Science is crucial for human betterment. Business is necessary for human survival. When science and business mix, there is an explosion of creative energy that reaps profits as well as progress. However, a spillover of this explosion almost always raises a question of morale or in other words, ethics. Since over a decade, largely due to social media, Monsanto has been at the center of attention with hashtags such as #monsantoevil trending on twitter and several memes emerging bashing the company. The question then arises: how can a company which is, in the simplest term, producing seeds, be the recipient of so much hate?

Monsanto started off as a chemical company and would sell Agent Orange and its main product known as dioxin. It then ventured into more controversial hormones including the dairy cow hormone and Aspartame, a sweetener linked with cancer. It wasn’t until the 1990’s when it re-branded itself as an agricultural company by acquiring several bio genetic research facilities. In 1994 they first produced their patented genetically modified organism (GMO) seed also known as the ‘Round Up Ready’ soybean.

GMO didn’t come into attention until Monsanto started selling in Europe and consequently the U.K suffered a Mad Cow Disease epidemic. The British were quick to trace the dots back to a possible role played by GMO and the public became suspicious about GMOs safety. There were massive protests against Monsanto organised by Greenpeace and although approved by the EU, GMO seeds were boycotted by the British people. The situation got so serious that even Prince Charles denounced GMO seeds as ‘intruding in the realm of God’.

 

Monsanto tried to respond to these allegations by clever ad campaigns but they failed miserably. The company was not only producing a product that was considered controversial it was also holding onto patents and loyalties which enabled it to amass huge amounts of capital and acquire company’s like the Climate Corporation for almost $1 billion which hindered anti-GMO research. Also, since the company’s board consists of several powerful personnel,(including Gregory Boyce, chairman of the worlds largest privately owned coal company) Monsanto has strong lobbying potential and rarely faces government backlash. In fact the US signed what is known by critics as the Monsanto Protection Act which allowed deregulated sales of GMO for a period of 6 months.

It might be a shock to some that the Monsanto controversy might just be getting started. In 2016, Bayer, another pharmaceutical powerhouse offered to acquire Monsanto for $66 billion. It seems daunting that the phenomenon of monopoly power might also be added to this situation of controversy and uncertainty. This could allow Bayer to have even greater lobbying power, completely take out government resistance and re-define business ethics to suit the company.

Here, the optimist would quote with hesitation that ‘destruction’ itself does not have to be negative. Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter has famously coined the term ‘creative destruction’ where corporations with immense power (in this case Bayer and Monsanto) eventually have to work towards positive  innovation and the betterment of society if they aim to maintain their status. Let us hope that ‘destruction’ in this case is not of lives, health and ethics but of redundant methods and inefficient practices that make the world more sustainable.