MONSANTO’S

MYSTERY WHEAT

Case Study 4.3

 In May 2013, an Oregon farmer was trying to kill weeds in a
125-acre field he planned to leave fallow for the next growing
season. Included in those weeds were some wheat plants that
looked to the farmer like traditional soft white wheat. After
spraying the field with Roundup, the weed killer manufactured
by Monsanto, the wheat stalks did not die.

The samples were tested in laboratory University, confirmed

Case that the wheat strain was MON71800, also known as
“Roundup Ready” wheat, developed by Monsanto. The wheat
strain had been genetically modified to be resistant to
Summary glyphosate, the active ingredient in the Roundup weed killer
product, along with strains of soybeans and corn

Monsanto had developed the strains during field tests from

1998 to 2005 in 16 states, including Oregon. The plan had been
to introduce the seeds as companion products to the weed
killer, but a negative market reaction to genetically modified
(GMO) wheat had led the company to focus on corn, cotton,
and oilseeds instead.
Detailed Investigation
• Monsanto’s concerns about negative market reaction proved to be well founded. Even though soft white wheat represented only 15% of the
$8 billion U.S. wheat export business, the response from wheat importers was immediate.

• Japan, the top buyer of American wheat, suspended all white wheat imports, and South Korea announced the introduction of tests for GMO
wheat on all U.S. wheat and wheat flour upon arrival. The European Union advised its 27 member nations to increase testing, prompting a
single-day fall of 4% in Monsanto’s share price and a petition to “Say No to Monsanto,” signed by tens of thousands of people.

• The Korean tests found no evidence of GMO wheat strains in any of the shipments, and USDA investigators found no further evidence of the
MON71800 strain anywhere else on the farm of the original finding or in the entire Pacific Northwest growing region. Japan resumed its
importation of U.S. wheat after a two-month delay.

• Monsanto’s chief technology officer, Robert Fraley, added a conspiracy element to the case by suggesting that anti-GMO activists could have
stolen the seeds, held on to them for a decade after the original seed trials, and deliberately planted them in the field to disrupt wheat exports.
Members of the Oregon Wheat Commission were more inclined to lay the blame on human error of a mislabeled or misplaced bag of seeds.

Legal Resolution
• In a November 2014, Monsanto agreed to pay a total of $2.375 million to resolve litigation in relation to the
mystery of MON71800 with no admission of liability. There was no further evidence found of MON71800
beyond the original samples, the settlement was seen as reimbursement for disruption and loss of revenue.

• With no resolution of the source of the GMO strain of wheat, and no admission of liability, Monsanto was
under no obligation to modify its internal processes in any way. With no subsequent claim of responsibility by
anti-GMO activists, as proposed by the company’s chief technology officer, the incident remains a mystery.
#1. Did Monsanto violate any ethical standards in developing genetically modified
wheat and planning to sell it as a companion product to Roundup?
#2. What should it have done differently?
#3. Was it ethical for Monsanto to settle the litigation with no admission of
responsibility or commitment to change any internal practices? Why or why not?
#4. Did Japan make the right decision when it banned all imports of U.S. soft wheat?

Yes, because Japan wanted to save its citizen from the U.S. soft wheat by
stop all imports and did the testing or investigation for the GMO wheat
strain. Japan resumed its importation of U.S. wheat after a two-month delay
because there was no evidence about GMO wheat strain.
#5. Food scientists argue that Mother Nature has been genetically modifying plant species for thousands of years, and
that technology now gives them the opportunity to do the same for the welfare of a global population. Explain the
ethical position of this argument.

The argument still could be accepted from the ethical position, because by genetically
modifying plant species using technology is a good solution for the welfare problem of a
global population as long as it has been proved that there was no significant effect for the
health in long term period.
#6. Anti-GMO protesters warn of the creation of “frankenfoods” that have the potential to harm our bodies in
ways that we do not yet understand. Explain the ethical position of this argument.

It should be proved by the long term experiment because it directly related to human
health. Anti-GMO protesters have a right to warn it, however, the company like Mosanto,
needs to assure and guarantee their product safely to be consumed worldwide.