WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has slipped a controversial ingredient into the $770 million aid package it recently proposed to ease the world food crisis, adding language that would promote the use of genetically modified crops in food-deprived countries.
The value of genetically modified, or bio-engineered, food is an intensely disputed issue in the U.S. and in Europe, where many countries have banned foods made from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
Proponents say that GMO crops can result in higher yields from plants that are hardier in harsh climates, like those found in hungry African nations.
“We certainly think that it is established fact that a number of bio-engineered crops have shown themselves to increase yields through their drought resistance and pest resistance,” said Dan Price, a food aid expert on the White House’s National Security Council.
Problems anticipated
Opponents of GMO crops say they can cause unforeseen medical problems. They also contend that the administration’s plan is aimed at helping American agribusinesses.
“This is a hot topic now with the food crisis,” said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. “I think it’s pretty obvious at this point that genetically engineered crops-they may do a number of things, but they don’t increase yields. There are no commercialized crops that are designed to deal with the climate crisis.”
President George W. Bush proposed the food package two weeks ago as aid groups and the UN World Food Program pressed Western governments to provide additional funds to bridge the gap caused by rising food prices. The aid must win congressional approval.
It would direct the U.S. Agency for International Development to spend $150 million of the total aid package on development farming, which would include the use of GMO crops.
The U.S. is the UN food program’s largest donor, providing nearly half the help the group receives from governments. It gave about $1.1 billion to the WFP in both 2006 and 2007. The WFP provided $2.6 billion in aid in 2006.
In April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested at a Peace Corps conference that “we need to look again at some of the issues concerning technology and food production. I know that GMOs are not popular around the world, but there are places that drought-resistant crops should be a part of the answer.”
Some aid organizations agree that it is time to consider GMO crops.
“I think it’s good, that it should be part of the package,” said Mark Rosegrant, an environment and technology specialist with the International Food Policy Research Institute. “It shouldn’t be the only thing in the package. It is now showing quite a bit of potential in starting to address some of the long-term stresses, drought and heat.”
But Noah Zerbe, an assistant professor of government and politics at Humboldt State University in California, said that GMO crops might not be appropriate for developing countries.
“You get fantastic yields if you’re able to apply fertilizer and water at the right times, and herbicides to go along with that,” Zerbe said. “Unfortunately, most African farmers, they can’t afford these inputs.”
Africa ambivalent
The U.S. tried to introduce GMO crops to Africa in 2002, with mixed results. European Union opposition was part of the reason that several African nations that year balked at an offer of U.S. aid that included corn, some of which was genetically modified.
In a severe drought, Zambia rejected the U.S. aid altogether. Several other countries accepted the U.S. corn, but only after it was milled.
The NSC’s Price said the administration is working to persuade European nations to lift their objection to the use of GMO crops in Africa. Rosegrant of the research institute said that, given current food shortages, new bio-safety measures could resolve such problems.
“There’s evidence that those fears tend to be overblown,” Rosegrant said
On March 11 a new documentary was aired on French television (ARTE – French-German cultural tv channel) by French journalist and film maker Marie-Monique Robin, The World According to Monsanto - A documentary that Americans won’t ever see. The gigantic biotech corporation Monsanto is threatening to destroy the agricultural biodiversity which has served mankind for thousands of years.
At least 36 states are expected to face water shortages within the next five years, according to U.S. government estimates. Available freshwater supplies are dwindling across the country due to rising temperatures and droughts, while increasing sprawl, population and inefficient resource usage are leading to rising demand.
“Is it a crisis? If we don’t do some decent water planning, it could be,” said Jack Hoffbuhr, executive director of the American Water Works Association. Rising temperatures due to global warming have increased evaporation rates across the country and reduced the availability of important water sources. One of these is the Sierra Nevada snowpack, which supplies a significant portion of California’s water. Across the West, similar trends are expected to reduce flows of the Colorado River, which supplies water for seven states.
Meanwhile, rising sea levels are expected to cause saltwater to infiltrate freshwater aquifers in coastal states, rendering that water unusable.
California uses about 23 trillion gallons of fresh water per year. The United States as a whole uses more than 148 trillion gallons for all purposes, including agriculture, manufacturing and other uses.
Other threatened regions include the Midwest, where the Great Lakes are shrinking, and upstate New York, where reservoir levels have fallen to record lows. Georgia’s crisis has already arrived, and Florida’s is expected to hit soon.
While Florida has no shortage of rainfall, widespread draining and paving of the region’s natural wetlands has left the water unable to drain back into the soil. As a consequence, the state is forced to flush millions of gallons of water into the ocean per year to avert floods. The state’s environmental chief, Michael Sole, has asked the Florida legislature to increase the use of reclaimed wastewater. Other states are encouraging measures such as desalinization, but it is widely accepted that conservation is the cheapest alternative.
Even with such measures, the forecast is not expected to improve. “Unfortunately, there’s just not going to be any more cheap water,” said Randy Brown, utilities director for Pompano Beach, Fla.
The Water Restoration Act of 2007, along with others, gives the federal government complete control over every waterway, river, stream, lake, aquifer, creek, slew, swamp, underground spring and even the rain that runs off your roof. Why? Well to better protect you from polluters and to ensure water safety, and of course “national security”.
Here’s the real deal. Oil which has been deemed the worlds most valuable commodity (remember that word) is quickly being replaced by water. Water is the new “gold”. Under the Public Trust doctrine, the government is prohibited from converting something such as water (a human right…we can’t live without it) to a commodity. It must remain in a public trust, meaning that it is so important to our survival that it should never be subjected to markets, trading or private interests. In other words, it should never be reclassified as a commodity. But this Act lays the groundwork for removing from the Public Trust this basic human right which is a necessity, and will facilitate it being reclassified a “needed commodity”. Enter the multi-national corporations.
What is under way is the effort to classify water as a commodity and not a right. All of this actually started with NAFTA and then CAFTA. Both agreements, which are not enforceable as they are both unconstitutional have been parts of a puzzle that until recently seemed not to make any sense at all. Both are focused on giving multinational corporations the right to lay claim to food production whether it is agriculture or animal ranching, to force out family farms, to patent their new “frankenseeds” and put the resulting GMO food on our grocery shelves without labeling the foods as altered.
The corporations can now sue the government (and have) if it acts in any way to prevent it from making profits it believes it is entitled to. This ability to sue for impaired profit making can be the result of environmental regulations, of Federal laws which may prevent the corporations from hiring illegal workers, or issues of eminent domain in which an individuals’ land stands in the way of corporate profiteering and the courts have not acted to protect the interests of the corporation. The corporation then claims “trade illegal” provisions of NAFTA and CAFTA and our federal laws and regulations are put aside, along with property rights.
All that was left to capture from the public was the water supply. CAFTA goes a long way in establishing the privatization of water supplies, including in-land navigated waters and the right to use and access the water supplies.
If the federal government is not able to gain total control of all water from whatever source, it is highly unlikely that water can be taken from the status of Public Trust and moved to one of a commodity, which is exactly what the Water Restoration Act of 2007 will enable.
If CAFTA protections and provisions for corporations and the provisions within CAFTA that put the rights of investors above those of the individual, or human rights, cannot come into play, it will be nearly impossible to expose our water supply to global markets. CAFTA’s primary aim is to protect and promote investors regardless of the cost to individuals or communities.
Water is not only a basic human right, but also a natural resource. Inland states like Minnesota have Public Trust Laws (in addition to federal doctrine) which maintain the use of waterways for drinking and for recreation purposes. Every lake here has public water access due to the Public Trust which everyone contributes to in one way or another. No one can claim land at the bottom of a lake……its commonly held. No one can claim private ownership of lake fish stocks, or other natural resources resulting from the lake’s existence. This applies to rivers also, including the Mississippi which runs through the state.
The Water Restoration Act of 2007 would federalize all inland and coastal waters from any source. This act is needed to set the stage for the privatization guaranteed to corporations under CAFTA and would effectively convert the entire water supply from any source into a commodity.
As it is, any corporate agriculture business operating in any area is allowed to bypass water treatment plants, sewage treatment and the associated costs and to tap directly into underground aquifers even at the cost of depleting the water supply to the surrounding communities. GMO seeds, especially “traitor” seeds require as much as three times the normal amount of water to activate and to grow, but any efforts to limit use or regulate disposal even by monetary assessment have been unsuccessful. The corporate rights now exceed that of the individual or community. CAFTA clearly states repeatedly that “investor protections” must be a priority.
Using the NAFTA provisions, along with even more detrimental CAFTA provisions, the World Bank along with the United Nations are active in the effort to convert the worlds’ water supply into a commodity to be controlled by private investors via global trade and investment agreements. If these efforts are successful, water will no longer be a community or individual right and resource necessary to maintain life, but a globally traded commodity subject to markets and your ability to pay.
The World Trade organization in collusion with provisions of NAFTA, have been instrumental in converting water into a tradable commodity and as such subject to international trade policies which favor no one but the giant corporations. In each instance of corporations attempting to overturn domestic environmental laws or regulations, the laws have been rendered null using the “trade illegal” provisions of both NAFTA and CAFTA which declare that the right of the corporation cannot be superseded or infringed upon by laws or regulations that hinder the amount of profit they estimate can be attained.
The World Bank already has established a system whereby credit or loans will not be issued to Third World countries and even less stressed countries, unless they agree to allow foreign investors access to privatize the water supply. In Bolivia this resulted in mass demonstrations that finally forced out a subsidiary of Bechtel that had privatized the water supply, increased costs three-fold minimally, dispensed with upkeep and left ¼ of the rural homes without access to water.
England has privatized their water system and costs rose 45% overnight, all but skeleton crews remained of the maintenance sector and the quality of water has dropped significantly.
In one Canadian town several people became ill and one died from an ecoli contamination in the water supply. This occurred after the supply had been privatized, and the owner of the water supply knew of the contamination. The public was never notified until after people became ill.
In March of 2000 at the Hague, a meeting occurred where water executives stated that as long as water was coming out of the tap the public had no right to any information as to how it got there….. Or its quality.
Here in the States, private investors have in some places succeeded in taking over community water supplies, in other places the communities have fought back against the sale of publicly held supplies realizing that this most important element of human survival should never be under the control of private corporations whose one and only duty is to make a profit for investors.
As water has historically been deemed a human right and necessity, so much so that the Public Trust Doctrine was put on paper, how could anyone in good conscience believe water is, or promote water as, a tradable commodity? How can there be so many callous and greedy individuals running around out there who would willingly see another human thirst to death just so they can make a buck? Apparently there are many.
The Water Restoration Act 2007 relies heavily on promotion based on protecting the water supply from pollution, from terrorists, and of course “national security”. The truth is it has nothing to do with any of these things. The WRA will allow unfettered pollution with no recourse for communities or individuals and “trade illegal” treatment of local and state laws. Before the entire water supply can be sold off to private interests the federal government must gain control of the entire water system. This is what the WRA will do.
This Act would be more aptly titled “The Water Confiscation Act” as this is exactly what is intended. All it is set to do is to strike down the Public Trust Doctrine and facilitate the conversion of water from a basic human right into a commodity. The only threat to “national security” here is from the government and the massive corporations who are behind it.
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised by any of this. After all, the Security & Prosperity Partnership refers to people as “human capital”. I wonder how long it will be before they refer to us as a “needed commodity” and trade and sell us on the global market.
Control the food, control the water and you control the people. I believe it was Henry Kissinger who first made this observation when speaking about the importance of depopulation through the use of eugenics. Obviously good old Henry realized that overtaking the food and water supplies would go a long way in deciding who had a right to life.
The big smokestack’s red lights that flash through the night send the unmistakable message that the mothballed smelter is not dead yet. The old American Smelting and Refining Company (Asarco) copper smelter in El Paso, Texas, may have temporarily stopped spewing toxins, but it still unsettles the Paso del Norte borderlands.
Government agencies and environmental groups have blamed the 111-year- old smelter for severe air, soil and groundwater contamination. Nonetheless, on February 13, 2008 the plant was given a new lease on life when the three members of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) voted unanimously to grant Asarco a five-year air quality permit. The vote was a stinging rebuke to hundreds of border residents who had traveled to the state capital of Austin to convince TCEQ to finally shut it down.
The air permit battle is just the latest chapter in the long, controversial history of the Asarco smelter, which is currently owned by a Mexican company. Operating under a series of previous owners the plant processed lead, zinc, silver and copper between 1887 and 1999. http://waronyou.blogspot.com/2008/04/smokestack-injustice-toxic-texas.html
