Increased UK public sector funding for translational plant science which improves the chances of early-stage genetic discoveries reaching commercial application is to be welcomed and applauded, but making the results of such research freely available - particularly in crops which have no UK-based breeding programmes – may simply hand the economic benefit to our competitors, warns plant breeding IP expert Peter Button. The UK Government needs to think more strategically about the effective use of IP protection, and learn from other countries’ approaches to prioritising and protecting the outputs of publicly funded agricultural research, to ensure the primary economic benefit is derived by UK breeders and growers and, therefore, ultimately the UK economy.

 

Science for Sustainable Agriculture (SSA) has consistently highlighted the importance of genetic innovation as the single main driver of agricultural productivity gains, and the need for increased investment in applied and translational genetic research to bridge a long-recognised gap in R&D funding to take early-stage discovery science from the lab to the field.

 

In its launch prospectus, SSA also pointed to a 20-fold disparity between Government funding of applied research in digital and precision farming applications compared to the equivalent investment in applied and translational genetic research, noting that while these agri-tech innovations are incredibly important in driving efficiency improvements, “they will prove to be relatively worthless in the context of a failure to support corresponding gains in genetic potential.” 

  

It is therefore encouraging that the UK Government has since announced a trebling of funding for the four existing Genetic Improvement Networks (GINs) covering wheat, oilseed rape, pulses and vegetables. These networks are viewed by Government as the primary vehicle for transferring new genetic discoveries into relevant crop traits and backgrounds for use in commercial breeding programmes.    

 

Defra has also confirmed the launch of a new Soft Fruit GIN, led by NIAB, with the James Hutton Institute and ADAS as key partners, which is billed as a new soft fruit pre-breeding programme to aid UK growers.    

 

Reading further about this project and the crop species involved, however, and noting in particular that the outputs will be made “freely available”, raises questions about how the Government is protecting the outcomes of the research to ensure its investment genuinely benefits UK breeders and growers.

 

The following soft fruit examples from North America underline the importance of IP protection in ensuring that taxpayer-funded research delivers economic returns in the country (or even the state) where the research is funded and conducted. 

 

In the 1930s, for example, the Canadian federal government established a research station to breed sweet cherry varieties.  The breeding programme released many new and successful cherry varieties but without any form of IP protection. This meant that growers from other countries also had equal access to these varieties and actively competed against Canadian growers.

 

In effect, Canadian taxpayers were subsidising growers in other countries to compete against their own growers and, until the beginning of the 1990s, sweet cherries remained a fledgling crop in British Columbia with annual sales of only $500,000 (CAD).

 

The introduction of a Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR) Act in Canada dramatically changed the landscape and provided the opportunity for British Columbia growers, in partnership with the federal government, to take control of their future by establishing a new platform to license all new varieties released from the breeding programme both domestically and internationally.

 

The release of the variety Staccato     transformed the cherry industry. Staccato cherries have a deep red skin and sweet taste, and are late maturing, not ripe for picking until August. This differentiated it from other popular varieties, providing the opportunity to supply later-season cherries to consumers.

 

This single variety transformed the Canadian cherry sector into a multi-million-dollar industry. Thanks to IP protection, the newest varieties are released to Canadian growers first. Over time, the varieties are then licensed for production in other countries. The licensing platform, known as Summerland Varieties Corp. collects PBR-enabled royalties, and channels them back to support the breeding programme, as well as funding other research activities. Thus, a grower-owned licensing company cooperates with the federal government to create a mechanism for sustainable R&D funding. And it does so in a way that ensures the domestic cherry industry maintains a competitive advantage globally (more details are available here and in this video). 

 

Another example of how effective use of IP benefits individual countries and agriculture globally can be seen in strawberries. The University of California, Davis’ (UCD) primary focus is to deliver superior genetics and commercial varieties to strawberry farmers in California and worldwide. Growers in California have earlier access and preferential royalty rates compared to growers in other parts of the USA and in other countries. At the same time, UCD varieties have provided the basis for the development of the $1 billion strawberry industry in Spain – a win-win that would not have been possible without partnerships built on IP.  That relationship has benefited both parties – Spain has a valuable new market and UCD receives royalty income from Spanish growers to support further research.

 

As a British national, it is not surprising that I advocate a strategy that will benefit the UK.  However, I spent more than 20 years working for the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), which is committed to the global development of agriculture. This experience taught me that successful agriculture globally depends on individual countries wisely investing and protecting their research – the best way to achieve results is not for countries to give away their research for free…

 

In an article for Science for Sustainable Agriculture in January 2024, plant scientist Professor Tina Barsby called for a radical rethink of how we incentivise the delivery of agricultural innovation in the UK, asking why UK leadership in academic science has not translated into leadership in agricultural productivity growth or positioned the UK as a major destination for private sector investment in agricultural innovation. 

 

IP needs to be an integral part of that rethink, as does the closer involvement of industry alongside Government and the science base. 

 

The plant breeding sector in the Netherlands, for example, punches well above its weight in providing the genetic foundation for the remarkable success of its horticulture industry. One of the factors underpinning that success appears to be a coordinated approach to research and innovation known as the “Triple Helix” or “Golden Triangle”.   

 

Last year’s House of Lords report into the English horticulture sector noted that: “During the [Parliamentary] Committee’s visit to the Netherlands, we heard about the triple helix. The triple helix model […] involves public-private cooperation between industry, academia and the Dutch government and applies across sectors. The Environmental Horticulture Group told us this model means that research is applied by industry without duplication and is aligned with government policy delivery, ensuring it is applicable in practice.”

 

Drawing on these examples with regard to the UK’s new Soft Fruit GIN, it would be useful to understand to what extent the domestic soft fruit breeding industry and growers were involved in the decision to include potential future crops for the UK such as honeyberry and blueberry, how the research outputs will be designed to benefit UK breeders and growers, and whether a strategy is in place to develop a protected UK pipeline of new varieties. 

 

The following chart underlines the UK’s dependence on imported varieties of various soft fruit crops, including those prioritised by the Soft Fruit GIN.

 

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Defra/APHA Seeds Gazette, Special Edition, September 2024

​

​In the case of blueberry, for example, which is not a traditional UK crop but is an established and globally significant crop worth billions of dollars, there is extensive breeding activity taking place outside the UK. There do not appear to be any UK-based commercial breeders of blueberries, raising fundamental questions about the economic benefit and return to the UK taxpayer if the outputs of the Soft Fruit GIN pre-breeding activities result in ‘freely-available’ traits or breeding material of value.   

 

At the same time, for a traditional UK crop such as blackberry, there is extensive breeding work in the USA, including the development of seedless and thornless varieties.  However, it appears that blackberry varieties are not currently being bred in the UK, underlining the need for effective use of IP to ensure the Soft Fruit GIN work delivers benefits for UK growers and a return for the UK taxpayer.  

 

The situation for strawberry and raspberry is different, because there are UK breeders of these crops, and it will be crucial for the Soft Fruit GIN to engage with those breeders in its work. With regard to strawberry, however, it should also be noted that NIAB’s strawberry breeding programme, including the strawberry varieties within the Malling™ Fruits portfolio, was recently acquired by the German-owned group Bayer Crop Science.

 

Also included in the Soft Fruit GIN programme is Haskap (honeyberry), an edible blue honeysuckle, native to northern hemisphere countries including Canada, Japan and Russia, with the botanical name Lonicera caerulea.  Breeding is already taking place around the world, including in Canada and the USA, with a number of varieties protected in the UK. 

 

Underlining previous points about the effective use of IP, the University of Saskatchewan in Canada started breeding efforts with honeyberry in the 1990s, assessing material originating from Japan and Russia. The work was funded initially through university investments and provincial government grants, but is now self-funded, supported by PBR based royalties.

 

While it is always worth considering the potential of “new” crops such as honeyberry - the global growth of kiwifruit and blueberry are a testimony to that - success for such crops will depend on the development of a commercial market, requiring considerable investment in addition to any scientific work. Therefore, it would seem sensible for the UK Soft Fruit GIN to work with international partners in exploring and developing the potential of the honeyberry crop in the UK.

 

In conclusion, the decision to increase public sector funding for translational plant science which improves the chances of early-stage genetic discoveries reaching commercial application is to be welcomed and applauded, but making the results of such research freely available - particularly in crops which have no UK-based breeding programmes – may simply hand the economic benefit to our competitors. The UK Government needs to think more strategically about the effective use of IP protection, and learn from other countries’ approaches to prioritising and protecting the outputs of publicly funded agricultural research, to ensure the primary economic benefit is derived by UK breeders and growers and, therefore, ultimately the UK economy.

 

Peter Button has unique international expertise in the role of Intellectual Property in supporting agricultural innovation. He retired last year as Vice Secretary-General at the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), based in Geneva, an intergovernmental organisation whose mission is to provide and promote an effective system of plant variety protection, with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties of plants for the benefit of society. Originally from a UK commercial plant breeding background, Peter previously served in technical advisory roles in the UK with the British Society of Plant Breeders (BSPB) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food (MAFF).