The great advancements in technology have been both beneficial and harmful in recent times. Corporations, in particular, have been taking advantage of new and enhanced technological discoveries for profit rather than for the benefits of society. This is considered to be immoral on the deontological ethical system. The word deontology originates from the Greek word Deon, which means duty. Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who laid the core groundwork for the deontological ethical system. Kant claimed that individuals must act from duty in order to make morally right choices and that the motives of an individual determine whether the choice made is right or wrong. In this system, the consequences and results of the action do not matter. …show more content…
It is a leading manufacturer of genetically modified seeds, founded in 1901. Originally, Monsanto manufactured food seasonings and additives such as vanillin. They then expanded into industrial chemicals such sulfuric acid. By 1940, they began to produce plastics such as polystyrene and synthetic fibers. In 1963, Monsanto was one of the first companies to genetically modify a plant cell and began running trials of genetically engineered crops. Monsanto was among the first corporations to merge the biotechnology industry with agriculture. This involved heavy research and development costs, which were recovered through the use of biological patents. However, Monsanto’s seed patenting model has been lambasted as bio piracy and a risk to the environment. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate the way Monsanto used their genetically engineered seeds for profit and to show how it is immoral on the deontological ethical system. This will be achieved by discussing Monsanto’s cottonseed issue in India; the way Monsanto monopolized the global seed market and Monsanto’s corruptive practices in getting their genetically modified seeds …show more content…
This made it challenging for conventional farmers to find non-genetically modified seeds as 90% of all seeds in the US were genetically modified. Monsanto is the leading corporation in manufacturing GM seeds due to the fact that they have won 674 biotechnology patents, which is more than any other corporation. The reason they win many patents is as a result of spending $2 million dollars on research and development. However, Monsanto also slapped patents on a number of common crop seeds, without the vote of the people or of congress. This resulted in Monsanto being the sole producer and owner of many types of seeds that are significant in supporting the world’s food supply. Consequently, farmers were forced to use GM seeds due to a lack of alternatives. As the global seed industry was a monopoly to Monsanto, they were able to charge higher prices and produce lesser quantities and alternatives. GM crops necessitate an increased demand for pesticides and herbicides and with the addition of higher costs; the outcome Monsanto created is an expensive crop that has the potential to be extremely harmful to animals and humans. In this way, Monsanto fails to meet the criteria of following the deontological ethical system. Their motives were, once again, unclean. In this case, even the consequence was not a positive outcome as the GM seeds could harm humans and animals. Monsanto did not act in a way that could
I don’t agree with the court 's decision about the Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser case because of many reasons. First, I think It 's morally wrong to sue somebody for a crop that is not theirs just for patenting. Second, the Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case is an issue of intellectual property rights versus physical property rights. Whether patent rights take priority over the right of the owner of physical property to use his property, to what length can a patent put restrictions on the physical owner of the property as to what they may do with this property, including duplicating or producing it in any way without permission of the patent holder. According to the Center of Food Safety, as of 2005, 186 farmers had paid Monsanto a total of $15
In 2008 “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear” was published in Vanity Fair. Penned by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, this exposition presents acts by Monsanto that may be considered questionable. Acts such as possessing a “shadowy army of private investigators” and the production of “two of the most toxic substances ever known”. The company was established in 1901 as Monsanto Chemical Works.
Monsanto and farmers have very conflicting opinions on the G.M. Seeds that Monsanto sells and Monsanto as a company. In “Monsanto's Harvest of Fear” the author says, “Like it or not, farmers say, they have fewer and fewer choices in buying seeds.” and that “Whoever provides the world's seeds controls the world's food supply.” These two quotes alone show the impact that Monsanto has on American farmers, the agricultural economy, and on food consumption by showing that what Monsanto is doing has a chain effect. As Monsanto buys out more conventional seed companies, it gives farmers almost no option but to buy from Monsanto which allows its company to begin controlling the seed's cost, production, and use which in term allows it to control what everyday Americans put on their tables
The best arguments for my position are that Monsanto produces higher yielding crops. For example, “In 1970 the average corn harvest yielded approximately 70 bushels an acre. With the introduction of biotech crops, the average corn harvest increased to roughly 150 bushels an acre” (Ferrell, Fraedrich, Ferrell 384). The reason I find this statistic important is because it doubles crops yield, which means more people get to eat. As we know our population is expanding at an enormous rate, which causes the demand of food to go up.
Genetically modified crops also aim to lower the failure of crops, which can maximize the benefits of farmer through the increase of income from selling crops. Nevertheless, this technology created chances for biotech companies to exploit farmers, even causing farmers to commit suicide. Big companies developed the genetically modified seed, and sell it to farmers. But farmers have little bargaining power only, they can only rely on the biotech companies. These companies do not aim to help farmers to increase their income, but aim to maximize their own profit.
In the article entitled Monsanto's Harvest of Fear, Donald L. Barley and James B. Steele demonstrate that Monsanto already dominates the United States food chain with their genetically modified seeds. They are currently targeting milk production which is just as scary as the corporation's legal battles against the small farmers. This situation leads to a history of toxic infections or diseases. There were many disagreements between Gary Rinehart and a stranger about the innovative seeds. They were under surveillance and an investigator came in the picture.
GMOs are considered to be the next agricultural “innovation” as some would say, but this is incorrect. They think that GMOs are a way to feed everyone on earth. Giving them the nutrients that they need to grow in conditions that most plants can’t live in, while not causing harm to physical and environmental health. They are wrong. GMOs do more harm than good.
Both essays share common themes, in mainly advocating for sustainability in the food and agriculture industry. However, the authors suggest different methods to obtain this. Can GMOs Be Sustainable, written by McKay Jenkins mainly discusses the usage of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the agriculture industry, and the controversy that surrounds them. The article is mainly through the point of view of farmer Jenny Schmidt, who discusses the positive effects of GMOs, and how they can help farmers. However, there are also perspectives given by different professionals, which all support the conversation of sustainability in the food industry.
A corporatist markets off what they know would put them in financial ruin if people found out the truth behind what they claim is bettering the world. Once gathering enough positive claims, they proceed anyway. This is the quintessence of GMO marketing. Now, as the newest generation, millennials are likely to have been fed these genetically modified foods growing up, but have the technology to research and make their own intelligent and informed decision on whether these foods should be continued to be produced and distributed throughout the world. It is not being overly suspicious to not believe a corporation such as Monsanto, the leading agrochemical company, when with minimal research they publicize that GMOs are safe to consume.
Health problems of GMOs include the potential of single-handedly convincing the world to stop modifying organisms (Bailey 1-4). GMOs, among the world’s silent killers, harm humans, wildlife, and the environment
New regulations, an enforced code of ethics and striving to be more socially responsible has led Monsanto to enhance their relationships with stakeholders. Monsanto wrote a pledge to inform all of their
Monsanto has been an innovator in the field of agriculture and hydroponics for the past 30 years conducting research that leads to advances in GMO’s while solving countless issues that arise in the field of agriculture. Monsanto sprouted in 1901 with the founder John F. Queeny. It spent its first 45 years as a company researching and developing agricultural chemicals that strengthen the genes of crops to help grow food in the off season. Throughout the years leading up to the 2000’s Monsanto spent its budget researching cell manipulation in order to modify the genes of crops to be more resilient to pests, bad soil, and harsh weather conditions. In 2001 Monsanto developed a pickup truck that runs on E85 a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gas.
Now Monsanto’s business is basically all around the world, we find them where ever the farmers that buy from Monsanto sell their crops. Monsanto was very smart by doing this because when the terminator seed (genetically modified seeds) dies the farmer will come back to Monsanto for more and this way Monsanto will still be getting money. If there was no terminator seed (genetically modified seed) Monsanto would lose money because the farmers would collect their own normal seeds instead of going back to Monsanto every few years. In this way the Monsanto brand has impacted globally and this can affect the future of farming if it keeps going this way.
This impact can be reduced by the company by putting more efforts and investment in development and research to improve and eliminate the side effects of their products without much damaging the environment (Monsanto, 2018). Furthermore, Monsanto can employ a team to regularly check whether the negative effects are still being possessed by their products and if it so then the authorities can be alarmed about this and suitable actions can be taken against this
This company is known by many farmers which have a negative point of view towards them. Monsanto specially makes seeds for farmers to buy from. When farmers buy their seeds, they are basically part of a contract to the Monsanto industry. The contract is that if you purchase Monsanto seeds and you plant them, the seeds reproduced by the plant are not to be planted. If the seeds are not given back to the company and you replant them, Monsanto can sue you causing