Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

2019 Edition
| Editors: David M. Kaplan

Intellectual Property and Food

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1179-9_372



Many foods and food crops are covered by intellectual property rules. Intellectual property laws allow people to protect ideas and inventions by preventing other people from copying, using, imitating, importing, or selling the protected subject matter. These protections come in several different varieties, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights, as well as trade secret protections. These rights provide those who possess them, for a limited time, with exclusive claims that cover inventions, discoveries, or original expressions. Intellectual property protections originally applied primarily to mechanical inventions – new machines for moving stones or weaving cloth. As intellectual property law has grown, it has expanded to new areas, to cover different forms of creativity and different products, including foods, agricultural crops, and even living (nonhuman) animals. At present, US law supports intellectual property protection for...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Hettinger, E. C. (1989). Justifying intellectual property. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18, 31–52.Google Scholar
  2. Hughes, J. (1988). The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law Journal, 77(2), 287–366.Google Scholar
  3. Jaffe, A. B., & Lerner, J. (2004). Innovation and its discontents. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Janis, M., & Kesan, J. (2002). Intellectual property protection for plant innovation. Nature Biotechnology, 20, 1161–1164. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v20/n11/full/nbt1102-1161.html
  5. Kuflik, A. (1995). Moral foundations of intellectual property. In D. Johnson & H. Nissenbaum (Eds.), Computers, ethics, and social values (pp. 169–180). Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Magnus, D. (2002). Intellectual property and agricultural biotechnology. In G. McGee (Ed.), Who owns life? (pp. 265–276). New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  7. Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Percy Schmeiser. (2004). 1. S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34.Google Scholar
  8. Moore, A. (2008). Personality-based, rule-utilitarian, and Lockean justifications of intellectual property. In H. Tavani & K. Himma (Eds.), Information and computer ethics (pp. 105–130). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Moore, A. (2011). Intellectual Property. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford: The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intellectual-property/. Accessed Mar 2014.
  10. Ossorio, P. (2007). The human genome as common heritage common sense, or legal nonsense? The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 35(3), 435–439. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2007.00165.x/pdf
  11. Schechter, R. E., & Thomas, J. R. (2003). Intellectual property: The law of copyrights, patents, and trademarks. St. Paul: West Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Sease, E., & Hodgson, R. (2006). Plants are properly patentable under prevailing U.S. law, and this is good public policy. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 11, 327–351.Google Scholar
  13. Streiffer, R. (2006). Academic freedom and academic-industry relationships in biotechnology. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 16(2), 129–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tansey, G., & Rajotte, T. (2008). The future control of food. London: Earthscan. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/trade_defin.jsp

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyIowa State UniversityAmesUSA