Journal of Global Resources
Biannual International Peer-Reviewed Journal
ISSN: 2395-3160 (Print)/2455-2445 (Online)

January 2021
Volume 07 (01)
Crossref DOI 10.46587

DOI: 10.46587/JGR.2021.v07i01.017

17
CLIMATE CHANGE AND CORPORATIZATION OF FOOD
Mohammad Mohnish
Research Scholar, MMIJ Academy of International Studies
Jamia Millia Islamia, New Dellhi, India
Email: mohnish.raul@gmail.com
Abstract: Climate change together with social injustice is the important factor which
impacts large population globally. The effect is experienced both on health and social lifeof an individual. Developing economies require governments to allow Foreign Direct
Investment, which paves the way for Multi-National Corporations to acquire control overresources. This control of resources is acquired by promises to tackle the issues of foodinsecurity. Climate change has metamorphosed into a boon for MNCs in food sector. It hasaltered the crop pattern and increased the dependency of farmers on genetically modified
seeds. This paper intends to establish how the concept of climate change has become aboon for MNCs in food sector. Companies like Monsanto, DuPont, sell the idea of genetic
engineering to solve the problem of food scarcity by boosting crop yields. This paper argues
that increasing the amount of food through genetically modified technology does notnecessarily lead to food security.
Key words: Climate Change, Food security, Biotechnology, MNCs and Social Injustice
Introduction
Climate is a precarious decisive component for food security but with the progress ofscience, advanced steps have been taken to control the forces of nature. Science has
generated the ability to manipulate the resources and control the environment according to
the needs of humanity. The only requirement is the justification of economic returns. The
plausible returns allow creating man-made microclimates, strain plants and animals
together with considered necessary characteristic. Climate change variables also impact
biophysical aspects like animal and plant growth, biodiversity, water cycles, and nutrient
cycling. These impacts lead to indirect alteration of the financial and socio-political aspects
that regulate food availability and consumption. While technological innovation is seen as
a way to relieve the world of the problems of food insecurity. This paper seeks to highlightthe problems associated with this argument. While abundance of food throughtechnological advancement has been used as a reason to allow the genetic modification offood, this paper highlights the grave concerns that corporatization of food is bringing to theworld. Companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Novartis, and other chemical-cum biotechnology
companies sell the idea of genetic engineering to solve the problem of food scarcity byboosting crop yields. The technologies have dubious benefits and well documented risks.
Yet these corporations further their agendas by appropriating the ideas of food insecurity.
This work rejects the concept of food security as an answer to food problems of the world
and argues for the concept of ‘food sovereignty’.
Facts designate that more recurrent and more intense weather events, going up
sea levels and snowballing abnormalities in periodic precipitation patterns (together withflooding) are now leading direct bearings on food production. It is also affecting food
distribution, source of revenue, human health and infrastructure in both urban and rural
137

areas. Food security which encompasses the aspects of food obtainability, food availability,
food consumption and food system steadfastness have serious impacts due to the change
in climatic condition. It is understood that clouts are now being experienced in international
food market place and remain predominant in particular rural sites wherever yields be
unsuccessful and harvests are declining. Effects are felt together in urban and rural places.
The source cycle happens to be interrupted, prices in markets are snowballing, assets andsource of revenue prospects are exhausted, power to purchase goes down, human healthis compromised, and people who are affected are not capable to deal with it. Two ways inwhich crop growing is significant for food security are: One the issue of food harvesting thatis used by people for consumption; and importantly, makes it available as a means ofsupport for 36 percent of the global collective labor force. In the critically severely inhabitedregions of Pacific and Asia, this segment arrays as of 40 to 50 percent, and in sub-SaharanAfrica, two-thirds of the operational inhabitants even now make their source of revenue
from cultivation (ILO, 2007). In developing countries where people generally have low
income and are highly depended on agriculture any distress caused by climate change will
have negative impact on livelihood. The rural poor will be laid at jeopardy and theirsusceptibility to food insecurity will increase.
Probable Bearings of Climate Change on Food Accessibility
Food production and additional agrarian produces perhaps will rise with collective need,but then again problem is projected of major alterations in agricultural practices andcropping patterns at local level. There has been an abundant deal of exploration on theconsequences of climate change on agrarian produce, mainly cultivated crops.
Approximately in total 50 percent of farm produce comes from forest and highland
ecological unit, collectively with all tree produces, even harvest grown on wide open, arable
level terrain account for only 13 percent of yearly international harvest produce. Dry land
ecological unit accounts near about 25 percent of crop produce which is both irrigated andrain fed. Coastal ecosystem having about 12 percent of total rice production (Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).
The assessment of climate change bearings on agrarian produce, earning basedon mode of agriculture and supply of food be required to take into account properties ofagrarian system. Importantly where climate made biochemical processes are taking place
there is a need to understand to what degree, the availability of food will be impacted. A
comprehensive understanding of the data of food insecurity further than critical stage
discloses that hunger is at surplus 17.2 percent or 1.3 billion people at moderate suffer fromfood insecurity. This 1.3 billion people fall into the category, who did not receive or could
obtain required nutritious food which could be considered sufficient. Further element of risk
factor like poor health and malnourishment also increased.
.
Probable Bearings of Climate Change on Food Consumption
Insecurity in food consumption is by and large connected with undernourishment, as people
are not able to fulfill their daily requirement of food consumption. Reason for incapacity tonourish oneself can be on the obtainability or insufficiency of food. The decline in nutritional
value due to climate change leads to the adverse effect on people’s ability to perform daily
basis task at its optimal efficiency. Change in climate also effects the life cycle of pest in
turn set off new variety of disease and pest. These new perils add to the challenge ofalready existing food security further becoming hazardous to both plants and human health.
Flood prone zones face increasing manifestation of water borne diseases. The new pest or
vector originates which is climatic receptive. Initially the new change in cycle is out of thegrasp of humans. By the time the adaptive nature of pest and diseases is understood, its
impact is already severe on the crops. The crop loses its nutritional value and has direct
effect on human health after consumption of food. Any detrition on human health increases
the burden on care givers within household, usually its women in developing countries who
have to face this extra burden. Due to climate change Malaria is one disease in particularwhich is expected to alter its dissemination. With rise in sea level, coastal area is138

experiencing flood like situation which further leads to exposure of vector- and water-borne
diseases. Change in precipitation pattern can also be linked with change in diseases.
Health risks is increased as people’s capability to utilize food decreases as proper
nutritional intake is absent (IPCC, 2007).3
Effect of Multi-National Corporations
With globalization, Multinational Corporations (MNCs) have increased rapidly. This
acceleration can be tracked to last decade or so. The number of mergers and procurementsthat have taken place globally is high. Multinational entrepreneurial attentiveness has viablelead, there are sequences of risk associated due to their colossal size and power. One
such risk which follows from these enterprises is the new environment where they operate.
This new environment possesses the challenges which are in form of mainly legal andcultural. (Lozano and Boni, 2002). The reason MNCs are so competent at directing
production in the global structure is the international structure which has made MNCs really
adaptive and profit oriented. (Perlmutter, 1972). These features are why supremacy ischanging from countries to market bodies (Kobrin, 1998). Regardless of the reality thatlarge corporations are self-regulating performers, operative in the disparities of state-tostate affairs, the concept that home states’ uses MNCs as tool in their foreign policy anddiplomacy becomes much clearer. (Walters 1972).
Maximum host countries look forward to foreign direct investment (FDI) from MNCs.
FDI is an important prospect for incorporating their economies into the international arenaand endorsing their financial growth. These nations find that FDI promotes development
through a range of methods, such as of providing added health coverage more than thedomestic establishments to growing research and development in their own native
countries (Erdilek 2003). For several emerging economies FDI acts as a protagonist in
growth, and incorporating the country`s market into the international market. Multinational
companies’ influence has increased with global capitalization and shifting base from place
to place around the world without respecting geographical boundaries and they haveaccomplishments in developing countries owed to appropriate conditions for their growth.
Globalization should be considered last stride of economic dominance system by
instrument of MNCs throughout the globe by private enterprise which is sensed in thismodern stage of development intensely. Boundless investment frameworks of capitalistic
society and its purpose for economic progress fastens the complications globally. As an
outcome there is no spotting of social developments and justice. As end result of this profit
making philosophy, we are experiencing environmental complications and the swiftness ofenvironment's exploitation has been augmented. Though interestingly there exist no
admission of the accountabilities of loss and societal strategies in the transnational
markets. The global capitalistic economies and multinationals lay down the guidelines as
there is no accountability for environmental pollution or natural ownership damage which isan outcome of their environment polluting deeds. The argument or the understanding
reason for this is that it’s the duty of home government to safeguard and to improve theecosystem. Bestowing to this impression, protecting and advancing the surroundings havebeen providing open use for public and community facility. Therefore, civic convenience isthe obligation of the government.
Multinational Corporations and Environmentally Friendly Privileges: The War Within
Environmental rights theme, acknowledged as rights of third generation, is to safeguard thenature and to foster it. Those who have this privilege of ecological rights are those whohave obligation to these rights and should also be one to bring about its use. The
inhabitants who practice these privilege and who carry the accountabilities of these rights
are usually the same people. These group of people not only comprises people but also
general public and distinctive organizations comprising group of people and states. In thisset of circumstances, all the right holders who possess the rights to exist in a nourishing
and well poised natural world are obligated to safeguard and renovate the ecologicalsystem at the same time, counting the large corporations. Each single economic endeavor139

has a consequence on the natural surroundings. The actions of Multinational corporations
are basically based in the important sectors like petro-chemical, coal, gold mining andindustry like food. Any business related to these sectors does leave an impact onenvironment all around the globe especially in the developing world. So it becomes
important to understand why MNCs choose these countries to invest. We need toconcentrate on two reasons for answering this question. Firstly, it is about the laws which
exist in developing countries which are very flexible and can be molded time to time withnew requirements. Secondly it is all about the people who are not much aware about theconsequences to happen on their natural surroundings. If the initial ruling hadn't beencorrect, the events in principally infesting zones wouldn't have been bound for to the nations
where l laws in environment are elastic. Also, the public basic understanding in these lessinformative countries does not have adequate information in this area of environment
issues and significance of natural system. There has been considerable development inthis regard and much more awareness has been created in recent times. If local people ofhost countries find MNCs polluting or degrading the environment, then they are ready totake the challenge and stand up against it. Standing against the giant MNCs may not gowell with the government but then it becomes necessary to take such steps. Then again
these countries are caught in vicious circle of paying their debts so to this burden to pay
back not much devotion is paid to the environmental flaws of the actions and allow the large
alien corporations to resume their business in local environment. Consequently,
multinational companies are ineffective in partaking environmental accountability in theemerging countries (Akyildiz, 2006).
The Concern with the Industrialisation of Agriculture
What we all have always learned is that agriculture sector and business houses have bytradition been considered as two distinct zones, both in relationship of their features andtheir part in economic progression. Agriculture has remained the trademark of the principal
platform of progression which acts as a feeder even though the mark of industrial
development has been accepted to be the utmost significant pointer of a nation’s
advancement along the development course. Besides, the appropriate approach forevolution has habitually been perceived as essentially slow but sure transference fromfarming to industry, through the burden on crop growing to fund the alteration in the firstphase. But now new trend has emerged as agriculture sector has become itself an industrial
sector where huge MNCs have penetrated their tentacles to reap any profit, even stake ishigh as depriving future generation of theirs right to food. This has supposed that theutilization of funds in agricultural sector has turn out to be progressively receptive to market
potencies and more and more incorporated in the system of industrializedinterdependencies.
On the other hand, it is turning out to be all the more challenging to postulate aclear-cut distinction of what is supposed to be deemed an agro-industrial action. The
bearing of modernization choices and novel knowhow puts forward a broadening choice ofagro-industry inputs that may perhaps be contemplated, together with biotechnological andsynthetic produces, for case in point. This infers that agro based industry at present persists
to process green agrarian goods despite the fact that it similarly is altering vastly hi-techmechanized inputs. They regularly provide an outcome of sizable means in research,machinery and invention. The usage of the new modus operandi, comprising genetic
engineering is questionable. It has been criticized immensely for its contentious
methodology owing to deficiency of facts and data of the hazards involved. It envisions
putting forward advanced products, procedures and provisions through wide-ranging
agrarian and industrialized quarters. The promoters of these practices foresee that thedeveloping nations will gain substantial benefits as this portion of the globe experiences
high scarceness and starvation. What is predicted is not merely food shortage but also
major ecological concerns. The skeptical experts to this innovation expresses thesubstantial socioeconomic consequences and shortcomings biotechnology may well bringabout particularly for the deprived segments of the populace.
140

Monsanto: A Ruthless Exploitation in Developing Countries
MNCs impact on environment is immense. All the resources are extracted and further moreenvironment is polluted by MNCs all over the world. One major sector which is facing thewrath of MNCs is agricultural sector. Where MNC like Monsanto have put their foot hold incontrolling everything. Monsanto today operating nearly every part of world is the biggest
producers of GM crops. It has been advocating GM crops for fighting hunger all over theworld. Monsanto claims that its GMOs can reduce world hunger. This daring claim is muchto the contradiction of the non-profit union of concerned scientist who says that GM crops
are unsustainable and poor countries cannot afford Monsanto products. The seed control
by Monsanto over India and across the world becomes cause of concern. It is under theidea of advancing technology where Monsanto tries to hide its real motive of controlling theseeds through patents and intellectual rights. Seed is the source of life which makes it thefirst link in the food chain. By any means one has control over seed then simply the chain
is controlled by that entity. In this case that entity is Monsanto who control life, particularlythat the life of farmers.
Conclusion
The claim by Monsanto sounds absurd when it says that with its GMO crops is way tofighting world hunger. To end hunger, we must transform the food system. Changing theworld food system is hauling the whole process and starting the new one. This has a direct
impact on how we produce and how consumption takes place. Most importantly, thedecision making process is impacted. It causes the balance of power to shift leading toalteration at mass level. This new shift in paradigm is already taking place as decision overfood is being made i.e. how food needs to be produced, where to be produced, how
distribution has to take place and how does it reach the majority of the masses. Foodsovereignty talks about bringing a change which promotes economic and social change
together. It deprives business oriented corporations of their motive of controlling the foodsupply. Importantly it shifts power back into the people`s hand, this structural change iscreated. Local farmers have the rights to take decision over the agricultural activities rather
from the people sitting in the board rooms of multinational corporations. The question thatarises now is how much governments are willing around the world to take such steps which
may disappoint large corporations who brings huge amount of FDI into the host countries.
If governments show such will then food sovereignty can be established and at the sametime war against hunger can also be fought hand in hand (Holt-Giménez, 2009).
Corporations like Monsanto have to put their hand up in making the world better place tolive. They may argue the advancement they are making in biotechnology is for the world.
But they cannot ignore the implications of the usage of this advancement. They cannot
control research in genetically engineering of a plant and publish positive result about it.
What is essential is to understand the places where they invest, the kind of cultural society
it is. What impact will it have on the lives of people of that region and will they be able toadapt to crafted policies of these corporations.
References
1. Akyildiz, F., (2006). The failure of multinational companies in developing countries in sharing
environmental responsibilities: The case of Turkey. Social Responsibility Journal, 2(2), pp.142150.
2. Alam, G., (1996). Biotechnology, agriculture and developing countries. Economic and Political
Weekly, pp.703-704.
3. Bergsten, C.F., (1973). The Multinational Firm: Bane or Boon? Discussion. Journal of
Finance, 28(2), pp.457-462.
4. Carpenter, S.R., Mooney, H.A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., DeFries, R.S., Díaz, S., Dietz, T.,
Duraiappah, A.K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H.M. and Perrings, C., (2009). Science formanaging ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 106(5), pp.1305-1312.IPC
5. Christmann, P., (2004). Multinational companies and the natural environment: Determinants ofglobal environmental policy. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), pp.747-760.

141

6. DaSilva, E.J., Baydoun, E. and Badran, A., (2002). Biotechnology and the developingworld. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology, 5(1), pp.1-2.
7. Erdilek, A., (2003). A comparative analysis of inward and outward FDI in Turkey. Transnational
corporations, 12(3), pp.79-106.
8. Fao.org. (2020). Climate Change Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
[online] Available at: <http://www.fao.org/climate-change/en/> [Accessed 9 February 2020].
9. Fao.org. (2020). FAO - News Article: World Hunger Is Still Not Going Down After Three Years
andObesityIs
Still
Growing–UN
Report.
[online]Availableat:<http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1200484/icode/> [Accessed 24 December 2020].
10. Glass-O'Shea, B., (2011). The history and future of genetically modified crops: Franken foods,
super weeds, and the developing world. J. Food L. & Pol'y, 7, p.1.
11. Glover, D., (2007). Monsanto and smallholder farmers: A case study in CSR. Third World
Quarterly, 28(4), pp.851-867.
12. Gupta, A., (200)2. Ensuring ‘Safe Use ‘of Biotechnology: Key Challenges. Economic andPolitical weekly, pp.2762-2769.
13. Hadari, Y., (1973). The Structure of the Private Multinational Enterprise. Michigan Law
Review, 71(4), pp.729-806.
14. Holt-Giménez, E., (2009). From food crisis to food sovereignty: the challenge of social
movements. Monthly Review, 61(3), p.142.
15. Kalen, S., (2011). Agriculture, food, and environmental policy. Nat. Resources & Env't, 26, p.3.
16. Kleinman, D.L. and Kloppenburg, J., (1991), September. Aiming for the discursive high ground:Monsanto and the biotechnology controversy. In Sociological Forum (Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 427447). Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers.
17. Kobrin, S.J., (2009). Sovereignty@ bay: Globalization, multinational enterprise, and theinternational political system. The Oxford Handbook of International Business (2 ed.).
18. Kogut, B. and Kulatilaka, N., (1994). Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option
value of a multinational network. Management science, 40(1), pp.123-139.
19. Lerche, J., (2007). A global alliance against forced labour? Unfree labour, neo‐liberal
globalization and the International Labour Organization. Journal of Agrarian Change, 7(4),pp.425-452.
20. Lozano, J.F. and Boni, A., (2002). The impact of the multinational in the development: An ethicalchallenge. Journal of Business Ethics, 39(1-2), pp.169-178.
21. McClymont, M., (2011). The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Politics, and Power. An
Investigation into One of the World's Most Controversial Companies. MM. Robin (2008).
Publisher: Spinifex, Melbourne, Australia. ISBN: 9781876756833. pp 373. Australian Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 27(2), pp.255-255.
22. Moran, T., Graham, E.M. and Blomström, M. eds., (2005). Does foreign direct investment
promote development? Columbia University Press
23. Perlmutter, H.V., (1972). The multinational firm and the future. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 403(1), pp.139-152.
24. Pray, C.E., (2001). Public-private sector linkages in research and development: Biotechnology
and the seed industry in Brazil, China and India. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 83(3), pp.742-747.
25. Shah, A., (2002). Corporations and the Environment. Global Issues.
26. Shiva, V., 1991. The violence of the green revolution: third world agriculture, ecology andpolitics. Zed Books.
27. Solomon, S., (2007). IPCC (2007): Climate change the physical science basis. AGUFM, 2007,
pp. U43D-01.
28. Walters, R.S., (1972). International Organizations and the Multinational Corporation: An
Overview and Observations. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 403(1), pp.127-138.
29. Zepeda, J.F., (2006). Coexistence, genetically modified biotechnologies and biosafety:
implications for developing countries. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(5),pp.1200-1208.

.

142