On 10th of August, 2018 California jury ordered Monsanto to compensate Dewayne Johnson, a groundkeeper $289 for terminal cancer that was caused by its GMO and round up products. The action by the court has made most consumers refrain from using Monsanto products. This was after the jury come into a conclusion that the weed killer has the potential to cause cancer even when sprayed to the GMO groups. The court welcomed scientific evidence that proved that the roundup applied on the GMO was a major cause of cancer in the United States. Again Monsanto was found to have suppressed the evidence of the risks caused by the round-up on GMO and individuals. According to the court, when the weed killer was sprayed on the crops, it left traces of the chemical which led to the diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma type of cancer. Although United States environmental agency had a view that glyphosate which is a major component of the roundup is not carcinogenic, World health organization classified this component as a major course of cancer among food staffs. According to GMO Facts (2018), there are more than eight similar lawsuits in the United States. This decision by the court come shortly after the Monsanto had merged with Bayer to form a pharmaceutical and Agrochemical Company (Hirschler & Kelland, 2012).
However, with the rapid growth in population, GMO products are very essential in ensuring there is surplus food supply. Therefore it is not wise to ban all the products produced by Monsanto in the view that they cause cancer. Monsanto has devoted a lot of time in coming up with plant breeds that are scientifically tested before introduced to the market. The many year’s efforts of this company should not be dismissed on the basis of something that can be addressed like coming up with a roundup that is non-carcinogenic (Nutshell, 2017). This is even supported by the utilitarianism theory which states that that the best action to be taken is the one that maximizes the utility and utility is defined as the process that generates the greatest well-being of the larger population. In other words, this theory includes the good and the bad that a certain act produces. If the consequences between the two are not great, then the action is not considered as a moral issue. In this case of Monsanto GMOs, the consequences of the roundup should be viewed in respect to the number of products Monsanto supplies to the United States. Instead of tarnishing the name of the company that has been the backbone in the food supply in the United States, the company should be allowed to change the components of the roundup used in GMO weeding (Sheng, 2012).
Weiser, J. (2015). Introduction to Business Ethics. Second Edition
GMO Facts: What You Need To Know | Monsanto. (2018). Retrieved from https://monsanto.com/innovations/biotech-gmos/articles/gmo-facts/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Hirschler, B., & Kelland, K. (2012). Study on Monsanto GM corn concerns draws skepticism. Reuters: Ed UK, 20.
Nutshell, Kurzgesagt – In a. YouTube, YouTube, 30 Mar. 2017,www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TmcXYp8xu4 (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..
Sheng, C. L. (2012). A new approach to utilitarianism: A unified utilitarian theory and its application to distributive justice (Vol. 5). Springer Science & Business Media.
Please be informed that you are revising the above passage, below is the requirement for the revision in bold.
In your revision, could you spend a bit more time and development on the moral reasoning?