G8 Promises $20 Billion in Agricultural Aid: Real Change or Business as Usual?

[rollingrock]

With Obama's appointment of Monsanto frankenfood shill Tom Vilsuck to Dept of Agriculture and more recently putting a Monsanto lobbyist (Michael Taylor) in charge of the FDA, I shudder to think of what their definition of 'agricultural aid to Africa' is. It sounds like a euphemism for putting Monsanto in charge of African food supply. Monsanto's presence in India resulted in the http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=554330">mass suicide of over half a million Indian farmers. This company's presence in the 3rd world has meant nothing but death and destruction. Their track record does not bode well for the future of Africa.



--------------------------------

Published on Saturday, July 11, 2009 by Civil Eats
G8 Promises $20 Billion in Agricultural Aid: Real Change or Business as Usual?

by Paula Crossfield

Today, the Group of 8 meeting in L'Aquila, Italy pledged 20 billion dollars in agricultural aid, responding to a request made yesterday by President Obama. For the first time, instead of being given directly as food aid, these funds are set to be allotted for building an agricultural economy in nations in need, specifically in Africa. Just what this agricultural infrastructure entails (the fine print mentions fertilizer and seed, grain storage vessels and plant variety research) could be the key to whether the plan actually seeks to feed many of the billion people on earth who are now hungry, or whether the U.S. and other nations will, instead, further fuel the food crisis.

Yesterday in speaking with Allafrica.com, President Obama discussed today's trip to Ghana, and his ideas for alleviating hunger in Africa. In just a few words, he revealed a bit about his possible economic agenda there, too:

"Now, I also think on the ground in many of these countries, how we think about not high-tech stuff but low-tech technologies to, for example, improve food production is vitally important."

Low-tech technologies could imply better education around sustainable farming practices and food storage. But "improving food production" sounds a lot like boosting yields, similar to what Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs in June ("If we can help countries become more productive themselves then they will be in a better position to feed their own people"). Both messages imply that not enough food is currently being produced to feed the world population. But as I've argued before, hunger is not a yield problem. Feeding people is about access, which is lacking even in the United States, where around 36 million people are food insecure. Speculation on commodities, the same practice that bottomed out our financial sector, has resulted in higher food prices and by extension, a food crisis, because people could not afford to buy food.

And yet these overtures are all too familiar. The President is echoing the wording featured in advertisements by companies like Monsanto, in whose interest it is that we continue to pursue GM seeds abroad (Monsanto holds 90% of seed patents) even though in the last 20 years these seeds have failed to produce the higher yields and drought tolerance they have promised. In an economic crisis, perhaps there is discussion that we can stimulate our economy by getting Africans hooked on our seeds and the herbicides/pesticides they require. But it will surely not be Africans who benefit from this arrangement.

There are very good reasons why we have never introduced a Green Revolution into Africa, namely because there is broad consensus that the Green Revolution in India has been a failure, with Indian farmers in debt, bound to paying high costs for seed and pesticides, committing suicide at much higher rates, and resulting in a depleted water table and a poisoned environment, and by extension, higher rates of cancer. If President Obama is lacking this information, it is his cabinet that is to blame...continued


www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/11-6


----------------------------

[Deja Q]

1. Hard to say...

Anything to feed an a largely growing number of human beings, who are told relationships and abstinence are unrealistic and who may or may not care about the number of babies that will plop out... or the social norms they get to grow up in...

Gotta do something...

So, hell yeah, I will not be against "frankenfood". We all eat it already to begin with... we haven't grown an extra nose or a couple extra testicles or anything...

[rollingrock]

3. No, but we do have some of the world's highest rates of cancer

high rates of obesity, diabetes, higher rates of infant mortality, etc.

And its not just the health factor but also the higher costs. GMO seeds cost much more than traditional seeds but do not yield any better results either in quality or quantity! In the United States these higher costs may not always be reflected in higher food prices when you got to the supermarket because the US government lavishes the domestic agribusiness sector with tremendous amounts of subsidies, so we are very much paying for these higher food costs with our tax dollars.

[SpiralHawk]

4. Haven't grown an extra eye or testicle...Yet.

"... whenever people make decisions, they should keep the next seven generations in mind," she said. "You need to think way down the road about how your dcision will impact your children, your children's children and so on."

- Oren Lyons, Onandaga

[rollingrock]

5. High rates of autism in children seems to be a phenomenon unique to the US.

I would venture to say our children are probably already suffering from the effects of the unholy man-made crap we put in our bodies. And I agree, it could only get worse over time if we continue on this path.

[rollingrock]

6. Not to mention,

the presence of biotech-engineered seeds and the methods required to cultivate GM crops has been shown to be environmentally unfriendly and often highly destructive, highly polluting to the surrounding eco-system.

[TexasObserver]

2. It will be spent to advance the big companies and their genetic brands.