The U.S. Department of Agriculture today announced the availability of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) that evaluates the potential environmental effects of deregulating alfalfa genetically engineered (GE) to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which is known commercially as Roundup. This GE alfalfa is commonly referred to as Roundup Ready (RR) alfalfa.

“Our goal with the EIS, first and foremost, is to recognize and consider the many concerns that we have heard from all segments of agriculture,” said Secretary Vilsack. “We are equally committed to finding solutions that support not only the developers and users of biotechnology products, but growers who rely on purity in the non-genetically engineered seed supply.”

USDA considered three alternatives during the preparation of the final EIS: 1) to maintain the RR alfalfa’s status as a regulated article; 2) to deregulate RR alfalfa; or 3) to deregulate RR alfalfa with geographic restrictions and isolation distances for the production of RR alfalfa. USDA has thoroughly analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives and has listed two preferred options: deregulation as one option and the other deregulation accompanied by a combination of isolation distances and geographic restrictions on the production of GE alfalfa seed and, in some locations, hay.

By listing both options as preferred, USDA has considered plant pest issues as well as broader environmental and economic issues related to the coexistence between genetically engineered, non-genetically engineered, and organic alfalfa production.

USDA maintains that biotechnology holds great promise for agriculture here in the United States, and around the world. There’s absolutely no doubt of the safety of the many products USDA’s regulatory system has approved. The examination of these issues through the EIS process, however, highlighted some of the challenges USDA faces in the area of biotechnology regulation as it aims to meet the expectations of its diverse stakeholders.

“We have seen rapid adoption of biotechnology in agriculture, along with the rise of organic and non-genetically engineered sectors over the last several decades,” Vilsack said. “While the growth in all these areas is great for agriculture, it has also led, at times, to conflict or, at best, an uneasy coexistence between the different ways of growing crops. We need to address these challenges and develop a sensible path forward for strengthening coexistence of all segments of agriculture in our country. All are vital and a part of rural America’s success. All should be able to thrive together.”

Vilsack said that USDA will use this opportunity to begin a conversation on how to move forward and find strategies for strengthening coexistence. “We will partner with all those who want to roll up their sleeves and work with us and each other to find common sense solutions to today’s challenges. And we will do so openly and transparently.”

It is important to note that the EIS USDA is releasing today is not a decision document. It is an analysis of the impacts of the various alternatives with regard to their potential environmental and related economic impacts. The final EIS will be available for public review for at least 30 days before USDA will publish a record of decision on how it will proceed.

APHIS will be submitting the EIS to the Environmental Protection Agency for publication in the Federal Register, and USDA anticipates that EPA will publish a notice that the final EIS on RR alfalfa is available for public review in the Federal Register on December 23, 2010. A copy of the EIS provided to EPA can be reviewed at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/alfalfa/gt_alfalfa%20_feis.pdf.

Note to Reporters: USDA news releases, program announcements and media advisories are available on the Internet and through Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds. Go to the APHIS news release page at www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom and click on the RSS feed link.

source:  http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2010/12/0667.xml

It appears California’s Judge White, who’s overseeing hearings involving the planting of genetically engineered beet crops, has already made up his mind which way the ruling is going to go, and it doesn’t look good for conventional beet growers.

Being that earlier this month he stated the litigants in the case, organic beet growers and conservation food safety groups, were more than likely to succeed in their complaints against the continued planting of GM sugar beet seed, any arguments brought before Judge White by the USDA will more than likely fall upon deaf ears.

Judge White’s rejection of arguments from GM sugar beet seed firms over the necessity of the limited planting permits they received from the USDA to do further research and development for possible authorized gm beet planting in the future seems to indicate that the USDA will be unsuccessful in producing a plan which would allow growers to plant Roundup Ready beets next year. If that’s the case, U.S. sugar production will be reduced by an alarming twenty to twenty-five percent, a reduction that would undoubtedly result in a severe sugar shortage, the likes of which haven’t been seen since World War II rationing.

source:  http://www.aginfo.net/index.cfm/event/report/id/Food-Forethought-17725

By Matt Spaeth on October 11, 2010

NAGOYA, Oct. 10, 2010 (Kyodo News International) — A meeting to discuss an international accord on compensation for damage to biological diversity and public health from genetically modified crops started Monday in Nagoya, marking an official start of three-week biodiversity talks in the central Japanese city.

The fifth meeting of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in Nagoya is set to wrap up on Friday.

A series of biodiversity talks, including the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, or COP10, which will be held on Oct. 18-29, will likely be attended by over 8,000 people, including overseas government officials and those from civilian groups and industrial arenas.

During preparatory talks before the meeting on the Cartagena Protocol, participating countries have basically agreed on adopting a supplementary protocol that defines new rules which allow importing countries to call on operators who brought in damage-causing genetically modified organisms to take necessary restorative measures.

Participants are likely to seek adoption of the supplementary protocol, named the Nagoya, Kuala Lumpur supplementary protocol, during the main meeting, to be chaired by Japanese Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Minister Michihiko Kano.

Relevant talks on compensatory measures for damage caused by genetically modified crops to biological diversity began in 2004 as the extent of damage to biological diversity was yet to be known.

Major themes at the previous talks were whether compensation should cover damage caused by processed items, such as soy sauce made from genetically modified soy beans, and whether to enable importing states to order operators to enter an insurance plan or set up a fund to prepare to compensate for damages.

During the latest preparatory talks, participating countries have largely agreed not to include processed foods to the compensation coverage and to allow states to impose monetary steps on operators.

source:   http://www.istockanalyst.com

By Ranjan Bhaduri
Sep 13, (THAINDIAN NEWS)

USDA Sued By Environmentalists For Recommending Genetically Altered Crops

As a matter of fact, genetically modified crops are infiltrating the US market since the 1980s. The majority of the crops grown in the US nowadays are genetically altered for higher shelf life and better immunity against pests.

USDA gave clearance to the genetically altered sugar beets and plans are on to grow seed crop. However, the environmentalists are not ok with the plan and they think that the seed crop is capable of cross-pollinating with adjacent beet farms and affect their crops in the process. Genetic alteration of crops is not encouraged in Europe much but in the USA things are somewhat different on this issue. As per the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs The decision of USDA goes against the August court ruling that put a ban on the planting of genetically altered crops.

The lawsuit asks the court to issue orders for preventing the planting of all genetically altered sugar beet plants. USDA has not issued any formal statement on this subject so far. Monsanto Co., a developer of genetically altered sugar beets which has been cited in the lawsuit as a developer also chose to remain silent on the issue. Most of the sugar produced in the USA are procured from the sugar beet though traditional beets still remain a choice. Now everyone is waiting to see the reaction of the USDA.

source:  http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world/usda-sued-by-environmentalists-for-recommending-genetically-altered-crops_100427883.html

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) said it has evaluated AquaBounty Technologies Inc’s genetically engineered (GE) salmon and that it is safe environmentally and for human consumption. Although not yet approved, a decision on the salmon is anticipated to come soon.

FDA has analysed company data such as inspection and site visit records and deduced that adequate containment measures seem to be in place, both at the Prince Edward Island (PEI) and Panama plants, to minimise the probability of transgenic salmon escapes into the wild at all life stages.

But critics have expressed concern that the GE fish would threaten wild stocks.

“FDA’s decision to go ahead with this approval process is misguided and dangerous, and is made worse by its complete lack of data to review,” said Executive Director for the Centre for Food Safety Andrew Kimbrell.

Both the PEI and Panama facilities have instituted multiple physical and mechanical barriers in the water systems to prevent the transfer of eggs and/or fish to surrounding marine environments. The systems are in line with recommendations in the Agricultural Biotechnology Research Advisory Committee (ABRAC) Performance Standards.

Moreover, the geographic and geophysical marine conditions near both sites would further limit the potential survival and spread of AquAdvantage Salmon, particularly eggs and early life stages of these salmon in PEI and for all life stages in Panama.

Due to redundancy in reproductive containment, also, any Panama escapees able to survive would not be able to spawn and permanently establish themselves in the local ecosystem.

FDA said that the potential occurrence of any noteworthy effects on foreign nations not participating in this action is thus very remote. No effects on wild Atlantic salmon stocks are foreseen.

The FDA considers the data provided by AquaBounty for the administration to study the environmental safety of AquAdvantage Salmon acceptable and complete, except for minor issues that will be addressed in the final public display version of the environmental assessment.

A final decision regarding whether to draft a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) or an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be made after comments on the environmental assessment have been received from the public and relevant outside experts and considered.

In terms of human consumption, FDA said that the salmon is “as safe to eat as food from other Atlantic salmon.”

“There is a reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from triploid [AquaBounty] salmon,” the report reads.

source:  http://fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&ndb=1&id=38070

AquaBounty’s genetically engineered (GE) salmon dubbed a maritime Frankenstein and deemed safe for human consumption by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is being condemned as dangerous by others.

“There is reasonable certainty of no harm from consumption of food from this animal,” AquaBounty claims.

But the genetically modified (GM) fish grows at double the rate of normal Atlantic salmon, reaching market size in 16-18 months instead of 30. The firm intends to sell the product globally to fish farmers.

“They’re basically putting the fish on permanent growth hormones so it grows faster — so they can sell bigger fish faster,” said an analyst at the American Centre for Food Safety, reports Irish newspaper The Southern Star.

Concern is mounting in the US because the side effects from eating the Frankenstein fish are unknown and little data backs up the assertion that it is safe.

Consumer rights groups pointed out scientific evidence obtained from genetic experimentation in agriculture, noting liver and kidney damage, precancerous lesions, allergies, inflammation, resistance to antibiotics, lowered immunity and risk of new diseases as consequences. The results may be the same with GE fish.

In European Union (EU), law states that GM food and feed can only enter the market if absolute proof exists that the product does not adversely affect human health, animal health or the environment.

It also must “not mislead the consumer or user, and differ from the food it is intended to replace to such an extent that its normal consumption would be nutritionally disadvantageous for humans or animals.”

The Irish Government last October banned the cultivation and field trials of all GM crops and vowed to introduce a voluntary GM-free label for fish, crustaceans and other foods produced without using GM animal feed. The first of its kind in Europe, the ban may be challenged by US agro-engineering companies like Monsanto, which sued Germany for its ban on GM corn.

Meanwhile, the Frankenstein fish could be on sale within three years, at which point AquaBounty may attempt to push the fish into European farms.

Another big concern regarding transgenic fish is escapes, as even a small amount could eradicate all wild salmon in a short period of time with colossal consequences.

The launch of GE salmon is timely for the European Commission (EC) as it tries to revitalise Europe’s struggling aquaculture industry. EU bureaucrats may wish to bring in GE fish arguing that it will help Europe compete against massive fish importing juggernauts such as Asia and South America.

The EC is already listening to the industry’s protest that too many environmental regulations are restraining it, particularly in Ireland.

source:  http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/worldnews.asp?l=e&country=0&special=&monthyear=&day=&id=38105&ndb=1&df=0

Dear Minister Aglukkaq,  [Canada]

I am writing to ask you to ensure that the genetically modified (GM) pig
called “Enviropig™” which has been produced by splicing mouse and
bacteria genes into a pig, is never approved for human consumption in
Canada. I ask you to immediately reject the request for approval of
“Enviropig™” submitted by the University of Guelph.

Please put a stop to the development of GM animals into our food system is
unacceptable. I don’t want to eat “Enviropig™” and I want to keep
my family and friends safe from eating GM meat.

“Enviropig™” is unnecessary for farmers and unwanted by consumers.
If approved  “Enviropig™” will be rejected by Canadians who are
increasingly seeking healthy, wholesome food produced by independent family
farmers. Consumer rejection of “Enviropig™” will also harm the global
market for Canada’s hog producers at a time of economic crisis.

We have never been asked if we want to eat GM foods. Consequently, Health
Canada has no mandate to consider approving meat from GM animals for human
consumption. Furthermore, there is no mandatory labeling of GM foods to
even give us the choice to avoid GM meat or other GM food.

Proposed new government regulations to deal with GM animals and fish have
not even been completed, so Health Canada cannot claim to have the capacity
to make a proper decision on this complex technology.

Please uphold Health Canada’s responsibility to protect the health and
safety of Canadians by denying food safety approval of “Enviropig™”

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. I look forward to
your response.

Sincerely,
Priscilla Judd

contact AT priscillajudd.ca

source:  http://www.priscillajudd.ca/thexpress/?p=876

I just read an article that the FDA is looking into approving the use of GM Salmon Debate” genetically modified salmon for human consumption. (Supposedly, it takes too long to farm salmon. The GM’d salmon would reduce the time by 50%.) This is just gross to me. The idea that scientists are genetically engineering life forms for our food is just beyond me. It’s wrong. And we shouldn’t eat it.

I buy organic whole milk for Zack. I wasn’t going to, but after reading on a carton of Horizon milk that their milk comes from cows that AREN’T cloned got me thinking. Are we drinking milk from cows that have been cloned? That have been artificially genetically engineered? And if our milk is tainted, what else is? Organic milk is very expensive, but I just can’t bring myself to reach for the non-organic milk. (When we visit other people’s houses, I don’t insist on organic milk for him, by the way. Only in my home.)

Isn’t it bad enough that our produce is genetically engineered? I can’t even buy tomato plants that haven’t been subjected to some scientist’s needle. I buy organic soy milk since 90% of our soy is GM’d (genetically modified). And the same is true for corn. And as a side note, do you know how much corn and/or soy derivatives are in our everyday foods? Those two products are in almost everything we eat.

I never thought I would care about buying organic. But I do. For me, for my family, for my children. I’m not a doctor, nor am I a scientist. But I think SOMEONE should look into the astronomically high rates of cancer and what’s in our foods. All the crap preservatives, all the artificial junk you can’t pronounce…all the GM’d bleh.

I wrote a blog post (and it is my most popular by far) about genetically engineering our babies. I think it’s wrong to engineer our children in the way we want them to look, too.

Please, it’s up to us to put a stop to all this nonsense. Say no to genetically engineered specimens of all kinds. It can happen. I saw on a documentary that McDonalds wanted to use GM potatoes. Once the public found out about it and threatened a boycott, McDonalds went back to their old supplier. Make our foods safe again.

(This may sound a little dramatic, but I feel passionate about this. I think there may be a link to the stuff that is put into our foods and the rates of cancer among us. It’s just too much of a coincidence to ignore.) “What else will be GM’d?”

source: http://brandistrand.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/what-else-will-be-gmd/

Agartala (IANS)- There is an urgent need to assess the potential of genetically modified (GM) crops as these are nutrient-enriched, drought- and disease-resistant varieties, an expert said here Tuesday at an international conference.

Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere, director of International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, said: “On the Bt Brinjal issue, everybody should be guided by science, not by sentiments or emotions.”

The three-day conference on ‘Agriculture Education and Knowledge Management’ is being organised by IGNOU and IFPRI.

The IFPRI chief said that the debate on Bt Brinjal is “not full-fledged and mature”. “We should take all scientific facts before going into the debate on the issue.”

“Evidence on the potential benefits and risks is needed by all stakeholders, including NGOs, governments, scientists, and more importantly, consumers and producers. Ultimately, regulatory bodies should ensure that the products are safe to humans, animals and the environment,” Asenso-Okyere said.

Tripura Chief Minister Manik Sarkar inaugurated the conference being attended by over 120 agricultural scientists, experts, delegates from India and abroad, including Kenya, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, the US and Nairobi.

The conference is expected to go a long way in evolving integrated strategies to achieve food security and sustainable development in India, specially in the northeast region.

The IFPRI director said that most people do not know what is good food and  what is good for health. “Malnutrition is a critical part of human life.Breast milk is the best nutrient food for children.”

IGNOU’s School of Agriculture (SOA) senior professor B.S. Hansra said: “The IGNOU is the largest Open Distance Learning (ODL) institution in the world. It (IGNOU) is spreading the latest global information on farming and agriculture to farmers in remote places in India.”

He said: “The focus of the conference is to share experiences on the challenges faced by the agriculture educational system in managing indigenous knowledge as well as knowledge generated by research and educational institutes for innovative agriculture.”

According to Prof Hansra, three million students study in IGNOU and they will take the latest information to farmers across the country.

The main objectives of the conference are: to discuss various approaches and models of agricultural education for strengthening capacity of professionals, researchers and educators, discuss the role of effective knowledge management systems for socio-economic development of agricultural sector.

It is also to identify suitable pedagogic approaches and curriculum to educate farmers, upgrade their technical and entrepreneurial knowledge and analytical skills and to develop knowledge management strategies through cost-effective and efficient approaches, public-private-NGO partnerships,  business models and delivery mechanisms.

source:  http://www.indiavision.com/news/article/national/95008/

In last month’s blitzkrieg tour of Central and Southeast Asia, two of the four stops made by United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton share the unfortunate bond of enduring an invasion by US air and ground forces. In the space of a few days, Clinton visited Vietnam and Afghanistan, thus physically linking what had once been and what has now become the United States’ longest war. One of the more insidious links that tie these conflicts together was highlighted in a few of the news stories about Clinton’s trip. That link, in a word, is agri-business.

The big news of Clinton’s visit to Vietnam was her reproach of the government’s human-rights record. As Jim Arkedis pointed out on ProgressiveFix, the secretary of state’s mention of human rights was more a talking point than anything else – something to be noted before moving on to bigger priorities of security agreements and trade relations.

Clinton’s invocation of human rights in Vietnam is nonetheless noteworthy, not simply for what it says about Vietnam, but also for what it says about the status of the US’s grim record of human-rights atrocities in the region. The destructive legacy of the US war in Vietnam is so vast that avoiding it would have left Clinton neck-deep in accusations of hypocrisy.

The State Department’s strategy for dealing with the sticky issue of human rights in the region was to beat us critics to the punch, underscoring US efforts to ameliorate the effects of one of the nastiest and longest-lasting forms of devastation forced on the Vietnamese during the war: the chemical dioxin, otherwise known as Agent Orange.

A deadly agent
Between 1961 and 1971, an estimated 3 million Vietnamese were exposed to Agent Orange, a chemical defoliant that was primarily intended to make targets more visible, as well as destroy the agricultural infrastructure of the insurgency. Hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, as well as thousands of American soldiers, developed cancer and other illnesses as a result.

The damage of Agent Orange has been passed down to the children of these victims. At least 150,000 of them have been born with missing limbs, deformed faces, developmental disabilities, and other serious birth defects. Some areas around the military bases where dioxin was stored still have dangerous levels of Agent Orange in their soil, posing a continuing threat to the environment, animals, and people of those communities.

The use of this devastating weapon was made possible by a partnership between the US government and US chemical companies. During the Vietnam War, seven major US chemical companies produced Agent Orange, including Dow Chemical Co, Thompson Chemicals Corp and Monsanto Co, and sold it to the US government for military uses. Despite the profits earned by these companies from their role in this massive and ongoing tragedy, Monsanto and others have managed to escape full accountability for the effects of their products.

In 1984, a class action lawsuit brought by US veterans who had been exposed to Agent Orange resulted in a $180 million settlement with the chemical companies in exchange for a no-fault finding and pre-emption of future suits from the claimants.

A devastating legacy
Two-and-a-half decades later, the US government has finally reopened the issue and for the first time turned its attention to the people of Vietnam. Thanks to the leadership of Vietnam veteran and Democratic Representative Eni Faleomavaega of American Samoa, the US Congress held its first hearings on Agent Orange that focused on the Vietnamese victims in 2008.

A second hearing was held in 2009 and a third on July 15, when, for the first time, congress heard testimony from a Vietnamese victim – Tran Thi Hoan – who was born without legs and with a missing hand due to her mother’s exposure to dioxin. A week before this summer’s hearing, senators Tom Harkin (Democrat, Iowa), Bernie Sanders (Independent-Vermont), and Al Franken (Democrat-Minnesota) visited Vietnam and toured Agent Orange treatment centers in and around the central coastal city of Danang.

In actual dollars, the results of such renewed attention have been relatively meager. Since 2007, congress has earmarked $3 million annually for Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange. This is, in the words of Faleomavaega, “a pittance”. The Ford Foundation has developed a $300 million clean-up plan underwritten mainly by the US government. To nobody’s surprise, the check has yet to arrive.

The United States has failed to put its money where its mouth is. But at least it is admitting responsibility. Meanwhile, the corporations that benefited have not even done that much, and Monsanto places all the blame on the US government.

This position was backed by the pro-corporate US Supreme Court in 2009, when it ruled that the companies manufacturing Agent Orange were not responsible for its effects, since they were only carrying out the instructions of the government. In effect, the Supreme Court ruling sets the precedent that there can be no such thing as a corporate war crime, so long as the US government legally underwrites the military-industrial complex.

For its part, since Vietnam, Monsanto has moved to change its image, no longer producing chemicals that help kill the enemy, but instead seeds and other agricultural products that help feed the world and turn fence-sitters to our side in sites of conflict. Figuring out how to help farmers in war-torn areas is a big part of this business, as are those sweet contracts with the US Defense Department that flow from it.

Agri-business and the spoils of war
Herein lies the connection to the other big news story of Clinton’s trip. Last Tuesday, when she touched down in Kabul for a meeting of the 70 nations giving aid to Afghanistan, Clinton announced, in the voguish verbiage of today’s foreign policy establishment, a “surge” in civilian efforts.

This is a fancy way of assuring the Afghans and the international community that the US counter-insurgency war is about much more than drones and fire fights. The United States, she insists, is committed to making Afghanistan a better place for the Afghan people. This policy is also about making profits better and better for Monsanto and other big agriculture companies.

As a prelude to Clinton’s trip to Kabul, National Public Radio’s Marketplace aired a story highlighting one of the many promising aspects of the non-military side of the US presence in Afghanistan. The story featured the National Guard’s Agri-business Development Team, which has been touted as one the wars “quiet successes”. The program is supposed to help Afghan farmers incorporate scientific and technological innovations into their farming practices to make them more efficient and sustainable.

Monsanto is a key participant in the program. In addition to contracting with the US government, it has hosted Afghan agriculture officials at its headquarters in St Louis, Missouri.

While Monsanto has kept a low profile in all of this, US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, who is a friend of big-business agriculture, has been less than quiet about who stands to benefit from this kind of program. In his interview with NPR, he expounded on how US agri-business would eventually profit from the work of the Agricultural Development Teams:

If we can grow a middle class in Afghanistan and if we can create wealth and opportunities through agriculture, through their own exports, then eventually they will need more of our agricultural products. They may begin to consume more meat, for example. So that might increase beef exports, for example. So building a middle class through a strong agriculture helps our producers eventually by creating additional markets that don’t exist today.

I’m not sure quite where to start … with the absurdity of believing that the United States can whip up a middle class in Afghanistan, or with the audacity of presuming that corporate agri-business should be profiting from the war there. Then again, the latter would be more the norm than the exception. Before leaving Iraq, US administrator Paul L Bremer issued a directive that protects the intellectual property rights of genetically modified seeds. With this protection, Monsanto and other big agri-companies can go to Iraq, advertise the wonders of their seeds, then charge expensive licensing and renewal fees.

Big agri-businesses realize that bringing local farmers from war zones into the agri-business system of production and consumption is good for business and, with the some exceptions, good for reputations. This is what, in the language of neo-liberalism, we call a win-win situation. Thanks to the over-reaching of big-agri corporations through the World Trade Organization and other neo-liberal institutions of international trade over the past decade, however, the circle of critics continues to grow and strengthen. Indian activist and philosopher Vandana Shiva, who has led the fight against agri-business’ destruction of local farming and the environment in India and elsewhere for over two decades, has now become a regular in the mainstream international press. In January, she even appeared on CNN to discuss the plight of Indian farmers who are deeply and forcibly indebted to agri-business, and thousands of whom have committed suicide out of desperation. Shiva effectively challenges the notion that the big agricultural companies are spreading peace and prosperity around the world. “Pesticides,” she says, are “the real weapons of mass destruction.” There is no reason to believe that the outcome in Afghanistan will be any better for small farmers there than in India. Unfortunately, for all of their suffering, these individuals and their families will not be seen as victims of war crimes or human-rights abuses.

Until we figure out a way to implement international accountability into the military-industrial complex, it is unlikely that big business will ever promise compensation, let alone actually pay, Afghan farmers for the destruction of their poppy crop or for the thousands of individual economic, ecological, and human tragedies that will likely ensue from big agri-business’ war in Afghanistan.

Hannah Gurman is an assistant professor at NYU’s Gallatin School. She teaches and researches widely on issues of US foreign policy and American culture. Currently, she’s researching the return of counter-insurgency in the American military establishment.

source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/LH18Dk01.html