Monsanto Paper
By
Raikirat Sohi
MBA 505 Foundation of Management
A. Hetro
Jay S. Sidhu School of Business and Management
November 18, 2014

COMPANY HISTORY AND PROFILE
Monsanto is one of the Fortune 500 Company with its headquarters located in St. Louis, Missouri, United States. It employs 21183 employee globally providing 146 facilities in In USA alone, it employees 10277 employees distributing 404 facilities over 66 countries (Monsanto, 2014). It is an American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It serves its customers with products ranging from agricultural and vegetable seeds, plant biotechnology traits to crop protection chemicals. In present times it is the leading manufacturer of genetically engineered seeds and herbicide glyphosate marketed under brand name round up (Monsanto, 2014). It was founded in 1901by John F. Queeny with his wife Olga Monsanto Queeny. The first produce that was manufactured by this company was saccharin (the artificial sweetener) that was sold to Coca-Cola Company. By 1905, Monsanto benefitted ad progressed through the sale of vanillin and caffeine. During the time of World war 2 Monsanto was unable to import chemicals that were needed by them from Europe so in order to compensate that it started producing chemicals on its own. Monsanto went public in Stock exchange in 1929. During this era of 1920’s Monsanto expanded in chemical industries producing sulphuric acid and PCB’s. Monsanto’s first PCB manufacturing plant was situated in Illinois. With studies on PCB’s it was found that they are the deadliest carcinogens known to humans, which are linked to disorders relating to immune system, birth defects, cancer and deaths and after that they were banned in 1970’s. In 1935, Monsanto indulged in the manufacturing of detergents and soap products and expanded to plastic by 1938 (Anonymous, 2014). During 1939 to 1946, Monsanto researched intensively on the uranium extraction from Manhattan project. Monsanto created the first nuclear bomb in Manhattan project spraying deadly chemicals, PCB’s and DDT during the Vietnam War (Anonymous, 2014).
In 1946, Monsanto produced "All" laundry detergent and started its marketing but later on in 1957 this product line was sold to Lever Brothers. In 1954 Monsanto made a partnership with German chemical giant Bayer to create Mobay and marketed polyurethanes in the United States. Then after that in 1944, Monsanto started the manufacturing of DDT. This insecticide was much welcomed in the fight against malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. But due to its toxicity, it was banned in 1972 in US. Following that period, Monsanto stopped producing PCBs in 1977 (Anonymous, 2014).
In the 1960s and 1970s, Monsanto was also one of the most important producers of Agent Orange for United States Armed Forces operations in Vietnam. Monsanto partnered with I.G. Farben, makers of toxic Bayer aspirin and Hitler’s go-to chemical. Together, all these companies used their collective expertise in genocide to introduce aspartame, another deadly neurotoxin, into the food supply. In 1968, Monsanto with its initiation became the first company to start mass production of LED’s (Light Emitting Diodes) using gallium arsenide phosphide (Anonymous, 2014).
Monsanto scientists were the first ones to genetically modify a plant cell, and they publishing their results in 1983. In 1988, Monsanto conducted the first field tests of genetically engineered crops (Anonumous1, 2013). In 1985, Monsanto acquired G. D. Searle & Company, a company focused on pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and animal health. In 1993, Monsanto's Searle division filed a patent application for Celebrex which became the first selective COX‑2 inhibitor to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1998 (Anonymous, 2014).
In 1994, Monsanto introduced a recombinant version of bovine somatotropin, which was developed to increase milk production in cows. In 1996; Monsanto acquired the plant biotechnology assets of Agracetus and purchased a share in Calgene, another biotech research company. In the same year, Roundup Ready Soybeans were introduced creating a sense of revolutionary seed for farmers (Anonymous, 2014). In 2000, Monsanto entered into a merger and changed its name to Pharmacia Corporation. In 2001 Monsanto became the first agrochemical company to introduce a second-generation trait product when it introduced Roundup Ready Corn 2.With mergers and acquisition over time, Monsanto became the largest seed supplier of world (Monsanto, 2014).
Now in order to understand its ethical violations, we will discuss some of its products and their unethical consequences on the world.
CURRENT PRODUCTS
Glyphosate Herbicide (Round-up)
Roundup Ready crops are the crops that are genetically modified to be resistant to the herbicide Roundup. Roundup is the name given to herbicide that is produced by Monsanto. Its active ingredient glyphosate was patented by the company in the 1970s. It is widely used by both people in their backyards and farmers in their fields. Roundup Ready plants are resistant to Roundup, so farmers that plant these Round-up seeds must use Roundup to keep other weeds from growing in their fields. So it is kind of a bound in which farmers get trapped (Delano, 2009).
In 1996, Monsanto developed the first Roundup Ready crops, with the introduction of genetically modified soybeans that are resistant to Roundup. These crops were initially developed to help farmers control weeds. Because the new crops are resistant to Roundup, the herbicide can be used in the fields to eliminate unwanted foliage. Current Roundup Ready crops are soy, corn, canola, cotton, sorghum, and wheat. Roundup Ready crop seeds are referred to as "terminator seeds." This is because of the fact that the crops produced from Roundup Ready seeds are sterile and they can’t be re-used in every agriculture cycle. Each year, farmers must purchase the most recent pocket of seeds from Monsanto. This means that farmers cannot reuse their best seed. This is done in order to bound farmers in the trap to utilize their liquid assets on seeds so as to benefit seed manufacturers like Monsanto (Barlett and Steele, 2008).
Genetically Modified Seeds Genetically modified foods (or GM foods) are foods produced from organisms that have had specific changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering. First genetically modified organism was salmon fish and comparing it with a normal fish it was comparatively huge. The genetically engineered larger Aqua advantage salmon rose twice as fast the regular salmon. Then the technology was implemented to produce seeds. There has not been sufficient animal health testing and human health testing and environmental impact study of these transgenic fish. Companies like Monsanto have taken Agriculture as base model and created an industrial model which doesn’t fit in nature (Null, 2013).
FORMER PRODUCTS
Saccharin
Monsanto’s first product was the artificial sweetener saccharin, which it sold to Coca-Cola and canned food companies as a sugar replacement. But as the health consequences of the sweetener were being questioned by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists in 1907, its production was question which was a coal tar product totally devoid of food value and extremely injurious to health (Lee, 2011).
Even after so much lashing, this sweetener is now marketed in the market with a warning label in 1970’s when its cancer causing effects were found in rats in laboratory experiment (Lee, 2011).
PCB’s (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
It was a chemical that was mainly used as a coolant and lubricants in electrical equipment. PCBs are carcinogenic and caused problems with liver, immune system, reproductive system, skin, eyes and brain, and even cause cancer in animals and likely in humans as well, among other health effects (Anonymous2, 2012). rBGH(recombinant bovine growth hormone)
Monsanto developed and sold rBGH, a synthetic hormone that was meant to increase milk production by 10–15% when injected into cows. In October 2008, Monsanto sold off this business enterprise to Eli Lilly. The use of rBST has been controversial, with respect to its effects on cows to which it is injected and with respect to the milk produced by those cows. It has been banned in 27 countries excluding US (Anonymous3, 2012). The point that needs to be taken into consideration is that if human IGF-1 (Insulin Growth Factor-1) levels increase cancer related side effects, and “Milk from rBGH-treated cows contains higher levels of IGF-1”.Humans also naturally have IGF-1, and increased levels in humans have been linked to colon and breast cancer. Even though no direct connection has been made between elevated IGF-1 levels in milk and elevated IGF-1 levels or cancer in humans, some scientists have expressed concern over the possibility of this relationship” (Anonymous3, 2012). So it can be well imagined on how harmful rBGH can be for human consumption.

Agent Orange
Agent Orange was a unique mixture of 2 herbicides that the government used in the Vietnam War to protect its soldiers. They sprayed this as a defoliant so that soldiers could see through the thick jungle foliage.
ETHICAL VOILATIONS
Vietnam War Destruction
Use of Agent Orange in Vietnam war by the US army left disastrous after effects. More than 11 million gallons of Agent Orange was dumped on South Vietnam, turning whole forests into barren wastelands. The chemicals remained in the soil and the food chain, and the Vietnamese live in constant exposure to them till today (Korn, 1991). According to the sources of Monsanto, they don’t consider them liable for the Agent Orange consequences since they were quoted saying that they produced Agent Orange only for the Government and it was governments responsibility to utilise it in ethical ways (Monsanto, 2014).
PCB Pollution
The event that is linked with PCB poisoning is of the dumping of toxic wastes in Anniston along the coast of Hudson River. During the 40 years of their PCB production at a Monsanto’s plant in Anniston, Alabama dumped untreated waste into a creek polluting water supplies; they also buried barrels of waste to save on disposal cost thus polluting the soil. “In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if dunked into boiling water. They told no one. In 1969, they found fish in another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB levels. They decided "there is little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges." In 1975, a company study found that PCBs caused tumours in rats. They ordered its conclusion changed from "slightly tumorigenic" to "does not appear to be carcinogenic."” (Grunwald, 2002).
Even today, people in West Anniston are among the most highly contaminated in the world. They hid decades of pollution by lying and covering up the knowledge they had and to this day deny being at fault for polluting the world with a chemical that is still found in the soil to this day(Grunwald, 2002).
Patent Infringement cases against farmers and Monopoly
Monsanto has patented all its seed. Monsanto has come under public inquiry for its part in litigation against small farmers for patent violation claims on genetically engineered seeds. The company has sued many farmers when their GM crops have turned up in the farmer's fields even though the farmers say they never planted them. The seeds reached neighbours field by pollination through air. The very nature of plant reproduction means that pollen from crops is carried by the wind or insects to reproduce elsewhere, meaning that any crops grown near GE crops are at risk of GE contamination through cross-pollination. And each year farmers are forced to buy new seeds because of their terminator seed concept. This concept increases the financial pressure on farmers for buying seeds every year (Barlett and Steele, 2008).
Farmers fear that such litigation could be based on "inadvertent infringement," where farmers- those who grow organic produce or who simply do not want to use genetically modified seed—unintentionally plant and impermissibly use Monsanto's patented seed technologies after the company's seed products are transferred to their land by natural factors. Though Monsanto has a legal right to sue farmers for "purposeful infringement" where farmers knowingly breach Monsanto's licensing restrictions on its seed products but it is unfair for them to exploit others via this right (Ma, 2012). Health Risks linked with Genetically Modified Food In recent times, the health issues related to the consumption of genetically modified foods has been highly debated by everyone around the world. Seeing such a mass lashing, it can be suggested that Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for their effects on health. The companies should have paid greater attention to the possible risks to health and of the public’s perception of this risk; they are now paying the price of this neglect. GMOs haven't been thoroughly studied and 70% of processed foods contain GMOs. The companies themselves are the ones testing the safety of GMOs (Lancent, 1999). In order to test for the safety of GMO products, the U.K government spent around 300 million bucks, and made Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the world’s leading expert in his field, as the in-charge of the experiment to study health effects of GM foods. He had a team of 30 researchers working with him, and he himself worked in the top nutritional laboratory in U.K. His protocols were to be implemented in the E.U law for the safety assessments of any GMO’s to be introduced in Europe. He divided the rats in three groups. He fed genetically engineered potato with a resistant-insecticide (Round-up crop) to first group of rats, organic or the natural potatoes to the second group of rats and the third group was controlled on the natural potatoes but sprayed with the pesticides (Null, 2013). All three groups of rats were meticulously examined, for determining what happened to their immune system and effect on the rate of their internal development after feeding. After the experiment, it was observed that only the rats who had GM potatoes got sick, had slower internal development of the body organs, had pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, liver and testicles, had partial atrophy of the liver, and their immune system got damaged just in the 10 days of experiment. It was apparent, that the deteriorated health of the rats was due to the intake of genetically engineered potatoes, and had resulted in the profound damage. He shared his concerns for GM crops and was a hero in his institute for two days until Director of his institute got phone call from UK prime minister’s office and he was fired from his job of 35 years. And his team dismissed. So this can show how powerful Monsanto is and they can do anything to manipulate results of GM (Null, 2013). Labelling Issue Criticizers of the genetically modified food demand for the labelling of GM ingredients in food items because according to them it is the right of every human to know what is there in their food. In recent moves California residents demanded the issuance of Proposition 37 regulating to label raw food or processed food made out from genetic engineering. It is the mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods. It would prohibit labelling or advertising such foods as “natural”. But the biggest donor to the No campaign against this is Monsanto, which sells seeds for genetically modified crops designed to increase yields. Other opponents are big packaged-food marketers such as PepsiCo, DuPont, Nestlé, Coca-Cola Co. and ConAgra, which have donated millions of dollars to the No campaign (Schultz, 2012). WHAT COULD MONSANTO DO DIFFERENTLY IN ORDER TO AVOID THESE PROBLEMS Labelling proposition 37 must be passed since humans have the right to know what is there in their food since this will allow a fair market for GM and organic natural crops. Secondly if GM crops are to be manufactured and marketed among customers, extensive research should be conducted for their effects on animal health, human health and environmental impacts. In order to prevent farmers against inadvertent infringement cases, fair methods should be laid down to regulate them. Organic Non chemical farmers groups should be supported so as to remove monopolistic scenario and create a fair competitive market.

References
Anonymous. (2014). Dark History of Monsanto Retrieved from http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-foods/dark-history-monsanto/
Anonymous1. (2013). The race towards the first genetically modified plant. Retrieved from http://www.vib.be/en/about-vib/plant-biotech-news/Pages/The-race-towards-the-firstg enetically-modified-plant.aspx
Anonumous2. (2012). Definition of PCBs, MedicineNet Inc. Retrieved from http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=19548
Anonymous3. (2012). Devil in Disguise; the Unethical Practices of Monsanto. ENT Journal Retrieved from http://entjournal.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/devil-in-disguise-the-unethical-practiceso f-monsanto/
Barlett, D.L. and Steele J. B. (2008). Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear. Retrieved from http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805#
Delano, M. (2009). Roundup Ready Crops Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html
Lancet (1999). Health risks of genetically modified foods. 353(9167), 1811. Retrieved from http://emmerson.csc.wilkes.edu:3672/ehost/detail/detail?sid=e558997b-efe0-486b-bb 71-b1ffd10aca14%40sessionmgr114&vid=0&hid=125&bdata=#db=bsh&AN=18943 97
Null, G. (2013). Seeds of Death. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUd9rRSLY4A
Grunwald, M. (2002). Monsanto Hid Decades Of Pollution. Washington Post Retrieved from http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm
Korn, P. (April 8, 1991). The Persisting Poison. Nation [serial online].; 252(13):440-446. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Retrieved November 16, 2014 from http://emmerson.csc.wilkes.edu:3672/ehost/detail/detail?sid=aa4647ac-cf60-4c38a397 b32681e6f704%40sessionmgr111&vid=0&hid=125&bdata=#db=aph&AN=9104152 502
Lee, O. (2011). Monsanto's 5 Most Dubious Contributions to the Planet. Retrieved from http://www.takepart.com/article/2011/08/10/monsantos-5-most-dubious-contributions -planet

Ma, M. (2012). Anticipating and Reducing the Unfairness of Monsanto's Inadvertent Infring ement Lawsuits: A Proposal to Import Copyright Law's Notice-and- Takedown Regi me into the Seed Patent Context. California Law Review, 100(3), 691-720. Retrieved from http://emmerson.csc.wilkes.edu:3672/ehost/detail/detail?sid=ce5c3485-3002-4042-90 14-a546577cdbe0%40sessionmgr111&vid=0&hid=125&bdata=#db=bsh&AN=76122 127
Monsanto. (2014). Agent Orange: Background on Monsanto's Involvement. Retrieved from http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/agent-orange-background-monsantoinvo lvement.aspx
Schultz, E. J. (2012). What California's proposed genetically-altered foods label means for marketers. Advertising Age, 83(36), 1. Retrieved from http://emmerson.csc.wilkes.edu:3672/ehost/detail/detail?sid=d38f20d4-054b-423e-a2 94-38e4ab876330%40sessionmgr111&vid=0&hid=125&bdata=#db=bsh&AN=83759 967