My drive home from work gives me an opportunity to catch up on the news with “All Things Considered”.  Today when the program stopped to offer a word from its’ sponsor, my ears burned red as I learned that my NPR was being supported by Monsanto.  I nearly wrecked my car at the mind-boggling claim that their bio-engineered Frankenseeds somehow represent sustainable agriculture – their argument being that  plants manufactured for productivity require fewer resources per unit, and are therefore grown sustainably.  How can the same radio station that interviews the likes of Michael Pollan spread the unholy message of Monsanto?

I try to keep my activist passions in check, and for the most part I care more about taking personal responsibility than blaming corporations/governments, but there is something about Monsanto that gets under my skin.  Just hearing the name causes a knee jerk reaction in me that manifests as a sudden anxiety, or jaw clenching hostility.

Before you dismiss me as an angry fanatic, I’d like to remind you of what we know.

1.    Monsanto engineers seeds for productivity, not nutritional value, which has contributed to the vast overproduction of inexpensive but poor quality corn and soy, in turn leading to our national decline in heath and rise in obesity.

2.    Monsanto has developed seeds that are resistant to pesticides and herbicides (which the company just happens to also produce), which perpetuates the widespread use of chemicals in industrial farming.

3.    Monsanto has developed seeds with “terminator genes” that effectively disable a plants ability to reproduce, thus forcing farmers to buy new seed every season, and risking the welfare of all plants.  If the terminator gene managed to make its way into non-GMO plants through accidental cross-pollination (by the wind or animals), it could potentially cause all plant matter to die after one growing season.  No viable seeds = death of the plant.  The unintended consequences could be catastrophic.

4.    Monsanto does not consider itself responsible for public welfare.  In an October 25, 1998 article of the New York Times, Phil Angell, then Director of Corporate Communication at Monsanto was quoted as saying, “Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food, our interest is in selling as much of it as possible.  Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

I am extremely disheartened that NPR has accepted money from a corporation that I revile, but even more so, that they will use their airwaves to allow such a company to make claims of sustainability.  Monsanto is not a steward of sustainable agriculture.  I understand that in these financially troubled times, it is hard to turn down money, but one must always take care not to exchange long term integrity for short term gain.

UPDATE:

On June 17th, 2009 I received the following letter from Anna Tauzin, the Ombudsman Intern for NPR.

“NPR is very conscious of our non-commercial mission, and is not accepting money from, nor has been approached by Monsanto. What you heard on air may have been an underwriting credit from American Public Media, which produces Marketplace, and is running corporate underwriting spots from Monsanto. Local station WAMU has also accepted sponsorship money from Monsanto. But neither of these spots is affiliated with NPR.

The relationship between local radio station and NPR is an unusual one, and therefore listeners often assume their local station is NPR-run because it broadcasts public radio staples: Morning Edition and All Things Considered, however NPR does not own any radio stations. If you’d like to read more about this issue on the Ombudsman’s column, you may do so at NPR’s webpage.

NPR is an independent, nonprofit organization that carries no on-air advertising. One way NPR funds programming and general operations is through underwriting from corporations and philanthropic support from foundations and individuals. This support provides most of NPR’s contributed income.”