Have you ever played Monopoly? You know how it goes. It’s pretty fun for a while, until one player puts hotels and Boardwalk and Park Place and then amasses crazy amounts of money while the other play goes broke. Often in our house this would end with one player walking away from the game (or worse, turning the game board upside down in anger). This is no coincidence.
When a market is competitive, everyone wins. Businesses that can innovate or grow more efficient rise to the top while consumers get the best products for the best price. However, when one (or a few) corporations gain too much power over the market, those benefits go away. Think about it – if there was only one company out there selling something essential for life (for example, seeds for all of our major food crops) – they could charge whatever they wanted and we’d have to pay it. Especially if they figured out a clever way to keep new companies from emerging and gaining any share of the market.
This post is first about that exact example and the company, Monsanto, who is under investigation by the Obama DOJ (Dept of Justice) for anticompetitive behavior. But this post is even more about the larger picture – how corporate consolidation affects MANY areas of our food supply, what that means for us, and how you can send in your comments to the Obama administration in the next few days (they are due by December 31).
Monsanto
I’d like to make clear first that Monsanto is NOT a bogeyman responsible for all evils in our food supply. They are responsible for an awful lot, it’s true, but often I hear people cursing Monsanto over problems that should be blamed on other companies. For example, if you hate all of the high fructose corn syrup in our food, then you should be mad at Archer Daniels Midland, not Monsanto. That said, Monsanto’s been highly effective at exploiting just about every possible legal method of growing their company’s influence, expanding their market share, and making money. For example, they spend big bucks on lobbying and they get their people into top jobs in the government. But perhaps they’ve engaged in some illegal ways of doing this too – that remains to be seen.
With the seed industry, it isn’t just about what size market share you have (even though Monsanto IS the Coca-Cola of the seed industry). Even more important are what traits you control. If another company wants to engineer Roundup Readiness (a trait controlled by Monsanto) into their seeds, they need to come to Monsanto begging in order to do so. As Monsanto’s spent the past decade or so gobbling up smaller seed companies (see a diagram of it here) – and the traits they own – Monsanto controls an awful lot of traits, and thus an awful lot of the seed industry.
A recent AP article explains their control over the seed industry, saying:
With Monsanto’s patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.
Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family’s dinner table. That’s because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto’s patented genes.
Note that they say that Monsanto’s traits are in 80 percent of corn. Monsanto doesn’t actually sell all of that corn. I would assume that much of it is Pioneer corn (owned by DuPont), with Monsanto’s traits engineered into it. The AP explains how that works:
Monsanto’s methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP…
The company has used the agreements to spread its technology – giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto’s genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto’s genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached.
While Monsanto does not sell 90% of all seeds, the article quotes an agricultural economist who believes Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of all seed genetics. He continues, saying that with so much control Monsanto can increase their prices in the long term because they have no competition. Then the AP reports on seed price increases over the past few years:
The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers.
They go on to explain the specific methods Monsanto used and uses to get control of the market. For example:
One contract gave an independent seed company deep discounts if the company ensured that Monsanto’s products would make up 70 percent of its total corn seed inventory…
Quarles said the discounts were used to entice seed companies to carry Monsanto products when the technology was new and farmers hadn’t yet used it. Now that the products are widespread, Monsanto has discontinued the discounts, he said.
And how about this?
The Monsanto contracts reviewed by the AP prohibit seed companies from discussing terms, and Monsanto has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated.
Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements.
And then there’s the deal they make with smaller seed companies: You can use our traits but if you are bought by another seed company, you must destroy all of the seeds you have with our traits in them. As a result, Monsanto’s had a cheap and easy time buying up smaller seed companies:
Monsanto’s provision requiring companies to destroy seeds containing Monsanto’s traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp.
Competitive bids from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars, according to DuPont.
So when people talk about "anticompetitive" behavior, now you have a taste of what they mean. It’s not just that a company is really big and successful. It’s that their practices make it impossible for other companies to compete fairly.
Food and Ag Corporate Consolidation in General
An awful lot of problems are traceable to consolidation in agriculture/food. High prices, lack of availability of local food (particularly meat), and food safety problems are just three of them. Fortunately, the U.S. government is actually DOING SOMETHING about this. They will first take public comments on the subject, and then hold a number of workshops around the country.
In addition to the Monsanto investigation, the DOJ is also doing a number of workshops ("to explore competition issues affecting the agricultural sector in the 21st century and the appropriate role for antitrust and regulatory enforcement in that industry") and taking public comments on the subject. (Email your comments to agriculturalworkshops@usdoj.gov BY DECEMBER 31. Details on this are below.)
From a sustainable food & food justice perspective, the problems in our food system are a bit like a chicken and egg dilemma. Huge, powerful corporations are producing unhealthy, unsustainable food (which is distributed in an unjust way) – often treating the workers who make the food very unfairly as well – and yet it’s all legal. Or their practices are illegal but the law is not adequately enforced. So the solution is to change the laws or have the laws enforced – except the same powerful interests control quite a bit of government via lobbying and campaign donations, etc. So where do you start?
Well, one answer is to reduce the power of these corporations. And fortunately, we DO have laws on the books saying that companies cannot engage in anti-competitive practices. And we have an Obama DOJ that is interested in looking into this. Better yet, Congress need not be involved.
There are two types of consolidation – horizontal and vertical. Horizontal consolidation means you have tons and tons of market share selling the same product. For example, Monsanto buys up many smaller seed companies to expand horizontally. Vertical consolidation means you expand into different stages of a product’s development. For example, Tyson breeds baby chicks and owns them all the way until they go to the grocery store. From the breeder, the chicks go to farmers who have contracts with Tyson (the farmers never officially own the chicks, even while raising them). Tyson picks up the chickens from farmers when they are full grown, slaughters them, and sells them. I believe they also provide the farmers with the feed and medications for the chickens.
Each type of consolidation – horizontal and vertical – reduces the amount of competition in an industry. While it is a GOOD thing for innovative companies to prosper, once a company because so powerful, it no longer needs to innovate to stay in charge. Furthermore, without much competition (or even the possibility of future competition), the corporation can jack up the prices.
Sometimes large, powerful corporations use their size to unfairly oust competition from smaller companies. A great example is when Wal-Mart comes into a town and builds three SuperCenters even though the town really only can support two. Then, after all of the Mom n Pop businesses close because they can’t compete with Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart shuts down one of the SuperCenters. Another example (and this IS illegal) is when a company sells their products below the cost of production. A large company may have deep pockets and the ability to do this long enough to put their smaller competition out of business.
Obviously, a monopoly has the ability to jack up prices because there are no other companies around to compete with lower prices. However, when a market is consolidated (the largest 4 companies control over 40% of the market), they can raise prices without officially colluding. You can find out how consolidated various U.S. agricultural industries are from the Heffernan report. Note that the most recent report is quite out of date because we’ve had some very significant mergers in the past 2 years (JBS Swift merged with Smithfield, and then went after Pilgrim’s Pride).
Here are some ways that you might be noticing the effects of consolidation in your life:
• It’s harder and harder to find healthy, locally produced foods in your community — especially if you live in a low-income area, there might not be a supermarket for miles.
• Prices are rising at the supermarket, but you’ve heard that farmers are struggling — and big food companies have made record profits this year.
• You feel like you don’t have much choice about the food you eat — maybe the produce selection is bad, or you don’t like that everything seems to be made with corn products.
• It’s hard for small food producers and processors to find markets for their products — and it’s hard for consumers to find products made by small producers.
• Food seems less safe. You’ve read that the outbreak and spread of bacteria like E. coli happens much faster when meat and vegetables are processed in big centralized locations.
• Local farms are going out of business, because small farmers can’t compete with prices set by industrial farms and consolidated buyers.
• There aren’t many decent jobs in food and farming anymore — there’s a real lack of opportunities for both urban and rural youth who are interested in growing and preparing food.
• What’s in your food, anyway? And why aren’t there decent labels telling you where it grew, what chemicals are on it, and if it’s genetically modified?
• There is a "revolving door" of personnel between corporate lobbyists and government regulators. No wonder corporations aren’t held to strict standards.
• Many rural communities have become ghost towns. The farmers that have survived often find themselves entirely at the mercy of corporations who own all parts of the supply chain (called "vertical integration") and can set prices in such a way to drive competitors out of business.
• Just one company controls the majority of seeds in the US, and regularly threatens farmers who don’t buy its seeds.
• Cows, chickens, and pigs are being raised in squalid conditions on huge industrial feedlots and pumped full of unnecessary antibiotics, which is unhealthy for them and potentially unsafe for the people eating them.
• The food you can afford is bad for you; healthy food is expensive.
• Food is grown and raised in ways that are terrible for the environment, with methods that pollute the water, poison the soil, and threaten our long-term food security.
• A lot of food from the store just doesn’t taste very good, which raises questions about where it’s come from and how it’s been treated.
Taking Action
Slow Food USA just put up an action alert that says:
Maybe you’ve noticed prices rising at the supermarket even while most big food companies made record profits this year;
Maybe you are a farmer who has trouble getting your meat to market because there are no small-scale processing facilities in your region;
Maybe you’re concerned about food safety and the spread of bacteria like E. coli—which happens much faster when meat and vegetables are processed in big centralized locations;
Maybe your local farm has gone out of business because it couldn’t compete with the prices set by industrial farms and consolidated buyers.
And you probably know consumers having trouble finding good food at affordable prices, as well as farmers having trouble getting good food into mainstream markets. Please reach out to them today: the Department of Justice needs to hear their stories.
Email your comments to agriculturalworkshops@usdoj.gov BY DECEMBER 31.
So, what do you say in your comments to the DOJ? You can see sample letters if you’d like, or you can use this template:
State who you are — parent, teacher, farmer, cook, gardener, community leader, eater… whatever feels relevant.
State that you are concerned about the consolidation of corporate power in the food and agriculture sector.
State your primary reasons why. Some examples to get you started (you can find more food for thought at www.usfoodcrisisgroup.org):
* you’ve noticed prices rising at the supermarket and don’t feel like you can do anything about it (a lot of big food companies have made record profits this year — even as consumers are paying more for food.);
* you’re concerned about your family’s safety (outbreak and spread of bacteria like E. coli happens much faster when meat and vegetables are processed in big centralized locations.);
* local farms are going out of business (many small farmers can’t compete with prices set by industrial farms and consolidated buyers.).
This section can be short and informal; don’t worry about spelling out the connections too precisely. The important thing is to express from your own experience what most concerns you or how you’ve been affected by the effects of corporate consolidation in the food industry. Be honest and speak from your heart.
Thank them for the opportunity to submit comments.
Sign your name and address
For an absolute plethora of information on the subject of antitrust work and market consolidation, check out the U.S. Food Crisis Working Group’s antitrust documents.
Here’s a list of the Dept of Justice’s workshops:
Dates, Locations, and Topics
March 12, 2010 – Ankeny, Iowa
Issues of Concern to Farmers
Introduction to the workshops series with a focus on the issues facing crop farmers. Discussion topics may include seed technology, vertical integration, market transparency and buyer power.
May 21, 2010 – Normal, Alabama
Poultry Industry
Discussion topics may include production contracts in the poultry industry, concentration and buyer power.
June 7, 2010 – Madison, Wisconsin
Dairy Industry
Discussion topics may include concentration, marketplace transparency and vertical integration in the dairy industry.
August 26, 2010 – Fort Collins, Colorado
Livestock Industry
This workshop will focus on beef, hog and other animal sectors. Topics may include enforcement of the Packers and Stockyards Act and concentration.
December 8, 2010 – Washington, D.C.
Margins
This workshop will look at the discrepancies between the prices received by farmers and the prices paid by consumers. As a concluding event, discussions from previous workshops will be incorporated into the analysis of agriculture markets nationally.
For full details on the workshops, see the DOJ’s website.



40 Comments







I have a great vegetarian health food store nearby.
I’ll go hungry, and have, rather than eating food injected or polluted with anything.
Fuck Monsanto.
Oh, and any GM food.
Thank you Jill! It’s obscene.
This is no joke, Monsanto is huge and has sued small farmers for patent infringement when a neighboring farms Monsanto Frankenstein Corn pollinated and blew the pollen over the fence.
Monsanto also recently decided not to extend the patent on their first generation of genetically modified soybean.
Noe some farmers are free to re use some seed from their crop without having to destroy it under the contract they had with Monsanto.
Of course, Monsanto has Franken Bean Two ready to roll out yesterday.
There is growing alarm in this country by people wanting to find Non Hybrid seed and some outfits are making money hand over fist delivering these products.
The problem with Hybrid seeds is that they can’t be relied upon to deliver the same result, year after year, like Non Hybrid seeds, they revert to certain aspects of their predecessors but not all.
Even more sinister, Monsanto has seeds that will produce one crop and their seeds are sterile.
It’s a myth, about the terminator seeds that produce one crop and then the resulting seeds are sterile. They never actually did that in commercial production.
The terminator gene would actually be a good idea in some instances, to prevent transgene escape into wild relatives of domesticated plants.
I’m one of those rare lefties who has no problem with GM foods in principle. Having Monsanto run the show unsupervised is a crying shame though. So is, for that matter, labeling any food with a genetic modification a ‘frankenfood’, or the hysterical screaming we see whenever a frost resistant tomato or new Roundup-Ready crop is introduced.
Roundup-Ready was a great idea, actually. As herbicides go, glyphosate is (relatively) non-toxic to people and rapidly degrades in the environment. There are certainly far, far more toxic chemicals commonly in use.
But what’s wrong, in principle, with projects like Golden Rice? I’ve never gotten the knee-jerk opposition.
It’s not about being knee-jerk. It’s about science. I read an excellent book on GMOs that ultimately comes out more pro-GMO than I actually am but it discusses the pros and the cons quite well (although in some cases I think it sugarcoats the pro-GMO side)… but anyway it’s Food Inc by Peter Pringle – no relation to the film. My summary and review is here: http://www.lavidalocavore.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=2766
My favorite source on GMOs is a molecular biology and genetics prof from New Zealand named Jack Heinemann. He worked on a 3 yr long World Bank and UN sponsored report called the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD for short) and the 400+ scientists from around the world (who were very unbiased by the way) ultimately determined that GMOs are not recommended to help developing world farmers, particularly the small farmers who are most in need of help. The reasoning was quite complex – you can see some of what I wrote up about it here: http://www.lavidalocavore.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=2108
There’s no one or two sentence way to describe why GMOs are not good, although I suppose I can sum it up by saying they aren’t being tested independently well enough, they don’t deliver on their promises so far, and there are better, faster, cheaper, safer ways to feed the world. Ultimately i think rather than asking “Are GMOs good?” we need to ask “What are the world’s food/ag problems and what are all of the ways to fix them?” and then evaluate the risks and benefits of each of the choices. And when you do that, I don’t think GMOs come out on top. There are too many problems and too few benefits, especially when you have better ways of getting those benefits without the risks (i.e. by using ecological farming methods). And that’s what the IAASTD writers found too.
Also – I answered “in principle” what’s wrong with Golden Rice. How about specifically?
1. They used the wrong variety of rice to make the stuff. They used the one grown in temperate climates, not the tropics (which would be where it’s needed mostly).
2. You’d have to eat 20 lbs of rice PER DAY to get your vitamin A from it
3. The rice was created using public/charitable funds and the money ran short, but then they found out that they had infringed on 75 or so patents held by a large number of private companies. Ultimately they got those patent rights waived but that wasn’t a sure thing before it happened. It actually required some strategic wrangling on the part of the scientists to get the corporations to agree to it.
Yeah, but the basic concept of adding Vitamin A to rice is sound, and subsequent versions have increased the amount of Vitamin A by an order of magnitude, apparently. Even if you couldn’t get a full day’s supply from rice alone, so what? Isn’t it better to get some than none?
Your concerns about testing are just another symptom of the larger lack of a competent regulatory environment in the United States and much of the rest of the world. They’re valid, but hardly apply exclusively to GMO food. Every time I eat meat in this country I’m taking a serious risk. For that matter, every time I eat a SALAD in this country I’m taking a serious risk.
Currently, we use enormous amounts of water, fertilizer made from natural gas, and pesticides to grow our food. If we could use GM products to reduce some of those, and there’s no reason in the science that we cannot, then I’m all for it. Much like any drug or new chemical, a GM crop should be thoroughly evaluated for safety. But we’ve been tinkering with the genetics of plants for thousands of years, and some of the things we eat now are practically abominations unto the lord on a genetic level (bananas for instance; sterile mass cloned polyploid mutants). Many of the plants we rely on for food or clothing are environmental nightmares, consuming vast amounts of water while severely depleting the soil. Genetic modification could help with this.
Much like with gene therapy in humans, there was a premature rush to market with GM crops, and much like with gene therapy in humans, I think there’s been a subsequent rush to judgment on the basic concept rather than specific technologies or implementations.
How much in the way of campaign contributions will it take of get DoJ to drop the investigation?
im sure nelson and baucuss have got it wrapped up.
so monsanto is the Microsoft of the seed market.
Monsanto may not be the villan but farmers are comitting suicide in India because of GM seeds.
Thank you Jill for this post.
Organic food is sometimes too expensive for some people.You have to research to find what you can afford and is safe. I have had good luck with heirloom seeds and growing my own food.Was surprised at how easily beans can be grown , dried and stored. I grew pinto. Left them in the garden until right before frost.They were already dry.
Broccoli , onions and brussel sprouts are also easy. Potatos if you have the space.Freezing and drying are healthier than canning and easier.Because I live in a very cold area…have to plant green peppers in black pots to keep the soil warm enough to produce. But they do. Also have lots of fruit trees , plants and bushes. It seems the food I like best are easiest to grow.
There is a place here in ME where you can buy organic beef and pork wholesale. Wish there were more of these places. Milk here is easy to buy organic…although there was a lawsuit re. labeling the milk without antibiotics and growth hormones. Milk producers won. But as usual…had to spend money just to be honest.
This is a new market ..The US govt owns the label organic. You have to go through massive amounts of paper work in most states to even grow it for sale.
I don’t that it’s accurate to say that the US Govt. owns the term “organic.” The USDA did set some standards to define “organic,” which are not as strict as most private organizations that issue organic certification approval.
Maybe I’m missing your point?
Actually, REAL grassroots individuals (I am one of them) worked to get certified organic as a USA registered item, because until we did that there was no way mainstream people would recognize what “organic” meant. It is not like “natural” which means diddlysquat. If you want to buy organic from people you trust you can label it IPM or transitional, which means nothing but this is based on the trust system. If I m at a armers market I get to decide whether they are telling the truth. If I am at an Albertsons, I want to know it is certified, thank you.
But what I think is not known is why organics cost us more. It is not because it is more expensive to grow organics. Other than the trendy aspect now, it is actually because organics are not subsidized by the feds. To be subsidized or get help from the feds you have to use one of their authorized pesticides — HEAR ME, YOU HAVE TO USE THEM TO BE INSURED AND GET SUBSIDIES LIKE NORMAL FARMERS. So unfortunately, organic farmers, if they want to be in business for many years, they need to create their own insurance in the way of making a bit more so that if they have a crop fail they have “insurance” to keep their mortgages and so forth. It is quite complicated.
I would like to see this be fairer in the future. The way to do this is to fight for fair practices.
GMO IS BAD — think about the stupidest decisions humans have made and imagine these people are making your food. HORMONES ARE BAD. They are crating problems in our children, and for women, I can personally tell you that if you are going through menopause and having problems go organic with your meats and milk and watch your body change in a few days.
After watching Food, Inc., I concluded that Monsato is one of the most dangerous, abusive companies in America.
It’s not right what they are allowed to do to our food supply and to small farmers.
You can go to their web site and read the lies:
Food, Inc. is a one-sided, biased film that the creators claim will “lift the veil on our nation’s food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that’s been hidden from the American consumer.” Unfortunately, Food, Inc. is counter-productive to the serious dialogue surrounding the critical topic of our nation’s food supply.
http://www.monsanto.com/foodinc/
Copies of that movie should be handed out on street corners.
We buy ALL our seeds from small companies that have no contractual obligations to creeps like Monsanto, and specialize in organics and heirlooms. We only grow enough for our family and a few friends. It must be tough for big-time farmers.
I’m not optimistic about the outcome of the DOJ antitrust public meetings and so on. Not optimistic at all.
OT
http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/28/news/companies/fannie_freddie/
Any bets WH and GOP insiders bought ahead of the news?
Can’t we use anti trust law to break up the monopoly?
One company can bring cheaper results through standardized products provided they are well regulated by government. The French as Chris in Paris at America blog constantly gloats pay less for phone, cable, cellphone service than we do rather than competing systems the government evaluates which is best picks one and the savings get transferred to the consumer.
Which is I admit not a good thing for crops or food variety. However are present Monopoly system of corporate food does the same thing only consumers don’t get the savings or government enforced quality control.
Low cost is our god never mind the Mercury in the cat food.
Mercury in the cat food, poisons in the drinking water, E. Coli in the beef, trans-fats in a ton of stuff, Salmonella all over the place, Listeria, on and on and on.
Hitler only wanted to kill one segment of the German population.Our govt. is making it harder to live for everybody.By the laws they pass.
Yup. those useless eaters.
Rather than breed plants to survive chemicals wouldn’t hot, cold, drought survival be better? Wouldn’t adding more healthy stuff to food be better? After all this seed presupposes the farmer will always have to money to buy round up.
That stuff’s great in theory. When I studied GM crops in a seminar class in college, some time ago now, they were working on drought resistance. The class was taught by a uni biologist who’d done work on GM plants and bacteria, and it was fascinating. His biggest concern was with what’s called ‘transgene escape’, where a modified plant interbreeds with a wild cousin and your new and useful trait escapes. He was very, very worried about drought resistance or salt tolerance genes getting out into wild weed species, compared to worries about toxicity in humans or allergies.
Though that’s less of a problem for things like corn, say, where the wild relatives are basically extinct. Or plants that are sterile to begin with.
Good point.
But the same concern would also apply to Round up weed killer resistance wouldn’t it?
Yeah, it does. But in that case the damage is minimal.
Let’s say you’re using Roundup resistant plants and they interbreed with a wild relative. That relative now has a competitive advantage – but only against other weeds when being sprayed with Roundup.
In other words, it’s bad for the farmers, bad for Monsanto, but it won’t do damage to the environment. Outside the fields, that gene will cost the plant energy, or at least do nothing to promote survival.
Contrast with drought resistance. A wild plant gets a gene that lets it survive on 20% less water. Now you have a real problem, as the range of environments it can live in just dramatically increased.
Jill, and excellent post, thanks.
Amen! a most excellent and important post.
Speaking of Monopoly, the game was designed to illustrate the economics of 19th century journalist, economist and writer, Henry George. His first book, Progress and Poverty, was one of the best selling books of the century. The common man had no difficulty understanding George’s economics and loved him. Others of is “fans” included, or went on to include, Samuel Clemens, Leo Tolstoy, George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill and Albert Einstein.
George was a socialist in the original and only true sense of the word. His economics are simple, obvious, and they work. They are the economics the left should embrace as the alternative to the right’s various forms of capitalism, all of which create and defend monopolies, guaranteeing the mal-distribution of wealth. How does one take the left seriously, in America or elsewhere, while it remains oblivious of George?
Progress and Poverty by Henry George — available on the Web for nothing but the desire to finally understand economics.
I’ve posted before regarding GMO food, in an attempt to point out that GMO insulin was the FIRST product brought to market in the U.S. Despite requirements from the FDA that the product(s) undergo Phase IV (post-marketing) studies, to date (30 years later) no such studies have been completed. Any deaths or complications that MIGHT be laid at the door of manufacturers has easily been shifted to “it’s just the disease,” “that happens to diabetics, sometimes,” or “the non-compliant patient (intentionally) harmed himself.” These excuses have now worked for decades in the diabetes community, so GMO food producers have had ample time to fine-tune their PR spin when adverse events occur among GMO-food consumers.
and there was the “genius” idea of using peanut genes in soybeans – I guess the thought of peanut allergy never crossed their minds
Depends on the genes and what proteins they code for. You’re not allergic to every protein a plant makes, only a few of them. Though with highly allergenic plants or animals you’d want to use greater caution, naturally.
Jill, great post as usual. Let us hope DOJ operates independently as it should on this issue without intra-cabinet political interference from USDA, who we must remember is led by former “Biotech Governor of the Year” Tom Vilsack. Remember some of the buzz from a year ago: “Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto.”
All of this (and all of this is very important) is, fundamentally, symptomatic of a single problem: agriculture does not industrialize well…or at all over the long term.
To date — with minor exceptions like the Golden Rice project — genetic modification of plants is an attempt to solve complex issues with reductionism. So rather than focus a sympathetic mind on sustaining soil bases, we have a company like Monsanto attempting to engineer drought resistance. Healthy soil is the best defense against drought, but the actions necessary for building and keeping it don’t fit the “economic efficiency” of industrial agriculture.
Rather than deal with the horticultural fact that the same crop planted season after season on the same plot will eventually face overwhelming pest/disease problems, we attempt to engineer plants that will be unaffected by particular pests and diseases.
Successful, sustainable agriculture happens when agriculture is suited to the local environment. Attempting to apply industrialism to agriculture is bound to create the problems that are now obvious. It has no mechanism for sustaining the resources (like soil structure and biota) that agriculture production requires. The “answers” exacerbate the problems more often than they solve them, which then require more answers.
Unfortunately, the real answers are not profitable for companies like Monsanto. And vertical integration squeezes growers to such a degree that they have a hard time applying those answers if they want to do so.
The problem, and i say this as one who works in commercial horticulture, is not in the chemicals or the genetic modification. The problem is in how chemical fertilizers, pesticides and genetic modification fit into the industrial agriculture model. Plants and their interaction with their environment are complicated; they are not widgets or cogs. Easy answers most often beget more complex problems.
All that being said, i’m all for going after Monsanto for its attempt to control the seed market and genetic traits. The latter really galls me because Monsanto expects full legal protection for something that it cannot control outside of the laboratory, and it has a nasty habit of patenting traits that were previously in the public domain.
P.S. sorry for such a long-winded first comment at FDL
I worked in the food industry for nine years. I have a huge problem with transgenic foods. Foods that use genes from non-like species should not be allowed. Species or hybrids that could have come from normal hybridization over years of trial and error should be allowed.
We don’t know what the long term effect on the environment, our food supply and our bodies of utilizing animal genes in plants and similar transgenic modifications.
Once we ruin our food supply we are all dead. Game over. Messing with the food supply is very very stupid.
Let’s say genetically engineered foods are shown to cause some health problem down the road. How will people trace it to Monsanto? When you buy corn, how do you know if it is genetically engineered? Secondly, what would be Monsanto’s liability? Does anyone know? If you do please post a response.
You know it’s genetically modified by the fact that you bought corn, or any product with corn in it (unless, of course, you actually know the producer). I’ve read reports that testing for markers, which will indicate drift as well as planted, GM seeds, at distribution centers shows something over 90% of US field corn is genetically modified. The testing is done because of export, see below on EU regulations.
Corn is an interesting case, because much of the genetic modification of corn is to put Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) into the corn in an effort to defeat worms and borers. Now, technically, Bt is organic in that it is a naturally occurring soil bacteria. In small exposures (and it’s a readily available pesticide) it appears to cause no harm to humans, though it is still a regulated pesticide with standard health warnings for punctuated exposure.
This is a case where genuine, free market principles would be beneficial. In most European countries, for example, any product containing GMO’s must say so on the packaging. Information would allow the consumer to have some market influence.
Monsanto is works tirelessly to keep any such labeling requirements from happening. Until recently, it was successful in lobbying the Pennsylvania government to outlaw milk producers labeling their product as “hormone free”. (Monsanto developed rBGH.)