Commercialization of the gene-edited crop and morality: challenges from the liberal patent law and the strict GMO law in the EU

References

• Akst, J. 2017. “ UC Berkeley Receives CRISPR Patent in Europe, the Scientist, March 24, 2017.” Accessed May 3, 2019. https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/uc-berkeley-receives-crispr-patent-in-europe-31778.
   Google Scholar
• Baker, B. K. 2008. “Ending Drug Registration Apartheild-Taming Data Exclusivity and Patent/Registration Linkage.” American Journal of Law & Medicine 34: 303–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bently, L., and B. Sherman. 2004. Intellectual Property Law. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Bhardwaj, M. 2006. “Looking Back, Looking Beyond: Revisiting the Ethics of Gene Generation.” Journal of Bioscience 31: 167–176.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blakeney, M. 2012. “Patenting of Plant Varieties and Plant Breeding Methods.” Journal of Experimental Botany 63 (3): 1069–1074.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borsari, B., D. Neri, G. F. Ferretti, S. Tavoletti, and W. C. Yu. 2013. “Critical Evaluation of Genetic Manipulation for Improved Productivity: Is This a Sustainable Agenda?” In Sustainable Food Production Includes Human and Environmental Health. Issues in Agroecology – Present Status and Future Prospectus, vol 3, edited by W. Campbell and S. López-Ortíz, 43–83. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, K. 2006. “ Seeds of Concern. Scientific American.” Accessed May 3, 2019. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/seeds-of-concern-2006-12/.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, J. 2018. “ ECJ Ruling on Gene Editing: ‘A Missed Opportunity for Agricultural Innovation in the EU’.” Feed Navigator, July 26, 2018. Accessed May 3, 2019. https://www.feednavigator.com/Article/2018/07/26/ECJ-ruling-on-gene-editing-A-missed-opportunity-for-agricultural-innovation-in-the-EU.
   Google Scholar
• Campi, M. 2014. “ Protecting Plants: Incentives to Innovate and Access to Biological Resources A Historical Overview.” Social Science Electronic Publishing. Accessed May 3, 2019. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2478312.
   Google Scholar
• Chandler, S., and J. Rosenthal. 2007. “Freedom to Commercialize Transgenic Plant Products: Regulatory and Intellectual Property Issues.” In Transgenic Crops VI. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, vol 61, edited by E. C. Pua and M. Davey, 411–429. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Chavas, J. P., G. M. Shi, and J. Lauer. 2014. “The Effects of GM Technology on Maize Yield.” Crop Science 54: 1331–1335.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corneio J. F., S. J. Wechsler, M. Livingston, and T. Mitchell. 2014. USAD report No. 162 Genetically Engineered crops in the United State.
   Google Scholar
• Council Directive 2001/18, 2001 O.J. (L 106) (EEC).
   Google Scholar
• Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms, http://www.ilo.org/dyn/cisdoc2/cismain.details?p_lang=en&p_doc_id=60498.
   Google Scholar
• “Decision of the Administrative Council of 29 June 2017, amending Rules 27 and 28 of the Implementing regulations to the European Patent Convetion revised rule in force since 1 July 2017.” Accessed May 3 2019. https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2017/07/a56.html.
   Google Scholar
• Demirci, Y., B. H. Zhang, and T. Unver. 2018. “CRISPR/Cas9: An RNA-Guided Highly Precise Synthetic Tool for Plant Gene Editing.” Journal of Cell Physiology 233 (3): 1844–1859.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias, J. S., and R. Ortiz. 2015. “Vegetable Breeding Industry and Property Rights.” In Sustainable Agriculture Reviews. Vol 17, edited by E. Lichtfouse, 121–139. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• “DS291: European Communities-Measures affecting the approval and marketing of Biotech products.” Accessed May 3, 2019. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Edgerton, M. D. 2009. “Increasing Crop Productivity to Meet Global Needs for Feed, Food, and Fuel.” Plant Physiology 149: 7–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). 2015. “ Genetically modified organisms UNIT Mandate Number: M-2015-0183.” Accessed May 3, 2019. http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend (last visited August 10 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, J. 2019. “ The Promise of Patent Linkage. Geneva Network.” Accessed March 4, 2019. https://geneva-network.com/article/patent-linkage/.
   Google Scholar
• EPO-EBA G1/08 (Tomatoes I) and G2/07 (Broccoli I), 9 December 2010, OJ EPO 2012, 130.
   Google Scholar
• G 0002/07, Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of 9 December 2010.
   Google Scholar
• G 2/13 (Broccoli II) and G2/12 (Tomatoes II), both 25 March 2015, OJ EPO 2016, 17. Accessed May 3 2019. http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/official-journal/2016/03/2016-03.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gitter, D. M. 2001. “Led Astray by the Moral Compass: Incorporating Morality Into European Union Biotechnology Patent Law.” Berkeley Journal of International Law 19 (1): 21.
   Google Scholar
• Globus, R., and U. Qimron. 2018. “A Technological and Regulatory Outlook on CRISPR Crop Editing.” Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 119: 1291–1298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godt, C. 2016. “Experts and Politics in Patent Policy: The Final Report of the Expert Group on the Development and Implications of Patent Law in the Field of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering of the European Commission.” IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 47 (8): 960–980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godt, C. 2018. “Technology, Patents and Markets: The Implied Lessons of the EU Commission’ Intervention in the Broccoli/Tomatoes Case of 2016 for Modern Plant Gene Editing.” International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 49: 512–535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg, J. 2016. “ CRISPR Gene Editing Upstart Editas Goes Public as Patent Nettle Rages” (WIRED, February forth, 2016) Accessed May 3, 2019. http://www.wired.com/2016/02/crispr-gene-editing-upstart-editas-goes-public-as-patent-battle-rages/.
   Google Scholar
• “Greenpeace Policy Briefing, Gene-editing of Plants-GM Through the Back Door”, 30 November 2015. Accessed May 3, 2019. https://www.greenpeace.org/archive-eu-unit/Global/eu-unit/reports-briefings/2015/Greenpeace_Gene-editing_30112015%20-%202.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gruchkin, D. 2016. “DuPont in CRISPR-Cas Patent Land Grab.” Nature Biotechnology 34 (1): 13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang, S. W., D. Weigel, R. N. Beachy, and J. Y. Li. 2016. “A Proposed Regulatory Framework for Gene-Edited Crops.” Nature Genetics 48 (2): 109–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobsen, E., and H. J. Schouten. 2009. “Cisgenesis: an Important Sub-Invention for Traditional Plant Breeding Companies.” Euphytica 170: 235–247.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James C. 2010. “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops:2010.” ISAAA Brief No. 42. Accessed May 3, 2019. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/42/download/isaaa-brief-42-2010.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A. W. 2008. “Finding a Common Morality Codex for Biotech – a Question of Substance.” International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 39 (6): 638–661.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Joseph, W. P., and Y. P. Qi. 2016. “CRISPR/Cas9 for Plant Genome Editing: Accomplishments Problems and Prospects.” Plant Cell Reports 35: 1417–1427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Judgment in Case C-528/16, the judgment made in July 25, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Khlestkina, E. K., and V. K. Shumnu. 2016. “Prospects for Application of Breakthrough Technologies in Breeding: The CRISPR/Cas9 System for Plant Gene Editing.” Russian Journal of Genetics 52 (7): 676–687.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, D. J., B. Apltekin, and H. Budak. 2018. “CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing in Wheat.” Functional & Integrative Genomics 18: 31–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraemer, L. 2015. “ Legal Questions Concerning New Methods for Changingthe Genetic Conditions In Plants.” Accessed May 3, 2019. http://www.testbiotech.org/sites/default/files/Kraemer_Legal%20questions_new%20methods_0.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Len Ben, M. 2006. “ The Overlap Between Patent and Patent Variety Protection For Transgenic Plants: Problems and a Solution.” Accessed May 3, 2019. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=924343.
   Google Scholar
• Leroux, J. 2017. “ The European Patent Office’s New Rules Are Unacceptable. The Greens June 29 2017.” Accessed May 3, 2019. https://www.greens-efa.eu/en/article/news/the-european-patent-offices-new-rules-are-unacceptable/.
   Google Scholar
• Li, Z. S., Z. B. Liu, A. Q. Xing, B. P. Moon, J. P. Koellhoffer, L. X. Huang, R. T. Ward, E. Clifton, S. C. Falco, and A. M. Cigan. 2015. “Cas-Guide RNA Directed Genome Editing in Soybean.” Plant Physiology 169: 960–970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilian, V. H., and G. Froydis. 2017. “Is It Only the Regulatory Status? Broadening the Debate on Cisgenic Plants.” Environmental Sciences Europe 29 (1): 22–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, C., and P. N. Moschou. 2018. “Phenotypic Novelty by CRISPR in Plants.” Developmental Biology 435 (2): 170–175.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lubrizol/Hybrid plant, T320/I87 [1990] OJEPO 71.
   Google Scholar
• Lusk, J. L., B. R. McFadden, and N. Wilson. 2018. “Do Consumers Care How a Genetically Engineered Food was Created or Who Created It?” Food Policy 78: 81–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marks, S., and E. Livingstone. 2018. “ EU’s Top Court Tightens Controls Over Controversial New GMO techniques”, July 25, 2018. Accessed May 3, 2019. https://www.politico.eu/article/mutagenesis-genetically-modified-organisms-eu-court-opens-door-to-certain-contentious-plant-breeding-techniques/ (last visited August 10 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Masip, G., M. Sabalza, E. P_Erez-Massot, R. Banakar, D. Cebrian, R. M. Twyman, T. Capell, R. Albajes, and P. Christou. 2013. “Paradoxical EU Agricultural Policies on Genetically Engineered Crops.” Trends in Plant Science 18 (6): 312–324.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minssen, T., and A. Nordberg. 2015. “The Impact of Broccoli II & Tomato II on European Patents in Conventional Breeding, GMO’s and Synthetic Biology: The Grand Finale of a Juicy Patents Tale?” Biotechnology Law Report 34 (3): 81–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington, DC: the National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nielsen, C. P., and K. Anderson. 2000. “ Global Market Effects of Alternative European Responses to Gmos. CIES Working Paper No. 0032.” Accessed May 3, 2019. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=239451.
   Google Scholar
• “Novartis/Transgenic plant, G 1/98,Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal dated 20 December 1999”.
   Google Scholar
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 1999. “ Genetically Modified Crops: The Ethical and Social Issues and the Use of GM Cropsin Developing Countries: A Follow-up Discussion Paper.” Accessed May 3, 2019. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/gm-crops/.
   Google Scholar
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2012. “ Emerging Biotechnologies: Technology, Choice, and the Public Good.” Accessed May 3, 2019. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/emerging-biotechnologies/.
   Google Scholar
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2014. “ Written Evidence Submitted to the House of Commons Science and Technology, Committee Inquiry: GM Foods and Application of the Precautionary Principle in Europe.” Accessed May 3, 2019. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Submission_to_GM_inquiry_Nuffield_Council_on_Bioethics.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2016. “ Gene Editing an Ethical Review.” Accessed May 3, 2019. http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org (last visited August 10 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Offord, C. 2018. “ The European Court of Justice Has Decided the Organisms Made with Precision Techniques Such as CRISPR Will Be Subject to the Same Rules as Transgenic Plants or Animals.” The Scientist Magazine, July 25, 2018. Accessed May 3, 2019. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/no-regulatory-exemption-for-gene-edited-products-in-eu-64562.
   Google Scholar
• Overwalle, G. V., E. V. Zimmeren, B. Berbeure, and G. Matthijs. 2006. “Models for Facilitating Access to Patents on Genetic Inventions.” Nature Reviews Genetics 7: 143–148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascalev, A. 2003. “You Are What You Eat: Genetically Modified Foods, Integrity and Society.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16: 583–594.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul J. W., and I. P. Qi. 2016. “CRISPR/Cas9 for Plant Gene Editing: Accomplishments, Problems and Prospects.” Plant Cell Report 35: 1417–1427.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paul, M. J., M. L. Nuccio, and S. S. Basu. 2018. “Are GM Crops for Yield and Resilience Possible?” Trends in Plant Science 23 (1): 10–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavone, V., and L. Martinelli. 2015. “Cisgenics as Emerging Bio-Objects: Bio-Objectification and Bio-Identification in Agrobiotech Innovation.” New Genetic and Society 34 (1): 52–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plant Bioscience/Broccoli, T83/05 [2008] EPOR 14.
   Google Scholar
• Plant Genetic System/Glutamine Synthetase Inhibitors, T356/93 (1993) 24 llC 618; [1995] EPOR 357; [1995] OJEPO 545 (TBA).
   Google Scholar
• Preston, H. 2003. “Drift of Patented Genetically Engineered Crops: Rethinking Liability Theories.” Texas Law Review 81: 1153–1184.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ricroch, A. E., K. Ammann, and M. Kuntz. 2016. “Editing EU Legislation to fit Plant Genome Editing.” EMBO Reports 17 (10): 1365–1369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaart, J. G., C. M. Clemens, V. D. Wiel, A. P. L. Lambertus, and M. J. M. Smulders. 2016. “Opportunities for Products of New Plant Breeding Techniques.” Trends in Plant Science 21 (5): 438–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schinek, H., and S. Schillberg. 2016. “Gene Editing: Intellectual Property and Product Development in Plant Biotechnology.” Plant Cell Report 35: 1487–1491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, I. 2011. “Das EuGH-UrteilBrustle Versus Greenpeace (Rs. C-34/10): Bedeutung UndImplikationenfur Europa.Zeitschriftfurgeistiges.” Eigentum/IntellectualPropertyJournal 3: 475–510.
   Google Scholar
• Skogstad, G. 2003. “Legitimacy and/or Policy Effectiveness?: Network Governance and GMO Regulation in the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 10 (3): 321–338.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer, T. 2008. “Patenting the Animal Kingdom? From Cross-Breeding to Genetic Make-up and Biomedical Research.” International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 39 (2): 139–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Songstad, D. D., J. F. Petolino, D. F. Voytas, and N. A. Reichert. 2017. “Genome Editing of Plants.” Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 36 (1): 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spring, Ú. O. 2011. “Genetically Modified Organisms: A Threat for Food Security and Risk for Food Sovereignty and Survival.” In Coping with Global Environmental Change, Disasters and Security. Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, Vol 5, edited by H. G. Brauch, Ú. Oswald Spring, C. Mesjasz, J. Grin, P. Kameri-Mbote, B. Chourou, P. Dunay, et al., 1019–1042. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sprink, T., D. Erikson, J. Schiemann, and F. Hartung. 2016b. “Regulatory Hurdles for Gene Editing: Process- vs. Product-Based Approaches in Different Regulatory Contexts.” Plant Cell Reports 35 (7): 1493–1506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprink, T., J. Metje, J. Schiemann, and F. Hartung. 2016a. “Plant Gene Editing in the European Union-To Be or Not To Be-a GMO.” Plant Biotechnology Reports 10: 345–351.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Summerfield, M. 2016. “ CRISPR Patent Dispute-Is It Just to Big to Settle.” (Patentology, April 17, 2016) Accessed May 3, 2019. http://blog.patentology.com.au/2016/04/crispr-patent-dispute-is-it-just-too.html.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, J. 2004. “ Terminator Technology.” Transgenic Crops: An Introduction and Resource Guide. Accessed May 3, 2019. http://cls.casa.colostate.edu/TransgenicCrops/terminator.html.
   Google Scholar
• Svitashev, S., J. K. Young, C. Schwartz, H. R. Gao, C. Falco, and A. M. Cigan. 2015. “Targeted Mutagenesis, Precise Gene Editing, and Site-Specific Gene Insertion in Maize Using Cas 9 and Guide RNA.” Plant Physiology 169: 931–945.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tagliabue, G. 2017. “The EU Legislation on “GMOs” Between Nonsense and Protectionism: an Ongoing Schumpeterian Chain of Public Choices.” GM Crops & Food 8: 57–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talbot, D. 2014. “ U.N. Predicts New Global Population Boom, MIT Technology Review.” https://www.technologyreview.com/s/530866/un-predicts-new-global-population-boom (last visited August 10 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Thomison, A. 2007. “A new and Controversial Mandate for the SPS Agreement: the WTO Panel’s Interim Report in the EC-Biotech Dispute.” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 32 (2): 287–307.
   Google Scholar
• Tokar, B. 2014. “The GMO Threat to Food Sovereignty: Science, Resistance and Transformation.” In The Global Food System: Issues and Solution, edited by W. D. Schanbacher, 173–190. Santa Barbara: Praeger.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, A. 2007. “Intellectual Property as the Third Dimension of GMO Regulation.” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy 16 (3): 257–285.
   Google Scholar
• “Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.” Accessed May 3, 2019. https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm (last visited August 10 2018)
   Google Scholar
• USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2016. AgriculturalBiotechnology Annual France 2016. Accessed August 10, 2018. http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Agricultural%20Biotechnology%20Annual_Paris_France_10-19-2016.pdf (last visited August 10 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, E. 2016. “CRISPR-edited Crops Free to Enter Market, Skip Regulation.” Nature Biotechnology 34 (6): 582–582.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wrree, P., and J. Sauer. 2016. “High-yielding Genetically Modified Wheat in Germany: Economic Impact Assessment of Its Potential.” Agricultural Economics Review 17 (1): 80–95.
   Google Scholar
• ZBKS, Stellungnahme der ZKBS zuneuenTechniken f die Pflanzenzhtung, June 2012.; ZBKS,Stellungnahme der ZBKS zumittels RTDS (Rapid Trait Development system)hergestelltenherbizidresistentenRapslinien der FirmaCibus, of 6 February 2015,Reference no: 42050.
   Google Scholar