Essay on Genetically Modified Food and Monsanto

The farmers then give their products to the manufacturers, who represent the bottleneck of the food system (21). “The ten largest companies control half of the world’s seed supply. …Ten firms control 90% of the nearly $38.6 billion pesticide markets (111-112).” Monsanto, being one of the ten companies that controls the world’s seed supply, is a company that has patents on all of its seeds and products. It produces genetically modified crops that are resistant to its own pesticides and herbicides, so that when a pesticide or herbicide is sprayed and it destroys all plants, the Monsanto seed survives because of its resistance. The reason that Monsanto is able to stay in business is because of the economic benefit it poses for the farmers. They are able to produce their crops at a much higher yield because they are losing less of their crops to pests. This higher yield results in lower costs for the consumers as well (Planes). As discussed

1 Farmers may not totally understand the product value. They may not easily accept new product that they have never heard about.

Monsanto¡¦s downfall could be attributed to several reasons. The passion of Alan Shapiro¡¦s vision blinded the Company into making rash decisions and the large amounts of money spent pursuing the objective prevented any U-turns later. The company¡¦s unshaken beliefs that it was correct had made it arrogant and not listen to the outrage all around. Monsanto underestimated consumer resistance.

Humans no longer simply select from variations present in the population: they create new variations!

Bolivia has doubled the amount of pesticides it imports over the past five years (Langman). Of all the pesticides Bolivia imports inside the country, 30% of it is contraband that is smuggled in illegally (Langman). According to studies done by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, developing countries use 20% of pesticides purchased on the global market, but have about 99% of all farmers who get poisoned by pesticides or insecticides (Langman). There are about 70,000 yearly poisonings that could possibly lead to death or have long term illness. Agribusiness companies such as Monsanto produce pesticides which are tested and approved by government entities before they are used. The underlying problem in this particular case is the use of cheap and toxic pesticides by inexperienced farmers without proper precaution over their personal health. The profitability to be made in the agricultural industry, especially that of GM crops in developing nations is so high farmers are willing to seek maximum profit by taking shortcuts and purchasing illegal pesticides so they can maximize

On the other side of the chain, a buyer like ITC also has to pay commission fees to the CA, who procures the produce. These fees keep the procurement cost of ITC’s soybean high; thus, leading to uncompetitiveness in costs. Therefore, ITC has lower price leverage in market competition. In addition, the quality of the purchased soybean is not guaranteed because of the unscientific inspection procedure of the CA. These problems are the motivation that drives the innovative change of the traditional supply chain.

However, opponents argue that the uncertainty of the risks associated with increased consumption and marketing of GMOs can lead to severe health and environmental impacts in the future. Further, there is an ongoing debate as to whether or not multi-national corporations should be allowed to privatize and patent crop seeds on a global level. An example of this is the biotech corporation, Monsanto. Monsanto is opprobriously known for producing genetically-engineered products, and using Intellectual Property Rights to its advantage in order to monopolize crop seeds. Opponents view this as a way for industry to hijack a global common or a public good, which includes any type of food source or seed of a crop. This monopolization has led the

Farmers and the pesticide industry believe that the current hazard-based approach is too stringent, placing the EU in a position of being economically unattractive in respect of the development of new active substances and new plant protection products (Chapman, 2014). As a result, safer alternatives are emerging while many active substances are being revoked with the ban on

Since the year 1970, U.S has been considered a large grain producer in the world. Doing so, it has created many opportunities for the farm corporation to devote and broaden their operations as the leading exporter of the world. The U.S. continues to be a leading player worldwide in exporting soybeans and corn. Causing a chain reaction with the climate change, and high fuel prices have caused a spike in the crops prices. As a response, we have seen a large cutback in the U.S. international market shares of soybeans and corn. As we grow stronger rivals in the markets with the higher U.S. dollar relative have led to the major loss of U.S. corn and soybean market shares.

-Purchases include water supplies, labels and other packaging materials such as glass and plastic resin bottles and closures which are generally purchased on five year contracts. Hence the bargaining

The website on Safe Chemical Policy protest current policies on pesticides as too strict, and they have some valid points. They point to the cost and time to pay registration fees and to submit data. While the time spent is perhaps unavoidable if companies are committed to obtaining accurate data, large fees for those doing the right thing by registering their product to ensure that it is safe is counterintuitive. Large fees serve to dissuade those who genuinely care about the wellbeing of their farm workers and customers, and such fees only encourage companies to seek out loopholes to get their product pass. The Safe Chemical Policy group also reveal that the registering process can take from 9 to 10 years. This may mean that the EPA and the agencies that also have a role in regulating pesticides are overloaded. So while pesticide use must be more regulated to stop harmful pesticides from making it to the market, and recalling those that are dangerous, there must also be reform to unneeded policies that only serve to inhibit those companies with good intentions. These changes will most likely have to come from conscientious people such as you and me. Changes may come from the federal or state governments, but it is unlikely that such reform will take place without popular support. At the present most people seem to care more about other issues which results in pesticide regulations being relegated to the sidelines. This may prove dangerous as pesticides are a worldwide danger that affect quite literally everyone, and may have more impact than we see today such as in the case of earlier pesticide

Monsanto Company is the world’s largest seed company. They specialize in genetic manipulation of organisms.

Lastly, to increase the efficiency of agriculture, scientists have engineered crops to produce pesticides on their own. The biotechnology companies claim that the small amount of these pesticides barely affects human health, but the safety of

[1] A. Holst-Jensen, "GMO testing-trade, labeling or safety first?" Nature Biotechnology, vol. 26, (8), pp. 858-859, 2008. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt0808-858. DOI: 10.1038/nbt0808-858.

Fluctuating prices on the world commodity markets give organic producers an insecure existence. The farmers as well as store owners export business in vegetables and grains which are controlled by a marketing board. Furthermore, volumes of organic foods are in an agreement a “baby food agreement”. The goal is to avoid unnecessary