In Mali on Feb. 27, 2015, the organization Nyeleni (global congress for food sovereignty) produced The Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology. It advocated a model of food production radically opposed to the current corporate-controlled system. Delegates pledged that they would work to:
"... build our own local food systems that create new rural-urban links, based on truly agroecological food production... We cannot allow agroecology to be a tool of the industrial food production model: we see it as the essential alternative to that model... We need to put the control of seeds, biodiversity, land and territories, waters, knowledge, culture and the commons in the hands of the peoples who feed the world."
The declaration represents a challenge to the commercial and geopolitical interests of the U.S. government and its transnational agribusiness sector. Rather than wanting to transform society and food and agriculture, these state-corporate interests require business as usual.
Their corporate model threatens food security and food sovereignty. The interests behind it have captured government regulatory/policy agendas, important trade deals and global trade policies. Monsanto itself is a major player and wields enormous influence and receives significant political support, which is unfortunate given its terrible track record.
In recent times, much resistance to the power of agribusiness has centred on seed patenting, the deleterious impacts of glyphosate-based herbicide and the dangers that GMOs pose to human and animal health and the environment (GMOs were put on the market fraudulently in the first place). And, of course, there is the GMO labelling issue.
A sign for DeKalb seed corn, a brand of Monsanto Co., stands near a corn field in Princeton, Illinois, U.S. (Photo: Daniel Acker/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
But if proper mandatory labelling of GMOs is successful and glyphosate gets banned, what next? Years of debate, deception, industry-funded science and PR over RNA interference, synthetic biology or some other "cutting-edge" technological development and regulatory bodies as government agencies continue to collude with companies?
That would suit powerful corporations just fine. By the time they surrender ground on one issue (if they ever do), the next technology is ready to be rolled out and be promoted or protected by their army of lawyers, PR departments, front groups, glove-puppet politicians and officials. Then it is left to the public and various organisations to fight the good fight all over again and engage in another rear guard action that could take decades to resolve. In the meantime, profits are secured, while health, agriculture and the environment are further degraded.
This piece describes how the people at Monsanto work inside a (well-paid) bubble defined by a business model that is aimed at market capture and profit maximization. As if to underline this, Jack Kasky on Bloomberg reports:
"Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant is focused on selling more genetically modified seeds in Latin America to drive earnings growth outside the core U.S. market. Sales of soybean seeds and genetic licenses climbed 16 per cent, and revenue in the unit that makes glyphosate weed killer, sold as Roundup, rose 24 per cent."
In the same piece, Chris Shaw, a New York-based analyst at Monness Crespi Hardt & Co states: "Glyphosate really crushed it," implying its sales were a major boost.
Powerful corporations might like to project the view that their particular business model and the public interest are one and the same. But this is clearly deluded thinking, given the health impacts of glyphosate and, for example, the deleterious impacts of a corporate agriculture throughout South America.
But through massive PR and advertising, this warped mindset or ideology is perpetuated not only within the confines of a company like Monsanto, but is also rolled out to try to convince the public of the same.
The only aim of companies such as Monsanto is to maximize profit. Why else would Monsanto see nothing wrong with making illegal profits from the seeds sold to farmers in India who live on a knife-edge? Why else would it seek to boost sales of health-damaging chemicals and conveniently ride high on an estimated wave of over $51 billion of taxpayer subsidies in the U.S. over a 10-year period to get farmers to plant its corn?
There is a need to establish societies run for the benefit of the mass of the population and a system of food and agriculture that is democratically owned and controlled.
Transnational agribusiness is very much embedded within dominant power structures and plays a key role in determining global and regional policies. While tackling agribusiness on an issue-by-issue basis is necessary, we must appreciate that there is a need to establish societies run for the benefit of the mass of the population and a system of food and agriculture that is democratically owned and controlled. This involves encouraging localized rural and urban food economies that are shielded from the effects of rigged trade and international markets, which serve transnational agribusiness interests.
It would mean that what ends up in our food and how it is grown is determined by the public good and not powerful private interests, which are driven by commercial gain and the compulsion to subjugate farmers, consumers and entire regions, while playing the victim each time campaigners challenge their actions.
The 2015 Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology (read here) sets out a framework for action. It was devised by delegates representing diverse organisations and international movements of small-scale food producers and consumers, including peasants, indigenous peoples, communities, hunters and gatherers, family farmers, rural workers, herders and pastoralists and fisherfolk. These diverse constituencies provide 70 per cent of the food consumed by humanity, and, as such, are the primary global investors in agriculture, as well as the primary providers of jobs and livelihoods in the world.
There is a need to transform a food system and rural sector that has been devastated by industrial food production. Groups like Nyeleni show there is an alternative to an increasingly globalized economic system that puts profit before the environment and privileges the needs of agribusiness ahead of all else.
Follow HuffPost Canada Blogs on Facebook
MORE ON HUFFPOST:
According to the USDA, 36.8 billion pounds of broiler chicken were raised and killed for consumption in 2013. Since these animals live in such close quarters, some farm operators remove the beaks of chickens, turkeys and ducks to keep them from pecking one another to death, often by burning or cutting the beaks off. Although a number of scientists claim that this practice does not cause the animals too much pain, a significant portion of them die throughout the ordeal. Despite the mass amounts of chicken, turkey and ducks we consume annually, fowl are exempt from the Humane Slaughter Act. This means that unlike the mammals we consume, chickens can be killed however the farm owner sees fit.
In 2011, more than 80 percent of antibiotics produced were fed to livestock. Although some of these drugs were necessary to keep animals healthy in conditions that would otherwise make them sick, like living on top of one another's waste, most of it was specifically administered to artificially increase rapid growth. While it may seem like these drugs could be inadvertently protecting consumers from disease, they are actually contributing to the terrifying rise of superbugs -- deadly antibiotic-resistant bacteria that thrive and multiply in the absence of weaker microbes.
According to one study, 65 percent of all hogs tested had pneumonia-like lesions on their lungs. Researchers believe this is due to ammonia and other gases released from the massive amounts of manure that the animals come into contact with every day.
In 2009, Mercy For Animals went undercover at a Hy-Line Iowa egg factory and discovered that baby chickens who were of no egg-laying use to the buyers (read: male chicks), were put on a conveyor belt and sent directly to a grinder. Hy-Line defended this practice by insisting that it was industry standard.
While cows can live naturally to about twenty years old, many dairy cows living in factory farms are sent to slaughter before they reach the age of five. Though cows can naturally remain productive for 12-15 years, the intensive conditions of industrial dairies can take a toll on their health.
Every year, millions of sows are kept in cages called "gestation crates," a cost-cutting measure that keeps the pregnant pigs immobilized. The concrete floors beneath the crates are often slatted so that manure can just slip through into huge pits. After spending a full four-month pregnancy in these gestation crates, the sows often suffer from abscesses, sores and ulcers. However, even when the pigs are released from the crates, they are not living a comfortable life: The uneven floors of the hog houses have been proven to cause leg and feet deformities.
Notoriously mistreated, veal calves are often forced to wear heavy chains to keep them from becoming overactive in their stalls. The calves are also kept in near or total darkness and suffer from forced anemia, for no reason other than to keep their flesh pale and attractive.
"Battery cages," the common living space for more than 90 percent of egg-laying hens in America, provide as little as 0.6 square feet of space per hen. That is smaller than a regular sized sheet of paper.
Citing health reasons and worker comfort, a majority of U.S. farms practice tail docking, the act of removing the tails of livestock by burning, emasculating, or constricting the tail with an elastic band. This practice causes pain, stress, and sometimes infection in the cows, which is why it has been outlawed in a number of countries, such as New Zealand. However, California is the only U.S. state where tail docking is illegal.
Follow Colin Todhunter on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Colin_Todhunter