Janine Jackson interviewed Patty Lovera about Monsanto protests for the May 27, 2016, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Patty Lovera: “People’s growing conditions are changing, and we’re going to need more options to adapt to that around the world…not less.”
[mp3-jplayer tracks=”CounterSpin Patty Lovera Interview @https://fair.org/audio/counterspin/CounterSpin160527Lovera.mp3″]
Anti-Monsanto protest at the White House (photo: Occupy Monsanto)
Janine Jackson: Anti-Monsanto rallies in 400 cities in 48 countries around the world failed to draw much US media attention, despite hundreds of thousands of people, from Dhaka to Paris to Cape Town, literally yelling out their opposition to the biotech giant’s products and practices, and the disturbing impact of their increasing control over the food supply.
But it’s not that US press don’t care about Monsanto. A few days later, when word came that Bayer was in talks to buy it, that was big news.
Few issues are more important than the food we eat. What would reporting that foregrounded the voices of farmers, indigenous communities and consumers look like when it comes to a phenomenon like Monsanto? We’re joined now by Patty Lovera; she’s assistant director of Food and Water Watch. She joins us now by phone from Washington, DC. Welcome to CounterSpin, Patty Lovera.
Patty Lovera: Hi. Thanks for having me.
JJ: Well, I wouldn’t want to imply that US media have given no attention to controversies around Monsanto. They certainly have. I would say that a lot of that attention, especially lately, stays focused on GMOs—whether they’re safe and whether they should be labeled. I have some issues with the way they cover even that, but my bigger concern is how it presents the story as one of relatively well-off US consumers demanding to know every little thing that’s in their food—because they have too much free time, basically. But cotton farmers in India aren’t killing themselves over labeling. What does Monsanto mean around the world, that people in 400 cities would go out in the street?
PL: Monsanto at this point has become synonymous, not just with GMOs, but I think also with a type of agriculture, and it’s a type of agriculture that’s really counter to the way a lot of people want to farm around the world, and are still farming around the world. It’s chemically intensive. I mean, Monsanto was a chemical company first, and then they acquired seed companies, and engineered seeds through genetic engineering to make those crops work with their chemicals.
So they sell Roundup, and they sell Roundup Ready corn and soybeans and cotton, so you can spray the crop with this weed killer, Roundup. Before it would have killed the crop, right? It would have killed the weeds, but it would have killed the crop, too. Now the corn or the soy or the cotton is engineered to survive Roundup. That’s a hell of a business model for a chemical company, and they sell these things together.
And so it’s really become a company that’s synonymous with that type of agriculture, of very expensive inputs, expensive seeds, and chemicals that go with them, and corporate control of these basic building blocks of the food supply.
JJ: Well, I want to pick up on one word, which is you say “can,” you “can” use these seeds. It’s not as though Monsanto is saying, hey, we’re in the market, we have a seed, you can choose our seed over other seeds. That’s not the way it’s playing out in terms of choice, is it, really?
PL: It depends on what part of the world you’re talking about. But in the US, if you are growing the commodity crops that we look at, you know, corn, soybeans, cotton—not wheat, they haven’t figured wheat out yet, they haven’t genetically engineered wheat—but the other big commodity crops, they have. And odds are, if you’re growing those crops, you’re probably growing a GMO, and you’re probably growing a GMO that has a Monsanto-patented trait in it. And it’s hard for folks who don’t want to do that type of agriculture here. It’s hard for them to find options.
In other countries, Monsanto has bought seed companies that used to be independent. There is that sense that it’s hard to escape them, and that they take over a lot of market share and that choice for farmers disappears; it’s harder to avoid them. If it’s not a company you want to support, you may not have other good options.
JJ: Monsanto actually sues farmers who try to save seeds or re-use seeds, in the way that maybe their community has done for eons. But once you kind of buy in to Monsanto, you kind of have to stick with the company store.
Marching against Monsanto in Bangladesh (photo: GMWatch)
PL: Right. And that’s one of the huge points of friction, especially outside the US. Historically, folks have held some seed back and saved it. You don’t eat everything you grow, or sell everything; you’re investing in next year. Hybrid seeds, which came before GMOs, changed this; they changed that business model. Big seed companies that then got bought by chemical companies like Monsanto or DuPont, they were very big into hybrids, and they said they offered a lot of benefits in terms of better varieties and better yields, but it did stop a lot of seed-saving.
And GMOs take that to the next level, because of the patenting that goes on. This is intellectual property that’s in those seeds, and there have been very infamous examples of Monsanto going after people who did try to save seed, and not pay that licensing fee the next year, and very high-profile lawsuits and challenges. And that’s a big disruption to the way people farm in many parts of the world. That’s a really radical shift to the economics of farming.
JJ: It shifts the economics in which a place like India, which now has upwards of 90 percent of their cotton is GMO cotton, that Monsanto is collecting these royalties, which are very, very high, on. But it also has an impact on the planet, right? I mean, some of the concerns are about biodiversity.
PL: Right. There’s a choice issue we worry about when you have this much market share, and you have a couple of companies, or one big company like Monsanto, that’s really controlling the majority of any one seed marketplace. There’s also really a biodiversity issue, right? If you’re making everybody farm, no matter where they are, with just a few varieties of something, you’re taking diversity out of that system, and that is not a smart biological bet, you know, when you’re growing something outside in places that have unpredictable weather and droughts or floods or pests or — you know, crazy things are happening with the climate. People’s growing conditions are changing, and we’re going to need more options to adapt to that around the world, and make sure people have good options and a resilient food system, not less.
Mothers against Monsanto in Paris: “So that the world of Monsanto is never that of our children” (Photo: La Chouette)
JJ: I resent in some way the way that media make it a story about the proof of the danger of GMOs, as though someone needs to eat a GMO tomato and drop dead. When we’re really actually talking about health on a bigger scale, on a community, on an environmental and on ultimately a planetary scale.
PL: Absolutely. It’s one of the most frustrating things working on this issue, is the way that it gets portrayed. There’s lots of folks who make some pretty extreme claims about what GMOs do.
JJ: Right.
PL: And we don’t have evidence to show that those are happening or not happening, and that’s by design. We have a regulatory system that is designed to not look [or] to ask real questions about, are these the same as non-GMO foods? And we have a system that is incredibly good at, and designed, not to look at the chemical use that is absolutely tied to this model of production. GMO crops are tools of a chemical agriculture system, and it’s been very separated in [terms of] how we regulate things and approve things, and it really isn’t getting counted as part of the public health impact of this type of agriculture.
Europe does a better job than we do. There’s still things they could do better. But when we get information about these chemicals, it usually comes from outside the US, because our system is not designed to look for it. So it absolutely should be part of the conversation, and instead we get caught in this very reductionist look at it, where they call you names and say you’re like a climate denier if you dare to question this technology.
JJ: Sometimes I feel as though journalists think they’re waiting for something to be settled before they weigh in, but we can already raise questions about the process. It’s not as though we had a debate, and people who think monopolies, and corporate control of food, and farmers not being able to control their seeds, just convinced those people who didn’t feel that way, you know? That’s not how the process has worked, and it seems to me like maybe there’s a role for journalists in there.
PL: Absolutely. I mean, a really critical example of that just recently: The National Academies of Science put out a report, every so many years they put out these big reports on these hot topics, and they put one out on GMOs. And a lot of people referred to the format as a sandwich: The opening part said, oh, we think they’re probably fine, we think they’re safe to eat. Then there was some bad news in the middle, that, oh, oops, they don’t seem to increase yields, doesn’t seem like they actually help us produce more food. Oh, yeah, we’re seeing production problems, because the weeds we keep spraying with Roundup are now resistant to Roundup, so we’re going to have to switch to tougher herbicides. You know, like all the bad news was in the middle. And then they ended up with, but they’re probably safe to eat, so we think it’s okay, and that was the headline.
And we actually went and looked at who was on this committee, and lots of them had some tie to this industry. This was not a neutral panel of experts. A lot of them had skin in this game, and that never makes it into the coverage as well. It was a very convenient headline of, you know, “expert panel says GMOs are safe to eat.”
JJ: We’ve been speaking with Patty Lovera from Food and Water Watch. You can find their work on Monsanto and a range of other issues online at FoodAndWaterWatch.org. Patty Lovera, thank you very much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
PL: Thanks for having me.
This article says very little, but what little it says is crap or innuendo. It says almost nothing that is concrete, and yes it is about proof that GMO’s are dangerous. SHOW PROOF. You can’t because GMO crops are the most studied crops in the world.
The suggestion that Monsanto controls all crops because they force farmers to buy their seeds year after year is absurd. Why is the farmer saving Monsanto’s or any GMO crop’s seeds, rather than buying hybrid or old varieties? Because they perform very well and make the farmer more money. Farmers growing hybrid seeds have to purchase from the seed companies too, every single year. But they continue to do so because those hybrids provide disease resistance, better faster growing more abundant crops.
A company has a right to protect it’s products. Regular seed growers do the same thing, new plants are licsenced and farmers buy the seeds on condition they do not save seeds. The farmers have the choice to buy old variety seeds, save their own seeds and plant those, but they continue to use GMO, hybrids and new seed varieties, willingly signing agreements saying they won’t save seeds, because their crops do better. Otherwise they wouldn’t. They are not caught in some mythical trap, they are just choosing to use the best product. Which contradicts much of what the author says. The crops are doing better and producing more.
The few farmers that Monsanto sued had signed agreements saying they would not save seed. But they did it anyways. The only problem I have with Monsanto is they trespassed onto private property to gain access to their plants.
This article is the usual half truths, because if the whole truth was told there wouldn’t be an issue.
The issue of herbicide and pesticide resistance is one faced by all farmers using all crops and all methods. Including so called “organic” methods. Weeds and insects become resistant. And such crops are only a some of GMO’s.
Many GMO crops use only minor changes, not adding any DNA to the crop, only turning on a gene that the plant turned off during it’s breeding or evolution. For instance the gene that causes apples to turn brown when cut can be turned off, simply by switching one small part. The same gene exists in other plants turned on. People eat those plants too. As for GMO’s that add from other species, it’s been shown that horizontal gene transfer happens all the time in many species. What was once thought to be impossible is actually natural. Nature does GMO by accident all the time. GMO crops are safe to eat. Animals have been eating these crops for a long time, generations, and there are no problems.
I was against GMO food for a long time, then I actually looked at the evidence. Once I did that it became clear that the vast majority of anti GMO claims are outright fabrications. The problem is it requires effort to look at the actual science and scientific papers. It’s much easier to read half truth articles that say very little with lots of short words.
BTW, all farming is farming with chemicals. We are made of chemicals, so is our food. We need to drink a chemical on a regular basis or we die. How disingenuous can you get when you try to turn the word “chemicals” into a dirty word. Into a “gotcha” word, a word that promotes fear.
This article is very disappointing. It’s not FAIR or accurate at all.