The following is an Easter Message from Iri The Grinch.
Child labour and slavery still exist in 2009 in the cocoa plantations of West Africa. Even in places where child labour and slavery are somewhat less prevalent, for example in Ghana, poverty still persists for the workers and their families who are (naturally) at the bottom of the chocolate production chain. There are strong links between chronic Debt, Slavery and Chocolate. Each year developing countries pay more than $240 billion to their debtors in the rich Western World. The cocoa producing nations are among the countries identified as the poorest in the world - on the United Nations Human Development Index, Cote D'Ivoire is 164th in the world, Ghana is 136th, Cameroon is 144th, Nigeria is 159th, and Indonesia is 108th. Much of the debt acquired by these countries was illegitimate. The debt includes money that was lent to oppressive regimes with the full knowledge that it would not benefit the people in any way. There was money for failed projects carried out on the advice of creditors; money lent on extortionate or unreasonable terms; money lent to governments which stole the funds through corruption. It can therefore be argued that creditors have responsibility for illegitimate debts. Debts that are considered unjust in these terms should to be cancelled in full. The money that is being paid on debt servicing should be used for schools, hospitals and meeting basic needs, thus contributing to the elimination of the slave conditions on the cocoa farms.
There was an investigative report by the BBC in 2000 which outlined the size of the problem. Hundreds of thousands of children were/are being bought from their parents for a pittance, or in some cases stolen outright and shipped to the Ivory Coast where they get sold as slaves to cocoa farms. These children typically come from countries such as Mali, Burkina Faso, and Togo. Destitute parents in these poverty-stricken lands sell their children to traffickers believing that they will find honest work once they arrive in Ivory Coast and then send some of their earnings home, but that is not what happens at all. Instead these children, usually twelve to fourteen years old (but sometimes younger), are forced to do hard manual labour, working as much as 80 to 100 hours per week. They are paid nothing, barely fed, beaten regularly, and often quite viciously beaten if they try to escape. Most will never see their families again.
Kevin Bales, author of Disposable People: New Slavery in the Global Economy, wrote that one of the economic drawbacks of the old-style slavery (such as that which existed in the US in the past) was the cost of maintaining slaves who were either too young or too old to work. Children rarely brought in more than they cost until the age of ten or twelve, though they were put to work as early as possible. The old style slavery consisted primarily of taking people against their will from Africa. This represented a significant financial investment. Bales said that before the Civil War, the cost to purchase the average slave amounted to the equivalent of $50,000 (in today’s dollars US, presumably). But these days Exploiters are SlaveHolders rather than SlaveOwners and the enslaved people are bought and sold from the world’s most destitute nations for only $50 or $100. The result is that they are seen as disposable. Slaves today are so cheap and not even a capital investment anymore. Unlike Slaveowners, Slaveholders don’t have to take care of their slaves, so they don't bother. They just use them up and then throw them away. Following all that and numerous other reports which were made public, the United States Congress, in 2001, came close to approving funding for the development of "anti-slavery" labels on chocolate bars following the credible reports of widespread slave-labour in the Ivory Coast Cocoa Plantations which supplies about 40% of the world's cocoa.
Unfortunately they didn't do it, however the idea did cause major panic for all the big chocolate companies like Hershey, Mars, Nestle and Cadbury's, which would then have been forced to suffer the shame of having to continue selling chocolate with such labels. It was because they were faced with that threat that the chocolate industry came up with the voluntary "Cocoa Protocol" which set out a timetable for concrete action to eliminate the "worst forms of child labour" (note - not child labour in it's entirety) by mid-2005. This would have been a good thing but the industry missed the deadline (surprise, surprise), however they allowed themselves a three-year extension which also passed without any of the aims being achieved.
Fair trade chocolate brands, which guarantee that no child or slave labour were used in the production of cocoa have began to appear (mostly smaller companies as far as I know), and finally in March of this year, Cadbury broke ranks with the likes of Hershey, Mars and Nestle to start down the fair trade route. The Executive Director of Oxfam said that this is an admission that the voluntary process has failed. To be able to put a Fair Trade logo on their chocolate, a manufacturer must guarantee a minimum price (currently $US1600 a tonne) to the farmer, which provides fair and predictable compensation for the cost of production plus a "social dividend", a price that is sufficient for families to live, develop their communities and put their children through school. Most of the time the world cocoa prices are below the minimum fair trade price. That leads producers to try to squeeze costs down producing fertile ground for abuses like child and forced labour because that is how Unregulated Capitalism works folks. A minimum fair price is doubly necessary because higher tariffs on the importing of chocolate rather than on raw cocoa solids in many countries means cocoa-producing countries cannot not add value to their raw material, which locks their economic fortunes into the price they can get for the cocoa beans only.
 | Iri, West Africa first sold slaves to the New World, and West Africa has been involved in human trafficking in one way or another for several hundred years. Solving the problem will be the province of leaders -- and West Africa is seemingly incapable of providing or 'growing' them.
The larger question isn't whether we should outlaw blood-diamonds, blood-coffee, or blood-cacao. The larger question is whether or not -- and/or to what degree -- we should be involved in solving those problems.
If it's not one crop, it'll be another. Let's hope oil isn't discovered there.
|
 | It has to start with what consumers are and aren't willing to tolerate. The next thing to remember is that there is NO such thing as free trade: a country needs to be able to manufacture at least some of its raw materials in order to profit, and it is precisely this that free trade agreements stamp out.
Great blog, Iri! |
 | loish wrote on Apr 12, '09 Cadbury is the one you say? OK I shall go look next time I have a chocolate craving. Just a little bit done by everyone puts pressure on the changing the outcome. Ta for that blog. |
 | dnoakes wrote on Apr 12, '09, edited on Apr 12, '09  Fair trade chocolate brands, which guarantee that no child or slave labour were used in the production of cocoa have began to appear (mostly smaller companies as far as I know), and finally in March of this year, Cadbury broke ranks with the likes of Hershey, Mars and Nestle to start down the fair trade route.
The Executive Director of Oxfam said that this is an admission that the voluntary process has failed.  Voluntary processes are bound to fail, profits almost always trump ethics; that's why government labor regulations in the USA and other developed nations were created (as well as food and drug oversight) decades ago. (But to no effect abroad in the Third World, where such children as you report suffer out of sight and out of mind.)
Governments are apparently not strong or fair enough in West Africa to help these kids. And, sadly, these issues are not raised enough in chocolate-importing countries. I've only heard about this problem on non-profit Public Radio and blogs like this one. Thanks ,Iri Ani, for reminding me of this brutality and I will try and spread the word. |
 | lvlila wrote on Apr 12, '09, edited on Apr 12, '09 Fair trade chocolate brands, which guarantee that no child or slave labour were used in the production of cocoa have began to appear (mostly smaller companies as far as I know), and finally in March of this year, Cadbury broke ranks with the likes of Hershey, Mars and Nestle to start down the fair trade route. I noticed that one of our biggest supermarket chains here in Australia... Coles... has set aside a small section for "anti-slavery" chocolate.
I also know that, surprisingly enough, private Catholic schools here have a Social Justice section as part of their Religious Education program to raise awareness in children to the injustices of such practice. Strangely enough, it's become quite "cool" among these kids to boycott chocolate... and they're putting pressure on parents regarding coffee as well.
These are, obviously, small measures... but at least the message is slowly spreading.
As it is... I no longer have a taste for chocolate and many people I know have stopped buying it.
I buy "free trade" coffee despite the expense and don't consume as much as I used to. |
 | We try to buy the "Fair Trade" branded food where possible. |
 | Important points Iri, consumer pressure can alter these practices and naming and shaming slavery using products does help a lot. You have raised this very important issue to many of us here in the Newer World Oder and have launched a salvo in the War on Shopping. Thanks for posting this highly informative blog. I too try to buy Fair Trade, but now I will be sure to only buy that so Mars and the already highly dubious Nestle are history (Hershey's don't exist here). This is what you might call a 'pincer movement in the WoS Iri. Upward and Onward! |
 | I am convinced the world would be a better place for all earthlings if its citizens followed your example. You're not a grinch, you're a gift.
I like this idea of Fair Trade stamp on products, but who gets to decide what's fair? Unfortunately there will always be less-fortunate people around the world buying the lowest cost Everything; they represent the Demand we cannot budge. But, the Suppliers we can regulate, at least in our respective countries. For example, New York City used to have hundreds of sweatshops, but over time we regulated and enforced (out of business). I don't see much change until the responsible countries take similar action. Sure we can boycott entire corporate product lines and entire country's mfg.ed goods, but Demand remains. The lack of regulations/enforcement by the supplier's government is to blame. |
 | unfortunately thats the human way
all through history mankind has wipe it's feet
on the unfortunates of our species.and until we see past
our ( fill in the missing word ) i chose misgivings, we will carry on degrading
the existance of the human race |
 | Another fascinating and heartbreaking blog, Iri. And the comments were as interesting as the blog itself. I have to admit to having a bad case of tunnel vision and was quite unaware of the atrocities committed in the manufacturing of chocolate. I truly appreciate you bringing this injustice to my attention. Interesting to note that while these children are being forced into slave labor to produce these bits of chocolate, there are huge profits being made in the sale. I found one site that offered what is described as "gourmet chocolates" for as much as $2600 USD a pound. (1 pound = 0.453 592 37 kilogram...1 pound = 0.071 428 571 429 stone....1 pound = 0.907 184 74 arratel, artel [Arab]). This is beyond shameful. http://www.trifter.com/Practical-Travel/World-Cuisine/The-Five-Most-Expensive-Chocolates-in-the-World-.45474 |
 | Interesting link Mary, such incredibly expensive chocolate. And we can guarantee that none of all that money (what awkward phrasing I am writing this morning) anyway, very little of it went to the farmers and none to any slaves that were involved and harmed in the making. And slaves were harmed in the making, we can be very very sure of that.
Perhaps that is the label that Cadbury should put on their chocolate. No Slaves Were Used Or Harmed During the Making Of This Confectionery.
What a shame I didn't think about that when I was writing the original post, lol. Nestle and the other companies could be forced to label their products this way - One Hundred and Twelve Slaves Were Exploited For This Product But Only Five Died. I wonder how many of us would buy that box of choccies?
Today (as they often are) all your comments are indeed better than the original post. Inspiring even. |
| Iri, West Africa first sold slaves to the New World, and West Africa has been involved in human trafficking in one way or another for several hundred years. Solving the problem will be the province of leaders -- and West Africa is seemingly incapable of providing or 'growing' them.
The larger question isn't whether we should outlaw blood-diamonds, blood-coffee, or blood-cacao. The larger question is whether or not -- and/or to what degree -- we should be involved in solving those problems.
If it's not one crop, it'll be another. Let's hope oil isn't discovered there.
As in all capitalism no business will take place unless there are willing consumers. People cannot be bought and sold as commodities unless there are willing buyers and an economic system to support it. As consumers of products which are created through the exploitation of others, we make ourselves complicit in the abuse when we buy the products. Consumer power can force change - this will be the only reason that Cadbury is now making moves to use Fair Trade Chocolate. It will be only to increase their market share by making a strong point of difference between themselves and the other global chocolate conglomerates. In fact it is entirely possible (especially during this recession time) that they had already noticed decreased sales from consumers which may well mean that the consumers have already made their presence felt. We can force change with our wallets. Incidentally those people still boycotting companies which support the Zionist occupation of Israel and the slaughter of the Palestinians imprisoned in the Gaza Strip will already be boycotting Nestle (chocolate and coffee) http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-brands.html |
| Voluntary processes are bound to fail, profits almost always trump ethics; that's why government labor regulations in the USA and other developed nations were created (as well as food and drug oversight) decades ago. (But to no effect abroad in the Third World, where such children as you report suffer out of sight and out of mind.)
Governments are apparently not strong or fair enough in West Africa to help these kids. And, sadly, these issues are not raised enough in chocolate-importing countries. I've only heard about this problem on non-profit Public Radio and blogs like this one. Thanks ,Iri Ani, for reminding me of this brutality and I will try and spread the word. Thank you Doug, I appreciate your comments. Countries with unstable governments are unlikely to be protecting their own, they clearly lack the resources anyhow. Always there is the Holy Mantra from the IMF, that raising GDP's (Gross Domestic Product), anyway you can, will reduce poverty. This is complete BS. The GDP of any country is all about Money changing Hands, that is all that is counted and that is the only thing that has value in the economic world and It has Nothing to do with Poor People receiving Any of that money. Even bad loans might Increase GDP as long as Money has changed hands in a Measurable way. A subsistence farmer (who might be female, a mother with kids even) scratching out a life on a small farm does Not create Measurable Money Changing Hands but push those subsistence men/women/kids off their land and make great big plantations of rice/coffee/sugar/soya/etc for export to rich western countries using World Bank Loans and suddenly you have a Measurable Rising GDP but meantime the men/women/kids are now subsisting on the rubbish dumps of the world. Do you remember some years ago how some kiddies living on a large rubbish dump in the Philippines were crushed and killed under a heap of falling rubbish. Did you, like me, wonder why the heck they were living there in the first place. It was all about GDP's, and the IMF. |
| I am convinced the world would be a better place for all earthlings if its citizens followed your example. You're not a grinch, you're a gift.
I like this idea of Fair Trade stamp on products, but who gets to decide what's fair? Unfortunately there will always be less-fortunate people around the world buying the lowest cost Everything; they represent the Demand we cannot budge. But, the Suppliers we can regulate, at least in our respective countries. For example, New York City used to have hundreds of sweatshops, but over time we regulated and enforced (out of business). I don't see much change until the responsible countries take similar action. Sure we can boycott entire corporate product lines and entire country's mfg.ed goods, but Demand remains. The lack of regulations/enforcement by the supplier's government is to blame. Well thanks Ledge. As I was writing I was thinking about people chomping happily on choccy Easter eggs and thinking I was going to be like the Grinch that stole Christmas. lol But at the same time it seemed like a good moment to bring the topic up. There is a heap of info about Fair Trade and how it is supposed to be run on these links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade and http://www.fairtradefederation.org/We can use our consumer power to the suppliers, we can use our voting voices to tell our governments what we want them to do, and our governments can regulate the suppliers (although this is made much more difficult by the WTO). I agree that regulation is a major answer, but despite Demand consumer voices are slowly having an effect. Witness the moves towards Fair Trade by Cadbury. |
| dnoakes wrote on Apr 12, '09, edited on Apr 13, '09 Do you remember some years ago how some kiddies living on a large rubbish dump in the Philippines were crushed and killed under a heap of falling rubbish. Did you, like me, wonder why the heck they were living there in the first place. It was all about GDP's, and the IMF. Yes, Iri Ani, I think the IMF is about worthless where the truly poor are concerned. You certainly convinced me not to gain any positive vibes from GDP reports. Improving statistics are worthless if they don't count those living in a subsistence environment. This international group, Kiva, is one my wife and I have been involved with. I think is making a difference judging by what I've read. I'd be interested to know what you think of the group and/or what you've heard in the NZ media. http://www.kiva.org/ |
 | Awww, hell, we've got an awful long way to go. *sigh* |
| It is really interesting Doug. I have never heard about Kiva here; this is the first time I have heard about them at all. I don't think they have any exposure here. I like the idea that ordinary people can choose someone who is looking for a hand up and even small amounts of money can be deposited to be added to a loan. Kiva liken themselves to the Grameen bank which I have heard about before and overall that seemed to be a good scheme. http://www.grameen-info.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=5&Itemid=164I had a good look at the site and I have questions. How do the "team" http://www.kiva.org/about/people/ get paid, does this come from the money lent by people like you? Also I could not work out if the "entrepreneurs" were charged interest on their loans and if so, how much? Do you know? |
| Well, I'm okay because I don't eat chocolate. However, Morgan's six eggs are causing a ripple of guilt, I admit. If I could afford it, I'd buy Fair Trade wherever it was on offer - but really, there's no guarantee that Fair Trade stuff is as Fair Trade as its made out to be. I'm quite sure that in years to come, there'll come out all sorts of stories about the makeup of a Fair Trade commitment, too. I just despair at anything ever being "fair" at all. |
 | You are 100% right. I just totally forgot about the issue. I'll have to make a better effort.
Global Corporate greed is so pervasive, it's hard to keep a record of all the exploitative products to avoid, and almost as hard to find Fair Trade Sources. But, thanks for the reminder. I'll move Fair Trade back up to my top five list of priorities. |
| dnoakes wrote on Apr 13, '09, edited on Apr 13, '09 Also I could not work out if the "entrepreneurs" were charged interest on their loans and if so, how much? Do you know? No interest is charged to anyone as far as I know, Iri Ani. The progress in paying the micro-loan back is charted, and, once its paid back, the lender can "cash out" or, more helpfully, loan the money to another businessperson. The Grameen project looks like it probably inspired Kiva.
I'll have to research and find out if I can how the "Kiva Team" gets paid and funded. People can make a direct contribution via the Internet to the organization of course, but there must be more to it than that. I'll get back to you. |
 | A very timely blog Iri, Bravo. I learned about the dirty trade deals cocoa growers had going years ago. We were never chocolate eaters in my house anyway, so boycotting them was easy. We spent Eostre Sunday playing in the dirt instead of eating too much food. There's nothing quite as sensual as the feeling of cold moist fertile dirt in the hands :-) |
| Perhaps that is the label that Cadbury should put on their chocolate. No Slaves Were Used Or Harmed During the Making Of This Confectionery.
That would be a good label to have Iri, providing we don't include the wage slaves in Bournville, Birmingham where the slightly sinister Cadbury World is situated. http://www.cadbury.co.uk/home/Pages/home.aspx This chocolate covered tourist attraction is they claim 'Where Chocolate Comes Alive' even if the workers abroad frequently end up dead, this detail is not covered in any of the 14 amazing discovery zones that is the Cadbury Experience as they call it.. I think you are absolutely right though, the death toll per bar should be displayed clearly on the wrapper so the consumer can decide exactly what sort of experience it is they are having. Independent chocolate maker Green and Black was gobbled up in 2005 by Cadbury precisely because this organic, fair trade pioneer in the UK had created a market too big to ignore. Consumer power made it clear that we prefer 'clean' ethical products and do not want things made by enslaved children. Appropriate purchasing pressures changes the behaviour of giants and that is the secret weapon of the War on Shopping of course, a conflict in which you have scored a direct hit here I think Iri. Nicely done comrade. |
 | Horrible to think I might've been buying from companies who engaged in such underhanded business. I'll have to make a list so I won't purchase these brands again! |
| Going to post the link for this blog to help spread the info. |
 | iamawobbly wrote on Apr 14, '09, edited on Apr 14, '09 West Africa sold....wait. I think that's shorthand for a bunch of slave traders who made money from selling humans into a total bondage, no time limits. I agree with the assumption here: we aren't guilty of eating chocolate. What's happening is that the powers that be (ever those with the same motivations as the slave traders) want to make money and quite frankly, the rate of profit is much greater when wage-slaves are forced to be afraid, very afraid of organising. We...we've got our own system of wage-slavery to deal with. After all, workers of the world, wherever they are employed are being employed to produce capital. No one else is responsible for producing capital. But the employing class is responsible for telling the workers what it is that they must produce, be it chocolate or janitorial work at Lindt's or transporting the goods across the seas or serving them up in your local candy stores. We...we don't have to be as afraid of organising; but mostly we don't. Narrow individualism hurts us all. I just read a great interview on this very topic: http://aspen.conncoll.edu/politicsandculture/page.cfm?key=720 |
 | I just caught up with this blog... with your permission I am copying it and sending it to all my email list...and I shall boycott chocolate until this matter is cleared up ... ALLL chocolate should be boycotted to put pressure on the entire industry ... This is inexcusable... the WTO is flaky and mismanaged if this is the result of their so - called organization. |
| I was right. What Mike is reading and what I am reading is marching close together indeed. Below in a quote from Mike's link, Michael Perelman states" "I am reminded of a statement by Senator Hubert Humphrey (who later to become Vice-President of the United States) to the Senate in 1957: I have heard... that people may become dependent on us for food. I know this is not supposed to be good news. To me that was good news, because before people can do anything they have got to eat. And if you are looking for a way to get people to lean on you and to be dependent on you, in terms of their cooperation with you, it seems to me that food dependence would be terrific.[1]"
Kind of quote on quote on quote lol. Food dependence on huge global corporations is indeed terrific - for them - but very ominous for ourselves. I would argue that more and more dependence on the "cash economy" INCREASES our dependency on those who run the conglomerates, and INCREASES their power and domination over us. More and more we will see (have been seeing this for a long time anyway) that people do not/will not starve because of lack of food, rather they starve to death because the lack the money to pay for the food. |
| Isn't it interesting that all exploitive products are things we could well do without?... but there has been a false addiction created in our mentalities. and with all these addictions we pay three prices...human bondage, monetary bondage and health bondage... Very clever these capitalistic engineers of greed and power. |
| More and more we will see (have been seeing this for a long time anyway) that people do not/will not starve because of lack of food, rather they starve to death because the lack the money to pay for the food. It would be great if everyone had the ability to grow much of their own food. I had a garden for years and canned and froze my vegetables and fruits. But sadly, many don't have this option. TOO MANY. We live in apartments with no yards, no place for a garden, some live in areas that will not support much growth.
I chose to sell my home, along with the yard full of gardens and fruit trees. Its a decision I will soon regret. The price of everything has gone up tremendously. But others are born into situations where food is just not available to be grown or bought.
Humans have somehow managed to become the least adaptable creatures on the face of earth. Some of it by choice, we prefer to have things done for us, stores supply what we need, we have cafes, and frozen dinners. Some by government restrictions on what we can do with what little land we may have. Here, I am not allowed to keep a chicken or a cow. Even some crops, such as corn and beans are restricted by "land management" groups. We have done much of this to ourselves in the more "civilized" world. In other areas where drought and poverty are the norm, survival seems near impossible.
And we wonder why we have theft, piracy and crime.....its no surprise to me.
Sorry Iri, I needed to rant. |
| Some of it by choice, we prefer to have things done for us, stores supply what we need, we have cafes, and frozen dinners I am not convinced that we chose this - I believe we have responded to the marketing forces of the capitalist system. Its like this - if you and I grew our veges, perhaps from our own saved seed from our vege crop of the previous year then we spend no money, nothing is measured on the GDP and the capitalist system fails. But if a big farmer or corporation grows the veges (and the cows and the hens) it becomes a cash crop, (GDP measurable), it has to be transported (GDP measurable again), sold to the supermarkets (GDP measurable) which are employing Mike's wage slaves (GDP measurable), and sold to you and I and all the other bunnies -oops consumers, lol - (GDP measurable again anyhow) presuming we can pay. Thus the capitalist system succeeds.
We can rant together lol, never apologise for ranting on my page! |
| We can rant together lol, never apologise for ranting on my page! Well, ok then. Here we go..lol.
You said "I'm not convinced we choose this, and i would love to agree with you on this point. But I know too many very stupid people to be able to agree. Where you and I, and many on this page, have independent minds, and would likely (I hope) be able to adapt to a lifestyle that would be much more self reliant, many don't think this way.
I have only to think back as far as a few years, to a blizzard that hit my town. All public services were knocked out, stores and cafe's all closed. Many in the community rallied together to dig out the neighbors, make sure all had food and plenty of blankets and warm clothing, children were well looked after.
But there were those few (not few enough actually) who cried, searched desperately for a working phone so they could call and DEMAND a return of electric service. One woman came crying that she could not even eat, as her electric can opener would not function. Another complained that she could not survive without her microwave oven. These people were honestly quite helpless in the face of service shut downs.
Local stores, who had also lost service, were giving away meats and other perishables, as they would have been wasted anyway. We delivered as much as we could by sleds and snowmobiles. We fired up grills, fireplaces and small cooking fires in back yards. But we had many people turn down our offer of fresh meat and such because they said "What on earth can I do with this? I have no working stove." I was astounded.
So, yes, many of the problems faced by these children of slavery can be directly linked to the people who have allowed themselves to become totally dependent on big corporations, and the capitalist system. These kids suffer so others can blissfully munch away on things they don't even need, and who have no idea what survival means.
I am always reminded of our own celebrity, "Pam Anderson", who runs willy nilly around the country promoting animal rights at places like "Kentucky Fried Chicken". But before she leaves on her mission, she slathers herself down in tons of make-up and bleaches out her stringy hair, all with products that use animals as test subjects in labratories.
Humans can be so very stupid.
|
| I am not convinced that we chose this - I believe we have responded to the marketing forces of the capitalist system. Its like this - if you and I grew our veges, perhaps from our own saved seed from our vege crop of the previous year then we spend no money, nothing is measured on the GDP and the capitalist system fails. But if a big farmer or corporation grows the veges (and the cows and the hens) it becomes a cash crop, (GDP measurable), it has to be transported (GDP measurable again), sold to the supermarkets (GDP measurable) which are employing Mike's wage slaves (GDP measurable), and sold to you and I and all the other bunnies -oops consumers, lol - (GDP measurable again anyhow) presuming we can pay. Thus the capitalist system succeeds.
We can rant together lol, never apologise for ranting on my page! I thought I'd add this to the mix. Our masters who art in high places with sometimes not so invisible hands e.g. Monsanto, want us to believe that they are serving humanity (remember the old "Twilight Zone" episode 'To serve man') by taking away ordinary seeds and replacing them with GMO in order to save us from overpopulation and the attendant problems of food production. Well, check this out: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.htmlApril 14, 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists Failure to Yield Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops Download: Failure to Yield (2009) [failure-to-yeild-136px.gif] For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields. That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields. Failure to Yield is the first report to closely evaluate the overall effect genetic engineering has had on crop yields in relation to other agricultural technologies. It reviewed two dozen academic studies of corn and soybeans, the two primary genetically engineered food and feed crops grown in the United States. Based on those studies, the UCS report concluded that genetically engineering herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn has not increased yields. Insect-resistant corn, meanwhile, has improved yields only marginally. The increase in yields for both crops over the last 13 years, the report found, was largely due to traditional breeding or improvements in agricultural practices. The UCS report comes at a time when food price spikes and localized shortages worldwide have prompted calls to boost agricultural productivity, or yield -- the amount of a crop produced per unit of land over a specified amount of time. Biotechnology companies maintain that genetic engineering is essential to meeting this goal. Monsanto, for example, is currently running an advertising campaign warning of an exploding world population and claiming that its "advanced seeds... significantly increase crop yields..." The UCS report debunks that claim, concluding that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future. The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results. Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential--or intrinsic--yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop's ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors. The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects). Herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and Bt corn have failed to increase intrinsic yields, the report found. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans and herbicide-tolerant corn also have failed to increase operational yields, compared with conventional methods. Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided. In addition to evaluating genetic engineering's record, "Failure to Yield" considers the technology's potential role in increasing food production over the next few decades. The report does not discount the possibility of genetic engineering eventually contributing to increase crop yields. It does, however, suggest that it makes little sense to support genetic engineering at the expense of technologies that have proven to substantially increase yields, especially in many developing countries. In addition, recent studies have shown that organic and similar farming methods that minimize the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers can more than double crop yields at little cost to poor farmers in such developing regions as Sub-Saharan Africa. The report recommends that the U.S. Department of Agriculture, state agricultural agencies, and universities increase research and development for proven approaches to boost crop yields. Those approaches should include modern conventional plant breeding methods, sustainable and organic farming, and other sophisticated farming practices that do not require farmers to pay significant upfront costs. The report also recommends that U.S. food aid organizations make these more promising and affordable alternatives available to farmers in developing countries. "If we are going to make headway in combating hunger due to overpopulation and climate change, we will need to increase crop yields," said Gurian-Sherman. "Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down." Last Revised: 04/14/09 |
|
One the 'benefits' of ousting the Carpenter Labor government here in Western Australia is that the Liberals now have gotten the ability to introduce GM crops and legalise uranium mining.
It's all about THEM our lords and masters, the ruling capitalist and landlord classes.
|
| dnoakes wrote on Apr 15, '09, edited on Apr 15, '09 I seem to remember that I have some material on Grameen salted away somewhere, I shall check it out later when I have more time (which is rapidly slipping through my fingers right now). I found out some more information on Kiva--which was, as I thought, started in response to the "Banker to the Poor" movement started by Muhammad Yunnis, who earned a Nobel Prize for his efforts. Apparently a speech by Yunnis at California's Stanford Business School inspired the founders of Kiva, Matt and Jessica Flannery. From Wikipedia, below:
"The total costs of running Kiva in 2008 totaled $4.7M. During 2008, the user base released about $37M to low-income entrepreneurs listed on the Kiva website. So, for every dollar spent on operations, Kiva lenders sent about $8 for loans. Kiva have 35 staff members."
So Kiva does apparently charge some interest I gather to finance their staff--around 2.5 percent on average. It has "Field Partners" to facilitate the loans and the partners are apparently prohibited from charging high rates of interest. I'm not sure if the main officers of the charity are volunteers or not, but I think it sounds like a pretty lean organization, to say the least. |
| I found out some more information on Kiva--which was, as I thought, started in response to the "Banker to the Poor" movement started by Muhammad Yunnis, who earned a Nobel Prize for his efforts. Apparently a speech by Yunnis at California's Stanford Business School inspired the founders of Kiva, Matt and Jessica Flannery. From Wikipedia, below:
"The total costs of running Kiva in 2008 totaled $4.7M. During 2008, the user base released about $37M to low-income entrepreneurs listed on the Kiva website. So, for every dollar spent on operations, Kiva lenders sent about $8 for loans. Kiva have 35 staff members."
So Kiva does apparently charge some interest I gather to finance their staff--around 2.5 percent on average. It has "Field Partners" to facilitate the loans and the partners are apparently prohibited from charging high rates of interest. I'm not sure if the main officers of the charity are volunteers or not, but I think it sounds like a pretty lean organization, to say the least. Aah so that is how it started. Thank you for the extra information Doug, as I said before the idea is very compelling and I am seriously considering whether to get involved with it in a small way myself. I wish they were not charging the borrowers interest though.
But we still have to fight the system (looking fierce hehe) |
| It would be great if everyone had the ability to grow much of their own food. I had a garden for years and canned and froze my vegetables and fruits. But sadly, many don't have this option. TOO MANY. We live in apartments with no yards, no place for a garden, some live in areas that will not support much growth. It seems any enterprising gardener would be getting no support anyway. Apparently Monsanto are upset with Michelle Obama's organic vege garden at the White House. Americans especially, may want to check this link out http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2009/04/13.html#a2328It seems there is a bill afoot in the US - the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (bill HR 875). Under the provisions of this law you will not be allowed legally to: 1. Buy heirloom seed and then harvest and re-use your own seed. 2. You could ONLY legally purchase governmentally distributed seeds (aka Monsanto’s zombie seeds) 3. You could NOT raise your own seed and sell, or even GIVE them to a neighbor. 4. You would no longer be able to take your kids down to the local “pick-your-own” blueberry or strawberry farms, or buy from the roadside backyard grower of garden vegetables, or even grow your own vegetable plants, fruit trees, or nut trees, for your own consumption! US House and Senate are about (in a week and a half) to vote on bill that will OUTLAW ORGANIC FARMING (HR 875, and S 425). There is an enormous rush to get this into law within the next few weeks before people realize what is happening. Main backer and lobbyist is (guess who) Monsanto ~ chemical and genetic engineering giant corporation. This bill will require organic farms to use specific fertilizers and poisonous insect sprays dictated by the newly formed agency to "make sure there is no danger to the public food supply". This will include backyard gardens that grow food only for a family and not for sales ~ which would, of course, include Michelle Obama's White House garden. |
| iamawobbly wrote on Apr 16, '09, edited on Apr 16, '09 |
 | OMG!
I'm just now reading this and I'm obviously lkate to the party. I think its sad that this country has spent as much as they have in recent years in Africa but yet, this type of injustice still goes unheard of. |
|
truths...
...inside every woman is a scribe
wanting to/ set the record straight...
...in rooms and cells up and down the country
women/ whose throats are dry, who are unable
any longer/ to speak, pen notes to themselves
they tell tales./ and in the night, in the deep part
of the black/ night the women come and go,
doing a soft shoe/ shuffle, walking down valium alley
heads bent/ and penitent, keeping an eye out for angels
and/ the night nurse riding his charger, and in the/ night
when the corridors sting with silence they/ come and go
lulling each other, eyes zipped wide,/ they go in file down
librium mile and back...
...and in one-roomed flats and beazley homes they/
sit in locked lavatories scribbling fast in time/
to children, they write poems on tables littered/
with crumbs and jam to the beat of the AM band./
they record the songs of all the women in the/ world./
each one an image of her sister...
...this text is edited from a poem by
nz poet and broadcaster
mike minehan (1990)
of course, now we blog./ arohanui./
|
