The infamous GMO technology company Monsanto has recently come under fire for lobbying against a law which would make the labeling of food containing its products mandatory. Ethical advertising standards—like those of the AMA—dictate that corporations have a specific responsibility to their customers to be honest and transparent. In this particular case, there is no evidence of Monsanto withholding information from its customers, but it is spending millions of dollars to prevent the public from having full information about a produce it is instrumental in making. Presumably, Monsanto’s fear is that GMO products will be shunned by consumers if it is possible to differentiate them from non-GMO goods, which of course will result in a reduced demand for GMO seed. This is treacherous territory for Monsanto—because aside the actual shortcomings of their company and industry, GMOs are also plagued by hysteria:

The questions then arise, to what extent is Monsanto obligated to be supportive of providing the public with full disclosure about a product which it does not directly produce and what to extent is it reasonable for it to protect its own interests as a company?

One could argue that Monsanto’s foremost responsibility is to its stakeholders. When Porsche introduced the gas-guzzling Cayenne most of us accepted the fact that while the SUV will pollute everyone’s air and reduce visibility for people in moderate-sized cars, Porsche is supposed to be turning a profit and satisfying the needs of its customers, and so it is within its rights to produce SUVs.  Oftentimes a compromise must be made between benefiting a specific market and benefiting the environment or in fact the public as a whole. Is Monsanto’s compromise reasonable? Should we hold it against Monsanto to protect its interests and those of its stakeholders?