SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Monsanto Exposed for Trying to Hide 'Ugly History' By Ditching Its Name
Borrowing tactic of Philip Morris, agrochemical giant tried to change name as part of corporate merger
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."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
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 is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
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.