Monsanto Seed Essay Example

signing the contract, farmers willingly acknowledged and utilized Monsanto's patented seeds while agreeing not to save or plant them for subsequent seasons. Monsanto also resorted to legal action against farmers who claimed ignorance of using their seeds, unlike the aforementioned example.According to documentation, seeds have the ability to travel a distance of up to 13 miles. These seeds can then germinate on a different farmer's property, even if the farmer did not intend to use the Monsanto product (c-555).

Despite the support of common law for saving seeds for food security (c-552), the courts consistently ruled in favor of Monsanto's protection under intellectual property laws. According to Monsanto, their focus was on farmers who intentionally planted GM canola for competitive advantage rather than those unintentionally exposed through cross-pollination. However, concerns persist regarding social and ethical implications as many farmers still opt for non-GM seeds and rely on "organic" farming practices employed before the introduction of GM seeds. Nonetheless, the dominance of Monsanto and its competitors within the seed industry presents challenges for farmers aiming to maintain traditional "organic" methods.

The ongoing ethical debate surrounding genetically modified (GM) seeds centers on the benefits and potential concerns linked to their use. Supporters argue that GM seeds offer advantages like improved taste and quality, shorter maturation time, increased nutrients, higher yields, enhanced stress tolerance, and resistance to pests and herbicides. However, critics raise ethical concerns regarding potential health effects such as allergens and the transfer of antibiotic resistance markers associated with using GM seeds. They also express worries about environmental impacts like unintended transgene transfer through cross-pollination, effects on other organisms (such as soil microbes), and loss of biodiversity.

Another ethical

issue in this matter relates to Monsanto's enforcement of licensing agreements. While it may be reasonable for Monsanto to require farmers to destroy crops proven to have been grown with their seeds, the company often takes a more aggressive approach that places financial burdens on farmers.

The company often charged $25,000 - $50,000 if they discovered seeds being planted and harvested without a contract (c-552). This amount was much higher than what the farmers would have gained by harvesting the seeds. Monsanto wanted to set a strong example and enforce compliance by demonstrating the consequences for violating farmers. Additionally, Monsanto's patent protection policy incentivized farmers to report their neighbors suspected of using the patented seeds without payment. As a motivation, the company offered "rewards" to farmers who provided leads on other farmers possessing Monsanto's patented seeds on their land. These actions had significant impacts on farming communities that had been built on trust and family relationships. Moreover, Monsanto also found a legal way to access a farmer's property and collect seed samples with minimal evidence of wrongdoing, further illustrating unethical behavior. While legally protected, the pursuit of the farmers seemed unethical.

The main focus of Monsanto appeared to be making money from non-users rather than defending themselves against farmers exploiting their technology. Taking a utilitarian perspective would evaluate the usefulness of Monsanto's actions to the entire farming community and determine the ethicality of these actions based on this usefulness. Monsanto's safeguarding of its intellectual property had a substantial benefit to farmers who already owned and paid for Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) seeds. However, these actions also caused harm to farmers who faced lawsuits and significant financial consequences.

According to a utilitarian approach, Monsanto's protection of its intellectual property resulted in considerable benefit for the farming community, as it protected the majority (around 85%) of farmers.

Monsanto Company saw a significant portion of their total net sales come from their seeds and genomics division. This percentage grew from 29% in 2001 ($1601 million of $5450 million) to 52% in 2005 ($3252 million of $6294 million net sales). The seeds and genomics business segment had a major positive impact on Monsanto's overall financial performance from 2001 to 2005. There were significant increases in net sales, gross profit, and EBIT for this segment during that time period (Exhibit 1). Compared to Monsanto's agricultural productivity segment, the seeds and genomics segment had higher growth rates in these financial parameters (Exhibit 2). When considering the seeds and genomics segment as a part of Monsanto Company, it is clear that its growth was driving the overall success of the company. In fact, the seeds segment alone experienced a 40% increase in net sales from 2004 to 2005, while Monsanto Company had only a 16% increase in net sales during the same period (Exhibit 3). This trend also holds true for the two prior years.

When evaluating basic liquidity, leverage, and financial performance ratios and indicators, it is evident that the company was in a considerably better financial position in 2005 compared to three years prior (refer to Exhibit 4 for further discussion). The future financial success of Monsanto heavily relies on genetically modified seeds and the patents safeguarding their intellectual property. Neglecting to vigorously pursue patent protection and address infringements could have significant long-term financial consequences. Moreover, continuing on the

same trajectory raises ethical and social concerns. The company's reputation appears to be deteriorating as lawsuit numbers accumulate. Potential courses of action include:

One option to make society trust Monsanto's intentions more is by enforcing patent protection less strictly, such as eliminating the tip line. This could address the negative reputation Monsanto has gained while still granting patent protection. While protecting patents is crucial, it may not be financially advantageous due to strained relationships with certain farmers. However, Monsanto claimed in the article "Trouble with Percy" that they did not pursue legal action against farmers who unintentionally ended up with genetically modified (GM) seeds due to cross-pollination.

To maintain the integrity of the company's patents and secure a positive return on their substantial annual research investment, it is crucial for Monsanto to persistently enforce patent agreements and take legal action against those misusing the patents. There are two key aspects to consider when evaluating the implications of continuing with a stringent approach. Firstly, if Monsanto insists on aggressively suing their customers, it could potentially harm the company's reputation. However, Monsanto believes that by enforcing patents, they are fulfilling their customers' expectations of preventing unauthorized use of their patented products by other farmers who have not paid the technology fee. Financially, robust enforcement of patent infringement is necessary to safeguard their patents and ensure a profitable outcome from their significant annual research expense (c-551). Additionally, it is advisable for Monsanto to revise their strategy and prioritize social responsibility by raising awareness about their practices.

The public should be reeducated about the benefits of Monsanto’s GM seeds and be made aware of Monsanto’s social responsibility. The focus should be on

the positive impact the GM seeds can have on society. Additionally, there is a need to develop an environmentally safe herbicide to remove unauthorized Monsanto GM seeds from unwanted areas. Currently, the removal process for these seeds is expensive and devastating for farmers who unintentionally or intentionally experienced pollination from neighboring fields. To minimize removal costs, Monsanto should invest in new technology that enables safe, cheap, and efficient removal of unauthorized plants. One suggestion is to genetically modify plants to be susceptible to a cost-effective chemical that is environmentally friendly. This would allow for spray treatment on fields found violating Monsanto’s intellectual property, facilitating the removal of Monsanto patented technology without damaging the violating farmer's field.

5. Allocate funds for research and development to evaluate the viability of terminator or closed germination seed technology, which aims to prevent the unauthorized use of genetically modified (GM) products. By implementing this technology, any seeds cross-pollinated with a terminator seed will be rendered unproductive in subsequent years, effectively eliminating unintentional pollination for affected farmers. Nevertheless, Monsanto may encounter substantial legal obstacles in bringing a terminator seed to market.

Furthermore, in order to prevent unauthorized use of its patented product without harming non-users' product, Monsanto should continue investing in research and development for closed-germination, non-seeding technology. By requiring legal users to purchase seeds each season and eliminating cross pollination with neighboring farms, this technology will save Monsanto money in the long run and eliminate the need for a large legal department. It will also demonstrate social responsibility, ensuring Monsanto's ongoing financial success and facilitating future seed life cycle development. 6.

One way to enhance corporate image is through philanthropy or

strategic corporate giving. Monsanto can improve public perception by participating in such initiatives. In terms of strategic recommendations, the seeds and traits segment offers significant financial growth potential. Given that this division's net income and gross profit surpass those of the agricultural segment, it should be the main focus in terms of expanding and safeguarding products and patents in the upcoming years.

After evaluating the available options, we have concluded that combining these suggested actions will result in the most advantageous outcome for all parties involved. The specific details of these actions are provided below. Our initial recommendation is to continue enforcing patent infringement to maintain patent and intellectual property protection. Monsanto has rightfully earned the privilege of safeguarding their patents and should be allowed to preserve this advantage. It is generally preferable to reduce the monetary amount sought for patent infringement so that it aligns with the actual profits generated or removal of the product. Implementing this adjustment would benefit the company in two ways: firstly, by enhancing its reputation through clarifying that fines solely exist for patent protection purposes rather than eliminating farmers' businesses, and secondly, by enabling Monsanto to maintain strong patent protection for their genetically modified seeds.

Monsanto Canada Inc. aims to improve the reputation of GM seeds among farmers by showcasing their benefits and advantages. The company emphasized in a press release that using herbicide-tolerant seeds resulted in a 29% decrease in chemical usage, higher crop yields, and an average net profit of $5.0 per acre. Dr. Martha Crouch, an Associate Professor of Biology at Indiana University, stressed the importance of conducting thorough research and making significant financial investments to create biotech

crops that provide substantial value for farmers.

The future investment in biotech research relies on companies' ability to share in the added value created by these crops. If growers save and replant patented seed, it creates a situation where there is less motivation for all companies to invest in future technology. This includes the development of seeds with traits that produce higher-yielding, higher-value, and drought-tolerant crops. Ultimately, a small number of growers who save and replant patented seed put at risk the future availability of innovative biotechnology for all growers. This is unfair to everyone involved. Therefore, we recommend that the company continues to inform the public about why they are enforcing patents, including the aforementioned benefits. This action should be taken immediately.

Firstly, we advise discontinuing the tip line. Presently, the public perceives Monsanto's efforts as a "witch hunt". In reality, Monsanto aims to identify farmers who misuse genetically modified seeds without paying the requisite fees. The objective is not to harm these farmers' businesses but to rightfully obtain the profits that belong to Monsanto. This is particularly crucial when addressing individuals whose crops were unintentionally contaminated by GM seeds or were reported by dissatisfied neighbors. Removing the tip line is a significant step towards improving the company's reputation.

The proposed timeline is immediate. Furthermore, we suggest that Monsanto adopt a more socially responsible stance to mitigate the consequences of its unintentional use. As we previously stated, farmers often faced lawsuits demanding amounts far exceeding their potential profits. Both those who unknowingly had GM seeds on their land and those who deliberately used the seeds illegally were equally penalized. This issue needs to be addressed.

A portion of Monsanto's resources currently used in safeguarding its intellectual property should be redirected towards new research and development that would enable easy removal of intentional or accidental violations involving Monsanto seeds. If this endeavor proves successful, Monsanto would be able to handle violations of its intellectual property more efficiently, while also safeguarding the environment and preventing farmers from losing entire crops.

Efforts to improve Monsanto's public image are aimed at both the general public and farmers, with the expectation of increasing long-term profits. The proposed timeline for these efforts is 2006-2007. Given the current divide in public opinion on genetically modified products, it is crucial for Monsanto to provide additional education. This includes highlighting the benefits of genetically modified seeds to the agricultural industry and promoting greater production. Furthermore, Monsanto must investigate and disclose any potential adverse effects of genetically modified seeds on the environment and human consumption. If proven safe, Monsanto should publish these findings to assure society. Consumers need to be informed about the benefits of GM seeds while also being reassured of their safety.

Monsanto can gain higher net sales and market share in the seed market, as well as enter new seed markets, with their new image of social responsibility. The proposed timeline for this is 2006-2007. However, the farming community perceives Monsanto as a "bully" because of their unwavering approach to protecting their intellectual property. This perception is concerning, considering the company's growth in the seed division. To improve their reputation, Monsanto could engage with the farming community through philanthropic acts. However, since some farmers oppose GM seeds and prefer organic substances for crop spraying, Monsanto will always face scrutiny

within the industry. As a result, running television ads dispelling rumors about GM seeds or donating money to a research company may be seen as insincere and dishonest.

Instead of focusing solely on their business, Monsanto should consider engaging with specific communities and building long-term connections. One approach is to establish a presence in prominent agricultural institutions and programs across the United States and Canada. As a first step, they can sponsor a scholarship program that motivates students to pursue careers in agriculture. This initiative will demonstrate their commitment to the future of farming through educational investments. Additionally, Monsanto could organize monthly "town hall" breakfast meetings at chosen local co-op's on Saturdays, providing a platform for open discussions.

The discussion could cover different topics such as efficient ways to spray Monsanto seeds to reduce overspray and waste, or environmentally conscious methods for watering seeds in hot summer months. The locations for these discussions could vary, with a suggestion to prioritize areas that have faced past conflicts. Furthermore, question and answer sessions could be held, where farmers from organic farms can share their concerns. By inviting these farmers, Monsanto would demonstrate their commitment to transparency and openness within the farming community. The plans for these discussions should be developed by Monsanto's board of directors, with a yearly timeline. Using philanthropy is a strategy that aims to benefit both the company and society in the long term, so Monsanto must consider the long-term consequences of their actions starting now.

References:

1. Broydo, Leora, “Trouble with Percy” December 13, 2000, ;http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/12/schmeiser.html;. Accessed September 9, 2008.
2. “Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms,” ;http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml; Last modified August 27, 2008. Base URL:
   

;www.ornl.gov/hgmis; Site sponsored by U.

The information below is accessed from the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program on September 12, 2008.

• Thompson, Arthur A, Strickland, A. J.

, Gamble, John, "Crafting and Executing Strategy". McGraw Hill. 2007. Fifteenth Edition. c-550 to c-549. Broydo, Leora, "Trouble with Percy".

On December 13, 2000, the article "Schmeiser" was published on the website "http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2000/12/schmeiser.html". It was accessed on September 9, 2008 according to Ben Chapman.

"Farmers are Increasing the Planting of Genetically Engineered Crops and Reducing Pesticide Usage."

Accessed September 13, 2008. Crouch, Martha L. “How the Terminator Terminates”. 1998.

htm;.