Protesters Converge on Ag-Tech Convention

Berkeley Daily Planet

Friday, July 4, 2003

Protesters Converge on Ag-Tech Convention

This week, people dressed as corn and killer tomatoes faced off against riot police on the streets of Sacramento. Meanwhile, in the air-conditioned Sacramento Convention Center, agricultural ministers and delegations from 115 nations around the world attended the U.S. government-sponsored Ministerial Convention and Expo on Agricultural Technology from June 23 to 25.

The public was not invited to the Ministerial, but from the look of the news headlines, they crashed the party.

The convergence of protesters, a broad coalition of local and international organizations and direct action activists concerned about food and agriculture, attracted swarms of media to hear their critique of genetically engineered (GE) crops, pesticides and other aspects of the corporate food system, and new free trade and investor rights agreements that further the industrial model of food.

The aim of the meeting, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), was to apply new agricultural technologies‹particularly GE crops‹to the problem of world hunger. Mass protests outside the meeting, however, suggest that many saw it as an attempt to further the corporate food agenda and to lobby ministers regarding trade issues.

The Sacramento Bee summarized, on the front page, ³Protesters contend the meeting is not about ending hunger, but rather is a stage for the United States to push its agenda on other countries, an agenda that promotes big-business interests and technology, specifically the genetic engineering of crops.²

Educational events began before the ministerial officially started with a teach-in at California State University Sacramento, attracting overflow crowds to hear speakers from the Third World and other analysts of food, trade and corporate power.

During the event, PANNA released a call for protest in Sacramento from more than 150 Third World organizations, representing hundreds of thousands of people. The statement read: ³This summit will promote industrial models of agriculture that enrich transnational agribusiness interests while undermining the food security, and food sovereignty of peoples of the global south.²

The teach-in was organized by the Institute for Social Ecology, Public Citizen, PANNA and others.

On Monday, June 23, a permitted rally and march convened on the steps of the Capitol. More than 3,000 people marched through the leafy streets of Sacramento, led by a contingent of labor organizations. Drums rattled, ³Killer Tomatoes² chanted in unison and a chef from the world-class Berkeley restaurant Chez Panisse waved a giant whisk and threatened, ³We¹re here to whip the lies of big agribusiness.²

A series of rolling street blockades and other non-violent civil disobedience erupted on Sacramento streets throughout the days of the Ministerial. Whimsical street actions attracted attention, including a ³dump² of genetically engineered corn at a press conference held by the National Family Farm Coalition and a ³Dr. Monsanto genetically altered vs. organic dog food taste test² hosted by the Organic Consumers Association.

The city of Sacramento estimates $750,000 was spent on policing the Ministerial; the figure spent by the California Highway Patrol tops one million dollars. In all, about 40 people were arrested.

A debate organized by PANNA and Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy drew about 1,000 attendees, despite a phalanx of police lining the street outside the venue. Panel members from developing countries faced off with a USDA official, the director general of Crop Life International and a pro-biotech spokeswoman from the University of California.

One biotech proponent said, ³The real issue is not biotechnology; the real issue is starvation.²

Earlier, Timothy Byakola from PAN Africa had responded to that argument with an example from Uganda.

³The problem in Uganda isn¹t production, it¹s distribution. Western Uganda is very fertile and very wet and produces a tremendous surplus of crops. But our roads are horrible; we have no infrastructure, so we can¹t move that food around.²

George Naylor, of the National Family Farm Coalition, asked the USDA representative why farmers growing GE crops weren¹t required by the government to leave buffer zones. Naylor complained that he has lost 65 percent of his fields to buffers protecting his crop from Bt corn.

The protests and educational events highlighted the trend of diverse groups focusing on issues such as food safety and sovereignty, sustainable farming, pesticide reform, labor rights, public participation, globalization and corporate power, to join forces to contest exclusionary international meetings and institutions. Their message is bound to be repeated this September during the World Trade Organization Ministerial meeting in Cancun and beyond.

These groups argue that the growing international framework of new trade and investment rules affects everyone.

As one marcher said to the legions of police lining the march, ³Get off your horses and join us. It¹s your food, too.²