As host Dani Nierenberg and Collins discussed the ins and outs of ag-tech, I noticed that companies are very much taking cues from grassroots producer and consumer movements about what ‘responsible’ and ‘sustainable’ agriculture ought to look like. By that I mean the PR of private agribusiness.
Ag companies are pretty self-aware of their current image. After all, we need to look no further than the consecutive PR disasters at Monsanto to see what political ignorance can mean for even the largest companies: Monsanto’s name has been ditched in the wake of its sale to Bayer. Why? Well, perhaps it’s because Monsanto is simply too tarnished to remain relevant in an increasingly contentious and economically competitive agri-food landscape.
What, it seems, we are seeing is an emerging set of strategies in the longer-standing privatization of agricultural extension. Companies seem increasingly concerned with ‘community-based’ partnerships and ‘inclusive agriculture’ as a model of working at the production end of the food system.
Companies like Bayer and DowDuPont seem to be paying close attention to agribusiness resistance movements and are adopting a disturbingly similar rhetoric of community and grassroots partnerships that prioritize ‘accountability’, presenting themselves as a real ‘business with a conscience’.
A quick look at Corteva Agriscience’s website—a division of DowDuPont that deals specifically with production agriculture extension and services from seed technologies and chemical crop inputs to digital farm management software—illustrates this well. After all, Corteva’s primary mission is to bring production agriculture to farmers across the world. How are they hoping to achieve this? One word: community.
As Collins described the work of Corteva the strategy became fairly clear: the more they can embed their people and products into farming communities, the deeper and longer the relationships will be. And in an era of dwindling public extension services in both North America and Europe, farmers are looking for reliable advisors and mentors that are willing to ‘come to them’ so to speak. After all, this isn’t really a thing that government agencies are doing anymore.
In Ontario, Canada, for instance, extension services have diminished dramatically since the 1980’s, and farmers aren’t happy about it. In my PhD research with farmers across Ontario, I repeatedly heard feelings of frustration and fear over being ‘ignored’ and ‘left behind’ by government as the Ontario Ministry has increasingly re-positioned itself away from extension and toward policy, research, and innovation.
In this context, it’s perhaps unsurprising that, as these companies grow and merge, subsidiaries will surface to fill this gap, similar to strategies that companies like Cargill took in creating spin offs like Black River to handle private agri-food equity in the global South.
Under this structure, I wonder whether many farmers are even aware that these subsidiaries—now hyper-focused on building community-based partnerships—are in fact affiliated with some of the largest agri-food giants in the world.
More to the point though, how effective might this strategy be for enlisting farmers who are currently using non-industrial methods into industrial models? And in turn, how might food movements respond to and resist these shifts?
This post was originally posted on Sarah’s blog.
Sarah Rotz is presently a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Geography at Queen’s University as part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research-funded ‘A SHARED Future’ project. As a settler scholar-activist, Sarah’s work focuses on political ecologies of land and food systems, settler colonial patriarchy, and concepts of sovereignty and justice related to food, water, and energy, and the ecosystems that support them.
The ideas and opinions posted here are the author’s and not necessarily that of ARERC as an organization.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.