Monsanto Agrochemical Company has been in existence since 1901 when it was started by John Francis Queeny (Gorman, Hertz, and Magpili 3). Monsanto's objective was to promote green evolution that would ensure production of food enough to feed the world's increasing population. However, this agenda was abandoned when Green evolution became gene evolution in the 1990s. Today, its chief mandate has been to help farmers around the world to produce crops through the exploitation of the soil, water, and energy. Monsanto's achieves this goal through the provision of sufficient food enabled by the use of biotechnology and information technology (Gorman et al. 3). Nevertheless, in the recent past, there have been mixed reactions characterized by acceptance and gross complaints about the safety of the fertilizers provided by Monsanto to farmers. Dewayne Jonson Case confirmed the truth in hundreds of cases filed against Monsanto claiming that Roundup, fertilizer, was the cause of non-Hodgkin lymphoma which is a deadly blood cancer (Johnson v. Monsanto Company). A court ruling in favor of Mr. Dewayne Johnson alerted the world to the possibility that the hundreds of complaints may be justified. Discussion of these allegations and an outline of the benefits that farmers and the consumers derive from Monsanto form the basis for this paper.
Benefits Achieved from Genetic Modification (GM) and Monsanto’s Initiatives
a. Community Welfare
Monsanto has an articulated program that promotes the community's welfare through projects such as the Monsanto Fund. Communities are able to access the grants to support innovation in schools and scholarships for future agriculture students. Monsanto spent $8.8 million in giving in the years 2008-2008 (Monsanto 2). Education in Canada, through Monsanto in the years 2008-2009, has been made available for 21000 aboriginal youths and 4,000 girls as an initiative to support those who are discriminated and underprivileged (Monsanto 3). Giving back to the community creates a sustainable business strategy which requires conduction of business that accounts for the interest of the society within which the firm is.
Technological Innovations
Monsanto has occupied a leading role in the promotion of GM in plants to ensure sustainable food economy. Greater possibilities have been opened through genetic engineering, traditional plant breeding, crop protection, monitoring plant health, and research and development which continue to shape the agricultural sector.
i. Plant Breeding
Plant breeding is a technique used to create plants exhibiting unique characteristics such as drought tolerance, increased yield and pest resistance. The technique follows natural methods whereby nature is nudged through the laws of heredity to produce highly viable crop breeds (George).
ii. Genetic Engineering And Genetically Modified Organisms
The discovery of DNA and mapping of the plant and human genome has revolutionized human understanding of agriculture and medicine (Erdmann and Barciszewski). Monsanto has taken on genetic engineering to develop crops with abilities to withstand adverse weather conditions and generate high yields which have helped to stabilize food security ("Hidden, Uncovering” 16). United States has become the hub of genetically modified organisms (GMO) whereby it has continued to host the largest land for GMO farming and the efforts of lobby groups that continue to push for GMO acceptance which provides farmers with opportunity to reap the benefits of GMO crops ("Hidden, Uncovering” 16).
GMO constitutes a large portion of Monsanto’s products; in 2002, Monsanto contributed to 92% of the global genetically modified seeds ("Hidden, Uncovering” 6). GMO seed is constituted in four steps. The desired trait is first identified from nature, the gene coding for the trait is then identified, extracted and multiplied through the Polymerase Chain Reaction. Genes of interest are then inserted into the desired crop; the gene is later on expressed and a new breed of crops with adaptive features is generated (Donald 38-68). Tests are then conducted to determine whether the crop is safe for human consumption and approved for consumption if it passes the test (Donald 38-68). Seeds of sugar beets, corn, potato, canola, apple, alfalfa, soybeans, papaya, cotton, and zucchini are examples of seeds produced with this technique.
Benefits associated with GMO seeds include promoting the efficient use of resources since planting a little portion of land results in doubling or tripling of yields. GMO seeds are also resistant to pests and diseases which enable them to thrive and generate higher yields.
iii. Food evolution
Food evolution documentary, narrated by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, clears the doubt that has been linked with GMO products (YouTube). The video attributes controversial concerns to a lack of information on the GMO products (YouTube). Information is a power that can be used to create fear as well as motivation. Information has been used in GMO discussions to create fear as seen in the lack of awareness among those who oppose the subject of GMO (YouTube). Most are influenced by the society of scientific speakers who use complicated terms and confuse the audience. Arguing in favor of GMO is not intended to cover-up the harmful impacts of GMO products, the point is to create a balanced understanding of the benefits and limitations of GMO products. GMO crops are contributing a lot in supporting life on earth. The environmental conditions, presently, do not favor crop production. This need is supplied by GMO foods. It is important to note that GMO is not an accidental invention. It is a need motivated by the lack of sufficient food and the changing climatic conditions. In case these factors were stable, there would be no need for developing GMO. Necessity drives the need for invention; where there is need, solutions must be developed to solve the situation. The main argument here is to show that GMO is a present reality unless human practices will be altered to reverse climatic conditions and practice of organic farming.
Unwarranted Fear
Genetic modification has been practiced since humanity exercised farming (Hensel and Aspnes). The need for developing the best breed and crop verities have been pursued to increase productivity and ensure food security. These methods were pursued through natural approaches such as selective breeding where the best cattle were crossbred with finest ones and selective farming where seeds perceived to produce large seeds or huge harvests were encouraged at the expense of those deemed to have inferior traits. Unknowingly, the farmers ensured the crossing of genes thus practicing Genetic modification. Then it was not a concern, the issue has become controversial with the introduction of laboratory practices to enhance plant and animal qualities (YouTube). The major difference between these two practices is the methodology used however the motive is to improve production quality.
Having noted that the processes are similar in intent with a difference in the means, there is no reason for fear or opposition to GMOs especially where the technology is practiced under ethical and bio-safety guidelines. The advantage of the former technique is its ability to speed up the process as compared to the later that would take years or months to arrive at the desired features. Also, the latter can be directed unlike the former where the farmer has no control of the product (Zhang et al. 2016). Looking critically into the matter, in light of the increasing world population and land crowding with little productive land for farming, GMO technology is required to generate results that can meet the demands of the growing population as shown on figure 1. Therefore, the fear existing in opposition to GMO is unwarranted especially when GMO provides the viable solution to present food crisis.
Figure 1. increasing world population
Figure 1 indicates a constant increase in the world population since 1950. The population in 2015 was approximately 7.5 billion. The projection indicates that the population is likely to increase to above 13 billion or stagnate at 9.2 billion by 2100. In both cases, the population is most likely to increase which indicates a threat to food security unless measures such as GMO are accepted and adopted widely.
A major difference exists in the two methods however the main aim is to enhance genetic features: conventional methods enhances, through natural selection, features that have existed in the plant while GM involves the introduction of new DNA material into the plant host’s cell to improve its qualities (Michael 1).
The changing economic practices are also motivating GMO production. People are abandoning farming for other occupations. This results in fewer and fewer farmers taking on farming. A vacuum is then created and a need for sufficient food surplus. This need can only be met through the production of food at a rapid rate and in large scale. Traditional methods are incapable of achieving these feet unless a greater percentage of people had returned to their farms to meet the growing food demand.
Harmful Effects of the GMO Processes and Products
Genetic modification of seeds by the Monsanto Company has resulted in several disadvantages to the human consumers and the environment.
Human Consumers
GMO crops produced by Monsanto have been linked to cancer disease. An example of such complaint was the Dewayne Johnson case in which Johnson claimed to have developed blood cancer from his continuous use of Monsanto products. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson stating that the company had an obligation to warn him of the health effects of the products (Johnson v. Monsanto Company). Most people suffer such critical health effects albeit unknowingly until it is too late. GMO production and sale without warning of the harmful health side effects is a violation of people’s right to accurate information and life (Bazar, Gardam, and Price, 6).subtle introduction of such products can only be perceived as malicious and intended to profit the company at the expense of the consumers.
Another challenge faced by farmers and people who use GMO products is labeling. Failure to label goods as either GMO or non-GMO has led to health concerns since the contents of GMO are harmful for the consumption of some individuals; especially suckling babies. Introduction of pharmaceutical properties in crops is a special area of concern. Monsanto has been in the habit of growing crops with pharmaceutical genes which raises issues of contamination and consumption of such products to the health of human beings (“Hidden, Uncovering” 6). Labels lacking on GMO related products means that companies take no liability for any health effects of such products. Thus, people’s health is endangered by GMO products and yet Monsanto does not want to be accountable for such harms.
Environmental Impacts
GMO seeds require the use of fertilizers to enhance their productivity accompanied by the use of pesticides for a healthy crop yield. Consequently, the purchase of fertilizers has significantly increased the cost of farming; thereby decreasing the profits earned from farming. The fertilizers and the pesticides pollute water used by the farmers which pose health risks to the farmers and the society. Leaching of these chemicals to water bodies can have unintended harm to aquatic ecosystems and change the organism population and distribution in the water bodies. Humans will be impacted indirectly through this process in events such as reduced food supply, fish, and harmful side effects when consuming untreated water (Shafi, 149).
The controversial product by Monsanto is known as Roundup which was introduced in the 1970s. Roundup became popular in the market due to its ability to kill weeds (Hakim). Nevertheless, farmers have complained about its cancerous content known as glyphosate (Mills, Linda, and Laughlin, 1385). Roundup encourages the growth of superweeds which are difficult to manage without stronger pesticides. Pesticides can, therefore, be observed to cause serious environmental effects by destroying beneficial plants and enhancing the survival of super-weeds whose control are not yet known to scientific approaches. Introduction of superweeds demonstrates the harmful abilities of the chemicals to introduce novel traits that can end up sweeping out other beneficial crops making human survival and other animals difficult. Novel traits have been a great concern in the GMO world, fears are constantly raised on the capabilities of such products to introduce new genes to harmful organisms and result in biological disasters (“Hidden, Uncovering” 41).
Cross contamination is also a major problem with the GMO crops (“Hidden, Uncovering" 6). For example, fields cultivated with various strains of maize (natural and GM) can result in cross-pollination across the fields and passage of unintended abilities to the natural variant. Consistent cultivation of this nature will eventually result in the loss of native varieties. Using strong herbicides is harmful to the health of the soil, in the long run, making farmers dependent on pesticides in their farming which generates the constant need for chemicals and consequent environmental pollution (Grierson 2013).
Mexico has reported several transgenic cases involving the transfer of Transgenic DNA into traditional maize landraces in the country (Ricroch 810). Insecurity arose among the farmers who have insisted, traditionally, that they plant pure breeds (uncontaminated with genetic engineering).
Patenting and Labeling
Patenting of both GM and native seeds is an initiative to monopolize the seed market. From the 1990s, Monsanto has been patenting not only GMOs but also non-GMO seeds and engaging itself in patents cases at the law courts (“Hidden, Uncovering” 13). Besides, the company is also in the business of buying out other seed companies. The reason for patents is to ensure that farmers could not save seeds and would lose ownership of their seeds. In a year, Monsanto spends 8 billion dollars used to buy seed companies. With time the ownership of seeds shifted from the farmers to the corporation who currently own 93% of GM Soy market and 86% of GM corn (Harris). Farmers are thus made dependent to Monsanto and must buy seeds from corporations every year. Monsanto also forces farmers to comply with rules and regulations in their contracts that essentially put the farmers at a juridical disadvantage. One of the documentaries contains three farmers named David Runyon, Troy Roush, and Moe Parr who were wrongly accused of infringing Monsanto’s patent rights. They made the documentary to make the world aware of Monsanto’s reckless business policies. One of them, a 5th generation farmer narrates how he was falsely accused by Monsanto’s patent infringement (Monsanto vs Farmers). Court expenditure amounted to $400,000 and out of court expenses. In other cases, Monsanto has sued 142 farmers and 27 states for allegedly violating their technology agreements (Monsanto vs Farmers). Farmers affiliated to Monsanto and independent farmers like David cannot exercise their independence anymore, such as crossbreeding, in the presence of Monsanto without risking an expensive lawsuit.
Defense of the Monsanto Company
In its defense, Monsanto Company claims that it has fulfilled the required regulations as required by the government. In fact, a statement by the National Academy of Sciences qualifies their products stating that they found “no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between currently commercialized genetically engineered crops” (Specialty Food Association). Comprehensive detail of this study established that only 39% agreed to the consumption of GM foods, 27% disagreed while 30% were uncertain (Specialty Food Association). From this report, a total of 57% of the participants were not agreeing which makes the report's claim false.
Monsanto’s international relation raises questions as to whether they care about the welfare of their consumers. Washington Post reports the case involving Monsanto's top executive for having bribed an Indonesian official to override laws on the environment (Washington Post). Mail released during court hearings exposed the extent to which Monsanto is willing to go to protect its image and the continued use of Roundup chemical which has been found to be extremely poisonous; the company has used journalists and other publishers to manipulate users into believing its safety (Hakim).
Conclusion
The subject of GMO is a widely contested debate. Food lies at the center o human life and every move was taken to improve food production must be considered in the proper light. Understanding and beliefs about GMO vary widely which has led to varied opinions with one quarter supporting and the other opposing GMO food production. GMOs have helped to stabilize food security. Climatic changes present crops with challenging environmental conditions that hardly favor their growth. GMO technology has enabled scientists to produce crop varieties that can withstand the adverse climatic conditions and pests. Farmers can plant and harvest with limited fear of crop loss. However, the GMOs crops have adverse impacts on the environment such as the introduction of novel traits, the spread of super-weed, introduction of crops with pharmaceutical traits and the general concern that native crop varieties will soon be extinct. Besides these, farmers are losing their independence to established corporations such as Monsanto which continue to suppress farmers' choice by court cases and patent rights. This notwithstanding, the benefits of GMO to humanity overrides the harm that results from their use. Fear can only be justified where the native crops are threatened. All the same, societies and the globe has grown dependent on GMO crops and drawn economic sustenance from it.
Works Cited
Erdmann, Volker A., and Jan Barciszewski, eds. DNA and RNA Nanobiotechnologies in Medicine: Diagnosis and Treatment of Diseases. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
Gorman, Michael E., Michael Hertz, and Luna P. Magpili. "Combining Ethics and Design: Monsanto and Genetically-Modified Organisms." age 5 (2000): 1.
Grierson, Donald. Plant Genetic Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
Hakim, D. “Monsanto Emails Raise Issue of Influencing Research on Roundup Weed Killer" NewYork Times. Aug. 1, 2007. Web. Dec. 12, 2018.
Hakim, Danny. "Monsanto Weed Killer Roundup Faces new Doubts on Safety in Unsealed Documents." New York Time. Mar, 14, 2017. Web. Dec. 12, 2018.
Hansen, Michael. "Genetic Engineering is not an Extension of Conventional Plant Breeding: How Genetic Engineering Differs from Conventional Breeding, Hybridization, Wide Crosses, and Horizontal Gene Transfer." Consumer Policy Institute/Consumer’s Union (2000).
Harris, P. Monsanto Sued Small Farmers to Protect Seed Patents, report says. The Guardian. Feb 12, 2019.Web. dec. 12, 2018.
Hensel, A. and Aspnes, S. The Explosion of Genetically Modified Crops have Changed Agriculture, but not without Controversy. Omaha world herald. May, 18. 2014. Web. Dec. 12, 2018.
Hidden, Uncovering. "Monsanto & Genetic Engineering: Risks for Investors." (2003).
Johnson v. Monsanto Company, No. 16-cv-01244-MMC (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2016).
Monsanto vs Farmers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNvW-uGBTSk
Monsanto. The Organizations and Programs the Monsanto Fund Supports are as Varied as the Places around the Globe where we do Business. Web. 2009.
Ricroch, Agnès E., Michèle Guillaume-Hofnung, and Marcel Kuntz."The ethical concerns about transgenic crops." (2018): 803-811.
Shafi, S.M., Environmental Pollution. Atlantic Publishers and Distributers. 2005.
Specialty food association. Survey: Americans Confused over GMOs. Specialty food news. July 20, 2016. Web. Dec. 12, 2018.
Washington Post. “Former Executive of Monsanto Fined for Bribing Indonesian Official”. Washington Post. Mar. 7, 2007. Web. Dec. 12, 2018.
YouTube. Food Evolution movie trailer (2017). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bw06BVC3FM
YouTube. Neil deGrasse Tyson - responds to GMO Food Critics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNtCV67biBA
Zhang, Chen, Robert Wohlhueter, and Han Zhang. "Genetically modified foods: A critical review of their promise and problems." Food Science and Human Wellness 5.3 (2016): 116-123.
