Gates to Unleash Destructive Agricultural Technology on Unsuspecting Tanzanians

An article in The Citizen opens with the statement: "Tanzania will not make significant gains in its endeavours to eradicate poverty through increased agricultural productivity if the doors to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are not opened." It seems he was quoting the minister of agriculture, who is a professor of some kind, but is also quite uncertain about the population of Tanzania.

The minister wishes for "more efficient use of resources, enhanced food production and higher farm incomes" and other nice things. He notes that three quarters of the working population are only contributing to 27% of the gross domestic product and says that low productivity is associated with poor agronomic practices and limited use of improved seed, fertilisers as well as lack of sustainable control of pests and diseases".

But Justin Sandefur of the Center for Global Development takes quite a different view. He criticizes the Bill Gates annual letter for what the man has to say about research that his Foundation is funding in Tanzania, probably the same research the above minister is welcoming, certainly a similar kind of research. Sandefur is entitled to have a view on this as he carried out some agricultural research funded by the Foundation in Tanzania. Perhaps I was wrong in suggesting that Gates doesn't have advisers who have the balls to stand up to him; perhaps he just doesn't listen to them.

Gates' optimism about innovation being enough to lift Tanzanian farmers out of poverty is contrasted with the fact that people leaving agriculture altogether has been the main source of poverty reduction. Sandefur finds that innovation is not very popular and most farmers don't use modern farming technologies. And as income levels in agriculture are much lower than those outside of agriculture, leaving agriculture is probably the best way of reducing poverty levels. This has been a trend for some time, apparently.

Sadly, Sandefur doesn't have much to say about the kind of technology Gates is particularly interested in, GMOs. These were not developed with lifting Tanzanians, or anyone else, out of poverty in mind. They were designed so those who controlled them would also control the people who grow them and the land and water where they are grown. Those who produce the GMOs also produce the agricultural technologies. That's what Gates is attracted by; I don't understand why he keeps mentioning poverty and the like but I assume it's a form of spin.

Sandefur also takes Gates up on his use of the terms 'population bomb' and 'global food supply shortages'. But Gates and his views on population are infamous; he thinks there are too many people in the world; especially poor people, whom he believes should have fewer children. But as his flunkies should be able to tell him, local food shortages are not due to a lack of food. It's just that poor people can't afford it, especially if it's being grown for export, by foreigners, for a big profit, on land that has been taken from small farmers.

I agree with Sandefur that there are limits to technological fixes but not that Gates should continue with what he is doing. GMOs are destructive to the food supply, to food security, to the economy and to the environment. Other Gates technological fixes, such as in health, can also be destructive. If more people leave agriculture, that may improve conditions for GMOs to take over, as they need very large amounts of land, a lot of technology and very few employees. But this doesn't improve the prospects of those leaving agriculture, nor does it address the problems of poverty and underdevelopment for Tanzanians as a whole. People who are poor and whose income is stagnating will only become less and less able to afford what they need to survive.

Gates doesn't have a plan for all those who stand to lose out under his proposed GMO technocracy, which is all Tanzanians, whether they work in agriculture or not. But non-GMO agriculture is in a far better position to increase food supply, ensure food sovereignty, improve nutrition, protect the environment and provide various advantages without compromising the current, very weak economy. The minister of agriculture may not wish to turn down Gates' philanthrophy but there's a good reason why Gates wants to do things in Tanzania and it has nothing to do with improving the lives of Tanzanians.

For more about GM and non-GM crops, see GMWatch.

What Has Gates Learned About Development Since Last Year?

Bill Gates' 'Annual Letter' always makes depressing reading. That someone so single minded about making money and controlling as much as possible [good article in the English Guardian on this issue] should understand so little about development is not as surprising  as the fact that, for all his money, he doesn't appear to be able to find advisors who have the balls to stand up to him and get him to at least fake an understanding.

Yet again, to Gates and his cronies, 'innovation' in agriculture in developing countries means wresting the little control left to small farmers out of their hands and putting it in the hands of multinationals, who can squeeze whatever blood is left in the farmers that hasn't already been squeezed out by other means. Technology, as Gates knows, is the preserve of the rich; the rich benefit from it, the poor pay for it. Genetically modified organisms (GMO) and various other technologies that impress Gates so much, and I don't believe he is unaware of this, are not designed to benefit small farmers in developing countries, nor will they ever do so.

In health, also, Gates obsesses about technologies, such as vaccines, single, headline-grabbing diseases such as polio and HIV and issues such as family planning. Yet, over and over again, research shows that it is not just technologies that allow substantial reductions in transmission of common preventable diseases, it is also things like sanitation, water and living conditions. There is no mention in his speech of sanitation and the only mention of water is in relation to GMOs. Polio, which Gates hopes to get credit for 'eradicating', is an example of a disease that will not go away just because everyone is immunized; people need access to clean water and good sanitation. That will help eradicate a whole host of diseases, not just the fashionable ones.

Gates, like a large chunk of the development industry as a whole, thinks that reducing birth rates in developing countries will magically mean that everyone has enough money and enough food. But people need a decent standard of living, gainful employment and food sovereignty. His policies of flying in technologies, whether in health or agriculture, actually increase dependency, poverty and insecurity. If lower birth rates are to occur at all, they will occur as a result of better health, a better economy, better education and the like, not the other way around. And talking of education, Gates is silent on the matter, except for education in the US.

As for HIV, the connection between this disease and enormous profits for Big Pharma is pretty obvious, even to Gates. His foundation has been instrumental in setting up a parallel health infrastructure for this, instead of trying to comprehend how existing conditions in health facilities in high prevalence countries, which are appalling, may have a lot of influence on how the virus spreads. Much of the foundation's money has gone into facilitating the sale of drugs and other technologies and much of the money has never left the US, except to go to US institutions, purpose built in high prevalence countries. Sometimes, the foundation sticks some of the few well qualified health professionals to be found in African countries into a Gates funded institution, just to make the whole thing more African. (For a good example, check out AGRA, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa).

Against the above technocentricity, it's difficult to see why the man should share the HIV industry's obsession with male circumcision. But Gates does mention things like PrePex and the Shang Ring, which will make fat profits for a couple of medical device companies. He seems to think that male circumcision reduces HIV transmission by 'up to 70%', but I think even the most rabid circumcision enthusiasts wouldn't claim that; most would even concede that the up to 60% figure  claimed by the HIV industry is from carefully controlled trial conditions with carefully massaged results (though they might not use the word 'massage').

In addition to advocating male circumcision in countries where conditions in health facilities are dreadful and where there are many far higher priorities, Gates goes on to advocate technologies such as injectible hormonal contraceptives, which have also been associated with increased HIV transmission (male circumcision has been associated with higher HIV transmission in as many countries as it has with lower). Unsurprisingly, genuine improvements in health facilities are not part of the Gates Final Solution. And just to demonstrate his fragile grasp on public health, on the subject of antiretroviral drugs to reduce HIV transmission, he says "In studies where the patients used the tool as they were supposed to, the results were quite good." If people don't 'use the tool as they are supposed to', maybe the problem is with the tool.

And the letter goes on and on, with Gates demonstrating his global imperialist ambitions in every sentence, as well as his ignorance of the lives of the people who will suffer as a result. It seems like every year that passes other institutions with imperialist ambitions, such as the UN, World Bank and WTO, also align themselves with this man. Don't expect too many changes over the next year.

What Would Be a Legitimate Role for Western Development Workers in Developing Countries?

There's an interview with Yash Tandon on Pambazuka.org that is well worth reading for people working in development or thinking of doing so. I find it relatively rare to hear what Africans really think of development. My aim in coming to East Africa to work in development was to find out from people working in development here what form development should take. Given that both recipients (as opposed to beneficiaries) of development programs and those working on the programs often agree that things have been going wrong for a long time, how should things be put right?

Tandon criticizes the Paris Declaration on aid effectiveness on the grounds that it was "conceptualized by the donors, and not by the people that were supposed to be assisted". Which is little different from a lot of development decisions, before and after the declaration. Tandon goes on to say that "the so-called development aid never did promote development" and that " The result is that the aid industry has no longer any legitimacy."

It's ironic, considering how often people working in development use the term 'dependency' when referring to recipients of aid, how Tandon turns things around and points out that there are "at least a million people in the Western countries that live off the aid industry". Tandon feels that aid, or whatever term it goes under, was always intended to serve the interests of donor countries. I agree, and Tanzania, with its massive potential for gold, uranium, natural gas, arable land and other resources, is a case in point. The resources remain underdeveloped and underexploited until some wealthy foreign country comes to do the exploiting.

Tandon singles out Oxfam for criticizm as an organization that started out with good intentions but is now part of the very machinery that ensures the smooth operation of aid policies that are intended to benefit Western countries. And he raises a very interesting question: why do we call a lot of 'aid' programming by that name when it is actually just business? The Chinese and the Indians call it business, so why do many Western countries wish to dress it up as philanthropy? It must be a slap in the face to big Western donors to be told that the Chinese do it better when they seem hell-bent on persuading people here that the Chinese are only out for what they can get!

Another couple of sacred cows Tandon slaughters are the imposition of certain 'values', perhaps by church based organizations, which are dressed up as 'solidarity' or some other touchy-feely concept; also the assumption that Western aid agencies have the right to "encourage women who raise their voices against practices that violate their human rights" (for example). Tandon says the latter is not the business of outsiders, that "the initiatives of rural women in Africa against oppression are very strong and very strategic. They know what will work and what will not". I hope his last statement is right; I have not been exposed to initiatives against oppression that are strong and strategic, though I would very much like to be.

These are all perplexing issues for people who wish to work in development without becoming part of the problem, serving as mere instruments of the self-interested Western agenda. Much though I would love to follow Tandon's advice, I have not come across many people who say 'this is what we want and this is how we intend to achieve it'. Rather they tend to say 'how do we get some of this money/assistance/resources'? Perhaps they are now also mere instruments and are currently unable to serve the intersts of those they hope to serve. But how do they change course and set the agenda? If there is an indigenous aid agenda in East Africa, where is it articulated?

I wholeheartedly agree with Tandon's conclusion that "All development is self-development", but I want to work with self-development, with self-developers. I think that the development industry can do a lot more good in developing countries by advocating against certain things, such as land-grabbing, resource theft, imposition of genetically modified organisms and other inappropriate and failed technologies, Western use of cheap labour, exploitation of lax human rights legislation, commodity dumping, unfair trade agreements, etc, something I have called 'Development by Omission' for want of a better phrase. But I wonder if Tandon thinks there is a legitimate role for people who work in development to continue with, as long as they are committed to an agenda set by their adopted country, and if so, what is this role?

AgriSol in Tanzania: Land-Grabbing or Outright Theft?

Tanzanians and other Africans seem to be worrying a lot about reductions in foreign aid and what conditions will need to be met in order to receive whatever is available. But they don't seem to be paying much attention to the fact that land is being grabbed by foreign multinationals at a rate that involves far higher sums of money than foreign aid.

The Oakland Institute has investigated AgriSol's dirty deals in Tanzania and though they have been found wanting, they appear to be going ahead. Many Tanzanians suffer regular food shortages and poor diet but Agrisol intends to use huge tracts of land and substantial amounts of water to produce biofuels and genetically modified crops for export.

Aside from needing land and water to produce food and other things, Tanzania is not yet prepared for genetically modified organisms. Even if they have some kind of regulation, probably regulation that suits the likes of AgriSol more than it does Tanzanians, the country is unlikely to have the capacity to enforce appropriate regulation any time in the near future, which should suit the GM industry.

AgriSol and others involved in these land-grabs like to claim that the land is marginal and/or underutilized, even uninhabited, none of which are true. Biofuels and genetically modified crops, despite claims to the contrary, need water and fertile soil. So AgriSol want to bribe (or whatever the current nomenclature is) their way into 800,000 acres of fertile land which is inhabited by over 160,000 people.

Of course, AgriSol also claim they will be enriching Tanzania and the local communities who will be effectively dispossessed and displaced. AgriSol will not allow such matters to get between them and hundreds of millions of dollars profit. So they need the assistance of public relations experts, legal experts and, of course, political allies. And with that amount of money to be made, this assistance should be readily available.

The Oakland Institute have published eight myths they have identified about land-grabbing, and in particular about this current AgriSol intrigue. The first is that the land is not being used, which most land-grabbers claim. The land is inhabited by displaced Burundians, some of whom have been there for nearly 40 years, having been originally displaced by war.

AgriSol also claim they are not involved in the displacement of Burundians, which they say started independently of their efforts. This claim does not stand up to scrutiny. Their claims about cooperating fully, consultations, transparency and the like are also untrue. All the big land-grabbers claim that Africans will benefit, AgriSol being no exception, even taking steps to ensure that they can export food crops at times when there is a lack of food security in the country involved.

Indeed, AgriSol will be looking for a tax exemption and they will want to receive input subsidies that are currently destined for Tanzanians. So much for private enterprise eschewing subsidies! AgriSol go through the usual sanctimonious posturing about environmental responsibility, which simply doesn't add up for either biofuels or genetically modified organisms, which are both extremely destructive to the environment.

Very small numbers of people will be employed by AgriSol's scheme and fewer still are likely to be Tanzanians. And the amount of 'rent' they will be paying is a derisory one tenth of a dollar an acre for a 99 year lease. Good agricultural land costs in the region of millions of dollars, so it's not clear how rental revenue will even cover the costs of the paperwork.

The Oakland Institute unearths many disturbing things about AgriSol and the various well connected people involved, who seem to be more scrupulous about maximizing earnings than anything else. Sadly, there will be a few in Tanzania who will be able to pick up a nice fee for selling their friends and families. But Tanzania as a whole and ordinary Tanzanians will lose a lot more than they stand to receive in donor funds, no matter what conditions they agree to.

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!

Biofuels: Stealing Land to Steal Food and Water from Africa

Western countries wring their hands and rush for their mobile phones to pledge money to whatever catastrophe happens to be fashionable enough to attract the attentions of some brainless celebrity. But they are not so interested when it's a matter of stopping their country from causing the next catastrophe.

Eight million Kenyans (out of a total of about 40 million) are currently short of food. They are not short of food because there isn't enough of it. They just can't afford the food that is produced in their own country. Europeans can afford to buy agricultural products that are grown in Kenya, even though they produce so much in Europe they have to dump a lot of it, sometimes in Kenya.

A number of factors have driven up the cost of basic foods in recent years. Food has been treated as a commodity that can be played with by speculators. Costs of agricultural inputs have become more and more under the control of a few multinationals. And rich countries have been buying up land in developing countries for a song so that biofuel crops destined for these rich countries can be grown there.

Despite what the landgrabbers say, they are not paying fair compensation for the land, the land is not marginal (if it was it would be of no use to them), the land is not unoccupied, nor virtually so, and large numbers of people are not being employed in producing biofuels. Nor is there any environmental payoff. In fact, environmental destruction on a massive scale is often required before these vast tracts of land can be used to produce biofuels, causing even more environmental damage.

According to an article in the English Guardian, British firms have been grabbing more land than any other country. This contrasts with their recent boasts about how they have increased aid spending and even improved the quality of foreign aid. Aid spending is a piffling amount compared to what can be extracted through biofuel and other forms of exploitation.

In addition to competing for land and water, and thus increasing the price of food, the type of farming involved is totally disempowering to local communities. Where once many families subsisted, now none do. Where once whole communities were employed, now a mere handful are. Instead of relatively harmless practices that allowed a healthy ecosystem to remain, biofuel production will destroy everything in its path, irreversibly.

It would be useful to contrast these disadvantages with some advantages, but there are none for the poor farmer. Whatever advantages there are accrue to the landgrabber alone. They are coming up with fancy brochures to impress investors but this is just the usual rose tinted excrescence that goes with foreign exploitation of all African resources, gold, uranium and other minerals, sugar, coffee, cocoa, anything that can be produced cheaply without those profiting having to leave much behind in the form of tax, royalties, skills, assets or even investment.

The last thing African countries need is to lose their rights to their land and water, given that these are among the means of production for food, to feed themselves and to export. Coupled with the current threat of genetically modified organisms (GMO) being imposed on the continent, rates of poverty, dispossession, endemic disease and starvation are only going to increase.

Not content with making our fat asses fatter, we're proposing burning the potential for growing food in our cars, at the expense of people who are dying for lack of food and water. So we needn't see ourselves as being so generous whenever another disaster hits the news, considering we're happy to allow even greater disasters to occur just so we can fulfil our consumerist dreams. There is enough food, but not if we use it all up on power games and car fuel.

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.

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?

Pills For Poverty

An article in SciDev.net entitled Don't Medicalize Micronutrient Deficiency argues that biofortifying foods or handing out food supplements is not a sustainable solution to malnutrition problems. Countries that have high levels of malnutrition have food and agriculture problems that pills or fortified foods will not solve.

This is a timely reminder, when so many 'solutions' come in the form of technical fixes that are often expensive, short term, inappropriate, unsustainable and often don't even work. I recently mentioned Bill Gates efforts to eradicate water borne diseases like polio, malaria and cholera by developing vaccines when the best strategy would be to improve water and sanitation. Water borne diseases can not be eradicated in areas where people don't have access to clean water and adequate sanitation.

Another problem with certain biofortified foods is that they have intellectual property rights associated with them, which adds a lot to their cost. Why should poor people suffering from nutritional deficiencies, instead of being enabled to produce enough high quality food, be offered something that is expensive and is just impoverishing their country further?

Some of the manufacturers of genetically modified organisms (GMO) have even got in on the micronutrient method of screwing yet more money out of developing countries. The vitamin A fortified rice, which was claimed to reduce blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency, springs to mind. Unfortunately, it contained vitamin A in a form that could not be absorbed and so it was a useless technology.

Poverty is the real problem when people can't afford a balanced diet for their family. If they are poor, they are certainly not going to be able to afford with the sort of premium price that intellectual property brings. And we have seen enough instances of poverty, disease and malnutrition being used as vehicles to sell expensive Western technologies, especially dangerous technologies that impoverish people further and that could even damage their health.

The attitude of multinationals, and that of certain people, seems to be to let people become sick and then come running with the pills or the GMOs or the technical solution. People need adequate economic means, food, food security, education, health services, water, sanitation, housing and the rest. In the absence of these human rights, they will suffer and die prematurely.

It may be the prerogative of multinationals and others to allow people to live in inhuman conditions as long as they can sell plenty of their goods. But it is not the prerogative of those who work in development or those who work to keep in check the excesses of multinationals. As the article in question points out, many of the people in the world suffering from malnutrition are farmers. They should be allowed to produce food that can provide themselves, their families and their countrypeople with a balanced diet. This would also improve economic circumstances and therefore health, education and other things, too.

If someone prescribes pills as a substitute for clean water or good food, they are probably a multinational.

Food Security Means Non-GM Food

Not content with contaminating their own country with genetically modified organisms (GMO), American GMO patent holders are busy getting politicians and other powerful people to help them in their quest to contaminate whole continents, such as Africa. African countries haven't proved to be the pushover that these GMO multinationals would like, but there are powerful people willing to give them a helping hand, such as Bills Clinton and Gates.

Despite spewing out the mantras about free markets and lowering barriers to trade, patenting is the ultimate form of protectionism. Owners of American GMO patents don't even need to grow their contaminants in America to reap vast profits. They can simply palm them off on poor farmers in far away developing countries, for whom GMOs are entirely inappropriate, and rake in the cash royalties.

The two Bills are supporting what is known as the Global Food Security Bill. Despite the name, this bill aims to foist GMOs on people in developing countries by dressing them up as aid. The idea is not a new one; public money is used to open up new markets for these thugs and they pocket the profits. Only the very rich and powerful will benefit from all this. But isn't that what aid is for?

For many years now, millions of dollars of 'aid' money has gone into developing a genetically modified sweet potato in Kenya. Strings have also been pulled to get some laws adjusted so that such crops can be commercialized. The problem is, this potato hasn't really taken off. Local varieties have performed far better in trials. To add insult to injury, breeders in Uganda have developed a virus resistant sweet potato using traditional methods while working on a shoestring.

GMOs of any kind would be a disaster for Kenya and for any other country. Just look at the problems the US, Canada, India, Argentina and Australia are having with their contaminants. But the organisms are particularly dangerous for developing countries. The last thing small farmers need is crops that cost a lot to grow (GM seeds are far more expensive than conventional ones), that develop serious yield and pest problems and that systematically destroy the ecosystem. But that pretty much sums up GMOs.

Anyone interested in reducing hunger should encourage sustainable agricultural practices that are appropriate for small farmers, because most farmers in developing countries are smallholders. They should steer clear of expensive and inappropriate technologies, such as GMOs. These were developed for rich, large scale farms, although they don't even seem to be benefiting them. For every advantage claimed for GMOs so far, conventional breeding practices have surpassed those claims. GMOs are not just unnecessary, they are highly undesirable.

Stop These 24 Crimes Against Humanity

Perhaps people in rich countries like to believe that some of their country’s wealth supports people in developing countries. They may think too much money or too little money goes to developing countries and they may approve of development aid or they may disapprove. But they are less likely to realise that rich countries extract exponentially larger amounts of wealth from developing countries than they give in aid.

So instead of arguing for more aid money or less aid money or different ways of distributing it, people who feel strongly about development could lobby their governments to consider how rich countries could reduce the extent to which they impoverish poor countries. Below, I’ve compiled a list of 24 ways this could be done. This is what I call ‘development by omission’ and it will be noticed that every item in this list represents highly unethical behaviour, perhaps even criminal behaviour.

1. Stop grabbing land in developing countries for food, resources, biofuels, etc, and return the huge tracts of land that have been grabbed during previous imperialist regimes.
2. Stop growing biofuels, which only benefit rich countries (if they benefit anyone at all) and effectively steal water, land and other resources from developing countries. Biofuels mainly use food crops, so this also drives up the prices that people in developing countries have to pay for vital goods.
3. Stop using developing countries as sources of raw materials and natural resources. Monocultures such as coffee, tea, cotton, sisal, cocoa and others keep people in developing countries in penury. They also waste land that should be used for food production.
4. Stop trying to palm off genetically modified (GM) crops on developing countries, especially under the pretext that this will make them more food secure and will solve food shortages. GM crops represent higher costs and lower profits for farmers, even in the rich countries for which they were originally developed. They also make farmers less self reliant and more vulnerable to various hazards, natural and otherwise.
5. Stop using developing countries as sources of cheap labour, especially in the growing of monoculture crops, non-food crops and crops intended for export. Export Processing Zones (EPZ) have been set up so that foreign companies can avoid meeting even minimum labour regulations, as well as avoiding paying tax.
6. Stop allowing foreign companies tax holidays and other benefits that are not available to people in the developing country in question. Tanzanian companies that wish to exploit the country's rich reserves of gold, for example, cannot compete with foreign companies.
7. Stop dumping cheap, subsidised goods, such as sugar and cotton, on developing country markets. Rich countries need to remove subsidies and allow developing countries to compete.
8. Reverse unfair trade agreements, especially bilateral agreements, that allow rich countries to extract goods and services from developing countries so cheaply that the developing countries lose out.
9. Stop aggressively recruiting skilled employees, such as doctors and nurses, which are in very short supply. Compensate adequately the countries who have lost most of their skilled employees over the years.
10. Repeal the various structural adjustment policies and similar World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund) strictures that reduce developing countries' ability to develop. Get rid of conditional aid, especially where those conditions are purely for the benefit of rich countries and are harmful to developing countries.
11. Change the terms and conditions for loans so that repayment does not mean that the borrowers are barely able to service the debt each year and will not be free of debt for the foreseeable future.
12. Get rid of ghost aid in its various forms. Much aid never reaches developing countries, some is a de facto subsidy for rich country products and services and some is debt cancellation or some other kind of expedient that makes it look as if aid is much higher than it really is. Get rid of purely supply led aid and interventions that are designed to benefit wealthy companies and NGOs.
13. Stop huge capital projects, such as hydroelectric dams, which cause more damage than good and usually only benefit some western companies who build the structures.
14. Where foreign companies are operating in developing countries, ensure that they pay proper wages and develop good working conditions. Also, ensure that they pay tax, at least at levels paid by people and companies from that company.
15. Stop aid programmes that simply increase dependency and do nothing to improve conditions. Also, aid that destroys local markets, such as food aid that consists of donations in kind from rich countries.
16. Stop selling unnecessary weaponry and other technologies, especially out of date technologies that are no longer of any use. Far from protecting developing countries from this kind of exploitation, many Western governments have been party to the exploitation. Also see ControlArms.org.
17. Stop setting up and supporting puppet regimes and undemocratic, corrupt governments. Stop interfering in the running of countries purely for the benefit of rich countries.
18. Stop encouraging developing countries to privatise public services and public utilities, especially where that involves those services and utilities being taken over by foreign companies.
19. Stop exporting pollution by producing the most polluting products in developing countries, for example, force growing fruit and vegetables in Kenya and flying them to Europe.
20. Stop dumping toxic waste and any other kind of wastes in developing countries, where they are unlikely to be treated responsibly. Stop dumping computers and other used goods where there is no demand for them and no capacity for processing the resulting waste.
21. Stop stealing indigenous knowledge and indigenous crops, genes and plants. Stop putting patents on things that have been stolen from developing countries.
22. Stop using developing countries as military and geopolitical pawns and pretending that this is a form of development.
23. Stop using developing countries as markets for products that are difficult or impossible to sell elsewhere. Stop forcing products on people who can't afford the consequences, such as GM crops, baby milk formula, etc.
24. Stop rich 'philanthropists' from using developing countries and their people for their experiments and their expansionist aspirations.

If rich countries stopped doing all or even some of the above, developing countries would be a lot better off. The paltry amounts of money spent on ‘aid’ would probably no longer be necessary. The number of people who live in poverty, suffer disease and other harm and who die unnecessarily as a result of rich countries’ practices of extracting wealth from developing countries could even seem like genocide. The list is by no means exhaustive.

Do Those Who Pay Lobbyists Get What They Pay For?

The International Policy Network (IPN) is almost beyond belief. The head of the organisation, Julian Morris, has an article on India's recent decision to place a moratorium on the growing of genetically modified (GM) brinjal (aubergine, egg-plant). Morris puts this decision down to their use of the 'precautionary principle', which Morris doesn't approve of. He refers to India's high rates of poverty and malnutrition, implying that their decision to reject GM brinjal (for the moment) will contribute to these problems.

For several reasons well known to Indian farmers, GM crops do not reduce poverty, far from it. For a start, GM seeds and other inputs are much more expensive than conventional ones. Secondly, the usage of these inputs goes up, steadily, the longer the crops are grown in the same place, so profits go down. Thirdly, yields go down, reducing profits even further. Fourthly, none of the other promised advantages of GM crops have materialised. GM has been an expensive waste of money, of land and of people's lives.

As for malnutrition, the previous points make it clear that GM crops are not going to have much positive impact on this. We have been promised crops with higher nutritional value but, in addition to getting less food from GM varieties, there is no nutritional benefit. According to Wikipedia, the precautionary principle "states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is not harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those who advocate taking the action".

What could Morris have against such a principle in relation to GM? There is more than a suspected risk of harm, of several kinds, to the public and the environment; there is little or no scientific consensus but nor has there been much scientific research; the burden of proof should lie with the proponents of GM, but they have consistently failed to do any research that could allay fears. Morris says his disagreement is that you can't prove a negative. But proponents are not being asked to prove a negative, they are being asked to carry out adequate research to show that GM crops are safe to humans, animals and the environment, economically viable, politically viable, ethical and many other things. The risks of not doing this research are too great.

The Indian minister in question, Jairam Ramesh, did not simply grab whatever expedient he found handy and place a moratorium on GM brinjal. He held a lengthy and comprehensive consultation. This is something an industry paid lobbyist who runs an institution that pretends to be an educational think tank, such as Morris, would have little understanding of. People who voted for Ramesh were asked their opinion and they said 'no', overwhelmingly. If Morris had his way, Ramesh would have paid large consultancy fees to Morris and his ilk and done what they advised, regardless of what Indian farmers and consumers wanted.

Morris goes on to fault the use of the precautionary principle by the EU to ban animal growth hormones. He sees this decision as flawed (really, read the article!). But his grasp of basic logic is as poor as his knowledge about GM organisms. He argues that water and oxygen would be banned under the EU's interpretation of the precautionary principle 'if they were classified as pesticides'. That's like saying that pedestrians would have to obey speed limits if they were classified as vehicles.

Like many interested parties who have their snouts in the GM gravy train, Morris sees any opposition to GM or any other dangerous technology as anti-science, anti-technology, rather than sensible criticism and protest against health and safety issues being decided purely on the basis of profits for multinationals. He seems to have little time for anything remotely like a scientific argument. He's not too astute politically, either. The "small but politically savvy band of opponents" in India that he refers to are none other than the Indian electorate, people who will be most directly affected by decisions about further exposures to GM risks.

The IPN website claims to have 'ideas for a free society' and to be 'bringing down barriers to enterprise and trade'. It would be more accurate to say 'this is as free as it gets, put up with it'. If I thought Morris was trying to clarify moot points, to analyse certain alternative interpretations of data, to shed light on difficult issues, I would at least defend his right to do that, even if I didn't agree with him. But there is no sense, science, logic, even political clout, behind what Morris writes. He seems to be writing utter nonsence because that's what he gets paid to do. But if the quality of his arguments are anything to go by, he doesn't get paid very much.

Viva La Via Campesina

Today I received an email from La Via Campesina, an " international movement of peasants, small and medium-sized producers, landless, rural women, indigenous people, rural youth and agricultural workers". This communication declares that La Via Campesina characterizes this current moment as "one of arrogance and authoritarianism on the part of the United States, the European Union and transnational corporations". It goes on to state that:

The increase of military presence and military bases in various parts of the world, “humanitarian” invasions and occupations which indicate war, the occupation of markets and territories, and the military presence to control energy resources, water, and natural biodiversity are all tactics derived from civilization’s crisis of capitalism and the logics of exploitation, racism, and patriarchy. These tactics also work to disguise the climate crisis in illegitimate negotiations.

Mtandao wa Vikundi vya Wakulima Tanzania (MVIWATA, the Tanzanian Network of Farmers' Groups) is a member of La Via Campesina, so I hope they attend the movement's 'Assembly of Social Movements' in Bolivia in April. Perhaps they will also represent their neighbours, such as Kenya, Uganda and others. Only a handful of African countries are presently represented. Kenya is not. But they need to be.

It's hard to think of any strategy that could be worse for Tanzania and other developing countries than a concerted move towards large scale farming. Yet most members of a group of several hundred 'researchers' recently agreed that "the domination of the agricultural sector by small scale farmers is a serious problem".

A serious problem for whom? For wealthy politicians, who own much of the country's best land? For the multinationals, who want to control the country's ability to feed itself? For those who want to see more African land dedicated to the production of biofuels that will allow people in wealthy countries to continue their wasteful lifestyles? For those who see Tanzanian land and people as 'assets', to be bought up to enable them to produce food for people in wealthy countries?

These 'researchers', who must spend their time reading tabloid newspapers and the outputs of right-wing, imperialist think-tanks, rightly point out that small-scale farmers lack capital and skills. But they conclude that they should therefore become the de facto slaves for those unscrupulous enough to take over much of the country's land, natural resources and productive capacity.

If people lack skills, and it's not just Tanzanian small farmers who lack skills, this is because of the continuing failure of the education system. Many people don't attend school at all, many attend for a few years and many leave with very little practical knowledge of any kind. But this is not a reason to send in the large scale commercial farmers, ready to "inject capital and technology". People need better education, whether they are small scale farmers or from any other walk of life.

If the infrastructure is failing people, the infrastructure needs to be improved. Foreign land grabbers and multinationals are not going to do that. But in order to market goods even to Tanzanians, the country needs proper transport networks, reliable and widespread electricity supplies, communication networks and the like.

If, as these people suggest, Tanzanian agriculture is scaled up, what will happen to the subsistence farmers? They probably make up the largest economic group in Tanzania. The researchers' answer is the 'outgrower' system. Farmers become 'outgrowers' for some factory or exporter, producing a crop, usually a monoculture, usually not a food crop, to be exported. The farmer gets a very small price, they middle person gets a large price and the destination country converts the primary good into some high value product, often sold back to Tanzania at extortionate prices.

The country's Prime Minister Pinda uses the examples of tea, sugar and sisal to demonstrate how successful the outgrower system has been. Perhaps Pinda doesn't go out much but I think he will find that the majority of tea, sugar and sisal workers and outgrowers earn a pittance. And these crops are not essential food crops. People need to feed themselves and their dependents and they need to produce enough food to ensure the country's food sovereignty, the right of peoples "to define their own food, agriculture, livestock and fisheries systems, in contrast to having food largely subject to international market forces".

To avoid being tricked out of what's left of their natural resources and land, Tanzanians need to be aware of philosophies such as that of La Via Campesina. Most Tanzanians fit into one or other of the movement's categories. Because those Tanzanians who don't belong to any of those categories, rich businesspeople, politicians and the like, are ready to sell everything to the highest bidder. And, as usual, the money won't 'trickle down'.

La Via Campesina's objectives include the preservation of land (currently threatened by massive levels of land grabbing), water (threatened by all agricultural production for export, but especially biofuel and non-food crops), seeds (threatented by the attempts by genetically modified organism producers to control seed supplies) and other natural resources (threatened by natural resource exploitation which is almost entirely controlled by foreign multinationals). Other objectives include food sovereignty and sustainable agricultural production based on small and medium sized producers.

If Pinda and his colleagues are concerned about the country's low agricultural output, there are many initiatives that can be employed. As mentioned, improved education and infrastructure. But also, an improvement in the economic circumstances of the majority of people. The country is relatively rich in resources, but they are being effectively stolen by foreigners. There's (so far) no shortage of wealth in the country, distribution is the serious problem.

Most Tanzanians are just about getting by, right now. If agriculture is scaled up, by whatever means, the majority will lose the little access they have to food and other vital goods. Tanzanians need to feed Tanzanians. They don't need to be exploited by commercial and political interests. And the same applies to Kenyans and other Africans.

The final word must go to La Via Campesina:

The current industrialized agribusiness model has been deliberately planned for the complete vertical integration and to dominate all agriculture activities. This model exploits workers and concentrates economic and political power. La Via Campesina advocates a decentralized model where production, processing, distribution and consumption are controlled by the people the communities themselves and not by transnational corporations.

Deliberate GM Contamination of Kenya's Maize?

India's notorious genetically modified (GM) cotton plantations, which even Monsanto now admits are a failure, were not established after consultation or adequate research. The GM seed was introduced surreptitiously and spread far and wide and was eventually accepted on the grounds that it was too late to avoid it. Monsanto have profited considerably from this 'accident', having upped the prices for their seeds and other inputs many times over the years. One of the many failures of these GM seeds is that fertilizers and pesticides need to be used in ever increasing quantities.

Now, the pests have developed resistance, no amount of pesticide will control the problem. Yet Monsanto's solution to this is to roll out a new version of their GM cotton seed, with a new set of inputs and even higher prices. The seed has contaminated much of India's cotton growing areas and much of the country's arable land. But no amount of destruction is enough for Monsanto. They want to control what India does with its cotton and, eventually, all its other agricultural products.

I have argued elsewhere that what happened to India could also happen to other countries and whole continents. Well, it seems like someone is already trying to contaminate Kenya's staple crop, maize, with GM maize. 40,000 tonnes of GM maize was imported from South Africa earlier this year, at a time when the country had a surplus of the crop. A Kenyan company called Louis Dreyfus Ltd imported the stuff. It is sitting in Mombasa Port right now.

Questions are being raised about how this could happen and worries are being expressed about some of the possible effects of GM contamination. It is possible that some Kenyans are confused about the dangers that GM contamination poses. If this consignment were distributed and used as seed, farms directly affected would also contaminate farms around them. Maize is the most commonly grown crop here and it's grown for Kenyan consumption.

But other crops, grown for export, could also become contaminated. One of Kenya's top exports is fruit and vegetables and much of it goes to Europe. Europe has fairly strict laws about allowing the importation of GM contaminated foods. Kenya could end up exporting very little. Tea and coffee are also among its top exports but they too could end up being compromised by GM contamination. Anyone who thinks that opposition to GM foods is just anti-scientific, luddite or in any way mistaken should do some reading up on the subject.

One wonders who is behind allowing GM products to enter the country, who could profit from such a move? Has it happened before and is Kenya's maize already contaminated? And will this consignment of contaminated maize be allowed to be distributed or will it be sent back to South Africa, who have already fallen for the GM trick? I don't feel very confident about the future for some of Kenya's most important exports.

Genetically Modified Cotton Has Failed, Says Monsanto

Thanks for telling us after so many people have wasted their time and money and many people have even lost their lives as a result of this failure. Scientists who have not been bought off by the biotech industry have been warning against the use of these crops for years. They have been calling for proper research into what their true consequences are before imposing them on an unprepared world. But now it's too late.

What about all the people who have destroyed their land because of the industry's lies? What about the farmers who have run into such huge debts that they have found no way out but to commit suicide? If anyone knew that these crops were designed to fail, it was Monsanto and the rest of the industry. In some cases they have failed to do proper research, in other cases they have supressed the results of their research. Instead of doing the groundwork necessary, they have simply paid off powerful people to do their dirty work. Who needs salespeople when 'democratically elected' leaders will do the work at a far lower cost?

The president of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, may have been bought off by Monsanto or the industry as a whole. Or maybe he's just brain dead. He has said that he is against GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) but that they are inevitable. What could he mean by this? That the GM industry is going to do what it wants, regardless of what we insignificant members of the electorate want? That all the people who could possibly prevent GMO from being imposed on us have been bought off?

We can only speculate. Buzek goes on to say that because we can't win the battle, he is not going to fight it. He also said that Europe would lose out on 'competitivity' if we don't accept GMOs. There's a bit of overdetermination here; does he feel that we shouldn't fight something that is advantageous to us or does he feel that we shouldn't fight a battle we cannot win? He only needs to argue for one of these, not both. They could both be true but we don't know which one sways this foolish man. If you object to my calling Buzek foolish, just read the rubbish he comes out with about only genetically modified rice being able to grow in Bangladesh.

Given the evidence for Buzek's small brain, he probably has a short memory and a limited capacity for research and comprehension. But GM cotton was released in India because it had already been passed around unofficially and had already contaminated a large proportion of the cotton sector. It wasn't released after careful consideration and proper consultation (don't be silly!). I'm sure this was not as a result of anything the GM industry did, no doubt it was just an accident. But that is no reason for Europe or any other continent to make the same mistakes.

And just in case Buzek is worried about the silly rumour that the Vatican was pro-GM, that was just bunkum. The GM obsessed cardinal who was so keen on compromising the health and welfare of so many people has been replaced with what must be one of the few Catholic leaders who has a grain of sense. Cardinal Peter Turkson realises that GM crops could be used as "weapons of hunger and poverty". Not only does he realise this, but he actually considers this to be an undesirable outcome. He realises that GM will lead to the greater dependence of the weak and poor on the strong and rich, environmental degradation, higher costs and an increase in the number of food insecure and starving people in the world. Already, the number of starving people has increased steadily as the percentage of GM crops has increased.

Some commentators have wondered about why Monsanto might want to claim publicly that GM cotton has failed. They have pointed out that Monsanto has now produced a new generation of GM cotton. Monsanto knew long ago that the first generation had failed and they now want people to change to the new generation, which employs a second modified gene and requires an enlarged set of inputs in terms of pesticides and artificial fertilizers. It also requires greater expenditure on those wonderful pieces of intellectual property we used to call seeds, those things we used to be able to collect for free at the end of the growing season.

No, you don't have to back out of GM cotton just because the whole live experiment has failed, and you probably can't, anyhow. You just have to buy more expensive seeds and invest in more expensive pesticides and fertilizer. After all, you are part of this experiment. If it goes down the pan, so do you.

GMOs: You Pay Me to Shit in Your Garden

Supposing I were to re-engineer my domestic sewage system so that it dumps sewage from my house into my neighbour's garden, my neighbour would be quite upset, right? But supposing I were to take it a little further and sue my neighbour in court for refusing to pay me for manuring his garden, that would really add insult to injury, wouldn't it? It sounds ridiculous for me to be claiming that I am the injured party, when I have, without permission or discussion, used my neighbour's land as if it belonged to me.

Well, that's how GMOs (genetically modified organisms) work. If I grow GMOs on my land and they contaminate my neighbour's land, my neighbour will have to pay royalties to the seed manufacturer, even though my neighbour may grow non-GMOs or organic crops. My neighbour's crops have been contaminated, not in some way blessed with the bountiful gift of genetically modified crops. I should be compensating my neighbour because the crops now grown on my neighbour's land will no longer be non-GMO and will no longer be organic.

My choice to grow GMOs in the first place is questionable enough, because it is inevitable that they will eventually contaminate my neighbour's crops. But I have effectively also taken the decision that my neighbour should no longer have the right to grow non-GMOs or organic crops. Where did I get this right and why does my neighbour not have the same level of autonomy over their land that I have over mine?

Farmers in Brazil and Argentina are facing this very absurdity, that the serial rapist is taking their victims to court for compensation for the use of their genetic input. Those contaminating the land, the land belonging to those who wish to have nothing to do with GMOs, are set to be paid for their contamination. Australia is busily trying to patch up their laws so that unwitting non-GMO farmers can be protected. But the multinationals that produce GMOs are rich and they are not going to give up easily.

Absurd though this is, it is exactly what awaits any country that is tricked into allowing GMOs to be grown on their land. Individual farmers will not have the right to choose whether to fall for GMOs or not; if their neighbours accept the thirty pieces of silver, their land will also quickly become contaminated and they will also have to pay royalties, they will also be stuck with weeds that are resistant to certain pesticides, their soil will become degraded and they will be forced to buy expensive fertilizers. Their yields and crop quality will also suffer.

Consumers, also, will have to pay for the greed of the few farmers who are willing buy into the plot. Eventually, consumers will not have the choice of GMO or non-GMO crops, they will all become contaminated. It is simply not possible for both GMO and non-GMO crops to be grown in the same areas. While non-GMOs may attract a premium for a while, the price will quickly rise before they become unavailable.

The only solution is to hold out against GMOs, regardless of what carrots the GMO manufacturers hold up, whatever threats they make or whatever lies they propagate about 'food security' and the rest. They are interested in deciding what people grow and eat and that's the way things are in countries like Brazil and Argentina. The costs to the farmers are higher and growing, therefore the costs to consumers are also higher and growing. The only ones that benefit from GMOs are the multinationals.

If anyone has seen the wonderful Italian film, The Bicycle Thieves (or the more recent Bejing Bicycle), they may notice a similar irony, where the person who has been wronged is made to pay for their victimization. How has this cruel and dangerous absurdity been allowed to arise in the first place? Why do faceless multinationals have so much power and influence that they can pay for a policy of appeasement, while they treat the defenceless as guinea pigs in their deadly experiments? And will we simply say 'never again' after conventional farming has been destroyed? There may be time to prevent this disaster in some countries, but it has to be now. The consequences cannot be reversed.

World Domination Trumps Science in the GMO Industry

One of the most scary things about genetically modified organisms (GMO) is that they are not being pushed because there is scientific evidence that they are a potentially useful tool in improving global food security. Firstly, global food security is not primarily a problem of a lack of food, it is a problem of unequal access to food. Secondly, GMOs have been shown to lead to decreased food security, for several reasons. Yields are not higher, they are the same or lower. GMOs do not show any signs of being resistant to drought or pests. And overuse of pesticides has given rise to pesticide resistant weeds, just as critics predicted it would.

Scientific evidence for or against GMOs is irrelevant because the GMOs are all about world domination. The issue is one of geopolitics rather than science. It is an attempt by some of the most powerful multinationals in the world to gain control of all the arable land in the world. When you grow GMOs, you use GMO seeds and GMO products. You can't save the seed for the next growing season and the amount of fertilizer you need every year will increase because of soil degradation. The amount of pesticides you will need also increases because of ever growing resistance. If you try to return to growing conventional crops, they will become contaminated and there is a risk that the GMO manufacturer will either claim royalties or prevent you from growing the crop. And you will find your markets rather limited too, as Canada has found.

India may have successfully rejected the genetically modified brinjal (aubergine or egg plant) by putting a moratorium on its production. But India rejected the crop because of the flawed scientific arguments that were used to try to force it on the country. If the science is irrelevant, the moratorium is merely a political matter. Already the powerful and well paid pro GMO lobby there is busying itself with laws and regulations that will prevent people from criticizing GMOs with threats of fines and prison sentences. Ironically, they say that you are not permitted to criticize GMOs without scientific evidence.

There is no scientific evidence to show that farmers should not become indentured slaves to these multinationals. It is a human rights issue, not a scientific issue. The scientific arguments against GMOs have been available for years but they are dismissed, out of hand, dismissed by a lot of sales pitch and political bluster. Those opposed to GMOs are branded Luddites and said to be anti development and denying people in developing countries access to this life saving technology. US soya farmers, Canadian cotton farmers and Indian cotton farmers know just how life threatening this technology really is.

There was a facetiously titled programme on the BBC recently called 'Food Fights'. It wasn't about GMOs, specifically, it was about large scale land grabbing by rich countries, multinationals and investment portfolio administrators to grow food, biofuels and anything else they need in developing countries. It is clear that this land grabbing is not even intended to benefit those in developing countries, yet the programme gives the impression that it is a viable answer to global food insecurity. The programme is not completely biased, but it allows some palpable falsehoods to remain unscrutinized.

For a start, this sort of land grabbing is said to be the only alternative to the present situation, where developing countries depend to a large extent on food and other kinds of aid. The only real alternative for developing countries is for them to become self sufficient and self reliant, which is the opposite to what this neo-colonialism offers. Rich foreigners are not looking for an alternative, they are looking out for their own interests, regardless of the costs to those in the countries where they propose to extract everything they can get.

Although it is not a GM crop, the example of sugar cane fields is examined because sugar cane is one of the favoured biofuel crops planned for Kenya. Even before biofuels and stories about food insecurity started, sugar cane was grown on farms as if the farmers were nothing but indentured slaves. This is still the case. The sugar company supplies all the inputs and does all the mechanised tasks. Once they have extracted what they want, the little that is left goes to the farmer. Often, farmers produce the sugar cane at a loss but there is no other cash crop with a ready market. In some cases, they lease the crop on their land to the sugar company to get some ready cash. Come the harvest, they have nothing left after they have paid their bills.

Farmers in this sort of situation already know what it means if foreign interests take over large tracts of arable land in Kenya. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land, referred to as 'marginal' is threatened with this kind of incursion. And those who object are referred to as Luddites, anti-development, whatever. Those using this 'marginal' land will be dispossessed and the whole ecosystem that the land supports will be destroyed. And GMO manufacturers don't even need to lease or buy the land, like the sugar companies.

But this is the sort of world domination that GMO manufactures want. They don't want people to be able to produce their own food or to choose what farm inputs to use. They want farmers to effectively give over their land to a multinational that will tie the land into a system that will be virtually irreversible. Yields will decrease and input costs will increase, but the farmer will be forced to continue purchasing products from that multinational, and that's the important thing. Human rights, food security and environmental destruction are irrelevant to multinationals. As for the science, it is a handy political tool sometimes, but other times, it just doesn't give the right results.

[The possible contribution of GMOs to antibiotic resistance is discussed in this interesting article. While it doesn't fit into the above posting so well, it is of particular significance to countries that have a very high HIV and TB burden because these countries also have reduced access to drugs and often have to make do with older versions, for which pathogens are more likely to develop resistance in the near future.]