TNCs, the Food Industry, and Development

Transnational
Corporations,
Genetically

Modified
Food,
and
Development:
A

Sociological
Perspective



























Megan
Kehrein

Sociology
of
Development

University
of
Hyderabad,
India

1
October
2010


---

Imagine
the
agricultural
beauty
of
North
Idaho
and
India
simultaneously:
rolling

hills
golden
with
wheat
contrasted
by
green
rice
paddies
swirling
with
life.
While
these

beautiful
rural
scenes
still
exist
globally,
the
principles
and
business
behind
them
have

changed
to
something
that
no
longer
matches
the
idyllic,
green
visual
society
has
assigned

to
farming.
What
small
farms
once
grew
with
gratitude
and
humility
has
now
become
an

input
in
an
industry
of
mass
production
steered
by
the
greed
of
a
few
transnational

corporations
ruling
our
stomachs.
Through
genetically
engineering
foods
for
tastes
that

will
satiate
human
gluttony,
transnational
corporations
make
more
money
selling

processed
foods
than
some
small
countries
will
gross
in
a
year.
Our
constant
drive
for

instantaneous
gratification
and
convenience
has
driven
us
away
from
a
tradition
of

localized,
sustainable
agriculture
and
home
cooked,
nutritious
foods
to
support
this

prepackaged
homogenized
jumble
of
branded
molecules
that
most
global
five‐year‐olds

would
gleefully
recognize
as
McDonalds,
Top
Ramen,
or
some
other
snack.
As
global
society

continues
transitioning
to
bio‐engineered,
corporatized
foods,
it
is
of
utmost
importance
to

evaluate
the
effect
of
these
ready‐made
foods
on
economic
development,
nutrition,
and

sustainability.

This
shift
to
transnational
corporation’s
genetically
modified
foodstuffs
has
not

simply
happened
overnight.
Prior
to
the
Green
Revolution
of
the
20th
century,
farming

advances
were
not
only
farmer
driven,
but
also
were
technical
changes
that
the
farmer

could
institute
directly—irrigation,
organic
fertilizers,
and
animal
labor.
When

independence
was
gained
in
1947,
the
Republic
of
India
created
farming
development

plans
like
the
Grow
More
Food
Campaign,
Integrated
Production
Programme,
and
several

Five‐Year
plans
to
increase
the
supply
of
agricultural
products
to
account
for
increasing


---

population
growth.1
In
the
wake
of
these
development
programs,
farmers
had
difficulty

adapting
and
began
to
look
towards
mechanization,
fertilizers,
and
the
further

development
of
land
to
increase
yield.
India’s
government
desperate
for
a
solution
began

working
with
Norman
Borlaug
and
his
high‐yield,
dwarf
strain
of
wheat.
After
seeing
the

plants
success
on
a
land
plot
in
Pune,
the
Indian
Council
of
Agricultural
Research
approved

the
hybrid
wheat.2
With
that
decision,
India
had
awakened
to
the
Green
Revolution—
attempting
to
raise
the
per
capita
income
and
improve
nutrition
with
the
support
of
high‐
yield
variety
seeds,
pesticides,
fertilizers,
and
machinery.
3

This
product
revolution
of
the
1960’s
encouraged
the
use
of
monocultures
and

farmers
began
to
move
away
from
traditional
polyculture
farming,
instead
cultivating

permanent
fields
of
the
most
optimistic
high‐yield
crop
for
their
region.
4
The
lack
of
fallow

and
crop
rotation
began
causing
salinity
of
the
soil,
erosion,
and
an
increasing
number
of

new
pests
and
diseases.
The
very
corporations
that
provided
the
high‐yield
seeds
had
a

solution
through
appropriationism,
the
progressive
use
of
branded,
nonrenewable

manufactured
agricultural
inputs
like
fertilizers
and
pesticides
designed
particularly
for

this
strain
of
wheat
India
had
approved.
While
statistics
do
show
that
the
small
farms
were

more
efficient,
the
bigger
farms
were
simply
more
prepared
to
participate
in
agribusiness.5


























































1
Kumar,
R.
"Land
Records‐Issues
and
Innovations:
A
case
study
of
Bhojpur,
Bihar",

Computerisation
of
Land
Records.
Ed.
Wajahat
Habibullah
&
Manoj
Ahuja.
Sage
Publications,

2005.

Page
143.


2
“From
Famine
to
Plenty,
From
Humiliation
to
Dignity.”
Good
News
India
Nov
2002.
Web.

3
Pingali,
Prabhu
and
Hans
P.
Binswanger.
“Population
Density
and
Farming
Systems:
The

Changing
Locus
of
Innovations
and
Technical
Change.”
Population,
Food,
and
Rural

Development.
Ed.
Ronald
D.
Lee,
et
al.
Oxford:
Clarendon
Press,
1988.

Page
51

4
Shiva,
Vandana.
“Ecological,
Economic,
and
Political
costs
of
the
Green
Revolution.”

Towards
Hope.
Ed.
N.D.
Jayal.
New
Delhi:
Indraprastha
Press,
1992.


5
Germov,
John
and
Lauren
Williams.
A
Sociology
of
Food
and
Nutrition:
The
Social
Appetite.

Australia:
Oxford
University
Press,
2008.
Page
82


---

With
the
government’s
introduction
of
subsidies
for
fertilizers,
many
small‐scale
farmers

began
to
bury
themselves
in
debt
and
soil
infertility
as
they
made
use
of
these
loans.

The

drive
for
fertilizer
increased
as
farmers
attempted
to
catch
up
with
large
scale
farms
while

compensating
for
the
problems
of
their
land—their
home.
The
result
of
this
was
a
nation
of

disparity,
as
the
fertile
regions
of
India,
like
Punjab,
had
an
exponential
increase
of

productivity,
while
regions
less
suited
for
the
inputs
required,
Tamil
Nadu
for
instance,

continued
to
flounder
agriculturally
and
financially.


Meanwhile,
transnational
corporations
like
Monsanto
and
Dupont
flourished
from

these
sales,
expanding
through
both
vertical
and
horizontal
integration
until
they

controlled
almost
every
corner
of
the
food
industry.
As
they
expanded
to
include
food

processing,
transnational
corporations
began
purchasing
crops
from
the
same
farmers
they

had
sold
seed
to.
At
the
same
time,
as
larger
farms
continued
to
succeed
with
the

transnational
corporation’s
high‐yield
seed,
fertilizer,
and
pesticides,
many
small
farms

began
to
fail
under
their
loans
for
fertilizer
leaving
behind
broken,
salinized
land.
Without

other
options,
many
of
these
farmers
began
to
sell
their
land
to
the
corporate
production

system—only
increasing
population
growth
further
without
a
significant
increase
of
per

income
capita
or
decrease
in
malnutrition.6

As
this
cycle
of
unsustainable
practices
continued
ignoring
the
earth’s
limits
and

renewal
cycles,
the
remaining
farmers
were
bound
to
the
requirements
of
the
transnational

food
corporations
that
were
purchasing
their
yield.
The
farmers
“really
did
not
have
the

choice
to
do
what
they
wanted
to…
Centralized
agencies
tell
(them)
how
much
to
plant
and

of
what,
tell
(them)
what
inputs
to
use
and
for
what.
The
farmer
suddenly
is
a
non


























































6
Islam,
Nurul.
Exploration
in
Development
Issues:
Selected
Articles
of
Nurul
Islam.
England:

Ashgate
Publishing,
2003.
Page189


---

intelligent
being”.7
Today,
farming
is
no
longer
agriculture,
but
only
a
part
of
agribusiness’

complex
system
of
production
inputs,
farm
operations,
and
processing
of
farm

commodities.
The
business
of
food
is
no
longer
concerned
with
human
nutrition,
but
with

continual
profit
making
while
working
towards
becoming
larger,
more
capital
intensive

and
more
global
in
focus.
Because
of
this
capitalism,
the
agri‐food
industry
is
now
the

second‐most‐profitable
global
industry.8

What
do
we
have
to
thank
for
the
ever‐expanding
pockets
of
transnational

corporations
of
high
fructose
corn
syrup?
Humanity’s
hunger
for
sugar,
tea,
and
coffee;
it

was
the
Western
working
class’
cravings
for
these
foodstuffs
that
contributed
to
the

success
of
colonialism
and
the
British‐centered
food
regime.
As
our
world
developed

enough
for
food
to
be
preserved
and
transported
overseas,
humans
were
opened
to
a
new

world
of
taste.
Decadence
in
dining
was
envied
and
foods
and
spices
were
collected
from
all

corners
of
the
world.
With
industrialization,
new
ways
of
producing
food
were
found

through
salting,
biscuit
production,
canning,
and
freezing.
These
goods
were
then

transported
by
rail
to
the
growing
market
of
grocers
in
cities
throughout
the
Western

world.
As
demands
increased,
the
process
was
mechanized
and
began
to
include

components
of
retail
and
wholesale
business
like
branding,
packaging,
advertising,
and

marketing.
People
worldwide
were
all
able
to
access
the
same
foodstuffs;
the
consumption

of
food
was
becoming
homogenized.
Soon,
the
grocer
became
the
most
important
market

for
the
average
household.
Packaging
became
more
important
as
consumers
wanted
a

guarantee
of
unadulterated
food
as
they
served
themselves
in
the
marketplace.
As


























































7
Shiva,
Vandana.
“Ecological,
Economic,
and
Political
costs
of
the
Green
Revolution.”

Towards
Hope.
Ed.
N.D.
Jayal.
New
Delhi:
Indraprastha
Press,
1992.
Page
8

8
Germov,
John
and
Lauren
Williams.
A
Sociology
of
Food
and
Nutrition:
The
Social
Appetite.

Australia:
Oxford
University
Press,
2008.
Pages
79‐80


---

colonialism
continued,
these
industrial
foods
became
incorporated
into
the
third
world

through
trade.9

As
the
demand
increased
for
preserved
foodstuffs,
agribusiness
became

exponentially
more
profitable.
Between
their
increase
in
sales
to
the
consumer
and
the

farmer,
as
well
as
the
availability
of
new
technology
in
food
engineering,
the
corporations

were
able
to
further
capitalize
on
their
success
through
the
principle
of
substitution.
The

food
industry
was
now
able
to
use
biotechnology
to
produce
generic
inputs
rather
than
rely

upon
specific
crops
that
could
have
price
variability
due
to
drought,
disease,
or
scarcity.
As

the
corporate
firms
gained
flexibility,
farmers
lost
any
crop
security
they
had
and
became

more
and
more
dependent
on
the
HYV
seeds,
pesticides,
and
fertilizers
of
the
very

companies
that
were
disturbing
their
livelihood.10
In
particular,
farmers
in
the
United

States
were
increasingly
vulnerable
to
reliance
on
the
transnational
corporations
that
were

driving
them
into
the
ground.
As
crop
prices
fell,
farmer’s
increased
their
yield
to

compensate
for
the
difference—further
cheapening
the
value
of
their
harvest.
This
cycle,

caused
partially
by
the
food
subsidies
the
Nixon
administration
introduced
after
the
spike

in
food
prices
in
the
1970’s,
allowed
for
the
mass‐production
of
vast
quantities
of

processed
cheap
food.11
Looking
at
the
current
state
of
food
production,
it
seems
obvious

that
the
mentality
of
agro‐industrialization
had
overwhelmed
the
industry.
The
sharp

words
of
La
Via
Campesina,
the
International
Peasant
Movement,
only
confirm
this


























































9
Goody,
Jack.
“Industrial
Food:
Towards
the
Development
of
a
World
Cuisine.”
Food
and

Culture:
A
Reader.
Ed.
Carole
Counihan
and
Penny
Van
Esterik.
New
York:
Routeledge

Publishers,
2009.
Pages
338‐356.

10
Germov,
John
and
Lauren
Williams.
A
Sociology
of
Food
and
Nutrition:
The
Social
Appetite.

Australia:
Oxford
University
Press,
2008.
Pages
84‐85.

11
Pollan,
Michael.
The
Omnivore’s
Dilemma:
A
Natural
History
of
Four
Meals.
New
York:

Penguin
Press,
2007.


---

supposition:
“Multinational
corporations
want
to
manipulate
our
crops
to
be
able
to
control

all
of
the
food
chain
around
the
world,
requiring
us
to
stop
producing
food
and
start

consuming
their
products”.12

With
the
business’
new
mindset
that
food
should
be
grown
for
the
cheapness
of
the

calorie
and
its
potential
for
capital
instead
of
for
nutritional
value
and
taste,
it
is
impossible

not
to
be
concerned,
as
Karl
Marx
was,
about
the
impact
this
capitalist
attitude
would
have

on
human
development,
particularly
on
our
health
and
nutrition.
Without
nutrition
as
the

focus,
substitutionism
began
introducing
compounds
like
High
Fructose
Corn
Syrup
(HFCS)

to
our
diets.
The
US‐centered
Food
Regime
saw
this
shift
towards
a
bio‐industrial

processing
complex
as
genius,
but
HFCS
alone
has
been
strongly
implicated
in
the
growth

of
obesity
in
the
United
States
through
its
appetite
stimulating
qualities
and
presence
in
the

majority
of
foods
in
the
supermarket.
When
considering
the
hundreds
of
other
GM
foods,
it

is
impossible
to
know
of
all
the
food
safety
and
health
risks.
While
some
GM
foods
have

been
shown
to
cause
allergic
reactions,
there
is
also
concern
that
their
use
will
compromise

the
treatment
of
human
and
animal
diseases,
as
some
GM
crops
are
antibiotic‐resistant.
As

research
on
transgenic
organisms
continues,
it
is
becoming
very
evident
that
these
cheap

calories
of
the
Second
Green
Revolution
have
serious
long‐term
health
ramifications

without
any
obvious
benefit
to
consumers.

It
is
also
important
to
consider
the
other
long‐term
health
ramifications
caused
by

processed
foods—the
impact
on
the
health
of
the
earth.
In
addition
to
the
soil
infertility

caused
by
monocultures,
the
production
of
GM
foods
negatively
affects
the
livelihood
of
our

planet
by:
using
a
high
level
of
fossil
fuels,
creating
unnecessary
waste
with
its
packaging


























































12
La
Via
Campesina:
International
Peasant
Movement.
La
Via
Campesina.
29
Sept.
2010.

Web.
4
Oct.
2010.


---

and
advertisement,
and
increasing
pollution
through
the
transportation
of
food.
While

these
problems
could
be
solved
by
sustainable
agricultural
practices,
the
capitalism
of

agribusiness
begets
a
focus
on
profit
instead
of
sustainability.
Localizing
food
production,

ruralisation,
and
practices
like
permaculture,
conservative
farming,
and
organic
agriculture

are
sustainable,
but
do
not
allow
for
large
corporations
that
dominate
markets

internationally.
In
that
sense,
transnational
corporations
in
the
food
industry
and

sustainable
development
are
undoubtedly
opposing
economic
arrangements.13

Furthermore,
when
we
identify
that
“market
pressures
on
multinationals
to

cultivate
global
dominance
and
economic
pressures
on
developing
countries
to
more
fully

participate
in
the
world
economy
leads
to
white
collar
crime”
we
begin
looking
at
even

more
troubling
issues
with
the
global
giants
creating
our
food.14
One
example
of
an
overt

case
of
white‐collar
crime
in
the
food
industry
is
the
20th
century
scandal
of
Nestle

distributing
infant
formula
to
women
in
developing
countries
despite
World
Health

Organization
protests.
The
result
of
this
was
a
high
rate
of
death
among
infants
and

children
due
to
the
usage
of
unsafe
drinking
water
to
mix
the
formula.
Even
after
a
large‐
scale
boycott,
Nestle
simply
stopped
the
practice
without
accepting
responsibility
or

providing
restitution.
However,
what
is
more
concerning
than
the
few
cases
of
apparent

crime
is
the
acceptance
of
the
covert
white‐collar
crime
that
occurs
today
and
the
continual

exploitation
of
the
Global
South’s
citizens
and
resources
by
the
Global
North.


This
culture
of
white‐collar
crime
is
partially
due
to
transnationals
encouraging

hypermobility
of
capital,
the
unending
search
for
cheap
labor,
and
the
immobility
of


























































13
Germov,
John
and
Lauren
Williams.
A
Sociology
of
Food
and
Nutrition:
The
Social
Appetite.

Australia:
Oxford
University
Press,
2008.
Pages
65‐87

14
Dasgupta,
Samir.
The
Changing
Face
of
Globalization.
New
Delhi:
Sage
Publications,
2004.

Page
151


---

domestic
labor—all
attitudes
that
lead
to
the
misuse
and
abuse
of
power
by
corporations.


The
ethics
of
these
corporations
are
questionable
as
they
pay
low
wages
and
provide
few

opportunities
for
advancement
to
the
workers
of
the
third
world—maintaining,
if
not

worsening,
global
stratification.
The
periphery’s
resources
are
being
taxed
beyond
their

limits
and
renewal
cycles,
eliminating
the
opportunity
for
the
land’s
use
for
sustainable

agriculture
to
eradicate
global
hunger
on
a
long‐term
basis.
This
misappropriation
that

provides
affluence
to
the
centre
also
causes
transitional
economies
to
depend
on
the

transnationals
as
they
divert
savings,
exhaust
resources,
and
risk
regulatory
failure.
Issues

like
malnutrition,
illiteracy,
lack
of
healthcare,
and
unemployment
remain
entirely

unresolved
despite
the
globalizing
effect
of
the
corporation.
When
analyzing
this
and

identifying
the
transnational’s
use
of
modernization
theory’s
principle
of
trickle
down

economics,
it
is
obvious
that
what
is
occurring
is
imperialism
and
expansionism
instead
of

genuine
development.15

In
addition
to
the
negative
effects
globalization
has
had
on
the
less
developed

economies
of
the
world,
the
multinational
oligarchies
that
prescribe
to
its
philosophies

have
created
a
workforce
of
alienated
laborers—even
among
the
affluent.
The
employees

of
the
global
giants,
miserable
with
their
work,
find
that
they
have
no
control
over
what

they
are
producing,
who
uses
their
products,
or
the
conditions
of
their
work.
To

compensate
for
this
growing,
motivational
inadequacy,
the
workers
strive
to
live
a
life

gratified
by
freedom
of
choices
with
consumption
and
leisure,
particularly
with
food.
As

these
consumers
look
to
eat
luxuriously,
they
often
choose
to
treat
themselves
based
on

cost,
product
appearance,
and
popularity
instead
of
sustainability
and
healthfulness,


























































15
Dasgupta,
Samir.
The
Changing
Face
of
Globalization.
New
Delhi:
Sage
Publications,
2004.

Pages
151‐163.


---

further
continuing
the
cycles
of
capitalism
and
alienated
labor
that
Karl
Marx
had

predicted.16
When
identifying
these
attitudes,
it
becomes
obvious
that
the
goal
of

development
was
to
begin
‘the
age
of
high
mass
consumption”
as
Walt
Rostow
had

articulated
in
the
1960’s.

Additionally,
the
citizens
of
developing
countries
have
been
habituated
to
eat
in
a

Western
fashion
furthering
this
drive
to
high‐mass
consumption.
The
adoption
of
a
more

Westernized
diet
is
partially
because
of
food
aid
deployed
to
the
Third
World
during
the

20th
century
under
the
guise
of
addressing
food
security.
These
nations
then
became

dependent
on
this
aid,
which
further
globalized
the
agro‐food
industry
and
challenged
the

Third
World’s
agricultural
self‐sufficiency
as
the
reshaping
of
social
diets
of
industrializing

regions
undermined
local
farmers
with
the
low‐priced
staple
foods
from
the
West.
This

arises
the
debate
between
food
sovereignty
and
food
security.


The
transnational
corporations
preach
the
importance
of
food
security,
a
system

embedded
in
the
state
and
highly
dependent
on
the
agro‐food
industry,
to
ensure
sufficient,

safe,
and
nutritious
foods
for
all.
However,
this
method
of
food
distribution
does
not

consider
the
livelihood
of
the
Global
South
or
the
sustainability
of
agricultural
practices,

instead
relying
on
green
revolution
technologies
to
further
internationalize
agro‐food

relations
and
support
newly‐introduced
genetically
modified
crops
grown
with
chemical

and
mechanical
inputs.17
In
a
speech
in
1992,
Vandana
Shiva
further
substantiates
this
by

identifying
that,
“In
America,
two
years
ago
they
declared
that
two
million
farmers
were


























































16
Germov,
John
and
Lauren
Williams.
A
Sociology
of
Food
and
Nutrition:
The
Social
Appetite.

Australia:
Oxford
University
Press,
2008.
Pages
65‐93.

17
McMichael,
Phillip.
“Global
Development
and
the
Corporate
Food
Regime.”
Symposium
on

New
Directions
in
the
Sociology
of
Global
Development,
XI
World
Congress
of
Rural
Sociology,

Trondheim
July
2004.
Cornell
University:
July
2004.
Web.


---