SweeTango Lawsuit Yields Looming Questions

The new apple variety SweeTango has created both excitement and controversy since it was introduced a couple years ago. Now, a legal battle in the state of Minnesota is pitting some of the state’s growers against the University of Minnesota (which bred the apple) and Pepin Heights Orchards and The Next Big Thing (the grower and co-op responsible for marketing SweeTango). The case will likely have major implications not just for this new variety, but for the breeding and introduction of any new variety in the future.

The lawsuit was originally filed in June 2010 by a group of growers who argued that the licensing agreement between the university and the co-op limited production and sales of SweeTango to a select group. They also claim that a university breeding program funded by the public should not be able to make money from such an agreement.

The case was ordered into mediation in February by a district judge who dismissed most of the plaintiffs’ claims; however, no settlement was reached through the mediation, which means the lawsuit heads back to court.

It could be months before a decision on the case is reached. But it’s not too early to consider the long-term effects this dispute will have on the apple industry — especially if the plaintiffs win their case.

Real Concerns, And Some Answers

Go to the Pepin Heights Orchards website, and you will find a detailed Q&A section covering the lawsuit. It’s somewhat surprising, given the company’s involvement in the case, to see such open communication. While you obviously have to consider the answers are coming from the defendant’s perspective, the discussion raises several important points.

For example, one section clearly explains why some new varieties are introduced via a managed program. “This is still a new variety, so restrictions have been placed on everyone who is currently growing it, including Pepin Heights,” the section notes. “It needs to be treated carefully as we see how it develops — how it grows, when it matures, when is the best time to harvest it, how long it can be stored while still keeping its quality. Just one grower harvesting too early or too late, or storing too long, could hurt the quality of their apples and the reputation of all SweeTango apples. It’s about quality control, which is good for consumers and growers.” Honeycrisp is cited as an example of a variety that, while successful, was negatively affected when it was grown in the wrong conditions.

Another section of the site addresses the question of whether growers who are not connected to SweeTango will go out of business. “If SweeTango is the long-term success we all hope it will be, Minnesota apple growers will further benefit, because as we’ve seen with Honeycrisp, among other varieties, new, quality apples get people talking about our products. And that excitement creates more demand for other quality apples, pulling consumers away from our real competitors, which are unhealthy snacks.”

The Bigger Picture

So what might happen if the plaintiffs were to win this case? As it turns out, quite a bit.

• It could lead to even more confusion over what constitutes a “managed variety.” It’s clear such confusion already exists: Just a year ago, we reported on four new apple varieties coming out of the Cornell University breeding program. This news story resulted in several comments we received from growers in New York who felt they were going to be denied access to them, even though it was made clear all New York growers would be able to obtain the right to grow them.

• Along these lines, the future of university breeding programs could be put at huge risk. The University of Minnesota has been criticized for earning millions in royalties from SweeTango, even though it is publicly funded. While this may be a legitimate debate, if the case goes against the university, how many breeding programs are going to want to put themselves at a similar risk?

• Quality is going to become more important than ever for new varieties, and that might be enough. Most managed varieties are developed not just to maintain a high price, but also high quality. Going back to the Honeycrisp example, it’s tough to maintain quality standards when you can’t control production.

Even when the lawsuit ends, the debate will be far from over. Stay tuned for next month’s issue, when we will dig even deeper into this topic.