Home » Globalization & Technology

Globalization & Technology

Rockets
This is where I write about Globalization and Technology

 

Please enjoy this piece I wrote about Multinational Biotechnology Companies Colluding with Government

 

In this paper I shall posit that the forces of globalization are resulting in a massive rise in inequality and exploitation. Primarily I will be examining the actions of Multinational Corporations and their collusions with Governmental structures around the world in an effort to create monopolization of world marketplaces. In order to properly establish the architecture of my paper I will structure my paper as follows:

I.            I will assess the development of technology throughout history as well as examine the positive and negative impact that technology can yield. I will identify the role of technology in the rise of the industrialized nation as well as identify how technological revolutions and mass industrialization has resulted in the birth of multinational corporations which, coupled with governments continue to invest capital inappropriately in the wrong technology.

II.            I shall expound upon the harmful nature of two technologies in particular: pharmaceuticals and genetically modified organisms. I will identify how multinational corporations use patent law and intellectual property rights to their advantage in order to create a monopoly of markets. I shall also document the connection between government and corporations and why this incestuous relationship contributes to the democratic deficit.

III.            I shall propose a solution that involves the removal of the corrupt elements within these structures.

 

By the end of this essay, I will have not only identified one of the most problematic elements residing within the globalization movement, but also provide a solution that will not likely be adopted, but nonetheless could solve many problems inherent in the system.

 

 

Part I: Technology

Perhaps the most unique skill ever developed by the human species is our ability to think rationally and creatively. Sheer human ingenuity has given birth to an imperceptible number of innovations; everything from fire and basic hunting tools to nuclear bombs and space shuttles. While technology has proven to be quite useful in the advancement of our species, it has also resulted in some of the greater tragedies of all time. We need look no further than Hiroshima and Nagasaki for evidence of the terrible results that we have reaped upon ourselves with technology. On the other hand, particular innovations, such as medical technology have proven quite effective in extending the average life expectancy of human beings. Then again, you only enjoy the benefits of said technology if you live in a first world industrialized nation and exist in the upper range of socio-economic status. Here is where I will begin my analysis. Glenn Firebaugh’s book The New Geography of Global Income Inequality holds many insights into the reshaping of the world because of globalization. Firebaugh identifies the sweeping changes that can occur as a result of technology:

The most important cause of the inequality transition is the spread of industrialization to poor nations. The effect of spreading industrialization depends on which regions are industrializing. Because industrialization took root first in richer nations, the spread of industrialization historically has boosted inequality across nations….the diffusion of industrialization works to compress inequality across nations.[1]

 

This being the case, the industrialized nation automatically inherits the responsibility of the rising inequality. A more idealist thinker might suggest that the rise in inequality is simply a result of the diffusion of technology across poorer nations and that the market will naturally bring prosperity back into the picture for these poorer nations. This line of thinking does not help to improve conditions for these countries, as it dissolves industrialized nations, as well as the multinational corporations behind them, of any responsibility they might have.

As technology and industry have grown, so too has the general population. This means more people that will need jobs, food, shelter, education, and the like. With this we have seen the rise of the industries that require a huge workforce. Because of their excessive wealth and influence in the world, these corporations wield tremendous power. But with great power comes great responsibility, and the majority of these corporate structures have displayed little, if any to date. Joseph Stiglitz explains the dynamic of the disseverment of corporate responsibility in his book Making Globalization Work. He writes: “The corporations of today are vast enterprises, some with tens of thousands of employees; though it is individuals within the corporation who make the decisions that determine what the firm does, these individuals are often not easily held responsible for the consequences of those decisions”[2]. As it becomes more and more difficult to hold these corporate structures responsible for their actions, we are less likely to see an end to the rise in inequality.

The response to this argument is likely to refer back to the dynamic of the market and the ‘invisible hand’ of Adam Smith. A proponent of the self-regulating market would suggest that these corporations are only responding to international trends and attempting to stay competitive in a worldwide market. This theory does not take into account the sheer fact of the matter that industrial societies do not properly fund the technologies that matter. If the goal of an industrialized nation were to increase the standard of living for its people (which is the goal of all government), then it would stand to reason that they would invest in technologies that would improve the standard of living. Unfortunately this is not the case, as Robert A. Isaak demonstrates in his book The Globalization Gap:

War and national security issues push solutions to social and economic problems in rich countries off the agenda, much less the problems of the poor nations…As Americans focused on the war, the proportion of people in the United States living in poverty was up, and income for middle-class families was down. The President’s proposed budget called for a plan that would have made it harder for low-income families to get government benefits.[3]

 

This misappropriation of funding creates negative effects in the country of origin, but there is also a trickle-down effect that will yield much harsher results for the poorer nations. The United States contributes the majority of its wealth to producing weaponry, and then eventually this weaponry will be sold off to lesser-developed countries as better technology becomes available. It is absolutely essential that industrialized nations like the United States begin to assess what the government is spending their money on. View the chart below to see the disproportionate spending that occurs.

 

 

 

 

 

While it is true that technology has tremendous potential to bring benefits to all people of the world, sadly it is implemented in other far more destructive ways. Instead of investing in technologies that would prove to be beneficial to mankind and aid in the development and education of third world nations, the corporate elite ensure that this cannot take place. Robert A. Isaak comments on the complications that arise from the current system we live in:

More opportunities are generated by globalization in countries that benefit from its money, technology, and information flows. But the governments of these very countries are so overwhelmed by the changes globalization has wrought that they are preoccupied with restructuring their own educational and employment systems. Meanwhile…the least developed nations slip even more into the shadows.[4]

 

Perhaps the greatest benefit that our technology will bring us is the understanding that things must necessarily change. Along with our newfound technological revolution, we are presented with a great opportunity to realize the potential that our technology holds for the future. If we intend to achieve this realization, we will have to identify the barriers that keep important technologies from reaching those displaced in the third world.

 

 

 

 

Part II: Industry and Corruption

Although it can be argued that technology is a good thing for this planet and its people, it will be difficult to argue that individuals and corporations do not abuse technologies for political and monetary gain. This fact is clear when we examine two industries that have come into being within the last hundred years; the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Bio-Tech Industry. These industries both have remarkable potential to change the world for the better, but unfortunately have proven themselves both guilty of a number of crimes. Let us begin with the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Just as the case is with any technology, we cannot entirely abandon pharmaceutical technology. This is an important science that has the potential to solve many of the world’s health crises. However, it is essential for any student of international relations that they study the negative aspects of these very transformative technologies. One of the primary arguments in favor of the pharmaceutical industry is that the technology saves lives that would otherwise be lost. This argument may contain some kernel of truth, but the truth is much more striking if we examine the number of adverse reactions that these chemical cocktails have caused. In 1998, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study that reads as follows: “We estimated that in 1994 overall 2,216,000 (1,721,000-2,711,000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs [Adverse Drug Reactions] and 106,000 (76,000-137,000) had fatal ADRs, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death”[5]. These numbers are in stark contrast when compared to the number of deaths that occurred from illicit drug use. In 2009, the Center for Disease Control published a study that claims: “In 2006, a total of 38,396 persons died of drug-induced causes in the United States. This category includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of legal or illegal drugs, but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs.”[6]. This data should be an outrage to all rational beings. After reviewing the data, it seems likely that the Center for Disease Control did not incorporate deaths that occurred after hospitalization into their data. Regardless, the numbers do not reflect well on the products of the pharmaceutical industry.

Even if we tried to ignore such numbers, we would run into even more problems still. In his book Making Globalization Work, Joseph Stiglitz identifies the corrupt behavior of the pharmaceutical industry:

American drug companies know that as soon as the generics come in, their profits will plummet. So they have devised a number of clever strategies to delay the introduction of generics into the market, including restricting the use of data that proves the safety and efficacy of the drug—and preventing the generic firms from even beginning to produce the drugs until the patent expires.[7]

 

Stiglitz also does a superb job of identifying the methods which the pharmaceutical industry uses to ensure its dominance in the world market of medicine. The primary way of accomplishing this dominance is through patent laws and what are referred to as TRIPs (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). According to Stiglitz: “TRIPs was designed to ensure higher-priced medicines…TRIPs reflected the triumph of corporate interests in the United States and Europe over the broader interests of billions of people in the developing world”[8]. The fact that these companies have no interest in the billions of people in the developing world should come as no surprise; some of their best customers live there.

The Bio-Tech industry is just another head of this political hydra. Many of the pharmaceutical companies employ much of the same science and many of the same technologies as the Bio-Tech industry. Perhaps the most horrific technology that has been produced by the Bio-Tech industry is that of genetically modified organisms. The multinational company Monsanto “has invested over $800 million on agricultural biotechnology”[9] and is the world’s top producer of genetically modified seeds, despite the fact that “the most persistent theme of public concern has been the fear of adverse ecological or epidemiological consequences that might stem from the accidental or deliberate release of self-propagating genetically engineered organisms into the environment”[10]. The scientific community sees GMOs as such a serious threat that the American Academy of Environmental Medicine recently called for a moratorium on GM food[11]. There is such a great ethical outcry against the use of Bio-Technology in the genetic modification of seeds; this does not stop the Biotechnology Industry Organization from claiming that “evidence demonstrates that agricultural biotechnology is a safe and beneficial technology that contributes to both environmental and economic sustainability”[12]. This report is one of many reports with findings that are essentially manufactured as propaganda for the Biotech industry. The claim that GMO foods pose no risk is in stark contrast to the findings of many scientists around the world. Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist as the Russian National Academy of Sciences discovered that 55.6% of rats that fed on GM Soya died.[13]

Upon publishing his research letter that suggests the cancerous effects of GM potatoes[14], renowned biologist Dr. Arpad Pusztai “was suspended from his job and forbidden to speak about his work to anyone in the press. A few months later he was fired and not long after his wife and co-researcher was also forced out of her senior position at the research institute”[15]. This is just a small example of the way the Biotech industry coerces researchers and manipulates data in order to push their products out into the market. The findings that scientists like Ermakova and Pusztai are publishing have led to a demand for proper labeling and control of GMOs, but Jim Whitman makes it a clear point that: “Beyond arguments about the labeling of food that contains GM products, there is a larger and more profound concern that we might unintentionally alter the genetic make-up of our environments, with synergistic and possibly very harmful results”[16].

The question then becomes why Monsanto would so desperately be pushing genetically modified foods as a revolutionary technology that will supposedly: “increase productivity or reduce cost by increasing yield, improving protection from insects and disease, or increasing their crops’ tolerance to heat, drought, and other environmental stress”[17], when this has been repeatedly shown to not be the case. The answer in no way relates to the ‘high quality’ or ‘superior nature’ of this technology; instead Monsanto pushes Biotechnology because it gives them the unique ability to do what no company dare attempt until the 20th century: patent a living organism. The unique ability to patent genetic material has given the multinational corporation more power than it has ever had. This newfound power allows companies like Monsanto to sue farmers for illegally growing their GM seeds without paying the patent fees. It does not matter if the farmer in question had no intention to grow GM crops.

Perhaps the most terrifying aspect of genetic modification is the so-called ‘Terminator Technology’. Stiglitz comments appropriately in this technology: “Monsanto’s development of seeds that produced plants which in turn produced seeds that couldn’t be replanted, thereby forcing farmers to buy new seeds annually”[18]. This form of technology is heinous because it very creatively locks the farmer into a life-long contract that essentially guarantees the continual purchase of not only seed, but also fertilizer, herbicide, and pesticide –all from the same company. According to the Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee Report of 2001:

This technology would protect the intellectual property interests of the seed company by making the seeds from a genetically engineered crop plant sterile, unable to germinate. Terminator would make it impossible for farmers to save seed from a crop for planting the next year, and would force them to buy seed from the supplier. In the third world, this inability to save seed could be a major, perhaps fatal, burden on poor farmers. The Sierra Club’s Genetic Engineering Committee (GEC) believes that Terminator is a tool by which seed companies are trying to engineer their monopoly power into the genetic code.[19]

 

Indeed the more one looks at the actions of Monsanto and its pharmaceutical brethren, the more it becomes apparent that biotechnology is being implemented as a tool that used to obtain even more monopolistic power. Such technology has tremendous potential to be exploited as there is “a real risk of privatizing what is within the public domain”[20]. Although food is certainly a product that should remain within the public domain, there is simply too much political power that can be seized from taking control of food as a resource. In his book False Economy, Alan Beattie asserts that the way monopolistic corporations take control of entire markets is counterproductive. He writes:

Controlling a resource for which there is a permanent ready market and little or no competition…should produce benefits that all monopolists crave—a quiet life. But when the government gets involved, to keep it that way requires spending enough…to prevent anyone else from seizing control. This kind of competition does not benefit the country as a whole.[21]

 

Monopolies are not only harmful because of the limitations they impose on outsiders, but also the way in which they consolidate corporate and governmental power into a single bureaucratic hierarchy that will stop at nothing to seize control over as much as they can. Nowhere is this theme more evident than when we examine the ties between a company like Monsanto and certain elements of the federal government. In fact, Monsanto is just one of the many chemical companies that have deeply embedded themselves in governmental affairs. It is a well known fact that lobbying plays a significant role in the actions and affairs of government, as properly documented by Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity. Lewis identifies the broad base of lobbyists that Monsanto and similar Biotech companies have acquired:

As some of you may know, Monsanto Corporation, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Dow AgroSciences, and 32 other manufacturers of pesticides for home and garden use have banded together for lobbying purposes in an organization that calls itself Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment. What you may not know is that RISE and its member firms spent more than $15 million in 1996 to employ 219 Washington lobbyists, including 24 former House staff members, 22 former Senate staff members, ten former Executive Branch officials, nine former White House aides, four former Representatives, and three former Senators.[22]

 

If it were not for the severity of the situation, it would be ridiculously laughable that Monsanto and its various subsidiaries have banded together to form a lobbying group called the ‘Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment’.

Anyone who is familiar with Monsanto’s terrible track record should be able to identify the marketing ploy inherent in the naming of this lobby group. It should come as no surprise to anyone that big business has become interwoven with federal government, and that this connection only continues to yield counterproductive results for the majority of human beings on the planet. Again we can find elements of this incestuous relationship if we examine a New York Times article from 2001 that highlights the agenda of the Bush administration:

President Bush has filled several senior environmental-related jobs in his administration with pro-business advocates who have worked on behalf of various industries in battles with the federal government…His choice for No. 2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was a lobbyist for Monsanto, the chemical company now devoted to agribusiness. He wants as chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality a lawyer who represented General Electric in its fight with the E.P.A. over toxic waste sites.[23]

 

If one takes the time to examine the manifold connections between the federal government and multinational corporations, it becomes painfully apparent that something is terribly wrong with the leadership and the policymaking of the men and women who engineer the direction of our ever increasingly globalized world. As more and more power continues to be concentrated into a fewer and fewer number of people, there will be less and less representation, and by extension freedom for the common people. If we are to truly ‘make globalization work’ as Joseph Stiglitz hopes we can, then we must first come to the realization that there is something very seriously wrong with the system in which we live.

 

 

Part III: Solution

            From our thorough examination of the Biotech industry, it has become apparent that there are far too numerous connections between federal government and multinational corporations. We have determined that Monsanto is one of the most powerful engines of globalization and that their actions are anything but democratic. There are however, specific organizations comprised of a few number of individuals that can and should be held responsible. Congress is of course, where the American people are supposed to be able to go to be represented by their constituents. Unfortunately we have seen that the men and women of Congress are rather ineffective at producing actual change that will produce real results. According to Jeffrey Sachs, author of The End of Poverty, “If governments would do their job in setting up the right rules, major international companies would play a vital role in solving problems”[24]. Although this point is debatable, Sachs has a point when he asserts that governmental organizations should be held responsible for allowing multinationals to commit such atrocities. As daunting a task as it is, those of us that have become aware of the problem have now inherited the obligation of holding those in power responsible for their destructive actions.

As stated earlier, it has become increasingly difficult to hold these corporate ‘persons’ responsible for any of their crimes when they have grown so large and span the entire globe that seemingly no one can touch them. With the corporate elite seemingly everywhere and nowhere all at once, it becomes even more pertinent that we begin to eliminate the destructive forces at work. In his book The Super-Rich, Stephen Haseler identifies the tremendous power and control the elite have. He writes: “The emergence of this global overclass not only raises the question of equality—or inequality—but also of power…Through the accumulation of assets and money the super-rich control or heavily influence companies and their economic policies, consumer fashions, media mores, political parties and candidates, culture and art”[25]. It would be impossible and foolish to try and pinpoint one exact guilty party within the frenzy that is the phenomenon known as globalization, but we can easily isolate a number of primary contributing factors. We have already seen the problematic nature of multinational corporations and their involvement with Congress. However, if we adopt an even more macrocosmic vantage point, a clearer picture comes into focus. This picture exposes the intrinsic connections between corrupt governmental practices, illegitimate multinational corporate behavior, and worldwide monetary policymakers.

It is the manipulation of monetary markets, in conjunction with the monopolization of worldwide markets that are the greatest threat to the people of the globalized world. In his book Dangerous Business, Pat Choate highlights the issue of the ruling elite within corporations and governmental structures: “The United States now has a permanent governing class that moves almost effortlessly among public office, Wall Street financial firms, transnational corporations, law firms, elite think tanks, and lobbying concerns”[26]. It is these men, residing comfortably at the top of these hierarchical structures, acting solely in the name of profit, who will do whatever it takes to obtain more power that will further tighten their clasp on the world and its resources. If we wish to build a future globalized community that is based on principles derived from the United States constitution, then these individuals must be held responsible. Unfortunately such men are hard to find, and even harder to hold accountable. In regards to this issue, Haseler claims that:

In theory, most central bankers are in some manner accountable. However in practice they are not. Although paid by the taxpayer, this exotic race of money men have little connection with the political world of democracy and even less in common with the masses…They see themselves as having no duty…to political or democratic authority, but rather to the higher authority…Their own power largely derives from their supreme command to their crusade against the devil of inflation.[27]

 

This statement portrays an odd juxtaposition of views. While it is completely true that the elite banking class answers to no one, apart from a few others in their circle, we should be fully aware that the same way Monsanto is crusading against worldwide hunger, so too do the central bankers crusade against inflation. In fact, many political and economic theorists argue that inflation is not simply a result of bad monetary policy, but is applied as a mean to a political or economic ends. The Federal Reserve is a vast collection of men who regularly exploit the power that has been vested in them. Congressman and former Presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul has argued vehemently against the Federal Reserve for the last three decades of his life. In his book End the Fed, he explains one of the benefits that could be achieved if the Federal Reserve were in fact abolished, and a truly free market were allowed to take its rightful place at the center of American monetary policymaking. He writes:

Ending the Fed would also end the way in which our election cycles have been corrupted by monetary manipulation. No longer would presidents be in a position to lean on the central bank to artificially boost the economy before elections, only to have a recession hit after the party in power is sworn in again. The national wealth would no longer be hostage to the whims of a handful of appointed bureaucrats whose interests are equally divided between serving the banking cartel and serving the most powerful politicians in Washington. [28]

 

Some would try and argue that the Federal Reserve is a necessary entity in today’s complicated system, but in truth, America’s current economic recession speaks volumes about the failure that is the Federal Reserve. It seems that structures like the Federal Reserve have only proved to be valuable to the corporate and political elite, the so-called ‘super-rich’ that orchestrate huge economic policies that will shape the futures of everyone in the world.

In conclusion, there is much more that can be said about the abuses of technology perpetrated by corrupt hierarchies like Monsanto and the Federal Reserve. These forces are indeed the engine of the vehicle that is the phenomenon known as globalization. We should not expect that any amount of protest will stop the process from continuing, but instead we should take a serious interest in the behavior of these structures and realize how their actions have a very negative impact on America as well as the rest of the developing world. Ron Paul advises us wisely: “To save ourselves from economic and political disaster, a dramatic change in the conventional wisdom of economic policy by our leaders is vital”[29]. I argue that we must not only bring about dramatic change in the wisdom of economic policy, but in the way we do business altogether. Companies are still made up of people and it is people who make the devastating decisions. It is also people that must change this. If we are to bring about any sort of beneficial future, then mankind must begin to think about the Earth and everything on it in a relational manner, understanding that each individual part is related to the whole. We cannot continue living by the same principles that that encourage man harm so long as he personally gains from his unethical actions. It will not only be an economic revolution, but also an environmental—spiritual revolution that will unite all people in their efforts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

Glenn Firebaugh, The New Geography of Global Income Inequality, (Cambridge, Hardvard University Press, 2003)

Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work, (New York, Norton, 2007)

Robert A. Isaak, The Globalization Gop: How the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Left Further Behind, (Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education, 2005)

Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN, Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies, JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5

Heron MP, Hoyert DL, Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: Final data for 2006. National vital statistics reports; vol 57 no 14. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2009

Daniel Lee Kleinman and Jack Kloppenburg, Jr., Aiming for the Discursive High Ground: Monsanto and the Biotechnology Controversy, Sociological Forum, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Sep., 1991)

Jim Whitman, The Limits of Global Governance, (New York, Routledge, 2005)

Alan Beattie, False Economy, (New York, Penguin Group, 2009)

Jeffrey Sachs, The End of Poverty, (New York, The Penguin Press, 2005)

Stephen Haseler, The Super-Rich: The Unjust New World of Global Capitalism, (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2000)

Pat Choate, Dangerous Business: The Risks of Globalization for America, (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2008

Ron Paul, End the Fed, (New York, Grand Central Publishing, 2009)

Charles Lewis, Unreasonable Risk: The Politics of Pesticides, (Washington, The Center for Public Integrity, 1998) p. 2-4 – This article can be accessed at http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/493/

Katharine Q. Seelye, Bush Picks Industry Insiders to Fill Environmental Posts, (New York Times, May 12 , 2001) – This article can be accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/12/politics/12NOMI.html?pagewanted=1

The AAEM’s statement can be accessed at http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

 

Biotech Industry Organization’s document can be accessed at

http://www.bio.org/foodag/positions/Benbrook_Report_PUBLIC_111709.pdf

 

Ermakova’s findings can be accessed at http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=77176

 

Dr. Pusztai’s findings can be accessed at http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/news/pastevents/pusztai/lancet_1099.pdf

 

The Center For Integrated Agricultural Systems – www.cias.wisc.edu/curriculum/modII/sece/GMO_Politics_of_Science.doc

 

Monsanto’s website – http://www.monsanto.com/products/benefits.asp

 

Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee Report – http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/report.asp

 

 

 


[1] Glenn Firebaugh, The New Geography of Global Income Inequality, (Cambridge, Hardvard University Press, 2003) p.174

[2] Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work, (New York, Norton, 2007) p 193

[3] Robert A. Isaak, The Globalization Gop: How the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Left Further Behind, (Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education, 2005) p. 67

[4] Robert A. Isaak, The Globalization Gop: How the Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Left Further Behind, (Upper Saddle River, Pearson Education, 2005) p. 67

[5] Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN, Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies, JAMA. 1998 Apr 15;279(15):1200-5

[6] Heron MP, Hoyert DL, Murphy SL, Xu JQ, Kochanek KD, Tejada-Vera B. Deaths: Final data for 2006. National vital statistics reports; vol 57 no 14. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2009, p, 11

[7] Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work, p. 104

[8] Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work, p. 105

[9] Daniel Lee Kleinman and Jack Kloppenburg, Jr., Aiming for the Discursive High Ground: Monsanto and the Biotechnology Controversy, Sociological Forum, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Sep., 1991), pp. 427-447

[10] Daniel Lee Kleinman and Jack Kloppenburg, Jr., Aiming for the Discursive High Ground: Monsanto and the Biotechnology Controversy, pp. 427-447

[11] The AAEM’s statement can be accessed at http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html

[13] Ermakova’s findings can be accessed at http://www.healthobservatory.org/library.cfm?refID=77176

[15] The Center For Integrated Agricultural Systems – http://www.cias.wisc.edu/curriculum/modII/sece/GMO_Politics_of_Science.doc

[16] Jim Whitman, The Limits of Global Governance, (New York, Routledge, 2005) p. 79

[18] Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work, (New York, Norton, 2007) p. 187

[19] Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee Report – http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/report.asp

[20] Joseph Stiglitz, Making Globalization Work, (New York, Norton, 2007) p. 108

[21] Alan Beattie, False Economy, (New York, Penguin Group, 2009) p. 111

[22] Charles Lewis, Unreasonable Risk: The Politics of Pesticides, (Washington, The Center for Public Integrity, 1998) p. 2-4 – This article can be accessed at http://www.publicintegrity.org/articles/entry/493/

[23] Katharine Q. Seelye, Bush Picks Industry Insiders to Fill Environmental Posts, (New York Times, May 12 , 2001) – This article can be accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/12/politics/12NOMI.html?pagewanted=1

[24] Jeffrey Sachs, The End of Poverty, (New York, The Penguin Press, 2005) p. 358

[25] Stephen Haseler, The Super-Rich: The Unjust New World of Global Capitalism, (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2000) p. 24

[26] Pat Choate, Dangerous Business: The Risks of Globalization for America, (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 2008) p. 78

[27] Stephen Haseler, The Super-Rich: The Unjust New World of Global Capitalism, (New York, St. Martin’s Press, 2000) p. 157

[28] Ron Paul, End the Fed, (New York, Grand Central Publishing, 2009) p. 8

[29] Ron Paul, End the Fed, (New York, Grand Central Publishing, 2009) p. 191


Speak Your Mind

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: