Episode 9: The Ever-Growing Sweet Cherry – Rethinking Dormancy in a Warming Climate

Welcome to another episode of Seeds of Tomorrow. I am Melissa Laurentiis, and today we're talking about what really takes to bring a new fruit variety to market, how breeders decide where to invest, what innovation looks like in the field, and why interactive property protection is central in making those investments possible.

I'm delighted to welcome our guest, Alan Narini. Alana. Welcome. Thank you. She is chief legal officer at Bloom Fresh. Alana sits at the intersection of breeding, investment, licensing and enforcement at the moment when the sector is dealing with climate pressure, fast moving to markets and very real infringement risk across borders. And joining me as a course, it's Monse. Hello, Monce.

Hello, Monce. Garcia Moncofuente is our head of the legal unit at the CPPO. Before we we start, we dig into this question. One quick note. Today's discussion is for insight and understanding on how the system works in practice, not legal advice for any specific situation. This I felt I have to add this disclaimer having two legal minds with me today.

And to set the scene, Broom Fresh has been showing up in the headlines for three kinds of reasons, mostly investment in breeding infrastructure, expansion into new geographies like India and high profile enforcement outcomes including China and Italy lately. But let's start broad. Can you tell us what Bloom Fresh is and does?

Yeah. So Bloom Fresh is a breeder we invest into breeding new varieties for the benefit of growers, retailers and consumers. Our breeding program is focused on three crops. So we have table grapes, which is grapes you buy from the supermarket eating grapes, cherries and blueberries. We then, once we develop these varieties, we license them all over the world and if the growers produce fruit that meets our minimum quality standards, we also license to them a trademark which they may sell the fruit under.

OK. So from the start, strong licensing model and global testing footprint. And when you look at Europe specifically, what do you see has blown fresh roll in the European fruit sector over the next five years, Transactor and your niche platform for your own supply or something else? Yeah. So it's quite interesting in the breeding space, the breeding process takes quite a long time. So we're engaged in traditional breeding, which is crossing and selecting.

So it can take up to 10 years to bring a new variety to market. And I suppose the challenge that we face as a company is we need to work out what the market wants in 10 years time. So the core focus of our breeding program is on bringing diverse flavour profiles and diverse fruit to consumers, so consumers have more consumer choice.

Within that space, we are developing varieties with different flavour profiles. So you have the candy line which has more of a caramel or a butterscotch flavour profile. We have more recent varieties which are mango flavoured, mint flavoured and then of course breeding for shelf life, firmness and all the kind of qualities that consumers are desiring. We then are looking at health benefits, so breeding grapes that can bring more or greater health benefits to consumers. And a key product we're working on there is our red red Berry grapes which have a red flesh and by virtue of that have higher levels of anti cyanides.

And finally, a core part of our breeding program is focused on disease resistance. And so this has health and sustainability benefits. The disease resistant varieties will enable growers to grow crops with less pesticides and chemicals, which is obviously then better for human health, but also will have less impact on the environment and will also allow growers to grow more with less being able to kind of adapt in this challenging environment that we're in.

And I think finally with our cherries and blueberries, we are investing into bringing varieties to the market that can grow in different environments. So varieties that require low lower chill levels and this can combat issues around climate change. Just touch up on so many subjects. I would love to develop more when varieties good enough. You approve the trademark for the for the Grovers. Am I getting this right?

That's right. Now you have a, you have a double perspective I may say. So Europe and the world where in Europe what there are the countries that for you are strategic and what strategic means for you in terms of consumption because there are there are ports, there are trade UPS or because they influence variety adoption trends.

As you just mentioned, you are following the what the markets wants, but you also looking into the future and perhaps also setting the scene for the future since it takes 10 more years to bring a variety to the table. Yeah, exactly. So we're branching out now into newer markets. So as you mentioned previously, we're looking at China and India in particular, bringing our existing genetics there and also looking to what these markets may need in the future.

And then with our low chill varieties, we're looking at well new markets where these potential varieties could grow, where these crops wouldn't traditionally grow. So you just mentioned India and I know that Broom Fresh was present at the India Field Day in February 2036 where you showcased new varieties in terms of adoption and success.

What is the main driver here to grow economics? The nursery capacity, market pool, harvest performances, quality, quantity or a combination of all the above? Yeah, definitely a combination of all of the above and maybe even more. So entering a new market, there's various things we need to consider.

You go in the 1st and you need to do all your modelling, your tax considerations. You need to look at the law and see what level of protection is offered. Particularly in India, they have quite a unique model. So it's not quite you POV. They have legislation that's called I believe it's plant breeders and farmers rights.

So you need to incorporate all of these things at the asset into your licensing model. Then the next step is of course nursery. So you, you can't deliver your varieties unless you have a nursery that you're working with, they understand your protocols, how to produce the plants and also the various phytosanitary issues with getting plant material into a new market.

We then work with growers. So we need to showcase our varieties. We need to get them interested in our program, why our varieties will perform there and, and often we showcase our varieties in other jurisdictions where they've been tested and proved and we can show you that in other jurisdictions that may have similar climatic conditions they have performed like this. And then another aspect in these countries is working out the model.

So China and India, you have a lot of very small farmers and how is it best to to communicate and to provide our technical guidance to these small farmers. And often we will try and align ourselves with bigger growers in the market and we have a program called train the trainer. And so the bigger companies to source from smaller growers, we teach them and then they will flow on the training to smaller growers.

Your capacity building, you are trying to get everyone on your same protocols, training trainers as you said, and to sort of organizing the, the, the whole process abiding to your standards worldwide. If you were to, you mentioned before the I read that you are trying to lead the flavour revolution somewhere in the, in the press and with the traits like disease resistance, climate resilience and even the antioxidant that you just mentioned.

If you had to reduce refresh innovation strategy to three drivers and just these three, what would be the the podium? It would be health, sustainability and diversity. So bringing in as to the last one, bringing kind of more diverse fruit for consumer selection. OK, back to Europe now, more precisely in Spain, and this question is linked to infrastructure.

I know that in the region of Murcia you have started building a major breeding and technology centre in Blanca and you expect completion by 2026. Now very close to home, we are our suffer in the process of moving to our new premises and so we are building our building and while we we, we can't understand that there is no perfect plan in the world and we are we are experiencing some delays.

Is your timeline going to be respected? What will this facility allow you to do that you couldn't do before? So I think yes, we're, we're on track might be slightly delayed, but very much on on track to to open our facility this year. And I think the scale of what we're doing is a lot bigger now. So we we'll have the resources, the equipment to to fast track the breeding process and then also incorporating into this use of of gene technology into the process of traditional breeding, but those so you can fasten up the process of crossing and selecting.

Since you are going to be in a in a region that is very dense in terms of knowledge, are you willing or are you considering to partnership with the university growers and distributors across this region to accelerate even more your research? In terms of research, we are cooperating with many institutes and universities around the world, with various projects, not just limited to Spain.

Considering all these aspects, I'd like to circle back to the beginning when you briefly mentioned sustainability and climate pressures. With these policies aiming to reduce pesticide views by 50% by 2030 and our food system facing increasing head waves, droughts, and extreme weather, how do these environmental pressures practically translate into your breeding priorities? This seems especially relevant since you're installing your Research Center in an area that is heavily impacted by these exact events.

Well, I think that's the that's the key in the heart of our breeding program is to develop genetics that can survive in different climatic areas, can withstand changes in environmental conditions and that we're able to produce more with less, particularly in the context where you have prices of inputs that are increasing. We have pressures on water and then we have the pressures on the environment from the chemical residue. OK, so maybe I can now join the conversation. So hello again, Alan, It's, it's really, really nice to have you here today.

And, and, and I would like to, to, to bring the, this, this conversation into well, starting with something that you said you when Alessia asked you, how would you define yourself? The first term that came to, to you was breather. And, and this is a very nice term because indeed now in into breathing sector is, is really in a moment of transformation with the new, you know, techniques.

And of course, I cannot but bring this to the to the discussion because we are now achieving finally what seems to be well, we are in the final steps, if I may say, of these new regulation and new genomic techniques. Precisely you were talking about how important it is for you as breeder cell. So, and these, these, these development of new varieties with these healthier conditions, these flavor conditions, so all these of course the new genomic techniques might play a key role in, in, in allowing a faster development of, of these varieties.

So now that we are in this impasse from a legislative perspective in which we are what seems to be reaching the end of, of, of these and hopefully we will soon have a, a, a regulation. And so from a breeder's perspective, from your perspective as breeder, what would be a good outcome of this regulatory process both for innovation, So what would be really something that would sustain and and promote the innovation in in your company, but also for public trust? Yeah.

So definitely you need a system here which which balances the interests and of course we want to be bringing varieties to the world to consumers that that are healthy and that have been trialled. Our program currently focuses on traditional breeding, crossing and selecting and we're increasingly using technology to speed up that process.

Now, as we're seeing with changes in the EU and also this week the changes in Peru and elsewhere around the world, there is definitely we're looking at as an organization this field, what's available and how kind of in the in the next decade as an organization, where we should be and how we should be deploying new technologies to better bring fruits to consumers and to society in accordance with these regulatory frameworks. And and and following that, would that precisely with the proposal that now we have on the table, would that be a a suitable proposal for you?

Would you think that for Bloom Fresh that would be something I mean in terms of also for example of transparency or the licenses, the patents and so on, would that really be something positive you would consider that in as a positive outcome? Well, the key thing I think we're we would like to see as a an organization is, is opening up of being able to do anything in gene technology in Europe. So movement to looking that we could I think is the baseline companies could commercialize something that could have been produced through conventional breeding methods. So I think that's really the benchmark for us. OK, that's interesting.

OK. Maybe changing a bit a bit towards what would be with the CPVR system because of course the NGT is very much on trend, but of course we are the CPVO, we're managing the CPVR system and and from our perspective, of course, the objective is to have an efficient EUI plan, variety rights systems that supports innovations and new varieties for society. But when you look at your internal investment decisions in terms of IP or at least protection of of these new varieties that you are developing that you're breathing, considering not only the budget but also building program horizons or or even the markets themselves. What role does the CPVR system place today? Yeah.

So the CPVR regulations are based off You POV and to date have been the development has been governed by what the You POV convention sets. And just to take a step back and look at it more holistically, the You POV system was developed with arable seed crops in mind. That's where it came from. And a lot of the concepts in the legislation are focused at seed crops. So farm safe seed and also kind of the exhaustion concepts. So I think and the the system has developed to also apply to asexually reproduced crops, but I think there are a lot of aspects of the system that haven't really kept pace with these developments.

In particular, when you look at fruit crops and particularly our crops, a lot of the investment and the innovation is focused on the harvested material. But EU POV system focuses really on the propagating material and provides an indirect extension of the right to harvested material. So a key thing for us is if we're spending the money and doing everything focused on something that's not directly protected, the system is not fit for purpose.

And something that we would really like to see is direct protection for harvested material. This would make enforcement a lot easier and would give us the rights we needed to directly protect our innovation as a company. And we support Seapora's thoughts on this. We see you POV as a minimum standard rather than a maximum standard.

So we're looking at now that the CPVO is looking to review its legislation and that's something we would like the CPVO to take into account. And then maybe it could go a bit further in offering particularly protection for asexually crops that is broader and more suited to our needs. So I think that's from the protection standpoint.

On the protection standpoint, I think that what the CPVR does great is that it offers quite long protection. So you've got, I think it's 3030 years and 25 years depending on the crop that that's very useful and that that really helps us with a lot of our investment decisions and kind of where to start off, because we have that protection, that long protection in the EU. Some of the shortcomings though are the provisional protection and how that has been interpreted by the European Court of Justice.

That is kind of, I suppose it's the double edged sword. You have the longer protection, but the provisional protection is effectively nothing. And so that is definitely impacting how we see the system outside of the law itself. In relation to administration of the registration as a company, we think we see it as too expensive and too long to get the grants of the right and this can stifle the business quite a bit. Particularly in in the context of the provisional, the lack of provisional protection that is afforded. So we'd really like to see a quicker and cheaper application procedure in relation to enforcement. Now I know this is not the remit of the CPVO, but I understand that the CPVO does have an

interest and does explore ways in which breeders could effectively enforce their rights. And of course this is very important because if we just have a right that you can't enforce, then the right is useless. And it's really difficult in the breeding sector to enforce your rights. Why? Because often our varieties are spread out across very, very remote areas.

We don't know where they're growing. So you need to identify infringements. Then we need to try and get some of the material and we need to conduct DNA testing on it. Then we get to the process of a court case, which can be very long and require a lot of investment. I think systems of enforcement are very important and how we how different authorities can work together utilizing customs authority, customs enforcement, working with phytosanitary authorities.

Phytosanitary authorities often have a lot of information on where varieties are growing. They take samples. So that's really we see is a good point where breeders can work with to get the material to test it and it slides just into a a new system that's already working. So yeah, in a nutshell, I think from an enforcement perspective, we would really be interested to work more with the CPVO in in awareness and working out how to to more effectively enforce the rights that we have. OK, that's, that's good because you're just now covering what was what was supposed to be my last question. If you could have like, if you could change something of the CPBR system, what would it be precisely in line with the, with this new, with this evaluation

that it's, that it's ongoing and, and in fact, I hope that you participate in the public consultation that it's open until the 20th of April on, on the CPBR system. But anyhow, I mean, you have addressed so many topics. They are always very interesting. Maybe some, some, some notes from my side.

And also to get your feedback, because in fact, you are mentioning the, the, the question of the harvesting material. It's true that there is this cascade protection and it's true that the harvested material, it's subject to a stronger condition. So it's true that it's not the same level of of protection, but I don't know if you're following the the works at UPOF level this report that has been that is being discussed on harvested material. I don't know if you are aware of of the proposals and if you have any particular thoughts or consideration on that is that would that be something that could somehow and of course, I mean you both remains you both framework. There is no change there.

But I don't know if that proposal concerning infringement in outside so in third countries that would be something that from your perspective would be would would somehow alleviate your concerns. So I'll reiterate that our strong preference is direct protection of the harvested material. But if we were to step back and look at the current you POV framework and what it offers, so it provides that protection for the harvested material or the fruit is offered if two preconditions are met.

So the first one is that the production of the propagating material was unauthorized. And then the second is that the breeder didn't have a reasonable opportunity to exercise its rights over the propagating material in relation to the first aspects that the production of the propagating material was unauthorized and in the context of like cross-border situations. So I think the first point we look at is, well, how about in those countries which don't offer protection at all. And I that's been alluded to in the the you POV papers. So definitely there we would say, well, you don't have a reasonable opportunity because there's no PBR protection there. But I think you also have a situation where what happens if your PBR has run out in one

country, but it's it still has PBR in the the destination country. I would also say in that circumstance that you haven't had a reasonable opportunity to exercise your right and you should still be able to exercise your opportunity over the harvested material. Otherwise the protection of the harvested material is futile and it's not protecting the direct innovations that we're working towards. And in relation to what is a reasonable opportunity, it's it leaves it very much open to what that means and what a court could interpret that to mean.

Many, many years ago there was a court case in Australia which looked at this in the context of grains and the court had a good interpretation of the principal. They said, well, you're a reasonable opportunity to exercise that right is at the time of contracting. So in the contract the grower, the breeder could say, well, we exercise at the right on the harvested material. These are the conditions and limitations that attached to the harvested material.

And my interpretation is by virtue of that if you haven't had the opportunity to contract with the infringer, then you haven't had a reasonable opportunity to put in place your conditions and limitations. I think if we're to stick to what you POV provides us in this definition, what would be helpful from the supvo perspective is to maybe elaborate a non exhaustive list of what would be those reasonable opportunities. And then it's very clear and we don't need to go to court and argue about what's a reasonable opportunity. We can just point to the CPVO guidance or the regulations and say, well, this is deemed to be a reasonable opportunity or not. OK, that's, that's interesting.

I didn't know about this court case in Australia. So that's something I, I'm curious to look into that because there is, of course, you know, there is not much case law in general, or at least we, we have a caseload database, but it's, it's hard to, to fill it with, with relevant cases. So I, I will look into that. Yes, I think note of this proposal, I mean there, there are many, many proposals and, and, and it's, it's interesting to see exactly what would be also the good points into, into the, into the term of protection, the shortcomings that you're mentioning for the harvested material for the provisional protection and even these aspects of cost and even the, the duration of the test.

So I think this is something that yeah, I don't think that you're the only one that are mentioning this. So I hope that this will be finally that they will be addressed in this, in this evaluation that is taking place. But maybe coming to what would be this, this, this enforcement because it's true that you were indeed you are as as you rightly mentioned, it's not under the remit of the CPBO to deal with, with enforcement. But it's true that we are also concerned about the effectivity of the titles that we grant because it is also in order to, to really ensure that the innovation is Foster and there is a proper system of protection. This system of protection needs to be affected, so it needs to be effectively enforced as well.

So it's true that we are in engaging different activities in raising awareness with relevant actors in, in, in that area. And then you were in that case, you were also, well, you were mentioning difficulties in, in, in the, in how it's been detecting in DNA. So what could be according to you. So when you are confronted with an enforcement case, because you have had, I mean, Bloom Fresh has, has had very, some cases, very big cases of success, I would say, especially in Italy, in which I especially, well as, yeah, I recall particularly this case with almost, I think it was 750 K of, of, of damages, which is really the largest sum that I, I think that I'm aware of in terms of damages in the PVR

world, at least in Europe. So on one hand there is this aspect of difficulties, but at the same time you are indeed very active in the enforcement, at least from what I, I have heard in Italy. So what would work according to you and what could be done that so that it works better? Because also I don't know if you have different experiences in different countries, because of course we just from outside at least we know these success cases that you are, as we can see in in LinkedIn, in the news and so on.

But but then is it the strategy from your side only in to act, for example, in Italy? Are you acting in other countries? Exactly what works well and what could be improved? Yeah. So it's the approach in every country is very different because every country the the farming systems, the supply chains are very different. The rules are all different with enforcement, the the investigators you can work with are all different. So we develop a unique strategy for for each country that we're working in.

I think when some of the cases you may see in in the press are actually cases that have gone on for a very, very long time, so numerous, numerous years, a lot of money, court cases and appeals. It takes a it takes a long time. So there's a lot of perseverance there. What would and we will continue to to fight all enforcement when we see it and to the NTH degree because we owe that duty to our licensees like the the growers who who are our partners and who pay the royalties and to stamp out any any illegal activity.

The key issues that we face is proving the varieties, our variety, which our view is that rely solely on Adna test. If we can prove through DNA that that variety is our variety, then the burden should then slip onto the other party to disprove that in any way they can. But DNA today is very effective and you can really distinguish the varieties.

So I think that's the first one, reliance on DNA. The second one is trying to avoid court procedures where possible. And this is what we're doing a lot of work on is trying to work with countries, phytosanitary authorities and other authorities where you can build in an enforcement system within an existing system.

So many countries if they want to export plant material, if they want to export fruit, the country needs to the grower or the pack house needs to apply for a code. So we've in when they do the checks to issue the code, the photo sanitary authorities will look at diseases. They go and visit the the farm, they take samples, they look at the quantity of fruit that's being produced in the quantity with that will be exported. And if you can just add into that procedure one further check, which is, is the fruit PBR protected? And if it is, do you have authorization? And that simple check makes a a huge difference. And furthermore, it protects the the national industry and the reputation because I think

countries when you're exporting, they want to maintain that they have fruit that's IP compliant and they don't want to be exporting and seeing at the destination market the fruit being confiscated at customs. So I think working and this comes back into the educational piece, working with countries, national countries to show why PBR is important.

Where there's illegal production, there's often other kind of illegal things or legal rules that the growers or pack houses are jumping. And to create a holistic approach that when looking at other aspects, we're also looking at PBR and whether these growers are authorized because it's a really important part of the supply chain and to the reputation of the domestic produce industries.

That's that's thanks for for this. It's, it's really interesting this, this, this even this proposal on the faith to sanitary authorities maybe to follow up questions on what you were now just saying, because for me, it's good to hear that from your experience that DNA test is very effective. And, and why I'm saying that is because of also what we have been reported from, from other readers or, or even other actors in, in, in this, in this field is that not all, for example, not all court authorities accept DNA tests because of course we know that the well, the PVR system is based on the phenotype.

So there is an issue in in the fact that for some authorities, they they for example, they request AUS test to be to be performed or at least to complement the DNA so that they at least there is adna and then followed by by the varieties being grown. And this has brought in some occasions even. Well, this is something that I have been discussing in with with also with some lawyers there. They were asking whether it would not be possible to have like a common guidelines on on or a common approach on on establishment of identity.

So I don't know if if this is something that you have been confronted yourself. So issues with the with the with the potential use of DNA tests or whether in some countries they might have or some courts might have put into question the the reliability of this test. And in that case, how did you address that or if you haven't experienced that, I don't know if that has been the case. Yeah.

So we always work with certified labs in carrying out the DNA testing and generally the courts will accept it accept it. However, it will need to be submitted with expert testimony on on why the DNA test report is reliable. We often also see a court will request that fruit is taken. So fruit is taken from the infringing material and from the reference sample of our variety and compared side by side to see whether the varieties are the same.

That's quite efficient because you can take fruit and compare it. What is long and costly can be if a court orders that plants, a full DUS test is required. So where the two plants are grow on side by side and then someone needs to do a morphological assessment. That can take years to do and that's something we really want to avoid and we think is unnecessary.

I don't believe this is in Europe. Countries are requesting this, but we've seen it outside of Europe. Yes, I'm aware of also in Europe. I mean some countries it depends a lot. I mean the problem is that I mean that's what I, I have been reported in any case that it depends from country to country and and there is a lack of of course it's it's national procedure.

So that might bring also this, this extra layer of of difficulty, but it's good that at least in your experience, you, you, you were not confronted with that. So those issues and the DNA test were were accepted. That's at least a positive thing. Yeah. I think the key issue for us is in certain countries where you need to like notarize like very complicated evidentiary requirements around gathering the reference sample. Like for example, in China, the reference sample must come from the actual plant on which the DOS testing was conducted. And this creates all sorts of issues because like what happens if that plant dies or what happens if you want to move that plant to another location.

So being able to to use like reference samples that are not just like maybe a reference sample that's with the CPVO would also be helpful. So I think, yeah, having clear guidelines as well on what the input material should be for the purpose of DNA testing. And, and coming to that and also link to, to the IP forms that you are using, because then you were mentioning this phytosanitary authorities and if they could check the PVR protection when doing their check, of course, they, what do you think that I mean, would you see there a role? Well, it should be normally, but what would be for you the role of variety denominations?

Now why I'm saying this because then you have also understood that you have a strong practice on, on licenses. And I had the impression, but you might correct me that it's the license based on trademarks. Is that correct? Or is it the license on the PVR? Anyhow, I have noticed that the trademarks are really, it's a, it's a modeling which we're also investing a lot. It's, it's part of our licensing model. So we license PBRS and we license trademarks. The the core product we are licensing is the plant breeders rights.

We license trademarks from a quality perspective. So we say and the retailers will demand the trademarks. So we can say to the retailers we'll when sourcing your fruit source the fruit that's marketed under this trademark because we say to our growers that they're only allowed to use that trademark if it meets the quality standards.

So it's a way of regulating quality and being able to con communicate that to to retailers. OK, so that makes sense to me. So that's very, very interesting. I I'll pass the floor to Alicia. Lowly but surely, we are reaching out the end of our time together. I really want to thank you for your time and the insights you share today, especially regarding how you are sewing for the future.

As the British Alliance notes, and as we have corroborated, today, breeding can take over 15 years. Looking at your specific categories like table grapes, cherries, and blackberries, what is the single biggest systemic or technological change you want to see 10 years from now when the next generation of varieties come true?

I think direct protection for harvested material. I was hoping for less use of water, chemical pesticides and lamb. OK. In relation, OK, interesting In relation to law which we've been speaking about protect direct protection for harvested material and that will enable us to invest more back into our breeding program to develop varieties I think that are more sustainable. I wait we try to work on our breeding program throughout the whole supply chain.

So we start at the beginning. We want to be able to provide varieties to growers that they can produce more from that's sustainable has less impact on the variety the environment and in consequences of all of that is thereby healthier for the the ultimate consumer. So I think moving forward for Bloom, that's that's the key driver for us.

Thank you. I usually ask this question to breeders, but they know for a fact that they have two legal minds in front of me today. So I'll ask you this question in line with your job. If you were to speak to a law student today that is interested in AP, what would you say to him or her about where to focus their studies?

Very interesting intellectual intellectual property is a fascinating area. I was always drawn to plant breeders rights because I grew up on a farm and my my family used PBR protected varieties. And I remember when I was at university and I asked my dad what I should do my master's thesis on, He said to me do it on plant breeders rights because he's like, I've never met a lawyer that understands this area of law. So I think there's more and more work in plant breeders rights, there's more and more companies investing in this area and there really isn't a huge amount of lawyers in the world that that fully understand and and appreciate this area. I think it's a fascinating area.

It's in an industry which is developing rapidly in terms of technology and products. And it has this interesting balance of policy, protecting kind of traditional interests, making sure that plant material is available for the world, and then on the flip side, ensuring that companies are motivated to continue to invest into breeding.

So yeah, definitely, definitely advise getting into plant breeders rights or IP generally in the agricultural space. OK, thank you, Alan, Namon said. Thank you both for your time and thank you to everyone that has to nap here. This was season of tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe and follow the podcast. Season of Tomorrow is a podcast by the Community Plan Variety office where innovation takes root. I'm Alessia De Laurentiis signing out. Thanks for listening and see you in the next episode.

Episode 9: The Ever-Growing Sweet Cherry – Rethinking Dormancy in a Warming Climate

Kapitelklicken springt direkt hin

Shownotes

Transkriptvom Podcast bereitgestellt · Zeitmarken springen hin