Global food security conference in Sacto and protest

[Guest guest]

A major event is taking place in Sacramento, California that begins

June 21st and continues for several days.

 

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman is holding a conference that

will promote genetically engineered foods and food irradiation to trade,

agriculture and health ministers from more than 100 countries.

 

Secretary Veneman, who used to work in the biotech industry, has stated

the event will "focus on the needs of developing countries in adopting

new food and agricultural technologies."

 

To counter the propaganda being promoted at the conference, activist

groups from around the country are converging on Sacramento to protest

and hold educational events.

 

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods will be present at

this event. We have shipped in 2,000 of our Take Action Packets and I

will be attending and speaking on several occasions.

 

Posted below is a lengthy cover article from current issue of the

Sacramento News & Review that looks at the event from many different

perspectives.

 

If you would like to learn more about the activist events taking place in

Sacramento, visit the web site at:

http://www.sacmobilization.org

 

Craig Winters

Executive Director

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods

 

The Campaign

PO Box 55699

Seattle, WA 98155

Tel: 425-771-4049

Fax: 603-825-5841

E-mail: label

Web Site: http://www.thecampaign.org

 

Mission Statement: "To create a national grassroots consumer campaign

for the purpose of lobbying Congress and the President to pass

legislation that will require the labeling of genetically engineered

foods in the United States."

 

***************************************************************

 

Inside the global dome

As Sacramento rolls out the red carpet for a 'global food security'

summit, protesters from around the country are laying plans of their own

 

Sacramento News & Review

Thursday, June 12, 2003 - Cover Story

By Ron Curran

 

On June 23, ministers of trade, agriculture and health from more than

100 countries will descend on the Sacramento Convention Center for the

first-ever international Ministerial Conference and Expo on Agricultural

Science and Technology.

 

Much will be at stake, both for the assembled policymakers--whose

decisions could affect the health of generations and the expenditure of

trillions of dollars--and for the many protesters who are expected to

converge on the city for the first World Trade Organization-related

meeting in North America since 1999's confrontational Seattle

Ministerial Conference. (That event resulted in hundreds of protester

arrests, clashes in which police used tear gas and rubber bullets, and

ultimately a curfew that shut down the city.)

 

The stated purpose of this three-day event is "to support the United

States' commitment to global food security" or, as U.S. Secretary of

Agriculture (and former secretary of the California Department of Food

and Agriculture) Ann Veneman said when announcing the event last June,

"to focus on the needs of developing countries in adopting new food and

agricultural technologies."

 

Sounds noble. But it's complicated, and some of its potential

ramifications are downright scary, from approving the widespread use of

irradiated foods to promoting Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).

 

Outside the Sacramento Convention Center, protesters from Sacramento and

all around the country who answer calls to action e-mailed by leading

activist groups will converge to oppose ministerial recommendations the

activists believe will be approved on behalf of corporations seeking

support for irradiation and GMO programs during the invitation-only,

high-security meetings.

 

Protesters' primary concern: Leaders at the event will rubber-stamp

flawed and expensive U.S.-boosted biotech and agribusiness policies--and

trillions in annual subsidies that support them--while ignoring proven

alternatives that support small farmers and sustainable agriculture.

 

The only thing the two sides agree on is that the meeting is of pivotal

importance.

 

"This is historic, something we've never done," said Christian Foster,

conference coordinator for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),

which is sponsoring the event with the U.S. Agency for International

Development (USAID) and the Department of State at a cost of $3 million.

 

"Ministers will be able to meet others here and go home and prioritize

their own policies--set up public-private partnerships. The dialogue

that will occur here, the information that can be gleaned, will allow

countries to learn from the experiences of others--maybe leapfrog some

tech evolution thanks to gains made by others. The key point is that

we're committed to eliminating famine and helping everyone lead

healthier lives thanks to these new technologies."

 

But Raj Patel, policy director for the nonprofit group Food First,

insists the conference's potential benefits are undermined by a

predetermined outcome.

 

"The sponsors' motives are transparent," said Patel, noting that the

conference coincides with a Bush-administration lawsuit against the city

of Brussels and the European Union for refusing to import American-grown

biotech crops because of what the administration calls "unfounded,

unscientific fears." The president also used the lawsuit announcement to

accuse European leaders of perpetrating world hunger.

 

Patel pointed out that the ministerial conference's featured speakers

include invited reps from BASF, Cargill Dow, Coca-Cola, Dow

AgroSciences, Kraft, Monsanto (for whom Veneman previously worked as an

attorney), SureBeam Corp. and the World Bank.

 

"This meeting is corporation-driven," he said. "There's no democracy

allowed, no one can present alternative views. Only agribusiness

interests are acceptable; only the people who support GMOs are allowed

to decide what we should eat. Meanwhile, people outside on the streets

of Sacramento are hungry. That's both the irony of and the evidence

against this ministerial. The U.S. is pushing a model on the world that

doesn't even work here at home. We pay $1.3 trillion a year in

agribusiness subsidies, but 35 million households are still

food-insecure. That's what this conference should address, but it's

designed to support policies that doom its stated goals."

 

Heidi McLean of the Sacramento Coalition for Sustainable Agriculture

agrees.

 

"This will be a nonviolent, educational three days," she said, "but

we'll get the message out that this is a U.S.-sponsored summit, that the

subsidies the government promises don't reach the farmer and that the

rest of the world's skepticism about American policy says a lot. It's a

conscious choice by the USDA that any scientists who are worried about

the consequences of GMOs and are supportive of sustainable ag are

excluded from the process."

 

Upping the ante is the fact that ministers from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe

will discuss the future of international food, health, environment and

technology in anticipation of the World Trade Organization's September

globalization summit in Cancun, Mexico. Decisions made during the series

of behind-closed-doors plenary sessions, technical "breakout sessions"

and targeted field tours will be the basis for decisions approved by

World Trade Organization (WTO) members on several pivotal and

far-reaching issues.

 

The WTO specter hangs heavy over the ministerial conference. Although

protest organizers stress that the conference is not directly a

WTO-sponsored event and that their goals are education and nonviolence,

the conference is the biggest WTO-related meeting on the continent since

the Seattle Ministerial Conference.

 

"The WTO is not coming to town, but we're seeing WTO-style politics,"

said Doyle Canning of the Institute for Social Ecology's Biotechnology

Project. "There's been a response among West Coat activists unlike

anything since Seattle. They're very excited about being able to speak

out against the U.S. taking such a negative lead role on food, health

and safety."

 

But groups such as the Oakland-based Ruckus Society are planning acts of

civil disobedience. In anticipation of any possible Seattle-like

uprisings--and to protect against any terror attacks, with so many

dignitaries being in one location--Sacramento police have worked for a

year with more than a dozen law-enforcement agencies, from the FBI and

Department of Justice to the California National Guard and state Office

of Emergency Services.

 

"We've been preparing for a long time, and, as the state capital, our

officers were already familiar with the procedure," said Sacramento

Police Sgt. Justin Risley. "I can't go into too many details because of

the security factor, but we'll have a one-block safety zone surrounding

the convention center, with streets blocked off and identification

required to enter that zone. We always plan for a worst-case scenario,

and we have seen some new faces in town already. But we hope that if

people choose to protest, they do so responsibly and within the law. If

not, they will face severe consequences."

 

Potential WTO-inspired clashes aside, this is an important event for

organizers working in the American protest movement; it's the first big

test of their mobilization strategies following the huge anti-Iraq-war

demonstrations.

 

Can organizers overcome "protest fatigue" and get people out this time?

Can they convey their message on an issue that's much more complicated

than "No Blood for Oil"?

 

McLean, of the Sacramento Coalition for Sustainable Agriculture, said

response thus far has been more than reassuring: "I've been working on

trade issues since [the North American Free Trade Agreement], and what's

interesting about the people who've joined this coalition is that, when

I get there, I don't know maybe 80 percent of them. We've seen church

groups for the first time, suburban moms, students. This issue seems to

resonate in different ways than others, and I think a lot has to do with

it being so fundamental. We're talking about what you eat and what your

kids eat."

 

So, the stage is set for a Sacramento showdown over what some see as

opportunity and what others see as opportunity corrupted.

 

In June 2002 at the World Food Summit in Rome, Secretary of Agriculture

Veneman announced that the United States would host a ministerial event

focusing on an agenda that, in partnership with corporate sponsors and

developing countries, would reduce hunger by increasing agricultural

productivity, ending famine and improving global nutrition. She invited

representatives from all 180 WTO countries, with the conference designed

to "broaden participants' knowledge and understanding of relevant

science and technology, including biotechnology, and enhance access to

new technologies through public-private partnerships."

 

Next week, Veneman will open the conference with an address on the theme

"How science and technology, in a supportive policy environment, can

drive agricultural productivity increases and economic growth to

alleviate world hunger and poverty."

 

Proponents see promise; opponents see peril.

 

The menu of sessions ministers may attend includes:

 

.. Public-Private Partnerships to Improve Market Infrastructure and

Agribusiness Linkages

 

.. Science-Based Solutions for Increasing Agricultural Productivity

 

.. Fighting Hunger and Increasing Incomes with Biotechnology

 

.. Technologies to Improve Food Safety and Nutrition

 

.. Enhancing the Competitiveness of Horticultural Crops and Products

 

.. Technologies to Advance Animal Health and Livestock Product Safety

 

Those sound pretty tech-ominous, and critics contend that conference

organizers have been deceptive and have downplayed threats posed by

controversial processes, such as using GMOs and irradiating food, that

are being pushed on foreign ministers.

 

The controversy over food irradiation has been the most publicized,

since the first "X-ray irradiator" in Hilo, Hawaii, was used to "ensure

microbiological safety" of fruit. Since then, more than 70 irradiation

facilities nationwide have placed products on the shelves of 3,000

supermarkets in the United States (including chains such as Safeway and

Albertsons), and more than 20 countries currently allow the sale of

irradiated meats and produce. On May 30, the USDA lifted its prohibition

against schools serving irradiated hamburgers.

 

"Protecting the public from food-borne illness is a priority," said Elsa

Murano, the USDA's undersecretary for food safety, who confirmed that

the federal government has contracted to buy 132 million pounds of

ground beef for school lunch programs this year, making it the largest

potential distributor of irradiated food in the world. "Irradiation

technology is another tool to enhance food safety."

 

But critics worry about the health ramifications for the 27 million

students enrolled in the national school lunch program whose schools

will have the option of ordering meat decontaminated with gamma rays,

X-rays or electrons as early as next January. The USDA is leaving it up

to schools to determine whether and how to inform parents and students

of the type of meat served in school lunches.

 

"There has been no group of people who has consumed irradiated food over

a long period of time," said Arthur Jaeger, associate director of the

Consumer Federation of America. "We have said all along that we don't

think school kids are the place to start serving irradiated ground

beef."

 

The conference nonetheless supports food irradiation and the sale of

food enhanced with GMOs, which are the result of moving genes within or

between species. Critics contend that manipulated animals, vegetables

and grains pose long-term health and environmental threats that greatly

outweigh any productivity advantages or the increased profits that

genetic shortcuts provide corporate farmers.

 

GMO proponents charge that environmental groups such as Greenpeace and

Friends of the Earth are standing in the way of scientific advances that

could help meet the food needs of 1.3 billion people who live on less

than a dollar a day.

 

"It's what's putting the brakes on further development of the technology

in developing countries," said C.S. Prakash, director of the Center for

Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University in Alabama. "This is

a protest industry whose main product is fear."

 

But critics of GMOs point to a lack of long-term research and testing

and say GMO-developed food was rushed to shelves with the support of a

USDA that favors agribusiness over consumer health.

 

Such critics note that countries such as the world's No. 1

rice-exporting nation, Thailand, have banned GMOs because of safety

concerns and that a Royal Society of Canada report found that current

global governmental-approval procedures for GMOs are "totally inadequate

to guarantee health and environmental safety."

 

Critics say the USDA's pro-GMO priorities are reflected in the

conference's agenda, which they claim is stacked to support corporate

bottom lines. They point to the fact that conference organizers have

largely excluded esteemed institutions such as the University of

California, Davis, a cutting-edge world leader in agricultural research

and technology. Organizers originally invoked the university's

reputation to justify bringing the conference to Sacramento, but they've

largely snubbed the university since. Only one professor, Davis-based

director of the University of California's system-wide Biotechnology

Research and Education Program, Martina Newell-McGloughlin, was invited

to be a panel moderator.

 

Since then, most UC Davis professors have worked hard to conceal

disappointment about not being more prominently utilized.

 

Judith Kjelstrom is acting director of UC Davis' biotechnology program.

When asked what her thoughts about the conference's agenda were, she

initially said, "I can't tell you a lot because there's not a lot of

open discussion about it." She later said, "to be able to share exciting

research, to build lasting partnerships, to realize it's not best to

say, 'We have all the answers; take them'--that's what I'm looking

forward to." Kjelstrom added that her department has bought space in the

expo in order to be part of the event.

 

Dan Sumner, a UC Davis faculty member and former USDA assistant

secretary who's now director of the University of California

Agricultural Issues Center, chose his words carefully in praising the

ministerial conference's agenda. "Nothing is more important than

battling hunger, and there are so many poor people relying on farming as

their livelihood," he said. "This conference gives us a chance to see

what these politicians--and these ministers are politicians, that's what

they are--can do. But I'm very optimistic. If we can get a commitment

from governments throughout the world out of this to help rural people,

for governments to honestly re-appreciate that importance, it would be

great."

 

Other UC Davis faculty members have been less guarded in their

criticism.

 

"There needs to be greater respect and less ramming down the throat on

these policies, and that includes at the ministerial," said Janet

Broome, associate director of the University of California's Sustainable

Agriculture Research and Education Program. "There is a recognition that

there's a need for biotech--it can serve a purpose, be a benefit--but

not at the expense of organic farming, not when GMOs are used without

regulation, not when they can put food on shelves without warning

labels. People want to know what they're eating, and the agenda of the

ministerial doesn't acknowledge that. It's about food product that

supports corporate profits."

 

UC Davis experts weren't the only ones excluded. Not a single

representative from the Environmental Protection Agency was invited,

despite the profound and lasting environmental ramifications of policies

being discussed. (Calls to the EPA for comment were not returned.)

 

Conference organizers vehemently defend what they see as the

inclusiveness of their event.

 

"We're in no way opposed to differing viewpoints. Everyone should be

able to express themselves, as long as it's in a legal way," said the

USDA's Christian Foster, noting that journalists have been invited to

attend. "One issue in bringing people together is that you can only fit

so many people in a room. But we've made it a big point to allow

speakers from non-governmental organizations and anyone else tied in

with the theme of science and technology, to be able to buy space in our

expo."

 

What Foster sees as the expo's egalitarian opportunities, however,

critics see as corporate elitism and, because of financial limitations,

another form of de facto exclusion.

 

The expo will operate within the convention center but outside the

actual conference, with companies and organizations able to rent booths

to hawk their products, services and political messages--if they can

afford it. Despite conference coordinators' claims to the contrary, the

$3,000-plus basic rate prices out most activist groups, smaller

companies and non-governmental organizations. Even UC Davis' ag

school--forced to buy a booth to have a voice--had a hard time raising

the money.

 

Government agencies such as the USDA and USAID, of course, have prime

expo space. But corporate access doesn't come cheap if a company wants

to sponsor any part of the conference or expo. For $50,000, a

corporation can sponsor the opening night's reception. Other

sponsorships include the expo's center stage for $40,000 and "delegate

expo bags" for $25,000. In addition to other privileges, sponsorship

ensures that the company's logo will be displayed prominently throughout

the three days.

 

No estimate of how much farm equipment 50 grand could buy a family in

Somalia.

 

Canning, of the nonprofit Institute for Social Ecology's Biotechnology

Project, stresses that critics of the ministerial conference can turn

their frustration into momentum as they prepare for several upcoming

international meetings during which their causes will be debated.

 

"This is a strategic moment for social movements to stop further trade

liberalization, the implementation of new trade agreements inside the

WTO, the implementation of a new round of trade agreements including the

Free Trade Area of the Americas and Central American Free Trade

Agreement," he said. "Most important, the Sacramento ministerial is a

key preparation time for both the September WTO in Cancun and November's

Summit of the Americas in Miami."

 

Locally, protest organizers have enlisted a little star power of their

own on the inside: Berkeley organic-cooking guru Alice Waters of the

legendary Chez Panisse will cater a dinner for the ministers.

 

"But it's most encouraging that more mainstream people, plain old moms

and kids going to school, are turning out," said McLean, of the

Sacramento Coalition for Sustainable Agriculture. She has been touring

Sacramento-area schools to talk with students about the hunger crisis

and possible solutions.

 

"I asked what they thought the root cause of the problem was, and they

said it was because decisions were being made because of money," she

said. "They understood without me saying a word that subsidies never

reach small farmers, and they also questioned the unfairness of the U.S.

not allowing countries to import here while we insist we export to them.

They get it--that food and hunger right now is all about big politics

and money, not health or family or environment. The kids prove every

time that we share the same hope. I'd like to think the ministerial

folks would be with us."