Front March… Sojaún! Sojadó!

Front March… Sojaún! Sojadó!

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

By Luis Ernesto Sabini Fernandez

Grounds for the bill by deputy María Elena Talotti to make the consumption of soy compulsory in public dining rooms in the capital. Organized soy producers want to give their "private initiative" a legal framework.

The foundation of the Talotti brand mandatory project. That it alludes to and claims to be supported by "the Solidarity Food Plan with Soy", and although in the rush of the foundation he miswrites the acronym of AAPRESID (it appears as if it were direct sowing), said "foundation" clearly reveals the origin of the project: organized soy producers want to give their "private initiative" a legal framework.

Like Monsieur Jourdan, who wrote prose without knowing it, the deputy María Elena Talotti has made a striking application of Murphy's Law with her bill to make the consumption of soy compulsory in the capital's public dining rooms, with which she wants to confront "Malnutrition and the current deep crisis [that] forces us as a society to seek an alternative and easily applied solution."

The philosopher Murphy had already taught us that "Complex problems have wrong solutions that are simple and easy to understand."

The ease, however, does not seem to be the best way to face the problems mentioned by the deputy. It is perhaps more sensible, and also more productive, to understand the complexity of "the current deep crisis." Also more productive, yes, despite the fact that productivism seems to be the corsair's patent of those who have made the country sojourned.

Why is there "a sustained increase in malnutrition", as the deputy says? It is not that difficult to know, now that we have all the data in the past. It's just about not burying your head… in the soybeans.

The deindustrialization of the country (that of civilians and military men in '76, that it was the same to produce steel than candy); the privatizations, which started with the genocidal dictatorship and reached their "apogee" during the menemato and finally, the scrapping of the state, not the repressive one certainly, but the regulator, the one that established policies (good or bad, but political at last ), something that we also have to thank Menem for, allowed "the private initiative to do whatever it wanted throughout Argentina. Real production or for social purposes? Genuine work? Difficult. Snatch of natural resources? Business and traded ?, Easy money, increased profitability at the expense of the national economy, human health, the environment? It seems more tempting, right?

And what "actors", as they say now, were going to unleash this easy twine party? Not just the locals, certainly. Just as the privatizations were to a large extent foreignizations (because this way there is much more monetary flow that the holders of public affairs can channel it to very different destinations, such as the national budget, a mansion in New York, good Patagonian or Riojan land, Latest model cars and helicopters, accounts in Cayman, Switzerland and other sanctuaries (how religious the leaders have grown!), in the same way, the dismantling of the agricultural production structure was carried out by another agent who entered the country as parakeet at his home, the American laboratory Monsanto. Which did nothing but prolong an internal policy of the United States in Argentina: that of administering the planet's lands (with what right? some who stayed? Who knows where? !, In 1973, in 1945, in 1917, in 1789?).

Monsanto did not literally seize the land. These imperial forms, although they are not out of date, as Bush teaches us in Iraq, they are the least efficient. It only seduced, through profitability, a population deprived of all kinds of its own politics. Actually, a very particular sector of the population. To "agricultural producers" of a certain amount. There was thus a displacement of small farmers, a concentration of land and power in the countryside, a growing unemployment and the consequent and painful migrations. Uprootedness, bewilderment, breaking of ties of all kinds, unemployment, misery, impotence, dependency. But all this took place among other social "actors": it was unloaded on the backs of those who do not count for "the big decisions". Those who are allowed to die in peace (as soon as possible) or, in any case, are appeased by "filling their bellies".

The sojization of the Argentine countryside is thus among one of the causes of the occupational and food disaster. Let's do an exercise in elementary logic: can the cause of a problem be the solution of the same problem? It seems arduous.

And yet this is what deputy Talotti happily and "easily" intends. If in logic he has to receive a failure in the first degree, in psychology, the mechanism by which the compulsory nature of soy is now postulated is perfectly understood. It is the same mechanism by which, when the system devised by Cavallo for the emptying of Argentina filled with pus and burst, violating even its most sacred declared principle, private property, the soybean clan offered the Solidarity Soy Plan [sic] to alleviate the hunger that with the subjugation of "old Argentina" under the pretext of its modernization, they themselves had contributed to forge.

The blowout was in December 2001. Prestos, in January 2002, AAPRESID with allies on the way such as ing. Juan Alemann from La Razón, the ineffable Lita de Lázzari, the Rotarians, the Boys Scouts and other "living forces" of Argentine society came out with "solidarity soy."

Abusing words, they rehearse a work of charity, which is what the privileged person grants of their own free will to the dispossessed, and they call it solidarity, which is what is voluntarily provided between equals.

They do it to "wash the conscience", "to calm the waters", to erase with the tail or the elbow something that they themselves had produced or that had benefited them greatly ... Do you see that we are not so heartless? We shovel it but we give them the 1st [please, corrector, the generosity did not reach 1%].

To understand the dimensions of this "solidarity", it is as if someone who earns a thousand pesos a month feels like a "shrimp" because they give a peso to the neighborhood hospital, to the school or to the unemployed dining room on the other block, but with a aggravating: that he set fire (unintentionally or willingly) to the hospital, or that he is a supplier of the dining room and makes them the merchandise delivery tickets or that he goes around the block to prevent those in the dining room from inviting him to eat ... can you feel a nice guy?

This "psycho" explanation is consistent with the foundation of the Talotti brand mandatory project. That it alludes to and claims to be supported by "the Solidarity Food Plan with Soy", and although in the rush of the foundation he miswrites the acronym of AAPRESID (it appears as if it were direct sowing), said "foundation" clearly reveals the origin of project: organized soy producers want to give their "private initiative" a legal framework.

The decision to take sides is done with such self-confidence that the deputy mentions AAPRESID's "Solidarity Soy Plan" as if it were […] developed by doctors, nutritionists […] ". The rope in the house of the hanged man: she should have mentioned the "National Food and Nutrition Plan" of the "era" Duhalde, chaired by Hilda de Duhalde, who initially wanted to be orchestrated together with AAPRESID. But during its deliberations, in June 2002, hundreds of pediatricians and nutritionists convened especially by the The presidency strongly criticized the sojisation of the diet and among their conclusions they warn, for example, that "they advise against the use of soy in children under five years of age and especially in those under two years of age" for "nutritional considerations" (p. 18). the invasion of soy in the diet (of "the poor") with which the Government Plan and the soybean plan could not go together. On the contrary, the advice of pediatricians and nutritionists was to accentuate the d Food diversity as a source of health and thus recover the "food culture" that Argentina has had until very few decades ago. Which means recovering land for crops of other legumes, wheat, rice, animal husbandry, reversing the dismantling of the hundreds of farms abandoned for soy cultivation, stopping the fever of agrochemicals that rages with the transgenics that, it was said, came to eliminate them, and end the bank incentive to credit exclusively for soybeans.
Suffice it to add that the latest medical research advises against the use of soy and its phytoestrogens for menopause due to the increase in cancer.
All the opposite, as can be seen, of the barracks proposal of Congresswoman Talotti.

* Journalist, Futures editor, coordinator of the Ecology and Human Rights seminar of the Human Rights chair of the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters of the UBA.

Bill: Obligation to include soy in all food plans of the city.-
Presented on March 16, 2004 by Deputy Marta Elena Talotti (Frente Grande)

Article 1: Establish the mandatory inclusion of soy in all food plans of the city.-

Article 2: The purpose of this law is to incorporate the consumption of soy as an additional food, to improve the food quality of those people who attend establishments belonging to the City Government.-

Article 3: The obligation of inclusion provided for in article 1 must reach all homes, schools, canteens and nursery schools, which operate within the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires.

Article 4: The Executive Branch will implement the necessary mechanisms in order to develop with the corresponding organizations and private producers the policies aimed at supplying soybeans in the City, for which it will carry out the necessary agreements in order to comply with the provisions herein. law.-

Article 5: The enforcement authorities will be the Secretaries that correspond to the scope of execution of the food plans.-

Article 6: Communicate, etc.-


Madam president:
The purpose of this bill is to incorporate soy into the different food plans.
The sustained increase in malnutrition and the current deep crisis forces us as a society to seek an alternative and easily applied solution.
Soybeans, the main crop grown in Argentina, constitutes a high quality food for human consumption since it has proteins of high biological value.
At present, one of the main obstacles in relation to soy consumption is cultural, since in our country there is no custom of using soy as food. Consequently, an education program will have to be developed to make culinary knowledge related to the use of soy in food known to the entire community.
The consumption of soy is an economic alternative to reinforce and improve the diet provided by all homes, schools, canteens and nursery schools operating in the city.
It is important to highlight that at the national level the Solidarity Food Plan with Soy is being carried out, a program developed jointly by producers, doctors, nutritionists, NGOs and the AAPRECID (Argentine Association of Direct Sowing Producers), whose purpose is to carry out a Solidarity Network to assist poor sectors in the use of soy.
I am convinced that through this project we will be helping to improve the situation of many children, adolescents and adults who for various reasons do not receive adequate nutrition.
Therefore, I request the approval of this project.
Go to: Commission for Promotion and Social Integration Policies


  1. Caomh

    I heard something like that, but not in such detail, but where did you get the material from?

  2. Dagis

    Excellent idea and it is duly

  3. Hamilton

    I understand this question. It can be discussed.

  4. Kejind

    the message Remarkable

Write a message