Does Government Crackdown on Farmers Amount to Human Rights Abuse?
Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 09:52PM I'm beginning to think that events like the seizure of Linda Faillace's sheep and the sting against Family Foods Cooperative/Richard Hebron should be classifed as human rights abuses.
I was pushed further along in that thinking by a movie I just watched, "The Future of Food". Much of this 2004 documentary is taken up with the case of a Canadian farmer who decides to fight an outrageous claim by Monsanto that the farmer illegally planted genetically modified, and patented, seed from Monsanto. Monsanto and a few other agri-business behemoths have been creating genetically engineered seeds, and then obtaining patents on them. If the seeds happen to blow from a traveling vehicle onto a wheat field, the farmer who owns the land can be held accountable for fees in connection with using the proprietary seeds. That is what seems to have happened to the Canadian farmer. Monsanto investigators actually inspected his land and crops, without his permission, to gather their "evidence." He spent years fighting, and eventually lost, as the Canadian Supreme Court agreed with Monsanto.
The fight cost the farmer and his wife huge legal fees, rights to existing seed they had developed over the years, and a tremendous amount of anxiety. They lost rights associated with their land and crops, along with their dignity. I'd call those human rights.
The movie isn't just about this farmer--it also shows how agri-business is seeking to gain control of key grains and legumes like wheat, corn, and soy via genetic engineering patents, and eventually move into vegetables and fruits. Fortunately, these efforts have been stymied, at least temporarily, by foreign and consumer resistance, as well as the explosion in organic food consumption. Between 1993 and 2003, organic food consumption increased from $1 billion to $13 billion.
It's a sobering film, and I highly recommend it. It's available to members of Netflix, as well as through the film website.
Another experience that has pushed me in this human rights direction is research I've done for a new BusinessWeek.com article being posted tomorrow. Thanksgiving, with a human rights flavor. More to come.
Reader Comments (3)
It is a quick and easy jump for me from the curtailment of food options to the equally draconian fight around health care options and treatment. In most states, massage therapy is regulated. The legislation intended to "protect consumers" often is so sweeping that traditional healing practices are outlawed -- unless you have a massage license - often irrelevant to the other practice that can no longer be pursued. Years ago in New York City a Shiatsu practitioner was arrested, handcuffed, and threatened -- because she didn't have a state massage license. Just as the AMA tried to wipe out homeopathy and other "alternative" approaches to healing, the massage therapists and physical therapists have highly motivated people within their organizations who are also looking at the benefits of a monopoly. All in the name of protection.
What has been suggested as an alternative? The Health Freedom Movement supports legislation that guarantees consumers the right to access alternative therapies. Those therapists are registered with the state, and allowed to practice as unlicensed practitioners. Full disclosure of their training, and a few other requirements that help consumers be INFORMED (different from PROTECTED) are usually included. Michigan had a bill introduced on this, it went nowhere. Luckily the massage regulation bill also stalled.
One of the ways to stop the highly popular (and therefore competitive) field of alternative health care is to co-opt it, regulate it, and force consumers to receive this care only through conventional channels. More expensive, less likely to foster innovation, and much of the "alternative" is often lost when it is packaged with conventional medicine. Similar to the food issues, the consumer "safety" argument is not borne out by studies and reports of actual harm done. And my opinion - education trumps regulation when I'm choosing my government interventions.
So the freedom to choose a product that has not been "blessed" by Monsanto, the opportunity to drink raw milk, and the ability of traditionally trained "alternative" health practitioners to practice are all the same fight. The government wants to protect us, and with the money influences, scare tactics, and misleading information (including outright lies and suppression of information) the regulations end up preventing people from having access to healthy choices and keeping people from their right to practice - farming, shiatsu, massage, herbal therapies, and more.
If you Google "Health Freedom Act" you'll find web sites for many of the small actions around the country. Minnesota is a particularly interesting state to check out.
OK - that's my rant for the morning.
Well, let me add this provocative tidbit -
When The Clinton Task Force looked at health care when Clinton was first elected, that task force agreed that access to alternative therapies was a right and should be included as a choice. My source, who was a participant in the meetings, told me that they defined it as a matter of civil rights. If an ethnic group such as Native Americans wanted access to traditional healing, then why not include Tibetan healing, and if that is included -- where can you stop? So they were enthusiastically exploring including traditional healing techniques in access to health care, including insurance coverage. And guarantee the right to use non-conventional therapies. Ahh, what might have been.
An acupuncturist I know well tells stories about being harassed by authorities in Florida when he was starting out 20 years ago, based on complaints from MDs. They and their protectors hate competition. The massage therapists are experiencing the same thing, as are producers of raw milk.
The regulators all come back to the refrain, "We're just trying to protect people from getting sick." It sounds so noble, and compassionate. But "compassion" motivated by greed isn't really compassion.
Your story about the Clinton Task Force helps explain why it ultimately failed. Too many interests opposed the kind of choice you describe.
In today's climate, one of the best ways to change things is for people to stand up to the authorities--a la the Double O Farms cowshare member resolve. That is what the authorities fear most, as I describe in my current entry. People also need to vote with their feet, by steering as clear of the medical establishment as possible and supporting legislative changes such as via the Health Freedom Act.