Monsanto Vs Us

GM foods are in the middle of many controversial issues; primarily these are addressed by conflicts over the relative pros and cons of GM foods. Major biotech companies like ‘Monsanto ' and ‘Cargill ' are promoting GM foods by focusing only on their beneficial aspects, giving least importance to their negative effects on safety, environment and biodiversity. On the other hand, governmental regulators and nongovernmental organizations, along with some scientists, are strictly opposing this type of blind promotion of GM food by enlightening the people on their negative effects The controversies associated with GM foods include issues such as safety, environmental benefits and risks, biodiversity, and ethical and social considerations.GM foods are implicated for adverse human health risks like people being allergic to it, environmental hazards such as development of super weeds, and pesticide and antibiotic resistance in disease causing organisms. On the other

Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMO’s, are organisms that have had genes from a different organism implanted into their own genetic code in order to produce a new result (“Genetically engineered foods”). This practice has elicited polar responses across the globe, for a multitude of reasons. Besides the obvious reason, being the morality of changing an organism's DNA for human benefit, one frequently noted problem is the monopolization of GMO’s by the company Monsanto, whose name is nearly synonymous with GMO’s due to their involvement with these crops. Monsanto has been at the center of many controversies regarding GMO’s, and is even considered to be ranked third to last for reputation among all major American companies (Bennett). Most

Sixty four countries around the world have banned the use of GMOs, otherwise known as Genetically Modified Organisms, within farms and supermarkets. However, the United States, a usually technologically advanced country, has yet to invest much time or effort into this endeavour, one that would make food healthier for people and protect the environment. The US government has taken a step back in this effort for healthier food options, as in the country, companies that use GMOs are not required to label their food as such. Some companies and businesses, however, are working to make a change in the case for GMOs in the US, by advocating minimized GMO usage, menu transparency, or the complete ban of the usage.

In my opinion, we should be most concered about India's privitized agriculture and Indian farmers. I believe this because in the last decade more than 250,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide due to the expense put on Monsanto's seeds and pesticides. A problem with the seeds can also be so they are not bred for that area, so they fail more fequently, causing even more stress on farmers. The bigger organizations also use biotech cotton seeds which gives them a higher yeild but also requires higher amounts of water, which they have the funds for. However the smaller companies don't have acess to suitable irrigation and have mainly rain-fed crops, which means they fail more often and the farmers suffer even more. Monsanto's high cost of

Introduction/Thesis Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are an organism whose genome has been engineered in the laboratory in order to favor the expression of desired physiological traits or the production of desired biological products according to the Encyclopedia Britannica. In grocery stores in the United States, as much as 70 percent of the processed food may contain genetically modified organisms. The same cannot be said for the European Union, who has much tighter regulations regarding the planting and end use of genetically modified (GM) foods. There is a worldwide debate over the safety and benefit of genetically modified organisms and whether they should be allowed on the dinner table.

There are few laws regulating genetically modified organisms due to the fact that they have not been around for a long time. No long term testing has been concluded, therefore there is no scientific conclusion when it comes to the safeness of genetically modified organisms. Compared to other countries, the United States regulations on GMOs is relatively favorable towards their development. According to the Library of Congress, a series of polls conducted from 2001 to 2006 found that the publics understand of biotechnology technology, which produces these genetically modified foods, was relatively low, and that consumers were relatively unaware of the extent to which their foods included genetically modified ingredients (United States). Sixty-four countries around the world require labeling of

On recent years, Genetically Modify Organism (GMOs) are becoming a major topic for argument on American consumers. Recent studies are starting to prove how dangerous they are. More animal right groups are coming on how GMOs contribute to animal cruelty. Also, scientist are starring to warn the public on the effects GMO farming has in the Ecosystem. Finally, medical studies conducted in foreign countries show the negative impact GMO foods have on humans.

The belief that GMOs have a detrimental effect on world health has made its inclusion in our food supply one of the most talked about topics today. This reaction comes from an alarming body of evidence connecting them with health issues, environmental damage and the violation of farmer and consumers’ rights. (Non GMO Project.) This issue has created a growing concern throughout the world, prompting over sixty countries to ban them or pass stringent laws to label their presence in consumer products, especially food (Non GMO Project.)

While the production of GMO foods have increased the FDA refuse to regulate it because in 1993 the FDA declared GMOs as “not inherently dangerous” so they therefore do not need special regulations (). Unlike the United

Genetically modified organisms(GMO) is one of the most important issues around the world. GMOs are Organisms who are altered for product quality and improvement quality. Through the years GMOs have raised concerns on their beneficial attributes such as their resistance to disease, higher product yield, and improved nutrition. These concerns led GMO being worldwide how due to the negative effects GMOs have on health and the environment. However, the U.S. government actively uses GMO and does not understand the consequences of this product. To address this I do not actively support the government use of GMO because, it is linked to sickness of many people,and it severely harms the environment.

The United States and European Union. have different assessments of risk involving genetically modified organisms largely due to the differences in experiences involving food safety. These differences have lead for the US and EU to have drastically different regulatory agencies overseeing GMOs to combat any risks.

Now, the people in Western countries most affected by the infiltration of GMOs into the agricultural sector are the direct consumers of the GMO seeds and crops: farmers. Initially, farmers were forced to sign a legal agreement with Monsanto prohibiting them from saving some of the GE seeds for the next crop season (The World…). In order to enforce this, Monsanto made sure to obtain the rights, written into the contracts, to inspect and monitor the farmers’ fields; this led to many lawsuits against farmers (Mattera). Ultimately, due to the lack of labeling laws outlining the ingredients and processes used to cultivate GMO crops and the strict control of farm production, a group of U.S. and French farmers filed a lawsuit against Monsanto in 2000. They sued Monsanto for not fully disclosing the safety of seed use and

America uses 2.4 billions of acres to grow GMOs; by 2012, 28 countries across the world grew GMOs in 3.7 billion acres of land (ISAAA 1). The United States take up more than 50% of that land. Even though so much of America’s crops are genetically modified, the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture do not require the labelling of genetically modified food products. Producers have the choice of including a GMO-containing label or a GMO-free one (Storrs 1). There is an increased accessibility of genetically modified, GM crop planting has increased from 1 million to 70 million hectares, one hectare equals 100 acres (GMO Compass). In America only one state, Vermont, out of the fifty states in the U.S. is planning to require labels on GMO-containing foods beginning July 2016 (Bailey 1). Act 120, an act delineating the labeling of foods produced by genetic engineering, has caused issues with Vermont and the federal government. The state is facing trials in order to pass this legislation. Labeling of foods in general is not strictly enforced by the government organizations who are accountable for food safety, such as the FDA. There are little regulations that must be met (Storrs 1). Due to the increasing availability of GMO-containing foods, the FDA should require all GM food producers to label their products because consumers need to be aware and GMO-containing foods and organically grown foods have extensive differences.

As Monsanto is fighting to gain seed control of the whole world of agriculture by spreading genetically-modified crops across the world (with the support of the U.S. government according to Wikileaks), there is far greater opposition from the rest of the world, where many countries are not only labeling GMOs but also banning their cultivation altogether.

1 am not surprised of the outcome of your meeting with Mr. Smythe-Jones (CFO). However, I cannot answer your request until I heard from local management. As it was agreed on the last meeting, we were precluded ,from doing any work without first getting approval from management at the headquarters and we were instructed by local management from doing anything until they finalized what was required from us. It appears to me to be a Catch 22 game! 1 believe we (your Firm and ours) should not fall in the game of passing the ball to someone else before getting a clear understanding of what is going on. We have had several meetings with local management where the issue has been raised and were responded that other priorities were established by the headquarters (on my end I thought they tell you everything they have been instructed of locally, unfortunately it does not seem to be the case). In my opinion it looks very easy that you accept from management at the headquarters to hold us accountable from something we are not responsible for, and this does not mean I do not understand the pressure you are receiving on your end. However, we are not the enemy. 1 am not sending copy of this message to our client because I believe that internal issues have to be