Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Mutiny Shakes US Food Aid Industry
WASHINGTON -- One of the largest international aid organizations in the world turned the food aid industry on its head recently by declaring that they will turn down 46 million dollars in food subsidies from the U.S. government.The United States budgets 2 billion dollars a year in food aid, which buys U.S. crops to feed populations facing starvation amidst crisis or those that endure chronic hunger.
But the U.S.-based CARE International has forfeited its substantial slice of the food aid pie that is the U.S. "Food for Peace" program, claiming that the way the U.S. government distributes food hurts small poor farmers in the very communities and countries the program is supposed to help.
CARE has been one of the largest suppliers of food aid around the world for the past 50 years so its shift in policy could have a dramatic effect on the food aid industry.
The reasoning behind CARE's decision is part of a years-long debate that has influenced everything from U.S. trade and domestic legislation to the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization talks.
The objection to the current system is that the donation and sale of U.S.-subsidized crops in developing countries where people regularly go hungry actually weakens local farming. "We are not against emergency food aid for things like drought and famine," CARE spokeswoman Alina Labrada said last week, but local farmers are "being hurt instead of helped by this mechanism".
Though the policy to phase out U.S. government subsidies has been in place for more than a year, CARE's rejection of the status quo has been catapulted into the spotlight as the U.S. Congress debates the Farm Bill, a massive 25-billion-dollar piece of legislation that establishes the funding structures for agricultural research, rural development, government subsidies and food aid policy.
The U.S. food aid program was established in the 1950s and designed to use some of the crop surpluses generated by government subsidies. Therefore, U.S. laws place strict limits on how that money can be used. All of the food the U.S. sends to food crisis areas must be grown in the U.S. and 75 percent of that food must be transported by U.S shipping lines.
Many aid organizations have called attention to the fact that this often means that the food aid doesn't get to where it's needed in time to help.
A year-long investigation by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, also found that the ballooning costs of logistics and shipping food overseas to where it is needed most have nearly halved the amount of U.S. food that is delivered to the hungry around the world in the past five years.
The U.S. policy implements the practice of monetization, a food aid policy in which the U.S. government buys crops from U.S. farms and ships it to aid organizations working around the world. The aid organizations then sell the U.S.-grown crops to local populations, often at a dramatically reduced cost.
The aid organizations use proceeds from these sales to fund their development and anti-poverty programmes. But several groups, with CARE at the forefront, have pointed out that this policy often has the effect of undermining local farmers and destabilizing the very system that aid organizations are working to strengthen.
However, this is point of view is not universally accepted, and CARE's public rejection of the current system has created a rift in the aid community.
Last year, CARE, along with Catholic Relief Services, Save the Children and several British, French and Canadian aid groups, signed a statement that called the practice of monetization inefficient and said that such sales divert food from the direct transfers to the people that need it.
The European Union has also been critical of the U.S. food aid program. In addition to their suspicions that the U.S. uses these programs to avoid limits on farm subsidies, in the 1990s European countries all but phased out the practice of monetization and only 10 percent of their budgeted food aid is reserved for crops grown in Europe.
The U.N. World Food Program, the largest distributor of food aid in the world, has rejected the practice of monetization and doesn't allow its grain to be sold by NGOs
But a coalition of 15 other aid organizations, called the Alliance for Food Aid, is opposing CARE's tactics and defends the sale of U.S. produce and use of the proceeds as a way of addressing chronic hunger through development programs.
The organizations, including World Vision and the American Red Cross, defend the effectiveness and influence of the development programs that the current system supports.
Opponents of monetization are not calling for an end to those programs, but CARE is looking to shift direct cash contributions to their aid efforts instead of relying on the indirect fundraising that food donations provide.
The fear for many charities though is that they couldn't win Congressional support for the food aid funding without the backing of the U.S. farm and shipping industries.
Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, noted in an article that the problems with the system, and the risks involved in fixing them, need to be weighed against the value of the political support for foreign assistance that this system generates.
The limits of that political support have been tested before. The past two farm bills attempted to shift a portion of the food aid budget from grain to cash donations. Both attempts were voted down.
In this year's debate, the George W. Bush administration is once again proposing that 25 percent of the food aid be cash, available to buy crops locally for the people who need it.
While the rift between the two sides of the food aid debate remains deep, CARE's move and the report by the Government Accountability Office may be a sign that changes to the system, and the millions of people it feeds, lie ahead.
© 2007 Inter Press Service
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
39 Comments so far
Show AllWhen you take out Israel and the other nations that support terror by allowing us to bring in innocent people to be tortured the amount of aid the bush administration donates even with its punitive restrictions is so insignificant it is really meaningless.
Note that these "Free Trade Agreements" with 3rd world countries create exactly the same problems for the local agricultures. So the peasants leave their lands and try to emigrate to the US, etc. where they become "undocumented". Just look at the increase of migrants from Mexico since the NAFTA. And then they complain about the results of the policies they carry out???
Food for oil, food for peace, food for American hegemony.
This actually reminds me of Wal-Mart. Going somewhere poor and offering items at a much lower cost than the locals are, taking money away from the community and in fact making it even more poor than it was before.
This does not bode well at all for Americans. After Bush orders the bombing of Iran and we have a depression because of it, Care won't have the food to send to us.
Cheney/Bush Nation sat high on a wall,
Grabbing whatever was once owned by all.
Reaching too far, it had a great fall.
All the king's spinmeisters and all the king's men,
Couldn't put Cheney/Bush Nation together again.
Oh, let us hope and pray! Then maybe we can get our Constitution back.
This article completely confuses the issue! If I hadn't heard this same story reported on Democracy Now, I would have difficulty understanding what this article was reporting!
So, to summarize:
The US food aid was being given to CARE only on the condition that CARE sold it on the local country's "free market" They could then use the proceeds to buy food for emergency relief, but meanwhile, in the process, they were complicit in undermining local agriculture (in support of US globalcapitalist interests - ADM, cargill and Monsanto) and consequently, just aggravating the risk of famines and deep poverty which they are supposed to be working to alleviate!
In other words, the US motivation behind this food aid was not at all charitable - rather it was corporate greed.
Thank you for the summary. I agree about that article. Perhaps you could place a link to the Democracy Now program you refer to. I think all of them are on-line now.
###
Not to mention that much of the food that is grown for the program is not organic, and in fact encourages GMOs. So the program actually gets us to the point where our food production will collapse a lot sooner.
I applaud CARE and the other organizations that have taken this step.
Now, if only we could get the World Bank to actually help the countries become financially solvent instead of becoming dependent, that would be another positive step. Of course, the whole purpose of the World Bank and the food subsidy program is to help US corporations.
The US has learned how to make money on 'helping' the poor, ensurintg that the poor remain poor.
www.NotOneMore.US - Pledge for Peace
Why do you think CARE allowed itself to be abused so badly for so long by the beast capital? Do we really need large organizations handling material aid? The power is in the hands of the people. The people can empower each other without the help of organizations.
Most forms of aid from the economically rich countries are designed not to fight poverty (contrary to what the leaders of the economically rich countries, the transnational corporations, and the corporate-controlled media claim) but to enhance the wealth of transnational companies at the expense of local populations. The purpose is to serve the interests of global capital accumulation, to take over the lands and local economies of the economically poor peoples, monopolise their markets, lower their wages, indenture their labour with enormous debts, privatise their public service sector, and prevent these countries from emerging as trade competitors by strangulating the local economy. In essence they are aimed at solidifying the feudal system, forcing the poor countries into a perpetual bondage to the rich.
get the catholic church to liquidate most of their assets, and help the poor with the proceeds. like that will ever happen.
Bravo!
Thanks for the summary, PJD. Much more succinct.
Yes, it's truly mind boggling the ways the corporate elites have gotten a death grip on everything in the world. Even charity.
Care deserves support for its courageous stand. Like so many issues, the majority of organizations are too cowardly. They won't oppose their overlords. Progressives need to stop funding the other aid organizations, those who act for pro agribusiness interests, (whatever their verbalizations,) and send them feedback!
Like most progressive groups, however, Inter Press Service misunderstands the U.S. Farm Bill, the Commodity Title, as it relates to the devastation it causes around the world. The statement that "The U.S. food aid program was established in the 1950s and designed to use some of the crop surpluses generated by government subsidies" is false. There were no commodity subsidies in the farm bill in the 1950s, not until 1973, under Nixon.
Food aid is important. The U.S. should have a top notch program based upon the kind of criteria CARE is proposing. 2 billion dollars per year, as reported above, causes such huge problems that it is worth far less, if it is not a net loss in the overall damage it calls to dump the grain on these markets. But the far larger impact comes from our lowering of price supports, 1952 to 1995. Then we pulled them out completely in 1996. Those are the big tens of billions and hundreds of billions in destructive impact and corporate subsidization. And this is not caused by farm subsidies. Nor does WTO address price supports. Lowering and ending them, though it caused dumping at below cost, is considered to be free trade and is not technically disputable under WTO.
Clever huh?
We have a long way to go before progressives, including many hunger organizations, will even know accurately what is going on, so widely is the farm bill falsely reported.
Here are some great, US farm bill informed, food aid pdfs from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's Trade Observatory (list at http://www.tradeobservatory.org/):
U.S. Food Aid: Time to Get it Right http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=73512
Can Aid Fix Trade: Assessing the WTO's Aid for Trade Agenda http://www.tradeobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=8970
See also A Fair Farm Bill for the World's Hungry, http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=98205 which avoids errors like above where they invented 1950s subsidies, incompetently trying to explain what's really wrong.
Also the requirement that anyone accepting food must also accept Jesus, and never use condoms
A former CongressmanToby Moffett who dressed
as a liberal, walked around like he was against the high Utility Costs in Ct, did become a
member of the ruling elite at Monsanto.
He double crossed Ralph Nader.
So much for dogooders like Moffett. Wolves in
Sheeps clothing, the Democratic party has
been bought and sold over and over.
Lots of great commentary, especially appreciate the poetry to add a little levity to a horrible situation. But I have to ask: does this situation really surprise anyone? Why do you think it is so cheap to outfit your children for school, or fill your gas tank, or get a latte at your local Charbucks?
To borrow a phrase, it is "the pathological pursuit of profit and power" (subtitle from J. Bakan's "The Corporation") that drives the spread of corpo-fascist-warfare state referred to euphemistically as "exporting Democracy". This is not some kind of leftist conspiracy novel. There is no fictitious protagonist with whom you sympathize but can put the book down when it gets a too intense. This is REALITY and its only going to get worse and a lot faster than anyone wants to admit. There is an ancient Chinese curse that Hunter S. Thompson used to cite and it goes: May you live in interesting times. Well, folks it's getting very, very interesting.
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. Teach a man to sell his fish, then give away fish free to his customers and he'll soon be eating just for the day.
"In this year's debate, the George W. Bush administration is once again proposing that 25 percent of the food aid be cash, available to buy crops locally for the people who need it."
Wow! Even Bush is proposing a partial remedy. My brain is hurting! Is this a broken clock being correct twice a day? Or, did Cargill cut a check for the DNC? Hysterical cynicism aside, if this program is so murderous that even Bush is willing to cross agribusiness . . . well . . . damn.
Food and farming is my "thing". All the folks above have made some very good points. There are a lot of puzzle pieces here to put in place to get the whole picture. And we are missing a lot of the pieces in this discussion.
This article tried to put all the pieces together but didn't give enough info for it to make a lot of sense to most folks. PJD made a pretty good stab at it.
The defeat of Doha Round of the WTO was the turning point for small farmers around the world. We have the third world nations to thank for finally putting their foot down and telling the industrialized nations to take their food subsidies and shove them. The poor farmers around the world finally figured out that being a member of the WTO was a death sentence. So they walked out. By the way, this was a good thing for American small farmers as well. Our small farmers can't compete with the subsidized mega-ag companies like ADM, Cargill, and Monsanto either. Now we have to get rid of NAFTA, CAFTA, and all the other alphabet soup of trade agreements. These also spell the death nell for all types of small, local businesses and farmers.
Food production subsidies should be called "dumping". It's no different than a big box store that comes into a small town and drives local businesses out by selling products for less than smaller businesses can even buy them for. Once the local businesses are gone, the big guys often jack up the prices because they have no competition anymore. Same thing with food crops. Doesn't matter if it is monitorized food aid or if a huge ag company comes in and sells for less than the local farmers can produce it for. The effect is the same. The locals can no longer feed themselves. Farmers either commit suicide or move to the city to be industrial slaves.
Globalization sucks big time. Americans are finally waking up to the fact that we are now part of the race to the bottom. Its no longer just a third world problem.
The problem for us now is that us peons here in the U.S. really can't do too much to help others in other parts of the world until we take our own country back from the corporatocracy. One way to do that is to consume less, buy local whenever possible, and support local food sovereignty. And NEVER shop at WalMart. EVER!
And I'm not even going to get started on GMO's, biodiversity, the environment, the World Bank, or any of the other rotten pieces to this ugly puzzle. YUCK!
myboysherman (Rocky & Bullwinkle I presume): Don't get too excited. Bush has already said he is going to veto the Farm Bill. He knows that he can say any nice thing he wants and get away with it. Its the old cross his fingers behind his back and wink while shit comes out of his mouth trick.
By the way, the Farm Bill just approved by the House is garbage and just keeps those subsidies rolling. Hopefully, the Senate will come up with something better. Then there is always the Conference bill.....
Not the World Bank PLEASE!!!
Train people locally to use credit for development through co-operative banks , or, 'Credit Unions'.
Provide incentives for loans to train in aspects of community development, NGO's could provide foreign trade experts, for example, to teach men AND women the skills of constructing with local materials.
The NGO's supervise the credit union
The people train, construct, or farm, or make things,
Money circulates in the community,
The expert returns home, and
The NGO moves the programme to a new area while monitoring the first project.
Sad to say that there is not much in the way of profit for corporate America though.
I encourage everyone to take a look at this website:
Centre for Global Negotiations
http://www.global-negotiations.org
This is a 21'st century version of the original Brandt Commission proposals. Rather than just focusing on development aid alone or any single "pet issue", these ideas involve a comprehensive framework that will build partnerships between the "North" and "South", rather than the current outdated methods we use and know: Combining the United Nations Millennium Development Goals with multi-lateral partnerships and agreements regarding everything from currency stability to environmental impact, trade policy improvements for poor nations, reformed and more effective financial institutions, and massive increases in aid and debt relief are the beginning of a new system of true social/economic justice and environmental sustainability.
The term some have used is an "eco-social market economy", or a "Global Marshall Plan". I am absolutely sure these ideas are already in the minds of some major world leaders at the moment. Exciting changes ahead!
Foreign aid might be defined as a transfer from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries. -- Douglas Casey
Let me tell you what has happened to Indian farmers due to trade agreements and the World Bank policies.
The international trade agreements are mostly influenced by the transnational corporations. A trade agreement between the United States and India, the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture (KIA), was backed by Monsanto and other transnational corporate giants. This allows for the seize of India's seed sector by Monsanto, its trade sector by Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, and its retail sector by Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart announced plans to open 500 stores in India, starting in August 2007). This amounts to a war against India's independent farmers and small businesses, and a threat to India's food security.
In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open its seed sector to transnational corporations such as Monsanto and Cargill. As a result of this adjustment, traditional farm saved seeds have been replaced with genetically engineered seeds which are non-renewable. So the farmers have to purchase seeds for each growing season, which is a costly investment for them. In most cases this has led to poverty and severe indebtedness. In order to relieve themselves of debt, some farmers have even sold their own organs. When these attempts have failed to rectify their financial situations, many farmers committed suicide. Since 1997 over 25,000 farmers committed suicide.
Sharing Equal Peace: Thanks for the link. Is there a way to get this info over to Dennis Kucinich and see what he can do with it?
Deepa: I share your grief. What is being experienced in India is happening in every country that international corporations touch - especially Monsanto. As a mentioned above, the suicide rate amongst small farmers worldwide is shattering and devestating to their communities. As I understand it, Monsanto introduced Round-up ready GM cotton in India, and those crops have failed. But not before the genetic genepool of indigenous cotton was contaminated. And the ground has been contaminated with soil killing herbicides that promote the growth of "super weeds".
I don't know if you are here in the U.S., but I recommend that you visit the Organic Consumers Asso. website and get involved in their Millions Against Monsanto campaign. They are a very active and informative group.
Link to their action page:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/action.cfm
Good luck! America is right behind you. Monsanto is trying to destroy us too. Maybe together we can make a difference.
Brazil is in the final stages of determining whether or not to allow GM corn. I recall seeing a film about Jamiaca and the milk industry - same song - decimated the small farmers. The Guarani indians refer to us a giant with clay feet. I am reminded of the 'golem' once again.
Brazil is NUTS to consider GM corn! It is already destrying Mexico's indigenous corn varieties. Their corn is contamiated for miles from the GM crops. And we are talking about "the People of the Corn" here. This is a desimation of their culture as well as their livelihood.
Monsanto is a destructive force throught the world. This corporation and everyone in it needs to be hunted down and destroyed.
They have gunmen at every office. My lady worked for them through her university, black boxed, the pay was good, then she found our who she was working for, months later. They know they are bad. I couldnt get collards this year, how bout you?
Rebel Farmer--- I believe from your posts that you are in Oregon and lean towards organic farming. I do not know what the future holds for GM crops, but here in Nebraska they are used almost totally exept for refuge acres, which are required so insects do not develope immunity. The reason they have been adopted so well is because the yield is higher, and there is no need to put chemicals on the seed or ground, or use dangerous spraying. Consequently, I believe they will continue to be widely used unless there is another development in pest control. I do not think they are any bigger threat than the tinkering with human and animal DNA and mixing up genes but we need to keep a watch on all of the new developements. I do not see any difference in Monsanto offering what farmers ask for and Microsoft figuring out new software for customers. Eventually this new GM seed will either turn out to be a blessing or it will be discontinued as we use it more years. There does not seem to be any bad effects in this area yet.
There is more than meets the eye in this story.
There is no extra corn, wheat or soybeans today and the future looks mighty bleak when it comes to fod prices. toay the reserves of grains in the US is at its l;owest levels and will continue to become lower yet and the culprit is energy. We have far fewer farmes today because they have become energy companys.
Interesting tidbit about so called food aid and it dates back to Somalia and Black Hawk Down times.
US sent food stuffs to Somalia, handed it out to our favored war lords to distribute. there was no shortage of food but a shortage of transportation and that lack of transportation was what US wanted because if you were starving you had to go to one of our guys to eat.
While we wered shipping grains US markets in commoditys soared amking millionaires due to shortag to refill reserves quite wealthhy.
Next Ethiopia who at that time were once mroe friendly was being bribed by unloaidng our food aid at 12 dollars a ton, 4x's the international rate for ports and we supplied the turcks for their military to deliver it to Somalia.
NGO's from around the world in Somalia found that even they had to beg for food from our favored warlords and poay extra to boot.
If local farmers plant the corn and get a crop the seed corn are sterile and they need to buy more sed from Monsanto etc.
the real killer is the genetci variety will alos polinate the natural and make it sterile. S. Africa and Zimbabwe no loneger have native varietys of corn due to this wind blown pollination.
teh corn means locals do not sell, the finacials in US make millions on corn the taxpayers had already paid for, and our energy firms, agri corps gain markets while starving millions while doing it.
A lot of our food aid is just this knd of free seds, while making sure enough is given away to end immediate hunger which dooms forever the local farmers.
Does anyone remember the 60's poster with the Bangaladeshi man sitting in front of a "CARE" box eating a "Baby Ruth Bar"?
It seems like only yesterday...
This valuable article is very much in keeping with what I have had to say, for example, in my latest book "America's Suicidal Statecraft" (available at Amazon).
Those who may be interested will find a large part of what I have written between pages 122 and 135 of the book. That includes a draft "Food Discount Plan" which would take in what CARE has to say about the vital question of looking after the local farmer. It then goes on to look to a complete, continuing operating system which will benefit not only the developing countries but also - and this is, I think, crucial - the developed countries too. With arrangements of this kind, such monstrosities as the CAP and United States food-support and subsidy policies would, mercifully and at last, become decent and beneficial to virtually everyone.
The further sections of the book on commodities and on the famous report "The Limits to Growth" published by the Club of Rome more than thirty years ago are also relevant.
James Cumes
Can anyone find a country where US Aid has helped the farmers or smaller indigenous cultural groups?
In almost every case all that has happened is that the food source becomes even more centralized by the ruling partys from before the aid became available, the countrys either do that or become even more dependnet upon imported food stocks.
As an example take the Millenium Project began by the EuroCentrics to help and AID Africans in the War Upon Malaria with mosquito netting.
The US aid agancys were selling the nets at a profit to people ill and starving while the Un groups of NGO suporters got tons of donated netting and volunteers to distribute them.
Teh workers at UN siad simply spaying the waterways with chemicals to destroy the mosquito larvae was and should be put on hold until new protected water sites were completed but of course the chemials had already been purchaced and planes contracted and the new breeding grounds caused by open cesspools of peoples searching for safe drinking water pushed them into more and more amp living.
the use of aid is sufferign because no one looks upon the problem in the whole spectrum and the relief needs to be figured as a system of projects.
A lot of the blame comes from touchy feely good intentions by had wringers and the number of competing groups willing to live off of thier fiancial support for pet projects.
That and the fact every US aid agency is but a research arm for Corproate American entrance into country which does not help either.
The leadership of the USA should be ostracized by ALL of the developed nations and groups of the world. The fact that other nations choose to stand with the USA as it ostracizes good countries like Cuba, Venezuela, & Iran indicates that the leadership in those countries is corrupt. Perhaps they're afraid that if they don't cower to the world's #1 terrorist & bully, that it will make them regret it.
It's no secret that the empire of shame is the #1 obstacle to world peace, and the #1 cause of needless misery on the globe. Shame on all those who cower to it. Humpty dumpty sat on a wall...
======================
"Today, the most serious challenge is that the culprits are arrogating to themselves the role of the prosecutor. Even more dangerous is that certain parties relying on their power and wealth try to impose a climate of intimidation and injustice over the world make bullying, while through their huge media resources portray themselves as defenders of freedom, democracy and human rights...
"Ironically, those who have actually used nuclear weapons, continue to produce, stockpile and extensively test such weapons, have used depleted uranium bombs and bullets against tens and perhaps hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Kuwaitis, and even their own soldiers and those of their allies, afflicting them with incurable diseases, blatantly violate their obligations under the NPT, have refrained from signing the CTBT and have armed the Zionist occupation regime with WMDs, are not only refusing to remedy their past deeds, but in clear breech of the NPT, are trying to prevent other countries from acquiring the technology to produce peaceful nuclear energy.
Excerpted from Iranian President Ahmadinejad's speech to the United Nations General Assembly, NY; Sept2005,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iran/2005/iran-050918-irna02.htm
===========
"Man must change or die.
There is no other choice."
The World Teacher
http://www.Share-international.org
Genetic engineering of plants is almost certainly a bigger danger than nuclear weapons.
GE is completely contrary to all the workings of nature. One aspect is the species barrier which allows the exchange of genetic material only within natural boundaries. Tomatoes and fish will never naturally exchange genetic material. But in laboratories, that exchange has happened. And the product, the Flavr-Savr (sic) tomato, was a failure.
Once genetically modified plants are released into the environment, they cannot be recalled as can defective toys or cars. Its potential is deadly. And its a sick science. Most Europeans have overwhelmingly rejected GM foods but US people either know nothing about it or don't care. And proper labeling of GM foods is not required or even allowed in the US.
This is a huge thing, because the world's food supply is at great risk unless nature can sort out the problems that have come up as a result of these frankenfoods' release into the environment.
If it inspires anything, the discovery of the genetic code should bring up the essential question of what is behind that basic building block of life, rather than simply to tempt fools into fiddling with the product of natural selection which has gone on continuously over millions of years. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the scientific knowledge of genetics is now very far from complete—and it never will be. The deeper one probes into the physical realities of nature, the more numerous become the questions.
Monsanto is an agent of unspeakable ignorance and greed.
They will reap what they sow. Let us hope that we all don't end up reaping what they sow.
Join Organic Consumers Association and Union of Concerned Scientists, both great advocates of the public interest, strong in knowledge and truth.
You are what you eat. So the destiny of any nation is inextricably linked with the diet of its people.
Unfortunetly that old Teach A Man To Fish And He Won't Starve saying is no longer true.
While he may know how to fish. Fishing nations like Japan ,and Norway with their highly tecnological ways plus there net the last fish mentality has been wiping out entire species. Now throw in man made pollution killing coral reefs and creating dead zones all over the world.It is most likely to same poor fisherman will starve again anyway.
And as far as growing crops you do know that many of the farm chemicals banned for use in the USA can be sold to those other country's farmers..
As far as CARE and oyjer world food distribution organization slapping the USA's wrist for their make a profit at the hands of the world's staving practice. I say it is about time.
But, do you want to bet the biggest part of the American people will say "Well if they don't want our food then the hell with them"
It has taken decades of Conservative Propaganda but most Americans now think we send to much taxpayer money for Aide Projects for other countries.
I wish everything I just wrote weren't true but it is.
WE even cut Food Stamps to our own needy citizens. using another old chesnut about people pulling themselves up by the boot straps. I would guess a few of you are saying if genaman doesn't like it here then he should go to some other country.
The problem with that saying is the USA is controling many of those other countries destinys.Perhaps just a firing squad at dawn would be better for me all around.
"While the rift between the two sides of the food aid debate remains deep, CARE's move and the report by the Government Accountability Office may be a sign that changes to the system, and the millions of people it feeds, lie ahead."
Hope is in the air.
Check out "THE WORLD JUSTICE PROJECT" @ http://www.abanet.org/wjp/
The undiscussed problems with gentic food items.
Introduction of gentic foods no matter if animal or vegetable corrupts the orgainic or natural order leading to naturals extinciton.
The introduction of gentics also changes the very soil beneath them.
What happend in India to the pumpkins and squash a staple that even poorest tenet in a slum could and did grow, a bucket of dirt and some seed from last pumpkin, and use for food was almost completley destroyed by the introduction of a geneticly modified grain crops cross pollination.
Does Monsanto and other US AGri Corps have to pay for starvation of peoples by their actions?
NO!
Gentic corn introduced into S. Africa has today by its polination form reached into even the Congo area making last years corn seeds sterile.
Same as asian or Indian rice crops.
Who owns the new corn seed and the crops so pollinated, the Agri Corps do because of patent rights.
In the US we have stores of old seeds from many differing plants partially to use if someday say changing climate would make more drout resistance or even wet resistance plants could come back inot use but. with the use of pollinating plants already in production and usage introduciton of the new variety would mean instant eradication of themselves.
We hav not a Brave New World but a World you need to be Brave to live within.