Corporate Agriculture: Empty Calories

The report questions the safety of these biotechnologies.

In the years following World War II, agriculture was transformed through the use of chemicals and increasingly "scientific" techniques. These changes disrupted systems of agriculture throughout the world that had been successfully developed by farmers for millennia.

By Citizen Correspondent Kevin Bartoy

Date Posted: 06/06/08

Reader Rating:

Corporate media seems to have disregarded the recent release of a comprehensive and conclusive report sponsored by the World Bank and the United Nations that indicts bioengineering and the use of chemicals in agriculture while at the same time advocating a return to small scale organic production systems.

After nearly five years of research, an international project comprised of 30 governments, 22 non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and eight institutions have just released a remarkable study that touts the benefits of small-scale organic farming while at the same time calling the use of genetically modified organisms into question.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) is a collaborative project initiated by the World Bank and the United Nations (UN) that includes more than 900 participants from 110 countries. The IAASTD is co-sponsored by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the UN, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the World Health Organization (WHO). The IAASTD included stakeholders from governments, NGOs, producer groups, consumer groups, and other organizations and institutions to formulate a comprehensive and unbiased solutions for:

Reducing hunger and poverty
Improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods
Facilitating social and environmental sustainability

The IAASTD final report was released on April 15, 2008 following its ratification by an Intergovernmental Plenary held in Johannesburg, South Africa.

During the ratification process, the representatives from the governments of the United States, Canada, and Australia refused to ratify the report due to its negative conclusions about genetic engineering and the potential impacts of the findings on major corporations in their countries advancing genetic engineering as a "solution" for the current agricultural crisis. Representatives from biotechnology companies, including Monsanto, walked out of the meeting after failing to "get their way."

The final report, which is available online, rebukes the use of genetically modified organisms as a solution to our developing food crisis.