PPV&FR

FL 2027 potato variety, commonly known as

FC5
 Genesis of FC5

• PepsiCo has been developing and registering a variety of potatoes in

India since the production of Lay’s took a hit in 2008. The overall 
supply of potatoes was hit that year due to crop failure in the states of
Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Punjab.
• The company currently works with 24,000 farmers across the country
 in states like West Bengal, Maharashtra, Punjab, Gujarat, Uttar
Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Haryana, and Chhattisgarh.
• The FC5 was put to commercial use in 2009 and PepsiCo India has
granted licence to some farmers in Punjab to grow FC5 on the buyback
system, wherein the company buys all the produce from farmers at
pre-decided prices. The variety is considered superior because of its
lower water content (80%, compared with 85% for other varieties),
making it more suitable for processing.
 FL 2027
• The potato variety that is the object of the
lawsuit, is registered in India as FL2027. This is
a hybrid between the FL1867 and Wischip
varieties and PepsiCo is the registered breeder
of this type of potato under the Protection of
Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
 PepsiCo and Potato Farmers Case
iasparliament

 May 07, 2019

Why in news?
PepsiCo India Holdings (PIH) announced it is withdrawing lawsuits against nine farmers in north Gujarat.
It had earlier sued 11 farmers for “illegally growing and selling” a potato variety registered in the
company’s name.
What is the case about?
The patent is for the potato plant variety FL-2027 (commercial name FC-5).
Pepsi’s North America subsidiary Frito-Lay has the patent until October 2023.
For India, PIH has patented FC-5 until January 2031 under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’
Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001.
The FC-5 variety, used to make Lay’s chips, is grown under a contract farming deal, by 12,000 farmers in
Gujarat’s Sabarkantha district.
PIH has a buyback agreement with some Gujarat farmers.
It has now accused 11 farmers of illegally growing, producing and selling the variety “without
permission of PIH”.
The government reportedly held out-of-court settlement talks with the company, which eventually
announced the withdrawal of cases.
 What do the farmers say?

Farmers say that the agreement was only that PIH would collect potatoes of diameter greater
than 45 mm. Farmers would store the smaller potatoes for sowing next year. Some of the
other accused farmers said they got registered seeds from known groups and farmer
communities. They had been sowing these for the last four years or so, and had no
contractual agreement with anyone. They said they learnt they were growing a registered
variety only when they got a court notice.

Is PHI's claim valid?

Rights on a patented seed differ from country to country. In the US, if someone has patented a
seed, no other farmer can grow it. But the Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPV&FR Act of India has
clauses in defence of the farmers in this case. Under this, farmers were allowed to continue
to practise in the same manner as was entitled before the coming into force of this Act. In
other words, they could save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce including
seed of a variety protected under this Act. It was only specified that the farmer shall not be
entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected under this Act. Certainly, in Pepsico's case,
the seeds were not sold as branded seeds.
 Why is the PPV&FR Act significant?

India's choice in this regard is a conscious departure from UPOV (International

Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants) 1991.
The UPOV 1991 gives breeders the right to monitor all aspects of a farmer’s
activity. It bars the scope for farmers to re-use seeds without their
permission. But the PPV&FR Act was formulated to give farmers free access
to seeds.
Japan and Canada, besides other developing countries, have also voiced their
reservations against UPOV. The argument that food should be kept out of
rigid patent-like frameworks gains ground here. It is not clear whether
enhanced breeders’ rights under UPOV have enhanced research and public
welfare along expected lines. But monopoly concerns as well as those
related to health and the environment have assumed centre-stage over
time. To see in the Green Revolution context in India, indigenous varieties of
rice have been rendered extinct by the propagation of hybrids.
 What lies ahead?

• Plant diversity is crucial in a time of growing pest attacks,

rising temperatures and climate change.
• UPOV does not appear to be in sync with these realities.
• However, breeder research should be promoted in drought
resistant varieties of millets and pulses.
• There is no reason to believe that India’s legal framework
does not allow this space, given the private participation in
these areas.
• Government efforts should balance among the aspects of
providing for new varieties, farmers rights, and environmental
concerns in this regard.
 The Differences between Plant Variety
Protection and Patent Protection on Plants
• This paper summarizes the differences between
• genetic engineering and traditional plant breeding,
• plant variety protection and patent protection,
• and patents on plants and patents on plant-related inventions.
• First, genetic engineering allows scientists to insert genetic material from
one species into another in order to create an organism that expresses
particular characteristics. Traditional or conventional breeding, in
contrast, allows breeders to develop new plant varieties by the process
of selection and seeks to achieve expression of genetic material that is
already present within a species. Patent protection provides a more
absolute set of rights to breeders than does plant variety protection.
Finally, plant patents and patents on plant-related inventions provide
breeders with largely the same exclusionary rights over particular plants.
 Genetic Breeding VS Traditional Breeding
GENETIC
genetic engineering allows scientists to insert
genetic material from one species into another
in order to create an organism that expresses
particular characteristics.
Genetic engineering, in contrast, enables
scientists to insert carefully selected genetic
material into a particular organism. This
process does not occur in nature, and it allows
researchers to more precisely control the
expression of certain genes.
TRADITIONAL
Traditional or conventional breeding, in
contrast, allows breeders to develop new plant
varieties by the process of selection and seeks
to achieve expression of genetic material that is
already present within a species.
“As a general rule, conventional breeding
develops new plant varieties by the process of
selection, and seeks to achieve expression of
genetic material that is already present within a
species.”
Furthermore, the genetic material inserted
into a particular plant’s genome (the genetic
material of an organism) does not have to be
present in the original species.
genetic engineering allow scientists to insert
genetic material from one species into a
completely distinct species.
Second, genetic engineering allows scientists to
create new, nonnaturally occurring genetic
material, and then insert that material into
plants’ DNA for expression.
Third, genetic engineering enables scientists to
more precisely control characteristics of the
resulting product
Conventional breeding employs processes that
occur in nature, such as sexual and asexual
reproduction, with the resulting plant product
emphasizing certain characteristics. However,
these characteristics are not technically “new”
for the species; “the characteristics have been
present for millennia within the genetic
potential of the species.
First, while traditional breeding only permits
the movement of genetic material between
different varieties of the same species, closely
related species, or closely related genera,
Conventional breeders must generate new
plants from an existing pool of genetic
material.7
than do conventional breeding techniques