Due to the uncertainty created by the resolution 140/147 and because we are not certain enough to have a system that allows the recognition of the intellectual property of our Technologies, we have decided to suspend the release of the XTED technology in Argentina until these conditions are met.
Why now? Though, We have carried out a long proccess of negotiations with the soybean industry, we have not yet reached an agreement. And, as we are hurried to make decissions related to the realease of the technology, though we still don’t met the necessary requirements that we have set as necessary to go on with the process, we are forced to suspend the release.
1) What are the neccessary conditions for realeasing new soybean technologies?
Monsanto holds negotiations with both the soybean industry and
…show more content…
The process is well advanced in its final stage, missing only the approval of the direction of markets.
8) What happens to the seed companies that had licensed this technology?
This is governed by private contracts between companies, and will be discussed thoroughly with them.
At the moment, there is no valid business license in Argentina.
9) Does this mean a commercial loss for these companies? Will they receive compensation?
This topic will be the subject of discussion in accordance to private contracts between companies.
10) What happens if a truck / cargo with XTEND technology in the future is detected?
Today, the technology is not deregulated, therefore, it can not be sold. If it becomes deregulated, it will be a violation of law, because there is no registration of the varieties.
Internal communication:
Objective: To generate a calmed environment. This measure is taken to strengthen the soybean business in the long run.
Call to Action: Keeping the focus on the company's business as usual: INTACT; CORN AND CROP PROTECTION.
Proccess
1) Comunication XTED team and soybean (floor
Hi Mollie, The truckers started pulling out the X1 product yesterday. It looks like United Road bided out the work out to other carries to handle this movement. The trucking companies they are using are pulling VIN specific loads and are looking for exact locations. The two truckers I talked to yesterday, I told them the best I could do was tell them the general area to pick up the units and that they would have to find them.
On the off chance that there's anything you read – or offer – let this be it. The substance of this article can possibly drastically move the world in an assortment of positive ways. Furthermore, as Monsanto would love for this article to not become famous online, whatever we can ask is that you share, offer, share the data being exhibited so it can reach however many individuals as could be expected under the circumstances.
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.
The major adversaries of Ventria Bioscience are the Japanese rice consumers, the rice producers of California, and the California Rice Commission (CRC). The Japanese rice consumers have a large impact on the opposition of Ventria Bioscience because of their negative reaction towards genetically modified rice. Their viewpoints on this subject are expressed by the Japanese Rice Retailers Association, who represent their concerns and threatened to influence the Japanese government to stop importing California rice if it is commercialized in the United States. The Japanese rice consumers pose a major threat because the Japanese Government 's potential halt of importing California rice will damage the California rice industry, the California rice
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.
5. OBJECTIVES OF COLES • To be an interesting outlet supplying quality items • To guarantee enhanced client reaction • To have productive interior correspondence framework • To serve the customer with best merchandise and administrations • To restore the client forethought benefit in industry • To diminish the squanders created in grocery store chain • To make a manageable retail network that is ecologically amicable 6. MISSION STATEMENT OF COLES "
Monsanto is more powerful than Percy because Percy is just a farmer from Canada and Monsanto and is a big company that now owns many crops and has a lot of money and in my opinion that is why the court chose to be on monsanto 's side.
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.
The world may be in danger of Monsanto controlling what it puts on its dinner Tables We may no longer have much of a say in what types of foods we bring to our dinner tables, thanks to the continuing efforts of the biotechnology giant, Monsanto. Monsanto is a multibillion dollar agricultural company, pioneering in the field of biotechnology. As defined by Monsanto, biotechnology is “...the process of using living organisms to improve qualities of a plant by such as the plant’s ability to protect itself against damage or improving upon its ability to grow and produce.” Monsanto has gained control of our dinner tables through various means, it has taken control of the worlds seed supply, it uses bully tactics to gain a hold on farmers, and
Many different types of people could possibly object this solution depending on their views. But mainly only farmers would object to these water cuts. Arguments that might say to oppose my stance is that these water cuts would not allow farmers to adequately grow their crops and might even lose money and crops if they cut back on water. Farmers use tons of extra gallons of water on crops than is actually even needed. In California farmers take almost 70% of all water taken from the colorado river which happens to supply fresh water to all the states in the mid west.
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 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.
Monsanto, new and old alike, have a moral obligation to society since it utilizes technology to enhance human lives. Essentially, it would have been in the best interest of the company to continuously protect society and the environment from the potentially harmful consequences of its products. According to ethic experts Hartline and Ferrell operating under the “Old Monsanto” regime, in 1970, the company introduced a chemical named Agent Orange to our military and it was drastically used as an asset in the Vietnam War (2014, p.309). In addition, Agent Orange was used to deforest thick Vietnamese jungles, assisting in United States advantage; however, Agent Orange contained dioxin, which is extremely hazardous and causes cancer (2014, p.310). Researchers confirmed that the Vietnamese food and crops were contaminated with dioxin, and
As Monsanto is a multinational company whose products are consumed by the food industry, it has to strictly emphasize on its moral obligations concerning the society where their products are being sold. Such moral obligation includes providing best quality of seeds to the consumers and betterment of farmer’s life (Stern, 2011). For this purpose Monsanto ensures high yielding properties of their seeds and it would prevent against insects eating their precious crops. This would ease the farmers in keeping their crops safe and reduce their hassle to sprinkle pesticides for crop safety. On the contrary these genetically modified seeds reported in causing health related issues on consuming the food grown from them.