As I came to write this blog post I felt I was instead setting out a scenario for a new James Bond movie, or even worse, one for Austin Powers. You see, I want to talk about 'world domination'.
Because the world has moved one step closer to the 'world domination' of agriculture by one type of technology controlled by a tiny number of global seed and agri-business corporations after the wheat industry set out last week a synchronized plan for the global introduction of biotech wheat.
If wheat goes 'biotech' it will join the developed world's other major food commodity crops - soy, corn, canola - that have turned over their futures to the GM seed merchants.
In an unprecedented approach to the introduction to biotech crops, the organizations representing the wheat industry in the United States, Canada and Australia, announced they will work together toward the goal of synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in wheat (currently there is no commercial production of genetically modified wheat anywhere in the world).
In a press statement the organizations from the three wheat trading countries said they had agreed it was in the best interests of all three producer communities to introduce biotechnology in a coordinated fashion to minimize market disruption. For food biotech critics this approach might be seen as the bully's boast of 'take it or leave it'.
The wheat industry organizations see GM wheat as a 'significant component' to tackling major issues facing the industry and biotech wheat is also being put forward as part of the solution towards sustainable agriculture, such as biotech traits in wheat that might lead to better water efficiencies.
On the subject of sustainable agriculture it was very disappointing to read Richard Black's blog report on the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) annual meeting that ended this week. Richard, who is environment correspondent for the BBC News Website, had been covering the two week meeting, but he writes hardly a news reporter came to the CSD's halls, and hardly a news report emerged. He contrasts this to the 2005 UN World Summit which saw 4,000 journalists attend.
But the problem with the lack of media and public scrutiny, he writes, was that it allowed for some blatant political posturing to pass with little comment. This was particularly apparent when it came to agriculture as Richard says:
"And this is the third big theme I would bring out: especially from the G77 bloc, positions were adopted that from any perspective other than that of narrow politics beggared belief. So we had repeated deletion of the word 'sustainable' from the draft text - especially when placed before the word 'agriculture'".
You can read his full comment piece here.
To finish on a more positive sustainable agricultural note, check out this short interview with Arlin Wasserman, Vice President Corporate Citizenship at Sodexo, one of the world's largest foodservice/catering companies, on how they are tackling sustainability and why. Good to know not all approaches to food, sustainability and corporate transparency are the same.