GE seed patents are now a central mechanism by which to gain control and ownership of genetic material of seeds writ large. IPR rules, particularly following the 1985 Diamond v. Chakrabarty decision, have expedited the adoption of GE seeds and simultaneously, GE seed technology broadens the scope of seed patenting. These schemes codify a weak and misleading definition of “invention,” allowing companies to “isolate” a part of nature, or slightly modify an existing process or “product,” and then patent it, as if it were novel. Yet the purported innovation is based on centuries of collective community knowledge and traditional seed breeding.
Seed Industry Consolidation and Control
The current patent and intellectual property (IP) regime for seeds has been a major factor in seed industry consolidation, as evidenced below:
Rising Cost of Seeds
Such intensive corporate concentration of seed ownership has resulted in increasing market power and a corresponding substantial increase in seed prices:
----------------------------------------------------
[1] Kristina Hubbard, Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Eng’g, Nat’l Family Farm Coal., Out of Hand: Farmers Face the Consequences of a Consolidated Seed Industry 13, 16 (2009), available at http://farmertofarmercampaign.com/Out%20of%20Hand.FullReport.pdf.
[2] Monsanto Co., Supplemental Toolkit for Investors 3 (Feb. 2010) (see line item: “Cash Used for Acquisitions”), http://www.monsanto.com/investors/documents/supplemental_toolkit.pdf; Kerry Preete, Monsanto Co., Goldman Sachs Agricultural Biotech Forum 2011 14 (Feb. 9, 2011) (showing $7
billion in cumulative R&D from 2001 to 2010, which is $700 million/year), http://www.monsanto.com/investors/Documents/2011/Goldman_Sachs_Presentation.pdf.
[3] Kristina Hubbard, Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Eng’g, Nat’l Family Farm Coal., Out of Hand: Farmers Face the Consequences of a Consolidated Seed Industry p17-18 (2009), available at http://farmertofarmercampaign.com/Out%20of%20Hand.FullReport.pdf.
[4] Kristina Hubbard, Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Eng’g, Nat’l Family Farm Coal., Out of Hand: Farmers Face the Consequences of a Consolidated Seed Industry p4 (2009), available at http://farmertofarmercampaign.com/Out%20of%20Hand.FullReport.pdf.
[5] Matthew Wilde, “Independent seed companies a dying breed,” WCF Courier, August 22, 2012, http://wcfcourier.com/business/local/article_7cef1ffc-b0bb-56a8-8d83-faf894bf76ad.html
[6] Econ. Research Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Agric., Commodity Costs and Returns, (last updated Nov. 15, 2012), http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/commodity-costs-andreturns.aspx (under “Data Set” scroll down to “Historical Costs and Returns: Soybeans”; select “”U.S.: 1975-96” (reporting that seed costs per acre were $13.32 in 1995)) (under “Data Set” scroll down to “Recent Costs and Returns: Soybeans”’; select “U.S.: 1997-2001, 2002-05, 2006-11”; select “US 2006-2011” tab (reporting that seed costs per acre were $55.55 in 2011)).
[7] Benbrook: Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe 2012 24:24 p5.
[8] Charles Benbrook, The Organic Ctr., The Magnitude and Impacts of the Biotech and Organic Seed Price Premium p3 (Dec. 2009), http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Seeds_Final_11-30-09.pdf
[9] Benbrook: Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen years. Environmental Sciences Europe 2012 24:24, p5.
[10] Kristina Hubbard, Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Eng’g, Nat’l Family Farm Coal., Out of Hand: Farmers Face the Consequences of a Consolidated Seed Industry 13, 16 (2009), available at http://farmertofarmercampaign.com/Out%20of%20Hand.FullReport.pdf.