RoundUp by Monsanto is the worlds most widely used herbicide. Since RoundUp was introduced in 1974 it is now used by 160 countries with 1.4 billion pounds being dumped per year. It is used on about every acre of nonorganic corn and soy. Unlike other herbicides, RoundUp contains glyphosate which kills plants by blocking proteins needed for growth. This means RoundUp is actually designed to kill every plant in its path.
The genius behind RoundUp is that Monsanto has genetically modified seeds to be RoundUp ready meaning they are resistant to glyphosate. In turn, RoundUp continues to kill every plant except the RoundUp crop the farmer plants. Additionally, they have made it contractually illegal for farmers to harvest seed from their existing RoundUp plants meaning each year farmers must buy new seeds from Monsanto. As a business model, this is genius farmers can only by the Monsanto seeds because they are the only ones that are resistant and they must keep buying the seeds year after year.
While RoundUp has greatly helped our food production still not much is known about its effects on humans. We know that glyphosate is now found in 70% of rainwater runoff as RoundUp bound to the soil is swept into the atmosphere and recently the UN’s International Agency for Research on Cancer declared that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.
Currently, a couple who used RoundUp weed killer in their yard for decades is suing the company after they both developed cancer. As the results of the lawsuit are yet to come it will be interesting to see if there is enough scientific precedent to hold Monsanto responsible. The question still remains what are the health effects of low levels of exposure over extended periods of time and are farmers responsible for the negative health effects?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/04/150422-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-weeds/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/despite-rulings-farmers-remain-loyal-to-roundup-11553175429
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/07/19/judge-slash-billion-award-couple-with-cancer-roundup-lawsuit/
This is an interesting point. I think this also connects to Tripp's article "Economics vs Morals". If Monsanto is aware of the health effects, but still continues to promote and make RoundUp available to the market, this introduces many ethical and moral concerns. There is also an element of sacrificing US citizens' health for personal financial gain. This again raises the question of when government interference is required. When should the US government step in and hold these large companies accountable for their actions?
ReplyDeleteIt looks to me like the negligence of Monsanto is an example of what the textbook readings from last week call a "spillover cost." In this situation, Monsanto as a company only pays for a part of the total costs of the production of their product. The extra cost, picked up in healthcare bills, lowered lifespans, and environmental cleanups for people and places affected by the pesticide, is not paid for by the company. The federal or local governments can fix this by either regulating Monsanto and other pesticide companies more heavily, or by taxing the producers to make up for the additional costs that the government and citizens have to pay.
ReplyDeleteThese negative effects that are influencing third parties could be defined as negative externalities. Theoretically, the company should improve its product until they reach a point where the marginal cost of improving the product equals the marginal benefit that would satisfy their consumer. However, since it seems that the company has control over the market and has few competitors, they may not need to make any changes. It will be interesting to see if the lawsuit pushes them to make certain changes or if it pushes consumers to look for other products.
ReplyDelete