Bill Gates Calls for More Accountability on Food Programs

[wtmusic]

Whatever you think of Microsoft, Bill Gates is a philanthropist who puts his money where his mouth is.

"The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has brought a distinctive approach to problems of global development: a sense of urgency, a willingness to make big investments in pursuit of ambitious targets, and — above all — a hard-nosed insistence on results that can be counted and documented. The Gateses, who are heavily involved in managing the foundation that bears their name, take the view that setting explicit numerical targets and holding people to them is one key to progress.

Now Mr. Gates is calling for a stringent application of that approach in the field of global agriculture. In a speech Thursday morning in Rome, he called on the United Nations agencies that deal with world food supply to set a global target for the productivity growth of agriculture.

He did not specify what the target should be, presumably leaving room for experts to weigh in on what is achievable — and for horse-trading among the affected agencies. But he outlined a strategy that would include scorecards of progress against which agencies (and possibly whole countries) could be measured, creating a sort of race to improve. And he wants this plan in place by the end of the year."

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/bill-gates-calls-for-more-accountability-on-food-programs/

[GliderGuider]

1. Gates = Monsanto = GMO

Bill is the face of evil - again.

[div class="excerpt" style="border:solid 1px #000000"]Monsanto in Gates' Clothing? The Emperor's New GMOs

If you had any doubts about where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is really placing its bets, AGRA Watch’s recent announcement of the Foundation’s investment of $23.1 million in 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock should put them to rest. Genetic engineering: full speed ahead.

If you are one of those people who believes the axiom that Monsanto is the farmer’s friend (and the corollary, that its climate-ready, bio-fortified GMOs can save the world from hunger) you will not be surprised, disappointed, or find any conflict of interest in this investment.

But if you are part of the growing population who gets their information about GMOs from scientists who are not beholden to corporate funding, has a problem with anti-trust issues, or is getting queasy about the increasing monopoly power of philanthropy capital… it’s time to say the Emperor has no clothes.

Under the guise of “sustainability” the Foundation has been spearheading a multi-billion dollar effort to transform African into a GMO-friendly continent. The public relations flagship for this effort is the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a massive Green Revolution project. Up to now AGRA spokespeople have been slippery, and frankly, contradictory about their stance on GMOs.
Monsanto is drooling over the possibility of unfettered access to the windfall of African seeds, as part of their push for corporate hegemony over the world's food supply. The Gates foundation is their handmaiden in this effort.

[wtmusic]

2. Eh, don't get me started.

I'm well aware that you believe billions of poor people need to die to save the rest of us, and I suppose that's the fundamental disagreement I have with your POV. Maybe you also believe they need to die to spite Monsanto, but the fact is there is plenty of non-Monsanto seed available. It just happens that Monsanto seed tends to produce higher yields and need less pesticides.

So are you pro-pesticide as well as pro-hunger?

"A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[109] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[7] The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[110]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically-modified_food

[GliderGuider]

5. OK, I won't.

[wtmusic]

3. PS: $23.1M is a lot of money...to the rest of us.

Do you know what percentage that is of Gates' net worth? Do you really think he's drooling at this opportunity to get rich?

[GliderGuider]

4. I think Bill honestly believes in what he's doing.

I don't think he's doing it to get richer. I just happen to think that one company (Monsanto) has no right to patent all the world's food, and I sure don't believe we can safely play God down in its genetics. So anyone who is a friend of Monsanto is off my Xmas card list. I'm sure Bill and Linda will be mortified to hear that.

[wtmusic]

6. A rose-colored glasses view: Monsanto has created a great product

and everyone wants to buy it. Those who didn't/couldn't buy it were left at a disadvantage in the market, and are resentful.

A more pessimistic view: Monsanto has created a product may or may not be better, but is using illegal, monopolistic practices to corner the world's seed market.

I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. If they truly have created better products, then they should be able to profit from them. But I've always argued that one of the main problems with the current state of capitalism in the U.S. is failure to enforce antitrust. Antitrust/Intellectual Property are two very complicated subjects to begin with, and I admit I don't know enough about the lawsuits which have been filed against Monsanto (except that they've largely failed to stick).

[GliderGuider]

7. There's no point in us arguing about this.

Our positions are too far apart, and the discussion would generate more heat than light.

A bunch of organic farmers have taken on Monsanto in a lawsuit. It's going to be an interesting case to watch.

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1677863/genetically-modified-showdown-monsanto-sued-by-organic-farmers

[wtmusic]

8. If they're basing the argument on the idea that Monsanto seed

has "negative economic and health effects", they will lose. There's no possibility they will convince a judge that Monsanto has dominated the US seed market purely by intimidating farmers to use an inferior product.

Put another way: though "organic" has no consistent definition, those farmers who exclude GMO seed from their crops because they're not "natural" and therefore less healthful are doing so without scientific evidence.

Do you believe companies have the right to patent genetic information, whether it's hybrid or modified in a petri dish?

[GliderGuider]

9. Don't know anything about it? Here you go:

From the linked article:

[div class="excerpt" style="border:solid 1px #000000"]The lawsuit, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed this week on behalf of 12 seed businesses, 26 farms and farmers, and 22 agricultural associations, all of whom question whether Monsanto should have the right to sue farmers for patent infringement if GM seeds inadvertently end up on their property.

The suit, filed by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), explains:

PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers
are ever contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, they
need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason
justifying this result is that Monsanto's patents on genetically
modified seed are invalid because they don't meet the "usefulness"
requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT's Ravicher, plaintiffs'
lead attorney in the case. Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening
filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic
and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified
seed --increased production and decreased herbicide use--are false.

Translation: According to the farmers, not only is Monsanto's patent policy out of control, but its patents aren't even useful in the first place--they're harmful. The lawsuit couldn't come at a better time for the organic farming industry; GM alfalfa, a crop whose pollen can travel via wind up to five miles, has been approved by the U.S government. And GM sugar beets, which can easily cross-contaminate with non-GM sugar beets, were also recently approved. Having protection against Monsanto's lawsuits will be a necessity for these farms in the coming years.
It's about patent infringement litigation, not health. Enough with the straw men, already.