From the Dining Table: Rethinking Scientific Discourse in the Public Sphere

When we think of Monsanto, it is easy to associate the company with the health risks of genetically modified (GM) foods. However, “Empire of Seeds” by Bart J. Elmore, a US scholar of environmental history, shows that the influence of agricultural capital—epitomised by Monsanto—on the human food system is actually far more profound.

Using extensive documentation and vivid narrative, the book traces the corporate history of Monsanto, revealing its evolution from a chemical company to an agrochemical firm, and eventually into a genetic biotechnology company. It exposes the various social and ecological disasters caused by its products from production to consumption, and the methods used to desperately conceal these adverse effects and evade responsibility.

Since April this year, a series of book sharing events for “Empire of Seeds”—jointly hosted by Foodthink, Sanlian Academic, Yali, and the Farmer Seed Network—have been held in Nanning, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Kunming, and Guangzhou. At each stop, guests from various academic and practical backgrounds engaged in dialogues about the book and the broader agrifood issues it touches upon. The organisers have edited and compiled several of these discussions into text for our readers. Full replays are also available on Foodthink’s video channel.

Guest Speakers

Guan Qi

Seed systems researcher, Head of the Eastern Office of the Farmer Seed Network

 

 

 

 

Yu Jiangang

Returning youth of Tongxiang, Zhejiang; founder of “Plum and Fish”

 

 

 

 

Gao Ming

Lecturer in the Department of Cultural Studies, School of Liberal Arts, Shanghai University; rural construction volunteer

 

 

 

 

Zhou Mujun

Agrifood systems researcher, Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology, Zhejiang University

 

 

 

 

Moderator

Tianle

Founding Editor of Foodthink, Convenor of the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market

 

 

 

 

I. Monsanto as an “Empire of Seeds”

Tianle: As professionals who have long been concerned with agrifood systems, you are all certainly familiar with Monsanto. I am curious: having read “Empire of Seeds”, what part of the book left the deepest impression on you?

Guan Qi: Many of the details in the book depict the turbulent rise of Monsanto. It followed a consistent corporate cultural logic: creating a predicament, then positioning itself as the solution. The author, trained in environmental history, discusses the threats Monsanto posed to the environment and to worker safety and health. He also reveals the modern economic system’s dependence on fossil fuels, providing a point of entry for us, as consumers, to understand the link between our daily lives and the climate crisis.

Yu Jiangang: The book does not depict a simple opposition between good and evil, but rather a complex “competition of visions”. It mentions some researchers and managers who were well-meaning and sincerely believed the company’s vision could be realised. However, there is an old saying: “It is people who promote the Way, not the Way that promotes the people”. We cannot simply take these words at face value; we must discern the actual motivations and results.

Gao Ming: What struck me particularly was that the history of Monsanto’s rise is a microcosm of the rise of the United States. On one hand, while the US ostensibly advocates for a free market, the government in fact steps in to rescue large companies like Monsanto at critical moments. On the other hand, when the American people identify problems with Monsanto, they find themselves trapped in a cycle of litigation, and in the end, the root issues remain unresolved. This prompts us to reflect on how the system underlying this phenomenon was constructed.

Zhou Mujun: Compared to the power of large corporations within the US political system, the resistance movements were simply too small, and the few victories they eventually won came far too late. Furthermore, while Monsanto utilised the language of environmental protection to promote GM seeds, this only led to a succession of new problems.

II. Chemicals and Biotechnology: The Myth of Conquering Nature?

Tianle: This book describes many contradictory figures, such as the company’s second chairman, Edgar Quinney—son of founder John Quinney—who believed that herbicides and pesticides could ease the burden on farmers and increase yields. However, he only saw the positive side of science and technology, ignoring other consequences of their application, such as superweeds.

An elderly gentleman who has long been involved in anti-GMO work in Germany pointed out that most GMO varieties are not intended to increase yields, but are instead a byproduct of the transition of companies like Monsanto from chemical firms into biotech ones, as they discovered that GMO technology makes it easiest to develop products with specific resistances.

However, natural evolution and adaptation are far more powerful, flexible, and complex than we imagine. This gentleman once said, “Scientists are finite; insects are infinite.” There are far more insects than people, and our research into them is woefully inadequate. Scientists sometimes fail to realise the limitations of their own understanding; for instance, knowledge silos exist even between biologists and ecologists. We are gathered here, largely to break down these silos and spark a more comprehensive social discussion, giving all stakeholders an opportunity to express their experiences and concerns.

In much of their publicity, large corporations like Monsanto represent the vanguard of advanced technology. But have they delivered on their promise to ensure food security? If not, then what exactly are they selling?

Zhou Mujun: Anti-GMO movements often rally under the banner of environmentalism. In truth, when GMO seeds were first introduced, they also borrowed environmental discourse. Because the previous stage of agricultural technology was built on a chemical foundation—using various chemical agents to control weeds, pests, and diseases—it resulted in massive ecological damage. GMO seeds were presented as a new solution, starting from a biological level; by altering the characteristics of the seeds themselves to enhance their herbicide resistance, they aimed to reduce the use of specific herbicides. But nature quickly struck back: weeds began to evolve and develop herbicide resistance, leaving farmers with no choice but to return to earlier herbicides. Furthermore, the GMO seeds launched by Monsanto were bundled with herbicides (Roundup). They claimed to have solved a previous problem, only to create an even larger one.

Yu Jiangang: I agree with Professor Zhou’s point: Monsanto transformed itself from a chemical company into a biological company. Being called a “chemical company” easily leaves a negative impression, but a “biological company” feels different—after all, we ourselves are biological beings. This name change reflects a shift in the company’s vision, but has its motivation actually changed? We, as ordinary people, should try to step outside our information cocoons to see the broader picture; only then can we break through this predicament.

III. Rethinking Scientific Discourse in the Public Sphere

Tianle: In modern society, how should we perceive the role of science? In what sense is science and technology neutral, or instead, driven by a specific agenda? How do capital, scientists, and the general public influence the public expression of scientific discourse?

Guan Qi: Our discussions on GMOs tend to be oversimplified; much of the complex professional detail is glossed over, while the rhetoric reaching the public is remarkably uniform. In a sense, science has become a form of “modern witchcraft”, where the information we encounter easily becomes a kind of illusion. For instance, the notion that “yield growth can only be achieved through chemical agriculture” has created an unbreakable dependency on chemicals. Or consider how a scientist edits a gene in a lab, and it seems as though it can be planted and yield high harvests the very next day. In reality, after gene editing, there is a lengthy process of backcrossing (a method of developing new varieties by repeatedly crossing a hybrid with one of its parents, starting from the first filial generation) before it ever reaches field production. However, this process can lead to numerous mutations, yield lags, and production hurdles, and gene deletion can trigger the cell’s own repair mechanisms—none of which are within human control; scientists can only wait and select. Why is this information omitted from popular science? This is well worth considering.

Tianle: One characteristic of witchcraft is that it is beyond question. Science, technology, and the application of technology—often lumped together under the banner of “tech”—are actually very different things. In the story of Monsanto, they apply scientific principles and employ technical means to develop products. But why these products are developed and how they are developed—the driving forces behind them—merit deep scrutiny. As technical R&D becomes increasingly influenced by commercial and political interests, many research projects are undertaken with industrialisation in mind. As the ones who bear the consequences of these technological applications, the public should seek a better understanding of them rather than following them with blind faith.

The book mentions that US public universities used to rely primarily on public funding from the state. However, since the 1990s, it has become increasingly common for private capital to sponsor scholars to conduct research for corporations, meaning the direction of research has shifted significantly. Once scientists accept this funding, neutrality becomes difficult. For example, a weed scientist funded by Monsanto discovered that herbicide resistance leads to “superweeds”, only to be intimidated by the company. While this particular unyielding scientist was willing to reveal the truth, many other scientists likely remained silent. Similarly, when Monsanto launched new products, they pushed forward aggressively despite some scientists urging a delay due to pesticide drift, even resorting to various legal means (patents, trade secrets) to prohibit scientific research.

Foodthink recently published an article about social groups in the Philippines suing their government for irresponsibly issuing commercialisation licences for GMOs, arguing that the evidence used to support GMOs was deeply flawed. How non-experts can participate in public issues related to science and technology is a discussion worth having.

In fact, the main reason we are reluctant to engage in GMO discussions is that the primary anti-GMO argument in China is the so-called claim that it “will end one’s lineage” (cause sterility). In reality, GMO foods may not have an immediate effect on the body, but their negative impacts are enough to warrant extreme caution in the application of this technology. Monsanto tried to tell people that it could solve two problems: increasing yields and reducing the use of herbicides and pesticides. However, not only were neither achieved, but biodiversity and public health were sacrificed in the process.

Gao Ming: I believe the neutrality or directionality of science and technology is something that can be reflected upon. As the book explains, Monsanto’s primary goal is profit: profiting through a perfect closed loop of creating a problem and then selling the solution. Every means of solving the problem must be purchased from the company. When farmers say seeds drifted onto their land, Monsanto insists the farmers stole them. Is it reasonable for seeds to become commodified patents? Should farmers not be allowed to save their own seeds? Indeed, some have already argued that science and technology themselves are not necessarily neutral.

Public discourse often claims that solving the population problem depends on increasing food production. Yet, while current global food production is enough to feed twice the Earth’s population, people are still starving. In reality, food is not just a necessity for survival; it also possesses the properties of a commodity, and on the futures market, it is a bulk commodity capable of manipulating global finance. The key to the food problem lies not just in yield, but in distribution, and more fundamentally, in who controls the means of production.

Zhou Mujun: My field of research is the “public sphere”—how the general public, through participation in public discussion, forms reflective public opinion to push governments to formulate policies that enhance social welfare, while simultaneously curbing the unregulated expansion of capital. I began following online debates over a decade ago and found that scientific discourse plays a very interesting role in the public sphere. We often assume that science can present the factual truth and speak truth to power, but looking at internet public opinion, this is not the case.

More than ten years ago, environmental protests were common in China. Some groups claiming to represent scientific discourse often stood in opposition to the protesters, arguing that the citizens lacked scientific knowledge and did not realise that the chemicals they were protesting were non-toxic and safe. They coined several clever slogans, such as “Discussing toxicity without considering dosage is simply intellectually dishonest.” However, the non-toxicity of certain chemicals does not mean their production process is safe, nor does it mean all intermediate products are harmless to the environment and health.

The GMO issue is the same. Some attack those against GMOs as not understanding science, citing absurd claims—for instance, that GMOs cause immediate bodily harm. They argue that the safety of GMO crops has been scientifically verified. However, health risks require long-term tracking to reach a conclusion, and one should consider the impacts on the wider ecological environment and social relations more systematically.

When someone claims, “We are more scientific, you are less scientific”, the first thing to reflect upon is: what is science, and who has the right to claim scientific authority? Modern science is often predicated on the dissection of the object of study. Many scientists operate in a state of “treating the symptom rather than the cause”—they may reach an effective conclusion in the lab, but they fail to think across a longer time span or within a broader social system. Throughout its trajectory, Monsanto has operated across various fields, all backed by scientific knowledge and technology. Monsanto exploited scientific discourse to claim that GMO biotechnology is more environmentally friendly than chemical technology and is the only way forward. In truth, ecological experts should have been there to oppose such a one-sided view.

With the development of science today, scientists have become a highly heterogeneous group; different experts may reach different conclusions on the same issue, necessitating “mutual popularisation”. Therefore, a simple binary between the knowledgeable scientist and the ignorant layperson is no longer valid.

IV. The Triumph of Agricultural Capital

Tianle: *Seed Empire* tells us that GMO seeds hold a massive market share in the US not because the seeds themselves are superior, but because of a successful business strategy. If you don’t use GMO seeds, but your neighbour does and overuses herbicides, the drifting herbicides will also kill your crops. Farmers who do not use GMO crops suffer heavy losses; they are either forced to switch to GMO crops or, lacking the funds to invest in the next season, are forced to give up farming altogether. This is how many stories of “smallholdings merging into large estates” occur.

So, in China, how have GMO crops come to dominate the seed market? Does the farmers’ choice of GMO seeds prove the seeds’ own advantages?

Guan Qi:It is difficult for consumers or the general public to gain direct insight into actual agricultural production processes. As a result, few realise that when farmers purchase seeds, they are often bundled with herbicides, pesticides, and fertilisers; failing to use these inputs can lead to reduced yields or total crop failure. Ten years ago, while conducting research in the rural areas of Chengde, Hebei, I noticed that when villagers bought maize varieties, they were required to purchase a specific herbicide called “Yiyou Dixin Zhi” (a composite of alachlor, atrazine, and 2,4-D isooctyl ester). Its weeding mechanism is quite ingenious: after sowing, the herbicide is sprayed to form a gas film on the soil surface, which suffocates weeds that germinate before the maize. Once the herbicide evaporates, the maize can grow normally. However, these multi-component “bundles” cause severe damage to the soil ecosystem.

Yu Jiangang: Having worked in the advertising industry, I strongly resonate with the concept of the KOL (Key Opinion Leader) mentioned in the book. KOLs are a powerful marketing tool. In the United States, only 2% of the population is engaged in agriculture; if you can influence them, you can influence the other 98% who know very little about food. Within that 2%, companies select only a few highly influential farmers and invite them on trips to Europe—this is a very precise form of “traffic targeting”. The root cause is that consumers are becoming increasingly detached from the land and their food, leaving them reliant on the singular narratives of advertising to make decisions.

Coming up next:

For consumers, how is the dining table affected when the agri-food system is controlled by corporations like Monsanto? What actions can we take to break free from the control of these agribusiness giants and reclaim our food sovereignty? Please look forward to the next review of the *Seed Empire* reading group.

You are also invited to watch our live broadcast in collaboration with Tencent News’ “Species on the Table” on Friday, 9 August, at 7 pm.

– Jointly Organised By –

Foodthink

Tencent News

Sanlian Bookstore Academic Publishing Branch (Life, Reading, New Knowledge)

Yali

Farmers’ Seed Network

Coordination: Tianle

Transcription: Aneal

Editor: ZX