One of my heroes. Vandana Shiva is a activist, eco-feminist, environmentalist, philosopher, author, and overall immensely intelligent and inspiring individual. Words literally cannot do her justice. One of her main goals is to fight for changes in an unjust agricultural and food production industry.
Below are parts 1, 2 and 3 of her interview "The Future of Food." It's an enlightening interview that gives you a real look into agribusiness and the affect it has on modern day farmers and consumers.
“Don't eat anything your great-grandmother wouldn't recognize as food.”
-Michael Pollan
Farmers filed a a class-action suit against the multinational seed and
chemical corporation Monsanto, stating they are no longer able to keep
transgenic contamination out of their fields. This is humongous issue, seeing as90%of the corn, soybeans, wheat, and canola in The United States are grown from genetically modified seeds that are owned by multinational corporations (MNCs) such as Monsanto.
MNCs have come to completely dominate agribusiness due to the patents they have on their GMOs and seeds. The government decided years ago that these modified seeds could be patented since they are seen as unnatural. These patents have made it nearly impossible for organic or family farmers to continue their businesses without being sued for copyright infringement.
This is what happens:
A family farm is situated on "X" amount of acres. They have their own seeds that are not genetically modified. There is another industrialized farm down the road that only grows crops whom seeds have been provided to them by a MNC, such as Monsanto.Through pollination and natural processes, seeds from the MNC farm are carried by wind, animal, etc. to the family farm up the road. Now, since these genetically modified seeds have landed and contaminated the family farms crops, Monsanto can sue them for infringement.
So not only are these farmers suffering from smaller yields, with crops that aren't engineered to look beautiful, but they are being sued because THE WIND has flown patented seeds into their fields. What are they supposed to do?! This a completely natural process and it is ludicrous that Monsanto is able to claim that small farmers are violating their patented seeds because of pollination.
This is not the only way that Monsanto has sued farmers though. They have also been known to sue family farmers just for EXISTING. They claim that they have a negative affect on Monsanto's production because they encourage and "influence" the MNC farmers not to use GMOs. Seriously?
By suing Monsanto these farmers are saying that they also have a right to grow food without contamination from Monsanto!It'll be interesting to see how this turns out.
"Stress
increases our nutritional needs, but, sadly, today's standard diet of
refined, enriched, preserved, irradiated, genetically modified,
pasteurized, homogenized, hydrogenated, and otherwise processed foods
doesn't begin to meet our increased nutritional needs. Today's foods are
less nutritious than their counterparts of yesteryear, owing largely to
methods employed by modern agribusiness to increase agricultural yield
and shelf life — at the expense of nutrient content and consumer health." - Brenda Watson and Leonard Smith, The Detox Strategy: Vibrant Health in 5 Easy Steps
Crudeis a documentary that premiered in 2009 covering one of the most epic and controversial lawsuits in history. It is about "big oil and little people", little people meaning about 30,000 indigenous Ecuadorians, and big oil meaning Chevron. Although little, the indigenous people from these Amazonian communities are amazinglyinspiring, courageous, and moving.
So here's a little background on Ecuador: The country is a representative democratic republic, and their current president is the ever so popular Rafael Correa. They're bordered by Colombia, Peru, and the Pacific Ocean. A fun fact: their 2008 constitution made them thefirst country in the world to recognize legally enforceable Rights of Nature, or ecosystem rights (I'll probably discuss that further at some point). They have three main geographical regions: 1. The coast (la costa)-the land in the western part of the country, including the Pacific coastline 2. The highlands (la tierra)- the high-altitude belt running north-south along the center of the country, also including its mountainous terrain dominated by the Andes mountain range. 3. The Amazon (el oriente)- The Amazon rainforest areas in the eastern part of the country, accounting for just under half of the country's total surface area, though populated by less than 5% of the population.
The Amazonian region of the country is inhabited by ~30,000 indigenous peoples. So what is the connection with Chevron/Texaco? Well, from 1972 to 1993, Texaco (now Chevron) operated development of the Lago Agrio oil field in the Amazonian region. Chevron is one of the world's 6 "supermajor" oil companies. It's an American multinational energy corporation that is engaged in literally every aspect of the oil, gas, and geothermal energy industries. This includes: exploration and production, refining, marketing, transport, chemicals manufacturing and sales, and power generation.
So, what happened? Ecuadorian farmers and indigenous residents accused Texaco of making residents ill and damaging forests and rivers by discharging18 billion US gallons of formation water into the rainforest, without any remediation.
They sued Chevron for extensive environmental damage caused by these operations, which have sickened thousands of Ecuadorians and polluted the Amazon rainforest.
Lets talk about the lawsuit. In 1993, a group of Ecuadorean natives sued Chevron's predecessor in Manhattan federal court, claiming that Texaco dumped billions of gallons of toxic oil waste into the water supply of the Amazon, wrecking the environment and spreading disease. Eight years later, Texaco - newly acquired by Chevron - claimed the American courts had no jurisdiction over the case and successfully removed the case to a provincial court in Lago Agrio, Ecuador.
Throughout the many phases of litigation, Texaco and Chevron have blamed the state-owned Petroecuador for the spills while denying and downplaying the scope of the damage. But I mean it didn't really matter, because what Ecuadorian court is going to find an enormous multinational oil company guiltyby ruling in favor of indigenous groups? Well that is exactly what happened.
On 15 February 2011, acourt in Ecuador fined Chevron $8.6 billion for refusing to issue and apology and $9.5 billion in remediation costs for pollution to the country's Amazon region by Texaco between 1972 and 1992, with campaigners claiming loss of crops and farm animals as well as increased local cancer rates.
This was the first time that indigenous people have successfully sued a multinational corporation in the country where the pollution took place. That is huge! But of course, there is a downside.
Chevron described the lawsuit as an "extortion scheme" and refused to pay the fine. They have literally vowed to never pay (biiiiiiig surprise). Since they have no international obligation to pay, and no assets in Ecuador for the government to seize, what can they really do? And although the Ecuadorians expressed happiness that Chevron was declared guilty, they also expressed dismay that the awarded money would not be enough to make up for the damage caused by the oil company (they initially sued for a greater amount).
This is the type of shit that drives me crazy. I don't only have a degree in environmental science but also Latin American studies and Spanish, so naturally I'm aware of problems like these. But I believe this is the sort of issue and injustice that everyone should be aware of. Companies can't get away with shit like this. This case was monumental and noteworthy because it set a precedent for multinational corporations that think they can enter a foreign country, pollute the hell out of it, destroy lives, and then leave without any remediation or consequences. This lawsuit says enough is enough. Poverty stricken people in developing nations are no longer going to allow it, and if you choose to ignore them, you will be punished.
Nonprofit organization Amazon Watch (AW) described the outcome of the case as "unprecedented". AW was founded in 1996 and is based out of San Francisco, CA. It works to protect the rain forest and the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon basin. It also partners with indigenous and environmental organizations in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Brazil in campaigns for human rights, corporate accountability and the preservation of the Amazon's ecological systems.
Chevron has issued two Ecuadorian appeals, and an appeal in the U.S., which have all been unsuccessful. They have recently issued yet ANOTHER appeal arguing that an appellate court based its ruling on “fraudulent” evidence (bullshit). Who knows if they will ever pay, but here is a link to one of the most recent articles covering the latest appeal: http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=464455&CategoryId=10718.
I hope everyone gets a chance to see the documentary mentioned above, I promise it is worth it. These aren't the only people who have been exploited bye multinational corporations, they are simply the first who successfully took a stand against it. There are still thousands of people suffering environmental and health consequences odue to exploitation by big business. These are the type of people who need all the support they can get.
"God has cared for these trees, saved them from drought, disease, avalanches, and a thousand tempests and floods. But he cannot save them from fools." - John Muir
I think this is an appropriate article for my first blog. I don't exactly know what I'm doing, but I know that I have a lot to say. So, here goes nothin'.
I'm a young liberal student, and I may sound naive, but I cannot read something like this and keep my mouth shut. Since so many people pay no attention to cows (unless discussing what type of steak they'd like for dinner) I decided to blog. Now, I have a special place in my heart for cattle, but my feelings extend to all livestock, including pigs <3, sheep, and goats.
In California there was previously a state law mandating the "humane treatment" of downed livestock headed for the slaughterhouse. Basically, "downed" livestock is livestock that has been abused to the point that they cannot even stand. When this happens, instead of being humanely euthanized, they are just shipped off to be butchered even sooner. What a great idea huh? I'm sure there are tooons of Americans who are just salivating at the idea of eating meat that came from a cow who could not even stand after being overfed and pumped full of antibiotics. Anyways, this law was a step in the right direction. It did not solve the source of the problem, but humanely euthanizing the animals when they are downed is a far better option than sending them to the slaughterhouse. This law was implemented in 2009 after the Humane Society posted extremely disturbing, and scarring, undercover footage of cattle being abused at a California slaughterhouse. The workers were seen "dragging, prodding and bulldozing weak, 'non-ambulatory' cows into slaughter pens. Water from hoses was used on some cattle lying on their sides, to force them to their feet". These cows were so overweight from overfeeding that their legs literally could not hold them. Have you ever seen an obese human (not a rare sight these days), who is forced to travel in a wheelchair because their legs cannot hold them? Same thing. Except the cattle have no choice but to lay on the ground while they whither away. The undercover footage is extremely disturbing, but I encourage every person to watch it, and hopefully the level of cruelty can be understood.The footage can be seen above. Under this penal code, if not humanely euthanized, there would be criminal charges for the sale, purchase or shipment of the animals. So, getting to the point, this court case was brought by a meat trade group on behalf of pig farmers in California, who opposed this law. To sum it up, the Obama administration sided with pork producers (of course) and decided that it was okay for this to happen. The article states that "The Supreme Court has long ruled that interstate commerce is under federal jurisdiction, trumping any state efforts to regulate it". Well, no shit. Obvioussssly money and abuse trumps cruelty and common moral sense. Since Congress kisses Monsanto's ass and other multinational corporations that deal in agribusiness, why would this law ever have any teeth? I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.
This isn't anything new. Since America's demand for meat is so high, cattle is increasingly being abused for production purposes. When most people think of a cattle farm, they picture acres of green grass being grazed on by cattle. Well, that would be a dream for these animals. This livestock is piled together so close they can barely move, forced to eat corn (which is not in their natural diet), live in feet upon feet of their own feces, and be pumped full of antibiotics to prevent diseases from spreading (as a result of this treatment). Is this the kind of meat we really want to eat? Now I admit, as much as I try to buy organic, there are times when I go to the grocery store and buy a cheap pound of ground beef. However, my conscience always kicks in. In the back of my mind I'm always picturing the helpless cattle that cannot even stand due to this abuse, all so that we can have a hamburger. When people tell me that it doesn't matter, and that "animals are made to be eaten", I always think, what if this was your friend, husband, or child? How would you feel if the situation was reversed? What if your child was pumped full of antibiotics, forced to eat unimaginable amounts of food that is not natural to them, gain weight to the point that they cannot walk, live in 2 feet deep of shit, and then shipped off to be butchered and sent to McDonald's? I'm guessing you wouldn't be supportive.Although I feel that I've been naturally programmed to sympathize with the less fortunate and with animals, that is not why I think this is wrong. These corporations and farmers are completely heartless; fact.I admit, I am not the best environmentalist or most aware consumer; I buy genetically modified food from price chopper and once in a while I eat foods that have are loaded with fructose syrup. But every time I eat something I try to be better. I make a conscious effort to be aware of what I put into my body, and how it affects me.
Now I admit, I looove cows. I think they're the most adorable lovable creatures. However, I eat them. I'm not supporting vegan-ism or vegetarianism, but is it that much to ask to humanely butcher our food? Do we really have to make their lives miserable before we butcher them for the sake of a Big Mac?
"Globalized industrialized food is not cheap: it is too costly for the
Earth, for the farmers, for our health. The Earth can no longer carry
the burden of groundwater mining, pesticide pollution, disappearance of
species and destabilization of the climate. Farmers can no longer carry
the burden of debt, which is inevitable in industrial farming with its
high costs of production. It is incapable of producing safe, culturally
appropriate, tasty, quality food. And it is incapable of producing
enough food for all because it is wasteful of land, water and energy.
Industrial agriculture uses ten times more energy than it produces. It
is thus ten times less efficient.”
―
Vandana Shiva
