The Rural Voice, 1989-03, Page 26T
Patenting Plants:
THE CASE OF PIONEER'S 0877
In December The Rural Voice featured the debate on plant
breeders' rights. In this issue Anne Fisher follows up with
a look at plant patenting and the case that Pioneer Hi -Bred
of Canada has taken to the Supreme Court.
he shape of Canada's seed
industry is being decided right
now by the Supreme Court of
Canada. That's where Pioneer Hi -
Bred of Canada is challenging the
Commissioner of Patents over the
right to patent a plant and its parts.
The plant in question is Pioneer's
soybean variety 0877, developed in
Cedar Falls, Iowa. Pioneer claims it is
early maturing, has a high oil content,
and is resistant to shattering and root
rot. It was developed by more or less
conventional cross -breeding, not gene
transfer. Pioneer officials have been
trying to get the plant, its seeds, and
its pods patented since 1983.
The U.S. has been patenting plants
and their parts since 1985. The
Canadian Patent Office has been
granting patents for micro-organisms
since 1980, but it balked at Pioneer's
application. It refused to grant a
patent, both on the first run through
and at the Appeal Board hearing.
In 1986 the Federal Court of
Appeal turned Pioneer down again.
So now Pioneer has appealed once
again, this time to the ultimate author-
ity on the interpretation of the law, the
Supreme Court of Canada.
Bill Parks, president of Pioneer
in Canada, says the trouble is that
"Canadians have an aversion to the
word profit." Certainly some Canadi-
ans don't like the way agrochemical
and seed companies are getting larger
and larger shares of agricultural
revenues.
The issue of plant patents is start-
ing to attract a great deal of attention.
The Department of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs is drawing up
by Anne Fisher
discussion papers and interdepart-
mental boards. They see patents as
a way to stimulate investment in
research and reward those who make
breakthroughs.
Patent law firms are also keen to
extend their business to new areas.
And biotechnology companies say
they need the same protection as their
American competitors.
Farm groups add other
concerns. It could be illegal for
farmers to plant back some of
their crop as seed, they say,
or to sell as common seed the
offspring of patented seed.
As Parks says, "If the guys at Ford
do a lot of research and come up with
something new, and the guys at GM
can just come along and make copies,
Ford's not going to invest in a lot
more research. It's the same thing."
But plant breeders are worried.
Most of them say that the general
patent law, although fine for chemi-
cals or equipment, is simply not suited
for plants. They'd prefer to see their
rights protected by a law specifically
tailored to the nceds of plant breeders
and administered by Agriculture
Canada. They think Canada should
follow the example of most other
Westem countries and adopt Plant
Breeders' Rights instead of plant
patents.
They believe that patents would
slow down the progress of crop
improvement rather than speed it up
because patented plants and traits
would no longer be freely available
for other plant breeders to improve.
But Pioneer's Bill Parks says plant
breeders would still be able to build
on each other's work. He expects
most patent holders would be glad to
license someone else to use their
patented plant to produce another,
further improved plant. "That way the
originator of the product can extend
the profit he gets. If someone uses his
patented plant to produce another
variety, the original patent holder will
profit again."
Some industry watchers say plant
patents would give the multinational
seed companies too much power. In
theory, a few companies could get
control of important agronomic traits
for major crops. If a company were
to engineer a change to wheat that
increased yields by 20 per cent, for
example, farmers couldn't afford not
to grow that wheat. The company
could charge a high price and control
all varieties that contained their
improvement.
Plant breeders would become more
secretive, less willing to exchange
breeding stocks. And less developed
countries may be more reluctant to
give us free access to their plants.
Our plant breeders still depend on
hardy strains from these countries for
disease resistance and other traits.
Farm groups add other concerns.
It could be illegal for farmers to plant
back some of their crop as seed, they
say, or to sell as common seed the
offspring of patented seed.
And seed would become a lot more
expensive because each improvement
24 THE RURAL VOICE