Whatever happened to the Enola Bean?

For a long time, I've been trying to figure out what happened with the Enola Bean controversy. For those of you who know nothing about it, it regards the patenting of a plant - something which is an issue, to date, with farmers around the world.

Enola Bean Background

The patent for the Enola bean (US Patent# 5,894,079) was granted in 1999 to Larry M. Proctor. The patent was filed on November 15, 1996. The patent claims the following (links added by me):

1. A Phaseolus vulgaris field bean seed designated Enola as deposited with the American Type Culture Collection under accession number 209549.

2. A field bean plant produced by growing the seed of claim 1.

3. Pollen of the plant of claim 2.

4. A field bean plant having all the physiological and morphological characteristics of the field bean plant of claim 2.

5. A method of producing a field bean plant comprising crossing a first parent field bean plant with a second parent field bean plant, wherein the first field bean plant is the field bean plant of claim 2.

6. A method of producing a field bean plant comprising crossing a first parent field bean plant with a second parent field bean plant, wherein the second field bean plant is the field bean plant of claim 2.

7. A method of producing a field bean plant comprising crossing a first parent field bean plant with a second parent field bean plant, wherein the first and second field bean plant is the field bean plant of claim 2.

8. A field bean variety of Phaseolus vulgaris that produces seed having a seed coat that is yellow in color, wherein the yellow color is from about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color when viewed in natural light.

9. The Phaseolus vulgaris of claim 8 wherein the seed further comprises a hilar ring.

10. The Phaseolus vulgaris of claim 9 wherein the hilar ring has a color of rom about 2.5 Y 9/4 to about 2.5 Y 9/6 in the Munsell Book of Color when viewed in natural light.

11. Propagation material of the Phaseolus vulgaris of claim 8.

12. Pollen of the Phaseolus vulgaris of claim 8.

13. Seed from a field bean variety of Phaseolus vulgaris that is completely yellow in color, wherein the yellow color is from about 7.5 Y 8.5/4 to about 7.5 Y 8.5/6 in the Munsell Book of Color.

14. Seed of claim 13 further comprising a hilar ring.

15. Seed of claim 14 wherein the color of the hilar ring is from about 2.5 Y 9/4 to about 2.5 Y 9/6 in the Munsell Book of Color when viewed in natural light.

What we have here is a common bean whose color was changed. Phaseolus vulgaris is a common bean. But here's where it really gets interesting - within the 'detailed description of invention' area of the patent (ibid, emphasis mine):

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a field bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivar that produces seed having a distinctive yellow color. The yellow color is present throughout the entire seed coat and remains uniform and stable season after season, when viewed in natural lighting.

In 1994, field beans that were yellow in color were discovered in a package of dry edible beans purchased in Mexico and brought to the United States. This package of beans contained a variety of different types of beans including browns, blacks, pintos, etc. Later in 1994, the yellow field beans selected from the package of miscellaneous beans were planted in Montrose County, Colorado and allowed to self-pollinate. A segregating population of plants resulted. Many of the resulting plants exhibited abnormally large leaves, approximately twice the size of the leaves of the cultivar of the present invention, and produced pods containing yellow seeds. Additionally, a large number of the plants also produced pods that did not adhere well to the branches of the plant and fell to the ground and other pods exhibited shattering prior to harvest. Individual plants exhibiting small leaves, good adherence of the pod to the branches of the plant, as well as resistance to pod shattering, were selected and harvested individually.

The harvested seeds were planted in 1995 in Montrose County, Colorado and allowed to self-pollinate. Most of the resulting plants exhibited uniform leaf size. Individual plants exhibiting good adherence of the pod to the branches of the plant, resistance to pod shattering and yields greater than the average yield of an average commercial bean plant (the average commercial pinto bean plant yields approximately 3.1 pinto beans per pod) were selected and harvested individually.

These harvested seeds were planted in 1996 in Montrose County, Colorado and allowed to self-pollinate. The resulting plants exhibited uniform leaf size. Individual plants exhibiting the good adherence of the pod to the plant, higher yield, and resistance to pod shattering were selected and harvested and bulked to produce the cultivar of the present invention.

Thus, the discovery related to these beans was made from packaged beans from Mexico - but there were flaws. What we're seeing here is the selective breeding of beans. Based on selective breeding, a patent was given. That the original beans found were natural beans is without question, but by selecting certain beans, natural evolution was harnessed to affect the change. Whether these beans could have naturally evolved into the Enola Bean is not something that was seen as a possibility by the United States Patent Office (USPTO) - or the patent would not exist.

So is the patent valid? Considering it's still up on the USPTO website, it may very well be. Could the bean have existed before? Considering that the original yellow beans were found in packages from Mexico, it's a distinct possibility.

The Problems Encountered

The question is not whether the Enola Bean itself existed before 1996, the question is whether anyone can prove that it existed. Mexican bean farmers are probably not known for their diligent categorization of Phaseolus vulgaris. Other issues tend to be more important for them, though it's sensible that a program be established to help the Mexican farmers with such endeavours in the future - if only to prove 'pre-existing art'.

Biopiracy suddenly comes into play. A Mexican farmer could be accused - and indeed they were - with Biopiracy. 'Jack and the Enola Bean', by Danielle Goldberg, plainly states the case:

The Enola Bean is an alleged case of biopiracy, where Larry Procter, a Colorado executive in the bean industry cultivated yellow beans he bought in Mexico on vacation for which he received a US patent two years later on all yellow beans of this variety. Larry