[vimeo http://vimeo.com/59404290]
I was fortunate enough to attend a talk by Vandana Shiva the other day. If you haven’t heard about her, make sure to check out her initiative Navdanya, a network of seed banks, farm schools and across India – she has become somewhat of an icon of the anti-GMO movement in the wake of battling seed corporations for decades.
The above video by The Perennial Plate (which is, by the way, an amazing project focused on weekly short videos about food systems around the world which I can highly recommend) captures the essence of Dr. Shiva very well – she is an amazingly powerful public speaker with very strong opinions and extremely persuasive rhetoric. Thus, on the one hand I was really happy to have gone to the event just to hear about her work within Navdanya, which does a lot of inspiring work to preserve Indian agricultural biodiversity and to empower farmers.
However, on the other hand, her very strong opinions about GMOs and biotech corporations in general and Monsanto in particular make it difficult for me to fully support her movement without any caveats. As I hope this blog has reflected so far, I am a person that likes nothing more than balanced viewpoints and fully-fledged arguments that take into consideration all of the newest research findings, good and bad alike. And while this makes me very critical of the extremely optimistic rhetoric (Vandana Shiva calls it ‘propaganda’) of pro-gentech advocates and businesses, it also makes me a little reluctant to take Dr. Shiva’s story for granted with no reservations, simply because things are very rarely black and white.
A commenter on the Perennial Plate video summarized my feelings very aptly when he said “the story of these farmer suicides is tragic, and Vandana Shiva’s work with Navdanya is important, but I think it’s important for all of us to remember that this video represents a single perspective. India’s agricultural economy is affected by more than a single corporate giant. Farmers the world over must cope with drought, flood, market fluctuations and government intervention. I’m not suggesting that Monsanto is entirely innocent, but I don’t think that characterizing Monsanto as an evil villain does anybody any good. I love the passion with which her story is told, but I know there’s more to it than this.”
And showing that more (such as a differentiated analysis of the correlation, and potential causal link, between GMO cotton and farmer suicides, for example) might be even more powerful than to stick to the counterarguments bordering on conspiracy theories that seed corporations are setting up to take over the world. Yes, they are powerful lobbyists and yes, they strive to establish monopolies in their markets – because they are profit-maximizing entities. If these business practices are counteracting our environmental and public health – which I would argue they are – we should righteously be advocating for political regulations that keep such actions in check. But it is my belief that such reform is best achieved through dialogue and compromise, rather than through the emotional arguments that anti-GMO groups are pushing. Such an approach might also lead to the issue becoming more mainstream and reaching the majority of voters, rather than the leftist fringe that seemed to gather two days ago at Dr. Shiva’s talk.
What do you think of Vandana Shiva’s work and her rhetoric? Do her arguments convince you or do they make you more skeptical and motivated to find out the entire story?
Bonus: In response to some of the comments on their video, the Perennial Plate authors wrote a very thoughtful blogpost on the ethics of storytelling and whether they should have presented a counter-opinion in their video. Worth a read!
I agree with you, the balanced picture is the best one. Just blaming the others and see the world in good-guys and bad-guys is not contributing to something good. As we know the world is complex, and there are no easy solutions or answers.
But, I also see the problem of too many people not reacting, or not caring. For them, a more radical, or one-sided view can be a wake-up call and provoke a reaction… But then of course the “other-side” could also use the simplifications in order to raise support…
A generally more well-informed world would be the solution maybe 🙂 #utopia
I think the same thing, but admit the low -life tactics used by corporations like Monsanto kind of makes me less empathetic.
I found her inspiring and her presence is curiously strong yet quiet. But I agree with you.
Huff-Po wrote a piece on this topic recently asking why Monsanto takes so much more heat than DuPont, Sargento or Bayer.
Hi, I enjoyed your article but I disagree that emotions shouldn’t play a part in the debate. In fact instead of “emotion” I’d use a much stronger word – passion. People have every right to feel passionately about the food they eat and where it comes from. In fact I’d say that one of the great problems in some Western societies (certainly not all) is a lack of passion about food, leading to an indifference which appears to me to be akin to cultural degeneration.
I also think it’s a mistake to see this as a simplistic left versus right confrontation. This is simply not what’s happening, however much certain interest groups would like us to think that it is. An obvious example in the UK would be the Guardian newspaper which is politically of the left but regularly has articles championing the cause of GM technology. Meanwhile Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith is one of many on the right of the political spectrum who are passionate about organic methods, biodiversity and the just distribution of food resources. If one really wants to define this in terms of a sociological division then it could more easily be seen as a manifestation of what many see as the deepest split in our culture – the physicalist/vitalist divide – something much older and deeper than superficial political polarities.
With regard to Monsanto – yes it’s drawing all the fire at the moment, but then let’s face it, it’s a great lumbering, heavy-handed liability that’s sitting up and begging for it isn’t it? Their business model seems to be based on that of a streamroller, or an invading army. This is exactly what Vandana Shiva means when she talks about the “militarization of the food industry”.
Let this be a passionate debate I say. It’s too important a subject to be left up to the clinical deliberations of corporate self-interest, scientific orthodoxy, or political expediency.
Thanks for your comment, Steve! You bring up a lot of important points, and let me just clarify that I don’t agree with Monsanto’s business practices either – the privatization of our food supply is definitely something to feel passionate about. And I agree that passion is direly needed in our debates about food! However, I still think that one can be passionate and still mindful about the claims that one makes; as I wanted to express in my post, personally I am more convinced by an argument that skillfully takes into consideration counter-arguments but then make a convincing case of why your viewpoint is still more valid. I guess i’m just allergic to any type of discourse that could be considered hyperbolic or even “propaganda” even if it aligns closely to my personal perspective. And I think that the anti-Monsanto movement has enough grounds that it doesn’t need to go for Monsanto-style black-or-white tactics… What do you think?
Yes, I certainly take your point about being wary of hyperbole – there’s a lot of it about! Again you’re right to speak up for clear-headed argument and language that doesn’t veer towards over-reaction. For me it’s invariably the power of understatement that gets my attention and makes me want to hear more. But from my perspective there’s an overwhelming case against the use of GM technology (and all the baggage that comes with it) in food production. Difficult for me then to think (on this issue) in terms other than good vs bad as I haven’t yet heard a single argument in favour of GM technology in agriculture that genuinely stands up. I absolutely agree however that it’s counter productive to be using scare tactics and propaganda – there’s simply no need. The facts, as stated by an array of experts, scientific and otherwise, simply speak for themselves.
You have to wonder though whether plain speaking, passionate argument, and factual analysis is ever going to be enough to turn the tide when the powers-that-be have such vested interests. I suppose that this is why some people go over the top sometimes. I don’t think that Vandana Shiva is one of them however!