Landes Highlights

Three recent US patent decisions in favor of the biotech industry

In this article, Drew L Kershen from the College of Law, University of Oklahoma, reviews three recent patent decisions involving biotechnology.

In the Myriad Genetics case, the Supreme Court ruled that the patents of Myriad on the cDNA sequence of the BRCA1 and 2 genes are valid.

In the Bowman case, a farmer had bought herbicide resistant soybean seed intended solely for food or feed and re-planted them for several seasons. Monsanto sued the farmer for patent infringement and won the case.

In the OSGATA case, a coalition of farmers, seed sellers, and agricultural organizations challenged Monsanto’s patents as unenforceable and invalid. As they failed to prove that their pleadings showed a justifiable case or controversy, and US courts do not decide hypothetical issues, the case was rejected (Fig. 1).¹

Figure 1. Cover of GM Crops and Food Volume 3, Issue 3.

The GM labeling debate in the US

In this article GE Merchant and GA Cardineau summarize about 20 y of ongoing debate on labeling of GM foods in the US. In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a “Statement of Policy” in the Federal Register stating that it will apply the identical approach to GM and non GM food. This means that, as a class, GM-foods do not require labeling. The agency has not changed its position until today. The main focus of pro-labeling activists has therefore turned to state level, with individual states considering mandatory labeling, even though the United States have a de facto non-GM label in place, as GM foods cannot be labeled as “organic” (Fig. 2).²

Figure 2. Cover of GM Crops and Food Volume 4, Issue 3.

What does “GM-free” mean?

The growing presence of GM-crops and their products is paralleled by efforts to keep some part of the agriculture and food free from GM crops. In agricultural commodity trade, the principles of thresholds or tolerances are usually applied; different levels of GM content are tolerated in different regions: in the EU and Russia, it is 0.9%, and in Australia and New Zealand, it is 1%, while in Japan it is 5%. This article provides an excellent analysis of the commercial and legal consequences that result from the current policy (Fig. 3).³

Figure 3. Cover of GM Crops and Food Volume 4, Issue 3.

Co-existence of GM and conventional crops

In this article, the practicability of co-existence between GM and and conventional farming is discussed. After an introductory paragraph explaining the principles of co-existence, practical examples are cited and the EU political and regulatory context is explained. GM crop cultivation in Spain is cited as one example where co-existence is working well (Fig. 4).⁴

Figure 4. Cover of GM Crops and Food Volume 4, Issue 3.

Can GM Be Bad for the Image?

One frequent argument in New Zealand against the adoption of GM technology is the fear that the “green and clean” country image might be damaged, resulting in harm to export markets and the tourism industry. Interviews with gatekeepers in the food distribution channel and first time visitors to New Zealand showed that long-term deleterious effects on perceptions overseas are highly unlikely (Fig. 5).⁵

Figure 5. Cover of GM Crops and Food Volume 4, Issue 3.

What do surveys on consumer choice really tell us?

In 5 different articles, consumer surveys and experiments on different aspects of GM crops and foods are presented and discussed. Consumers purchasing behavior can be quite different to their attitude and behavioral intention for buying GM food, with many different factors influencing the actual purchasing behavior (Fig. 6).^6-10

Figure 6. Cover of GM Crops and Food Volume 4, Issue 3.

Why is Europe so different?

This paper examines the differences in acceptance of GM in agriculture in America and in Europe. In the US, the biotechnology industry has been able to overcome the objections of the environmentalist, and consumers and regulators have been convinced that adoption of GM technology is worthwhile.

Five different stakeholders (GM technology input suppliers, farmers, consumers, environmental activists/media, and policymakers) and their main motivations are described. One conclusion from the analysis performed in the paper is that acceptance of GM is more likely if the engineered traits provide consumer benefits, like improvement in nutrition, or direct environmental benefits (Fig. 7).¹¹

Figure 7. Cover of GM Crops and Food Volume 4, Issue 3.