US Senate, Bill Gates Give the Planet a Middle Finger for Earth Day

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 13:25:29 PM PDT

One of the clauses in the bill specifies that the U.S. should promote biotechnology in its efforts to combat global hunger. After a year of lobbying to ask them to remove this, they still haven't. Lugar made a point today in saying how necessary he thought GMOs are. My very inadequate transcription of his remarks are as follows:

The average African farmer's yield per acre is 1/2 that of an Indian farmer, 1/4 that of a Chinese farmer, and 1/5 of an American. [Something about Bill Gates' piece in the Wall Street Journal today] The role of GMOs in agriculture development is a matter of contention. Europe's rejection of GM has pressured African governments for fear they will lose export markets. Others argue safety is not proven despite 2 decades of safe use of GMOs. This ensures that much of the continent [Africa] will lack the tools to deal with changing climate in the long run. We may not be able to double food output by 2050. I ask to what extent does USAID support a full range of technologies? To what extent do the strategies encourage biotech?

Here's the thing. The "double food output by 2050" figure is one that was created by idiots. Or just very greedy assholes. It assumes that the rest of the world will want to eat much more grain-fed meat (like Americans do now). Unfortunately, Mother Nature does not operate like a market with supply and demand. A diet of grain-fed meat means increased diet-related chronic illnesses for those who eat it. And it means continued and worsened environmental degradation and climate change for the planet. Our species existence on this planet is contingent on us NOT increasing grain-fed meat consumption (and in fact, on DECREASING it). Therefore, the Senate, USAID, and Bill Gates are all aiming for a false goal.

More below.

USAID has had a longstanding relationship with CG research activities [the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, a major institution of the Green Revolution] - linking them to local agricultural systems. We've invested in land grant universities through collaborative research systems. The two things we are looking to evolve - we've identified a set of core crops and core production constraints like rice, maize, and cassava and drought tolerant and heat tolerant traits. We are working with partners around the world to do this. We are looking to partner with USDA and the unique capabilities they bring. We've specifically support transgenic technologies including GE eggplant in India and we are supporting building the regulatory systems in other countries and then we'll let farmers decide what they want.

Shah is an asshat. I really don't have a nicer word for him or a more apt description. He came originally from the Gates Foundation (which employs a former Monsanto VP and is now working with CGIAR and actively promoting GM crops and industrial agriculture) to the USDA and then to USAID. By all accounts he's very smart, but he's 100% on board with this "new Green Revolution" extend industrial ag including biotech to the developing world plan (despite massive amounts of science that says it's a bad idea).

The number one outrage for me from this hearing was when Shah said that it was appropriate to be speaking about this on Earth Day and then referred to US promotion of biotech as "sustainable." He said we are working on two fronts - to make agriculture produce more and to make it more sustainable. Except, from what I heard, it seemed that his idea of sustainable was GM "drought tolerant" seeds.

Next came Jacob Lew, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources. He said (roughly):

The regulatory environment is very important. If you don't fill the space with science and knowledge and facts, then fear can fill the space just as easily. To deal with the problems of the future, we can't afford to let it drift for decades. It must be addressed as the technologies are developed.

In other words, if USAID and its partners are not active in promoting biotech, then people around the world might discover some of the risks or problems with biotech and reject it. He wants to use biotech now, not wait for years or decades until technologies are proven safe (or perfected so that they are safe) before using them.

Next, Lugar and the two witnesses (Shah and Lew) had an exchange about a "country-led" effort to solve problems of food insecurity. They don't want to be paternalistic, and yet they don't want to give up control over the uses of their money in the countries where they spend it. Essentially it sounds like the US will lay out what they are interested in doing (i.e. biotech) and if other countries are interested in playing ball, they can. If they don't, then they don't get any money from us or the World Bank.

Here are some poorly transcribed quotes on this topic:

Lugar: We must get away from paternalistic relationships and - however the rhetoric surrounding country-led that may shift us to ... to what extent may country-led be civil society driven instead of elite driven

Lew: What we are doing won't be a good fit everywhere, and what we are doing is driven by US interests. We have to find the places where it is a good fit. The idea that we let go and say you come up with a program and we'll write the checks - that's not a partnership. But a partnership is different than saying You must do this.

Lew: These become very difficult diplomatic issues and we need to be very clear at the front end what the expectations are. If you set clear expectations you can come in behind and say you haven't met the standard. With the food initiative, just because you're part of it doesn't mean you'll stay part of it. We're gonna have to stick to our principles and sometimes say to countries... that this isn't working.

The highlight of the hearing for me was a quote by Sen. Cardin (which I felt was never adequately answered). He said:

It's hard to imagine how you can deal with hunger if you don't deal with poverty. And it's hard to see how you deal with poverty if you don't deal with corruption in the institutions in the developing world... I am interested in how you are trying to deal with the interrelationship between our programs to deal with hunger and building the credible types of institutions in these countries that are transparent and lead to wealth accumulation.

This turned into a dialogue about women. Research shows that some 70% of smallholder farmers in the developing world are women, and a disproportionate percent of the hungry are women and girls. Also, when you give $1 of additional income to a woman, it is more likely to go toward the health and well-being of the family than if you give that $1 to a man. I'm very pleased that the U.S. government is recognizing this and taking action on it.

Unfortunately, there's a negative side to this too. I believe it was Rajiv Shah who mentioned during the hearing that it is easier to convince women to buy GM seeds and grow GMOs because you can make a case for increased nutrition from GMOs. They are also more likely to purchase ammonia fertilizer (which kills the life in the soil and pollute waterways). Thus, women are more likely than men to respond to arguments the US makes telling them to adopt GMOs and industrial ag.