Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Why Going To Sacramento Isn't An Efficient Use Of Your Time
Many people are set to converge on Sacramento from June 20-25, but it's possible their time would be better spent elsewhere.
Lately there's been a tremendous amount of time and energy spent on organization and planning for a series of protests in Sacramento. Ostensibly, the issue at hand is the World Trade Organization, a consensus-based body which regulates free trade among its member states. For anarchists and activists, the WTO has essentially become a symbol of capitalism to protest at all costs.
Is the WTO an appropriate symbol of capitalism?
While it is convenient to use a single organization as the symbol of capitalism, the WTO is a poor choice. It is complicated, difficult to understand, and outside the scope of most people's concern. What's more, although the WTO facilitates free trade for big business, its existence is a manifestation of capitalism - not the root of it. If the WTO were to disappear tomorrow, the world would not be a better place. On the contrary, the disappearance of the WTO would allow the United States to even more overtly assert its world economic hegemony.
The WTO isn't responsible for forcing genetically modified crops on the rest of the world, the domination of big agriculture, the existence of sweatshops, or the destruction of the environment. In the absence of the WTO, these conditions would be further exacerbated by genetic engeering firms, big agriculture firms, and trans-national industry.
A central issue for anti-WTO protesters is the question of genetically modified crops. Although article 20 of the General Agreement On Tarrifs And Trade allows for health, environmental, or safety exceptions to rules regarding non-tarrif import restrictions, the WTO dispute settlement panel has decided that there is not enough scientific evidence for GMOs to qualify. It has been said that the WTO doesn't allow for the “precautionary principle,” and so it is forcing smaller countries to accept dangerous US imports.
Let's look at an example. In 1997, Japan became worried that imports of US apples might introduce “fire blight” into their own apple orchards, which have never been exposed to the bacteria. From 1998 to 2002, they commissioned a joint U.S.-Japan study which concluded that there is no danger of introducing fire blight into Japanese orchards. Japan still wished to error on the side of caution, and maintained import restrictions on U.S. apples. The United States claimed that this was an unfair import restriction and took the issue to the WTO. The WTO ruled that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support Japan's claim for an Article 20 exemption. In anti-WTO circles, this was widely recognized as the WTO's continued facilitation of US world hegemony.
But what does the WTO ruling mean? There's no WTO army to enforce WTO decisions, so all this means is that the United States can legally levy counter-tarrifs in response to Japan's own import restrictions. Obviously, though, this is what the United States would have immediately done had the WTO not existed in the first place. The United States would not have waited five years for a scientific study to be completed, nor would Japan have even had a chance to make its case.
Fundamentally, states can't afford to place import restrictions on GMOs because it would mean economic death in the face of U.S. counter-tarrifs. This is the case whether the WTO exists or not. The problem is not the WTO. The problem is the GE firms which create GMOs and the BigAg firms which push them on the rest of the world, not to mention powerful U.S. subsidies and other strong-arm tactics. If you stop the WTO, that won't change. In fact, it might get worse.
Is protesting the WTO an efficient use of your time?
Right now, there are already Bay Area residents in Mexico City and Cancun preparing for WTO protests in September. Meanwhile, San Francisco Food Not Bombs is struggling to find enough volunteers. So many people have left Santa Cruz for protests in Sacramento that there will be no anarchist cafe in July or August. People who would be setting up camps at the Rainbow Gathering will instead be carrying signs in Sacramento. Portland activists have been working on this for three months. Many people who have never made a significant effort to create community or build parallel institutions will once again take time off from work to go join the protest circuit in Sacramento.
To me, the “protest culture” of anarchists and activists today is an inefficient use of our time. The only positive outcome I've seen from events like the WTO protests in Seattle were the incidental connections that activists made with each other. This, however, was the secondary result of a nationally coordinated effort. Imagine the connections that people would make if it were the primary focus.
Protesting can't be enough. Imagine what could happen if all of the Sacramento activists spent their hours building something positive instead of shouting out against something negative. Think of the alternatives.
Is the WTO an appropriate symbol of capitalism?
While it is convenient to use a single organization as the symbol of capitalism, the WTO is a poor choice. It is complicated, difficult to understand, and outside the scope of most people's concern. What's more, although the WTO facilitates free trade for big business, its existence is a manifestation of capitalism - not the root of it. If the WTO were to disappear tomorrow, the world would not be a better place. On the contrary, the disappearance of the WTO would allow the United States to even more overtly assert its world economic hegemony.
The WTO isn't responsible for forcing genetically modified crops on the rest of the world, the domination of big agriculture, the existence of sweatshops, or the destruction of the environment. In the absence of the WTO, these conditions would be further exacerbated by genetic engeering firms, big agriculture firms, and trans-national industry.
A central issue for anti-WTO protesters is the question of genetically modified crops. Although article 20 of the General Agreement On Tarrifs And Trade allows for health, environmental, or safety exceptions to rules regarding non-tarrif import restrictions, the WTO dispute settlement panel has decided that there is not enough scientific evidence for GMOs to qualify. It has been said that the WTO doesn't allow for the “precautionary principle,” and so it is forcing smaller countries to accept dangerous US imports.
Let's look at an example. In 1997, Japan became worried that imports of US apples might introduce “fire blight” into their own apple orchards, which have never been exposed to the bacteria. From 1998 to 2002, they commissioned a joint U.S.-Japan study which concluded that there is no danger of introducing fire blight into Japanese orchards. Japan still wished to error on the side of caution, and maintained import restrictions on U.S. apples. The United States claimed that this was an unfair import restriction and took the issue to the WTO. The WTO ruled that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support Japan's claim for an Article 20 exemption. In anti-WTO circles, this was widely recognized as the WTO's continued facilitation of US world hegemony.
But what does the WTO ruling mean? There's no WTO army to enforce WTO decisions, so all this means is that the United States can legally levy counter-tarrifs in response to Japan's own import restrictions. Obviously, though, this is what the United States would have immediately done had the WTO not existed in the first place. The United States would not have waited five years for a scientific study to be completed, nor would Japan have even had a chance to make its case.
Fundamentally, states can't afford to place import restrictions on GMOs because it would mean economic death in the face of U.S. counter-tarrifs. This is the case whether the WTO exists or not. The problem is not the WTO. The problem is the GE firms which create GMOs and the BigAg firms which push them on the rest of the world, not to mention powerful U.S. subsidies and other strong-arm tactics. If you stop the WTO, that won't change. In fact, it might get worse.
Is protesting the WTO an efficient use of your time?
Right now, there are already Bay Area residents in Mexico City and Cancun preparing for WTO protests in September. Meanwhile, San Francisco Food Not Bombs is struggling to find enough volunteers. So many people have left Santa Cruz for protests in Sacramento that there will be no anarchist cafe in July or August. People who would be setting up camps at the Rainbow Gathering will instead be carrying signs in Sacramento. Portland activists have been working on this for three months. Many people who have never made a significant effort to create community or build parallel institutions will once again take time off from work to go join the protest circuit in Sacramento.
To me, the “protest culture” of anarchists and activists today is an inefficient use of our time. The only positive outcome I've seen from events like the WTO protests in Seattle were the incidental connections that activists made with each other. This, however, was the secondary result of a nationally coordinated effort. Imagine the connections that people would make if it were the primary focus.
Protesting can't be enough. Imagine what could happen if all of the Sacramento activists spent their hours building something positive instead of shouting out against something negative. Think of the alternatives.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This is a protest about agriculture and potential WTO rullings that could prevent labelling of genetically modified food. Cancun is more about the WTO in general but if someone is active on agricultural issues Sacramento is the place to protest
"I agree. The only thing we gain from protesting is a chance to network. We sure as hell don’t influence policy."
A vague protest is mainly a networking opportunity but a large protest on as specific an issue as genetically modified foods can have a direct effect. Just getting a issue to the US public through even minimal press coverage can cause a small swell in a movement (outside of those who attend) and when an issue is very specific, even a small swell in a movement can make a big difference. Public sentiment is string enough against Genetically Modified food in Europe than the WTO could seriously jepordize its power by oushing this issues as thing stands. Making it more of an issue in the US would probably force the WTO to back down (both through domestic pressure in the US and the effect US protests would have on European public opinion).
Building a movement outside of protests can often be even more of a "preaching to the converted" exercise than protests due to the lack of mainstream coverage. How effective is group building? Over the past year the Bay Area has seen many groups come and go and turnover seems fast enough that just building more organizations/groups can be pointless when there is little action. Building a movement requires more than organizing among activists it requires getting messages out to the general public. The WTO protests in Seattle inspired a new wave of activists by creating the idea of a movement even in areas where no access to existing activists existed.
There is a real need for organization and the building of longer term instituions but if one looks at the Iraq war one can see what was and what was not effective. Affinity groups may have resulted from some anarchist movement building over the past decade but the bulk of blackblock activities were from inspired youth not organized groups. Among the more effective organizations NION may have come out of the RCP but it is also very new and not a result of much long term organization. DASW is even newer and as with most coalitions it was in some ways temporary (with people breaking away from the left and right in recent months) probably indicating that a similar but new organization will take its place during future large direct actions. The only long term organization that had a huge effect at protests was the IAC and (ANSWER being new but much closer in spirit to the IAC than NION is to the RCP). The IAC has huge call lists and knows the logistics of a large protests more than most groups. But the IAC is at its core small and while its was useful in getting crowds to the streets success at protests is in many was its method of organization building.
Organization/movement building is needed and there are problems with protest jumping becoming similar to groupies following a rock concert. But, movement building is most effective when it can ceate new cultural trends the the cooption of the corporate media. The pre 9/11 globalization protests created the feeling of a movement in the mainstream media that in many ways helped create a mmovement. Small alternative insititution are not bad but have had little effect; just look at all the small alternative (and even anarchist ) institutions in SF and the East Bay. While a huge number of such institutions were created in the 60s and 70s, Bay Area politics and movements have not benefitted much; in the worst cases such institutions set up in poorer neighborhoods drew in the middle class and served gentrification more than anything positive.
A vague protest is mainly a networking opportunity but a large protest on as specific an issue as genetically modified foods can have a direct effect. Just getting a issue to the US public through even minimal press coverage can cause a small swell in a movement (outside of those who attend) and when an issue is very specific, even a small swell in a movement can make a big difference. Public sentiment is string enough against Genetically Modified food in Europe than the WTO could seriously jepordize its power by oushing this issues as thing stands. Making it more of an issue in the US would probably force the WTO to back down (both through domestic pressure in the US and the effect US protests would have on European public opinion).
Building a movement outside of protests can often be even more of a "preaching to the converted" exercise than protests due to the lack of mainstream coverage. How effective is group building? Over the past year the Bay Area has seen many groups come and go and turnover seems fast enough that just building more organizations/groups can be pointless when there is little action. Building a movement requires more than organizing among activists it requires getting messages out to the general public. The WTO protests in Seattle inspired a new wave of activists by creating the idea of a movement even in areas where no access to existing activists existed.
There is a real need for organization and the building of longer term instituions but if one looks at the Iraq war one can see what was and what was not effective. Affinity groups may have resulted from some anarchist movement building over the past decade but the bulk of blackblock activities were from inspired youth not organized groups. Among the more effective organizations NION may have come out of the RCP but it is also very new and not a result of much long term organization. DASW is even newer and as with most coalitions it was in some ways temporary (with people breaking away from the left and right in recent months) probably indicating that a similar but new organization will take its place during future large direct actions. The only long term organization that had a huge effect at protests was the IAC and (ANSWER being new but much closer in spirit to the IAC than NION is to the RCP). The IAC has huge call lists and knows the logistics of a large protests more than most groups. But the IAC is at its core small and while its was useful in getting crowds to the streets success at protests is in many was its method of organization building.
Organization/movement building is needed and there are problems with protest jumping becoming similar to groupies following a rock concert. But, movement building is most effective when it can ceate new cultural trends the the cooption of the corporate media. The pre 9/11 globalization protests created the feeling of a movement in the mainstream media that in many ways helped create a mmovement. Small alternative insititution are not bad but have had little effect; just look at all the small alternative (and even anarchist ) institutions in SF and the East Bay. While a huge number of such institutions were created in the 60s and 70s, Bay Area politics and movements have not benefitted much; in the worst cases such institutions set up in poorer neighborhoods drew in the middle class and served gentrification more than anything positive.
The act of public protest is a necessary function in preserving what democracy (how little or how much, depending on your political leaning) we now have. The act of public outrage against the institutions that control our lives is the lifesblood of liberty.
While it's true that protest alone doesn't create social change, to discount it entirely (as the author does) as ineffectual or at best a system of networking for marginalized causes is a failure on his/her part to appreciate the force public protest has in shaping reality.
What good does it do to protest in totalitarian societies like Iran and China? The people in power will still be there tomorrow. Or they'll just throw you in jail. But does anyone here really believe that the Tiannamen Square protests did absolutely no good for the people of China? If not the world?
Or in the case of the invasion of Iraq, is this author really saying the protest rallies of millions of people around the world did not affect Bush's going to war whatsoever? In fact, from what we've seen is that the rallies did slow down the invasion, discredited the war in the eyes of most of the world, and is now responsible for possible regime change in Britain. If the American people had better media, perhaps there would be more outrage here against Bush's lying about WMD. The peace/anti-war movement has had many successes (most I foresee as long lasting) due to their ability to mobilize people to come out and protest the last two invasions. But beyond win/lose scenarios, the act of public protest has value purely in and of itself.
The act of the public "statement" of refusal and resistance to the status quo or to oppressive institutions must be exercised or we lose it. It doesn't replace the real hard work of social change (and to believe so retards change), but I would argue social change doesn't occur without it, even if the results take a while to become evident.
Protesting against the WTO and GM foods in Sacramento is your right and you must act on it while you have the opportunity. Good luck.
While it's true that protest alone doesn't create social change, to discount it entirely (as the author does) as ineffectual or at best a system of networking for marginalized causes is a failure on his/her part to appreciate the force public protest has in shaping reality.
What good does it do to protest in totalitarian societies like Iran and China? The people in power will still be there tomorrow. Or they'll just throw you in jail. But does anyone here really believe that the Tiannamen Square protests did absolutely no good for the people of China? If not the world?
Or in the case of the invasion of Iraq, is this author really saying the protest rallies of millions of people around the world did not affect Bush's going to war whatsoever? In fact, from what we've seen is that the rallies did slow down the invasion, discredited the war in the eyes of most of the world, and is now responsible for possible regime change in Britain. If the American people had better media, perhaps there would be more outrage here against Bush's lying about WMD. The peace/anti-war movement has had many successes (most I foresee as long lasting) due to their ability to mobilize people to come out and protest the last two invasions. But beyond win/lose scenarios, the act of public protest has value purely in and of itself.
The act of the public "statement" of refusal and resistance to the status quo or to oppressive institutions must be exercised or we lose it. It doesn't replace the real hard work of social change (and to believe so retards change), but I would argue social change doesn't occur without it, even if the results take a while to become evident.
Protesting against the WTO and GM foods in Sacramento is your right and you must act on it while you have the opportunity. Good luck.
I've been preparing for the Sacramento mobilization for weeks. I've been learning the issues, making art, meeting with others that share the same concerns, and reaching out to other people who are less aware but nonetheless concerned. That's all good in my book.
The original post fails to note that promotion of alternatives to industrial agriculture, biotech and the WTO will be a centerpiece of these actions. Yes, there will be protests criticizing corporate interests and government actions. But there are also many affirmative and transformative actions planned.
Come to Sacramento and plug in, if you care to.
The original post fails to note that promotion of alternatives to industrial agriculture, biotech and the WTO will be a centerpiece of these actions. Yes, there will be protests criticizing corporate interests and government actions. But there are also many affirmative and transformative actions planned.
Come to Sacramento and plug in, if you care to.
"People who would be setting up camps at the Rainbow Gathering will instead be carrying signs in Sacramento."
uh, and this is a bad thing?
(sorry, i couldn't resist.)
no no, i know, the rainbow gathering is an important free space... love and light and hippies and all that, i guess ...
and are these protests "effective?" i think they're important, because i think it's important to show visible opposition, and make having these meetings more difficult for the "powers-that-be", though i am very doubtful that they affect official policy much if at all.
The revolution needs protest. Without protest (non-violent appeal to reason), the "revolution" will carry with it the seeds of it's own demise.
I think they're called Terminator seeds? In fact, we're in the midst of our own revolution's termination here in the US. I think that is the point of going up to Sacramento this weekend. Resisting ever increasing control of our bodies and minds and letting those who try to do so know that we won't sit passive while they conspire.
Of course it's not as romantic as getting slaughtered in your own bedroom because you've instigated a bloody insurrection that isn't popularly supported, but I think most of us would rather be "militantly liberal" and live long enough to witness some of our goals.
You've been afforded that luxery, why change your tune now? Just another case of the old encouraging the young to die?
I think they're called Terminator seeds? In fact, we're in the midst of our own revolution's termination here in the US. I think that is the point of going up to Sacramento this weekend. Resisting ever increasing control of our bodies and minds and letting those who try to do so know that we won't sit passive while they conspire.
Of course it's not as romantic as getting slaughtered in your own bedroom because you've instigated a bloody insurrection that isn't popularly supported, but I think most of us would rather be "militantly liberal" and live long enough to witness some of our goals.
You've been afforded that luxery, why change your tune now? Just another case of the old encouraging the young to die?
Show it to whom? To our rulers? Why? They don't give a rat's *ss what we think. To each other? How's that different from mutual masterbation?
Forget protest. Direct action gets the goods.
Forget protest. Direct action gets the goods.
What an obvious piece of corporate propaganda, disguised as activistspeak.
Shut It Down in Sacramento!
See you there!
Shut It Down in Sacramento!
See you there!
you wouldn't be seeing the newspaper coverage of the issues associated with the conference. Everyone would be acting like the conference is a bland, consensus, generally inoffensive event.
In the last week or so, I have seen:
(1) an article from last Sunday on the front page of the Sacramento Bee, questioning the utility of biotechnology in fighting world hunger:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/6858814p-7808816c.html
(2) a lengthy piece in the alternative newspaper, the Sacramento News and Review, describing the conference and its opponents:
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2003-06-12/cover.asp
(3) an opinion piece in today's Chronicle, challenging Monsanto's biotechnology, and its ruthless use of it to create GMO seeds that contaminate the crops and seeds of nearby farms, force everyone to use its seeds, and pay royalties for the privilege of doing so
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/20/ED111049.DTL
and, finally, this piece, from the Davis Enterprise:
[Ag expo to hear Davis voices
By Cory Golden/Enterprise staff writer
Take a good look around at the Davis Farmers' Market.
The vegetables there, local protesters say, are exactly what ministers from 180 countries won't see during next week's U.S.-sponsored international Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology in Sacramento.
Instead, they say, the U.S. will use the event, June 23-25, to pressure countries for support of a globalization agenda of corporate farming and genetically engineered crops -- one that will not feed the poor, as promised, but will make fat cats fatter.
Community activist Nancy Price and others from Davis will join busloads of protesters taking part in a planned mix of educational events and nonviolent action coinciding with the invitation-only, closed door conference. They will open with a teach-in Saturday, from 11 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. at Cal State Sacramento and a festival Sunday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in Land Park.
"If (Davis residents) want to see our organic and family farms survive and they enjoy the things we do in our farmers' market, they should come out," Price said. "It's important we show (the ministers) there is not a complete buy-in to the American government's policy, and that they can take strength from that."
Details about conference activities at UC Davis are not being released, to protect the visitors and because the campus has been vandalized by protesters before, said Sylvia Wright, a UCD spokeswoman. Ag ministers are also expected to tour area agricultural-science and nutritional-science facilities -- tours coordinated by the UC Agricultural Issues Center at UCD.
Also at the conference, Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of the University of California Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Teaching Program, will moderate a panel on combating hunger and raising personal incomes.
But backers of what's being called the Sacramento Mobilization don't believe the conference is about the needy at all, but biotechnology for profit.
Plenty of food is produced, protesters say -- it's distribution that's the problem. Meanwhile, they say, industrial agriculture and biotechnology has: failed in America, increased the gap between rich and poor, undermined democracy, as well as threatened the environment, public health and worker rights.
To them, the conference represents an opportunity for U.S. officials to bring other countries in line before an upcoming World Trade Organization meeting with agricultural agreements on the agenda.
Price calls it an "arm-twisting" event, one which flies in the face of self-determination at home (because taxpayers will not be allowed in) and abroad.
"The real issue for me is democracy," she said. "Right now the rules of free trade are being written in such a way that people will have little chance to be able to make choices about the food that's produced and the food they eat.
"The corporate pressures on our officials are so great -- and the commitment to the corporate model of agriculture is so deep -- that choice will ultimately be, if these trade agreements pass, something that we talk about nostalgically."
Bill Liebhardt, the former head of the UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, and Steve Temple, an agronomist for UC Cooperative Extension, plan to protest too.
Both grew up on family farms in the Midwest, where they say corporate farming and U.S. policy has failed, and both said their experiences abroad has further illustrated how wrongheaded the U.S. agenda can be.
On trips to Africa, Liebhardt said it became clear to him farm problems there were most often due to poor soil quality, lack of water, an absence of farm management instruction and cultural differences. That, on top of unrest and the AIDS epidemic.
"Biotech isn't going to touch that," he said. "The idea that these farmers are going to benefit from this technology is ludicrous."
Liebhardt also said his time in Europe made clear how skeptical people there are of biotechnology and government regulators: "The U.S. government is trying to force something on the consuming public they don't want. It is so stupid -- it's like cutting butter with an ax."
Temple spent 11 years working for the Columbia-based International Center for Tropical Agriculture, much of it on the road in 23 countries. He called biotechnology "the super hook" which makes first farmers, then their countries, dependent on foreign, profit-minded interests.
The U.S. should instead back the teaching skills like soil maintenance, combined uses of plants and animals, improved tillage and using beneficial insects, he said.
Liebhardt worries about genetically engineered crops that turn out to be susceptible to disease, points to studies showing they won't produce higher yields and fears the unknown health effects of combinations of pesticides.
Biotechnology leads to homogenized agriculture, he said, not strength through diversity of plants and practices.
"Sustainability is a broad concept, biotechnology is a tool," Liebhardt said. "To me a lot of the biotechnology companies, and the people on the UCD campus who are passionate about it, are like the carpenter running around with a hammer -- everything they see is going to be fixed with a hammer.
"It might be new science, but it is the same old thinking of control and domination of nature instead of working with nature."
That ministers will apparently be exposed to only a narrow range of ideas at UCD and the conference is "disingenuous," Temple said.
It's unfortunate they won't see the small farms in Yolo County or the farmers' market; if they did, he said, it might look more like home than any industrial model.
"I feel very, very sad (for the ministers) and very, very betrayed by whoever is organizing this secret -- or sheltered -- tour," he said.
For a full schedule of protest events, see http://www.sacmobilization.org.]
And this just probably scratches the surface
In the last week or so, I have seen:
(1) an article from last Sunday on the front page of the Sacramento Bee, questioning the utility of biotechnology in fighting world hunger:
http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/6858814p-7808816c.html
(2) a lengthy piece in the alternative newspaper, the Sacramento News and Review, describing the conference and its opponents:
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2003-06-12/cover.asp
(3) an opinion piece in today's Chronicle, challenging Monsanto's biotechnology, and its ruthless use of it to create GMO seeds that contaminate the crops and seeds of nearby farms, force everyone to use its seeds, and pay royalties for the privilege of doing so
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/06/20/ED111049.DTL
and, finally, this piece, from the Davis Enterprise:
[Ag expo to hear Davis voices
By Cory Golden/Enterprise staff writer
Take a good look around at the Davis Farmers' Market.
The vegetables there, local protesters say, are exactly what ministers from 180 countries won't see during next week's U.S.-sponsored international Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology in Sacramento.
Instead, they say, the U.S. will use the event, June 23-25, to pressure countries for support of a globalization agenda of corporate farming and genetically engineered crops -- one that will not feed the poor, as promised, but will make fat cats fatter.
Community activist Nancy Price and others from Davis will join busloads of protesters taking part in a planned mix of educational events and nonviolent action coinciding with the invitation-only, closed door conference. They will open with a teach-in Saturday, from 11 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. at Cal State Sacramento and a festival Sunday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. in Land Park.
"If (Davis residents) want to see our organic and family farms survive and they enjoy the things we do in our farmers' market, they should come out," Price said. "It's important we show (the ministers) there is not a complete buy-in to the American government's policy, and that they can take strength from that."
Details about conference activities at UC Davis are not being released, to protect the visitors and because the campus has been vandalized by protesters before, said Sylvia Wright, a UCD spokeswoman. Ag ministers are also expected to tour area agricultural-science and nutritional-science facilities -- tours coordinated by the UC Agricultural Issues Center at UCD.
Also at the conference, Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of the University of California Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Teaching Program, will moderate a panel on combating hunger and raising personal incomes.
But backers of what's being called the Sacramento Mobilization don't believe the conference is about the needy at all, but biotechnology for profit.
Plenty of food is produced, protesters say -- it's distribution that's the problem. Meanwhile, they say, industrial agriculture and biotechnology has: failed in America, increased the gap between rich and poor, undermined democracy, as well as threatened the environment, public health and worker rights.
To them, the conference represents an opportunity for U.S. officials to bring other countries in line before an upcoming World Trade Organization meeting with agricultural agreements on the agenda.
Price calls it an "arm-twisting" event, one which flies in the face of self-determination at home (because taxpayers will not be allowed in) and abroad.
"The real issue for me is democracy," she said. "Right now the rules of free trade are being written in such a way that people will have little chance to be able to make choices about the food that's produced and the food they eat.
"The corporate pressures on our officials are so great -- and the commitment to the corporate model of agriculture is so deep -- that choice will ultimately be, if these trade agreements pass, something that we talk about nostalgically."
Bill Liebhardt, the former head of the UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, and Steve Temple, an agronomist for UC Cooperative Extension, plan to protest too.
Both grew up on family farms in the Midwest, where they say corporate farming and U.S. policy has failed, and both said their experiences abroad has further illustrated how wrongheaded the U.S. agenda can be.
On trips to Africa, Liebhardt said it became clear to him farm problems there were most often due to poor soil quality, lack of water, an absence of farm management instruction and cultural differences. That, on top of unrest and the AIDS epidemic.
"Biotech isn't going to touch that," he said. "The idea that these farmers are going to benefit from this technology is ludicrous."
Liebhardt also said his time in Europe made clear how skeptical people there are of biotechnology and government regulators: "The U.S. government is trying to force something on the consuming public they don't want. It is so stupid -- it's like cutting butter with an ax."
Temple spent 11 years working for the Columbia-based International Center for Tropical Agriculture, much of it on the road in 23 countries. He called biotechnology "the super hook" which makes first farmers, then their countries, dependent on foreign, profit-minded interests.
The U.S. should instead back the teaching skills like soil maintenance, combined uses of plants and animals, improved tillage and using beneficial insects, he said.
Liebhardt worries about genetically engineered crops that turn out to be susceptible to disease, points to studies showing they won't produce higher yields and fears the unknown health effects of combinations of pesticides.
Biotechnology leads to homogenized agriculture, he said, not strength through diversity of plants and practices.
"Sustainability is a broad concept, biotechnology is a tool," Liebhardt said. "To me a lot of the biotechnology companies, and the people on the UCD campus who are passionate about it, are like the carpenter running around with a hammer -- everything they see is going to be fixed with a hammer.
"It might be new science, but it is the same old thinking of control and domination of nature instead of working with nature."
That ministers will apparently be exposed to only a narrow range of ideas at UCD and the conference is "disingenuous," Temple said.
It's unfortunate they won't see the small farms in Yolo County or the farmers' market; if they did, he said, it might look more like home than any industrial model.
"I feel very, very sad (for the ministers) and very, very betrayed by whoever is organizing this secret -- or sheltered -- tour," he said.
For a full schedule of protest events, see http://www.sacmobilization.org.]
And this just probably scratches the surface
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/06/20/ED177402.DTL
Beginning Monday, government ministers from more than 100 countries will join U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman in Sacramento for the Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology.
These international leaders are meeting to discuss the critical role science and technology can play in improving agricultural productivity in developing countries. Ultimately, the goal is to alleviate world hunger and poverty in an environmentally sustainable way.
However, hundreds of misguided people also will likely travel to Sacramento to protest a variety of issues, including the use of biotechnology in agriculture. The theme of their gathering will be to promulgate fear based on unsubstantiated and misleading information.
On behalf of the poor and starving in the developing world, we urge the conference attendees to focus on the science and on each other. All too often, the voices of protest drown out sound science and experience.
Anti-biotechnology groups have a history of lobbing emotionally charged allegations, but the reality is that none of these groups has actually provided any credible scientific evidence that would call into question the safety of foods derived from biotech crops on the market or the demonstrated benefits to the environment.
Instead, anti-biotechnology groups use their rhetoric and allegations to advance their agenda, not to provide factual, informed perspectives. Unfortunately, sometimes they prevail to the detriment of the environment and the poorest and hungriest in the world, denying the benefits of less pesticides, higher yields and greater sustainability.
The reality is that crops developed through plant biotechnology are among the most well-tested, well-characterized and well-regulated food and fiber products ever developed. This is the overwhelming consensus of the international scientific community, including the British Royal Society, the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Commission, the French Academy of Medicine and the American Medical Association.
Scientific and regulatory authorities all over the world have endorsed the extensive and growing base of published scientific information that upholds the safety and benefits of biotech crops and foods. Spreading false and misleading information in an effort to polarize opinion is irresponsible and does not serve the public good.
The public has a right to know that biotech crops and foods:
-- have been thoroughly assessed for food, feed and environmental safety and found to be wholesome, nutritious and as safe as conventional crops and foods by scientific and regulatory authorities throughout the world (examples include insect-tolerant corn and cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybean); and
-- have economic and environmental benefits that are significant and have met the expectations of small and large farmers in both industrialized and developing countries.
A study conducted by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy in Washington found that biotechnology-derived soybeans, corn, cotton, papaya, squash and canola increased the U.S. food production by 4 billion pounds, saved $1.2 billion in production costs and decreased the usage of pesticide by a whopping 46 million pounds in the year 2001 alone. Biotech crops are now grown on 58 million hectares in 16 countries, and more than three-quarters of the 5.5 million growers who benefited from these crops were resource-poor farmers in the developing world. For instance, South African farmers are already growing transgenic pest-resistant maize, and this year began planting transgenic soy. South African, Mexican and Chinese farmers have been growing transgenic insect-resistant cotton for several years, and the Indian government approved it for commercial cultivation in spring 2002.
Governments should thus resist the temptation to be distracted, and instead focus on the real work that's needed in order to take advantage of these benefits.
On hand to advise the ministerial delegates in Sacramento will be many scientific experts with direct experience in applying science and technology to food agriculture. And 40 of the countries represented are already so convinced of the safety and benefits of biotechnology that they approved field testing, import or commercial production of crops. This is an important opportunity for the governments of the world to exchange data and experiences with each other, and to resolve jointly to let sound science prevail.
Biotech crops complement conventional agricultural production systems and together can help to provide cost-effective and sustainable productivity gains necessary to help meet the growing food, feed and fiber demands of the 21st century.
C.S. Prakash is a professor of plant molecular genetics at Tuskegee University and director of its Center for Plant Biotechnology Research. Martina Newell-McGloughlin is director of the University of California Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program at UC Davis.
Beginning Monday, government ministers from more than 100 countries will join U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman in Sacramento for the Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agricultural Science and Technology.
These international leaders are meeting to discuss the critical role science and technology can play in improving agricultural productivity in developing countries. Ultimately, the goal is to alleviate world hunger and poverty in an environmentally sustainable way.
However, hundreds of misguided people also will likely travel to Sacramento to protest a variety of issues, including the use of biotechnology in agriculture. The theme of their gathering will be to promulgate fear based on unsubstantiated and misleading information.
On behalf of the poor and starving in the developing world, we urge the conference attendees to focus on the science and on each other. All too often, the voices of protest drown out sound science and experience.
Anti-biotechnology groups have a history of lobbing emotionally charged allegations, but the reality is that none of these groups has actually provided any credible scientific evidence that would call into question the safety of foods derived from biotech crops on the market or the demonstrated benefits to the environment.
Instead, anti-biotechnology groups use their rhetoric and allegations to advance their agenda, not to provide factual, informed perspectives. Unfortunately, sometimes they prevail to the detriment of the environment and the poorest and hungriest in the world, denying the benefits of less pesticides, higher yields and greater sustainability.
The reality is that crops developed through plant biotechnology are among the most well-tested, well-characterized and well-regulated food and fiber products ever developed. This is the overwhelming consensus of the international scientific community, including the British Royal Society, the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the European Commission, the French Academy of Medicine and the American Medical Association.
Scientific and regulatory authorities all over the world have endorsed the extensive and growing base of published scientific information that upholds the safety and benefits of biotech crops and foods. Spreading false and misleading information in an effort to polarize opinion is irresponsible and does not serve the public good.
The public has a right to know that biotech crops and foods:
-- have been thoroughly assessed for food, feed and environmental safety and found to be wholesome, nutritious and as safe as conventional crops and foods by scientific and regulatory authorities throughout the world (examples include insect-tolerant corn and cotton and herbicide-tolerant soybean); and
-- have economic and environmental benefits that are significant and have met the expectations of small and large farmers in both industrialized and developing countries.
A study conducted by the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy in Washington found that biotechnology-derived soybeans, corn, cotton, papaya, squash and canola increased the U.S. food production by 4 billion pounds, saved $1.2 billion in production costs and decreased the usage of pesticide by a whopping 46 million pounds in the year 2001 alone. Biotech crops are now grown on 58 million hectares in 16 countries, and more than three-quarters of the 5.5 million growers who benefited from these crops were resource-poor farmers in the developing world. For instance, South African farmers are already growing transgenic pest-resistant maize, and this year began planting transgenic soy. South African, Mexican and Chinese farmers have been growing transgenic insect-resistant cotton for several years, and the Indian government approved it for commercial cultivation in spring 2002.
Governments should thus resist the temptation to be distracted, and instead focus on the real work that's needed in order to take advantage of these benefits.
On hand to advise the ministerial delegates in Sacramento will be many scientific experts with direct experience in applying science and technology to food agriculture. And 40 of the countries represented are already so convinced of the safety and benefits of biotechnology that they approved field testing, import or commercial production of crops. This is an important opportunity for the governments of the world to exchange data and experiences with each other, and to resolve jointly to let sound science prevail.
Biotech crops complement conventional agricultural production systems and together can help to provide cost-effective and sustainable productivity gains necessary to help meet the growing food, feed and fiber demands of the 21st century.
C.S. Prakash is a professor of plant molecular genetics at Tuskegee University and director of its Center for Plant Biotechnology Research. Martina Newell-McGloughlin is director of the University of California Systemwide Biotechnology Research and Education Program at UC Davis.
>C.S. Prakash is . . . director of its Center for Plant Biotechnology Research.
And we should trust this guy, why?
And we should trust this guy, why?
If he has written something that is not true, please point it out.
Well, what they're doing in that essay is creating a big strawman argument, claiming to portray the protesters' side in an inaccurate and easy to counter fashion. They are saying that most of the protesters are out there just because of their concerns about the safety level of irradiated food and genetically modified strains of plants, and they're saying that the goal of the Ministerial attendees is to help feed the growing world population. There's a heck of a lot more to it than that.
I'm out there because I oppose the undemocratic centralized-planning economic institutions of the WTO, IMF and World Bank, and I would be out there even if another wing of the WTO was meeting. If reporters would just bother to talk to the protesters they would find a number of very well informed people and scientists who rise well above the dumb cartoon level of mental functioning that Prakash portrays them at.
I'm out there because I oppose the undemocratic centralized-planning economic institutions of the WTO, IMF and World Bank, and I would be out there even if another wing of the WTO was meeting. If reporters would just bother to talk to the protesters they would find a number of very well informed people and scientists who rise well above the dumb cartoon level of mental functioning that Prakash portrays them at.
The vast majority of biologists consider the protester's fears to be invalid, or at least greatly exaggerated. As far as finding "well informed people" to take your side, you should go to a Christian Science (creationism) forum. They argue the same thing. There are some PhDs (probably the same number as we are talking about in this case, less than a few percent) who argue that the universe is 5,000 years old. So what? It is speculation. They have no scientific data to support their case. The fears are a possibility. But it's also possible that Jesus will come back to earth tomorrow, or that an unnoticed asteroid will destroy the earth tonight. Possible, but not at all likely.
And if your argument against GMO is solely economic, that's another story. One I have a little more respect for. But in that case, you should welcome WTO as your friend. If it weren't for international bodies like the WTO (where a small country has the same legal power as the US), then the US hegemony would be much greater and move much faster than what you see now.
And if your argument against GMO is solely economic, that's another story. One I have a little more respect for. But in that case, you should welcome WTO as your friend. If it weren't for international bodies like the WTO (where a small country has the same legal power as the US), then the US hegemony would be much greater and move much faster than what you see now.
that is, they cannot afford it.
I find a danger involving not biotechnology, if thoroughly researched, and well tested for each new strand/introduction, yet it is the use of increased property rights to private ownership of patents over certain seeds, which have been harvested and cultured, engineered for thousands of years by local farmers, who no longer can afford to feed their local people, or exist independently of certain conglomerates,
as though one form of genetic mutation is any more natural or unnatural than another.,
Yet, the introduction, or shall I say FORCED INTRODUCTION, in the cases of "so-called" free trade lowering of barriers to importing of patented genetically altered seeds, can in
It is a CASE BY CASE basis, in something as discreet, detailed and molecular, as the exchange of seeds, and genetics alterings, BY NATURE.
Some seeds can beneficially alter the surrounding crops, and exist under certain conditions,, and some cannot.
THUS, THE NEED FOR NO PATENTS, and OPEN INFORMATION, so that individual farmers can
1. experiement and research to determine their individual needs
2. become less dependent upon exclusive extremely powerful companies centered mainly in the U.S., who FAIL TO EDUCATE OTHER INDIVIDUALS in their decision making....
while doing such things as: Instead of attempting to educate on the benefits of beneficial alterations when used, THAN RESPECTING THE OTHER COUNTRIES RIGHT TO CHOOSE-.......
REGARDLESS.....
that right for choice, the right to TURN DOWN transgenetically altered seeds, etc...... is thwarted.....
AS INDIVIDUALS AND COUNTRIES ARE
NOT TREATED as soveriegn and given/offered control over their OWN LIVES....
Education, freedom,.... and fair trade..
I find a danger involving not biotechnology, if thoroughly researched, and well tested for each new strand/introduction, yet it is the use of increased property rights to private ownership of patents over certain seeds, which have been harvested and cultured, engineered for thousands of years by local farmers, who no longer can afford to feed their local people, or exist independently of certain conglomerates,
as though one form of genetic mutation is any more natural or unnatural than another.,
Yet, the introduction, or shall I say FORCED INTRODUCTION, in the cases of "so-called" free trade lowering of barriers to importing of patented genetically altered seeds, can in
It is a CASE BY CASE basis, in something as discreet, detailed and molecular, as the exchange of seeds, and genetics alterings, BY NATURE.
Some seeds can beneficially alter the surrounding crops, and exist under certain conditions,, and some cannot.
THUS, THE NEED FOR NO PATENTS, and OPEN INFORMATION, so that individual farmers can
1. experiement and research to determine their individual needs
2. become less dependent upon exclusive extremely powerful companies centered mainly in the U.S., who FAIL TO EDUCATE OTHER INDIVIDUALS in their decision making....
while doing such things as: Instead of attempting to educate on the benefits of beneficial alterations when used, THAN RESPECTING THE OTHER COUNTRIES RIGHT TO CHOOSE-.......
REGARDLESS.....
that right for choice, the right to TURN DOWN transgenetically altered seeds, etc...... is thwarted.....
AS INDIVIDUALS AND COUNTRIES ARE
NOT TREATED as soveriegn and given/offered control over their OWN LIVES....
Education, freedom,.... and fair trade..
To Newton, the arrogant:
and I must say, your arrogance regarding "protestors" is an extremely narrow vision.,
there ARE instances were certain (now this is not the norm of all seeds, it is in fact outside of the norm, and most of them DO interact safely with the environment before the new seed is introduced), but their have been a couple of anamolies in which the newly introduced seed, was not introduced in a well-planned manner, and we saw such examples as the distruct of the monarch butterfly....
Now, I DO NOT find any evidence to indicate this is the norm......
I merely view the issue to involve PATENTS to transgenetically altered seeds, the need to ALWAYS investigate MORE thoroughly, to NOT plant in MONO-CULTURE,
but to plant in a diverse array of seeds, throughout the year,
to plan carefully when doing so, so that we do NOT have expedient genetically altered MONOCULTURES which are not sustainable
----It is simply careful planning that is needed, when introducing the new chain, as well as the permission, and willingness of the people participating and using the gene, not to mention the need to prevent
PATENTS upon a gene that must be available to a local farmer to replant without the risk of an accidental contamination leading to entire fields of crops belonging to Monsanto accidentally, etc//
Thank you,
----
Kurt Godel,
C.S. Pierce, Chemist, Meterologist, Semiotician, Mathematician, Bertrand Russell, and
Roger Penrose, Physicist.
and Rosaline Franklin, molecular biologist.
and I must say, your arrogance regarding "protestors" is an extremely narrow vision.,
there ARE instances were certain (now this is not the norm of all seeds, it is in fact outside of the norm, and most of them DO interact safely with the environment before the new seed is introduced), but their have been a couple of anamolies in which the newly introduced seed, was not introduced in a well-planned manner, and we saw such examples as the distruct of the monarch butterfly....
Now, I DO NOT find any evidence to indicate this is the norm......
I merely view the issue to involve PATENTS to transgenetically altered seeds, the need to ALWAYS investigate MORE thoroughly, to NOT plant in MONO-CULTURE,
but to plant in a diverse array of seeds, throughout the year,
to plan carefully when doing so, so that we do NOT have expedient genetically altered MONOCULTURES which are not sustainable
----It is simply careful planning that is needed, when introducing the new chain, as well as the permission, and willingness of the people participating and using the gene, not to mention the need to prevent
PATENTS upon a gene that must be available to a local farmer to replant without the risk of an accidental contamination leading to entire fields of crops belonging to Monsanto accidentally, etc//
Thank you,
----
Kurt Godel,
C.S. Pierce, Chemist, Meterologist, Semiotician, Mathematician, Bertrand Russell, and
Roger Penrose, Physicist.
and Rosaline Franklin, molecular biologist.
A ruling by the WTO to allow the marketing of GMO seeds in a country has NOTHING TO DO with farmers in that country deciding to purchase the seeds. If the seeds do not provide an economic benefit for the farmer (more yield, less pesticides, etc), then why on earth do you think he'll buy the seeds? And if he does try them out and doesn't like them, then why do you think he would continue to buy the seeds anyway?
Think of yourself. Are their foreign products marketed in this country that you don't buy? Of course. Are there foreign products you have tried once and didn't like, so reverted to buying a domestic product? Of course. What's the difference??
Think of yourself. Are their foreign products marketed in this country that you don't buy? Of course. Are there foreign products you have tried once and didn't like, so reverted to buying a domestic product? Of course. What's the difference??
First, let me express my joy at being addressed by such a group of scientists! I'm honored.
As far as I can recall, the monarch butterfly incident hasn't been confirmed in any peer-reviewed journal. If I'm wrong (and it that journal continues to support the article -- there hasn't been a follow-up article or retraction) please let me know. Thanks.
Of course I agree with you that testing must be thorough.
And of course I agree that the native strain shouldn't be abandoned and lost.
Finally, intellectual property rights must be robust and enforced. And the market should decide: if farmers and consumers like the product, so be it. If they don't, then let the GE strain fail.
As far as I can recall, the monarch butterfly incident hasn't been confirmed in any peer-reviewed journal. If I'm wrong (and it that journal continues to support the article -- there hasn't been a follow-up article or retraction) please let me know. Thanks.
Of course I agree with you that testing must be thorough.
And of course I agree that the native strain shouldn't be abandoned and lost.
Finally, intellectual property rights must be robust and enforced. And the market should decide: if farmers and consumers like the product, so be it. If they don't, then let the GE strain fail.
And though it is the closest we have to a participatory act of voting set by countries regarding policies of trade and agreements, by those who CAN afford to send delegates,
it doesn't ignore the fact that these issues must be addressed. It is similar to sending protests around embassies or conventions which are designed, yes around a sort of voting system, but one that does not allow enough representation.
When conducted effectively and clearly, the messages of public, justice and the needs of the developing world, and justice for the people is and can be heard at these meetings. As far as I can see, they ARE also highly set up in a closed-door manner,
hardly a trully representative form of the people existing within such countries.
it doesn't ignore the fact that these issues must be addressed. It is similar to sending protests around embassies or conventions which are designed, yes around a sort of voting system, but one that does not allow enough representation.
When conducted effectively and clearly, the messages of public, justice and the needs of the developing world, and justice for the people is and can be heard at these meetings. As far as I can see, they ARE also highly set up in a closed-door manner,
hardly a trully representative form of the people existing within such countries.
I don't believe they should necessarily not be marketed, or let me say, I am not sure.
I simply do not believe that
1. they shouldn't be patented, because, as the patent system exists currently, it often has future reprocussions for further generations of seed, regardless of whether the individual is still farming with that seed, because it is impossible to prevent 100% 0 cross-fertilization with future or surounding crops....
and 2. the marketing should not be FORCED upon a country.
As in the case of the Nestle baby formula issue, not a GMO issue, but another food/marketing issue, in which the milk is given freely to hospitals, to distribute to patients, alongside marketing and ads freely, while the mothers are mandatorily prevented while in the hospital from breastfeeding their children, leading to babies who are unable to suckle, and POOR households who cannot afford to purchase more baby power or CLEAN WATER......
There are a whole slew of issues, and the importance is to ALLOW THE FARMERS, PEOPLE, and local consumers
to be educated on all issues, and gradually introduce what they feel is appropriate for them WHEN it is appropriate for them,
reducing the threat of the effects of impetuous action, without examining its effects on the local population, in their current conditions, farming situations, etc.....
Yes, I believe, and I agree 100% that information should be available to farmers to decide whether they would prefer to purchase that seed or not,
however, even THIS must be ethically, non-coercively, gradually and with careful planning, investigation, and respect.
We/One must not do/assume anything too hasty/, as in some cases, if a whole population of people vote against the allowing of genetically motified foods, than the solution is 1. educate and invite if appropriate, (While offering/and inviting the individuals/people in the country to LOOK AT ALL SIDES, and investigate information thoroughly......)
but NOT TO FORCE (even) marketing upon a population EVER......
NOT TO FORCE..........
I think the major issue is that the farmers must have the choice to vote upon how much integration and development they would like to trully introduce, and how quickly.
Yes, information, in the form of marketing may be safe, but in such instances as
I simply do not believe that
1. they shouldn't be patented, because, as the patent system exists currently, it often has future reprocussions for further generations of seed, regardless of whether the individual is still farming with that seed, because it is impossible to prevent 100% 0 cross-fertilization with future or surounding crops....
and 2. the marketing should not be FORCED upon a country.
As in the case of the Nestle baby formula issue, not a GMO issue, but another food/marketing issue, in which the milk is given freely to hospitals, to distribute to patients, alongside marketing and ads freely, while the mothers are mandatorily prevented while in the hospital from breastfeeding their children, leading to babies who are unable to suckle, and POOR households who cannot afford to purchase more baby power or CLEAN WATER......
There are a whole slew of issues, and the importance is to ALLOW THE FARMERS, PEOPLE, and local consumers
to be educated on all issues, and gradually introduce what they feel is appropriate for them WHEN it is appropriate for them,
reducing the threat of the effects of impetuous action, without examining its effects on the local population, in their current conditions, farming situations, etc.....
Yes, I believe, and I agree 100% that information should be available to farmers to decide whether they would prefer to purchase that seed or not,
however, even THIS must be ethically, non-coercively, gradually and with careful planning, investigation, and respect.
We/One must not do/assume anything too hasty/, as in some cases, if a whole population of people vote against the allowing of genetically motified foods, than the solution is 1. educate and invite if appropriate, (While offering/and inviting the individuals/people in the country to LOOK AT ALL SIDES, and investigate information thoroughly......)
but NOT TO FORCE (even) marketing upon a population EVER......
NOT TO FORCE..........
I think the major issue is that the farmers must have the choice to vote upon how much integration and development they would like to trully introduce, and how quickly.
Yes, information, in the form of marketing may be safe, but in such instances as
P.S. an integration of Alfred North Whitehead and Godel, with some semiotic view of 2-3 ++ orders of cybernetics.....
and the meta-existence of the universe is explained,
throw in possibly some Penrose experiments and more of the physical intersections between consciosness and photons are explained...., attempted.... developing, approaching, read/look for TGD (Topological Geometrodynamics, OR an idea related to spin networks in quantum gravity and TGD's explanation of "qualia")) and the universe is explained.... Almost, approaching it.
and the meta-existence of the universe is explained,
throw in possibly some Penrose experiments and more of the physical intersections between consciosness and photons are explained...., attempted.... developing, approaching, read/look for TGD (Topological Geometrodynamics, OR an idea related to spin networks in quantum gravity and TGD's explanation of "qualia")) and the universe is explained.... Almost, approaching it.
GMO's, such as even soybeans, as not a single soybean present is NOT altered wihout molecular engineering......., must be alterable and controllable by each individual and farmer,
not a single private company which has become an entity, who controls most of the food resources, (roughly 80% for Monsanto, or some other number, just as high..), in the world....
"Intellectual property" patents, ESPECIALLY that involving something which can be freely altered, distributed and evolved, such as information.... (software/algorithms, genetics, etc.......), and when involving FOOD it
must And should NOT symbolically, culturally BE OWNED by any one company, over ALL PEOPLE ..........____ again, such things, as Proudhon says, are "theft",
and they CERTAINLY make the individual LESS FREE.....
(That is Monsanto ownership, Microsoft, etc. etc. etc........)
_______________________
steal and restrict the freedoms of the individual, LIMIT diversity, and generation of creative thought, and the right to experiment and reuse the seeds, to improve a crop, WITHOUT MONSANTO DECLARING that starving farmers
owe it money for all future generations effected by that seed......!!!
Isn't that HORRENDOUS......!
not a single private company which has become an entity, who controls most of the food resources, (roughly 80% for Monsanto, or some other number, just as high..), in the world....
"Intellectual property" patents, ESPECIALLY that involving something which can be freely altered, distributed and evolved, such as information.... (software/algorithms, genetics, etc.......), and when involving FOOD it
must And should NOT symbolically, culturally BE OWNED by any one company, over ALL PEOPLE ..........____ again, such things, as Proudhon says, are "theft",
and they CERTAINLY make the individual LESS FREE.....
(That is Monsanto ownership, Microsoft, etc. etc. etc........)
_______________________
steal and restrict the freedoms of the individual, LIMIT diversity, and generation of creative thought, and the right to experiment and reuse the seeds, to improve a crop, WITHOUT MONSANTO DECLARING that starving farmers
owe it money for all future generations effected by that seed......!!!
Isn't that HORRENDOUS......!
There is a particular issue that is common in genetic information, especially in TRULLY SUSTAINABLE situations,
it is virtually, or 100% impossible to prevent the seed and genetic data from effecting the next generation, or other crops nearby, regardless as to whether an actual "liscensed" patented seed was intended for use in the next generation,
due to wind, and any other natural process in nature, the seed cannot be contained to the one time in which a farmer payed the "lisence fee" to use the seed, to Monsanto. The current law prevents future use, experimentation or ALTERATION OF THE SEED, to improve the crop for the individual farmers,
a SEVERAL THOUSAND year (that is, a 10,000 or so year old process, which began with the beginning of cultivating agriculture......, in which a farmer saved the seed to use and improve the next generation ..........)
Today
P.S. The farmers DO NOT ACCEPT OR AGREE WITH MONSANTO's idea, SO YOUR "free market" idea fails,
as these intellectual property "laws"= THEFTS create a closed monopoly system of excercising control in which it is
ANYTHING BUT free to the farmer........,, or the people who need the food.
-At least in the form the genetic patent system exists
TODAY.....
An article:
______________________________________
NO PATENTS ON LIFE” WORKING GROUP UPDATE
by Rebecca Charnas
Our genes have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years. The basic food crops that sustain us all have been carefully bred for at least ten thousand years by farming communities. Yet individuals, institutions, and corporations have the audacity to claim to have invented these shared biological resources. In the two decades since the US Supreme Court first ruled in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that a genetically engineered bacterium could be patented, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has expanded patent rights to encompass not just microorganisms, but gene sequences, expressed sequence tags (ESTs), proteins, cell lines, genetically modified plants and animals, and even non-genetically modified species.
Meanwhile, similar patents on life are being forced on the rest of the world through the Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In an attempt to reverse this trend of patenting life, the Council for Responsible Genetics is now working with other groups throughout the United States to draft model legislation that would exclude living organisms and their parts from the patent system. We hope that this model legislation will help build a “No Patents on Life” movement in the United States, which not only supports the growing international movement but also successfully challenges US domestic policy on life patents.
The number of patents on genes, food crops, and other living organisms and their parts is growing. The international anti-poverty organization ActionAid recently documented that there are over nine hundred patents on varieties of the world’s five major staple food crops; six agrochemical companies control most of these patents. Another study, published last year in Science (February 16, 2001, Vol. 291) found that just three biotechnology companies had filed for patents on over 20,000 full-length human gene sequences. Already at least 1,300 patents on full-length human genes have been granted. This expropriation of humanity’s collective heritage into a few private hands is not only unfair; it has potentially devastating consequences. Patent holders gain the right to either charge licensing fees or exclude others from using or benefiting from their patented invention for twenty years. Already the harmful effects of life patents on human health, food security, agriculture, indigenous rights, and global development are apparent.
Not surprisingly, opposition to life patents is mounting. Throughout the world advocacy organizations, individuals, research institutions, and governments are joining the fight against life patents. There is strong opposition to TRIPs’ draconian patent regime, especially in developing countries, and there are also efforts to work outside the WTO, in forums such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, to challenge TRIPs. Last February, hundreds of civil society organization from over fifty nations announced an initiative for a new international treaty that would establish the earth's gene pool as a global commons and abolish patents on life.
In the United States, these important international efforts are only half of the battle. For life patents to be prohibited here, both international law and domestic policy will have to change. Unfortunately, within the United States, the legal position favoring patents on life has been strengthened in the last eighteen months. At the beginning of last year, the USPTO issued new guidelines explicitly stating that genes could be patented. In December 2001, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its embrace of life patents when in JEM Ag Supply vs. Pioneer Hi-Bred the court found that utility patents can be issued for seeds and seed-grown plants.
But there is hope. The law, as currently interpreted, may allow for patents on living organisms and their parts, but patent laws can be changed like any other laws. Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the nation’s first patent regulations, wrote that whenever the monopoly granted by a patent was contrary to the public interest, the public interest should take precedence. Indeed, the US Congress has repeatedly amended patent law when it felt that it was not serving the public interest. For example, Congress voted to exclude nuclear weapons from patentability. There is no reason why it could not do the same with life patents. The Chakrabarty decision is actually quite explicit in this regard. It states, “Congress is free to amend Section 101 so as to exclude from patent protection organisms produced by genetic engineering.”
The biotechnology and agrochemical industries will lobby hard to prevent Congress from ever passing legislation outlawing life patents. The challenge for the small but growing “No Patents on Life” movement in the United States is to counter the industry’s money with a large, popular constituency that is too powerful to ignore. Accordingly, the CRG and the other organizations drafting model No Patents on Life legislation do not plan to bring the legislation directly to the halls of Congress but rather to bring it first to the American public. We hope that by educating people about the issue and illustrating the possibility of change, the model No Patents on Life legislation can help build a broad-based social movement to change US patent law. The seeds for this broader movement have already been planted within public health, farming and environmental organizations, religious communities, the anti-GE food movement, and many other groups.
While the campaign against patents on life will likely be a protracted one, it is promising that at least a few people in Congress are beginning to take notice. Representatives Lynn Rivers (D-MI) and David Weldon (R-FL) recently introduced two bills into Congress that aim to address some of the negative impacts of gene patents. The first bill would provide a research and diagnostic testing exemption for gene patents. The second bill would mandate a study of gene patents to investigate whether more sweeping changes to the current patent policy are needed. The Council for Responsible Genetics has joined with medical associations, such as the College of American Pathologists, and patients’ rights groups, such as the National Organization for Rare Disorders, in endorsing the bills. If the legislation passes, it would represent a limited, but important, step towards mitigating some of the detrimental effects of gene patents. The bills also provide a valuable opportunity to raise public and congressional awareness about gene patents, in particular, and life patents more generally. Perhaps most significantly, the bills serve as a powerful reminder that Congress can and should change the patent law if it is not serving in the public interest.
Of course, the Rivers-Weldon initiatives only scratch the surface of what needs to be done. A growing “No Patents on Life” movement can ensure that these initiatives are the first step, not the last. If you would like more information about patents on life or would like to become involved in the effort to build a national movement opposed to patents on life, please contact CRG’s “No Patents on Life” Working Group at npol [at] gene-watch.org or visit CRG’s website at http://www.gene-watch.org.
Rebecca Charnas is the No Patents on Life Campaign Coordinator Intern at CRG. She is a graduate student in molecular biology at MIT.
it is virtually, or 100% impossible to prevent the seed and genetic data from effecting the next generation, or other crops nearby, regardless as to whether an actual "liscensed" patented seed was intended for use in the next generation,
due to wind, and any other natural process in nature, the seed cannot be contained to the one time in which a farmer payed the "lisence fee" to use the seed, to Monsanto. The current law prevents future use, experimentation or ALTERATION OF THE SEED, to improve the crop for the individual farmers,
a SEVERAL THOUSAND year (that is, a 10,000 or so year old process, which began with the beginning of cultivating agriculture......, in which a farmer saved the seed to use and improve the next generation ..........)
Today
P.S. The farmers DO NOT ACCEPT OR AGREE WITH MONSANTO's idea, SO YOUR "free market" idea fails,
as these intellectual property "laws"= THEFTS create a closed monopoly system of excercising control in which it is
ANYTHING BUT free to the farmer........,, or the people who need the food.
-At least in the form the genetic patent system exists
TODAY.....
An article:
______________________________________
NO PATENTS ON LIFE” WORKING GROUP UPDATE
by Rebecca Charnas
Our genes have been evolving for hundreds of millions of years. The basic food crops that sustain us all have been carefully bred for at least ten thousand years by farming communities. Yet individuals, institutions, and corporations have the audacity to claim to have invented these shared biological resources. In the two decades since the US Supreme Court first ruled in Diamond v. Chakrabarty that a genetically engineered bacterium could be patented, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has expanded patent rights to encompass not just microorganisms, but gene sequences, expressed sequence tags (ESTs), proteins, cell lines, genetically modified plants and animals, and even non-genetically modified species.
Meanwhile, similar patents on life are being forced on the rest of the world through the Trade Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In an attempt to reverse this trend of patenting life, the Council for Responsible Genetics is now working with other groups throughout the United States to draft model legislation that would exclude living organisms and their parts from the patent system. We hope that this model legislation will help build a “No Patents on Life” movement in the United States, which not only supports the growing international movement but also successfully challenges US domestic policy on life patents.
The number of patents on genes, food crops, and other living organisms and their parts is growing. The international anti-poverty organization ActionAid recently documented that there are over nine hundred patents on varieties of the world’s five major staple food crops; six agrochemical companies control most of these patents. Another study, published last year in Science (February 16, 2001, Vol. 291) found that just three biotechnology companies had filed for patents on over 20,000 full-length human gene sequences. Already at least 1,300 patents on full-length human genes have been granted. This expropriation of humanity’s collective heritage into a few private hands is not only unfair; it has potentially devastating consequences. Patent holders gain the right to either charge licensing fees or exclude others from using or benefiting from their patented invention for twenty years. Already the harmful effects of life patents on human health, food security, agriculture, indigenous rights, and global development are apparent.
Not surprisingly, opposition to life patents is mounting. Throughout the world advocacy organizations, individuals, research institutions, and governments are joining the fight against life patents. There is strong opposition to TRIPs’ draconian patent regime, especially in developing countries, and there are also efforts to work outside the WTO, in forums such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, to challenge TRIPs. Last February, hundreds of civil society organization from over fifty nations announced an initiative for a new international treaty that would establish the earth's gene pool as a global commons and abolish patents on life.
In the United States, these important international efforts are only half of the battle. For life patents to be prohibited here, both international law and domestic policy will have to change. Unfortunately, within the United States, the legal position favoring patents on life has been strengthened in the last eighteen months. At the beginning of last year, the USPTO issued new guidelines explicitly stating that genes could be patented. In December 2001, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its embrace of life patents when in JEM Ag Supply vs. Pioneer Hi-Bred the court found that utility patents can be issued for seeds and seed-grown plants.
But there is hope. The law, as currently interpreted, may allow for patents on living organisms and their parts, but patent laws can be changed like any other laws. Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the nation’s first patent regulations, wrote that whenever the monopoly granted by a patent was contrary to the public interest, the public interest should take precedence. Indeed, the US Congress has repeatedly amended patent law when it felt that it was not serving the public interest. For example, Congress voted to exclude nuclear weapons from patentability. There is no reason why it could not do the same with life patents. The Chakrabarty decision is actually quite explicit in this regard. It states, “Congress is free to amend Section 101 so as to exclude from patent protection organisms produced by genetic engineering.”
The biotechnology and agrochemical industries will lobby hard to prevent Congress from ever passing legislation outlawing life patents. The challenge for the small but growing “No Patents on Life” movement in the United States is to counter the industry’s money with a large, popular constituency that is too powerful to ignore. Accordingly, the CRG and the other organizations drafting model No Patents on Life legislation do not plan to bring the legislation directly to the halls of Congress but rather to bring it first to the American public. We hope that by educating people about the issue and illustrating the possibility of change, the model No Patents on Life legislation can help build a broad-based social movement to change US patent law. The seeds for this broader movement have already been planted within public health, farming and environmental organizations, religious communities, the anti-GE food movement, and many other groups.
While the campaign against patents on life will likely be a protracted one, it is promising that at least a few people in Congress are beginning to take notice. Representatives Lynn Rivers (D-MI) and David Weldon (R-FL) recently introduced two bills into Congress that aim to address some of the negative impacts of gene patents. The first bill would provide a research and diagnostic testing exemption for gene patents. The second bill would mandate a study of gene patents to investigate whether more sweeping changes to the current patent policy are needed. The Council for Responsible Genetics has joined with medical associations, such as the College of American Pathologists, and patients’ rights groups, such as the National Organization for Rare Disorders, in endorsing the bills. If the legislation passes, it would represent a limited, but important, step towards mitigating some of the detrimental effects of gene patents. The bills also provide a valuable opportunity to raise public and congressional awareness about gene patents, in particular, and life patents more generally. Perhaps most significantly, the bills serve as a powerful reminder that Congress can and should change the patent law if it is not serving in the public interest.
Of course, the Rivers-Weldon initiatives only scratch the surface of what needs to be done. A growing “No Patents on Life” movement can ensure that these initiatives are the first step, not the last. If you would like more information about patents on life or would like to become involved in the effort to build a national movement opposed to patents on life, please contact CRG’s “No Patents on Life” Working Group at npol [at] gene-watch.org or visit CRG’s website at http://www.gene-watch.org.
Rebecca Charnas is the No Patents on Life Campaign Coordinator Intern at CRG. She is a graduate student in molecular biology at MIT.
I don't like the idea of being able to patent genes (native genes).
But I do agree with the right to patent transgenic organisms.
But I do agree with the right to patent transgenic organisms.
what I intended to say, is that the patent system currrently has forced, and exercised law suits against individual (lower-class) farmers, for the contamination of the seed on other crops,
forcing these farmers to pay Monsanto huge liscense fees, or, technically, Monsanto was ruled to own the entire crop.
The dangers of Patents.
This is just ONE instance. There are many in which individuals in India, who have saved their seeds from prior harvests, to improve upon their crops the following year, have been under fire by Monsanto,
and according to your "pro Intellectual property rights", without regards to poverty and equal rights, or the distribution of power,
arguement,
Monsanto owns the entire set of crops, and can continue to prevent the farmers from competing and paying to EAT THEMSELVES, as all of their money from any yield belongs to Monsanto.
You have no idea, also the effect of having AN ENTIRE SPECIES being under threat for a patent ownership.... (That being the soybean, as virtually all in the market today is altered, and according to these dangerous "intellectual property" regulations,
the entire crop can be owned by a single company, or very VERy few....
In which case, the world can STARVE........
STARVE....
Starve...
forcing these farmers to pay Monsanto huge liscense fees, or, technically, Monsanto was ruled to own the entire crop.
The dangers of Patents.
This is just ONE instance. There are many in which individuals in India, who have saved their seeds from prior harvests, to improve upon their crops the following year, have been under fire by Monsanto,
and according to your "pro Intellectual property rights", without regards to poverty and equal rights, or the distribution of power,
arguement,
Monsanto owns the entire set of crops, and can continue to prevent the farmers from competing and paying to EAT THEMSELVES, as all of their money from any yield belongs to Monsanto.
You have no idea, also the effect of having AN ENTIRE SPECIES being under threat for a patent ownership.... (That being the soybean, as virtually all in the market today is altered, and according to these dangerous "intellectual property" regulations,
the entire crop can be owned by a single company, or very VERy few....
In which case, the world can STARVE........
STARVE....
Starve...
That would be O.K. if we didn't have such a limited amount of space, and nature didn't interact the way it does.
1. We cannot have a monoculture, and approach monoculture in our crops and survive, for economic reasons, and ecological sustainability.
2. It is impossible to prevent a seed from interacting with non-genetically altered neighboring seeds, UNLESS YOU have a mono-culture,
because at this point, a convergence leads towards a monoculture, when the exclusive rights to alter a seed remain in one location, or there is a limited amount of genetic diversity.
The issue arises when a seed travels to the next generation, or is germinated to neighboring seeds, via wind, or another NON-controllable process,
at which point, the next crop becomes contaminated with Monsanto seeds,. and the farmer, who did not intentionally plant the seed, must, by current law standards, and recent rulings with Canada, etc,
either give up the crop(s) to Monsanto, or pay the license fee, while paying a certain amount of the profit yield to Monsanto.
In this particular recent ruling last year, it did not effect the judgement/ruling that the farmer did not use the "anti-pesticide" behavior inherent in the gene which altered his adjacent crop,
that is, because he didn't know it was altered, and didn't intend to use it, he didn't use the
-----Another issue involves the right of a farmer, ESPECIALLY in poorer countries, to save the seeds and improve upon the next crops, by macro-genetic alterations and cultivation. ......... Farmers have been surviving this way for thousands of years..., and....
1. We cannot have a monoculture, and approach monoculture in our crops and survive, for economic reasons, and ecological sustainability.
2. It is impossible to prevent a seed from interacting with non-genetically altered neighboring seeds, UNLESS YOU have a mono-culture,
because at this point, a convergence leads towards a monoculture, when the exclusive rights to alter a seed remain in one location, or there is a limited amount of genetic diversity.
The issue arises when a seed travels to the next generation, or is germinated to neighboring seeds, via wind, or another NON-controllable process,
at which point, the next crop becomes contaminated with Monsanto seeds,. and the farmer, who did not intentionally plant the seed, must, by current law standards, and recent rulings with Canada, etc,
either give up the crop(s) to Monsanto, or pay the license fee, while paying a certain amount of the profit yield to Monsanto.
In this particular recent ruling last year, it did not effect the judgement/ruling that the farmer did not use the "anti-pesticide" behavior inherent in the gene which altered his adjacent crop,
that is, because he didn't know it was altered, and didn't intend to use it, he didn't use the
-----Another issue involves the right of a farmer, ESPECIALLY in poorer countries, to save the seeds and improve upon the next crops, by macro-genetic alterations and cultivation. ......... Farmers have been surviving this way for thousands of years..., and....
It is impossible.
These are always shared resources, because that is the way nature operates. It is impossible, for instance to absolutely PREVENT a gene from effecting another adjacent crop, or an unexpected future generation, even if the farmer does not use the genetically altered seeds in planting for the next generations.
Nature will ALWAYS behave in a shared and shifting manner. To force an economci patent will lead to either a limited amount of space, with one company (or ONLY those companies which can afford to molecular engineering), administering and owning ALL OF THE agricultural life,
as once one species is effected with a patented seed, it is impossible for another crop, even an adjacent crop, accidentally effected by wind, or other interactions, to be effected. .........
As they say "Freedom of the Press, but only to those who own one", this will be the same way.
Eventually, those who do not own Quaranteened land, where they can prevent contaminiation
(impossible in third world countries, dependent upon sustainable ecology, and diverse species of crops, lower technical equipment.....),
eventually, the only individuals NOT owing someone money for recent profits from a crop, will be those who have the money to afford to do genetic engineering.
------------------------ Though farmers have done it naturally throughout history, YES..... But it will be hard to create the FARMLAND and THE SPACE (THE ENCLOSURES, restricted from wind and interactions with other crops of the same species owned by someone who has used the patent......... )
That is, it will be impossible to restrict the activity of the seed,
So, farmers must not be restricted to it, and large companies which can afford molecular engineering facilities must not be the only individuals not being forced to pay...
These are always shared resources, because that is the way nature operates. It is impossible, for instance to absolutely PREVENT a gene from effecting another adjacent crop, or an unexpected future generation, even if the farmer does not use the genetically altered seeds in planting for the next generations.
Nature will ALWAYS behave in a shared and shifting manner. To force an economci patent will lead to either a limited amount of space, with one company (or ONLY those companies which can afford to molecular engineering), administering and owning ALL OF THE agricultural life,
as once one species is effected with a patented seed, it is impossible for another crop, even an adjacent crop, accidentally effected by wind, or other interactions, to be effected. .........
As they say "Freedom of the Press, but only to those who own one", this will be the same way.
Eventually, those who do not own Quaranteened land, where they can prevent contaminiation
(impossible in third world countries, dependent upon sustainable ecology, and diverse species of crops, lower technical equipment.....),
eventually, the only individuals NOT owing someone money for recent profits from a crop, will be those who have the money to afford to do genetic engineering.
------------------------ Though farmers have done it naturally throughout history, YES..... But it will be hard to create the FARMLAND and THE SPACE (THE ENCLOSURES, restricted from wind and interactions with other crops of the same species owned by someone who has used the patent......... )
That is, it will be impossible to restrict the activity of the seed,
So, farmers must not be restricted to it, and large companies which can afford molecular engineering facilities must not be the only individuals not being forced to pay...
to the poster who said that this was a waist of time
YOU WHERE RIGHT!
this accomplished nothing except proving that we are weak and disorganized.
YOU WHERE RIGHT!
this accomplished nothing except proving that we are weak and disorganized.
GE is good. your more likely to get killed by somthing natural than somthing GE'd.
Just think if all the benifits when GE really gets going!
If your stupid then you wont have to worry about having stupid children anymore! And all those athletes with their physical advantages.. well your kids can have them too and you don't have to seduce some person at the olympics. Got sickle cell anemia or some other genetic disease? NO PROBLEM!!
And they will still be you kids with mostly your genes!
Oh yeah and you will be able to feed the starving africans fix lots of diseases improve the environment and live longer etc etc
Just think if all the benifits when GE really gets going!
If your stupid then you wont have to worry about having stupid children anymore! And all those athletes with their physical advantages.. well your kids can have them too and you don't have to seduce some person at the olympics. Got sickle cell anemia or some other genetic disease? NO PROBLEM!!
And they will still be you kids with mostly your genes!
Oh yeah and you will be able to feed the starving africans fix lots of diseases improve the environment and live longer etc etc
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network