ARTICLE : ‘Sarso mein IP ka tadka’ leaves local farmers in the dock

GM MUSTARD
As debates around genetically modified (GM) mustard pick up in India, Shalini Bhutani takes a look at the neglected diversity of the oilseed mustard crop on native farmers’ fields and points to the bias of the existing law.

29 June 2015 - Shalini Bhutani

 

Can the provisions on farmers’ rights in India’s intellectual property (IP) law on plant varieties help promote farmers’ varieties? While millions of people in India temper their daily diets with mustard oil and seeds, IP politics continues to temper the broader issue.

As of 3 June 2015, 54 applications for farmers’ varieties (FV) of Sarso were received (through 2010-2015) by the National Plant Authority in Delhi. The large number of varieties is evidence of the grassroots’ innovation in this crop. It also reflects the crop diversity that exists in the Indian fields. But if the government and the public sector do not promote these FVs, this diversity will continue to remain only on paper. Farmers would then have no incentive to continue to conserve and grow local varieties.

The Indian Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001 Act defines a ‘farmer’s variety’ (FV) as that which has been traditionally cultivated and evolved by the farmers in their fields, or is a wild relative or land race or a variety about which the farmers possess common knowledge. According to the Act, an FV can be applied for by any farmer(s) or group of farmers or community of farmers claiming to be the breeder of the variety. The word extant meaning still in existence, by definition under the law [Section 2(j)] refers to those varieties that in India are either:
(i) notified under section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966; or
(ii) farmers’ variety; or
(iii) a variety about which there is common knowledge; or
(iv) any other variety which is in public domain.

Indian Mustard was notified by the Ministry of Agriculture as a crop eligible for IP protection on 30 April 2010.The notification was issued by the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (DAC) under the Indian law - Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001. This implies that the National PPVFR Authority functioning under the Ministry was ready to receive applications for IP registration of varieties of Indian Mustard, both Sarso (Brassica juncea) and Karan Rai (Brassica kurinata).

Politics of Time
Once a crop is so notified, there are time limits prescribed for the registration of farmers’ varieties (FV) and extant varieties (EV). FVs may be registered within five years after the date of crop notification. In other words, FVs of Sarso were eligible for plant variety protection (PVP) till 29 April 2015. Likewise, EVs can be registered up to three years after notification, which in this case means that they were eligible till 29 April 2013.

The PPVFR Rules, 2003, were specifically amended by the PPVFR (Second Amendment) Rules dated 27 October 2009 to notify these time-bound schedules. However, the amendment gives the Registrar the power to register FVs or EVs even after the expiry of the prescribed five and three years respectively, provided he records his reasons in writing.

New varieties (NV) of a notified crop may be registered at any time after a crop is so notified. There is no time limit prescribed for that. The NV however must conform to the criteria of ‘NDUS’ - novelty, distinctiveness, uniformity and stability.

Effect of PVP registration
When an application for such IP registration is accepted, the registrar issues a certificate of registration in the prescribed form. It is valid for six years in the case of crops. It may be reviewed and renewed upon payment of fees as fixed by the rules made in this regard. This is subject to the condition that the total period of validity shall not exceed fifteen years.

During the term of registration, the Act grants the breeder of the variety or his successor, his agent or licensee the exclusive right to produce, sell, market, distribute, import or export the registered variety. These are clearly a set of rights vis-à-vis the ‘formal’ seed market.

In the case of an extant variety, unless a breeder or his successor has established his right, the Central Government shall be deemed to be the owner of such right. In cases where such extant variety is notified for a state or any area thereof, the rights will accrue to the state government.

What this means is that if farmers choose not to seek IP on the varieties they have developed, or do not have the wherewithal to make an application to the PPVFR Authority, they are at risk of losing both credit for their innovation and any chance of receiving a share in benefits, if the variety is used for commercialization by someone else.

Popular protests against the genetically modified (GM) Mustard. Pic: Sarson Satyagraha

A farmer-friendly law?
If one looks at recent data in the above context, two issues of significance emerge. First, within the window of time for registration of FVs of Indian Mustard, only one FV – Sitara Sringar, was granted the plant variety certificate (No.812 of 2014). It is that of Shri Hukum Singh Lodha from Village Sitara, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur in Rajasthan.

Second, in sharp contrast to the single FV, a total of forty-six extant varieties have been registered under the Act and granted IP by the PPVFR Authority as of 31 March 2015. Most of these registered EVs belong to the ICAR and state agricultural universities (SAUs). One of these forty-six is the plant variety certificate (No. 350 of 2014) granted to Dhara Mustard Hybrid-1 (DMH-1) applied for jointly in 2013 by the National Dairy Development Board along with the University of Delhi, South Campus.

Private competition and the GM controversy
Let us now put this in larger perspective.
The seed industry obviously does not want competition from farmers. If a farmer-breeder develops a ‘new’ variety after five years, s/he too has to file for fresh registration under the category of new variety (NV) as a seed company would. Seed companies have applied for PVP for 25 varieties under the ‘new’ category, which are now being processed by the Authority.

Through 2013-2015 ten Indian Mustard varieties applied for by private seed companies were also granted PVP. In fact, the PVP certificates were granted beyond the cut-off date of 29 April 2013 for registration of extant varieties of Sarso, as shown by the table below based on data as of 3 June 2015:

Table: Registrations of Indian Mustard varieties by private seed companies

 

No.	Variety	Category	Company	Applied	Granted
1	Coral 432 (PAC 432)	Extant	Advanta India Ltd.	2012	20 May 2013
2	Palak	Extant (VCK)*	Nirmal Seeds Pvt. Ltd.	2011	2 Dec 2014
3	Parasmani-1	Extant (VCK)	M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd.	2012	3 Dec 2014
4	Ladli	Extant (VCK)	Shakti Vardhak Seed Pvt. Ltd.	2012	6 Dec 2014
5	Black Gold (NML-100)	Extant (VCK)	Nirmal Seeds Pvt. Ltd.	2011	11 Dec 2014
6	Albeli-1	Extant (VCK)	Shakti Vardhak Seed Pvt. Ltd.	2012	15 Dec 2014
7	Parasmani-8	Extant (VCK)	Shakti Vardhak Seed Pvt. Ltd.	2012	17 Dec 2014
8	Parasmani-2	Extant (VCK)	M/s Shakti Vardhak Hybrid Seeds Pvt. Ltd.	2012	27 Jan 2015
9	44S01	Extant (VCK)	Pioneer Overseas Corporation	2010	25 Mar 2015
10	Nirmal Bold (NML-64)	Extant (VCK)	Nirmal Seeds Pvt. Ltd.	2013	27 Apl 2015

* VCK – Variety of common knowledge

Source:  Compiled by the author from data available on the PPVFR Authority web site

Mustard hybrids and the frenzy around their IP applications as detailed above gain greater significance in the context of the controversy around genetically modified (GM) crops in India.
A GM Brassica juncea mustard hybrid (DMH 11) has been developed by the Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP), University of Delhi, South Campus. The mustard hybrid has reportedly completed Biosafety Research Level (BRL) II trials, which in the Indian biosafety regulatory parlance is the penultimate research stage, before the variety can be considered for commercial cultivation. The developers of this GM variety have applied for and been granted several patents on different aspects of this ‘invention’ both in India and the USA.

However, Section 29(3) of the PPVFR Act expressly excludes crop varieties with GURT or ‘terminator technology’ from IP protection. The Act classifies genetic use restriction technology (GURT) and terminator as a technology that is injurious to the life or health of human beings, animals or plants. It also clearly lays down that no variety of any genus or species that involves GURT will be registered.
Meanwhile, the go-slow by the Authority on the applications of FVs of Sarso can only be inferred as keeping at bay apparent competition for the hybrids and GM varieties waiting to be marketed both by the public and private sector.

Key Questions
In the light of the above, a number of key questions arise:

• Why have the other pending applications for farmers’ varieties of Indian Mustard not been granted PVP certificates? And why isn’t the only FV registered so far being supported and popularised by the public sector?
• What are the valid reasons the Registrar of Plant Varieties can give for the grant of PVP to companies for EVs beyond the date of expiry for registration of extant varieties of Indian Mustard?
• If the implementation of the PPVFR Act through its rules and regulations is visibly inclined towards IP protection of varieties developed by the seed industry – public or private, then why is it (still) called a ‘Farmers’ Rights’ Act?
• Law and politics around IP on plant varieties aside, with farmers varieties consistently denied access to the domestic market, will Indian consumers ever taste what the country’s native farmers grow?

Shalini Bhutani
29 June 2015

The author is a legal researcher and policy analyst based in Delhi

SOURCE : http://indiatogether.org/ip-debate-on-gm-mustard-agriculture

NEWS : Conspiracy against mustard

Friday, 26 June 2015 - 6:30am IST | Place: Mumbai | Agency: dna | From the print edition
Devinder Sharma

India doesn't need genetically modified mustard to boost its already robust production     

• Reuters

When winter comes, I crave for sarson ka saag. As far as I can remember, even when I got my first job, my mother would send me a container full of saag that would last me for a week or so. I could eat saag with every meal, or at least once a day, a habit that I have not given up since I was a child. But why I am sharing this insight into my culinary taste and preference is because I fear I may soon have to give up on one of my favourite foods.

With the Ministry of Environment & Forests reportedly considering granting a commercial approval to genetically-modified (GM) mustard, I certainly wouldn’t like to take a risk anymore. Knowing the health risks associated with GM foods, I would like to keep away. I am sure millions of north Indians, who are known to have a taste for makki ki roti and sarson ka saag, too, would be greatly disappointed. After all, there is no desperate reason to genetically modify a food crop that has traditionally been a part of the daily cuisine. Moreover, there is no way to segregate the GM mustard from normal mustard to ensure that what I am eating is not genetically modified.

Five years after the Ministry of Environment & Forests had, in 2010, imposed a moratorium on Bt brinjal, which if approved would have been the first food crop in India to be genetically modified, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), the nodal agency that grants approvals, is getting ready to give a green signal to Delhi University’s GM Mustard variety DMH-11. The claim is that this GM Mustard gives 20-25 per cent higher yield, and also improves the quality of mustard oil. It is time to examine the veracity of these claims.

Claims notwithstanding, it is also time to first understand how easily our food is being tampered in the name of increasing crop productivity. The fact of the matter is that there is no GM crop so far across the globe that increases productivity. Even in GM Mustard, the increase in yield that is being claimed, is simply because of the hybrid variety in which the three alien genes have been inserted. Which means if you grow one of the popular mustard hybrids already available in the market, you will hardly have any yield advantage.

It is being repeatedly said that India imports edible oils worth Rs60,000-crore every year and, therefore,  with an increased productivity of GM Mustard, the import bill will be reduced. For those who do not know the real situation, this looks to be a worthwhile proposition. But what is not known is that the huge imports are not because of any shortage of technology or because farmers are unable to produce more. It is simply because successive governments have allowed import duties to be drastically cut from the applicable rate of 300 per cent to almost zero now. As a result, India has been inundated with cheaper imports.

It was in 1985 that the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi decided to launch an Oilseeds Technology Mission to raise the productivity of oilseed crops, including mustard, so as to reduce the import bill. In 1985, India was importing approximately Rs15,000-crore of edible oils, which was roughly 50 per cent of our domestic requirement. This was the third biggest import bill — after petrol and fertilisers — that Rajiv Gandhi was keen to curb. The result was that 10 years after the launch of the Oilseeds Mission, in 1993-94, India became almost self-sufficient in edible oils. With only 3 per cent imports, 97 per cent of edible oils began to be produced within the country.

The cut in import tariffs was not as much from WTO directive but more because of autonomous liberalisation. As per WTO norms, India’s import tariffs for edible oils are bound at 300 per cent. But for reasons that do not make any economic sense, India’s import tariffs have been gradually brought down to almost zero. With cheaper imports coming in, farmers stopped cultivating oilseeds and also much of the processing infrastructure for oilseeds lies redundant. The best way to increase oilseeds production therefore is to raise the import tariffs and provide an enabling environment to farmers. They will do the rest.

Mustard is one of the many oilseeds crops that are grown in India. Over the years, its productivity and production has been on an upswing. In 2010-11, a record mustard production of 81.8 lakh tonnes was harvested.  From 9.04 quintals per hectare in 1990-91, average mustard yield has increased to 12.62 quintals in 2013-14, with Gujarat recording 16.95 quintals per hectare. There is no shortage of mustard in the country. Mustard yields can still be increased further if farmers are paid a remunerative price and an adequate mandi infrastructure is created to procure the harvest every year. Since almost 70 per cent of the mustard crop is cultivated in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana, the problem farmers face is that of over-production and lack of buyers. In Rajasthan, particularly, the central agency Nafed has been pressed into service time and again to procure mustard when prices crash at times of an unmanageable glut.

Mustard oil is one of the healthiest of the edible oils available. It contains one of the lowest levels of saturated fatty acids. But the problem mustard oil faces as far as quality is concerned is its large scale contamination with cheaper cottonseed and palm oils. To provide pungency, some popular brands, add a solution of red chillies.  Improving the quality of mustard oil, therefore, does not require genetic modification but a clean-up in the processing industry and checking unethical trade practices. It needs a crackdown on the oilseeds trade to ensure that quality oil is made available.

Increasing production of oilseed crops like mustard, thereby cutting down on edible oil imports, does not require introduction of GM Mustard. Even the Shanta Kumar committee has in its report on ‘Restructuring FCI’ dwelt on this issue and recommended trade policies to be in tune with country’s food self-sufficiency. I therefore wonder why GEAC is so keen to push another risky food crop down our throats. Why should people be subjected to a risky food just so some scientists can claim credit for producing an unwanted, unhealthy and environmentally damaging GM crop?

The author is a food policy expert
 

SOURCE : http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-conspiracy-against-mustard-2098894

NEWS : After instant noodles row, activists question research on genetically-modified crops

After the issue of Nestle Maggi instant noodles raised an alarm on the food we consume, now the agricultural experts, especially those, who favour natural farming have questioned the research on genetically modified (GM) crops being carried out by some agricultural universities. They feel instead of carrying out such research they should focus on natural farming, so that neither human health nor the environment suffers.

Some of them also raised questions on Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) that accepted transgenic cotton material from former Delhi University (DU) vice-chancellor Deepak Pantel on May 8 to develop new hybrid cotton varieties. PAU also signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) with DU for the same.

Ominder Dutt, executive directorof Punjab-based Kheti Virasat Mission (KVM) that promotes natural farming, said, “Giving green signal to GM crops and their research is an open invitation to several severe diseases. Infact, diseases are rising with every passing day as our agriculture sector which generates food for us is going far away from nature and natural methods.

Scientists forget that excess of everything is bad. If PAU will develop GM cotton varieties as gifted by Pantel, it will severely affect the soil, environment and eventually the health of the people
due to the influence on environment. If it is worried about the human life and agriculture, PAU must return the material back to Pantel.”

Ajay Tripathi, director of KVM, said, “No one has forgotten that Pantel was also once imprisoned at Tihar Jail, New Delhi, for bio plagiarism, but despite that PAU has shown faith in him. Why can't PAU research on how to reduce chemicals in agriculture which is affecting health of human population?

A student of masters in development studies from Bangalore, Kartik Kwatra, who is currently doing training on natural farming in Punjab, said, “Public institutions are usually very less scrutinised and the source of such genetic materials in not known. In other words, PAU and other agricultural universities need to think twice if they go ahead with GM crop research developments. And, until and unless we will not leave artificial food, we will continue to face health problems.”

Jagmohan Singh, state secretary of Bharat Kisan Union, Punjab, said, “Several farming associations are against these crops as they cause harm to the human body in long run.”

Other than this several individuals also feel that all artificial foods and preserved items should also be checked thoroughly by respective state governments.

Former PAU vice-chancellor MS Kang and agricultural economist SS Johal said, “GM crops are developed through an erudite science and people should not have any fear regarding them. GM crops are no different than natural crops and do not affect human health.

Even in the US, research and cultivation on GM crops is very common.
In fact, yield is higher with GM crops and can feed the rising population,” said Kang, while Johal said, “People must have faith in science and development. It is need of the hour. However, scientist
must be very faithful in the entire process.”

PAU that hosted a seminar on GM crops on May 25 also stressed that people must have faith in new technologies.

PAU V-C BS Dhillon could not be contacted despite repeated attempts. Meanwhile, Maharashtra government has recently banned trail of GM crops (rice and chickpea) in the state after some anti-GM crop activists met Maharashtra CM Davendra Fadnavis.

SOURCE: http://www.hindustantimes.com/ludhiana/after-instant-noodles-row-activists-question-research-on-genetically-modified-crops/article1-1357470.aspx

NEWS : Not in a hurry to approve GM crop commercialisation, says Prakash Javadekar

By PTI | 10 Jun, 2015, 12.11AM IST
INDORE: Treading cautiously on contentious issue of commercialisation of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, the Centre today said it will take a call on the matter only after the outcome of field trials and scientific research is available. 
"There are doubts in public minds over the impact of GM crops. So we are not in a hurry to accord sanction for their commercialisation," Union Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar told reporters here. 

"We have given a green light for field trials and scientific study of GM crops. Such trials and research will take 8 to 10 years. After the outcome of trails and research, some decision will be taken," he said. 

Javadekar was here to highlight the achievements of NDA Government's first year in office. 

He said the Forests and Environment Ministry has given nod to 90 projects of Madhya Pradesh in just one year's time. 

 

SOURCE : http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/47606226.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

NEWS: Chief Justice HL Dattu calls GM crops dangerous global experiment

ET Bureau Mar 16, 2015, 04.35AM IST

NEW DELHI: Chief Justice HL Dattu has called for exercising caution while deciding on the future course of action on genetically modified (GM) crops. Speaking at an international conference on environmental issues, he described GM crops as "harmful for human consumption but also for environment".

The Supreme Court is hearing a long-pending public interest litigation opposing GM crops in India. Last year, a bench headed by Justice Dattu refused to give an interim moratorium on field trials of GM crops, saying that all reports had to be discussed.

"Once released, the GM crops cannot be recalled. GM is a dangerous global experiment," the CJI told the conference, 'Global Environment Issues', on Saturday. The two-day event was organised by the National Green Tribunal, in association with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indian Law Institute and Ficci.

The comments were part of the Chief Justice's elaboration on how environmental protection requires a legal language which is capable of incorporating technical specifications while balancing socio-economic rights as well as protecting bio-diversity. "Indian judiciary", he said is "striving hard to hold at bay the demons of environmental degradation from swallowing its citizenry".

His comments on GM crops come in the backdrop of a recent decision by the Maharashtra government to allow five strains of genetically modified crops for field trials. In July, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the statutory body charged with evaluating and permitting field trials and commercial introduction of transgenic crops, had given the go-ahead for field trials for 15 crops. At a recent meeting, the GEAC took up also another clutch of proposals for field trials.
While the statutory body can give its approval, field trials can go ahead only after the state government concerned gives a no-objection certificate. States like Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Chhattisgarh have denied permission for field trials of genetically modified crops.

The environment ministry, which houses the GEAC, had said that there was no ban on field trials, by either the government or the Supreme Court.

The ruling BJP's position on GM crops has been that there is a need for proper scientific assessment of the impact of these crops on human health, environment, and agriculture. Environment minister Prakash Javadekar has maintained that the field trials for GM crops are part of this assessment effort. It is argued that the field trials will generate bio-safety data, and all precautions would be taken to confine the trials.

On the PIL, a technical committee, comprising biotechnology experts and scientists appointed by the court, had called for an indefinite moratorium on field trials till the deficiencies in the regulatory and safety systems are effectively addressed. A separate report by RS Paroda, former director-general of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, who had been inducted into the expert committee at the government's request, argues that field trials should be allowed.

SOURCE : http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-03-16/news/60174760_1_field-trials-gm-crops-transgenic-crops