NEWS FROM
PHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM
 |
 |
Published monthly on behalf of SPPS by Wiley-Blackwell.
 |
|
|
|
 |
Shedding light in the canopy
|
Since plants get most of their light from above, photosynthetic activity is highest in the upper part of the canopy. Applying light directly into the canopy might, accordingly, contribute to a more uniform photosynthetic profile and could potentially increase overall photosynthesis leading to higher yield of crops. This hypothesis has now been tested by Dutch researchers from Wageningen University in the Netherlands. They supplied cucumber plants grown in the greenhouse with 38% of their light from LEDs within the canopy and compared them with controls that got all the light from above. Light from within the canopy significantly increased photosynthesis in the lower leaf layers, however, this was not followed by a concomitant increase in overall biomass and fruit yield. This was apparently caused by a more stunted growth when less light came from above and because the LEDs seemingly caused the leaves to curl and thus reduced light interception.
Read full article free: Trouwborst et al (March 2010) Physiologia Plantarum 138: 289Ð300
|
|
NEWS IN BRIEF
FROM OTHER JOURNALS
|
|
Male olives have access to more females
|
|
Source: Saumitou-Laprade et al (26 March 2010) Science 327: 1648-1650
|
|
|
|
Lowering atmospheric with algae may contaminate ocean
|
|
Source: Trick et al (15 March 2010) PNAS doi:10.1073/pnas.0910579107
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Protecting new plant varieties: Patents vs. Breeders' rights
|
| |
|
|
The number of plant patent applications has increased sharply in the USA. From www.landscapegardeningplants.com
|
|
|
LIke any other inventor, plant breeders have the right to protect their inventions, namely new plant varieties. Whereas most inventions are protected through patents or trademarks, plants have traditionally been secured for the breeder by another set of legislation known as plant breeders' rights. In 1961, a number of countries gathered in Paris and formed the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants or UPOV, which has since grown to include 67 countries all over the World.
UPOV grants the breeders certain rights but in some ways also limits their ability to secure exclusivity over new varieties. Accordingly, an emerging trend is that breeders turn to the conventional patent system and patent a new variety like any other invention. While the two methods of securing intellectual property rights overlap in many respects there are also basic differences. This has led to litigation in some cases and have raised concern over the breeders ability to operate freely.
E.g. UPOV grant any plant breeder the right to use a protected variety for experimental purposes or for breeding other varieties and likewise any farmer can grow a protected variety for subsistence farming, i.e. for private non-monetary benefit. These rights are challenged by plant patents and critics have claimed that small breeders and farmers in developing countries are consequently put under pressure from large, multinational breeding corporations.
| |
|
|
Physical appearance is important in granting breeders' rights for e.g. this Canadian rose variety 'Ausimmon'. From www.inspection.gc.ca
|
|
|
Plant breeding is believed to be a major contributor to increased food security as well as reduced input costs, greenhouse gas emissions and deforestation. Plant breeding play a central role in mitigating the effects of population growth, climate change and other social and physical challenges. However, in order to meet these goals, the Second World Seed Conference - which took place in Rome, Italy during September 8-10 2009 - concluded: "Intellectual property protection is crucial for a sustainable contribution of plant breeding and seed supply. An effective system of plant variety protection is a key enabler for investment in breeding and the development of new varieties of plants."
To be granted plant breeders' rights, a new variety must meet four basic criteria laid down by UPOV: - The new plant must be novel, which means that it must not have been commercialized for more than one year
- The new plant must be distinct, i.e. it must differ from all other known varieties by one or more important botanical characteristics, such as height, maturity, color etc
- The plants must display homogeneity, i.e. individual plants must have consistent characteristics within the variety
- The trait or traits unique to the new variety must be genetically fixed so that the plant remains true to type after repeated cycles of propagation
Breeders' rights are granted for 20 years (25 years for trees or vines) after grant date and give the breeder exclusive control over the new variety in all 67 UPOV member countries. Exclusivity covers both the harvested material (e.g. grain, fruit, foliage and cut flowers) and the propagating material (e.g. seed, cuttings, divisions and tissue culture). Covered is also importation of protected varieties from third-party countries that are not members of UPOV. This is in contrast to plants patents, which only prohibit making, using or selling - but not importing - the protected variety.
| |
|
|
The tropical neem tree is a traditional medical plant of India but its medical properties was anyway patented in 1995. From www.beautynewsnyc.com
|
|
|
On the other hand, breeders' rights limit exclusivity with respect to farm-saved seed and the right to use the protected material for breeding new varieties and also allows for compulsory licensing. These limitations are not met, however, if the breeder choose to obtain a plant patent instead. Patents are valid for 20 years and can be granted for a living plant which expresses a set of characteristics determined by its genetic makeup or genotype, which can be duplicated through asexual reproduction, but which cannot otherwise be 'made' or 'manufactured'. Sports, mutants, hybrids, and transformed plants can be patented as long as a set of criteria are met in order to ensure ownership and novelty.
These criteria are, however, subject for interpretation and have in several cases let to criticism. E.g. a new plant variety does not have to be bred or otherwise 'produced' in order to be patentable; it suffice if the new variety is simply discovered, though the discovery must have been made in a cultivated area. Among the publicly known cases is on from 1997, when a Texas-based company, RiceTec, was granted a patent that allowed them to control production of Basmati rice. However, the American rice largely possessed the same characteristics as the various Basmati rice varieties that have been grown for thousands of years in India. The patent caused the Indian government to protest and subsequently RiceTec withdraw most of the patent claims.
Another prominent case of so-called 'biopiracy' concerns the tropical neem tree, which has traditionally been used in many South East Asian countries for its widespread medicinal properties. Anyway, in 1995 the European Patent Office granted a multinational company and the USDA a patent covering its anti-fungal properties - despite the fact that exactly the same effects have been practioned for over two thousand years in India. The patent was, however, challenged and was eventually revoked in 2000. These and other cases have drawn concern to how plant patents enable large companies in the Western world to challenge food production and the livelihoods of poor farmers in developing countries.
| |
|
|
Golden rice (from top and clock-wise: polished, dehusked and new harvested) was caught by over 70 patents. From www.goldenrice.org
|
|
|
Patents have also turned out to be the preferred way to protect genetically modified plants. Plant patents are often very broad and cover general traits, use of genes or methods for production of the transgenic plants. The American company Monsanto has developed a general strategy for herbicide resistance, Roundup Ready, which has become very popular and is implemented in over 80% of all corn and soybean grown in the USA. Since plant patents do not allow breeders to use the protected material for further breeding, plant patents are seen as putting severe limitations on the further development of new varieties.
One such example is the Golden rice variety, which was developed by Ingo Potrykus of the Institute of Plant Sciences at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, and Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg. The idea was to use genetic engineering to create a new rice variety with much higher content of vitamin A and to make it freely available for rice growers in Asia, where vitamin A deficiency is widespread. Despite the trait being both novel and unique, it turned out that Golden rice was already covered by more than 70 patents owned by 32 different companies and universities. In this case, due to intense media coverage and the humanitarian perspective, the researchers managed to establish free licences for all patents so the project could continue. However, this will certainly not be the case in many other circumstances, and the case show how plant patens can disencourage breeding efforts for new varieties.
|
|
