The Perils of The Global Soy Trade: Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts

The Perils of the
Global Soy Trade

Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts
About Food & Water Watch
Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all
enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, afford-
able, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job
protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
Food & Water Watch

Main office:
1616 P St. NW, Suite 300 California Office:
Washington, DC 20036 25 Stillman Street, Suite 200
tel: (202) 683-2500 San Francisco, CA 94107
fax: (202) 683-2501 tel: (415) 293-9900
[email protected] fax: (415) 293-8394
www.foodandwaterwatch.org [email protected]
About Food & Water Europe

Food & Water Europe is the European program of Food & Water Watch, a nonprofit consumer organization based in the
United States that works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and sustainable. So we can all
enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where their food comes from, keep clean, affordable,
public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job
protecting citizens, and educate about the importance of keeping shared resources under public control.
Contact:
Food & Water Europe
eu ope
[email protected]
+32 (0) 2893 1045
Copyright © February 2011 by Food & Water Watch and Food & Water Europe. All rights reserved. This report can be viewed
or downloaded at www.foodandwaterwatch.org.
The Perils of the Global Soy Trade
Executive Summary...........................................................................................................................................................iv
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................1
The Global Soy and Feed Trade.........................................................................................................................................3
European Soy Imports Fueled by Unsustainable Industrial Soy Production in Argentina and Brazil....................................4
Soybean-Driven Deforestation..............................................................................................................................5
Soy Plantations Concentrate Power in the Hands of the Few.................................................................................6
GMO Cultivation and Agrichemicals.....................................................................................................................7
Global Soy Trade Enriches Transnational Grain Traders and Meatpackers...............................................................8
Soy Imports Fuel European Industrial Livestock..................................................................................................................9
More Animals on Fewer, Larger Farms.................................................................................................................10
European Factory Farms Contribute to Environmental Degradation......................................................................11
Industrial Livestock Does Not Fatten Farm Incomes..............................................................................................12
Rising European Soybean Imports Facilitated by the World Trade Organization................................................................13
Blair House.........................................................................................................................................................14
WTO-Directed Changes to the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Oilseeds Programs..................................15
Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................................................15
Endnotes..........................................................................................................................................................................17
This report was prepared for release at an event in the Parliament of the European Union on February 8, 2011.
Therefore, measurements used throughout the report are in the metric system. Please see the conversion chart
below for standard American measurements.
1 kilo = 2.2 lbs

1 hectare = 2.5 acre
1 metric tonne = 1.1 tons
1 square mile = 259 hectares
Executive Summary
Globalization has fundamentally changed agriculture across Europe. The idyllic image of small farms with sustainable agri-
culture has been replaced with agricultural cogs producing food-ingredient inputs for international industrial agribusinesses.
The pork chops and chickens on European tables begin their lives far away on soybean plantations in Latin America, where
the feed for European livestock is harvested.
The international tentacles of the food chain tie deforestation in Brazil and Argentina to factory-farmed livestock in Europe.
International trade agreements like the World Trade Organization (WTO) facilitated the global corporate agribusiness network
that delivers soybeans and maize from Latin America to giant pig and chicken holdings in Europe and finally to a handful of
supermarket chains. In every link of the new global food chain, agriculture has become more intensive, larger in scale, and
more environmentally and socially unsustainable. The beneficiaries of deregulated trade in agricultural goods have been the
international grain traders, the investors in Latin American plantations, and the largest meatpacking and supermarket chains.
European consumers are at greater risk from obesity, European farmers are more vulnerable to global price shocks, and pol-
luting factory-farmed livestock holdings have replaced sensibly sized farms. This paper connects the dots between the global
agricultural commodity trade and the real-life impacts on consumers, rural communities in Europe and Latin America, and
the environment. Findings include:
• European feed imports surged since the WTO went into effect. Since 1995, soy meal imports from outside the European
Union to the 15 member states prior to 2004 (EU-15) grew 57.1 percent to 20.2 million metric tonnes in 2007. Total
maize imports nearly doubled to 21.6 million metric tonnes.
• Soy exports from Latin America fueled deforestation. Four-fifths of EU soymeal imports came from Brazil and Argentina.
The demand for more soybeans has been a key catalyst for clearing 44.5 million acres of forests in these two countries.
• Powerful soy interests drive small farmers off the land. Soybean plantations in Argentina and Brazil average about 1,000
hectares, but can be between 10,000 and 50,000 hectares. These large farms concentrate the land in the hands of a cadre
of powerful investors and landowners, hurting indigenous farmers. There have even been reported cases of exploitation
and enslavement of soy workers in Brazil.
• Industrial soy plantations feed European livestock genetically modified (GM) feed. In 2009, Brazil and Argentina were
the second- and third-largest cultivators of GM crops (herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant engineered seeds), growing
42.7 million hectares of GM soybeans, maize and cotton combined.
• Soybean imports supersized European pig and chicken farms. Low-priced soybean meal has helped reduce the number
of European pig and chicken farmers and expand the scale of the remaining farms to gargantuan proportions. In 2007, 74
million pigs were fattened on the largest 1 percent of holdings — half of all pigs in the EU.
None of this is inevitable. Just as we created these changes, we can fix the problems with a few straightforward steps. Agri-
culture should be removed from the binding strictures of international trade agreements; nations should pursue farm policies
that promote sustainable production, food sovereignty and food security for their populations; and food should be labeled to
show the full life cycle of its production, including GM feed labeling for meat and dairy products. These are concrete steps
we can take immediately to address the problems raised by the international soy and feed industrial complex and move to-
ward improved food sovereignty in the EU and in countries that supply our food.
Introduction
O ver the past two decades, European consumers and farmers have become
dependent on a tidal wave of imported soybeans and maize. The imported grain
and soy meal have fed millions of pigs and chickens raised on industrial-scale farms and
have infiltrated the food system and the kitchens of Europe. Global trade agreements like
the World Trade Organization made soybean imports cheaper and directed the European
Union to restructure the Common Agriculture Policy to deter cultivation of soybeans and
other feed crops. Cheap imported feed and dwindling European-grown feedstocks have
transformed pig and poultry holdings into giant livestock factory farms.
This transformation has harmed consumers, farmers and the tion Europe reports that fast food consumption may be linked
environment. Meat consumption has been fairy steady, but to obesity, with its concomitant health risks — higher levels
is still projected to grow by 3 percent between 2006 and of diabetes, coronary disease and other related diseases.5
2015.1 What Europeans are eating is changing dramatically.
The proliferation of cheaper meat products has made it easier The giant agribusiness and food industries that dominate the
for European consumers to eat more processed, industrial- economic and social landscape push this over-processed
ized, American-style fast food. The rise of chains like Mc- food. Enormous supermarket chains have seized control
Donald’s in Europe drew sharp criticism a decade ago, but of Europe’s food sales. In 2005, less than 1 percent of food
by 2009, McDonald’s earned more revenue from Europe (41 wholesalers had more than 250 employees, but these large
percent) than the United States (35 percent).2 firms captured more than half of the profits.6 These giant
retailers have driven the family-owned grocers, butchers and
Already, this dietary shift has contributed to rising obesity fishmongers that used to spend money locally out of business.
levels in Europe. By 2009, half of McDonald’s European Instead, big retailers siphon money out of local communities
revenue came from the United Kingdom, France and Ger- back to their headquarters and shareholders.
many.3 Those three countries are also at the center of another
American trend, the expanding waistband. The obesity rate in Farmers and consumers also lose when supermarket gi-
the UK more than tripled between 1980 and 2007, France’s ants get too big. The retail chains squeeze concessions
obesity rate nearly doubled between 1990 and 2006, and out of meatpackers and food manufacturers, which in turn
almost half (49.6 percent) of Germany’s population was pay farmers less. These savings don’t generally show up in
obese or overweight in 2005.4 The World Health Organiza- consumers’ grocery receipts; powerful corporate middlemen
The Perils of the Global Soy Trade:
pocket the savings. As a result, smaller and medium-sized and increased profits for landowners.
farmers are working harder and earning less. The pig and
poultry industry has become dependent on cheap imported The international feed complex primarily benefits a handful
feed to increase the size and intensity of livestock holdings. of companies that buy, ship, process and sell the raw agri-
Farms are rapidly disappearing, the biggest pig and chicken cultural inputs (soybeans and maize), as well as the investors
farms are getting even bigger, and farmers are receiving less and landowners that rent their land for soybean produc-
for their livestock and crops. These expanding industrial- tion. Soybeans and maize are the basic building blocks of
ized pig and chicken farms cram thousands of animals into the industrialized food system and the primary ingredients
cramped conditions and produce mountains of manure that in the livestock feed. Partially hydrogenated vegetable oil,
pollutes the land, water and air. made largely from soybeans, is a key shortening in processed
desserts and frozen foods, and high fructose maize syrup
South America captured the lion’s share of the EU soybean sweetens candies and soft drinks. Both ingredients are the
imports, but this global trade triumph came at a tremendous subjects of intense debate over their dubious nutritional mer-
environmental and social cost. European demand for low- its. International grain traders buy soybeans in Latin America,
cost feed encouraged South American landowners and global dominate the soybean processing industries, and ship the
investors to expand soybean cultivation on vast plantations. processed soybeans and maize to industrial food proces-
The added land pressure for soybean planting significantly sors and factory farms in Europe and the growing market in
contributed to deforestation. In some places, soybean China.
operations were cut into forested land, but in most places,
the added demand for soybean cultivation pushed cattle This white paper examines the globalization and agriculture
ranchers and other farmers to clear additional forestland and policies that enabled transnational grain-trading companies
encroach on other fragile ecosystems like the cerrado. These to gain a stranglehold on the European farm and food system.
operations grow expanses of genetically modified soybeans The resulting soybean industrial complex does not benefit
and maize reliant on heavy applications of pesticides and farmers in Europe or South America, consumers or the envi-
herbicides. Large-scale landowners and investors have ronment, it benefits only the global monopolies that promote
reaped the benefits of the growing trade in raw materials. globalized food trade and weaker safety nets for family farm-
These dominant owners coerce small farmers to sell or rent ers. There are better ways to produce our food, and we need
their land to expand large soy operations. Rural poverty has to develop and enact policies to move towards a more just
remained persistent even amid booming soybean production and sustainable food system.
EU-15 Soy and Maize Imports (in millions of metric tonnes)

35
Soy meal (net)
Maize
30
25
Source U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.
20
15
10
0
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
2
Food & Water Watch
Real Global Soy Meal Price (in 2009 dollars per metric tonne)
800
700
600
500
400
300
Source International Monetary Fund.

200
100
January 1980
July 1980
January 1981
July 1981
January 1982
July 1982
January 1983
July 1983
January 1984
July 1984
January 1985
July 1985
January 1986
July 1986
January 1987
July 1987
January 1988
July 1988
January 1989
July 1989
January 1990
July 1990
January 1991
July 1991
January 1992
July 1992
January 1993
July 1993
January 1994
July 1994
January 1995
July 1995
January 1996
July 1996
January 1997
July 1997
January 1998
July 1998
January 1999
July 1999
January 2000
July 2000
January 2001
July 2001
January 2002
July 2002
January 2003
July 2003
January 2004
July 2004
January 2005
July 2005
January 2006
July 2006
January 2007
July 2007
January 2008
July 2008
January 2009
The Global Soy and Feed Trade These two changes allowed agribusinesses like grain traders,
processed-food companies and meat companies to chase the
Corporate-driven globalization in the mid-1990s facilitated cheapest prices for the raw products they use to manufacture
the international network of soybean traders, factory farms food products. This race to the bottom encourages exporting
and food manufacturers that hijacked the world’s food sup- countries to rely on the most extractive and often ecologi-
ply. The agriculture provisions of international trade agree- cally destructive production of raw agricultural materials.
ments were designed by big agribusinesses to make it easier These companies shop for the cheapest raw commodities
to buy and ship raw farm products. The establishment of the worldwide, import them cheaply and export processed
World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 transformed global “value-added” food.
food trade by encouraging transnational agribusinesses to
buy and sell bulk agricultural commodities on a global mar- European soybean imports surged after the WTO-mandated
ketplace. It also encouraged the buyers of raw agricultural changes went into effect, which displaced more sustainable
products — like industrial livestock operations — to switch grain production and left Europe dependent on imported
from domestic feeds to lower-priced imported feeds like livestock feed (including soy and maize). Since 1995, the
soybeans. 15 European Union member states’ (EU-15) net soy meal
imports (not counting shipments within the EU) grew 57.1
The WTO required countries to lower their barriers to percent from 12.9 million metric tonnes in 1995 to 20.2
agricultural imports, like import taxes known as tariffs, and million metric tonnes in 2007, according to UN Food and
eliminate farm programs that stabilized prices. As a result, an Agriculture Organization figures.7 Total maize imports rose
international grain-trading company could buy and process faster since the WTO went into effect, nearly doubling (rising
soybeans in South America and ship unlimited raw agri- 94.8 percent) from 11.0 million metric tonnes to 21.6 million
cultural products to distribution centers in Europe at lower metric tonnes.8
tariff rates. Since European farm safety nets were shredded,
commodity prices fell and discouraged domestic production, Pigs and chickens got fat eating this imported soy meal and
which encouraged European farmers to abandon soybean maize. The volume of livestock feed consumed in the EU-15
cultivation. member states increased by half between 2003 and 2007.9
By 2008, the EU imported about 32 million metric tonnes of
3
livestock feed ingredients, or over 63.5 kilos for every man,

woman and child living in the EU.10 Soy meal for EU livestock
feed alone rose more than a third (36.8 percent), from 11.2
million metric tonnes of protein content between 1993 and
1994 to 15.3 million metric tonnes between 2007 and 2008.11
The vast majority of the soy meal imports have gone to the
countries with the largest pig and poultry production. The
biggest pig and poultry meat producing countries, Denmark,
France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United
Kingdom, imported more than three-fifths of EU-27 soy meal
imports over the past decade.12 Soy meal imports to these
countries were fairly steady prior to the WTO, at about 11
million metric tonnes annually between 1980 and 1994.
But after the WTO went into effect, soy meal imports rose
by 75.3 percent, from 12.5 million metric tonnes in 1995 to
21.9 million metric tonnes in 2007.
These millions of tonnes of soy are invisible on our plates. A

study by the Dutch Soy Coalition found that producing one
kilo of Dutch pork requires 963 grams of soy.13 Chicken meat
is almost 62 percent soy by weight.14 Even beef is 31 percent
soy, and every liter of milk contains 28 grams of soy.15 In
effect, average EU consumers, who eat 41 kilos of pork, 22
kilos of poultry and 9 kilos of beef annually, consume almost
56 kilograms of hidden soy.16 European Soy Imports Fueled
The surging imports were facilitated by ramped up global
by Unsustainable Industrial Soy
soybean production outside the EU and a steady decline in Production in Argentina and Brazil
the price of soy meal. The real, inflation-adjusted global soy
The increased volume of imported soy entering Europe pri-
meal price fell by nearly a quarter from $426 dollars a metric
marily comes from Argentina and Brazil. In 2007, Argentina
tonne in the 1980s to $297 a metric tonne in the 1990s (in
and Brazil supplied nearly four-fifths (79.3 percent) of the
2009 dollars).17 Between 2000 and 2008, average soy meal
32.3 million metric tonnes of imported feed going to the EU.19
prices fell further, to $259 per tonne, even with the sharp
While these two countries are the key exporters, a large share
price increases in 2008.18 This decline in prices made soy
of the exported soybeans grown in Paraguay and Uruguay are
meal imports more attractive for large pig and chicken opera-
shipped through the soybean export terminals in Argentina.
tions than European production of other protein crops like
The rapid expansion of soybean cultivation in Latin America
dry beans, lupins and dry peas. The consumption of imported
to feed European livestock has come at tremendous envi-
feed pushed the social and environmental costs of industrial
ronmental and social costs. The endless fields of soybeans
soy and maize production overseas, where the impacts of
have put intense pressure on rural communities, indigenous
large-scale production would occur under weaker environ-
people, watersheds and the environment.
mental and labor protections.
The lucrative soybean production on large plantations has
concentrated farmland in the hands of a few investors and
giant landowners, pushed small farmers off the land and
Average EU consumers, who encouraged the exploitation of workers — even slavery in
Brazil.20 In many cases, South American as well as global
eat 41 kilos of pork, 22 kilos investors have concentrated the control of land they rent
from medium- and small-scale farmers. These investors press
of poultry and 9 kilos of beef one small farmer after another to rent their land for soybean
cultivation, creating large soybean operations by renting
annually, consume almost 56 many smaller parcels of land. These large operations replace
kilograms of hidden soy. smaller, diversified farms with industrial-scale, agrochemical-
dependent cultivation of genetically modified soybeans. The
giant soybean operations push other farmers — especially
4
Food & Water Watch
beef cattle producers — to clear forests for ranching or farm- cultivated land area by over one-fourth (26 percent) — mean-
ing, adding to deforestation. ing that irrigation withdrawals have likely increased as well.26
Brazil and Argentina are not just exporting soybeans and European consumer and environmental groups have de-
maize; they are exporting the water it takes to produce these cried the unsustainable importation of soy produced in
crops. Global trade in agricultural products — and the fresh Latin America under ecologically and socially destructive
water it takes to produce these commodities and food prod- conditions.27 The vast majority of genetically modified (GM)
ucts — can exert even more pressure on watersheds. The imports are hidden from European consumers, since the meat
water withdrawals used to cultivate the global agriculture from livestock fattened on GM feed is unlabeled. Consumers,
trade are known as “virtual water.” Approximately one- who have widely opposed GM foods,28 have been duped into
seventh of worldwide agricultural water consumption goes believing these products have been withdrawn from the food
toward exports.21 chain. Instead, customers have been unwittingly supporting
the GM industry.
It takes a lot of water to cultivate soybeans and maize. The
most intense soybean cultivation occurs in what is known
as the United Soy Republic (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and
Uruguay), atop the Guarani aquifer, one of the largest in
Latin America.22 In 2007, the total maize crop in Brazil and
The vast majority of genetically
Argentina contained 80 trillion liters of virtual water, and
the soy crop contained 115 trillion liters of virtual water.23
modified imports are hidden
Almost all of that was exported, much of it to Europe. In from European consumers, since
2007, Brazil’s soybean exports to EU-15 countries contained
11.6 trillion liters of virtual water and Argentina’s contained the meat from livestock fattened
14.9 trillion liters.24 These exports effectively put pressure on
Argentinean and Brazilian watersheds. Brazil and Argentina on GM feed is unlabeled.
alone withdrew over 58 cubic kilometers — one trillion liters
— of water in 2000 for irrigation, the latest figures avail-
able.25 Since then, Brazil and Argentina have increased total
Soybean-Driven Deforestation
Soybeans are largely planted on land that was once covered
in pristine forests and grasslands. Soybeans were either the
culprit or the driving force for others to clear forests. In some
cases, forests were cleared to expand soy cultivation. In the
Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, which has the fastest growth
in soybean production and deforestation in the country, over
half a million hectares of forest were converted to cropland
between 2001 and 2004.29 The large swaths of forests that
were cleared for soybeans left the remaining forest more frag-
mented, which further undermined diverse ecosystems and
forest health.30 In most other cases, soy plantations displaced
land that was previously cleared for cattle or other farming,
which pushed cattle ranchers to clear still more forests.31 In
time, soybean interests can push ranchers off these lands as
well, restarting the cycle of ecological destruction. Once
these ecosystems are lost, they are gone forever.
Rising European demand for soybeans sparked a stunning in-

crease in soy cultivation in Latin America. During the 1990s,
Brazil cultivated about 11 million hectares of soybeans, but
soy plantings doubled to over 21 million hectares by 2008.32
Argentina’s soy cultivation increased even faster, more than
tripling from 5.0 million hectares in 1990 to 16.4 million
hectares in 2008.33 Soy cultivation in neighboring Uruguay
has surged over fifteen-fold in less than two decades, from
28,500 hectares in 1990 to 461,900 in 2008.34 In all, since
5
1990, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay planted an The agriculture-driven deforestation has devastating effects
additional 23.4 million hectares of soybeans, enough to on the global environment. Deforestation accounts for a
cover all the farmland in the United Kingdom and Bulgaria quarter of global greenhouse-gas emissions that contribute
combined.35 to global warming, nearly double the 14 percent attributable
to transportation and industry.47 Rainforests also help miti-
The expansion of soy has accelerated deforestation. Although gate global climate change by consuming carbon dioxide,
cattle producers are directly responsible for much of the encouraging cloud formation and increasing evaporation.48
deforestation, it is the pressure from soybean plantations that Clearing Latin American forests and jungles drives indig-
has forced ranchers and other farmers to relocate into forest- enous people from their ancestral homelands and imperils a
ed land. Much of the new land dedicated to soybeans over host of species from medicinal plants to unique animals.49
the past two decades effectively came from the 44.5 million
hectares of forest cleared by the two countries between 1990
and 2005.36 Argentina and Brazil have burned or cut down Soy Plantations Concentrate Power in the Hands
forests at a rate of between 4 and 5 percent per decade since of the Few
1990.37 Brazil cleared 3.1 million hectares annually between Soybean plantations dominate Argentina and Brazil’s agri-
2000 and 2005, an area larger than Belgium each year.38 cultural sectors. Soybean cultivation represented about a
Much of that deforestation can be attributed to the need to third (32.5 percent) of Brazil’s crop cultivation and over half
grow crops, especially soybean-based livestock feed for the of Argentina’s crop cultivation in 2007.50 Soybean planta-
export market.39 tions in Argentina and Brazil average about 1,000 hectares,
but newer operations can be between 10,000 and 50,000
For example, an unapproved Brazilian soybean export termi- hectares.51 These large farms concentrate the land in the
nal built by U.S.-based Cargill near a heavily forested area hands of a cadre of powerful investors and landowners. The
encouraged plantation owners to clear rainforests in order to unequal distribution of land is significantly higher in Brazil
easily access Cargill’s export facility.40 In 2007, the Brazilian and Argentina than either France or Germany.52
government forced Cargill to close down its port. Pressure
and boycotts from both Greenpeace and European purchas- In Argentina, small operations under 200 hectares represent
ers, including McDonald’s, led Cargill and other major soy 70 percent of all farms but less than 6 percent of the land.53
traders agreed to a worldwide moratorium against the pur- As soybean cultivation expanded and the big plantations
chasing of any soybeans from recently deforested land.41 gained a stranglehold on Argentinean production, smaller
farms and the jobs they provided evaporated. Between 1988
While the moratorium has slowed down deforestation, it and 2002, over 100,000 farms and 230,000 agriculture jobs
has not come close to stopping it. Indeed, monitoring by the disappeared in Argentina.54 These displaced people were
Brazilian Oilseed Processors Association (ABIOVE) found driven off the land and into urban or landless poverty.
that deforestation is continuing apace. During the 2008/2009
season, ABIOVE found that soy was being illegally cultivated In Brazil, the largest 1 percent of farms larger than 1,000
on 0.8 percent of the cleared land it monitored, but during hectares controlled nearly half the land (46 percent) in 1995,
the 2009/2010 season, soy was cultivated on 2.1 percent of according to the World Bank.55 Over the past decade, the
the land it monitored.42 While the land ABIOVE monitored number of very large farms increased, the number of medi-
doubled, the cultivation of soybeans on illegally cleared um-sized farms fell and small farms cultivated a declining
land increased nearly five-fold from 1,384 hectares to 6,300 share of the land.56 Despite the significant jump in Brazilian
hectares.43 Importantly, the illegally cultivated soybeans soybean and cattle production, rural income inequality has
enter the soy marketplace. While major companies may not risen over the past decade — the poorest have gotten poorer
buy them right off the land, they may purchase them further and 60 percent of the rural population persistently lives be-
downstream. low the poverty line.57
This deforestation has been mirrored and, in some ways, In Brazil, some of the soy production relies not on low-
eclipsed in the wooded grasslands known as the cerrado and priced labor, but enslaving the desperate landless popula-
the Gran Chaco. These dry forests and savannahs are the section. Using a combination of physical and financial restraint,
ond-largest biome in South America, smaller only than the some Brazilian plantations have used bonded or forced
Amazon.44 In the Brazilian cerrado, there is twice to triple labor. In 2004, Brazil created a government registry of ag-
the amount of deforestation as in the Amazon itself.45 Mato ricultural operations found to be using slave labor, and the
Grosso is largely cerrado, produces more soy than any other most recent list included seven soy operations cited for 108
region in Brazil. Similarly, the semi-arid Chaco in Argentina instances of slavery.58
has seen expanding deforestation, with soybeans as the most
important crop.46
6
Food & Water Watch
GMO Cultivation and Agrochemicals through self-reporting and biotechnology trade associations,
The industrial-scale soy production in Argentina and Brazil estimates of GM soy as a portion of all Brazilian planting
relies on genetically modified (GM) seeds and the tailored range from 50 to 60 percent of the 2007/2008 crop to more
agrochemicals that are applied to GM fields. The vast major- than 70 percent in 2010.68 GM seeds also accounted for
ity of commercial biotech crops are either herbicide-tolerant, more than half (53 percent) of maize cultivation in 2010.69
which allows farmers to apply herbicides to kill weeds with-
out damaging the crops, or insect-resistant, which theoreti- Most of the GM production is designed to withstand gener-
cally protects the plants from destructive pests.59 In 2009, ous applications of herbicides that are tailored to the GM
Brazil and Argentina were the second- and third-largest seeds. In 1996, farmers in Argentina applied 13.9 million
cultivators of GM crops. The 42.7 million hectares of GM liters of glyphosate (sold by Monsanto as Roundup) to com-
soybeans, maize and cotton grown in the two countries were bat weeds on GM soy plantations.70 By 2008, although GM
nearly a third (31 percent) of the global GM crops.60 These cultivation nearly tripled, glyphosate applications surged
figures from the pro-biotechnology International Service fourteen-fold to 200 million liters. 71 For Monsanto, this reli-
for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications are a likely ance on glyphosate has been a goldmine. In 2008, Monsanto
overestimation of GM cultivation. For example, these figures made a gross profit of almost $2 billion on Roundup and
count each GM trait separately, so a crop with more than one other glyphosate-based herbicides — about a third of the
GM trait would be double-counted in these figures.61 company’s $6.2 billion in gross profits.72
Argentina introduced commercial GM soybeans in 1996 and Widespread glyphosate application has led to weeds that are
within three years was planting 6.8 million hectares of GM resistant to glyphosate, which can lead to higher herbicide
crops.62 A decade later, Argentina’s GM cultivation had more applications and lower yields.73 At least 15 weed species
than tripled to 21.3 million hectares.63 GM soy now domi- worldwide have developed resistance to glyphosate.74 A
nates Argentina’s crop, comprising 99 percent of the nation’s 2010 study by the respected U.S. National Research Coun-
harvest in 2008.64 In Brazil, GM seeds had been illegally cil found that herbicide-tolerant weeds in GM fields were a
imported from Argentina and widely illicitly cultivated for problem that is “growing and going to get worse.”75 When
years prior to GM’s official approval.65 weeds develop a widespread tolerance to the affiliated GM
herbicide, it diminishes any benefit of the biotech crop.76
Brazil first permitted commercial GM planting in 2003 and For example, U.S. cotton farmers have increased herbicide
immediately planted 3 million hectares of herbicide-tolerant applications and abandoned conservation tilling practices to
soybeans.66 Six years later, GM planting had grown seven- counter glyphosate-resistant weeds.77
fold to 21.4 million hectares.67 While exact amounts of GM
soy are difficult to calculate, as the tracking is largely done In part because of the growing weed resistance, other her-
7
Institute and other organizations have opposed the com-

mercial cultivation of GM crops since they were approved
without the constitutionally required environmental impact
studies.83
The shift to GM seeds has undermined the traditional prac-

tice of saving and sharing seeds from harvested crops to plant
the next season.84 Small-scale and landless peasant groups
have opposed commercialized GM cultivation because it
would make it harder for small farmers to save seeds.85 The
biotech companies zealously pursue anyone that may be
infringing on their patents for seed piracy. In 2009, Bra-
zil established fines up to 125 percent of the cost of GM
seeds purchased from informal seed dealers and stepped up
enforcement against illegal “seed trafficking.”86 In the first
half of 2009, Brazil’s agriculture ministry and state officials
of Mato Grasso made 230 raids on seed smugglers — more
than one a day — and seized 660 tons of illegal seeds.87
This crackdown protects international seed companies like
Monsanto, but hurts small farmers that have relied on seed
saving and sharing as part of their production strategy. These
farmers are forced to either purchase high-cost seeds or resort
to lower-quality seeds.
Global Soy Trade Enriches Transnational Grain

Traders and Meatpackers
Four international firms and a few Latin American firms that
grow soybeans dominate the global oilseed trade. These firms
buy and process soybeans in Latin America, own oilseed
elevators and shipping terminals, and transport the soybean
bicides are still in wide and expanding use. Argentine soya
products from South America for distribution to industrial pig
fields were also sprayed with an estimated 30 million liters
and poultry farms in Europe. The major players, or “ABCDs,”
of the herbicides such as 2,4-D, atrazine and the pesticide
of the international soybean complex are the U.S.-based Ar-
endosulfan in 2006.78 As herbicide applications in Argentina
cher Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge, Cargill and the French
have risen, acute pesticide poisonings of workers and people
company Louis Dreyfus.88 These firms were four of the top six
living near plantation areas have increased, and there has
exporters of soybeans from Argentina in 2009.89
been a marked increase in genetic abnormalities in chil-
dren.79 Moreover, a 2009 Argentine scientific study found
ADM is one of the leading companies buying and shipping
that even low-level exposure to glyphosate could mutate
soybeans from South America.90 It operates 21 oilseed-crush-
amphibian embryos.80
ing plants outside the United States, including in Bolivia, Bra-
zil, England, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Ukraine,
These concerns have led an appellate court in Argentina to
and over 100 international oilseed elevators, including port
block farmers from spraying agrochemicals near populated
terminals in Bolivia, Brazil, Germany, the Netherlands, Para-
areas. The court found that farmers “have been indiscrimi-
guay and Poland.91
nately using agrochemicals such as glyphosate, applied in
open violation of existing laws [causing] severe damage to
Bunge originates most of its soybeans from Argentina, Bra-
the environment and to the health and quality of life of the
zil and the Midwest of the United States and operates 56
residents.”81
oilseed-processing plants worldwide.92 In Argentina, Bunge’s
three soybean-crushing plants process more than 13,000
Farmer, environmental and consumer advocates have op-
metric tonnes each day.93 Subsidiary Bunge Alimentos is the
posed the commercial cultivation of GM crops. In Brazil,
largest agribusiness and food company in Brazil.94 Bunge is
environmentally conscious urban consumers believe that the
one of South America’s largest exporters of soybeans and soy
environmental and social costs of widespread soybean pro-
meal, destined for industrial livestock operations and food-
duction outweigh any benefits.82 Farmer advocacy group Via
processing companies.95
Campesina, the Green Party, the Brazilian Consumer Defense
8
Food & Water Watch
Cargill is probably the largest grain trader in the world and Soy Imports Fuel European Industrial
a world leader in the trading and processing of oilseeds.96
Cargill operates hundreds of interior silos as well as grain
Livestock
elevators, terminals and ports worldwide that purchase and The flood of imported soybeans has helped to transform Eu-
store grains and oilseeds.97 Cargill operates eight soybean ropean pig and chicken farmers into industrial-scale livestock
facilities and three soybean terminals in Brazil and four producers. Instead of raising pigs and chickens on locally
soybean-crushing plants and five export terminals in Argen- cultivated feeds, low-priced imported soybean feed encour-
tina.98 The company also operates a fleet of cargo ships that aged pig and chicken producers to specialize in livestock
can connect their global network of storage facilities.99 production, expand in size and transform European livestock
holdings into factory farms.
Louis Dreyfus is one of the world’s largest oilseed distribution
companies.100 In Argentina, Louis Dreyfus owns two soybean- Low-priced soybean meal has been essential to supersizing
crushing plants and two export terminals. In Brazil, it oper- pig and poultry farms. Commercially raised chickens and pigs
ates a network of oilseed storage and export facilities as well are dependent on soya for two-thirds of their protein needs.109
as several soybean-crushing facilities.101 Even beef cattle and dairy cows, whose stomachs are de-
signed to eat mostly grass, eat some soy-based feed. Dairy
Homegrown Latin American soybean interests, in part fi- and beef cattle are often fed 2 kilos of soybeans or soybean
nanced by the International Finance Corporation, a member products each day.110 And the soybean industry is completely
of the World Bank group, have joined giant international dependent on the industrial livestock industry, with specially
grain traders. Since 1997, the World Bank made $365 mil- bred animals that rely on high-protein feeds to produce
lion in direct loans and indirectly helped finance almost $1.2 maximum weight gain. Almost all soybeans are processed
billion in soybean-processing investments in Argentina and into meal and oil, and 98 percent of soybean meal is used for
Brazil.102 These investments helped some of the largest Latin livestock feed.111 Cheap imported soy helped increase the soy
American companies consolidate their control of the global meal share of EU livestock feed from 57.1 percent between
soybean trade. 1993 and 1994 to 67.0 percent between 2007 and 2008.112
As imported soy became a larger share of feed for pigs and
Brazil’s Amaggi is the world’s largest soybean-growing opera- poultry, feed costs declined by more than a third (38 percent)
tion.103 Blairo Maggi, who also served as governor of Mato between 1990 and 2003.113
Grosso, heads the Amaggi Group.104 Maggi has been called
the King of Soy and received Greenpeace’s Golden Chainsaw
prize for his firm’s destruction of the Amazon rainforest.105 In
the mid 1990s, Maggi received financing from the governor
of the state of Amazonas and Brazil’s National Development
Bank to build a river terminal to ship soybeans from Brazil’s
interior to coastal seaports for international shipment.106
Maggi then leveraged the soy terminal to secure two $30 mil-
lion direct loans from the World Bank’s International Finance
Corporation and $95 million from commercial banks to ex-
pand the company’s facilities.107 The IFC’s own ombudsman
reported that one Maggi loan was given despite IFC’s failures
to adequately consider any damaging environmental and
social impacts of the project.108
Global livestock companies, including American pork and

poultry companies, also benefit from a global marketplace
awash in cheap feed. Plentiful, low-cost feed allows livestock
companies to locate their production facilities where labor
costs and environmental safeguards are weaker. U.S.-based
meat company Smithfield has already entered Eastern Europe
to take advantage of cheaper land and labor and effectively
exported some of America’s worst industrial livestock prac-
tices to the EU (see Food & Water Watch’s 2008 report, The
Trouble with Smithfield).
9
These pig and chicken farms concentrate more animals in Number of EU-15 Agricultural
small facilities, and the waste manure from these animals
pollutes local waterways, land and air. And while the EU has
Holdings (in millions)
taken steps to mitigate the effects of factory farming on live-
stock animals, cruelty remains a part of the growing process.
For example, battery cages, which constrict hens to a floor
area smaller than a sheet of paper, are being phased out, but
are still in use the EU, as are gestation crates for hogs, which
keep sows hemmed in and unable to move before weaning
young pigs.114 While both are being phased out, they remain
in use until the bans go into effect.
Over the past two decades the number of livestock animals

has grown, the number of farms has fallen, and the scale of
pig and chicken farms has exploded. Farm income per live-
stock animal has been declining for the past few decades.115
Facing declining incomes, smaller commercial farms are giv-
ing up farming altogether, and the remaining farms are get-
ting bigger to compensate for lower per-animal revenues.116
More Animals on Fewer, Larger Farms Source: Eurostat.
The total number of farms in the EU has been steadily and

sharply declining. Between 1995 and 2007, the EU-15 sive data because of reunification). In 1990, there were 2.4
member nations shed 1.7 million farms — nearly a quarter of million broiler and pig-fattening holdings, but by 2007, the
all farms.117 The number of farms feeding livestock fell much number had fallen to 795,000.118 Most of the farms that were
faster. Over the past two decades, the number of pig-fatten- eliminated were medium- and smaller-sized operations; the
ing and broiler chicken farms in the EU-12 members fell by holdings that remained have grown to hold thousands of pigs
two-thirds (excluding Germany, which lacks comprehen- and over a hundred thousand chickens.
10
Food & Water Watch
Meat Chickens: Broiler production has grown slowly but European Factory Farms Contribute to
steadily in the EU. The number of chickens on EU-15 farms Environmental Degradation
rose 10.0 percent from 923 million in 1995 to 1.0 billion in
More pigs and poultry on fewer farms generate mountains
2008.119 Poultry meat production rose slightly (0.9 percent)
of waste — phosphorus- and nitrogen-laden manure — that
from 11.5 million metric tonnes in 2005 to 11.6 million met-
requires disposal. The production of pigs and poultry is
ric tonnes in 2008.120 In 2003, there were 1.5 million farms
concentrated in a few countries that bear the majority of the
with broiler chickens in the EU-27 member states, but the
environmental and public health burdens of concentrated
overwhelming number were small, with an average of 730
livestock production. Two-thirds (68.9 percent) of the pigs
broilers (only measured in EU-25 countries).121 The largest
in the European Union are in Denmark, Germany, France,
1,500 broiler holdings had an average of over 197,000 broil-
Spain, the Netherlands and Poland.132 Since a single pig
ers each in 2003.122
produces as much waste as four people, a single factory farm
can produce as much waste as an average-sized town.133
Pig Fattening: Pig production in the EU has become more
industrialized, more integrated and grown in scale. In 2004,
The industrial pig and poultry farms in the European Union
there were 158.7 million pigs in the EU-27 countries; within
produce at least 240 million metric tonnes of solid manure
two years, the EU added nearly 3 million more totaling
and manure slurry each year (215.8 million tonnes of pig
161.5 million pigs by 2006.123 The scale of pig operations has
waste and 23.1 million tonnes of poultry waste).134 This
grown considerably. A European Commission study found
concentrated livestock waste can pollute and endanger
that the pig industry’s “underlying phenomenon is one of
water systems and contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.135
concentration, i.e. an increase in the size of the largest herds
Agriculture produced about a tenth (9.3 percent) of EU-15
together with the disappearance of the smallest.”124
greenhouse gas emissions, mostly from livestock manure.136
Small pig farms in the EU are disappearing, but the num-
These wastes are typically applied to cropland as fertilizer,
ber of the largest farms has grown, and the number of pigs
but the colossal volumes can exceed the capacity of the
on these large farms has grown by one-sixth (16.4 percent)
land to absorb the nutrients. The highest nutrient balances
between 2003 and 2007. The number of hogs on the largest
were largely in countries with high levels of pig and poultry
farms doubled in the new member states.125 In four years, the
number of pig farms in the EU-27 fell by almost one-third,
dropping from 5.1 million in 2003 to 3.5 million in 2007.126
While the total number of pig farms fell, the number of the
largest pig holdings, with more than 1,000 pigs, grew by 4.8 EU-12 Pig Fattening and Broiler
percent between 2005 and 2007, and the number and share Holdings, 1990-2007
of pigs on these biggest farms grew as well.127 In Poland,
1,500,000
Romania and Lithuania, the pig sector is restructuring with
smaller operations disappearing, as elsewhere in Europe,
but with medium- and large-sized holdings rapidly growing
Broiler Chicken
in size.128 These changes may be in part related to the U.S.- 1,200,000 Pig Fattening
based pork producing giant Smithfield’s hog production and
slaughter facilities in Poland and Romania.129
As the number of pig-fattening farms declined, the average 900,000

size of pig farms rose and the very largest holdings swelled
to enormous proportions. In 1990, EU-12 pig-fattening farms
averaged 63 pigs, but by 2007, the average-sized holding
more than quadrupled to 291 pigs (excluding Germany).130 600,000
Much of this growth is driven by the largest pig holdings.
Less than 1 percent of farms raised more than 1,000 pigs, but
nearly half of pigs were on these giant farms — and more
pigs are on these farms all the time. In 2005, there were 68.5 300,000
million pigs raised on giant holdings, more than two-fifths
(45.8 percent) of all pigs. Two years later in 2007, 73.6 mil-
lion pigs were on these large farms, nearly half (49.2 percent)
of all pigs.131
1990 1993 1995 1997 2000 2003 2005 2007
Source: Eurostat; excludes Germany.
11
is not a money spinner.”142 Livestock farms are purported to

be profitable holdings, but the income and financial returns
are not always lucrative. Pig and poultry farms often receive
low prices for their livestock, have high input and overhead
costs and face cyclical downturns, and there are vast income
disparities between the largest factory farms and smaller pig
Since a single pig produces as and poultry holdings. Feed is the largest cost for these farms,
and without low-priced imported soybeans, the financial vi-
much waste as four people, a ability of these holdings would be even more uncertain.
single factory farm can produce The prices farmers received for livestock fell sharply in 2008
as much waste as an average- and 2009, but prices have been flat or uneven for pigs for the
past decade. Real livestock prices declined by 8.2 percent
sized town. during 2009.143 In 2009, pig prices fell by 7.8 percent, or
€12 to €141 per 100 kilos.144 The price of pigmeat between
2005 and 2008 remained below the price farmers received
in 2000.145
The weak earnings from low prices were compounded by

concentration — in the Netherlands it exceeded 200 kilos of high production and capital costs to raise pigs. In 2006, Eu-
nitrogen per hectare, in Germany it exceeded 100 kilos per ropean farmers received €121 per pig, but the cost of piglets,
hectare and in Denmark it approached 75 kilos per hectare feed and other inputs amounted to €111, leaving farmers
in 2000.137 A joint World Health Organization and European with a net €10 per pig.146 Feed costs rose sharply starting in
Commission report noted that in some places soil had been 2007 — rising 50 percent higher than 2000 — but pigmeat
oversaturated with phosphorus from “spreading excessive prices hovered 10 percent below 2000 prices.147 Although
manure from animal husbandry,” and that this had over- feed prices began to fall in 2008, the EU’s Eurostat noted that
whelmed the benefits of other agricultural efforts to reduce falling costs “cannot compensate for these difficult years.”148
excess nutrient runoff.138 Excess nutrients can generate algae
blooms of fast-growing plants that deplete oxygen levels in Low prices and high costs have made it hard for farmers
the water, making it impossible for most other aquatic life to to earn a living. Farmers faced “a remarkable decrease in
survive. agricultural income” in 2009 as higher input costs and lower
prices for crops and livestock drove farm incomes down
Industrial pig and poultry operations can also emit high by 11.6 percent.149 Although pig and poultry holdings have
levels of dust and particulate matter than can be dangerous higher financial returns than other farms, returns for these
for farmers and workers. Studies have found that workers holdings declined slightly between 1990 and 2003, the only
in industrial pig and poultry operations in the EU have a subsector aside from wine to have declining incomes.150
high prevalence of symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and that When the cost of family labor, rent and land costs, paid
working in pig barns is associated with acute and chronic wages, depreciation, and other non-pig-specific costs are
decline in workers’ lung function.139 The odor from industrial taken into account, the average European pig farmer’s margin
pig and poultry operations has reduced the quality of life is negative €13 per pig.151
for rural communities. Livestock odor and airborne emis-
sions have been tied to chronic headaches, runny noses, The majority of the earnings in the pig and poultry sector
sore throats, diarrhea and affected mucosal immune func- go to the largest industrial farms. Pig and poultry farms in
tion for nearby residents.140 The pungent factory farm aroma Europe exhibit some of the widest disparities in income of
can push down property values in the surrounding areas, as any type farm. The top fifth of pig and poultry farms with the
people are loath to buy homes near the industrial livestock most animals earned almost two-thirds (63 percent) of the
stench.141 sector’s earnings, the highest income inequality in the Euro-
pean Union’s agriculture sector.152 In 2003, nearly two out of
five (38 percent) pig holdings earned less than €20,000 per
Industrialized Livestock Does Not Fatten Farm full-time worker (including the farmer), but one out of eight
Incomes farms (13 percent) earned more than €60,000.153 One in nine
Farmers add ever more pigs and poultry to their holdings to (11 percent) pig and poultry farms had negative earnings dur-
try and eke out a living in an unforgiving occupation. Most ing that year (beyond those with incomes below €20,000).154
farmers have a tenuous economic security. The European Pig and poultry farms had the largest share of holdings with
Commission noted that “[c]ontrary to popular belief, farming negative incomes in 2006 of any agricultural subsector.155
12
Food & Water Watch
Rising European Soybean Imports on agricultural imports (either import quotas or outright bans
on imports).156
Facilitated by the World Trade
Organization The agreement also required countries to reduce government
support for farmers that was tied to production (payments
The World Trade Organization (WTO) largely facilitated the
per metric tonne of production), it barred policies tied to
rise of socially and environmentally destructive soy planta-
prices (policies that acted as price floors), and it prohibited
tions in Latin America and factory-farmed livestock in Europe.
the use of export subsidies.157 While industrial countries still
International trade deals sharpened the focus on global,
maintain farm programs and payments, the structure of the
manufactured food production. The agricultural provisions
programs no longer provides a safety net for farmers; instead
of the trade agreements of the 1990s were largely designed
the farm policies provide agribusinesses access to low-priced
by the negotiators from industrialized countries at the behest
agricultural inputs. These two free-trade principles turned
of their largest agribusinesses. These companies used trade
food into an industrial commodity. International grain traders
deals like the WTO to make it easier to ship agricultural com-
sought the cheapest soy production to export to factory farms
modities like soybeans worldwide to accelerate the shift to
on a global marketplace.
factory-farmed pigs and chickens. At the same time, the trade
agreements were used to dismantle or restructure the farm
The impacts of these trade deals not only benefit the largest
safety net programs in the EU and United States that ensured
agribusinesses but also have far-reaching ramifications for
farmers got a fair price for their crops.
people worldwide. The international trade rules that encour-
aged financial speculation on food commodities also pro-
The WTO, which went into effect in 1995, was the first
hibited countries from setting aside food reserves or main-
large-scale trade agreement to cover agricultural products.
taining policies that promote domestic food security or food
The WTO included an Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) that
sovereignty. For example, the Argentine government blamed
required countries to both lower barriers to imports and
the “soybean economy” for diverting agricultural capac-
reduce government support for agriculture programs. The
ity towards soy exports, which forced the country to import
WTO AoA directed countries to reduce tariffs on agricultural
crops that Argentina used to produce domestically.158 When
products (taxes on imports) and prohibited setting any limits
13
severe price shocks in the food market occurred in 2008, the To break the logjam, U.S. and European negotiators met in
world faced a food crisis caused in part by a globalization Washington at the U.S. presidential guest residence known
model that puts commercial interests ahead of the needs of as the Blair House. The resulting 1992 Blair House agree-
the people. ment both settled the long-standing oilseed trade dispute and
set the conditions for the EU and United States to accept the
overall WTO AoA framework. The deal established a favor-
Blair House able “base year” (1994) for implementing the trade deal’s
The AoA requirements to allow more agricultural imports reduced trade barriers and agricultural programs that allowed
and reduce domestic farm programs represented a radical both the EU and United States to begin phasing in the reduc-
departure from previous trade agreements. Prior to 1995, tions from a year with high prices, high production and vast
global trade rules allowed countries to set limits on agricul- cultivation.
tural imports and allowed governments to maintain domestic
farm safety net programs.159 The new framework for agricul- Negotiators used the elimination of European oilseed policy
ture was highly contentious. A dispute over soybean trade in the Blair House agreement as the template to establish
and farm policy between the European Union and the United broader agricultural trade reform goals as part of the AoA.
States was the most controversial. Prior to the WTO, Euro- The Blair House provisions on EU oilseeds were buried in
pean soybean production had jumped dramatically, nearly the EU’s WTO commitments in a special oilseed annex. The
tripling between 1980 and 1990. The U.S. Department of Ag- Memorandum of Understanding on Oilseeds banned any
riculture contended that the EU’s farm policy increased soy oilseed program support that exceeded the 1994 level of
production and contributed to a 53 percent decline in U.S. cultivation (the base year), required at least 10 percent of
soybean exports to Europe.160 Although EU trade negotiators the base year acreage to be idled (known as a “set aside”)
worried that cheap maize, wheat, soybeans and rapeseed each year, and prohibited any support of oilseeds for human
imports would swamp European farmers, U.S. trade negotia- or livestock consumption above 1 million metric tonnes of
tors demanded that the EU reduce both soybean and oilseed soybean meal.162 The agreement permitted cultivation of
trade barriers and European farm programs that supported industrial or biodiesel oilseeds on set aside acreage.163
soybean farmers.161 This had clear implications for European
food sovereignty, the impacts of which are still being felt. The Blair House accord ushered in the WTO AoA and paved
the way for surging soybean imports. The EU had completely
Blair House, the U.S. presidential guest residence in Washington, D.C. Photo by Ben Schumin.
14
Food & Water Watch
eliminated its tariffs on oilseeds and oilseed meal in the 1961 members.176 The European Commission noted that “[t]he link
global trade negotiations, which helped to make soymeal to production has been severed,”177 making the programs
a key livestock feed ingredient to replace European cereals WTO-permissible upon full implementation.
like oats and barley.164 The EU only consented to the AoA if
it could reestablish some import tariffs on oilseeds and grain The Blair House accord, MacSharry reform and subsequent
substitutes.165 In the WTO commitments, the EU kept oilseed CAP modifications fulfilled the demand of U.S. agribusi-
imports duty-free, but it set a base tariff on soybean meal of nesses to eliminate European support for soy production, and
7.0 percent to be reduced to a target 4.5 percent.166 By 1999, soybean cultivation in Europe plummeted. Between 1980
the EU had eliminated its applied tariffs on soy meal.167 and 1990, soybean cultivation in the EU-15 member states
exploded from 15,000 hectares to 674,000 hectares.178 After
the MacSharry reforms went into effect, soybean cultivation
WTO-Directed Changes to the EU Common fell by half, from 300,000 hectares in 1993 to 151,000 hect-
Agricultural Policy (CAP) Oilseeds Programs ares in 2008. The demand for soybeans did not evaporate
Before the WTO AoA went into effect, the EU’s Common with declining European production; the demand was just
Agricultural Policy (CAP) programs supported the price of sated by imported soy.
field crops like wheat, maize and oilseeds through govern-
ment purchases at guaranteed prices.168 The AoA directed
agricultural program payments to be “decoupled” from price Conclusions and Recommendations
or production factors, which effectively required the EU to The World Trade Organization undermined the EU’s farm
restructure its agriculture programs.169 safety net programs, fostered a dependency on low-priced
imported feed that accelerated the expansion of factory-
In 1992, the EU reformed the CAP to bring it into alignment farmed pigs and chickens, and encouraged rapacious
with the AoA dictates even before the agreement was final- cultivation of GM soybeans in Latin America. These factors
ized. The reform, named after Agriculture Commissioner combined with other policies have helped dramatically drive
Ray MacSharry, reduced price supports and replaced these down the number of farms in the EU. Many pig and chick-
programs with new direct payments.170 This provided oilseed en holdings have since consolidated into giant industrial
producers a transition from the pre-AoA agriculture programs, livestock operations. In Latin America, global investors and
but they were based on the lower area and production targets large-scale landowners have tightened their stranglehold on
established through the Blair House agreement.171 As a result, farmland, displacing smaller farmers and indigenous people.
oilseed transition payments were higher than to other grain
and cereal farmers to compensate farmers for the sharply Consumers have not benefitted from these changes either.
reduced CAP support under the Blair House agreement.172 Instead, large multinational corporations have replaced the
local farmers, grocers and butchers that once recirculated
The MacSharry compensatory oilseed payments were consid- their earnings in the local economy.
ered partially decoupled transition payments under the WTO
AoA strictures (known as “Blue Box” in WTO lingo). Partially Current policies repeat and reinforce the trade and agricul-
decoupled programs were related to base production levels ture agenda that furthers the interests of agribusinesses like
(like the Blair House oilseed base acreage) and could remain international grain traders and factory farm operators. To cre-
in place if the programs reduced overall production. Fully ate a more sustainable, equitable and viable farm and food
decoupled programs that were unrelated to production or economy that serves consumers and farmers in the EU and
price and had minimal impact on trade (designated “Green Latin America, these policies must change. None of these
Box”) were permitted under the WTO. policies are inevitable. Just as we created these changes,
we can fix the problems with a few straightforward steps
The EU restructured the CAP again in 1999 and 2003 to and concerted action in different areas to address different
make its agriculture programs more WTO-compliant. In aspects of the problem. For more information about these
1999, the EU decided to reduce direct, compensatory pay- issues, see www.foodandwatereurope.org.
ments to oilseed farmers by a third over the following three
years to align the payment with other grain farmers.173 In To reduce Europe’s current dependence on unsustainable
2003, the CAP was transformed into a program of direct pay- imported animal feed commodities, encourage more sus-
ments to farmers (known as “Pillar 1”) combined with invest- tainable trade, and improve food sovereignty in the EU and
ments in rural communities (“Pillar 2”).174 Farmers receive a worldwide, Food & Water Europe recommends the follow-
direct payment under a “Single Payment Scheme” based on ing steps to realign current policy toward food sovereignty
the historical hectares of registered agricultural land.175 The and away from practices which support big business at the
shift to a single farm payment was to be phased in gradually expense of consumers and the environment:
by 2007 for EU-15 member states and by 2010-2011for new
15
Remove Agriculture from the WTO and other EU Trade

Deals: The WTO’s Agreement on Agriculture should be
abandoned and the agricultural trade model of the WTO and
other regional trade deals should not be used as a template
for other trade negotiations. Food is not like other manufac-
tured goods like carburetors or tennis shoes; it is required to
sustain life. Governments should be free to establish poli-
cies that promote sustainable production at fair prices for
farmers and ensure that volatile international markets do
not undermine food security or food sovereignty. The prom-
ise of exporting raw agricultural material from developing
countries to industrial countries has not provided prosperity
for famers in the developing world or the industrial world.
Currently, proposed regional trade deals between the EU
and other trading partners, including those in soy-producing
Latin America, contain the same misguided agricultural trade
regimes.
Withdraw from the Blair House Soybean Concessions: The

European Union should withdraw its soybean commitments
under the current WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Although
the single farm payment scheme means that the Blair House
agreement does not currently apply, if the EU were to change
the CAP in a way that contradicted these WTO commit-
ments, the Blair House agreement would snap back into
force. The EU should be able to reassess and reestablish farm
programs without the Blair House accord limiting its policy
options.
Redirect current support for mega farms to small and family
The EU Should Shift from Imported Soy to Domestic Protein farms and research into breeds and feeds less dependent on
Crops: There are a variety of alternatives to the hegemony of high-protein imports. Industrial soya receives support directly
imported soy that can be grown domestically. The EU could and indirectly from government, school, military, hospital,
cultivate more soybeans, as happened in the early 1990s, and prison and other official sources. This support is badly out of
return to cultivating pulses, field peas, lupins and field beans sync with sustainable practice. The considerable purchasing
for livestock feed. There are a variety of substitutions that can power of our public institutions and research investments
be made to enhance the environmental sustainability of live- should be moving us forward rather than holding us back by
stock feed while lowering the importation of soy. This shift to reinforcing the status quo.
domestically produced feed should apply to all livestock feed,
including industrial fish farms. End direct and indirect political support for industry efforts
to greenwash the environmental harm of global, industrial
Implement CAP Reform Policies to Reduce Industrial Live- agriculture: Trade associations representing the agribusiness
stock Production and Encourage Sustainable Production: and food industry have been promoting misleading efforts to
Pillar II of the CAP is designed to invest in rural communities, make the global soy trade appear sustainable, including the
promote sustainable agriculture and diversify rural econo- Round Table of Responsible Soy (RTRS) and the Roundtable
mies. Industrial livestock holdings fail to advance the CAP Pil- on Sustainable Consumptions. These and other voluntary
lar II goals. The next CAP reform should clearly promote more industry attempts to rebrand current business models as ap-
sustainable livestock production by considering the full life propriate or genuinely sustainable are self-serving efforts that
cycle impact of industrial-scale livestock fed entirely on im- will ultimately mislead consumers.
ported feed from Latin America. CAP Pillar II should promote
smaller-scale, economically viable livestock holdings that Empower EU Consumers with Understandable Food Labels:
can provide local jobs and growth without endangering the Europeans are increasingly concerned about the impact of
environment. CAP II payments should focus on protecting the their lifestyle on the environment and other people, and the
EU from the damage from farm runoff and effluent, as well as EU Parliament has repeatedly tried to provide better informa-
protecting smaller, more sustainable farms. Factory farming is tion about the foods they eat. Consumers do change their
a choice; the EU policies must chart a better course. buying behaviour when they have sufficient information on
16
Food & Water Watch
labels, as evidenced by the rise in sales of fair trade, organic able to choose whether they eat GM food products and clear
and non-GM products. However, some aspects of current “no GM feed” labels have been extraordinarily successful
labeling regulations are less helpful than they could be, when recently introduced in several EU countries.
others disguise industrial food practices and in other cases
necessary information is simply not available to consumers. Clear “Eat By” Dates on Packages: Currently, food in the EU
In particular, European consumers need mandatory labels, is labeled with a variety of confusing “best before,” “display
including on processed foods, which clearly show: until” and “use by” dates that studies show contribute to
perfectly edible food being thrown away. This wastes money
The source of the meat products: Labels on meat products and artificially increases demand on all aspects of the food
should clearly demonstrate where the animals providing chain. A clear, universal “eat by” label would eliminate this
meat were born, reared and slaughtered. Currently, most confusion.
labels only indicate the country where the food product was
most recently processed or underwent “significant change,” Uphold the law by ensuring companies pay their taxes, fol-
even if this is primarily repackaging. For example, a “Wilt- low animal welfare regulations and obey environmental laws.
shire ham, Product of the UK” may in fact be meat from pigs The EU and EU member states must also enforce laws that
raised in Denmark but processed and packaged in the UK. prohibit monopoly power and economic collusion and pro-
Such Country of Origin Labels (or COOL) applied by the hibit anticompetitive practices, especially by supermarkets,
processor, importer or retailer would better permit consumers but also by grain traders. When bigger firms are able to evade
to support local farmers and buy meat from places they know laws, it distorts the playing field and can harm smaller, more
uphold high standards and avoid cheap, often adulterated, sustainable farms that are doing the right thing.
imports.
Finally, we all must play our part by shopping wisely, ending
Label Meat Raised without GM Feed: Europeans overwhelm- food waste in our homes, and choosing a healthy, balanced
ingly reject genetically modified foods and feed, but con- diet, high in fresh foods and low in processed foods, that
sumers cannot determine whether the livestock that provides meets our needs without consuming more than we should.
their meat was fed without GM feed. Consumers want to be
Endnotes 15 Ibid.
16 Eurostat. “Food: From Farm to Fork Statistics.” 2008 at 147.
17 International Monetary Fund, Energy and Commodities Surveillance Unit.
1 European Commission. Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural IMF Primary Commodity Prices monthly data available at http://www.imf.org/
Development. “Prospects For Agricultural Markets And Income In The external/np/res/commod/index.asp, accessed June 24, 2009.
European Union 2008 – 2015.” March 2009, at 35. 18 Ibid.
2 McDonald’s. 2009 Annual Report. March 12, 2010, at 9. 19 Eurostat. “Food: From Farm to Fork Statistics.” 2008 at 13.
3 McDonald’s. 2009 Annual Report. March 12, 2010, at 7,9. 20 Government of Brazil, Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego, Ordinance
4 OECD. “OECD Health Data 2009: Statistics and Indicators for 30 Countries, No. 540 of December 5, 2004; Analysis, by the International Labor
Frequently Requested Data.” Available at http://www.oecd.org/document/30/ Organization, the Ethos Institute and Reporter Brazil, of the Employees
0,3343,en_2649_34631_12968734_1_1_1_1,00.html, accessed April 2010. Register Set on Government Directive 540. Government document
5 Branca, Francesco, et al. (eds). “The challenge of obesity in the WHO “Cadastro De Empregadores - Portaria 540 De 15 De Outubro De 2004
European Region and the strategies for response.” World Health Atualização Semestral Em 31 De Dezembro De 2009.” Analysis available
Organization, Europe (2007) at 50. online at http://www.reporterbrasil.com.br/listasuja/index.php?lingua=en,
6 European Commission. Eurostat. “Food: From Farm to Fork Statistics.” Accessed June 2010.
European Communities, 2008, at 133; EUROSTAT. Distributive Trades 21 Chapagain, Ashok K. and Arjen Y. Hoekstra, “The Global Component of
Broken Down by Employment Size Classes. (NACE rev.1.1 G). Jan. 1, 2010. Freshwater Demand and Supply: An Assessment of Virtual Water Flows
7 Except where otherwise noted, all import and export figures are drawn from Between Nations as a Result of Trade in Agricultural and Industrial
the United Nations. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO). FAOSTAT Products,” Water International, Vol. 33, No. 1, March 2008 at 22.
database. Available at http://faostat.fao.org. Accessed May 11, 2010. 22 Wendland, Edson, Jorje Rabelo and Jackson Roehrig. Institut fur
8 Food & Water Watch analysis of UN FAO data. FAOSTAT database. Available Tropentechnologie. “Guaraini Aquifer System – The Strategical Water Source
at http://faostat.fao.org. Accessed May 11, 2010. in South America.” ALMEIDA. 2004 at 199.
9 Eurostat. “Food: From Farm to Fork Statistics.” 2008 at 38. 23 Chapagain, A.K. and A.Y. Hoekstra. Institute for Water Education. UNESCO-
10 European Commission. “EU27 Trade Since 1995 BY SITC.” Eurostat. IHE. “Water Footprints of Nations: Volume 2 Appendices.” November 2004
Available at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/agriculture/ at Appendix XIII-1 and XIII-5. FAOStat.
data/database. Accessed April 2010. Population figure from Eurostat, “First 24 Ibid,
Demographic Estimates for 2009.” 25 FAO. Aquastat. “Irrigation water use per country in the year 2000.” Available
11 LMC International. “Evaluation of Measures Applied Under the Common online at http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use/irrwatuse.htm, ac-
Agricultural Policy to the Protein Crop Sector.” November 2009 at 34. cessed July 2010.
12 Marquer, Pol. European Commission. “Pig Farming in the EU, a Changing 26 FAOSTAT.
Sector.” Eurostat 8/2010. February 2, 2010 at 8; Ataide Dias, Rodrigo and 27 See A Seed Europe, Base Investigaciones Sociales, Corporate Europe
Giovanni Dore. European Commission, Eurostat. “Poultry Statistics in the Observatory, Grupo de Reflexion Rural and Rainforest Action Network. “The
European Union.” Eurostat 31/2008. August 5, 2008 at 2. FAOSTAT. Largest Round Table on Ir-Responsible Soy.” April 2008.
pig producers were defined as those that produced more than 20 million 28 Pew Global Attitudes Project. “Broad opposition to genetically modified
pigs in 2008 – Germany, Spain, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and foods.” Released June 20, 2003.
Poland; largest poultry meat producers nations that fattened more than 29 Morton, Douglas C., et al. “Cropland Expansion Changes Deforestation
400,000 chicks in 2007 - United Kingdom, France, Poland, Spain, Germany Dynamics in the Southern Brazilian Amazon.” PNAS, Vol. 103, No. 39,
and the Netherlands. September 26, 2006 at 14637.
13 The Dutch Soy Coalition. “Soy Barometer 2009.” Dutch Soy Coalition, 30 Ibid.
October, 2009, at 3. 31 Morton et al., at 14639.
14 Ibid. 32 FAOSTAT.
17
33 FAOSTAT. order to evaluate official control systems for food, feed and seed consisting
34 FAOSTAT. of or produced from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) intended for
35 EU Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “Agriculture export to the EU.” DG(SANCO)/ 2009-8301 - MR – FINAL, at 4; “Biotech
in the European Union Statistical and Economic Information 2009.” March corn expected to account for 70% of Brazilian crop.” Food Chemical News.
2010 at 47. March 15, 2010.
36 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Global Forest 69 “Biotech corn expected to account for 70% of Brazilian crop.” Food
Resources Assessment 2005.” Global tables. Available at http://www.fao.org/ Chemical News. March 15, 2010.
forestry/fra/fra2005/en/, accessed April 2010. 70 GRAIN (Genetic Resources Action International). “Twelve years of GM
37 Ibid. soya in Argentina.” Seedling. January 2009 at 17; Food and Agriculture
38 Ibid. Size of Belgium from Wright, John W. (ed.) (2006) “The New York Times Organization of the United Nations.
Almanac.” New York: Penguin Books at 538. 71 Ibid.
39 Steinfeld, Henning et al. “Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues 72 Carl Casale, Chief Financial Officer, Monsanto Company. “Presentation at
and Options.” Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, UBS Best of Americas Conference.” September 10, 2009, at 11 and 13.
2006, at 66. 73 Binimelis, Rosa et al. “‘Transgenic treadmill’ Responses to the Emergence
40 Astor, Michael. “Amazon port in stormy waters.” Houston Chronicle. July and Spread of Glyphosate-Resistant Johnsongrass in Argentina.” Geoforum.
20, 2006. July 2009 at Introduction.
41 Kaufman, Marc. “New allies on the Amazon.” Washington Post. April 24, 74 Clapp, Stephen. “Canadian researchers find suspected glyphosate-resistant
2007 at D1; Gumbel, Andrew. “Greens hail landmark victory in fight to weed.” Food Chemical News. May 18, 2009.
save Amazon rainforest.” The London Independent. March 26, 2007 at 22; 75 Clapp, Stephen. “Weed resistance to biotech crops stressed in NRC report.”
Lawrence, Felicity, and John Vidal. “Food giants to boycott illegal Amazon Food Chemical News. April 19, 2010.
soya.” The London Guardian. July 24, 2006 at 15. 76 Clapp, Stephen. “Study says farmers relying on Roundup may weaken ben-
42 ABIOVE. “Monitoring of the Soy Moratorium, 2009/10.” Available online at efits.” Food Chemical News. April 20, 2009.
http://www.abiove.com.br/english/ss_relatoriouso09_us.asp. Accessed July 77 Carol, Brenda. “Preserving glyphosate efficiency vital to San Joaquin Valley
2010. growers.” Western Farm Press. February 25, 2009.
43 Ibid. 78 Friends of the Earth International. “Who benefits from GM crops? The rise in
44 Grau, H. Ricardo, et al. “Agriculture Expansion and Deforestation pesticide use.” January 2008, at 19.
in Seasonally Dry Forests of North-West Argentina.” Environmental 79 Maria Alejandra Silva. “Poverty and Health in Argentina.” Social Medicine.
Conservation, 32(2), 2005, at 140. Volume 4, Number 2, June 2009, at 104.
45 Sawyer, Donald. “Climate Change, Biofuels and Eco-Social Impacts in the 80 Romig, Shane. “Argentina court blocks agrochemical spraying near rural
Brazilian Amazon and Cerrado.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal town.” Dow Jones. March 17, 2010.
Society, (2008) at 1749. 81 Romig, Shane. “Argentina court blocks agrochemical spraying near rural
46 Grau et al., at 140. town.” Dow Jones. March 17, 2010.
47 Howder, Daniel. “Deforestation: The hidden cause of global warming.” The 82 Lewis, Steven. “Biotech soybeans face growing opposition in South
Independent. May 14, 2007. America.” Food Chemical News. June 15, 2009.
48 Jackson, Robert B., et al. “Protecting climate with forests.” Environmental 83 Lewis, Steven. “Brazil’s biotech plantings face another constitutional chal-
Research Letters. Volume 3, Number 4, October-December 2008 at 2. lenge.” Food Chemical News. January 18, 2010. “Brazil authorizes geneti-
49 Wallace, Scott. “Last of the Amazon.” National Geographic. January 2007. cally modified crops.” Agence France Presse. February 12, 2008.
50 FAOSTAT. 84 Farmers’ Legal Action Group (FLAG). “Farmers’ Guide to GMOs.” February
51 Dros, Jan Maarten. AIDEnvironment. “Managing the Soy Boom.” June 2004 2009 at 9.
at 10. 85 Lewis, Steven. “Brazil edges towards approval of ‘terminator’ technology.”
52 World Bank. World Development Report 2008. 2009 at A3. The Land Gini Food Chemical News. April 21, 2008.
Index measures concentration of land, with an index of 0 representing com- 86 Lewis, Steven. “Certified biotech seed sales get boost in Brazil.” Food
pletely equal distribution of land and an index of 1 representing only one Chemical News. June 22, 2009.
landowner. Argentina had a land Gini Index of 0.85 in 2002, Brazil had an 87 Lewis, Steven. “Brazillian inspection agencies crack down on seed smug-
index of 0.77 in 1996, France had an index of 0.58 in 2000 and Germany glers.” Food Chemical News. August 10, 2009.
had an index of 0.63 in 2000. 88 U.S. Soybean Export Council. “How the Global Oilseed and Grain Trade
53 Van Dam, Chris. “Land, Territory and Rights of Peoples: Indians, Peasants Works.” 2008 at 56-59.
and Small Salta Producers.” Secretariat of Agriculture, livestock, Fisheries 89 “Argentina: Grains exports dipped 45% in 2009.” El Cronista. March 23,
and Food. Buenos Aires (2007) at 6. 2010.
54 Van Dam at 8. 90 “ADM details plans for growth.” Feedstuffs. March 19, 2010.
55 EU Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Monitoring 91 Archer Daniels Midland. Securities and Exchange Commission filing 10K.
Agri-Trade Policy Newsletter. No. 02-06. “Brazil’s Agriculture: A Survey.” Fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 at 14.
November 2006 at 4. 92 U.S. Soybean Export Council. 2008 at 57; Bunge Limited. Securities and
56 World Bank. World Development Report 2008. 2009 at 85. Exchange Commission filing 10K. Fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 at
57 OECD. “Agricultural Policy Reform in Brazil.” October 2005 at 6. 18.
58 Government of Brazil, Ministério do Trabalho e Emprego, Ordinance 93 Bunge Argentina. Available at www.bungeargentina.com/en/ accessed May
No. 540 of December 5, 2004; Analysis, by the International Labor 3, 2010.
Organization, the Ethos Institute and Reporter Brazil, of the Employees 94 Cereplast, Inc. Press release. “Largest agribusiness and food company in
Register Set on Government Directive 540. Government document Brazil finds success with Cereplast bio-based resins.” Business Wire. June 10,
“Cadastro De Empregadores - Portaria 540 De 15 De Outubro De 2004 2009.
Atualização Semestral Em 31 De Dezembro De 2009.” Analysis available 95 Bunge. Activities by Region. Available at www.bunge.com/about-bunge/
online at http://www.reporterbrasil.com.br/listasuja/index.php?lingua=en, south-america.html accessed May 3, 2010.
Accessed June 2010. 96 Page, Greg. CEO Cargill Foods. “Trusting photosynthesis.” Speech given
59 Shoemaker, Robbin, ed. USDA ERS. “Economic Issues in Agricultural at the Chautuaqua Institute. Available at http://www.cargill.com/news-
Biotechnology.” AIB-762. 2001 at 9. center/speeches-presentations/trusting-photosynthesis/index.jsp and on
60 James, Clive. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech file, accessed June 26, 2009; Serres, Chris. “Cargill looms as silent giant.”
Applications (ISAAA). “Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: Minneapolis Star Tribune. December 4, 2008.
2009.” February 23, 2009 at Table 1. 97 Cargill. Cargill Grain & Oilseed Supply Chain. Available at http://www.
61 Friends of the Earth International. “Who Benefits from GM Crops?” February cargill.com/company/businesses/cargill-grain-oilseed-supply-chain/index.
2010 at 2. jsp. Accessed August 20, 2010.
62 Mergen, David and Andrea Yankelevich. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 98 Cargill. Cargill Worldwide. Available at www.cargill.com/br/brazil/en/home/
Foreign Agriculture Service. “Argentina Agricultural Biotechnology Annual.” locations/index.jsp and www.cargill.com/worldwide/argentina/index.jsp.
GAIN Report Number AR9024. October 27, 2009, at 4; James, Clive. Accessed May 4, 2010.
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 99 Cargill Ocean Transportation. Available at http://www.cargill-ot.com/ and on
“Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 1999.” 1999 at vi. file, accessed June 26, 2009.
63 James. 2009 at Table 1. 100 Louis Drefyus Commodities. The Business of Louis Dreyfus Commodities.
64 Mergen and Yankelevich at 4. Available at www.ldcommodities.com/index.php?id=1410 accessed May 3,
65 Margolis, Mac. “Another bitter harvest.” Newsweek. July 31, 2000. 2010.
66 James, Clive. ISAAA. “Global Status of Commercialized Transgenic Crops: 101 Ibid.
2003.” No. 30-2003. 2003 at 7. 102 International Finance Corporation. Food & Water Watch analysis of IFC
67 James. 2009 at Table 1. project Summaries of Project Information (SPI). Available at http://www.ifc.
68 European Commission, Health & Consumers Directorate-General, “Final org/projects accessed July, 2010.
report of a mission carried out in Brazil from 22 April to 30 April 2009 in 103 Reuters. “Brazil’s Amaggi buys Norwegian non-GMO grain firm.” July 13,
18
Food & Water Watch
2009. mucosal immune function in neighbors.” Archives of Environmental Health,

104 Knight, Patrick. “Maggi Group and Mato Grosso: a story of two giants.” All February 2004, Vol. 59, No. 2, at 101.
Business. November 1, 2003. 141 Apostol at 10.
105 Wallace, Scott. “Last of the Amazon.” National Geographic. January 2007. 142 Euopean Commission. “The Common Agricultural Policy Explained.”
106 Knight, 2003. October 2004 at 4.
107 International Finance Corporation, Projects 11344 and 22561, approved 143 “Agriculture in the European Union Statistical and Economic Information
June 25, 2002 and September 23, 2004. Documentation available online at 2009,” at 13.
http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/spiwebsite1.nsf/SearchView?SearchView&Query=a 144 “Agriculture in the European Union Statistical and Economic Information
maggi&SearchOrder=4&SearchMax=200, accessed June 2010. 2009,” at 19.
108 Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman. “CAO Audit of IFC’s 145 Marquer at 9.
Environmental and Social Categorization of the Amaggi Expansion Project, 146 Farm Accountancy Data Network. “Production Costs and Margins of Pig
Final Report.” International Finance Corporation/Multilateral Investment Fattening Farms 2008 Report.” February 20, 2009 at 8-9.
Guarantee Agency. May, 2005, at 14. 147 Marquer at 9.
109 Park W. Waldroup and Dr. Keith Smith. “Soybean Use – Poultry.” Soybean 148 Ibid.
Meal Information Center, Fact Sheet, at 2; James E. Pettigrew, et. al. 149 “Agriculture in the European Union Statistical and Economic Information
“Soybean Use – Swine.” Soybean Meal Information Center, Fact Sheet, at 2. 2009,” at 13.
110 Hutjens, Mike. University of Illinois Extension, Urbana. “Feeding Soybean as 150 “Income Evolution 1990-2003 and 2013 Forecasts by Type of Farm Based on
an Economic Alternative.” December 11, 2001; Walker, Julie. South Dakota FADN Data,” at 7.
State University Cooperative Extension Service. “Oilseed Crops in Beef 151 “Production Costs and Margins of Pig Fattening Farms 2008 Report.”
Cattle Rations.” Extension Extra. ExEx2058. December 2006 at 2. February 20, 2009 at 10.
111 US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. “Soybeans 152 European Commission. Farm Accountancy Data Network.“EU Farm
and oil crops: background.” Briefing room. Available online at http://www. Economics Overview FADN 2006.” January, 2009 at 14.
ers.usda.gov/Briefing/SoybeansOilcrops/background.htm, last updated on 153 “Income Evolution 1990-2003 and 2013 Forecasts by Type of Farm Based on
December 4, 2008. FADN Data,” at 5.
112 LMC International at 34. 154 Ibid.
113 European Commission, Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural 155 ”EU Farm Economics Overview FADN 2006.” January, 2009 at 12-13.
Development. “Income Evolution 1990-2003 and 2013 Forecasts by Type of 156 World Trade Organization, Agreement on Agriculture Art. 4.2.
Farm Based on FADN Data.” D(2006). December 21, 2006 at 11. 157 WTO, AoA. Art. 8-9, Art. 3, and Annex 2.1.
114 Council of the European Union. “Council Directive 2008/120/EC Of 18 158 Lewis, Steven. “South American soybean boom poses logistical challenges.”
December 2008 Laying Down Minimum Standards For The Protection Of Food Chemical News. March 1, 2010.
Pigs.” Article 3, Section 9. “Commission Directive 2002/4/EC of 30 January 159 GATT 1947, Art. XI:2(c).
2002 on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens, covered by 160 Hoffman, Linwood, Erik Dohlman and Mark Ash. USDA Economic Research
Council Directive.” Service. “Upcoming World Trade Organization Negotiations: Issues for the
115 Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “Income U.S. Oilseed Sector” in “Oil Crops Situation and Outlook.” OCS-1999.
Evolution 1990-2003 and 2013 Forecasts by Type of Farm Based on FADN October 1999 at 29.
Data.” D(2006). December 21, 2006 at 1. 161 Tanner, Carolyn. “Agricultural Trade Liberalization and the Uruguay Round.”
116 Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. “Income Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics. VOl. 40. N0. 1. April 1996 at
Evolution 1990-2003 and 2013 Forecasts by Type of Farm Based on FADN 18.
Data.” D(2006). December 21, 2006 at 8-9, 11. 162 WTO. European Communities Schedule LXXX, Part IV-Agricultural Products:
117 Eurostat, Number of Agricultural Holdings. Accessed June 2010. Commitments Limiting Subsidization, Section I-Domestic Support, Annex to
118 Eurostat. Poultry: Number of farms and heads by size of farm (UAA) and size Section I Part IV, Memorandum of Understanding on Oilseeds. 1994.
of broiler flock; Eurostat. Pigs: Number of farms and heads by size of farm 163 USDA Economic Research Service. “The European Union’s Common
(UAA) and size of other pig herd. Accessed June 2010. Agricultural Policy: Pressures for Change.” WRS-99-2. October 1999 at 12.
119 FAOSTAT. 164 Hoffman, Dohlman and Ash at 29; Tanner at 18.
120 “Agriculture in the European Union Statistical and Economic Information 165 Koning, Niek. “Agriculture, development and international trade: Lessons to
2009” at Table 4.18.1.1. be learned from the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union.”
121 Eurostat. “Food: From Farm to Fork Statistics.” 2006 at 103-104. Forum on Food Sovereignty, Niamey, November 7-10, 2006, at 7.
122 Ibid. 166 WTO. European Communities Schedule LXXX, Part I-Most-Favored-Nation
123 Ibid at 40; Eurostat. “Food: From Farm to Fork Statistics.” 2008 at 48. Tariff, Section IA-Agricultural Tariffs. 1994.
124 Marquer at 5. 167 Hoffman, Dohlman and Ash at 32.
125 Marquer at 7. 168 USDA Economic Research Service. WRS-99-2 at 6.
126 “Food: From Farm to Fork Statistics.” 2006 at 102; “Agriculture in the 169 WTO, AoA. Annex 2.6.
European Union Statistical and Economic Information 2009.” March 2010 at 170 Tanner at 15.
Table 3.5.3.10. 171 U.S. Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. “Agriculture in
127 “Agriculture in the European Union Statistical and Economic Information the WTO.” WRS-98-4. December 1998 at 15, note 2.
2009,” at Table 3.5.3.11. 172 OECD. “Analysis of the 2003 CAP Reform.” 2004 at 19.
128 Marquer at 6. 173 European Commission, Directorate-General of Agriculture. “CAP reform: The
129 Smithfield Foods, Inc. U.S. Secutiries and Exchange Commission 10-K arable crops sector.” May 17, 1999 (ALSO HOFFMAN at 33)
Annual Report. June 18, 2010 at 6 and 23. 174 European Commission. “Communication from the Commission to the
130 Eurostat. Pigs: Number of farms and heads by size of farm (UAA) and size of Council and the European Parliament: Preparing for the ‘Health Check’ of
other pig herd. Accessed June 2010. the CAP Reform.” COM(2007)722. November 20, 2007 at 2.
131 “Agriculture in the European Union Statistical and Economic Information 175 Official Journal of the European Union. “Council Regulation (EC) No
2009,” at Table 3.5.3.11. 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003.” Title III Chapter 3.
132 Eurostat. “Food: From Farm to Fork Statistics.” 2008 at 48; European 176 “Preparing for the ‘Health Check’ of the CAP Reform,” at 3.
Commission. Farm Accountancy Data Network. “Production Costs and 177 European Commission. “The Common Agricultural Policy Explained.”
Margins of Pig Fattening Farms 2008 Report.” February 20, 2009 at 6. October 2004 at 7.
133 Apostol, Ionut. “Industrial pig farms and their environmental impact: Case 178 FAOSTAT.
study Smithfield in Romania.” For Terra Mileniul III. September, 2006 at 4.
134 European Commission, European Environment Agency. “Reports of the
Technical Working Groups Established under the Thematic Strategy for Soil
Protection. Volume III Organic Matter.” EUR-21319 EN/3. 2004. Taskgroup 4
Exogenous Organic Matter Annex 1.
135 Bartley, Justin, Kaley Hart and Vicki Swales. Institute for European
Environmental Policy. “Exploring Policy Options for More Sustainable
Livestock and Feed Production.” March 2009 at ix.
136 Eurostat. “Food: From Farm to Fork Statistics.” 2008 at 63-64.
137 Ibid at 66.
138 World Heath Organization Regional Office for Europe and European
Commission. “Eutrophication and Health.” 2002 at 16.
139 See Takai, H; S. Pedersen et al. “Concentrations and Emissions of Airborne
Dust in Livestock Buildings in Northern Europe.” Journal of Agricultural
Engineering Resources. Vol. 70. 1998 at 60.
140 Avery, Rachel C. et. al. “Odor from industrial hog farming operations and
19
Food & Water Watch
Main office: California office:
1616 P St. NW, Suite 300 25 Stillman Street, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036 San Francisco, CA 94107
tel: (202) 683-2500 tel: (415) 293-9900
fax: (202) 683-2501 fax: (415) 293-8394
[email protected] [email protected]
www.foodandwaterwatch.org

The Perils of The Global Soy Trade: Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Perils of The Global Soy Trade: Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Perils of The Global Soy Trade: Economic, Environmental and Social Impacts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Perils of the

Global Soy Trade

Food & Water Watch

About Food & Water Europe

The Global Soy and Feed Trade.........................................................................................................................................3

Soy Plantations Concentrate Power in the Hands of the Few.................................................................................6

GMO Cultivation and Agrichemicals.....................................................................................................................7

Global Soy Trade Enriches Transnational Grain Traders and Meatpackers...............................................................8

Soy Imports Fuel European Industrial Livestock..................................................................................................................9

More Animals on Fewer, Larger Farms.................................................................................................................10

European Factory Farms Contribute to Environmental Degradation......................................................................11

Industrial Livestock Does Not Fatten Farm Incomes..............................................................................................12

Rising European Soybean Imports Facilitated by the World Trade Organization................................................................13

WTO-Directed Changes to the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Oilseeds Programs..................................15

Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................................................................15

1 kilo = 2.2 lbs

EU-15 Soy and Maize Imports (in millions of metric tonnes)

Source International Monetary Fund.

livestock feed ingredients, or over 63.5 kilos for every man,

These millions of tonnes of soy are invisible on our plates. A

Rising European demand for soybeans sparked a stunning in-

Institute and other organizations have opposed the com-

The shift to GM seeds has undermined the traditional prac-

Global Soy Trade Enriches Transnational Grain

Global livestock companies, including American pork and

Over the past two decades the number of livestock animals

More Animals on Fewer, Larger Farms Source: Eurostat.

The total number of farms in the EU has been steadily and

As the number of pig-fattening farms declined, the average 900,000

is not a money spinner.”142 Livestock farms are purported to

The weak earnings from low prices were compounded by

Remove Agriculture from the WTO and other EU Trade

Withdraw from the Blair House Soybean Concessions: The

2009. mucosal immune function in neighbors.” Archives of Environmental Health,

You might also like