Combat Monsanto

La Via Campesina denounces Gates Foundation purchase of Monsanto Company shares

Administrateur — 2010-09-03T16:04:50Z

Glendive, Montana. La Via Campesina (www.viacampesina.org), a global peasant movement representing small farmers, landless workers, fisherfolk, rural women, youth and indigenous peoples, with 150 member organizations from 70 countries on five continents, has denounced the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust's recent acquisition of Monsanto Company shares. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was founded in 1994 by Microsoft founder William H. Gates, and today exerts a hegemonic influence on global agricultural development policy. The Foundation channels hundreds of millions of dollars into projects that encourage peasants and farmers to use Monsanto's genetically-engineered (GE) seed and agrochemicals. In August the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust, which manages the $33.5 billion asset trust endowment that funds the Foundation's philanthropic projects (and to which Bill & Melinda are trustees) disclosed that it purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto shares for just over $23 million. [1]

According to Dena Hoff, a diversified family farmer in Glendive, Montana and North American coordinator of La Via Campesina, “The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust's purchase of Monsanto shares indicates that the Gates Foundation's interest in promoting the company's seed is less about philanthropy than about profit-making. The Foundation is helping to open new markets for Monsanto, which is already the largest seed company in the world.”

Since 2006, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has collaborated with the Rockefeller Foundation, an ardent promoter of GE crops for the world's poor, to implement the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), which is opening up the continent to GE seed and chemicals sold by Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta. The Foundation has given $456 million to AGRA, and in 2006 hired Robert Horsch, a Monsanto executive for 25 years, to work on the project. In Kenya about 70 percent of AGRA grantees work directly with Monsanto [1] , nearly 80 percent of Gates' funding in the country involves biotech, and over $100 million in grants has been made to Kenyan organizations connected to Monsanto. In 2008, some 30 percent of the Foundation's agricultural development funds went to promoting or developing GE seed varieties. [2]

In April the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and finance ministers from the US, Canada, Spain and South Korea pledged $880 million to create the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP), managed by the World Bank to “tackle world hunger and poverty.” [3]. In June GAFSP announced that it gave $35 million to Haiti to increase smallholder farmers' access to “agricultural inputs, technology, and supply chains.” [4].

In May Monsanto announced that it donated 475 tons of seed to Haiti, which is being distributed by the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The administrator of USAID is Rajiv Shah, who worked at the Gates Foundation before being appointed by the Obama administration in 2009.

According to Chavannes Jean-Baptiste of the Haitian Peasant Movement of Papaye and Caribbean coordinator of La Via Campesina, “It was a really bad surprise for the peasant organizations and social movements in Haiti to learn about the decision of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to buy Monsanto shares while it is giving money for agricultural projects in Haiti that promote the company's seed and agrochemicals. On behalf of the peasant organizations in Haiti, I want to say to the Foundation that this policy is against the interests of 80 percent of the Haitian population, and is against peasant agriculture—the base of Haiti's food production. We ask that the Foundation stop its collaboration with Monsanto and the World Bank.”

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also funds the US government's Feed the Future initiative, administered by the State Department. At a July 20 congressional subcommittee hearing on Feed the Future, executive vice president for Monsanto Gerald Steiner testified that “Feed the Future is exciting not least because it recognizes both the business imperatives by which Monsanto and other companies must operate…We want to do good in the world, while we also do well for our shareholders.” Steiner mentioned Monsanto's project to develop drought resistant maize for Africa, also funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. [5]

According to Hoff, “Foundations, however well meaning, should not be setting food and agricultural policies for any nation of peoples. Democracy demands the informed participation of civil society to determine what is in the best interest of each nation's population. ‘Doing well for our shareholders' seems an ulterior motive for meddling in the health and welfare of the planet and all its inhabitants in order to make a profit.”

Perhaps not by coincidence, in July Monsanto's chief executive officer and president Hugh Grant purchased $2 million of company shares, and vice president and chief financial officer Carl M. Casale bought $1.6 million of shares. “Grant and Casale have pocketed nice sums from selling Monsanto shares over the years.” [6]

Purchase of Monsanto shares by Gates, Grant and Casale could have been in anticipation of last week's news that researchers published the genome for wheat, the staple grain for one-third of the world's population. “For Monsanto, a quality wheat genome map could potentially help in our efforts to bring better wheat varieties to farmers," said Monsanto. [7]

In 2008, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded $26.8 million to Cornell University to research wheat, and in May awarded $1.6 million to researchers at Washington State University to develop drought-resistant GE wheat varieties. [8]

The Gates Foundation continues to push Monsanto's products on the poor, despite mounting evidence of the ecological, economic and physical dangers of producing and consuming GE crops and agrochemicals. In June the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monsanto Co. vs. Geertson Seed Farms, its first case about a GE crop. The Court recognized that genetic contamination of non-GE crops from transgene flow of DNA from GE crops, which occurs through the spread of pollen by wind and bees, is harmful and onerous to the environment and farmers. According to the web site of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, “AGRA and its partners have released more than 100 new varieties of improved seed across the [African] continent.” [9]

La Via Campesina maintains that the best way to ensure healthy food, adapt to climate change, conserve soils, water and forests, and revitalize rural economies is with policies that promote food sovereignty and small-scale, agroecological farming systems—the foundation of which is native seed varieties. The United Nations estimates that 75 percent of the world's plant genetic diversity has been lost as farmers have abandoned native seed for genetically-uniform varieties offered by corporations such as Monsanto. Genetic homogeneity increases farmers' vulnerability to sudden changes in climate and the appearance of new pests and diseases, while seed agrobiodiversity—with native seed adapted to different microclimates, altitudes and soils—is fundamental for adapting to climate change. Saving and replanting native seed increases agrobiodiversity and strengthens crops' genetic plasticity (their capacity to adapt rapidly over generations to changing growing conditions).

According to Henry Saragih, general coordinator of La Via Campesina in Jakarta, “La Via Campesina demands that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust immediately divest all of its Monsanto shares. Further, we demand that the Gates Foundation and US government immediately recognize the human right to uncontaminated, native seed as a necessity to adapt to climate change.”

Source : La Via Campesina

[1] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1166559/000104746910007567/a2199827z13f-hr.txt

[2] Holt-Giménez, Eric. “Monsanto in Gates' clothing? The emporor's new GMOs.” Huffington Post. August 26 2010.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/monsanto-in-gates-clothin_b_696182.html

[3] Kellerhals Jr., Merle David. “Finance ministers announce $880 million for Global Food Security.” April 22 2010. http://www.america.gov/st/develop-english/2010/April/20100422155518dmslahrellek0.9501917.html

[4] Feed the Future. “An Improved Approach to Agriculture and Food Security: Haiti” June 25 2010

[5] Monsanto Company. “Jerry Steiner speaks to congress about the Feed the Future Initiative.” July 20 2010. http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/steiner_feed_the_future_initiative_072010

[6] Gottfried, Miriam. “Top Monsanto execs load up on shares.” Barron's. July 15 2010.

[7] Gillam, Carey. “Wheat groups welcome genetic news; say more needed.” Reuters. August 27 2010. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN277047520100827

[8] Weaver, Matthew. “Gates awards $1.6 million for dwarf wheat research.” Checkbiotech.org. July 25 2010. http://greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/gates_awards_16m_dwarf_wheat_research

[9] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/global-trust-fund-for-poor-farmers-100422.aspx

Soya for Africa – The Gates Foundation opens door for Cargill

Administrateur — 2010-09-03T15:55:58Z

Cape Town – The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is to grant US$8 million to develop a soya value chain in Africa, in partnership with US non-profit organisation TechnoServe and agricultural commodity trading giant Cargill. The announcement was made at the Soy Innovation Africa Conference held in Cape Town 26th and 27th August 2010.

The project is meant to run for four years, commencing initially in Mozambique and Zambia where it is aimed at 37 000 small-scale farmers. The model will be replicated in other regions at a later time.

The ACB has released a report titled "The Gates Foundation and Cargill push Soya onto Africa" wherein it argues that the Gates project is aimed at enabling commodities giant, Cargill, to capture a hitherto untapped African soya market and eventually introduce GM soya onto the continent where reception to GMOs remains chilly.

Soya is sought after by the rapidly expanding global livestock and agrofuels sectors. Currently Africa produces less than 1% of global soya, while the USA, Brazil and Argentina dominate the market. Cargill is the biggest global player in the production and trade in soya, with heavy investments in Latin America where genetically modified (GM) soya mono-crops have displaced rural populations and caused environmental devastation. It was estimated that in the 2004/2005 growing season in Brazil, 1.2 million hectares of the Amazon rainforest was deforested as a consequence of soya expansion.

Approximately 93% of soya production in the USA is GM, 98.9% in Argentina and 70.7% in Brazil. It is therefore likely that there will be great pressure on Africans to accept GM seeds under the Gates project. Mozambique has already opened the door to GM soya commodities, accepting a shipment of 35,000 MT of GM soya beans from South Africa this year. This is the first such permit authorised by the Executive Council in South Africa.

Researcher for the African Centre for Biosafety, Haidee Swanby, said, "the Gates Foundation continues to back agricultural strategies in Africa that open new markets for the benefit of foreign agribusiness through the establishment of agribusiness value chains and favourable policies."

Mariam Mayet, Director of the ACB slams the project as an "attempt at yoking African farmers into the soya value chain and displacing African agricultural practices and traditional crops."

Source : Biosafetyafrica.net, 1st September 2010

USDA violates environmental laws and regulations in attempt to circumvent recent federal court order making the planting illegal

Administrateur — 2010-09-03T15:52:11Z

On September 1, 2010, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced that it was in the process of issuing permits to authorize the planting of genetically engineered (GE) sugar beet seedlings this Fall, without performing any review of the crops' environmental impacts. These GE beets have been altered so that they can tolerate being sprayed with Monsanto's herbicide Roundup. The unprecedented permitting process for a commercially-grown genetically engineered crop was initiated without public notice and comment or any environmental review. Last week the agency met with companies involved and invested in promoting the gene-altered crop.

On August 13, 2010, United States District Judge Jeffrey S. White vacated USDA's approval of the GE sugar beets, making the planting of these beets after the date of the order illegal. The Court reversed the agency's approval because of the USDA's failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Specifically, the USDA had failed to prepare an Environmental Statement addressing the potential of these GE plants to cause a variety of environmental and social-economic injuries, including contaminating conventional and organic crops and promoting the growth of "superweeds" that are resistant to Roundup, and therefore are very difficult to eradicate unless highly toxic chemicals are used.

In his opinion, Judge White admonished the agency for “not taking the [NEPA] process seriously.” The USDA action today in allowing planting without any environmental review justifies the Court's concern.

The recent court ruling on sugar beets follows a series of other federal court opinions which reversed USDA approvals of GE plants. These courts also faulted the agency for its continuing failure to address the biological pollution issue surrounding genetically engineered alfalfa, bentgrass and so-called biopharmaceutical crops. Despite repeatedly being ordered to do so, the USDA has yet to complete a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing any GE crop.

"USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops. Despite numerous court opinions, congressional mandates and federal investigations, it continues to act illegally," stated Andrew Kimbrell Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. "The agency and Secretary Vilsack seem to see their mission as defending Monsanto's bottom line rather than protecting farmers and consumers," Kimbrell concluded.

Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff commented, "USDA's persistent refusal to comply with environmental laws in the face of one court decision after another is remarkable. This is yet another instance of USDA serving Monsanto's interests at the expense of the public interest, without regard to the rule of law."

The coalition said it was considering legal action.

Source : CFS, Center for Food Safety, 2 September 2010

EPA Slaps Monsanto with Record Fine

Administrateur — 2010-09-03T15:46:53Z

Million Dollar Settlement the Largest in Series of Penalties

Hey Monsanto, it's time to pay the piper... again.

In the largest fine ever levied under a U.S. pesticides law, Monsanto agreed to pay the Environmental Protection Agency $2.5 million.

The agricultural giant was found to have been selling genetically modified cotton seeds without labeling them as such. Between 2002 and 2007, Monsanto's seeds were illegally sold in several Texas counties where the seeds are explicitly banned.

The seeds — known as Bollgard and Bollgard II — were genetically engineered to produce the insecticide Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), and Texas officials were concerned that using the seeds would lead to pest resistance.

But that didn't stop Monsanto from bamboozling buyers into purchasing the illegal seeds.

“As a result of this matter, we have implemented new internal review processes to prevent such errors in the future,” said Rob Nixon, Monsanto's Stewardship Lead.

I find Mr. Nixon's statements to ring hollow. While this is the biggest fine Monsanto has received under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, it is far from their first major legal infraction.

Here's a quick look at a few of Monsanto's other “errors”:
• Monsanto's biggest individual fine to date was a $100 million settlement to the family of Wilbur Jack Skeen in 1986. The company was found to be negligent in exposing Mr. Skeen, a worker in the companies Texas plant, to benzene. The exposure eventually led to his death from leukemia.

• Monsanto was one of the companies named in a $180 million suit for Vietnam War vets exposed to “Agent Orange”. Monsanto manufactured the herbicide from 1965 to 1969.
The settlement did not include the 400,000 disabilities and deaths that the population of Vietnam suffered from the toxic herbicide.

• In 1995, Monsanto was forced to pay a Texas Waste Management company $41.1 million for hazardous waste concerns.

• In 1996, New York's Attorney General hit them with a $50,000 fine for false advertising of their flagship pesticide Roundup. Claims in question included “Remember that environmentally friendly Roundup herbicide is biodegradable. It won't build up in the soil so you can use Roundup with confidence along customers' driveways, sidewalks and fences... ”

That's a tough claim to swallow when you consider the EPA warning required on Roundup's packaging:

Do not allow the herbicide solution to mist, drip, drift, or splash onto desirable vegetation since minute quantities of this herbicide can cause severe damage or destruction to the crop, plants, or other areas on which treatment was not intended.

• As recently as 2005, the Justice Department ordered Monsanto to pay a $1.5 million fine for bribing Indonesian officials in order to get their Bollgard cotton seeds approved without having to prove their environmental safety.

So, while its nice lip service when the EPA holds the company accountable for their recent indiscretions, the company's sordid past goes to show that a fine of $2.5 million is toothless.

If it were up to you, what kind of fine would you give Monsanto?

Feel free to leave your suggestions in the comments section.

Source : Jimmy Mengel, Stumbleupon.com, July 9th, 2010

Outrage Over Claim that Anti-GM Campaign "Causes Hunger"

Administrateur — 2010-09-01T16:15:47Z

CAPE TOWN - Civil society organisations have reacted with outrage to claims that the international campaign against genetically modified (GM) crops is partly responsible for food shortages and food insecurity in Africa.

"Food insecurity in developing regions such as Africa is partially a result of the anti-GM campaign," David King, director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University in Britain, said during the 15th World Congress of Food Science and Technology held between Aug 22-26 in Cape Town, South Africa.

King added that, "many African countries have the idea that food that is not good enough for Europeans, is not good enough for Africans.

"In Europe, people might have a choice between conventional and genetically modified products. In Africa, this is not the case. Here, any food that is available is great."

South African organisations that oppose the genetic modification of food, such as the South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering (SAFeAGE), have condemned King's statements.

"Africa's food insecurity has nothing to do with the anti-GM campaign," said Fahrie Hassan, media spokesperson at SAFeAGE.

It has in large part been caused by economic policy measures with strict conditions imposed on countries seeking loans from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund since the 1980s, he argued.

"Many governments of developing countries were forced to tell their farmers they should farm cash crops, which are predominantly meant for the export market, instead of focusing on subsistence farming for local use," he added.

"In addition, European countries and the U.S. dump their food surpluses onto African markets while heavily subsidising their own farmers," Hassan added.

Mariam Mayet, director of the non-profit African Centre for Biosafety (ABC), said that, "malnourishment in Africa is not just a result of food shortage, but of poverty. It does not matter how much food is available, if you don't have money to buy it you are stuck.

"In addition, the plants the GM industry wants to produce in Africa are mainly cash crops that are not just meant for the export market but are to be used to feed pigs and cows in Europe and China and as bio-fuel and cooking oil.

"These crops are not meant to feed African people, thus they will not contribute to food security," she added.

Mayet slammed King's statement that African countries rejected GM crops because of the influence of the anti-GM campaign, which originated in Europe and the U.S.

"King is clearly not aware of the fact that Africans have common sense. Does he think we are stupid, can't think for ourselves and still listen to whatever Europeans tell us to do, like we did in the colonial era?

"We might be poor, but we make our own decisions free from what Europeans, whether politicians or the GM movement, think. African countries are led by their own understanding, not by the anti-GM campaign," Mayet stated.

Hassan rejected any suggestion that GM corporations intend to help Africans to overcome problems such as malnourishment. "It has nothing to do with helping Africans, but with helping themselves. If a farmer agrees to switch to GM crops, he or she will be tied to the seeds provided by the seed company.

"This process precludes the saving of seeds for the next year. This means the farmer will have to buy seeds every year, which is profitable to the company."

Muna Lakhani, spokesperson for Earthlife Africa, agreed that GM "will lock Africa into neo-seed slavery" as GM production increases dependence on imported inputs and is therefore detrimental to African food sovereignty. The non-profit Earthlife Africa seeks a better life for all people without the exploitation of people or the degradation of their environment.

"Organic agriculture produces far more food than the current chemicals- based agro-industry. We need to resist attempts to colonise our food production and insist on sustainable food cultivation that is not geared to benefiting the developed world.

"The fact of the matter is that the GM industry, having lost the battle in many countries, now sees African countries as easy pickings," Lakhani argued.

King also repeated claims that he made in 2008 about flood-resistant GM rice, of which a marketable product "was only recently developed" despite the science to develop flood-resistant rice being in existence for 15 years, according to him.

"The delay of developing a marketable product is partially a result of the pressure of the anti-GM campaign. Because of this, millions of poor people unnecessarily suffered from malnutrition and hunger over the past 10 years," King claimed.

Rice is an important staple food in Africa, the world's largest importer of Asian rice. Every year floods cause massive rice production losses all across Asia. "Flood-resistant rice could have prevented much of the losses," King said, adding that rice losses in Asia have had a severe impact on Africa's food security.

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, a British organics food and farming organisation, pointed out in 2008 in Britain's Guardian newspaper that the flood-resistant rice in question is not GM.

Instead, it is the result of "normal breeding informed by knowledge of the genome and supported by environmentalists and organic organisations". (END/2010)

Source : Miriam Mannak, IPS, August 27 2010

Is Genetic Engineering Liberating Women?

Administrateur — 2010-09-01T16:07:27Z

*More Desperate Science from Monsanto & Co. about Bt. Cotton in India Empowering Women

Monsanto introduced its genetically engineered Bt. Cotton in India illegally in 1997-98. As a result of a case fought in Supreme Court by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, Monsanto Mahyco were not able to sell their Bt. Cotton seeds commercially until the 2002 planting season. Since then, Monsanto has established monopoly in the cotton seed market through licensing arrangements with Indian seed companies and "intellectual property rights". In India Bt. Cotton = Monsanto.

Further, since the establishment of seed monopolies and creation of dependence of farmers on seeds that must be bought every year, and increasing dependence on agrichemicals, the cotton areas have become zones of deep indebtedness for farmers. And un-payable debt is pushing farmers to suicide. Most of the 200,000 farmers suicides in India are in the cotton belt of Maharashtra, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, and most cotton is now Monsanto's Bt. Cotton. Instead of addressing the crisis it has created, Monsanto continues to offer a "spin" of Bt. Cotton miracles.

In yet another example of the desperate "science" of Monsanto and Company, it is now being argued that Bt. Cotton has liberated Indian women in the region of Vidharbha, Maharashtra which records the largest acreage under Bt. Cotton and highest rate of farmers suicides. Arjunan Subramanian of HRI Warwick, Dr. Kerry Kirwan, Professor David Pink and Martin Qaim have put out a paper which says that Bt. Cotton produces massive gains for women's employment in India. This is one more in a line of earlier papers by Martin Qain giving a spin that Bt. Cotton is creating miracles even while hundreds of thousands of Bt. Cotton farmers commit suicide. Arjunan Subramanian is Qaim's student and Qaim represents Monsanto & Co. Every "study" done by him is public relations for Monsanto. The present paper is no different.

Every level of the paper is fraudulent. First, the argument that women have been empowered because of the introduction of Bt. Cotton.

This is false on many grounds. Firstly, women have traditionally been seed keepers and seed breeders. The knowledge and skills related to seed conservation and seed breeding have been women's expertise. The seed economy was a women's economy. As long as seed was in women's hands, there was no debt and no suicides. Women have acted as custodians of the common genetic heritage through the shortage and preservation of grain. In a study of rural women of Nepal, it was found that seed selection is primarily a female responsibility. In 60.4 percent of the cases, women alone decided what type of seed to use, while men decided in only 20.7 percent. As to who actually performs the task of seed selection in cases where the family decides to use their own seeds, this work is done by women alone in 81.2 percent of the households, by both sexes in eight percent and by men alone in only 10.8 percent of the households.

Throughout India, even in years of scarcity, grain for seed was conserved in every household, so that the cycle of food production was not interrupted by loss of seed. The peasant women of India have carefully maintained the genetic base of food production over thousands of years. This common wealth, which had evolved over millennia, was defined as 'primitive cultivars' by the masculinist view of seeds, which saw its own new products as 'advanced' varieties.

The replacement of traditional varieties of seeds with genetically engineered Bt. Cotton is an appropriation of women's skills, knowledge and decision making on issues related to seed by corporations like Monsanto. This is disempowerment of women, not empowerment.

Secondly, women have played significant role in agriculture. As I wrote in report for the FAO, most farmers in India are women. The replacement of biodiverse cropping systems evolved by women with monocultures of Bt. Cotton imposed by Monsanto leads to decline of food production. This undermines women's food sovereignty and erodes food security. Food security in women's hands is women's empowerment. Destruction of food security by destroying food crops undermines women's food sovereignty. This is women's disempowerment, not empowerment.

Further, it destroys women's work related to agricultural production and post harvest processing and food processing. Interestingly women's work related to food sovereignty has been defined as "femimanual" work.

Agriculture, the growing of food, is both the most important source of livelihood for the majority of the world people, especially women, as well as the sector related to the most fundamental economic right, the right to food and nutrition.

Women were the world's original food producers, and continue to be central to food production system in the Third World in terms of the work they do in the food chain. The worldwide destruction of the feminine knowledge of agriculture evolved over four to five thousand years, by a handful of white male scientists in less than two decades has not merely violated women as experts; since their expertise in agriculture has been related to modeling agriculture on nature's methods of renewablility, its destruction has gone hand in hand with the ecological destruction of nature's processes and the economic destruction of the poorer people in rural areas.

Agriculture has been evolved by women. Most farmers of the world are women, and most girls are future farmers. Girls learn the skills and knowledge of farming in the fields and farms. What is grown on farms determines whose livelihoods are secured, what is eaten, how much is eaten, and by whom it is eaten.

Women make the most significant contribution to food security. They produce more than half the world's food. They provide more than 80 per cent of the food needs of food insecure household and regions.

Food security is therefore directly linked to women's food producing capacity. Constraints on women's capacity leads to erosion of food security, especially for poor households in poor regions.

From field to kitchen, from seed to food, women's strength is diversity. Women's capacities are eroded when this diversity is eroded.

Women's work in the food system is based on their knowledge and skills. It is an exercise of their food sovereignty. Destroying women's food related work is dis-empowerment, not empowerment. In the Deccan area, cotton was not grown as a monoculture. It was grown with sorghum and pigeon pea and chilies. The knowledge of these biodiverse systems was women's knowledge. The erosion of biodiverse systems goes hand in hand with erosion of women's knowledge and their power related to knowledge. Women's work and power in the food system has declined as a result of the introduction of monoculture Bt. Cotton.

This decline in women's knowledge, work and power with the introduction of Bt. Cotton is perversely hidden. The monoculture of the mind, focusing only on Bt. Cotton, falsely projects women's dependence on cotton picking as increase in employment and empowerment. And a second falsehood introduced is that the increase in cotton picking is because of increased "yields" of Bt. Cotton.

Patriarchal science and technology have rendered women's knowledge and productivity invisible by ignoring the dimension of diversity in agricultural production. As the FAO report on Women Feed the World mentions, women use more plant diversity, both cultivated and uncultivated, than agricultural scientists know about. In Nigerian home gardens, women plant 18 – 57 plant species. In Sub-Saharan Africa women cultivate as many as 120 different plants in the species left alongside the cash crops managed by man. In Guatemala, home gardens of less than 0.1 ha have more than ten tree and crop species.

In a single African home garden more than 60 species of food producing trees were counted. In Thailand, researchers found 230 plant species in home gardens. In Indian agriculture women use 150 different species of plants for vegetables, fodder and health care. In West Bengal 124 "weed" species collected from rice fields have economic importance for farmers. In the Expana region of Veracruz, Mexico, peasants utilize about 435 wild plant and animal species of which 229 are eaten. Women are the biodiversity experts of the world.

Women's work in cotton picking which Monsanto and Co. celebrate and project as an increase in absolute terms has increased because monocultures have replaced mixed cultivation of cotton with food crops. The increase in cotton is because of the replacement of biodiverse farming with cotton monocultures, and the expansion of acreage under cotton. It is not because of higher yields of Bt. Cotton. The introduction of the Bt. Gene into crops is not a yield increasing technology. It is a toxin production technology. All that increases is production of toxin. The yield traits come from the hybrid into which the Bt. gene is introduced. This is the case of cotton in India. It is also the case of all genetically engineered crops as shown by Doug Sherman in the report "Failure to Yield" of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The manipulated paper [by Subramanian and Qaim et al] says that women's additional work as cotton pickers reduces their household work which men do. However, men in the Bt. Cotton area are not becoming house husbands. They are committing suicide because of the high levels of indebtedness. Seed that used to cost Rs. 7 / kg became Rs. 3600 / kg with the introduction of Bt. Cotton. The Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission forced Monsanto to reduce prices in response to a case brought by the Andhra Pradesh Government which argued that high prices were killing farmers. The case on seed monopolies and high seed prices still continues.

In addition, even though Bt. Cotton is supposed to control pests, the bollworm has become resistant and new pests have emerged. Farmers in Vidharbha are using 13 times more pesticides than they did for conventional cotton. High costs of seeds and pesticides lead to debt, debt leads to suicides, creating Bt. Cotton widows, not liberated "housewives".

The tragedy of thousands of widows in Vidharbha, with the majority traced to debt linked to Bt. Cotton is now being covered up with the latest spin from Monsanto & Co. that Bt. Cotton has liberated the women of Vidharbha.

Source : Dr. Vandana Shiva, GM Watch, August 6 2010

Is genetically altered fish OK? FDA to decide

Administrateur — 2010-09-01T16:02:58Z

WASHINGTON - U.S. health officials are set to rule on whether a faster-growing, genetically engineered fish is safe to eat in a decision that could deliver the first altered animal food to consumers' dinner plates.

The fish, made by Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc, is manipulated to grow twice as fast as traditional Atlantic salmon, something the company says could boost the nation's fish sector and reduce pressure on the environment.

But consumer advocates and food safety experts are worried that splicing and dicing fish genes may have the opposite effect, leading to more industrial farming and potential escapes into the wild. Side effects from eating such fish are also unknown, with little data to show it is safe, they say.

"They're basically putting the fish on permanent growth hormone so it grows faster ... so they can sell bigger fish faster," said Jaydee Hanson, a policy analyst for the nonprofit Center for Food Safety.

It also raises questions about the industrialization of the nation's food supply at a time when consumers — exasperated by massive egg and other food recalls — are growing increasingly concerned and seeking more locally produced meals.

The small Massachusetts-based biotechnology company is seeking Food and Drug Administration approval to sell its salmon, called AquAdvantage, to fish farmers nationwide.

If given the green light, the salmon could be followed by the company's engineered trout and tilapia. Other scientists are also developing altered pigs and cows for food. The United States already allows genetically modified plants.

On September 19, the FDA kicks off a three-day meeting to discuss whether to approve the salmon. Outside advisers will weigh available data and offer advice, although the FDA will later make the final call.

"This is an Atlantic salmon in every measurable way," said Aqua Bounty Chief Executive Ronald Stotish. "When you look at the fish, it's impossible to see the difference."

Whether consumers accept such genetic tinkering could make or break the biotech, which has staked its future on the technology since filing for U.S. approval in 1995. In 2009, it saw a $4.8 million net loss after restructuring in 2008 to preserve cash and focus on completing FDA's approval process.

The company has seen its shares rise 75 percent this year in the run-up to the FDA's decision to a year high of 10.50 British pounds ($16).

TASTES 'GREAT'

Stotish said the company has analyzed its salmon and found no differences that warrant any kind of special labeling.

Using technology developed by Canadian researchers, AquAdvantage grows to full size in less than 250 days compared with about 400 days for a traditional Atlantic salmon, according to the biotech.

But some groups say little is known about hazards — such as allergies or potential digestive problems. And they have criticized the FDA for not releasing any data. The agency has said it hopes to make data public by Friday but that by law it does not have to release it until two days before the meeting.

Aqua Bounty has submitted all the FDA-required data, Stotish said, but has done no animal or human clinical trials. It has, however, conducted several taste tests, and Stotish says people like it just fine.

An FDA biotech official, who asked not to be named because Aqua Bounty's bid is pending, said testing whole foods' impact on animals would be impossible because of the massive amounts they would have to be fed.

"I've eaten the fish, and it tastes great," said Stotish, whom the company promoted to the top slot in 2008 to try to push approval worldwide, except in Europe where it would face a certain cultural backlash.

Stotish, who trained in biochemistry, has a long history serving in research and development roles at companies focusing on genetics and livestock health products.

PRESSURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT

Until the early 1800s, U.S. Atlantic salmon was abundant in the rivers of the country's Northeast.

But pollution and overfishing took their toll, and despite restoration efforts, much of the Atlantic salmon consumed in the United States is imported. In 2009, the nation spent nearly $1.4 billion buying from Chile, Canada, Norway and elsewhere.

Aqua Bounty says its fish can help reduce the pressure on wild salmon populations and curb costly imports. "We're not saying if they approve our salmon we're going to feed the world," Stotish told Reuters, but "there's a general consensus that overfishing is a fact of life."

Farming fish is already a controversial endeavor, with critics concerned about the methods used and commercial feed.

Food & Water Watch's fish program director, Marianne Cufone, said food supply issues are a concern, "but there are better ways to produce fish in the United States." Her group and others also worry the salmon may escape and harm other fish.

Even if the salmon wins FDA approval, it is not clear how soon U.S. consumers would see it on store shelves.

Few fish farmers in the United States cultivate salmon, according to Stotish, who hopes farmers will convert their facilities to try the altered salmon.

September's salmon meeting marks just the second time the FDA has publicly considered a genetically engineered animal.

Last year, the agency approved GTC Biotherapeutics Inc's modified goats used to produce its anti-clotting drug Atryn for patients with a rare inherited disorder.

Other engineered food animals could be on the way.

Canadian researchers are seeking FDA approval for their Enviropig with more environmentally friendly manure. Hematech Inc, part of Kirin Holdings Co Ltd's Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co, is also developing "mad cow" disease-resistant cattle.

Center for Food Safety's Hanson said such animals are the exact opposite of what U.S. consumers want. "All of these are not to make our food healthier ... All of these are to make it profitable for companies to grow animals in less-healthy conditions, more industrial conditions," he said.

Source : Susan Heavey, Reuters, August 31 2010

Gates Fondation invests in Monsanto

Administrateur — 2010-08-27T15:08:48Z

GATES FOUNDATION INVESTS IN MONSANTO Both will profit at expense of small-scale African farmers

Seattle, WA - Farmers and civil society organizations around the world are outraged by the recent discovery of further connections between the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and agribusiness titan Monsanto. Last week, a financial website published the Gates Foundation's investment portfolio, including 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million purchased in the second quarter of 2010 (see the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission). This marks a substantial increase from its previous holdings, valued at just over $360,000 (see the Foundation's 2008 990 Form).

"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering. "First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests."

Monsanto has already negatively impacted agriculture in African countries. For example, in South Africa in 2009, Monsanto's genetically modified maize failed to produce kernels and hundreds of farmers were devastated. According to Mariam Mayet, environmental attorney and director of the Africa Centre for Biosafety in Johannesburg, some farmers suffered up to an 80% crop failure. While Monsanto compensated the large-scale farmers to whom it directly sold the faulty product, it gave nothing to the small-scale farmers to whom it had handed out free sachets of seeds. "When the economic power of Gates is coupled with the irresponsibility of Monsanto, the outlook for African smallholders is not very promising," said Mayet. Monsanto's aggressive patenting practices have also monopolized control over seed in ways that deny farmers control over their own harvest, going so far as to sue—and bankrupt—farmers for “patent infringement."

News of the Foundation's recent Monsanto investment has confirmed the misgivings of many farmers and sustainable agriculture advocates in Africa, among them the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, who commented, "We have long suspected that the founders of AGRA—the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—had a long and more intimate affair with Monsanto." Indeed, according to Travis English, researcher with AGRA Watch, "The Foundation's ownership of Monsanto stock is emblematic of a deeper, more long-standing involvement with the corporation, particularly in Africa." In 2008, AGRA Watch, a project of the Seattle-based organization Community Alliance for Global Justice, uncovered many linkages between the Foundation's grantees and Monsanto. For example, some grantees (in particular about 70% of grantees in Kenya) of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) - considered by the Foundation to be its "African face" - work directly with Monsanto on agricultural development projects. Other prominent links include high-level Foundation staff members who were once senior officials for Monsanto, such as Rob Horsch, formerly Monsanto Vice President of International Development Partnerships and current Senior Program Officer of the Gates Agricultural Development Program.

Transnational corporations like Monsanto have been key collaborators with the Foundation and AGRA's grantees in promoting the spread of industrial agriculture on the continent. This model of production relies on expensive inputs such as chemical fertilizers, genetically modified seeds, and herbicides. Though this package represents enticing market development opportunities for the private sector, many civil society organizations contend it will lead to further displacement of farmers from the land, an actual increase in hunger, and migration to already swollen cities unable to provide employment opportunities. In the words of a representative from the Kenya Biodiversity Coalition, "AGRA is poison for our farming systems and livelihoods. Under the philanthropic banner of greening agriculture, AGRA will eventually eat away what little is left of sustainable small-scale farming in Africa."

A 2008 report initiated by the World Bank and the UN, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), promotes alternative solutions to the problems of hunger and poverty that emphasize their social and economic roots. The IAASTD concluded that small-scale agroecological farming is more suitable for the third world than the industrial agricultural model favored by Gates and Monsanto. In a summary of the key findings of IAASTD, the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA) emphasizes the report's warning that "continued reliance on simplistic technological fixes—including transgenic crops—will not reduce persistent hunger and poverty and could exacerbate environmental problems and worsen social inequity." Furthermore, PANNA explains, "The Assessment's 21 key findings suggest that small-scale agroecological farming may offer one of the best means to feed the hungry while protecting the planet."

The Gates Foundation has been challenged in the past for its questionable investments; in 2007, the L.A. Times exposed the Foundation for investing in its own grantees and for its "holdings in many companies that have failed tests of social responsibility because of environmental lapses, employment discrimination, disregard for worker rights, or unethical practices." The Times chastised the Foundation for what it called "blind-eye investing," with at least 41% of its assets invested in "companies that countered the foundation's charitable goals or socially-concerned philosophy."

Although the Foundation announced it would reassess its practices, it decided to retain them. As reported by the L.A. Times, chief executive of the Foundation Patty Stonesifer defended their investments, stating, "It would be naïve…to think that changing the foundation's investment policy could stop the human suffering blamed on the practices of companies in which it invests billions of dollars." This decision is in direct contradiction to the Foundation's official "Investment Philosophy", which, according to its website, "defined areas in which the endowment will not invest, such as companies whose profit model is centrally tied to corporate activity that [Bill and Melinda] find egregious. This is why the endowment does not invest in tobacco stocks.”

More recently, the Foundation has come under fire in its own hometown. This week, 250 Seattle residents sent postcards expressing their concern that the Foundation's approach to agricultural development, rather than reducing hunger as pledged, would instead "increase farmer debt, enrich agribusiness corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta, degrade the environment, and dispossess small farmers." In addition to demanding that the Foundation instead fund "socially and ecologically appropriate practices determined locally by African farmers and scientists” and support African food sovereignty, they urged the Foundation to cut all ties to Monsanto and the biotechnology industry.

AGRA Watch, a program of Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice, supports African initiatives and programs that foster farmers' self-determination and food sovereignty. AGRA Watch also supports public engagement in fighting genetic engineering and exploitative agricultural policies, and demands transparency and accountability on the part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and AGRA.

To read the Huffigton Post article, click here

Source : SeattleGlobalJustice.org, 25 August 2010

GM salmon may go on sale in US after public consultation

Administrateur — 2010-08-27T15:04:19Z

Food and Drug administration begins 60-day process to approve animal critics call a 'frankenfish'

US authorities today began the process to approve the first GM animal for human consumption.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a 60-day period of consultation and public meetings over whether to permit a GM strain of salmon to be eaten by humans, even though it has been called a "frankenfish" by critics. The approval process could take less than a year, and if it gets the green light the fish could be on the market in 18 months.

Environmentalists and scientists see the decision as marking a threshold. If it is approved it is likely to open the door to a large range of GM animals being raised for consumption. If not, scientists say that will have a negative effect on research, in part because there will be no money to be made from it.

Among the considerations by the FDA is whether, if the fish is approved for consumption, it must be labelled as genetically engineered.

The AquAdvantage salmon – a modified North Atlantic salmon – has been created by AquaBounty Technologies in Boston, Massachusetts, over 14 years at a cost of $50m. The company says the salmon grows at twice the speed of similar fish, cutting costs for farmers and greatly increasing production.

On its website the company says: "This advancement provides a compelling economic benefit to farmers (reduced growing cycle) as well as enhancing the economic viability of inland operations, thereby diminishing the need for ocean pens." The fish are also sterile, which the company says would prevent interbreeding with wild salmon.

The genetic modification involves taking a growth hormone gene from a chinook salmon and joining it with a control DNA sequence (called a promoter) from an ocean pout – an eel-like creature from a different family of marine organisms. The growth hormone gene is almost identical to the equivalent gene in the North Atlantic salmon – the sequence differs by just 1% – but it operates differently because of the new control sequence. Unlike in North Atlantic salmon, which produced growth hormone only in the summer, ocean pout control sequence directs the gene to produce hormone all year round.

The genetic mash-up is then injected into the eggs of North Atlantic salmon. Here, it is taken up by the fish's genome and ultimately the DNA is present in cells throughout the body of the fish. The company uses a different genetic trick to make the fish it proposes to sell to customers sterile to prevent them interbreeding.

The explanation of the genetic modification on the company's publicity literature, aimed at reassuring the public, makes no mention of the ocean pout gene. "The chinook growth hormone is the same as the Atlantic salmon growth hormone; it is simply regulated differently. Their ability to grow faster does not change the biological make-up of the fish," the company says.

That appears to contradict the explanation of the technology from AquaBounty's chief scientific officer, Dr John Buchanan, who said the fish do incorporate DNA from the ocean pout. But he said there was no intention to mislead. "I don't think it is intentionally hidden. It has been disclosed many times and published in papers," he said, adding that the description on the website had been simplified to make it less confusing.

Because it is new ground for the FDA there are no regulations about genetically engineered animals and so it is being evaluated as if it were an animal treated with drugs.

The FDA has established an advisory committee of veterinarians to consider the evidence and public views. A public meeting will be held next month.

Among the opponents is the International Salmon Farmers Association which is concerned about the reaction of consumers and that it will undermine the popularity of salmon, which commands high prices in the US.

However, the National Fisheries Institute, a trade association of American seafood producers, backs "the use of biotechnology in the production of genetically-engineered fish" provided it has FDA approval.

If the FDA approves the fish for human consumption, AquaBounty says they will be raised in inland waters to ensure the modified salmon do not enter the oceans.

Source : Chris McGreal, The Guardian, 25 August 2010

DNA from transgenic plants found in milk and animal tissue

Administrateur — 2010-08-27T15:01:43Z

Munich - A recent Testbiotech survey shows that DNA fragments from transgenic plants are increasingly found in animal tissue such as milk, inner organs and muscles.

Munich - A recent Testbiotech survey shows that DNA fragments from transgenic plants are increasingly found in animal tissue such as milk, inner organs and muscles. Most recently, in April 2010, scientists from Italy reported DNA sequences stemming from genetically engineered soy in milk from goats. These DNA fragments are presumably, entering the blood stream from the gut and then from there reaching the udder and the milk. Traces of specific DNA were also identified in kids fed with the goat's milk. These findings are not the first to be reported after DNA fragments have been found in the tissue of animals fed with transgenic plants. A few years ago, DNA from genetically engineered maize was found in samples from pigs. More recently, research found traces from transgenic plants in the organs of fish, namely rainbow trout and tilapia. In fish, the gene sequences were found in nearly all inner organs.

"Recent publications could lend support to those stakeholders in favour of labelling products such as meat, milk and eggs derived from animals fed with genetically engineered plants. If the methods for sampling DNA get even better, those traces will be found more often in future," says Christoph Then from Testbiotech. "So far detection is not possible in each and every case. Most frequently these traces seem to occur in fish."

In the past, several experts and also the European Food Safety Authority EFSA were of the opinion that specific DNA fragments related to transgenic material, could not be detected in animals. For years now it has been known that in general, DNA from plants is not completely degraded in the gut, and can be found in inner organs, the blood stream and even in the offspring of mice.

In Testbiotech's opinion, mandatory labelling of those products is important for consumers interested in more transparency about how genetically engineered plants are used. Millions of tons of genetically engineered soy are fed to animals such as pigs, poultry and cattle in Europe. Most experts think that products derived from those animals are not likely to pose a health risk. There is however, a need for further research since for unknown reasons some enzyme activity in kids fed with goat's milk containing specific DNA was found to be enhanced.

Some recent literature:

Goats
Tudisco R, Infascelli F, Cutrignelli MI, Bovera F, Morcia C, Faccioli P, Terzi V. (2006b) Fate of feed plant DNA monitored in water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) and rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus). Livestock Science 105: 12–18.

Fish
Chainark, P. (2008) Availability of genetically modified feed ingredient II: investigations of ingested foreign DNA in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss. Fisheries Science, 74(2): 380390(11)

Ran,T, Mei, L., Lei, W., Aihua, L., Ru, H., Jie, S (2009) Detection of transgenic DNA in tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus, GIFT strain) fed genetically modified soybeans (Roundup Ready). Aquaculture Research, Volume 40 (12): 13501357

Pigs
Mazza, R., Soave1,M., Morlacchini M., Piva, G., Marocco, A. (2005) Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues, Transgenic Res. 14: 775784

Sharma R., Damgaard D., Alexander T.W., Dugan M.E.R., Aalhus J.L., Stanford K., McAllister T.A. (2006) Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in tissues of sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready canola meal. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 54: 1699–1709.

Former research in mice (tracing plant DNA in mice and their offspring): Schubbert R., Hohlweg U., Renz D., Doerfler W. (1998) On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus, Molecular Genetics and Genomics 259: 569576.

EFSA's opinion:
EFSA (2007) Statement on the fate of recombinant DNA or proteins in the meat, milk or eggs of animals fed with GM feed, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/scdocs/scdoc/744.htm

Source : TestBiotech, 19 August 2010