By: Yanik Fati
Business ethics is the foundation from which trust between the consumer and business is built. Business ethics which may be but is not always guided by law is an integral component in modern society. Large multinational corporations of the modern world posses power and influence that can rival many nation-states, and so it is vital that businesses follow ethical guidelines to ensure a prosperous global civilization. Despite the extremely important nature of ethics in the private sector competition in a capitalist society may drive many businesses to adopt less than ethical business practices. The desire for profit in combination with the pressures applied by external competitors may lead to unethical business practices. Unethical business practices may not always be illegal but they are always wrong from a moralistic point of view, for this reason, a business that engages in widespread unethical practices do not always last, one need only look at Enron as an example. One powerful corporation has bucked the trend of short-lived unethical businesses. The Monsanto Agrochemical Company has been engaging in unethical business practices for decades.
In 1901 John Francis Queeny founded a chemical company in the Greater St. Louis area called Monsanto named after his wife. Queeny’s company began producing chemicals for human consumption, Saccharin, Vanillin and other artificial sweeteners. One of Monsanto’s earliest business partners was the then newfound Coca-Cola, with a stable business model and stable business partners Monsanto prospered. After John Queeny’s death his son Edgar took control of the company. Edgar turned Monsanto from a prosperous national company to an international powerhouse and what some would call the most powerful and others the evilest corporation in the world.
Monsanto’s first dealings into unethical business practices began during the Vietnam War. The company began producing one of the most toxic and controversial chemicals in human history Agent Orange. A private company engaging in chemical warfare is alarming enough without the added knowledge of that companies increasing dominance in the production of high fructose corn syrup and the promotion of its use. High fructose corn syrup is an artificial sweetener found in many household products and is widely considered the culprit in America’s current obesity problem. Monsanto’s participation and cooperation during the Vietnam War earned it some powerful friends in congress and so would begin Monsanto’s decision to build one of the most powerful and influential political lobbying armies in Washington. Monsanto will use the army of Washington lobbyist it has built to seize control of the worlds food supply through agriculture using truly Gestapo like tactics.
In 1980 the U.S. supreme court ruled in a narrow five to four decision that agricultural seeds could be patented as widgets. This little known court ruling is perhaps one of the most important changes to farming ever. Now companies like Monsanto can patent seeds and prevent farmers from using certain seed varieties by claiming them as their personal property. Monsanto would take advantage of the Supreme Court ruling, just two years later Monsanto became the first company to genetically modify plant cells, three years after that Monsanto began growing genetically modified crops. Monsanto would see the large profits from its agribusiness and would being divesting in all of its other properties in favor of its biotech firms. Not long after developing genetically modified organisms Monsanto began buying out the competition. In 1996 Monsanto bought out Agracetus it would also buy out Dekalb and international seed company Cargill all within a 10-year span. In 2005 Monsanto would purchase Seminis corporation for 1.4 billion dollars, this would give Monsanto control of 40% of lettuce, tomatoes and other vegetable seeds. The purchase of Emergent for 300 million would give Monsanto control over an astonishing 90% of soybean production in the U.S. Around the planet Monsanto’s GMO seeds business would hold a monopoly in various countries.
You may be thinking so Monsanto is large and holds a high market share how is that unethical? Let me explain, a genetically altered organism has its basic biological properties altered this includes its life span and ability to reproduce. Monsanto will create some of its seeds with a built in genetic programming preventing them from being fertile after one use. This is so that farmers who use these particular seeds must continue purchasing new seeds from Monsanto each growing season. If you’re a farmer in a wealthy developed country with subsidized farming, constantly having to purchase new seeds every season can be financially difficult. If you’re a subsistence farmer living in an impoverished nation you may only have enough resources to purchase seeds the one time, in which case they would then use the naturally occurring seeds from the crops they harvest, during the next planting season, this is the way farming has been done since the Neolithic revolution. Monsanto’s business model would be compromised if farmers didn’t need to buy from it every season. Many of Monsanto’s GMO seeds have natural reproductive life spans however Monsanto claims patent rights on each generation of GMO crops so even when farmers can use the naturally occurring seeds from their harvest Monsanto will viciously prosecute them for patent infringement. The ways in which Monsanto persecutes small farmers who it believes have violated its patent rights are ruthless and highly unethical.
Monsanto has amassed an army of private investigators with the sole purpose of hunting down and legally destroying any farmer it believes is growing GMO plants. The tactics these investigators use have been coined as “Gestapo” like by the farmers who have experienced them. Monsanto’s private investigators will videotape and photograph farmers and store owners suspected of selling its seeds. It will pay informants to infiltrate town hall meetings in rural villages. Take for example the case of Indiana farmers Mr. and Mrs. Runyon who own a 900-acre soybean farm one day a Monsanto investigator approached them at their farm and demanded to see their farming records. The Runyons dismissed the strange man several weeks later the Runyons received a letter from Monsanto claiming it had the right to investigate the Runyons for possible patent infringement and that it was authorized to do so by the Indiana Department of Agriculture. He only problem was Indian Department of Agriculture did not issue any authorization Monsanto was lying to the Runyons. Another example is the case of Gary Rinehart from Eagleville, Missouri the man was harassed by a Monsanto agent in his small town convenience store and accused of selling patented GMO seeds. Gary Rinehart was sued by Monsanto for patent infringement he hired a lawyer and prepared to defend himself when it was discovered that Monsanto had sued the wrong man. Gary did not do anything wrong and Monsanto dropped the lawsuit bear in mind they did not apologize for the mistake or offer to reimburse him for his legal expenses. There are many similar instances of Monsanto aggressively pursuing farms regardless of the morals involved including cases of Monsanto suing farmers for having GMO crops on their farms despite the fact that the seeds were blown on to the farms by the wind. Monsanto’s bullying of farmers is one of many questionable tactics they use to enforce their patents.
Around the world individuals question the safety of Monsanto’s products including its GMOs. While genetically modified seeds do provide higher yield and more profits for farmers some question what long term effect they will have on human beings. While all of the products Monsanto sells are cleared by the FDA, serious concerns exist about how they were approved by the Food and Drug administration. Take for example Monsanto’s recombinant bovine growth hormone (RBGH) a product when injected into cows increases their milk production by up to 40%, which Monsanto claims is safe. In 1993 the FDA claimed after extensive tests it concluded that milk produced by cows injected with RBGH was safe for human consumption. What exactly were these extensive tests, a study conducted by Monsanto on 30 rats for 90 days. So untrustworthy was Monsanto’s tests that Japan, the European Union, Canada, and Australia have all banned RBGH. This may hope fully be a sign of future regulations to begin controlling Monsanto.
Companies as powerful as Monsanto may not have a legal obligation to behave in an ethical fashion but they do have a moral one. If corporate giants like Monsanto are allowed to harass farmers, strong arm competitors to form near monopolies, and create chemical agents that may be harmful to society all without some repercussion it will set a dangerous precedent for the future. All people around the world have one thing in common we all desire to leave a world for are children that is better then the ones we inherited. A future without corporate ethics is not that future, we must all work together to ensure that politicians and businesses are held to a high ethical standard whether its is legally mandated or not.
Yanik 