Talk:Citadel spread
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Per WP:CWW, this article was split off from Plumpy'nut#History on 1 May 2014. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Whence the name?
[edit]Does anyone know?
Fivetonsflax (talk) 05:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Patent controversy? Not applicable here
[edit]Are there any patent issues concerning hiker's food (Citadel spread)? I doubt it, and Plumpy'nut, the article from which this was plagiarized, is not a Citadel spread. Moving to Talk as it a) originated elsewhere word-for-word and b) is not likely applicable to typical, simple Citadel spreads. --Zefr (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Nutriset holds patents in many countries (including US patent 6346284, published in 2002) for the production of pastes made of peanuts, oil, sugar and milk powder, which they have defended to prevent non-licensees in the United States, Norway, India and Haiti from producing or distributing similar products. Such legal actions can be controversial because they may have a negative impact on the distribution of aid to famine stricken populations.
In 2010, two US non-profit organizations sued the French company in an attempt to allow the production of paste-based products at a lower cost than Plumpy'nut.[1] Mike Mellace, president of one of the non-profits, claims “some children are dying because Nutriset prevents other companies from producing a food which could save their lives.”[2] Invalidation or compulsory licensing of the Nutriset patent may have a positive impact on populations affected by famine, and studies by humanitarian organizations support the idea that having a single, dominant supplier in Nutriset is undesirable. Critics of Nutriset argue the US patent is “obvious in light of prior recipes” and “that the patent has essentially conferred monopoly power on Nutriset and thus violated the Sherman Act”, and note the similarity in humanitarian need to current pharmaceutical compulsory licensing agreements in place under the WTO TRIPS Agreement.[3][4]
Following a threat of legal action against a Norwegian company that was exporting a similar product to Kenya, Nutriset was criticized by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders),[3] which stated in an open letter that "Nutriset has been asked repeatedly by us and others for simple, reasonable licensing terms... Instead it appears that [Nutriset has] decided to adopt a policy of aggressive protection of [their] patents that could be considered an abuse in relation to humanitarian products."[5] Dr. Patricia Wolff, founder of Meds & Food for Kids, complained for Nutriset “poverty is a business”. Her RUTF manufacturing in Haiti was reluctantly forced into “partnership” with Nuitriset to avoid legal actions.[6] A UNICEF study, commissioned at Duke University and the University of North Carolina, recommended a diversified supplier base of RUTF products to better serve global needs.[7] In response to the criticism, Nutriset has allowed companies and NGOs in some African countries to make the paste and not pay license fees.[8] However, RUTF production solely by Nutriset and African partners may not be sufficient to solve the problem, given Africa's limited production capabilities.[9] As of 2010, "only 3 percent of the estimated 20 million children suffering from severe acute malnutrition each year" receive RUTF treatment.[3]
The patent controversy has drawn attention to the profits the three sole shareholders of Nutriset have realized from Nutriset's monopoly position in RUTF. The shareholders receive 18% of the company’s annual profits (which were €4.4m in 2009).[10]
References
- ^ Schofield, Hugh (8 April 2010). "Legal fight over Plumpy'nut, the hunger wonder-product". BBC. Retrieved 3 August 2011.
- ^ di Staff. "Plumpy'nut goes to court". vita.it.
- ^ a b c Lavelle, Janet (JAN. 16, 2010). "Child malnutrition center of legal battle". utsandiego.com. The San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - ^ Bakhsh, Umar R. "The Plumpy'nut predicament: is compulsory licensing a solution?" (PDF). Chicago Kent Journal of Intellectual Property. Retrieved 4 May 2014.
- ^ von Schoen-Angerer, Tido. "MSF: Nutriset patent impeding access to treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition" (PDF). Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
- ^ Krampner, Jon (2013). Creamy & crunchy : an informal history of peanut butter, the all-American food. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0231162324.
- ^ Team Praescient. "UNICEF'S Mission to End Hunger: Leveraging Analytic Methodologies to Advance Development Goals". praescientanalytics.com/. Retrieved 4 May 2014.
- ^ "Nutriset/IRD's Patents Usage Agreement". Nutriset. Retrieved 10 August 2010.
- ^ "Mana Nutrition FAQS". Mana Nutrition.
We think Western countries have a role to play and we think that local suppliers should and must have an increasingly large role to play ... Even peanuts are hard to find in Africa due to high Aflatoxin levels. So while none of these challenges should cause us to give up on local production, they all make it difficult and expensive, even if labor and shipping costs are much lower. In the meantime, UNICEF and others have "surge" needs from disasters, drought, war and famine that demand large scale production and shipping of RUTF to save lives ... we are afraid it may be a while before global malnutrition is solved and RUTF supplies are readily available
- ^ Arie, Sophie. "Hungry for profit". BMJ. Retrieved 5 May 2014.