Farmers, accounting for 70 percent of the total population of Helicon，cannot afford to buy seeds for their staple crops. Traditionally, they saved seeds themselves every year for replanting. But now everything has changed. The domestic market for patented seeds is dominated by multinational corporations who control the key technology. In order to prevent replanting, the corporations invented and patented a new type of seed. These expensive seeds are protected by a special technology, ‘terminator technology’. Terminator technology switches off a plant’s genetic ability to germinate a second time. This means farmers cannot save seeds for replanting and are forced to buy fresh seed every year. Even though agricultural taxes have been reduced, they cannot reach an adequate standard of living.
If we want to achieve sustainable economic and cultural development，we have to solve these problems. However, we cannot solve these problems without economic development. As a result, we are in deep water.
These issues all arise from conflicts between intellectual property protection and human rights. As General Comment No. 17 states, “Human rights are fundamental, inalienable and universal entitlements belonging to individuals and, under certain circumstances, groups of individuals and communities. Human rights are fundamental as they are inherent to the human person as such, whereas intellectual property rights are first and foremost means by which States seek to provide incentives for inventiveness and creativity, encourage the dissemination of creative and innovative productions, as well as the development of cultural identities, and preserve the integrity of scientific, literary and artistic productions for the benefit of society as a whole.” It shows that intellectual property rights are supposed to balance the relationship between rightholders’ interests and public interests. But now the balance has tilted too far toward the former.
In 1994, TRIPS brought intellectual property law into the international trade system for the first time. Since then, a one-sided pursuit of benefits has become the aim of intellectual property law. The worldwide protection standards of intellectual property continue to increase. As Paul mentioned, “These strict IP standards, known as “TRIPS-plus” standards, have emerged in investment agreements, trade agreements and in WIPO treaties.” High standards reflect in many aspects. First, objects that are protected by bilateral and regional trade agreements are more numerous than ever before. For example, new plant varieties can be patented，which is inappropriate because it causes serious damage to plant breeders’ right and the right to food. Second, the standard of practicality has been reduced. Intellectual property law is no longer concerned with practical utility but with potential economic interests. These agreements and treaties threaten the realization of development goals and the fulfillment of human rights obligations in developing countries. Paul has drawn attention to the fact that “the push for ever-stronger IP standards also stands to undermine the promises in a series of international political commitments such as the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development, and the Sao Paulo Consensus at UNCTAD XI… Furthermore, if countries are required to implement the high IP standards sought through new multilateral agreements or inappropriate technical assistance, they risk violat
