Home

Non-GM farming outcompetes GM - Q&A with study authors

notsowisewoman@yahoo.com (Annie) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:59:05 +0000

NOTE: A new study shows that GM farming as practiced in the US is being left behind by the mostly non-GM farming practiced in Europe. GMOs are lowering yields and increasing pesticide use in North American farming compared to mostly non-GM Western European farming.

The authors of the paper -- Jack A. Heinemann, Melanie Massaro, Dorien Coray, Sarah Agapito, and Dale Wen -- kindly agreed to answer GMWatch’s questions (see below).

EXCERPT: Since the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops in the US (e.g., maize and soybeans), herbicide use per arable hectare has marginally increased to 108% of pre-GM levels. Over this time, France, Germany and Switzerland reduced herbicide use to about 85-94% of mid-1990s levels. The non-GM biotechnologies in use in Western Europe are decreasing chemical herbicide use...

Since the adoption of insecticidal crops in the US, the use of additional chemical insecticides has fallen by only 15% compared to pre-GM levels, while by 2009 in France total insecticide use had fallen to 12%. Similar trends were seen in Germany and Switzerland. The biotechnologies in use in Western Europe show significantly greater reductions in chemical insecticide use.

Press release about the study:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14926

Download full paper, “Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest”, for free:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#.UcDJUxYlwd2
---
---
GMWatch Q&A with the authors of the study, "Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest”
18 June 2013

GMW: What is the paper about?

Authors: The central question addressed was: To what degree is the US (and the North American in general) agro-eco-system meeting the dual demands of production and sustainability? To answer the question, we compare the effects of agriculture biotechnology[1,2] innovation as applied to selected crops grown at significant scales in both the North American and Western European agroecosystems for the last 50 years. The outcome of the different innovation policies for producing high yield/low input and sustainable products is measured by the metrics: yield, pesticide use, and germplasm diversity.

Data mainly come from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAOSTAT), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Monitoring Agricultural Resources Unit (MARs) of the European Union, but also from the Monsanto company.

GMW: Why North America and Western Europe?

Authors: The North American (US and Canada) and Western European (defined by FAOSTAT as Austria, Belgium-Luxembourg, France, Germany, Netherlands and Switzerland) agroecosystems are both modern and industrial and have equal access to their choice of science, technology, and a sophisticated labor force. They both receive significant public subsidies, reside in the same hemisphere, and range over approximately the same latitudes. In addition, they have in common significant interest in the growing, use, and export of rapeseed (Canada and Western Europe), maize and wheat (US and Western Europe). Therefore, these two agroecosystems make among the best possible matches over a range of relevant parameters. However, they differ in the adoption of GM crops and the management practices associated with GM crops. Rapeseed and maize (as well as soybeans and cotton) are effectively only GM in North America and effectively only conventional in Western Europe, and wheat is non-GM in both regions.

GMW: What were your findings?

Authors:

1. Yield (Figure 1 of paper)

A. Over the 50 year period, annual maize yields increased significantly in both the US and Western Europe, however the rate of increase varied between the two agroecosystems. While average pre-1985 yields were lower in Western Europe than the US, since then yields in Western Europe have equaled or exceeded US yields. The annual yield increases are significantly greater in Western Europe than the US, and appear to be growing larger. This demonstrates that yield increases over time are not dependent on GM, and that the package of biotechnologies[1] chosen by Western Europe to grow maize is out-producing the GM-led package chosen by the US [1,2].

B. While Western European yields of rapeseed have always been larger than Canada’s, since Canada adopted GM rapeseed the gap has only increased (Table 1 of paper). This demonstrates that yield increases over time are not dependent on GM, and that the package of biotechnologies chosen by Western Europe to grow rapeseed is out-producing the GM-led package chosen by Canada.

C. Western European yields of wheat have always been larger than the US’s, but the rate of increase in yields is larger for Western Europe (Figure 2 of paper). US yields are demonstrating stagnation while Western European yields continue to increase. This demonstrates that the biotechnologies used in Western Europe benefit all crop types while the biotechnologies chosen by the US are penalizing all crop types, GM and conventional.

The agricultural system (innovation and biotechnology choices) of Western Europe shows more promise of meeting future food needs than does the US system.

2. Pesticides (Figure 3 of paper)

A. The dominant trait in GM crops is herbicide tolerance. Since the adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops in the US (e.g., maize and soybeans), herbicide use per arable hectare has marginally increased to 108% of pre-GM levels. Over this time, France, Germany, and Switzerland reduced herbicide use to about 85-94% of mid-1990s levels. The non-GM biotechnologies in use in Western Europe are decreasing chemical herbicide use.

B. The second most common GM crop trait is one that produces an insecticide within the plant. Since the adoption of insecticidal crops in the US, the use of additional chemical insecticides has fallen by only 15% compared to pre-GM levels, while by 2009 in France total insecticide use had fallen to 12%. Similar trends were seen in Germany and Switzerland. The biotechnologies in use in Western Europe show significantly greater reductions in chemical insecticide use.

The agricultural system of Western Europe appears to be reducing chemical inputs and thus is becoming more sustainable than the US, without sacrificing yield gains.

3. Germplasm diversity (Table 2 of paper)

We re-analysed data produced by Monsanto for the US Attorney General and found differentially large reductions in non-GM seed options for US maize, soybean and cotton farmers. While there is no consensus that germplasm diversity is too low, there is evidence that the concentration of the seed market is not arresting further declines in the germplasm diversity of either GM (maize, cotton, soybeans) or conventional (wheat) crops. Meanwhile, the USDA reported that seed prices – particularly GM crops - are the fastest growing expense for farmers, rising 140% since 1994 while in aggregate all other inputs have risen in cost by 80%.

The trends in germplasm parallel events prior to the 1970 Southern Corn Leaf Blight epidemic in the US which the US National Academies of Science concluded was a product of “powerful economic and legislative forces”, i.e., the outcome of innovation polices. These policies produced incentives for breeders to maximize control of the germplasm by narrowing genetic diversity in the seed supply.

The US agricultural system continues to decline in agricultural biodiversity of staple crop germplasm and in options for non-GM and GM farmers. (A similar trend was not detected in selected European countries.[3])

GMW: What were your conclusions?

Authors: Claims for benefits of GM crops are systematically evaluated and discredited using the most objective government sources of data.

*GM cropping systems have not contributed to yield gains, and appear to be eroding yields compared to the equally modern agroecosystem of Western Europe. This may be due in part to technology choices beyond GM plants themselves, because even non-GM wheat yield improvements in the US are poor in comparison to Europe.

*Meanwhile, both herbicide and insecticide use trends are increasing in the US relative to achievements in Western Europe.

*The innovation policies that make GM attractive to US seed producers are failing to increase, and may be causing a decrease, in germplasm diversity while increasing costs for farmers.

GMW: What should be done?

Authors: We make a few suggestions as part of a larger strategy to begin developing a high-yield, lower-input and sustainable agriculture in North America.

*Immediately introduce monitoring of on-farm germplasm and management diversity and institute landscape level programs to increase diversity at biologically relevant scales.

*Review prevailing intellectual property rights instruments that are core to innovation policies and revise, or invent, instruments that reward agroecosystem sustainability and resilience.

*In the short-term, re-direct government subsidies to promote sustainable agriculture. In the long-term, eliminate market distorting government subsidy programs for staple crops in the US.

GMW: But surely, the North American and Western European agroecosystems are too different to compare?

Authors: There will always be differences when comparing countries and regions. Nevertheless, the number of differences has been minimized in this comparison and it is arguably the best possible comparison that could be made for the type of crops, access to modern science and technology, history of production and geography of the comparators.

GMW: But Canada and the US are rain-fed agroecosystems and Europe relies on irrigation.

Authors: While this may be true in some places, it would still only reflect the difference in Europe’s priority in investment in water storage and delivery technologies instead of GM seed or other less effective technologies. The combination of management and germplasm used in Western Europe is superior to that chosen by Canada and the US.

GMW: Won’t critics of your paper say that the problems you identify in North America are not specific to GM?

Authors: In some cases, this is true. For example, germplasm reduction is not limited to GM crops. However, GM crops are compatible with dominating agricultural biotechnologies and innovation incentives that the US is using. In contrast, the combination of management and germplasm used in Western Europe are yield-enhancing and lowering inputs under policies that do not reward GM crops.

GMW: Critics might also say that pesticide use figures are due to decreasing agricultural areas in Europe and increasing area in the US.

Authors: We normalized pesticide use to production area, so the figures reflect actual use per arable hectare.

GMW: Won’t critics say you are just anti-GM activists/campaigners and that the journal is obscure?

Authors: The International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability is a Taylor and Francis journal ranked in the top 12% of agricultural journals by impact factor.

The authors are academics and researchers in good standing at recognised world-class public universities and other institutions. Collectively this team has an extensive and credible publication record in the peer-reviewed literature.

Dr. Jack A. Heinemann is professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics in the School of Biological Sciences, and Director of the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Dr. Melanie Massaro is at the School of Environmental Sciences, Charles Sturt University in Australia.
Dorien Coray has a masters degree in Cell and Molecular Biology from the University of Canterbury and is currently a PhD student there.

Sarah Z. Agapito-Tenfen has a masters degree in Plant Genetic Resources from the Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina in Brazil and is currently a PhD student there.

Dr. Jiajun Dale Wen is a researcher and consultant for Third World Network.

Notes

1. Agricultural biotechnologies from the Convention on Biodiversity (Biotechnology): “The term 'biotechnology' refers to any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for a specific use. Biotechnology, in the form of traditional fermentation techniques, has been used for decades to make bread, cheese or beer. It has also been the basis of traditional animal and plant breeding techniques, such as hybridization and the selection of plants and animals with specific characteristics to create, for example, crops which produce higher yields of grain…”

2. And the Cartagena Protocol (Modern Biotechnology) “‘Modern biotechnology’ means the application of:
a. In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or
b. Fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family,
that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection”.

3. See Hilbeck, A., Lebrecht, T., Vogel, R., Heinemann, J.A. and Binimelis, R. Farmer’s choice of seeds in four EU countries under different levels of GM crop adoption. Environmental Sciences Europe 2013, 25:12.

Paper is open access: http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/tags20/current

Secret composition of pesticides is a scientific shame

notsowisewoman@yahoo.com (Annie) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:10:08 +0000

EXCERPTS:

“Given that pesticides have long-term effects on human beings, why not evaluate those long term effects? Before us, nobody carried out this type of research,” said Gilles-Eric Séralini.
...
“In 2013, we found the toxic chemicals which are present in Roundup; these are also present in many other pesticides: for example, POE-15. These are classified as inert products by the manufacturer, and as a result no agency has requested long-term testing of the products.”
...
“The effects of these pesticides have been underestimated,” Séralini said. He added, “The largest sellers of pesticides are also the largest sellers of drugs.” He said one can find Monsanto products in almost all pharmacies and 90% of patents are in the hands of the agricultural giant, whose main activity is selling these patents.
...
Criticism [of Seralini's study came] from four Brazilian pro-GM scientists, two of whom are members of the National Technical Commission of Biosafety (NTCBio) in a report from October 2012. This report was published as “the vision of NTCBio” as a whole, in combination with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Brazil. But it is now clear that no such consensus exists in NTCBio.

In March 2013, it was discovered that 15 members and ex-members of NTCBio had produced a detailed counter-report discrediting the arguments of the aforementioned four scientists, and supporting the validity of Séralini’s findings. This was stated in a letter to Flavio Finardi, NTCBio President, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Among many other denials, the Commission members clarified: “As we understand it, this document, prepared by four scientists, two of whom are members of the NTCBio, cannot be considered as the Commission’s position, since it was not evaluated by a plenary session. Even if it had been, the doctors’ opinions do not represent the consensus view of this Commission.”
---
---
The secret composition of pesticides is a scientific shame
Dr. Graciela Gomez
Argentine Association for Environmental Journalists (AAEJ) – Medio&medio, May 27, 2013
Translated into English from original Spanish article by New Europe Translations
http://gmoseralini.org/the-secret-composition-of-pesticides-is-a-scientific-shame/

The fact that two French scientists, respected the world over for their studies on the effects of the herbicide Roundup, are giving a speech together in the Roc’h Tredudon restaurant in Plouneour-Menez is no small thing. For the local media, the press conference was billed as “an impact study,” or “an explosive and exceptional event.” Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini and Dr. Robert Belle are leading lights in the field, setting the world on fire with their work on pesticides. Robert Belle, as a scientist of the Biological Station in Roscoff, recalled how he has been working and exchanging information with Séralini since 2001. “At that time I was exploring the potential toxicity of Roundup. Naturally, I have keenly followed the controversy surrounding the results of his work, on the effects of GM crops, NK 603 maize and pesticides on rats.”

Belle supports the Séralini study. According to him, “The research agencies and the media rounded on him and tried to discredit his work. Séralini is the only scientist to carry out long-term testing, examining the effects on health after existing on a diet of a Roundup-resistant GM crop; compared with a diet based on crops not treated with Roundup. He is also the only scientist who has taken 46 different parameters into account, including the development of cancerous tumors. The scientific community, so far, has not validated any of the methods or estimated results on the effects on the rats, claiming that the results are insignificant. I respect that. But one thing is true: if Gilles-Eric Séralini is right, we’ve got a problem.”

Belle was eager to reiterate that, “All GMOs are not necessarily harmful. The issue is that if the damage they produce had already been demonstrated scientifically, then the French government would be shown in a rather unflattering light. They have to justify the authorisations that have been given to date, for example, on the purchase of soybeans, canola or GM maize seeds from abroad.” Le Telegramme, a Breton journal, published a note to both scientists. The note asked of Belle: “And what of the collusion allegations filed against Gilles-Eric Séralini?”

“They are baseless and are part of the whole conspiracy,” replied Belle.

In another juicy interview, published on May 22 in Bretagne Durable, the interviewer Estelle Caudal said that the study undertaken by Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team of researchers in molecular biology was carried out between 2008 and 2011, and began with a banal observation.

“Given that pesticides have long-term effects on human beings, why not evaluate those long term effects? Before us, nobody carried out this type of research,” said Gilles-Eric Séralini, at a conference in Plouneour-Menez.

“This starts with the premise that an active ingredient – which can cause side-effects deep within our cells – causes direct changes to our genes, and also, at a level above genetics: epigenetics. It is the cumulative effect of chemicals on our genes.”

According to the researcher, the genes work best when they’re “naked”. If they are covered up, i.e. enveloped in pesticides, this will have a negative impact on how they function – causing chronic diseases. Regarding the issue of lack of evidence, he stated, “It is like measuring the impact of tap water on the body of a person who drank alcohol for his entire life.” The results are alarming: after two years of experiments, only 90 out of 200 rats survived.

“In 2013, we found the toxic chemicals which are present in Roundup; these are also present in many other pesticides: for example, POE-15. These are classified as inert products by the manufacturer, and as a result no agency has requested long-term testing of the products.” The [industry] tests performed in France were carried out on only 6 rats over a three-week period, followed by tests for irritation, redness, and effect on the eyes. For the industry, only the instructions on the label need to be adhered to: “Avoid contact with the eyes or skin”. However, no tests on the long-term effects of this product have been carried out.” He added, “It is difficult to gain access to the studies because the Monsanto group claims they are its intellectual property.”

… “The effects of these pesticides have been underestimated,” Séralini said. He added, “The largest sellers of pesticides are also the largest sellers of drugs.” He said one can find Monsanto products in almost all pharmacies and 90% of patents are in the hands of the agricultural giant, whose main activity is selling these patents.

Gilles-Eric Séralini’s study on the impact of pesticides has been widely criticized in the scientific world. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has said, “It is not possible to draw valid conclusions about the development of tumors in the rats tested.” The French National Food Safety Agency ANSES also refuted the study conducted by the professor, citing “weaknesses” in the work, but called for an investigation into the long-term consumption of GMOs when fed in combination with pesticides to be conducted. Accustomed to his research eliciting tantrums from the multinationals, on 12 November Séralini responded to them in the journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, by publishing: “Answer to critics: Why is there long-term toxicity associated with consumption of glyphosate or Round-Up tolerant NK603 GM maize?”

In their response, the scientists claimed, “Some critics have emphasized the fact that there are no reports on the side-effects suffered by farm animals or humans in the US who have consumed foods derived from GMO crops. Such statements are scientifically erroneous for the following reasons:

- Firstly, it is important to bear in mind that there have been no epidemiological studies of the human population, nor a follow-up to studies on farm animals, to try to correlate any effect on health observed in relation to the consumption of a genetically modified crop.

- Secondly, we must remember that farm animals are not bred to live for the entire duration of their natural life cycle; therefore, they often do not live long enough to develop long-term chronic diseases, which is in contrast with the rats in our experiment.

- Thirdly, since there is no GMO labeling in the U.S., the actual amount consumed is unknown, and there is no control group. Therefore, without clear traceability or labeling, no epidemiological survey can be done.

When one evaluates the regulation of GMOs, chemical products and drugs, the tests are performed by the companies themselves, often in their own laboratories. As a result, conflicts of interest arise. “Our study does not seek to market a new product. On the contrary, we wanted to calculate the risk these products pose to health. This is the most detailed test that has been conducted so far, and it is independent of biotechnology companies and pesticides. We encourage others to replicate similar long-term experiments, with greater statistical power,” said Séralini.

This response also answered criticism from four Brazilian pro-GM scientists, two of whom are members of the National Technical Commission of Biosafety (NTCBio) in a report from October 2012. This report was published as “the vision of NTCBio” as a whole, in combination with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Brazil. But it is now clear that no such consensus exists in NTCBio.

In March 2013, it was discovered that 15 members and ex-members of NTCBio had produced a detailed counter-report discrediting the arguments of the aforementioned four scientists, and supporting the validity of Séralini’s findings. This was stated in a letter to Flavio Finardi, NTCBio President, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Among many other denials, the Commission members clarified: “As we understand it, this document, prepared by four scientists, two of whom are members of the NTCBio, cannot be considered as the Commission’s position, since it was not evaluated by a plenary session. Even if it had been, the doctors’ opinions do not represent the consensus view of this Commission.”

For its part, in a letter dated October 19, 2012, the French National Food Safety Agency (ANSES) makes reference to the Séralini study after concluding there is a need to “carry out studies in order to trace the potential health effects associated with long-term consumption of GMOs or exposure to the phytosanitary [pesticide] formulations.” It also recommends that “these studies should be particularly focused on exposure to GMOs and the associated plant protection formulations” and that “these studies should be publicly funded and be based on a detailed experimental protocol that will enable a response to the questions raised.”

Eighty percent of transgenic products are developed to withstand the pesticides; the remaining 20% are engineered to produce an insecticide. The combined effect of these contaminants in human cells is what Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team worked on, studying placental and umbilical cord cells, in cell lines and human embryos.

Meanwhile, we are awaiting the publication of the book, Tous Cobayes! in Spanish in October of next year, by the Barcelona-based publisher Need Ediciones, the presentation of which to the general public promises to be another explosive event for which Dr. Séralini will be in Spain for four days – much to the delight of my friends and groups [who were present] last April.

Bono can't help Africans by stealing their voice

notsowisewoman@yahoo.com (Annie) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:40:02 +0000

Elevation: Who do Bono and the ONE campaign really represent: the very poor or the very rich?
George Monbiot
Monbiot.com, June 17 2013 published in the Guardian June 18 2013
http://www.monbiot.com/2013/06/17/elevation/

It was bad enough in 2005. Then, at the G8 summit in Scotland, Bono and Bob Geldof heaped praise on Tony Blair and George Bush, who were still mired in the butchery they had initiated in Iraq[1,2,3]. At one point Geldof appeared, literally and figuratively, to be sitting in Tony Blair’s lap. African activists accused them of drowning out a campaign for global justice with a campaign for charity.

But this is worse. As the UK chairs the G8 summit again, a campaign that Bono founded, with which Geldof works closely[4], appears to be whitewashing the G8’s policies in Africa.

Last week I drew attention to the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, launched in the US when it chaired the G8 meeting last year[5]. The alliance is pushing African countries into agreements which allow foreign companies to grab their land, patent their seeds and monopolise their food markets. Ignoring the voices of their own people, six African governments have struck deals with companies such as Monsanto, Cargill, Dupont, Syngenta, Nestlé, and Unilever, in return for promises of aid by the UK and other G8 nations.

A wide range of activists, both African and European, is furious about the New Alliance[6]. But the ONE campaign, co-founded by Bono, stepped up to defend it[7]. The article it wrote last week was remarkable in several respects: in its elision of the interests of African leaders and those of their people, in its exaggeration of the role of small African companies, but above all in failing even to mention the injustice at the heart of the New Alliance – its promotion of a new wave of land grabbing. My curiosity was piqued.

The first thing I discovered is that Bono has also praised the New Alliance, in a speech just before last year’s G8 summit in the US[8]. The second thing I discovered is that much of the ONE campaign’s primary funding was provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation[9], two of whose executives sit on its board[10]. The Foundation has been working with the biotech company Monsanto and the grain trading giant Cargill, and has a large Monsanto shareholding[11]. Bill Gates has responded to concerns raised by land grabbing in Africa by claiming, in the face of devastating evidence and massive resistance from African farmers, that “many of those land deals are beneficial, and it would be too bad if some were held back because of Western groups’ ways of looking at things.”[12] (Africans, you will note, keep getting written out of this story).

The third thing I discovered is that there’s a long history here. In his brilliant and blistering book "The Frontman: Bono (in the Name of Power)", just released in the UK, the Irish scholar Harry Browne maintains that “for nearly three decades as a public figure, Bono has been … amplifying elite discourses, advocating ineffective solutions, patronising the poor and kissing the arses of the rich and powerful.”[13] His approach to Africa is “a slick mix of traditional missionary and commercial colonialism, in which the poor world exists as a task for the rich world to complete.”

Bono, Browne charges, has becoming “the caring face of global technocracy”, who, without any kind of mandate, has assumed the role of spokesperson for Africa, then used that role to provide “humanitarian cover” for western leaders. His positioning of the West as the saviour of Africa while failing to discuss the harm the G8 nations are doing has undermined campaigns for justice and accountability, while lending legitimacy to the neoliberal project.

Bono claims to be “representing the poorest and most vulnerable people”[14]. But talking to a wide range of activists from both the poor and rich worlds since ONE published its article last week, I have heard the same complaint again and again: that Bono and others like him have seized the political space which might otherwise have been occupied by the Africans about whom they are talking. Because Bono is seen by world leaders as the representative of the poor, the poor are not invited to speak. This works very well for everyone – except them.

The ONE campaign looks to me like the sort of organisation that John le Carré or Robert Harris might have invented. It claims to work on behalf of the extremely poor. But its board is largely composed of multimillionaires, corporate aristocrats, and US enforcers[15]. Here you will find Condoleezza Rice, George W Bush’s National Security Adviser and Secretary of State, who aggressively promoted the Iraq war, instructed the CIA that it was authorised to use torture techniques[16] and browbeat lesser nations into supporting a wide range of US aims.

Here too is Larry Summers, who was chief economist at the World Bank during the darkest days of structural adjustment and who, as US Treasury Secretary, helped to deregulate Wall Street, with such happy consequences for the rest of us. Here’s Howard Buffett, who has served on the boards of the global grain giant Archer Daniels Midland as well as Coca-Cola and the food corporations ConAgra and Agro Tech[17]. Though the main focus of ONE is Africa, there are only two African members. One is a mobile phone baron, the other is the finance minister of Nigeria, who was formerly managing director of the World Bank. What better representatives of the extremely poor could there be?

If, as ONE does, an organisation keeps telling you that it’s a “grassroots campaign”[18], it’s a fair bet that it is nothing of the kind. This collaboration of multimillionaires and technocrats looks to me more like a projection of US and corporate power.

I found the sight of Bono last week calling for “more progress on transparency” equally revolting[19]. As Harry Browne reminds us, U2’s complex web of companies, the financial arrangements of Bono’s Product RED campaign and his investments through the private equity company he co-founded are all famously opaque. And it’s not an overwhelming shock to discover that tax justice is absent from the global issues identified by ONE.

There is a well-known if dubious story which claims that at a concert in Glasgow Bono began a slow hand-clap. He is supposed to have announced: “every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies”. Whereupon someone in the audience shouted “well fucking stop doing it then.” It’s good advice, and I wish he’d take it.

www.monbiot.com

References:

1. http://www.monbiot.com/2005/06/21/bards-of-the-powerful/

2. http://www.monbiot.com/2005/07/09/africas-new-best-friends/

3. http://www.monbiot.com/2005/09/06/the-man-who-betrayed-the-poor/

4. http://www.one.org/c/international/faq/1613/

5. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/african-hunger-help-g8-grab

6. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/jun/12/new-alliance-imperialism-monbiot-know-better

7. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2013/jun/12/new-alliance-imperialism-monbiot-know-better

8. http://www.one.org/international/blog/bono-addresses-global-leaders-on-hunger-agriculture-and-transparency-at-pre-g8-symposium/

9. Eg Harry Browne, 2013. The Frontman: Bono (in the Name of Power). Verso, London.

10. http://www.one.org/c/international/about/3575/

11. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2010/sep/29/gates-foundation-gm-monsanto

12. http://allafrica.com/stories/201102091101.html?viewall=1

13. Harry Browne, 2013. The Frontman: Bono (in the Name of Power). Verso, London.

14. http://www.jannswenner.com/archives/Bono.aspx

15. http://www.one.org/c/international/about/3575/

16. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/23/condoleezza-rice-cia-waterboarding

17. http://www.one.org/c/international/about/3575/

18. http://www.one.org/c/international/about/3833/

19. http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2013/jun/12/european-union-laws-extractive-industries-payments

GM a failing technology in modern agro-ecosystems - study

claire@gmwatch.org (Claire) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 21:07:29 +0000

1. GM a failing biotechnology in modern agro-ecosystems
2. Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest - the paper

NOTE: A groundbreaking paper, “Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest”, by J.A. Heinemann, M. Massaro, D.S. Coray, S.Z. Agapito-Tenfen and J.D. Wen has been published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. The paper challenges high profile claims about the benefits of GM crops.

The paper exposes false claims by UK environment secretary Owen Paterson that the UK and Europe will be "left behind" if we don't embrace GM crops. Mr Paterson, we don't want to hear from you again on GM until you've read this paper.

Third World Network has generously provided the funding to make the paper open access. Thus it is freely available for downloading from the journal’s website.
---
---
1. GM a failing biotechnology in modern agro-ecosystems
University of Canterbury press release, 18 Jun 2013

University of Canterbury (UC) researchers have found that the biotechnologies used in north American staple crop production are lowering yields and increasing pesticide use compared to western Europe.

A conspicuous difference in choices is the adoption of genetically modified/engineered (GM) seed in North America, and the use of non-GM seed in Europe.

The team led by UC Professor Jack Heinemann analysed data on agricultural productivity in north America and western Europe over the last 50 years.

Western Europe and north America make good comparisons because these regions are highly similar in types of crops they grow, latitude, and have access to biotechnology, mechanisation and educated farmers.

The findings have been published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability.

"We found that the combination of non-GM seed and management practices used by western Europe is increasing corn yields faster than the use of the GM-led package chosen by the US.

"Our research showed rapeseed (canola) yields increasing faster in Europe without GM than in the GM-led package chosen by Canada and decreasing chemical herbicide and even larger declines in insecticide use without sacrificing yield gains, while chemical herbicide use in the US has increased with GM seed.

"Europe has learned to grow more food per hectare and use fewer chemicals in the process. The American choices in biotechnology are causing it to fall behind Europe in productivity and sustainability.

"The question we are asking is should New Zealand follow the US and adopt GM-led biotechnology or follow the high performance agriculture demonstrated by Europe?

"We found that US yield in non-GM wheat is also falling further behind Europe, demonstrating that American choices in biotechnology penalise both GM and non-GM crop types relative to Europe.

"Agriculture responds to commercial and legislative incentive systems. These take the form of subsidies, intellectual property rights instruments, tax incentives, trade promotions and regulation. The incentive systems in North America are leading to a reliance on GM seeds and management practices that are inferior to those being adopted under the incentive systems in Europe.

"The decrease in annual variation in yield suggests that Europe has a superior combination of seed and crop management technology and is better suited to withstand weather variations. This is important because annual variations cause price speculations that can drive hundreds of millions of people into food poverty.

"We need more than agriculture; we need agricultures – a diversity of practices for growing and making food that GM does not support; we need systems that are useful, not just profit-making biotechnologies – we need systems that provide a resilient supply to feed the world well,” Professor Heinemann says.

For further information contact Professor Jack Heinemann, School of Biological Sciences (jack.heinemann@canterbury.ac.nz), on or UC media consultant Kip Brook on 0275 030168
---
---
2. Sustainability and innovation in staple crop production in the US Midwest
Jack A. Heinemann, Melanie Massaro, Dorien S. Coray, Sarah Zanon Agapito-Tenfen & Jiajun Dale Wen
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
Published online: 14 Jun 2013
Full text available free from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408#.UcDJUxYlwd2

Abstract
An agroecosystem is constrained by environmental possibility and social choices, mainly in the form of government policies. To be sustainable, an agroecosystem requires production systems that are resilient to natural stressors such as disease, pests, drought, wind and salinity, and to human constructed stressors such as economic cycles and trade barriers. The world is becoming increasingly reliant on concentrated exporting agroecosystems for staple crops, and vulnerable to national and local decisions that affect resilience of these production systems. We chronicle the history of the United States staple crop agroecosystem of the Midwest region to determine whether sustainability is part of its design, or could be a likely outcome of existing policies particularly on innovation and intellectual property. Relative to other food secure and exporting countries (e.g. Western Europe), the US agroecosystem is not exceptional in yields or conservative on environmental impact. This has not been a trade-off for sustainability, as annual fluctuations in maize yield alone dwarf the loss of caloric energy from extreme historic blights. We suggest strategies for innovation that are responsive to more stakeholders and build resilience into industrialized staple crop production.

WTO policy on GMO food fuels fears in Russia

notsowisewoman@yahoo.com (Annie) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:52:13 +0000

NOTE: The article below reports growing concern about GMOs among the Russian public and some scientists since Russia joined the World Trade Organization (WTO).

That's understandable.

But there's also some crazy stuff from a pro-GM scientist, who inexplicably seems to believe GMOs can produce more intelligent people and save babies whose mothers suffered from starvation during pregnancy. He also believes we face a stark choice: between GMOs or cannibalism (don't ask).

His extraordinary statement, “GMO is our saviour", is revealing of the mindset of many GM proponents, even if not all of them are quite as straightforward in the way they express it.
---
--
WTO policy on GMO food fuels fears in Russia
Marina Obrazkova
Russia Beyond the Headlines, June 5, 2013
http://rbth.ru/society/2013/06/05/wto_policy_on_gmo_food_fuels_fears_in_russia_26753.html

Protests against genetically modified food grow in Russia after WTO ascension. Yet some scientists insist there are no large health risks.

Russia is gradually starting to fulfil its obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). One of these obligations is a more lenient attitude towards products that contain genetically modified organisms (GMO).

In line with WTO regulations, it will soon be possible to import GMO seeds into the country. This will enable producers to sell and label the resulting genetically modified products as any other product – that is, marking the food as containing genetically modified organisms will be made optional. Environmentalists are in an uproar, repeatedly taking to the streets with anti-GMO rallies in late May to get their voices heard.

The "Russia without GMO" movement is gaining momentum, with organisers collecting signatures from Russian citizens in support of their proposal to make the country a GMO-free zone.

“People should be allowed to choose what products they can buy. We believe it is necessary to label products that contain GMO accordingly,” says Yelena Sharoikina, director of the National Association for Genetic Safety (NAGS).

“About 50 people turned up for our rally. The Moscow authorities only gave permission for us to picket and not march, as we had initially planned. But several million people in more than 400 cities and 58 countries around the world took to the streets that day in protest,” she added.

Environmentalists are now planning to take the campaign a step further by collecting one million signatures before approaching President Vladimir Putin with the request to keep GMO out of Russia and continue labelling genetically modified products as such.

“We want to take every possible precaution. The experiments on hamsters, for example, are particularly troubling. Animals that have been fed with genetically modified foods stop reproducing after the second generation. Of course, you can’t directly apply these results to humans, but it’s definitely food for thought,” explains Sharoikina.

There are currently over 150 GMO-free territories in the world, including Switzerland, Serbia and Bulgaria. Sharoikina is confident that the government will not be able ignore the opinion of millions of Russians.

The main problem, however, lies in the fact that environmentalists cannot prove unequivocally the dangers of GMO. They can only talk about their possible but unverified effects, since experiments have thus far only been conducted on rats, mice, and hamsters.

Despite the fact that the results of these experiments cannot be fully applied to humans, they still evoke a sense of fear. However, as the Ministry of Agriculture’s Public Council representative and head of Russian Farms Group Andrei Danilenko said, the average Russian consumers are often uninformed on the matter.

What is more, they often buy products without reading the label.

People look at the "best before" date more than they look at the ingredients.

The results of a quick pool among we ran among a few regular Russian consumers seems to confirm a growing yet not overarching concern in relation to GMO. Yelena, for example, believes that if a product has made it to the shelf of a shop, then it has passed all the necessary checks and you can buy it with confidence. Yevgeny and Olga, on the other hand, read the labels and steer well clear of anything containing the letters GMO.

“Who knows what it’s made from? It’s particularly difficult to find real milk – how is it that milk can last for eight months without going off?” says Olga. “I’m very picky when it comes to buying food.” Yevgeny also avoids GMO foods, although he usually looks at the label to check the "best before" date.

Well-known Russian author Leonid Kaganov, on the contrary, says he is keen to try the new generation of food products, primarily because they break down completely in the stomach into the necessary nutrients – and the body does not distinguish between an orange that has been grown using the gene of a salmon and an orange that has been eaten after salmon.

Danilenko says that people are afraid of genetically modified products because there is still no conclusive evidence either way to prove that they are safe or dangerous. GMO cross breeding produces things that could never have emerged using natural methods.

“Businesses use GMO because it is extremely convenient. GMO cultures are resistant to pests and provide higher yields under the same conditions,” Danilenko says. “In the United States, Latin America and Ukraine, it is the norm. And no doubt there’s illegal GMO seeds in Russia as well.”

Danilenko is certain that once the GMO restrictions are lifted, nobody will be able to stop businesses from growing next generation plants.

But the expert notes that Russia and its territories are in a position to reject GMO and grow everything in the tried-and-tested way: “Russia has more than 20 percent of the world’s arable land – it’s not like we have a shortage of land.”

To do this, however, it is imperative that greater attention be paid to the development of homegrown agriculture. At the present time, the overwhelming majority of seeds in Russia are imported from overseas.

“In addition to developing agriculture at home, we need to establish a clear GMO checking system for food products. Right now, we’ve got pretty good ways for determining this,” Danilenko explained. “We are in a position where we can grow and consume products that are entirely free of genetically modified organisms.”

Meanwhile, scientists seem to much more positive about the potential and benefits of using GMO. Valery Glazko, who is in charge of Centre for Nanobiotechnology at the Russian State Agrarian University, says that thanks to GMO technology, we will finally be able to feed the world and a new generation of more intelligent people will appear.

“If a pregnant woman is not getting enough food, then her haemoglobin levels will drop. Her baby will be born and have every chance of living a full life, but he or she will not be able to make decisions. The baby will adapt, but its brain will not develop in the correct manner,” he says. “GMO is our saviour.”

Glazko explains that up to 5 percent of our organisms is made up of genetic defects, although this does not prevent us from going about our everyday lives. The herpes virus, for example, is hereditary and therefore embedded in one’s DNA. “Hunger is the flip side of terrorism. We are faced with a choice: cannibalism or GMO.”

Syngenta's dirty tricks campaign against its critics

notsowisewoman@yahoo.com (Annie) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 08:35:26 +0000

NOTE: A number of the third parties that Syngenta called on for support will be familiar from the GM debate.
---
---
Special Report: Syngenta's campaign to protect atrazine, discredit critics
Clare Howard
100Reporters and Environmental Health News, June 17 2013 [extracts only]
http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2013/atrazine

To protect profits threatened by a lawsuit over its controversial herbicide atrazine, Syngenta Crop Protection launched an aggressive multi-million dollar campaign that included hiring a detective agency to investigate scientists on a federal advisory panel, looking into the personal life of a judge and commissioning a psychological profile of a leading scientist critical of atrazine. The Switzerland-based pesticide manufacturer also routinely paid “third-party allies” to appear to be independent supporters, and kept a list of 130 people and groups it could recruit as experts without disclosing ties to the company. Recently unsealed court documents reveal a corporate strategy to discredit critics and to strip plaintiffs from the class-action case. The company specifically targeted one of atrazine’s fiercest and most outspoken critics, UC-Berkeley's Tyrone Hayes, whose research suggests that atrazine feminizes male frogs. The campaign is spelled out in hundreds of pages of memos, invoices and other documents from Illinois’ Madison County Circuit Court, that were initially sealed as part of a 2004 lawsuit filed by Holiday Shores Sanitary District. The new documents, along with an earlier tranche, open a window on the company’s strategy to defeat a lawsuit that could have effectively ended sales of atrazine in the United States.

...Discovery documents from the lawsuit were unsealed by the Madison County Circuit Court in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by 100Reporters, a nonprofit investigative journalism group.

The documents show that the company conducted research into the vulnerabilities of a judge, and Hayes’ personal life. Sherry Duvall Ford, Syngenta’s former head of communications, ranked strategies that Syngenta could use against Hayes in order of risk, according to her notes from Syngenta meetings in April 2005. One possibility: offering “to cut him in on unlimited research funds.” Another: Investigate his wife.

In her deposition, Ford read from a memo emailed to her colleagues indicating that Syngenta had hired a detective agency to investigate members of an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel [SAP] examining atrazine...

Third-Party Allies

The company also secretly paid a stable of seemingly independent academics and other “experts” to extol the economic benefits of atrazine and downplay its environmental and health risks, without disclosing their financial ties to the company, according to memos and emails between Syngenta and the public relations firms it hired. At the same time, the company provided strict parameters for what these experts would say.

Don Coursey, Ameritech Professor of Public Policy at the University of Chicago collected $500 an hour from Syngenta to write economic analyses touting the necessity of atrazine, according to an April 25, 2006, email from Coursey to Ford. Syngenta supplied Coursey with the data he was to cite, edited his work and paid him to speak with newspapers, television and radio broadcasters about his reports, without revealing the nature of his arrangement with the corporation, according to Ford’s deposition. Coursey’s work, presented in 2010 at the National Press Club, was widely picked up as independent analysis by newspapers across the country. Coursey also is affiliated with the Heartland Institute, a libertarian nonprofit focused on environmental regulations.

In one document dated 2005, Ford noted areas of vulnerabilities of a Madison County judge the corporation thought might be assigned to the case: “Not showing up for work. Personal conduct. Skybox from Tillery. Dating websites – pic in robes.”

Stephen Tillery, whose firm, Korein Tillery, represented plaintiffs in the suit, said his firm had never given the judge a skybox. “I was never with the judge in a skybox,” Tillery said, adding, “He was not the judge in the case. They thought he might be, and they were looking for ways to disqualify him.”

The allegation over the skybox was the basis of a formal complaint Syngenta filed against Tillery with the Illinois Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission. The complaint was dismissed as without merit.

At least four public relations firms were hired to work on the Syngenta campaign, according to the documents. The White House Writers Group, based in Washington, D.C., and Jayne Thompson & Associates, based in Chicago, were heavily involved. Invoices show that the White House Writers Group received more than $1.6 million in 2010 and 2011. Thompson is Illinois’ former first lady, wife of former Gov. Jim Thompson.

Tillery said, “They did everything they could with dirty tricks. The extent they went to was unprecedented.” He added that only one firm working on behalf of Syngenta, McDermott, Will & Emery of Chicago, did not engage in “dirty tricks.”

Hayes in the Crosshairs

Hayes, a leading atrazine researcher and critic, became a major target. His published research reported that exposure to atrazine chemically castrates male frogs and makes them viable females, able to produce eggs that can be fertilized.

Hayes began his atrazine research in 1997 with a study funded by Novartis Agribusiness, one of two corporations that would later form Syngenta. Hayes said that when he got results Novartis did not expect or want, the corporation refused to allow him to publish them. He secured other funding, replicated his work and released the results: exposure to atrazine creates hermaphroditic frogs. That started an epic feud between the scientist and the corporation.

The new documents show that the company commissioned a psychological profile of Hayes. In her notes taken during a 2005 meeting, Ford refers to Hayes as “paranoid schizo and narcissistic.”

Syngenta tracked Hayes’ speaking engagements and arranged for trained critics to attend each event, sometimes videotaping his remarks, according to a strategy proposed in 2006 memos by Jayne Thompson and later confirmed by Hayes. Syngenta explored the idea of purchasing “Tyrone Hayes” as a search word on the Internet and directing searches to its own marketing materials, but appeared to have ultimately decided against it.

Hayes said he had been unaware that Syngenta had discussed purchasing his name as an Internet search word. “Given some of the things they did, that doesn’t surprise me,” he said. “This clearly shows they went beyond science and academia. It was all PR and tricks.”

Hayes accused Syngenta of pressuring him through UC-Berkeley officials. He said he now pays as much as 20 times more than other researchers for his lab operations. He added that his federal grant applications have been getting the highest scores in evaluations, but are being turned down. He suspects the company of involvement in the sudden hurdles he is facing.

Hayes said Syngenta employees had threatened him verbally and said they were going after his family, but this was the first time he knew these plans were in writing.

“They impacted my professional and personal life,” he said. “It’s sobering to get substantiation of the verbal attacks they made.”

...In one memo, the company denied pressuring Duke University not to hire Hayes, but in her deposition on June 9, 2011, Ford, Syngenta’s former spokeswoman, said that Gary Dickson, a Syngenta employee, contacted a dean at Duke to inform him of the contentious relationship between Hayes and Syngenta.

...Ford also said Syngenta gave financial support to the Hudson Institute and had asked Alex Avery, at the institute’s Center for Global Food Issues, to write reports critical of Hayes. She later said that unlike Hayes, Avery has not published in any peer-reviewed journals that she knew of and he did not disclose payments from Syngenta.

The Hudson Institute is a conservative nonprofit focused on shaping public policy on issues ranging from international relations to technology and health care.

In one document, Ford noted that a principal with the White House Writers Group taped a phone call with Hayes and “set him up.” Hayes was baited through emails from Syngenta’s army of allies. The scientist’s emails were posted on the Syngenta web site as part of the campaign to discredit him.

“If TH [Tyrone Hayes] is involved in scandal, the enviros will drop him,” Ford wrote. “Can prevent citing of TH data by revealing him as non-credible,” she added.

Secret Payments to “Independent” Allies

Court documents include a “Supportive Third Party Stakeholders Database” of 130 people and organizations the company could count on to publicly support atrazine, often for a price.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686401-100reporters-syngenta-clare-howard-investigation.html

Documents show people on the list were coached, their statements in support of atrazine were edited by the company and payments to them were not publicly disclosed.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686400-100reporters-syngenta-clare-howard-investigation.html#document/p1/a105571

In some cases, Syngenta or its PR team wrote the Op-Ed pieces and then scanned its stakeholder database for a signer.

In an Oct. 17, 2009, memo to Syngenta’s Ford, Jayne Thompson warned that some of the language in four Op-Eds penned by the White House Writers Group is suggestive of their source, which “should be avoided at all costs.”
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/686398-100reporters-syngenta-clare-howard-investigation.html#document/p12/a105752

Court documents include an email dated Oct. 28, 2009, from a Syngenta employee asking her boss how to pay these third-party allies who write in support of atrazine. There are consistent warnings to be sure supporters appear independent, with no links to the corporation.

In one case, Syngenta paid $100,000 to the nonprofit American Council on Science and Health for support that included an Op-Ed piece criticizing the work of journalist Charles Duhigg of the New York Times, who wrote a story on atrazine as part of its Toxic Waters series in 2009. Without disclosing this financial support from Syngenta, president and founder Elizabeth Whelan derided the New York Times article on atrazine as, “All the news that’s fit to scare.” ACSH is a nonprofit that advocates against what it considers government’s over-regulation of issues related to science and health.

“Dear Syngenta friends,” began a 2009 email from Gilbert Ross, a physician at ACSH, thanking Syngenta for its payments and financial support over the years. “Such general operating support is the lifeblood of a small nonprofit like ours, and is both deeply appreciated and much needed,” wrote Ross.

In response to emailed questions for this article, Ross defended the decision not to publicly disclose the payments, and dismissed Hayes as an “outlier.”

...Steven Milloy, publisher of junkscience.com and president of Citizens for the Integrity of Science, is also in Syngenta’s Supportive Third Party Stakeholders Database.

In a Dec. 3, 2004, email to Syngenta, Milloy requests a grant of $15,000 for the nonprofit Free Enterprise Education Institute for an atrazine stewardship cost-benefit analysis project.

In a letter dated Aug. 6, 2008, Milloy requests a $25,000 grant for the nonprofit Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. In an email on that date, he writes, “send the check to me as usual and I’ll take care of it.”

While Op-Eds aim to shape public opinion, economic and cost-benefit analyses were also important, because EPA rulings on pesticide use are based on health, environmental and economic effects.

In an email to Syngenta’s head of communications, Thompson praises an essay that ran in the Belleville News Democrat, an Illinois newspaper based about 20 miles from Edwardsville, the community that initiated the lawsuit.

The 2006 essay was signed by Jay Lehr of the Heartland Institute. The essay claimed the Holiday Shores lawsuit could, if successful, shrink the nation’s food supply.

“These are great clips for us because they get out some of our messages from someone (Lehr) who comes off sounding like an unbiased expert. Another strength is that the messages do not sound like they came from Syngenta,” Thompson wrote.

The Heartland Institute fought a subpoena all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court in 2012 that would have forced it to disclose any financial relationship with Syngenta and the source of its articles supporting atrazine. The Heartland Institute argued disclosure would violate its First Amendment rights. The case settled before a ruling was issued, so the relationship remains undisclosed.

In response to an emailed question, the Heartland Institute did not deny receiving funding from Syngenta. Any money it receives, the institute maintained, is considered a donation to a nonprofit, and Heartland was not obligated to disclose donor information. Its president, Joseph Bast, has said he would go to jail for contempt of court “rather than share a single note he had ever made during a meeting with a donor.”

In addition to working with third-party allies, another Syngenta effort to fight the lawsuit was to go directly to plaintiffs, both actual and potential. [in order to pressure them to drop out of the case]

Full text: http://www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/news/2013/atrazine-page2

EU Ombudsman: EFSA fails on conflict of interest

notsowisewoman@yahoo.com (Annie) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:59:06 +0000

European Food Safety Authority mishandled a major revolving doors case with biotechnology company Syngenta
Press release by Corporate Europe Observatory and Testbiotech
29 May 2013
http://corporateeurope.org/pressreleases/2013/eu-ombudsman-efsa-fails-conflict-interests-p

In a May 23 ruling, the EU Ombudsman stated that EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) failed to take adequate measures to prevent conflict of interests arising from a major 'revolving doors' case in 2008. According to the Ombudsman's conclusions, EFSA “failed to fulfil the procedural obligations emanating from the applicable rules” and did not “acknowledge its failure to observe the relevant procedural rules and to carry out a sufficiently thorough assessment of the potential conflict of interests (…).” Furthermore “EFSA unduly restricted the scope of what might amount to a possible conflict of interest (...).”These statements relate to the case of Dr Suzy Renckens, who was head of EFSA´s unit responsible for the risk assessment of genetically engineered plants from 2003 till 2008 before moving directly to a top EU lobbying position at Syngenta, a company that produces and markets these very plants.

Martin Pigeon, researcher and campaigner at Corporate Europe Observatory, said: “this highly symbolic case reminds everybody how strategic EFSA is for the agrofood industry, and how weak EFSA's independence policy remains. The agency's management of this case shows that it failed to take the crucial issue of corporate influence seriously, an inexcusable failure for a body supposedly 'commited to ensuring that Europe's food is safe'. Does EFSA have the means of its remit?”

Testbiotech brought the Renckens case to public attention in 2009 but EFSA and the EU Commission refused to take any action. Therefore, Testbiotech, with the support of Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), asked the EU Ombudsman to investigate the case. The EU Ombudsman sent a series of first recommendations in 2011, stating that EFSA did not handle this case correctly. EFSA then changed its rules and procedures in December 2011 to strengthen its independence, but, according to the Ombudsman ruling published last May 23 (see bottom), the Ombudsman clearly sees need for further improvements. With his judgement, the Ombudsman fuels concerns about EFSA´s independence policy which were already expressed in a report from the European Court of Auditors published in October 2012, as well as two resolutions from the European Parliament in 2012 and 2013 in the framework of the budget discharge process.

“EFSA seems to not be able to solve its problems with conflict of interests. For example, the authority still lacks sufficient standards in its relationship with the industry think tank International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). After criticism from many sides, experts working with ILSI are now mostly excluded from being involved in the work of EFSA; but experts who worked with ILSI for many years and then officially ended their cooperation still are decisive for EFSA´s scientific work.” says Christoph Then for Testbiotech. “All the key decisions and risk assessment protocols that were influenced by ILSI´s experts in the last ten years were never re-evaluated.”

For instance, Juliane Kleiner just became EFSA's Director of Science Strategy and Coordination. Kleiner joined EFSA right after a career at ILSI between 1997 and 2004. Gijs Kleter, who officially worked with ILSI from 2002-2007 on risk assessment of genetically engineered plants, is now the vice-chair of EFSA´s expert group on genetically engineered organisms (“GMO Panel”). Harry Kuiper was the chair of EFSA´s GMO Panel from 2003 to 2012 and in parallel a member of ILSI working groups for several years, but the standards and decisions he was responsible for were never re-assessed by EFSA. His case was also brought up by Testbiotech in a complaint to the EU Ombudsman that is still pending.

Contacts:
Martin Pigeon, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), phone: +32 2 893 09 30 / +32 484 671 909 martin@corporateeurope.org
Dr. Christoph Then, Testbiotech, Tel.: + 49 (0) 15154638040, info@testbiotech.org
The recent judgement of the EU Ombudsman: www.testbiotech.de/node/801
The full chronology of the complaint about EFSA: www.testbiotech.org/independence
A Testbiotech briefing about Harry Kuiper and ILSI: http://www.testbiotech.de/en/node/429
A report from Corporate Europe Observatory about ILSI: http://corporateeurope.org/blog/new-briefing-international-life-sciences-institute-ilsi-corporate-lobbygroup

Closing in on our seeds

notsowisewoman@yahoo.com (Annie) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:47:11 +0000

NOTE: This is one of the most important articles you'll read this year, in terms of the vision it gives of the corporations that are working to reduce and eliminate seed freedom in Europe. And guess who those corporations are? Monsanto and the other big biotech players, naturally.

EXCERPTS: The European plant breeders' rights system has been traditionally based on UPOV, a sector-tailored IP regime that grants special rights and privileges to farmers and breeders. But the major biotech players such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Dupont that have entered the seed market since the mid-1970s in Europe come from the chemical sector, and have brought with them their own stricter IPR vision and interests, based on the patent system. Concretely, this history accounts for some differences of approach, meaning that the Dutch seed industry association Plantum for instance has published an official position[16] against the societal risks created by patents on plants, saying they're “afraid that this will lead to a situation whereby only the plant breeding companies with the largest patent portfolio will be able to survive, which in turn will mean that, in the future, the decisions regarding which varieties are introduced onto the market will be in the hands of just a few companies on plant breeders rights and then on the possibility to develop new varieties”. This contradicts the position of ESA's big biotech members such as Monsanto[17], pushing for the use of patents on seeds and more generally plants and plants' genetic sequences....

Rather than the "simplification" of the rules over seed marketing, what we are seeing is the potential consolidation of yet more corporate control over the agricultural seed market – even as more and more people are beginning to grasp the crucial importance of agricultural biodiversity.
---
---
Closing in on our seeds
Corporate Europe Observatory, 5 Jun 2013
http://corporateeurope.org/news/closing-our-seeds

For the first time in their history, European institutions will reform the entire package of legislation related to seed marketing using the so-called 'Better regulation framework', a strategic approach used by the European Commission to “simplify” existing EU legislation.[i] Since seeds are the starting point for the whole human food chain, the EU's attempt to consolidate the seed industry is hugely significant. From the very start of the process in 2008, this policy initiative has been an unique opportunity for large seed companies to reinforce their control over a commercial seed supply system that they already largely dominate.[ii]

The EU proposal, published last May 6th, “on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material”[1] will be discussed between the European Parliament and the Council (Member States). The Commission has merged and updated the 12 existing directives on the subject in a single text.[2] Participating in the 5-year preparatory process within the Commission have been the Directorate Generals (DGs) of Health and Consumers (SANCO, leading on this dossier), Agriculture (AGRI) and Environment (ENVI). It has been a long process to reach final agreement between these three departments, primarily because AGRI and SANCO appeared to differ on certain key points such as biodiversity protection.

Inevitably, for a market area so dominated by agribusiness, corporate lobbying to influence the legislation has been intense, particularly from the seed industry and its main Brussels-based lobby group, the European Seeds Association (ESA). As is often the case with lobbying, the earlier the pressure the “better” the outcome. It is unclear to what extent the drafting process itself was protected from excessive influence: CEO wrote an open letter[3] to SANCO pointing out the conflict of interest of a key expert in this department with the seeds industry. Other agribusiness lobby groups were also present at a very early stage, including the industrial farmers' lobby Copa-Cogeca and Brussels' umbrella organisation of big food multinationals, FoodDrinkEurope.

Defending the seed status quo

The total commercial value of the Seed Market amounts to around EUR 6.8 billion per year.[4] Increasingly in the modern era, industrialized corporate seed production has competed with and largely dominated over other more traditional and ecological approaches such as farmers’ in-situ seed selection, the development of open-pollinated farmer varieties[5] not protected by intellectual property rights (IPRs) and the defence of conservation varieties. This domination has been consolidated by the EU's legal framework, which only allows the farming of market seed varieties that match the “distinctness, uniformity and stability” (DUS) criterions that, de facto, favour industrially-produced and monoculture-friendly seeds. But these alternative agricultural practices, marginalised during the golden era of industrial agriculture, are enjoying renewed social and political interest for their ecological relevance.

Currently in Europe a thriving civil society movement is rediscovering and spreading old plant varieties as well as local, ecosystem-specific breeding practices. This movement's growth is a challenge to corporate control of the seed market, making it increasingly economically relevant too, to the extent that it is seen as a threat by the mainstream seed industry that is built around high entry barriers to the market (IPRs, high registration costs etc). With reference to the ESA's position it appears that one its key objectives is to use the policy opportunity to strangle this movement before it becomes too strong, or at least prevent its excessive development.[6]

What isn't registered doesn't exist: a particular idea of biodiversity

One of the most striking features of the ESA's lobbying activities is its remarkably narrow definition of biodiversity. A landmark case at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in 20127 between the French seed-saver association Kokopelli and a French seed company (Baumaux) over the validity of existing EU seed marketing legislation was an opportunity for the ESA to – successfully – lobby for its understanding of the concept of biodiversity.

Initially sued in France by a private seed company for unfair competition under the EU's seed marketing rules, Kokopelli had complained to the ECJ that the compulsory standardized registration of seeds in order to sell them was, on top of being an unjustified restriction to free trade, a major threat to cultivated biodiversity.[8] This position was supported by the ECJ's Advocate General in her conclusion which highlighted the stakes involved: “the present case demonstrates that the restriction of biodiversity in European agriculture results, at least in part, from rules of European Union (‘EU’) law”. She concluded by stating that “the prohibition against the sale of seed of varieties that are not demonstrably distinct, stable and sufficiently uniform and, where appropriate, of satisfactory value for cultivation and use, established in Article 3(1) of the Vegetable Seed Directive, is invalid as it breaches the principle of proportionality, the freedom to conduct a business within the meaning of Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the free movement of goods established in Article 34 TFEU and the principle of equal treatment within the meaning of Article 20 of the Charter".[9]

This analysis is echoed by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), who explained in 2012 that while the “development of the formal seed system based upon science and regulation has brought significant benefits to many farmers in the form of more productive varieties and better seed quality”, “however two important criticisms of this strategy have been raised: benefits have largely accrued to commercially oriented farmers in favourable production areas; and the system is leading to a dangerous increase in the erosion and vulnerability of crop genetic resources”.[10]

The ECJ's conclusions prompted the ESA to express its concerns with a very detailed legal letter to the Court[11] that strongly criticised the Advocate General's remarks for being “both factually and legally incorrect”. The ESA pointed out that the “identity and the quality of the seed and propagating material available in the EU were indeed the core objectives of the European legislator upon enactment of the contested Directives” and that the increasing number of varieties present in the Common catalogue showed that farmers today had the “widest possible choice”: therefore according to their definition cultivated biodiversity, far from diminishing, was actually increasing. This was remarkably misleading as the varieties being destroyed in Europe are precisely those that couldn't be registered in the official catalogue!

This market/catalogue-based idea of biodiversity is in opposition to farmers and growers’ rights to choose, exchange, select and multiply their seeds locally, as the varieties they produce are not generally suitable for the admission system and do not correspond to any IPR framework. The ESA's vision of agricultural biodiversity seems to be that cultivated varieties that are not registered simply do not exist. The problem is that not only is agricultural biodiversity not merely a genetic reservoir for the seed industry or a measurement of the size of a legal register: as Philippe Feldmann, Biodiversity Adviser at CIRAD (a French agronomy research centre) put it, biodiversity is nothing less than a “life insurance policy for humanity”.[12]

Nevertheless the ECJ published a final ruling contradicting its Advocate-General's points (an unusual move) and supporting the ESA's arguments, stating that “the validity of the two directives is not affected by certain principles of EU law or by the EU's commitments arising from the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)”. The Court's interpretation that “the primary objective of the rules relating to the acceptance of vegetable seed is to improve productivity in vegetable cultivation in the EU” probably explains this decision and indicates that the Court prioritised the agro-food industry's competitiveness over economic freedoms and – genuine – biodiversity.

ESA's vision of cultivated biodiversity was echoed by the cabinet of Borg, the new Health & Consumer Protection Commissioner who, writing last March to a coalition of seed savers, consumers, environmental and farmers' groups, argued along the lines of industry that “the available data do not support the claim that legislation on plant reproductive material is largely responsible for the loss of cultivated biodiversity. In the past 15 years the number of registered varieties has in fact increased significantly. For example, the number of vegetable varieties has increased from 10400 to 18400 between 1999 and 2012”.[13]

“Innovation”: more of the same please!

The ESA frequently reinforces its demand for “an effective and affordable protection of its intellectual property” by emphasizing that the European seed industry spends on average 15% of its annual turnover on R&D.[14] But the idea of innovation they promote merely consists of looking at improving the plant's genetics in isolation, rather than within an ecosystem or society, viewing the plant as an ever-improvable processing machine. This vision is the basis of an outdated, linear industrial agriculture model – primarily based on monoculture – that has done so much to increase food production at the expense of the environment and public health; that is to say, our future. This vision of agricultural and biodiversity is a mechanistic, 1950s vision whose limitations have now become obvious to most and there is nothing innovative about it.

The real challenge, as Dr. Annette Freibauer, a German climate and agriculture scientist who chaired a panel responsible for a report on the future of EU agriculture research, put it, is a paradigm shift “from technology to knowledge”, leaving a standardized, industrial approach behind, and moving towards a more ecosystem-specific approach.[15] The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), an intergovernmental effort involving 900 participants and 110 countries under the cosponsorship of the FAO, GEF, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, the World Bank and WHO, sometimes nicknamed the “IPCC of agriculture”, made exactly the same point when it explained that we had so far fed the world mainly by depleting natural capital, and needed to look beyond business as usual (i.e. a mere productivity approach) if we really wanted to address hunger and poverty. Wider issues such as food quality, sustainability, water use, land tenure and energy use were crucially important ingredients for any solution.

Unfortunately, however, the European Seeds Association is mainly concerned with selling more seed at increasing prices. It therefore pushes an idea of innovation largely based on the myth that only highly complex and cost-intensive technologies can create sustainability, employment and well-being. This idea of innovation, with its necessary counterpart of protection of intellectual property rights, is today undermining evolution of the seed sector toward open source/participatory in-situ selection methods, which are nevertheless demanded by increasingly numerous scientists, citizens and farmers.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs): one idea, but conflicting interests

However, while the ESA appears to present an united front for the idea that the seed sector needs to be based on IPRs and industry-friendly systems of certification, research, breeding and treatment, this does not mean that every member shares the same perspective on intellectual property. The European plant breeders' rights system has been traditionally based on UPOV, a sector-tailored IP regime that grants special rights and privileges to farmers and breeders. But the major biotech players such as Monsanto, Syngenta and Dupont that have entered the seed market since the mid-1970s in Europe come from the chemical sector, and have brought with them their own stricter IPR vision and interests, based on the patent system. Concretely, this history accounts for some differences of approach, meaning that the Dutch seed industry association Plantum for instance has published an official position[16] against the societal risks created by patents on plants, saying they're “afraid that this will lead to a situation whereby only the plant breeding companies with the largest patent portfolio will be able to survive, which in turn will mean that, in the future, the decisions regarding which varieties are introduced onto the market will be in the hands of just a few companies on plant breeders rightsand then on the possibility to develop new varieties”. This contradicts the position of ESA's big biotech members such as Monsanto[17], pushing for the use of patents on seeds and more generally plants and plants' genetic sequences.

One euro, one vote?

This article has so far portrayed a seed industry united in its defence of the status quo. This is however not entirely fair. Some seed breeders are also realistic enough to see the shifts in ecosystems knowledge and societal demands back towards biodiversity and conservation varieties as an interesting commercial opportunity: after all, local quality seed production is also a delicate undertaking for which demand has always existed, and many of these companies have a unique and crucial know-how. This is for instance the case of the member organizations of the European Consortium for Organic Plant Breeding (ECO-PB)[18], which provides varieties for organic agriculture bred by farmer breeders, not IP protected, and open-pollinated. So, why is the ESA taking such a conservative stance towards these developments?

Part of the answer might come from the ESA's governance and composition. The ESA is a lobby group which gathers various companies working on seed research, breeding, production and marketing: it is composed of 30 national seed associations and more than 60 company members, including big names such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, Pioneer, and Limagrain.[19] This lobby group says it is the “SINGLE voice of the European Seed Industry”,[20] as its members are multinationals as well as small and medium sized enterprises involved in different sectors of the seed supply system. But as with many such umbrella organisations, the agenda and official positions of this lobby group tend to reflect primarily its wealthiest members' interests, those with the capacity to send lobbyists to Brussels – an observation confirmed by sources within ESA's membership. After all, it is not illogical for an industry association to have positions reflecting its various members' respective market weight. But another possible reason for its conservative position is that such a heterogeneous membership typically leads to defending the lowest common denominator, in this case the current legal framework.

This creates a peculiar geography of interests within this lobby group, where smaller and bigger, UPOV-based and patents-based members have to unite and present a consistent front for tactical reasons. The situation raises the issue of the actual capacity of the group to genuinely represent all its members' interests in a period of aggressive market concentration[21] when the seed sector is being targeted by the largest agrobiotech companies for its strategic upstream position in the food chain and the so-called “bioeconomy”.[22]

In any case, the ESA is entering into the upcoming debate on the future of the seed legislation in the European Parliament in a powerful position: the Commission proposal seems largely to reflect the lobby group's demands, and it has already secured a key victory in having a conservative MEP from the Agriculture Committee becoming the rapporteur on the dossier (the alternative was the Environment Committee). This committee has just demonstrated over the course of last year how close it was to the agro-food industry, destroying most meaningful elements of the Commission's greening proposals in the Common Agricultural Policy debate – perhaps the worst defeat of the European environmental movement in the past two decades.

This show of strength by the European seed lobby is a warning about what to expect. Rather than the 'simplification' of the rules over seed marketing, what we are seeing is the potential consolidation of yet more corporate control over the agricultural seed market – even as more and more people are beginning to grasp the crucial importance of agricultural biodiversity.

Notes

i. This “simplification” approach was also influenced by corporate lobbying including from the tobacco industry, see The Origin of EU Better Regulation – The Disturbing Truth, the SmokeFree Partnership, 2010, http://www.smokefreepartnership.eu/IMG/pdf/Report_version_27012010_-2.pdf
ii. Nowadays 64% of the global seed market is controlled by 10 companies only, with the first 4 companies alone controlling 58% of this market: Who will control the Green Economy, ETC Group, December 2011, http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/pdf_file/ETC_wwctge_4web_Dec2011.pdf

1. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material, COM(2013) 262 final, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/docs/proposal_aphp_en.pdf
2. The proposals for a regulation of the seed marketing was presented by the Commission on 6th May within a broader package of measures concerning also plant health, animal health and official controls: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/pressroom/animal-plant-health_en...
3.Open letter on the conflicts of interest with the seed industry of a national expert seconded to DG SANCO, Corporate Europe Observatory, April 25th 2013, http://corporateeurope.org/open-letter-conflicts-interest-seed-industry-...
4.Commission staff working document, executive summary of the impact assessment accompanying the documentProposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the production and making available on the market of plant reproductive material (plant reproductive material law), SWD(2013) 163 final,
5. “Farmer varieties are regularly multiplied, selectively bred and resown over a given area. This does not prevent them from travelling between different regions or countries. Farmer varieties are created in the field or garden from a base of existing varieties and in conditions adapted for production methods within farmers’ reach (thus excluding biotechnology). Varieties are reproduced through selection and adaptation to local evolution, new environments and methods of cultivation, often through simple mass selection. Plants are created sometimes through a series of manual cross-breedings, sometimes through selection of new characteristics which appear spontaneously in the population. This process of renewal is associated with “informal” seed exchanges, “local” or “traditional” social structures and systems of knowledge which can in fact be very modern (in agro-ecological terms, for instance)” (extract from De la Perrière R. A. B. & Kastler G., Seeds and Farmers’ Rights. How international regulations affect farmer seeds, RSP & BEDE 2011, France. P. 4)
6. “ESA considers the existing deregulations as sufficient and does not support establishment of further exceptions for ‘niche markets’ or ‘small producers’ as these would endanger the level playing field for breeders and would require costly official supervision to assure enforcement”(extract from ESA Position on the Reflection document on the problem definition and options for review of the EU legislation on the marketing of Seed and propagating material (S&PM), European Seed Association May 2010, p. 6, http://www.euroseeds.org/publications/position-papers/seed-marketing/esa...)
7. Court of Justice of the European Union, PRESS RELEASE No 97/12, Luxembourg, 12 July 2012, Judgment in Case C-59/11 - Association Kokopelli v Graines Baumaux SAS, http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/P_89305/
8.https://kokopelli-semences.fr/juridique/proces_perdu#1.3.2
9. Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 19 January 2012, Case C 59/11 Association Kokopelli v Graines Baumaux SAS, 2012 http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=118143&pa...
10. L. Lipper, C. Leigh Anderson and T. J. Dalton, Seed trade in rural markets, FAO and Earthscan, 2012, London, p. XIII.
11. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-59 / 11, Baumaux vs. Kokopelli, ESA European Seed Association Amicus Curiae statement, http://www.kokopelli-semences.fr/medias/Letter-ESA.pdf
12. Feldmann P., Biodiversity is a life insurance policy for humanity, CIRAD 2010, http://www.cirad.fr/en/news/all-news-items/articles/2010/questions-a/phi...
13. Letter from the Cabinet of Commissioner Tonio Borg to the Seed For All coalition, 14.03.2013.
14.Strengthening the competitiveness of Europe's seed sector, Esa's terms of reference for assessing the EU's seed legislation, European Seed Association, June 2007, http://www.euroseeds.org/publications/position-papers/seed-marketing/esa...
15.Agribusiness CAPturing EU research money? Industrial farming lobby fights shift to more sustainable agriculture, Corporate Europe Observatory, July 2012 http://corporateeurope.org/publications/agribusiness-capturing-eu-resear...
16.Plantum NL position on patent- and plant breeders’ rights, Plantum 2009, http://www.plantum.nl/Content/Files/file/Standpunten/Plantum%20Position%...
17. Letter by Monsanto to the Dutch government retrieved on http://vorige.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00242/Patentrecht_09-07-0_242612... on June 1st 2013
18. Despite the ESA’s aim to define them self as the single voice of the seed sector for sure there are different breeders in Europe who do not feel represented by the ESA and for that reason they have created other groups. This is the case with The European Consortium for Organic Plant Breeding (ECO-PB) founded in 2001. More info available online: http://www.eco-pb.org/
19. It’s important to report that EU is also the biggest seed exporter on a global scale and Netherlands and France are the two biggest exporting countries: Rapport annuel du GNIS 2011-2012, GNIS 2012,http://www.gnis.fr/files/rapport/RA%20GNIS%202011%202012.pdf
20.http://www.euroseeds.org/about-esa/copy3_of_ESA_12.0485.5.pdf
21. In the case of the vegetable seeds, Monsanto, with its acquisition of the Dutch company Seminis, controls in Europe around of the 24% of the market: Philip H. Howard, Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 1996–2008, Sustainability journal,2009, 1, 1266-1287, Basel, p. 1276,http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/1/4/1266
22.Who will control the Green Economy, ETC Group, December 2011, http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/publication/pdf_file/ETC_wwctge_4web_Dec2011.pdf

Nnimmo Bassey on the need for transformation

notsowisewoman@yahoo.com (Annie) — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:22:54 +0000

"We need to overturn the system": In conversation with alt-Nobel winner Nnimmo Bassey
Ethan Cox
Rabble, June 15 2013
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/ethan-cox/2013/06/we-need-to-overturn-system-conversation-alt-nobel-winner-nnimmo-bas

When we speak of Nigeria, and of the Nigerian people's inspired resistance to the devastation wrought by multinational oil companies such as Shell, the name of the late, and great, Ken Saro-Wiwa is inescapable.

But many others have continued to toil in the shadows over the years since Saro-Wiwa's death. Nnimmo Bassey is one such activist who is finally beginning to get the credit he deserves for a lifetime dedicated to healing our planet.

Bassey is a Nigerian activist, author and poet, who has devoted his life to fighting for a healthy environment. He is the Director of the newly formed Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), the coordinator of Oil Watch International and was, until last year, the Executive Director of Environmental Rights Action (ERA), a grassroots NGO he founded, and the Chairperson of Friends of the Earth - International (FOI-I).

Named a "hero of the environment" by Time magazine in 2009, Bassey was awarded the Right Livelihood award in 2010, colloquially referred to as the alternative Nobel Peace Prize, and in 2012 won the prestigious Rafto Human Rights Prize. He is the author of the newly released "To Cook a Continent: Destructive Extraction and the Climate Crisis in Africa" and has been touted as a candidate for the Nobel Peace prize itself.

Bassey is in Montreal this weekend to speak at the Festival of Solidarity, an annual event organized by Montreal-based NGO Alternatives, and rabble was able to sit down with him to discuss his three decades of climate justice activism, and his vision of an oil-free future.

rabble: For starters, why don't you tell me a little about how you got involved in this work. I know you've been involved with Environmental Rights Action for over two decades in Nigeria, and that you trained as an architect, so what got you involved, what made you shift from architecture to devoting your life to protecting the environment?

Bassey: Well, I still do some architecture. [laughs]

rabble: Activism doesn't pay the bills? Shocking.

Bassey: No, it doesn't pay the bills!

As I grew up, I saw only a very few years of democracy. From 1966 we had military rule in Nigeria, and thereafter on and off for thirty years the country was under the control of the military. In the late eighties there was a strong campaign against the military, a campaign for democracy in Nigeria. I was in the mainstream human rights movement, campaigning mostly against the military, and also against bad prison conditions, police brutality, the repression of local communities.

Around 1990 the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MSOP) became quite strong, led by the late Ken Saro-Wiwa. This movement produced the Ogoni bill of rights, made very strong ecological, and also political, demands on the state, and asked for a clean up of the environment. Now, while this was going on, it occurred to me and some of my colleagues that many of the human rights issues we were campaigning on actually had their roots in environmental abuses.

We campaigned for better prison conditions, better police detention conditions, but we had to ask the question, why are people being detained in the first place? And what we discovered was that people were being criminalized because they demanded environmental justice, because they demanded economic benefits from resource extraction in their communities. People were being criminalized just because they asked for dialogue, with a corporation like Shell or with the government.

The Health of Mother Earth Foundation (HOMEF), which is my main focus now, is an ecological think tank whose major objective is to overturn the current thought pattern which makes people in Nigeria, in Africa especially, accept the neo-liberal logic as the only way to do things. This idea that only the private sector can do anything right. Well the people in the private sector are no different from the people in the public sector, and the private sector depends heavily on the public sector to be able to do things.

With this new organization we are focusing on two broad themes: fossil fuels, which includes alternative energy, climate change, and climate justice, and hunger politics.

We are looking at why people are hungry. If you've been paying attention to what the G8 are doing, they're creating a new alliance for nutrition in Africa. We see that as a way of opening up the continent to big seed companies like Monsanto, who will introduce GMO seeds in the name of nutrition. They've been engineering some crops which are very popular in Africa, primarily to increase the amount of Vitamin A. If you need Vitamin A you can get it very easily, from foods and other things, there is no need to go to the extent of engineering crops just to enhance the level of vitamin A in them. Moreover, people don't eat these crops in quantities that would provide a sufficient amount of Vitamin A, which is the excuse the companies are giving us about why these GMO crops are necessary.

So we ask, why are people hungry? Not just in Africa, but globally. I think this is a very pertinent question.

Along with these two broad themes we have what we call the Sustainability Academy, or HOME school. It will have two sessions a year, and each session will have at least one facilitator, that we call an instigator, there to instigate positive change. So we will get someone with a strong point of view, who is knowledgeable about a particular topic, and get them to speak on that topic to policy makers, to undergraduates and scholars and to high school students and community members. All at different meetings, but the same topic, the same presentation, on different levels. We are trying to create a common understanding on certain issues as an organizing strategy.

rabble: You said when you were younger you were working on human rights and then got drawn to the environment because you were looking for the root causes of these human rights abuses. Now, with the Health of Mother Earth Foundation, it sounds like a similar process of trying to look at the root causes of why we have these issues – why is there hunger? Why are there these environmental problems? Do you believe the current system can be reformed, or do you think we need to change the system in order to save the planet?

Bassey: Absolutely. We need to overturn the system. Most policy-makers believe in transactions. We don’t need transactions. What we need is transformation. We need radical change. The kind of change we need is not the one where you look and say, well, it’s slightly transformed from what it was. We need total change, because if you look at the world today, the petroleum civilization, which has driven industrialisation over the past 200 years or so, is totally unsustainable. We know that the resource we are using is non-renewable. We know it’s harming the planet. The World Bank – if you’re looking for a conservative organisation, there’s nothing more conservative than them – they said just before the last meeting in Doha that at least 80 per cent of known fossil fuel reserves must be left untouched if we’re going to avoid runway global warming. If we’re going to have a reasonable chance of survival as a species. And yet the world knows that this is causing global warming, and they know that this resource is depleting, but they’re saying "wait! we can get more!" We can get more from the Tar Sands, more from the deep sea, more from all kinds of things. But that is not the issue. The issue is not whether you can get more. The issue is the destruction of the planet. They’re destroying life. So we need a situation where people can think more clearly than they do right now – not just about profit. We need to restructure the economic paradigm. We cannot allow the world to be run on speculation and financialization of everything. It’s serious work.

rabble: But then the question becomes, how do we bring about that change?

Bassey: It’s going to be a political decision, and if you work in the environmental justice movement, you don’t just stand alone as an environmental activist. You have to work with social movements, work with political movements, work with labour, work with everybody, because the thing is…we simply have to be able to get into the driver's seat of making decisions. We need more people getting active in decision-making, understanding the issues and taking an active role. That is why in the HOME school thing, where I’m speaking with policy makers, for example, the first HOME school is going to be on climate change. We’re having that in August. And the first session will be with legislators and Nigerian negotiators and Ministry of Environment people because they need to be reminded that the way the negotiations have been undertaken is not going to solve the problem. It may bring some commerce or revenue from projects – maybe adaptation and mitigation measures and things like that, but that is just immediate and temporary. And so we want to get them to begin to look at the fundamental issues and see how narrow the negotiations have been, and to really understand why Copenhagen was such a disaster – Cancun, Durban, Doha – and how Poland will be a big disaster this year. We need to change the way decisions are being made.

rabble: And I guess change the form of democracy too, because you’re quite a vocal critic of the democratically elected government in Nigeria as well, right?

Bassey: That’s a big issue really, because globally, if you look at the governments we have around the world, even the biggest or most applauded democratic settings, there’s very little democracy. Many of the governments are put there by big corporations who pay for their elections and who lobby them, and they have to do the bidding of those corporations. They’re not really looking at what is in the best interest of the people, only what will support business. If you look at a place like Nigeria, you find government officials going on the economic road-show. They’re looking for direct foreign investment. This is also driving land-grabbing, but they don’t call it land-grabbing. They say it’s foreign direct investment! They don’t care what happens in the future. So all this – there are no easy answers, but the whole so-called democratic setting needs to be critically reviewed. We need people to regain their sovereignty. We need to decide what we allow, and what we don’t allow – what people want, and what they don’t want. People know what they want, but right now, we’re not able to enforce what we want and what we don’t want, so we need a situation where true democratic space is created in the world and there’s bottom-up leadership, not top-down leadership. The fact that we elect a man, or woman, does not mean we surrender our sovereignty to him or her.

rabble: I was wondering if you could tell me more about what’s happening in Nigeria in terms of rebels standing up to the government or oil companies. We hear a lot about religious conflicts but not much about resistance to the oil companies...

Bassey: There’s always been conflict in the middle belt – the middle portion of Nigeria – and it’s usually characterised as a religious conflict. But I think it’s actually a climate conflict, because you have pastoralists who are displaced by desertification, who can’t raise their cattle where they used to live before. They have to migrate southward, and then they meet farmers who need their land to cultivate crops, and then this creates conflict between the pastoralists and the farmers. It’s not because they are Muslims and Christians. It’s simply about climate. This is a climate conflict, but as long as it’s characterised as a religious conflict, then nobody is going to find a solution.

rabble: So tell me about what brings you to Canada, and your thoughts on our role in fighting climate change.

Bassey: I’m very excited about coming here; the environmental policies in Canada are a big sore on the conscience of the world, a huge wound on the conscience of the world. The government insists on going down the wrong path, developing resources that destroy the environment and poison the water. Generally, they don’t care about the effects on human health, but just think about economic gains.

I’m here to show that this logic of expansion and economic growth at any cost which has taken root here is very dangerous. In Canada your government has said they will not make any serious commitments to fight global warming. They pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol, even while the Kyoto Protocol was on life support. In negotiations, Canada led the fight against binding commitments to emission reduction. I’m also here to express real solidarity with people who are impacted by these developments, and who are campaigning against this destructive path.

To stand together is the beauty of our campaigns; that we can lend support to each other, that we can stand together and also generate our own stories to let the whole world know the concerns of the people and that this degradation is going on. Leading humanity to destruction doesn’t make sense, and it must not continue. It is also for governments and those pushing this agenda to know they are doing this against the wishes of the people, and what they are doing is wrong. No matter what profit they’re making or the economic gain, it doesn’t make sense at all if what you’re doing is breaking the cycles of nature. The way it’s going there is no good way to do it, this environment can never be restored. It will take thousands of years to get back to normal shape.

This is why every location where this destruction is going on, is a crime scene - simply put.

rabble: As someone who has been a prominent environmental activist in Africa for many decades, you obviously know that in 2006 the Harper government was elected here in Canada. For us a great deal changed as a result of his election, is that a change that you noticed in Canada's behaviour before and after Stephen Harper?

Bassey: Whatever happens in the rich countries is known across the world, and patterns of action and inaction are very well documented and well known. Sometimes we get surprised, other times we know this is what to expect. Yes, obviously we’ve seen the disturbing trend, but we are not surprised the government is going the way it is going. We are never really shocked that there doesn’t seem to be a realization that we have only one planet. We have natural cycles we have to maintain, runaway global warming is not going to be good for anybody. No country is strong enough to withstand natural disasters; the worst is that these are no longer even natural disasters because these are man made.

We’re the ones breaking the cycle; we’re the ones changing the patterns of the weather. Again you know, this logic that whatever we need we can obtain from nature without any price is a logic that needs to be changed. I hear frequently “global warming is good, it will melt the Arctic ice and then we can reach the resources there”. It’s just plain stupid, but this is what corporations are saying. We’re going to have shorter navigation, we can get to Russia from here without going around the world to get minerals and crude oil. Everyone is trying to see what continental shelf moves closer to the north pole, so they can plant their own flags there. This is why we have to intensify the resistance and globalize the resistance, build linkages across the world on these issues so that when politicians and transnational corporations insist on going down the wrong path we can hold them accountable. Ecocide must be recognized as a crime, and that recognition is being pushed through the United Nations right now.

But nations can begin, citizens can begin. There should be laws in each country that recognize ecocide for what it is; crimes against humanity, crimes against mother earth, crimes against the future, crimes against our children. Corporations should not be allowed to hide behind the inaction of governments and commit this ecocide. The directors of these companies should be held to account for the massive degradation that is going on.

rabble: What would you like to see people here in Canada do in terms of concrete action to try and change things for the better?

Bassey: Look at what Idle No More did, just simple actions, but they captured everybody’s imagination. We need things likes this, we need more people to say no to the destruction. To me saying no is an alternative because if you say you don’t want something, that thing must stop, and that thing stopping is an option already. If all of us stop doing the wrong thing, we are going to find a thousand right ways to do things differently.

There are particularities in certain nations, and we will find out what is the best way to do certain things. But the things that are bad are universally bad. Destruction and dependence on fossil fuel is not good anywhere in the world. Quebec now is moving more into exploiting fragile ecosystems and places that are restricted; more people should come out and say no we don’t want this anymore. We don’t want this traditional economic growth; we don’t want to live today and not tomorrow. We have to care about what’s going to happen to our children, the planet and us. Those who have investments in this sector should pull out those shares and divest.

We have to reduce consumption. We have to live within our means. Things can get exhausted, that’s what it means to live within ones means. Right now what we're doing with this kind of environmental destruction is like saying well I don’t have money, but I’ll continue living on credit. It’s not even as good as that because we know that this is bad. That is what’s happening the way nature is being degraded and destroyed. Of course ultimately, once every four years we should be careful who we vote in. We have to be careful about who we vote in and who should be trusted in these positions.

Thanks to colleagues in thought crime Robin Sas and Matthew Brett for their help transcribing this interview.

What the UK needs to do about food security

notsowisewoman@yahoo.com (Annie) — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 21:16:11 +0000

1.Government committee sets out food security recommendations
2.Britain's new "peasants" down on the farm
---
---
1.Government committee sets out food security recommendations
Farming News, 4 June 2013
http://www.farming.co.uk/news/article/8451

The UK government's International Development Committee today released a report on Global Food Security, in which committee members make a series of radical recommendations they say will contribute to ending hunger and poverty.

The MPs warn, amongst other things, against the overconsumption of animal products, feeding edible grains to livestock and using potential food crops as biofuels. Although farming industry groups have reacted strongly to the report, the MPs' recommendations are nothing new; food policy campaigners have been making similar recommendations for over a decade.

Sir Malcolm Bruce, chair of the International Development Committee warned on Tuesday, "There is no room for complacency about food security over the coming decades if UK consumers are to enjoy stable supplies and reasonable food prices."

He pointed out that two notable "shocks" or "spikes" in global food prices have impacted upon consumers in the UK (who are more insulated against such fluctuations) in the past five years. Price peaks in June 2008 and February 2011 "hurt many parts of the UK food industry and strongly undermined the global fight against hunger," according to Bruce and his fellow parliamentarians.

Reduce waste

In addition to making recommendations that livestock are reared in extensive systems, on grass, and that consumers reduce their intake of animal products, the Commons committee called for a Government-backed campaign to reduce household waste; in contrast to developing countries, where the majority of waste occurs early in the food chain, in "Western" cultures retail and household waste, which occurs further down the supply chain and is associated with consumerism, presents much more of a problem.

MPs in the development committee said a campaign to tackle this should include "national targets to curb food waste within the UK food production and retail sectors, with clear sanctions for companies that fail to meet these targets." They said current global trends towards more meant and dairy consumption are "unsustainable."

Biofuels are detrimental

Echoing European policy makers, who have called for curbs on rapid growth in the biofuels sector, made possible by EU funding, the MPs were highly critical of agricultural biofuels. Expressing concerns over the environmental and social impacts of these fuels, MPs warned "agriculturally produced biofuels are having a major detrimental impact on global food security by driving higher and more volatile food prices."

They added that EU targets requiring 10 per cent of transport energy to be drawn from renewable sources by 2020 are likely to cause dramatic food price increases and urged the UK and European governments to revise renewable fuel obligations to specifically exclude agriculturally-produced biofuels.

Commenting on the biofuels issue on Tuesday, Sir Malcolm added, "Biofuel crops not only displace food crops but are in some cases providing energy sources that are potentially more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. So while we recognise that refining the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation will make it harder for the UK to meet current EU obligations, the relevant target does not kick in until 2020 so there is nothing to stop the UK from revising the RTFO now to exclude agriculturally-produced biofuels."

Angry reaction from industry groups

Although recommendations resulting from the Global Food Security report tie in with similar advice issued by EU and UN policy makers in recent months, industry leaders in the UK reacted strongly to Gordon MP Bruce's counsel.

NFU chief livestock adviser Peter Garbutt contested the calls to cut meat consumption; he added that red meat forms "a traditional part of the British lifestyle and is enjoyed by most of the population."

Making the case for meat production, Mr Garbutt continued, "The UK livestock sector plays a crucial role in sustaining some of the nation's most beautiful and treasured landscapes as well as being the bedrock of rural communities. Almost 60 per cent of farming's uplands, which is dominated by livestock, is designated as National Park or areas of natural beauty. The reality is that if red meat consumption falls dramatically there would be a very real risk of the most valuable environmental assets being abandoned."

Though he too has come in for criticism from uplands farmers, in his latest book, environmentalist George Monbiot claims that reducing livestock production and "rewilding" areas of the UK would provide many benefits for the environment and wider human society.

International issues and support for small farmers

On an international scale, the Committee expressed concern that large corporations are buying up massive areas of land, enclosing them and preventing access to local communities, which often includes driving smallholders off land they previously tended. Although the MPs said the issue was mainly a problem in developing countries, a recent report revealed similar patterns of enclosure also exist in Europe.

Having expressed concerns over the fate of smallholder farmers in the face of 'land-grabbing,' the development committee backed this model of farming as one that will play a key role in feeding a growing global population and in reducing rural poverty. MPs called for more funding to be directed into supporting the formation of inclusive farmer organisations, co-operatives and agricultural extension services, particularly those aimed at women.

Commenting on these issues Sir Malcolm added, "Farm extension work went badly out of fashion decades ago in the aid sector, but should now be expanded… Smallholders and large commercial producers all need an enabling environment with adequate training, investment in roads, storage and irrigation infrastructure. They also need new skills and methods with which to improve the resilience of their cultivation systems in the face of climate change, a challenge already making it much more difficult for farmers in many communities to decide when to sow, cultivate or harvest their crops."
---
---
2.Britain's new "peasants" down on the farm
Claire Provost and John Vidal
The Observer, 16 June 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/16/peasants-revolt-to-change-food-production

*A determined generation of young smallholders hope to reclaim the British countryside from the grip of corporate food giants

[Image caption: Smallholdings should be the dominant face of farming in Britain, says the Land Workers' Alliance]

The English peasantry may have officially died out in the Middle Ages, but a new breed of small-scale farmers who live off a few acres and celebrate life on the land have been accepted to join the world's biggest peasant organisation.

Jyoti Fernandes and other members of the newly formed Land Workers' Alliance were in Jakarta, Indonesia, last week for a global meeting of La Via Campesina, a movement of more than 180 peasant organisations which together can boast 200 million members in more than 80 countries. The alliance is the movement's first membership organisation in England and Wales.

Fernandes, 39, is part of a wave of self-proclaimed English "peasants" determined to stand up for smallholders and reclaim the countryside with an alternative vision of what the future of UK agriculture could look like. "Food and farming aren't just about market economics and just getting people calories in their body; it's got this huge social and cultural dimension to it," she says.

Western definitions of "peasant" are mostly pejorative, suggesting "a member of a class of low social status that depends on agricultural labour as a means of subsistence". But many of the 70 people who set up the alliance in March are young, highly educated and committed to a life on the land. They expect membership to grow to several thousand.

Fernandes and her husband live at Fivepenny Farm, a highly productive 20-acre Dorset smallholding, producing vegetables, herbs, meat, eggs, and cheese and generating its own electricity from small wind turbines and a set of solar panels. They sell directly to consumers at the weekly market in nearby Bridport.

"People have to be pretty creative to move to the land," says Fernandes, who has long campaigned to change planning laws so that making a living off the land is easier. "People who have a lot of money and want to live in the countryside with a farmhouse can outcompete at an auction any day people who want to do a land-based farming industry. The countryside isn't just this picture-perfect place for people to go and retire to. It needs to be a living, working countryside."

So what do small farmers in south-west England have in common with peasant farmers in Africa or India? Fernandes says the lives of her counterparts in poor countries are similar to hers: "They say, 'Oh, you're a farmer too, so what do you have?' and I say, 'Well, I've got two cows and I milk them every day, and I've got chickens,' and they say, 'Oh, I've got cows as well,' and we talk about that and who is looking after the cows while you're away. The practical realities of life are pretty much the same – you get up in the morning, you milk the cows, you have to do something with your milk,"

"Farming has caught the imagination of a new generation of young people who are particularly politically aware," says Ed Hamer, who has a small market garden in Chagford, Devon. "Growing food is a very positive reaction to what many see as problems of globalisation. One objective is to address the lack of representation of small farmers here in the UK."

Simon Fairlie, a smallholder and editor of the Land magazine, adds: "There hasn't really been an effective organisation in Britain representing small farmers – and there is a need for it. Agricultural extension facilities were abolished under Thatcher, and today there's no acknowledgement in government that there are people doing this and that they could use support. Large-scale farming can produce the food, but so can small-scale farming, but with less machinery and more human interaction. And there are people who want that lifestyle."

As members of La Via Campesina (literally "the peasants' way"), people in the new alliance share the idea of "food sovereignty", which insists on the right of people to produce for themselves and their communities and rejects corporate control of the food system. They say this has growing resonance in the UK, where less than 1% of people work on the land but increasing numbers of young people say they want to farm. "It might be for political reasons, or it might just be that they don't want to sit behind a computer all day. It might be people who were disenfranchised in school. Whatever it is, they're going into agriculture because they believe in it," says Fernandes. "Food is really becoming an issue at the front of public consciousness.

"I think people are really realising what we lose when we lose a good, healthy food culture. And instead of constantly fighting a system that's bad, we want to create positive alternatives … How can we take the right steps so that in 50 or 60 years we have enough people [in Britain] engaged in agriculture with enough skills and enough access to land and resources to be able to provide the food we need? We want to show that smallholdings can be productive."

Patrick Mulvany, chairman of the UK Food Group, says the alliance may serve as a "lightning rod" for growers, gardeners, small farmers and others looking for alternative food systems in England and Wales (the Scottish Crofting Federation is already a member of La Via Campesina).

"To have a group in England is wonderful. At the moment, the [farming] debate is dominated by NGOs and policy wonks. These people, instead, are spending most of their time growing," he says.