Using technology to grow more food
Hugh Grant is the head of Monsanto, which creates technology to increase harvests. It's also the world's biggest producer of genetically modified seeds. Kai Ryssdal talks with Grant about the controversial topic of technology and food.
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Monsanto Company (Monsanto) (Monsanto)
More on Sustainability, Conversations from the Corner Office, Health, Science, Agriculture, Food, Copenhagen
Links
- Part 2 of interview: Seeding markets for food, fuel and feed
- Hugh Grant's bio
- Interview transcript: Hugh Grant
- Take the CEO IQ Test!
Take the CEO IQ Test! - More Conversations from the Corner Office
More Conversations from the Corner Office - Subscribe to the podcast
Subscribe to the podcast - Website: Monsanto
Website: Monsanto
EXECUTIVE SNAPSHOT
WHO: Monsanto Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant
EDUCATION: Grant earned a bachelor's of science degree in agricultural zoology with honors at Glasgow University. He also earned a post-graduate degree in agriculture at Edinburgh University, and a master's of business administration at the International Management Centre in Buckingham, United Kingdom.
WHAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW: He joined the company as a product development representative for Monsanto's agricultural business in 1981.
Comments
Comment | Refresh
From greensboro, 04/08/2009
I agree with Mr james ford you are speeding up the natural balance of things that are not suppose to be corrupted
From FL, 08/27/2008
Please take the time to watch the eye-opening documentary film called The Future of Food. It was produced by a French filmmaker but is in English and available to view free from several sites on the internet. It details Monsanto's role in several incidents and raises many questions about the wisdom of the people in charge of that company and their plans for our future.
From FL, 08/27/2008
Please take the time to watch the French documentary, The Future of Food, done about Monsanto and its relationship with farmers both here in the US and in Europe.
http://www.thefutureoffood.com/
Watch it for free here:
http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=124
From Athens, GA, 08/27/2008
Heard the feedback yesterday to Hugh Grant's interview. The feedback was that "By Chris Knight
From Santa Clara, CA, 08/20/2008, who said that ""12 years and absolutely no problems..." I wonder if they said the same about asbestos, lead, cigarettes...Unluckily, the logic is fallacious, the lack of a problem does not indicate that the product is safe"
I find this comment to be very ingenuous and uninformed. Cigarettes and lead come from a completely different era. Today, GM foods undergo extensive pre-market testing that far exceeds what any other food must go through. Furthermore, once on the market, they continue to be under close scrutiny by friend and foe alike. The amount of studies and stories published in the scientific and non-scientific literature makes it clear these foods remain under the magnifying lens.
Mr. Grant’s statement remains correct. While there have been many claims of adverse effects, none of them have help up upon examination.
The feedback provided by other listeners also makes it clear that there are widespread misconceptions out there.
For example, there is claim that the use of Roundup has lead to spiderwort becoming a weed problem. What is missing is the fact that every new herbicide historically favors one weed over another. In the 70's, use of atrazine led to fall panicum as a problem. In the 80's, the use of Classic and Sceptor led to prickly sida as the problem. In the 90, Dual & Basagran led to purple nutsedge. Now it is spiderwort.
The claim that pollen from GM corn will contaminate organic agriculture is false. See the USDA instructions at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5070206. The bottom line is that “the unintentional presence of the products of excluded methods should not affect the status of an organic product or operation.”
I have also looked at the lawsuits filed by Monsanto, and they most certainly do not “sue farmers whose crops have been contaminated by the company's GMO seeds.” They do enforce their property rights on the technology, so *intentional* use of GM seeds without permission is looked, at, but never incidental ‘contamination’. In the end, all patents expire, and the technology ends up in the public domain.
Last but not least, is the claim that “Farmers in poor countries use GM seeds and enjoy big crops and then discover they have to buy the seeds every year since the crops do not produce viable seeds.” This is a huge myth. Seed is seed, and will germinate just as well as non GM seed. Needless to say, farmers are not stupid, and they will not invest in technology that does offer them a benefit.
Professor of Crop Genetics
From CA, 08/22/2008
Wish you'd done your homework before this interview. It doesn't take much research to uncover the information that Monsanto doesn't want hosts to ask them about, independent studies that show the huge increase in the use of herbicides with the resulting harm to wildlife, as well as the "superweeds" and resistant pests that result from the crops grown from their seed. Most importantly, please do a story on Monsanto's continued harassment and legal actions against hundreds of U.S. farmers using their patented seed. Monsanto sends investigators out to intimidate and harass farmers to see if they are replanting seed (an age-old tradition that cuts into Monsanto's profits) and encourage farmers to turn each other in for replanting. Monsanto brags about it on its own web site. They also sue farmers whose crops have been contaminated by the company's GMO seeds. Monsanto's actions are abominable, and the company should be boycotted by farmers. Remember, this is still a chemical company that jumped into the ag market when the "wonders" of biotech came along. The technology has failed to do anything other than benefit these companies with their simple modifications. 85% of all GMO crops are herbicide tolerant. The Center for Food Safety has been a pain in the neck for Monsanto for years as the nonprofit public interest group works to protect our health and the env't from this particularly rotten company. www.centerforfoodsafety.org Thank you.
From Portland, OR, 08/22/2008
I found your interview with Monsanto's corner office to be quite revealing in that CEO Grant seemed totally in denial as to how the soil works but from the saddest of egocentric perspectives.
I would hope that your people can also report on the amazing things done in the world of soil science which is less arrogant, hurtful and much more fun:
soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach.html
Even I could find studies that give pause to marketing shell games on which Mr Grant so relies :
Mauro IJ and McLachlan SM. Farmer knowledge and risk analysis: postrelease evalulation of herbicide-tolerant canola in Western Canada. Risk Analysis 2008, 28, DOI:10.1111/j.1539-6924.200801027.x
Seven-year glitch: Cronell warns that Chinese GM cotton farmers are losing moneyBts”, Susan Lang, Chronicleonline, 25 July 2006, http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July06/Bt.cotton.China.ssl.html
Benbrook CM. Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years”, BioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper Number 7, 2004
Thank you for your informative show.
From Chapel Hill, NC, 08/21/2008
I wanted to offer a very real problem that has developed due to the use of Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops in the southeastern US. Due to the overuse of Roundup, Tropical Spiderwort, an invasive weed in several crops, has become resistant to Roundup. Now farmers will need to use more toxic herbicides to control the weed. Other weeds are starting to show resistance.
In addition, organic farmers who grow corn are burdened by the very real potential for genetic contamination from GMO corn. Why should organic farmers be forced to deal with this?
It's also important to understand that he who ownes the seed supply ownes the food supply. Allowing Monsanto or any other corporation to exclusively own the right to control the use of a seed is dangerous. We must put the ownership of seed back into the public domain.
From Mill Valley, CA, 08/20/2008
Scholl-Buckwald has it right. You gave all of the airtime to the polished CEO and did not have any data on hand to ask second-order questions that might have enabled you to test his mastery of the subject. Many of the most obvious farming techniques with detrimental environmental outcomes took more than 12 years to reveal their destructive (environmental and financial) impact.
From Queens, NY, 08/20/2008
"12 years and absolutely no problems" - I wish you would have followed up with a question as to whether this is a massive experiment on humans. Do they have objective scientific studies on the long-term effects on humans? By modifying our foods and destroying seed diversity, these companies are turning nature into their 'manufactured' products and forcing farmers AND consumers to buy their GM products without ANY Long term studies on the effect on the environment and humans - We don't know what the consumption of these products will have on the long term development, evolution and health of human beings - We will not find out until decades later when it's too late. Even for those who think that these foods are just a tiny portion of what we consume - we just need to look at the impact on a child born 10 years ago who consumes grains and pretty much any processed food containing grains and corn syrup (which is endemic in EVERY processed food and which is the main cause of our obesity epidemic in this country) and the long term effect on the health and development of these children 10-20 years from now.
This is a Horrible experiment on human beings without any regards to our future survival
From Santa Clara, CA, 08/20/2008
"12 years and absolutely no problems..." I wonder if they said the same about asbestos, lead, cigarettes...Unluckily, the logic is fallacious, the lack of a problem does not indicate that the product is safe. (Ernie told Bert on Sesame Street that the banana in his ear keeps the elephants away...There were no elephants, therefore the banana in the ear worked!) Mr. Grant made some excellent points about efficiency and reducing waste, and I applaud those efforts, as long as the safety of these products is iron-clad (gee, how many trust the FDA to keep our foods safe?)
From Salt Lake City, UT, 08/20/2008
Farmers in poor countries use GM seeds and enjoy big crops and then discover they have to buy the seeds every year since the crops do not produce viable seeds. So, corner office, bottom line. Just like always.
From San Francisco, CA, 08/20/2008
Thank you for at least asking Hugh Grant whether Monsanto's claim that their genetically engineered crops are needed to feed a world in crisis is opportunistic. I'll say it is! But he has his message framing down too well to honestly answer you. Instead he selectively presented the claim that their seed will solve the water shortage, when they are far from being able to do that. And he trotted out Bt cotton as proof that biotechnology is reducing the use of pesticides--the evidence is mixed, and often the reverse is true, as in Monsanto's "RoundUp Ready" crops. The truth is that GE crops are contributing only marginally to increasing productivity, and productivity isn't even the issue. Access to food, subsidized agrofuels, and corporate profiteering are among the real issues, and Monsanto represents a key part of the problem. Their GE seeds are designed to extend control over the food system for the handful of agrichemical companies that already claim an obscene share of the market, with Bayer, Syngenta and yes, Monsanto, at the lead. Four months ago a UN report on global agricultural science and technology, written by 400 scientists and experts (and roundly denounced by Monsanto) found that world hunger won't be resolved by corporate technologies, but by supporting diverse, smaller-scale, ecologically sound farming that has the resilience to adapt to climate change, and redirects both food and life support to the people who need it, not to Mr. Grant and his shareholders. I urge you go give some airtime not, as suggested above, to John Mackey of Whole Foods, who represents yet another firm that is exploiting an affluent niche in the food market, but to someone like Hans Herren, a winner of the World Food Prize and co-chair of the 4-year UN assessment, a disinterested scientist who has demonstrated how sustainable agriculture can feed people in East Africa and elsewhere without the "miracle" technologies from Monsanto. And I'd ask that you look at how Monsanto is harassing farmers throughout the midwest for daring to farm without buying Monsanto's GE soy and corn seed. It isn't fear of technology that drives criticism of Monsanto and GE crops--it is recognition that they are in the business of making farming more expensive and less open to millions of farmers around the world.
From Chapel Hill, NC, 08/20/2008
I enjoy your show, and was inspired to respond after listening to your discussion from the corner office with Mr. Grant, and would like to request that you allow John Mackey, C.E.O. of Whole Foods Market, equal time to respond. Mr. Grant's assertion that ever increasing need for food as the world population grows can only be answered with Monsanto's genetically modified products can't go unchallenged. The hubris of that opinion not only begs a rhetorical challenge, but a concerted effort to empower the farmers of the world, especially the developing world, to take control of their own fate and not sell out the survival of their family and neighbors to such evils as terminator genes in seeds sold by multinational corporations. Thank you for your time.
From Fairfield, CT, 08/20/2008
Monsanto and other food producers do nothing but support an unsustainable population for the short term. The New York Times recently interviewed the science advisor to the State Department who mentioned that if we converted to all organic farming we would only be able to produce enough to feed half of the current world population. This is not an argument against organic, sustainable gardening to me, but a critic of how out of balance people are living with our environment. When an advisor to the British government suggests having only 2 children, or at least 1 fewer per couple, to cut carbon emissions, I think someone in government is finally starting to make sense.
Post a Comment: Please be civil, brief and relevant.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. Marketplace reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air if they are extra-interesting. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to American Public Media. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.