Assigment

Surname 1

Monsanto Agrochemical Company

Monsanto is an agricultural company. It applies technology and innovation to help farmers all over the world to produce more and at the same time conserve more. Monsanto help farmers to grow and yield sustainably, so that they can better animal feeds and produce more fibers. In the process, farmers will reduce impacts of agriculture on our society. Monsanto Company has headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri. It is the largest company, which produces genetically engineered seeds (Barrows & David 106). Monsanto Company has various organizations and individuals who support its move while others are against the move of Monsanto. The organizations, which were against Monsanto and Genetically Modified Organisms, are California Proposition 37 and March against Monsanto. Hugh Grant who was the CEO of Monsanto and its supporters like Organic Consumers Association, Non-GMO Project, and Greenpeace accused those who were against Monsanto and GMOs. The CEO together with the advocacy groups claimed that they wanted to block other people from choosing affordable food options.

The first group that protests against Monsanto is Proposition 37, which was a California ballot measure requiring genetically modified food to be labeled. In addition, the group wanted such food to be prohibited from being labeled as natural food. The group failed after some time before accomplishing its objectives (Tabashnik et al 501). When Proposition 37 failed, March against Monsanto emerged. March against Monsanto is a grassroots movement all over the world protesting against GMOs and Monsanto Corporation. The movement was started by Tami Canal when California Proposition 37 failed. March against Monsanto group supported the claim that was initiated by Proposition 37 who wanted a mandatory labeling of genetically modified food and were opposing the Monsanto Protection Act. March against Monsanto staged their initial protest on May 2013. The protesters took part in large numbers as it was estimated to be more than two million together with the organizers (Roger 17). The protests took place in over 330 cities all over the world but mostly it was in United States. Second march took place on October 2013, and the third was on May 2014. Canal argued that they would continue with the protest against GMO beyond the initial event.

The CEO of Monsanto together with those advocating in support of the company argued that the risks of GMO food had not been fully identified and managed. They accused those against the company that they criticize without any prove of the negative effect of GMOs. The group was also questioning the objectives of regulatory authorities, and they expressed many concerns about the objectivity of the regulatory process and the regulators. The group claimed that broad scientific consensus is taking place, and it has reported that the food supplied in the market derived from GMO crops had no greater risk compared to conventional food. As per the group in support of GMOs, no reports had been submitted indicating any ill effect of GMO food on human population (Mather 45). In many marketplaces worldwide it is required to label GMO food but in United States, it is not required which is difficult to differentiate non-GMO and GMO food. Monsanto and other manufacturers spend $45 million to fight against Proposition 37. Monsanto spends $8.1 million for it to oppose the passage of Proposition 37, and it became a major donor in the Fight against Proposition 37.

Monsanto had some strength as President Barack Obama supported it. The president signed a bill of Farmers Assurance Provision on March 2013. Monsanto Protection Act authorizes US department of agriculture cultivation and planting of GMO food. The signing of the president gave more strength to Monsanto as Senator Sanders tried to use to amend an act, but it was unsuccessful. Monsanto had enough funds and resources to fight against Proposition 37 and March against Monsanto. The company contributed $8.1 million and collectively contributed $45 million with other manufacturers (Robin 64). The company defeated the other movements as it could hire expensive lawyers to represent the company. The company had not produced scientific proves to demonstrate that GMOs had no effects on human beings. The company was only asking the movements against it to prove the fight against GMOs. The organizations and individuals against Monsanto had strength as farmers who were planting non-GMO food supported it. For example, in the March against Monsanto, most of the protesters were farmers, and some of them were the organizers. Some leaders like Senator Sanders also supported the group though it was unsuccessful. The weakness that the group had was that it had not produced a scientific prove on any effect caused by GMOs on human beings. The groups did not raise enough funds to hire expensive lawyers who would represent them in the fight against the GMOs.

The common ground for the two opposing side is to perform joint scientific tests on the GMOs. It will help them to prove if there is any effect on human beings caused by GMOs. If there is any effect, the two groups will agree whether to label the GMO food in the market or eliminate the food. If the food does not have any effect, the two groups will agree for Monsanto and other supporters to continue cultivating the plants as per the agreement.

All individuals and organizations have right to venture into any business, which does not have negative effects on human beings and the environment (Wield & Maurice 352). Monsanto Company helps farmers worldwide to produce more and conserve more, but it should be scientifically that it does not have any effect on human beings and the environment. Two opposing sides should test GMO food scientifically, and an agreement is reached on how they can operate. Scientific prove will help both sides to be satisfied as they will be sure about the effects of GMOs. It is important for the opposing sides to agree on whether the GMOs will remain the market without labels, labeled or eliminated in the market.

Annotated Bibliography

Wield, David and Maurice Bolo. "Issues in the political economy of agricultural biotechnology." Journal of Agrarian Change 10.3 (2010): 342-366.

In this study, Wield and Maurice are trying to critically analyze how agricultural biotechnology is applied by means of political, ecological science and its impacts on human beings. The authors are also trying to investigate the present technology and economics of genetically modified plants and its possibility in the future.

Barrows, Geoffrey and David Zilberman. "Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops." The Journal of Economic Perspectives 28.1 (2014): 99-119.

In this analysis, Barrows and David are examining human beings have plant genes for the development of crops suited for energy, feed, fiber, and food production. Earlier it involved modifying genes of selected plants having desirable characteristics but currently plant breeding is inherently slow and random. Plant breeding has been constrained due to available desirable characteristics of closely plants. The authors recommended further research on agricultural biotechnology.

Tabashnik, Bruce E., et al. "Defining terms for proactive management of resistance to Bt crops and pesticides." Journal of economic entomology 107.2 (2014): 496-507.

In this study, Tabashnik et al. argued that evolution dangerous pest which are resistant to the pesticides led to the development of Genetically Modified Plants. The plants could be modified genetically to be resistant to the pesticides, which led to the introduction of GMOs.

Roger, Antoine. "Agricultural Research in Romania: Rival Institutional Dependencies on Private Companies." Science as Culture ahead-of-print (2014): 1-28.

According to this study, Rogers claimed that agricultural researchers promoted large-scale intensive agriculture and agrochemical industry. The role of the researchers can be made more intelligible by incorporating scientific field.

Mather, Robin. "The threats from genetically modified foods." Mother Earth News 251 (2012): 42-51.

In this study, Mather examined effects of genetically modified food on human beings, plants, and animals. Glyphosate Roundup ingredient has caused birth defects on amphibians and birds. It has also caused cancer, disruption of the endocrine, and it has damaged DNA, development, and reproduction in mammals.

Robin, Marie-Monique. The world according to Monsanto: pollution, corruption, and the control of the world's food supply. The New Press, 2010.

Robin is examining the control of food supply, corruption and pollution conducted by Monsanto. Monsanto decided to introduce GMOs to control food supply and reduce the resistance of pests on the pesticides.