tagged w/ monoculture
-
"The SOYA MODEL implies a war against the population, the emptying of the countryside, and the elimination of our collective memory in order to shoehorn people into towns and convert them into faithful consumers of whatever the market provides. The impacts of this model go beyond the borders of the new Soya Republics. The dehumanisation of agriculture and the depopulation of rural areas for the benefit of the corporations is increasing in the North and in the South." - Javiera Ruli in United Soya Republics. The Truth about Soya Production in Latin America
Read the Press Release here...
http://www.biosafetyafrica.net/index.html/index.php/20100901329/The-Gates-Foundation-and-Cargill-push-Soya-onto-Africa/menu-id-100025.html
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has announced a new project to develop the soya value chain in Africa in partnership with American NGO, TechnoServe and agricultural commodity trading giant Cargill. The US$8 million project will be implemented as a four year pilot in Mozambique and Zambia with the intention of spreading the model to other regions in the future.
The Gates Foundation continues to back agricultural strategies that open new markets for strong corporate interests while assisting in the creation of policy environments to support foreign agribusiness’ interests. The programme will yoke African farmers into the soya value chain and open the door for major agribusiness players such as Cargill, while displacing African agricultural practices and traditional crops. In addition, there is a very real threat that this project could be a foot in the door for the introduction of genetically modified soya onto the Continent.
Since the green revolution of the 1960s, the soya bean has become the number one forage crop on the international market. About 85% of the world’s soybeans are processed into soya bean meal and oil, about 98% of that meal is further processed into animal feed, the balance is used to make soya flour and proteins. Approximately 95% of the oil is consumed as edible oil with the rest being used for industrial products such as fatty acids, soaps and agrofuel. In the last 40 years, production of soya bean has increased by over 500%, driven by the growing affluence of Chinese consumers, who are now eating more meat than ever before, as well as a significant increase in demand for soya beans as feedstock for biodiesel. In addition, soya beans fix nitrogen in the soil, thereby improving soil fertility and making it an excellent rotation crop.
The United States, Argentina and Brazil are the three major producers of soya in the world. The aggressive expansion of soya monocrops in Latin America has wreaked socio-economic and environmental disaster - in 2008 over 30 million hectares of soya was grown in Brazil and Argentina, where soya monocrops are notorious for displacing rural populations and causing mass deforestation. In April 2006, Greenpeace announced that in the 2004/2005 growing season, 1.2 million hectares of the Amazon rainforest was deforested as a consequence of soya expansion.
The vast majority of global soya crops are genetically modified to withstand applications of herbicides. (Approximately 93% of soya production in the USA is GM, 98.9% in Argentina and 70.7% in Brazil). The introduction of herbicide tolerant soya has created a sharp increase in the use of highly toxic herbicides – in the USA the use of herbicides has increased by 382.6 million pounds over the past 13 years, with herbicide tolerant soya beans accounting for 92% of that increase.
No multinational on the planet has greater interests in soya production and trade than the American corporation Cargill. Cargill’s business operations include purchasing, processing and distributing grain and agricultural commodities, the manufacture and sale of livestock feed and ingredients for processed foods and pharmaceuticals. Their assets and business operations in Latin America are staggering; it is responsible for over 75% of Argentina’s grain and oilseed production. It also has great interest in fertiliser production, having a two-thirds stake in one of the world’s leading fertiliser companies, Mosaic. Their business interests in Africa are scant in contrast. It has now partnered with the Gates Foundation to introduce a soya value chain in Africa.
cont."The SOYA MODEL implies a war against the population, the emptying of the... more
-
-
A few weeks back, the New York Times made mention of an astounding development, which has, for whatever reason, received little fanfare or recognition. Despite its Vietnam War notoriety, Agent Orange is in vogue again, this time down on the farm. Its reemergence, and in this particular setting, raises a host of troubling questions that are not being well considered.
Over the past year, there have been increasing reports of emerging superweeds resistant to Roundup, the preferred weedkiller of America’s farmers. Roundup is sold in tandem with Roundup-ready seeds, both marquee products of the Monsanto Corporation. In the 1990s, when the latter product hit the market, it was momentous, revolutionary – a godsend: Roundup-ready seeds are genetically designed to resist application of the potent herbicide. By sowing Roundup-ready seeds and dousing their fields with the trademark weedkiller, farmers could forego the expense and toil of tilling the land, and losing valuable topsoil in the process. Production was enhanced, time and money saved. It was quite an economic boon to farmers, at least in the short run. Environmentalists were also pleased in light of the topsoil angle. Needless to say, Monsanto was thrilled that farmers were even more dependent on its products.
But for years critics ominously warned that, as is the nature of ‘nature,’ weeds would eventually evolve to withstand Roundup. Monsanto brushed aside such concerns, saying it would be ages before anyone had to worry about something like that. The glory days lasted about a decade. The superweeds evolved faster than anyone imagined-- and with a vengeance. Farmers accustomed to drenching their fields with Roundup are now battling a monster breed of pigweed that, the New York Times reports, “can grow three inches a day and reach seven feet or more…so sturdy that it can damage harvesting equipment.”
Nature has issued quite a challenge to our ‘weed solution.’ The chemical industry has decided to respond in turn with Agent Orange. To be precise, Dow Chemical is working on seeds that are resistant to 24-D, a component of Agent Orange… presumably because it intends on spraying farmland with wartime defoliant.
This is alarming on a number of fronts. But let’s be clear on one thing at the outset: we don’t necessarily need Agent Orange to deal with weeds. The Amish don’t. Never have. Superweeds-- like superbugs (or superbacteria) emerging in concentrated chicken farms-- are the product of industrial agriculture, which aims to squeeze as much as possible from the land, and has selected monoculture as the optimal means of doing so. Grow one crop, in great density, on huge tracts of land, demanding tremendous output. Hence the Iowa corn fields, which stretch as far as the eye can see. There’s only one problem with this: nature does not ‘farm’ this way. Monoculture is highly vulnerable to pests, disease and weeds. In monocultivated fields, predators find a vast pool of identical, fat, helpless victims. In contrast, nature ‘farms’ a diversity of crops amidst one another, which do not succumb en masse to any given plague.
We have insisted on monoculture in order to produce as much as possible. Today, we’re able to extract 6 times more corn from an acre of land than 100 years ago. Industrial agriculture is to be commended for that impressive efficiency. And I know how its apologists – Dow and Monsanto included-- would defend the institution and its manic drive for production. Industrial agriculture is necessary, they would say, to feed the world: you can’t feed upwards of six billion people by farming like the Amish.
Though I am not qualified to contest this claim fully, I can think of one important fact that casts doubt upon it. In this country, industrial agriculture’s immense bounty has wrought skyrocketing rates of obesity, heart disease, diabetes. Agribusiness has not exactly harnessed its awesome technological advances to feed the world, but rather, to cram as many excess calories as possible into citizens of the industrial world. In particular, its bounty has subsidized a profusion of cheap fast and processed foods. Indeed, two of Monsanto’s most popular Round-up ready products are corn and soy, the building blocks of our processed foods.
So, it seems clear, at least in the US, industrial agriculture can step off the gas pedal. We could use an Amish revolution across the farm belt. If we adopted Amish style polyculture, our farms might well produce less. But would that be such a bad thing? Polyculture would certainly produce less of the staple commodities, corn and soy, and less processed food in turn. It would make for a healthier—lighter-- nation.
But we cannot settle for less. We must have more.
We’re so hell-bent on maintaining our voracious consumption habits, that we’ll engage the services of the defense industry. We’ll use Agent Orange to fight off weeds and ensure the delivery of cheap corn to Frito-Lay, Coke and Kelloggs; and when megaweeds evolve to withstand Agent Orange—eighteen-foot-tall weeds, stems like tree trunks—we’ll reach for the napalm. ‘Napalm-ready’ soy; that’s our future.
All in the name of productivity, efficiency, convenience-- profit. For you see, farming as nature ordains it fails on all fronts. Nature does not cut it in the USA.
We think nothing of wantonly poisoning the land on which we depend for sustenance. We have gravely degraded the rich topsoil of the Prairies, much of which has flowed down the Mississippi into the Gulf of Mexico (and is now covered in a slick of oil, I presume). Our herbicides, pesticides and fungicides have stripped the land of natural nutrients, which we aim to supply in chemical doses. And when agricultural problems arise-- problems that are the product of our industrial, chemical practices-- we administer more of the same. Actually, I’m wrong: in the case of Agent Orange, we administer stronger poisons, as if we aim to twist Nature’s arm—as if we could. As if we could subdue her, and force her to do our bidding: ‘You WILL give us Cheetoes at 20 cents to the pound-- or else!’
It is of course hubris. Not to mention tremendously short-sighted. What do we think, soaking the fields in Agent Orange? Surely, Dow must know that the very application of this chemical in strong, widespread and longterm doses is precisely the doom of this product: these are the very conditions that encourage—dare!-- superweeds to evolve. So what are the chemical companies playing at? What’s the game plan? Do they intend to graduate to ever more potent and dangerous herbicides? Surely that can’t be sustainable. Or do they hope to mix and match chemical herbicides, to keep the weeds off balance? That seems marginally safer, at best. And does anyone know how these chemicals fare in the environment, once combined, over the course of years? Or is Dow simply aiming for Monsanto’s promised land, an herbicide-seed combination that will corner the market, and inflate company stock in the short run?
Besides the fact that we would use these chilling chemicals in the production of our food, no less. Agent Orange is accused of having caused birth defects in Vietnam, and increased rates of cancer among American veterans of the war there. Dow has disputed these claims. And yet, in light of Agent Orange’s reputation, it is surprising that Dow would press on with its use in food production nonetheless. This shows tremendous gall. Or shocking disrespect for the consumer.
cont.A few weeks back, the New York Times made mention of an astounding development, which... more
-
-
Dr. Shiva on the effects of the 'green revolution' from water shortages, overuse of pesticides, and industrial agriculture.
She is a beacon of hope in a world gone mad. I cannot get enough of her speaking. We are truly blessed to have her voice out here advocating for our planet and social equity.Dr. Shiva on the effects of the 'green revolution' from water shortages,... more
-
-
This is beautiful to watch! Haitian farmers (approx. 10,000 protesters in all) protested on June 4 for World Environment Day by burning seeds sent to Haiti by Monsanto. The video is not in English, but words are not necessary. The symbolism of this action is profound and the message is clear :
MONSANTO OUT OF OUR FOOD!
Thank you Haiti, and there are organizations working to make sure Haitian farmers receive natural seeds and methods to return their soil to health and to provide true sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty to their country. The way it SHOULD be.This is beautiful to watch! Haitian farmers (approx. 10,000 protesters in all)... more
-
-
In North America [as elsewhere] GM crops have been evaluated for safety based on superstition and the use of the magic words 'substantial equivalence'. The paper below shows how the numerous real differences between GM and conventional crops can be evaluated scientifically.
---
---
2.Unintended Compositional Changes in Transgenic Rice Seeds (Oryza sativa L.) Studied by Spectral and Chromatographic Analysis Coupled with Chemometrics Methods
Zhe Jiao†, Xiao-xi Si†, Gong-ke Li*†, Zhuo-min Zhang† and Xin-ping Xu§
† School of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510275, China
§ Biotechnology Research Center, Key Laboratory of Gene Engineering of the Ministry of Education, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510275, China
J. Agric. Food Chem., 2010, 58 (3), pp 1746–1754 DOI: 10.1021/jf902676y
Abstract
Unintended compositional changes in transgenic rice seeds were studied by near-infrared reflectance, GC-MS, HPLC, and ICP-AES coupled with chemometrics strategies. Three kinds of transgenic rice with resistance to fungal diseases or insect pests were comparatively studied with the nontransgenic counterparts in terms of key nutrients such as protein, amino acids, fatty acids, vitamins, elements, and antinutrient phytic acid recommended by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The compositional profiles were discriminated by chemometrics methods, and the discriminatory compounds were protein, three amino acids, two fatty acids, two vitamins, and several elements. Significance of differences for these compounds was proved by analysis of variance, and the variation extent ranged from 20 to 74% for amino acids, from 19 to 38% for fatty acids, from 25 to 57% for vitamins, from 20 to 50% for elements, and 25% for protein, whereas phytic acid content did not change significantly. The unintended compositional alterations as well as unintended change of physical characteristic in transgenic rice compared with nontransgenic rice might be related to the genetic transformation, the effect of which needs to be elucidated by additional studies.
more in the comments.In North America [as elsewhere] GM crops have been evaluated for safety based on... more
-
-
Meat claimed as invention by multinational company of Monsanto
Multinational seed corporations are following a consequent strategy to gain control over basic resources for food production. As recent research shows not only genetically engineered plants, but more and more the conventional breeding of plants gets into the focus of patent monopolies: International patent applications in this sector are skyrocking, having doubled since 2007 till end of 2009. Further on the multinationals expand their claims over the whole chain of food production from feed to animals and food products such as meat. In a pending patent application from Monsanto even bacon and steaks are claimed: Patent application WO2009097403 is claiming meat stemming from pigs being fed with the patented genetically engineered plants of Monsanto. A similar patent is applied for fish from aquaculture in March 2010 (WO201027788). Far reaching patents on food are even already granted: Monsanto received a European patent (EP 1356033) in 2009, which the chain of food production from seeds of genetically engineered plants up to food products such as meal and oil are covered.
„There is a process going on, multinationals are trying to gain increasing control of the whole chain of food production. Consumers, farmers and food producers are all caught by the same trap. This has to be regarded as an immoral attempt to abuse patent law. The company is heading for maximising its profits by filing patents on food while at the same time one billion people are suffering from hunger," says François Meienberg from the Berne Declaration.
As experience from the US shows, patents on seeds and increasing market concentration are leading to drastic increase in seed prices, reduced choice in seeds and soaring dependencies for farmers. Meanwhile the Department of Justice and state attorneys general in several US states are investigating whether Monsanto Company has abused its market power to lock out competitors and raise prices in seeds. The coalition of 'No Patents on Seeds is warning that market concentration will even increase if the abuse of patent law is not stopped. The coalition is supported globally by more than 200 organisations. The organisations are demanding a clear change in policy and practise of patent offices. Governments are urged to to revise the patent laws in order to exclude patents on seeds, animals and parts thereof.
Download Monsanto's patent: wo2009097403a1 1.89 MbMeat claimed as invention by multinational company of Monsanto
Multinational seed... more
-
-
Be not troubled by Robert Paarlberg's scaremongering. Organic practices can feed the world -- better, in fact, than wasteful industrial farming.
In May 2004, Catherine Badgley, an evolutionary biology professor at the University of Michigan, took her students on a research trip to an organic farm near their campus. Standing on the acre-and-a-half farm, Badgley asked the farmer, Rob MacKercher, how much food he produces annually. "Twenty-seven tons," he said. Badgley did the quick math: That's enough to provide 150 families one pound of produce every single day of the year.
"If he can grow that quantity on this tiny parcel," Badgley wondered, "why can't organic agriculture feed the world?" That question was the genesis of a multi-year, multidisciplinary study to explore whether we could, indeed, feed the world with organic, sustainable methods of farming. The results? A resounding yes.
Unfortunately, you don't hear about this study, or others with similar findings, in "Attention Whole Foods Shoppers," Robert Paarlberg's defense of industrial agriculture in the new issue of Foreign Policy. Instead, organic agriculture, according to Paarlberg, is an "elite preoccupation," a "trendy cause" for "purist circles." Sure, sidling up to a Whole Foods in your Lexus SUV and spending $24.99 on artisan fromage may be the trappings of a privileged foodie, but there's an SUV-sized difference between obsessing about the texture of your goat cheese and arguing for a more sustainable food system. Despite Paarlberg's pronouncements, Badgley's research, along with much more evidence, helps us see that what's best for the planet and for people -- especially small-scale farmers who are the hungriest among us -- is a food system based on agroecological practices. What's more, Paarlberg's impressive-sounding statistics veil the true human and ecological cost we are paying with industrial agriculture.
Since most of us aren't well-versed in the minutia of this debate, we can't be blamed for falling for Paarlberg's scaremongering, which suggests that by rejecting biotech and industrial agriculture, we are keeping developing countries underdeveloped and undernourished. Paarlberg suggests that we could eliminate starvation across the continent of Africa were it not that "efforts to deliver such essentials have been undercut by deeply misguided ... advocacy against agricultural modernization."
It's a compelling argument, and one industry defenders make all the time. For who among us would want to think we're starving the poor by pushing for sustainability? (At a Biotechnology Industry Organization conference I attended in 2005, a workshop participant even suggested pro-organic advocates should be "tried for crimes against humanity.")
But the argument for industrial agriculture and biotechnology is built on a misleading depiction of what organic agriculture is, bolstered with shaky statistics, and constructed by ignoring the on-the-ground lessons of success stories across the globe.
continuedBe not troubled by Robert Paarlberg's scaremongering. Organic practices can feed... more
-
-
The U.S. State Department will aggressively confront critics of agricultural biotechnology as the United States seeks to mitigate the effects of climate change, Jose Fernandez, assistant secretary for the Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, told several hundred attendees from around the world at the Biotechnology Industry Organization's annual convention last week in Chicago.
Nearly 15,000 stakeholders from the medical, agricultural and industrial sectors crowded the vast McCormick Place conference center, where it can be a half-mile walk between meeting rooms. Highlights of the May 3-6 meeting were keynote presentations by former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, and former Vice President Al Gore. Lesser-known celebrities included New Yorker writer Michael Specter, author of the book Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives (see also stories on Page 5).
Though he was not the first speaker at an opening afternoon "Leadership Summit," Fernandez warmed up the crowd when he said the State Department is ready to take on the naysayers. Agriculture has greater potential to mitigate climate change than either energy or transport measures, he said. "There are more people in the world, and the world is getting warmer. Our challenge is to produce more food with less."
Noting Turkey's recent ban on biotech food imports and India's rejection of biotech eggplant cultivation, Fernandez said the State Department is "working to overcome these obstacles." He outlined a four-pronged strategy to promote biotech crops worldwide: (1) highlighting the science; (2) confronting the critics; (3) building alliances; and (4) anticipating and addressing roadblocks to acceptance.
continued at the link if you have an account.The U.S. State Department will aggressively confront critics of agricultural... more
-
-
Today the Senate Foreign Relations committee held a hearing on the Global Food Security Act (S.384), which, as I have documented on this blog before, Monsanto HAS been involved in lobbying on. The bill first came to my attention about a year ago, when the same committee held a very similar hearing about the same bill. In the year since then, I've become increasingly knowledgeable and outraged about the issues surrounding global food security. In the meantime, the Obama Administration took the lead on the issue of global food security from the Senate, and USAID is doing quite a bit already (in partnership with the World Bank and private organizations and companies) to really f*ck things up worldwide.
One of the clauses in the bill specifies that the U.S. should promote biotechnology in its efforts to combat global hunger. After a year of lobbying to ask them to remove this, they still haven't. Lugar made a point today in saying how necessary he thought GMOs are. My very inadequate transcription of his remarks are as follows:
'The average African farmer's yield per acre is 1/2 that of an Indian farmer, 1/4 that of a Chinese farmer, and 1/5 of an American. [Something about Bill Gates' piece in the Wall Street Journal today] The role of GMOs in agriculture development is a matter of contention. Europe's rejection of GM has pressured African governments for fear they will lose export markets. Others argue safety is not proven despite 2 decades of safe use of GMOs. This ensures that much of the continent [Africa] will lack the tools to deal with changing climate in the long run. We may not be able to double food output by 2050. I ask to what extent does USAID support a full range of technologies? To what extent do the strategies encourage biotech?'
Here's the thing. The "double food output by 2050" figure is one that was created by idiots. Or just very greedy assholes. It assumes that the rest of the world will want to eat much more grain-fed meat (like Americans do now). Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not operate like a market with supply and demand. A diet of grain-fed meat means increased diet-related chronic illnesses for those who eat it. And it means continued and worsened environmental degradation and climate change for the planet. Our species existence on this planet is contingent on us NOT increasing grain-fed meat consumption (and in fact, on DECREASING it). Therefore, the Senate, USAID, and Bill Gates are all aiming for a false goal.
Rajiv Shah (head of USAID) answered as follows (again, this is a very poor transcription):
'USAID has had a longstanding relationship with CG research activities [the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, a major institution of the Green Revolution] - linking them to local agricultural systems. We've invested in land grant universities through collaborative research systems. The two things we are looking to evolve - we've identified a set of core crops and core production constraints like rice, maize, and cassava and drought tolerant and heat tolerant traits. We are working with partners around the world to do this. We are looking to partner with USDA and the unique capabilities they bring. We've specifically support transgenic technologies including GE eggplant in India and we are supporting building the regulatory systems in other countries and then we'll let farmers decide what they want.'
Shah is an asshat. I really don't have a nicer word for him or a more apt description. He came originally from the Gates Foundation (which employs a former Monsanto VP and is now working with CGIAR and actively promoting GM crops and industrial agriculture) to the USDA and then to USAID. By all accounts he's very smart, but he's 100% on board with this "new Green Revolution" extend industrial ag including biotech to the developing world plan (despite massive amounts of science that says it's a bad idea).
The number one outrage for me from this hearing was when Shah said that it was appropriate to be speaking about this on Earth Day and then referred to US promotion of biotech as "sustainable." He said we are working on two fronts - to make agriculture produce more and to make it more sustainable. Except, from what I heard, it seemed that his idea of sustainable was GM "drought tolerant" seeds.
Next came Jacob Lew, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. He said (roughly):
'The regulatory environment is very important. If you don't fill the space with science and knowledge and facts, then fear can fill the space just as easily. To deal with the problems of the future, we can't afford to let it drift for decades. It must be addressed as the technologies are developed.'
In other words, if USAID and its partners are not active in promoting biotech, then people around the world might discover some of the risks or problems with biotech and reject it. He wants to use biotech now, not wait for years or decades until technologies are proven safe (or perfected so that they are safe) before using them.
Next, Lugar and the two witnesses (Shah and Lew) had an exchange about a "country-led" effort to solve problems of food insecurity. They don't want to be paternalistic, and yet they don't want to give up control over the uses of their money in the countries where they spend it. Essentially it sounds like the US will lay out what they are interested in doing (i.e. biotech) and if other countries are interested in playing ball, they can. If they don't, then they don't get any money from us or the World Bank.
snip
This turned into a dialogue about women. Research shows that some 70% of smallholder farmers in the developing world are women, and a disproportionate percent of the hungry are women and girls. Also, when you give $1 of additional income to a woman, it is more likely to go toward the health and well-being of the family than if you give that $1 to a man. I'm very pleased that the U.S. government is recognizing this and taking action on it.
Unfortunately, there's a negative side to this too. I believe it was Rajiv Shah who mentioned during the hearing that it is easier to convince women to buy GM seeds and grow GMOs because you can make a case for increased nutrition from GMOs. They are also more likely to purchase ammonia fertilizer (which kills the life in the soil and pollute waterways). Thus, women are more likely than men to respond to arguments the US makes telling them to adopt GMOs and industrial ag.Today the Senate Foreign Relations committee held a hearing on the Global Food... more
-
-
Nombulelo Siqwana-Ndulo (PhD)
FoodFirst, April 15 2010
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2884
Multinational seed and chemical companies looking to gain a new customer base in Africa are facing increasing resistance from both farmers and consumers. Nonetheless, they are making inroads by partnering with African institutions and governments that are eager to ‘modernize' their agricultural sectors. South Africa is of particular importance in this regard. The country has gone against the grain of general distrust of GMOs in Africa to become a gateway for the distribution of GM food aid; the commercialization and export of GM seeds; and experimentation with GM crops not approved elsewhere.[i]
But here too, they face mounting opposition. In July 2009, for instance, the South African government rejected the commercial release application for GM potatoes after the Executive Council, a government licensing body, concluded that the toxicology studies were "inadequate, scientifically poorly designed and fundamentally flawed." It was also reported that, in 2008/2009, 80% of Monsanto's GM maize in South Africa failed to produce a crop, leading critics to call for urgent investigation and a ban on all GM foods.
In 2002, the South African government, in partnership with U.S.-based biotech firm Monsanto, launched the so-called Massive Food Production Program (MFPP) in the country's Eastern Cape Province. The Eastern Cape is characterized by a dual economy in which the western half of the province (previously white South Africa under apartheid) is dominated by commercial agriculture while the eastern half consists of subsistence agriculture. After the advent of democracy in 1994, there was tremendous pressure to develop the rural economy here.
MFPP is a "flagship program" of the South African government designed to bring about agrarian transformation through a "green revolution."[ii]The program operates by granting subsidies (which are phased out over time) and credit to small farming communities to purchase fertilizers, pesticides and GM or hybrid seeds. Through MFPP, Monsanto has essentially been elevated to the status of a government "extension agency" responsible for educating and training farmers about GM seeds and technologies. Of course, as a private company, they are unlikely to share with farmers the potentially disastrous effects of planting their land with GM crops. Rather, they advise farmers to buy and use the recommended agrochemicals. They also instruct them to plant only GM maize, as a monoculture, instead of intercropping with beans or pumpkins as they have done for centuries to ensure their food security.
A white farmer interviewed by GRAIN, paid to mentor an MFPP community, acknowledged that the cost of the inputs was just too high for small farmers to afford on their own,without continuing to amass debt. He was quoted saying he was "tempted to tell farmers to just buy food with the money" as their losses would be less than growing the food themselves through MFPP.
South African farmers are becoming increasingly aware of the deception that GM seeds and technologies will bring development and pull them out of poverty, as their experiences have not born out these claims. In populations with low literacy levels, the farmers are given little or no information about the effects of planting GM seeds, until it is too late, that is. It is not surprising that western consumers who are largely literate and have access to information are wary of GM foods.
Tragically, even the government officials in charge of co-implementing the MFPP program are ignorant of GMOs. A number NGOs and Human Rights organization have taken on the responsibility of educating the farmers about the effects of planting GMOs.
The constitution of South Africa, hailed as one of the most progressive in the world, obligates the government to take steps to protect its citizens. As part of the Consumer Protection Act, the government is indeed drafting policies to regulate GMOs, but many NGOs say it is unclear who will implement and monitor these regulations.
What's more, the South African NGO Safeage reports that the U.S. seed company Pannar and the Swiss firm Syngenta are partnering with local businesses to introduce a program of their own called AfriCan, targeting the poor farmers inthe Eastern Cape who have yet to be reached. The project incorporates farmers into a contract-farming scheme linking them to credit, GM seeds and chemical inputs-much like MFPP. The pilot project, which hopes to be reproduced throughout Africa, was launched in March 2010 with 500 farmers (with .5 to 4 hectare plots) and will run for 18 months.[iii]
Despite claims that there have been no substantiated threats to human and animal health caused by GM crops, subsistence farmers who participated in the MFPP project testified to the contrary in a workshop held by the NGO Biowatch (SA). A farmer from the organization Siyazakha expressed her dismay of the quality of "mielies" (maize), a staple food, produced with"free" seeds from the project. She stated, "the mielies produced are making us sick; they break easily and are bad quality. When we give it to our chickens it affects them, we want to grow our own seed and protect them". Another small-scale farmer from Siyazakha, pointed out that using fertilizers destroys the soil after just a few years and food can no longer be grown on it. He stressed that they want use manure and produce crops using traditional farming methods.[iv]
cont.Nombulelo Siqwana-Ndulo (PhD)
FoodFirst, April 15 2010... more
-
-
Tropical rainforests are a world like none other; and their importance to the global ecosystem and human existence is unequivocal. Unparalleled in terms of their untold biological diversity, tropical rainforests are a natural reservoir of genetic diversity which offers a rich source of medicinal plants, high yield foods, and a myriad of other useful forest products. They are the world’s richest and most productive ecosystems, containing half of all living species on the planet and a multitude of unique indigenous cultures.
Tropical rainforests play an elemental role in regulating global weather in addition to maintaining regular rainfall, while buffering against floods, droughts, and erosion. They store vast quantities of carbon, while producing a significant amount of the world's oxygen.
Despite their monumental role, tropical forests are restricted to the small land area between the latitudes 22.5° North and 22.5° South of the equator, or in other words, between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer. Since the majority of Earth's land is located north of the tropics, rainforests are naturally limited to a relatively small area.
Tropical rainforests, like so many other natural places, are a scarce resource. The vast swathes of forest, swamp, desert, and savanna that carpeted Earth's land surface a mere five generations ago have been reduced to scattered fragments; today, more than two-thirds of the world's tropical rainforests exist as fragmented remnants.
Just a few thousand years ago, tropical rainforests covered as much as 12% of the land surface on earth, or about 15.5 million square km, but today less than 5.3% of Earth's land is covered with these forests (about 6.7 million square km).
The largest unbroken stretch of rainforest is found in the Amazon river basin of South America. Over half of this forest lies in Brazil, which holds about one-third of the world's remaining tropical rainforests. Another 20% of the world's remaining rainforest exists in Indonesia and Congo Basin, while the balance of the world's rainforests are scattered around the globe in tropical regions. (Adapted for educational purposes from mongabay)
The Disappearing Rainforests
We are losing 33,8 million acres of tropical forest per year, that’s 500,000 trees every hour, or an area the size of a football field every second!
The Amazon covers over a billion acres, encompassing areas in Brazil, Venezuela, Columbia and the Eastern Andean region of Ecuador and Peru. It is the most diverse ecosystem in the world, supporting around 60,000 plant species, 1000 bird species and more than 300 mammal species. The rainforest is also home to 20 million people.
Over the past 30 years 15% of the Brazilian Amazon has been completed destroyed - that's an area the size of France. In 2002 an area the size of Belgium was destroyed, the second highest figure on record.
There were an estimated ten million Indians living in the Amazonian Rainforest five centuries ago. Today there are less than 200,000. In Brazil alone, European colonists have destroyed more than 90 indigenous tribes since the 1900's.
Why do tropical forests disappear?
Logging is one of the principal causes of destruction in the Amazon. By building roads in pristine forest, the logging industry opens the door to further devastation such as clearing forest for cattle ranches and soya plantations. When the demand in the world for meat increases, more rainforest lands are being destroyed and turned into farmland for animals.
Tropical forests yield some of the most beautiful and valuable woods in the world, such as teak, mahogany, rosewood, balsa, sandalwood, and countless lesser-known species.
Most of the rainforest timber on the international market is exported to rich countries. There, it is sold for hundreds of the times of the price that is paid to the indigenous peoples whose forest has been plundered. The timber is used in the construction of doors, window frames, crates, coffins (we consume even in death!), furniture, plywood sheets, chopsticks, household utensils and other items.
Continued in comments>>>
http://www.studentnunamazon.com/data/pages/rainforest.htm#Tropical rainforests are a world like none other; and their importance to the global... more
-
-
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
-
-
Faced with growing demand for food and increasingly unpredictable weather, many developing nations are debating whether to relax restrictions on the use of genetically modified crops.
Students from the department of environment studies pose with their painted faces during a protest against "bacillus thuringniensis" Bt brinjal in the northern Indian city of Chandigarh February 2, 2010. (REUTERS/Ajay Verma)Seed developers promise that a coming generation of genetically modified (GM) food crops will have climate-resilient features, from drought resistance to saltwater tolerance.
But widespread adoption of GM varieties by small farmers would be "suicidal in terms of climate change," said Vandana Shiva, an Indian social activist, environmentalist and proponent of small-scale farming.
"The (GM) system is more about companies making money from farmers than food security," she told AlertNet in an interview in London.
Adopting GM crops puts small farmers at greater financial risk because they often have to borrow money to buy more expensive GM seeds. If their crops fail, particularly repeatedly, they can find themselves unable to repay the loans, she said.
Worldwide, crop failures are increasingly harder to predict because the climate is becoming more erratic.
In recent years there has been an unprecedented spate of suicides by heavily indebted cotton farmers in Central India, Shiva said. More than three quarters of the suicides, her research shows, have been committed by farmers using GM cotton seed and struggling to repay loans.
GM suppliers sell their seeds on the condition that farmers buy fresh seed each year - something many growers can't afford if their crop fails. A decade ago, 80 percent of Indian farmers saved part of their harvest as seed to plant the following season's crops, Shiva said.
EXISTING SOLUTIONS
Plenty of drought- and flood-resistant traditional crop varieties already exist and simply need to be brought back to market, supporters of traditional farming say.
Shiva said India has hundreds of varieties of rice, and many that show resistance to flooding, drought and saltwater are now being carefully bred at Indian research institutes to increase yields and are then re-released to farmers.
In India's northeast Assam province, where fields have been flooded for weeks after intense rains, demand has surged for two rice varieties that can survive weeks under water and also produce well even in dry conditions.
Planting a broader variety of crop strains - rather than a couple of GM varieties - should help protect the world food supply and insure it against emerging climate threats, including an expanding range of crop pests.
While a pest might decimate some varieties of crops, it is unlikely it could destroy a wide range of varieties, she said.
"Resilience is built through diversity," Shiva said.
cont.Faced with growing demand for food and increasingly unpredictable weather, many... more
-
-
Not just a spud, this is likely to prove a very hot political potato indeed. It is living, knobbly proof of the determination of Brussels bureaucrats to spread GM crops throughout Europe, against the will of most of its people.
In a little-noticed move last week, the European Commission defied most of the governments to which it is supposed to answer to give the green light to growing a modified potato across the continent. It was the first time a GM crop had been authorised for cultivation in 13 years. But, now the long moratorium has been broken, similar approvals for others are expected rapidly to follow.
The decision has its origins in a couple of secret, top-level meetings called by Jose Manuel Barroso, the Commission's strongly pro-GM president. He invited the prime ministers of each of the 27 EU member states to send a personal representative along to discuss how to "speed up" the spread of the technology and "deal with" public opposition.
You can see why he was frustrated. Only one GM crop - a maize produced by Monsanto - had ever been cleared for growing in Europe, and that was way back in 1998. Other applications, including the GM potato, had failed to get through the Council of Ministers, representing the EU governments. No surprise there: about three times as many Europeans oppose genetic modification as support it.
As a result, GM crops cover only about 0.12 per cent of Europe's agricultural land, mainly in Spain – and the continent accounts for just 0.08 per cent of the area growing them worldwide. And they have been losing ground. In the past two years, both France and Germany banned the Monsanto maize, joining Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg.
The meetings' confidential minutes show that Barroso was trying to get the prime ministers to over-rule their own agriculture and environment ministers, and "look at the wider picture". And the leaders' emissaries duly called for "the speeding up of the authorisation process, based on robust assessments so as to reassure the public".
But little changed: the Commission tried to force countries to lift their bans on growing the Monsanto maize, but again failed at the Council of Ministers. So it undemocratically took matters into its own hands to launch the GM potato. Called Amflora – developed by BASF to produce starch for paper, textiles and glue – the potato has twice been to the Council for approval, in December 2006 and August 2007. Each time, as in almost all GM applications, the ministers were split between pro and anti-GM countries, and the Commission could not get the qualified majority it needed. So, last week it cynically approved the spud for cultivation - using a provision that allows it, when ministers are deadlocked, to decide over their heads.
cont.Not just a spud, this is likely to prove a very hot political potato indeed. It is... more
-
-
American farmers, do you see the truth now? YOU ARE BEING HAD BY MONSANTO.
Let's face facts. No company would do this at a time of economic hardship, especially at a time when it is most ecomomically trying for farmers. Especially a companuy that claims they want to 'feed the world.'
I think we need a seed satyagraha in America. Tear up those bogus contracts and start saving your natural seed! There are more of you than are in the gestapo legal department of Monsanto. It is time to stand up to these flagrant liars and enemies of our environment. They lied and cajoled to take us to the point where we are now heading into a monoculture world where they can easily raise seed prices because they have no competition! This is not only un democratic, it is immoral. I wouldn't put it past them to deliberately implant genes in first generation GMOS that are timed to fail in order to introduce round 2 at a higher price!
When are you going to take back your seeds? Whoever owns the seeds owns the food supply and then owns you.
This cannot be allowed to continue.American farmers, do you see the truth now? YOU ARE BEING HAD BY MONSANTO.... more
-
-
This is a comprehensive report written by FASE (Federation of Organizations for Social and Educational Action) in Brazil. It relays the terrible price being paid by the farmers of Brazil in seeing soy turned into a monoculture crop in an industrialized agricultural world. Millions of tons of soybeans which required an abundance of virtual water to produce and ship which in the longrun have been bought at a high ecological, social, and economic price.This is a comprehensive report written by FASE (Federation of Organizations for Social... more
-
-
The Monsanto RoundUp has been a feature of the Sustainable Agriculture Group where I bring you reports regarding news in the world of GMOs and Monsanto. I haven't done one in a while so I thought I would do this to bring people on Current up to speed on the most important events in the past month. It would take too long to bring you all of the news in the world of GMOs within the past five months, but suffice it to say it has been a busy world with both ups and downs.
Hopefully, through our actions and by dessiminating this information to as many people as we can we can bring about the tipping point that will bring back and give food sovereignty to people worldwide who are seeing it stolen and jeopardized by a stealth attack on their seeds, their biodiversity, their culture, their land, and their very livelihoods.
Check below for postings as reference to all mentioned in this video, and thank you for supporting this endeavor of the Sustainable Agriculture Group.
http://current.com/groups/sustainable-agriculture/
Knowledge is power. Satyagraha!
JanThe Monsanto RoundUp has been a feature of the Sustainable Agriculture Group where I... more
-
-
Ever felt that the approval of GM crops and foods by GM 'regulators' across the world has lacked transparency, due democratic process, and scientific rigour?
Then take a look at India for a lesson in how we can begin to take back the power we've given away to corporations and their bought-and-owned politicians and scientists.
Over the past week we've put onto our website (http://www.gmwatch.org/ - Latest News) a stack of documents from independent scientists and other experts submitted to the Indian government, commenting on its Expert Committee's (EC II) recent approval for commercialisation of GM Bt brinjal (aubergine/eggplant).
The approval process appeared to be based on junk science generated by the GM company Mahyco (a subsidiary of Monsanto), who created the GM Bt brinjal in question. Their data was not made fully public or independently evaluated.
When the approval announcement met with public outcry, the Minister for the Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, intervened and launched a public consultation and review process.
In response, a group of citizens, independent scientists, and other experts stepped into the knowledge gap to shine a light on the questions and problems around Bt brinjal that Mahyco and its friends in the Indian government didn't want the public to know about.
For example, Aruna Rodrigues (lead petitioner in the GM Public Interest Lawsuit in the Supreme Court), with members of civil society, has set up an Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel in an extra-governmental process to do the job that the 'regulator' failed to do.
We'll continue to put more documents up as they come in.Ever felt that the approval of GM crops and foods by GM 'regulators' across... more
-
-
Bees who feed from diverse wildflowers have much higher survival rates than those which are limited to monocultured farm crops.Bees who feed from diverse wildflowers have much higher survival rates than those... more
-
-
Since 1950 the world soybean harvest has climbed from 17 million tons to 250 million tons, a gain of more than 14-fold. (See data.) This contrasts with growth in the world grain harvest of less than fourfold. Soybeans are the second-ranking U.S. crop after corn, and they totally dominate agriculture in both Brazil and Argentina.
Where does the 250-million-ton world soybean crop go? One tenth or so is consumed directly as food—tofu, meat substitutes, soy sauce, and other products. Nearly one fifth is extracted as oil, making it a leading table oil. The remainder, roughly 70 percent of the harvest, ends up as soybean meal to be consumed by livestock and poultry.
So although the soybean is everywhere, it is virtually invisible, embedded in livestock and poultry products. Most of the world harvest ends up in refrigerators in such products as milk, eggs, cheese, chicken, ham, beef, and ice cream.
Satisfying the global demand for soybeans, growing at nearly 6 million tons per year, poses a challenge. The soybean is a legume, fixing atmospheric nitrogen in the soil, which means it is not as fertilizer-responsive as, say, corn, which has a ravenous appetite for nitrogen. But because the soy plant uses a substantial fraction of its metabolic energy to fix nitrogen, it has less energy to devote to producing seed. This makes raising yields more difficult.
In contrast to the impressive gains in grain yields, scientists have had comparatively little success in raising soybean yields. Since 1950, U.S. corn yields have quadrupled while those of soybeans have barely doubled. Although the U.S. area in corn has remained essentially unchanged since 1950, the area in soybeans has expanded fivefold. (See data.) Farmers get more soybeans largely by planting more soybeans. Herein lies the dilemma: how to satisfy the continually expanding demand for soybeans without clearing so much of the Amazon rainforest that it dries out and becomes vulnerable to fire.
The Amazon is being cleared both by soybean growers and by ranchers, who are expanding Brazil’s national herd of beef cattle. Oftentimes, soybean growers buy land from cattlemen, who have cleared the land and grazed it for a few years, pushing them ever deeper into the Amazon rainforest.
The Amazon rainforest sustains one of the richest concentrations of plant and animal biological diversity in the world. It also recycles rainfall from the coastal regions to the continental interior, ensuring an adequate water supply for Brazil’s inland agriculture. And it is an enormous storehouse of carbon. Each of these three contributions is obviously of great importance. But it is the release of carbon, as deforestation progresses, that most directly affects the entire world. Continuing destruction of the Brazilian rainforest will release massive quantities of carbon into the atmosphere, helping to drive climate change.
Brazil has discussed reducing deforestation 80 percent by 2020 as part of its contribution to lowering global carbon emissions. Unfortunately, if soybean consumption continues to climb, the economic pressures to clear more land could make this difficult.
Although the deforestation is occurring within Brazil, it is the worldwide growth in demand for meat, milk, and eggs that is driving it. Put simply, saving the Amazon rainforest now depends on curbing the growth in demand for soybeans by stabilizing population worldwide as soon as possible. And for the world’s affluent population, it means moving down the food chain, eating less meat and thus lessening the growth in demand for soybeans. With food, as with energy, achieving an acceptable balance between supply and demand now means curbing growth in demand rather than just expanding supply.Since 1950 the world soybean harvest has climbed from 17 million tons to 250 million... more
-
