GMO’s, Monsanto and why it sucks to be a farmer

By: Noah Johnson

            Genetically modified food crops were developed to increase yield and possibly enhance food security throughout the world. Proponents of the “Green Revolution” claim agricultural technological advancements, since the mid- 20^th century, have saved over a billion people from starvation. GM crops have become climate resistant, pest resistant, drought resistant, etc. Even the notions of GM foods having adverse health effects are becoming disproved by research. Yet, GM crops are by no means a perfect or possibly even good product for consumers. GMO patents have had nasty consequences both domestically and abroad. In the US, multinational biotechnology companies like Monsanto are dominating farmers through litigation. Abroad, these same corporations prey on the cheap labor in developing countries and leave poverty in their wake. Patenting something as essentially to human life as food is wrong and must be changed in order for true food security to be established.

The Supreme Court case of Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013) unanimously found that second generation crops, with patented genetic traits, fall under patents laws of first generation seeds. Meaning that farmers must continue to pay Monsanto’s licensing fees for as long as there crops continue to reproduce. This puts adds extra cost to farming, which is already a largely unprofitable business in the US. Monsanto’s patents and legal actions are deincentivizing the use of GM crops, which will inevitably reduce yield and increase costs for consumers. If crop patents did not exist, farmers could cut costs by reusing their own seed free of charge and therefore reduce food prices in the supermarket.

The power of Biotechnology corporations extends even farther in developing countries, where agriculture is a larger part of the economy and food is less secure than in the global North. In places like India, Monsanto has been blamed for selling ineffectual GM seeds that have caused a huge increase in farming debt. Critics blame Monsanto for pushing their patented seeds  as “cash crops” and then raising prices when farms become monocultures. Farmers who cannot afford to change the type of crops they grow become extremely vulnerable to the boom/ bust nature of monoculture. When droughts in India limited the yields of crops like cotton, farmers became indebted to Monsanto without means to repay them. This relationship cause a huge uptick in farmer suicides in India.

Change to patent law, in terms of crop seeds, seems unlikely due to the political influence companies like Monsanto have in Washington and other governments around the world. Bio-technology companies have been very effective at lobbying as well as supporting state and national political campaign through the country. Monsanto’s is known to fund likely winners of political campaigns in order for their financial influence to go as far as possible. This is reflected in Monsanto’s nearly 50/50 split in the percentage of Democrats and Republicans candidates Monsanto contribute to. Monsanto’s has been able to influence other governments as well, and has been most effective in developing regions like South America and Africa. Some countries, such as Brazil, have been able to avoid the influence of large Bio-Technology companies through legislation, but the end result is has been complete bans of all GM crops.

By banning GM crops outright, countries like Brazil and France miss out on the technological advantages of GMO’s. Complete deregulation of GM crops has its own draw backs as the competitiveness of capitalism does not maximize the benefits (for the world) GM crops can produce. Governments should continue testing the safety of GMO’s while also eliminating patents for GM crops so that our food can be profitable and cheap. Some that the precedent of eliminating GMO patents would endanger the pharmaceutical field which relies on patents in order to produce and sell antibiotics. “If GM crops cannot be patented, how could bacteria be patented”. This is where politicians need nuance. It is possible to keep patents for GM bacteria around while also eliminating GM crop patents. This type of nuance already exists  in the area of gun control. I can own a hunting rifle, but not not a machine gun or RPG's. Such differentiation can be made for GMO’s, and the sooner this change happens, the sooner we can start ensuring food security throughout the world.