Monsanto’s Biotechnology Politics: Discourses of Legitimation

ABSTRACT

Since the first product became commercially available in 1995, biotechnology has become the fastest growing crop technology, dominating large shares of the global agricultural market. The development of biotechnology, however, has given rise to questions regarding human and ecological safety, culminating in local and global political battles. While researchers interested in biotech politics have focused on areas such as media framing, social movements, and campaign work, less attention has been paid to how the industry has historically promoted and legitimized this swift proliferation. In this study, we conduct a discourse analysis of documents available on live and archived websites to discern the legitimation strategies employed by one important corporate actor, Monsanto. Findings show that for nearly two decades, Monsanto consistently employed discursive resources that concealed details about actors and action, reflected trends among experts in global sustainability discourse, and reshaped narratives to promote itself, products, and biotechnology in general.

KEYWORDS:

• Biotechnology
• legitimation
• discourse analysis
• discursive resources
• corporate power

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Although no well-accepted definition for biotechnology exists, it is generally understood as the use of recombinant DNA to move genetic traits between organisms, often of different species (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2001). The resulting organism is referred to as transgenic.

2. Documents not explicitly related to political activities and links to external websites were excluded from the analysis (e.g., financial calendars, employee biographies, and job opportunities). Because visual data, such as logo kits, photos, and video galleries, were frequently not archived, they were also excluded.

3. Smith (2005) asserts that narratives “cluster in genres,” which in his analysis of war, he divided into four categories: (1) low mimesis, which depicts business as usual, routine; (2) tragedy, which often describes a failed hero or a fall from grace; (3) romance, which emphasize themes of ascent and blessings; and (4) the apocalyptic mode, which entails a world-historical intervention in the future destiny of humanity.