[asia-apec 1373] FOOD RIGHTS WATCH Volume 7, Number 8

[Anuradha Mittal]

FOOD RIGHTS WATCH	Volume 7, Number 8	December 16, 1999

Food First/ Institute for Food and Development Policy believes that true
food security can be achieved only if national governments and other
international institutions of power recognize that the right to feed
oneself is an inalienable human right which must not be violated under 
any circumstances. The right to food has been touted ceremoniously in 
numerous international agreements, including the Universal Declaration 
of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, 
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), yet continues to be practically 
ignored in an increasingly greedy New World Order.

Food Rights Watch is dedicated to gathering and distributing information
about food rights issues, as well as other economic and social human 
rights issues, in the belief that education leads to action. 
Subscriptions to the electronic version (e-mail) are free. To subscribe, 
send a message to foodfirst at foodfirst.org. We welcome submissions to 
Food Rights Watch. E-mail news about activities, events, and new 
resources to foodfirst at foodfirst.org or call (510) 654-4400 (x 108).

National News:
"This city, what a magnificent place.  If only the world could be like 
Seattle."
					---Mike Moore, WTO Director-General, 12/2/99

* FROM YOUR MOUTH TO GOD’S EARS, MIKE: ASSESSING THE BATTLE OF SEATTLE…
* AND A WORD FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE ACLU
* THE MINIMUM WAGE AND WOMEN’S POVERTY: A FEW QUICK NUMBERS
* POLICY SHIFTS NEEDED TO SUPPORT CONTRACT FARMERS

International News:
* IT’S THE WTO, NOT CHINA, THAT’S INHUMANE
* FIFTEEN YEARS ON, UNION CARBIDE ONCE AGAIN IN COURT OVER BHOPAL
* PTO REVOKES U.S. PATENT ON PLANT SACRED TO AMAZON NATIVES

**************************************************************************************************************************


ASSESSING THE BATTLE OF SEATTLE

Democracy was certainly in the streets of Seattle last week, and a 
whiff—perhaps carried by tear gas—even made it into the convention 
center where trade ministers from the World Trade Organization (WTO) 
member states met.  Many factors contributed to the collapse of the 
current round of WTO talks—an effort to expand the scope of the trade 
agency’s authority—but there is no question that popular protests played 
a central role.

Tuesday saw at least 40,000 people take to the streets to protest the 
corporate tilt of the WTO.  A stunning coalition of teamsters, 
consumers, environmentalists, religious and women’s groups, students, 
anti-corporate youth and many, many others joined to "Just Say No to the 
WTO."  Approximately 10,000 people—primarily students and youth—joined 
together in an extraordinarily well-organized and highly disciplined 
direct action to block every access way to the convention center, 
stopping most of the official and negotiating activities scheduled for 
the WTO meeting’s first working day.  Despite city efforts to clamp down 
on public dissent in the downtown area, protests continued throughout 
the week, with thousands demonstrating at separate environmental, 
farmer, steel worker and women’s marches and rallies.  On Friday, 
perhaps ten thousand joined in a labor-led march—organized on about 24 
hours notice—in part to oppose the city’s infringements on civil 
liberties through the creation of a "no protest" zone.

Inside the convention center, where proceedings began on Wednesday after 
riot-gear-equipped police and national guard forces cordoned off 
downtown from most protesters, turmoil was building as well.  When 
separate working groups negotiating over a wide array of sectors failed 
to produce compromise agreements, the United States sought to forge a 
deal through the WTO’s heavy-handed old-style tactics.  U.S. Trade 
Representative Charlene Barshefsky and the rest of the U.S. negotiating 
team picked a handful of countries to commence bargaining in a closed 
"Green Room."  The idea was that the arbitrarily selected bunch would 
work out a comprehensive deal, then present it to the entire membership 
as a fait accompli for adoption.  But even the Green Room gambit failed, 
and the talks ended in complete disarray.

The complexity of trade talks—with compromises made in one sector 
dependent on unrelated compromises in another—means that no single 
factor can explain their failure.  Nevertheless, it is possible to 
identify a few key reasons for the collapse:

1) The European Union and the United States could not work out an 
agricultural accommodation, with the EU’s commitment to export subsidies 
a critical stumbling block.
2) Many Third World countries revolted against the negotiating process 
and their complete exclusion from Green Room discussions.  More than 70 
developing nations, primarily from Africa and the Caribbean, declared on 
Thursday that they would not sign a final declaration written without 
their input or consent.
3) Many developing countries also resisted the U.S. call for formation 
of a working group to study the relationship between trade and labor 
issues.
4) A compromise deal floated early Friday morning would have entailed 
compromises on issues of concern to U.S. labor unions—namely, 
anti-dumping (rules permitting countries to block below-market-cost 
imports) and some progress on rules to promote adherence to core labor 
standards.

On each of these issues, the street demonstrations helped heighten 
contradictions and conflicts.  The mere prevention of proceedings on 
Tuesday helped impede agreement in the agricultural sector.  A delegate 
from Zimbabwe affirmed that the protests emboldened the Third World 
negotiators to object to the exclusionary processes inside the WTO. 

For now, street heat has stifled the corporate elite.  Just as they 
blocked delegates from entering the convention center, protesters 
blocked corporations’ attempt to extend the WTO’s reach even further 
into national economies and societies.  But as spectacular as was the 
Seattle victory, achieving the second half of one of the week’s primary 
slogans—"No New Round, Turnaround"—will be even more daunting.  
Launching a new negotiating round is nowhere near as important to 
corporate interests as maintaining existing WTO rules and the prevailing 
model of corporate globalization.  Still, a little bit of democratic 
empowerment can be a dangerous thing.  If the broad coalition that came 
together in Seattle can stay together—a big if—it may eventually be able 
to force new rules for the global economy, so that trade is eventually 
subordinated to the humane values of health, safety, ecological 
sustainability and respect for human rights, rather than the reverse.

Source: Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, "USA: A Whiff of Democracy 
in Seattle", Focus on the Corporation, December 6, 1999, posted to 
www.corpwatch.org

*************************************************************

A WORD FROM THE WASHINGTON STATE ACLU

The American Civil Liberties Union of Washington is closely monitoring 
police treatment of WTO protesters and residents of Seattle.  We are 
looking for incidents of police action against citizens that occurred 
during the WTO conference.

We need personal reports of any of the following activities if they 
happened to you or if you were a witness:

1) unprovoked physical aggression by police—shoving, kicking, hitting 
with billy clubs, overly forceful restraint;
2) use of pepper spray, tear gas, CS gas, shots of rubber bullets 
against non-violent protesters or onlookers either without warning or in 
excess;
3) pursuit or chase by police while trying to flee or disperse;
4) encountering any of these activities as a bystander or within an area 
that is NOT designated a "no-protest zone";
5) other unreasonable restrictions on your civil liberties.

We need details on what happened to you or what you witnessed.  Please 
contact the ACLU of Washington right away!  Go to our web page at 
www.aclu-wa.org and click on the WTO: ACLU response, or call our 
Complaint and Referral Line at 206-624-2180.

*************************************************************

THE MINIMUM WAGE AND WOMEN’S POVERTY: A FEW QUICK NUMBERS

In 1979, a woman working at the minimum wage earned 70 percent of the 
hourly wage of the median female worker.  By 1998, that ratio had fallen 
to 52 percent.  Similarly, in 1979 a single mother working full time at 
the minimum wage earned enough to lift a family of three (herself and 
two children) above the poverty line.  By 1998, that same family would 
be 18 percent below the poverty line.  

Since the minimum wage is not indexed to inflation, worker purchasing 
power declines when the minimum stagnates, as was the case throughout 
the 1980s.  Even with two increases thus far this decade, the rate lags 
far behind inflation-adjusted 1979 levels.  As Congress considers 
raising the federal minimum wage from its current level of $5.15 per 
hour to $6.15, it is important to note that working women, almost one 
million of whom are single mothers, stand to gain the greatest benefit 
from the proposed increase.  Of the 11.8 million workers who would 
receive a pay increase as a result of this higher minimum wage, 58 
percent would be women, simply because they earn lower wages than men 
overall.  Thus the increase would help reduce the pay gap between men 
and women.

About 7 million women nationally—12.6 percent of all working women—earn 
an hourly rate between $5.15 and $6.14, the range that would be directly 
affected by an increase in the minimum wage.  In certain states, 
including West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Montana and 
Oklahoma, the share of working women that would benefit rises to 
one-fifth or higher.  The vast majority of these women are adults age 20 
or older.  Although most are white (65.4 percent), African-American and 
Hispanic women are over-represented in low-wage jobs.  African-American 
women are 13.1 percent of all women workers, but 16.2 percent of those 
in the affected range; Hispanic women are 9 percent of all women 
workers, but 14.4 percent of those affected.  

Parents with children under 18 years old represent 32.9 percent of the 
beneficiaries of the proposed increase, while such workers make up 40.4 
percent of the total workforce.  More than two million men and women 
with children would benefit, and within these families, women are 
disproportionately the direct beneficiaries.  Almost one million single 
mothers would receive a pay increase as a result of a one-dollar hike in 
the minimum wage.  Single mothers are over-represented in the affected 
workforce, at 10 percent of those affected compared to 5.7 percent in 
the overall workforce.

All the evidence suggests that that the minimum wage increase is 
well-targeted, providing significant benefits to poor and middle-income 
households.  About 18 percent of the benefits of a one-dollar increase 
would go to households with incomes below $10,000 per year; another 32 
percent would go to households with annual incomes between $10,000 and 
$25,000.  Among affected single mothers, 85 percent have household 
incomes below $25,000, underscoring the importance of this change for 
these low-wage and low-income families.

Source: Heidi Hartmann, Jared Bernstein, John Schmitt, "The Minimum Wage 
Increase: A Working Woman’s Issue", Economic Policy Institute and 
Institute for Women’s Policy Research, reprinted in Nebraska Report, 
Nebraskans for Peace, 941 ‘O’ Street, Suite 1026, Lincoln, Nebraska 
68508, November/December 1999, p. 9

*************************************************************

POLICY SHIFTS NEEDED TO SUPPORT CONTRACT FARMERS

As Congress rushed to pass legislation to help America’s faltering 
farmers, the needs of farmers who use contracts to sell their 
product—which is fast becoming a way of life for many—were not 
addressed.  A few short years ago, "contract farmer" usually meant a 
poultry grower who, since he did not own his product (unless the bird 
died), was not considered a real farmer.  Today in agriculture contracts 
of all types are common, including forward contracts for cattle in 
feedyards as well as row crop contracts covering gm soybeans and high 
oil content corn.  Nuts, vegetables and many other commodities are 
produced on contract.

Farmers are being told that the American taxpayer is tired of bailing 
them out, whether for a disaster or for overproduction.  A recent 
editorial in Feedstuffs warns that "American agriculture must now 
quickly consolidate all farmers and livestock producers into about 50 
production systems."  The bigger-is-better strain is not new in our 
national agricultural policy: the 1962 report of the Committee for 
Economic Development advocated the removal of one-third of America’s 
farmers, reducing the number in production to about 400,000 to 500,000.  
Recent predictions say only 25,000 to 50,000 farms are needed in the 
United States to produce for the global food system.  Farmers are also 
being told that free market processes must reign and should not be 
legislated or regulated.  Yet the government is responsible for 
legislation and regulation that has harmed farmers in the past; it is 
irresponsible to assert that none is needed now.  To do so would be to 
abandon family farmers and change the landscape of America.  Polls show 
that Americans want to retain the family-sized farm and keep rural towns 
alive.  How are we to reconcile these opposing views?

Contract farmers require action on the following seven policy points:

1) national legislation assuring fair contracts and prohibiting unjust 
behavior by contractors;
2) creation and funding of a section within the USDA’s Marketing and 
Regulatory section that deals with al aspects of contract farming;
3) extension of indemnity guarantees to cover income losses by contract 
growers, just as is done for farmers who own their products;
4) passage of H.R. 2830, The Family Farmer Cooperative Marketing 
Amendments Act of 1999, providing for good faith bargaining between 
processors and voluntary cooperative associations of agricultural 
producers;
5) adequate funding to Packers & Stockyards Programs, to make use of the 
recent reorganization and hiring of economists to investigate complaints 
of deceptive and non-competitive marketing practices;
6) passage of H.R. 2829, which gives the USDA the same administrative 
authority over poultry as it has over red meat (currently any poultry 
complaint from Packers & Stockyards must be taken to the Department of 
Justice, which has not brought a poultry case in modern history);
7) development of other model contract legislation, with particular 
attention to companies’ use of farmers’ independent contractor status to 
escape state and federal taxes, unemployment insurance and withholding 
tax.  Most of the criteria used by the IRS to determine independent 
contractor status are not being met in poultry and hog production 
contracts.

Contractors are also without recourse to the protections provided by the 
National Labor Relations Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In recent years two government reports have shed light on the inequities 
contract growers face as companies use their dominant positions to 
impose unfair, unjust and discriminatory terms and conditions.  Many of 
the above solutions are recommended in these reports.  It is time to act 
on them.

Source: Ina Young, "Contract Farmers Need Help", The Progressive 
Populist, volume 5, number 13, December 1, 1999

IT’S THE WTO, NOT CHINA, THAT’S INHUMANE 

U.S. labor union leaders are pledging to block Congressional approval of 
the Clinton administration's deal with China signed Nov. 15, which paves 
the way for that country's entry into the WTO. Congress members say they 
feel betrayed that President Clinton, who once promised to put a "human 
face to the global economy," is willing to reach a trade liberalization 
pact with a country that has a dubious human rights record. They want to 
add a social clause and a labor clause to the WTO agreement which would 
allow members to restrict imports from
other members by citing human rights offenses. 

Those castigating China, however, need to recognize that using trade 
sanctions to punish countries that violate human rights is just another 
way of forcing Western morality on the rest of the world. They forget 
that countries including the United States continue to spurn half the 
rights guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
(UDHR)--economic and social human rights which guarantee the right to a 
standard of living adequate for health and well-being. 

Anyone who is opposed to the Chinese joining the WTO needs to be 
reminded that the United States' own economic system is not a paragon of 
virtue, and has aspects of the system of a rogue nation. We have prison 
labor and sweat shops. And many WTO members -- including democratic 
countries like India -- have child labor. Maybe some WTO members are 
offended by the quasi-slavery conditions faced by many farm workers in 
parts of the United States. A member country could say that U.S. law 
which makes it possible to execute a teenager is an
offense against humanity. The proposed social clauses mean these and 
other charges might form the justification for an embargo on U.S. 
exports. 

Of course it is appropriate to castigate China for accepting only those 
human rights which suit its political and economic interests. Different 
cultures might nurture different values, but the UDHR was drafted 50 
years ago to reflect universal aspirations and standards for human 
dignity. 

But the U.S. conditions placed on China amount to a policy of moral 
imperialism, clearly framed to suit rich countries. They would result in 
a ban on child labor without any guarantee that parents could find jobs; 
but inhuman treatment of migrant farmworkers would not be affected. Many 
of the developing nations that belong to the WTO complain that the 
previous Uruguay Round of trade talks (1986-94) only yielded benefits 
for industrialized countries. Mostly they are right. Northern countries 
have continued to protect their home markets while dumping surplus 
production on the poorer southern countries, undercutting local 
production and driving
unemployment. 

Today we need to point the finger at trade agreements such as the WTO 
and NAFTA rather than at China. Let's not forget that NAFTA eliminated 
over 400,000 jobs in the U.S., and drove some 28,000 small enterprises 
in Mexico out of business. The WTO and NAFTA are a direct cause of 
unemployment and poor working conditions, not the tool to correct these 
problems. Instead of adding hollow social clauses, we should block these 
inherently inhuman treaties. 

The time has come to step back from this mania for free trade at any 
cost , and the selective bashing of some countries while turning a blind 
eye to others, and seek a new start. The bottom line is that while China 
should have the same right as any nation to join the WTO, we should 
recognize that in fact the WTO is bad for people everywhere, whether 
they are Chinese, American, Mexican or Indian. It's not China joining 
the WTO that hurts American workers--it is the WTO itself. 

Source: Pacific News Service, Anuradha Mittal, Policy Director of Food 
First/Institute for Food and Development Policy www.foodfirst.org. 

FIFTEEN YEARS ON, UNION CARBIDE ONCE AGAIN IN COURT OVER BHOPAL

A lawsuit was filed in New York in mid-November charging the Union 
Carbide Corporation (UCC) and its former CEO, Warren Anderson, with 
violating international law and the fundamental human rights of the 
victims and survivors of the 1984 release of lethal gases from the Union 
Carbide plant in Bhopal, India.  The toxic gases killed at least 6,000 
people; another 520,000 were injured, many of them blinded, by the gas.

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of 
New York, charges that "the defendants are liable for fraud and civil 
contempt for their total failure to comply with the lawful orders of the 
courts of both the United States and India."  The plaintiffs in the case 
include individual survivors as well as victims’ organizations in Bhopal 
that have been representing survivors and next-of-kin of victims for the 
past 15 years.

On the night of December 2, 1984, an explosion at a Union Carbide 
factory in Bhopal, India released a cloud of poison gas.  During routine 
maintenance operations at the methyl isocyanate plant, a large quantity 
of water entered one of the storage tanks through leaking valves and 
corroded pipes, triggering a runaway reaction in tank no. E-610 
containing 60 tonnes of methyl isocyanate.  This reaction produced 
enormous heat and pressure and 40 tonnes of a deadly cocktail of methyl 
isocyanate, hydrogen cyanide, monomethyl amine, carbon monoxide and 
possibly 20 other chemicals, spewed forth in the form of dense clouds.  
A northerly wind carried the clouds over half a million sleeping people. 
 By one the next morning, an entire city had been turned into a gas 
chamber.

Doctors at Bhopal hospitals were helpless to treat the dying people 
crowding their wards.  They called Union Carbide’s medical officer, who 
asserted that the gas was akin to tear gas and advised them to simply 
wash it out with water.  Meanwhile, the hospital mortuaries were 
overflowing, and graveyards and cremation grounds were unable to cope 
with the flow.

Citizens’ groups battling over the issue charge that plant safety 
systems were either switched off, malfunctioning or under repair.  
Kenneth McCallion, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, alleged in his 
complaint that "Union Carbide (since) demonstrated a reckless and 
depraved indifference to human life in the design, operation and 
maintenance of the Union Carbide of India Ltd. (UCIL) facility."

The Indian Council of Medical Research, a government agency, concluded 
that over 520,000 exposed persons had poisons circulating in their 
bloodstream that caused damage to almost all the systems in the body.  
Over 120,000 of the survivors are still in need of medical attention.  
Ten to fifteen people die every month from exposure-related illnesses.  
Breathlessness, persistent cough, diminished vision, early age 
cataracts, loss of appetite, menstrual irregularities, recurrent fever, 
neurological disorders, fatigue, weakness, anxiety and depression are 
the most common symptoms among survivors.  Campaigners charge that Union 
Carbide continues to withhold information on the composition of the 
leaked gases and their effects on the body.  The corporation claims 
these are "trade secrets."  But in the absence of this information, 
doctors in Bhopal still do not know the proper treatment for 
exposure-related illnesses.  Company-sponsored studies have confirmed 
that carelessly dumped toxic sludge has seeped into local soil and 
drinking water.

The Indian government initially claimed a compensation of over $3 
billion on behalf of the victims.  Several years of litigation later, 
Union Carbide paid out a mere $470 million.  Over 95 percent of the 
claimants who received payments have been paid only $600 in the case of 
injuries or less than $3,000 in the case of death.  The suit recently 
filed in New York asserts that the Indian Supreme Court, in a judgement 
of October 1991, held that the criminal investigation and prosecution of 
Union Carbide should proceed and stated that failure to accomplish this 
would constitute "a manifest injustice."

Satinath Sarangi, founder of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action 
(BGIA), a plaintiff in the suit, asserts that "tens of thousands 
continue to suffer from what amounts to the largest industrial disaster 
in history."  In an open letter to concerned citizens worldwide, Sarangi 
writes, "Union Carbide continues to operate in 40 countries around the 
world and shows annual profits of over $1 billion.  Warren Anderson, the 
Union Carbide chairman, jumped bail and is now a fugitive from justice.  
The disaster in Bhopal is a dramatic example of what goes wrong when 
corporations rule the world…Today, wherever we may be, there are slow 
and silent Bhopals happening all around us…We look forward to the day 
when communities will win back control of their environments, their 
health, and what goes into their bodies...every day, in every corner of 
the world, communities and individuals are confronting giant 
corporations.  And, increasingly, we are winning."

Sources: Frederick Noronha: "Union Carbide Sued in U.S. for 1984 Bhopal 
Gas Release", Environment News Service, November 16, 1999

Satinath Sarangi, open letter calling for solidarity in campaign against 
Union Carbide, November 1, 1999

*************************************************************

PTO REVOKES U.S. PATENT ON PLANT SACRED TO AMAZON NATIVES

Indigenous peoples from nine South American countries won a 
precedent-setting victory in November, when the U.S. Patent and 
Trademark Office (PTO) canceled the patent issued to a U.S. citizen for 
the ayahuasca vine.  The plant, Banisteriopsis caapi, is native to the 
Amazon rain forest, and thousands of indigenous people of the region use 
it in religious and healing ceremonies.

The PTO’s decision came in response to a request for reexamination of 
the patent filed with the PTO in March by the Coordinating Body for the 
Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA), the Coalition for 
Amazonian Peoples and Their Environment, and lawyers at the Center for 
International Environmental Law (CIEL).

"Our shamans and elders were greatly troubled by this patent.  Now they 
are celebrating.  This is an historic day for indigenous peoples 
everywhere," said Antonio Jacanamijoy, General Coordinator of COICA.  
David Rothschild, director of the Amazon Coalition, said, "Given that 
ayahuasca is used in sacred indigenous ceremonies throughout the Amazon, 
this patent never should have been issued in the first place."

The PTO based its rejection of the patent on the fact that publications 
describing Banisteriopsis caapi were "known and available" prior to the 
filing of the patent application.  According to patent law, no invention 
can be patented if described in printed publications more than one year 
prior to the date of the patent application.  William Anderson, director 
of the University of Michigan Herbarium, agreed that the PTO needs to 
improve its procedures for researching applications.

CIEL lawyer David Downes noted that "while we are pleased that the PTO 
has canceled this flawed patent, we are concerned that the PTO still has 
not dealt with the flaws in its policies that made it possible for 
someone to patent this plant in the first place.  The PTO needs to 
change its rules to prevent future patent claims based on the 
traditional knowledge and use of a plant by indigenous people…[it] 
should face the issue head-on of whether it is ethical for patent 
applicants to claim private rights over a plant or knowledge that is 
sacred to a cultural or ethnic group."

In a separate proceeding, the three groups have called for changes in 
Patent Office rules.  They argue that it should be mandatory for patent 
applicants to identify all biological resources and traditional 
knowledge used in developing a claimed invention.  Applicants should 
also disclose the geographical origin of resources used, and provide 
evidence that the source country and indigenous community consented to 
its use.

Source: "U.S. Patent Office Admits Error, Cancels Patent On Sacred 
‘Ayahuasca’ Plant", no author, date or source indicated, posted to 
www.sacredearth.com/ethnobotany/ayapatent.html

*************************************************************


EDITOR’S NOTE

I would appreciate any input on the stories found in this issue or those
you would like to see in the future.  Please help our efforts to 
publicize issues of poverty and hunger in the U.S. and around the world 
by sending story ideas to:

Food First
398 60th Street
Oakland, California
94618  USA
Tel: (510) 654-4400
Fax: (510) 654-4551
foodfirst at foodfirst.org

Thank you for your interest, comments and support.

Joan Powell, editor

Join the fight against hunger. For more information contact foodfirst at foodfirst.org.

_____________________________________________________________
You share a similar passion. You align with common interests. 
You connect over a favorite topic. You belong at Topica.   
http://www.topica.com/t/10