NGO "ANOTHER WAY" (STICHTING BAKENS VERZET), NETHERLANDS, SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED SELF-FINANCING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGIES

“The world needs a paradigm shift in agricultural development : from a “green revolution” to and “agricultural intensification” approach. This implies a rapid and significant shift from conventional, monoculture-based and high-external-input-dependent industrial production towards mosaics of sustainable, regenerative production systems that also considerably improve the productivity of small-scale farmers. We need to see a move from a linear to a holistic approach in agricultural management, which recognizes that a farmer is not only a producer of agricultural goods, but also a manager of an agro-ecological system that provides quite a number of public goods and services (e.g. water, soil, landscape, energy, biodiversity, and recreation.)” (Wake Up Before It is Too Late : Make Agriculture Truly Sustainable Now for Food Security in a Changing Climate, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Trade and Environment Review, Geneva, September 2013.)

“Our industrial food and farming system (production, transportation, processing, waste, and land use), including its impact on deforestation and the soil's ability to naturally sequester CO2, are the leading cause of greenhouse gas emissions.” (Cummins, R., The Carbon Underground : Reversing Global Warming, Organic Consumers Association, September, 2014, Finland MN 55603 (USA))

For a qualified reading list on regenerative agriculture see Streat, S., Regenerative Agriculture : An Annotated Bibliography, Organic Consumers Association, Finland (MN), September 2014.

Human Right to Adequate Food

There are international conventions guaranteeing adequate food as a human right, where “every man, woman of child, alone or in a community with others, has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement ”. ( Suárez S., Emanueli M, Monocultures and human rights, Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), Heidelberg, and Habitat International Coalition Regional Office Latin America, Mexico City, June 2009, p. 7, discussing the human rights aspects of monocultures.)

“It's important for our nation to build -- to grow foodstuffs, to feed our people. Can you imagine a country that was unable to grow enough food to feed the people? It would be a nation that would be subject to international pressure. It would be a nation at risk. And so when we're talking about American agriculture, we're really talking about a national security issue. ” (G.W.Bush, President’s Remarks to the Future Farmers of America, The White House, Washington, July 2001.)

The same principles apply to all nations. Yet, “like all fans of globalisation they [presidents G.W.Bush and Clinton and leaders of industrialised countries in general] worked for the asymmetrical opening-up of markets and reduction of levels of protection. They worked to reduce duties and tariffs, leading to grave consequences for local rural economies and for farmers incapable of competing with foodstuffs imported at artificially low prices.” (Colombo C., Onorati, I., Food,Riots and Rights International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, 2013.)

While the right of poor countries to create emergency food stocks and support poor farmers by guaranteeing them a fair price for their products is contested, annual support [for agriculture in industrialised countries] spiralled to over $250 bn. a year, – 79 times agricultural aid – making it impossible for farmers in poor countries to compete. Confronted with these odds, many developing country governments chose not to invest in agriculture, further compounding the trend. The costs of rich country support are borne not only by poor farmers in the developing world, but also by people in rich countries, who pay twice – first through higher tax bills, and second through higher food prices. It is estimated that in 2009, the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) added €79.5 bn. to tax bills and another €36.2 bn. to food bills. According to one calculation, it costs a typical European family of four almost €1,000 a year. The real irony is that the CAP purports to help Europe’s small farmers, but it is the rich few that benefit the most, with about 80 per cent of direct income support going into the pockets of the wealthiest 20 per cent – mainly big landowners and agribusiness companies. ” (Bailey R., Growing a Better Future – Food Justice in a Resource-Constrained World, Oxfam International, London, July 2011.)

Areas where the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and its associated Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) are incompatible with the human right to food are discussed by Olivier de Schutter. the United Nations’ special rapporteur on the Right to Food in his Briefing 04 (November 20133) : The World Trade Organization and the Post-Global Food Crisis Agenda : Putting Food Security First in the International Trade System. As the author says on p. 16 of his report :

“…the WTO’s track record reflects the dominance of net food exporters in the negotiations for whom food security is a low priority compared to opening markets for their exports. The structure of WTO negotiations themselves, which involve trade-offs between agriculture and other goods trade (e.g., services, industrial goods, etc.) in practice precludes food security from being addressed in isolation and on its own merits instead of as a “bargaining chip” to be leveraged ……. The WTO continues to move forward and operate in isolation without sufficient consideration of the consequences of the global food crisis for agricultural trade and food security and how this requires a critical rethinking of trade policy and food security.”

His recommendations on p.17 include making “WTO measures more compatible with the pursuit of food security and the human right to food ….Exclude defining the establishment and management of food reserves as trade-distorting support ….Guarantee the possibility for developing States to insulate domestic markets from the volatility of prices on international markets…Take steps to limit States’ excessive reliance on international trade in the pursuit of food security” while “In building their capacity to produce the food needed to meet consumption needs, States should support in particular poor small-scale farmers and the production of staple foods.”

Local food independence.

The inhabitants of integrated development project areas sustainably cultivate and local store the foods necessary for their survival. They do this through the use of eco-sanitation installations for the recycling of their urine and composted faeces, thereby supplying the fertilisers necessary for the production of their own foods. The urine is added to household grey water . The grey water and the urine together provide enough liquid to cover family requirements, even in times of drought.

Project areas under the Model undoubtedly enjoy a greater resistance to droughts and other crises than most other communities. However, they cannot offer total guarantees against disaster.

For example, recommended solar pumps work at total heads up to 150 meters. This allows interested parties working where there is a risk of long-term drought or other serious climatic crises to deepen boreholes to reach a lower (and presumably safer) aquifer. It is also possible to increase the power installed with each pump from, for instance, from 300Wp to 400Wp, to help compensate the higher heads involved. Increase in installed power can also be introduced gradually, according to specific risks or requirements. Should a choice be made to allow extra margins from the beginning, provision should be made under item 70101 of the typical budget (Borehole construction) for an extra sum of Euro 250.000, and under item 70204 (solar PV panels) for an extra sum of Euro 125.000. Since reserves are inadequate to cover these increases, the total project budget should in that case be increased to Euro 5.350.000- Euro 5.500.000.

Under conditions of extended drought for 2-3 years, reserves of harvested rain-water will have run out. There will be no surface water available, and perhaps no water left in rivers. The only water available to the inhabitants will be the 25 litres per person per day from their deep well sources. The system of recycling of urine and grey waters will enable people to recycle this water to produce a minimum food supply in their roof-top or vertical gardens to survive.

The recommended solar pumps also have the feature that they can be installed at any depth below the level of the water in the borehole. It is therefore possible to take strong fluctuations in the water level in the borehole into account to cover situations of severe water draw-down during the day in conditions of slow borehole replenishment. However, where night-time replenishment becomes insufficient to compensate for extra drawings during the day, the quantity of water pumped must be reduced either by turning the PV arrays out of the sun or by reducing the number of pumps in operation. As users start receiving less than 25 litres per person per day their general situation will become more and more critical.

Plant nurseries will be set up under the local money system created by the project. Tens of thousands of fruit and vegetable oil trees will be planted in each project area. The trees will take several years to sink deep roots and create relative immunity from drought conditions. Once they have done this they will form a second source of food in hard times. In principle, planting of trees (forestation) in project areas can qualify for carbon reduction certificates (CERs) under the Kyoto Protocol. This is dealt with in detail in Sect. 5 : Kyoto Treaty : Analysis of possibilities for finance.

1. Opinion.

«There is no reason why the world’s populations, even the poorest, cannot enjoy an adequate food supply». Give a one page, critical, commentary on this statement assuming that all of the structures to be provided in an integrated development area are in operation.

Food security: world monopolies.

In this section GMO means «Genetically modified organisms ». The term “GE”, which stands for “Genetically engineered”, is also used.

“Ninety-six percent of all recorded food and agricultural research takes place in industrialized countries and 80% of that research is on food processing and retailing. Over the last half-century, the industrial food chain has consolidated so that each link in the chain – from seed to soup – is dominated by a handful of multinationals working with an ever-narrower commodity list that has left half of humanity either dangerously malnourished or overweight.” (Who will feed us?, Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETS), Communiqué, Issue 102, Ottawa, 1 November, 2009, Executive Summary.)

Food production in industrialised countries is inefficient. “The total energy in the food system in OECD states is approximately 4 kcal invested to supply 1 kcal of food, while in the global South, the ratio is approx. 1 kcal invested to supply 1 kcal of food.” (ETS article as above, citing Pimentel, David, “Energy Inputs in Food Crop Production in Developing and Developed Nations,” Energies, 2(1), 2009, MDPI Publishing, Basel, 2009, pp. 1-24.). “The industrial chain is enormously wasteful. Food spoilage in the industrial food system’s markets is higher (+/-30%) because of distance, time, storage, and other wasteful (including consumer) practices.”[Citing Nellemann, C., MacDevette, M. Manders, T., Eickhout, B., Svihus, B., Prins, A.G., Kaltenborn, B.P. (Eds) “The environmental food crisis – The environment’s role in averting future food crises.”, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) rapid response assessment, GRID-Arendal, February 2009, p. 29.]

“One study estimates that U.S. households throw out 1.28 lbs. of food a day in their trash (14% of all meats, grains, fruits and vegetables coming into the home), the equivalent of $43 billion worth of food. On top of that, commercial retail food establishments (convenience stores, fast food, groceries) throw away 27 million tons of food annually.” (ETS article as above, citing Jones, Timothy : “Using Contemporary Archaeology and Applied Anthropology to Understand Food Loss in the American Food System,” University of Arizona, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, Tucson, 2004.)

Notwithstanding the western domination of global food trade,“85% of the world’s cultivated food is grown and consumed domestically (i.e., if not within sight of the farm, at least within the same country or eco-region).” (ETS article as above, citing van der Ploeg, Jan Douwe, The New Peasantries – Struggles for Autonomy and Sustainability in an Era of Empire and Globalization, Earthscan, 2008, p. 4.)

“Between 1999 and 2009, the top agricultural biotechnology firms spent more than $ 547 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to ease GE regulatory oversight, push for GE approvals, and prevent GE labelling.” (Food & Water Watch, Genetically Engineered Food : An Overview, Washington, September, 2011, p. 6.). The same report concludes that “The U.S. experiment with GE food has been a failure. Impacts on the environment, food system and public health are not documented but are clearly not worth it.” (p. 15). This short report includes 372 footnotes and references.

See also the problems raised by GMO crops, Attac 63, Commission OGM, 2003, Riom Conference, 11 February 2003.

The following is a translation (T.E.Manning) from pages 7 and 8 of that document) :

"Farmers have become dependent on large-scale seed distributors, even for conventional seeds. Conventional hybrid seeds have a lower yield as early as the second generation. The farmer has to buy seeds, and of course, they cost more. For example, the cost of hybrid maize seed is thought to be 100 times that of grain maize. With GMO crops, this strategy of industrial control takes on a new face. Patents deposited on transgenic plants legally forbid all re-utilisation of the seeds (whether or not hybrids) from one year to another. This leads large companies (especially Monsanto) to employ private detectives to track down cases of fraud and have farmers (Mr. Percy, in Canada) convicted for « piracy » when their fields get contaminated with GMO seeds (ref. Monde Diplo. July, 2001)

To reduce the cost of private detectives and legal action, where possible make fraud impossible, through the use of the TERMINATOR technology, which, perfected by the biotechnology company Delta & Pine Land, was then bought up by Monsanto. This technology «controls genetic expression» by inserting a transgene which sterilises the seed produced by the plant. This technique when used for cotton provoked a scandal amongst American farmers and the general public, causing a loss in share prices, in turn causing Monsanto to stop the practice. However, a new technology , called TRAITOR (or GURST : Genetical Use Restriction Technologies) has been introduced. With this technique, seeds are temporarily sterilised but can be made fertile again through the use of a chemical, obviously sold by the Multinational (Monsanto or Novartis). Novartis holds 6 patents on seed sterilisation methods. »

In Iraq, Paul Bremer III, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) ruling occupying Iraq, issued his Order 81 (spring, 2004) which deliberately turned the food future of Iraq over to global multinational private companies. Over thousands of years, Iraq had developed the rich seeds variety for nearly all of the wheat varieties used world-wide.

“Iraq was to become a giant live laboratory for testing GMO wheat, and the Iraqis were the human guinea pigs of the experiment…..Money for Iraq’s impoverished farmers to buy new seeds is earmarked for the buying of GMO “improved seeds” from foreign multinationals like Monsanto.” (Engdahl, F.M., Iraq and Washington’s “seeds of democracy”, Current Concerns, No. 5, 2005, Zurich, July 2005.)

“Order 81 [which] deals, among other things, with plant varieties and patents. The goal was brutally clear-cut and sweeping — to wipe out Iraq’s traditional, sustainable agriculture and replace it with oil-chemical-genetically-modified-seed-based industrial agriculture. There was no public or parliamentary debate for the conquered people who never sought war. The conquerors made unilateral changes in Iraq’s 1970 patent law: henceforth, plant forms could be patented — which was never allowed before — while genetically-modified organisms were to be introduced. Farmers were strictly banned from saving their own seeds: this, in a country where, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, 97 per cent of Iraqi farmers planted only their own saved seeds.

“With a single stroke of the pen, Iraq’s agriculture was axed, while Order 81 facilitated the introduction and domination of imported, high-priced corporate seeds, mainly from the US — which neither reproduce, nor give yields without their prescribed chemical fertiliser and pesticide inputs. It meant that the majority of farmers who had never spent money on seed and inputs that came free from nature, would henceforth have to heavily invest in corporate inputs and equipment — or go into debt to obtain them, or accept lowered profits, or give up farming altogether.” ( Sadeque, N., Control by Seed, in Shiva V. et al, Seed Freedom : A global Citizens’ Report, p.101)

The GMO onslaught on African farming and the “Monsantoisation” of African agriculture is described in Mittal, E. and Moore M. (editors), Voices from Africa : African Farmers and Environmentalists Speak Out Against a New Green Revolution in Africa, The Oakland Institute, Oakland, 2009.

The onslaught is being led by the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) of which is the former Sectary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan became chairman. AGRA is financed by GMO companies such as Monsanto, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Gates Foundation under the guise of “sustainability”.

AGRA (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa) is one example of this kind of exploitation that is encouraged by mainstream African economists and power elites. Under the guise of providing Africa with ‘climate-sensitive’ food crops and flowers, Rockefeller and Gates foundations-funded AGRA (with the blessing of the former secretary general of the United Nations Kofi Annan) is pushing agro-chemical crops using multi-genome patents. Their objective – or at least the end result – is plain to see: the control over Africa's plant biomass to generate super-profits for mega-chemical and seed corporations. ’ (Y. Tandon, Kleptocratic Capitalism : Challenges of the green economy for Sustainable Africa, Pambazuka News, Fahamy – Networks for Social Justice, Nairobi, 30 June, 2011.)

“The call for a new Green Revolution in Africa is based [by AGRA amongst others on a paradigm that has been tried, tested and proven to be inefficient and counterproductive. It takes a universalist and reductionist approach based on the top-down transfer of technology on a large scale. The model requires that many functions linked to research, development and the commercialisation of technological innovation take place far from the farm, in an attempt to specialise production and promote economies of scale in the agro-industrial system.The peasant community is stripped of its planning and decision-making power. ” (Colombo C., Onorati, I., Food, Riots and Rights, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, 2013, p. 36)

Yet, apart from all the problems associated with it, GM soya has been found to produce 10% less food than conventional soya crops. The yields are not as high as expected even in under optimal conditions. Monsanto commented “the soya had not been engineered to increase yields, and that it was now developing one that would.” (G. Lean, Exposed : the great GM crops myth : Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10% less food than its conventional equivalent, The Independent, London, 20 April 2008 ).

“The concept of food security has been mis-used to justify policies that prioritise only yield and the delivery of food to consumers by any means. It has become divorced from any consideration of how that food is produced and by whom. It is mis-used to justify and encourage the industrialisation of agriculture, food aid, the use of genetically modified seeds, the shifting of food production from diverse crops for local markets to monocultures for export, and the liberalisation of markets where small producers are put out of business by subsidised imports."

“Food security is also the stated objective of the Green Revolution, now aggressively promoted in Africa by the Alliance for a New Green Revolution for Africa (AGRA). AGRA promotes expensive, subsidised fertilisers, pesticides, and hybrid seeds, a concept that is not economically or environmentally sustainable. It puts the private sector in charge of seed supply and replaces public and local seed systems. As it has shown us in India, the Green Revolution literally kills farmers, with hundreds of farmers committing suicide, as they are trapped in debt. In reality, the Green Revolution approach destroys local seed systems, reduces resilience and creates a high level of dependency on subsidies and credit, putting small scale farmers at risk. Despite the rhetoric, it is in practice, the direct opposite of food sovereignty.” (Food Sovereignty Systems : Feeding the World, Regenerating Ecosystems, Rebuilding Local Economies, and Cooling the Planet – all at the same time, Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), c/o African Biodiversity Network, Kitha, November 2011, p. 3)

Pages 4-6 of this document contain a declaration of the six principles of food sovereignty. They are an integral part of the course and should be carefully studied.

It is clear that when any farmer who works in a formal money system becomes dependent on a multinational supplier, his chances of getting out of the supplier’s clutches are reduced.

“…the global industrial food system contributes an estimated 44-57% of global greenhouse gases to climate change. In contrast, the world's small-scale farmers – the ones keeping agricultural diversity alive – provide 70% of all food eaten globally, using just 30% of the world's agricultural land.” (Anderson, T. : GM agriculture is not the answer to seed diversity – it’s part of the problem, Poverty Matters Blog, The Guardian, London, 17 October, 2013.)

2. Opinion.

Prepare a one-page manifesto of the risks linked with multinational seed companies. You can distribute it amongst the farmers in your project area.>

Actual distribution of the manifesto is worth bonus points for your report.

BIODIVERSITY AND PATENTS ON LIVING ORGANISMS.

At WTO [World Trade Organisation] level, article 27-3 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), signed in Marrakech in 1994, forces signatory countries to accept patent rights on micro-organisms and vegetal species (living organisms). European Directive 98/44/CE, on the legal protection of biotechnological interventions adopted in July 1998 by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament allows GM products to be patented. It was to have gone into force in Europe by 30/07/2000.

Member states (Netherlands, Italy and Norway, supported by France and Germany) appealed to the European Court of Justice claiming violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, June 1992, an international treaty recognising the sovereignty of countries over their natural resources and protecting biodiversity in general, and on the basis of incoherence and contradictions with other European Directives and regulations, amongst which Directive 90/220/CEE, on the dissemination of GMO in the environment and the patents Convention itself, which limits the patentability of living organisms for ethical reasons and for the protection of research activities.

Directive 98/44/CE, introduces a blending of invention with discovery, authorising patents on genes in general and patents on the genes of traditional plants in particular. How can anyone claim to invent a gene which has been present in nature for centuries? The self-proclaimed inventor is simply stating that it already exists !

A lot of information is available on the efforts of civil society to fight attempts by multinational companies to steal the genetic characteristics of plants and animals for their own benefit.

One of the world leaders of this movement is Dr Vandana Shiva, research manager at the Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, New Delhi. Read for example her article The Basmati Battle and its Implications for Biopiracy and Trips , Global Research, Montreal, 2001.

French readers should read Milanesi J. et al, Analyse des coûts induits sur les filières agricoles par les mises en culture d’organismes génétiquement modifiés (OGM) Etude sur le maïs, le soja et le poulet Label Rouge, Centre d’étude et de Recherche en Gestion Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour, in association with Greenpeace, October 2008.

Their conclusion at page 51 reads:

«In a single market, where GM maize and non GM maize were both to available for purchase as alternatives, their prices would be the same and the surcharges and constraints generated by the production of non GM maize would be passed on along the production line through farmers and distributors. This situation would not be viable and the production of non GM maize would be condemned to disappear.»

See also : Then C. and Tippe R., The International Coalition of “No Patents on Seeds” April 2009.

In sum, the report shows a threatening scenario. It describes the potential takeover of plants’ genetic resources by international companies, which would then be able to control access to the most important resources for conventional breeding and the whole food chain. Seeds, plants and food patents granted on a grand scale could significantly impact food prices and availability, and could become an additional factor contributing to upcoming global food crises.

“Furthermore, because small-scale producers in developing countries rely on the right to save seeds from their harvest and to exchange them with other communities, the freedom to do this is crucial for the future of food security. In order to halt these threatening developments it is not enough to wait for patent offices to reject single patent applications or to file more individual oppositions in this field. What is needed most is a clear legal ruling that exempts seeds and farm animals from patent protection.” (Then & Tippe, as above, p.4)

«Patents on basic methods in plant breeding, such as genetic fingerprinting, QTL and MAB, can be applied on an undefined and large group of plant species. They are a perfect tool for systematic bio-piracy, as they enable the patent holder to turn global commons, essential for food production, into private property by simply describing them using technical means. Many of these patents are nothing but well-organised theft and global robbery supported by patent offices and certain political institutions in industrialised countries........ The only way to protect the centres of biological diversity from being pirated in this way by international companies is to issue a clear regulation in patent law, excluding all patents on conventional breeding of plants. The development of bio-piracy can no longer be sustainably and effectively controlled by single opposition procedures. ” ( Then & Tippe, as above, p.23)

“The seed industry does not wish a similar situation [resistance in Brazil supported by the courts there] to develop in Africa. Hence the insistence that African seed laws are upgraded to the most restrictive, first world legislation, supported by the World Bank, World Trade Organisation and the International Intellectual Property Office, WIPO. What is occurring is a de facto case of neo-liberal enclosure of the foundation of agricultural productivity in Africa.” (G. Ashton, Is Africa about to Lose the Right to her Seed?, afronline.org , Vita Società Editoriale, Milan, 25 April, 2013.)

[In] patent application WO 2008150892, ‘the patent on monsantoizing food feed fuel’, the company claims breeding for soy beans with an oil content of between 23 and 35 %, which have been derived from conventional breeding and combined with transgenic traits, such as herbicide resistance. Monsanto claims the plants and their derived food products, listing the whole chain of production in the claims. For example claim 7 reads:

“A method of producing food, feed, fuel or an industrial product comprising the steps of:

(a) obtaining seed from the plant

(b) planting and growing the seed into mature plant

(d) preparing food, feed, fuel or an industrial product from the harvested seed.”(Then & Tippe, as above, p.24)

In «Failure to Yield – Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops » (Union of Concerned Scientists, Cambridge MA (USA), April 2009), author D. Gurian-Sherman reports that the introduction of GM maize, soy, canola (rape for oil) and cotton has not brought any noticeable increase in agricultural production when compared with traditional farming methods. Despite the propaganda by the multinationals to the contrary. The introduction has, however, led to a serious increase in centralised control by a few large multinationals over important sectors of agricultural production.

Summary of the present situation with genetically modified crops.

"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." - Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994 ). (Cited in R. Cummins, BioDemocracy or Corporatocracy : The Food Fight of our Lives, article 27261, Organic Consumers Association, 27 March, 2013, Finland MN 55603 (USA))

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA's job." - Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications, quoted in the New York Times, October 25, 1998. (Cited in R. Cummins, BioDemocracy or Corporatocracy : The Food Fight of our Lives, Article 27261, Organic Consumers Association, 27 March, 2013, Finland MN 55603 (USA))

Gary Null’s documentary film (1 hour 20 minutes) Seeds of Death : Unveiling the Lies of GMOs provides an excellent introduction to the dangers of genetically modified food, the corrupted corporate science promoting it, the subservience especially of the American FDA (Federal Drugs Administration) to the multinational corporate interests involved and Universities dependent on multinational corporate funding for their survival. Some even suggest genetically modified crops could lead to the sixth mass extinction of life on our planet. The first five are believed to have been caused by external catastrophic events suggest as collision with meteorites. This sixth is being caused by man.

The most authoritative recent (and well referenced) work on this subject is the Statement : No scientific consensus on GMO safety by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), Berlin,21 October, 2013. The statement is crystal clear :

“As scientists, physicians, academics, and experts from disciplines relevant to the scientific, legal, social and safety assessment aspects of genetically modified organisms (GMOs),[1] we strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a “scientific consensus” on GMO safety[2] [3] [4] and that the debate on this topic is “over”.[5] “We feel compelled to issue this statement because the claimed consensus on GMO safety does not exist. The claim that it does exist is misleading and misrepresents the currently available scientific evidence and the broad diversity of opinion among scientists on this issue.”

“Our search found 21 studies for nine (19%) out of the 47 crops approved for human and/or animal consumption. We could find no studies on the other 38 (81%) approved crops. Fourteen out of the 21 studies (67%) were general health assessments of the GM crop on rat health. Most of these studies (76%) were performed after the crop had been approved for human and/or animal consumption, with half of these being published at least nine years after approval. Our review also discovered an inconsistency in methodology and a lack of defined criteria for outcomes that would be considered toxicologically or pathologically significant. In addition, there was a lack of transparency in the methods and results, which made comparisons between the studies difficult. The evidence reviewed here demonstrates an incomplete picture regarding the toxicity (and safety) of GM products consumed by humans and animals.” (Zdziarski, I.M. and others, GM crops and the rat digestive tract : A critical review, Environment International 73 (2014) pp.423-433, Elsevier Ltd, Amsterdam, 20 September 2014.) The Zdziarski review is limited to tests on rats which have been the subject of most GMO research activities.

Details of the aggressive working methods of the multinational Monsanto which dominates the sector are described in Monsanto : A Corporate Profile , Food and Water Watch, Washington, April, 2013. This resource contains a rich list of references tracing the history of the sector and illustrating the control exercised by Monsanto over public authorities and over the research and reporting carried out by universities.” ( Samsel A., Senef S. Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern DiseasesEntropy (Journal), 2013 no. 15, pp. 1416-1463, ISSN 1099-4300, MDPI, Basel, 18 April, 2013, abstract, p.1.)

The effects of glyphosate “are insidious, because the long-term effects are often not immediately apparent. The pathologies to which glyphosate could plausibly contribute, through its known biosemiotic effects, include inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, depression, ADHD, autism, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, multiple sclerosis, cancer, cachexia, infertility, and developmental malformations. Glyphosate works synergistically with other factors, such as insufficient sun exposure, dietary deficiencies in critical nutrients such as sulphur and zinc, and synergistic exposure to other xenobiotics whose detoxification is impaired by glyphosate. Given the known toxic effects of glyphosate reviewed here and the plausibility that they are negatively impacting health worldwide, it is imperative for more independent research to take place to validate the ideas presented here, and to take immediate action, if they are verified, to drastically curtail the use of glyphosate in agriculture. Glyphosate is likely to be pervasive in our food supply, and, contrary to being essentially nontoxic, it may in fact be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment.” (Samsel, A, Senef, S., above, p. 29.) ( Bold in last sentence added by Stichting Bakens Verzet.)

“It is commonly believed that Roundup is among the safest pesticides. This idea is spread by manufacturers, mostly in the reviews they promote [40, 41], which are often cited in toxicological evaluations of glyphosate-based herbicides. However, Roundup was found in this experiment to be 125 times more toxic than glyphosate. Moreover, despite its reputation, Roundup was by far the most toxic among the herbicides and insecticides tested. This inconsistency between scientific fact and industrial claim may be attributed to huge economic interests, which have been found to falsify health risk assessments and delay health policy decisions [42]….In conclusion, our results challenge the relevance of the ADI [Average Daily Intake] because it is calculated today from the toxicity of the AP [Active Principle] alone in vivo. An “adjuvant factor” of at least a reduction by 100 can be applied to the present calculation of the ADI if this is confirmed by other studies in vivo. As an example, the present ADI for glyphosate is 0.3 ppm, for glyphosate-based herbicides it would be 3 ppb or less. However, this will never replace the direct study of the commercial formulation with its adjuvants in regulatory tests. Anyway, an exposure to a single formulated pesticide must be considered as co-exposure to an active principle and the adjuvants. In addition, the study of combinatorial effects of several APs together may be very secondary if the toxicity of the combinations of each AP with its adjuvants is neglected or unknown. Even if all these factors were known and taken into account in the regulatory process, this would not exclude an endocrine-disrupting effect below the toxicity threshold. The chronic tests of pesticides may not reflect relevant environmental exposures if only one ingredient is tested alone.” (Mesnage, R. and others, Major presticides are more toxic to human cells than their declared active principles, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, BioMed Research International, Nasr Cith and New York, December 2013.)

Read the Special Report : Are Regulators dropping the ball on bio-crops? by Gillam C., published by Reuters on 13 April 2010, Columbia, 2010.

The author states :

“Farmers around the world seem to be embracing biotech crops that have been altered to resist bugs and tolerate weed-killing treatments while yielding more. According to an industry report issued in February, 14 million farmers in 25 countries planted biotech crops on 330 million acres in 2009, with the United States alone accounting for 158 million acres.”

and highlights the lack of effective control over the use of genetically modified crops because :

“The developers of these crop technologies, including Monsanto and its chief rival DuPont, tightly curtail independent scientists from conducting their own studies. Because the companies patent their genetic alterations, outsiders are barred from testing the biotech seeds without company approvals.”

On recent attempts by Monsanto to gift its way into the Haitian market, see Bell B, Haitian Farmers Commit to Burning Hybrid Seeds.

There are some recent signs of a more attentive approach by the Courts, especially in the United States. See, for instance, Federal Court orders first-ever destruction of a GMO crop a Press Release by the Center for Food Safety, (centerforfoodsafety.org) San Francisco, 30 November 2010.

For more discussion of these legal developments and the current status of the domination of the global seed market by a few multinational corporations see : Freese W. et al, Seed Giants vs. U.S.Farmers, Center for Food Safety (with Save our Seeds), Washington, February, 2013.

The numerous, serious, verified effects of the (exponentially increasing) spraying of genetically modified crops, especially soya, in Argentina, are described in the Report from the 1^st National Meeting of Physicians in the Crop-Sprayed Towns, held at the National University of Cordoba (Argentina), Cordoba, 27-28 August, 2010.

Weed killer found in human urine across Europe is the title of a report released by Friends of the Earth International, Brussels, in June 2013. Spokesman Adrian Bebb stated: "Our testing highlights a serious lack of action by public authorities across Europe and indicates that this weed killer is being widely overused. Governments need to step-up their monitoring and bring in urgent measures to reduce its use. This includes rejecting any genetically modified crops that would increase the use of glyphosate."

80% of cropland in Paraguay grows Monsanto’s generically modified Soy in 4800 large plantations 50% of which are owned by Brazilian companies. Just 600 properties cover 40% of all agricultural land in Paraguay. It goes without saying that these large plantations enjoy nearly all of the country’s agricultural subsidies, while small-holders get nothing. As a result, Paraguay has increased its dependence on imported food.

The company Desarrollo Agrícola del Paraguay (DAP) was set up purportedly for the purposes of promoting socially responsible sustainable agricultural development. DAP is a subsidiary of NFD Agro, a soy operator registered in Bermuda set up with finance from American, European and South American investors. It received loans for some US$ 28 million from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) of the World Bank..

“Five years on, the results in the communities of Colonia Barbero, 12 de Junio and Agüerito show that many of the families who participated in the productive projects were worse off economically. In terms of improving farmer incomes, these projects can thus be regarded as a failure. In the case of those who followed the production model promoted by DAP, instead of increasing their income by adopting supposedly more productive practices, they entered a cycle of debt from which they have not yet recovered and as a result, many of them have lost their principle assets. DAP and the organizations that carried out the projects failed to take into account the local context and socio-productive conditions of the families, and promoted an inappropriate model. Practically all of the investment risk fell on the small-farm families …. Despite its efforts to reduce negative impacts and to aid neighboring communities, it [DAP] is part of a sector whose present business model exacerbates the concentration of land and wealth in few hands, competes for limited resources, contaminates the environment, damages the health of the population and threatens the traditional livelihoods of small-scale farmers and indigenous communities..” (Guerena, A., The Soy Mirage. The limits of corporate responsibility : the case of the company Desarollo Agricola del Paraguay, Oxfam Research Report, Oxfam, Oxford, August, 2013, p. 4.) This document is a powerful condemnation of modern industrial agriculture.

For a description of the aggressive introduction of genetically modified maize into Mexico, the origin of maize with numerous native species and hundreds of native varieties, see Red Alert ! GMO avalanche in Mexico, GRAIN, Barcelona, 21 November, 2012.

For an early description of the GMO onslaught on Africa see xcroc’s blog Why is Kofi Annan Fronting for Monsanto? : The GMO Assault on Africa, Crossed Crocodiles, blog, crossedcrocodiles.worldpress.com, 31 August, 2010. This well-informed article deals with the Alliance for a Green Revolution (AGRA) led by former secretary-general of the United Nations Kofi Annan and financed by Monsanto ( AGRA purchased 500.000 Monsanto shares) and the Rockefeller and Gates Foundations.

On the introduction of GMO bananas , golden rice, claims made in relation to supplying vitamin A, a and the role played by the Gates Foundation in financing them see No GMO Banana Republic – Stop Banana Piracy, Mantasa.org, Open Letter, Jawa Timur, 02 October 2014. Published by (seedfreedom.in).

Taleb N.N. and others explain genetically modified crops must be subject to the application of the precautionary principle in The Precautionary Principle : Fragility and Black Swans from Policy, (School of Engineering, New York University, Working Paper Series, New York, 04 September, 2014, paragraphs 10.2 – 10.5). They conclude :

“Genetically Modified Organisms, GMOs, fall squarely under the PP [precautionary principle] because of their systemic risk. The understanding of the risks is very limited and the scope of the impacts are global both due to engineering approach replacing an evolutionary approach, and due to the use of monoculture.

“Labeling the GMO approach “scientific" betrays a very poor—indeed warped—understanding of probabilistic payoffs and risk management. A lack of observations of explicit harm does not show absence of hidden risks. Current models of complex systems only contain the subset of reality that is accessible to the scientist. Nature is much richer than any model of it. To expose an entire system to something whose potential harm is not understood because extant models do not predict a negative outcome is not justifiable; the relevant variables may not have been adequately identified.

“Given the limited oversight that is taking place on GMO introductions in the US, and the global impact of those introductions, we are precisely in the regime of the ruin problem. A rational consumer should say: We do not wish to pay—or have our descendants pay— for errors made by executives of Monsanto, who are financially incentivized to focus on quarterly profits rather than long term global impacts. We should exert the precautionary principle—our non-naive version— simply because we otherwise will discover errors with large impacts only after considerable damage.”

Climate change, fishing and ocean acidification.

The temperature of the oceans has been rising. This affects the entire ocean food chain. Sea life has been moving away from tropical seas towards the poles at least since 1970. It has not been replaced. This threatens the food security of people living in many poor countries who depend on fish for their protein intake. For more information see Bernstein, L. World’s fish have been moving to cooler waters for decades, study finds, The Washington Post, Washington, 15 May, 2013. The study referred to in Bernstein’s article is Cheung, W. et al, Signature of ocean warming in global fisheries, published in Nature no. 497 pp 365-368, Nature Publishing Group, London, May 2013. It is available only against payment.

“It has been estimated that, because of overcapacity and technology creep, the capacity of the global aggregate fishing fleet is at least double that which is needed to exploit the oceans sustainably.” (O. de Schutter, The right to food. (Fisheries), Report A/67/268 submitted for agenda item 70 (b) “Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights questions, including alternative approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms”, of the 67th United Nations General Assembly, New York, 8th August, 2012, p. 6.) At the same time the scale of illegal fishing is estimated at between 10 and 28 million tonnes, for a value of US$ 9 to 25 billion. (Same source, p. 7).

Climate change and ocean acidification present serious problems for people living in countries, especially poor ones, where fish is the main source of protein. . The general effects of climate change and ocean acidification, especially for people in poor countries who depend on fish for most of their proteins, read Huelsenbeck, M., Ocean-Based Food Security in a High CO2 World : A Ranking of Nations’ Vulnerability to Climate Change and Ocean Acidifcation , Oceana, Washington, September 2012.

The dangers of using (genetically modified) soy for fish-farming, especially in the open sea, are described in Factory-fed Fish : How the Soy Industry is Expanding into the Sea, Food & Water Watch, Washington, June, 2012. This paper is exceptionally well referenced

Theft of agricultural lands (land-grabbing)

“The act of landgrabbing fits in well in a strategy towards deepening the commoditization of nature, agriculture and the global rule of a small group of “investors” and the TNCs [trans-national corporations] ….. Since foreign land acquisition is profit-oriented and largely exports-driven, it will foster the introduction/deepening of an industrial mode of production in the host countries. There is abundant literature available indicating that that mode of production is destructive and not sustainable.” (Odeny E. et al (eds), Landgrabbing in Kenya and Mozambique, Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), Heidelberg, April 2010. (p. 39)

“A state which does not provide available land and related production resources to the marginalized, but instead hands these lands to rich investors does not comply with these obligations [those of the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]” Odeny E. et al (eds), Landgrabbing in Kenya and Mozambique , Food First Information and Action Network (FIAN), Heidelberg, April 2010. (p. 38)

“There are over 2,500 bilateral investment treaties (BITs), which protect [land-grabbing] investors from changes to host government policy and which may be impairing the ability of countries to regulate investments effectively. The opportunity for investors to challenge public policy through arbitration procedures under these BITs weakens developing countries’ capacity to regulate their food, land, and water sectors, as well as to introduce policies that promote food security and poverty reduction.” (Zagema B., Land and Power : The growing scandal surrounding the new wave of investments in land , Oxfam Briefing Paper 151, Oxfam, Oxford, 22 September, 2011, ISBN 978-1-84814-947-2, p. 38.) This Oxfam document is a well-referenced denunciation of land-grabbing practices.

The principles of the Model for Integrated Development Projects apply to urban centres as well as rural areas. Execution of integrated development projects in rural areas takes priority of those in urban areas. The purpose of this is to increase the quality of life in rural areas first, so as to stop, and if possible reverse, migration to the larger towns.

The website foodfromthesky.org.uk shows how food is grown on the roof of Thornton’s Budgens Supermarket , 21-23 The Broadway, Crouch End, London N88 DU, England, by recycling and composting waste products from the supermarket. This intelligent project combines permaculture theory, education, and the re-introduction of forgotten (local) strains and is replicable anywhere in the world. Products are sold in the supermarket a few meters below the garden.

Students with a knowledge of French can read Arm towns against hunger – ed. Koc M. et al, Centre de Recherches pour le Développement International, (CRDO), Ottawa, 2000, and especially the third section, “Urban and community agriculture”. The authors conclude : (Translation by T.E.Manning)

“Conclusion : recommended development measures and strategies

The present study shows availability of resources is the basis of urban agriculture, which offers an excellent potential for development. In urban centres in developing countries the structured economic sector is generally under-developed. It does not allow urban populations to reach adequate income levels. Urban agriculture can enable families to earn income and protect themselves against food insecurity.

Decision makers should therefore take the following recommendations into account:

01. Reinforce rural development.

02. Resource management based on cooperation.

03. Decentralisation.

04. Properly managed urbanism.

05. Improved water supply in urban communities.

06. Encourage composting and the management of wastes in the urban environment.

07. Support agriculture and gardening in urban areas.

08. Support research on indigenous vegetables and crops.

09. Offer services to small urban traders.

10. Reinforce the role of women.

11. Support existing gardens and other forms of agricultural use of land, such as grazing and agriculture during the rainy season.

12. Conduct research and offer agricultural information services on the sustainable use of wild food resources.”

3. Opinion.

On two pages describe how the concepts of the Model for Integrated Development provide solutions to the 12 recommendations.. Begin with a short introduction followed by 12 short paragraphs and your conclusion.

Arm towns against hunger(see above) also contains an analysis by Nugent R. on “Measuring the sustainability of urban agriculture. The author writes:

“ ....urban agricultural products often travel short distances ( to a producers’ market or a local shop) or need no transport at all ( the are sold on the spot at the farm or by self-harvesting ). This advantage reduces packing and the use of energy. Locally produced food is sold directly to consumers or used by the producer and his/her family, friends and neighbours. ”

For a brilliant example of a “for profit” formal money economy initiative for sustainable integrated urban agriculture including land trusts, local processing, retail and restaurants, and cooperative energy and recycling “the seeds of a local food economy” see : P. Loh, Land, Co-ops, Compost: A Local Food Economy Emerges in Boston’s Poorest Neighbourhoods, Yes ! Magazine, Positive Futures Network, Bainbridge Island, 07 November, 2014. The effects would be much more rapid and widespread still for initiatives taken within the framework of local economy systems provided by integrated development projects.

Food from the Sky (see reference above) group shows how food is cultivated on the roof of a Thorton Budgens’ supermarket, 21-23 The Broadway, Crouch End, London N88 DU, England, through the recycling and composting of products discarded by the supermarket. This intelligent project combines permaculture theory, education, and the reintroduction of forgotten local strains. It can be replicated anywhere in the world. The products are sold in the supermarket just a few metres below the garden.

So how can industrial food compete ? Give a one-page explanation. You can refer to the material in the First Bock, Section 1, Analysis of the Causes of Poverty.

5. Opinion.

The world-wide efforts to monopolise the food sector ( patents, Basmati rice etc.) described above and the absence of appropriate action on the part of organisations like the World Trade Organisation and the European Commission seem to be in conflict with Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) which reads “has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food…,” Write a one-page opinion on this point.

◄►

◄ Fifth block : How the third block structures solve specific problems.

◄ Index : Diploma in Integrated Development (Dip.Int.Dev)

◄ List of key words.

◄ List of references.

◄ Course chart.

◄ Courses available.

◄ Homepage Bakens Verzet.