1.​ The company Monsanto bears much of the blame for the farmers' suicides.
Throughout the documentary, many farmers and even village head blamed
their poor yields on the failures of the Bt cotton. It was heralded as the crop
that would single-handedly lead farmers to prosperity. Bt cotton is genetically
modified to prevent diseases or pests from destroying the plants. Salesmen
of the new seeds persuaded farmers to adopt them on a large scale. This
allowed the company to monopolize the seed market and had over an 80%
market share. Farmers no longer used regular, non-GM cotton because they
were lured into believing they could make money through these crops. The
cotton farmers had been using for thousands of years, which only needed
cow dung, was replaced by a much more demanding crop financially. Due to
the hefty investments needed to grow the new type of cotton, many farmers
were left in greater poverty than before. They couldn't even take out bank
loans and had to turn to predatory moneylenders who took ownership of their
land. Bt cotton is meant for industrial farms who are able to effectively irrigate
and fertilize the plants, but it was advertised to the rural farmers to increase
Monsanto's profit, as seen by the rapid revenue growth over 5 years. They
were not able to sustain the demands that come with the plant and could only
rely on rain to water the cotton, which rarely came. They also dealt with mealy
bugs which ravaged the harvest and led to barely any harvestable crops. This
led to a sense of despair for the farmers and led to numerous suicides. In
addition, the farmers have to compete with cotton growers from other
countries such as the US, who in particular subsidize the farmers to keep the
farms afloat. I think that the problem can be solved if the farmers advocate for
different types of cotton and the government gets rid of Bt cotton or restricts it
to industrial farms. The farmers suffer from the steep demands of the new
strain and it does not deliver on the promises that they were given. If farmers
were able to grow their own cotton and even develop their own breeds, they
could reduce their reliance on pesticides and expensive equipment, ultimately
improving their financial stability and autonomy.
2.​ The Guardian article attributes the rise in farmer suicides to the pressure by
the IMF and World Bank to make India open its economy. This allowed seed
companies to monopolize the seed business and make their cotton the norm
for agriculture. Farmers switched from diverse crops to using Bt cotton due to
the promises by the company that it would create higher yields and make
them more money. However, the new seeds were much more demanding
than the original ones. They had to be watered more often and needed
special fertilizer and pesticides. The farmers were unable to afford the
expensive materials and were left in debt because of it. The Mother Jones
article attributes the suicides to the reliance on loans to pay for chemicals and
machinery. While the new cotton variant did lead to higher yields, this was
only true for those who could afford to irrigate and fertilize the cotton. For the
smaller farms, which made up a majority of farmed cotton, it was not
financially feasible. This led to unpayable debts, which led to the farmers'
suicides. The Monsanto article wholly attributes the deaths to Indian culture
and their lack of infrastructure for farming. They do not take any blame for the
control they have over the seed market, which is a large reason why the
yields were so bad for the farmers.
3.​ I find the Guardian article the most convincing of an explanation for the
farmers' suicides. The article delves into the history of how India was
pressured to open itself to trade and allowed the various GM seed companies
to become extremely powerful, namely Monsanto. Originally, farmers in India
grew diverse, organic crops, but were coerced into adopting GM seeds,
requiring expensive fertilizers and equipment they couldn’t afford. This shift
forced dependence on cash crops like cotton instead of food grains, making
farmers vulnerable to debt and lower prices. This, coupled with the drop in the
price of cotton, led to many farmers being in debt to moneylenders and being
unable to pay the debt back due to diminished crop yields. They also didn't
realize that the pests could become resistant to the chemicals, leading to an
even bigger agricultural disaster.
4.​ I find the Monsanto article the least convincing. The article does not address
the fact that it almost wholly controls the agricultural market. This allows them
to promote their strain of cotton and force out the organic seeds that had
worked previously. They also forced them to use special fertilizers and
pesticides, which many rural farmers simply could not afford. They were also
coerced to only grow a single type of crop, which was dangerous for when
cotton sold for less than usual. While it is true that the crop yields were better,
it was only for those who could afford to have all the requirements that Bt
cotton needed to grow.
5.​ While the solution is a step in the right direction, it falls short of addressing
the broader issues. There are hundreds of millions of farmers in India and the
insurance could not cover all of them if the crop fails. The government also
should have encouraged the diversification of crops to reduce reliance on a
single crop and avoid market or environmental risks. Additionally, it should
have held Monsanto accountable for monopolistic practices and misleading
advertising, which caused widespread financial and emotional distress with
their unreliable seeds.
6.​ We should value the sustainability of the people because they are the
foundation of every nation. In the case of India, the farmers were crushed by
debt and misleading practices by Monsanto. Had they not been targeted by
large corporations, there would not have been nearly as many suicides due to
poor crop yields. In addition, overfarming and lack of crop diversity can lead
to the soil becoming unfarmable. This will also harm the planet's sustainability
since the soil is essentially useless for anything to grow. The sustainability of
the environment is inherently linked to the sustainability of the people. If we
don't emphasize clean energy practices, people will suffer in the future. This
is connected to the economy since many companies opt for short-term gains
rather than long-term. This leads to neglect for those who may be affected by
it, including both people and the environment.​
If companies were to engage in sustainable and nonpredatory practices, they
would have more support from people. According to Coolset, the three pillars
of sustainability are people, planet, and profit. Without the consent of people,
including both the community and the employees, the company cannot run.
Likewise, if environmental conditions render the planet uninhabitable,
companies would have no purpose either. While profit allows the economy to
grow, it ultimately depends on the well-being of people and the planet to
maintain long-term stability.