Past Issues :: 2007 February 1 :: News: Anuradha Mittal: Change Global Policy
Anuradha Mittal: Change global policy, not food technology
Food and trade expert denounces policies that conceal, rather than reveal, the causes of hunger and poverty
At a time when genetically engineered foods are being touted
as a way to address hunger, especially in Africa, Anuradha Mittal
is exploring the real causes of endemic hunger and what's needed
to addresses issues of poverty. Mittal is the executive director
of The Oakland Institute, and a world-renowned expert on agriculture,
development, trade and human rights issues. After working for
10 years as the policy director and then co-director at the Institute
for Food and Development Policy/Food First, Mittal established
The Oakland Institute in 2004.
She works nationally and internationally to forge a new environmental ethos around the genetic engineering debate that can command a wider international consensus and help bring it into the public realm. In addition to her speaking engagements and television and radio appearances, her writings and opinions have appeared in numerous newspapers, including The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune, among others.
Mittal is critical of programs such as the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, a $150 million endeavor recently announced by the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. She says efforts like these that promote genetic alterations to the food supply only mask the real causes of, and solutions to, entrenched poverty.
On Feb. 10, Mittal spoke on hunger and biotechnology at the First Unitarian Church. Her presentation, “The Myths of Genetic Engineering and the New Green Revolution for the World's Poor,” was hosted by Northwest Resistance Against Genetic Engineering, and sponsored by the Portland Alliance, NW VEG, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, City Repair, Slow Food Portland, Proper Eats Cafe & Market, and Oregon Sierra Club.
David Fortney: How has genetic engineering (GE) of food impacted the poor, developing nations of the world?
Anuradha Mittal: I think the worst thing is that GE has been promoted, and huge expenditures have been made from the corporate coffers to promote this technology, through “poor-washing.” They are saying that this technology will help the poor, the hungry.
We always see the latest Gates and Rockefeller proposals for a new green revolution for Africa, which will deal with hunger in Africa. What happens is that it takes away the focus from the true causes of hunger and pollution, and it takes away valuable resources by the government and philanthropy sectors.
They are promoting the technology, but we know that hunger does not need a technological fix. To deal with hunger we need a shift in governmental policies and the policies of the international financial institutions. The worst thing done to the poor developing countries is diverting attention from the true causes of hunger and pretending the solution is a mere technological fix.
D.F.: How has genetic engineering impacted the poor and working class in developed nations like the United States?
A.M.: I think the real issue, whether it is the poor in Third World countries or whether it is the poor in the United States, I mean they don’t talk about genetical engineering as causing the problem of hunger in the United States, because they would not even recognize that hunger is increasing in the United States. So I think it impacts people, whether in the Third World or developed nations, the same way. Genetic engineering takes away attention of the true causes of hunger. People do not earn a living wage, so they don’t have to make a choice between putting food on the table or a roof over their head or medical insurance.
Secondly, the issue is one of governance. This is about increasing control of a food system and corporate consolidation of a food system. Basically, the same model of agriculture which is detrimental for our environment and for our people is hurting the working poor around the world. Poor people are often more exposed to the possible health threats. Unlike the people who can afford to make a choice and buy a far more expensive product which might not contain genetically modified organisms, the poor are being exposed to it, they cannot make that choice. So it takes away our right to safe, nutritious, and healthy food.
D.F.: Can you talk a little bit about how current U.S. activities are stripping Iraqi people of their food sovereignty, specifically Order 81, a recently instated plant variety protection law which would affect saving plants and seeds in Iraq?"
A.M.: First of all, I would say that the immoral invasion of Iraq was about taking over the sovereignty of the Iraqi people in every way possible: politically, economically, culturally. Many people in this country are not familiar with the Program of Orders, like the one you mentioned — Order 81 — so a lot of people say, “Oh, you know, Iraq was not about oil, it’s too simple.” I agree with them; yes, it was not just about the oil, it was about the schools, the school curricula; it was about their poor; and it was about their seeds. And it is orders like 81 that make the intentions of the Bush administration very, very clear. This is about creating a “perfect” economy in Iraq that is completely privatized and United-States-owned — or owned by United States corporations, I should say.
This attack on the ability of Iraqis to feed themselves and to be able to grow food for themselves — in one of the places where civilization started from — is basically one of the worst examples that we can ever think of, of corporate domination of a food system and the kind of support it has from politicians. This is really an issue of governance and democracy.
D.F.: What does this mean specifically for Iraqi farmers?
A.M.: Basically, Iraq will be like many other places where corporations such as Monsanto are going to determine what seeds are planted, how they’re grown, what kind of chemical inputs are used. It takes away the ability of the Iraqi people to be able to save their own seed, essentially a tradition followed around the world. More than a billion farmers save their seeds to grow them the next year. This order will recreate the whole American way of agriculture where farmers have to go back to the corporations — and see, that it is Monsanto — to buy their products. And then buy their Round-up herbicides. So it is about creating this dependence on their products, it takes away the ability of the people to do what they have done forever, to save seeds for their next harvest. It is an attack on biodiversity because now Iraqi farmers will have to use Monsanto regulated seeds that will be planted with all their required chemical inputs.
D.F.: What is the biggest myth about genetic engineering in the public mind?
A.M.: I think the biggest myth is that this is promoted as a wonderful technology that will feed the world. The reality is that many of the biotech crops that are out there are basically herbicide-ready crops. I think the debate has to be, do we want herbicide-ready crops? These are crops that we can spray as much herbicide as we like upon them and they won’t die, even though the herbicide kills everything else. Do we want to consume a crop that is so heavily laden with herbicide?
Seventy-five percent of the crops that are genetically engineered and growing now are for herbicide resistance. There is no vitamin-fortified potato out there, there is no vitamin-fortified cassava out there, and there is no genetically altered, amazing vitamin A rice. That’s all hogwash, that’s all nonsense that has been said to the public. The biggest thing that people don’t realize is that this is not about feeding the world, this is not about protecting the environment, this is not about benefiting the farmer, this is about Monsanto producing seeds which can withstand the use of its main product, Round-up.
D.F.: What can people do here in Oregon to protect our agriculture and food supply?
A.M.: We are winning on the issues that we are dealing with, despite the corporate power we talk about. We’ve realized that these are man-made decisions and the real power lies in the people, as each one of us has a lot of power. We are calling and letting our Congressional Representatives, our Senators and all our elected officials know that we are demanding our right to safe, healthy, nutritious food. We do not want chemically or genetically altered substances in our food. So the first thing I suggest is using our power, our working power.
The second suggestion has to do with the fact that when you talk about food, it is very personal, and it is very political. It is very personal because it is something that goes inside of us and it is very political because every time we reach out and get something from the market shelf we are making a decision about what is grown, how it is grown and who gets to eat it. We have to take back the power.
Instead of Safeway and Albertsons and whatever grocery store we are shopping from dictating the quality of our food system, we need to let them know what kind of food products we want. It is time, given peak oil issues and everything else, to go local. We are all very blessed to have organic agriculture be the most booming industry in this country. We have farmers’ markets that are a wonderful way to connect with the community, and we have community supported agriculture programs. So by using our dollars in our own local community, we are ensuring that the money comes back into our economy, and, of course, you are directly connecting with the farmers. Then you know how the food was grown, what was put into the food supply.
So much food is coming from a far away place, using lots of food miles. We eat food that travels to us, but we don’t know how it was grown, we don’t know how safe it is. So this is really about taking back our power, and that’s how this food fight will be won, and that is what’s happening around the world. You look at the Andean region, which has declared itself to be free of genetically modified potatoes, or if you look at farmer struggles in India, or France.
So it is really up to us to start demanding that the right to food is a real human right.
