Re: unsubscribe
Tom Allen (HI500010@brownvm.brown.edu)
Sun, 24 Nov 96 17:51:06 EST
Hello folks,
I just thought I would throw in a humanist's view of Monsanto, et
al. Much as I oppose the agenda and methods of agribusiness, I cannot
accept the notion that anyone at Monsanto is consciously villainous or
believes that his or her actions are destroying the planet. My guess would
be that they really do believe that their products benefit mankind, that
the dangers of the chemical and biological agents that they market have been
grossly exagerated, and that their's is the only realistic way to feed the
world. I haven't a doubt either that the executives of these companies
believe in the results of the research that they commission, largely because
and they haven't the will, or the knowledge of experimental design to question
the "facts" that their minions produce. This is not to say that they are
at all scrupulous in their actions, or that they do not manipulate the facts
to suit their interests, just that they probably believe themselves justified
in doing so.
It is also worth noting that most probably do not see any sort of confl
ict between self-interest and the public good. Enlightened self-interest is, a
fter all, one of the fundamental economic and political principles of American
society. Most American businessmen would accept, without question, that what i
s good for their business is necessarily in the public interest as their succes
s adds to the well-being of the nation. Those who try to interfere, on
whatever grounds, with a company's interests are generally thought to be
"anti-business": naive or malevolent enemies of free enterprise.
Finally, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the apologists for any Ameri
can industry are inconsistent in their support of free trade. The simple fact
is that Americans have never really believed in it, they just think that they d
o. When an American business executive talks about free trade he or she will i
nvariably use the the phrase "a level playing field" at some point or another.
They believe that the basic role of government is not simply to stay out of t
he market, and allow free reign to whatever forces are said to operate their, b
ut shape it in such a way as it is good for one's business. It is perfectly un
derstandable, then, for Monsanto to whine about government regulation of their
industry, and at the same time try to enlist the government's aid in silencing
another company's advertising. It is certainly inconsistent with free-market
principles, but Americans, despite all talk to the contrary, are not dedicated
free traders.
The point of all of this is that we must avoid demonizing agribusiness.
The practices of these companies are informed by assumptions about society a
nd the pursuit of wealth that Americans have shared for a hundred and fifty yea
rs or more. Those of us who champion sustainable agriculture must recognize th
at much of what we believe to be true about the world and our place in it, is
not self-evident to most Americans, that we are engaged in a campaign to
change the way people think. While it is necessary to aggressively attack
the destructive, potentially catastrophic practices of agribusinesses,
it is naive and unproductive to speak as though there is some sort
of evil junta out there consciously planning the destruction of the planet for
short-term gain. I am a die-hard suporter of sustainable agriculture, but I wi
ll admit to being put off by comments made at a recent meeting in my town to th
e effect that conventional farmers are no better than poisoners, and that they
should be put out of business. Such arguments and attitudes don't persuade th
e public and they don't sway those in a position to make policy. They do help
the chemical companies make the case that those of us who oppose the use and pr
oduction of toxic chemicals, and the development of such products as BGH and th
e Round-Up-Ready soybean, are irresponsible radicals.
Tom Allen