Stains on the Escutcheons of World's Best Publicized Philanthropists

Howard Buffett has come out with some strong criticism ofgenetically modified seeds and high tech farming methods as 'solutions' to foodshortages in developing countries when they are used 'on their own'. He feels that, far from being of benefit, they may do a lot of harm. He should know. He is part of the world's most expensive attempt at foisting genetically modified organisms (GMO) on African countries.

Buffett (senior and junior), Gates (Mr and Mrs), the Rockefeller Foundation and various other well heeled parties with long experience of interfering in developing countries are all involved in an elaborate front for the GMO industry called AGRA, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. They have even recruited a few Africans to give themselves a bit of street-cred.

While Buffett junior points out that soil is more important than seed, he fails to mention that there isn't a shortage of food globally, nor even in some of the areas that are experiencing starvation and famine. There is a lack of access to food because people are poor and food supply is controlled by rich people, who can sit on surpluses until the price goes up to a level they feel is worth selling for.

It must have been an odd experience to hear Buffett making such statements about GMOs with representatives from Monsanto, and even AGRA, present. But given that Monsanto has 'donated' seed, genetic materials and other agricultural inputs to recipients of AGRA's largesse, this sounds like part of a 'softly, softly' approach to shoving GMOs down people's throats, whether they like it or not.

It's interesting that Buffett speaks from his own experience of growing GMOs in the US, pointing out some of the drawbacks that the industry have spent years denying and trying to cover up. But telling the truth against such a sustained background of lies doesn't mean that AGRA have some honorable intentions, in addition to their desire for world domination for high tech agriculture and food production companies.

If, as Buffett says, the world needs to concentrateattention on African needs, people need to know the truth about GMOs, that theyhave failed to provide any commercial growers with increased yields, lowercosts, lower levels of environmental degradation, increased nutritional levels,or any of the benefits claimed by the industry for so long, with ampleassistance from the likes of Buffett.

Despite the total failure of GMOs and fact that they aremost damaging in poor economies with fragile environments, Buffett and otherscontinue to push them. Pushing a whole range of inappropriate technology on people does not make the failure any less, but this appears to the upshot of Buffett's well publicized 'honesty'. He seems to be saying 'let's not just palm them off with seeds, let's throw in fertilizers, pesticides and a whole range of profitable but damaging technologies'.

Monsanto/Gates/Rockefeller connections run deep and it'sremarkable how much money supposedly earmarked for health is actually spentpromoting GMOs and other exploitative technologies. But the best performing agricultural techniques and seeds are still organically grown and developed ones, not genetically modified ones. They are also cheap to develop, can be developed by existing techniques in developing countries and are not hazardous to the environment.

The post was written to coincide with World Food Day and Blog Action Day.

Gates Wants to do for International Development what he did for Software

Continuing the theme of copying drug pushers' trick of giving away free drugs to get people hooked, the Gates Foundation has been at it again. They actually boast about 'giving' farmers free 'drought tolerant' maize seeds. Well, firstly, drought tolerant maize doesn't work and secondly, giving someone genetically modified organisms (GMO) is like giving someone HIV. They will risk giving it to others before they realize they are infected and they will not be able to get rid of it.

That may sound a bit harsh, especially to those who think that people like Gates is doing a great job in Africa, looking after agriculture, health, education and just about everything else. But GMOs are not, despite claims to the contrary, sustainable. If the farmer falls for the Foundation's lies, they may be stupid enough to start buying this contaminated maize seed. But they will find that yields are no higher than before and the costs are higher, the costs of the seed, the fertilizer and the pesticides. And the costs increase rapidly so that in a few years, profits will be far lower than the farmer is used to.

An article that purports to be written by a small scale Kenyan farmer, but is in fact by a Gates (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa or AGRA) employee who has a bit of land, talks about small farmers being the future. But GMOs are not appropriate for the sort of small farmer than make up 70-80% of African farmers, those with a few acres of land, at the most. These small farmers will disappear because Gates model involves farms that are large enough to be mechanized, at least to some extent.

Apparently Gates is aware that the majority of farmers will go out of business and end up unemployed in cities, but so far he hasn't found a way of exploiting them. Not that he has mentioned, anyhow. I'm sure he'll let us know when he thinks of one.

This Gates employee also bemoans the fact that he couldn't find the right type of seed for local conditions. This is ironic because most GMOs are one size fits all, a complete removal or all crop diversity, the opposite to what African farmers need. And world seed markets are almost all sewn up by a handful of multinationals who also happen to be the biggest proponents of GMO. Nor is it a coincidence that these multinationals work closely with the Gates Foundation.

The Foundation claims that it has invested millions in seed research but that it places very little emphasis on GMOs. What they place emphasis on is any kind of proprietary product, as opposed to the system many farmers use of selecting a good stock of seeds from each year's crop. The Foundation's work may or may not involve genetic modification but the effect on the farmer is the same, it impoverishes them. And the Foundation has invested a lot in GMOs, they just seem to be a bit ashamed of it.

The so-called 'golden' rice is an example. It doesn't work, it's expensive, but it's just the kind of dirty trick that the Gates Foundation enjoys, probably something they picked up from the Microsoft Corporation. The Foundation has a similar model for health. That's pills and vaccines for everything when basic healthcare, clean water and improved sanitation, good nutrition and better living conditions would do far more for people than all the technical fixes in creation.

Gates has spent a lot of money showing that he knows nothing about development, health, agriculture or, indeed, democracy. His intention appears to be to render these fields into his own model of how they should be, that is, dominated by technology that is wielded by a few rich multinationals. Frequently Gates, the Foundation or one of their mouthpieces rants on about education or lack of education and the plan seems to be to 'educate' people, by telling them all about how great the world will be if people would just think like him, it or them.

There is a sense in which Gates wants to do for international development what he did for software. And the important thing is whether you think that's great or whether you think that's a disaster. I think it's a disaster.

Syngenta Dumps Upriver, Sells Fertilizer Downriver

If you are one of the biggest seed and agrochemical multinationals in the world, you might have enough confidence in your products to launch them on the market without trying to get people 'hooked' on them, right? But if you know that the only way to get your merchandise 'accepted' is to create some kind of dependency before people even know what's going on, you might stoop to any trick.

Well, in the case of Syngenta and their genetically modified organisms (GMO), it is clearly not in the interest of poor farmers to buy seeds that are more expensive, give a similar or lower return and involve significant increases in more expensive agricultural inputs, in addition to degrading the environment and resulting in the loss of sales to countries that don't buy GMOs.

Syngenta is one of the biggest seed companies in the world. Along with Monsanto, DuPont and Limagrain, they control over 50% of the seed market. It is also one of the biggest agrochemical companies in the world. Along with DuPont, Monsanto, Dow, Bayer and BASF, they control 75% of the market.

So it's easy to see why Syngenta don't expect people to buy their seeds without some 'sweetners'. In Kenya the Syngenta Foundation, itself a non-profit, but wholly funded by the organisation that benefits directly from its dirty work, has found it expedient to sell seeds that come with built in insurance.

Officially, commercial GMO agriculture does not even exist in Kenya. But the Syngenta Foundation has, apparently, tricked 12,000 farmers into buying their seeds and they hope to recruit another 50,000 additional suckers. They have even given the scheme a nice Kiswahili name, Kilimo Salama (Safe Farming).

A good drug pusher would be proud of the scheme. When the farmer buys the seeds, they also get insurance, so if there is too much rain, too little rain, to many pests or conditions are otherwise inclement, the farmer is eligible for compensation. Conditions are monitored remotely in GMO contaminated areas so no money will be wasted on assessing individual circumstances.

Once a farmer buys GMO seeds, they need to buy the seed manufacturer's inputs, such as pesticides. As the pesticides cease to work, as they have done everywhere else, the farmer needs to purchase them in larger and larger quantities. These pesticides are already more expensive than other products, but other products don't work at all with GMOs. And once the manufacturer's pesticides are completely useless, they can sell you an 'improved' version, which is even more expensive, and you can start the vicious cycle all over again.

GM cotton, which is now common in India, was introduced by such trickery, before it was even legal to grow it. Having been introduced by the back door, the claim was that most of the country's crop was contaminated, so there was little point in opposing it. It was a done deal, supposedly. India has spent the years that have followed regretting that they went down the GMO path in the first place. But it is unlikely they will ever be able to reverse the process now.

GM contaminated maize has also been surreptiously brought into Kenya. Someone knew, of course, but it wasn't done legally. The maize was legitimately imported from South Africa, as far as the vendor was concerned. The shipment was not certified GMO free, but nor was such certification sought. Some of that maize may have remained in the port, it's hard to find out, but GM contaminated maize is apparently now common in Kenya. Is GMO now a done deal in Kenya, before most of the public have even been armed with impartial information about what they are getting themselves into?

This doesn't seem to be the behavior of a multinational that has confidence in its products or that has the interests of Kenyans at heart. The country may have gone through the motions of creating the legislative framework, but no one would claim that Kenya is in any position to monitor GMO contamination, let alone commercial production of GMOs. But that's the way multinationals like Syngenta operate. It's also unlikely that Kenya is the only African country to have suffered this fate.

It shouldn't take long before people in Kenya start to notice some of the disadvantages of taking the Syngenta shilling. Those who farm close to where GMOs are grown will soon be growing GMO contaminated crops. Contamination is inevitable, through wind, water, soil movement, crop proximity, seed swapping, etc. And even those who grow GMOs and then revert to conventional seeds will also end up with contaminated crops. And the seed owner, because the farmer is not the seed owner, will be entitled to make claims against the farmers for patent infringement. Notice, they are not selling insurance against patent infringement or contamination!

Beware of Reassurances About Genetically Modified Organisms

In what may be an attempt to reassure the public, an article in Tanzania's Daily News says "Only South Africa and Egypt have potential to handle cultivation and consumption of genetically modified organisms (GMO) [in Africa]". But this message comes from Dr Tesfai Tecle, a spokesman for the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa's (AGRA) Kofi Annan.

Another of AGRA's token Africans, Dr Namanga Ngongi, goes further and says that GMOs are too complicated and sophisticated for countries like Tanzania to adopt. Tecle claims that AGRA's position is clear, that they "don't support genetically engineered seeds".

But this does not fully characterize AGRA's position on GMO because their own website says they "do not preclude future funding for genetic engineering as an approach to crop variety improvement when it is the most appropriate tool to address an important need of small-scale farmers and when it is consistent with government policy".

AGRA is the joint spawn of the Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, neither of which are in any way averse to GMOs. The former has invested millions in Monsanto and the latter, despite making some claims to be sceptical at one time and funding some 'research' into the subject, are 100% behind GMOs.

Proponents of GMOs often talk about 'feeding the world' and 'food security', yet these two particular proponents are also very keen eugenicists. They are particularly in favor of people in developing countries having fewer children, since to their institutions, development means little more than population control.

So, there is no contradiction between between supporting GMOs and being a eugenicist, despite the fact that successful eugenics would lead to fewer mouths to feed. Because GMOs are, ultimately, for those who can afford them. Whether they are paid for by public or private money is immaterial. The claim that GMOs can actually play a part in improving the lives of the poor is just a popular myth used by the industry.

The advantage of GMOs is not that they are cheaper, they are not. Yields are not better. They cannot, despite the publicity material, grow in sup-optimum conditions, they are not more nutritious, they do not have special qualities, such as drought or salinity resistance, or anything else.

The sole advantage is that they are owned by a handful of the world's most powerful food multinationals. If the world's seeds, or as many of them as possible, could be replaced by GMOs, these multinationals would control the world's food supply. Proponents of GMOs may mention small-scale farmers, the poor and starving, Africans and what not, but GM seeds are not owned by any of these groups and they never will be.

Which leads to another reassuring story that doesn't seem so reassuring when you look at it closely, the US Government's Feed the Future program, about to decend on Tanzania. The literature is too polite to mention GMOs but wait till you see the list of private partners:

Archer Daniels Midland, BASF (Zyklon-B), Bunge Limited, Cargill, Coca-Cola, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Metro AG, Monsanto Company (Agent Orange), Nestle (Baby Milk), PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever, Wal-Mart, and Yara International.

This is not a list of the world's best known bleeding-hearts. And in among the bloodless hearts, in addition to its large investment in Monsanto, the Gates Foundation can be found listed as a donor and AGRA gets a few honorable mentions. Reassurances that GMOs will not be unleashed on unsuspecting and defenceless developing countries should be interpreted to mean something quite contrary to what they say.

Would You Buy a Second Hand Story From These People?

For some reason, the British TV station 'Channel 4' appears to see itself as a kind of defender of the rich, powerful multinationals who would do anything it takes to impose genetically modified organisms (GMO) on the world. I wonder how much it was worth to the channel and the stooges who contributed, unwittingly or otherwise.

I haven't been able to see the documentary. People in Africa are no more considered to have anything worth saying about their future now than they ever have been. Nor do mainstream media feel the need to let them know what decisions others are making on their behalf. But one thing is for sure, it is people in African and other highly impoverished countries that have the most to lose if GMOs take over.

And they will take over, if the multinationals succeed. GM is a case of either/or. Not only is it impossible for GMO and non-GMO crops to co-exist without the non-GMO crops becoming contaminated but the biggest seed companies in the world want to reduce supplies of non-GMO seeds until GMO becomes completely dominant. There will be no way to reverse this once it has been achieved.

The documentary, apparently, accepted the multinational's accusations of the green movement 'causing starvation' by opposing GMOs. Which GMOs would have been made available to Africans over the last ten years or so during which the seeds would have been available? There are no GMO foods available that produce higher yields or grow in sub-optimal conditions, except in the publicity of various interested parties.

On the contrary, to date, the only known crops with such traits are conventionally bred ones. Not only are conventionally bred and organic crops and methods safer and cheaper, they are also very successful. And this is exactly the problem for the multinationals. They don't want people in poor countries buying something without a patent, something that is not their 'intellectual property'. Such things are far too affordable.

So far, GMOs have only sold well in a few countries, all of which are regretting it now. The US has bought into GM more than any country and they are reaping the 'benefits' of dwindling yields, increased use of pesticides, contaminated land and superweeds. These are all things the multinationals have denied exist but you only need to read up on what's happening in what used to be the most productive places in the US.

The documentary was discussed online for some time before it was aired and one (former) environmentalist defended his stance by saying he was in favour of the work the Gates Foundation was doing in relation to the 'Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa' (AGRA). Perhaps the poor fool thinks that Gates and his stacks of money is in some way different from the bunch of multinationals in question. But he is behind their work and always has been. Intellectual property is his specialty.

So the green movement, far from being behind mass starvation, has always, as far as I know, been opposed to the further impoverishment of Africa. Hopefully they have also been opposed to the antics of the great pseudo-philanthropist as well. But perhaps channel 4 wanted to pay the green movement a back-handed compliment by suggesting that they could prevent some of the most powerful and most ruthless institutions in the world from achieving the global monopoly on food production that they crave. Sadly, I don't believe the green movement is quite that powerful!

It's interesting what big, monopolistic technologies have got wrong over the years. Norman Borlaug, one of the architects of the first Green Revolution, probably thought that increasing technology, bigger farms, factory farming practices, massive reductions in labor, etc, would be all fine and dandy, that there would be no poverty or starvation any more. But it has long been clear that any benefits that might have come from the revolution are now a distant memory, that there is still an awful lot of poverty and starvation, even in India, where it was said to have been a success.

It's also interesting that articles about GMO, especially when they deal with opposition to the technology, always feel the need to use the term 'frankenstein foods'. This has never been anything other than a tabloid term, a straw man argument. Most environmentalists would not use the term and their objections are more based on the lack of evidence for the safety of GMOs and the lack of evidence that they will have any of the advantages claimed for them.

On the other hand, proponents of GMOs have been using the same claims about increased yields and numerous other 'advantages', even though none of them have materialized yet. It reminds me of the overused claim one used to hear about nuclear power, that it was 'too cheap to meter'. We know that was a lie, but many are now trying to increase dependence on nuclear power on the back of the claim that it is 'green'. Next they'll be telling us that it is clean, cheap, safe and whatever else.

If people are concerned to separate the claims and counterclaims reported by what is a heavily biased media, they need to do a very small bit of research while at the same time bearing in mind that many sources will lie. They need to ask why a person or institution would make certain claims, what the evidence supporting those claims are and what they think might be right or wrong from the point of view of those likely to be most affected, and perhaps most vulnerable, to the effects of something like GMOs.

I recommend a perusal of La Via Campesina's website and Wikipedia's article on food sovereignty as a good summary. The majority of working people in the world are either rural peasants or dependent on the work of rural peasants. Does a technology entirely controlled by a few rich multinationals really sound like something that contributes to food sovereignty?

Poverty Makes the World Go Round

How do you undermine the rights and autonomy of whole populations and, instead of censure, receive only praise? Simple, you just call it development. A multinational that respects little aside from money, and certainly has no time for democracy, is bad enough. Yet, when it joins forces with an institution with similar qualities, but happens to be an international 'charitable' foundation, there is very little anyone can do to rein in their actions, no matter how exploitative, destructive or manipulative they may be.

The Gates Foundation has been bullying countries into dancing to its tunes for some time now. And Monsanto's monopolistic behavior is legendary. But both these institutions recognise just how far they can go as long as they bleat on about 'helping' people, saving lives, feeding the hungry, etc. How can anyone object to such philanthropic actions, whatever their motivations? They certainly couldn't object to 'donated' food merely on the grounds that it is genetically modified (GM), could they?

Some like to make out that opposition to GM is based on a fear that the foods are damaging to people's health. Perhaps some people do have such fears. And those with an interest in pushing GM do not themselves know what effects the technology could have on health or the environment (or if they do know they have never made their findings public), so they certainly don't want anyone else to know. Because people's fears are based on lack of information, rather than availability of information, the industry can churn out any kind of deceit to defend themselves (or pay pseudo-academics to do it for them).

But others are more worried about the fact that multinationals like Monsanto want to monopolise agricultural production, from the choice of seeds, the varieties of produce, the agricultural inputs, the agricultural practices employed, all the way to what people eat, how much they know about what they eat, how much they pay for it, how food is produced and stored and anything else they can control. They are not just food facists, Monsanto runs the whole gamut of facism.

Couple this with the man who wants to do for food what he succeeded in doing for software and you've got a real threat to democracy, health, the environment, the economy and even global security. If there’s anything about facism Monsanto doesn’t know, Bill Gates and his Foundation will soon fill in the details.

People in developing countries may have been kept in the dark but they are not stupid. They know that there are reasons for high food prices and lack of access to food; they know that the prices are not necessarily high because of shortages and that lack of access to food is not necessarily because of their country's inability to produce it.

There is little secret about the fact that famines, food shortages and food insecurity, including recent instances of these, are not caused by lack of food; many countries experiencing these phenomena have plenty of food. It is obvious to many that it is people with large amounts of money who created prices beyond the means of those living in developing countries. And you don't need to be a genius to know that shortages of (edible) food can be created when most land is used for products destined for the rich; biofuel crops, flowers, luxury fruit and vegetable, tea, coffee, cocoa, rubber, sisal, animal feed (for Western animals) and the like.

One of the financial institutions that did very well out of the recent handouts to the rich, Goldman Sachs, also made a lot out of the food price speculation that created the food crisis a few years ago. They raked in an estimated billion dollars; even by Gates’ standards, that’s a lot. They do very well out of human misery, benefiting from it, as well as causing it. So who would pass up the opportunity to share in their returns? The Gates Foundation certainly wouldn't.

Is it really philanthropy to extract money from people and then give some of it back to them? We don't really know how much the Gates Foundation's ill gotten gains come from the countries that eventually 'benefit' from its 'largesse'. The Foundation, in its great (undemocratic) wisdom, decides who benefits as well as who loses and they are certainly not going to tell members of the public, especially not in developing countries. The Foundation aims to keep its wealth intact, regardless of how it achieves this. Any doubts or worries that arise can be assuaged by some pretty pictures of happy children or mention of names like ‘Kofi Annan’.

It comes as no surprise that the Foundation now has a considerable investment in Monsanto. This multinational has much to gain from developing countries and has shown that it is unscrupulous enough to do whatever is required to maximize its gains. The Foundation's sham 'Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa' (AGRA) has never denied that it will take advantage of GM if and when it sees the benefits. Gates has been investing in Monsanto for years. Some have probably been wondering when pay day was due.

This diabolical coupling does have one feature that may not be completely negative: it brings into clear focus the intimate connection between the unscrupulous grabbing by some institutions and the equally unscrupulous ‘philanthropy’ of others. Gates and a small handful of other rich people and institutions control the means of production where the products include poverty, disease, starvation, environmental destruction and a whole lot of other ills. And where would we be without all of them?