The Monsanto Case Analysis

Monsanto positions itself as a relatively new agricultural company having formed in 2002, and focused on supporting local farmers around the world. They also promote themselves as a guardian of the environment with a mission “to produce more food while conserving more” (Monsanto.com). Today’s Monsanto conglomerate also promotes itself as the “New Merchants,” a leading research company in the field of agriculture-crop production, as well as a strong supporter of public and private research through its grant, donations and University scholarship programs.

Monsanto Corporation based on my reading is a company that initially specialized in chemical distribution, after years in this industry switched over to biotechnology, or the genetic manipulation of organisms. After years of growth, controversy and legal issues, they still have been able to maintain the company growth and even has now started producing other goods. This paper specifically discusses efficacy of Monsanto’s ethical culture, costs and benefits of growing GMO seed, and management of harm to plants and animals.

Monsanto is an agricultural biotechnology company founded in 1901 and based in St Louis, Missouri. Since 1996, it produces genetically modified crops such as canola, soybeans and cotton and has since then become the world’s industry uncontested leader. The most recent statistics from the United States Department of Agriculture show us that in 2014, more than half of American agriculture products are genetically modified, including 95% of corn, 96% of soybeans and 96% of cotton (USDA). In order to protect its research and market share – more than 30% of all research and development in the biotechnology industry as well as 95% of domestically produced soybeans and corn – the company is heavily relying on patent

GM foods are in the middle of many controversial issues; primarily these are addressed by conflicts over the relative pros and cons of GM foods. Major biotech companies like ‘Monsanto ' and ‘Cargill ' are promoting GM foods by focusing only on their beneficial aspects, giving least importance to their negative effects on safety, environment and biodiversity. On the other hand, governmental regulators and nongovernmental organizations, along with some scientists, are strictly opposing this type of blind promotion of GM food by enlightening the people on their negative effects The controversies associated with GM foods include issues such as safety, environmental benefits and risks, biodiversity, and ethical and social considerations.GM foods are implicated for adverse human health risks like people being allergic to it, environmental hazards such as development of super weeds, and pesticide and antibiotic resistance in disease causing organisms. On the other

The patenting of GMO corn and soybean seeds is quite a deceptive business move on Monsanto’s part because it appears to protect the seeds that farmers purchase, but in turn the patents really only look out for the company’s best interest. While Monsanto sues farmers and traps them in debt for using patented products, it pretends to be working for farmers’ welfare. This paper exposes Monsanto’s use of Genetically Modified Organisms exhibited in “Induced Nuisance: Holding Patent Owners Liable for GMO Cross-Contamination” to uncover the damaging environmental and economic effects their business practices have on privately owned farms. Monsanto’s use of gene patents is responsible for the destruction of many farms, the reduction in crop varieties, and the development of resistant weeds and pests all in the name of corporate expansion. This paper also reveals Monsanto’s role in the legalization and use of gene patents globally. Monsanto’s recklessness is being uncovered in this paper because their advantageous business practices exemplify greed and class

This was compounded with the commercialization of GM crops at the time. GM foods were only arriving at the doorsteps of Europe only to be shot down because of regulatory failures of the past. After this crisis, surveys were done in UK on the public opinion of GM foods. These surveys revealed that during the mad-cow disease outbreak, British citizens against GM foods rose from 25% to 40%. Despite being a UK crisis, the member states also grew distrustful to any new technology in the food supply industry. Individuals became cautious of the government and any scientists that reassured their safety. A prominent food sociologist claimed that madcow disease “was a water-shed for the food industry in [Europe]…For the first time people realized that merely attempting to ensure a culinary end product was safe to eat was not a good enough approach. We had to look at the entire process by which food is

Monsanto’s Monopoly Over Genetically Modified Crops Monopolies are established in certain industries when one firm controls the market of a product that cannot be differentiated. In today’s economy, monopolies can be found in various industries, including within the seed industry. Monsanto is an agricultural giant that creates genetically modified seeds and crop protection products (Monsanto Company, 2017a). Though Monsanto is not the only firm in the seed industry, it is a monopoly in the genetically modified seed and crop protection industry. Monsanto is the leading firm in GMO foods and crops because of their many patents on their products and technology.

Food is everywhere. It is an integral part of society and is a major part of everyday life. We plan our days around mealtimes, pack snacks for work and school, and visit the grocery store at least once a week. However, even our best, well thought out efforts to achieve a healthy lifestyle leave us mostly in the dark about what we are really putting into our bodies. GMOs, Genetically Modified Organisms, are organisms that have been bioengineered, planted, and sold to the public as food. These organisms are unnatural and have proven to be harmful. Unfortunately, the labeling of foods containing GMOs is not government mandated. Monsanto, the largest GMO producing conglomerate, will go to all lengths to convince the public that their product is safe and does not need to be labeled for consumers, despite the fact that countries around the world have stood up and refused to sell their products to their citizens. Unfortunately, the United States is not only not among these countries, but the government has shown little care for the global issue. Everyone has the right to know exactly what they are putting into their bodies and feeding their loved ones. For this reason I will be exploring how, with the existing research, GMOs are FDA approved, as well as how this relates to Monsanto’s fight against GMO labeling.

According to Monsanto’s web page, the company understands the growing debate of how agriculture should work, and believes it is a good thing that consumers are becoming more interested in where their food comes from. They said it is the first step in aiding the public on how agricultural systems function.

Monsanto is a company that some people may not be explicitly familiar with on a first name basis. However, the work that the company has done over the last century, with a larger emphasis on its most recent ventures, have been deeply engrained in our lives, our food, and our economy. Monsanto has those who advocate on their behalf in addition to their naysayers. While Monsanto has made huge strides in terms of biotechnology over the last couple of decades, their accomplishments, and the relevant methods, have not been free of criticism and controversy. In order to analyze Monsanto’s corporate environment, it is important to first explore their Strengths, Weaknesses,

The various stakeholder groups of the Monsanto company include stockholders, employees, executives for the company, the environment, communities, farmers, and the public as a whole. These stakeholders are all impacted by decisions made toward Monsanto's products, regulations on these products, and the ability for the organization to either direct public attention toward supporting Monsanto's policies or refuting and rejecting their policies. Public perception is a major factor that impacts Monsanto, and this is why consumers in Europe are able to choose whether or not they want to indulge in GMO products while those in the U.S. are forced to choose GMO without their knowledge beforehand. This is because European nations, which are stakeholders

GMO seemed a great way to build trade barriers to U.S. imports – and help European agriculture and agribusiness to sell more of their products at home and abroad.

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

Every county has their own roles and responses to GM foods. According to the new survey indicate that 42% of the public attitudes think GM foods are safe while 13.7% thinks they are not(Public perception towards genetically modified organisms,2015, P2). We can’t identify that there is only one react toward GM foods. Moreover, the result occurs that although people generally believe that GM foods are safe, they are still not sure to consume it in their daily lives foods. In addition, consumers attitudes toward GM foods is largely unknown, they need to balance information on benefits and risks to obtain the real facts of GM foods because results generally suggest that when no direct advantage is provided to consumer, fear or concern to GM food will increase day by

Even then, farmers argued that this crop hybridization was against nature and immoral. However, despite theses claims, corn hybrids proved to be commercially successful for the farmers that used them in their fields (PBS, Genetically Modified Foods). In the United States, genetically modified crops have skyrocketed to 70 million acres since 1996. More than half of US processed grocery products contain gene-altered ingredients. However, Europeans are increasingly opposed to genetically modified crops, The question here lies, why would one nation be supportive enough to have half of its processed grocery products contain GMFs, when another nation forbids these same GMFs to be used? It is all based on perception, and reception of the use and benefits of GMFs.