Video: Shut down Monsanto protest at the Gates Foundation

http://current.com/technology/93711742_new-report-slams-bt-cottons-failed-promis...

New Report Slams BT Cotton's Failed Promises.

Do you think this is a GAME? Do you think I and others do not really care and take this seriously? If so, think again.

http://current.com/technology/93704817_occupy-monsanto-and-social-justice-groups...

Othe protests

http://current.com/technology/93434074_changing-our-global-approach-to-farming-i...

Changing Our Global Approach To Farming Is The Key To Our Survival

"EXTRACTS: "We have tried to have ever more efficient farming, with fewer people, more machines and a greater dependency on pesticides, fertilisers, GM crops and energy, using 10 kilocalories to produce 1 kilocalorie. But that is only possible if there is cheap oil. The system is basically bankrupt." - Hans Herren, Co-Chair of the IAASTD

Dr Herren was dismissive of the concept of "sustainable intensification", the alternative view of food security with food production at its heart, championed by the UK Government-commissioned Foresight report. He described it as "an excuse to sneak in GMOs and to continue with business as usual".
---
---
CropWorld Global 2011: Changing our global approach to farming
Alistair Driver
Farmers Guardian, 1 September 2011

http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/arable/cropworld-global-2011-changing-our-gl...

SOCIETY has gone 'properly wrong' in the way it produces and consumes food, according to Hans Herren.

Dr Herren, a renowned scientist and international development expert, is on a mission to promote what he insists is a better alternative to the current global 'industrial' food production system, which he describes as 'bankrupt'.

He is a leading advocate of agroecology, a holistic farming model based on organic principles, where food is produced by small family farms using green methods which nourish soils for future generations.

"We have tried to have more efficient farming, with fewer people, more machines and a greater dependency on pesticides, fertilisers, GM crops and energy, using 10 kilocalories to produce one kilocalorie. But that is only possible if there is cheap oil," said Dr Herren.

"The system basically is bankrupt, which is why we need to change it to a more modern, advanced system, which will create energy, rather than consume it, and is not dependent on fossil energy, but more on people and better science."

Dr Herren, originally from Switzerland, co-chaired the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology, (IAASTD), a three-year project involving more than 400 experts from across the world.

Its 2008 report called for a radical overhaul of the way the world produces food to 'better serve the poor and hungry'. It demanded a shift away from the 'focus on production alone' and a greater emphasis on methods which conserve natural resources, backed up by trade and subsidy reforms and investment in science, education and training.
Report findings

Dr Herren described it as 'the mother of all reports on agriculture on a global and human scale', but admitted being disappointed about how little its findings had been implemented globally.

Dr Herren, who spent 27 years in Africa researching pest management and sustainable production, continues to promote agroecology through the US-based Millennium Institute, of which he has been president since 2005.

He said the key to future food security was not to use more inputs to produce more food per hectare, but to rely on techniques backed by 'solid science and agronomy - such as crop rotation with legumes and green manure, a cover crop grown to add nutrients to the soil - 'to enable the land to regenerate'.

But he also claimed it had been shown in experiments and in the field these farming methods can 'double, treble or even quadruple' yields in Africa.

He added: "Agroecology will produce food which is affordable because more people will be working, so they can actually afford it.

"We need to support small-scale and family farms, where more people get employed. We have 1.5 billion people who have no job. We really have to see all this in an inter-linked system."

He refuted the suggestion that, while agroecology may have merits in developing countries, where prevailing yields were relatively low and labour was abundant, it was unrealistic and idealistic to imagine it taking over in developed nations.

Instead, he insisted productivity levels could be maintained in developed countries if agroecology displaced intensive farming.

“It has been shown in the US that organic agriculture actually produces equally good yields as traditional agriculture,” he said. “But when there is drought or a flood, organic produces more as it is more resilient. There is no question we can deliver.”

The catch is that increased crop rotation would require a change in the way food is consumed. “You can’t disassociate consumption from production. In a rotation where you have more legumes someone has to eat those beans.”

He added people in urban-centric nations such as the UK and US would return to the land if agriculture became a ‘better and more rewarding job’ through greater investment, better prices for food and a reappraisal of farmers’ importance. “We need to look up to the farmer and down to the professor,” he said.
Lacking support

Dr Herren blamed the lack of wider support for this model of food security partly on what he claimed was a misconception of what it represented.

“We need to dispel this idea that agroecology is a back-breaking, low-yielding process and that we want to go back to grandfather’s agriculture. Actually, agroecology has a lot of science in it and a lot of knowledge,” he said."

http://current.com/community/92517787_right-to-food-agroecology-outperforms-larg...

Agroecology Outperforms Large Scale Industrial Farming.

"Governments and international agencies urgently need to boost ecological farming techniques to increase food production and save the climate,” said UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, while presenting the findings at an international meeting on agroecology held in Brussels on 21 and 22 June.

Along with 25 of the world’s most renowned experts on agroecology, the UN expert urged the international community to re-think current agricultural policies and build on the potential of agroecology.

“One year ago, Heads of States at the G20 gathering in Italy committed to mobilizing $22 billion over a period of three years to improve global food security. This was welcome news, but the most pressing issue regarding reinvestment in agriculture is not how much, but how,” Olivier De Schutter said .

“Today, most efforts are made towards large-scale investments in land – including many instances of land grabbing – and towards a ‘Green Revolution’ model to boost food production: improved seeds, chemical fertilisers and machines,” the Special Rapporteur remarked. “But scant attention has been paid to agroecological methods that have been shown to improve food production and farmers’ incomes, while at the same time protecting the soil, water, and climate.”

The widest study ever conducted on agroecological approaches (Jules Pretty, Essex University, UK) covered 286 projects in 57 developing countries, representing a total surface of 37 million hectares: the average crop yield gain was 79%. Concrete examples of ‘agroecological success stories’ abound in Africa.

In Tanzania, the Western provinces of Shinyanga and Tabora used to be known as the ‘Desert of Tanzania’. However, the use of agroforestry techniques and participatory processes allowed some 350,000 hectares of land to be rehabilitated in two decades. Profits per household rose by as much as USD 500 a year. Similar techniques are used in Malawi, where some 100,000 smallholders in 2005 benefited to some degree from the use of fertilizer trees.

“With more than a billion hungry people on the planet, and the climate disruptions ahead of us, we must rapidly scale up these sustainable techniques,” De Schutter said. “Even if it makes the task more complex, we have to find a way of addressing global hunger, climate change, and the depletion of natural resources, all at the same time. Anything short of this would be an exercise in futility.”
~~~~~~~~
MONOCULTURE KILLS BIODIVERSITY AND BREEDS POVERTY AND FAMINE.

http://current.com/technology/92633215_gates-foundation-invests-in-monsanto-both...

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, we 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. "

.

http://current.com/technology/93680919_food-movement-speaks-with-one-voice-occup...

There are options we all have to be part of being active. Buy organic; grow your own; do not purchase processed foods that contain high fructose corn syrup, soy lechitin or other such derivatives that come from GM crops such as canola, alfalfa, sugarbeets. Lobby your grocer to include organic foods. Spread this information to others via social media. Lobby your state legislatures to introduce label GMO bills... it works. Using your voice in any way possible is already making a difference.

http://current.com/technology/93617228_dow-and-monsanto-in-deadly-race-on-the-pe...

And that goes for DOW too.

http://current.com/technology/93660975_monsanto-agent-orange-creator-returns-to-...

Their evil must be stamped out.