Dear Katherine

thanks for the feedback.

before others jump on the same train, some quick explanations:

* the consequences are given in the report - around thousand new applications and potentially several hundred patents, impacting hundreds of seed varieties. This will cause larger legal uncertainty for the breeders, hampering innovation. I do not think we can make stronger predictions. * we have to take the examples from patent research and explain the strategy. This is what I have tried. I can not explain something which is not backed by findings. But yes, I could imagine to explain one example in more detail.  * to improve redability,  I only included part of the research in the first half (figure 4), I would hesitate to overlaod the report with data from the start.

these just some thoughts on your comments, maybe useful to move ahead.

Cheers

Christoph

Am 09.02.21 um 16:34 schrieb ARCHE NOAH Katherine Dolan:

Dear Christoph,   Thanks for the draft, which is very interesting. It is great we can include so much new context - thanks to everyone involved.   Attached are my comments. My main feedback:

• We should do more to underline the consequences of waiting to see what happens with these applications, as the governments currently want to do. Could we add in the numbers of relevant applications from H2 2012, 2018-19 to give a total number of patents applications that could already slip through the loopholes owing to inaction? And do some extrapolation into the future? Perhaps for the media work we could think about a theme like a ticking time bomb or a trawler fishing up diversity while politicians do nothing.
• It would be helpful to explain in a bit more detail the new strategy of the companies. I suspect this is more obvious to you than the average reader. Based on our arguments about the legal loopholes, you would logically expect that most applications would include random mutagenesis, but this is not the case.
• In terms of structure, I would propose to move the analysis of the 2020 applications more to the front (as this is what is new and report-wothy) and move the legal analysis to the end (and potentially shorten it, where we repeat our demands).

Best, Katherine     -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Npos_2018 [mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de] Im Auftrag von Johanna Eckhardt no-patents-seeds.org Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Februar 2021 16:05 An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de Betreff: [Npos_2018] IMPORTANT first draft of the new report (feedback until 12 February)   Dear all,   as mentioned in today's conference call, could you please come back to us with your feedback on the report until the end of the week (12 February)? We can then continue with edits and the translation into German.   Thank you!   Best, Johanna   Johanna ECKHARDT Project Coordination Tel. +43 680 21 26 343 johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.org mailto:johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.org   NO PATENTS ON SEEDS! www.no-patents-on-seeds.org http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds http://www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed http://www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed       -----Original Message----- From: Npos_2018 [mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de] On Behalf Of Christoph Then Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:18 AM To: npos_2018@testbiotech.de mailto:npos_2018@testbiotech.de Subject: [Npos_2018] first draft of the new report (docx version)   dear all     please see attached the first draft of the new report.   It uses lots of parts from the previous one. However it follows another logic: The focus now is on the loopholes, while last time we did not know the outcome of G3/19 and therefore had to take a wider approach.   more recent figures from overall patent applications and pinto will be added.   I especially like figure 3 which repeats what we are saying about the differences between GE and random mutagenesis, and was produced with public money to educate public on advantages of New GE.... I will try to organise a slightly adopted version.   I can give a short introduction in the zoom meeting we have today and tomorrow.     cheers   Christoph

---

Npos_2018 mailing list Npos_2018@testbiotech.de https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018

Dear Katherine

of course your points are relevant.

1. since we already included the issue of urgent need for political actions, I would be interested to see how you would like us to phrase it. Or should we repeat it or place it somewhere else in the report, to make it more prominent? If you any ideas on that pls let me know.

2. on the loophole, the report gives emphasis to the information that the boundaries between GE and Non GE are blurred. I think the way how it is phrased is more general and gives a little bit less weight to random mutagenesis compared to previous versions. I thought this might ease communication. So if you have any more detailed comments or ideas, this would  be welcome.

If you think it is helpful, we can have a chat on the phone.

anyway I will try to keep all your comments in mind when working on the text again. I also think, I will try add some example to explain the strategy of the companies, as written in the previous mail.

Cheers

Christoph

Am 10.02.21 um 09:08 schrieb ARCHE NOAH Katherine Dolan:

Dear Christoph,

Thanks for your response.

On 1: I understand your hesitation to go further, I am just thinking about what will make the report most useful in terms of our media work, as – without any new cases / hearings – this is our only chance to make some public pressure in the coming months. For our work at Arche Noah I would find it very useful to have some bolder predictions and statements, but it is ultimately for you to determine what is plausible.

On 2: To clarify: I understand from the analysis that companies are putting claims related to conventional breeding and GE processes in their applications, even when in reality they just used conventional methods, to make it all sounds very technical so they get the patent on the trait. But where I am not so clear is how we make a clear, understandable link between this analysis and the “random mutagenesis” loophole. This might be more of an issue for our media work than for the report itself.

Thanks

Katherine

*Von:*Npos_2018 [mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de] *Im Auftrag von *Christoph Then *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 9. Februar 2021 16:52 *An:* npos_2018@testbiotech.de *Betreff:* Re: [Npos_2018] dicussion on first draft of the new report (feedback until 12 February)

Dear Katherine

thanks for the feedback.

before others jump on the same train, some quick explanations:

• the consequences are given in the report - around thousand new applications and potentially several hundred patents, impacting hundreds of seed varieties. This will cause larger legal uncertainty for the breeders, hampering innovation. I do not think we can make stronger predictions.
• we have to take the examples from patent research and explain the strategy. This is what I have tried. I can not explain something which is not backed by findings. But yes, I could imagine to explain one example in more detail.
• to improve redability,  I only included part of the research in the first half (figure 4), I would hesitate to overlaod the report with data from the start.

these just some thoughts on your comments, maybe useful to move ahead.

Cheers

Christoph

Am 09.02.21 um 16:34 schrieb ARCHE NOAH Katherine Dolan:

Dear Christoph,

 

Thanks for the draft, which is very interesting. It is great we
can include so much new context - thanks to everyone involved.

 

Attached are my comments. My main feedback:

 

·        We should do more to underline the consequences of
waiting to see what happens with these applications, as the
governments currently want to do. Could we add in the numbers of
relevant applications from H2 2012, 2018-19 to give a total number
of patents applications that could already slip through the
loopholes owing to inaction? And do some extrapolation into the
future? Perhaps for the media work we could think about a theme
like a ticking time bomb or a trawler fishing up diversity while
politicians do nothing.

·        It would be helpful to explain in a bit more detail the
new strategy of the companies. I suspect this is more obvious to
you than the average reader. Based on our arguments about the
legal loopholes, you would logically expect that most applications
would include random mutagenesis, but this is not the case.

·        In terms of structure, I would propose to move the
analysis of the 2020 applications more to the front (as this is
what is new and report-wothy) and move the legal analysis to the
end (and potentially shorten it, where we repeat our demands).

 

Best,

Katherine

 

 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Npos_2018 [mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de] Im
Auftrag von Johanna Eckhardt no-patents-seeds.org
Gesendet: Dienstag, 9. Februar 2021 16:05
An: npos_2018@testbiotech.de <mailto:npos_2018@testbiotech.de>
Betreff: [Npos_2018] IMPORTANT first draft of the new report
(feedback until 12 February)

 

Dear all,

 

as mentioned in today's conference call, could you please come
back to us with your feedback on the report until the end of the
week (12 February)?

We can then continue with edits and the translation into German.

 

Thank you!

 

Best,

Johanna

 

Johanna ECKHARDT

Project Coordination

Tel. +43 680 21 26 343

johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.org
<mailto:johanna.eckhardt@no-patents-on-seeds.org>

 

NO PATENTS ON SEEDS!

www.no-patents-on-seeds.org <http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org>

www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds
<http://www.facebook.com/nopatentsonseeds>

www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed
<http://www.twitter.com/nopatentsonseed>

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Npos_2018 [mailto:npos_2018-bounces@testbiotech.de] On
Behalf Of Christoph Then

Sent: Monday, February 8, 2021 9:18 AM

To: npos_2018@testbiotech.de <mailto:npos_2018@testbiotech.de>

Subject: [Npos_2018] first draft of the new report (docx version)

 

dear all

 

 

please see attached the first draft of the new report.

 

It uses lots of parts from the previous one. However it follows
another

logic: The focus now is on the loopholes, while last time we did
not know the outcome of G3/19 and therefore had to take a wider
approach.

 

more recent figures from overall patent applications and pinto
will be added.

 

I especially like figure 3 which repeats what we are saying about
the differences between GE and random mutagenesis, and was
produced with public money to educate public on advantages of New
GE.... I will try to organise a slightly adopted version.

 

I can give a short introduction in the zoom meeting we have today
and tomorrow.

 

 

cheers

 

Christoph

 

 



_______________________________________________

Npos_2018 mailing list

Npos_2018@testbiotech.de <mailto:Npos_2018@testbiotech.de>

https://lists.testbiotech.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/npos_2018