The story raised the concerns of 24 scientists from the United States that public research into some biotechnology events was being limited by stewardship agreements.

Ms Matthewson said that biotechnology companies rely heavily on independent research when evaluating their products to ensure that commercialised products perform, are safe, and provide value to farmers.

She said biotechnology events had to undergo strict review before they could be introduced for use.

“Studies that raise new concerns or validate prior findings are reviewed and assessed to determine what additional research and development may be needed, and help inform decisions on future products,” she said.

Ms Matthewson claimed that the rationale behind stewardship agreements is to protect intellectual property and to ensure that biotech crops are managed responsibly in line with regulatory and industry stewardship requirements.

“Plant biotechnology companies have thousands of active agreements with universities and public sector institutions around the world and value the expertise researchers and collaborations can bring,” she said.

“Requiring researchers to obtain approval from the patent owner before conducting research does not imply that the patent owner must approve of the results or their disclosure.”

She said the author of the independent research, and not the patent owner has editorial control of the published research and that plant biotechnology companies do not censor, nor prohibit, the publication of research findings.

“In many cases, authors have come to conclusions with which the patent owner disagrees, and their conclusions have been published and our members continue to work with them and supply seed for their research.”