Document Actions

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS: IMPLICATIONS ON FARMERS

by admin — last modified 2011-11-10 15:45

After the rediscovery of Gregor Mendel’s Law of Inheritance in 1900, the world witnessed advances in Genetic Engineering[1]. Genetic Engineering is modern biotechnology by artificial insertion of a specific gene from one organism to another. It differs from traditional biotechnology as in traditional method the gene exchanges are only between the same or closely related species whereas in modern biotechnology, gene transfer is possible between species. However, since this technology involves modification of an organism’s genes or alteration of genes for qualitative products, it evoked considerable dialogue between both ‘pro- and anti-’ advocates of the technology.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS: IMPLICATIONS ON FARMERS

Ms. Sophy K.J.*

Introduction

Technological advances are contributions of intellectual effort. Intellectual Property (IP) regime always ensures protection to technology developers to avoid unwanted copying of technology. The duplication of technology would result in loss of revenue of Multinational Companies (MNCs) invested in Research and Development (R&D). With the aim of incentivizing and thereby increasing the pace of growth of technology, Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) apply to technological related inventions. The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs), 1995 through its objectives enunciated under Article 7 insists protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights for technological innovations. The extension of Intellectual Property protection to genetic engineering, especially to genetically modified crops, created confusion among farmers of developing nations.

The genetically modified crops developed to be drought resistant, insect and weed defensive and adaptive to climatic changes found to be impressive. However, exclusive nature of IP rights created much anxiety among the farmers. The proponents of the technology found this technology as a solution for ensuring food security and seed improvement. But the opposite views about the implications of IP protection to Genetic Engineering on farmers emphasized the fate of small scale farmers to buy seeds from MNCs at higher prices. The exclusionary character of Intellectual Property may endanger the practice of free sharing of seeds between the farmers and preserving the seeds from the harvest for re-sowing in the next season. Thus the age-old agricultural practices would be in peril once resources are restrained or free sharing and exchange of seeds are blocked. Vandana Shiva uses the expression ‘seed dictatorship’ to denote absolute ownership of MNCs’ over seeds.

Farmers are rich traditional knowledge holders. They observe, learn and use diverse practices of agriculture to increase the harvest. Their experiences and adaptation to local culture is continuously evolving and enriching their knowledge with regard to local biological resources, local plants and wild species. This knowledge is used to sustain the community and its culture and to maintain the genetic resources necessary for the continued survival of the community[2]. The interesting factor is that information of suitable climate, character of soil, seed treatment, storage of seeds etc. for good harvest is calculated manually without any technical aids. Farmers are large contributors of thousands of traditional varieties to the modern world. The modern varieties have been evolved utilizing the strict observations and experiences contributed by the farmers. The modern technology increased the production at large scale and decreased the manual labour involved in new plant variety production. However, the originators of varieties/traits remain the same. The most likely question arises is whether the farmers’ rights (basically their economic rights) are adequately addressed within the precincts of IP regime or not.

This paper tries to analyse three major risks brought about by GM Crops to farmers. The first risk pertains to environment upon which the farmers depend largely to preserve genetic diversity. The second risk is with respect to human health. According to the WHO, the GM crops may cause allergenicity due to gene transfer and outcrossing[3]. The GM crops are mainly aimed at large crop production and resistance to insects and weeds rather than food safety and security. The third risk is associated with implications of GM crops on economic status of the farmers of our country. The above mentioned issues such as absolute ownership over seeds by MNCs and ignorance of the status of farmers as traditional agricultural knowledge holders is discussed under the scope of economic risks.

Defining ‘Genetically Modified Food’

“Genetically Modified Food” has been defined in the Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 as “the food which is produced through techniques in which the genetic material has been altered in way that does not occur naturally by mating or having adequate human intervention or both”. Genetically Modified Food is produced out of Genetically Modified Crops. Therefore it is essential to understand what genetically modified Crops are.

Genetically Modified Crops

A Genetically Modified Crop is a plant used for agricultural purposes into which one or several genes coding for desirable traits have been inserted through the process of genetic engineering[4]. Genetic modification is a technology for changing or replacing the traits of plants and animals. Genetic Modification in simple words is ‘alteration of existing Gene sequence of plants either by adding or removal of certain genes carrying certain characteristics’. Through the process of genetic engineering genes responsible for special characteristics are identified and altered to suit the needs of users. For example, for developing cold tolerant plant the geneticists can isolate the gene of such trait from one plant and insert on the desired plant. So the plant would gain cold tolerant quality also. Likewise, genes from non-plant organisms can also be transferred to plants. The known example is the use of B.t. genes or Bacillus thuringiensis. It is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces proteins to defend against insects. This is inserted into corns, maize and vegetables to be insect defensive.

Why GM Foods?

Development of science and technology made a great jump into agriculture with offers of high yields, lesser use of pesticides and fertilizers and nutritious improvement of products. The production and marketing of Genetically Modified Foods by Multinational companies could make large production and distribution than farmers. The producer is benefitted when consumers buy the product at large. Large distribution of GM foods results in availability of food at reasonable prices in available quantity at required time. The initial objective behind production of GM foods is to ensure food security. The GM technology primarily looked at crop protection from attack of insects and weeds. Later as the technology developed seeds adaptive to climatic changes, droughts tolerant, cold tolerant etc. have been developed.

IMPLICATIONS ON SMALL FARMERS

GM crops in agriculture sector has been quickly adopted by the farmers considering the benefits of the technology include increased crop yields, diminished use of pesticides and herbicides and increased profits. Worldwide more than 28 million hectares (70 million acres) have been planted with genetically engineered seed. Of this, 71 per cent is accounted for by herbicide-resistant soya bean, corn and cotton[5]. So over the years what has happened is traditional farm lands have turned into GM fields. The reality is that the genetic engineering industry is today heavily concentrated in a few major firms that hold a substantial number of key patents on germplsm and control significant seed distribution networks[6]. As we know only very few countries like Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, South Africa and the United States have introduced GM crops into agriculture sector.[7] The major reasons for controversies surrounding the introduction of GM crops are that its impacts, both economical and ecological, are not clear to the actors or not fully established. Moreover it directly affects the food security and livelihood of farmers around the globe.

Environmental Hazards

Agriculture is there from dawn of civilization and diverse varieties have been developed by the farmers through traditional breeding with keen intelligence and observation. As a result diverse varieties of each crop has been developed over time and conserved by the farmers, which is feed stock of scientists for genetic engineering. But the introduction of Genetically Modified Crops eroded the genetic diversity of traditional agriculture. Genetic diversity in humankind’s major food crops underpins long-term world food security by providing the raw material needed for future crop adaptations to changing pests, pathogens, and environmental conditions. The erosion of genetic diversity is today a cause for serious concern[8]. The monoculture of GM crops or single-function behind its artificial creation (for example, a drought tolerant GM plant will fight only against drought) would displace agriculture biodiversity. India is a land of rich in the case of varieties of many crops such as rice, little and kodo millets, red gram, moth bean, jute, pepper, cardamom, many vegetables and fruit species[9]. Therefore bio invasion pave way for genetic erosion, which is nothing but loss of genetic diversity. In India a large number of genetically rich rice varieties in Jeypore tract of Orissa state, rice varieties with medicinal properties, popularly called 'Njavara' in Kerala state and a wide range of millet species like Little millet (Panicum sumatrense), Italian millet (Setaria italica), Kodo millet (Paspalum scrobiculatum), Common millet (Panicum miliaceum), Barnyard millet (Echinochloa colona), and Finger millet (Eleusine coracana) in Tamil Nadu etc. have faded out of cultivation in their native habitats when GM Crops spread over these areas[10].

The main reason for rich genetic diversity in developing countries is distribution of varieties between localities. It is possible to find different regions with same mix of varieties as the seeds/crops are shared across many localities (genetic distinctiveness). The sharing has contributed for natural breeding of different varieties of crops in different climatic and fertile conditions. The distribution of diversity is critical to claims of ownership or rights to private benefit from genetic diversity[11]. Farmers are the main proponents of exchange of knowledge and seeds and they invested their land and labour for experimentation and acceleration of pant variety generation. Keeping all germplasm freely available for further use, has allowed farmers to create new types from local landraces[12] as well as from introduced varieties. These varieties, such as “Bordagol,” are often exchanged freely and without any financial compensation between users and the communities or the farmers who developed these varieties[13]. GM crops protected under IPR prevent free use and exchange without authorization. Therefore, the introduction of Intellectual Property Rights/private ownership regime may impede the tradition of exchange and creation of modern farmers’ varieties.

Further, the GM crops either drought resistant or insect/disease defensive focus on large production of crops with desired traits. Hence the scope of the product is limited to defined traits. But in the case of traditional agriculture, farmer does manual calculations considering the environmental conditions and the outcome is open and non-predictable. The stable and nutritious variety will remain and the rest subject to devastation. Thus each farming region is environmentally and genetically distinct. GM crops need not look into adaptation possibilities. They are genetically engineered to meet with certain challenges and confined only to meet the same. So GM crops lack diversity element in their genotypes. Moreover the degree of Uniformity[14] prescribed for Plant Variety Protection is very high for small and resource poor farmers, and it could constitute higher risk and run counter to their interests[15].

Genetic pollution is another challenge for bio-safety because of GM farming. The natural pollination spread GM pollens in the nearby traditional fields also. As a result, the traditional fields nearby the GM fields get polluted with the GM seeds. Interestingly this has become reason for litigation between Multinational biotech companies and poor farmers alleging they are using seeds of the company without authorization. There is a study reported by Nature [16] stating that the pollen from B.t. Cotton fields pollinated by the wind to milkweed plants and the monarch caterpillars consumed those milkweed plants were killed in large scale. The unpredictable nature of genetically modified organisms is also a matter of major concern. Nobody knows how a genetically engineered plant developed inside a laboratory would work in the open field. There is also uncertainty about characteristics of next generation plants, its harmful affects to other plants, to insects, to soil and water. As we have seen before the insects have developed resistance power to pest/weed-resistant varieties, we have to concern about the insects that will become resistant to B.t or other genetically modified crops. In short, genetically engineered crops for single function purpose may create ‘super weeds/super pests’.

Human Health Risk

There are concerns of human health risks due to consumption of GM foods. Nobody really knows what GM food consumption would cause in long run. There is possibility of people getting immune against antibiotics because they eat food containing antibiotic resistance genes. Therefore antibiotic treatment will not cure diseases any more.

The proponents of genetic engineering state that genetic engineering is more result oriented than traditional breeding and there are no health risks. But traditional breeding never involves artificial transfer of genes from bacteria and animals to plants. There is no transfer of toad genes to potatoes and snail genes to cabbage. In genetic modified plants the transfer is between species and therefore there is total shuffle in genome structure.

The changes in DNA structure invites the risk of decreasing immunity and make plants more vulnerable to infections and thus the consumers of GM crops. For example, Monsanto’s GM soya was approved by UK Food Committee as safe and substantially equivalent. Later in an article in the Journal of Nutrition, 1996, B.G. Hammand reported that when rats were fed with transgenic soya their growth was inhibited and it contains 26.7 per cent increase of a major allergen, trypsin inhibitor[17]. The gene transfer results in production of new proteins as well. A MNC named Pioneer HiBred engineered soya with a gene from Brazil nut to improve the protein content. But later when researchers at the University of Nebraska tested the blood serum taken from people allergic to Brazil nuts found the allergic reaction fatal.[18]

In short, toxic or allergenic effects due to GM food are unpredictable. It may reduce antibiotic resistance and transgenes can result in regeneration of disease viruses. The British Medical Association recommended in its report on GM food that “there should be a ban on the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM food”[19]. “Pesticidal foods” have genes that produce a toxic pesticide inside the food’s cells. This represents the first time “cell-interior toxicity” is being sold for human consumption. There is little knowledge of the potential long-term health impacts.

Economic Risk

Majority of Indian farmers have tiny land holdings and they follow integrated system agriculture through free exchange of seeds and food grains. The mechanized agriculture using GM technology needs investment and it is beneficial for farmers those who have large land holdings. Intellectual property protection to genetically modified crops has created more fury in the scenario. Majority of patents on GM crops owned by Multinationals and sale of seeds of become a business. Buying of seeds at fixed prices from MNCs is not affordable to the farmers, especially farmers of third world countries, that has again widened the gap between rich and poor.

The attractions towards GM crops are its economic viability through high yields, less use of pesticides and insecticides, adaptive to climatic changes etc. But the economics of Bt cotton is unfavorable since the seed costs about four times as much as the other successful hybrids in the field (Rs. 1600, compared to Rs. 400)[20]. Further study on B.t. cotton proved that pesticide savings do not make much difference when compared to seed price. The B.t. Cotton failure resulted in high economic burden on Indian farmers and resulted in farmer suicides.

Considering the vast practice of traditional breeding and treasure of non-GM crops in India, the exports of conventional agricultural products are extremely important for Indian economy. Losing GM free status would negatively affect the trading exposures of the country[21]. As European Union has banned GM products, growing GM crops would result in loss of European market.

Intellectual Property Protection to GM crops

IPR protection to Genetically Modified Crops emanates from Art. 27 (3) (b) of the TRIPs Agreement. Genetic Engineering is a technology predominantly used by private sector companies. The genetically modified seeds developed by private companies require investment of capital in Research and Development. This has resulted in heavy reliance on Intellectual Property Regime to protect products from copying and illegal reproduction. Intellectual Property protection to biotechnology trigger hunt of MNCs for germplasms to engineer and create new products. The diversity preserved and developed by the farmers lost into the hands of foreigners and they later force the farmers to buy their technologically modified seeds at higher prices.

In India, before the adoption of new seed policy in 1998 there were no large private sector investments in agriculture sector. The agriculture research was mainly concentrated on public sector research institutions, roughly around 25 agriculture universities carry out research and breeding. The change in the seed policy resulted in growth of more than 500 private seed companies in India, especially 24 of the top listed companies are Multinational Companies. So with the accompanying technology the seed production increased and Intellectual Property Protection to Genetically Modified seeds increased competition among the companies. This resulted in large production of GM crops. But the scenario is much different in India where farmers depend very less on both public and private sector for seeds. They have an informal system of sharing of seeds and collection of seeds for re-sowing. The new seeds with higher yields, less chemical use attracted the poor farmers to these GM seeds. The reality is that concentration of seeds is in few hands. Monsanto has four patents four B.t cotton varieties in approved for use in India[22]. The company assertion about its higher yield attracted cotton farmers in India, especially of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. Initially it gave higher yield in 2002 to 2006 and in 2006 nearly 3.28 million hectares were under B.t cotton cultivation[23]. But the farmers understood the consequences of new engineered plants when they have to buy the seeds each year for sowing at fixed price of Rs. 1850 for 450 gms[24] whereas in India the price for non-B.t. cotton variety is at Rs. 450 to 500. The use of B.t.cotton widely by the farmers also resulted in loss of their traditional varieties. The insertion of Genetic Use Restriction Technology in B.T. Cotton seeds made the second generation seeds sterile and non-productive. This technology of MNCs was criticized by activists and organizations working in this area. But the pricing on each season for seeds increased the financial burden of farmers apart from maintenance charges. The miserable failure of B.t. cotton variety in later years worsened the conditions of farmers.

Besides all these, the farmers who buy the seeds from companies entered into certain agreements with the companies that they will use only company prescribed fertilizer for good yield[25]. But this is of no use to the farmer, only a profiteering strategy of the company. Indian farmers committed suicides due to rising costs of farming and seeds, lower price of their produces and loss of their traditional farms. The lesser subsidy to the agriculture left the farmers in debt with reduced income and even affected their access to food. As a result of the high price of Bt cotton seeds and the failure of Bt cotton in various parts of India, thousands of farmers have committed suicide in the last few years[26]. Certainly the reason behind this mishap is shift in view from seed as a property of farmer to seed as a commercial property of MNCs. The rise of corporate plant breeding obstructed traditional practices of free exchange and saving of seeds and Intellectual property protection undermined the status of farmers in the agriculture sector.

Conclusion

Governments around the world are hard at work to establish a regulatory process to monitor the effects of and approve new varieties of GM crops[27]. A global effort to ensure bio-safety has been started with the adoption of Cartegena Bio-safety Protocol. The Bio-safety Protocol seeks to protect biodiversity and peoples’ health from GMOs. It also calls for the countries to provide necessary information that enables the citizen to make their own decision regarding GMOs and it gives right to the country either to restrict or ban the import and the use of GMOs. Care should be taken to manage sustainable agriculture and food security at the national, regional, local and household levels. It is the duty of the State to ensure that the activities of the private biotech sector are not interfering with food security of the country. India signed the protocol in 2002 and Bio-safety legislation is in place from 1989. Bio-safety law has been implemented under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), 1989. Further Bio-safety Regulation under EPA is enacted titled, “The Rules for the Manufacture, Use/Import/Export and storage of hazardous micro-organisms/genetically engineered organisms or cells, 1989”. Apart from these, there are legislations such as the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, Regulation for Import of GM Products under Foreign Trade Policy (2006-07) etc. to deal with safety aspects of GM products. Also we have a National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill, 2008 and the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, 2009 is in place.

The draft of Seed Bill, 2004 before the Parliament could cause drastic affect on farmers’ access to seeds and may raise the costs of food production. The primary objective of the Seeds Bill is to regulate the quality of seeds so as to make available sufficient good quality seeds for farmers. The present Bill asks for mandatory registration of all kinds and varieties of seeds meant to be sold. The Seeds Bill makes registration of every dealer, producer and seed processing mandatory. The registration system as provided under the Seeds Bill is tends to restrict the right of farmers to sell and exchange their seeds.

The Seeds Bill does not make any distinction between commercial seed producers and farmers. The Seeds Bill defines the term dealer as “a person who carries on the business of buying and selling, exporting, or importing seed, and includes an agent of a dealer”. A farmer who sells farm saved seeds has no reference in this definition and he/she has no exemptions provided in the sale and exchange of seeds. It is likely that the Seeds Bill would leave the seeds market exclusively for commercial breeders.

The Seeds Bill provides farmers the right to claim compensation if registered seeds purchased by a farmers fails to perform as per the disclosure made by producer, distributor or vendor. The Seeds Bill entitles farmers in such situations to claim compensation under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This is an area where the Seeds Bill overlaps with the PVP Act[28]. Right to compensation in case of default seeds is also provided under the PVP Act. However, the difference is that, under the PVP Act, claim of compensation will be decided by the Authority constituted under the PVP Act. Therefore multiple forum for same purpose creates ambiguity.

In addition, the Seed Bill enables the period of IP protection to be doubled, which means the seeds could be protected for 30 years, thus extending the monopoly of the owner of the seeds. The PPVFR has provision for compulsory license to be issued if seeds are not sufficiently available in the market or if the seed prices are high, the Seed Bill fails to provide any such protection to the farmer; the Bill contains no mechanism to regulate seed supply or seed price[29]. It could also mean that seed providers are under no obligation to ensure a reasonable seed supply to farmers[30]. The proposed Seed Bill would go against the interests of farmers’ access to seeds and food, if proper amendments are not made.

As a welcoming step a Policy on Labeling[31] is on anvil. With a view to develop norms and rules to regulate the food containing GMOs, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare constituted an Expert Committee and Committee recommended for mandatory labeling of GM food as an indicator of information about GM food. This also ensures health safety and gives the consumer right of choice to avoid certain foods allergic to his body. The draft rules are prepared under the Govt. notification. Rule 37 E defines genetically modified food as ‘food and food ingredients composed of/or containing genetically modified or engineered organisms obtained through modern biotechnology or food and food ingredients produced from but not containing genetically modified or engineered organism obtained through modern biotechnology. It also provided that GM material shall be compulsorily labeled without any exceptions. In case of imported GM food, the importer is also required to submit documents supporting the purported clearance at the time of import.

Brazil and UK has banned the import of GM food. In India field trials for B.t. vegetables and cereals are in progress without any safety measures. Apart from mere saleable property, GM Crops cause serious concerns food security and livelihood of farmers, the first link in the food chain. We should follow precautionary principle in allowing regulatory approval to GM foods. Lack of Information about GM crops and non-transparency in Risk analysis of GM food often disable the consumer to identify between GM food and non-GM food. The poor and illiterate farmers are also vulnerable to misguidance of the MNCs and enter into agreements with them. Such agreements regarding payment for seeds, fertilizer use of the companies, renewal of seed license etc. results in financial obligation on farmers. One thing has to keep in mind that we need crops for longer duration, not for short-term benefits.

REFERENCES

Anitha Ramanna, Bt cotton and India’s policy on IPRs, Asian Biotechnology and Development Rev., 2005

Matin Qaim, The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops, Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2009.

Vandana Shiva, Genetic Modification and Frankstein Foods, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology

Indrani Barpujari, CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT IN THE GM TRADE DEBATE: A

DEVELOPING COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE, Gene Campaign

Vandana Shiva, SEED DICTATORSHIP AND FOOD FASCISM, Navdanya

Brain Johnson, Genetically Modified Crops and Other Organisms: Implications for Agricultural Sustainability and Biodiversity

Tirtha Dhar and Jeremy Foltz, The Impact of Intellectual Property Rights in the Plant/Seed Industry, 2003 FSRG conference in Madison.

Carlos M. Correa, TRENDS IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS RELATING TO

GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, BACKGROUND STUDY PAPER NO. 49, FAO

* The author is currently working as Research and Teaching Assistant at School of Law, IGNOU, New Delhi

[1] S. Bala Ravi, MANUAL ON FARMER’S RIGHTS, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, 2004

[2] S.Hansen and J.W. Van Fleet, A HANDBOOK ON ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE HOLDERS IN PROTECTING THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND MAINTAINING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, (American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Human Rights Program, Washington, DC., 2003).

[3] The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species.

[4] Matin Qaim, The Economics of Genetically Modified Crops, Annu. Rev. Resour. Econ. 2009.

[5] Vandana Shiva, Genetic Modification and Frankstein Foods, Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology

[6] Philippe Cullet, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PROTECTION AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, Lexis Nexis Butterworths, New Delhi

[7] FAO, AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY-MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE POOR?, Rome: FAO, 2004.

[8] James K. Boyce, ECOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION, AGRICULTURAL TRADE LIBERALIZATION, AND IN SITU GENETIC DIVERSITY, Journal of Income Distribution Vol. 6 No. 2 (1996), pp. 265-286

[9] S. Bala Ravi, MANUAL ON FARMERS’ RIGHTS, MSSRF, 2004

[10] Sabuj Kumar Chaudhuri, Genetic Erosion of Agro biodiversity in India and Intellectual Property Rights: Interplay and some Key Issues, Department of Library and Information Science, Jadavpur University.

[11] Stephen B. Brush, THE LIGHTHOUSE AND THE POTATO: INTERNALIZING THE VALUE OF CROP GENETIC DIVERSITY, Working Paper No. 37, March 2002, Program on Development, Peacebuilding, and the Environment Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), University of Massachusetts Amherst.

[12] primitive crop varieties from farmers’ fields or community fields

[13] Rene Salazar, Niels P. Louwaars, and Bert Visser, ON PROTECTING FARMERS’ NEW VARIETIES: NEW APPROACHES TO RIGHTS ON COLLECTIVE INNOVATIONS IN PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES, CAPRi Working Paper # 45, JANUARY 2006, CGIAR Systemwide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington.

[14] One of the criteria for attaining Plant Variety Protection under the Protection of Plant Varieties and farmers’ Rights Act, 2001

[15] Supra at 13

[16] Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae (Nature, Vol 399, No 6733, p 214, May 1999)

[17] Supra at 4

[18] Marion Nestle, New England Journal of Medicine, 1996

[19] British Medical Association, The Impact of the Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health- An Interim Statement,1999, p.13.

[20] Suman Sahai,(2003), Financing Agriculture, Vol. 35, No.4, pp7-11

[21] Indrani Barpujari, CIVIL SOCIETY ENGAGEMENT IN THE GM TRADE DEBATE: A

DEVELOPING COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE, Gene Campaign

[22] Anitha Ramanna, Bt cotton and India’s policy on IPRs, Asian Biotechnology and Development Rev., 2005

[23] Keya Acharya, Bt: Flaky results, pre-determined consensus, India Together, 11 Aug 2006

[24]‘AP govt agrees to out-of-court settlement with Monsanto,’ Financial Express, 2 Jan 2007

[25] These products are known as ‘Roundup Ready’ products. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready Canola first used in Canada in 1995

[26] Devinder Sharma, Failure of 'improved' technology: The harvest that never was, Deccan Herald, 28 Jan 2006.

[27] Supra at 2

[28] The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001

[29] Suman Sahai, The Controversial new Seed Bill, Gene Campaign, 2005.

[30] S. Ramachandran, The Seed Bill 2004: An Attack on Basic Right of Peasantry, People’s Democracy, 25^th June 2005.

[31] Available at www.mohfw.nic.in