Monsanto, Hormones, Profits and Genetically Modified Foods
November 12, 2009
Whether or not you buy genetically modified corn at the grocery store, you may be eating livestock that feeds off of it. Entrenched in our food chain, it's hard to imagine our world without Monsanto.
On Tuesday morning, November 10th, Monsanto's shares spiked on news that it would accelerate the launch of its new corn and soybean products. The company also reconfirmed its earnings outlook. And that outlook is extremely rosy.
The largest seed manufacturer in the world, Monsanto is hardly a household name. It has never had the brand recognition of a Nabisco or Frito-Lay although its produce and chemical compounds have found their way into millions upon millions of refrigerators and cupboards. With its corporate might, worldwide reach and cadre of biotech engineers, Monsanto is like table salt.
As the producer of 90% of the world's genetically modified (GE) seeds, the biotech giant reported gross profits of $4.23 billion in 2007 and, according to their 2008 annual report, has pledged to double that figure by the year 2012. The company has come a long way since 1901 when John Francis Queeny, the pharmaceutical salesman who founded Monsanto, introduced its first product: saccharin. Producing the chemical sweetener by securing the U.S. rights to a German patent, he set the company on a course from which it has never strayed. Today Monsanto's product line resounds with that seminal offering: add a chemical and make it better.
"Better", of course, is a relative term. Better often means better for the bottom line. But is a seed unnaturally better with man's intervening hand? Can man really improve on Mother Nature? Yes, according to Monsanto. Seeds that are resistant, show rapid growth and are readily spread can be a boon to an agricultural firm, to every farmer hoping for a bumper crop and to the world's hungriest nations. But Monsanto has come under tremendous scrutiny from environmental activists, food groups and farmers alike for having perfected its craft.
Controversy
Accused of striving for world domination through unethical behavior, the company has pledged not to commercialize controversial "terminator seeds", despite the fact that it has the technology to do so. Terminator seeds, manufactured through "restriction technology" and "sterile seed technology", are seeds that become sterile after one year of use. Subsequently, any soil that was once fertile, rich and full of bio-engineered life from terminator seeds soon becomes a graveyard for the dead, useless and sterile. Nothing more will grow, except for a new round of costly terminator seeds. The use of terminator seeds, one might argue, would effectively give Monsanto the patent on nature itself. Although the company pledged in 1999 not to use these seeds, it sounded the alarm among many consumer advocacy groups when it began shifting its language about when and how it might opt to use them in the future.
Monsanto on the Record: Company's stance on "terminator seeds" sip it
David and Goliath
A storm rolls in and blows seeds across your field. You soon notice that portions of your canola crop are resistant to herbicides. Eureka. You replant the seeds and get sued. A whirlwind of litigation ensues. Such was the case with Canadian farmer, Percy Schmeiser, who first discovered herbicidal-resistant crops on his property in 1997. He replanted the seeds and got sued by Monsanto for growing their product without paying their technology fee. Monsanto's defense was that Schmeiser intentionally replanted seeds that he must have known were not his own. In 2004 the Canadian courts ruled in Monsanto's favor.
Food: Is Monsanto the answer or the problem? Reuter's Special Report sip it
The Issues
Despite the legalities of patent law and the quasi-ownership that can occur when numerous farmers must repurchase patented seeds from Monsanto on an annual basis, there is the issue of the quality of Monsanto's engineered produce. On the altruistic side, Monsanto executives aim to help eradicate poverty by engineering crops that can grow in any climate, withstand various environments and are resistant to a multitude of pests. They can help feed the world's poor, which is bound to swell should we reach worldwide population estimates of 9.4 billion by the year 2050. But with a hefty annual revenue stream, detractors can't help but believe that everything Monsanto does, like most corporations, is driven by profits.
WHO's Frequently Asked Questions on genetically modified foods sip it
Genetically modified foods, growth bovine hormones and herbicide-resistant soybeans have been the cause of much consternation. Ingestion of these products, including milk from cows that are regularly treated with hormones, is linked to lowered immune systems, allergies, various cancers, and other diseases. American milk bans abroad did not help Monsanto's image. In 2008, the company sold its rBGH division to Elanco, a division of Eli Lilly. At the same time consumer pressures along with labeling that identifies milk without rBGH ("NO rBGH") made it easier for consumers to reject milk with added growth hormones. As a result, consumers have motivated many grocery stores across the country to stop carrying products with rBGH.
"Outcrossing" became another major concern. The World Health Organization reported that the United States found traces of an engineered maize type for livestock appearing in corn crops that were being harvested for human consumption.
Your Food from One Main Source: MonsantoDecember 13, 2009 — Confidential contracts reveal how the world's biggest producer of seeds uses its might to control the marketplace. BW sip it
Although some progress has been made, wise consumers are becoming more informed, more demanding, and more aware of how they will help a company like Monsanto double its billions by 2012. NewsSip
Photo Credits: Corn by Vassia Atanassova - Spiritia; Cornfield by Freestyle nl; Soybeans by Kanko*
|
