PEPSICO AND FARMERS RIGHTS

Suman Sahai

The PepsiCo case is getting curiouser. First the company filed a case against nine Gujarat farmers seeking damages of 1.05 crores from each, for growing potatoes of a variety over which it claimed exclusive rights. This was followed by a furor in the media, unusual since agriculture and farmers are not front page news at the best of times and certainly not in the middle of frenetic campaigning for general elections. Then came the news that PepsiCo was withdrawing the case, rumored as it was , amidst negotiations involving the Gujarat government that was brokering a deal in favor of PepsiCo.

Even as newsprint is being dedicated to analyzing the how and why of the company’s withdrawal, is the sober realization that though the offer for withdrawal was made at a court hearing on 26 April , the company has in fact not withdrawn the case against farmers as yet. So was the declaration that they were withdrawing the case just a jumla ? Was it just buying time to quieten the howls of protest from civil society groups till they were able to work out a deal

After an overkill action against farmers with average land holdings between 1.2 and 1.6 hectare, the company probably realized the PR disaster  of a huge multinational company suing small and marginal farmers for enormous amounts of money. It offered an out of court settlement with conditions saying  that farmers “have to sign an agreement with us to buy the seeds and sell the produce to us. Or, the farmers give an undertaking that they will never use our registered seeds without permission in future. Whatever stock they have at present, should be given to us.”

Why on earth would farmers agree to this bizarre offer ? They have committed no offence. It must be clear that farmers have acted fully within the Farmers Rights granted to them under the Indian law. Contrary to its claim of having an “exclusive” right, PepsiCo only has a Breeders Rights registration for its potato variety under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFRA). Breeders Rights is not an exclusive right, there are many exemptions to it.  

In the Indian legislation, legal rights have been  granted to both Breeders and Farmers. Farmers Rights grants farmers the right to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share and sell seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as before the coming into force of this Act.  This means that farmers can sell the seed of any variety , even if it has a Breeders Rights registration, for local use as they have always done. Farmers cannot brand this seed with the Breeder’s name,  in this case FC 5.

The Gujarat farmers were not selling any branded seed. They have committed no violation of the law. They can buy seed from other farmers which they have apparently done and they are fully within their rights to cultivate the crop and sell it wherever they like. PepsiCo has  no business insisting the farmer buy seed only from them or that they sell only to them. This is sheer bullying and intimidation.  

Farmers Rights in the Indian legislation was finalized after nearly ten years of negotiations with three different governments and it was discussed by two Joint Parliamentary Committees.  Its structure was finalized by an Expert Committee chaired by the legendary  Dr MS Swaminathan. This author was a member of that Expert Committee and Gene Campaign (of  which the author is chairperson) along with others in civil society campaigned ceaselessly for the rights of farmers in the Indian legislation on seeds. The PPVFRA was enacted by Parliament in 2001 and it is accepted by the WTO-TRIPS as compliant with our international commitments. 

India is the only country in the world to have enacted an Intellectual Property Rights  law on seeds that gives rights to both Breeders and Farmers. Under pressure from the multinational seed industry, every other country has given rights only to breeders which are increasingly seed companies like Monsanto and PepsiCo. 

The Gujarat government that is playing arbitrator in the PepsiCo case must do nothing to jeopardize the farmer’s interest.  The aggrieved farmers should now consider filing a suit for injunction and damages against PepsiCo, damages for the harassment and mental anguish caused and injunction against any further harassment.

Dr Suman Sahai is a scientist and chairperson of the Gene Campaign