Home >> Social Studies >> Monsanto A Curve Or A Blessing
Monsanto A Curve Or A Blessing
What is Monsanto?
A multinational agricultural bio-cooperation world’s leading producer of genetic modified seeds.
Provides 90% of the GM crops.
In 2011 à Monsanto is named the worst company of 2011 of the environmental organization because they threatened human health
Has negatives and positive factors.
Good in the short run bad in the long run.
Since it is a new technology which is just becoming common, more trend and patterns need to be observed and analyzed in order to answer the question. However it is debatable which will be further discussed in the paragraphs below.
· Monsanto is really good because their seeds has insect repellent inside them so farmers don’t have to spend extra money to kill insects, etc. Pretty cheap way of farming
· However the genetic modified crops is made to be more healthy (nutritious) but not organic
· More productive economy and better workforce which help the nation
· farmers are more productive (increase of production). International Rice Research Institution (Philippines) à new rice seed 2.7 to 7 million tonnes in 2 decades. Since 1996, India has increase of production (seed market of 1.5 billion) and got seeds from Monsanto
· The green revolution turned to the gene revolution. New of thinking, development, promoting innovation.
· more nutritious but its not organic.
· -fruit vaccines. no shots, easier to produce, more people have access to it and increases the work force and contribute to better economy,
· calories per person increases.
· -in 25 countries, increase in the farmers producing GM crops.
· -india get 60 % from monsanto.
· genetically modified milk has increased by 5 %, acceptance in US.
· genes pass, easier to mass produce
· can support growing population
· Even though these plants have these insect repellent, it can produce pollen and affects the river systems à it still gonna spread through the whole system
· Problem: More resistant pest – because they are resistant to something more powerful people have to use more and more pesticides. Natural selection plays a role.
· Pesticides à change nutrient contents of the crop, and has allergic reactions to people.
· Ex/ there’s a woman who almost died genetic modified cabbage
· Negative - 3 French scientists found at these beans (fed in lab mice) causes organ damage (even though they are animals these can cause on people)
· - Socio – cultural perspective: Increase gap between the rich and the poor farmers.
· some farmers stick to the old fashioned way of producing crops (ex/ Mexico)
· US crops are cheaper than Mexico
· Not many people don’t buy due to lack of education
· - Some people don’t know that they are buying things that are genetically modified
· If decrease resources à decrease production of GM crops à won’t support the population
· Price of the seeds are so expensive, they cannot afford it (ex/ Indian farmers suicide)
· Plants have herbicide, they generate pollen which goes into the rive r systems and effect the food chain.
· -in India, they made cotton and didnt repel the bugs. Not always succesful.
· -created new pests. farmers are using 13 time more pesticides. Created more problems. More stronger pests due to natural selection.
· increased disparity between the poor and rich farmers.
· -rich bought gm but poor growed organic, thus disparity between them grew
· -farmers are reluctant to change, monsanto went and took his seeds and lodged a case.
· -the price increased increadibly, many farmers comitted suicide.
· -Monsanto is a monopoly so it controls the price. consumer sovereighnty is harmed.
· -mass production contributes to disparity.
· Monsanto decrease the use of resources and production is increasing, which is really productive. however, increases unemployment.
The question is debatable.
It depends on the geographical location of a country because many African countries suffer with drought. They can benefit from GM crops.
Countries can choose if they want GM crops.
Alternative to Monsanto : It’s like oil, how we are dependent on it, except it’s not running out but there is harm in the environment and everyone around us
Improve education so people are more educated
“Whoever controls the seeds, controls the food” à if they didn’t have a lot market share, they would be more productive.
SHORT RUN à good thing
LONG RUN à bad thing
As they get better in technology, they will find out the problem
The Cons outweighs the pros at the moment
We’ll see in the future
Put subsidy if a good thing.
have to consider where people live, where is will be most beneficial eg US cuz a lot of fat people then places where there is famine.
-it can be sustainable however, the foor capasity is already passed therofore, we need more land
-we can control it by devisizing new ways of using land.
-alternative methods dont need it now because it doesnt run out. supports development. effectively using non-renewable resources.
-who controls the seed, controls the food.
-short run good thing but in the long run it will cause more harm. However, the new laws need to be formulated in order make this more effective.
natural selection will make it more resistance to Gm crops.
-more cons at the moment.
-pay more attesnion to feeding than the consequences because it actually solves the problem on the primarily bases.
-better if they didnt dominate the market so much
-blessing at the moment but curve in the future?