PepsiCo and Potato Farmers Case

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.

Source: Indian Express, Business Line