AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE PRODUCTION EFFECTS OF ADOPTING GM SEED TECHNOLOGY: THE CASE OF FARMERS IN ARGENTINA



TABLE 6. New Transgenic Varieties Registered in Argentina (1995-2003)73

__________________Soybean_________________

_____________________Corn_____________________

Year

Transgenic

Non
transgenic

Total Transgenic as
______
% of Total

Total

Conventional

IMI (Non-

GMO)

Transgenic

Transgenic as
% of Total

1995

-

8

8     0.0

34

^33

1

^0

0.0

1996

5

11

16    31.3

33

32

1

0

0.0

1997

12

23

35    34.3

47

46

1

0

0.0

1998

18

18

36    50.0

42

32

2

8

19.0

1999

28

13

41    68.3

58

39

10

9

15.5

2000

19

7

26    73.1

49

31

3

15

30.6

2001

32

3

35    91.4

82

51

1

30

36.6

2002

13

2

15    86.7

55

36

2

17

30.9

2003

9__________

-

9     100.0

39___

24__________

1____________

14_________

35.9__________

In contrast to the situation in the United States, companies in Argentina cannot
look for patent protection for new varieties or genetically modified organisms. Despite
the many changes to the law and the demand for new technologies in genetics, the new
legal framework does not allow for strict property rights protection via a patent system;
new genetically modified varieties must resort to the same weak protection as other
varieties.

From 1864 to 1995, the patent system in Argentina was regulated by Law 111.74
This law did not specify any particular regulation with respect to plants, but during this
period there were no patent applications for a new variety. Furthermore, all the matters
with regard to plant varieties were derived from the regulations of Law No. 2024775 and,
later, Law No. 24376.76 In 1995, Congress enacted new patent laws modifying Law No.
111 (Law Nos. 24481 and 24572).77 According to the new regulatory framework, the
patenting of new plants is expressly prohibited, although it does not specify new plant
varieties.78 Furthermore, patenting of new varieties is not legally possible, as the law of
1994 adhered to UPOV 1978, which prohibited a regulatory system of double protection.

73 See Domingo (2003), at 9.

74 See Rapela (2000).

75 See Law No. 20247 (Mar. 30, 1973), Poder Ejecutivo Nacional, April 16, 1973, B.O. No. 22648.
available at http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/30000-34999/34822/norma.htm.
76
See Law No. 24376 (Oct. 20, 1994), supra note 79.

77 See RAPELA (2000), at 74.

78 “Since the Patent law in Argentina prohibits the patenting of plants, in fact prohibits the patenting
of varieties since, even though not all plants can be labeled as plant varieties, all plant varieties are
composed by plants without exception
.” See id. at 151. (author translation from the original: “[L]a ley
de patentes de Argentina al prohibir taxativamente el patentamiento de plantas esta, de hecho,
prohibiendo el patentamiento de variedades ya que, si bien no todas las plantas pueden ser
categorizadas como variedades vegetales, todas las variedades vegetales estan compuestas por plantas
sin excepcion alguna.”).

17



More intriguing information

1. Studies on association of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi with gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus and its effect on improvement of sorghum bicolor (L.)
2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
6. The name is absent
7. Measuring and Testing Advertising-Induced Rotation in the Demand Curve
8. 03-01 "Read My Lips: More New Tax Cuts - The Distributional Impacts of Repealing Dividend Taxation"
9. Social Cohesion as a Real-life Phenomenon: Exploring the Validity of the Universalist and Particularist Perspectives
10. A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ALTERNATIVE ECONOMETRIC PACKAGES: AN APPLICATION TO ITALIAN DEPOSIT INTEREST RATES