Monsanto Moves to Address World Food Shortages

    By Kevin E. Noonan --

American opinion has finally turned in support of the idea that global warming, and ecological concerns in general, are relevant and important to themselves and their children (despite years of opposition, both formal and informal, from the current Administration and its fellow-travelers from energy corporations and the right wing).  In what could turn out to be a fortuitous combination of good public relations and good corporate citizenship, Monsanto today announced its intentions to be part of the solution to ecological problems rather than part of the problem.  As reported by Andrew Pollack in The New York Times ("Monsanto Seeks Big Increase in Crop Yields"), Monsanto chief executive Hugh Grant "pledged" to work to develop seeds that would increase corn, soybean, and cotton yields by 100% by 2030 and would reduce the amount of water, land, and energy needed to grow them by 30%.  Monsanto made the announcement at a meeting in Rome where world leaders were discussing the current crises of rising food costs and increases in food shortages.  While the Times (predictably) noted that Monsanto would stand to benefit from the effort in increased acceptance of its genetically-modified food, not even the Times could gainsay the benefits to the world population by the efforts.

Monsanto evinced its eagerness for collaboration in noting that the company had consulted with "farmers, political leaders, academics and advocacy groups" in identifying the necessary technological steps required to increase food production in the face of rising world population and harsher growing environments, as well as competing needs for vegetation such as biofuels.  Monsanto's position that biotechnology provides both an approach and an opportunity to address these issues was supported by U.S. Undersecretary of Agriculture Edward T. Schafer; the United Nations and World Bank have less sanguine views, reflected in a recent review of agricultural technology.  And some experts, such as Dr. James E. Specht, a "soybean genetic expert" at the University of Nebraska believes that the "hype-to-reality ratio [of Monsanto's plans] is essentially infinity."  Monsanto countered by citing new technology, specifically marker-assisted selection which it contended could "double" the rate of improvements produced by breeding.  The approach also has the advantage on the world stage of not involving foreign gene introduction into crops, thereby avoiding the "Frankenfood" label that has inhibited acceptance of Monsanto's existing genetically-engineered crops in Europe and elsewhere.  And Monsanto admits that, to achieve its lofty goals it envisions producing genetically-engineered cotton and corn varieties that could grow with reduced water and fertilizer requirements, a key need for a drier future.

Another aspect of Monsanto's new "warm and fuzzy" approach is a commitment by the company to share its technology with farmers in distressed areas, presumably at greatly reduced or no cost.  The Times article specifically mentions initiatives in Africa where Monsanto will forego royalties from farmers using to-be-developed drought-resistant corn.  Moreover, Monsanto is donating $10 million over the next five years to public programs directed to improvements in wheat and rice yields, two crops that have recently experienced sharp increases in price and decreases in supply.  It is expected that this work would be performed by universities and government agencies, since these crops are not within Monsanto's current corporate focus.

These actions are in sharp contrast with Monsanto's track record for its principle generically-engineered Roundup Ready® crops, which are resistant to Monsanto's Roundup® herbicide.  Monsanto has made headlines over the past year or so in winning several patent infringement and breach of contract lawsuits against individual farmers in the U.S., based on replanting of seed produced from genetically-engineered plants (see links below).  And Monsanto's foray into genetic engineering approaches to drought-resistant and other crop varieties capable of thriving under harsher environmental conditions expected in the near future has been criticized by non-governmental organizations like the Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC) Group, who are generally opposed to patenting technology (see "ETC Group Opposes 'Climate Ready' Gene Patent 'Grab'").

Even if Monsanto's plans are in no way related to such criticisms, its actions are consistent with the company's appreciation of a continuing trend:  it can be just as important to win the political and public relations battle as the legal ones in technology areas that impact human health and well-being.  Western pharmaceutical companies have learned that the establishment of the WTO has not led to the hoped-for respect for their patent rights around the world; indeed, through the Doha declaration and actions of individual countries in the developing world in implementing the WTO treaty, pharmaceutical companies are in no better shape (and in some ways it is much worse) with respect to protecting their patented technologies that they were beforehand (see "Indian Generic Drug Maker Seeks to Invalidate Cancer Drug Patent").  Even in the U.S., drug companies risk adverse governmental action when their concern with return-on-investment for their investors is perceived as being contrary to the common good.  Monsanto has proactively thrown down the gauntlet to governments and NGOs more comfortable with criticizing than working with them, by boldly proposing to work with such groups to attempt to solve, or stave off, the coming food crisis.  Let's see which groups will be more interested in their own political agendas than finding a solution to the problem.

For additional information regarding this and other related topics, please see:

• "Monsanto and Syngenta Settle All Litigation Between the Companies," May 30, 2008
• "ETC Group Opposes 'Climate Ready' Gene Patent 'Grab,'" May 19, 2008
• "Monsanto Co. v. David (Fed. Cir. 2008)," February 6, 2008
• "Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V. (Fed. Cir. 2008)," January 28, 2008
• "Supreme Court Fails to Grant Certiorari in Monsanto Co. v. McFarling," January 7, 2008
• "Monsanto Co. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. (Fed. Cir 2007)," October 7, 2007
• "Monsanto Co. v. McFarling (Fed. Cir. 2007)," June 4, 2007
• "Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Co. (Fed. Cir. 2007)," May 7, 2007

Comments

[Fred Jack]

Ya know it's interesting that Monsanto is implying that people who oppose corporate control are only interested in a political agenda

Monsanto and other corporations have vastly contributed to the problem of the food shortage

Now we are to believe all of a sudden they want to help the world

The future looks bleak indeed if the people of the world accept this as corporations who care about anybody but their staggering profits at the expense of the third world

No Monsanto... we won't work with you to destroy the world's seed base

The mentality of the corporations is - oh well, the natursl way of crop diversity is not good enough, hey we can manufacture better seeds and food sources than nature

so what if a few billion people die while we attempt to re-create nature

This is criminal in the worst way

[Kevin E. Noonan]

Dear Fred:

While I don't think Monsanto has had an epiphany and will start to act like Mother Theresa, they may recognize that they are ripe for the type of piracy practiced by many Third World countries on Western IP rights. Whether that piracy is justified, especially with regard to products that could alleviate hunger or disease is a political, or perhaps moral, question. But if Monsanto wants to avoid the kind of backlash that pharmaceutical companies are experiencing, they needed to do something to appear to be part of the solution. I don't discount the factual bases for your skepticism, but there might be an "enlightened self interest" aspect to their behavior that reduces the predatory effects of the corporate culture. It's definitely a "wait and see" situation.

Thanks for the comment.

[Brian Lynch]

While I don't entirely agree with Specht's comments that the "hype-to-reality ratio [of Monsanto's plans] is essentially infinity" it certainly seems that climate change is quickly becoming the newest over hyped science buzz word.

The NSF will now probably be bombarded with grant proposals for nanotechnology based stem cell climate changing widgets for homeland security.

[Kevin E. Noonan]

Dear Bryan:

Like "-omics" and "nano-" before it, these trends are unavoidable. However, insofar as there is any wheat in all that chaff, having a lot of smart people thinking about apply technology to solve new problems (or old problems in new ways) isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Thanks for the comment.