tagged w/ GMOS cannot feed the world
-
The European Commission has just approved growing
genetically modified crops for the first time in 12 years,
putting the GM lobby's profits over public concerns - 60% of
Europeans feel we need more information before growing foods
that could threaten our health and environment.
A new initiative allows 1 million EU citizens a unique
chance to make official requests of the European Commission.
Let's build a million voices for a ban on GM foods until the
research is done. Sign the petition below and spread the
word.
Don't forget to include your address so that all of our
signatures count for the citizens' initiative.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/eu_health_and_biodiversity/98.php
To the President of the European Commission José Manuel
Barroso: We call on you to put a moratorium on the
introduction of GM crops into Europe and set up an
independent, ethical, scientific body to research the impact
of GM crops and determine regulation.
Read the rest of this report here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/banningGMOsInEuropePetition.php
Or read other articles about GM crops here
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GE-agriculture.php
========================================================
This article can be found on the I-SIS website at
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/banningGMOsInEuropePetition.phpThe European Commission has just approved growing
genetically modified crops for the... more
-
-
Bill Gates and the biotech juggernauts are doing their best to keep Africa dependent on imported technology, just like in the bad old days of colonialism. Gates, Monsanto and Pioneer have joined the long list of those believing they know best how the continent should grow its food. If the history of colonialism and subsequent development practice have taught us anything, it is that all interventions must strengthen resilience, encourage diversity and be locally appropriate. The biotech seed proposal for Africa fails on all three counts.
A Feb. 17 Des Moines Register article - "Pioneer, Gates to Give African Farmers Biotech Seed" - implies that the U.S. model of crop production will be exported to Africa nations by giving African farmers biotech seed. Exporting a model developed specifically for this country to the 47 countries of sub-Saharan Africa is bad enough; worse, this model carries the high economic, environmental and social costs of producing only one or two crops on the same land year after year. It has caused enormous problems in the United States. Why would we want to export it?
Biotech corn is designed for monoculture production on large acreages like we have in the United States. African agriculture is overwhelmingly small scale (on farms of less than one acre) and diverse, allowing for a more diverse diet as well as greater overall output given the dependence on rain-fed agriculture and the very limited access to external expensive inputs, such as fertilizer.
It's often claimed that biotech seeds will yield larger crops. In fact, there is no evidence that crops from biotechnology seeds produce higher yields than do crops from conventionally bred seeds. Both Pioneer and Monsanto claim they will make the seeds available royalty-free. But nothing is said about providing seeds at cost. Nor is anything said about the biotech industry's stringent rules prohibiting saved seed. Biotech becomes a vehicle to introduce a need for a slew of expensive inputs, many of them fossil fuel-based, which African farmers have historically provided for themselves on-farm.
If Gates is going to be responsible for spending hundreds of millions on agriculture in Africa, we need his foundation to do better.
So, what are the alternatives to high input agriculture in Africa?
The Nigerian National Variety Release Committee is set to release improved corn varieties that address drought, low soil fertility, pests, diseases and parasitic weeds. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) developed these varieties in partnership with other African plant breeding programs in Nigeria. These include 13 open pollinated varieties with varying maturities and four hybrids with drought tolerance. They do not have the costs or legal hassles associated with genetic engineered varieties, and will be suited for small farmers.
Another example is the work of Pedro Sanchez, who spent his career developing low-cost and comprehensive soil rejuvenation programs for eastern and southern Africa and other food-deficit nations. Sanchez, the 2002 winner of the World Food Prize, has shown how biodiverse small farms are able to not only produce more local food but also build soil fertility and rural economies. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development - now endorsed by more than 50 countries - reached similar conclusions.
In the United States, the biotech industry has dictated the terms of the technology, trampling over the interests and concerns of farmers and the public alike. Biotech crops have resulted in fewer farmers growing more agricultural raw materials and less food, exactly the opposite of what is needed in Africa.
cont.Bill Gates and the biotech juggernauts are doing their best to keep Africa dependent... more
-
-
First public hearing to prepare the presentation of the GM Maize case before international courts
Guadalajara, March 2, 2010. Faced with the international "technical" conference of the FAO in Guadalajara, "Agricultural Biotechnologies in Developing Countries," which is little more than just the promotion of GM crops - today we inaugurated the "First public hearing to prepare the presentation of the GM Maize case before international courts," organized by La Via Campesina North America Region, Red en Defensa del Maíz (Network in Defense of Maize, Mexico), and Asamblea Nacional de Afectados Ambientales (Assembly of People Displaced by Environmental Impacts, Mexico), with the participation of 276 people, mostly members and leaders of peasant, family farm , and indigenous peoples' organizations from 19 Mexican states, the USA, and Canada.
The hearing was inaugurated by Alberto Gómez Flores of La Via Campesina, Eutimio Díaz of the Wixarika People (in the name of the Network for the Defense of Maize), and Octavio Rosas of the Asamblea Nacional de Afectados Ambientales. Alberto Gómez said that the peasant and indigenous people of Mexico feel it is an act of aggression for the FAO to come here to promote GMOs, called the GM contamination of maize "a crime against humanity." He was followed by Pat Mooney of the ETC Group (Canada), who denounced that "GMO contaminated and transnational corporations (TNCs) have now contaminated the FAO and the UN, which is another crime against humanity." He noted that "what is a crisis for people - hunger - is cynically seen by TNCs as an opportunity, to push new products, like GM crops."
Camila Montecinos of GRAIN in Chile sent her regrets that the terrible recent earthquake in her country made it impossible for her to travel. But in her document, which was read to the audience, she stated that "GMO contamination is an intentional strategy by TNCs to open new markets for their seeds," using the argument that once local crops are already contaminated, there is no longer any reason to maintain bans on legal GMO plantings. George Naylor, ex-president of the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) in the USA, told an anecdote from his neighbors, who found that their cows refuse to eat GM maize, and he argued that this exposes the lie by industry when they claim there are no negative health effects of GMOs.
Ernesto Ladrón de Guevara of UNORCA, reviewed the history of neoliberal laws in Mexico, on seeds, biosafety, etc., and noted that they have given "poor or negative results." Similarly, attorney Evangelina Robles of the Coas Collective, explain how, with the signing of NAFTA, a process of modifying nationals was initiated in Mexico, with the objective of "disarticulating and privatizing of the elements of the territories of indigenous and peasant peoples; the land, air, forests, water, biodiversity, etc.," paving the way for GMOs, among other evil things.
The afternoon saw testimonies and indigenous, peasant and family farmers. A Mixtec man and women from Oaxaca told how their native maize varieties had been contaminated with as many a three different transgenes, but also that they have been developing local techniques for decontamination, such as pulling up deformed plants, or cutting off their tassels. Eutimio Díaz, of the Wixarika people in Jalisco, described how, "for indigenous people, maize is first, maize is ours, and we are part of her." He noted that his communities have made a firm decision to defend their maize, and therefore, "we will not accept any seeds from the government, because we don't know what they are, or for what real purpose they are giving them to us." Sergio Bautista, of the Nahua people in the Huasteca region of Hidalgo, agreed, stating that, "we will not plant any seed from SAGARPA (the Ministry of Agriculture)." He also said that "maize is very sacred to us, it is our life."
cont.First public hearing to prepare the presentation of the GM Maize case before... more
-
-
This powerful speech - well worth reading in full - was made at the FAO technical conference in Guadalajara, Mexico. The Boholano people live on the island province of Bohol in the Philippines.
---
---
FAO SPEECH OF BOHOLANO FARMER ISIDORO ANCOG IN GUADALAJARA, MEXICO
I am Isidoro Ancog, small farmer from the Philippines. I represent the Asian Farmers Alliance for Sustainable Rural Development or AFA. My organization in the Philippines is PAKISAMA, a national confederation of small farmers, marginal fishers, rural women, indigenous peoples and rural youth. My organization PAKISAMA is a member of AFA. I am very grateful and honored to be invited to this conference, and for that I thank wholeheartedly the organizers and FAO.
Before I came here I have two FEARS and suddenly it becomes three now. I had a chance to read some of the documents that pertains to this conference. But I sadly regret that some or most of the terms there I do not understand because it is written in modern scientific parlance. That is my first FEAR, to go home after this conference with less understanding of modern scientific jargon.
However, there is one very obvious to me that I noticed. Most of the documents I came across deals with genetic engineering, and for that I have this feeling that this conference has defined biotechnology to zero in towards massive commercialization of Genetically Modified Organisms – that is my second FEAR – to face defensively to an adverse intellectual arrogance on a big scale?
My third FEAR is centered on the title of this first plenary; "Targeting biotechnologies to the poor". I do not believe that the poor people are well represented in this room especially from Asia where I came from. As a poor farmer in a remote province of Bohol, Philippines, I am extremely threatened rather than happy. I cannot speak for the entire AFA for this feeling. I can only speak for myself.
Why am I a target to technologies that are designed without my knowledge? That I do not really need? Are there any poor in this room that is not with me? Green Revolution, an approach to counter poverty and hunger introduced in the 60’s, although well-intentioned at first was considered a failure because the farmers could not sustain it.
Similarly, the introduction of GMOs in our farms like the Green Revolution, is so attractive at first but in the end exacerbates poverty and hunger because it was imposed particularly to those whom they called POOR. How many more farmers in India and elsewhere would be mired in debt and how many more will commit suicide because of GMOs? Do we have to make the same mistakes and end up with the same problems?
As an organic farmer, I am against GMO; my province Bohol, by law, rejects GMO; my organization PAKISAMA – AFA fights against GMO. Why? Because we firmly believe it is not the solution to poverty and hunger, but rather a cause of more food deprivation in the future – especially on seeds. It is very clear that GMO is an attack to life; it is an insult to the most ancient culture, which is agriculture; it runs against ecology; it violates the law of nature; it is the ultimate in genetic pollution; and above all, it is a disrespect to the integrity of creation.
I have very high respect to all the people attending this conference. But my fears are my fears, and unless it is addressed in this conference, I am formally announcing that I am on a HUNGER STRIKE beginning tomorrow morning until this conference culminates on March 4, 2010. Finally, as a recognized participant in this conference, I invoke my right to ask that this statement of mine be included in the document and proceedings thereafter; thank you very much.This powerful speech - well worth reading in full - was made at the FAO technical... more
-
-
watch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/11971-isaaa-figures-show-reduced-gm-crops-in-7-countries
The latest data from the ISAAA on GM crops around the world [1] reveals that seven out of 25 countries had reduced GM cultivation areas in 2009 and another remained static. The data from the industry-funded group reveals that no new countries grew GM crops during this period.
The combined area of all GM crops in 2009 covered just 2.7% of all agricultural land. [2] Very little of this production went directly to feed people, as most went into animal feed (GM maize, soy and canola), industrial scale biofuels (GM maize, soy and canola) or to produce cotton.
The expansion of GM maize in Brazil alone accounted for over 60% of the 9 million hectares increase in GM cultivation area in 2009. In seven other countries the area under GM crops actually fell in 2009 (compared with 2008), including two of what ISAAA describe as "mega" countries:
*China's GM cultivation area was down 3%;
*Paraguay’s GM cultivation area was down 19%.
The only other country with significant growth in area was India, where Bt cotton cultivation expanded. However the biotech industry received a major setback recently when the Indian government placed a moratorium on the approval of GM Bt brinjal (aubergine) for commercial production pending further scientific assessment on safety and cross pollination. The decision followed months of mass protests throughout the country. [3]
Globally the same six countries continue to dominate GM cropping: US, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada and China grew nearly 95% of all GM crops, while the remaining production area in 20 other countries remains low. One crop, GM herbicide tolerant soybeans (mostly Monsanto’s Roundup Ready), accounted for 52% of all GM crops. In all, GM soybeans, maize, cotton and canola accounted for over 99% of all plantings, demonstrating that no new GM crops have been adopted on any scale since GM crops were first grown commercially.
The US grew the highest number of different types of GM. However, deregulation of GM herbicide tolerant alfalfa and GM sugar beet have both been suspended by US courts because of the failure of the US Environmental Protection Agency [4] to conduct an environmental impact assessment on the crops.
The ISAAA report fails to assess weed resistance to glyphosate, which has become a major problem in GM herbicide tolerant crops in North and South America. [5] More weed killers are being used to combat this problem, and in the US the total of amount of herbicide used each year has increased since GMHT crops were introduced in 1996. [6]
In Europe, the majority of GM maize (the only crop approved for cultivation) was again grown in Spain, but there was a 4% fall in the area grown in 2009. Figures given by ISAAA for the EU reveal that the area fell in five out of seven of the principal maize growing regions in Spain in 2009 [7] – a decline that began in some regions in 2004.
Elsewhere in Europe the area of GM maize fell for the second year in a row:
*Germany's GM cultivation (where a ban was introduced in 2009) was down 100%;
*The Czech Republic's GM cultivation was down 31%;
*Romania's GM cultivation was down 57%;
*Slovakia's GM cultivation was down 54%.
The area in Poland under GM remained static in 2009. Five other EU countries have banned the cultivation of Monsanto's GM maize. [8]
Recently published figures reveal the extent to which GM crops are being converted to biofuels rather than used to feed people. In 2008 12.2 million hectares of GM crops in the US were used for biofuels (19.5% of total US GM area and 10% of the global GM area). [9] The majority of this was from the conversion of maize into bio-ethanol. GM maize and soya production in Latin America is also being used to produce biofuels, but detailed data are not available.
Africa remains an unreceptive area for GM crops with only three countries growing any. ISAAA claim a large increase in Bt cotton area in Burkina Faso. However, the Bt cotton seed price in Burkino Faso is reported to exceed the total input costs of non-GM cotton farmers in other parts of West Africa [10] by more than a third. A recent study of GM Bt cotton crops presented strong evidence that many poorer farmers had "been bypassed altogether" and were not benefitting from using GM seed. [11]
continued:watch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/11971-isaaa-figures-show-reduced-gm-crops-in-7-cou... more
-
-
I will answer that question with a resounding YES. GMOs are the greatest scam foisted upon the people of this world. It is the most crucial environmental and social issue of this century and encompasses health, economy, environment (climate change), soil health, biodiversity, and our very lives, as well as our freedom. And the word is getting out and more people are fighting back. This year is the year to say NO MORE GMOs and fight for true food freedom and sovereignty! We do have the power to take back our food with our votes, with our voices, and most importantly with our dollars.
Take that Monsanto!
BTW, this is a great informative video explaining it in three minutes.
Too bad the US media is so complicit in keeping people ignorant to the real threats to their health and freedom. Thankfully there are organizations picking up the slack for their irresponsibility.I will answer that question with a resounding YES. GMOs are the greatest scam foisted... more
-
-
This leaves no doubt about how immoral business is. I can't even quote all of the blatant PR written in this piece, but have been busy spreading a bit of knowledge there. There was no mention of farmer lawsuits, patent law forcing the buying of seeds, pushing out NON GMO farmers, intimidation of scientists, transgenic contamination, test results regarding their BT crops, Indian farmer suicides, deforestation of the Amazon, farmers in Latin America being pushed off their land for soy monocultures, Monsanto in Iraq and Afghanistan, Plan Colombia, government bribes, revolving Washington DC policy, nor pending lawsuits regarding PCBs and the Supreme Court. Just one big wet kiss for Monsanto. I am actually nauseated after reading it. So if you are so inclined, make a visit over there and read what Forbes had to say in their fluff piece. This is what billions in profits gotten from the blood and biodiversity of this planet will buy you. Oh, and of course, no sugary sweet ad would be complete unless those who actually know the science and who care about the planet were called "enemies."
excerpt:
"The enemies haven't disappeared entirely. A 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists study calculated that only 14% of recent corn-crop yield increases are due to genetically engineered Bt corn. Roundup-ready corn and soy seeds don't increase crop yield at all, it found. Genetic engineering of crops "is inherently risky," says Greenpeace Policy Director Marco Contiero. "We cannot recall crops that are released into the environment." He says Monsanto's dominance decreases seed biodiversity."
Enemies? Shame on you, Forbes.This leaves no doubt about how immoral business is. I can't even quote all of the... more
-
-
http;//www.thestar.com/news/globalvoices/article/742765--food-deals-leaving-developing-nations-hungry
In 2009, the World Food Programme imported humanitarian aid to about 5.9 million people in Sudan.
The conflict-stricken nation is one of the organization's largest projects. Civil war and ongoing violence have destroyed the country's infrastructure and uprooted its population. That makes sustenance farming virtually impossible and leaves millions facing starvation.
But as food aid stamped with the World Food Programme's logo is shipped to Sudan, thousands of tons of wheat and rice are shipped out.
This food won't end up on the world market. It has specific destinations: Riyadh, Beijing and Seoul to name a few. That's because 840,000 hectares of Sudanese farmland is currently leased to the governments of Saudi Arabia, China and South Korea. They use it for the sole purpose of feeding their growing populations.
Still, Sudan isn't able to feed itself.
"We have millions of acres of land, very flat and unspoiled and it hasn't really been even explored yet," Sudan's Minister of Finance Tarek Shalabi told Bloomberg in December. "Sudan is a very good place for agricultural investment."
Land grabbing, as it's called by opponents, is a new phenomenon. Since 2007, the Gulf States as well as wealthy Asian nations have bought land across the developing world to grow food staples and ship home. But, many of the countries from which they are buying are not food secure themselves.
The trend grew out of the food crisis. When commodity prices soared, arid nations in the Middle East and countries with large populations began searching for cheaper imports.
"They lost faith in the international market's ability to take care of food," says Devlin Kuyek, a researcher with GRAIN, a non-profit that supports small-scale farmers. "They took a more aggressive approach by looking for ways to buy up farmland for their own food needs."
Through government-backed corporations and sovereign wealth funds, the World Bank estimates 50 million hectares have been bought for food production. That's roughly equivalent to half of China's farmland. The deals are private so details are difficult to identify. But, most acquisitions are long-term leases, concessions or outright purchases ranging in length from 30 to 99 years.
China and the United Arab Emirates have already secured deals with the Democratic Republic of Congo and Senegal respectively. In Sept., Ethiopia announced three million hectares were for lease.
But, with Congo facing widespread unrest, 20 percent of the Senegalese population officially hungry and 13.7 million Ethiopians in need of emergency food aid, many fear these backroom deals will exacerbate the problem.
"In those places where we've seen the deals going forward, there has been displacement, loss of access to pastoral lands," says Kuyek. "And the jobs these companies are creating have been extremely low paid. They are under some of worst conditions in the world."
GRAIN estimates workers at an Ethiopian farm owned by Indian producers make 70 cents per day. Local farmers have lost their grazing and farm land. Their protests have been put down by police.
"There is a lot of manipulation and zero consultation," says Kuyek. "It goes contrary to any notion of food security and what's good for the local population."
end of excerpthttp;//www.thestar.com/news/globalvoices/article/742765--food-deals-leaving-developing-... more
-
-
New paper series tackles climate challenges for agriculture
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, December 1, 2009
Straight to the Source
[ Download Climate Agreement Must Support Shift Toward Sust... ]
Minnnneapolis – To effectively address global climate change, policy solutions must support a transition toward more sustainable agriculture systems that recognize the critical role agriculture plays in the world, concludes a series of issue briefs released today by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). The papers are being published a week before global climate talks begin in Copenhagen.
“We cannot truly address climate change without getting it right on agriculture,” said IATP President Jim Harkness. “Agriculture is a contributor to climate change, but just as importantly it profoundly affects land use around the world, and has the potential to be part of the solution. Smart climate policy for agriculture can help address hunger, support rural livelihoods, improve water quality and biodiversity, and strengthen our energy security.”
The climate series covers a wide range of topics:
Agriculture and Climate—The Critical Connection, by Jim Kleinschmit, gives an overview of the science of agriculture and climate change.
Putting Agriculture on the Global Climate Agenda, by Anne Laure Constantin, sets benchmarks for including agriculture within global climate negotiations.
U.S. Climate Policy and Agriculture, by Julia Olmstead, reviews how agriculture is considered in U.S. legislation and makes recommendations for a better approach.
Speculating on Carbon: The Next Toxic Asset, by Steve Suppan, analyzes how Wall Street speculators could influence agriculture and climate goals.
Eye of the Storm: Integrated Solutions to the Climate, Agriculture and Water Crises, by Shiney Varghese, explains water’s role in the climate and agriculture crises.
Climate Inequity, by Shalini Gupta and Dr. Cecilia Martinez, traces the historical inequities that have contributed to climate change, and proposes a more equitable climate policy.
“We are at a unique moment in history that compels us to face several crises at the same time,” said Harkness. “In addition to global warming, there are now over one billion people around the world who are hungry. Our financial meltdown has led to growing unemployment, particularly in rural communities. A shift toward low-input, sustainable agriculture systems is a crucial part of building a greener, more stable economy and addressing each of these crises.”
IATP is sending a delegation of eight to Copenhagen and will conduct a series of workshops on climate and agriculture. You can read all the issue briefs, and find out more about IATP’s activities in Copenhagen at: www.iatp.org/climate.
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems. www.iatp.orgNew paper series tackles climate challenges for agriculture
Institute for... more
-
-
Industrial agricultural models will not work in Africa. Small farmers, hunters, gatherers, and indigenous peoples have already mastered the farming techniques that will solve both the climate and food crises. What they need are access and opportunity to save their own seeds and implement the methods that will best suit their land and their circumstances. The one size fits all industrial model for profit will only lead us further into this crisis. Copenhagen needs to listen to the indigenous peoples of this world who know it better than anyone.Industrial agricultural models will not work in Africa. Small farmers, hunters,... more
-
-
-
Obama's nominee for the head of USAID Rajiv Shah appears to be just another Monsanto crony through AGRA. Where will this all end? It will end when we stand up forcefully to end it. But people need this information first in order to take action to protect their food and food sovereignty. The industrial agricultural model of the Monsantos of this world is not sustainable. It is time for REAL change.Obama's nominee for the head of USAID Rajiv Shah appears to be just another... more
-
-
,4_1_JO31_SHIVA_S1-091031.article
Vandana Shiva is giving new meaning to the old metaphor, "You reap what you sow."
Shiva, a world-renowned environmental thinker and activist, urged more than 225 people to consider the food and ecological crisis as one in the same during her speech at the University of St. Francis.
"We have mastered the art of wasting the planet," she said. "Land and water are being misused, polluted and disintegrated by nonsustainable agriculture. We need to reclaim the ethics of the gift of food."
Vandana Shiva, a world-renowned environmental activist, addresses a crowd Tuesday night at the University of St. Francis in Joliet. submitted by university of st. francis
Couldn't we make sure that no one was hungry if that food wasn't wasted?"
Vandana Shiva, environmental activist
Examining a crisis
Shiva, a leader in the International Forum on Globalization (IFG) along with Ralph Nader and Jeremy Rifkin, has spent more than 20 years examining agriculture and the environment and advocating on behalf farmers and the hungry around the world.
Less than 50 percent of crops harvested around the world are for human consumption, Shiva said. Of that food, 50 percent is wasted, which results in just over 12 percent of all the food produced on the planet actually being consumed.
"Couldn't we make sure that no one was hungry if that food wasn't wasted?" she asked.
Saving, sharing seeds
Shiva, who won of the Alternative Nobel Peace Prize (the Right Livelihood Award) in 1993, is the founder and director of Navdanya, India's network of seed keepers and organic producers.
Shiva said she has dedicated her life to saving and sharing seeds and nonviolent farming.
"For every seed sold or planted anywhere, there's a royalty collected," she said. "If a farmer saves seeds or shares seeds, he's a thief. I think it's our duty to pass them on and share them with a neighbor who needs seeds."
When farming became a big business, the average local farmer was pushed out of the market by costs or even forced off his land by his government, Shiva said.
"Farmers should be producers, but they're forced to be consumers," she said. "The input is more than the output, and it cannot be sustained."
Shiva opposes genetically modifying food, as well, and said pesticides and herbicides do nothing more than attack the food itself.
"Pesticides don't just kill the pests they're supposed to kill," she said, remarking how the names of common pesticides alone sound violent.
"We don't have to destroy the planet pretending we're doing what's best."
Small-scale farms
Shiva said the shift back to small-scale farming and bio-diverse farms is occurring. "Across the world, bio-diverse farms based on ecological systems produce more," she said. "The small-scale farm is better because crops are grown with care."
Shiva said she believes that food should be viewed as life.
"The giver of food is the giver of life," she said.,4_1_JO31_SHIVA_S1-091031.article
Vandana Shiva is giving new meaning to the old... more
-
-
I’ll admit it. I’m an unabashed fan of the First Lady. I read every article about the White House organic garden and I go to Michele’s farmers’ market every Thursday. I’m a fan and I’m a little jealous, too. She’s managed to educate DC school children and provide farm fresh food to state dinners. The garden I started at my daughter’s DC public school this spring was abandoned to the office and maintenance staff this summer, then plowed under in a schoolyard renovation before school started in the fall, and has yet to feed any students.
Because I admire the First Lady’s good example, I am shocked by the chemical agribusiness and biotech cheerleading of her husband’s administration. From USDA and FDA appointments of biotech and chemical industry insiders, to support for the preposterous idea that genetic engineering can feed the world, it is obvious that the Obama Administration is happy to assist agribusiness in its quest for world domination.
World domination sounds a little histrionic, doesn’t it? But, there’s no other way to describe the profit-at-any-cost business model of companies like Monsanto that seek to patent and control access to seeds and food and decide for the world what we can eat. The question that faces humanity today is, “Shall we let Monsanto, Cargill, McDonald’s and a handful of other multinational corporations decide the future of food?”
Proponents of the so-called Second Green Revolution, led by the chemical, biotech and industrial biofuels lobby, are spending millions each year on advertisements and donations to politicians, universities, and non-profits to convince us that the only way to feed the world and survive climate change is through high technology—relying on factory farm animal production, genetic engineering, toxic pesticides, nitrate chemical fertilizers, and compliant farmers, farm workers, and consumers.
With far fewer resources, the organic movement is generating the science to support an alternative view. Organic agriculture can feed the world, turn back climate change and make food production more resilient to droughts and floods. Organic agriculture can do it with biodiversity instead of biotech, greenhouse gas sequestration instead of emissions, integrated pest management instead of toxic pesticides, humus-rich compost instead of fossil fuel fertilizers or sewage sludge, more family farmers and better conditions for farm workers.
The question of which agriculture model will dominate food production is a question we only have one opportunity to answer. Once a seed or animal variety is extinct or contaminated with foreign genes, we will never get it back. In an age when a billion people are stuffed while a billion people are starved, most people on the planet suffer from either poor nutrition, exposure to toxic ingredients, diet-related diseases, or all three. Agriculture is a life and death issue for all of us.
So, which side is the Obama Administration on? The first answer to that question is, well, who’s in the Obama Administration?
Let’s start with the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. While Iowa Governor, Vilsack was a leading advocate for Monsanto, genetic engineering, and factory farming.
The senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety is Michael Taylor. The Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Corp. from 1998 until 2001, Taylor exemplifies the revolving door between the food industry and the government agencies that regulate it.
Rajiv Shah is the USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics and Chief Scientist. Agricultural policy experts initially expressed concern that Shah, Director of Agricultural Development Programs at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, lacked real experience in agriculture. Shah was the founding director of the Gates Foundation's agriculture program, which has donated $37 million to GM research.
much more about GMO cronyism at the link.I’ll admit it. I’m an unabashed fan of the First Lady. I read every... more
-
-
For a technology that has sucked up billions of research dollars and prolonged agriculture's dependence on chemical inputs, GMOs (genetically modified organisms) have yet to justify their role in a world desperate for more sustainable ways to produce healthier food for more people. In a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled "Failure to Yield," a summary of on-farm production levels of genetically modified crops showed less than marginal gains in actual yield. In fact, the review concluded that "no currently available transgenic varieties enhance the intrinsic yield of any crops."
Let's Put GMO Food on the Shelf
Such findings beg the question: Who needs GMO food anyway? If GMOs are developed to increase yields, then they have failed. If they are marketed to reduce costs for farmers, and the price of GMO corn seed is now three times greater than it was just a few years ago, they have failed yet again. If these seeds are engineered to use less herbicides when, according to recent indications, many weeds are becoming Roundup-resistant, requiring a cocktail of herbicide applications in certain farming areas while crop land is just being abandoned in others, they have most certainly failed!
GMO defenders cite net yield increases per acre due to weed and pest management traits, apparently comparing GMO-chemical regimes with non-GMO-chemical regimes in traditional intensive corn-soy production systems. They don't compare the genetically modified pest-management results with non-chemical systems where organic corn tolerates higher weed populations without yield loss, and where insect damage becomes insignificant in most years once basic crop rotations are established and soil health improves. It seems GMO defenders have failed to take the varying approaches of these two systems into account, which leaves us with only a chapter of the whole story.
GMO Food Just Doesn't Make Sense
Despite the failures of GMOs, it is clear that their developers have not failed at making huge profits in a system where farmers are forced to market on volume, and have no market rewards for nutritional quality or penalties for ecological impact.
So what have consumers gained? Perhaps the answer is unclear. But I do know why we in the organic movement are so dead against GMO food. The answer is pretty simple: Genetically engineered seeds just don't make sense. Here's why:
• How can a seed variety that is costly to patent (and legally can't be saved for replanting) help poor farmers around the world?
• How can a seed that needs increased levels of toxins to control weeds be the safest option, ecologically or from a human standpoint?
• How can a seed that is artificially injected with foreign proteins be harmless to eat?
GMO Food and Human Health: The Hidden Consequences
Whether genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption will remain a controversial issue. Yet some scientists who have been quieted or marginalized have found serious concerns about the safety of GMOs in laboratory animal studies. In many investigations involving GMO-fed animals, there have been cases of underdeveloped organs, reproductive problems, accelerated aging and even death.
As the four As (allergies, asthma, autism, and ADD) rapidly increase in U.S. health statistics, we must consider that GMOs could certainly be one of the causes. As a matter of fact, in a recent position paper by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, physicians across the country called for a moratorium on GMO foods because "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects."For a technology that has sucked up billions of research dollars and prolonged... more
-
-
A bill before the Senate would create a federal mandate for genetically modified crop research as part of U.S. foreign aid programs, against the recommendations of all major international assessments of agricultural development. A new report on the proposed legislation from Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy calls for urgent action to stop the bill.
The Global Food Security Act (SB 384) passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month. The legislation, also known as the Lugar-Casey Act, aims to reform aid programs to include a stronger focus on long-term agricultural development, and restructure aid agencies to better respond to crises. While this renewed attention is welcome, funding under the proposed law – some $7.7 billion worth of it - would be directed largely to genetically modified crop research.
According to Food First Policy Analyst Annie Shattuck, “The Lugar-Casey Act represents the biggest project in agriculture since the original Green Revolution industrialized agriculture in much of Asia and Latin America in the 1950's and 60's. This “new revolution” is not only on track to repeat the mistakes of the past - it may make matters worse.” Shattuck cites evidence from the Union of Concerned Scientists that genetically modified crops do not increase yield and notes, “Past government-funded GM crops have been a colossal failure in all but one regard – they have opened up markets to GM crops abroad. Agricultural development funding under Lugar-Casey is simply more corporate welfare. These funds will pry open markets for U.S. biotech firms, but will do little to help curb hunger.”
This legislation is proving divisive among emergency aid and long-term development groups, at a time when global need is high. Food First's report reveals the Lugar-Casey Act is not an isolated piece of legislation, but part of a coordinated roll-out of the “new Green Revolution,”—a project that includes the Gates Foundation's multi-billion dollar Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and a move by the biotechnology industry from basic commodity crops into other sectors of the global food system. In fact, the legislation is based on an industry-friendly report, funded by the Gates Foundation.
The Food First report Why the Lugar-Casey Bill will Fail to Curb Hunger, renews calls, based on the findings of the International Assessment of Agriculture (IAASTD), for land reform, agro-ecological techniques, building local economies, and local control of seeds as an alternative to Lugar-Casey's industry-dominated agenda.
The report can be downloaded at the link for anyone interested.A bill before the Senate would create a federal mandate for genetically modified crop... more
-
