legal implications of gm crop regulatory lags presentation to the 19 th icabr conference ravello,...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags
Presentation to the 19th ICABR ConferenceRavello, ItalyJune 16-19, 2015
Martin Phillipson &Stuart SmythUniversity of Saskatchewan
![Page 2: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Challenge:Trade disruptions cost grain industry over $1B/yr
International regulatory lags disrupt trade
![Page 3: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction
• Approval times for GM crop varieties are continually increasing
• Average number of months for regulatory approval in the US from 1994-99 was 6 months
• From 2000-2004 this rose to 13.6 months
• Europabio (2011) estimates this had increased to 25 months in the US
• Phillips McDougall (2011) identify this rising to a global average of 65 months
![Page 4: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Regulatory cultivation approval times
Source: Dewar, 2014.
![Page 5: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Regulatory import approval times
Source: Dewar, 2014.
![Page 6: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
What is driving this?
• The EU is in regulatory gridlock with nothing likely to be ever approved there again
• There are presently 74 GM varieties submission packages awaiting EU approval
• Lags of this nature are putting tremendous pressure on international commodity trade due to the low level presence of unapproved events
• Estimated cost to the grain handling industry is increasing every year, now in excess of $1 billion annually
![Page 7: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Case study of Syngenta’s Viptera corn
• Viptera is an insect resistant variety
• Released to address insect losses of over $1 billion in lost yield and reduced grain quality annually
• Approved in the US in 2010, for planting in 2011
• Received approval in 9 export markets
• Did not receive approval for import into China until end of 2014 (anticipated in early 2012)
• US corn exports to China dropped by 85%
![Page 8: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Syngenta v Bunge lawsuit
• Bunge is a large American grain handling firm
• Longstanding policy of not accepting GM varieties for export to markets that have not approved the specific event
• In 2011, Bunge began refusing to accept Viptera corn due to China’s lack of acceptance
• Syngenta then sued Bunge for lost profits, reputation damages and to remove the policy
• Settled out of court after China approved Viptera corn for import, in Dec. 2014
![Page 9: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Cargill v Syngenta lawsuit
• In Sept. 2014, Cargill filed a claim against Syngenta claiming losses of $90M from comingling of Viptera corn into Chinese exports
• Releasing Viptera corn without Chinese approval involved a calculated risk that approval would occur prior to corn shipments being rejected
• The US grain industry sought assurances from Syngenta that it would not release further varieties without Chinese approval
![Page 10: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Viptera related class action lawsuits
• In Oct. 2014, 4 different farmer class action lawsuits began seeking damages from Syngenta
• Claims of $1B involving over 300 farmers filed
• The claims argue that corn prices in the US have been adversely affected due to China’s rejection of American corn shipments
• Syngenta is defending itself by stating that American farmers have the right to timely access of new technologies
![Page 11: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PTC)
• With a synchronous global approval system very unlikely, an alternative is urgently needed to the costly trade losses and lawsuits
• An April 2014 report estimated total grain industry trade disruption costs/losses of between $1B and $2.9B
• Status quo can’t continue
• There is no international patent approval agency capable of granting multiple country approvals
• The PTC came into force in 1978 and has 148 member countries
• The PTC makes it possible to receive international patent protection in all 148 countries simultaneously
![Page 12: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
PTC continued
• Applicant has up to 18 months to receive patent approval in the identified PTC countries
• During this period, it cannot be rejected by any country, allowing the applicant to provide additional information if required
• All 148 member country patent offices have access to documents filed with the patent in making their own decision
• In 2013, over 200,000 patent applications were received by the PTC
![Page 13: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Challenges of applying the PTC
• We identify 3 major challenges to adapting the PTC to manage regulatory lags in the approval process of GM crop varieties:
1. Identifying a global champion to lead the effort
Several years of effort will be required to develop and structure such an agreement
2. Lack of incentives for non-GM nations to participate
3. Monitoring and enforcing such an agreement would be daunting, to say the least
![Page 14: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Conclusions
• Regulatory approval of GM crop varieties has become a political process over the past 5 years
• Various national governments now directly interfering with the regulatory approval systems (ex. EU, India)
• The status quo is no longer an option given the billions of dollars of trade disruptions
• Ultimately, any such global agreement may involve ‘fencing-out’ non-GM crop adopting nations or regions
![Page 15: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Thank You To Our Sponsors04
![Page 16: Legal Implications of GM Crop Regulatory Lags Presentation to the 19 th ICABR Conference Ravello, Italy June 16-19, 2015 Martin Phillipson & Stuart Smyth](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022081512/56649e215503460f94b0d228/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Questions?Comments?