How Did Monsanto Coexist?

| Monsanto merges and changes its name to Pharmacia Corporation.- A new agricultural division of Pharmacia Corporation is formed called “Monsanto Company.”

the seed, they decided to redesign our legal system as well. The FDA is stuffed with

Monsanto globalized polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) which are industrial coolants and also carcinogenic pollutants. They were dumped into the air, land, and water. Previously, Monsanto also tested the effects of their products on hundreds pregnant women. The finding of this testing was that the chemicals caused birth defects. This just goes to show the negligence of the company. However, despite all of this, the US government has continued to partner and support Monsanto. They have spent millions on propaganda campaigns, in order to protect their company and in turn, protect their profits. When scientific findings that showed degenerative diseases and birth defects arose, Monsanto used propaganda to cover them up. While Monsanto did not take reasonable steps to ensure their products would not cause harm, the Food and Drug Administration also did not do their due diligence to protect the

Take a good look at what you consume. You will soon realize that it is Monsanto’s creation of “frankenfood”. Frankenfood, also known as genetically modified muck, is extremely hazardous and detrimental to our health. Monsanto, the world’s largest agricultural and agrochemical biotechnology corporation is the modern day version of the worst villain and “the face of corporate evil” (Anderson e.p. 1). This company, made and run by humans, creates foods and other chemical infused products that cause adverse effects on both the environment and humanity. Instead of evolving and bringing about good changes to ourselves and the environment, we are doing the exact opposite. Humans always strive for better, but what we do not realize is that our careless

LUBBOCK, TEXAS– Janice Person of Monsanto shared her expertise in story telling to Texas Tech students in the Department of Agricultural Education and Communications Friday, Sept. 23.

Mexico should stop buying corn from those corporations that demand to turn over their corn crops to them. Therefore, it would be best for Mexico because Monsanto’s control on the corn imported into Mexico has caused a food and health catastrophe. A fact, “In post-NAFTA Mexico, 42 percent of the food consumed comes in aboard. Before NAFTA the country spent $1.8 million dollars on food imports. It now spends a whopping $24 billion” (http://fpif.org/nafta_is_starving_mexico/). This is an issue for Mexico because all the genetically modified corn imported from the U.S. is causing for small farmers to go out of business. A reason why it caused them to go out of business is because, “Seventeen years after NAFTA, some two million farmers have been

In a poll in 2014 measuring the reputation quotient of major companies, Monsanto ranked the third-lowest, above companies like BP, Bank of American and fell just behind Halliburton. For the better part of Monsanto's history, it has been a chemical company which produced compounds used in electrical equipment, adhesives, plastics, and paint. They also produced chemicals like DDT, Agent Orange, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), Monsanto is best known for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs (Bennett, 2014).

Companies that operate under a moral obligation, have a duty to their stakeholders and society to operate in a morally acceptable manner that is not enforced by laws. Monsanto’s early years saw the development of food chemicals such as saccharine, to industrial commodities such as plastic and synthetic rubber to the dangerous agent orange. As of 1981, Monsanto has transitioned their business from a chemical industry to a biotechnology company focused on modified plant seeds. Monsanto can fulfill their moral obligation by providing a better life for the farmers that use their products while also providing a better-quality food product to the consumer. The seeds have been altered to ensure that the farmers are not taking any crop losses to

To help Monsanto improve on their social responsibility, recommendations would be made to get to know the customers and expand business relationships. Farmers and consumers are skeptical of change therefore the power of business to solve social and environmental problems require strategic planning. Improving marketing, employee satisfaction, legal treatment and customer loyalty along with affluent partnerships is to be expected. Furthermore, Monsanto business practice should continue to support charities and nonprofits with financial donations from the corporation. To achieve sustainability it is imperative for the business to apply its resources and expertise in areas that impact social good through day to day operations.

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

Bogeyman and the face of corporate evil according to farmer’s digest are terms to describe Monsanto’s reputation. The company has received intense negative media criticism, such as protest, bribery scandals, cover up of environmental pollution are items that contributed to the companies negative reputation. According to (2014) since the exposure of the company's alleged unethical customs, Monsanto has developed a poor reputation as being a greedy, unethical, and arrogant monopoly. Consequently, they have lost the trust, business, and support of many people.

Cooperation defines as a situation in which people work together to do something, while environment and society interaction means interactions between the human social system and the ecosystem. Thus, both cooperation and the environment and society interaction related each other. In this era of globalization, people are cooperating to create businesses without any consideration to environment and society. They produce a product at the same time destroy the environment and suffer the labor. Environment and labor is more likely slave, where human only take the advantages without paying back as much as they give. Is it cooperation more likely people who cooperate or join to destroy the environment.

Imagine a future of fresh produce and large amounts of meat, being able to feed millions of americans. Now instead imagine widespread diseases and death among Americans, too. Monsanto has developed many products including Roundup to prevent crops from pests and other insects. The product and the GMO could cause problems in the long run with this pesticide being ingested with the crops. The GMO’s are also making things hard for the farmers because of the patent Monsanto put on their GMO seeds. Monsanto claims to be a sustainable agricultural company, but the chemicals and GMOs they are using to achieve that goal are affecting farmers and could be potentially harm humans. Is Monsanto a true sustainable agricultural company and how will the affect the world’s farmers and society in the long term? Well the main thing that makes Monsanto 's a sustainable agricultural company is their GMO crops and how they are non resistant to their other product Roundup. Roundup appears to be good for Sustainable agriculture and keeping products alive when there is no bee’s to pollinate them or when harmful weeds attack them (Hanzai, E). This could be good because the environment has been making it hard to produce crops naturally these days. This also includes, the high demand for produce in large quantities and big sizes, these gmos are the only thing keeping these big amounts of produce available for consumers. That’s great but these products are also known to be really dangerous for human

1 am not surprised of the outcome of your meeting with Mr. Smythe-Jones (CFO). However, I cannot answer your request until I heard from local management. As it was agreed on the last meeting, we were precluded ,from doing any work without first getting approval from management at the headquarters and we were instructed by local management from doing anything until they finalized what was required from us. It appears to me to be a Catch 22 game! 1 believe we (your Firm and ours) should not fall in the game of passing the ball to someone else before getting a clear understanding of what is going on. We have had several meetings with local management where the issue has been raised and were responded that other priorities were established by the headquarters (on my end I thought they tell you everything they have been instructed of locally, unfortunately it does not seem to be the case). In my opinion it looks very easy that you accept from management at the headquarters to hold us accountable from something we are not responsible for, and this does not mean I do not understand the pressure you are receiving on your end. However, we are not the enemy. 1 am not sending copy of this message to our client because I believe that internal issues have to be

The objective of this report is to analyze the differences in Monsanto’s experiences in the United States and Europe and the reasons of opposition in Europe, despite that, why Monsanto pushed ahead so hard.