Free Essay

Monsanto

In: Business and Management

Submitted By busterhank23
Words 3500
Pages 14
Litigation
As plaintiff
Since the mid1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has sued 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed.[130] The Center for Food Safety has listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations.[131] The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season's crop to plant the next, a common farming practice.[132] One farmer received an eight-month prison sentence for conspiracy to commit fraud during litigation with Monsanto[133] in addition to having to pay damages.[134]
Monsanto sued the Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator in Pilot Grove, Missouri, on the grounds that by cleaning harvested seeds covered by Monsanto's patents so that farmers could replant them, the elevator was inducing them to infringe Monsanto's patents. The Pilot Grove Cooperative Elevator had been cleaning conventional seeds for decades before the development of genetic engineering and developments in patent law led to the existence of issued patents that cover seeds.[135]
In one case in 2002, Monsanto mistakenly sued Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri for patent violation. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer, but sharecropped land with his brother and nephew, who were violating the patent. Monsanto dropped the lawsuit against him when it discovered the mistake.[135]
In 1997 Percy Schmeiser discovered that canola growing on his farm was Roundup resistant. He had initially discovered that some canola growing by a roadside along one of his fields was Roundup resistant when he was killing weeds along the road; this led him to spray a 3- to 4acre section of his adjacent field and 60% of the canola survived. Schmeiser harvested the seed from the surviving, Roundup resistant plants, and planted the seed in 1998. Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was blown into his field from neighboring fields, that he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998. The initial Canadian Federal Court rejected Schmeiser's defense and held for Monsanto, finding that in 1998 Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds he had harvested from the wind-seeded crops in 1997, and so patent infringement had indeed occurred.[136] Schmeiser appealed and lost again.[137] Schmeiser appealed to the Supreme Court which took the case and held for Monsanto by a 54 vote in late May 2004.[117] With this ruling, the Canadian courts followed the U.S. Supreme Court in its decision on patent issues involving plants and genes. Schmeiser won a partial victory, as the Supreme Court reversed on damages, finding that because Schmeiser did not gain any profit from the infringement, he did not owe Monsanto any damages nor did he have to pay Monsanto's substantial legal bills. The case caused Monsanto's enforcement tactics to be highlighted in the media over the years it took to play out.[138] The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.[139][140] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" - in other words, the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was indeed inadvertent, but the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.[141]
In 2007 Monsanto sued Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman,[142] who in 1999 bought seed for his second planting from a grain elevator - the same elevator that he and others sold their transgenic crops to. The elevator sold the soybeans as commodities, not as seeds for planting.[142][143]). He tested the new seeds, and found that as he had expected, some were resistant to glyphosate. He replanted his harvest in subsequent years for his second seasonal planting, supplementing them with more soybeans he bought at the elevator.[142] He informed Monsanto of his activities.[142] Monsanto stated that he was infringing their patents because the soybeans he bought from the elevator were new products that he purchased for use as seeds without a license from Monsanto; Bowman stated that he had not infringed due to patent exhaustion on the first sale of seed to whatever farmers had produced the crops that he bought from the elevator, on the grounds that for seed, all future generations are embodied in the first generation that was originally sold.[143] In 2009 the district court ruled in favor of Monsanto; on appeal, the Federal Circuit upheld the verdict.[142] Bowman has appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which accepted the case on 5 October 2012.[144] If the Supreme Court reverses the judgement, it would also affect other self-replicating technologies (such as DNA and cell lines) used by the biotechnology industry; patent infringement could potentially be avoided by growing or otherwise duplicating the patented articles.[145]
In 2009 Monsanto sued Dupont for patent infringement of Roundup Ready patents.[146] Dupont had licensed the patents from Monsanto already, but had added additional glyphosphate-resistance genes to its seed, which Monsanto claimed was not allowed in the license. Dupont counter-sued, claiming that Monsanto's patent was invalid. The jury handed down a verdict on 1 August 2012, finding that Dupont not only infringed, but willfully infringed, and awarded a verdict of $1 billion, the fourth-largest patent verdict in the history of the United States.[147] Dupont indicated it would appeal the decision.
As defendant
In 2006 the Public Patent Foundation filed requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to revoke four patents that Monsanto has used in patent lawsuits against farmers, namely U.S. Patents Nos. 5,164,316, 5,196,525, 5,322,938, and 5,352,605. In the first round of reexamination, some claims in all four patents were rejected by the Patent Office in four separate rulings dating from February through July 2007.[148]
On 30 March 2011 the Public Patent Foundation filed claims in federal U.S. district court in Manhattan, challenging the validity of 23 of Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed, on behalf of the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and 82 other farming associations.[149] The group contended that they were being forced to sue pre-emptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their fields ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed.[150] On 24 February, District Court Judge Naomi Buchwald dismissed the lawsuit and in her ruling criticized the plaintiffs for a "transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists."[151][152] Plaintiffs plan to appeal the decision.[153][154]
In February 2012, two NGOs, Navdanya and No Patent on Seeds, filed documents opposing an EU patent awarded to Monsanto covering virus resistant traits of melons.[155] Monsanto had acquired DeRuiter, a seed company, in 2008, which originally filed the patent application.[156] The activists claim it was not an invention of Monsanto but rather bio-piracy, because the virus-resistant plants originated in India and were registered in international seed banks; they further claimed that conventional breeding methods were used to transfer the virus resistance genes from an Indian melon to other melons and that European law prohibits patents on conventional breeding.[14]
Other legal actions in North America
As defendant
In a case that ran from February 1984 through October 1987, Monsanto was the defendant in the longest civil jury trial in U.S. history, Kemner v. Monsanto. The case involved a group of plaintiffs who claimed to have been poisoned by dioxin in 1979 when a train derailed in Sturgeon, Missouri. Tank cars on the train carried a chemical used to make wood preservatives and "small quantities of a dioxin called 2, 3, 7, 8, TCDD... formed as a part of the manufacturing process."[157] The initial outcome was mixed. "The jurors, after deliberating more than two months, agreed with Monsanto that the plaintiffs had suffered no physical harm from exposure to dioxin. But they accepted the plaintiffs' argument that Monsanto had failed to alter its manufacturing process to eliminate dioxin as a byproduct and that it had failed to warn the public about dioxin's harmfulness. Most of the plaintiffs were awarded only one dollar each for actual losses, but they were awarded $16.2 million in punitive damages."[158] Monsanto appealed the judgements and won on all counts.[157]
In the early 1990s Monsanto faced several lawsuits over harm caused by PCBs from workers at companies such as Westinghouse that bought PCBs from Monsanto and used them to build electrical equipment.[159] Monsanto and its customers, such as Westinghouse and GE also faced litigation from third parties, such as workers at scrapyards that bought used electrical equipment and broke them down to reclaim valuable metals.[160][161] Monsanto settled some of these cases and won the others, on the grounds that it had clearly told its customers that PCBs were dangerous chemicals and that protective procedures needed to implemented.
In 2000, Great Lakes Chemical Corporation (GLC) sued Monsanto for the $71 million shortfall in expected sales. In 1999, Monsanto had sold GLC a business unit, NSC Technologies, for approximately $125 million in cash; NSC Technologies developed, manufactured and sold chiral pharmaceutical intermediates and select bulk actives to pharmaceutical companies, including the key ingredient of aspartame.[162][163] When sales did not meet projections, GLC sued Monsanto under federal securities laws.[164] The federal case was dismissed. GLC then sued Monsanto under Delaware state law.[165][166] The outcome of this case is not known.
In 2003, Monsanto reached a $300 million settlement with people in Alabama affected by the manufacturing and dumping of the toxic chemical polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).[167]
In 2004 Monsanto was sued in a US court by a group of Vietnamese, along with Dow and other chemical companies for the effects of its Agent Orange defoliant, used by the US military in the Vietnam War.[168][169] The case was dismissed, and plaintiffs appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, which also denied the appeal.
In 2004, the world's largest agrichemical company, Switzerland's Syngenta, launched a US lawsuit charging Monsanto with using coercive tactics to monopolize markets.[170] A flurry of litigation ensued, all of which was settled in 2008.[171]
In 2005, the US DOJ filed a Deferred Prosecution Agreement[172] in which Monsanto admitted to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1) and making false entries into its books and records (15 U.S.C § 78m(b)(2) & (5)). Monsanto also agreed to pay a $1.5m fine. The case involved bribes paid to an Indonesian official.[173] Monsanto admitted a senior manager at Monsanto directed an Indonesian consulting firm to give a $50,000 bribe to a high-level official in Indonesia's environment ministry in 2002 related to the agency's assessment on its genetically modified cotton. Monsanto told the company to disguise an invoice for the bribe as "consulting fees". Monsanto also has admitted to paying bribes to a number of other high-ranking Indonesian officials between 1997 and 2002. On 5 March 2008 the deferred prosecution agreement against Monsanto was dismissed with prejudice (unopposed by the Department of Justice) by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, thereby indicating that Monsanto had complied fully with the terms of the agreement.
In late 2006, the Correctional Tribunal of Carcassonne, France, ordered two directors of Monsanto subsidiary Asgrow to pay a €15,000 fine related to their knowledge of the presence of unauthorized GMOs in bags of seeds imported by Asgrow on 13 April 2000.[174]
Monsanto was the subject of an investigation by the Environmental Agency of the UK regarding pollution caused by disposal of PCBs and other toxic waste at Brofiscin Quarry, Groes Faen. In February 2011, the Guardian reported that Monsanto had agreed to help with the costs of remediation, but did not accept responsibility for the pollution.[175] A webpage at the Environmental Agency site put up at around that time states: "We have completed our extensive enquiries to identify those we consider should be held responsible under the contaminated land laws and be held liable for the cost of remediating Brofiscin Quarry. We are at an advanced stage in our consultations with BP, Veolia and Monsanto to provide them with the opportunity to help remediate the land on a voluntary basis. We expect to make further progress on this matter in the next few months. If this approach is unsuccessful, we have the power to carry out the work needed ourselves and recover our costs. The three companies have been identified under the legislation as inheriting the liabilities of companies who were associated with depositing wastes at the quarry."[176]
As plaintiff or appellant
In 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst Dairy over Oakhurst's label on its milk cartons that said "Our farmer's pledge: no artificial hormones," referring to the use of bovine somatotropin (rBST).[177] Monsanto argued that the label implied that Oakhurst milk was superior to milk from cows treated with rBST, which harmed Monsanto's business.[177] The two companies settled out of court, and it was announced that Oakhurst would add the word "used" at the end of its label, and note that the US FDA claims there is no major difference between milk from rBST-treated and non rBST-treated cows.[178]
On January 23, 2008 the Center for Food Safety, the Sierra Club, and the Organic Seed Alliance and High Mowing Seeds filed a lawsuit against USDA-APHIS regarding their decision to deregulate a glyphosate-resistant sugar beet developed by Monsanto and KWS SAAT AG in 2005. The organizations expressed concerns regarding glyphosate-resistant sugar beets' ability to potentially cross pollinate with conventional sugar beet.[179] On September 21, 2009 U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ruled that USDA-APHIS had violated Federal law in deregulating glyphosate-resistant sugar beet[179] and on August 13, 2010 he ruled further, revoking the deregulation of glyphosate-resistant sugar beet and declaring it unlawful for growers to plant glyphosate-resistant sugar beet in the spring of 2011. As a result of this ruling, growers were permitted to harvest and process their crop at the end of the 2010 growing season, yet a ban on new plantings was enacted. After Judge White's ruling, USDA-APHIS prepared an Environmental Assessment seeking partial deregulation of glyphosate-resistant sugar beet and allowed GM seedlings to be planted.[180] In November 2010, in response to a suit by the original parties, Judge White ordered the destruction of the plantings.[181] In February 2011, a federal appeals court for the Northern district of California in San Francisco overturned the ruling, concluding that "The Plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of irreparable injury. Biology, geography, field experience, and permit restrictions make irreparable injury unlikely."[182] APHIS developed requirements that growers must follow if handling glyphosate-resistant sugar beet. In July 2012, after completing an Environmental Impact Assessment and a Plant Pest Risk Assessment the USDA deregulated Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets.[183]
In 2010 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in case known as Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms.[184] The case concerned an injunction against the planting of Monsanto's gentically engineered Roundup Ready alfalfa (RRA).[185] In 2005 the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had deregulated RRA based on an Environmental Assessment (EA) of Monsanto's RRA.[186] In 2006, Geertson Seed Farm and others filed suit in a a California district court against the APHIS' deregulation of RRA.[187] The district court disallowed APHIS' deregulation of RRA and issued an injunction against any new planting of RRA pending the preparation of a much more extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).[188] The court also refused to allow a partial deregulation.[184] Monsanto and others appealed that decision and lost,[189] then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2010 the Supreme Court reversed the district court's decision. They stated that before a court disallows a partial deregulation, a plaintiff must show that it has suffered irreparable injury. "The District Court abused its discretion in enjoining APHIS from effecting a partial deregulation and in prohibiting the planting of RRA pending the agency’s completion of its detailed environmental review."[184] The Supreme court did not consider the district court's ruling disallowing RRA's deregulation and consequently RRA was still a regulated crop waiting for APHIS's completion of an EIS.[184] At the time, both sides claimed victory.[190] This was the first ruling of the United States Supreme Court on genetically engineered crops.[191]
Investigations
2009 antitrust investigation
In 2009 Monsanto came under scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department, which began investigating whether the company's activities in the soybean markets were breaking anti-trust rules.[16][192] In 2010 the DOJ created a website through which comments on "Agriculture and Antitrust Enforcement Issues in Our 21st Century Economy" could be submitted; over 15,000 comments were submitted including a letter by 14 State Attorneys General. The comments are publicly available.[193] As of July 2012 the investigation was still open.[194]
Not a party, but involved
1997 WTVT news story
This is a case where Monsanto was not a party, but was alleged to have been involved in the events under dispute. In 1997, the news division of WTVT (Channel 13), a Fox–owned station in Tampa, Florida, planned to air an investigative report by Steve Wilson and Jane Akre on the health risks associated with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone product, Posilac.[195] Just before the story was to air, Fox received a threatening letter from Monsanto, saying the reporters were biased and that the story would damage the company.[195] Fox tried to work with the reporters to address Monsanto's concerns, and the negotiations between Fox and the reporters broke down.[195] Both reporters were eventually fired. Wilson and Akre alleged the firing was for retaliation, while WTVT contended they were fired for insubordination. The reporters then sued Fox/WTVT in Florida state court under the state's whistleblower statute. In 2000, a Florida jury found that while there was no evidence Fox/WTVT had bowed to any pressure from Monsanto to alter the story, Akre, but not Wilson, was a whistleblower and was unjustly fired.[195] Fox appealed the decision stating that under Florida law, a whistleblower can only act if "a law, rule, or regulation”" has been broken and argued that the FCC's news distortion policy did not fit that definition.[196] The appeals court overturned the verdict, finding that Akre was not a whistleblower because of the Florida "legislature's requirement that agency statements that fit the definition of a “rule” (must) be formally adopted (rules). Recognizing an uncodified agency policy developed through the adjudicative process as the equivalent of a formally adopted rule is not consistent with this policy, and it would expand the scope of conduct that could subject an employer to liability beyond what Florida's Legislature could have contemplated when it enacted the whistle-blower's statute."
Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories scandal
In 1981, four executives of Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories(IBT), an American contract research organization were indicted in federal court on various counts including scientific misconduct and fraud, and were convicted in 1983.[197] IBT was an industrial product safety testing laboratory that was used by pharmaceutical companies, chemical manufacturers and other industrial clients, operated one of the largest facility of its kind in the US, and performed more than one-third of all toxicology testing in the United States.[198] One of convicted executives was Paul Wright, a toxicologist, who had spent 18 months at IBT in the 1970s while IBT was testing an antimicrobial product that Monsanto was developing, triclocarban(TCC).[199] The revelations of misconduct by IBT Labs led to the establishment of Good Laboratory Practice standards and regulations for industrial testing.[200]
In 1991, Philip Smith, a former assistant toxicologist at IBT, testified in a trial in which Monsanto was being sued by workers at Westinghouse over PCBs, that final toxicology reports on PCBs provided to Monsanto by IBT contained falsified data…...

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Monsanto

...Stephen Walker 2012 Leading in Innovation Stephen Walker 2012 Leading in Innovation Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63167 General Inquiries: (314) 694-1000 Media Inquiries: (314) 694-NEWS (6397) Monsanto Company 800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. St. Louis, MO 63167 General Inquiries: (314) 694-1000 Media Inquiries: (314) 694-NEWS (6397) Table of Contents Quantitative Analysis ………………………………..2 Performance Highlights …………………………….3 Trends……………………………………………………….4 Industry comparison………………………………….4 Qualitative Analysis……………………………………5 Sales Pitch ………………………………………………. .7 References…………………………………………………9 Monsanto Co. is a global provider of agricultural products and integrated solutions for farmers. We produce leading seed brands in large-acre crops like corn, cotton, and oilseeds (soybeans and canola), as well as small-acre crops like vegetables. We also produce leading in-the-seed trait technologies for farmers that are aimed at protecting their yield, supporting their on-farm efficiency and reducing their on-farm costs (About, 2012). It is because of these traits Monsanto Company is number one provider of seeds. In the United States, that meant offering more choices: more products at more price points in corn, more options in soybeans and improved products in both. The result speaks volumes. We still have more to do, yet our primary new U.S. products—the Genuity reduced-refuge family in corn and Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield......

Words: 1848 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Monsanto

...Juan Colon GE217 Composition II Mr. Cardew Final Paper August 30, 2012 Monsanto and Genetically Modified Foods Monsanto is an agricultural biotech corporate giant that genetically modifies animals and crop seeds. On their website, they come across a deeply committed humanitarian organization that provides an ecologically sustainable answer to global hunger and malnutrition. The sad reality is that Monsanto is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and perhaps one of the most unethical corporate giants in the world today. I will argue that Monsanto is on a power trip, and that they have a hidden agenda that has nothing to do with compassion, ecology or human hunger, and everything to do with greed. In the following paragraphs, I will provide a brief history of Monsanto. Then I will examine some of the promises made in their marketing propaganda, and provide evidence that these promises are little more than blatant lies. Monsanto started out in 1901 developing a highly controversial artificial sweetener called saccharine. Monsanto eventually shifted their focus to genetically modified plants and animals. They are still a major chemical production corporation, developing and marketing Roundup and several other herbicides, Bovine Growth Hormone, and genetically modified seeds. Among the most widely recognized of their genetically modified products include corn, soy and canola. These seeds have a gene inserted that makes them resistant to Monsanto's own herbicide called Roundup.......

Words: 2647 - Pages: 11

Premium Essay

Monsanto

...Central Issue How Monsanto might address the high demand in global agricultural market. According to growing world’s population, the global demand on the agricultural products is increasing because the population is estimated to increase from $7 billion in 2012 to $7.2 billion in 2014. With increasing demand, the farmers and growers need to enhance their productions capacity to be able to meet the high demand. This means that there is an opportunity for the agriculture companies. Monsanto needs to address this opportunity to keep its position in the market and become stronger. According to MarketLine report (2012), the company’s revenue was $11,882 in 2011 and Asian-Pacific region covers $841 million of the total revenue, which is equal to 7.1% of the total revenue. The report also indicated that 4% growth was reported in the Asian-Pacific agricultural market in 2010. The value of the Asian-Pacific agricultural products market is expected to increase from $915.4 billion in 2010 to $1,228.4 billion in 2015. Especially, the Indian agricultural product market is expected to have a great growth by 2015. The MarketLine report estimated that the value of the Indian agricultural product market is going to grow from $126 billion in 2010 to $217.5 billion in 2015. This means that 72.6% of increase is expected by 2015. Monsanto has a great position in many countries’ market such as the US, Europe-Africa and Brazil. In order to become stronger in the global market, Monsanto needs......

Words: 273 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Monsanto

...1. Does Monsanto maintain an ethical culture that can effectively respond to various stakeholders? No, it does not. Monsanto have tried, but still fails to even create an ethical culture that can effectively respond to various stakeholders. Considering how many problems over how long of a time Monsanto has made them, they constantly get legislation regarding their product passed in countries, including America, through unethical means. However, the company used the concept of Social Responsibility and Business Ethics to create a reputation value to various stakeholders. For instance, Monsanto gave fifteen million dollars to Donald Danforth Plant Science Center to do crop research in Africa. Also, the fund helped Brazilian children to maintain good health and basic hygiene. In addition, Monsanto supported students who want to study agriculture. But, Monsanto Company’s regulation had become financial burden to many farmers. Farmers who buy seeds from Monsanto could not save for future plant. Else, Farmers will have to pay for Monsanto when they find out. Furthermore, Monsanto produced products that involved in the risk of animals and human health. Some of Monsanto’s actions should considered moral temptation. 2. Compare the benefits of growing GM seeds for crops with the potential negative consequences of using them. Benefits: - Farmers could expect better yields if they used GM seeds. - Farmers can now grow more crops in smaller amount of land which in effect would......

Words: 363 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Monsanto in America

...Anna K OBHR 33000 February 25, 2013 There’s Evil, and then there’s Monsanto In many ways, Monsanto is just like every other business; it engages in the trade or sale of products and services to a consumer. This, for the most part, is where Monsanto ends being like a business. Monsanto is a company that specializes in production of agricultural/vegetable seeds, plant biotechnology and crop protection chemicals (Devil in Disguise; the Unethical Practices of Monsanto, 2012). It is considered “The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit” (Smith, 2010). Those are some pretty big boots to fill. I will be examining just one of the terrifying scenarios where Monsanto has displayed deceptive and dangerous ethics. Back in 1929, in a little town in Alabama called Anniston, Monsanto engineered a type of chemical called polychlorinated biphenyl, PCBs for short. They would end up being one of the most prevalent and lucrative engineering substances of 20th century America. They were used as insulators in electric transformers, and included in everything from lacquers to printed goods. Although Monsanto was in the know about the burying of the chemicals in and around the town, the residents lived there for decades without knowledge. In 1979 they were outlawed because of the detrimental effects on the environment. Monsanto discarded tons of raw PCBs directly into Snow Creek which runs along the plant. 5,000 extra tons are buried in a hillside and Baker thinks that......

Words: 1093 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Monsanto

...Monsanto a sustainable agriculture company. Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agricultural corporation headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri. Founded in 1901 by John Francis, by the 1940s it was a major producer of plastics, including polystyrene and synthetic fibers. Monsanto has become the world leader in genetically modified organisms. Present in 46 countries, leader in biotechnology produces 90% of GMOs grown worldwide (soybean, rapeseed, cotton, corn, etc..) and became one of redemption by the first seed of the planet that could ultimately control the entire food chain. Notable achievements by Monsanto and its scientists as a chemical company included breakthrough research on catalytic asymmetric hydrogenation and being the first company to mass-produce light emitting diodes (LEDs). The company also formerly manufactured controversial products such as the insecticide DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, and recombinant bovine somatotropin. On their official website this company looks like a perfect and respectable agricultural society. Their principal slogan is “Monsanto a sustainable agriculture company”. The website also shows advertisement such as "Our innovations helps farmers produce more food using less natural ressources" , "Monsanto is playing a key role in helping farmers adress the challenge of water", "Monsanto company named one of CR' magazine's 100 best corporate citizens", or “learn how Monsanto is connecting the dots to a more......

Words: 1132 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Monsanto

... Monsanto Paper By Raikirat Sohi MBA 505 Foundation of Management A. Hetro Jay S. Sidhu School of Business and Management November 18, 2014 COMPANY HISTORY AND PROFILE Monsanto is one of the Fortune 500 Company with its headquarters located in St. Louis, Missouri, United States. It employs 21183 employee globally providing 146 facilities in In USA alone, it employees 10277 employees distributing 404 facilities over 66 countries (Monsanto, 2014). It is an American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. It serves its customers with products ranging from agricultural and vegetable seeds, plant biotechnology traits to crop protection chemicals. In present times it is the leading manufacturer of genetically engineered seeds and herbicide glyphosate marketed under brand name round up (Monsanto, 2014). It was founded in 1901by John F. Queeny with his wife Olga Monsanto Queeny. The first produce that was manufactured by this company was saccharin (the artificial sweetener) that was sold to Coca-Cola Company. By 1905, Monsanto benefitted ad progressed through the sale of vanillin and caffeine. During the time of World war 2 Monsanto was unable to import chemicals that were needed by them from Europe so in order to compensate that it started producing chemicals on its own. Monsanto went public in Stock exchange in 1929. During this era of 1920’s Monsanto expanded in chemical industries producing sulphuric acid and PCB’s. Monsanto’s first PCB......

Words: 3124 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

Monsanto

...trend that has been taking place over the last couple of decades in the industry. More specifically companies like Monsanto, DuPont, and Dow and their growing takeover and market power of the industry in the United States and globally. As we learned in class compared to other industries like the automobile industry or steel industry, the agricultural industry best meets the characteristics of perfect competition. Though this is probably true as far as selling produce to grocery stores and consumers directly, my focus is on the seed supply that farmers are using to produce things like soybeans, corn and cotton. My interest in this topic stems from articles and news that i had caught my attention. I first heard of Monsanto in regards to large numbers of farmers committing suicide over in India. Since 1995 nearly 300,000 Indian farmers had committed suicide because of insurmountable debt due largely to the introduction of Monsantos (bt) cotton in the country. The (bt) refers to bacillus thuringienis, which contains 200 different proteins which naturally produce chemicals harmful to sellective insects. This is considered genetically modified seed and Monsanto has patent technology on this seed. During this period of "suicide economy" in India there was an increase in price per kilogram of cotton seeds from 7 to 17000 rupees. From this story i had read a little on Monsanto and learned that they were actually the producer of the lethal defoliant, Agent Orange, stemming from the......

Words: 1456 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

Monsanto Case

...Lane, Henry ; Maznevski, Martha ; DiStefano, Joseph & Dietz, Joerg. (2009) International management behavior : leading with a global mindset. 6th ed. Hoboken, N.J. : Wiley. "Montsanto Europe (A)", pp. 119-133. CASE 1 Monsanto Europe (A)1 We should diligently explore the possibilities of non-chemical methods [of pest control] ....Until a large-scale conversion to these methods has been made, we shall have little relief from a situation that, by any common-sense standards, is intolerable.2 Erwironmentalist Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring On November 5, 1996, the captain of Ideal Progress piloted the large freighter into the calm waters of Hamburg harbor. Suddenly the still autumn air was pierced by a shrill noise and large floodlights momentarily blinded the captain. The engines ground to a halt as some of the deck crew gathered around the bow to listen to the chants of their strange assailants. The captain was one of the few who understood what the commotion was about; a Greenpeace ship had come to protest the arrival of the first shipment of genetically modified soybeans from the United States. IVEY Richard lvey School of Business The University of Western Ontario � Northeastern � U N I V E R S I T Y David Wesley, Professors Francis Spital and Henry W. Lane prepared this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The......

Words: 1891 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Monsanto

...Monsanto is one of the largest seed company in the United States and was found by John F. Queeny in 1901 in St. Louis, Missouri. The Monsanto company has created a variety of products to include the artificial sweetener saccharine used by Coca-Cola. Due to past major legal obstacles (Orange Agent) they shifted their efforts from the chemical realm to an organization focused on biotechnology. Their past history has generated a consensus on the possibility of how biotechnology might affect the environment and peoples’ health (Ferrell 302). In order to look at stakeholder’s interest we must look at whether Monsanto maintain an ethical culture that effectively responds to various stakeholders; we must compare the benefits of growing GM seeds for crops with the potential negative consequences of using them; and how should Monsanto manage the potential harm to plant and animal life from using products such as Roundup. Who are Monsanto Stakeholders? Monsanto Stakeholders are their employees, customers, suppliers, shareholders, communities and investors. These are the people that have an interest in the business success or how they get there. Of course the company is in business to profit, but in the process it needs to make sure it is doing everything in its power to satisfy the needs of our society and environment, in other words, sustainable development. History tells us that this company has been through a lot of financial devastation mostly due to its lack of......

Words: 252 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Monsanto

...Monsanto Case Study Liberty University Business 472-D02 Introduction Monsanto has a long and varied history having been founded in 1901. It started by selling the sweetener saccharine to Coca-Cola, transformed itself into a chemical manufacturer, plastics, rubbers, and packaging (Ferrell, Fraedrich, & Ferrell, 2013, p.382-383). Fast forward to the late 20th and early 21st century and Monsanto is the worldwide leader in genetically modified (GM) food seeds. Through these various incarnations Monsanto has run into its share of ethical problems that has cost it some hard earned trust of governing bodies and consumers worldwide, but continues to prosper none the less. Monsanto has a very fine line to walk in keeping the highest ethical standards, finding ways to continuously innovate products that help to feed the world, and do this causing the absolute minimum damage to the environment at large as well as animals. All this must be done and still produce a profit that shareholders demand. Monsanto and the Culture of its Ethics Monsanto has a long history of ethical business violations that has resulted in fines from a multitude of American and International governmental agencies. The company has had issues with some of its products dating back to the 1940’s. Brian Tokar lists a string of products manufactured by Monsanto such as Dioxin, Agent Orange, Roundup, and others that has caused the company more than a headache or two. In reference to a train derailment and......

Words: 1413 - Pages: 6

Free Essay

Monsanto

...concerns the scientific and agricultural community has with the seed giant Monsanto. Not only has Monsanto abused its power as a big Ag corporation to advance its profits through unethical business practices, but also strengthen its stranglehold on farmers. Being a monopoly of the seed industry, Monsanto’s work in GMOs raises concerns as to the effects they have on land, animals, and humans. Monsanto is utilizing GMOs in an effort to stem the tide of world hunger, but because GMOs have only been implemented since the early 80’s their impact on human, animals, and the environment have yet to be determined. The long term effects caused by herbicides, pesticides, and hormones aren’t fully known by society yet. However, we use Monsanto’s roundup weed killer almost every day in America. This weed killer is what GMO seeds are modified to resist, giving them the ability to grow under such harsh conditions. Little is known about the effects of these roundup ready seeds, “The future of the company may lie in seeds, but the seeds of the company lie in chemicals” (Barlett and Steele). Monsanto’s roots were in chemicals far before they were planted in the agricultural industry. Those roots were planted in the early 1900’s by John Francis Queeny, who started Monsanto chemical works. Even though, Queeny founded Monsanto it was his son Edgar Queeny who brought Monsanto to power in the chemical industry. Through the years Monsanto would work with a wide range of chemicals goods. Products......

Words: 2141 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Monsanto Swot

...3/14/2016 SWOT Analysis: Monsanto Background Monsanto is an agricultural based company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. The company is a world leader in agricultural seeds and crop protection chemicals. They produce seed brands like Asgrow and DeKalb and also manufacture Roundup brand herbicide and other lawn and garden herbicides to for residential use. Scientific advancements have allowed Monsanto to reduce challenges faced by farmers and enable them to increase their yields and protect their harvests from weeds and insects. These protections are now seed-based, meaning the each seed has been genetically modified and are resistant to herbicides and pesticides. Monsanto faces industry competition from companies like DuPont, Bayer Crop Science AG, and Syngenta. The company needs to continue to advance seed technology, maintain open dialogue with the concerned public regarding the safety of its products, and branch into new markets to maintain revenues. Strengths 1. Advanced Technology: To help farmers get the most of each acre Monsanto utilizes advanced breeding techniques, biotechnology, and improved agronomic practices. Monsanto invests large amounts of money in research and development to deliver superior seed products to farmers. 2. Diversified operations: Geographically Monsanto is established throughout North America and has a strong presence in South America, Africa, Asia, Australia and Europe. Internally, Monsanto has two main......

Words: 722 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Monsanto and Lobbying

...Organisms Monsanto has a close relationship to the U.S. Government and agencies that work under the U.S. Government. The US government has become the cliched revolving door for Monsanto (and other industry insiders) who make smooth transitions between agency posts and back. This kind of “revolving-door-relationship” with the governmental regulatory agencies has been guaranteed with huge sums of money Monsanto has used to keep the officials and politicians on their side. In the year 2009 Monsanto used 8,7 million dollars for lobbying.This has led to situation where the regulations towards GMO food is extremely loose in the US. For example products that have ingredients made with GMO are not asked to to have a label warning about the non-organic ingredients. FDA who should be investigate whether the food is safe or not, is not neutral towards Monsanto, and the reason for this is that many former Monsanto workers have made a smooth career change from Monsanto to the public government supervised agencies. Some examples of officials who now for for the US government but have a strong tie with Monsanto reveals that these people sit in quite a high seats when it comes to decision making; for example the US Secretary of Agriculture Anne Veneman, was previously on the Board of Directors of Monsanto's Calgene Corporation. The former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld was on the Board of Directors as a chairman in Monsanto's Searle pharmaceuticals.G. D. Searle & Co. Monsanto......

Words: 397 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Monsanto

...Communications in Business Critical Essay Monsanto A Review of Performance of Monsanto On Genetic Modified Planets to Environment and Mankind Boyang Xu 16004593 Semester Two 2012 Bentley Campus Tutor: Wisdom Jo Tutorial Time: Thursday 14:00-16:00 Email: xby_remind@msn.cn The past century saw huge changes in the business world. The challenge of business is changing rapidly over time. Nowadays, companies are attaching greater importance to their Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) instead of focusing on seeking greatest profits only. Customers are becoming more and more concerned with large multinational companies' performance in respective of their social responsible manner,especially those multinational companies such as Monsanto.The Monsanto Company is an American based multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation,the world's leading producer of the Genetically Modified seeds (Monsanto, 2012a) This paper will review the social performance of Monsanto's various products to mankind, and analyze the impact of these performances on two key stakeholders: the communities Monsanto conducting business operations in and shareholders of the company. An on-balance conclusion about the company's performance in society will be provided at last. With regard to its social performance, Monsanto has always been devoted to the sustainable development of human beings. People around the world rely heavily on agriculture and the farmers working hard to satisfy......

Words: 1841 - Pages: 8