cf紫川窗口化,敖日格勒vs崔洪万,焦灵花
| Policies on Agriculture and Health in Monsanto 孟山都的农业和卫生政策 孟山都的生命科学战略 1980年，重组基因技术开始迅速发展。它有根本上改变了农业，制药和保健行业的潜在可能。重组基因技术的应用需要大量研究和开发的支持。这项研究是跨行业的，这种相似性导致了行业之间的协同作用。孟山都公司就是决定追求一个“生命科学”战略的企业之一。 一些被讨论的政策提前规划了孟山都的未来。如全球化，知识产权，自由贸易协定等因素都对其增长提供了充分的机会。 然而在1999年，合并孟山都初步成功后，标志着IT战略的失败。两个可能的原因可以看做是。 缺乏市场强制力： 一些市场强制力量如环境影响着集团的业务性质。令人惊奇的是1990年代初期孟山都的管理层决定忽略它们的影响。 先发优势—劣势 Life Sciences Strategy in Monsanto In 1980’s the development of recombinant gene technologies accelerated. This had the potential to fundamentally change the agribusiness, pharmaceutical and healthcare industries. The application of recombinant gene technology required substantial research and development. The research was similar across sectors. This similarity led to synergies between the sectors. Monsanto was among the companies that decided to pursue a ‘life science’ strategy. Several policies as discussed in sections ahead shaped Monsanto’s future. Factors such as globalization, IPR, FTA’s provided ample opportunity for its growth. However the 1999 merger of Monsanto signalled it failure of strategy after brief initial success. Two potential reasons can be seen as. Non Market forces : Several non market forces such as environmental group affected the nature of business. Surprisingly the early management of Monsanto in the 1990’s deciding to ignore their effect. First Mover Advantage – Disadvantage : Monsanto was the first mover in exploring the new and challenging ‘life science’ industry. It could have benefited from it. As it could have enjoyed loyalty of first buyers, cost advantages, etc. However these failed to turn into its advantage. The firm’s decision of marketing controversial products hampered its progress. Misinformation and products whose benefits were only perceived by farmers and not by consumers are some of the other factors. Inadequately informed and poorly preparation to accept these GMO products in market was another. Effect of Regulation and FTA’s on Monsanto Monsanto contribution to Genetic modified organisms (GMO) seeds in the world stands at 90%. These seeds have been modified genetically to survive repeated spraying of their toxic herbicide Roundup or produce their own pesticide. Monsanto’s GMOs are aimed at increasing its profits by increasing the use of chemicals such as Roundup and selling its high priced (patented) seeds to farmers, which they must buy every year rather than increasing yields to feed the world. Because of the enormous political clout of Monsanto, people over the world have been denied the right to know whether their foods are genetically modified or not. Monsanto has been exploiting U.S. GMO regulations and benefiting from the free trade in the following ways: GMO labelling laws in the U.S. Foods containing GMOs don’t have to be labelled in the US. Monsanto has fought hard to prevent labelling laws. This is alarming, since approximately 70% of processed foods in the US now contain GMO ingredients. The GMO labelling is now required mandatorily by European Union, Japan, China, Korea, Australia, New Zealand and many other nations. No adequate safety testing In May 1992, Vice President Dan Quayle announced the FDA’s anti consumer right-to-know policy which stated that GMO foods need not be labelled or safety-tested. Meanwhile, prominent scientists have publicized research revealing alarming damage done to the animals fed GMO foods. Blocking government regulations Monsanto shares good relationship with the U.S. regulatory body and other judicial authorities taking key decisions. Consider for example the case of Justice Clarence Thomas, a former Monsanto lawyer. His hand is considered behind the majority opinion on many cases of Monsanto. Michael Taylor once worked for the FDA, later represented Monsanto as a lawyer, and then returned as the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy when rBGH was granted approval. This just goes on to show the power relations of Monsanto with key judicial and decision making authorities. Throwing small farmers out of business A case study highlights the deplorable condition of farmers like Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer whose canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby GMO farm. Schmeiser was ordered to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages when Monsanto successfully argued against Schmeiser violating Monsanto’s patent rights. Monsanto has been found guilty of bullying small farmers all over the world. Rejection of Bovine growth hormones by consumers In the wake of mass consumer pressure, major retailers such as Safeway, Publix, Wal-Mart, and Kroger banned store brand milk products containing Monsanto’s controversial genetically engineered hormone rBGH. Starbucks, under pressure from the OCA and its allies, has likewise banned rBGH milk. Polluting the developing world Monsanto’s evil-rooted legacy includes dangerous chemicals like Agent Orange and DDT. This is being used as a counter-insurgency tactic by countries like Canada, contaminating food crops, poisoning crops and trenching millions in the pool of debt. Monsanto controls US soybeans market In 1996, when Monsanto started selling Roundup Ready soybeans, mere 2% of soybeans in the US markets, contained the patented gene of Monsanto. By 2008, this figure had risen to over 90%. Monsanto guilty of false advertising Ruling of France’s highest court in 2009 held Monsanto guilty of spreading wrong information about the safety of its weed killer Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as “biodegradable”. GMO crops do not increase yield Findings by a major UN/World Bank-sponsored report concluded that genetically modified crops (GM crops) have little to offer to the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change. Better alternatives are available, and the report championed organic farming as the sustainable way forward for developing countries. GMO foods may lead to food allergies In March 1999, UK researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM. Sues small family farmers Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Saskatchewan Canada, whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's genetically engineered Round-Up Ready Canola by pollen from a nearby farm. Monsanto says it doesn't matter how the contamination took place, and is therefore demanding Schmeiser pay the fee, which farmers must pay to gain licence to grow Monsanto's genetically engineered products. According to Schmeiser, he never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. He never signed a contract. Many small family farms are being forced into a similar lawsuit by Monsanto. Brings small family dairy to court Oakhurst Dairy has been owned and operated by the same Maine family since 1921, and Monsanto recently attempted to put them out of business. Oakhurst, like many other dairy producers in the U.S., has been responding to consumer demand to provide milk free of rBGH, a synthetic hormone banned (for health reasons) in every industrialized country other than the U.S. Monsanto, the number one producer of the rBGH synthetic steroid, sued Oakhurst, claiming they should not have the right to inform their customers that their dairy products do not contain the Monsanto chemical. Given the intense pressure from the transnational corporation, Oakhurst was forced to settle out of court, leaving many other dairies vulnerable to similar attacks from Monsanto. Monsanto's Agent Orange: continues to refuse compensation to families & veterans for exposure to the toxic chemicals The negative health effects, due to exposure to Monsanto's Agent Orange, have been well documented over the past three decades. The dioxin in Agent Orange has been accepted internationally as one of the most toxic chemicals on the planet, causing everything from severe birth defects, to cancer, to neurological disorders, to death. But Monsanto has successfully blocked any major movement towards compensating veterans and civilians who were exposed to the company's Agent Orange. Long before Agent Orange was used as an herbicide in the Vietnam War, Monsanto knew of its negative health impacts on humans. Since then, Monsanto has been unsuccessful at covering its tracks and has even been convicted of fabricating false research documentation that claims Agent Orange has no negative health effects, other than a possible skin rash. Thanks to Monsanto's influence, the Centre for Disease Control also released a report claiming veterans were never exposed to harmful levels of Agent Orange. |
