Monsanto has faced global protests for its steamrolling of environmental health and human rights.
(Photo: Lisa @ Sierra Tierra/flickr/cc)
Jun 09, 2015
Agrochemical giant Monsanto, known for its power over food systems worldwide, recently suggested a name change as part of a proposed corporate merger. Critics say this is a bald attempt to bury the poor human rights and environmental reputation associated with the company's brand.
Founded in St. Louis, Monsanto recently revealed that it would like to move its headquarters from the United States to the United Kingdom as part of a proposed merger with Swiss rival Syngenta.
A June 6 letter from Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant, made public by Syngenta, reveals that, as part of the deal, the U.S. company would "also propose a new name for the combined company to reflect its unique global nature."
Gary Ruskin of the consumer organization U.S. Right to Know put the name change differently: "Monsanto wants to escape its ugly history by ditching its name," he said in a press statement. "This shows how desperate Monsanto is to escape criticism of its products, which raise environmental and health concerns, as well as concerns about corporate control of agriculture and our food system."
Market Watch, not known as a corporate watchdog publication, reiterated this point: "Branding experts said a name change could help Monsanto shed some baggage associated with its past, such as its Vietnam War-era manufacturing of the herbicide Agent Orange, used by the U.S. government in the war and since linked to chronic health problems in humans."
The company continues to face global protests for its push of genetically modified crops, pesticides, and agro-industrial models at the expense of workers' rights, food and environmental health, and indigenous sovereignty.
A February Harris Poll found that Monsanto has one of the poorest reputations of "the 100 most visible companies" in the United States. Moreover, the corporation was numbered among eight companies that "show the largest declines in reputation" over the past five years--alongside Walmart, McDonald's, and others.
Monsanto does not appear to be winning any popularity contests. While the company has sought to buy Syngenta for over a year, it keeps getting turned down, including with this latest proposal.
Joe Satran wrote of the rejection in The Huffington Post: "You know you're unpopular when not even a company notorious for selling chemicals banned in Europe for harming defenseless invertebrates wants anything to do with you."
Despite Syngenta's latest rejection, critics of the company say the proposed name-change is telling, especially given the history of such moves. When notorious tobacco corporation Philip Morris changed its name to Altria Group in 2003, many charged that this was simply an attempt to avoid bad publicity, and ultimately, protect its bottom line.
"The merger process is still ongoing, and it's clear that Monsanto will keep making offers," Ruskin told Common Dreams. "It's so telling that Monsanto wants to ditch its own name. It speaks to how strong rejection of the company is in the United States and around the world."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
Agrochemical giant Monsanto, known for its power over food systems worldwide, recently suggested a name change as part of a proposed corporate merger. Critics say this is a bald attempt to bury the poor human rights and environmental reputation associated with the company's brand.
Founded in St. Louis, Monsanto recently revealed that it would like to move its headquarters from the United States to the United Kingdom as part of a proposed merger with Swiss rival Syngenta.
A June 6 letter from Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant, made public by Syngenta, reveals that, as part of the deal, the U.S. company would "also propose a new name for the combined company to reflect its unique global nature."
Gary Ruskin of the consumer organization U.S. Right to Know put the name change differently: "Monsanto wants to escape its ugly history by ditching its name," he said in a press statement. "This shows how desperate Monsanto is to escape criticism of its products, which raise environmental and health concerns, as well as concerns about corporate control of agriculture and our food system."
Market Watch, not known as a corporate watchdog publication, reiterated this point: "Branding experts said a name change could help Monsanto shed some baggage associated with its past, such as its Vietnam War-era manufacturing of the herbicide Agent Orange, used by the U.S. government in the war and since linked to chronic health problems in humans."
The company continues to face global protests for its push of genetically modified crops, pesticides, and agro-industrial models at the expense of workers' rights, food and environmental health, and indigenous sovereignty.
A February Harris Poll found that Monsanto has one of the poorest reputations of "the 100 most visible companies" in the United States. Moreover, the corporation was numbered among eight companies that "show the largest declines in reputation" over the past five years--alongside Walmart, McDonald's, and others.
Monsanto does not appear to be winning any popularity contests. While the company has sought to buy Syngenta for over a year, it keeps getting turned down, including with this latest proposal.
Joe Satran wrote of the rejection in The Huffington Post: "You know you're unpopular when not even a company notorious for selling chemicals banned in Europe for harming defenseless invertebrates wants anything to do with you."
Despite Syngenta's latest rejection, critics of the company say the proposed name-change is telling, especially given the history of such moves. When notorious tobacco corporation Philip Morris changed its name to Altria Group in 2003, many charged that this was simply an attempt to avoid bad publicity, and ultimately, protect its bottom line.
"The merger process is still ongoing, and it's clear that Monsanto will keep making offers," Ruskin told Common Dreams. "It's so telling that Monsanto wants to ditch its own name. It speaks to how strong rejection of the company is in the United States and around the world."
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare was a staff writer for Common Dreams from 2013-2016. She is currently web editor and reporter for In These Times.
Agrochemical giant Monsanto, known for its power over food systems worldwide, recently suggested a name change as part of a proposed corporate merger. Critics say this is a bald attempt to bury the poor human rights and environmental reputation associated with the company's brand.
Founded in St. Louis, Monsanto recently revealed that it would like to move its headquarters from the United States to the United Kingdom as part of a proposed merger with Swiss rival Syngenta.
A June 6 letter from Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant, made public by Syngenta, reveals that, as part of the deal, the U.S. company would "also propose a new name for the combined company to reflect its unique global nature."
Gary Ruskin of the consumer organization U.S. Right to Know put the name change differently: "Monsanto wants to escape its ugly history by ditching its name," he said in a press statement. "This shows how desperate Monsanto is to escape criticism of its products, which raise environmental and health concerns, as well as concerns about corporate control of agriculture and our food system."
Market Watch, not known as a corporate watchdog publication, reiterated this point: "Branding experts said a name change could help Monsanto shed some baggage associated with its past, such as its Vietnam War-era manufacturing of the herbicide Agent Orange, used by the U.S. government in the war and since linked to chronic health problems in humans."
The company continues to face global protests for its push of genetically modified crops, pesticides, and agro-industrial models at the expense of workers' rights, food and environmental health, and indigenous sovereignty.
A February Harris Poll found that Monsanto has one of the poorest reputations of "the 100 most visible companies" in the United States. Moreover, the corporation was numbered among eight companies that "show the largest declines in reputation" over the past five years--alongside Walmart, McDonald's, and others.
Monsanto does not appear to be winning any popularity contests. While the company has sought to buy Syngenta for over a year, it keeps getting turned down, including with this latest proposal.
Joe Satran wrote of the rejection in The Huffington Post: "You know you're unpopular when not even a company notorious for selling chemicals banned in Europe for harming defenseless invertebrates wants anything to do with you."
Despite Syngenta's latest rejection, critics of the company say the proposed name-change is telling, especially given the history of such moves. When notorious tobacco corporation Philip Morris changed its name to Altria Group in 2003, many charged that this was simply an attempt to avoid bad publicity, and ultimately, protect its bottom line.
"The merger process is still ongoing, and it's clear that Monsanto will keep making offers," Ruskin told Common Dreams. "It's so telling that Monsanto wants to ditch its own name. It speaks to how strong rejection of the company is in the United States and around the world."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.