As “Vineyard Biologist” at Michel-Schlumberger, this is one of the most common questions I get from visitors (and one of the toughest to answer):
“Exactly what is sustainable farming?”
Very good question. There seems to be a lot of confusion about sustainability, and for good reason – there is no simple answer. For a little help, I turned to Google.
The National Safety Council, I discovered, offers a reasonable definition:
Sustainable Farming: Environmentally friendly methods of farming that allow the production of crops or livestock without damage to the farm as an ecosystem, including effects on soil, water supplies, biodiversity, or other surrounding natural resources. The concept of sustainable agriculture is an “intergenerational” one in which we pass on a conserved or improved natural resource base instead of one which has been depleted or polluted.
That definition, I think, is a bit vague but I like it alright. Most of the other links I looked at described the term in a similar way. But as I scrolled down through a few pages of search results I came across something that really caught my eye — a link to the Monsanto website. What on earth, I wondered, does Monsanto Corporation have to do
with sustainable farming? A quick perusal of the company’s homepage left me stunned. The word “sustainable” is plastered all over the Monsanto homepage, along with cute sprouting seedling icons and photos of smiling third world farmers tending their lush crops. One of the headers boldly declares:
By 2030, Monsanto commits to help farmers produce more and conserve more. That’s sustainable agriculture. And that’s what Monsanto seeds are all about.
Wow. There are so many reasons why that statement is blatantly, shockingly, horrifically untrue. First of all, ironically, even the Monsanto seeds themselves are not sustainable. Billions of people on the planet are supported by farmers who save seeds from the crops and replant these seeds the following year. Most farmers cannot afford to buy new seeds every year, so collecting and replanting seeds is simply how farming works. This is the way food has been grown successfully for thousands of years. With Monsanto’s terminator technology, however, seeds have been genetically-engineered so that when the crops are harvested, all new seeds from these crops are sterile. This forces farmers to pay Monsanto every year for new seeds.
And Monsanto’s genetically modified “Roundup Ready” seeds simply
encourage more herbicide spraying which results in more erosion, less soil fertility, the promotion of “super weeds” and a buildup of toxic chemicals in our food and water. That’s not very sustainable.
But enough quibbling over the semantics of sustainability. I was looking for the very guts of Monsanto Corporation. What’s it all about? What makes it tick? I took a look at their official Mission Statement. It starts off:
Our Pledge. Growth for a Better World. We want to make the world a better place for future generations.
Then that’s followed by a whole lotta silliness on how caring they are for the poor farmers all over the world. Interestingly, on the same menu bar as this mission statement is a button to access updated stock performance charts. Now that’s convenient. You see, Monsanto is a corporation. Its mission is to make money. A lot of money. How many Monsanto executives really are deeply concerned with making the world a better place for future generations? Do investors sit and discuss all the worldly good they’ve done at their board meetings? I doubt it. After all, these are the same fine people who brought us Agent Orange and still, to this day, deny that the toxic herbicide has any negative health effects, other than a possible skin rash. From 1962 to 1970, the US military sprayed 19 million gallons of herbicides, mostly Agent Orange, on over one million Vietnamese civilians and over 100,000 U.S. troops. As a result, within ten years of the close of the war, 9170 veterans had filed claims for disabilities caused by Agent Orange. In 2002, Vietnam requested assistance in dealing with the tens of thousands of birth defects due to Agent Orange. In order to avoid medical compensation expenses, Monsanto continues to claim this now banned chemical is not toxic. Real caring people at Monsanto.
Anyway, I know there are a lot of intelligent and caring people who disagree with my not-so-favorable impression of Monsanto. It is a very complicated issue and I would certainly urge everyone to take the time to read up on the claims by all sides and decide for yourselves. But I think it all really boils down to one simple question:
Who are you going to trust with the health of yourself and the environment – your friend and neighbor the small sustainable farmer or Monsanto Corporation?
Tony
P.S. Out of sheer, morbid curiosity I couldn’t help checking out the Monsanto gift shop on the website. For a very reasonable $4.05 you can purchase a nice ball cap printed with the phrase:
Monsanto
Imagine
I guess I’ve got an overactive imagination. Surely, any reference to the John Lennon song is completely unintentional. They couldn’t really sink that low, could they? It’s hard for me to imagine.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you for displaying your amazing ignorance. When selecting my next case of wine I’ll have one less winery to consider. Regards.
How can a hat cost only $4.05? Oh, that’s right, it’s made from genetically modified cotton.
“Making hats affordable…one head at a time.”
This certainly is a controversial and sensitive issue. We could argue (probably for hours) on the details but I will contend that there are two undeniable facts:
1. The United States agricultural system needs fixing. It is not sustainable. Just one example — The National Academy of Sciences has determined that cropland in the U.S. is being eroded at least 10 times faster than the time it takes for lost soil to be replaced. We cannot grow food without topsoil.
2. Monsanto is a major player and proponent of the current system.
There is NO low to which Monsanto will not sink! They continually sink to new ones.
Great site…keep up the good work.
PHD cocorococococo
I cannot believe how ignorant some people can be. I work for Monsanto, and have found it one of the greatest companies to work for. I guess some people are just jealous. no matter which seed company you work for there is going to be controversy. Do you also attack dupont on their genetically modified seed? Why is it always Monsanto? Well, maybe Forbes Magazine summed it up in their article about monsanto being one of the best companies in the United States. Go ahead and read it, you might learn something. Thank you for your time.
Thanks for your comments.
1. I attack Monsanto because that particular corporation is, by far, the biggest of the culprits.
2. I actually have read the Forbes article. Forbes is a BUSINESS journal — their definition of “best” is strictly related to the efficiency and profitability of a company. As an organic farmer, my concern is not with money but rather with sustainability and fairness and a better and happier world for all.
tony