Corporate Domination of Food
Threatens Cultural Identities
June 09, 2015
Story at-a-glance
-
Genetically engineered and patented foods threaten
not only biodiversity and environmental health, it
also threatens cultures, and the cultural identity
of peoples around the world
-
Our food system is highly concentrated in terms of
being a monoculture and in ownership of these few
precious crops. Far from satisfying the world’s food
needs, this concentration ensures food insecurity
-
Free trade agreements are really forced trade deals,
and by creating international laws that supersede
national laws, they virtually guarantee quality and
safety of food will be as low as possible
By Dr. Mercola
In the featured TED Talk, Seeds of Our Ancestors, Seeds of Life,
environmental activist Winona LaDuke addresses some of the more
hidden dangers of global corporate domination by companies such as
Monsanto.
"Food for us comes from our relatives, whether they have
wings, fins, or roots... Food has a culture. It has history,"
Winona says.
Many Westerners may have forgotten any ancestral traditions
revolving around food. But for American Indians, Hawaiians, Maori,
Mexicans, and many others, food still has a special role within
their culture and history.
Genetically engineered (GE) foods, which are not only altered in
various unnatural ways, are also patented. Farmers must pay user
fees to plant them and are prohibited from saving the seeds for the
next season.
This unnatural system threatens not only biodiversity and
environmental health, it also threatens cultures and the cultural
identity of peoples around the world.
Corporate Domination of Food Threatens Cultural Identities
At present, biotech corporations are fighting tooth and nail to
ensure genetically modified organisms (GMOs)
gain unrestricted access to the markets around the world, and the
food industry as a whole is also poised to achieve global domination
via free trade deals that usurp nations' rights to make and uphold
their own food laws.
To the American Indian tribe Ojibwe, wild rice (minoman) is
sacred. The tribe was led by the Creator to settle where minoman
grew, and wild rice is the first and last food tribal members will
eat in this life. It's featured in sacred feasts and ceremonies, and
minoman is grown today in much the same way it was grown a thousand
years ago.
Similarly, taro holds a special place in the Hawaiian culture. To
the Hawaiians, taro is part of their cosmogenealogy; they consider
themselves related to taro—to them, taro is their older brother. To
the New Zealand Maori, the peruperu potato is sacred.
All of them have fought to prevent these culturally important
foods from being genetically modified (GM) and patented. So far,
they've all won.
Yet the march of GMOs continues unabated, with more and more
"redesigned" crops being released, and with it, biodiversity
declines. Not only are GMOs replacing conventional seeds, but GMOs
also spread and pollute other non-GMO crops, thereby posing a
double-threat to diversity.
Engineering Extinction
Over the past 100 years, we've lost an estimated 75 percent of
our agro-biodiversity, and this has environmental consequences that
many fail to consider. Loss of access to traditional foods also
leads to poorer health.
Across the world, when people abandon their traditional whole
food cuisine for
processed foods,
obesity and related diseases inevitably follow.
Winona also discusses the economic ramifications of seed
patenting. At present, commercially available seeds are owned by
seven corporations, and farmers are stripped of the inherent wealth
associated with owning, saving, and sharing seeds.
Our current food system is highly concentrated—first, in terms of
being a monoculture with very few varieties available, and second,
in terms of ownership of these few precious crops. And far from
being the answer to the world's food needs, this concentration
actually ensures food insecurity.
Add to that the fact that many of the older varieties of crops
were higher in valuable nutrients too. As just one example, work by
Dr. August Dunning, chief science officer and co-owner of Eco
Organics, shows that to receive the same amount of iron you used to
get from one apple in 1950, by 1998 you had to eat 26 apples.
Free Trade Agreements are Really Forced Trade...
Free trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP), which involves the United States and 11 other countries, and
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between
the US and Europe, have major implications in terms of our economy,
our daily lives, as well as our states- and national sovereignty.
While they're deceptively described as free trade agreements,
they're actually lead to forced trade, and by setting up
international laws that supersede national laws, they create a
situation in which quality and safety of food is virtually
guaranteed to be as low as possible.
Many European countries worry that these trade agreements may
undermine or circumvent many of their established laws against GMO’s
and other American food practices, such as disinfecting chicken in
chlorine and the routine use of hormones in beef production, neither
of which is permitted in the EU.1
Based on what has happened with other trade deals, such fears are
warranted. The difference between Europe and the US in terms of how
farmers and consumers view GE foods is mirrored in the amount of
GMO’s grown and used in food.
In the US, 88 percent of all corn, 94 percent of cotton and 93
percent of soybeans are genetically engineered varieties. In Europe,
less than one percent of the farmland is dedicated to GE
crops—primarily in Spain—and Europeans are strong proponents of the
precautionary principle.
In the US, regulators tend to approve new technologies based on
short-term studies done by the manufacturer.
European regulators tends to be far more cautious, and
acknowledge that what they don’t know is perhaps more
important than what little they do know about the product in
question, so they’re less likely to approve items that are poorly
studied.
As noted in The Washington Post:2
“Genetically modified crops are broadly unpopular in
Europe, and farmers and environmentalists fear that if trade
restrictions are lowered, both genetically modified seeds and
U.S.-grown genetically modified products would quickly take over
European farmland and grocery stores.
Some farmers are hoping to stop the talks if rules that
govern their work are thrown into the mix, and they are
determined to keep U.S. industrial farming an ocean’s-length
away...
“We will fight this until we cannot fight any more” if it
appears that restrictions on growing genetically modified crops
are about to be loosened, said Reinhard Jung, the head of the
Brandenburg Farmers’ Federation.”
Why are Free Trade Agreements Negotiated in Secret?
Free trade agreements really do little to boost local economies;
they simply empower corporate superpowers to become even more
dominant. Unfortunately, trade agreements are poorly understood by
most people, which isn’t surprising considering they’re negotiated
in secret, and the public is rarely engaged in the process.
If you missed my interview with Ben Lilliston, Vice President of
Program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, in which
he discusses the workings of
international trade agreements, I highly recommend taking the
time to listen to it now. These agreements really do little to boost
local economies; they simply empower corporate superpowers to become
even more dominant.
Trade agreements are poorly understood by most people, which
isn't surprising considering they're negotiated in secret, and the
public is rarely engaged in the process. If you missed my interview
with Ben Lilliston, vice president of Program at the Institute for
Agriculture and Trade Policy, in which he discusses the workings of
international trade agreements, I highly recommend taking the
time to listen to it now.
Download Interview Transcript
You can also learn more about these and other trade deals on the
Public Citizen’s Globalization and Trade website.3
They also have a page dedicated to the issues relating to the TPP,4
where they note that this trade deal could:
Offshore American jobs and increase income inequality5
|
Introduce SOPA-like threats to Internet freedom6
|
Increase cost of medicines7 |
Empower corporations to attack US environmental and
health safeguards8
|
Expose Americans to unsafe food and products9
|
Undermine Wall Street reforms10
|
Ban Buy American policies needed to create green jobs11
|
|
Bad News: Industry 'Bought' TPP Fast-Track Approval
At present, the TPP and the TTIP are under negotiation, and the
stakes include rules relating to medicines, local food programs,
food safety programs, and even labor rights. Unfortunately, the US
Senate recently voted to give President Obama the authority to
fast-track the TPP. Fast-tracking means Congress will not be able to
debate or amend the agreement; it can only vote yes or no on it, as
is.
As noted by The Guardian,12
there was a lot of public resistance against fast-tracking the TPP,
but corporate money won at the end of the day. On May 14, 62
senators voted yes on the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA); 38 voted
no.
"Those impressive majorities follow months of
behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing by the world's most
well-heeled multinational corporations..." The Guardian13
writes. "Using data from the Federal Election Commission,
this chart14
shows all donations that corporate members of the US Business
Coalition for TPP15
made to US Senate campaigns between January and March 2015, when
fast-tracking the TPP was being debated in the Senate:
- Out of the total $1,148,971 given, an
average of $17,676.48 was donated to each of the 65 "yea"
votes.
- The average Republican member received $19,673.28
from corporate TPP supporters.
- The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those
same donors...
- Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, who is the former US
trade representative, has been one of the loudest proponents
of the TPP... He received $119,700 from 14 different
corporations between January and March..." [Emphasis
mine]
Trade Agreements Weaken Health and Environmental Protections and
Destroy Regulatory Standards
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are largely focused on creating
"regulatory harmonization" among participating nations. Basically,
they seek to set up the same regulatory infrastructure in all
countries involved in the agreements. This means participating
countries must have similar if not identical (aka "harmonized")
rules and regulations for food safety, chemicals, GMOs, intellectual
property, medicines, and finance, for example. The ones benefiting
from this "harmonization" are the multinational corporations that
came up with and negotiated the rules in the first place.
They want a regulatory system that makes it as easy for them to
operate across borders as possible. For example, if their product is
approved for sale in one country, it's automatically approved in the
partnering countries. Or, if they're granted a patent in one
country, their patent is protected under the agreement in other
countries as well. The problem with harmonizing regulations across
borders is that, as a rule, the common standard ends up being the
lowest possible standard. Repeatedly, we've seen that trade
agreements push regulations down, rather than up; weakening rather
than strengthening environmental and health protections.
Harmonization creates a race to the bottom in terms of both
quality and safety.16
The lowering of regulations is of particular concern when it comes
to environmental and public health safety. If the standard is
lowered via a trade agreement, a country must lower its current
regulations or potentially face legal challenges.
According to Sebastian Pfotenhauer, a science policy researcher
at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT):17 "TTIP
really falls squarely within the domain of science and technology
policy. What is at stake is the sovereignty of countries to
interpret scientific data and regulate risks in the way they choose."
According to EU trade commissioner Karel De Gucht, the TTIP would
not permit companies to circumvent EU food standards, particularly
those relating to GE foods. But, as reported by The Guardian18
last year:
“[D]ocuments from various US and Canadian government
agencies and business trade bodies suggest strong pressure is
being brought to bear from US industries to allow GM products
and other foods into EU markets that would violate the EU’s
current standards, in the name of free trade.”
Indeed, a 2013 article in The Hill19
noted that:
“[T]he US Senate Finance committee has recently stressed
that any agreement must also reduce EU restrictions, among
others, on genetically modified crops. Reaching consensus on
this contentious issue is vital to successful negotiations of
the TTIP... [W]hile the differences in transatlantic approach
towards GM foods pose a concrete threat to the conclusion of the
trade agreement, the trade talks themselves provide the ultimate
opportunity to enable the authorization and cultivation of GM
crops in Europe.”
It’s important to realize that both the TTP and the TTIP grant
corporations special legal rights under the Investor-state
Provision, and if a corporation feels a nation’s regulation violates
one of these trade agreements, they can legally challenge the
regulation. As noted by Scientific American:20
"The history of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and other such agreements is littered with such cases...
The pharmaceutical firm Eli Lilly is currently suing Canada
under NAFTA after the government invalidated patents on two of
the company's drugs in an argument over interpretation of
clinical-trial data. Companies have also tried to use NAFTA to
force Canada to allow toxic-waste exports and to include an
additive in petrol that the nation's regulators claimed was
dangerous."
TTIP Already Used as Leverage to Lower or Eliminate Regulations for
Toxic Chemicals
Indeed, there are plenty of reasons to expect regulations of
toxic chemicals and other consumer dangers to proliferate under
these trade agreements. A story in the Guardian21
offers yet another example. In the summer of 2013, EU trade
officials were visited by a delegation from the American Chambers of
Commerce, insisting the EU ditch its plans to regulate dozens of
pesticides containing endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs).
According to the article:
"Minutes of the meeting show commission officials
pleading that 'although they want the TTIP to be successful,
they would not like to be seen as lowering the EU
standards...' In a high-level internal note sent to the health
commissioner, Tonio Borg, shortly afterwards, his departmental
director-general warned that the EU's endocrines policy 'will
have substantial impacts for the economy, agriculture and
trade…'
The series of events was described as 'incredible' by the
Green MEP Bas Eickhout. 'These documents offer convincing
evidence that TTIP not only presents a danger for the
future lowering of European standards, but that this is
happening as we speak,'" he told the Guardian."
[Emphasis mine]
Trade Agreements Usher in 'Corporate Fascism'
Another major issue in these trade agreements relates to rules of
procurement. For example, the US has many farm to school programs in
place to support local farmers and local businesses, but public
programs like these can be challenged by a foreign corporation
because they're not eligible for that program, and that could be
considered illegal under the trade rules.
As noted by Lilliston, "The 'Buy American' provisions, which
are very common in public procurement programs right now, could be
under threat under trade rules." Many states also have their
own environmental regulations in place to protect human and
environmental health, and these too could be challenged under these
trade agreements. This is particularly concerning as it applies to
state initiatives to label GMOs. As explained by Lilliston:
"These trade agreements want to set one standard, so
they're not going to have any state-based standards that are
stronger than the national standard. This particularly comes up
in the case of
GMO labeling where we're seeing all these states in United
States pushing for GMO labeling...
These agreements say, 'No, you can't do that at the state
level. Sorry. We need one standard through all the countries
involved.' Basically, it's kind of an end run around those
state-based [initiatives] that have been very important in
pushing for GMO labeling."
World Trade Organization Rules US Country-of-Origin Labels Are
Illegal
Another example of how trade agreements destroy the very
transparency consumers everywhere want: On May 18, the World Trade
Organization (WTO) ruled US law requiring country-of-origin (COOL)
labels on meat is illegal,as it discriminates against
Canadian and Mexican meat companies and give advantage to national
meat producers.22
As noted by Blue Oregon:23
"In other words, profits of foreign corporations trump
your right to know where your meat is coming from. So much for
the 92 percent of American consumers who want country of origin
food labeling…24
Mike Conaway [R-TX, chairman of the House
Agriculture Committee] took all of 48 hours to introduce
legislation repealing the labeling law, which covered beef and
pork. He even added poultry for good measure. His bill in the
House Agriculture Committee passed 38-6, with the blessings of
most Democrats. This wasn't the first time that a trade
agreement rescinded a popular food labeling law. In 2012, the
WTO also ruled against the voluntary labeling of 'dolphin-safe'
tuna..."
Compared to the WTO, the TPP actually makes it even easier
for a corporation to eliminate laws that cut into profits, as it
does not require the company to be backed by government. The TPP's
Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) tribunals allow
corporations to sue governments directly, without a middleman. And,
instead of the case going before a nation's judges, the arbiters
tend to be corporate lawyers, and their decision is
final... There's no appeals process.
The Rise of Global Corporatocracy—Where Will It End?
At a time when consumers are demanding transparency, corporate
fascists are racing to remove all of your rights, and do whatever it
takes to control food and economy. At all levels, corporations and
industries are writing its own laws, and the running thread is the
removal of transparency, loosening of regulations against toxic and
hazardous products, and the increasing of corporate control.
As Rick North writes in Blue Oregon:25
"...[T]he Fast Track bill itself takes dead aim on GMO
labeling. It's an official negotiating objective to oppose
lsquo;trade restrictions on commercial requirements, such as
labeling, that affect new technologies, including
biotechnology.'
This, said Peter DeFazio, is 'the smoking gun… Proof that
fast track and massive free trade agreements like the
Trans-Pacific Partnership are written by and for multinational
corporations such as agriculture giant Monsanto...' Instead of
corporations promoting the well-being of society, society is now
employed (at race-to-the-bottom wages) to serve corporations.
The means has become the end..."
Another example of this rising "corporatocracy" where
corporations rule the world is the creation of laws criminalizing
whistleblowers. Last year, Idaho passed an "ag-gag" law outlawing
photography and videotaping at agricultural facilities. A records
request reveals the legislation originated with dairy industry
lobbyists.26
Idaho was the seventh state to outlaw whistleblowers' attempts to
expose inhumane and/or unsanitary or dangerous farm practices—a law
that clearly benefits no one except the industry. North Carolina is
also considering passing a similar legislation.
Also remember, it was a US diplomat who
threatened Europe with pain lest they allow Monsanto's GMOs into
Europe. It's quite clear that the US government, which is closely
tied to Monsanto, has been aiding and abetting Monsanto's tireless
and often ruthless quest to control the world's food crops. This
pattern can still be seen with
Pompeo's bill, "The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act," better
known as the "Deny Americans the Right-to-Know" (DARK) Act, which is
exactly what the bill does. It's nothing if not a gift to Monsanto
and its industry cohorts.
The DARK Act (HR 1599), introduced by Koch-sponsored Congressman
Mike Pompeo (R-KS4), effectively removes citizens' right to know
about genetically engineered foods by trumping state law and
resolutely strippingstates of the right to pass
GMO food labeling bills. The bill also allows unscrupulous food
and beverage companies to continue mislabeling GMO-tainted foods as
"natural" or "all natural."
While trade agreements may still thwart US states from labeling
GMOs, stopping the passing of the Pompeo bill is crucial if we want
to have even a glimmer of hope to get GMOs labeled. So please,
contact your federal representatives, and demand that they vote NO
on the Pompeo bill!
What Are GMOs?
GMOs are a product of genetic engineering, meaning their genetic
makeup has been altered to induce a variety of “unique” traits to
crops, such as making them drought-resistant or giving them “more
nutrients.” GMO proponents claim that genetic engineering is “safe
and beneficial,” and that it advances the agricultural industry.
They also say that GMOs help ensure the global food supply and
sustainability. But is there any truth to these claims? I believe
not. For years, I've stated the belief that GMOs pose one of the
greatest threats to life on the planet. Genetic engineering is NOT
the safe and beneficial technology that it is touted to be.
Help Support GMO Labeling
The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)—Monsanto’s Evil
Twin—is pulling out all the stops to keep you in the dark about
what’s in your food. For nearly two decades, Monsanto and corporate
agribusiness have exercised near-dictatorial control over American
agriculture. For example, Monsanto has made many claims that
glyphosate in Roundup is harmless to animals and humans. However,
recently the World Health Organization (WHO) had their research team
test glyphosate and have labeled it a probable carcinogen.
Public opinion around the biotech industry's contamination of our
food supply and destruction of our environment has reached the
tipping point. We're fighting back. That's why I was the first to
push for GMO labeling. I donated a significant sum to the first
ballot initiative in California in 2012, which inspired others to
donate to the campaign as well. We technically "lost the vote, but
we are winning the war, as these labeling initiatives have raised a
considerable amount of public awareness.
The insanity has gone far enough, which is why I encourage you to
boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including
natural and organic brands. More than 80 percent of our support
comes from individual consumers like you, who understand that real
change comes from the grassroots.
Recently, Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan) has reintroduced a bill (HR
1599) that would preempt states' rights to enact GMO labeling laws.
This bill would create a federal government program to oversee
guidelines for voluntary labeling of products that do not contain
GMOs. It would specifically prohibit Congress or individual states
from requiring mandatory labeling of GMO foods or ingredients. It
would also allow food manufacturers to use the word "natural" on
products that contain GMOs. TAKE ACTION NOW! Your local
representatives need to hear from you! Please contact them today by
CLICKING HERE.
Thankfully, we have organizations like the Organic Consumers
Association (OCA) to fight back against these junk food
manufacturers, pesticide producers, and corporate giants.
Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
Non-GMO Food Resources by Country
Together, Let's Help OCA Get The Funding They Deserve
Let’s Help OCA get the funding it deserves. I have found very few
organizations who are as effective and efficient as OCA. It’s a
public interest organization dedicated to promoting health justice
and sustainability. A central focus of the OCA is building a
healthy, equitable, and sustainable system of food production and
consumption.
Please make a donation to help OCA fight for GMO labeling.
© Copyright 1997-2015 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/06/09/dangers-global-corporate-domination.aspx
|