Xu 1

Siqi.Xu
Sustainability FRINQ
Professor Perkins
11/18/2013
Monsanto and genetic modify technology
Among various commercial activities, agriculture is the one with which we all have the
most personal and daily relationship. Given this critical connection we all have to commercial
agriculture, it is important that the corporations that supply our food are sustainable, both in
terms of their environmental impacts and their own viability in the market place. The
corporations that lack a sense of direct and firm commitments to sustainability will face the same
consequence in the future possibility of being eliminated by the market. Since sustainability is
critical to businesses, it is important that their commitment to it is clearly articulated, ideally in
their principle guiding document, their mission or vision statement. Such statements need to
define specific sustainable goals and the means to determine whether thoseey are meeting these
goals are being met.
What are the effects they bring to the market? How do they maximize their business
potential while minimizing potential negative impacts?
Monsanto is a huge business that typifies large agricultural corporations. The CEO of this
company gives us a clear vision statement that would have us believe that the corporation is
committed to producing more, conserving more, and improving farmers lives (Monsanto, 2010).
I think that Monsantos actions to date, including their efforts to increase crop yields to meet the
needs of a growing population support this vision in some if not all regards, despite many
assertions to the contrary put forth by environmental groups.
Xu 2
Producing more is to meet the needs of a growing population, make agriculture more
productive and sustainable (Monsanto, 2010). To speak in another wayIn other words,
producing more means to meet the needs of more consumers, including consumers in the
future next generation. That is a critical consideration given the incredible rates of population
growth. Currently, eNowadays, the situation of the whole world is that the population is going to
increase. Every minute, our global family welcomes 255 babies into the world. That is 134
million new mouths to feed every year. And though the rates of increase may be declining, it is
projected that the global population will still experience an increase of 2.2 billion (~30%) by
2040 (Davila, 2010). The population will increase 2.2 billion by 2040. Although the population
in some parts of the world are gradually aging, the quality of peoples lives is still stepping into a
more brightening placeincreasing, as are and average life expectancies the average age of death
is going to increase due to the improvedment of medical treatment and health careinsurance. The
likely result is that Besides, more and more babies are born into the world so that the form only
depending on the original productivitytraditional modes of food production, even when
augmented by mechanization, of natural world will will no longer be able to meet the
requirements of the growing population to food. We should think for about the next generation
right now. The only way to solve this problem is to take the sustainable way. Imagine that when
the last mouse is going to leave your home because it has nothing to eat, your babies are crying
for hunger and your family are facing a risk of starvation, . Wwill you be angry that the the
agricultural corporations that are responsible for production of most of our food did not follow
the way that are a plan that allowed for the growing population or worse, collapsed altogether?
sustainable? However, this extreme situation will never occur show up for Monsanto because
itMonsanto always sticks to this kind of beliefif a business doesnt grow, it will die out from
Comment [RP1]: It is important to get that
citation after all of your statistics (assuming it
is the source of all of them).

Also note that 134 million / year x 30 years = 4
billion, so the 2.2 billion you cite suggests a
decreasing rate of increase (thankfully!)
Comment [RP2]: That is arguable. It has
been the case for hundreds of years, but there
is mounting evidence including decreasing
life expectancies in some countries (including
the U.S.) that quality of life may be starting
to decline.
Comment [RP3]: Here, Im trying to give
you an opening to argue that the specific
genetic technologies are needed in addition to
standard industrialization.
Xu 3
the market. believes that And the world economy must grow to keep pace with the needs of
population growth and we are seeking growth through sustainability (Magretta, 1997).
Monsanto wants to use technologies to enable farmers to get more from every acre of
farmland (Monsanto, 2010). Monsanto is working to increase farmers harvest twofold in the
next 20 years. The typical representative of one of their high-end technologies is And they intend
to to that through genetic modificationy technology and the development of new genetically
modified foods. And the typical product of using this technology is GMO food. The nature of
gGenetically modified foods are foods produced from organismsplants that have had specific
changes introduced into their DNA using the methods of genetic engineering, often in order to
repel or destroy harmful insects. In this way, people do not have to spray the plant with
pesticides and 90% of what is sprayed on crops today can be eliminated. Monsanto believes that
if they put the right information in the plant modify the DNA of plants into a correct way, they
will waste less stuff and increase productivity (Magretta, 1997) .That means Monsanto uses
genetically modify technology to economize. This kind of technology does bring a lot of
advantages to farmers.
The most obvious example is corn. Corn used for food has been genetically modified to
be resistant to various herbicides and to express a protein from Bacillus thuringiensis that kills
certain insects. Only about 10% of the corn grown in the US has not been genetically modified
yet (Davila, 2010). This indicates that genetically modified corn has been widely used in the US
and has brought considerable profit to agricultural companies. This kind of technology occupies
a great proportion in the development of companies because it shares a close relationship with
sustainability and economics. This technology owns the ability to cut expense in producing
various kinds of pesticides and reduce the harm of intake pesticides. On the other hand, this
Comment [RP4]: What about gm animals?!
Comment [RP5]: or many would argue
to make them resistant to insecticides that
irradicate harmful insects . . .thus promoting
sell of insecticides to be sprayed directly on
croplands (remember, Monsanto started out
as a chemical company... it was the
insecticides they were (and are) selling.
Xu 4
technology meet the requirement of increasing population. If we eat the crops sprayed by 1/100
of a whole bottle pesticide, after 100 days, we will drink a bottle of pesticide. It is really a great
harm to our body system for a long period not to mention that we should have crops for our
whole life.
Conserving more means that Monsanto has strengthened its goal of doubling crop yields
by committing to doing it with one-third fewer resources such as land, water, and energy per unit
produced (Monsanto, 2010). They are continuing to develop better seeds and improve on-farm
practices that enable farmers to better manage weeds, pests, and environmental stresses. They are
working with other agricultural corporations to develop conservation systems that are better for
the plan. Magretta compares the amount of waste in two different situations while producing
foods. The first situation is that in the process of genetically modify 4,000,000 pounds of raw
potatoes, less than 5% can reach the target of resist pests when they are sprayed on pesticide. 95%
of raw potatoes are in the risk of being eaten by pests. The other situation is that if the
corporations use genetic modify technology in machining potatoes, the new type potato
Newleaf Plus seed potatoes will be totally transformed into crops that can be sent directly into
our mouths.
That is, Monsanto seeks to improve efficiency. By improving the efficiency, farmers will
make more profit. But is genetically modify technology very efficient? In fact, only a small
quantity of modified potatoes can translate into correct protein to resist pests. If we exchange the
cost of refreshing the water and the loss of unsuccessful products, they share the same value. So
is producing GMO food a good way to conserve more? Is conserving more meaningful to us
since this idea also based on such amount of waste? Does this so-called better seeds cut the cost
of farmers? Probably no. Both of these two different roads lead to the same consequencewaste.
Xu 5
The only difference is how to waste. One is to be eaten by insects and another is to waste during
the process of unsuccessfully produce foods.
The last point is about improving lives. as part of Monsantos commitment to sustainable
agriculture, they set a goal to help farmers improve their quality of life, including 5 million
people in source-poor farm families in the next 10 years and for all the worlds farmers who
raise themselves from poverty to prosperity, many more people will also prosper, through
healthier diets, greater educational opportunities, and brighter futures fueled by more robust local
economies (Monsanto, 2010). There are two angles of improving lives, one is to improve
peoples life physically, another is to improve the quality of lives.
Monsanto indeed helps farmers make more profit and improve their lives to some degree.
The first side is that Monsanto helps farmers produce more and this point has been stated
in the beginning of this passage. Besides, Monsanto also produces different kinds of plants to
make more money. Genetic modify technology can satisfy different needs of different groups of
consumers. The first is genetic modified flowers. Usually, it is common for flowers to have
different kinds of bright colors. But have ever seen flowers turn to blue or green naturally? It is
special for people to see flowers have special colors and this phenomenon causes the curious of
people. Then the corporation can make profit by their particularity contributed to their genetic
modify technology because more farmers are willing to pay for this new technology. Meanwhile,
it is also a big deal for farmers. They can increase the revenue in this way. Monsanto realizes that
the modern market is a place face to a combination of high-end technology and economics. And
it balances perfect between economics and sustainability. That is a significant reason for
Monsanto to be successful.
Xu 6
The second side is that they cut the land that they use to produce plants. They develop
some plants that resist viruses so that the percentage of good plants will be more than that of bad
plants. If we think the bad plants that we plant in the field as a kind of waste, then the waste will
be reduced and the land that farmers use to produce good plants will be more. In this way, the
capital of farmers will be reduced.
So famers will gain from planting the seeds purchased from Monsanto. But what about
the consumers willingness? Does Monsanto really improve their quality of life? Are they
concerned about the quality of these products? Use GMO food as an example, GMOs are soy,
maize and oilseed rape designed to contain new pesticide residues since they have been modified
to be herbicide-tolerant or to produce mutated Bt toxins. The debated alimentary chronic risks
may come from these aspects: unpredictable insertional mutagenesis effects, metabolic effects,
or from the new pesticide residues (Vendomois, et al., 2010). This indicates that the pesticide
that sprayed on the plants can be washed out, but if we change the gene code inside the plants
and eat them, the modified gene will remain in our body system forever. And it actually has
potential effects to peoples body, and the environment that plants grow in since many tests have
been operated to confirm that conclusion. The quality of soil and other plants can be effected by
the modified plants. Moreover, the fact in the modern society is that consumers has a great
debate on this topic. The debate implies an enormous responsibility towards public health and is
essential due to nonexistent traceability or epidemiological studies in the GMO-producing
countries (Vendomois, et al., 2010). They think that Monsanto fails to produce the yields
promised by the companys advertising because Monsanto cannot make consumers believe that
what it does really improve the quality of peoples lives and make people relay on the actions
Xu 7
that it takes. If we are not healthy, the time for people will not exist any longer. Maybe in the
future, the environment around us will not give us any resources that can be used by us.
On a conclusionTo conclude, Monsanto is still exploring the best way to keep a balance
between economy economic and sustainable development. But it seems that they put more effort
into their economy economic health rather than really focus morethey do on sustainability. It
canThis may be reasonable, but what they do should be benefit for the whole world, including
the environment and consumers, rather than only focus on farmers andincrease their profits.

Xu 8

References
Davila, A. (2010). Can We Feed Our World Without Monsanto? Our worldWorld.
Magretta, J. (1997, January-February). Growth through global sustainability. An interview with
Monsanto's CEO, Robert B. Shapiro, pp. 79-88.
Monsanto. (2010, 3 17). Our commitment to sustainable agriculture. Retrieved from
http://www.monsanto.com/whoweare/Pages/sustainable-agriculture-commitments-
timeline.aspx.
Vendomois, J. S., Cellier, D., Velot, C., Clair, E., Mesnage, R., & Seralini, G.-E. (2010). Debate
on GMOs health risks after sraristical findings in regulatory tests. International journal
Journal of bBiological sSciences, 6(6), 590-598.

I can see that youve put considerable effort into your paper. Further, it does seem to have
a balanced perspective; you start out quite positive about Monsanto and end a bit critical, though
still with an understanding that businesses are necessary . . . it might have been good,
nonetheless, to remind us that what they do does help in important ways, even if it could or
should be modified to be more helpful to more people.
Keep up the good effort . . the language and wording will come with practice!
Comment [RP6]: OK. The Davila reference is
incomplete. Is Our World a newspaper? A
journal? If so, what volume and page numbers?
Is it a website? Whats URL and when did you
access it?

Also, the only scholarly work you have here is
the last one. (Youre supposed to have 2).