The transnational corporations and business organizations that benefit from GM corn and biocides such as glyphosate are strongly pressuring the Mexican government (with support from the U.S. government) to renounce its right to food sovereignty and walk away from the international commitments assumed by the three governments in the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,” which is the strategic plan for the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity in the period 2022-2030, intended to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. 

The demand by corporations and their lobbyists that Mexico reverse the legitimate and legal decisions made in compliance with the spirit of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), as well as international legal frameworks, to protect the world’s center of origin and diversification of maize from contamination by transgenic corn, as well as the gradual but effective elimination of highly hazardous pesticides such as the carcinogenic glyphosate (also known by its brand name RoundUp or Faena), is a true international legal absurdity and an anachronistic approach typical of the last century, contrary to the broad social demands and international commitments of the 21st century.

In December 2022, the governments of the United States, Canada and Mexico, as well as the majority of governments in the world, participated in the fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Montreal. They agreed on the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework“, which establishes four goals and 23 targets. Of those, we highlight only three, which contrast with the irrationality of the corporate demands towards Mexico:

TARGET 7
Reduce pollution risks and the negative impact of pollution from all sources by 2030, to levels that are not harmful to biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, considering cumulative effects, including: reducing excess nutrients lost to the environment by at least half, including through more efficient nutrient cycling and use; reducing the overall risk from pesticides and highly hazardous chemicals by at least half, including through integrated pest management, based on science, taking into account food security and livelihoods; and also preventing, reducing and working towards eliminating plastic pollution.

TARGET 9
Ensure that the management and use of wild species are sustainable, thereby providing social, economic, and environmental benefits for people, especially those in vulnerable situations and those most dependent on biodiversity, including through sustainable biodiversity-based activities, products and services that enhance biodiversity, and protecting and encouraging customary sustainable use by Indigenous peoples and local communities.

TARGET 10
Ensure that areas under agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries and forestry are managed sustainably, in particular through the sustainable use of biodiversity, including through a substantial increase of the application of biodiversity-friendly practices, such as sustainable intensification, agroecological and other innovative approaches contributing to the resilience and long-term efficiency and productivity of these production systems and to food security, conserving and restoring biodiversity and maintaining nature’s contributions to people, including ecosystem functions and services.

Our organizations, and an increasing number of members of our governments and legislative and judicial bodies, see the goal of trying to put corporate interests above the priorities of respect for Mother Nature, as well as public health, as clearly irrational. Such proposals go against the socioenvironmental needs of the region and the world. Instead, we must build alternative policies for balanced development that should be the priority, in harmony with international law.

WE REJECT PRESSURE BY TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND THEIR AGRIBUSINESS ALLIES THAT CONTROL SEEDS AND AGROCHEMICALS.

WE SUPPORT THE POLICY, IN EACH OF OUR COUNTRIES, OF ENCOURAGING THE PRODUCTION OF NON-GM MAIZE, WITHOUT GLYPHOSATE OR OTHER SIMILAR BIOCIDES, AS WELL AS THE POLICY OF FAIR AND SUSTAINABLE TRADE.

WE ENCOURAGE GOVERNMENTS TO RAISE THESE ISSUES, TO TAKE EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO COMPLY WITH THE COMMITMENTS ESTABLISHED TO PROTECT BIODIVERSITY AND TO RESPECT THE RIGHT OF PEOPLES TO STRENGTHEN THEIR SOVEREIGNTY AND FOOD SECURITY.

WE REITERATE OUR EXHORTATION TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MEXICO TO STAND FIRM IN THE FACE OF PRESSURE FROM THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND TRANSNATIONAL INTERESTS.

Ciudad de México

MEXICO
Red Mexicana de Acción frente al Libre Comercio (RMALC)
Campaña Nacional Sin Maíz No hay País
Asociación Nacional de Empresas Comercializadoras de Productores del Campo, A.C. (ANEC)
Red de Acción sobre Plaguicidas y Alternativas en México (RAPAM)
Movimiento Campesino, Indígena, Afromexicano, Plan de Ayala Siglo XXI. (MCIAPASXXI)
Agrónomos Democráticos.
Central de Organizaciones Campesinas y Populares (COCyP).
Unión Campesina Democrática (UCD).
Promotora de Gestión de Enlace para el Desarrollo Rural (PROGEDER).
Central Independiente de Obreros, Agrícolas y Campesinos (CIOAC-JDLD).
Sindicato de Trabajadores del INCA Rural (STINCA).
Asociación de Consumidores Orgánicos.
Fundación Semillas de Vida.
Guerreros Verdes, A.C.
FIAN México
Grupo de Estudios Ambientales (GEA)
Fundación Semillas de Vida.
Colectivo Zacahuitzco
Frente Autentico del Trabajo (FAT)
Tortillería Blanquita Mejía
Instituto de Estudios para el Desarrollo Rural Maya AC
Mercado de la Tierra Toluca
Moms Across America de EU
Grupo Moojk Kaaky, Tlahuiltotepec, Oaxaca.
Centro Agroecológico Mecayapan.
Sihuatayolme de Mecayapan.
Agroproductores de la Sierra de Santa Marta SPR de RL de CV.
Chiltik Tayol de Mecayapan.
Tianguis Agroecológico de Xalapa y red de agricultura urbana y Periurbana de Xalapa.
Colectivo Zacahuitzco
Fundación Tortilla
Organización Nacional de Licenciados en Desarrollo Sustentable, S. C.
Proyecto de Desarrollo Rural Integra V. Guerrero A.C. (Grupo V. Guerrero de Tlaxcala)
Alimento Sano Ciudad Guzmán, Jalisco.
Red de Coordinación en Biodiversidad, A. C, Costa Rica
Cooperativa Despensa Solidaria – Cdmx
Alimento Sano Ciudad Guzmán, Jalisco.
Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vicoria Q.P. A.C.
Observatorio del Derecho a la Salud
Centro de Capacitación en Ecología y Salud para Campesinos (CCESC)
Rebiosfera A.C.
Espacio de Encuentro de las Culturas, A.C.
Tlalpantur Coop.
Maak Raiz Artesanal S.C. de R.L. de CV
Cristianas Comprometidas-
Unión de Redes Solidarias Totoquihuatzin SC de RL de CV
Promotores de Nuestras Raíces
Agromas S.C.
Radio Huayacocotla la Voz Campesina
Comité de Derechos Humanos Sierra Norte de Veracruz
Carnaval del Maíz
Haciendo Milpa, A.C.
Centro Agroecológico Mecayapan.
Sihuatayolme de Mecayapan.
Agroproductores de la Sierra de Santa Marta SPR de RL de CV.
Chiltik Tayol de Mecayapan.
Honey Authenticity Network
Alianza Nacional Apícola
Biopakal S.A.P.I. de C.V.
Colectivo de comunidades mayas de los Chenes y
Alianza Maya por las abejas de la Península de Yucatán Kabnalo’on
Red Socio-Ambiental
Ts’atai, Mercadito y Cultura
Tianguis Alternativo de Puebla
Red Tsiri (Michoacan)
Red de Comunicadoras y Comunicadores Boca de Polen
Promotora de Gestión y Enlace para el Desarrollo Rural, A.C. (PROGEDER)
Frente en Defensa del Maíz, Colima
Mercado de productores capital verde.
Espacio de Encuentro de las Culturas Originarias, A.C.
Red de Maíz de la Ciudad de México.
Alianza por Nuestra Tortilla,
Consejo Rector de la tortilla tradicional,
Fundación tortilla.
Asociación Etnobiológica Mexicana
Sociedad Latinoamericana de Etnobiología
Sociedad Mexicana de Agroecología
Ecocomunidades, A.C.
Red Ecologista Autónoma de la Cuenca de México
Individual signers
Catherine Marielle
Alma Piñeyro Nelson
Ricardo Turrent Alonso
Tamara Circuit
Jesse Circuit
Linette Galeana
Marisa Gonzlez de la Vega
María Garate
Jimena Garate
Miguel Ángel Damián Huato
Ing. Francisco Leyva Gómez, investigador agrícola
Dr. Primo Sánchez Morales, Profesor Investigador T.C.
Dr Carlos Avila Bello
Dr. Ramón Mariaca
Agustín Bernal Inguanzo

CANADA
Canadian Biotechnology Action Network
Common Frontiers – Canada
Council of Canadians
GE Free Comox Valley
Hamilton Chapter of the Council of Canadians
Kawartha Highlands and Lakes Chapter of the Council of Canadians
National Farmers Union – Canada
Northumberland Coalition For Social Justice
Public Service Alliance of Canada
Trade Justice Group of the Northumberland Chapter of the Council of Canadians

UNITED STATES
ActionAid USA
Agricultural Justice Project
Agroecology Research Action Collective
Alianza Nacional de Campesinas, Inc.
Center for Food Safety
Community Alliance for Global Justice/AGRA Watch
Community to Community Development
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Institute for Policy Studies Global Economy Program
Family Farm Defenders
Farmworker Association of Florida
Food in Neighborhoods Community Coalition
Friends of the Earth USA
Global Justice Ecology Project
Grassroots International
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns
National Family Farm Coalition
Northeast Organic Farming Association-Interstate Council
Northeast Organic Farming Association-New Hampshire
Pesticide Action Network of North America
Public Citizen
Real Food Media
Rural Coalition
US Food Sovereignty Alliance

The post Trinational Communiqué on Mexico’s Right to Food Sovereignty appeared first on Real Food Media.

Concerned about what this transition means for the future of food, scientists, farmers, and eaters have sought to protect fruits, grains, and vegetables they consider endangered. They have organized high-tech genebanks and heritage seed swaps. They have combed fields for ancient landraces and sought farmers growing Indigenous varieties. Behind this widespread concern for the loss of plant diversity lies another extinction narrative that concerns the survival of farmers themselves, a story that is often obscured by urgent calls to collect and preserve. Endangered Maize draws on the rich history of corn in Mexico and the United States to uncover this hidden narrative and show how it shaped the conservation strategies adopted by scientists, states, and citizens.

In Endangered Maize, historian Helen Anne Curry investigates more than a hundred years of agriculture and conservation practices to understand the tasks that farmers and researchers have considered essential to maintaining crop diversity. Through the contours of efforts to preserve diversity in one of the world’s most important crops, Curry reveals how those who sought to protect native, traditional, and heritage crops forged their methods around the expectation that social, political, and economic transformations would eliminate diverse communities and cultures. In this fascinating study of how cultural narratives shape science, Curry argues for new understandings of endangerment and alternative strategies to protect and preserve crop diversity.

The post Endangered Maize: Industrial Agriculture and the Crisis of Extinction appeared first on Real Food Media.

The post What Carey Gillam Learned Through Years of Investigating Monsanto appeared first on Real Food Media.

A new study published in Science offers a stark warning about the climate crisis: Even if we completely halted fossil fuel use in the near term, we would still blow through the carbon budget needed to avoid catastrophic climate change unless we change the trajectory of emissions from the global food sector. Although many have warned about the climate impact of modern food production and land use, this new science is soberingly clear, and it has garnered attention around the world.

Without radically reducing emissions from agriculture, the research shows we won’t meet the Paris Agreement’s goal to limit average warming to 1.5°C – 2°C degrees. And yet, even those targets still position us to face some pretty extreme climate impacts.

Civil Eats talked with Michael Clark, a researcher at the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford and one of the lead authors on the study, about the findings, what they teach us about collective action to move the needle on climate, and how we might build the political will to do so.

Why does the food system have such a big climate toll?

One of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions from food systems is meat, and within that red meat from ruminants: beef, sheep, goats, and—to a lesser extent—other livestock like pork. The reason why ruminants have a relatively large impact is two-fold: They’re particularly inefficient at converting grass into things we can eat; or, if they’re not being fed grass, converting soy or other feed into food for humans. This matters because you have to include the climate impacts of producing the feed we then give to cows and other ruminants. Another reason why ruminants are particularly high emitters is because during their digestive process, they convert their food into methane, a potent greenhouse gas that they then burp.

The other large source of emissions within food systems is from fertilizer use—from how it is processed to emissions from application. Nitrogen naturally converts into nitrous oxide, which is one of the other very potent greenhouse gases.

This I think has been a blind spot. We’ve disrupted the carbon cycle, but we’ve disrupted the nitrogen cycle, too.

Exactly. Estimates are that humans have doubled the amount of reactive nitrogen in the world—that is human sources of reactive nitrogen are at least as large as the amount of reactive nitrogen that is naturally available. Not ideal.

Your findings paint a picture based on current trends. What trends did you track?

Very broadly speaking, emissions from the food system are a function of what we eat, how it’s produced, and the size of the population. We looked at these three factors and trends to date and projected out if these patterns continue over the next several decades.

What we found at a global scale is that the most important driver is changes in dietary habits; populations eating more food and eating a larger proportion of that food from animal sources, either meat, dairy, or eggs. Population growth is an important driver, but it’s not as important as dietary habit change. And while changes in food production—like having better management techniques and reducing emissions per unit of food—could counter those shifts, it would not be by a huge amount.

Now, all this is at a global scale; for any single country, that global pattern may not match up. Diets are changing, but not uniformly. For instance, diets are not changing by a huge amount in the United States, but if you go to a place like China or Brazil, countries experiencing large economic transitions, there are massive dietary shifts happening and with them those emissions are going to be driven up.

Do you feel the story of food systems emissions has been late to the game in climate change?

Rightfully, a lot of the effort, focus, and political will has targeted emissions abatement through fossil fuels. That makes a huge amount of sense. But we’re getting better knowledge about the impact food has had on the environment—and the trajectory of emissions—and starting to see, thankfully, food becoming a bigger part of the conversation.

Talk about some of the main levers for change. First, plant-rich diets: Let’s get into what you mean by that and why this diet shift makes a difference.

We mean a reduction in meat, dairy, and eggs and an increase in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, legumes, and so on. What’s critical here is that while the endpoint is similar for everyone in the world, the direction you might need to go to get there will be really different. In the United States, for instance, this shift in diets might mean a typical person eating much less meat and much more fruits and vegetables. The second thing I really want to stress is that these plant-rich diets are associated with pretty large increases in health outcomes. While for this paper we focused on climate, plant-rich diets have enormous co-benefits.

Let’s talk about another lever for reducing food system emissions; what you and your co-authors call “healthy calories.”

Approximately half the global adult population is eating too much or not enough. In certain countries the figures are even more extreme. For my co-authors and me, the healthy diet lever means—independent of a plant-rich diet—what proportion of calories are coming from fruit, vegetables, and other healthy sources of calories. We know that so many people are not getting the right amounts of food for a healthy diet. Similar to the plant-rich lever, this means in some places, eating a lot less, in other places, it will mean people eating more [healthy foods].

Food waste has gotten a lot more attention in the past few years—in part, I think, because the percent of food that is wasted is so high and because addressing food waste feels so doable.

Yes, it’s pretty shocking: About one-third of all food that is produced remains uneaten, ether because it’s thrown away, rots, or otherwise doesn’t get to the people who want to eat it. The sources differ widely by country, sometimes it’s a lack of refrigeration, lack of storage, grain silos, and so on. In the United States, a family of four wastes on average $1,600 worth of produce a year. That’s a pretty big incentive to act.

It always surprises people that if the emissions associated with food loss were a country, it would be the third largest emitter in the world.

Let’s talk about what you are seeing in terms of policy responses.

One of the joys and complications of working on a global study is that the policy responses are going to look very different wherever you are. We talked earlier about the climate impacts of nitrogen fertilizer use. One policy that has really been effective has been the 1991 European Union Nitrates Directive. Now, when it was passed, it was designed to reduce nitrogen runoff because agricultural sources of runoff were one of the main causes of water pollution in Europe. Since then, fertilizer applications per hectare have decreased by about half, yet crop yields have continued to increase as they were before. It’s just one example of a relatively large geographically scaled policy that is working. While it wasn’t specifically designed to address emissions, it most certainly has had emissions benefits.

We can look at farmers choosing different production pathways. Like in some cases adding more crop rotations into their planning or using agroecological approaches, such as planting hedgerows, agroforestry, and more. Honestly, there really is a huge amount that can be done. But it’s important to stress that no single action is going to solve the problem.

One of the big food-climate debates is about soil carbon sequestration and livestock. What do you think about those who argue for livestock’s ability to rehabilitate soils?

We know for sure we can be doing a lot better in terms of soil carbon storage. And we are seeing incredible results from a range of strategies, like some I mentioned: planting cover crops, intercropping, and silvopasture, planting hedges between fields that can prevent soil loss—and more. All of these can help sequester more carbon in the soil, but I think the key message should be: Soil carbon sequestration is part of the solution, but it isn’t the only solution.

Now, for the debate about cows! The instances where I’ve seen cows or other ruminants’ potential to be net negative in terms of greenhouse gas emissions—after accounting for methane emissions—is over short timescales, in certain conditions, on previously degraded land. So, yes, it may be possible for cows to play a helpful role, but in a limited way. How the cows are raised matters; but how many cows you’re raising matters more.

Do you feel like any parts of your paper have been misunderstood as this complex story gets translated for the general public?

I actually think the coverage has been good. There are basically three main points and I think the media has been capturing them well: One, food matters to climate and if we continue eating the way we are, it will result in catastrophic climate change; two, there is a lot we can do; third, everyone has a role to play—consumers, businesses, food processors, everyone.

I know one question those who work on climate often gets asked is, “Are you optimistic or pessimistic?”—but, I feel I should ask the same of you.

I’m laughing because it’s an uncomfortable question to answer. We are starting to move in the right direction, but honestly, we’re not moving anywhere close to as fast as we need to. We need to start acting now. It would have been great to have made these changes years ago, but we didn’t.

Right. As they say, the best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago. The second best time is today.

Exactly.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The post New Research Confirms What We Eat Is Central to the Climate Crisis appeared first on Real Food Media.

Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser spent decades maintaining and improving his canola crop as farmers have done for millennia — selecting the strongest plants, saving their seeds, and replanting them the following season. One August day in 1998, however, Schmeiser received a letter from Monsanto lawyers informing him he was being sued for patent violation: the company’s “Roundup Ready” canola, a genetically engineered canola that altered the plant’s genes to make it resistant to Roundup herbicide, had been found in Percy’s fields.

As the farm advocacy organization GRAIN explains, “Canadian farmers have a long and strong tradition of seed saving, especially in the western prairies where Schmeiser is from. Canola, the crop Schmeiser grew, is itself a product of farmer seed saving, farmer selection, and publicly funded research. It’s an example of what plant breeding can accomplish without patents. It’s also an example of why co-existence between GM (genetically modified) and non-GM crops is impossible. Today, all of the canola acreage in Western Canada is contaminated with Monsanto’s patented ‘Roundup-Ready’ gene.”

What ensued was an epic David vs. Goliath battle that pit the rights of farmers to save and replant seeds against agribusiness attempts to make it ever-more difficult for farmers to plant anything but their patented varieties. Percy did not set out to be an anti-biotech activist. But the pollen from genetically engineered crops blown onto his farm — and Monsanto’s legal intimidation — sealed his fate as a globally recognized seed and farm justice leader.

The stakes were, and still are, high. It’s a struggle to protect the world’s Native, farmer-bred, and publicly-funded plant varieties—the foundation of global food security and climate resilience—from obliteration by privately-controlled GE crops. It’s a struggle to hold those agribusiness corporations accountable for their technologies instead of criminalizing hapless farmers who, as Percy always maintained, never wanted or benefitted from GE seeds.

Percy ultimately lost that court battle — but he grew the movement. In 2018, looking back on his 20-year fight against Monsanto, he commented: “In the end it turned out good and we brought the world’s attention to what GMOs do and what it could do to farmers… We always felt if you grow a product or a seed on your land you should have the right to reseed it and that right should not be taken away.”

Percy Schmeiser passed away last week at 89 years old, just as a major motion picture about his life, starring Christopher Walken, is being released (view the “Percy” trailer on YouTube).

Meanwhile, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) and other agribusiness giants aggressively pursue the monopolization of seed markets, the rewriting of seed and patent laws in their favor, and the criminalization of farmers’ seed saving practices.

Around the world — and in the Global South especially, where most of the world’s seed diversity is managed for local food security — small farmers and their allies continue to fight for the right to save and share seeds. For the international peasant farmer confederation La Vía Campesina, “seed sovereignty” is a cornerstone of agroecology and food sovereignty. Now more than ever, Indigenous seed keeping knowledge and practices are recognized as critical to our collective response to the climate crisis. And of course, anyone can save seeds and be part of the global seed sovereignty movement.

Rest in Power, Percy Schmeiser. And long live the seed keepers.

The post In Memoriam: Farmer and Seed Saving Crusader Percy Schmeiser appeared first on Real Food Media.

Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser spent decades maintaining and improving his canola crop as farmers have done for millennia — selecting the strongest plants, saving their seeds, and replanting them the following season. One August day in 1998, however, Schmeiser received a letter from Monsanto lawyers informing him he was being sued for patent violation: the company’s “Roundup Ready” canola, a genetically engineered canola that altered the plant’s genes to make it resistant to Roundup herbicide, had been found in Percy’s fields.

As the farm advocacy organization GRAIN explains, “Canadian farmers have a long and strong tradition of seed saving, especially in the western prairies where Schmeiser is from. Canola, the crop Schmeiser grew, is itself a product of farmer seed saving, farmer selection, and publicly funded research. It’s an example of what plant breeding can accomplish without patents. It’s also an example of why co-existence between GM (genetically modified) and non-GM crops is impossible. Today, all of the canola acreage in Western Canada is contaminated with Monsanto’s patented ‘Roundup-Ready’ gene.”

What ensued was an epic David vs. Goliath battle that pit the rights of farmers to save and replant seeds against agribusiness attempts to make it ever-more difficult for farmers to plant anything but their patented varieties. Percy did not set out to be an anti-biotech activist. But the pollen from genetically engineered crops blown onto his farm — and Monsanto’s legal intimidation — sealed his fate as a globally recognized seed and farm justice leader.

The stakes were, and still are, high. It’s a struggle to protect the world’s Native, farmer-bred, and publicly-funded plant varieties—the foundation of global food security and climate resilience—from obliteration by privately-controlled GE crops. It’s a struggle to hold those agribusiness corporations accountable for their technologies instead of criminalizing hapless farmers who, as Percy always maintained, never wanted or benefitted from GE seeds.

Percy ultimately lost that court battle — but he grew the movement. In 2018, looking back on his 20-year fight against Monsanto, he commented: “In the end it turned out good and we brought the world’s attention to what GMOs do and what it could do to farmers… We always felt if you grow a product or a seed on your land you should have the right to reseed it and that right should not be taken away.”

Percy Schmeiser passed away last week at 89 years old, just as a major motion picture about his life, starring Christopher Walken, is being released (view the “Percy” trailer on YouTube).

Meanwhile, Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) and other agribusiness giants aggressively pursue the monopolization of seed markets, the rewriting of seed and patent laws in their favor, and the criminalization of farmers’ seed saving practices.

Around the world — and in the Global South especially, where most of the world’s seed diversity is managed for local food security — small farmers and their allies continue to fight for the right to save and share seeds. For the international peasant farmer confederation La Vía Campesina, “seed sovereignty” is a cornerstone of agroecology and food sovereignty. Now more than ever, Indigenous seed keeping knowledge and practices are recognized as critical to our collective response to the climate crisis. And of course, anyone can save seeds and be part of the global seed sovereignty movement.

Rest in Power, Percy Schmeiser. And long live the seed keepers.

The post In Memoriam: Farmer and Seed Saving Crusader Percy Schmeiser appeared first on Real Food Media.

Now, two decades later, with the rapid expansion of genetically engineered organisms throughout the food system and emergent in animal agriculture and beyond, the wisdom—and caution—of The Pacific Declaration is just as relevant; its words prescient.

To mark this anniversary milestone and reflect on the current context and what we can learn from this history,  Anna Lappé—the daughter of one of the Declaration’s founding signatories—author Claire Cummings, The Center for Food Safety’s Rebecca Spector, The Cultural Conservancy’s Melissa Nelson, and others at the forefront of the conversation about genetic engineering came together to talk about the future of food.

Watch the webinar below. 

The post The Future of Food: Exploring the Politics, Ethics, and Impacts of Genetic Engineering appeared first on Real Food Media.

Photo by Rucha Chitnis

The Pacific Declaration—shared with you below—was a statement drafted by two dozen scientists, ethicists, and experts in agriculture and environmental protection at the dawn of the age of genetic engineering. These forward-thinking leaders, including my own dad, were calling on regulators, policymakers—all of us—to embrace a precautionary approach to these new technologies. Now, as we celebrate the twentieth anniversary of this declaration, their words feel as relevant as ever. We share the complete statement and signatories below. You can read my Earth Island Journal column about it here.

THE PACIFIC DECLARATION

We the undersigned, in recognition of the fundamental importance of our planet’s natural genetic heritage and diversity, and in acknowledgment of the power of genetic engineering to transform this heritage, believe that the proponents and practitioners of genetic technologies must adhere to the principles of prudence, transparency and accountability.

We also aver that respect for life, ensuring a habitable planet, and protecting ecosystems are universally recognized and fundamental human values. For this reason, those altering the genetic integrity of natural species bear the burden of proving their interventions will not jeopardize these values.

We also believe in democracy. In democratic societies, any decision to deploy powerful new technologies must be made with full public participation and accountability. To date, our government, international agencies, public universities and biotechnology corporations have neglected these objectives. Therefore we declare:

1. 1. Environmental safety and public health require the systematic study of any transgenically modified living organism over multiple generations before allowing its environmental release or marketing;
   2. All proposed products derived from genetic engineering must be shown to contribute to the general welfare of consumers, farmers and society without compromising the viability of traditional agricultural practices, including organic farming;
   3. Farmers and agrarian peoples generally who have cultivated, nurtured and developed crops have the right to control their crop materials;
   4. Such control includes the right to cultivate indigenous or conventional species using traditional methods, and freely to use or re-use any genetic seed stock;
   5. People should have access to all relevant data concerning the potential effect of genetically modified organisms on the health of present or future generations;
   6. People have the right to accept or decline any food product for personal, religious or philosophical reasons;
   7. In the absence of compelling evidence showing the equivalence and safety of genetically engineered compared to conventional foods, all food products derived from genetic technologies must be accurately labeled;
   8. The medical injunction to “do no harm” requires adequate and sufficient pre- and post-market testing and surveillance of genetically engineered products;
   9. The present lack of such testing contravenes this injunction and thereby jeopardizes universal access to safe food, potentially putting at risk present and future vulnerable populations including pregnant women and young children; and
   10. Because the fundamental discoveries of genetic engineering were developed through public funding, justice requires that any and all risks, costs and benefits of the products of genetic engineering be equitably distributed in society.

Until we have guarantees and assurances that the above-stated requirements and objectives are no longer compromised by government and industry practices; and

Until our government has created a comprehensive and effective regulatory system for all products of genetic engineering; and

Until such fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed protections of life and liberty, as well as protection of the health of the environment, food security and consumer right to know are vouchsafed;

We call upon our governmental representatives to suspend any further introduction of genetically engineered organisms and to hold the practitioners of genetic engineering, whether they be corporations, universities or governmental agencies fully liable for any adverse consequences of their work.

Signatories

CONFEREES

Alliance for Bio-Integrity
Steven M. Druker, President
Fairfield, Iowa

Campaign for Food Safety
Ronnie Cummins, National Director
Little Marais, Minnesota

Center for Environmental Health
Michael Green
Oakland, CA

Center for Ethics and Toxics
Marc Lappé, Director
Britt Bailey, Senior Associate
Gualala, CA

Center for Food Safety
Joseph Mendelson, Legal Director
Washington, D.C.

Commonweal
Michael Lerner, President
Davis Baltz
Bolinas, CA

The Constellation Fund
Christina L. Desser
San Francisco, CA

Consumer’s Choice Council
Chad Dobson, Director
Washington, DC

Corporate Agribusiness Research Project
A.V. Krebs, Director
Everett, WA

Council for Responsible Genetics
Martin Teitel, Executive Director
Ruth Hubbard
Doreen Stabinsky
Paul R. Billings
Cambridge, MA

The Edmonds Institute
Beth Burrows, President/Director
Edmonds, WA

Environmental Health Fund
Gary Cohen, Executive Director
Lowell, MA

Food and Farming Forum
Claire Cummings, Director
Berkeley, CA

Food First/The Institute for Food and Development Policy
Peter M. Rosset, Executive Director
Oakland, CA

Foundation on Economic Trends
Jeremy Rifkin, President
Jon Akland, Research Director
Burlington, VT

Friends of the Earth
Larry Bohlen, Director, Health and Environment Programs
Washington, DC

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
Mark Ritchie, President
Renske van Staveren
Minneapolis, MN

The Natural Law Party of the USA
Kingsley Brooks, Chairman
Laura Ticciati, Executive Director
Mothers for Natural Law
Fairfield, Iowa

Occidental Arts and Ecology Center
Dave Henson, Executive Director
Occidental, CA

Pesticide Action Network of North America
Ellen Hickey, Director of Research and Communications
San Francisco, CA

Pesticide Watch
Gregg Small, Executive Director
San Francisco, CA

Rural Advancement Foundation International, USA
Michael Sligh, Director of Sustainable Agriculture
Chapel Hill, NC

Rural Vermont
Ellen H. Taggart, Executive Director
Montpelier, VT

Washington Biotechnology Action Council
Philip Bereano
Seattle, WA

Western Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
John Fawcett-Long, Coordinator
William Aal
Seattle, WA

American Corn Growers Association
Dan McGuire, Policy Chairman
Lincoln, NE

ADDITIONAL SIGNERS

Abiquiu Organics
Scott Markman
Abiquia, NM

Alliance for Democracy of Indiana
Stefanie Miller, Secretary
Indianapolis, IN

Association of State Green Parties, U.S.A.
Anna Goeke, Tom Sevigny, Betty Zisk, Co-Chairs
[Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming]

Breast Cancer Fund
Andrea Martin, Founder and Executive Director
San Francisco, CA

Calvary Church
Douglass M. Bailey, Rector
William Shephard, Calvary Green Committee Chairman
Memphis, TN

Center for Environmental Health
Ann Melamed, Health Care
Without Harm Project Manager
Oakland, CA

Community Health Advocates
Michael Freund
San Francisco, CA

Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund
Tom Turner*
San Francisco, CA

Environmental Health Coalition
Joy Williams
San Diego, CA

FarmFolk/CityFolk
Herb Barbolet, Executive Director
Vancouver, BC

Catholic Healthcare West
Susan Vickers
San Francisco, CA

Collective Heritage Institute
Nina Simons, Public Policy and Legal Services Coordinator
Santa Fe, NM

Earth Justice Ministries
Reverend Sharon Delgado
Santa Cruz, CA

Episcopal Diocese of California, Commission for the Environment
The Reverend Sally Bingham, Chair
San Francisco, CA

Green Party of St. Louis/Gateway Green Alliance
Barbara Chicherio, Co-coordinator,
St. Louis, MO

The Humane Society of the United States
Dr. Michael W. Fox, Senior Scholar, Bioethics
Washington, DC

Indicators Program, Redefining Progress
Mathis Wackernagel, Director
San Francisco, CA

Institute for World Religions
Ron Epstein, Research Professor
Berkeley, CA

Mendocino Environmental Center
Linda McClure, Coordinator
Ukiah, CA

Mothers & Others for a Livable Planet
Betsy Lydon, Program Director
New York, New York

Natural Resources Defense Council
Gina M. Solomon, Senior Scientist
San Francisco, CA

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, Sustainable Agriculture
Program Association
Jeff Rast
Fairfield, ID

Organic Consumers Association
Ben Lilliston, Director,
Little Marais, Minnesota

Our Lady of Victory Missionary Sisters
Sr. Lucy Regalado, President
Leadership Team Council Member
Huntington, Indiana

Physicians for Social Responsibility
Robert M. Gould, President
SF-Bay Area Chapter
San Francisco, CA

Shalom Center
Rabbi Arthur Waskow, Director
Philadelphia, PA

Sierra Club
Laurel Hopwood, Biotechnology Task Force Chair
San Francisco, CA

Sisters, Adrian Dominican
Margaret Weber
Adrian, MI

Soul of Agriculture
Stanislaus J. Dundon*
Coordinator
Davis California

Sussex County Mission of the Episcopal Church &
Delmarva Poultry Justice Alliance
Reverend Jim Lewis
Bethany Beach, Delaware

Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
Stacie Clary, Director
Santa Cruz, CA

Univ. of Wisconsin – Madison Greens
John E. Peck
Madison, WI

Women’s Cancer Resource Center
Diane Estrin, Executive Director
Catherine Porter, Public Policy and Legal Services Coordinator
Berkeley, CA

*organizational affiliation listed for the purpose of identification only

The post The Pacific Declaration and the Future of Food appeared first on Real Food Media.

When my father, Marc Lappé, died in 2005 at the age of 62 from glioblastoma, he left behind a wife, five children, two stepchildren, and an unfinished manuscript. In the wake of his death, while struggling to make sense of a world without him, I holed up in a writers’ retreat on the rocky coastline of Provincetown, Massachusetts to see if I could transform his rough ideas into something presentable — and publish what would have been his 15th book.

The Pacific Declaration was fundamentally a call to apply the precautionary principle to genetic engineering. (Pictured: CRISPR gene-edited mushrooms). Photo by Penn State / Flickr.

I never succeeded. But the central idea of his book has stayed with me all these years. Drafted at the dawn of the age of genetic engineering — long before the development of CRISPR technologies and new ways to alter life as we know it — the book’s message was simple: We’ve developed frameworks within and across nation states for protecting environmental integrity for future generations (think the US Endangered Species Act). Now, as we attempt to alter the genetic makeup of living beings, we need new strategies and frameworks for protecting the planet’s genetic integrity for future generations. He was writing as a scientist, an ethicist — and a parent.

I have been reflecting on his insight from so many years ago on the 20th anniversary of “The Pacific Declaration,” a statement of the ethical principles for this era of genetic engineering that my father and two dozen scientists, ethicists, and authors crafted on another rocky coastline in Bolinas, California and published in October 1999.

The Declaration states: “In recognition of the fundamental importance of our planet’s natural genetic heritage and diversity, and in acknowledgment of the power of genetic engineering to transform this heritage, [we] believe that the proponents and practitioners of genetic technologies must adhere to the principles of prudence, transparency, and accountability.”

The document was fundamentally a call to apply the precautionary principle to our collective approach to genetic engineering. The authors noted that the burden of proof must be on those promoting genetic engineering to show that these technologies “contribute to the general welfare of consumers, farmers, and society.” And that they do so, importantly, “without compromising the viability of traditional agricultural practices, including organic farming.”

The Declaration was also a call to bring democratic deliberation to decisions about regulation and research priorities: “In democratic societies, any decision to deploy powerful new technologies must be made with full public participation and accountability,” the Declaration states. And it was a demand for “food sovereignty,” the concept developed in the 1990s by the global peasant movement, La Via Campesina, that calls for farmer and community power over what food is grown, where, and how.

The month after my father and others gathered to write this Declaration, I found myself getting tear gassed in the streets of Seattle. At the time, I was a graduate student at Columbia University, studying trade policy and globalization. Participating in the global action against the World Trade Organization — the so-called “Battle of Seattle” — felt like an appropriate extracurricular activity.

The Seattle action was also intimately tied to the work of my father and his colleagues. For the massive demonstrations in November 1999 against the new global trade regime were also about the future of food and how genetic engineering would affect farmers and eaters all around the world. In the streets, I heard as much from the Teamsters and environmentalists as I heard from Mexican farmers calling for protections of their corn markets in the face of American genetically engineered corn imports.

Since the Pacific Declaration was penned in 1999, commodity agriculture in the US has been remade by genetic engineering. The majority of US corn and soy grown today has been genetically engineered — most of it to be resistant to the toxic herbicide Roundup. And the impacts of genetic engineering can now be felt in communities around the world burdened with exposure to toxic pesticides used in concert with these crops, including the tens of thousands suffering from cancers thought to be linked to the weedkiller Roundup — with lawsuits pending against its producer, Bayer (which bought Monsanto in 2018). Today, despite the urging of scientists like those who penned the Pacific Declaration, there are no precautionary principles in the US regulatory system for these technologies.

When my dad and his colleagues wrote the Pacific Declaration, it was a call for all of us to ask big questions of this new genetic age: Who benefits? Who is harmed? How do these decisions affect future generations? Twenty years later, these questions are just as pressing.

The post The Pacific Declaration: Twenty Years Later appeared first on Real Food Media.

The post Why I’m Not a Fan of the Impossible Burger  appeared first on Real Food Media.