Monsanto Agricultural Corporation and Genetically Modified Food Mandatory Labeling – Case Study Example

Download free paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper "Monsanto Agricultural Corporation and Genetically Modified Food Mandatory Labeling " is a great example of a case study on marketing. Monsanto is categorized among the largest corporations behind genetic manufacturing because it considers itself as an agricultural organization. The company feels they have the ability to assist farmers to grow sustainable yields. This can be through better animal feeds, fiber, produce healthier foods, be successful, and control environmental agricultural impact. The company bears the responsibility for many farms’ devastation, development of resistant weeds and pests, and the reduction in crop varieties.

Even though Monsanto’ s sells seeds that have been developed through biotechnology and crop protection chemicals that have the ability to feed the world. It is however disturbing that their products are not labeled as GMO. This paper tries to answer patent questions for its existence. The majority have contemplated the manner in which Monsanto succeeded to rise so prominently with regards to personal influence on the United States government. Monsanto was involved in the production of toxic war chemicals used in Vietnam that has led to increased good relations between the company and the US government.

Their rise to power has all along been dishonest as the company unceasingly develops goods without substantial testing. This happens because of their considerable influence on the government (Mercola 75). The government has strongly supported GM crops in the past years. This is because many workers in the government were formerly Monsanto employees. GM products weak regulation found today is attributed to strong ties in the government by Monsanto (Schmidt 532). The genetically modified crop only requirement is its nutritional status and equal composition share it has to its conventional counterpart.

These relaxed regulations allow the spread of dangerous genes. The government, however, considers carrots are essentially marketable as long as they still contain beta-carotene. Fully aware of the cancer cases, lethal allergic reactions these foods have caused, the decision by the government appears unsafe and irresponsible. According to Anderson and Karis-Nix (83), the company has become an imaginary cultural evil over the past decade.   There is increased protests over genetically modified organisms (GMO) produced by Monsanto. Initially, the company was seen to be innovative but it has changed and its concentration is in the production of GMO.

Despite the fact it is not the only company that produces GMOs, Critics single out the company’ s role. Many experts single out anger: The launch of GMO seeds in the late 90s that were considered as substandard led to increased hatred for the company. The company, however, did not try to rectify the situation.     As a chemical company, Monsanto courted controversy even before it became the face of industrial agriculture. In 1901 when it was founded, the company uses dioxin which is the main poison for Agent Orange.

It retailed cancer-linked Aspartame sweetener, rBGH, PCBs, the controversial dairy cow hormone, and DDT. Despite efforts to rekindle its damaging image, they have wholly failed to redeem themselves. Neither did Monsanto change its way from toxins purveyor to an agricultural company that is a life-giving (Mercola). Monsanto focus remains to make retailing toxins. The company discovered that it was capable of selling extra chemicals to ensure profits that are ever-increasing. This is done by manufacturing herbicide-resistant GE seeds.

Genetically modified (GM) food mandatory labeling in the United States has created a heated conversation concerning biotechnology predominant policy issue. The GM labeling debate forms the discussions at government branches and several different levels. The primary safety and labeling jurisdiction regulator- The Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), at the federal level, has since 1992, refused steadfastly to allow GM foods labeling on the basis of its conclusion that there are no unique or higher risks GM foods pose compared to other foods. The U. S. Congress has repeatedly introduced, over the years, the proposed legislation to mandate labeling of GM.   However, progress has not been promising at all.

Monsanto government effect has led to increased debate due to the controversy created. Regulations are done by the producers who are mostly concerned with monetary gains. The products are marketed without satisfactory testing.   Schmidt (532) in the administration’ s view, FDA officials insist that the risk transgenic crop breeding posed does not quantify to permit mandatory testing. Contrary, this statement is made reasonably distressing considering the producers are the ones mandated to test. The GM labeling debate focused on five main issues: the GM foods risks and benefits, public opinion, consumer choice, labeling requirements legality, and the burdens of GM labeling (Marchant Gary and Guy 126-134).

This policy’ s premise is not based on the manner in which food and chemicals were produced, but it is on the idea that food and chemical products safety evaluation is based on the properties of the products (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology). The conversation about the safety of GMOs, both to human health and potential danger to the environment is complicated.

While advocates feel no studies have linked GM to harmful effect, those opposing, on the other hand, insist that GM safety is still not convincing. There are few studies on the safety of GMOs. The entire debate has become very polarized; making the conversation emotional makes it less analytical. The motive behind technology makes the GMO debate controversial. There are views that innovation is detrimental to society while others are of the opinion that technological inventions have contributed to a better society (Anderson and Karis-Nix (97).

Monsanto and other big ag-biotech companies have developed dependable, herbicide-tolerant commodity and biologically insect-resistant and crops. Consequently, they have benefited the environment, people, and farmers compared to their non-GM counterparts that are nutritionally identical. A coding insect pest bacterial protein has its gene found in the GM insect-resistant. Although this gene is not harmful to animals or people, AGM corn that is insect-resistant also lowers, in both human and animals, a highly toxic and carcinogenic compound made by fungi called mycotoxins. According to critics, Bayer’ s takeover of Monsanto could produce to powerful and overwhelming Exit force in Europe that will lead to the disappearance of the bad Monsanto's image.

The combined size of the company is likely to invite close scrutiny from regulators. It's agricultural filed potential dominant has been the center of controversy environmentally. A concentration of seed patents is also a major concern, aside from the enhanced political weight of the new combined entity. The planned merger arrives amid acquisitions in the agrochemical sector recently and in the context of a flurry of mergers. Various observers too feel Monsanto’ s name will be dropped by Bayer.

Nonetheless, the next technological advancement is often looked at by people in today’ s fast-paced society. In the future, not all moves will be considered beneficial. There is a need for better understanding of future mergers. Legitimate call for concern for GMOs foods is apparent especially when scrutinizing consequences that follow Monsanto’ s oppressive expansion.

Download free paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us