The bone of contention is a bell pepper with a specific trait for which Syngenta filed a patent in 2008. The pepper is resistant to whitefly, which results in more visually appealing, longer-lasting vegetables for consumers and reduced pesticide consumption for farmers. It is the result of around ten years of intensive research and development. Following an extensive search, researchers from Syngenta selected a wild pepper variety that was resistant to whitefly. The company then used modern methods to identify and localize the genetic trait that gives the plant its resistance.

A new product

In a process lasting several years, these wild peppers were then crossed with high-yielding existing varieties. With the plants bred in this way, care had to be taken to ensure that the genetic trait of the original wild peppers was retained in the new variety. This development process resulted in a completely new product: a bell pepper that conforms to popular varieties in terms of taste and yield but has this new resistance to whitefly. This novel property was considered by the European Patent Office to be sufficiently innovative and inventive to patent the plant with this particular property.

Fears of a ‘patent trap’ unfounded

This is not enough for many NGOs, however. They are calling for a blanket ban on patents relating to biological material, especially plant traits. They justify this by arguing, among other things, that patents on plant traits prevent free access to breeding material and the development of new varieties. Yet this argument does not hold up under scrutiny. A brief look at the law confirms this: Whether patented or not, breeding of and research on all plant varieties can definitely continue (PatG Art. 9 (1e)). In the PINTO (Patent Information and Transparency Online) database, almost all major seed companies also disclose their patents. There is no need for Swiss breeders to fear falling into the ‘patent trap’. Rather, they would themselves be advised to protect and register their own breeding innovations. Because there are many copycats out there looking to expend a small amount of effort on making changes to a painstakingly bred new variety with a view to marketing it cheaply.

Patents help to drive progress

If a European breeding company nevertheless wants to use patented material for commercial purposes, the ACLP (Agricultural Crop Licensing Platform) and ILP (International Licensing Platform Vegetable) make it easy, particularly for small breeders, to access patented material through licensing agreements. These platforms thus increase transparency with regard to patents, enabling an easy search for keywords. Patents are different from ‘trade secrets.’ By making the ‘recipe’ public through publication of the patent, they enable transparency and, moreover, promote technical progress. The best example of this is smartphones. They contain hundreds upon hundreds of patents. No one would claim that these patents have hindered developments or innovations in mobile telephony. Why should it be any different for plants?