War on Food and Farming: Bayer’s ‘Backward’ Claim

For some critics, Bayer ranks at the top of the list for anti-people and anti-nature business practices, although there are many other strong contenders. Nevertheless, in September 2023, the Indian Council for Agricultural Research signed a memorandum of understanding with Bayer. The company’s approach to agricultural development promotes a model of industrial farming reliant on corporate products, including toxic chemicals and genetically modified crops. Bayer advocates for precision and data-driven agriculture, which heavily depends on its proprietary technologies and software.
Simon Wiebusch, Country Divisional Head of Crop Science for Bayer South Asia, recently asserted that India cannot attain “developed nation” status with what he deems “backward” agriculture. He believes that modernization is essential for India’s agricultural sector to achieve this status by 2047. Bayer’s vision includes prioritizing and accelerating approvals for its new products, introducing genetically modified food crops, and addressing labor shortages—specifically for weeding—by focusing more on herbicides and developing them for crops like paddy, wheat, sugarcane, and maize.
Institutions like the Indian Council of Agricultural Research appear poised to enable Bayer to utilize their infrastructure and networks to further its commercial interests. Wiebusch’s statements have garnered considerable media attention. However, there is a tendency for journalists and media outlets to treat the words of high-ranking corporate executives as unquestionable wisdom, particularly in India when discussing the country’s goal of achieving “developed status.” Yet, individuals like Wiebusch are hardly objective. They do not possess the foresight to offer an unbiased view of the world and its future; rather, they promote a Net Zero agenda, which often translates to substantial transfers of wealth to corporations under the guise of false virtue.
Bayer envisions a specific model of agriculture and is increasingly influencing how farmers operate in various countries, dictating the inputs they use. Its digital platforms aim to be comprehensive sources for carbon credits, seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, and agronomic advice—all supplied by Bayer, which also gains control over the agronomic and financial data collected from farms. So, what does Wiebusch mean by modernizing “backward” agriculture in India? The answer encompasses all of the above and more. Corporate lobbyists often use the term “modern agriculture,” but it is more accurate to refer to a system that produces healthy food for all while supporting farming communities and livelihoods. The term “modern agriculture” can be misleading, suggesting a dependency on proprietary inputs and corporate supply chains, while anything else is labeled “backward.”
According to Bayer, Wiebusch is a key player capable of driving market share and creating business value for the company. On the Bayer India website, it states: “Simon’s key strengths include unlocking business growth, redefining distribution strategies, driving change management, and building diverse teams that drive market share and create business value.” Stripped of corporate jargon, the true goal is to secure control of the agricultural sector and foster corporate dependency. India has achieved self-sufficiency in food grains and ensures there are enough calories available to feed its entire population. It is the world’s largest producer of milk, pulses, and millets, and the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, sugarcane, groundnuts, vegetables, fruit, and cotton. This begs the question: who really needs Bayer?
Bayer promotes a corporate expansionist agenda that is self-sustaining and can hardly be termed “development.” Companies like Bayer frame their technologies and products as solutions to the problems created by the very growth and development models they advocate. They tout “scientific innovation” as the answer, but these proposed solutions often create new issues or exacerbate existing ones. This leads to a cycle of dependency on corporate products and technologies. Problems created by corporate-led development turn into opportunities for further corporate input and the commodification of knowledge, leading to more “expert” interventions. The primary motivation here is financial gain rather than true societal improvement.
Corporate-driven “development” is a misnomer, especially in agriculture, as it frequently results in a regression in terms of health, environmental sustainability, and the resilience of rural communities, perpetuating a cycle of challenges and solutions that primarily benefit large corporations. In contrast, agroecological solutions proposed by figures like Bhaskar Save contradict Bayer’s aims of increasing pesticides, GMOs, and corporate consolidation. For instance, the industry seeks to undermine the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy, which advocates for a significant reduction in agrochemical use, while Bayer spends record amounts on lobbying to shape policies in its favor.
Bayer frames its neocolonial aspirations as aid for “backward” Indian farmers, embodying a familiar narrative of Western saviorism. To promote its model, Bayer must appear to offer practical solutions, often using the climate emergency narrative to advocate for a carbon trading scheme that results in land displacement globally. Bayer claims that labor shortages for manual weeding in Indian agriculture are a significant challenge, necessitating the rollout of toxic herbicides like glyphosate. Yet, several alternative approaches exist that do not rely solely on such herbicides, which kill all plants lacking the herbicide-tolerant trait—wholly unsuitable for a nation with numerous small farms cultivating diverse crops. Mechanical weeding using animal-drawn or tractor-powered implements for larger farms is one solution. Agronomic techniques, such as crop rotation, higher planting densities, and the use of cover crops and mulches, can also suppress weed growth.
However, even these strategies face cynical attempts to shift farmers away from traditional cultivation methods without tangible financial benefits. When Wiebusch speaks of India reaching “developed status,” we must ask: what does this type of development entail? The answer lies in the centralization of decision-making within government and corporate entities, the weakening of traditional local governance structures, and the implementation of top-down policies that facilitate corporate consolidation through mergers and acquisitions. Local independent enterprises often struggle to compete against consolidated corporations that possess greater lobbying power to shape regulations in their favor.
This interconnection between political centralization and corporate consolidation has led to reduced economic diversity, weakened local communities, increased vulnerability to systemic shocks, and diminished democratic participation. Achieving “developed status” also means accelerated urbanization, land amalgamations for industrial-scale farming, and depopulation of rural areas. Estimates suggest that between 2016 and 2030, urban areas will triple in size, encroaching on cropland and undermining agricultural productivity. Approximately 60% of the world’s cropland lies on the outskirts of cities, which tends to be twice as productive as land elsewhere.
As urban areas expand, millions of small-scale farmers are displaced, threatening global food security. A combination of urbanization and policies designed to displace food-producing peasants will facilitate the corporate takeover of India’s agrifood sector. However, this scenario is not inevitable. The response should prioritize sustainable, locally appropriate solutions that restore food sovereignty and revive the economic vibrancy of rural communities. We must focus on holistic human well-being rather than narrow economic metrics of growth, preserving traditional knowledge that underpins productive farming practices for the benefit of farmers, consumer health, and the environment. Empowering communities through localism and decentralization is crucial to preventing state-corporate dependency.
These solutions stand in stark contrast to those characterized by rural displacement, the subjugation of people and nature, nutrient-poor diets, degraded ecosystems, and corporate consolidation. There are alternative visions for the future and human development that do not align with boosting corporate profits or control and do not fit the prevailing narrative of what constitutes “development.”
Witten by Hillary Panashe