11.
Monsanto and the Patenting of Life

jennifer bonato

Ecofeminism is a feminist theory that aligns the oppression of women with the oppression of nature based on their reproductive labour. In a visual depiction of the Capitalist-Patriarchal economy, “The Iceberg Model,” splits the economy into two parts (Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies 32). The visible economy includes only capital and waged-labour, represented by Gross Domestic Product (gdp) and Gross National Product (gnp). The invisible, reproductive work of nature, women, the unpaid and poorly paid, and Indigenous people is therefore valued as free. The devaluation of women and nature is essential to the maintenance of a capitalist-patriarchal social order. Reproductive labour is viewed as value-less—feminized, primitivized—and exploited as surplus.

Land is the mother of wealth, and labour its father (Salleh Ecofeminism as Politics 13). By making the connection between the exploitation of women’s bodies and the body of nature, ecofeminists challenge the way that production, rather than reproduction, has been centralized under capitalist-patriarchy. The capitalist-patriarchal economy characterizes the world as resource, while the generation of wealth is based on turning resource to commodity (113-115). It is, according to ecofeminists, systems of reproduction that create an economic “surplus,” for instance, life-giving work—that of water, rocks, air, animals, women and care-takers—that are not factored into a nation’s gdp or gnp. The word re-production implies a secondary action, but reproductive systems create the conditions for production to take place. The capitalist-patriarchal economy places reproductive labour somewhere between “natural resource” and “condition of production” (108).

Ecofeminists argue that the market economy is not based on reality, but on the fragmentation of natural resources. Market growth is not based on human need, but on capital accumulation and increased profits. This system is destructive, and “kills off its own future options as it goes” (121). The delicate balance of the natural ecosystem is ignored, and nature is broken down into commodity goods in the name of progress and technological advancement (Salleh “Eco-Sufficiency” 4).

primitive accumulation: the oppression of reproductive bodies

Ecofeminists have long declared Marx’s theory of primitive accumulation to be inadequate, and view primitive accumulation as an ongoing process and permanent condition of capitalist-patriarchy. Silvia Federici, in her book Caliban and the Witch (2004), sustains that the European witch-hunts of the twelfth to seventeenth centuries were the first form of primitive accumulation (Federici 12). The witch-hunts meant that women, cast as witches, were reduced to bodies for use by the church and state. Having her property seized, a woman accused of witchcraft was tried and tortured, her body fragmented through a process that generated significant profits for the church and state, and lead to the development of modern day legal and medical systems.

According to Vandana Shiva, twenty-first-century primitive accumulation is enacted through biotechnology, genetic engineering, and patenting of genetic material (Staying Alive ). Using biotechnology, private companies reduce organisms from whole beings to fragmented genes, and genes are characterized as blueprints for the living object (Shiva “Biotechnological Development” 209-210). Shiva explains the privatization of genetic material as a continuation of the private property laws established during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (194). Seeds possess a dual character, they are, as seed, means of production and, as grain or plant, final product (199). This is a problem under capitalist-patriarchy, as the natural reproductive capacity of a seed means that it will freely and continuously reproduce.

Genetic engineering involves extracting dna from plants or animals and inputting them into the dna of different plants or animals so that future generations will show traits desired by private companies. Using these processes to alter the genes of a seed, companies can patent and add “value” to a seed. However, this view of “value” is not neutral (199), it is a capitalist-patriarchal perspective (as depicted in the Iceberg Model) that centralizes uniformity, control, and profits while ignoring the “feminine principle” that views the world as life-giving, diverse, interconnected, and whole (Shiva, Staying Alive 14). Quite often, the modifications are resistance to herbicide or pesticide that use chemicals like glyphosate (a likely carcinogen according to a 2017 report by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer [75-65, 112]). Companies then patent their creations in order to contract and sell their use.

A profitable seed is one that has been produced through scientific engineering, not reproduced by its innate reproductive ability. Thus, in order to become profitable, a seed must be patented and its reproductive capacity must be eliminated. Patenting the seed ensures that the individual seed and its subsequent generations remain private property. Seeds that have historically been cultivated by those in the global South, Indigenous people, or subsistence farmers, then, are considered to be “primitive cultivars,” while those created through biotechnology are considered “advanced” and “elite” (Shiva “Biotechnological Developent” 209). This characterization (again, as depicted in the Iceberg Model), upholds a global hierarchy where private companies like Monsanto have free use of “primitive,” “value-less” seed, while resources stolen or cheaply bought from the global South are accessible as raw material. Under capitalist-patriarchy, seeds only become valuable once they have been subject to investment of time, research, money, and patents (209).

The distinction between “primitive” and “advanced” seed provides a link to Shiva’s assertion that this process is a form of primitive accumulation. It also links to von Werlhof’s theory: justifications of modern progress sustain that all life has to be fragmented and appropriated in order to be “civilized.” “Primitive” seed is thus “advanced” through laboratory research, analysis, and engineering. Adapting the seed from “primitive” to “advanced,” Monsanto and other biotechnology companies engage in a political process whereby the location of power is shifted from within the seed, as “use value,” to patent-owners, for “exchange value.” Using biotechnology, patent-owners appropriate the seeds for profit, and the reproductive capacity of the seed becomes private property.

Below, I describe biotechnology and align definitions from the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (1993), the United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. I discuss the history of Monsanto, and their use of biotechnology to manufacture, patent, and sell seeds and chemicals. Finally, I provide an overview of the findings from a Major Research Project, during which I explored the U.S. Supreme Court case osgata et al. v. Monsanto using an ecofeminist framework.

biotechnology, monsanto, and the courts

Biotechnology

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity defines biotechnology as “…any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use” (United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity 3). Biotechnology is explained as a natural and necessary progression of science and technology that is intended to “feed the world” and address challenges associated with climate change. Scientifically, biotechnology involves extracting dna from one organism and inputting it into another, or altering the dnasequence of an organism in order to produce the traits desired by private companies. This process turns them from “nature’s seeds”—accessible resource—to “corporate seeds”—a new commodity for consumption (Shiva “Biotechnological Development” 200).

The process of biotechnology creates genetically modified organisms (gmos). According to the United States Federal Drug Administration, gmos are “originally used by the molecular biology scientific community to denote a living organism that has been genetically modified by inserting a gene from an unrelated species” (Vecchione, Feldman, & Wunderlich 329). Health Canada states that “a gm [Genetically Modified] food is one derived from an organism that has had some of its heritable traits changed … using chemicals or radiation to alter the genetic make-up of the organism’s cells called mutagenesis,” or “introducing a gene from one species into another species” (Health Canada “Genetically Modified”).

gmos are categorized by Health Canada as “novel foods,” defined as:

(a) a substance, including a microorganism, that does not have a history of safe use as a food;

(b) a food that has been manufactured, prepared, preserved, or packed by a process that

has not been previously applied to that food, and

causes the food to undergo a major change; and

(c) a food that is derived from a plant, animal, or microorganism that has been genetically modified such that

the plant, animal, or microorganism exhibits characteristics that were not previously observed in that plant, animal, or microorganism,

the plant, animal, or microorganism no longer exhibits characteristics that were previously observed in that plant, animal, or microorganism, or one or more characteristics of the plant, animal, or microorganism no longer fall within the anticipated range for that plant, animal, or microorganism. (Health Canada “Genetically Modified”)

After engineering a seed, the product is patented and then requires an annual fee for its use. Every year, a number of novel foods receive Health Canada approval and enter the Canadian food system. Many of these products are altered strains of corn, soy, or canola to be used for bio-fuel and animal feed, with built-in resistance to chemical pesticide or herbicide to be used in the growth cycle (Health Canada“Genetically Modified”).

Since 2014, twenty-one “novel foods” have been approved in Canada (Health Canada “Genetically Modified”). Some companies, such as Okanagan Specialty Fruits and Aqua Bounty, have products that are standalone and sold whole. Past whole food approvals include pink pineapple, potatoes, yogurt, margarine, birdseed, alfalfa, and orange juice products (U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Health Canada “Genetically Modified”).

Monsanto

The multi-national corporation Monsanto is a major player in the global biotechnology industry. Founded in 1902 by John F. Queeny, Monsanto’s first products included saccharine (an artificial sweetener) and herbicide 2,4-D (used alongside 2,4,5-T to make Agent Orange, part of the U.S. military’s herbicidal warfare program against Vietnam, produced by Monsanto from 1965-1969) (Monsanto, n.d.). Despite Monsanto’s origin in war products such as Agent Orange, Round-Up and Glyphosate (osgata et al. v. Monsanto, 2011), strategic public relations have positioned Monsanto as a leader in industrial agriculture, on a quest to “feed the world.” Monsanto describes its biotechnology research program as established in 1981, with the set up of its first molecular biology group (“Original Monsanto Company”). Biotechnology is, according to Monsanto, the solution to climate change, drought in Africa, the decline of honeybees, and sustainable agriculture.

Monsanto’s vision of sustainable agriculture is based on increased output with decreased input. This means less land, less water, and less energy per unit produced while managing weeds, insects and environmental changes. In 2015, Monsanto boasted to shareholders about their annual progress: expansion of soybean crops to fifteen million hectares in South America (with expectations to double that coverage in the following year) and holding share in every major corn market (Monsanto Annual Report 3). Monsanto projects to double yields in core crops by 2030, enabling “farmers to get more from every acre of farmland” through “advanced plant breeding, biotechnology and improved farm-management practices” (Monsanto “Improving Agriculture”).

osgata et al. v. monsanto

In a Major Research Project entitled Monsanto and the Patenting of Life: Is Biotechnology a New Form of Primitive Accumulation in the 21st Century?, I wrote about biotechnology using an ecofeminist framework. I examined the U.S. Supreme Court case, Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto in order to critique the role of the legal system in favouring private ownership over public concerns.

My research found that new avenues of profit require new legal frameworks crafted by the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and North American Free Trade Agreement, and applied by the Supreme Court. Patent law, sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court, allows Monsanto to appropriate the bodies of seeds, and subjects small organic farmers in the United States and Canada to risk of contamination of their crops. The right of Monsanto—the colonizer—to patent and own genetic material was entrenched by the United States Supreme Court ruling, while the rights of those represented by the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, seeds, peasants and subsistence farmers, Indigenous people, and those in the global South—the colonized—are eroded in favour of ongoing Primitive Accumulation (Bonato 56-57).

International and North American legal and regulatory systems (United Nations Convention of Biological Diversity, North American Free Trade Agreement, the Supreme Court, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada) can thus be considered instruments of primitive accumulation; their functions are based on upholding the economic power structure made visible by the Iceberg Model of the capitalist-patriarchal economy.

Below, I discuss recent developments in the North American gmo and biotechnology industries. The ongoing debate around labels for genetically engineered products has been largely won by lobbyists of the food and biotechnology industries who have funded campaigns against gmo labels and who supported then-U.S. President Obama’s 2016 Bill S.764. Also in 2016, multi-national biotechnology companies Monsanto and Bayer announced that they would merge in a $66 billion deal that will establish their monopoly over global seed and pesticide markets (Philpott).

recent developments in north american gmo industries

The Label Debate

The fight for labels on foods that contain genetically engineered products is fierce. Companies have argued that labels might scare consumers away from their products, which could impact their profits and result in lost business. A 2016 report from the Environmental Working Group, citing lobbying disclosure forms from the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, totaled U.S. anti-label lobbying contributions by food, farming, and biotechnology industries at $192.8 million since 2013 (Coleman).

In Canada, Health Canada is responsible for setting food labelling policies. While 78 percent of Canadian citizens say that they would like genetically engineered products to be labeled (Harris), to date, labels are only required in cases where there are health and safety concerns about allergens or changes in nutritional value. The Canadian General Standards Board established these standards in the form of can/cgsb – 32.315-2004 in 2004 under Prime Minister Martin, and reaffirmed them in May 2016 under Prime Minister Trudeau (Canadian General Standards Board). While this standard is presented as an act of transparency, it has not prompted gmo producers to add labels. Rather, programs such as the Non-gmo Project verification, established in 2007, test and label products to ensure that ge content remains below 0.9 percent (Bain and Dandachi).

During the Stephen Harper era (2006-2015), Bill C-474 was introduced in Canadian Parliament following a 2009 crisis of genetically engineered flax contamination that impacted Canada’s organic flax exports (cban). The Bill was meant to support farmers by requiring an “analysis of potential harm to export markets be conducted before the sale of any new genetically engineered seed is permitted,” and was the first real action in Parliament to interrogate the negative impact of genetically engineered crops (Sharratt). A motion to extend the debate was voted down on October 28, 2010 in a four-vote victory (Sharratt).

In July 2016, then-U.S. President Obama signed bill S.764 into law. Renamed by critics as the dark (Deny Americans the Right to Know) act, the bill allows companies to use qr codes in the place of clear, plain-language labels about the presence of genetically engineered crops. S.764 was signed into law one week after the state of Vermont’s labelling law was enacted, and effectively nullified any state law that required labels. It received the support of Monsanto, the U.S. Grocery Manufacturers Association, and the Organic Trade Association (ota). The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association announced its withdrawal from the ota following its endorsement, and stated that the ota had betrayed them by supporting S.764 and creating partnerships with Monsanto. Even the fda criticized the bill for a narrow definition of bioengineering that exempts many genetically engineered foods from its label requirements (Chow).

Understanding the debate about labelling genetically engineered products is important in engaging in an ecofeminist critique. According to the Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies’ Iceberg Model (32), the legal and regulatory institutions that structure and govern the economy were established to uphold a capitalist-patriarchal power structure. Thus, North American governments and their agencies (Health Canada, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, etc.) function in a manner that supports ongoing primitive accumulation. Despite public concern and efforts to seek labels on genetically engineered products, North American governments have chosen to reject labelling the products of biotechnology and industrial agriculture, in the name of unhindered profits.

Monsanto and Bayer: A Merger Under Trump

In September 2016, Monsanto announced that they were in talks to forge a $66 billion merger with Bayer, a multinational chemical and pharmaceutical company (Bayer “Bayer and Monsanto”). Monsanto’s shareholders approved the offer in December 2016. The following month, company ceo’s Werner Baumann (Bayer) and Hugh Grant (Monsanto), met with then U.S. President-elect Trump to discuss the future of the company and its role in U.S. agriculture (Monsanto “Joint Statement”). In a joint statement on January 17, 2017, the meeting was described as a way to share their view on “increasing and accelerating innovation to help growers around the world address challenges like climate change and food security,” with the intention to ensure that the U.S. “remains anchors of the industry” (Bayer “Joint Statement”) as a global agriculture leader.

U.S. President Trump’s support of biotechnology and industrial agriculture can be gauged by his nomination of former Georgia Governor, Sonny Perdue for Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (usda) (Hirschfeld Davis and Haberman). Perdue’s most recent role was head of a global agribusiness trading company, and he was awarded Governor of the Year in 2009 by the Biotechnology Industry Association. Accepting his award, Perdue stated, “we’ll continue to support the [biotechnology] industry because their research improves our lives and brings jobs and investment to the state.”

Below, I discuss two new products, the Arctic® Apple and AquAdvantage® Salmon, whose presence in the North American food market has been met with controversy and concern (“Genetically modified apple”; “Federal Court”; 2016 Resolution Status; Dehaas). The Arctic® Apple’s use of a qr code as a label represents former President Obama’s Bill S.764 in action, and AquAdvantage® Salmon is the first genetically engineered animal to be allowed into the global food system. Both examples have largely been considered “game-changers” by industry critics, and, as I argue, signify entry into an era I call “late-biotechnology.”

new products in the north american market

The Arctic® Apple

The Arctic® Apple was developed by Okanagan Specialty Fruits in order to prevent browning. When an apple is cut, Polyphenol Oxidase (ppo) cells mix with other polyphenolics to produce a brown melanin. By genetically engineering four genes within the apple’s dna sequence, scientists used “gene silencing” to stop the apples from turning brown after they’ve been cut (Arctic® Apple), and created Arctic® Apple trees with low ppo production. The Arctic® Apple was approved by the U.S. fda in February 2015, and Health Canada in March 2015 after years in regulatory limbo, with hopes that they would hit national markets in 2016 and 2017 respectively.

The apple has been met with concerns by a number of organizations, including Society for ge-Free b.c., who objected based on the risks of cross-pollination of genetically-modified with non genetically-modified apples, and the impact on future apple generations. In addition, at its 2016 annual general meeting in Kelowna, the B.C. Fruit Growers Association passed a resolution to ask the Canadian government to deregister the product (2016 Resolution Status). The Arctic Apple was not de-registered and, as of February 1, 2017, ten grocery stores in the mid-western U.S. will carry the Arctic® Apple, which will be sold sliced and packaged.

According to Arctic® Apple grower Neal Carter, the “apple will do great things for the industry by preserving more fruit throughout the production system” (“Genetically modified apple”). The Arctic® Apple will not be labeled as a gmo, but will include a qr code for customers to scan if they want to learn more about the product (Arctic® Apple). While Arctic Apple’s website is generally open about its process and use of genetic engineering, their choice to include a qr code instead of a plain-language gmo label is significant. First, one has to be in the financial position to have a smart phone and access to the internet. Second, one has to be interested in learning about the product enough to engage in the process of scanning a code with a smartphone application, and taking the time to investigate a fruit as common as an apple. The use of a qr code is a decision that is intended to appear as an act of transparency (it is in compliance with U.S. Bill S.467) while not actually being transparent.

AquAdvantage® Salmon

AquAdvantage® salmon was approved by the U.S. fda in November 2015, and Health Canada in May 2016. Genetically engineered to grow faster, require 25 percent less feed than non-gmo salmon, and reach the market in less time, Aqua Bounty makes no mention of its use of biotechnology or genetic engineering on its website. Instead, it simply states that AquAdvantage® salmon will help to produce more fish in less time with minimal environmental impact (Aqua Bounty Technology).

Critics have fought its approval, referring to AquAdvantage® salmon—an atlantic salmon that is modified with genes from “chinook salmon” and a fish called “ocean pout”—as frankenfish (Dehaas). Despite its approval, some retailers have declined to sell the fish, including Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods (Dehaas). Organizations The Ecology Action Centre and Living Oceans Society appealed to Canadian Federal Courts to reconsider Environment Canada’s approval of AquAdvantage® salmon, citing concerns about the adequacy of health and safety assessments for what is the “world’s first gmo animal to be approved for farming and sale,” but the appeal was not granted (“Federal Court”).

Aqua Bounty’s purpose as a company is to grow salmon quickly, with less feed, getting the fish to market faster to generate profits more rapidly. While there are many concerns about the fish escaping and breeding with non-gmo salmon, AquAdvantage® fish are all female and all sterile, thus possessing no reproductive capacity (Aqua Bounty Technology). This action ensures that AquAdvantage® salmon “…shift from the ecological processes of reproduction to the technological processes of production” (Shiva “Biotechnological Development” 201). Rendering the salmon unable to reproduce on its own, Aqua Bounty engages in primitive accumulation.

conclusion: a new era of biotechnology

This paper has examined the work of Monsanto and other biotechnology companies in ongoing primitive accumulation. Using an ecofeminist perspective that connects women and nature based on their reproductive labour, and according to the framework in the Iceberg Model of the capitalist-patriarchal economy, legal and regulatory systems were established as an extension of the property rights that took shape between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The first form of primitive accumulation took place during the European witch-hunts, when women’s bodies were used to generate profits for the church and state. According to Vandana Shiva, primitive accumulation takes place today by commodifying the bodies of seeds using biotechnology and patent law. In order to support new avenues of profit, “[h]uman rights, including the right to a livelihood, must … be sacrificed for property rights that give protection to the innovation processes” (193). Under capitalist-patriarchy, “primitive” seed is only made valuable after it has been subject to investment of research and patents (209).

Industrial agriculture and biotechnology have shifted the concept of private property and engage in primitive accumulation by genetically altering and patenting seeds and the pesticides to support them. Selling their products as “feeding the world,” they have expanded the reach of industrial agriculture across the globe (Monsanto Annual Report 5). Genetically modified products are sold as logical and necessary in order to face impending ecological challenges such as global food shortage, population growth, drought, poverty, and pollution (Moser 1). Instead, this process has resulted in massive dispossession in the global South and global North in order to establish corporate control over the reproductive capacities of seeds, plants, and animals.

Just as the Supreme Court sided with Monsanto in osgata et al. v. Monsanto, courts, governments, and their regulatory bodies such as Health Canada, the Canadian General Standards Board, and the United States’ Food and Drug Administration and Department of Agriculture, continue to be tasked with issues associated with biotechnology. However, “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (Lorde), and these bodies, established under capitalist-patriarchy, vote down debate (cban Sharratt), create technologically advanced and inaccessible label laws (S.764; Chow), nominate biotechnology industry-insiders to lead national departments (Hirschfeld Davis and Haberman), and reject public concerns about genetically engineered animals in the global food market (“Federal Court”; Dehaas).

We have entered a new era of biotechnology, one that includes monopolies over seed and pesticide markets, qr codes instead of labels, and genetically engineered animals in our food system. Creating ever-new avenues of profit, Monsanto and other biotechnology and industrial agriculture companies engage in primitive accumulation, and sell their “creations” as innovative solutions to the problems of capitalism. In the twenty-first century, biotechnology has expanded primitive accumulation by creating a surplus of raw material to be scientifically engineered and patented in the name of adding “value” to free, genetic resources. Ecofeminists must ask: what next?

references

2016 Resolutions Status. Kelowna, B.C. Fruit Growers Association, 11 Feb. 2016.

Arctic® apples. “Distinctly nonbrowning apples.” 2017. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Aqua Bounty Technology. 2017. Web. January 30, 2017.

Bain, C. and T. Dandachi. “Governing gmos: The (Counter) Movement for Mandatory and Voluntary Non-gmo Labels.” Sustainability 6.12 (2014): 9456-9476.

Bayer ag. “Advancing Together.” No date. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Bayer. “Bayer and Monsanto to Create a Global Leader in Agriculture.” 2016. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Bayer. “Joint Statement: Monsanto, Bayer ceos Meet with New Administration.” 2016. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Bennholdt-Thomsen, V. and Maria Mies. The Subsistence Perspective: Beyond the Globalised Economy. London: Zed Books, 1999.

Bonato, J. “Monsanto and the Patenting of Life: Is Biotechnology a New Form of Primitive Accumulation in the 21st Century?” Major Research Paper, St. Catharines: Brock University, 2016.

Canadian General Standards Board, Standards Council of Canada. Voluntary Labeling and Advertising of Foods that Are and Are Not Products of Genetic Engineering. Gatineau: Canadian General Standards Board, 2004. Reaffirmed May 2016.

Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (cban). No date. Web. January 30, 2017.

Chow, L. “Obama Signs Industry-Backed gmo Label Bill Into Law.” 2016. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Coleman, R. “Food Lobby Spends $101 Million in 2015 to Avert gmo Labeling.” 25 Feb. 2016. 14 March 2017.

Dehaas, J. “Health Canada approves salmon genetically modified to grow more quickly.” 19 May 2016. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

“Federal Court to hear case against genetically-modified salmon.” The Canadian Press 16 Nov. 2015. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Federici, S. Caliban and the Witch. New York: Autonomedia, 2004.

“Genetically modified apple that won’t brown under fire.” cbc News 4 Nov. 2013. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue. “Governor Perdue Named bio Governor of the Year.” 23 April 2009. Web. Retrieved 30 Jan. 2017.

Goldenberg, S. “Prop 37: Food companies spend $45m to defeat California gm label bill.” 5 Nov. 2012. Web. 14 March 2017.

Harris, K. “Consumers opposed to genetically modified foods, but don’t know what they are.” 9 Oct. 2016. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Health Canada. “Genetically Modified (gm) Foods and Other Novel Foods.” Health Canada, 2016. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Health Canada. “AquAdvantage Salmon.” 2016. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Hirschfeld Davis, J. and M. Haberman. “Sonny Perdue Is Trump’s Choice for Agriculture Secretary.” 18 Jan. 2017. Web. 14 March 2017.

International Agency for Research on Cancer. “Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides: Glyphosate.” Iarc Monographcs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans 112.10 (2017): 1-92. World Health Organization. Web. 1 Feb. 1 2017.

Lorde, Audre. “Master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house,” comments at “The Personal and the Political” panel, Second Sex Conference, October 29, 1979.

Monsanto. “Improving Agriculture.” 2015. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Monsanto. “Original Monsanto Company.” 2017. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Monsanto. “Who We Are. Our Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture.” No date. Web. 31 August 2015.

Monsanto. Annual Report: Ideas Big Enough for a Growing World. St. Louis, mo: Monsanto, 2015. Web. 31 August 2015.

Moser, I. “Critical Communities and Discourses on Modern Biotechnology.” Biopolitics: A feminist and ecological reader on biotechnology. Eds. V. Shiva and I. Moser. London: Zed Books, 1995. 1-24.

osgata et al. v. Monsanto and Monsanto Technology llc. United States District Court Southern District of New York. 29 Mar. 2011. Web. 31 August 2015.

Philpott, T. “Trump is ready to bless Monsanto and Bayer’s massive merger.” Mother Jones 19 Jan. 2017. Web. Retrieved 30 Jan. 2017.

S. 764, 114th Congress: A bill to reauthorize and amend the National Sea Grant College Program Act, and for other purposes. 4 January 2016. Web. January 30, 2017.

Salleh, A. Ecofeminism as Politics: Nature, Marx, and the Postmodern. 1997. London: Zed Books, 2017.

Salleh, A. “From Eco-Sufficiency to Global Justice.” Eco-Sufficiency and Global Justice: Women Write Political Ecology. Ed. A Salleh. London, England: Pluto Press, 2009. 291-312.

Salleh, A. “Organized Irresponsibility: Contradictions in the Australian Government’s Strategy for gm Regulation.” Environmental Politics 15.2 (2006): 388-416.

Sharratt, L. “cban – Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.” 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Shiva, V. Staying Alive: Women, Ecology, and Development. London, England: Zed Books, 2010.

Shiva, V. “Biotechnological Development and the Conservation of Biodiversity.” Biopolitics: A Feminist and Ecological Reader on Biotechnology. Eds. V. Shiva and I. Moser. London: Zed Books, 1995. 193-213.

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. 1993. Web. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. “AquAdvantage Salmon Approval Letter and Appendix.” 2015. Web. 30 Jan. 2017.

Vecchione, M., C. Feldman and S. Wunderlich. “Consumer Knowledge and Attitudes About Genetically Modified Food Products and Labelling Policy.” International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition 66.3 (2014): 329-335.