Gov DQ9

Anna:

· Does Amvac have a sustainable business strategy? Why or why not?

Despite what could be potentially unethical practices, but at the very least, a strategy that is challenged every step of the way with regulations, it appears that given the necessity of pesticides for their benefits, that the business model is sustainable. 

“The rise of biological alternatives has not ended long-term growth in pesticide sales which have risen an average of 11 percent a year since 1995 and reached a high of $10 billion in 2007. For the time being, pesticides are still needed to protect the food supply and quality of life to which Americans are accustomed.” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). 

The fact, is that the benefits of pesticides are necessary for a standard way of life, and for the foreseeable future until something safer can be developed, it seems that they will still be a necessary part of or protecting the food supply. As far as sustainability of a business strategy, Amvac, truly found a lucrative loop hole. “The ongoing shift to biological pest controls sustains its strategy. As industry giants continue to discard older pesticides, they create opportunities for Amvac.” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012).

· Should the law prohibit Amvac and others from exporting pesticides barred from use in the United States? Why or why not?

The question itself should be, if the law should enforce Amvac and other who are exporting pesticides that are barred from use in the U.S., to share all findings in regards to the dangers of the pesticides. 

“Poisonous agrochemicals have high social and environmental costs. Their use on crops and in homes causes tens of thousands of acute exposure injuries each year. Long term exposure from residues in foods, drinking water, and soil causes an unknown number of chronic illnesses including cancer, birth defects, liver poisoning, and neurological deficits. Many pesticides, especially the older organochlorines and organophosphates, do not discriminate between pests and others forms of life.” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012).  

There are clearly facts that prove these pesticides are dangerous and scientific evidence to support the specific idea. Therefore, it should be a regulated that Amavac and anyone else selling or exporting be forced to disclose this information if for nothing else then ethical reasons. 

· If economic and market conditions remain favorable for Amvac’s strategy, would you buy its stock? Why or why not?

I don’t know if I would personally want to invest in their strategy, based on ethics, but as the textbook says, “Amvac’s presence is a lesson on capitalism. Legal opportunities for profit elicit the requisite effort. Actions are justified by their overall utility.” (Steiner & Steiner, 2012). Their business model clearly works, and at this point pesticides are still necessary for protecting the food supply and therefore their model is profitable, protected and growing. Something to consider is that, environmentalists are skeptical about the efforts that Amvac is putting in place in terms of mitigating health risks for users. Any small error can lead to damages. Additionally, there are other alternatives that are less toxic however, they do cost more. (Miller, 2007). If potential for newer regulations, or for the costs to come down on the less toxic options, that could impact the business strategy long term, while positively impacting the environment and serving the intended purpose to protect crops. 

Miller, C. (2007). Pesticide maker sees profit when others see risk. Retrieved 17 August 2020, from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-apr-08-me-amvac8-story.html

Steiner, J. F., & Steiner, G. A. (2012). Business, government, and society: A managerial perspective: Text and cases. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Starletta:

Does AMVAC have a sustainable business strategy? Why or why not?

I believe that AMVAC has a sustainable business strategy.  I believe this because since 1945, AMVAC has successfully served the results-driven global markets through development, manufacturing and marketing products for agricultural and commercial use (AMVAC, 2020). AMVAC will always have products that have discarded for various reasons such as new products, new policies or government sanctions, and/or lawsuits.  For whatever reason, AMVAC has been in business with non-traditional business methods for over six decades.  Something is going right, could it be selling overseas, less expensive after their purchase or that there will always be someone that cannot afford the new age products.  For whatever the reason, one thing is for sure, AMVAC has a sustainable business strategy.   

Should the law prohibit Amvac and others from exporting pesticides barred from use in the United States? Why or why not?

I think the law should prohibit AMVAC from exporting pesticides barred from use in the United States, because if we know that products are causing harm to people in the United States then they should be everywhere.  I feel that as companies learn that their products have been and can be exceptionally dangerous to human health in terms of acute and long-term exposures (Book,), we should ethically and legally prohibit the exportation of these pesticides. 

If economic and market conditions remain favorable for Amvac’s strategy, would you buy its stock? Why or why not?

I would not buy AMVAC’s stock, due to the reasons I stated above.  I whole heartly feel that we cannot and should not sell products that we in the United States have barred due to unhealthy reasons, acute and long-term.  

  References 

 AMVAC. 2020. About.