Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010. This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000.
“The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering, in the press release. “First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.”
Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet. Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue—and bankrupt—farmers for “patent infringement.”
News of the Foundation’s recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, “We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto.” Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, “The Foundation’s ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa.” In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation’s grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)—considered by the Foundation to be its “African face”—work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program.
Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA’s grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, “AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa.”
A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report’s warning that “continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes—including transgenic crops—will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity.” Furthermore, PANNA explains, “The Assessment’s 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet.”
The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its “holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices.” The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called “blind-eye investing,” with at least 41% of its assets invested in “companies that countered the foundation’s charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy.”
Although the Foundation announced it would reassess its practices, it decided to retain them. As reported by the L.A. Times, chief executive of the Foundation Patty Stonesifer defended their investments, stating, “It would be naïve…to think that changing the foundation’s investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars.” This decision is in direct contradiction to the Foundation’s official “Investment Philosophy”, which, according to its website, “defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find egregious. This is why the endowment does not invest in tobacco stocks.”
More recently, the Foundation has come under fire in its own hometown. This week, 250 Seattle residents sent postcards expressing their concern that the Foundation’s approach to agricultural development, rather than reducing hunger as pledged, would instead “increase farmer debt, enrich agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, degrade the environment, and dispossess small farmers.” In addition to demanding that the Foundation instead fund “socially and ecologically appropriate practices determined locally by African farmers and scientists” and support African food sovereignty, they urged the Foundation to cut all ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.
AGRA Watch, a program of Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice, supports African initiatives and programs that foster farmers’ self-determination and food sovereignty. AGRA Watch also supports public engagement in fighting genetic engineering and exploitative agricultural policies, and demands transparency and accountability on the part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and AGRA.
Source: AGRA Watch
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “ChrissyOne” for the heads up.]
This decision is in direct contradiction to the Foundation’s official “Investment Philosophy”, which, according to its website, “defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find egregious.
It is ironic…damn near funny…that if you look up in the dictionary, egregious can mean outstanding bad, or remarkably GOOD.
My, my – we certainly seem to have a lot of Monsanto shareholders defending the company on this forum today and apparently none of these people who think the company is okay can READ THE BLOODY ARTICLE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE TELLING YOU EXACTLY HOW BADLY THE COMPANY HAS BEHAVED AND THE DAMAGE THEY’VE DONE TO THIRD WORLD FARMING.
@tom and towertone
You are both missing a piece of the puzzle. Monsanto is so irresponsible I’d almost swear they are trying to kill, starve, or otherwise harm as many people as possible.
Let me explain:
Imagine, if you will, a computer (#1) being introduced into the environment that can, during certain times of the year, cause other computers (#n) around it to be altered, permanently, such that all future output of #n computer now resembles #1. Normally, this would not bother you, except, now, there is a claim of ownership to all downstream generations from #n by the owner of #1.
Hope you get the picture, and it gets MUCH worse. I’ll be happy to ‘splain if you make me.
BTW… I agree with Tom and TowerTone. I work with transgenic plants and if you do not think that this is our future, you are a damn fool.
Ask the farmer who plants insect resistnat transgenic cotton. These guys are FINALLY making a profit without having to spread tons of toxic pesticides to save the crop enough to break even.
Ask the 300,000 african kids (yes you are reading that number correctly) every year that go blind because of not enough Vitamin A in their diet. Transgenic rice (retinoic acid) is taking care of that.
Try reading a bit before you pontificate about evil foods
…..morons.
I am with MacBill.
Here they are a list of articles on Monsanto that will clarify you they are really evil:
Mercola
Monsanto is evil for a lot of reasons. GM food derives in problems in human cells: Monsanto does not allow farmers to use seeds from the previous harvest for replanting. They require buying new seeds from the Monsanto. Failure to do so, farmers will be sued. GMF are pesticide resistant, Are you? Because don’t tell me the plant does not absorb pesticides when it grows.
Shit happens, more than what we wanted®
@doc…yes please explain. I believe you are fear-mongering.
When that silly computer analogy occurs, it is because the farmer is more than likely responsible…not Monsanto. He has to keep 10-20% of his crop non-transgenic and there are other restrictions. When he doesn’t fallow them (usually to make more money), bad things can happen.
Do we not let people have gasoline because some moron’ set it on fire?
C’mon Forrest…do not act like the real Gump. THe pesticide in corn is harmless to humans. Is is a protein that has NO effect on animals…none…zero….nada. Most everything else you use around the house has some level of effect on you (everything is toxic,,,its just a question of dose) yet you come out with such stupid statements that I fear for the human race.
People if you do not know what you are taking about…STFU……
The gut has more nerve endings than the brain…which explains why some many people go on gut feelings rather than intelligent FACTS.
BTW, I am not defending Monsanto here. I am defending transgenic plants only. We need more of them, not less. It would reduce the overall level of cancers (especially endocrine) caused by pesticide usage.
If you have Netflix, please watch Food, Inc. to learn more about how Monstano’s soy patents have affected soy farmers.
The problem isn’t with transgenic plants. The problem is that companies like Monstanto do not allow farmers to save seeds. They must buy them from (drumroll…) Monstanto.
If they do save seeds, they are in violation of Monstanto’s patents. But here’s the rub…
Here on Planet Earth, we have wind. Wind carries seeds and pollen. And it easily transports them from one field to another. So if Monstanto finds their seeds in your crop, weather you planted them or they blew there, then you are still in violation of their patents.
They now completely own the soy industry because of this. They have run small farmers and seeds cleaners completely out of business.
It’s not a plant problem, it’s a patent problem.
Bill Gates father was head of Planned Parenthood (helps abortions)years ago, foundations like “Bill Gates vaccines depopulation” (google it), Monsanto depopulation of third world countries patenting seeds of transgenic foods (we’ll be next here), Norman Dodd on tax exempt foundations(google it)
i see a theme here, dont’t you guys?
let’s save our country before is too late !!
Terry, Kent, Tom get your heads out of the sand please, WAKE UP
doc
I believe the farmers lost that court fight in Canada and the US.
Apparently it had something to do with their stories.
Now let me explain a little more of my view.
I am not saying Monsanto is a perfect company. They are huge and prone to make mistakes. But I am not swayed by a movie made by people who had no idea how food was processed to begin with. I’ve been around different forms of it most of my life.
I’ve known farmers who graduated from A&M and
I’ve know the people who work the chicken farms/truck/factories.
I’ve grown food.
I’ve raised cattle.
I wasn’t insulated from this reality by living in a big city all my life.
It’s hard work.
It is amazing to me that many of the same people who see a movie about Wal-Mart hate it even though it helps low-income people.
Then they see a movie about Monsanto (and others) and hate them even though they help feed the millions that can’t feed themselves.
It’s no wonder that when they see a movie about global warming, they jump on that bandwagon, too, even though it damns third world countries from ever developing industry to advance themselves.
If you don’t want the food, don’t eat it. There are plenty of choices. I prefer fresh.
If you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t shop there. I seldom do.
And if you believe in in man-made global warming…..then turn your damn computer off.
Here at MDN we advocate completely open web standards and completely closed food standards.
“If you don’t want the food, don’t eat it. There are plenty of choices. I prefer fresh.
If you don’t like Wal-Mart, don’t shop there. I seldom do.
And if you believe in in man-made global warming…..then turn your damn computer off.”
And if you don’t like terrorists, don’t buy oil from their countries.
(That last one ain’t so easy, huh?)
Watching documentaries for information = BAD
Listening to dropouts on AM radio for information = GOOD
@Buster
So, the best you can do is limit the portion of GMO to total crop at 15-20% else it might infect the other portion, AND, the farmer must lose some other method of profit, in order for you to “win”, and you call me a fear monger!
WOW!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jan-mcgirk/mexicos-mutant-kernels-ri_b_616463.html
Don’t like pink slime? Better go vegan…
http://www.alternet.org/story/144904/
What does this have to do with Apple, the Mac, or even Microsoft?
You are publishing this to promote your political views and advance your perspective on the organizations mentioned in the article.
You have lost your way, MacDailyNews.
@towertone
I understand what you are saying, and in many ways we likely agree on many things. In this case, I would urge you to do some research into how limited the safety studies by Monsanto et. al. have been. Imagine, if you will, how things may turn out if we were all to be required to take the flu vaccine…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_swine_flu_outbreak
The problem with topics like this is that people watch “documentaries” (which are always biased in one direction or the other, no matter who makes them or what they say — they have to be paid for somehow) and then consider themselves educated on the topic. You cannot consider yourself educated on a topic as complex as biotechnology after watching a single biased documentary. I’m sorry.
I’m with Tom, TowerTone, and Buster. I work with transgenic plants every day. I’ve eaten plenty of transgenic plant seeds, and plenty of transgenic plant products. I’m totally sure all of you have as well, even if you don’t know about it. The problem here derives directly from ignorant people who do not (and cannot without at least a bachelor’s degree) understand the science behind these products, or the regulation that they undergo before becoming marketable.
The article talks mainly about Monsanto, and Africa. I read it fully, before anyone tells me to read it. In Africa, millions of people die every year from malnutrition. There is simply not enough food to go around, and the environmental conditions do not help any. Part of the blame for this tragedy can surely be levelled on the imperialistic countries that destroyed that continent many years ago. But the other part of it is that it is difficult to grow agricultural crops in Africa. The insects, and the heat (in many regions) are devastating to crops planted by even small-scale farmers. If you can provide a crop that will resist drought better, and resist these insects better (neither of which requires spraying any chemical, mind you) then what is the possible downside? More people eat, and more people live.
Monsanto is a large company that is in business to make money. Just like Apple, just like Microsoft, Google, Exxon, HTC, Dow, whatever company you want, etc. etc. The only way that they can make money off the millions and millions of dollars they put into these products is to patent them. Otherwise, they would not exist because other companies would rip them off immediately. Which brings us to the patent system, which is obviously not perfect. But if anyone has any suggestions on a better system, they could step forward right now.
It’s either A) have patentable-GMOs and feed more people in the world (GMO crops DO have higher yields usually due to less competition among weed species for nutrients, among other reasons) or B) have more starvation in the world. The people that work for these biotech companies (I’m obviously one of them, but I don’t work for Monsanto — although I wouldn’t be against working for them) are people like you too. The vast majority of them have very noble goals in mind working in this area. Don’t tear them down when you don’t fully understand the science.
Honestly, if anyone has questions about this topic I’d be more than happy to respond.
–mAc
I think I’ll write a ‘documentary’ about two guys that form a computer company.
They steal some ideas from H-P, IBM and Xerox, put their name on some code, and then sell them way over priced.
The company finally gets rid of the greedy founder but he comes back to exact revenge. He changes the OS that everybody was used to. He ended agreements with others to license his system. He then made tiny music players off the sweat of Chinese kids and eventually parlayed this into ruining the music industry (just ask some old timers).
But that wasn’t enough. He then sold phones, but only to his chosen provider. If you wanted to buy a new one, guess what? You had to go with ATT. And if you wanted to buy applications from somewhere other than Apple, guess what? You can’t.
It has gotten so bad that factory workers are killing themselves, Green Peace is after them, kids are being robbed and killed because their iPods are too expensive for the under-privileged, and they knowingly sold millions of phones with faulty antennas that didn’t even work.
Their workers are underpaid and overworked. Their management has been extorting bribes from business associates, and the ‘just works’ computers have been riddled with problems.
You don’t know about all this because of the secretive environment they operate under, and we all know why companies keep secrets!
Now I know this movie won’t sell here, and I know for dam sure it isn’t the complete story, but what the Hell, I’ll make a sh!tload of money off those Windows people who just love to find fault with something they don’t use. Makes them fell all smarter and warm inside….
@Tom – yes, it is wrong. Deploying chemical pesticides to kill everything — yes, EVERYTHING — and then coming in a few years later to sell your pesticide-resistant patented overpriced seed (available only when purchasing more poisons) is pure evil, and morally reprehensible. engineering a crop to not reproduce its own seed and then actively taking market steps to eliminate the growth of heritage self-reproducing crops is wrong.
Go ahead and try to make yourself feel good about making patented super-seed that grows without much water. Or your could just support the installation of irrigation equipment, you know, so those poor people could actually have drinking water to go with your poison. Oh, wait, I forgot. Monsanto hasn’t bought up all the water rights yet, they wouldn’t profit enough if people actually had anything to drink. Those people just need to plant special magical monsanto seeds.
The obvious answer to drought and crop failure is proper, fair water management for the benefit all, not specialized genetic seeds and poisons for the profit of some megacorporation.
@ MDN: Mac Content Please!!!!!!!!!
Isn’t Monsanto one of the companies that made agent orange? I think so. I was in Vietnam in 1968-69. I prematurely (in my 30’s) came down with ischemic heart disease. The US Veterans Affairs had ruled agent orange causes premature ischemic heart disease in about 200,000 Vietnam veterans (out of 2.5 million who served), plus a host of other diseases that are intergenerational.Thanks Monsanto and Dow!
Big Industry is always looking out for your well-being.
Big Government always wants to take your money and kill you.
If you don’t understand this, I’m sure someone here will be more than happy to make some stuff up.
Do you know there are places where it is illegal to gather rain water?
I’m looking forward to Monstanto’s new Clean Air™. At last we’ll all have access to fresh, clean air to breathe, completely free of harmful emissions. Monsanto will provide us all with this vital resource.
For a price.