Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2015-12-17-Speech-4-016-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20151217.2.4-016-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, without the efforts of commercial plant breeders we would not have kept abreast with the challenge of feeding a growing population. Having farmed since 1971, I have witnessed all the improvements produced by fertilisers, pesticides and mechanisation.
In my opinion, though, the biggest single factor in increasing yields has been improved crop varieties. These provide the potential from which all else flows. For every successful variety there may be 10 expensive failures, and the winners must bear not only their own costs, but those of the losers as well. Our commercial plant breeders therefore need the assurance that their work will bring significant financial rewards and not simply provide a shortcut to others who can quickly build on a novel feature that took many years to isolate and consistently replicate itself within a stable variety.
In the past, it was usually safe to assume that by the time a competitor breeder had taken advantage of breeders’ privilege and brought a successor variety to the market, the original variety would have had its few years at the top of the hit parade, earned its royalties and been superseded. Skill and technology, though, is now so advanced and correspondingly expensive that occasionally a breeder can produce something that is a step change or a defining moment in the history of plant breeding. The implications of this need to be recognised and catered for. Having watched the EU make a complete hash of legislating on the topic of GM crops, I do not want this institution to spoil yet more innovation in plant breeding.
I would like to see my own country, Britain, take the lead in this field and consult with the whole agricultural industry, because a balance must be struck between maintaining the confidence of the breeders in the principle that a successful idea will yield a financial reward, but, on the other hand, the concern that the market will be permanently cornered and subsequent potential improvements discouraged. The debate then becomes a very straightforward decision on the amount of time a breeder can have the exclusive use of his variety. I believe the industry in the UK is more than capable of reaching a decision on this with minimal interference from politicians. A system may develop where the breeder of a high-flying variety may take the option of purchasing a longer period of purdah from the government, to the benefit of the taxpayer – a simple commercial decision, taken within agreed limits.
We do not need to get involved in semantic arguments about the difference between a discovery and an invention. We just need to let the plant breeders have their moment in the sun. Now, let us never forget that a farmer can always multiply up old varieties himself if he feels that this is a more economic choice, thereby waving two fingers at the perceived greed of big business. This inconvertible reality will always ensure that this issue remains rooted in the ground, the earth, the soil and the dirt, just where a seed belongs."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples