Revealed: How US State Department ‘Twists Arms’ on Monsanto’s Behalf

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Biotech_Report_US.pdf

Selling seeds, selling out democracy: US State Department does biotech industry’s bidding

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

The U.S. State Department does the bidding of biotech giants like Monsanto around the world by “twisting the arms of countries” and engaging in vast public campaign schemes to push the sale of genetically modified seeds, according to a new report released Tuesday by Food & Water Watch.

(International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria)The report, Biotech Ambassadors: How the U.S. State Department Promotes the Seed Industry’s Global Agenda, which pulls from over 900 State Department diplomatic cables (obtained via WikiLeaks), reveals an environment wherein US ambassadors act as sales representatives for the global biotech industry.

U.S. ambassadors and their staffs actively lobby foreign governments to adopt pro-biotechnology policies and laws, create “rigorous public relations campaigns to improve the image of biotechnology” and challenge “commonsense biotechnology safeguards and rules — including opposing genetically engineered (GE) food labeling laws.”

“It really goes beyond promoting the U.S.’s biotech industry and agriculture,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “It really gets down to twisting the arms of countries and working to undermine local democratic movements that may be opposed to biotech crops, and pressuring foreign governments to also reduce the oversight of biotech crops.”

As FWW reports, the State Department has gone to great lengths to see that biotech companies’ desires are met:

  • The U.S. State Department’s multifaceted efforts to promote the biotechnology industry overseas: The State Department targeted foreign reporters, hosted and coordinated pro-biotech conferences and public events and brought foreign opinion-makers to the United States on high-profile junkets to improve the image of agricultural biotechnology overseas and overcome widespread public opposition to GE crops and foods.
  • The State Department’s coordinated campaign to promote biotech business interests: The State Department promoted not only pro-biotechnology policies but also the products of biotech companies. The strategy cables explicitly “protect the interests” of biotech exporters, “facilitate trade in agribiotech products” and encourage the cultivation of GE crops in more countries, especially in the developing world.
  • The State Department’s determined advocacy to press the developing world to adopt biotech crops: The diplomatic cables document a coordinated effort to lobby countries in the developing world to pass legislation and implement regulations favored by the biotech seed industry. This study examines the State Department lobbying campaigns in Kenya, Ghana and Nigeria to pass pro-biotech laws.
  • The State Department’s efforts to force other nations to accept biotech crop and food imports: The State Department works with the U.S. Trade Representative to promote the export of biotech crops and to force nations that do not want these imports to accept U.S. biotech foods and crops.

“It’s not surprising that Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer and Dow want to maintain and expand their control of the $15 billion global biotech seed market, but it’s appalling that the State Department is complicit in supporting their goals despite public and government opposition in several countries,” said Ronnie Cummins, executive director of Organic Consumers Association. “American taxpayer’s money should not be spent advancing the goals of a few giant biotech companies.”

“The biotech agriculture model using costly seeds and agrichemicals forces farmers onto a debt treadmill that is neither economically nor environmentally viable,” said Ben Burkett, President of the National Family Farm Coalition.  “An overwhelming number of farmers in the developing world reject biotech crops as a path to sustainable agricultural development or food sovereignty.”

“Thanks, Monsanto. And thanks, State Department. Not only are you selling seeds, you’re selling out democracy,” Hauter concludes.

Enhancing agricultural livelihoods through community institutions in Bihar, India (English)

Author(s): Behera, Debaraj; Chaudhary, Arvind Kumar; Vutukuru, Vinay Kumar; Gupta, Abhishek; Machiraju, Sitaramachandra; Shah, Parmesh
Source: World Bank | January 2013
 
Inline image 1
 
’s agriculture sector employs more than eighty percent of the labor force and more than fourfifths of these farmers are small and marginal. They have one of the lowest agricultural productivity in India that has not increased due to several constraints. , a project jointly supported by the World Bank and the Government of Bihar, has piloted, customized and eventually scaled-up several innovative livelihood interventions to improve the well-being of poor households in Bihar. A number of innovative aspects account for the success of these programs in the state. Foremost among these is the fact that it was implemented through community-driven and community-owned institutions. The institutional platform that was facilitated by the project has enabled the creation of a single-window system at the doorstep of small and marginal farmers. Farmers can now demand better services from the public sector, access credit from commercial banks, and experiment and customize various technologies. This note will focus on System of Crop Intesification’ (SCI), which has evolved from a well-known farming methodology called System of Rice Intensification. It has been customized and adopted for wheat, green gram, oil seeds and vegetables in Bihar. The participant farmers have witnessed 86% increase in rice productivity and 72% increase in wheat productivity. The profitability of rice cultivation has increased 2.5 times and has almost doubled for oil-seeds. Since 2008, implementation of SCI has contributed to an additional income increase of around US$10.7 million.  Read more >>

Taming food inflation in India by Ashok Gulati

Taming in India by Ashok Gulati released yesterday talks about raising agriculture wages as one of the main reasons for raising and suggests mechanisation to increase farm labour productivity and also moving to direct cash transfer for food, fuel, power and fertiliser subsidies.

though much of the economic calculation seems to be complicated and needs some expert to analyse, i feel the last few papers by Ashok Gulati are spelling out what is in offing for indian farmers…..

A Harvest of Heat:Agribusiness andClimate Change

A Harvest of Heat:Agribusiness andClimate Change
How Six Food Industry Giants Are Warming the Planet

Agriculture’s critical dependence on fossil fuels and the clearing of forests, grasslands and prairies for farming are the top two factors responsible for today’s massive global increases in CO2.

http://www.ifg.org/pdf/AgriBiz&Climate4-8.pdf

Parliamentary Standing Committee Report on National Food Security Bill

The Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution has submitted its report on the National Bill. Please find attached. A related article: The cost of (C P Chandrashekhar, The Hindu, 20 Jan).
National Rural employment Guarantee Act

Food and nutrition security – a Position Paper

(FNS) is a complex issue given its reliance on climatic as well as non-climatic factors that are intertwined and interdependent. When is superimposed, it further worsens the situation as food production, one of the critical ecosystem services, is impacted the most. This position paper explains WOTR’s proactive ecosystem based adaptation strategy crystallized from the ecosystem management and conservation work carried out in different states.
Author(s): Lalita Joshi, Marcella D’Souza
Source: Watershed Organization Trust
Published Date: January 2013

 

 

Our Nutrient World: The challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution

Our Nutrient World: The challenge to produce more food and energy with less pollution.This Global Overview on Nutrient Management addresses the scientific complexity of how humanity can rise to these challenges and maximize the opportunities of improved nutrient management. The message of this overview is that everyone stands to benefit from nutrients and that everyone can make a contribution to promote sustainable production and use of nutrients. Whether we live in a part of the world with too much or too little nutrients, our daily decisions can make a difference. Its preparation has forged new links between communities, gradually building a network of institutions and actors for better scientific understanding to support future decision making in this field. The work underpinning the report is an outcome from the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management (GPNM). It was prepared by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh on behalf of the Global Partnership on Nutrient Management and the International Nitrogen Initiative.

icon Our Nutrient World (9.5 MB)

Source: http://www.gpa.unep.org/gpnm

 

Small (Organic Retail) is beautiful

A booklet brought out by (Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture) on small retail outlets.

http://www.kisanswaraj.in/2013/02/18/small-organic-retail-is-beautiful-a-booklet/

This small booklet, presenting a few successful and inspiring cases of direct marketing by farmers, retail marketing for organic produce and an emerging Community Supported Agriculture model, is meant to showcase the possibilities that exist with such enterprises. The possibilities are related to both production-end issues as well as consumption-end. The objective however is to ensure that agri-producers have a better deal when they negotiate with and that consumers have access to safe, diverse and nutritious food, in addition to making informed choices regarding their buying behavior (choices that determine sustainability and safety around food consumption).

The idea for this booklet emerged from inspiring case studies presented in a workshop called “Markets That Empower Farmers & Consumers” organized in Bhubaneswar by Xavier Institute of Management-Bhubaneswar and ASHA (Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture) in 2012.

We often come across people who want to do something to support the cause of organic farming and farmers’ . We had conceived this book as a sort of a manual – not a strict, step-by-step prescriptive manual, but something that would leave behind a set of ideas from real life experiences of some entrepreneurs who tried out many things. The narration is by the entrepreneurs themselves sharing their stories. We hope that the principles and values at work here will be adopted, with the full understanding and appreciation that each situation requires its own local
models to be adopted.

This booklet is also to present possibilities with alternative perspectives of markets. Mainstream markets function with certain core beliefs – that scale matters; that measuring the success of an enterprise is by looking at profits earned; that competition is necessary and good, that bottom line is all that matters – to name a few. They also claim that the ‘customer is the king’. That price determination is done by demand and supply forces. However, here are examples of how this paradigm has been turned on its head. While some might write these off as isolated experiments and experiences and therefore not scalable, we believe that a multitude of such small scale initiatives is indeed possible, to improve the livelihoods situation of many farmers even as they provide healthy food to ‘empowered’ consumers.

PLEASE DOWNLOAD THE BOOKLET HERE.

 

Hungry for innovation: pathways from GM crops to agroecology

#GMCrops # #AgroEcology

Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation

David  A.   Quist,   Jack  A.   Heinemann,  Anne   I.   Myhr,   Iulie  Aslaksen   and   Silvio   Funtowicz

Hungry for innovation: pathways from GM crops to agroecology Emerging issues | Hungry for innovation: pathways from GM crops to agroecology download

Innovation’s potential to deliver and solve other agriculture-related problems is high on the agenda of virtually all nations. This chapter looks at two different examples of food and agricultural innovation: genetically modified (GM) crops and agroecological methods, which illustrate how different innovation strategies affect future agricultural and social options.

are well suited to high-input monoculture agricultural systems that are highly productive but largely unsustainable in their reliance on external, non-renewable inputs. Intellectual property rights granted for often close down, rather than open up further innovation potential, and stifle investment into a broader diversity of innovations allowing a greater distribution of their benefits.
Science-based agroecological methods are participatory in nature and designed to fit within the dynamics underpinning the multifunctional role of agriculture in producing food, enhancing biodiversity and ecoystem services, and providing security to communities. They are better suited to agricultural systems that aim to deliver sustainable food security than high external input approaches. They do, however, require a broader range of incentives and supportive frameworks to succeed. Both approaches raise the issue of the governance of innovation within agriculture and more generally within societies.
The chapter explores the consequences of a ‘top-down transfer of technology’ approach in addressing the needs of poor farmers. Here innovation is often framed in terms of economic growth in a competitive global economy, a focus that may conflict with efforts to reduce or reverse environmental damage caused by existing models of agriculture, or even deter investment into socially responsible innovation.
Another option explored is a ‘bottom-up’ approach, using and building upon resources already available: local people, their knowledge, needs, aspirations and indigenous natural resources. The bottom-up approach may also involve the public as a key actor in decisions about the design of food systems, particularly as it relates to food quality, health, and social and environmental sustainability.
Options are presented for how best to answer consumer calls for food quality, sustainability and social equity in a wide sense, while responding to health and environmental concerns and securing in local small-scale agriculture. If we fail to address the governance of innovation in food, fibre and fuel production now, then current indications are that we will design agriculture to fail.