Monsanto: Vandal or saviour?

Agricultural biotechnology companies such as Monsanto are keen to position themselves as custodians of global food production. But, they are actually responsible for reinforcing and encouraging a food crisis. 

---

It’s the late 21^st century. Food supply is collapsing under the weight of an exploding world population, and people face poverty, hunger, decay and disease on a massive scale.

Then, three corporations are granted the power to control the Earth’s entire food supply. But strains of genetically modified “super foods”, rather than providing salvation, cause a new epidemic of disease. The food industry receives approval to create genetic alterations to humans so they can tolerate the super foods. However, legislation also gives them ownership rights of the DNA and bodies of those augmented…

The events depicted above certainly seem dramatic, even beyond contemplation. This frightening scenario is the subject of proposed dystopian sci-fi film, SANTO 7.13.15.

However, agricultural biotechnology corporations such as US-based Monsanto make no secret of the fact that they crave domination over world food supply. In fact, they are intent on convincing governments and the public that the future of humankind relies on genetically engineered foods.

Sowing the seeds of domination

GM foods have firmly taken root in the US, where 70% of items in food stores contain genetically modified organisms. Monsanto, which is responsible for the financial ruin of countless farmers, controls a large proportion of the US seed sector, with its genetically modified soybeans, cotton and corn edging out most other players of those markets. The company, whose products comprise 40% of all crop acres in that country, has also made vast inroads into other countries’ agricultural systems – for example, it monopolises the Indian cotton seed market.

Its genetically modified seeds have also cropped up without welcome in several places, such as Hungary - where despite GM seeds being banned nationally, 1000 acres of GM corn “mysteriously” materialised, and was subsequently incinerated by government order – and US state Oregon, where GM wheat, which isn’t approved for growing or sale in the US, surfaced last year.

Although SANTO 7.13.15 paints an ominous picture of a fictional future world, it is worth considering the attitudes championed by Monsanto’s PR apparatus and asking: is the concept really so far-fetched?

Steeped in spin

Just a cursory look over Monsanto’s website reveals that it fancies itself as guardian of life on planet Earth.

Monsanto goes to great lengths to cultivate an image of saviour of the planet’s food woes, and protector of human life. Webpages feature indulgent feel-good (yet highly questionable) claims, including “improving lives”, “encouraging prosperity for all” and even quotes referring to world peace.

The arrogance of Monsanto’s world view is disturbing. But let’s be clear: this is a company that advocates full corporate control of the world’s food supply, and aims to sway us to the apparent virtues of this objective via its carefully crafted PR spin. 

Once you scratch the surface of its slick marketing collateral, it becomes clear that its goals align to disempower citizens. Monsanto doesn’t benefit from an informed, empowered citizen who questions its agenda and motives. It is intent on driving home the message that future life and security on Earth is contingent on the widespread uptake of its technologies.

Creating a problem or a solution?

Monsanto refers to itself as a “sustainable agriculture company”. But, the company admits it is focused on “producing more” to keep in step with population growth and to address limited arable land. It contends that “experts predict we will reach 9 billion [people] by 2050. To feed everyone, we’ll need to double the amount of food we currently produce”.

Monsanto is, unsurprisingly, not genuinely preoccupied with sustainability. In reality, sustainability is not conducive to the large scale profits that the company seeks.

Agriculture is currently responsible for approximately 70% of all worldwide fresh water usage, and approximately 60% of the Earth’s arable land. Animal-based agriculture utilises 55% of the world’s fresh water and occupies up to 45% of Earth’s land surface area.

Monsanto maintains that in order to adequately address the supposed predicted food shortfall, we have to become more “efficient”, since it is “mathematically impossible to double the amount of land and water we already use”.  

While this may be the case, it is not impossible for the planet to reduce demand for the most resource-intensive food products. A 2010 report by the United Nations Environment Program states that “a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products” is crucial to reducing our environmental impact.

Monsanto cites an increase in demand for protein foods in China and India, as people there become more prosperous. But since food animals “require multiple pounds of feed for each pound of meat they produce, a modest increase in the demand for protein is actually a huge increase in the demand for grain, water and land”.

Monsanto is right: an astronomical amount of food crops are diverted to animal feed. But they don’t actually challenge this situation. Syphoning tonnes of wheat, soy, and plant crops through “food” animals in a context of diminishing resources, water shortages and population growth is reckless – even criminal.

Of course, it doesn’t suit Monsanto’s agenda to question an increasing reliance on animal food products, which wreak a significant environmental toll. Monsanto needs a food crisis in order to justify its existence.

A force to be reckoned with

In a similar way that geoengineering “innovations” may allow us to (temporarily) defer action on addressing the source of global warming – for example, by reducing pressure on governments to enact legislation to cut greenhouse gas emissions - so too genetic engineering may diminish an incentive to sufficiently address the causes of the looming food “crisis”.

Clearly, tinkering with nature via technological intervention can reap immense monetary rewards. This is why Monsanto has global ambitions. Its monopoly on many (poorer) countries’ seed sectors and encroachment into their agricultural systems is disturbingly reminiscent of an imperialist agenda.  

The scope of its investment into research and development (over US$2.6 million a day) indicates a long term intention to be recognised as gatekeepers of the modern day industrial food complex.

It’s certain that the company won’t relinquish these aspirations without a fight. If its past (overwhelmingly successful) lawsuits are anything to go by, it has already secured support from many people in high places and frequently operates with impunity.

But the spectre of a bleak future similar to that dreamed up in SANTO 7.13.15 is not assured. 2013’s “March Against Monsanto” drew over two million protestors across 52 countries, with more worldwide protests planned for this coming May.

The resistance to Monsanto’s world view is a force to be reckoned with, and demonstrates that people aren’t simply going to acquiesce to the corporate giant and its relentless pursuit of profit.

--

Originally published April 2014 in Discordia online zine.