THE RIGHT TO GROW:
GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEED PATENTING AND
CIVILIAN RESISTANCE IN GUATEMALA
TEODORA RAWSTHORNE ECKMYN

In 2014, mass civil disobedience in Guatemala effectively resisted government and
corporate efforts to nationally legalize the patenting of genetically modified seeds.
This paper examines the dynamics of seed patenting, with attention to the corporate
interests and actions that propagate this trend and to the externalities that fall upon
civilians and their cultural, economic and food security rights. Next, the paper
examines the risks posed specifically to Guatemalan civilian and indigenous
concerns when the government passed a decree to legalize seed patenting. This
event is examined through the political and economic histories that influenced this
conflict and the civilian interests that were threatened, specifically regarding the
dynamics of the dietarily and culturally essential maize plant. Finally, the paper
examines the strategies and organizations that effectively abolished the decree,
emphasizing the potential of civilian disobedience in protecting civil rights.

While the human modification of seeds has long been a practice of agricultural
development, the relatively recent commercialization of this modification is
changing the legal, social, economic and cultural dimensions of agriculture, food
security and human rights. Seed modification’s traditional/local and
modern/commercial avenues are in question and conflict in Guatemala, where
maize production and its patentability have been vigorously contested. 1 The interest
of farmers, and other civilians reliant on the resources they provide, are
interconnected and often at odds with the positions of the corporations and states
who stand to benefit from the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to Genetically
Modified (GM) crops. The patenting of seeds has remained illegal in the state of
Guatemala, despite corporate and governmental efforts, due to “protocols that
James Klepek, “Against the Grain: Knowledge Alliances and Resistance to Agricultural
Biotechnology in Guatemala.” (Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 2012), 313.

1

HiPo Vol. 3

70

March 2020

protected their natural patrimony” and the consistent, forcefully unified resistance
and resilience of civilian coalitions. 2 This tool was resisted by the Guatemalan
people through the coordination and coalition of civilian groups fighting for the
variable-sum protection of the cultural, economic and food security interests that
rely upon the traditional agricultural systems in place. The patenting of GM seeds
is a tool employable by actors who seek to propagate their zero-sum positions
through the oppression of rights of those who produce and rely upon agriculture, in
both commercial and subsistence forms.
As genetic modification (GM) technology advances and infiltrates the agricultural
system, the commercialization and policies of seed use constantly evolve and affect
all participants of the agricultural system. Seed patenting is the process by which
seeds, once modified from their original state by human manipulation, are attributed
legal ownership through intellectual property rights (IPR) to their genetic
structure. 3 This intellectual ownership of plant variations is regulated and enforced
at a national level. 4 An international trend amongst IPR-GMO laws is their
disproportionate focus on the rights and positions of breeders and discoverers with
relative lack of regard for the rights and interests of farmers and consumers. 5 A
2008 report by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science,
and Technology for Development stated that “[t]echnologies such as high-yielding
crop varieties, agrochemicals and mechanization have primarily benefitted the
better resourced groups in society and transnational corporations, rather than the
most vulnerable ones.” 6 This promotion of the commercialization of agriculture
reveals the zero-sum positions of powerful actors, endorsed by the very
governments whose responsibility it is to protect the food rights of all its citizens,
ultimately revealing the structural violence of the governmental-agricultural
system.
The consequences of this system are various, potent and complex, and affect
socioeconomic, food security and cultural spheres of concern. While GM
technologies increase yields and therefore present the strong potential benefit in
“those areas that are most dependent on agriculture, facing water shortages and
impacts from climate change, and continued population growth,” their advantages
must be weighed against the threatening control and change of the dynamics of
food production. 7 As IPR holders employ their legally enabled monopolies of GM
2
Liza Grandia, “Sacred Maize Against a Legal Maze: The Diversity of Resistance to Guatemala’s
Monsanto Law.” (Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 2017), 66.
3
Hans Morten Haugen and Thomas Bøhn, “Genetically Modified Food Worldwide IP
Challenges.” (Reference Module in Food Science, 2016), 2.
4
Haugen, Bøhn, 2.
5
Grandia, 66.
6
UN General Assembly, “Seed Policies and the Right to Food: Enhancing Agrobiodiversity and
Encouraging Innovation”, 2009), 3.
7
Haugen, Bøhn, 7.

HiPo Vol. 3

71

March 2020

seeds, farmers are easily subjugated, either financially or by strict control of their
practices. 8 Firstly, dependency upon the products of a monopolizing corporation
easily and frequently results in debt to that corporation, often confronted from an
already financially unstable position. 9 Secondly, agricultural practices can be
controlled by laws governing GMO usage that subjugate farmers to regulations that
benefit IPR holders at the expense of the income and autonomy of those farmers.
A prime example of this subjugation through regulation is the illegality of using
Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicides to improve the yield of seeds not directly
bought from Monsanto. 10 This application of IPR often restricts farmers from long
standing systems of seed saving and exchange, which could otherwise be relied
upon as “source[s] of economic independence and resilience in the face of
threats.” 11 Finally, the patenting of seeds, by changing the dynamics of food
production, changes the dynamics of food accessibility.
In response to these threats posed by GMO commercialization and corporate
control, organizations at all levels of society, including intergovernmental
organizations such as the United Nations (UN), have examined and prescribed how
the food security and sovereignty rights of vulnerable groups must be prioritized
and defended. A 2009 UN report on the interconnection of seed policy and food
rights notes that legislation wields the potential to create obstacles to the necessary
means of food production, threatening the livelihoods not only of farmers, but of
all those whose livelihoods rely upon the resources they produce. 12 In the report,
intended to advise governments on policy setting related to IPRs to GMOs, the UN
proposed a framework for governments to protect food security and other human
rights related to agriculture. The report implores the importance of prioritizing not
just yield quantities through technological innovation, but an equality-driven
prioritization of the “needs of the most marginalized groups, including in particular
smallholders in developing countries.” 13 As seed development is progressively
corporatized and regulated, farmers become increasingly dependant upon these
dictators of agricultural practice, risking both subsistence and sovereignty in their
food and livelihood practices. 14 A 2013 investigation resulted in reports that
“farmer’s choice of seeds (varieties) are reduced in GMO adopting countries,”
revealing the inhibition of sovereignty, integrity to traditional farming practices and
propagation of biodiversity through enforcement of IPR-GMO. 15 Dependence of
farmers upon IPR holders can be the result either of purchase and intentional use of
UN, 2.
UN, 2.
10
Haugen, Bøhn, 4.
11
UN, 2.
12
UN, 4.
13
UN, 3.
14
UN, 4.
15
Haugen, Bøhn, 5.
8
9

HiPo Vol. 3

72

March 2020

GMOs or through unintended contamination of land with GMOs. 16 While the UN
report emphasizes the importance of the farmers choice between the two systems
(corporate vs traditional/local), it is important to note that subjugation to IPR laws
can easily happen through contamination of fields by GM seeds as well as by
choice. Ultimately, the threats posed by the commercialization of GMOs reveal the
importance of protecting economic and food security and sovereignty rights as the
dynamics of seed patenting evolve internationally.
The threats posed by agricultural commercialization to food security and
sovereignty, have weighed heavily in Guatemala, where human rights are
complexly and diversely connected the cultural, subsistence and economic
importance of agricultural sovereignty. With half of the Guatemalan population
involved in agriculture, changes to the agricultural system have the power to
drastically influence the lives of citizens. 17 In 2014, the director of Guatemala’s
Science and Technology Research Institute stated that Guatemala contained 148
seed varieties that had been improved over time by human manipulation18,
revealing the scope of plants and their related activities that would become subject
to patenting if Guatemala were to adopt IPR laws. Of these, a plant of major concern
is maize, a crop with immense diversity and importance in Guatemala. Guatemala
is a country where the economic, cultural and food security concerns addressed
above are of constant concern and are strongly connected to the production of
maize. This connection is particularly relevant to the indigenous community, 73%
of whom are classified by the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs as
poor, while 26% are classified as extremely poor. 19 Interconnected with the
socioeconomic power of maize in this state is its cultural importance. Maize
cultivation is related to the rituals, deities and religious duties of the Mayan
people, 20 a group constituting approximately 60 percent of the Guatemalan
population. 21 Understanding these deeply important dynamics connecting
subsistence, agricultural cultivation, religion and culture gives further context to
the threat posed by IPR-GMO that would control those whose livelihoods rely upon
maize production or resources.
Contrast between the interests of Guatemalan agricultural sovereignty defenders
and the interests of potential IPR holders is stark and characterized abuses of power
that have sought to disempower the population and dispossess them of their rights
to food security and sovereignty. As a country with “seemingly ideal political
conditions for commercialization” of GM plants, Guatemala’s defiance of
Grandia, 66.
Klepek, 313.
18
Grandia, 66.
19
Yishan Lea, “The Praxis of Cultural Sustainability: a Q’eqchi Maya Case of Cultural Autonomy
and Resistance against the Monsanto Law in Guatemala.” (Theory in Action, 2014), 49.
20
Lea, 45.
21
Klepek, 311.
16
17

HiPo Vol. 3

73

March 2020

corporate control of agriculture faces many obstacles. 22 A paramount obstacle is
the Central American Free Trade Agreement’s (CAFTA) policy of supporting the
patenting of seeds and the commercialization of biotechnology, increasing the
adversity faced by Guatemala in resisting the enforcement of similar policies at a
national level. 23 Another obstacle relates to the international commercial
importance of maize. As one of the four plants to which GMO technology has been
most applied and commercialized, 24 maize’s commercial importance creates
intense corporate desire and pressure to alter national policies to mirror those
endorsed by CAFTA. Action by foreign actors, both governmental and corporate,
presents another prominent category of obstacles. The US Department of
Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA-FAS) and the Technical
Commission have vigorously supported the commercialization of transgenic
maize. 25 Notably, these influential positions have been established in official
discussion from which “oppositional indigenous, peasant and environmental
organizations have been systematically excluded”. 26 Furthermore, in 2008 the
notorious biotechnology company Monsanto acquired Latin America’s largest
maize seed company, Semillas Cristiani-Burkard, strengthening their position for
the commercialization of maize. 27 The combined and often parallel desires and
influence of corporations and governments, both Guatemalan and foreign,
contributed to dynamics of the seed patenting conflict, strengthening the opposition
faced by Guatemalan resistors of its legalization.
As a result of this intense and multifaceted conflict of interests, Guatemala portrays
a long history of resistance to agricultural technology and corporate control, which
run parallel to diverse forms of resistance that have characterized the dynamics
between the Guatemalan state, civilians and foreign actors. Monumental factors of
this formation were the 36-year civil war and the intense civil protests that
characterized the war’s period in the early 80’s as well as 1996 Peace Accords that
brought the country from conflict to a state of structurally violent negative peace
that continues to the present. These accords were characterized by “coalition
building among civil society organizations” and the “lower profile coordination”
that they produced. 28 While the international funding that strengthened these
connections has decreased with time, the legacy of these coalitions gave voice and
power to civilian groups through their history and interconnection. 29 Ultimately,
popular organization and resistance within Guatemala continue a legacy of action
against injustice and corporate/governmental oppression and of civilian
Klepek, 310.
Grandia, 66.
24
Haugen, Bøhn, 3.
25
Klepek, 311.
26
Klepek, 311.
27
Klepek, 310.
28
Grandia, 59.
29
Grandia, 66-67.
22
23

HiPo Vol. 3

74

March 2020

organization, which would eventually enable the popular resistance of IPR-GMO
legalization.
Tensions between the civilian and corporate interests linked to Guatemalan seed
patenting culminated in 2014 with a decree to legalize seed patenting and the
civilian activism that responded with powerful resistance and coordination.
Officially promoted and passed as Decree #19-2014, the decree was popularly
referred to as the “Monsanto Law” due to the corporation’s interest in and
promotion of the commercial benefits it would affect. 30 This corporate promotion
took several forms. For one, Semillas Cristiani-Burkhard, recently acquired by
Monsanto, threatened to move their headquarters from Guatemala to Honduras if
the Government did not pass the law. Furthermore, the USDA-FAS and Trade
commission propagated their stance on commercialization of transgenic maize by
openly supporting Monsanto’s vested interest in the law. Guatemalan governmental
handling of the law’s passing also revealed preferential manipulation. Congress’s
vote was strategically scheduled for June 13, when the media would inevitably be
heavily focused on the World Cup. On this date, the law was discreetly passed by
a vote with 81 in favour, outvoting the opposition by just one vote, and was set to
commence on September 26 of the same year. 31 The process of passing this law did
not fulfill its duty to consult indigenous groups, a failure that violated the rules of
the International Labour Organization, ultimately propagating the zero-sum
hierarchy of the elite by oppression of the country’s subjugated majority. 32 At this
time, the law made no statement on what species would be affected, a lack of clarity
that would fuel the discontent of Guatemalans. It was however known that within
ten years, the Monsanto Laws affect would reach all GM strains. 33 With
governmental, corporate and multinational trade agreement powers acting in favour
of corporate interests, the food security and sovereignty needs of the Guatemalan
population were severely threatened by the potential implementation of the
Monsanto Laws.
In reaction to the cultural, economic, food security and other threats posed by the
passing of the Monsanto Law, the three-month period until its planned
commencement was filled with powerful an diverse resistance enacted strategically
and sophisticatedly by the Guatemalan people, resulting in the abolition of the
Monsanto law and continuation of Guatemala’s forbiddance of the patenting of
crops. A monumental open letter was written on August 8 denouncing the shame
and compromise exhibited by Congress’s passing of the law. The resistance gained
momentum and was given necessary strength by the coalition of diversely
Liza Grandia, 65. All information in this paragraph informing on the passing of Decree #19-2014
was collected from Liza Grandia unless otherwise cited.
31
Lea, 59.
32
Lea, 59.
33
Grandia, 65.
30

HiPo Vol. 3

75

March 2020

motivated groups. 34 The unification of these groups, despite the plurality of their
motives or philosophies gave the movement the force, both of voice and of bodies
necessary to fight such corporate and governmental force, continuing the legacy
and power of civil society coalitions. Demonstrators used the obstruction of major
highways to derail the economic systems of the country, a significant example of
which was a massive group of approximately 120,000 protestors interrupting the
Pan America Highway west of Guatemala City. 35 Governmental obstruction was
also used. Physical obstructions interrupted urban areas, in one incidence
blockading congress and utilizing humour and humiliation strategies by throwing
tomatoes at senators. 36 The government was also technologically inhibited by the
Guatemalan branch of the famous hacking group Anonymous, which influentially
shut down several government sites. 37 The voices of Q’eqchi’ indigenous mayors,
many travelling from the agriculturally and culturally important western highland
to urban areas, brought authority and unification to the movement. 38 The influence
of all these movements relied heavily upon consistent media coverage, a tool that
countered the state’s usual repression and abuse of “indigenous, rural, and other
marginalized people” 39 and their voices. The culmination of popular dissent and
demonstration resulted in the abolition of the Monsanto law on September 5,
2014. 40 With astonishing resilience, organization, and strategy, and rooted in their
cultural knowledge and rights to food security and sovereignty, the Guatemalan
population defended these rights against the governmentally-backed corporate
interest in oppression.
The civilian-powered abolition of the Monsanto Law reveals the possible force of
a resilient, resistant population against transnational and governmental legal efforts.
This resistance is achievable when bolstered by effective coordination and diversity
of strategies to both debilitate the flows of the country and discredit the reputations
and influence of politicians and corporations. As the Guatemalan case reveals, the
evolving international dynamics of seed patenting are laden with complex,
multifaceted consequences to food security and sovereignty, as identified at the
civilian level as well as by parties such as the UN who seek to protect these rights.
The potential effects of this legalization reveal the contrast between politicalcorporate interest in agricultural dominance – as revealed the partial policies of the
Grandia, 60.
Grandia, 57.
36
Lea, 63.
37
Grandia, 57.
38
Grandia, 57.
39
Grandia, 60.
40
Lea, 64.
34
35

HiPo Vol. 3

76

March 2020

USDA-FAS, CAFTA and Guatemalan government – and civilian organizations
interested in protecting food security and sovereignty and related cultural and
socioeconomic concerns. The culmination of this conflict in Guatemala mirrors an
international conflict between the corporate interest in agricultural monopolization
and the human right to food security and sovereignty, a dynamic that reveals the
broadness of the importance of the Guatemalan population’s resistance as a chapter
of this international fight. Ultimately, the case of Guatemalan resistance of GM
patenting and commercialization reveals both the sophisticated unification and
coordination necessary for this form of resistance and the power of civilian
organizations in protecting their communities and livelihoods.

HiPo Vol. 3

77

March 2020

BIBLIOGRAPHY
GRANDIA, LIZA. “Sacred Maize Against a Legal Maze: The Diversity of Resistance to
Guatemala’s Monsanto Law.” Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and
Culture. 11 no. 1 (2017): 56-85. https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.30666.
HAUGEN, HANS MORTEN AND THOMAS BØHN. “Genetically Modified Food Worldwide
IP Challenges.” Reference Module in Food Science. (2016). doi:10.1016/B9780-08-100596-5.03528-9.
KLEPEK, JAMES. “Against the Grain: Knowledge Alliances and Resistance to
Agricultural Biotechnology in Guatemala.” Canadian Journal of Development
Studies. 33 no. 3 (2012): 310-325.
https://doi.org/10.1080.02255189.2012.719824.
LEA, YISHAN. “The Praxis of Cultural Sustainability: a Q’eqchi Maya Case of Cultural
Autonomy and Resistance against the Monsanto Law in Guatemala.” Theory in
Action 11, no. 4 (Oct., 2014): 44-73. DOI: 10.3798/tia.1937-0237.1825.
UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, RESOLUTION 63/187, Seed Policies and the Right to Food:
Enhancing Agrobiodiversity and Encouraging Innovation. A/RES/63/187 (Jul.
23, 2009).

HiPo Vol. 3

78

March 2020