WORLD BANK WANTS TO HAND OVER SEEDS TO AGRIBUSINESS…January 21, 2017
...Yes, you read that correctly: the World Bank is now formulating agricultural policy for, well, just about everyone, and (surprise surprise) it thinks GMOs are a great idea, and that farmers sewing and planting (and of course, trading) their seeds is a very bad idea; here's the article (shared by Ms. M.W.):
While noting that the world's seed supply lies largely under the control of six agribusiness giants (except, of course, in Russia, which has banned them... hmmmm), the first three paragraphs note something important:
A host of concerned organizations and individuals have come out in opposition to a corporate-backed plan by the World Bank to control the world's seed industry. The groups say that the wide-reaching plan will strip farmers of their rights to seeds and food.
The denouncement comes in response to the World Bank’s report titled, "Enabling the Business of Agriculture." A letter signed by 157 organizations and academics, was addressed to World Bank President Jim Yong Kim and the EBA’s five donor organizations, to demand an end to the controversial project.
“The EBA dictates so-called ‘good practices’ to regulate agriculture and scores countries on how well they implement its prescriptions,” said Frederic Mousseau, policy director from the Oakland Institute. “The Bank, behind closed doors, convinces governments to implement reforms based on the EBA scores, thereby bypassing farmers and citizens’ engagement,” he added.
There you have it: a "study group" sponsored by a central bank recommends "good practice", i.e., "regulations" designed to favor certain competition( in this case, the big agribusiness giants), the bank then adopts its own recommendations, and tells governments to do the same, otherwise the spigot of World Bank loans stops, and a country won't be able to buy I.G. Farbensanto's expensive seeds and pesticides.
In other words, more globaloney:
Control by big mega-corporations good; small farms bad; genetically modified crud and glyphosphates good; natural heirloom seeds that the corporations can't patent, and sell at high prices, with loans from big banks gathering interest, bad.
If what is going on here weren't so tragic, with huge consequences for the world's finances and health, it would be comedy, because the circle of influence peddling and racketeering that is the world agribusiness industry and the World Bank is starkly and nakedly revealed for all to see.
But what's the big deal? After all, we already knew the agribusiness industry is one of the most crooked, protected, and privileged in the world.
Enter my high octane speculation of the day: in the past I've talked about "GMO geopolitics", a term I coined to designate the GMO issue as a global geopolitical issue, when years ago I suggested that Russia could easily turn the global opposition to GMOs into "its" issue, by opposing GMOs in its domestic policy, and then raising the issue in the international forums. Additionally, I've argued that by careful policy, Russia, and perhaps other nations in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, could position themselves to be sellers of natural seeds on the world market, as it also positioned itself to speak for the GMO opposition in the rest of the world. We've already seen Turkey bolt from the EU and NATO, and it doesn't look like this will change, and Russian economic sanctions against that country have been lifted, allowing the flow of Russian agricultural products back into Turkey. Additionally, Mr. Putin in his recent addresses has been doing something else worthy of note: he has been articulating a cultural, social, and political critique of the West and its progressivist left; in other words, Mr. Putin has been attempting to speak for those in the west who have revolted against those agendas. Throw in GMO opposition, and a deliberate positioning on that issue on the world stage at various economic forums, and one gets the idea.
And this raises a question that I've been thinking about for a long time, and that I've finally decided to share: remember the overthrow of the government in the Ukraine? Remember the quiet, behind-the-scenes presence of agribusiness interests in the whole west/USA-sponsored fiasco? I have to wonder if the real reason for western sanctions against Russia is to protect the interests of IG Farbensanto and to prevent those non-GMO Russian agricultural products into western markets? I have to wonder just how much the coup against Brazil's Dilma Rouseff and the ouster of Mrs. de Kirchner in Argentina might be related to all this GMO geopolitics?
And if that sounds a bit far-fetched, consider seeing this advertising slogan on a TV commercial in a non-sanctions world: "Say no to GMO; buy Russian seeds..."
See you on the flip side...