Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply

By A. Batabyal, V. Shiva. 2001

437 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/43cbb4a74bbda3f18cc58e4b695d142b8361c7f2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. K. O’Brien
2. P. McMichael
3. Mark Purcell
4. A. Leguizamón
5. M. Ejaz Qureshi
6. C. Hess
7. B. Born
8. Kean Birch

Citations in the corpus

• The Handbook of Neoliberalism (2016, background): “This advanced a broad-based institutional push for trade liberalization in agriculture, instigating deep changes in how states could support small farmers and pursue goals like national food self-sufficiency, while also strengthening the conditions under which transnational corporations could expand”
• Mapping the New Commons (2008, background): “Some of the most influential writers in the new commons have been inspired by their reactions to types of enclosures (Benkler 1999; Bollier 2001, 2002a&b; Boyle 2002, 2003a&b; Lessig 2001, 2004b; Shiva 2000, 2001, 2002; Shiva and Brand 2005; Soroos 1997).”
• Global water crisis and future food security in an era of climate change (2010, background): “Such copyrights can strip farmers off food-rights (Eide, 1996) (by creating dependency on corporate seed), thus high-jacking the world food supply (Shiva, 2000, 2004).”
• Modifying Argentina: GM soy and socio-environmental change (2014, background): “International financial organizations, like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, gave conditional credits to governments that would ‘‘encourage’’ their farmers to invest in new foreign technology, taking credits to buy machinery and seeds (McMichael, 2007; Shiva, 2000).”
• Global Development and The Corporate Food Regime (2005, background): “…crop development in- dustry 5 through the concentration and centralization of agri-chemical corporations (Pistorius & van Wijk, 1999), and the corporate 'gene giants' already account for more than one-third of the global seed market and 100 percent of the transgenic seed market (Shiva, 2000, p. 9).”
• Avoiding the Local Trap (2006, background): “As so much research has shown, while these trends have increased crop yields in the aggregate, they also have increased injustice, environmental degradation, food insecurity, and oligarchical decision-making structures (Magdoff et al. 2000; Shiva 2000; Norberg-Hodge et al. 2002).”
• Troubled futures? The global food crisis and the politics of agricultural derivatives regulation (2012, neutral): “By analyzing corporate players from the seed and input industries (Shiva, 2000), large grain companies (Morgan, 1980; Kneen, 2002), food conglomerates and retail supermarket chains (Burch and Lawrence, 2007), a growing number of studies have explored how food is increasingly treated as a commodity a”
• Contesting global neoliberalism and creating alternative futures (2011, background): “Their policies used the ideal of free trade to open up markets to multinational corporations often to the detriment of local production, especially in agriculture (Shiva, 2000), and scaled back government spending on social services, if not privatizing them (Jomo, 2007).”
• Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India (2004, background): “One example of these potential negative effects is the liberalization of trade in edible oils and oilseeds which led to a crash in domestic oilseeds prices in the late 1990s due to imports of inexpensive Malaysian palm oil (Shiva, 2000).”