The Drift of Genetically Engineered Seeds

Assume for instance that a farmer buys, say, a mix of “soya seeds” from a local grain elevator, and sow them. Later, it turns out that, the undifferentiated mix of seeds also contained “Patented Genetically Engineered (GE) seeds”.

Will it be an act of infringement???

For centuries, farmers have saved seeds from season to season and re-planted the saved seeds later in the season. An American company Monsanto has challenged this ancient practice.

Biotech Industry Giant, Monsanto, had developed GE seeds that are resistant to its own herbicide (roundup), which farmers spray on fields to control weeds while their crops are protected from the death-dealing effects of a tiny, patented gene. Monsanto was allowed to patent the seeds. So now the giant has control over both the crops and the weed killers. Till 1980, The United states patent and Trademark office had refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life forms with too many variables to be patented. Then USPTO granted patent to a live human made micro organism (Pseudomonas bacterium) developed by a General electric scientist to clean up oil spills. Monsanto applied taking advantage of the development and applied common sense for patenting life forms based on minor changes in genetic structure and took over 70-90% of the global seed market. He then applied prohibitions for the re-use of “now patented technology” for further commercial use.

Monsanto filed 144 lawsuits against family farmers and settled 700 cases out of court between 1997 and 2010. The Lawsuits target farmers who used Monsanto seed but violated the licensing agreement, and also those farmers who never had intension of growing GE plants. This answerers the above question. So, now for the first time in history, if a pollen grain or seed of GE crop, trespasses on to a farmers property, due to blow of a wind or a truck passing by in high speed, would lead to “genetic (GE) contamination”!!

OSGATA et al. vs Monsanto deals with the “GE contamination” and represents 31 farmers, 13 seed selling businesses and 31 agricultural organizations that represent more than 30,000 individuals and 4,500 farms. They had originally filed the case on March 29, 2011 and after the dismal of their case by the District court of New York in February 2012, they appealed in the Appellate Court, Washington DC. The Oral argument was herd in January 10 2013.

The conventional farmers are scared for even planting the crops which are also genetically modified by the biotech firm, as if found contaminated would be sued for infringement.

But what is causing Monsanto of this exploitation??  The cause may be the selling of GE products not labeled. Monsanto learned their lesson in Europe and Asia that customers won’t buy their GE crops when labeled. In America the company and their allies have spent millions to defeat the local labeling initiatives. So, when conventional farmers are out of the way, America has no choice to buy labeled products or unlabeled products. Monsanto was under investigation by the Department of justice for violating anti-trust laws by practicing anti-competitive activities towards other biotech companies, but the investigation was quietly closed by the end of the year 2012.

All this leads to one solution it seems: People of America should boycott any product made with corn, soya, sugar, canola, cotton or alfalfa (including milk as diary cow’s eat alfalfa) unless there is a certainty that it was made without any genetically modified seed (as the GE products are labeled in America). Second, a set of a term for licensing or assignment for the allowing re-use of patented GE seeds with some agreed royalties should be applied rather than buying the fresh patented seeds by farmers again and again.

The GE crops have also affected the Indian farmers. Various NGOs are blaming the suicides of   Indian farmers to be due to the indebt by Monsanto’s GE seeds. Recent update being that Monsanto is controlling 95% of GE Cotton seeds supply, which are sold by the firm by the name of BT Cotton seeds. Due to which the price have jumped almost 80 percent.

India has been among the first countries in the world to pass a unique law to protect both the rights of breeders and farmers, by passing the legislation granting farmers right in the form of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. As per under section 3.5 of the Plant Variety and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 of India, the farmers have the Rights to seed. India’s Act aims to give farmers the right to save, use, exchange or sell seed in the same manner he/she was entitled to before the Act. However, the right to sell seed is restricted in that the farmer cannot sell seed in a packaged form labeled with the registered name.

But the difference between a genetically modified crop to the crop modified due to breeding has not been applied or understood. Genetically modified crops are plants, with DNA that has been modified using genetic engineering technique, which are then used in agriculture, whereas, selective breeding is less scientific and a much older technique where a breeder nurtures the useful traits in crops. They are completely different and should be dealt differently too.

About the Author: Ms. Shailee Gupta, Woman Scientist, TIFAC Trainee at Khurana & Khurana and can be reached at: shailee@khuranaandkhurana.com

Follow us on Twitter: @KnKIPLaw

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010