Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Plant Variety Rights and Food Security

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Local Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation

  • 411 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores the origins of plant variety rights protection and the evolution of the UPOV Convention. It refers to the various revisions of UPOV and its relationship with the WTO TRIPS Agreement. It explores the impact on plant variety protection of the recent development in some patent laws which allow for the patenting of plant breeding methods. Plant variety protection in developing countries is discussed, as well as the environmental and ecological impacts of plant variety laws.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I.e. Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK.

  2. 2.

    WTO Doc., WT/GC/W/171.

  3. 3.

    WTO Doc., IP/C/W/404, 20 June 2003.

  4. 4.

    OJ EPO 2016, A27 (G 2/12) and A28 (G 2/13).

  5. 5.

    P8_TA-PROV(2015)0473: European Parliament Resolution of 17 December 2015 on patents and plant breeders’ rights, 2015/2981(RSP).

  6. 6.

    European patent number 1.597.965.

  7. 7.

    See U.S. Pat. No. 5723765.

  8. 8.

    Ibid.

References

  • Ahuja, M. R., & Mohan, J. S. (Eds.). (2016). Genetic diversity and erosion in plants: Case histories. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allaby, M. (2019). Genetic Erosion in a dictionary of plant sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allard, R. W. (1960). Principles of plant breeding. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alston, J. M., & Venner, R. J. (2002). The effects of the US Plant variety protection act on wheat genetic improvement. Research Policy, 31(4), 527–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blakeney, M. (2004/2005) ‘Terminator’ technology: A technological fix for an IP problem? Bio-Science Law Review, 7: 229–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, L. J., & Marion, B. W. (1985). The impacts of patent protection on the US seed industry and public plant breeding. Madison, WI: USA, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, N. (1991). Commentary on the substantive law of the 1991 UPOV convention for the protection of plant varieties. London: CCLS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carew, R., & Devados, S. (2003). Quantifying the contribution of plant breeders rights and transgenic varieties to canola yields: Evidence from Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51(3), 371–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • CFS (Center for Food Safety). (2005). Monsanto v US Farmers. Washington, DC: CFS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnley, B., & Radick, G. (2013). Intellectual property, plant breeding and the making of Mendelian genetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 44, 222–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • CIPR. (2002). Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy, report of the commission on intellectual property rights. London: CIPR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromwell, E., Friis-Hansen, E., & Turner, M. (1992). The seed sector in developing countries: A framework for performance analysis, ODI (Working Paper 65), London, ODI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniell, H. (2002). Molecular strategies for gene containment in transgenic crops. Nature Biotechnology, 20(6), 581–586.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, P. (2002). Developing countries and international intellectual property standard-setting. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 5(5), 765–789.

    Google Scholar 

  • EC. (2016). Commission Notice on certain articles of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions C/2016/6997. OJ C, 411, 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • EPO. (2017). EPO clarifies practice in the area of plant and animal patents. Available at https://www.epo.org/news-issues/news/2017/20170629.html. Accessed 3 Dec 2019.

  • Fowler, C. (1994). Unnatural selection: Technology, politics and plant evolution, Yverdon, Switzerland, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goeschl, T., & Swanson, T. (2003). The development impact of genetic use restriction technologies: A forecast based on the hybrid crop experience. Environment and Development Economics, 8(1), 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregg, B. R., et al. (1980). Inter-relationships of the essential activities of a stable, efficient seed industry. Seed Science and Technology, 8, 202–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harwood, J. (2000). The rediscovery of Mendelism in agricultural context: Erick von Tschermak as plant-breeder. Comptes rendus de l’Academie des sciences, serie III/Sciences de la vie, 323, 1061–1067.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heitz, A. (1991, November 27). The history of the UPOV convention and the rationale for plant breeders’ rights. Paper delivered at UPOV Seminar on the Nature of and Rationale for the Protection of Plant Varieties under the UPOV Convention, Buenos Aires.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer, L. (2001). Legal study on intellectual property rights in plant genetic resources. FAO: Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubicki, S., & Sherman, B. (2005). The killing fields: Intellectual property and genetic use restriction technologies. UNSW Law Journal, 28(3), 740–757.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee, S., & Srivastava, J. (1992). Seed system development: The appropriate roles of the private and public sector. Washington DC, USA: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee, S., & Srivastava, J. (1994). The roles of the private and public sector in enhancing the performance of seed systems. The World Bank Research Observer, 9(1), 97–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffé, W., & van Wijk, J. (1995). The impact of plant breeders’ rights in developing countries: Debate and experience in Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay. The Hague, The Netherlands: Directorate General International Cooperation, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kariyawasam, K. (2009). Terminator technology as a technological means of forcing intellectual property rights in plant Germplasm: It’s implications for world agriculture’. European Intellectual Property Review, 31(1), 37–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kevles, D. (2011). New blood, new fruits: Protection for breeders and originators, 1789–1930. In M. Biagoli, P. Jazi, & M. Woodmansee (Eds.), The making and unmaking of intellectual property: Creative productions in legal and cultural perspective (pp. 253–267). Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingsbury, N. (2009). Hybrid: The history and science of plant breeding. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kloppenburg, J. R. (2004). First the seed: The political economy of plant biotechnology, 1492–2000 (2nd ed.). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kluwer. (2018). EPO revokes Bayer broccoli patent, Kluwer Patent Blog. Available at http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/11/16/epo-revokes-bayer-broccoli-patent/. Accessed 3 Dec 2019.

  • Knudson, M. (1990). The role of the public sector in applied breeding R&D. Food Policy, 15, 209–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolady, D. E., & Lesser, W. (2009). Does plant variety protection contribute to crop productivity? Lessons for developing Countries from US wheat breeding. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 12(2), 137–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai, J. C. (2014). The exhaustion doctrine and genetic use restriction technologies: Look at Bowman v Monsanto. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 17(5–6), 129–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, S. (2005). Monsanto “Seed Police” scrutinize farmers. Available at https://corpwatch.org/article/us-monsanto-seed-police-scrutinise-farmers. Accessed 1 Dec 2019.

  • Leskien, D., & Flitner, M. Intellectual property rights and plant genetic resources: Options for a sui generis system (Issues in Genetic Resources No.6). Washington, DC: IPGRI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesser, W. H. (1990). Sector issues II: Seeds and plants. In W. E. Siebeck, R. E. Evenson, W. H. Lesser, & C. A. Primo Braga (Eds.), Strengthening protection of intellectual property in developing countries (pp. 59–68). Washington, DC: The World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesser, W. H. (1991). Equitable patent protection in the developing world: Issues and approaches. Tskuba, Japan: Eubios Ethics Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLeod, C. (1996). Concepts of invention and the patent controversy in Victorian Britain. In R. Fox (Ed.), Technological change, methods and themes in the history of technology, Abingdon (pp. 137–154). Oxford: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mander, J. (2002). Machine logic: Industrialising nature and agriculture. In A. Kimbrell (Ed.), The fatal harvest reader: The tragedy of industrial agriculture (pp. 17–23). San Francisco: Foundation for Deep Ecology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. L. (Ed.). (1998). Maize seed industry in developing countries. Boulder, CO/London: Lynne Rienner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, D. J. (2007). Origins of plant breeding. In D. J. Murphy (Ed.), Plant breeding and biotechnology: Societal context and the future of agriculture (pp. 9–22). Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2000). Genetically modified Pest-protected plants: Science and regulation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oczek, J. P. (2000). In the aftermath of the “terminator” technology controversy: Intellectual property protections for genetically engineered seeds and the rights to save and replant seed. Boston College Law Review, 41, 627–657s.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2018). Concentration in seed markets. Potential effects and policy responses. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palladino, P. (1994). Wizards and devotees: On the Mendelian theory of inheritance and the professionalization of agricultural science in Great Britain and the United States, 1880–1930. History of Science, 4, 409–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palladino, P. (2002). Plants, patents and the historian: (Re)membering in the age of genetic engineering. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin, R. K., Kunnings, K. A., & Ihnen, L. A. (1983). Some economic effects of the US Plant Variety Protection Act of 1970. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pottage, A., & Sherman, B. (2007). Organisms and manufactures. On the history of plant inventions. Melbourne University Law Review, 31, 539–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raeburn, P. (1995). The last harvest. The genetic gamble that threatens to destroy American agriculture. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswami, B. (2000). Intellectual property rights in agriculture: implications and challenges for public research and policy. New Delhi, India: Indian Statistical Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangnekar, D. (2000). Intellectual property rights and agriculture: An analysis of the economic impact of plant breeders’ rights. London: Actionaid.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangnekar, D. (2001). Access to genetic resources, gene-based inventions and agriculture (Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) Study Paper 3a). London: CIPR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangnekar, D. (2002). R&D appropriability and planned obsolescence: Empirical evidence from wheat breeding in the UK (1960–1995). Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(5), 1011–1029.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossman, J. (1935). The preparation and prosecution of plant patent applications. Journal of the Patent Office Society, 17, 632–645.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, J. (2017). Plants, people and practices. The nature and history of the UPOV convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seiler, A. (1998). Sui generis systems: Obligations and options for developing countries. Biotechnology and Development Monitor, 34, 2–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva Dias, J., & Ryder, E. J. (2012). The impact of plant breeding on the world vegetable industry. Acta Horticulturae, 935, 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, C. (1999). Recent developments in biotechnology as they relate to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture (Background Study Paper No. 9). Rome: Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture.

    Google Scholar 

  • ten Kate, K., & Laird, S. A. (1999). The commercial use of biodiversity: Access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP. (1996). The impact of intellectual property rights system on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and on the equitable sharing of benefits from its use. UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP/CBD. (2003). Report of the Ad Hoc technical expert group meeting on the potential impacts of genetic use restriction technologies on smallholder farmers, Indigenous and Local Communities and Farmers’ Rights. UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/INF/6.

    Google Scholar 

  • UPOV. (1978). Amendments to facilitate the joining of the Union by Further States, UPOV doc. DC/PCD/1.

    Google Scholar 

  • UPOV. (1987). The history of plant variety protection, in the first twenty-five years of the international convention of the protection of new varieties of plants. Geneva, Switzerland: UPOV.

    Google Scholar 

  • UPOV. (2005). Report on the impact of plant variety protection. Geneva, Switzerland: UPOV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, S. B. (1983). Intellectual property aspects of plant variety genetic engineering: View of an American lawyer. Plant Variety Protection, 13–36.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Michael Blakeney

Authors
  1. Michael Blakeney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Blakeney .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Michael Blakeney

  2. Hackett Professor of Agriculture Chair and Director of The UWA Institute of Agriculture, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

    Kadambot H. M. Siddique

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Blakeney, M. (2020). Plant Variety Rights and Food Security. In: Blakeney, M., Siddique, K. (eds) Local Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4611-2_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation