Check out this awesome video of the street theater, an overview of its themes by Executive Director Heather English Day, and music by the Seattle Fandango Project:

Through street theater, we educate the community about the links between the Gates Foundation, Monsanto and other agri-corporations, and the US government and World Bank, and how these chains are being broken as we speak by small farmers in the US and around the world!

Join us in answering the international call to action on this important day!

Saturday April 17th

Meet at 9:30 AM at UW Red Square to partake in Theater

Meet at 11 AM at UW Red Square to join Procession to U-District Farmer’s Market

Meet at Noon at University District Farmer’s Market to Join the Fun!

Read on to learn more about La Via Campesina’s call to action:
17 April 2010 – Join the International Day of Peasant Struggle

To commemorate the International Day of Peasant Struggle on April 17th 2010, the international peasant movement La Via Campesina calls upon member organisations, allies and supporters to unite against transnational corporations (TNCs), which seek complete control over food and agriculture systems around the world.

On April 17th 1996, nineteen landless Brazilian peasants who were defending their right to produce food by demanding access to land were massacred by the military police. Since the massacre at El Dorado dos Carajás, every year on this date actions are organised around the world by farmers’ organisations, communities, student groups, non-governmental organizations and activists, in order to demand food sovereignty and peasants’ rights to produce food.

The year 2009 ended with three international summits: the Food and Agriculture Organization World Summit on Food Security in Rome, the World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in Geneva and the United Nations’ Climate Summit in Copenhagen. At each event, TNCs displayed their intention to control food and agriculture systems, markets, lands, seeds and water—indeed all of nature—worldwide. TNCs such as Monsanto Company, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and Nestlé deployed armies of lobbyists at these events to shape policies to their benefit.

For example, US-based Monsanto Company is lobbying to receive public subsidies for Roundup Ready soybeans, which are genetically-modified to resist glyphosate (sold by the corporation as Roundup), the most widely used herbicide in the world. Monsanto claims Roundup Ready soybeans reduce climate change because resistance to Roundup means the soybeans can be grown without ploughing the soil (which releases carbon dioxide), known as ‘no tillage’ or ‘conservation tillage’ agriculture. Monsanto argues that it should therefore be eligible for carbon credits from the Clean Development Mechanism of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change.

Yet the reality is that Monsanto and other TNCs are some of the primary contributers to climate change and other environmental crises, because they promote an unsustainable model of industrial agriculture.

Additionally, TNCs exacerbate poverty and economic recession, worldwide. As they consolidate their control over lands and agricultural markets, TNCs expel small farmers and peasants from their lands and reduce employment opportunities in rural areas, thereby swelling urban slums with even more desperate and unemployed families.

TNCs are making huge profits while hunger and poverty are on the rise. Thus, an offensive against TNCs is now a priority for La Via Campesina. Our movement envisions a world in which TNCs such as Monsanto, Cargill, Carrefour and Walmart, and their destruction of nature and humanity, will cease to exist. To replace them will be billions of peasants on small and medium-sized farms, producing healthy food for local and regional markets, preserving biodiversity, protecting water aquifers, sequestering carbon and revitalizing rural economies.

To mark the 17th of April 2010, La Via Campesina calls upon its members and allies to join forces and increase resistance against TNCs, and to amplify the voices and rights of peasants worldwide.

What can you do?
* To raise awareness about the destruction being caused by TNCs, and the benefits of peasant agriculture, organise an event or action in your community, school, city or organization. Possible events might be a protest, public debate, direct action, film screening, farmers’ market, heirloom seed exchange, song or picture contest;
* Subscribe to La Via Campesina’s 17th of April mailing list to stay informed about the actions being organised around the world, to receive our mobilisation kit, and to tell others about your plans. Subscribe here: http://viacampesina.net/mailman/listinfo/via.17april_viacampesina.net
* Tell us what you are planning as early as possible to be included in the activities’ list published on www.viacampesina.org
* Send us pictures, articles and videos after the event at viacampesina@viacampesina.o

About the film: “A Thousand Suns” tells the story of the Gamo Highlands of the African Rift Valley and the unique worldview held by the people of the region. This isolated area has remained remarkably intact both biologically and culturally. It is one of the most densely populated rural regions of Africa yet its people have been farming sustainably for 10,000 years. Shot in Ethiopia, New York and Kenya, the film explores the modern world’s untenable sense of separation from and superiority over nature and how the interconnected worldview of the Gamo people is fundamental in achieving long-term sustainability, both in the region and beyond. Includes an analysis of the Gates Foundation’s involvement in agriculture and AGRA.

Ethiopian food will be served! Donations appreciated.

If you can’t make it to this film night, please check back for finalized film night dates and films. A tentative schedule is here:

Sat. March 13th, 5-8, Heather Day’s house: Faat Kine

Sat. April 3rd, 5-8, Cascade People’s Center: Darwin’s Nightmare

Sat. May 1st, 5-8, Cascade People’s Center: Black Gold

Sat. June 5th, 5-8, Cascade People’s Center: We Feed the World

Sat. July 3rd, 5-8, Cascade People’s Center: Sweet Crude

Farm Bill
Sen. Barack Obama voted for the 2008 Farm Bill, stressing its inclusion of measures addressing hunger and conservation programs. Sen. John McCain opposed the bill.

Support for Small Farmers
-Barack Obama has expressed support for small family farms, and has developed a program to encourage younger generations to enter farming. This includes working with farm extension services and public universities to recruit interested young people, and providing tax breaks to farmers who are just starting out.
-John McCain supports reducing the estate tax rate to 15 percent and permitting a $10 million exemption to enable farmers and ranchers to pass along their heritage. McCain also believes in limiting government regulations “that severely alter or limit the ability of the family farm to produce efficiently”-his choice of language has led some commentators to surmise that this statement is a veiled commitment not to intervene in exploitative large-scale operations, particularly animal feedlots, that enjoy extremely lax regulations.

Disaster Relief
McCain has expressed a desire to create a safety net for farmers facing natural disasters as well as “inadvertent government policies that adversely affect markets and the farmer’s ability to produce.” McCain’s website mentions a commitment to help farmers suffering from disasters, but is unclear on exactly how relief would be managed and disasters averted. Barack Obama favors a permanent disaster assistance program that would not require Congressional delays in providing aid.

Subsidies
-John McCain adamantly opposes farm subsidies, stating that they distort the free market and artificially raise prices for consumers.
-Barack Obama calls for a $250,000 cap on subsidy payments. Obama also wants to close loopholes that allow mega-farms to get around the limits by subdividing their operations into multiple paper corporations.

Rural Development
-John McCain wants to devise a comprehensive development strategy to increase economic opportunities in rural areas through lower taxes, strong markets, and high-tech connectivity.
-Barack Obama hopes to promote rural economic development through small businesses and “value-added” agriculture.

Environment and Energy
-Barack Obama has expressed support for those transitioning to organics, and promotes a cost-sharing program that would ease the certification process. Obama argues that incentives should be provided for farmers and ranchers to plant trees, restore grasslands, and use “green” farming practices. Obama also wants to regulate the pollution of CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) using strict air and water quality standards.
-John McCain supports conservation programs and integration of environmental protections into farm management. He seeks to achieve this through existing stewardship bodies, the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetland Reserve Program, but his website does not include proposals to strengthen environmental protections in agriculture. McCain promotes a “Green Revolution” for 21st Century America, and has vowed to direct the USDA to conduct comprehensive research into stress- and drought-resistant, high-yielding crops-to conserve resources and combat global warming.
-McCain opposes federal policies that divert greater than twenty-five percent of maize toward bio-fuels. He has stated that subsidization of ethanol production will exacerbate the global food crisis. However, McCain has also voiced his faith in the free market and consumer choices to regulate ethanol production, and believes that some alcohol-based fuels may serve as viable alternatives to petroleum-based energy.
-Obama supports biofuels and ethanol production. He has also professed an openness to the variety of bio-fuels currently being researched and produced. The League of Conservation Voters gave McCain a score of zero for his environmental voting record, while Obama received a 67 out of 100. Similarly, the Sierra Club and the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund endorse Obama for president. The latter has reprimanded McCain for selecting the notoriously anti-environmental Sarah Palin as his running mate.
-John McCain has stated that agriculture offers the potential to reduce America’s reliance on foreign oil, thereby “reduc[ing] the flow of money that now enriches some of our worst enemies.” However, industrial agriculture relies heavily on petroleum and its byproducts; McCain also overlooks the fact that Canada provides 17 percent of U. S. oil imports, and 18 percent of our natural gas imports. Canadians may be surprised to realize that they are among “our worst enemies.”

Corporations
-Barack Obama has challenged the dominance of agribusiness over the nation’s food supply, particularly the meat industry in which the four biggest players control upwards of 60 percent of pork, chicken, and beef production.
-John McCain has expressed contempt for corporate concessions, but critics have argued that his “Prosperity for Rural America” proposal contains many goodies for agribusiness. McCain also intends to lower the corporate tax rate to 25 percent to “help our nation compete more aggressively against the likes of China, South Korea, Singapore and Ireland by bringing taxes to a competitive level that encourages entrepreneurs to reinvest their earnings in American workers.”

Immigration
John McCain highlights the need for a temporary worker program. Obama has pledged to have comprehensive immigration reform done in his first year of office, particularly the Ag Jobs section of immigration reform.

Trade
-Having stated that “globalization is an opportunity for American farmers,” John McCain is an unequivocal supporter of free trade agreements, including NAFTA, CAFTA, and all those currently pending. He has stated that NAFTA “has had an unambiguously positive impact on the United States,” and he supported Fast Track. He believes that the U. S. should “continue to engage in multilateral, regional and bilateral efforts to reduce barriers to trade, level the global playing field and vigorously defend the rights of American agriculture within global trading rules.” McCain is in general an advocate of free market principles, and has prescribed market-based solutions to agricultural issues in the U. S. as well as abroad.
-Barack Obama supports a renegotiation of NAFTA, and he opposed CAFTA. He voted yes for a free trade agreement with Oman, and he voted against FTAs with South Korea and Panama. Obama has said that he wants to ensure that all forthcoming trade agreements contain strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards. However, he is committed to breaking down barriers to American agricultural competitiveness and broadening export promotion programs. Obama has criticized NAFTA for its massive displacement of farmers in Mexico; yet both he and McCain are largely uncritical of the negative global consequences of American food exports on agricultural systems in the Global South.

On Africa
-As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Barack Obama is attentive to various issues occurring in Africa. Obama and Biden plan to raise the annual investment in foreign assistance from $25 billion to $50 billion by the end of his first term. They support and are willing to fund debt cancellation for Heavily Indebted Poor Countries-although some critics view this classification as a modified form of structural adjustment which relieves debt in exchange for certain commitments from HIPCs. Obama and Biden seek to reform the IMF and World Bank, to establish an Add Value to Agriculture Initiative, and to strengthen the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which increases duty-free access to U. S. markets for select African countries, and orients African production, largely of clothing, outward. One of Obama’s objectives is “to accelerate Africa’s integration into the global economy.”
-John McCain believes that the U. S. should help to increase agricultural productivity in Africa, namely by being “at the forefront of an African Green Revolution.” He has also expressed an interest in reforming aid programs, and he has suggested that loosening trade restrictions would provide more opportunities for poor farmers.

-Both McCain and Obama have situated development in a context of national security. Obama has stated, “And since extremely poor societies and weak states provide optimal breeding grounds for disease, terrorism, and conflict, the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need;” while John McCain has argued that we cannot rely solely on military power to establish security around the world: “Today too many around the world are excluded from the benefits of globalization. Disconnected from the prosperity that has lifted millions out of poverty, too many societies are plagued by violence, disease, and scarcity.”

Neither candidate has ventured to assert that (asymmetrical) integration into the global economy is a problem rather than a solution to hunger and poverty.
Sources include:

http://www.zambianwatchdog.com/?p=128

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/Fact_Sheet_Foreign_Policy_Democratization_and_Development_FINAL.pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/09/25/prepared_remarks_by_john_mccain_to_the_clinton_global_initiative/?page=1

http://americas.irc-online.org/am/5065

http://www.grist.org/comments/food/2008/10/03/

http://www.america.gov/st/elections08-english/2008/September/20080922132519AKllennoCcM0.4158136.html?CP.rss=true

https://www.wsfb.com/news/mccain-obama-pledge-support-of-agriculture-to-farm-bureau-presidents

http://animalrighter.blogspot.com/2008/09/obama-vs-mccain-on-animals-environment.html

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/rural/

And for a different perspective see these articles on Cynthia McKinney’s (Green Party) stances on agriculture, energy, and immigration:

http://www.allthingscynthiamckinney.com/node/415

http://theunapologeticmexican.org/elmachete/2008/10/29/cynthia-mckinney-answers-the-sanctuary-survey/

Read AGRA Watch’s letter to Scientific American, in response to their article, “Food Shortage Aid Should Start with Lessons in Agriculture.” Please check back to see if they publish it!

Editors:

In regards to your article “Food Shortage Aid Should Start with Lessons in Agriculture.” [Aug 2008], isn’t it time that groups in wealthy developed countries stopped professing to know “the solution” to hunger in Africa? If Scientific American is concerned about “putting African bread on African tables,” maybe you should be reporting on, and supporting, the many agroecological projects on that continent and elsewhere that have increased productivity using means more readily available to Global South farmers. [For example, the NY Times has reported that just intercropping of rice strains can double yields (Carol Kaesuk Yoon, "Simple Method Found to Increase Crop Yields Vastly," August 22, 2000)].

Many farming organizations in Africa have, with comparatively little international support behind them, achieved amazing agricultural successes through endogenous innovation, biointensive farming, and other organic farming methods, without the use of genetically engineered seeds.

We disagree with your support of Green Revolution technologies as a solution for African farmers. Green Revolution packages of hybrid seed, mechanical instruments, and chemical inputs were previously introduced in much of Africa, and for the most part, they failed due to their incompatibility with place-specific agricultural production patterns. Elsewhere in the world, they have led to significant negative consequences –consolidation of farms, massive debt for smallholders, and subsequent suicide epidemics. They did not reduce global hunger.

High tech inputs may be suitable for large mechanized industrial farms (although even here they present significant problems), but they are completely inconsistent with the needs of smallholders in the Global South. For example, while these technologies benefited those large farmers who were well-connected, they failed to address the politics of class. Patented GE seeds can not be legally replanted, shared with neighbors, or crossed with other varieties-the techniques that enabled these people to feed themselves for millennia.

The recent report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, prepared by the World Bank and the UN, refused to support the further industrialization and globalization of agriculture and, in particular, reliance on genetically engineered plants, because the analysis shows that this route is unlikely to achieve the goal of feeding a hungry world.

GE issues are intensely political, as are agricultural issues in general-hunger in Africa and elsewhere is at least partly attributable to problems with unequal global distribution of food, political instability, and international trade regimes. However, your article leaves out the various political and economic aspects of the problem; these will not be fixed by technological improvements in agriculture.

Given our concern with the global state of agriculture and food security, we encourage Scientific American to consider all factors contributing to world hunger and to feature non-genetically engineered approaches that combine agricultural science with social, political, and economic non-technological solutions in your pages.

Sincerely,

Prof. Philip L. Bereano and Ashley Fent
on behalf of AGRA Watch, Seattle

Read the original article:

Scientific American Magazine – July 29, 2008
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=food-shortage-aid
“Food Shortage Aid Should Start with Lessons in Agriculture”

The U.S. needs to expand support for agricultural science targeted at developing countries [Note: This story was originally published with the title, "We Can Do More".]

By The Editors

Global food prices have roughly doubled in three years. At the World Food Summit in Rome in early June, United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon recalled that on a trip to Liberia he encountered people who had once bought rice by the bag and whose cash now suffices for a meager cupful. The current crisis means that another 100 million hungry may join the 854 million who already lack sufficient daily nourishment.

An immediate response should include policies that discourage grain hoarding, that reapportion the way food aid is delivered and that ensure that subsidies for food purchases are carefully targeted to reach the truly poor. Just shipping more grain to Africa, by far the most vulnerable region, will not suffice. Over the long haul, science and technology have a big role to play. Finding nonfood substitutes for ethanol produced from corn or sugarcane would help. But the only lasting solution to hunger in Africa and elsewhere must focus on poor agricultural productivity.

U.S. secretary of agriculture Ed Schafer called on participants at the summit to consider the use of biotechnology to grow crops with higher yields that are capable of resisting assaults from inclement weather, disease or pests. Some activists, invoking fears about genetic manipulation of food crops, have jumped on the administration’s stance as pandering to agribusiness and overhyping benefits from genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

That criticism is unfounded. Nongovernmental organizations that advocate exporting the organic food movement to Africa are at best misguided. Much of Africa practices what political scientist Robert Paarlberg calls “de facto organic farming,” and overall productivity has plummeted. African small farmers achieve crop yields only one third of those obtained by farmers in developing countries in Asia. GMOs have the potential to increase productivity by incorporating beneficial traits that would, for one, allow crops to thrive even when rain is a rare event.

The Bush administration, never a beacon of enlightened social policymaking, would have come across more convincingly if it had incorporated biotechnology into a well-defined framework of research and development assistance. At the moment, genetically modifying cassava or cowpeas against viruses or insects is akin to producing hydrogen fuel cells in the energy arena. Both hold tremendous promise, and both are not ready for wide commercial dissemination.

The best hope for improving African crop yields today would be to borrow technology from the decades-old green revolution that transformed agriculture in Asia and Latin America. Using conventionally bred hybrid seeds, farmers in certain fertile areas of Ethiopia have witnessed their fields turn into a breadbasket that is rivaled in the sub-Saharan region of the continent only by South Africa. Eventually these same farmers will likely demand still better yields that will leave an opening for acceptance of genetically modified crops.

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (a partnership of the Rockefeller and Gates foundations) signed an agreement with three U.N. food agencies at the June summit meeting to bolster the lot of African small farmers. The Bush administration had asked in May that part of a recent aid package to address the food crisis go to agricultural development, including the planting of GMOs. More is needed, though. As the world’s largest food aid donor, the U.S. channels most of its dollars to pay for acute emergencies, a response that, by law, requires shipping crops grown in Iowa or Kansas to needy countries-largely on U.S. ships. Meanwhile the U.S. Agency for International Development’s funding for agricultural science in Africa dropped by 75 percent after inflation from the mid-1980s to 2004.

To avoid a crisis without end, we should back a program that not only delivers better seeds to African farmers but also devotes still more assistance to support improvements in soil, irrigation, roads and farmer education. Then, when necessary, we should use remaining aid money to buy either hybrid or genetically modified crops grown in African soil for local distribution. The U.S. farm lobby will howl in protest, but this action will be the best way to work toward putting African bread on African tables.