Bill Gates wants to do public good with the immense profits of his information-technology empire, and over the past few years his foundation has given more than US$6.5 billion to global causes. The money has been well-received as socially useful and, generally, sensibly directed.
But last week the Gates Foundation, the largest philanthropic organization in the world, was strongly criticized when it gave US$25 million to genetic modification (GM) research to develop vitamin and protein-enriched crops for the world's poor. In scientific terms, this is not a lot of money, but it is expected to be just a first tranche and to stimulate what the GM companies say is the second generation of GM crops -- those that are potentially of some real use to ordinary people.
Gates was bitten hard by international charities, farmers' groups and academics in Europe, India and elsewhere, who argued that the money would not go to addressing poverty, the root cause of worldwide hunger, but would promote an agriculture that was of little use to the very poor. He was further accused of being captured by an industry now using the hungry as a "Trojan horse" to get its biotech output into poor countries.
The foundation, and the research organizations who will spend his money, deny all the charges, saying that the poor are in desperate need of vitamins and micronutrients, and arguing that GM will give the poorest a choice.
But there are reasons to believe that the Gates food agenda is now being shaped by US corporate and government interests. The Gates Foundation has recently appointed a Kenyan ex-Monsanto scientist to one of its boards, and last year joined Kraft foods, a subsidiary of Philip Morris, the world's largest and most profitable tobacco corporation, in a program to add vitamins to conventionally grown foods.
Gates, moreover, has chosen for his latest venture to partner the US Department of Agriculture and USAID, Washington's overseas aid organization -- two of the most active pro-GM organizations in the world. Also helping with money or research are several US government groups and universities who have benefited from government biotechnology grants. The other major financial partner is the World Bank, which is reviewing the costs and benefits of GM to poor countries.
The Gates money, however, is directed at some of the least known but most controversial organizations on the global stage. The research will be done mainly by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture and the International Food Policy Research Institute.
Both are part of the little-known Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). This family of 16 global public institutes forms the world's largest public plant-breeding effort for poor farmers and has immense say on the direction of world agriculture.
But CGIAR is widely accused of being a creature of its two major funders -- the US and the World Bank. The bank, dominated by the US, not only houses its secretariat, but provides its current chair.
CGIAR is only slightly better than the WTO when it comes to accessibility. It has only once held an annual meeting outside the bank offices and when it did -- last year in Thailand -- there were major demonstrations against it by international and local farmers' organizations complaining that it was promoting a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach to research that ignored the knowledge and experience of farmers and indigenous people.
CGIAR's public research, say non-governmental organizations in Asia, Africa, Latin America and Europe, is being quietly corporatized, centralized in Washington and becoming remote from farmers in the developing world.
They argue that having promoted the "green revolution" of the 1960s -- which introduced high-yielding, chemically dependent crops -- CGIAR is now using large amounts of public money to develop GM foods, once again without consulting the people who the technology will affect most.
With hundreds of millions of small farmers around the world already in crisis because they cannot compete with US or EU subsidies which mainly go to corporate farmers, the Gates donation is seen to be supporting something irrelevant to most farmers -- another kick in the teeth for those in poverty and an endorsement of a widely questioned technology dominated by vested big-science interests.
CGIAR says its work is for the public, by public servants and it is aware of the power of GM companies to muscle in. But its backing of GM goes well beyond honest research. Last year it controversially invited the Syngenta Foundation on to its board. This charitable, nominally independent organization is owned by the largest GM company in the world and run by a former British civil servant who worked at the Department for International Development. Insiders believe it is only a matter of time before the Gates foundation is offered a place, too.
But why should the Gates Foundation be interested in a small, obscure organization like CGIAR? Apart from strongly influencing the direction of world agriculture, one answer is that it is the custodian of more than 600,000 seeds, something that has been called the "collective wealth of nature and the food security of the world."
Almost every crop that has ever been grown is held in trust, and the unpatented genetic bank is of immense potential wealth to life-science companies, not just for food but medicine. Already many have been investigating partnerships.
Gates' foundation appears the innocent newcomer to the mucky world of global malnutrition and food security. The trouble may be that his foundation's increasing influence on the world stage makes it a prime target for those who have an agenda well beyond the public good.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs