DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,LUCKNOW

LAW AND AGRICULTURE

FINAL DRAFT

JUSTIFICATION OF TRANSGENIC SEEDS, AGAINST FARMERS RIGHT TO LIVELIHOOD

Submitted To - Submitted By -

Mr Malay Pandey Kishan Gupta, Bharat Joshi And Aditya Sagar

Associate Prof. (Law) 150101072 , 150101037 & 150101008

Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University Semester - VIII

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We want to express uncommon much obliged and appreciation to our teacher Mr Malay Pandey
who gave us the brilliant chance to finalize this glorious research subject.

All through the exploration period, We have been guided by our educator at whatever point
were confronted any obstacles or were in a state of daze not having the capacity to resolve the
intricacies of the subject.

We want to thank my University, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia National Law University, Lucknow,
for giving us the opportunity to be a part of a novel exploration turned educational program
which without a doubt helps the comprehension of the subject.

We likewise want to thank our guardians, guides and well-wishers who have been a consistent
underpin and have sufficient energy and again looked into our work and have given their
experiences on the matter.

2|Page
Contents
OBJECTIVE.............................................................................................................4
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................4
Consequences of transgenic agriculture ................................................................5
Negative aspects ....................................................................................................8
Control of MNCs and impact on farmers ..............................................................9
Case of Indian farmers and the Indian seed industry ........................................11
Farmers' right to livelihood — analytical assessment and conclusion .............12

3|Page
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this project is to discuss in detail transgenic agriculture — what it entails for the
Indian agricultural scenario. It looks at both negative and positive aspects of this type of
agriculture. More importantly, the article attempts to understand the repercussions of
multinational corporations like Cargill and Mahyco in entering the Indian seed market and the
impact it would have on the farmers' rights to livelihood. This article begins by discussing
transgenic crops.

INTRODUCTION
Transgenic or genetic modification essentially occurs when scientists isolate genes from an
organism, and after manipulation in the laboratory, place them in another organism. Genetically
modified or transgenic agriculture, a by-product of genetically modified technology, covers in
essence those crops or plants that carry transgenic organisms, or rather, strands of foreign genetic
material within their cells. Scientists transplant genes of one species into another so as to transfer
“desirable” characteristics in the latter.

Genetic modification involves a special set of technologies, known as Recombinant DNA

Technology (R-DNA), which can alter genetic make-up of living organisms such as animals,
plants or bacteria by transferring DNA from one organism to another. The resulting organism is
said to be “genetically modified”, “genetically engineered” or “transgenic”.1

From 1970s onwards, rapid progress has been made in the technologies of genetic engineering of
micro-organisms and plants. There have been great strides in the kind of transgenic technologies
used to introduce foreign DNA into most crop plants recombinant DNA techniques, vectors for
cloning recombinant DNA, sequencing methodologies, high through-put instrumentation and
computational analysis of large sets of data.2

Now genes and genetic information can be mobilised from one organism to another, thus
widening the scope of genetic exchange far beyond that generally allowed by sexual

1
Elisabeth Verkey, Law of Plant Varieties Protection (1st Edn., Eastern Book Co., Lucknow, 2007).
2
Ramesh Chand (Ed.), India's Agricultural Challenges: Reflection on Policy, Technology and Other Issues (1st
Edn., Centre for Trade and Development, 2002).

4|Page
reproduction.3 This is the essence of transgenic technologies which have now vastly expanded
the scope of plant breeding as they allow mobilisation of genes from disparate, sexually
incompatible genome to crop species.

In the twentieth century, spectacular technological innovations in agriculture have had a

profound impact on agricultural output, food security and farm incomes. This Green Revolution
heralded a new era in the stability in yields to feed a growing population and in attempting to
consolidate farmer's livelihoods. Increasingly experimental transgenic are being developed in
many important crops.

The study in this project would be attempting to concentrate especially on the study of only
transgenic seeds and associated transgenic technologies and its impact on the farmers' right to
livelihood. There would be a brief discussion on GM technology and its various facets and then
narrow it down to a discussion on the impact on farmers and their livelihood and incomes. The
impact discussed here would be a wholesome approach where both the advantages and
disadvantages of transgenic seeds would be seen. Then the research would concentrate expressly
on the plight of farmers and the politics and economics involved with the power vested in a few
large companies. The study would also attempt to study as to what extent the farmers' rights to
livelihood are protected by legislation, with special reference to the Indian farmers and the
Indian seed industry. This would be discussed within the context of the Protection of Plant
Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR), Convention on Biodiversity Bill and other legislation.

Consequences of transgenic agriculture

The North American continent has been most enthusiastic in its response to transgenic seeds
in agriculture. China by all accounts has made it a top priority while many in Japan and Europe
are also warm to the idea of introducing it.4 As with any new technology, the potential benefits
of applying modern biotechnology and genetic engineering to food production are balanced by
concerns about potentially adverse effects.

Positive aspects

3
Percy Schmeiser, “Genetic Contamination and farmers’ Right”, available at URL
<http://www.percyschmeiser.com/> (last accessed 15-3-2019).
4
Melinda D. Ingco and John D. Nash, Agriculture and the WTO: creating a trading system for development (1st
Edn., World Bank, New Delhi, 2005).

5|Page
 There has been a rapid adoption of transgenic crops, both in developed and in developing
countries. This is testimony to the popularity of transgenic seeds with the farmers. Based on data
from 1999, it has been commercially estimated that the global economic advantage to farmers
planting transgenic crops is about US $710 million. Transgenic soybean, cotton and canola
accounted for about 61%, 35% and 9% respectively.

Worldwide, a large number of transgenic have been developed in laboratories for incorporating a
variety of traits of high agronomic importance:

• Resistance to insect pests, for example, cotton and maize with toxin encoding strains from
a bacterium called Bacillus Thuringiensis (BT) genes5;

• Resistance to fungal and bacterial pathogens;

• Resistance to viral pathogens by introducing pathogen derived sequences;

• Resistance to herbicides like glyphosate resistance in soybean, rapeseed, canola, maize

which saves the farmers larger input costs on artificial herbicides;

• Also is the innovation of glufosinate ammonium tolerant canola and plants such as
melons, papaya and squash with resistance to disease caused by specific plant viruses.6
These are just “first generation transgenic”.7

• Increase in shelf life by retarding fruit senescence using antisense approaches or RNAi
containing transgenic;

• Modification of qualitative traits like fatty acid composition, increase in protein/amino

acid content and production of essential micronutrients and removal of anti-feedants.

Moreover, with the introduction of a newer “second generation” of GM foods proposed for
agriculture, there would be enhanced and improved tolerance to abiotic stresses such as drought,
high salt soils and heavy metal contamination; increased yield potential; improved nutritional

5
Ghayur Alam, State of Indian Farmer: A Millennium Study—Technology Generation and IPR Issues (1st Edn.,
Academic
6
Ashok Gulati, Trade Liberalisation and Food Security: Challenges to Indian Policy Makers (Indian Council for
Research on International Economic Relations, Delhi, 2000).
7
K. Ravi Srinivas, “Sustainable Agriculture, Biotechnology and Emerging Global Trade Regime” (1996) 31
Economic and Political Weekly 1922.

6|Page
quality or medicinal value which could be vehicles for the delivery of oral vaccines and could
also double as factories for the production of pharmaceutical proteins or industrial polymers.

In addition, another important aspect of transgenic technologies and seeds is that they will be
able to circumvent the difficulties of sterility and linkage drag which do not allow the successful
incorporation of resistance conferring genes from the wild species to crop species. For example,
a large number of graminaceous species which are conducive to the cultivation of rice in the
north-east of India. They are not at all affected by the diseases indigenous to that region. These
genes could be then transferred to the rice to make them more resistant. Therefore, the window
of opportunity provided by the transgenic agriculture may be used for developing newer and
stronger varieties.

Many crops have multiple pests (4 lepidopteran and 2 sucking insects). Since no adequate
sources of resistance can be found in the germplasm. So the use of transgenic technologies is
necessary to combat such breeding difficulties.8 Biological nitrogen fixation was also identified
as another promising application, especially in the developing countries.

In fact, the Kisan Coordination Committee or KCC, the national coordinating body of non-
political farmers' organisation, after observing the comparative results of various cotton seeds
including BT or Bacillus Thuringiensis, reaffirmed its conviction that “the GM technology was
the only technology that helps the masses and is the prime mover of economic development and
appealed to scientists to come forward and join the farmers in helping them take up new
technology in the field of genetically modified organisms”.9

Farmers under Sharad Joshi resolved to plant the BT cotton under a nationwide civil
disobedience programme if the Government stuck to its stance of not allowing the cultivation of
BT seeds. The resolve was successful and now BT cotton is being planted all over except for the
areas in Northern India, including Punjab. Even the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company, along
with several universities and the Department of Agriculture conducted seminars to train the
farmers in planting BT cotton. These hybrids, when planted by about 55,000 farmers, were
harvested successfully and the advantages observed by the farmers in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil

8
John E. Smith, Biotechnology, 3rd Edn., Cambridge Low Price Editions, 1996).
9
The Kisan Coordination Committee three day workshop between 12-14 November, 2002 in Bharuch, Gujarat [see
Ghayur Alam, “Biotechnology, Agriculture and Developing Countries” (1996) 31 Economic and Political Weekly
703].

7|Page
Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra was that there was a higher yield, significant reduction
in the need of insecticide sprays, early maturity leading to availability of land for a second crop,
better quality cotton and thus improved price due to fuller bursting of the crop.10

Negative aspects
There is widespread concern that, despite the benefits promised by the introduction of GM
and transgenic seeds, including the claim that GMOs will be necessary to feed the world, there
could be harmful effects, particularly on the environment and health.

The planting of large areas of pest-resistant crops, for example, might quickly lead, through the
normal process of evolutionary selection, to a new variety of “superbugs” which are resistant to
the toxin added to the crop. There are also concerns about the effects of the particular herbicides
on soil organisms on which little research has been done. Transgenic crops and seeds like the
Cry1Ac gene affect butterflies and alter the soil microbiology and biodiversity of the area. 11

Or, the genes which have been added to some crop plants to make them immune to the effects of
particular herbicides might, through natural processes, end up in related wild plants, creating
“superweeds”, leading to the use of more and more harmful herbicides. Transgenes could escape
to related species by pollen flow and could convert wild relatives into superweeds. An example
cited for Europe is that transgenes conferring resistance to herbicides in rapeseed could move
into a semi-wild relative, the B.rapa, which is a problem weed in the rapeseed fields. After that, it
would become virtually impossible to control the weed once it has acquired the transgene that
confers the resistance to a certain herbicide. As a result, the herbicide would become ineffective.

There is the grave possibility of “genetic contamination” also. The movement of transgenes into
landraces and non-transgenic varieties is a major possibility. In most developing countries, farm
sizes are very small and the seed is locally exchanged. Therefore, it would be impossible to
maintain isolations. This could create “genetic pollution” and it could become invasive and
destroy precious biodiversity.

In addition, the movement of transgenes from transgenic to non-transgenic varieties could make
labelling GM foods and non-GM foods difficult and cumbersome. In developed countries,

10
Vibha Dewan, Biotechnology for Food and Nutritional Security [The Energy and Resources Institute
(TERI), Delhi, 2004].
11
Kevan Bundell, “Biotechnology and genetically modified organisms.

8|Page
labelling has led to the rise in a number of litigations.12 In developing countries, it would further
strain the already over-burdened legal system such as in places like India where “genetic
contamination” would not be easily traced due to the diffuse food processing sector.

Even health concerns have been raised where in a recent study in Madhya Pradesh, it was found
that farmers growing BT cotton had allergies including skin eruptions. The Cry1Ac gene is a
powerful immunogen and can elicit strong reactions from the immune system. It could enter the
human system and interfere with the working of the bacteria in the digestive system. Even the
Nptll gene which is used as a marker in the BT brinjal as well as the cauliflower mosaic virus
found in most transgenic varieties could lead to wasteful growth of gut tissues and proliferation
of intestinal tumours.

Control of MNCs and impact on farmers

But one of the most serious issues raised by the opponents of the genetically modified or
transgenic agriculture is the control exercised by the private sector. A huge proportion of
agricultural transgenic research is concentrated in the hands of about 15 large private firms in US
and Europe. Many of these are large seed and chemical Multinational Companies or MNCs. The
dominance of these firms is shown by the number of permits issued to them for trials of
genetically modified seeds. For example, in the United States alone, almost 50% of all the
permits issued between 1987 and 1993 were to only eight chemical and seed MNCs. These
included Monsanto (115 permits), Pioneer (38 permits) and Upjohn (35 permits). There is an
extreme concentration in such a few number of firms for instance, Monsanto and its sister firm,
Calgene (55 permits) accounted for 36% of the permits alone. This gives a large amount of
oligopolistic power into the hands of a few giant companies.

There has been a reckless concentration of ownership taking place where a few transgenic
seed companies are practically consolidating the entire food chain to their benefit. This leaves
the poor, especially the farmers vulnerable. There are no effective means to control the practices
of these large international corporations since they are all well-established agrochemical plants
who are expanding further through mergers and acquisitions. US based Monsanto, one of the

12
Starlink corn case which was supposed to stay only in feed corn but ended up in food for human
consumption [Mary Footer, Biotechnology and International Law: Agricultural Biotechnology, Food
Security and Human Rights(1st Edn., Hart Publishing Co., Oregon, 2006)].

9|Page
largest of biotech companies, spent nearly US $8 billion alone on buying seed and biotechnology
and patenting them under their control. Another example is that of Aventis which was formed by
the merger of Germany's Hoechst and France's Rhone-Poulenc that has a combined sale of about
US $20 billion. 13The recently merged Astra-Zeneca, the British-Swedish company merged with
Novartis to form Syngenta, thus consolidating the biotech industry further into fewer corporate
hands. This would be the world's largest agrochemical and transgenic seed company,
commanding around 24% of the world market and the world's third largest supplier of seeds. A
handful of agrochemical companies now control 85% of the global agrochemical market and
almost the entire global transgenic seed market.

Compared to conventional agricultural technology, developing countries have only limited

capabilities in transgenic technology. This is constrained by a number of factors. Since it is a
frontier technology, large technical and financial resources are needed which most economies are
unable to provide. Along with the advent of the MNCs, these economies become practically
helpless.

Current International trade disputes over bananas, for example, or over GM growth hormone or
BT transgenic seeds, show how these companies could succeed in getting GM crops and
transgenic seeds introduced into poor countries. For example, out of 34 transgenic plants which
were approved for commercial sale by December 1998, 29 were developed and owned by large
firms like Monsanto, Syngenta, Zeneca, DuPont, Mycogen and Novartis. Only one was
developed by a public sector organisation.14

The MNCs could use their power and influence to get international trade rules applied to force
countries to accept GM foods and transgenic seeds, overriding their right to choose. The
modified crops could seriously affect the exports of certain countries. This was illustrated in the
case of development of transgenic canola with high laurate content (an important component of
soaps and detergents imported from Malaysia and Philippines) by Calgene. 15 Calgene,
subsequently sold the first crop of its transgenic canola to a large buyer in the US. This affected

13
Ghayur Alam, State of Indian Farmer: A Millennium Study—Technology Generation and IPR Issues (1st Edn.,
Academic Foundation, Delhi, 2004).
14
Sujata Singh, Economic Reforms in India: Pro-Poor Dimensions: Health, Agriculture, Services and Infrastructure
(UNDP, India, 2001).
15
Souvik Chatterjee, Proactive Agriculture Focussed Consumer Forum farmers, Agricultural Workers (SEBL, WB
NUJS, Kolkata, 2003).

10 | P a g e
around 30% of the Philippine population which was dependent on the export of this cash crop. In
fact, there is an onerous requirement from the WTO for countries of the south to adopt patent
systems which would protect the rights of the foreign companies over biotech and other
products, despite the opposition of the developing

countries.

Farmers in these countries, meanwhile, will be subject to heavy and persuasive marketing
techniques as they have been with the Green Revolution lured by free samples, guaranteed
inputs, cheap credit and promises of higher yields. The farmers would then become increasingly
dependent on these companies and choices would become extremely restricted adversely
affecting the food security and livelihood of millions of farmers. As a result of widespread
patenting, most agricultural and transgenic technologies would be owned by a handful of
American and European companies and can only be acquired through a commercial basis and
making it difficult for most countries to afford them.

Case of Indian farmers and the Indian seed industry

India has one of the most dynamic and diversified seed industries in the world. Strong public
research and government policies have helped shape this industry tremendously and it has
expanded further with the entry of MNCs which have led to increased international seed trade.
Today the Indian seed industry boasts of annual sales of around US $920 million.

The New Policy on Seed Development or the NPSD established in 1988 augmented the
productivity and output quality, stimulated major growth in the industry as it attracted a lot of
investment in seed business from major domestic seed companies. There also have been private
companies like Sutton and Poacha which ushered in a liberal business climate and encouraged
more private seed companies to enter the business including a few MNCs focusing on low
volume, high value crops to create better hybrids for oilseeds, maize, cotton and vegetable crops.

Farmers in India are mostly dependent on agriculture for sustenance and so are major biotech
industry targets. “We aim to transform Indian agriculture from a passive, conservative and
traditional form, to a vibrant, progressive, scientific and enterprising one. This process can be
described as a revolution initiated by the farmer, for the farmer, through the farmer.” This is

11 | P a g e
what the corporate literature of the giant seed company, Mahyco reads at the outset of its
brochure.16 However, the scenario in the field is totally different altogether.

According to Vandana Shiva, the privatisation of the seed sector has led to adverse changes in
the state of farmers. Instead of growing food and maximising ecological security and food
security, farmers have been induced to grow cash crops for high profits without any assessment
of the risk and cost vulnerability factors. It has also led to a reduction in public sector loans and
extensions and an increased dependence on high interest credit on companies like Mahyco. This
was evident in the case of the Andhra Pradesh cotton crisis in Warangal where farmers are at the
mercy of few powerful private companies who are the moneylenders. They are in a vicious grip
of seed and pesticide companies driving farmers to suicide. The new seed policy has been
blamed by Shiva for the problem here and it is this reason why the country has become a country
of dependence.

Farmers' right to livelihood — analytical assessment and conclusion

However, with the economics of globalisation, India has tried to draw up an innovative
farmer friendly approach to protect farmer's interests. Farmers' rights are the countervailing force
to breeders' rights and patents on seeds and plants. The knowledge and rights of the local
community must be strengthened in order to conserve their livelihood and biodiversity. The
concept of farmers' rights had its origins in the FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic
Resources.17

According to Resolution 5/89, “farmers' rights” have been defined as “rights arising from the
past, present and future contributions of farmers in conserving, improving and making available
plant genetic resources, especially those in centres of genetic diversity. These rights are vested in
the international community as trustees for the present and future generations”. For this reason,
India is one of the first countries which have included farmers' rights in the protection of plant
varieties.

16
Vandana Shiva and Gitanjali Bedi, Sustainable Agriculture and Food Security: Impact of Globalisation
(1st Edn., Sage Publishers, New Delhi, 2002).
17
25th Session of the FAO Conference in Rome 1989.

12 | P a g e
India is also a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol and the FAO International Undertaking on Plant
Genetic Resources. It is also a signatory of many natural resource conservation mechanisms like
the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1993 and the Global Plan Actions of 1996. Other than
that, the Keystone International Dialogue on Plant Genetic Resources between 1988 and 1991
offered suggestions for developing a recognition and reward system for informal innovation
represented by the concept of farmers' right. Moreover, the Indian legislation has taken care of
the interests of the traditional community by providing various mechanisms like benefit sharing
and gene fund. An excellent example of this is Jeevani or the miracle drug which was first
founded and cultivated by the Kani people in the Western Ghats of Kerala.

Under the Benefit Sharing and Biological Diversity Act of 2002, farmers' rights in India are
protected by preventing any kind of piracy of biodiversity whereas under the International Treaty
on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, right over plant genetic resources could
not be exploited by private entities. This is for the purpose of the farmers and ensuring that they
receive considerable benefits. It recognises the farmers' contributions to conserving and
enhancing plant resources for food and agriculture. This has alleviated great deal of problems for
the farmers' rights in developing countries.

Further there have been certain domestic legal initiatives in the form of the Protection of Plant
Varieties and Farmers Rights Act of 2001 (PPVFR). The PPVFR Act primarily deals with
protection and plant breeders' rights over new varieties developed and entitlement of the farmers
to register new varieties and also to save, breed, use, exchange, share or sell the plant varieties
which the latter have developed, improved and maintained over several generations. The Act is a
deviation from the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plant
(UPOV), 1991 model and can be seen as an alternative to the sui generis system that accord
protection of rights of formal innovations of a plant breeder, informal knowledge system and
traditional plant varieties of farmers18. The important provisions under this Act are access and
benefit sharing relating to protection of the farmers' rights and mechanisms.

In fact, the farmers can claim for damages if they suffer on account of substandard seeds under
the Seeds Act, 1966 which does not prevent a farmer from seeking compensation for substandard

A. Narayanmurthy and S.S Kalamkar, “Is BT Cotton Cultivation Economically viable for farmers: an
18

Empirical Analysis” (2006) 41 Economic and Political weekly 2716-2724.

13 | P a g e
seeds under the Consumer Protection Act. Even in the 1998 case of Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds
Co. v. Alavalapati Chandra Reddy, the consumer courts have given considerable relief to
farmers and protect their rights to livelihood.

So it can be seen finally that though in the wake of globalisation and dominance of MNCs in the
world seed market, there have been several legislations that have been undertaken and
resolutions passed to ensure that the livelihood and rights of farmers are not snatched away from
them.

14 | P a g e