| Multinationals - Penny Starting To Drop With British Farmers (10/5/2003) | |
|
10 May 2003 Multinationals - Penny Starting To Drop With British Farmers from NLP Wessex: <[email protected]> A Change In Farming Consciousness? The Threat of Multinationals Penny Starting To Drop Within UK Farming Establishment --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Syngenta's plan to sell its new hybrid barley only in a package with its own pesticide products will confirm many critics' fears about farming's future.... it could be the first step towards a future when every input and production method is rigidly controlled from beyond the farm gate. That would reduce farmers to operatives working to the rules of multi-nationals.... if the critics are correct freedom to farm could become freedom to follow orders" Farmers Weekly, 9 May 2003 "....none of the net revenue flows to wheat farmers; it all flows to Monsanto. That imbalance, says 69-year-old Montana wheat grower Helen Waller, 'has turned me into an anti-GM activist.' 'Even if our government or the Canadian government says GM wheat is alright,' explains Waller, 'that is not the issue. The issue is our customers; they do not want it. I don't want it because my customers don't want it,' she says, 'it's that simple.'..." Farmers Weekly, 9 May 2003 "There were a handful of farmers at the meeting held above the International Solidarity Centre in Reading, but most were the kind of people we 'proper' farmers used to call the loony left. Some of them represented pink and green non-governmental organisations about which many of us would be instinctively cautious, if not intolerant. The joint organisers, The Family Farmers Association and Grassroots Action on Food and Farming, might even come into that category for some. I expected a lot of the comments made might be somewhat naive and, yes, some were. But I came away realising our common causes are greater than our differences and concluding that those of us who consider ourselves proper farmers must ally ourselves with such people..." Farmers Weekly, 9 May 2003 Some farmers have few environmental or food safety concerns about GM crops and foods - misguidedly in the view of others. However, the penny does at least seem to be beginning to drop with a growing proportion of the farming community that the increasing strength of agri-business and food-business multinationals is leading them to an ultimate destination of economic subservience and impoverishment. Part of this process is the control that ag-biotech companies are gaining over the seed supply, particularly (though not exclusively) related to the development of patentable GM crops. In this respect the second week in May 2003 may go down in history as something of a watershed moment in British agriculture's awakening to the problem. Farmers Weekly 9 May produced a sleuth of aggressively condemnatory of articles in a single edition attacking the increasingly predatory nature of ag-biotech and other food chain multi-national conglomerates. Three of these articles are provided in full below, but we introduce them first as follows: * "Freedom To Farm - Or Freedom to Follow Suppliers's Orders" - this is the main editorial of the week and constitutes an attack on agbiotech company Syngenta. This follows the extraordinary announcement that it intends to sell its new hybrid barley (not-GM) only in a package with its own pesticides. If farmers want the new seed variety they will be obliged also to buy Syngenta's chemical products. Farmers Weekly condemns the decision stating that "it could be the first step towards a future when every input and production method is rigidly controlled from beyond the farm gate. That would reduce farmers to operatives working to the rules of multi-nationals.... if the critics are correct freedom to farm could become freedom to follow orders" * "Will market brawn be enough to make GM wheat a success?" - another condemnatory article on Monsanto's decision to press ahead with the commercialisation of GM wheat, written this time by Farmers Weekly's US correspondent, himself a resident American. Whilst the article claims that the new wheat will lead to higher yields (a claim that in practice may well prove to be a mirage if the experience of other GM crops is repeated[1]), it ridicules the logic of North America introducing a product which is almost guaranteed to destroy its export markets in this crucial crop category. According to grain marketing experts cited in the article it will be impossible to stop GM varieties getting into other wheat consignments and tainting the marketability of the entirety of the country's wheat production. Unlike existing GM crops which mainly go into animal feed, wheat is a key human food stuff and markets are just not going to tolerate it. The article states: "If most North American farmers say they do not want it and the vast majority of global food importers claim they will not buy it, you might assume the future of genetically modified wheat is bleak, right? Wrong. Monsanto ... now hopes to bring GM spring wheat to the market by 2005 whether the market wants it or not.... Monsanto's push for GM wheat flies in the face of virtually every known fact about the global marketability of the controversial product. Two recent reports, one American, the other Canadian, show the company's latest brainstorm to be largely brainless.... Once the GM genie is out of the bottle, bionic wheat will be everywhere in less than a decade, even on US and Canadian farms that never planted it." * "In defending farmers against the might of the multinationals, we find ourselves allied to some unlikely fellow travellers" - this is an article by David Richardson who has a weekly column in Farmers Weekly. Mr Richardson is both a long-time farming magazine and TV journalist with an OBE, and just as significantly is a farmer from East Anglia highly regarded in UK farming establishment circles. A few years ago his articles were critical of those who have sought to oppose the introduction of GM crops (he even singled out the Natural Law Party for attention in this respect). Over the last couple of years, however, Mr Richardson's articles have begun to attack the increasing control of the food chain by multinationals and the iron grip that they are gaining over farmers. Whilst he may have few technical concerns of his own over GM technology, it would seem David Richardson has become well aware of how ag-biotech companies are creating monopolies in the crop seed sector and what the implications of that are for farmers globally. His latest article is the most remarkable yet. This is not only because it immediately follows his previous article on a similar theme (usually each week the article is on a different subject to generate variety), but also because of what he is now advocating: "My diatribe against globalisation last week concluded with a call for farmers to resist its continued and accelerating growth. This week I want to pick up that theme where I left off. Because, since writing it, I have spent a day with a bunch of like-minded people who have added to my certainty that hostility to the trend is necessary and who provided more supporting evidence.... There were a handful of farmers at the meeting held above the International Solidarity Centre in Reading, but most were the kind of people we 'proper' farmers used to call the loony left. Some of them represented pink and green non-governmental organisations about which many of us would be instinctively cautious, if not intolerant.... I expected a lot of comments made might be somewhat naive and, yes, some were. But I came away realising our common causes are greater than our differences and concluding that those of us who consider ourselves proper farmers must ally ourselves with such people.... incredibly, according to Mary Hendrickson [a Food Systems and Sustainable Agriculture Associate from the University of Missouri], there are only five main seed breeders left in the world and not many more producing plant protection products. So, the future of the world's food supplies might be at the whim of a handful of people who will determine which research programmes to follow..." This is a bold step to recommend if British farmers can be convinced to take it. Because of its particular importance David Richardson's article is reproduced first below, with the other articles following. For more discussion of these issues see NLPWessex report on the World Food and Farming Congress, London, November 2002 (www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/wffcongress.htm ). NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX The Acceptable Face Of Ag-biotech 'Peace Store' - shop for peace at: --------------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID RICHARDSON In defending farmers against the might of the multinationals, we find ourselves allied to some unlikely fellow travellers My diatribe against globalisation last week concluded with a call for farmers to resist its continued and accelerating growth. This week I want to pick up that theme where I left off. Because, since writing it, I have spent a day with a bunch of like-minded people who have added to my certainty that hostility to the trend is necessary and who provided more supporting evidence. The get-together was entitled 'Food in a Failed Market'. There were a handful of farmers at the meeting held above the International Solidarity Centre in Reading, but most were the kind of people we 'proper' farmers used to call the loony left. Some of them represented pink and green non-governmental organisations about which many of us would be instinctively cautious, if not intolerant. The joint organisers, The Family Farmers Association and Grassroots Action on Food and Farming, might even come into that category for some. I expected a lot of the comments made might be somewhat naive and, yes, some were. But I came away realising our common causes are greater than our differences and concluding that those of us who consider ourselves proper farmers must ally ourselves with such people, who often have the ear of public and politicians alike and are more likely to be influential than we can possibly be. Even the biggest farmer is tiny compared with the international conglomerates with whom we have to deal. Big corporations can control governments and ways must be found to counteract that power. One academic, who was reluctant to be identified, revealed that since the global sourcing trend effectively began about 10 years ago, the number of countries involved with big supermarkets has more than quadrupled, a measure of the speed of development. The same man predicted that within a year, by which time the Safeway takeover battle would be over, almost 65% of UK food retailing will be controlled by three firms. He quoted a former Somerfield CEO as saying: 'If a trade buyer [one of the existing supermarket giants] bought Safeway, terms for suppliers to both would be renegotiated down and further volume discounts demanded. There will not be a 1-2% reduction in prices but 5-10%.' Several speakers confirmed the same story from around the world — that the bigger and fewer the buyers, the worse the deal farmers got. Darrin Qualman of the Canadian NFU, for instance, showed how, over a 30-year period, Canadian retail margins had risen by a factor of seven, while returns to Canadian farmers had remained static or fallen. 'Globalisation will hurt farmers because it increases the power of transnationals,' he said. And the most serious decline in Canadian farm incomes could be traced back directly to the start of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement with the USA. Nor is it just the buyers from farmers that are growing because of globalisation. Those companies that sell to farmers were following the same trend and in many cases the same firms both bought and sold. Mary Hendrickson, a Food Systems and Sustainable Agriculture Associate from the University of Missouri, told how just four firms slaughter 81% of US beef; four firms own 60% of US grain terminal facilities, with three exporting 81 % of US maize and 65% of soya beans; four firms own 46% of all the pigs in the US; and four firms slaughter 50% of the broiler chickens. In some cases the same few firms do all of those things and in addition supply the feed for the animals, the fertilisers, seed and sprays for the crops, and so on. Incredibly, according to Mary Hendrickson, there are only five main seed breeders left in the world and not many more producing plant protection products. So, the future of the world's food supplies might be at the whim of a handful of people who will determine which research programmes to follow. Those programmes, some say, are likely to be chosen more on the basis of potential profit than the needs of people. Other's say the two are bound to coincide and that market forces are the best progenitors of demand. Can we be sure of that? I wonder. So, globalisation is clearly already with us. In this country it has all but destroyed great chunks of our industry. DEFRA's own figures show that if you use 100 as the profitability index during the period between 1994 and 1997, by 2001/2 it had declined as follows: Dairy down to 59; LFA cattle and sheep, 30; cereals, 10; general cropping, 23; pigs and poultry, 36; mixed farms, 50; and the average of all-farm types, 29. Those are the fruits of globalisation (plus a few other things, perhaps) so far and the British government, along with politicians around the world, wants more of it. And it isn't even helping small farmers in the Third World. A speaker who visits Brazil regularly told the meeting that, to increase cheap exports, small producers are being swallowed up by global traders. All that is left for them is the low-priced domestic market. A body promoted at the meeting, and designed to tackle all this, is the Agribusiness Accountability Initiative, whose web-site is www.agribusinessaccountability.org . It could be worth a visit. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ALAN GUEBERT Will market brawn be enough to make GM wheat a success? If most North American farmers say they do not want it and the vast majority of global food importers claim they will not buy it, you might assume the future of genetically modified wheat is bleak, right? Wrong. Monsanto, the firm that invented Astroturf - artificial grass - now hopes to bring GM spring wheat to the market by 2005 whether the market wants it or not. In mid-December, Monsanto petitioned both the US Dept of Agriculture and the Canadian government to approve its Roundup Ready hard spring wheat for sale. Monsanto's push for GM wheat flies in the face of virtually every known fact about the global marketability of the controversial product. Two recent reports, one American, the other Canadian, show the company's latest brainstorm to be largely brainless. But this biotechnology battle is not about market brains; it's about market brawn. Monsanto is the biggest biotech seed company in the world and wheat is the third largest crop (behind maize and rice) grown in the world. In a February testimony to the Montana state legislature, respected Iowa State University ag economist Robert Wisner predicted that there "is a high probability that American GM wheat would be rejected... by a substantial segment of the international market." That rejection "would depress hard red spring wheat prices and probably durum wheat prices by... one-third (the) average prices of recent years." The testimony encouraged the Montana legislature to easily pass a resolution urging Monsanto to take market impact into account before releasing the new wheat. In his testimony, Wisner forecasted GM wheat would have a larger negative impact on US exports than GM maize and soya, two biotech seeds that have clipped US farm exports by more than $lbn (£630m) in the last three years. Maize, used mostly as a feedstuff, avoids tough foreign GM labelling laws, explained the Iowa scientist. Wheat, however, is a foodstuff and as such, "GM wheat products would almost all be labelled as containing GMs in the foreign countries." Key US wheat buyers like Japan - which imports nearly 30m tonnes of US wheat annually - Mexico, the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and Italy have already served notice that if GM wheat is grown in the US, they want USDA to certify the wheat they buy as GM-free. That's a virtual impossibility, say grain marketing experts. Once the GM genie is out to the bottle, bionic wheat will be everywhere in less than a decade, even on US and Canadian farms that never planted it. One likely outcome, forecasts Wisner, is the loss of American wheat export markets to competitors who remain GM-free. Biotech wheat, he says, would create a high risk of accelerated foreign investment in the agriculture of former Soviet republics and Eastern Europe, in a pattern resembling the foreign investment in Brazilian agriculture after the US grain embargo of the early 1970s. All told, Wisner estimates, if American farmers adopt GM wheat without an effective way to isolate it and segregate it from conventional wheat, the US risks losing 33-52% of its hard red winter wheat export markets and farmers could see a 32-35% drop in domestic wheat prices. In 2002, US wheat exports reached $3.6bn (£2.3bn). Total 2002 US hard red spring wheat production equalled 11mtonnes or about one-quarter of all US wheat. Researchers at the University ' Saskatchewan figure Roundup Ready wheat would provide Prairie growers one quantifiable advantage — an estimated 3% yield boost due to reduced weed pressure. But that benefit, about $5.30/acre (£8.24/ha) according to their calculations, quickly converts into big losses countrywide if the GM wheat is not segregated from non-GM wheat. The maths, contained in a 2002 research paper titled The Optimal Time to License a Biotech 'Lemon', authored by three Saskatchewan ag economists, shows that 74% of Canadian wheat growers would buy Roundup Ready wheat if Monsanto charged a $7/acre (£10.90/ha) technology fee. At that per-acre charge, Monsanto would pocket about $108m (£68m). All Canadian wheat farmers, "adopters" and "non-adopters" alike, however, would be hit for more than $50m (£31m)because all wheat growers are facing the lower market price that results in producing the "lemon" — a product the global market does not want yet will be nearly impossible to avoid. The net effect, say the Canadian researchers, is positive: nearly $60m (£38m) of benefits accrues to the Canadian wheat industry. However, none of the net revenue flows to wheat farmers; it all flows to Monsanto. That imbalance, says 69-year-old Montana wheat grower Helen Waller, "has turned me into an anti-GM activist." "Even if our government or the Canadian government says GM wheat is alright," explains Waller, "that is not the issue. The issue is our customers; they do not want it. I don't want it because my customers don't want it," she says, "it's that simple." --------------------------------------------------------------------- EDITORIAL FREEDOM TO FARM - OR FREEDOM TO FOLLOW SUPPLIERS' ORDERS? What price freedom to farm? Producers' liberty to plan their businesses, steadily eroded over the years by government and supermarkets, faces another threat from one of the world's biggest suppliers of seeds and pesticides. Syngenta's plan to sell its new hybrid barley only in a package with its own pesticide products will confirm many critics' fears about farming's future. At worst, such developments, taken to the extreme, could destroy flexibility and lead to prescription farming. Companies could dictate product choice, rate and timing of application. Admittedly Syngenta's scheme leaves growers with some decisions — notably regarding the use of nitrogen, herbicides and insecticides. But it could be the first step towards a future when every input and production method is rigidly controlled from beyond the farm gate. That would reduce farmers to operatives working to the rules of multi-nationals. Three powerful arguments spell out the folly of such a future. First, few people are better placed to understand the land and its potential than the farmers who work it. Although outside help is not only welcome in an increasingly technical age but often essential, there are limits which must be respected. Second, the linked-product approach could encourage growers to abandon efficient and responsible crop husbandry in favour of a regime dictated by the manufacturers' interests. Third, it could leave specialist suppliers who do not market all inputs vulnerable to others keen to muscle in on their core business. Horticultural producers are already familiar with the ever-tightening constraints imposed by supermarkets' produce buyers. Once sucked into specific input regimes, many find it impossible to break out without severe financial penalty. However enticing such schemes may appear, whether they are to the long-term benefit of UK farmers must remain open to doubt. If the critics are correct, freedom to farm could become freedom to follow orders. --------------------------------------------------------------------- "Tearing Down Biotech's 'Berlin Wall' " - 4 May 2003 - Click here -------------------------------------------------------------------- Solar Energy, Agriculture and World Peace http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/solarworldpeace.htm |
|