Campaigners for the labeling of GMOs in food are winning their battle against corporate America, writes Ralph Nader. No wonder the corporations are fighting back with lawsuits and scare stories … they’re on the back foot, and they know it.
Let us celebrate today the latest initiatives of our nation’s growing food safety movement.
Across the country, consumers are demanding the right to know what is in their food, and labeling of genetically engineered food.
It’s a vibrant and diverse coalition: mothers and grandmothers, health libertarians, progressives, foodies, environmentalists, main street conservatives and supporters of free-market economics.
Last year, a New York Timespoll found that a near-unanimous 93% of Americans support such labeling.
FDA: GMO food not proven safe
This is no surprise. Genetically engineered food has yet to be proven safe. In 1998, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) admitted in court that it had reached “no dispositive scientific findings” about the risks of genetically engineered foods.
There is no scientific consensus about the risks of eating genetically engineered food, according to a statement last year signed by nearly 300 scientists.
The scientists agree that “Concerns about risks are well-founded” and that a “substantial number” of “animal feeding studies and reviews of such studies … found toxic effects and signs of toxicity” in animals fed genetically engineered food, compared with controls. “Some of the studies give serious cause for concern.”
For example, a review of 19 studies on mammals, published in Environmental Sciences Europe, found that the “data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems” arising from diets of genetically engineered food.
According to Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen PhD, the ability of genetically engineered crops to induce allergic reactions is “a major food safety concern.”
GMO risks – many questions, few answers
When it comes to genetically engineered food, there are questions about risks, but no convincing answers. There is no mandatory pre-market safety testing for genetically engineered food.
These questions of risks and safety have festered for years because the big agrichemical companies use their intellectual property rights to deny independent scientists the ability to test genetically engineered crops, or to report their results.
Scientific American called these restrictions on free inquiry “dangerous”. “In a number of cases”, the magazine reports, “experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.”
When scientists do publish studies adverse to the interests of the big agrichemical companies, they are met with vicious attacks on their credibility, their science and even in their personal lives.
Sixty-four nations have already required labeling of genetically engineered food, including the members of the European Union, Australia, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, even Russia and China.
Nestlé: it’s no longer business as usual
The food industry is feeling the pressure. Paul Bulcke, CEO of Nestle, the world’s largest food and beverage company, said that“It is not business as usual anymore. Pressure is mounting from all sides and angles.”
Despite the overwhelming popularity of labeling, Congress refused to act, so citizens took up the cause in their own states.
Under heavy corporate lobbying and deceptive TV ads, ballot initiatives for labeling of genetically engineered food were narrowly defeated by 51% – 49% in both California and Washington State. In May, legislation in the California Senate led 19-16, but failed without the 21 vote majority needed for passage.
Finally, on May 8, in a major victory, Vermont approved the first unconditional statewide labeling law for genetically engineered food.“Vermonters take our food and how it is produced seriously, and we believe we have a right to know what’s in the food we buy”, said Gov. Peter Shumlin.
Since then, the food and agrichemical industries have escalated to a full panic. On June 13, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and three other trade associations – the heart of the junk food industry – filed a lawsuit in federal court to block the new Vermont labeling law.
The good news is that people are rushing to Vermont’s defense, including Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, which will re-name one of its flavors ‘Food Fight! Fudge Brownie’ to help fund a vigorous legal defense of Vermont’s new labeling law.
No, GMO labeling will not increase food prices
Elsewhere, industry is spending lavishly against the food movement. In New York State, the Daily Newsreported that “Trade organizations, farm groups and corporate giants such as Coca-Cola and Kraft have spent millions of dollars on lobbyists and campaign contributions to defeat” labeling of genetically engineered food.
The food industry is quick to scare consumers with the canard that labeling of genetically engineered food will raise food prices. But manufacturers change their labels often, so their claim doesn’t make sense.
It has been debunked in an study by Joanna Shepherd Bailey, a professor at Emory University School of Law, who found that“consumers will likely see no increases in prices” as a result of labeling genetically engineered food.
In Congress, US Rep Mike Pompeo (R-KS) introduced a bill at the behest of the Grocery Manufacturers Association – dubbed by its consumer opponents the ‘Deny Americans the Right-to-Know (DARK) Act’ – to block any federal or state action for labeling of genetically engineered food.
Sometimes, politics is drearily predictable: Can you guess Rep. Pompeo’s largest campaign contributor? You got it: Koch Industries.
Left and Right united can defat the corporate lobbies
But the shame is fully bipartisan: sleazy Democratic lobbyists like former US Senator Blanche Lincoln and Steve Elmendorf are plying their trade for Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association to keep you from knowing what’s in your food.
Meanwhile, the food disclosure movement is going full speed ahead with ballot initiatives for GMO labeling in Oregon and Colorado, as well aslegislative efforts in many other states.
Food labeling is hardly a radical idea. Conservative economists are quick to point out that the free exchange of information about products is crucial to the proper functioning of a free market.
Even Monsanto supported labeling of genetically engineered food in Britain. But it spends millions to oppose labeling here in America. Such is corporate patriotism in the 21st Century: St. Louis-based Monsanto believes the British deserve more consumer rights than Americans do.
Not worried? You ought to be …
There are other reasons to be concerned about genetically engineered crops.
Genetically engineered crops have led to increased use of pesticides. For example, a study by Professor Chuck Benbrook of Washington State University found that between 1996 and 2011, genetically engineered crops have brought an increased use of more than 400 million pounds of pesticides.
Perhaps most alarming is the corporate control of agriculture in the hands of the world’s largest agrichemical companies – Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer and BASF.
“The Big 6 chemical and seed companies are working diligently to monopolize the food system at the expense of consumers, farmers and smaller seed companies”, said Philip H. Howard, an associate professor at Michigan State University.
Food is love
These companies may be meeting their match in the mothers and grandmothers who have powered the movement for labeling of genetically engineered food. Like Pamm Larry, the pioneering grandmother who came up with the spreading idea reflected by the California ballot initiative for labeling.
Mothers know that food is love. Certainly, my mother did. She taught me early and often about how important it is to eat healthy food. She even wrote about these values in the book, It Happened in the Kitchen.
I’d like to think that she’d feel right at home with the mothers and grandmothers of today’s food movement. I sure do. In some ways, that’s the point: a movement that makes you feel at home, no wonder it is so popular.
It’s long been suspected that Big Tobacco money was behind early efforts to attack the e-cig industry because it posed a potential threat to the tobacco cigarette industry. Now it’s apparent Big Tobacco is not only jumping on the bandwagon, but setting its sights on taking over the bandwagon.
Lorillard, the 3rd largest Big Tobacco company in the US acquired Blu brand e-cigs last year and just earlier this month Reynolds, America’s 2nd largest Big Tobacco company announced its entry into the market with Vuse e-cigarettes. The no. 1 US Big Tobacco company, Altria, acquired Green Smoke for $110 million in February and is planning national distribution of a new e-cig, NuMark, by the end of the year while Philip Morris, a subsidiary of Altria, recently announced it acquired British e-cigarette maker Nicocig for an undisclosed price. Some in the e-cig community might see this as a positive development thinking that with increased marketing from Big Tobacco brands there’ll be increased public awareness of e-cigarettes. However, I think there’s good reasons to worry about the quality of information and products Big Tobacco pushes to the public, leading to the first of the reasons to not support them:
Reason 1: It is in the interests of Big Tobacco to associate e-cigarettes with tobacco cigarettes.
Big Tobacco companies aren’t about to lose their customer base without a fight, and even as more smokers continue to switch to e-cigarettes, they’re often lured towards e-cig brands owned by the corporations that understand their addiction best. Big Tobacco have decades of experience effectively marketing cigarettes and they’re using similar tactics to make e-cigs especially attractive to smokers and former smokers. Big Tobacco e-cigs such as Green Smoke and Vuse are designed and packaged to look very similar to tobacco cigarettes and are often marketed as “tobacco products”. This may seem like a fair label on the surface because e-cigs use liquids containing nicotine usually extracted from tobacco, but one could argue they’re not exactly tobacco products because nicotine is a chemical that can be synthesized and is found in other plants such as eggplant, tomatoes and peppers. It’s an important distinction to make because a common misconception is that e-cigs are as harmful as tobacco cigarettes when in fact much of the damage caused by smoking cigarettes can be attributed to the combustion of processed tobacco which have been found to contain radiation, gmo genes, ammonia and pesticides. There is at least one e-cig specifically designed for use with tobacco and not surprisingly it’s made by Philip Morris. Many e-cigs produced by big tobacco are designed to emulate the experience of smoking with smoke-like nicotine content and taste. This is great for smokers content to continue vaping in a manner similar to how they’re accustomed to smoking, but not so good for those trying to decrease or end their addiction or would like to experience a wider range of flavors, vape temperatures, nicotine levels, or psychoactive substances. E-cigs and vapes produced by smaller businesses are far more versatile, allowing users to choose the flavors and nicotine content of e-liquids they use, select from variable voltage settings, and with modular attachments they can also vape non-tobacco herbs, oils and concentrates instead. E-cigs from Big Tobacco, on the other hand, use disposable cartridges which have a host of problems leading to the next argument:
Reason 2: E-cigs produced by Big Tobacco are more harmful to you and the environment.
Nearly every Big Tobacco-owned electronic cigarette uses disposable cartridges which are cheap to produce but end up costing consumers more in the long run than refillable cartridges. They also limit consumer choice because such cartridges are usually proprietary, not designed for use with components from other brands and more limited in selection of flavors and nicotine content than liquids sold separately. E-cigs using disposable cartridges are also potentially more hazardous to your health than other forms of vaporizers. Though there still needs to be more research on comparative health effects, a 2009 FDA study (often cited by critics as proof that e-cigs emit low levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines and other impurities) only tested devices using disposable cartridges (“Njoy”, “Smoking Everywhere” and “Nicotrol” brands). Just like with tobacco cigarette filters, we may one day see disposable e-cig cartridges littered everywhere if Big Tobacco has its way. As with other cheap disposable products, disposable e-cigs and e-cig filters are designed for planned obsolescence; a policy which creates demand by making a product obsolete faster forcing consumers to buy more regularly and discard old products into landfills more often. Such practices of Big Tobacco and other large corporations leads to the third argument:
Reason 3: Big Tobacco has proven itself untrustworthy.
The history of the American tobacco industry is steeped in shame. Early settlers ripped off Native American tribes in order to acquire more land for tobacco fields. Indentured servants were exploited for labor intensive tobacco field work later to be replaced by slaves from Africa. By the 1880s, the industry was dominated by the monopolistic American Tobacco Company which was one of the companies forced to dissolve to comply with the Sherman Antitrust Act. The dissolution led to an increase in cigarette advertising while the four firms created from the breakup continue to dominate the tobacco market to this day. We now know that senior scientists and executives within the cigarette industry knew there was a correlation between smoking and cancer as early as the 1940s and were aware that smoking could cause lung cancer by the mid 1950s. However, it wasn’t until the 1990’s amidst successful lawsuits against Big Tobacco aided by leaked documents that major US cigarette manufacturers publicly admitted to varying degrees that smoking causes cancer and other health problems. Given their track record, it should come as no surprise how Big Tobacco approaches the e-cig market with the same focus on the bottom line.
Like many other large corporations with outsize influence, Big Tobacco is less concerned with wealth creation which extracts value by engaging in mutually beneficial transactions than rent-seeking; the use of social institutions such as government to gain monopolistic advantages while imposing disadvantages on competitors. The effects of rent-seeking are reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced wealth creation, increased income inequality, lost government revenue (except for select paid-off legislators and regulators), decreases in innovation and entrepreneurship and national decline. Large corporations also create fewer quality domestic jobs per capita because they have the ability to cut costs through increased automation and outsourcing overseas. While CEOs of such companies may have wonderful jobs, there’s an increasingly wide income and quality gap between their position and the people at the lowest level of the company. In most cases, much of their profits are siphoned off to a small group at the top of the hierarchy who hoard it in offshore bank accounts.
Smaller domestic companies, while they may have to source certain components from overseas, tend to do more of the work in-house such as assembly, quality control, packaging, warehousing, etc. which creates more local jobs that distribute wealth into local economies. Small businesses also tend to have less of a wealth gap between employees and are run by people who are more passionate about their line of work, not people who inherited their careers, acquired it through connections or were hired by committee solely for their ability to generate income.
For the sake of your health, the environment, the economy and country, don’t support Big Tobacco. Support responsible small businesses and spread the message.
I’m proud to announce a new partnership with Cascadia Vape, a small business I’ve played a part in developing whose values are in close alignment with my own. Cascadia Vape is a retailer of electronic cigarettes and vaporizers from companies based in the U.S. Electronic cigarettes (or e-cigs) and vaporizers (vapes) work by heating materials with a battery powered atomizer to produce vapors with far less toxins than those found in smoke. This isn’t to say they’re 100% safe since nicotine contained in e-liquids is still addictive and shouldn’t be consumed by minors, pregnant women, and those who have heart problems, allergies or other medical conditions which might be adversely affected by nicotine. However, I’d recommend Cascadia Vape for those who are already smokers or wish to enjoy the effects of nicotine (or in some cases, THC) without the tar, toxins and odors associated with smoking because electronic cigarettes and vaporizers are a relatively healthier alternative. If you aren’t in that category but know someone who is, please share the information with them. Unfortunately Cascadia Vape is currently are not selling to customers outside of the U.S. though this may change in the future.
As a token of appreciation for readers of this site, you can get free shipping by entering coupon code “heroics” at the Cascadia Vape shopping cart.
6/8: Hosts Mickey Huff and Peter Phillips discuss the ongoing situation in the Ukraine with Dr. Michael Parenti, Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, and former Congresswomen and Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney on “the Project Censored Show”. All of them are contributors to a new book by Clarity Press edited by Stephen Lendman, “Flashpoint Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WWIII.”
6/9: On “the Progressive Commentary Hour”, host Gary Null interviews Dr. Andrew Wakefield, a gastroenterologist and academician specializing in inflammatory bowel disease and the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine or MMR. They discuss how the US government uses corporations and universities to support policies, silence top scientists, jeopardize public health and protect corporate profits.
6/10: On “the Higherside Chats”, Adam Gorightly and Vyzygoth joins host Greg Carlwood for a freewheeling but illuminating conversation about the suppressed history of the United States hidden beneath lies and disinformation most have been led to believe.
6/12: KMO talks with Vincent Horn of Buddhist Geeks on the lastest C-Realm podcast. They discuss the use of mindfulness techniques in technological society and its connection to DIY, Quanitifed Self and Maker movements. KMO wraps up with commentary on the nature of individualism and community.
Ten sentences in to New York Times, columnist Maureen Dowd’s piece about trying marijuana edibles in Colorado (while admittedly cackling out loud), my sense of responsibility as a journalist and cannabis connoisseur kicked in. This was the sentence that triggered it: “I barely made it from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours.”
Whoah! This is not as it should be, and barely even makes sense. If someone gave you an unknown glass of alcohol and told you to down it sans questions, would you? And when they revealed that it was Everclear while you coughed your lungs out, would you write an editorial about how people should be more clear about telling you what you’re drinking, even if you don’t ask? Dowd expands the conversation beyond her personal observations, and goes on to discuss the epidemic of suicides, murders and emergency room visits prompted by folks misusing edible marijuana treats in states like Colorado and Washington.
From my perspective, before we get into strategies for creating labels for pot edibles – Dowd suggests “maybe a stoned skull and bones?” – let’s start with something a bit more practical.
Here’s my step-by-step guide to eating weed edibles:
1. Don’t buy or eat an edible if it doesn’t clearly state how much THC is inside. If it’s a candy bar, it should be divided into partitions (a la a Hershey bar), and you should do the math to determine the amount of THC is in each partition.
2. If you don’t use weed regularly, start with five mg of THC. If you’re the adventurous type, try 10 mg. But no more. Then wait 30-45 minutes. How do you feel? If you feel groovy, try moving up by five mg increments – waiting a half-hour in between – but do not exceed a total of 15 mg of THC. That’s basically the equivalent of smoking a small joint of middle-grade weed on your own. That should do. 20 mg could get you into Dowd Meltdown territory.
3. If you’re a regular weed user, start with 10 mg of THC. Wait 30-45 minutes. Monitor your stoned-ness, and try moving up by 5-10 mg of THC, but don’t go past 25-30 mg of THC. If you’re approaching 40 mg of THC and you haven’t reached the orbit level you’re used to, you might just have a problem.
At the end of the article, the owner of a pot edible company makes the following observation about why warnings might not solve this weed edible overdose problem: “My kids put rocks and batteries in their mouths.”
Be an adult about edibles. If you know how much chardonnay to drink, figure out how much weed to eat. If you don’t, it’s kind of on you if you end up in the fetal position in your hotel shower.
they sang and prayed,
naming that day in May,
Decoration day they dis-interred 257 Union men
mass graved, dumped, piled broken bodies twisted,
a Charleston North Carolina Guernica
forgotten men dug up, re-interred
with honor, memory, celebration
by 10,000 in 1866
that first Memorial Day
it is Memorial Day 2010
the Turkish flotilla
bringing aid to Gaza
the attack, nine dead,
Americans, Turks
no aid delivered
Memorial Day 1937,
steelworkers striking Little Steel,
strikers with families march toward the Republic steel mill gate
police-guards open fire
ten dead
thirty shot
one hundred clubbed
today we are at Jones beach
it is Memorial Day
we are fifty souls
remembering our dead, the dead
hundreds of Long Islanders
thousands of North Americans
more than a million Iraqis and Afghanis
families stroll past
some look, others see without vision
all have come to eat, drink
and celebrate that insatiable beast
today the Blue Angles
spin flip dive swoop
begging boys and girls to sign up
the navy, the marines want you
as we call out the named and nameless
let us remember these days
past, present, and future
Tom Karlson is founder of Poets for Peace, Long Island, NY.
It’s the third and final day of the Memorial Day weekend.
Millions of Americans are visiting friends and relatives, perhaps taking a three- or four-day mini-vacation. They may be at pool parties and grilling burgers, hotdogs, veggies, and whatever else appeals to them.
The nation’s politicians are going to Memorial Day rallies. There will be speeches and music. American flags and bunting will drape the stages. The politicians will tell us about the “ultimate sacrifices” American servicemen and women made. They will tell us how wonderful America is, how we are the best country in the world, how we defend freedom and remember those who put their lives on the line to do so. The crowds, whether a few or thousands, will applaud vigorously.
Some will even say that the VA hospitals need a complete overhaul, that Gen. Eric Shinseki–who was wounded and earned three Bronze Stars for bravery, should be fired. These are some of the same politicians who had attacked Shinseki when he was Army chief of staff who warned that it would take hundreds of thousands of Americans, not thousands as the Bush-Cheney cabal had claimed, to successfully invade and control Iraq. For his military knowledge, he was forced into an early retirement. These are the politicians who are outraged that America is treating veterans poorly.
Here’s what the politicians also won’t say. They won’t tell us that 41 Republican senators blocked legislation this past year to provide necessary funding for veterans health. They won’t tell us that during the first years of the Iraq War, the quality of American-based hospitals had deteriorated to the point that it took a major newspaper series to expose what had happened and, finally, with politicians forced to look at despicable conditions, and shamed by their ignorance, there were some measures to improve the care for wounded soldiers after their lives were saved by courageous battlefield medics.
They won’t tell us that members of Congress blocked significant increases in the foodstamp program or that governors and legislatures have not done what they should to care for the homeless. After all, the impoverished and homeless don’t contribute to political campaigns. Of course, the politicians won’t tell us that one-fourth of all adult homeless are veterans.
They won’t tell us about veterans who came home from war, and then lost their jobs or homes during the Great Recession that followed the fraud and greed committed by the bankers and industrial giants who were able to become rich because government did little to protect the people.
With crocodile tears and shallow words, recorded by the news media, the politicians will tell us how much they mourn–but they won’t tell us they are part of the problem, for proudly claiming they voted time after time to block necessary funding and for demanding government not intrude upon the free enterprise system.
The politicians will wave flags and say how much they believe in America and our veterans, and how much they mourn the loss of our soldiers. The crowds will enthusiastically agree–and then go to their barbeques and picnics.
No, they won’t tell us that if we want to reduce these problem–DON’T THUMP YOUR CHESTS, UNFURL YOUR FEATHERS, AND SEND THE YOUTH TO WARS THAT SHOULD NEVER BE FOUGHT.
During the Vietnam War, John Prine recorded “Your Flag Decal Won’t Get You Into Heaven Anymore.” It was true then. It is still true. Please listen.
Ecological economists such as Herman Daly write that the more full the world becomes, the higher are the social or external costs of production.
Social or external costs are costs of production that are not captured in the price of the products. For example, dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico that result from chemicals used in agriculture are not included as costs in agricultural production. The price of food does not include the damage to the Gulf.
Food production is a source of large social costs. Indeed, it seems that the more food producers are able to lower the measured cost of food production, the higher the social costs imposed on society.
Consider the factory farming of animals. The density of operations results in a concentration of germs and in animals being fed antibiotics. Lowering the cost of food in this way contributes to the rise of antibiotic resistant superbugs that will impose costs on society that will more than offset the savings from lower food prices.
Monsanto has reduced the measured cost of food production by producing genetically modified seeds that result in plants that are pest and herbicide resistant. The result is increased yields and lower measured costs of production. However, there is evidence that the social or external costs of this approach to farming more than offsets the lower measured cost. For example, there are toxic affects on microorganisms in the soil, a decline in soil fertility and nutritional value of food, and animal and human infertility.
When Purdue University plant pathologist and soil microbiologist Don Huber pointed out these unintended consequences of GMOs, other scientists were hesitant to support him, because their careers are dependent on research grants from agribusiness. In other words, Monsanto essentially controls the research on its own products.
In his book, Genetic Roulette, Jeffrey M. Smith writes: “Genetically modified (GM) foods are inherently unsafe, and current safety assessments are not competent to protect us from or even identify most dangers.” The evidence is piling up against such foods; yet the US government is so totally owned by Monsanto that labeling cannot be required.
Pesticides damage birds and bees. Some years ago we learned that ingestion of pesticides by birds was bringing some species near to extinction. If we lose bees, we lose honey and the most important pollinating agent. The rapid decline in bee populations have several causes. Among them are the pesticides sulfoxaflor and thiamethoxam produced by Dow and Syngenta. Dow is lobbying the Environmental Protection Agency to permit sulfoxaflor residues on food, and Syngenta wants to be able to spray alfalfa with many times the currently allowed amount of thiamethoxam.
As the regulators are more or less in the industry’s pocket, the companies will likely succeed in their efforts to further contaminate the food of people and animals.
The profits of Monsanto, Dow, and Syngenta are higher, because many of the costs associated with the production and use of their products are imposed on third parties and on life itself.
Many countries have put restrictions on GMO foods. Lawmakers in Russia equate genetically engineered foods to terrorist acts and want to impose criminal penalties.
The French parliament has approved a ban on GMO cultivation in France. However, Washington lobbies foreign governments on behalf of its agribusiness and chemical donors. Dick Cheney used his two terms as vice president to staff up the environmental agencies with corporate friendly executives. Just as the political appointees at the SEC would not let SEC prosecutors bring cases against the big banks, environmental regulators have a difficult time protecting the environment and food supply from contamination. The way Washington works is that the regulators protect those they are supposed to regulate in exchange for big jobs when they leave government. The economist, George Stigler, made this clear several decades ago.
The public favors labeling of genetically engineered food, but Monsanto and the Grocery Manufacturers Association have so far been successful in preventing it. On May 8 the governor of Vermont signed a bill passed by the state legislature that requires labeling. Monsanto’s response is to sue the state of Vermont.
The opposition to labeling by agribusiness is suspicious. It creates the impression of hiding information from the public. Normally, this is not good public relations. Currently, foods are mislabeled when genetically engineered food is labeled “natural.”
Breakthroughs in science and technology allow mere humans to play God with insufficient information. The downsides of genetic engineering are unknown, and the costs could exceed the benefits. What economists term “low cost production” might turn out to be very high cost.
Neoclassical economists do not lose sleep over external costs, because they think that there is always a solution. They think that the way to deal with pollution is to price it so that the entity that most needs to pollute ends up with the right. Somehow this is thought to solve the problem of pollution. Neoclassical economists think that it is impossible to run out of resources, because they believe man-made capital is a substitute for nature’s capital. It is a fantasy world in which we become ever more productive and better off and never run out of anything.
Ecological economists see the world differently. Nature’s capital, such as mineral resources and fisheries, are being depleted, and the disposal sinks for wastes are filling up, with land, air, and water being polluted. Every act of production produces useful products and wastes. As external costs and the depletion of nature’s capital are not measured, we have no way of knowing whether an increase in output is economic or uneconomic. All we can tell is whether the costs that are measured are covered by the price of the product.
What this means is that in a full world, neoclassical economics becomes less meaningful and is less able to contribute to our understanding of problems. It cannot even tell us whether GDP is rising or falling as we do not have a measure of the full cost of production.
For further information on these issues, see my book, The Failure Of Laissez Faire Capitalism And Economic Dissolution Of The West, and the website: http://steadystate.org
Two Oregon Counties Vote to Ban Genetically Engineered Crops Despite Massive Contributions by Monsanto and Corporate Agribusiness
Wins for Community Rights in Jackson and Josephine Counties a Sign of Growing Momentum for Anti-GMO Movement
FINLAND, Minn. – On Wednesday, May 20, voters in two counties in Oregon passed ballot initiatives to ban the growing of genetically engineered crops.
Jackson County’s Measure 15-119 passed overwhelmingly, by 66 percent to 34 percent. Proponents of the ban raised only $375,000 compared with a record nearly $1 million raised by the opposition, which included agribusiness giants Monsanto, Syngenta and DuPont Pioneer.
Voters in Josephine County passed Measure 17-58 by a vote of 58 percent to 42 percent. However, the ban will be tested in court because the state passed a controversial law in October 2013, stripping counties of the right to pass GMO bans. The Jackson County measure is exempt from the state law because it had already qualified for the ballot prior to the passage of S.B. 863.
Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), and the Organic Consumers Fund which mobilized its members and donated $50,000 to the Oregon campaigns, issued this statement today:
“The passing of these two GMO bans in Jackson and Josephine Counties should send a clear signal to politicians that citizens not only reject unregulated and hazardous GMOs, but are willing to defy the indentured politicians who pass laws, like Oregon’s S.B. 863, that take away county rights to ban GMOs and obliterate a 100-year tradition of home rule and balance of powers between counties and the state.
“This is a tremendous victory for the citizens of these two counties, and for the farmers who are determined to fight the threat of unwanted contamination by GMO crops. It is also a victory for the national anti-GMO movement as it builds momentum for similar bans in counties in other states.
“The margins of victory for these two measures also bode well for passing Oregon’s Ballot Initiative #44 in November 2014, a statewide ballot measure to require mandatory labeling of GMO foods and foods containing GMO ingredients, sold at retail.
“And finally, these victories make it clear to agribusiness giants like Monsanto and Dow that the day has come when they can no longer buy and lie their way to victory. By using the tools of democracy, such as ballot initiatives, citizens can overcome corporate and government corruption through honest campaigns, built on a foundation of truth, science and fair play.
“The OCA looks forward to helping the citizens of Josephine County defend their right to ban GMOs when they go to court to test the state’s new law, S.B. 863, and to helping the Oregon Right to Know campaign pass a strong GMO labeling law in November.”
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots non-profit 501(c)3 public interest organization campaigning for health, justice, and sustainability. The Organic Consumers Fund is a 501(c)4 allied organization of the Organic Consumers Association, focused on grassroots lobbying and legislative action.
Just in case you’ve been living under a rock (or absorbing the limited range of carefully selected and controlled news reports from the corporate media), Monsanto is a sinister multinational with headquarters in Creve Coeur, Missouri, and it’s engaged in the production of seriously harmful chemicals and agricultural biotechnology.
It’s the largest manufacturer of products which include genetically engineered seed and herbicide glyphosate.
Apart from the genetically produced seed, they have also been known to produce chemicals such as DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange and bovine growth hormone among others. It has been given the name merchant of death by many groups that inform the sleepwalking masses about the dangers of using Monsanto products.
So let’s take a look at just 6 ways Monsanto are destroying humanity:
They produce genetically engineered seeds which are used to grow corn which is fed to cows with the intention of increasing their mass. GMO’s are harmful since they have been known to cause cancer therefore Monsanto has become a promoter of cancer.
Poisonous pesticides and other farm chemicals
They produce chemicals which are harmful and are sprayed on plants which eventually find their way on the tables of many families. These chemicals poison our body organs which eventually lead to death.
Promoters of Deforestation and desertification
Monsanto clears huge tracts of forest in order to set up their farms. This means they promote deforestation which eventually leads to desertification. As years go by with this kind of practice there will be no land to produce food which will lead to hunger and finally death.
They produce synthetic nitrogen fertilizer which when sprayed in their farms is absorbed by the soil making its way to the water table. This has poisoned over two thirds of US drinking water with nitrate poisoning. Apart from poisoning drinking water, the chemicals make their way to the oceans which has led to oceanic dead zones. Examples include the Gulf of Mexico and Chesapeake bay among others.
Wetland and Rainforest Destroyers
Monsanto model of draining wetlands and cutting down rainforests is a big promoter of destructive green house gases. Argentina is one of the victims of Monsanto’s rainforest destruction where they have planted genetically engineered soy. The destruction of the forest has led to destruction of animal and plant life that depend on the forest.
Generating new animal and human diseases
Glyphosate, one of the chemicals produced by Monsanto with the intention of killing pests has found to be a contributor to new diseases in both humans and animals. The chemical when sprayed on plants kills the useful bacteria and leads to formation of virulent pathogens which are introduced in the body when one consumes the food. These pathogens have led to infertility and miscarriages in animals and soon humans.
Russia has some of the most precious uncontaminated top soil on the planet and if it is rigorously controlled to stay GMO-free and free from chemicals its productivity would increase as Europe declines, geopolitical analyst William Engdahl told RT.
Russian PMs have pondered a draft bill outlawing GMOs. A draft bill submitted to the Russian parliament likens GMO production and distribution to terrorism. After entering the World Trade Organization, Russia was expected to allow GM food production and distribution within its market. However, in March Russia’s President Putin said the country would stay GM-free without violating its obligations to the WTO.
RT:What do you think about this latest bill in Russia’s parliament, which equates GM producers who flout the rules with terrorists. Is that a bit over the top?
William Engdahl: The language on Russian media blogs is [that] punishment for knowingly introducing GMO crops into Russia illegally should have a punishment comparable to that given to terrorists for knowingly hurting people. The direction of this is anything that stops, and puts the genie back in the bottle called genetic manipulation of plants and organisms is to the good for the future of the mankind. The comment about 20 percent of harvest increase in some GMOs is absolute rubbish. There is no long-term harvest gain that has been proven for GMO crops anywhere in the world because they are not modified to get harvest increases. So this is just soap bubbles that Monsanto, Syngenta and GMO giants are putting out to loll the public into thinking it is something good.
RT:Will this measure, if adopted, reduce the number of GM products on the market?
WE: I hope it does. I haven’t got access to the paragraphs of legislation but I think the direction that Prime Minister Medvedev indicated two-three months ago in terms of making this U-turn against GMO that seemed to have a green light after WTO. A year ago it was looking like GMO was a common thing in Russia which would be a catastrophe. I think the point is Russia has some of the most precious non-destroyed top soil on this planet and the richness of this top soil, if it is rigorously controlled to be GMO-free, to be free from chemicals, from Roundup or Atrazyne which is Syngenta’s favorite poison, and is marketed on the world markets as certified organic. Russia has a huge export market in Germany, in Western Europe, the European Union and elsewhere because there is a tremendous lack of it. So anything that Russia does to block GMO, keep in mind, the EU has not certified for commercial planting any GMO for years. There is such a great popular opposition in the EU that Monsanto, despite all the proclivities of the corrupt European Commission in Brussels to go with it, or even some people in the German government. The population is absolutely adamant here, they do not want this in their food.
RT:How can consumers be better protected from inadvertently buying genetically modified food?
WE: They can quite easily. First of all, they can do what the State of California tried, and Monsanto spent millions of dollars to block it and will try again. The State of Washington tried it and the same thing with Monsanto spending millions of dollars to create false lobbying campaigns [ensued]. The State of Vermont tried and succeeded in getting labeling on products that contain above 0.9 percent of GMO, which is similar to the EU. That is labeled on the shelves, when you buy this box of Kellogg’s Cornflakes you make sure to look and see if this is not GMO corn in my Cornflakes that my child is going to eat or is it this GMO garbage that Kellogg’s would so lovingly like to get rid of. That is one step. The other thing is for people to become informed about what we eat. Support local farmers, it is not against technology. I have seen it directly in Germany and elsewhere in Europe that properly done organic farming creates greater harvest yields than industrialized agriculture. The productivity is better, the quality is finer. The animals that are range fed, grass fed cows, chickens, they are real cows and chickens, they are not these synthetic pseudo-meat that we buy on the supermarket shelves in the big chains in Europe and in the US. So that is something that Russia has a great positive contribution to make.
William Engdahl is an award-winning geopolitical analyst and strategic risk consultant whose internationally best-selling books have been translated into thirteen foreign languages.
North American and European economies continue to be stuck with intractable, if for the moment moderate, stagflation. Prices for most household purchases steadily increase while majority incomes stagnate. By contrast, corporate incomes increase, subsidized by Western government and Central Bank policy. The resulting increase in inequality is clearly a deliberate policy outcome responding to the weakening of Western economies relative to global counterparts led by China and Russia.
Among those counterparts, Latin America, for long one of the world’s most unequal regions, is playing a leading role demonstrating how to reduce inequality. That is true to some extent in Brazil and Argentina, but it is particularly the case in the bloc of countries grouped in the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA). Western governments and corporate media regularly criticise the governments of ALBA members like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua while omitting the solidity and consistency of those countries’ economic and social success over the last seven or eight years. Nicaragua is a perfect example of that pattern, having achieved the highest regional decline in inequality along with Bolivia and Ecuador.
A July 2013 World Bank paper “Deconstructing the Decline in Inequality in Latin America” shows that ALBA members Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua are the countries that had most reduced inequality as of 2011. Nicaragua had the highest average GINI coefficient year-on-year fall of 2.6% between 2000 and 2011. The figures for Bolivia and Ecuador are 2.05 and 1.99 respectively. In terms of an overall decline in the GINI coefficient in the region the figures for the period covered by the World Bank report are that Bolivia’s dropped 15.5%, followed by Nicaragua (12.2%), Argentina (10.7%), Peru (8.7%) and Venezuela (8.5%). (The figure for Ecuador is absent because data prior to 2003 were unavailable.)
Nicaragua in macro
Nicaragua is a Central American and Caribbean country with a population now of over 6 million. For decades it was the second poorest country in the Americas. Devastated by a US government contrived war in the 1980s, from 1990 to 2007 the country was governed on neoliberal principles dictated by foreign donor governments and multilateral financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In January 2007, President Daniel Ortega took office leading the second democratically elected government of the Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional.
2007 was the year in which global economic crisis followed the collapse of the Western financial system. Despite Western propaganda to the contrary, the effects of that crisis clearly persist. Even so, over the last five years, in that highly adverse international economic environment, Nicaragua has maintained better growth than its Central American neighbours, averaging over 5% a year. That success is the result of socialist inspired policies, responsive to the country’s emphatically Christian culture, based on the fundamental principles of solidarity and shared responsibility in all areas of national life.
The 2013 report of the United Nation’s Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) places Nicaragua among the more successful regional economies on a variety of indicators. For example, between 2010 and 2013, foreign direct investment more than doubled from US$491m to US$1004m, representing a much greater percentage improvement than in Costa Rica (43.5%), Honduras (8.7%) and Guatemala (40.5%). In El Salvador, the same indicator almost doubled, but at a much lower level from US$117m to US$224m.
Nicaragua’s international trade is now well over twice the value of its exports in 2005. In Latin America and the Caribbean in 2013, only Peru had higher fixed capital growth than Nicaragua as a percentage of GDP. Nicaragua’s figure of 29.2% is about 7% greater than Costa Rica and Honduras and over double that of El Salvador or Guatemala. Price inflation has held at around 7% for the last three years. Foreign external debt is around 31% of GDP. Foreign reserves are over twice those of 2006. In August 2013, two years after Nicaragua exited its last IMF programme, the IMF’s deputy director for the western hemisphere declared Nicaragua’s economy to be solid and stable.
Global context
The current crisis in the West suggests similarities with the prolonged economic crisis in North America and Europe from 1873 to 1896. The Western powers resolved that crisis through a virulent burst of imperialist aggression, setting the stage for the global wars of the 20th Century. Since the end of World War 2 in 1945, the appearance of democracy in the West has depended on externalizing onto the majority world the costs of mitigating and managing inequality in Europe and North America.
A key witness to that fact is former French President Jacques Chirac who in the 2008 documentary “10 mai Africaphonie” stated, with uncharacteristic honesty, “We forget one thing…namely that much of the money in our wallets comes precisely from the exploitatation over centuries of Africa. Not completely, but a lot of it comes from the exploitation of Africa. So we have to show a bit of common sense. I won’t say generosity, but common sense, some justice to render to Africans… you might say ….what was taken from them. As much as necessary, if we want to avoid the worst convulsions or difficulties with the political consequences these might bring in the near future.”
As the West’s neocolonial options recede, most clearly in Asia and Latin America, the United States and its European allies embrace more than ever the logic of fascism, the alliance of corporate interests and coercive government. Domestically, their policies protect wealthy elites while cutting back on provision for education, health care and social security. Overseas, to intimidate Iran, destroy Libya and attack Syria, NATO country governments have allied themselves with feudal tyrannies like Saudi Arabia and Qatar and with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
To intimidate Russia, they have funded, trained and supported murderous neonazi groups in Ukraine while deploying military resources including missile systems around Russia’s borders. To intimidate China, they harrass North Korea, encourage Japanese nationalism and increase military deployments in the Pacific. Extensive military deployment is also a key element of Western efforts to reset their countries’ neocolonial control in Africa in response to China’s growing influence there.
The perfidious dollar
Underlying these developments is the end of global dollar hegemony and the steady emergence of multipolar alternatives. China, Russia and various countries in Asia and Latin America are conducting trade more and more in their own currencies or even, in the Latin American and Caribbean ALBA framework, in kind. As Western economic dominance declines, especially relative to Russia and China, the United States and the European Union compensate increasingly overseas with terrorist subversion and outright military aggression. Their corrupt political and economic system staggers like a zombie from one crisis to the next.
The Western powers cling to vestiges of their former global power by continuing to dominate the world’s financial system and through ruthless military barbarism. Their financial dominance persists in large part because commodity prices, especially oil and gas are denominated internationally in dollars. In 1971, the US government floated the dollar in order more freely to fund the Vietnam War and its broader imperialist foreign policy. Since then, in effect, only the United States has been able to use its own credit to fund economic growth and finance deficit spending.
Every other country has needed dollars in order to ensure their people’s economic development, mainly to guarantee energy needs and attract foreign investment. Even the wealthy Eurozone countries and Japan are subject to that dollar hegemony. The US Federal Reserve and its Primary Dealer network manage dollar liquidity in the global financial system. The Primary Dealers are all subsidiaries of crooked, giant North American, European and Japanese global financial corporations, too big to fail and too big to jail. They act in close collusion with the Federal Reserve and the other Western Central Banks, monitoring and managing international financial, currency and commodities markets.
Low wages and deregulation
The various mechanisms of dollar hegemony necessarily promote deep inequality around the world because international competition to earn dollars via exports encourages low wages, restricting domestic demand in the exporting countries. Ever since the 1980s the pernicious low wage effects of dollar hegemony have been progressively compounded by neoliberal propaganda for radical deregulation, urging low taxes, attacking organized labour and dismantling financial and commercial controls, especially of international capital flows. Incomes in the West began to stagnate as the rate of profit for Western corporations slowed and former well paid jobs were outsourced overseas.
The demise of the Soviet Union signalled a deregulation boom. In Europe and North America, mergers and acquisitions increasingly concentrated corporate power, strengthening the drive for deregulation. The resulting fraudulent financial innovation and free transfer of capital across the world lead to the Long Term Capital Management debacle and the Mexican, Russian and Asian currency crises of the 1990s. Despite these disastrous outcomes and the subsequent Enron and Worldcom scandals, deregulation continued to drive asset bubbles and easy credit so as to compensate for stagnant incomes, especially in the United States, leading directly to the crisis of 2007.
Poverty reduction in Nicaragua
This dead hand of decrepit neoliberal corporate capitalism was choking the Central American economies when Daniel Ortega took office as President of Nicaragua’s second democratically elected Sandinista government in January 2007. In such a dismal international economic context, poverty reduction represented a monumental challenge. Even so, President Ortega’s Sandinista government quickly set out in an extremely determined way to reduce poverty with a policy program whose many components are worth listing, if only because they show what can be done by an extremely poor country despite largely adverse international conditions. Extreme poverty in Nicaragua has been cut from over 17% in 2006 to just over 5% now.
Addressing intractable balance of payments difficulties, the government sought to broaden Nicaragua’s trade with Latin America, the Russian Federation, Asia and elswhere. Similarly, the government diversified its development cooperation, maintaining links with traditional partners in North America, Europe and Asia but also deepening its relationships with Venezuela, Cuba, Mexico and Brazil. Attracting greater foreign investment was also a key policy objective. Joining the ALBA framework, led by Venezuela and Cuba, freed up around US$500 million a year to invest primarily in production but also in major social programs.
To give Nicaragua’s overwhemingly agricultural economy much needed domestic stimulus, government programmes have prioritized small and medium producers of basic grains, cattle and coffee. The cooperative sector received support and resources to develop existing production cooperatives and form new ones. Small and medium sized businesses benefited from greater access to credit. The government has prioritized tourism, ensuring that it integrates closely with other sectors of the economy, especially small and medium sized businesses.
Economic democracy
This democratization of the Nicaraguan economy has radically transformed the position of women. Flagship programmes like Zero Hunger and Zero Usury, as well as property titling programmes and social housing are all directed at women beneficiaries. President Daniel Ortega’s insistence on genuine democracy and national reconciliation made possible tripartite agreement on a minimum wage framework between government, labour unions and employers organizations. Since 2010, that framework has ensured an annual increase in the minimum wage several percentage points greater than the rate of inflation.
In the last three years, those domestic stimulus measure were accompanied by administrative measures relating to equitable tax and social security reform which have helped significantly increase government revenue and stabilize the social security system for the foreseeable future. As Nicaragua’s economy generates progressively more formal employment, both tax revenue and social security income benefit. ECLAC reports that while formal employment has declined throughout the rest of the region, in Nicaragua it has grown steadily through 2012 and 2013
One key mechanism reducing inequality has been to use subsidies in the most sensitive areas affecting ordinary families’ costs. Apart from free health care and education, the government subsidizes the cost of public transport. Bus companies in the capital Managua receive preferential prices for fuel, oil, tyres and spare parts in exchange for pegging fares at 10 US cents. Taxis in Managua as well as inter-urban and acuatic transport in the rest of the country also receive similar benefits enabling the Transport Ministry and local municipalities to negotiate favourable fare tariffs for transport users.
Low income families benefit from subsidized electricity for consumers using under 150Kw a month. The government also operates a retail network offering basic food stuffs at preferential prices through local general stores. Over 58,000 families have benefited from subsidized or free housing. Low-income families nationwide have benefited from a free construction materials program enabling impoverished families to repair defective roofs.
Other social investment programs include assistance for people, especially children, with disability as well as food support for vulnerable groups such as the elderly. The Amor para los más Chiquitos programme has helped around 32,000 very young children at risk, ensuring they enjoy care, education and attention rather than ending up on the streets. That programme has worked with over 420,000 families providing advice and guidance in the care of young children under 6 years old. The government’s efforts to promote social stability also encompass property titling programs that have issued over 180,000 title deeds bringing security of tenure to over 800,000 people.
Health, education, infrastructure
Health and education are crucial expenses for most families in Nicaragua as everywhere else. The availability of free public health care has made a massive difference to low income families who cannot afford private care. The government is steadily equipping the public health system with the resources it needs to improve its services year by year. Emphasising preventive health care, government vaccination programs applied over 4,100,000 doses in 2013. The Casa Materna programme, almost tripling facilities to assist expectant mothers in rural areas, has helped the government reduce maternal mortality, which fell 35% from 2007 to 50 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2012.
Likewise in education, government expenditure improving infrastructure is accompanied by a range of programmes supporting low income families. The Merienda Escolar programme for adequate nutrition for primary school children, ensures provision of meals for over 1,000,000 pre-school and primary school children. Low income families also get help with schooling inputs. Apart from regular primary and secondary education, the government has invested heavily in vocational technical training for young people and improved access to education in rural areas. Follow up to the successful literacy programs of the government’s early years is consolidating the eradication of illiteracy. Education programmes for children with special needs include the integration of children with slight disability into the regular school system as well as dedicated programmes for children whose disability is more severe.
The transformation of government social and economic policy is physically much more obvious in terms of energy and infrastructure. National road, port and airport infrastructure has been almost completely renovated. Construction is on schedule of the new oil refinery being built near León with the Venezuelan State oil company PDVSA. Dependence on oil fired thermal generating stations has dropped from over 80% to less than 50% of the country’s generating capacity thanks to investment in renewable energy sources. Work on the long delayed Brazilian financed Tumarin hydroelectric project on Nicaragua’s Caribbean Coast should begin later this year. Also by the end of this year the results of the feasibility studies for the Interoceanic Canal will permit work to begin on that epoch making project and its sub-projects. These include an interoceanic rail link and pipeline, new airports and two deep water ports on the country’s Pacific and Caribbean coasts.
Confidence, security, democracy
Domestic and international confidence has been fundamental in making all this transformational social and economic investment happen. Despite a comparative lack of resources, Nicaragua’s police and army are acknowledged to have the best record in the region combating narcotics and other organized crime. Overseas, Nicaragua’s community oriented policing is recognized as a model, largely because the country has prevented the spread of the gang culture prevalent in neighbouring El Salvador and Honduras. While common delinquency remains a persistent problem, enhanced security in rural areas has been crucial in encouraging the small and medium farm production that has transformed Nicaragua’s agricultural economy since 2006.
The success of the Sandinista government’s economic policies has resulted from consensus-building with private business organizations and labour unions by means of constant consultation with all sectors of the national economy. Similarly, government social policy has been developed in close collaboration with the country’s municipal authorities. Many resources and implementation of much social and economic policy have been channelled through the country’s 153 local authorities. The positive impact of that strategic partnership is most obvious from investment in improved municipal infrastructure, in sports facilities for young people and in support for local small and medium sized businesses.
Another fundamental component in the success of President Ortega’s social and economic strategy has been the deliberate and active promotion of the role of women. Previously, women in Nicaragua were in effect structurally excluded from both economic and political life, denied their legitimate role in decision making and as economic agents. Nicaragua is now acknowledged among the world leaders in guaranteeing political representation for women. Less well known is the transformational role of women in Nicaragua’s economy through access to resources via government programs like Zero Hunger and Zero Usury and ensuring property titles to families previously without secure tenure. All those programs prioritize women beneficiaries.
More specific to Nicaragua has been the consolidation of the country’s Caribbean Coast into the national economy. That process has been a continuation of the historic autonomy project for Nicaragua’s Caribbean coast initiated under the first Sandinista government in the 1980s. In the next five to ten years, the economy of the Caribbean coast is likely to change radically. It has become an ever more popular tourist destination. The recovery in 2012 of Nicaragua’s maritime territory, usurped for decades by Colombia, has opened up new commercial opportunities. The Interoceanic Canal and its sub-projects will definitively end the area’s historic and geographic separation from Nicaragua’s Pacific coast.
Daniel Ortega – Central America’s leading regional statesman
Based on broad consultation and consensus, President Daniel Ortega has implemented strategic policies through a ministerial team led operationally by Rosario Murillo, successfully managing all the various complex factors in relation to social investment, the macro and domestic aspects of economic policy, infrastructure development and energy policy, fiscal and administrative reform, trade and agricultural renewal and security. He has done so constrained by the continuing international economic crisis and in the face of relentless, vicious national and international disinformation campaigns. But the results speak for themselves and explain why Nicaragua’s political opposition have been unable to muster more than 10% support nationally for well over a year, while support for President Ortega is consistently well over 60%.
Aside from the incomparable figure of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega is the most outstanding statesman of Central America and the Caribbean of the last thirty years. Rosario Murillo stands with Dilma Rousseff and Cristina Kirchner among Latin America’s women leaders transforming the region’s societies and economies. Under the leadership of Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo, Nicaragua’s government team has proved by any measure to be among the most effective in Latin America and the Caribbean. Many Western government officials will acknowledge that in private. Multilateral organizations have recognized it publicly for years now. It is long past time for the Western corporate and alternative media to recognize it too.
After the Crash 