Lynas Spanks One Out for Genetic Engineering, Again

It's good to read a simple article by a Kenyan in a Kenyan newspaper about staple crops rather than cash crops for export being the key to tackling poverty. Many people probably suspect that it is true, but we are constantly blasted with articles about luxury fruits and vegetables for the European market and cash crops that make Kenyan farmers very little money but sell well in the West.

The article refers to a study brief by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) called Strategies and Priorities for African Agriculture. The study concludes that "producing more staple crops such as maize, pulses, and roots and more livestock products tends to reduce poverty further than producing more export crops such as coffee or cut flowers". IFPRI is connected with some of the big bullies among the multinationals and some heavy handed Western governments, but they can still produce sensible research, it seems.

Unfortunately, all the mainstream media are taking an interest in Mark Lynas' supposed conversion from environmentalist to promoter of genetic engineering (GE). Lynas spanked one out in public for GE over 18 months ago. Perhaps the press weren't quite ready then for such a shocking conversion, or they had other things on their mind. But back in July 2011 Lynas claimed that Africa must embrace GM technology to abolish hunger and malnutrition.

Lynas would be well aware that his claims are utter rubbish, so one can only conclude that he is making them for reasons that don't relate to science or anything too academic. All the more surprising that he considers opposition to GE to be 'anti-scientific'. Even his own arguments are not primarily about the science of GE, but the economics; and his arguments are based on falsehoods.

Back then, Lynas said "One of the most pervasive myths about biotech crops is that they are part of a nefarious plot by multinational seed companies such as Monsanto to dominate the world food chain." But that's pretty much how Monsanto and other GE multinationals would describe themselves, albeit using a slightly different rhetoric. Any science involved is of little relevance, which means that even someone with as little grasp of science as Lynas has can still take part in the debate, as long as they come to realize what exactly the terms of the debate are.

The most astonishing thing about GE crops is that they are so unneeded. Conventional crops have developed at a pace that GE can not keep up with; costs are also far lower; the claimed advantages of GE crops, where they didn't turn out to be exaggerations and lies, turned out to be short lived. Lynas and the GE industry are well aware of this, hence the need to keep pumping out the party line. Conventionally bred staple crops are what poor people depend on for survival, not expensive high technologies that don't perform well, despite all the hype.

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.

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.

For GM Lobbyists like Lynas, East African Famine is Gap in Market

Mark Lynas, who used to be an environmentalist, has become a rabid pro-GMO commentator. The title of his recent article in Kenya's Nation newspaper is:'To abolish hunger and malnutrition, Africa must embrace GM technology'.

Firstly, Lynas should know that if the world wanted to abolish hunger and malnutrition, they would have done so by now. Hunger and malnutrition are caused by lack of access to affordable and nutritious food. Even East Africa, where there is such a serious lack of access to food, has produced more than enough food in recent years.

But another thing Lynas should be aware of are the various factors that are causing food prices to spiral beyond what poor people can afford, especially in the last four or five years. Rich speculators are betting on the price of food staples rising in a world where many other sources of easy profits are more risky right now.

Growing biofuels, which require viable agricultural land and water, other things many poor people don't have access to, is also increasing the cost of food. A number of food crops are actually used to produce fuel so that rich Westerners don't have to reduce their fuel consumption.

And one of the most pernicious factors of all, land grabbing, should be very familiar to Lynas, if he has paid the slightest attention to his history lessons. Much of the best agricultural land in developing countries is not owned by poor people. That's precisely why most of them are poor.

Big multinationals, various non-African countries, speculators, wealthy individuals, pension funds and the like are all speculating in land in African countries. And even without those malign influences, much of the best land was handed over to top politicians and their families at, or soon after, independence.

That's quite a few items on the agenda that could be discussed before genetically modified organisms need even raise their ugly head. And all these items are long term trends, not something that just cropped up recently. The very threat of drought, food shortages and even famine have been noted over and over again by agencies whose job it is to warn of such possibilities.

This claimed 'need' for GMOs didn't just arise in the last few weeks, since the big news agencies, who seem so anxious to interview Lynas the expert, started taking notice and raiding their photo archives for choice photographs of dying people in dry and dusty locations. There's a stink of news manufacturing here, and a very nasty smell that is.

Lynas seems to see the problem of aid agencies simply coming up with more unsustainable strategies to deal with hunger. But that's no reason for imposing GMOs, which represent the most unsustainable strategy yet. They cost phenomenal amounts of money when you take in the long term commitments they represent and what the farmer loses by embracing them.

Farmers will have to pay inflated prices for agricultural inputs, accept the huge risks that have destroyed so many farmers in India and other countries, face lower yields after the first few years, once resistance develops to the pesticides and the fertilizer has contaminated the land and reduced yields further. And they won't be selling their produce in Europe, either.

It's strange how specific Lynas is in mentioning what he sees as "myths about biotech crops" being "part of a nefarious plot by multinational seed companies such as Monsanto to dominate the world food chain." As a former anti-GM activist and current Monsanto backscratcher, he should be aware that Monsanto's entire GMO effort is to dominate the world food chain.

All multinationals aim to dominate their field or fields of interest. Monsanto is no different in that respect. They don't even make any secret or that, except to Lynas, it seems. Does he think that Monsanto has suddenly transformed itself into a great big philanthropy engine, a jolly green giant?

If Lynas wishes to let on to be so disingenuous, others are not convinced. The Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity (TABIO), an alliance of organizations concerned with the conservation of agricultural biodiversity for livelihood security and food sovereignty, has sent a vigorous response to Lynas's prognostications to the English Times (though I don't think it has been published yet).

This feigned innocence in reporting the GMO line as if it were an honest weighing up of the arguments doesn't wash. Lynas is not unaware of the faultlines in his 'reasoning'. That doesn't explain why he should wish to put his name to such rubbish, or be so widely reported to be doing so. But it will take a bit more than classic greenwashing to sell GMOs to anyone who has taken the trouble to study the issues.

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.

Would You Buy a Second Hand Story From These People?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

It's OK, Apparently Journalists Are Supposed to Lie

In an article about the Polish journalist and writer, Ryszard Kapuscinski, Neal Ascherson claims that "there is no floodlit wire frontier between literature and reporting". This is interesting because he feels that being a "great story teller" does not make someone a liar. Which is true, except when they are supposed to be writing an article that people assume is 'reportage'.

I don't know about Kapuscinski but if there is no frontier between literature and reporting then why would anyone bother to read the daily tripe? Journalists churn out a lot of rubbish concerning things they know precious little about, but people read papers and listen to radios and TVs every day to find out what is happening in the world. When they read some jumped up hack going on about how there couldn't be global warming because it's very cold today, they think that the whole issue about climate change has been trumped up.

So when it comes to genetically modified organisms (GMO), consumers of journalistic bullshit (the majority of mainstream reporting) think of Frankenstein foods, or whatever crap the 'profession' has dreamed up to ensure that the last thing people do is think or become informed in any way. Neal Ascherson may write for The Guardian, a 'moderate' paper, but lying and reporting are not the same thing and if a journalist lies, he or she is a liar.

What I'm saying about GMOs will probably be of no interest to journalists because I am not opposed to them just because they may be dangerous to humans, animals, plants, water supplies, in general, the whole global ecosystem. Although, I admit it, the fact that no one knows exactly what effect long term consumption of GMOs has on those who consume them (because no credible research has been done), does seem like a glaring omission. I am opposed to the fact that a few multinationals want to control the whole of humanity's ability to provide enough food for itself. Not only do they want this but they already control a massive proportion of global food production. To cap it all, many of the most powerful idiots in the world are in favour of this, with the support of...big media owners.

Ok, I've skipped past the journalists because they are just doing a job and they are paid for by some revolting Murdoch-like character who is trying to do for global media what Monsanto is trying to do for food production. But Ascherson makes a good point, don't bother reading what journalists have to say, unless you like a good read. As for science reporting in the mainstream media, forget it.

Domination of global food production by a few multinationals should be bad enough but approval of GM potatoes or any other GMO in Europe (or anywhere else) will also be a disaster because such crops will contaminate other crops around them. We know that they will because the evidence is clear from every field trial of GMOs. We know that there are other dangerous drawbacks to GM crops and also that none of the promised advantages of these crops have materialised. So what they hell are we growing them for?

I wouldn't wish to blame lying journalists for doing any more than following orders, or whatever it is they do, but if they want to brown-nose the bosses of companies like Monsanto, the least they could do is declare their interest. Because every time they throw in a straw man argument like 'Frankenstein foods', they are scoring a goal for the GMO industry. Monsanto can just claim to be using the crops for animal feed or biofuels. But then the problem doesn't go away. Once GMOs are used, the damage is done.

There are enough arguments against the use of GMOs, aside from the dangers to human health. But these arguments are much more difficult to answer. So rather than get the biotech industry to answer them, they are presented with arguments that they have a ready prepared response to. A response that has been well sold by journalists. And have you noticed the way articles often point out how widespread GMO contamination already is, as if to say it's only a matter of time before there is no longer any point in protesting? That's how they got GM cotton into India. Thanks journalists.