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. The Effects of Attendance on Academic Performance: Panel Data Evidence for Introductory Microeconomics
2. Yield curve analysis
3. Tastes, castes, and culture: The influence of society on preferences
4. The use of formal education in Denmark 1980-1992
5. The name is absent
6. Beyond Networks? A brief response to ‘Which networks matter in education governance?’
7. The name is absent
8. European Integration: Some stylised facts
9. Ahorro y crecimiento: alguna evidencia para la economía argentina, 1970-2004
10. Benefits of travel time savings for freight transportation : beyond the costs
11. Wage mobility, Job mobility and Spatial mobility in the Portuguese economy
12. The Advantage of Cooperatives under Asymmetric Cost Information
13. The Variable-Rate Decision for Multiple Inputs with Multiple Management Zones
14. Altruism and fairness in a public pension system
15. Review of “From Political Economy to Economics: Method, the Social and Historical Evolution of Economic Theory”
16. Modelling Transport in an Interregional General Equilibrium Model with Externalities
17. The name is absent
18. The name is absent
19. Learning-by-Exporting? Firm-Level Evidence for UK Manufacturing and Services Sectors
20. Stakeholder Activism, Managerial Entrenchment, and the Congruence of Interests between Shareholders and Stakeholders