{"id":343285,"date":"2018-01-11T11:13:48","date_gmt":"2018-01-11T10:13:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=343285"},"modified":"2018-01-11T11:13:48","modified_gmt":"2018-01-11T10:13:48","slug":"monsanto-bayer-neoliberalism-case-hobsons-choice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/editorials\/monsanto-bayer-neoliberalism-case-hobsons-choice\/","title":{"rendered":"Monsanto, Bayer and Neoliberalism: A Case of Hobson’s Choice"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Bayer marketing professional recently stated on Twitter that critics of GMOs deny choice to farmers. It\u2019s a common accusation by the pro-GMO lobby. In a\u00a0previous article<\/a>, I noted the idea that GMOs offer increased choice is erroneous and that, by implication, corporations like Bayer or Monsanto restrict options. Much evidence suggests that GMOs provide a false choice.<\/p>\n

However, to get drawn into endless debates about the whys and wherefores of GMOs tends to overlook the fact that GMOs belong to a particular model of agriculture which is increasingly being challenged. To quote Charles Eisenstein from a\u00a0recent piece<\/a>, what we should be talking about is the \u201cchoice between two very different systems of food production, two visions of society, and two fundamentally different ways to relate to plants, animals, and soil\u201d (the table featured here<\/a> provides concise insight into these visions).<\/p>\n

The fact that someone chooses to market for a giant transnational company says much about a person\u2019s allegiance to and belief in corporate power, let alone the prevailing economic system that company benefits from and the model of agriculture it promotes. Corporate-inspired visions of the world tend to define choice – and indeed how the world should be – within strict parameters.<\/p>\n

Choice, development and the future of agriculture in India\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

If current trends in India continue, it could mean dozens of mega-cities with\u00a0up to 40 million inhabitants<\/a>\u00a0and just 15-20% of the population (as opposed to around the current 60% or more) left in an\u00a0emptied-out countryside<\/a>. It could also mean\u00a0hundreds of millions<\/a>\u00a0of former rural dwellers without any work.<\/p>\n

Thanks to the\u00a0model of agriculture<\/a>\u00a0being supported and advocated under the banner of \u2018growth\u2019,\u00a0the trajectory<\/a>\u00a0the country seems to be on may entail a future comprising vast swathes of chemically-drenched monocrop fields containing genetically modified plants and\u00a0soils turning<\/a>\u00a0into a chemical cocktail of proprietary biocides, dirt and dust.<\/p>\n

Monsanto, Bayer, Cargill and other large corporations<\/a>\u00a0will decide on what is to be eaten and how it is to be produced and processed. From seed to field to plate, the corporate take-over of the food and agriculture chain will be complete.<\/p>\n

Eisenstein notes the consequences of the model of agriculture being rolled out by these corporations:<\/p>\n

“\u2026 an endless succession of new chemicals and GMOs to compensate for the consequences of mechanized chemical agriculture, which include depletion of the soil, herbicide-resistant weeds, and pesticide-resistant insects.\u201d<\/p>\n

In other words, as farmers become trapped on a high-tech, agrochemical-drenched treadmill, the \u2018choice\u2019 will be restricted options from an endless stream of proprietary inputs, which are churned out under the banner of \u2018innovation\u2019 in an attempt to address the issues and failures resulting from the previous roll-out of \u2018cutting edge\u2019 company technology.<\/p>\n

In India, the existing productive system based on livelihood-sustaining smallholder agriculture and small-scale food processing will be all but a memory, while those remaining in the sector will be squeezed, working on contracts for market-dominating global seed and agrochemical suppliers,\u00a0distributors and retail concerns.<\/p>\n

Independent agricultural producers and village level processors will have long been forced out of the system and\u00a0<\/em>industrial agriculture will be the norm, with all the social, environmental and health\u00a0devastation and externalised costs<\/a>\u00a0that the models entails.<\/p>\n

The model of agriculture currently being promoted serves to further embed India into a US-dominated global political system which has played a\u00a0significant role in<\/a>\u00a0creating food-rich and food-deficit regions. Throughout much of the world, a globalised system of ‘capitalism’, facilitated by the WTO, IMF and World Bank, has led to\u00a0structural inequality and poverty<\/a>; the\u00a0privatisation of<\/a>\u00a0seed, knowledge, land and water;\u00a0unfair international trade policies<\/a>\u00a0which have devastated indigenous agriculture; the\u00a0marginalisation of smallholders<\/a>, the\u00a0backbone<\/a>\u00a0of global food production;\u00a0commodity speculation<\/a>, resulting in food shortages; and\u00a0debt and export-oriented<\/a>\u00a0agriculture, which has undermined rural economies.<\/p>\n

Challenging the neoliberal agenda<\/strong><\/p>\n

It hasn\u2019t helped that, since the 1990s, India has increasingly\u00a0tied itself to a system of neoliberal globalisation<\/a>, an\u00a0unsustainable<\/a>,\u00a0crisis-ridden<\/a>\u00a0system that fuels national debt and relies on\u00a0hand-outs<\/a>\u00a0(demonetisation<\/a>) for banks and corporations.\u00a0A system based on a credit\/debt-based consumer economy, financial speculation, derivatives and bubbles, with nations no longer able to carry out their own policies, tied down by undemocratic trade deals, beholden to rigged World Trade Organization rules and following a path prescribed by the World Bank, regardless of any democratic will of the people. A system whereby governments are paralysed to act as both eyes are firmly fixed on \u2018market confidence\u2019 and fearful of capital flight.<\/p>\n

It raises the question about what could be done to prevent a future full-fledged neoliberal dystopia taking hold in India.<\/p>\n

The authors of\u00a0this piece<\/a>\u00a0argue that long-term measures could include land reforms and correcting\u00a0rigged trade<\/a>\u00a0that is against the cultivating class:<\/p>\n

\u201cFar-sighted and sustained policy initiatives to provide farmers dignified livelihoods are required. In an economy driven by jobless growth, compulsive migration to cities is often a case of distress transhumance. These migrants then become the new \u201cserfs\u201d of the informal services and construction sector, while the existing rural and agrarian problems remain unresolved.\u201d<\/p>\n

Such policy initiatives may well be based on\u00a0agroecological solutions<\/a>\u00a0that could be developed and scaled up\u00a0to\u00a0move beyond the dynamics of the farm itself and become part of a wider agenda, which addresses the broader political and economic issues that impact farmers and agriculture.<\/p>\n

Various official reports have argued that to feed the hungry and secure food security in low income regions we need to support small farms and diverse, sustainable agroecological methods of farming and strengthen local food economies (see\u00a0this<\/a>\u00a0report by the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food and\u00a0this<\/a>\u00a0(IAASTD) report).<\/p>\n

Olivier De Schutter<\/a>, former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food:<\/p>\n

“Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live, especially in unfavorable environments.”<\/p>\n

The success stories of agroecology indicate what can be achieved when development is placed firmly in the hands of farmers themselves. A decentralised system of domestic food production with access to local rural markets supported by proper roads, storage and other infrastructure must take priority ahead of exploitative international markets and supply chains dominated and designed to serve the needs of global agribusiness.<\/p>\n

If policy makers were to prioritise and promote agroecology to the extent ‘Green Revolution’ practices and technology have been pushed, many of the problems surrounding poverty, unemployment, rising population and urban migration could be solved. With that in mind, readers may wish to read some important things that farmer\/campaigner\u00a0Bhaskar Save<\/a>\u00a0had to say on the matter.<\/p>\n

As long as agroecology and a commitment to localisation and local\/regional self-sufficiency continue to be marginalised, however, we need look no further than\u00a0Mexico<\/a>\u00a0to see what may be in store for India. Aside from destroying the nation\u2019s\u00a0health and home-grown food supply chain<\/a>, \u2018free\u2019 trade under NAFTA allowed subsidised US\u00a0corn to be dumped<\/a>\u00a0in the country, fuelled unemployment and transformed a former productive peasantry into a\u00a0problematic group<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Instead of proscribing a\u00a0neoliberal death warrant<\/a>\u00a0for many of those currently involved in agriculture, India\u00a0must try to delink from capitalist globalisation<\/a>, manage foreign trade to suit its own interests and expand domestic production, which can be achieved by protecting and encouraging indigenous small producers, not least smallholder farmers.<\/p>\n

By encouraging localisation, self-sufficiency and support for these types of producers, meaningful work can be generated for the majority. The exact opposite of the globalisation agenda (tens of millions of livelihoods<\/a>\u00a0are in danger as foreign corporations move in).<\/p>\n

The real choice<\/strong><\/p>\n

Charles Eisenstein argues that if we believe society\u2019s main institutions are basically sound, it is irrational to oppose the (GMO-)high-tech, chemical-intensive model of agriculture. By implication, it is also irrational to question the notions of \u2018progress\u2019 and \u2018development\u2019 currently being fuelled by the neoliberal globalisation agenda. And if we take for granted the narrative that justifies the continued depopulation or the countryside in places like India, there is little alternative to the current unsustainable, livelihood-destroying system.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, once you have indicated an allegiance to corporate power and neoliberal capitalism (and\u00a0all it entails<\/a>), everything falls into place. Any choices offered will occur within the narrow parameters set by the global food and agribusiness conglomerates. While spouting rhetoric about providing a choice of approaches, any genuine alternatives will be (and are being) marginalised.<\/p>\n

However, once you acknowledge that society\u2019s institutions are anything but sound, that scientific institutions and government bodies have been steadily corrupted by corporate money, funding and influence and that the neoliberal agenda has been little more than a recipe for corporate plunder \u2013 then you are in the position to appreciate that the real choice is between a dystopian future of deregulated capital and unaccountable corporate conglomerates and a wholly different way of viewing the world and the role of agriculture in shaping it for the better.<\/p>\n

Colin Todhunter is an independent writer – Twitter<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Bayer marketing professional recently stated on Twitter that critics of GMOs deny choice to farmers. It\u2019s a common accusation by the pro-GMO lobby. In a\u00a0previous article, I noted the idea that GMOs offer increased choice is erroneous and that, by implication, corporations like Bayer or Monsanto restrict options. Much evidence suggests that GMOs provide […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1214,"featured_media":343288,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[461],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-343285","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-editorials"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/343285","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1214"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=343285"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/343285\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/343288"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=343285"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=343285"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=343285"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}