Monsanto isn’t making life harder for smallholders – the Indian government is | Letters

It’s refreshing to read a Guardian editorial describing the benefits of GM crops (The Guardian view on GM cotton: handle with care, 5 September). However, we disagree with the article regarding our relationship with farmers and technology pricing. To have successful, economically resilient customers is important for any business. Monsanto takes pride in the fact that our products help farmers, especially smallholder farmers in the developing world, move towards more reliable harvests and better incomes. To use GM cotton in India, farmers spend 1-2% of their total cost of cultivating the crop, equivalent to only 3-4% of their incremental return. The popularity of GM technology shows that farmers rightly regard this as an excellent investment, as GM cuts the need for expensive pesticide and offers better yield. Nothing assures Monsanto of a steady income stream other than offering products that farmers want to use at a price they decide is fair value, in competition with the other choices available. In India, we have licensed GM cotton traits to 49 seed companies offering over 1,000 locally adapted seed types, enabling farmer choice and providing farmers across the country access to an immensely beneficial technology. The government of India’s recent intervention unilaterally reducing GM trait fees and introducing draft licensing guidelines is against the backdrop of a dispute between Monsanto and a few seed companies. The government’s reduction in trait fees does not translate into benefits for farmers, but adds to the profits of seed companies, which have lobbied with other vested interests to create an environment that allows them to maximise their profits at the cost of farmers’ long-term prospects and technology access. These interventions have created significant uncertainty in the Indian business environment around respect for intellectual property rights and the status of private contracts. The impact is not limited to Monsanto, but also affects Indian companies engaged in research and development. A supportive, predictable policy and business environment that respects intellectual property rights on patented technologies and the sanctity of private contracts can encourage long-term investments to create the new tools and technologies that Indian farmers need. Finding solutions for smallholders is complicated: it requires local knowledge and an appreciation of the challenges farmers face. If the Guardian wishes to encourage development of farming tools that can help smallholders be more sustainable and improve agriculture overall, please call for science-based, inclusive and consistent decision-making from governments. Mark Buckingham Monsanto UK • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com