The biotechnology company Monsanto encapsulates all of the virtues and vices of the transnational corporation. Their connection to the cultivation and development of GMOs and pesticides has led to fervent criticism by many consumer advocates who question the biological effects that such chemicals have on the health of consumers. This criticism has led to many investigations on the inner workings and practices of Monsanto, and such investigations have brought to light corporate impropriety and the presence of intricate corporate-government relationships (Stein, 2005) (FWW, 2013). Nonetheless, many proponents believe that the practices of Monsanto have the potential to solve or alleviate global food insecurity, while also benefitting consumers
…show more content…
Attorney Haley Stein (2005) explains how intellectual property rights have been integral to the development of large agri-biotech companies such as Monsanto. This precedent has led to the development of what Stein (2005) deems “Terminator Technology.” Terminator technology prevents the seed from reproducing thus forcing farmers to purchase new seeds each year (Stein, 2005). Monsanto holds the patents to this technology and utilizes it in their own seed production (Stein, 2005). Stein (2005) deems that Monsanto’s use of such technology leaves behind international small farmers, who rely on traditional seed sharing practices and do not have the resources to buy new seeds on a yearly basis. Not only that, but as Stein (2005) notes, if these small-scale farmers are found to be producing crops with Monsanto’s patented genes, Monsanto holds the right to sue the farmer and either force them into a contract with the company or force them out of business entirely. Such legal language in trade agreements has enriched the US government and companies like Monsanto to the detriment and exploitation of native farmers (Stein, …show more content…
In their study on the lasting effects of NAFTA, the Sierra Club (2014) analyzed how the trade agreement has affected the economy and the environment of the participating countries. In particular, the Sierra Club (2014) discusses the detrimental effects GMOs have had on native agriculture in Mexico in which native seeds have become “contaminated” by the GM corn imported from the US. The presence of genetically modified corn strains not only does not bode well for the native corn strains, but also hurts the native farmers who are at risk of patent infringement and can not compete or conform to the genetically modified farming practices (Wise, 2014) (Fox and Haight, 2010) (Stein, 2005). However, Monsanto seeks to greatly profit from its monopolistic control over the corn seed market in the US who as noted is seeing a substantial rise in demand from Mexico (Mitchell, 2014) (Fox and Haight,
Attorney Haley Stein (2005) explains how intellectual property rights have been integral to the development of large agri-biotech companies such as Monsanto. This precedent has led to the development of what Stein (2005) deems “Terminator Technology.” Terminator technology prevents the seed from reproducing thus forcing farmers to purchase new seeds each year (Stein, 2005). Monsanto holds the patents to this technology and utilizes it in their own seed production (Stein, 2005). Stein (2005) deems that Monsanto’s use of such technology leaves behind international small farmers, who rely on traditional seed sharing practices and do not have the resources to buy new seeds on a yearly basis. Not only that, but as Stein (2005) notes, if these small-scale farmers are found to be producing crops with Monsanto’s patented genes, Monsanto holds the right to sue the farmer and either force them into a contract with the company or force them out of business entirely. Such legal language in trade agreements has enriched the US government and companies like Monsanto to the detriment and exploitation of native farmers (Stein, …show more content…
In their study on the lasting effects of NAFTA, the Sierra Club (2014) analyzed how the trade agreement has affected the economy and the environment of the participating countries. In particular, the Sierra Club (2014) discusses the detrimental effects GMOs have had on native agriculture in Mexico in which native seeds have become “contaminated” by the GM corn imported from the US. The presence of genetically modified corn strains not only does not bode well for the native corn strains, but also hurts the native farmers who are at risk of patent infringement and can not compete or conform to the genetically modified farming practices (Wise, 2014) (Fox and Haight, 2010) (Stein, 2005). However, Monsanto seeks to greatly profit from its monopolistic control over the corn seed market in the US who as noted is seeing a substantial rise in demand from Mexico (Mitchell, 2014) (Fox and Haight,