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.]
@ Buster
We agree on one thing – You want to save with earth? DON’T REPRODUCE.
Like I said before, I’m not American. I’m Canadian, and many people up here aren’t particularly happy about US farm subsidies either.
The contention I have with this comment is that it appears to be more of a governmental/policy issue than an issue with the technology or the company that produces it.
I’m not an ultra-conservative right-winger that hates government either. Regulation is necessary in many industries, including biotech. This just has to do with the fact that most people in the world, when confronted with difficult decisions, will decide to do what helps them most, even at the expense of others. That’s exactly what the US government does, and exactly what many corporations do. But it’s also what evolution is.
–mAc
“is that it will completely destroy their economies long before that happens.”
If there was increased government regulation of this industry world-wide, then perhaps the economic penalties would not occur. Not saying that is the solution, but sometimes thinking of things in the opposite way is helpful.
–mAc
I would also like to see anyone respond to Buster’s above statement:
“It continually stuns me the amount of people that admit they would rather eat pesticide-laden foods rather than touch GMOs. Can ANYONE explain this to me?”
I share the same frustration as Buster with that issue as well.
–mAc
@MacW
It is my understanding that about half of all food produced in the world spoils before someone can eat it. How does MORE food solve this problem?
@ puster
No, that article isn’t my basis for everything. As for the 20/80 thing, I “mis-spoke” but it still remains that of a matter of “infection” in that the “non-resistant” bug population MUST be kept alive so that it can “infect” the resistant population with it’s lack of ability to adjust to a changing environment. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, I would argue that this amount of finesse isn’t possible without an even more invasive police state than we already experience, AND perhaps the “resistant” variety of pest may bring more good than harm, but we’ll NEVER KNOW because this would not be allowed! It’s Bad for ya!!
See George Carlin.
I think we’re all in the same ballpark here… Buster seems more concerned about the actual safety and edibility of the crops, and I have really no problem at all with that part of it. It’s the economic and policy problems that worry me the most. It’s the damage that US companies do to foreign farmers that really hurts people in the long term. We can talk all we want about higher yields, but if there is no money to buy those yields then we’re just sitting on a pile of cheap soy that we have to give away. That sounds a lot like socialism to me.
@ChrissyOne –
Respect. You are on fire.
I’ve been speaking on the same thing to my family for the past several years. My family is a farming family and I remember when I was a young boy hearing my grandfather complain about Monsanto. I didn’t get it then (because I was too interested in chasing girls) but wow, the things he said resonate so clearly. If he were alive today, he would tell the family, “I told you so.”
How about the real problem, over population?. Oh wait, can’t talk about that. Too many people on this orb.
@doc
I did say that more food = less starvation in a perfect world. We all know that there are issues with food distribution in many third-world countries in Africa and Asia in particular. The thing about many GMO crops is that they are engineered to be better-suited to the ecological conditions in these nations. That way — more food produced locally = less spoilage in transport = less food wasted = more food available locally throughout the world.
Of course, anyone can do research on FlavrSavr tomatoes, which were well-intentioned but did not turn out for a variety of reasons. I don’t think more modification is the answer to the distribution problem, but rather that modification in an effort to make crops more amenable to local conditions is. That way food is consumed locally, and less is wasted. This is critical.
@ C1
We are in complete agreement, I believe. However, I don’t know the answer to these regulatory/policy issues. You are well-informed — do you have any ideas?
–mAc
WATCH DOCUMENTARY FILM : FOOD, INC. & find out the truth about Monsanto’s Agri-Empire over the American family farmers.
Evil is as evil does.
How about we start by not putting former Monstanto lobbyists in regulatory positions…
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/07/22-14
Or the other way around…
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Crony-of-agriculture-chief-now-a-Monsanto-lobbyist-8612856-78264977.html
Our regulatory agencies are deeply in bed with the industries they purport to regulate. I think this is where the lion’s share of these problems come from. I often hear the excuse that only industry insiders know the business well enough to make good policy. This is horseshit. Deal with the conflicts of interest, just like you would within any company or government agency. Only then can we get any idea of where the baseline is to craft fair and sustainable systems.
There sure is a lot of oversimplification of a difficult problem going on round these parts.
One problem with GMO crops is when they displace *all* the natural varieties. E.g., bananas, specifically the strain known as ‘Cavendish.’ Do a little research on the history of bananas and the current prediction of decimation by a drug-resistant disease. A little moderation tempered with experience might help.
Monsanto, like every other corporation, is not evil in and of itself. The actions/directions the leadership takes the company are the problem — Monsanto has been taken in some pretty heinous directions. They have also caught the “ignorance of nature” disease: they forget that if they build a resistant crop/animal, nature will build a better disease/pest/etc. The evilness comes in when they haven’t forgotten, but are counting on it. Just as with hackers and security, it’s a never ending spiral with the difference that nature will ultimately win.
(@TT: I’ve also raised cattle, hogs, sheep, horses, and crops for a living in the past [sold out when I discovered my 605 acres was too small to be profitable] and watched the ag industry for quite a while. My current favourite in the US is the marketing brilliance of the label “Angus Beef” that has nothing to do with Angus cattle.)
And now I shall reveal to all the real reason that Monsanto is evil and the reason the story is posted on MDN:
Monsanto uses Windows!
The issue of employee cross-over from corporations to government agencies is an issue, but I’m not sure that these people are necessarily always on the side of the company that they came from. Many scientific people (those working in this industry) value an objective opinion highly and are not easily biased, even by companies that they have worked at for many years. I’m not saying there is no corruption. There obviously is. But, put a little more faith in these people in general. I’m one of them.
In any case, I know of many academics (here in Canada) that specialize in biotech policy. These people would, admittedly, be better suited to making policy decisions than many former industry employees who may or may not be biased.
One thing I do feel strongly about is this: The people who regulate these tech industries (including biotech, pharma, etc.) must all be WELL-educated on the science behind the technologies. We cannot have ignorant bureaucrats with significant power over these industries that are swayed only by the votes of the (largely) ignorant masses. And I use the term ignorant in the nicest, most literal sense.
–mAc
@ mAc-warrior
“You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public.” — Scott Adams
@ Hm…
Cavendish bananas are not GMOs. They are simply a species of banana that were bred for the specific characteristics that people like in bananas. The reason they have taken over the banana market is because they are really all that people want to buy, because people want seedless (sterile) bananas. The reason that there is a problem with them is that they must reproduce asexually, as a result of their sterility. Therefore, there is no genetic variation. Therefore, no evolution. Therefore, no ability to naturally defend against pathogens.
This has absolutely zero to do with GMOs. Sorry.
–mAc
So… exactly like corn?
@ mAc-warrior
Bad phrasing on my part: I was using bananas as an example of a serious problem that comes from a lack of diversity in the seed-stock which happens with Monsanto’s program, not as a specific GMO.
@ C1
Of course. But there are MANY commercially-viable GMO and conventional varieties of corn for producers to choose from. Not true for bananas.
–mAc
ChrissyOne,
Please don’t lie.
Palin-backed candidates tend to win or at least do much better than if she hadn’t backed them.
In fact, Sarah Palin is quite the kingmaker:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/from-grizzlies-to-goatees-sarah-palin-becomes-2010-kingmaker.php
@ Hm…
Lack of diversity occurs in all commercially-cultivated crop varieties though, not just in GMO ones. Even the conventionally-bred varieties are made to be as geneticaly-uniform as possible. Producers want things this way. They don’t want half their crop to produce high yields and half to produce low yields. They want it to be uniform so they can predict it much more easily.
Diversity is an issue, but it is an issue with all agricultural crops, not just the GMO ones.
–mAc
@ mAc-warrior
I don’t mean to indict GMO’s in general (although, caution/careful-research is always needed), but rather the corporate program of displacing nearly all other varieties and not allowing farmers to reclaim seeds from their crops for next year’s plantings in order to completely control the genetics. The farmer down the road from me can afford to buy seeds and chemicals every year – he can deal with it, the subsistence farmer I met in South Africa can’t buy seeds but once every 4 or 5 years. If the seeds he needs aren’t available, it’s more than a business problem for him.
You’re very right that diversity is an issue. I believe that it will become critical over the next decade as more and more of the natural strains disappear. Most people in the US haven’t the frame of reference to understand the distinction between the corporate farms of our grainbelt and the subsistence farmers of the third world. I thought I did, but then I went to Africa.
Bill Gates attended Bilderburg 2010 in Sitges, Spain, this year, along with Eric T. Mole and Craig Mundie, muckety-muck with MS.
@ Hm…
I’m sorry that I continue to misread you. You have great points.
Although, because of their patents, Monsanto is legally obligated to control the genetics of their patented-products. I suppose this is the reason for the tight control, and also the reason why all the other companies with patented seed have to follow the same path as Monsanto.
Perhaps we will be rid of the corporate control issue only when the patent rights for each individual crop expire. Of course, we have to wait 20 years for each patent, which is unfortunate. Until then, though, I’m not sure what the solution to this particular issue is. It is, to be sure, a complex and difficult issue with no easy answer.
–mAc
The level of ignorance in these posts about food is impressive. Definitely disproved evolution. And I have to agree with ChrissyOne about Sarah Palin. Where is the intelligence? I mean it’s not like she is smart enough to get elected President without ever having accomplished a single thing of significance, having zero knowledge of how the economy works, and having only friends who hate America. Someone who can do that is obviously intelligent.
Mac,
As a graduate of Cornell School of Agriculture and Life Sciences in the 70’s and being involved in sustainable ag these last 15 years – I have been appreciating your comments.
In fact, no one is legaly obligated to portect their patents. They choose to because they want to maintain control over their intellectual property.
Monsanto did not start out in the seed business, they started out in the chemical business and when they invented roundup, and then its patent life was about to expire, in the 1980s they decided to create roundup ready crops as a way to extend their profits with the herbicide. They also started to reinvent them selves as a life scences company, and started buying up genetic technology as well as seed companies…. so they could lock up the seed distribution system as well as the seed breeding.
So its not an accident…that there are patents and that Monsanto is aggressive about “protecting them”. There will never be an end to coporate control over seeds unless farmers around the word and their allies resist the corps.
A point that has been missed here is that GMO crops are not even doing what they are supposed to do.
There are many reports of crop failures of GMO cotton (india), corn (in South Africa) and reports in St Louis news papers about US farmers abandoning fields due to super weeds that have become roundup resistant and cannot be tilled. Monsanto has produced roundup ready II because there is a need for more roundup being sprayed due to herbicide resistence, so they have created a new genetic tech to help the plants.