****************************************************
Note: GMO's growing on our families lands are Not O.K.
Read the following pertaining to these issues on GMO's:
1) Did you know that Congress just recently passed a Law to prosecute individuals from farming? and that's to accommodate the GMO groups?..........Wicked! see
http://thedailyeater.com/2011/01/food-bill-u-s-a.html OBAMA SIGNS
New Food Bill for the U.S.A | Food News | The Daily Eater
Jan 4, 2011 ... President Obama is set to sign a $1.4 billion overhaul of the American food safety system. The new bill would give the government power to ...
thedailyeater.com/2011/01/food-bill-u-s-a.html - CachedObama signs new food bill amid funding concerns | 05 January 2011 ...
Jan 5, 2011 ... US President Barack Obama on Tuesday signed new food safety legislation into law, despite ongoing uncertainty about how it will be funded.
www.commodityonline.com/news/Obama-signs-new-food-bill-amid-funding-concerns-35328-3-1.html - Cached - Block all commodityonline.com results
more background:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi explore what Congress is up to and google the S510 & HR 2751 Read below for some info:
http://ja-jp.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=200572774323&topic=28359
Senate Bill S510 Makes it illegal to Grow, Share, Trade or Sell Homegrown Food
S 510, the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the history of the US. It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money.
“If accepted [S 510] would preclude the public’s right to grow, own, trade, transport, share, feed and eat each and every food that nature makes. It will become the most offensive authority against the cultivation, trade and consumption of food and agricultural products of one’s choice. It will be unconstitutional and contrary to natural law or, if you like, the will of God.”~Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada Health whistleblower
It is similar to what India faced with imposition of the salt tax during British rule, only S 510 extends control over all food in the US, violating the fundamental human right to food.
Monsanto says it has no interest in the bill and would not benefit from it, but Monsanto’s Michael Taylor who gave us rBGH and unregulated genetically modified (GM) organisms, appears to have designed it and is waiting as an appointed Food Czar to the FDA (a position unapproved by Congress) to administer the agency it would create — without judicial review — if it passes. S 510 would give Monsanto unlimited power over all US seed, food supplements, food and farming.
History
In the 1990s, Bill Clinton introduced HACCP (Hazardous Analysis Critical Control Points) purportedly to deal with contamination in the meat industry. Clinton’s HACCP delighted the offending corporate (World Trade Organization “WTO”) meat packers since it allowed them to inspect themselves, eliminated thousands of local food processors (with no history of contamination), and centralized meat into their control. Monsanto promoted HACCP.
In 2008, Hillary Clinton, urged a powerful centralized food safety agency as part of her campaign for president. Her advisor was Mark Penn, CEO of Burson Marsteller*, a giant PR firm representing Monsanto. Clinton lost, but Clinton friends such as Rosa DeLauro, whose husband’s firm lists Monsanto as a progressive client and globalization as an area of expertise, introduced early versions of S 510.
S 510 fails on moral, social, economic, political, constitutional, and human survival grounds.
1. It puts all US food and all US farms under Homeland Security and the Department of Defense, in the event of contamination or an ill-defined emergency. It resembles the Kissinger Plan.
2. It would end US sovereignty over its own food supply by insisting on compliance with the WTO, thus threatening national security. It would end the Uruguay Round Agreement Act of 1994, which put US sovereignty and US law under perfect protection. Instead, S 510 says:
COMPLIANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.
Nothing in this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
3. It would allow the government, under Maritime Law, to define the introduction of any food into commerce (even direct sales between individuals) as smuggling into “the United States.” Since under that law, the US is a corporate entity and not a location, “entry of food into the US” covers food produced anywhere within the land mass of this country and “entering into” it by virtue of being produced.
4. It imposes Codex Alimentarius on the US, a global system of control over food. It allows the United Nations (UN), World Health Organization (WHO), UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the WTO to take control of every food on earth and remove access to natural food supplements. Its bizarre history and its expected impact in limiting access to adequate nutrition (while mandating GM food, GM animals, pesticides, hormones, irradiation of food, etc.) threatens all safe and organic food and health itself, since the world knows now it needs vitamins to survive, not just to treat illnesses.
5. It would remove the right to clean, store and thus own seed in the US, putting control of seeds in the hands of Monsanto and other multinationals, threatening US security. See Seeds – How to criminalize them, for more details.
6. It includes NAIS, an animal traceability program that threatens all small farmers and ranchers raising animals. The UN is participating through the WHO, FAO, WTO, and World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) in allowing mass slaughter of even heritage breeds of animals and without proof of disease. Biodiversity in farm animals is being wiped out to substitute genetically engineered animals on which corporations hold patents. Animal diseases can be falsely declared. S 510 includes the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), despite its corrupt involvement in the H1N1 scandal, which is now said to have been concocted by the corporations.
7. It extends a failed and destructive HACCP to all food, thus threatening to do to all local food production and farming what HACCP did to meat production – put it in corporate hands and worsen food safety.
8. It deconstructs what is left of the American economy. It takes agriculture and food, which are the cornerstone of all economies, out of the hands of the citizenry, and puts them under the total control of multinational corporations influencing the UN, WHO, FAO and WTO, with HHS, and CDC, acting as agents, with Homeland Security as the enforcer. The chance to rebuild the economy based on farming, ranching, gardens, food production, natural health, and all the jobs, tools and connected occupations would be eliminated.
9. It would allow the government to mandate antibiotics, hormones, slaughterhouse waste, pesticides and GMOs. This would industrialize every farm in the US, eliminate local organic farming, greatly increase global warming from increased use of oil-based products and long-distance delivery of foods, and make food even more unsafe. The five items listed — the Five Pillars of Food Safety — are precisely the items in the food supply which are the primary source of its danger.
10. It uses food crimes as the entry into police state power and control. The bill postpones defining all the regulations to be imposed; postpones defining crimes to be punished, postpones defining penalties to be applied. It removes fundamental constitutional protections from all citizens in the country, making them subject to a corporate tribunal with unlimited power and penalties, and without judicial review. It is (similar to C-6 in Canada) the end of Rule of Law in the US.
Layla And its a step closer to Collective Farming...> :-(
Jeff This is very bad news.....More controll over people to force us to have to eat there poisen food and water...To be at there mercey.....Who's the dumb fk that thought of this sht.....Well i really don't need to ask that.....THE ELITE .......!!
K.c. discemination begins NOW! ;-]
Voice Judy Thacker
Try the search engine at the DailyPaul... we talked about it Nov 09!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/114978
on Friday · Mark as Irrelevant · Report · Delete Post
Voice Independence
that was provided by healthnut4freedom who is a self stated activest. Again I ask. please provide proof Ron Paul or any candidate themself discussed.
Thank you for participating.
"VI"
on Friday ·
Judy Thacker
I read YOUR request too fast, sorry. What is the point your trying to make? If you dont' think Ron Paul is quite possibly the only up there standing up for liberty and honoring his oath... then you either don't know much about him and should do your own research, if you are familiar with him and still don't feel like he is worthy of your time then nothing I can say will change your mind.
Terri Sutton Knight
I don't support Ron Paul. I do support growing my own food. I didn't hear about the bill until last week, seems like another thing that they were trying to change before we found out, There goes that hopey thing out the window again.
I didn't ask anyone to spray my garden this year with some form of gas and ruin my whole garden in May. I love to eat food that actually taste.
The whole gov is at fault by not being straight forward with the US citizens to begin with. We are awake now and will be watching closely. We will not forget in 2012 or 2014 or 2016 we will not rest until our country has been restored to its greatness in freedoms and people.
Voice Independence
Not trying to argue or take any side. I nor anyone elase ( as of now) can find proof any candidate talked about this (s512 bill) prior to election. Why? why? why ? did anybody not take a position on this. If so, please provide proof. Please stick the point and question asked ?
thanks again for your participation
"VI"
ps. please find me proof. I want to believe... again this was introduced in "09"
Terri Sutton Knight
Was it implied in the word Change? I heard something but it died down quickly. Seemed like it was shut down in order to cover it up. They are really on the wrong side of the people on this one. They tell us that we are going to have a food shortage so folks stock up. Then they blame the food shortage on the "horders". Why would anyone do that unless they were hiding some real agenda? This was also including in the Healthcare bill. What are they doing. They want us all to live in the cities, they don't want us growing our own food but must go to local farmers markets to get our veggies, Why are the fixing a problem with a bigger more threatening problem? Seems they like to cut off their noses to spite their faces.
Judy Thacker
I think he (Paul) took a position... he introduce 3 bills to prevent the FDA and several other org's to get out of our LIVES and leave us free to choose.
http://www.healthtruthrevealed.com/articles/11144121708/article
on Friday · Mark as Irrelevant · Report · Delete Post
Voice Independence
Thank you for providing the link. I am aware and read these bills upon being introduced. Still the question is the same ?????
Please, for real, provide proof of s 510 being discussed.
"VI"
Masami Pinky Inagaki
@Voice Independence:
Bit of topic, but related videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2D4-noTiCg&feature=related
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8MM3mLbd24&feature=related
on Friday · Mark as Irrelevant · Report · Delete Post
Masami Pinky Inagaki
PS. the title saids S-512.
Terri Sutton Knight
http://jbs.org/component/content/article/1009-commentary/6548-final-vote-on-food-safety-bill-imminent
This is part of the "food safety bill" it was voted on yesterday. AND PASSED, There are opposing views on the other bills. I am really irate about this intrusion.
Terri Sutton Knight
Here is another bill going thru: http://www.facebook.com/l/2d6a0EMWEGh-eROTNLpRpePt2Wg;revolutionradio.org/?p=8474
This relates to the censorship of the web. Read, call and complain to your reps.
on Friday · Mark as Irrelevant · Report · Delete Post
Masami Pinky Inagaki
@Terri
Thanks for clearing up. I've posted the Codex Alimentarius video from the past just as a ref since it was discussed even before '09. I just "met" voice of independence via same link thread including the petition page of S-510 that I've posted on his friend's page. I'm sure we are all on the same page logically and emotionally in regards to these bills.
@VI&Others
sorry, another not so related post
Mike Voss
why ( VI) are you singling out ron paul and the t party on this? just curiousK.c. I have been Trying to get Awarness going on this one!! can not believe how badly and obvious this bill is!! must be stopped. most of it has been done in closed or secret session!! that is F d
Voice Good to hear from you K.C If you will notice tried starting this discussion in May. Seems people only want to cry once the milk is spilled...
"VI"K.c. that is so true .sad but true.
They Are working nearly completely unencumbered right now, using classic distraction tactics. People are busy with the issues that have been manufactured to stay focused on. Its hard. because those issues are survival based. which is scary. because that is reminiscent of Germany WW2. again, people just walked into it like sheeple. once the memory and lesson is bread out of us again,, we repeat ourselves again.. sad human conditions.Voice I have listed the names of the Senators, the Party and State, and the amount of Special Interest Bribes (I mean campaign contributions) that they received:
Name of Senator - Party & State - Bribe For S.510 or Bribe Against S.510
Daniel Akaka - D HI - Bribe For: $27,690 - Against: $700
Lamar Alexander - R TN - Bribe For: $190,421 - Against: $4,850
John Barrasso - R WY - Bribe For: $31,350 - Against: $27,500
Max Baucus - D MT - Bribe for: $123,803 - Against: $55,980
Evan Bayh - D IN - Bribe For: $45,200 - Against: 8,250
Mark Begich - D AK - Bribe For: $23,050 - Against: $2,000
Michael Bennet - D CO - Bribe For: $38,509 - Against: $22,050
Robert Bennett - R UT - Bribe For: $105,530 - Against: $10,000
Jeff Bingaman - D NM - Bribe For: $31,498 - Against: $8,450
Christopher Bond - R MO - Bribe For: $49,550 - Against: $5,200
Barbara Boxer - D CA - Bribe For: $120,000 - Against: $13,650
Sherrod Brown - D OH - Bribe For: $57,800 - Against: $6,600
Samuel Brownback - R KS - Bribe For: $20,950 - Against: $13,500
Jim Bunning - R KY - Brobe For: $20,700 - Against: $2,000
Richard Burr - R NC - Bribe For: $328,086 - Against: $32,292
Roland Burris - D IL - Bribe For: $0 - Against: $0
Maria Cantwell - D WA - Bribe For: $93,541 - Against: $2,750
Benjamin Cardin - D MD - Bribe For: $72,200 - Against: $0
Thomas Carper - D DE - Bribe For: $83,150 - Against: $0
Robert Casey - D PA - Bribe For: $80,576 - Against: $4,600
Saxby Chambliss - R GA - Bribe For: $557,694 - Against: $108,041
Thomas Coburn R OK - Bribe For: $64,400 - Against: $14,200
Thad Cochran - R MS - Bribe For: $50,144 - Against: $22,000
Susan Collins - R ME - Bribe For: $157,438 - Against: $7,800
Kent Conrad - D ND - Bribe For: $41,650 - Against: $29,612
Bob Corker - R TN - Bribe For: $298,639 - Against: $8,850
John Cornyn - R TX - Bribe For: $286,648 - Against: $254,730
Michael Crapo - R ID - Bribe For: $64,199 - Against: $14,350
Jim DeMint - R SC - Bribe For: $149,935 - Against: $5,000
Christopher Dodd - D CT - Bribe For: $36,400 - Against: $4,500
Byron Dorgan - D ND - Bribe For: $28,200 - Against: $6,000
Richard Durbin - D IL - Bribe For: $151,050 - Against: $19,000
John Ensign - R NV - Bribe For: $76,297 - Against: $10,500
Michael Enzi - R WY - Bribe For: $87,394 - Against: $21,450
Russell Feingold - D WI - Bribe For: $53,854 - Against: $2,200
Dianne Feinstein - D CA - Bribe For: $168,189 - Against: 25,314
Kirsten Gillibrand - D NY - Bribe For: $98,210 - Against: $10,650
Lindsey Graham - R SC - Bribe For: $101,272 - Against: $5,700
Charles Grassley - R IA - Bribe For: $112,150 - Against: $25,500
Judd Gregg - R NH - Bribe For: $26,000 - Against: $0
Kay Hagan - D NC - Bribe For: $36,250 - Against: $3,500
Thomas Harkin - D IA - Bribe For: $138,135 - Against: $40,600
Orrin Hatch - R UT - Bribe For: $102,215 - Against: $11,600
(See comment received from Senator Hatch's Office below)
Kay Hutchison - R TX - Bribe For: $127,811 - Against: $103,386
James Inhofe - R OK - Bribe For: $66,744 - Against: $36,430
Daniel Inouye - D HI - Bribe For: $26,350 - Against: $11,200
John Isakson - R GA - Bribe For: $280,995 - Against: $10,100
Mike Johanns - R NE - Bribe For: $159,259 - Against: $59,785
Tim Johnson - D SD - Bribe For: $26,850 - Against: $15,000
Edward Kaufman - D DE - Bribe For: $0 - Against: $0
John Kerry - D MA - Bribe For: $14,406 - Against: $250
Amy Klobuchar - D MN - Bribe For: $149,778 - Against: $16,250
Herbert Kohl - D WI - Bribe For: $300 - Against: $0
Jon Kyl - R AZ - Bribe For: $363,660 - Against: $58,906
Mary Landrieu - D LA - Bribe For: $73,622 - Against: $2,250
Frank Lautenberg - D NJ - Bribe For: $37,883 - Agqinst: $3,550
Patrick Leahy - D VT - Bribe For: $13,800 - Against: $2,750
Carl Levin - D MI - Bribe For: $49,900 - Against: $2,000
Joseph Lieberman - I CT - Bribe For: $121,075 - Against: $0
Blanche Lincoln - D AR - Bribe For: $347,526 - Against: $125,297
Richard Lugar - R IN - Bribe For: $153,579 - Against: $21,000
John McCain - R AZ - Bribe For: $118,070 - Against: $21,525
Claire McCaskill - D MO - Bribe For: $48,950 - Against: $7,650
Mitch McConnell - R KY - Bribe For: $439,593 - Against: $42,244
Robert Menéndez - D NJ - Bribe For: $183,850 - Against: $250
Jeff Merkley - D OR - Bribe For: $27,350 - Against; $3,300
Barbara Mikulski - D MD - Bribe For: $52,165 - Against: $1,000
Lisa Murkowski - R AK - Bribe For: $164,713 - Against: $5,800
Patty Murray - D WA - Bribe For: $136,500 - Against: $3,150
Ben Nelson - D NE - Bribe For: $254,906 - Against: $44,950
Bill Nelson - D FL - Bribe For: $205,471 - Against: $35,748
Mark Pryor - D AR - Bribe For: $115,550 - Against: $16,565
John Reed - D RI - Bribe For: $29,350 - Against: $0
Harry Reid - D NV - Bribe For: $133,985 - Against: $10,000
James Risch - R ID - Bribe For: $56,750 - Against; $36,050
Pat Roberts - R KS - Bribe For: $167,294 - Against: $65,186
John Rockefeller - D WV - Bribe For: $21,250 - Against: $1,000
Bernard Sanders - I VT - Bribe For: $7,800 - Against: $4,200
Charles Schumer - D NY - Bribe For: $175,185 - Against: $14,200
Jefferson Sessions - R AL - Bribe For: $65,303 - Against: $16,800
Jeanne Shaheen - D NH - Bribe For: $17,090 - Against: $7,300
Richard Shelby - R AL - Bribe For: $73,616 - Against: $10,000
Olympia Snowe - R ME - Bribe For: $78,136 - Against: $2,000
Arlen Specter - D PA - Bribe For: $209,124 - Against: $9,400
Debbie Ann Stabenow - D MI - Bribe For: $84,941 - Against: $14,482
Jon Tester - D MT - Bribe For: $21,250 - Against: $61,550
John Thune - R SD - Bribe For: $218,900 - Against: $55,625
Mark Udall - D CO - Bribe For: $34,435 - Against: $45,050
Tom Udall - D NM - Bribe For: $27,102 - Against: $51,900
David Vitter - R LA - Bribe For: $188,225 - Against: $8,500
George Voinovich - R OH - Bribe For: $103,850 - Against: $185
Mark Warner - D VA - Bribe For: $116,450 - Against: $8,600
Jim Webb - D VA - Bribe For: $25,300 - Against: $7,700
Sheldon Whitehouse- D RI - Bribe For: $27,025 - Against: $1,500
Roger Wicker - R MS - Bribe For: $147,650 - Against: $16,250
Ron Wyden - D OR - Bribe For: $58,700 - Against: $4,900
Here's a list of the Special Interest Groups that support S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:
Restaurants & drinking establishments $3,217,767
Food and kindred products manufacturing $1,753,503
Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Food stores $1,473,532
Beverages (non-alcoholic) $744,551
Vegetables, fruits and tree nut $709,238
American Veterinarian Medical Association $551,750
Beverage bottling & distribution $289,725
Food wholesalers $284,900
Food & Beverage Products and Services $281,137
Fishing $277,984
Chambers of commerce $219,234
Manufacturing $207,740
Food catering & food services $171,835
Confectionery processors & manufacturers $96,438
Consumer groups $6,100
Farm bureaus $0
Here's a list of Here's a list of the Special Interest Groups that sopposed S.510 and how much they bribed (I mean donated) to Senators:
Milk & dairy producers $1,717,687
Livestock $1,561,207
Farm organizations & cooperatives $412,976
Consumer groups $6,100
Farmers, crop unspecified $0
I wonder how the Senators will Vote when the bill reaches the floor of the Senate?
Masami hi :)
i was wondering where is the last discussion might be?
there was a good link that someone posted earlier on internet regulation bill. do you still have it "vi"?
re:
http://biggovernment.com/smotley/2010/11/23/its-official-the-fcc-will-vote-to-take-over-the-internet-in-december/Voice its really happening
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT9qKnmBqy0&feature=player_embeddedVoice LIVE MIC catches Senator saying the process is "RIGGED"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aDZy6zWeioK.c. Vermont Again!!?/ They Keep Being First with this "defending the rights of Americans" thing lately.. Thank you for sharing Brother..
Voice Whole Foods Market waves white flag.... Read story and weap...
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfmK.c. I am Spreading this post. it is very disappointing. But its like fighting Godzilla. WTF do we do? I We must All Keep Spreading the info. and Truth. And preparing for craziness if it becomes unavoidable. Thank You for sharing,
Voice Well if you read "VI" last post you will notice some same names.
FDA will now DEREGULATE GMO's...
http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/01/breaking-news-usda-to-fully-deregulate-monsantos-genetically-engineer-alfalfa-gene-contamination-of-feed-milk-meat-and-other-products-to-follow/?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4d42030ccdc4cce1%2C0Voice town passes regulation to defy fed.
http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/food-sovereignty-law-passed-in-small-maine-town-to-allow-sale-of-locally-produced-food-without-interference-of-regulators/
The Evil BS Food Bill - S510 & H.R.2751 Good State Of Vermont ...
www.dailypaul.com › Forums › Daily Paul Liberty Forum - Cached
2) http://robertking.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/53865070-gmo-april.pdf
Time to Wake Up: Days of Abundant Resources and
Falling Prices Are Over Forever
Jeremy Grantham
Summary of the Summary
The world is using up its natural resources at an alarming rate, and this has caused a permanent shift in their value.
We all need to adjust our behavior to this new environment. It would help if we did it quickly.
Summary
Until about 1800, our species had no safety margin and lived, like other animals, up to the limit of the food supply,
ebbing and fl owing in population.
From about 1800 on the use of hydrocarbons allowed for an explosion in energy use, in food supply, and, through
the creation of surpluses, a dramatic increase in wealth and scientifi c progress.
Since 1800, the population has surged from 800 million to 7 billion, on its way to an estimated 8 billion, at
minimum.
The rise in population, the ten-fold increase in wealth in developed countries, and the current explosive growth in
developing countries have eaten rapidly into our fi nite resources of hydrocarbons and metals, fertilizer, available
land, and water.
Now, despite a massive increase in fertilizer use, the growth in crop yields per acre has declined from 3.5% in
the 1960s to 1.2% today. There is little productive new land to bring on and, as people get richer, they eat more
grain-intensive meat. Because the population continues to grow at over 1%, there is little safety margin.
The problems of compounding growth in the face of fi nite resources are not easily understood by optimistic,
short-term-oriented, and relatively innumerate humans (especially the political variety).
The fact is that no compound growth is sustainable. If we maintain our desperate focus on growth, we will run
out of everything and crash. We must substitute qualitative growth for quantitative growth.
But Mrs. Market is helping, and right now she is sending us the Mother of all price signals. The prices of all
important commodities except oil declined for 100 years until 2002, by an average of 70%. From 2002 until now,
this entire decline was erased by a bigger price surge than occurred during World War II.
Statistically, most commodities are now so far away from their former downward trend that it makes it very
probable that the old trend has changed – that there is in fact a Paradigm Shift – perhaps the most important
economic event since the Industrial Revolution.
Climate change is associated with weather instability, but the last year was exceptionally bad. Near term it will
surely get less bad.
Excellent long-term investment opportunities in resources and resource effi ciency are compromised by the high
chance of an improvement in weather next year and by the possibility that China may stumble.
From now on, price pressure and shortages of resources will be a permanent feature of our lives. This will
increasingly slow down the growth rate of the developed and developing world and put a severe burden on poor
countries.
We all need to develop serious resource plans, particularly energy policies. There is little time to waste. (Read more at link above..................... )
3) Why so-called "responsible agricultural investment" must be stopped
Download PDF for full unabridged text.
On 18-20 April 2011, a gathering of some 200 farmland investors, government officials and international civil servants met at the World Bank headquarters in Washington DC to discuss how to operationalise "responsible" large-scale land acquisitions. Over in Rome, the Committee on World Food Security, housed at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, is about to start a process of consultation on principles to regulate such deals. Social movements and civil society organisations (CSOs), on the other hand, are mobilising to stop land grabs, and undo the ones already coming into play, as a matter of utmost urgency. Why do the World Bank, UN agencies and a number of highly concerned governments insist on trying to promote these land grab deals as "responsible agricultural investments"?
Today's farmland grabs are moving fast. Contracts are getting signed, bulldozers are hitting the ground, land is being aggressively fenced off and local people are getting kicked off their territories with devastating consequences. While precise details are hard to come by, it is clear that at least 50 million hectares of good agricultural land – enough to feed 50 million families in India – have been transferred from farmers to corporations in the last few years alone, and each day more investors join the rush.[1] Some of these deals are presented as a novel way to meet food security needs of countries dependent on external markets to feed themselves, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia, South Korea or China. Others are bluntly exposed for what they really are: business deals and hot new profit opportunities. Despite the involvement of states, most of these transactions are between host governments and private corporations. Firms involved estimate that US $25 billion have already been committed globally, and boast that this figure will triple in a very near future.[2]
What is RAI?
Nervous about the potential political backlash from the current phase of land grabbing, a number of concerned governments and agencies, from Japan to the G-8, have stepped forward to suggest criteria that could make these deals acceptable. The most prominent among these is the World Bank-led Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment that Respect Rights, Livelihoods and Resources (RAI). The RAI were jointly formulated by the World Bank, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).[3]
They consist of seven principles that investors may wish to voluntarily subscribe to when conducting large-scale farmland acquisitions (see box). It is noteworthy that the RAI principles were never submitted for approval to the governing bodies of these four institutions.
- Land and resource rights: Existing rights to land and natural resources are recognised and respected.
- Food security: Investments do not jeopardise food security, but rather strengthen it.
- Transparency, good governance and enabling environment: Processes for accessing land and making associated investments are transparent, monitored, and ensure accountability.
- Consultation and participation: Those materially affected are consulted and agreements from consultations are recorded and enforced.
- Economic viability and responsible agro-enterprise investing: Projects are viable in every sense, respect the rule of law, reflect industry best practice, and result in durable shared value.
- Social sustainability: Investments generate desirable social and distributional impacts and do not increase vulnerability.
- Environmental sustainability: Environmental impacts are quantified and measures taken to encourage sustainable resource use, while minimising and mitigating the negative impact.
The main RAI pushers (since 2009):
EU, FAO, G8, G20, IFAD Japan, Switzerland, UNCTAD, US, World Bank
In April 2010, some 130 organisations and networks from across the world, including some of the most representative alliances of farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolk, denounced the RAI initiative. Their statement debunked RAI as a move to try to legitimise land grabbing and asserted that facilitating the long-term corporate (foreign and domestic) takeover of rural people's farmlands is completely unacceptable no matter which guidelines are followed.
In April 2010, some 130 organisations and networks from across the world, including some of the most representative alliances of farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolk, denounced the RAI initiative. Their statement debunked RAI as a move to try to legitimise land grabbing and asserted that facilitating the long-term corporate (foreign and domestic) takeover of rural people's farmlands is completely unacceptable no matter which guidelines are followed.[4]
This statement was endorsed by many more groups and social movements from around the world following its release. Shortly after, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food publicly criticised RAI for being "woefully inadequate" and said, "It is regrettable that, instead of rising to the challenge of developing agriculture in a way that is more socially and environmentally sustainable, we act as if accelerating the destruction of the global peasantry could be accomplished responsibly."[5]
In September 2010, the World Bank released its much anticipated report about large-scale land acquisitions. After two years of research, the Bank could not find any convincing examples of "wins" for poor communities or countries, only a long list of losses. In fact, companies and governments involved in the land deals refused to share information about their transactions with the Bank, so it relied instead on a website (farmlandgrab.org) managed by the CSO GRAIN for its data. Even though the report noted the lack of consultation behind the RAI initiative, the Bank still advocated RAI as the solution.
Despite the RAI framework's serious credibility problem, the CFS debated a motion on whether or not to endorse it in October 2010. Some governments, such as the US and Japan were in favour. Others, including South Africa, Egypt on behalf of the Near East group and China, expressed strong opposition due to lack of an appropriate consultative process. A coalition of movements and organisations released a detailed critique of the RAI framework and principles prior to the CFS meeting.[6]
This catalysed rural social movements, particularly those affiliated with the International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty (IPC), and other civil society groups to call on the CFS to reject RAI. In the end, the CFS did not endorse RAI, agreeing only to pursue an inclusive process to consider it.
By the end of 2010, it looked as though the high-level push for socially acceptable or "win-win" land grabbing was floundering. Social movements and other CSOs, meanwhile, continued to build popular opposition to RAI. At the World Social Forum in Dakar in February 2011, farmers' movements, and human rights, social justice and environmental organisations gathered to share experiences and consolidate their struggles against land grabbing without the distraction of this code of conduct nonsense, and launched a public appeal to reject RAI and resist land grabbing that continues to gather support.[7]
The RAI proponents, however, refuse to give up.
The CFS Bureau is currently discussing a proposal for a process of consultation on RAI.
An initial draft circulated for comment drew sharp criticism from social movements and CSOs. The IPC stated that it will oppose a process whose main focus is to try to alleviate the negative impacts of large-scale land acquisitions and endorse RAI. Instead, it argued, the CFS should first analyse if RAI is the adequate response to the problems on the ground and re-focus the discussion on the question of what kind of agricultural investment is needed to overcome hunger and support small-scale farmers, particularly women. The IPC further recommended that the CFS stop using the term RAI because it is heavily associated with land grabbing, not investment. But the four agencies behind RAI seem keen to push on.
The World Bank has just released the programme for this year's annual conference on land and poverty at its Washington DC headquarters.
RAI is at the very heart of the discussions. The Bank's main goal now is to start "operationalising" RAI by building on experiences of other "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) schemes such as the Roundtables on Responsible Soy, Sustainable Palm Oil and Sustainable Biofuels, as well as the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative.
In the meantime, countries are scrambling to contain growing opposition to the global land rush. With all the talk of "win-win" outcomes ringing hollow against the reality of impacts of these deals on local communities, smallholder agricultural producers and workers, some governments, such as Argentina, Brazil and New Zealand, are responding with promises of legislation to cap or discipline foreigners' abilities to acquire domestic farmland. Others, such as Cambodia, Ethiopia and Ghana, are using legal and brute force to suppress local contestation. In the run-up to the 2012 elections in Mali, the opposition Party for National Renewal has challenged President Touré to disclose all details of land leases amounting to several hundred thousands of irrigated hectares granted in the Office du Niger. In Sudan, the most "land grabbed" country in Africa, villagers are now rising up against the government in Khartoum for having seized their lands.
What is wrong with RAI
The push for RAI is not about facilitating investment in agriculture. It is about creating an illusion that by following a set of standards, large-scale land acquisitions can proceed without disastrous consequences to peoples, communities, ecosystems and the climate. This is false and misleading. RAI is an attempt to cover up power imbalances so that the land grabbers and state authorities who make the deals can get what they want. Farmers, pastoralists and fisherfolk, after all, are not asking for their lands to be sold off or leased away!
Land grabbing forecloses vast stretches of lands and ecosystems for current and future use by peasants, indigenous peoples, fisherfolk and nomads, thus seriously jeopardising their rights to food and livelihood security. It captures whatever water resources exist on, below and around these lands, resulting in the de facto privatisation of water.
The violation of international human rights law is an intrinsic part of land grabbing through forced evictions, the silencing (and worse) of critics, the introduction of non-sustainable models of land use and agriculture that destroy natural environments and deplete natural resources, the blatant denial of information, and the prevention of meaningful local participation in political decisions that affect people's lives. No set of voluntary principles will remedy these facts and realities. Nor can they be misconstrued and presented as public policy or state regulation.
Land grabs, which target 20% profit rates for investors, are all about financial speculation. This is why land grabbing is completely incompatible with ensuring food security: food production can only bring profits of 3-5%. Land grabbing simply enhances the commodification of agriculture whose sole purpose is the over-remuneration of speculative capital.
There are some who believe that promoting transparency in land acquisition deals can somehow lead to "win-win" outcomes. However, even if done "transparently," the transfer of large tracts of land, forests, coastal areas and water sources to investors is still going to deprive smallholder farmers, pastoralists, fisherfolk and other local communities from crucial, life sustaining resources for generations to come.
In many countries, there is an urgent need to strengthen systems that protect land tenure of peasants and small-scale food producers, and many social movements have been fighting for recognition of their rights to land for many years. The RAI principles will make any progress on agrarian reform or land rights meaningless.
Why We Oppose the Principles for
As for the big private players themselves, RAI can only amount to another feather in their "CSR" cap, a public relations act that they can point to when convenient. In the real world, they will continue to rely on bilateral trade and investment agreements, legal loopholes, compliant states, political risk insurance schemes and support from international institutions that promote RAI, to protect their interests and save them from any financial pain or responsibility.
The problem is obvious. These agribusiness projects – from the 100,000 hectare Malibya deal in the Office du Niger, Mali, to the 320,000 hectare Beidahuang Group deal in Rio Negro, Argentina – do great harm and are profoundly illegitimate. Trying to compensate for this absence of legitimacy by getting investors to adhere to a few principles is deceitful.
Invest in food sovereignty!
RAI is out of step with the times. The whole approach to so-called agricultural development that it embodies – a greenhouse gas pumping, fossil fuel guzzling, biodiversity depleting, water privatising, soil eroding, community impoverishing, genetically modified seed-dependent production system – belongs in the 20th century rubbish heap of destructive, unsustainable development.
Just as our Arab sisters and brothers have been breaking the shackles of old regimes to recover their dignity and space for self-determination, we need to break the shackles of the corporate agriculture and food system.
Rather than be codified and sanctioned, land grabbing must be immediately stopped and banned. This means that parliaments and national governments should
- urgently suspend all large-scale land transactions,
- rescind the deals already signed,
- return the misappropriated lands to communities and
- outlaw land grabbing.
Governments must also stop oppressing and criminalising peoples for defending their lands and release detained activists.
We reiterate the demands made repeatedly by social movements, CSOs and numerous academics to urgently implement actions agreed at the 2006 International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development – the most authoritative and consensual multilateral framework for land and natural resources – as well as the conclusions of the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development. We equally call on the CFS to adopt the FAO Guidelines on the Governance of Land and Natural Resources which are strongly rooted in human rights law so that they can be effectively used to protect and fulfill the rights to land and natural resources of all rural and urban constituencies at national and international levels.
It is obvious to us that a broad consensus has grown over the past several years around the real solutions to hunger, the food crisis and climate chaos, namely that:
- peasant agriculture, family farming, artisanal fishing and indigenous food procurement systems that are based on ecological methods and short marketing circuits are the ways forward toward sustainable, healthy and livelihood-enhancing food systems;
- production, distribution and consumption systems must radically change to fit the carrying capacity of the earth;
- new agricultural policies that respond to the needs, proposals and direct control of small-scale food producers have to replace the current top-down, corporate-led, neoliberal regimes; and
- genuine agrarian and aquatic reform programmes have to be carried through to return land and ecosystems to local communities.
This is the path to food sovereignty and justice, quite the opposite of "responsible" land grabbing. And we will continue to push and fight for it with many allies the world over.
Signed by:
- Centro de Estudios para el Cambio en el Campo Mexicano (Study Centre for Change in the Mexican Countryside)
- FIAN International
- Focus on the Global South
- Friends of the Earth International
- Global Campaign on Agrarian Reform
- GRAIN
- La Via Campesina
- Land Research Action Network
- Rede Social de Justiça e Direitos Humanos (Social Network for Justice and Human Rights)
- World Alliance of Mobile Indigenous Peoples (WAMIP)
- World Forum of Fisher Peoples
Notes:
[1] In 2010, the World Bank reported that 47 million hectares were leased or sold off worldwide in 2009 alone while the Global Land Project calculated that 63 million hectares changed hands in just 27 countries of Africa. See "New World Bank report sees growing global demand for farmland", World Bank, Washington DC, 7 September 2010, http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/15309, and Cecilie Friis & Anette Reenberg, "Land grab in Africa: Emerging land system drivers in a teleconnected world", GLP Report No. 1, The Global Land Project, Denmark, August 2010, http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/14816, respectively.
[2] See High Quest Partners, "Private financial sector investment in farmland and agricultural
infrastructure", OECD, Paris, August 2010, http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/16060.
[3] The four agencies have also created an internet-based knowledge platform to exchange information about RAI. See http://www.responsibleagroinvestment.org/
[4]"Stop land grabbing now! Say NO to the principles on responsible agro-enterprise investment
promoted by the World Bank", available online at http://www.landaction.org/spip/spip.php?article553
[5] "Responsibly destroying the world’s peasantry" by Olivier de Schutter, Brussels, 4 June 2010, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/deschutter1/English
Print this pageSee also
- Investing in land: a commentary on the World Bank report
- Regulating landgrabbing?
- Land Grabs - Another Scramble for Africa
- Walden Bello: Structural Adjustment Programmes dictated by the IMF and World Bank destroyed African agriculture
- The Global Land Grab Debate
*******************************************
Note: Ko Hawaii Pae Aina Watchdog group ? suggestions/comments welcomed..........aloha.
Replies