GMO SCRAPBOOK: NO SOONER SAID THAN DONE: INDIA SLASHES IG ...March 15, 2018
Tuesday, you'll recall, I blogged yet again about my idea that GMO geopolitics is becoming a defining feature of the Western bloc vs those nations friendly to Russia, whose agriculture, while booming, is also non-GMO based, since that country has banned GMOs until long-term inter-generational testing can be done. One consequence of this is that we shall see the increasing politicization of the science related to the subject. This, as anyone who has followed the subject knows, has already occurred in the corporatized west, where the "agribusiness 'community'" has contributed to the suppression of studies indicating a growing list of problems with their products.
I also indicated Tuesday that countries "on the fence", which have been allowing GMOs to be grown, but which have not fully endorsed them, like India, could increasingly be driven into the non-GMO camp, and hence into a relationship with Russian agriculture (if nothing else, as a source of non-genetically-modified seeds).
Well, no sooner said than done, according to this article spotted and shared by Mr. S.D.:
This, as the article notes, is the second time that India has cut IG Farbensanto's royalties in two years:
India has cut royalties that local seed companies pay to US agrochemical giant Monsanto for the second time in two years. The producer of genetically modified seeds has previously threatened to pull out of the country.
According to a government order released on Tuesday, the country’s farm ministry has decided to reduce royalties paid by Indian seed companies to Monsanto for its genetically modified (GM) cotton by 20.4 percent.
Two years ago, the company’s royalties were cut by more than 70 percent. The move triggered a long-running dispute between the Indian and US governments.
But this is not what really caught my eye in this article. In fact, the article itself didn't catch my eye.
It was the other articles from previous years covering the GMO issues linked on RT's page:
You get the idea. In fact, this definite pattern of coverage on RT has provoked some "studies" in the West alleging Russian bias in coverage of the GMO issue. Those "studies" have, of course, ignored the pro-GMO bias of western reportage, and completely ignored - as far as I can tell - any mention of independent studies in the West that have pointed out growing problems with GMOs. But in either case, these biases - both pro and con - are to my mind the surest indicator that we are looking at the emergence of a GMO geopolitics on the world stage, and clearly, Russia means to position itself not only as the chief national critic of GMOs, but also as the chief non-GMO supplier, and its doing so will not go unnoticed in nations like India, or Kenya.
This brings me to today's high octane speculation: if there is a GMO geopolitics, which it seems to me there clearly is, then we can expect two long-term trends to watch. The one is frightening, and the other seems a necessity. And both hinge on the central fact that a stable national agriculture is one of the foundations of national sovereignty and security. The first implication is that with the growing successes of Russian agriculture without the presence of the Ukraine, that it could easily become the target of covert operations designed to disrupt it, possibly even to the extent that Russia becomes reliant upon western food and seed imports. This would ruin Russia's independent position as a source of non-GMO foods. Such action may not even be directly tied to Western governments, but could come as a corporate action. (Not that there's much difference between governments and corporations in the West.) By the same token, in such a heated-up climate of tensions between the West and Russia, the same might hold true in reverse. As I've stated many times, two can play the covert operations game, and it could be the case that covert operations could be launched to corrupt the West's GMO foodstocks and seed supply as well. In short, the GMO geopolitics we've seen emerging could become the new "playground" for covert operations.
The second implication is one confined, largely, to the West. With the growing opposition around the world to GMOs, sooner or later, it will become a matter of national security and policy for western exporters of food to be able to supply the growing demands for non-GMO products, or surrender the markets to Russia. In other words, because of the emergence of GMO geopolitics, western governments, and in particular that of the USA, and agribusiness cartels like IG Farbensanto, are on a collision course, like it or not. It is because of that collision course - if nothing is done - that I am suggesting the first implication might be growing covert operations against food supplies, for so far, western governments seem to be so in the pocket of the GMO concerns that they are unable to develop responsible national policies, nor are they able to address the growing success of Russian agriculture, which is a clear challenge to the whole GMO narrative.
We are entering dangerous times.
See you on the flip side...