In 1980, the United States Supreme Court ruled that genetically engineered micro-organisms were eligible for patenting. In 1985, the US Patent and Trademark Office declared that plants and seeds were also patentable. In 1988, President Bush appointed a lifetime executive of the Cargill Company to be the US GATT negotiator on agriculture. The result was a 1994 Agreement on Agriculture that basically requires reductions in export subsidies, but allows increasing levels of export dumping. It also requires all members of the newly created World Trade Organization (WTO) to import minimum percentages of all basic foods.

Today, many countries around the world have become more food-import-dependent than ever. And patents have granted giant agribusiness companies monopoly rights over microorganisms, plants and animals, specific genes, whole species including all cotton and soybeans derived through genetic engineering, and even human beings. With patents limiting farmers’ access to genetic resources, their capacity to contribute to agricultural biodiversity and food security is severely hampered.

Attacking the Mythology

So-called "life sciences" companies like US-based agrochemical giants, Monsanto and Du Pont, with help from the US Government, have been explaining their promotion of GMOs, agricultural industrialization and near monopoly market concentration as necessary in order to "feed the world". But clearly these efforts are not really about feeding the world. According to Peter Rosset, Executive Director of Food First and co-author of "World Hunger: Twelve Myths", the world produces enough food to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person per day. Hunger is not a matter of inadequate production, but rather one of access and distribution.

In the US, the "food" that is grown in the Midwest and the Great Plains regions, aside from dairy products are feedgrains, corn and soybeans, which are fed to livestock both here and in Europe. Feeding the world in agribusiness language means feeding an ever-expanding factory farm livestock system.

Unregulated Monopolies with Chemical Addictions

Along with the unprecedented consolidation of the seed and agrochemical companies, we have seen a rapid development of plant varieties that now require specific chemical applications. Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soybeans, corn, canola, cotton and others are obvious examples.

The mass market introduction of natural pest control substances like bacillus thuringisis (used to control rootworm) into multiple varieties of crops, will shorten the useful life of that natural substance from decades to a few years, thus eliminating one of the main tools of organic and sustainable farmers. In our history, we have learned one thing about battles with nature. Nature always wins! Bugs and weeds adapt and develop resistance or tolerance to every substance we put on them, sometimes with disastrous consequences. We also know that science and technology always lag in terms of finding solutions. Companies invent new poisons and take more risks, always lagging behind. And the constant pressure to develop more new products shortens the time allowed for testing.

Impacts on Producers

For farmers in the US, the main difficulty has been trying to earn a fair income or wage in an economic system that is largely outside of their control. Recently prices for crops and livestock have been far below the cost of production. Farmers are going bankrupt in large numbers. Producers use every shortcut available in an effort to squeeze out more production and good stewardship practices are often ignored.

Many states in the US are facing extreme pollution from large scale animal feedlots. Fish kills in our rivers and streams from manure "spills" are common as are reports of toxic fumes making neighbors sick and making communities unpleasant places to be outside. We have significant problems with chemical runoff, the nutrients that we waste by over-applying them to our croplands. These chemicals are showing up in our wells, our rivers, and the Gulf of Mexico where they are creating massive areas of algae blooms where nothing else can live.

What are the solutions?

There are two broad ways of resisting the industrialization and globalization of agriculture.

The first, in terms of oppositional politics, is to actively campaign on these issues and to lobby governments, institutions and the industry itself to reform their policies and practices. We must ensure that the review of the TRIPS agreement allows sovereign states to exclude all life forms and related knowledge from Intellectual Property Regime (IPR) systems; and we must support the recognition of the collective rights of local communities over their biodiversity and related knowledge. In addition, we must continue to demand that our government guard our long-term health and environment. We must demand that consumers be given adequate information to make informed decisions through labeling and disclosure. And we must continue to encourage other NGO partners and other governments to resist the US pressure to accept systems that defend the interests of corporations over people.

The second approach (a more constructive type of politics and practices) is to create alternatives that directly create and support alternative forms of production, distribution and exchange. These would include supporting food cooperatives and seed exchange networks; purchasing locally-grown and organic produce whenever possible, forming direct links between farmers and communities and growing and preparing our own food whenever possible.

* National Organizer for Food and Agriculture Policy at Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, IATP (Minnesota)