Volatility

January 26, 2016

The USDA/Monsanto Deliberate Campaign to Contaminate All Alfalfa

>

If successful, this campaign would lead to a Monsanto monopoly on alfalfa seed and render organic meat and dairy impossible under the current USDA standards. The USDA has always wanted GMOs to qualify under the organic standard, and has long seen GM alfalfa as a mode of attack to bring on this result.
.
Persistence Proves Intent. If the US government and Monsanto see that this surging contamination is an inevitable direct effect of their action in deploying GM alfalfa and they continue with the deployment, that proves that this contamination is part of the intended effect. The major effects of a large-scale action are always an organic whole. It’s never true that a necessary government policy has ambivalent results. On the contrary, the major effects are always the desired effects, because if the government desired different effects, there’s always an alternative which could preserve the “good” effects without the allegedly “bad”. There’s really no such thing as “collateral damage”. That’s just a propaganda distinction to help with the lie that some effects weren’t sought by the policy-maker and are deplored by it. But if there really were major effects which the government did not anticipate and found bad, it would change the policy so as no longer to produce those effects in a major way. Persistence proves either that the effect, if truly unanticipated, is nevertheless welcome, or else that it was anticipated and consciously intended all along. Morally and practically it makes no difference. The major effects of an action comprise an organic whole, so anyone who wants one characteristic effect of an action will anticipate and want its other effects and will welcome any major effect he didn’t anticipate.
.
In the case of GM alfalfa there’s no question that USDA and Monsanto had full prior knowledge of its extremely high rate of contamination. It’s a perennial pollinated by wide-ranging bees. So as soon as GM alfalfa is planted it’s off on an imperialistic campaign for the next 4-8 years. Indeed, the USDA was aware of contamination of alfalfa seed stocks just from GM field trials at least as early as 2005. There’s zero doubt that the rapid contamination was consciously anticipated.
.
As for the contamination effect being desired, if the US government didn’t want to contaminate the entire alfalfa crop it would not have allowed and encouraged Monsanto to deploy the product. Some alternatives within the capitalist framework include the ante-biotech status quo, encouraging integrated weed management, government subsidies for hand-weeding labor instead of herbicide, encouraging greater organic production. Of course there’s a vastly better alternative to globalized corporate agriculture as such, but here I’m just sticking with options available to the USDA given its capitalist premises. The fact is that the government would not have set up the system the way it has in such a way as to maximize contamination, if it did not want to maximize this contamination.
.
Monsanto’s own interest in total contamination is of course obvious and I assume uncontroversial. If Monsanto’s Roundup Ready gene can contaminate the rest of the alfalfa crop such as to render unattainable any of the benefits organic or non-GM conventional growers hope to gain – an organic premium, overseas markets for non-GM hay – then the company could expect farmers to take on the “if you can’t beat’em, join’em” mindset and just adopt the Roundup Ready system. There’s already ample precedent for this surrenderist attitude among farmers and academics. Monsanto often has explicitly stated its totalitarian goals.
.
What about the USDA? In general, a corporate regulator is designed to second the goals and actions of the most powerful corporations. Monsanto, stupid and clumsy as it’s been in many other ways (public relations, farmer relations, attitude toward agronomy), has been particularly adept and aggressive at imposing its will on government and making regulators want to serve it. (This makes it particularly bizarre and counterproductive when people still look to regulatory agencies to put limits on corporate action and uphold any value other than corporate power. A coherent, disciplined, aggressive, ecological populist movement can sometimes pressure government agencies from outside, against their will, to do what it wants. But this is only because as a coherent cultural and political movement it possesses power, never because the regulator wants to do it or inherently feels like it should do it. On the other hand a mass of consumerist atoms, no matter how many of them come together for a superficial comment period or petition or gripefest, or for a one-off superficial political campaign, can never exert such pressure because they don’t constitute coherent, directed power. That’s part of why there’s zero chance of an FDA GMO labeling policy being anything other than a preemptive sham, and why it’s madness or treason for those who claim to oppose GMOs and pesticides to want such a thing.)
.
More fundamentally for our kind of example, the ideology of regulators of agricultural poisons is based on the Poison Principle. This means that no matter what the problem, the only conceivable solution is poison, more poison is always better than less, poison doesn’t just solve problems but is actively good, all comparative study is to compare only poison with poison and never poison with an alternative to poison, and that the regulator’s job at all times is to maximize poison production, sales, and application. In Poison Spring E. Vallianatos describes working in the “Benefits and Use” division at the EPA, where these terms were religiously understood to mean “benefit” for the corporations and the biggest industrial farmers, and “use” of poisons (starting from production and marketing) always to be allowed, encouraged, and maximized. Vallianatos’s whole book is devoted to detailing the strategic and tactical execution of this ideology on the part of the EPA and the horrific real world results. He remarks that at its founding the EPA was staffed largely by former USDA cadres who imported the USDA’s poisoner ideology. Jack Kloppenburg’s First the Seed is one of several excellent books describing the USDA’s extreme culture of poison-based and crackpot high-technology “solutions”.
.
But for the supply-based corporate capitalism which is the fundamental paradigm of the globalization system, and therefore for the regulators, the problem is never anything more or less than the maximized production of the corporate product, and the solution is “finding” a market for this supply-driven production, through some combination of propaganda, incentives, public subsidies, threats, extortion, legal coercion, and violence. For example, the USDA offers special financial incentives to alfalfa growers who maximize their Roundup use, provides them with legal cover for transgenic trespass while stripping the victims of all legal protection, and threatens non-compliant alfalfa growers with GM contamination and economic extinction. This is because the USDA is suffused with the poisoner mindset and poisoner ideology. The USDA wants to maximize poison deployment. Therefore to the average USDA cadre, alfalfa with maximal roundup is better than with less or none. This is ideological and is prior to any mundane “corruption”, though there’s lots of this as well.
.
For a more specific case, the USDA has always wanted GMOs to be part of the official organic certification. The agency included GMOs within its original proposed standards in the 1990s, and only a massive outcry from the farmers and consumers who were forcing the agency to adopt an organic standard in the first place forced it to back down on “GMO organic”. But to this day the USDA has never relinquished this wish. When it tries to define “new” kinds of GMOs such as those which have been “gene edited” as not being GMOs at all, this is primarily to excuse them from all regulatory oversight. (In itself this is a strong manifestation of the poisoner ideology. It’s rare to see a bureaucracy seeking so ardently to lessen its own power.) But it’s also toward the hope that CRISPR and other such GMOs will become certifiable as organic. (And also of exempting them from being subject to labeling if this ever were preemptively centralized under FDA control.)
.
In the specific case of alfalfa, organic meat and dairy farmers are dependent upon a reliable supply of non-GM alfalfa for hay. If this supply became too unreliable or were completely eradicated, organic meat and dairy farming as we have it might become impossible. We already know that the USDA would like to force GMOs into the organic certification, and we already know that the USDA is aggressively pushing alfalfa GM contamination policy. It follows that a primary goal of the USDA, in addition to maximizing glyphosate use on alfalfa as such, is to disrupt permanently the supply of non-GM alfalfa in order to render the existing structure of organic meat and dairy impossible. At that point either consumers will have to submit to weakening the standards to allow GM feed for organic meat and dairy, or else we’ll have to give up organic meat and dairy completely. Since the “organic” brand is so important to so many, and since consumers have a history of pliability on such things, the most likely outcome is the submission and adaptation. Let’s recall how industrial agriculture flacks and government supporters used the occasion of the Steve Marsh lawsuit in Australia to argue for the weakening of Australian organic standards to allow more GM DNA presence. In a similar context, the general attitude toward the Syngenta/China flap wasn’t to criticize Syngenta’s lies or the commodity stream’s inefficiency and inflexibility, but rather to condemn the buyer for his preferences and call upon him to abandon those preferences. This is always the attitude of corporate fundamentalism. I haven’t yet seen such specific calls in the US as a result of the alfalfa contamination scandal, but if this call is not being made yet it soon will be.
.
This outcome would further three primary components of USDA ideology, to serve the big corporation, to render agriculture more “hi-tech”, and to maximize poison deployment.
.
Another basic measure of USDA ideology, intention, and desired goal is its fraudulent “coexistence” policy. The agency knows coexistence is impossible and is consciously lying. Its own Environmental Impact Statement on GM alfalfa (which the agency never wanted to perform in the first place but was forced upon it by a lawsuit) concedes the inevitability of full contamination and therefore the impossibility of coexistence. All the evidence before and since has confirmed the prognostication of the EIS. Also and to say again, the agency recommends that the law place the full legal and financial burden on the victim of transgenic trespass and vandalism. This is contrary to all common sense notions of law and is contrary even to most law as it still exists in the US. It’s a radical doctrine which clearly seeks to encourage and maximize the trespass and contamination and evinces a fundamental contempt for the target. It’s crystal clear that the USDA thinks non-GM alfalfa has no right to exist at all and that it should not exist. No one who didn’t think that way would ever have concocted such a policy, allowing the deployment of GM alfalfa, in the first place. In reality “coexistence” means incremental surrender of all non-GM agriculture to the total domination of GMOs, with the pace of erosion and surrender to be as fast as possible.
.
Here again we see that the agency wants only to serve the big corporation, to render agriculture more fraudulently “hi-tech”, and to maximize poison deployment.
.
As for Monsanto’s own attitude toward organic agriculture and food, it would probably like to see it cease to exist. But a gradual erosion of standards and expectations with an ever higher regulatory allowance for contamination and eventually formally allowing GMOs under the standard would also be a good outcome. But the existing organic system is odious to all agrochemical companies.

<

October 10, 2013

“Co-existence” With GMOs Will Not Suffice, We Need To Abolish Them

>

“Test everything”, says Joseph Peila, the alfalfa farmer whose crop was contaminated by Roundup Ready GMOs. Indeed, but this won’t be sufficient, nor should it be our responsibility.
 
If we accept the notion that GMOs are permanently part of our agriculture and economy, that the best we can do is seek “co-existence” with them, and that all we can do is take purely defensive measures, at our own expense, this means several things.
 
1. We add to our own costs. (We pay to try to prove the integrity of our own crops.)
 
2. We place extra regulatory burdens upon ourselves. (We set up our own hoops and hurdles to conform to a world controlled by Monsanto.)
 
3. We allow corporations to foist yet another of their own costs upon the people. In other words, we allow corporations to place yet another tax upon us. We also allow corporations to place yet more regulations upon us.
 
4. We continue our surrender to GMOs. This surrender has gone more slowly than was hoped for by the Monsanto cadre who said, “The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded that there’s nothing you can do about it.  You just sort of surrender”. But in the end it’ll be just as complete.
 
5. We continue accepting GM pollution of agriculture and the environment as predestined and unstoppable.
 
6. Since this contamination will, eventually, be complete, we seal our own extinction as organic farmers, non-GM conventional farmers, home gardeners, eaters of wholesome, natural food, and as anything else which would try to exist in a world free of this poison.
 
7. We also accept the total pollution and capture of politics and the economy by the GMO cartel, and our political and economic extinction, as citizens of a democracy and as a people not permanently debt-indentured. The fate of Monsanto’s sharecroppers around the world, which for over 300,000 Indian cotton farmers has been a fate worse than death, to the point they committed suicide, shall be the fate of us all under the joint domination of Monsanto and Wall Street.
 
Yes, at the moment it looks like we’ll need to take yet greater burdens upon ourselves, because these burdens, these taxes, regulations, and prohibitions, are being forced upon us by a gang of corporations.
 
The question is whether we accept this as the way of the world, cave in and surrender; or whether we take this state of affairs as proof that we CANNOT co-exist with the GMO cartel.
 
The truth is that there’s no other way: We must look at the inevitable, ever-spreading contamination caused by GMOs – totalitarian, in both the agricultural/environmental sense, and the economic/political sense – and conclude from this that nothing will suffice short of the total abolition of GMOs.
 
This is why the anti-GMO movement, however much it’s focused on labeling at the moment, must evolve to become an abolition movement.
 
In all our actions toward labeling, we must always be clear, and spread the word, that labeling is not sufficient, just as self-testing is not. There is no co-existence panacea. The end goal is abolition. We must use the labeling movement as the vehicle for building permanent grassroots abolitionist organizations.
 

>

September 20, 2013

GMO Alfalfa Contaminates Crops and the Environment

>

In late August a Washington alfalfa farmer reported to the state agriculture department that his crop, intended for export, had been rejected by the exporter because it was contaminated with genetically engineered (GE) material. The state did its own test and confirmed a “low-level presence” of the pollutant. The shipment was rejected because most big foreign buyers refuse to import GMO pseudo-crops.
 
The farmer bought and planted only conventional seed, but it became contaminated anyway. The culprit is Monsanto’s Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa, engineered to withstand heavy spraying with the company’s highly toxic herbicide, Roundup. State officials speculated that he might have bought mislabeled seeds. Otherwise the field became contaminated from some environmental vector, with the GE material already loose in the environment. The subsequent state test proved this to be so. (It would’ve been interesting to see what kind of five-alarm recall there would’ve been if the “mislabeled seed” theory had turned out to be plausible. Would it have been comparable to the government-driven hysteria whenever a small farm is alleged to have made anyone sick, or merely to have produced a positive bacteria sample?)
 
This is the second known major contamination incident in the Pacific Northwest in recent months. Last spring an Oregon wheat farmer discovered RR spring wheat growing ferally in one of his fields. Monsanto conducted hundreds of field trials of RR wheat through 2005, but the genetically engineered pseudo-crop was never commercialized because of grassroots resistance from farmers and citizens in the US and Canada. But we see how the genetic pollution persists in ecosystems. Somehow GE material from these trials escaped to the environment and has managed to sustain itself. No one knows how widespread the pollution is, since no one tests for it.
 
The USDA’s confirmation of the wheat contamination led South Korea to temporarily suspend wheat imports from the US, while Japan rejected a shipment and Europe imposed extra-rigorous inspection procedures. The cost to US wheat exports has been immense.
 
The outbreaks in Washington and Oregon are just the latest examples of a long history of major GMO contamination events, going back to the Starlink debacle in 2000, and including the wholesale poisoning of the US rice crop by Bayer’s Liberty Link pharmaceutical rice, which escaped from supposedly secure Arkansas field trials in 2006. This disaster cost US rice growers billions and provoked a lawsuit which Bayer settled for $750 million.
 
We see from these and from hundreds of lesser-known examples (tallied by the USDA’s own Office of the Inspector General in 2005, and a GAO investigation in 2009) how it’s impossible to prevent GMO contamination of conventional and organic crops, and of the environment in general, once GMOs are allowed to be field tested, and certainly once they’re commercialized.
 
The ideological lie which seeks to obscure this fact is called “co-existence”. It claims that GMOs can peacefully co-exist with conventional and organic crops. But this is impossible for many reasons, all of them caused or aggravated by the totalitarian intent of the GMO cartel. I’ll write more on the economic and political goals of Monsanto and the other GMO rackets in subsequent posts. For now I’ll focus on the fact that even if corporations and governments were acting in good faith, it would be impossible for real crops to co-exist with GMOs.
 
The USDA itself, the US government’s primary domestic booster of GMOs, admits that GE alfalfa is guaranteed eventually to contaminate the entire alfalfa crop. This is because alfalfa is a perennial pollinated by bees who range for miles in their quest for nectar. As GE alfalfa spreads, it’ll become more of a sure bet that any alfalfa allowed to go to flower will be visited by bees who already visited GE plants. Already in 2005, at least one organic seed grower was documenting alfalfa seed contamination, either from field trials or illegal plantings. The process is bound to follow that of a previous Oregon disaster, the state’s 2002 field trial of GE bentgrass. Even though the technicians running the experiment tried to destroy the trial grass as planned, GE grass escaped. By now it seems permanently entrenched in the environment. The moment GE alfalfa was commercialized, it wasn’t going to be long before this pollution was documented. Now we have our first confirmation.
 
I said how this would be true even if corporations and governments were acting in good faith. But we know their intentions and goals are malignant, and the history of RR alfalfa commercialization tells an edifying tale about this. GE alfalfa was fiercely resisted by farmers, eaters, scientists, environmentalists, and civil society groups. For years the USDA was thwarted by lawsuits in its attempts to fully unleash the product. Finally it entered 2011 with a new Environmental Impact Statement (largely a sham) and facing the question of whether to fully deregulate GE alfalfa, or just “partially” do so. (Not approving it was an unoption, as Orwell would’ve said. This was even though there’s no need at all for this worthless product, and no natural market for it.) This question had been forced upon USDA by the opposition. It was in this context that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s 2001 “Governor of the Year”, and frequent traveler on Monsanto’s corporate jets) got together with the luminaries of industrial organic – Whole Foods Market, Stonyfield, Organic Valley, and others – to formulate an attempted compromise with Monsanto. The notion was that industrial organic and Monsanto would agree on “partial deregulation” of RR alfalfa (toward total deregulation somewhere down the road, of course), and the USDA would make a sham promise to really truly honestly enforce the partial regulations, including compensation for alfalfa farmers whose crops were destroyed by the inevitable contamination. This would be accompanied by a propaganda campaign which would lie about the contamination potential. They called this “co-existence”.
 
One problem with this scheme was that, as we said, such co-existence is impossible, and the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa on a vast scale was inevitable. We can look at the record of RR canola, which has rendered organic canola effectively impossible in Canada, while organic canola growers are a major driver of the pushback against GMOs in Australia. This is also why farmers are fiercely resisting the pending commercialization of RR alfalfa in Canada. Here the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has already given full approval, through an even less democratic procedure than that of the USDA. Meanwhile a Monsanto front group, the Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA), has offered the same kind of sham “co-existence plan” which both Monsanto and the people rejected in the US (I’ll get to that in a minute). CSTA’s plan basically claims that GE material cannot be spread by any natural vector whatsoever, and the plan has no enforcement mechanisms for the scam prescriptions it does make.
 
So why did industrial organic want to make this “compromise”, and why did the USDA want to broker it? Both the USDA and the industrial organic sector have always wanted to bring GMOs under the umbrella of organic certification. Only massive consumer resistance forced the Clinton administration to back down on this when GMOs were first commercialized in the mid 90s. Today, they want to accomplish this through a combination of contamination and propaganda. They hope GE alfalfa deregulation will lead to a broad pollution of the general alfalfa crop, which will render the current meat/dairy certified-organic sector (which must use non-GMO feed) untenable. In this way the USDA and the Whole Foods contingent dream of making “certified organic” safe for GMOs. The intended goal is to be able to call GMOs “USDA organic” and still extract the premium from the “organic” brand. It’ll be difficult for them to do this, but we mustn’t underestimate the power of inertia and apathy. If the message seems overwhelming – “GMOs are safe, are perfectly compatible with the Organic concept, Organic is still good if it’s GMO, and everything is GMO anyway so There Is No Alternative, unless you want to go all the way to really knowing your local farmer or growing your own food, and we’ll do our best to stamp that out.” – many who vaguely oppose GMOs can be expected to surrender.
 
WFM and the others got what was coming to them: The “co-existence” notion was far too subtle for Monsanto, which is increasingly inclined to use main force. In January 2011, just as the “co-existence” plan was being unfolded, the cartel told Obama what it wanted instead. President Monsanto then issued an order to Vilsack to move directly to full deregulation. This left WFM and the rest of industrial organic exposed before their customers as having tried to sell them out. Since then there’s been increasing distrust of the industrial organic sector among the people. That’s why they’ve belatedly scrambled onto the labeling bandwagon. Of course, WFM wants to hijack the movement for its own purposes. While touting this idea as the correct form of anti-GMO activism, and while making pious noises about imposing its own labeling program on its suppliers, WFM will try again with “co-existence”. This time they, DC-based NGOs like the Center for Food Safety, and elements within the central government will try to get the cartel to go along with a sham federal labeling program whose only real teeth will be its pre-emption of state and local policy. The goal will be the same attempt to propagandize their customers while also derailing any real labeling efforts at the state level. That’s one reason why, whatever position we take toward state-level labeling campaigns, we must consistently and strongly oppose ANY central (“federal”) level policy which would pre-empt the people’s action at the state level.
 
Meanwhile, Monsanto wants to see the monoculture of “pure” alfalfa, which may temporarily benefit from a Roundup Ready variety, completely triumph over the far superior practice of growing alfalfa intermingled with grasses like fescue and orchardgrass. Hay made from an alfalfa/grass mix has more bulk and pound for pound is superior to monoculture alfalfa in nutrition and calories. The grass mix also maintains pasture health and provides natural weed suppression. As always, the GMO product provides no improvement over natural, agroecological practices, but on the contrary is meant to force the further intensification of industrial monoculture and all its most destructive practices.
 
And Monsanto, too, is targeting the organic sector. But I suppose it would just as soon see the sector completely destroyed by contamination (like some parts of it, e.g. organic canola in Canada, have been) as see it co-opted for GMOs. Organic farmers need non-GMO alfalfa for animal feed and soil-building. The system wants to either bring GMOs into the certification, or destroy the sector outright. Either of these is possible with GE alfalfa.
 
It’s fortuitous that this latest contamination event occurred in Washington, since Washington is the home of the GMO labeling initiative 522, to be voted in November. Yes on 522 is fighting to force the industrial food purveyors out of the shadows of secrecy and deception and into the sunshine. Corporate food, and the corporate agricultural system as a whole, depend upon secrecy and lying about their practices in order to survive. At all costs, we the people must not know what’s in our food. For our own good, of course. Every statement of the anti-labeling mercenaries reeks of elitism and hatred for democracy and freedom.
 
The idea of labeling campaigns is that once enough states force food manufacturers to tell the truth about what they’re selling, the manufacturers will purge their products of GMOs. This is the minimum strategic goal for the labeling movement, although we must beware of viewing this tenuous hope as a panacea, even and especially when these labeling initiatives and laws start coming into force.
 
Here’s what I think is necessary:
 
1. Transparency is a basic democratic value and human prerogative, so by all means we must take back our information as part of taking back our food. Labeling can be part of this.
 
2. But this action will be effective only at the state and local levels. Short of the corporate rackets themselves, the central US government is the most aggressively pro-GMO organization on Earth. Any central government labeling policy, if they feel forced into enacting one, will be a sham whose only real goal will be to pre-empt real labeling action at the state and local level. Beware of anyone who says a federal government labeling policy is the goal. And we must reject the very notion of central government pre-emption of lower-level governments in general. This is truly anti-federal and anti-democratic.
 
3. The real end goal must be nothing short of total abolition of GMOs. This must be an abolition movement. We must always be clear on this, no matter what proximate action we undertake for tactical reasons.
 
4. We must use labeling efforts as the vehicle for building permanent grassroots organizations which will seek the goal of abolition while also providing education and exercising permanent vigilance where it comes to any labeling policy which is enacted. We must reject the disposable “campaign” model, favored by “professionals”, and designed to fail, as it failed in California.
 
5. Labeling agitation and the building of abolition/vigilance organizations must accompany rather than supplant other kinds of action like campaigns to pressure supermarkets and direct action.
 
6. Meanwhile we need a core organization for the aggregation of facts about GMOs, their analysis within the framework of anti-corporatist philosophy, and the publicity of the facts and the ideas.
 
Taking the longest view and highest vantage on all this, we can see that the phenomena we’ve discussed here today – GMO contamination, the escalation of every kind of poison in farming, the self-inflicted wounds of the commodity export sector, corporatist government politics, industrial organic’s attempted sellout of the people – plus many evils we haven’t mentioned, are all part of the pathology of industrial corporate agriculture. We can see that it’s economically, politically, socially, environmentally destructive, and for our health, it’s death. But there’s a superb alternative.
 
GMO abolition is necessary part of the full embrace of agroecology, AKA organic farming using that term in the original sense as propagated by Albert Howard, Robert Rodale, and other pioneers. Decentralized, low external input (LEI) farming has been proven to outproduce industrial ag, acre for acre, in terms of calories and nutrition. This already proves humanity’s need to reject corporate ag, which has proven itself unable and unwilling to “Feed the World”, to use its own propaganda lie, and embrace agroecology. This need will become more pressing as the era of cheap fossil fuels, the irreplaceable energy basis of industrial ag, comes to an end.
 
The fight is vs. corporate agriculture, in all its economic and political dimensions. The embrace of agroecology’s companion political philosophy, Food Sovereignty, which maximizes political and economic democracy, also reminds us that we are human beings and citizens of a society, and do not wish or need to wait passively to be “fed” by corporations, as the “feed the world” hacks call upon us to do. If the concept of progress is to have any meaning at all, it has to mean the continuing development of democracy, toward our finally dismissing our regents, renouncing the idea that we need “representation”, and taking our politics and economies directly into our own hands. We can and must do this, and we must start by taking back our food. We must do this negatively, rejecting corporate agriculture, resisting the government’s food police, abolishing GMOs. We must do it affirmatively, building the Community Food movement in our localities and regions, fighting for Food Sovereignty for all the peoples of the world.
 
As we mentioned, GE wheat was never commercialized. That’s because farmers and eaters organized to reject it. This proves the strength we have, whenever and wherever we have the will to use it.
 

>