Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments from representatives on behalf Monsanto Co. and Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman, to determine whether Mr. Bowman had violated the company’s patents on soybean seeds that are resistant to the weed-killer glyphosate (RoundUp). This case goes to the core of the ability of U.S. companies to invest in the research necessary to develop new products with an assurance that U.S. patent law will protect their investment. “Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?” Chief Justice John G. Roberts asked during oral arguments before the court.

Experts and observers have noted that the impact of the Court’s ruling will extend beyond the agricultural biotechnology sector:

The justices appeared alert to the consequences of their eventual ruling not only for Monsanto’s very lucrative soybean patents but also for modern agriculture generally and for areas as varied as vaccines, cell lines and software.

The New York Times, Feb. 19, 2013

“The case revolves around what appears to be a deliberate attempt by one farmer to circumvent the law. Bowman v Monsanto is the long-anticipated square off between a 75-year old Indiana farmer and the world’s largest agricultural biotechnology firm. The decision will turn on the minutiae of patent law, but the implications will extend to all cutting-edge technologies.”

Jon Entine, Executive Director, Genetic Literacy Project

“…Innovators, whether they are in a scientific laboratory or a recording studio, must count on being able to recoup their risky investments without the threat of illegal copies. Whether those copies are crops on a farm in the Midwest or hot DVDs on the sidewalks of New York City, the principle is the same, and so are the consequences: When one free rider skims off the top, everyone else ends up paying more, and innovators get less to invest in the next round of innovation. Neither of these outcomes is what America needs.”

Robert Atkinson, President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation

To read more, check out Supremes unsympathetic to farmer’s deception at center of Monsanto GMO soybean SCOTUS patent challenge and  The Supreme Court is about to shape the future of innovation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture turns 150 years old in May, having been created by Congress and President Lincoln in 1862. Leaders of the agricultural community are pointing to biotechnology as a continuation of the scientific approach to agriculture that USDA has promoted from the beginning.

In a recent column, American Farm Bureau Federation President and CEO Bob Stallman outlined the history and continuity of USDA’s mission:

“On May 15, 1862, President Lincoln signed into law a bill establishing a new Department of Agriculture, which was specifically directed to acquire information through ‘practical and scientific experiments’ and to collect and propagate ‘new and valuable seeds and plants’ and distribute these to the nation’s agriculturists,” Stallman wrote.  READ MORE »

White House seeks expert input to create jobs through biotech innovations

To grow the economy and create jobs, The White House is seeking input from the biotech industry and research communities for a new initiative: National Bioeconomy Blueprint, GenomeWeb Daily News reports.

“Once unveiled, the National Bioeconomy Blueprint can leverage investments across the country in biotechnology research and development to create jobs and spur biological innovation on a grand scale,” said Jim Greenwood, the CEO of BIO. Read more.  

Australian business groups call for lifting the ban on GM crops

According to Food Magazine, A South Australian business group calls for the ban on genetically modified (GM) crops to be lifted for the sake of the food industry.

Business SA chief executive Peter Vaughan said, “Genetically modified crops have overcome many of the challenging conditions faced by growers, and an extensive trial would address the issues, concerns and benefits.” Read more.

WSJ op-ed: Nestle’s Chairman says biotech is essential for global food security

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, chairman of Nestlé Peter Brabeck-Letmathe says Europe’s refusal to use biotechnology “has halted the multi-decade rise in agricultural productivity that has allowed us, so far, to feed more mouths than many people believed was possible.” Read more.  

Scientists point out EPA proposed regulatory burdens are obstacle to innovation

The Journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB Journal) published an article by Dr. Nina Fedoroff and Dr. Bruce Chassy which says the EPA’s proposal to expand regulatory burdens would create obstacles to scientific innovation.

“A further increase in the regulatory burden would impose steep barriers to scientific innovation and product development across all sectors of our economy and would not only fail to enhance safety, but would be likely to prolong reliance on less safe and obsolete practices.” Read more.

Prominent food industry expert condemns attacks on GM papayas in Hawaii

Perishable Pundit, an online publication by the prominent food industry author and news commentator Jim Prevor, calls the devastation caused by attacks on papayas in Hawaii “unacceptable.” His article features an interview with Delan Perry from the Hawaii Papaya Association, who points out the need for GM papaya varieties to fight plant disease.  Read more.

The scientific, economic and social benefits of biotechnology are clear, yet government regulations continue to stifle new biotech innovations  that will help our economy grow. Dr. Nina Fedoroff, former science and technology advisor for the U.S. State Department and professor of biology at Pennsylvania State University, emphasized this in a New York Times op-ed article about the safety and efficacy of biotech crops.

She points out GM crops lower costs for farmers by producing higher yields on less land, while also benefiting the environment with reduced pesticide use and tilling. These advances are particularly important to help feed a quickly growing world population, but because of complicated regulatory hurdles there are only a handful of varieties of approved biotech crops. Dr. Fedoroff sums it up and writes, “It is time to relieve the regulatory burden slowing down the development of genetically modified crops. ” Read more.