The world according to Monsanto

Yesterday I attended a presentation by the French journalist Marie-Monique Robin at the National Library in Buenos Aires. She talked about her investigations about the multinational corporation Monsanto, which has resulted in a book and a documentary called “The world according to Monsanto”. Monsanto is the world’s leading producer of the herbicide RoundUp, as well as genetically engineered seeds, like the RoundUp Ready soybean. The genetically engineered soybean was developed during the 1980s with the aim to survive the treatment by RoundUp. The genetically modified soybean was introduced in Argentina at the mid-90s, and has ensured a large share of the production ever since, which has given Monsanto an influential position. Argentina has proved to be the best student Monsanto could ever wish for, according to Robin. The genetically modified soybean production is the main responsible factor for the drastic increase of pesticide use in Argentina. This in turn has not only resulted in increasing numbers of people who get cancer and other health problems, but also in loss of biodiversity. Even if the genetically modified seeds and the RoundUp are very controversial, they are not controversial enough, according to some of the participants at the presentation yesterday. Apart from giving me an update on the practices by the multinational corporation, the event was interesting for my study due to the issues and arguments that were raised by the audience both during and after the presentation by Robin, which were closely connected to environmental justice.

Robin is just one among many who criticize the political lobbying practices Monsanto and the marketing of genetically modified seeds. She gave several examples of how Monsanto operates, and the strategies they use to conquer the market. One of the strategies which she revealed is of how the corporation has paid scientists to produce false or misleading studies that deny any connection between their products and the health of people who have been exposed to them. A central illustration is the case of “Agent Orange” which was developed and produced by Monsanto, and used in Vietnam by the Americans to kill the vegetation in their warfare program. The herbicide was sprayed over huge areas, and resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and many children were born with birth defects. The American soldiers who were exposed to the dioxins and the herbicide were also affected, but due to a study performed by scientists paid by Monsanto, who concluded that there was no connection between the health problems they developed and the exposure to Agent Orange, they had to wait for compensation. New studies at the beginning of the 90’s finally revealed that there was a connection, and some of the American veterans have been able to lift some compensation. None of the Vietnamese population has received any form of compensation. This is leading material for environmental justice studies, since the story does not end with the ban of Agent Orange. RoundUp has been a source of ongoing controversy since it has been argued that it leads to cancer, and the story with corrupt scientists who have been paid by Monsanto goes on, according to Robin.

The practice of patenting the genetically engineered seeds like Monsanto does was described by Robin as “privatization of life”. There have been several laws suits against farmers in Canada and the U.S. that have concerned patent infringement. Some farmers have unknowingly grown patented seeds on their land which has been brought by winds from neighbouring crops. These farmers have been sued for depriving Monsanto of the full enjoyment of the patent.

There were close to 200 people who listened to Robin’s presentation. At the stage with her were three women from Cordoba who were members of a movement called “Concerned Mothers”. They gave some vivid, however very tragic, examples of what is currently happening in their vicinity, and I could not help but make connections to previous environmental justice movements that so often seem to be lead by concerned mothers. They accounted for all the cases of children who have different forms of cancer and other health problems which they connected to the use of pesticides on the surrounding farms, and how their insights lead them to “go out on the streets”. One of the women called Sofia described how her five year old son had developed a skin reaction that the doctor that treated him assumed was caused by a chemical burn. Her son had not played with any chemicals; he had only climbed a tree in their garden. When investigating the issue she found out that a farmer had been spraying the fields earlier that same day, and that her son had got a reaction from the pesticide. Often the farmers use small aircrafts to spread the chemicals over the fields, and it goes without saying that it ends up in places outside of the fields as well. And this is happening here and now in Argentina. When analysing what these concerned mothers said, it was interesting to notice that stated that they had to learn about chemicals and to talk about issues that they previously had no ideas about. “We were forced to learn to talk about agrochemicals” one of the women said. Another of the three women said that they do not want any more studies, they want political action. When answering a question from the audience about what role the media in Cordoba has played, the women said that they have received attention, but still there is not anyone who is taking action. So, while one of the organizers cautioned us to remember what the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo accomplished, saying that it would be possible for the Concerned mothers of Cordoba to reach their goals as well, the majority of the comments from the audience were more pessimistic. Several of the people who managed to get the microphone to express their opinion in the assembly hall directed the attention to corruption as an obstacle to accomplish any changes in the unhealthy agricultural practices.

One of the comments at the event last night was given by an elderly female nutritionist who raised the issue of how the genetically modified soybean has been promoted as a way to reduce hunger, and as the “poor man’s meat”. Thereby she gave attention to a central issue in environmental justice studies, namely the relationship between economic status and exposure to environmental risk. The woman received ovations among the audience. The meeting was finished when the situation turned somewhat rebellious after some comments from the audience. Among others one from a farmer who stated that just as there are good and bad scientists and good and bad politicians, there are good and bad farmers, and not all are evil. He continued that Monsanto could not be blamed for the disappearance of the market, and the reduced prices for cotton and sunflower seeds among other crops. The audience did not agree, and several shouted at the farmer that he should shut up. Just as it was interesting to notice what comments that received ovations, it was intriguing to notice which received resistance since it says something about the attitude among the group of people. Judging from the analysis of what comments that were objected and what were honoured, I conclude that the majority of the audience were very critical of the genetically modified crops and use of pesticides. Unfortunately I have too little information about what people were there, and I can only connect what I heard to something an agronomist I talked to last week said. She mentioned that during all her education at the university, no one ever questioned the use of genetically modified crops or the extensive use of pesticides. That is why it is rewarding to know that before coming to the National Library, the Concerned Mothers hade been talking with students at the Agronomy Department.