Agriculture and forestry will part-take EU’s climate policies and emission reduction process, according to a proposal issued by the Directorate General for Climate Action.

The proposed new rules will  be submitted to the European Parliament and the European Council, together with an obligation for member states to adopt action plans for greener forestry, soil and agriculture.

A proposal for national emission reduction targets for these sectors is due to be issued later this year.

Forestry and agriculture are the last two major sectors without common European rules, nor specific climate policies.

Efforts to mitigate rural carbon dioxide emissions have only been partly recognized by the EU, due to a lack of common accounting rules and problems associated with robust carbon data collection from forests and soils.

“The proposal will also contribute to protect biodiversity and water resources, support rural development and have a more climate-friendly agriculture,” stated the EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.

On Poland’s Rebel Stance

”Poland’s no to the European Commission low-carbon Roadmap is unfortunate, but it will not stop Europe from moving on with its transition to a low-carbon economy,” added Hedegaard.

“The bad news was that Poland blocked Council conclusions for the second time. The good and encouraging news is that Poland was the only country to block. The Presidency and the other 26 member states explicitly asked the Commission to move on, and that is what we will do.

The day before the Council the Polish minister signed off an op-ed saying that EU should only have the 2050 reduction objective. How to achieve it should be up to members states themselves as a matter of “subsidiarity”.

Let’s imagine that we said the same about the economic crisis, that the EU defined the economic target for 2050 but how to reach it and whether anything happened in the next 38 years would be an exclusive matter for individual member states. Everyone can see that this wouldn’t work. This is also true when it comes to our climate policies,” she added.

The EU can’t work like this. The EU is a democratic community where negotiations are about give and take to get a good result for all. We can’t move forward if the most reluctant one dictates the pace to the rest.

The Commission’s job is to take care of the common European interest. As late as last week all EU Heads of States and Government urged us to move forward on the low-carbon transition. This is what we will do. There are already a number of proposals from the Commission paving the way, e.g. the energy efficiency directive that the European Council wants to be adopted already in June and the Commission’s budget proposal with an ambitious climate mainstreaming.

Now the Commission will work on further measures needed to reach the cost-efficient milestones that will lead us to a low-carbon future”.

Happy Terra Madre Day to All !!!

Marco Onida, Secretary General of the Alpine Convention, interviewed for 2Celsius Network by Raul Cazan

The Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention organized from 4th to 12th July 2011 the fifth edition of SuperAlp!, the sustainable crossing of the Alps.

For the fifth year SuperAlp! linked different territories, issues and cultures aiming at improving the knowledge of the Alpine Convention, that recognizes the Alps as a whole and unique territory.

A group of journalists belonging to world’s top publications (and 2Celsius Network was among them) crossed the Alpine arc for 10 days using sustainable means of transport and trying out the various links that make up the chain of alternative mobility to private cars. The group traveled from France to Italy across Switzerland and Austria by train, bicycle and on foot.

The 2011 edition let participants discover the conditions of alpine glaciers, one of the most evident indicators of the effects of climate change. It also intends to make this crossing an occasion to communicate the Alpine Convention and its Protocols as tools for the sustainable development of the Alpine region, easily transferable also to other mountain regions of the world.

What is SuperAlp and why did you organize it?

SuperAlp is a project of the Permanent Secretariat of the Alpine Convention that has two main aims. The first aim is to bring the Alpine Convention to the territory. The Alpine Convention is a treaty, which entangles alpine territory, but the territory not always knows this. The second aim is through this long journey of journalists we talk about the Alps, we determine journalists to write about the Alps and we raise awareness on critical topics such as sustainability in the Alps. SuperAlp is made with public and sustainable means of transport and fueled with local food, as to show that it is possible to travel like that.

What was the theme this year, 2011?

This year we have chosen glaciers as a theme. We are particularly interested in climate change. It has extreme effects on the Alps; the average increase in temperature in the Alps is higher than the average increase in other areas of the Northern Hemisphere, we had 2 centigrade increase in the Alps (within the last two decades, n.n.), the effects are very visible and, most of all, very expensive. One of the most visible effects is the retreat of glaciers. We chose 5 glaciers in the Alps and we crossed them all in order to see with our eyes what the situation is and to talk to knowledgeable people, glaciologists, experts that have been living here for the last 50-60 years and that are able to explain what is the situation’s evolution, what is the speed of the retreat, what are the problems associated to this retreat and so on.

Journalists on Breithorn (4165m)

On what criteria did you choose the journalists?

We published an open call for interest on the internet to which some journalists replied and some were contacted directly. We have actually been quite selective this time because we wanted journalists whom were not only to hike on mountains with ice axe and crampons, but that are very motivated because in days like today we were walking seven hours and it is not the only day we were hiking that long.

Do you see any similarities between the Alpine Convention and the Carpathian Convention?

The principles are pretty much the same, which means cooperation to solve common problems and to better exploit the common opportunities. The reality, however, is quite different. The Carpathian area is much bigger than the Alps, it is much wilder than the Alps, nature is still to a certain extent unspoiled, it is not that much tourist friendly as the Alps, problems are different. The Carpathian Convention was signed in 2003 that is it is still much younger. It is difficult to compare the two, I would say, from the point of view of the philosophies they are pretty much the same although there are objective differences due to the physical differences of the countries which are associated to the Carpathian Convention. There are not always easy relations with Ukraine, which is member of the Carpathian Convention. I mean political relations are good, but cooperation on the territory requires long-standing trans-border cooperation, which is not part of every day life between Romania, Poland and Ukraine. So the idea is pretty much the same, yes.

It is pretty much the same even when considering the whole geographic area because they belong to the very same orogeny, Carpathians, Alps, Pyrenees…

Yes, exactly. They are the mountains of Europe, basically and they are pretty much neglected from the political perspective, neglected by the European policies, the interests of people in the mountains are not being always considered and this is why it is very important to have these conventions because they can also jointly do lobbying in Brussels to have better consideration of mountain dimension. We often do this with the Carpathian people.

Three years ago I had the great joy to join you in SuperAlp 2. The theme of that project was mountain communities and mountain agriculture. What happened after? Any follow up?

Well, changes in the Alps take ages like everywhere in society. So I would say that we are experiencing pretty much the same situation, we see the same problems with public transport not being enough developed. What we see as a weakness is a little less awareness related to the existence of the Alpine Convention because in the last three years we were working intensively, but in the Alps the situation is quite unchanged. To a certain extent it is actually worsened. And that is on two dimensions. Climate change and tourism. We are going towards a quite dangerous direction with mass tourism in the mountains and not realizing that this is not going to be sustainable.

Why not?

First of all, there is too much focus on winter tourism, on skiing. Ski resorts are investing to get more slopes and ski lifts, but there is less snow and less people mainly due to a greater competition. Today people also want to have quieter holidays even off-season, so there should be a diversification of tourism offers that take place only in some resorts, alpinism villages that we visited in Austria. This is an interesting development, but there are still places where mass winter tourism is considered to be a must and this is harming the environment. But I should say that this is also harming the economy because it makes no sense to have for two months people coming from all over Europe, locals to work there and then, for he rest of the year – mere unemployment.

So do you think that initiatives such as SuperAlp can be applicable to the Carpathians – a SuperCarpatica?

Well, that would be a dream. Distances in the Carpathians are much bigger, probably the development of public transport in mountain areas of the Carpathians is still at an early stage. And also, I would say, probably the political consideration of mountains in areas of the Carpathian countries is not yet the same as here. In the Alps we have a stronger environmental pressure, mass tourism, massive transport transit, loss of mountain agriculture. In the Carpathians, after the political changes in Europe and the accession of many Carpathian countries to the European Union, problems are rather… quite others. But it is very good to have this cooperation because we want to anticipate problems. So the Carpathians can find themselves in the very situation in which the Alps were 20 years ago; so we can anticipate and better deal with these problems. Soon, the Tatras can be in the very same situation in which the Alps are today. We should take care of that.

Can we go back to mountain communities? I know last year you had as theme in SuperAlp food and gastronomy. The funny thing is that in Romania most of the traditional food – or what we generally call slow food nowadays – is coming from the mountain areas. That means there is a lot of added value to food comes from the mountains. How did you tackle that?

This is very important, yes. Last year we had Slow Food as a partner of SuperAlp, we visited the headquarters of Slow Food and its university of gastronomic sciences in Polenzo (Piedmont, Italy), and across our journeys we stopped in places where we almost always had local products. It is quite clear that there is a strong demand for that. Particularly in times of globalization and health problems associated to urbanization or hysteria such the latest e-Coli, if one eats mountain food nothing happens to him or her. Now having this food in mountain areas is good, it creates new opportunities and money. But it requires also a lot of investment in order for the products to reach the cities, which is not always easy – also because of the low quantities in which food is produced. But I think this a very important development and that is why we concentrated SuperAlp on that and it should be a focus of the Carpathian countries as well.

Interview by Raul Cazan.

Three years ago I was obsessed with cutting carbon and carbon markets. The smartest and most inspirational people I was meeting at the time were blowing whistles at “pressure on ecosystems”. If in those times companies were getting shallowly into green business and coming forth with loads of disgusting greenwash, I was there wishing to pump out CO2. Nowadays, “pressure on ecosystems” with its corroborators, industrial agriculture, indirect land use change, the grave biofuel flop and other are the hype, hence not for large businesses or eco-chic puppets, in a full blown economic crisis. Jeremy Rifkin held a killer conference on his Third Industrial Revolution in Bucharest just before the European Climate Change Citizens’ Agora a couple of years ago. I had a nice conversation with him, me and my buddy, Mihai Stoica, about ’68, even got an autograph on my 68 Magnum Photoalbum.

Famous photoshot of Marc Riboud

Rifkin was leading at the time the March on the Pentagon and recognized Marc Riboud’s famous shot of a hippie ‘planting’ flowers on the National Guard soldiers’ rifles (see photo on the right). It was the cornerstone image of the peace movement at its peak in the hippie era of the 60s. But that was a private talk, let us stick to environmental issues. There are dimmer lights in which environmentalism is molding on development and Rifkin says it right.

Raul: Let’s talk about European reality and surpass a little the European Dream. I just came back from Brussels, there was the Green Week conference series and listened to a presentation held by Anders Wijkman. He is also approaching your holistic way of thinking, and, more importantly, he was also supported by Dimas. He mentioned the pressure on ecosystems and this would be more important than emissions and emissions trading. On the other hand Dimas (European Commissioner on Environment at the time) talked about sustainable consumption and production, which Europe kind of lacks now. It’s not such a rosy situation…

Jeremy Rifkin: It’s not, dreams is what you’d like to be, it’s what you want to be, but the good news is that at least if you begin thinking what you want to be, than you got to do it. It’s a gap between dreaming and making it happen.

R: What about the terms, how can we get there?

Jeremy Rifkin, director of the Institute for Economic Trends in Washington, D.C. Photo by Mihai Stoica

JR: I think that that’s why I was that tough about nuclear and coal because I think you got huge potential here, you got to move quickly with your renewables you got enough hydro here to do a lot, you got sun, wind, you got biomass and forestry waste, you got everything you need.
What Romania has to do is to get together the civil society and the business sector, the younger generation has to embrace the Third Revolution.
Romania has got 21 milion people, it’s a big elephant. Start moving the damn country.

R: Carbon trading, ETS. Linking ETS with the American trading scheme…

JR: let me say this about the carbon trading fact. I think that the carbon trading plan is part of the sollution, but if anyone thinks it’s the solution is kidding himself. It’s buying us time, it sets some standards. You know what the real value of carbon trading is? It’s a learning credit, what it actually allows people to do is understand that everytime I do something I affect the rainforest or other locations. I realise that what I do affects someone else. It’s actually a learning thing. People actually start to integrate into their mind that everything I do has an impact on everyone else. That’s actually the biggest benefit it has, to show that we are responsible for everyone else. In terms of the actual carbon trading it’s a small part of what we need to to, what we really need to do, we’ve got to get a tax on carbon, on feed grain, on meat production- The second major cause on global warming. No one talks about it, No 1 is buildings, No 3 is transportation, and No 2 is meat production. No one mentions that, no government leader.
39% of the grains in the world is feed grain for animals, a third of the land space and that’s a killer. We should talk about tax on feed grain, on meat production. So we are taxing cars and petrol, now we oughtta be taxing meat.

R: Green Hydrogen Initiative?

JR: It was set out when Romano Prodi was president, I set down with him and I said you have to make a hydrogen programme to store renewables. He put together two billion dollar programme wich is now moving to a joined technology initiative to the market, it will be 500 million Bruxelles and 7 billion private this year. The programme has a 26 technology platform of R&D engines for industry. I brought in business leaders in December to meet with president Barosso, and after that meeting I was encouraged by the commission to star having a conversation with the other platforms. What we did, we located 13 platforms of the 26 technology platforms that would lay the basis for a Third Industrial revolution, like road, rail, sustainable chemistry, computing, hydrogen, construction, etc. and we asked their chair persons would they join the technology working platform group and they all did. We had two long meetings and we are now creating a NASA airbus model with all these industry platforms that are now interfacing to create a world map. It’s very exciting.

R: GMO and biofuels?

JR: Big mistake. The opposition on GM food started in my office in 1982, we brought the first lawsuit that stopped the first release of a GMO in the environment. We’ve been fighting Monsanto for years. The GMO makes no sense. But there is a new generation of weed search called marker assisted selection, which I m in favour of. It’s a cutting edge of genomic revolution. What you don’t know is that the majority of companies like Monsanto do most of their research now on marker assisted selection. Why? Because GMO doesn’t work. It doesn’t give you much. Moreover, MAS shall not be patented, it’s gonna be like file sharing on the internet or local virtual networks.

By Cristina Mircea

The fact that our generation doesn’t remember, or worse, was born too late to get to know the authentic, natural taste of a tomato or an eggplant, has become a truism.

Despite our lack of knowledge, GE crops are widely used throughout the world as both human and animal food, bringing incremental revenues to large corporations everywhere .

Rebranding the GM foods.

Under pretexts  such as growing population, water shortages or poor yields the GMO industry continues to develop in a worrisome manner, rapidly spreading and taking over the global agriculture and food market,  ignoring concerns such as gene mutations, allergic reactions, irreversible damages to the environment and most important, the massive social injustice that it causes.

Large corporations and researchers in the field are constantly looking for new slogans and advertising strategies to attract the remaining skeptics on their sides.

“We need a new language. Perhaps vaccination or inoculation is less scary for the public.”Bill Clark

Bill Clark, a British agricultural scientist, director of  the Broom’s Barn Research Centre in UK, recently came up with a suggestion for removing public’s doubt and gaining more supporters on the GE’s side.

Clark believes that renaming the GM crops as “vaccinated” or “inoculated” would help consumers understand the science better and convince millions of families to change their hostile attitude regarding GMO’s.

Clark stresses  that “we need a new language. Perhaps vaccination or inoculation is less scary for the public. Fifty years ago if you told parents you were going to vaccinate their child against measles that would sound horrendous. Now it is considered essential. Why should you object to a small fragment of the virus being introduced artificially when in nature the whole virus infects the plant and then reproduces itself?”, writes  The Telegraph.

Clark’s solution was immediately attacked by anti-modified food campaigners who classified it as  completely desperate. Peter Melchett, Policy Director at the Soil Association, an organic food and farming organization, saw it as the biggest load of desperate rubbish.

“This is the biggest load of desperate rubbish  I’ve ever heard. And they’ve tried this before. Back in the 1980’s no one had heard of GM. It was called genetic engineering  and they thought it would sound nicer if they called it GM. It didn’t work then and it won’t work now”,  the newspaper reported.

“Vaccinated” crops taking over the world.

Nowadays, about 200 million acres of farmland worldwide are being used for growing  genetically modified organisms, especially in  South America, Canada and India.

More than 70% of processed foods  in  supermarkets in United States only, contain genetically modified ingredients, while 99% of the world’s GE( genetically engineered) acreage is owned by only 4 countries: US( 68%), Argentina( 22%), Canada( 6%) and China (3%).

The most common GE crops  are soybeans, which represent more than 60%  of all GMO crops,  followed by corn, with an almost 20%,  cotton  and canola, according to Sustainable Table.

Other vegetables and fruits that have been modified also include tomatoes, potatoes, rice, papaya, and the sugar beets and  the list grows, as scientists recently  extended their field of research to animals as well, producing enviro-pigs and fast-growing salmons.

United Nations Press Conference Discussion Panel, Dec. 6th, CoP 16, Cancun

A deal is surfacing at the CoP 16 in Cancun. The UNFCCC’s Executive Secretary Ms. Christiana Figueres is sure that “there is a deal to be done here” and “differences are not insurmountable”. Countries have begun to realize that they have to go beyond their national positions to tackle a problem superseding their short-term national interests.

“We [the UN] have to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor” and help countries understand that there are two huge challenges – climate change and poverty. At this moment, there is not a single nation on the planet which can say ‘this is a model for green growth’. Yet, economic and social growth are what the UN aims for.

United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon framed the issue in the following way:

“These days, you cannot think of anything without starting with the topic of climate change. Poverty, food security, energy security, water security, and nutrition security, and even now peace and security. The impact of climate change has been working as a source of conflict and if not properly addressed can develop into a much bigger crisis. We have to link all these parts for the security and address them comprehensively.”

In this direction, the UNSG announced that the organization will have to address the 50-50-50 challenge: a 50% increase in population, a 50% decrease in GHG emissions, which will happen before 2050 (visit ‘50-50-50 Starts in Cancun‘ on 2Celsius.net).

Ban Ki-Moon further stated that in order to be realistic at the CoP 16, expectations of a comprehensive and legally biding agreement have to be put to rest. Yet, agreement can be made in Cancun on four issues:

1. Deforestation: providing adequate financial support for countries who commit to preserving forests.
2. Adaptation: providing mechanisms for all the poor people suffering from the effects of climate change.
3. Technology dissemination: “We have to disseminate as much as possible, as quickly as possible, to those developing countries who do not have any capacity to adapt and mitigate, but can use cutting-edge technology.”
4. Financing: Fast-start financial support and the pledges made by developed countries at Copenhagen have to become a reality. “I think this target is approaching and we can do it! For long term financial support, I have established a high level advisory group with the aim of mobilizing 100 bilion dollars per year until 2020.”

The UNSG did not lack optimism in saying that a deal can be struck between the parties on these issues and the UN’s bodies can cooperate to tackle a range of issues together. Also, there is now way that any country, even the biggest one, can achieve this on its own. Multilateral cooperation is stressed by many as the most important aspect of this process.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon at UN Press Conference, CoP 16, Cancun

Yet, where is the link between climate change and development? Ms. Maria Ignacia Benitez, Minister of Environment of Chile stated: “poverty makes us more vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change”. It also makes the access to a solution more difficult. This exemplifies a threat to the integrity of the social system. Realizing that “mitigation and adaptation can result in commonwealth for poor people” was the main message Ms. Benitez portrayed.

The main challenge faced by the UN is how to make green growth more inclusive. In other words, how to bring green growth to people who do not have access to clean water. A concrete action-plan under the UNFCCC would address these issues and would allow UNEP, UNDP and UNIDO to cooperate fully in tackling climate change and poverty at the same time.

Concluding a deal on these issues at Cancun will not be easy. Yet, with the UN Secretary-General calling on civil society and indigenous communities to establish a “trilateral pillar” with the aim of “making world leaders move”, he expressed his confidence that everyone can work together. This will add “political heat” through strong commitment by all.

This year Slow Food’s Terra Madre gathering of the world’s food communities closed its works with Sustainable Food Policy Document. This follows the Manifesto on Climate Change and the Future of Food Security that was brought up by Vandana Shiva two years ago.

Carlo Petrini opening Terra Madre 2010 in Turin

The process of drafting Sustainable Food Policy Document began four months ago at the University of Gastronomic Sciences with the collection of suggestions from online forums and other universities around the world, and further contributions were made during the four days of meetings at Terra Madre 2010, said Roberto Burdese, presidenty of Slow Food Italy. The document will be presented to governments, food policy makers and organizations around the world on Terra Madre Day, December 10, reads a Slow Food press release.

Serge Latouche, one of the founders of the “degrowth” movement, stressed “we must decolonialize our imagery and remove from our minds the myths about modernity and productivism and consumption, based on the religion of growth. We cannot exploit nature endlessly, with no limits. Even a child would understand this is impossible. Technoscience pretends to create an artificial world in place of the real world it is destroying every day.” He described the current depletion of natural resources and fossil fuels as “total nonsense,” saying: “We have to reinvent common goods like water, soil and air, and focus on what is produced locally, in families and villages. We have to find a healthy relationship with nature and food. We must nourish ourselves with nature and let nature nourish itself from us.”

Our current energy model based on fossil fuels and nuclear power is neither good, clean nor fair, said Angelo Consoli, European director of the Foundation on Economic Trends founded by Jeremy Rifkin, echoing Slow Food’s principles for food quality. “It’s not good because it creates entropy. There is no pleasure in its fumes and nuclear waste. Energy should be integrated with ecosystems. I don’t need to tell you why coal and oil are not clean, just look at what happened in the Gulf of Mexico. And it’s not fair. We have a very unequal society in which half of the world’s population have little or no access to electricity. The 350 richest people in the world make as much as the poorest 3 billion.” He said this inequality was created by the current capital-intensive, profit-focused, monopolistic energy model. “The energy monopolists only see the profit side, but there is also a spiritual side to energy.” Energy is a human right, like water, food and freedom. “Everyone should have their fair share. The sun gives us more than enough energy.” If only the money spent on researching fossil fuels and nuclear power had been invested in solar technology, we would have affordable solar panels, he said. “We have to fight for energy sovereignty and energy biodiversity,” he said, calling for the creation of energy communities. “We must harness the sun and distribute local energy. Food and energy must be decentralized for humans to remain on the earth.”

Carlo Petrini, president of Slow Food International, made the day. Unbalanced, this is how the world is nowadays; there are virtuous initiatives of big businesses that want to switch to alternative energies, however their logic lies in profit and growth. As long as there are hectars of solar panels that block agricultural lands where food for the people was grown, we have a global problem more serious than climate change.

He said that during these days of Terra Madre, he had the impression the financial crisis didn’t exist. “We work every day concentrating not on the crisis, but on the earth, and that gives us enormous strength,” he said. Those who say that more consumption is the way to get out of the crisis, that consumption makes us happy, are “out of this world.” Instead, we need to fight for everyone to “have the right to the good and the beautiful,” he said.

Manifesto on Food Security and Climate Change

“This is the central point, the most important cultural and political point,” he stated. “Virtuous practices already exist in the cultural biodiversity of the farmers of the world. They have extraordinary knowledge and there must be a dialog with official science, an honest, frank and sincere dialog as equals.”

The manifesto is based upon the strong link between climate change and agriculture, drawing attention to the contribution to the problem by the industrial globalized food system and the potential to mitigate it by adapting to ecological and organic farming.

Indian scientist and activist Vandana Shiva, founder of NGO Navdanya and vice-president of Slow Food International, elaborated on each of the manifesto’s nine points, providing a passionate summary of its principles. Shiva argues that as 35 percent of the climate change crisis comes from agriculture, therefore 35 percent of the solution also lies in farming and food and that we must look seriously at this vital component in analyses of climate change and discussions of possible solutions.

She argues that we must return to sustainable, local, bio-diverse systems that are better adapted to dealing with the cyclones and floods created by climate change, as well as contributing to cleaner air and water and better food.

FNPAR and AGROSTAR recently made a public call mobilizing Romanian farmers to participate in pro-GMO demonstrations which will take place in Bucharest on the second half of September. In the official
document, which states the list of demands of the two unions the seventh demand made is „The
introduction of cultivation of genetically modified plants, especially genetically modified corn and soy.”FNPAR and AGROSTAR are large unions that, allegedly, represent the interests of large agribusiness and the biotechnology industry in Romania.

Another supporter of the request, the Bio Romania Association, which initally signed the request proposed by FNPAR and AGROSTAR, has now refrained from the pro-GMO position of these unions.

Proposals for sustainable agriculture
Equitable subsidies that are not slanted towards large agriculturul producers and a ban on genetically modified organisms are principles which are needed for traditional and organic agriculture in our country and indeed,
everywhere, reads a press release signed by a coalition of environmental groups. Also, the negotiations of these unions on the problems of agriculture must be democratic, transparent and open to the needs of small farmers, shows the same press release.
„As a small organic farmer, I feel directly threatened by the large unions, because they promote
the interests of the biotechnology industry. If my corn becomes contaminated with genetically modified
corn, I would lose my organic certification. In Romania the cultivators of genetically modified organisms
can be counted on two hands. The fact is that these cultivators have succeeded in imposing their interests
at the expense of the majority or farmers, putting organic agriculture in danger, with a complete lack of
evidence of democracy. This is the moment when we, the small farmers have to act!” stated Willy
Schuster, vice president of the Eco Ruralis Association.

„The agro-business lobby recieves too much at the expense of small farmers. The future of
Romanian agriculture can not be built except through small family farms which need equitable subsidies
and thus an equal chance with the few large farmers which monopolize most of the market. In a world in
which large farmers are favored from the start through huge subsidies, small farmers are condemned to
disappear. We hope that on Thursday, as part of the actions in Bucharest, we can make the voice of the
small farmers heard, and not only as a means to an end for large farmers to achieve their goals,”declared
Gabriel Gib, president of the farmers association COZIA.
„It has already been demonstrated that genetically modified organisms are not safe and that they
do not bring economic benefits on the medium or long term. They are contrary to all of the principles of
sustainable agriculture. If today we don’t defend against GMO contamination, tomorrow we will not be
able to talk about agriculture, only about genetic manipulation,” stated Ramona Dunimicioiou, president of
the Genetically Modified Organisms Information Centre – InfOMG.

By Beth Oppenheim

Eating Animals by one of my favorite fellow Jews, Jonathan Safran Foer. He is the author of such works as Everything is Illuminated which was ultimately turned into a type of dark comedy starring Elijah Wood. His works have always been unique, and from a distinct perspective. He rights as who he is, even in his fiction. He is a Jewish American descended from Holocaust survivors. Same as me, actually.

These are probably reasons why I like his writing so much. He doesn’t hide behind a facade of objectivity, and he writes what he knows. In this nonfiction work, he crosses the line from writer to full-blown activist, and I am really glad he did.

I first learned about his book because of the New York Times magazine Food Issue, where Foer wrote about his experience in abridged form. The article simply got my juices flowing for what was to come: an expose about the food industry, as it relates to Foer’s vegetarianism, and his choice to raise his son as a vegetarian.

From the beginning, it is clear that Foer has spent much of this process being extremely conflicted. He visits farms undercover, recounts much of the gruesome detail of factory farming reality, all the while leading the reader towards a bigger and more intellectual argument.

He shares stories of his grandmother, a Holocaust survivor that ate whatever she could find in order to survive. She recounts to him a time where a Russian fighter (“God bless him!”) offered her meat in her most desperate state. She declined. “But why?!” Foer wants to know. She teaches us all a lesson that because it was pork, a meat forbidden in the Jewish faith, she was unable to eat it. She shows us that if there is nothing to distinguish a person, there is nothing worth saving.

I guess I should come clean and say that this is BY FAR not the first book I have read on farming, sustainable food, food safety, the agro-business industry, or any other related topics. I have read many – and Foer has too. His discussion of some of the modern day heroes of the local food movement is, in fact, where Foer makes his most compelling points. We all can hear about electrocuting turkeys and be horrified, but disagreeing with Michael Pollan? This I gotta hear!

Foer doesn’t disagree entirely with many of the people who have exposed factory farming for what it legitimately is: disgusting. It can be a lot of other things too – but the descriptions written in this text are evocative of disgust first and foremost. He explains that Pollan falls short in the work The Omnivore’s Dilemma of telling people to flat out make a decision: Are you going to eat meat, or aren’t you? This is true. Pollan suggests a dilemma of proportions that he is not able to solve alone.

Is it better to eat meat that is sustainably farmed, or is it better not to eat it at all? In the end, Foer pushes for the latter. I am still debating whether I loved or was confused by his conclusions, but ultimately his work is a really accessible way to show others what issues are at stake, and what we can ultimately decide about them.

By Raul Cazan

American farmers are experiencing the benefits of scientific progress first hand. In the agriculture of the most developed country on the planet transgenics have created a semi-feudal system where the governing rule is held by the Company, which in turn is valiantly protected by its army of lawyers. “Monsanto” style businesses prove to be far from the noble ideals of Harvard researchers four decades ago. Meanwhile, the Earth is bombarded with patents on engineered seeds. And curiously Romania is not left out. In the name of a diverse economic life, entailing varied services and respect for the farmer and environment, the Earth is preparing its defense.

Transgenics do not increase production

Petru P., a hard working Transylvanian farmer from the meadows of the river Mures, has dedicated his life to agriculture in the following two decades after the fall of the communist regime. After years of working in the metallurgical industry under Ceausescu, and after the economic bankruptcy of the ’90, Petru saw the fully-fledged events of an equally emaciated agriculture. Around the year 2000 he was hired to plant genetically spliced corn seeds. Can a story be drawn out of this episode? Transgenics proved to be an unsurprising fiasco, as every other similar agricultural attempt in Romania. “2C” has found out however, that transgenic corn can’t withstand scorching-heat temperatures, but is able to face a tiny insect.

The purchasing and repurchasing of planted seeds doesn’t seem to have been a very tragic event in Romania; maybe because the smaller landowners were never really interested. All in all the episode of transgenic corn is almost over. Now the average farmer barely grows any corn at all. Instead the new trend is rapeseed, a source for ethanol used to fuel the hybrid cars of eco-chic stars. Despite the alleged benefits of transgenics to protect plants from the “evils of nature”, Petru P. concludes that transgenics do not really increase production.

Decimated by oversupply

“In the year 2009, compared to 2008, surfaces were reduced for MON 810 and conventional corn crops in Romania (…) Generally speaking, we consider that the reasons for area reduction in 2009 compared to 2008 were done on the basis of oversupply and commercial price falls for corn in the fall of 2008. Which in turn led to crop surface size reduction in 2009,” explains Aurel-Florentin Badiu, an official from the Quality, Research, and Development Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Otherwise, nothing. “The problem isn’t genetically altered plants; the problem is that nothing is actually grown,” a farmer explains.

Quitting any prior advocacy, we can ask ourselves what benefits genetically modified organisms have. From early 2000 large advertising companies spreading across all mediums of communication have brought forth the false premises and hypothesis that transgenics would ensure food supply on a global scale and would fight hunger. In Romania, since the 1^st of January 2007 when we adhered to the EU, only a few types of transgenic corn can be grown; the star being MON 810, produced by the American company Monsanto. Is MON 810 really better than other types of corn?

Specialists from the Ministry of Agriculture state that, “the genetically altered MON 810 ensures protection against corn borers (insects that deposits larvae which perforate the leaves, consume the pollen, chew galleries inside the corn cob, and even consume the seeds transmitting bacterial diseases). In areas susceptible to aggressive insect infestation MON 810 endures any attack for the entire period of gestation.” “Compared to regular corn production increases for MON 810 production are at 10%-15%; also costs are lowered due to less time, energy, and insecticides required for MON 810,” the Ministry of Agriculture’s response mentions.

Corn Borer, attack on MON 810

The problem, however, is infinitely more complex as the punctuated benefits mentioned above become insignificant. Around 1998 genetically modified organisms reach Europe, Romania welcoming them with open arms. “At that time the most wide spread stuff was genetically altered soybean and a species of potato called <<Superior new leaf>>, which protected the plant from the Colorado beetle.” Dan Craioveanu from the Transylvanian Ecologic Club explains. Ever since, new tests have been conducted on other plant species but none got registered in the seed catalogue. MON 810 corn was brought to Romania in 2007 because it was the only one admitted in the EU.

The corn borer isn’t that dangerous, there are numerous ways to fight it. Traditional Romanian corn species have a thick stem, Craioveanu states. Even if the corn borer breaches the stem the crop will not be affected. “For Romanians statistics regarding production per hectare is a good reminder of the communist days. Ironically Monsanto can’t brag about a greater production rate, only cheaper prices – and only in the short run,” Craioveanu explains. MON 810 has a thin stem so the corncob is vulnerable. The borer larvae especially target Monsanto corn.

Useless but dangerous instruments

“Genetically modified organisms are instruments, and instruments help us do that which is good,” states Michael Pollan, a hero of organic food and American domestic products advocacy. “But what good do we want to accomplish?” the author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” asks himself. “We have to stop spreading pesticides. But are genetically altered products the only way to do it? No. We have to plant polycultures rather than monocultures, for instance. But Monsanto doesn’t like that strategy because they would like to sell as much as possible. So genetically modified products have merely been a way to sell more Roundup herbicide manufactured by none other than Monsanto.”

“The first generation of genetically modified products didn’t offer anything to the consumer. The food wasn’t cheaper, and pesticides were still being used – sometimes more than in conventional agriculture. At the end of the 1990 companies were telling me about the second generation of spliced products, the ones that had increased nutritional value. Where are they?” Pollan asks.

“The crops today are as plentiful as they were in the mid nineties. This may suggest that either the R&D budget went dry, or they uncovered that it’s too difficult to make these complex products work. Anyway, this industry is in a glitch. I don’t think that in ten years we’ll still be talking about genetically modified products.” Pollan concludes.

The Biotech hope

During the ‘70s and ‘80s, American universities in Massachusetts fervently started testing DNA recombination – Washington approval included. Through biotechnology minuscule organisms are modified to aid people in some way. Research in the 1980 resulted in extraordinary scientific discoveries and giant leaps for medicine.

However, in the early ’70, the American youth – a generation which still said “No!” to the Vietnam war and organized the first ecologist movements – was raising questions about bioterrorism and the potential accidents that might result from playing God with DNA. American and western-European press tried fruitlessly to scare its readers.

Ultimately, the benefits of genetically modified organisms were acknowledged. Biotech business was flourishing. The year 1982 marked a cornerstone event in the history of biotechnology: the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval of Humulin.

This was a form of genetically altered insulin, deemed a hero in the fight for organic food and American domestic products, Michael Pollan describes.

The opposition

In the 80’ the only opposition to biotechnology and its applications was upheld by the voice of the relentless Jeremy Rifkin. The Economic Trend Foundation in Washington D.C. sent “Green Report” a short description of the point of view of its president, Rifkin. In 1987 the final blow to biotechnology was probably what Rifkin calls “ice-minus fiasco”.

It was the year when transgenics was nearing out plates. Rifkin sued the American government in order to stop them from releasing transgenic bacteria meant to stop ice-water crystal formation on plants. The bacteria had to “protect” strawberries from frost. They would have caused chaos in meteorological patterns if they were to escape in the atmosphere and multiply. Snow would have turned to rain, summer rain would have vanished leaving only drought and destruction of the ecosystem, Rifkin believes.

Rifkin and his group managed to impose a moratorium to temporarily postpone the bacterial release. Advanced Genetic Sciences –AGS, the company which produced the genetically modified organism, illegally released the bacteria in their own garden contaminating their trees and plants. This is a practice that will be repeated numerous times in the upcoming decades.

A great PR demonstration was prepared upon the US government’s approval for the anti-frost bacteria’s release on the strawberry fields. The swarms of reporters at the site found the strawberry plants taken out of the ground and left to dry in the sun. That which at first had to be the company’s crushing statement of superior science and victory through progress turned into a ridiculous struggle to resuscitate the poor strawberry plants. The eco-activist “reaction” was a constant reoccurrence in the following decades.

An EU dialog; not a market

The upholders of biotechnology in Europe claim that genetically modified organisms are a next step in agriculture. While opponents underline a terrible human breach into nature. As Romania was opening its arms to trangenics, the EU was placing a de facto moratorium regarding the marketing of genetically modified organisms. Only a small number of plants were authorized for commercialization. This is and has been a relatively uncomfortable position for the EU giving way to violent debates regarding international commercial law and less violent ones regarding community law. There is an acute tension between this commercial restriction and trade liberalization in the EU. For more than a decade intense lobbying and legal action were the pressure points for reopening the authorization process.

In the EU, compared to the US, the dilemma between scientific expertise and public participation is under constant debate. Decisions regarding biotechnology don’t merely necessitate scientific approval. Considerations about fundamental questions regarding the world and the environment are equally important: ethical concerns regarding man’s relationship with nature; social, economic, and political problems linked to corporate control over the food industry; risk acceptance; respect to the principle of prevention. These hypothetical risks regarding genetically modified organism regulations have led to a dialogue culture and not to a false “invisible hand” market. Moreover, even though community law is relatively permissive, many member states have said no to genetically modified organisms.

Glyphosate, the secret to domination

At the end of the ’70, an amino acid called glyphosate discretely made its entrance into the American patent system. Amino acids are dietary components that form proteins. However, glyphosate isn’t something we would want to have for lunch. Instead of contributing to protein build up in plants glyphosate blocks the synthesis of essential amino acid and leads to death.  This “quality” turns glyphosate in one of the most redoubtable herbicides, and is the reason why its biochemistry got patented.

In its commercial form of the Roundup herbicide, glyphosate is Monsanto’s domination spear tip in the transgenic seed industry. By recombining plant DNA with that of the Bacillus thuriengensis (Bt), the plant becomes immune to the herbicide. Consequently Monsanto is conveniently selling both the poison and the antidote. Seed patenting and their royalties has surpassed public, environmental, and even food supply issues.

A patent on nature

The big problem with transgenic plants is Monsanto seed patents and its quest for farmer royalties; their actions are backed by the American judiciary system and the WTO with its global free trade rules. If Monsanto’s sinister practices in the US are narrated and bannered through strong images by the documentary Food, Inc. (an “inconvenient truth” for food), then maybe the rest of the world still has a fighting chance against daily meal degradation.

The object of seed patents is set according to country. Generally speaking, were talking about “something” that is alive and defines a certain plant. This something can either be found in a complex natural environment from where it has to be extracted, or, on the other hand, it can’t be found in nature so some genes get spliced in order to form something that doesn’t occur naturally in that plant.

Monsanto’s genetically modified seed patents entailed a 400.000 page patent document of chemical formulas; largely speaking. Of course all that happened in America. Reduction ad absurdum: Could Romania ever deny such a patent?

Stefan Gavrilescu, a lawyer specializing in intellectual property, answers on behalf of “Green Report”. “I think it’s a slightly irrelevant problem. Those holding the patents are very big companies, the biggest being Monsanto. They aren’t obliging Romania to recognize their patents; they’re registering them here because Romania has a Patent Law. They can register patents here, and in accordance to Romanian law.”

“The philosophy behind seed patents is simple at its essence. But sincerely, I’m still not certain anyone is 100% right. Surprisingly it’s a lot easier to find anti-genetic-modification material than information materials on juridical doctrine,” Gavrilescu explains.

It’s very expensive to invent a plant that has only certain characteristics: for instance, a plant that repels specific insects, pests, or other plants. A genetically altered plant can be engineered to have within itself, at a cellular level, substances which are toxic for some or all pests. Placing pesticide-resilient bacteria in a plant through genetic alteration is said to be a very costly research process. “On the other hand, once you’ve learnt the process it’s very easy to use the invention’s result without paying. Say that I, Monsanto, make a bug repelling plant and put 100 bags on the market. Well, if I have no protection, in the next year my 100 customers will be selling their own seed at a profit to their own customers. And I have invested my money for nothing,” Gavrilescu says.

This is the stale rationalization behind the intellectual property protection of transgenic seeds.

Patent contamination

Even though it may sound bizarre, contamination with genetically modified organisms could create problems from the perspective of patents. A relatively recent normative act allows for any commercialized seed to have up to 0,5% modified material.

A farmer can buy seed that has less than 0,5% patented genes. However, unexpected and strange situations are possible, Craioveanu thinks. “Once planted, contamination with modified genes can increase exponentially. So the farmer may unwillingly do something illegal and ultimately be made to pay royalties when the legal percentage is exceeded. Evidently, the farmer is innocent, the guilt is presumed by law. It’s contamination through patents,” Craioveanu concludes.

Seed patenting is illegitimate

Now the discussions start. In the US during the interwar period, new types of plants were invented by state owned institutions.  The privatization of this activity began later, and implicitly, so did the need for legal protection. Evidently, the seeds are natural but Monsanto’s don’t “naturally” occur in nature.

Interestingly enough, conflict already exists between big manufacturers and small farmers who have found natural varieties of resistant plants, Gavrilescu shows.

There are plants resilient to climatic changes like a type of Indian rice which is resistant to floods. Large companies are trying to extract the genetic information form that type of rice and patent it, even though it has been used naturally for maybe thousands of years.

Marker Assisted Selection

“Genetically modified organisms are pointless; they only create health problems and pollute the environment. The products of the big companies are all patented, and small producers, farmers become more and more dependent on the hybrids produced by multinationals,” Rifkin states.

There is a new generation of research called Marker Assisted Selection. This new biotechnology is a true genome revolution, officials from the Foundation for Economic Trends believe.

What isn’t known, Rifkin says, is that most companies like Monsanto or Syngenta are researching this new technology right now. Why? “Because genetically modified organisms don’t work. They have no great advantage. They’re more of a barbarism in fact. Combining two entities in order to gain resistance against toxic environment is wrong: you create too much resilience to fast. Monsanto and Syngenta don’t want to talk about this because they don’t want to admit their genetically modified plants don’t work.”

In Marker Assisted Selection the genome of a plant can be charted. The new species awaiting commercialization can be combined at a nuclear level with a different, wild species which is resistant to drought, for example. The result will be a drought resistant corn. It’s important to remember that we’re only dealing with corn. Plant DNA doesn’t get spliced with any bacteria; only interspecies combinations.

If this selection is combined with agro-ecologic agriculture; no copyright, but open source, then we get organic agriculture. “We do know that Monsanto would never do this. But not long ago I had a meeting with the heads of global ecologic organizations – Greenpeace, Friends of Earth, Union of Concerned Scientists, and came to the conclusion that we’re against genetically modified organisms, but not against genetic research as long as we can make things better,” Rifkin states. This selection method is evidently less expensive than genetic modification. The new generations will be better, and farmers will communicate and trade the best hybrids.

It’s like file sharing; like exchanging files online. But more than that, they will have to also exchange knowledge.  The corporations won’t be able to monitor everyone.

The antidote for patents

Romania doesn’t have legal precedents of “farmer vs. Company”. However, Romania cand become a hotbed for contamination with transgenic plants because farmers keep their seeds, Craioveanu considers. And the corporate greed will turn into jurisprudence.

How do we protect these old or new plants against such injunctions? There are ways of protection even at the community level. However, they do not have the strength to face corporate giants like Monsanto. “I believe that the viable solution to publicly claim this knowledge is of the NGO type. I mean, in the case of flood resistant rice, you make an NGO and apply, for example, to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to fund you so you can patent it,” Gavrilescu suggests.

It’s a feasible example of what civil society can do. You want to preserve traditional knowledge? Leave the revolutionary speech and patent first. Or, even simpler, create a traditional seed bank because existing knowledge is preeminent to patents.

If you want to patent Romanian corn that has already existed in a field somewhere, and you can prove it’s been there for years, you don’t even need to patent any more. Read about Marker Assisted Selection. Or better yet, produce or consume locally.

If will from society’s part exists, you can do anything in a just and ecological way.