Is Monsanto’s advertising of solving the world’s hunger by assisting third world’s farmers an act of humanity or personal gain?
Monsanto proclaims to decrease the third world’s hunger and malnutrition by selling GMO crops which increases financial outcome by increasing quality and by reducing costs through herbicide, drought and insect tolerance, specifically genetically modified for particular conditions of certain areas. Yet the pesticide resistance and the adaption of pests and weed, together with the financial circumstances of the farmers makes Monsanto not an improvement of the situation in the third world on a long term basis, but rather a business which establishes influence and income at all cost.
Firstly, Montano increases their disposal of the GMO crops by applying on the uneducated status of the farmers, resulting in confusion between genetically modified and traditional selective breeding technology. A study on the potential modification to GMO crops like Bt Maize MON810 by small- scale farmers in Nigeria and Ghana pointed out the extreme unawareness of possible risks to health and the environmental risk the GMO crops eventually provide. Most farmers were mostly interested in the proclaimed increase in higher yields, insect tolerance, nutrition composition and briefer growing cycle. They confused the term genetically modified with traditional selective breeding, as the study showed, that most farmers did neither know not understand the term GM as “Only 6 out of 54 (…) claimed to have heard about GM technology before.”(Adenle, Alhassan and Solomon, 2014, p. 249) since most knowledge is found in traditional plant breeding biotechnology as seen in figure 1 from the same study. This lack of education is due to no primary ...
... middle of paper ...
...he next years. Furthermore, this gene could also be passed on to wild plants which would result in a diversity loss. The environmental and financial risk to produce terminator seeds is too high to be ethically correct. The power of regulating the world’s food supply/seed supply with this trait could be used as a weapon for economic or political extortion, as food is essential for humans to live, which makes it morally incorrect using this trait.
To conclude, Monsanto uses the advert of helping third world countries developing better income and publicize with better nutrition values and pest resistance, but on an objective level, the monopoly build through these GMO crops benefit just Monsanto itself. The recommendation of polypoly, in order to create competition would increase the chance of helping the third world’s farmers, as well as rotational farming.
Barlett and Steele’s “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear” interpretation of Monsanto Company’s affect on the agricultural industry, its communities, and on consumers in the course of its aggressive expansion is both aggressive and unfair. Through the use of narratives and evidence, they reiterate and reinforce aliases composed by affected communities
Monsanto employs over 20,000 employees dispersed throughout their facilities within 69 countries. John F. Queeny, founder of Monsanto, started the company in 1901, which at first manufactured saccharine. Later, John son Edward directed the companies into the agriculture industry. The company is best known producing Round up, an herbicide, and for developing genetically modified (GM) through biotechnology. “Monsanto developed G.M. seeds that would resist its own herbicide, Roundup, offering farmers a convenient way to spray fields with weed killer without affecting crops” (Barlett, D. L. & Steele, J. B, 2008). Since the start up the company has encounter several lawsuits, patent issues and critics. The company also faces many concerns about the
Monsanto is the world 's leader on bio-technology and was found in St. Louis Missouri. Monsanto was not known as an agriculture company at first as it is now rather a chemical company of the 20th century. They are also responsible for growing 90 percent of the world 's GMO’s. On Monsanto’s website it states their goal is to help farmers around the world to produce healthier foods, conserving more, and better animal feeds while reducing impact on our environment. Monsanto 's GMO has been effecting our environment for years but have not yet brought to justice according to this video. The question is why? According to this documentary Monsanto created many hazardous chemicals for example PCBs, Agent Orange and recombinant
Between 1961 and 1971, Monsanto, along with Dow Chemical and other chemical companies, provided herbicides and defoliants, including Agent Orange, to the U.S. military during the Vietnam War. As a consequence of the exposure to dioxins contained in the defoliant, the military personnel in Vietnam suffered of injuries, such as Chloracne, heart disease, prostate cancer, respiratory cancers, etc. (“Veterans' Diseases Associated with Agent Orange”) In 1980, a class-action lawsuit concerning Agent Orange was filed against Monsanto, Dow Chemical and other chemical companies, but these companies denied that Agent Orange was linked to the veterans’ medical problems. In 1984, seven of the chemical companies involved decided to settle the class-action
In conclusion, it is emergent that Monsanto Company has been on the headlines for the wrong reasons. However, the country’s over-reliance in its products for food makes it hard for regulators and lawmakers to impute stringent regulatory measures. The company has been amassing power by acquiring competitors’ clients and threatening the existence of other market players. Financial analysis indicates that the company is money oriented and all its undertakings are to ensure that it has a consistent growth despite legal challenges.
...earch Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology sued Monsanto in the Supreme Court of India and Monsanto could not start the commercial sales of its Bt cotton seeds until 2002. And, after the damning report of India’s parliamentary committee on Bt crops in August 2012, the panel of technical experts appointed by the Supreme Court recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GM food and termination of all ongoing trials of transgenic crops. But it had changed Indian agriculture already. Monsanto’s seed, the destruction of alternatives, the collection of super profits in the form of royalties, and the increasing vulnerability of cultures has created a context for debt, suicides and distress which is driving the farmers’ suicide epidemic in India. This systemic control has been intensified with Bt cotton. That is why most suicides are in the cotton belt.
The first thoughts one would have when hearing about a Monsanto ad is food. Monsanto is a huge corporation that deals heavily with making GMO products. Looking at this ad though, one notices that the food has next to no real purpose in the ad. In fact, it is blurred out, with only the people engaged in conversation being in focus. “Advertising often sells a great deal more than products. It sells values, images, and concepts of love and sexuality, romance, success, and, perhaps most important, normalcy” (Kilbourne 101). This is precisely what Monsanto is doing, completely disregarding their actual product and selling the values of
Monsanto is a multinational agricultural and agrochemical biotechnology corporation based in America and is the largest producer of genetically engineered seeds. Monsanto argues that using science and newfound research to create genetically modified food is necessary in order to save our world from starvation. Eduardo Blumwald, a professor of cell biology and employee for Monsanto, says that genetically modified food could be “the only viable solution we have for our future” (Ostrander 24) where it is predicted that the temperature and population will soar. Blumwald argues that without genetically engineering food to produce under high temperatures with little water, the world could potentially starve in this predicted future. Yet regardless of “biotech industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit” (“GMO Facts”). Instead, Monsanto genetically modifies food to resist RoundUp, a pesticide the company has created to kill any plants or bugs other than the genetically engineered crop. According to the World Health Organization, this pesticide “is a probable human carcinogen” (“GMOs”) due to glyphosate, a
GM seeds are considered revolution in the agriculture industry for some reasons. First and foremost, GM seeds can grow crops regardless of hostile conditions, which help farmers increase revenues. Besides, as a result of population growth across the global, the demand for food continuously increases. Biotech products provided by the Monsanto Company will be the best solution for this phenomenon. Especially in populous countries like India, biotech crops allow farmers both save lands and double their harvest.
Genetically modified food’s, or GMOs, goal is to feed the world's malnourished and undernourished population. Exploring the positive side to GMOs paints a wondrous picture for our planet’s future, although careful steps must be taken to ensure that destruction of our ecosystems do not occur. When GMOs were first introduced into the consumer market they claimed that they would help eliminate the world’s food crisis by providing plants that produced more and were resistant to elemental impacts like droughts and bacterial contaminants, however, production isn’t the only cause for the world’s food crisis. Which is a cause for concern because the population on the earth is growing and our land and ways of agriculture will not be enough to feed everyone sufficiently. No simple solutions can be found or applied when there are so many lives involved. Those who are hungry and those who are over fed, alike, have to consider the consequences of Genetically Modified Organisms. Food should not be treated like a commodity it is a human necessity on the most basic of levels. When egos, hidden agendas, and personal gains are folded into people's food sources no one wins. As in many things of life, there is no true right way or wrong way to handle either of the arguments and so many factors are involved that a ‘simple’ solution is simply not an option.
GMO stands for genetically modified organism. It is a technique that allows DNA from one species to be injected into another species in a laboratory, creating combinations of plant, animal, bacteria, and viral genes that are unfamiliar to nature. [Whole Foods] Genetically modified organisms were first created in 1983 when a tobacco plant was altered to resist anti-biotics and later in 1990 when genetically engineered cotton was successfully tested. This was a breakthrough for the biotechnology era of agriculture since it allowed the manipulation and creation of food. The six multinational giants that currently dominate the agricultural market include: Monsanto, Dow, BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, and DuPont. [Chemical Cartel] Together these companies have gained government approval, “particularly insect repellent traits and herbicide tolerance for crops, to help farmers improve their crop yields while keeping costs low.” [Moore, 2011] It would appear that these companies might just have the answer to farming problems and potentially world hunger. They seem to have revolutionized the farming industry and the food industry, as we know it.
GM crops also benefit the economy and assist in feeding more people. While we struggle with feeding our population, “The population will continue to grow” (Calandrelli 1) For instance, genetic engineering in agriculture can minimize the cost of producing food. Thus, GMO’s in crops can result ...
Technology cuts down on the time that it takes to grow a crop. Technology can produce more food for less work and less money. “GM crops are frequently perceived as a ‘technological fix’, proposed by those who fail to address the underlying causes of hunger and poverty, which really require economic, political and social change” (Nuffield Bioethics 29).
Genetically modified (GM) foods have become omnipresent over the past decade. They are a technological breakthrough that allows humans to manipulate and add foreign genes to crops to enhance desired traits, but they have also evolved into a controversial issue, especially for Third World countries. Some people believe that GM foods not only provide larger yields to feed hungry citizens in Third World countries, but they can also be a source of great nutritional value. For example, researchers have developed a strain of golden rice containing high amounts of vitamin A and numerous other vitamins and minerals. Additionally, GM crops are laced with herbicides and pesticides, and therefore reduce the need for chemical consumption. Opponents of GM foods claim that they pose a threat to the health of consumers and that these crops could eventually cross-pollinate in an unregulated fashion or lead to the growth of superweeds and superbugs resistant to the herbicides and pesticides woven into the genetic fiber of the crops. Developed nations should promote research and monitoring from an ethical point of view and financial assistance through philanthropic ventures in order to limit environmental and health risks. They should also make sure that limited cultural displacement will result from the introduction of GM crops and that instead, a better livelihood and well-being through collaboration will emerge. Hence, GM crops should be introduced only provided that the developed nations assume the ethical and financial responsibilities for the environmental, health, and social consequences that attend this new innovation.
This award is given out to an individual or individuals who help to combat hunger by increasing the quantity, quality, and the availability of food around the world. In a fact sheet published in September 2013, Food and Water Watch evaluates The World Food Prize with a skeptical eye. The irony presented in the article is the sponsor of the award is a non-profit organization with a goal of increasing quality, quantity and availability of food around the world, but they receive most contributions from big agribusiness companies whose primary goal is profit and not combating this problem of hunger in our world. The major contributors include companies like Monsanto, John Deere, and DuPont Pioneer. These companies sometimes have diverse goals including developing genetically engineered seeds, chemicals, and machinery that may improve agricultural production, or may simply increase profits for shareholders.