Monsanto Ethical Case Study: Mooding

As a producer of genetically modified seeds that lead to larger crop yields and eventually larger profits for farmers, Monsanto has a moral obligation to farmers who have grown crops and saved seeds for the next crop for hundreds of years before Monsanto began changing the genetic makeup of the seed. Farmers should not feel obligated to Monsanto as they have manipulated the future of farming through patent protection of intellectual property. Some thoughts should be discussed regarding Monsanto’s position; the comparison of seed manipulation as a form of technology, the use of patent protection, and the bullying of farmers through investigations of farmers reusing seeds from a previous harvest. Are seeds a form of technology? After the manipulation
Should investigators continue to have suspicions, they can pull records from the farmers and/or take samples to help their cause as seed providers, ultimately leading to farmers paying fines and higher profits for Monsanto. Cardoso and James (2012) suggest that the ethics for seeding lies with the personal preference and the case-by-case determination of the parties involved. Monsanto will always back up their company to maximize profits, while the farmers will do what they can to minimize overhead. This battle continues as the protection of personal, intellectual property, which just like the idea of technology, should be considered protected during the first season/harvest. However, once the second generation of crops has come to harvest, the intellectual property should not be considered property belonging to Monsanto anymore. After all, the seeds that are used as second generation were not in existence when the first generation seed was altered and sold. The intellectual part can still be protected, but the growth of new/more seed should not be considered protected in the manner the investigators and regulators are