Please submit your concern

Explanation:

Refer to the first paragraph. The agribusiness MNCs were lobbying for a worldwide IPR regime, therefore, they cannot be going against their own point and say that we need to address problem of adverse consequences of genetically engineered crops. Thus, option 1 can be eliminated.
 There is no reference to fulfilling a WTO requirement. Consequently, we can do away with option 2 as well.
On the same lines, option 4 too can be eliminated. There is no mention of ‘giving credibility to innovations’ especially in the field of pharmaceuticals in the agreement. To quote from the paragraph, “TRIPs, for the first time, seeks to bring innovations in agricultural technology under a new worldwide IPR regime.” The paragraph further says, “The argument was that incentives are necessary to stimulate innovations, and that this calls for a system of patents which gives innovators the sole right to use (or sell/lease the right to use) their innovations for a specified period and protects them against unauthorised copying or use.” That sums up what is given in option 3, intellectual property has to be protected from unauthorised copying and incentives are to be provided for that.
Hence, the correct answer is option 3.