With reference to the legal row between farmers and PepsiCo over a unique potato variety, consider the following statements:

Question

PepsiCo's appeal against the revocation of its registration for the 'FL 2027' potato variety was accepted by the Delhi High Court.

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 (PPV&FR Act) provides safeguards and protections to farmers and breeders.

'FL 2027' is a chipping potato variety developed by a former employee of Frito-Lay Agricultural Research.

The court rejected PepsiCo's appeal because they applied for registration as a "new variant" instead of an "extant variant" for the 'FL 2027' potato variety.

How many statements given above are correct?

(a) Only one statement

(b) Only two statements

(c) Only three statements

(d) All four statements

Answer 1

Answer: (b) Only two statements

Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect as PepsiCo's appeal was rejected by the Delhi High Court. Statement 2 is correct as the PPV&FR Act provides safeguards and protections to farmers and breeders. Statement 3 is correct as 'FL 2027' is indeed a chipping potato variety developed by a former employee of Frito-Lay Agricultural Research. Statement 4 is incorrect as the court rejected PepsiCo's appeal because they applied for registration as a "new variant" instead of an "extant variant" for the 'FL 2027' potato variety.