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

When Monsanto comes up, it is easy to associate the company with the health risks of GM foods. Yet American environmental historian Bart J. Elmore’s Seed Empire shows that the influence of agricultural capital – as represented by Monsanto – on the human food system runs far deeper than that.

Drawing on meticulous research and vivid storytelling, the book traces Monsanto’s complete corporate history, from a chemical company to an agrochemical company and then its transformation into a genetic biology company. It reveals the social and ecological disasters its products have wrought from the production end all the way to the consumer end, and the lengths to which the company has gone to conceal those harmful impacts and dodge responsibility.

Since April this year, a series of book-launch talks for Seed Empire, co-hosted by Foodthink, Sanlian Academic, Yali and the Peasant Seed Network, have been held in Nanning, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Kunming and Guangzhou. Each stop featured guests from diverse academic and practical backgrounds in conversation about the book and the broader food-farming issues it touches on. The organisers have compiled and edited several of these discussions into text for readers to enjoy. Full recordings are also available on Foodthink’s video channel.

Discussion Guests

Guan Qi

Seed systems researcher, head of the eastern office of the Peasant Seed Network

 

 

 

 

Yu Jiangang

Young returnee to his hometown in Tongxiang, Zhejiang; founder of “Meihe Yu”

 

 

 

 

Gao Ming

Lecturer in the Department of Cultural Studies, School of Literature, Shanghai University; rural development volunteer

 

 

 

 

Zhou Mujun

Food and farming systems researcher; Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Zhejiang University

 

 

 

 

Host

Tianle

Founding editor of Foodthink; Convener of the Beijing Organic Farmers’ Market

 

 

 

 

I. Monsanto as “Seed Empire”

Tianle: Every one of you is a professional who has long followed food-farming systems, so Monsanto must be familiar territory. I’m curious – after reading Seed Empire, what left the deepest impression on you?

Guan Qi: Through its many vivid details, the book traces the turbulent rise of Monsanto and reveals a consistent corporate logic: create a crisis, then position yourself as the solution. Trained as an environmental historian, the author recounts Monsanto’s threats to the environment and to workers’ safety and health, while also laying bare the modern economic system’s dependence on fossil fuels – giving us, as consumers, an entry point for understanding the link between our daily lives and the climate crisis.

Yu Jiangang: What the book depicts is not a simple clash of good and evil but a complex “competition of visions.” Some of the researchers and managers mentioned in it are genuinely kind-hearted and truly believe the company’s vision can be realised. But there is an old saying: “It is people who make the Way great, not the Way that makes people great.” We cannot simply take such words at face value – we must discern the motives behind them and what results they actually produce.

Gao Ming: What strikes me most is that Monsanto’s history of expansion is itself a microcosm of America’s rise. On the one hand, although the United States ostensibly champions free markets, the government steps in at critical moments to bail out giants like Monsanto. On the other hand, ordinary Americans can see the problems Monsanto has caused but are trapped in a cycle of litigation, only to find that the issues remain fundamentally unresolved. It forces us to reflect on how the system behind this phenomenon is constructed.

Zhou Mujun: Compared with the power that large corporations wield within the American political system, resistance movements are simply too weak, and the small victories they manage to win come far too late. Moreover, when promoting GM seeds, Monsanto co-opted the language of environmentalism, only to trigger a cascade of new problems in its wake.

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

Tianle: The book is populated with deeply contradictory figures, such as Edgar Queeny – the company’s second chairman and son of Monsanto’s founder, John Queeny – who believed that herbicides and insecticides could lighten farmers’ burdens and lift yields. Yet he saw only the bright side of science and technology while ignoring the other consequences of their application, such as superweeds.

An elderly gentleman who has worked against GM technology in Germany for decades points out that most GM varieties were not developed to increase yields but were the product of companies like Monsanto pivoting from chemicals, because they found that GM technology offered the easiest path to creating products with specific resistance traits.

But nature’s capacity for evolution and adaptation is far more powerful, flexible, and complex than we imagine. This elderly gentleman once said, “Scientists are finite; insects are infinite.” Insects outnumber us by a vast margin, and our research into them falls far short. Scientists do not always realise that their understanding may be limited – even biologists and ecologists operate behind walls of specialised knowledge. Our sitting here together is, in large part, an attempt to break down those walls, spark a more comprehensive public discussion, and give every stakeholder a chance to voice their experiences and concerns.

In much of the promotional narrative, giants like Monsanto stand as the standard-bearers of advanced technology. Yet have they delivered on their promise of food security? If not, what exactly are they selling?

Zhou Mujun: The anti-GM movement has often raised the banner of environmentalism. In truth, GM seeds themselves borrowed environmental rhetoric when they were first introduced. The previous generation of agricultural technology rested on a chemical foundation – controlling weeds, pests, and diseases through various chemical preparations, which inflicted enormous damage on ecosystems. GM seeds arrived as a new solution, operating at the biological level: by altering the seed’s own characteristics to strengthen its herbicide resistance, they promised to cut the use of specific herbicides. But nature struck back swiftly and hard – weeds began to evolve herbicide resistance, and farmers, left with no choice, had to fall back on the earlier herbicides. Monsanto’s GM seeds, however, were sold bundled with herbicides (Roundup). It claimed to have solved the previous problem, only to create a far bigger one.

Yu Jiangang: I agree with one of Professor Zhou’s points: Monsanto has rebranded itself from a chemical company into a biology company. “Chemical company” carries a negative connotation, but “biology company” feels entirely different – after all, we ourselves are living beings. The name change reflects a shift in the company’s vision, but has its motivation changed? Those of us who are ordinary citizens should try to step outside our information cocoons and take a wider look if we are to break through this predicament.

III. Rethinking Scientific Discourse in the Public Sphere

Tianle: In modern society, how should we understand science’s place? In what sense is science and technology neutral, and in what sense does it carry a direction? How do capital, scientists, and the public shape the public expression of scientific discourse?

Guan Qi: Our discussions of GM issues tend to be oversimplified – much of the complex technical content is skipped over, while the talking points that reach the public are strikingly uniform. In a sense, science has become a form of “modern witchcraft”, and the information we encounter easily becomes a kind of illusion. For instance, the notion that “yield growth is only achievable through chemical agriculture” has fostered an addiction to chemicals from which there seems no withdrawal. Similarly, it is as though scientists edit genes in the lab and can simply plant them the next day, reaping a bumper harvest. In reality, after gene editing, a lengthy process of backcross introgression must still be completed (a method of repeatedly crossing a hybrid back to one of its parent lines, starting from the first-generation hybrid, to develop a new variety) before the seed ever enters field production. But this process gives rise to a host of mutations; yield lag and yield penalty issues arise; and gene deletion triggers the cell’s own repair mechanisms – none of which fall within human control. Scientists can only wait and select. Why is none of this mentioned in science communication? It is well worth pondering.

Tianle: One hallmark of witchcraft is that it admits no questioning. Science, technology, and the application of technology – lumped together under the banner of “science and technology” – are in fact three very different things. In Monsanto’s story, the company applies scientific principles and technical methods to develop products. But why a product is developed, how it is developed, and what forces drive it behind the scenes – all of this deserves close scrutiny. As technological R&D becomes ever more shaped by commercial and political interests, and many research projects are undertaken with industrialisation in mind, the public – as the bearers of the consequences of technological application – should seek to understand these dynamics rather than believe blindly.

The book notes that American public universities once relied primarily on public funding from the state. From the 1990s onward, however, it became increasingly common for private capital to sponsor academics to conduct research on behalf of corporations – meaning the orientation of research shifted dramatically. Once scientists accept such funding, it becomes very difficult to remain neutral. For example, a weed scientist funded by Monsanto discovered that herbicide resistance was producing superweeds – only to be threatened by the company. Though this headstrong scientist was willing to reveal the truth, many more scientists likely remain silent. Similarly, when Monsanto launched new products, some scientists urged delaying market release over pesticide drift concerns, yet Monsanto pushed ahead forcefully, even resorting to various legal tools – patents, trade secrets – to bar scientists from conducting research.

Foodthink recently published an article about social groups in the Philippines suing the government for irresponsibly granting commercialisation licences related to GM technology, and about how seriously flawed the evidence underpinning GM approval was. How non-experts can engage with public issues related to science and technology is well worth discussing.

In fact, one main reason we are reluctant to join the GM debate is that the most prominent anti-GM argument in China has been the fear of “dying out without descendants.” In truth, GM foods may not produce immediate effects on the body, but their potential harm is enough to warrant great caution about applying this technology. Monsanto has tried to convince people it can solve two problems: raising yields and reducing herbicide and pesticide use. Yet not only has neither been achieved – biodiversity and public health have been sacrificed in the process.

Gao Ming: I think we can reflect on whether science and technology are truly neutral or inherently directional. As the book lays out, Monsanto’s paramount aim is profit: 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. Farmers say the seeds blew onto their land; Monsanto insists the farmers stole the seeds. Is it reasonable for a seed to become a commodified patent? Should farmers not be free to practise seed saving? In fact, voices have already argued that science and technology are not necessarily neutral in themselves.

Public discourse often insists that solving the population problem must depend on raising grain yields. Yet global grain production already has the capacity to feed twice the Earth’s population, and people still go hungry. Food is not merely a survival necessity; it also carries the character of a commodity – indeed, on the futures markets, a commodity that can manipulate global finance. The crux of the food question lies not only in production but also in distribution, and more fundamentally in who controls the means of production.

Zhou Mujun: My field of research is the “public sphere” – the study of how the public forms reflective collective opinions through participation in public discussion, drives government to formulate policies that advance social well-being, and simultaneously curbs the unchecked expansion of capital. I began following online debates more than a decade ago and found that scientific discourse plays a fascinating role within the public sphere. We often assume that science can lay bare the truth and speak truth to power, yet the public sentiment on the internet tells a different story.

More than a decade ago, environmental protests were frequent across the country. Certain groups claiming to speak for science routinely stood on the opposite side of those protests, dismissing the protesting citizens as lacking scientific knowledge – ignorant of the fact that the chemical products they were protesting against were non-toxic and safe. They coined many catchy aphorisms, such as “discussing toxicity without considering dosage is just hooliganism.” Yet the non-toxicity of a finished chemical product does not mean its production process is safe, or that all the intermediate products it generates are harmless to the environment and to health.

The GM debate follows the same pattern. Some attack those who oppose GM crops for not understanding science, citing absurd claims such as that GM food will directly harm the body. They assert that the safety of GM crops has been scientifically verified. Yet assessing health risks requires long-term follow-up before any conclusion can be drawn, and the broader effects on ecological environments and social relationships warrant more systematic consideration.

When people claim “we are more scientific, you are less scientific,” the first thing to question is: what is science, and who gets to claim scientific authority? Much of modern science proceeds by dissecting its object of study. Many scientists work piecemeal – treating the head when the head aches, the foot when the foot aches – perhaps reaching valid conclusions in the lab, but without considering a longer timescale or a wider social system. Along Monsanto’s journey, spanning different fields, scientific knowledge and technology have always stood behind them. Monsanto has co-opted scientific discourse, claiming that GM biotechnology is more environmentally friendly than chemical technology and the only way forward. In truth, ecological and environmental experts should be challenging this one-sided view.

As science has evolved to its current state, scientists themselves have become a highly heterogeneous group – different experts may arrive at different conclusions about the same question, requiring a kind of “mutual science communication.” A simple binary between knowledge-holding scientists and ordinary citizens lacking knowledge therefore does not hold.

IV. The Triumphant March of Agricultural Capital

Tianle: Seed Empire shows us that GM seeds captured a vast market share in the United States not because the seeds themselves were any good, but because of a shrewd commercial strategy. If you do not grow GM crops while your neighbour does and abuses herbicides, the drifted herbicide will kill your crops all the same. Farmers who refuse GM varieties suffer heavy losses – they are either forced to switch to GM crops, or, with no money left to invest in the next season’s production, they have no choice but to abandon their land. Countless stories of “small plots being swallowed up into large fields” unfold exactly this way.

So, here in China, how have GM crops come to dominate the seed market? Can the fact that farmers choose GM seeds be taken as proof of their inherent superiority?

Guan Qi: Consumers and the public have very little contact with the actual process of agricultural production, so it is difficult for them to know that a farmer’s seed purchase is bundled with herbicides, pesticides, and chemical fertilisers – and that failing to use them means reduced yields or even total crop failure. During my fieldwork in rural Chengde, Hebei, ten years ago, I noticed that villagers buying a maize variety always had to purchase a particular herbicide called Acetochlor–Atrazine–2,4-D Isooctyl Ester (a compound formulation of Acetochlor, Atrazine, and 2,4-D isooctyl ester). Its weed-killing mechanism is remarkably ingenious: after sowing, you spray the herbicide and it forms a gas film on the soil surface, smothering weeds that germinate ahead of the maize; once the herbicide evaporates, the maize can then grow on unhindered. But these multi-component “bundle packages” inflict serious damage on the soil ecosystem.

Yu Jiangang: I used to work in the advertising industry, so the concept of the KOL (Key Opinion Leader) mentioned in the book resonates deeply with me. KOLs are a vital marketing tool. Only 2% of the US population is involved in agriculture, yet influence that 2% and you influence the other 98% who know nothing about food. Even within that 2%, the company targets only a select few highly influential farmers – inviting them on trips to Europe. It is an extremely precise form of “targeted advertising”. The root cause is that consumers are growing ever more distant from the land and from their food, and have no choice but to rely on the single narrative of advertising to make their decisions.

Coming Next:

For consumers, when the food-farming system is controlled by companies like Monsanto, what impact does this have on the dining table? And what actions can we take to free ourselves from the grip of agribusiness giants and reclaim food sovereignty? Stay tuned for the next recap of the Seed Empire book-reading sessions.

You are also warmly invited to watch our collaborative livestream with Tencent News’s “Species on the Dining Table” on Friday 9 August at 7 pm.

– Co-organisers –

Foodthink

Tencent News

The Academic Publishing Division of SDX Joint Publishing Company

Yali

Peasant Seed Network

Co-ordination: Tianle

Transcript compilation: Aneal

Editor: ZX