Photobucket


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

U.S. looks to Monsanto to feed the world

by: Marcia Ishii-Eiteman

Wed Feb 02, 2011 at 15:21:57 PM PST


Bookmark and Share
( - promoted by Jill Richardson)

Originally posted on Pesticide Action Network's blog, Groundtruth.

At the annual World Economic Forum this past weekend in Davos, Switzerland, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Director Rajiv Shah stood beside CEOs from Monsanto and other infamous giant corporations, and announced U.S. support for a "New Vision for Agriculture."

Yes, you should be worried.

Claiming that "large-scale private sector partnerships [can] achieve significant impact on global hunger and nutrition," Shah introduced the initiative's 17 agribusiness "champions": Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bunge Limited, Cargill, Coca-Cola, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Metro AG, Monsanto Company, Nestlé, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever, Wal-Mart, and Yara International.

What!?! Are you kidding me? Most of these agribusiness giants could be listed in an edition of Who's Who in Environmental Destruction, Hunger and Human Rights Violations. A few minutes' of investigation on GRAIN, CorpWatch, Food & Water Watch or PAN's chemical cartel page will prove this point.

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman :: U.S. looks to Monsanto to feed the world
At the annual World Economic Forum this past weekend in Davos, Switzerland, U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Director Rajiv Shah stood beside CEOs from Monsanto and other infamous giant corporations, and announced U.S. support for a "New Vision for Agriculture."

Yes, you should be worried.

Claiming that "large-scale private sector partnerships [can] achieve significant impact on global hunger and nutrition," Shah introduced the initiative's 17 agribusiness "champions": Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bunge Limited, Cargill, Coca-Cola, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Metro AG, Monsanto Company, Nestlé, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever, Wal-Mart, and Yara International.

What!?! Are you kidding me? Most of these agribusiness giants could be listed in an edition of Who's Who in Environmental Destruction, Hunger and Human Rights Violations. A few minutes' of investigation on GRAIN, CorpWatch, Food & Water Watch or PAN's chemical cartel page will prove this point.

Feeding the corporations

The plan, USAID tells us, is for the U.S. to leverage private sector investments for agricultural "growth," using our taxpayer dollars through Obama's Feed the Future initiative. Back in September, I wrote about the corporate Trojan horse lurking within Feed the Future. There's always been some green window dressing scattered throughout the plan, claiming that the initiative will follow Southern country priorities, support gender equity, respect local and Indigenous knowledge, etc.

Back then, Rajiv Shah & Co. were making only thinly veiled references to the Initiative's plan to "discover" and "deliver breakthrough technologies" (guess whose) to poor hapless farmers in the global South.

Now, however, USAID has abandoned all pretenses of respecting a people's agenda, and baldly acknowledges that large-scale private sector partnerships with some of the world's worst corporate actors lies at the core of Feed the Future. We are given the example of Feed the Future's project in Tanzania, where an "investment blueprint" to establish "profitable, modern commercial farming and agribusiness" and designed to last for "years to come" has been set up with Monsanto, Syngenta, Yara and General Mills, among other multinational corporations. USAID "hopes to expand the blueprint in the future to at least five additional African countries."

Not so hidden agenda

I think it's no coincidence that this week's bare-faced embrace of corporate solutions follows directly on Obama's State of the Union speech. On that day, our president signaled clearly his intention to push neoliberal trade agreements and U.S. exports as the solution to our country's woes. Never mind that fast-tracking trade liberalization has harmed, not helped, farmers and workers in the U.S. By restricting poor governments' ability to manage domestic food production and supply, it also undermines efforts to strengthen global food and livelihood security. As the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy explains,

 

"Trade and food security policy should focus on rebuilding local food systems in the North and South. This does not mean abandoning trade or closing markets, but considering ways to ensure that trade complements, rather than substitutes for, local food production."

Unfortunately, the Administration's approach to internationalism looks more like this: If a country hesitates to import our products for their own reasons, we unleash sustained retaliatory measures, as revealed by the recent WikiLeaks' release of a U.S. plan to punish France and indeed the entire EU for France's unwillingness to import U.S. GMO products:

 

"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory."

That's how we deal with our European "allies." But we target poor countries even more insidiously, especially when they are made vulnerable by devastating floods or earthquakes: we simply start pouring in agricultural inputs designed to get them onto the corporate industrial agriculture treadmill and thus crack open their markets.

Get 'em while they're down

In Pakistan, over 20 million were displaced and 2,000 people killed during last year's massive floods, triggering an outpouring of aid in the form of massive amounts of industrial agricultural inputs. Is this aid helpful? Our sister organization, PAN Asia Pacific and local community groups say no.

"With Bayer, BASF, Monsanto, Du Pont, Dow Chemical and Cargill among the long list of donors to Pakistan's rehabilitation, the suspicion is high that these companies can use the situation to get their GM seeds on the ground and make contamination a done deal."

"The destruction isn't over yet. A big threat looms in the way the government is rebuilding agriculture, in partnership with big agribusiness companies, in the flood-stricken areas of Pakistan," says Azra Sayeed of Roots for Equity, a Karachi-based grassroots NGO that works with small and landless peasants in the flooded areas.

Similarly, Haitians have had to fight back to retain local control of resources, in the face of U.S. and Monsanto "earthquake aid" packages. As global food policy analyst Devinder Sharma wrote on Huffington Post, "Every global crisis provides an opportunity for business. Multinational giants are quick to grab it."

Farmers have been saying loudly and clearly for quite some time that they don't want corporations taking over their food systems. They want food sovereignty: control over their own food and farming decisions. Many of the solutions needed to feed the world fairly and sustainably will be showcased and debated next week at the people's alternative to the World Economic Forum: the World Social Forum in Dakar, Senegal. Stay tuned.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Feed the Future (4.00 / 1)
If Feed the Future is described fairly in your essay, this is tragic. It smells like a concerted effort by the world's richest, greediest nation to bundle Global South agriculture into the American system, wherein farmers are squeezed among bankers, input suppliers, and commodity markets, and left no place to draw a safe breath.

It might seem that this effort couldn't succeed without the cooperation of host countries, but I don't know that host countries have a choice. For more than 10 years, world commodity markets have been rigged to ensure that both producer and consumer nations are at the mercy of speculators, among other players. A report from January 31 highlight's Cargill's role.

Sarkozy clashes with UN food chief

Bill Gunyon
Mon Jan 31, 2011

A squabble over the interpretation of events may resurrect awkward questions about the role played by major corporate interests in world food markets during the crucial days of August 2010.

Swiss-based Glencore, the world's largest commodities trader, held a clutch of contracts to deliver Russian wheat at the low price prevailing during the first half of the year. As the heat wave progressively destroyed the crop, its losses mounted. In early August, Bloomberg reported that a Glencore executive was making strong representations to the Russian government to ban exports of grain.

Two days later, prime minister Vladimir Putin announced the decision. The export ban effective from August 15th bailed out Glencore. It enabled the company to invoke a legal device known as force majeure, cancelling its contractual obligations.

Furthermore, the immediate price spiral triggered windfall gains for other grain traders, especially those with access to surplus stocks in the US. The US family-controlled agribusiness giant, Cargill, promptly acquired major orders at inflated prices from countries such as Egypt which normally rely on Russian supplies.

Earlier this month Cargill announced that its profits for just three months in the latter part of 2010 had trebled to $1.49 billion. And last week Glencore was able to declare plans for a $50bn-$60 billion public flotation of its shares, following a surge in the company's value.
...

"If we don't do anything (to regulate the markets) we run the risk of food riots in the poorest countries and a very unfavorable effect on global economic growth," warned the French president, according to Reuters who covered the Elysee event.

Jacques Diouf went further at Davos in calling for a return to the pre-1999 regulatory environment. He claimed that this limited the agriculture commodities market to the purpose of hedging physical trades, as opposed to price speculation.
...

Both Cargill and Glencore maintained a low profile during the Davos debates. Questioned about soaring food prices in a video interview with the Financial Times, Cargill boss, Greg Page, was non-committal. "I think weather will always determine if (prices) are peaking," he said.

I don't know that there was anything nefarious surrounding Russia's imposition of an export ban. My understanding at the time was that Russia became a grain importer instead of an exporter, but it does seem that imposing the ban instead of relying on market forces had no aim other than to serve Glencore.


Cargill in Egypt (4.00 / 1)
Ironic. Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, wants American corporations to make as much money as possible with as little regulation as possible, so he's probably happy about Cargill's score. High food prices have been at least one factor inflaming North African populations (Tunisia, Egypt), however, and that doesn't necessarily serve American foreign policy interests.

[ Parent ]
food prices (4.00 / 1)
Listening to Richard Engel, food prices have been an issue in Syria, Libya, and Jordan in the last month. Perhaps also other places I don't know about?

[ Parent ]
Feed the Future (4.00 / 2)
There's quite a lot of nice stuff written into the Summary docs, and even parts of the Implementation Plan of Feed the Future (http://www.feedthefuture.gov/) But the devil's in how it's REALLY going to be implemented. Even before Davos, many of us were not getting a warm fuzzy, from listening to the ways in which Shah & Vilsack would talk about FtF, and from the pure delight w/ which Monsanto & CropLife welcome it. USAID always says how the projects are "country-driven." But if everyone knows full well what kind of project USAID would really like to see, of course they're going to get that kind of proposal. And then, it's not the peasant farmers of Tanzania or Haiti that are writing the proposals, it's govt elites who have much to gain by going corporate. Now, after Davos, well it all seems to becoming just so incredibly blatant and shameless. Apparently there is a Republican plan to try to defund/close down USAID. At this point, that's looking like not a bad plan to get behind.  

[ Parent ]
defund USAID (4.00 / 1)
hiho! In another diary, Jill asked what we could do about GMOs. Defunding USAID could indeed be one answer.

[ Parent ]
Russia wheat deals (4.00 / 2)
Yes, the whole Russia wheat story is astounding - and not the one that most media presented. Here's a very interesting piece by Grain, that was published in the Oct issue of Seedling (at: http://www.grain.org/seedling/...

The narrative for the "2010 food crisis" is already being cast: Russian drought triggers export ban, causing a spike in the price of wheat, leading to global food inflation and, as a result, riots in the streets of Mozambique. This sounds eerily like the shallow story lines of 2008, except this time the distortion is even worse. [1]

The news from Russia is not about a food crisis, it's about agribusiness. There is a link with the protests in Maputo, but it is not explained by drought or Moscow's export ban.

The price of wheat on international markets had already climbed dramatically before the Kremlin imposed a ban on wheat exports on 5 August 2010. Between early June and the end of July it rose by 40 per cent in Chicago and 80 per cent in Paris. But it was in Russia where the price of wheat really went through the roof, surging by 100 per cent as the drought set in, according to one FAO economist.[2]
Much has been said about the role of international speculators in pushing up wheat prices, and this is valid. But Russia's market is not accessible to such speculation. It's another form of speculation that's at work there. Over the past few years, foreign investors and local business magnates have been buying up Russian farmland, mainly for the production of wheat. They've set up huge, vertically integrated "agro-holdings", particularly in the southern grain belt where they now control 40-50 per cent of total grain production.

As the drought took hold, the corporate farmers held back their harvests and demanded higher prices.[3] The Russian government did nothing to intervene, even though it could easily have unloaded some of its massive wheat stockpiles on the market. Moscow has a grain intervention fund of over 9 million tonnes and total stockpiles of over 21 million tonnes, which is well beyond what it needs to ensure ample domestic wheat supplies.

The Kremlin moved only when the profit-taking started to pinch the grain traders who were locked into export contracts they'd signed before the drought began. Glencore, a private Swiss company that is Russia's largest wheat exporter, stood to lose millions.

Some companies have already faced the fact that the contracts for the supply of wheat for July-August were agreed at the price of US$160-170 per tonne, and now the grain cannot be purchased for less than US$220 per tonne, which forces exporters to meet contract agreements with losses, said Nikolai Demyanov, deputy chief executive officer of Glencore's Russian subsidiary, International Grain Co.

According to reports in the Russian and international press, on 3 August Demyanov lobbied the Kremlin for an export ban, which would allow Glencore to cancel its export contracts because of force majeure - circumstances beyond its control.

"The government should set a temporary ban on grain exports immediately; it should set a ban rather than an export duty because a duty doesn't qualify as force majeure for exporters," said Demyanov in an email.[4]

And two days later the Kremlin did exactly what Glencore asked for. Russia's President, Dmitry Medvedev, even made a public statement to ensure that Glencore's clients got the message: "This is a real force majeure, an unforeseeable circumstance."[5]

Russia's corporate farmers, some of whom are also major grain traders, were not altogether thrilled with the decision, but it was better than a large release of stockpiles, since they could still sell at high prices on the local market. Alongside the export ban, the Kremlin pledged US$1 billion in low-interest loans and subsidies for grain producers. Most of this money will go to the corporate farmers who are already talking about taking advantage of the crisis to expand their land holdings.[6] One of the companies buying farmland in Russia is none other than Glencore.[7]

READ MORE by going to the link.


[ Parent ]
force majeure (4.00 / 1)
"The government should set a temporary ban on grain exports immediately; it should set a ban rather than an export duty because a duty doesn't qualify as force majeure for exporters," said Demyanov in an email.

And two days later the Kremlin did exactly what Glencore asked for. Russia's President, Dmitry Medvedev, even made a public statement to ensure that Glencore's clients got the message: "This is a real force majeure, an unforeseeable circumstance."

Damn.

I wonder how much Putin and Medvedev pocketed from that little favor. And I'm suddenly interested in who owns Russian farmland.


[ Parent ]
unforseeable (4.00 / 1)
Let's understand this. Glencore lobbied for the ban. Russia imposed the ban. The ban obviously was not unforseeable in those specific circumstances and the circumstances were publicly reported, but Glencore's customers let the company get away with the scam? Wow.

[ Parent ]
read more (4.00 / 1)
Article:

Seeds

Food crisis or agribusiness as usual?



[ Parent ]
Jordan (4.00 / 1)
From the article,

To cover a contract that it lost for 100,000 tonnes at US$210/tonne, Jordan had to settle for a new contract at US$324/tonne.

That b.s. move cost Jordan USD11.4 million. Doesn't sound like a lot, but in 2010, Jordan's population was estimated at only 6 million, with less than 2 million wage earners. We can only imagine how close to the bone the people at the bottom of the ladder live and what a difference that $11.4 million made.

King Abdullah fired his government Tuesday.

Jordan's King Dismisses Cabinet After Protests

February 1, 2011

AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - Jordan's King Abdullah II, bowing to public pressure, fired his government on Tuesday and tasked a new prime minister with quickly boosting economic opportunities and giving Jordanians a greater say in politics.
...

Rifai, 45, who has been widely blamed for a rise in fuel and food prices and slow-moving political reforms, tendered his resignation early Tuesday to the king, who accepted it immediately, a Royal Palace statement said.



[ Parent ]
a contract (4.00 / 1)
The article actually doesn't say how much the move cost Jordan. It only cites that one contract, and I have no idea what other contracts might have been affected.

[ Parent ]
Stay tuned (4.00 / 1)
Regarding the Senegal meeting, I'll be interested to read anything that is said about speculative control of global commodity (food) markets. It's why members of the U.S. Senate Ag Committee and the U.S. House Ag, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee rake in boatloads of Wall Street money.

speculation (4.00 / 2)
You're absolutely right. I'll keep my eyes open for anything coming out of Senegal on that, and include it in whatever I write. Thx for raising this.

[ Parent ]
I love when they do this... (4.00 / 1)
And by "love", I mean "sickened by." ;)

Claiming that "large-scale private sector partnerships [can] achieve significant impact on global hunger and nutrition," Shah introduced the initiative's 17 agribusiness "champions": Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bunge Limited, Cargill, Coca-Cola, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Metro AG, Monsanto Company, Nestlé, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever, Wal-Mart, and Yara International.

What!?! Are you kidding me? Most of these agribusiness giants could be listed in an edition of Who's Who in Environmental Destruction, Hunger and Human Rights Violations. A few minutes' of investigation on GRAIN, CorpWatch, Food & Water Watch or PAN's chemical cartel page will prove this point.

I can't tell you how many times in my old environmental remediation career I'd come across a situation where a corporation blatantly and outrageously dumps, kills and destroys any given plot of land, covers it up for decades, fights tooth-and-nail against state and federal enforcement actions in court once they're caught for years and years... and then when judgment finally goes against them, they're the first to jump out with (government assisted, more often than not) "green" campaigns, and breathless press releases about how they're "vital partners" in cleaning up the deadly messes that they've made and which wouldn't exist if not for them in the first place.

Hey, well thanks!


sickened by . . . (4.00 / 2)
you're right, all those violations & all those breathless assertions of doing good. "cleaning up" just brings them more business (or in the case of CAFOs, a govt "reward" through EQUIP for small efforts to slightly lessen their own pollution). Well, umm, you're welcome, I guess!

[ Parent ]
Fresh from USAID's webinar on Feed the Future (4.00 / 2)
So a USAID team just had a 2 hr "stakeholder" cum webinar meeting to present the findings of their Gender Team on integrating gender into Feed the Future. It was mostly okay stuff (nothing new or startling). Very good presentations by NGOs: Ritu Sharma at Women Thrive Worldwide and John Coonrod at The Hunger Project.

In the last 5 minutes, the facilitators read my question posted via web:

Can you comment on how USAID's announcement of Feed the Future's partnership with 17 agribusiness champions (listed below*) in Davos last week will impact your ability to achieve the kind of radical social transformation & empowerment of rural women, described as essential by Ritu Sharma & John Coonrod?

Are these corporations likely to be able to radically increase rural women's access & control over resources including land, seeds, germplasm, water & decisionmaking in national policymaking processes?

(*17 agribusiness "champions": Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bunge Limited, Cargill, Coca-Cola, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Metro AG, Monsanto Company, Nestlé, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever, Wal-Mart, and Yara International)

A USAID person (woman) responded:

Sustainability will come from private sector led growth. We need to bring big players to the table while still talking about smallholders. The driver [of change] will be the commercial side, so we've gotta always be thinking about that, and make sure that connections from the smallholders on up will work. We must make sure that benefits translate to women. To the questioner, please take a look at our M&E framework on our website

Well, I didn't really expect USAID to grapple with the question more seriously. At least they read it aloud before a roomful of mostly pretty pro-USAID folks.


more seriously (4.00 / 1)
Marcia, I think that answer was absolutely honest and serious. They're willing to talk about smallholders. Congratulations on asking a question that elicited a frank response.

Regarding the wishful thinking about "making sure the connections from the smallholders on up will work" and "make sure that benefits translate to women" -- have any of those companies ever been involved in an effort that does that? Do any of them know how to do that? I don't think so. The corporate model is dedicated to exactly the opposite.

If I'm wrong, I surely would like to know more about the track record.

Ick.


[ Parent ]
Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 1 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox