Tumbledown Farm .9 Acres (give or take an acre or two)

I wouldn't even think to ask the question--because the answer is too obviously NO! on the face of it, by any common-sense definition of the term "sustainable"--if I hadn't been surprised lately by Monsanto's radio ads on the local NPR affiliate. (See the Monsanto sustainability initiative on the Monsanto web site.) What's up when the so-called bastion of left-leaning journalism accepts such patently absurd greenwashing claims by the chief of the GM (genetically modified) seed companies for mere money? Monsanto patents biotech seeds ("Roundup Ready") that require the use of particular herbicides and pesticides to grow crops. This allows them to sue competing companies (Dupont / Pioneer) and small farmers who may infringe on the patent. This approach to seed development actually encourages greater use of chemicals on the land in farming than with either "organic" (even with its watered down governmental definition) or truly "sustainable" methods. Monsanto is not sustainable for the farmer (cost), not sustainable for the community (GM food), nor for the planet. (See the June 4, 2008 Marketplace short report on the Monsanto announcement of a sustainability campaign. You have to search long and hard for such reports. E.g., why has the American Public Media Greenwash brigade so far featured only one blog story about Monsanto? Surely there is more to write.)

It's as obvious that Monsanto isn't sustainable as it is that Monsanto doesn't own Johnny's Seeds (opens a .pdf letter from Johnny's founder).

So, where does Monsanto get cover for its claim of sustainability?

From the government's wishy-washy, special-interest-lobby-influenced legislative definition, of course. (Legal Definition of Sustainable Agriculture from USDA, SARE program.)

The definition is good so far as it goes, but how good can it be if it fails to point out and deny Monsanto's sustainability based on their encouragement of global (not "site specific" in any meaningful sense), monocrop-leaning, non-renewable resource intensive production. The government works toward "most efficient" use of non-renewables. (A definition you can drive a truck through, literally, while claiming sustainability.) And, since the government prefers integration of natural biological cycles and controls, "where appropriate," it begs the question when and where and under what circumstances "natural biological cycles and controls" would be inappropriate.

Perhaps I just need a better education. For some reason I still want to retch when I hear that radio ad.

P.S.--See my 2006 blog note about Monsanto.