Masthead graphic based on a painting by Gudrun Thriemer.

Showing posts with label food. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food. Show all posts

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Africans look to supply food scarcity


[Here is an interesting theme in a couple of IPS articles on similar themes. -jlt]

Nasseem Ackbarally, "DEVELOPMENT: Mauritians also competing for land in Africa," IPS, February 27, 20009.

PORT LOUIS, Feb 27 (IPS) - Soaring food prices and lack of land have forced Mauritius, a net food importing country, to launch an ambitious initiative. The island state is starting to grow its food in other African states where land is lying fallow and labour is cheap.

Stephanie Nieuwoudt, "TRADE: 'Gulf States’ Technology Can Be Swapped for Africa’s Food,'" IPS, February 25, 2009.

CAPE TOWN, Feb 25 (IPS) - Countries in the Gulf and in Africa can form mutually beneficial partnerships, with Africa supplying fertile arable land and the Gulf investing in technology, fertiliser and other agricultural inputs.

This is one of the proposals made at the Gulf-Africa Strategy Forum held in the South African city of Cape Town from Feb 24 to 25. The two-day forum is hosted by the Gulf Research Centre (GRC), a Middle Eastern think tank.
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 12, 2009

Haroon Mirani, "Race to the death over Kashmir waters," Asia Times online, January 13, 2009.

SRINAGAR - India and Pakistan, in an expensive winner-takes-all race to tap the power of the Kishenganga river in Kashmir, are separately aiming to build large hydro-electric projects just 70 kilometers apart on the same fast-flowing water on their respective sides of the divided region.

  Pakistan's water availability has decreased to 1,200 cubic meters per person from 5,000 cubic meters in 1947 and is forecast to plunge to 800 cubic meters by 2020.
Author

India's Kishenganga hydro-power project, which the government last February priced at US$740 million, involves a 330-megawatt plant in the Gurez Valley. That is about a third the capacity of the 963MW Neelum-Jhelum project planned at an estimated cost of US$2.16 billion in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, the project name reflecting the change from Kishenganga to Neelum of the river's name as it crosses to the Pakistani side of the divided region.

Read the rest here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Andrés Gaudin, Latinamerican Press, "Transgenics sweep nation," November 13, 2008.

  Transgenic soy is not recommended for human consumption...

One year ago, the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) displaced the United States as the world´s largest grain producer, bolstered by growing global demand for transgenic grains, particularly soy for animal feed. The trade bloc´s production in 2007 reached 105 million tons of soy — 72 percent of global supply.

Even though campesina and indigenous organizations, family cooperatives and environmental groups in the Southern Cone have warned about the risks transgenic monoculture poses — unemployment, poverty, food sovereignty, health, climate and soil degradation — governments in the region continue to push these genetically-modified crops for a simple reason.

Export taxes on soy, wheat, corn and sunflower seeds will totaled some US$70 billion for Mercorsur this year.

Strong global demand for the grain, especially from giant economies like China and India, along with European governments´ decision to stop using animal feed made from cow bones and intestines in order to stem mad cow disease, replacing it with soy, have led Argentina to increase its soy production, says Argentine agronomist Jorge Rulli.

And that's not all. Read the rest here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, October 23, 2008

Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger, "Plastics industry behind FDA research on bisphenol A," Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, October 22, 2008.

[The invisible hand of the market strikes again. -jlt]

  Bisphenol A has been detected in the urine of 93% of Americans tested.

A government report claiming that bisphenol A is safe was written largely by the plastics industry and others with a financial stake in the controversial chemical, the Journal Sentinel found.

Although the Food and Drug Administration will not reveal who prepared its draft, the agency's own documents show that the work was done primarily by those with the most to gain by downplaying concerns about the safety of the chemical.

That includes Stephen Hentges, executive director of the American Chemistry Council's group on bisphenol A, who commissioned a review of all studies of the neurotoxicity of bisphenol A and submitted it to the FDA. The FDA then used that report as the foundation for its evaluation of the chemical on neural and behavioral development. The American Chemistry Council is a trade group representing chemical manufacturers.

Read the rest here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

"WTO talks collapse," Center for Economic and Policy Research, July 29, 2008.

"The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies."
Evo Morales
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Despite trade ministers' hopes for a last-minute deal, World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations collapsed yet again today, and observers at the talks in Geneva say that the failure is not surprising, given the reluctance of India and other developing nations to sacrifice food security measures in the wake of the recent global spike in food prices.

Given President Bush's lame duck status, negotiators had been called to Geneva to try to push through a last-minute deal before Bush left office. Because negotiators need about six months after a deal on the major issues to complete the details of the agreement, this possibility has now evaporated.

"Given what's been on the table, no deal is better than a bad deal. A Doha conclusion would have had major negative impacts for workers and farmers in developing countries. The tariff cuts demanded of developing countries would have caused massive job loss, and countries would have lost the ability to protect farmers from dumping, further impoverishing millions on the verge of survival," said Deborah James, Director of International Programs for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, who has been observing the talks in Geneva.

It is unclear why negotiations were proceeding, given the fact that the U.S. delegation does not have a mandate to conclude negotiations, as made clear by a letter from Senators Feingold and Byrd sent to President Bush last week. In addition, cuts in subsidies agreed to by the U.S. are also incompatible with the new U.S. Farm Bill passed by Congress, and over-riding a veto by President Bush.

Many developing nations not invited to participate in the exclusive "Green Room" meetings in Geneva this past week are likely to continue strong opposition to a deal in the midst of a global economic downturn and increasing concerns over food security.

At a time when many countries are seeking to reduce dependence on troubled economies in the U.S. and Europe, and as fears of a global recession loom, many nations are questioning the development gains to be achieved from trade liberalization. The projected gains from the Doha Round offer developing countries very little in potential gains. According to World Bank modeling, developing country benefits would be just 16 percent of total world gains, or 0.16 per cent of GDP. This works out to less than a penny per day per capita in the developing world. Poverty reduction - which in itself would be very limited - would reach only 2.5 million people.[1] These projections do not include many of the costs of implementing the Doha Round, which UNCTAD estimates to be as much as four times the projected gains.

The Doha Round could also increase world prices for food.[2] Since most developing countries are net food importers, the recent increase in food prices has led some developing country governments to reconsider food security mechanisms such as tariffs and domestic subsidies, which the WTO seeks to reduce. A number of countries have also imposed restrictions on exports, in response to the food crisis.

"There just hasn't been much to gain for developing countries in this round - or for that matter, the majority of people even in the rich countries," said CEPR Co-Director and economist, Mark Weisbrot. "The attempts by the rich countries to reduce policy space for developing countries in manufacturing are widely seen as 'kicking away the ladder' that rich countries like the United States used when they were developing countries.

"The whole process of subordinating national policy to special commercial interests - whether in agriculture, telecommunications, pharmaceuticals (one of the most powerful interests and gainers in the WTO), or the financial sector - has gone way too far. Growth and development in most countries has been hurt, and they are pushing back. In the United States, too, rising inequality and now an economic downturn have provoked a backlash."

Throughout the negotiations, some developing nations promoted trade policies and objectives at odds with the Doha Round's objectives of opening developing country markets, including commitments to food sovereignty and defending policy space for alternative forms of economic development.

In a written statement, Bolivian president Evo Morales said that, "The WTO negotiations have turned into a fight by developed countries to open markets in developing countries to favor their big companies."

[1] Kevin P. Gallagher and Timothy A. Wise, "Back to the Drawing Board: No Basis for Concluding the Doha Round of Negotiations." Research and Information System for Developing Countries Issue Brief. No. 36, April 2008.
[2] Sandra Polaski, "Winners and Losers: Impact of the Doha Round on Developing Countries." Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2006.
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Rima E Laibow, "Good news from Codex Alimentarius about labelling GMOs," July 8, 2008.

Link recommended by Guy Lapointe at the Crow Healing Network.

On September 11, 2001, the Canadian Parliament defeated a bill that would have required the labelling of GMO content in foods. In the US, "organic" foods may be "contaminated" with as much as 10% GMO. Elsewhere, figures are more like 0,9% to 1%. Codex Alimentarius is a joint UN Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization body that was formed in 1963 to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice.

Dr Rima E Laibow is the Medical Director of the Natural Solutions Foundation and has been attending the meetings of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in Geneva this June and July. She reports that "WHO and FAO have said that Codex II needs to have a standard for the analysis of genetically modified foods in with other foods," meaning that those foods must be labelled.

A video of her report and links to a number of video and text dispatches fromthe meetings are included on this page.

Laura H. Hahn's article for Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "The furor over genetically modified foods" (May 14, 2008) identifies important dates, organizations, and international agreements concerning GMO foods, including numerous links to original sources. Hahn concludes that "In theory, genetically modified foods would help mitigate the effects of global warming, but in reality, the lack of global trust in the companies that produce them will hinder efforts to use them."
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, July 06, 2008

"Secret Report: Biofuel caused food crisis," Guardian, July 4, 2008.

"Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases."

Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian. The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body.

The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140% between 2002 and this February. The report estimates that higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for an increase of only 15%, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75% jump over that period.

Read the rest here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Friday, July 04, 2008

GE Free Kootenays hosts Percy Schmeiser

On July 10, 2008, G.E. Free Kootenays and Kootenay Food Strategy Society is hosting an evening with Percy Schmeiser.


A Classic David vs. Goliath Story


Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan whose fields were contaminated with a genetically engineered variety of canola in 1998. He has since been in several court battles with agribusiness giant Monsanto. Percy and his wife Louise are the recent recipients of the 2007 Right Livelihood Award “for their courage in defending biodiversity and farmers’ rights”.

Percy's most recent victory came after a 2.5 year battle, when in March 2008, Monsanto finally agreed to pay the $660 it cost Schmeiser to clean up the company’s patented plants from his farm. Percy and his wife Louise have been touring the world telling their amazing stories.

We are requesting support from like-minded businesses, and organizations to help support this event. The event will accommodate an information table for any information you would like to distribute or display to those in attendance.

The goals for G.E. Free Kootenays include primarily; education, protecting farmers, and providing alternatives for farmers and consumers. Time is of the essence regarding halting the proliferation of Genetically Engineered Foods.

This event will be used to launch the Kootenay Food Strategy Society's G.E. Free Kootenays campaign. - a sub-group of G.E. Free B.C. that will begin working to ensure that farmers in the Kootenay regions of B.C. will never have to endure the pressure and intimidation such as that faced by farmers like Percy Schmeiser. Most importantly, the campaign will ensure that viable alternatives are available to farmers currently growing G.E. crops.

Thursday July 10th 2008
Brilliant Cultural Centre
1876 Brilliant Road, Castlegar B.C.
7:00pm … Doors open 6:30, Admission by Donation


Please distribute the information in this announcement to your members or associates in order that they have the opportunity to attend this inspiring and educational event.

The event has already received support from Greenpeace, Society for a G.E. Free BC, Mountain Equipment Co-op, GE Free Solutions, Kootenay Co-op Radio, Kootenay Food Strategy Society, Deconstructing Dinner, West Kootenay EcoSociety, Wildsight, Kootenay Country Store Co-operative, and Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

John Feffer, "Mother Earth's Triple Whammy. North Korea as a Global Crisis Canary," Japan Focus, Jun 22, 2008.

[Feffer scopes out the extent of the crisis facing the globe but suffers from an odd kind of environmentalist's myopia. The triple whammy he refers to omits the widespread economic de-stabilization that followed the sub-prime mortgage debt crisis in the US and the fact that on many a day Canada's economic numbers are "saved" by high "commodity" prices--meaning gas and oil. Oil producers are thriving because of "windfall profits." The metaphors used to describe these phenomena are out of whack. Still, the possibility that he may be underestimating the depth of the crisis in no way changes his basic point: for a glimpse of the future, imagine North Korea under capitalism. -jlt]


Destruction of rainforests

Gas prices are above $4 a gallon; global food prices surged 39% last year; and an environmental disaster looms as carbon emissions continue to spiral upward. The global economy appears on the verge of a TKO, a triple whammy from energy, agriculture, and climate-change trends. Right now you may be grumbling about the extra bucks you're shelling out at the pump and the grocery store; but, unless policymakers begin to address all three of these trends as one major crisis, it could get a whole lot worse.

Just ask the North Koreans.

In the 1990s, North Korea was the world's canary. The famine that killed as much as 10% of the North Korean population in those years was, it turns out, a harbinger of the crisis that now grips the globe -- though few saw it that way at the time.


That small Northeast Asian land, one of the last putatively communist countries on the planet, faced the same three converging factors as we do now -- escalating energy prices, a reduction in food supplies, and impending environmental catastrophe. At the time, of course, all the knowing analysts and pundits dismissed what was happening in that country as the inevitable breakdown of an archaic economic system presided over by a crackpot dictator.

They were wrong. The collapse of North Korean agriculture in the 1990s was not the result of backwardness. In fact, North Korea boasted one of the most mechanized agricultures in Asia. Despite claims of self-sufficiency, the North Koreans were actually heavily dependent on cheap fuel imports. (Does that already ring a bell?) In their case, the heavily subsidized energy came from Russia and China, and it helped keep North Korea's battalion of tractors operating. It also meant that North Korea was able to go through fertilizer, a petroleum product, at one of the world's highest rates. When the Soviets and Chinese stopped subsidizing those energy imports in the late 1980s and international energy rates became the norm for them, too, the North Koreans had a rude awakening.

Like the globe as a whole, North Korea does not have a great deal of arable land -- it can grow food on only about 14% of its territory. (The comparable global figure for arable land is about 13%.) With heavy applications of fertilizer and pesticides, North Koreans coaxed a lot of food out of a little land. By the 1980s, however, the soil was exhausted, and agricultural production was declining. So spiking energy prices hit an economy already in crisis. Desperate to grow more food, the North Korean government instructed farmers to cut down trees, stripping hillsides to bring more land into cultivation.

Read the rest here =>





Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

"Brazil Throws Weight Behind Amazon Soy Ban," Reuters, June 19, 2008.

Deforestation of the Amazon is on course to rise after three years of declines, with figures for April released earlier this month showing a startling 434 square miles (1,123 sq km) of trees lost in the month.


BRASILIA - Brazil's new environment minister reached an agreement with the grain processing industry to ban purchases of soy from deforested Amazon until July 2009, winning praise from environmentalists.

"This same initiative will be extended to two other sectors -- the timber sector and the beef sector," Environment Minister Carlos Minc said while praising the grain industry and non-governmental organizations for a "pioneering" initiative.

Environmentalists called Minc's initiative essential to the protection of the world's largest rainforest. Deforestation in the region quickened in the past months as world grain prices continue to set record highs.

The moratorium is a commitment by the local Vegetable Oils Industry Association (Abiove), which includes big crushers such as Cargill Inc, Bunge Ltd, ADM Co and Louis Dreyfus, and the Grain Exporters Association (Anec) to extend the expiring, one-year ban that began in July 2006.

Rising prices are reviving the local soy sector out of its worst crisis in decades. In 2004 through 2006, the rise in the real against the dollar and production costs like fuel and fertilizers pushed many producers to the brink of insolvency.

Brazil is the world's second largest soy producer after the United States. Abiove and Anec control about 94 percent of Brazil's soy trade.

Read the rest here =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

The West has never known what to do with shit.

Our first choice has been to throw it "away." A very competitive second choice is to wrap it in a flag and vote for it.

Reuters' Planet Ark today reports on a study by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. Reuters paraphrases one of its conclusions,

"Industrial livestock production also hurts the environment through the huge amounts of animal waste these facilities produce. Large amounts of manure carry excessive nutrients and farm chemicals into surface waters, causing dense growth of plants and the death of aquatic animals due to lack of oxygen."

All that nitrogen down the river. We appear to prefer petrochemicals (mainly coal and natural gas) as feedstocks for our nitrogen fertilizers. Go figger.

Richard Heinberg, author of Powerdown - Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World, gives the following breakdown:
"In the US, agriculture is directly responsible for well over 10 percent of all national energy consumption. Over 400 gallons of oil equivalent are expended to feed each American each year. About a third of that amount goes toward fertilizer production, 20 percent to operate machinery, 16 percent for transportation, 13 percent for irrigation, 8 percent for livestock raising, (not including the feed), and 5 percent for pesticide production. This does not include energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retailers, or cooking" (Museletter #159 Jul 05).

Read the Reuters story =>

Read the report's Executive Summary =>

Read the whole report =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Sadie Goldman, "Israel's dependence on Gaza," IPF, April 9, 2008.

Recommended by Sam Bahour at ePalestine

When Shalom Simhon heard that government officials were discussing cutting Gaza off from receiving Israeli goods, he could not have been too surprised. After all, as Israel’s Minister of Agriculture, he has faced one obstacle after another as he has tried to build Israel’s farming sector.

From the smuggling of rancid eggs to the illegal importation of Iranian pistachios (which enraged the United States) to the impact of army firing zones on Bedouin grazing land, he is used to being caught in the middle of situations not directly involved with Israeli farming. Nonetheless, while attention was being paid to the disastrous effect Israel's blockade would have on Gaza, Simhon thought of the effect it would have on Israel’s farmers.

“The state of Israel produces one and a half times its agricultural needs. Half of the surplus is exported to Europe and America. The rest goes to the territories—half to the West Bank, half to Gaza,” Simhon said in an interview to Nahum Barnea in Yediot Acharonoth on Friday.

That puts exports to the West Bank and Gaza right behind those to the France and Italy—around $1 billion in 2006 according to Meron Rapoport’s February 10th article in Haaretz.

In other words, for Israeli farmers, the Gaza situation is more than just a security issue. It’s about their livelihood.

Read the whole article at the Israel Policy Forum--"promoting Middle East peace--for Israel and for the United States" =>
Recommend this Post


More =>

Sphere: Related Content