What is disturbing is
that public servants are engaged in spending their time to advance
private corporate agendas way beyond what anyone would consider
appropriate. Just were does it actually end?
I would like to make
another comment. I think that the Monsanto seed protocol is a failed
economic protocol, but that Monsanto is pressing ahead in order to
salvage value. In the meantime major resistance is rising in Europe
because you can not get past the perception that Monsanto is
attempting to create a wealth destroying monopoly on the backs of
farmers.
This is a major story
that is still in its early stages. This push back is all part of a
complete conversion over to organic methods on a global scale. It is
hard to believe but I also suspect that a real tipping point is been
approached and that the collapse of industrial farming is way sooner
than we imagine.
I would normally
anticipate a slow transition, except the velocity is clearly
increasing.
WikiLeaks Cables Reveal State Department Promoting GMOs Abroad
Wednesday,
22 May 2013 12:50
TRANSCRIPT:
PAUL
JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome
to The Real News Network. I'm Paul Jay in Baltimore.
On
May 25 in 36 countries around the world there will be protests
against Monsanto and the promotion of GMO in agriculture and animal
food products.
Now
joining us to talk about Monsanto and the role of the U.S. State
Department in promoting Monsanto and GMO around the world is Darcy
O'Callaghan. She's the international policy director at Food &
Water Watch. The organization works to promote local control of food
systems and to prevent the privatization of public water resources.
Thanks
for joining us, Darcy.
DARCY
O'CALLAGHAN, INTERNATIONAL DIRECTOR, FOOD & WATER WATCH: Thanks
for having me.
JAY: So
you issued a report where you went through--I guess it is thousands
of State Department cables and looking at the role of the U.S. State
Department in promoting GMO. And I guess the--Monsanto's obviously
the biggest player or one of the biggest players in all of that. What
did you find?
O'CALLAGHAN: Right.
So we spent the last year combing through 926 diplomatic cables
between U.S. embassies abroad and the State Department in D.C.
looking for any incidents of the use [snip] biotechnology or
genetically modified organisms. And
what we found was a pretty systematic move for promoting
biotechnology abroad. You know, we had anecdotal evidence in the
past, but using the WikiLeaks database, the Cablegate database, gave
us a unique opportunity to really pore through a massive amount and
to really
see the trends that were laid out there.
JAY: Now,
I would suppose someone from the State Department might say, well,
yeah, but that's what we do, we promote American business. If you
looked up the word oil, you would find all kinds of cables promoting
American oil interest. And I don't think that the State Department is
shy about saying that they do promote various sectors of the American
economy and commercial interests. So what's wrong with them doing
this?
O'CALLAGHAN: Right.
Well, that's a fair point. But
the other side of the coin is that USAID is also based at the State
Department, and their mission is also international development
abroad. We've got the Feed the Future program, which is designed to
address poverty issues. And the use of biotechnology is a central
component of that Feed the Future program. It's being used as a way
to promote our good will. And the reality is that there's a conflict
of interest there when you're ostensibly promoting poverty
alleviation with one arm and on the other arm promoting U.S.
corporations. And so there's a real conflict between which of those
two interests is going to win out and which is really in the best
interest of the people you're trying to help.
JAY: Well,
that kind of gets into the heart of the GMO debate, then, because, I
mean, one side is saying that this does not help alleviate poverty,
because the cost of seeds gets so high because it gets monopolized
and such. But the other side of the argument is saying because of GMO
you can grow more food and thus feed more people.
O'CALLAGHAN: That's
right. And that's really one of the fallacies. There
have been numerous tests that show the production capacity of
genetically modified seeds is really not much better than
conventional seed breeding. And
when you look at the massive amounts of money that have been spent on
developing these seeds, it's really clear which one is a better bang
for your buck. You know, the USAID, Monsanto, and the World Bank
spent 12 years and $6 million to develop a virus-resistant GE sweet
potato, and they ultimately failed. And in comparison to that, in
Uganda there was another team of researchers who succeeded with
significantly less time and money. So it's pretty clear to me which
one is a better investment.
JAY:
Now,
a recent Supreme Court decision in the United States upheld--I think
it was Monsanto's right to go after a farmer who had bought some
secondhand seeds and hadn't signed a contract with Monsanto. What's
the significance of this? And then to what extent is this kind of
lobbying promoted abroad?
O'CALLAGHAN:
That's
right. It's a serious setback here in the U.S. And, you know, that's
an example of what's happening here. And when you're talking about
farmers that are sometimes living on $1, $2 a day, I mean, these are
people who can't afford the level of payment that is required for
Monsanto's GE seeds. In fact, you know, if you take a case like
happens in the U.S. with this farmer using secondhand seeds, that
sort of thing, you know, he had some legal support to file a case in
the Supreme Court here, and, you know, that's simply not going to
exist in Sub-Saharan Africa. So folks are really going to be in a
tough situation there. And, you know, when GE seeds are so
controversial here in the U.S. and around the world--I mean, we've
got campaigns in more than 20 states right now for labeling of GE
foods. And, you know, when it's so controversial in the U.S., why are
we promoting it as part of our international affairs policy
[crosstalk]
JAY:
Yeah,
what are some examples of you finding that, that the State Department
is actually trying to undermine laws in other countries where they're
trying to have a more obvious labeling and other forms of legislation
with genetically engineered foods? The State Department's--you found,
is being--actively trying to influence that legislation. What are
examples of that?
O'CALLAGHAN:
Yeah.
Well, one example, from Hong Kong: there was a piece of legislation
proposed that would label GE foods, and the U.S. State Department was
involved to the extent that we actually sent promotional materials to
all of the high schools in Hong Kong, so reaching out to students.
There was also a case in--.
JAY:
Now,
hold on for a sec. This is the actual--the U.S. embassy in Hong Kong,
or the representation in Hong Kong, directly sending stuff into the
schools from the State Department.
O'CALLAGHAN: According
to the diplomatic cables, absolutely.
JAY: Okay.
What else?
O'CALLAGHAN: Also
in Romania and Peru, the U.S. embassies were basically bragging that
they had helped to develop NGOs, so nongovernmental organizations
that would promote the safety of biotechnology and try to change the
public opinion of it.
JAY: So
this still goes back, I guess, to the big, the main debate, then,
because the cables is a revelation. In a sense, the State Department
isn't going to be shy about saying they're promoting biotech.
Obviously, this administration and past administrations
wholeheartedly believe in biotech.
O'CALLAGHAN: Absolutely.
And yet we found in other cables where there was evidence that the
embassy staff was trying to cover up their involvement in promoting
biotech because they realized that it would be politically unpopular.
JAY: Now,
how does things like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and some of the
trade agreements that the United States is negotiating, how is this
going to affect this debate?
O'CALLAGHAN: Yeah.
Well, imports and food safety are going to be central components of
both the TPP and the upcoming U.S.-E.U. trade agreement. And we're
expecting that the Obama administration is going to look to pass fast
tracks that they can get this through Congress with just an up or
down vote. And so, you know, in the E.U. they've been very strongly
opposed to allowing genetically modified crops for human consumption.
And so we know that's going to be a major piece at play in those
trade agreements.
JAY: And
just--if I understand it correctly, if countries were to pass laws
against genetically modified food, in theory if they're part of this
trade agreement, could they be sued by Monsanto or somebody to try to
undo their legislation or they'd have to pay them compensation? Does
it go this far?
O'CALLAGHAN: It
is not likely to go that far. It depends how the trade agreements are
written. But, you know, for example, the U.S. has had a very
protracted suit over GMO foods with the E.U., and the WTO ruled in
favor of the U.S. But that basically means that the E.U. is allowed
to retaliate by charging higher fines on other food items for import.
JAY: So
where is this headed, then, do you think?
O'CALLAGHAN: Well,
it's up to the people. I mean, you know, this report is designed to
shine a light on some of the diplomatic behavior that the U.S. State
Department is doing, and, you know, we don't think it's in line with
what the American people want. And so, you know, it's up to us now to
organize around these issues. And, you know, frankly, if folks think
that this is inappropriate, then they should be writing to the State
Department and organizing at the local level and supporting anti-GMO
campaigns abroad.
JAY:
Okay.
Thanks for joining us, Darcey.
O'CALLAGHAN:
Thanks
for having me.
JAY:
And
thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
No comments:
Post a Comment