Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday August 25 2014, @11:32PM   Printer-friendly
from the crony-capitalism dept.

Collective Evolution reports

Governments do not dictate major policy, major multinational corporations do. We've seen this time and time again, and one of the best examples out there is Monsanto. This time, the United States government wants to force GMO seeds on El Salvadorian farmers.

Encouraged by the U.S. Embassy, the Millennium Challenge Corporation had "granted" El salvador 277 million dollars to "improve El Salvador's competitiveness and productivity in international markets." This, however, would not come without certain commitments and obligations, which included a commitment to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture's procurement of corn and bean seed would "be consistent with the provisions of the CAFTA-DR (Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement)."
[...]
Something like this might be considered economic warfare, it's happened before. There are cables released by WikiLeaks that reveal the Bush administration developed ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by kaszz on Monday August 25 2014, @11:42PM

    by kaszz (4211) on Monday August 25 2014, @11:42PM (#85508) Journal

    Demanding degrading of the environment and economic dependency on other countries has to go away. It's not an acceptable way of behaviour!
    If a company tries this kind of bully behaviour, they might end up receiving just that.

    Watch out for TPP and clones..

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday August 25 2014, @11:46PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Monday August 25 2014, @11:46PM (#85510)

    Did you think that the US was sending $277M to the Salvadorians just because their Miss Universe candidates look good?

    That's $45 per Salvadorian, or almost a buck per American. It's not charity, it's leverage.

    • (Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:42AM (#85519)

      Monsanto and the US Government have long been partners in mass murder with the government doing many things to limit Monsanto's liability and help them force their will on others. Ask the survivors from Vietnam, Africa, Anniston, Alabama,,,,,,,etc ad nauseum. Do enough research and you may find yourself vomiting thinking about it. Then remember that they are now trying to patent/control everyone's food supply and have been working at it for years.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:53AM (#85553)

        > Ask the survivors from Vietnam, Africa, Anniston, Alabama,,,,,,,etc ad nauseum. Do enough research and

        I hate posts like that.

        Give us links or don't bother writing. Anyone can post rants, but if you make claims about specific events surely you must have specific knowledge that came from somewhere. So share your sources, don't make us dig because frankly there are far too many ranting fakirs on the net for us to go do our own research to prove their claims.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday August 26 2014, @08:08AM

      by frojack (1554) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @08:08AM (#85639) Journal

      It appears neither you or Gewg bother to read the actual documents.

      http://sansalvador.usembassy.gov/news/2014/06/19.html [usembassy.gov]

      Is the United States government pressuring El Salvador to purchase genetically modified (GMO) seeds from U.S. agricultural companies?

      No. The U.S. government concern with the Ministry of Agriculture’s procurement program is completely unrelated to the purchase of genetically modified seeds. Any rumor to the contrary is false.
      The interest of the United States with respect to the seed procurement program is in ensuring that El Salvador complies with its obligations under CAFTA-DR, to signal that El Salvador fosters an investment climate that respects international commitments.

      Then what is the U.S. government asking the government of El Salvador to do regarding its seed procurement program?

      For the past two years, the Government of El Salvador has conducted its procurement program in a manner that raises concerns with regard to its government procurement obligations under the CAFTA-DR (Chapter 9 and its associated annexes), which requires an open, transparent, objective and competitive government procurement process that does not prejudge the outcome of a tender.
      We are asking the Government of El Salvador to implement the procurement program for corn and bean seeds in a competitive, objective, and transparent manner that demonstrates to all stakeholders both El Salvador’s commitment to the CAFTA-DR, as well as its commitment to good governance. Such principles are inherent in the provisions of the CAFTA-DR.

      Like most Aid, if you intend to purchase anything with your aid money you are expected to at least allow the aid rendering country's vendors to bid. There are a lot of seed companies in the US. They aren't required to buy from monsanto. They can even specify non GMO seed in their rfp.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by zafiro17 on Tuesday August 26 2014, @11:09AM

        by zafiro17 (234) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @11:09AM (#85680) Homepage

        I don't have any mod points. But frojack's post is apparently the only one of any value in this thread. The rest of it is spleen venting and ranting: fun, but not overly useful.

        --
        Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:43PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:43PM (#85756)

          Most is spleen ranting, and the first reply to mine is the kind that makes me worry about this place being overrun by the crazies. I especially hates when they do that as a reply to my posts, which seems to associate me in their warped thinking (my cynicism is not conspiracy crap)
          You'll note that my post just states facts, and an interpretation that's not highly controversial.

          Frojack's post fails to translate the diplomatic talk he quotes: "if you don't do as we please (per the always-balanced treaties your predecessors signed), we shall reserve the right to punish you".

          I indeed didn't read the full list of legal obligations that the Salvadorians are under (both Gewg and TFA can be wrong, or even right), but my contention that $277M don't get given without strings stands on its own.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:50PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @01:50PM (#86227)

            They are choosing not to accept the strings that the US is attaching with its money. The US is not giving money without strings attached. Seems pretty simple.

            Both countries seem to indicate that that strings are "comply with the fair trade and environmental agreements signed by other countries", which, on its face, seems pretty reasonable.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:11PM (#85767)

          I will have to disagree. Frojack makes a good point about not jumping to conclusions and highlights the specifics of this story. However, this is exactly the kind of dirty politics that gets played. No politician in their right mind would admit to being bribed, or doing something for immoral reasons. Taking away aid because their bidding process is not transparent enough (haha funny ha coming from the us) is exactly the sort of action you would expect from an imperialistic country trying to protect its financial interests.

          In short, its not "the crazies" its just varying degrees of probability mixed with decades of lies to make people wary. Brushing this off as a simple contract violation would be simple minded and such rationalization is why its hard to motivate us armchair slackers ;)

          • (Score: 1) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:12PM

            by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:12PM (#85768)

            Damnit I logged in...

            --
            ~Tilting at windmills~
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:20AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:20AM (#85512)

    Why suck on the big breasted fatass American teat? Why can't people grow their own food to put in their own mouths?

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by davester666 on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:44AM

      by davester666 (155) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:44AM (#85588)

      US subsidies make US food exports cheaper than growing locally, so it kills farming.

      Basically the foreign gov't has to
      -not permit US agriculture imports
      -permit the imports, but also provide similar subsidies to their own farmers
      -permit the imports, and not provide subsidies, and then watch their farmers leave for the cities

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @10:42AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @10:42AM (#85675)

        permit the imports, and not provide subsidies, and then watch their farmers leave for the cities

        The ones that continue to farm WILL grow the raw materials of the illegal international drug trade in order to earn enough money to keep their farm going.

        In the USA this is legalized with tobacco. Apart from corn, tobacco is the only crop that will pay the farmer SERIOUS MONEY because it fuels the WORLDWIDE addictive demand for this noxious plant!

        People spoke out about the evils of tobacco use at least as far back as 1604 with King James'

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Counterblaste_to_Tobacco [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 2) by AsteroidMining on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:28AM

    by AsteroidMining (3556) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:28AM (#85514)

    Free Trade agreements in this century are not about free trade at all, but are about corporations trying to achieve in a closed negotiation what they never could in an open vote in an elected assembly.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @01:14AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @01:14AM (#85526)

      If two or more countries really have the freedom to trade openly with each other then there is no need for an agreement. A "Trade Agreement" is to set limits on trade, whether the word "Free" appears on it or not. And always to the benefit of those bribing the government else there is no reason for the government to be involved in the process unless of course it is purely related to levies on trade for insufficient political bribes.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:31AM (#85516)

    Folks, this was Unca Sam handing fat loot to El Salvador.

    There were strings attached.

    El Salvador didn't like the strings.

    Unca Sam cut off the money pipe.

    El Salvador made their decisions how they wanted to; Unca Sam spends his money where he wants to.

    Wake me up when Unca Sam invades El Salvador with milspec seed drills and sacks marked MONSANTO.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by redneckmother on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:52AM

      by redneckmother (3597) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:52AM (#85578)

      As opposed to sponsoring a revolution in El Salvador? How about smuggling drugs into the US and selling weapons to an avowed enemy state to pay for said conflict, and lying about it all to US citizens?

      This game's the same - same as it ever was.

      --
      Mas cerveza por favor.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by nyder on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:33AM

    by nyder (4525) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:33AM (#85517)

    So you were a nice country and give aid to the less fortune. That is good. Now you want to force them to use certain USA made products, or you will cut their aid? FUCK YOU.

    I'm not sure what you are thinking, but this current batch of pulling shit unless you do what I say doesn't fly. Like shutting down the goverment, or holding Social Security payments hostage. I do not like what my country is turning into and maybe it's time we the people take our country back.

    I'm cool with helping other countries out, but not with forcing them to use our products, that isn't cool. Not at all.

    We the people must save our government, and currently it looks like the old one needs to be completely removed.

    • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:35AM

      by Subsentient (1111) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:35AM (#85518) Homepage Journal

      Good. And this time let's get some socialism. Real socialism, and with no exchangeable currency.

      --
      "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:42AM (#85520)

      So you were a nice country

      Citation needed. The United States was never a nice country. Nice countries don't enslave their own people because it happens to be economically convenient. Nice countries don't go to war with their friends when they want to leave. Nice countries aren't crawling with murderers who carry badges and guns and operate above the law.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Dachannien on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:29AM

      by Dachannien (2494) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:29AM (#85543)

      Now you want to force them to use certain USA made products, or you will cut their aid?

      I think the problem is that El Salvador was violating their free trade agreement obligations by excluding certain US-made products from their marketplace. If El Salvador implemented a transparent and competitive process for deciding where to buy their seed, and the homegrown seed came out on top, we would have no grounds for complaint. But apparently, they've discounted the possibility of buying seed from the US because it's from the US.

      We could probably bring it up to the WTO, but given how little of their own money El Salvador has to spend, that would be a pointless gesture. Withholding aid, on the other hand....

      http://sansalvador.usembassy.gov/news/2014/06/19.html [usembassy.gov]

      • (Score: 1) by hottabasco on Tuesday August 26 2014, @05:47AM

        by hottabasco (3316) <nicholas_wils84NO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday August 26 2014, @05:47AM (#85597)

        "El Salvador was violating their free trade agreement obligations by excluding certain US-made products from their marketplace": links please, otherwise will just ignore claims like this.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:02AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:02AM (#85580)

      I do not like what my country is turning into and maybe it's time we the people take our country back.

      Great! So what are you doing besides playing armchair general? Why do you Internet revolutionaries always expect others to fight and die while you type away with cheetos-encrusted fingers down in the basement?

      If you want change, DO SOMETHING!

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:22PM

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @12:22PM (#85701) Journal

      Yes, it's time for a reset. The government takes all its marching orders from the Masters-of-the-Universe, not from the citizenry. For a long time they've kept a lid on the citizenry by allowing them the fiction that electing different parties to power makes a difference. Now that we have better information tools at our disposal, it's becoming more widely and better known that it does not. Thanks to Edward Snowden and others, we've learned that the NSA and its sister branches of government consider the American people and their freedom to be the primary threat, not Al Qaeda or China or Russia as we had all been led to believe. Thanks to incidents like Ferguson, the public has become aware how far every level of government has been militarized against them.

      But the funny thing is, the harder the powers-that-be labor to project the illusion that they have everything under control, the more you can be sure how brittle things have become. All it takes is another shock to the system for it to implode, and there are many candidates looming. We have the imminent Russian invasion of Ukraine, ebola threatening to spread beyond Western Africa, another sub-prime mortgage scale financial crisis in the form of student loan debt, and others in the negative camp. There are still others that are nominally positive, like the tipping point of solar energy-to-grid parity, 3D printing, graphene/carbon nanotubes, that can radically and swiftly undermine large swathes of the status quo.

      Whatever does it, you can be sure the revolution will not be televised. It will be tweeted.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:42AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:42AM (#85548)

    It is rare for "foreign aid" to be about helping other countries.
    Sure, it can be a secondary goal. But the primary goal is always to benefit domestic companies.
    They don't just hand over cash, they hardly ever spend money in the country itself.
    The way it works is that the money is ear-marked to purchase goods from companies that have made sufficient campaign contributions
    And those goods are sent to the foreign country.

    So, it is unlikely that El Salvador actually lost $277M. What they probably lost was a bunch of (full MSRP) equipment and seed stocks from Monsanto.

    I'm not say we shouldn't do international aid, I'm just saying the whole process has long been captured by domestic fat cats. It still can help a lot, but when that happens it is a serendipitous side effect.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Pav on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:45AM

    by Pav (114) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:45AM (#85549)

    I'm not sure I like the anti-GM rants above, but there are a few concerning issues here:

    1) Economic bullying and/or bribery which is laundered as aid.

    2) Money corrupting science - GM is just a technology and can be used for good or ill, but given Monsantos history I don't think they deserve the publics trust. Produce just has to look right to get past the consumers firewall.

    Given money in politics we can't rely on government to effectively regulate. For example, in my own country certain apple varieties were tested and judged to be unhealthily sweet by an unfortunate government department. Apparently the supermarkets index a farmers payment to sugar content, so time and selective breeding have produced unhealthily sweet sugarbags. These inconvenient results were quashed and the scientists were disciplined because apples were economically important to the state involved. Unfortunately noone cared because "everyone knows apples are healthy". Imagine how much more fun GM engineered pest resistance (for example) could get.

    3) RMS has said that software you don't control will be used to control you. If that wasn't obvious before it certainly is now in light of Snowden. Many have a similar gut reaction when it comes to GM. GM isn't good or evil, but the current political and legal framework certainly predisposes it to the dark side.

    • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:56AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:56AM (#85555)

      > For example, in my own country

      Don't say "in my own country" without actually telling us what country that is.

      Nobody cares that it is your country but anyone who is interested is going to care what country it is you are talking about.

      Write for your audience, or don't bother writing at all.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Pav on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:18AM

        by Pav (114) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:18AM (#85584)

        My country is Australia, but I didn't actually want to post that because a Google search would have instead found this story on Food Standards Australia and New Zealand [nbr.co.nz] which is NOT what I was referring to. I've searched for this before and couldn't find it, so I just thought I'd leave out being specific... I can't remember the varieties that were named anyway. But thanks for pointing this out, because after some more searching I found a similar study mentioned in this article from the US Department of Agriculture [dailymail.co.uk] which had similar results.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Username on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:59AM

    by Username (4557) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @02:59AM (#85558)

    There is no such thing as non-GMO sweetcorn or feedcorn.

    Only difference between monsanto and others, is roundup resistance.

    I can understand not wanting to use roundup because of the honeybee issues, but fear of corn just because it’s GMO seems irrational.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:06AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:06AM (#85560)

      > There is no such thing as non-GMO sweetcorn or feedcorn.

      Don't be that guy who thinks selective breeding qualifies as genetic modification.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by fishybell on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:21AM

        by fishybell (3156) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:21AM (#85565)

        Don't be that guy who thinks selective breeding qualifies as genetic modification.

        You're right, the latter is quicker and more specific.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:24AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:24AM (#85566)

          And much less tested.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Theophrastus on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:34AM

        by Theophrastus (4044) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @03:34AM (#85572)

        he doesn't have to be.

        but he also could be if he wanted to be.

        DNA is DNA. there is snake DNA sequences in cows. how the hell did it get there? not by a human lab, probably via tick's blood-meal. there is wolf DNA in your chihuahua. how did it get there? we breed your chihuahua from some canine ancestor. there is bacterial DNA in your tomato (don't care if it's labeled non-GMO or not, it's there). how did it get there? it was spliced-in in a lab to confer fungal resistance. if i handed you the GMO organism and the non-organism you could sequence their entire genome (i was part of a project that did just that) and you wouldn't know there was a lab involved.

        guys... take a course or two in biochem. hell, come to one of my summer courses. the situation is not anywhere as binary as you seem to think.

        the *real* thing to fear are molecules you haven't evolved to deal with. DNA your body knows all about. pesticides, with novel chemical moieties; those you can get a bit twitchy over.

        and sure, corporations, (Monsanto in particular), you can justifiably scream bloody murder about. but don't let the GMO bogeyman make you post nonsense. i remember when it was 'natural' vitamins versus synthetics ('rose hips' versus momma-DOW's kitchen) but somehow we apparently got over that.

        ok... there it is, my voice crying in this particular wilderness again. i can't possibly match you-all post for post because i'm too busy splicing some evil gene into some evil asparagus someplace. but just you wait, my asparagus shall rise to my command, throw off the yokes of your "organic" Bearnaise sauce, and spread over your entire produce aisle [maniacal laughter reseeds (yes that's a pun) into the distance]

        • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:17AM

          by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:17AM (#85583)
          if i handed you the GMO organism and the non-organism you could sequence their entire genome (i was part of a project that did just that) and you wouldn't know there was a lab involved.

          Yeah, but a cow would.

          href://www.rense.com/general92/avoid.htm
          --
          "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
        • (Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @05:00PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @05:00PM (#85796)

          > DNA is DNA. there is snake DNA sequences in cows. how the hell did it get there? not by a human lab,

          No, DNA is not DNA. The types of DNA that move between species via horizontal gene transfer are limited to a couple of very specific types that "know" how to jump. It is disingenuous to say that arbitrary gene splicing is the same thing as specific DNA that evolved the ability to gene hop over millennia.

          It is that kind of intellectual dishonesty that pisses people off, people who should know better playing dumb creates serious distrust. If you really do genetic modification as part of your day job then you've just demonstrated exactly why your work is completely untrustworthy. Either you told a lie of omission on purpose so who knows what other ethically dubious choices you will make or you actually uncritically believed what you wrote which means your ability to think through the implications of the decisions you make at work is very limited.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:07AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @04:07AM (#85581)

        How does it not? Selectively bred crops and domesticated animals have different genetics to their wild plant/animal progenitors. Especially when selective breeding also involves crossbreeding.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:51AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 27 2014, @08:51AM (#86129)

      Some strains of Monsanto seed actually produce pesticide inside the organism.

      These artificially introduced genes typically code for the following proteins:

      Cry1A.105 (MON89034), CryIAb (MON810), CryIF (1507), Cry2Ab (MON89034), Cry3Bb1 (MON863 and MON88017), Cry34Ab1 (59122), Cry35Ab1 (59122), mCry3A (MIR604), and Vip3A (MIR162)

      None of which are very tasty or even proven safe beyond ALL reasonable doubt.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize [wikipedia.org]

      [Insecticide-producing corn]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @07:19AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26 2014, @07:19AM (#85619)