Occupy Rio+20

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

Governments are gathering in Brazil, twenty years after the historic 1992 Earth Summit where nations around the world pledged to devote themselves to ending hunger and conserving the planet’s resources for future generations.

This week, governments gather once again, and food and agriculture are high on the agenda of “Rio+20.” Global leaders will be discussing which way forward to feed the world amidst growing food, climate and water crises. Monsanto & Co. have geared up with slick websites and sound bytes — to the point where some have dubbed the official meeting “Greenwash +20.” But the good news is that people around the world are mobilizing like never before for a new food system.

What, GE won’t feed the world?! 

The first Rio gathering in 1992 marked an important historical moment when nations came together with inspiring goals and commitments to keep our planet from going off the rails and to save and replenish the ecosystems that are required for life to continue. But 20 years on, the report card on progress is bleak, and tragically, this meeting (like Copenhagen and too many others) promises more hot air and no progress.

Of profound concern is the undue influence exerted by multinational corporations who have entered the “sustainability” and “green” debate with predictable zeal. The recently released report Greenwash +20 documents how multinational corporate interests thwart government action toward real sustainable development. In food and agriculture, the report exposes the Big 6 player Syngenta, in particular, for its role in suppressing science, influencing the public conversation to bolster profits, and shadow-writing public policy.

Despite the best attempts of the Big 6 pesticide/biotech companies to persuade us that their toxic chemicals and expensive patented seeds are needed, here’s the real deal: GE crops haven’t delivered on 20 years of empty promises. No yield gains, no drought-tolerance, no nutritional improvement.

Rather, farmers signing contracts with Big 6 players have lost their land and their right to save and exchange seed, have fallen deeper into debt, seen their communities wither, stores shuttered, schools closed...The greatest benefits from the sale of GE seeds and the pesticides that go with them have consistently accrued to their manufacturers, companies like Monsanto which more than doubled its profits at the height of the global food price crisis of 2008. We know this to be true from the words of farmers — whether in Iowa or India — and from the hard facts presented to us by independent scientists.

People Power

The heartening news is that farmers and scientists around the world know better than to believe the Biotech Brigade. From Berkeley to Brazil, there is incredible momentum gathering like never before to democratize our food system. This momentum is manifested in the thousands of people gathering at the People’s Summit in Rio. Here peasant farmers, community and social movement leaders, policy advocates, researchers and academics are sharing their knowledge and stories of how communities and entire nations are building strong and vibrant local and regional food systems without buying into corporate dependency.

This “unofficial” meeting, already going on, is where the smarts and solutions lie. Two full days will be dedicated to agroecology and the science and organizing required to build an ecologically sane and democratic food and farming system. While official meetings miles away in walled-off rooms promise entrenchment and false hope, the agroecology meeting has sparked the analysis and relationship-building needed to fuel our movement for change.

Here are some exciting products already coming out of Rio:

• Agroecology in the U.S., a new brief from PANNA showcasing the success of ecological farming at home and laying out policy recommendations for the U.S. government (also in Spanish);
• Scaling up Agroecology: Spreading the Hope for Food Sovereignty and Resiliency by the Latin American Scientific Society for Agroecology;
• The Global Common Statement for a Toxics-Free Future, co-produced by PAN International and partners in the International POPs Elimination Network;
• The collectively produced Ag Transitions website that demonstrates the ability of small-scale family farming to meet 21^st century challenges;
• Time To Act Rio+20, a powerful civil society statement endorsed by PAN and the Global Agriculture website, both of which take up the call of the pathbreaking IAASTD report.

The global people’s gathering in Rio shows that there’s more movement than ever for Food Democracy. It’s up to us to create this change. Here are three ways to engage today:

• Sign the statement from Occupy Rio+20.
• Join PAN’s alert list, where you’ll get updates on how to take action for food democracy and a healthy planet. Right now, we’re supporting the brave Mothers of Argentina vs. Monsanto in our online action with the White House.
• Play “Game Change Rio,” a game that raises awareness of the issues we’ll need to address if future generations are to enjoy life on this planet. (Demo video here).

As the leader of PAN’s Food Democracy campaign team, I’m thrilled by the public conversations taking place in Rio and the momentum powering social movements around the world. Join us.

Corporate-Resistant Weed Scientists Needed To Oppose Approval Of Dow's 2,4-D-Resistant Corn

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

I’ve been hearing through the grapevine that the U.S. Department of Agriculture was startled by the public uproar over Dow AgroScience’s application for approval of its controversial new GE corn, designed to be used with the infamous and highly hazardous weedkiller, 2,4-D.

By quietly opening the public comment period on December 21, 2011, the agency had apparently hoped to slide this one by without attracting public attention. Instead, a vocal and growing movement of people from all walks of life has emerged to challenge the Big 6 pesticide/biotech companies’ introduction of this new generation of toxic pesticide-seed combinations.

Well over ¼ million people signed various petitions this spring, urging USDA to reject Dow’s application for approval of its 2,4-D corn. Medical doctors and health professionals oppose the new crop, as do over 150 farm, labor, environmental, business and consumer groups. And over 2,000 farmers and farm businesses have organized a farmers’ coalition to protest 2,4-D corn and other similar products, sending in their own letter to the agency.

In an OpEd published in St. Louis Today, Iowa corn and soy farmer George Naylor and Missouri organic farmer Margot McMillen said:

Our nation's farmland and countryside already are sprayed with too many toxins. If the USDA gives Dow permission to market this high-tech seed, even more hazardous chemicals will cover our countryside, pollute our air and water and destroy neighboring crops. It's time to stop this cycle of production of GE seeds and herbicides before everything and everyone is drenched in toxins.

The alternative to being "drenched in toxins?" A decisive shift towards sustainable, ecological farming. 

Ecological weed management. It can be done....

This week, weed scientists gathered in Washington D.C. for the National Academy of Science’s “National Summit on Strategies to Manage Herbicide-Resistant Weeds.” The major focus of the forum was the development of a “coordinated strategy” to handle the epidemic of superweeds resistant to RoundUp (glyphosate) and other weedkillers that now infest over 14 million acres of American cropland.

Weed ecologists have long been demonstrating the efficacy and profitability of non-chemical or ecological weed management. This cutting edge approach to weed management includes an array of techniques and practices that are grounded in ecological sciences and principles, reduce weed populations and prevent the evolution of herbicide resistance. Established tactics include crop rotation, planting cover crops, selection of competitive crop cultivars, mulching and minimal tillage (i.e. occasional inter-row cultivation over a multi-year rotation), advanced fertilization techniques that favor crop over weed, and conservation of weed seed predators.

Long-term cropping systems research at The Rodale Institute has demonstrated the efficacy and productivity of organic systems that have eliminated chemical herbicide use entirely, while regenerating the ecological health of soil, water, farm and landscape. Iowa State University scientists have demonstrated the ability of integrated weed management (IWM) in corn to reduce herbicide inputs by up to 94%, while obtaining profits comparable to conventional chemical-based systems. 

....but will we?

Unfortunately, many weed scientists — including the Summit’s chair and others — have long and close associations with the Big 6 pesticide companies, which makes it very difficult for them to think independently of their corporate sponsors and/or former employers. It remains to be seen whether the academic community and  regulators who attended the Summit will confine themselves to the same herbicide-resistant crop paradigm that got us into this predicament, or whether they will dare to embark on a path of sustainable, ecological weed management.

In the coming months, USDA will decide whether or not to approve Dow’s 2,4-D corn. Meanwhile, Congress will decide whether or not to fund crucial conservation programs in the Farm Bill. These two decisions will demonstrate whether our elected officials and policymakers will commit to the path of sustainable agriculture that so many people so clearly want, or deepen American agriculture’s crippling chemical dependence.

2,4-D Corn: Another Bad Creation

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

Spring has sprung, and farmers across the country are preparing for planting season. One of their biggest headaches will be dealing with the millions of acres of cropland that have been infested with superweeds and new generations of superbugs.

These superpests have evolved as the direct — and inevitable — consequence of Monsanto’s aggressive promotion of its genetically engineered “RoundUp-Ready” and insecticidal seed packages over the past 15 years.

I’d like to be able to say that help is on the horizon, and that USDA is preparing to launch a full-scale effort to enable farmers to transition off the failing pesticide-GE treadmill once and for all — onto cleaner, greener methods of farming more suited to the 21^st century. But alas, the reverse is true.

At this moment, USDA is on the verge of approving Dow Chemical's new 2,4-D resistant corn, the first in a pipeline of “next generation” herbicide-tolerant crops that the Big 6 pesticide/biotech companies — including Dow, Monsanto and BASF — are planning to bring to market over the next couple of years. This is industry’s response: more of the same. Except that the next generation is even worse: crops designed to be used with higher volumes of older and deadlier weedkillers.

Weed scientists are calling this chemical arms race a losing battle with evolution. And farmers too are up in arms; already 2,000 outraged farmers and food companies have joined the burgeoning new Save Our Crops Coalition to protest these unwanted products. 

Growth engine of the pesticide industry

Simply put, 2,4-D resistant corn is a bad idea. It will drive a massive increase in pesticide use, placing the burden of increased costs and health risks on farmers and local communities. The big winners will be the pesticide/biotech companies. They stand to benefit from the sustained increase in herbicide sales that will coincide with the widespread adoption of these new herbicide-tolerant GE crops.

Imagine if we could have stopped Roundup Ready in its tracks 15 years ago. American agriculture now stands at another, equally important crossroads. Do we speed up the GE-powered pesticide treadmill, or do we transition off of it?

Take Action » We have just one more week to tell USDA that we want off the GE-pesticide treadmill. The dangerous and antiquated herbicide 2,4-D shouldn’t be on the market, and we certainly should not be giving Dow license to profit from driving up its use by introducing 2,4-D resistant corn.

This was originally posted on Rodale Voices

Monsanto's Endless Pipeline Of Bad Ideas

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

As if the disaster of RoundUp resistant superweeds sweeping our farmland weren’t enough, Monsanto is now preparing to launch an even greater disaster: a new soybean engineered to be resistant to the older, more toxic weedkiller, dicamba. The seed — which Monsanto plans to market in 2014 if approved — will also come stacked with the company’s RoundUp Ready gene, and is designed to be used with Monsanto’s proprietary herbicide “premix” of dicamba and glyphosate.

More dicamba-tolerant crops (corn, cotton, canola) are all waiting in the wings. If this new generation of GE crops is approved, then dicamba use will surge, just as it did with RoundUp. And we all know how well that didn't work out. To the giant pesticide company, this chemical arms race is all part of the plan.

If you’re thinking that pouring more chemicals onto already devastated farmland sounds a bit like pouring gasoline on a fire, I’d have to agree with you. So do some hefty farm businesses, as it turns out.

Farm business rejects Monsanto’s answer

 The Big 6 pesticide companies' pipeline of new herbicide-tolerant crops poses a serious risk to farmers’ livelihood and rural economies. Weedkillers like dicamba and 2,4-D drift far and can easily destroy other farmers’ crops of tomatoes, grapes, beans, cotton, non-GE soy — just about any broadleaf plant. That’s why farmers and some large ag companies are getting worried. As Steve Smith, Director of Agriculture for Red Gold, the largest canned tomato processor in the United States, testified before Congress in 2010:

I am convinced that in all of my years serving the agriculture industry, the widespread use of dicamba herbicide [poses] the single most serious threat to the future of the specialty crop industry in the Midwest.

Smith warns of the damaging surge in dicamba use that would accompany introduction of dicamba-tolerant GE crops — both over more acreage and throughout the season. He predicts widespread crop damage, harm to non-target plants that would result from spray and volatilization drift, and financial loss — not only to growers but also to processing companies like his that would suffer major supply disruption, even conflicts erupting between neighbors eroding the social fabric of rural community life. His testimony concluded:

The introduction of dicamba tolerant soybeans is a classic case of short-sighted enthusiasm over a new technology, blinding us to the reality that is sure to come. Increased dicamba usage, made possible through the introduction of dicamba tolerant soybeans, is poor public policy and should not be allowed.

We can choose to get off the pesticide treadmill

We’ve just witnessed an incredible victory with the removal of the infamous cancer-causing pesticide methyl iodide from the entire U.S. marketplace. So we know that we can win. And we know that the threat that pesticides pose to farm sustainability, our water and air quality, our communities’ and our children’s health can be blocked. But we have to be dedicated and smart.

Right now, companies like Monsanto, BASF and Dow are planning to drive up their pesticide sales by introducing a new generation of herbicide-tolerant crops, designed to be used with their proprietary weedkillers. The test case before us —the first of this new generation up for review and currently awaiting USDA approval — is Dow’s 2,4-D GE corn (“a very bad idea” as my colleague Margaret Reeves explains). The most effective thing we can do to protect farmers and consumers from dicamba-tolerant crops is to shut down the pipeline of herbicide-tolerant crops — beginning with 2,4-D-resistant corn.

Take Action » Tell USDA that we want off the GE-pesticide treadmill! This dangerous and antiquated herbicide shouldn’t be on the market, and we certainly should not be giving Dow license to profit from driving up use. Sign our petition to USDA.

China Puts The Breaks On GE Rice

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

A raging public controversy over genetically engineered (GE) rice in China captured media attention in recent months, and has culminated in a surprising win. A few weeks ago, the country’s State Council released a new Draft Food Law¹ that, if passed, would protect the genetic resources of China’s food crops and restrict the application of GE technology in its main food crops.

This is significant progress in the effort by farmers and campaigners in China and indeed across Asia to protect the genetic integrity, diversity and heritage of their rice.

The Pesticide Eco-Alternatives Centre (PEAC), a PAN partner based in Kunming, welcomed the draft law, and lauded the democratic process symbolized by China opening a public comment period through the end of March. But PEAC would like to see the law go further. In a statement to China’s State Council, PEAC argued that the law should protect biodiversity — not just germplasm — in food crops; disallow transgenic technology in all — not just “main” — food crops; and better reflect farmers and rural communities' priorities and concerns.

PEAC's Deputy Director Sun Jing expressed her hope that the proposed Draft Food Law would ultimately prevent rice from being genetically engineered. “Rice is life, it represents the livelihood of millions of farmers, feeds billions of people, and it is the basis of our food security,” she said. PEAC has been working for years with rural communities to advance ecological agriculture free of synthetic chemicals and GMOs.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace has produced a fascinating narrative on its website of its own seven-year campaign in China to block GE rice. The dramatic story is filled with exposés of corporate scientists influencing policy, government suppression of information, revelations of illegal GE contamination of rice noodles and baby food, consumer outrage, celebrity support (Mao Zedong’s daughter), a “media frenzy” and finally, in September 2011 a victory: the Ministry of Agriculture’s decision to suspend the commercialization of GE rice for the next 5-10 years. Greenpeace China has embraced the new Draft Food Law as a “world-first initiative.” 

Wanted: Scientific Integrity On GMOs

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

As reported in this week's UK Guardian, Nina Federoff spoke about threats to science at a meeting of 8,000 professional scientists. The former Bush Administration official and GMO proponent described her "profound depression" at how difficult it is to “get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms.” I too have agonized over our inability to talk seriously about climate change.

However — and this is no small matter — by conflating fringe climate-deniers with established scientists raising valid concerns about the effects of GMOs, Federoff undermines the scientific integrity that she purports to uphold. The hypocrisy is astonishing.

The reason we cannot get a reality-based conversation started on GMOs is because we have precious little independent science on their effectiveness or safety. We know so little about GMOs' safety or efficacy because global ag biotech firms like Monsanto, Dow and DuPont actively suppress science under the heading of protecting “confidential business information.” Companies routinely deny scientists’ research requests and suppress publication of research by threatening legal action, a practice one scientist describes as “chilling.”

In February 2009, 26 corn-pest scientists anonymously submitted a statement to U.S. EPA decrying industry’s prohibitive restrictions on independent research, especially as concerns ag biotech. They submitted the following statement anonymously for fear of being blacklisted:

Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.

The same year, the editors of Scientific American warned of the debilitating effects of the ag biotech industry’s attacks on science:

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

When the world’s top scientists have been allowed to examine freely the available evidence, unfettered by corporate restrictions, the results stand in startling contrast to industry claims. Four years ago, the agricultural equivalent of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was completed, the World Bank and UN-led International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). I participated as a lead author in that rigorous 4-year process, in which over 400 scientist and development experts from more than 80 countries conducted the most comprehensive assessment of international agricultural technology to date. The IAASTD’s findings were clear:

1. Genetically engineered crops have failed to deliver on industry promises of increased yields, nutritional value, salt or drought-tolerance.
   
2. The unprecedented pace of corporate concentration in the pesticide and seed industry has enabled the ag biotech industry to exert undue influence over public policy and research institutions, funneling public resources towards products that have benefited their manufacturers without generating benefits for the world’s poor.
   
3. The developing world’s best hopes for feeding itself, especially under conditions of climate change, lie not in GMOs, but rather in approaches such as agroecology—the integration of cutting-edge agroecological sciences with farmer innovation and locally appropriate, productive and profitable, ecological farming practices. The ability of agroecology to double food production within 10 years was recently re-affirmed by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.
   

So yes, let’s beat back the “anti-science lobby” and restore scientific integrity to public policy and independence and transparency to our research institutions. The future of our planet depends on it.

All Aboard The Transgenic Titanic

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

On Tuesday, one of the world’s largest pesticide and biotech companies — Monsanto Corporation — held its annual general meeting in St. Louis. While protestors outside Monsanto headquarters highlighted growing public disenchantment with the industry giant and its genetically engineered products, investors in the meeting were voting on a shareholder resolution from PAN and Harrington Investments.

If passed, the resolution would require Monsanto to report on all financial risks and impacts, including contamination of neighboring crops, associated with its GE/pesticide seed package.

Bright spots in 2011 for Monsanto notwithstanding (Uncle Sam gave the company a sweet holiday gift package in December), there was much for shareholders attending the St. Louis meeting to be concerned about: the impending demise of Monsanto's enormously profitable RoundUp-Ready pesticide/GE seed line; growing numbers of irate farmers and mounting negative publicity over the company’s role in creating superweeds and superbugs now afflicting millions of acres of farmland across the country; surging consumer demand for labeling of GE foods (95% want it); and a share value that has ricocheted wildly between $58 and $78 over the past 6 months.

It is only going to get worse.— Lee Van Wychen, director of science policy, Weed Science Society of America, referring to the superweed epidemic.

In presenting PAN's resolution, we argued that shareholders should take seriously the looming consequences of the risky behavior of the biotech titan. Monsanto’s refusal to acknowledge the evolutionary realities of developed resistance to, and genetic contamination from its ubiquitous GE product lines signaled years ago the company’s complete lack of foresight and accountability.

Not surprisingly, the resolution did not pass in Tuesday's meeting. But the call for greater transparency about Monsanto’s liabilities garnered media attention, including this local TV report.

German Biotech Giant Flees Europe For U.S.

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

Last week the giant German pesticide and biotech company (and largest chemical company in the world), BASF, announced its decision to pack up and flee Europe.


Why? For 13 years, ordinary Europeans have stood firm in challenging the right of biotech companies to dump their risky genetically engineered (GE) seeds onto their fields and have steadfastly rejected the intrusion of GE foods onto their plates. They built up an informed and powerful citizens’ movement that has made itself heard, even over the din of the monied GE lobby. For this, hearty congratulations are due to our cousins across the Atlantic!
 
Unfortunately, BASF is headed straight for a research park here in the U.S. — namely the Research Triangle in North Carolina, which has become a hub for the biotech industry. BASF will be joining over 70 agricultural technology companies there, the Winston-Salem Journal reports, including Bayer CropScience and Syngenta.

Not too far off in St. Louis is Monsanto, which BASF is collaborating with on (among other things) a new dicamba-resistant GE crop line. This is yet one more in the pipeline of ecologically disastrous herbicide-resistant GE crops I’ve been writing about lately. 

Americans rejecting GE too

UC Berkeley professor of microbial ecology, Ignacio Chapela, explains what’s behind BASF’s decision to pull out of Europe in Counter Punch:

The future holds very little promise for GMOs altogether, and BASF is only the first [company] to have the capacity to recognize the thirty years of bad investments…The reasons for the failure of BASF’s products in Europe are many and very diverse, but the fundamental truth stands that over the decades no real benefit has offset the proven harm caused by GMOs.

Occupy The Food System

The GE Emperor Has No Clothes!

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

On October 13, I joined fellow food democracy activists from around California at a press conference on the steps of San Francisco’s City Hall. We were there to welcome the release of a new Global Citizens’ Report on transgenic crops, aptly entitled The GMO Emperor Has No Clothes.


As World Food Day approaches (Sunday, October 16), what better way to honor and support small-scale and family farmers around the world than by publicizing the report’s message: genetically engineered crops have utterly failed to deliver, it’s time to cut our losses, save our seeds, defend our rights and Occupy the Food System.

This much is clear: after 25 years of research, 14 years of commercialization and millions of dollars in public funding, genetically engineered (GE) crops have failed to deliver on promises again and again. GE crops neither increase yield nor provide nutritional benefits. No drought or salt-tolerant crops have yet been commercially developed; GE crops won’t feed the world and - unlike agroecological approaches - GE technology can’t help farmers in the U.S. or anywhere adapt to the complex and shifting challenges of global climate, water, energy and biodiversity crises. (For a great primer/infographic on GE, see here.)

Even Howard Buffet (Warren’s son) acknowledged as much at this week’s World Food Prize Symposium in Des Moines. Buffet spoke of the need for a biological-based, sustainable soil management plan, and urged Africans not to sacrifice crop biodiversity in order to imitate U.S. monocultural industrial farming methods. While some of his other statements indicate that he has a woefully deficient appreciation of African farmers’ rich knowledge and capacities, his comments created quite a stir at this typically pro-Green Revolution venue.

With mountains of scientific and empirical evidence from the field, it is therefore even more insulting and outrageous that the U.S. State Department continues to applaud the naked GE emperor and push transgenic biotechnology so aggressively throughout the developing world, as revealed in these leaked cables. Offensive, but not so surprising; with former Crop Life pesticide lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui, firmly ensconced as Chief Agricultural Negotiator at the U.S. trade office, we can expect more of the same.

Back out on the streets of San Francisco, people are gathering this Saturday for an Occupy San Francisco march and rally. Part of what makes the emerging food movement and the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations so simultaneously main street and radical is that their diagnosis of our shared problem hinges on fairness. It’s not fair that a few mega-corporations are making record profits at the expense of the health and livelihoods of ordinary people here in the U.S. and the world over. This is why farmers from India to Iowa are demanding food democracy, in which ordinary people take charge of establishing the food and agricultural systems we need to build up resilient farms and resilient communities. This is why many of us — from San Francisco to Seattle to New York — will be making the gap between the 1% and the 99% — and the connection between food and democracy — explicit as we continue to Occupy the Food System.

Mexican Maize Ready For Climate Challenge

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

“Sin Maíz, No Hay País!” The chant is ringing out this morning across the fields, villages and towns of Mexico, in recognition of Mexico’s National Day of Corn, September 29. “Without corn, there is no country!” is the literal translation of this ongoing national campaign to celebrate and protect the cultural heritage and significance of corn to the Mexican people.

With the campaign entering its fourth year, Mexicans can also celebrate the good news that the maize that Mexican farmers have been cultivating in traditional farming systems for thousands of years already contains much of the genetic diversity they’ll need to weather the challenges of climate change in the coming century.

A recently published international paper confirms what Mexican farmers have known in their hearts for generations. Researchers examined traditional maize seed systems used by 400 Indigenous and mestizo households from 20 communities in five states of eastern Mexico, at altitudes ranging from 10 to nearly 3,000 meters above sea level. Their conclusion:

Maize landraces in Mexico show remarkable diversity and climatic adaptability, growing in environments ranging from arid to humid and from temperate to very hot. This diversity raises the possibility that Mexico already has maize germplasm suitable for the 'novel' crop environments predicted for 2050.

The measured tone belies the significance of the report. Using their own indigenous and locally adapted seeds (Mexico has 59 landraces and 209 varieties of corn) and ecological methods of farming, Mexican farmers are prepared to adapt to the environmental stresses of climate and water crises looming on the horizon. In other words, despite everything that Monsanto tells us, Mexicans really don’t need GMOs or industrial agricultural packages from the North, thank you very much!
Maize, Mexico's staple food as well as a symbol, has the potential to adapt to climate change and mitigate its effects without any need for genetically modified seeds. – Emilio Godoy, IPS News, Sept 8, 2011.

Seeding Justice, Cultivating Democracy

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, cross-posted from PAN's website

Last week, hundreds of people poured into the Women’s Building here in San Francisco to take part in the Justice Begins with Seeds conference, organized by the California Biosafety Alliance and co-sponsored by PANNA and several other partner groups. Abuzz with activities from September 13-17, the conference provided a forum for Californians to engage in movement building that challenges the corporate food system, pushes back against genetically engineered food and seeds, and nourishes the roots of food democracy.

I had the honor of speaking at the opening plenary Friday morning, and of sharing the PAN network’s vision of what it means to reclaim our food system. The auditorium pulsed with the diversity, wisdom, courage and vast experience of our movement: Latino community organizers, urban food justice activists, Mexican farmers and keepers of the ancient, vital heritage of corn seed diversity, youth leaders, lawyers, scientists, poets, writers and artists.

As a global network linking 600 groups from over 90 countries, PAN is best known for our three decades of work challenging the global proliferation of pesticides. At the same time, ever since our founding in 1982, PAN has fought for people’s rights to a safe, fair and sustainable food system. That work has taken many forms over the years: farmer caravans travelling across Asia, denouncing the corporations that manufacture chemical pesticides and GMOs and highlighting farmers’ innovative ecological alternatives; organic cotton farmers in Peru, Benin and Senegal collaborating with European partners in devising clean, fair and green marketing initiatives; and here in the U.S., campaigning to save conservation payments in the Farm Bill as the most concrete step we can take right now to support American farmers who are stewarding the earth and protecting future generations.

As I told conference participants last week, “seeding justice” at PANNA means two things to me: growing agroecology and nourishing the emerging food democracy movement in this country. The many faces of these two things can get us a long way towards food sovereignty. In so many concrete ways, I am energized by our daily work in this realm:

• fighting for fairness for workers and for family farmers (call your Senator to urge support for the fair farm rules! the fight is still on!);
• exposing and challenging Monsanto’s monopoly control over the world’s seed supply;
• campaigning for green payments and policy measures to support farmers transitioning towards agroecological and organic practices; and
• mobilizing communities from California to Colombia to Cameroon, to stand together for food justice, food democracy and food sovereignty.

As Indian scientist-activist Vandana Shiva explained in her rousing keynote address:

We have to make food democracy the core of the defense of our freedom and survival. We will either have food dictatorship for a while and then a collapse of our food systems and our societies, or we will succeed in building robust food democracies, resting on resilient ecosystems and resilient communities.

Got Fairness?

Marcia's latest post, originally published on PAN's website, explains why we need to support family farmers against commodities traders and corporate dairy giants, and how to do it.


Dairy Farmers Demand Fairness At Chicago Merc

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, April 14, 2010

Tomorrow morning, as you pour milk into your kids’ cereal bowls or buy a latte to get you going, take a moment to think about the dairy and other family farmers who will be braving gusty winds off Lake Michigan to converge on the steps of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. These farmers are demanding an end to the price fixing by commodity speculators that has bankrupted thousands of family farmers across the U.S., while spurring food crises worldwide.

 Led by Wisconsin-based Family Farm Defenders, farmers and allies will be calling out the traders who take home millions of dollars in profits every year, while family farmers continue to see their farms foreclosed and local businesses shuttered. These farmers will also be exposing the hidden links between America’s giant dairy monopolies and the scandalous recent approval of genetically engineered alfalfa by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, designed to boost sales of Monsanto’s flagship weedkiller, Roundup. The action is one of many being taken by family farmers and supporters around the world in celebration of International Peasants Day, April 17. National Family Farm Coalition is compiling a list of related actions around the U.S.

Something Rotten in the Land O'Lakes

Unbeknownst to many of us, a significant chunk of the dollars we spend on milk and butter is not going to dairy farmers at all, but is being captured by huge corporate dairy giants like Dean Foods and Dairy Farmers of America, an amalgamation of Land O'Lakes and other mega-sized “cooperative corporations.”  These folks are anything but cooperative, as far as family farmers are concerned. They have long had a hand in fixing milk prices below cost of production while charging consumers top dollar, driving America’s dairy farmers to bankruptcy. That’s why they have been under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and are the target of recent class-action lawsuits for anti-trust violations, as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders explains.

Transgenic Guns & Butter 

But there’s more -- these same dairy corporations have also been active in developing genetically engineered (GE) crops like GE alfalfa and in lobbying the U.S. government for deregulation of GE alfalfa.  Land O'Lakes has long been an ardent advocate of GMOs since the FDA’s approval of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in the 1990s.

Land O'Lakes’ primary seed research partner is Forage Genetics, which developed GE alfalfa using Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready technology. In the last two years, lobbying by Land O'Lakes has surged, with hefty portions going explicitly towards efforts to deregulate GE alfalfa. With so many corporate interests coming out swinging for GE, no wonder the White House lined up so quickly with industry on this one.

Three things you can do to support our dairy farmers:

1. Buy dairy products from independently owned family farms and go organic if you can to avoid GE!

2. Sign Food & Water Watch's petition asking the Obama Administration to protect farmers and consumers from Monsanto's GE crops.

3. Tell the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to demand a democratic overhaul of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to prevent corporate price fixing.

People Against Monsanto

Another great post from Marcia about burgeoning campaigns that demand the labeling of genetically modified foods, initiating independent, long-term studies on the safety of GMOs, and protecting organic farmers.  This originally appeared on PAN's website (Pesticide Action Network).

People Against Monsanto

by Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, March 16, 2011

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the American public’s nearly unified demand for labeling of GMOs. Now, across the country, people are preparing to take to the streets to express their views.

The Millions Against Monsanto campaign is organizing a Rally for the Right to Know in front of the White House on Saturday, March 26. And plans for local rallies are popping up everywhere, including — last I checked — in California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennesee and Wisconsin.

These rallies against Monsanto have four common demands:

1. We have the right to know and want genetically modified foods labeled;
2. We want factory farmed animal and genetically modified animal products labeled;
3. We want independent, transparent, long-term studies done on the safety of GMOs for animals, plants and humans; and
4. We want the organic industry protected from cross-contamination and law suits against organic farmers.

Around the world, farmers are already uniting as never before to reject GE seeds and assert their right to save seed. This has been articulated most recently in the Bali Seed Declaration, released this week by La Via Campesina. Perhaps we're beginning to see new momentum growing in this country too, following the example of our European cousins who just a few months ago delivered a letter from over one million Europeans (from Europe’s 27 countries!) to the European Union, demanding a moratorium on GE crops and calling for a “GE-free Europe.”

A month without Monsanto

If you can’t make it to a rally on either side of the Atlantic, you might follow Los Angeles writer April Dávila’s example and go on a personal GE-free journey in your own kitchen.

After deciding to go a month without Monsanto, April expressed surprise at how hard it was to find food made without Monsanto’s GE products — a job obviously made much harder by the lack of labeling, as Mark Bitman of the New York Times has pointed out.

She quickly learned that buying organic, avoiding high-fructose corn syrup and being careful about the source of her meat were the best ways to keep herself GE-free. By the end of her month, she happily concluded, “Once I started making the effort to avoid it, I found something else that surprised me: the confidence that comes from really knowing what I’m eating.”

Holding corporations liable for GE harms

Labeling is a very important first step towards transparency in our food system. But even as we fight for our right to know, farther upstream farmers and ranchers — organic and conventional alike — face the potentially catastrophic effects that GE contamination poses to their farms and livelihoods.
Thus it is equally important that we establish the means and mechanisms to hold patent-holders (Monsanto and other agricultural biotech corporations) liable for the economic, environmental and health harms that their GE products may cause.

The National Organic Coalition is working hard on this. As part of its Seven Steps to Fair Farming, they've come up with a Contamination Prevention and Contamination Compensation Plan. This month's rallies across the country will help build the momentum needed to move important initiatives like these forward.

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman is a senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PAN).

Hiding GE Contamination

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at PAN, is back with another piece, originally posted on PAN's website (Pesticide Action Network (PAN North America).

95% Want GE Labeling, And Yet . . . 

by Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, March 2, 2011

Do you want to know if the food you eat and feed your family has been genetically engineered?  If you do, you’re not alone. Over 95% of people responding to an MSNBC poll this week on labeling of GE foods have said loudly and clearly, “OF COURSE we want to know!” Over 30,000 people have voted (you can too, here).  This follows on an earlier CBS poll finding that 87% people want to know if genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are in their food. Evidently, this is something that people feel strongly about.


Despite overwhelming evidence that Americans are deeply concerned about GE contamination of our food and farms, our public agencies have, in the space of two months, fast-tracked approval of three new risky GE crops: GE alfalfa, GE sugar beets and a new kind of GE corn (engineered by Syngenta for use in ethanol production — I don’t think we want this ending up in our kids’ cornflakes!).

Genetic Trespass

Notwithstanding Nina Federoff's recent obfuscations on NPR, the threats posed by GE contamination of our food system are real. In the case of GE alfalfa — which threatens the livelihoods of organic dairy farmers and the very existence of organic milk and meat — experts agree that contamination is inevitable.

This should come as no surprise. Sam Fromartz writing in The Atlantic provides us with a long catalogue of the contamination of organic and “conventional” (non-GE) foods and fields that has already taken place over the past 10 years — in rice, corn, soy, cotton and canola — and in taco shells and honey. Some call this “genetic trespass” and it's not unlike the chemical trespass of pesticides in our bodies for which many of the same companies are responsible.

As New York Times writer Mark Bitman, says, “It’s the unwillingness to label these products as such — even the G.E. salmon will be sold without distinction — that is demeaning and undemocratic.”
The good news is that growing numbers of farmers, local communities and scientists around the world — from Bulgaria to Brazil, to Nigeria and the U.S. — are vociferously opposing GE crops. Friends of the Earth International’s newest edition of "Who benefits from GM crops?" describes the bans and moratoria, petitions, lobbying and direct actions that are having an impact.

UN Agency's Suprisingly Smart Report on Climate-Smart Ag Practices

Here is the latest post from Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at PAN, originally posted on PAN's website (Pesticide Action Network (PAN North America). 



Climate Smart Agriculture?
 

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Feb. 10, 2011

In a new report, the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) stressed the need to transform agriculture and adopt “climate-smart” practices. No news there. The real surprise is what "climate-smart" ag does not mean for FAO.


With all the relentless hype from Monsanto & Co. around ag biotech's supposed role in feeding the world and providing the answer to climate change, I expected to find plugs for increasing investments in “biotechnology” or “GMOs” sprinkled throughout the entire report. I was wrong. The report simply and consistently stressed that  “significant transformation” is required in agriculture; that effective “climate-smart” practices already exist and that an ecosystem approach with coordination across sectors and institutions is crucial to achieving meaningful climate change responses. Although FAO was a co-sponsor of the landmark International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), its commitment to IAASTD’s call for radical change has been less than impressive at times—to say the least. Yet this latest report contains solid findings that, as an agroecologist, I can agree with.

Water, Soil & Genes
 
FAO’s new website gives examples of production systems that are “climate-smart,” many of which are described in the FAO publication 'Climate-Smart' Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation, and Mitigation.

 “Climate-smart” agriculture is defined by FAO as “agriculture that sustainably increases productivity, resilience (adaptation), reduces/removes GHGs [greenhouse gases]  (mitigation), and enhances achievement of national food security and development goals.” The emphasis throughout the report is very much on agroecological approaches to soil, nutrient, water and ecosystem management with explicit attention to the importance of preserving genetic resources of crops and animals—including wild relatives, which are critical in developing resilience to shocks. The report warns of the ecological damage, public health harms and unsustainable nature of industrial agricultural practices and technologies, and highlights the advantages of diversified agroforestry and urban and peri-urban agricultural systems.

Moving beyond the farm-gate, the report calls for policy and institutional change to create an enabling environment for climate-smart agriculture. One compelling example of institutional innovation is the evolution of farmer field schools in Indonesia (a highly regarded approach to ecological pest management based on farmers’ active participation in ecological field assessments) into “climate field schools.” Collective resource management activities are also highlighted, as well as the importance of improving farmers—particularly women’s—access to and control over resources, including property rights to land, water and genetic resources. The report argues for the establishment of financial mechanisms to support small-scale farmers in adopting “climate-smart” agriculture, such as credit, insurance, social safety nets and payments for ecosystem services. Finally, the report assesses various national and international financing options, favoring transparent approaches with mechanisms for greater accountability and ability to link financing directly to farmers’ beneficial practices on the ground.

Seems like quite a while since we've had a solid contribution—free of hype or political favors to industry—from a major U.N. organization regarding the future of agriculture. In the wake of USDA's recent bad behavior, there is some comfort in knowing that public agencies' fealty to Monsanto doesn't always extend all the way to Rome.

Feeding the Future of U.S. Corporations

Another great post from Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at PAN, originally posted on PAN's website (Pesticide Action Network (PAN North America). 

U.S. Looks To Monsanto To Feed The World

By Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Feb. 2, 2011

At the annual World Economic Forum this past weekend in Davos, Switzerland, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Director Rajiv Shah stood beside CEOs from Monsanto and other infamous giant corporations, and announced U.S. support for a “New Vision for Agriculture.”  Yes, you should be worried.

Claiming that “large-scale private sector partnerships [can] achieve significant impact on global hunger and nutrition,” Shah introduced the initiative’s 17 agribusiness “champions”: Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bunge Limited, Cargill, Coca-Cola, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Metro AG, Monsanto Company, Nestlé, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever, Wal-Mart, and Yara International.

What!?! Are you kidding me? Most of these agribusiness giants could be listed in an edition of Who’s Who in Environmental Destruction, Hunger and Human Rights Violations. A few minutes’ of investigation on GRAIN, CorpWatch, Food & Water Watch or PAN’s chemical cartel page will prove this point.

Feeding the corporations

The plan, USAID tells us, is for the U.S. to leverage private sector investments for agricultural “growth,” using our taxpayer dollars through Obama’s Feed the Future initiative. Back in September, I wrote about the corporate Trojan Horse lurking within Feed the Future. There's always been some green window dressing scattered throughout the plan, claiming that the initiative will follow Southern country priorities, support gender equity, respect local and Indigenous knowledge, etc.

Back then, Rajiv Shah & Co. were making only thinly veiled references to the Initiative’s plan to “discover” and “deliver breakthrough technologies” (guess whose) to poor hapless farmers in the global South.

Now, however, USAID has abandoned all pretenses of respecting a people’s agenda, and baldly acknowledges that large-scale private sector partnerships with some of the world’s worst corporate actors lies at the core of Feed the Future. We are given the example of Feed the Future’s project in Tanzania, where an “investment blueprint” to establish "profitable, modern commercial farming and agribusiness" and designed to last for “years to come” has been set up with Monsanto, Syngenta, Yara and General Mills, among other multinational corporations. USAID “hopes to expand the blueprint in the future to at least five additional African countries.”  [Read more after the break]

British Hype Genetically Modified Food

Here is another important post from Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at PAN, originally posted on PAN's website (Pesticide Action Network (PAN North America).  Marcia reports on the grossly misleading and unscientific assertions of England's chief scientist about the need for genetically modified crops, which are based on findings in a report that turns out to be -- oh what a surprise -- tied to corporate interests.


 GMO apologists ignore science - again

by Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Jan. 27, 2011

Britain’s Chief Scientist has come out trumpeting the need for genetically engineered (GE) crops to feed the world, and the UK media is falling all over itself with blaring headlines that echo this badly misinformed sentiment (see Guardian, Telegraph coverage).

The source of all the hullabaloo is the UK’s release this week of its mammoth Foresight report, Global Food and Farming Futures. Using the occasion to espouse what seems to be his personal opinion, Sir John Beddington —the Chief Scientist in question — argues that “It is very hard to see how it would be remotely sensible to justify not using new technologies such as GM. Just look at the problems that the world faces: water shortages and salination of existing water supplies, for example. GM crops should be able to deal with that.” “Should?” Is that the best you can do, Sir John?

In reality, after 25 years of research, no drought or salt-tolerant crops have yet been commercially developed, while yield declines, surging herbicide use, resistant superweeds, and a host of environmental—not to mention social—harms have been documented where GE crops have been planted. In contrast, ecologically resilient agroecological farming systems are known to perform well under the stressed conditions increasingly associated with climate change and water scarcity. For a scientist, Beddington does a remarkable job of ignoring the science.

So much hype

In truth, the UK report does not ever claim, as the newspapers and Beddington have, that “genetically modified crops are the key to human survival.” All it actually says is that “New technologies (such as the genetic modification of living organisms and the use of cloned livestock and nanotechnology) should not be excluded a priori on ethical or moral grounds.” But that sort of talk just puts people to sleep; it certainly doesn’t sell papers or keep industry happy.

The BBC at least has shown a bit more journalistic integrity, avoiding the GE hype and keeping to the report’s main message, namely that “the food production system will need to be radically changed, not just to produce more food but to produce it sustainably.” I couldn’t agree more.

Unfortunately, despite the relevance of its main message, there's still much that is missing from the report, as Indian journalist and policy analyst Devinder Sharma and UK organizations GM Freeze and the Soil Association explain. When asked by BBC for his opinion of the report, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier de Schutter, politely exposed the flaws in the report and concluded:

We should realize that the insistence on producing more food is one that often has not benefited the small farmers, the poor in the rural areas in developing countries.... The problem with GM crops is that the patents on these crops are [held] by a very small handful of corporations, who will capture a larger proportion of the end dollar of the food that the consumer buys. [This] creates a dependency for small farmers that is very problematic in the long term. It may not be sustainable for small-scale farmers to be hooked up to such technologies....  Investing in small-scale farming rather than investing in large-scale heavily mechanized plantations is really the path we should now radically espouse.

Too bad the UK fell short of the mark this time. We usually expect greater vision from across the Atlantic.  [Read more after the break]