Author
and blogger Dr Joseph P. Farrell has an hypothesis: Food has become a geopolitical issue. That is to say, nations are beginning to fall
into two broad blocs, those favoring genetically engineered (GE) crops and
livestock and those favoring traditionally-grown, non-GE vareties. And whichever bloc wins out, that will have
grave effects for humanity the world over.
The
first context we may see this in is the recent United States-Mexico-Canada
(USMCA, or New NAFTA) trade agreement, which contains a number of provisions
that are helpful for the transnational biotechnology corporations specializing
in GE ‘food’ like Monsanto. Mexico has
especial reason to be worried:
Last
week, after the Trump administration struck a deal with Canada and Mexico to
replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, the White House declared
victory for US farmers, who gained greater access to Canadian dairy,
egg, poultry, and wheat markets. Unfortunately, the new deal called the United
States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, also includes lesser-known provisions
that could allow agribusiness corporations to patent Mexico’s native corn
varieties and challenge the country’s ban on genetically modified (GM) corn
cultivation.
“I
think it’s going to open up Mexico to an invasion of biotech seed companies
that will try to push patented seeds on farmers and patent traditional corn
varieties in the birthplace of corn genetics,” says Patrick Woodall, Research
Director for Food & Water Watch.
Such
an opening could further harm Mexico’s corn farmers, who lost
much of their market after the original NAFTA in 1993 opened Mexico
to imports of U.S. corn. The deal may also reduce the diversity of Mexico’s
native corn strains, which are vital to the health of the world’s corn crop.
Over
8,000
years ago farmers in present-day Mexico first domesticated corn from
a wild grass, teosinte. Corn holds incredible cultural, economic, and
ecological significance in Mexico to this day. Mexico has maintained a vast
array of diverse corn species, with 64 recognized
strains, called landraces, and over 21,000 regionally adapted
varieties. Over two-thirds of Mexican corn farmers still save their own seeds
and plant native strains.
This
diverse genetic trove is “absolutely critical to modern crop breeding,” says
Tim Wise, the Director of Policy Research at the Global
Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University.
“It’s a critical natural resource for the modern world,” he says. When
researchers look for drought-resistant strains or corn that can requires
less fertilizer, they turn to Mexico’s native corn gene pool.
In
2011,
Monsanto and Syngenta requested the first permits to plant GM corn in northern
Mexico. But introducing GM corn leads to
natural cross-pollination, or gene flow, between native and GM crops, threatening
the genetic diversity of Mexico’s indigenous corn. In October 2013,
a federal judge ordered a
temporary halt on GM corn permits after a group of 53 farmers and
consumers filed a class action suit claiming GM cultivation violated Mexicans’
constitutional right to a clean environment. In the years since, courts
continue to uphold
this decision, calling for further study and extending the ban.
Today,
only thirty
percent of Mexican farmers use commercial hybrid single-use corn
seed.
While
the new NAFTA does not repeal Mexico’s GM corn ban, it includes
industry-friendly language, as well as new tools for governments to challenge
or deter regulations. “There’s no smoking gun in the text that says Mexico must
allow planting of GMOs,” says Karen Hansen-Kuhn, the Director of Trade and
Global Governance at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. ”But there
is whole a series of factors, in different parts of the agreement, that would
make it harder to implement new rules and put existing rules under new kinds of
scrutiny.”
. . .
--Claire Kelloway, http://www.foodandpower.net/2018/10/10/mexicos-native-corn-varieties-threatened-by-new-nafta/
Canada,
too, has reason for concern:
. .
. “President Trump touts USMCA as a big win for US farmers, but it is a huge
loss for dairy farmers on both sides of the border. Canadian family farms will
go out of business and Canadian dairy farmers will see their incomes fall due
to increased US imports. While the slightly expanded market will offer small
benefits to some US dairy farmers, it does nothing to reduce the overproduction
at the heart of our dairy crisis – rather, it increases the false idea that
exports will save us. We must solve the problem of our overproduction through
common sense farmer-led supply management programs, not by dumping our excess
milk into the Canadian farmers’ market,” said Wisconsin dairy farmer Jim
Goodman, board president of NFFC.
The Canadian government has suggested it
may implement a subsidy program to offset farm losses. US farmers have fared
poorly in the decades since farm subsidies have replaced supply management in
this country, with small farms closing and large farms getting ever larger,
reducing the population and prosperity of rural areas. Producing as much as
possible is now the only way for farmers to survive, leading to widespread
chemical use and “fencerow to fencerow” planting, even in environmentally
sensitive areas.
Farm subsidies, intended to make up
farmers’ costs when overproduction causes farmer prices to drop, cost billions
to taxpayers, but often only cover a fraction of farm expenses. The changes in
the USMCA appear poised to shift Canada’s farmers out of a system that provides
a fair income to farmers and ensures consumers an affordable supply of locally
produced food into a production-oriented farming free-for-all like that of the
US, with all of its negative economic, social, and environmental consequences.
NFFC is additionally concerned that the
USMCA will pave the way for unregulated gene-edited genetically modified
organisms (GMOs), further consolidating the control that seed and agrochemical
companies hold over farmers. The deal also allows these companies to withhold
important information on pesticide safety, with potentially dangerous
consequences for farmers, farmworkers, and farming communities.
. . .
But
the consequences are likely to be negative for all three participants, as the
USMCA allows the biotech giants to create beachheads in other areas as well:
. . .
The
rest is at https://usareally.com/2603-food-wars
--
Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England,
South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð,
unworthy though we are!
Anathema to the Union!
No comments:
Post a Comment