But Not All That Glitters Is Gold!

On paper the commitments of Monsanto are
everything one would expect to see in a corporate

sustainability report...
But not all that glitters is go
Monsantos SR states:
We are committed to having a positive impact in the
communities where we work and live in the areas of community
health and safety, STEM (science, technology, engineering and
math) education and volunteerism.
But whats the real impact of Monsanto on the

communities where it operates?
Since at least 2015, six cities San Jose, Oakland, Berkeley, San Diego,
Seattle, Spokanehave taken legal action against Monsanto for
pollution of waterways and property from chemicals the company is
alleged to have discharged when itdealt in chemical manufacturing.
Two cases:
Seattle
Spokane
The City of Seattle sued Monsanto

over
allegations
that
the
agrochemical giant polluted the
Lower Duwamish River and city
drainage
pipes.
The lawsuit claims that the
industrialized Lower Duwamish
River
was
contaminated
by
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
and that Monsanto continued to
produce the chemicals despite
knowing about the health and
environmental risks that they pose
Struggling with the pollution of

the Spokane River, a town in the
state of Washington has taken
Monsanto to court for selling
chemicals that endanger human
health and the environment,
despite it allegedly having
known of the hazard for
decades.
The lawsuit, filed in a US District
Court in Spokane, Washington,
holds Monsanto accountable for
pollutants flowing into the 111
miles (179 km) long Spokane
River
that
stretches
from
northern
Idaho
to
eastern
Washington.
PCBs have been detected in 82

percent of drainage pipes in the
Lower Duwamish drainage basin.
The chemicals are associated with
cancer, nervous system illness and
reproductive illnesses in humans,
A very positive impact!!!
The case of India

Alleged link between the economic distress among Indian farmers and the planting
of Monsantos GM cotton. The company is accused of the epidemic of farmers
suicides in India by several sources!
95 per cent of Indias cotton seed is now controlled by

Five things changed with MonsantosMonsanto.
entry:
1. Indian companies were locked into joint-ventures and licensing arrangements,

and concentration over the seed sector increased
2. Seeds which had been the farmers common resource became the intellectual
property of Monsanto, for which it started collecting royalties, thus raising the costs
of seeds
3) Open pollinated cotton seeds were displaced by hybrids, including GMO hybrids.
A renewable resource became a non-renewable, patented commodity.
4) Cotton which had earlier been grown as a mixture with food crops now had to be
grown as a monoculture, with higher vulnerability to pests, disease, drought and
crop failure.
5) Monsanto started to subvert Indias regulatory processes and, in fact, started to
use public resources to push its non-renewable hybrids and GMOs through so-called
public-private partnerships (PPP).
The situation got even worse with the introduction of BT Cotton.

According to Government of India data, nearly 75 per cent rural debt is
due to purchase inputs.
The overall productivity of cotton got better but at which price?
Wherever the truth is, thankfully India has vowed to protect

farmers from exploitation and continues regulating the price
of genetically modified cotton seeds in the country, looking
to break down the monopoly of Monsanto.
Introduction of a cap on the price of seeds

Development of Indias own seeds, which can be
collected and reused, instead of purchasing every year
Agriculture minister Radha Mohan Singh reaffirmed the
governments commitment to challenge Monsanto:
Companies like Monsanto should not be allowed to
exploit farmers just because they have technology.
Be it seeds or pharmaceutical companies we should
see to it that there is no monopoly. We will keep
regulating prices of seeds and medicine.
Conclusions...
Until which point a behavior is justifiable only because
it makes economically sense? And what about the
ethics?
The commitments of Monsanto look good and maybe
can also do good until a certain extent, but do they
outweigh the damages? Do they go far enough?
We think that a huge company with great means and
power as Monsanto can do way more.
It seems to us that the hot topics are left apart,
preferring easily manageable and not controversial
issues.
For these reasons we dont consider Monsanto as a
good example of a global corporate citizen.
Webography and References:

http://www.globalresearch.ca
https://www.rt.com
https://www.triplepundit.com
http://www.monsantoindia.com
KARP, J. 1998. Deadly Crop: Difficult Times Drive India's Cotton Farmers
To Desperate Actions. Wall Street Journal

But Not All That Glitters Is Gold!

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

But Not All That Glitters Is Gold!

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

But Not All That Glitters Is Gold!

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On paper the commitments of Monsanto are

everything one would expect to see in a corporate

But not all that glitters is go

But whats the real impact of Monsanto on the

The City of Seattle sued Monsanto

Struggling with the pollution of

PCBs have been detected in 82

A very positive impact!!!

The case of India

95 per cent of Indias cotton seed is now controlled by

1. Indian companies were locked into joint-ventures and licensing arrangements,

The situation got even worse with the introduction of BT Cotton.

Wherever the truth is, thankfully India has vowed to protect

Introduction of a cap on the price of seeds

Webography and References:

You might also like