Brussels/Vienna, October 20, 2022 –The two biotech companies Corteva and Bayer have accumulated hundreds of patent applications on plants in recent years. Corteva has filed 1,430 patents - more than any other company - on crops using genetic engineering methods. A joint international research by GLOBAL 2000, Friends of the Earth Europe, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), ARCHE NOAH, IG Saatgut - interest group for GMO-free seed work and Vienna Chamber of Labor examines this flood of patents against the background of the currently discussed deregulation of EU genetic engineering law with imminent Exceptions for New Genetic Engineering (NGT). "The growing number of patent applications to increase the profits of these NGT methods reveals the double play of the corporations," say the authors of the report published today.

No Patents on Seeds! is starting an online petition for a moratorium

14 December 2020 / Today, No Patents on Seeds! is starting an international appeal for a moratorium on patent applications covering plants and animals to stop the European Patent Office (EPO) from granting more patents on conventional breeding.

PetitionThe background: the Administrative Council of the European Patent Office (EPO) will meet tomorrow. Patents on seeds are one of the issues that should be on the agenda of the representatives from the 38 contracting states. After more than ten years of controversial debate, the EPO finally decided to prohibit patents on conventionally bred plants and animals. However, patents are still granted on random mutation breeding. No Patents on Seeds! is demanding that this practice is stopped. Several hundred conventionally bred varieties have already been patented in Europe.

Precautionary Technology Assessment and Governance of New Approaches to Genetically Modify Animal and Plant Populations

This open access book reports on a pilot project aiming at collecting information on the socio-ecological risks that could arise in the event of an uncontrolled spread of genetically engineered organisms into the environment. The researchers will, for instance, be taking a closer look at genetically engineered oilseed rape, genetically engineered olive flies as well as plants and animals with so-called gene drives. The book mainly adresses researchers.

Arnim von Gleich1

Winfried Schröder2

1.Department of Technological Design and Development, Faculty Production EngineeringUniversity of BremenBremenGermany

2.Lehrstuhl für LandschaftsökologieUniversität VechtaVechtaGermany

Glyphosate is the subject of a heated debate over whether it causes cancer.

Austria is heading toward a likely ban of glyphosate this year after the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ) backed the Social Democrats' drive to end usage of the controversial weedkiller.

"There are enough studies that adequately demonstrate the risk that glyphosate poses to the environment and human health," the FPÖ's new party leader, Norbert Hofer, said Wednesday. "It is therefore a sign of responsible environmental policy to put this ban on track."

Glyphosate is the subject of a heated debate in Europe and the U.S. over whether the weedkiller causes cancer.

Eva Gelinsky and Angelika HilbeckEmail author

Environmental Sciences Europe201830:52

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0182-9© The Author(s) 2018

Received: 1 October 2018Accepted: 5 December 2018Published: 20 December 2018

In July 2018, the European Court of Justice (Case C-528/16) ruled that organisms obtained by directed mutagenesis techniques are to be regarded as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) within the meaning of Directive 2001/18. The ruling marked the next round of the dispute around agricultural genetic engineering in Europe. Many of the pros and cons presented in this dispute are familiar from the debate around the first generation of genetic engineering techniques. The current wave of enthusiasm for the new genetic engineering methods, with its claim to make good on the failed promises of the previous wave, seems to point more to an admission of failure of the last generation of genetic engineering than to a true change of paradigm. Regulation is being portrayed as a ban on research and use, which is factually incorrect, and the judges of the European Court of Justice are being defamed as espousing “pseudoscience”. Furthermore, this highly polarised position dominates the media reporting of the new techniques and the court’s ruling. Advocates of the new genetic engineering techniques appear to believe that their benefits are so clear that furnishing reliable scientific evidence is unnecessary. Meanwhile, critics who believe that the institution of science is in a serious crisis are on the increase not just due to the cases of obvious documented scientific misconduct by companies and scientists, but also due to the approach of dividing the world into those categorically for or against genetic engineering. In this construct of irreconcilable opposites, differentiations fall by the wayside. This article is a response to this one-sided and biased reporting, which often has the appearance of spin and lacks journalistic ethics that require journalists to report on different positions in a balanced and factual manner instead of taking positions and becoming undeclared advocates themselves.

Companies are on the verge of selling lab-grown meat. The new products are touted as environmentally friendly, but is it what consumers want and where exactly are the lines when it comes to genetic engineering?

When a strawberry from Chile and a strawberry from the United States met in a genteel French garden 200 years ago — on a blind date arranged by gardeners who wanted to create a better berry — it was love at first sight.

Previously, imported species from the US state of Virginia hadn't produced much, while the fruits of European varieties were very small. As it turned out, the Chilean genes held the magic ingredient, and nearly every strawberry you buy in the market today comes from that strain.

Luscious strawberries may be among the the tastiest results of genetic tinkering, but they are not the only. Mesopotamians started propagating wild grasses with the biggest seeds 10,000 years ago, which eventually turned them into the crops we now call rice, wheat, barley, oats, millet and rye.

Seed giants still trying to expand their monopolies

16 January 2018

As a new report published today by No Patents on Seeds! shows, the European Patent Office (EPO) continues to grant patents on plants derived from conventional breeding – even though the contracting states urged the enforcement of relevant prohibitions in 2017. Around 25 patents were approved last year, despite the EPO officially claiming that it no longer grants such patents. The patents cover crops such as lettuce, onions, tomatoes, potatoes, cucumber, grapes, sunflower, sorghum and soybeans. In response, there is growing opposition to EPO practice. And for the first time, a joint letter written by COPA/COGECA, No Patents on Seeds! and organisations from the organic sector has been sent to the EU Commission. COPA/COGECA is the largest farmers’ organisation in the EU and also represents many breeders.

Despite growing criticism, the seed giants are still trying to push their agenda of misappropriation of natural resources: Syngenta has asked the EPO to abolish existing restrictions. The company filed an appeal in August 2017, and this will be the subject of a public hearing at the EPO tomorrow.

Approval was gained via covert industry influence and copy-pasting of manufacturers’ documents instead of independent evaluation, NGOs say

An alliance of environmental NGOs on Monday launched criminal proceedings in Austria, Germany, Italy, Portugal, and France against the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Federal Institute of Risk Assessment, BfR, over the EU approval of glyphosate.

Citing their own investigations, US court documents (the so-called "Monsanto Papers"), and a report on plagiarism, the NGOs state that BfR and EFSA have not conducted an independent, objective and transparent assessment of the health risks of glyphosate, as required by the EU Pesticide Regulation 1107/2009. As a result, glyphosate has once again been approved in Europe, when it would otherwise have failed to meet the legal requirements for authorization. The NGOs are concerned that serious damage to health will occur as a result of what they term official misconduct.

Amsterdam / Vienna -- The ProTerra Foundation, an international organisation based in the Netherlands, and the European Soya Organisation Donau Soja, an international NGO based in Austria, have agreed to work in close cooperation regarding the certification of sustainable soya grown in Europe. ProTerra recognises the Europe Soya Standard as the European interpretation of the ProTerra Standard. Soybean producers and processors within Europe will have their products certified according to the Europe Soya Standard, while soya producers outside Europe will continue to do so according to the ProTerra standard. This will allow all market participants to be certified according to one widely recognised standard and to maximize synergies between Donau Soja's European network and ProTerra's global experience. As the standard holder of Europe Soya, the Donau Soja Association will serve the European market with the support of the ProTerra Foundation.

"I am very pleased for the opportunity to work hand in hand with Donau Soja to provide synergies, alternatives and solutions for market participants who are securing the supply of sustainably grown European soybeans without GMOs that are equivalent to the soybeans and soya derivatives from Brazil and other origins certified against the ProTerra Standard. The pooled efforts with Europe Soya will result in a stronger and unified European soya standard that aims at zero deforestation and will benefit producers, processors, retailers, and – most of all – consumers", comments ProTerra Chairman Augusto Freire.

"I am extremely happy that our two organisations will be joining forces to certify and label sustainable European non-GMO soybeans and soya products according to a combined sustainability standard and quality scheme. We are convinced this will help us promote our mission to make European agriculture more sustainable by deploying legume crop rotation according to best practice standards. It will also be good for the market, there will soon be many more certified products available for all market participants. Thanks to our cooperation with ProTerra, we can have a much greater impact on the market and on sustainability", adds Matthias Krön, Chairman of Donau Soja Association.

EU legislation is the minimum requirement for the Europe Soya Standard and a baseline in all relevant aspects of the production chain, even for non-EU countries, such as Serbia, Bosnia, Moldova, and Ukraine. This is particularly relevant in terms of the use of chemicals, regarding which EU legislation exhibits more strict regulations than many non-EU countries. Europe Soya also forbids desiccation with substances like glyphosate. The Europe Soya Standard includes requirements such as a ban on land use change (e.g. no deforestation), the obligation to respect social and labour rights (ILO conventions), and a non-GMO status according to existing regulations. (For additional details see: www.donausoja.org/downloads.)

The continent of Europe currently imports the equivalent of around 40 million tons of soybeans per year that were grown on approximately 16 million hectares. The mid-term potential for European soy production and cultivation is around 15 million tons in the next ten years. Current production is approximately 9.2 million tons. ProTerra and Donau Soja share a common goal to jointly realise this potential via viable means and by way of sustainable soybeans grown in Europe as well as imported soybeans that are produced sustainably and in accord with the ProTerra Standard.

Augusto Freire and Matthias Krön jointly conclude that, "We are convinced that our new cooperation will allow us to contribute to a healthier and more sustainable agriculture worldwide."

This document explains what measures can be taken by civil society to make their voice heard in order to prevent patents on conventionally bred plants and animals in Europe.

Provided by NO PATENTS ON SEEDS! in February 2017

www.no-patents-on-seeds.org

Twitter: @NoPatentsOnSeed

The current situation and our goals

On 25 March 2015, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the

European Patent Office (EPO) confirmed an unacceptable

interpretation of the current patent law: while processes for

conventional breeding cannot be patented, plants and animals

stemming from these processes are patentable. This is not only

contradictory in itself, but it also undermines the prohibitions in

European patent law: “Plant and animal varieties or essentially

biological processes for production plants and animals” are

excluded from patentability (Art 53 b, EPC).