| At the start of this month, the U.S. unveiled new efforts by USAID to feed the world. Instead of merely providing food aid, now the U.S. plans to support developing nations with agricultural support so they can feed themselves. In theory, this is brilliant. In practice, I doubt it will be. The reason - which I've said before on this blog - is simple: the U.S. is following a plan that runs counter to the recommendations of 400 scientists from around the world (the IAASTD report).
This past week, USAID head Rajiv Shah gave a speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. This heavily corporate funded group came up with their own study to counter the IAASTD report findings and to say what the U.S. wanted to hear. In short, they recommend a continuation of industrial agriculture and an increase in biotechnology and genetic engineering and they do not address the harm free trade has on developing nations.
More on their recent event below. |
| Perhaps most interesting about the event is who was there and who funds the group, since we basically know already what they are going to say ("feed the hungry... bla bla bla... Africa... bla bla bla... genetic engineering is sustainable...").
In addition to Rajiv Shah, speakers included Tom Vilsack, Namanga Ngongi (president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa), and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (president of the Republic of Liberia), plus panels moderated by Catherine Bertini and Dan Glickman (cochairs of the Chicago Council project on this whole feed the world with industrial ag business). The panels included "Senior leaders from the Obama administration, Congress, and business, policy, NGO and international organization communities."
And who paid for the symposium? Bread for the World, Concern Worldwide, German Marshall Fund, Global Harvest Initiative, InterAction, International Center for Research on Women, International Food Policy Research Institute, ONE Campaign, Partnership to Cut Hunger and Poverty in Africa, United States Institute of Peace and World Food Prize Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, DuPont and the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Of those groups, I'm a big fan of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation. However, several of these groups are very much signed onto the "second Green Revolution" industrial ag plus biotech model and those include most significantly the Gates Foundation, IFPRI, and the World Food Prize Foundation. Then there's DuPont, which is in a category all its own... obviously they stand to profit immensely from any expansion of industrial ag around the world.
Interestingly, in his remarks, Shah said that the Feed the Future initiative includes the US Trade Representative (whose Chief Ag Negotiator was previously a top biotech/pesticide lobbyist). His speech was mostly high-level and not specific at all about what type of agriculture the US is promoting, but he did bring up pet examples of success stories like Rwanda (a country totally signed on to the US Green Revolution plan). And of course, he didn't mention the fantastic agricultural success of Cuba over the past 20 years.
So the news here is really no news. This is more of the same, still continuing. |
