Monsanto Argumentative Essay

The social and environmental interests are not adequately accounted for. By putting patents on their seeds, farmers are forced to buy new seeds each year. In India most farmers have to take out loans to be able to afford seeds and they are not protected by government subsidies. The weather has a huge influence on their income and unpredictable weather can wipe out their entire crop, whereas in the past these farmers would save their seeds as an insurance policy against the weather but now Monsanto does not allow them to do this. The Indian government directly links the introduction of Monsanto’s GM seeds as the root cause behind the sharp increase in farmer suicides. The Indian farmers are figuring out that the biotechnology revolution has a huge effect on their crop lands and personal debt levels. This all started in 1998 when the World Bank underwent structural adjustments and changed some of their policies which forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Monsanto, Cargill and Syngenta (www.counterpunch.org., 2016). These global corporations changed India’s agricultural economy because Monsanto’s seeds require Monsanto fertilizers and pesticides which adds costs on top of being unable to save seeds. Monsanto does not meet the characteristics of this paradigm with the lack of social and environmental responsibility due to the corporations’ business structure and board intentions.

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 public believes that Monsanto’s genetically modified organism (GMO) products is harmful not solitary to the environment and our food system but also to the consumers itself. Joe Mohr’s visual argument of Monsanto’s Reasons for Fighting GMO Labeling? It Loves You is a poor argument in an attempt to change the public’s view. Mohr claims that GMO labeling will cause the earth and its citizens to more stress, global warming, and cellular radiation. Mohr’s hope in transforming the unknowing public’s opinion by using Logos in defending Monsanto through a sound and logical visual explanation that was unfounded is nothing but a disappointment. Monsanto is all about corporate control and profit. Images and graphics that was used could potentially give depth and change public understanding to Mohr’s one-sided argument in procuring

Monsanto is controlling the farmers and manipulating organic farmers to use their patented seeds and artificial growth hormone to increase production. As, Troy Roush, VP of American Corn Growers Association explains “In the case of Monsanto their control is so dominant, if you want to be in production agriculture, you’re going to be in bed with Monsanto (Food Inc 1:15:40-1:15-48). Monsanto should not have the right to control what the farmers can and cannot do. Monsanto has induced politician and the government to abdicate their responsibility to protect consumers through funding their campaign and heavy lobbying. As Michael Pollan clarifies “For the last 25 years, our government has been dominated by the industries that it was meant to be regulating” (1:17:07-1:17:13). The consumers and farmers should be the ones deciding and voting on the farming practices, not congress or large seed industries. I believe the farmers should reject to use Monsanto’s seeds and have the right to save, clean and reuse the seeds from their harvests. It should be unacceptable and illegal for the government to change ancient agricultural farming; hence we would have a healthy food chain. Government and congress should focus on the interest of consumers and farmers and not be conquered by large companies. The government needs to revisit the seed patenting law and sign an agreement of the

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.

Agriculture is a booming business. Farmers make a living planting, harvesting, and selling vegetables and milk to consumers. On the surface, it appears as if farmers have it made, yet deep down they live in fear. Many companies who sell different products to farmers will try to blackmail the farmers who refuse their product. These products are useful, but if some farmers completely refute the product it may cause an uproar in the agricultural business.

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

As a independent investigator I would make sure that Monsanto is complying with good manufacturing practices as they are dealing with agricultural biotechnology. The FDA wants to ensure that the food is safe for consumption. Nothing is more important than what people put in their mouths which is why creating an ethical culture is so important. Their increase in the use of biotechnology (general environment) makes is easier to produce yields with smaller plots of land. This in turn makes their consumers (farmers) happy and creates a better income for the customers. While Monsanto’s seed is more expensive some would say it offers more yields and, therefore, money for the company and the people who sale the items produced by its seeds.

When you hear the words “gas” and “pollution,” what color do you think of? What words do you think of? Personally, I think of green when think of those words because todays media has associated the color green with trash and toxic materials. And only one word comes to mind and that’s Monsanto. There’s an anti-Monsanto ad I came across and it really pinpoints what the corporations are about. In the image, there’s a bulldozer with a corporate office building on top of it heading towards a farm house and its farmland. There’s also a DNA symbol indicating something is being done to the farm food and just over the crops there is a plane flying over hosing the farmlands with some chemicals. Lastly there’s a green gas in the clouds with skulls in them indicating that there’s something dangerous about Monsanto.

directly on individual needs and the honesty of scientists and lawmakers. The best interest of the people is emphasized, in response to the fact that all the risks of GMOs are not yet known. Even though understanding potential risks is of chief importance to human health, GMO proponents make it clear that there is more to GMOs then their potential risks. For example, a newly created genetically altered rice is “outperforming its natural kind—given less moisture, the non- engineered rice browns and wilts, but the new plant survives (Ostrander, “Can GMOs Help…?”)”. The goal of GMO creation is not to be secretive about various risks, but it is to create products that are better than their originals. Monsanto, the prime inventor and activist of GMOs, states his products are “agricultural, including Roundup, an herbicide that the company invented in 1970. Its premier products, among the most common GM crops on the market, are “Round-up Ready”—varieties of soybeans, corn, alfalfa, cotton, canola and sugar beets whose DNA has been modified to keep them from dying when doused with Roundup (Ostrander, “Can GMOs Help…?”)”. Not only are the products shaped to generate more food in a short span of time, but they are crafted with healthful ingredients that can benefit consumers. Monsanto and other GMOs proponents do not want

Recently, Monsanto, a GMO company, made an effort to remove GMO labeling protests. GMO labeling is a process that labels, whether a crop has GMOs or not. The consumers have a right to know what they are eating while Monsanto wants to remove that right. Ostrander writes, “The anti-GMO activists were vastly outspent: Monsanto alone invests $8 million in efforts to defeat the measure” (Ostrander). From Monsanto’s action alone, it seems that they do not want consumers to know what they are eating. They used $8 million alone to eliminate GMO labeling protests. Even though GMO companies claim to help provide more for the world, Monsanto’s activities show that the consumer’s rights are not of concern. Not long ago, Vermont state legislation planned to enforce GMO labeling. This did not last too long because the state was sued as a result of this enforcement. Fraser and Mittal write, “the Grocery Manufacturers Association (supported by corporations including Monsanto...) is now suing the state, alleging that the law would violate the U.S Constitution in various ways” (Fraser and Anuradha). Monsanto appears again in a battle against GMO labeling. Whenever a protest appear against GMOs or for GMO labeling, Monsanto will continue to find any opportunity to reject GMO labeling. In general, companies are formed to make a profit, although GMO companies claim to

According to the article “Foreign Policy in Focus” there are twenty-six countries that have banned GMOs for good because of all the negative side effects GMOs have. Even still, there are other countries that allow GMOs but are required to have a label with everything that used to make the product. Additionally, farmers have many positive, but also negative opinions when it comes to the use of GMOs. Looking at it on the positive side they are able to use fewer pesticides on crops but farmers are afraid that sooner or later worms and weeds will adapt. If you look at it in the negative side biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict the use of GMOs. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States. Many farmers are beginning to take different alternatives to this problem. For example, farmers are now abandoning GMO seeds for crops and using non-GMO seeds; not only are they better, but they also bring farmers a higher profit since there is a demand for non-GMO

Things have been changing quickly in our world. GMOs have developed at an alarming pace, and are now being credited with being able to save millions from starvation. Seeds can be patented, when only a few years ago there were only public seed. The atomic bomb has been created and improved, and has the potency to wipe out all the life on our delicate planet. All these inventions and more can be attributed, in some way or another, to a chemical company called Monsanto. The Monsanto Company is an institution whose impact in the areas of chemicals and food has become a massive game-changer, but is also causing potentially dangerous side effects and consequences.

In her online video, "Talking about food safety," Monsanto 's lead toxicologist, Shawna Lemke says that, "In recent years people have become increasingly interested in where their food comes from, and how it is produced....there is still conflicting and confusing information about Genetically Modified Foods, but because of the intense work the scientists that work here do, we all feel confident in feeding them to our kids." Monsanto is a Fortune 500 "sustainable agricultural" company that started in 1901, introducing their first product, saccharin. They move on to produce agricultural chemicals in 1945, and by 1982 they were genetically modifying plant cells (DNA). They now have 404 facilities in sixty-six countries, and supply 76% of the world 's seeds. It seems Monsanto has a stronghold on the world 's genetically modified seeds. Although Monsanto claims that genetically modified food is safe, there are conflicting studies claiming they are unsafe and cause harm to humans, plants and animals. However, there have not been any scientific research done concerning this in the United States. How would these studies affect our supply of genetically modified food here in The United States? What about the farmers? How does this stronghold affect the farmers here in the United States? The United States Government needs to perform their own scientific research studies to assess the health risks of Genetically Modified Food, and

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,