Tillamook Co-operative, Monsanto, and rBGH:
Discourse Struggle and Common Sense

By Thomas W Gray and Patrick Mooney

Historically, agricultural co-operatives have been formed — in-part — to oppose local, regional, and national monopoly/monopsony, and oligopoly/oligopsony power. With the advent of such organisational innovations as joint ventures, strategic alliances, outsourcing, mergers, and consolidations, some have questioned the continued relevancy, and ability of agricultural co-operatives to serve as countervailing agents in the market place. However when examining the rBGH controversy, re: Monsanto versus Tillamook Dairy Co-operative, Tillamook prevailed in being able to withdraw rBGH use from among its members. This action triggered similar decisions by other dairy firms. These actions were done in spite of Monsanto’s attempts to derail its removal. By detailing the rBGH history from its initial introduction to its removal from Tillamook, the paper addresses questions related to: 1) specifying the various discursive logics used to justify and oppose (countervail) the use of recombinant bovine growth hormone, in the spheres of production and consumption, 2) highlight how various classic oppositions between cooperatives and investment firms (eg. organised for use versus organised for return on investment) were penetrated with this discourse, and 3) how the Tillamook/Monsanto controversy can serve as an example of the continuing relevance of agricultural co-operative organisation to countervail the power of larger organisations, while simultaneously achieving the voiced interests of independent farmers.