Log Out
Visit Pamela Drew's column >>

PAMELA DREW

Home Page
muckraker
Articles Posted: 257  Links Seeded: 1780
Member Since: 5/2006  Last Seen: 5/19/2012

Global Food Security Act of 2009 Protects Agribusiness' Corporate Welfare

Seeded on Fri Apr 3, 2009 11:44 PM EDT
Read ArticleArticle Source: Lavida Localvore
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Seeded by Pamela Drew
Advertise | AdChoices

by: Jill Richardson

Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved S.384 The Global Food Security Act of 2009, which was sponsored by Dick Lugar (R-IN), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Bob Casey (D-PA). In my view, this is not good news. The bill specifies that the U.S. MUST fund GMOs and biotechnology.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Pamela Drew

See, there is bipartisan cooperation, we'll help Africa, not with clean water, but patent protected, gmo seed, altered to tolerate the trademark herbicides and pesticides that help boost profits!

This year will probably mark the peak for Monsanto's Roundup business, executives reiterated, with revenue and profit increasingly driven by seeds and traits.

Quarterly revenue jumped in both in the U.S. branded corn seed and traits business and U.S. soybean seed and traits business, although there were fewer planted acres for corn in Brazil because of drought conditions.

Monsanto said net income fell to $1.09 billion, or $1.97 a share, in the second quarter ended on February 28 from $1.13 billion, or $2.02 a share, a year earlier.

The results include a charge in the latest quarter from the company's acquisition of a sugar cane breeding and technology company in Brazil and a year-earlier gain.

http://www.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idUSTRE53135C20090402?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews

How are the farmers in America's Heartland benefitting from the success? With 99c burgers.

  • 5 votes
Reply#1 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 12:13 AM EDT
0pinion8ed

Totally wrong. These people destroy alternate variations of seed and crops in order to achieve predictability and consistency. The goal is to produce a single reliable crop and they manage this by hook or by crook. They will entice farmers to trade in their seeds, gathered from their own native crops thereby reducing the number of varieties. In it's wisdom, nature has designed variaious strains to resist crop varous destroying calamities. If one succumbs, another will survive. One might be resistant to drought, another might be resistant to certain crop insects etc. Whatever happens it doesn't wipe out all food stuffs on food producing crops in one single event.

Monsanto, Cargill and other chemically based agribusiness prefers to eliminate these variations in order to produce one predictable volume producing altered crop which produce no seeds , or infertile seeds that can be saved to plant the following season. These genetically engineered crops are laden with chemicals and require additional expensive chemical additive fertillizers, herbicides and insecticides to protect and finish out the crop. Once all native seeds are collected and destroyed or otherwise eliminated through various trade programs and the seeds and feritilizers and other chemicals are the predominating source of food, the price goes up to purchase seeds and chemicals. It doesn't take long before the price of the crops goes down, by design, and the farmers are barely eaking out a living. Soon the begin to lose their farms but large agribusiness backed by Monsanto and Cargill now have cornered the market on the food supply and are beginning collective farming, the equivalent to share cropping. Other buyers have been eliminated or run out of business. Farmers begin to lose their farms that have been in their families for generations. Suicide rates climb as these farmers lose their farms to local banks from whom they have borrowed to afford the seeds and chemicals. Crops have now become a hedge fund commodity traded on the stock market.

This has already happened in these United States, has happened in India and some in Venezuela and perhaps other third world countries still under the radar. (Cargill and the rice business that Chavez took over.) The problem begins to be poor people can no longer to trade with each other for their food stuffs, crops have become so single purposed a single disaster can wipe out an entire country's food supply. Alternate sources have already been eliminated because agribusiness prefers to deal with monopolies. And they can always find people in those countries to get on that food train. Don't forget the influences of WTO in these trade agreements influencing crop selection for future trade advantage. A major problem is that crops engineered to enhance volume usually sacrifice nutrients therefore people are having to eat more to glean fewer nutrients that their bodies need. Chances are better than average that is one of the causes of the explosion of obesity and pandemic onset of a multitude of other diseases.

Now the move is on for genetically altered bovines using the same techniques here in the US and getting laws passed against alternates by isolating entire sections of the country. There has even been a law passed recently to prevent private organic milk producers to indicate on their products a label disclaimer of having used chemical innoculants and harmones injected into their cattle that wind up in the milk.

What to do about it? Better minds than mine can figure that out.

Sneaky bustards. Time to get lawmakers that are smart enough to see past the dollar bill and quit gettin fooled by the deceitful and false claims of how it is neccessary to feed the world. Their seemingly benign benevolent agribusiness and their takeover of the world food supply with the same old, same old claim of doing it for our own good.

Don't forget, these are also the people that are getting government grants and subsidies for converting some of the grains needed for people and animal food into bio-fuels at taxpayer expense with inefficient use of carbon based fuels using more to produce bio-fuels than they produce. Some are fighting hard the farm subsides elimination that they collect as well. Do you feel ripped?

  • 6 votes
Reply#2 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 2:02 AM EDT
Pamela Drew

here's where we started, or meant to...thank you aine and jim dent i can cut and paste too!

Don't forget, these are also the people that are getting government grants and subsidies for converting some of the grains needed for people and animal food into bio-fuels at taxpayer expense with inefficient use of carbon based fuels using more to produce bio-fuels than they produce.

Exactly right, just as decades of ADM lobbying has come to bear fruit and others follow.

The Archer Daniels Midland Corporation (ADM) has been the most prominent recipient of corporate welfare in recent U.S. history. ADM and its chairman Dwayne Andreas have lavishly fertilized both political parties with millions of dollars in handouts and in return have reaped billion-dollar windfalls from taxpayers and consumers.

Thanks to federal protection of the domestic sugar industry, ethanol subsidies, subsidized grain exports, and various other programs, ADM has cost the American economy billions of dollars since 1980 and has indirectly cost Americans tens of billions of dollars in higher prices and higher taxes over that same period.

At least 43 percent of ADM's annual profits are from products heavily subsidized or protected by the American government. Moreover, every $1 of profits earned by ADM's corn sweetener operation costs consumers $10, and every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

Look how Congress serves the public, green energy looks more like greed energy!

...every $1 of profits earned by its ethanol operation costs taxpayers $30

Ah the budget process in Washington, free market my Aunt Fanny!

Some are fighting hard the farm subsides elimination that they collect as well. Do you feel ripped?

Of the 435 Congressiona; Districts, 22 of them take half the total subsidy dollars. Environmental Working Group has done a smaskingly brilliant job of making that info user friendly and complete. Operating on a shoe string they do what Congress can't or won't and follow the money.

Wanna guess how many of the 22 top dollar winners sit on the Agriculture Committee? EWG tells you and worse yet, it all goes to the top agribusiness, gmo commodity crops and 59% of ranchers and farmers growing 400+ commodity crops, get nothing and the next tier of some double digit percent get about $1,800 or less.

Total USDA - Subsidies in by Congressional District, 1995-2006

http://farm.ewg.org/farm/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=total&page=district

  • 4 votes
#2.1 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 5:02 PM EDT
0pinion8ed

Pamela Drew, you do an extraordinary job of research. Has off to you. Silly me that I can never remember where I learned a thing. However your results are nothing short of stunning.

By the way... isn't it also rather extraordinary how many democrats are not on this list. Hmmm-m-m

  • 1 vote
#2.2 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 5:33 PM EDT
Pamela Drew

By the way... isn't it also rather extraordinary how many democrats are not on this list.

They do have Hillary at the State Department and a Clinton Legacy of unwavering support and aggressive global expansion to hang their biotech hats on. It's almost luck of the draw which party has more hands in the till at any given moment. Political Party means zippo, zero, zilch to me.

Thanks for the sweet words of appreciation, half the joy in muckraking is sharing. :~)

  • 5 votes
#2.3 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 6:08 PM EDT
Trying to find Work

Thanks for all the research Pamela, and your very well thought out comment opinion8ed.

We could be producing bio-diesel at less than half the cost to the American taxpayer, and if we allowed more (and cleaner) diesel engines in regular cars, more people would be able to use it. It is better deal for corporate America to send billions of taxpayer dollars to buy a large percentage of the corn crop and turn it into ethanol. The corn used for feed for animals and food for people increases in price and the GMO companies get to rake in even more money creating corn that makes better ethanol.

I am totally disgusted with American agricultural policy and American agribusiness.

  • 5 votes
#2.4 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 6:55 PM EDT
0pinion8ed

Thanks Trying. Most of it I heard from an Indian Psycyst (sp?) on the UCTV cable channel, I remember she was so full of information on the subject she kept going off on tangents and pulling herself back. So it was more remembering her words, another thing that happens once in awhile. Must have made an impression on me but I have been p-off about it ever since. Just the very idea that there are people who would do that for their own benefit and never give a care about the farmers who commit suicide as a result of their manipulations. These people care nothing for people in general. That I find unendurable.

  • 1 vote
#2.5 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 8:09 PM EDT
Pamela Drew

I am totally disgusted with American agricultural policy and American agribusiness.

Good, don't get mad get even and quit feeding the beast, well best you can in your corner of our modern world. Fight back with your dollars, plant a garden, even a window sill, join a community CoOp or start one. All societal differences aside, we all eat. Farm fresh, fruits and vegetables, pies or flowers suit us all.

To find the small farmers and growers, greenmarket or a place to sign up so others can find you check Local Harvest. Every dollar is a vote that grows where it goes, one by one, acre by acre one community at a time take our dollars back to spend locally. Go us!!

  • 2 votes
#2.6 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 9:51 PM EDT
0pinion8ed

Absolutely, I am all for that, got tomatoes, peppers, cukes and squash in the ground just now, battling moles all the way. However, one of the other bits of trivia I picked up somewhere along the way was about seeds. The higher priced seeds seem to be patented and the cheapest seeds are usually regular seeds and not necessarily of good quality. The patented seeds are bio-engineered and usually don't produce seeds you can use next year. But there are clubs on-line that have collected seeds over the years and they swap out. I think they are called heirloom seeds. The objective is to grow biologically unaffected seeds and produce more seeds until there is a regular seed bank, so to speak. An act of preservation.

  • 1 vote
#2.7 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 10:37 PM EDT
Pamela Drew

The patented seeds are bio-engineered

The biotech seeds are all patented, but all patented varieties aren't gmo forms. Many varieties produced through research of conventional hybred and selection techniques have owners too.

But there are clubs on-line that have collected seeds over the years and they swap out. I think they are called heirloom seeds.

There are, more and growing (pun) heirloom seed groups. Heirlooms have come down through generations, just as we people have, with different traits and looks adapted to a different ecosystem, not a monoculture form and genetic Xerox copy mutating in every corner of the planet.

Diversity is a defense of living things. Survivalist seeds and Seed Savers Exchange are two good places to look, as well checking with Local Harvest for growers or groups near you.

http://www.localharvest.org

http://www.seedsavers.org/

http://www.survivalistseeds.com/mission.htm

  • 2 votes
#2.8 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 11:01 PM EDT
0pinion8ed

I gotta say, you are on it.

  • 1 vote
#2.9 - Sun Apr 5, 2009 12:16 AM EDT
Pamela Drew

I gotta say, you are on it.

Food and agribusiness is primary focus, consuming tens of thousands of hours of research over the last decade; there ought to be some upsides to standing on the same soap box that long!

  • 2 votes
#2.10 - Sun Apr 5, 2009 8:00 AM EDT
Reply
Brian-657672

One of the biggest problems we had in Iraq was that we took away the Iraqi farmers seeds and replaced them with the GMO's. They hated us for that.

Years ago when they told humans to reduce the antibiotics use, they had to come up with a new plan, and this is it. Massive doses of antibiotics, and other drugs into the animals we eat.

All plants with massive doses of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. Say good bye to the organic industry. Small farmers will be gone, and you own little garden will be subjected to USDA inspectors.

I do not see how we will be able to tolerate any more government intervention in our lives. Obama is a smuck, Period!

  • 2 votes
Reply#3 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 3:56 AM EDT
0pinion8ed

Obama had nothing to do with this. Agribusiness has a tremendous hold on the minds of the legislature who do not investigate the behind the scenes goings on. We have a severe lack of knowledge in our elected body.

WTO and Big Argibusiness are thoroughly interlocked and have been very successful in keeping their activities clothed in benign appearing practices. If you cannot control the world's fuel supply, then control the world's food supply and then you control the world.

  • 3 votes
#3.1 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 10:31 AM EDT
Pamela Drew

Take a look at the charts from the USDA that show the growth of patent protected, fee based gmo seed among the US top subsidized crops, from their introduction to now. This is a bipartisan experiment in deregulation, christened by Bush Sr. and fed steadily by every successive President and Congress since. Note some special thanks to industry appointments at FDA, USDA, EPA, USAID, NAFTA, WTO plus Land Grant University and NIH research.

Soybeans and cotton genetically engineered with herbicide-tolerant traits have been the most widely and rapidly adopted GE crops in the U.S., followed by insect-resistant cotton and corn. This product summarizes the extent of adoption of herbicide-tolerant and insect–resistant crops since their introduction in 1996. Three tables devoted to corn, cotton, and soybeans cover the 2000-08 period by State. See more...the link has growth chart and links to more..

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/BiotechCrops/

Hardly a problem whose genesis rests with Obama, but hope of change is tenuous at best.

  • 4 votes
#3.2 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
Pamela Drew

oops, wrong place...

    #3.3 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 5:00 PM EDT
    Pamela Drew

    #3 Brian...One of the biggest problems we had in Iraq was that we took away the Iraqi farmers seeds and replaced them with the GMO's. They hated us for that.

    Thanks so much for mentioning CPA-81 and sorry to take so long to reply to this, but its a subject that warranted more resources to reply than time allowed recently. It is a facet of our foreign policy that receives scant attention though it dominates the WTO agenda.

    Seeding starvation in Iraq
    By Jerry Mazza - Jan 4, 2007

    In 2004, when L. Paul Bremer III left his position as Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) administrator to “transfer sovereignty,” he also left behind 100 deadly orders to govern Iraq. Order 81, which included “Patent, Industrial Design, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety,” prohibited Iraqis from reusing seeds of “new” plant varieties patented under the law. Think about that for a second . . .

    What that order means is that seeds from those “new” varieties cannot be saved for reuse, at least not without paying a royalty to its “manufacturer,” whether it’s Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, or any of the other genetically-modifying seed giants. This could easily bankrupt farmers and contribute vastly to massive food shortages and starvation.

    This law amended Iraq’s original patent law of 1970. Until it is revised or cancelled by a new Iraqi government, it is legally binding under the hawkish wing of the colonizing CPA. Historically, the Iraqi constitution prohibited private ownership of biological resources. Yet this US-stamped patent law does just that. It introduces a plan for monopoly rights over seeds, if you can believe it.

    In fact, there is a whole new chapter on Plant Variety Protection (PVP) inserted into Iraq’s former patent law. Page 15 and on provide for “protection” of new varieties of plants.” In it, PVP becomes an “intellectual property right” (IPR) for plants, a monopoly right on planting material (seeds) for a breeder claiming to have discovered or developed a new variety. Move over god, earth spirit, Mother Nature, whatever you wish to call creation’s prime mover. Monsanto is here, changing it all. And this has nothing to do with conservation. It’s about safeguarding “free market” interests, that is, the behemoths who claim they created the new plants. How’s that for a hustle?

    http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1602.shtml

    The scope of hypocrisy behind claims of spreading freedom, as we spread the privatized seeds and replace the food supply in the public domain, with a fee based monoculture variety; it's mind-boggling. There's a fabulous article that gets into it in clear detail and it is essential that Americans wake up to the reality that the us and them isn't the US v. Iraq, but individual rights v. corporate control.

    • 2 votes
    #3.4 - Sun Apr 5, 2009 8:26 AM EDT
    Reply
    Tacitus13

    The UN recently released a report saying that Africa's best hope for the future is organic agriculture. Yet the Senate hearing on the bill S.384 entirely disregarded this notion.

    Glad to know that the Senate based its decision based on information and wasn't unduly influenced by the lobbyists who donate to their campaigns. Oh wait...

    • 3 votes
    Reply#4 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 6:43 AM EDT
    Pamela Drew

    Glad to know that the Senate based its decision based on information and wasn't unduly influenced by the lobbyists who donate to their campaigns. Oh wait...

    The nerve of the arrogant lot who buy fiefdoms, by supporting corporate ventures that could never support themselves without government welfare. Public health and environmental disasters be dammed, got to keep that DOW number climbing skyward. The blatant, corporate favoritism, costly Congressional actions, flying in the face of common sense and the public good, urrgh, the idiocy, greed and waste of it gives me a big time cramp.

    • 4 votes
    #4.1 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 3:43 PM EDT
    Reply
    pcbynature

    Hmmm. I used to work at a Cargill corn plant. I actually saw the vast increases in the size of corn kernels. It's hard to dispute...

    • 3 votes
    Reply#5 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 8:32 AM EDT
    Pamela Drew

    The size alone could be from conventional breeding and aims for the highest starch content, since animal feed, biofuels and processing volume is far more of an application than corn we eat for taste. There's no way to see the effects of the gmo changes, but very likely that the corn bred for size has every enhancement that feeds agribusiness best.

    • 5 votes
    #5.1 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 9:12 AM EDT
    0pinion8ed

    And nutritional value be damned. Full speed ahead... Quantity trumps quality again.

    Whoops! Pardon my cynicism.

    • 4 votes
    #5.2 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 3:47 PM EDT
    Pamela Drew

    Quantity trumps quality again.

    Sadly its not even the quantity of food we're boosting, but privatized acres and chemicals used.

    • 4 votes
    #5.3 - Sat Apr 4, 2009 6:16 PM EDT
    Reply
    Leave a Comment:
    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
    Newsvine Privacy Statement
    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.