Recently, the Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands, which is part of Wageningen UR, published a report entitled ‘Veredelde Zaken’. The report, which looks into the effect of patent law and plant breeder’s rights on the structure of plant breeding, was compiled by a team of people from within and outside Wageningen UR headed by Niels Louwaars. It concludes that the current application of patent law is enabling undesirable concentration within the industry, and that amendments need to be made to the letter and spirit of patent law, in the areas where it affects plant breeding.
In a recent debate in the Rode Hoed in Amsterdam, entitled ‘The struggle for food genes’, I stated that the larger parties in plant breeding are being allowed to grow at the expense of the smaller ones, or are taking the smaller parties over. Various factors are contributing to this development. Scaling up in agriculture and horticulture is characterised by mechanisation, the availability of artificial fertilisers and pesticides, globalisation of the production, but also regimentation of the production and of the food on our plates. Monoculture is ruling the fields as well as our minds. This will ultimately put an end to diversity in crops and varieties. The concentration of the plant breeding industry is a part of this process.
So is this a bad thing? Yes, this is a bad thing. It means that we risk losing the diversity that we will need in the future if we are to tackle the effects of climate change, new diseases and plagues, and changing consumer preferences. It is a bad thing because it robs us of the means to achieve food certainty and strips us of the ability to develop more sustainable production. But it is also a bad thing because diversity on our plates is both desirable and delicious, and a future where the whole world survives on pizzas and pasta is not an attractive prospect.
The advent of plant biotechnology is stimulating this concentration in the industry. Investment in this area is expensive and it is only the large-scale players that can afford it. But they want to protect their investments, and patents would seem to be their best option. No surprises up until now. But legislation on patents was devised in the 19th century by the chemical industry, and is totally unsuitable for living organisms in the 21st century. Its application has led to the undesirable safeguarding of routine strategies and processes in cross-breeding, and has put certain procedures out of reach to smaller businesses unable to invest in technology and legal representation.
Luckily things seem to have run their course, and more and more parties are coming to understand that the use of patents in the plant breeding sector has gone too far and must now be curbed. All to help ensure a more diverse breeding sector, variation on our plates, and control of the future diet of consumers.
The series of debates on ‘The price of our food’ taking place in the Rode Hoed has been organised by the CLM Centre for Agriculture and Environment (Research and Advice) in association with other parties. The fifth evening in the series was devoted to ‘The struggle for food genes’. On that evening I debated with Vandana Shiva, defender of the interests of smallholders and a champion of the cause against monopolisation in the breeding business, who comes from India.
Bert Visser
Director Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands