|
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.#p#分页标题#e# As a note, from 1962 to 1970, the US military sprayed 72 million litres of herbicides, mostly Agent Orange, on over one million Vietnamese civilians and over 100,000 U.S. troops. As a result, within ten years of the close of the war, 9170 veterans had filed claims for disabilities caused by Agent Orange. The VA denied compensation to 7709, saying that a facial rash was the only disease associated with exposure. In 2002, Vietnam requested assistance in dealing with the tens of thousands of birth defects due to Agent Orange. In order to avoid medical compensation expenses, Monsanto continues to claim this now banned chemical is not toxic. Monsanto hid PCB pollution for decades On the west side of Anniston, the poor side of Anniston, the people grew berries in their gardens, raised hogs in their back yards, caught bass in the murky streams where their children swam and played and were baptized. They didn't know their dirt and yards and bass and kids -- along with the acrid air they breathed -- were all contaminated with toxic chemicals. They didn't know they lived in one of the most polluted patches of America. But now they know. They also know that for nearly 40 years, while producing the now-banned industrial coolants known as PCBs at a local factory, Monsanto Co. routinely discharged toxic waste into a west Anniston creek and dumped millions of pounds of PCBs into oozing open-pit landfills. And thousands of pages of Monsanto documents -- many emblazoned with warnings such as "CONFIDENTIAL: Read and Destroy" -- show that for decades, the corporate-giant concealed what it did and what it knew. Taxpayers forced to fund Monsanto's poisoning of Third World Monsanto has also been implicated in the indiscriminate sale and use of RoundUp Ultra in the anti-drug fumigation efforts of Plan Colombia. Of the some $1.3 billion of taxpayers' money earmarked for Plan Colombia, Monsanto has received upwards of $25 million for providing RoundUp Ultra. RoundUp Ultra is a highly concentrated version of Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide, with additional surfactants to increases its lethality. Local communities and human rights organizations charge that Ultra is destroying food crops, water sources and protected areas in the Andes, primarily Colombia. Paradoxically, the use of RoundUp Ultra has actually increased coca cultivation in the Andes. As local farming communities are increasingly impacted by RoundUp Ultra fumigations, many turn to the drug trade as a means of economic survival. Regional NGOs have estimated that almost 200,000 hectares have been fumigated with Ultra under Plan Colombia. Monsanto's roundup pesticide killing wheat Monsanto also produces the most commonly used broadleaf pesticide in the world, glyphosate--or Roundup. In addition to its inherent toxicity as a chemical pesticide, Roundup has now been found to aid the spread of fusarium head blight in wheat. This disease creates a toxin in the infected wheat, making the crop unsuitable for human or animal consumption. Canada's wheat industry is currently being ravaged by this disease. At the same time, the widespread use of Roundup has resulted in the formation of "super weeds" --- unwanted plants that have developed immunity to these pesticides. Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds are pushing US Agriculture into bankruptcy Genetically engineered crops are causing an economic disaster for farmers in the U.S. So says a new report released by Britain's Soil Association. The report is a massive compilation of data showing GE crops have cost American taxpayers $12 billion in farm subsidies in the past three years. "Within a few years of the introduction of GM crops, almost the entire $300 million annual US maize exports to the EU had disappeared, and the US share of the soya market had decreased," the report said. In addition, the study says that GE crops have lead to an increased use of pesticides, while resulting in overall lower crop yields. Takes ownership of public water resources Over the past century, global water supplies have been contaminated with the full gamut of Monsanto's chemicals, including PCBs, dioxin and glyophosate (Roundup). So now the company, seeing a profitable market niche, is taking control of the public water resources they polluted, filtering it, and selling it back to the people. In short, Monsanto is making a double profit by polluting the world's scarce freshwater resources, privately taking ownership of that water, filtering it, and selling it back to those who can afford to pay for it. Cotton farmers going bankrupt from Monsanto's GE cotton In India the financial figures for the recent cotton growing season have finally been crunched. Although Monsanto convinced many of India's farmers that buying the more expensive GE cotton seeds would result in higher yields and better cotton, the reverse is actually true. Crop yields for GE cotton were 5 times less than traditional Indian cotton and the income from GE cotton was 7 times less than conventional cotton, due to Monsanto's cotton having lower quality short fibres. As a result of the insurmountable deluge of debt accrued from paying more for the GE seeds and having a weak crop, more than 100 Indian farmers committed suicide in the last year. Impact on Nutrition Globalization can also be seen as “Coca-colonization” or “Mc-Donaldization” or as an “Era of Pizza and Ice-creams”. This also brought the case of “Convergence-Divergence” duality. This convergence- divergence model unites the apparently contradictory observations that, on the one hand, global market integration homogenizes diets and, on the other, brings greater food variety. The globalization can be extended to the process of increasing economic, political, and social interdependence and global integration that takes place as assets, traded goods, individuals, concepts, images, ideas, beliefs and value system diffuse across state boundaries. Conceptual Framework for Health Implications of Globalisation: The conceptual model explicitly visualises that globalisation affects the institutional, economic, social-cultural and ecological determinants of population health, and that the globalisation process mainly operates at the contextual level, while influencing health through its more distal and proximal determinants. Source: The Health Impacts of Globalisation: Conceptual Framework, Huynen, Martens, Hilderink The framework explains about three important factors: Population Health: As evident from the figure it can be perceived as integrated outcome of institutional, economic, socio-cultural and environmental determinants. The chain of events leading to a certain health outcome includes both proximal and distal causes; proximal factors act directly to cause disease or health gains, and distal determinants are further back in the causal chain and act via (a number of) intermediary causes. In addition, we also distinguish contextual determinants. These can be seen as the macro-level conditions shaping the distal and proximal health determinants; they form the context in which the distal and proximal factors operate and develop. Globalisation Process: It is the interactive co-evolution of multiple technological, cultural, economic, institutional, social and environmental trends at all conceivable spatiotemporal scales. It accumulates (the need for) new global governance structures, global markets, global communication and diffusion of information, global mobility, cross-cultural interaction, and global environmental changes. A Conceptual Framework: As concluded from the figure the globalisation process factors operate at contextual level of health and influences distal factors as health related policies, economic trade, social interaction, knowledge, etc. In turn these changes at the distal level have the capacity to affect proximity determinants of health. Factors Used at different Levels in the Model Framework Contextual Determinants Globalisation influences the interdependence among nations as well as the nation state's sovereignty leading to (a need for) new global governance structures. New global governance structure Global markets Globalisation is characterised by worldwide changes in economic infrastructures and the emergence of global markets and a global trading system. Global communication and diffusion of information Globalisation is characterised by worldwide changes in economic infrastructures and the emergence of global markets and a global trading system. Global mobility Global mobility is characterised by a major increase in the extensity, intensity and velocity of movement and by a wide variety in 'types' of mobility. Cross-cultural interaction Globalising cultural flows result in interactions between global and local cultural elements. Global environmental changes Global environmental threats to ecosystems include global climate change, loss of biodiversity, global ozone depletion and the global decline in natural areas. Distal Determinants: World Health Organization acknowledges importance of good health and World Bank with IMF also influence policies through SAP(Structural Adjustment Programs) Health(-related) policies Economic development#p#分页标题#e# Optimistic and Pessimistic point of view Trade Significance of WTO Social interactions: migration Social interactions: conflicts Social interactions: social equity and social networks Tourisms, Development in Infrastructure and Transport Terrorist attacks, Corruption, etc. Cultural Globalisation Knowledge Education into every nook and cranny of the globe Virtual Classroom Concepts Internet Ecosystem goods and services IPCC, Global Warming, Kyoto Protocol Proximal Determinants WHO aims to assist governments to strengthen health services, government involvement in health care policies has been decreasing and, subsequently, medical institutions are more and more confronted with the neoliberal economic mode Brain Drain in health Sector Health Services Social environment Lifestyle Transfer from one person to another of instrumental, emotional and informational assistance Social Network: Facebook, Orkut, MailChat Unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, smoking, alcohol misuse and the use of illicit drugs are having a profound impact on human health Physical Environment Spread of Infectious Disease as Viral Fever, Pathogenic atmosphere, HIV Aids Food Effect of Free Trade, Genetically Modified Crops, Food Shortage Issues, FAO, Changing pattern of consumption Water Water Security and International Conflicts, Shortage of fresh water, Global Climate change and deforestation Globalisation and Nutrition Transition Globalization affects food systems around the world. It changes the availability of and access to food through its effects on food production, procurement, and distribution. Such changes bring about a gradual shift in food culture, dietary consumption patterns, and nutritional status. Globalization is driven by series of interacting processes, among which the following are critical in driving the nutrition transition: A : Liberalization of international food trade: The transition has occurred from the previous “Theory of Comparative Advantage” to more of market oriented policies where many middle and low income countries has gone through “structural adjustments”. This shift in policy has led to liberal marketplace although of little domestic protection which eventually led to enlargement of transnational food companies (TFC’s). In developing countries, food import bills as share of gross domestic product (GDP) more than doubled between 1974 and 2004, and processed agricultural products rose much faster as a share of trade than primary agricultural products (source: FAO 2004). Global food supply chain due to global outsourcing and global vertical integration has helped TFC a lot and affected agricultural producers. Vegetable Oils Market Case Study: Grown at a rate of 4.2% per year relative to 2.1% as a whole Oil Crop Production has been increased by more than 60% between 1960 and 2003 In 1990 and 2003, vegetable oil consumption in the United States and Western Europe increased by just one-quarter, whereas it doubled in China and increased by one-half in India Intake in calories got increased by 70kilocalories/Capita/Day [FAO-2003] Consumption was from both demand and supply side Soyabean Oil used widely as cooking oil in hydrogenated form Case Study of Brazil, India and China: How the policies have been regulated to get the maximum share in world market B: Liberalization of foreign direct investment: FDI can be defined as a long-term investment by an individual, government, or enterprise in one country into an enterprise in another. It is one of the processes through which vertical integration can take place and TFCs can grow. FDI in developing countries grew more than sixfold between 1990 and 2000—faster than either GDP or trade (Source: Mody 2004). Between 1991 and 1999, there were 1,035 changes in regulations governing FDI worldwide; 94 percent of these changes facilitated FDI by decreasing disincentives or increasing incentives ( Source: UNCTAD 2000). Many of the new regulations were forged in trade agreements and investment treaties: the number of bilateral investment treaties rose from 181 at the end of 1980 to 1,856 at the end of 1999 (Source UNCTAD 2000). In this era TFCs such as PepsiCo and Nestlé invested in foreign manufacturing facilities for foods such as soft drinks, confectionary, dairy products, baked goods, and snacks. In 1998 U.S.-based TFCs such as McDonald’s and KFC invested US$5.7 billion in restaurants, including fast food outlets, overseas (Harris et al. 2002). Although a high proportion of this FDI is still targeted at high-income countries, an increasing proportion is entering developing and transition markets, notably in Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin America (see Hawkes 2005). Mexico Case Study: Obesity and overweight has increased from 33% to 78% between 1988 to 1998 NAFTA signed by Canada, Mexico and US in 1994 Data on processed food consumption shows, between 1995 and 2003 sales of processed foods (such as soft drinks, snacks, baked goods, and dairy products) expanded by 5–10 percent per year The number of chain supermarkets, discounters, and convenience stores grew from fewer than 700 in 1993 to 3,850 in 1997 and to 5,729 in 2004, to account for 55 percent of all food retailers in Mexico which has long term implication. C: Global food advertising and promotion: TFC’s advertising and marketing agencies involve designing strategies and implementing activities to influence consumption habits and create demand. It involves not just advertising, but a whole array of methods including sales promotions, websites, music and sports sponsorship, product placement in films and television, and in-school marketing to encourage more people to consume the product, more frequent consumption among people already familiar with the product, and consumption of more of the product at one time. Food advertising and promotion is now a global phenomenon, occurring in even remote parts of the world. During the period 1980 to 2004, global advertising expenditures rose from US$216 billion to US$512 billion (Worldwatch 2004). Thailand Case Study: Advertising expenditures grew by 800% from 1987 to 1996 Foreign ownership of advertising and marketing agencies is not restricted Free Trade Agreement as GATT/WTO created an incentive US Snack Company Frito-Lay developed aggressive strategy to appeal to provincial consumers and grown their size to 30% Sales Volume of most heavily promoted products as chips and extruded snacks has recorded the growth of 63% Recommendations For too long Monsanto’s name has been associated to the ‘corrupted private corporate interests’(per com Van Otto 2002). Current strategy by Monsanto seems to be more precautious and attentive to public acceptance. Thus, our recommendations are listed as follow: Thorough analysis and a better understanding firm’s non-market environment should be done by Monsanto. Monsanto must try to improve its image; a strategy more cooperative and respectful of public concerns and interests should be pursued. Enhance its commitment to public disclosure and transparency Explore potential synergies with other business lines of Pharmacia. Basic synergies of common research in pharmaceutical and agriculture together can be explored. By managing two different companies such benefits are easily diluted. Adoption of long-sighted strategies when cooperating with the government and other environmental groups should be taken. Government support and alliance is crucial in a sensitive industry such as the biotechnology. Try and lobby for regulation in public interest and find niches of excellence in them. |
 |
|||
| 网站地图 |
