Está en la página 1de 8

Introduction Monsanto Corporation

Monsanto is an agricultural company. Farmers around the world use their innovative products to produce more while conserving more. They help farmers to grow yield in a sustainable way and to reduce agriculture's overall impact on our environment. Their business is defined by their seeds-and-traits strategy, so they are constantly looking at new ways to maximize the potential of seed for farmers both its yield and the technology used to protect that yield.Their work provides farmers with fresh ways to get more out of each seed. Farmers use their seed-based products to help them protect their harvest from weeds and insects, and produce healthier, more abundant foods, more nutritious animal feeds, better quality fiber and renewable fuels. Their business works to meet the needs of farmers through two business segments:

Seeds and Traits


y y y Corn, cotton, wheat and oilseeds In-the-seed traits that protect against bugs and weeds Vegetables and fruit seeds

Agricultural Productivity
y Crop protection products for farms, public spaces and gardens

Monsanto Leading Brands


Monsanto offers farmers more choices than any other company in the industry. Its unique approach to serve farmercustomers allows them to buy traits and seeds in the brands they want, however they want to purchase them. In each of their core crops, they are reaching the market through multiple channels. The largest field areas are the USA (64 million hectares). About Fourteen million farmers use GM plants worldwide. The majority of these are in developing nations (13 million).Monsanto produces leading seed brands in large-acre crops like corn, cotton, and oilseed (soybeans and canola), as well as small-acre crops like vegetables. They also produce leading in-the-seed trait technologies for farmers that are aimed at protecting their yield, supporting their on-farm efficiency and reducing their on-farm costs. As a company, they remain committed to broadly licensing their seed and trait technologies to

other companies throughout the world. This approach ensures that farmers can access their products in the varieties that mean the most to their farm.Some of their leading North American brands are:

Monsanto Leading
Seed treatment See Herbici

Genetically Modified Food & Monsanto Research on it


Genetically modified foods are foods that have had their DNA altered through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering involves inserting genes from one species into the DNA of another species. These new genes will result in different traits being expressed in that food. Some examples of genetically modified foods include wheat, corn, tomatoes, potatoes, rice, barley and many others.The major GMO crops worldwide are Soya, Maize, Rapeseed, Cotton, its Global cultivation areas, in millions of hectares.

Monsantos current marketing strategy, in the developing as in the developed world, revolves around the promotion of standardized, scientifically defined high technology packages that centre on a few cash crops, especially transgenic cotton and maize and conventional hybrid maize. Instead of adapting the technology to suit the farmers requirements, Monsanto expects smallholder farmers to change, using Monsantos seed and herbicide inputs to make the transition to a more commercially oriented agriculture. Monsanto today has approximately 95 percent of
2

all soybeans and approximately 80 percent of all corn in the United States grows from seeds genetically altered according to Monsanto company patents.

According to our view for the research papers, Monsanto uses ruthless contractual agreements to spread its technology. In fact, they have given approximately 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes into their separate strains of corn and soybeans which are their high selling products around the globe.

Risks/Rewards of GMO product to Monsanto and its Stakeholders


Since the first introduction on the market in the mid-1990s of a major GM food (herbicide-resistant soybeans), there has been increasing concern about such food among politicians, activists and consumers, especially in Europe. Several factors are involved.In the late 1980s early 1990s, the results of decades of molecular research reached the public domain. Until that time, consumers were generally not very aware of the potential of this research. In the case of food, consumers started to wonder about safety because they perceive that modern biotechnology is leading to the creation of new species. Consumers frequently ask, What is in it for me? Where medicines are concerned, many consumers more readily accept biotechnology as beneficial for their health (e.g. medicines with improved treatment potential). In the case of the first GM foods introduced onto the European market, the products were of no apparent direct benefit to consumers (not cheaper, no increased shelf-life, no better taste). The potential for GM seeds to result in bigger yields per cultivated area should lead to lower prices. However, public attention has focused on the risk side of the riskbenefit equation. Consumer confidence in the safety of food supplies in Europe has decreased significantly as a result of a number of food scares that took place in the second half of the 1990s that are unrelated to GM foods. This has also had an impact on discussions about the acceptability of GM foods. Consumers have questioned the validity of risk assessments, both with regard to consumer health and environmental risks, focusing in particular on long-term effects. Other topics for debate by consumer organizations have included allergenicity and antimicrobial resistance. Consumer concerns have triggered a discussion on the desirability of labelling GM foods, allowing an informed

choice. At the same time, it has proved difficult to detect traces of GMOs in foods: this means that very low concentrations often cannot be detected. Political Concern The U.S. government has classified GMOs as mere additives in food, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is not required to approve them prior to sale and marketing to consumers. Nor is there a labeling requirement for genetically engineered products. Nonetheless, public opinion in the U.S. is rapidly shifting in favor of stricter regulations and mandatory labeling for GM products. According to a recent poll by Time magazine, 81% of Americans want GM food to be labeled. Political Analysis U.S. (2010) Social concerns Much of the controversy about the use of GMOs is about labeling and choice. Consumers are demanding the right to choose whether they want or not to eat these products. Producers of GMOs, on the other hand, resist labeling as prohibitively costly and out of fear that consumers might shun GMO products. Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns. (2010). The use of food crops to create pharmaceutical products presents a whole other level of hazard. In 2002, a USA biotechnology company allowed experimental plants engineered to produce medicines. There are extreme difficulties of containing the spread of plant seeds and pollen in the field because of the possibility of accidental mixture of pharm crops with other crops destined for human or animal consumption which have create a ban of this used. (Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns. (2010). y NGOs Attempts to Contain GMOs.  NGO efforts are largely responsible for the American publics newfound concern over GMOs. In late fall 1999; Greenpeace invaded cereal maker Kelloggs headquarters in Battle Creek, Michigan, to protest the companys use of genetically engineered grains. Political Analysis U.S.(2010)  Many U.S. environmentalist and consumer activist groups have since launched their own campaigns against GMOs, although Greenpeace remains one of the most vocal organizations in the U.S. Political Analysis U.S.(2010)

 Through its True Food Network, Greenpeace has been instrumental in pressuring companies such as Heinz and Gerber to drop genetically altered soybeans and corn from their baby formulas. Political Analysis U.S.(2010) Regulatory concerns The concern over the safety of genetically engineered products has also begun to infiltrate U.S. politics. y In late February 1999, 65 plaintiffs, including Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements, filed a lawsuit in the district court of Washington D.C. against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on grounds that it had acted unlawfully in its approvals of crops engineered to produce Bt toxin, a gene-modified insecticide produced by the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis.1[2] The suit demands that the EPA immediately withdraws its approval of all Bt plants and refrain from making any new approvals until a complete, scientific environmental impact assessment has been carried. (1) Political Analysis U.S.(2010) y In October 1999, Representatives David Bonior, Dennis Kucinich, and Chris Shayes and 46 other House members sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Jane Henney calling for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. A month later, Representative Kucinich introduced Bill H.R. 3377, the "Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, which states that all foods that contain or are produced with genetically engineered material must be labeled. Political Analysis U.S.(2010) Ecological concerns The natural world (plants, seeds, animals, etc.) has intrinsic value. Human interaction with the natural world is not a relationship of control over or dominance of; the human posture should be of deep respect for and interaction with it. Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns.(2010).The earth is the product of millions of years of evolution and it is very complex. GMOs have some benefits but their future consequences for humans and the rest of creation are unknown. The expression of genetic information is the result of complex interactions within the living organism and between the organism and its environment and still there are not scientist that can predict what will happen over timeas a

result of the introduction of genetically modified organisms into the environment. Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns.(2010). y Problems have already begging; pollen from genetically modified plants is spread by the wind and has been found to have pollinated plants in fields where GMOs were not planted. In Mexico the planting of genetically modified corn is prohibited, but has been found in several parts of the country because small farmers experimentally planted corn that had been imported from the U.S. for food and animal feed. In Canada organic canola farmers complain that it is no longer possible to grow canola that can be certified as organic because of GMO contamination.Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns.(2010). Another negative issue is the effect of GMOs on biodiversity. The natural genetic diversity of the organisms is likely to be lost and this is a very critical issue because the natural genetic diversity is a form of insurance against unforeseen natural disasters.Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns.(2010).

Issues that is significant that should be documented from the perspective of Monsanto or any of its stakeholders
Monsanto is one of the world's largest agricultural biotech companies. Their products makes pollution causing the area to become one of the most contaminated in the country. People living in the area now suffer from a toxic amount of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chemicals that cause cancer, a weakened immune system, neurological deficits and birth defects. It is so dangerous that children cannot play in the soil and people are told not to plant food in their yards and to wear masks when cutting the grass. Evidence shows that the company was fully aware of the harmful effects of dumping PCBs into the environment, yet thoroughly ignored them so as not to "lose one dollar of business." This is far from an isolated event: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labeled the company as a "potentially responsible party" for about 93 contaminated sites in the United States. Monsanto also (with allegations of bribery) illegally dumped many toxic pollutants into several British landfills. Roundup, an herbicide and one of Monsanto's leading products, is believed to have major negative health and environmental effects. Since patent laws are still valid for its compositional makeup, however, researchers cannot isolate which chemicals within the product cause the harmful results.
6

Monsanto abuses its immensely disproportionate amount of power at the cost of small businesses and the public good. The patent on Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) seeds makes it possible for them to sue small organic and conventional farmers, whose fields are naturally contaminated by the manufactured GM seeds carried by insects, wind and other animals. By suing these farmers, Monsanto is able to gain ownership of the farmer's crop, prevent future harvests and, at times, impose fines or, in rare cases, jail time. Monsanto not only affects local economies, one of Britain's top organic organizations found that since 1999, GM seeds have cost the United States $12 billion in farm subsidies, lower prices for crops, loss of major export orders and product recalls. Nontransparent practices of Monsanto are in stark contradiction with the public's interest. With much influence and misinformation from Monsanto, the Food and Drug Administration not only approved the use of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone, which is injected into cows to increase milk production and has been banned in Europe, Canada and many other countries for health concerns, but also ruled that milk from treated cows does not have to include a label indicating so. When reporters from a FOXowned TV station in Florida launched an investigation piece about the harmful effects of bovine growth hormone and Monsanto's wielding of power to get it on the market, the company threatened legal action in order to silence the story. This kind of censorship dilutes the public's awareness and discourages the dialogue and action needed to protect the wellbeing of those exploited by the powerhungry institutions that dominate corporate America.

USDA released its Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on December 16, 2010, Monsantos genetically engineered Roundup Ready Alfalfa. The EIS was conducted in response to a court decision demanding more thorough analysis of the potential environmental, economic and health impacts of GE alfalfa before approving deregulation. The EIS outlines three options for addressing GE alfalfa:

1.

Fully deregulate it (allow it to be planted anywhere)

2.

Fully regulate it (non-production; USDA has indicated this is not an option it would pursue)

3.

Conditionally deregulate it (allow GE alfalfa to be grown with certain rules and restrictions USDA would

impose to minimize or limit contamination of non-GE crops)


7

Shortly after releasing the EIS, USDA indicated their preference for the third option and asked the biotech, non-GE and organic communities to convene to try and find common ground for formulating rules and restrictions under conditional deregulation.

Conclusion
Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. The safety assessment of GM foods generally investigates: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion.The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as outcrossing), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

Bibliography
http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2011/01/urgent-action-needed-to-support-organics-and-non-ge-crops/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food http://www.tuftsdaily.com/op-ed/monsanto-does-not-meet-tufts-standards-of-environmentalsustainability-1.2547697 y y y http://www.monsanto.com/products/Documents/Wheat-PDFs/monsanto-wheat-update.pdf http://www.steps-centre.org/PDFs/GM%20Crops%20web%20final_small.pdf http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/ 8

y y y

También podría gustarte