Agribusiness as Usual: The Death of Peasent Farming from The Argentina Independent Expansion of Soy and Agribusiness in Argentina
In 1996, Carlos Menem’s government approved a law that granted farmers permission to cultivate transgenic soybeans in Argentina. The decision brought about a drastic and rapid change within the country’s agricultural sector. Argentina allowed for the cultivation of genetically modified soybeans without carrying out their own tests, instead using only those provided by the multinational agribusiness Monsanto. The economy was struggling and Menem sought large corporate contracts that could be seen as evidence of potential future recovery. Within a year, 11 million tonnes of soy were harvested from an area spanning 6 million hectares. Fast forward 15 years to today, and the entire country bares an alarming resemblance to a giant field of bioengineered soybeans. Argentina is the third largest producer of soy in the world and is responsible for one third of worldwide soybean sales. A staggering 97% of the soy harvested is exported worldwide. Today soybean cultivation occupies more than half of Argentina’s productive land. However, long before the arrival of the multinational soybean plantation companies, the land was largely farmed by local and indigenous peasants. In 1988, there were 422,000 small farms based in Argentina’s countryside. By 2002, this number had fallen by almost 25%... What had previously been a diverse and self-sufficient agricultural system was rapidly replaced with a model of virtual monoculture. As Brewster Kneen, author of Farmageddon, puts it, Argentines were “quite literally forced” to produce soy “in place of milk, meat, vegetables, and lentils which were once produced in abundance on the small farms which have now been overrun by large landowners growing soy.” Nowadays, lentils are imported from Canada whilst exports of Argentina’s famous beef decline annually... The Power of Monsanto Monsanto is one of the world’s largest food production companies. It was Monsanto’s genetically modified RoundupReady soy (RR) that was approved by Menem in 1996. The RR technology allowed for soy to grow in arid areas, and in so doing greatly reduced the need for manual labour. Monsanto dominates the current soybean market in Argentina and is the driving force behind the corporate wave that is destroying peasant farming. Kneen offers a scathing verdict: “the clear and present danger is the corporate control of food, which is what Monsanto is clearly after. On this account, and because I despise its ruthless tactics, I do not hesitate to describe it as an evil company”. The power that is held by the world’s largest food producers cannot be underestimated. Boy describes Monsanto as “a multinational that is capable of all types of corruption” whilst Neimann says that “it acts without any restrictions”. Despite these traits, the Argentine government relentlessly pursue bigger and longer lasting deals with Monsanto and other big agribusiness companies. As recently as June of this year, president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner announced a new agreement with Monsanto. As part of her Agribusiness Strategic Plan (PEA), the president hopes to increase grain production by 60% to 160 million tonnes by 2020, 20% of which will be soy. Following the accord, president Fernández announced that she was “very happy because Argentina is now at the forefront of biotechnology”. Whilst the revolutionary scientific developments made by companies such as Monsanto are undeniable, their products are not without faults. The exclusive use of RR has caused biotypes to disappear, weakened the soil, and made it less productive for future farming. Rural populations have also been affected by the spraying of the herbicide due to its glyphosate content. Local doctors complain of higher cases of miscarriage, birth abnormalities, and respiratory dysfunction. As Kneen sums up “the danger may well turn out be genetic”. Not to mention the deforestation that has to occur in order to make way for the vast soybean plantations. The region of Santiago del Estero has shown one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world with an average of 0.81% of the forest torn away each year, compared with a global rate of 0.23%. The Crop That Just Keeps on Giving Though unpopular among human rights organisations, against a backdrop of record-high world prices for soy and other crops, the immediate economic gains of an industrial, concentrated agricultural model have so far dissuaded politicians from taking definitive action against it. "For over 20 years, Hawai'i has been the global center for the open-field testing of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's), including pharmaceutical crops. Over 5,000 experimental tests have been conducted by Monsanto, Dow, Dupont/Pioneer, Syngenta and BASF that spray chemicals on an almost daily basis on our most valuable lands. They are supported by tax-breaks, and beneficial relationships with landowners, regulators and politicians. We estimate GMO companies own or lease 40,000 -- 60,000 acres that are sprayed with over 70 different chemicals.
A new vision for Hawai'i would promote small farms that grow chemical-free produce, employ our youth and restore the indigenous ahupua'a system. Hawai'i has less than 3,000 acres of certified organic farmland, which is 0.27% of Hawaiian farmland. Kamehameha Schools is Hawaii's largest private landowner. Despite Kamehameha's public statements about sustainability and conservation, they lease substantial amounts of land to multi-national biotech firms, including Monsanto, Dow, Dupont/Pioneer and Syngenta for GMO open field tests and seed corn production. Kamehameha is the only institution with the land, capital and resources to reduce our food imports, that are now over 90%, and ensure that Hawai'i does not run out of food in case of natural disasters or rising oil prices. ____________________________________________ Presented by Hawai'i GMO Justice Coalition with support from Organic Consumers Association & Millions Against Monsanto" The Death of a Food Bill
Tuesday, May 8th, 2012 By Alan D. McNarie “The issue of boosting food farming in this state is not going to be taken seriously until Clift Tsuji ceases to be chair of the Agriculture Committee and indeed until the leadership of the house changes,” fumed Anthony Aalto. “For a large segment of the not-for-profit and environmental communities, this has become obvious.” Aalto was the Hawaii Sierra Club’s representative in a hui of environmental and agricultural organizations that had authored House Bill 2703, which would have made the doubling of local food production within the state an established priority. The bill had passed all the required committees of both the House and Senate, including the House Agriculture Committee headed by Rep. Clift Tsuji (D- South Hilo, Panaewa, Puna, Keaau, Kurtistown). But between the time that the bill passed out of its last House committee hearing and reached the House/Senate conference, which would have reconciled any differences in language between the House and Senate versions, Tsuji added a series of amendments that had appeared in none of the versions that the committees had voted on. The bill had garnered numerous co-sponsors and drew overwhelming support from those testifying, who pointed out that by most estimates, Hawai’i currently imports all but about 8-10 percent of its food, and had only a week’s worth of food stockpiled, making the state, as testifier Ileana Haunani Ruelas pointed out, “incredibly vulnerable to supply disruptions.” Aalto pointed out that cargo ships that brought food here needed to refuel in order to get back, so if a tsunami or storm surge knocked out Honolulu’s refineries, the ships simply couldn’t come. Others noted that as the price of oil increased, the cost of imported food was likely to skyrocket, and that the increasing reliance on processed foods was contributing to health problems such as diabetes and obesity. O’ahu testifiers also noted that more than half of their island’s remaining 3,500 acres of land suitable for food farming was threatened by two proposed developments, Hono’ulu’uli farmlands and Koa Ridge. But the bill also garnered some opposition, particularly from those in the land development business, who objected to a clause that would have placed a temporary moratorium on the reclassification of agricultural lands if the goals of increased food production weren’t met. That clause was deleted by Tsuji’s Agriculture Committee, which then passed the bill with no “nays.” But apparently someone in the House leadership had second thoughts afterward. The original bill called for the state to increase the amount of food grown locally in the year 2014 by the year 2020. Tsuji’s revision replaced that requirement with a “benchmark” that the state grow 30 percent of its food by 2020, but made that benchmark “non-binding.” The original bill had called for the Department of Agriculture to measure and analyze “the amount of food livestock, dairy, and edible crop commodities grown and sold in the State on an annual basis,” to make that information public, and to make recommendations aimed at meeting the target for 2030. But the version that Tsuji brought to the conference committee added another mandate: that the department study the “feasibility” of the goal itself, and recommend a lower benchmark if it found it more feasible. In other words, Aalto told Big Island Weekly, “They said that if the DOA doesn’t like it [the benchmark] they can ignore it anyway.” And a new clause was added to the “guidelines” of the study: “There is no state or county prohibition on the growing, raising, possession, or consumption by people of genetically engineered agricultural products within the state if the products are grown or raised in compliance with federal law.” The new draft also contained added language that established “other goals of equal priority” including “the goal of meeting the renewable energy portfolio standard in 2020, partly with biofuels and biomass crops at the volume estimated by the department of business, economic development, and tourism”; “the goal of increasing agricultural products for export and livestock feed at a rate determined by the department of agriculture…,” and goals for new housing construction in each county. Another new clause, Aalto claims, would have “effectively undermined the public trust doctrine on water. What they basically said was that major landowners should have equal access to water.” Aalto calls those additions “poison pills”; he believes they were deliberately added in order to make the bill unacceptable to its original supporters, thus killing it. That was certainly their effect. Within hours after the new draft was revealed, a multiple messages were streaming through the Facebook and via e-mail, urging former supporters to oppose the new language. The added language also stuck in the throat, apparently, of Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Clarence Nishihara. “We didn’t have to fight against our own bill, because they came back to the conference committee and Nishihara said, this is unacceptable,” recounted Aalto. “And Tsuji looked at him innocently and said, ‘Why?’ And Nishihara said, ‘I think you understand.’” Nishihara was unable to return BIW’s calls before the deadline for this article. “There are many ways to kill a bill. You can do so simply by not scheduling it. You can choose not to appropriate funds. You can also insert language so hideous and appalling that the very communities who organized for the bill suddenly stand up against it,” wrote Hawaii Food Policy Group founder Ashley Lukins. “Representative Tsuji (the House Ag Committee Chair) chose option three, which fortunately for us, clearly exposes the forces who have challenged the passage of this bill all along. In the final hours of HB2703, Big Land, Big Ag, and GMO Seed Companies reared their ugly heads in the context of a bill aimed at committing the state to supporting local food production. Rather than kill it quietly, these forces killed HB2703 with an arrogance I never would have expected. I think it is safe to say, however, that it was our people power that provoked their galling final act. If we had not been effective at moving the bill along, against all odds, then they might have found it sufficient simply to let it die a "more peaceful death" if you will. Instead they sent a message to all of us. A community-derived bill supporting food self-sufficiency is not the kind of food self-sufficiency those in power want to see.” “Basically, I think, we agreed to disagree and deferred it,” Tsuji told BIW. “I don’t think this is the end of it… I do agree and I support those who are very concerned that Hawai’i is dangerously dependent on imported food.” He noted that “The Department of Agriculture along with the UH CTAHR [College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources] and the Farm Bureau have been working on this for years, and I think they have been doing good job.” (how is importing 90% of our food "doing a good job"?????????)He also claimed to support the bill’s aims: “The bottom line is, as chair of Ag, it is my view and from my advocacy, and I truly believe that sustainability and especially for the small farmers, is very important [sic].” Tsuji admitted that “The conference draft has been changed a little bit, but I personally feel that it’s been all for the better…. I incorporated some of the findings of the 2050 sustainability report. That report also said agriculture cannot stand alone…and we should take into consideration other aspects of the economy, including housing, biotech and water, among others.” But Aalto wasn’t buying that explanation. “Why did he go looking for it [the additional language]? Why did he not talk to authors of the bill?” he reacted. “Where in the 2050 plan did it say that we have undermine the public trust doctrine on water? Where did that say we have to support GMOs? This is crap….Where does the chair of the Agriculture Committee get off saying that we need to plant houses on farmland? Why does he feel that it was incumbent upon him to do that?” Shawn ‘Alika” Leavey, who lives in Tsuji’s district, told BIW that he called Tsuji and got a somewhat different version of what had happened: “He said a few times that these were not his ideas and it was just by virtue of the fact that he was ag chairman that he had to deal with this.” Big Island Weekly went through the “Hawai’i 2050 Plan,” the legislature-authorized document that Tsuji was apparently referring to. Some of the language he inserted apparently did come from the plan: the 30 percent benchmark, for instance, which the 2050 plan recommended, based on an estimate from CTAHR that that percentage of the island’s food actually could be grown. BIW didn’t find some of the other introduced language in the 2050 plan, however: We didn’t find any recommendation, for instance, that the state forbid the regulation of genetically modified food crops. We have seen that language before, however. In 2008, after the County of Hawai’i enacted a ban on genetically modified taro and coffee, supporters of that ban tried to get a similar one enacted on the state level. But opponents of a bill succeeded in attaching an amendment that would have forbade further state or county regulation of GM crops; as with HB2703, that bill was deferred when supporters wouldn’t agree to the change. The next year, the idea of a ban on GM regulation surfaced again as House Bill 1226, but died in committee in the Senate. Tsuji himself has been a long-time supporter of immunity from state and county regulation for GM crops. In 2010, he and House Speaker Calvin Say were named “BIO Co-Legislators of the Year” by the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, a biotech trade association whose members include Dow AgroScience, Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Syngenta and BASF. Tsuji has also benefited from campaign donations by the industry. So far during the current campaign cycle, for instance, he’s gotten $5,400 from GM giant Monsanto, which breeds genetically modified seed corn in Hawai’i. He’s also collected donations from Syngenta and another biotech giant, Dupont, in the past four years. BIW asked him how such donations could not constitute a conflict of interest. “Biotech crops should be open for consideration,” he maintained. “If I felt guilty about it [biotech contributions] I would cover it up so it did not become public. I don’t think that there’s anything that prevents us from receiving it, but I do not take any preference from those contributors. I’ve supported agriculture in various areas whether a donation has been made or not. I think it’s more important to know that as a legislator personally, I have supported bills from those that have not provided any financial contributions — either that, or I am unaware of any contributions.” Tsuji also claimed that last-minute changes to bills before they went to conference committee were “not uncommon.” “You don’t try to make it very different…but sometimes it goes through the effect where it’s substantially different, it may go through disagreement, and there’s a failure to pass out the legislation,” he said. But Aalto believes that Tsuji’s last-minute draft violated the state constitution. “They included material in the bill that had never been discussed in the subject committees, and that did not relate to the title of the bill,” he told BIW. “The bill was totally unconstitutional. At the very least, it would have required the permission of the Speaker of House and President of Senate to move forward.” But, in fact, Aalto believed, it was never intended to go anywhere. “The bill that he drew up at the very last minute was not designed to pass. He knows that. It was a joke.” The most important info here to me is that these are academic scientists reaching out to regulators, not 'emotional hippies'. Also note that the product is supposed to REDUCE insecticide use yet that is exactly what Monsanto reccomends doing to address this problem!!! Along with using MORE of their products. Also note the mention of growing this GMO corn where it is not needed because of a lack of alternative, non-GMO seeds.
By Carey Gilla > Fri Mar 9, 2012 3:46pm EST > (Reuters) - A group of plant scientists is warning federal regulators that action is needed to mitigate a growing problem with biotech corn that is losing its resistance to plant-damaging pests. The stakes are high - corn production is critical for food, animal feed and ethanol production, and farmers have increasingly been relying on corn that has been genetically modified to be toxic to corn rootworm pests. "This is not something that is a surprise... but it is something that needs to be addressed," said Joseph Spencer, a corn entomologist with the Illinois Natural History Survey, part of the University of Illinois. Spencer is one of 22 academic corn experts who sent a letter dated March 5 to the Environmental Protection Agency telling regulators they are worried about long-term corn production prospects because of the failure of the genetic modifications in corn aimed at protection from rootworm. Monsanto introduced its corn rootworm protected products, which contain a protein referred to as "Cry3Bb1," in 2003 and they have proved popular with farmers in key growing areas around the country. Biotech corn sales are a key growth driver of sales at Monsanto. The corn rootworm product is supposed to reduce the need to put insecticides into the soil, essentially making the corn plants toxic to the worms that try to feed on their roots. But plant scientists have recently found evidence that the genetic modification is losing its effectiveness, making the plants vulnerable to rootworm damage and potentially significant production losses. The scientists said in their letter to EPA that the situation should be acted upon "carefully, but with a sense of some urgency." As concerns have mounted over the last year that Monsanto's rootworm-protected products were losing their effectiveness, Monsanto has said the problem is small and has said the products continue to provide corn farmers with "strong protection against this damaging pest." Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, has recommended growers rotate the corn with its biotech soybeans, use another of its biotech corn products and use insecticides to try to address the problem. "Rootworm performance inquiries in 2011 were isolated to less than 0.2 percent of the acres planted with Monsanto rootworm-traited corn hybrids," said Danielle Stuart, a Monsanto spokeswoman. "In all of these cases, Monsanto is working very closely with the farmer and has provided best management practices for the upcoming season on each of these fields. " The problems with insect resistance have been reported in parts of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska and South Dakota. Continuing to plant a failing technology only increases the resistance development risk, the scientists said in their letter. Moreover, they say, the rootworm-protected BT corn is being planted in areas that have no need for it, often because there are few alternative seed options. Scarcity of non-BT corn seed is a concern, they said. Using insecticides along with the biotech corn as Monsanto has advised is not a good approach, according to the scientists, because it elevates production costs for farmers and masks the extent and severity of the building insect resistance. "Recommendations to apply insecticides to protect transgenic Bt corn rootworm corn strikes us as a clear admission that the Cry3Bb1 toxin is no longer providing control adequate to protect yield," the scientists wrote. "When insecticides overlay transgenic technology, the economic and environmental advantages of rootworm-protected corn quickly disappear," the scientists wrote. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Director Steven Bradbury, who the letter was addressed to, could not be reached for comment. (Reporting By Carey Gillam;editing by Sofina Mirza-Reid) "Clearly the GMO corn seed companies have cultivated a love affair with Hawaii’s legislators and governing agencies with a crop of alluring promises of tax and employment benefits.
Instead, this love affair has birthed unrestricted and unregulated access to our scarce agriculture resources of water and land for Monsanto, Pioneer, Syngenta, Dow and BASF, with no oversight, no inspections and no protections against unintended – but sure to happen - consequences. The GMO seed companies are the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone; with no consumer demand for the non-food product, the companies created an artificial demand called “crop improvement”, then manipulated genes to create new patented life-forms, then controlled all research, production, sales, distribution and ultimately replanting. The global protest against GMOs challenges its science and seeks to abolish GMOs worldwide. Meanwhile, our `aina has become the laboratory test bed for both GMO seed production and also high risk, open-field, biopharmaceutical research with the unfortunate result that GMO corn seed – a non-food commodity - is now Hawaii’s highest valued agriculture crop. Shame on us!! My problem with the global anti-GMO argument that my science is better than your science is that it is a battle of the extremes; it has no middle ground and no solutions, especially for Hawaii. It is a protest movement of anti-establishment activism that offers no alternatives. Better to advocate FOR common sense solutions than activism AGAINST status quo, for example:
About the author: Al Santoro and his wife Joan own Poamoho Organic Produce in Waialua; it is the largest certified organic farm on Oahu. I can't say I would've stayed for 8 hours if I knew I was going to be there for 8 hours but... I waited 8 hours to read testimony at the City Council meeting to support a proposed amendment to the Hawaii State Association of Counties.
Honolulu City Council Members, Thank you for allowing me to offer testimony today in support of labeling GMOs/GMO signage. Although genetically modified crops are promoted as being designed fo indreased yields, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance and ehanced nutritional properties, my understanding is that in actuality these crops are designed to be herbicide tolerant and insect resistant. Corporations, like Monsanto, design the crops as well as the chemicle herbicidesthey are tolerant to, like Round Up, increasing their incentive to keep consumers in the dark about potential health risks. Genetic modification of crops simplifies and reduces the labor needs of farmers but at a cost to the health of our bodies and environment. The chemicles these crops are designed to be sprayed with pollute our soil and water. These chemicles require those applying them to wear full body suits and respirators. These chemicles carry warning labels stating "a taste or drop can be lethel". The use of herbicides and insecticides has increased by hundreds of millions of pounds since GMO's wiespread introduction in 1996. Along with GMOs perpetuating and increasing the use of harmful chemicles, scientists at the FDA have warned there is not sufficient research performed to ensure that genetic modification of crops itself is safe for humans to consume. Could these modifications be responsible for the increase in chronic illnesses and and food allergies? If policy makers are not requiring GMO-manufacturers to prove their crops are safe with long term testing, like scientists urge, please allow us the tools to make informed decisions about what we eat and feed children by encouraging the labeling/signage of GMO in food. Let people be aware that this is a controversial issue. This is a health issue. Seperating and categorizing foods and products as GMO will result in people asking "what is GMO?" We need more people asking that question. For how prevelant and dominant GMOs are in our food, too many people have no clue what that means. Kauai and Maui have passed pro-labeling bills which allows this issue to be debated and encourages everyone to educate themselves on it. Please do the same. Jim, my neighbor at Haleiwa Farmer's Market, has a much more elegant and articulate plea http://eachoneteachonefarms.com/2011/12/08/my-gmo-labeling-testimony-to-hnl-city-council/ http://www.credoaction.com/campaign/monsanto_sweet_corn/index2.html
"Right now, Monsanto, the corporation responsible for producing roughly 90% of genetically modified seeds around the globe, is working to bring their new, GMO sweet corn to a grocery store aisle or farmer's market near you.1 Unlike Monsanto's other GMO crops -- which are primarily fed to animals -- this sweet corn is intended for direct human consumption. This is the first time Monsanto has engineered a vegetable that could be served straight to your dinner table. And if this unlabeled, and potentially toxic crop succeeds, Monsanto is sure to bring us even more. As an activist and consumer, you are in a powerful position to pressure leading U.S. grocery stores to reject Monsanto's new GMO corn. Tell U.S. food companies: Americans don't want Monsanto's GMO sweet corn in our grocery stores! Monsanto's GMO sweet corn is engineered to tolerate the herbicide Roundup, and to produce the insect-killing pesticide Bt. If that sounds dangerous to eat, there's good reason. A past study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences found that Monsanto's GMO corn led to organ failure in mammals.2 This GMO corn has also recently been linked to a sharp spike in livestock infertility, as high as 20% -- a health problem that could potentially pose a risk to humans.3 But shockingly, just as other GMO foods are not required to have special labeling, consumers will have no way of knowing if they're purchasing Monsanto's new genetically modified sweet corn."
Some of Monsanto's GMO corn is already in human food -- used to make additives in processed food products -- and even in small quantities it's having scary effects. This past spring a Canadian study found that the GMO toxin inserted in Bt corn was found in the bloodstreams of 93 percent of pregnant women4 -- just from its presence in processed grains and highly processed food products. Now, grocery stores could be on the verge of delivering up this toxic corn, and its toxic effects, in much higher doses and without processing, and we wouldn't even know what we were eating. "
1 Monsanto Plans To Sell Sweet Corn In Your Local Supermarket August 8, 2011. 2 Monsanto's GMO Corn Linked To Organ Failure, Study Reveals March 18, 2011. 3 Dr. Huber's Warning: How GMOs Are Linked to Disease and Infertility May 4, 2011. 4 GM Food Toxins Found In The Blood of 93% of Unborn Babies May 20, 2011. Old article that I found in my search to figure out who owns land here.
Dole Selling Land in Hawaii
It makes me uncomfortable that out of state corporations own so much of the ag land. With this example, pineapple production becomes unprofitable and developers are in the best position to pick it up rather than farmers or the state even. It may be a generalization but I feel out of state corporations aren't concerned with Hawaii becoming more independent and food self-sufficient, in fact I'm sure there's a profit possible in keeping Hawaii importing food. Are these corporations concerned with keeping the ag land in food production rather than resorts or homes? Are they concerned about the shrinking amounts of open space on Hawaii if they just see it as a place of business? Monsanto is notorious for GMO exploration which a lot of people see as environmentally risky for soil, water, other resources, and organic neighbors. They are also notorious for running out their small farm competitors. I certainly don't want them to end up owning all the land on Hawaii, but if they have the most money, what is there stopping them??? Is that how capitalism and the free market work? |
Archives
April 2014
Categories
All
|