Monsanto Sustainability and Ethical Conduct
A corporation, like any organization of people, has civic responsibilities in terms of legal and ethical conduct. Monsanto’s very name has at this point come to be loaded a very clear set of preconceived notions in the vast majority of the Western Public Discourse, and the positions are stated essentially as “fact” in much of that discourse. In fact, much of what counts as open debate, is artfully undertaken with the company’s overall malevolence as an axiom, followed by an “open” discussion as to why and to what extent this is so. Considering the enormous impact of this perception as it is conveyed en masse, one ought to venture a conjecture: What if the company is not only not malevolent, but is …show more content…
Genetically modified Bt crops, a pest-killing bacteria protein, are among the crops that get a bad rap, being accused of harming animals and appearing in pregnant women’s blood. However, all these claims have been proven to be false (Zhang, 2012). The French ban on Bt corn was rejected by the European Food Safety Authority, stating that there is no scientific evidence that there is a risk to human and animal health or the environment. 10 years of European Union-funded research came to the same conclusions about Bt safety (Zhang, 2012). The so called “Golden Rice” is however the most noteworthy example in the global controversy. It is a GM variety of rice that produces beta-carotene in the endosperm, which enables humans to produce Vitamin A. This is important because Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) leads to blindness and the inability to fight infections, especially in children. In Africa and India, in particular, VAD is so widespread that around 200 million children and 20 million pregnant women suffer from it according the World Health Organization. It’s responsible for about two million deaths annually, and half a million cases of blindness a year. Rice is the staple food for over half the world’s population, and a single
A corporation, like any organization of people, has civic responsibilities in terms of legal and ethical conduct. Monsanto’s very name has at this point come to be loaded a very clear set of preconceived notions in the vast majority of the Western Public Discourse, and the positions are stated essentially as “fact” in much of that discourse. In fact, much of what counts as open debate, is artfully undertaken with the company’s overall malevolence as an axiom, followed by an “open” discussion as to why and to what extent this is so. Considering the enormous impact of this perception as it is conveyed en masse, one ought to venture a conjecture: What if the company is not only not malevolent, but is …show more content…
Genetically modified Bt crops, a pest-killing bacteria protein, are among the crops that get a bad rap, being accused of harming animals and appearing in pregnant women’s blood. However, all these claims have been proven to be false (Zhang, 2012). The French ban on Bt corn was rejected by the European Food Safety Authority, stating that there is no scientific evidence that there is a risk to human and animal health or the environment. 10 years of European Union-funded research came to the same conclusions about Bt safety (Zhang, 2012). The so called “Golden Rice” is however the most noteworthy example in the global controversy. It is a GM variety of rice that produces beta-carotene in the endosperm, which enables humans to produce Vitamin A. This is important because Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) leads to blindness and the inability to fight infections, especially in children. In Africa and India, in particular, VAD is so widespread that around 200 million children and 20 million pregnant women suffer from it according the World Health Organization. It’s responsible for about two million deaths annually, and half a million cases of blindness a year. Rice is the staple food for over half the world’s population, and a single