One of Tufts' most alluring qualities for me (as I'm sure it was for many of you) as a high school senior was its reputation as a globally conscious institution whose highest goals were to be a "model for society at large," to further human equality, to fight for the undeniable rights of all human beings, to maintain peace and to increase environmental sustainability. But two weeks ago when Jumboleaks published a list purported to be the university's outdated investment holdings, I was thoroughly disillusioned with the contradiction of these high standards and disturbed to find what companies we were allegedly connected with. With drastically increasing populations, society needs agricultural companies that can provide the products needed for increased food production without damaging the environment or the health of peoples. Monsanto, who was listed on Jumboleaks.org as one of Tufts' investments, is not this kind of company. In fact, the Monsanto Company embodies the exact opposite of the principles that our Tufts community so ardently values; Monsanto is a corporation that will do anything, often at the cost of polluting the environment, endangering health and violating rights, in order to increase personal gain and company profit.
Monsanto, the world's largest agricultural biotech company, hid decades of pollution in Anniston, Ala., causing the area to become one of the most contaminated in the country. People living in the area now suffer from a toxic amount of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chemicals that cause cancer, a weakened immune system, neurological deficits and birth defects. It is so dangerous that children cannot play in the soil and people are told not to plant food in their yards and to wear masks when cutting the grass. Evidence shows that the company was fully aware of the harmful effects of dumping PCBs into the environment, yet thoroughly ignored them so as not to "lose one dollar of business." This is far from an isolated event: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) labeled the company as a "potentially responsible party" for about 93 contaminated sites in the United States. Monsanto also (with allegations of bribery) illegally dumped many toxic pollutants into several British landfills. Roundup, a herbicide and one of Monsanto's leading products, is believed to have major negative health and environmental effects. Since patent laws are still valid for its compositional makeup, however, researchers cannot isolate which chemicals within the product cause the harmful results.
Monsanto abuses its immensely disproportionate amount of power at the cost of small businesses and the public good. The patent on Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) seeds makes it possible for them to sue small organic and conventional farmers, whose fields are naturally contaminated by the manufactured GM seeds carried by insects, wind and other animals. By suing these farmers, Monsanto is able to gain ownership of the farmer's crop, prevent future harvests and, at times, impose fines or, in rare cases, jail time. Monsanto not only affects local economies, one of Britain's top organic organizations found that since 1999, GM seeds have cost the United States $12 billion in farm subsidies, lower prices for crops, loss of major export orders and product recalls.
Non−transparent practices of Monsanto are in stark contradiction with the public's interest. With much influence and misinformation from Monsanto, the Food and Drug Administration not only approved the use of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone, which is injected into cows to increase milk production and has been banned in Europe, Canada and many other countries for health concerns, but also ruled that milk from treated cows does not have to include a label indicating so. When reporters from a FOX−owned TV station in Florida launched an investigation piece about the harmful effects of bovine growth hormone and Monsanto's wielding of power to get it on the market, the company threatened legal action in order to silence the story. This kind of censorship dilutes the public's awareness and discourages the dialogue and action needed to protect the well−being of those exploited by the power−hungry institutions that dominate corporate America.
Likewise, Tufts cannot continue its current non−transparent practices. I have listened to an incredible number of students, both in the Garden Club (for whom I write) and the larger Tufts community, who are devoted to the prospect of a sustainable and just future. So why do our investments neither reflect these passions nor support these aspirations? I believe that the student body's increased awareness and active voice in such financial matters will safeguard future investment and university participation against companies so corrupt and socially malignant. It would protect the values and ideals that are so vital to our identities as Tufts students, faculty and administration. Tufts should have no direct or "indirect" holdings with Monsanto or other corporations that choose to cause widespread suffering and practice exploitation in order to gain profit. In being a model for society, Tufts should not only refrain from participating in such institutions but also make it a point to invest in and support local and sustainable agricultural companies. Already, I have heard the call for Tufts' active support for socially and environmentally responsible agricultural companies like High Mowing Seeds Co. or Johnny's Selected Seeds Co., which are both dedicated to the health of the economy, the environment, local communities and people.
--
