The power of one

FIVE MILLION Brazilian Farmers have sued biotech giant Monsanto

Subodh Varma, TNN | Jun 12, 2012, 04.14PM IST

NEW DELHI: Five million Brazilian farmers have taken on US based biotech company Monsanto  through a lawsuit demanding return of about 6.2 billion euros taken as royalties from them. The farmers are claiming that the powerful company has unfairly extracted these royalties from poor farmers because they were using seeds produced from crops grown from Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds, reports Merco Press.

In April this year, a judge in the southern Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul, ruled in favor of the farmers and ordered Monsanto to return royalties paid since 2004 or a minimum of $2 billion. The ruling said that the business practices of seed multinational Monsanto violate the rules of the Brazilian Cultivars Act (No. 9.456/97). Monsanto has appealed against the order and a federal court ruling on the case is now expected by 2014.
 

Read more here.

______________________________________________

So ... the judge tells Monsanto, "You violated the rules.  You have to pay."

Monsanto immediately protests.

"We'd like to appeal," they say.

Which gives the judge the opportunity to re-think the original judgment and possibly change his or her mind, right?.

This constitutes, in effect, a postponement for defendant Monsanto, whereby it's determined that:

 "a ruling on the case is expected by 2014."  

_____________________________________________

They don't say when in 2014.

(Why does it take at the minimum  a year and a half to rule on an appeal?  That judge must have some busy schedule!)

Meanwhile, as one commenter wryly notes, this lengthy postponement provides more than enough "time for Monsanto to bribe some of the persons involved in the ruling and get off scot-free."  Wouldn't be the first time an entity escaped accountability for gross misconduct.

The numbers are interesting, though.

Five million farmers.

One corporation.

One judge.

Except the power hierarchy is wrong here.  Let's reshuffle that a bit to reflect reality:

Odds are, if prevailing opinion is any measure [Monsanto is considered by more than a few to be the "most evil corporation on the planet"], it'd come out:

1 + 1

 - 5,000,000

 = 1

where the final winner is one of the 1's":
                                       (you guessed it:)      Monsanto.

The power of one.

The powerlessness of millions

Mind-boggling.

Then there's this:

"In what has been called the single largest wave of recorded suicides in human history, Indian farmers are now killing themselves in record numbers. It has been extensively reported, even in mainstream news, but nothing has been done about the issue. The cause? Monsanto’s cost-inflated and ineffective seeds have been driving farmers to suicide, and is considered to be one of the largest — if not the largest — cause of the quarter of a million farmer suicides over the past 16 years.

"According to the most recent (provided by the New York University School of Law), 17,638 Indian farmers committed suicide in 2009 — about one death every 30 minutes. In 2008, the Daily Mail labeled the continual and disturbing suicide spree as ‘The GM (genetically modified) Genocide’. Due to failing harvests and inflated prices that bankrupt the poor farmers, struggling Indian farmers began to kill themselves. Oftentimes, they would commit the act by drinking the very same insecticide that Monsanto supplied them with — a gruesome testament to the extent in which Monsanto has wrecked the lives of independent and traditional farmers.

"To further add backing to the tragedy, the rate of Indian farmer suicides massively increased since the introduction of Monsanto’s Bt cotton in 2002."   [Source]

___________

Five million angry farmers in Brazil, millions of farmers in India suiciding themselves on account of Monsanto - that's a lot of farmers. 

Whatever side of the fence you're on regarding GMOs, doesn't it seem a tad unbalanced --  that one corporation should have this much power to ruin so many farmers' lives and livelihoods?

The year 2014 is a long way away.  A lot could happen between now and then.

Meanwhile, Monsanto is off the hook, so to speak, for having to cough up at least $2 billion to pay those farmers, as ordered by the judge.  What a cut into this year's profit that would entail.  Meanwhile there are other farmers, other countries, to market those GMO seeds to.  Life goes on.  (For some.)

Farmers suiciding themselves.  Reminded me of those monks in Tibet.  People with hope for the future don't suicide themselves. 

Inform yourself.

Don't have time to watch the video?

Read Wikipedia's entry on the history, practices, complaints and concerns about Monsanto,
and judge for yourself.

(Just for the heck of it, google the words "evil" and "Monsanto" and see what comes up.)

        

(Jeffrey Hollender, a  leading authority on corporate responsibility, sustainability and social equity, curious about the application of the word "evil", by so many people, to this single corporation,  decided to investigate.  While he hesitated to join the others in calling Monsanto "evil", he did conclude that in his opinion, Monsanto certainly qualified as a candidate for his list of the World's 10 Worst Companies.) [1]

You mean for activities such as this?:

"Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay"

"As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the 'seed police' and use words such as 'Gestapo' and 'Mafia' to describe their tactics" Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear.

Whatever its reputation and practices, I'm more interested here in Monsanto as an example of greed gone global, whose octopus-like spread covers the globe, and whose products, supposed to "help" farmers, often in fact does quite the opposite.  How did that one company get to be so dominant?

For one, they spend a lot on lobbying; plus it helps to have friends in high places.  (Monsanto spent $8,831,120 million in 2008 lobbying the federal government; a whopping $2 million in the 3rd quarter of 2011 alone) pleading for less regulations and more fast-tracking of approval for its GMO products. It is perhaps fortunate that Monsanto has friends in  strategic positions, e.g., Clarence Thomas (current U.S. Supreme Court Justice), Michael F. Taylor (senior advisor to the FDA on food safety); Dr. Michael A. Friedman (former Deputy Commissioner of the FDA); Linda J. Fisher (Deputy Administrator of the EPA); and Donald Rumsfeld (former Secretary of Defense), all have or had work connections with Monsanto.) [2], [3], [4]. 

And these:

This is  not just about desperate farmers, unhappy consumers, corporate lobbying or government corruption.  It's about a lack of  choice.  It's about an attempt to monopolize the  world's food supply.  It's about Control ... of the very many, by a select few.  

Awhile back the media was all over the Occupy Wall Street movement, whereby representatives of "the 99 percent" attempted to confront the 1 percent with the unfairness of the equation.  They were promptly ridiculed, arrested and/or marginalized.   So much for the Power of the People, to effect lasting change.

Change takes time.  The above equation could change. Perhaps sooner rather than later.  Five million rising up to demand accountability today, an entire country tomorrow.  All it takes is to keep saying No.  No to the bullying.
      No to the monopoly.
             No to the control. 

~ ~ UPDATE ~ ~

June 21, 2012

 

Biotech giants Monsanto were awarded a victory by lawmakers in Washington this week after a congressional panel voted to let farmers plant genetically modified crops made by the agriculture company despite pending legal proceedings.

Although the USDA has previously authorized Monsanto-created biocrops to be planted, an array of legal appeals have left the major agriculture company combating with opponents as of late. Questions over the safety of the lab-made crops on human health and the environment, as well as opposition from small time farmers constantly being fought by Monsanto, has slowed the federal agency from fully approving some crops. Now after the latest vote, Monsanto and its competitors will be able to offer seeds even as the Justice Department determines the legitimacy of the appeals.

Monsanto has garnered their fair share of opponents as of late, a result that many will argue comes from the company’s heated stance against small-time farmers. The corporation has threatened lesser farms with hundreds of lawsuits for using genetically modified crops patented by Monsanto that have been carried onto their farms by wind and other elements of nature. Recently, the corporation threatened to sue the entire state of Vermont because lawmakers there were considering a bill that would force manufacturers to label products that are created either partially or in full from a GMO.

 http://rt.com/usa/news/monsanto-crops-biotech-genetically-325/

'Bolded' segment #1 =  and the winner is:  MONSANTO!!!

'Bolded' segment #2 =   how is this not "bullying"?    (as in "Don't you DARE legislate on this!").

The power of one.

I rest my case.

This blog is a Free Speech Zone.

Re-making the pig

Pigs eat feed containing phosphorous, which they can't digest. This phosphorus passes right through them and comes out in their poop. IF pig manure runs off and gets into rivers and waterways, it could cause algae growth.  Excessive Algae sucks oxygen from the water, which can destroy the habitat for fish.  So, to avoid having waterways polluted with pig-poop-runoff from hog farms or pig-manure-fertilized soil, you could:

-- contain the manure to keep it from getting into the waterways
-- reduce phosphorus output up to 50% by adding common supplements to the pig's diet

OR--
you could invest $1.4 million to create an "Enviropig" by inserting mouse DNA and ecoli bacterium into it to make its poop less phosphorusy. That way hog farmers wouldn't have to spend money on feed supplements AND corporations could patent and commercialize this new experimental pig for profit, not to mention the ultimate goal--getting this pig's products eventually into the supermarket and onto your dinner plate. (Ka-ching! Ka-ching!)

I say 'experimental pig' because no one knows if its products are really safe to eat or not. According to this video, since 1999, there have been nine generations of genetically modified pigs specifically produced to generate manure that will contain less phosperous. Rather than feed the pig nutritional supplements or do something to contain phosphorus-laden pig manure so it doesn't enter rivers and streams, the solution du jour to controlling the environmental footprint of pig farming is--to redesign the pig's digestive system.

They claim it's for the benefit of the environment. Hence the name "Enviropig."  That's the short-term goal--  to make its waste product less toxic to waterways. The long-term goal is to "produce a pig which can be consumed by humans and enter the food chain."

But pig reconfiguring takes time. Being able to eat this animal's bacon and pork chops is not going to happen right away. It'll take "another few years of regulatory assessment and possible approval" before that happens, they say. ("Possible" approval? Do I detect a wee sense of doubt here? that this new experimental Enviropig may not actually be approved for human consumption? Apparently back in 2007, application was made to the FDA to let GMO pigs enter the food chain. It hasn't happened "yet", the spokesman proclaims, ever the optimist.)

So far these pigs are simply being tasked with making a different kind of manure.  And, as they are experimental (requiring you to pass through high security to even get to see them) I was wondering what they do with the carcasses once the pigs die.  Please tell me they're not ground up, like downer cows, and reprocessed into pet food. Mutating the animal's genes, wouldn't the pig's carcass be considered biological laboratory waste?  They wouldn't recycle that into other animals' food chain--would they?  Wait, let me see if that ever happened.  [Pause while googling...]  Hmm, well what do you know.  Seems in fact that they did!  "Animal feed has been contaminated by Enviropig. In 2002, eleven piglets were sent to a rendering plant and became part of 675 tons of poultry feed, which ended up being fed to egg-laying chickens, turkeys, and broiler chickens. According to The Globe and Mail, the UofG's Vice President of Research effectively said, "Oops!"[1]
 
Oops indeed.  They take extraordinary measures to ensure humans don't infect the lab animals, but apparently don't mind if experimental lab animal remains get recycled into pet food.  Meanwhile, back in the non-biotech lab world, a growing number of people (including most of the European Union) don't want to grow GMO crops; people are kind of nervous about eating food that's been "modified" with genes from other organisms. The majority of North Americans, in contrast, don't seem particularly bothered by this.  Seems it's only those organic-oriented food purists, vegetarians, vegans and other assorted "health-food nuts" preventing universal acceptance of this profitable new technology.  What to do about those reluctant Europeans, though.

U.S. chief trade representative Miriam Sapiro went to Europe last week promising to "bang down the door of the European Commission to break Europe's longstanding impasse blocking the march of genetically-modified foods."  (The U.S. wants to "bang down" Europe's door.) "We have very strict safety standards," Ms. Sapiro said.  " ... that alone is good reason to make sure that our products are able to be sold in Europe."  (Monitoring and enforcing those standards, however, is another matter, not to mention some regulation allowed to be voluntary rather than obligatory. But that's another topic.)  "It's important," Sapiro insisted,  "to press the commission to go the right way."[2]   (The "right" way.  I wonder if it's ever occurred to this representative that GMO proliferation might not be, in half the world's opinion, what they consider to be the "right" way.) 

There are so many different ways to persuade someone to agree with you. Logic, reason, common sense, shared concerns. Maybe it's the tone people use, the attitude that refusal is not an option, that when persuasion and pressure fail, one can consider bullying, bribery, or blackmail--tactics common to power holders exercising their Power.  I'm not saying that's the case here.  It was just those words, "bang down the door" (not "dialogue to see if we can come to an agreement", but bang down the door, barge in, and pressure them to go "the right" (meaning your) way.  And if they're don't?  What next?  Draw up another retaliation list?

Actually, I think the panic in pushing Europe for more GMO crop exports might have more to do with the ballooning U.S. trade deficit--$40.6 billion as of the end of last year. So it seems to me a choice has to be made here--you either export goods countries are willing to buy, or if they're not--here's a thought--you might think about offering a product they will buy.  They would buy grain exports if they were GMO-free, but you're not willing to provide that option. Certain agro industries and biotech corporations would never agree to it. So your only option is to somehow make them accept what you're selling.  Your trade deficit problem now becomes their problem.  You are hoping they will solve it, by agreeing to buy what they don't really want.  Is this what they mean these days by "free trade"?  (Words, again.  They mean what you want them to mean.)

"The huge controversy over the introduction of genetically modified crops is well documented, but this (Enviropig) seems to take that debate a step further, and into even more troubled waters,"  says Andrew K. Kimbell at the Center for Food Safety. He believes it's hog farming that has to change, not the pig. "This is a completely novel cell invasion technology, which crosses the boundary of nature as no other generation has before." [source: video above; more on the Environpig, here and here].

There have been nine generations already of pigs engineered with mouse DNA and ecoli bacterium. You need to change your clothing and take a shower before they even let you enter the pig experimentation area. This is presumably so you won't infect the pig (or the pig infect you?).

Environmental footprints and global food shortage are things we need to be concerned about. Biotech offers genetically engineered crops and animals as a way to address this need. When nature won't cooperate (by producing faster, more multi-purpose crops and animals), nature must be 'harnessed' and changed. Let's put fish genes into tomatoes because fish can survive in freezing waters and we want tomatoes to be resistant to frost. Salmon take too long to mature? Let's cut that time in half, nature is far too slow on this. Pigs passing too much undigested phosperous in their poop? Let's make a new pig that will crap how we want it to crap. We can't say for sure yet but we assume it'll taste like any "normal" pig.  (Verifying that this is an "abnormal" pig.)

What strikes me is the unquestioning acceptance of bioengineering projects that experiment with our food as the (one and only) answer to the growing food crisis.  Monsanto sells seeds that are purposely created to suicide themselves.  That's so farmers who traditionally save seeds will have to return to Monsanto for more seeds every planting season, ensuring repeat business for Monsanto. Feeding starving nations, it seems to me, is secondary here to corporate profit.

Biotech wants to make your life easier--that's the selling point.   Hate being vaccinated by injection with a needle? (so painful). What if you can get your vaccine just by eating a banana or a potato?  Voila! Painless vaccinations!  You won't even know you're getting vaccinated.  A scientific team at Arizona State University has designed an edible vaccine by inserting the hepatitis B virus into a potato. However, "for the hepatitis B vaccine to work, it must survive digestion before acting on the immune system. But raw potatoes do not make an appetizing dish and they contain relatively inconsistent vaccine doses." So they're going to focus instead "on making genetically modified tomatoes and converting them into pills." Tomato pills, with vaccines in them.
 

Don't like those unsightly brown spots on your apples?  Food should be attractive, stay blemish-free.  They can fix that, too.[3]   Well, there have been some setbacks. Like the time they tried putting fish genes in tomatoes so tomatoes could tolerate frost. That didn't quite work out as they had hoped. They chucked the project, deciding not to patent or commercialize their new, improved, frost-resistant tomato.  It was tested but they're not telling you the results. ("Not available.")

Vaccines inserted into vegetables and fruit--would eliminate the need for refrigeration or needle injections.  Great idea, but where would you go to buy these new medical foods?   At a medical supermarket?  Or if at your local supermarket, would they be put in a section that said, "Vaccination Fruits"?  What if they somehow got mixed in with conventional produce and were eaten by people not needing to be vaccinated?  The results could be unpredictable.[4]

And what about adverse reactions, to the engineered animal or the consumer ingesting its products?   Side effects from the new, faster-growing GM fish include changes in swimming and feeding behavior, altered muscle structures, and decreased lifespan.  Some engineered fish are born with changes in their head or body shape.  ("But they taste the same as "regular" fish!")

Four years ago Monsanto fed genetically modified potatoes to sick medical patients in an experiment. The trials were too short, with too few people to show meaningful results.  Rats that ingested the same potatoes for six months had adverse effects, but they were said to be within 'permissible limits.' A spokesman for Monsanto concluded that genetically modified potatoes were as safe as conventional or organic ones, proclaiming that they had been consumed in North America "for years."[5] No independent studies have ever been done, however, on the long-term effect--only short, restricted studies by the industry producing the product.  In other words, they're saying, Get over it. GM food is here to stay.

That may be, but it is increasingly evident that decisions are continuing to be made by a select, powerful few for all of the rest of us.  Corporate lobbyists and the bio- and mega-farm industry relentlessly pressure government officials and the result of their influence is that they are the ones who are dictating what we'll be eating.

Choice is limited or nonexistent because GM products are not being labeled. Nor are they likely to be, because it's bad for business.  Somehow the practice of mutating and re-designing food in ways that nature never intended has gotten a bad reputation. They don't even like you labeling something "GMO free" because, again, it suggests there's something not entirely healthy about things containing GMOs. Now why would people think that, do you suppose?  But just so you don't--think that--they've systematically taken away your choice to know what is or is not in the food you buy to eat. You're free to not eat GMO products, they just won't tell you which they are.

Genetically modified crops are so pervasive now, it's virtually impossible to avoid them.  True, they've been around for a long time.  You eat these foods every day.  You're still alive.  So we should all just stop talking about it and get over it. Right?

No.

Monsanto and Dow launch revolutionary new GMO product

Hey, have you heard? It's going to be possibly "the largest introduction of a corn biotech seed product in the history of agriculture."[1]

Wow. Roll out the red carpet.

While you were sleeping--not one, not two, not even three or four but EIGHT, yes I said EIGHT genetically engineered traits are all being stacked together in a new corn destined for 3 or 4 million acres of our food supply. Oh don't worry, it's been approved--well, at least each trait has been approved individually. Nobody's sure yet what's going to happen though when you clump them all together.

They kind of rushed it through--quietly, of course--and without taking into account any environmental risks, but look, it's EIGHT times more fortified. More is always better, right?

Okay, let me just run this by us again:

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has quietly approved a new genetically engineered corn with eight different insect- and weed-fighting traits, but farmer and environmental groups in Canada say the approval was rushed and environmental risks ignored.

Developed through a research agreement between Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, SmartStax corn is unique in that it "stacks" eight different genetically engineered traits that will allow corn to tolerate certain weed- and insect-killing products made by the two companies.

Each of the eight traits has been individually approved by the CFIA, but opponents are concerned there might be unintended consequences when the traits are combined. [2]

Where can I find out which farmers are going to be planting this corn and to which markets they will be distributing them--so that I can avoid buying from them?

Sigh. One more concerned consumer, alarmed at the blatant fast-tracking and sheer proliferation of these genetically manipulated organisms. I wish our local grocers would start providing more organic produce or at least begin labeling which products contain GMOs.

Ho hum. The world shrugs and keeps on planting and eating GMO food. Big deal. The economy's going to hell in a handbasket and you're worried about eating GMOs.

Feel like a pebble in a sea of crushing boulders, unable to make the slightest difference whatsoever. A tiny squeak amidst the roar of corporate profit parading as "Progress." (Is it progress that farmers who for centuries have traditionally saved seeds are being pressured to buy terminator seeds (seeds that "suicide" themselves so they can't be re-used), guaranteeing repeat business for the commercial seed producers but increased expense for the farmer? Is it progress that organic farms are being contaminated by cross pollination from nearby GMO fields, for which the organic farmer can then be sued, like what happened to Percy Schmeiser in Saskatchewan?)

Okay so maybe this is just a futile little squeak, but some industry and government food inspection agency decisions need to be noted--and discussed. And our governments need to make the reports of their analyses public. This is not proprietary information and it will affect all of us. The public needs to be given ample time to make their concerns known and know that they will be listened to. Alas, most people have no clue about what they eat and the majority simply don't care. And as for legislation in these matters, government appears to listen to those who speak the loudest, are the most persistent, and/or exert the most pressure. (Monsanto's former vice president for public policy and chief lobbyist has recently been hired to advise the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on food safety. How convenient for Monsanto.) [3]

So, in case you missed seeing this in the news lately--that's EIGHT genetically engineered traits now being added together into corn and rushed through to the food supply without assessing the possible consequences to human health or the environment.

I don't know about anybody else, but I for one am not gonna touch this new corn. And if corn here is not labeled as to origin and GMO content--especially those produced as "SmartStax"--I'm not buying corn anymore. Period.

Not that that will bother Dowsanto. What's one pipsqueak consumer out of a possible kazillion.

One day we may have no choice to not eat GMOs. They will have spread EVERYWHERE and it will be out of our control. Not labeling GMO products helps further this end.

The world yawns.

Oh well.

_____________

To view the statistics on the Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States from 2000 to 2009, click here.

To see the novel foods Canada has approved from May 1994 through May 2009, click here.

"Novel Foods" are:

* Foods resulting from a process not previously used for food.
* Products that do not have a history of safe use as a food.
* Foods that have been modified by genetic manipulation or GMO foods, or biotechnology-derived foods.