Gates Foundation hosts event to promote “FOOD FOR GOOD.” Find out how you can get involved to ask the Foundation, “GOOD FOR WHOM?”

The Gates Foundation claims to be promoting food for good (#Food4GoodSEA) at their Visitor Center event this Saturday April 5. Members of AGRA Watch are asking the question: good for whom? (#Good4who)
Through the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and other programs, the Gates Foundation promotes industrial farming, inappropriate technologies, and pro-corporate policies that will make things worse for the hungry and small-scale farmers, consumer health, and the environment in Africa. For more info visit the AGRA Watch website.
Here are 3 ways to take action on this campaign:
1. Join us on SAT April 5th, 11-1 PM. We will be leafletting at the Gates Foundation’s Visitor Center ‘Food for Good’ event to educate folks about the Gates Foundation’s involvement in Africa. To RSVP or for more information contact: or 206-405-4600.
2.  Sign this petition to show your support and then share widely!
3. Participate in the Social Media campaign. Here’s how:
Important: Use both hashtags (#Food4GoodSEA and #Good4Who) when posting about the campaign so the Gates Foundation will take note.
  • Like Agra Watch (AW) on Facebook and Twitter
  • Repost and retweet on Facebook and Twitter
  • Read analysis from the AGRA Watch blog, (also posted on AGRA Facebook wall), and tell us what you think
  • Tell us your experiences with “good food” on Facebook and Twitter, or shoot us an email – What does good food mean to you? How can food produce change and good in our world?
  • Remember: Use both hashtags (#Food4GoodSEA and #Good4Who) when posting about the campaign.
Thanks for participating! Questions? Contact or 206-405-4600.

Seattle Times Guest Writer Points Out Gates’ Flawed Approach to End Poverty

ImageIn an article published in the Seattle Times, economics professor, William Easterly, writes that the end of global poverty will not come through technology but through ensuring poor people’s rights instead. “Gates believes poverty will end by identifying technical solutions. My research shoes that the first step is not identifying technical solutions, but enduring people’s rights,” states Easterly. The article continues to explain that true democracies, which allow people to freely vote and protest against harmful autocracies, are where an end to poverty can begin, not through technological fixes.

AGRA Watch also contends the Gates Foundation’s relentless support for biotechnology, although financially advantageous for shareholders, will prove to be futile in terms of ending global hunger and poverty. As research has shown, the answer does not lie solely with technological approaches like genetically engineered seeds, but rather non-technical methods which promote farmer knowledge, cooperation and ensure farmer’s rights to freely plant, harvest and save seeds.

To read the entirety of Professor Easterly’s column, please visit the Seattle Times.

United Nations Special Rapporteur Publishes Final Report and Urges Nations to Democratically Redesign Food Systems

ImageAfter a six-year term as Special Rapporteur to the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, recently published his final report to the UN Human Rights Council supporting the need that the world’s food systems need to be “radically and democratically redesigned.” On a local level, De Schutter advised regions to build their agricultural systems around smallholder farmers and called on cities to also reconnect with local food producers. “Attempts by developing countries to improve their food security will only be successful if there are parallel reforms in the global north. Wealthy countries must restrain their expanding claims on global farmland by reigning in the demand for animal feed and agrofuels and by reducing food waste,” stated the Special Rapporteur.

Furthermore, as in the press release, “In addition to his report, the expert presented a summary of recommendations issued over the course of his mandate as Special Rapporteur (2008-2014), covering food price volatility, trade and investment in agriculture, regulating agribusiness, agrofuels, food aid and development cooperation, nutrition, social protection, women’s rights, Human Rights Impact Assessments, national strategies, agricultural workers, contract farming, small-holder farmers, agroecology, and the reinvestment in agriculture.”

To read the full report, visit here.

G8: New Alliance to Improve Food Security or Recolonize Africa?

ImageAlthough in theory the G8 Alliance is designed to reduce poverty through investment and increased capital, a new article published by the Guardian discusses how, in actuality, the Alliance paves the way for agribusiness and leaves smallholder farmers behind instead.

Dubbed as a new form of colonialism by critics, the G8 has opened African markets to commercial farm contracts, changes in seed, land and tax laws to favor private investors.  While easing of export controls and taxlaws make it easier for companies to do business in Africa, farmers, who have largely been excluded from the G8 negotiations, will be pushed to rely more and more on imports.

While supporters contend that the G8 Initiative would increase agricultural growth and farmers’ incomes, which in turn would reduce poverty and increase food security, skeptics argue that negotiations which favor agribusiness to the detriment of smallholder farmers will undoubtedly fail.

To read the Guardian’s full article, “G8 New Alliance Condemned as New Wave of Colonialism in Africa,” please visit

AGRA Watch Educational on March 20th: Biopiracy and Seed Sovereignty

Biopiracy and Seed Sovereignty: AGRA Watch Educational
THURS, March 20, 6:30 – 9pm
Location: Rochdale Room, Central Co-op Admin Office Building, 1900 E Madison Street
(3 blocks East of Co-op store)
All are welcome!  Event is free, and refreshments will be provided thanks to Central Co-op!
RSVP’s appreciated but not required.
International law is facilitating the appropriation of Africa’s genetic wealth, and the Gates Foundation is helping to pave the way.  African farmers who are resisting the “new green revolution” call for Seed Sovereignty - their right to save, use, exchange, and sell their own seeds.
AGRA Watch is pleased to have one of its members, activist scholar Carol Thompson of Northern Arizona University, in town to lead a discussion on this topic. Carol has partnered with a Southern African farmers’ organization for decades; recently they revealed how these international policies may be more threatening to smallholder farmers than even climate change. She is co-author with Andrew Mushita of Biopiracy of Biodiversity – Global Exchange as Enclosure.
For more information, contact AGRA Watch, or call 206.405.4600.

African Centre for Biosafety Critiques Implementation of AGRA


The African Centre for Biosafety (ACB), a non-profit organization based in South Africa that provides information, research, and policy analysis regarding social justice, genetic engineering and ecological sustainability, recently published a critique of AGRA’s “African Agricultural Status Report 2013,” entitled, “Giving With One Hand and Taking With Two.”  In their critique, they summarize and analyze AGRA’s report in an attempt to answer important questions regarding AGRA’s plan to increase circulation of private capital in order to increase agricultural production on the continent.

ACB investigates the proposed use of public funds, the distribution of benefits resulting from increased circulation of private capital, and AGRA’s basic assumption that increased agricultural production benefits all.  They note that AGRA proposes the channeling of public resources toward projects and policies that will lead to profitability, indicating a benefit for commercial farmers who use high-input farming methods at the expense of farmers who are not in the position to produce as businesses.  In addressing the distribution of benefits, ACB notes that with the injection of private capital, which is the basis of AGRA’s plan, the farmer will always have to give up a portion of their revenue or product to the owner of said capital.  ACB emphasizes the importance of finding ways to increase productivity where the value created can stay with the producers and not go to investors. Further indicating an unfavorable distribution of benefits, ACB notes that some of AGRA’s interventions, most notably their push for seed harmonization, will have direct negative impacts on small-scale farmers because of new regulatory and legal obstacles that would inhibit these farmers’ current practices.

According to ACB, AGRA’s assumption that everyone benefits from increased production is erroneous. AGRA’s strategy is not only an inappropriate intervention for African agriculture but their focus on industrial agriculture ignores the importance of diversity in ecological agriculture, and the facts that farmers’ practices are time tested and have adapted to fit into local socio-ecological contexts for thousands of years. ACB suggests working with farmers to strengthen current practices instead of starting from scratch with AGRA’s industrial agricultural plan.

AGRA Watch’s newest intern, Tyler White, provided this analysis. To find out more about ACB’s report, please visit

Fight to Label GMOs Continues

While voters in California and Washington rejected ballot proposals requiring foods containing genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such, two dozen more states are expected to introduce labeling bills. Opponents of GM labeling laws have consequently responded by coming up with a plan to thwart consumers’ right to know what is in their food. 

Earlier this month AGRA Watch reported on the Grocery Manufactures Association’s plan to label GMOs as “natural” and according to Food Democracy Now!, their plan is also set to “speed up approval for new GMO crops, limit the FDA and USDA’s ability to extend pre-market safety reviews and declare GMOs as ‘safe.’” 
However, policy makers and concerned citizens are taking the labeling fight to the nation’s highest office. According to an article by Sustainable Pulse, more than 200 business and organizations have written to President Obama urging him to keep his 2007 campaign promise to label GMOs.
To find out more, please visit Food Democracy Now’s Labeling GMOs: America’s Right to Know!

GM Arctic Apples to Cause Export Frenzy

ImageA recent article published by Sustainable Pulse discusses possible ramifications for US apple exports if and when GM Arctic Golden and Granny apples become approved for cultivation in 2014. Engineered to prevent browning, the new GM apples will be the first genetically modified apple on the North American market. However, issues have surfaced regarding the apples inclusion of an antibiotic marker gene, Kanamycin. Due to the risk of antibiotic resistance and concerns of cross-pollination and gene-transfers, EU regulators may refuse to allow imports of not only GM apples but all North American apples. According to Sustainable Pulse, “The British Columbia Fruit Growers Association has even openly rejected the GMO Arctic Apple because of the lack of independent testing or public consultation, the uncertainty over cross-pollination with non-GMO apple trees…”
To learn more, please visit

Grocery Manufactures Association Pushes Petition to Label GMOs as ‘Natural’

ImageWashington State’s November election results showed a narrow (49%-51%) defeat for the state’s GM labeling initiative, I-522. Opponents poured in their financial contributes eventually outspending the I-522 proponents three to one.
Now, the top financial supporter against Washington’s GM labeling bill, the Grocery Manufactures Association (GMA), is making headlines again.
In an article published by Food Safety News (an organization not affiliated with the Center for Food Safety), the Grocery Manufacturers Association intends to petition the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow foods containing GMOs to be labeled as “natural.”
According to the FDA’s website, “From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.”
These marketing and mislabeling ploys by Big Ag corporations and the GMA create greater confusion for U.S. consumers.
To learn more, please visit

Benefits of Genetic Engineering are Often Based Conjecture, Not Science

ImageLast month, the Union for Concerned Scientists published a blog regarding the arguments made by GE proponents for the necessity of genetically engineered crops. Particularly in the context of food production, GE advocates frequently assert that genetic modification will be a viable option to increase the world’s food supply while non-GE solutions will prove to be inadequate. However, according to senior scientist in the Food and Environmental Program at the Union of Concerned Scientist, Doug Gurian-Sherman, there is often a lack of substantive evidence supporting these claims. “Analysis of the coming constraints on food production (like climate change) and the potential of different approaches to improve food production and distribution are needed before any such declarations can be made with confidence,” says Gurian-Sherman. According to Sherman, the effectiveness of genetic engineering is best evaluated if rigorous regulations and scientific testing of GE technologies are conducted by objective third parties.

To find out more, visit


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.