Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 08:03 PM Dec 2014

Trans-Pacific Partnership and Monsanto

Trans-Pacific Partnership and Monsanto

...There appears not to be a specific agricultural chapter in the TPP. Instead, rules affecting food systems and food safety are woven throughout the text. This agreement is attempting to establish corporations’ rights to skirt domestic courts and laws and sue governments directly with taxpayers paying compensation and fines directly from the treasury.



Though TPP content remains hidden, here are some things we do know:

Members of Congress are concerned that the TPP would open the door to imports without resolving questions around food safety or environmental impacts on its production....

...There is a growing resistance to Monsanto’s agricultural plans in Vietnam. Monsanto (the US corporation controlling an estimated 90% of the world seed genetics) has a dark history with Vietnam. Many believe that Monsanto has no right to do business in a country where Monsanto’s product Agent Orange is estimated to have killed 400,000 Vietnamese, deformed another 500,000 and stricken another 2 million with various diseases.

Legacies of other trade agreements that serve as a warning about the TPP have a history of displacing small farmers and destroying local food economies. Ten years following the passage of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) 1.5 million Mexican farmers became bankrupt because they could not compete with the highly subsidized US corn entering the Mexican market.

In the same 10 years Mexico went from a country virtually producing all of its own corn to a country that now imports at least half of this food staple. Mexican consumers are now paying higher prices for Monsanto’s GMO corn.

With little or no competition for large corporations Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta now control 57 percent of the commercial food market.

While the TPP is in many ways like NAFTA and other existing trade agreements, it appears that the corporations have learned from previous experience. They are carefully crafting the TPP to insure that citizens of the involved countries have no control over food safety, what they will be eating, where it is grown, the conditions under which food is grown and the use of herbicides and pesticides.

If the TPP is adopted the door will be open wider for human rights and environmental abuse. Some of the things we should expect to see include:

more large scale farming and more monocultures;
destruction of local economies;
no input into how our food is grown or what we will be eating;
more deforestation;
increased use of herbicides and pesticides;
increased patenting of life forms;
more GMO plants and foods; and
no labeling of GMOs in food.

Together these are a step backwards for human rights and a giant step towards Monsanto’s control of our food.

http://www.nationofchange.org/trans-pacific-partnership-and-monsanto-1372074730
19 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
3. US corporations are already suing local governments over things like fracking.
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 08:22 PM
Dec 2014

But yes, this opens the door to foreign corporations having rights over American citizens & local governments.

Why support the TPP when it will let foreign corporations take our democracies to court?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/29/why-support-the-tpp-when-it-will-let-foreign-corporations-take-our-democracies-to-court

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
4. Are these US fracking lawsuits
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 08:33 PM
Dec 2014

based on the investor-state portions of trade deals making it legal for US corps to sue US govs?

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
5. As far as I know, investor-state dispute settlements involve foreign corps~
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 08:41 PM
Dec 2014
...Warren, Baldwin and Markey are particularly concerned with a process called "investor-state dispute settlement," which grants foreign corporations the political power to challenge the laws and regulations of a government before an international tribunal. This nongovernmental court has the power to levy trade sanctions against offending nations. The investor-state dispute settlement regimen differs from those used in World Trade Organization treaties, which allow only sovereign governments to bring trade challenges.

"We believe that the TPP should not include an investor-state dispute settlement process," the letter reads, warning that doing so "would expose a broad array of critical American financial regulations to challenge by many additional foreign companies."

Investor-state challenges were rare before the new millennium, but have become increasingly popular tools for corporations to use when challenging regulations they object to. Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, for instance, companies including Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical and Eli Lilly have attempted to overrule Canadian regulations on offshore oil drilling, fracking, pesticides, drug patents and other issues.

Unrest over investor-state powers is not exclusively a progressive phenomenon. Free-trade advocate Daniel J. Ikenson of the Cato Institute has argued against the practice, on the grounds that it gives foreign firms an unfair advantage over domestic companies...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/18/elizabeth-warren-trade-deal_n_6350312.html

aspirant

(3,533 posts)
7. Does that mean
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 08:57 PM
Dec 2014

that US Unions could sue the govt of Korea for lost profits when they dump cheap steel in the US?

Or is this totally dependent on who is selected to sit on these international tribunals to determine the winners and losers?

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
8. I wish! I think the corporations always have the upper hand here.
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 09:07 PM
Dec 2014
...Holland: Those investor-state tribunals are what many critics say is the most anti-democratic aspect of these trade deals. Can you tell us a little bit about their record in these first two decades of NAFTA?

Wallach: Over the 20 years of NAFTA, $400 million dollars have been paid out in these investor-state lawsuits. In these cases, corporations have directly sued governments, dragging them in front of extrajudicial tribunals presided over by corporate lawyers who are empowered to order any amount of damages. There is no outside appeal

There’s a whole string of cases around water rights, around timber rights. And in the most recent one, ExxonMobil is going to end up with tens of millions of dollars in a case against Canada because Canada required that for any company—US, Mexican, Canadian, a firm from Mars—any company that got an offshore oil or gas exploration permit was required to pay a fee for research on renewable energy in the future as part of the licensing process. It seems reasonable, but [under NAFTA's Chapter 11] it’s considered a forbidden performance requirement on a foreign investor, and ExxonMobil is going to get tens of millions of dollars from the Canadian government even though Canadian companies who are doing the exact same work have to pay this fee.

And then there is the chilling effect, because on average it costs $8–10 million dollars to fight a Chapter 11 suit, and even if the country wins, it has to pay those costs. It’s just a second bite at the apple for corporations — a chance of getting out of regulations and trying to bully governments –because in a country like Canada or the US, where the courts work fine, there is no other reason to have these extrajudicial tribunals.

And if all of this sounds bad, the Trans-Pacific Partnership — the TPP, which is under negotiation right now — is an attempt to expand NAFTA, and all of this damage — from the investor state system to the job offshoring — to 11 more countries. It is NAFTA on steroids.

The good news is that 20 years of NAFTA’s damage has made Congress very suspicious, and other countries have become very suspicious of these kinds of agreements.

The bad news is that the Obama Administration is hell bent on signing it, this year...


http://billmoyers.com/2014/01/09/fool-me-once-20-years-of-nafta-show-why-the-trans-pacific-partnership-must-be-stopped/


Unions aren't corporations and won't have a seat at the table.

Response to RiverLover (Reply #8)

 

djean111

(14,255 posts)
2. No vote from me for anyone who votes for this.
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 08:18 PM
Dec 2014

No vote for Hillary, who helped craft it and shills for it.
IMO this tells me who the president is for - and it is not we citizens.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
6. +1 We really need someone on our side this time.
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 08:49 PM
Dec 2014

Someone who actually means it this time. They'll all say they are. Always do.

 

jtuck004

(15,882 posts)
10. What's the matter with you? We need cheap stuff to help get rid of jobs, China is now expensive.
Fri Dec 26, 2014, 10:48 PM
Dec 2014

But Vietnam is cheaper, and will take those jobs from China that were taken from here.

http://vietnam.usembassy.gov/tpp.html

Help Vietnam's economy. Vote for people pushing the TPP. We have only dropped 10 million children and adults into poverty in this country during the past 6 years. With this we might be able to double or triple that.

Response to RiverLover (Original post)

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts)
13. "Legacies of other trade agreements that serve as a warning about the TPP..."
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 05:37 AM
Dec 2014

Gee too bad someone won't make campaign promises about that kind of thing



Get Ready for 2016- We're all about to be played for chumps again. You'd think people would get tired of this. But the following numbers show that's a long way off

Katy Perry's Cornrows: 76 comments, 2025 views
Trans Pacific Partnership and Monsanto: 12 comments, 325 views

And that's the way it is as 2014 dies.

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
17. ”Control oil and you control nations, Control food and you control the people.”
Sat Dec 27, 2014, 12:23 PM
Dec 2014

This is another great article re: TPP & Monsanto~

Monsanto, the TPP and Global Food Dominance

...Sixty to seventy percent of the foods in US supermarkets are now genetically modified. By contrast, in at least 26 other countries—including Switzerland, Australia, Austria, China, India, France, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, Greece, Bulgaria, Poland, Italy, Mexico and Russia—GMOs are totally or partially banned; and significant restrictions on GMOs exist in about sixty other countries.

A ban on GMO and glyphosate use might go far toward improving the health of Americans. But the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a global trade agreement for which the Obama Administration has sought Fast Track status, would block that sort of cause-focused approach to the healthcare crisis.

Roundup’s Insidious Effects

Roundup-resistant crops escape being killed by glyphosate, but they do not avoid absorbing it into their tissues. Herbicide-tolerant crops have substantially higher levels of herbicide residues than other crops. In fact, many countries have had to increase their legally allowable levels—by up to 50 times—in order to accommodate the introduction of GM crops. In the European Union, residues in foods are set to rise 100-150 times if a new proposal by Monsanto is approved. Meanwhile, herbicide-tolerant “super-weeds” have adapted to the chemical, requiring even more toxic doses and new toxic chemicals to kill the plant.

Human enzymes are affected by glyphosate just as plant enzymes are: the chemical blocks the uptake of manganese and other essential minerals. Without those minerals, we cannot properly metabolize our food. That helps explain the rampant epidemic of obesity in the United States. People eat and eat in an attempt to acquire the nutrients that are simply not available in their food.

According to researchers Samsell and Seneff in Biosemiotic Entropy: Disorder, Disease, and Mortality (April 2013):

Glyphosate’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology . . . . Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

More than 40 diseases have been linked to glyphosate use, and more keep appearing. In September 2013, the National University of Rio Cuarto, Argentina, published research finding that glyphosate enhances the growth of fungi that produce aflatoxin B1, one of the most carcinogenic of substances. A doctor from Chaco, Argentina, told Associated Press, “We’ve gone from a pretty healthy population to one with a high rate of cancer, birth defects and illnesses seldom seen before.” Fungi growths have increased significantly in US corn crops....

...As the devastating conclusions of these and other researchers awaken people globally to the dangers of Roundup and GMO foods, transnational corporations are working feverishly with the Obama administration to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement that would strip governments of the power to regulate transnational corporate activities. Negotiations have been kept secret from Congress but not from corporate advisors, 600 of whom have been consulted and know the details....

http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/monsanto_the_tpp_and_global_food_dominance_20131128



Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trans-Pacific Partnership...