with curiosity, I tracked down the actual text of the [Plumpy’Nut patent](http://www.google.com/patents?id=UGUJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false). The ingredient list seems to allow for a huge amount of variation with the individual ingredients. This contributes even further towards my skepticism of its patent worthiness. If it required a very specific proportion of its components to work effectively I’d be more inclined to judge it as a unique product. > [@Plumpy'nut Patent](#): > > 5 to 50%, preferably 10 to 30% and particularly preferably 15 to 25% of vegetable fats; > > 2 to 60%, preferably 5 to 40% and particularly preferably 10 to 20% of skimmed milk; > > 2 to 60%, preferably 5 to 40% and particularly preferably 10 to 20% of whey; > > 5 to 50%, preferably 10 to 30% and particularly preferably 15 to 25% of carbohydrate bulking agent; > > 0 to 15%, preferably 2 to 10% and particularly preferably 6 to 8% of sucrose; and > > 0 to 10%, preferably 0 to 6% and particularly preferably > > 0 to 3% of emulsifier, > > said mixture being coated with 10 to 90%, preferably 15 to 50% by weight and particularly preferably 20 to 30% by weight of peanut paste, > > said percentages being expressed by weight based on the total weight of the complete food or nutritional supplement. > > Of course, the various percentages will be adapted according to the type of diet to be followed ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/48 "2010-04-11T17:49:34Z")
> [@I'm Not Dennis Bergkamp](#): > > Thanks for the response, **RaftPeople**. I have no reason to doubt any of that, but would expect that someone made those arguments to the PTO during the re-exam process. I haven’t been following the case closely enough to know why those arguments weren’t heeded (assuming they were made). They did invalidate 22 of 26 claims, although a ridiculous number of years later. Still, they ultimately allowed some claims which means their bar is set way too low. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/49 "2010-04-11T17:53:48Z")
RaftPeople’s Version of Plumpy’nut Patent 0 to 100% of vegetable fats; 1 to 99% of skimmed milk; 2 to 98% of anything else you find (fruitcake, alcohol, dirt, we seriously mean ANYTHING) Of course, the various percentages will be adapted according to the type of diet to be followed ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/50 "2010-04-11T18:21:30Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Yes, I would. Unless the unpatentable ingredients react in some way that makes them superior taken together compared to being taken separately, the company has not done anything more innovative than solving a linear equation to find out how much of what ingredients match the (also unpatentable) dietary requirements. So you are asserting that no one could make a medically competitive product from any other material than peanut butter? Our body has a specific and undeniable requirement for _peanut butter_? ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/51 "2010-04-11T18:36:51Z")
As far as I can tell, Pumpy’nut is not for sale to individuals, only to hunger relief organizations. So I can’t buy any to bring with me on camping trips, and mixing my own homemade version before 2019 puts me at risk of federal law enforcement officials kicking down my door . ☹ That’s the worst tragedy behind all this (well, besides all the people dying from malnutrition). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/52 "2010-04-11T18:38:51Z")
Isn’t there a Viagra-like medication that can compete with this product? ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/53 "2010-04-11T18:50:42Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > So you are asserting that no one could make a medically competitive product from any other material than peanut butter? Our body has a specific and undeniable requirement for _peanut butter_? Did I _say_ that there is no other combination of ingredients that would meet the same requirement? No, I did not. ---
**Author:** ![Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/54 "2010-04-11T19:04:59Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Because I was burning with curiosity, I tracked down the actual text of the [Plumpy’Nut patent](http://www.google.com/patents?id=UGUJAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false). > > The ingredient list seems to allow for a huge amount of variation with the individual ingredients. This contributes even further towards my skepticism of its patent worthiness. If it required a very specific proportion of its components to work effectively I’d be more inclined to judge it as a unique product. The part you quoted is from the patent’s specification, which describes the invention and how to make it, so that, when the patent expires, practitioners in the art can replicate it. But the actual invention (inventions, actually) of the patent is in the claims, which are, in this case, much narrower than the broader description of the specification. (I like to think of the specification, which includes the written description and any drawings, as a block of marble, while the claims are the inventive bits carved out of that block of marble). Everything in the claims has to have support in the written description (except for things that one would expect everyone in the relevant industry to know). The specific part you quoted relates to a part of the patented invention that appears in claim 14: [QUOTE=Claim 14] Complete food or nutritional supplement according to claim 1, comprising a mixture of: 5 to 50% of vegetable fats; 2 to 60% of skimmed milk; 2 to 60% of whey; 5 to 50% of carbohydrate bulking agent; 0 to 15% of sucrose; and 0 to 10% of emulsifier, said mixture being coated with 10 to 90% by weight of lipid-rich oleaginous paste said percentages being expressed by weight based on the total weight of said complete food or nutritional supplement. [/QUOTE] But note that claim 14 is written “according to claim 1,” so claim 14 includes all of those limitations, as well: [QUOTE=Claim 1] Complete food or nutritional supplement which contains at most 10% by weight of water, develops an osmolality of less than 100 mOsm/kg after immersion in four times its own volume of water and is stable to oxidation, comprising a mixture of food-grade products, said mixture being coated with at least one lipid-rich substance derived from oleaginous seeds and being enriched in vitamins, soluble or insoluble mineral salts, enzymes or mixtures thereof. [/QUOTE] So the invention of claim 14 is not just the bit you quoted, but includes all of the requirements from both claim 1 and claim 14. That’s a pretty long list of requirements, all of which serve to narrow the scope of the invention. And in order for anyone to be found liable for infringing claim 14, they would have to meet the requirements of both claims as well. ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/55 "2010-04-11T22:04:01Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > I’m pretty sure Africans have cities where powdered milk and [multivitamins](http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0001362932-page.html) are produced. The whole continent isn’t a wasteland. If you are too poor to afford to buy food, where are you going to get the money to buy powdered milk and vitamins? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2010, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/56 "2010-04-11T22:26:37Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Did I _say_ that there is no other combination of ingredients that would meet the same requirement? No, I did not. You said that it’s formulation is simply giving the body what it needs. If the body could _need_ some other formulation just as well, then obviously this formulation has its own unique properties–like cost of production. The human body does not _specifically_ need peanut butter and powdered milk. Nutrients, yes, but not peanut butter and powdered milk. The choice of these ingredients was presumably based on business considerations more than on medical. Tying together business and medicine in a way to be able to beat the pants off of competitors who tried to use apple sauce as a bulking agent is innovative. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/57 "2010-04-12T14:25:25Z")
> [@I'm Not Dennis Bergkamp](#): > > I like to think of the specification, which includes the written description and any drawings, as a block of marble, while the claims are the inventive bits carved out of that block of marble…That’s a pretty long list of requirements, all of which serve to narrow the scope of the invention. I guess I don’t see where that much carving is going on between the specification and the claims. The inclusion of claim 1 may add to the _length_ of the list of requirements, but that doesn’t challenge **Blalron** ’s contention that each of the requirements is still pretty damned _wide_. I may be a layman rather than a patent lawyer, but I have to come down firmly on the side of the notion that this is far too unspecific a description of the thing invented to deserve a patent. Remember that, in a democracy, the laws aren’t something for an elite to pronounce and for the rest of us to obey. It may increasingly be happening that way, as economic elites have been allowed to hijack the lawmaking process in quite a number of areas, intellectual property quite definitely among them. Laws are only workable if, over time, they have the support of the governed. Maybe most people, if they thought about it, would support the idea that a patent shouldn’t just protect a product from competition from nearly identical products, but also from any new invention in the general ballpark. But I have a hard time believing that. ---
**Author:** ![wmfellows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c2a13f/32.png) [@wmfellows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wmfellows)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/58 "2010-04-12T17:44:15Z")
An interesting item, oddly I have had some (highly indirect) business connection here: > [@even\_sven](#): > > … However, Plumpy’nut is protected by patent, and one company provides 90% of the world’s supply. > > One side argues that this is necessary to keep America- with it’s huge government subsidized surplus peanut supply- from flooding the market. Right now the company that produces Plumpy’nut works with local suppliers in Africa to produce the product using locally grown produce. This leads to jobs, increased independence, a better understanding of the local market, etc. This aspect makes it a model sustainable development program. > > The other side argues that it really is a simple product consisting of peanut butter, vegetable oil, powdered milk and vitamins. They argue that allowing competing products would allow more hungry children access to this important product. Right now only 5% of malnourished children have access to Plumpy’nut. It would seem like increasing supplies would greatly benefit many children … First, jumping ahead of the sturm and drang, I think Chronos most usefully noted (but was ignored): > [@Chronos](#): > > Look at it this way: This stuff is apparently a pretty good thing, but it’s not the be-all, end-all solution to the problem of world hunger. There are people right now who are working on other ways of addressing the problem, as well. … There are other, non-peanut or alternative non-infringing approaches being developed. I was actually asked to look at one. Not really my thing, so I gave it a miss, but the majority of responses seem to assume that this stuff is … well so very unique or whatnot. It’s bloody damn useful apparently for famine situations, but not the sole game. I’d also note that producing emergency processed food stocks is a really variable business, so a bit risky. After all, one is not doing well if there are no famines, and despite many comments assuming all of Africa is … what Eithiopia c. 1984, it ain’t. On the market side > [@LIONsob](#): > > There is a bad side to flooding the market with food for starving people? I don’t see what it would be. Is there not enough starvation in this world that we can afford to ignore a huge surplus of the raw materal to make this wonder food? Yeah, destroying the local farmers. And destroying local - well African based - production which has some potential (is the potential worth the extra cost, not sure) to help build up African based capacity. And as noted, it’s not the only thing that can be used. > [@Ace309](#): > > The argument … is that allowing the US to flood the market would cause local, African producers to be unable to compete in production. The patentholders, who are French, consider local production to be a goal inherently worth pursuing. > [@beowulff](#): > > … . The French have the right idea - produce it locally - that way the population can’t grow beyond what the local resources are capable of supporting. It is worth noting that the argument is based on the observed problem of US food aide doing just that, as Laudenum noted: > [@Laudenum](#): > > It puts local farmers out of business, so that there is less local food available, and the area is then permanently dependent on outside food. Systematic collapse of the local production market. Not mere economic theory, been observed. Local production, by the way, I believe is “African based” as it is not possible to be hyper-local to the very locality. One needs to be a wee bit careful in how one reads “local.” On the Africa as Wasteland Front > [@dre2xl](#): > > How can the patent even be enforced in Africa? By courts. They do have those in Africa. Of course also on the American side or European side by lawsuits against patent breakers in their jurisdictions. Usual way one defends patents. A remark here: > [@even\_sven](#): > > I’d like to point out that in sustenance farming situations, having more children is a sound investment and a large family increases the standard of living for everyone. Subsistence. Having more children under subsistence farming makes sense traditionally, but like anything is subject to diminishing and eventually negative returns. That is clearly the case under traditional subsistence farming in much of SSA and explains a great deal of rural to urban flight. Land can’t be squeezed any more, over-intensive use begins a nasty process of degrading returns and increasing crop failures. The traditional approach once upon a time made sense. It doesn’t any more. > [@TheTerribleTako](#): > > If American versions flood the market, the competition would probably kill the fledgling industry in Africa. This would mean more people out of work, unused fields, and even more people starving and reduced to relying on handouts. Well, let us put a nuance around this, this is used in Famine Situations, not for ordinary circumstances. But killing off a fledgling industry - as always “to help the Children” - certainly doesn’t help build a more sustainable future although the production isn’t in the same exact spot as the famine. > [@Hello\_Again](#): > > My question is, is the existing Plumpy’Nut infrastructure capable of being expanded to the places that need it? Can peanuts be farmed in all locations that need the product, and if not, is it possible for local production to meet the needs of other areas soon, if not now? Peanuts are farmed in specific regions and very evidently in a famine region - usually due to combo of war and drought - farming anything is a real problem… thus the famine actually. The proper question is to what degree can the peanuts and other ingredients be produced in Africa, and sustainably. One has to be realistic about “rapidly expanded” on a continental level, but then recall this is not food intended for ordinary consumption. Seems to me many of you are getting a somewhat exagerated idea of its application. > [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > I was under the impression that: > > -Getting food from local farmers is desirable because it eliminates overseas transportation costs. No overseas transport costs are trivial compared to in-country costs. Road transport in most of SSA Africa into rural areas is horrendously, fiendishly expensive for a variety of reasons > [@](#): > > -Local farms produce foods just fine, but poor members of the rural population can’t afford their product because the farmers make more money selling it to urban areas. Eh, that is a vast over-simplification, as most rural poor are self-producers. Except of course in case of crop failure on a general basis (drought and war, drought and war - well also crop disease). On Africa Wasteland > [@aruvqan](#): > > and from what plant does one get powdered milk and powdered vitamins? > > Let us be real, 2 of the ingredients need to be imported from a higher tech country. Perhaps the proper recipe should all be low tech and producable from totally local materials… think a peanut and fruit version of pemmican, sort of. At least one can grow peanuts and fruits locally. Let’s be real, you know fuck all about SSA. SSA - even in some of the crappiest areas - has capacity for powdered vitamins and usually milk. There is no reason to presume that on a sub-regional basis this can not be met in part if not in total. Of course, that is a question to be answered by data, as I am not sure the French co is in fact doing so on a justificable % basis. As Capt pointed out. > [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > I’m pretty sure Africans have cities where powdered milk and [multivitamins](http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0001362932-page.html) are produced. The whole continent isn’t a wasteland. > [@aruvqan](#): > > If you are too poor to afford to buy food, where are you going to get the money to buy powdered milk and vitamins? Absurd response. The buyer is not the bloody poor, the buyer is the producers of the bloody emergency product (and then subsequently the aid organisations, as this is not a retail product). ---
**Author:** ![Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Ian\_D.Bergkamp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ian_D.Bergkamp)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/59 "2010-04-12T20:49:41Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > I guess I don’t see where that much carving is going on between the specification and the claims. The inclusion of claim 1 may add to the _length_ of the list of requirements, but that doesn’t challenge **Blalron** ’s contention that each of the requirements is still pretty damned _wide_. Each separate requirement narrows the scope of the claim by adding an extra level of specificity to practice (or infringe) the patent. For example, the ingredients listed in claim 14 must be combined within the individual ranges given and must also, when combined: a. contain at most 10% by weight of water; b. develop an osmolality of less than 100 mOsm/kg after immersion in four times its own volume of water; c. be stable to oxidation; d. comprise a mixture of food-grade products, said mixture being coated with at least one lipid-rich substance derived from oleaginous seeds; and e. said mixture must also be enriched in vitamins, soluble or insoluble mineral salts, enzymes or mixtures thereof. So each separate limitation chips away at the broader disclosure by excluding those parts that lie outside the limitations. Got more than 10% water weight? You’re out. Not stable to oxidation? You’re out. And so on. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Remember that, in a democracy, the laws aren’t something for an elite to pronounce and for the rest of us to obey. It may increasingly be happening that way, as economic elites have been allowed to hijack the lawmaking process in quite a number of areas, intellectual property quite definitely among them. I don’t think anyone in this thread is arguing that laws are “something for an elite to pronounce and for the rest of us to obey.” Certainly I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633/60 "2010-04-12T21:00:07Z")
> [@wmfellows](#): > > No overseas transport costs are trivial compared to in-country costs. Road transport in most of SSA Africa into rural areas is horrendously, fiendishly expensive for a variety of reasons > . Not sure I buy that. If you ship food in from overseas, you’d still have to transport it over those same horrendous roads. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-plumpynut-patent-debate/535633.md?page=4)