Plant patents sow fear among small growers(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Plant patents sow fear among small growers
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/25/plant-patents-large-companies-intellectual-property-small-breeders
63 comments
As a layman putting zero effort into looking at this law, is there no validity in the reasoning that letting commercial interests sell any kinds of seeds can lead to crises with invasive species everywhere? I mean more than what already happens.
> is there no validity in the reasoning that letting commercial interests sell any kinds of seeds can lead to crises with invasive species everywhere?
Well that depends on whether there is any evidence at all to support that the current procedures actually help protect against that. Is there any such evidence or are you just baselessly speculating?
Well that depends on whether there is any evidence at all to support that the current procedures actually help protect against that. Is there any such evidence or are you just baselessly speculating?
Of course it's UK. The longer I live here the more I find out this country is like the North Korea of western civilization.
>There is some valid reasoning for the law... because you don't want a farmer to purchase 100,000 bad seeds and have his whole yield fail on his farm.
Will the right honorable gentleman next propose that we create a list of twelve permitted stocks, so that an investor will not purchase 100,000 risky shares only for the company to fail?
Will the right honorable gentleman next propose that we create a list of twelve permitted stocks, so that an investor will not purchase 100,000 risky shares only for the company to fail?
This is basically want public equity markets are. You have to be an "accredited investor" (the only requirement is having a lot of money) to invest in all the extra risky things.
That's a US thing. In the UK there's a KYC type form you fill out, self-certifying that you know what you're doing. And then you can trade CFDs, which are illegal in the US accredited or not. (Or not approved by regulators I suppose I mean, I assume professional US desks trade them OTC 'in' Europe. But I think probably European brokers even can't market them to or allow trades by US retail customers?)
Well, the government ordered the SEC to have a look. It’s not like the stock market is free capitalism.
That's actually an European directive, and each member state has its own adjacent laws, such as Germany [1]. The German seed protection laws and authority is pretty old, predating the EU - the founding year is 1953 [2].
[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/saatverkg_1985/BJNR016330...
[2] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundessortenamt
[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/saatverkg_1985/BJNR016330...
[2] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundessortenamt
I was furious when this directive was implemented in UK law. The only plant/seed varieties that could be traded were those on an official list, whose contents would inevitably be dominated by a few huge companies.
I don't know how the directive came about, but it smells like heavy commercial lobbying.
The UK government has been too busy campaigning against itself since Brexit, to reverse the UK implementation. It's high time.
I don't know how the directive came about, but it smells like heavy commercial lobbying.
The UK government has been too busy campaigning against itself since Brexit, to reverse the UK implementation. It's high time.
EU Directive*
(that the UK has been free to ignore since Feb 2020 and legislate however they wish)
(that the UK has been free to ignore since Feb 2020 and legislate however they wish)
It is a law, but one for which there is a simple work around, thankfully.
There are several companies that sell 'heritage' seeds, and they exist as a seed swapping 'club'. A penny of your purchase is for club membership. Here is a rather fine example scroll to 'Our Seed Club'. Lovely company to deal with too
https://www.realseeds.co.uk/terms.html
There are several companies that sell 'heritage' seeds, and they exist as a seed swapping 'club'. A penny of your purchase is for club membership. Here is a rather fine example scroll to 'Our Seed Club'. Lovely company to deal with too
https://www.realseeds.co.uk/terms.html
Note: If you're thinking of dealing with Real Seeds this year, get in early - they produce limited amounts of seed, and they do sell out.
> There is some valid reasoning for the law... because you don't want a farmer to purchase 100,000 bad seeds and have his whole yield fail on his farm
That for sure can't be the reason, insurance exists, and the market exists, next year nobody would buy those seeds. Also since there's so many types and farms it's not like whole country production would go to zero for that year.
That for sure can't be the reason, insurance exists, and the market exists, next year nobody would buy those seeds. Also since there's so many types and farms it's not like whole country production would go to zero for that year.
Such laws exist for animals, too. They have the fast effect, that within a few reproduction cycles after the introduction of the law, the agriculture of a whole country (or like in the case of the EU a whole super-country) concentrates on the production of species with some defined positive characteristics, predominantly yield.
The negative effects are, that the selected characteristics not necessarily are what is good for humans, i.e. taste and nutritional values.
And it leads to genetic impoverishment.
The positive effects dominate only some decades. We are now in a phase, where the negative effects begin to get dominant. It will cost a lot of effort and money to alter course.
The negative effects are, that the selected characteristics not necessarily are what is good for humans, i.e. taste and nutritional values.
And it leads to genetic impoverishment.
The positive effects dominate only some decades. We are now in a phase, where the negative effects begin to get dominant. It will cost a lot of effort and money to alter course.
This is the American dream. Software patents, plant patents, patenting straightforward things, patent trolls. Not to mention sick health care system. I once wanted to move to US, but many years ago realized it's a sick country.
I think this illustrates it perfectly:
> Goldman Sachs Asks 'Is Curing Patients A Sustainable Business Model?'
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/goldman-sachs-curing-pa...
> Goldman Sachs Asks 'Is Curing Patients A Sustainable Business Model?'
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/goldman-sachs-curing-pa...
It is a viable business model. Look at the cure for hepatitis C. It was the highest selling drug ever before Ozempic came along.
I don't think the person you were replying to was literally asking the question.
It's a matter of gatekeeping health for a profit and how quickly it becomes infinitely corrupt. We're allowing society to degrade to protect the profit.
It's a matter of gatekeeping health for a profit and how quickly it becomes infinitely corrupt. We're allowing society to degrade to protect the profit.
> It's a matter of gatekeeping health for a profit and how quickly it becomes infinitely corrupt.
Your statement isn't really saying anything. "infinitely corrupt"? What does that even mean?
Your statement isn't really saying anything. "infinitely corrupt"? What does that even mean?
Ginkgo Bioworks. Syngenta. Bayer. Recombinetics. Heck, JoynBio.
The companies leading this charge are global, not just US-based.
It’s a mistake to try to pin this on one country.
Agribusiness companies are deploying digital on farms everywhere in the world in a very clear effort to gather data on all aspects of farming: soil health, labor, weather, inputs, etc, and specifically including genetics on the world’s most critical crop seeds and livestock. They are quietly vacuuming up and locking up the knowledge of farmers.
All the data then gets to be owned and controlled by corporations, analyzed with AI and proprietary algorithms, and then sold back to farmers with “prescriptions” for how to farm and which products to buy. This all happens with very little transparency or explanation.
The massively hyper-consolidated food and agriculture systems is a massive issue and I don’t think people realize just how extensive it’s become in just the last 5-10 years.
But to call it a “US sickness” denies the very global nature of the companies doing the work. It’s not US specific unfortunately, though certain there is plenty of US company involvement.
The companies leading this charge are global, not just US-based.
It’s a mistake to try to pin this on one country.
Agribusiness companies are deploying digital on farms everywhere in the world in a very clear effort to gather data on all aspects of farming: soil health, labor, weather, inputs, etc, and specifically including genetics on the world’s most critical crop seeds and livestock. They are quietly vacuuming up and locking up the knowledge of farmers.
All the data then gets to be owned and controlled by corporations, analyzed with AI and proprietary algorithms, and then sold back to farmers with “prescriptions” for how to farm and which products to buy. This all happens with very little transparency or explanation.
The massively hyper-consolidated food and agriculture systems is a massive issue and I don’t think people realize just how extensive it’s become in just the last 5-10 years.
But to call it a “US sickness” denies the very global nature of the companies doing the work. It’s not US specific unfortunately, though certain there is plenty of US company involvement.
Reminds me of how Egypt was THE breadbasket for centuries by means of it's strong administative system. But when the bureuacracy came apart, the system collapsed more completely than expected, because farmers had been totally dependent on the the administration for all decisions, let alone logistics.
Of course I may be misremembering, anyone have a citation?
Of course I may be misremembering, anyone have a citation?
I think they had some trouble with God and got smited with all sorts of plagues and stuff[0].
[0] Bible.
[0] Bible.
Patents shouldn’t exist that broadly. You shouldn’t be able to patent rectangles as the shape of the phone, making anyone else unable to build a rectangle phone. You shouldn’t be able to patent curly leaves on lettuce so that no one else can have curly leaf lettuce unless they buy from you.
You can't patent curly leaves, only the specific variety that has them. The problem in the article is how one might tell the patented variety from the free one, without expensive DNA testing. This scared a person away from working with it.
The article claims that "utility patents" can be used to patent traits, such as colour - not just genetic strains. Is the article incorrect?
Nope. Here’s the actual guidelines for Europe and the USA:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply/plant-patent#head...
https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/formats/plant-patents/patents
Europe:
https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/press-centre/fact-sheet/4....)
https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply/plant-patent#head...
https://www.lib.ncsu.edu/formats/plant-patents/patents
Europe:
https://www.epo.org/en/news-events/press-centre/fact-sheet/4....)
Isn't it possible to claim that the other party let the seeds escape into the wild?
And what would the legal status be if the new crop becomes the dominant species in the wild?
And what would the legal status be if the new crop becomes the dominant species in the wild?
escape into the wild: You'd be up for a decade or more of litigation against one of the wealthiest corporations on Earth. There was a Canadian farmer who went exactly that route against (iirc) Monsanto, saying that their GMO Rapeseed (again, from memory) had contaminated his crop, but Monsanto sued him anyway for "illegally" growing their GMO stuff. I believe he "won" in the end. But at what cost to him?
and, "dominant species in the wild": Domestic crops are so pampered, so dependent on our adding nutrients, keeping predators and competitors at bay, that they stand very little chance of surviving long enough in the wild to be able to propagate. Dominant species? Not a chance.
and, "dominant species in the wild": Domestic crops are so pampered, so dependent on our adding nutrients, keeping predators and competitors at bay, that they stand very little chance of surviving long enough in the wild to be able to propagate. Dominant species? Not a chance.
>There was a Canadian farmer who went exactly that route against (iirc) Monsanto, saying that their GMO Rapeseed (again, from memory) had contaminated his crop, but Monsanto sued him anyway for "illegally" growing their GMO stuff. I believe he "won" in the end. But at what cost to him?
Are you talking about this case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
In that case the farmer was also specifically selecting for the contaminated seeds. That makes the "his crops got accidentally contaminated and monsanto sued him for it" narrative very misleading.
>As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[5] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.
Are you talking about this case? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
In that case the farmer was also specifically selecting for the contaminated seeds. That makes the "his crops got accidentally contaminated and monsanto sued him for it" narrative very misleading.
>As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[5] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.
Sounds like a smart farmer. Let’s pretend that the original resistant crop was natural, his actions are normal. Selecting good crops is basic farming. He was a victim here.
Monsanto used to sue anyone whose crops had been cross-pollinated with their own registered varieties, and it was the responsibility of the farmer to demostrate it was not intentional.
Absolutely sick. That's like copyrighting a computer virus and prosecuting everyone who has been infected.
Source? Of the cases I've seen, it was pretty clear that the farmer was doing it intentionally, or at the very least was letting it happen "accidentally" but trying to speed it along.
That’s basic farming. You choose your best crops for the next season. If Monsanto can’t keep from seeding into non-customers crops, they aren’t allowed to demand the farmer cripple his ability to farm.
A domesticated crop cannot generally survive without human help. It’s really unusual to find an exception.
Sounds like cheaper DNA testing would be stopgap. But even so, this seems like an unreasonable legal burden.
I love growing (and eating) Frank Morton’s lettuces. If I recall correctly, a lettuce variety he bred was grown in space. Here’s a good podcast interviewing him, also touching on Open Source Seeds and patents: https://osseeds.org/free-the-seed-podcast-03-hyper-red-rumpl... there’s another good episode on the Seed Grower podcast too.
> When a company is granted a utility patent on a type of seed, it doesn’t just own the seed. It also owns its traits (color, texture, ...
> So, if a plant breeder like Morton develops his own variety of lettuce and the lettuce matches any of the traits of a patented variety – whether it be color, the curliness of the leaf or a trait that makes it conducive to a particular climate – the breeder is technically in violation of patent law and risks getting sued by the patent owner.
> "They are essentially just doing obsessive-compulsive descriptions of plants and laying claims to those traits, so if anyone else has those traits, they are in violation"
> So, if a plant breeder like Morton develops his own variety of lettuce and the lettuce matches any of the traits of a patented variety – whether it be color, the curliness of the leaf or a trait that makes it conducive to a particular climate – the breeder is technically in violation of patent law and risks getting sued by the patent owner.
> "They are essentially just doing obsessive-compulsive descriptions of plants and laying claims to those traits, so if anyone else has those traits, they are in violation"
The good news is that patents expire. After that the knowledge becomes public domain. So, once they expire, we all benefit.
There are a couple of tricks the seed companies use to get around this:
First off, a year or two before the patents on a variety expire, they simple patent some other feature of the variety. Problem solved (from their perspective).
Second, several years before the patent expires on a variety they'll have a "new, improved" variety (often bred from the first) that their sales-people push hard onto farmers so that by the time the patent expires the variety basically has very little/no commercial value - it's been superseded by the "improved" variety in commercial use.
First off, a year or two before the patents on a variety expire, they simple patent some other feature of the variety. Problem solved (from their perspective).
Second, several years before the patent expires on a variety they'll have a "new, improved" variety (often bred from the first) that their sales-people push hard onto farmers so that by the time the patent expires the variety basically has very little/no commercial value - it's been superseded by the "improved" variety in commercial use.
Perhaps we should make exceptions for small scale growers? So royalties can only be extracted from those with large scale cultivation, and royalties should be taken from the profits made only.
So what's the point? To maximise profits while making humanity worse off? Why can't we all benefit from the start?
It's a sick system, perpetuated by sick people
It's a sick system, perpetuated by sick people
Why would companies spend millions developing the next plant if they knew the second it's out other companies will copy it and compete with them?
Then they just shouldn’t?
There’s plenty of universities, cooperatives, and passionate growers who have developed crops and seeds in the past and will surely continue to do so in the future.
The patent system is useful to address very specific market failures in very specialized industries where the above systems fail, not to turn the whole world into a rental unit.
There’s plenty of universities, cooperatives, and passionate growers who have developed crops and seeds in the past and will surely continue to do so in the future.
The patent system is useful to address very specific market failures in very specialized industries where the above systems fail, not to turn the whole world into a rental unit.
>There’s plenty of universities, cooperatives, and passionate growers who have developed crops and seeds in the past and will surely continue to do so in the future.
The patent system doesn't prevent those entities from developing their own crops and releasing it for free.
The patent system doesn't prevent those entities from developing their own crops and releasing it for free.
According to the article, such patents seem to come with a lot of restrictions and the patent apparently applies to traits of the patented plant:
When a company is granted a utility patent on a type of seed, it doesn’t just own the seed. It also owns its traits (color, texture, disease resistance, the way it was grown), future generations of that seed and all of the rights to research.
So, if a plant breeder like Morton develops his own variety of lettuce and the lettuce matches any of the traits of a patented variety – whether it be color, the curliness of the leaf or a trait that makes it conducive to a particular climate – the breeder is technically in violation of patent law and risks getting sued by the patent owner.
So according to the article, the patent system actually does place heavy restrictions on research in this area.
When a company is granted a utility patent on a type of seed, it doesn’t just own the seed. It also owns its traits (color, texture, disease resistance, the way it was grown), future generations of that seed and all of the rights to research.
So, if a plant breeder like Morton develops his own variety of lettuce and the lettuce matches any of the traits of a patented variety – whether it be color, the curliness of the leaf or a trait that makes it conducive to a particular climate – the breeder is technically in violation of patent law and risks getting sued by the patent owner.
So according to the article, the patent system actually does place heavy restrictions on research in this area.
I searched around and found that "utility patents" are basically the default type of patent (as opposed to design patents or plant patents). Also, contrary to what the above passage might suggest, utility patents expire after 20 years, so it's not like companies will have a perpetual license over a particular trait. Finally, it's unclear how tightly scoped a "trait" has to be in the current patent regime. I would agree that exclusive rights for "heat tolerant broccoli" would be bad for innovation, because it prevents other companies from trying to developing other ways of heat resistance. However, I don't see anything wrong with granting exclusive rights to "heat tolerant broccoli broccoli by modifying this particular gene". Given how bad the Guardian article is with other parts of patent law, I'm somewhat skeptical of their implication that you can patent entire functional categories.
It does, actually, because one of the big seed companies can then simply take that seed and... patent it as their own.
That would be prior art and would invalidate the patent. There would be costs for such a lawsuit, but I don't see why that's a good reason for getting rid of the patent system. It would be like saying we should get rid of property rights because companies could abuse it by claiming that other people's stuff belongs to them and the rightful owner has to go through an expensive lawsuit to get it resolved.
Why would people do anything if they get threats from lawyers?
How is society worse off? If there wasn't a patent the discovery wouldn't be made.
Less discoveries are made because of patents, as there is no reason to develop patented things any further.
That's not true. You can get another patent out of it.
That begs the question pretty hard.
I see corpocracy coming up, and this will be worse than robots taking over the world
This is terrible for diversity because as the climate change get worse, some tomato varieties might thrive better than others in heat, or drought, or have different disease resistance... but because they are illegal to sell the seeds it's difficult to keep the different species alive and we could run into trouble in the future when we realise these government approved varieties don't work in warmer or colder climates.
There is some valid reasoning for the law... because you don't want a farmer to purchase 100,000 bad seeds and have his whole yield fail on his farm.
Those laws may not exist in other countries but the patents could stop diversity in the same way, but long term it's important to keep these weird varieties of seeds around for diversity.
[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/feat...