Monsanto, one of the largest agri-business firms in the world, came under heavy fire in the documentary Food, Inc. In rebuttal, Monsanto has rallied the media in defense of many of their production practices, and pointed out fallacies stated by the documentary. With the support of the media and a widespread awareness campaign, Monsanto hopes to repair any damage done by the viewpoints taken by food activists in the documentary.
In Food, Inc. the creators speak out about seed patents and how they have changed agriculture for the worse. Under the patent, purchasers of Monsanto seeds, which have been bred for desirable qualities, are not allowed to save seeds to replant next season; the growers must purchase new seed each year. The film goes on to state how lawsuits against the farming community have become a lucrative practice that awards Monsanto with millions of dollars each year.
Monsanto offers a rebuttal: Seed patents have been around since the 1800s, when they were originally made to patent a specialized beer yeast. Today, Monsanto claims they provide new seeds with advanced abilities to deter insects, conserve water, and withstand drought. Much like Microsoft charges clients for newer versions of their operating systems and production software, so too does Monsanto charge for their research in the form of new seed sales, suggests Monsanto. Monsanto insists that farmers are not just paying for superior seed, they're paying for the research required to produce it.
Monsanto goes on to portray their "seed police" not as suited lawyers, but rather farmers and fact-checkers who follow-up on anonymous tips. These tips come from an 800-number that Monsanto put in place to answer the calls of farmers that feel that others are cheating the system by illegally saving patented seeds. According to Monsanto, this is a "dignified way for them to call in and say, ‘Hey, I’m paying for this technology and I think somebody else ought to have to pay for it, too. It’s not fair to me that I have to obey certain rules and they don’t.'"
E. Susan Lockhart takes calls at the Monsanto call center. "It’s totally anonymous; we don’t trace or track the calls. I basically just get information from the caller," said Lockhart of the calls. "People need someone to call," Lockhart said. "They just can’t sit and stew about it. A lot of people that call have that personal sense of ethics that a line has been crossed. I feel really good about what I do; I don’t do this because I enjoy putting people on the spot or having investigators go out and check them. I’m helping to make the playing field fair."
To respond to Food, Inc.'s allegation that Monsanto is making millions of dollars from lawsuits against growers saving seed, Monsanto published figures showing otherwise. According to the report, of the 250,000 growers Monsanto supplies each year, an average of about 128 are found to be growing crops with illegally saved seed. Of these suits, about 94% of them are able to be resolved out of court, says Monsanto.
Monsanto goes on to speak about a grower featured in Food, Inc. named Troy Roush. According to Monstanto, Roush settled with Monsanto in 2002 in a confidential agreement that is said to have prevented either party from discussing the issue, though Monsanto claims Roush violated this agreement by his remarks on Food, Inc. In the documentary, Roush accuses Monsanto of trespassing, suggesting that Monsanto products are unhealthy, and that seed patents have "torn apart rural communities."
Monsanto's reply is that they never trespass or enter private property unless it is to meet the farmer, or to take samples by farmer's permission or court order. Monsanto states that they believe any ill-will in rural communities in association with illegal seed saving are just that—the unfair advantage that a few growers choose to capitalize on by ignoring a legal agreement being upheld by their neighbors. According to Monsanto, as of 2008, Troy Roush still buys genetically modified corn and soybean seeds from them.
Monsanto goes on to address what they consider fallacies portrayed by the documentary:
Monsanto also has a prepared statement addressing an issue Food, Inc. brings up regarding a decision to uphold the legality of seed patents. One of the Justices that handed down this ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas, was a previous employee of Monsanto.
Truth: The case in question was Pioneer Hi-Bred International v. J.E.M Ag Supply and involved a Monsanto competitor. Monsanto was not a party to that case.
Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto for a few years but has not been employed by Monsanto since the 1970's, long before the company was involved in biotechnology or owned a seed business.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Pioneer v. J.E.M. upheld the ruling of the appeals and lower court decisions that plants are indeed subject to patent protection under U.S. patent law. The Supreme Court agreed with both lower courts.
While Justice Thomas indeed wrote the majority opinion, this was a 6-2 decision. Justice Thomas was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsberg – none of whom have or had any association with Monsanto. Justices Breyer and Stevens dissented, and Justice O’Connor did not participate in the decision.
In short, while one former Monsanto employee was involved in a Supreme Court case to which Monsanto was not a party, the decision in that case merely confirmed the substantial prior case law and U.S. Patent Office precedent to the effect that plants are subject to patent protection under U.S. law.
Monsanto goes on to quote a report from the US department of agriculture. While Food, Inc. states that factory farms dominate the American food industry, the USDA report on the ownership of US farms tells a much different story. According to this report, about 90% of all farms are small family farms, and non-family farms only account for about 15% of all food production, mainly centered around beef and specialty crops like nuts, fruit, vegetables, and nursery products.
While Monsanto is going through great effort to defend itself from the negative publicity it is receiving from the movie Food, Inc., Vanity Fair, and other media outlets, the company has not yet chosen to implement what may be their right to the controversial FDA gag order, which is best known for its use between the beef industry and Oprah Winfrey when in 1995, Oprah had made remarks on her TV show about not wanting to eat beef after learning about Mad Cow Disease. Instead, Monsanto is looking to rally other media companies behind it in a show of support.
From The American Farm Bureau:
When I go to the doctor, I don’t ask to be treated with methods from 1912 because I know science and technology have improved medical practices throughout the years. The same is true today with agriculture.
Thanks to technology, farmers and ranchers are better able to produce safe and abundant food for our growing nation. This week there is a movie being released in cities across the United States that misrepresents how farmers and ranchers produce food in this country. After reading several reviews of the movie, I am disturbed by the one-sided information being spread about how farmers and ranchers produce food. This movie is an assault on food production and agriculture. No matter the size of your farm or ranch, if you are a modern farmer, using science-based production methods, the messages of this movie are an affront to you staying in business.
From Forbes:
It's ... common practice, within the locavore movement, to make bogeymen out of multi-national corporations like Tyson and Monsanto. While certain practices, like forcing animals to gain weight rapidly and strictly controlling a farmer's seed stock, may seem reprehensible to some, such companies have built a revolutionary infrastructure that feeds billions of people.
Food, Inc. has been successful in getting food activists to the front page of various news publications, but the efforts of Monsanto and their allies may be enough to assure the general public that the food industry needs no fixing; unless of course people would rather pay higher prices at checkout. Will Food, Inc. impact our society or will Americans who attend the movie just end up feeling like they have been exposed to the unpleasantry of how a sausage gets made? See the movie and decide for yourself!
Visit ecofactory on Twitter and visit us anytime at twitter.com/ecofactory !
