The Pineapple Problem

"http://tinyurl.com/2vjyzq2"

Costa Rica is a beautiful country with a perfect climate for growing some of the world's most popular plants (both ornamental and nutritious). But does this translate into real economic benefit for the people of Costa Rica? For at least 100 years, foreign agri-business has been attempting to despoil Costa Rica's riches and often succeeding. It began with United Fruit and banana plantations and continued with pineapple and other crops and with first USA and then international conglomerates such as Chiquita Banana, Dole, and others. I was told that "they" came in with huge tractors separated by a kilometer and with a razor sharp blade or wire between them and simply bulldozed huge swaths of rain forest to make pineapple plantations. "They" paid off politicians and government workers to get whatever permits they wanted and then hired the locals whom they paid very little, required long back-breaking work from them, and treated them as sub-human. Then Costa Rica got tougher with them and the labor laws became tougher and more fairly enforced so that "they"had to start paying a minimum wage and pay into the government health and pensions funds. I now that as long ago as 2008, Dole Pineapple was getting around many of these restrictions by hiring workers by the day, trucking them in in the backs of cattle trucks, and then letting them go. So they were only temporary, casual, and part-time workers according to the legal records. They would then send the cattle trucks out again and collect the workers lined up waiting for a job. The work, of course, is seasonal. That makes it easy for Dole and other such companies to get around various labor laws.

I have been told by workers in the banana plantations and in the rice fields that pesticides are sprayed from crop dusters while the workers are in the fields working. The incidence of sterility, birth defects, and cancers among these workers and their families is very high.

The ecological damage done by the clearing of huge areas of forest to plant a single crop is enormous. The on-going damage is still not completely known.

The economic questions is this: Do the losses to the environment and the public health get cancelled out by economic benefits to the people of Costa Rica?

This blog from PoveryMatters Blog, attemps to answer the question. Anyone interested in the Costa Rica left behind by tourists, should be aware of how outside interests and mega agribusiness in particular are affecting the country.

Science Group: Biotech Regs Could Allow Drugs In Food

Science Group: Biotech Regs Could Allow Drugs In Food

Published: Monday, October 13, 2008 3:08 PM CDT
WASHINGTON — The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) recently denounced newly proposed U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules governing genetically engineered crops, including food crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial products. The proposed rules, UCS charged, would not protect the U.S. food supply from potential contamination by drugs from "pharma" crops and could allow drugs that it deems "safe" to enter the food supply. This contamination could occur through cross-pollination or seed mixing between pharma food crops and crops intended for consumption.

The USDA ignored recommendations for a ban on the outdoor production of pharma food crops from the Grocery Manufacturers Association, major food companies, UCS, and more than 100 environmental, agricultural, health, and consumer organizations.

Below is a statement by Jane Rissler, UCS's Food and Environment Program deputy director:

"Under the proposed rules, USDA's new motto is 'Only safe levels of drugs in U.S. food.‚ If these proposals are enacted into law, American consumers must accept the possibility of drugs in their breakfast cereal or other common foods. Moreover, these rules likely will lead to contamination scares, which will hurt the food industry.

"The USDA proposal, unlike the ban we recommended, offers no incentives to drug companies to pursue already existing, safer methods for producing drugs.

"In its rush to enact the proposed rules into law before the end of the Bush administration, the USDA has given short shrift to public participation. The department is allowing only 45 days for the public to analyze and comment on this major proposal, which will determine the government's approach to regulating genetically engineered organisms for years to come.

http://yankton.net/articles/2008/10/17/neighbors/doc48f3aaa2e5e9e984781507.txt#rate

http://snipurl.com/4gigv

Making Sense

From: Congressman Dennis Kucinich

Subject: Protecting the public interest in any economic "bailout"

Date: September 23, 2008 11:14:43 AM CDT

Dear Friend,

The U.S. government has been turned into an engine that accelerates the wealth upwards into the hands of a few. The Wall Street bailout, the Iraq War, military spending, tax cuts to the rich, and a for-profit health care system are all about the acceleration of wealth upwards. And now, the American people are about to pay the price of the collapse of the $513 trillion Ponzi scheme of derivatives. Yes, that’s half a quadrillion dollars. Our first trillion dollar compression bandage will hardly stem the hemorrhaging of an unsustainable Ponzi scheme built on debt "de-leverages." Does anyone seriously think that our public and private debts of some $45 trillion will be paid? That the administration's growth of the federal debt from $5.6 trillion to $9.8 trillion while borrowing another trillion dollars from Social Security has nothing to do with this? Does anyone not see that when we spend nearly $16,000 for every family of four in our society for the military each year that we are heading over the cliff? This is a debt crisis, not a credit crisis. Just as FDR had to save capitalism after Wall Street excesses, we have to re-invigorate our economy with real - not imaginary - growth. It does not address the never-ending war on the middle class. The same corporate interests that profited from the closing of U.S. factories, the movement of millions of jobs out of America, the off-shoring of profits, the out-sourcing of workers, the crushing of pension funds, the knocking down of wages, the cancellation of health care benefits, the sub-prime lending are now rushing to Washington to get money to protect themselves. The double standard is stunning: their profits are their profits, but their losses are our losses. This bailout will not bring real jobs back to America. It will not bring back jobs that make things. It does not rebuild our schools, streets, neighborhoods, parks or bridges. The major product of this financial economy is now debt. Industrial capitalism has been destroyed. In the next few days I will push for a plan that includes equity for every American in any taxpayer investment in this so-called bail-out plan. Since the bailout will cost each and every American about $2,300, I have proposed the creation of a United States Mutual Trust Fund, which will take control of $700 billion in stock assets, convert those assets to shares, and distribute $2,300 worth of shares to new individual savings accounts in the name of each and every American. I will also insist that all of the following issues be considered in whatever Congress passes: Reinstatement of the provisions of Glass-Steagall, which forbade speculation Re-regulation of the finance, insurance, and real estate industries Accountability on the part of those who took the companies down: a) resignations of management b) givebacks of executive compensation packages c) limitations on executive compensation d) admission by CEO's of what went wrong and how, prior to any government bailout Demands for transparencey a) with respect to analyzing the transactions which took the companies down b) with respect to Treasury's dealings with the companies pre and post-bailout An equity position for the taxpayers a) some form of ownership of assets Some credible formula for evaluating the price of the assets that the government is buying. A sunset clause on the legislation Full public disclosure by members of Congress of assets held, with possible conflicts put in blind trust. A ban on political campaign contributions from officers of corporations receiving bailouts A requirement that 2008 cycle candidates return political contributions to officers and representatives of corporations receiving bailouts And, most importantly, some mechanism for direct assistance to homeowners saddled with unreasonable or unmanageable mortgages, as well as protection for renters who have lived up to their obligation but fall victim to financial tragedy when the property they live in undergoes foreclosure. These are just some thoughts on the run. You will hear more from me tomorrow. Dennis J Kucinich www.Kucinich.us 216-252-9000 877-933-6647

More Monsanto Tidbits

Refer back to this post . Read that and then compare the information to these two news summaries from Yahoo! It's enough to make a poor humble consumer smile.

Monsanto looking to sell bovine hormone business
The Ithaca Journal Fri, 08 Aug 2008 2:27 AM PDT
Fifteen years after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved recombinant bovine growth hormone for use in dairy production, Monsanto has decided it may not be such a cash cow.

Monsanto puts bovine growth hormone out to pasture [60-Second Science Blog] Scientific American Thu, 07 Aug 2008 12:53 PM PDT After years of legal wrangling over the proper labeling of milk from cows treated with its artificial hormone, Monsanto wants to sell its milk business--specifically, POSILAC, the bovine growth hormone given to cows to boost their production of milk. [More]

TROJAN HORSE

Bush seeks $770M in food help during crisis

Kareem Elgazzar

Issue date: 6/2/08 Section: News

As part of a broader $70 billion Iraq war funding measure for 2009, the Bush administration has added an aid package encouraging the use of genetically modified crops for the world's disadvantaged populations.

The Bush administration is seeking congressional approval of a $770 million food package in an effort to ease the world food crisis. If approved, the U.S. Agency for International Development would spend $150 million on development farming, which would include the use of genetically modified crops.

Genetically modified crops are produced from crops whose genetic makeup have been altered through a process called recombinant DNA, or gene splicing, to give the plant a desirable trait, according to a 2003 report in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's FDA Consumer.

Using the tools of genetic engineering allows the transfer of useful genes from one organism to a totally unrelated organism. Plants can be used, for example, to produce human proteins, such as insulin and antibodies, according to "Plants and Society," a textbook co-authored by Estelle Levetin and Karen McMahon.

"The building blocks for DNA and proteins are largely universal across organisms," said Susan Dunford, associate professor of biological sciences and instructor of a plants and people course. "As with any technology, the potential benefits, which are considerable, need to be weighed against the potential risks."

As the value or detriment of genetically modified, or bioengineered, food is ambiguous to researchers in the U.S. and Europe, the Ohio Department of Agriculture has done little research or development into the issue.

© 2008 The News Record

Poor farmers world wide can't take advantage of genetically modified crops since the modifications are meant to save time and man-power ONLY in large agri-businesses. In addition, the seeds produced by GM crops are engineered to prevent normal reproduction of the plant. That means that today's poor farmer using GM crops will have to BUY seed for next year's crops instead of simply harvesting seed as is done normally. Including GM crops in any package of food aid is like sending in a Trojan Horse filled with future hunger and/or dependence on the supplier of the GM seed (most likely, Monsanto) to those markets not currently under the control of the GM crop patent holder. Instead of helping people, the addition of a GM crops provision will actually harm them! It's time for Congress to take a long hard look at future damages that could result from this sneaky maneuver.

Free Trade anyone?

By David Sirota

April 22nd, 2008 - 4:45pm ET

General Electric's former CEO Jack Welch is one of the great economic royalists of the modern day. He is the guy who said the businessman's dream is to "have every plant you own on a barge" - so that the plant can move away anytime workers demand better wages, working conditions or environmental standards. So it is no surprise that Welch is spending his retirement years penning warmed-over press releases for the back page of Businessweek - the latest of which repackages the same tired arguments for NAFTA trade model that have drowned out every rational economic argument for the last two decades.

What's telling about the piece is how vapid it really is. In 594 words, we are given just three selective statistics that portray NAFTA as a net plus for domestic employment, wages and exports - despite the more macro statistics that show NAFTA has been a net job killer, driven down wages and exacerbated our trade deficits. The rest of the Welch press release is rhetoric about the wonders of free market ideology - ya know, the same free market ideology that created the financial crisis.

We could write this off as the silly ramblings of a past-his-prime CEO, except the propaganda goes from Jack Welch's screeds to George Bush's mouth. As the Associated Press reports, Bush used a pro-NAFTA conference with Mexico and Canada to reiterate his demand for Congress to pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Here's the key comment from our President:

"It makes no sense to me to say that Colombian goods can come into our country duty-free, yet our goods can't go into Colombia duty-free,'' Bush said sternly. "And yet that's the case. An agreement with Colombia would level the playing field.''

The statement teems with Welch-ian ignorance, telling us that this MBA president has almost no concept of basic economic history. It makes perfect sense that American goods can't go into Colombia duty free. Such tariff protection is the way developing world countries (and that includes pre-industrial America) have always built themselves into modernized countries: They protect their infant industries so that those industries can become competitive. As Ha-Joon Chang shows in his book Bad Samaritans, this has been Economics 101 for most of modern history - until the present era, when corporations started buying trade policy like just another commodity.

The alternative was seen - not coincidentally - in NAFTA. Because that trade deal forced Mexico to stop protecting its agricultural industries, multinational agribusiness was able to wipe out indigenous farmers, causing economic unrest in Mexico, and a major increase in illegal immigration pressure at our southern border as out-of-work farmers headed north looking for jobs.

This isn't to say that all tariffs are a good thing - not even close. But the fact that an American president says he has no idea why a developing world country would protect its economy displays a stunning level of stupidity.

One thing that Bush is right about: It does make no sense that Colombian goods come into the United States duty free - especially when you consider that the Colombian government looks the other way when corporations partner with death squads to execute union organizers. In fact, "looks the other way" is putting it mildly. As the AP reports today, many high-ranking Colombian government officials are tied to the paramilitary death squads responsible for the oppression. That includes close allies to President Uribe like his own cousin.

Here's the deal: When we give the duty-free status to countries that allow corporations to engage in inhumane or unacceptable cost-cutting behavior (ie. killing union organizers, degrading the environment, enslaving workers, etc.), we are providing an economic incentive for businesses to engage in that behavior. Without any kind of social tariff, we are effectively telling corporations that it's AOK with us for them to pick up their operations in America and head to places like Colombia, where they can cut their labor costs by hiring hit men to kill off pesky union organizers that might get the workforce to demand better wages. And that kind of policy is not just immoral - it's self-destructive for our own interests. American workers cannot economically compete with workers who get shot for forming a union.

And that gets us back to what really drives our trade policy these days: Jack Welch's "barge" ideology. The goal of policies like NAFTA and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement are not to better nations' economies - it is to better the bottom line of corporate campaign contributors, regardless of whether that destroys nations' economies.

Little Guy strikes tiny blow on Monsanto

Monsanto pays Percy Schmeiser

Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser spent 1998 to 2004 standing up to one of the most influential agricultural companies in the world: Monsanto. While it was Monsanto that took Schmesier to court on that occasion, the roles were reversed on Wednesday, March 19, 2008, when Monsanto found itself being taken to court by Schmeiser.

It was the first case between Monsanto and Schmeiser that led to the 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision that ruled in favour of Monsanto. While the decision assured that regardless of contamination, a farmer cannot grow patented seeds, Schmeiser recognized that if the company is indeed the owner of the plant, then it should be liable for the damages that their property causes others.

There is no legal precedent in Canada that has determined who maintains the liability for damages caused by patented plants. Monsanto does however accept moral responsiblity for what are known as "volunteers" -- unwanted plants appearing on farmers' fields.

The company employs a program that offers to remove volunteer plants.

In October 2005, Schmeiser's farm was visited yet again by Monsanto, and again, in the form of its RoundUp Ready Canola. Schmeiser took advantage of the company's removal program, but discovered that it would only remove the plants if he signed a release form that contained a confidentiality clause, which he disapproved of. What followed led to an out-of-court settlement on March 19, 2008, and Monsanto paid Schmeiser the $660 it cost him to have the plants removed.

LBy Jon Steinman
Published: March 21, 2008
TheTyee.ca

Citizens’ group wants a law to ban genetically engineered crops.

Printed from the Monterey County Weekly website: http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2008/2008-Mar-06/20-citizens-group-wants-a-law-to-ban-genetically-engineered-crops
Ag Advisory Committee considers GMOs
Citizens’ group wants a law to ban genetically engineered crops.
Posted March 06, 2008

By Zachary Stahl
Leading the Charge
Lorna Moffat (front) wants a countywide ban on genetically modified crops.

Several years ago seed giant Monsanto offered Salinas Valley growers a genetic solution to their weed problem with spring mix. Monsanto was developing a lettuce variety resistant to Roundup, the company’s leading herbicide. Farmers could have killed weeds with Roundup without harming the genetically engineered spring mix. But the industry shied away.

“It was dropped very quickly,” says Jim Manassero, chairman of the Monterey County Agricultural Advisory Committee. “Number one, the industry didn’t want it.” Manassero says a state law would have had to change to allow the vegetables to be harvested after being doused with Roundup. Plus, consumers would have balked at the prospect.

“It becomes very easy for that type of science to get blown out of proportion by the media and to make it all lettuce is poisoned or could be,” Manassero says.

The genetically modified seeds never reached the valley floor. While Monsanto has taken over the corn and soybean seed market, Monterey County ag officials maintain that no genetically engineered crops have been grown in the county. Some local organic farmers and environmentalists want to keep it this way.

On Feb. 28 a group of small farmers and Monterey Peninsula residents asked the Agricultural Advisory Committee to recommend a county ban on GE crops. Lorna Moffat, who is spearheading the effort, proposed the moratorium in response to a November speech by Dr. Henry Daniell of the University of Florida about producing insulin from genetically modified lettuce.

Moffat told the committee that federal agencies do a poor job monitoring GE crops, and no long-term studies have been done to monitor their health impacts. “Few regulations to protect public health and our environment are in place,” Moffat said, warning that GE crops could cross-pollinate other produce.

Alex Sancen is an organic farmer who grows on less than five acres at the Agricultural & Land-Based Training Association outside Salinas. Sancen told the committee that his farmers market customers are concerned about GE crops tainting their produce. “They are speaking of buying vegetables from Santa Cruz County if you guys don’t do anything,” Sancen said.

Sancen and dozens of other ALBA farmers want the Monterey County Board of Supervisors to adopt an ordinance similar to one that exists in Santa Cruz County. In 2006 Santa Cruz supervisors banned growing genetically engineered crops. The county code makes exemptions for GE pharmaceuticals grown in state or federally licensed, indoor labs.

Santa Cruz is the most recent California county to prohibit GM crops. In 2004, Mendocino County became the first in the U.S. to ban GMOs, followed by Trinity and Marin counties. While a handful of liberal, coastal counties have outlawed the crops, anti-GMO ballot initiatives in Butte, Humboldt, San Luis Obispo and Sonoma counties have failed at the polls.

In addition, at least 12 counties, mostly in the conservative and agriculturally-rich Central Valley, have passed resolutions supporting ag biotechnology.

The only related thing that Monterey County has on the books is a code regulating the experimental release of GE microorganisms. The county crafted the code in the ‘70s in response to a bacteria intended to prevent frost on strawberries, says Bob Roach, assistant agricultural commissioner.

Pesticide-resistant crops, GE plants and pharmaceuticals fall under the purview of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration, respectively, Roach says. County ordinances “are largely symbolic because no one really wanted to grow these crops in these counties,” he adds.

The same goes for Monterey County. “I don’t think they are on our door step,” Roach says. “I don’t think they are even coming up the walk yet.”

But Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue and some ag officials want to leave the door open for GE research. Donohue hopes to usher in higher-paying jobs by attracting pharmaceutical, biotechnology and alternative energy firms. He says he will oppose any regulations restricting biotechnology. “The reality is our scientists want to be free to do business,” he says.

Donohue says just because Daniell spoke in Salinas about insulin-producing lettuce doesn’t mean that research is moving forward. “This is all speculative,” he says. “He gave a speech. Nobody is making plans. Nobody is advocating GMO crops.”

Manassero says the Ag Advisory Committee will schedule a presentation from a UC Davis professor about the benefits of genetic engineering. The committee will then recommend a course of action to county supervisors. But it’s clear the committee chairman doesn’t think a ban is necessary.

“Why pass an ordinance that would close a potential scientific and high-tech solution to a problem that we don’t know about yet?” Manassero asks.

Manassero dismisses the concerns of GMO opponents. Since vegetables are harvested when they are immature, he says they don’t pollinate. Therefore, Manassero says, the crops wouldn’t cross-pollinate. As for organic farmers losing business, Manassero calls it a “scare tactic that is being used to push the GMO ordinance in Monterey County.”

If Monterey County sides with GE crops, Sancen says it could hurt the county’s farming reputation. Sancen points to the drawbacks of GE crops, including increased food allergies, damage to beneficial insects and the creation of “superweeds.” “It’s not just for small farmers,” he says. “It’s for the whole ag industry.”

Indeed, fruit and vegetable crops are one of the last stands in an ag industry increasingly dominated by GE crops. Since their introduction in 1996 GE crops have ballooned to make up more than 80 percent of soybean production and more than 60 percent of cotton acreage. Sancen calls on the county to rein in GMOs before they spread locally. “We have to regulate this,” he says.

THIS EXPLAINS A LOT!

American Management Today - Idiots?

A magazine recently ran a "Dilbert Quotes" contest. They were looking for people to submit quotes from their real-life Dilbert-comic-strip-type managers. These were voted the top ten quotes from the managers we work for in corporate America, circa 2004:

• "As of tomorrow, employees will only be able to access the building using individual security cards. Pictures will be taken next Wednesday, andemployees will receive their cards in two weeks." (This was the winningquote from Fred Dales, Microsoft Corp. in Redmond WA)
• "What I need is an exact list of specific unknown problems we might encounter." (Lykes Lines Shipping)
• "E-mail is not to be used to pass on information or data. It should be usedonly for company business." (Accounting manager, Electric Boat Company)
• "This project is so important we can't let things that are more importantinterfere with it." (Advertising/Marketing manager, United Parcel Service)
• "Doing it right is no excuse for not meeting the schedule." (Plant Manager,Delco Corporation)
• "No one will believe you solved this problem in one day! We've been workingon it for months. Now go act busy for a few weeks and I'll let you knowwhen it's time to tell them." (R&D supervisor, Minnesota Mining andManufacturing/3M Corp.)
• Quote from the Boss: "Teamwork is a lot of people doing what I say."(Marketing executive, Citrix Corporation)
• My sister passed away and her funeral was scheduled for Monday. When I toldmy Boss, he said she died on purpose so that I would have to miss work onthe busiest day of the year. He then asked if we could change her burial toFriday. He said, "That would be better for me." (Shipping executive, FTDFlorists)
• "We know that communication is a problem, but the company is not going todiscuss it with the employees." (Switching supervisor, AT&T Long LinesDivision)

THE PETER PRINCIPLE

Thanks to Wikipedia -

The Peter Principle is a theory originated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter. It states that successful members of a hierarchical organization are eventually promoted to their highest level of competence, after which further promotion raises them to a level at which they are not competent. The term is a pun on Sigmund Freud's theory of the pleasure principle.

The theory was set out in a humorous style in the book The Peter Principle, first published in 1969. Peter describes the theme of his book as hierarchiology. The central principle is stated in the book as follows:

In a Hierarchy Every Employee Tends to Rise to His Level of Incompetence.

OUTSOURCING

A Japanese company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on
the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak
performance before the race. On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided toinvestigate the
reason for the crushing defeat.

A management team made up of senior management was formed to investigate
and recommend appropriate action. Their conclusion was the Japanese had 8
people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people
steering and 1 person rowing.

So American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large
amount of money for a second opinion. They advised that too many people
were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.

To prevent another loss to the Japanese, the rowing team's management
structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area
steering superintendents and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager. !

They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person
rowing the boat greater incentive towork harder. It was called the "Rowing
Team Quality First Program", with meetings, dinners and free pens for the
rower.

There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment,
extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.

The next year the Japanese won by two miles. Humiliated, the American
management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a
new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new
equipment.

The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the
next year's racing team was outsourced to India.