Over the years, a lot of news has been circulating for Monsanto both negative and positive. As an example of negative press, on March 21, 2015, there was concern by the World Health Organization in regards to Monsanto’s use of glyphosate. As a result over the potential health risk, the organization’s sub-committee published a report that added glyphosate to their list that could “probably” cause cancer. Monsanto along with several revered scientists pointed out in a rebuttal that the carcinogenic properties are not a threat to humans as the chemical is government regulated in terms of quantities allowed and that the levels and duration of exposure to become a health risk are unrealistic to encounter in typical use. While glyphosate from a purely scientific viewpoint has caused health declines in large concentrated doses to lab rats, its limited use for agricultural treatment has not been proven to be of concern.
Additionally, Monsanto in another negative news report reached at that same time a settlement agreement with wheat farmers in several states over the discovery of genetically modified wheat on their farms that migrated into their organic crops. It is suspected for reading the transcripts that the GMO wheat seeds mixed into their organic crops through airborne means. In order to quell the unrest of these litigants, a $50,000 donation has been given to the agricultural schools at each affected state to further the interests of wheat farmers and the wheat industry along with additional payments for restitution including plaintiff legal fees fully reimbursed.
Monsanto follows a similar trends in spin strategy utilized other vilified companies such as R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris in which to generate positive press to offset the negative stigma from opposition and public scrutiny. In Monsanto’s communication strategy a commitment is often made to assisting philanthropies demonstrating that despite their unfavorable technology, they are committed to helping others and the environment. Within that same week, Monsanto announced they were donating land to the National Park Service used by the government for the Honouliuli Internment Camp Site during World War II. Additionally, Monsanto pledged $3.6M over three years to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to benefit the Monarch Butterfly Conservation Fund. Incidentally, Monsanto is the first major corporation to contribute to this fund.
Conflicting issues resulting in negative press are all too common for Monsanto as their technological process of creating GMO produce continues to vilify the company in public opinion. Utilizing chemicals such as Round-Up and other artificial chemicals do speed up the growing process and have “pest-deterrent” technologies in their products creating a larger yield of produce but concern is high over the cumulative health risks from consumption. It appears from this example that by having Monsanto communicate their commitment toward specific philanthropies, it can offset a percentage of the cumulative negative stigma from its core business model.
As a closing side thought to this matter, I find have often wondered with a growing global population of 7.3 billion people that it seems impossible to grow only organically to consistently feed that many people. Thus the necessary evil of such methodologies like GMO are allowed. Upon harvesting produce, only a small percentage of a cumulative crop is considered spoiled from this GMO methodology, while organic produce can lose up to 30% of a cumulative crop due to thrip, soil nutrient deficiencies, animal damage and overexposure to the elements. Additionally GMO produce is more affordable by lower socioeconomic groups and impoverished third world countries. This leaves one major question to consider: Is there a specific level of philanthropic charity and positive news that can effectively offset the negative perceptions of a company?
References:
Wall Street Journal “Monsanto bites back at glyphosate findings”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/monsanto-bites-back-at-glyphosate-findings-1427147273
Forbes “WHO says Roundup ingredient is probably carcinogenic. Are they right?”
Monsanto “Information about glyphosate”
4 Responses to Offsetting A Negative Stigma With Positive News