Wykstra 1
Morgan Wykstra Ms. Bucaria AP Language 8 6 February 2014 Mountainous Farmer Seed Availability In the heat of the day, the beat of the travelling drums drew the group to a close river, where the funeral pyre stood. Wet faces of sorrowful women observed as strong young men bore the weight of a flower masked stretcher. The lifeless man from the mountainous region of Vidarbha, India suffered a fate he felt he had no choice but to suffer. Many family farmers, like this young man, committed suicide because of the fear of unsuccessful GMO crops whose seeds were purchased from a seed company (Robin 290). Biotechnology companies such as Monsanto transfer desired genes from one plant species to another, claiming to create better products than organic crops (Ma 693-694). However, sixty countries worldwide have banned Monsanto (Brownbill) as GMO crops are thought to have more detrimental effects than positive (Manson). Large corporations such as Monsanto negatively affect family farming seed availability in mountainous regions through unsuccessful GMO seed crops, creating dependence on Monsanto products, and suing farmers to ensure intimidation. Citizens and farmers are unsatisfied with industrial seeds and unsuccessful GMO crops. Mountainous farmers have resorted to suing large companies such as Monsanto to express their discontent regarding the issues associated with the company. The process of genetic drift has created damages to crops which are not contaminated with GMO properties, and in response farmers sued GMO-crop producers (Kiefer 1253). This presents the problem of a large company altering a crop which is not theirs. Though genetic drift may be seen as an uncontrollable issue, companies such as Monsanto should take responsibility for the effects since they already have altered something natural. Also, discontent is shown through farmers claiming altered seeds are not beneficial and unnatural (Ma 693; 701). Since many farmers prefer to stay with traditional practices, the push by companies such as Monsanto is frustrating. Mexican farmers from the mountainous region of Oaxaca feel culturally threatened when it comes to the risk of their corn being genetically altered (Robin 245). Their frustrations may not have been realized through court as of yet, but they still stand as a manifestation of the harm Monsanto could inflict on mountainous farming through the Oaxaca policy of only using local corn varieties. In addition, the dissatisfaction associated with industrial seeds is realized through the debate over organic and GMO seeds. Coexistence of organic and GMO seeds requires organic success since GMO seeds contaminate and spread their properties to other seeds (Kiefer 1252). If organic success is required for any cooperation at all, the question of whether GMO seeds should exist surfaces. One example of a genetic contamination is of an instance which occurred in Zapotec, a remote mountain area near Oaxaca. Soybean crops which were thought to be organic were tested, and the results were positive for the presence of transgenes (Robin 254). Mountain corn crops were called “monsters” by local farmers because three ears of corn would grow on a single leaf. The preference of organic crops is evident through the precautionary efforts of testing as well as horrified reactions to contaminated crops. Lastly, dissatisfaction regarding the effects of GMO seeds is given by ordinary citizens in the mountainous state of Utah during a “March Against Monsanto” event. Cara Warren, who resides in Weber County, requests the world to finds ways to produce food without “horrifying consequences” (Manson). Another Utah resident, Tami Canal, expresses her concern that Monsanto products are linked to the environment being in danger to the butterflies and birds (Manson). When citizens feel the need to gather in a large
Wykstra 2
group and rally against a company or practice, appropriate concern should be given to the impending issue. They are noticing a troubling trend in their own society, which shows a legitimate concern over seed availability in mountainous regions. Dissatisfaction with GMO seeds has been expressed by mountainous farmers and citizens repeatedly. The monopoly company, Monsanto, has created a dependence on their products and seeds that mountainous farmers have no choice but to rely on. In order to keep GMO seed crops alive, other Monsanto products and pesticides are required. Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” treatment calls for the genetically altered seeds as well as Roundup, an herbicide (Ma 701). Shortly after luring mountainous farmers into the Roundup treatment, the company increased prices on their herbicides, which are required to keep the GMO crops successful (Brownbill). Through this, farmers are forced to continue buying expensive Monsanto products to accompany the seeds they have planted. The farmers are relying on these seeds to produce a satisfactory harvest, which will determine the success of the farmer. Monsanto has limited the availability of seeds to farmers through catching them in an expensive process. Not only is Roundup Ready expensive, but it alters the genes of other crops. University of California biologists David Quist and Ignacio Chapela discovered that corn in the mountainous region of Oaxaca had been genetically contaminated through the use of Roundup Ready (Robin, 244). Farmers in the mountainous region of Vidarbha, India have testified that “farmers are chained by debt to Monsanto dealers” (Robin, 292). Monsanto harms farmers and their ability to satisfy citizens and tribes with quality crops. Companies also restrict farmers through bans and contracts. The agricultural technique of saving future generation seeds for future planting has been banned to farmers by Monsanto (Ma, 695). Through this action, Monsanto is ensuring that mountainous farmers are required to buy more seeds, which increases the company’s profit and control. Also, the large company may require farmers to agree to a contract with a “no resale” section (Acquaye, Traxler). This is another instance in which Monsanto is given the ability to exercise control on farmers. As a result of the company’s power, they are given the ability to control the prices of seeds (Brownbill). Monsanto has bought many seed companies to ensure their dominion over family farmers (Brownbill). This limits the seed variety availability to farmers since their options of companies and products surrounding farming is limited. Though the price of beginning farming products like seeds and herbicides is large, the cost of continual development is small (Acquaye, Traxler). This shows the monopoly attitude of Monsanto since they raise prices over time, though it may cost less to create the product. Detrimental effects of having one company and one price is a welfare loss to farmers (Acquaye, Traxler). Monsanto is negatively affecting the seed industry to mountainous farmers through creating dependence and a monopoly attitude. Monsanto sues farmers because of genetic seed contamination, which cannot be controlled and is considered unhealthy by those who wish to remain organic. Despite the fact that GMO seed are big contaminates, Monsanto is still able to hold onto the patent for the genetically altered seeds (Kiefer 1253). It is because GMO seeds are created privately that they can have intellectual property protection (Acquaye and Traxler). Since Monsanto has the ability to protect their genetically altered seeds and products, it allows them to sue farmers for an occurrence of contamination that is completely out of farmer control. Genetic engineering is not stable because of uncontrolled cross-pollination, despite what GMO companies claim (Robin 247). Though companies like Monsanto are given the rights to their genetically altered seeds, they are unfairly given the ability to sue farmers for uncontrollable events surrounding the seeds. In a California Law Review, Monsanto is seen as an aggressive company who seeks to intimidate farmers with
Wykstra 3
its lawsuits (Ma 700). This has become a big enough issue for it to be brought to the attention of a law review. However, the United States hasn’t practiced its antitrust laws to reign in the monopoly that Monsanto is creating (Brownbill). This neglect has allowed seed monopolies to gain even more unrestrained control over farmers. Lastly, GMOs are controversial when it comes to health. Though multiple scientists and the federal government claim that GMOs are safe there are also claims that GMOs cause cancer, kill bee colonies, and cause infertility (Manson). Through limiting mountainous farmers’ abilities to choose different seeds, Monsanto and other large seed companies are potentially causing harm to the environment and people of the world. GMOs are unhealthy for the environment and large seed companies sue farmers for genetic contamination, which is uncontrollable. Large corporations like Monsanto negatively limit seed availability to farmers in mountainous regions since farmers and citizens are unhappy with genetically altered seeds and refuse to switch to industrial seeds, Monsanto creates small farmer dependence on their company, and GMO contamination becomes uncontrollable and unhealthy to those in mountainous regions. Farmers in mountainous areas are going to the extreme of suicide as a result of their fear for unsuccessful crops and being tied to debt from trying to make a crop successful. It is because this issue puts the lives of many at stake, that more attention should be given to the issue of limited seed availability to mountainous farmers.
Works Cited Acquaye, Albert K. A. and Greg Traxler. “Monopoly Power, Price Discrimination, and Access to Biotechnology Innovations.” Journal of Agrobiotechnology Management and Economics. N.p. 2005. Web. 12 Dec. 2013. <http://www.agbioforum.org/v8n23/v8n23a09-acquaye.htm>. Brownbill, Fred. “Horrifying Things About Monsanto.” Save America Foundation. N.p. 30 Sept. 2013. Web. 14 Dec. 2013. <http://www.saveamericafoundation.com/2013/09/30/horrifyingthings-monsanto> Kiefer, Joseph. “Turning Over a New Sprout: Promoting Agricultural Health by Fostering the Coexistence of Organic and Genetically Modified Crops in the Wake of Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms and the Deregulation of Modified Alfalfa.” Emory Law Journal 61.5 (2012): 1241-1285. Print. Ma, Michelle. “Anticipating And Reducing the Unfairness of Monsanto’s Inadvertent Infringement Lawsuits: A Proposal to Import Copyright Law’s Notice-And-Takedown Regime Into The Seed Patent Context.” California Law Review 100.3 (2012): 691-720. Print. Manson, Pamela. “March Against Monsanto: Utah protesters rally against GMOs.” The Salt Lake Tribune. N.p. 26 May 2013. Web. 12 Dec. 2013. <http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56356416-78/monsanto-genetically-modifiedgmos.html.csp>. Robin, Marie-Monique. The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of Our Food Supply. New York: The New Press, 2008. Print.