Case Study 1: Monsanto Attempts to Balance Stakeholder Interests

Genetic engineering is already providing a more stable solution for agricultural production in the economy to stand on. In nine years (i.e. 1996-2005), profits from genetically modified crops were twenty-seven billion dollars. Those twenty-seven billion dollars were not just in the United States or countries like it, but the profits almost split half and half between first and third world countries (O'Neill 19). In India, for example, cotton yields have jumped to one hundred-fifty percent from the use of genetically modified crops, vastly increasing the farmers’ profits (19). The planting of these crops can really help farmers know what they are going to make every year and plan accordingly. Also, helping the farmers’ expenses is the lack of chemical pesticides needed on the crops and reducing time spent using the pricey traditional breeding methods (Mannion and Morse 749-751). Even if genetically modified crops are not planted in every field, adjoining fields can benefit due to the “halo effect.” The “halo effect” is the ability of pest protection on the genetically modified crops to affect the non-genetically modified crops due to the lack of insects in the genetically modified field (754). Genetically modified crops affect the economy in a positive way and should be seen as a smart

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

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

By genetically modifying traits in plants, biotechnology allows for higher food production in a wider array of places without the use of chemicals or limited resources. The increased crop availability results in economic profit, not only in the United States, but in developed and non-developed nations around the globe. A study to support this claim from Iowa State University shows that without GMO’s, global prices would be nearly 10% higher for soybeans and 6% higher for corn, two largely grown crops throughout the world. The net economic benefit for farmers in 2011 was $19.8 billion (PG Economics, 1996-2011). This results in an average rise in income of $329 per acre. For the entire 16-year period since the introduction of GMO’s, the increase in global

When one company controls ninety-percent of a market, it is reasonable to open the doors to the possibility of a monopoly. This word is a board game to some, a boring econ principle to others, but a harsh reality for twenty-four million American farmers and their families. (Farmers Feed Us) Monsanto has taken control of the farming world and it is hitting farmers hard. The powerful company controls ninety-percent of the soybean market and much of other farming markers which are a lifeline for farmers across this country. It is clear to many that it is a monopoly, but nothing is being done to break up Monsanto. There is much controversy behind the issue on a political level and on what motifs there may be to keep the company together. Monsanto is hurting farmers by monopolizing the farming market and there are political ties behind the master plan to keep control.

Farming policy of seed patenting should be abolished, and farmers should have the right to reuse seeds. The farming polices like seed patenting is eliminating ancient farming practices and controlling the food supply and the farmers, as journalists Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele revealed “Whoever provides the world’s seeds controls the world’s food supply” (165). Congress and seeds industries like Monsanto should not have the power to change the farming policies. The ancient farming practices of saving seeds from season to season is diminishing due to farmers buying seeds from Monsanto. Monsanto prohibits farmers to save seeds from their harvest and replant those seeds. Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) seeds, that resist to its

The issue of genetically modified foods, is Farmers can't harvest seeds. Fundamentally, farming is a simple process: plant seeds, grow crops, harvest crops, and gather seeds from the plants for the next season. Sadly, GMO companies like Monsanto take this last step away from farmers and raise expenses even futher by forcing the farmers to continually buy the premium-priced GM eeds every growing season. In fact, as was shiwn in the Bowman v. Monsanto court case, it is illegal in the US for someone growing a Monsanto crop to harvest the seeds and use them later. The Nowman case went all the way to the unanimously found guilty of patent infringement after he purchased and used second generation Monsanto seeds.

Over the past decades, agriculture technology and productivity has been changing drastically to fit the needs of the world population. The largest agricultural production country, the United States, has been experiencing these changes more rapidly just to meet these agricultural demands. This in turn has lead to serious controversies over the ethics and morals of some agricultural practices, namely Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). With the US population increasing every year, US farmers had to develop some way to meet the high demands of the people, therefore, GMOs were developed to help increase crop yields while also helping farmers financially by using less pesticides and herbicides.

The sovereignty of sourcing, trading and cultivating healthy and safe seeds has been a tradition farmers have practiced for centuries. Food Inc. demonstrates how mega chemical corporations, including Bayer and Monsanto, have threated, with mob-like tactics with manipulation, legal and physical threats and social ostracizing in giving farmers no other choice but to comply with their demands or risk financial ruin. Jadwiga Lopata, an “activist who has worked for rural preservation since the mid-1980’s…” reports on the manipulating tactics such corporations have over Polish farmers. Land which has been leased to Polish farmers is being sold off in large scale. “This land is being bought by foreign companies of mainly Dutch, Danish, German and

Monsanto is involved in a variety of ways,“The company produces the herbicide RoundUp, and also seeds whose genes have been engineered to survive RoundUp's active plant-killing ingredient. Now the vast majority of this country's soybeans, corn, sugar beets and canola possess those engineered genes,”(Boyle). Initially, this seems quite innocent, however, there’s no telling what kind of chemicals are being introduced into the food supply in order to allow these plants to survive. Also, sugar and corn are contained within almost every non organic product Americans consume, which means virtually everyone is ingesting these potentially harmful chemicals. Monsanto’s RoundUp resistant seeds should seem to be a farmer’s best friend, but it’s not always so simple, “As Rinehart would recall, the man began verbally attacking him, saying he had proof that Rinehart had planted Monsanto’s genetically modified (G.M.) soybeans in violation of the company’s patent. Better come clean and settle with Monsanto, Rinehart says the man told him—or face the consequences,”(Barlett). Simply dogmatic in his manner, the mysterious Monsanto man would not take no for an answer, even though later in the article Mr. Rinehart states that he isn’t a farmer and they have the wrong guy. Commonly referred to as seed police, even gestapo or mafia, this elite force of Monsanto maniacs are lifeless and drone-like in the sense that they will stop at nothing in order to obtain a profit, and if it’s the wrong person they’ll still use scare tactics to weasel cash out of innocent civilians. Saying that Monsanto is heavily involved in the production and distribution of genetically modified crops and seeds is a massive understatement, to demonstrate this,“In 1996 when Monsanto introduced RoundUp Ready Soybeans, the company controlled only 2% of the U.S. soybean market. Now, over 90% of

It doesn’t help that Monsanto also has power in politics, one of the Monsanto chiefs for food safety, Michael Taylor was actually appointed by Barrack Obama himself. Barrack Obama also appointed his Supreme Court judge: Elena Kagan, who happens to be the chief defender of Monsanto and GMO’s. Whether Republican or Democratic, Monsanto wields a strong power within politics that helps give them an edge in keeping their company going. (Obama). There are good aspects of Monsanto, like the efficiency of cheap seeds, and crops that can withstand the harsh behaviors of weathers, and the ability the crops have to survive a longer time. But not even the cheapest crops can cover up Monsanto’s long history of evil, from polluting the environment with PCB’s, the chemical Agent Orange, and the weed killer “Round-Up Ready”, to Monopolizing itself to being the owner of 90% of the seed industry and shutting down small

However, these risks are purely speculative: 81 separate studies costing approximately $65 million have been conducted by the European Commission alone and have shown no evidence of any risk linked to GM foods (1). Indeed, the U.S. has concluded that the risk of GM crops is minimal. As a result, in the U.S., genetically altered crops accounted for 93% of planted soybeans and cotton and 86% of corn in 2009. (2). Considering the success and benefits of GM crops in America, developing countries have followed suit. In 2009, India planted 84,000 square kilometers of genetically modified cotton, and Brazil planted 214,000 square kilometers of GM soybeans, a 26% increase from the year before (3). Like the U.S., these countries conducted a risk-benefit analysis and concluded that the economic, health, and food surplus benefits of GM crops offset the unproven risks (4). Thus, agricultural biotechnology is being implemented in farming techniques throughout the world.

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

Additionally, big business controls the farmers by capitalizing on widely used commodities. For example, the company Monsanto which is based in St. Louis, Missouri protects its dominance over the genetically modified crops such as the soy bean with the use of a patent law. Because of this, Monsanto’s patented genes “account for 95 percent of all soy beans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S.,” (Associated Press). Although genetically modifying the soy bean crop has made it more readily available and more sustainable, this comes at a high price to farmers. Monsanto continues to raise their prices, which forces farmers to accrue even more debt, and there is no sign of the rise in the seed prices stopping. Since a lot of the farmers are under contract with Monsanto, there is nothing they can do about this unethical policy in fear of losing their job.

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,