COMMENT - This is the new trend in land theft, facilitated by the IMF, which has never seen a corporate takeover that it didn't support. And called 'development'. If you want to know more about the IMF's land title reform, vs real land redistribution, check out Ambreena Manji's
The Politics Of Land Reform In Africa.
(LUSAKATIMES) Western corporations carve up Africa -the New Scramble for Africa
November 22, 2015
Huge tracts of land in African countries with access to the sea and high economic growth are being targeted by corporations such as Monsanto and Unilever with help from the British and American governments –including millions of dollars that are intended for helping the poor, says a report published today by UK campaigning group World Development Movement.
The document, titled
Carving up a continent: How the UK government is facilitating the corporate takeover of African food systems, explains that a G8 initiative called the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition is using money intended for poverty reduction to instead ease access to key African locations for some of the world’s biggest companies, which already control much of the global food market.
Doublespeak and the new “scramble for Africa”
What’s more, the New Alliance agreements signed with ten key African countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal and Tanzania) are conditional, and many of them require the country in question to bring legislation – for example, revising seed laws to force small farmers to buy seeds and fertilisers from the corporates rather than seed sharing, which has been practised for generations and ensures biodiversity.
Under the new paradigm, multinationals gain access to fertile land and agricultural corridors on the pretext of tackling food poverty and helping Africa’s starving and needy. In reality this is doublespeak. If the New Alliance continues unchecked, it’s likely that problems are stored up for the future, as small scale and family farmers are forced off their land to make way for industrial scale crop production. WDM also identifies issues such as insecure and poorly paid jobs and a focus on producing for export markets rather than to feed local populations.
The report’s introduction, by WDM director Nick Dearden, says: “This is an old story given new impetus. More than a century ago the ‘scramble for Africa’ was instituted under the pretence of civilising the continent. Barbaric crimes were committed and the continent systematically de-developed because it profited Europe. Since that time, Africa’s problem has never been a lack of integration into the international economy – the problem is how it is integrated and in whose interests.”
Using money intended for poverty reduction to ease access to key African locations
Oblivious citizens
This isn’t the first time the New Alliance has come under fire – the Guardian newspaper published a critical piece last year. But the general populations of the countries whose taxpayers are supporting this power grab are woefully unaware that it is even happening, and so too are the citizens in whose countries these events are unfolding. This despite the fact that a whopping £600 million of UK aid money, for example, via the Department for International Development (DFID), is being channelled into this between 2012 and 2016.
Ironically this comes at a time when alternatives to the industrialisation of agriculture are being explored worldwide, and as the realities of climate change are being better understood. Africa is a place where new models of permaculture could meet old models of sustainable farming and cooperation to leapfrog the West – finding sustainable and locally owned solutions to nutritious food production.
The ‘scramble for Africa’ was instituted under the pretence of civilising the continent
The wheels are already turning
But this hangs in the balance. Many New Alliance partnership countries, such as Malawi, have already instituted many of the changes demanded as part of their agreement, and it has become much easier for foreign corporations to buy great tracts of land. Ghana recently saw the Plant Breeders’ Bill being pushed through its Parliament by politicians that Food Sovereignty Ghana implied might be on the take.
The corporations involved in the New Alliance are huge – Monsanto, Unilever, Syngenta, DuPont, Cargill, Diageo, SABMiller, Coca Cola, Yara. The last company – Yara – may not be a name you recognise, but is the largest global manufacturer of fertiliser. According to the WDM report, these agrochemicals “already cause serious levels of food poisoning in sub-Saharan Africa, with the UN estimating that health problems linked to pesticides could cost the region $90 billon between 2005 and 2020. Fertilisers also damage soil, leading farmers to rely on them even more in order to maintain production, which increases their risk of getting into debt.”
“The tragic consequences of small-scale farmers’ reliance on fertilisers in India have been much reported. An estimated 250,000 farmers committed suicide between 1995 and 2010 after getting into debt through buying agrochemicals.”
Under the guise of charity
Remember that old development chestnut “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Show him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”? The New Alliance seems to be about snapping his fishing rod in half, throwing it into the sea and telling him that you now own the sea and he must buy his fish from you, at wildly fluctuating prices. And it’s under the guise of charity.
The ‘scramble for Africa’ was instituted under the pretence of civilising the continent
Yet look at the personnel. Unilever’s external affairs director was previously at DFID and DFID’s director of policy used to work for Unilever. Meanwhile, for all the talk of wanting to solve African hunger, the chosen countries are almost all coastal, and tend to have high economic growth. Of the countries in Africa that have the worst hunger index scores, only one – Ethiopia – is a New Alliance country.
While all the players talk about poverty reduction and food security, the reality is that the path that will have the most positive effect for African farmers and populations long term is food sovereignty. That means ownership and control of land and non-reliance on imported seeds and foods, as well as being able to adjust crops to need. It might be tempting to apply the machine logic of industrialisation to agriculture and scale it up, on the basis that more food grown equals more people fed. But in reality the problem of hunger is not one to do with volume of food produced worldwide – rather it’s to do with existing unjust systems of food production and distribution. These are the very systems that the New Alliance is desperate to bring to Africa.
Other players are the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa, set up by the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Gates Foundation; the New Vision for Agriculture, launched by the World Economic Forum and led by 33 multinationals from Monsanto to Walmart; and Grow Africa, a collaboration between the World Economic Forum and the African Union.
Of course, the New Alliance does have its defenders. Namely, international pop gimp Bono’s ONE Foundation, which hit the headlines a few years ago for giving a whopping 1% of its funds to actual charity…
In its 2013 report Growing Africa: Unlocking the potential of agribusiness the World Bank said: “Africa represents the ‘last frontier’ in global food and agricultural markets.” Once Africa’s greatest commodity to line the pockets of its pillagers was its human capital. Now they’re coming for the land, and the sustenance it offers. Don’t wait until it’s too late.
By Grace Kiwanga
Source: This is Africa
Labels: DFID, LAND REFORM, LAND RIGHTS, MONSANTO, NEOCOLONIALISM
Read more...
Monsanto's Latest Poison: The Dangers of Dicamba
by grtv
On the heels of California’s Proposition 37 and the national debate over genetically engineered (GE) food, pesticide companies are continuing to push to legalize new types of GE crops linked with powerful pesticides. Farmers like Indiana’s Troy Roush are objecting to such a shortsighted approach to agriculture.
There are currently 13 new GE crops pending USDA approval, the most threatening of which may be Monsanto’s Dicamba Soybean. (Other crops include Dow’s 2,4-D Corn and 2,4-D Soybean, and the non-browning “Arctic Apple.”)
Why the need for new seeds? The first GE seeds were introduced in 1996 and adopted widely. Instead of having to rotate crops, farmers could spray the herbicide RoundUp to kill weeds while the GE plants survived. Gradually the weeds adapted and herbicide-resistant weeds now affect an estimated 12 million acres of farmland (about half the size of Indiana), and that number is growing rapidly.
As more weeds become resistant, farmers spray more herbicides. Since their introduction, GE seeds have led to 527 million more pounds of herbicides to be sprayed than would have been used on conventional crops. These chemicals are harmful to human health, pollute natural resources, and devastate neighboring crops. Dicamba is particularly destructive. Indiana farmer Troy Roush observes, “Whatever it settles on, it kills.”
Unfortunately the US framework for regulating GE crops like Dicamba Soy is broken. As the USDA considers legalizing GE crops, it only asks whether or not the crop poses the risk to other plants, but not farmers.
Until a comprehensive process is put in place – one that recognizes the costs of GE crops to farmers and rural communities – USDA Secretary Vilsack should stop the unchecked flood of these seeds from entering the market.
Labels: GMOS, MONSANTO
Read more...
Monsanto’s Roundup Shown to be Ravaging Butterfly Population
by Mike Barrett
Global Research, March 10, 2012
Monsanto’s Roundup, containing the active ingredient glyphosate, has been tied to more health and environmental problems than you could imagine. Similar to how pesticides have been contributing to the bee decline, Monsanto’s Roundup has been tied to the decrease in the population of monarch butterflies by killing the very plants that the butterflies rely on for habitat and food. What’s been shown to be an even greater threat to the population, though, is Monsanto’s Roundup Ready corn and soybeans.
Roundup Ready Crops and Glyphosate Leading to Downfall of Insect Populations
A 2011 study published in the journal Insect Conservation and Diversity found that increasing acreage of genetically modified Roundup Ready corn and soybeans is heavily contributing to the decline in monarch butterfly populations within North America. Milkweed, a plant butterflies rely on for habitat and food, is being destroyed by the heavy use of glyphosate-based pesticides and Roundup Ready crops. Over the past 17 years, the monarch butterfly population in central Mexico has declined, reaching an all-time low in 2009-2010.
“This milkweed has disappeared from at least 100 million acres of these row crops,” said Dr. Taylor, an insect ecologist at the University of Kansas and director of the research and conservation program Monarch Watch. “Your milkweed is virtually gone…this [glyphosate use on RR crops] is the one main factor that has happened…you look at parts of the Midwest where there is a tremendous use of these crops and you see monarch populations dropping. It’s hard to deny the conclusion.”
According to the Department of Agriculture, in 2011 94 percent of soybeans and 72 percent of corn grown in the United States were herbicide-tolerant. Due to this increase, the amount of Roundup used on crops in 2007 was 5 times higher than in 1997, only one year after Roundup Ready crops were available.
Another study published int he journal Crop Protection and conducted by Robert G Hartzler, an agronomist at Iowa State, found that milkweed on farms in Iowa declined 90 percent from 1999 to 2009. Additionally, his study found milkweed only on 8 percent of corn and soybean fields surveyed in 2009, which is 51 percent lower than in 1999.
Although the butterfly population may be suffering, humans are taking heat from Monsanto’s creations as well. Past research has shown that Monsanto’s Roundup ready crops are leading to mental illness and obesity, primarily by destroying the amount of good bacteria found in the gut. The corporation’s Roundup, containing glyphosate, has also been shown to cause infertility and birth defects.
Glyphosate is so present today that it has been found to be polluting the world’s drinking water through the widespread contamination of aquifers, wells, and springs. What may be most shocking is that very high concentrations of glyphosate have been found in 100 percent of urine samples tested in a recent study.
Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/monsantos-roundup-shown-to-be-ravaging-butterfly-population/#ixzz1oiguPLhX
Global Research Articles by Mike Barrett
Labels: CHEMICALS, MONSANTO, POLLUTION
Read more...
COMMENT - 'Comrade' Chigwedere has been bought and paid for, and is selling out his own people and mankind. I wonder about these types of articles coming from The Herald. Have they been infiltrated? For the pressure on countries asserted by the transnational agribusinesses through the US State Department and US embassies, also see here:
(GLOBALRESEARCH)
Wikileaks reveal U.S. conspired to retaliate against European nations if they resisted GMOs(WIKILEAKS CABLES)
USG-SPONSORED BT EVENT RE-STARTS GMO DIALOGUE AND DEBATE IN ZAMBIAZim urged to use GMO seed
Saturday, 10 September 2011 23:30
Agriculture Editor
LOCAL farmers have been urged to go for genetically modified seed to increase yield per hectare as is the case with their regional counterparts. This call was made at the just-ended Zimbabwe Farmers’ Union 71st congress held in Harare last week.
The two-day congress,
held under the theme “Biotechnology, Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture”, questioned the wisdom behind local farmers’ reluctance to use GMOs when the country had been importing these from neighbouring countries at low prices.
The congress heard that farmers the world over were now using genetically modified seed which had seen their yields increase per hectare compared to those still resisting the move.
Addressing farmers at the congress, Mashonaland East Governor and Resident Minister Cde Aeneas Chigwedere said the fear of the unknown had forced local farmers to continue incurring high costs of production as they shunned GMO seed.
Cde Chigwedere said there was a misplaced traditional belief that the use of genetically modified seed would harm people who consumed the products.
“We have heard stories that if one eats GMOs, one will develop horns or die. These beliefs should be dismissed as GMO seed has been used by our neighbours whose yield has increased from a mere two tonnes to 10 tonnes and above per hectare,’’ said Cde Chigwedere.
He said the idea was for farmers to cut production costs so that their produce would be affordable.
He said countries such as South Africa, Zimbabwe’s major trading partner, started using GMO seed way back in 1999.
This had seen that country’s farmers increasing their food output per hectare, resulting in Zimbabwe importing the same food products at lower prices than the locally produced commodities.
Cde Chigwedere said local farmers had continued to incur high production costs as it was difficult to increase their yield per hectare.
He said there was also a need to finance farmers to increase production.
Labels: BIOTECHNOLOGY, GMOS, MONSANTO, ZIMBABWE
Read more...
Caribbean: Monsanto in Haiti
Posted on Friday, July 15 @ 07:08:00 AST
Topic: Haiti
HaitiBy Beverly Bell
July 15, 2011 - pambazuka.org
Last week, thousands of farmers and supporters of Haitian peasant agriculture marched for hours under the hot Caribbean sun to call for more government support for locally grown seeds and agriculture.
The demonstration was organized by the Peasant Movement of Papay and other farmer associations, human rights and women’s groups, and the Haitian Platform for Alternative Development (PAPDA), the Haitian online agency AlterPresse reported from the march. The official theme of the peaceful demonstration was “Land Grabbing is Endangering Agricultural Sovereignty.”
Singing slogans like “Long Live Haitian Agriculture!” and “Long live local seeds!” the crowd – wearing straw hats and red T-shirts – wound its way on foot, donkeys, and bikes through this dusty provincial capital. The demonstration ended at a square named for farmer Charlemagne Péralte, who lead the “Caco” peasant revolt against the U.S. army occupation from 1916 until 1919, when U.S. Marines assassinated him.
Aid to Haiti
cc Wikimedia Last spring, Haiti’s minister of agriculture gave agribusiness giant Monsanto permission to ‘donate’ 505 tonnes of seeds to Haiti ‘to support the reconstruction effort’. A year later, Beverly Bell asks what has become of the seeds that Monsanto gave, and ‘how real was the fear of Haitian farmer organizations that the donation was a Trojan horse?’
One year ago, thousands of farmers covered the same march route to protest the import of a “gift” of seeds from Monsanto. The farmers burned some of the seeds, calling them a “death plan” for peasant agriculture.
Last spring, in violation of Haitian law, the Minister of Agriculture gave the agribusiness giant Monsanto permission to “donate” 505 tons of seeds to Haiti. The first shipment of 60 tons, reportedly of maize and vegetable seeds, arrived in May 2010. Some of the seeds were coated with a chemical (Thiram)[1] so toxic that the EPA forbids its sale to home gardeners in the U.S.. Monsanto announced its $4 million gift was “to support the reconstruction effort” in Haiti. What has become of the seeds that Monsanto gave? And how real was the fear of Haitian farmer organizations that the donation was a Trojan horse?
Haiti Grassroots Watch explored the impacts in a three-month investigation, “Seeding Reconstruction or Destruction?” and “Monsanto in Haiti.” Excerpts from the report follow.
CONNECTIONS:
In Haiti, a US Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded agricultural project accepted the Monsanto “gift.” USAID/WINNER (Watershed Initiative for National Natural Environmental Resources) is a five-year, $126 million US taxpayer-funded agriculture and environment program. WINNER is run by giant beltway contractor Chemonics International, which in 2010 ranked #51 on the list of top 100 US government contractors in the world, earning over $476 million in contacts that year.
USAID/WINNER’s Chief of Party is Jean Robert Estimé, minister of Foreign Affairs under dictator Jean-Claude Duvalier.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY:
In its post-earthquake strategy document, the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture called for massive seed distribution – covering 30 percent of farmers’ needs – for three seasons post-earthquake, and gave its warm approval of the Monsanto “gift.” This is even though allowing new varieties (the maize and most of the vegetable varieties) onto Haitian soil directly contravenes Haitian law and international conventions… which aim to protect the gene pool and the ecosystem in general.
The Ministry of Agriculture issued a list of “approved” seed varieties in March. None of the maize varieties on the list are hybrids.
Asked by Haiti Grassroots Watch about the fact that new varieties posed a threat to Haitian biodiversity, and that seeds and other plants and animals are being imported into Haiti without control, Ministry of Agriculture Director of National Seed Services Emmanuel Prophete admitted that the Ministry does not have the power to control the borders.
“We are supposed to have a quarantine system, and all seeds should be tested for germination and adaptation before they are distributed,” Prophete conceded in an interview earlier this year. “We don’t have the power to do that at this time.”
Asked about the introduction of the Monsanto hybrid seeds onto Haitian soil, Francesco Del Re of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) would not directly condemn the “gift” seeds. But, he noted, for its emergency seed distributions, the FAO-led “Agriculture Cluster” imported only the seeds on [the government approval] list, “for a very precise reasons, because the hybrids need to be renewed every year and do have to be bought by peasants every year.”
Asked if the FAO attempted to block the Ministry or the USAID/WINNER program from importing and distributed seeds, Del Re said: “We gave advice. That is what we did. Afterwards, naturally, we are not the national police, so we can’t verify everything, everywhere, but we did all we could do… I agree with the philosophy that we discussed with the Ministry and that we put into place with them. Afterwards, if other partners make other choices, that is their responsibility.”
DANGERS OF INTRODUCING UNTESTED SEEDS IN EMERGENCY CONTEXT:
In a May 13 news release, Monsanto announced: “Haitian farmers, who otherwise may not have had sufficient seeds to plant this season [Haiti Grassroots Watch emphasis] in their earthquake-ravaged country, are receiving help from a unique public and private partnership.”
Except… Haitian farmers did have enough seed to plant that season, according to several reports.
Monsanto’s “gift” announcement came a full two months after the Catholic Relief Service (CRS) – which has extensive experience in Haitian agriculture development work – released a “rapid seed assessment” report [PDF] for southern Haiti, one of the areas worst-hit by the earthquake. The assessment, circulated to humanitarian and development organizations working in Haiti, recommended against the importation and distribution of seeds. CRS wrote: “Direct seed distribution should not take place given that seed is available in the local market and farmers’ negative perceptions of external seed. This emergency is not the appropriate time to try to introduce improved varieties on anything more than a small scale for farmer evaluation. [our emphasis]”
A multi-agency seed security study shepherded by International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in the spring and summer of 2010 warned that “one should never introduce varieties in an emergency context which have not been tested in the given agro-ecological site and under farmers’ management conditions.”
Reached in January 2011, principal CIAT researcher Louise Sperling noted that most hybrids require extra water and better soils, and that most of Haiti was not appropriate for maize hybrids. While not opposed to the use of hybrids – when there is adequate training, irrigation, fertilizer, and when farmers can afford to replace them – she said she was concerned that “the hybrids being promoted have never been tested extensively on-farm” in Haiti.
And, she asked, “What if the technology fails? And, if [farmers] want to buy the seed again, where will it be available and at what price?”
DEPENDENCE:
At least some of the peasant farmer groups receiving Monsanto and other hybrid maize and other cereal seeds have little understanding of the implications of getting “hooked” on hybrid seeds. (Most Haitian farmers select seeds from their own harvests.) One of the USAID/WINNER trained extension agents told Haiti Grassroots Watch that in his region, farmers won’t need to save seeds anymore: “They don’t have to kill themselves like before. They can plant, harvest, sell or eat. They don’t have to save seeds anymore because they know they will get seeds from the [WINNER-subsidized] store.”
When it was pointed out that WINNER’s subsidies end when the project ends in four years, he had no logical response.
Director of National Seed Service Prophete told Haiti Grassroots Watch that when peasants get improved seed varieties, production rises, but “the system is based on a subsidy… You have to ask yourself about the sustainability because if the policy changes one day, where will peasants get seeds?... We’ll get to a point where, one day, we have a lot of seeds, and then suddenly, when all the NGOs are gone, we won’t have any.”
PROMOTING THE PRODUCT, REGARDLESS OF RISK:
According to its website, one of WINNER’s goals is to help famers “increase their productivity and to double their incomes in five years” through the use of better irrigation and techniques, and by using better seeds, fertilizers, and other inputs provided at only a tenth the of actual cost through “Farmer’s Stores” run by local farmers organizations.
One USAID/WINNER staffperson passed on an internal document to the journalists. “Preliminary Report on the seed donation of hybrid maize and vegetable seeds from MONSANTO” revealing USAID/WINNER’s intent. According to the document, “Despite a whole media campaign [by grassroots organizations and “political leaders”] against hybrids under the cover of GMO/Agent Orange/Round Up, the seeds were used almost everywhere, the true message got through, although not at the level hoped for [emphasis added].”
The report continues, “We are in the process of working as quickly as possible with farmers to increase as much as possible the use of hybrid seeds in the plain areas where it is possible to give them technical support.”
Even though most of the internally displaced people (66 percent) had returned to cities by mid-June, seed distributions continued throughout 2010 and into 2011. When CIAT researcher Sperling learned of this in March, 2011, she told Haiti Grassroots Watch, “Direct seed aid – when not needed, and given repetitively – does real harm. It undermines local systems, creates dependencies and stifles real commercial sector development.”
Sperling added that some humanitarian actors “seem to see delivering seed aid as easy and they welcome the overhead (money) – even if their actions may hurt poor farmers.”
DANGERS TO HUMANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT:
At least some of the farmer groups interviewed don’t appear to understand the health and environmental risks involved with the fungicide- and herbicide-coated hybrids. Until Haiti Grassroots Watch intervened, some farmers were planning to grind up the toxic seed to use as chicken feed.
In one of our sites of investigation, the Farmers’ Store is actually a room in a community building that was unlocked and unstaffed on at least one Haiti Grassroots Watch visit. The building is located in a neighborhood full of families with children.
Inside the room, sacks of sorghum and maize seeds, bags of fertilizer and boxes of seeds are all jumbled into a huge pile. Some of the sacks are labeled, others are not. Several open bags from Monsanto/DeKalb in Brazil spill bright pink, chemically coated maize seeds onto the floor. Other maize seeds are in unlabeled white sacks which are punctured with holes… made by rats? Children? The farmers? That seed is covered with a white powder.
A half-empty bag of Pioneer seeds, also presumably hybrid, and presumably treated with fungicide and herbicide, sits open. Sunlight streams in through two windows, meaning that airborne Maxim XL, which coats the Monsanto/DeKalb seeds, and other airborne fungicides, pesticides and fertilizers could just as easily stream out. And into the lungs of nearby schoolchildren.
Syngenta, maker of Maxim XL, warns that skin and eye contact, and inhalation, are dangerous. “DO NOT use treated seed for animal or human consumption... DO NOT allow treated seed to contaminate grain or other seed intended for animal or human consumption. DO NOT feed treated seed, or otherwise expose, to wild or domestic birds,” one warning label reads.
Boxes of vegetable seed – presumably from Monsanto but not labeled as such – are jumbled about. Many of the seeds are treated with Thiram. In 2004, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that Thiram cannot be used in home gardens, on apples, or on playing fields. The 260-page report also detailed adverse health effects on humans, noting details like “the chronic toxicity profile for Thiram indicates that the liver, blood and urinary system are the target organs.” Thiram also has “effects” on foraging birds’ reproduction, and thus Thiram-coated seed should not be broadcast on the soil.
There are also bags of Mancozeb. The EPA also looked at Mancozeb recently (2005), saying the fungicide “poses some acute and chronic risks to birds and mammals” and that handlers need to wear full protective clothing, gloves and a “PF 5” respirator.
“Yes, all of this is dangerous. When you use Mancozeb, the farmer needs to wear a face mask, glasses and gloves,” the farmer agreed. “USAID doesn’t give them to us, but we buy them so they are available to the farmers.”
When Haiti Grassroots Watch asked the farmer where the gloves and masks were stored, he looked around under some of the seed sacks. “Well, maybe they ran out but we always buy them and have them here,” he said, hesitantly. “I don’t know exactly where they are.”
The farmer and the journalists thoroughly searched the room. There was no protective gear.
SECRECY:
USAID/WINNER keeps a lid on its activities and tightly controls access to its work. Several WINNER employees told Haiti Grassroots Watch that before starting contracts, all staff had an agreement with Chemonics which prohibits their speaking with the media.
Haiti Grassroots Watch repeatedly requested an interview with USAID/WINNER agronomists and officials to follow up on the seed “gift.” Requests were repeatedly denied. In addition, Communications Director Maxwell Marcelin broadcast an email – obtained by Haiti Grassroots Watch – warning: “… a journalist is trying to do a report, including the project USAID/WINNER… I ask you to be very vigilant and, if the case presents itself, do not respond to any question, no matter how simple it seems… It is important to advise us immediately of all incidents, or requests, in order to help us better respond.”
BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* This article first appeared in Toward Freedom.
* Beverly Bell has worked with Haitian social movements for over 30 years. She is also author of the bookWalking on Fire: Haitian Women's Stories of Survival and Resistance. She coordinates Other Worlds, which promotes social and economic alternatives. She is also associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.
NOTE:
[1] Email from Elizabeth Vancil to Emmanuel Prophete, Director of Seeds at the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, and others; released by the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture, date unavailable.
Reproduced from: pambazuka.org
Labels: GMOS, HAITI, MONSANTO
Read more...
COMMENT - Disaster Capitalism in action.
Haitian Farmers Refuse Monsanto Hybrid Seeds
A coalition of peasant farmers is standing up for food sovereignty.
Document Actions Share Send this Print this RSS Feed by Beverly Bell
posted May 21, 2010
Jonas Deronzil from Verrettes has been farming since 1974. Like many small producers throughout Haiti, his meager income from corn, rice, and beans is threatened by new competition from Monsanto.
“A new earthquake” is what peasant farmer leader Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Peasant Movement of Papay (MPP) called the news that
American agribusiness giant Monsanto will be donating 60,000 sacks (475 tons) of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds to Haiti—some of them treated with highly toxic pesticides. The MPP has committed to burning Monsanto’s seeds, and has called for a march to protest the corporation’s presence in Haiti on June 4, World Environment Day.
In an open letter sent May 14, Jean-Baptiste, both Executive Director of MPP and the spokesperson for the National Peasant Movement of the Congress of Papay (MPNKP), called the entry of Monsanto seeds into Haiti “a very strong attack on small agriculture, on farmers, on biodiversity, on Creole seeds…and on what is left of our environment in Haiti.”[1] Haitian social movements have been vocal in their opposition to imports of seeds and food from agribusinesses, which they say undermine local production and local seed stocks. They have expressed special concern about the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
For now, without a law regulating the use of GMOs in Haiti, the Ministry of Agriculture rejected any offer of genetically modified Roundup Ready seeds. In an email exchange, a Monsanto representative assured the Ministry of Agriculture that the seeds being donated are not genetically modified.
With that exclusion, the Haitian Ministry of Agriculture approved the donation (Elizabeth Vancil, Monsanto’s Director of Development Initiatives, called the news “a fabulous Easter gift” in an April email). [2] Monsanto is known for aggressively pushing seeds, particularly GMO seeds, in both the global North and South—including through highly restrictive technology agreements with farmers who are not always made fully aware of what they are signing. According to interviews by this writer with representatives of Mexican small farmer organizations, contracted farmers then find themselves forced to buy Monsanto seeds each year under conditions they find onerous and at costs they sometimes cannot afford.
The hybrid corn seeds Monsanto has donated to Haiti are treated with the fungicide Maxim XO, and the calypso tomato seeds are treated with thiram. [3] Thiram belongs to a highly toxic class of chemicals called ethylene bisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs). Results of tests of EBDCs on mice and rats caused concern to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which then ordered a special review. The EPA determined that EBDC-treated plants are so dangerous to agricultural workers that they must wear special protective clothing when handling them. The EPA also ruled that pesticides containing thiram must contain a special warning label. The EPA also barred marketing of the chemicals for many home garden products, based on the assumption that most gardeners do not have adequately protective clothing. [4] Monsanto’s passing mention of thiram to Ministry of Agriculture officials in an email contained no explanation of the dangers, nor any offer of special clothing or training for those who will be farming with the toxic seeds.
The concern of Haitian social movements is not just about chemical dangers and the possibility of future GMO imports. They claim that the future of Haiti depends on local production with local seeds for local consumption—otherwise known as food sovereignty. Monsanto’s arrival in Haiti, they say, is a further threat to such a future.
“People in the U.S. need to help us produce, not give us food and seeds. They’re ruining our chance to support ourselves,” said farmer Jonas Deronzil of a peasant cooperative in the rural region of Verrettes. [5]
A coalition of peasant farmers has called Monsanto one of the “principal enemies of peasant sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty for all peoples.”Monsanto’s history has long drawn ire from environmentalists, health advocates, and small farmers, going back to its production of Agent Orange during the Vietnam war. The Vietnamese government claims that 400,000 Vietnamese people were killed or disabled by Agent Orange, and 500,000 children were born with birth defects as a result of their exposure. [6]
Monsanto’s former motto, “Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible,” has been replaced by “Imagine.” Its web site claims it “help[s] farmers around the world produce more while conserving more. We help farmers grow yield sustainably so they can be successful [and] produce healthier foods…while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment.” [7] But the corporation's record does not support these claims.
Cheap seeds sold by agribusiness giants, which are often genetically modified, have the unfortunate side-effect of toppling local food economies in places like Haiti.
Photo by Oculator.
Together with Syngenta, Dupont and Bayer, Monsanto controls more than half of the world’s seeds. [8] The company holds almost 650 seed patents—most of them for cotton, corn, and soy—and almost 30 percent of the share of all biotech research and development. Monsanto came to own such a vast supply by buying major seed companies to stifle competition, patenting genetic modifications to plant varieties, and suing small farmers. Monsanto is also one of the leading manufacturers of GMOs.
As of 2007, Monsanto had filed 112 lawsuits against U.S. farmers for alleged technology contract violations or GMO patents, involving 372 farmers and 49 small agricultural businesses in 27 different states. From these, Monsanto has won more than $21.5 million in judgments. The multinational appears to investigate 500 farmers a year, in estimates based on Monsanto’s own documents and media reports. [9]
“Farmers have been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone else’s genetically engineered crop [or] when genetically engineered seed from a previous year’s crop has sprouted, or ‘volunteered,’ in fields planted with non-genetically engineered varieties the following year,” said Andrew Kimbrell and Joseph Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety. [10]
In Colombia, Monsanto has received upwards of $25 million from the U.S. government for providing Roundup Ultra in the anti-drug fumigation efforts of Plan Colombia. Roundup Ultra is a highly concentrated version of Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide, with additional ingredients to increase its lethality. Colombian communities and human rights organizations have charged that the herbicide has destroyed food crops, water sources and protected areas, and has led to increased incidents of birth defects and cancers.
Vía Campesina, the world’s largest confederation of farmers with member organizations in more than 60 countries, has called Monsanto one of the “principal enemies of peasant sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty for all peoples.” [11] They claim that as Monsanto and other multinationals control an ever larger share of land and agriculture, they force small farmers out of their land and jobs. They also claim that the agribusiness giants contribute to climate change and other environmental disasters—an outgrowth of industrial agriculture. [12]
The Vía Campesina coalition launched a global campaign against Monsanto last October 16, on International World Food Day, with protests, land occupations, and hunger strikes in more than 20 countries. They carried out a second global day of action against Monsanto on April 17 of this year, in honor of Earth Day.
Food Rebellions: 7 Steps to Solving the Food Crisis
Resistance to the trade and “aid” policies that displace farmers and increase hunger.
Non-governmental organizations in the U.S. are challenging Monsanto’s practices, too. The Organic Consumers Association has spearheaded the campaign “Millions Against Monsanto,” calling on the company to stop intimidating small family farmers, stop marketing untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods to consumers, and stop using billions of dollars of U.S. taypayers' money to subsidize GMO crops. [13]
The Center for Food Safety has led a four-year legal challenge against Monsanto that has just made it to the U.S. Supreme Court. After successful litigation against Monsanto and the U.S. Department of Agriculture for illegal promotion of Roundup Ready Alfalfa, the court heard the Center for Food Safety’s case on April 27. A decision on this first-ever Supreme Court case about GMOs is now pending. [14]
“Fighting hybrid and GMO seeds is critical to save our diversity and our agriculture,” Jean-Baptiste said in an interview in February. “We have the potential to make our lands produce enough to feed the whole population and even to export certain products. The policy we need for this to happen is food sovereignty, where the country has a right to define its own agricultural policies, to grow first for the family and then for local market, to grow healthy food in a way which respects the environment and Mother Earth.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Bell has worked with Haitian social movements for over 30 years. She is also author of the book Walking on Fire: Haitian Women's Stories of Survival and Resistance. She coordinates Other Worlds, which promotes social and economic alternatives. She is also associate fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.
Many thanks to Moira Birss for her assistance with research and writing.
Labels: GMO, HAITI, MONSANTO
Read more...
FEDERAL COURT ORDERS FIRST-EVER HALT TO PLANTING OF A COMMERCIALIZED GENETICALLY-ALTERED CROP
Judge Orders Complete Environmental Review of Monsanto’s Gene-Altered Alfalfa
A Federal judge on May 4 made a final ruling that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) 2005 approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) “Roundup Ready” alfalfa was illegal. The Judge called on USDA to ban any further planting of the GE seed until it conducts a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the GE crop.
In the decision, Judge Charles Breyer in the Federal Northern District of California affirmed his preliminary ruling, which echoed the Center for Food Safety’s arguments in their lawsuit against USDA, that the crop could harm the environment and contaminate natural alfalfa. This ruling also requires Forage Genetics to provide the locations of all existing Roundup Ready alfalfa plots to USDA within 30 days. The Judge ordered USDA to make the location of these plots “publicly available as soon as practicable” so that growers of organic and conventional alfalfa “can test their own crops to determine if there has been contamination.”
“This permanent halt to the planting of this risky crop is a great victory for the environment,” said Will Rostov, a Senior Attorney for CFS. “Roundup Ready alfalfa poses threats to farmers, to our export markets, and to the environment. We expect the USDA to abide by the law and insure that American farmers are protected from genetic contamination.”
Today’s decision is consistent with Judge Breyer’s ruling of February 13th, in which the judge found that the USDA failed to address concerns that Roundup Ready alfalfa will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa. In calling today for a permanent injunction, Judge Breyer noted that contamination of natural and organic alfalfa by the GE variety has already occurred, and noted that “Such contamination is irreparable environmental harm. The contamination cannot be undone.”
“This ruling is good news for organic farmers and most conventional farmers across the country,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. “This crop represents a very real threat to their crops and their livelihood. This ruling is a turning point in the regulation of biotech crops in this country,” Kimbrell concluded.
The permanent injunction ordered today by Judge Breyer follows his ruling last month finding that USDA violated national environmental laws by approving GE alfalfa without a full Environmental Impact Statement. Monsanto and Forage Genetics, the developers of the GE alfalfa seed, failed to convince the Judge that their corporate interests outweighed the public interest in food safety, freedom to farm natural crops, and environmental protection. In fact, Judge Breyer specifically noted that Monsanto’s fear of lost sales “does not outweigh the potential irreparable damage to the environment.”
With the integrity of organic food, and conventional export markets at stake, farmers have been watching this court action carefully. Organic alfalfa seed producer Blaine Schmaltz, Rugby ND, said the ruling helps farmers in a time of uncertainty. “The judge’s order to make public the location of Roundup Ready alfalfa fields is a critical part of the decision,” said Schmalz. “It allows GM-free and organic producers like me make sound planting decisions.”
Judge Breyer found that USDA failed to address the problem of Roundup-resistant “superweeds” that could follow commercial planting of GE alfalfa. Commenting on the agency’s refusal to assess this risk, the judge stated, “Finally, the court rejects defendants’ assertion that allowing an expansion in the Roundup Ready alfalfa market is in the public interest because it promotes the use of less toxic herbicides. The record reflects that organic and most conventional forage alfalfa is grown without the use of any herbicides. In any event, a finding that increasing the use of Roundup is in the public interest is premature in light of APHIS’s failure to analyze the potential for the development of Roundup-resistant weeds.”
“This ruling protects the ability of farmers producing organic meat and milk to obtain non-GMO alfalfa seed to grow feed for their animals and preserve the organic integrity of their products,” said Jim Munsch, a certified organic livestock producer from Coon Valley, Wisconsin who represents The Cornucopia Institute, one the plaintiffs. “This is precedent-setting. For the first time the courts have intervened on a USDA ruling to ensure that proper environmental evaluation and consideration for the livelihood of family farmers are accounted for and balance the desires of large companies” Munsch added.
The Center for Food Safety initiated the legal action resulting in today’s ruling in February 2006, representing itself and the following co-plaintiffs in the suit: Western Organization of Resource Councils, National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Beyond Pesticides, Cornucopia Institute, Dakota Resource Council, Trask Family Seeds, and Geertson Seed Farms.
“As a consumer of organic foods, I'm relieved to know that a U.S. District Court judge understands the regulatory role USDA plays, even though the agency itself seems to have forgotten,” said Dean Hulse, an organic food consumer from Fargo and past chair of Dakota Resource Council. “Judge Breyer's ruling forces USDA to do its job--that is, to conduct the research necessary to determine the effects of Roundup Ready alfalfa on the environment.”
“I'm hopeful that Judge Breyer's precedent-setting ruling will induce a rebirth of values at the USDA, in particular, and federal regulatory agencies generally,” added Hulse. “The USDA's role with respect to regulating transgenic crops should be that of watch dog, not lap dog.”
“This landmark decision curtails a genetically engineered crop that, among other serious environmental problems, increases farmers’ dependence on toxic weed killers that hurt farmers, food consumers, and the environment,” said Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides.
“This is a huge victory for family farmers in the livestock and diary industry,” said Bill Wenzel, National Director Farmer to Farmer Campaign on GE. “It is unfortunate that it took lengthy and expensive litigation to achieve what should have been apparent to the bureaucrats at the USDA – that nobody but Monsanto benefits from the commercialization of GE Alfalfa.”
------------------
For more information, please visit www.centerforfoodsafety.org or www.cornucopia.org
Labels: GMO, MONSANTO
Read more...
