Biotechnology company Monsanto has stirred up quite a storm of controversy in the past years over their genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops. These crops were designed specifically for the use of Monsanto’s herbicide and are engineered to resist any other herbicide other than Monsanto. This product appeals to farmers because of the reduced cost and promises maximized production, however, Monsanto’s monopoly on herbicides seems to be dangerous to the environment in the long-run, and the concerns of the company seem to only be that of maximizing profits.
Similarly to the way human overuse of antibiotics has lead to a built up resistance of such drugs, the sole of Monsanto herbicide on Roundup Ready crops has caused the crops to grow resistant and into out of control “super weeds”. While this may not seem like a big deal, studies have shown that the genes in the Roundup Ready crops that are resistant to other herbicides (aside from Monsanto brand) can and have migrated to other crops that have not been genetically modified. For example, the unmodified crops found on a farm nearby could inherit these gene that cause them to become resistant to other herbicides and force farmers to purchase Monsanto brand herbicide for their crops.
As the profits of Monsanto has gone up (estimated $1 billion by 2012), the income of farmers has decline by around 34% in the past years. This is the perfect example of an unethical use of biotechnology. Where it appears as though Monsanto creates revolutionary products to help maximize the yield in crops to supply more food in the market, in reality it targets farmers who are looking to maximize their yield and unethically confines them to the sole use of their products- essentially monopolizing the market of herbicides in the United States and indirectly harming the environment by mutating the genes of unmodified crops and causing an overgrowth of weeds. As the profits of Monsanto has gone up (estimated $1 billion by 2012), the income of farmers has decline by around 34% in the past years.
Another infuriating point is that Monsanto has patented their genetically modified crop seeds, and viciously sues any farmer found with their seeds without a contract with their company. Many farmers have been unjustly forced out of business because Monsanto’s seeds were carried by the wind into their crops from a nearby farm. I find it extremely unfair and unethical that these small farms are held responsible for having Monsanto seeds in their fields when they arrived their unintentionally and by means outside of the control of the farmers. We need better policies that can not only protect the rights of these farmers but also help to regulate the monopolies large corporations have on genetically engineered crops and herbicides.
Sources:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto_and_the_Roundup_Ready_Controversy
http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=2921
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/02/04/monsanto-the-evil-corporation-in-your-refrigerator/
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0118/americas-best-company-10-gmos-dupont-planet-versus-monsanto.html
2 comments:
I think that the actions of Monsanto provide us with a necessary reality check regarding the future of biotechnology. Monsanto took advantage of what farmer's needed--and rather than providing farmer's with an affordable and logical alternative to the current state of farming, they forced them into life-long use of their product. By designing their crops to resist any other herbicide, Monsanto not only forces farmers to continue to use their product but they are also fueling the creation of "out of control 'super-weeds'".
Though Monsanto's actions are incredibly unethical and in dire need of serious repercussions, I also think that it also gives us the proper platform to reflect on the future of biotechnology. As booming technology fuels the expansion of the use of biotechnology in medicine, companies are looking to maximize on these advancements. There is a race to the top for new genetic enhancements, and companies are hoping to be the first to fully grasp these technologies and make them publicly available. We must make sure that the proper measures are in place to prevent a repeat of the Monsanto situation of the farming industry, in the medical community. Though I am not in fear of the possibility of "super-weeds" in medicine, a similar situation would still be incredibly detrimental. It would lead not only to an unfair balance among biotechnology companies, but also to the risk of complete dependence upon a certain companies medical care. If patients underwent any treatment that directly involves their genetic make-up, or really any other procedure involving biotechnology, but could only use one companies products to sustain their health after the procedure--we risk leaving anyone without viable options. Different procedures effect everyone differently, and if someone needed a slightly altered medical treatment, they would be left without another source of treatment.
Monsanto's possible monopoly of the farming industry gives us necessary warning on how to proceed further into the depths of biotechnology for the future. As the biotechnology continues to expand, companies are looking for ways to capitalize on these new treatments. But, we must make sure that the proper measures are in place to prevent any sort of dependence on one company--leaving the medically industry unfairly balanced, and patients dependent on one product and unable choose a specific course of treatment.
The problem with Monsanto and other corporations is probably their sheer size, a characteristic that plays into allowing them to monopolize the seed market in the first place. Addressing Monsanto’s almost manipulation of the legal system is too complicated to discuss in a blog comment, so let’s just stick to ethics.
Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications, in an attempt to justify the actions of the corporation, has said, ''Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job.” Yes, the F.D.A. is responsible for making sure foods and drugs are safe for use. However, I believe corporations of colossal size and influence such as Monsanto also have a responsibility to protect their consumers. Actually, all venders of any sort of product should be required to provide adequate information, preferably not in fine print, to the general public so that potential consumers can make informed decisions. This isn’t because that would be nice---I mean, yeah, it would---but rather it’s because the market is dependent on it. Not to mention, monoplies also disrupt the market, which in turn affects more than just those who are concerned with buying and selling seeds. So, the actions of Monsanto affect everyone without their consent and that, just like farmers being sued for wind-blown seeds mixing with their crops, cannot be ethical.
Several questions arise whenever Monsanto is involved: can there really be such a thing as intellectual property? What can we do to regulate the actions of this corporation? I don’t really know, but this is definitely worth discussing.
On a side note, if you're interested in this topic you should watch Michael Clayton. It's a George Clooney movie, and it's got so many Monsanto parallels.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03EFD8143DF936A15753C1A96E958260&pagewanted=print
Post a Comment