Patents on New Genetic Engineering Applications in Plants

THIRD WORLD NETWORK BIOSAFETY INFORMATION SERVICE

 

Dear Friends and Colleagues

Patents on New Genetic Engineering Applications in Plants

A recent report shows that an increasing number of patents are being filed and granted in the European Union on new genetic engineering applications, such as genome editing, in plants. The current patent landscape is dominated by ‘the Corteva group’ which, apart from their own patents, controls access to the most relevant patents needed by breeders who want to use CRISPR/Cas technology.

There is evidence that companies are filing patents which are extremely broad in the scope of their claims, and thus extending to plant and breeding traits derived from conventional breeding. Many of the filed patents intentionally blur the differences between conventional breeding and genetic engineering, with the aim of expanding patent monopolies into areas of plant breeding that are currently excluded from patenting.

In the context of plant breeding, patents can have potentially disruptive effects, as they can be used to block, hamper or control access to biological material needed by all breeders. In addition, the pressure ensuing from short-term profit maximisation has the capacity to impact food security and food safety.

Recommendations for the EU therefore include:

  • Strict limitations on patent protection and, in particular, no longer allowing patents on conventional plant or animal breeding
  • Starting investigations into the potential rise of anti-competitive and cartel behaviour based on the control of access to patented technology in the field of new genetic enginnering, and investigation into the extension of patent protection to conventional breeding
  • Strengthening political decision-making processes to fully integrate the perspective of the protection goals (health and the environment); avoiding inappropriate influence from companies and experts with a vested interest in patents on the technology, and pushing back against products derived from new genetic engineering
  • Reorganization of its research strategy by adding a strong pillar on risk research, conducted from the perspective of the protection goals whilst ensuring independence from vested interests

 

With best wishes,

Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister
10400 Penang
Malaysia
Email: twn@twnetwork.org
Websites: http://www.twn.my/and http://www.biosafety-info.net/
To subscribe to other TWN information services: www.twnnews.net

____________________________________________________________

NEW GE AND FOOD PLANTS: THE DISRUPTIVE IMPACT OF PATENTS ON BREEDERS, FOOD PRODUCTION AND SOCIETY

Christoph Then, Andreas Bauer-Panskus und Ruth Tippe
Testbiotech
June 2021
https://www.testbiotech.org/en/content/new-ge-and-food-plants-disruptive-impact-patents-breeders-food-production-and-society


Summary

This report discusses the increasing number of patent applications being filed and granted in Europe on New GE in plants (new genetic engineering, especially so-called ‘gene-scissors’). The patent landscape is currently dominated by the ‘Corteva group’ (resulting from a merger of Dow AgroScience and DuPont/Pioneer) which, apart from its own patents, controls access to many other patents needed by breeders who want to use CRISPR/Cas technology. The ‘Corteva group’ established a patent pool in 2018 which, at that time, already comprised around 50 patents. Other breeders who want to have access to this pool are required to sign contracts; this puts Corteva in an extremely strong market position that could be seen as a ‘hidden cartel’, with possible implications for competition (the text of the contracts is confidential).

Many of the patents currently being filed intentionally try to blur the fundamental biological and technical differences between genetic engineering and conventional breeding. The purpose is to expand patent monopolies into the non-technical areas of traditional breeding that are excluded from patenting. This can have serious consequences for a properly functioning European market in regard to plant and animal breeding.

A comparable strategy of blurring the differences between conventional breeding and genetic engineering can be observed in the political discussions around EU GMO regulation: the same stakeholders involved in filing the patents are also attempting to blur the differences in GMO legislation. It is undoubtedly an alarm signal that the EU Commission has recently introduced a new term, i.e. ‘conventional GMO’, which could be understood as defining transgenic plants as conventional.

Monopolistic claims on patented technologies and seeds linked to the introduction of New GE crops render disruptive processes in plant breeding, agriculture and food production are a highly likely consequence. This development is in strong contradiction to repeatedly voiced arguments stating that CRISPR/Cas technology would be cheap, and therefore more accessible for smaller and medium sized breeding companies.

At the same time, the interest in proprietary technologies is also having an impact on political decision-making and trust in science. This puts the precautionary principle at risk and increases the pressure on ecosystems: short-term profit maximisation is, amongst others, driven by the duration of the patent and pressure on the companies to sell as many of their patented seeds as possible. This means that ecosystems may be impacted within a short period of time by an increasing number of organisms not derived from evolutionary processes and mechanisms. The pressure to generate profit may therefore also impact food safety.

Recommendations for the EU therefore include:

  • Strict limitations on patent protection and, in particular, no longer allowing patents on conventional plant or animal breeding;
  • Starting investigations into the potential rise of anti-competitive and cartel behaviour based on the control of access to patented technology in the field of New GE, and investigation into the extension of patent protection to conventional breeding;
  • Strengthening political decision-making processes to fully integrate the perspective of the protection goals (health and the environment); avoiding inappropriate influence from companies and experts with a vested interest in patents on the technology, and pushing back against products derived from New GE.

In addition, the EU should re-organise its research strategy by adding a strong pillar of risk research, conducted from the perspective of the protection goals whilst ensuring independence from industry and their affiliated experts.

articles post