Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Will Genetically Engineered Food Feed The World?

The Short Answer? = NO!


This article examines the premise that Genetically Engineered Foods (also known as genetically modified foods; GMOs; GE foods; Frankenfoods; and so on) are the answer to ending world hunger. I feel that asking if GE foods will feed the world is at best an illogical primary question. Even more so, the question itself is a tactic meant to divert public attention from the real problems — inequality, discrimination, selfish leaders, war, flooding and drought, snow and rain, extreme temperatures and more. The diversions are made possible by political contributions, and lobbyists and media consultants hired by the agbiotech industry, as well as their gifts and contracts to academia, which is presently in the dark ages with respect to honesty. No sector is without fault. And it is far easier to list the innocent than the guilty.

Most biotech industry studies and publications are highly visible forms of disinformation* that impact public opinion by both confusing the issues and intentionally providing false information that put GE foods in a favorable light. The intent of the massive, lobbying, public outreach, and advertising expenditures has been to rocket the proliferation of GE foods throughout the world before anyone was aware of the consequences. And indeed, nobody can predict the consequences because there is no precedent in the history of life on earth.

* dis·in·for·ma·tion
Pronunciation: (")di-"sin-f&r-'mA-sh&n
Function: noun
: false information deliberately and often covertly spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public opinion or obscure the truth
Merriam-Webster

The impetus for beginning this study came from a relative who asked my opinion of a commentary by Dr. Florence Wambugu in the Los Angeles Times on November 11, 2001 entitled “Protesters Don't Grasp Africa's Need” [below]. In it, Dr. Wambugu complained that protesters of GE foods are the wealthy of developed nations who do not know the problems of the starving African. Her comments are both compelling and convincing if one has no knowledge of genetically engineered crops or the causes of hunger. And because she is a native of Kenya and a GE scientist, she makes a wonderful poster child for the industry as well. And use her they most certainly do.

Background: Wambugu Wambuzling Again: Says GM Sweet Potato a Resounding Success?

For the most part, people in developed countries, especially the US, believe that hunger is caused by a lack of food. They think that hunger is something that happens to backwards people in far-off lands where they do not have the magnificent technology and determination that "Americans" have. These starving people are seen as slovenly and lazy. And much like a child's fable about the little animals who did not store nuts for the winter. They might say, "Of course, it is through their own fault that they are hungry."

On the surface, and in a literal context, hunger, starvation and death can most definitely caused by a lack of food by the hungry. I do not argue with this point. But what causes this great lack of food is not so easily relieved by producing more of it.

And Wambugu, because she is African and black, transnational corporations (TNC) in agribusiness spotlight her, telling us that the only way to feed these people is to improve the efficiency of farming through the use of these advanced technologies — that the output must increase if we are to feed the starving people. It always comes to this point and this point alone. The logic also goes that anyone who is against this wonderful new technology that will obviously save the poor from starvation is a monster, hence her complaint about protestors. It is from this extremely limited view, biotech corporations attempt to corral the arguments and hawk their wares.

So, if you are like those who only hear the heart-break reasoning without understanding the deeper issues at hand, then read no further, for this article is not for you. Go to CNN or Fox News to be fed the usual nonsense that has been heavily censored so as not to upset the advertisers income.

However, if you're willing to work to understand a few parts of the issue, please read on. What follows is of course not the only issues to be discussed, but it is a beginning.

There are many causes of hunger and starvation that have little to do with the amount of food that is produced in the world. Just as they know nothing of the causes of hunger, many in the US have no concept of the ramifications of propagating GE foods on massive monocultured farms, nor do they know how the likes of Monsanto came to control much of the world’s food supply. For decades, these TNCs have been undermining legislation, public policy, and law enforcement. There is a readily available history of deception, bribery, bullying, and outright lying by Monsanto.*

__________________________________
* Fagan, D., Lavelle, M., and the Center for Public Integrity. How the Chemical Industry Manipulates Science, Bends the Law, and Endangers Your Health. Birch Lane Publishing Group 1996

* Much more on Monsanto

Done for the sole purpose of profit and control, Industry sees the expenditure of vast amounts of money to facilitate these acts as nothing more than just another cost of doing business. To them, there is no shame involved, although we see them as something much worse than dishonorable and despicable. For they see the poor and hungry as a market to profit on by any means. And the means employed are, in many cases, ingeniously circuitous and deceptive. In other cases they simply buy off congress in order to expedite legislation that improves their market in some way. There is essentially a mainstream media news black-out with regards to the negative effects of GMOs, as well as with most subjects that would make us all healthier and happier.

Controlling public opinion is a delaying tactic that has worked most excellently. It certainly worked with progressive activist organizations for a few years. And by the time consumers come to the conclusion that they have been duped, the control will have been won. At this time — 2006 — it looks as if most people have heard only the promises of GE foods and nothing of the horrors besides the cute little Frankenfood posters from Greenpeace in the US. While US citizens sit mesmerized by TVs and are content to eat mostly inedible food from a mega-corporate agricultural machine, people in other countries are much more connected to food and production methods, and demand wholesomeness and honesty.

The prospect of a handful of companies controlling the world’s food supply should elicit fear in hearts all around the world. But the rapid loss of biodiversity and complete contamination of all genetic code is quite a bit more permanent than human control. Once these strange new genes are let lose, there is no taking them back.

The purpose of GE foods is the final coup d'état of the world’s food supply. It has nothing to do with science, or benevolence. The eyes of corporate CEOs’ are strictly on the prize. And it’s a fantastic prize where, in their minds, any price paid is worth it. The price includes forcing millions to live in misery, a loss of biodiversity and culture, and the eternal pollution of the genetic coding of all living things. This is no small feat. Such things bring to mind a triptych, the Garden of Earthly Delight*(large file 3 x 200 Kb), painted in about 1504 by Hieronymus Bosch. Named for the garden depicted in the central panel, featuring an orgy of nudes, giant birds, and fruit. It illustrates the history of the world and progression of sin. From the left, it begins with Adam and Eve’s original sin and evolves through the central Garden of Delights that illustrates a world deeply engaged in sinful pleasures, and on to the torture of eternal hell, with no savior. With Bosch's work providing the correct visual accompaniment, Carl Orff's O Fortuna from Carmina Burana* (1934) is equally appropriate music to set the mood.

______________________________________
* Bosch, Hieronymus. The Garden of Earthly Delight. c. 1504; Triptych, plus shutters; Oil on panel; Central panel, 220 x 195 cm; Wings, 220 x 97 cm; Museo del Prado, Madrid.

* Carl Orff (1895-1982) From Carmina Burana, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi- O Fortuna 1934 - played by the Berkeley Community Choir and Orchestra (1997)

Since the greatest increases in the world’s population are in Least Developed Nations (LDN), this is where TNC priorities are concentrated. Having spent many billions of dollars promoting and defending GE foods, the assumption is that people are hungry because there is not enough food. To them the answer is obvious, to increase production. Their answer was arrived at before they asked a logical question. Furthermore, logical questions are purposefully avoided in order to maintain profitability. But this is the state of science today in both academic and corporate sectors. It is a fairytale land where the players wear firmly-fitted blinders in order to continue merrily on their way to a paycheck. This is in no way an exaggeration and is easily witnessed where ever one looks. Profit is the starting point of all their work and it is the only justification required to produce any of their products. In some instances, even less justification is required — I can, therefore I must.

There are many different theories on increasing food production; small-scale organic farms; large-scale organic farms; large-scale commercial farms using synthetic chemical inputs; and large-scale farming using genetically engineered crops and synthetic chemicals. The type of farming employed is most important to the topic of sustainability, but it will not put food on the plates of the starving masses. It may help, but one must focus in a completely different direction for the answer to starvation. Before increasing food production as a means of ending world hunger, one must ask why they are hungry when so much food is available? There are more than 6 billion people on Earth presently, and enough food to feed 9 billion.

There are many reasons why hunger exists in spite of the extreme abundance of food. At some point in time, most of us have heard that it is “a problem of distribution.” What does this really mean? Are any of us exempt from at least attempting to understand what it means? Indeed, through every aspect of our daily lives—our habits and preferences—we each play a role in the cause of hunger throughout the world. We are each, in some way, responsible for the hunger and death by starvation of many thousands of people as we attempt to navigate through each day. Here are a few examples:

  • We can decide the kind of car we drive, all of which have enourmous impacts on weather and wars. Or we can decide not to drive at all. Another alternative is to travel on a bicycle or walk. Yes, it is slower. But the speed we use is also part of the problem rather than being part of the solution. It takes far more energy per mile to travel at higher speeds than lower speeds. And machines are far less efficient than animals at extracting the energy. And even if the most efficient engines are utilized, the high speed increases the flow of materials and activity, thus compounding the problems of consumption.

  • We can decide to fly in jets as a means of travelling long distances, which have even greater impacts on weather and wars. Or we can decide not to travel in the air at all.

  • We can choose to eat beef, which takes more energy to produce and gives less sustenance than vegetables; increases the cost of food for people in developing nations because the grains they would have eaten are now going to feed the cattle you eat; and cattle produce copious amounts of methane, which is a cause of global warming. . . . Or we can decide not to eat beef.

  • If you still vote, the people you vote for have an enourmous impact on starvation in other countries as well as the USA. Democrats and Republicans alike are directly responsible for the terrible conditions in this country. The two differ only in the speed at which they are destroying the world. One may as well include the Green Party and Socialists, for all contribute to the lunacy of a system that has little logic. In general, politicians and political parties support and promote genetically engineered crops as well as other forms of genetic engineering such as drugs, vaccines and more. Most wealthy politicians have interests in one form or another of genetic engineering. For instance, John Kerry, the failed liberal hope of America in the electoral race with George W. Bush, was well-invested in genetic engineering. He had a minimum of $7 million invested in biotech companies at the time. In fact, the industry liked him so much that they ranked Bush only slightly ahead of Kerry in a poll asking: "Who would be a better advocate for biotechnology as president?" In that poll, Bush got 53% of the votes while Kerry got 47%. They share many other similarities that liberals and conservatives avoided mentioning. But are also socialists quite fond of technology, as many foolishly still believe it will reduce the workers' toil.

    ________________________________________
    Poll Results - Genetic Engineering News v.24, n.16, 15sep04 and John Kerry's campaign statement on biotech and his investments from his financial disclosure - JohnKerry.com 20oct04

  • Without question, George W. Bush and his followers have had a the greatest impact on the daily diet of the poor by continually reducing the amount of federal aid going to them as well as actually increasing the numbers of people who are poor. Government data on how many people are unemployed are just as much fiction as can be found on any TV show because they only include those who have not exhausted their unemployment compensation benefits. Those who have come to the end of unemployment compensation are now invisible to the rest of us while viewing the data. Visit any soup kitchen or homeless shelter and you'll see first-hand that there are far more people who need assistance than can be handled in any large city across the US [I].
    _____________________________
    I. U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger & Homelessness Survey Press Release 19dec2005

Today, with global warming increasing the incidence of storms, heat, cold, drought and flooding, harvest totals can be drastically short of expected yields. With whole areas of land being flooded or burned to the ground, nothing at all will be grown there. Many people are being displaced and/or killed by freak storms and armed conflicts. Realistically, GE crops cannot make up for bad weather and wars. GE crops will not solve the problems of the real world because they are created in the make-believe worlds of laboratories and corporate board rooms full of people who lack common sense. And in fact, they do not deliver on those expansive promises, for GE crops are lower in yield and nutrition, plus they use more petroleum-based chemicals than the normally terrible corporate farming methods.

Americans lived in ignorant bliss until the horrific day of the 11th of September 2001.

Today, the bliss is gone, but the ignorance remains. Just as ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of scientific and social history is also no excuse.

Dr. Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear physicist, was held in solitary confinement from December 10, 1999 to September 13, 2000 after being wrongly indicted on 59 felony counts alleging he transferred nuclear weapons information to unsecure computers and tape. On his release, the judge said, “"I sincerely apologize to you for the unfair manner in which you were held in custody by the executive branch. [The Departments of Energy and Justice] have embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen of it."[i] Even after he was arrested, Dr. Lee believed in the US government and thought it would protect him because he did his work and never paid any attention to political issues. As a result of his experiences with justice in the US, he strongly advises people pay attention to the political arena. He hopes that the youth learn a different type of citizenship than he was taught.[ii]

"Not knowing my rights as an American to be free of cruel and unusual punishment, I was constantly cold, shivering most of the time because all I had was a red jumpsuit ... an undershirt and two very thin blankets. I do believe the American system is the best system in the world, [h]owever, I want to say when the system is handled by the wrong people, our lives can be very miserable."[iii]

Reasons for hunger include, but are not limited to, war, poverty, inequality, discrimination, drought, flooding, and extreme temperatures. Many of these are the direct result of past and present US governmental policies. The US sells arms to many countries, initiating and/or prolonging conflicts. The brutal mishandling, poverty, and deaths of thousands of Palestinians are directly related to the continuing supply of military equipment, moral and financial support the US provides to the right-wing Israeli government. The history of the US is littered with illustrations of its brutally strong-handed and murderous tactics throughout the world. Without much stretching of the facts, even some weather-related issues can be attributed to the US government in part because of the reluctance to wean the country off of fossil fuels and establish sustainable energy use policies and to be a role model for other countries.

  1. Marshall, JM. Wen Ho Lee is free. Salon 13sep00

  2. Zia, H. (co-author of Wen Ho Lee's memoir, "My Country Versus Me.") Interview KPFA radio in Berkeley CA. 16jan02

  3. Associated Press. Wen Ho Lee Speaks Briefly in S.F. 17jan02
    Also see: Stowers, E. Anatomy of a Scandal Pressing Times v.4, n.1, Spring02

Lies

Excuse me for momentarily straying from the main subject of GMOs, but the crash of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers is also a lie.

Of course it fell. But not the way they would have you believe. I think we live now in a very dark time, for we lack the essentials of truth, honor and justice.

I spent more than 20 years as an architect, coming in contact with the design and construction of a few high-rise buildings. At one point, I worked for the designer of the restaurant at the top of the WTC, Windows on the World. I ate there once and toured the kitchen. When I was a student, my structural steel professor was working on the design of the WTC. He also did some structural design work on Madison Square Garden. He would regularly describe the complex steel structure of the WTC. From my dormitory building, I could see the WTC creeping its way into the sky. And more recently, my nephew was one of the people running from the dust cloud created by the crashing WTC. When I watched the towers falling, what I saw reminded me very much of a planned building demolition. It came straight down. It has taken me a long time to admit to what I actually saw on TV because of the magnitude of such a spectacle. But, if those buildings had actually been weakened by jets — and yes the jets were real and did crash — then the building would have bent in the direction of that crashing jet. Another fact is that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt or to weaken steel enough to cause a failure, especially that steel with fire proofing on it. I won't get into detail here because this is more about GE foods, but don't you think that if the president could fool the nation about a few buildings falling that the transnational GE industry could fool those same people about their product? I certainly think both are more than possible because I see this is what has happened. To read more on 911, please see 9/11: The Myth and the Reality by Dr. David Ray Griffin.

The Green Revolution

The Green Revolution* was the chief method of increasing food production from about the mid-20th century until just a few years ago when the Gene Revolution began. Green Revolution farming is a high-output method characterized by the use of massive synthetic chemical inputs on very large fields containing one variety of crops. Over the last 50 years, the inputs have become greater and the machinery has gotten larger, more specialized, and substantially more expensive. These machines have replaced many people who used to be needed in the fields, making it possible for one person to manage hundreds of acres. Massive irrigation and drainage systems have been built over the years.

When this whole thing with GE foods started, not all that long ago, the researchers advised the managers that they weren’t ready to go to full scale planting. But the response they got was, what could go wrong? EXPLAIN and get references.

Q: Will GE foods feed the world?
A. The quick answer:
Only if they get them for free or at a drastically reduced price.

The more detailed answer: Dr. Wambugu instructs anti-GMO protesters to “ask many questions.” Therefore, as an initial response to her assertions to “let the science and the data provide the answers,” and that “[t]he farmers and hungry people of Africa need this technology,” I will ask this one simple question of her: Why are so many people hungry when there is so much food to spare?

A Closer Look

An enormous spotlight, powered by billions of multinational corporate dollars, shines brilliantly on the potential of GE foods to feed the world, and deliver drugs that will prevent sickness, cancers, and blindness. The operative word is potential, not ability or track record, but potential, as in maybe, and buyers beware. Many people believe that the corporate answer to hunger, genetically modified organisms (GE foods), is the one and only solution. However, logic has been short-circuited when the initial question is: Will GE foods feed the world? The focus is then mistakenly on symptoms rather than problems. A more reasonable initial question is Why are they hungry?

Without initially questioning why they are hungry, it is highly likely that the mountain of money being poured into agbiotech research would be better off being incinerated to warm those in colder climates, or perhaps being used to build shelter for the homeless. By this method, one searches for questions that may be answered with questions that maximize profit, rather than beginning with a hypothesis. Asking if GE foods will feed the starving masses of the world is one such question.

Advertising, Appearances, and Reality

Advertising plays a major role in the attitude of consumers, more so in the US than in the EU. People in the US have faith in the system to protect them, and they believe much of what they are presented in the popular media; television, radio, or newspapers and magazines. Drive through any neighborhood in the US after dark, whether it is rich or poor, and the shimmering light of the television sets will illuminate the windows of house after house. Most people are searching for answers, hoping to learn something.

Unfortunately, programming on TV is a vacuum, draining the minds of America. It is nothing more than a method to enter millions of homes each evening. One might as well read only comic books or cartoons for all the news that is delivered on TV. Even PBS is highly underwritten by many large corporations with something to sell or agenda to promote. A.G. Edwards, Archer Daniels Midland, Chase Manhattan, Fidelity Investments, and Salomon Smith Barney all gave more than a million dollars. Even the US Department of Energy and Army were in the under $1 million range.*

PBS does not bite the hand that feeds it. Sometimes a special program will air nationally PBS. A recent exception was the Bill Moyers’ special “Trade Secrets” about the decades-long conspiracy of the PVC industry to withhold information on the toxicity they exposed their workers to. That night, the NY Times cranked out industry’s denial, much the same as it did when Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring came out in 1962.*

In April of 2001, the local San Francisco PBS station, KQED aired a program about GE foods on the regularly scheduled “This Week in Northern California.” The title was Sowing Science, and it featured many widely known authorities on the subject of GE foods that consumers purchase. Immediately after the show aired it was stricken from any future reruns or reprints available to the public. It is not a mystery why it disappeared. I can only conjecture that industry pressure led PBS to pull it.*

  • Sowing Science KQED TV. "This Week in Northern California" Special on Genetically Engineered Food. Bela Davis, host. Apr01.

Corporate advertising giant, BSMG Worldwide created an advertisement called "good ideas are growing” for a $50 million dollar campaign by a cartel of biotech corporations including DuPont Co., Monsanto Co. and Dow Chemical Co.* According to their website, BSMG Worldwide is “a leading public relations firm, has successfully managed corporate and marketing communications campaigns that have shaped or shifted public opinion for many of the most respected corporations, brands, industry associations, coalitions and nations of the world. The goal of all our campaigns is to shape opinion. Whether that means launching a new product or revitalizing an existing brand, ensuring that a company's employees and shareholders understand corporate strategy, or giving industry a voice on legislative issues that affect future regulation, we deliver strategic, thoughtful and creative programming to achieve the desired goals.”

Jeffrey Bergau, Monsanto’s spokesman for the advertising project said,

"The more people are exposed to information from a variety of sources, the more likely they are to embrace the technology. Our goal is to try to link people to information and data that's based on sound science."

Monsanto has a long history of misleading advertising and has been criticized many times. In March 2001, the UK Advertising Standards Authority said in their annual report that Monsanto among the 10 most complained about last year. Complaining that they were misleading the public about the benefits of [GE foods]. Monsanto had incorrectly stated that it had conducted safety testing throughout the last 20 years. Monsanto apologized and continued churning out other misleading information.*

The Facts?

"Approximately one-fifth of the world’s population live on less than US$ 1 per day
and nearly a half live on less than US$ 2 per day."

Factual, peer-reviewed, long-term testing is absent for most of the assumptions and claims of agbiotech corporations. Because authoritative views critical of GE foods are routinely misstated, ignored, and/or withheld from the mainstream media, there is practically no way for people to realize that it is an extremely dangerous smoke and mirrors act.

The Malthusian view of the world states that hunger is inevitable because the population grows faster than the rate food production. However, there are presently 6 billion people on earth, and enough food to feed 9 billion. Dr. Miguel Altieri, a professor and entomologist at UC Berkeley, regularly cites this fact. He works directly with peasant farmers in developing countries, and collaborates with many universities, NGOs and research centers in Africa, Asia and Latin America, promoting research, training and sustainable agriculture. He believes that the massive scale of corporate agribusiness is both unsustainable and inaccessible to the poor.

After becoming experienced in ancient agricultural systems, he “realized that Western knowledge is inadequate to deal with the complexities of Third World agriculture.” His deep understanding of the peasant farmers’ needs is what drives his work. Combined with his knowledge of genetic engineering, his love of the people gives him a special insight, making him an authority on exactly what is the best way to feed the millions of malnourished and hungry people.

“The real problems are poverty and distribution: Three billion people live on $2 a day, and people lack access to land to produce the food they need. Furthermore, most of the food that is being produced is fed to cattle. In the United States, seven out of ten pounds of grain are fed to animals. In Latin America, Asia, and Africa there are huge amounts of land that are devoted to soybean production for export to Europe to feed cattle—which, by the way, the Europeans are killing because of mad cow and foot-and-mouth diseases.”

“In Latin America, 80 percent of the agricultural land is in the hands of 20 percent of the farmers; and this is the best agricultural land. And all those farmers are exporting their crops for feeding cattle in Europe. Twenty percent of the land is in the hands of 80 percent of the farmers, the peasants. But they are the ones who are producing 50 percent of the potatoes, 60 percent of the corn, and 70 percent of the beans. It is the small and poor farmers who are feeding the continent—not the large farmers.”

“What’s happening today, as globalization takes hold, is that countries are forced to become agro-exporters, to exploit their ‘comparative advantage.’ There’s no reason for Chile to be growing corn when they can grow fruits to sell here in the winter when it’s summer down there. That’s their comparative advantage. But it doesn’t feed their own people.

The fact remains; there are 370 million rural households that are poor and exist in marginal environments. These people have a very important role in food security.”*

Nearly one in three children in the developing world, or 150 million are underweight.[i] There are those who haven’t enough food while at the same time, there are those who are getting far too much. Whether poor or wealthy, most nations are experiencing undernourished and overnourished people living side-by-side. "Obesity has become so rampant that there is no group in the population left unaffected," said Dr. Kelly D. Brownell, a professor of psychology and epidemiology at Yale.[ii]

  1. Gardner, G., Halweil, B. Underfed and Overfed: The Global Epidemic of Malnutrition. Worldwatch Institute. Worldwatch Paper n.150, Mar00

  2. Angier, N. Who Is Fat? It Depends on Culture. New York Times 7nov00

Dr. D. Gale Johnson is the Eliakim Hastings Moore Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus and Director of the Undergraduate Program, Department of Economics and the College, The University of Chicago. She has an amazing CV that spans about 60 years in academia, as a consultant and economic advisor on countless governmental committees; has served as director and on boards of directors of many organizations dealing with food and economic issues; and has numerous honorary designations. She believes that there is sufficient food to feed all people at the present time, yet hunger prevails because of the lack of peace.

"[T]he world is a bountiful place providing sufficient plenty to eliminate hunger and malnutrition. And this has largely been accomplished where there is political stability and people live in peace."*

In every country, there are groups of people who cannot realize their full human potential, either because their diets are inadequate or, because of sickness, their bodies are unable to benefit fully from the food they consume. In the poorest countries, the majority of people are affected by hunger, greatly magnifying the scope of other correctable defects in efforts to meet basic human needs.*


Help Waldo Find the Logic

Help Waldo Find the Logic - Will Genetically Engineered Foods Feed the World? Paul Goettlich / Mindfully.org 24oct02

One must seriously question the logic of the agbiotech industry when it emphatically states that GE foods are needed to feed the growing masses. Before the discussion ever gets to the point of GE foods, we should first be asking why are so many hungry when there is so much food?

Journalist Mark Hertsgaard has traveled extensively and written about the causes of hunger in Africa. Please note that none of the reasons he notes have to do with the capacity of world food supply.

“African hunger has various causes, not least of which is the terrible poverty and poor climate that characterizes so much of the continent, not to mention the larceny often practiced by its rulers and the inequitable trade and financial arrangements imposed upon it by the global economy. Every year, the countries of sub-Saharan Africa pay some $12 billion in interest to service their debt to Western financial institutions; this money would more than cover the immediate food, health, education, and family planning needs of the entire continent.

But what often propels these underlying causes of poverty into full-scale famine is war. War not only kills people directly, it reduces the freedom to plant and harvest and disrupts the transportation networks needed to connect food growers and buyers."*

Each year about 80 million new lives are created. More than 90% of them are in developing countries. This rate is expected to decrease to about 30 million per year 2050. At that time, in sub-Saharan Africa, it will account for 50% of the yearly population addition, compared with only 20% presently. The rate of poverty reduction in the developing countries is predicted to be much slower than in those that are industrialized.

Reductions in price trends on world markets indicate a reduction in demand, but only at the global level, not on the local level. Great disparities exist within countries and regions. World market prices do not adequately reflect the problems of the poor and the food insecure.* In other words, an abundance of food does not create a lack of hunger. People still need cash to pay for it. With no work, they have no money for food.

Countries that are net-exporters of food still having hungry populations

According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 78 percent of all malnourished children under the age of five live in countries with food surpluses. What’s worse, food that’s exported generally feeds livestock of developed countries, which has a higher profit than feeding children.

India's wheat production in 1999 was 6 million tonnes more than in 1998. And it had surplus of 10 million tonnes. In spite of at least 250 million people going to bed hungry every night, the surplus stocks were exported. In 2000, the numbers of hungry Indians had increased, and yet foodgrain surpluses were at 44 million tonnes of wheat and rice. To make matters worse, a great deal of the surplus is piled on the ground without cover because there are not enough storage facilities. Much of that grain which is unprotected from the elements—sun, rain, mold, fungus, rats, mice, and insects—will not be edible. More than 33% of the world's 800 million hungry people live in India, with a large part of those being children under the age of 5 years old. Hunger at the global level would be greatly reduced by ending hunger in India.*

"In a country, which alone has one-third of the world's 800 million people who go to bed hungry every night, hunger no longer evokes compassion and reaction. News of hunger and starvation no longer adorns the front pages of newspapers. Politicians of all political parties, without exception, talk more about disinvestment and ministry expansion. Policy makers spend more time with industrialists and business houses, and agricultural scientists have little time for the small and marginalised farming communities. The new breed of modern scientists find it below their dignity to soil their feet. They instead prefer the cool confines of the biotechnology labs, howsoever unproductive the end result may be."*

Go Global

The image of globalization through the eye of mainstream media is one of a planet encircled by people joined hand-in-hand, singing, “We are the world.” This is simply high-priced corporate advertising bending the minds of people through the popular media. When the curtain is parted, one finds that the wizard is actually a daemon.

Dan Rather’s audience has difficulty understanding what dancing around in the streets of Seattle with puppets has to do with the WTO and globalization, and why these motley lawbreakers dislike the WTO. Dan would have us all line up behind George Bush and do whatever he commands. CBS news is but one part in the deception of Americans by the corporate elite.

  • Rather, D. "George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions, and, you know, I'm just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where." CBS Evening News 18sep01 http://www.ratherbiased.com/whatsnew.htm

Just as they buy police protection, the planners and directors of this grand coup are also willing to spend millions of dollars on products to protect themselves. A recent auto show in Los Angeles featured armored Cadillac DeVilles weighing 3 tons and costing up to $154,000 dollars. In an Associated Press interview, a Cadillac representative said, "If you are going to go global you need to address armoring.” If their brand of globalization is so benevolent, and the citizens of developing nations welcome them with open arms, why then do they need to armor their inefficient and ostentatious cars?[52] Are there implications for the corporate leaders of globalization beyond merely being an added cost of doing business? One would hope they might also think about the safety of loved ones that may not be so well isolated from reality. Better yet, they might ask what it is that makes them a target for so much anger that they need armored cars, personal bodyguards, and electronic security devices.

The plain fact is that the globalization of the World Bank, WTO, GATT, and NAFTA is not about bringing the world together by making it a better place for all to live. It is also not about making sure that everyone has enough food. And it is not about love, understanding, or equality. Its dominant paradigm is control of the masses by a select few. The reality of globalization is the wealthy living on the backs of the poor, exploiting them regardless of race, religion, or color. So, to some degree, in an intensely perverted way, globalization is nondiscriminatory.

In a 1991 internal World Bank memo, their chief economist, Lawrence Summers, wrote:

“Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [less developed countries]?... The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that .... Under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted; their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City .... The concern over an agent that causes a one-in-a-million change in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a country where under-five mortality is 200 per thousand."*

During 1997 to 2000, Joseph Stiglitz was the chief economist and vice president of the World Bank, and is now a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He served on the president's Council of Economic Advisers from 1993 to 1997. He resigned from his position with the World Bank to freely voice his opinions of globalization. With his new-found freedom, he stated that the IMF is arrogant, deaf, secretive and lacks unaccountability, and that economic conditions are often made much worse after they “help” a country “—turning slowdowns into recessions and recessions into depressions.”

“It's not fair to say that IMF economists don't care about the citizens of developing nations. But the older men who staff the fund—and they are overwhelmingly older men—act as if they are shouldering Rudyard Kipling's white man's burden. IMF experts believe they are brighter, more educated, and less politically motivated than the economists in the countries they visit. In fact, the economic leaders from those countries are pretty good—in many cases brighter or better-educated than the IMF staff, which frequently consists of third-rank students from first-rate universities. (Trust me: I've taught at Oxford University, MIT, Stanford University, Yale University, and Princeton University, and the IMF almost never succeeded in recruiting any of the best students.)”

“I was often asked how smart—even brilliant—people could have created such bad policies. One reason is that these smart people were not using smart economics. Time and again, I was dismayed at how out-of-date—and how out-of-tune with reality—the models Washington economists employed were. “

“Open discussion would have raised profound questions that still receive very little attention in the American press: To what extent did the IMF and the Treasury Department push policies that actually contributed to the increased global economic volatility? (Treasury pushed liberalization in Korea in 1993 over the opposition of the Council of Economic Advisers. Treasury won the internal White House battle, but Korea, and the world, paid a high price.) Were some of the IMF's harsh criticisms of East Asia intended to detract attention from the agency's own culpability? Most importantly, did America—and the IMF—push policies because we, or they, believed the policies would help East Asia or because we believed they would benefit financial interests in the United States and the advanced industrial world? And, if we believed our policies were helping East Asia, where was the evidence? As a participant in these debates, I got to see the evidence. There was none.”

In conclusion, globalization is being sold as being good for the world economy. The recipients of the benefits of globalization are the rich. Greed is the driving force behind globalization, and nothing good can come from it. It overrides everything that is good so that the few may profit from the labor of the many.

Patents as Master

The patent is the chosen weapon of the new world order. Through patents, the entire world’s food will be controlled by a handful of powerful multinational corporations. With patents in hand at the court of the WTO, they are able to deny peasants the right to live as they have for many thousand of years. Corporate bioprospectors scour foreign countries for useful genetic material. They search remote jungles, rain forests, and even rice paddies. One key to the value of what they “discover” is that the more people use or need that gene, the greater the value. In the eyes of the corporations, value is what the market will allow. And in turn, that depends on what the variables or controls are. When the control is absolute, the profits can be absolute. Therefore, the protection patents offer to corporations is exceedingly valuable. This is especially true when US patents are backed up on the global level, as by the WTO.

Many products have been designed to protect the patents of the corporations. Monsanto produces Roundup, a herbicide and crops that are genetically modified to withstand it. The farmer must sign a “technology agreement” in order to purchase these products. The Monsanto Technology Agreement covers Roundup Ready™ cotton, Bollgard™ cotton, Bollgard™ with Roundup Ready™ cotton, Roundup Ready™ soybeans, YieldGard™ corn and Roundup Ready™ corn.[55] In this agreement farmers must sign away rights to legal recourse should Monsanto Crops fail to perform, which happens quite frequently.

The future of these gene giants is highly questionable. Many protections are required for them to exist; patents, the WTO, and most of all, consumers’ ignorance of the facts by way of control of the government and popular media. Their corporate lies must be hidden from view; otherwise people would see them for the demons they are.

According to Monsanto's corporate mission statement, they claim to conduct [themselves] with integrity based on: courage, respect, candor, honesty, humility, consistency, and keeping [their] promises. They are especially efficient at one part of that statement, consistency. They consistently lie, cheat, bribe, conceal data, and bully without reservation. The record shows overwhelmingly that they will do anything to profit, no matter who or what is at stake.

In the last century, when foreign occupiers forced starving peasants of Bengal and Bihar to raise indigo, the peasants rose up in a series of "indigo revolts." Earlier in this century, two million people died of starvation in India while white rice was being exported by the British. In the subsequent Tebhaga uprising, the peasants declared, "We will give our life before giving our grains." Today, Indian peasants find their rights to their grains once more threatened by foreign powers, and once more, Indian society must resolutely defend their rights to utilize and grow what they choose.

Dr. Vandana Shiva is an outspoken Indian critic of the patenting of life. She founded the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology was founded in Dehra Dun, Uttar Pradesh, India in 1982. The foundation works “towards increasing awareness to the importance of conserving our valuable genetic heritage, while challenging and opposing the forces responsible for its rapid erosion and usurpation.” Dr. Shiva was trained as a physicist and has authored many books on the subject of food security, globalization and genetic engineering. She sees patents for what they are; a method of controlling peoples’ food sources.

“People have survived in the third world because in spite of the wealth that has been taken from them, in spite of their gold and their land having been taken from them, they still have biodiversity. They still have that last resource in the form of seed, medicinal plants, fodder, which allowed them access to production It allowed them to meet their needs of health and nutrition. Now this last resource of the poor, who had been left deprived by the last round of colonialization is also being taken over through patenting. And seeds which peasants have freely saved, exchanged, used, are being treated as the property of corporations. New legal property formations are being shaped as intellectual property rights treaties, through the World Trade Organization, trying to prevent peasants of the third world from having free access to their own seed, to have free exchange of their own seed. So that all peasants, all farmers around the world would be buying seed every year thus creating a new market for the global seed industry.”[i]

In India, agriculture provides livelihoods for more people than any other sector. It also has been the cutting edge of global corporate penetration of the Indian economy. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) has been one of the main instruments of monopoly penetration. Specifically, the intellectual property rights regimes being put into place through GATT set the stage for foreign corporations to gain a total monopoly control of our food production by displacing traditional seed varieties with patented hybrids.[ii]

In these economics of genocide, largely white, male elites of the North create class, race, and gender boundaries to exclude other social groups from the fundamental human rights to life and safety. This blatant disregard for the rights of Third World people was reinforced in 1996, when the European Union lifted its ban on the export of possibly BSE-infected U.K. beef and bovine products for Third World countries.[iii]

  1. Paget-Clarke, N. Interview with Dr. Vandana Shiva. In Motion Magazine 14aug98 http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Shiva-Interview-InMotion14aug98.htm

  2. People-Centered Development Forum. Profile of Vandana Shiva. PCDForum Paradigm Warrior Profile #3 Release date June 1, 1996. http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/1996/shiva.htm

  3. Shiva, V. Stolen Harvest: The Highjacking of the Global Food Supply. South End Press. Cambridge, Mass. 2000

The World Bank reported recently that the events of Sept. 11th would cause an additional 20,000 - 40,000 children under five years old to die from the economic consequences of the September 11 attack as poverty worsens.

"Outside of the US and OECD countries, the ripples from the September 11 attacks will be felt across all of the world's regions, particularly in countries dependent on tourism, remittances from populations living overseas, and foreign investment.

The worst hit area will be Africa, where in addition to the possible increases in poverty of 2-3 million people as a result of lower growth and incomes, a further 2 million people may be condemned to living below $1 a day due to the effects of falling commodity prices. Commodity prices were forecast to fall 7.4 percent on average this year, and are likely to fall even more as a result of the events of September 11. Farmers, rural labourers, and others tied to agriculture will bear a major portion of the burden. Travel and tourism represent almost 10 percent of merchandise exports for the region and are also likely to be disrupted. The 300 million poor in Sub-Saharan Africa are particularly vulnerable because most countries have little or no safety nets, and poor households have minimal savings to cushion bad times. About half the additional child deaths worldwide are likely to be in Africa."

  • Institute for International Finance - press release and report – 20sep01

The Tanzanian ambassador to the WTO, speaking on behalf of the Least Developed Countries (LDC), criticized the preamble of the draft declaration drawn up in anticipation of the planned Doha ministerial meeting of the WTO.

[It does not recognize] "the points made by LDCs and other developing countries on the downside in the operations and implementation of the system, such as the imbalances in the rules, the inequitable distribution of benefits and losses, the lack of tangible benefits to poorer countries, the massive losses to poor countries and poor people from the continuous decline in commodity prices and terms of trade, or the threats to livelihood and jobs when small firms and small farmers are unable to cope with the flood of cheap imports. In short, the marginalisation of LDCs and some other developing countries should be mentioned so that there is recognition of these problems by Ministers with the view to resolving them."

  • Statement by the Tanzanian Ambassador Mr Ali Mchumo on behalf of the LDCs in the WTO, presented at the WTO informal meeting on 2oct01.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)