Does Monsanto Have A Patent Gene

Interference is a huge factor for many companies in which they don’t want to see happen and could possibly affect the process of the plants. The company will feel enraged that their products has been invaded, which means their products will be used by the company who simply stole their crops without permission. Others may hold a different perspective regarding that GMOs aren’t necessarily threatening. Statistics clearly demonstrate that to curb vitamin A deficiency which blinds as many as 500,000 children worldwide every year and kills half of them, researchers have engineered Golden Rice, which produces beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. (Chayka 2). Statistics show that at press time, GMO-label legislation is pending in at least 20 states. (Chayka 2). These statistics help explain my rebuttal against GMOs and their danger towards people and how they aren’t safe. Crops that are planted on the fields can be contaminated when another company’s seeds fly over to the other

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

Because Monsanto patented the their gene modification, they legally own all rights to any seed

The farmers then give their products to the manufacturers, who represent the bottleneck of the food system (21). “The ten largest companies control half of the world’s seed supply. …Ten firms control 90% of the nearly $38.6 billion pesticide markets (111-112).” Monsanto, being one of the ten companies that controls the world’s seed supply, is a company that has patents on all of its seeds and products. It produces genetically modified crops that are resistant to its own pesticides and herbicides, so that when a pesticide or herbicide is sprayed and it destroys all plants, the Monsanto seed survives because of its resistance. The reason that Monsanto is able to stay in business is because of the economic benefit it poses for the farmers. They are able to produce their crops at a much higher yield because they are losing less of their crops to pests. This higher yield results in lower costs for the consumers as well (Planes). As discussed

Personally, I believe that seeds, no matter how scientifically manipulated, should be considered technology. “Seed priming is defined as controlling hydration level within seeds so that the metabolic activity necessary for germination can occur” (Maiti, 2011). Monsanto does have moral obligations to farmers and consumers to make its seeds available at prices affordable to even the poorest of farmers. According to CEO, Hugh Grant, Monsanto could not exist without farmers. They are our customers-the lifeblood of our company. Traditionally, farmers save seeds from one year to plant in the next year, but Monsanto wanted to force farmers to purchase new seeds from the company every year. “By issuing new seeds each year, Monsanto ensures it will secure a profit as well as maintain control over its intellectual property” (Ferrell & Hartline, 2014).

There has been a big controversy pertaining to gene patenting ever since the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) began issuing them. While some, like the author of the article in the New York Times, “Patenting Life” Michael Crichton, see gene patents as giving up ownership of one's own ties to “all life on earth” (441) and recognize the disadvantages and restrictions put forth on medical advancement and innovation; others, like economist John E. Calfee author of “Decoding the Use of Gene Patents” on the American Enterprise Institute’s online magazine, see the benefits of high prices on test and research studies. Crichton sees gene patents as unnatural, costly and restrictive; Calfee, on the other hand sees it as “a power

When seed farmers sign a contract with Monsanto, they are required to use their engineered seeds. Monsanto sues the farmer if they do not use the seeds that they require them to use. The regulations of these companies cause

The issue of genetically modified foods, is Farmers can't harvest seeds. Fundamentally, farming is a simple process: plant seeds, grow crops, harvest crops, and gather seeds from the plants for the next season. Sadly, GMO companies like Monsanto take this last step away from farmers and raise expenses even futher by forcing the farmers to continually buy the premium-priced GM eeds every growing season. In fact, as was shiwn in the Bowman v. Monsanto court case, it is illegal in the US for someone growing a Monsanto crop to harvest the seeds and use them later. The Nowman case went all the way to the unanimously found guilty of patent infringement after he purchased and used second generation Monsanto seeds.

Most farms in the U.S. are controlled by Monsanto and other GMO companies. If they are controlled by Monsanto they are strictly supervised. They have no freedom to farm as they please because they can get sued by Monsanto. A farmer using Monsanto seeds signs a "Technology Agreement"

Monsanto has a patent on the genetically engineered seed, and strictly limit farmers in how they use the see. Farmers are not allowed to harvest the seeds for future use, and must purchase new seeds each year. Most farmers feel that this gives Monsanto too much power and control. If farmers deter from the Monsanto policies they feel bullied by the investigators that come to the farm. Farmers have accused Monsanto of unethical practices in order to get the farmers to participate in their plan. Farmers have unknowingly replanted seed that occurred from cross pollination and have replanted the seed which is not allowed. In Bowman vs. Monsanto, the court upheld that the patent exhaustion does not apply to self-replicating technology. Monsanto sued Mr. Bowman for cross pollination and won. In this situation, secondary stakeholders were involved (Haugo, 2015). Government and regulatory entities are considered secondary stakeholders since they do not typically engage in transactions with a company and are not essential to their futures (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell,

2. Monsanto reported they a have been filing 8 lay suites a year for the past 18 years and

A man by the name of John Locke once said “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.” These wise words may still and eternally be applied to our law system as a basis for our human rights and improvement. As of relatively recent times these basic political ideals have been challenged through the arise of genetic patents. These patents have stripped researchers from their ability to further investigate certain, often vital, sections of DNA. Additionally, these patents have placed many small family owned farms at a particular disposition. Companies such as Myriad Genetics and Monsanto are challenging our freedom, and rights to own property.

Companies, like Monsanto will come after small farms and sue them for more than they can pay if they find out they are using even a small portion of GM crops in their fields, even if by accident” (Fitzgerald). Approximately 2,400 farmers in 19 states through 2006 were sued and spied upon for alleged “seed piracy”, Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers who are caught with different seed. (Monsanto).

Additionally, big business controls the farmers by capitalizing on widely used commodities. For example, the company Monsanto which is based in St. Louis, Missouri protects its dominance over the genetically modified crops such as the soy bean with the use of a patent law. Because of this, Monsanto’s patented genes “account for 95 percent of all soy beans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S.,” (Associated Press). Although genetically modifying the soy bean crop has made it more readily available and more sustainable, this comes at a high price to farmers. Monsanto continues to raise their prices, which forces farmers to accrue even more debt, and there is no sign of the rise in the seed prices stopping. Since a lot of the farmers are under contract with Monsanto, there is nothing they can do about this unethical policy in fear of losing their job.

The advancement of technology has lead to many scientists conducting more experiments with gene modification. This has lead to scientists to isolate certain genes that may cause a certain disease, thus modified genes may change the organism in a particular way. It may help farmers with crop cultivation and reduce crop infestation. It may also help farmers to be able to cultivated crops or keep animals that are prawn to drought resistance. Before, I go in details explain the importance of why businesses that develop modified organisms should be able to preserve their property rights by patenting such organisms or why such organism should not be patentable. I would like to briefly explain the history of patenting. For over two hundred years living organisms have been excluded from patent laws; life forms were considered a “product of nature” and not a human invention. “The non-patentable status of living organisms changed with the 1980 landmark Supreme Court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty,”. The court decided in a narrow 5-4 decision that a strain of bacteria that had been modified by the insertion of new genes was patentable because it was not naturally occurring. The foreign genes gave the bacteria the ability to break down hydrocarbons, and its “inventors” hoped it might be useful for cleaning up oil spills. Historically, patents were initially developed to insure and protect inventors and to make sure that they could benefit financially from the