































:::::: 

 
184 

Monsanto and Caribbean Agricultural Politics 
Mark Chatarpal  

 
Mark Chatarpal is currently studying at the University of Toronto. With a love for his 
country Guyana, Mark has maintained strong connections with his home, family and 
friends. In addition to his studies, Mark does small-scale community based 
development in Guyana and Roriama, Brazil. 

 .   

 

  

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

In the past, sovereignty was normally portrayed as the duo 

between competing states over the possession of land. As land 

acquisition occurred, states ensured that food production increased. 

In recent times however the game has changed. Instead of states 

maintaining sovereignty over food production, multinational 

companies have monopolized this arena and as a result have 

acquired great influence over smaller underdeveloped states Large 

North American based multinational companies (MNCs) continue 

their onslaught on the global south by underdeveloping the region 

through the control of the global food supply. The result is that 

“underdeveloped” states are robbed of the ability to sustain and feed 

themselves. The greed of the capitalist North actively ensures that 

peoples of the South become and remain dependant on them for 

survival. It is in light of this situation that the sovereignty of smaller 

states and their capacity to produce food independently - away from 

the influence of the North warrants scrutiny. 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

185 

Within this context, my research will focus on food 

sovereignty beginning with situating the discussion in a regional 

framework and then broadening the analysis to a global context with 

a specific case to illustrate the arguments in this paper. In particular, 

this paper will discuss Monsanto and its links to the Caribbean, 

focusing on MNC’s connection and influence over the agricultural 

political arena. In short, I aim to outline how Monsanto and 

Caribbean agricultural politics are inter-related. By inter-related, I 

mean to highlight, expose and theorize how specifically an American 

based multinational corporation managed to garner hegemonic 

influence not only over Latin and South America, but also over the 

Caribbean and its current inroads into Guyana. 

 To facilitate this analysis, this report has been divided into 

seven sections.  Firstly, a brief history of Monsanto will be given  in 

order to discuss the connection between Monsanto and Caribbean 

agricultural politics This section will also attempt to address some 

initial questions such as: Who are the primary owners of this 

corporation and how are they interconnected with the interests of 

the U.S.A? What is the company’s involvement in deterring holistic 

development within smaller countries and also the effects of their 

business practices? Building upon this foundation, the essay will 

outline Monsanto’s unethical gene patenting practices of various 

plant species from around the globe, specifically addressing the ways 

in which   Monsanto is actively involved in the process of attempting 

to establish global ownership of seeds such as rice, corn and soy.  

Looking at the effect of these   detrimental practices t , this paper will 

juxtapose the effect and impact of seed patenting in India,     to the 

company’s current expansion of their agro-empire into the 

Caribbean. 

 To properly ascertain the susceptibility of the agriculture 

sector within the Caribbean,   highlighting the current state of food 

security within the region is essential.  Why does Monsanto view the 

Caribbean as ‘ripe for the picking’? Through an analysis of a case 

study of a small village in Guyana, this paper will address the 

question above by I highlighting the indirect influence of Monsanto 

within a Caribbean context. The aim here is to stress the negative 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

186 

ramifications this MNC along with USAID has on a micro scale. .  

This section will also include a critique of the government of 

Guyana’s approach to food sovereignty, their official position on 

Monsanto, and their contradictory practices within the local 

economy. As an aside, obtaining information these contradictions 

came at a high price and so this section will also be utilized to briefly 

discuss the threats that I faced while gathering data for my research.   

The final portion of this essay will discuss alternative ways 

of developing the agriculture sector, away from the claws of MNCs 

such as Monsanto Following this, the   MNCs current involvement in 

the Caribbean and South America will be addressed in order to   

explain why Brazil is being regarded by Monsanto as their launch 

pad for hegemonic agro-domination throughout Latin America and 

the Caribbean.  Importantly, the aim is to address the connection 

between the U.S government and Monsanto Corp in order to 

illustrate how this partnership instrumental in suppressing the 

socialist revolution occurring in Venezuela. The paper will conclude 

with a discussion of some of the policies that President Hugo Chavez 

has implemented in a bid to maintain sovereignty and to rid his 

country of capitalist control. 

___________________________ 

A Concise History of Monsanto Corp 

 

“…be mindful of those who say, ‘we are here to help you’…”- Arnold Itwaru (A. H. 

Itwaru) 

John F. Queeny initially founded Monsanto Corp in 1901; at 

that time the company primarily focused on producing artificial 

sweetener, which was used to bolster sugar-based products. During 

this decade the price of raw sugar fluctuated both in the U.S and in 

the Caribbean since both regions were enduring the tail end of the 

slave abolition movement (Beckles and Shepherd 460). Thus, the 

company profited enormously from the decline in plantation sugar.  



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

187 

Notably, sixty years later, during the period of the Vietnam 

war, Monsanto had become strongly affiliated with the U.S 

government.  The peoples of Vietnam were fighting tooth and nail to 

fend off the U.S invasion of their homeland. American historians 

would never concede to the fact that during this time their troops 

were becoming increasingly demoralized due to the tenacious 

resistance mounted by the Vietnamese National Liberation Front 

(NLF). Indeed, in 1961 Monsanto was commissioned by the U.S 

military to produce a specific herbicide called ‘Roundup’ to counter 

this tenacity. 

  Along with other countless forms of genocidal, destructive 

tactics, the U.S decided to attack the NLF’s food supply by spraying 

Roundup relentlessly over thousands of acres of Vietnamese villages, 

crops and jungle. This pesticide was branded ‘Agent Orange’ by U.S 

troops during the commencement of operation ‘Ranch Hand’. The 

results were disturbing; hundreds of thousands of innocent 

Vietnamese peoples died due to severe poisoning of their food and 

even more horrifying were the multitudes of children born with birth 

defects1. Rough estimates figure around over five hundred thousand 

children being born with major defects - all as a direct result of 

contact with Roundup while in the womb (Ruppert, 2011). Though 

the ramifications of Roundup still persist in present day Vietnam, 

Monsanto has never offered an explanation or an apology for their 

actions. On the contrary, the company’s website offers a well-

phrased organizational statement emphasizing the integrity, 

transparency and respect it has for the community (Monsanto Corp, 

2006).  

 To date, the company is now ranked as a Fortune 500 

company and employs 21,035 employees worldwide, with over 404 

facilities in 66 countries (Monsanto Corp, 2006). With a multibillion 

dollar profit margin the company continues to genetically modify the 

genes of several plant and animal species.  For the purposes of this 

essay, the focus will be on genetically modified crops (GM crops)  as 

                                                           
1 Images 1&2 provided at the end of this section 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

188 

these crops are capable of resisting Roundup pesticides and give 

much larger yields than average. 

Such hefty financial growth did not come without severe 

consequences. Numerous lawsuits continue to be filed, most focusing 

on transgenic contamination (which will be specifically discussed 

later  on in this essay) and  local farmers shared experience  of  their 

crops becoming cross-pollinated with Monsanto’s GM crops. Other 

lawsuits tackle the bullying tactics Monsanto implements to force 

local farmers, both within North America and around the world to 

use their GM seeds.  

 In 2010, computer software giant, Bill Gates, made an 

unprecedented move by purchasing 500,000 shares of Monsanto 

stock through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Purchasing 

such a large percentage of the company brought further notoriety to 

the Gates Foundation. What is significant about this purchase was 

the unification of two ideologies which must be discussed. 

 The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest private 

charity in the world. The foundation has billions of dollars at its 

disposal, which far exceeds the GDP of some small countries. Bill 

Gates, like his father, has been a strong believer and propagator of 

eugenics.2  On the basis of this ideology, Gates approach to 

philanthropic work is extremely paternalistic; he largely views the 

world’s population is in need of guidance and that citizens of the 

Global South are incapable of feeding themselves. Following this line 

of reasoning the responsibility of ensuring that there is enough food 

to feed the growing population falls upon the shoulders of Western 

powers who portray themselves as the benevolent, gracious nations. 

(Gates, 2012). Needless to say, Gates’ ideology could be categorized 

as nothing less than a preposterous idiosyncrasy and nothing more 

than a hypocritical facade (Zizek 2011, 240). Regardless, Gates’ 

eugenics ideology coupled with Monsanto’s genetic manipulation of 

                                                           
2 Eugenics is the selective breeding of certain traits in human populations as a 

method of proposed human improvement; some view it as the self-directed 

human evolution (Merriam-Webster 248) 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

189 

plants reveals a very important aspect of humanitarian aid work.  It 

reveals that behind the charitable façade, there are many extremely 

problematic programs and strategies at work intended to maintain 

dependency so as to facilitate the continued exploitation of the global 

South.       

It is commonly known that the Gates foundation does the 

bulk of its charity work within Africa and India as evidenced by 

constant bombardment of news relaying the foundations’ hefty 

donations to people in lesser-developed countries (LDCs). These 

donations come in the form of dry and canned goods, water filtration 

facilities and more notably seeds (Gates, 2012). What the foundation 

fails to mention is where these food are sourced from and more 

importantly, the type of seeds given out by the Gates Foundation. 

Needless to say, Monsanto’s GM seeds are freely distributed to 

peoples in the global south which in turn contributes to s threatening 

the remnants of independent agrarian societies. In short, the Bill and 

Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s largest private charity, single 

handedly distributes Monsanto GM seeds in the form of aid to 

foreign countries. This type of aid not only destroys the recipient 

country’s agrarian economy, it deepens the country’s reliance on 

food supply from the North, particularly from the U.S. 

 In addition to creating this dependency which has ultimately 

contributed  to stunting the development of the global south, recent 

evidence has surfaced exposing Monsanto Corp as the new owner of 

the renowned mercenary group Blackwater now called Xe Solutions 

(Ribeiro,). The confluence of the Bill Gates foundation, Monsanto 

Corp and Xe Solutions illustrates an imperialist murderous mode of 

reasoning which concludes that the only way to save peoples of the 

south is to force them into total compliance ( Itwaru, 2011). With the 

Gates Foundation as the face, Monsanto Corp as the brain 

developing the seeds of destruction, and Xe Solutions providing the 

muscle and intelligence, this unholy trinity is a perfect manifestation 

of a new type of imperialism - corporate imperialism. To make 

matters worse, Monsanto Corp (Gates Foundation & Xe Solutions 

included) is now close allies with The United States Agency for 

International Development (USAID). USAID is by and large a direct 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

190 

extension of U.S imperialism. As a result, this link between 

Monsanto Corp and USAID p means that countries who accept aid 

from the U.S. are also directly allowing Monsanto Corp access to 

their agricultural sector. 

 With such imperialist systemic practices at play, developing 

countries in the global south stand little to no chance at withstanding 

such an onslaught. However, there are some countries which have 

been successful in resisting and repelling Monsanto Corp altogether: 

Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti and Zimbabwe to name a few.  The case of 

Haiti will be discussed later in detail. In the case of Zimbabwe, 

despite being a victim of  ‘Aid-bombs’ (I use this phrase to emphasize 

the type of aid forcefully placed upon the peoples of Zimbabwe) and   

ladened with unnecessary sanctions, Zimbabwe has managed to 

survive without the help of the U.S. This does not mean that the U.S 

has actively stopped attempting to undermine Zimbabwe’s 

agriculture sector by dropping large quantities of Monsanto GM corn 

in key areas of the country. Rather, that the people of Zimbabwe 

recognize these tactics of neo-imperialism and continue to destroy 

whatever vestiges remain of ‘Aid-bombs’ found within their country. 

_________________________ 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Image 1: Picture of deformed Vietnamese children due to their mothers being exposed to 

Monsanto’s, ‘Roundup’ pesticide (Google Image).  



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

191 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 2: A Vietnamese man who was doused directly with ‘Agent Orange’ also known as 

‘Roundup’ (Google Image). 

Monsanto’s Business Practices 

“…to achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding 

soldiers. All they need is to control is food production…” Frederick Engdahal 

(Engdahl 2007, 74) 

   What gives Monsanto Corp the right to patent plant species 

from around the globe? By patent I mean the exclusive right to own 

and market specific plant genes. Moreover, when was this practice 

instigated and in what ways have governing authorities been kept 

neutral? In order to address these critical questions, a concise 

outline of the emergence of biotechnology and patenting practices 

must be given. 

 Near the end of the 1980’s, the Dag Hammarskjold 

Foundation held a biotechnology meeting entitled, “Laws of Life”. 

This meeting addressed emerging issues of genetic engineering and 

patenting, making it abundantly clear that giant companies such as 

Monsanto were rebranding themselves as companies of the “life 

sciences”, whose goal was to control the world’s agriculture through 

patents, genetic engineering, and mergers between companies. 

Further, changes included aggressively collecting plant seeds from 

around the globe and manipulating their properties in order to claim 

‘ownership’ of these plant species. This process of comodification 

results in farmers not being allowed to keep  Monsanto’s GM seeds  



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

192 

for replanting which results in  farmers continually having to re-

purchase seed to sow. This means that  farmers  are consistently 

dependent on Monsanto for seeds and fertilizer with little 

opportunity to seek a transactional relationship elsewhere (Shiva, 

Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and 

Biotechnology 1993, 25-29). 

 Every developing country (with the exception of Cuban and 

Venezuela) is forced to adhere to the WTO’s rules and regulations in 

order participate in the global trading arena.. Part of this trade 

agreement    requires that governments enforce of seed patent laws. 

This means that smaller countries are bullied into accepting 

patenting laws in order to generate economies of scale. In short, the 

entire framework of the World Trade Organization is designed to 

allow large MNCs such as Monsanto to penetrate foreign agro-

markets, rendering them totally dependent on the North for food 

supply. Indeed, this predatory practice is not only backed by the 

WTO, but also by the U.S constitution, (which renders a corporation 

as a singular entity) .This relationship has ensured that these 

corporations are protected and not liable for persecution   in any 

court, whether foreign or domestic. 

 To further elaborate this point, analysis of Monsanto’s 

dealings in India can be utilized to illustrate some of the specific 

tactics that Monsanto uses in order to gain control over food 

production.  India’s agricultural sector has suffered the most prior to 

their resistance against Monsanto. Due its wide array of soils, 

climates and large variety of plants, India is globally known for its 

large variety of staple crops. The peoples of the Himalayan 

Mountains eat several types of cereal grains, whereas the inhabitants 

in the western region use millet and those in Eastern India consume 

primarily rice and fish. This illustrates that each region has a specific 

set of dietary habits, unique to each sub-culture (Shiva 2000, 21)). 

Monsanto Corp realized the opportunity   of patenting the majority 

of these plants as a means by which to establish any tangible control 

over the world’s food market.  



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

193 

 Through direct and indirect links (NGOs, primarily the Bill 

& Melinda Gates foundation and USAID), Monsanto began selling 

the idea of ‘higher production yields’ to the Indian government. In an 

attempt to compete on the global arena, the Indian government 

quickly capitulated and offered large tax breaks to Monsanto to 

conduct research and development within their country (Somerville 

and Santoni 1993, 347). From a political viewpoint, the Indian 

government could then claim that their country was friendly to 

foreign investment and charitable development, while Monsanto 

could demonstrate their prerogative to help impoverished peoples of 

the global south (Shiva et al 2003, 47).  

 In reality, what such development meant was the 

agricultural enslavement of local Indian farmers. In this context the 

term farmers, encompass the vast majority of Indian men and 

women who were coerced into abandoning their intergenerational 

crops for Monsanto GM seeds. Local farmers were promised vast 

returns for planting GM seeds, unbeknownst to them that these 

seeds contained ‘terminator technology’ which systematically cross 

pollinated with nearby crops and genetically altering them during 

the pollination process. In short, once farmers began planting GM 

seeds, whatever alternative crops existed before were destroyed once 

they pollinated with Monsanto seeds. This process is called 

‘transgenic contamination’.  

 This meant that farmers were now forced to plant only 

Monsanto seeds, since their alternating crops were mutating and 

unable to grow properly. To make matters worse, from the profits 

earned from their harvest, farmers were forced to continually 

repurchase fresh seeds to plant, instead of their intergenerational 

practices of saving their best seeds for the next year. What this 

translated to was further impoverishment of the peoples of India. 

Farmers mostly males committed suicide since they were unable to 

bear the strain of single crop-profit dependency. Women were now 

left to fend for themselves and their children; those who owned land 

were forced to sell to larger farmers since they were unable to till the 

soil. Some women went into prostitution, their children were either 

forced to join them or roam the streets in search of work. These are 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

194 

only but a few examples of the irresponsible practices by Monsanto 

Corp, which single-handedly disrupted a thousand year 

intergenerational practice of saving seeds, and also by transgenic 

contamination of native plant species.  

Vandana Shiva, a world-renowned activist, propagates the 

right of freedom of seed for all which articulates that no company 

should be allowed the right to patent any plant. Moreover, her work 

with the local farmers within India garnered her national respect and 

admiration (Shiva, Manifesto on the future of seeds). Therefore, 

Shiva was able to mount the largest resistance within India against 

Monsanto Corp. Due to large civil outcry; the Indian government 

eventually capitulated and slapped Monsanto with a ban on their 

patenting practices. However, some reports still show that Monsanto 

still secretly collects plant samples from the region (Shiva, Stolen 

Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global food supply 75). 

Not only is India severely affected; Mexico also experienced 

transgenic contamination, specifically with their corn species. 

Mexico is the global motherland of corn species. Their farmers rear 

the purest strains of corn, which up until recently, studies have 

shown that Monsanto GM seeds from the U.S have already begun 

cross pollinating with several Mexican strains. To date, a growing 

number of Mexican farmers and agricultural authorities are 

increasingly worried. Studies show within ten to fifteen years the 

majority, if not all of Mexico’s indigenous intergenerational strains 

will be tainted by Monsanto terminator GM seeds (Image & 

Compagnie, Productions). 

The majority of the world’s specimens of rice, cotton and 

legumes all originate from India. This is important to note since 

seeds for rice, eggplants, okra, bora and squash among others were 

brought across the Atlantic by indentured laborers to my specific 

case study of Guyana. Thus in a way, India was the source, the 

motherland, for a majority of crops within the Caribbean.  

Why do Latin & South America and the Caribbean seem to 

be the next major target market for Monsanto? More specifically, 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

195 

how does the Caribbean fit into the company’s agro-empire 

expansion plan? In order to address these questions, one must 

consider the history of Caribbean mono-crop dependency, moreover, 

how the state of food security within the Caribbean is currently at its 

weakest. 

_____________________________ 

The State of Food Security in the Caribbean 

“…I am asked ‘where is imperialism’, just look into your plates: you see imported 

corn, rice or millet. This is imperialism, let’s not look any further…”- Thomas 

Sankara (Sankara 62) 

The Caribbean has a long history of mono-crop dependency, 

where most countries within the region earned the majority of their 

GDP through the growth of a specific crop. During colonialism the 

imperial powers constructed the Caribbean to be the sugar bowl, 

tobacco pouch, coffee shop and rum supplier of the world. The 

region was designed in this way to primarily produce sugar, tobacco, 

coffee and a variety of by-products associated with these three staple 

crops (Weis 185). 

 During the independence era, Caribbean economies were 

faced with the looming task of generating foreign exchange since 

their markets were now forced to compete on the global arena. In 

order to rectify the problem, St Lucian economist Arthur Lewis came 

up with the idea of ‘Industrialization by Invitation’. The crux of his 

argument implied that most states within the region were 

dangerously reliant on agricultural production; it was urgent that 

states began to diversify their production. This meant that a massive 

shift away from agriculture production was in order. 

 Lewis theorized that the only way to diversify production 

was through an immediate injection of foreign cash. He propagated 

the need for Caribbean states to openly invite foreign investors into 

their countries. In short, the imperial powers never really left the 

Caribbean - the system only recalibrated itself and created a new 

framework in which to operate. Whether Lewis was naive or coerced 

by foreign powers to create such dependency theories remains a 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

196 

mystery. The important fact to consider, however, was that most 

heads of state within the Caribbean with the exception of: Cheddi 

Jagan, Michael Manley, Fidel Castro and Maurice Bishop, willingly 

complied. This was due to their trained dependence on foreign 

assistance. By trained, I mean the ongoing mythology of the West as 

civilized, contrasted with the Caribbean in need of their ‘help’. This 

mindset allowed foreign powers, particularly financial institutions, to 

implement crippling policies which further underdeveloped the 

region. 

 Violence is articulated in a number of different ways and in 

the context of the Caribbean we can see how potently systemic it is. 

The foreign powers knew that in post-independent Caribbean, any 

type of continual military invasion would have incurred severe 

resistance within the region. It was important for this reason to keep 

the region under control subtly through financial means. When the 

price of oil skyrocketed in the 1960’s, most Caribbean countries (with 

the exception of Cuba), were once again in need of foreign exchange 

and immediate loans. The foreign powers created the IMF and the 

World Bank to offer larger than needed loans to countries at high 

interest rates, and to make matters worse, these financial agencies 

ensured that they implemented structural adjustment programs 

within the borrowing countries to facilitate a faster rate of 

repayment. Needless to say, these adjustment programs were 

designed to overburden the fragile Caribbean economies, 

consequently plunging them into a spiral of foreign aid dependency, 

much like Monsanto’s practices with Indian small farmers. 

 Therefore, the Caribbean community became displaced and 

subdued amidst the steadily encroaching takeovers by multi-national 

corporations, the continual economic incapacitation by the IMF 

structural adjustment program and the restrictive practices of the 

WTO. Through this three-prong approach (policies of MNCs, the 

IMF and WTO) there is a steady decline of agrarian practices within 

the Caribbean. Such a decline poses a severe threat to these small 

nations already facing significant levels of debt. The Caribbean, with 

the notable exception of Cuba, has succumbed to food dependency 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

197 

on the North, thus rendering them into nothing more than ‘Bread 

Basket Dependent States’ (Weis). 

 Monsanto Corp made its initial entrance into the Caribbean 

not through the standard rearing or sale of crops, but primarily from 

the influx of fast food restaurants. I argue that the influence of U.S 

media coupled with the flooding of U.S subsidized goods onto 

Caribbean shelves, stimulated the population’s taste for foreign foods 

verses their own domestic produce. In short, as the daily diet 

changed to include these foreign products, citizens within the 

Caribbean began to consume mass amounts of food from U.S based 

fast food restaurants. This mass consumption resulted in permanent 

dietary dependency and more importantly, stronger reliance on 

Monsanto grown ingredients, which interconnected with the rise of 

U.S fast food restaurants. Thus, restaurants such as McDonalds, 

Kentucky Fried Chicken and Wendy’s produce foods with Monsanto 

GM ingredients. 

 Breadbasket dependency (BBD) was a primary concern for 

four pivotal leaders in the Caribbean. In Guyana, Cheddi Jagan made 

it a part of his 1992 campaign promise to ensure that fast food 

companies were using local ingredients; that protective tariffs be 

placed on imports to ensure the future viability of local produce. 

Moreover, Jagan began reintroducing policies in local government 

that would gradually reduce the influence of MNC and other foreign 

institutions within Guyana (Jagan, The West on Trial, My Fight for 

Guyana's Freedom 145). 

 Michael Manley in Jamaica and Maurice Bishop in Grenada 

also began designing grow local-eat local programs within their 

respective countries. The USA ensured that they were unsuccessful; 

they used the CIA to undermine the Manley government and invaded 

Grenada under the pretext of stopping communism (Jagan, The USA 

in South America and Other Essays 52). To date, the only Caribbean 

country that managed to break free from food dependency and reach 

a high level of self-sufficiency is Cuba. Under the leadership of Fidel 

Castro, the peoples of Cuba worked hard to diversify their economy 

without external help, though this did not without obstacles. Cuba 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

198 

today nonetheless, in my perception, is the strongest agro economy 

in the Caribbean and is impenetrable, and dare I claim impervious to 

MNCs such as Monsanto.  

 It is clear now that the phenomenon of the breadbasket 

dependency provided a clear inroad for MNCs into the Caribbean 

market. But what about other countries in South America - why is 

Monsanto so keen on establishing large bases within that region? To 

answer these questions, I will briefly highlight Monsanto’s current 

‘development’ projects within the Caribbean and in South America.  

____________________________ 

Monsanto’s Involvement within the Caribbean and South America 

 

“…the savage exploitation of rainforests continues in South America. Trees are 

felled like dumb creatures. River catchments are impoverished. The muse of 

nature within the consciousness of peoples is threatened…”- Wilson Harris 

(Harris 44) 

 In reality, Monsanto has been intricately intertwined in the 

agro-affairs of the Caribbean and in South America since the 1980s. 

As mentioned previously, their involvement within the region came 

hand in hand with the U.S of aid relief, particularly through NGOs 

such as USAID, CIDA, SIMAP, Food for the Poor, Bill and the 

Melinda Gate Foundation among others. For the purposes of this 

essay, I will address two pivotal countries in which Monsanto has its 

strongest involvement. Finally I will discuss the only recent 

resistance to Monsanto Corp within the region. 

 In 1983, the company established a relationship with Puerto 

Rico through USAID and the US government’s ‘Operation 

Bootstrap’. Operation Bootstrap was a new U.S foreign policy that 

facilitated the insertion of large MNCs into the Puerto Rican 

economy. According to the U.S government, this was the 

development of democracy at its finest (Klein 48). In reality what 

transpired was the obliteration of Puerto Rico’s agro-system, which 

forced the population to be dependent on foreign foods. 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

199 

 In 2007, Monsanto returned to Puerto Rico to plant their 

GM corn on a large scale. Their primary purpose was to test their 

new MSP hybrid seeds (crosses of corn females and males. Once 

planted, these seeds were sprayed constantly with Rogueo and 

Desespigue pesticides, all designed by Monsanto). The corn once 

ripened, are mechanically harvested and stored in two major plants: 

Isabela and Juana Diaz. These two factories own and control a 

combined size of 2,325 acres (the approximate size of Puerto Rico is 

23,733 acres). In this way Monsanto Corp has direct control of 

roughly 12% of the country’s landmass, in addition to employing 

close to 400 people on the island. The seeds produced from these 

two factories are called “grandparents” and are packaged and sold to 

farmers worldwide. Puerto Rico, in this way, serves as a global corn-

seed processing plant for the company (Martinez). 

 Monsanto arrived in Brazil in 1963. Since then, it has firmly 

established a solid foothold over the Brazilian agro-industry. The 

company produces herbicides and seeds for corn, soybeans, cotton 

and vegetables. More importantly, in 2008, Monsanto acquired Aly 

Participacoes Ltd and CanaVialis Ltd, two companies focused on 

sugarcane breeding technology and are both based in Brazil 

(Monsanto Corp). With this acquisition came the control of all soy, 

sugar cane and cotton production within Brazil. 

 What makes Brazil so important to this discussion is 

primarily because of the immense rainforest located within the 

country. Brazil is the fifth largest country in the world and its 

Amazon rainforest is affectionately called the ‘lungs of the earth’. 

Moreover in recent times, Brazil’s economy has been growing at 

close to 8% a year, making it an attractive investment for foreign 

companies. With such a strong, emerging economy, Brazil vies to be 

recognized and classified as a ‘first world country’, even at the 

expense of the further impoverishment of its citizens. 

 Monsanto, recognizing the economic potential of Brazil as 

the breadbasket of South America, ensured that they controlled most 

major crops within the country. Now more than ever, Monsanto is 

growing larger quantities of GM soybeans, cotton, sugar cane and 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

200 

rice. But in order for Monsanto to acquire more fertile land, the 

company is encouraging the destruction of the Amazon by local 

landowners in return for huge profits. It is not surprising that 

landowners are somehow able to acquire Monsanto manufactured 

Agent Orange chemicals that were used in Vietnam. 

 According to recent reports dated July 2011, large 

landowners in the Amazonian region are actively spraying thousands 

of acres of pristine jungle with Agent Orange. One landowner was 

discovered to harbor over four tons of the pesticide. Local activists 

were able to identify and photograph large tracts of now dead 

forests3. Some reports estimate that approximately 10 acres of 

Amazonian rainforest is cleared daily by local landowners keen on 

planting Monsanto GM seeds (Messenger). 

One could also speculate that due to Monsanto’s close ties 

with U.S foreign policy, the company is allowed to expand in order to 

apply more pressure on the peoples of Venezuela and Chile against 

their governments. As discussed previously, Monsanto’s seeds 

contain ‘Terminator Technology’ which once pollinated with native 

strains of core plants begins the transgenic contamination process. 

Thus, with GM seeds being sowed abundantly right outside of their 

borders, the revolutionary movements within Venezuela and Chile 

could be undermined due to food contamination.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Image 3: Ariel view of Amazonian forests sprayed with Agent Orange. Note the large 

tracts of lifeless trees.(Picture by: Stephen Messenger) (Messenger)  

                                                           
3 See Image 3. 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

201 

The Case of Guyana 

 
What is rain for, if not rice 

for an empty pot; and pot for 

in a hungry village? The son 

succeeds his father in a line 

to count as he did, waiting, 

adding the latest to the first 

 of his losses; his harvests 

of quick wind padi… 

  

                                           - ‘Rice’ by: Martin Carter (Carter 89) 

 Indentured labourers from India made painstaking 

sacrifices to bring seeds from their motherland to the Caribbean. 

This action, in a way, clearly showed a deep connection between 

agricultural practices and cultural attitudes. In short, peoples of the 

South knew the importance of food independence. These 

connections still remain embedded in Guyanese society (Jagan, The 

West on Trial, My Fight for Guyana's Freedom 32). Like Mexico with 

corn, Guyana firmly established itself as a pseudo-home for rice and 

its cultivation within the Caribbean. 

In Guyana, rice and sugar cane are the two largest crops 

produced within the country. Under the leadership of Cheddi Jagan 

during the 1960s, Guyana was affectionately known as the 

‘breadbasket of the Caribbean’. This ideal was further ingrained 

when Dr. Jagan began introducing subsidies and stimulus packages 

designed to encourage local farmers to grow more food (Jagan, 

Forbidden Freedom: The Story of British Guyana 87). One sector 

that grew rapidly under Jagan’s policies was the rice industry. 

Thus, there was growing pressure on the plantocracy to 

allow small farmers to save more of their rice-paddy for the following 

year and allowances for more agricultural land. Most agricultural 

reform policies came to a crashing halt when Dr. Jagan was 

forcefully removed from office during the British invasion. The 

actions of the British were costly for the peoples of Guyana. The 

people witnessed the betrayal and removal of Guyana’s only honest 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

202 

politician, the only politician who genuinely wanted the unification 

of his citizens in a socialist, political and economic culture. 

 Things changed dramatically due to the IMF’s structural 

adjustment programs of the 1990s. President Hoyte succumbed to 

foreign pressure and allowed tariffs to be removed on all foods 

imported into the country. This meant that local farmers were now 

forced to compete with heavily subsidized U.S farmers. Farmers in 

the U.S are subsidized by up to 80% by the U.S government, and 

they are strongly encouraged to overproduce, the excess of course is 

dumped into foreign food markets, such as in the case of Guyana. In 

short, the produce of Guyanese farmers was more expensive than 

foods imported from the U.S. To further the damage, the WTO began 

implementing stricter trade policies, which limited the quantity of 

rice being exported. These two acts of systemic violence against the 

peoples of Guyana crippled the agriculture sector, rice production in 

particular. 

 To date, the rice industry has shrunk substantially. Larger 

farmers were forced to amalgamate, and consequently small farmers 

were forced into selling their lands. Those who refused to sell at first 

are now forced to wait in long lines for days at a time to sell their 

rice-paddy to on a few mills left in the country at below market value. 

Rice millers have thoroughly accepted standardized packaging 

practices, selling only rice grains of a specific size, discarding or 

selling everything else at well below their market value. This type of 

standardization forced farmers to discard their ancient seeds and 

seek modified seeds, which had larger yields and were up to WTO 

and Milling specifications. 

 The question then arises, when exactly did Monsanto Corp 

enter into the Guyanese rice market? Based on my research, the 

company made its most notable incursion in 2009 when Guyana’s 

National Agricultural Research Institute signed a major deal with 

U.S based Stine Seed Company (Stabroek News). The agreement 

meant that Guyana would provide space for Stine Seed Company to 

continue developing ‘hybrid seeds’ in exchange for local researchers 

to learn more about GM technology. This company also assisted with 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

203 

research and development for the ‘Rustic Backcross-Breeding 

Program’, which was implemented by the Guyana Rice Board. More 

importantly, what I discovered after scrutinizing the Stine Seed 

Company was that they are a subsidiary of Monsanto Corp, and are 

listed on their website as an active partner (Monsanto Corp). This 

connection in itself validates my argument concerning Monsanto’s 

involvement indirectly in Guyana. 

 To make matters worse, due to the enforced standardization 

of rice grains on local farmers, the Guyana Rice Board implemented 

a series of ‘promotional campaigns’. From 2000 to the present, the 

Guyana Rice Board has actively propagated the G98 Rice Grain 

series. The chart below shows the specific grain and the description 

attributed to it by the GRB. 

Year 

Released 

Series of Rice 

Seed 

Description by the GRB 

2000 G98-22-4 An extra long grain, high quality, locally 

developed from the Rustic backcross-

breeding program. 

2000 G98-24-1 Same as above 

2000 G98-30-3 Same as above 

2010 G98-135 *An extra long grain, high quality, locally 

developed from the Rustic backcross 

breeding program which has not been 

officially released as yet but is occupying a 

significant portion of the commercial acreage 

(Guyana Rice Developent Board)    

What is most notable in this chart is the constant resort by 

the GRB towards the G98 series. After extensive research and 

according to scientific patenting reports in 1998, Monsanto Corp 

modified and patented the G98 rice grain and all other G98 series 

following (Prior IP). On record, the Government of Guyana has not 

conceded to the use of Monsanto GM seeds. However off record, I 

was able to secure information that government officials were strictly 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

204 

warned to remain mute on the issue since, “…it made the ministry of 

agriculture look bad…” (De Mendonca). 

 Another disturbing connection involves Monsanto Corp, 

Oxford University and some of the indigenous peoples of Guyana. In 

2001, Oxford University began conducting an ethnobotany program 

among Macushi women within the interior of Guyana. True to its 

description as a way of encouraging the development of women, 

Oxford researchers encouraged indigenous women to bring plants 

that contained medicinal or healing properties. The Macushi women, 

however, were paid mere pittances for their work and were told that 

the plants would be used for research to develop pharmaceuticals 

(Dilly 61). 

 The connection here is based on recent cash incentives 

Oxford University has been getting from Monsanto Corp to conduct 

research and development throughout the global south. Recently, 

Oxford University Press allowed for the publishing of a book that 

praised Monsanto for taking a realistic and bold step in feeding the 

world’s poor and attempting to alleviate hunger (Lappe). I would not 

be surprised if Oxford’s ethnobotany program in Guyana is nothing 

more than a glorified scheme to exploit indigenous peoples of their 

knowledge of medicinal plants to benefit Monsanto Corp, who would 

patent them immediately.  

 Such gross exploitation of a MNC within a country like 

Guyana can still be interpreted as abstract and without base. This is 

why I will attempt to address these same exploitative tactics within 

the parameters of my childhood village of Hauraruni (pronounced, 

Har-ra-roo-ni). I will give a quick outline of Monsanto’s influence in 

my village and how with the help of USAID has begun destroying 

childhood home. 

USAID & Hauraruni Friendly Farmers Society 

 
“…de guvament nah do nuttin fuh we, all dem ah tink bout now is how fuh full 

dem pocket. Suh wah yuh want we do, nah guh back to dem white men fuh look 

a wuk…”- Delroy Wong (Wong) 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

205 

 The name Hauraruni is speculated to derive from an 

indigenous word that meant ‘land of plenty’. My village adopted its 

name from the beautiful Hauraruni creek which gracefully shaped its 

way around 460 acres of fertile land and finally empties into the 

mighty Demerara river. My village is approximately forty miles away 

from the capital city of Georgetown and is about three miles away 

from the main highway.  

 With such a rich arable land, most people within my 

community were involved in agriculture. I still have fond memories 

of fields of golden pineapples, pear and cashews trees, the sweet 

smell of the silverballi tree in its annual bloom, the acres of 

watermelons and the childhood joy of communal living. Through 

combined communal living my village was able to sustain itself. This 

all came to a grinding halt in the 1990s due to the IMF structural 

adjustment program. 

 Within a year farmers in my community were forced to sell 

their produce significantly lower than the market value in order to 

save their client base. As the years went on one by one, or sometimes 

by groups, farmers and their families - people whom I considered my 

family were forced to do two things: griped by hunger and 

humiliated by their empty pockets, most villagers left farming 

completely and became loggers or sold their lands and moved to the 

city in search of work. Most people I knew sold their land never to 

return were or even visit simply because they could not afford to, or 

felt that they had to ‘make it’ in order to be perceived as a success. By 

2009, most the people from my village were desperate to generate 

revenue by whatever means necessary. 

 In December 2010, USAID initiated its ‘friendly farmers’ 

program in Guyana; their stated goal was to teach farmers new and 

innovative ways to grow crops. With few other options available to 

them, leaders from my community felt that they should approach 

USAID for help, since close to 20 farmers and their families were out 

of work and wanted to return to the soil. Due to the NGO’s policy, the 

villagers were required to create a name for their group, more 

importantly they needed to provide a substantial size of land if 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

206 

USAID were to be interested. Within six months, the group returned 

to the NGO with a presentation of 25 acres of land - what the 

villagers did was to combine their land holdings in order to ‘impress’ 

the USAID representative (Fredericks).  

 Once the papers were signed, USAID introduced the group 

to their technical supervisor, Mr. Nir Dahan. Upon researching his 

background I discovered some very disturbing news, Mr. Dahan 

worked directly for CARANA Corp, a company with close 

connections to Monsanto Corp. I found out that CARANA Corp 

created major inroads for Monsanto in parts of Africa (Quin). This 

meant that both corporations had a longstanding relationship with 

one another. According to CARANA, their company with the 

generous support of USAID, was modernizing the agro-sector in 

Guyana and valued the project in Hauraruni at approximately 

USD$250,000. I was only able to discover this due to CARANA’s 

mandatory report to the United States Agency for International 

Development, which must be made available to the public. The 

question then arises, precisely what did CARANA Corp through 

USAID do with USD$250,000 dollars? The answer is horrifying due 

to the evidence I have accumulated. 

The first edict given to the group was a total deforesting of 

the area; this meant that over 25 acres of jungle was cleared4. With 

the help of heavy machinery and under the guidance of USAID 

officials, the farmers razed much of their village land, in the hopes 

that better days were ahead for them. After clearing the forest, all 

that was left was raw exposed dried sand. According to USAID 

officials, this was perfect soil for planting. Seedlings were grown in a 

makeshift nursery and according to villagers required large amounts 

of pesticide. Officials demanded that young papaya plants were 

planted strictly 4 feet apart from each other, even though villagers 

felt this was wrong5. As was said by one villager, “…meh neva see 

wan papaya tree grow suh fass and suh close together, dis ting cyan 

be right…” (Wong). 

                                                           
4 See Image 4  
5 See Image 5 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

207 

 In addition to the deforestation and growing practices, what 

should be noted is the use of harsh pesticides. According to workers 

there, they are forced to spray the plants two times a day with a 

chemical called Duoguard 11 and RT 3. Also, I have received first 

hand reports of fertilizer 20-20-20 being pumped continuously into 

the sand. The only type of plant that requires such large amounts of 

water, pesticide and fertilizer are GM modified seedlings. Moreover 

based on research RT 3 is a patented Monsanto product. During my 

research I was able to uncover classified evidence that showed RT 3 

causing intergenerational cancerous cells on test animals, much less 

humans who work and consume those plants (Monsanto Corp). Even 

20-20-20 fertilizers are distributed by Caribbean Chemical, another 

representative of Monsanto Corp (Caribbean Chemicals).  

 To date, USAID has pushed most of the villagers away, 

claiming that they are inefficient and not needed at the farm. This 

means that the villagers who contributed their own land are now 

being disposed and displaced. More importantly, the community 

structure has been totally discombobulated; young people who were 

motivated at the idea of earning income on a collective basis are 

seeing the destruction of their home and are reacting violently. 

 The sales of the produce do not benefit the villagers but go 

to servicing the large debt placed on the group. From personally 

trespassing in the area (based on my studies and level of education, 

instructions were left by officials not to allow me onto the farm) I 

know for a fact that USD$250,000 was not spent on developing the 

area. From my estimations I would say approximately USD$60,000 

was spent, and those are generous calculations. One can only wonder 

where or to whom the remainder of the funds go, these questions 

swirl in my mind more and more whenever a USAID or CARNA 

official drives through my village in an expensive Range Rover. 

____________________________________ 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

208 

Image 4: Partial view of cleared Forest. *Notice the total destruction of the Soil. (Image 

from Delroy Wong)  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Image 5: GM Papaya plants being reared on 20-20-20 fertilizer and RT 3 (Image by 

Delroy Wong) - Below 

Image 6: Inside view of GM seedling nursery (Image by Delroy Wong)- Below 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

209 

 

Image 7: Pump used to irrigate plants with Monsanto pesticides (Image by Delroy Wong)  

Conclusion 

 
“…My philosophy: Very simple- the world is big and can provide amply for all- 

there need not be poverty and suffering. Man is capable, given the opportunity 

of fantastic cultural and intellectual attainment. But first there must be an end to 

the system of capitalism- the system which because it is based on individual 

greed breeds insecurity, poverty, ignorance and suffering…” – Cheddi Jagan 

1964 

To conclude this argument is extremely difficult, primarily 

because the discourse continues. Daily situations, such as Hauraruni, 

repeat themselves globally. Millions of peoples in the global south 

suffer at the hands of this new form of imperialism. The time has 

come for a significant shift away from such capitalist practices. The 

only way to do so is from the ground up, from the community level 

where small groups of people can be de-educated away from 

colonialist methodology and re-educated to the realities of the world 

around them. 

 It is important to note the threats posed to this research. I 

lost count the number of times I was told to cease asking questions 

relating to the farm in Hauraruni. Close friends of mine were 

threatened to be fired from work if they were caught taking any 

pictures on my behalf. To compound this situation, some of the 

youth of the village are unhappy with the circumstances their parents 

have placed them in. In addition, my contacts within the ministry of 

agriculture (Guyana) were threatened and were slapped with the 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

210 

directive that if they were to divulge any information, they would 

lose their contracts. Regardless of these threats, some government 

employees still pointed me in the right direction in terms of 

acquiring answers. The rice farmers are constantly threatened, not 

only by rice millers, but also by members of government, who 

explicitly make it clear to the famers that they would face severe 

consequences if any of them were to be found providing information. 

Irrespective of these threats, the majority of farmers I met were 

warm, courteous and willing to discuss the issues, off record.  

  Once small communities begin developing themselves 

without the help of foreign aid, and then their government will be 

increasingly held accountable. No more will local governments 

continue disrespecting famers by freely distributing GM modified 

seeds to the impoverished under the cloak of ‘grow more food’ 

campaigns (De Mendonca). No more will USAID officials get away 

with such blatant underdevelopment processes. No more will they 

feel comfortable living a lavish lifestyle while we work in 

subservience towards their interests and not ours. 

  The time has come for communities to develop their own 

homegrown methodology of food security. The structure needs to be 

reshaped to accommodate the voices of Guyana’s indigenous 

population. Perhaps a good example of real agricultural development 

can be best attributed to President Hugo Chavez. President Chavez 

expelled Monsanto completely out of Venezuela and immediately 

implemented new policy, which barred the company from ever 

returning and also from patenting anything belonging to the peoples 

of Venezuela. The time has come for change, it must come from 

within and discourse must continue. 

 

 

 

 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

211 

Works Cited 

Alleco, Ina and R Silverio. "Building Socialism through People's Economic 

Participation in Venezuela." 15 July 2011. Venezuela Analysis . 22 April 

2012 <http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/6354>. 

 

Ananda, Rady. "Lawsuit seeks to invalidate Monsanto's GMO Patents." 2 

April 2012. Global Research. 22 April 2012  

<http://www.globalresearch.ca>. 

 

Balloil. "Guyana to Establish Centre for Biodiversity Study." 16 May 2012. 

Windies Forum. 22 April 2012  

<http://www.windiesfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=322#p2316>. 

 

Beckles, Hilary and Verene Shepherd. Caribbean Slace Society and 

Economy. New York: The New Press, 1991. 

 

CARANA Corporation. CARANA Contract Vehicles. 01 January 2012. 22 April 

2012 <http://www.carana.com/contractvehicles>. 

 

—. Modernizing agribusiness in Guyana. 01 January 2012. 22 April 2012 

<www.carana.com>. 

 

Caribbean Chemicals. Our History: Caribbean Chemicals. 01 January 2009. 

22 April 2012 <http://caribbeanchemicals.com/general/our_history.php>. 

 

Carter, Martin. Poems by Martin Carter. Oxford: Macmillian Publishers 

Limited, 2006. 

 

Chossudovsky, Michel. The Globalization of Poverty and the New World 

Order. Quebec: Global Research, 2003. 

 

De Mendonca, Arnold. The use of GM Foods in Guyana Mark Chatarpal. 

Georgetown, 06 12 2011. 

 

Dilly, Barbara J. Gender, Culture, and Ecotourism: Development Policies and 

Practices in the Guyanese Rain Forest. Georgetown, 16 September 2003. 

 

Engdahl, Frederick William. Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of 

Genetic Manipulation. Torono: Global Research Publishers, 2007. 

 

Fredericks, Vivian. Hauraruni Farm Co-op Mark Chatarpal. 23 12 2011. 

 

Gates, Bill. Living Proof Project. 01 January 2012. 22 April 2012 

<http://www/gatesfoundation.org/livingproofproject/pages/usaid.aspx>. 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

212 

Guyana Rice Developent Board. Guyana Rice Development Board. 01 01 

2010. 22 April 2012 <www.grdb.gy>. 

 

Harris, Wilson. Selected Essays of Wilson Harris; The Unfinished Genesis of 

the Imagination, Expedition into cross-culturality; into the labyrinth of the 

family of mankind, creation and creature; into space, psyche and time. 

London: Routledge Publications, 1999. 

 

Huff, Ethan. "Bill Gates, Monsanto, and eugenics: How on of the world's 

wealthiest men is actively promoting a corporate takeover of global 

agriculture." 29 Febuary 2012. Natural News. 22 April 2012 

<http://www.naturalnews.com/035105_bill_gates_monsanto_eugenics.ht

ml>. 

 

Itwaru, Arnold Harrichand. Body Rites, Beyond The Darkening. Toronto: TSAR 

Publications, 1991. 

 

Jagan, Cheddi. Forbidden Freedom: The Story of British Guyana. London: 

Hansib Publishing Limited, 1989. 

—. The USA in South America and Other Essays. London: Hansib 

Publications, 1998. 

—. The West on Trial, My Fight for Guyana's Freedom. Glasgow: Hansib 

Publications, 1997. 

 

Klein, Naomi. The Shock Doctine: the raise of disaster capitalism. Toronto: 

Random House of Canada Limited, 2007. 

 

Lappe, Frances Moore. "Cheerleading for Monsanto? The Shocking Lack of 

Difference Between Oxford University Press and Fox News." 9 April 2012. 

Alter Net. 22 April 2012 <http://www.alternet.org/food/154923>. 

 

Martinez, Elivan. "Monsanto's Caribbean Experiment." 21 November 2011. 

Organic Consumers Association. 22 April 2012  

<httop://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_24406.cfm>. 

 

Merriam-Webster. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary . Markham: Pocket Book 

Publishers, 1074. 

 

Messenger, Stephen. "Vietnam Era Weapon Being used to Clear the 

Amazon." 5 July 2011. Tree Hugger News. 22 April 2012 

<http://www.treehugger.com>. 

 

Monsanto Corp. "Classified Material Safety Data Sheet." 30 January 2006. 

ChemCas. 22 April 2012 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

213 

<http://www.chemcas.com/msda_archive/part2/cas/gf_msds/monsanto_

com---rt_3_msds.asp>. 

—. Monsanto Brazil. 01 Janurary 2012. 22 April 2012 

<http://www.monsanto.com.br/institucional/monsanto-no-

brasil/historia.asp>. 

—. Monsanto in Puerto Rico. 01 January 2012. 22 April 2012 

<http://www.monsanto.pr/nuestra_empresa/historia/monsanto_puertorico

.asp>. 

—. Our Goal: Monsanto Corp. 01 January 2012. 22 April 2012 

<www.monsanto.com>. 

—. "Our products: Stone Seed Group." 01 January 2012. Monsanto Corp. 22 

April 2012 <www.monsanto.com/products/pages/stone-seed-group.aspx>. 

—. Speciality Crop Pipeline. 01 January 2012. 22 April 2012 

<htto://www.monsanto.com/products/pages/speciality-crop-

pipeline.aspx>. 

 

Panitch, Leo, Greg Albo and Vivek Chibber. The Crisis And The Left; Socialist 

Register 2012. Wales: The Merlin Press, 2011. 

 

Prior IP. Patent Code for Monsanto Corp. 20 December 1998. 22 April 2012 

<www.prior-ip.com/patent/1728149>. 

 

Quin, Leah. "New Director, more directions for Trade Hub." 1 November 

2007. West Africa Trade Hub: making trade happen. 22 April 2012 

<http://www.watradehub.com/pt-pt/node/530>. 

 

Ribeiro, Silvia. "Machines of War: Blackwater, Monsanto and Bill Gates." 30 

January 2012. Infowars.com. 22 April 2012 

<http://www/infowars.com/machines-of-war-blackwater-monsanto-and-bill-

gates-2>. 

 

Rodney, Walter. How Europe Underdeveoped Africa. Washington : Howard 

University Press, 1982. 

 

RT News. www.rt.com. 14 04 2012. 22 04 2012 

<http://rt.com/usa/news/farmers-crop-monsanto-dow-pesticide-411/>. 

—.www.rt.com. 11 04 2012. 22 04 2012 

 <http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-farmers-tobacco-use-809/>. 

 

Ruppert, Madison. "The World's Largest Human Experiment Part 1: GMO's, 

Roundup and Monsanto Monstrocity." 11 July 2011. Activist Post. 22 April 

2012<http://www.activistpost.com/2011/07/words-largest-human-

experiment-gmos.html>. 



CARIBBEAN QUILT | 2013 

214 

Sankara, Thomas. We Are Heirs Of The World's Revolutions; Thomas 

Sankara, Speeches from Burkina Faso revolution 1983-87. New York: 

Pathfinder Press, 2007. 

 
Shiva, Vandana. Earth Democracy: Justice, Sustainability and Peace. 

London: Zed Books Ltd, 2005. 

—. "Manifesto on the future of seeds." 01 January 2012. Vandana Shiva. 22 

April 2012 <http://www.vandanashiva.com>. 

—. Monocultures of the Mind: Perspectives on Biodiversity and 

Biotechnology. London: Zed Books Ltd, 1993. 

—. Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global food supply. Cambridge: 

South End Press, 2000. 

 

Shiva, Vandana, et al. Biodiversity: Social & Ecological Perspectives. London: 

Zed Books Ltd, 2003. 

 

Shrivastava, Dr. Arun. "Weaponization of the food system: Genitically 

manipulated maize threatens Nepal and the Himalayan." 24 April 2012. 

Global Research . 24 April 2012 <http://www.globalresearch.ca>. 

 

Somerville, John and Ronald E Santoni. Social And Political Philosophy: 

Readings from Plato to Gandhi. New York: Anchor Books, 1993. 

 

Stabroek News. "NARI signs seed research pact with US Companies." 30 

July 2009. Stabroek News. 22 April 2012 <http://stabroeknews.com>. 

 

The Murderous Mode of Reasoning. By Arnold Itwaru. Perf. Arnold Itwaru. 

New College , Toronto. 19 11 2011. 

 

The World according to Monsanto. Dir. Marie-Monique Robin. Image & 

Compagnie, Productions. 2008. 

 

Urfie, Jean-Yves, Mervyn Claxton and Zili Danto. "A New Earthquake Hits 

Haiti: Monsanto's deadly gift of 475 tons of genetically-modified seeds to 

Haitian Farmers." 13 May 2010. Norman Garvin . 22 April 2012 

<http://www.normangirvan.info/wp-

content/uploads/2012/05/monsanto.htm>. 

 

Weis, Tony. Labour, Capital and Society: Agrarian Decline and Breadbasket 

Dependence int he Caribbean: Confronting Illusions of Inevitability. London: 

University of Western Ontairo Press, 2003. 

 

Wong, Delroy. Hauraruni Farm Co-op Mark Chatarpal. 28 12 2011. 

Ziegler, Jean and Siv O'neal. "Fuelling World Hunger: How the Global Biofuel 

Industry Is Creating Massice Destruction." 11 12 2011. 



MARK CHATARPAL | 
MONSANTO AND CARIBBEAN AGRICULTURAL POLITICS 

 

215 

www.globalresearch.ca. 22 04 2012 

<http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=28434>. 

 

Zizek, Slavoj. Living In The End Times. London: Verso Publication , 2011. 

 

 

 


