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.]
That vapid ignorance of today’s Rill Americans once again astounds me.
“ignorance” implies that one hasn’t been exposed to enough of the information to make an educated decision.
I think you meant ‘stupidity’, whereas you can hold the truth right under someone’s nose and they still don’t get it.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
@ TowerTone
If you don’t let the information in, it’s still called ignorance. Stupidity is when they actually get the information and they don’t care.
Remember folks, Truth and Facts are exactly the same thing.
For more on stupidity, please refer to people who admire Sarah Palin.
That would be me, folks.
Step right up…..
I’m wondering… let’s say Monstanto came up with a better cow.
They engineered a cow that ate less and put on more weight, and didn’t mind standing in its own shit and enjoyed being slaughtered. Let’s just postulate.
Now this cow could only be purchased from Monstanto. It could still reproduce, but you couldn’t actually keep its calves. You’d have to buy new ones every year from Monstanto.
But why not!?! The cow are Way Better Cows™ and everyone should love them.
Now, small farmers who like their Plain Old Cows can go right on breeding them if they like, but of course now they can’t compete with farmers of Way Better Cows™, because their feed and water costs are so much higher.
No problem… hippies don’t like fancy cows (okay, those few meat eating hippies) and stick to Plain Old Cows for a higher price.
But now some of those Way Better Cows™ get loose into the wild. They roam from farm to farm, doing what boy cows do to girl cows (because there are no gay animals) and spreading their Way Better Cow™ sperm to Plain Old Cows everywhere.
Monstanto was very clever in creating these new cows in that they have a Monstanto logo right on their flanks. They are very easy to spot. And soon those hybrid calves start showing up everywhere. Monstanto, mindful of their patents, hires people to go from farm to farm, looking for unauthorized cows. When they find them, they demand royalty payments or the farmers get sued by Monstanto.
Soon, it’s nearly impossible to find a Plain Old Cow. If you want to breed cattle, why, it’s just a simple matter of dealing with Monstanto, playing by Monstanto’s rules, and sharing a sizable chunk of your profit with Monstanto.
My question is this:
Is this okay with you?
Sarah Palin is admirable because…
(help me out here… I only ever hear a bunch of folksy nonsense like ‘she’s a real woman and mavericky’ and not ‘she’s an ignorant quitter’.)
I’ll tell you one thing, I ADMIRE SARAH PALIN.
Because the candidates she endorses tend to lose.
Look, I’m not American. Nor do I have ANY inclination to hear ANY rhetoric about American politics in a thread like this, unless they are constructive and on-topic.
Mike,
I don’t know of a chemical “pesticide” that will kill “everything”. Most pesticides don’t have lethal effects on plants. And most herbicides don’t affect insects. I sprayed pesticide on some plants just last week. These plants are not resistant to the pesticide in any way, and they did not die. In fact, those plants are thriving now because the insects that plagued them before spraying are now dead.
“engineering a crop to not reproduce its own seed”
I don’t know of a crop, GMO or otherwise, that does this. Crops have to produce seeds to be a crop. The seeds are generally what are sold for profit at the end of the season. I am not aware of a GMO crop that has been engineered not to produce seed. It is sort of counterproductive. If you have evidence to back up this statement, feel free.
“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.”
Water of any kind is often hard to come by in arid and semi-arid conditions. Sure, you may be able to drill wells into aquifers to get water, but like you say that (often limited) supply of water is much better used as drinking water than for irrigation (which would use an astronomical amount of water to produce meaningful gains in such a dry climate). Or, you could have plants that don’t need as much water. The people get more crop produce, and better drinking water. Win-win, no?
–mAc
@ mAc
Ah yes… And therein lies the problem. They DO produce seed. And that seed cannot be cleaned or used bu the farmer. That violates Monstanto’s patents.
That is PRECISELY the problem.
Being “Locked-In” to Windows = BAD
Being “Locked-In” to Monstanto = GOOD
C1,
It’s a fine analogy. Yes, these situations happen. I’m not sure anyone is “okay” with them, because they are really nobody’s fault. Like you said earlier though, the problem is with the system here, not with the technology (or necessarily Monsanto). I know of other companies in the same industry that have done exactly the same thing. Monsanto is just the scapegoat.
The question I have for you is: What is a better alternative? The patent system we have now is not that great. Everyone who has studied or worked in industries like biotech knows it. But what would be better? Without patents, nobody would invest the money to create these technologies. And without the technology, more people in the world will starve. And if you hold a patent for something like glyphosate resistance, then you are legally obligated to defend it, or risk losing it.
So, what is Monsanto (and others) to do? Go out of business entirely and stop advancing scientific progress in the world? Would anyone here like to go back to 17th century farming practices (and the huge yield losses)? Maybe spend 10x more on food per year? No? Well, what then?
–mAc
I find it interesting how some people argue that they are trying to save Africa from the “evil” Monsanto. Yet, in Africa, people starve to death daily. Monsanto makes cheap food possible, but it is bad for Africa.
Therefore, Africans dying of starvation is better than feeding them Monsanto food.
You guys are nuts.
“They DO produce seed. And that seed cannot be cleaned or used bu the farmer. That violates Monstanto’s patents.”
Well, it is the problem. But, it is also the problem for any farmer who chooses to grow many GMO crops. Not all are protected by patents. However, the better ones usually are (surprise!). Yet, many farmers choose to grow these crops because they produce better yields. You don’t see too many producers on the ground who are against Monsanto. Not around here, at least. But, like I already said, it is not just Monsanto. All the major ag companies promote and sell GMO seed.
Farmers can choose to buy conventional seed, just as they can choose to buy a PC or a Mac. Nobody holds a gun to their head so that they have to buy Monsanto products. But they often are more financially lucrative.
–mAc
@Doc…is that article your scientific basis for everything? Written by someone with no knowledge of the subject and inserting fear-mongeting quotes on people saying that…well…I think bad things could happen,,,even if they haven’t happened yet. C’mon, get real.
Also you do not understand the 20% ratio. It is 20% NON-transgenic to Transgenic plants. The reason? Its because pesticide resistance is recessive in insects. Therefore you have to keep susceptible insects around for that rare case when a resistant critter pops up, it will breeds with a susceptible one and the line (resistant) dies out.
Therefore is not managed properly this great resource could be lost. As in any group, there are a few unscrupulous farmers that will not follow that because they stand to lose up to 20% of their crop. It is a hard thing to police.
Monsanto thinks one way to prevent that is to control the seeds from year to year.
Sort of like nuclear energy, a great idea by humans that that gets turned upside down by…stupid humans.
@ mAc
I don’t entirely disagree with you, but the problem is this – it’s not really keeping that many more people in the world from starving. It is, however, destroying lives and livelihoods of millions.
“It is, however, destroying lives and livelihoods of millions.”
Elaborate on this? I don’t follow.
–mAc
…and one last thing. It continually stuns me the amount of people that admit they would rather eat pesticide-laden foods rather than touch GMOs.
Pesticides are proven killers, even in low traces. Insect-resistant GMOs have been proven safe time and time again.
Can ANYONE explain this to me?
Read “Oryx and Crake” by Margret Atwood
Oh yeah, and it’s really REALLY good for Monstanto.
Sorry. Margaret Atwood
It is hard to produce much data about how many people have been positively impacted by GMO products, because there really isn’t much. However, there is lots of data that states that herbicide-resistant GMO plants produce higher yields (this is much easier to quantify than a number of people impacted). It stands to reason that higher yields = more food available = less starvation. In a perfect world where food distribution is non-corrupt, of course, which is not the case currently. But that isn’t the fault of GMOs, and is an issue with all food supplies in the world.
–mAc
@C1….rice and chickpea are subsistence crops in many areas in the 3rd world. Yes it helps many people survive. Many cannot read and consequently have no idea how to spray pesticides properly . Many get sick and even die…or they don’t spray and lose most of their crop. Transgenics are easy….just plant and water.
My main point is that transgenics WILL help the starving masses, not today although it is helping) but rather in the years to come. The number of people on this earth i50 years from now is practically unsustainable if nothing is done (birth control will always be the best way to solve this and the fossil fuel problems).
Too damn many people….a good chunk of them not particularly bright either…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
“Elaborate on this? I don’t follow.”
That’s because you haven’t looked at what happened in Mexico. It’s great for US farmers to sign up with Big Argibusiness and get all of Monstanto’s benefits and super-awesome Roundup-resistant high-yeild Seed, but our farm policies pretty much decimated millions of farmers in Mexico that couldn’t come close to subsidized US corn at the yields we’re able to get. That Monstanto seed costs money – money that the US government is happy to hand out, but that the government of Mexico just doesn’t have. (I find it most amusing that it tends to be the more conservative types that most ardently defend this blatantly socialist system.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />)
The result was that something like 20 million Mexican farmers went out of business in the 90’s and now have little to do but sneak across the border to further prop up our farms with cheap labor.
But hey… it’s good for us, so why cry about it, right?
“My main point is that transgenics WILL help the starving masses, not today although it is helping”
And MY point, as I have made above, is that it will completely destroy their economies long before that happens.