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!

Gates 'New' Model of Development is the Old One, But With Higher Returns

The biggest producer of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the world is the US, by a very long shot. The EU doesn't produce them comercially at all. So why is the number of tons of cereal per acre the same for both geographic regions? If GM is the answer, yield per acre should surely be a lot higher in the US. Of course, the figures could be rubbish, I got them from the Gates Foundation site.

The figure comes from one of Gates' sick-making speeches about Nora's goat, Tommy's piles or some happy, healthy (but African) toddler's ambitions to be prime minister. But behind the sugar coating there is, apparently, a pill; a pill to cure all of Africa's problems.

You might think that pill is GMO, but that's just one of a range of pills that have something in common: intellectual property rights have that not expired.

The strategy starts with "Innovation in seeds [which] brings small farmers new high-yield crops that can grow in a drought, survive in a flood, and resist pests and disease".

Some comments are in order. The majority of crops that have all, or even any of these advantages, are not genetically modified. So, no sugar for them. And these crops, whether GM or otherwise, are not developed, despite Gates' constant reference to them, for small farmers.

The few GM crops that have any of these advantages, none of them have all the advantages, also have some serious disadvantages, what Gates might call 'challenges'. For example, the seeds cost a lot more than conventionally bred seeds, resistance to pests gives rise to resistant pests, giving rise to further costs, etc. I say 'etc' because no commercially available GM crop has been developed with resistance to flooding or drought.

"Innovation in markets offers small farmers access to reliable customers." Now, what markets would he be talking about? The World Food Program and it's 'Purchase for Progress initiative, supported by Gates, which purchases a proportion of food aid from developing countries, or aims to. Apparently one of the Noras or Tommys quadrupled their income in one year as a result of this program.

Or perhaps Gates is talking about the US and EU markets, which subsidise some of their farmers so heavily that cotton and sugar, for example, can be grown more cheaply in the richest countries in the world than they can be in the poorest? Could the US and EU become 'reliable customers'? As things stand, the EU will cease to be customers as they don't accept any GMO contaminated foods for human consumption. So they say, anyhow.

"Innovation in agricultural techniques helps farmers increase productivity while preserving the environment – with approaches like no-till farming, rainwater harvesting, and drip irrigation." No-till farming may or may not require the use of GMOs. But rainwater harvesting and drip irrigation neither requires nor excludes them. The question is, will the Foundation require GMOs or, at least, crops that involve rich country protectionism, in the form of intellectual property rights? I'm guessing that not a lot of money will be spent on these 'challenges'.

"Innovation in foreign assistance assistance means that donors now support national plans that provide farming families with new seeds, tools, techniques and markets." So the rich countries that are making so much money screwing poor countries are going to suddenly concentrate their efforts on alleviating poverty that they have gone to so much effort to create? Keep dreaming Bill.

Following 'Purchase for Progress', there is now 'Feed the Future', of which Gates is also a keen supporter. And why wouldn't he be, with some of the top names in agriculture and food multinationals behind it?

Bill says his strategy has nothing to do with the "old aid model of donors and recipients". Actually, it has everything to do with the old aid model: it guarantees that the model of giving to people from whom you know you can extort a hell of a lot more will work far better if you also take control of the recipients' means of production. That's what's wrong with GMOs and with Gates.

Imposition of Genetically Modified Organisms Will Destroy Tanzanian Economy

A study of research articles about genetically modified organisms (GMO) finds that much research is highly influenced by commercial interests. Those funded by the industry or carried out by people connected with the industry almost always have conclusions that are in favor of further commercialization. Studies without these conflicts of interest tend not to favor further commercialization.

Of course, many 'studies' and articles don't declare their interests and it is beyond the scope of most people to figure out that much of what is available is profoundly biased. But where funding sources are declared, there is unlikely to be any close connection between the authors and the GMO industry.

A common tactic when writing about GMOs is to use some kind of scare story that has been put about by a media that sees news as a form of entertainment, rather than a source of potentially vital information. One of these scare stories is about GMOs 'saving' humanity from disaster, especially where shortages of food may be involved.

Thus, an article claims that the banana is in danger of extinction in Ecuador within ten years because of a serious disease. I believe the ten year claim has already been around for about ten years and the banana is not yet extinct. But the article says genetic engineering is the only hope. Similar remarks have been made about bananas in Uganda and about other staple crops elsewhere.

There are also claims about GMO crops giving higher yields than conventionally or organically bred crops. Often, slight increases in yields are only temporary. More frequently, higher yields are not realized in real-life situations. Agricultural inputs, including the seeds, are far more expensive. And quantities of fertilizer and pesticides required have tended to creep up until the soil and the water are seriously contaminated and resistance results in GM crops ceasing to be feasible.

Monsanto and others in the industry have been trying to sneak their sub-standard and very expensive products into developing countries for a long time, with a lot of help from their well lobbied and well paid political friends. It may sound tempting when you hear about a high yield crop that does well even when there is a drought, when the soil is poor, etc. But such magic crops don't actually exist, except in the publicity material of GMO manufacturers.

Despite the industry's lack of success in producing anything that performs better than conventionally bred seeds, 'drought resistant' corn is being approved by the US Department of Agriculture. The destructive tactic of GMO manufacturers, designed to make farmers entirely dependent on the manufacturer, is also being championed by well known philanthropist, Bill Gates, who can't resist anything where intellectual property is involved.

Considerable opposition has been raised against the imposition of GMOs on Tanzanians, who have been blasted with unfounded claims about their virtues. But it remains to be seen how successful a country like Tanzania can be in resisting something that will probably be distributed free at first. This technique, said to be favored by drug pushers, may be enough to allow GMOs a foot in the door. If that happens, it is unlikely the country will be able to reverse the process.

Tanzania is not in need of a technology that costs substantially more than other alternatives. Farmers do not need more expensive inputs, especially not inputs that need to be increased every year, or ones that increase in price every year. The country does not need its land to be taken over by foreigners or its millions of small farmers to be replaced by a handful of rich landowners.

The majority of Tanzanians live in rural areas and depend directly on agriculture for their food and their income. The imposition of GMOs would wipe out the biggest source of employment and subsistence in the country. It would also destroy the country's ability to sell their products in Europe, one of their biggest markets. The only people to profit from GMOs are those connected with pushing them; everyone else loses out.