In the mainstream libertarian movement, accusations of “statism” typically focus on a fairly predictable set of targets. Anyone who complains of racism, sexism or other social justice issues, the economic exploitation of workers or degradation of the environment is reflexively accused of statism on the assumption that exploitation, injustice and pollution could only be problems for people who hate freedom.
This is perhaps nowhere as true as with factory farming and genetically modified crops. For example, Ron Bailey at Reason regularly defends these things against organic farming and sustainable agriculture advocates, and other supposedly “statist” enemies on the Left.
But in fact it’s hard to be more statist than the agribusiness interests themselves. The so-called “Monsanto Protection Act” — actually a rider attached to a farm bill last year — provides that unless and until the Secretary of Agriculture makes a regulatory decree against Monsanto’s genetically modified crops, courts will be prohibited from issuing injunctions against the planting and distribution of such crops based on tort litigation against them. Companies like Monsanto regularly, repeatedly and consistently push to prohibit food producers or grocers from advertising products as GMO-free, on the grounds that such advertising amounts to disparagement of genetically modified crops by implication, when — according to the industry — “sound science” shows that GMO crops are just as safe as non-GMO ones (a claim, by the way, that Bailey parrots in virtually every article he writes on GMOs).
But guess what? Since the passage of the Monsanto Protection Act, a new study by ProfitPro (“2012 Corn Comparison Report”) has found that chlorides, formaldehyde and glyphosate — substances not found in natural corn — are present in genetically modified corn. Glyphosate, in particular, is found in GMO corn at 13 parts per million. The EPA limits glyphosate in drinking water to 0.7 ppm, and exposure at 0.1 ppm has caused organ damage in some lab animals. Glyphosate, a strong organic phosphate chelator, immobilizes positively charged minerals like manganese, cobalt, iron, zinc and copper, which are vital for normal growth and development of crops, and strips them of nutrients — which perhaps explains why non-GMO corn has 437 times the calcium, 56 times the magnesium and seven times the manganese of GMO corn. That Monsanto Protection Act just might come in handy.
As if this weren’t enough, Monsanto’s business model depends on strong patent monopolies, which it enforces in the most thuggish ways imaginable — namely, accusing farmers adjoining GMO crops of “piracy” if their crops are contaminated by Monsanto’s proprietary pollen. If anyone is entitled to legal damages, it would be the farmers whose crops are contaminated by Monsanto’s poison. But of course the USDA — which amounts to an executive committee of corporate agribusiness, staffed by political appointees who came through a revolving door from Monsanto, Cargill and ADM — doesn’t see things that way.
Meanwhile, agribusiness interests in a dozen states are pushing so-called “Ag Gag” bills that would criminalize whistleblowing and undercover investigation of animal cruelty in factory farming operations.
On top of everything else, consider that the biggest agribusiness operations are either situated on stolen land (like the big farms in California, many of which were haciendas occupied by politically favored Anglo settlers after the Mexican war), or are enormous concerns actually paid for holding most of their land out of use (like the biggest cereal farms in the Midwest and Plains). And the big California agribusiness interests depend on subsidized irrigation water from all those dams the Army Corps of Engineers likes to build.
Throw all this together, and we see that corporate agribusiness is a virtual creature of the state, and depends on the state on a daily basis not only for its profits, but its continued existence. So it turns out that the real enemies of the free market are not all those anti-GMO activists, but the agribusiness interests themselves. Perhaps that’s why former Archer Daniels Midland CEO Dwayne Andreas said “The competitor is our friend. The customer is our enemy.”
Translations for this article:
Citations to this article:
- Kevin Carson, Factory Farming: Who are the Real Statists Here?, Mother Earth News, 04/14
- Kevin Carson, Factory Farming: Who are the Real Statists Here?, Before It’s News, 03/28/14
The but about the “2012 Corn Comparison Report” is quite misleading. The “leaked study” presents some things that prima facie don’t make sense. For example, do you think it seems plausible that non-GMO corn has 3400 times more calories than GMO corn? Assuming this document is 100% genuine, that kind of variation in caloric content numbers suggests very inconsistent sampling methods, and throw all the numbers in this report into question.
The elevated levels of glyphosphates in the GMO corn is not too surprising, but blaming it on being genetically modified is misleading. The culprit is not the generic modification that makes the corn Roundup-Ready but is the Roundup that’s sprayed on the corn. Roundup is glyphosphate, so basically they found Roundup on the Roundup-Ready corn. I don’t see any evidence here that GMO corn is nutritionally different than non-GMO, if anything this is evidence that herbicides sprayed on corn can carry over into the actual kernels (although there are a lot of missing details).
Assuming that GMO crops be safe, then that excuses government interventions on agribusiness' behalf, such as imperialistic conquests, land-robbery, enclosures, etc.?
Assuming that GMO crops be safe, then that means government can allow agribusinesses to defraud customers by marketing their GMO crops as non-GMO?
Assuming that GMO crops be safe, then that means government can censor growers who dared to market their crops as non-GMO because such a practice badmouths GMO crops?
Assuming that GMO crops be safe, then that means government can use "intellectual property" law to help agribusiness weed out competitors. Either by contaminating their crops & then claiming that those competitors had committed "piracy?" Or arresting competitors who dared to save duplicated GM seeds, which the competitors had multiplied from a very few GM seeds they originally received?
"— which perhaps explains why non-GMO corn has 437 times the calcium, 56 times the magnesium and seven times the manganese of GMO corn. That Monsanto Protection Act just might come in handy."
As much as I hate Monsanto, and one should definitely see the videos "David vs Monsanto", and "The Corporation" (part 14 I think specifically), there is i believe a lot of misinformation about genetic engineering and MonSatan's crops. The above stated difference between GMO corn and non-GMO corn would really surprise me, and I would seriously recommend a source.
I don't think any of those things follow from the assumption that GMO crops are safe. Can you explain how a scientific fact about reality (e.g. GMO crops are safe) can lead to any legitimization of a government power?
"Companies like Monsanto regularly, repeatedly and consistently push to prohibit food producers or grocers from advertising products as GMO-free, on the grounds that such advertising amounts to disparagement of genetically modified crops by implication, when — according to the industry — “sound science” shows that GMO crops are just as safe as non-GMO ones"
If this be not "legitimization of government power," then why forbid farmers who don't grow GMO to EXERCISE THEIR FREEDOM OF SPEECH BY MARKETING THEIR FOOD AS NON-GMO?
Moreover, refusing to label GMO food, even if GMO foods are safe as nonGMO foods, is FRAUD. If you sell label your cow-milk blue cheese as sheep-milk Roquefort blue cheese, even if both kinds of cheese are safe to eat, you had committed fraud. I'm 3/4 Vietnamese also and in Vietnam we have a an adage about frauds: hanging the goat's head but selling the dog's meat. Dog meat is as safe to eat as goat's meat but marketing dog's meat as goats meat is fraud. In a free market, how can such fraudulent marketing be tolerated by consumers? Unless enforced by government.