Author – Tejender Singh
“Integrity is the foundation for all that we do. We ask that you judge us not only by what occurred in the past, but also by our commitment to maintaining and improving our integrity in the future.” (from Monsanto.com)
I have seen numerous socio-economic documentaries (thanks to Netflix) like the one we saw yesterday. Nearly all of them bring out some or the other evil side of corporations and the corporate greed which has bypassed common sensibilities and has violated the universal values of dignity and respect for life and nature. I always try to be a neutral audience and a reasonable critique since one cannot deny that there is almost always a hidden propaganda behind these documentaries and also the ones that are made to counter argue with these.
But Monsanto is one company for which I have always failed to think of any reasonable defense for its activities. I did some research on Monsanto in one of my business ethics course and the starting lines of this blog come from there. I wonder what definition of ‘integrity’ Monsanto believes in. I for one do not know of anything called ‘partial integrity’ or integrity which can be ‘improved’ upon. I always thought integrity and honesty are self contained, discrete and unambiguous concepts, but Monsanto obviously disagrees. J
Coming back to the main point – I think we as part of the civil society need to reexamine where we have gone wrong with Intellectual Property Rights. The same IPR which protect an innovators interests and are intended to be contributing towards advancement of the humanity are also being used by companies like Monsanto to become evil and not only potentially endanger the intricate balance of nature, but to inflict harm on the social structure which has been sustained for centuries and eventually become so powerful so as to make us all dependent on it for a basic human necessity like food.
It is not just about what Monsanto does with genetically modifying our food – it is also how evil it has been in its strategy to become what it has become today. It has threatened innocent farmers; it has lied, not once but several times about matters which risk human life; it has corroborated with the highest level of government officials to lobby its own interests bypassing all rules and regulations; it has paid bribes and got involved in other corrupt activities – the list is endless.
What we need to ask ourselves and of course what the patent regime needs to think over as well is:
- What limits should the patent laws have in terms of granting patents on such issues which relate to basic necessities of human life and where does the line get drawn – as in Monsanto’s case just up to the technology, or the seed, or does the right go on to infringe over things not even owned by Monsanto?
- What limits should be imposed on protection and enforceability of the Intellectual Property Rights?
- Like the three branches of government (executive, legislative and judiciary) shouldn’t there be effective coordination and reciprocity between granting of IPRs and the implementation and enforceability of these rights?
The answers are complex, but also obvious in some ways. I just hope that in future Intellectual Property Rights serve the purpose that they are intended to and do not get abused by companies of the league of Monsanto. I also believe that we, the so called ‘educated lot’ need to think about a company’s values and its track record before joining it and becoming a part of it – but somehow we are getting it wrong here by adopting the mistakes of the west – running behind the green gold!
By the way there are many other interesting documentaries out there on similar topics (not all related to IPR): Food Inc., The World According to Monsanto (available on Youtube), Super Size Me, Always Coca-Cola – India (on Youtube) etc.
Innovation and Intellectual Property 
I have heard a lot of these things and discussed a lot on all this with people who do not understand the industry well, but I feel it can not be any other way.
If we ask the scientists they will tell why it is important for monsanto to work the way it does.
Its the media who wants to tarnish and exaggerates the effects of technology, without even understanding its benefits.
I have heard a lot of these things but I feel, it can not be any other way.
If we ask the scientists they will tell why it is important for Monsanto to work the way it does.
Its the media who wants to tarnish and exaggerates the effects of technology, without even understanding its benefits.
From outside we would feel that the corporation is being evil to the farmers,but it has imporved farmer lives like anything.There are a lot of projects that its running in Gajasthan and Gujarat, that are beneficial.
I actually saw this one card from a farmer for her daughter’s marriage that had monsanto’s name as the sole reason for his prosperity and this is not a single case.
Our agriculture will go nowhere.if we dont let the patents happen,as companies won’t have incentive.
A small change in the gene, the protein of which has gone through serious trials, how can that affect once’s system adversely?
In contrast to a vegetable that we consider “normal” which probabaly is growing in the most polluted soil possible and has no tests done on it.
I am against the terminator technology too which I think is one bad thing.But then not all monsanto crops have it.
I agree with you on the aspect that Genetically Modified Seeds can have some benefits, and actually I didn’t like the part of the documentary where instead of being objective and say pros and cons of GM seeds, they used only fear as their argument.
On the other hand I think the first part of the documentary points a real issue about patenting life, which nobody can control. And even farmers who refuse to use GM seeds can be affected because life finds it way to reproduce (bees, wind, etc) and gets into the fields. So if its replication is uncontrollable it should not be patented.
I also do not believe that “agriculture will go nowhere, if we dont let the patents happen”, since patents in agriculture appeared recently, while agriculture has thousands of years and farmers have been able to do a lot of progress by using selective breeding(this link shows how corn was before and after humans started planting and doing selective breeding)
I believe patents are the worst option for agriculture, because it cover only the interest of a few companies, and limit the option for farmers to get seeds. Instead of patents agriculture need more coordination between farmers, so new species created by selective breeding can be shared.