Recommendation

The advent of genetic Seed engineering in the 1980s triggered disputes between the corporations assuming proprietary control of seeds and those advocating for issues such as farmers’ rights and affordable food that would last decades. Given today’s existential threats, such as climate change, Karine Peschard argues that people must gain a better understanding of the global food supply and the corporations controlling food production. She reveals how the lawsuits against corporate giants such as Monsanto challenge the global agbiotech hegemony.

Take-Aways

• A few agricultural biotech corporations control the world’s proprietary seed market.
• The United States pressured states in the Global South to adopt its Intellectual Property standards.
• Deliberate legal ambiguities created confusion surrounding agbiotech patents.
• Monsanto threatened farmers’ livelihoods and drove up food costs.
• Brazil and India’s courts have debated the validity of Monsanto’s patents.
• Monsanto faced “biopiracy” lawsuits when genetically engineering Indian eggplant.
• Legal ambiguity and a lack of government accountability has harmed Brazilian and Indian citizens.
• Monsanto’s controversial legal battles shifted perceptions about agbiotech.

Summary

A few agricultural biotech corporations control the world’s proprietary seed market.

In 2018, four corporations – BASF, Bayer-Monsanto, Corteva and ChemChina-Syngenta – held oligopolistic control over 60% of the world’s proprietary seed market. Monsanto alone controls 20% of the market. Corporations such as Monsanto have patented genetically modified seeds, thus expanding corporate Intellectual Property (IP) to erode farmers’ rights in the Global South. Devising and implementing systems that surveil farmers and collect royalties on seeds, Monsanto takes aggressive actions against farmers. It sometimes sues its own customers for saving and replanting seeds without paying royalties.

“The increasingly viable threat of our global food chain collapsing under the combined pressure of climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic makes understanding the proprietary dimension of our food regime more urgent than ever.”

Farmers worldwide have fought back to protect their livelihoods. In Passo Fundo, Brazil, for example, a farmers’ union filed a lawsuit against Monsanto regarding its charging royalties for Roundup Ready seeds. The patent on Roundup Ready’s herbicide tolerance trait expired and entered the public domain in 2015. In the biodiverse regions of Brazil and India, farmers have recently found themselves embroiled in global negotiations and precedent-setting court cases regarding genetic and agricultural resources.

These and other actions raise illuminating questions: What tactics have agricultural biotechnology corporations used to claim Intellectual Property (IP) rights in countries that purport to have legislation protecting farmers’ rights? What role do states play in implementing biotech IP regimes in the Global South? What legal mechanisms exist to contest agbiotech patents?

The United States pressured states in the Global South to adopt its Intellectual Property standards.

The United States granted corporations the ability to patent genetically engineered products and processes in the 1990s. It sought to make its intellectual property (IP) standards a global norm to serve US agbiotech and pharmaceutical companies. Most nations in the Global South excluded the patenting of plant varieties. This exclusion proved crucial for countries, such as Brazil and India, whose farmers benefited from wider exchange and free access to plant material.

“What was at stake was not so much the adjustment of IP regimes as the extension of US and European standards of intellectual property – a distinctly Western tradition – to the rest of the world.”

In India and Brazil, the United States used extended intellectual property rights to bargain for enhanced market access in sectors ranging from agriculture to textiles. By 1994, the World Trade Organization had passed the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), after years of negotiations. This allowed the patenting of certain types of living material.

Deliberate legal ambiguities created confusion surrounding agbiotech patents.

The TRIPS agreement has some exclusions: Article 27.3(b) states that nations couldn’t patent animals or plants, “other than microorganisms.” Critics find this intentionally ambiguous. The agreement also confusingly states that member states had to extend patent protection for plant varieties that aligns with its legislation, while respecting TRIPS’ minimum standards.

“As global corporations such as Monsanto entered the Brazilian and Indian markets starting in the first decade of the 21st century, legislative differences among countries, coupled with the legal uncertainties…proved fertile ground for legal disputes to rage around intellectual property and biotech seeds.”

Countries in the Global South, such as Brazil, have passed legislation to limit the scope of TRIPS, such as Brazil’s 1997 Plant Variety Protection Act (PVP), fueling ongoing legal battles.

Monsanto threatened farmers’ livelihoods and drove up food costs.

In the early 1970s, Monsanto created Roundup, a broad-spectrum glyphosate herbicide that killed a wide range of weeds. Ten years later, the company developed a genetically engineered soybean – a plant that could withstand the application of Roundup, which Monsanto dubbed Roundup Ready (RR). Monsanto began the novel practice of charging farmers royalties on the patented Roundup Ready soybeans. It charged farmers when they bought the seeds and demanded royalties from those who saved, replanted or shared seeds for subsequent crops. Monsanto’s private IP regime contradicted Brazil’s PVP Act – which protected farmers’ rights – and bypassed national public regulations and policy.

“Many soybean farmers were left with a bitter feeling after their own leadership chose to side with Monsanto rather than defend their interests.”

Protracted legal battles ensued, with judges issuing contradictory rulings and overturning one another’s decisions: For example, a judge granted an injunction to a rural cooperative representing 8,000 farmers, Cotricampo. The judge ruled Monsanto did not have the right to charge royalties on soybean harvests – only the seeds it sold in 2005. A different judge, siding with Monsanto, revoked this injunction a month later.

In 2009, the Passo Fundo union filed a groundbreaking class-action lawsuit, arguing that Monsanto’s royalty collection approach was “arbitrary, illegal and abusive.” Other unions, associations and public institutions joined them, including the Brazilian Patent Office (INPI). A judge ruled against Monsanto in 2012. But, following an objection from Monsanto, Brazil’s Court of Justice extended the case indefinitely. This meant farmers had to continue paying royalties – the disputed amount was roughly $7.7 billion.

Brazil and India’s courts have debated the validity of Monsanto’s patents.

The Association of Soybean and Corn Producers of Mato Grosso (Aprosoja-MT) challenged the validity of Monsanto’s patents in 2017. The Association argued against Monsanto’s 2012 patenting of its latest version of Roundup Ready, Intacta. The Association argued that Intacta wasn’t sufficiently different from previous versions, so the patent failed to meet the legal criteria for “innovation.” It also argued that Monsanto hadn’t described the invention with sufficient clarity – a legal requirement. The Brazilian Patent Office requested that the court revoke its own 2012 patent.

“Given the rapid pace at which biotechnology and IP regimes are coevolving, the challenge for farmers and agrarian activists alike will be to stay ahead of the game.”

Similar legal battles occurred in India, where Monsanto collected royalties on cotton harvests. Its Bt cotton seeds contain a gene that triggers the plants to produce the Cry1Ac protein, which is toxic to certain pests. By 2010, Indian states, such as Andhra Pradesh, had passed Cotton Seeds Acts to regulate the prices of the expensive seeds and to fix royalties. Monsanto fought back, filing a lawsuit against India’s biggest seed company, Nuziveedu Seeds, for using Bt seed technology without an active sublicensing agreement. A High Court judge later declared that Monsanto had illegally terminated its agreement with Nuziveedu.

In 2018, two High Court Justices ruled that Monsanto couldn’t legally patent Bt cotton seeds in India. However, these gains were short-lived: Following appeals from Monsanto, Monsanto’s new parent company, Bayer AG, reached an out-of-court settlement with Nuziveedu. The settlement prevented the landmark High Court ruling in question from potentially becoming law.

Monsanto faced “biopiracy” lawsuits when genetically engineering Indian eggplant.

Monsanto developed Bt brinjal – a genetically engineered eggplant it designed to be pest-resistant – with the Indian seed company Mahyco in the early 2000s. Bt brinjal would be India’s first genetically engineered food crop and eggplant is a popular vegetable in India.

Mahyco’s 2006 attempts to secure a patent and permission from India’s Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) to begin large-scale trials of cultivating Bt Brinjal triggered considerable controversy. India’s Environment Minister launched a public consultation into Bt Brinjal, which resulted in a moratorium nationwide. A South Indian NGO, the Environment Support Group (ESG), submitted a petition asserting that Monsanto and Mahyco had used local varieties of eggplants without first obtaining permission from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA). This, the ESG asserted, constituted biopiracy.

“The legislative changes enacted in Brazil and India to implement the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) raised complex legal questions that were left unresolved.”

India’s Biological Diversity Act holds that those using biological resources and the accumulated knowledge associated with them for commercial or research use must first attain permission from relevant authorities. Critics argued that local communities in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu – which protected and cultivated these eggplant varieties – wouldn’t gain any commercial benefit if Monsanto-Mahyco patented its new eggplant strain. Monsanto-Mahyco argued that it had worked with public institutions in the research stage. The company collaborated with a state agricultural university and claimed the research project’s public status should exempt it from needing permission from the NBA. Monsanto has not secured a patent on Bt Brinjal in India. The complex case reveals the problematic nature of public-private partnerships, which often prioritize commercial over public interests.

Legal ambiguity and a lack of government accountability has harmed Brazilian and Indian citizens.

Monsanto introduced transgenic crops – those with genetically engineered DNA sequences – in the 2000s. In Brazil, Monsanto attempted to renew its patent of Roundup Ready, which expired in 2010. The Attorney General of the Union filed a Direct Action of Unconstitutionality (ADI) – a Brazilian legal tool. The Attorney General argued that the “pipeline patent” process Monsanto was attempting to leverage – which would allow it to patent something in the public domain – was unconstitutional. The Superior Court of Justice delayed the case to investigate the unconstitutional nature of the pipeline process for nine years. When the case finally appeared on the agenda in 2021, the Superior Court removed it. Brazil’s Supreme Court let the case “die.”

“The hype around transgenic crops in the early years meant that governments, scientists and farmers in agricultural powerhouses like Brazil and India were anxious to gain access to the technology, and Monsanto ably exploited these sentiments.”

During the court delay from 2009 until 2017, Brazilians paid more for patented seeds and medicines not in the public domain. Monsanto filed lawsuits against Brazil’s Patent Office when it denied the company’s patents. Brazilian and Indian political leaders were reticent to support the IP regime. But they accepted neoliberal policies to gain access to transgenic crops, which forced citizens to pay more for food. The governments could have explicitly protected farmers’ seed saving rights when signing the TRIPS agreement.

Monsanto’s controversial legal battles shifted perceptions about agbiotech.

People challenge the norms the agbiotech industry established by:

• Rethinking public-private partnerships – When the boundaries between private and public interests blur, states struggle to support the public good.
• Applying an international human rights framework – The United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas in 2018, which includes the right to biological resources and seeds.
• Revealing contradictions between PVP and patent laws – In India and Brazil, legislation protecting plant varieties and farmers’ rights conflicts with patent law.
• Questioning the patentability of plants and genes – The Delhi High Court questioned whether companies such as Monsanto could legally patent biotech traits. This drew attention to the ambiguity in the TRIPS agreement, challenging the legitimacy of the dominant neoliberal food regime.

About the Author

Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights research fellow Karine Peschard is an associate researcher at the Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy.

Review 1

Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South by Karine E. Peschard is a comprehensive and thought-provoking book that delves into the complex issues surrounding seed patents and the impact they have on agricultural practices in the Global South. Through extensive research and analysis, Peschard provides a deep understanding of the challenges faced by farmers and activists in protecting their traditional seeds and biodiversity.

The book begins by setting the context and explaining the historical background of seed patents, highlighting the role of multinational corporations and the impact of globalization on agricultural systems. Peschard skillfully presents the intricate web of legal, political, and economic factors that contribute to the dominance of patented seeds in the Global South.

One of the standout features of Seed Activism is the author’s ability to weave together case studies and personal narratives to illustrate the real-world consequences of seed patenting. By highlighting the stories of farmers, indigenous communities, and grassroots activists, Peschard humanizes the issue and brings attention to the social justice implications of seed patenting.

Peschard’s research is meticulous, and she provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal frameworks and policies surrounding seed patents. She explores the power dynamics between multinational corporations, governments, and local communities, shedding light on the challenges faced by those who seek to protect their traditional seeds and knowledge.

The book also delves into the strategies employed by activists and organizations to challenge seed patents through litigation and grassroots movements. Peschard explores the successes and failures of these efforts, offering valuable insights into the complexities and limitations of seeking legal remedies in a globalized world.

Throughout the book, Peschard maintains a balanced and nuanced perspective, acknowledging the benefits and drawbacks of seed patenting while highlighting the importance of protecting biodiversity and traditional agricultural practices. Her writing is accessible, making complex legal and policy issues understandable to readers from various backgrounds.

In conclusion, Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South is a highly informative and engaging book that sheds light on the intricate web of seed patenting and its impact on communities in the Global South. Karine E. Peschard’s research, combined with compelling case studies and narratives, makes this book a valuable resource for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of agricultural practices, intellectual property rights, and social justice issues in the context of seed activism.

Review 2

In Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South, Karine E. Peschard provides a comprehensive analysis of the complex and often contentious relationship between seed activism and intellectual property (IP) law in the Global South. Peschard argues that seed activism is a form of resistance to the global seed industry, which she characterizes as a powerful and monopolistic force that has a disproportionate impact on farmers in the Global South.

Peschard begins by providing a historical overview of the development of the global seed industry, tracing its roots back to the colonial era. She then discusses the rise of seed activism in the Global South, which she argues is a response to the negative impacts of the global seed industry on farmers. Peschard focuses in particular on the role of patent law in facilitating the consolidation of the global seed industry and in undermining the rights of farmers.

Peschard argues that seed activism is a necessary and legitimate form of resistance to the global seed industry. She also argues that seed activism can be effective in challenging the power of the global seed industry and in protecting the rights of farmers. However, Peschard also acknowledges that seed activism faces a number of challenges, including the power of the global seed industry, the complexity of IP law, and the lack of resources available to seed activists.

In conclusion, Peschard argues that seed activism is a complex and challenging, but ultimately necessary, form of resistance to the global seed industry. She also argues that seed activism can be effective in challenging the power of the global seed industry and in protecting the rights of farmers.

Review 3

Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South by Karine E. Peschard is an ethnographic study of the legal disputes over patents on genetically modified crops in Brazil and India. The book examines how these lawsuits affect the lives of farmers, consumers, and activists, as well as the implications for the patentability of plants and seeds, farmers’ rights, and the public interest. Peschard argues that the expansion of corporate intellectual property (IP) regimes has eroded agricultural biodiversity, food security, and farmers’ autonomy, while also challenging domestic legislation on plant variety protection and farmers’ rights. She shows how litigants question the legality of patents and private IP systems implemented by Monsanto for royalties on three genetically modified crop varieties: Roundup Ready soybean in Brazil and Bt cotton and Bt eggplant in India. She also explores the role of power—material, institutional, and discursive—in shaping laws and legal systems. The book offers a critical perspective on the merits of extending IP rights to higher life forms such as plants, and calls for a new legal common sense that balances IP, farmers’ rights, and the public interest.

Review 4

This book is an ethnographic and comparative study of how lawsuits over patents on genetically modified crops affect the patentability of plants and seeds, farmers’ rights, and the public interest in Brazil and India. The author, Karine E. Peschard, is a researcher at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland. She has conducted extensive fieldwork and interviews with various actors involved in the litigation, such as lawyers, activists, farmers, scientists, and officials.

The book is divided into five chapters, plus an introduction and a conclusion. The first chapter provides the historical and theoretical background of the global expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights for plant varieties and biotechnology, as well as the emergence of legal activism and resistance against them. The second chapter analyzes the case of Roundup Ready soybean in Brazil, where farmers challenged Monsanto’s royalties on its patented herbicide-resistant seeds. The third chapter examines the case of Bt cotton in India, where civil society groups contested Monsanto’s patent on its insect-resistant seeds. The fourth chapter explores the case of Bt eggplant in India, where public interest groups opposed Monsanto’s attempt to commercialize its transgenic vegetable. The fifth chapter discusses the common themes and differences among the three cases, as well as the implications and limitations of legal activism for IP reform and social justice.

The main message of the book is that legal activism is a powerful and innovative way to challenge the dominant IP regime and its negative impacts on farmers’ rights, food security, biodiversity, and sovereignty. The book shows how litigants use various legal strategies and arguments to question the validity, scope, and enforcement of patents on genetically modified crops. The book also reveals how litigation can create new alliances, discourses, and spaces for public debate and participation on IP issues. The book also acknowledges the challenges and risks of legal activism, such as the uncertainty of judicial outcomes, the complexity of legal procedures, the dependency on external funding, and the potential for co-optation or backlash.

I would rate this book 4 out of 5 stars. I think it is a rich and insightful book that offers a unique perspective on the politics and dynamics of IP litigation in the Global South. I think it is well-written, clear, and engaging. I think it could have been improved by providing more context and comparison with other countries and regions that face similar IP conflicts, such as Africa or Latin America. I also think it could have been more balanced by acknowledging some of the benefits or opportunities of IP protection for plant innovation and development.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this book and I learned a lot from it. I think it is a must-read for anyone who is interested in IP law, biotechnology, agriculture, or social movements.

Review 5

“Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South” by Karine E. Peschard is an insightful and meticulously researched book that delves into the complex world of seed patenting and the ensuing legal battles in the Global South. Peschard’s work provides a comprehensive analysis of the challenges faced by farmers, activists, and policymakers in protecting traditional seed varieties and fostering food sovereignty.

The book begins by setting the stage for the seed industry’s transformation, as multinational corporations increasingly dominate the global agricultural landscape. Peschard highlights the detrimental effects of the commodification of seeds, leading to the displacement of traditional farming practices and the erosion of biodiversity. This framing is essential in understanding the urgency of the issues explored throughout the book.

Peschard focuses on the Global South, where the impact of seed patenting is particularly pronounced. Drawing on extensive fieldwork and interviews, the author examines case studies from various countries, including India, Brazil, and Kenya. Through these examples, Peschard unveils the intricate power dynamics between multinational corporations, local farmers, and government institutions.

One of the key strengths of “Seed Activism” is its nuanced exploration of legal strategies employed by activists and organizations to challenge seed patents. Peschard analyzes the role of both national and international legal frameworks, shedding light on the limitations and opportunities they present. The author also highlights the significance of grassroots movements and the innovative ways in which local communities resist the encroachment of corporate seed monopolies.

Moreover, Peschard pays special attention to the voices and experiences of marginalized groups, particularly women farmers, who are disproportionately affected by seed patenting and intellectual property rights. By incorporating these perspectives, the book offers a more comprehensive understanding of the social, economic, and environmental implications of seed activism.

While the book is undoubtedly comprehensive and well-researched, it should be noted that the subject matter can be complex and dense at times. Peschard navigates through legal and policy intricacies, making the content accessible to readers with a basic understanding of the subject matter. However, those seeking a more introductory overview of seed activism may find certain sections challenging.

In conclusion, “Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South” is an indispensable resource for anyone interested in understanding the multifaceted issues surrounding seed patenting, agricultural practices, and social justice in the Global South. Peschard’s meticulous research, combined with her thoughtful analysis, provides readers with a comprehensive view of the challenges faced by farmers and grassroots activists in their fight for seed sovereignty. This book is a valuable contribution to the field and is highly recommended for scholars, policymakers, and individuals invested in sustainable agriculture and social change.

Review 6

“Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South” by Karine E. Peschard is an insightful exploration of the complex interplay between patent politics, seed activism, and litigation within the context of the Global South. The book delves into the crucial issues surrounding intellectual property rights, agricultural biodiversity, and the activism that arises in response to the challenges faced by farmers, indigenous communities, and local seed systems.

Peschard’s in-depth analysis sheds light on how multinational corporations and international agreements impact seed sovereignty, agricultural practices, and food security in the Global South. The author skillfully navigates through case studies and real-world examples, demonstrating the multifaceted ways in which seed patenting and biopiracy practices can disrupt traditional farming methods and undermine the rights of local communities.

One of the book’s strengths lies in its comprehensive examination of the legal battles and grassroots movements that have emerged as a response to these challenges. Peschard provides a balanced and nuanced perspective, considering both the successes and setbacks faced by activists and litigants. This balanced approach adds depth to the narrative, allowing readers to appreciate the complexities involved in protecting indigenous knowledge and preserving agrobiodiversity.

The author’s prose is accessible and engaging, making it a valuable resource for both scholars and non-experts interested in understanding the intricate dynamics at play in the realm of seed politics. Peschard effectively contextualizes the issues within broader discussions of social justice, environmental sustainability, and the power dynamics that shape global agricultural systems.

Furthermore, “Seed Activism” draws attention to the importance of collaboration between various stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, grassroots organizations, and local communities. By highlighting successful examples of collective action, the book offers inspiration and practical insights for those engaged in similar struggles around the world.

In summary, “Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South” is a well-researched and thought-provoking exploration of the challenges faced by the Global South in navigating the complex landscape of seed patenting, agricultural biopiracy, and activism. Peschard’s rigorous analysis, coupled with her engaging narrative style, makes this book an essential read for anyone interested in the intersection of intellectual property, agriculture, and social justice in the contemporary world.

Review 7

This book examines the rise of seed activist movements across the Global South that are challenging corporate control of seeds and plant genetic resources through intellectual property rights like patents.

The introduction provides context on the expansion of industrial agriculture and seed patents in recent decades, especially by transnational corporations. This has threatened food security and farmers’ rights in many developing nations.

Chapter 1 discusses the politics of seed patenting. It analyzes conflicts between open-pollinated and F1 hybrid seed systems. It explores how activists challenge seed patents as a threat to biodiversity conservation and small farmers’ livelihoods.

Chapter 2 focuses on seed patent law and litigation related to this issue globally. It looks at legal doctrine on patent eligibility for plants as well as cases around the world where farmers and NGOs have contested these patents in court.

Chapter 3 profiles grassroots seed activism and resistance networks that have emerged in India, Latin America, and Africa. The book documents the strategies these groups use like seed swapping, open-source breeding, and mobilizing against seed laws.

Chapter 4 delves into specific legal battles waged by activists, such as the challenge to Monsanto’s cotton patents in India. It shows how litigation and publicity around cases can shape public opinion on this issue.

The conclusion reflects on what seed activists have achieved so far as well as ongoing challenges. It argues their efforts have raised important debates but securing comprehensive reforms will require sustained transnational cooperation.

Overall, this is an insightful and well-researched book that sheds light on a vital global movement. It offers valuable perspectives for understanding grassroots responses to the industrial food system and intellectual property issues concerning seeds and biodiversity. While technical at times, it presents compelling evidence on how patents impact small farmers and food sovereignty. I recommend it for those interested in food politics, agriculture, or intellectual property debates in developing countries.

Review 8

Here is a brief review of the book Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South by Karine E. Peschard.

The book is an ethnographic study of how lawsuits over patents on genetically modified crops have affected the patentability of plants and seeds, farmers’ rights, and the public interest in Brazil and India. The author examines the legal strategies, political mobilizations, and scientific controversies that emerged from these cases, and how they shaped the governance of biodiversity and innovation in the Global South. The book also analyzes the implications of these lawsuits for the global debates on intellectual property, food sovereignty, and environmental justice.

The book is based on extensive fieldwork and interviews with lawyers, activists, scientists, farmers, and officials involved in the litigation. The author provides rich empirical details and insights into the legal, political, and scientific dimensions of seed activism. The book also offers a critical perspective on the role of patents in shaping the global agro-food system and the challenges of democratizing knowledge and innovation.

The book is a valuable contribution to the literature on intellectual property, social movements, environmental politics, and development studies. It is also a timely and relevant intervention in the current debates on the future of food and agriculture in the face of climate change, biotechnology, and corporate power.