Mary Carras (from "World Affairs," Oct-Dec 1999)

Whosoever controls the seed today could rule over nations tomorrow, claiming the right to shape the destinies of all peoples on this earth. Such an assertion may seem far-fetched--even impossible. But let us pause to reflect on the immense changes that have marked this century--more than all the centuries past. These have extended to every field of human endeavor, shattering records, demolishing scientific assumptions and challenging centuries-long principles of international law and custom.

The very thought of monopolizing an agricultural resource so vital to life was unthinkable a few years ago. Today, it is becoming a palpable reality. The geographical concentration of wealth is accelerating, along with control over technological knowledge. This is fueling further advances in biotechnology. Agrochemical, pharmaceutical and seed industries pursue interlocking activities and aims. It is ever more difficult to associate these transnationals with a single industry. As their interests broaden and mesh, so does the incentive to pursue research in many different areas, to develop new products, and to put their brand on them. In this setting, ownership of seed varieties is not only possible but an ongoing process, even as you read this.

How can that be? We are daily reminded that the process of globalization is now in full swing. National economic functions are being absorbed into global economic institutions, public and private. These are controlled more and more by industrial oligopolies in the developed world and by their increasingly junior political partners. Some transnational corporations have assets and revenues that rival and even exceed those of many countries in the South. They can reach into the very heart and mind of nations, shaping decisions traditionally within the sovereign jurisdiction of states and their public or private institutions and organs. If economic pressures fail, powerful diplomatic and military options are at hand.

Imagine, now, that a way was found to control the world�s food supply. What more effective weapon could there be than possessing the power to provide nourishment to a people--or worse, to deny it? And what if a way were found to manipulate the seed? This is already being done, yielding insect- or pest-resistant crops. Surely one could easily insert a toxic substance into the seed. What more sinister form of biological warfare--or blackmail--could exist? Gunboat diplomacy pales by comparison.

Yet, the skeptic might ask, Even if one had the scientific knowledge to alter the seed in such a fashion, how could food be denied to a country that is self-sufficient in the production of grain and other farm produce? Given the appropriate legal, political, and economic framework and the means of enforcing its acceptance, this too is feasible (though such a claim cannot be easily validated in so confined a space). But one need only point to the reality of TNC subsidiaries posted in every corner of the globe -- as were the �factories� in the presidencies of British India a mere two centuries ago.

It is fully demonstrable that the basic ingredients for such a witch�s brew are now being blended in the laboratories of a few giant corporations and in the political capitals of a small coterie of great powers. Genetic engineering technologies have made the former possible, while elements of the latter--principally a tough, enforceable patent regime, comprehensive in scope--are gradually being put into place throughout much of the world. A government�s economic decisions can be nullified by the WTO�s Dispute Settlement Board. Actions and policies affecting national security may in the future come under scrutiny in an International Criminal Court or even regional courts--and other mechanisms. Those who have the imperial power of definition can merely label an action as criminal in some way, and punish it accordingly and �legally.� Small American farmers have experienced the wrath of giants like Monsanto in this fashion. These colossi have not yet succeeded in projecting a fully benign persona. They are working on that. Legitimizing their image and activities before the appropriate audiences requires fuller and more expansive control of communications worldwide.

Never in the history of nations have national borders been as porous as they are today. The forms of penetration are subtle--especially when taking on a cultural guise. Far less subtle is the dictum of The World Trade Organization. By itself, the WTO wields more power over states than almost any other global organization. This is particularly troubling at a time when political and economic decisions mesh so seamlessly into each other.

We have in the Indian subcontinent a country of nearly a billion souls, most of whom earn their livelihood from the seed, while the rest get sustenance from its crops. Can India afford to sit back and allow this to happen? But the Indian government is not sitting back. It has actively participated in this global political process, having gradually ceded point after point at the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations. No doubt it came under immense pressure from the U.S. and its powerful lobbies. In fact, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry virtually drafted the Trade-Related Agreement on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).[2] And so, at the eleventh hour, New Delhi threw in the towel, accepting the �Dunkel Draft� in December 1993. To its credit, it must be said that it was the last of the holdouts to do so. Finally, on April 15, 1994, at Marrakech, Morocco, it signed the Final Texts of the GATT Uruguay Round Agreements Including The Agreement Establishing The World Trade Organization.

Ironically, the BJP Government, whose topmost leaders were at one time in the forefront of the battle against the patent section of TRIPS, recently pushed through an amendment to India�s 1970 Patents Act in the Rajya Sabha, the last battleground against this change. That became possible when powerful industrial interests in India (including in particular major pharmaceutical firms) decided that the fight was hopeless. They opted for an age-old strategy: if you can�t beat them, join them!

While the large pharmaceutical firms in India may survive and prosper, the same cannot be said for the small ones. But it is the agricultural sector, first and foremost, that will be the biggest loser. Some groups may lose more than others in the short run, but it is the people and the Indian nation as a whole who stand to lose most in the long run.

Indian Agriculture and the Indigenous Seed

In India, three groups have a vital stake in the seed: for the farmer, it is the raw material of agriculture; for Indian agribusiness (including foreign partners and TNC subsidiaries), it is a growing source of profit with immense potential; and for India�s nascent industry in agricultural biotechnology, it is a strategic research target. The multiple and long-term advantages that could accrue to India�s economy in this crucial area of research will spell the difference between becoming a great power in the twenty-first century, or remaining an average regional power, as it is today. The stakes in all of these sectors are very high indeed: the very raison d��tre of the Indian Government is the well-being and security of its still expanding population -- and of course its independence, which is also at risk in the long run.

If these assumptions are sound, then the seed industry (both at home and abroad) along with its activities and policies in India, should be a matter of paramount concern to Indian leaders. Anything that touches on it, whether within or beyond India, can have wide-ranging and serious implications for Indian agriculture and thus for the nation�s economy and its people.

Genetic engineering and the Seattle Conference

Genetic manipulation of the seed by the mighty agrochemical and seed industries of the Western world holds the promise of immense benefits for the major industrial democracies. This is also true for the countries of the South, given the proper context. But genetic engineering can also cause enormous harm to industrializing nations like India. Technologies that have given us the �terminator� seed and the �suicide� gene, can potentially devastate the country�s arable land. Not enough is known about the consequences of such technologies. The genome, which is the total hereditary material of a cell, has been under analysis for some years now. The scientists� efforts have not always been rewarded in equal measure. Nevertheless, persistent probes into the genome�s secrets have accelerated in the last few years. The frenetic pace of research shows how anxious the Gene Giants are to acquire knowledge about all plant life, especially in the richly biodiverse ecologies of the South. Even greater is their zeal to own this knowledge. Through their immense power, they have persuaded their governments to create a global intellectual property rights regime that will ensure their oligopolistic control over this knowledge. The lingering danger is that the consequences of these technologies are not yet fully fathomed. All the same, the �life industry� is charging full-speed ahead with research and experimentation.

A study on genetic engineering and its applications[3] was not reassuring. It focused on plants, since these are increasingly targeted for experimentation by the �life industry�. Some of its major findings noted that:

�all of the world�s major food crops have been genetically engineered, including maize, wheat and rice. Together, they form 50% of the world�s food intake.

* at least 90 releases of genetically engineered plants took place in non-OECD countries, at least one third of which were by northern-based multinational corporations such as the United States' companies Monsanto and Calgene and the Swiss company, Ciba-Geigy.

* Chemical industries now dominate research and development (R&D) in plant genetic engineering. The spending of the top six companies in biotechnology R&D - Monsanto, Enimont, Du Pont, Sandoz, ICI and Ciba-Geigy - together accounted for 63% of the total spent by the top 15 companies in 1989.

* Many agrochemical companies are engineering resistance to their own herbicides.

* Finally, in a practice described as a form of �genetic colonialism,� patent protection for genetically altered plants and the means of producing them is often obtained in non-OECD states by transnationals headquartered in OECD states.

Just as the pharmaceutical industry shaped the TRIPS Agreement (especially the patents segment), so too has its cousin, the mammoth seed industry, managed to insert into the same agreement a cunning clause regarding the patent regime that is to govern plant life. Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS allows Members of the Uruguay Round Agreements to exclude from patentability �plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes.� (Emphasis added.) This wording is potentially devastating to India�s biotechnology industry. Unless its scientists can experiment with such micro-organisms and micro-biological processes, India will be forced to compete with these giants on a very lopsided playing field. As now conceived, Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS will restrict and eventually scuttle experimentation in this area by Indian and other Third World scientists. The generously funded R&D programs of the TNC colossi in the agrochemical and seed industries give their scientists an extraordinary research advantage, enabling them to rapidly construct protectionist patent walls around these organisms and processes.

Also found in clause (b) is a sentence that will likely harm India�s farmers--large and small, as well as India�s agribusiness community, and its economy overall. The clause states that: �Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.� This seemingly gives a choice to the GATT Members. But that choice vanishes for those who have signed UPOV, a convention that governs the protection of plant innovations. This is the 1991 Act of the International Convention For The Protection of New Varieties of Plants (the UPOV Convention). It entered into force on April 21, 1998. On that date, a UPOV Press Release asserted that the Convention �provides the only internationally recognized sui generis system for the protection of plant varieties.� It added that: �The obligation in the TRIPS Agreement to protect the rights of developers of new plant varieties already applies to all developed country members of WTO and will come into force for many developing countries on January 1, 2000.� This gave developing countries another five years to �choose� the system for protecting plant varieties.

However, as the industry is now constituted in the industrialized world, the �developers of new plant varieties� are the �plant breeders� of the giant seed industry. Plainly, neither UPOV nor Article 27.3(b) in TRIPS are designed to protect India�s traditional farmers, nor any small independent farmer. Similarly, they should not look for shelter under the wings of the WTO and its Dispute Settlement Board.[4]

The controversial nature of UPOV for all parties can be partially deduced from the pattern of accession. The U.S. did not accept it until this year (on February 22, 1999). This followed accession by the United Kingdom on January 3, 1999. Indeed, out of 43 UPOV Members, only 11 countries have signed on to the 1991 UPOV Convention. Obviously, even its proponents in the industrialized world were in no hurry to be bound by this document.

Of the remaining 32 states, 31 are Members of the 1978 Act, and one (Belgium) is a member of the earliest 1961/1972 Acts. Included in the 31 is China, which acceded to the less restrictive 1978 Act on April 23, 1999! Other than China, the only two Asian nations that joined this group are Japan, which acceded to the 1991 Act on December 24, 1998, and Israel, which did so on April 24, 1998. Neither India nor any of the other South Asian nations are UPOV Members. Only a handful of African countries belong to UPOV. This is a thunderous expression of the mistrust with which most countries in the South view this Convention and Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS.

The issue was especially significant at the time of this writing because Article 27.3(b) was to come under review at the end of 1999, when the third Ministerial Meeting of WTO Members was to be held in Seattle, Washington, November 29th through December 3rd. This proved to be a significant skirmish in the battle of agricultural antagonists--the powerful agribusiness enterprises of the North and varied agricultural interests of the South, for which so much was at stake. The developing world took heart from the dramatic failure of Seattle. But �the battle of Seattle� is not over yet. Decisions are yet to be made that will transform agriculture-based economies -- for better or worse. The impact, whether positive or negative, will vitally affect India�s most important agricultural resource, namely, its plant biodiversity which is embodied in the humble seed. Throughout the tropical world, farmers have long relied on plants like the neem tree for millennia to protect and improve their crops.

From time immemorial, India�s healers have banked on the lavishly diverse plant life in their world for countless health remedies. Thus, the outcome of future negotiations will also have an enormous impact on the traditional medicine systems of India and other Third World countries. All that knowledge, heretofore in the public domain, is rapidly being privatized by the TNCs of the North.

With so much at stake, all of the interested contenders continue to gear up for the next struggle. For many countries in the South, their very survival as independent nations is at stake. The chips with which the whole game will be played will come in the form of scientific knowledge protected by patents.

Biotechnology Research: India�s Record

India�s economic policies have sought to enhance the productivity of agriculture and industry. Today, this depends on advances made in scientific and technological knowledge. For agriculture, this means continuous upgrading in agricultural biotechnology. Research into relevant technologies and their development or improvement is a crucial variable in achieving national goals. Yet it is only in recent years that scientific and technological knowledge relevant to agriculture has been recognized as worthy of New Delhi�s urgent attention and, most important, its financial support. Since independence and up to the present time, India has depended largely on foreign technology. That is its Achilles heel. It is encouraging to find, however, that though a bit late, the government has worked to correct this oversight. In 1986, a separate Department of Biotechnology (DBT) was established in the Ministry of Science and Technology. This was the first time that an effort was made to develop indigenous R&D capabilities in various areas of biotechnology. But there was as yet no clear focus on agricultural biotechnology. India�s Ninth Five Year Plan (1997-2002) makes a serious effort to close this gap also. Accepting that biotechnology will become a lead technology in the future, India�s planners are committed to realizing the full potential of the field for India�s development by providing biotechnology inputs for soil fertility and for environmental conservation and protection. Areas like crop biotechnology in particular will be accorded priority.

This emphasis on agricultural biotechnology is politically significant. Several categorical assertions by planners point to India�s gravest concerns. First, they affirm that the current TRIPS regime �severely restricts national autonomy.� Moreover it �tilts� the balance between the public interest and that of the private inventor in favor of the latter. Particularly troublesome to India�s planners are the �unilateral and arbitrary� restrictions placed by the developed countries on technology transfer, on the ground of preventing �dual use� of all such technical knowledge. (It is interesting to note that the �dual use� issue was currently a matter of much contention in the U.S. Congress, regarding the transfer of sensitive technology to China. The military potential of such knowledge was unmistakable. Yet, until now, the American Administration was prepared to trust China with technology that was far more sensitive than the big Cray computer which was denied to India.)

The concerns of Indian officials mentioned here manifest a belated recognition that India has too long depended on technology imports and foreign research; and that this has made India vulnerable to powerful outside instruments of manipulation. Combined with policies of liberalization, privatization and �free trade,� globalization is now a stunning reality. The pressures put upon India to accept a global patent regime it had long opposed will no doubt continue to intensify in these circumstances. Advances in agricultural biotechnology by the seed giants compound India�s vulnerability. The weakest links in its armor are those tying Indian agribusiness interests to foreign industrial oligopolies in biotechnology and to outside political and economic power centers. These, too, will likely become progressively more visible in the coming months.

Nevertheless, India has immense strengths that can give the nation an edge in science and technology, and in agricultural biotechnology. Even the diverse communities that make up this kaleidoscopic nation can be an asset for wise and visionary leaders. India�s vast resources in human skills, knowledge and natural riches can, if properly cultivated, enable the nation to overcome the massive challenges that will confront its agricultural economy in the opening decades of the third millennium. Two goals must be aimed at in order to surmount these: one is food security, which means securing an ample supply of foodstuffs for the population; food safety is the second, and here, the aim must be to provide the consumer healthy, nutritional food. The achievement of both objectives will depend largely on the advances made in agricultural biotechnology. Traditional farming methods have been failing India where food production has declined substantially while food imports have increased.[5] This in turn will depend on the agricultural patent regime within which India�s scientists will be able to function.

How India conducts itself in the coming Ministerial Conferences and preparatory negotiations will determine India�s ability to face up to these formidable tasks.

The Gordian Knot: India�s Food Chains

For most people, the biotech revolution seems a distant, almost unreal phenomenon. Words like �biotechnology� and �genetic engineering� still sound alien to most people.[6] Yet these processes that manipulate living organisms or cells have revolutionized agriculture? Some say that genetic engineering techniques will eradicate hunger. Critics argue that this is only a short-term solution of problems that are largely traceable to governmental and corporate policies. In any case, genetically engineered products will be too costly and out of reach of the poverty-stricken. Environmentalists and proponents of sustainable development claim that genetic engineering threatens the diversity of plant life -- nature�s insurance policy against the vagaries of climatic conditions and soil variations. They argue further that the genetic modification of crops like corn, wheat, soy beans and others can badly damage the human food chain. This is the conveyor belt that moves the sun�s energy, in the form of food, from one organism to another. Starting with the seed, these energy carriers eventually end up in food processors before reaching food shelves, kitchens, and finally our stomachs. Genetically modified (GM) foods are already sold in substantial quantities in many parts of the world, including India. Unless legally required, manufacturers will not label their GM products. Yet, critics argue, not enough is known about genetic engineering and the effects on plant life of intrusions into natural biological processes. What is known is not encouraging. The introduction of toxins into seeds to make crops resistant to pests and herbicides is believed to harm the environment and biodiversity, as well as human health.[7] The Union of Concerned Scientists warns that �Transgenic crops could bring new allergens into foods that sensitive individuals would not know to avoid.� For example, a mother that avoids giving milk or milk-products to her milk-sensitive child might unwittingly give that same child carrots containing milk proteins, which have been transferred across species to such products through genetic engineering.

The risks to the biological food chain are further compounded by a �commercial food chain�. The findings of an American study cast a long shadow which should give Indian planners and farmers pause. A rural sociologist at a U.S. university found that a few major firms controlled decisions made throughout the entire food chain linking producers to buyers. By entering into alliances, joint ventures, mergers and other relationships, three major clusters of firms, each representing a vertically integrated food chain, were able to control the food system �from the gene to the supermarket shelf.� According to the National Farmers Union (NFU),[8] the study reported that: �Biotechnology and the terminator gene have put the farmer at the mercy of the food cluster for seed to plant the crop. � Moreover, �precision farming�s global positioning system separates management from the production of agriculture.� It was thus possible for ��managers� in distant offices to make decisions about farm production, while producers simply become laborers.� The independent family farms and ranchers, said the study, were threatened by the ability of these clusters to �influence opportunities all along the food chain--from production inputs to global trade.� This eroded �the independence of producers by shifting major decision-making to a handful of firms.� Moreover, �rural communities� were harmed because �corporate returns are reinvested in the firm, rather than in local economies where the goods are produced.� This is an important point to remember when we consider the impact of foreign transnationals operating in India, and especially in the food and agrochemical sectors of the economy.

The three clusters mentioned in the above study were: Cargill/Monsanto, ConAgra, and Novartis/Archer Daniels Midland. All were ranked among the top 10 largest corporations in agrochemicals and food industries.[9] Four of the five were American. Cargill is the world�s fifth largest food and beverage company,[10] while ConAgra, Inc. ranks fourth in this category. In November 1998, Cargill (which is also the world�s biggest grain exporter) announced that it would merge with Continental Grain Company. If the U.S. Justice Department approves this merger, Cargill would control 45% of the global grain trade. Monsanto is the world�s second largest seed corporation and the third largest agrochemical corporation. Novartis (Switzerland) is the world�s second largest agrochemical corporation and the third largest seed corporation. Finally, ADM ranked fifth among 35 food companies in the U.S. and was among the top 100 companies in Fortune 500�s listing of top U.S. industries. In India, however, its presence is as yet modest. It has recently added oilseed processing and vegetable oil refining operations in India.

Biotechnology, Genetic Engineering and the Seed

�Biotechnology,� deals with live organisms. These may be plants or animals, visible to the naked eye, or microorganisms seen only through a microscope. Agricultural biotechnology--our focus here, encompasses various methods used to modify (or create new or modified) plant life. Such life forms may range from simple one-celled algae or complex multi-celled trees. As earlier noted, research scientists in this field use biological processes involving organisms or natural substances to develop or modify products. Their aim is to change the genetic code of living cells or seeds[11] which is carried in the molecule known as DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). This is the process we call �genetic engineering.�

DNA is composed of two alternating chemicals joined together by two other base chemicals. The sequence of the latter determines the instructions that direct cells to make the various proteins that support life.[12] By manipulating this sequence, corporate scientists can enable these cells or seeds to perform new functions or to produce new substances. This is done by decoding the order or �sequencing� of a gene�s building blocks (i.e., its chemical units), and then changing that order. The latter process is known as �splicing�. Through this series of steps, scientists can add or remove traits from a plant that are desirable or undesirable. They can make crops resistant to drought or poisonous to pests and weeds. The process of adding or removing traits to or from plants becomes most controversial when it is done across species. That is, foreign genetic material is inserted into the cells of organisms of a different species. This is how �transgenic organisms� are formed. The product may be something as simple as a carrot containing milk proteins or as complex as a genetically manipulated animal and even human forms.

No one doubts that biotechnology�s potential for good is immense -- in both medicine and agriculture. Progress has been made in finding medicines that can cure heretofore fatal diseases. Methods of �gene therapy� are already in use whereby a �sick� gene is replaced by a healthy one. But in addition to curative ends, experiments may be undertaken for eugenic purposes, e.g., to determine the height, weight, hair color and other traits of a fetus. Indeed, a popular test in India and elsewhere enables parents to discard unwanted female fetuses until the prized male fetus materializes. A patent pending in the U.S. patent office proposes to genetically change sperm cells so that the resulting altered animals can pass down the new traits to subsequent generations. Such experiments in animal eugenics will undoubtedly pave the way to human eugenics. Hitler�s dream of a �superior� race may be realized within a century of his death.

The industries most active in these kind of genetic engineering methods are in the biotech, pharmaceutical and chemical fields. The top companies in these industries include, in addition to Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer, Upjohn and others. Once they have identified and patented plant genes (as well as animal), they will be able to control agriculture and the increasingly powerful food processing industry which manufactures much of the food products that we put on our tables, especially in the Western world. But as these giant TNCs expand their operations and with that their influence, in the economies of Third World countries, their agricultural production and food consumption patterns will undoubtedly reflect that influence and power. For they will have acquired patent monopolies of not only the �discovered� genes but also of the genetic engineering methods used to manipulate these genes. Inherent in this kind of experimentation is the familiar dilemma of humankind of �letting the genie out of the bottle.� It�s difficult to put it back in. This dangerous scientific game with genes will create transgenic forms that will not only reproduce, but in the process of reproducing could be transformed, and having been transformed, could literally move on -- by wind, rain, pollen and other natural ways, to other crops or to wild plants. Eventually, these novel organisms could displace the existing forms, homogenizing agricultural life.[13]

It is safe to say that it is in the agricultural field that genetic engineering is most popular. The easily anticipated reason is the profits it promises.[14] Corporate scientists in agribusiness stress the remarkable increase in yield that they claim will end starvation and malnutrition. But as with any new technology--from the wheel to nuclear power--there is a fine line between good and evil.[15] It is that fine line that is stressed by critics who fear that the evil consequences may overwhelm the good. Whether they are pessimists, as some say, or realists, as viewed by others, the end results they foresee do not bode well for humanity and especially for the �wretched of the earth.�

Since the bulk of research money comes from agribusiness, the research will focus on foods that sell well in the DC markets. As has already happened in many countries in the South, arable land is increasingly allocated to cash crops that can be exported and earn foreign exchange. Moreover, farmers who used to grow several products are now inclined to grow one or two crops on the same large landholdings. The promise of huge yields from genetically engineered seeds lures even the small-scale farmers who make up the bulk of the farming community in the Third World. But once hooked on such seeds, they are locked into the contract they were required to sign when they bought these seeds. Cargill �generously� gave free hybrid seeds to farmers in the Philippines. Instead of the increased yields and lower use of chemicals promised by Cargill, quite the opposite happened. The seeds were not suited to the moist climate of the Philippine Islands, and more pesticides, weed killers and fertilizers had to be applied. Worse still, owing to the restrictive terms of the contract signed, they were prevented from using their neighbors� seeds, as traditionally done when a crop failed. Even worse was the contract sold to Indian farmers by Monsanto which demanded a hefty �technical fee� per acre in addition to the amount paid for the seed. But they were also locked into Monsanto�s chemicals as well, and were subject to a fine if they used someone else�s chemicals. Activist Vandana Shiva�s description of Monsanto�s methods as totalitarian is clinched by the provision that allows Monsanto inspectors to visit these farmers (even in the absence of the land owner) in order to determine whether they have violated any of the terms of the contract.[16]

Beneath a fa�ade of official concern about the effect of invading �seed giants� on Indian agriculture, there is a lot of support on the part of Indian agribusiness and allied interests with ties to outside agricultural ventures for opening up India to foreign agribusiness. It is argued that such ties will bring the technology and capital needed to make Indian agriculture more productive than it is now. Mixed signals have come from Seattle regarding the Indian Delegation�s policy stance during the doomed Conference. What bears watching is the evolution of the BJP Government�s agricultural pronouncements in the aftermath of the Seattle debacle. Thus far, these have not been reassuring. The status of a proposed law, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers� Rights Bill, remains unclear. It has been reported by the Press Information Bureau of India that this Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 3^rd. But the same agency announced on December 15, 1999 that this Bill was �likely to be introduced shortly in Parliament.� Nevertheless, the draft that has been circulated has raised more questions than it has answered. One critic states that this bill �will end up benefiting the large seed corporations, some very large farmers, and corporate farming agencies.�[17] Such a Bill, if enacted, may well signal the nature of relations we can anticipate between India and powerful industrial nations like the United States -- the principal architect of the new corporate order. Will India submit to �the inevitable� or will it stand and fight?

Mary C. Carras
Professor Emerita
Political Science Faculty
Rutgers University

11 MacArthur Blvd. - Apt. 911
Westmont, NJ 08108
Tel. 856-858-1310
Email: [email protected][i]

[1] In a recent communique, the Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) pointed to "an ominous trend" it has monitored for over a decade, involving the "use of genetic research for biological warfare." RAFI quotes a report by the British Medical Association released in early 1999 which warns about the dangers of using biomedical research to develop "weapons which may become a major threat to the existence of Homo sapiens..." The report, Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity, by Prof. Malcolm Dando, is cited in RAFI Communique, March/April, 1999, p. 10. Another bizarre experiment attempts to produce "ethno-bombs" that can target "human victims by ethnic origin."

[2] The Economist, March 12, 1994, pp. 71-73. The industry�s role is more fully documented in Terence P. Stewart, ed., The GATT Uruguay Round, A Negotiating History (1986-1992). Volume II: Commentary, Boston, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, 1995.

[3] Isabelle Meister and Dr. Sue Mayer - Greenpeace International April 1995 - "DESIGNER" ORGANISMS AND GENETIC POLLUTION, posted as one in a series of information sheets, in INFORMATION ABOUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS No.9, Fri, May 26, 1995 "Releases of Genetically Engineered Plants and Their Impacts on Less Developed Countries." From The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, in Minneapolis, MN. http://www.iatp.org/

[4] One Indian group that has consistently opposed the acceptance by India of the WTO agreement is the Delhi Gram Vikas Panchayat, led by Yudhvir Singh. This organization and its leader were to join the demonstrations in Seattle, representing the interests of Indian farmers. (See, Gurdip Singh, "Indian farmers to join international protest against globalization," Financial Express, May 6, 1999.

[5] "Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture - Trade Liberalization and the Corporatisation of Agriculture," The Research Foundation for Science, Technology & Ecology

[6] "Biotechnology" refers to the development of products by a biological process involving the use of organisms like yeasts and bacteria, or natural substances like enzymes. Yeasts are single-celled fungi and bacteria simple-celled microorganisms. Natural substances may include proteins such as enzymes. "Genetic engineering" refers to a technology used to change the genetic material of living cells to enable them to produce new substances or perform new functions. (See "Glossary" in Biotechnology Industry Organization, http://www.bio.org/)

[7] Union of Concerned Scientists, "The Gene Exchange - A Public Voice on Biotechnology and Agriculture," April 1999.

[8] National Farmers Union Press Release, February 10, 1999.

[9] See "The Gene Giants - Masters of the Universe?" in RAFI COMMUNIQUE, March/April, 1999. For Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), see Fortune 500, May 15, 1995, p. F-50. In a listing of 35 companies in the food industry, ADM ranked 5^th in revenues and ranked among the top 100 in Fortune�s 500 listing. (MCC: Get latest Fortune issue.) Advertising itself on American television as "supermarket to the world," it has "processing, storage, transportation, and sales offices worldwide." See, http://www.admworld.com/about/overview. However, it has also been described as "the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare [i.e., business subsidies] in recent U.S. history." See, James Bovard, Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare, Cato Policy Analysis No. 241, September 26, 1995.

[10] RAFI sees these food and beverage corporations as "the true titans of the life industry." It is expected that they will become dominant players in the life industry over the coming decade. Their revenues in 1997 The retail value of global food sales was estimated at $2 trillion, over six times larger than that of pharmaceuticals. The revenues of one such corporation alone (Nestle) surpassed those of the entire commercial seed industry and the agrochemical industry. (RAFI COMMUNIQUE, op. cit.)

[11] The shorthand term for the reproductive cells or seeds containing the genetic variability of a given organism is "germplasm."

[12] The DNA from all living things, plant, animal or human, is made from the same materials

[13] Much of this discussion on genetic engineering is based on an article published on the Internet by the Campaign for Food Safety of Minnesota. (Write to Ronnie Cummins at [email protected]: ask for date of article (What�s Wrong with Gen. Eng.) and author, and your rules for citing.

[14] According to van der Gaag (op. cit.) 75% of biotech research is driven by the economics of agribusiness.

[15] This segment is based on "The Gene Dream" by Nikki van der Gaag, editor, The New Internationalist. (Get date) A good discussion of what goes on in "the secretive world of genetic engineering."

[16] Monsanto�s practices do not discriminate between farmers from the North and South. An American farmer sued Monsanto (and lost) over a provision that Monsanto said forbade the farmer to use his own seeds on his land, once having planted the Monsanto seeds. (Check the name and details of the case.)

[17] Ashish Kothari, "Farmers or Corporations: Who Does the Plant Varieties Bill Benefit?"

Kalpavriksh - Environmental Action Group, Pune, India, February 2000.