MYTHS OF PATENTING GM SEEDS AND MONOPOLY RIGHTS

1. Myth - Granting monopoly rights is an incentive to investors for innovation and technology transfer

  Reality - The worldwide promotion of monopoly rights as an incentive for investment on research,  innovation and transfer of technology is the arguments given by the WTO and MNCs. However, different studies have shown that concentration of the seed industries is resulting to less competition and less innovation and it has limited the choices for farmers instead. It proves that granting of the patents rights is not a necessary condition to promote transfer of technology (ToT). Therefore, it is vital to rethink about other appropriate incentive mechanisms for the investors to recognize their investment and contribution rather than of granting monopoly rights.

2. Myth - GM seed is the solution to feed the increasing population

Reality - Worldwide promotion of GM crops is in increasing trend and having multiple impacts on biodiversity, farmers’ rights, local autonomy and national sovereignty. Worldwide food insecurity and hunger is in fact the manifestation of inequity in production, distribution and benefit sharing mechanisms. Gene and trait specific GM crops are claimed to be insect pest resistant however, different studies have shown that these crops are not necessarily more productive compared to indigenous varieties but it requires high investment to prevent damages done by pests. For example, ‘international agriculture trade is worth around US$ 600 billions and pest damage to crops worldwide also runs into billions of dollars’vii and cost of pest management in GM crops even increasing. Hence, GM seed is not an ultimate solution to minimize cost of production, enhance productivity and feed the increasing population of the world.

3. Myth - Global trade as a solution to deal with climate change and price hikes

Reality - Promoting diverse and non-gene pollutant seeds has potential to make agriculture sustainable, promote healthy ecosystem through carbon sequestration and low carbon emission. Viable local food production system to a large extent can deal with negative impacts of global food insecurity and price hikes. Likewise, developed countries failed to implement their commitment of providing 0.7% of their GNP as development aid towards developing countries. Likewise, equitable investment in research and development, production technologies and optimize profitable marketing mechanisms is still a challenge especially in the mountain region of developing countries. Therefore, increasing trend of securing monopoly rights over “climate ready” genes kinds of initiatives within the trade package cannot be an only solution to deal with food security of poor people in the global south. Therefore, promotion of fair trade with equitable access to opportunities and benefits created by globalization can be more responsive to climate change and price hikes than to simply advocate for free trade.