Dear all,

I came across another article on the ruling of the EBA. Do we know it already or the author?

The author raises the problem that patent protection on genome edited plants can capture conventionally bred plants with the same traits, and that even if the scope of the patent is restricted to plants resulting from the specific genome editing process (he doesn’t mention the disclaimer provision in this context) the burden of proof lies with the alleged infringer. However, his argument is based on the assumption that, in some cases at least, it is not possible to differentiate between genome edited and conventionally bred plants – we don’t have a position on this assumption as NPOS, as far as I know.

He also refers to Rule 26 (5) of the Implementing Regulations: “A process for the production of plants or animals is essentially biological if it consists entirely of natural phenomena such as crossing or selection.”

If the option of adopting a new interpretation of Rule 28 (2) does not seem possible, we could instead demand a change of Rule 26 (5) to include random mutagenesis?

Best

Katherine

Katherine Dolan

ARCHE NOAH Leitung Politik / Head of Policy

+43 (0)676 557 4408

----------------------------------------------------------

ARCHE NOAH – Gesellschaft für die Erhaltung der Kulturpflanzenvielfalt und ihre Entwicklung / Association for the conservation and development of crop diversity
Obere Straße 40, 3553 Schiltern
www.arche-noah.at

----------------------------------------------------------

PS: Die Vielfalt braucht jetzt dringend Ihre Stimme! Jetzt hier Petition „Vielfalt säen, Gesundheit ernten“ unterschreiben. Für mehr Vielfalt auf Äckern und Tellern!

PPS: Wir sind bei der Rettung der Vielfalt auf Sie angewiesen – jetzt spenden.