Vandana Shiva | Monsanto in India

Monsanto: Donald Trump of the Biotech World

Moderator’s
Note: Our colleague, Dr. Vandana Shiva,
offers this detailed report on how the Monsanto Corporation invaded India,
largely by undermining democratic processes and policies. This is without a
doubt the most detailed and carefully documented history of Monsanto’s invasion
of India; a case of colonialism redux. Shiva emphasizes two issues: (1) the
illegal nature of the patenting regime that corporations like Monsanto have
used to invade countries and unleashed GMO technologies. As Shiva herself
states:

Monsanto
should be tried for its smuggling of a controlled substance into India and
allowing genetically modified cottonseed oil into the premium vegetable oils of
India, a country where GM is not allowed in the food system…. India’s laws do
not permit patents on seeds and in agriculture. But that hasn’t stopped
Monsanto from collecting close to USD 900 million from small farmers in India,
pushing them into crushing debt.

And (2), this patenting regime – and so-called Trade Related Intellectual
Property rights (TRIPs) established under the World Trade Organization (WTO) –
actually subsidize the existence of a failed technology paradigm. Again, Shiva:

Selling
chemicals requires raw materials that eat into profit. Intellectual Property,
on the other hand, just pays. In the decade and a half since 1981, with this
new “strategic research focus” and all the R&D dollars you can imagine,
Monsanto has only been able to produce failures – failures that pay royalties
from all across the world.

Among the many lessons I draw from this meticulous report and insightful analysis
is this concern: The Monsanto Corporation is a threat not just to traditional
agroecological farmers and their vast storehouses of biodiversity in seeds and
resilient landscapes; this massive corporation is a threat to democracy.

Monsanto seeks to subvert open and transparent public policy- and
rule-making; it undermines application of the law and routinely ignores
national law by trumping the logic of globalization and neo-regulation, in
which corporations regulate themselves; again demonstrating an aversion to
transparency and accountability; the corporation overcharges its customers and
cheats its suppliers; it claims harm from farmers’ ‘stealing seed’ when instead
it is the force that is contaminating farmers’ fields and bodies; it sues those
it has harmed and makes money from failed business operations.

In other words:
Monsanto is the Donald Trump of the biotech world.

Please note that Dr. Shiva is also calling on concerned persons to sign the Declaration on Seed Freedom. I call on my readers
and followers to do so immediately. We will repost the Declaration shortly.

Finally,
please make plans to hear Dr. Shiva as the Keynote Speaker for the upcoming Soil Not Oil International Conference
in Richmond, CA on Sept 4-5. Use this link to register for the conference, to
be convened at the Memorial Convention Center in Richmond, CA. REGISTER.

Dr. Shiva’s report on Monsanto’s
invasion of India first appeared on July 21, 2015 at this link: vandanashiva.com.

How Monsanto wrote and broke laws to enter India

FAILURES THAT PAY ROYALTIES ACROSS THE
WORLD

Dr. Vandana Shiva | Dehra Dun, India | July 21, 2015

Citizens of
the United States are being denied the right to know what they are feeding
their families. Despite the fact that 90% of American citizens want GMO labeling
on their food, big business is doing everything it can to prevent people from
accessing their rights. Representative Pompeo’s bill, popularly known as the DARK Act (Denying Americans the Right to
Know), has been written almost entirely by the biotech industry lobby. While
American citizens are advocating for their rights to knowledge and healthy,
affordable food, Monsanto’s legal team is busy on every legislative
level trying to prevent this from happening.

Monsanto’s
subversion of democratic legal processes is not new. In fact, it is their modus
operandi, be it the subversion of LA’s decision to be GMO free by amending the California Seed Law—equating corporations with
persons, and making seed libraries and exchange of seed beyond 3
miles illegal— or suing Maui County for passing a law banning
GMOs.

Decades
before there was a “debate” over GMOs and Monsanto’s PR and law firms became
the busiest of bees, India was introduced to this corrupting, corporate giant
that had no respect for the laws of the land. When this massive company did
speak of laws, these laws had been framed, essentially, by their own lawyers.

Today,
Indian cotton farmers are facing a genocide that has resulted in the death of
at least 300,000 of their brothers and sisters between 1995 and 2013,
averaging 14,462 per year (1995-2000) and 16,743 per year (2001-2011). This
epidemic began in the cotton belt, in Maharashtra, where 53,818 farmers have
taken their lives. Monsanto, on it’s own website, admits that pink bollworm “resistance
[to Bt] is natural and expected” and that the resistance to Bt “posed a
significant threat to the nearly 5 million farmers who were planting the
product in India”. 84% of the farmer suicides have been attributed to
Monsanto’s Bt Cotton, placing the corporation’s greed and lawlessness at the
heart of India’s agrarian crisis.

There are
three outright illegalities to Monsanto’s existence in India.

First,
Monsanto undemocratically imposed the false idea of “manufacturing” and
“inventing” a seed, undermining robust Indian laws—that do not allow patents on
life—and by taking patents on life through international trade law. Since 1999,
Monsanto has had the US government do its dirty work, blocking the mandatory
review of the Monsanto Law in TRIPS (the Trade Related Intellectual Property
Rights Agreement implemented through the WTO).

Second,
since they do not have a patent for Bt-Cotton, Monsanto’s
collection of royalties as “trait value” or as a “fee for technology traits”
(IPR category that does not exist in any legal framework and was concocted by
Monsanto lawyers to work outside of the laws of the land) is illegal. These
illegal royalty collections have been collected from the most marginal farmers,
pushing them to take their own lives.

Third, the
smuggling of a controlled substance without approvals (and thus Monsanto’s very
entry into India) is a violation and subversion of India’s Biosafety
Regulations. This includes the illegal introduction of GMOs into the food
system in India, which poses grave risks to the health of ordinary Indian
citizens.

Drawing courtesy of GRIID

Illegal
entry of Bt Cotton into India

The Genetic
Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), the apex body constituted in the Ministry
of Environment and Forests, is solely entrusted with the responsibility of
approving field trials of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs). India’s
biosafety framework — one of the strongest in the world — is governed by
The Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous
Micro Organisms, Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells (notified under the
Environment Protection Act, 1986).

ARTICLE
(7) OF THE RULES STIPULATES: APPROVAL
AND PROHIBITIONS ETC. (1) NO
PERSON SHALL IMPORT, EXPORT, TRANSPORT, MANUFACTURE, PROCESS, USE OR SELL ANY
HAZARDOUS MICROORGANISMS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS/SUBSTANCES OR
CELLS EXCEPT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE GENETIC ENGINEERING APPROVAL COMMITTEE.

On 10 March
1995, MAHYCO (which became Monsanto-Mahyco in 1998) imported 100 grams of
cottonseed that contained the MON531-Bt Gene into India without approval from
the GEAC. MAHYCO, under undisclosed circumstances, had obtained permission from
the RCGM (Review Committee of Genetic Manipulation under the Department of
Biotechnology (DBT)), which does not have the authority to approve
such an import. Without the approval of the governing body responsible for the
approval of the import (GEAC) Monsanto had smuggled a controlled substance into
India.

ARTICLE
(4) OF THE RULES STIPULATES:

(4)
GENETIC ENGINEERING APPROVAL COMMITTEE (GEAC)

THIS
COMMITTEE SHALL FUNCTION AS A BODY UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT FORESTS
AND WILDLIFE FOR APPROVAL OF ACTIVITIES INVOLVING LARGE SCALE USE OF HAZARDOUS
MICROORGANISMS AND RECOMBINANTS IN RESEARCH AND INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION FROM THE
ENVIRONMENTAL ANGLE. THE COMMITTEE SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR APPROVAL OF
PROPOSALS RELATING TO RELEASE OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISMS AND PRODUCTS
INTO THE ENVIRONMENT.

Open field
trials are a deliberate release of GMOs into the environment and, under the
above Indian law, require approval by the GEAC. Eager to get to market and
establish a monopoly in the cotton sector of India in 1998, Monsanto-Mahyco,
without the approval of the sole agency allowed to grant permission for open
field trials – the GEAC – started large scale, multi-centric, open field trials
of Bt Cotton in 40 locations spread across nine states of India.

The eventual
clearance, long after the commencement of these field trials, came once again
from the Review Committee of Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), which is not
authorised to grant clearance for field trials. RCGM’s mandate is restricted to
guidelines for lab research. Without approval from the GEAC, Monsanto’s open
field trials of Bt Cotton in 1998 were blatantly illegal and an act of
biological warfare against India through genetic pollution.

Furthermore,
no post harvest management and safety was ensured in these trials by
Monsanto-Mahyco. Monsanto was not concerned with the findings of the trials at
all; they just wanted GM seeds to be introduced into Indian soil and they did
so without due process. GMO traits, once released into the environment, cannot
be contained or recalled. In fact, genetically engineered cotton was sold in
open markets. In some states, the trial fields were replanted the very next
season with crops including wheat, turmeric, and groundnut, violating Para-9 on
“Post harvest handling of the transgenic plants” of the Biosafety Guidelines
(1994), according to which, the fields on which GMO trials were conducted
should be left fallow for at least one year.

It was in
the face of these violations of Indian laws and the risks of genetic pollution
India faced, that the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology
(RFSTE) filed a petition in the Supreme Court of India in 1999 against Monsanto
and MAHYCO. Clearly, Monsanto and MAHYCO had violated the 1989 rules for the
use of GMOs under the Environmental Protection Act (1986). The government had
allowed Monsanto to carry out field trials without the mandatory scientific
biosafety tests.

Without
waiting for the outcome of the petition pending in the Supreme Court – around
President Bill Clinton’s visit to India – in March 2000 the Department of
Biotechnology gave biosafety clearance to Monsanto’s Bt Cotton, and in July
2000 the GEAC cleared large-scale field trials of Bt Cotton despite the pending
Supreme Court case. This was two years after Monsanto first started illegal trials.
CD Mayee, Co-Chairman of the GEAC, also became the first Indian board member
of ISAAA,
a biotech evangelist group, in 2006. He is the chairman of the sub-committee on
Bt Cotton of the GEAC, and interestingly, also sits of on the Agriculture
Ministry’s Committee on Endosulfan, an insecticide with acute neurotoxin
properties developed by Bayer CropScience, which is a major funder — along with
Monsanto — of ISAAA.

Indian women working in cotton fields
are paid 25 rupees a day (€ 0,44).

Photo: Viviane Dalles, Courtesy of Revista Amauta

Monsanto Bt
Cotton seeds had not yet been cleared for commercial release. While the RFSTE
case against Monsanto was still in the Supreme Court of India, Monsanto
reported to the GEAC, in 2001, that Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd., a company in
Gujarat, was selling Navbharat 151 seeds, which had the MON531 Bt
gene. This was not a cowboy company selling on the black market. This was a
company with enough Bt Cotton seeds for the 10,000 Hectares of Navbharat
151 planted at the time. On Monsanto’s complaint, the GEAC started an
investigation, carried out by the two-member team of CD Mayee and T.V. Ramanaiah (from the
Department of Biotechnology (DBT)), who found Bt traits in the cotton. A case
was filed in Gujarat against Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

Post
investigation, the GEAC ordered all standing crops of Navbharat
151 to be uprooted and destroyed along with seed production plots due to
the major risks posed by Bt. In a submission to the court, the GEAC stated:

“12 (I)
THE CROP WHICH IS STANDING MAY PASS TO THE SOIL THAT MODIFIED GENES WHICH
IT CONTAINS. THE EFFECT ON SOIL MICROORGANISMS CAN NOT BE ESTIMATED AND
MAY CAUSE AN IRREVERSIBLE CHANGE IN THE ENVIRONMENT STRUCTURE OF THE SOIL.
IT IS A STANDARD PRACTICE TO UPROOT CROPS WHICH POSE SUCH A THREAT. THE
DESTRUCTION BY BURNING IS TO ENSURE SAFETY TO ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH
AND TO OBVIATE ANY POSSIBILITY OF CROSS-POLLINATION.

(II)
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE COTTON PRODUCE AS WELL AS SEEDS HARVESTED FROM THIS
PLANT IS ALSO EQUALLY NECESSARY. THE COTTON WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED
IS GENETICALLY MODIFIED COTTON, THE EFFECT OF WHICH I.E. ALLERGENICITY
AND OTHER FACTORS ON MAMMALS ARE NOT TESTED. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLES
WOULD REQUIRE THAT NO PRODUCT, THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS UNKNOWN BE PUT INTO
THE MARKET STREAM. THIS COTTON WHICH IN APPEARANCE IS NO DIFFERENT FROM
ANY OTHER COTTON WILL INTERMINGLE WITH ORDINARY COTTON AND IT WILL
BECOME IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTAIN ITS ADVERSE AFFECT. THE ONLY REMEDY IS TO
DESTROY THE COTTON AS WELL AS THE SEEDS PRODUCED AND HARVESTED IN THIS
MANNER.

(III)
SINCE THE FARMERS ARE BEING PUT TO A LOSS, THE FURTHER PROCESS
TO DETERMINE THE COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO FARMERS, WHO HAVE UNWITTINGLY
USED THIS PRODUCT HAS TO BE DETERMINED AND UNDERTAKEN.

13. I
WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT EVERY DAY OF DELAY IN THIS MATTER POSES A
THREAT TO THE ENVIRONMENT.”

Having just
concluded that Bt was dangerous and all of it had to be uprooted and burned, a
few weeks later the GEAC approved the commercial release of Monsanto-Mahyco
Biotech (MMB) Bt Cotton.

The national
farmers unions made a joint petition to the GEAC and asked for an inquiry
committee to be set up and liability and compensation fixed on the basis of the
“polluter pays” principle. Since Monsanto-Mahyco is admittedly the source of
the GM pollution, they, along with Navbharat Seeds Pvt. Ltd, which has further
spread the pollution, are jointly liable for the pollution caused.

Monsanto’s
Bt Cotton has also found its way into edible vegetable oils in India.

In a government document, the Department of
Biotechnology states:

COTTON
SEEDS CAN BE TOXIC IF INGESTED IN EXCESSIVE QUANTITIES BECAUSE OF THE PRESENCE
OF ANTI-NUTRITIONAL AND TOXIC FACTORS INCLUDING GOSSYPOL AND CYCLOPROPENOID
FATTY ACIDS.

but then
goes on to say in the next sentence:

THE OIL
AND LINTERS ARE USED AS PREMIUM VEGETABLE OILS AND AS CELLULOSE DIETARY
ADDITIVES FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION, RESPECTIVELY. TRADITIONALLY, WHOLE COTTON SEED
IS USED AS CATTLE FEED IN INDIA. HOWEVER, THE INCREASE IN DEMAND OF EDIBLE OILS
HAS NECESSITATED PROCESSING OF COTTON SEED FOR ITS OIL. THEREFORE, COTTON SEED
OILCAKE/MEAL AFTER EXTRACTION IS NOW USED AS CATTLE FEED.

Monsanto’s
Bt Cotton, without the support of necessary precautions and scientific studies,
has illegally found its way into the Indian food chain, endangering the health
of 1.26 billion Indians. The health effects of Bt Cotton seed oil in “premium
vegetable oil”(as the DBT calls it) must be investigated, and the damage to
people’s health must be compensated by Monsanto.

Monsanto’s
illegal collection of super-profits as royalties

India’s laws
do not permit patents on seeds and in agriculture. But that hasn’t stopped
Monsanto from collecting close to USD 900 million from small farmers in India,
pushing them into crushing debt. This is roughly the same amount of money
Monsanto spent buying The Climate Corporation — a weather big data
company — in a bid to control climate data access in the future.

Monsanto-Mahyco
Biotech Ltd collected royalties for Bt Cotton by going outside the law and
charging “technology fees” and “trait value”. These are just clever names for
royalty collection. In 2006, out of the INR 1600 (per 450 grams) price tag, INR
1250 — almost 80% — was charged by MMB as the trait value. Compared
to Bt Cotton, local seeds used to cost INR 5-9 per kg before Monsanto destroyed
alternatives, including local hybrid seed supply, through licensing
arrangements and acquisitions.

In January
2006, the Andhra Pradesh Government filed a complaint with the Monopolies and
Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) against Monsato-Mahyco Biotech
(MMB), accusing MMB of overpricing genetically modified Bt Cotton seeds. The
Research Foundation for Science Technology and Ecology had to intervene in the
MRTPC case. In its submission, the Andhra Pradesh Government pointed out that
Monsanto charged only about INR 400 for the same packet of seeds in China and
only about INR 200 in the US – 9 times less than the amount they were forcing
Andhra Pradesh farmers to pay. MMB said the royalty it charged reflected
its research and development costs for Bt Cotton, admitting that they were
charging Indian farmers royalty and that for some reason, Indian farmers owed
them more for their research and development than farmers in the US.

Image courtesy of Stranger
in a Strange Land

On 10 May
2006, the MRTPC ruled in favour of the Andhra Pradesh government and
directed MMB to reduce the trait value it was unfairly charging the farmers of
Andhra Pradesh. Following this, on 29 May 2006, the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural
Commissioner fixed the price of Bt Cotton seeds at INR 750 for a 450-gram
packet, and directed MMB and its sub-licensees to comply with its order.
Monsanto challenged the Andhra Pradesh Government and the MRTPC’s decision in
the Supreme Court, saying that the government’s move was illegal and arbitrary.
The Supreme Court did not stay the MRTPC’s order, but while the appeal was
pending before it, five states — Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, West Bengal,
and Madhya Pradesh (now Maharashtra as well)— followed Andhra Pradesh’s lead
and ordered that Bt Cotton should be sold at a reduced price, dealing a blow to
the inflated profits Monsanto was taking from Indian peasants and repatriating
to their headquarters in St Louis.

To side-step
price control measures and avoid any regulation that had been applied to Bt
Cotton, which was marketed in India as Bollgard, Monsanto introduced Bollgard
II, its apparently ‘upgraded’ version with two Bt proteins. Monsanto’s
intentional scientific ignorance (despite the availability of scientific
studies at the time) is obvious. GMOs which release the Bt toxin in high doses
in every cell of every plant are highly toxic to pollinators and friendly
insects and are a recipe for creating super pests through the emergence of
resistance.

The pink
bollworm underwent what every intelligent being does – it evolved – it became
resistant to Bt. On it’s website, Monsanto admits, “Measures to delay
resistance are critically important” and “application of insecticide sprays
during the crop season, and proper management of crop residue and unopened
bolls after harvest will help limit insects in cotton fields”. What are farmers
being made to pay for if normal bollworm control measures are still required,
they are still expected to buy and spray insecticides, and 80% of the cost of
the seed goes for failed R&D?

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/india-pink-bollworm.aspx

Monsanto
admitted that the pink bollworm was resistant to Bollgard and claimed Bollgard
II, with it’s two Bt proteins would control the bollworm epidemic. This allowed
Monsanto to continue looting marginalised small farmers. By claiming Bollgard
II was better technology than the first version, Monsanto was able to mislead
farmers and charge even higher prices. (Oblivious to it’s earlier Bt failures,
Monsanto is currently working on a 3-protein Bt variety to continue it’s
looting).

And Monsanto
still claims Bt Cotton is resistant to Bollworm, and have all their hired mouthpieces claim that there is
reduced pesticide usage due to this inherent trait. In reality, requirements of
pesticide increase every year with Bt Cotton. Clearly misrepresenting their
lacklustre product, the only reason for the existence of Bt Cotton is
royalties. Monsanto itself is on record at the 52nd Meeting of the GEAC (held
on 4 March 2005) saying that Bt is not resistant to Bollworm.

“TO A
QUERY ON WHETHER THE BT VARIETY IS RESISTANT TO BOLLWORM COMPLEX OR ONLY
EFFECTIVE AGAINST AMERICAN BOLLWORM IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT BT COTTON IS TOLERANT
TO BOLLWORM AND NOT RESISTANT.”

SOURCE:
MINUTES OF THE 52ND MEETING OF THE GEAC

WWW.ENVFOR.NIC.IN/DIVISIONS/CSURV/GEAC/GEAC-52.DOC

This
ruthlessness is central to the crisis Indian farmers are facing. Farmers
leveraged their land holdings to buy Bt Cotton seeds and the chemicals it
demanded, but the golden promise of higher yield and lower input costs failed
to deliver. They were left with no option but to take their own lives.

(Incidentally,
CD Mayee was the chair of the GEAC subcommittee on Bt Cotton, which still
monitors the performance of Bt Cotton, and his reports on the performance of Bt
Cotton were, and still are, very different from the real
experiences of the farmers driven to suicide by failed harvests and inferior quality cotton yield.)

In 2007
Andhra Pradesh was forced to introduce the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds Act to
control the price of cottonseed, since Bollgard II prices were still
astronomically high due to a majority royalty component.

The
following Act of the Andhra Pradesh Legislature received the assent of the
Governor in August 2007:

ACT
NO.29 OF 2007

SHORT
TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT

DEFINITIONS

AN ACT
TO REGULATE THE SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, SALE AND FIXATION OF SALE PRICE OF COTTON
SEEDS AND FOR THE MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH OR INCIDENTAL THERETO.

WHEREAS,
COTTON SEEDS OF CERTAIN VARIETIES ARE NOT NOTIFIED UNDER SECTION 5 AND
CONSEQUENTLY NO SALE OF SUCH SEEDS ARE REGULATED UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE SEEDS
ACT, 1966;

AND
WHEREAS, COTTON SEED IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL COMMODITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 AS AMENDED BY THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2006;

AND
WHEREAS, THE PROVISIONS OF THE SEEDS (CONTROL) ORDER, 1983 ISSUED UNDER SECTION
3 OF THE ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN SO FAR AS THEY
RELATE TO THE COTTON SEEDS W.E.F. 12.2.2007;

AND
WHEREAS, THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, 1986 TO
REGULATE THE SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF TRANSGENIC AND GENETICALLY
MODIFIED COTTON SEED AND TO CONTROL THE SALE PRICE OF SUCH COTTON SEED IN THE
STATE;

AND
WHEREAS, THE TRADERS IN COTTON SEED INCLUDING TRANSGENIC COTTON SEED ARE EXPLOITING
POOR FARMERS BY COLLECTING EXORBITANT PRICES;

AND
WHEREAS, THERE IS NO PROVISION TO REGULATE THE SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, SALE OF
COTTON SEEDS AND TO CONTROL THE SALE PRICES OF SUCH COTTON SEEDS IN THE STATE;

AND
WHEREAS, IT HAS BECOME IMPERATIVE ON THE PART OF THE STATE TO REGULATE THE
SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION AND SALE OF COTTON SEEDS BY FIXING THE SALE PRICE IN THE
INTERESTS OF THE FARMERS IN THE STATE;

BE IT
ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE FIFTY-EIGHTH
YEAR OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA AS FOLLOWS :- 1. (1) THIS ACT MAY BE CALLED THE
ANDHRA PRADESH COTTON SEEDS

(REGULATION
OF SUPPLY, DISTRIBUTION, SALE AND FIXATION OF SALE PRICE) ACT, 2007.

(2) IT
SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE COME INTO FORCE ON AND FROM THE 28TH JUNE, 2007.

This
restriction on their profits did not sit well with Monsanto, which then
challenged the Andhra Pradesh Cotton Seeds Act. The Research Foundation for
Science Technology and Ecology had to intervene in the case once more, which is
still before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

While
Monsanto does not have a patent on Bt cotton in
India, it goes outside the law to collect royalties as “technology fees”. Most
of the 300,000 farmers suicides in India since 1995 (when the WTO came into
force) are concentrated in the cotton belt. And 95% of the cotton in India is
controlled by Monsanto.

Out of
India’s 29 states, those with Bt Cotton have the highest suicide rates.

Source: http://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/14501/filename/14502.pdf

Correlation
is the first step to understanding causation. Monsanto does not see
the above correlation because the next logical step would be to plead guilty
for the deaths of all the farmers whose lives have been reduced to numbers on a
table, or a bank account in St Louis.

Additionally,
Monsanto knows that Bt Cotton is dependent on irrigation. Despite this
knowledge, Monsanto has pushed its Bt Cotton into regions that depend solely on
rainfall, as opposed to irrigation. These include Vidarbha in Maharashtra,
where most cotton farms are less than 1 hectare and are dependent solely on
rainfall. The costs of Bt cottonseed and insecticide increase
the risk of farmer bankruptcy in low-yield rainfed cotton. The
criminal negligence of knowingly setting up marginal farmers – who can’t afford
to irrigate, and whose options for obtaining seeds have been acquired by
Monsanto – for dire failure, cannot be ignored.

A recent
research paper published by Environmental
Sciences Europe concluded:

“[THE]
INABILITY TO USE SAVED SEED AND INADEQUATE AGRONOMIC INFORMATION TRAP COTTON FARMERS
ON BIOTECHNOLOGY AND INSECTICIDE TREADMILLS. ANNUAL SUICIDE RATES IN RAINFED
AREAS ARE INVERSELY RELATED TO FARM SIZE AND YIELD, AND DIRECTLY RELATED TO
INCREASES IN BT COTTON ADOPTION (I.E., COSTS). HIGH-DENSITY SHORT-SEASON
COTTONS COULD INCREASE YIELDS AND REDUCE INPUT COSTS IN IRRIGATED AND RAINFED
COTTON. POLICY MAKERS NEED HOLISTIC ANALYSIS BEFORE NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE
IMPLEMENTED IN AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT.”

“Fourteen
years after US multinational Monsanto brought the genetically modified (GM) Bt
Cotton (Bollgard) to India, there is no clarity on the discovery having ever
been patented in the country,” states a recent Times of India article. India does not recognise patents
on life, including seeds. The royalties Monsanto has collected over the last
fourteen years are based on a patent that does not exist, and is therefore,
quite simply, theft. Monsanto is robbing the people who have the least, of the
very last thing they can give – their lives.

Illegal
patents on life through Monsanto’s laws in the WTO

In 1980 the
US Supreme Court heard a case that is now famous for being the point
in world history where life forms were first allowed to be patented – not only
in the US, but through the WTO, in many other parts of the world. Ananda Mohan
Chakrabarty, a General Electric employee, had applied for a patent for a
process of producing a bacterium capable of eating crude oil
spills, and on the bacteria itself. The claim was rejected by the US
Patent office, but on appeal, was granted by a 5-4 majority in the Supreme
Court.

“The
decision of the Supreme Court in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 206 USPQ
193 (1980), held that microorganisms produced by genetic engineering are not
excluded from patent protection by 35 U.S.C. 101:

4.
“This is not to suggest that § 101 has no limits or that it embraces
every discovery. The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas
have been held not patentable.”
5.
“Thus, a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild
is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his
celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.”

Source:
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2105.html

Genetic
engineering has not been able to deliver on its promises – it is just a tool of
ownership. Bt Cotton is not resistant to Bollworm, RoundUp Resistant varieties
have only given rise to super weeds, and the new promises being made by biotech
corporations of bio-fortification are laughable. There is no benefit to things
like Golden Rice. By adding one new gene to the cell
of a plant, corporations claimed they had invented and created the seed, the
plant, and all future seeds, which were now their property. Monsanto does not
care if your cotton field has Bollworm infestations, just so long as the crop
can be identified as theirs and royalty payments keep flowing in. This is why
the failure of Bt Cotton as a reflection of bad science does not bother them –
the cash is still coming into St Louis.

At its core,
genetic modification is about ownership.

In 1981,
shortly after the precedence of life forms being patented had been set in the
US, Monsanto, which was a chemical company at the time, decided – as it lays
out on it’s own website – that biotechnology would be its strategic research focus in
the future. Selling chemicals requires raw materials that eat into profit.
Intellectual Property, on the other hand, just pays. In the decade and a half
since 1981, with this new “strategic research focus” and all the R&D
dollars you can imagine, Monsanto has only been able to produce failures –
failures that pay royalties from all across the world.

Article in The Hindu. Courtesy of Ahimsa
Research Foundation

Monsanto saw
that by claiming ownership of life forms, especially seed – the first step in
the food chain – and destroying alternatives or making them illegal, would
allow them to charge royalties for the source of food, fibre and fuel. It was
easy money, and a lot of it. The limited achievements of Monsanto’s research
focus have not given us better cotton, corn, canola or soya – they’ve merely
made it all theirs.

Monsanto
required new forms of property rights, inspired by the US Supreme Court, to be
able to claim as an invention that which is not invented by them – seed and
life forms. This was achieved through the World Trade Organisation (WTO),
working closely with the US Government and with the Trade-Related Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement.

Patents are
granted for inventions, and give the patent holder the right to exclude
everyone from the use or marketing of a patented product or process. Over the
last two decades, patent laws have taken a different direction under the
influence of corporations like Monsanto, from protecting the interests of
genuine inventions and ideas to ownership of life and control over survival
essentials like seed and medicine.

JAMES
ENYART OF MONSANTO IS ON RECORD ILLUSTRATING JUST HOW DEEPLY THE TRIPS
AGREEMENT IS ALIGNED TO CORPORATE INTEREST AND AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF NATIONS
AND THEIR CITIZENS:

“INDUSTRY
HAS IDENTIFIED A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR INTERNATIONAL TRADE. IT CRAFTED A SOLUTION,
REDUCED IT TO A CONCRETE PROPOSAL AND SOLD IT TO OUR OWN AND OTHER GOVERNMENTS…
THE INDUSTRIES AND TRADERS OF WORLD COMMERCE HAVE PLAYED SIMULTANEOUSLY THE
ROLE OF PATIENTS, THE DIAGNOSTICIANS AND THE PRESCRIBING PHYSICIANS.”

Corporations
defined a problem – farmers saving seed – so that they could forcefully open
the market. In turn, they offered a solution, and the solution was the
introduction of patents and intellectual property rights on seed, making it
illegal for farmers to save their seed. This is how the Trade Related
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement of the WTO was born. For
the US Government, with an economy where the manufacturing industry was
slowing, the idea of royalties coming in to fuel the economy was perfect.

ARTICLE
27.3 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT STATES:

3. MEMBERS
MAY ALSO EXCLUDE FROM PATENTABILITY:
(A) DIAGNOSTIC,
THERAPEUTIC AND SURGICAL METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS; (B) PLANTS
AND ANIMALS OTHER THAN MICRO-ORGANISMS, AND ESSENTIALLY BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES
FOR THE PRODUCTION OF PLANTS OR ANIMALS OTHER THAN NON-BIOLOGICAL AND
MICROBIOLOGICAL PROCESSES. HOWEVER, MEMBERS SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE PROTECTION OF
PLANT VARIETIES EITHER BY PATENTS OR BY AN
EFFECTIVE SUI GENERIS SYSTEM OR BY ANY COMBINATION THEREOF. THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH SHALL BE REVIEWED FOUR YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF
ENTRY INTO FORCE OF THE WTO AGREEMENT.

This is
the Monsanto Law of the TRIPS Agreement. Drafted
by Monsanto lawyers and riding on the US taxpayer’s dollar, it bulldozes the
world leaving behind nothing but royalty liabilities.

Section 3(b)
of Article 27 is what is cleverly designed to be a trojan horse and to prohibit
the free exchange of seeds between farmers, threatening their subsistence and
their ability to save and exchange seeds. Shooting a gene into an organism
through a gene gun is not a biological process. A seed growing into a plant
that gives seed is a biological process. But the non-biological process of the
insertion of a gene is patentable according to Article 27.3(b).

Genetic
engineering has been defined as “non-biological” and/or “microbiological” by
the same lawyers that put the Monsanto Law into the TRIPS agreement, allowing
the patentability of seeds and other life forms through genetic manipulation.

Objections
to the Monsanto Law were raised owing to the basic idea that life cannot be
patented.

India, in
its submission, stated:

Clearly,
there is a case for re-examining the need to grant patents on lifeforms
anywhere in the world. Until such systems are in place, it may be advisable
to:- (a) exclude patents on all lifeforms

The African
group stated:

The
African Group maintains its reservations about patenting any life forms as
explained on previous occasions by the Group and several other delegations. In
this regard, the Group proposes that Article 27.3(b) be revised to prohibit
patents on plants, animals, micro-organisms, essentially biological processes
for the production of plants or animals, and non-biological and microbiological
processes for the production of plants or animals. For plant varieties to be
protected under the TRIPS Agreement, the protection must clearly, and not just
implicitly or by way of exception, strike a good balance with the interests of
the community as a whole and protect farmers’ rights and traditional knowledge,
and ensure the preservation of biological diversity.

Image courtesy of NWRAGE

Due to the
strong objections raised at the WTO it was decided that the Monsanto Law (TRIPs
clause on patents on life) would be due for a mandatory review within the first
4 years of the WTO – by 1999. The review of the clause on patents on life has
been blocked and subverted for the last 16 years by Monsanto and the
Monsanto-friendly government of the United States, to protect the royalties
that are moving money from impoverished farmers world over to the United States
of America.

This is not
for the benefit of the US as a nation. The illegal royalties collected do not
benefit citizens of the US. In fact, the liberties and basic human rights of
the citizens of the US are being restricted by this royalty-hungry monster,
just like those of the Indian cotton farmer. There is an attempt, in the US, by
Monsanto and the aiding US Government, to deem all non-patented seed illegal –
even the tomato you have in your garden. And all this is being done in the name
of “protecting and maintaining the food sources of America.”

Since 1991,
when the draft text of the WTO agreements was leaked, the National Working
Group on Indian Patent Law worked with Parliament and the government to ensure
that public interest was protected in any amendment made in India’s patent laws
in order to make India’s IPR regime TRIPS-compliant. Methods of agriculture and
plants were excluded from patentability in the Indian Patent Act to ensure that
seed, the first link in the food chain, was held as a common property resource
in the public domain and farmers’ inalienable right to save, exchange and
improve seed was not violated. And only process patents (patents on processes)
were allowed in medicine.

When India
amended her Patent Act, safeguards consistent with TRIPS were introduced based
on a scientific definition of “invention”.

ARTICLE
3 DEFINES WHAT IS NOT PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER.ARTICLE
3(D) EXCLUDES AS INVENTIONS “THE MERE DISCOVERY OF ANY NEW PROPERTY OR NEW USE
FOR A KNOWN SUBSTANCE”.

This was the
article under which Novartis’s patent claim to a known cancer drug was
rejected. This is the article that Novartis tried to challenge in the Supreme
Court and lost.

ARTICLE
3(J) EXCLUDES FROM PATENTABILITY “PLANTS AND ANIMALS IN WHOLE OR IN ANY PART
THEREOF OTHER THAN MICROORGANISMS; BUT INCLUDING SEEDS, VARIETIES, AND SPECIES,
AND ESSENTIALLY BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES FOR PRODUCTION OR PROPAGATION OF PLANTS
AND ANIMALS”.

This was the
article used by the Indian Patent Office to reject a Monsanto patent on climate
resilient seeds and is also why farmers in India are, at the very least, safe
from Monsanto lawyers, unlike the thousands of farmers across the world like
Bowman, Steve Marsh and Percy Schmeiser being sued by Monsanto for being
farmers.

India’s
patent laws, based on good science and drafted by conscientious people, get in
the way of Monsanto’s royalty collections, if only on paper. The US Government,
under the influence of Monsanto, has been pressurising countries like India to
change their patent regimes to fit into Monsanto’s plan, meanwhile subverting
the review of the Monsanto Law, though it has legally been obligated to do
since 1999.

In 1996
the US Government brought a case in the WTO against India due to the “alleged
absence of patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products
in India.” It was to ensure protection of Monsanto’s royalties on seeds and its
carcinogenic Glyphosate molecule. Monsanto was attempting to subvert the
democratic laws of India using the US Government to strong arm India, as it is
doing even today. US President Obama’s recent trip to meet Indian Prime
Minister Modi in India was, aside from a show of wardrobe, intended to
pressurise India into changing its IPR regime to better suit American industry.
The proposed changes are in no way designed to foster innovation within India,
for which Indian laws are quite good.

India’s
sovereignty is under attack by Monsanto. American citizens’ rights to garden in
their backyards with seeds they freely exchange with one another are under
attack by Monsanto. African farmers’ livelihoods are under attack by Monsanto.
The world’s food system is under attack by Monsanto. Hundreds of thousands of
Indian cotton farmers have died under attack from Monsanto. It is a war being
waged to profit from every grain of corn and soya, rice or banana you eat. The
citizens of the world are victims of this war, from the US and Argentina to
India, across the Pacific through the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and
across the Atlantic through the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP).

If a country
other than the US was blocking and subverting the review of the Monsanto Law,
that country would have been bombed by drones a long time ago. It is time to
tell the US Government to stop being a Monsanto Government writing laws on behalf
of Monsanto at home and imposing them worldwide. It is time for the US
government to stop being a rogue nation and stop blocking the mandatory review
of TRIPS, the International Monsanto Law – even if it’s 16 years late. It is
time to tell the US government to stop criminalising farmers who save seeds or
whose seeds are contaminated by Monsanto.

Monsanto
must compensate farmers for royalties collected on the basis of an imaginary
patent, and the reparations due for the hundreds of thousands of farmers it has
killed by collecting illegitimate and illegal royalties. Life is priceless.
Monsanto can never return the father or the husband it pushed to suicide.
Corporations like Monsanto will never really understand the value of life
unless we put a dollar figure to the debt the widows and the children of
the dead are owed. Insurance statisticians have put the life of a “prime aged
worker”, in the US, at a median value of USD 7 million. 84% of 300,000
suicides, 252,000, are directly attributed to Monsanto’s Bt-Cotton. By this
calculation, Monsanto, in addition to the illegal royalties collected, owes the
families of ‘prime aged’ working farmers in India an amount of USD
1.764 Trillion. We must ensure reparations are made and Monsanto does not
shrug it’s responsibilities by changing it’s name, buying Syngenta, or through
any other corporate tax evasion/liability reducing tricks it’s lawyers conjure
up.

Internationally
Monsanto must be tried for its crimes against nature, people, science and
knowledge, freedom and democracy. Our governments need to start working for
their citizens instead of Monsanto, and the mandatory review of the Monsanto
Law of the TRIPS agreement must be done if the US values ‘freedom’.

We need to
have reverence for nature and ecological justice must be served. Reparations,
for the genocide in India, in accordance with International Law, are due.

VII.
VICTIMS’ RIGHT TO REMEDIES

11.
REMEDIES FOR GROSS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND SERIOUS
VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW INCLUDE THE VICTIM’S RIGHT TO THE
FOLLOWING AS PROVIDED FOR UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW:

(A)
EQUAL AND EFFECTIVE ACCESS TO JUSTICE;

(B)
ADEQUATE, EFFECTIVE AND PROMPT REPARATION FOR HARM SUFFERED;

We must end
Monsanto’s colonisation, it’s enslavement of famers – for whom the only escape
from the Monsanto treadmill is suicide. We must not allow Monsanto to profit
from the loss of innocent lives. Private enterprise cannot be allowed to profit
from global public risk. Real lives are more valuable
than fake patents.This illegal takeover of our food, our seeds and
our democracies, and the killing of farmers must be stopped.

Sign
the Declaration on Seed Freedom

And you can
sign the open letter to President Obama and PM Modi here.

Further
information:

DARK Act

Food Sovereignty

Seeds of Doubt Monsanto never had Bt cotton
patent

Price Control on Bt Cotton Seeds in India: Impact on Seed Providers

Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India – Reviewing the
Evidence

MRTP Verdict against Monsanto hailed.

Behind India’s ‘Epidemic’ Of Farmer Suicides

Chronology of Bt Cotton in India

Bombay HC upholds Maharashtra Seed Act, delivers blow to
industry