In 2008 “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear” was published in Vanity Fair. Penned by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, this exposition presents acts by Monsanto that may be considered questionable. Acts such as possessing a “shadowy army of private investigators” and the production of “two of the most toxic substances ever known”. The company was established in 1901 as Monsanto Chemical Works.
Given the two possible ways in which Ventria could stay in California, I believe the company should leave the State. Activists, farmers and millers have a great power in terms of convincing the regulatory agencies and the population’s mind. Farmers and millers do not want competition in a market they already have the control, specially if the new product brings more benefits to the consumers. Activists will bring down Ventria’s reputation to the public and protest for the rejection of the protocol. Fighting against this three groups does not worth the time and money that would be spent.
In the article entitled Monsanto's Harvest of Fear, Donald L. Barley and James B. Steele demonstrate that Monsanto already dominates the United States food chain with their genetically modified seeds. They are currently targeting milk production which is just as scary as the corporation's legal battles against the small farmers. This situation leads to a history of toxic infections or diseases. There were many disagreements between Gary Rinehart and a stranger about the innovative seeds. They were under surveillance and an investigator came in the picture.
The three essays assigned this week had several common threads running through them. The strongest core theme is the rapid change in the food cycle in America and the vast changes that have taken place in the way by which we grow, produce, and process the food that average Americans eat. The food we eat now is drastically different from what our grandparents grew up eating and the three essays each examine that in a different way. Another theme is the loss of knowledge by the average consumer about where their food comes from, what it is composed of, and what, if any, danger it might pose to them. “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear” by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele is a harsh look at the realities of food production in a country where large corporations, like Monsanto, have been allowed to exploit laws and loopholes to bend farmers and consumers to their
Scott Deeter was the president and CEO of Ventria Bioscience, a Sacramento, California-based biotechnology firm that developed an innovative process to produce pharmaceutical proteins in the seeds of genetically modified rice, which was used to create a medicine to lessen the severity of childhood diarrhea. However, Scott Deeter and Ventria faced many problems. One being that the company was unsuccesful in getting the California Secretary if Agriculture to grant them the necessary permits in order to plant the 120 acres of bioengineered rice to begin commercial-scale production. Another being that many different organizations opposed what they were doing, such as, environmentalists, food safety activists, consumer advocates, and rice farmers. There is also a risk of contamination, and genetically altered plant possibly cross-breeding with wild plants.
In the essay “Green monster” who do you believe is his intended audience and why? In “The Green Monster,” James McWilliams informs the reader about GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) and the affects it has on animals, plants, farmers and our food. Through multiple illustrations of the affects of GMO, he contends that GMO has various potential consequences, which may in fact be more positive than detrimental to food sustainability. His intended audience seems to be food consumers but more specifically, those uninterested in or wary of products which are genetically modified.
“Today in the United States, by the simple acts of feeding ourselves, we are unwittingly participating in the largest experiment ever conducted on human beings.” Jeremy Seifert certainly knows how to get viewers’ attention, as exemplified by the film blurb describing his 2013 documentary, GMO OMG. The frightening depiction of the food industry is one of many efforts to expose consumers of the twenty-first century to the powerful organizations that profit from national ignorance and lack of critical inquiry and involvement. Seifert effectively harnesses the elements of rhetoric throughout his phenomenal argument against remaining complacent about the food industry’s act of withholding of information about genetically modified organisms from
A corporatist markets off what they know would put them in financial ruin if people found out the truth behind what they claim is bettering the world. Once gathering enough positive claims, they proceed anyway. This is the quintessence of GMO marketing. Now, as the newest generation, millennials are likely to have been fed these genetically modified foods growing up, but have the technology to research and make their own intelligent and informed decision on whether these foods should be continued to be produced and distributed throughout the world. It is not being overly suspicious to not believe a corporation such as Monsanto, the leading agrochemical company, when with minimal research they publicize that GMOs are safe to consume.
Before one dives into the battle of good versus evil, one must first fully understand the concept of genetically modified foods. Genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) foods have been modified in order to develop favourable characteristics. Genes are transferred from various organisms to fruit and vegetable plants and are responsible for generating favourable characteristics, such as resistance to pests and insecticides (Milano and Carol, 2007: 8-11). Many people are pro GM foods due to their positive effects such as larger yields and decreased pesticide use, but not everyone is convinced. GM foods are a relatively new phenomenon and
The labelling of genetically modified foods is seen as wholesome common sense, and it should be required to have the information on the back of every product. People have been manipulating the genetic makeup of plants for numerous generations using the process of traditional cross breeding. Genetically modified crops have been traded, grown and consumed around the world, including Australia since 1996. The progress and advancement in this field has impacted the way we view the deeper issues of this technology. While genetic engineering crop property has been gradually increasing, so have concerns, in that producing and eating genetically modified foods may pose unexpected environmental and health hazards.
Genetically modified crops also aim to lower the failure of crops, which can maximize the benefits of farmer through the increase of income from selling crops. Nevertheless, this technology created chances for biotech companies to exploit farmers, even causing farmers to commit suicide. Big companies developed the genetically modified seed, and sell it to farmers. But farmers have little bargaining power only, they can only rely on the biotech companies. These companies do not aim to help farmers to increase their income, but aim to maximize their own profit.
As Monsanto is a multinational company whose products are consumed by the food industry, it has to strictly emphasize on its moral obligations concerning the society where their products are being sold. Such moral obligation includes providing best quality of seeds to the consumers and betterment of farmer’s life (Stern, 2011). For this purpose Monsanto ensures high yielding properties of their seeds and it would prevent against insects eating their precious crops. This would ease the farmers in keeping their crops safe and reduce their hassle to sprinkle pesticides for crop safety. On the contrary these genetically modified seeds reported in causing health related issues on consuming the food grown from them.
A single bowl of the resulting rice can supply 60% of a child’s daily requirement of vitamin A (In A Grain Of Golden Rice). This is a simple solution to a tremendous problem, yet the rice faces opposition from organizations such as Greenpeace which are anti-GMO.
For years, the health and safety of genetically modified foods have been debated and researched by scientists, but the question still stands: should genetically modified foods be allowed for consumption? The process of genetic modification involves inserting a gene from bacteria or a virus into an organism where it would normally not be found. The purpose is to alter the genetic code in plants and animals to make them more productive or resistant to pests or farming techniques. Genetically modified organisms, more commonly known as GMOs, have been a controversial topic of debate for a number of reasons. The ethics behind genetically modified foods come into question due to an abundance of short and long-term effects from the process, many of which are still unknown today.
Genetically modified foods have been receiving a lot of unjustified hate from the media recently. This is unjustified because GM foods are superior for three main reasons; They produce far more food than un-altered crops, the negative environmental impact is decreased, and the overall quality of GM foods is increased. This should be far more than enough to debunk the myths of GM foods being bad. The consumer, being anyone from an industrial farmer to a small family, can rest assured buying, eating or growing
