March Against Monsanto, Sitka, Alaska, Brett Wilcox

Debi Terry123Photo Credit: Debi Terry

Today, May 25th, 2013, the people of Sitka, Alaska, stand united with the people of the world in a global March Against Monsanto! And today we stand united in a global March For Humanity, a March For All Living Things, and a March For Our Treasured Mother Earth.

Today we honor the Creator and the creations, the abundant nature, the rich biodiversity, and the infinite wisdom bundled into the smallest seed and into the universe itself.

Photo Credit: Debi Terry
Photo Credit: Debi Terry

Chuck Miller. Gunalchéesh. You call yourself a Tlingit Elder in training. We are all in training. But the heart that beats in your young body is the heart of an Elder. When I first told you about Monsanto and biotechnology, you knew in your heart Monsanto is violating nature. Later, you wrote, “My grandmother used to teach my family that we need to treat our food with respect or it will not provide for us. My ancestors’ teachings are still a very big part of my life and I want to be able to pass that on to my children, grandchildren and those yet to come. GMOs are not the way to treat Mother Earth and the generations yet to come.” You encouraged us to come to Castle Hill today to March Against Monsanto, and so we have.

Sharon McIndoo. Gunalchéesh. And Gunalchéesh to the Haa Toowu Litseen Drum group. Your drumming brings a good and powerful spirit to this gathering.

Gunalchéesh to the dancers who will honor us later in this event.

Gunalchéesh, for your prayer. May God bless you for your offering today.

Gunalchéesh to the officials who gave us a permit to meet on Castle Hill, an Alaskan State Park.

Gunalchéesh to the people from the Harbor Department who opened up the restrooms under O’Connell Bridge for us today. When I told the gentlemen of our need, he said, “My parents taught me we must take care of our Elders.”

Gunalchéesh to the Lutheran church for letting us borrow this podium and these chairs.

Gunalchéesh to the sound, video, and media people. Thanks to you, this event will bless people around the world.

Gunalchéesh to our parents and ancestors. May their spirits fill our hearts and may they join with us today as we honor our common Mother.

And Gunalchéesh to each of you. I welcome and honor you. Your very presence makes a statement. And today we make that statement with countless people around the world, people of all races, creeds, and cultures, and we bear testimony on behalf of our children, our friends and neighbors, our communities. On behalf of the land, the water, and the air. On behalf of our sisters and brothers, the raven, the eagle, the salmon, the bear, the whale. On behalf of the bees, the birds, and the butterflies. On behalf of all life and the Earth herself.

I’m Brett Wilcox. I’m joined today by my wife, Kris, and three of our four children, Brittany, David, and Olivia. Sitka has been our home for over twelve years now.

We meet today on Castle Hill for a reason. This is the location where Russia sold the vast territory of Alaska—land it didn’t own—to the U.S.A. Historians tell us when the Russians and the Americans met on this very spot to legitimize the theft, the Tlingit people were not included in the gathering. Many of them watched the proceedings from their canoes in Sitka Sound, having no knowledge of the purpose of the meeting.

Thus, the Native tribes and people of Alaska became disenfranchised from their own land and governance, and thus they became foreigners and non-citizens in their 10,000-year-old ancestral home.

Of course Alaska’s Native people were not the first to suffer at the hands of European expansion. Following the arrival of Columbus, Native Americans have experienced over five centuries of barbaric behavior from “civilized” Westerners.

The American sense of Manifest Destiny—our self-serving belief that God wants people of European descent to spread across the land and claim everything within sight—resulted in the Manifest Destruction of America’s Indigenous inhabitants.

And what European Americans did in the U.S.A., European colonists did in much of the rest of the world.

Carl Jung described such “cut-off Europeans” as “technological savages” and “intellectual barbarians.” Jung once spoke with his friend, the Pueblo Indian Chief, Ochwiay Biano (Mountain Lake), while on a trip to Taos, New Mexico. The Chief described white people this way: “Their eyes have a staring expression; they are always seeking something. What are they seeking? The whites always want something; they are always uneasy and restless. We do not know what they want. We do not understand them. We think that they are mad.”

Jung then asked the Chief why he thought the whites are mad.

Ochwiay Biano replied, “They say that they think with their heads.”

Yung was surprised at the response. “Why of course. What do you think with?” he asked.

“We think here,” he said, indicating his heart.

Yung later wrote, “I fell into a long meditation. For the first time in my life, so it seemed to me, someone had drawn for me a picture of the real white man. . . . This Indian had struck our vulnerable spot, unveiled a truth to which we are blind. . . . What we from our point of view call colonization, missions to the heathen, spread of civilization, etc., has another face – the face of a bird of prey seeking with cruel intentness for distant quarry – a face worthy of a race of pirates and highwaymen.”
(Claire Dunne, Carl Jung: Wounded Healer of the Soul: An Illustrated Biography, (Parabola Books, USA, 2000) pp. 67-68.

The Native American author, activist, and professor, Jack Forbes, wrote extensively of the white man’s madness of which Chief Biano spoke. Forbes used the Cree word, “Wétiko,” to describe the European Americans’ collective mental illness. Wétiko literally means cannibal, but not in the usual sense. A cannibal is a person who consumes other human beings for profit. And, of course, people who are willing to exploit, enslave, and kill human beings for profit, think nothing of stealing, plundering and lying to increase their claim upon the Earth’s resources.

The irony of the Wétiko mental illness is that it is not seen as an illness in our “civilized” Western society. Rather it is seen as a virtue.

The author Thom Hartmann points out that those who hoard newspapers, magazines, sheets of tin foil, string, empty bottles, etc., are universally recognized as mentally ill, perhaps exhibiting a manifestation of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. But the people who hoard billions of dollars, and the accompanying exploitive, dangerous, and destructive practises which secure those dollars, are held up as cultural icons and heroes.

This brings us back to Monsanto and Castle Hill. The company, Monsanto, was born in 1901, a mere 34 years after the USA purchased the Alaskan territory from Russia. Since its creation more than a century ago, Monsanto has amassed billions of dollars, at the cost of millions of human lives, global environmental degradation, and untold suffering. This multi-national corporation has infected and infested the U.S. government to such a degree that the two entities have almost become one. And with the blessing and help of the U.S. government, it is now infecting and infesting the governments and farms of the world.

Monsanto has turned American farmers into Monsanto pawns and peons—peons Monsanto sues with regularity and impunity. It has turned human food into a corporate commodity, most of which is fed to our cars and cattle. Through Monsanto propaganda, many people think that foods saturated with Monsanto chemical poisons are conventional, and that organic foods are weird or elitist.

All of these behaviors demonstrate the Wétiko mental illness. But as terrible and greedy as they are, perhaps Monsanto’s recent foray into the world of genetic engineering is the most terrible and most greedy of all.

Genetic engineering is based on the idea that God and Mother Nature don’t know what they are doing. And that we human beings, through crude and imprecise laboratory methods, can combine unrelated species, to create life forms that will survive and thrive in toxic chemical baths or which will generate poisons from within their cells, turning those plants into pesticides, plants which we then eat.

Monsanto spends millions of dollars convincing us that genetic engineering is necessary to feed the world. Without it, they say, global famine is inevitable. The truth is this: genetic engineering has nothing to do with feeding the world. It has everything to do with owning, controlling, and profiting from food—your food, my food, and the food of the world.

Some twenty years ago, American lawmakers, under the influence of corporate forces including Monsanto, ruled that life could be patented. Thus, seed, a gift from God and nature from time immemorial, became private property.

Private property was a foreign concept to many Native Americans. “Sell a country?” the Native American Tecumseh shouted in a meeting in 1810. “Why not sell the air,” he asked, “the clouds, the rivers and the great sea as well as the entire earth? Did not the Great Spirit make them all for the use of his children?”

Evidently not. Tecumseh’s question now stands as prophesy against Monsanto and the privatization of life itself.

Monsanto’s mission is to own and poison every seed and every plant around the world.

Just as early European American settlers raced across the country, seizing land, minerals, and resources, and killing anyone who stood in their way, when Monsanto engineered U.S. patent law, Monsanto raced around the world claiming seeds and plants by the dozens as their own, hoarding at a global scale. Jung’s words echo from the past: Monsanto has become the epitome of “the face of a bird of prey seeking with cruel intentness for distant quarry – a face worthy of a race of pirates and highwaymen.”

Monsanto, the world’s leading bio-pirate, is perpetrating global bio-piracy.

The Native American people became the disenfranchised with the original Western land grab and expansion. All Americans and indeed, all the people of the world, have become disenfranchised with the advent of patented seeds and crops, whether those seeds are natural or transgenic.

Monsanto’s sense of Manifest Destiny has resulted in worldwide Manifest Misery.

We, the people of the world, are now, as it were, sitting in our canoes in Sitka Sound. Yet most of us, perhaps especially in America, remain ignorant—ignorant of the fact that Monsanto facilitated meetings with “our” government and that “our” government gave Monsanto license to claim seed—Mother Nature’s free gift to the world—as their own. As a result, we have lost free access to the use of seeds for food.

Monsanto and other biotech companies now own nature.

In this bizarre turn of events, the company that may have committed more crimes against humanity than any other can and does legally steal from nature, while we become criminals simply by saving and replanting Monsanto seed.

How is it that the majority of us remain ignorant of this outrageous situation?

We remain ignorant because just as Monsanto runs the government, Monsanto has near total control over American news and media. While the European press ran hundreds of news stories regarding the health risks associated with GMOs, the U.S. press has remained nearly silent. Monsanto threats and potential loss of marketing dollars silenced American media.

I am a mental health counselor. I have spent much of my career remediating the impact and consequences of human violence.

Broadly defined, we all perpetrate acts of violence on each other. Healthier individuals learn from their mistakes, make amends, heal relationships, and move forward. Less healthy individuals learn that violence works for them. By using violence, they gain power and control over others. And sometimes they gain money. Lots of money.

The Monsanto Company is, at its core, violent. Monsanto is at war with nature, humanity, dignity, and compassion. The power mongers who run Monsanto long ago learned that violence works for them. They violate laws, nature, ethics, morals, and trust. And through these violations, they amass billions of dollars.

Contrary to what the Supreme Court believes, Monsanto is not a person. If Monsanto were an American, he would have been executed decades ago for crimes against humanity. And if Monsanto had somehow escaped from justice and were still at large, Monsanto would be the world’s number one, and most feared psychopath. And with good reason. Monsanto is responsible for knowingly and intentionally killing millions of people, and repeatedly lying about it, polluting plants, animals, soils, lakes, streams, and oceans, and repeatedly lying about it, and poisoning our food supply, both with toxic chemicals and by introducing toxic and foreign genes into plant DNA.

Let’s play along with the Supreme Court for a moment and pretend that Monsanto is a person. Let’s say, heaven forbid, Monsanto is your next-door neighbor. He’s an entrepreneur. He’s also a chemist, miner, scientist, businessman, and farmer. He farms on the property behind your house.

One day you wake up and find your daughter is sick. You take her to the doctor and discover she has leukemia. You send your son off to war. He comes back with multiple health issues and dies a few years later from cancer. You learn that someone in your town has been poisoning many of the plants and processed foods in the local grocery stores. Not only that, you learn that someone has introduced a toxic gene into corn, and that toxic corn is now registered with the EPA as a pesticide. You learn more about the health risks associated with genetically modified foods. You want to avoid it, but you don’t know how because someone has spent millions of dollars to keep transgenic foods unlabeled in the United States. You learn that someone has been poisoning the meat, milk, and cheese in the stores. It’s filled with pesticides, herbicides, genetically altered hormones, antibiotics, and pus. And you’ve been feeding it to your family for years.

And then you discover dead fish in the stream behind your house. You see a pipe extending from the stream bank with a foul smelling liquid flowing into the stream. Tests reveal the liquid is made up of PCBs and Dioxin. A few days later, you discover barrels of PCBs buried in your back yard. At the moment of discovery, you hear a plane fly overhead and stand in horror as a spray of Agent Orange and glyphosate falls upon your children.

You rush your children into your home to wash off the burning poisons, and your spouse is just getting off the phone. Your neighbor on the next block, a farmer, has “lost his farm.” But he didn’t lose it, someone stole it from him in court. Another neighbor, also a farmer, has killed himself due to crushing debt. He planted high priced genetically altered cottonseeds in the spring and the crop failed to yield the promised amount. Monsanto killed his farm, killed his spirit, and ultimately killed his body as he committed suicide by pesticide. And we mustn’t forget your cousin. She just gave birth. The infant has no eyes.

You begin to understand that these terrible events didn’t “just happen.” They are connected and related to each other. Someone is responsible. Someone is systematically and intentionally poisoning you, your family, and your community. Needless to say, you’re angry. Who wouldn’t be angry at such loss and such egregious acts of violence? More than anything you want the perpetrator found and brought to justice.

Your multi-talented neighbor, Mr. Monsanto, knocks on the front door. As usual, he’s dressed in an expensive Italian suit and he wears a commanding smile. He ignores your crying children and tells you that he cares about you and that he’s doing everything he can to solve the world’s problems. He reminds you yet again that the human population is exploding, and he’s working hard to make sure that famine does not result. You wonder why such a magnanimous, forward thinking, and wealthy man can’t spare a moment or even a dollar to help you clean up your poisoned stream or yard. Or why he can’t spare a dollar for any of the suffering people in your town. He shakes your hand and tells you to check out his website. “It’s really quite lovely,” he says. And then he leaves.

Have you had enough of pretending that Monsanto is your neighbor?

We who are gathered here today know the truth about Monsanto. As previously mentioned, the Pueblo Indian Chief, Ochwiay Biano said, referring to white people, “We think that they are mad.”

If white people are mad, then Monsanto is the maddest of the mad. Our good neighbor, Monsanto, is a global psychopath.

He amassed the largest share of his fortune by selling Agent Orange and other chemicals to the US government during the Vietnam War, knowing full well that Agent Orange had already sickened and killed his own employees in his chemical plant in Nitro, West Virginia. And even though the mothers of Vietnam continue to give birth to malformed babies some 40 years since the US stopped the largest chemical warfare campaign in the history of the world, Monsanto paid millions of dollars to lawyers to ensure he doesn’t have to pay one dime to his Vietnamese victims. He used his own rigged studies from Nitro to prove that Agent Orange isn’t harmful in order to keep American Vietnam veterans from receiving any kind of meaningful compensation for their ruined and shortened lives. He knowingly and intentionally dumped and buried PCBs in Anniston, Alabama, and other towns for years. Jeffrey Smith, the author of Seeds of Destruction, reminds us that an Alabama “court found Monsanto guilty of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. Outrage, according to Alabama law, usually requires conduct ‘so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.'”

Thanks to our neighbor Monsanto, the breast milk Inuit mothers feed their babies is toxic. And thanks to Monsanto and his PCBs, we all carry PCBs within our bodies.

Thanks to Monsanto, the 11-year-old Paraguayan boy, Silvino Talavera, died after being sprayed with Monsanto’s Roundup, the same Roundup that Monsanto formerly advertised as biodegradable and “safer than table salt,” the same Roundup that independent scientists have linked to cancer and birth defects, the same Roundup you’re probably feeding to your children.

Thanks for Monsanto, some hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers have committed suicide.

Thanks to Monsanto, Mexico’s cradle of corn is now contaminated by Monsanto’s GMO corn.

Thanks to Monsanto, American and Canadian farmers have lost their farms, both to genetic pollution from Monsanto’s genetically modified crops, and from Monsanto’s aggressive lawsuits against farmers.

Thanks to Monsanto and the US government, Congress recently gave Monsanto immunity from the federal courts under a provision commonly referred to as the “Monsanto Protection Act.”

Thanks to Monsanto and the US government, the Coalition Provisional
Authority forces Iraqi farmers to plant Monsanto genetically modified seeds through Paul Bremer’s infamous Order 81.

These facts are only the tip of Monsanto’s toxic iceberg. Books have been written exposing Monsanto’s crimes. And many more will yet be written when Monsanto’s secret abominations are brought to light.

Knowing what you know about your smiling psychopathic neighbor, Monsanto, how do you feel about his products, poisons, promises, and lies? Over 800 scientists signed a document sharing their thoughts on that subject. They write, “Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned because they threaten food security, sanction biopiracy of indigenous knowledge and genetic resources, violate basic human rights and dignity, compromise healthcare, impede medical and scientific research and are against the welfare of animals. GM crops offer no benefits to farmers or consumers. Instead, many problems have been identified, including yield drag, increased herbicide use, erratic performance, and poor economic returns to farmers. GM crops also intensify corporate monopoly on food, which is driving family farmers to destitution, and preventing the essential shift to sustainable agriculture that can guarantee food security and health around the world.”

The world-leading environmental activist and eco-visionary, Dr. Vandana Shiva, is one of the 800 scientists mentioned above. This is what she thinks of Monsanto: “When Hitler came to power and the Nazis came to power with their kind of genocide, people created resistance movements everywhere. Today this new fascism is over life itself in all its diversity. It’s not just controlling one religion and one race. It’s wanting to outlaw all diversity of all life on Earth, and the rights of the producers as well as the eaters of food. After all, the huge onslaught against any attempt for labeling GMO foods in the United States is part of this Monsanto dictatorship. That is why the March Against Monsanto is a march for freedom.”

What can we do to stop our good neighbor, Monsanto?

As a small group of people? Not much.

But when many small groups grow and become large groups, then we gain the power we need to stand up to Monsanto and stand up to the government officials and scientists who have sold out to Monsanto.

Today, we join hands, hearts, and voices with the people of the world. Today, countless numbers March Against Monsanto. And as a result of our efforts, millions more will March Against Monsanto.

But while we march we must remember: Monsanto is not a person. People have faces, hearts, and hands. People have souls. Monsanto has none of these things. If Monsanto had eyes, he would see the people he has murdered. If Monsanto had ears, he would hear the cries of those left behind. If Monsanto had a nose, he would recoil at the smell of his poisons. If Monsanto had a mouth, he would refuse to eat his toxic fare. If Monsanto had hands, he would cover his face with shame. If Monsanto had shoulders, he would be crushed under the weight of his crimes. If Monsanto had a heart, it would break from the pain he has inflicted. If Monsanto had a soul, his life would be a living hell. If Monsanto were a person, Monsanto would be dead.

So, standing here on Castle Hill, we are here to deliver a message. Not to the faceless and heartless Monsanto, but to the breathing, living people who have surrendered their humanity to Monsanto. We offer our message to you from our hearts and in the spirit of prayer: The world neither wants nor needs the Monsanto empire and Monsanto castles. Your castles of death must come down. Mother nature decrees your silly claim upon her null and void. You did not give life to your Mother; she gave life to you. You are not the creator of life; you are life’s steward. When you patent plants, you patent your brothers. When you murder butterflies and bees, you murder your sisters. When you poison soil and water, you poison your children. When you war against humanity, you war against yourselves. Yes, you profit from plunder. Yes, you grow from greed. But your wealth will mean nothing to you when your Mother is dead, your brothers and sisters are dying, and your children are gone. Chief Ochwiay is right. You are mad because you think with your heads. What else can you think with? You have poisoned your own hearts.

But it’s not too late. The hearts of the world beat for you until yours beat again. The eyes of the world see for you until yours see again. Open your hearts, think with your hearts, see with your hearts, and hear with your hearts. You know within your souls it is time to stop your war against Nature. You know it is time to stop your pollution, your corruption, and your lies. And you know that even though you can’t possibly pay the tiniest fraction for the crimes you’ve committed, you will pay. You know that as you hide out in your corporate castles, separated from your serfs and slaves, drunk on your dreams of controlling the world, you are made of flesh and blood . . . like the rest of us. And before you were flesh and blood, you were soil. You know when you poison the land, air, and water, you poison you own breath, flesh, and blood. You know when you kill and maim others, you kill and main yourselves and your children.

You know it’s time to stop the madness, time to heal from your Wétiko. Time to stop generating chemical pollution. Time to stop generating biological pollution. Time to stop generating lies. It’s time to stop. Just stop. You must stop.

It’s time for you to reclaim your humanity by dropping your claim upon nature. It’s time for you to join the people of the world in our March Against Monsanto.

Together, we must stop Monsanto, before Monsanto stops the world!

Amen and amen.

The United Republic of Soybeans: Take Two

Source: http://www.grain.org/article/entries/4749-the-united-republic-of-soybeans-take-two

By GRAIN, a small international non-profit organisation that works to support small farmers and social movements in their struggles for community-controlled and biodiversity-based food systems

“The United Republic of Soybeans.” That’s the patronizing moniker given to the entire Southern Cone − comprising the countries of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, and Bolivia − by the Syngenta Corporation in a 2003 advertisement in the rural supplements of the Argentine papers Clarín and La Nación. It’s an open statement of the neocolonialist fervour with which these companies are attempting to dominate this region of the world.

© Depositphotos.com/David Davis #9287008
© Depositphotos.com/David Davis #9287008

In 2012, the agribusiness transnationals really stepped up their campaign to control these countries and their institutions. They launched new genetically engineered (transgenic or GE) crops involving increased health and environmental hazards because of the agrotoxins (pesticides and herbicides) that have to be applied with them. They also lobbied for policy changes that are without precedent except for the initial GE onslaught in the second half of the 1990s. This new corporate drive comes in a troubling new context in which almost all the governments of the region (at least until June of last year) were “progressive” critics of neoliberalism. These governments have begun to rectify some of the neoliberal policies adopted in the 1990s, with the government taking a more active role in regulating the economy and providing for social welfare, education, and healthcare.

However, in all this time, the prevailing model of agricultural production has not changed. There has been no official concern about the problems caused by the widespread planting of transgenic soybeans and the high levels of agrotoxins this requires. On the contrary, this model continues to be consolidated and defended by all of the region’s governments, which have adopted it as government policy in every case. At best – and only when societal pressure becomes too great – they have given slapdash consideration to the problems of agrotoxin poisoning, displacement of peasants and first peoples, land concentration, and loss of local production. But these are considered “collateral impacts.” (Bolivia is excluded from this assessment, since although the “half-moon” region of Santa Cruz de la Sierra sits within the territory dubbed the “United Republic of Soybeans,” the government of Evo Morales has taken widely divergent positions from the rest of the governments. This has led to conflict with Santa Cruz power brokers who have called for the region to separate from the country).

In previous issues of Against the grain (1 2 3), we have criticized the soy incursion as serving to consolidate the agribusiness model of production. The Southern Cone has become the region with the highest concentration of GE crops in the world and, in a closely related development, the region with the highest per capita application of agrotoxins. In this issue, we will explore the soy phenomenon and its implications for peasant communities and society as a whole.

The profound impacts of the agribusiness model know no borders between rural and urban. In rural areas and outer suburbs they are measured in terms of agrotoxin poisoning, displaced farmers (who swell the ranks of the urban poor), ruined regional economies, correspondingly high urban food prices, and contamination of the food supply. Ultimately, what we are looking at is a social and environmental catastrophe settling like a plague over the entire region. Wherever you live, you cannot ignore it.

The handful of people and companies responsible for this chain of destruction have names: Monsanto and a few other biotech corporations (Syngenta, Bayer) leading the pack; large landowners and planting pools that control millions of hectares (Los Grobo, CRESUD, El Tejar, Maggi, and others); and the cartels that move grain around the world (Cargill, ADM, and Bunge). Not to mention the governments of each of these countries and their enthusiastic support for this model. To these should be added the many auxiliary businesses providing services, machinery, spraying, and inputs that have enriched themselves as a result of the model.

To put some numbers on the phenomenon, there are currently over 46 million ha of GE soy monoculture in the region. These are sprayed with over 600 million litres of glyphosate and are causing deforestation at a rate of at least 500,000 ha per year.

While the regional impacts of this model tend to occur in interconnected fashion, we will attempt to break them down for further analysis. This analysis takes place against a backdrop of a coup d’état in Paraguay, where the powers that be have shown their intentions most abruptly and nakedly. But this coup was intended to set an example for the entire region. The idea was to show them the “right path” and the consequences of straying from it.

Agribusiness and murder

This has been a constant in the region in recent years. As mentioned, Paraguay is where the most brutal impacts have been felt. Perhaps the worst incident was the Curuguaty massacre on 15 June 2012 when 11 peasants and six police officers died as a result of open conflict between peasants, paramilitaries, and the government. The massacre was the pretext for the institutional coup d’état that put an end to president Lugo’s administration.

Prior to the coup, and continuing afterward, a wave of repression against peasant leaders took place. This has morphed into selective assassinations that have taken the lives of Sixto Pérez (1 September 2012 in Puentesiño, Concepción Department), Vidal Vega (1 December 2012 in Curuguaty, Canindeyú Department), and Benjamín Lezcano within a space of eight months following the inauguration of new president Federico Franco.4 CONAMURI, the national rural and indigenous women’s confederation, has stated that the same modus operandi was used in the three cases and that the goal seems to have been the same in each: to decapitate the peasant leadership.

In Argentina, three peasants have been murdered in Santiago del Estero in the last three years (Sandra Ely Juárez, Cristian Ferreyra, and Miguel Galván), all in connection with the soybean industry. Elsewhere, communities in the provinces of Formosa and Salta have been subjected to ongoing harassment.

In Brazil too the peasant movement, and especially the Landless People’s Movement (MST), has been hit with agribusiness violence. Recently, the Comisión Pastoral de la Tierra (CPT) released a preliminary report on the violence in 2012 that tabulates 36 deaths due to agrarian conflict.7 Already this year, three MST leaders have been assassinated (Cícero Guedes dos Santos, Regina dos Santos Pinho, and Fabio dos Santos Silva).

This is all taking place as part of a broader drive to criminalize social movements. Not only are the movements persecuted and stigmatized informally, but they are also targeted by repressive laws. Argentina in December 2011 passed an antiterrorism law that joins a number of similar laws already existing in countries of the region.

Agribusiness and agrotoxin poisoning

One of the big lies told by the corporations, the media, and certain elements in academia to justify the introduction of GE seeds was that they would help reduce the use of agrotoxins. As many peoples’ organizations have repeatedly shown, the reality is exactly the opposite. Today, the rise in the use of agrotoxins is alarming, and their impacts on the entire region are increasingly difficult to hide.

None of this should surprise anyone who realizes that genetically engineered seeds are being promoted by the same corporations that sell agrotoxins, with Monsanto in the lead. In fact, herbicide-resistant crops are by far the most popular transgenic product on the market.

By 2008, Brazil had become the world’s largest per capita consumer of agrotoxins, accounting for 20% of all agrotoxins used on the planet. Per capita consumption was 5.2 litres of agrotoxins per year.8 9 The frightening figure of 853 million litres of agrotoxins used in 2011, with 190% growth in the Brazilian market in the last decade, speaks volumes. Of this total, 55% of agrotoxins are sprayed on soybeans and corn, with soy alone accounting for 40% of the total.10 Glyphosate accounts for about 40% of agrotoxin consumption in Brazil.

Argentina is keeping pace. In 2011 a total of 238 million litres of glyphosate were sprayed, for a whopping 1190% increase over 1996, the year herbicide-tolerant transgenic soy was introduced into the country.

In Paraguay, the world’s sixth largest soybean producer, glyphosate use in 2007 amounted to over 13 million litres.

In Uruguay, where transgenic soy is also making inroads, at least 12 million litres were used in 2010.13 Uruguay is in fact the country where, due to drinking water contamination in the city of Montevideo, the urban population is beginning to react with alarm.

Taking stock of the region, it can be surmised that at least 600 million litres of glyphosate are being sprayed every year. This frightening figure has translated into the filing of innumerable complaints by people who have seen their health, ecosystems, agriculture, and communities be degraded by these agrotoxins.

As alarming as these figures may be, of even greater concern is the rising use of other agrotoxins in combination with glyphosate, often to compensate where weeds have become resistant to it. For example, 1.2 million litres of paraquat are now being sprayed in Argentina every year, and 3.32 million litres over the five soy-producing countries combined. Paraquat is linked to neurological disorders and for this reason was banned in 13 countries of the European Union in 2003.

No doubt about it, agrotoxins are another piece of the murderous agribusiness picture.

Agribusiness and the imposition of genetic engineering

The introduction of new GE crops linked to the use of new agrotoxins is part of the corporations’ strategy and has been since 2012.

Argentine President Cristina Fernández’s announcement of new Monsanto investments in Argentina at the Council of the Americas meeting on 15 June 2012 gave notice of the official and corporate agenda to be rolled out in the following months, including a tidal wave of projects, announcements, and attempts to change national legislation.

In August 2012, Minister of Agriculture Norberto Yahuar stood next to Monsanto executives and announced the approval of the new “Intacta” rr2 soy, which combines glyphosate resistance with Bt production. Nothing new here, except to combine the only two crop traits the biotech industry has managed to put on the market in its twenty years of existence.

But other transgenics have been approved for field trials, including soy and corn resistant to more dangerous herbicides such as glufosinate and 2,4-D. Andrés Carrasco, a researcher at the Argentine National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET), stated the problem clearly a few months ago: “Five of those ten approved transgenic events [crop varieties] in Argentina, three of corn and two of soybeans, combine resistance to glyphosate with resistance to glufosinate ammonium [an inhibitor of synthesis of the amino acid glutamine]. The need to combine these two types of resistance in the new seeds shows up the inconsistencies in GE technology, in terms of both construction and behaviour over time. Yet instead of rethinking this approach, agribusiness keeps on trying to fix the problems with increasingly dangerous applications of the same GE technology.”

In Paraguay, just months after the institutional coup d’état, the Ministry of Agriculture approved a transgenic maize variety that the deposed government had been resisting and the peasant organizations had been expressly rejecting, due to the threat it poses to the many local varieties of maize grown by indigenous and peasant farmers. In October 2012, four varieties of transgenic maize manufactured by Monsanto, Dow, Agrotec, and Syngenta were approved.16 By August, de facto president Franco had revealed his true constituency by issuing an executive order allowing Roundup Ready Bt cotton seeds to be imported.

In Brazil, the escalation began in late 2011 with the announcement by the National Biosafety Technical Commission (CTNBio) of the first commercially grown GE bean variety “entirely developed in Brazil” and resistant to bean golden mosaic virus. This event, because it was developed by a public institution (Embrapa) and possesses different traits from the most widespread GE crops (Bt and rr), and because it concerns a staple food of lower-income people, became the poster child of “socially conscious” genetic engineering.17 However, this approval has been challenged by public officials, the scientific community, and civil society. Renato Maluf, President of the National Food and Nutritional Safety Council (Consea), invoked the precautionary principle in stating his concerns about the hasty release of this variety. “We think it showed a lack of precaution to release a product that the whole population will consume when we don’t have certainty about its food safety and nutritional value,” he said. Similarly, Ana Carolina Brolo, legal counsel to the humanitarian organization Tierra de Derechos, indicated that “this GE crop approval was characterized by a lack of respect for domestic and international biosafety rules”.

As has always been the case, the new GE crops depend on the use of agrotoxins to a very large extent. Some, such as glyphosate, are already in widespread use while other more toxic ones – dicamba, glufosinate, 2,4-D – are now being introduced. In Brazil, the Small Farmers’ Movement (MPA), a Via Campesina member, revealed in April 2012 that 2,4-D-resistant soy and maize were slated for approval. These seeds are already being grown experimentally in Argentina.

Agribusiness and control over seeds

New seed laws are being steamrollered over Latin America. Argentina has been particularly targeted as a direct result of its agreement with Monsanto. The same day that the Minister of Agriculture announced the approval of “Intacta” soybeans, he sent a new seeds bill to Congress with instructions that it be passed before 2013.

The bill was never made public nor subjected to any in-depth debate. It was discussed behind closed doors in the Ministry of Agriculture by elements of Argentine agribusiness. Yet its content transcends the agriculture ministry and confirms what the official announcement intimated: the bill will subordinate domestic seed policy to the dictates of UPOV 20 and the transnationals.

The National Indigenous Peasant Movement (MNCI) presented a cogent criticism: “The bill does not protect knowledge or biodiversity. It promotes privatization and protects ownership over the collective heritage of our peoples, especially peasant communities and indigenous peoples. It opens the doors to more extensive expropriation and privatization of agricultural and wild biodiversity in Argentina. It criminalizes or greatly restricts practices in effect since the beginnings of agriculture; i.e., freely selecting, breeding, obtaining, saving, reproducing, and exchanging seeds from the previous harvest. It sets the stage for the continued introduction of new genetically engineered crops, and the expansion of existing ones, by granting ownership over varieties without requiring proof of quality but simply on the basis of the existence of a trait. And, it gives the seed companies the power to police compliance with the provisions of the bill”.

Thanks to organizing by various sectors, the tabling of the bill in Congress has been postponed, but the threat of its passage still looms.

Quite clearly, control over seeds – the basic unit of agriculture – is one of the main goals of the corporations. In this way, they hope to gain control over the entire agrifood system and build an unshakable monopoly. It is equally clear that such control would directly impact all human beings, preventing them from exercising food sovereignty and condemning millions to hunger.

Agribusiness and forest destruction

Deforestation throughout the region has intensified dramatically. Measures designed to rein it in (such as the Forests Act in Argentina and various regulations adopted in Brazil) have failed to stop it. The main cause is the advance of the agricultural frontier (often pushing the ranching frontier ahead of it).

As in the past, Brazil leads the pack with a net 28 million hectares of lost forest in the decade from 2000 to 2010.22 Between August 2010 and July 2011, 641,800 hectares of Amazon forest were lost,23 a fact triumphantly celebrated by the national authorities.

In Argentina, the figures (from official and NGO sources) were as follows: between 2004 and 2012, the logging machines destroyed 2,501,912 hectares, an area 124 times that of the city of Buenos Aires. Put another way, Argentina is destroying 36 football fields worth of forest every hour. The last Ministry of the Environment report, covering 2006-2011, found that 1,779,360 hectares of native forest had been destroyed during this period.

In Paraguay, the deforestation picture is perhaps the most serious. On the one hand, historical deforestation (1945–1997) for agriculture caused a loss of 76.3% of the original forest cover in the eastern region.25 On the other, current deforestation in the western region culminated in 2011 with a loss of 286,742 ha of forest, a 23% increase over the figure of 232,000 ha deforested during 2010.

A global look at this tragedy gives a better idea of the dimensions of what is occurring. An FAO study published in 201127 found that the average annual worldwide net loss of forest between 1990 and 2005 was around 5 million ha − and 4 million of that is taking place in South America.

Here again, agribusiness is making a killing in the literal sense: it is killing the unique ecosystems of the region, and thereby the peoples who have cohabited with the forest for millennia.

Agribusiness and land consolidation

Land consolidation is another phenomenon that has characterized the introduction of GE soybeans throughout the Southern Cone. Land concentration was already a serious problem in these countries, but it has gotten much worse.

Paraguay, already among the Latin American countries with the most unequal land distribution, saw this situation escalate to the point where today, 2% of owners control 85% of the farmland. The regional situation is worse when one considers that the neighbouring countries – Brazil especially but also Argentina – are also experiencing land concentration for transgenic soybeans.

The soybean model has profoundly transformed the way in which land is concentrated. Today, most land is not purchased but leased by the large producers. These “producers” are not physically identifiable persons but pools, financed for the most part by speculative investment groups.

The consequences for local, peasant, and indigenous communities are always the same: expulsion from their land, in many cases with physical violence, as discussed above.

Figures on land expulsion are hard to come by, since there are no official statistics for any country of the region. However, researchers have found that in Paraguay, the agribusiness soybean steamroller, in its push to control 4 million ha of land, has displaced 143,000 peasant families. That’s more than half the farms under 20 ha recorded in the agricultural census of 1991.29 For Argentina, this model has provoked an unprecedented rural exodus which, by 2007, had expelled more than 200,000 farmers and their families from the land (26). In Brazil, starting in the 1970s, soy production displaced 2.5 million people in the state of Paraná and 300,000 in the state of Río Grande do Sul.

Agribusiness: meet the new dictator

The institutional coup d’état in Paraguay shows how agribusiness – basically transnational corporations in cahoots with large landowners – is unwilling to be held back by whatever timid restrictions the national governments may try to impose.

In Paraguay, the Lugo government, though it had a parliamentary minority, was trying to set some limits on some of the worst aspects of industrial agriculture. Initiatives carried out by the ministries of health and environment and by the National Phytosanitary and Seed Service (Senave) sought to rein in the use of agrotoxins and the approval of new transgenics, especially Roundup-Ready maize and Bt cotton. The government also initiated dialogue with peasant organizations to try to put a stop to the long-running violence in the countryside as a result of land concentration.

The powerful agribusiness sector grouped under the UGP, with the support of Monsanto, Cargill, and other transnationals declared war on the authorities responsible for these initiatives, publicly calling for their ouster. The Curuguaty massacre was the excuse they found to overthrow President Lugo with the help of their allies in Congress. A two-hour session was all it took to bring in a new government favourable to their interests.

It was not just a change of president: with Lugo went all the public officials responsible for these positive initiatives. In short order they were replaced by agribusiness-friendly officials and measures. The proposed restrictions on spraying, new transgenics, and Seeds Act amendments vanished.

With the recent election of Horacio Cartés, the Colorado Party is back in power. Impunity for the coup plotters and free rein for agribusiness are the order of the day.

In the other countries of the region the situation is different. While the crude reality of Paraguay is not in evidence, it is also clear that agribusiness is making headway with its preferred policies and interfering with attempts to derail them.

The upshot is plain for all to see: democracy is incompatible with corporate control. We must demolish the structures allowing for agribusiness to take control over our resources if we wish to live in a democracy where the common good is preserved.

Agribusiness control over research

Universities and research institutes throughout the region, with a few honourable exceptions, have been colonized by the power and money of the agribusiness corporations. These corporations are using the research facilities as a mechanism through which to introduce genetically engineered crops and industrialized production models.

In 2012, it became public knowledge that Monsanto and the National Agricultural Research Institute of Uruguay (INIA) had signed an agreement to include company-owned transgenes in local soy germ plasm handled by the Institute.31 This agreement was publicly challenged by the National Rural Development Commission (CNFR), which represents family farmers on the INIA Board of Directors. It also came under fire from a number of civil society organizations, including REDES-Amigos de la Tierra. The agreement, whose text has not been made public, became the subject of an access to information request by elected members of the Frente Amplio (FA).

After the coup in Paraguay, the new minister of agriculture, Enzo Cardozo, announced that Paraguay would be producing its own GE seeds and making them available to all farmers. The seeds would be bred by the Paraguay Institute of Agricultural Technology (IPTA), which would receive a “technology transfer” from Monsanto upon payment of an amount to be agreed upon by de facto president Federico Franco.

But Monsanto has already been operating under “cooperation” agreements for many years with public institutions in Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Brazil. It uses the research institutions as cheap scientific labour and as an agricultural extension channel for getting its seeds to farmers. Likewise, many public officials act as the ideological arm of the corporations. A paradigmatic case is that of Argentine science and technology minister Lino Barañao, who loses no opportunity to lobby on behalf of genetically modified agribusiness.

Agribusiness: another type of mining

Industrial agriculture is like mining in that it considers soils to be an inert substrate from which nutrients (proteins and minerals) can be extracted with the addition of technology and chemicals. It has no use for soils as living organisms nor does it ever restore the nutrients extracted.

The soil mining aspects of agriculture are expressed most brutally in genetically engineered soybean cropping. All the propaganda about “no-till” agriculture cannot hide the crude reality that soybeans do not even remotely return to the soil all the nutrients that they extract, nor can no-till methods sustain the soil’s structure and water retention capacity.

In previous reports we have discussed how Argentine soils are being degraded, with millions of tons of nutrients and billions of litres of water being taken away.

Here are a few figures for Argentina alone (the numbers are not available for the other countries):

Soybean monoculture without crop rotation causes intense soil degradation, with a loss of 19 to 30 tons of soil depending on management techniques, slope, and weather.

Soybean growing in 2006/2007 (which yielded 47,380,222 tons) involved a net extraction of:

– 1 148 970.39 tons of nitrogen;

– 255 853.20 tons of phosphorus;

– 795 987.73 tons of potassium;

– 123 188.58 tons of calcium;

– 132 664.62 tons of sulphur, and

– 331.66 tons of boron.

Each exported annual soybean harvest also removes 42.5 billion cubic metres of water (data from 2004/2005 season).

Agribusiness and its corporate media partners

The agribusiness colonization of the region can count on a powerful ally to back it up: the corporate media. The media act as the unconditional communication arm of agribusiness (in return for payment of millions of dollars to buy advertising that fills newspaper pages and radio and television hours).

This agribusiness-media collaboration is designed to convey the following messages:

– The myth that agribusiness is the panacea for world food production problems. The ideas of “progress,” “development,” and societal well-being are deliberately being confused with agribusiness interests.

– The myth that agribusiness is somehow involved with “sustainable development.” Media propaganda turns any agribusiness initiative into a generous act of “sustainable development” by ignoring its real effects.

– The myth that there are no downsides to agribusiness. All discussion or information about societal resistance, scientific or economic debate, or impact on communities and the environment is excluded from corporate media reports.

– The image of social movements as subversive, violent, antisocial, or “stuck in the past.” In this way, these movements are stigmatized and in some cases even criminalized.

Paraguay is perhaps the country where this alliance is most obvious. The UGP is linked to the Zuccolillo Group, owner of the powerful daily ABC Color. This was one of the papers calling most stridently for President Lugo’s ouster. In addition, Zuccolillo is president of the Inter American Press Association (IAPA).

Agribusiness and climate change

The links between industrial agriculture and the global climate crisis have been amply demonstrated. The figures are alarming: at a minimum, between 44 and 57% of greenhouse gases are due to the agroindustrial chain of production.

It is obvious that a region where industrial agriculture has become so dominant has got to be a major contributor to this global crisis. But it is also clear throughout the region that the conjunction of global problems with local ones such as deforestation is causing severe impacts. Rural areas are experiencing prolonged cycles of drought and flooding. Cities lack the infrastructure to deal with these unprecedented rainfall patterns. The main victims are the urban poor, a large percentage of whom are former peasants from plundered communities.

While there is still a great degree of fragmentation among social movements, it can also be said that they are all attempting to adopt a comprehensive analysis and avoid piecemeal struggle. They all understand that food sovereignty, autonomy, and protection of the common good must be the central themes of any campaign against agribusiness.

It is our hope that this edition of Against the grain will plant new seeds of struggle in the Southern Cone, and that they will grow into a powerful movement.

Subscribe for New Post Notifications

You have successfully subscribed to the newsletter

There was an error while trying to send your request. Please try again.

Running The Country will use the information you provide on this form to be in touch with you and to provide updates and marketing.