OCA: Don't let Monsanto take over USAID

krush_productions:

Monsanto and others have been feeling the pinch in their stock reports for the last quarter. Getting information out is crucial and in essence the way to bash the head of monoculture. Also, recent court rulings regarding sugar beets and alfalfa may now set the precedent for other GMOS and BT bacteria seeds to be more scrutinized. The only way to do this is to effect their profit sheets now, and that can be done with knowledge. It is starting to work, so take heart and thanks for all you are doing.

Be careful about tying people to Monsanto? Really? He is the director of an organization (AGRA) that is now doing business with them. Therefore, I beg to differ. And the fact that he was on Al Gore's staff in 2000 is very disappointing in hindsight, but then Monsanto has always had a hold on the presidency and I do not know to what extent he was involved then.That was then this is now. GMOs in food are NOT sustainable regardless of how people try to spin it and there is no proof to the contrary. If you can provide that then please do.

It's damn hard to find whose head to bash in first. No one person will ever admit they are responsible for anything. It is the way they have been taught...never admit to anything and no one will hold you responsible for anything. Of course, then you become a useless human being because you stand for nothing.
On the other hand, what those in power do not realize, it is ALL of them that are responsible, as are "we the people" who need to write, write, write.
Make a form letter, keep it in your computer, and send it off every couple of weeks to your elected official.
Send that form letter to people on your email list that will do the same, and ask them to send the same letter in every so often.
It is only in this way that "we the people" will ever win anything....of course it would help if we had a ton of money to buy the politicians votes, as Monsanto and their ilk do.

We need to be careful tying all of these people to Monsanto. The only tie that this guy has is the fact that he worked with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation on a project that attempts to use technology to fight global hunger. The article states that the Gates Foundation has done work with Monsanto. That does not necessarily mean that Rajiv Shah has any direct ties with them. While Monsanto is not a good company, there are some good things that can be done with bio engineering. Looking at this guys record, I would be careful in labelling him a bad guy. Just thought I would point that out.

Shah was a health care policy advisor on the Al Gore presidential campaign, 2000 - According to Wikipedia anyway.

I've written, called, emailed and received no response. I hate to sound cliche, but whose head do we have to bash in first? I won't eat this poison or anything involved with Monsanto.

Excerpt:
The Case Against Rajiv Shah: Don't Let Monsanto Take Over USAID
By Alexis Baden-Mayer, Esq.
Organic Consumers Association, November 20, 2009
Straight to the Source

TAKE ACTION: Stop Shah!

Most of the world's food is not produced by industrial mega-farms. 1.5 billion small farmers produce 75 percent of the world's food.

The hunger problem is not caused by low yields. The world has 6 billion people and produces enough food for 9 billion people.

There are now 1.02 billion hungry people in the world (nearly 50 million in the US). At the same time, there are 1 billion people who are overweight, many of whom are obese and suffer from diet-related diseases that can be as deadly as starvation. Hunger and obesity are not the result of low yields, they stem from the overproduction of toxic junk food, the scarcity of healthy organic food, and injustice in the way farmland and food are distributed.

While many of the world's leaders discussed the food crisis at a UN Food Summit in Rome (November 13-17, 2009), farmers, who were not part of the official delegations, took part in demonstrations outside the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) headquarters and met at an alternative forum, People's Food Sovereignty Now! The 642 participants (more than half women) from 93 countries represent the more than 1.5 billion small farmers who produce 75 per cent of the world's food. Here's what they had to say:

We reaffirm that our ecological food provision actually feeds the large majority of people all over the world in both rural and urban areas (more than 75%). Our practices focus on food for people not profit for corporations. It is healthy, diverse, localized and cools the planet.

...Our practices, because they prioritise feeding people locally, minimize waste and losses of food and do not create the damage caused by industrial production systems. Peasant agriculture is resilient and can adapt to and mitigate climate change...

We call for a reframing of research, using participatory methods, that will support our ecological model of food provision. We are the innovators building on our knowledge and skills. We rehabilitate local seeds systems and livestock breeds and fish/aquatic species for a changing climate...

We commit to shorten distances between food provider and consumer. We will strengthen urban food movements and advance urban and peri-urban agriculture. We will reclaim the language of food emphasising nutrition and diversity in diets that exclude meat provided from industrial systems.
- From the People's Food Sovereignty Now! Declaration, November 2009

President Obama announced a dramatic shift in the way the United States, the world’s largest provider of food aid, would address hunger and food shortages in foreign countries. The focus will now be on agricultural development in the countries it helps support, rather than having them remain recipients. As a member of the G8, the United States is committed to contribute toward:

$20 billion over three years through [a] coordinated, comprehensive strategy focused on sustainable agriculture development, while keeping a strong commitment to ensure adequate emergency food aid assistance. … [This includes] country-owned strategies, in particular to increase food production, improve access to food and empower smallholder farmers to gain access to enhanced inputs, technologies, credit and markets.
It’s about time that the US and other rich countries that subsidize overproduction stopped dumping US-produced food on countries in a way that drives local producers out of the market and off their land. But, what do rich countries mean when they say, “enhanced inputs” and “technologies”?