BMG496 Final Project
Student’s Name:
Institutional Affiliation:

TO: The Board Of Directors
FROM: Mr. Con Fused
RE: The Plumpy Nut Controversy
DATE: October 5th 2013
INTRODUCTION
It is a well known fact that Nutriset, the French based company which manufactures Plumpy’ Nut, plays a very crucial role in ensuring that children are sufficiently nourished as it has facilities in various countries in the world; for instance, Kenya, Malawi and even Niger, to mention but a few (Mills, 2006). UNICEF is also known to be one International Children’s Organization which purchases about 90% of Nutriset’s production capacity in order to further aid in the facilitation of proper child nutrition (Shaw, 2010). The fact that Nutriset’s production capacity is nowhere near the capacity needed in order to ensure the adequate combating of the ever increasing global epidemic of children malnutrition, it plays a very integral role in partnering up with and also facilitating projects in Africa. This would not be achievable however, if the United States is able to beat Nutriset’s patent (Jhingran, 2001).
FACTS SUMMARY
Nutriset is at the moment facing immense ethical dilemmas, for instance, if the US beats their patent, it will mean that many people in the respective countries in which Nurtiset carries out its projects will have to lose their employment. In this case, if Nutriset loses its patent rights, many children who were benefiting from the various projects which were being undertaken in their respective countries will have to literally go back to the drawing board as the problem of malnutrition will not be fully and efficiently addressed (West, 2004). On the other hand, if Nutriset does not lose their patent rights, it will mean that other children will also suffer from malnutrition, in this sense one might argue that, if Nutriset’s production capacity issue is not