Monsanto to Allow Use of Seed After Patent
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/18seed.html
This news release came out awhile ago, but I just heard about it in a class on Thursday. Starting in 2014, Monsanto's patent on Roundup Ready soybeans will expire. They will allow farmers to use this seed, and even save it after harvests; a practice that has been illegal since Monsanto has claimed patent rights on their seeds. This is a huge deal for the agriculture industry, since this is the first patent that will be expiring on seeds. Monsanto will for sure lose a lot of money, and farmers will save a lot of money. According to the article, the Roundup Ready soybeans will essentially become equivalent to generic drugs. Many people think that Monsanto will develop a new form of Roundup Ready soybeans to replace the previous patent, and continue their dominance in the soybean market. Monsanto denies these claims, saying that they will not extend any farmer's contract with Roundup Ready soybeans until 2014 when the patent expires, and will let them save their seeds. The whole picture of the future of Roundup Ready soybeans is still unclear, and will be interesting to see what happens in 2014. It sounds like at the end of the article, that there is a second form of Roundup Ready soybeans that will hit the market which promises farmers higher yields and "other desirable traits".
My initial reaction to this was shock. I was amazed that Monsanto was going to sit back and just let this patent expire. This is a major revenue source for them, as they have 90% of the soybean market. This would be a major environmental justice win for the farmers. Will Monsanto release the second form of Roundup Ready soybeans, and continue on their path of not allowing farmers to save that seed? Is this a case of sheer goodwill for Monsanto? I'm still skeptical.
My guess is that they will seek to renew the patents, however perhaps i am being skeptical too. It could be that they will allow farmers to save the older seeds while Monsanto patents the new line of round-up ready soybeans, either way patents on these types of agricultural products are indefensible in my opinion. I hope that courts across the country uphold the rights of farmers and award farmers their due in civil courts, and that the patent office revises it's stance on this type of intellectual property. It is unconstitutional, unethical, and downright wrong for anyone to claim ownership over a form of life. Patents did not come into existence to be used in this way and we should see to it that agricultural products are returned to farmers who grow them and the earth that has provided them. private ownership of food stuffs threatens the core resources needed to sustain humanity. not to mention the other threats that some transgenic crops pose to health and safety of humans, animals, plants, and the biodiversity and sustainability of the environment
ReplyDelete.
Honestly, I don’t think skepticism is too pessimistic of a reaction to have when it comes to Monsanto. Sometimes it seems like they’re the corporation that everybody loves to hate, like Walmart. However, just about any headline you read about Monsanto has something to do with how they are punishing individual farmers and small business-owners to protect their multibillion-dollar corporation. I really don’t think they can be trusted; the trouble with Monsanto seems to come partially from how darn clever they are. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they found some ingenious way around the expiration of this patent.
ReplyDeleteTo be perfectly honest, I’m conflicted as to my personal stance on the patenting of seeds. I can definitely see Monsanto’s side of things; after all, they did biologically engineer the seed, so I do think it’s a form of intellectual property. However, biologically and ecologically, it’s impossible to regulate, as we saw with the farmer in Food, Inc. who wasn’t using Monsanto’s seeds but the genes got into his crops anyway. Personally, I would prefer to see genetically modified crops become completely illegal, but I know that’s not going to happen any time soon. Unfortunately, this is a complex issue that straddles biology, ecology, ethics, law, and a lot of other things that I have absolutely no expertise in. Every time I read a headline featuring Monsanto, I feel a sense of urgency to find some way to, quite frankly, stop them from being so awful. Can we just outlaw Monsanto itself?
I, too, am inclined to be skeptical. However that is an interesting point about Monsanto being a corporation that everyone loves to hate, and perhaps it is unfair to perpetually assume the worst of their actions and intentions. However, they are a business and when considered from a business standpoint, many of their decisions seem prudent and serve their own interests well. They perhaps do not allow the company to maintain positive public image, but they have also done a solid job in covering the market and leaving farmers few other options; when other options emerge, however, their public relations might become more significant. Perhaps this new willingness to compromise is part of trying to build up an image of caring about their clients, which would be a more believable intermediate between deliberate concealment and shear goodwill. Food, Inc. was successful in showing the extents to which Monsanto was willing to go which seemed quite extreme. This issue is interesting in that it brings to light so many issues such as business ethics, the process of patents, and the use of genetically modified seeds.
ReplyDelete