































 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 48 

Intellectual Property Right of Transgenic Crops and Right to Work: Bioethical 

Challenges in Rural Communities 

 

Bahareh Heydari 
1
, Najmeh Razmkhah 

2
 

1
 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Payame Noor University, Tehran, I.R. of  Iran. 

2
 Lecturer, Department of Law, Payame Noor University, Tehran, I.R. of Iran. 

Email: baharheydari@yahoo.com; najmehrazmkhah@yahoo.com 

 

Abstract: Increasing importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) over the area of seed 

production, is radically transforming agricultural production relations. One major effect of this 

transformation is the exclusive control of biotech companies on process of transaction of GM 

crops.  This new status, that is the part of a trend that was set in national and international 

documents to protect inventors, may have adverse impact on the right to work of poor and 

vulnerable farmers in developing countries. In the framework of international human rights, the 

right to work is the fundamental right of every one to have sustainable access to decent work that 

meets the needs and welfare of his livelihood. Rural communities enjoy this right similar to the 

urban communities. But, the main question, which is our major concern, is the relationship 

between IPR and the right to work with attention to articles of International Covenant on 

Economic, Social and Cultural right and International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food 

and Agriculture. 

 

Keywords: Biotechnology, Genetically modified seeds, Intellectual Property Right (IPR), Rural 

communities, Right to work, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural right, 

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources  for Food and Agriculture 

 

Introduction: Labor is one of the basic necessities for survival of mankind.  Human being is 

social and attempts to work, despite the variety of collections, ecology, and diversity in the pace 

of technical progress and the evolution of social and economic construction. The work is a 

necessary condition of human life in society. Work fundamentally changes the nature. Human 

beings use technology to create an effect on other human beings and nature. Marx wrote in his 

classic book entitled Capital: "At first glance, work is the interaction that occurs between man and 

nature." 

 

International Labor Organization (ILO), as one of the specialized agencies of the United Nations 

has consistently emphasized that labor is not a commodity. Unemployment causes poverty, and 

poverty anywhere is a threat to public welfare. Therefore, the fight against poverty at the national 

and international level is necessary. Secretary-General of the ILO considers decent work as a 

mailto:baharheydari@yahoo.com
mailto:najmehrazmkhah@yahoo.com


 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 49 

concept in creating equal opportunities for women and men to achieve appropriate and 

productive work in conditions of freedom and security, with dignity. In the framework of 

international law, the right to work has been recognized as a fundamental right of every person to 

benefit from the opportunity to earn a living by work which must be chosen or accepted freely. 

 

The legal basis for the right to work is Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social 

and Cultural Rights (hereafter covenant), which says:" The States Parties to the present 

Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to 

gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to 

safeguard this right." 

 

In the second paragraph of this article it is emphasized that "The steps to be taken by a State 

Party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical 

and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady 

economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions 

safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual".  In addition to the 

Covenant, the right to work as a concept of international human rights, has been emphasized in 

international instruments on human rights, such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Committee on 

economic, social and cultural rights (hereafter committee) in general comment No. 18 considers 

that: "The right to work is essential for realizing other human rights and forms an inseparable and 

inherent part of human dignity. Every individual has the right to be able to work, allowing him/her 

to live in dignity. The right to work contributes at the same time to the survival of the individual 

and to that of his/her family, and insofar as work is freely chosen or accepted, to his/her 

development and recognition within the community." However, human rights activists often have 

expressed concern about the ignorance of the rights of communities, especially rural 

communities. 

 

With the adventure of new technologies and introduction of transgenic seeds to farmers, various 

questions on risk factors have been raised by many authors, e.g. problems related consequences 

of IP on right to work of villagers. Because rural work primarily is based on agriculture, and 

biotech Patents by large companies lead farmers to depend on these companies, to bear the high 

costs to buy the crops which they need, therefore poor villagers because of high expenditure are 

removed from the work market and this means the violation of the farmer's right to work. 

Consequently, this article will attempt to review the terms and provisions contained in the 

instruments of international law, the obligations of States in relation to the right to work and 

describe the impact of patent of transgenic seeds on this right. 



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 50 

To this end, at first the situation of right to work in international instrument of human rights has 

been described , second , the obligation of governments about this right and then negative effects 

of IP of GM crops on the right to work in rural communities have been discussed . Finally, at the 

end of the article conclusions and recommendations from the study will be presented. 

 

Transgenic crops: Transgenic organisms, also called Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), 

are generally produced by applying the techniques of genetic engineering or modification of 

genetic materials of crops1. The modification can most simply be defined as the transfer of 

genetic material from a different species or from a chemically synthesized gene in to a target 

plant. The first successful genetic engineering of a plant was reported in 1983. 

Biotechnologization of agriculture represent the ongoing attempts to transform agriculture through 

the commercial deployment of biotechnological innovations, as a result of newly acquired insights 

in molecular biology and genetic, and, in turn, development of technological products and 

processes  based on living organisms for collectively described as biotechnology
2
. Genetically-

modified (GM) seeds are a significant step forward in the production of agricultural crops. GM 

seeds are seeds that have been modified to contain specific characteristics such as resistance to 

herbicides (in the case of "Roundup Ready" products) or resistance to pests (in the case of Bt 

corn)
 3
. 

 

Right to work: Work is essential for every body in the organization of contemporary society. It not 

only contributes to the formation of the individual , but it is  also necessary if one is to be able to 

support oneself and his family, make and keep social contacts and fulfill his or her duties toward 

society
4
. 

 

The importance of work and productive employment in any society is not only because of the 

resources which they create for the community, but also because of the income which they bring 

to workers, the social role which they confer and the feeling of self-esteem which workers derive 

from them. The right to work is an individual right that belongs to each person and is at the 

sometime a collective right. It encompasses all forms of work, whether independent work or 

dependent wage-paid work and is essential for realizing other human rights and forms an 

inseparable and inherent part of human dignity. Every individual has the right to be able to work, 

allowing him/her to live in dignity. The right to work contributes at the same time to the survival of 

the individual and to that of his/her family, and insofar as work is freely chosen or accepted, to 

his/her development and recognition within the community. Covenant as laid down in article 6, 

deals more comprehensively than any other instrument with this right: " The States Parties to the 

present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the 

opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take 



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 51 

appropriate steps to safeguard this right. " The exercise of work in all its forms and at all levels 

requires the existence of the following interdependent and essential elements, implementation of 

which will depend on the conditions present in each State party: 

(a) Availability. States parties must have specialized services to assist and support individuals in 

order to enable them to identify and find available employment. 

(b) Accessibility. The labor market must be open to everyone under the jurisdiction of States 

parties. 

 

International Obligations of Governments in field of Right to Work 

1. The status of Right to Work in International Instruments on Human Rights: Unlike 

negligence about right to work in practice, much attention has been focused in theory on this 

right. ILO Constitution and Declaration of Philadelphia , which demonstrates the organization’s 

goal, without mentioning the term '' right to work '', relying on the principle that human labor 

should not be regarded as a commodity , on the endorse the fact that working does not itself , this 

is the man who works, work is part of his personality. For the first time right to work were cited in 

Article 55 of UN Charter: '' With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being 

which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the 

principle of equal rights and self – determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: ''A 

higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and 

development''. 

 

Under paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Right:'' Everyone has the 

right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to 

protection against unemployment ''. Universal Declaration of Human Right has been accepted 

such an extent that many lawyers believe that at least a certain portion of its contents have 

arrived into customary international law.  Even if you reject this theory, this matter could not be 

denied the higher position of declaration on any other legal soft law
5
.  

 

Apart from the basic documents on human rights in the context of many other international 

human rights instruments, the right to work is mentioned including, the first paragraph of  article 

11 of the Convention on Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 18 of 

the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which deals with the issue of employment in 

non-government, article 15 of African Charter on Human and Peoples, Right ( Banjul Charter), 

first and second paragraphs of article II of section 2 of Europe Social Charter and the article 7 of 

Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights , the Law on Economic , Social 

and Cultural (Protocol of San Salvador). 

 



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 52 

2. States and Actors other than states parties' obligations to Right to Work: The principal 

obligation of States parties is to ensure the progressive realization of the exercise of the right to 

work. States parties must therefore adopt, as quickly as possible, measures aiming at achieving 

full employment. While the Covenant provides for progressive realization and acknowledges the 

constraints due to the limits of available resources, it also imposes on States parties various 

obligations which are of immediate effect.11 States parties have immediate obligations in relation 

to the right to work, such as the obligation to guarantee that it will be exercised “without 

discrimination of any kind and the obligation “to take steps” towards the full realization of article 

6.12 Such steps must be deliberate, concrete and targeted towards the full realization of the right 

to work. 

 

Like all human rights, the right to work imposes three types or levels of obligations on States 

parties: the obligations to respect protect and fulfill. The obligation to respect the right to work 

requires States parties to refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of that 

right. The obligation to protect requires States parties to take measures that prevent third parties 

from interfering with the enjoyment of the right to work. The obligation to fulfill includes the 

obligations to provide, facilitate and promote that right. It implies that States parties should adopt 

appropriate legislative, administrative, budgetary, judicial and other measures to ensure its full 

realization. 

 

In its general comment No. 3 (1990), the Committee draws attention to the obligation of all States 

parties to take steps individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially 

economic and technical, towards the full realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant. In 

the spirit of Article 56 of the Charter of the United Nations and specific provisions of the Covenant 

(arts. 2.1, 6, 22 and 23), States parties should recognize the essential role of international 

cooperation and comply with their commitment to take joint and separate action to achieve the full 

realization of the right to work. States parties should, through international agreements where 

appropriate, ensure that the right to work as set forth in articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Covenant is 

given due attention. 

 

To comply with their international obligations in relation to article 6, States parties should 

endeavor to promote the right to work in other countries as well as in bilateral and multilateral 

negotiations. In negotiations with international financial institutions, States parties should ensure 

protection of the right to work of their population. States parties that are members of international 

financial institutions, in particular the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and regional 

development banks, should pay greater attention to the protection of the right to work in 

influencing the lending policies, credit agreements, structural adjustment programmes and 



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 53 

international measures of these institutions. The strategies, programmes and policies adopted by 

States parties under structural adjustment programmes should not interfere with their core 

obligations in relation to the right to work and impact negatively on the right to work of women, 

young persons and the disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups. 

 

While only States are parties to the Covenant and are thus ultimately accountable for compliance 

with it, all members of society, individuals, local communities, trade unions, civil society and 

private sector organizations have responsibilities regarding the realization of the right to work. 

States parties should provide an environment facilitating the discharge of these obligations. 

Private enterprises - national and multinational - while not bound by the Covenant, have a 

particular role to play in job creation, hiring policies and non-discriminatory access to work. They 

should conduct their activities on the basis of legislation, administrative measures, codes of 

conduct and other appropriate measures promoting respect for the right to work, agreed between 

the governments and civil society. Such measures should recognize the labor standards 

elaborated by ILO and aim at increasing the awareness and responsibility of enterprises in the 

realization of the right to work. According to the committee interpretation, governments and non-

governmental commercial organizations are obliged to respect this right. 

 

Governments at the national and international levels have a duty to take all necessary measures 

in order to provide people with the opportunity to enjoy the right to work and remove obstacles in 

the implementation of this right and of course, apply necessary regulations on commercial 

activities, to prevent violation of the right of people to work. Another significant point is that neither 

the Covenant nor the committee’s interpretation has been addressed special resolution based on 

the nature of the work. Therefore farmers and the agricultural sector have been subject to the 

rights which provided by international documents, so governments are committed towards them 

to provide and ensure the right to work on all three levels. But in practice the situation is not quite 

as good and nowadays, the poor condition of the employment in rural communities has become 

one of the human rights activists concerns. An issue that has not attracted much attention at the 

international level, so at any time speak of the right to work, employment in urban communities 

comes to mind. Thus it has been neglected by governments and non governmental organizations 

such as Biotech companies. Evidence for this claim is a condition in which the transgenic seeds 

have been sold to farmers in less developed countries which has become a serious challenge in 

communities, especially in less developed countries, where most farmers are poor and vulnerable 

part of society.   

The next section according to the provisions of the international instruments describes these 

problems and legal issues arising from the conflict between the IP of Biotech companies and 

farmers right to work.  



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 54 

 

IPR of GM Crops and Right to Work of Farmers  

1. Negative effects arising from the IPR on the labor market in rural communities: Perhaps 

the most contentious issue related to biotechnology today is that of intellectual property rights 

(IPRs). IPRs in general terms, allow developers of GMOs to patent a new transgenic variety and 

claim exclusive rights to that product, making it illegal for use in the countries where a patent is 

awarded without the user’s agreement to meet conditions imposed by company. In many cases, 

these conditions include payment of a ‘technology fee’ (to help cover the research and 

development investment) and signing a contract pledging not to save, replant, or sell the seeds 

from crops grown with the patented seed 6. Patenting living organisms is a recent legal 

development that causes concern for a number of reasons. One potential result of patenting 

transgenic plant varieties is the effective criminalization of centuries old agricultural practices 

such as seed selection, saving, and sharing. Historically, farmers themselves have been the 

major innovators in agriculture, developing superior crops through their own selection processes. 

In the 1990s, 80 percent of crops planted in developing countries were sown from farm-saved 

seeds. With patented seeds, farmers’ ability to save seeds for future planting is constricted and 

dependence on large multi-national companies increases because farmers must buy new seeds 

every season
7
. 

 

In many communities, seeds also serve as a type of social capital, and sharing seeds provides a 

basis for interdependence among farmers within a community. If patented GM seeds become 

commonplace, the possibility exists for behaviors that form the backbone of traditional agriculture, 

such as seed-sharing, to become illegal, thereby eroding farming communities themselves 
8.
 

 

The contracts of seed companies require that buyers of their GM seeds sign when obtaining 

those seeds may disadvantage farmers. Seed companies have invested significant funds in the 

research and development of GM seeds, and they protect this investment through their contracts 

with agricultural growers. These contracts aggressively protect the biotechnology company's 

rights to the seeds, frame the context within which disputes may be settled, and limit the liability 

of the company.  Under a private contract between a grower and a biotech company, the g 

rower's rights to the purchased seed are significantly limited. Such contracts generally contain a 

"no saved seed" provision. This provision prohibits growers from saving seed and/or reusing seed 

from GM crops. In effect, the provision requires growers of GM crops to make an annual 

purchase of GM seeds
9
. 

 

Contracts between seed companies and farmers sometimes contain a clause that limits the 

"liability of [the seed company] to or any seller for any and all losses, injury or damages resulting 



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 55 

from the use or handling of a product containing [the seed company's] gene technology shall be 

the price paid by the grower for the quantity of such product involved, or at the election of [the 

seed company] or any seller, the replacement of such quantity. In no event shall [the seed 

company] or any seller be liable for any incidental, consequential, special or punitive damages. 

Under such a clause, if the use of GM seed has a negative impact on another aspect of the 

farmer's operations, this clause precludes the farmer from recovering any damages from the 

company in the event the use of the product causes harm
10

. 

 

With this process, farmers have to pay for the use of seeds which are used and protected over 

the centuries, so the rural communities will expose to the risk of dependence of farmers with 

commercial suppliers of critical materials like seeds. On the other hand, most of these farmers 

could not compete with large farmers, so they forced to sell or lease their farms to rich farmers or 

biotech companies. These issues often lead to deprive poor and vulnerable farmers of their basic 

right to work. So farmers will be unemployed and their family well-being will be in trouble. This 

situation is not limited to violations of the right to work, because of interdependence between the 

fundamental principles of human rights: violation of one right can lead to dangerous 

consequences for rural communities.  

 

2. Analysis the conflict between IPR of seeds and the right to work: As was discussed in the 

previous section, biotechnology companies as breeders of genetic manipulated and improved 

seeds on the base of legal sources, including the covenant and other supporting documents of 

intellectual property claim that they have exclusive right on these seeds. Problems in this regard 

and violation of farmers, right have been attracted the international community considerations. In 

this regard, the United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) for the first time 

presented concept of '' farmer's right''.  In this sense, the right of farmers and rural communities 

for the control, management, development and exploitation of plant genetic resources belong to 

them has been recognized and then International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food 

and Agriculture ( here after treaty), in order to afford greater attention to this right in the thirty-first 

FAO conference in 2001, was approved. 

 

In the preamble of the treaty, farmers, right and plant breeders, rights have been identified as 

complement. So governments must accordance to their needs and priorities identify and 

reorganize these rights. Each member should take measures to protect and promote farmers, 

rights at national and international level to adopt the following measures: Protection of traditional 

knowledge relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, the right to equitable 

participation in sharing benefits from the use of plant genetic resources.  

 



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 56 

In fact, this treaty was formulated to establish an independent legal system for protection of 

farmers, right and create balance between the rights of inventors and creation of new varieties of 

plants by IPR system and rights of farmers to reuse, sale and exchange of plant genetic 

resources.  

 

Article 9 of the treaty, was developed with the title of farmers, right. Accordance to paragraph B of 

this article: '' The Contracting Parties agree that the responsibility for realizing farmers, right, as 

they relate to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, rests with national governments. In 

accordance with their needs and priorities, each contracting party should, as appropriate and 

subject to its national legislation, take measures to protect and promote farmers, right, including: 

(a) Protection of traditional knowledge relevant to plant genetic resources for food and agriculture; 

(b) The right to equitably participate in sharing benefits arising from the utilization of plant genetic 

resources for food and agriculture; and 

(c) The right to participate in making decisions, at the national level, on matters related to the 

conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. 

 

According to the third paragraph of article 9:'' Nothing in this Article shall be interpreted to limit 

any rights that farmers have to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seed/propagating 

material, subject to national law and as appropriate''. Another strong point of this treaty is a 

multilateral system of access and benefit sharing, which was included in part IV. Under the 

provisions of this section, the genetic material derived from 64 kinds of food and feed crops listed 

in Annex I to the treaty, is freely available to researchers, which in turn should share due benefits 

with other beneficiaries to these species.  

 

The rights of farmers, without mentioning the name of the right to work, is shown of the provisions 

of this treaty, of course the content of article 9 can be useful in providing job security for farmers. 

Despite the points were raised, weaknesses can be seen in the treaty. In general, treaty is vague 

on the way of sharing benefits and how to determine the beneficiaries. In addition the content of 

treaty have been enacted in a way, which the biotech corporations, interests have priority over 

the interests of farmers. For example, in the seventh paragraph of the preamble clearly states 

that: ''Affirming that nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as implying in any way a change in 

the rights and obligations of the Contracting Parties under other international agreements''. Also 

in the sixth section of the third paragraph of Article 12 states that:''Access to plant genetic 

resources for food and agriculture protected by intellectual and other property rights shall be 

consistent with relevant international agreements and with relevant national laws''. So in case of a 

conflict between the rights of farmers which has defined by article 9 and IPR which are supported 

by another agreements and national regulations, IPR will be preferred. On the other hand, in 



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 57 

article 9 only farmers, right have been enumerated without anticipated specific enforcement of 

these rights. Because of disagreement between member states on how to implement this 

regulation exists, in practice it has been dropped. So the biotech companies relying on the other 

international agreements, including the covenant, exercise their IPR, and the rights of farmers 

have been ignored. Among the principles that have been invoked by biotech companies to apply 

their IPR is the article 15 of the covenant, therefore the analysis of this article and it’s relationship 

with other articles such as article 6 of the covenant is necessary. The first paragraph of article 15 

of the covenant declares that:    

 ''1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone: (a) To take part 

in cultural life; (b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications; (c) To benefit 

from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or 

artistic production of which he is the author.'' 

 

As it could be seen, this paragraph contains three human rights and according to the statement it 

seems that the right to participate in cultural life, included the other two rights and in fact, is 

prerequisite for two other rights. Thus simultaneously confirms people,s right to benefit from 

scientific progress and IPR of scientists. The next important point is that, human rights principles 

are joined together, so articles of human rights instruments, including the covenant should not be 

without considering the other principles. For this reason, the Committee has brought out in 

paragraph 4 of Interpretation No. 17. ''The right to benefit from the protection of the moral and 

material interests resulting from one’s scientific, literary and artistic productions seeks to 

encourage the active contribution of creators to the arts and sciences and to the progress of 

society as a whole. As such, it is intrinsically linked to the other rights recognized in article 15 of 

the Covenant, i.e. the right to take part in cultural life (art. 15, para. 1, a), the right to enjoy the 

benefits of scientific progress and its applications (art. 15, para. 1, b), and the freedom 

indispensable for scientific research and creative activity (art. 15, para. 3). The relationship 

between these rights and article 15, paragraph 1 (c), is at the same time mutually reinforcing and 

reciprocally limitative. The limitations imposed on the right of authors to benefit from the 

protection of the moral and material interests resulting from their scientific, literary and artistic 

productions by virtue of these rights will partly be explored in this general comment, partly in 

separate general comments on article 15, paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) and 3, of the Covenant. As a 

material safeguard for the freedom of scientific research and creative activity, guaranteed under 

article 15, paragraph 3 and article 15, paragraph 1 (c), also has an economic dimension and is, 

therefore, closely linked to the rights to the opportunity to gain one’s living by work which one 

freely chooses (art. 6, para. 1) and to adequate remuneration (art. 7, a), and to the human right to 

an adequate standard of living (art. 11, para. 1). 

 



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 58 

So to interpret obligations arising from the article 15, other articles of covenant such as article 6 

and two following points must be considered. First, it is a mistake to believe that always and in all 

circumstances, similar forms of support must be applied to individual or collective rights of people 

to enjoy the benefits of science and new technologies, because depending on different conditions 

and circumstances, this type of support may be desirable or not. Second, to interpret human right 

principles, more attention must be taken to poor and vulnerable communities. Thus while respect 

to IPR is necessary but because of expression of this right, the right to benefit of scientific 

progress and its applications, in one article, it can be said that IPR can be a tool to support the 

right of farmers to benefit from scientific progress. It is also noteworthy to refer to the second 

paragraph of article 15 of the covenant, which states that:'' the steps to be taken by the states 

parties to the present covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those 

necessary for the conservation, the development and the diffusion of science and culture.'' 

 

Conclusion: Every human being has the right to have a job. Right to work as a fundamental 

concept is supported in international human rights. As was stressed, under the covenant, 

governments are obliged to ensure benefit from the rights, including the right to work, by using 

maximum resources and all appropriate measures. This obligation is closely related to article 11 

of the covenant as the right of everyone to adequate standard of living for himself and his family. 

Without a job and money, allowing the enjoyment of other human rights, including live on welfare, 

is impossible. Offering exclusive and patented transgenic seeds by biotech seed companies and 

selling them to farmers with extensive control over the whole process is a matter that means 

affiliation of the farmers to these companies. In addition, the high cost of seeds, without the right 

to save seeds for planting next year, will exacerbate problems. As such, farmers have no choice 

but to sell their farms to large farmers and biotech companies. 

 

To solve the conflict between the right to intellectual property and right to work in rural 

communities, governments must uphold, farmers, rights and civil needs within the framework of 

national and international law, and due to the legal limitations for neutral and unstable to access 

native plant species, they must develop a system to foster the breeding species. For example, by 

facilitating access to traditional agriculture seed varieties which are bred for food and agriculture, 

for commercial markets and sell their products, so that farmers encouraged continuing their 

activities.  

 

In addition, local exchange of traditional seeds have great importance in supporting local seed 

breeding, especially in areas that local seed are not available in market. One method of achieving 

this goal is the establishment of community seed banks, like India and the Philippines, these 

association indigenous farmers share their seeds and other farmers, would find and buy their 



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 59 

requirements. In fact farmers are the base of these associations. Public arrangements must 

guarantee appropriate availability of planting material at the right time and also sufficient diversity 

of seed and plant species.  

 

These efforts help to increase the income of a large section of the population of vulnerable small 

farmers. The patent laws of many countries, including East Asian countries are also taken into 

account ethical considerations. For example, Japanese patent law considers that:'' government 

must refrain to record inventions which seem to be contrary to public order, morality or public 

health.'' Under Patent law of the People, s Republic of China '' an invention which is against the 

law of the state or social morality or public interest, patent license would not be granted.'' But in 

practice, these provisions are rarely invoked and legal literature in this area is very poor. Because 

of the absence of fair legal procedure, there is a risk that farmers would be marginalized.  

 

Thus the following suggestions are noteworthy to solve the problems: 

1. The leaders of the rich nations must not ignore the implicit restrictions in the intellectual 

property in the way that development and technological achievement for the south makes difficult 

or even impossible: the need to adopt a policy of real practical benefit to the south. 

2. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), must begin a survey on social and legal 

impacts which causes from IPR of transgenic crops.  

3. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the UN Conference on Trade and 

Development ( UNCTAD), must begin to organize a cooperation with social movements, including 

trade unions, representatives of indigenous and traditional communities in the evaluation of IPR 

effects on the other fundamental human rights including the right to work and implications of 

technology transfer and the needs and interests of developing countries to provide practical 

solutions to the existing problems in rural communities and overcome the crisis. 

 

 

References: 

1. Kowalski S. Transgenic crops, Biotechnology, Ownership rights: what scientists need to know. 

The plant journal 2002; 31(4):407-421.  

2.  Abaidoo S. Globalization, Biotechnologization of agriculture and farmers. International journal 

of manpower 2000; 21(6): 481-491. 

3. Kruft D. Impacts of Genetically Modified crops and seeds on farmers. Legal Research 2010; 

(100)97: 2-15. 

4. Lam  H. A new approach to resolve the right to work, ethical dilemma. Journal of Business 

Ethics2006 ; ( 2007) 73:231-243. 



 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2014; 5(2):49-60 
 

 60 

5. Hannum  H. The status of the universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and 

International law. Georgia Journal of International and Comparative law1998; (70)25: 270-293. 

6. Warner K D. Are Life Patents Ethical? Conflict between Catholic Social 

Teaching and Agricultural Biotechnology’s Patent Regime. Journal of agricultural and 

environmental ethics2001; 14(3): 301–319. 

7. Ymmin R. IPRs, Biotechnology and Food security Paper prepared for the “Globalization and 

the International Governance of Modern Biotechnology” project. 2004 

http://www.gapresearch.org/governance/ FYIPRsfinal.pdf. 

8. Fransen L. Integrating Socio-Economic Consideration in to Biosafety Decision. World 

Research Institute2005; 1-53. 

9. Enriquez  J. Genomics and the world's economy. Science2008;(290) 281: 925-940.  

10.Tisdell C. Safety and social economic issues raised by modern biotechnology. International 

Journal of social economics2009; (30)24: 670 - 699.  

 

 

Conflict of Interest:  

●I declare no conflict of interest. Bahareh  Heydari PhD in Human Rights, Aix-Marseille 

University, France  Prof, Payame  Nour University, Iran, 4/7/2014. 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 




