Tech | August 26, 2010 | 42 comments

Gates Foundation invests in Monsanto/ Both will profit at expense of small-scale African farmers

source: http://www.seattleglobaljustice.org/agra-watch

Image
JanforGore
Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation’s investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation’s 2008 990 Form).

“The Foundation’s direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels,” said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. “First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation’s heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests.”

Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto’s genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. “When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising,” said Mayet. Monsanto’s aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue—and bankrupt—farmers for “patent infringement.”

News of the Foundation’s recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, “We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto.” Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, “The Foundation’s ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa.” In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation’s grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA)—considered by the Foundation to be its “African face”—work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program.

Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA’s grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, “AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa.”

A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report’s warning that “continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes—including transgenic crops—will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity.” Furthermore, PANNA explains, “The Assessment’s 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet.”

The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its “holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices.” The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called “blind-eye investing,” with at least 41% of its assets invested in “companies that countered the foundation’s charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy.”

cont.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Tech,   Green,   Current Tonight,   8 more
  2. tags:
    Environment,  Africa,  Poverty,  Monsanto,  6 more
  3.     
    |

42 comments // Gates Foundation invests in Monsanto/ Both will profit at expense of small-scale African farmers

  • jonwyderka
    • -2
      jonwyderka  

    • What is wrong with a successful foundation becoming more successful by investing in companies that make money. Businesses are created to make money and provide financial gain to their share holders. Small farms are not competitive growing enterprises anywhere. That they're not successful in Africa should not come as a surprise. The small farmers need to pool their capital and create larger entities that can compete. This is what all enterprises that wish to thrive in fact do. Successful businesses create opportunities for thousands of people. This will continue to be true in Africa as well as the United States. This is not a news article. There is no news in this article. - Jon Wyderka -

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • jonwyderka:

      Actually, there was plenty of news in it, but there wasn't much in your reply. And don't you worry, groups of campesinos are coming together to do exactly as you typed. They and I and many others will no longer succomb to having this irresponsible technology shoved down our throats against our will. This isn't just about "investing in companies that make money." This is about the survival of the biodiversity of this planet, but far be it for someone only out to "make money" to see that.

    • 2 years ago
  • RaceBannon
  • JanforGore
  • Dagum
    • 0
      Dagum  

    • This is discouraging. Any information on how to start your own seed vault so everyday people will not need to rely on the "doomsday" seed vault in Norway, that will be under the exclusive control of the elites?

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/nota.asp?idnews=52641

      This is the same type of propaganda that those against climate change mitigation in order to profit from its effects put out. Now, the elitists who want to shove GMOs down the throats of Africa are blaming those of us who actually care about biodiversity and food sovereignty for hunger, when it is clearly foreign economic policy and lack of access and poverty that are the core reasons for over one billion currently being hungry with GMOS now doing NOTHING to feed them. This proves that this push to get GMOs in Africa is not about feeding people, but to be another cash cow as those pushing it do not even understand the core reasons for hunger. Their so called Green Revolution of the seventies that purportedly increased yields for so many in India has now caused water shortages and nutrient depleted soil with hunger rates still high and with farmers committing suicide because they cannot afford the imputs, fertilizers, seeds, and chemicals they are required to purchase just to survive. Make no mistake about it, were are under attack and the battlefield is our seeds. And this article is truly an insult to the people of Africa in intimating they are not smart enough nor cognizant of their own situation to make judgements about the kind of food they wish to grow or eat. Again, elitists who just don't like brownskinned people and think nothing of dismissing their view.
      ________

      Excerpt:

      "AFRICA
      Outrage Over Claim that Anti-GM Campaign "Causes Hunger"
      Miriam Mannak

      Credit:Miriam Mannak/IPS

      Claims about a certain flood-resistant type of rice being genetically modified have been refuted.

      CAPE TOWN, Aug 27 (IPS) - Civil society organisations have reacted with outrage to claims that the international campaign against genetically modified (GM) crops is partly responsible for food shortages and food insecurity in Africa.

      "Food insecurity in developing regions such as Africa is partially a result of the anti-GM campaign," David King, director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University in Britain, said during the 15th World Congress of Food Science and Technology held between Aug 22-26 in Cape Town, South Africa.

      King added that, "many African countries have the idea that food that is not good enough for Europeans, is not good enough for Africans.

      "In Europe, people might have a choice between conventional and genetically modified products. In Africa, this is not the case. Here, any food that is available is great."

      South African organisations that oppose the genetic modification of food, such as the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering (SAFeAGE), have condemned King’s statements.

      "Africa’s food insecurity has nothing to do with the anti-GM campaign," said Fahrie Hassan, media spokesperson at SAFeAGE.

      It has in large part been caused by economic policy measures with strict conditions imposed on countries seeking loans from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund since the 1980s, he argued.

      "Many governments of developing countries were forced to tell their farmers they should farm cash crops, which are predominantly meant for the export market, instead of focusing on subsistence farming for local use," he added.

      "In addition, European countries and the U.S. dump their food surpluses onto African markets while heavily subsidising their own farmers," Hassan added.

      Mariam Mayet, director of the non-profit African Centre for Biosafety (ABC), said that, "malnourishment in Africa is not just a result of food shortage, but of poverty. It does not matter how much food is available, if you don’t have money to buy it you are stuck.

      "In addition, the plants the GM industry wants to produce in Africa are mainly cash crops that are not just meant for the export market but are to be used to feed pigs and cows in Europe and China and as bio-fuel and cooking oil.

      "These crops are not meant to feed African people, thus they will not contribute to food security," she added.

      Mayet slammed King’s statement that African countries rejected GM crops because of the influence of the anti-GM campaign, which originated in Europe and the U.S.

      "King is clearly not aware of the fact that Africans have common sense. Does he think we are stupid, can’t think for ourselves and still listen to whatever Europeans tell us to do, like we did in the colonial era?

      "We might be poor, but we make our own decisions free from what Europeans, whether politicians or the GM movement, think. African countries are led by their own understanding, not by the anti-GM campaign," Mayet stated.

      Hassan rejected any suggestion that GM corporations intend to help Africans to overcome problems such as malnourishment. "It has nothing to do with helping Africans, but with helping themselves. If a farmer agrees to switch to GM crops, he or she will be tied to the seeds provided by the seed company.

      "This process precludes the saving of seeds for the next year. This means the farmer will have to buy seeds every year, which is profitable to the company."

      Muna Lakhani, spokesperson for Earthlife Africa, agreed that GM "will lock Africa into neo-seed slavery" as GM production increases dependence on imported inputs and is therefore detrimental to African food sovereignty. The non-profit Earthlife Africa seeks a better life for all people without the exploitation of people or the degradation of their environment.

      "Organic agriculture produces far more food than the current chemicals- based agro-industry. We need to resist attempts to colonise our food production and insist on sustainable food cultivation that is not geared to benefiting the developed world.

      "The fact of the matter is that the GM industry, having lost the battle in many countries, now sees African countries as easy pickings," Lakhani argued. "

    • 2 years ago
  • figgdimension
  • figgdimension
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://current.com/green/89650046_genetically-modified-organisms-no-solution-to-...

      Genetically Modified Organims No Solution To Global Hunger

      Excerpt:

      "In 1998 the GM giant Monsanto launched an aggressive advertising campaign to persuade reluctant Europeans they should accept GM foods: "As we stand on the edge of a new millennium, we dream of a tomorrow without hunger… Worrying about starving future generations won't feed them. Food biotechnology will."

      Such claims drew a critical response not just from many development organizations with decades of on the ground experience of helping the poor and hungry in the developing world, but even from the head of GM firm Syngenta UK (then Novartis Seeds UK), Steve Smith. Smith told a public meeting, "If anyone tells you that GM is going to feed the world, tell them that it is not…To feed the world takes political and financial will.

      Delegates from 20 African Countries to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN also responded sharply to Monsanto’s PR campaign, issuing a joint public statement in which they declared: “We strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly nor economically beneficial to us."
      ________________
      MONOCULTURE does not feed the world.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/the_potential_of_agroecology.html

      The Potential Of Agroecology To Combat Hunger In The Developing World

      Excerpt:

      "
      The Potential of Agroecology to Combat Hunger in the Developing World

      Miguel A. Altieri
      Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management
      University of California at Berkeley

      Peter Rosset
      Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First
      Oakland, CA

      Lori Ann Thrupp
      World Resources Institute
      Washington, DC

      Hunger and malnutrition affect nearly 800 million people in the developing world. By and large those problems are not due to an absolute scarcity of food, however, but to the more complex issues of who grows food and how and where it is grown, how it is distributed, and finally, who has access to it. In this complicated web of causality, inequality is the outstanding driving force behind hunger. Misuse and over-exploitation of natural resources are other central factors underlying food gaps. Any technological policy for rural and agricultural development then, must be judged on, among other factors, whether it tends to increase or decrease inequity in the distribution of and access to resources and food, and whether it ensures sustainability of resource use.

      Proponents of a ‘second’ Green Revolution (GRII) generally argue that scarcity and low agricultural productivity cause food insecurity and will also aggravate global hunger in the future. Those holding this perspective usually believe that "overpopulation" and food scarcity cause hunger, and likewise, dwell on aggregate global food production/consumption figures to justify GRII, but seldom look at distribution and disparities at the local or regional level. Therefore they propose a new wave of agricultural intensification based on stepped up fertilizer and pesticide use in Africa and parts of Latin America, bioengineered crop varieties, and trade policies that would allow northern food supplies to cover for any ‘food gaps’ remaining in the South after GRII. Likewise, they usually promote the agroindustrial model that stresses uniformity, standardized technologies for large-scale high-input and mechanized systems, aimed at maximizing yields of commercial crops, to fuel a global food system.

      Yet, evidence suggests that this GR approach is unlikely to be the appropriate strategy to end hunger. Serious concerns have been raised by economic analysts, NGOs (non-governmental organizations), and farmers in many parts of the world, about the validity of this approach. Earlier versions of the GR technological package have in many cases generated soil, pest and weed problems, sometimes leading to long-term yield decline. Bioengineering produces varieties that are not locally adapted, and must be purchased by cash-strapped farmers. The widespread introduction of such varieties poses environmental risks and can reduce the genetic diversity of food crops and varieties, elevating risk and food insecurity for farmers in many areas. Dumping of Northern food surpluses is already a key factor depressing productivity in the South. The GR II emphasis on capital-intensive, off-farm, chemical inputs, is likely to both reinforce yield leveling or decline, and generate further inequity, thus making it a less than ideal policy package for attacking hunger.

      In contrast, the agroecological approach favored by increasing numbers of farmers, NGOs, and analysts around the world, offers several advantages. First, it is a alternate path to agricultural productivity or intensification that relies on local farming knowledge and techniques adjusted to different local conditions, management of diverse on-farm resources and inputs, and incorporation of contemporary scientific understanding of biological principles and resources in farming systems. Second, it offers the only practical way to actually restore agricultural lands that have been degraded by conventional agronomic practices. Third, it offers an nvironmentally sound, and affordable way, for smallholders to sustainable intensify production in marginal areas. Finally, it has the potential to reverse the anti-peasant biases inherent in strategies that emphasize purchased inputs and machinery, valuing instead the assets that small farmers already possess, including local knowledge and the low opportunity costs for labor that prevail in the regions where they live. Thus it is an approach that is likely to decrease, rather than exacerbate, inequality, and also enhance sustainability.

      Box 1: THE MEANING AND PRINCIPLES OF AGROECOLOGY

      Agroecology is a scientific discipline that defines, classifies, and studies agricultural systems from an ecological and socioeconomic perspective. It is also considered the scientific foundation of sustainable agriculture as it provides ecological concepts and principles for the analysis, design, and management of productive, resource-conserving agricultural systems. Agroecology integrates indigenous knowledge with modern technical knowledge to arrive at environmentally and socially sensitive approaches to agriculture, encompassing not only production goals, but also social equity and ecological sustainability of the system. In contrast to the conventional agronomic approach that focuses on the spread of packaged uniform technologies, agroecology emphasizes vital principles such as biodiversity, recycling of nutrients, synergy and interaction among crops, animals, soil, etc., and regeneration and conservation of resources. The particular methods or technologies promoted by agroecologists build upon local skills and are adapted to local agroecological and socioeconomic conditions. The implementation of such agroecological principles within the context of a pro-poor, farmer-centered rural development strategy is essential for healthy, equitable, sustainable and productive systems."
      _____________

      But of course, this sustainable system gives too much freedom to the farmers, and tends to ruffle the feathers of those looking to make a dollar off of them or see them die because they just don't like brownskinned people.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  

    • Monsanto in Gates' Clothing? The Emperor's New GMOs
      Eric Holt Gimenez, Executive Director, Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/monsanto-in-gates-clothin_b_6961...

      If you had any doubts about where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is really placing its bets, the Foundation's recent investment of $23.1 million in 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock should put them to rest. Genetic engineering: full speed ahead.

      If you are one of those people who believes the axiom that Monsanto is the farmer's friend (and the corollary, that its climate-ready, bio-fortified GMOs can save the world from hunger) you will not be surprised, disappointed, or find any conflict of interest in this investment.

      But if you are part of the growing population who gets their information about GMOs from scientists who are not beholden to corporate funding, has a problem with anti-trust issues, or is getting queasy about the increasing monopoly power of philanthropy capital... it's time to say the Emperor has no clothes.

      Under the guise of "sustainability" the Foundation has been spearheading a multi-billion dollar effort to transform African into a GMO-friendly continent. The public relations flagship for this effort is the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a massive Green Revolution project. Up to now AGRA spokespeople have been slippery, and frankly, contradictory about their stance on GMOs.

      The first Director of AGRA was Gary Toenniessen, a career program officer for Rockefeller Foundation. He said AGRA was not ruling out GMOs and if and when they were introduced it would be with all the appropriate "safeguards." After AGRA was criticized for not having any Africans, Kofi Anan was named Chairman in 2007. He first said GMOs were out of the picture, the next day he recapitulated. Last Spring, Joe DeVries, who runs the AGRA seed program was asked by a Worldwatch blogger if they were engaging in genetic engineering. "Read our lips," said Joe DeVries. "We are not promoting or funding research for GMOs (genetically modified organisms)..." In fact, in Kenya alone AGRA has used funds from the Gates Foundation to write grants for research in genetically modified agriculture. Nearly 80% of Gates' funding in Kenya involves biotech and there have been over $100 million in grants to organizations connected to Monsanto. In 2008, some 30% of the Foundation's agricultural development funds went to promoting or developing genetically modified seeds (See Ending Africa's Hunger)..

      More to the point is that--as Monsanto and Gates are fully aware--to establish a healthy GMO industry one first needs a strong conventional breeding program in place: labs, experiment stations, agronomists, extensionists, molecular biologists... and farmer's seeds. All of which Gates, Rockefeller, Monsanto and AGRA are actively lining up.

      They also need the power of U.S. government funding. That is where the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Casey-Lugar come in. USAID is now headed up by former Gates employee Rajiv Shah. The Casey-Lugar Global Food Security act ties foreign aid to GMOs. When the Gates Foundation places a bet, they like to hold all the cards.

      Africa's seeds are a potential windfall investment for Monsanto. Regardless of the philanthropic intentions, cloaked in the sheep's clothing of AGRA, the Gates Foundation is moving stealthily in on the African seed market. When the research, extension, and U.S. foreign aid is all in place Monsanto will swoop in for the feast. With the recent investment, the Gates Foundation will also reap the rewards of its largesse.

    • 2 years ago
  • CalgarC
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  

    • Dr. Vandana Shiva on how the "green revolution" had led to a severe water shortage and lack of biodiversity in India. We must learn from this and not allow the same fate to befall Africa.

    • 2 years ago
  • samantha420
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • samantha420:

      It' s not easy to do this as their seeds and transgenic contamination are everywhere, even to the point where they have also purchased organic seed companies to fully infiltrate the food system. I have cut all procesed foods out of my diet as well as sodas. I only eat meat perhaps once every six months and will get down to zero this year ( cut out cold cuts too) and have greatly limited dairy as well. No milk, ice cream, though I admit some cheese as I do love it. It isn't easy especially if it has been your eating habit since childhood, but its is possible and actually, necessary if we are to truly send a message to these vipers who continue to poison our world without any concern for the ramifications of it.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Image

    • http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/voicesfromafrica/VoicesReport

      Farmers in Africa stand up to this blatant attempt to deny them their environmental democracy, food sovereignty, food freedom, and organic farming. Stop shoving this unstable dangerous bacteria ridden crap down their throats, and give them the tools they need to farm sustainably, using agroecology to support local farms that will feed them with healthy natural food. Let THEM have freedom and the ability to own their own land instead of being slaves to Monsanto.

      MONSANTO GET OUT.
      You are not welcome here.
      _________

      excerpt:

      'Voices from Africa: African Farmers & Environmentalists Speak Out Against a New Green Revolution in Africa, issues a direct challenge to Western-led plans for a genetically engineered revolution in African agriculture, particularly the recent misguided philanthropic efforts of the Gates Foundation's Alliance for a New Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), and presents African resistance and solutions rooted in first-hand knowledge of what Africans need.

      The report finds a lack of accountability, transparency, and stakeholder involvement in philanthropic efforts such as AGRA. For instance, a leaked Gates Foundation confidential report on their Agricultural Development Strategy for 2008-2011 actually emphasizes moving people out of the agricultural sector with the intent of reducing dependency on agriculture. The strategy report, however, does not specify where or how this new 'land mobile' population is to be reemployed.

      The battle over genetic engineering is being fought across the world, between those who champion farmers' rights to seeds, livelihood, and land, and those who seek to privatize these. While promotional campaigns for technological solutions to hunger regularly feature a handful of African spokespeople who drown out the genuine voices of farmers, researchers, and civil society groups, there is widespread opposition to genetic engineering and plans for a New Green Revolution for Africa. Voices From Africa is based on the essays and statements of leading African farmers, environmentalists, and civil society groups, and brings to light the real African perspectives on technological solutions to hunger and poverty on the continent--and the solutions that the people on the ground believe would bring true development.'

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +3
      JanforGore  

    • http://current.com/green/91250737_bill-gates-reveals-support-for-gmo-ag.htm

      He doesn't only support Monsanto's line on GMOs (and they probably write his speeches for him) he supports biopiracy. To say that they are working on a drought resistant corn variety for Africa while totally dismissing the natural drought variety seeds that have already been crossbred is false and misleading. There are natural seeds that are bred for climate resistance that are already in use. They are stealing the knowledge of indigenous peoples and patenting it as their own. So to say he doesn't know what he is doing is naive at best.

      Oh, and you know why it is drought resistant CORN, don't you? They aren't going to feed the people of Africa, they will make them grow corn for biofuel for US markets. They will actually move these people out to take their land to use it to grow biofuel even though it exacerbates climate change and uses huge amounts of water in areas where there are already prolonged droughts. It is exactly what Monsanto is doing in Latin America regarding soy to the point of intimidating farmers and making them sick with glyphosate poisoning. They have deforested huge swaths of land of trees to grow soy for animal feed and it is exacerbating climate change as well. It is an insidious plan for profit that should be gettiing much more attention and outrage especially now in the age of climate change and population increases.

    • 2 years ago
  • tverdell
    • tverdell  
    • This comment was removed by its owner.
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • tverdell:

      Which he also is invested in, while also reportedly investing in companies that actually contribute to the conditions that bring on diseases. He got all his bases covered, didn't he?

    • 2 years ago
  • ayipis
  • KSirys
    • 0
      KSirys  

    • This is not news... it's reality. The Gates foundation doesn't try hard to help the people. I noticed it when a group I knew, was looking for funding and in the Gates foundation website, they tell you very clearly. We don't give unless is for something we want to or you pass a serious of questions for you to fail.

      They have billions of dollars and want to help, but are picky to whom they want to give it to....... that's fucking rich!

    • 2 years ago
  • alexandrek
  • JanforGore
  • figgdimension
  • JanforGore
  • figgdimension
  • ThresholdBroken
    • -2
      ThresholdBroken  

    • Thank you Monsanto......
      Now I'm going to morph into a superhero with all the GMO I'm eating...
      Seriously....... thank you.

      no homo.....

      I luv U
      (non-sarcasm)

    • 2 years ago
  • wanamoka
    • +1
      wanamoka  

    • It's sad that someone so smart can be so stupid. I think he believes he's doing a good thing with this. He ought to be using the money to bring down Monsanto and their ilk and really make a difference.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  
    • wanamoka:

      I don't think that at all. Unless he has been living under a rock since the seventies. There isn't anyone I know who doesn't know what Monsanto has been doing all of these years.

    • 2 years ago
  • Dagum
    • 0
      Dagum  
    • wanamoka:

      He is not stupid. He knows exactly what he is doing. Bill Gates is one of the leading contemporary advocates of Eugenics, albeit in a subtle way. Monsanto is an excellent way to push some poison and kill off useless eaters.

    • 2 years ago
  • Sparky2U
  • figgdimension
  • DefKid
  • toyotabedzrock
    • +2
      toyotabedzrock  

    • I don't think Gates understands the Internet very well, so it is likely his only source of information is the paper and his corporate partners.

      Perhaps one of the groups should try to get a paper in Washington to run the story about what Monsanto is doing.

    • 2 years ago
  • hunzedog
  • im1mjrpain
    • +2
      im1mjrpain  

    • I wonder what Bill knows that made lead him to 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010??

      Bye Bye organic healthy food! Hello GMO!

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +4
      JanforGore  

    • This is not about feeding the world. This is about feeding their bank accounts and using the people of developing countries to do it...with the help of this government as well. They disgust me.

    • 2 years ago
  • mindcruzer
    • +1
      mindcruzer  
    • JanforGore:

      The feeding the world line is a load of shit. Increasing food production has long shown to do nothing but increase the population; which then requires another increase in food production. Its a positive feedback loop that means a win win situation for Monsanto. It's brilliant really.

      There is only one way to successfully "feed the world" -- cap food production and spread around what he have now; and this is exactly what will never happen. If we continue to increase food production we are heading for disaster, in more way that one.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
  • tverdell
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • tverdell:

      Not to me it isn't. I am tired of being the center of this BS. I am posting these articles and pouring my heart into this because it matters to me. The fact that he has some sort of unhealthy obsessive hatred for Al Gore and attacks me because I love and respect the man is HIS problem. Let him work it out with his therapist. I'm now done talking about this.

    • 2 years ago
more from Tech:
from the community

top videos