cotton_aff.doc - Wikispaces by fanzhongqing

VIEWS: 5 PAGES: 85

									Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                                                                         CDI 2007




**1AC and Advantages**1AC Inherency/Plan Text ........................................................................................................................... 3
1AC Inherency/Plan Text ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Public Health Crisis Advantage ........................................................................................................................................................... 5
Public Health Crisis Advantage ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Super-Bug Advantage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Super-Bug Advantage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Leadership Advantage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Leadership Advantage ........................................................................................................................................................................ 10
Bare Life Advantage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Bare Life Advantage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Bare Life Advantage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Bare Life Advantage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Bare Life Advantage .......................................................................................................................................................................... 15
1AC Solvency .................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
1AC Solvency .................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
1AC Solvency .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
**Harms**Harms: GMO Cotton Decreases Food Supply ................................................................................................................. 19
Harms: GMO Cotton Decreases Food Supply ................................................................................................................................... 20
Harms: Superweeds............................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Harms: Malaria .................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Harms: Ecosystems ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Harms: Ecosystems ............................................................................................................................................................................ 24
Harms: Weather Losses ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Harms: Leadership ............................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Harms: Leadership ............................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Harms: Leadership ............................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Harms Leadership .............................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Harms: Leadership ............................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Harms: Debt Cycle ............................................................................................................................................................................. 31
AT: Refuges Solves Superbugs .......................................................................................................................................................... 32
Organic Cotton Solves Pesticides ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
**Solvency**New issues key to AGOA ........................................................................................................................................... 34
New issues key to AGOA .................................................................................................................................................................. 35
AGOA key to Solvency ..................................................................................................................................................................... 36
AGOA Key to Solvency .................................................................................................................................................................... 37
AGOA leads to sustainable development ........................................................................................................................................... 38
AGOA increases the US economy ..................................................................................................................................................... 39
AGOA Solves- Kenya Proves ............................................................................................................................................................ 40
Solvency: Pesticides ........................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Solvency: Now is Key Time .............................................................................................................................................................. 42
Solvency- Debt Cycle ........................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Subsides ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 44
Generic Solvency ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45
Generic Solvency ............................................................................................................................................................................... 46
AT: Cotton trades off with food ......................................................................................................................................................... 47
AT: Farmers Want It .......................................................................................................................................................................... 48
AT: GMO Cotton Helps Farmers ....................................................................................................................................................... 49
**Answers to Counterplans/Disads** ............................................................................................................................................... 50
AT: Country PICS .............................................................................................................................................................................. 51
AT: Kleptocracy................................................................................................................................................................................. 52
AT: Africa Disads .............................................................................................................................................................................. 53
AT: Malthus ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 54
AT: CP go organic on other crops first .............................................................................................................................................. 55


                                                                                                                                                                                                     1
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                                                                          CDI 2007


AT: Fertilizer ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
A/T: Spending .................................................................................................................................................................................... 57
Topicality ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 58
**A/T: Kritiks** ................................................................................................................................................................................ 59
Ethical Responsibility to Act ............................................................................................................................................................. 60
Key to Individuality ........................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Key to Individuality ........................................................................................................................................................................... 62
Key to Individuality ........................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Key to Human-Land Relationship ..................................................................................................................................................... 64
Key to Human-Land Relationship ..................................................................................................................................................... 65
Key to Human-Land Relationship ..................................................................................................................................................... 66
Key to Sustainable Environment ........................................................................................................................................................ 67
Key to Sustainable Environment ........................................................................................................................................................ 68
Rethink Land Use............................................................................................................................................................................... 69
GM Crops Control Nature .................................................................................................................................................................. 70
Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 71
Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 72
Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 73
Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 74
Biodiversity ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 75
Colonialism ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 76
Colonialism ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 77
Biotech Bad ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 78
Biotech ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 79
Biotech ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 80
Industrial Models Bad ........................................................................................................................................................................ 81
Hegemonic Discourse ........................................................................................................................................................................ 82
Hegemonic Discourse ........................................................................................................................................................................ 83
Hegemonic Discourse ........................................................................................................................................................................ 84
Words Change Meaning..................................................................................................................................................................... 85




                                                                                                                                                                                                      2
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                     CDI 2007




                       **1AC and Advantages**




                                                      3
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                          CDI 2007



                                         1AC Inherency/Plan Text

Contention One: Agricultural Inherency
First, conventional cotton production in the SSA uses huge amounts of pesticides
Josh Sims 2006, The Independent (London), June 6, TheGreenPages: Look good, save the earth,” pg. 8, pg. ln

Ecologically, those reasons are straightforward: although the global inorganic cotton crop ******** for only 2.5 per cent of
land, it ******** for 10 per cent of pesticides used and 22 per cent of insecticides. Not only does the toxic residue from
these pollute soil and water sources and kill wildlife, but the World Health Organization estimates that 20,000 cotton
workers die every year from contamination. Those who don't are typically driven towards poverty, taking loans to pay for
the chemicals deemed necessary to create a more profitable product (all while US and EU cotton growers are heavily
subsidised for their large-scale production).

Second, there isn’t that much organic cotton production in the SSA now
Africa News, June 27, 2007, Africa; “Taking On Biotechnology the African Way”, LN

Still, only ten per cent of small-scale farmers currently use hybrid seeds across Africa as a whole, although
the figure is much higher for some individual countries -- 85 per cent in Kenya, 65 per cent in Zambia and 91
per cent in Zimbabwe.Only time will tell if the benefits associated with higher yields overcome the higher
cost of GM seeds for small-scale as well as commercial farmers.In the case of cotton, the benefits of GM
varieties to small-scale farmers are more obvious. Insect attack is one of the major constraints to cotton
cultivation worldwide, with yield losses worth an estimated US$5 billion annually. Approximately 25 per
cent of all insecticides used in agriculture are applied to cotton -- more than any other crop. In some Central
and West African countries, this figure can reach staggering levels -- as high as 80 per cent.



Plan- THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY
SUPPORT TO ALL AFRICAN GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY ACT MEMBER COUNTRIES IN
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA TO IMPLEMENT PUBLIC HEALTH STRATEGIES TO TRANSITION
FROM CONVENTIONAL COTTON FARMING TO ORGANIC COTTON FARMING THROUGH
NORMAL MEANS. *
*IF NORMAL MEANS IS MODIFIED, WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO UTILIZE MODIFIED
NORMAL MEANS.




                                                                                                                               4
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                                         CDI 2007



                                            Public Health Crisis Advantage
Contention ___: Public Health Crisis:

Pesticide use constitutes a major public health hazard. Our first scenario is acute poisoning
Anita Hodgson, filmmaker and director, part of the CAPSARD group, “The high cost of pesticide poisoning in Northern Ghana.”
Pesticide News.2003 http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn62/pn62p3.htm

Large quantities of pesticides are required for conventional cotton production, and many of them are highly toxic. In September
2003, thirty farmers were interviewed in the Tamale region of Northern Ghana about their pesticide practice and health impacts.
All reported regular occurrences of poisoning symptoms including dizziness, extreme weakness, blurred vision, red eyes, runny
noses and headaches after spraying insecticides on their cotton or cowpea fields. The symptoms were usually so severe that they
were unable to work for several days after each pesticide application.
  Soelihu Abdallah, a 25 year old cotton farmer from Sakoba village said: ‘My body gets very hot all over, my nose is blocked
and my vision blurred. It’s terrible. Most people collapse here before going to hospital .’

Our Second Scenario, is long term health consequences. The pesticides get into the water and lead to
pesticide resistance causing uncontrollable malaria and TB spread in Africa.
[Africa News, February 7, 2006, “South Africa; Winning the War Against Malaria, So Far”, page lexis]

Jonathon Gumede knows the symptoms of malaria well: headaches, persistent shivering, a high temperature and sore joints are the
initial warning signs of infection, and if not treated quickly, a person can die within a matter of days. Gumede, a malaria
programme district manager in the eastern province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN), has been fighting the spread of the disease in South
Africa for 25 years. Although preventable and treatable, the World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that up to 124 million
people in Africa live in areas at risk of seasonal epidemic malaria, caused by a parasite and carried from one person to another by
female mosquitoes seeking nutrition to hatch their eggs. The disease has actually made such a come back over the past few
years and "kills more than one million people - most of them young children living in Africa - each year", according to WHO. While
the majority of African countries do not have the financial resources or infrastructure to tackle the spread of the disease, the one place on the continent to have
made significant inroads in the fight against malaria is in KZN, where they have had recent spectacular results. Department of Health figures show that since the
turn of the century, the province has seen the number of malaria infections fall from nearly 45,000 in 2000, to less than a 1,500 in 2005, and the number of deaths
has fallen from 350 to 15 for the same period. The key elements of the strategy were the introduction of a new drug, artemether-lumefantrine (AL), and an
intensification of mosquito control efforts including the reintroduction of the insecticide DDT - discontinued in the 1990s due to environmental and health concerns
- for spraying traditional homesteads. "In Jozini [where KZN's provincial dept of health is based] between 1998 and 2000 all the clinics were full; in all the corners
of the court yards you would find people lying down, sick and unable to move because of malaria," recalled Gumede. The strategic planning needed to effectively
control the spread of the disease revolves around awareness of annual climatic conditions, and the movement of migrants from neighbouring Mozambique, which
also has a serious malaria problem. Each bush homestead is sprayed once a year, at the start of the rainy season before Christmas, and after the first rains. Mosquito
breeding sites are also hunted down for the collection of larvae in order to find out what type of mosquito is prevalent. Spraying each homestead enables the
malaria programme to protect local communities during the breeding season, as well as allowing them to isolate and treat infected Mozambicans visiting relatives
or friends in KZN over the festive period. "When we go to a homestead the occupants are asked if any one has arrived from Mozambique recently. If they have we
take a blood sample to check them for infection. If they are infected, we put them on the drug treatment programme," said Gumede. "This is to protect our own
people really, as if some one has been infected with malaria they can easily pass it on to others if they get bitten by a mosquito," he noted. according to Gumede,
who adds each insecticide sprayer needs to visit 20 homesteads each day so the process can be finished over a four to six week period. While the recent results are
indeed impressive they cannot solely be put down to the introduction of the drug AL and the re-introduction of the insecticide DDT. Equally important, maintains
Gumede, are the community perceptions that malaria diagnosis and treatment should be sought urgently if one becomes infected, and the availability of a strong
primary health care service. "We have media campaigns and information days regularly so the people don't get complacent believe they are safe from the disease,"
he noted. However, despite the success, Keith Hargraves at KZN's department of health believes the current level of control over the disease is by no means
guaranteed in the long term. A mosquito known as Funestus, the main culprit in the 1950s, was eradicated by spraying the insects' breeding areas with DDT, the use
of which was discontinued in the 1990s for environmental reasons. However, a different type of mosquito, the Arabiensis, which was widespread in Mozambique,
turned out to be resistant to DDT's replacement insecticide, deltamethrin, and proceeded to re-colonise KZN causing an epidemic in the 1990s with a 15-fold
increase in malaria cases. Hargraves maintains the constant shift in the type of dominant mosquitoes year to year makes it extremely difficult to put together an all-
encompassing malaria programme. The problem is compounded by the fact that mosquito types are so similar in appearance they can only be told apart through the
use of DNA sampling or by observing behavioural patterns that are exclusive to a particular type of mosquito. Hargraves also warned that mosquitoes are becoming
increasingly immune to the insecticides and drugs being released on the market, even before they are in general use. "One
of the big problems we face here is the rise in cotton farming. Cotton requires lots of insecticides and the stuff gets into
the ground water, and because mosquitoes breed near water they become increasingly exposed to it and consequently
more resistant. "In trials we are finding that individual species are resistant to insecticides that are not even on the market
yet, and since there is no regulation on the type of insecticides used by farmers the situation looks set to continue," he
said.

                                                                                                                                                                  5
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                         CDI 2007




                                   Public Health Crisis Advantage
Finally the terminal impact is twenty thousand dead farmers a year.
Josh Sims, The Independent (London), June 6, TheGreenPages: Look good, save the earth,” pg. 8, 2006 pg. ln

Ecologically, those reasons are straightforward: although the global inorganic cotton crop ******** for only 2.5 per cent of land,
it ******** for 10 per cent of pesticides used and 22 per cent of insecticides. Not only does the toxic residue from these pollute
soil and water sources and kill wildlife, but the World Health Organization estimates that 20,000 cotton workers die every year
from contamination. Those who don't are typically driven towards poverty, taking loans to pay for the chemicals deemed necessary
to create a more profitable product (all while US and EU cotton growers are heavily subsidised for their large-scale production).




                                                                                                                               6
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                             CDI 2007




                                             Super-Bug Advantage
Contention ____: The Earth:

First, pesticides destroy the environment- particularly soil quality
Tilford 1998 (David, 30 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 373. Lexis)

A second criticism of the high-yield monocultures is that even if farmers are able to stay one technological step ahead of the
assaults on their narrowly based crops, the price paid is more than just the out-ofpocket expense of the fertilizers and pesticides.
The environmental degradation resulting from these farming practices, if not faced in the present, will have to be dealt with in the
future. The "elite" hybrids and Green Revolution varieties might fairly be described as "high-responding" rather than "high-
yielding." n138 Most agricultural crops are not self-supporting, they must be cultivated by humans before they will produce. The
concern over the elite varieties, however, is the degree to which they must be supported, and the nature of the support system. The
catalysts used to trigger these crops' impressive responses are generous applications of environmentally harmful nitrogen fertilizers
and chemical pesticides. n139 The harmful effects of pesticides are now widely recognized, due in large part to the 1962
publication of The Silent Spring by Rachel Car [*396] son. n140 Along with poisoning the environment, pesticides also are no
proof against monoculture weakness. Just as insects and other pests can figure out narrowly based genetic defenses, they can figure
out chemical defenses as well. An effective pesticide one year may prove useless the next. n141 The damage due to the use of
chemical fertilizers, particularly nitrogen, is a cause of increasing concern as well. Though chemical fertilizers are able to pump
nutrients into specific plants, facilitating their growth as individual organisms, they interfere with the natural ecosystem and make
it more difficult for the system to support itself in the future. n142 Under fertilizer applications, the soil's natural cycles, which
regulate nutrient uptake, are thrown into high gear. Organic matter is stripped away, and with it goes the ability of the soil to
maintain itself. n143 Soil texture, nutrient stores, and the ability to hold moisture are all diminished. n144 Absent rehabilitation,
the land is rendered infertile, and the continuous influx of chemicals becomes a necessity. n145

Additionally; the internal link to our impacts is not just the massive damage done by pesticides; the
seeds are even more problematic. GMO seeds lead to super weeds
Manzur 1999 (Marie Isabella, Dr. “The Situation of Transgenic Crops and Foods in Chile” Programa Chile Sustainable,
http://www.gene.ch/genet/1999/Aug/msg00024.html)

The risks of contamination of our native maize is extremely serious, any of our 23 racial forms could have been contaminated, and
7 of them are endangered. Equally serious is the fact that the transgenic canola has the potential to easily contaminate 4 species
of Brasica weeds turning them in super weeds. Our native tomato Lycopersicon chilense could be lost through contamination
with transgenic tomato, while the same can happen with the 165 varieties of native potatoes of the Chile Island. We also have 55
wild relatives of the potato of the genus Solanum that could be contaminated and transformed into superweeds.

Insect-resistant seeds will lead to super insects, likewise disease-resistant crops will lead to
super diseases
Robert Ali Brac De La Perriere, “Brave New Seeds: The threat of GM crops to farmers” Zed Books Ltd, pg. 43, 2001.
TRP CSDI 07

Another major risk, engendered this time by the advent of seeds that are resistant to certain pests, is the emergence of
insects that are just as resistant. 'The rapid development of insect-resistant transgenic crops is a sure recipe for the
development of super insects that are resistant to the toxins they produce,' Apoteker assures us.

In fact, these plants have been designed to produce and employ toxins against pests. However, unlike classical
insecticides that are used (generally over-used) at specific moments, transgenic plants produce toxins continuously,
thereby exposing insects to them on a constant basis. This cannot but help further promote insect resistance, already
proven with most of the insecticides being used today. In the same way, the development of disease-resistant crops is
only likely to lead to the development of new diseases.


                                                                                                                                   7
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                              CDI 2007



                                              Super-Bug Advantage
There will be nothing to mitigate the ugliness- the genetic modifications will lead to large scale
butterfly deaths.
Comtex Newswire 2000 (Sept. 19. Iowa University Professor Links Butterfly Mortality and Bt Corn,
http://www.netlink.de/gen/Zeitung/2000/000919.html)

"For the other part of the study, we put potted milkweeds in the field to allow pollen to be naturally deposited, then we brought
them into the lab and counted pollen grains, to expose the larvae to known densities," Obrycki said. "It was never designed to be a
field study," he said. "In that test, we found after two days, 20 percent of the larvae exposed to Bt pollen died. We also placed
leaves next to non-Bt corn plants, and there was no mortality." He said the study was published online because that's the policy of
the publication, Oecologia, that accepted it

And Super-bacteria will destroy the atmosphere
Mann 1998 (L.R.B. Dr./Prof Univ. of Environmental Studies/Biochem @ Auckland, Ret. “The Selfish Commercial Gene.”
http://www.psrast.org/selfshgen.htm)
However, bacterial spores are known to get lofted into the stratosphere. The energy balance of our planet depends to a considerable
extent on cirrus clouds in the stratosphere. Cirrus clouds are not fog (droplets of liquid) but ice particles. The rate of formation of
this ice from water vapour is partly dependent on a variety of catalytic processes, some involving various solid particles which
provide what is called nucleation. If spores of this bacterium are among those stratospheric nucleating particles, the supplanting in
nature of the wild type by the GE'd ice-minus version might decrease the albedo (reflectivity) of the whole planet! This could
further accelerate global warming just when it is already raising sea-level etc.

The terminal impact is larger than nuclear war
L.R.B. Mann 1998 Dr./Prof Univ. of Environmental Studies/Biochem @ Auckland, Ret. “The Selfish Commercial Gene.”
http://www.psrast.org/selfshgen.htm

In appraising dangerous technologies, it is best to estimate the hazard - the scale of harm in the event of a major mishap - as a
separate question, and then analyse if possible the risk - the probability that the major mishap will occur. Much confusion between
these two aspects of danger has been created by language-tampering, even in such formal arenas as the Journal of Risk
Analysis. The hazards of GE rival even nuclear war. Biology is so much more complex than technology that we should not pretend
we can imagine all the horror scenarios, but it is suspected that some artificial genetic manipulations create the potential to derange
the biosphere for longer than any civilisation could survive. If only enthusiasts are consulted in appraisal of GE proposals, such
scenarios will not be thought of. The nuclear parallel is again cogent. Not until the 'Rasmussen/Levine' report 10 of 1974 were
sceptical analysts such as Kendall and Lovins asked for their opinions (and then they were ignored 11). Attempts to predict the
chances of technological disasters have an interesting if sordid history. NASA rocket experts developed in the 1960s the pioneer
version of risk assessment. Their mathematical models ('fault trees') predicted the failure rate of a particular rocket stage to be 10-4
per demand i.e. one failure (on average) per 10,000 launches. After two failures in the first 100 tests, NASA abandoned the attempt
to predict absolute failure rates of complex systems such as rocket engines, and relegated fault-tree analysis to the more modest
role of comparisons between similar designs. Its creators having thus abandoned it, the nuclear reactor enthusiasts then misused
this discredited method to produce the 'one in a million' slogans of the AEC 'Rasmussen/Levine' report. Next, the LPG industry
took over these discredited 'one in a million' mottos, and this type of confusing pseudo-scientific PR remains a lucrative trade right
down to the present day, notably in the hands of consultants such as Science Applications Inc. and Arthur D Little Corp. But, a
decade ago, the leading Australasian experts in applied mathematics testified on oath in New Zealand that no useful accuracy was
available by these obfuscatory formulae. Attempts at risk analysis for GE are, obviously, doomed to be even more misleading. The
system of a living cell, even if no viruses or foreign plasmids (let alone prions) are tossed in, is incomparably more complex than a
nuclear reactor. There is no prospect of imagining most of the ways it can go badly wrong after the abuse entailed in foreign genes
inserted by glass needle, or by micro-shotgun, or by infective particle of whatever sort. Evidently, one cannot begin to estimate the
risk of a mishap the qualitative form of which has not yet been imagined. We do not and cannot know how to put useful, justified
numbers on the chances of severe GE mishaps.




                                                                                                                                     8
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                                                               CDI 2007



                                                               Leadership Advantage
Contention ____: Leadership:

Initially, U.S. leadership on environmental issues is low- increasing their role in the world sends a
message to China
VoaNews, July 13, 2007 (Brian Wagner, US Seeks to Take Lead in Pollution Controls, Alternative Fuels)

Critics of the federal government say Washington has been too slow to raise environmental standards in recent years, prompting
Florida and many other states to pass their own legislation. The U.S. Congress is expected to consider legislation to create stronger
emission controls later this year.
Terry Tamminen, an environmentalist who advised Florida on the new measures and spoke at the conference, said action at the
state level may help pressure the federal government.
"I think we are at a political tipping point," he said. "So your leadership, Governor Crist, on this issue is absolutely essential to
winning the battle here in the United States, which in turn will send the message to China, India and many other countries around
the world."



Additionally, Cotton is key- the U.S. is losing global leadership because lack of environmental
assistance. Such leadership is key to sustain their global hegemony
Norbert Walter, August 28, 2002, Norbert Walter is chief economist at Deutsche Bank Group, “n American
Abdication, The New York Times. CDI 07 ELW

At present there is much talk about the unparalleled strength of the United States on the world stage. Yet at this very moment the
most powerful country in the world stands to forfeit much political capital, moral authority and international good will by dragging
its feet on the next great global issue: the environment. Before long, the administration's apparent unwillingness to take a
leadership role -- or, at the very least, to stop acting as a brake -- in fighting global environmental degradation will threaten the
very basis of the American supremacy that many now seem to assume will last forever.

American authority is already in some danger as a result of the Bush administration's decision to send a low-level delegation to the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in Johannesburg -- low-level, that is, relative to America's share of both the world economy and global pollution. The absence of President Bush from
Johannesburg symbolizes this decline in authority.

In recent weeks, newspapers around the world have been dominated by environmental headlines: In central Europe, flooding killed dozens, displaced tens of thousands and caused billions
of dollars in damages. In South Asia, the United Nations reports a brown cloud of pollution that is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths a year from respiratory disease. The
pollution (80 percent man-made) also cuts sunlight penetration, thus reducing rainfall, affecting agriculture and otherwise altering the climate. Many other examples of environmental
degradation, often related to the warming of the atmosphere, could be cited. What they all have in common is that they severely affect countries around the world and are fast becoming a
chief concern for people everywhere.

Nobody is suggesting that these disasters are directly linked to anything the United States is doing. But when a country that emits 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases acts as an
uninterested, sometimes hostile bystander in the environmental debate ,   it looks like unbearable arrogance to many people abroad.

The administration seems to believe it is merely an observer -- that environmental issues are not its issues. But not doing anything
amounts to ignoring a key source of world tension, and no superpower that wants to preserve its status can go on dismissing
such a pivotal dimension of political and economic -- if not existential -- conflict.




                                                                                                                                                                                            9
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                              CDI 2007



                                             Leadership Advantage
Next, China is dependent on Africa for oil and resources- the U.S. is key to counterbalance Chinese
power. If the U.S. goes into Africa, they will be able to take over as the power in Africa.
The Daily Observer, 2007 (From Cold War to Hegemony War, March 26, Allafrica Global Media, p lexis)
In the end The Iron curtain was a brick wall, really; if we take the Berlin wall as its most eloquent symbolism.

So on Feb 9th 1989, when the wall fell, the 'cold war' thawed, as a natural consequence. During the decades-long cold war; the two
ideological adversaries, USSR and USA, used Africa as a battleground for their proxy wars. And, of course, the 'super powers'
were always motivated by their own national interests, even where they did good things.

The cold war is now history, but politics, like nature, hates a vacuum: there now emerges what can be called the 'hegemony war'
between the USA and China. It is a battle not for ideas but for oil, raw materials and markets, and for military bases, in the case of
the US, in its war on terror. China's recent economic expansion makes it increasingly reliant on imported materials.

In 2006 China had to import 47% of all the oil it used; And nearly a third of that came from Africa. In November last year, China
convened the Forum on China -Africa cooperation, demonstrating its interest and influence it has in our continent.

America's recently intensified interest in Africa, must be seen in the context of Bush's war on terror. Already, they have a number
of military bases across north Africa, the Southern Sahara and in the Horn of Africa; and there are plans to have a unified Africa
command (Africom). So Africa's relationship with the US might become increasingly militarised.

Africa's growing importance to both the US and China should be seen as a kind of 'soft power' which must, surely, improve the
negotiating hand of our leaders. During the cold war, African leaders talked of 'non-alignment'-- the idea that Africa should have
its own voice, rather than parroting the diktats of Washington or Moscow --and though most paid only lip service to it, the idea is
still a good one; and still relevant. We should be able to work with anyone, as long as it is in our interest to do so.



Not stopping China now, will ultimately lead to a full scale war in Asia with the US involved
Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, April 20, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/35186/?page=1

China, however, has always responded to perceived threats of encirclement in a vigorous and muscular fashion as well, and so we
should assume that Beijing will balance all that charm with a military buildup of its own. Such a drive will not bring China to the
brink of military equality with the United States -- that is not a condition it can realistically aspire to over the next few decades.
But it will provide further justification for those in the United States who seek to accelerate the containment of China, and so will
produce a self-fulfilling loop of distrust, competition, and crisis. This will make the amicable long-term settlement of the Taiwan
problem and of North Korea's nuclear program that much more difficult, and increase the risk of unintended escalation to full-scale
war in Asia. There can be no victors from such a conflagration.




                                                                                                                                  10
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                              CDI 2007



                                               Bare Life Advantage
Contention _____: Debt Cycle
Conventional cotton production is a colonial management strategy to keep the farmers in constant
debt
Anita Hodgson, filmmaker and director, part of the CAPSARD group, “The high cost of pesticide poisoning in Northern Ghana.”
Pesticide News.2003 http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn62/pn62p3.htm

Most farmers interviewed reported going to a hospital or local clinic to be seen by a doctor and to get medicines. The cost of the
medical bill is enormous in relation to the income of these farming households. Farmers estimated that they spend on average
400,000 cedis a year (about £27) on medical treatment, adding significantly to their debts.
Farmers in the survey were further disadvantaged because they had to have between three and seven days off work and stay in bed
to recuperate after each cotton crop spray. The average wage is about 10,000 – 15,000 cedis per day (about 75p to £1) and in a
season there would be six sprays, so there is a significant opportunity cost of approximately 20 working days lost each season.
Mohammed Babwa is 40 years old but looks much older. He says that he has to take as much as a week off work after each spray
on his cotton crop amounting to almost five weeks per season. ‘I feel like I’m losing – it feels like work standing still. I don’t make
any way forward. I would like to see an improvement in the side effects of these pesticides.’
Many of the farmers are constantly in debt and cannot find a way out. Selfa Haruna, head of the Cotton Association in the village
of Langa is nearly 60 years old but has to continue farming and, like the other younger farmers, cannot escape the dangerous side
effects of the pesticides nor the costs they incur. ‘Most of the time I am in debt but I don’t know what else to do.’

Globalized trade regimes produced by the WTO promote technology driven farming at the expense
and health of the farmer, this mentality treats the farmer as bare life to be managed.
Financial Express July 11, 2006 Agrarian Crisis is Linked with Trade Liberalisation, page ln

Farmers' distress in India can be traced to the introduction of technology-led capital-intensive farming in the heyday of the Green
Revolution. This situation aggravated with the advent of "economic liberalisation" and globalisation of trade. Cases of farmers'
suicides, especially among cotton growers, are reported mainly in high-tech agriculture belts such as Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,
Vidarbha in Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Punjaball states which have adopted capital-intensive technology in a big way.
Significantly, farmers' suicides are unheard of in areas where traditional agricultural practices and organic farming are prevalent,
such as Orissa, Jharkhand, Bihar, Chhattisgarh and the north-east. How did this situation arise? In the name of boosting
production, Indian farmers were encouraged to shift towards mechanised farming, purchase "improved" varieties of seeds and use
chemical fertilisers and pesticides. This, no doubt, increased production, but imposed considerable financial burden on farmers.
Volatility in prices of agricultural products acerbated their distress. Unfair rules of the multilateral global trading regime have
depressed global and domestic prices and denied the Indian farmer adequate remun-erative prices. The poor farmer is squeezed
between high input costs and low returns. Any amount of credit extended from the formal or informal banking system would be
unable to bail him out of this precarious situation. Caught in a vicious debt trap, many farmers have taken to suicide. It is alarming
that India is moving towards a point of no return as far as agriculture is concerned. From being a self-reliant and food surplus
nation, the country is being pushed into becoming a net food importing nation. In this context, moves towards corporatisation
of farming, use of genetically modified seeds like Bt cotton, aquaculture and industrial poultry farming are threatening to
undermine food security and livelihood concerns of poor farmers. The WTO trade regime has added to their woes . The WTO
regime promotes technology-driven high-cost farming and encourages monopoly of corporate houses in the sector. This
mainly serves to promote the interests of agri-business multinationals at the expense of small and marginal farmers of
the developing countries.




                                                                                                                                  11
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                   CDI 2007



                                          Bare Life Advantage
Bare life creates a live void of meaning. Such a life is not worth living. When people’s lives exist in
such a state, it makes the annihilation of everyone possible. We must act to prevent the existence of
this life
Giorgio Agamben, Daniel Hellar- Roazen, 1998 (Stanford University, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, pg 6-11)

The present inquiry concerns precisely this hidden point of intersection between the juridico-institutional and
the biopolitical models of power. What this work has had to record among its likely conclusions is precisely
that the two analyses cannot be separated, and that the inclusion of bare life in the political realm constitutes
the original -- if concealed -- nucleus of sovereign power. It can even be said that theproduction of a
biopolitical body is the original activity of sovereign power. In this sense, biopolitics is at least as old as the
sovereign exception. Placing biological life at the center of its calculations, the modern State therefore does
nothing other than bring to light the secret tie uniting power and bare life, thereby reaffirming the bond
(derived from a tenacious correspondence between the modern and the archaic which one encounters in the
most diverse spheres) between modern power and the most immemorial of the arcana imperil.

If this is true, it will be necessary to reconsider the sense of the Aristotelian definition of the polis as the
opposition between life (zēn) and good life (eu zēn). The opposition is, in fact, at the same time an
implication of the first in the second, of bare life in politically qualified life. What remains to be interrogated
in the Aristotelian definition is not merely -- as has been assumed until now -- the sense, the modes, and the
possible articulations of the "good life" as the telos of the political. We must instead ask why Western
politics first constitutes itself through an exclusion (which is simultaneously an inclusion) of bare life. What
is the relation between politics and life, if life presents itself as what is included by means of an exclusion?

The structure of the exception delineated in the first part of this book appears from this perspective to be
consubstantial with Western politics. In Foucault's statement according to which man was, for Aristotle, a
"living animal with the additional capacity for political existence," it is therefore precisely the meaning of
this "additional capacity" that must be understood as problematic. The peculiar phrase "born with regard to
life, but existing essentially with regard to the good life" can be read not only as an implication of being born
(ginomenē) in being (ousa), but also as an inclusive exclusion (an exceptio) of zoē in the polis, almost as if
politics were the place in which life had to transform itself into good life and in which what had to be
politicized were always already bare life. In Western politics, bare life has the peculiar privilege of being that
whose exclusion founds the city of men.

It is not by chance, then, that a passage of the Politics situates the proper place of the polis in the transition
from voice to language. The link between bare life and politics is the same link that the metaphysical
definition of man as "the living being who has language" seeks in the relation between phonē and logos:

Among living beings, only man has language. The voice is the sign of pain and pleasure, and this is why it
belongs to other living beings (since their nature has developed to the point of having the sensations of pain
and pleasure and of signifying the two). But language is for

manifesting the fitting and the unfitting and the just and the unjust. To have the sensation of the good and the
bad and of the just and the unjust is what is proper to men as opposed to other living beings, and the
community of these things makes dwelling and the city. ( 1253a, 10-18)

                                                                                                                         12
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                            CDI 2007



                                        Bare Life Advantage
The question "In what way does the living being have language?" corresponds exactly to the question "In
what way does bare life dwell in the polis?" The living being has logos by taking away and conserving its
own voice in it, even as it dwells in the polis by letting its own bare life be excluded, as an exception, within
it. Politics therefore appears as the truly fundamental structure of Western metaphysics insofar as it occupies
the threshold on which the relation between the living being and the logos is realized. In the "politicization"
of bare life -- the metaphysical task par excellence-the humanity of living man is decided. In assuming this
task, modernity does nothing other than declare its own faithfulness to the essential structure of the
metaphysical tradition. The fundamental categorial pair of Western politics is not that of friend/ enemy but
that of bare life/political existence, zoēl bios, exclusion/inclusion. There is politics because man is the living
being who, in language, separates and opposes himself to his own bare life and, at the same time, maintains
himself in relation to that bare life in an inclusive exclusion.

The protagonist of this book is bare life, that is, the life of homo sacer (sacred man), who may be killed and
yet not sacrificed, and whose essential function in modern politics we intend to assert. An obscure figure of
archaic Roman law, in which human life is included in the juridical order [ordinamento] 1 solely in the form
of its exclusion (that is, of its capacity to be killed), has thus offered the key by which not only the sacred
texts of sovereignty but also the very codes of political power will unveil their mysteries. At the same time,
however, this ancient meaning of the term sacer presents us with the enigma of a fiure of the sacred that,
before or beyond the religious, constitutes the first paradigm of the political realm of the West. The
Foucauldian thesis will then have to be corrected or, at least, completed, in the sense that what characterizes
modern politics is not so much the inclusion of zoē in the polis-which is, in itself, absolutely ancient -- nor
simply the fact that life as such becomes a principal object of the projections and calculations of State power.
Instead the decisive fact is that, together with the process by which the exception everywhere becomes the
rule, the realm of bare life -- which is originally situated at the margins of the political order -- gradually
begins to coincide with the political realm, and exclusion and inclusion, outside and inside, bios and zoē,
right and fact, enter into a zone of irreducible indistinction. At once excluding bare life from and capturing it
within the political order, the state of exception actually constituted, in its very separateness, the hidden
foundation on which the entire political system rested. When its borders begin to be blurred, the bare life that
dwelt there frees itself in the city and becomes both subject and object of the conflicts of the political order,
the one place for both the organization of State power and emancipation from it. Everything happens as if,
along with the disciplinary process by which State power makes man as a living being into its own specific
object, another process is set in motion that in large measure corresponds to the birth of modern democracy,
in which man as a living being presents himself no longer as an object but as the subject of political power.
These processes -- which in many ways oppose and (at least apparently) bitterly conflict with each other --
nevertheless converge insofar as both concern the bare life of the citizen, the new biopolitical body of
humanity.

If anything characterizes modern democracy as opposed to classical democracy, then, it is that modern
democracy presents itself from the beginning as a vindication and liberation of zoē, and that it is constantly
trying to transform its own bare life into a way of life and to find, so to speak, the bios of zoē. Hence, too,
modern democracy's specific aporia: it wants to put the freedom and happi- ness of men into play in the very
place -- "bare life" -- that marked their subjection. Behind the long, strife-ridden process that leads to the
recognition of rights and formal liberties stands once again the body of the sacred man with his double

                                                                                                              13
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                             CDI 2007



                                        Bare Life Advantage
sovereign, his life that cannot be sacrificed yet may, nevertheless, be killed. To become conscious of this
aporia is not to belittle the conquests and accomplishments of democracy. It is, rather, to try to understand
once and for all why democracy, at the very moment in which it seemed to have finally triumphed over its
adversaries and reached its greatest height, proved itself incapable of saving zoē, to whose happiness it had
dedicated all its efforts, from unprecedented ruin. Modern democracy's decadence and gradual convergence
with totalitarian states in post-democratic spectacular societies (which begins to become evident with Alexis
de Tocqueville and finds its final sanction in the analyses of Guy Debord) may well be rooted in this aporia,
which marks the beginning of modern democracy and forces it into complicity with its most implacable
enemy. Today politics knows no value (and, consequently, no nonvalue) other than life, and until the
contradictions that this fact implies are dissolved, Nazism and fascism -- which transformed the decision on
bare life into the supreme political principle -- will remain stubbornly with us. According to the testimony of
Robert Antelme, in fact, what the camps taught those who lived there was precisely that "calling into
question the quality of man provokes an almost biological assertion of belonging to the human race" (
L'éspèce humaine, p. 11).

The idea of an inner solidarity between democracy and totalitarianism (which here we must, with every
caution, advance) is obviously not (like Leo Strauss's thesis concerning the secret convergence of the final
goals of liberalism and communism) a historiographical claim, which would authorize the liquidation and
leveling of the enormous differences that characterize their history and their rivalry. Yet this idea must
nevertheless be strongly maintained on a historico-philosophical level, since it alone will allow us to orient
ourselves in relation to the new realities and unforeseen convergences of the end of the millennium. This
idea alone will make it possible to dear the way for the new politics, which remains largely to be invented.

In contrasting the "beautiful day" (euēmeria) of simple life with the "great difficulty" of political bios in the
passage cited above, Aristotle may well have given the most beautiful formulation to the aporia that lies at
the foundation of Western politics. The 24 centuries that have since gone by have brought only provisional
and ineffective solutions. In carrying out the metaphysical task that has led it more and more to assume the
form of a biopolitics, Western politics has not succeeded in constructing the link between zoē and bios,
between voice and language, that would have healed the fracture. Bare life remains included in politics in the
form of the exception, that is, as something that is included solely through an exclusion. How is it possible to
"Politicize" the "natural sweetness" of zoē And first of all, does zoē really need to be politicized, or is politics
not already contained in zoē as its most precious center? The biopolitics of both modern totalitarianism and
the society of mass hedonism and consumerism certainly constitute answers to these questions. Nevertheless,
until a completely new politics -- that is, a politics no longer founded on the exceptio of bare life -- is at
hand, every theory and every praxis will remain imprisoned and immobile, and the "beautiful day" of life
will be given citizenship only either through blood and death or in the perfect senselessness to which the
society of the spectacle condemns it.

Carl Schmitt's definition of sovereignty ("Sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception") became a
commonplace even before there was any understanding that what was at issue in it was nothing less than the
limit concept of the doctrine of law and the State, in which sovereignty borders (since every limit concept is
always the limit between two concepts) on the sphere of life and becomes indistinguishable from it. As long
as the form of the State constituted the fundamental horizon of all communal life and the political, religious,

                                                                                                               14
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                        CDI 2007



                                      Bare Life Advantage
juridical, and economic doctrines that sustained this form were still strong, this "most extreme sphere" could
not




                                                                                                          15
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                              CDI 2007



                                                     1AC Solvency
Contention ____: Solvency
First, Organic cotton production in Sub-Saharan Africa increases farmer income and prevents
pesticide related disease.
Peter Ton, independent consultant on cotton production in Africa for pesticide action network. “Organic cotton in Sub-Saharan
Africa.” Pesticide News 2003 http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn62/pn62p4.htm {CDI 07 SS}

Organic cotton production is generally promoted as a method of production that helps to reduce environmental destruction. The
focus in marketing the ‘organic cotton story’ is on the environmental impacts of pesticide use, on water use efficiency, on soil
fertility management and the like.
   Yet, for small-scale farmers in Africa the importance of organic cotton growing lies in the benefits it brings to their livelihoods,
to their health and to their socio-economic situation. Organic cotton production focuses on the use of locally available inputs, for
which input credit loans are not needed, and which do not compromise the health of farmers, their families or their livestock (see
Boxes 2 and 3).
   Certified organic cotton may easily be produced where no disruptive chemical inputs were previously used in cotton growing. In
fact, this is true of most of the certified organic cotton produced and traded in sub-Saharan Africa. Production contexts in Northern
Uganda and Western Tanzania are such that the process of conversion to organic is fairly simple: organic cotton production is not
about changing production practices, but rather about organising smallholders for certification in order to access higher priced
export markets.

Second, Promoting low level projects to promote organic cotton production are effective in Sub-
Saharan Africa
Peter Ton, independent consultant on cotton production in Africa for pesticide action network. “Organic cotton in Sub-Saharan
Africa.” Pesticide News. 2003 http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn62/pn62p4.htm {CDI 07 SS}

Organic cotton production in Africa is about bringing improvements in livelihoods through poverty alleviation. In economic terms
premium prices can translate into additional farm income, (as in Uganda and in Tanzania). It is also about poverty alleviation in
terms of health and socio-economic changes, where organic cotton production replaces relatively high synthetic input cotton
production. For these reasons, organic cotton should be promoted in sub-Saharan Africa whilst acknowledging the different
farming realities.
   Scaling-up organic cotton production in East Africa (Uganda, Tanzania) is actually about market development. It is about the
creation of new consumer markets for certified organic cotton fibre and eco-textiles. Commercial and non-commercial efforts
could work together to overcome the critical thresholds that so far block large-scale consumer demand for organic cotton and eco-
textiles, i.e. the availability of affordable organic cotton products (fibre, yarns, fabrics, end-products) to textile and clothing
processors and end-consumers alike. Governments could support that process by shopping sustainably themselves, by lowering
value-added tax (VAT) on organic products, by providing beneficial credit loan schemes, and by encouraging their textile
industries and trade into more sustainable practices.
   Scaling-up organic cotton production in West and Southern Africa (Benin, Mali, Senegal, Zimbabwe), in contrast, is about
changing cotton production practices. It is about rural change. It is about improving the quality of life in poverty-stricken rural
areas, in terms of health and environment. Organic cotton production provides free environmental goods and services to all
inhabitants of the growing areas and contributes to poverty alleviation in particular for those suffering most: lower income groups,
women, and the indebted. These groups need access to growing practices which fit their realities and needs which are low-cost and
which rely upon locally available resources (human, financial, natural). Changing production systems is a lengthy process: it
requires commitment from producers, supporting structures and donors.
   Scaling-up organic cotton production is likely to be based on the expansion of existing projects. It would mean that the number
of entire villages growing cotton organically increases from tens to hundreds. New projects in and outside the research countries
are needed to increase the impact of organic cotton production experiences on the conventional cotton sectors in sub-Saharan
Africa.




                                                                                                                                  16
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                                           CDI 2007



                                                                  1AC Solvency
Spreading organic cotton farming techniques will have profound health effects- it should be deployed
as widely as possible
Peter Ton, independent consultant on cotton production in Africa for pesticide action network. “Organic cotton in Sub-Saharan
Africa.” Pesticide News. 2003 http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn62/pn62p4.htm {CDI 07 SS}

Organic cotton production could contribute substantially to the alleviation of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. It should be promoted
with this objective, while acknowledging the diversity of farming realities that exist in different parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
Organic cotton production should be developed as a viable alternative to conventional in as wide a variety of countries and
production contexts as possible. Scaling-up of organic cotton production in sub-Saharan Africa is needed for technical,
environmental, organisational, research and marketing reasons. Technically, organic fertilisation and crop protection will be most
effective in zones where no conventional cotton production takes place, as ecological imbalances will be reduced. The positive
impact of organic production methods on the health of humans, livestock and the environment will also be more profound and
measurable in exclusive and continuous organic cotton production areas.

And, AGOA assistance is used to implement quality standards in African agriculture; the US has
unique experience and empirical solvency
Florizelle Liser, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Africa Office of the United States Trade Representative, Senate Finance
Committee Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July 12, 2007 {CDI07 SS}
The majority of sub-Saharan African countries are undertaking real reforms--and not only because of AGOA, but because they
also perceive it's in their best interests to do so. AGOA countries have liberalized trade, strengthened market-based economic
systems, privatized state-owned companies, and deregulated their economies. These changes have improved market access for
U.S. companies and benefited African economies. Additionally, many countries reformed their customs regimes in order to meet
AGOA's apparel eligibility requirements, as AGOA requires countries to establish an effective apparel visa system before they
receive apparel benefits.
That's why we are investing in assistance to help African countries to address these challenges. Last year, the U.S. Government
dedicated $394 million to trade capacity building in sub-Saharan Africa, up 95 percent over FY2005. This aid goes toward
activities such as helping African businesses and farmers to meet quality and standards issues, to get more timely market
information, and to establish linkages with prospective American partners. Under the auspices of the U.S Agency for International
Development, four regional trade competitiveness hubs have been established throughout the region, each with AGOA advisors
and trade specialists.
In FY2006, USAID launched implementation of the five-year, $200 million African Global Competitiveness Initiative (AGCI).
The goals of AGCI are to expand sub-Saharan Africa's trade under AGOA and to improve the region's external competitiveness.
The AGCI provides assistance to overcome constraints by strengthening businesses and forming business linkages, improving the
business climate, increasing access to financing, and leveraging investments in infrastructure. As part of our implementation
efforts, we requested the U.S. International Trade Commission to do a new series of reports examining factors that affect African trade in key non-oil
industries. The first of these new reports--released in April--reviewed a wide range of industries: 12 in all--from cashews to cocoa butter, cut flowers to preserved
fish, textiles and apparel to financial services and tourism. The report identifies underlying factors--policies, investments, and economic conditions-- contributing to
the growth and development of specific industries in Africa. African Trade Ministers have informed us that this study will be an integral part of their strategic
planning on how to better take advantage of AGOA.




                                                                                                                                                                 17
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                            CDI 2007



                                                     1AC Solvency
The US-AGOA is critical- it is key to consultation and improvements in African Countries.
Florizelle Liser, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Africa Office of the United States Trade Representative, Senate Finance
Committee Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July 12, 2007{CDI07 SS}

Thanks to AGOA, our trade and investment relationship with sub- Saharan Africa has matured considerably over the past seven
years. Two-way trade is increasing, African countries are diversifying their exports to the United States, and we are consulting
with each other more, both on bilateral and multilateral issues. But while we have achieved much under AGOA, significant
challenges remain. More needs to be done to diversify Africa's exports, and to expand the number of countries exporting under
AGOA. AGOA has created significant opportunities for trade, investment, and partnership and we will continue to work with our
African partners, the U.S. Congress, African and U.S. private sectors, civil society and other stakeholders to address the challenges
and to ensure those opportunities are realized.

Organic Cotton farming will develop worldwide, because the US is a world leader in agriculture. (ss)
Reuters 2002, May 5, Big-Spending U.S. Farm Bill Tangles Trade Talks
http://www.fass.org/FASStrack/news_item.asp?news_id=371

Canadian Agriculture Minister Lyle Vanclief, speaking in Ottawa on Friday, may have provided a preview.
Americans, he said, were ``not walking the talk that they gave in Doha'' (Qatar) last November, when the WTO trade
round was launched.

As a world leader in agriculture, the United States has been the premiere advocate of the free market -- from cajoling
Europeans into abandoning their beloved export subsidies, to persuading developing countries to lower import barriers
and cut subsidies for their own farmers.




                                                                                                                                18
Cotton Affirmative Addendum               CDI 2007



                              **Harms**




                                              19
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                        CDI 2007



                     Harms: GMO Cotton Decreases Food Supply
GMO Cotton kills livestock
Hindustan Times, June 18, 2007, Bt cotton can kill farm animals: Andhra govt, Hindustan Times, Lexis CDI 07 ELW

NEW DELHI, India, June 18 -- THE ANDHRA Pradesh government has advised farmers not to allow animals to graze on Bt
cotton fields after four institutes reported the presence of toxins in them.

Goats and sheep grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton fields were found dead in Warangal and Adilabad districts in 2006 and in the
first two months of 2007.

The Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, the Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, the Western Regional
Disease Diagnostic Laboratory and the department of agriculture, NG Ranga Agriculture University found the presence of nitrates
and nitrites, and residues of organophosphates in Bt cotton plants.

Dr L. Mohan, director, Andhra Pradesh animal husbandry department, said: "The deaths have resulted in huge economic losses for
farmers." Andhra Pradesh, which had earlier moved the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices tribunal against the high
price of Bt seeds, said no bio-safety studies of Bt cotton seeds had yet been conducted.

Pesticides decrease food quality
Ferrigno, Farmer Development Program Director at the International Institute for Environment and Development. et al., “Organic
Cotton.” 2005 http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14512IIED.pdf {CDI07 SS}

While many argue that food production has not been affected by cotton, there is
anecdotal evidence that food quality has decreased (since 2001); while farmers
may grow as much food as before, in times of low prices and debt they will buy
less supplementary food externally (PAN UK, 2003). Pesticides also affect food
availability and quality via contamination (Ton, 2001; Drs Ahoui and Zonon,
Benin, pers. comm., 2004).




                                                                                                                            20
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                CDI 2007



                                                Harms: Superweeds
Negative affects like plant resistance come from using BT cotton,
Stephen Morse, 9 June 2006, Department of Geography, University of Reading, Richard Bennett,
Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, University of Reading, “Environmental impact of
genetically modified cotton in South Africa”, science direct {CDI07 ew}
Agricultural sustainability has become something of a clarion call amongst politicians and policy makers, yet there is
often little consensus as to what it means in practice. An important dimension here is the negative effects on the
environment that can arise from indiscriminate use of pesticides, particularly insecticides (Frans, 1993, Morse and Buhler,
1997 and Orr, 2003). However, this can be a simplistic view given that pesticides do differ a great deal in terms of their
effects on human health and their environmental impact (Jansen et al., 1995). Reducing or eliminating the use of some pesticides may
have little overall benefit, but could be detrimental to yield and hence profit. Alternatively one could gain a substantial alleviation in
terms of negative environmental impact by the removal of just one pesticide but continuing use of others. As a result,
one consideration for achieving sustainability is to calculate the toxic load delivered to the environment by current
practice and then reduce it by the introduction of other technologies, including plant resistance (Jansen et al., 1995 and
Kovach et al., undated).




                                                                                                                                    21
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                          CDI 2007



                                                 Harms: Malaria
Malaria can have a variety of effects; some of the worst being HIV/AIDS transmission and death. (ss)
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Division of Parasitic Diseases, September
13, 2004

Malaria can affect a person's health in various ways.

People who have developed protective immunity (through past infections, as is the case with most adults in high
transmission areas) may be infected but not made ill by the parasites they carry.
In most cases, malaria causes fever, chills, headache, muscle ache, vomiting, malaise and other flu-like symptoms, which can be
very incapacitating.
Some persons infected with Plasmodium falciparum can develop complications such as brain disease (cerebral malaria), severe
anemia, and kidney failure. These severe forms occur more frequently in people with little protective immunity, and can result in
death or life-long neurologic impairment.
People subjected to frequent malaria infections (such as young children and pregnant women in high transmission areas) can
develop anemia due to frequent destruction of the red blood cells by the malaria parasites. Severely anemic patients might receive
blood transfusions which, in developing countries, can expose them to HIV and other bloodborne diseases.
Babies born to women who had malaria during their pregnancy are more often born with a low birth weight or prematurely, which
decreases their chances of survival during early life.
In developing countries, the harmful effects of malaria may combine with those of other highly prevalent diseases and conditions,
such as malnutrition, HIV/AIDS, and anemia of all causes. Such combinations can have severe results, especially if they occur
repeatedly.




                                                                                                                              22
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                            CDI 2007



                                                      Harms: Ecosystems

GM cotton damages the environment
Stephen Morse, 9 June 2006, Department of Geography, University of Reading, Richard Bennett, Department of Agricultural and
Food Economics, University of Reading, “Environmental impact of genetically modified cotton in South Africa”, science direct
While the notion of agricultural sustainability is popular, no doubt helped by the diversity of definitions which allows
almost any practice to be labelled as ‘sustainable’ (Schaller, 1993), the role of genetic modification (GM) is interesting,
especially within a developing country context where the contesting issues maybe stark (Arends-Kuenning and Makundi, 2000
and Mackey, 2003). It has almost played a puckish role in the sustainability debate, with views that have become increasingly polarised. Proponents
of GM herald it as the technology for the future with bullish promises that it will solve the problem of world hunger as it revolutionises agriculture,
facilitates sustainability and improves food security and profitability (Lehmann, 2001, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 2003 and Nuffield Foundation,
1999). At one level GM can generate characteristics that should encourage sustainability, particularly the potential for enhanced crop resistance to
pests promising substantial decreases in use of pesticide. Yet on another level it has become the personification of the ‘evils’ of
industrial agriculture with claims of massive environmental disruption and damage to human health. Whatever the
perspective regarding GM crops in agricultural sustainability, there is no doubt that adoption of the technology is
increasing on a global scale (James, 2002).
GM crops aren’t beneficial and harm entire ecosystems
Business Day, January 25, 2007, South Africa; Farming Choices, AllAfrica, Inc. Africa News, [LexisNexis]

THE idea that field-crop yields can be drastically increased by planting genetically modified organisms is attractive indeed,
particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, where peasant farmers eke out a poor existence on small dry-land plots.

But whether it is a panacea for rural poverty remains to be proven. We have heard the story before.

In the 1960s, the proponents of the Green Revolution promised to eradicate world hunger. They invented better fertilisers and
pesticides and boosted yields around the world.

Yet peasant farmers are no better off today, simply because the chemical products and their associated input costs put conventional
farming beyond their reach. We know now they succeed because they cultivate large tracts of land where scale compensates for
margins reduced by high chemical input costs.

Their success comes also at a high environmental cost. Chemical residues have rendered much of the world's farmland sterile, able
to produce food only in conjunction with ever-increasing quantities of fertilisers and pesticides. Chemical residues end up in our
groundwater and destroy aquatic ecosystems. In the long term, conventional agriculture is not sustainable.




                                                                                                                                                 23
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                          CDI 2007



                                              Harms: Ecosystems
Transgenic crops lead to the development of resistant genes—this leads to superweeds and
superbugs that destroy biodiversity by disrupting the ecological balance
Robert Ali Brac De La Perriere, “Brave New Seeds: The threat of GM crops to farmers” Zed Books Ltd, pg. 42, 2001.
TRP CSDI 07

What about the risks involved? As far as the environment is concerned, the gravest risk stems from the natural flow of
genes between cultivated transgenic crops and related wild plants. Apoteker explains that cultivated plants exchange
their genes by spontaneous cross-breeding with related wild varieties, which are often weeds. Thus, there is a high risk
of foreign genes from other species - even other kingdoms, whether animal or bacteria - that are introduced into
cultivated plants, being transferred to wild varieties. The consequences can be severe - both for the environment and for
biodiversity. A herbicide resistant gene introduced into rape may be transferred to weeds that we would like to kill,
making them invulnerable and, perhaps, even invasive. An insect-resistant gene may also be transferred to weeds,
thereby promoting the spread of the gene in the environment and destroying other specie s, while also disturbing the
ecological balance among pollen-gathering insects.

This phenomenon could prove particularly pernicious in developing countries that are far richer in biodiversity
than industrialised countries where the standardisation of crops has reduced the number of species cultivated.
Transgenic crops may come up against related varieties in Zimbabwe or India more easily than in the USA or
France. In Mexico, for example, various species of teosinte (the wild relative to corn) often devel op in
association with local corn varieties in cropped fields. Since this foodgrain is a cross -fertilising variety, there is
a very real risk of teosintes being contaminated by the genetically modified crop.




                                                                                                                          24
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                             CDI 2007



                                           Harms: Weather Losses
GMO’s magnify weather losses because farmers won’t have the resources to recover
Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, a researcher with Biowatch South Africa, “BT Cotton IN South
Africa.” April 2005 http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=330. {CDI 07 SS}

Underlying the persistent poverty in this region is a history of dispossession and discrimination. Farmers’ key constraints are lack
of markets and infrastructure, and lack of cash, making high input investments at the beginning of the season, such as GM seeds,
an enormous financial risk. Erratic weather patterns resulting in either droughts or floods also cause problems. The first adopters of
Bt cotton were the farmers that were most able to weather such risks and overcome constraints: older farmers with additional non-
farm income, more livestock and larger farms, in other words, the better-off farmers with access to credit. Another constraint for
farmers is insecure land tenure as most farmers have access to tribal land only.




                                                                                                                                25
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                CDI 2007



                                                 Harms: Leadership
The United States must invest time in Africa to balance China’s power there
Faul, 2007 (Michelle, AP Writer, February 8, China sees Risks of African Acquisitions, p lexis)
Chinese officials "are beginning to recognize that they have some problems in Africa," he said.

Morrison said China's policy of noninterference, such as in Sudan's Darfur conflict, is untenable. The Sudanese government is
accused of funding militias and allowing its military to brutalize civilians in a conflict that has killed some 200,000 people and left
2.5 million homeless since 2003.

Until recently, China resisted using its economic clout to influence Sudan's government. But Hu "took a big step," Morrison said,
when he visited Sudan last week and urged its leader to allow the United Nations a bigger role in Darfur, where poorly equipped
African peacekeepers have failed to defend civilians.

Hu probably was responding to pressures including threats from American human rights activists to damage Beijing's image as it
prepares to host next year's Summer Olympics.

China opposes any sanctions against Sudan and would be sure to fight a new proposal for the United States to sanction companies
that do business in Sudan. China buys two-thirds of Sudan's oil, sells it weapons and military aircraft and is its biggest investor.

World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz has accused Chinese banks of ignoring human rights and environmental concerns in Africa.
He warned that the Chinese surge in lending could fuel corruption and debt burdens.

From Liberia to the Democratic Republic of Congo, China is increasingly involved in peacekeeping operations: In 2004 it
contributed more than 1,500 troops to U.N. missions across the continent.

China has publicly supported the three African candidates South Africa, Egypt and, in particular, Nigeria for a permanent seat on
the U.N. Security Council.

Just as China is having to rethink its strategy in Africa, so should the United States, Morrison said in his report.

"China's ambitious, new high-profile role in Africa challenges the United States to think far more comprehensively and
strategically," the report says. "A part of that challenge, for both the United States and China, will be trying to avoid the trap of a
damaging and unnecessary strategic competition in Africa."




                                                                                                                                    26
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                               CDI 2007



                                                Harms: Leadership
China is building up arms now; if uncontrolled they pose a threat to US leadership and world peace
Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, April 20, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/35186/?page=1

By the spring of 2005, the White House was already turning back to Rice's global grand strategy. On June 4, 2005, Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave a much-publicized speech at a conference in Singapore, signaling what was to be a new emphasis
in White House policymaking, in which he decried China's ongoing military buildup and warned of the threat it posed to regional
peace and stability.    China, he claimed, was "expanding its missile forces, allowing them to reach targets in many areas of the
world" and "improving its ability to project power" in the Asia-Pacific region. Then, with sublime disingenuousness, he added,
"Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: Why this growing investment? Why these continuing and expanding arms
purchases? Why these continuing robust deployments?" Although Rumsfeld did not answer his questions, the implication was
obvious: China was now embarked on a course that would make it a regional power, thus threatening one day to present a
challenge to the United States in Asia on unacceptably equal terms.




It’s necessary to build alliance against and contain China before they rise as a major competitor
Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, April 20, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/35186/?page=1

The imperative of containing China was first spelled out in a systematic way by Condoleezza Rice while serving as a foreign
policy adviser to then Governor George W. Bush during the 2000 presidential campaign. In a much-cited article in Foreign Affairs,
she suggested that the PRC, as an ambitious rising power, would inevitably challenge vital U.S. interests. "China is a great power
with unresolved vital interests, particularly concerning Taiwan," she wrote. "China also resents the role of the United States in the
Asia-Pacific region."                                                                                          For these reasons, she
stated, "China is not a 'status quo' power but one that would like to alter Asia's balance of power in its own favor. That alone
makes it a strategic competitor, not the 'strategic partner' the Clinton administration once called it." It was essential, she argued, to
adopt a strategy that would prevent China's rise as regional power. In particular, "The United States must deepen its cooperation
with Japan and South Korea and maintain its commitment to a robust military presence in the region." Washington should also
"pay closer attention to India's role in the regional balance," and bring that country into an anti-Chinese alliance system.




China is currently trying to undermine US relations with various countries in the Pacific region
Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, April 20, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/35186/?page=1

How will China respond to this threat? For now, it appears to be relying on charm and the conspicuous blandishment of economic
benefits to loosen Australian, South Korean, and even Indian ties with the United States. To a certain extent, this strategy is
meeting with success, as these countries seek to profit from the extraordinary economic boom now under way in China – fueled to
a considerable extent by oil, gas, iron, timber, and other materials supplied by China's neighbors in Asia. A version of this strategy
is also being employed by President Hu Jintao during his current visit to the United States. As China's money is sprinkled liberally
among influential firms like Boeing and Microsoft, Hu is reminding the corporate wing of the Republican Party that there are vast
economic benefits still to be had by pursuing a non-threatening stance toward China.




                                                                                                                                   27
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                             CDI 2007



                                                Harms: Leadership
Without containment, China is the major superpower that will compete militarily with the US
Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, April 20, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/35186/?page=1

Accompanying all these diplomatic initiatives has been a vigorous, if largely unheralded, effort by the Department of Defense
(DoD) to bolster U.S. military capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region.                  The broad sweep of American strategy was
first spelled out in the Pentagon's most recent policy assessment, the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), released on February 5,
2006. In discussing long-term threats to U.S. security, the QDR begins with a reaffirmation of the overarching precept first
articulated in the DPG of 1992: that the United States will not allow the rise of a competing superpower. This country "will
attempt to dissuade any military competitor from developing disruptive or other capabilities that could enable regional hegemony
or hostile action against the United States," the document states. It then identifies China as the most likely and dangerous
competitor of this sort. "Of the major and emerging powers, China has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United
States and field disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages" -- then adding the
kicker, "absent U.S. counter strategies."

China building up arms uncontrolled, will lead to US spending a lot of money trying to build up arms
so they can effectively prepare for war with China
Michael T. Klare, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, April 20, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/35186/?page=1

According to the Pentagon, the task of countering future Chinese military capabilities largely entails the development, and then
procurement, of major weapons systems that would ensure U.S. success in any full-scale military confrontation. "The United
States will develop capabilities that would present any adversary with complex and multidimensional challenges and complicate its
offensive planning efforts," the QDR explains. These include the steady enhancement of such "enduring U.S. advantages" as
"long-range strike, stealth, operational maneuver and sustainment of air, sea, and ground forces at strategic distances, air
dominance, and undersea warfare."                                                                         Preparing for war with
China, in other words, is to be the future cash cow for the giant U.S. weapons-making corporations in the military-industrial
complex. It will, for instance, be the primary justification for the acquisition of costly new weapons systems such as the F-22A
Raptor air-superiority fighter, the multi-service Joint Strike Fighter, the DDX destroyer, the Virginia-class nuclear attack
submarine, and a new, intercontinental penetrating bomber -- weapons that would just have utility in an all-out encounter with
another great-power adversary of a sort that only China might someday become.




                                                                                                                                 28
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                            CDI 2007



                                                      Harms Leadership
America is a benevolent hegemon—this hegemony is the only thing preventing the breakdown of
international order
William Kristol and Robert Kagan, "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," Foreign Affairs, Lexis, Jul/Aug 96 TRP CSDI 07
What should that role be? Benevolent global hegemony. Having defeated the "evil empire," the United States enjoys strategic and ideological
predominance. The first objective of U.S. foreign policy should be to preserve and enhance that predominance by strengthening America's security,
supporting its friends, advancing its interests, and standing up for its principles around the world.

The aspiration to benevolent hegemony might strike some as either hubristic or morally suspect. But a hegemon is nothing more or less than a
leader with preponderant influence and authority over all others in its domain. That is America's position in the world today. The leaders of Russia
and China understand this. At their April summit meeting, Boris Yeltsin and Jiang Zemin joined in denouncing "hegemonism" in the post-Cold War
world. They meant this as a complaint about the United States. It should be taken as a compliment and a guide to action.

Consider the events of just the past six months, a period that few observers would consider remarkable for its drama on the world stage. In East
Asia, the carrier task forces of the U.S. Seventh Fleet helped deter Chinese aggression against democratic Taiwan, and the 35,000 American troops
stationed in South Korea helped deter a possible invasion by the rulers in Pyongyang. In Europe, the United States sent 20,000 ground troops to
implement a peace agreement in the former Yugoslavia, maintained 100,000 in Western Europe as a symbolic commitment to European stability
and security, and intervened diplomatically to prevent the escalation of a conflict between Greece and Turkey. In the Middle East, the United States
maintained the deployment of thousands of soldiers and a strong naval presence in the Persian Gulf region to deter possible aggression by Saddam
Hussein's Iraq or the Islamic fundamentalist regime in Iran, and it mediated in the conflict between Israel and Syria in Lebanon. In the Western
Hemisphere, the United States completed the withdrawal of 15,000 soldiers after restoring a semblance of democratic government in Haiti and,
almost without public notice, prevented a military coup in Paraguay. In Africa, a U.S. expeditionary force rescued Americans and others trapped in
the Liberian civil conflict.

These were just the most visible American actions of the past six months, and just those of a military or diplomatic nature. During the same period,
the United States made a thousand decisions in international economic forums, both as a government and as an amalgam of large corporations and
individual entrepreneurs, that shaped the lives and fortunes of billions around the globe. America influenced both the external and internal behavior
of other countries through the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Through the United Nations, it maintained sanctions on rogue
states such as Libya, Iran, and Iraq. Through aid programs, the United States tried to shore up friendly democratic regimes in developing nations.
The enormous web of the global economic system, with the United States at the center, combined with the pervasive influence of American ideas
and culture, allowed Americans to wield influence in many other ways of which they were were entirely unconscious. The simple truth of this era
was stated last year by a Serb leader trying to explain Slobodan Milosevic's decision to finally seek rapprochement with Washington. "As a
pragmatist," the Serbian politician said, "Milosevic knows that all satellites of the United States are in a better position than those that are not
satellites."

And America's allies are in a better position than those who are not its allies. Most of the world's major powers welcome U.S. global involvement
and prefer America's benevolent hegemony to the alternatives. Instead of having to compete for dominant global influence with many other powers,
therefore, the United States finds both the Europeans and the Japanese -- after the United States, the two most powerful forces in the world
supportive of its world leadership role. Those who anticipated the dissolution of these alliances once the common threat of the Soviet Union
disappeared have been proved wrong. The principal concern of America's allies these days is not that it will be too dominant but that it will
withdraw.

Somehow most Americans have failed to notice that they have never had it so good. They have never lived in a world more conducive to their
fundamental interests in a liberal international order, the spread of freedom and democratic governance, an international economic system of free-
market capitalism and free trade, and the security of Americans not only to live within their own borders but to travel and do business safely and
without encumbrance almost anywhere in the world. Americans have taken these remarkable benefits of the post-Cold War era for granted, partly
because it has all seemed so easy. Despite misguided warnings of imperial overstretch, the United States has so far exercised its hegemony without
any noticeable strain, and it has done so despite the fact that Americans appear to be in a more insular mood than at any time since before the
Second World War. The events of the last six months have excited no particular interest among Americans and, indeed, seem to have been
regarded with the same routine indifference as breathing and eating.

And that is the problem. The most difficult thing to preserve is that which does not appear to need preserving. The dominant strategic and
ideological position the United States now enjoys is the product of foreign policies and defense strategies that are no longer being pursued.
Americans have come to take the fruits of their hegemonic power for granted. During the Cold War, the strategies of deterrence and containment
worked so well in checking the ambitions of America's adversaries that many American liberals denied that our adversaries had ambitions or even,
for that matter, that America had adversaries. Today the lack of a visible threat to U.S. vital interests or to world peace has tempted Americans to
absentmindedly dismantle the material and spiritual foundations on which their national well-being has been based. They do not notice that
potential challengers are deterred before even contemplating confrontation by their overwhelming power and influence.


The ubiquitous post-Cold War question -- where is the threat? -- is thus misconceived. In a world in which peace and American security depend on
American power and the will to use it, the main threat the United States faces now and in the future is its own weakness. American hegemony is


                                                                                                                                                29
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                           CDI 2007



                                                     Harms: Leadership
the only reliable defense against a breakdown of peace and international order. The appropriate goal of American foreign policy, therefore, is to
preserve that hegemony as far into the future as possible. To achieve this goal, the United States needs a neo-Reaganite foreign policy of military
supremacy and moral confidence.




                                                                                                                                                30
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                             CDI 2007



                                                Harms: Debt Cycle
The drop in prices of cotton leaves no options for cotton farmers.
Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, a researcher with Biowatch South Africa, “BT Cotton IN South Africa.” April 2005
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=330. {CDI 07 SS)

These small-scale cotton farmers have always been dependent on a credit system, but the introduction of Bt cotton has increased
their exposure and risk, as it is more expensive to buy. Because of the aggressive marketing campaign there was a high level of
adoption, so many more farmers are in debt than might have been the case otherwise.
Low cotton prices have had a devastating effect in all of Africa. Farmers started planting Bt cotton when the prices had been better.
One farmer said: "When the prices drop you can’t leave the crop at home, you can’t eat it, you can’t feed it to the chickens. You
are forced to sell it for whatever small price you can get. Farmers do not have the power to influence markets". Another farmer
commented: "Four years ago we were told we would make lots of money but we work harder and make nothing".

No profits from cotton means farmers get trapped in debt cycle.
Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, a researcher with Biowatch South Africa, “BT Cotton IN South Africa.” April 2005
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=330. {CDI 07 SS)

The introduction of the expensive Bt cottonseed occurred at the same time as a depression in world cotton prices, a strengthening
Rand and subsequent droughts, cutting margins for farmers and making it unprofitable to grow cotton. (See Table: Annual weather
patterns: 1998-2004)                                                              Once access to credit dried up, farmers that
continued with cotton production started using other family resources to finance their production costs, such as the salaries of their
spouses. Others, that had borrowed money from family and neighbours, are now concerned as to how they will pay it back. Some
farmers said their poor cotton harvests negatively affected their status in the community, which had an impact on family members
and affected their family relationships. Non-farm income also included child grants, disability grants and pensions. In other words,
welfare grants from the State aimed at supporting the community and alleviating poverty, as well as family income is used to
subsidise cotton growing in the area. If farmers substitute credit with non-farm income and the burden of debt thus shifts to the
community, it must have major implications for their socio-economic status, in terms of access to health care, schooling, and
nutrition for example.




                                                                                                                                 31
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                           CDI 2007



                                    AT: Refuges Solves Superbugs
Farmers won’t plant the refuges- they are too poor; means no defense against super bugs
Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, a researcher with Biowatch South Africa, “BT Cotton IN South Africa.” April 2005
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=330. {CDI 07 SS)

In contrast with reports from China, the savings in pesticide use have not been high in Makhathini, mainly because farmers
originally “underused” pesticides anyway. [22] Small-scale farmers in South Africa have to deal with a range of pests and they use
broad-spectrum pesticides to control this. All the farmers still have to spray for secondary pests such as aphids and jassids
(sometimes known as leafhoppers), which would otherwise reduce yields. Since 2000 new insect pests appeared and especially
stink bugs have caused extensive damage. [23] This correlates with reports from the US and China where the stink bug has also
emerged as a major new pest. All Bt crops must be grown amongst non-GM varieties within refuges to avoid insect resistance to
Bt building up. However, as these farmers do not plant refuges, it is expected that insect resistance will build up quickly, forcing
them to go back to the old spraying patterns, erasing any environmental benefit gained.




                                                                                                                               32
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                               CDI 2007



                                Organic Cotton Solves Pesticides
Organic cotton would substitute pesticides with safer, natural fertilization
Ferrigno, Farmer Development Program Director, et al., 2005
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14512IIED.pdf CDI 07 SS

In sub-Saharan Africa organic cotton is grown to basic standards set by the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and certified by private agencies. Organic production is
based on sound soil management using indigenous knowledge and research to improve techniques. Pest control
combines indigenous systems and botanical pesticides, particularly those using neem. Fertilisation uses a combination
of animal and green manuring, sometimes adding ingredients such as oil palm processing residue. Most African
organic cotton projects (some of which are NGO led, some private sector led) also put a lot of effort into
capacity building for farmers and communities. There is a learning process to converting, especially in West Africa
where intensification has been greatest. Organic production tends to occur initially through substitution of synthetic
chemical pesticides with preparations based on locally available biological products, usually neem, combined with
ingredients such as cow urine, chilli pepper, garlic, natural soaps and paw paw leaves. Intercropping and trap plants
(such as maize and gombo) are also used. In East Africa, particularly in Uganda where pesticides use and intensive
farming previously had a low impact, techniques include the use of beneficial species and trap crops such as predatory
black ants to reduce populations of insect pests (van Elzakker, 2002). The most common problem pest in all regions is
the bollworm; the preferred organic technique for dealing with these is to encourage predator populations (Ton,2002a).




                                                                                                                 33
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                  CDI 2007



                              **Solvency**




                                                 34
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                            CDI 2007



                                          New issues key to AGOA
AGOA isn’t being utilized by some countries as well as it could-further reason to concentrate on
building it more.
Florizelle Liser, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Africa Office of the United States Trade Representative, Senate Finance
Committee Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July 12, 2007 {CDI07 SS}
Admittedly, AGOA's impact has not been shared equally by all eligible sub-Saharan African countries. While more countries are
taking advantage of AGOA today than in 2001, much of the AGOA- related trade gains have been in a dozen or so countries and
some eligible countries have yet to export any products under AGOA. We also know that most of AGOA's non-oil success has
been concentrated in the apparel sector. These facts reinforce the need for continued trade capacity building for AGOA countries,
which I will address later in this statement. The theme of the 2007 AGOA Forum, "As Trade Grows: Africa Prospers," was
selected in order to highlight the wide range of products eligible for AGOA and to stress the importance of, and opportunities for,
diversification.




                                                                                                                               35
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                            CDI 2007



                                            AGOA key to Solvency
US and AGOA relationship is critical for more improvement in Sub-Saharan African countries.
Florizelle Liser, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Africa Office of the United States Trade Representative, Senate Finance
Committee Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July 12, 2007{CDI07 SS}

Thanks to AGOA, our trade and investment relationship with sub- Saharan Africa has matured considerably over the past seven
years. Two-way trade is increasing, African countries are diversifying their exports to the United States, and we are consulting
with each other more, both on bilateral and multilateral issues. But while we have achieved much under AGOA, significant
challenges remain. More needs to be done to diversify Africa's exports, and to expand the number of countries exporting under
AGOA. AGOA has created significant opportunities for trade, investment, and partnership and we will continue to work with our
African partners, the U.S. Congress, African and U.S. private sectors, civil society and other stakeholders to address the challenges
and to ensure those opportunities are realized.

AGOA stabilizes African economies and leads to high level consultation and bi-lateral cooperaiton
with African Governmets
Florizelle Liser, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Africa Office of the United States Trade Representative, Senate Finance
Committee Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July 12, 2007 {CDI07 SS}
The impetus for AGOA grew out of recognition--both in the United States and in Africa--that trade can be an important tool for
increasing U.S.-African engagement and can serve as an engine for African economic growth and development. The passage of
AGOA in 2000 was a major bi-partisan achievement supported by African countries as well as by the private sector and faith-
based, civil rights and non-governmental organizations. Congress and the Bush Administration have demonstrated a continuing
commitment to AGOA, amending it three times to enhance and extend its benefits--via the Trade Act of 2002, the AGOA
Acceleration Act of 2004, and the Africa Investment Incentive Act of 2006.
When we look at AGOA's impact over the past seven years, I believe we can say that the Act's major policy objectives have been
achieved:
-- AGOA has ignited an expansion of U.S.-African trade;
-- by offering substantial trade benefits to those countries undertaking sometimes difficult economic and political reforms, AGOA
has provided a powerful incentive and reinforcement for African efforts to improve governance, open markets, and reduce poverty;
-- and trade capacity building assistance to help Africans take advantage of AGOA's provisions and to support regional integration
and development has grown.
AGOA has also provided a platform--through the annual U.S.-Sub- Saharan -Africa Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum (also
known as "the AGOA Forum")--for a high-level dialogue on ways to improve U.S.-African trade and economic cooperation.
U.S. Trade with Sub-Saharan Africa Continues to Grow




                                                                                                                                36
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                             CDI 2007




                                            AGOA Key to Solvency
AGOA assistance is used to implement quality standards in African agriculture
Florizelle Liser, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Africa Office of the United States Trade Representative, Senate Finance
Committee Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July 12, 2007 {CDI07 SS}
The majority of sub-Saharan African countries are undertaking real reforms--and not only because of AGOA, but because they
also perceive it's in their best interests to do so. AGOA countries have liberalized trade, strengthened market-based economic
systems, privatized state-owned companies, and deregulated their economies. These changes have improved market access for
U.S. companies and benefited African economies. Additionally, many countries reformed their customs regimes in order to meet
AGOA's apparel eligibility requirements, as AGOA requires countries to establish an effective apparel visa system before they
receive apparel benefits.
That's why we are investing in assistance to help African countries to address these challenges. Last year, the U.S. Government
dedicated $394 million to trade capacity building in sub-Saharan Africa, up 95 percent over FY2005. This aid goes toward
activities such as helping African businesses and farmers to meet quality and standards issues, to get more timely market
information, and to establish linkages with prospective American partners. Under the auspices of the U.S Agency for International
Development, four regional trade competitiveness hubs have been established throughout the region, each with AGOA advisors
and trade specialists.
In FY2006, USAID launched implementation of the five-year, $200 million African Global Competitiveness Initiative (AGCI).
The goals of AGCI are to expand sub-Saharan Africa's trade under AGOA and to improve the region's external competitiveness.
The AGCI provides assistance to overcome constraints by strengthening businesses and forming business linkages, improving the
business climate, increasing access to financing, and leveraging investments in infrastructure.
As part of our implementation efforts, we requested the U.S. International Trade Commission to do a new series of reports
examining factors that affect African trade in key non-oil industries.
The first of these new reports--released in April--reviewed a wide range of industries: 12 in all--from cashews to cocoa butter, cut
flowers to preserved fish, textiles and apparel to financial services and tourism. The report identifies underlying factors--policies,
investments, and economic conditions-- contributing to the growth and development of specific industries in Africa. African Trade
Ministers have informed us that this study will be an integral part of their strategic planning on how to better take advantage of
AGOA.




                                                                                                                                 37
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                           CDI 2007



                           AGOA leads to sustainable development
AGOA leads to sustainable development
Katrin Kuhlmann Senior Vice President Global Trade Women's Edge Coalition, Senate Finance Committee
Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July12,2007 {CDI07 SS}

While AGOA has led to inspiring success stories, Africa's potential to benefit from trade has not been fully realized. Africa faces
particular challenges, and the need to generate sustainable development in Africa becomes more pressing each day. I would
like to highlight how AGOA and other trade preference programs have worked to the benefit of impoverished women and men,
look at how AGOA has succeeded in creating economic opportunities for Africa's poorest, describe areas where AGOA, and other
preference programs, have fallen short of their potential, and outline four areas in which we believe legislative modifications can
make preference programs, including AGOA, even more effective.




                                                                                                                               38
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                          CDI 2007



                                 AGOA increases the US economy
AGOA increases US economy.
Florizelle Liser, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Africa Office of the United States Trade Representative, Senate Finance
Committee Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July 12, 2007 {CDI07 SS}
AGOA has also created opportunities for U.S. businesses. Because of AGOA, Africans are increasingly seeking U.S. inputs,
expertise, and joint venture partnerships. U.S. exports to sub- Saharan Africa more than doubled from $5.9 billion in 2000 to $12.1
billion in 2006, driven in large part by growth in manufactured products exports such as machinery, oil field equipment, motor
vehicle parts, and telecommunications equipment.

AGOA has increased trade between US and Sub-Saharan Africa greatly since 2001.
Florizelle Liser, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Africa Office of the United States Trade Representative, Senate Finance
Committee Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July 12, 2007 {CDI07 SS}
AGOA has been a measurable success in achieving increased trade between the United States and sub-Saharan Africa. In 2006,
AGOA imports totaled $44.2 billion. That is more than five times the level of AGOA imports in 2001, the first full year of AGOA.
Much of this increase was related to oil, but non-oil imports-- including value-added products such as apparel, footwear,
automobiles, and processed agricultural goods more than doubled from $1.4 billion in 2001 to $3.2 billion in 2006. Our imports of
African-made apparel have almost doubled since AGOA came into effect--increasing from $748 million in 2000 to over $1.3
billion in 2006. Last year, 19 AGOA eligible countries exported apparel to the United States; prior to AGOA only a few countries
sent apparel of any significant quantity to the U.S. market.

AGOA has increased exports between the US and countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Florizelle Liser, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Africa Office of the United States Trade Representative, Senate Finance
Committee Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July 12, 2007 {CDI07 SS}

There are many AGOA success stories: tiny Lesotho has become the leading sub-Saharan African exporter of apparel to the United
States; Kenya's exports under AGOA now include fresh cut roses, preserved pineapples, sport fishing supplies, nuts, and essential
oils, as well as apparel; Ghana is exporting more value-added products under AGOA including chocolates, jewelry, baskets, and
preserved pineapples; and many African businesses that had never previously considered the U.S. market are attending trade
shows and getting orders--everything from Ugandan organic cotton T- shirts to Senegalese peanut oil to Mauritian seafood and
Rwandan baskets. This increased trade has translated into thousands of new jobs in some of the poorest countries in Africa and
hundreds of millions of dollars of new investment in the region.




                                                                                                                                39
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                         CDI 2007



                                     AGOA Solves- Kenya Proves
AGOA Key to helping cotton industries in many countries like Kenya,
The nation, January 25, 2007, Kenya; Farmers Urged to Exploit Agoa, AllAfrica, Inc. Africa News, Lexis

Cotton farmers have been asked to plant the crop on large scale so that Kenya can benefit from the extension of the African
Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa).The industry stood to reap more benefits from the Agoa provision if more of the crop was
produced locally to enable it compete favourably with other giant producers in the liberalised market, industry lobbyists said
yesterday. The Act, passed by the US Congress, allows duty free entry of textile imports from Africa into the American market.
Last week the US extended the Agoa fabric provision, giving it new lease of life until 2012. The National Cotton Stakeholders
Forum (NCSF) said the country stood a better chance of gaining market opportunities if it increased its production. "Things are
looking up for our textile industry. We, however, need to increase our production volumes if we are to make the most of the
available global market opportunities," said Mr Joe Orlale, the chairman of the forum. Already, the Government has given Sh48
million for the purchase of quality and high yielding seeds to boost production. It has also established the Cotton Development
Authority to regulate the industry's operations as a major step towards returning it to profitability.




                                                                                                                             40
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                      CDI 2007



                                            Solvency: Pesticides
Widespread pesticide and insecticide use results in shortened life of useful organisms—must
change now to make sustainable farming viable
Robert Ali Brac De La Perriere, “Brave New Seeds: The threat of GM crops to farmers” Zed Books Ltd, pg. 43-44,
2001. TRP CSDI 07

The widespread use of certain toxins such as those of the Bacillus thuringiensis type presents a serious problem for organic
farmers. This example, aired by the Union of Concerned Scientists (an American association), tells us a great deal about
the way GMO crops compete with sustainable farming practices. A gene that is toxic for insects (insects that are harmful
to crops, but also, sometimes, useful insects) has been identified in a soil bacterium - Badllus thuringiensis. This gene has
been transferred to several major crop varieties, including corn, cotton and potatoes, and has therefore been spread over
hundreds of thousands of hectares. In insect populations, resistance intensifies from one generation to the next and
destroys organic farmers who treat their crops traditionally, with natural Bt solutions. IATP's Neil Ritchie is quite perturbed
by the risks the large-scale use of these toxins represent to organic farmers.
  The mass market introduction of natural pest control substances like Badllus thuringiensis (used to control rootworm) into
  multiple varieties of crops, will shorten the useful life of that natural substance from decades to a few years, thus
  eliminating one of the main tools of organic and sustainable farmers. In our history, we have learnt one thing about
  battles with nature. Nature always wins! Bugs and weeds adapt and develop resistance or tolerance to every
  substance we put on them, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

Some scientists believe that this phenomenon has already begun.




                                                                                                                          41
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                          CDI 2007



                                       Solvency: Now is Key Time
It is time to stop believing everything coming from the laboratory is a divine gift—now is the time to challenge and
recognize organic farming is the alternative
Robert Ali Brac De La Perriere, “Brave New Seeds: The threat of GM crops to farmers” Zed Books Ltd, pg. 65-66, 2001.
TRP CSDI 07

According to Jacques Mirenowicz, a French biologist and journalist, the deliberate wish to stifle the debate is not really
surprising:

From the moment industrial firms need continuous progress III science and technology in order to sustain their growth, it
becomes logical for the management and those in responsible positions to discard all reservations with regard to wh at is the
very bedrock of their strategies. There is no place for such criticism in the current trend of development. And it is practic ally
impossible for any representative democracy to be representative on issues which until recently have been left out of
general political discourse. Faced with increasing protests about science and technology, the public authorities of indus -
trialised countries, to counterbalance the shortcomings of representative democracy, conduct more and more democratic
participative or deliberative (citizens are given some training on the theme being dealt with) experiments on a national level.
Since GMOs constitute a formidable growth area, however, very heavy pressures weigh on such experiments - all the more
so if the genetic engineering industry has a strong lobby in the country hosting such experiments. Thus, in the spring of
1998, neither the Swiss initiative 'for genetic protection' (made possible due to that country's semi -direct system of
democracy) nor the French 'conference of citizens' on 'GMOs in agriculture and food' succeeded in relating the debate on
GMOs to issues such as local food security or sustainable agriculture. In the first case, it was a vulgar, unruly fight betwe en
intransigent activists and scientists barricaded in zealous corporatism. In the second case, it was a highly publicised, stage-
managed event on the best way to 'manage' GMOs, these being considered as an established fact. In the latter case, it was
far from being a real assessment of their legitimacy in a society in which about three quarters of the population - opinion
polls are clear - were against them .... The fierce competition taking place around this technology, which has barely
progressed beyond the test tube stage but which public authorities seem to regard as if it were one of the last lifeboats on a
sinking Titanic, in no way incites them to favour a debate that would go to the heart of the matter. Nor does it encourage
them to recognise that organic farming is a credible alternative to genetic engineering in answering many of the problems
caused by chernicals in agriculture. Thus, in agribusiness in particular, there is an urgent need to reconsider and reflect o n
the conditions that would enable the implementation of convincing experiments in deliberative democracy every time a
brand new technology emerges from the laboratory., The time has come for us to stop believing that just because a
discovery has been made, it must be automatically applied as if it were a divine gift not to be sp urned or a natural
inevitability. But how can this be done, since any criticism made in this regard comes up against a powerful administrative
ideology, supported by all leaders, which seeks to harness research to high-tech innovation in the perspective of an endless
spiral of economic growth? How can this be done, when any such attempt only triggers off a plethora of defensive strategies
whose common aim is to neutralise any opposition, whatever its origin may be?




                                                                                                                             42
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                            CDI 2007



                                          Solvency- Debt Cycle
Organic cotton eliminates debt and provides structure for communities.
Ferrigno, Farmer Development Program Director, et al., 2005
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14512IIED.pdf CDI 07 SS

Growing organic cotton affords premium prices and reduces debt vulnerability
for smallholders. Organic cotton farmers generally receive 20% higher prices than
their conventional counterparts. Where buyers and/or policy add fair trading
commitments (Box 5) to organic farming (as in Tanzania and Uganda), this also
addresses some of cotton’s economic problems, while organic farming’s organisational
structures strengthen rural communities and marginalised groups, including
those for women (Box 2). Organic cotton has lessons for the entire cotton
sector.12




                                                                                           43
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                            CDI 2007



                                                          Subsides
Subsidies in the West cripple African cotton farmers-
Christophe Parayre, July 8, 2007, West African economic bloc faces bleak outlook in 2007, Agence France Presse All Rights
Reserved, Lexis

Lacklustre growth, ballooning petroleum imports, cotton sales hit by Western subsidies and a lingering political crisis in the
region's former star economy have crippled a west African economic bloc. The eight-nation West African Economic and Monetary
Union (UEMOA), home to some 80 million inhabitants, is set to record a relatively poor growth rate this year, the head of the
region's central bank said Tuesday. "The year 2007 could also be marked by a relatively feeble growth of four percent," said Damo
Justin Barro, the acting governor of the Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO). The growth rate last year was a mere 3.2
percent -- two percentage points lower than the average for sub-Saharan Africa -- and clearly insufficient to pull out the area from
endemic poverty. The UEMOA is a customs and monetary union between some of the members of the larger Economic
Community of West African States regional grouping. It comprises Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger,
Togo and Senegal. The poor growth rate was blamed to a large degree on falling agricultural revenues, especially for cotton, which
is a major cash crop in the region. Western states provide huge subsidies for their cotton producers, thereby affecting exports from
West Africa. Some of the bloc's members argue that the effect of international debt waivers are offset by such subsidies.
Cotton has Africa’s economy on brink of collapse.
UPI United Press International, April 9, 2007, Dropping cotton prices shake Africa, U.P.I., Lexis

Four years of falling prices on the world market have West Africa's all-important cotton industry on the brink of collapse. World
cotton prices, responsible for nearly 70 percent of impoverished Burkina Faso's cash exports and income for more than a quarter of
its 13 million people, are now at the lowest since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Times of London said. The market is said
to be reeling because of what locals call "the monster with three heads," namely, the dollar, low world prices and U.S. cotton
subsidies. The United States' 25,000 cotton farmers receive subsidies totaling some $4 billion, reportedly allowing them to
undercut their developing competitors. The World Trade Organization ruled the subsidies illegal three years ago but only 10
percent has been shaved so far, reports say. Global trade talks have stalled as West Africa's four main cotton producers, Burkina
Faso, Mali, Chad and Benin, demand better treatment.

Organic cotton uniquely positions African economies
Cape Argus, June 22, 2007, "Organic Cotton's Huge Benefits”, AllAfrica Inc. Africa News, Lexis

Africa, including South Africa, is an important cotton-growing region with great potential to join the fast-growing global market
for organic cotton production. So says Rebecca Callahan Klein, director of the Organic Exchange, a non-profit trade organisation
working to expand the use of organically grown cotton. Callahan Klein was speaking at the Africa Regional Organic conference in
Cape Town, a five-day event which brought together a wide variety of industry representatives to work towards strengthening
Africa's production of organic cotton. The meeting, hosted by the Organic Exchange, Woolworths and the Shell Foundation, has
resulted in new commitments being made by leading global brands and retailers to enhance the African organic cotton producers'
role in this growing market. "Global demand for organic products has rocketed in the last few years and that trend is set to
continue," said Kurt Hoffman, director of the Shell Foundation. "The potential benefits for developing world producers are
enormous. Shell Foundation is working with them to realise those benefits by unlocking markets through the provision of seed-
capital, business mentoring and strategic partnerships with major retailers."Said Callahan Klein: "What we have laid down here is
the foundation of a strong, united commitment to deriving sustainable livelihoods for all those involved in the chain, while creating
true and great value for the world's consumers."At the conference Nordstrom, a major US retailer, pledged $100 000 to the
Organic Exchange to be used to support a farm development project for small-scale African growers. In South Africa, Woolworths
has pledged in its "Good Business Journey" to sell in excess of R1 billion of organic cotton and to help develop an organic cotton
pipeline in the country by 2012.The global market for organic cotton is growing by 100% a year and is expected to reach $2.6bn
by the end of 2008. Globally, cotton is the largest non-food crop grown, with 40 million farmers.




                                                                                                                                44
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                              CDI 2007



                                                  Generic Solvency
Organic cotton production in Sub-Saharan Africa increases farmer income and prevents pesticide
related disease.
Peter Ton, independent consultant on cotton production in Africa for pesticide action network. “Organic cotton in Sub-Saharan
Africa.” Pesticide News 2003 http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn62/pn62p4.htm {CDI 07 SS}

Organic cotton production is generally promoted as a method of production that helps to reduce environmental destruction. The
focus in marketing the ‘organic cotton story’ is on the environmental impacts of pesticide use, on water use efficiency, on soil
fertility management and the like.
   Yet, for small-scale farmers in Africa the importance of organic cotton growing lies in the benefits it brings to their livelihoods,
to their health and to their socio-economic situation. Organic cotton production focuses on the use of locally available inputs, for
which input credit loans are not needed, and which do not compromise the health of farmers, their families or their livestock (see
Boxes 2 and 3).
   Certified organic cotton may easily be produced where no disruptive chemical inputs were previously used in cotton growing. In
fact, this is true of most of the certified organic cotton produced and traded in sub-Saharan Africa. Production contexts in Northern
Uganda and Western Tanzania are such that the process of conversion to organic is fairly simple: organic cotton production is not
about changing production practices, but rather about organising smallholders for certification in order to access higher priced
export markets.

Promoting low level projects to promote organic cotton production are effective in Sub-Saharan
Africa
Peter Ton, independent consultant on cotton production in Africa for pesticide action network. “Organic cotton in Sub-Saharan
Africa.” Pesticide News. 2003 http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn62/pn62p4.htm {CDI 07 SS}

Organic cotton production in Africa is about bringing improvements in livelihoods through poverty alleviation. In economic terms
premium prices can translate into additional farm income, (as in Uganda and in Tanzania). It is also about poverty alleviation in
terms of health and socio-economic changes, where organic cotton production replaces relatively high synthetic input cotton
production. For these reasons, organic cotton should be promoted in sub-Saharan Africa whilst acknowledging the different
farming realities.
   Scaling-up organic cotton production in East Africa (Uganda, Tanzania) is actually about market development. It is about the
creation of new consumer markets for certified organic cotton fibre and eco-textiles. Commercial and non-commercial efforts
could work together to overcome the critical thresholds that so far block large-scale consumer demand for organic cotton and eco-
textiles, i.e. the availability of affordable organic cotton products (fibre, yarns, fabrics, end-products) to textile and clothing
processors and end-consumers alike. Governments could support that process by shopping sustainably themselves, by lowering
value-added tax (VAT) on organic products, by providing beneficial credit loan schemes, and by encouraging their textile
industries and trade into more sustainable practices.
   Scaling-up organic cotton production in West and Southern Africa (Benin, Mali, Senegal, Zimbabwe), in contrast, is about
changing cotton production practices. It is about rural change. It is about improving the quality of life in poverty-stricken rural
areas, in terms of health and environment. Organic cotton production provides free environmental goods and services to all
inhabitants of the growing areas and contributes to poverty alleviation in particular for those suffering most: lower income groups,
women, and the indebted. These groups need access to growing practices which fit their realities and needs which are low-cost and
which rely upon locally available resources (human, financial, natural). Changing production systems is a lengthy process: it
requires commitment from producers, supporting structures and donors.
   Scaling-up organic cotton production is likely to be based on the expansion of existing projects. It would mean that the number
of entire villages growing cotton organically increases from tens to hundreds. New projects in and outside the research countries
are needed to increase the impact of organic cotton production experiences on the conventional cotton sectors in sub-Saharan
Africa.




                                                                                                                                  45
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                          CDI 2007



                                                Generic Solvency
The spreading organic approaches will have profound health effects- it should be deployed as widely
as possible
Peter Ton, independent consultant on cotton production in Africa for pesticide action network. “Organic cotton in Sub-Saharan
Africa.” Pesticide News. 2003 http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn62/pn62p4.htm {CDI 07 SS}


Organic cotton production could contribute substantially to the alleviation of poverty in sub-Saharan Africa. It should be promoted
with this objective, while acknowledging the diversity of farming realities that exist in different parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
Organic cotton production should be developed as a viable alternative to conventional in as wide a variety of countries and
production contexts as possible.
  Scaling-up of organic cotton production in sub-Saharan Africa is needed for technical, environmental, organisational, research
and marketing reasons. Technically, organic fertilisation and crop protection will be most effective in zones where no conventional
cotton production takes place, as ecological imbalances will be reduced. The positive impact of organic production methods on the
health of humans, livestock and the environment will also be more profound and measurable in exclusive and continuous organic
cotton production areas.

The benefits of organic farming out weight the costs.
Claire Konkes, May 25, 2007, HM's big dis-appointment, Tasmanian Country. Lexis

However, the Danish researchers said sub-Saharan Africa could afford to turn half the land devoted to exports to organic
operations by 2020. Although crops would be smaller, the amount per crop would be much smaller than previously assumed. And,
they said, the resulting rise in world food prices could be mitigated by improvements in the land and other benefits. The
researchers said that sub-Saharan farmers, as well as cashing in on the growing demand for organic food in North America and
Europe, could help their region's hungry by reducing their dependence on imported foods. Farmers who returned to traditional
agricultural methods would not have to spend money on chemicals and they would grow more diverse and sustainable crops, they
said. Also, if their food was certified organic, farmers would be able to export surpluses at premium prices. Organic agriculture
could secure global food supplies as well as avoid a lot of the environmental effects of synthetic fertilisers, herbicides and
pesticides associated with conventional farming, the researchers said.




                                                                                                                              46
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                       CDI 2007



                                       AT: Cotton trades off with food

Organic farming wouldn’t hurt the cotton industry WINFIELD
NICOLE WINFIELD, Associated Press Writer, May 5, 2007, Switch to Organic Crops Could Help Poor, Associated Press Online,

Organic food has long been considered a niche market, a luxury for wealthy consumers. But researchers told a U.N.
conference Saturday that a large-scale shift to organic agriculture could help fight world hunger while improving the
environment. Crop yields initially can drop as much as 50 percent when industrialized, conventional agriculture using chemical fertilizers and
pesticides is converted to organic. While such decreases often even out over time, the figures have kept the organic movement largely on the
sidelines of discussions about feeding the hungry. Researchers in Denmark found, however, that food security for sub-Saharan
Africa would not be seriously harmed if 50 percent of agricultural land in the food exporting regions of Europe and
North America were converted to organic by 2020.




                                                                                                                                            47
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                            CDI 2007



                                             AT: Farmers Want It
Farmers don’t understand what they are getting into
Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, a researcher with Biowatch South Africa, “BT Cotton IN South Africa.” April 2005
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=330. {CDI 07 SS}
There is an utter lack of awareness amongst the farmers of GM cotton and its implications. Bt cottonseed is more expensive than
other cotton because of the license fee payable to Monsanto. Every grower must sign a Monsanto Technology Agreement, called a
"certificate" by the small-scale farmers, agreeing not to save or exchange seed or rattoon [24] any Bt cotton and to plant a refuge.
During the 2001 survey, only one farmer understood the contents of the contract. Of the 36 farmers surveyed in 2003, only 6
indicated that they understood the contracts or knew about refuges. Monsanto clearly did not consider the high illiteracy rate
amongst their small farmer clients nor the dominant language spoken by them (Zulu).                Farmers in the area get little
support, and rely on seed and chemical sales people for information. There is no monitoring of insect resistance nor has any
environmental impact assessment been done in the area. Officially the KwaZulu Department of Agriculture is doing extension
work in the area. However, when farmers were asked where they get advice from, none mentioned government extension services
while a number said that they had no advice at all. Most of the respondents indicated that they get advice from Vunisa (which was
still operating at the time), Monsanto or Delta & Pineland. Buthelezi, from the Ubongwa Farmers Union, was also singled out as
an advisor.




                                                                                                                               48
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                           CDI 2007



                                  AT: GMO Cotton Helps Farmers
Conventional cotton has done nothing improve farmers’ livelihood.
Ferrigno, Farmer Development Program Director at the International Institute for Environment and Development. et al., “Organic
Cotton.” 2005 http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14512IIED.pdf {CDI07 SS}


Cotton is vulnerable to pests, especially when grown as a monoculture. Large quantities of acutely toxic pesticides are used in its
production, often leading to severe and fatal poisonings of humans and livestock in developing countries. Case studies show rising
pesticide costs and disillusionment among cotton farmers (PAN UK 2003). Farmers in Benin tell how insecticide costs rose by
86% between 1999 and 2000. They spent an average of US$97 per hectare on insecticides in 2001 and many made losses as cotton
prices remained almost static. In Senegal in 2000-01, insecticide costs were over US$50 per ha for cotton compared with US$25
for maize and US$2 for groundnut. The high pesticide prices paid by farmers are a great source of extra profit for cotton
companies, while farmers receive a fraction of cotton market prices despite paying market prices for inputs (PAN UK, 2003). In
Senegal, farmers’ cotton income fails to cover household expenses and according to SODEFITEX (the Senegalese part privatised
cotton company), farmers producing less than one tonne/ha will not be able to repay debts. In our case study district average yields
only once exceeded this figure in six years. In Benin reliance on cotton has failed to improve food security. Where 90% of
households were food secure in 1990, only 3% were by 2001, with 11% (most of whom probably started growing cotton in the
1980s) in serious difficulties (PAN UK, 2003). The average pesticide cost per hectare for cotton farmers interviewed has risen by
80% since 2000, while incomes have stagnated.

The upkeep of conventional cotton that requires pesticides is too expensive for farmers.
Ferrigno, Farmer Development Program Director at the International Institute for Environment and Development. et al., “Organic
Cotton.” 2005 http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14512IIED.pdf {CDI07 SS}

In Ghana average cotton farmers in Tamale spend some US $43 a year on medical treatment as a result of pesticides poisoning and
lose some 20 working days a season (equivalent to the loss of between a further US $1.2 and 1.6 a day based on average farm
labour incomes), a huge expense in a country where 45% of the population live on less than a dollar a day (UNDP, 2003; Hodgson,
2003). Pesticides account for up to 60% of production costs (Williamson, 2003b), with an average of 30% being the norm in West
Africa (Ton, 2001). This disproportionately affects poorer farmers. Such costs have to be paid even when the crop is affected by
other factors (e.g., weather). Even with a potential 20-30% loss of yield during conversion to organic production, greatly reduced
production expenses improve farmer access to cash income, even before premiums are paid.




                                                                                                                               49
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                           CDI 2007



                 **Answers to Counterplans/Disads**




                                                          50
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                                       CDI 2007



                                                           AT: Country PICS
Countries with substantial governmental issues would not be included in AGOA; means that they
don’t get access
The Herald (Harare) Zimbabwe moving towards inclusion in AGOA. 3/26/04
http://www.tralac.org/scripts/content.php?id=2505
Zimbabwe has managed to meet various preconditions necessary for its inclusion in the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). This is according to US
Embassy Economic and Commercial Chief, William Weissman, who indicated in a seminar yesterday that Zimbabwe had made significant progress in the
economic field and so would find itself more likely to be able to be included as one of the AGOA beneficiaries. "The United States looks forward to the day that
Zimbabwe qualifies for Agoa. It has moved closer to qualification after improvements especially in the economic landscape," he said.


If Zimbabwe manages to qualify as an AGOA beneficiary this would raise the number of African
beneficiaries to 39, and allow Zimbabwean traders to have duty-free and quota-free export access to the US
market. Sudan and Angola are other examples of countries that are still not benefiting from AGOA.

Some of the preconditions for incorporation into AGOA include the establishment of market-based
economies, the combating of corruption and poverty, the promotion of political pluralism and the elimination
of barriers that impede US trade and investment, among others. Clearly there is still some way to go with the
latter conditions.




                                                                                                                                                             51
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                         CDI 2007



                                                 AT: Kleptocracy
AGOA solves corruption in African Governmetns
Florizelle Liser, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Africa Office of the United States Trade Representative, Senate Finance
Committee Hearing “US Trade Preferance Programs: How well do they work?” July 12, 2007 {CDI07 SS}
In May 2007, President Bush launched a complementary program, the African Financial Sector Initiative, to help African countries
improve business environments and mobilize significant domestic and international investment. The Overseas Private Investment
Corporation (OPIC) will support the creation of several new private equity funds that will mobilize up to $1 billion of additional
investment in Africa. This investment will address critical gaps in the sources of financing available to African businesses,
including small- and medium-sized enterprises. By September 2007, OPIC will select the first group of funds to support based on
its assessment of developmental impact and potential for success. Moreover, U.S. government agencies will provide targeted
technical assistance to strengthen country and regional debt markets; improve remittance systems in Nigeria and West Africa;
provide banking regulation training; and develop payment systems and credit bureaus. These efforts will help to improve business
competitiveness and foster greater trade ties.




                                                                                                                             52
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                         CDI 2007



                                                AT: Africa Disads
Government forced to relieve farmers debts Costing them 11 billion.
East African Standard, July 4, 2007, Kenya; Cancelled Farmers' Debt Hit Sh11 Billion ,AllAfrica, Inc. Africa News,

The Government has so far waived loans totaling Sh11 billion owed by farmers to revive key agricultural sectors. Agriculture
Minister Mr Kipruto arap Kirwa told farmers that the sector was growing at the rate of negative 1.8 per cent when the Narc
Government assumed power, "We are doing a lot for our farmers," said the minister.

The Cotton industry Key to Ghana’s economy
Daniel Edwards, May 23, 2007, “FARMERS NEEDS TO FORM CO-OPERATIVES”, Financial Times. Lexis

AGRICULTURE IN Ghana is responsible for 41% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Crops such as cocoa, maize and cotton
are grown countrywide providing the raw materials for clothing and food, as well as sustaining the livelihoods of many people.
However, there are some important issues facing farmers and the agricultural industry that need to be addressed, or they could
prove problematic for Ghana in the future.
Crops can easily fail if the weather is too hot, or too wet. Income for the farmer is based on when the harvest is brought in and
therefore is not regular; often farmers will only receive one or two bulk payments a year. This is a problem in that many farmers
are not used to spreading the money out over the financial year, spending much of it in a too short space of time.




                                                                                                                               53
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                           CDI 2007



                                                      AT: Malthus
Conventional cotton farming must end to enable sustainable living
Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, a researcher with Biowatch South Africa, “BT Cotton IN South Africa.” April 2005
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=330. {CDI 07 SS}
Bt cotton has not been the answer to the problems of the Makhathini farmers and has proved to be unsustainable. Their problems
are highly complex and they cannot be resolved by quick techno-fixes. In the specific context of Makhathini, we find that GM
technologies had some initial success, but in the end proved to be too risky for small farmers, leaving them demoralised, in debt,
and ultimately poorer. It has led to a concentration of power in the hands of fewer companies, contributing to greater control by
these corporations. It has also encouraged the concentration of farms, the deskilling of farmers and will inevitably lead to their
displacement from the land.
GM crops should not have been introduced before a serious assessment of the needs of small farmers in South Africa took place,
with an in-depth look at the country's agricultural, food, and rural development policies and in particular, how they benefit the
poor. Ironically, both government and industry promote this technology as the fix for poor farmers - a technology that has been
developed for industrial agriculture.
Yet the results are clear - Bt cotton has failed the Makhathini farmers. And from this, it is clear that Bt cotton and many other GM
crops will fail the majority of farmers throughout Africa. In Africa, small-scale farmers should be able to make choices that
empower them and provide them with opportunities that will ensure food security and sustainable livelihoods, not dependency and
debt.




                                                                                                                               54
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                         CDI 2007



                            AT: CP go organic on other crops first
Cotton is the key crop
Ferrigno, Farmer Development Program Director at the International Institute for Environment and Development. et al., “Organic
Cotton.” 2005
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14512IIED.pdf {CDI07 SS}

Cotton is an important cash crop for many African countries. It ******** for 50 to 70% of export revenues in Benin and is the
second largest export earner in Tanzania (Ton, 2002a). Some 10 million people in Central and West Africa depend on cotton
(Watkins, 2002). However, African cotton is affected by subsidies paid by the USA, European Union and China that undermine
world market prices through overproduction (Linard, 2002; Goreux, 2003, Watkins, 2002); by rising production costs and the
impacts of agrochemicals on human and environmental health (Ton, 2002a; PAN UK, 2003; Williamson, 2003a). For example,
cotton uses 22% of all insecticides applied in agriculture and 11% of all pesticides1 (Allan Woodburn Associates, 1995). Because
of these pressures, many African smallholders are being driven to the margins of economic viability or out of cotton altogether,
and there are few alternative cash crops (PAN UK, 2003; Ton, 2002a). In this paper we argue, drawing on case studies of five
countries in sub-Saharan Africa, that organic cotton offers an opportunity to reduce the human health and economic impacts of
pesticides in Africa, reduce damage to the environment and improve food security and incomes for many smallholder cotton
farmers. But this will only be the case if bigger markets can be created for textiles made from organic fibres and if sustainable
practices can be transferred to other cotton cultivation (Ton, 2002b).




                                                                                                                             55
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                      CDI 2007



                                                  AT: Fertilizer
Organic cotton would substitute pesticides with safer, natural fertilization.
Ferrigno, Farmer Development Program Director at the International Institute for Environment and Development. et al., “Organic
Cotton.” 2005 http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14512IIED.pdf {CDI07 SS}

In sub-Saharan Africa organic cotton is grown to basic standards set by the International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and certified by private agencies. Organic production is
based on sound soil management using indigenous knowledge and research to improve techniques. Pest control
combines indigenous systems and botanical pesticides, particularly those using neem. Fertilisation uses a combination
of animal and green manuring, sometimes adding ingredients such as oil palm processing residue. Most African
organic cotton projects (some of which are NGO led, some private sector led) also put a lot of effort into
capacity building for farmers and communities. There is a learning process to converting, especially in West Africa
where intensification has been greatest. Organic production tends to occur initially through substitution of synthetic
chemical pesticides with preparations based on locally available biological products, usually neem, combined with
ingredients such as cow urine, chilli pepper, garlic, natural soaps and paw paw leaves. Intercropping and trap plants
(such as maize and gombo) are also used. In East Africa, particularly in Uganda where pesticides use and intensive
farming previously had a low impact, techniques include the use of beneficial species and trap crops such as predatory
black ants to reduce populations of insect pests (van Elzakker, 2002). The most common problem pest in all regions is
the bollworm; the preferred organic technique for dealing with these is to encourage predator populations (Ton,
2002a).




                                                                                                                         56
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                CDI 2007



                                                      A/T: Spending
The upkeep of conventional cotton that requires pesticides is too expensive for farmers
Ferrigno, Farmer Development Program Director, et al., 2005
http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdf/full/14512IIED.pdf CDI 07 SS

In Ghana average cotton farmers in Tamale spend some US $43 a year on medical
treatment as a result of pesticides poisoning and lose some 20 working days a
season (equivalent to the loss of between a further US $1.2 and 1.6 a day based
on average farm labour incomes), a huge expense in a country where 45% of the
population live on less than a dollar a day (UNDP, 2003; Hodgson, 2003).
Pesticides account for up to 60% of production costs (Williamson, 2003b), with
an average of 30% being the norm in West Africa (Ton, 2001). This disproportionately
affects poorer farmers. Such costs have to be paid even when the crop is
affected by other factors (e.g., weather). Even with a potential 20-30% loss of yield
during conversion to organic production, greatly reduced production expenses
improve farmer access to cash income, even before premiums are paid.

Sustainable farming is economically viable by offering new opportunities to farmers and farming in substantially different
ways
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Sustainable Agriculture: A Positive Alternative to Industrial Agriculture,”
December 7, 1996. (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Ks-hrtld.htm) TRP CSDI07

At this point an agricultural economist usually enters the discussion and says: "All this dreaming about a healthy environment and
strong communities is quite noble, but there is no way these ‘sustainable’ farmers are going to be able to compete with large-scale,
corporate agriculture in the future." The logical response is: "They are not going to ‘compete’ with industrial agriculture. Future
opportunities for farmers of the future will come from farming in ways which are fundamentally different from ways of both past and
present." The economic logic for a post-industrial agriculture today is just as sound as was the logic for agricultural industrialization
a century ago.




                                                                                                                                    57
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                         CDI 2007



                                                        Topicality
The countries most effected by the plan are Burkina Faso, Mali, Chad and Benin
UPI United Press International, April 9, 2007, Dropping cotton prices shake Africa, U.P.I., [http://web.lexis-
nexis.com/universe/document?_m=1abfb0130fb069d38e0a50df9b0ca79d&_docnum=70&wchp=dGLzVzz-
zSkVb&_md5=1a9297e5f7c39895ab58a2e2ae32f914] CDI 07 ELW

Four years of falling prices on the world market have West Africa's all-important cotton industry on the brink of collapse. World
cotton prices, responsible for nearly 70 percent of impoverished Burkina Faso's cash exports and income for more than a quarter of
its 13 million people, are now at the lowest since the Great Depression of the 1930s, the Times of London said. The market is said
to be reeling because of what locals call "the monster with three heads," namely, the dollar, low world prices and U.S. cotton
subsidies. The United States' 25,000 cotton farmers receive subsidies totaling some $4 billion, reportedly allowing them to
undercut their developing competitors. The World Trade Organization ruled the subsidies illegal three years ago but only 10
percent has been shaved so far, reports say. Global trade talks have stalled as West Africa's four main cotton producers, Burkina
Faso, Mali, Chad and Benin, demand better treatment.




                                                                                                                             58
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                      CDI 2007



                              **A/T: Kritiks**




                                                     59
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                  CDI 2007



                                        Ethical Responsibility to Act
Providing sustainable farming is a matter of ethics—we have an ethical responsibility to act based on
stewardship for the Earth
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “A New Jubilee of Agricultural Sustainability,” December 6, 2003.
(http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Jubilee.htm#_ftn2) TRP CSDI 07

Sustainable farming ultimately is a matter of ethics or morality. Sustainability requires that we leave opportunities for those of future
generations for a quality of life equal to or better than the quality of our lives today. There are no economic incentives for
sustainability. Those of future generations are unable to reward us economically for the resources we choose to leave for them
rather than consume for our own gratification. There are no social incentives for sustainability. We will not be alive during those
future generations, and may have no descendents in those generations, to benefit from the positive social relationships that may
arise from our investments today in a civil and just society for the future. Ultimately, our concerns for sustainability arise from our
sense of moral and ethical responsibility for stewardship of the earth for the benefit of all of life for all times.


Only by recognizing that we are apart of the higher order of nature can we accomplish true stewardship—by ignoring our
obligation to act in favor of sustainable farming we can never discover true meaning
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “A New Jubilee of Agricultural Sustainability,” December 6, 2003.
(http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Jubilee.htm#_ftn2) TRP CSDI 07

True stewardship, acting out of concern for others rather than self, arises from the realization that we are a part of something that
transcends “us” and transcends “now.” Stewardship reflects a belief that we are but a part of a higher order of things, within which
our lives take on purpose and meaning. Our sense of ethics and morality reflect our belief in this higher order, which we cannot
change but with which we must conform. Within this order, “right or wrong” and “good or bad” are defined by acts that are either in
harmony or in conflict with this order. Our individual purpose in life is defined by our unique place and function within this higher
order – through which our lives take on meaning. Our spirituality arises from our belief in this higher order of things, regardless of
whether it arises from a belief in the laws of God or the law of nature. Lacking a sense of spirituality, true stewardship is irrational
and sustainability is of no concern. Thus, sustainable farming ultimately is a matter of ethics and morality – of spirituality.

Guidance for sustainable farming can be found in spiritual principles of righteous living. In the Bible, for example, the people of
Israel were instructed by God to proclaim a year of jubilee every fifty years. “Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty
throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to
his own clan” (Leviticus 25:10). During the year of jubilee, all people were instructed to rest the land, to release the slaves, to
forgive all debts, and to redistribute the land. The year of jubilee was to be a year of rest, renewal, regeneration, and new
beginnings – for the people and for the land[3].




                                                                                                                                      60
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                CDI 2007



                                                Key to Individuality
By reforming natural systems of agriculture we rejuvenate economic and social systems in the image
of nature—this is necessary to maintain a desirable quality of human life
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “A New Jubilee of Agricultural Sustainability,” December 6, 2003.
(http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Jubilee.htm#_ftn2) TRP CSDI 07

Admittedly, many members of society support various actions, both personally and politically, to mitigate the negative ecological
and social consequences of their individual pursuit of self-interests. However, the dominant economic and social systems of today
lack the capacities of living natural system for rest, renewal, and regeneration. If we are to sustain a desirable quality of human life
on earth, our economic and social systems must be recreated in the image of nature. We must create a living society and a living
economy with built-in capacities for rest, renewal, and regeneration. The biblical concept of jubilee could provide a philosophical
cornerstone for a new living economy and living society.

The biblical admonition for periodic rest of the land reflects an understanding of the necessity for ecological integrity in creating and
maintaining sustainable systems. Natural systems have the inherent capacity for sustainability, but they must be allowed times of
restoration, renewal, regeneration, interspersed with times of use and productivity. Sustainable farmers know they must rotate their
fields among various crops, some of which allow the soil to rest, renew, and regenerate the soil, between periods of production for
harvest or economic extraction. Periodic times of jubilee, of renewal for the whole farm, including the farm family, might further
enhance agricultural sustainability.

By creating a sustainable system we allow farmers to make individual choices and reach their full
potential and liberate themselves from traditional economic systems
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “A New Jubilee of Agricultural Sustainability,” December 6, 2003.
(http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Jubilee.htm#_ftn2) TRP CSDI 07

The biblical admonition for periodic release of slaves reflects an understanding of the necessity for social responsibility in creating
and maintaining sustainable systems. Slaves of biblical times are the farm workers of today. Sustainable social systems must
provide opportunities for people, including farmers, to reach their full potential for leading productive, useful, rewarding lives –
regardless of their present circumstances. Sustainable farmers must be given periodic opportunities to relearn and rethink their
work and their life. Sustainability requires periodic introspection and forgiveness of self and others for past errors in thoughts,
words, and actions.

By approaching a socially responsible agriculture we allow for the self-fulfillment of the farmer and
allow them to liberate themselves and become independent
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “A New Jubilee of Agricultural Sustainability,” December 6, 2003.
(http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Jubilee.htm#_ftn2) TRP CSDI 07

A socially responsible agriculture requires equity of opportunity – that all who choose to farm be given an opportunity to realize their
full potential for contribution and self-fulfillment. Today’s “agricultural slaves” are the seasonal farm workers and contract producers
who find themselves at the mercy of corporate agribusiness. Thus, seasonal farm workers, contract farmers, and other wanna-be
farmers must be given opportunities, support, and encouragement to “free themselves” from their current dependence and to
become independent farmers, if they are willing and able to help recreate a sustainable agriculture. Periodic times of jubilee, of
unique opportunity for beginning farmers, might further enhance agricultural sustainability.




                                                                                                                                    61
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                  CDI 2007



                                                 Key to Individuality
By reforming the current agricultural system we move toward agricultural jubilee and allow
individual choices in agriculture—we need not FIAT harmony
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “A New Jubilee of Agricultural Sustainability,” December 6, 2003.
(http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Jubilee.htm#_ftn2) TRP CSDI 07

I am not suggesting that times of jubilee be declared by means of some public fiat or religious decree. I am suggesting that
government farm policies should be redirected from supporting the current extractive and exploitation systems of agricultural
production to supporting, instead, the transition to a more sustainable agriculture. I am also suggesting that the religious concept of
jubilee – of periodic rest for land and people, new opportunities for beginning farmers, forgiveness of debts, and redistribution of
land – are fundamental principles of serious consideration in reformulating agricultural policies.

Perhaps even more important, the concept of jubilee can help guide individual farmers toward greater sustainability and a more
desirable quality of life. Individual farmers need not wait for changes in public policies. Farmers with a sense of spirituality, with a
commitment to finding ways to farm and live sustainably in harmony with the higher order of things, can declare a time of jubilee on
their farms any time they choose.

The concept of jubilee guides the change to sustainable farming and support individual choices in
agriculture—it can not be accomplished through FIAT or decree
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “A New Jubilee of Agricultural Sustainability,” December 6, 2003.
(http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Jubilee.htm#_ftn2) TRP CSDI 07

Sustainable farming depends on living systems. Living systems require periods of rest, renewal, and regeneration. The religious
principles of jubilee are consistent with the requirements of living, sustainable systems of farming. The new jubilee of sustainable
agriculture cannot be accomplished by government fiat or religious decree, but the concept of jubilee is a legitimate principle that
may guide future public policy toward agricultural sustainability. But more important, individual farmers can enhance the
sustainability of their farms and their personal, social, and spiritual quality of life by declaring their own times of jubilee, whenever
they choose.




                                                                                                                                      62
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                    CDI 2007



                                           Key to Individuality
The patenting of GMOs sets a dangerous precedent whereupon everything can be
commodified—this culminates in a world in which the most basic of foodstuffs are owned by
corporations and individual agriculture is restricted
Robert Ali Brac De La Perriere, “Brave New Seeds: The threat of GM crops to farmers” Zed Books Ltd, pg. 73 -4,
2001. TRP CSDI 07

  The patenting of living beings sets a new marketing trend in our society, where everything - or almost everything - can
be bought or sold. Geoff Tansey again:

    Patenting life forms constitutes a significant progress in the larger process which wants to transform life into a
    marketable product and reduce the value of life and nature to a simple economic expression. Patent laws represent
    the balance that society has established between the principle of compensation for inventiveness in a commercial
    and competitive culture, and the principle of making the knowledge drawn from research available, free of cost.
    However, due to increasing privatisation, scientific research seems to be turning its back on the traditional values of
    discussion and open debate, turning, rather, towards confidentiality and secrets. As a consequence, it is to be feared
    that with the increasing power of companies, the grant of patents to living forms may destroy an already unsound
    equilibrium and further strengthen the power of companies, while marginalising issues like human well-being and
    social justice even more. Some groups have appealed for a total rethinking of the way in which innovations in
    agriculture and life sciences are being promoted.3
The long-term danger is that one day the planet's food could become completely dependent on the legal privilege granted
to just a few companies. 'Have we thought about the historically exorbitant price that has to be paid for privatised genetic
progress? Who will keep a check on the monopoly that we are willing to give to Some multinational companies?' asks
Jean-Pierre Berlan.4 If we pursue this reasoning to the end, we will develop a society that flouts fundamental rights.
Farmers are already experiencing the consequences of the privatisation of natural resources that belong to the entire
planet. Their freedom and independence are shrinking fast with the marketing of transgenic crops that are subjected to
very strict conditions. For example, farmers who buy RoundUp-resistant soya bean seeds do not have the right to use
other herbicides. Nor can they keep their seeds to replant them the following year, or exchange them with their neighbours.
What is even worse, Monsanto hires detectives to supervise farmers and check that they are not keeping back a part of
their harvest for sowing the following year. If they do, watch out for the strong arm of the 'law'! The violators have to
destroy their produce and pay damages to the American corporate giant. All this simply for having given a living being the
opportunity to reproduce.




                                                                                                                       63
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                              CDI 2007



                                 Key to Human-Land Relationship
All of human life is dependent on a relationship with the environment—specialized agriculture
destroys these relationships and social interconnectedness which reduces people to mere cogs in an
economic machine
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Reclaiming the Sacred: Sustainable Farming as a Metaphor for
Sustainable Living,” December 1, 2001. TRP CSDI 07 (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Reclaimsacred.html)

Those same relationships exist between industrialization and threats to sustainability for society in general. But, modern society is
extremely complex and the relationships are not quite so clear. All of life, including human life, is dependent upon a healthy natural
environment – water, air, sunlight, soil, and diversity of living species. Industrial systems of economic development degrade the
health of the natural environment in general, just as industrial agriculture degrades the natural productivity of farms. Industrial
systems degrade the productivity of people. As Adam Smith wrote in his Wealth of Nations, regarding division of labor, people who
only perform specialized, routine tasks eventually lose their ability to solve problems, to be innovative and creative. In Smith’s
words, they become “as stupid and ignorant as is possible for a human creature to become.” Industrial systems, in general,
degrade the physical and mental well being of people while they pollute and degrade the natural environment -- just as industrial
agriculture degrades the social and ecological health of rural areas.

With industrial systems, profits and growth take precedent over personal relationships and social responsibility. Specialization and
standardization separate people within families and within communities and devalues human relationships. Relationships among
people are reduced to buying and selling or other forms of legal transactions. As relationships become distant and impersonal,
exploitation of workers, consumers, and taxpayers becomes accepted business practices. The social, ecological, and economic
degradation of America is no different in concept from the demise of our family farms and the ecological, economic, and social
decay of our rural communities. The linkages between cause and effect are just easier to see in agriculture.

Specialization leads to the destruction of relationships for the sake of economics—the human
relationship with the land has been sacrificed
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Reclaiming the Sacred: Sustainable Farming as a Metaphor for
Sustainable Living,” December 1, 2001. TRP CSDI 07 (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Reclaimsacred.html)

The environmental, social, and economic problems confronting American agriculture today are symptoms of the industrialization of
agriculture – specialization, standardization, and consolidation of control. Specialization leads to separation and to the destruction
of interconnectedness. Large-scale, specialized farming operations must rely on commercial fertilizers and pesticides that destroy
the health and productivity of the soil. The demise of family farms is a symptom of simplification, routinization, and mechanization of
farming, which made it both possible and necessary for each farmer to farm more land and invest more capital. As some farms
failed so that others might get larger, local businesses suffered, local schools were lost to consolidation, church pews were left
empty, and rural communities withered and died. Relationships among people and between people and the land were sacrificed for
the sake of physical and economic efficiency.




                                                                                                                                  64
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                              CDI 2007



                                  Key to Human-Land Relationship
Shifts in the American food culture prove that small steps and individual decisions in agricultural
choices can lead to the renewing of human society
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Eating Local: A Matter of Integrity,” June 18, 2005.
(http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Alabama-Eat%20Local.htm) TRP CSDI 07

One by one, these dissonant Americans are creating a new food culture. While this new culture remains somewhat ill defined, some
important characteristics are beginning to emerge. The new American food culture values quality; its members demand that their
food to be safe, wholesome, attractive, and flavorful; they don’t take these things for granted. They also want their food to be
produced in ways that respects people – including farmers and workers in the food system, as well food consumers. And, they want
their food produced in ways that respect the natural environment. They also expect food to be reasonably priced, but price is not the
determining factor in their purchase decisions. They want food that reflects their preferred lifestyles and values. They want food
with integrity. They are willing to compromise, at least to some extent, on cosmetic appearance, convenience, preparation time, and
price in order to ensure the overall integrity of their food.

This new food culture is but one part of a broader, more inclusive new American culture. Psychologist Sherry Anderson and market
researcher, Paul Ray, in their book, The Cultural Creatives, indicate that possibly 50 million already are involved in creating this
new American culture.[5] These cultural creating people believe that relationships are very important, share a strong sense of
community, are committed to social equity and justice, believe that nature is sacred, and are concerned for the natural environment
and ecological sustainability. They also tend to be more altruistic, idealistic, optimistic, and spiritual than is the average American.
They are less materialistic, are less concerned about job prospects, and have fewer financial concerns. These are all characteristics
of people who are concerned about the issues that are driving the new food culture.

These “cultural creatives” have come together through various social movements, including those advocating social justice, civil
rights, human rights, world peace, environmental protection, sustainable development, holistic health, organic foods, and spiritual
psychology. These related streams of concern are merging into a common movement committed to building a more healthy and
sustainable human society. While this group represents less than one-third of the total adult population, their numbers are growing,
and they are far more than sufficient in numbers to support a new sustainable alternative to the quick, convenient, cheap food
system of today.




                                                                                                                                  65
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                     CDI 2007



                                   Key to Human-Land Relationship
The new farmer rejects the idea that one must follow GM crops or fail—they reject conventional
thought and succeed through a strengthened relationship with nature
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Reclaiming the Sacred: Sustainable Farming as a Metaphor for
Sustainable Living,” December 1, 2001. TRP CSDI 07 (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Reclaimsacred.html)

Perhaps most important, these new farmers are challenging the conventional wisdom that farmers must either get bigger, give into
corporate control, or get out of farming. They are challenging the conventional wisdom that farming is just another bottom-line
business, and that farmers who fail to maximize profits are destined to go broke. They are challenging the conventional wisdom
that farmers must adopt the latest science-based technologies, chemical or genetic, or they will become obsolete and fail. They are
challenging the conventional wisdom that a farm is nothing more than a factory without a roof and that fields and feed lots nothing
more than biological assembly lines. They are challenging the conventional wisdom that “man” must conquer and control nature
and that some must fail so that others may succeed. These new farmers are rejecting conventional wisdom and relying instead on
their “common sense.”

The new farmer recognizes that a farm must be ecologically friendly before it can be economically
viable—adopting sustainable agriculture leads to individual choices in agriculture and quality of life
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Reclaiming the Sacred: Sustainable Farming as a Metaphor for
Sustainable Living,” December 1, 2001. TRP CSDI 07 (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Reclaimsacred.html)

Their common sense tells them that they must work with nature, respect their customers, live with integrity, and help each other – if
they are to be truly successful. Their common sense tells them that their farms must be ecologically sound and socially responsible
if they are to be economically viable over the long run. Their common sense tells them that quality of life has personal,
interpersonal, and spiritual dimensions, and that preoccupation with any one of the three destroys the harmony and balance
necessary for a life of quality. Implicitly, if not explicitly, these farmers realize that there is a higher order of things, an order they did
not create nor can they change, to which they must conform if they are to lead lives of purpose and meaning.




                                                                                                                                         66
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                            CDI 2007



                                  Key to Sustainable Environment
Discovering new ways of farming and throwing off the reins of the industrial model are essential to
building a sustainable human society through sustainable farming
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Reclaiming the Sacred: Sustainable Farming as a Metaphor for
Sustainable Living,” December 1, 2001. TRP CSDI 07 (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Reclaimsacred.html)

On the positive side, the keys to building a more sustainable human society are no different in nature from the keys to building a
more sustainable agriculture. Thankfully, farmers all across America and around the world are finding ways to make agriculture
more sustainable. A recent publication of the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program highlights fifty such
farmers from across the United States.1 There are thousands more, each with a unique and different story, but each sharing a
common vision for a more sustainable agriculture. These farmers are creating a new agriculture, and in so doing, are creating a
new metaphor for human society.

This is a “new breed” of farmer, with a new vision for the future. They are rediscovering the roots of agriculture; they are
reconnecting to the land and to each other, and in the process, are redefining farming. They are finding ways to capitalize on the
weaknesses of the industrial paradigm that has dominated agriculture for the past century. They are successfully bucking the trend
toward larger farms, which has meant fewer farms and fewer farmers. They are finding ways to make a better living on smaller
farms, making room for more, rather than fewer, farms and farmers. They are lowering the barriers to farming by creating an
agriculture that depends more on knowledge and understanding of nature, including human nature, and less on capital and access
to technology. This new breed of farmers is creating new opportunities for anyone who has a willingness to work hard, a
commitment to continual learning, and a love of the land and people. They are reconnecting people to the land and to each other
and are creating a new kind of farming for the new century.

Reconnecting with nature through new farming methods and committing oneself to the preservation
of the environment sustains the environment in economically viable ways
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Reclaiming the Sacred: Sustainable Farming as a Metaphor for
Sustainable Living,” December 1, 2001. TRP CSDI 07 (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Reclaimsacred.html)

While there are no blueprints for the new American farm, some fundamental principles are emerging. The new farms tend to be
more diversified than are conventional farms. These farmers are committed to caring for the land and protecting the natural
environment. They work with nature, rather than try to control or conquer nature, and nature is inherently diverse. They fit the farm
to their land and climate rather than try to bend nature to fit the way they might prefer to farm. In most regions, this requires a
variety of crop and animal enterprises. In some regions, however, diversity means crop rotations and cover crops. In other
regions, diversity means managing livestock grazing to achieve diverse plant species or with multiple species of grazing animals.
Through diversification, these new farmers substitute management for the off-farm inputs that squeeze farm profits and threaten the
environment. They are farming in ways that are more economically viable, as well as more ecologically sound, by reconnecting
with nature.




                                                                                                                                67
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                  CDI 2007



                                    Key to Sustainable Environment
Sustainable farming directly challenges the mechanistic, scientific view of agriculture—in order to
sustain human life we must adopt sustainable agriculture
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Reclaiming the Sacred: Sustainable Farming as a Metaphor for
Sustainable Living,” December 1, 2001. TRP CSDI 07 (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Reclaimsacred.html)

The new sustainable paradigm of farming, however, challenges the conventional wisdom of a mechanistic, industrial agriculture.
Sustainable agriculture is firmly rooted in common sense. It embraces respect for the spiritual, the mystery and miracles of life,
without rejecting the science of understanding. Sustainable farmers know that science can be used to gain greater understanding
of the nature of things. But, sustainable farmers also know that there are fundamental laws of nature, including human nature, that
cannot be manipulated by science and technology. Sustainable farming is based on the common sense that we must conform to
the laws of nature rather than the conventional wisdom that science and technology can solve any problem and overcome any
obstacle that nature might present.

Sustainable agriculture is rooted in the belief that plants, animals, people, and all living things are interconnected with each other
and with the earth in some higher order of things that we can neither conquer nor control. If we are to sustain agriculture, and
sustain human life on earth, we must learn to live in harmony within that order – in harmony with the spiritual dimension of reality. If
we are to sustain agriculture, we must return to our common sense.

Organic farming is one way to achieve sustainable agriculture
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Sustainable Agriculture: A Positive Alternative to Industrial
Agriculture,” December 7, 1996. (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Ks-hrtld.htm) TRP CSDI07

Third, the emergence of a post-industrial paradigm in other sectors of the economy provides models of success which farmers may
adapt in solving problems and realizing opportunities in farming and marketing. The success of post-industrial approaches
elsewhere also sends a message of hope for the continued success of those farmers who already are venturing into the new era of
agriculture. They march under the banners of organic farming, alternative agriculture, boidynamic farming, community supported
agriculture, local food systems, and a host of other movements which, by one means or another, address the broad question of
agricultural sustainability.

Sustainable farming has emerged as a way to address problems in the industrial model such as
environmental degradation, individual agriculture, and issues of social equity
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Sustainable Agriculture: A Positive Alternative to Industrial
Agriculture,” December 7, 1996. (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Ks-hrtld.htm) TRP CSDI07

However, many agriculturists cling to the industrial model, firmly convinced that it only needs a bit of fine tuning to make it fit
agriculture.

The paradigm of sustainable agriculture has emerged to solve problems created by the industrial model, primarily pollution of our
environment and degradation of our natural resource base. However, this new paradigm seems capable of creating benefits the
industrial model is inherently incapable of creating, such as greater individual creativity, dignity of work, and attention to issues of
social equity.




                                                                                                                                      68
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                               CDI 2007



                                                 Rethink Land Use
As we learn of better choices we must change farming in order to accommodate those choices in order
to cope with the ever-changing natural environment—human society will fail without evolution in how
we think about the land
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “A New Jubilee of Agricultural Sustainability,” December 6, 2003.
(http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Jubilee.htm#_ftn2) TRP CSDI 07

Finally, the biblical admonition of redistribution of land reflects an understanding of the necessity for overall ecological, economic,
and social renewal and regeneration in creating and maintaining sustainable systems. Natural ecosystems change and evolve over
time to accommodate an ever-changing natural environment. Human society must change over time, as we learn to make better
social choices for the future, or alternatively, as we learn to cope with the adverse consequences of unwise choices of the past.
Economies also must change and evolve over time to accommodate our ever-changing relationships with the land and with each
other. Thus, as responsibility for stewardship of ecological and social resources are passed from one generation to the next,
sustainability requires that it passes from those who adhere to a way of the past to others with a way of thinking more appropriate
for the future. Human society cannot be sustained without continuing evolution in thinking and continuing evolution in paradigms for
choices affecting the quality of life of people and health of the land.

We have an ethical responsibility to preserve the land
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “A New Jubilee of Agricultural Sustainability,” December 6, 2003.
(http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Jubilee.htm#_ftn2) TRP CSDI 07

Sustainable farming requires regenerating the farmer and the farm family, as well as the farm. Farm families do not naturally
regenerate themselves, as farm children are often prepared for and encouraged to seek their future in some occupation other than
farming. Even when farms remain within families, ways of farming must change and evolve from one generation to the next. In
reality, the land does not “belong” to the farmer; the farmer is simply the steward or caretaker of the land. The farmer has a
conditional right to use the land and benefit economically, but that right carries with it the moral and ethical responsibility to leave
the land as good as it was found. These limited use rights may be passed from one generation to the next within families, but along
with the rights passes the responsibilities. New generations within farm families may not be willing or able to accept the
responsibilities that accompany the conditional use rights. Thus, means must be found for redistribution of farmland, from those
who are unwilling or unable to accept the responsibility for moral and ethical use of the land to those who are willing and able to
farm it sustainably. We may find periodic times of jubilee, of redistribution of land, to be necessary for achieving and maintaining a
sustainable agriculture.




                                                                                                                                   69
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                           CDI 2007



                                        GM Crops Control Nature
Genetically modified crops reflect the mechanistic, scientific worldview and are an attempt to control
nature
John Ikerd, Professor Emeritus, University of Missouri, “Reclaiming the Sacred: Sustainable Farming as a Metaphor for
Sustainable Living,” December 1, 2001. TRP CSDI 07 (http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/Reclaimsacred.html)

The industrialization of agriculture was a direct result of this mechanistic, scientific worldview. Farming was one of the last
strongholds for the sacred in the world of science. “Mechanical” processes – using machines to manufacture things from “dead”
matter – were relatively easy to understand and manipulate. But, “biological” processes – involving living organisms, including
humans – proved much more difficult to understand and to manage. Farming and food are fundamentally biological in nature. So it
took far longer to learn to manipulate and control agriculture.

However, science eventually succeeded in taking the mysteries and miracles out of farming – at least out of commercial,
industrialized farming. Science eventually brought nature under its control. People are difficult to understand and manipulate. But,
machines took the laborers out of the fields, so farming became more manageable. Selective breeding brought genetic vagaries
more or less under control. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are but the latest attempts by humans to manipulate and
control other life forms




                                                                                                                              70
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                        CDI 2007



                                                            Biodiversity
Biodiversity and cultural diversity are interrelated—organic agriculture is one way to challenge the
spread of the industrial globalizing model
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.8 2000 TRP CSDI 07

Biodiversity means the diversity of life - the rich diversity of life forms on our beautiful planet. Biodiversity is the very fabric of life - it
provides the conditions for life's emergence and maintenance, and the many different ways in which that life is expressed.
Biological diversity and cultural diversity are intimately related and interdependent. Biodiversity is in fact the embodiment of
centuries of cultural evolution, because humans have co-evolved with other species in the diverse ecosystems of the world.
Biodiversity in its turn has shaped the world's diverse cultures. The erosion of biodiversity and the erosion of cultural diversity are
related. Both have been threatened by the globalization of an industrial culture based on reductionist knowledge, mechanistic
technologies and the commodification of resources.
Throughout the twentieth century it was considered that substitutes could be found for resources supplied by biodiversity:
renewable sources of energy - wood and animal energy - could be replaced by fossil fuel; manure for growing food could be
replaced by the products of fertilizer factories; and medicines could be made from synthetic molecules. But fossil fuels have given
us climate change; agrichemicals have threatened species, undermined soil fertility and human health; and synthetic drugs have
had fatal side effects.

People everywhere are looking for alternatives that will conserve our fellow beings and produce sustainable solutions for human
health and nutrition. Biodiversity and cultural diversity hold the key to these sustainable alternatives. Around the world organic
agriculture is again in favour and on the increase, and alternative medicine, inspired by Chinese, Indian and other indigenous
knowledge systems is gaining popularity even in the West.

Genetic engineering destroys biodiversity—this culminates in the destruction of the livelihoods of the
Third World and the commodification of food and medicine
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.9 2000 TRP CSDI 07

However, while the movement for the rejuvenation of bio-cultural diversity is growing, new threats are emerging. Economic
globalization is rapidly expanding biological and social monocultures, pushing out the diversity that remains. New technologies,
such as genetic engineering, are creating new risks of biopollution while increasing chemical pollution.

The destruction of biodiversity translates into the destruction of the diversity of the livelihoods of the large majority of Third
World people who make their living as farmers, fishermen, craftspeople and healers. The diversity of life forms is also fast
becoming the 'green oil' or raw material for the next industrial revolution based on the emerging biotechnologies. Industry is
reorganizing itself as the 'life sciences' industry, changing property laws, environmental laws and trade policies to create markets
for genetically engineered products and to establish monopolies in the vital sectors of food and medicine




                                                                                                                                            71
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                CDI 2007



                                                        Biodiversity
Biodiversity is essential to economic survival—it is the basis of Two Thirds of the world’s population
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.19 2000 TRP CSDI 07
Biodiversity is not just a conservation issue, it is an issue affecting economic survival. Biodiversity is the means of livelihood and the
'means of production' of the poor who have no access to other assets or means of production. For food and medicine, for energy
and fibre, for ceremony and crafts the poor depend on the wealth of biological resources and on their knowledge and skills related
to biodiversity. As biodiversity disappears, the poor are further impoverished and deprived of the healthcare and nutrition that
biodiversity provides. The consumption patterns of the rich and the production patterns of the powerful can undermine the
consumption patterns of the poor by contributing to the erosion of biodiversity.
   Agricultural biodiversity is the basis of economic life for two-thirds of the world's population - those people who live in rural
economies in the Third World. The diversity of crop varieties and animal breeds have been developed as a response to the
diversity of different ecosystems. Rice varieties have been developed to grow in flooded regions and in rainfed mountain slopes.
Cattle breeds have been developed to match the climate in deserts and in wet rainforest regions.


Frameworks of control over the Third World rob them of their biological wealth and give it to the
North destroying the environment and economics of these countries
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.25 2000 TRP CSDI 07

   In spite of the immeasurable contribution that Third World biodiversity has made to the wealth of industrialized countries, corpo-
rations, governments and aid agencies of the North continue to create legal and political frameworks to make the Third World pay
for what it originally gave. The emerging trends in global trade and technology work inherently against justice and ecological
sustainability. They threaten to create a new era of bio-imperialism, built on the biological impoverishment of the Third World and
the biosphere. Patents, industrialization of food and agriculture, globalization of trade through the rules of WTO are the new
mechanisms by which the biological wealth of the South is being transferred to the North, leaving the Third World poorer both
ecologically and economically.




                                                                                                                                    72
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                CDI 2007



                                                        Biodiversity
Colonialism and homogenization are intrinsic to the destruction of biodiversity—the idea of development is used to create
the idea the idea of One World by claiming that Occidental worldview is the only way to view the Earth
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.25-26 2000 TRP CSDI 07

Third World countries located in the tropics have been endowed with great biological wealth and are the cradle of biodiversity. This
wealth is being rapidly destroyed. In my view there are two root causes. The first arises from the 'empty-earth' paradigm of
colonization, which assumes that ecosystems are empty if not taken over by Western industrial man or his clones. For five hundred
years, colonization has been based on the idea of the 'emptiness' of the earth and of other cultures. The assumption of the empty
land leads to the denial of prior inhabitants and their prior rights. The idea of emptiness also leads to the notion of limitlessness -
that there are no limits set by nature or other cultures to be respected, no ecological or ethical limits, no limits to the level of greed
or accumulation. The empty-earth hypothesis in addition creates a divided world - divisions which exist and deepen even in
globalization, and were evident in the failed round of the WTO talks in Seattle. 'To us they cannot come, our land is full; to them we
may go, their land is empty.' (Robert Cushman 1621, quoted in Kadir, Columbus and the Ends of the Earth, 1992.) Creating clones of
Western forms of industrial production and excessive consumption is called 'development' but is actually 'maldevelopment'. (Shiva,
Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development, 1998.) This view threatens other species and other cultures to extinction because it
is blind to their existence, their rights and to the impact of the colonizing culture.
    The second cause is what I have described as the mono culture of the mind: the idea that the world is or should be uniform and
 one-dimensional, that diversity is either disease or deficiency, and monocultures are necessary for the production of more food
 and economic benefits (Shiva, Monocultures of the Mind, 1993)· It is the scientific and technological reflection of the empty-earth
 worldview. The shutting out of alternative ways of knowing and making leads to the assumption that the dominant knowledge and
 techniques are the only option. This mono culture of the mind destroys biodiversity by blocking the perception of the multiple
 benefits and uses of biodiversity.


The loss of biodiversity spreads disease—AIDS may have had a similar beginning
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.84 2000 TRP CSDI 07

The erosion of biodiversity can also facilitate the spread of infectious diseases - in fact, diseases can be viewed as species
invasions at the bacterial and viral level. The Kayasanur Forest Syndrome was a fatal disease spread by monkeys into human
populations in South India as the forest habitat was destroyed. The theory is often put forward that AIDS had similar beginnings. It
is this disease and invasive species model that provides the most relevant lessons for anticipating and assessing the risks of
genetic engineering.




                                                                                                                                    73
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                              CDI 2007



                                                       Biodiversity
The paradigm of the Genetic Mine operates in the same way that maps of territory do—it uses borders
to reorganize the biological world and convert its inhabitants into raw materials to be managed.
Biotech commodifies culture and species pushing both to extinction as the pillaging blindly rages on to
satisfy the West.
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.27 2000 TRP CSDI 07

 There are two competing paradigms shaping the future of biodiversity. The first is the ecological paradigm, which views humans as
 one among many species - as part of an Earth Family in which all members have an intrinsic value and are linked to each other in
 webs of reciprocal life support. It views all living organisms as complex, selforganized and constantly changing dynamic systems.
 Then there is the paradigm of the Genetic Mine. It views species, including human beings, merely as deposits of genes to be
 exploited by the new tools of genetic engineering. This paradigm is based on genetic reductionism, which reduces biology to
 genes and turns genes into commodities, ignoring the complexity of internal and external interactions that shape living systems.
 The hype for the 'genome map' is an example of the Genetic Mine idea - maps are made for prospecting for minerals, and the
 genome map is a guide to genetic mining. But, like maps of territory, genome maps do not tell the full story about life or
 biodiversity. To refer to the 'working draft' of 3.1 billion chemical letters of the human genome as the 'Book of Life', or to say with
 Bill Clinton 'Today we are learning the language in which God created life' is no longer science; it is a new mythology for
 reorganizing the biological world into raw material for the biotechnology industry. This reorganization also leads to the pirating of
 Third World resources and of indigenous knowledge, which are considered to acquire 'value' only when 'processed' into patentable
 commodities. It robs nature and cultures of their creativity. Diverse species and diverse cultures and knowledge systems are
 therefore destroyed, and they are pushed into extinction even as they are mined for the building of corporate empires.


Biodiversity is at the center of the clash of worldviews—we must resolve the biodiversity conflict in
order preserve the future of humanity
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.28 2000 TRP CSDI 07

   Those who depend on biodiversity for survival know they must keep that diversity alive. Their economic values therefore merge
with ecological values and the intrinsic value of each species. This is evident from the fact that in sustainable indigenous cultures,
the species on whom humans depend most is a sacred species, held in reverence and conserved, even while being utilized for
sustenance. In an industrial society there is no sacred and no intrinsic value of a species since this interferes with exploitation.
Ecological values that generate the need for conservation and economic values that promote limitless exploitation are in conflict.
Biodiversity is the centre of a clash of paradigms, worldviews and cultures. How these conflicts are resolved will determine the
future of biodiversity and the future of humanity.




                                                                                                                                  74
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                   CDI 2007



                                                          Biodiversity

Agricultural biodiversity is key to secure a relevant food supply for the Third World
Derrick A. Purdue, “Anti-GenetiX: The emergence of the anti-GM movement,” Ashgate Pub Ltd. pg. 4 2001 TRP CSDI 07

From the late 1970s, NGOs began to perceive a similar crisis developing within agriculture, where domesticated varieties, species
and whole farming systems were disappearing. Again it was argued that the poor in the South were principal losers, as this diversity
was once again a key set of resources in maintaining their livelihoods. Agricultural biodiversity may be defined as the global stock of
plant genetic resources, mainly consisting of the varieties of crops cultivated in the Third World and their wild relatives, such as the
thousands of potato species and varieties grown in the Andes. This biodiversity is vital to maintaining a varied agriculture and
secure food supply for poor
people.

The emergent anti-GM movement appropriated the frame of biodiversity to insist that agricultural biodiversity is, if anything, more
important than 'natural' biodiversity. The value of biodiversity in crops is that genetic variation allows adaptation to changing
conditions, such as weather, pests and weeds, as well as changing human food needs and desires - growing season, taste, texture,
suitability for different cooking styles. In Britain for example, varieties of apple have been bred to fruit consecutively through most of
the year.

Monoculture and the industrial model forced upon these countries leads to a dangerous chemical cycle in which
farmers in the Third World and will be unable to combat the risks of loss of biodiversity and changing conditions
Derrick A. Purdue, “Anti-GenetiX: The emergence of the anti-GM movement,” Ashgate Pub Ltd. pg. 5-6 2001 TRP CSDI
07

Erosion of agricultural biodiversity is not, however, simply a matter of heavy-handed regulation. In the USA, where 'Farmers
Varieties' and 'Heritage Varieties' are marketable, 90% of fruit and vegetable varieties available at the turn of the century have still
been lost (Fowler and Mooney, 1990). The vertical integration of the seed and agro-chemical industries allows a company, such as
Monsanto, to use biotechnology to develop and patent a genetically engineered variety of soya beans, which is resistant to its own
in-house herbicide, Roundup. This soya bean went into the UK food chain at Christmas 1996. The monoculturalist tendency of
industrialized agriculture combines with new technology, economic globalization and regulation of Intellectual Property Rights
(IPRs) to produce a galloping biodiversity crisis in agriculture.

At the global level the causes of agricultural biodiversity loss are similar, with the rapid increase in industrialized agriculture utilising
Fl Hybrids in monocultures. However, patenting threatens to add a new dimension. Patenting of seeds became possible with the
application of genetic engineering techniques to plants. A patent means that not only must a royalty be paid on purchase of the
original seed, but that any seed that a farmer grows and then re-plants or sells, would infringe the patent. Many of the patents
currently held are for varieties that are resistant to a herbicide produced by the same company as the seeds. Critics believe that the
move to patenting will tie farmers more tightly into a chemically driven farming system, which is not in the long term interests of
producers or consumers. Small farmers in the South will lose genetic diversity of their crops, and with biodiversity loss, they will
lose their ability to reduce the risks posed changing conditions.




                                                                                                                                       75
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                           CDI 2007



                                                      Colonialism
Genetically modified crops have opened the floodgates for patents on life—the West will use these patents to create a
dependency and poverty for those that are currently poor and deprives them from their primary source of health and
nutrition
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.39 2000 TRP CSDI 07

   The limits of the market system in assigning value can hardly be a reason for denying the high ecological and social value of
farmers' and nature's seeds. It points more to the deficiency of the logic of the market than the status of the seed or the farmers'
intellect. There is no justification for treating some germ plasm as valueless and common heritage and another germplasm as a
valuable commodity and private property.
   The impact of patents on life and seed goes much further than rendering invisible the innovation of millions over millennia. They
also convert a freely accessible common property of farmers and peasants into a commodity bought for every planting season. The
creation of markets and corporate profits through patents and intellectual property is simultaneously the creation of poverty, debt
and dependence for the poor. The injustice of this process is double since the biodiversity which is patented first came from Third
World countries.

Patents and Biopiracy
Biodiversity and knowledge have been freely exchanged from community to community and from culture to culture. Free exchange
has made everyone rich, intellectually and materially. However, the expansion of patents to cover life forms threatens to rob the
poor of their wealth and of their primary capital for meeting health and nutrition needs.

These patents operate to give the West profit at the expense of the very survival of the Third World
poor
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.44 2000 TRP CSDI 07

Patents on indigenous knowledge rob the poor of their knowledge and skills - their capacity to meet their needs at zero or low cost
from their local biodiversity. For corporations like Grace, RiceTec and Monsanto, the conversion of biology and indigenous
knowledge into a global commodity is a source of limitless profits. For the Third World poor, the appropriation of their biological
wealth and knowledge is a source of new poverty and new destitution. If the poor had to pay royalties for every seed they plant and
every herbal medicine they prepare, they could not survive.




                                                                                                                               76
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                      CDI 2007



                                                    Colonialism
The West uses patents to rob the Third World of their unique plant heritage in a new form of
colonialism
Robert Ali Brac De La Perriere, “Brave New Seeds: The threat of GM crops to farmers” Zed Books Ltd, pg. 74 -5,
2001. TRP CSDI 07

 Such abuse is even more blatant in developing countries. For here the patenting of living beings is accompanied by a
positive plundering of knowledge and of a unique plant heritage. Some see it as a new form of colonialism and
plundering of the resources of the Third World. Biotech companies that patent certain plant varieties, without financially
compensating the local farmers, deprive them of the fruit of their labour. For, from generation to generation, it is the
farmers who have maintained this rich biodiversity, not found anywhere else in the world. 'In industrialised countries,
patents are granted to breeders with the aim of proteping the creation of new cultivars. This practice is totally unjust
towards the countries of the South,' declares Kakule Kasonia, a Congolese scientist working for a Belgian data bank
dedicated to traditional veterinary medicine.

In fact, the latter contribute tremendously to seed and gene banks, but are denied the use of them. Once they have been
crossed with other varieties, varieties that have been naturalised, cultivated, and improved by generations of farmers from
the South are protected by patents and resold at exorbitant rates to their country of origin, as if they were new and different
varieties, without taking into account the efforts of generations of farmers who had earlier contributed to improving these
varieties.




                                                                                                                          77
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                CDI 2007



                                                        Biotech Bad
Other life forms have a right to evolve freely—biotechnology destroys the rights of these other living
things by reducing them to sources of material and profit
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.16 2000 TRP CSDI 07

   All life forms have an intrinsic worth and a right to evolve freely on their own terms. Humankind is one among millions of other
species. It does not have a right to push other species to extinction, or to manipulate them for greed, profit and power without
concern for their wellbeing. Compassion for all living things has been the basis of most ancient faiths in the world, and is the basis
of contemporary movements for animal welfare, for wilderness protection and for the conservation of biodiversity. Native Americans
refer to other species as brothers and sisters. In India we think in terms of the Earth Family.
   For agribusiness, the biotechnology industry and the technicians who serve them, however, other species have value only as
sources of raw material and profit, and can be manipulated and engineered regardless of their welfare. For instance, cows are just
udders for the maximization of milk production using recombinant bovine growth hormones (rbgh). Sheep are 'mammalian
bioreactors' for the production of pharmaceuticals in their mammary glands. Microbes and plants are sources of genes and provide
substances which can be extracted, recombined with other organisms, patented, and bought and sold in global markets.


Biotech leads to the strongest form of IPRs—they destroy sustainable farming and lock Third
World farmers into the industrial cycle made by the West in which farmers are forced to pay
for materials once indigenous to the country
Derrick A. Purdue, “Anti-GenetiX: The emergence of the anti-GM movement,” Ashgate Pub Ltd. pg. 1-2 2001 TRP
CSDI 07

GM (genetically modified) food became the subject of public debate in the late 1990s as it began to arrive in supermarkets. Much of
this discussion focused on potential health risks associated with the uncertainty inherent in the technology. In the UK, BSE and to a
lesser extent other food crises, have reduced public trust in the food industry and government regulation. In this context GM food
has often taken the shape of a consumer protection issue. Yet biotechnology has potentially far-reaching impacts for food
producers as well, particularly in the Third World, through what might seem like the back door, namely patents. Patents are the
strongest form of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) through which technological ideas can be owned and rented out to others.
Laying claim to new patents is a potent economic driver in this whole new field of scientific and technological endeavour, which may
well hold the key to the genetic base of agriculture in the twenty first century. The majority of GMOs produced, patented and
released are plants. From this angle, patenting seeds puts corporate profit before sustainable agriculture or social justice for Third
World farmers.

Advocates of biotechnology claim it can produce the super-crops that will feed the world, by introducing new traits to food crops,
such as resistance to drought, frost or pests. In fact, the development of genetically engineered crops has been driven by their
patentability and the profits these patents are hoped to generate, with little concern for social justice central to any viable solution
to food shortages. A common strategy has been for a company to patent new varieties that are resistant to the herbicides already
patented by the same company. Monsanto, for example, have produced a matched pair with their herbicide Roundup, and
Roundup-resistant soya beans. Rather than crucial innovation, much of this corporate effort is directed to locking farmers into an
industrial food cycle where they pay rent on genetic material that they no longer control. Patenting also allows the privatization of
presently available crops with minor genetic change, as has been done with the spice turmeric or basmati rice, both widely used in
Indian cooking, and parts of the Neem tree long used as toothpaste in India. Patents are pending on potatoes and chickpeas
amongst many others.




                                                                                                                                    78
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                              CDI 2007



                                                            Biotech
Biotech patents erase the distinction between invention and discovery—so that through a Promethian
discourse farmers can be subject to these corporations through discovery of nature in the Third World
Derrick A. Purdue, “Anti-GenetiX: The emergence of the anti-GM movement,” Ashgate Pub Ltd. pg. 17-18 2001 TRP
CSDI 07

 The dominant discourse of patent law is a Promethian discourse. 'Promethians have unlimited confidence in the ability of humans
 and their technologies to overcome any problems presented to them - including what can now be styled as environmental
 problems' (Dryzek, 1997: 45). Promethian discourse subordinates passive nature to active human society, body to mind, tradition
 to expertise. As a legitimating discourse of rampant industrialization, it also subordinates farmers or citizens to high-tech
 corporations. Philosophically Promethians side with innovation and human creativity, but politically and economically patents side
 with the rich and powerful.
        A grand narrative rooted in patent law is the absolute separation between the realm of the natural world and the realm of
human endeavour. Patenting separates technological inventions as human constructions from the raw material of these
inventions. Raw materials include the natural world and knowledge of this natural world in the form of scientific discoveries. Thus a
central epistemological distinction is made in patent law between discovery and invention. Nature is discoverable through science,
while the social realm is created by human beings in the form of technology or the arts. It is this second realm which comes about
by human labour that therefore attracts property rights in the form of patents on technology and copyrights on artistic work.
Discoveries as such are not protected, though the form in which they appear as journal articles carry copyrights. While these
discoveries are claimed by individuals and require acknowledgement and are thus financially valuable in career terms to their
authors, they do not carry any power over the subsequent use made of the content of the discovery. Indeed scientific papers are
often conceptualized as contributions to public knowledge. In a copyright it is the way things are written not the usefulness of the
information contained which is at issue. The copyrighted text is a narrative of who did what and it is the particular narrative that is
owned. A patent on the other hand controls all possible embodiments of the knowledge contained.
        Yet this modernist split between the human and the natural (Bauman, 1990) has been questioned by twentieth century
philosophy. Scientific discoveries have been viewed as 'metaphoric re-descriptions of nature' (Rorty, 1989: 16) and hence creative
human acts of language making, and not as is implied by patent law the uncovering of objective truth given by nature. Science is
then recast in a creative, technological mould, thereby erasing the distinction between scientific discoveries and inventions. Latour
(1987; 1988; 1993), in his studies on science and technology, has argued that the clear distinction between the two is untenable,
substituting the term technoscience to describe a continuous field of activity. Thus the development of the scientific field of
genetics, the technology of recombinant DNA and indeed the patent claims are moving together. Can the knowledge of the location
of a particular gene (science) really be separated from the diagnostic test for it (technology)? Equally, when this research is done in
the private sector (or even the profitdriven public sector) can this knowledge claim be separated from the property right it
embodies? In effect the social conditions under which biotechnology operates has shaped research to such an extent that
knowledge often only appears in a patentable form. Discoveries and inventions are best distinguished as products of competing
genres of textual discourse. Scientific journal articles by definition reveal discoveries, whereas patents disclose inventions. The
same authors may present the same ideas in both arenas, simply by rewriting to follow different discursive conventions (Myers,
1995).




                                                                                                                                 79
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                               CDI 2007



                                                            Biotech
Biotech destroys the individual creativity of the farmer by conflating their labor with natural
selection—this allows the West to take credit for Third World farmer accomplishments
Derrick A. Purdue, “Anti-GenetiX: The emergence of the anti-GM movement,” Ashgate Pub Ltd. pg. 23 2001 TRP CSDI
07

An inventive step is thought to have occurred when 'the invention is not obvious to a person skilled in the art' (Bainbridge, 1992:
267). Again this innocuous craft definition of creativity covers an important distinction in knowledge-power. Even when collected,
local farmers' seeds are not viewed as plant varieties, but as landraces or 'primitive cultivars' and grouped with wild plants as 'exotic
germplasm' - genetic material falling outside the expert system. Farmers' varieties are thus classified as raw material for scientific
plant breeders, conflating farmers' skilled labour with natural selection. The separation of individual creativity from tradition is
difficult enough where there are agreed cultural parameters. At a global level it generates a politically and ideologically charged
relationship of unacknowledged intellectual debt between first world experts and third world farmers, transferring credit for the
skilled work of the farmers to western individual experts and corporations.




                                                                                                                                   80
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                           CDI 2007



                                            Industrial Models Bad
Industrial models in globalization homogenize cultures and create a standard that the most
impoverished can not keep up with—this pushes these people further into poverty and seals off all
recourse
Vandana Shiva, Physicist, Director of Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, “Tomorrow’s Biodiversity,”
Thames and Hudson, pg.17 2000 TRP CSDI 07

   As the food industry becomes more concentrated and integrated, uniformity is the result, and the globalization of consumption
patterns, by creating mono cultures and destroying diversity, has a devastating effect on the poorest on the planet. First, they are
pushed into deeper poverty by being forced to 'compete' with globally powerful forces to gain access to the local biological
resources. Secondly, their economic alternatives outside the global market are destroyed.




                                                                                                                               81
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                             CDI 2007



                                             Hegemonic Discourse
Mobilising against GM crops is critical in questioning hegemonic discourses
Derrick A. Purdue, “Anti-GenetiX: The emergence of the anti-GM movement,” Ashgate Pub Ltd. pg. 8-9 2001 TRP
CSDI 07

The concept of governance has been used to indicate a steady shift from government to greater participation of first the private
sector, and then civil society in the policy process, across a wide range of policy areas. Governance may be local (Stoker, 1998),
national (Jessop, 1995) or global (Giddens, 1998). Yet global governance presents peculiar problems. International relations as a
discipline has always been absorbed by the problem that international society exists without a world government (Shaw, 1993).
International agreements and institutions that have emerged from states have co-operating to deal with international or global
problems have come to be known as international regimes. Different theories suggest that in regimes (1) each state acts as a self
interested actor, or (2) the regime is dominated by a hegemonic power, or (3) all member states enter a partnership for collective
gain (Young, 1989). An interlocking network of international regimes - the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Commission on
Biological Diversity (CBD), UPOV and the Food and Agriculture Organization (F AO) - now regulate patenting and biodiversity
globally. This network constitutes a new form of global governance. While governance may seem more open to influence than an
institutionally unified government, the same powerful actors and discourses play through all the separate fora. The positivist model
on global hegemony available in International Relations theory depends too heavily of a single state acting as undisputed hegemon.
A poststructuralist model of incomplete hegemony (Laclau, 1990) and hegemonic projects (Hall, 1988), developed at a national
level, needs to be extended to global hegemonic projects. Similarly, regulatory regimes are not discreet objects, but texts referring
to a web of other texts in a global intertext (Der Derian 1992). While the USA may not be an undisputed global hegemon, a
hegemonic discourse consisting of theneo-liberal'governmentalities' (Thrift, 1999) that have restructured economies and reshaped
attitudes to property rights, including intellectual property rights, runs through global governance. The economic interests of the
biotechnology industry, particularly the agrochemical transnationals, framed in the expert discourse of patent law, are woven into
the project of making IPRs over genes and seeds globally uniform.

This hegemonic project is a discourse coalition (Hajer, 1995) of a complex articulation of scientific, biological, legal and economic
expert discourses, linking social actors such as biotechnology companies, lobby groups, agro-chemical transnational corporations,
seed companies and national governments. The key story line of this coalition is that technology, social progress and corporate
profits are indissolubly linked. It draws on a wider 'Promethian discourse' (Dryzek, 1997) that claims that all environmental problems
are soluble through technological ingenuity, precisely of the sort that patents are supposed to reward. Opening up this project to
public scrutiny is a key role, played by the anti-GM movement.




                                                                                                                                 82
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                                           CDI 2007



                                                   Hegemonic Discourse
Genetic patenting is a means by which the rich rob the poor of their biological wealth—this creates an
expert discourse in which impersonal, testable knowledge is used to capture knowledge from the
South. Must adopt a counter-expert critical discourse to stop biotech from profiting from poverty and
rights restrictions.
Derrick A. Purdue, “Anti-GenetiX: The emergence of the anti-GM movement,” Ashgate Pub Ltd. pg. 16-17 2001 TRP
CSDI 07

 The whole development of biotechnology as a new technology has gone hand in hand with an attempt to extend patenting into the novel
 territory of genetics. Unlike nuclear power, which was born of the post war social democratic consensus, biotechnology has bloomed in the
 harsher climate of the neo-liberal privatization and structural adjustment. In this period which has simultaneously seen the globalization and
 restructuring of the economies of the world towards knowledge-intensive forms and decisive shifts in the balance between the private and public
 sectors, intellectual property is becoming ever more important (Lash and Urry, 1994). The controversy over genetic patenting centres on
 whether it is ethical to extend a strong form of intellectual property from its mechanical industrial heartland to living organisms. Contentious
 areas include material taken from human bodies, natural organisms and processes, and seeds. Plant genetic resources (primarily seeds),
 generate the crops that feed the human population as well as provide medicines, clothing and other resources. Advocates claim that genetic
 patenting is an extension of the rational system for ownership of technology required for the development of the new dynamic biotechnology,
 with great potential for human welfare. Critics, however, view genetic patenting as an attempt by the biotechnology industry of the rich North to
 capture the gene wealth of the otherwise poor South without compensation. This chapter attempts to expand this critical claim by analysing the
 dominant discourse of patenting and situating it in terms of the expert systems that sustain patenting and allow the translation of an enclosure of
 property into an apparently rational system of bureaucratic regulation.
         A discourse is a shared way of apprehending the world. Embedded in language it enables those who subscribe to it to interpret bits of
         information and put them together in coherent stories or ********. Each discourse rests on assumptions, judgements, and contentions that
         provide the basic terms for analysis, debates, agreements and disagreements (Dryzek, 1997: 8).
          Central elements in a discourse include: basic entities constructed; assumptions about natural relationships; agents and their motives;
key metaphors and story lines (Dryzek, 1997). This approach to discourse analysis defines discourses in a more or less linguistic way, similar to
language games (Wittgenstein, 1967), rather than a wider concept of discourse that includes institutional settings and technologies (Foucault,
1977, 1978). This wider context is more clearly conceptualized as 'expert systems' (Lash, 1994) in that the discourse of expertise, and the
experts themselves, are embedded in professional institutions and linked to technologies. Thus expert systems have been defined as 'systems
of technical accomplishment or professional expertise that organize large areas of the material and social environments in which we live today'
(Giddens, 1990: 27). Daily life requires placing considerable trust in these expert systems to provide reliable information and judgements and to
regulate risks. Expert systems are bodies of knowledge practices, which are specialized, professionalized and stable. Legal recognition of
scientific expertise requires that it be 'consistent, methodological, cumulative and predictive' (Kenny quoted in Campbell, 1989: 268 n 3). By
applying apparently impersonal and testable criteria expert systems are able to disembed knowledge from any local social conditions and
transfer it to the global.

The dominant discourse of genetic patenting hangs on a simple story line. Social wellbeing depends on technological progress. Such
technological progress will only happen if innovation is financially rewarded. Therefore human wellbeing is best promoted by protecting corporate
profits through a strong form of property rights over genes and seeds, namely patents. The appropriateness of patents depends on the use of
mechanical metaphors to make organisms resemble machines. This dominant discourse is embedded in a combination of technoscientific and
legal expert systems, including technologies, professions and institutions.

A critical discourse challenges patenting with its own story line and metaphors. The critical story line is that patenting shifts common property into
private hands, causing poverty and restricting rights for the economic benefit of the biotechnology companies. Since patents control intellectual
property, it is traditional, indigenous, local knowledge that is captured by experts and represented as their own. Compelling metaphors are
generated, such as biopiracy and 'the enclosure of the commons'. The critical discourse is located in counter-expert NGO networks and their
allies.




                                                                                                                                                83
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                               CDI 2007



                                              Hegemonic Discourse
Activism and participation in the anti-GM movement successfully challenges and reveals the
hegemonic project
Derrick A. Purdue, “Anti-GenetiX: The emergence of the anti-GM movement,” Ashgate Pub Ltd. pg. 142-3 2001 TRP
CSDI 07

In using the concept of hegemony to indicate an always-incomplete project, I have also suggested a solution to the dilemma of what
constitutes the adversary against which social movements struggle: whether it is a dominant (collective) actor or the logic of a
system. A hegemonic project is a combination of both. Dominant actors assemble hegemonic discourse coalitions (Hajer, 1995).
Biotechnology links clusters of diverse actors companies, national governments, international organizations, experts, lobbyists - into
networks and weave together discursive elements - molecular genetics, patent law, free trade theory - into a discursive frame, and
seek support for this position whether they judge is necessary, just as social movement actors do. Is a hegemonic project then a
real material object? In some senses yes, but bearing in mind Melucci's reminder that social movements make systemic power
visible, it is the recognition of hegemony by its opponents in the social movements that gives it tangible political existence. The anti-
GM movement that I have been studying has, with varying degrees of success, challenged the hegemonic project of global
patenting both in the negotiation of regimes within international law and by contributing to the development of a global civil society.
And so it is the activists themselves that have named the power at the heart of the global age. This book is intended as a
contribution to that work.




                                                                                                                                   84
Cotton Affirmative Addendum                                                                                             CDI 2007



                                           Words Change Meaning
Queer was originally launched as an insult against non-straight people
Joel Nichols, intern for Out in the Mountains, Winter 2007
“Why Queer?” Out in the Mountains, Vermont’s Voice for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender issues.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/2001/aug2001/views02_why.htm

Queer is an all-inclusive term to present a united group of people who are not straight. Queer can mean gay, lesbian, bisexual,
transgendered, and any other people who participate in sexual practices that are not cultural sexual norms, which can include
transvestites and fetishists, asexuals and pansexuals, or people who are “sexually” straight, but politically aligned with the queer
movement.
    It is used widely among younger non-straights, especially ones who are politically active. At my university, it is omnipresent as
the catch-all term. Our Queer Alliance was created in 1993 after the Wesleyan Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Alliance was
discontinued. It was a reorganization of GLBT life and an updating of the terminology and the activism that was taking place
there. Queer Alliance was formed to deal with political issues. In an informal poll of some Wesleyan students, queer was defined
as, “not-straight”, “non-conformist gender identity.” The word incorporates politics and culture as well as sexual attraction.
    Another gay man said to me, “when I was young, we were protesting in the streets against being called queer.” Linguist
William Leap notes a contrast in that being called queer as an insult separates the queer person from what is accepted and
“normal”, but that calling oneself queer reverses the feeling by locating the speaker who calls him- or herself queer at the center of
a “normal” area. The preference for queer is not entirely generational, as the older gay man’s comment suggested to me. A man at
least a generation older than me defended queer as label for us to a group made up a mix of his generation to mine. It is more
common in younger and more academic circles. The man agrees with Leap that the best way to diffuse the pain of a word is to use
it yourself.

Queer has been changed from a derogatory word to a word that unites homosexuals everywhere
Ramone Johnson, writer of a “Gay Life” article, 2007 http://gaylife.about.com/cs/gaylifeglossary/a/queer.htm

Did you know that today, the word "queer" is most often used in a non-derogatory way? Once used by homophobes to negatively
describe a gay man or woman, the term is now being used by the gay community itself as a positive or neutral descriptive of each
other. By embracing a word that was used to attack or degrade, the gay community has demagnetized the strength of the word,
making it a common everyday term. This lessens the effect of the word when used against them.


The word “queer” proves how Africans can redeploy the meaning of Sub-Saharan Africa and use it to
unite and challenge borders
Joel Nichols, intern for Out in the Mountains, Winter 2007
“Why Queer?” Out in the Mountains, Vermont’s Voice for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender issues.
http://www.mountainpridemedia.org/oitm/issues/2001/aug2001/views02_why.htm

Of course, the problem is that all of these early references to queer are pejorative. The first one is in a definition of juvenile
delinquents and the second is from the American Tramp and Underworld Slang. It continues to be a word of attack against gays,
lesbians, bisexuals, transpeople, asexuals, tomboys, sissies, and anyone else who does not fit the norm of straight, married-sex
behavior. For me, because attackers group all the “queers” together, Queers should band together under the word and fight back. If
someone throws a rock at me, it hurts. If I’m already holding the rock they want to throw, I’m safe. Queer joins all the people who
do not identify as straight together and does not enforce rigid gender roles and expectations. Bisexual does not cut it for me. To
me, bisexual covers some of the gray area between gay and straight, but does not include the man who is primarily attracted to
men but sometimes is attracted to women, for example. Queer allows the fluidity of sexuality to be expressed; boys can be faggots
and still get screwed by girls.




                                                                                                                                85

								
To top