DOCSLIB.ORG

Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

112008 Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life November 2008 Communiqué November 2008 Issue #100 Who Owns Nature? Corporate Power and the Final Frontier in the Commodification of Life ETC Group www.etcgroup.org November 2008 Publication Design by Wordsmith Services and yellowDog : creative Original Artwork by Stig Table of Contents Problems, Fascinations and Opportunities: A Preface 3 Who Owns Nature? 4 Graphic: Top 10 Corporations: Global Market Share by Sector 4 The Context 5 Chart: Value of Global Mergers & Acquisitions 7 Section 1: Corporate Farm Inputs: Seeds, Agrochemicals, Fertilizers 11 Seed Industry 11 World’s Top 10 Seed Companies 11 Chart: Global Commercial Seed Market 11 Chart: Top 10 Share of Global Proprietary Seed Market 12 Chart: Global Proprietary Seed Market, 2007 12 Agrochemical Industry 15 World’s Top 10 Pesticide Firms 15 Chart: Global Agrochemical Market, 2007 sales 15 Fertilizer Industry 17 World’s Biggest Fertilizer Companies 17 Chart: Corporate Food Chain At-a-Glance 18 Section 2: Corporate Food Outputs: Food & Beverage Manufacturing, Global Grocery Retailers 21 Food & Beverage Manufacturing Industry 21 World’s Top 10 Food & Beverage Corporations 21 Grocery Retailing Industry 22 World’s Top 10 Global Food Retailers 22 Chart: Global Food Retailers: Top 10 Account for 40% of Groceries Sold by Top 100 22 Chart: Global Food & Beverage Companies: Top 10 Account for 35% of Packaged Food Sold by Top 100 23 Cartoon by Tom Toles 23 Section 3: Corporate Medicine & Health: Big Pharma, Biotech, Animal Pharmaceutical, Bioinformatics 25 Corporate Medicine & Health At-a-Glance 25 Pharmaceutical Industry 25 World’s Top 10 Pharmaceutical Companies 25 Chart: Top 10’s Market Share of Top 100 Companies 26 Cartoon by Paul Noth 27 Biotechnology Industry 28 World’s Top 10 Publicly-Traded Biotechnology Companies 28 Biotech’s Top 10 Blockbuster Drugs, 2007 29 Veterinary Pharmaceutical Industry 30 World’s Top 10 Animal Pharma Companies 30 The BioInformation Industry 31 Major Players In DNA Data Generation 32 Major Players In Software, Hardware, DNA Data Processing, Storing and Analyzing 33 Section 4: Commodifying Nature’s Last Straw? Extreme Genetic Engineering and the Post-Petroleum Sugar Economy 35 Cartoon by Stig 38 Synthetic Biology Players and Corporate Partners 40 The New Biomas(s)ters: Converging Technologies Crystallize Corporate Power 41 Leading Commercial Gene Synthesis Companies 42 Petroleum Refining: Top 10 42 Chemical Industry: Top 10 42 Forest, Paper & Packaging Corporations: Top 10 43 Companies Involved in Oilseed, Grain and Sugar Processing/Trading: Top 11 43 Conclusion 45 The Global Economy: Who’s Got the Power 48 Problems, Fascinations and Opportunities: A Preface Three decades ago, humanity had a Industry got what it wanted. From thou- sil fuels can be made from the carbon problem; science had a fascination; sands of seed companies and public found in plants. The oceans’ algae, the and industry had an opportunity. Our breeding institutions three decades Amazon’s trees and savanna grasses problem was injustice. The ranks of the ago, ten companies now control more can provide the (purportedly) renew- hungry were expanding while the ranks than two-thirds of global proprietary able raw materials to feed people, of farmers were thinning. Meanwhile, seed sales. From dozens of pesticide fuel cars, manufacture widgets, and science was fascinated by biotechnol- companies three decades ago, ten now cure diseases while fending off global ogy – the idea that we could genetically control almost 90% of agrochemical warming. In order for industry to realize engineer crops and livestock (and sales worldwide. From almost a thou- this vision, governments must accept people) with traits that could overcome sand biotech startups 15 years ago, ten that this technology is too expensive. all our problems. Agribusiness saw an companies now have three-quarters of Competitors must be convinced it is opportunity to extract the enormous industry revenue. And, six of the lead- too risky. Regulations need to be dis- surplus value that was laced throughout ers in seeds are also six of the leaders mantled and monopoly patents need to the food chain. The hugely-decentral- in pesticides and biotech. Over the past be approved. ized food system held pockets of profit three decades, a handful of companies just crying out to be centralized. All has gained control of that one-quarter New technologies don’t industry had to do was convince gov- of the world’s annual biomass (crops, ernments that biotech’s gene revolution livestock, fisheries, etc.) that has have to be socially useful could end hunger without harming the been integrated into the world market or technically superior in environment. Biotechnology was pre- economy. order to be profitable. sented as too risky for small companies and too expensive for public research- Today, humanity has a problem; sci- ers. In order to bring this technology to ence has a fascination; and industry the world, public breeders would have has an opportunity. Our problem is And, as it was with biotechnology, the to stop competing with private breed- hunger and injustice in a world of cli- new technologies don’t need to be ers, regulators would have to look the mate chaos. Science’s fascination is socially useful or technically superior other way when pesticide companies with convergence at the nano-scale (i.e., they don’t have to work) in order bought seed companies which, in turn, – including the potential to design new to be profitable. All they have to do is bought other seed companies. Govern- life forms from the bottom-up. Industry’s chase away the competition and coerce ments would have to protect industry’s opportunity lies in the three-quarters of governments into surrendering control. investments by offering patents first on the world’s biomass that (although used Once the market is monopolized, how plants and then on genes. Consumer and useful) remains outside the global the technology performs is irrelevant. safety regulations, hard-won over the market economy. With the aid of new course of a century, would have to yield technologies, industry believes that any to genetically modified foods and drugs. chemical made from the carbon in fos- Large Numbers: How Many Zeros? In this report, ETC Group uses the following number-naming system: One million = 1,000,000 = 1 million One billion = 1,000,000,000 = 1,000 million One trillion = 1,000,000,000,000 = 1,000,000 million $20 trillion is the same as $20,000 billion, which is the same as $20,000,000 million, or $20,000,000,000,000 3 Who Owns Nature? In this 100th issue of the ETC Communiqué we update Oligopoly, Inc. – our ongoing series tracking corporate concentration in the life industry. We also analyze the past three decades of agribusiness efforts to monopolize the 24% of living nature that has been commodified, and expose a new strategy to capture the remaining three-quarters that has, until now, remained beyond the market economy. Top 10 Corporations Global Market Share by Sector ACEUT RM IC A A H L S P ED HEM SE S OC ICA R L G S 55% Market Share A BEV D & ER O A 67% of Proprietary O G 89% Market Share F E Market Share ERY RE IOTECH OC TA B R I P L R S G O R CESSO 26% Market Share L PH A AR 40% of groceries IM M 66% Market Share N A sold by top 100 A 63% Market Share Source: ETC Group 4 The Context The 100th issue of ETC Group’s Com- Amidst a world food crisis, collapsing sequester carbon, or blast sulfate parti- muniqué provides an update on corpo- ecosystems and climate chaos, new cles into the stratosphere to screen out rate concentration in the life sciences technologies are once again being sunlight and lower temperatures, etc.). industry. We have been monitoring cor- promoted by international institutions, porate power in commercial food, farm- governments and Big Business as the Promoted in the name of fighting hun- ing, and health for three decades. Ten magic bullet for boosting food produc- ger, increasing production and arresting years ago, ETC Group monitored con- tion and saving the planet. The idea of climate change, technologies that rein- trol and ownership of biotech. Today, a technological fix for agricultural de- force corporate power are deepening biotech is becoming “extreme genetic velopment is nothing new, but govern- existing inequalities, accelerating envi- engineering.” Technology convergence ments are stepping aside and inviting ronmental degradation and introducing is re-defining life sciences. We’ve corporations to cast themselves as the new societal risks. reached the point where it’s difficult to key players in the fight against hunger Things Fall Apart: For the millions talk about biotechnology without talking and poverty. Instead of challenging of people who spend 60-80 percent about nanotechnology and synthetic bi- or changing structures that generate of their income on food, the impacts ology. All of the biosciences are fueled poverty and exacerbate inequality, of spiralling food and fuel prices in by information technology or bioinfor- governments are working hand-in-hand 2006-2008 are “unprecedented in scale matics – the computer-based analysis with corporations to reinforce the very and brutality.”1 In 2006-2007, the num- of biological materials. As a result, we institutions and policies that are the ber of food-insecure people rose from root causes of today’s agro-industrial 849 million to 982 million. The U.S. food crisis. …We can’t understand Department of Agriculture’s July 2008 corporate power if we Concentration in the life industry has assessment predicts that the number of allowed a handful of powerful corpora- hungry people in 70 South countries will 2 don’t understand the tions to seize the research agenda, increase to 1.2 billion by 2017.
Recommended publications

  • U.S. V. Bayer AG and Monsanto Company Comment: the Sierra Club

    ATTN: Kathleen S. O'Neill Chief, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section Antitrust Division United States Department of Justice 450 5th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20530 Petition in opposition to proposed U.S. v. Bayer AG and Monsanto Company settlement and merger: A merger of agrochemical giants Bayer and Monsanto would create the world's largest seed and pesticide maker. I am afraid this move will reduce competition, raise prices for consumers and farmers, and result in an unacceptable degree of control over the agricultural industry and our food supply. I am very concerned about pollinators and the increased risks to bees, butterflies and birds with the increase of Bayer's neonicotinoids. Both companies produce corn products engineered to imply the use of harmful pesticides they manufacture. The production of corn uses high amounts of nitrogen- based fertilizers and the excess sediment is contaminating our waterways, therefore I am deeply worried about increased corn production from this merger. The heavy nutrient runoff from corn is widely attributed to exacerbating the marine "Dead Zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, in which algal blooms create hypoxic conditions wherein oxygen concentration is in such low levels that marine life suffocates and dies. I urge the Department of Justice to do more prevent the Bayer-Monsanto seed and pesticide platform from growing too strong by stopping this merger. If this merger is allowed, it should require more pesticide and seed divestments in order to protect our agriculture and food supply. This merger is anti-competition, if it is approved it will fail to protect farmers, consumers and the environment by allowing further consolidation of the industrial agriculture sector.
  • The Financial and Economic Crisis of 2008-2009 and Developing Countries

    The Financial and Economic Crisis of 2008-2009 and Developing Countries

    THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS OF 2008-2009 AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES Edited by Sebastian Dullien Detlef J. Kotte Alejandro Márquez Jan Priewe UNITED NATIONS New York and Geneva, December 2010 ii Note Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. The views expressed in this book are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the UNCTAD secretariat. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Material in this publication may be freely quoted; acknowl edgement, however, is requested (including reference to the document number). It would be appreciated if a copy of the publication containing the quotation were sent to the Publications Assistant, Division on Globalization and Development Strategies, UNCTAD, Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10. UNCTAD/GDS/MDP/2010/1 UNITeD NatioNS PUblicatioN Sales No. e.11.II.D.11 ISbN 978-92-1-112818-5 Copyright © United Nations, 2010 All rights reserved THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS O F 2008-2009 AND DEVELOPING COUN T RIES iii CONTENTS Abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................xi About the authors
  • The Use of Pesticides in Developing Countries and Their Impact on Health and the Right to Food

    The Use of Pesticides in Developing Countries and Their Impact on Health and the Right to Food

    STUDY Requested by the DEVE committee The use of pesticides in developing countries and their impact on health and the right to food Policy Department for External Relations Directorate General for External Policies of the Union EN PE 653.622 - January 2021 DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR EXTERNAL POLICIES POLICY DEPARTMENT STUDY The use of pesticides in developing countries and their impact on health and the right to food ABSTRACT This study provides a broad perspective on the main trends regarding the use of pesticides in developing countries and their impacts on human health and food security. Information is provided on the challenges of controlling these hazardous substances, along with the extent to which pesticides banned within the European Union (EU) are exported to third countries. The analysis assesses the factors behind the continuation of these exports, along with the rising demand for better controls. Recommendations are intended to improve the ability for all people, including future generations, to have access to healthy food in line with United Nations declarations. These recommendations include collaborating with the Rotterdam Convention to strengthen capacity building programmes and the use of the knowledge base maintained by the Convention; supporting collaboration among developing countries to strengthen pesticide risk regulation; explore options to make regulatory risk data more transparent and accessible; strengthen research and education in alternatives to pesticides; stop all exports of crop protection products banned in the EU; only allow the export of severely restricted pesticides if these are regulated accordingly and used properly in the importing country; and support the re-evaluation of pesticide registrations in developing countries to be in line with FAO/WHO Code of Conduct.
  • A Sticky-Price View of Hoarding ∗

    A Sticky-Price View of Hoarding ∗

    A Sticky-Price View of Hoarding ∗ Christopher Hansman Harrison Hong Aureo de Paula Imperial College London Columbia University University College London Vishal Singh New York University November 8, 2018 Abstract Governments worry that household hoarding of staple foods during times of high prices destabilizes com- modity markets. The conventional view has hoarding—due to consumer precaution or panic—amplifying supply shocks and creating shortages. Using U.S. store-scanner data during the 2008 Global Rice Crisis, we reject this narrative. Areas with rice-eating populations had more hoarding but no difference in store price dynamics or stockouts. We find support instead for a reverse-causal channel, whereby sticky store prices lead to hoarding. Anticipating higher prices, rice-eating households bought rice from slow-to-adjust stores that implicitly offered promotions. Policy implications differ across these two views. ∗This paper was previously circulated as "Hoard Behavior and Commodity Bubbles". We thank seminar participants at INSEAD, Aalto, Peking University, Warwick University, Cambridge University, NBER Universities Conference on Commodities, HKUST, New York University, PUC-Rio and Yale University for helpful comments. We are also grateful to Emi Nakamura, Hassan Afrousi, Michael Woodford, William Goetzmann, Hank Bessembinder, Manuel Arellano, Orazio Attanasio, Richard Blundell, Marcelo Fernandes, Bo Honoré, Guy Laroque, Valerie Lechene and Elie Tamer for useful conversations. de Paula gratefully acknowledges financial support from the European Research Council through Starting Grant 338187 and the Economic and Social Research Council through the ESRC Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice grant RES-589-28-0001. 1 Introduction Household hoarding of staple foods—defined as the accumulation of inventories during times of high prices—has long been a concern of governments, particularly in developing countries.
  • The Era of Corporate Consolidation and the End of Competition Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-Dupont, and Chemchina-Syngenta

    The Era of Corporate Consolidation and the End of Competition Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-Dupont, and Chemchina-Syngenta

    Research Brief October 2018 The Era of Corporate Consolidation and the End of Competition Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-DuPont, and ChemChina-Syngenta DISRUPT ECOSYSTEM ACCLERATE MONOPOLY THE EFFECTS OF CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION UNDERMINE FOOD SECURITY HARM SMALL PRODUCERS HAASINSTITUTE.BERKELEY.EDU This publication is published by the Haas Institute for a Fair and Inclusive Society at UC Berkeley This research brief is part of the Haas Institute's Shahidi Project from the Global Justice Program. The Shahidi Project (Shahidi is a Swahili word meaning “witness”) intends to demystify the power structures and capacities of transnational food and agricultural corporations within our food system. To that end, researchers have developed a robust database focusing on ten of the largest food and agricultural corporations in the world. See more at haasinstitute.berkeley.edu/shahidi. About the Authors Copyeditor Support Elsadig Elsheikh is the director Marc Abizeid Special thanks to the Food of the Global Justice program and Farm Communications at the Haas Institute for a Infographics Fund, which provided the seed Fair and Inclusive Society at Samir Gambhir funding for the Shahidi project. the University of California- Berkeley, where he oversees Report Citation Contact the program’s projects and Elsadig Elsheikh and Hossein 460 Stephens Hall research on corporate power, Ayazi. “The Era of Corporate Berkeley, CA 94720-2330 food system, forced migration, Consolidation and The End of Tel 510-642-3326 human rights, Islamophobia, Competition: Bayer-Monsanto, haasinstitute.berkeley.edu structural marginality and Dow-DuPont, and ChemChina- inclusion, and trade and Syngenta.” Haas Institute for development. a Fair and Inclusive Society at the University of California, Hossein Ayazi, PhD, is a Berkeley, CA.
  • Mega-Mergers in the U.S. Seed and Agrochemical Sector the Political Economy of a Tight Oligopoly on Steroids and the Squeeze on Farmers and Consumers

    Mega-Mergers in the U.S. Seed and Agrochemical Sector the Political Economy of a Tight Oligopoly on Steroids and the Squeeze on Farmers and Consumers

    MEGA-MERGERS IN THE U.S. SEED AND AGROCHEMICAL SECTOR THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF A TIGHT OLIGOPOLY ON STEROIDS AND THE SQUEEZE ON FARMERS AND CONSUMERS MARK COOPER SENIOR FELLOW, CONSUMER FEDERATION OF AMERICA NOVEMBER 2017 ABSTRACT It is widely recognized that the increase in concentration in the cottonseed market resulting from the proposed Monsanto-Bayer merger violates the Department of Justice’s recently revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines by a wide, historically unprecedented margin. The companies argue that the economic efficiency resulting from the vertical integration of traits, seeds and agrochemicals offsets the harms to competition. This paper shows that the immense increase in vertical leverage and the ability to coordinate behaviors across multiple crops including cotton, corn, soybeans and canola magnifies the market power of the small number of firms that dominate the global field crop sector. The merger represents a dramatic increase in the market power of a sector that is already a “highly concentrated, vertically integrated, tight oligopoly on steroids” that raises prices, distorts innovation, and squeezes farmers and consumers. The only answer to this merger that makes economic sense is a loud and clear NO! While many anticompetitive practices will remain, a denial of the merger will prevent them from getting much worse and should signal the beginning of a broader effort to address the underlying economic problems and begin to break the political stranglehold that these firms have on the policymaking process. i CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 A Note on Political Economy Outline II. ANALYZING INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION AND EVALUATING MERGERS 3 The Welfare Economics of the Abuse of Market Power Structure, Conduct, Performance Horizontal Merger Analysis Vertical Integration and Leverage Coordination Effects and Incipient Competition III.
  • Who Will Control the Green Economy? ETC Group, 2011

    Who Will Control the Green Economy? ETC Group, 2011

    !"#$%&''$(#)*+#'$*",$ -+,,)$.(#)#/01 23$4#5,+)/,)*3$6+,67+,$*#$37)(*&#)$7$-+,,) .(#)#/0 7*$8&#9:;<$.=>$-+#?6$6+#5&@,3$ 7)$?6@7*,$#)$(#+6#+7*,$6#%,+$7)@$ %7+)3$*"7*$*",$A?,3*$*#$(#)*+#'$B&#/733$ %&''$6,+6,*?7*,$*",$-+,,@ .(#)#/0C %%%C,*(4+#?6C#+4 “We are told by men of science that all the venture of mariners on the sea, all that counter-marching tribes and races that confounds old history with its dust and rumour, sprang from nothing more abstruse than the laws of supply and demand, and a certain natural instinct for cheap rations. To any one thinking deeply, this will seem a dull and pitiful explanation.” —Robert Louis Stevenson, Will o’ the Mill, 1901 “As long as the maximization of profit remains the cornerstone of acquisitive society and capitalist economy, corporations will retain their interest in scarcity as a creator of economic value.” —German-born economist, Erich W. Zimmermann, in World resources and industries: a functional appraisal of the availability of agricultural and industrial materials, 1933 2(D)#%',@4,/,)*3 All original artwork, including the cover illustration, “BioMassters: The Board Game,” and report design by Shtig. ETC Group gratefully acknowledges the financial support of SwedBio (Sweden), HKH Foundation (USA), CS Fund “Trickle Down” by Adam Zyglis used with permission. (USA), Christensen Fund (USA), Heinrich Böll Who Will Control the Green Economy? is ETC Group Foundation (Germany), the Lillian Goldman Charitable Communiqué no. 107. Trust (USA), Oxfam Novib (Netherlands) and the Norwegian Forum for Environment and Development. November 2011 ETC Group is solely responsible for the views expressed in All ETC Group publications are available free of charge this document.
  • Food Reserves Working Paper #8 March 2019 Rice Reserves

    Food Reserves Working Paper #8 March 2019 Rice Reserves

    Food Reserves Working Paper #8 March 2019 Rice Reserves, Policies and Food Security: The Case of the Philippines Ramon L. Clarete Study funded by the European Commission, Directorate-General for Development and Cooperation, Unit C1 DAI Europe Ltd. 3rd Floor Block C Tel: +44 (0) 1442 202 400 Westside, Fax: +44 (0) 207 420 8601 London Road, www.dai-europe.com Apsley HP3 9TD United Kingdom About this working paper This working paper is one of the products of a study conducted by DAI at the request of the European Commission as part of the advisory service ASiST managed by the unit in charge of rural development, food security and nutrition (C1) within the Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development (DEVCO). The study has aimed at clarifying the potential role of food reserves in enhancing food and nutrition security in developing countries, and at making recommendations on how to use food reserves (in complement to other tools), taking into account the specificities on the context and the constraints of World Trade Organisation (WTO) disciplines. The study was conducted based on i) an extensive review of the existing literature (both theoretical and empirical) and ii) 10 case studies analysing national or regional experiences in Africa, Asia and South America. All the products of the study (including other working papers, a compilation of case study summaries, and a synthesis report) are available at: https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/hunger-foodsecurity-nutrition/discussions/how-can-food-reserves-best-enhance-food-and-nutrition- security-developing-countries. Acknowledgements Franck Galtier (CIRAD) coordinated the overall study.
  • Rice Price Controls Policy of Vietnam and Its Competition with Thailand: a Practical Application of Spatial Equilibrium Models

    Rice Price Controls Policy of Vietnam and Its Competition with Thailand: a Practical Application of Spatial Equilibrium Models

    RICE PRICE CONTROLS POLICY OF VIETNAM AND ITS COMPETITION WITH THAILAND: A PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF SPATIAL EQUILIBRIUM MODELS Dissertation for the Completion of the Academic Degree “Doctor Rerum Agriculturarum” (Dr. rer. agr.) Submitted to the Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin by Pham Thi Huong Diu, M.Sc. President of the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Prof. Dr. Jan-Hendrik Olbertz Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Frank Ellmer Advisors: 1. Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Harald von Witzke 2. Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bokelmann 3. Prof. Dr. Siegfried Bauer Date of Oral Exam: 19.03.2014 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Dr. h. c. Harald von Witzke, for his strong support for my doctoral study and thesis. I would also like to thank him for being an open person to ideas, and for encouraging and helping me to shape my concerns and ideas. For all I have learned from him and for providing an office place where I have studied over 4 years. His attitude to research inspired me to continue to a doctoral program and more motivation in study. I would like to thank .Prof. Dr Tihman Brück for his guidance, encouragement and insightful comments. Although he has moved to work in another country, his supports are always valuable to me until the end. I also would like to thank Prof. Dr. rer. nat. habil. Wolfgang Bokelmann and Prof. Prof. Dr. Siegfried Bauer for reviewing my thesis with enthusiasms.
  • To Protect Agribusiness Profits Or the Right to Food? November 2009 Written by Molly D

    To Protect Agribusiness Profits Or the Right to Food? November 2009 Written by Molly D

    A Question of Governance: To Protect Agribusiness Profits or the Right to Food? November 2009 Written by Molly D. Anderson for the Agribusiness Action Initiatives (AAI). Co-Editors: Alexandra Spieldoch- IATP/AAI-North America and Myriam Vander Stichele – SOMO/AAI-Europe About AAI The Agribusiness Action Initiatives (AAI) is a growing international network of NGOs, activists, academic researchers, and food system experts from farm, labor, environment, consumer, church and civil society organizations. AAI is concerned by the market concentration of a hand- ful of transnational agro-food conglomerates and their inordinate power over our most basic life system: agriculture and food. To learn more about how AAI is challenging corporate concentration and power, please visit www.agribusinessaction.org About the Author Molly D. Anderson, PhD, Food Systems Integrity Dr. Anderson works on science and policy for more sustainable and democratic food systems with organizations working from the local to international scales. She was a Coordinating Lead Author on the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology for Development (North America/Europe sub-Global Report). A Question of Governance: To Protect Agribusiness Profits or the Right to Food? INTRODUCTION In November 2009, government delegates and representatives from multilateral organizations and civil society are meeting in Rome for the third international food summit to address rapidly rising numbers of hungry people (the “food crisis”) by coordinating and expanding
  • Putting the Cartel Before the Horse ...And Farm, Seeds, Soil, Peasants, Etc

    Putting the Cartel Before the Horse ...And Farm, Seeds, Soil, Peasants, Etc

    Communiqué www.etcgroup.org September 2013 No. 111 Putting the Cartel before the Horse ...and Farm, Seeds, Soil, Peasants, etc. Who Will Control Agricultural Inputs, 2013? In this Communiqué, ETC Group identifies the major corporate players that control industrial farm inputs. Together with our companion poster, Who will feed us? The industrial food chain or the peasant food web?, ETC Group aims to de-construct the myths surrounding the effectiveness of the industrial food system. Table of contents Introduction: 3 Messages 3 Seeds 6 Commercial Seeds 7 Pesticides and Fertilizers 10 Animal pharma 15 Livestock Genetics 17 Aquaculture Genetics Industry 26 Conclusions and Policy Recommendations 31 Introduction: 3 Messages ETC Group has been monitoring the power and global reach of agro-industrial corporations for several decades – including the increasingly consolidated control of agricultural inputs for the industrial food chain: proprietary seeds and livestock genetics, chemical pesticides and fertilizers and animal pharmaceu- ticals. Collectively, these inputs are the chemical and biological engines that drive industrial agriculture. This update documents the continuing concentration (surprise, surprise), but it also brings us to three conclusions important to both peasant producers and policymakers… 1. Cartels are commonplace. Regulators have lost sight of the well-accepted economic principle that the market is neither free nor healthy whenever 4 companies control more than 50% of sales in any commercial sector. In this report, we show that the 4 firms / 50% line in the sand has been substan- tially surpassed by all but the complex fertilizer sector. Four firms control 58.2% of seeds; 61.9% of agrochemicals; 24.3% of fertilizers; 53.4% of animal pharmaceuticals; and, in livestock genetics, 97% of poultry and two-thirds of swine and cattle research.
  • A Long Food Movement

    A Long Food Movement

    A Long Food Movement: Transforming Food Systems by 2045 Lead authors: Pat Mooney, Nick Jacobs, Veronica Villa, Jim Thomas, Marie-Hélène Bacon, Louise Vandelac, and Christina Schiavoni. Advisory Group: Molly Anderson, Bina Agarwal, Million Belay, Jahi Chappell, Jennifer Clapp, Fabrice DeClerck, Matthew Dillon, Maria Alejandra Escalante, Ana Felicien, Emile Frison, Steve Gliessman, Mamadou Goïta, Shalmali Guttal, Hans Herren, Henk Hobbelink, Lim Li Ching, Sue Longley, Raj Patel, Darrin Qualman, Laura Trujillo-Ortega, and Zoe VanGelder. This text was approved by the IPES-Food panel and by ETC Group in March 2021. Citation: IPES-Food & ETC Group, 2021. A Long Food Movement: Transforming Food Systems by 2045. 2 Acknowledgements The lead authors were responsible for the development and drafting of this report through their participation in a Management Committee, under the leadership of Nick Jacobs (IPES- Food Director) and Pat Mooney (Project Lead, IPES-Food panel member and ETC Group co-founder). Research and editorial work was ably assisted by Anna Paskal in the final stages. Throughout the project, the Management Committee has been guided by the contributions of a 21-member Advisory Group, drawn from various world regions and civil society constituencies (including Indigenous peoples, peasant organizations, food workers, and youth climate activists) as well as from multilateral institutions, many scientific disciplines, and business. Although these experts have contributed extensively to guiding the analysis, their participation in the Advisory Group does not imply full validation of the report or specific ideas therein. The management committee would like to thank Advisory Group members for their invaluable commitment and expertise. They are also grateful to the full IPES-Food panel, which has played a key role in shaping and developing this project, and the full ETC Group team for their many research and review contributions, especially Neth Daño and Zahra Moloo.