As it has come to dominate the agenda for reshaping African agriculture over the years, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been very careful not to associate itself too closely with patent-protected biotechnology as a panacea for African farmers.
True, the foundation named 25-year Monsanto veteran Rob Horsch to the position of “senior program officer, focusing on improving crop yields in sub-Saharan Africa.”
Yet its flagship program for African ag, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), explicitly distances itself from GMOs. “AGRA does not fund the development of GMOs,” the organization’s Web site states.
But AGRA—co-funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, proud sponsor of the original Green Revolution—is just part of what Gates does around African ag. What precisely is the foundation getting up to over there? Is it pushing GMOs on African smallholder farms?
[I have a call into the foundation to ask directly about the role GMOs play in its efforts. I’ll report on the response.]
It has been surprisingly hard to say. Until now.
In a speech at the World Food Prize gathering last week (see video below), Bill Gates himself chided the critics of GMOs—and shed some sunshine on the foundation leadership’s philosophy on ag development. At one point, he declared, “some of our grants [in Africa] do include transgenic approaches, because we believe they have the potential to address farmers’ challenges more efficiently than conventional techniques.”
Gates’ speech seems like a significant event to me—the World Food Prize website describes it as his “first major address on agriculture.” One of the major knocks on the foundation’s Africa efforts is the lack of democratic accountability and transparency. Since the foundation’s careful message management makes it hard to figure out precisely what it’s getting up to, I’m glad to see its leading light airing his views freely.
Gates opened with a standard-issue awestruck paean to Norman Borluag, recently deceased architect of the original Green Revolution. Gates delivered a rather unnuanced assessment of Borlaug’s legacy. Gates declared: “He [Borlaug] proved that farming has the power to lift up the lives of the poor.”
Really? To be sure, Borlaug’s “dwarf” hybrid seed varieties, when coupled with the heavy fertilizer and pesticide doses they need to thrive, dramatically increased yields in the places where the Green Revolution took root—the main success story being India.
But higher yields drive down crop prices—and increased use of imported inputs requires the taking on of debt. Rather than boosting the fortunes of most farmers in its purview, the Green Revolution drove hundreds of thousands into ruin. The survivors consolidated land holdings. The big got bigger and the poor tended to leave the land—too many of them ending up as excess labor in urban slum zones.
Maybe Gates didn’t mean that Borlaug’s efforts improved the lives of farmers, but rather the lives of non-farming urban dwellers. As he later says in the speech, also in the context of Borluag’s legacy, “better farming can end hunger and poverty and lift whole countries out of poverty.”
To be sure, many people were predicting famine for India in the 1960s, and the availability of cheap grain engendered by the Green Revolution no doubt forestalled widespread starvation. But it’s demonstrably wrong to claim that the Green Revolution ended hunger and poverty in India.
Indeed, hunger rates remain appalling in India—site of the Green Revolution’s greatest putative success. From a 2008 report by the International Food Policy Research Institute:
According to the 2008 Global Hunger Index, India ranks 66 out of 88 nations (developing countries and countries in transition). Despite years of robust economic growth, India scored worse than nearly 25 Sub-Saharan African countries and all of South Asia, except Bangladesh.[Emphasis added.]
The bit about India faring worse than “nearly 25 Sub-Saharan African countries” is particularly noteworthy, given that the Gates Foundation is explicitly spearheading a “new Green Revolution for Africa.” Of course, the original Green Revolution in India lies in shambles —the water table has been tapped near dry by massive irrigation projects in the zones where the Borlaug program took hold, and the remaining farmers there are struggling mightily with crushing debt loads and heightened pesticide-related cancer rates.
To be fair, Gates did point to “excesses” of the first Green Revolution, naming “too much irrigation and fertilizer” as examples. He vowed to avoid those mistakes in Africa. He insisted, more than once, that ecological sustainability was critical to the foundation’s project. Yet he repeatedly emphasized that increasing gross production—the Borlaug project of squeezing as much yield out of a piece of land as possible—was the key.
And that led him to the most fiery moment of his speech (if this dour man’s demeanor can ever be described as “fiery”): the part where he denounced unnamed “environmentalists” who are somehow blocking GMO seeds from entering Africa.
“This global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two,” Gates declared. He decried what he called a “false choice” between a “technological” approach geared to boosting productivity and an “environmental” one geared to sustainability. “We can have both,” he said.
He went on: “Some people insist on an ideal vision of the environment which is divorced from people and their circumstances. They have tried to restrict the spread of biotechnology into sub-Saharan Africa without regard to how much hunger and poverty might be reduced by it, or what the farmers themselves might want.”
The Gates Foundation, by contrast, isn’t so demure. In an apparent reference to this project with GMO seed giant Monsanto, Gates allowed that “one of our [unnamed] private-sector partners” is working on a genetically modified drought-tolerant corn variety for African farmers. The seeds will be available to farmers royalty-free—meaning that farmers will pay market price for the seeds themselves, but not pay the hefty biotech premium Monsanto normally slaps on top. It’s unclear whether seed-saving will be allowed under the arrangement.
According to the above-linked press release, the magic seeds are expected to come online in 2018. Gates emphasized repeatedly that as climate change proceeds apace, greater and greater swaths of Africa will face persistent drought conditions. In pushing for drought-tolerant seeds, Gates is swinging for the fences—looking for a single big solution to feed Africa’s drought-stricken areas.
For me, this deal raises questions that cut to the heart of the Bill Gates approach to African ag.
First of all, it can’t be noted often enough that a) GM agriculture’s much-hyped ability to boost yields, taken as a given by Gates, has thus far proven purely spectral; b) there’s serious evidence, despite a paucity of cash for critical research and heavy-handed control of research by seed companies, that GMOs cause health problems; and c) GMOs have so far proven quite proficient at generating unintended ecological consequences, such as the rise of “superweeds.”
There’s no room for any of that in Gates’ discourse.
Further, I absolutely agree with Bill Gates that there’s no zero-sum tradeoff between productivity and sustainability. But I urge him to tear his gaze away from the biotech lab and train it toward the field, where the best research on organic ag is being done. Indeed, one of the great benefits of organic farming is its long-term focus on soil health—and healthy soils can increase productivity over time without massive ecological externalities.
Here’s a summary of a 2005 paper published in Bioscience comparing yields of organic and conventional corn. The 22-year study compared yields of corn and soy for the following systems: 1) conventional chemical-based agriculture; 2) organic ag using manure for soil fertility; and 3) organic ag using “green manure” (nitrogen-fixing cover crops) for fertility. From the summary, here’s the key nugget of the study:
“First and foremost, we found that corn and soybean yields were the same across the three systems,” said [researcher David] Pimentel, who noted that although organic corn yields were about one-third lower during the first four years of the study, over time the organic systems produced higher yields, especially under drought conditions. The reason was that wind and water erosion degraded the soil on the conventional farm while the soil on the organic farms steadily improved in organic matter, moisture, microbial activity and other soil quality indicators. [Emphasis added.]
Note well the “especially under drought conditions” bit. Here is a technology for “drought-tolerant” corn that’s ready right now—no need to wait until 2018. It doesn’t rely on the benevolence of Monsanto to waive a technology fee; and there are no questions about seed-saving. It asks no one to accept a drop in long-term productivity as the price paid for sustainability. And not only does it help farmers adapt to climate change with its drought-tolerant qualities, but it helps mitigate climate change by sequestering carbon. From the summary:
The fact that organic agriculture systems also absorb and retain significant amounts of carbon in the soil has implications for global warming, Pimentel said, pointing out that soil carbon in the organic systems increased by 15 to 28 percent, the equivalent of taking about 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per hectare out of the air.
Moreover, in a 2008 paper (PDF), the U.N.‘s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) endorsed organic ag as a way to boost food security and improve farmer livelihoods in Africa. Concluded the FAO:
Organic agriculture can increase agricultural productivity and can raise incomes with low-cost, locally available and appropriate technologies, without causing environmental damage. Furthermore, evidence shows that organic agriculture can build up natural resources, strengthen communities and improve human capacity, thus improving food security by addressing many different causal factors simultaneously ... Organic and near-organic agricultural methods and technologies are ideally suited for many poor, marginalized smallholder farmers in Africa, as they require minimal or no external inputs, use locally and naturally available materials to produce high-quality products, and encourage a whole systemic approach to farming that is more diverse and resistant to stress. [Emphasis added.]
Gates cash could go a long way in dispersing the skills and (relatively low-cost) equipment needed for effective organic farming in Africa. Why not, for example, fund a dramatic expansion of the Soil, Food, and Healthy Communities project that’s proving so successful in Malawi?
So where’s the Gates cash, and the fiery speech from the foundation’s leader defending organic ag from its critics? Now, it’s true that the Gates Foundation does fund research into alternative, low-input agriculture. Just this past spring, the foundation awarded $1.3 million to World Watch to study such techniques for improving ag productivity in Africa.
But let’s look at funding levels. The above-mentioned Monsanto GMO corn project got $42 million from Gates—and an additional $5 million from the Howard Buffet Foundation, run by the son of investor/insurance magnate Warren Buffet. The Worldwatch grant is loose change in comparison. (When I get a Gates official on the phone, i’ll ask about other organic-style programs they’re funding.)
Given the pro-high-technology thrust of Gates’ speech, this imbalance is hardly surprising. As I took in the video of Gates’ speech and heard him go on about the “needs of small farmers” and the critical role of biotech in serving those needs, I couldn’t help but think of him as a kind of unelected agriculture commissioner for the African continent. And I wondered how many African farms will survive the embrace of the great software magnate.
Ecological farms: the only real way to feed an Increasingly hungry world
No to Obama’s agrichemical industry man, yes to Bed-Stuy Farm
A parable on the National School Lunch Program
Comments
View as Flat
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 5:57 pm
21 Oct 2009
Permalink
soil carbon Posted 7:09 pm
21 Oct 2009
There are 2 critical aspects to addressing global warming and reversing desertification.
1 – reduce future emissions – for this TECHNOLOGY is absolutely essential.
2 – absorb the current excess legacy loadings already in circulation – for this BIOLOGY is absolutely essential.
The simple truth is that probably half of the current problem has been directly caused by inappropriate human management of our land. Changing this management can have an immediate impact as the presentation mentioned below shows.
Please take a few minutes and look a little more into the massive and positive impact changed grazing management could have. Professor Tim Flannery has stated that sequestering carbon into the soils of our grazing lands is one of the best means we have available to us for dealing with climate change.
There is growing concern for significant action to avoid catastrophic climate change. Please take a few minutes and look through the presentation on Soil Carbon at http://www.soilcarbon.com.au
Not enough people are yet aware of Soil Carbon and the critical role it can play in helping to reverse the impacts of global warming.
Did you know that just a 1% change in soil organic matter across just one-quarter of the World’s land area could sequester 300 billion tonnes of physical CO2?
Recent Australian studies have shown that a 1% change can occur within a few years – and in fact up to 4% changes were measured in some areas. The management changes required to achieve these increases are very readily implemented. I hope you find the presentation of interest.
Permalink
Rip Van Winkle Posted 7:58 pm
21 Oct 2009
Permalink
attractwomen Posted 2:37 am
22 Oct 2009
http://www.rapidattraction.com/
Permalink
Steven Earl Salmony Posted 4:16 am
22 Oct 2009
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 6:02 am
22 Oct 2009
Permalink
mskellyann Posted 10:50 am
22 Oct 2009
I recommend Claire Hope Cummings's book Uncertain Peril: Genetic Engineering and the Future of Seeds.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:10 am
22 Oct 2009
If he just supported Seedsavers with a large contract to provide seeds to African farmers, and then used his billions to help support local farm prices and helped Seedsavers to show farmers how to establish seed farms in Africa that preserve successful crop strains, maybe some actual progress would result.
Extending GMO/chemical ag over yet another continent won't help anyone except corporate chemical ag.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:24 am
22 Oct 2009
http://www.seedsavers.org/
They could put it to good use all over the planet. Maybe chemical ag based on redistributiuon of wealth to corporate coffers would yeild to real free market farming? It's a possibility, especially with the huge labor force looking for work in most of the under developed world.
Labor intensive organic farming and local farm markets could lead to a natural evolution of small business, real capitalism as a basis for real democracy. Corporate monopoly capitalism, of the kind practiced by agribizz is not capitalism at all.
It is corporate feudalism, the divine right of capital to use redistribution of wealth to rule the world. A strange mix of monopoly power and kleptocracy.
Permalink
askantik Posted 10:52 am
22 Oct 2009
These ag companies already have enough money and lobbying... with Gates behind them I fear for the worst.
Permalink
polidoc Posted 11:05 am
22 Oct 2009
However, recently Stewart Brand has come out strong for GMO in this next century. This about-face by one of the early leaders of the Gaia movement has given me pause. The Long Now philosopher has shifted from prior stances and now believes that our situation is much more dire than our day-to-day struggle suggests, thus requiring solutions like applied GMO's particularly in the case of Africa. We have to survive these next 100 years he says, let alone 1000. So, I'm at a standstill watching the stars spin around me, waiting for clarity on this dynamic shift in our path.
Permalink
askantik Posted 11:22 am
22 Oct 2009
The best thing we can do to increase food security and support the local agroecology is to use polyculture, particularly "companion" species in the way that Native Americans often did with maize, beans, squash, sunflowers, etc.
Then you have the problem of places like Mexico where they have dozens and dozens of varieties of maize that will likely be lost (save for, perhaps, seed vaults) when GM becomes widespread. It is already cropping up (no pun intended) in parts of Mexico. Most plants already have cultivars which are suited to certain climates and conditions. We should be utilizing these and encourage additional selective breeding, as have been done for thousands of years. We should also provide education on green manure, cover crops, etc.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 1:45 pm
22 Oct 2009
As far as GMO crops forcing extensive debt on farmers? Get real! I know farmers who exclusively use as much GMO seed as possible and pay cash for everything, and I know farmers that use all conventional seeds who don't have any money. So stop telling us that GMO forces debt on the farm. Monsanto does not come out to the farm and demand that you buy a GMO seed. I have yet to have Monsanto tell me "No, you cannot plant that conventional corn or soybean seed". Give the farmers a little more credit than that, they are business people just like any other business person. They make their seed buying decision based off of return of investment.
In Africa, isn't the majority of the agriculture being practiced now considered organic?
Why won't the organic organizations approve certain GMO crops if 1) they use a naturally occuring protein to resist a pest. 2) Use that naturally occuring protein to ward of diseases that can carry hazardous toxins into our food chain. 3) Allow that crop to be planted in a low rainfall area. 4) Actually improve the health benefits of that crop.
Isn't the goal of an organic producer to produce the highest quality product with as little negative impact to their land?
Permalink
askantik Posted 1:53 pm
22 Oct 2009
"Isn't the goal of an organic producer to produce the highest quality product with as little negative impact to their land?"
Yes, but when you know relatively nothing about how GMOs will disperse in the environment and affect the local ecosystem and crop diversity, you can't claim it's going to have "little negative impact." It's actually way more likely to require additional pesticides and fertilizer (as already noted), burden already poor farmers, and could potentially reduce (or destroy) age-old crop cultivars.
"As far as GMO crops forcing extensive debt on farmers? Get real!"
I didn't say GMO farmers are poor. I said they once committed, they have no real chance of going back because of contamination, and for people who are already low on money, supposed increased yields at first may sound appetizing, but then they can become trapped. Monsanto can legally in both the US and Canada (and some other countries) walk onto your property WITHOUT your consent and test your crops. If they find GMO of theirs and you didn't buy it, they can sue you. But it might have come from Farmer John across the road, you say. "Too bad, you have our seed, you pay," Monsanto says.
May I suggest "The Future of Food" which touches on this quite a bit.
Permalink
mskellyann Posted 2:54 pm
22 Oct 2009
You're often mad that non-farmers are talking with authority about farming. Well, I figure as long as folks are well-informed, they have a right to talk about a subject. The key is being well-informed, which few people seem to be when it comes to GMOs. Those chemical companies/agri-industries did their job well.
Please become informed before talking any more about GMOs, foodprovider.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 2:05 pm
22 Oct 2009
Please allow me to respond to a few of your comments.
"long term they will inevitably lead to soil erosion (due to increased fertilizer and pesticide applications... many GMOs won't even grow with Round-Up, for example)"
Actually the use of GMO's has nothing to do with soil erosion, has more to do with tillage practices of the grower. Also, the use of fertilizers per unit of crop produced has decreased. We now grow 70% more yield on the same ounce of fertilizer as we used too. Not sure what you are getting at with "many GMO's won't even grow with Round-up" A RR gmo will grow and produce a profitable yield no matter if it has roundup applied or not.
"pests will build up resistances, beneficial species (like insects) may be harmed"
Quite the contrary. Bt genes have been quite specific in what species they will affect. Using an insecticide is not specific. The use of the Bt gene has saved many beneficial insect.
"GMOs encourage monoculture"
Actually, gmo's has made some crop rotations economically feasible. It has helped to increase the number of acres of soybeans, sunflowers and some small grains into rotations.
"they are designed to be sterile"
I have heard that too. Some have called it a terminator gene. I have not seen it happen yet. At least not in grain production.
The seed companies already have vaults of all the seed they have produced, and yes, they have non-gmo seeds in those vaults. They do utilize genetics specific to a local climate, and breed hybrids and varieties from these areas to produce an even better seed for that area. The seed that we grow in Wisc will not be suited for Mexico and vice versa. The genetics of a plant make the plant, not the technology, that is like an option u choose when you buy a car.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 2:25 pm
22 Oct 2009
There has been literally tons of scientific research done on all GMO products, some have not been approved for just the reason you are concerned over. And once again, growing a gmo crop does not require you to use more fertilizer. I use less fertilizer now than what I did when I started farming in 1996. And that includes my GMO crops and my non GMO crops, and in both cases my corn yields have increased by 75 bu in that time period. Plus I use ZERO soil applied insecticides. Where I anticipate an insect challenge I will choose a crop and or seed that will give me protection from that pest. No earth worm killing happening!
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 3:11 pm
22 Oct 2009
You critisize me for my knowledge, or lack of knowledge as is pointed out, on GMO's and you suggest I read a book authored by a former environmental lawyer? A person who's paycheck was written by the environmental industry. Isn't that like telling me that the articles I've read on climate change aren't relevant because they are payrolled by Oil companies? What did I say that was not correct? The last thing I want to do is to be dishonest.
Oh, and yes, it is possible to precisely insert and rearange the genes in a plants DNA makeup. This has come along ways since the "shotgun" method they once used.
Thanks for the constructive critisism.
Permalink
mskellyann Posted 4:14 pm
22 Oct 2009
You want to know where you're wrong? Here you go:
1. You say plant genes are inserted into other plants. While this is problematic in itself, it is not the whole truth. Non-plant genes are also "inserted," including animal and bacterial genes.
2. You say farmers have been sued for saving GM seeds; basically, for breaking contract. What you omit: organic farmers have been sued for growing GM crops when they are obviously not under contract, simply because of cross-pollination and contamination of their crops. So not only does an organic farmer lose organic certification for the contamination, he or she is also sued for it!
3. The shotgun method IS still used. The whole process is utterly imprecise. But there is further imprecision - genes are combined without any regard to an organism's evolution and integrity. The introduction of a new gene may have the unintended consequence of making it vulnerable to conditions it was previously resistant to.
4. Again, your comparison between hybrids and GMOs. Totally disregards the history and the science.
5. You constantly claim that you use less fertilizer than you did before. This is disingenuous. Yes, less fertilizer may be used. GMOs combined with no-till methods may drastically reduce the need for fertilizer. But studies show that chemical pesticides, on the other hand, have drastically increased with the use of many GMOs. After all, GMOs such as RoundUp-Ready seeds are intended to maximize profits: spend for the seeds, then spend for the RoundUp. Just because you don't use certain pesticides doesn't mean that that's how other farmers operate.
6. Bt acts in a totally different way as a spray than it does as part of an organism, partly because GM Bt is in a different form from naturally occurring Bt. As an organism in a spray, it breaks down naturally over time and is activated only in the guts of susceptible organisms; therefore its effect on non-target organisms is minimized. Bt transgenics, on the other hand, HAVE been shown to harm non-target organisms and beneficial insects.
6a. Bt transgenics, you imply in your response to askantik, reduce dependence on pesticides. This is not true. Again, studies have shown that just as much insecticide is being used on Bt cotton as on pre-GMO cotton.
I don't have the time to pull apart any more of your "argument," much of which is incoherent. All I ask is, learn when you're wrong. Spend some time reading instead of just spewing. Please.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 7:44 pm
22 Oct 2009
1994 US Agricultural pesticide usage in millions of lbs = 949
2001 Us Agricultural pesticide usage in millions of lbs = 675
That is lbs of active ingredients for all pesticides used by Agriculture. In contrast total pesticide usage of all industries was 1,222 M lbs in 1974 and 1,203 M lbs in 2001.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 7:34 am
24 Oct 2009
After talking with some plant breeder aquantences I have, please let me address your response.
1). Gene insertion, while it is not an exact science, it is more precise than the early days of the "shotgun" method (which actually used a .22 caliber load with gun powder to shoot the gene source into the germplasm of the plant.
2). The use of non-plant proteins for gene insertion has been used. (I was wrong). The use of bacterial based genes such as Bt is an example. The use of animal genes can be done, but the plant breeders I am close too have not heard of any instances of that happening.
Off subject now...It would really be nice if everyone would fill out their profile. At least what their profession is. For all I know, somebody may be an organic chemistry researcher. If that is the case, I would tend to trust their comments. If all of us are non-research/science people, then all we are doing is spitting back what we have read.
Permalink
mskellyann Posted 11:08 am
24 Oct 2009
http://www.steps-centre.org/PDFs/STEPSsumBtCotton.pdf has a good overview of some of the other issues faces by famers internationally, including cultural and educational issues. If GMOs are going to "feed the world," something non-GM crops can do already, incidentally, then they need to be able to be used effectively by poor farmers in isolated areas with little or no formal education. Why should they adopt GMOs, a scheme which only enriches American agri-chem companies, when they are now rediscovering excellent traditional techniques, techniques which had been abandoned by their grandfathers because of the "green revolution?"
Even in GMO crops are effective in reducing pesticide use, the basic danger of introducing a non-evolved genetic structure into plant populations strongly argues against their use.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 8:04 am
25 Oct 2009
Thank you for including that link, other than suggesting that I pay $31 to actually get to see the info that you wanted me to see, I thought it was intresting. The abstract would seem to contradict your concerns of using GMO crops. Luckaly I was able to google the title and found a copy that did not ask for a small donation to view it. http://www.agbioforum.missouri.edu/v5n1/v5n1a01-morse.htm
I would encourage all to read this. Also, to look at tthe graphs. As far as I can tell, it is the same study you sent me.
Permalink
Mickpatriot Posted 12:13 pm
31 Oct 2009
Permalink
mskellyann Posted 5:03 am
26 Oct 2009
Thanks for helping make my point!
Bye now.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 5:57 am
27 Oct 2009
Permalink
mskellyann Posted 2:53 pm
29 Oct 2009
"You will bash the credability . . ." Nope, just thinking critically. Critical thinking is what I like to use along with my "common sense and faith in God."
"GMO technology is a tool given us to use, why not use it?" *sigh* Because, as I've said before, it's based on faulty premises and bad science, and traps farmers in debt. It's also incredibly dangerous to existing plant breeds.
I won't argue with you in future, I just thought you might really be open to learning. Boy was I wrong.
Permalink
jonnyappleseed Posted 5:28 pm
26 Oct 2009
Thank you.
Permalink
askantik Posted 6:26 pm
26 Oct 2009
May I suggest "The Future of Food" or these fine links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff
Here a man was sued by Monsanto (and imprisoned) for saving his GMO seeds because Monsanto says he is supposed to buy new ones every year. That's another reason why the have modified seeds which make sterile plants (so you can't save seeds). http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=30496
Also these:
"The non-profit Center for Food Safety listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement."
It goes into briefly with this guy in "The Future of Food," but the full story can be read on his website: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
The entire Wikipedia article on Monsanto (and likewise on Cargill, DuPont) has f---ed up things with decent sources. There are a handful of documentaries (like "The Future of Food" and "Suicide Seeds" and "The World According to Monsanto") which outline such examples.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?currentPage=1
People think that GMOs are just a technology that is being debated. It couldn't be farther from the truth.
Permalink
roncastle Posted 3:33 pm
22 Oct 2009
These are without a doubt some of the most evil folks on the planet. They cross pollinate their neighbors crops with their evil seeds and then sue their neighbors for patent violation.
If a small farmer cannot save his own seed for next year he is doomed to failure. There are plenty of these folks in India already caught in the GMO trap who are committing suicide every day.
Permalink
jonnyappleseed Posted 3:57 pm
27 Oct 2009
I won't get into the details - destroyed evidence, a signed contract, etc. - of the other case here, but once again, patent rights were found to be violated, and consequences followed.
A person doesn't have to buy their seed - but Monsanto makes it clear under what conditions you'll buy it. Don't like that? Don't buy that.
There are other reasons to dislike Monsanto (rBST comes to mind) - but 'evil' seems a bit strong and hatred because they want the law enforced seems a bit much to me.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:56 pm
22 Oct 2009
Permalink
evaughanlee Posted 7:57 pm
22 Oct 2009
Check out the film and get involved here. http://globalonenessproject.org/videos/athousandsuns
Permalink
jonnyappleseed Posted 7:36 am
24 Oct 2009
As for GMOs, no one is forced to plant them. Go ahead and google 'corn seed' and you'll see some choices. Monsanto has a patent on this stuff. Maybe you don't think they should have a patent on seeds, but they do. It's like software, or solar panel technology, or whatever. People invent something, they apply for a patent, if approved they get protection. You want to use it, use it within the law, or get sued. If you want to make this an act of civil disobedience, fine with me. As it turns out, Monsanto doesn't seem to be especially litigious about this - 9 trials I think (they won all).
Farmers have been trapped in cycles of debt since they -true to their nature -resisted union organizing back before most any of us on this thread were born. Its not the technology that causes debt, or debt cycles, its the loss of control over the product of your labor.
The state of Iowa, from the rolling hills in the north east to western flats, is hardly a monoculture. What you see from I80 is corn, but what you can't tell is that the rotation is corn and beans, sometimes alfalfa. Sometimes it's corn for 7 years, but usually more like 3-4-5; then beans. Maybe some alfalfa right before the corn. There'll be oats grown around and north of CR - might want to learn about the oat industry in that river town - and it is even possible you'd catch a little winter wheat way in the west.
Back in the day, you could retain, clean and reseed your commercial hybrids (Funks, DeKalb, Garst/Pioneer) if you wanted to, it wasn't illegal if memory serves, but if you cared about yield and so forth, you'd never do it. Hybrid vigor is a one shot deal, really, and you might do this if you were broke, but not as a real plan. (The old phrase 'eating your seed corn' refers to being in dire straits in winter time. This would have probably been open-pollinated corn way back then.) Anyway, it's not what you don't know that gets you, its what you know that just ain't so.
Permalink
Grassrootbeer Posted 1:30 pm
25 Oct 2009
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 1:52 pm
25 Oct 2009
Permalink
Grassrootbeer Posted 2:42 pm
25 Oct 2009
Permalink
jonnyappleseed Posted 1:42 pm
26 Oct 2009
Permalink
Grassrootbeer Posted 1:27 pm
25 Oct 2009
I agree with this, and we as environmentalists should recognize that perhaps even if we personally do not feel that we make unreasonable demands, the movement as a whole often appears to do just that. This is a stigma that needs to be addressed and countered by showing that the environmental movement is not just an implementation of many “no’s”; indeed were are doing a better job as a whole in terms of framing issues more around vision and solution-oriented than listing problems.
So why then, Mr. Gates, are we trying to “restrict the spread of biotechnology into sub-Saharan Africa without regard to how much hunger and poverty might be reduced by it, or what the farmers themselves might want”? Well, as much as that passionate statement may seem to pin those who advocate for non-GMO solutions, the statement itself can and should be subjected to its own critique. Do the people of sub-Saharan Africa want to implement seed technology that certainly may increase yields in the short-term, only to degrade soil and increase the all-familiar problem of desertification in the long run? Do these same people want to use seeds that rely on toxic pesticides that will poison the water they drink, the same water that has to be used in excess in order to support such an agricultural system? Do these people want to risk a drop in food security as they forgo intercropping and crop species diversity in favor of large-scale monocultures that could be wiped out in a single season by a disease outbreak? Do these people want the future of their food in the hands of blatantly heartless agribusinesses such as Monsanto who will likely not allow them to save their seeds? I doubt such latent consequences will ultimately “improve farmers’ lives” (http://www.monsanto.com).
Perhaps I am being short-sighted myself. In terms of desertification, one of the main arguments for the use of Roundup-Ready corn, soy and other GMO crops is that the use of herbicides means that the soil does not have to be tilled in order to help fight weeds competing with the crops. Without tilling, soil is not as likely to be blown into oblivion by the wind. However, sustainable agriculture has demonstrated the ability to either thrive without tilling OR herbicides, or use tilling in combination with other practices, such as cover cropping and natural fertilization techniques to build the soil up (see here- http://attra.ncat.org/new_pubs/attra-pub/soilmgmt.html#tillage).
But these people need access to more food NOW, right? I wouldn’t doubt that they are asking for whatever farming techniques and technologies will help them grow as much food to eat and sell as they can, as they very well should request. So maybe we should start off by being short-sighted and allow them to use technology that is not sustainable, but rather than taking the steps to develop a permanent infrastructure around it, aim to have a quick implementation to a truly sustainable system. However, I doubt Mr. Gate’s Foundation and other groups working on the issue would like the idea of purchasing machinery made for an industrial food system if it will become irrelevant as permaculture systems are phased in.
I then ask why not simply start with the best system right away? If the drought-resistant seeds Monsanto is developing in the name of African farmers will not be ready until 2018, let’s develop the technologies we have always used: sunlight and people power. An ecological agriculture system can be started right away if we are willing to use our resources on sending people in on the ground that work with the local people to create farms that cooperate with the landscape, blending techniques that the developed world has pioneered along with traditional wisdom to optimize the food systems. This empowers communities and engages them to develop solutions themselves instead of relying almost entirely from the mechanized imperialism of the Global North. They can have a source of quality economic stability while growing the highest quality food available and stabilizing the ecosystems that they rely upon. If we’re trying to help these people more or less from the ground up, why not learn from our errors and help them do it right this time?
Let us maximize our capital: natural, economic, human, social and cultural capital all have opportunities to be used efficiently with a push for sustainable agriculture, both within the communities in question and between those communities and the people who would go in to help them during the development process. We have an opportunity here to improve the quality of these people’s lives with a larger focus on their interests, not ours as philanthropists, which in terms strengthens our relationship with other parts of the world.
As tireless as the status-quo critics may be of sustainable systems, they cannot begin to dispute that the dominate agricultural practices of the developed world is proving to be a failed experiment, along with every other economic system that relies on the foundational concept of limitless growth. Time to wake up and smell reality- ideology and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. Realizing our ideals has been the driving force behind our progress as a species, and we have everything to gain from continuing that tradition.
Permalink
melpomena11 Posted 11:49 am
28 Oct 2009
FYI, you don't have to wait for a call back from Gates to find out how their other 1.386 billion dollars of agricultural program funding are being used ($42M for a Monsanto project doesn't seem to be worth this much hype, to me, in context of a $1.4 billion dollar budget just for ag programs). They publish information on every grant they've ever made on their searchable grant database: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/grants/Pages/search.aspx (you can refine the search by "agricultural development"), and AGRA also publishes all of their sub-grants on their website: http://www.agra-alliance.org/section/about/grants#fund.
Permalink
Farmer Janet Posted 12:56 pm
28 Oct 2009
If I am not mistaken, PVP protected plants (like certified oats and wheat varieties) can be saved by the farmer growing them for reseeding. Only PATENTED seeds (RR corn, etc.) cannot be saved by the farmer. Certified seeds cannot be SOLD without permission or without paying a royalty to the owner of the variety, but they can be reseeded by the person who grew them.
Percy Schmeiser was initially accused of "brown-bagging" (buying and seeding patented seed without signing a contract with Monsanto or paying them their royalty or "technology fee"). However, even Monsanto could not substantiate that claim and those charges were dropped. The court ruled he either "knew or should have known" that his field contained Monsanto's genetic material. If you carefully read the account of how he supposedly harvested the surviving plants after spraying them with round up, stored them in a pickup over winter and then reseeded an entire field with a pickup full of seed, you can understand that was pretty silly as a pickup full of canola seed will not seed as many acres as were alleged. Interestingly, the judges also did not award Monsanto any damages. The problem, it seems, is that the law has not quite caught up to the technology of patenting life forms that can spread and duplicate on their own. The Supreme Court of Canada had to make their ruling based on the laws that were on the books at the time and there was no legal precedence to help them other than infringements on patents on such things as can openers and mouse traps.
To maintain there has been a decrease in the use of pesticides because of transgenic varieties does not take into account the fact that BT crops are the single largest release of pesticides into the environment ever. The BT gene in those crops is not a naturally occurring gene, it is a recombinant gene that has been altered (made more active) to produce higher levels of toxin in plant cells, that is how Monsanto is able to patent it.
A representative of Pioneer seed once admitted to me that the bt toxin does indeed exude into the soil. He assured me that it really wasn't a problem because the bt toxin in the soil really only could be found in a one square foot area around the corn plant. When I asked how many corn plants there were per square food in a field, he wouldn't talk to me any more. No earthworm damage? Are you sure?
Permalink
pauldanish Posted 12:41 am
31 Oct 2009
To be sure, Monsanto continually develops and patents new RR varieties, both to offer more productive lines and to protect its proprietary rights. But that shouldn't change the fact that before long there will be RR seeds in the public domain that could be used by poor farmers in areas where seed saving is an issue -- and which will almost certainly boost their yields.
Over time, the same will be true of a host of other GMO crops.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 6:19 am
31 Oct 2009
Permalink
Mickpatriot Posted 11:58 am
31 Oct 2009
Bottom line Billy Gates is worried food might be an issue for his family one day and wants to ensure he will have food in the future. He does not give a damn about anybody only his profit potential. And if you have any doubts ask the original creators of windows and his first partners. He made billions selling software that never did what promised, but had to be a subscription and with forced regular renewals and upgrades ensuring his future. Corporate America is so stupid. Wasting millions for something that has not returned a profit or changed it's ability to reduce costs but buy it they do over and over again. Windows has not changed productivity since 3.1 but every year or two they buy the new version anyway. Doh!, even Homer ain't that stupid. So GM seeds is his new subscription service. New purchase must be made every year promising huge returns for the rest of time. Now that sounds like the Billy Gates I know.
Permalink