The GMO Labeling Conundrum

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
September 28, 2014

It would seem that large agricultural corporations touting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) they claim possess enhanced benefits for farmers and consumers would be proud to differentiate their products on the shelves from organic and traditionally produced food. However that is not the case. Not only is big-ag attempting to hide the true nature of their products, but the many big-business food processors that incorporate GMO ingredients into their final products are likewise attempting to mislead consumers.

The obvious fear is that consumers will avoid GMO products in favor of those not labeled as modified. While other arguments have been made in attempts to justify not properly labeling food as genetically modified or not, the underlying theme appears to be the belief of big-ag that consumers' ignorance over the alleged safety of GMO products threatens their business and with it, innovations they claim are a benefit not only to their bottom lines, but to all of humanity.

Of course, beneath the layers of this "belief," is the reality that their products do not offer any overwhelming benefit to humanity, and in fact, in many ways, have become a scourge to humanity. Additionally, peripheral arguments, such as GMO being in no way different to organic products, thus there is no need to label them, are so divergent from logic and commonsense that a general suspicion and distrust has formed in the collective mind of the public in regards to big-ag and those pushing their products.

To counter the growing ire of the general public, big-ag has raised an army of professional propagandists peddling pro-GMO talking points in the form of books, websites, mainstream media reportage and even while posing as ordinary citizens simply expressing their "opinions" in comment sections and upon what are supposed to appear as independent personal blogs. They, to no one's surprise, repeat verbatim the talking points proposed by big-ag itself, and while anti-GMO activists eagerly wade into the fray with this army of propagandists, the only relevant question that should be asked seems to escape them all.

GMO Golden Rice: The Scourge of Asia

New Eastern Outlook
Ulson Gunnar
August 9, 2014

Asia's dependency on rice cultivation for both subsidence and income is intuitively understood. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates the agricultural population of lowland rice cultivation in Asia to be over 470 million - larger than the entire population of the United States. Improvements in rice cultivation would stand to lift hundreds of millions from debt and poverty. Conversely, the disruption of rice cultivation would threaten to mire hundreds of millions in deeper debt, inescapable destitution, and all of the negative socioeconomic implications that follow.

Asia's rice farmers produce between 1-2 harvests a year depending on the climb and climate of any given region. They do so to sell their rice, generally to mills who in turn sell the final product to exporters or for domestic consumption. Out of each harvest, rice farmers keep a portion for their own consumption, but the vast majority of what they grow is for income.

The UK-based Rice Association claims there are up to 40,000 species of rice, with a wide variety of characteristics suitable for different markets and uses. Rice farmers grow those which local, national and regional markets are best suited to move. In nations where subsidies are offered for rice crops, cheap, easy to grow varieties are chosen. More desirable or exotic species are grown by independent farmers who have developed their own cooperative with millers, marketers and exporters. The rice Asians eat depends on both economic and market realities. The impoverished eat what is cheapest and most easily available, but not necessarily that which is healthiest.

Enter GMO: Problem, Reaction, Solution 

Poor diet leads to vitamin deficiencies, a persistent problem among the impoverished. A lack of basic healthcare and education allows the otherwise easily rectified problem to continue unresolved. The World Health Organization (WHO) states on their website, "an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight." This statistic is global, not regionally specific to Asia, but Southeast Asia in particular suffers from such deficiencies.

Russia, GMO and the Geopolitics of Organic

New Eastern Outlook 

Ulson Gunnar 

May 2, 2014

Russia’s RT reported in an article titled, “Russia will not import GMO products – PM Medvedev,” that, “Russia will not import GMO products, the country’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said, adding that the nation has enough space and resources to produce organic food.” The article would quote Russia’s prime minister who stated specifically, “if the Americans like to eat GMO products, let them eat it then. We don’t need to do that; we have enough space and opportunities to produce organic food.”

The article would also state that products in Russia containing more than 0.9% genetically modified ingredients must be labeled, as opposed to US laws where no labeling is required for genetically modified products despite steadily growing public opposition to the practice.

 

Russia’s stance against GMO is mirrored elsewhere, including in France where just recently Monsanto’s GM corn was banned and in China where the importing of US GM corn has been outlawed. The backlash against GMO has widespread appeal due to well-placed health and environmental concerns among increasingly informed populations. But the drive to push back against GMO in nations like Russia and China also has a geopolitical dimension.

 

An Army Marches on Its Stomach

Continue reading at New Eastern Outlook...

GMO Front: Nutrition & Education International's (NEI) "Partners"

Universal Sentinel 
Ulson Gunnar
April 9, 2014

As part of a New Eastern Outlook article on the "corporate colonization" of Afghanistan's food supply, it is essential to expose the so-called Nutrition & Education International's (NEI) "partners." This is because while NEI claims its mission is "to eradicate malnutrition through development of a sustainable soy value chain," it is in reality a front for mega-agricultural corporations, particularly those seeking to impose a genetically-modified monopoly over the world's food supply. 

Under the guise of "eradicating poppies," the United States insisted that huge swaths of Afghanistan's countryside be indiscriminately sprayed with Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide. This was despite health concerns and the fact that such spraying would also destroy licit crops. Then citing "malnutrition," NEI began introducing Monsanto's RoundUp Ready "system" based on genetically modified soybeans, a crop never before cultivated in Afghanistan, and alien in both cultural and culinary terms. NEI boasts of its accomplishments which stretch over nearly a decade.  

The NEI's partners include: 

Aga Khan Foundation, 
United States Agency for International Development America (USAID) 
American Soybean Association (ASA) 
Stine Seed Company, Iowa, U.S.A.  
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Afghanistan  
Women Farmers Association, Afghanistan 
World Soy Foundation (WSF), 
Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI)

Each of these "partners" in turn are fronts for Western corporate interests. The Aga Khan Foundation, for instance lists among its partners, Citi Group, Microsoft, Johsnon & Johnson, Shell, and USAID. World The American Soybean Association includes among its partners agricultural monopolies BASF, Bayer CropSciences, Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta. And the World Soy Foundation is a front for agricultural giants Cargill and Monsanto. 
 
Development Alternatives Inc. (DAI), who's USAID-funded operation came under literal attack in Afghanistan in July 2010, lists a vast array of Fortune 100 corporations as its "clients." It too was directly involved in reordering Afghanistan's agricultural industry (PDF). 

DAI's impressive "client" list includes big-ag giants Cargill, Monsanto, and their "foot in the door" USAID. DAI was in Afghanistan as part of big-ag's "corporate colonization" of the Central Asian country. 

These are the corporations attempting to use "the eradication of poppies" and "malnutrition" to force upon the Afghan people an agricultural monopoly controlled by foreign corporations who will retain the "intellectual property" rights on each and every plant growing in Afghanistan, as well as the production, control, distribution, and sale of the chemicals required to sustain them. Food being one of the most basic necessities of human survival, controlled entirely by foreign corporations, is not only dangerous, it is exploitative and usurps both the dignity and freedom of those found under this form of "corporate colonization."