MONSANTO and similar multinational companies are favourite whipping
boys on agricultural issues. But last week’s angst over the chemical
giant’s advisory committee on Roundup Ready wheat introduction would
have been better directed at those who have agreed to be committee
members.
There appears to be real potential for conflict of interest,
considering the committee includes representatives in positions that
might eventually influence the acceptance or registration of Roundup
Ready wheat – and that’s a controversial topic.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
It makes corporate sense for Monsanto to establish an advisory
committee that it expects will further its plans to introduce its new
technology to the marketplace. The company has made no secret of those
intentions.
Nor is it any secret that other agricultural groups and factions have
been formed to ponder Monsanto’s intentions and their implications in
terms of farmers and the marketplace.
The concern regarding the advisory committee, however, is whether its
members have disclosed their activities to the other groups and
organizations on which they serve. Those organizations may not support
the introduction of Roundup Ready wheat, yet by the implication of one
person’s membership on the Monsanto committee, that lack of support may
be obscured.
This is not to suggest members of the Monsanto advisory committee have
not disclosed their association with the company. We know some of them
have. Certainly the $150 fee per meeting – and we’re told there have
been only two meetings – isn’t going to make anyone rich.
But it might also benefit the bigger picture if their membership on the
committee was disclosed to a wider audience, and several farm groups
have already suggested as much through News release
newsand letters to the
editor.
Monsanto spokesperson Trish Jordan says the company will disclose only
the names of members who agree to be named publicly. If all are asked,
perhaps they will all agree to do so, in light of the furor created.
The situation highlights the need for farm organizations to
definitively spell out codes of conduct and ethical standards expected
from their executive and board members.
That process would ideally involve consideration of how membership on
advisory committees like Monsanto’s would affect alliances with other
groups.
Of course, the best way to ensure appropriate rules are followed is to
have committees and organizations operate as much in the public eye as
possible. This isn’t practical in corporations where competition and
trade secrets are issues, but it is possible for organizations
dedicated to serving farmer members.
