Plumpy Nut - Patent or No Patent?

This article makes me so angry at those American companies who don't know anything about Plumpy Nut!!! - which was the therapeutic food for malnutrition produced by the organization I worked for this summer (Project Peanut Butter, run by Dr. Manary): http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/magazine/05Plumpy-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp It gives a pretty good background about it.

Child being fed Plumpy Nut in Sierra Leone

It talks about Nutriset, the company that has a patent on Plumpy Nut.  In order to make Plumpy Nut, other charity organizations have to first get a license from them.  There was mention that it was unethical because Nutriset was essentially "starving children" by preventing some large corporations from making their own Plumpy Nut and donating it.  Initially, I held the same point of view, but after working for PPB, I think differently.  There were some points that the article failed to mention:

• Some of the companies suing Nutriset's patent on Plumpy Nut claim that it's essentially like peanut butter and people have been making it for years.  However, it's not true.  It's actually only 25% peanut butter.  The rest of it is a mixture of sugar, soya oil, palm oil, milk powder, emulsifiers, and micronutrients.  The suing companies claim that anybody could have made it, but if so, why hadn't they done that before?  Patenting doesn't always mean it's a new product (which in this case, it actually is), but it can also be using an old product for something different.  
• Plumpy Nut was not a product that just came out of one days work - it's a product that's been under research, evaluation, and remodeling for at least 10 years, which also equates to millions of dollars in research.  Although it's not technically a drug, it is half way between a drug and food.  While people are unhappy that drugs cost so much money and say that pharmaceutical companies are always out for profit, people are also not aware that it costs about $800 million dollars to create just one drug.  Of course, I'm not advocating for pharmaceuticals, and I'm sure they do want to make profit, but I'm just saying that Plumpy Nut did not come free.  One of the purposes of patents is to guarantee that those who do put in the huge amount of money can actually regain that investment back.  Without these patents, people would not be investing in research for drugs, foods, technologies, anything because anybody else can just take that new idea and make profit off of it without having to invest in research money.
• Something that's wasn't at all mentioned is that although these U.S. companies have good intentions to make and give out Plumpy Nut, I don't think they really have any idea what's the main issue.  The problem isn't so much the production of Plumpy Nut, but the DISTRIBUTION of it.  It's just so difficult to actually transport Plumpy Nut to the distance corners of districts in Africa where there is no paved road, electricity, running water, or other "essential" services. 
• Furthermore, even if distribution were easier, Plumpy Nut is meant for children 1-5 who are malnourished.  But if you just distribute it without screening, documentation, and education, people won't understand how to use it, and will in fact sell them rather than treat their kids - it's already a problem in Sierra Leone.  
• The last point that the article did touch on is that having U.S. corporations making Plumpy Nut will actually take profit away from local producers.  In fact, Nutriset has considered taking the patent off developing countries like those in Africa.  

I have to say, I'm easily swayed to think one way or another.  But while I put out all these arguments for Nutriset, I'm not completely advocating for them.  It's just providing the other point of view.