Saving Seeds
|
|
|
From Wikipedia;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva '...Vandana Shiva was born in India in 1952. She has a bachelors degree in physics and an M.A. in the philosophy of science. In 1979, she completed and received her PhD. in Philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. '...Vandana Shiva has fought for changes in the practice and paradigms of agriculture and food. Intellectual property rights, biodiversity biotechnology, bioethics, and genetic engineering are among the fields where Shiva has contributed intellectually and through activist campaigns.' |
2. Further Discussion of Patenting Seed, GMOs and 'Terminator' Genes, and Seed Saving
This could be placed under 'Conspiracy Theory'- but goes as well here. (3/7/12, just the links here, discussion will follow. See also the various subject headings under 'activism'.)
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/02/open-seeds-biopiracy-and-patenting-life
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23503
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Legal-Memorandum.FINAL_.pdf
http://www.croptrust.org/main/
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml
http://www.globalissues.org/article/194/terminator-technology
http://www.ewg.org/news/government-alters-pcbs-deal-bid-appease-state
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featgenes
On a somewhat more hopeful note, here is an article from Cornucopia.org concerning a farmer (Jim Gerritsen) in Aroostook County, Maine, date lined Feb.15, 2012, entitled 'The way food should be'. Among other topics, the article discusses a paradox in the legal maneuvering involved in patenting, labeling, and marketing GMOs. You should read the entire article. I excerpt only the portion on 'The Monsanto Paradox'.
http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/02/the-way-food-should-be/#more-4868
'...At the core of their legal argument is an issue Gerritsen calls “the Monsanto paradox.” The corporation obtained patents for its GMOs by arguing that they are unique technological inventions. But, at the same time, Monsanto representatives convinced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that their products are substantially equivalent to traditional crops and therefore do not need to be labeled as GMOs. Gerritsen and his lawyers view this as a contradiction.
“Either your invention is unique and deserving of a patent and should get one, in which case the product should be labeled, or if it shouldn’t be labeled it’s not deserving of a patent. It’s got to be one or the other,” Gerritsen said.
'...Also, U.S. patent law clarifies that an invention merits a patent only if it has “social utility.” Since GMOs are believed to have a variety of negative health and environmental impacts, their social utility is in question.'
http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2012/02/open-seeds-biopiracy-and-patenting-life
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23503
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Legal-Memorandum.FINAL_.pdf
http://www.croptrust.org/main/
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/terminator.shtml
http://www.globalissues.org/article/194/terminator-technology
http://www.ewg.org/news/government-alters-pcbs-deal-bid-appease-state
http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featgenes
On a somewhat more hopeful note, here is an article from Cornucopia.org concerning a farmer (Jim Gerritsen) in Aroostook County, Maine, date lined Feb.15, 2012, entitled 'The way food should be'. Among other topics, the article discusses a paradox in the legal maneuvering involved in patenting, labeling, and marketing GMOs. You should read the entire article. I excerpt only the portion on 'The Monsanto Paradox'.
http://www.cornucopia.org/2012/02/the-way-food-should-be/#more-4868
'...At the core of their legal argument is an issue Gerritsen calls “the Monsanto paradox.” The corporation obtained patents for its GMOs by arguing that they are unique technological inventions. But, at the same time, Monsanto representatives convinced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that their products are substantially equivalent to traditional crops and therefore do not need to be labeled as GMOs. Gerritsen and his lawyers view this as a contradiction.
“Either your invention is unique and deserving of a patent and should get one, in which case the product should be labeled, or if it shouldn’t be labeled it’s not deserving of a patent. It’s got to be one or the other,” Gerritsen said.
'...Also, U.S. patent law clarifies that an invention merits a patent only if it has “social utility.” Since GMOs are believed to have a variety of negative health and environmental impacts, their social utility is in question.'
3. Seed banks
Svalbard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault
http://www.croptrust.org/main/arcticseedvault.php?itemid=211
http://www.croptrust.org/main/cosponsors.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault
http://www.croptrust.org/main/arcticseedvault.php?itemid=211
http://www.croptrust.org/main/cosponsors.php
4. The Green Revolution and Biodiversity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/80096/icode/
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/
http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/80096/icode/
http://www.bioversityinternational.org/
|
|
5. Globalization
http://www.ifg.org/
From Wikipedia's discussion of globalization; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
Their thesis is that globalization evolved from trade, enlarged and became more complex through the process of industrialization, and then became entrenched through what they term 'institutionalization' (see their article). The institutions which they name in this section;
'...Institutions including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) laid the foundations of the explosive growth of the phenomena in the post-Cold War era.'
From Wikipedia's discussion of globalization; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
Their thesis is that globalization evolved from trade, enlarged and became more complex through the process of industrialization, and then became entrenched through what they term 'institutionalization' (see their article). The institutions which they name in this section;
'...Institutions including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (the World Bank), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) laid the foundations of the explosive growth of the phenomena in the post-Cold War era.'