|
Edwynn -> RE: Petition: mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods (2/15/2012 1:41:54 PM)
|
The health concerns are one issue of bio-engineered foods, a very important one, but the purpose of this engineering involves something possibly even more odious in the economic realm, that being one of monopoly/hegemony over almost all staple crops in the world.
This has been a work in progress for a long time, and Monsanto is nothing if not relentless in their quest. The recent 'food safety act' in the US that nearly outlawed all but bio-engineered food (including, rather I should say, especially organically/biodynamically grown and raised food) was essentially written by Monsanto's Michael Taylor, Obama's 'Food Safety Czar' at the time.
A couple of examples of what that busy man has been up to:
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2515
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In (Monsanto's Michael) Taylor’s 2003 paper “American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy Change,” he states: “The Green Revolution largely bypassed sub-Saharan Africa…African farmers often face difficult growing conditions, and better access to the basic Green Revolution tools of fertilizer, pesticides, improved seeds, and irrigation certainly can play an important role in improving their productivity."
(-who want's to guess just which company's fertilizer, pesticides, and 'improved' seeds Mr. Taylor might have in mind for this noble purpose?-)
Yet as (Paula) Crossfield (in Huffington Post) points out, “There are very good reasons why we have never introduced a Green Revolution into Africa, namely because there is broad consensus that the Green Revolution in India has been a failure, with Indian farmers in debt, bound to paying high costs for seed and pesticides, committing suicide at much higher rates, and resulting in a depleted water table and a poisoned environment, and by extension, higher rates of cancer. If President Obama is lacking this information, it is his cabinet that is to blame.”
While AGRA may not benefit African farmers, it will certainly benefit Monsanto. Some estimate that Monsanto controls 90 percent of the global market for GM seeds. In Brazil, 54 percent of all soybeans are produced with Monsanto’s GM Roundup Ready© seeds, and in 2008, the country began spraying more pesticides and herbicides than the U.S. There is evidence that in 2003, Monsanto sold a Brazilian senator a farm for one-third of its market value in exchange for his help to legalize the herbicide glyphosate (the world’s most widely used herbicide), sold by the corporation as Roundup©. In 2008, Monsanto controlled 80% of the Brazilian market for glyphosate, having elevated the price by 50% since its legalization." (emphasis added)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And a recent item regarding India:
http://www.ecoag.org.au/www/index.php?option=com_acymailing&ctrl=archive&task=view&listid=1-mailing_list&mailid=25-eaaa-ecological-agriculture-australia-association-newsletter-december-2011&Itemid=35
The Prime Minister’s Office in India has cancelled Monsanto's seed MOU (memorandum of understanding) with Rajasthan Agricultural Universities. While what was being undertaken was a great seed robbery under the supervision of the State, it was being called PPP - Private Public Partnership. The MOU with Monsanto focused on Maize, Cotton, and vegetables (hot pepper, tomato, cabbage, cucumber, cauliflower, water melon). Monsanto controls the cotton seed market in India and globally. Monsanto controls 97% of the worldwide maize market, and 63.5% of the GM cotton market. And DuPont has had to initiate anti-trust investigations in U.S because of Monsanto's growing seed monopoly. Thus the MOU would have deepened Monsanto's monopoly over seed supply. The MOU violated farmers’ rights by handing over the genetic wealth of farmers to corporations without the consent of farmers, the MOU's were one sided and biased in favour of corporate intellectual property rights. While public resources would have been freely given away to Monsanto as a subsidy, Monsanto's IPR monopolies would have been protected. This was an MOU for "Monsanto takes all, the public system gives all". It was clearly an MOU for privatisation of our seed and genetic wealth, our knowledge and a violation of farmers’ rights. The seed supplies that the agriculture universities were handing over to Monsanto were not the property of the state, nor of Monsanto. They were the common property of farming communities. For further reading or to contact the source, Dr. Vandana Shiva (Founder Director, Navdanya Trust). (emphasis added)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Monsanto is allowed to continue on this track and obtain effective control over all the essential staple crops (such control obviously having been obtained over the US government, let's not overlook), then beyond that they can extract more subsidy funds from other governments, the poorer of whom will soon need some bailout from the IMF as consequence. There would also exist the condition where concerns of human and environmental health would slide ever lower in priorities, the stance of "take it or leave it; it's our food or no food" being realistically available to Monsanto at that point.
That is not paranoia folks, look how close they came to outlawing organic and nearly even home grown food in the US just recently.
|
|
|
|
