Imagine if large businesses in charge of our food, such as McDonald’s or General Mills, were only liable to themselves. What would happen if the government began to eliminate regulations on the food business? With a lack of oversight, the public would undoubtedly suffer. We rely on our government to keep our food safe and to monitor those responsible for making our food. Our government, however, is still very inadequate because these large food corporations have a surprising amount of influence, in the form of money and lobbyists. They use these lobbyists to create laws and policies that are better suited for their demands, rather than the demands of the public. Food businesses have a concerning amount of control, so much so that much wouldn’t …show more content…
Businesses like this have a large amount of influence, but this influence shouldn’t allow a company to hold a near monopoly over a certain commodity. Over the years, Monsanto has bought out the seed businesses of their competition and assimilated them into its own company. By doing so, it has severely limited farmers to only buying their seed (Shiva 150-151). Recently it has been estimated that Monsanto soybean seeds are responsible for the production of around ninety percent of soybeans in the United States (Barlett & Steele 134). Yet no one, not even the government, is concerned about Monsanto nearing a monopoly over the crop. Very few prioritize soybeans, something limited to rural farmers, but the only way Monsanto and their seed would be further regulated is if there were enough of a public outcry to warrant action against the company. The truth is that farmers are too far removed from the majority of the public. Most of America isn’t privy to the experience of Monsanto’s litigious nature, or the company’s ridiculous control over its seeds. It is, however, not our government’s fault that action has yet to be taken; it is also our responsibility to know what occurs in our country. We, as a public, need to take action against the overbearing control that Monsanto, and other large companies, has over our food and create a unified …show more content…
One of the main practices through which food corporations gain power over the government is through what is known as “revolving door” politics. This type of politics involves individuals moving between the private and public sector of a specified field, such as food. Executives and others affiliated with food corporations are now in charge of regulating them within the government and vice versa. One prominent example of this would be with the aforementioned agricultural comapnay, Monsanto, as seen in Donald Barlett and James Steele’s article “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear”. In 1993, the company gained the approval from the Food and Drug Administration to use rBST, a growth hormone to increase the amount of milk produced and something hardly needed (Barlett & Steele 138). The question we are left with is “Why?” and if one were to look back at the government at the time of this approval, they would see it filled with those affiliated with Monsanto, such as Michael Friedman, the former F.D.A.’s deputy commissioner who became a Monsanto senior vice president in 1999 (Barlett & Steele 139). This is a perfect example of “revolving door” politics. Those who created the regulations are now working for the companies they monitored. Such practices should make the general public wary of our government’s regulatory agencies. How are we supposed to trust our public officials if they can simply create policies
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
Regulating what the government should control and what they should not was one of the main arguments our founding fathers had to deal with when creating our nation, and to this day this regulation is one of the biggest issues in society. Yet, I doubt our founding fathers thought about the idea that the food industry could one day somewhat control our government, which is what we are now facing. Marion Nestles’ arguments in the book Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health deal with how large food companies and government intertwine with one another. She uses many logical appeals and credible sources to make the audience understand the problem with this intermingling. In The Politics of Food author Geoffrey Cannon further discusses this fault but with more emotional appeals, by use of personal narratives. Together these writers make it dramatically understandable why this combination of the food industry and politics is such a lethal ordeal. However, in The Food Lobbyists, Harold D. Guither makes a different viewpoint on the food industry/government argument. In his text Guither speaks from a median unbiased standpoint, which allows the reader to determine his or her own opinions of the food industries impact on government, and vise versa.
From a pipe dream of the son of two immigrants comes one of the largest chemical engineering companies of our time. John Francis Queeny was born in Chicago in August of 1859. It is hard to believe that a man with only six years of public school education created such a vast empire. In 1871 the Queeny family was devastated by the Great Chicago Fire, the buildings that his father owned and rented out were, of course, totally destroyed, thus ending the rather comfortable life of the Queeny family. John was forced to drop out of school and find a job. After little avail he finally found employ at the drug Firm of Tolman and King for 2.50 a week. (Forrestal 12).
During the 2008 campaign trail, president Obama was quite instrumental in condemning agricultural corporations and their various regulatory bodies. More specifically, Obama was quoted saying that, once he assumed office, his administration would tell ConAgra that their main area of operation is not Agribusiness but rather Agriculture. However, upon election, Obama changed his tone, possibly due to influence by the biotech industry. The appointment of Tom Vilsack, who was a pro-biotech former Iowa governor, into the position of the USDA Secretary signaled to the bio-tech conglomerates that they could influence regulatory frameworks. Following this appointment, other Monsanto executives were poached into the administration, including Michael Taylor, who was the Vice President of Monsanto, Roger Beachy, who was a former director of Danforth Plant Science Center that was ...
« What are the social costs and benefits of the production and the selling of GM food and what are the most effective policies available to solve the problems that arise from these costs? »
Big Food is not immune to the “revolving door.” In fact, it occurs more often between lobbyists and government bodies such as the USDA because agency heads for departments are appointed politically. These appointments are picked due to support of the department’s initiatives and political party affiliation. While there are dozens of cases to exemplify this career pattern, the biggest person to discuss is JoAnn Smith of the USDA and Dr. John Hathcock of the
Monsanto’s largest competitors are BASF SE, Syngenta, and Bayer CropScience. Monsanto’s efficient and effective support activities for crop production have led to becoming one of the prominent companies in the industry. Product performance (in particular, crop vigor and yield for our row crops and quality for our vegetable seeds), customer support and service, intellectual property rights and protection, product availability and planning and price are important elements of Monsanto’s market success in seeds. In addition, distributor, retailer and farmer relationships are important in the United States and many other countries. The primary factors underlying the competitive success of traits are performance and commercial viability; timeliness of introduction; value compared with other practices and products; market coverage; service provided to distributors, retailers and farmers; governmental approvals; value capture; public acceptance; and environmental characteristics.
Almost every angle of the food industry can be considered dangerous. It is dangerous to make the food, as a meatpacking job is one that is viewed as having abnormally high risks; however when the food is handed over a counter on a tray or prepared in a family of four’s kitchen, it poses a huge risk to humankind. Foodborne illnesses are all too common and almost everybody has the possiblity of contracting a foodborne illness. These are life threatening diseases that need to be monitored and regulated; therefore the enforcement of government regulations in the fast food industry could potentially save many lives that are lost annually due to the numerous factors that need regulation.
Barlett and Steele, after arguing a clear case against Monsanto Company’s legal tactics, fail to provide adequate evidence to supplement the testimonies of extra-legal tactics, leaving readers in a position to vindicate Monsanto’s alleged conduct based on its legal aggression. Barlett and Steele’s decision to supplement their arguments with first person narratives from targeted victims added characters to an otherwise sound chronological observation and provide authentic testimony against faceless company representatives who may not represent the views and opinions of their employer(s). Barlett and Steele, who commented minimally on nonGMO/GMO product differences, criticize Monsanto’s aggressive and unorthodox expansion and misuse of the legal system to draw attention to the heavy handed company and to its
There is many examples of these companies controlling the government, but the most notable is Justice Clarence Thomas. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was a Monsanto lawyer before he became a supreme court justice (Kenner). Justice Thomas used his power to write and sign a bill that prohibited farmers from saving their own seeds (Kenner). Another clear example of the government being controlled by the food industry is Michael Taylor (Kenner). Michael Taylor was a lawyer for Monsanto, specifically concerning GMO labeling. He oversaw the FDA’s decision not to label GMOs while he was the Deputy Commissioner of Policy for the FDA (Kenner).There are many other examples of the government being controlled by big companies, including a member of President Clinton’s advisory board, a past NC Senator, the FDA branch chief and the EPA Deputy Administrator
The individuals that consume the food would likely agree with the farmer and want a lower cost for the product, in order to lessen the financial impact on their budget for purchasing the food. Investors and shareholders of the company would be another stakeholder in the Monsanto corporation. Their overwhelming need would be profit. They would expect the company to continue to amass product sales in excess of $11 billion dollars. Due to the profitability of the seeds, the investors and shareholders would likely want strategists to focus on how to make the company more profitable in undeveloped countries, which would increase those countries on the dependence of the Monsanto product.
In the recent years there has been a lot of controversy over our food supply, mainly focusing on major corporations creating food that is unsafe for humans. From GMO to food additives new research has come out that they could be linked to many diseases. What is the FDA doing about this? Nothing. They have little authority and they feel these food additives and GMO’s are okay even, though they aren 't thoroughly inspected before going into the stores. Corporations have hijacked our food supply.
Although Monsanto Company took some social implications like charitable programs, it failed to uphold ethical culture many times over the years. Some of unethical practices the company had done so far were bribery, anticompetitive activities and harassing behavior towards infringer of patent. Notably, during the Vietnam War, Monsanto had been strongly criticized by producing toxic chemical named Agent Orange which had detrimental effects on not only human-beings but also the environment. Nowadays, genetically modified (GM) seeds produced by Monsanto remain controversial. Because of GM seeds’ unknown influences, it is
"Monsanto uses patent law to control most of U.S. corn, soy seed market." Cleveland National News. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Dec. 2009. .
First off, The government of the United States of America is ultimately responsible for keeping our foods safe. Many of the Presidents of the major food companies also obtain government jobs. When a problem occurs with food and a food has to be recalled a change has to be made. Someone comes up with a law to make sure that the problem does not occur again. The government evaluates the law and either passes or denies it. The type of foods that we buy from the grocery store were pre evaluated by the government. I think the reason why most foods are unsafe and are still being obtained by local residents is because the major food companies work and make deals with government so