Published Paper
Article Details
MON-SAINT OR SINNER
AUTHORED BY - SHERIN RACHEL SANTHOSH
O.P Jindal Global University
5th Year Law Student
INTRODUCTION
Genetic engineering is one of the greatest
human achievements of the twenty-first century. Genetically Modified (‘GM’) foods
are extremely popular among both the consumers and the farmers. Its various
benefits, including increased supply, reduced cost, longer shelf life, and
lesser chemicals, make it a preferred choice compared to the other products.
The major companies that are involved in GM seeds production include Monsanto, Dow,
DuPont, BASF, Syngenta, and Bayer. Among these companies, the US company
Monsanto is the market leader in GM seeds. The main aim of these companies is to
increase the profitability of the farmers. This paper will focus on Monsanto. I
will be discussing the impact of Monsanto’s products and their Corporate
Regulations with their licensing agreements on the third world farming
community and why they continued to exist, and thrive despite their detrimental
impact. This paper is divided into five sections. The first section introduces
the concept of GMO seeds and states its positive and negative impacts. The
second section talks about Monsanto and its product. It also highlights the
problems with Monsanto’s products and their licensing agreement. The third
section talks about the impact of Monsanto on the farming community focusing on
the farmers of India and US. The fourth section talks about the Bayer-Monsanto
Merger and its impact. Finally the fifth section addresses why Monsanto
continued to thrive despite their detrimental impact.
I.
GENETICALLY
MODIFIED SEEDS
Genetically Modified (GM) are seeds that are modified by directly
inserting genes into the DNA of the seed. They have specific traits like
resistance to pests, tolerance to herbicides, and resistance to plant viruses.[1] GM
seeds were introduced to help the farmers prevent crop loss.[2] As
it is resistant to pests, farmers need not spray pesticides excessively or regularly.
Moreover, its characteristic of being tolerant to herbicides enables the farmers
to control the weeds without harming the crops. All of these results in increased crop yield. This
was further proved in a study done by the Economic Research Service (ERS) using
the 1997 data that discovered a significant correlation between higher crop
yields and a rise in the use of GM seeds that are resistant to herbicides and
pesticides.[3]
Increased crop yield also means an increase in profit for the farmers. However,
despite all these benefits, there are a few concerns with regard to the use of
GM seeds. One of the concerns is that the continuous use of these seeds will
lead to the development of ‘super weeds’ and ‘superbugs’ that become resistant to
GM seed and herbicides/pesticides.[4]
These weeds and pests are even more difficult for farmers to deal with. Another
major issue with GM seeds is the issue with regard its patents. The companies
generally acquire patent rights for GM seeds and their seed technology. This
will decrease competition in the market and increase the prices. This issue
will be further explained in detail in the next section of the Paper.
II.
MONSANTO
The agricultural
giant Monsanto is an agricultural biotechnology corporation that has captured the majority of the GM
seeds and herbicides market. Started by John Queeny in 1901 as a company that
produced the artificial sweetener saccharin, it expanded very fast to other
products like aspirin, vanilla, and synthetic fibers. Further after the Second
World War, it expanded to herbicides as well. [5] Monsanto's goal in the 1980s was to create crops
that wouldn't suffer damage from the application of its herbicide, Roundup. [6]
The company then went on to produce GM cotton seeds and Roundup
Ready soybeans. This is how Monsanto started their journey of producing GM
seeds. To achieve a significant amount of influence over seed germplasm, it has
acquired most of the major seed firms or merged with them. Moreover, Monsanto
also acquired patents on their GM seeds which helped them in capturing a
dominating position in the market. They forced all the farmers purchasing their seeds to enter into a licensing
agreement with them which prohibited the farmers from saving seeds from one harvest
to plant in the next season. As per the licensing agreement, the company had
the right to monitor and inspect the fields. This clause in the agreement helped
the company to ensure that farmers are not saving any seeds.[7] Hence
the farmers were forced to buy new seeds for the next season. Monsanto also
filed lawsuits against farmers who violated the agreement. Another major issue
with Monsanto’s GM seeds is its high cost. GM seeds are expensive and hence it
increases the expense for the farmers. Moreover, not being able to save seed
from harvest means buying new seeds every season which adds on to the financial
burden of the farmers. This way Monsanto continuously exploited the farmers.
Moreover, some of their crops like the Bt cotton which is popular amongst
Indian farmers, includes pesticides within the plant.[8] Pesticides
helps to prevent the insects from feeding on the
plants and since the plant contains pesticides within itself, the farmers do
not need to additionally spray pesticides. [9] However, this turns plants into a toxic substance such that
any animal feeding on it will die. In India, farmers reported that thousands of
their sheep died as a result of grazing on the Bt Cotton fields. [10] All these showcases
the detrimental impact of Monsanto’s products.
III.
IMPACT OF MONSANTO ON THE FARMING
COMMUNITY.
INDIA-
Monsanto introduced
GM cotton seeds in India, also known as Bt Cotton (Bacillus thurningiensis Cotton). They marketed the Bt. Cotton by pointing out its
benefits like reduced use of pesticides and assured the farmers of higher
yield. Indian farmers were extremely intrigued and interested by Monsanto’s GM
seeds that they took out loans to buy the same. However, GM seeds do not survive in all
regions of India and hence, the farmers whose harvest failed fell into the
debt trap. Unable to bear the financial burden, they ended up committing suicide. Monsanto was consequently accused
of more than 2,90,000 farmer suicides. [11]
As per the data of the Government of India, the high cost of input purchases, which
is mainly the seeds, is the cause of approximately 75% of rural debt. [12]Since
Monsanto’s entry into the Indian market, cotton
seeds prices increased by 80,000% i.e., from just Rs. 5-9 per kg to around Rs.
1,600 for 450 grams. [13]
Monsanto’s seeds are very costly and even if the farmers somehow made enough
money to buy the seeds, they also needed to buy Monsanto’s
pesticides and fertilizers which further requires money. Furthermore,
farmers had to buy new seeds every season as they cannot save seeds from the previous
harvest because of their contract with the company.
Adding on to the hardship, the market
price of cotton also reduced tremendously. Moreover, only Bt cotton seeds are available in the market, hence
cotton farmers had no other option.[14] Therefore, with
the high cost of production and decreased market price, farmers fall
into the debt trap as they are unable to pay back the loans. The only way to pay back the debt would be to plant
more crops for which they have to again take loans. Additionally, the inbuild pesticides
inside the seeds, lead to the creation of super bugs that have grown resistant
to the pesticides, and hence farmers have to pay extra for expensive chemicals
to get rid of the bugs.[15]
More use of chemicals also degrades the quality of the soil which is another
factor contributing to crop failure. Widows of the deceased farmers gave
testimony as to how their husbands took loans to buy Monsanto’s GM cotton
seeds. [16]
Few farmers quit farming and went looking
for other jobs to pay back the loan. So they approached companies that offer
them employment abroad. Farmers had to take another loan to cover the cost of
travel and accommodation. Instead of paying back the loan, they would use the
money they make to reimburse the company for their services.[17] This
burden and pressure led them to suicide. Either way, the farmers who fall into
the vicious trap of Monsanto’s GM seeds had no option but to commit suicide. According
to reports, till March 2016 around 3 lakh Indian farmers had committed suicide as
a result of debt traps and crop failures and 84% of these suicides are directly
attributable to Monsanto’s Bt. Cotton.[18] Ironically,
farmers commit suicide by consuming pesticides produced by Monsanto.[19]
US-
Monsanto controls the majority of the
US seeds market. They hold a 93% stake in American soybean seeds and an 80%
stake in American corn seeds. This limits the farmers' options when it comes to
seed purchases, and as a result, many of them end up buying Monsanto’s seeds.[20]Purchasing
Monsanto’s seeds means signing their arbitrary licensing agreement which
prohibits them from saving seeds and thereby forcing them to buy new seeds
every year. Monsanto was looking into farmers and prosecuting those who
violated their patent rights on seeds. [21]The
company even has a separate department with 75 employees and an annual budget
of $10 million just for investigating the farmers and taking legal action
against them for patent infringement. [22] Many
cases do not go to court and farmers choose out of court settlement which would
mean more money into Monsanto’s pocket . There were a lot of patent
infringement disputes between farmers and Monsanto in the US. One such case is
Monsanto Co. v. McFarling wherein McFarling, a farmer in Mississippi was sued
by Monsanto for patent Infringement and breach of contract for saving seeds
from previous harvest and replanting them in the next year. McFarling argued
that Monsanto’s contract which prohibits the seeds is in violation of the doctrine
of first sale. [23] The
courts, however, rejected the claim and upheld Monsanto's ownership of the
patents for both the original seeds and any subsequent generations of seeds. In
order to ascertain damages, Monsanto filed a second lawsuit against McFarling
in 2004. As a result, the court determined the amount of damages at $375,000 in
2007. [24] Scruggs,
another farmer in Mississippi was sued for patent infringement. However, unlike
McFarling, Scruggs did not sign an agreement with Monsanto. Scruggs brought up
the defence of patent exhaustion in court, but the judge dismissed the claim by
pointing out that Monsanto's use of its patented technology was never
completely unrestricted. [25] Thereby
the court ruled in favour of Monsanto. Another instance is the 2009 patent
infringement lawsuit filed by Monsanto against South Carolina farmer William
Strickland as he was saving seeds and replanting
them. The court yet again ruled in Monsanto's favour and ordered Strickland to pay Monsanto
$19,55.18 as infringement damages as
well as $44,200 in royalties and legal costs.[26]
In addition to these lawsuits, the US farmers also have to bear the general
problems with GM seeds like the High cost and decreased market value. Moreover,
US farming is reducing every year and with the population rising every year,
they have to import food from other countries which raises the issue of food
security and food access.[27]
IV.
WHY
MONSANTO CONITUED TO SURVIVE DESPITE THEIR DETRIMENTAL IMPACT?
LOBBYING PRACTICES
Monsanto has received tremendous hate
due to the negative impacts of their products but yet it continued to flourish.
One of the main reasons why Monsanto grew despite all the backlashes and hate is
because of their influence on the government, their lobbying practices and
corporate influence on government food policy. Whenever Monsanto faced hurdles in
implementing its products or policies, they resorted to corrupt practices. They
even persuaded the Clinton Administration officials to lobby against potential
GMO restrictions in Europe in the late 1990s.[28] By
using revolving door strategy, they constantly try to appoint retired government
employees and legislators as lobbyists for them, including Carol Tucker Foreman
who worked as the assistant secretary of agriculture and the executive director
of the Consumer Federation of America. [29]Both
Democratic and Republican administrations, including the Obama administration,
have felt the sway of Monsanto. Monsanto’s control over the government was so
strong that their former executive and corporate lawyer, Michael R. Taylor was
made the deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine at the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in 2010.[30] This
shows how connected they are with the government. Another such example is of Margaret
Miller who worked as a chemical laboratory supervisor at Monsanto. While
working for the company, she prepared a report that was to be given to the FDA in
order to assess the safety of Monsanto's growth hormones. She was later
appointed as the deputy director of the Office of New Animal Drugs wherein she was
responsible for deciding whether to approve the report that she had prepared
for Monsanto.[31] This
demonstrates how Monsanto's political influence benefits them greatly. Moreover
in 2013, a provision in an agricultural appropriations bill limited the power
of federal courts to halt the sale of genetically modified organism (GMO) seeds
that were deemed to be dangerous to human health. The critics called it the
Monsanto Protection Bill.[32] Even
Bayer-Monsanto merger took place despite all the opposition because of the
Lobbying and corruption practices. All of these indicate how covertly Monsanto
is influencing the country's food policies.
FARMERS CHOICE: MONSANTO?
The other reason why Monsanto
continues to flourish despite their detrimental impact is because of the
farmers itself. The farmers continues to buy Monsanto’s products despite the
negative impact because they are stuck in a vicious cycle where they need crops
that are resistant towards weed killers and they need weed killers that does
not harm their crop. Monsanto has marketed their products in such a way that
the only solution to the farmers problem is Monsanto. The novelty in Monsanto’s
technology is what initially attracted the farmers. However, once they entered
the Monsanto world, it was difficult to get out. This is because once they buy
the GM seeds, they will need Monsanto’s herbicides and once they start using
these herbicides on their soil, they will need a stronger one to tackle the
weeds that grows resistant to the herbicides. The new herbicide will also be
produced by Monsanto itself. Finally, once they buy the GM seeds, they will have
to continue with the GM seeds itself and since the Monsanto has major control
over market, the farmers have fewer options and hence they go back to choosing
Monsanto’s GM seeds itself since Monsanto seed technology is better compared to
other seeds. And thus the cycle continues.
V.
HOPE FOR
FARMERS?
Monsanto’s journey was not always victorious
one. There were many instances where farmers stood up for themselves and took
action against them. One such case where a farmer took and action and even
emerged successful was when Paul François, a cereal farmer, sued Monsanto as he
suffered from neurological damage after inhaling fumes from Lasso, a weedkiller
made by the company. [33] The weedkiller contained monochlorobenzene
which was legal in France till 2007 but was banned in many other countries like
Canada and Britain. François claimed that the company knew about the
detrimental impact of Lasso and asked for damaged. [34]
The French appeals court held Monsanto liable for poisoning him and ordered the
company to pay €50,000 immediately to cover the legal cost. [35]
This is an instance where a farmer won in this difficult fight against
Monsanto. Another example is when the US
Supreme Court jury held Monsanto liable for causing terminal cancer to a Dewayne
Johnson, school groundskeeper who fell ill after using their popular weedkiller
Round up. The court ordered Monsanto to pay US$289 million to Dewayne.[36]
In all these cases, Monsanto has been
held liable for their dangerous products. However, looking back to the cases of
patent infringement, the courts have ruled in favour of Monsanto. Despite the
fact that Monsanto was held liable in the above cases where their weedkillers
caused dangerous harm to the farmers, the courts are enforcing their arbitrary
contracts against the farmers. Ordering the farmers to pay huge amount of money
as damages is completely different than ordering Monsanto to do the same keeping
in mind the huge class imbalance between a big MNC and a small farmer. Even if
the courts are acknowledging the toxicity of Monsanto’s products, they have
completely ignored the toxicity of the system which Monsanto has created. The
system is the system of exploiting farmers through licensing agreement and
completely controlling all their actions. The courts are not taking any active
efforts to break the farmers free of the system. In fact, the court only
reinforce justice within this system
CONCLUSION
Monsanto was acquired by German
chemical company Bayer in 2018. Under the new management, one would think that
Monsanto’s reign of terror was finally over, but Bayer-Monsanto merger was even
more harmful for the farmers. Bayer and Monsanto, being direct competitors,
would now hold a majority of market share. This will reduce competition in
market and thereby reduce the barging power of farmers. Reduced competition
will give tremendous monopoly to Bayer which would means that they can
arbitrarily increase the price. Increase in price of seeds and pesticides will
make it difficult for farmers to buy the products putting their livelihood at
risk. So now the question is what can be done about this?
Farmers are the backbone of the
country and indispensable to the agriculture industry; ensuring their rights
should then be a matter of priority for the government. New laws should come up
that focus on protecting the farmers and ensuring that monopolisation by a
single company does not happen. Once the government acknowledges the
exploitative practices that exist, they can act as a middle man in the sale of
GM seeds to regulate the price and ensure that a single company is not allowed
to manipulate prices in their favour. This can be done by the government buying
seeds from these companies and selling it to the farmers at a fixed prices.
Lastly since we have established that the farmers themselves are making the
choice to stay in the vicious cycle, albeit forced by circumstances, they
should be educated properly about all the products and its impacts
in the long run.
[1] Kruft David, ‘Impacts of Genetically-Modified Crops
and Seeds on Farmers’ [2001] The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center
https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified.pdf.
[2] Nutrition C for FS and A,
‘How GMO Crops Impact Our World’ [2022] FDA https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/how-gmo-crops-impact-our-world.
[3] Kruft David, ‘Impacts of Genetically-Modified Crops and Seeds on
Farmers’ [2001] The Agricultural Law Resource and Reference Center https://pennstatelaw.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified.pdf.
[5] ‘Monsanto: Corporate Rap Sheet |
Corporate Research Project’ https://www.corp-research.org/monsanto.
[8] Sandri, Rachel N,
‘The Effects of Monsanto on Indian Farmer Suicide Rates’ [2017] Salve Regina
University
https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=env334_justice.
[10]GMWatch. "Mortality in Sheep Flocks
after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh." GM
Watch. April 29, 2006. http://gmwatch.org/en/latest-listing/1-news-items/6416-mortality-in-sheep-flocks-after-grazing-on-bt-cotton-fields-warangal-district-andhra-pradesh-2942006.
[11] Sandri, Rachel N,
‘The Effects of Monsanto on Indian Farmer Suicide Rates’ [2017] Salve Regina
University
https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=env334_justice.
[12]Times E, ‘Bayer-Monsanto Merger: CCI
Please Stop This Merger & Save Indian Farmers’ Suicides’ The Economic Timeshttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/bayer-monsanto-merger-cci-please-stop-this-merger-save-indian-farmers-suicides/.
[14] Sandri, Rachel N,
‘The Effects of Monsanto on Indian Farmer Suicide Rates’ [2017] Salve Regina
University https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=env334_justice.
[15] Chow H, ‘The Story behind
Monsanto’s Malicious Monopolies in India’ (29 September 2016) https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2016/09/story-behind-monsantos-malicious-monopolies-india/
[17]Local NYU, ‘The Vicious Cycle Of Farmer Suicide,
Human Trafficking, And Monsanto’ (Medium, 16 November 2016) https://nyulocal.com/the-vicious-cycle-of-farmer-suicide-human-trafficking-and-monsanto-a2fcdb34040f.
[18]Times E, ‘Bayer-Monsanto Merger: CCI
Please Stop This Merger & Save Indian Farmers’ Suicides’ The Economic Timeshttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/blogs/et-commentary/bayer-monsanto-merger-cci-please-stop-this-merger-save-indian-farmers-suicides/.
[19] Sandri, Rachel N,
‘The Effects of Monsanto on Indian Farmer Suicide Rates’ [2017] Salve Regina
University
https://digitalcommons.salve.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=env334_justice.
[20] Wojciechowski V, ‘
MONSANTO: THE DEATH OF AMERICAN FARMING’ 23 ILLINOIS BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL https://publish.illinois.edu/illinoisblj/files/2018/05/IBLJ-Vol-23-P.-70-78_Wojciechowski-.pdf.
[21] Savich J, ‘Monsanto v. Scruggs:
The Negative Impact of Patent Exhaustion on Self-Replicating Technology’ [2007]
Berkeley Technology Law Journal 115 http://www-jstororg.opj.remotlog.com/stable/pdf/24118205.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A1b6c89f6378234d0c13fedb7b6018f78&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&acceptTC=1
[22] ‘Monsanto vs. U.S.
Farmers’ (Center for Food Safety 2005).
[23] Savich J, ‘Monsanto v. Scruggs:
The Negative Impact of Patent Exhaustion on Self-Replicating Technology’ [2007]
Berkeley Technology Law Journal 115 http://www-jstororg.opj.remotlog.com/stable/pdf/24118205.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A1b6c89f6378234d0c13fedb7b6018f78&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&acceptTC=1
[24] Wojciechowski V, ‘
MONSANTO: THE DEATH OF AMERICAN FARMING’ 23 ILLINOIS BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL https://publish.illinois.edu/illinoisblj/files/2018/05/IBLJ-Vol-23-P.-70-78_Wojciechowski-.pdf.
[25] Savich J, ‘Monsanto v. Scruggs:
The Negative Impact of Patent Exhaustion on Self-Replicating Technology’ [2007]
Berkeley Technology Law Journal 115 http://www-jstororg.opj.remotlog.com/stable/pdf/24118205.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A1b6c89f6378234d0c13fedb7b6018f78&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&origin=&acceptTC=1
[26]Wojciechowski V, ‘ MONSANTO: THE DEATH OF
AMERICAN FARMING’ 23 ILLINOIS BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL https://publish.illinois.edu/illinoisblj/files/2018/05/IBLJ-Vol-23-P.-70-78_Wojciechowski-.pdf.
[27] Wojciechowski V, ‘
MONSANTO: THE DEATH OF AMERICAN FARMING’ 23 ILLINOIS BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL https://publish.illinois.edu/illinoisblj/files/2018/05/IBLJ-Vol-23-P.-70-78_Wojciechowski-.pdf.
[28] ‘Monsanto: Corporate Rap Sheet |
Corporate Research Project’ https://www.corp-research.org/monsanto.
[30]‘Monsanto Government Influence Has Fueled
Unrivaled Corporate Power’ (Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman) https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/blog/2017/may/monsanto-government-influence-has-fueled-unrival/.
[32] ‘Monsanto: Corporate Rap Sheet |
Corporate Research Project’ https://www.corp-research.org/monsanto.
[33] France-Presse A, ‘French
Court Finds Monsanto Guilty of Poisoning Farmer’ The Guardian (11 April 2019) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/11/french-court-finds-monsanto-guilty-of-poisoning-farmer.
[34] France-Presse A, ‘French
Court Finds Monsanto Guilty of Poisoning Farmer’ The Guardian (11 April 2019) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/11/french-court-finds-monsanto-guilty-of-poisoning-farmer.
[35] France-Presse A, ‘French
Court Finds Monsanto Guilty of Poisoning Farmer’ The Guardian (11 April 2019) https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/apr/11/french-court-finds-monsanto-guilty-of-poisoning-farmer.
[36]‘Monsanto Asked To Pay US$275mn for
Causing Brain Damage to School Kids, Others; Bayer To Challenge the US Jury
Verdict’ (Moneylife NEWS & VIEWS) https://www.moneylife.in/article/monsanto-asked-to-pay-us275mn-for-causing-brain-damage-to-school-kids-others-bayer-to-challenge-the-us-jury-verdict/68641.html.
Article Information
MON-SAINT OR SINNER
Authors: SHERIN RACHEL SANTHOSH
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2024/04/12
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.