Global Food Security Act is a giveaway to GM seed companies

Evidence in favor of these alternatives is building. A 2008 study by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development found that "organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and…it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term." Numerous studies have documented these alternatives' ability not only to raise yield — but reduce poverty and inequality, the root cause of hunger.

+++++++++++++++

This is the best part of the article. The green revolution in Africa must start with security of persons and their land, water conservation and distribution, and organic farming. That would bring long term health, prosperity, and economic growth in Africa.

I Been watching current tv for a while..never remember this channel covering anything about monsanto or GMos....Let's call up our back up to see if they really air this one out...(or any other that's urgent enough).

contact your congressional 'representative' and make sure they know what you think about this:

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

They will starve the third world and make billions from it. Those who support this evil are no better. Simple as that.

If 3 striks aplied to Co. Citizens.................

Defendant monsanto

DDT-1,Agent Orange-2,PCBs-3,Round-up-4,rBGH-5,BT crops-6 every thing goes Mutant!!!

case over?,No we ALL pay again!!!!!!!!

It stuns me that some people don't get how lethal this GM stuff is . It destroys land , farmers , water , and community and health . Perhaps they just hate life , or want to control it . What do you have against sustainable agriculture ? People being empowered instead of corporations ? Corporations are never your friend . Do you still want to give them money when they have a track record that includes DDT ? You cannot patent normal fruits and veggies . No money in it . That is all they want and they do not care how they get it .

Say Goodbye to Farmers Markets, CSAs, and roadside stands...

U.S. "food safety" bills currently under consideration were written by Monsanto, Cargill, Tyson’s and ADM. All of them are associated with the opposite of food safety.

Organic food and a rebirth of farming have been winning -- not in absolute numbers, but in a growing shift by the public toward understanding the connection between their food and their health.

Farmers markets, local farmers, real milk, fresh eggs and vegetable stands threaten the corporations, which is why there are now massive "fake food safety" bills in Congress.

They set standards for "food safety" that are so grotesquely and inappropriately applied to local, independent farmers and ranchers that there is no way they can manage. Imagine a tiny business being faced with a 100-page IRS form and facing a million dollar a day penalty for a mistake; that would be similar to the impossible complexity facing small farmers.

The bills would require such a burdensome complexity of rules, inspections, licensing, fees, and penalties for each farmer who wishes to sell locally -- even a fruit stand at a farmers market -- that no one could manage it.

Sources:

Op Ed News March 3, 2009

Dr. Mercola''s Comments Dr. Mercola's Comments:

Increasing numbers of people are reverting back to the ways of our ancestors, choosing to purchase food directly from local farmers -- who generally apply organic farming practices -- and cooking it using slow, traditional methods.

Major food corporations like Monsanto and Tyson do not like this trend because they are in the business of mass food production, which relies on much newer and often dangerous techniques like genetic engineering, factory farming and widespread use of chemicals.

Well, similar to how Codex is slowly but surely shimmying into position to mandate the universal maximum “safe” level of every vitamin, mineral, supplement and herb -- and in so doing taking away your access to therapeutic dosages of supplements -- numerous food “safety” bills are also underway that threaten the very safety of food, along with those who grow it.

This has been going on for some time now.

How Food Quality is Being Threatened by U.S. Government and Big Business

When speaking of food safety, the giant food corporations and government are really one in the same. It’s sad to say, but industrial agriculture lobbyists wield incredible power in Congress.

Their relatively minor investments allow them to manipulate votes on key legislation that is highly favorable to their bottom line and almost always in conflict with your best interests. Some key rulings that have seriously undermined food quality?

• Just last year the U.S. government decided to allow food producers to irradiate fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce in order to kill organisms like E. coli and salmonella, but at the expense of nutrients.

• Federal regulation prohibits raw milk and raw milk products for human consumption in interstate commerce, despite the fact that they have proven health benefits.

• Small farmers often cannot afford the costly organic certification process required by the government. Yet, if they try to sell foods that are raised according to organic standards, but not certified as such, they can be fined or sent to jail.

• The food crops currently subsidized by the U.S. government are corn, wheat, soy and rice. Growing little else but corn and soy means we end up with a fast food diet. In essence, these commodity programs are subsidies for the creation of junk and fast food, not REAL food that could have a positive impact on public health.

Unfortunately, a handful of food “safety” bills that are in Congress’ hands right now, namely HR 875, HR 814, SR 425, and soon, HR 759, include similarly destructive plans that will only continue to further degrade the food supply, favor agribusiness, and make it more difficult for small farmers to compete.

That corn looks scary!

thats a pretty messed up thing for a "company"to do.

From the article:

New Subsidies, New Markets

The funding the Lugar-Casey bill mandates is essentially a subsidy to private research and development goals: it has nothing to do with reducing hunger. Public money will go to U.S. corporations to produce patented products, essentially subsidizing risky projects and privatizing gain in the name of charity.

While funding from the Lugar-Casey Act may greatly expand current government-biotech partnerships, it certainly does not invent them. The U.S. government is already funding public-private private research partnerships with foreign aid dollars. One such partnership between Arcadia Biosciences, USAID (the U.S. agency responsible for delivering foreign aid), and Mahyco Seeds, an Indian seed company in which Monsanto has a significant ownership stake, will license the seeds — developed with public funds — to Mahyco.

Another partnership between USAID and Monsanto to develop a virus-resistant sweet potato in Kenya failed to deliver any useful product for farmers. After fourteen years and $6 million, local varieties vastly outperformed their genetically modified cousins in field trials. Meanwhile, conventional breeders in Uganda developed a virus-resistant strain in a few years at a small fraction of the cost. What the USAID-Monsanto partnership did succeed in, however, was creating a legal framework to open Kenya to conventional biotech products. In 2001 Kenyan legislators passed the Industrial Property Act, which according to patent expert Robert Lettington "may actually place very little restriction on the patenting of life forms at all." Lettington was right; this year Kenya approved a biosafety law that will allow for commercialization of genetically modified crops.

Currently, GM crops are legal in only three African nations. India and the Philippines are the only Southeast Asian nations that allow biotech plantings; Honduras is the only Central American nation to permit GM crops. Once attached to a pool of foreign aid money, the pressure to open markets to biotechnology will be substantial. The countries targeted for initial projects — Kenya, Uganda, Zambia, Malawi, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Guatemala, and Honduras — are all nations where the biotech industry has made significant inroads. They also represent significant potential markets — and a windfall for U.S. seed and chemical companies.

One thing is clear: The Global Food Security Act isn't just about feeding the hungry — it's about advancing the interests of U.S. agribusiness. The IAASTD found that agroecological techniques, stricter regulation of multinational agribusiness, and increased democratic control of the global food system can address the root causes of hunger in a way that a biotechnology never will. Lugar-Casey's renewed focus on agricultural development is welcome but that focus must come with a commitment to put the interests of small farmers before that of industry.

I could have timed you showing up here after him with an eggtimer. Are you two joined at the hip? No one is freaked out here but you. And again, no one in this thread has stated that this bill should be killed. So you can't be right about something that wasn't even an issue. The provision making acceptance of biotechnology trials a prerequisite to food aid however, should be removed. No one should be subjected to being a slave regarding what they grow or how they grow it, or having to accept anything to get aid.

And it could also mean Monsanto introducing BT (pesticide) cotton to other areas in drought by telling them it is now drought resistant, and it fails, of course, after collecting the money and binding the poor farmers to their BS patents. Or it could mean introducing a new GM plant of another kind saying that "ecological conditions" warrant it because the traditional varieties are just not bringing the yield necessary, or it can withstand flooding or some other condition due to "climate change." How would those farmers in developing countries who may not know anything of their deceptive methods not believe them? Are you totally naive, or just a mouthpiece for the biotech industry? Really.

No corporate entity should be allowed to dictate to the entire world what they will plant on their land. And what if these countries like Germany and others in Europe (which I am almost sure spawned this section of the bill) refuse to allow these "trials" which is what this " research" will necessitate? Will they be denied aid?

"A new bill before the Senate would create a federal mandate for genetically modified (GM) crop research AS PART of U.S. aid programs, despite evidence that these crops will fail to curb hunger"

Research means TRIALS. If you can't understand the implications of that, then you just don't want to. The evidence is in. GM crops do not increase yield nor will they be a panacea to feeding the hungry. It has been proven over and over again by many organizations, scientists, and people who know what they are talking about. And it has been evidenced by the farmers in these countries reporting on it and the massive rejection of it by consumers... at least those who aren't lied to by their governments.
If you support GMOs you don't support biodiversity and in my view feeding people. And if you think this would be above board and profit would not be first, you truly are naive.

SEC. 202. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH.

Section 103A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a-1) is amended in the first sentence--

(1) by striking ‘, and (3) make’ and inserting ‘, (3) make’; and

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting ‘, and (4) include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including genetically modified technology.’.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s384/text?version=is&nid=t0:is:110
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Research into whether or not a certain technology is viable for local ecological conditions . . . that is what you are arguing against?

Please. That clause alone would prevent things like providing BT cotton to areas that don't have the required water supply. There's nothing wrong with that, at all.

Hell, without that clause they could just give GM crops without doing tests to see if whether or not they would be sustainable, which would be a bad thing. I swear, some people see the words "biotechnology" or "genetically modified" and just freak out and stop reading the sentence.

Also, Current89 is correct in that the vast majority of this bill is great for humanitarian assistance.

You obviously didn't read the post here or my comment regarding this bill: " If they strip this provision I could support it." Where do you see ANYONE stating this is an evil bill? You also didn't quote the section regarding biotechnology. Why not? Admit you just have a grudge here against me and simply come in my threads to be opposite. You truly need to grow up. Cutting and pasting something without even understanding why you are doing it or READING the thread only shows your ignorance of the topic.
http://capwiz.com/grassrootsnetroots/issues/bills/?bill=13092666&size=full

Excerpt:

"While the Committee summarized well what is at stake, particularly in Africa and South Asia— massive human suffering, political stability and economic development—the analysis and solutions offered by the stacked roster were a rehashing of pro-industrial agriculture technologies and practices that have failed again and again to address this human tragedy. Current reliance on chemical-intensive agriculture and genetic engineering has deepened the gap between the haves and the have-nots, are further deepening the global climate crisis and threatening our planet’s natural resources.

The U.S. Working Group on the Food Crisis’s vision for reforming agriculture policy to help end the global food crisis includes the following that were either not mentioned during the hearing, or directly contradicted by the panelists:

• Re-regulate commodity futures markets to end excessive speculation
• Stabilize commodity prices through international and domestic food reserves
• Halt expansion of industrial agrofuels in developing countries
• Direct farm policy, research and education, and investment toward biodiverse, agroecological farming practices"
__________-
In the larger context as well, this is not only about pushing these untested "patented" GM foods that have been proven to NOT do anything more to feed starving people while toxifying this planet on poor farmers who will not be able to pay for them. This is also an issue of individual rights versus corporate domination that is leading and will continue to lead to environmental devastation, global poverty, and more starvation. This is NOT something that should be part of a bill designed to aid nations in feeding themselves. Being beholding to an American corporation for all of your needs to the point that it drives you to abject poverty and famine is NOT aiding the poor or hungry.

You obviously then do not understand the larger implications of pushing these GM seeds on poor farmers globally. Fortunately, many do, and we will make sure that any bill designed to feed the hungry is a bill that truly seeks to do that and not use them for the profits of those who care nothing for them and who in the end will do nothing to feed them or give them the self determination, freedon, and tools they need to be self sufficient using the natural agricultural methods they have been using for centuries.

So you can then also assume that any snarky comments in response to this will not be responded to. This is serious to me, and I have been reading and studying this and see where this will lead. Again, as I stated in my FIRST comment, ' it is commendable to want to work to stop world hunger... it is quite despicable however, to use it as a vehicle to lie and manipulate to make profits for GM seeds and pesticides.' Try to follow along.

"I support bio-technology when monitored carefully and implemented wisely."

Really? And where is that happening now? I support BIODIVERSITY which is the only way to preserve sustainability. You support biotechnology regarding GM seeds, you then support just the opposite, which is why trying to ram it into this bill only proves it could never stand alone because it is not monitored carefully, or implemented wisely, or ethically, or morally, and the ones in Congress trying to ram it down our throats any which way they can know it too.

"TITLE I--POLICY OBJECTIVES, PLANNING AND COORDINATION

SEC. 101. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

It is the policy of the United States to promote global food security, to eradicate hunger and malnutrition, to alleviate poverty, to improve agricultural productivity and rural development, to support the development of institutions of higher learning that will enhance human capacity, entrepreneurial skills and job creation, agricultural research and technology, and the dissemination of farming techniques to all parts of the agriculture sector, and to support sustainable farming methods."

My oh my! This is such an evil bill planned by the evil corporations. Who the hell wants to eliminate hunger? Don't you call those people humanitarians?

"TITLE II--BILATERAL PROGRAMS

SEC. 201. AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND NUTRITION.

(a) Authority- Section 103(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151a(a)(1)) is amended...

‘(D) to expand the economic participation of people living in extreme poverty and those who lack access to agriculturally productive land, including through productive safety net programs and health and nutrition programs, and to integrate those living in extreme poverty into the economy;

‘(E) to support conservation farming and other sustainable agricultural techniques to respond to changing climatic conditions and water shortages; and

‘(F) to improve nutrition of vulnerable populations, such as children under the age of two years old, and pregnant or lactating women."

This is such an evil bill. Improving nutrition, conservation farming, Expanding economic participation. Don't humanists like that type of stuff.?

:end sarcasm:

I'm so for this bill. And you know what? It's gonna pass. As it seems some members may not know, I'll make it clear. I support bio-technology when monitored carefully and implemented wisely.

Seeding Starvation in Iraq

This has been planned for years. Good article. Recommended reading.

Excerpt:

"As Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin said in a New York Times Magazine article (10/25/98), “There’s no way of knowing what all the downstream effects will be or how it might affect the environment. We have such a miserably poor misunderstanding of how the organism develops from its DNA that I would be surprised if we don’t get one rude shock after another.” Again, we can thank Monsanto most notably, as well as Dow, Dupont, Novartis and others.

The irony, as Peter Rosset, director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, wrote in a New York Times article (9/01/99), “In fact there is no relationship between the prevalence of hunger in a given country and its population. For every densely populated and hungry nation like Bangladesh, there is a sparsely populated and hungry nation like Brazil.

“The world today produces more food per inhabitant than ever before. Enough is available to provide 4.3 pounds to every person every day: two and a half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of meat, milk and eggs and another of fruits and vegetables -- more than anyone could ever eat.”

The "American People . . . " article goes on say to say, “In fact the widespread introduction of GM crops in ‘developing’ countries will likely exacerbate world hunger by further increasing inequality. People in poor countries lack access to funds and land that enable them to grow an adequate food supply.

“IMF/World Bank structural adjustment programs impose severe restrictions on ‘developing’ countries, forcing them to abandon the production of food for local use and instead focus on the growth of exportable commodities such as coffee, which are subject to wildly fluctuating world market prices. Within this framework, international lending institutions such as the World Bank place more emphasis on the development of large export directed farms at the expense of small family farms.

“The new genetically altered seeds require high quality soil, large investments in new machinery, and increased use of chemicals. Only large corporate farms are capable of meeting these requirements in ‘developing’ countries. Under this system, family farms suffer and people are driven off the land into urban areas where they serve as a superfluous, highly exploited and underpaid labor force for international corporations in ‘free trade’ zones, resulting in massive poverty.”

Furthermore, GM seeds are designed almost exclusively to grow the sales of herbicides and pesticides sold by the same companies that develop the seeds. Our old “friend” Monsanto developed corn and soybeans resistant to their own herbicide “Round Up” and plans to introduce “Round Up” resistant GM wheat in the future. So these souped-up seeds will enable a farmer to spray much higher doses of “Round Up” on their crops. The EPA tripled allowable residues (that could stay on the crop) to enable “Round Up” sprayed crops to be used, even in products like baby food. Brilliant."

scary!

I just want to say thank you to the good people on Current who keep this in the sight of others by voting it up. This particularly is VERY important to our global environment, health, economy, freedoms, and yes, even our national security.These companies in collusion with our own government are making a stealth move to own our food and water. And yet, this is NO WHERE to be seen in the US media.

Another campaign from Pesticide Action Network.

And have no illusions, this is why they are tacking this onto a bill designed to aid the hungry.They know this would never pass on its own. So they will try to get away with tacking it clandestinely onto this bill with the pretty sounding name, and then demonizing anyone who comes out against it by saying they do not want to feed the hungry. Even though THEY know GM foods have fed not one starving person satisfactorily, and even though they also know it is not in many cases a shortage of food, but access to food THEY have blocked themselves through tariiffs and trade policies. This is a typical BS political maneuver by both parties, and we need to stop falling for them.

It is because you care about those in developing countries and actually everywhere, being able to take control of their own food and destiny, and because you care about biodiversity and keeping their genetic transgenic toxic pollution from contaminating everything so there is nothing left to eat but their monocrops that you would come out against this bill with this provision in it. If they strip this provision I could support it. Otherwise, forget it.

They will perpetuate starvation to make them eat their GM crap. A starving person would eat almost anything without question. And that is what we must make sure we monitor concerning these vultures out to use these people for profit while destroying our environment in the process.

It is commendable to want to work to stop world hunger... it is quite despicable however, to use it as a vehicle to lie and manipulate to make profits for GM seeds and pesticides. And we thought HR 875 was the stealth bill. The absolute obsessive furor by this Congress to push genetically modified garbage down the throats of the world is simply too obvious in motive. This provision must be stripped from this bill. It will not solve world hunger, it will perpetuate it. This is about PROFIT, and it is sickening to me. It is as if they want the poor people of the world as farmers in India are doing to kill themselves because they are in too much debt to live. This is evil to the core. It must be stopped.