Showing posts with label Corporate Agriculture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporate Agriculture. Show all posts

Thursday, April 2, 2015

New Report Debunks 'Myth' That GMOs are Key to Feeding the World

About 70 percent of the world's poor are farmers, and to raise them out of poverty requires access to basic resources such as fertilizer, water, and the infrastructure to properly store or transport crops to market—not expensive, resource-intensive GMO seeds. (Credit: La Montañita Co-op)
(Credit: La Montañita Co-op)
by Lauren McCauley, Common Dreams: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/01/new-report-debunks-myth-gmos-are-key-feeding-world

The biotechnology industry "myth" that feeding billions of people necessitates genetically engineered agriculture has been debunked by a new report out Tuesday by the nonprofit health organization Environmental Working Group.

The report, Feeding the World Without GMOs (pdf), argues that investment in genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, has failed to expand global food security. It advocates more traditional methods "shown to actually increase food supplies and reduce the environmental impact of production."

Over the past 20 years, the report notes, global crop yields have only grown by 20% - despite the massive investment in biotechnology. On the other hand, it continues, in recent decades "the dominant source of yield improvements has been traditional crossbreeding, and that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future."

As the report states, "seed companies' investment in improving yields in already high-yielding areas does little to improve food security; it mainly helps line the pockets of seed and chemical companies, large-scale growers and producers of corn ethanol." After examining recent research on GMO crop production, the report also found:
  • Genetically modified crops - primarily corn and soybeans - have not substantially contributed to global food security and are primarily used to feed animals and cars, not people.
  • GMO crops in the US are not more productive than non-GMO crops in western Europe.
  • A recent case study in Africa found that crops that were crossbred for drought tolerance using traditional techniques improved yields 30% more than genetically engineered varieties.
Alternately, the report recommends a number of "common sense" strategies for expanding the global food supply, including: implementing a smarter use of fertilizers, eliminating bio-fuels, eliminating food waste, and cutting global meat consumption in half. Producing meat requires huge quantities of often-genetically modified crops such as corn and soy for animal feed.

Further, the report points out, "the narrative that GE crops will help feed the world ignores the fact that hunger is mostly the result of poverty."

About 70% of the world's poor are farmers, report author Emily Cassidy writes, and to raise them out of poverty requires access to basic resources such as fertilizer, water, and the infrastructure to properly store or transport crops to market - not expensive, resource-intensive GMO seeds.

In a blog post on Wednesday, Cassidy writes: "Given that creating just one genetically engineered crop variety can cost upwards of $130 million, you'd think Big Ag companies would invest in strategies that have been proven to work and less on GMOs that may not even increase crop yields. But what corporations really care about is increasing their profits, not feeding a hungry world."

Sunday, August 10, 2014

India - Selling Out To Monsanto: GMOs and the Bigger Picture

take-a-stand-against-gmosby Colin Todhunter, Global Research: http://www.globalresearch.ca/independent-india-selling-out-to-monsanto-gmos-and-the-bigger-picture/5395187

On 15 August, India will mark its 67th anniversary of independence from Britain.

It may seem strange to some that a nation would publicly celebrate its independence while at the same time it less publicly cedes it to outsiders.

The gleaming façade of flags and fly-pasts will belie the fact that national security and independence do not depend on military might and patriotic speeches.

Eye-catching celebrations will take place in Delhi and much of the media will mouth platitudes about the strength of the nation and its independence. The reality is, however, an ongoing, concerted attempt to undermine and destroy the very foundation and security of the country.

The bedrock of any society is its agriculture. Without food there can be no life. Without food security, there can be no genuine independence.

A recent report by the organisation GRAIN revealed that small farms produce most of the world’s food and are more productively efficient than large farms [1]. Facilitated by an appropriate policy framework, small farmers could easily feed the global population.

But small farmers are currently squeezed onto less than a quarter of the world’s farmland and the world is fast losing farms and farmers through the concentration of land into the hands big agribusiness and the rich and powerful. If nothing is done to reverse this trend, the world will lose its capacity to feed itself.

By definition, peasant agriculture prioritises food production for local and national markets as well as for farmers’ own families. Corporations take over scarce fertile land and prioritise non-food commodities or export crops for profit and markets far away that cater for the needs of the affluent.

This process impoverishes local communities and brings about food insecurity. GRAIN concludes that the concentration of fertile agricultural land in fewer and fewer hands is directly related to the increasing number of people going hungry every day. 

The Oakland Institute in the US recently stated that the first years of the 21st century will be remembered for a global land rush of nearly unprecedented scale [2].

An estimated 500 million acres, an area eight times the size of Britain, was reported bought or leased across the developing world between 2000 and 2011, often at the expense of local food security and land rights. This trend could eventually result in the permanent shift of farm ownership from family businesses to institutional investors and other consolidated corporate operations.

Monsanto in India

In India, small farms account for 92 percent of farms and occupy around 40 percent of all agricultural land. They form the bedrock of food production. However, there is a concerted effort to remove farmers from the land.

Hundreds of thousands of farmers have taken their lives since 1997 and many more are experiencing economic distress or have left farming as a result of debt, a shift to (GM) cash crops and economic liberalisation [3].

Monsanto already controls the cotton industry in India and is increasingly shaping agri-policy and the knowledge paradigm by funding agricultural research in public universities and institutes.

Its practices and colonisation of institutions have led to it being called the ‘contemporary East India Company’ [4], and regulatory bodies are now severely compromised and riddled with conflicts of interest where decision-making over GMOs are concerned [5].

In the meantime, Monsanto and the GM biotech sector forward the myth that GM food is necessary to feed the world’s burgeoning population. They are not.

Aside from the review by GRAIN, the World Bank-funded International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge and Science for Development Report stated that smallholder, traditional farming (not GMOs) can deliver food security in low-income countries through sustainable agri-ecological systems [5].

The Standing Committee on Agriculture in Parliament unequivocally concluded that GM seeds and foods are dangerous to human, animal and environmental health and directed the former Government of Manmohan Singh to ban GMOs [6].

Despite such evidence and the recommendations to put a hold on open field GM trials by the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee, the push is on within official circles to give such trials the green light.

Monsanto cannot be trusted

The GM biotech sector cannot be trusted. As its largest player, Monsanto is responsible for knowingly damaging people’s health and polluting the environment and is guilty of a catalogue of decades-long deceptive, duplicitous and criminal practices [7].

It has shown time and again its contempt for human life and the environment and that profit overrides any notion of service to the public, yet it continues to propagate the lie that it has humanity’s best interests at heart because its so-called GMO ‘frontier technology’ can feed the hungry millions.

The sector attempts to control the ‘science’ around its products by carrying out inadequate, secretive studies of its own, placing restrictions on any independent research into its products and censoring findings that indicate the deleterious impacts of its products [8].

It has also faked data [9] and engages in attacking scientists who reach conclusions not to its liking [10,11]. It cannot demonstrate that yields are better, nutritional values are improved, health is not damaged or that harm to the environment does not occur with the adoption of GMOs.

Independent studies and evidence, not inadequate industry funded or back ones, have indicated yields are often worse and herbicide use has increased [12,13,14], health is negatively impacted [15,16], soil is damaged [17] and biodiversity is undermined [18], among other things.

GRAIN found that around 56 percent of Russia’s agricultural output comes from family farms which occupy less than 9 percent of arable land. Russia does not need or want GM crops, which the Russian Prime Minister has described as amounting to little more than a form of biological warfare weapon [19]. And here lies the real heart of the matter.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said that if you control oil you control nations, but if you control food you control people. GMOs are not needed to feed the world. Science cannot justify their use. They are a weapon.

In India, there is a drive to remove small/family farms, which are capable of ensuring the nation’s food security, and eventually replace them with larger biotech-controlled monoculture farms with GM crops for Western styled processed-food supermarkets and export [20].

It is no surprise that the likes of Syngenta, Monsanto and Walmart had a direct hand in drawing up the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, which was in turn linked to the US sanctioning the opening up of India’s nuclear power sector.

Despite India not being a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, US corporations are now actively involved in helping India develop its civil nuclear capabilities. Payback appears to come in the form of handing over the control of India’s agricultural land and food system to the US via that country’s biotech companies.

GMOs and the bigger picture

Russia is correct to conflate bio-terror and GMOs. The oil-rich Rockefeller family set out to control global agriculture via the petrochemical-dependent ‘green revolution’. The destruction of traditional farmer-controlled agriculture was actively supported by the US government and its Trojan horse agritech corporations under the agenda set out by Kissinger.

GMOs now represent the ultimate stranglehold over food via ‘terminator’ seed technology, seed patenting and intellectual property rights.

Moreover, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Gates Foundation - which have teamed up with Monsanto in Africa - have long-standing concerns about overpopulation in ‘third world’ countries and how they could develop and threaten resources that the West has used to enrich itself with [21].

In fact, Monsanto now own the Epicyte gene, which causes sterility. What will be the ‘final solution’ for the likes of 600 million in India or millions in Africa or elsewhere who are to be removed from agriculture [22]? The eugenicists are knocking at the door.

Despite compliant politicians and officials in high places who seem hellbent on capitulating to Monsanto and the US, many recognise the dangers associated with GMOs and are working hard to resist their introduction. However, they are attacked and accused of slowing down growth because of their resistance to GMOs [23].

Certain activists and civil organisations are also accused of working against the national interest by colluding with foreign interests to undermine ‘development’. The hypocrisy is blindingly obvious: the state itself has for a long time been colluding with foreign interests to undermine the basis of traditional agriculture.

The political backing for GMOs by the US State Department, the strategic position of the US GM biotech sector in international trade agreements and the push to get GMOs into India and to contaminate agriculture via open-field trials with the compliance of key officials and official bodies does not bode well.

Independence is much more than military might, patriotic slogans and a self-congratulatory media-induced frenzy on a designated day each year. In terms of GMOs, Russia is aware of this. It is actively committed to putting the GMO genie back in the bottle [24]. Why isn’t India?
“It is fitting that at this solemn moment we take the pledge of dedication to the service of India and her people and to the still larger cause of humanity … The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future? … A new star rises, the star of freedom in the east, a new hope comes into being, a vision long cherished materialises. May the star never set and that hope never be betrayed!” Jawaharlal Nehru from his “tryst with destiny” speech at Parliament House in New Delhi in 1947.
Notes
[9]http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/Monsanto+’faked’+data+for+approvals+claims+its+ex-chief/1/83093.html
[12]http://naturalsociety.com/breaking-new-usda-report-proves-environmental-impact-gmo-questionable/
[24] http://rt.com/op-edge/159948-gmo-food-russia-law/

About the author

Originally from the northwest of England, Colin Todhunter has spent many years in India. He has written extensively for the Bangalore-based Deccan Herald, New Indian Express and Morning Star (Britain). His articles have also appeared in many other newspapers, journals and books. His East by Northwest site is at: http://colintodhunter.blogspot.com

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Surging Chinese Demand for Rosewood is Ruining Forests Across Southern Asia

English: Stump and log of illegally cut rosewo...
Stump and log of illegally cut rosewood (Wikipedia)
by Zuzana Burivalova, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich

We are inclined to think that trees are a renewable natural resource.

Yet precious hardwood trees have already been almost completely logged out from many countries across the tropics.

Myanmar is the latest country to experience the insatiable demand for its precious rosewood.

Rosewood, also known as bois de rose, is an umbrella term for a whole group of tropical timber species, mostly from the genus Dalbergia, Pterocarpus, Diospyros, and Milletia, which all have a dark red hue and high quality timber in common.

The vast majority of rosewood is imported to China where it’s fashioned into luxurious, highly-priced ornamental furniture in the Ming and Quing dynasty style.

Myanmar, one of the most important biodiversity hotspots in Asia, has also several species of rosewood highly prized by the Chinese furniture trade.

Even though Myanmar’s forest and hardwood stocks have been diminishing for several decades already (less than 10% of the land is now forested, the rosewood logging and smuggling has increased to an unprecedented level in the last three years.

In 2013 alone, Myanmar exported 237,000m3 of rosewood to China, triple the volume of the previous year. This amounts to one thirteenth of the estimated remaining rosewood stock of Myanmar - at current logging rates, Myanmar’s forests will have been stripped of rosewood in just 13 years.

As Chinese hunger for the luxuriant, dark red timber grows and spreads across the greater Mekong region, rosewood species might face not only commercial extinction, but also final, biological extinction.

It is hardly just the loss of a few species that is at stake. Forest overexploited for timber is likely to lose many species of animals, its ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere deteriorates, and it is more likely to experience fires. Logging also brings about more hunting and increases the chances of complete deforestation.

In Myanmar illegal logging also brings with it a raft of socioeconomic problems. Loggers undertake long and dangerous scouting expeditions into the forest, or take the risk of timber smuggling in conflict-ridden border regions, such as Kachin at the border with Yunnan province, China - one of the main rosewood smuggling routes. Not every logger returns from these expeditions.

Besides the fact that logging in the tropics is rated as one of the most dangerous jobs, there is in Myanmar an added danger of being shot in a timber-related conflict. Moreover, loggers are often rewarded by various stimulating drugs.

So why isn’t Myanmar establishing commercial rosewood plantations? Some tropical timber can indeed be mass-produced in plantations, especially faster growing species such as rubberwood, eucalyptus, or teak.

But the extremely slow growing, high density rosewood trees take many decades to grow to a commercially viable size, requiring several generations of tree planters to wait for the profit.

Such long-term investment is commendable, but unlikely in a conflict-ridden, poor country like Myanmar, with unstable land tenure and an explosive political climate.

Act now or lose it

It is in Myanmar’s interest to completely stop the illegal logging and export of rosewood to China. As almost all processing of Burmese rosewood is done in China, no value is added in Myanmar.

Worse still, almost no tax is generated: Myanmar lost an estimated US$6 billion through illegal logging between 2013 and 2014. Instead of the desperately needed cash for healthcare, education, and environmental protection, laundered rosewood money goes to corrupt officials and government cronies.

If Myanmar wants to escape its rosewood crisis with at least some viable rosewood populations left, it should take lessons from other countries that have already undergone the “rosewood massacre”.

On April 1 this year, the Myanmar government put in place a ban on raw timber export, but without enforcement this cannot be effective. Myanmar has to show its dedication to a permanent, non-negotiable, exception-free rosewood export ban.

In Madagascar, we have an example of how temporary and unclear bans only lead to a more dynamic and thriving rosewood black market. During periods of temporary bans, illegal rosewood logging continues, and traders simply accumulate rosewood stockpiles. Meanwhile, rosewood prices go up, stimulating even bigger bouts of logging when the ban is lifted.

However, even an effective national ban on rosewood export might not be enough to stop the rosewood crisis in Myanmar. In some cases, a national export ban caused China’s rosewood appetite to shift to a new country.

In other cases, for example Vietnam, China simply grabbed the opportunity of cheaper labour and moved its basic rosewood processing to Vietnam, effectively circumventing the raw timber export ban. This may bring some economic benefit to Vietnam, but does nothing to alleviate the pressure on the forests.

Of the 33 species that pass China’s strict hongmu quality standards for rosewood, more than a third is already deemed vulnerable by the IUCN Red List of Threatened species and six are listed by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The convention binds signatory countries to regulate or stop trade in the listed species, depending on the degree of protection.

Whereas China offers high levels of support to protect its growing rosewood industry, for customers and businesses, it appears to have a complete lack of interest in regulating the industry’s environmental impact or improving its sustainability.

Europe, the US and Australia all tightened their regulations regarding rosewood import in recent years. But with Chinese domestic demand growing significantly since 2011, only stricter regulations in China can save Myanmar’s rosewood forests.
The Conversation

Zuzana Burivalova does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The True Cost of Cattle is Much, Much Higher Than you Imagine

Feedlot in the Texas Panhandle
Feedlot in the Texas Panhandle (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
by Gidon Eshel, Bard College

That eating beef is environmentally costly is by now widely appreciated.

But little has been done to curtail the amount of cattle farmed for meat consumption.

To try and address this, my colleagues and I decided to calculate just how costly beef production is for the environment, and how it stacks up against pork, poultry, dairy and eggs.

Our hope is that better knowledge of the environmental costs of raising animals for food will help improve both the dietary choices people make and agricultural policies.

Our research, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US, found that raising beef cattle is far more environmentally costly than poultry, pork, dairy or eggs.

Per calorie, cattle requires on average 28 times more land and 11 times more water to farm. Farming cattle releases five times more greenhouse gases and uses six times as much nitrogen as the average of other animal products.

When compared with staple plant foods, these ratios roughly double. So, a beef calorie requires about 50 times more land than a wheat calorie.

By comparison, pork, poultry and eggs are all roughly on the same level of environmental cost. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, water use and the levels of nitrogen discharge from fertiliser run-off, dairy is comparable to pork, poultry and eggs.

While it’s long been clear that vegetarian diets produce lower environmental costs than ones involving produce from animals, people are still intent on eating food derived from animals - and with ever-increasing gusto.

Taking note of this, we sought to identify the types of animal-based food that are least environmentally harmful.

Environmental costs of animal foods in (l to r) land, water, greenhouse gas, and nitrogen, compared to common plant foods such as wheat, rice and potato (green text). Eshel/Shepon/Makov/Milo, Author provided

The (environmental) cost of food

Though numerous studies have addressed elements of this issue, they have mostly used data from individual farms, typically one or at most a handful. But farms differ markedly geographically, from season to season and year to year, and are thus not necessarily representative of the big picture.

By contrast, we used the reverse, top-down approach by analysing national level data. While previous studies mostly addressed one environmental burden at a time (typically greenhouse gas emissions, but also water or land use), we simultaneously addressed each of them in order to offer a multi-dimensional view of the environmental performance of the livestock industry in the US.

We measured greenhouse gas emissions, water and land use, and reactive nitrogen discharge levels from manure or fertiliser.

Reactive nitrogen is environmentally important because it is the most common cause of degradation in freshwater ponds, streams and lakes, and around coastlines where fertiliser run-off washed into rivers reaches the sea.

We address the five main animal based products in the American diet: dairy, beef, poultry, pork and eggs, calculating the environmental costs per nutritional unit, calorie or gram protein. Our key challenge was devising accurate values of how much land, water, and reactive nitrogen livestock required, and the amount of greenhouse gasses they emit.

Working out these estimates required navigating numerous subtleties. For example, grazing cattle in the arid to semi-arid western US uses an enormous amount of land, but little or no irrigation.

Grain-fed feedlot cattle, by contrast, use much less land, but require cultivated grains that depend strongly on nitrogen fertiliser. We needed to fairly account for these differences across the country, while determining figures that reflect, approximately, the true environmental costs.

Making better decisions

These findings have a number of implications. First, this research can inform environmentally minded individuals so they can make environmentally better dietary choices. Perhaps more importantly, the paper can also help inform agricultural policy, in the US and worldwide.

In a companion paper in the Journal of Agricultural Science (forthcoming) we have laid down a foundation for analysing the environmental costs of any diet, including plant-based diets and those of other nations.

Perhaps our key contribution is to highlight areas in which improvement is most likely, and where a focused effort is likely to yield the most desirable change. Applying these methods to global diets can help improve long term global food security in light of the effects of climate change, water and land shortage, and rising population.
The Conversation

Gidon Eshel is the principal of environmentalCalculations.com

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Tell Unilever to Stop Greenwashing Rainforest Destruction

Oil palm plantation on the slopes of Mt. Cameroon
Oil palm plantation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
by Sum Of Us

We've just learnt that Unilever is supporting a dirty industry attempt to continue the destruction of Southeast Asia's rainforests.

If it gets its way, orangutans could keep dying in the name of "sustainable" palm oil.

The consumer giant is attempting to ignore scientists' work and rewrite the rules on what counts as forest that should be spared from destruction, backed by the worst palm oil producers.

It's a direct challenge to the strong scientific standards that groups from SumOfUs to Kellogg's to Mars have aligned behind. If we don't stop it, this could amount to a license for deforestation in the name of conservation, and undermine the huge progress we've made to save the orangutans.

Unilever is the world's largest palm oil user, and it's done the right thing in the past to support rainforest protection. It can do the right thing again, and we know that it's sensitive to consumer pressure.

Right now Unilever thinks it can push this greenwash behind closed doors. But if we can put this into the public light, it won't be worth the risk for Unilever to continue.

Sign the petition now to tell Unilever not to greenwash rainforest destruction.

It doesn't have to be this way. We’ve made tremendous progress in getting big palm oil companies and a dozen of the world’s biggest consumer companies, including giants like Kellogg and Mars, to commit to end deforestation in their supply chains.

Every week, more companies are joining up and pledging to do the right thing. Up until now, even Unilever has played a key role in promoting strict criteria for responsible palm oil production.

Crucial to the rainforests' protection is the scientific work that's been done to define what counts as a forest that should be spared from the bulldozers when companies go deforestation free.

Specifically, companies have pledged to protect "High Conservation Value" or "High Carbon Stock" forest - based on a common understanding of what this means. The combined pressure from groups like SumOfUs and other NGOs has worked.

Companies from Kellogg's to Mars to Wilmar - the world's largest palm oil trader - have accepted this common, strict approach and definition to ensure deforestation-free palm oil.

But now Unilever is participating in an industry attempt to redefine what counts as "High Carbon Stock" forest. Only the worst industry players are participating actively in this greenwash - companies like IOI and Cargill.

If they get their way, companies could keep pushing bulldozers into some of the world's most important rainforests even while claiming to be deforestation free. Even worse, they are refusing to stop any deforestation until the "study" is complete. And now Unilever is joining them.

It's clear that industry will use this exercise to loosen the definition what forest they will spare from the bulldozers. If they do, it could open the door for continued destruction for what they want to call "sustainable" palm oil.

It's a desperate attempt to continue business as usual and avoid growing consumer demands for deforestation-free palm oil.

Unilever doesn't have to be a part of this. We need to show Unilever that we won't tolerate this greenwash.

Tell Unilever not to greenwash rainforest destruction and withdraw from the "study" now.

Thanks for all that you do, Taren, Paul and the rest of us.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, March 17, 2014

Dead Bees - Everywhere

by Paul Ferris, SumOfUs.org

This could be huge: a global retailer might be about to pull bee-killing pesticides from its shelves.

If others join, this could be a decisive victory for the bees.

Bees are dying off in their millions around the world, including 37 million (!) on a single North American farm last season.

After years of research, scientists finally know the cause.

"Neonics" - deadly pesticides produced by Bayer and other chemical giants. But while the bees are dying, corporations around the world are still selling these bee-killing pesticides.

That's why a global retailer breaking ranks could be a game changer. If they stop carrying the pesticides, it could start a snowball effect and stop bee-killing pesticides for good.

But we know the big corporations that profit from these deadly pesticides are fighting back. Bayer is already spending a pile of cash on a huge "bee care tour" designed to buy the trust of retailers and small businesses with false information.

We can't allow the pesticide industry to be the only voice in the room when retailers decide whether to stop selling bee-killers.

Many of the largest companies are just weeks or months away from their annual shareholder meetings - and we need to make sure they hear our message there.

That's why we want to fund activist beekeepers who've been watching their bees die for years to take their message directly to the shareholders, and raise a storm outside the meetings too.

Can you chip in $1 to take the voices of beekeepers to these meetings and launch a massive campaign get bee-killing pesticides cleared from shelves worldwide?

Only recently, the giant US retailers Home Deport and Lowe’s were found to be selling so-called ‘bee-friendly’ plants that were actually laced with neonics! It’s almost unbelievable.

But as long as retailers like Home Depot in the US and Canada, or Bunnings in Australia won’t remove neonics from their shelves, then the world’s bee population is still at risk.

We know that consumer pressure on retailers works. Before Europe’s partial ban on neonics, there was a huge movement that pushed some of the biggest retailers on the continent to voluntarily remove neonics from their shelves.

If we can make sure that other retailers in Canada, the US, Australia and elsewhere pledge to stop selling neonics then we can halt the sale of these deadly pesticides.

The voices of the beekeepers is powerful - and that's why these companies and their shareholders need to hear from the beekeepers.

Last year, after thousands of SumOfUs members chipped in, our activist beekeepers traveled to Chicago and took their message directly to independent garden store owners at the world's largest gardening convention - singing up dozens to our campaign.

Can you chip in $1 to help us fund beekeepers to speak out and to push companies to remove bee-killing pesticides from their shelves?

The fight to save our bees has made some big steps. But Bayer and other pesticide giants aren’t taking this lying down. Now, we need to take the battle to those retailers that are still selling neonics. If we can stop the flow of cash, then we’re one step closer to protecting our bees.

Thanks for all you do, Paul, Martin and the team at SumOfUs.

Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Stop Monsanto Now: Crucial Shareholder Resolution Coming Up

protesting monsanto in san francisco
Protesting Monsanto, San Francisco (msdonnalee)
by SumOfUs

Monsanto: it's one of the greatest corporate scandals of our time.

This mega-corporation has paid off our politicians, taken over our regulators, and bullied public opponents into submission while it silently monopolizes our food system with its genetically-engineered products.

Now a brave group of Monsanto shareholders are making a stand - the crucial vote is only one week away, and they desperately need our support to force Monsanto to face up to the risks associated with GMOs.

Monsanto has been keeping us and its shareholders in the dark for too long - this shareholder resolution tells Monsanto to be open with the risks of GMO.

This is a serious shareholder proposal, and some big, credible investors are already supportive. But many of the biggest investment and retirement funds that invest OUR money are lining up to vote with Monsanto bosses against transparency.

These big institutional investors think that no one's watching them - and unless we do something now, they'll be right. Together, we can make sure shareholders know what's up and that we're watching - and secure their votes against Monsanto's corporate racket.

The vote happens in just one week. We understand if you can't, but if just 5,000 of us can chip in $1 now, we can launch our urgent campaign to tell Monsanto to come clean on GMOs.

Here's just some of what we could do if we all chip in now:
  • Secure advertising in Monsanto's home town of St Louis, Missouri, so that shareholders hear our message as they arrive to vote and know we're watching
  • Send organizers to St Louis to raise a media storm outside the shareholder meeting with creative tactics, to make sure the public knows what's happening
  • Buy a small, strategic stake in Monsanto - so that we can speak out as shareholders ourselves and demand they act
This shareholder resolution is legitimate, serious business - Harrington Investments Inc. is telling Monsanto to come clean, and they need other big shareholders to back them. 

If the resolution gets a high vote, it would send a very clear signal that Monsanto should disclose the risks associated with GMOs: including contamination of non-GMO crops, damage to "non-target organisms" like bees and other pollinators, and soil contamination.

But Monsanto's board is refusing to back the proposal, despite claiming to be transparent and even though the resolution doesn't require them to disclose any proprietary information.

Meanwhile, the company has spent more than $15 million is California and Washington alone to defeat proposals to label GMO food - a measure that over 90% of Americans support.

Can you chip in just $1 now to stand up to Monsanto and support these brave shareholders in their campaign? We know you might not be able to, but if you can we really appreciate your support.

Big institutional shareholders invest the funds of people like us - but too often they vote against our own interests and cozy up to management. It's only when we publicly hold them to account that we can change this.

We're already reaching out to big Monsanto shareholders to call on them to act - but we need to be able to tell them that we've got the whole SumOfUs community behind us, and we need to be able to show them that we're ready to make a media storm at the shareholders' meeting to hold them to account.

We know what we need to do: get institutional investors to speak to the expert advisors to win their support, show thse investors we'll be there to hold them to account, and to keep piling the pressure on with national and international media coverage - but we can't do it unless we all come together to make it happen.

If we don't, then Monsanto's shareholders will know that no one is watching when they vote down this crucial resolution on GMO transparency.

Can you chip in just $1 now to fund our campaign to tell Monsanto to come clean on the risks associated with GMOs? This is the only shot we'll get to directly change the direction of Monsanto this year.

Thanks for all you do,
Paul, Lisa, Johnny and the rest of us.

SumOfUs is a worldwide movement of people like you, working together to hold corporations accountable for their actions and forge a new, sustainable path for our global economy.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, January 13, 2014

If This Law is Passed, It Means We'll All Be in Debt to Monsanto

Anti Monsanto GMO Rally
Anti Monsanto Rally (Susan Melkisethian)
by The Sum of Us

Under pressure from big commercial farms, the Brazilian parliament is about to hold a vote that will allow companies like Monsanto, Bayer, and others to start selling so-called ‘suicide seeds’ to farmers. 

The genetically modified seeds can only be used once, forcing small farmers into buying seeds from Monsanto or others over and over again - literally forever.

The use of these seeds is essentially prohibited under a UN treaty on biodiversity which over 193 countries, including Brazil, have signed. But if Brazil overturns its own ban then this will have huge consequences. 

Poor, small farmers could be locked into a cycle of endless debt and dependency - and the rest of the world could be handing control of the global food supply to a handful of companies. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

The parliamentary proposal has already been approved by some key committees and is now hurtling its way to a full parliament vote, which could happen in just a few weeks time - meaning we don’t have long to stop this proposal.

Sign this petition to Brazilian lawmakers urging them to reject any attempt to overturn the ban on terminator seeds.

If the ban is scrapped, huge commercial farms will be allowed to use super fast-growing GMO crops, damaging neighbouring farms through cross-fertilisation. 

Small farmers will have to use the same terminator seeds just to compete - tying them into buying seeds from the likes of Monsanto forever.

If Brazil allows these dangerous seeds to be used, it will spark a global domino effect, as country after country race to change laws in order to stay competitive. 

Brazil’s decision could set the stage for the global ban on terminator seeds to be overturned when the UN treaty is renewed this year. It’s absolutely vital that we stop this move in its tracks.

We’ve come together in the past to take on huge agribusinesses like Monsanto before. We’re fighting Bayer and Syngenta in their attempts to overturn Europe’s ban on bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticides. We’ve taken on the might of Monsanto when we campaigned to stop it receiving the World Food Prize. 

Now we need to demand that Brazilian lawmakers reject attempts by giant corporate landowners and agribusinesses to allow the use of these dangerous suicide seeds.

Tell Brazilian lawmakers that the world is depending on them to keep the ban on 'terminator seeds'.

Thanks for all you do,
Martin, Paul, Claiborne and the rest of us

**********
More Information:

Unease among Brazil's farmers as Congress votes on GM terminator seeds, The Guardian, December 2013.
Brazil contemplates using 'terminator seeds', TakePart, December 2013.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Break Agriculture's Chemical Monopolies to Free Our Food

Agriculture
Agriculture (Photo credit: thegreenpages)
by Michel Pimbert, Coventry University

Current farming methods rely too much on expensive chemicals such as fertiliser and pesticides; agroecology combines the best of ecological science and farmers’ knowledge to develop more sustainable food and farming.

This is not some fringe theory - agroecology has been discussed in the UK parliament, and an Agroecology Strategy Bill to be presented to MPs will be launched at the Oxford Real Farming Conference that starts today.

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has argued that agroecology can double food production in entire regions within ten years, while mitigating climate change and alleviating rural poverty.

And a recent UNCTAD report also made the benefits more visible for mainstream policy makers. However, the term agroecology is now frequently used to mean very different things.

The French Minister of Agriculture declared his intention to have France become Europe’s “champion of agroecology”. But his government’s vision is radically different from that of French civil society and farmers' organisations.

Instead of merely promoting no-till farming methods with herbicide sprays, these organisations call for an agroecological approach that brings producers and consumers closer, boosts employment, the development of a solidarity-based economy, and diverse nutritious foods.

This emphasis on locally controlled food systems is at the heart of a radical agenda for food sovereignty in Europe that transforms the system, rather than conforms to the current model.

But this transformation will not happen spontaneously. Change in Europe ultimately depends on the power of citizens to redirect public investments and policies that limit the spread of agroecology for sustainable food and farming.

Re-localising food

A growing number of initiatives in Europe aim to re-connect producers with consumers, using short food chains that supply local food.

According to a recent EU commissioned study, short food chains generate great social and economic benefits. They create a sense of community by building trust and social bonds. They also create jobs and strengthen local economies because producers keep a higher share of their food’s value.

The environmental impact of short food chains can be mixed. Greenhouse gas emissions can be high if electricity and fuel have to be sourced from far away, for example. So a major challenge is to find new ways of re-integrating food, energy, water and waste systems in circular models.

The overall focus is on doing more with less: widespread recycling and reuse; bringing production and consumption back from a global food supply chain to a more local, decentralised food web.

From house clusters, municipalities, and whole cities, to semi-urban areas beyond city hinterlands linked to nearby farms and countryside.

Free the seeds, reclaim the land

Ensuring biodiversity-rich and change-resistant farming depends on unrestricted access to a wide range of seeds that are not proprietary products of big corporations.

But European seed regulations and Plant Breeders Rights encourage uniformity across farm landscapes by restricting the free exchange of seeds.

While this benefits seed companies, it hampers our ability to develop the more genetically diverse farming systems we need to adapt to climate change. Changes to the law are urgently needed to liberate seeds from corporate control, and strengthen farmers' rights.

Land ownership in Europe is also highly unequal. There are some 12m farms in the EU, but large farms of 100 hectares or more, representing only 3% of the total number, nevertheless control 50% of all farmed land.

For young people trying to enter farming, high land prices and an increasingly speculative market have made it even more difficult. We need a pan-European political process to reverse the concentration of land ownership.

But a number of citizens’ initiatives are taking land off the market in order to allow farmers to enter or stay in farming.

For example Terre de Liens (“ties to the land”) in France has bought more 2,000 hectares of farmland since 2007, held in perpetuity for the sake of current and future generations. Land is then let to farmers who largely farm organically and sell through short food webs that create jobs and wealth in the local economy.

Citizen action

Citizens need to change the way public money is spent. For example, funds are required to build the infrastructure of decentralised food systems: local abattoirs, mills, food processing facilities, renewable energy generation, and water treatment.

Working with allies in local government, public money can be redirected into procurement schemes that favour farmers using agroecological methods and short food chains to deliver healthy, local food to schools, hospitals, and office canteens.

For example, in both Italy and Scotland, local authorities have promoted local producers by finding ways to bypass the “non-discrimination” EU regulatory constraints. Only local products are used to prepare school meals in several Italian towns.

Another challenge is to change research priorities towards developing sustainable food systems. The challenge is to increase public funding for long-neglected agroecological research and democratise how such research is governed.

Citizens - farmers - should be more involved in defining strategic research priorities and policies. More emphasis needs to be placed on forms of social organisation and education that encourage direct democracy and partnerships, including farmers’ movements and their innovation networks..

In a globalised world, new trade rules will be needed to protect local food systems and local businesses, and new supply management policies to reduce wasteful production and consumption and connect farms to fair markets. But this must not simply tweak the system.

This is where a greater convergence between agroecology, food sovereignty, the solidarity economy, and degrowth movements can help.

Localised, circular systems based on agroecology can strengthen food sovereignty, democracy, and cultural diversity in Europe.

Given the threats of climate change, peak oil, water scarcity, food supply, and steeply rising unemployment in the EU, piecemeal solutions that perpetuate “business as usual” will not do.

Michel Pimbert receives funding from the Swiss Development Cooperation, The Salvia Foundation, Swedish Sida, and the EU.
The Conversation

This article was originally published at The Conversation. Read the original article.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, November 9, 2013

Monsanto May Have Won the Battle for I-522, But the Future of Food Is Not Lost

Storm trooper holds cherry
Photo by Kristina Alexanderson / Flickr
by , Yes! magazine: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/monsanto-may-have-won-the-battle-i-522-but-the-future-of-food-is-not-lost

Erin Sagen wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. 

Erin is a recent graduate of the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

Follow her on Twitter at @erin_sagen.

As national media outlets announced the failure of Washington state’s Initiative 522 - a measure that would require labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients - those advocating for the measure paused.

The race was still too early to call, they said, despite a nearly 10 percent difference in early results.

"It's an uphill battle, but the race is not over," said Elizabeth Larter, Yes on 522's media director.

"We still have more than 300,000 ballots to count." Larter went on to point out that later voters are typically younger and more liberal - people likely to support I-522.

Roughly 100,000 ballots were still left to count in King County, the state’s most liberal and populous, and that left enough room for cautious optimism among labeling advocates. As of press time, 45 percent had voted yes, while 55 percent voted no.

Last year's labeling campaign in California, Proposition 37, saw a wider margin on election night, but, according to the campaign's media director, Stacy Malkan, six points eventually shrunk to three as ballots were counted.

That narrow margin seemed to indicate strong support for labeling genetically engineered foods, despite more than $46 million being spent by the opposing side to defeat it.

On Initiative 522, Malkan said she's "watching the numbers with interest," but expressed frustration with the opposing side's "dirty tricks." "They pick on the details of the initiative and scare people about cost," she said. 

A need for deeper reform

But 522's likely failure might point more directly at institutional barriers than at public opinion. "We have a broken political system right now," said Mark Schlosberg of advocacy group Food and Water Watch. "To really change it, we need to change our democracy."

Both Malkan and Schlosberg addressed a deeper need for reform and transformation of the political process, referring to campaign finance reform and the Supreme Court's decision in the Citizens United case.

Earlier this month, Washington's Attorney General filed suit against the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a major donor to No on 522, alleging the lobbying group violated state campaign finance laws.

The GMA registered and disclosed the required information thereafter, according to the Attorney General’s website.

Yes on 522 might not succeed at passing a labeling law (final results are expected to be released at 4:30 p.m. PST). Although labeling advocates are disappointed, progress can be found elsewhere, if not in state legislatures throughout the United States.

Malkan referred to a frequently cited New York Times poll this year that found that more than 90 percent of Americans support labeling.

She also mentioned that companies like Target, Trader Joe's, and other grocery chains recently signed a pledge stating that they will refuse to sell genetically engineered salmon in their stores once that product becomes commercially available.

And powerful food manufacturers like Kraft and Mars steered clear of participating in the race by refusing to donate money to either campaign, according to Malkan. They did not want to put their brands at risk.

Malkan believes that the coming years will ultimately bring labeling. "But in the meantime, we can reject those brands - like Nestlé, Coca Cola, and Pepsi - that worked to fight this bill. And we’ll keep organizing. I still believe it’s unstoppable."

Monday, September 16, 2013

Conscious Consumption

Farmer plowing in Fahrenwalde, Mecklenburg-Vor...
Farmer plowing in Fahrenwalde, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
by Sophie Love, Online Opinion: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15475

Sophie Love has been involved in the advertising and media industries since the 1980's 'greed is good' heydays. 

British by birth, but Australian by choice, she is passionate about this beautiful sunburnt continent and re-connecting Australians to their literal roots - where their food comes from. 

She runs a farm, a family, and a marketing/design agency. 

In her free time(!) she likes to put pen to paper and share her thoughts about a wide variety of issues and modern day dilemmas. You can read more at www.littlehouseontheriver.com.au.

A revolution is long overdue in our unconscious over-consumption. We have become inured to where our food or clothes come from or how they reach the supermarket shelves. Most people simply don't care, as long as it is cheap.

They don't know or care about Genetically Modified food and cotton - the gross manipulation of nature, the fact that ag-chemical giant Monsanto is funding GMO, that GMO crops are routinely sprayed with toxic cancer causing chemical Round-Up, and that Monsanto's aim is to own all the world's seeds and have them under patent - own the seeds, own all the food in the world - seeds are the beginning of life.

The vast majority couldn't care less where their meat comes from - many don't even know which animal their cold cut comes from. We have lost all respect for life - any life, whether it be human or animal. We are merciless, pitiless, selfish, angry.

And it may well be that the normal western diet of coffee, meat and alcohol overtaxes the body and fuels our rage.

But a shift is happening - populaces are protesting about live exports, which is great - they are beginning to equate animals with suffering and slaughter and their minds are opening to the treatment of the animals they expect on their plate. Ripples on the pond.

Most people don't know or question what chemicals are used to produce their broad-scale farmed fruit and vegetables, and what damage the run-off does to the ground where it kills earthworms, dung beetles etc and poisons the ground for generations to come, or how many fish and other stream and river life that same run off causes once it reaches the waterways.

Let alone what those same sprays are doing to the bees and air-borne insects which are all part of our incredibly complicated ecological tapestry. Cotton, wheat, corn etc ... it's so hard to be sure what we are buying if we shop in the big chain stores.

And then there is the way in which supermarkets and big food chains are screwing farmers to the wall on pricing, so they are forced to compromise quality for quantity, using every unnatural means available to meet the demands of a few big buyers.

Superphosphate in the soil, locking up the nutrients and salinating the soil, which then leaches into the waterways, killing wildlife etc ... and on and on it goes.

Of course there are the feedlots, breeding E Coli in cattle by forcing them to eat grain while standing cheek to jowl in unnatural concentration camps, fattening up for slaughter ... and the hormones and other chemicals used to grow obscenely large chickens to further fill our plates ... what about the global wave of infertility, surely that is related to all the unnatural hormones in our foods?

Now let's talk about the power  and water used in the industrialised farming system - pumping vast amounts of water onto parched lands - draining the rivers where the wildlife can no longer survive once their lifeblood is dried.

The devastating damage done to the landscape in order to produce coal fired power. The senselessness of our preoccupation with destroying the earth to dig coal out of the ground when solar is so readily available.

Indeed the industrial revolution is still powering our thinking, growing and raising practices, when we need to revert to a more local, agricultural, and needs-based farming system.

But there is a groundswell of people who are questioning the ethics and realities of the food and clothing industries. Who want to know where their food comes from - how it is grown or raised and killed (if they eat meat). People who are putting their consciousness onto their plates and making sure that they can account for the provenance of every mouthful. These are often the same people who don't want thirsty cotton clothing, bleached and then dyed with noxious chemicals.

These consumers would rather pay more for organic cotton or hemp - who care about factory slavery in Vietnam, Bangladesh and China. Who prefer natural wool products from sheep and alpacas raised solely for fleece, rather than petrochemically produced clothing which pollutes our blue planet.

We are all hypocrites in one way or another, such is the nature of our human-ness. We all make mistakes and fall down in some way in our consumption choices. It's hard to be a fully conscious being at all times, in all areas.

As we all tighten our belts and lockdown for a few more years of tight budgeting, it is time to become aware of where our hard earned dollars are going, to buy less and more consciously, closer to home, supporting local farmers and industries and paying for quality, not quantity - getting back to basics.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, September 13, 2013

BOOK REVIEW: Seeds of Destruction: The Diabolical World of Genetic Manipulation

Sacramento 2003 GMO USDA protest'Resist' flag
Sacramento 2003 GMO protest (Wikipedia)
by F. William Engdahl, Global Research,
 
Control the oil, and you control nations. Control the food, and you control the people”* - Henry Kissinger.

Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation” by F. William Engdahl is a skillfully researched book that focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread.

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO.  

Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms. 

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. 

If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Engdahl’s carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and world peace.

What follows is the Preface to ”Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation” by F. William Engdahl (available through Global Research):

Introduction
“We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. This disparity is particularly great as between ourselves and the peoples of Asia. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so,we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction”- George Kennan, US State Department senior planning official, 1948.
This book is about a project undertaken by a small socio-political elite, centered, after the Second World War, not in London, but in Washington. 

It is the untold story of how this self-anointed elite set out, in Kennan’s words, to “maintain this position of disparity.” It is the story of how a tiny few dominated the resources and levers of power in the postwar world.

It’s above all a history of the evolution of power in the control of a select few, in which even science was put in the service of that minority. As Kennan recommended in his 1948 internal memorandum, they pursued their policy relentlessly, and without the “luxury of altruism and world-benefaction.”

Yet, unlike their predecessors within leading circles of the British Empire, this emerging American elite, who proclaimed proudly at war’s end the dawn of their American Century, were masterful in their use of the rhetoric of altruism and world-benefaction to advance their goals. 

Their American Century paraded as a softer empire, a “kinder, gentler” one in which, under the banner of colonial liberation, freedom, democracy and economic development, those elite circles built a network of power the likes of which the world had not seen since the time of Alexander the Great some three centuries before Christ - a global empire unified under the military control of a sole superpower, able to decide on a whim, the fate of entire nations.

This book is the sequel to a first volume, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. It traces a second thin red line of power. This one is about the control over the very basis of human survival, our daily provision of bread. 

The man who served the interests of the postwar American-based elite during the 1970’s, and came to symbolize its raw realpolitik, was Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. 

Sometime in the mid-1970’s, Kissinger, a life-long practitioner of “Balance of Power” geopolitics and a man with more than a fair share of conspiracies under his belt, allegedly declared his blueprint for world domination: “Control the oil and you control nations. Control the food, and you control the people.”

The strategic goal to control global food security had its roots decades earlier, well before the outbreak of war in the late 1930’s. 

It was funded, often with little notice, by select private foundations, which had been created to preserve the wealth and power of a handful of American families.

Originally the families centered their wealth and power in New York and along the East Coast of the United States, from Boston to New York to Philadelphia and Washington D.C.

For that reason, popular media accounts often referred to them, sometimes with derision but more often with praise, as the East Coast Establishment.

The center of gravity of American power shifted in the decades following the War. 

The East Coast Establishment was overshadowed by new centers of power which evolved from Seattle to Southern California on the Pacific Coast, as well as in Houston, Las Vegas, Atlanta and Miami, just as the tentacles of American power spread to Asia and Japan, and south, to the nations of Latin America.

In the several decades before and immediately following World War II, one family came to symbolize the hubris and arrogance of this emerging American Century more than any other. 

And the vast fortune of that family had been built on the blood of many wars, and on their control of a new “black gold,” oil.

What was unusual about this family was that early on in the building of their fortune, the patriarchs and advisors they cultivated to safeguard their wealth decided to expand their influence over many very different fields. 

They sought control not merely over oil, the emerging new energy source for world economic advance. 

They also expanded their influence over the education of youth, medicine and psychology, foreign policy of the United States, and, significant for our story, over the very science of life itself, biology, and its applications in the world of plants and agriculture.

For the most part, their work passed unnoticed by the larger population, especially in the United States. Few Americans were aware how their lives were being subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, influenced by one or another project financed by the immense wealth of this family.

In the course of researching for this book, a work nominally on the subject of genetically modified organisms or GMO, it soon became clear that the history of GMO was inseparable from the political history of this one very powerful family, the Rockefeller family, and the four brothers - David, Nelson, Laurence, and John D. III - who, in the three decades following American victory in World War II, the dawn of the much-heralded American Century, shaped the evolution of power George Kennan referred to in 1948.

In actual fact, the story of GMO is that of the evolution of power in the hands of an elite, determined at all costs to bring the entire world under their sway.

Three decades ago, that power was based around the Rockefeller family. Today, three of the four brothers are long-since deceased, several under peculiar circumstances. 

However, as was their will, their project of global domination - “full spectrum dominance” as the Pentagon later called it - had spread, often through a rhetoric of “democracy,” and was aided from time to time by the raw military power of that empire when deemed necessary. 

Their project evolved to the point where one small power group, nominally headquartered in Washington in the early years of the new century, stood determined to control future and present life on this planet to a degree never before dreamed of.

The story of the genetic engineering and patenting of plants and other living organisms cannot be understood without looking at the history of the global spread of American power in the decades following World War II. 

George Kennan, Henry Luce, Averell Harriman and, above all, the four Rockefeller brothers, created the very concept of multinational “agribusiness”. 

They financed the “Green Revolution” in the agriculture sector of developing countries in order, among other things, to create new markets for petro-chemical fertilizers and petroleum products, as well as to expand dependency on energy products. 

Their actions are an inseparable part of the story of genetically modified crops today.

By the early years of the new century, it was clear that no more than four giant chemical multinational companies had emerged as global players in the game to control patents on the very basic food products that most people in the world depend on for their daily nutrition - corn, soybeans, rice, wheat, even vegetables and fruits and cotton - as well as new strains of disease-resistant poultry, genetically-modified to allegedly resist the deadly H5N1 Bird Flu virus, or even gene-altered pigs and cattle. 

Three of the four private companies had decades-long ties to Pentagon chemical warfare research. The fourth, nominally Swiss, was in reality Anglo-dominated. As with oil, so was GMO agribusiness very much an Anglo-American global project.

In May 2003, before the dust from the relentless US bombing and destruction of Baghdad had cleared, the President of the United States chose to make GMO a strategic issue, a priority in his postwar US foreign policy. 

The stubborn resistance of the world’s second largest agricultural producer, the European Union, stood as a formidable barrier to the global success of the GMO Project. 

As long as Germany, France, Austria, Greece and other countries of the European Union steadfastly refused to permit GMO planting for health and scientific reasons, the rest of the world’s nations would remain skeptical and hesitant. 

By early 2006, the World Trade Organization (WTO) had forced open the door of the European Union to the mass proliferation of GMO. It appeared that global success was near at hand for the GMO Project.

In the wake of the US and British military occupation of Iraq, Washington proceeded to bring the agriculture of Iraq under the domain of patented genetically-engineered seeds, initially supplied through the generosity of the US State Department and Department of Agriculture.

The first mass experiment with GMO crops, however, took place back in the early 1990’s in a country whose elite had long since been corrupted by the Rockefeller family and associated New York banks: Argentina.

The following pages trace the spread and proliferation of GMO, often through political coercion, governmental pressure, fraud, lies, and even murder. If it reads often like a crime story, that should not be surprising. 

The crime being perpetrated in the name of agricultural efficiency, environmental friendliness and solving the world hunger problem, carries stakes which are vastly more important to this small elite. Their actions are not solely for money or for profit. 

After all, these powerful private families decide who controls the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and even the European Central Bank. Money is in their hands to destroy or create.

Their aim is rather, the ultimate control over future life on this planet, a supremacy earlier dictators and despots only ever dreamt of. Left unchecked, the present group behind the GMO Project is between one and two decades away from total dominance of the planet’s food capacities. 

This aspect of the GMO story needs telling. I therefore invite the reader to a careful reading and independent verification or reasoned refutation of what follows.

F. William Engdahl is a leading analyst of the New World Order, author of the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics, A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New World Order,’ His writings have been translated into more than a dozen languages. 
Enhanced by Zemanta