Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Industry of Plant Breeding

  • Chapter
The Breeder's Exception to Patent Rights

Part of the book series: International Law and Economics ((ILEC))

Abstract

This chapter describes the main features of the plant breeding industry and briefly discusses its role in agriculture and economic growth. It explains the beneficial role of plant breeding in various socio-economic sectors as well as the development of the breeding industry in terms of business structure and market concentration. The analysis of the evolution of plant breeding, especially after the introduction of new biotechnological techniques, sets the grounds for understanding the adoption of different modalities of plant variety protection.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    For an explanation see Acquaah (2012), 9-10 and Sleper and Poehlman (2006).

  2. 2.

    For more see Borlaug (1983), p. 689.

  3. 3.

    Traditional plant breeding, differently known also as informal plant breeding to denote the informal ways of breeding as opposed to the formalities required for modern plant varieties, remains an important reality for small farmers, indigenous communities and organic agriculture in the developed as well as developing countries. For the distinction between formal and informal breeding see Louwaars (2007).

  4. 4.

    Better see ISAAA (2010). See also Powell et al. (2004), pp. 1–27.

  5. 5.

    This term refers to a series of initiatives in agricultural development started by Norman Borlaug in Mexico in 1943 and continued until the late 1970s. The success of these initiatives which increased agricultural development around the world was markedly noticed in the 1960s.

  6. 6.

    CGIAR was created by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations to support the Green Revolution. For a complete overview see Kloppenburg (2004), p. 157.

  7. 7.

    For more see Borlaug (1983).

  8. 8.

    For further discussion see Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2004); Borlaug (2000), p. 487.

  9. 9.

    Moreover, it has been found a positive impact of GM crops on the environment. For more see Brookes and Barfoot (2006), p. 139. For an overview of studies on the impact of GM crops in South Africa see Biosafety Clearing House (2013).

  10. 10.

    For an overall argumentation see Heinemann (2013), pp. 203–210. This work points out that food security in countries that make use of GM techniques is either improving (US) or declining (see page 206).

  11. 11.

    Ibidem. See also de Schutter (2009).

  12. 12.

    According to FAO, the total food per capita globally increased by 11 % and the number of hungry also fell by 11 % in the 1970s–1990s. However, if this global analysis does not consider China, where there was no green revolution but far reaching land reform, then the results highlight that in spite of the Green Revolution, the number of hungry people went from 536 million to 597, an increase of 11 %, according to FAO. See Reichmann (2003).

  13. 13.

    Sen (1982). See also FAO (2011).

  14. 14.

    In this case, health problems were avoided by testing before commercializing and the company did not put the GM soybean in the market. See FAO (2001), pp. 14–18.

  15. 15.

    Bonny (2003).

  16. 16.

    For a list of the authorized GMOs see the EU Registrar of genetically modified food and feed, available at http://ec.europa.eu/food/dyna/gm_register/index_en.cfm, accessed 4 October 2013. Note that only two crops, a type of maize (MON810) and a potato called Amflora (withdrawn in 2012 from the EU market) have been approved for cultivation in Europe. But several members have banned the cultivation of one or of both these crops. See better ‘Questions and Answers to the EU’s New Approach to the Cultivation of GMOs’, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-10-325_en.htm?locale=en, accessed 9 March 2014.

  17. 17.

    See article 2 of the Convention on Biological Diversity 1760 UNTS 79; 31 ILM 818 (1992), hereinafter CBD.

  18. 18.

    Better see Wilson (1999), p. 157.

  19. 19.

    Simpson (2005). For a comprehensive review on the debate on biodiversity, please see Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2007).

  20. 20.

    USDA (2005).

  21. 21.

    Better see FAO (2004).

  22. 22.

    See USDA (2005), citing Meng et al. (1998), p. 13.

  23. 23.

    For further information see Le Buanec (2006).

  24. 24.

    Ibidem. It is worth noting here that these considerations regard the loss of biodiversity after the replacement of traditional landraces with modern cultivars. Diversity reduction as a consequence of modern plant breeding represents fewer concerns. For more information see van de Wouw et al. (2010), p. 1241.

  25. 25.

    See article 10.2 of the ITPGRFA. Note that this system covers only 64 forages and crops listed in Annex I of the treaty.

  26. 26.

    See articles 11.5 and 15 of the ITPGRFA.

  27. 27.

    Article 16.2 of the ITPGRFA.

  28. 28.

    Chiarolla and Shand (2013). The study finds that private companies have large collections of genetic resources but they are not willing to share related information.

  29. 29.

    Meng and Brennan (2009).

  30. 30.

    UN (1987), transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427—Development and International Co-operation: Environment.

  31. 31.

    The relationship between agricultural productivity and sustainability concepts has been object of several studies: OECD/FAO (2012); World Bank (2006); FAO (2002).

  32. 32.

    Ceccarelli (2010), p. 637.

  33. 33.

    FAO (2009).

  34. 34.

    For more see Esipisu (2012).

  35. 35.

    Better see Miller et al. (2010), p. 645.

  36. 36.

    The Israeli biotech firm ‘FuturaGene’ spent 11 years on trials and will grow these trees commercially by 2015, after permission of the Brazilian government on 9 April 2015. Better see Vidal (2012) and http://www.futuragene.com/FuturaGene-eucalyptus-approved-for-commercial-use.pdf, accessed 10 April 2015.

  37. 37.

    Kloppenburg (2004), p. 54.

  38. 38.

    For further details on the origins of Strampelli’s work see del Grano (2012).

  39. 39.

    Mugnozza (2012).

  40. 40.

    For more information see the document ‘Value of the domestic Market for Seed in Selected Countries for the Year 2012’, available at http://www.worldseed.org/isf/seed_statistics.html, accessed 30 January 2014.

  41. 41.

    For further information see the documents provided by the International Seed Federation at http://www.worldseed.org/isf/seed_statistics.html, accessed 30 January 2014.

  42. 42.

    The role of trade on the economic development of countries is recognized by economic theory. One of the cornerstones concepts in the trade theory is the notion of ‘comparative advantage’. Comparative advantage suggests that countries benefit if they specialize on these products and services which they produce more efficiently than others, and trade the other products and services with the countries that produce them more efficiently. See Chipman (2008), p. 217. The role of trade, however, should be supported by adequate institutions.

  43. 43.

    See De Schutter (2009).

  44. 44.

    World Bank (2001).

  45. 45.

    See LEI Wageningen University (2012), p. 7, hereinafter Wageningen report.

  46. 46.

    British Society of Plant Breeders (2012), p. 6.

  47. 47.

    Molecular marker studies allowed plant breeders to go beyond the phenotype by facilitating access to the genotype of plants, thus improving plant breeding. See better Tanskley and McCouch (1997), p. 1063.

  48. 48.

    See Tansey (2002), p. 6 quoting Peter Lund. For more on different techniques in plant breeding see Lupi (2013).

  49. 49.

    Lusser et al. (2011), p. 19.

  50. 50.

    Epigenetics studies heritable changes in gene expression that are not due to changes in DNA sequence. For more see Bird (2007), p. 396.

  51. 51.

    There is legal uncertainty whether the final plants developed by techniques which insert genes only temporarily should be qualified as genetically modified (OGM) products under the current technical definition of ‘OGM’ provided by article 2.2 of Directive 2001/18/EC. Although plants bred with some of these techniques do not occur naturally, they do not contain an inserted transgene in the final product. For further details see the above report.

  52. 52.

    Commercial production of seed started in Europe in the mid nineteenth century, creating farmer cooperative companies. In the USA followed the establishment of the state agricultural experimental stations (SAEs) in 1887. For an account of the stations genesis see Kloppenburg (2004), p. 60.

  53. 53.

    The economics of R&D in agriculture biotechnology has been similar to those of R&D in agrochemical or pharmaceuticals. For a general overview see Pisano (2006).

  54. 54.

    Eaton (2013).

  55. 55.

    The last three phases can be graphically represented by Fig. 4.3 depicted in Chap. 4. See Louwaars et al. (2009).

  56. 56.

    See article 1 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety added to the Convention on Biological Diversity on 29 January 2000 explicitly recalling Principle 15 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which allows countries to adopt a precautionary approach where ‘there are threats of serious or irreversible damage’ to environmental degradation. The EU has accepted this principle in Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed. Whereas the United States has not ratified the Cartagena Protocol. Consequently, it does not make use of the precautionary principle but relies on regulatory safeguards enforced through the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture. The precautionary principle has not been accepted by the WTO as well. For a better understanding see the WTO panel report, European Communities—Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291,292,293/R, adopted on 21 November 2006, paras. 7.76–89.

  57. 57.

    See Lusser et al. (2011). Please, note that it is not easy to advance research costs in case of transgenic research because the costs depend on the number of genetic traits targeted for breeding purposes. A higher number of genetic traits implies a longer and more expensive breeding process. See Trommetter (2008), p. 30. For OGM costs see also Schenkelaars et al. (2011).

  58. 58.

    For an explanation of these criteria see the section dedicated to breeder’s rights in the next chapter. Please, note that for the purpose of commercialization, these criteria should be fulfilled irrespective of the application for breeder’s rights. An additional requirement for certification of seed is the value for cultivation and use, based on yield, quality, resistance to harmful organisms, and response to the environment. For clarifications see http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/plant_propagation_material/plant_variety_catalogues_databases/index_en.htm, accessed 25 May 2015.

  59. 59.

    Many developing countries, however, allow the commercialization of varieties not meeting the DSU requirements. These varieties are usually developed by farmers and sold in local markets. For farmers’ seed systems in developing countries see Louwaars (2007b), p. 32.

  60. 60.

    More information on the procedures of seed testing is available at the International Seed Testing Association, http://www.seedtest.org/en/home.html.

  61. 61.

    For example, new technologies have reduced the term of development of new tomato varieties from (at least) 9 to 5 years. See the Wageningen report (n 45), p. 18. Marker-assisted selection (MAS) is one of the techniques that enable breeders to reduce breeding times and expedite the return on investment. It has been proposed that cross-breeding combined with this technique is less expensive than the adoption of GM technologies. Therefore, countries should consider the conditions under which access to MAS is more efficient than the application of GM techniques. For more see Trommetter (2008), pp. 28–29.

  62. 62.

    The Dutch plant breeding and propagation sector, in particular, invests approximately 15 % of the turnover. This is higher than 12.5 %—the EU average for R&D expenditure in the seed industry. For details see the Wageningen report (n 45).

  63. 63.

    At least 7–12 years are required for annual plant varieties and 10–15 years for biannual plant varieties. See Meussen (1996), p. 172.

  64. 64.

    Concentration in the global agricultural biotechnology industry is considered inevitable due to the high fixed costs and low variable costs associated with the new technology. See Wright and Pardey (2006), p. 12.

  65. 65.

    For a detailed analysis see Schenkelaars et al. (2011). This study found out that in spite of the high levels of concentration in the US seed markets for cotton, maize and soybean, and the introduction of GM varieties, there have not been negative impacts on the level of innovation in these crops over the last 17 years. On the consolidation of the seed industry see also Howard (2009), p. 1266. Economic analysis has found a self-reinforcing relationship between consolidation in the seed industry and less sponsored research. For more explanations see Fernandez-Cornejo and Schimmelpfenning (2004), p. 14.

  66. 66.

    ETC Group (2011), available at http://www.etcgroup.org/content/who-will-control-green-economy-0. For a comparison of these figures with previous data see ETC Group (2008).

  67. 67.

    With regard to farmers’ purchases see better Louwaars et al. (2009), p. 24.

  68. 68.

    Teh et al. (2009). This paper laments that access to the markets of developing countries is accompanied with undesirable effects, such as restricted choice of lines of high quality seed, lack of access to germplasm for breeding, and lack of control over price.

  69. 69.

    For an overview of the empirical analysis of IPRs on market structure see Eaton (2013), pp. 28–29.

  70. 70.

    Note that the world’s largest seed and agrochemical companies are the same companies. See ETC Group (2011), available at http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/pdf_file/ETC_wwctge_4web_Dec2011.pdf, p. 25.

  71. 71.

    Claffey (1981), pp. 29 and 32. Recently, reverse mergers are seen as a response to the difficulties of raising capital. See, for example, PharmaLicensing (2011).

  72. 72.

    For the impact of IPRs on business structure, see Lesser (1998), p. 56.

  73. 73.

    For information on the concentration of the biotechnological industry based on patent applications see Winnink (2012).

  74. 74.

    Samuelson and Nordhaus (1998), p. 147.

  75. 75.

    See Howard (2009), p. 1270.

References

  • Acquaah G. (2012). Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biosafety Clearing House. (2013). Overview of the socio economic benefits of agricultural biotechnology in South Africa. Available at http://www.bch.cbd.int/database/attachment/?id=1656. Accessed 4 Oct 2013.

  • Bird, A. (2007). Perceptions of epigenetics. Nature, 447, 396–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonny, S. (2003). Why are most Europeans opposed to GMOs? Factors explaining rejection in France and Europe. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 6(1). Available at http://www.ejbiotechnology.info/content/vol6/issue1/full/4/4.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2013.

  • Borlaug, N. E. (1983). Contributions of conventional plant breeding to food production. Science, 219(4585), 689–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borlaug, N. E. (2000). Ending world hunger: The promise of biotechnology and the threat of antiscience zealotry. Plant Physiology, 124(2), 487–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Society of Plants Breeders. (2012). Plant Breeding Matters. Available at http://www.wheatisp.org/PDFs/BSPB_Plant_Breeding_Matters.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2015.

  • Brookes, G., & Barfoot, P. (2006). Global impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic and environmental effects in the first ten years of commercial use. The Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics, 9(3), 139–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceccarelli, S. (2010). Plant breeding and climate changes. Journal of Agricultural Science, 148, 627–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiarolla, C., & Shand, H. (2013). An assessment of private ex situ seed collections: The private sector’s participation in the multilateral system of the FAO International Treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. A background study for the Berne Declaration and the Development Fund. Zurich. https://www.evb.ch/fileadmin/files/documents/Biodiversitaet/20130916_private_collections.pdf.

  • Chipman, J. S. (2008). The theory of international trade (Vol. 1). Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claffey, B. A. (1981). Patenting life forms: Issues surrounding the plant variety protection act. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 13, 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Schutter, O. (2009). International trade in agriculture and the right to food. Occasional paper n. 46, Dialogue on Globalization. Geneva: Friederich-Ebert-Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • del Grano, M. S. (2012). ‘Nazareno Strampelli’, ‘Il lavoro scientifico di Nazareno Strampelli’. Available at http://www.retescat.com/musgra.it/museo/storia/16/scheda-16.html. Accessed 18 Aug 2012.

  • Eaton, D. J. F. (2013). Intellectual property rights, international trade and plant breeding (Ph.D. thesis). University of Wageningen, NL. Available at http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wda/. Accessed 12 Mar 2014.

  • Esipisu, I. (2012). Customising seed to dryland conditions for climate adaptation. Thomson Reuters Foundation, 23 July 2012. Available at http://www.trust.org/trustmedia/blogs/trustmedia-alumni-blog/customising-seed-to-dryland-conditions-for-climate-adaptation/. Accessed 18 Aug 2012.

  • ETC Group. (2008). Who owns nature? Corporate power and the final frontier in the commodification of life. ETC Group. Available at http://www.etcgroup.org/content/who-owns-nature. Accessed 12 Mar 2014.

  • ETC Group. (2011). Who will control the green economy? ETC Group. Accessed 12 Mar 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. (2001). GMOs and human health. In Genetically modified organisms, consumers, food safety and the environment (pp. 14–18). Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. (2004). What is agrobiodiversity? Rome: FAO. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y5609e/y5609e00.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2012.

  • FAO. (2009). Tackling climate change through plant breeding and better use of resources. Global Partnership Initiative for Plant Breeding Capacity Building. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. (2011). The state of food insecurity in the world 2011. Rome: FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO. (2002). World agriculture towards 2015–2030. Rome:FAO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Cornejo, J., & Schimmelpfenning, D. (2004). Have seed industry changes affected research effort? Amber Waves, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2(1), 14–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinemann, J. A. (2013). Genetic engineering and biotechnology for food security and for climate change mitigation and adaptation: Potential and risks. In United Nations (Ed.), Wake up before it is too late – Make agriculture truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate. (pp. 203–218) New York: Third World Network.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, P. H. (2009). Visualizing consolidation in the global seed industry: 1996–2008. Sustainability, 1, 1266–1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISAAA. (2010). Agriculture biotechnology, a lot more than just GM crops. ISAAA. Available at http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/agricultural_biotechnology/download/Agricultural_Biotechnology.pdf. Accessed 27 July 2012.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Buanec, B. (2006). Plant breeding and sustainable agriculture – Myths and reality. IPGRI Newsletter for Europe, 33, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  • LEI Wageningen University. (2012). Plant reproduction materials, a Dutch motor for export and innovation. LEI Wageningen University and Research Center. Available at http://edepot.wur.nl/199053. Accessed 13 Mar 2013.

  • Lesser, W. (1998). Intellectual property rights and concentration in agricultural biotechnology. AgBioForum, 2, 56–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, N. (2007). Seeds of confusion: The impact of policies on seed systems (Ph.D. dissertation). University of Wageningen, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwaars, N., Dons, H., van Overwalle, G., Raven, H., Arundel, A., & Eaton, D., et al. (2009). Breeding business. The future of plant breeding in the light of developments in patent rights and plant breeder’s rights. CGN Report 2009–14, Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupi, C. (2013). Genetic engineering for plant protection, methods, state of the art and applications. A report of the Agency BATS, part 2. Available at http://www.bats.ch/bats/publikationen/1995-1_TA/2-methods.php?lang_select=de. Accessed 22 July 2013.

  • Lusser, M., Parisi, C., Plan, D., & Rodriguez-Cerezo, E. (2011). New plant breeding techniques, state-of-the-art and prospects for commercial development. Joint Research Center European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng, E. C. H., & Brennan, J. P. (Eds.). (2009). Economic analysis of diversity in modern wheat. Enfield, NH, USA: Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meng, E. C. H., Smale, M., Bellon, M., & Grimanelli, D. (1998). Definition and measurement of crop diversity for economic analysis. In M. Smale (Ed.), Farmers, gene banks and crop breeding: Economic analysis of diversity in wheat, maize and rice. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meussen, R. L. (1996). Commercialization of transgenic seed products, two case studies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 792, 172–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. K., Herman, E. M., Jahn, M., & Bradford, K. J. (2010). Strategic research, education and policy goals for seed science and crop improvement. Plant Science, 179, 645–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mugnozza, G. T. S. (2012). The contribution of Italian wheat geneticists: From Nazareno Strampelli to Francesco D’Amato. http://www.dista.unibo.it/doublehelix/proceedings/SECTION_I/HELIX%20pp%20053-075.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2012.

  • Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2004). The use of genetically modified crops in developing countries. A discussion paper, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD/FAO. (2012). OECD-FAO Agriculture outlook 2011–2020. Paris:OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • PharmaLicensing. (2011). Reverse mergers between German and US Biotech Companies. Available at http://pharmalicensing.com/public/articles/view/1164375283_4566f4f3b1768. Accessed 25 Aug 2011.

  • Pisano, P. G. (2006). Science business, the promise, the reality and the future of biotech. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W., Waugh, R., Bradshaw, J., Russell, J., Ramsay, L., & Forster, B. P. (2004). Introduction to classical genetics and plant breeding. In P. Christou & H. Klee (Eds.), Handbook of plant biotechnology (Vol. I, pp. 1–27). Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichmann, J. (2003). Cuidar la T(t)ierra, Políticas Agrarias y Alimentarias Sostenibles para Entrar en el Siglo XXI. Barcelona: Icaria Editorial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A., & Nordhaus, W. D. (1998). Economics. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenkelaars, P., de Vriend, H., & Kalaitzandonakes, N. (2011). Drivers of consolidation in the seed industry and its consequences for innovation. A report prepared for The Netherlands Commission on Genetic Modification (COGEM) (report CGM 2011-11).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1982). Poverty and famine: An essay on entitlement and depravation. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, R. D. (2005). The economic value of genetic diversity for crop improvement: Theory and application. In J. Cooper, L. Lipper, & D. Zilberman (Eds.), Agricultural biodiversity and biotechnology in economic development (pp. 63–78). New York: Springer Science + Business Media Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleper, D. A., & Poehlman, J. M. (2006). Breeding field crops (5th ed.). Ames, IA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2007). Biodiversity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/biodiversity/#SpeValBioVal. Accessed 25 July 2012.

  • Tansey, G. (2002). Food security, biotechnology and intellectual property, unpacking some issues around TRIPS, a discussion paper. Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanskley, S., & McCouch, S. (1997). Seed banks and molecular maps: Unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science, 277 (5329), 1063–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teh, G. H., Derwisch, S., Henson-Apollonio, V., & Bloch, P. (2009). Comments regarding agriculture and antitrust enforcement issues in our 21 st century economy, potential impact of US-based seed company competition on access to seed in the developing country context. A paper of CGIAR Central Advisory Service on Intellectual Property (CAS-IP), 30 December 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trommetter, M. (2008). Intellectual property rights in agricultural and agro-food biotechnologies to 2030. OECD International Futures Project on “The Bioeconomy to 2030: Designing a Policy Agenda”. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • UN. (1987). Report of the World Commission on environment and development: Our common future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427 - Development and International Co-operation: Environment.

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA. (2005). Crop genetic resources: An economic appraisal. USDA Economic Information Bulletin No. 2, available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/465162/eib2_1_.pdf. Accessed 2 April 2015.

  • van de Wouw, M., van Hintum, T., Kik, C., van Treuren, R., & Visser, B. (2010). Genetic diversity trends in twentieth century crop cultivars: A meta analysis. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 120(6), 1241–1252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, J. (2012). The GM tree plantations bred to satisfy the world’s energy needs. The Guardian, London, 15 November 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/15/gm-trees-bred-world-energy. Accessed 18 Aug 2012.

  • Wilson, E. O. (1999). The diversity of life. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnink, J. (2012). Plant breeding from a patent perspective. A report submitted by Netherlands Patent Office to the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. Available at http://www.agentschapnl.nl/sites/default/files/Report%20Plant%20breeding%20ENG.pdf. Accessed 12 Dec 2012.

  • World Bank. (2001). Global economic prospects and the developing countries 2002. Washington D.C.:World Bank. Available at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGEP/Resources/335315-1257200370513/gep2002complete.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2012.

  • World Bank. (2006). The road to 2050: Sustainable development for the 21st century. Washington D.C.:World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, B. D., & Pardey, P. (2006). The evolving rights to intellectual property protection in the agricultural biosciences. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 2(1/2), 12–29.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

    Viola Prifti

Authors
  1. Viola Prifti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Prifti, V. (2015). The Industry of Plant Breeding. In: The Breeder's Exception to Patent Rights. International Law and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15771-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation