Business Ethics Case Study: Monsanto's CEO

Case Study #1 Case 1: In the past, Monsanto has had many ethical issues like high performance standards that can cause employees to make unethical and illegal decisions and not owning up to hazards around them. However, Monsanto has been striving to enforce their code of ethics and has spent more time trying to become more socially responsible to the environment. For Monsanto to create an ethical culture, he would have to be proactive in anticipating, planning and acting to avoid potential ethical crisis’ (Thorne, Ferrell, & Ferrell, 2008).

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.

Companies like Monsanto are destroying the lives of small scale farmers using their seeds. “The entry of Monsanto in the Indian seed sector was made possible with a 1988 Seed Policy imposed by the World Bank, requiring the Government of India to deregulate the seed sector. ”(“The Seeds of Suicide: How Monsanto Destroys Farming”) Rapidly Monsanto swooped in and began to overtake the seed market in India.

The corporate giant, Monsanto has in the past years, had way too much effect on the food business across the world. Monsanto advertises clean, healthy and safe food, but they are secretly poisoning human food sources using different pesticides and fertilizers that include threatening chemicals. They are known to abuse the livestock they tell us are raised in a happy environment. “These farms are not like the ones you grew up dreaming of owning, they are dark, cramped and dirty areas that are full of disease and suffering. ”(Pollan)

In 2012, Chinese researchers, led by Chen-Yu Zhang of Nanking University, found that the insecticidal RNAi Monsanto uses on their crops to stop bugs from eating it, could adversely affect humans. They found that it triggers an increase in “bad cholesterol,” leading to a heightened risk of heart attacks (Koberstein 50). In 2013, Monsanto published a rebuttal that “suggested that Zhang’s results were warped by contamination on lab equipment” (Koberstein 50). Clearly, the GMO companies won’t stop until they halt any suspicion of their products. Warren Porter, professor of zoology at the University of Wisconsin, states why exactly these big corporations go after scientists.

Court records indicated that 226 plant workers became ill” (828). This quote from the doctors who observed the plant employees proves that Monsanto made chemicals not safe for human environments. By using this quote, the authors are able to uncover Monsanto’s past fabrication of harmful substances. It demonstrates how Monsanto was willing to create and sell chemicals that are known

Sometimes we are aware of the fact that we are consuming GMO products (it says on the label), but in many cases, for instance in restaurants we are not sure of the quality and origin of the ingredients which are in our plate. Even though the development of herbicide and pesticide meant lower costs at the beginning, this wasn`t the case by all means. Bugs have become prone to this spray and manufacturers had to increase the amount of the content, meaning more poison for the consumer. This spray cannot be easily washed away or it doesn`t affect just the surface of the ingredient, it enters deep below the surface and therefore causes loss of quality. GMOs affect our health, destroys the quality of our food and pollutes the environment.

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 is a very confusing company because of its conflicting views. The group that is strongly against Monsanto consists mostly of farmers. The farmer group against Monsanto is very strong and the Vice article matches with the investigative journalists analysis of Monsanto being the bully. When read about for the first time, the reader can’t help but feel emotion for the farmers and the use of ethos evokes the human action of helping those in need. Because Monsanto has also been in the news fairly often, the term “Monsanto” is familiar to most, if not all individuals.

A class action lawsuit filed April 21, 2015 in Los Angeles County sues Monsanto of false advertising. The plaintiffs are Elvis Mizaie, Edison Mirzaie, and Romi Mirzaie. They are natural persons and residents of Los Angeles County. In this lawsuit plaintiffs are on behalf of themselves as individuals. The defendant is Monsanto Company (“Monsanto”), is a Delaware corporation,

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.

Monsanto is a chemical- agriculture company. In 1980, Supreme court said that you can patent life. So, Monsanto developed roundup ready soybeans. As of 1996, only 2% of soybeans in US contained Monsanto’s patented gene, but after 2008, over 90% of soybeans in the US contained Monsanto’s patented gene. As Monsanto owned the patent, it actually paid attention to farmers whether they’re saving the seeds or not.

In William Saletan’s “Unhealthy Fixation”, the truth about GMOs is discussed and explored. In his argument, Saletan effectively uses pathos, ethos, and logos to prove his beliefs regarding the labeling, applications, and safety of GMO’s. To help accomplish this, he writes on the incredible potential of GMOs (logos), speaks to their safety, and tells how GMOs can, and have, saved countless lives in third world countries (pathos), additionally, discusses the research he has put into this work (ethos). Saletan successfully uses logos in his piece by telling of the incredible benefits of GMOs. In his work, we read that “the USDA’s catalog of recently engineered plants shows plenty of worthwhile GMO options… (Including) drought-tolerant corn, virus-resistant plums, non-browning apples, potatoes with fewer natural toxins, and soybeans that produce less saturated fat.”

The guidelines of honesty and morality that the United States is so quick to claim they follow, do not always seem to be exhibited in the products that they promote and produce. The fertilizer from “Dawn of the Dread,” was just one example of the real motives behind American production and influences. United States companies only care about making their money even if that means that their product can cause harm on people or the environment. Consumers want a product that they can trust at low price with high quality ingredients. While it can sometimes be hard to create an efficient product at the specific price point buyers want, the consumers should be informed of the danger that can happen from using this product.

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.