The Great Debate: intellectual property, the main point of contention between academics and the private industry regarding GM crops

The new technologies and products offered by the private industry in agriculture constitute a huge amount of economic investment that companies try to protect in order to ensure profit and competitiveness. However, a high level of secrecy in the management of the information on new crops is considered by researchers as counterproductive in obtaining reliable knowledge (i.e., independent) on the products, which ultimately hinders a more expedite acceptance from the public in general (growers and consumers). Intellectual property has become a shield that protects the interests of the industry in such a way that it could become a barrier that does not allow them to expose their products to the public scrutiny and ultimately to the free market. In my opinion, sooner or later the industry will come to recognize that any attempt to take unfair advantage of confidentiality in business information (i.e., to hide bad features before the product is commercialized) could represent a future liability of unknown consequences.

Who really is in control? With regards to how products are regulated, what changes would you make if any?

It is totally clear that the industry is in control, as mentioned by Christian Krupke “they are completely driving the bus”. Unfortunately this is how the system works so far, the companies exert a great pressure in the political system and ultimately they set the rules in order to protect their interests. However, the regulation on products directed toward human consumption should not just have more restricted regulations, but to be public-oriented; that is, to be approved under a crystalline process in which the academia and the general public have total access and even participation, so we can, as a society, participate in the construction of our food security. Any kind of regulation or policy that interrupts an open discussion on “what we are eating” constitutes a delay in the normal flow of knowledge, acceptance, and utilization of such new technologies.

Are researchers "blowing this out of proportion"? Should growers be provided with disclaimers when companies approach them with performance data (i.e., whether product was tested with competitor lines)? When should biotechnology be used on the farm?

I tend to believe that not only growers should enjoy the right to be informed about what they are putting in the field, but all people involved (i.e., consumers) should have enough information on the products they are purchasing. As mentioned before, only through an open and frank discussion new technologies will stop being used as cartoons by critics, and they will start being focus of serious debate and acceptance processes.

As any other technology, biotechnology should be used in the field when it represents an advantage over the conventional technique (i.e., transformed varieties with drought tolerance, pest resistance, higher yield, etc.), and does not represent a threat to the environment and the consumers.

Can such products lead to increased food security? You're not limited to these questions, but I do encourage you to expand on your answers for full credit.

In an ever growing population and under a limited set of resources the improvement on techniques to produce food under a sustainable perspective may be considered key for the persistence of the human prospect over the Earth. With that said, technologies such as transgenic crops constitute a keystone in the implementation of sustainable agriculture, but without substituting the whole idea of integrated crop management, where IPM is still preponderant from the pest management perspective. New cultivars able to resists/tolerate/yield more than the traditional ones is not just a cliché of the promotional brochures of the GM crops, it constitutes the whole history of human agriculture and plant domestication, so I do believe these products are precisely oriented towards increasing food security. However, the situation described by Emily Waltz in her document “Under wraps” represents a delay in the normal process these kind of technologies/products should undoubtedly suffer, the public scrutiny and the general acceptance. A wise approach from the industry would be to help in the general public acceptance of their new products by means of a process of open discussion and transparency.