|The Case Against Agricultural Biotechnology|
by Miguel A. Altieri, contained in a briefing packet that was sent to ministers of the Sacramento Ministerial
June 10th, 2003
The deployment of transgenic crops is occurring at a rapid pace, reaching about 44.5 million hectares in 2000. Although commercial cultivation is mostly confined to USA, Argentina, Canada, and China, biotechnology proponents argue that expansion of such crops to the Third World is essential to feed the poor in the Third World, reduce environmental degradation, and promote sustainable agriculture. Such promises do not match reality.
|Identity Protection = Corporate Protection|
by Carmelo Ruiz-Marrero, Special to CorpWatch
October 2nd, 2002
Identity protection is the name given to novel techniques to keep crops properly segregated, and to compile detailed information on them for the benefit of a variety of agribusiness corporations, grain traders, retailers and restaurants.
|Food Fight: Dueling Perspectives from Proponents and Critics of GMO's|
Compiled by CorpWatch
May 25th, 2000
The following quotes outline some of the basic differences between supporters and critics of genetically engineered food. We counter pose view points from industry and activists on environmental, health and political issues surrounding biotech agriculture. We'll let you decide who's right.
|Farmers' Declaration on Genetic Engineering in Agriculture|
National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC)
April 1st, 2000
Farmers, who have maintained the consumer's trust by producing safe, reasonably priced and nutritious food, now fear losing that trust as a result of consumer rejection of genetically engineered foods. Here is a statement from the National Family Farm Coalition on genetic engineering.
|Biosafety Protocol Watered Down by U.S. Interests?|
Down to Earth (Centre for Science and Environment)
February 29th, 2000
The Biosafety Protocol has finally been adopted in the hope that it will bring some transparency into the trade in genetically-modified products. But some say it is weak and watered down to suit US interests.
|Farmers Launch Anti-Trust Suit Against Monsanto|
by A.V. Krebs, Extracted from: The Agribusiness Examiner
January 4th, 2000
Six farmers -- from the U.S. and France -- named as representatives of farmers worldwide, under the aegis of the National Family Farm Coalition, in a suit formulated by Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll on behalf of a consortium of other firms, have launched a major anti-trust, price fixing law suit against the Monsanto Corporation.
|Great Lakes Chemical Corporation|
Political Ecology Group
March 31st, 1997
The Great Lakes Chemical Corporation, along with Albemarle (a spin-off from the Ethyl Corporation), and a Tel Aviv-based subsidiary of Israel Chemicals called the Dead Sea Bromine Group, account for roughly 75 percent of global production of methyl bromide.
|Methyl Bromide Alternatives|
March 31st, 1997
Methyl bromide is used principally as a fumigant to control a wide range of pests in soils, commodities and structures. Of the 1992 global sale of methyl bromide: 75 percent was used for soil treatment (nursery crops, vegetables, fruits, tobacco) and over 20 percent was used for the fumigation of durable commodities (cereal grains, dried fruits and nuts, timber), perishable commodities (fresh fruits, vegetables, cut flowers) and structures (food production and storage facilities).
|A First Class Poison|
Methyl Bromide Alternatives Network
January 1st, 1995
Methyl bromide affects human health both directly and indirectly. It is a complete biocide that kills most living organisms in soil, agricultural products and in buildings where it is applied. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies methyl bromide as a Category I acute toxin -- EPA's most deadly category of substances.