Monsanto, Bayer, and the Push for Corporate Cannabis

Ellen Brown

As detailed in my recent article “The War on Weed is Winding Down,” the health benefits of cannabis are now well established. It is a cheap, natural alternative effective for a broad range of conditions, and the non-psychoactive form known as hemp has thousands of industrial uses. At one time, cannabis was one of the world’s most important crops. There have been no recorded deaths from cannabis overdose in the US, compared to about 30,000 deaths annually from alcohol abuse (not counting auto accidents), and 100,000 deaths annually from prescription drugs taken as directed. Yet cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance (“a deadly dangerous drug with no medical use and high potential for abuse”), illegal to be sold or grown in the US.

Powerful corporate interests no doubt had a hand in keeping cannabis off the market. The question now is why they have suddenly gotten on the bandwagon for its legalization. According to an April 2014 article in The Washington Times, the big money behind the recent push for legalization has come, not from a grassroots movement, but from a few very wealthy individuals with links to Big Ag and Big Pharma.

Leading the charge is George Soros, a major shareholder in Monsanto, the world’s largest seed company and producer of genetically modified seeds. Monsanto is the biotech giant that brought you Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs, dioxin-based pesticides, aspartame, rBGH (genetically engineered bovine growth hormone), RoundUp (glyphosate) herbicides, and RoundUp Ready crops (seeds genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate).

Monsanto now appears to be developing genetically modified (GMO) forms of cannabis, with the intent of cornering the market with patented GMO seeds just as it did with GMO corn and GMO soybeans. For that, the plant would need to be legalized but still tightly enough controlled that it could be captured by big corporate interests. Competition could be suppressed by limiting access to homegrown marijuana; bringing production, sale and use within monitored and regulated industry guidelines; and legislating a definition of industrial hemp as a plant having such low psychoactivity that only GMO versions qualify. Those are the sorts of conditions that critics have found buried in the fine print of the latest initiatives for cannabis legalization.

Patients who use the cannabis plant in large quantities to heal serious diseases (e.g. by juicing it) find that the natural plant grown organically in sunlight is far more effective than hothouse plants or pharmaceutical cannabis derivatives. Letitia Pepper is a California attorney and activist who uses medical marijuana to control multiple sclerosis. As she puts it, if you don’t have an irrevocable right to grow a natural, therapeutic herb in your backyard that a corporation able to afford high license fees can grow and sell to you at premium prices, isn’t that still a war on people who use marijuana?

Follow the Money to Uruguay

Monsanto has denied that it is working on GMO strains. But William Engdahl, author of Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, presents compelling circumstantial evidence to the contrary. In a March 2014 article titled “The Connection Between the Legalization of Marijuana in Uruguay, Monsanto and George Soros”, Engdahl observes that in 2014, Uruguay became the first country to legalize the cultivation, sale and consumption of marijuana. Soros is a major player in Uruguay and was instrumental in getting the law passed. He sits on the board of the New York-based Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), the world’s most influential organization for cannabis legalization. The DPA is active not only in the US but in Uruguay and other Latin American countries. Engdahl writes:

Studies show that Monsanto without much fanfare conducts research projects on the active ingredient in marijuana, namely THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), in order to genetically manipulate the plant. David Watson of the Dutch company Hortapharm has since 1990 created the world’s largest collection of Cannabis seed varieties. In 1998, the British firm GW Pharmaceuticals signed an agreement with Hortapharm that gives GW Pharma the rights to use the Hortapharm cannabis for their research.

In 2003 the German Bayer AG then signed an agreement with GW Pharmaceuticals for joint research on a cannabis-based extract. In 2007, Bayer AG agreed to an exchange of technology with . . . Monsanto . . . . Thus Monsanto has discreet access to the work of the cannabis plant and its genetic modification. In 2009 GW Pharmaceuticals announced that it had succeeded in genetically altering a cannabis plant and patented a new breed of cannabis.

Monsanto could have even greater access to the Bayer/GW research soon. In March 2016, Monsanto approached the giant German chemical and pharmaceutical company Bayer AG with a joint venture proposal concerning its crop science unit. In May, Bayer then made an unsolicited takeover bid for Monsanto. On May 24th, the $62 billion bid was rejected as too low; but negotiations are continuing.

The prospective merger would create the world’s largest supplier of seeds and chemicals. Environmentalists worry that the entire farming industry could soon be looking at sterile crops soaked in dangerous pesticides. Monsanto has sued hundreds of farmers for simply saving seeds from year to year, something they have done for millennia. Organic farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to prevent contamination of their crops by Monsanto’s GMOs.

In Seeds of Destruction, Engdahl quotes Henry Kissinger, Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State. Kissinger notoriously said, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” Engdahl asserts that the “Green Revolution” was part of the Rockefeller agenda to destroy seed diversity and push oil- and gas-based agricultural products in which Rockefeller had a major interest. Destruction of seed diversity and dependence on proprietary hybrids was the first step in food control. About 75% of the foodstuffs at the grocery store are now genetically manipulated, in what has been called the world’s largest biological experiment on humans.

Genetic engineering is now moving from foodstuffs to plant-based drugs and plant-based industrial fibers. Engdahl writes of Monsanto’s work in Uruguay:

Since the cultivation of cannabis plants in Uruguay is allowed, one can easily imagine that Monsanto sees a huge new market that the Group is able to control just with patented cannabis seeds such as today is happening on the market for soybeans. Uruguay’s President Mujica has made it clear he wants a unique genetic code for cannabis in his country in order to “keep the black market under control.”

Genetically modified cannabis seeds from Monsanto would grant such control. For decades Monsanto has been growing gene-soybean and GM maize in Uruguay too. George Soros is co-owner of agribusinesses Adecoagro, which planted genetically modified soybeans and sunflowers for biofuel.

Other commentators express similar concerns. Natural health writer Mike Adams warns:

[W]ith the cannabis industry predicted to generate over $13 billion by 2020, becoming one of the largest agricultural markets in the nation, there should be little doubt that companies like Monsanto are simply waiting for Uncle Sam to remove the herb from its current Schedule I classification before getting into the business.

In a 2010 article concerning Proposition 19, an earlier legalization initiative that was defeated by California voters, Conrad Justice Kiczenski noted that criminalization of cannabis as both industrial hemp and medical marijuana has served a multitude of industries, including the prison and military industry, the petroleum, timber, cotton, and pharmaceutical industries, and the banking industry. With the decriminalization of cannabis, he warned:

The next stage in continuing this control is in the regulation, licensing and taxation of Cannabis cultivation and use through the only practical means available to the corporate system, which is through genetic engineering and patenting of the Cannabis genome.

AUMA: Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Suspicions like these are helping to fuel opposition to the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA), a 2016 initiative that would rewrite the medical marijuana laws in California. While AUMA purports to legalize marijuana for recreational use, the bill comes with so many restrictions that it actually makes acquisition more difficult and expensive than under existing law, and makes it a criminal offense for anyone under 21. Critics contend that the Act will simply throw access to this medicinal wonder plant into the waiting arms of the Monsanto/Bayer/petrochemical/pharmaceutical complex. They say AUMA is a covert attempt to preempt California’s Compassionate Use Act, Proposition 215, which was passed in 1996 by voter initiative.

Prop 215 did not legalize the sale of marijuana, but it did give ill or disabled people of any age the right to grow and share the plant and its derivatives on a not-for-profit basis. They could see a doctor of their choice, who could approve medical marijuana for a vast panoply of conditions; and they were assured of safe and affordable access to the plant at a nearby cooperative not-for-profit dispensary, or in their own backyards. As clarified by the 2008 Attorney General’s Guidelines, Prop 215 allowed reimbursement for the labor, costs and skill necessary to grow and distribute medical marijuana; and it allowed distribution through a “storefront dispensing collective.” However, the sale of marijuana for corporate profit remained illegal.  Big Pharma and affiliates were thus blocked from entering the field.

At the end of 2015 (effective 2016), the California state legislature over-rode Prop 215 with MMRSA – the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act of 2015/16 – which effectively rewrites the Health Code pertaining to medical marijuana. Opponents contend that MMRSA is unconstitutional, since a voter initiative cannot be changed by legislative action unless it so provides. And that is why its backers need AUMA, a voter initiative that validates MMRSA in its fine print. In combination with stricter California Medical Association rules for enforcement, MMRSA effectively moves medical marijuana therapy from the wholistic plant to a pharmaceutical derivative, one that must follow an AUMA or American Pharmaceutical Association mode of delivery. MMRSA turns the right to cultivate into a revocable privilege to grow, contingent on local rules. The right to choose one’s own doctor is also eliminated.

Critics note that of the hundreds of millions in tax revenues that AUMA is expected to generate from marijuana and marijuana-related products, not a penny will go to the California general fund. That means no money for California’s public schools, colleges, universities, hospitals, roads and other infrastructure. Instead, it will go into a giant slush fund controlled by AUMA’s “Marijuana Control Board,” to be spent first for its own administration, then for its own law enforcement, then for penal and judicial program expenditures.

Law enforcement and penalties will continue to be big business, since AUMA legalizes marijuana use only for people over 21 and makes access so difficult and expensive that even adults could be tempted to turn to the black market. “Legalization” through AUMA will chiefly serve a petrochemical/pharmaceutical complex bent on controlling all farming and plant life globally.

NATO Prepares for War: Confrontation and Insanity

Brian Cloughley

The US-NATO military alliance is gearing up for war, and its meeting 8-9 July is yet another step to nuclear confrontation and a gigantic leap backwards in world sanity.  The gathering in Warsaw, capital of implacably anti-Russia Poland (NATO member since 1999, when the US-inspired military push towards Russia’s borders gathered further momentum), is a symbol of Western determination to menace Moscow.

It is ironical that the anti-Russia jamboree is being held two days after publication of Britain’s Chilcot Report about the war on Iraq which damned forever the reputation of the UK’s former prime minister, Tony Blair, on the same day as his puppet-master, the deranged George W Bush, celebrated his 70^th birthday.  Both these proven liars were killers on a tiny scale compared with such as Hitler, Stalin and Mao — but their quest for celebrity resulted in a catastrophe whose effects are still being suffered.

On the sixth of June the birthday boy Bush had a party, at the same time as his Iraq-invasion buddy, Blair, was formally told he is a lying, devious, conniving gobbet of perambulating filth.  And neither of them could give a tinker’s damn that the day before their celebrations and condemnation there was hellish mayhem in Baghdad, the city they “liberated” in their evil war.  The BBC reported  “the death toll from Sunday’s suicide bombing in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, has risen to 250 . . . making it the deadliest such attack since the 2003 US-led invasion.”  Thank you, Bush and Blair, and thank you, NATO, as well, because you declare that “Iraq is one of a range of countries beyond the Euro-Atlantic area – often referred to as “partners across the globe” – with which NATO is developing relations . . .   Relations build on cooperation that developed through the NATO Training Mission in Iraq from 2004 to 2011, during which 15,000 Iraqi officers were trained.”

They weren’t trained very well, were they?  But the military expertise of US-NATO is somewhat suspect — as distinct from its undoubted proficiency in expanding growth, expenditure and influence.

US-NATO is not exactly a joke.  It’s far too expensive and disastrously inefficient to be regarded as any such thing.  But the anomalies and absurdities of that amazingly flawed grouping are such that they attract a grimace of grudging mirth from time to time.

The expense of running the US-NATO machine is colossal.  Not only has it recently opened a vast and luxurious glittering new Palace in Brussels (very quietly, because it didn’t want attention to be drawn to the enormous cost overrun to 2 billion dollars), but it imposes vast annual bills on its 28 member nations.  Certainly the US pays by far the most, but all 26 European countries (Canada pays up too, of course) can ill afford what they have to contribute. There’s no question that NATO has to dance to the American tune, because its entire existence depends on what America provides in cash — much of which is returned with interest by the NATO countries purchase of US weaponry.

The US-NATO alliance failed dismally in its war in Afghanistan.  Its website states that its “mission was to enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security across the country and ensure that it would never again be a safe haven for terrorists.”   In 2011, at the height of its military fandangos in that unfortunate country, it had 140,000 troops battling a few thousand militants, but now, in 2016, far from there being “effective security,”  it is reported by Médecins sans Frontières (MSF; an admirable medical charity) that “Security for the Afghan people has also deteriorated in large swaths of the country, further complicating humanitarian response. Afghan civilians are at greater risk today than at any time since Taliban rule.”

The UN Security Council states that “ The security situation in Afghanistan remains dire, with the Taliban carrying out a spate of attacks in Kabul and other parts of the country in early 2016, causing high levels of casualties to civilians and security forces.”

One of the people who criticized NATO’s war, US Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Davis, wrote that its mighty forces opposing the Taliban had:

“Main Battle Tanks; artillery, mortars, advanced rockets, precision guided missiles, and hand-held rocket launchers . . . a wholly uncontested air force composed of NATO’s most advanced ground attack fighter jets, bombers, AWACS controllers, spy planes, signals-interception aircraft, B 1 bombers, attack helicopters, and massive transport jets to ferry our troops and critical supplies where they are needed . . . thousands of unmanned aerial drones both for intelligence collection and missile-launching . . .”

And, as Davies put it, they couldn’t beat “a bunch of dudes in bed sheets and flip-flops” who didn’t have a single bomber, drone or tank.

Then there came the equally abysmal shambles in Libya, when on 19 March 2011, the United States led NATO countries in a blitz of aircraft and missile strikes against the government of President Muammar Gaddafi. They subjected Libya to 9,658 air attacks and reduced it to an economic wasteland.  Then after the murder of President Gaddafi on 20 October 2011 (as Hillary Clinton laughingly had it, “We came;  We saw;  He died”) there was rejoicing, and US-NATO ceased its bombardment.

After their happy war, Mr Ivo Daalder, the US Representative on NATO’s Council 2009-2013, and Admiral James G (‘Zorba’) Stavridis, the US Supreme Allied Commander Europe (the military commander of NATO) in the same period, wrote in Foreign Affairs in 2012 that “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention. The alliance responded rapidly to a deteriorating situation that threatened hundreds of thousands of civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime. It succeeded in protecting those civilians and, ultimately, in providing the time and space necessary for local forces to overthrow Muammar al-Gaddafi.”  So everything was going to be wonderful in Libya after the “model intervention” by US-NATO that enabled rebels to topple and murder the President.

But in February 2016 the UN recorded that in Libya  “since the 2011 armed conflict, thousands of individuals remain in detention, the vast majority without any proper examination of their cases . . .   human rights defenders have been targeted, through assassination, attempted murder, abduction, threats, surveillance, and raids on their homes and offices . . . Journalists have been subjected to killings, death threats, arbitrary detention and abduction.”  Daalder and Stavridis are murderous morons.

As Human Rights Watch reports, “Continuing armed clashes have displaced hundreds of thousands of people and interrupted access to basic services, including fuel and electrical power. Forces engaged in the conflict are guilty of arbitrary detention, torture, unlawful killings . . .  In addition, armed groups that pledged allegiance to the extremist group Islamic State are also summarily killing people in areas under their control.”  And now the migrant crisis in Europe is caused, as MSNBC informs us, by “the largest flow of modern African migration funnels through a single country — Libya.  Coming from the south, migrants flee the vestiges of wars that have left entire nations in ruin . . .  Some arrive by choice, others by force. But Libya is the purgatory where most migrants prepare to face the deadliest stretch of the Mediterranean Sea.”   Thank you, US-NATO, for a “model intervention.”

The message is that US-NATO action results in military, political and social disaster.  In this past fifteen years it has achieved nothing but catastrophe in the countries unfortunate enough to have received its military attention.

But US-NATO is always ready to seek new foes, to validate its expensive existence, and the nation upon which its leaders place their hopes is Russia.

NATO’s Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, speaks of “Russian intimidation of its neighbours” and stressed that NATO’s response to the non-existent threat is with “most intensive strengthening defenses since the Cold War period.”  He claims that  “We don’t seek confrontation with Russia. We do not seek a new Cold War”  — but then supports the US-led massive military maneuvers along Russia’s borders.  He increases the numbers of troops to be permanently based in countries close to Russia’s borders because he champions“enhancement” of “our forward presence in the eastern part of our alliance.”

“Forward presence”? —  The US official definition of “forward presence” is “maintaining forward-deployed or stationed forces overseas to demonstrate national resolve, strengthen alliances, dissuade potential adversaries, and enhance the ability to respond quickly to contingencies.”  In other words — preparing for war.

Mr Stoltenberg’s double-speak may be intended to draw a cloak round the US-NATO military buildup, but at least there are some sane voices that point out the pointlessness and dangers of the alliance’s confrontation.  Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier has warned that all the belligerent military posturing around Russia’s borders will worsen regional security and advised that “What we should not do now is inflame the situation with saber-rattling and warmongering. Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken. We are well-advised not to create pretexts to renew an old confrontation.”

It is heartening to hear such level-headed observations, and he was followed by General Petr Pavel, Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, who was forthright in declaring that Russia’s supposed “aggression is not on the agenda and no intelligence assessment suggests such a thing.”

The problem is that much of the western public firmly believe that there have indeed been “intelligence assessments” that Russia poses a grave threat to the Baltic States and to much else besides.  The western media is full of warnings, ranging from ponderous to shrill and melodramatic, concerning supposed Russian intentions to invade the countries surrounding it.

As made clear by two open-eyed realists, there is no threat, and the cudgel-brandishing of the US-NATO alliance only inflames the situation — as it is intended to do.  But these sparks of sanity have no effect,  and the US-NATO build up for war against Russia continues.  As the wild-eyed Stoltenberg announced in warnik Warsaw on July 7,

Allies will agree to deploy four robust and multinational battalions to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, on a rotational basis. A multinational framework brigade in Romania will provide a tailored presence in south-eastern Europe. NATO will also take further steps to improve cyber defences, civil preparedness and to defend against ballistic missile attack from outside the Euro-Atlantic area.

To project stability beyond our borders, leaders will agree to extend NATO’s training mission in Iraq and to broaden the Alliance’s role in the central Mediterranean . . .  NATO will continue its military and financial support for Afghanistan and will strengthen political and practical cooperation with Ukraine, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova.

Last week President Putin told his diplomatic service that

NATO seems to be making a show of its anti-Russian stance. NATO not only seeks to find in Russia’s actions pretexts to affirm its own legitimacy and the need for its existence, but is also taking genuinely confrontational steps.

The number of military exercises has increased dramatically, including in the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea. We are constantly accused of military activity, but where? Only on our own soil. We are supposed to accept as normal the military build-up on our borders. Rapid reaction forces are being deployed in Poland and the Baltic countries, and there is a build-up in offensive weapons.

I never thought I’d agree with Moscow, after a military life that involved many years of supporting confrontation with the Kremlin.  (A tour as reconnaissance officer for a NATO nuclear missile regiment in Germany focuses the mind a bit.)  But circumstances change.

It’s a great pity that NATO has expanded with the prime mission of confronting Russia.  And I wouldn’t like to be serving in a nuclear missile regiment right now — on either side — because the US-NATO military alliance is intent on confrontation to the limit.

Shadows of Doom

Gunnar Westberg

During the years since the end of the Cold War, Peter Handberg – a writer and translator – has travelled many times in the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. He has visited many sites where nuclear weapons were kept at the time, ready to destroy the world.

Handberg has also spoken to military officers who once watched over these instruments of Armageddon. He has written an important book on the subject, Undergångens skuggor (Shadows of Doom). The book is not translated, but a documentary film is planned.

He has just led a group of people from Sweden to some of these bases, abandoned since 1987. We were about ten physicians from the Swedish section of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and ten others – historians, people with an interest in the Baltic states, etc…

I learnt three important facts, from the book and by visiting these sites:

1/ The size of the Soviet nuclear complex in these small Baltic states was enormous; there were at least 35 bases.

2/ The officers who watched over the missiles were, especially in 1983, convinced that an American attack would come and they expected to launch their missiles.

3/ There were at some of these bases, in the sixties but also much later, short distance missiles with a range of not more than 600 km, enough to reach Southern Finland and Eastern Sweden only. They carried a large number of bombs, mostly of 100 kt effect, or about six Hiroshima bombs.

The reason “neutral” Sweden was targeted was that a US attack with bomb planes carrying nuclear weapons was expected to come also over Sweden, possibly using Swedish airfields.

Maybe that was correct: Sweden would have been used as a platform for an American nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Such a scenario is described by Thomas Reed, once head of US Air Force, in his book At the Abyss.

Reed was a US defence analyst who in the eighties participated in the selection of enemy targets in the strategic plane called SIOP.

I can not avoid comparing this piece of history to the situation today: Sweden’s government is moving ever closer to NATO and has – through the Host Country Agreement – prepared for NATO bases in the country and thereby – potentially at least – for an attack to be carried out by NATO from Swedish territory.

We Swedes are making ourselves a target.

Depression Exacts a Heavy Toll on Chinese People’s Health

Cesar Chelala

Everyone experiences periods of sadness and grief, which may last a few days and then go away. Depression, however, is a mental health disorder characterized by a persistent low mood that is accompanied by feelings of guilt, low self-esteem and a loss of interest in normally enjoyable activities. It is a serious, and common, mental health disorder that may lead to suicide in some and has significant economic and social costs.

China’s rapid economic growth, as well as growing social and economic pressures, has increased the awareness about depression, and the number of people it affects. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 350 million people from all ages suffer from depression. Although reliable statistics are difficult to obtain, it is estimated that in China more than 26 million people are affected by depression. The U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) estimated in that in the U.S. 16 million adults had had at least one major depressive episode in 2012.

In 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that mental illness – which affected 7% of the population — had overtaken heart disease and cancer as the biggest burden on China’s health care system. Among its causes are psychological, psychosocial, genetic, and biological factors. In addition, long-term substance abuse may cause or worsen depression symptoms.

People who have experienced adverse life events such as unemployment, bereavement and psychological trauma are more likely to develop depression. Depression can also lead to increased stress and dysfunction, and thus worsen the individual’s life situation. It becomes a vicious cycle that needs to be broken.

Diagnoses of depression go as far back as to the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates who described a condition called melancholia, characterized by mental and physical symptoms. The 16th American president, Abraham Lincoln, suffered from what now may be referred to as clinical depression. Former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill also suffered from it, and popularized the term “the black dog” in reference to it.

Depression is particularly common among those over 65 years of age, for whom unexplained memory loss, sleep problems or withdrawal may be signs of depression. This is particularly relevant in the case of China, since the number of Chinese older than 65 is expected to rise from approximately 100 million in 2005 to more than 329 million in 2050, which is more than the combined populations of Germany, Japan, France and Britain.

Increasingly, however, younger people also are affected by depression. It is possible that changing economic and social dynamics are responsible. The recent economic slowdown in the country, plus changes in the education and social front place increasing stress in the younger generations, some among whom struggle to cope. Anxiety and depression are frequent consequences.

Among adolescents, symptoms of depression include insomnia, fatigue, loss of appetite, lower attention span, apathy and lack of positive expectations. If they suffer from these symptoms for more than two weeks, they are probably suffering from depression.

In some cases, depression can lead to suicide, which has different characteristics than in Europe or the U.S. While in Western countries suicide is more common among men than women, in China suicide is more common among women, particularly rural women. Unlike in the U.S., where men kill themselves with firearms, rural women in China use strong agricultural pesticides that are kept in the house.

It is estimated that 90 percent of Chinese who have committed suicide have never sought psychological care, a situation that needs to be urgently addressed since it can help prevent this kind of outcome. Those living in rural areas also suffer from inadequate emergency care.

Stigma against mental disease –including depression- is still prevalent in China, as well as in most countries around the world. Clinical depression is treatable and, if not addressed, can give rise to serious complications, including suicide.

Effective treatments that include psychotherapy and the use of medication should be made readily available, wherever possible. In addition, the use of local health educators who can outreach to rural communities would be an important step in identifying depression among those who do not have access to mental health resources close to home.

MDR-TB Treatment Regimen: Short Indeed but Effective

Shobha Shukla

WHO recently announced new recommendations to speed up diagnosis and improve treatment outcomes for multi drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) through the use of a novel rapid diagnostic test called MTBDRsl, and a shorter, cheaper 9-12 month treatment regimen. The new treatment regimen can be completed in 9-12 months— less than half the time required by the current 24-month treatment standard used worldwide.

Costing less than $1000 per patient, this new regimen is not only much less expensive than the current standard regimen, but it also reduces the duration of treatment by 12 to 15 months. It is expected to dramatically improve the current low cure rate and potentially decrease deaths due to better adherence to treatment and reduced loss to follow-up. MDR-TB is defined as TB that is resistant to at least rifampicin and isoniazid—the two most effective drugs for treating drug sensitive TB. Resistance generally stems from inadequate treatment or improper use of medicines. MDR-TB can also spread directly from one person to another. MDR-TB is difficult and expensive to treat, and can also be fatal. According to WHO’s Global TB Report of 2015, 5% of all global TB cases are of MDR-TB. This translates into 480,000 cases every year. Only 25% of these are detected and put on treatment, and only 50% of those treated are cured.

In a recent webinar organised by CNS (Citizen News Service) on this important issue (see recording:www.bit.ly/june16-recording ), Dr Fuad Mirzayev, Medical Officer at the WHO Global TB Programme, clearly spelled out the WHO recommendation— “A shorter MDR-TB regimen of 9-12 months may be used instead of the conventional regimen in adults, PLHIV and children with rifampicin resistant TB (regardless if isoniazid resistance is confirmed or not), who have not been previously treated with 2nd line drugs and in whom resistance to fluoroquinolone and 2nd line injectable agents has been excluded or is considered highly unlikely, It is NOT recommended for patients with 2nd line drug resistance, or with extra pulmonary TB, or for pregnant women. In such cases individualised conventional MDR-TB regimens should be used.”

To rule out resistance to second-line drugs—a critical prerequisite for eligibility of MDR-TB patients for the shorter regimen, WHO recommends the rapid diagnostic test MTBDRsl that gives results in just 24-48 hours. This DNA-based LPA (line probe assay) identifies genetic mutations in MDR-TB strains, that make them resistant to fluoroquinolones and injectable second-line TB drugs. Evidence review for shorter MDR-TB regimen was based on meta-analysis of results of initial programmatic studies conducted by The Union, Damien Foundation, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) and the Antwerp Institute of Tropical Medicine in Belgium, involving 1205 patients with uncomplicated MDR-TB. Data for 515 patients under the Damien Foundation pilot programme, using a 9 month treatment regimen in Bangladesh, shows a cure rate of 82.1% and overall success rate of 84.5%.

This study was followed by the Union coordinated first multi-country MDR-TB patient cohort study of 1000 patients in 9 countries of West Africa (Benin, Burkina-Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Central African Republic, Niger, Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda), treated with a modified Bangladesh regimen. Dr ID Rusen, Senior Vice President, International Union Against TB and Lung Disease (The Union), shared that, “Interim analysis of 408 patients has demonstrated 82.1% treatment success rate, demonstrating that the 9 month regimen can be successful in other environments than Bangladesh, and also in settings with high HIV prevalence”.

Currently on going is the Union-sponsored and USAID supported STREAM study (Standardised Treatment Regimen of Anti-TB Drugs for Patients with MDR-TB) to evaluate other shortened regimens for patients with MDR-TB.  STREAM Stage 1 study has been ongoing in Ethiopia, South Africa, Vietnam and Mongolia, and results are expected in 1st quarter of 2018. STREAM has recently expanded to test two additional shortened treatment regimens using bedaquiline, a new medicine produced by Janssen Pharmaceuticals. This expanded arm will evaluate a 9 month all–oral regimen, that does not require painful injections, and an even shorter simplified 6-month regimen. This STREAM Stage 2 study envisages to enroll 1155 patients in at least 10 countries by end of 3rd quarter of 2018 and initial end point results expected in 3rd quarter of 2020, informed Rusen. WHO’s recommendation will have profound implications for countries like India that are beset with the epidemic of MDR-TB. The adoption of a shortened regimen will not only reduce the burden on patients and on healthcare systems, but also improve cure rates.

Dr Sunil Khaparde, Deputy Director General of Revised National TB Control Programme, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, India, conceded that India has the highest TB burden (2.2 million cases every year) and highest MDR-TB burden also with 72,000 MDR-TB cases every year and only 28,000 of these are treated. He said that the new shortened regimen holds a lot of promise and will be more rational and cost effective for India. “The conventional treatment takes at least 18-24 months to complete and has only 50% cure rate. Patients find it difficult to take the very toxic 2nd line drugs for such a long period. This prolonged treatment period creates adherence problems and often results in treatment interruption and loss to follow up. The new regimen will definitely improve adherence and hence cure rate,” he said.

Although formal clinical study for the shorter regimen has not been conducted in India, but Khaparde assured that very soon the proposal for roll out of this new regimen will be put up before the expert committee. José Luis Castro, Executive Director at The Union, has rightly remarked that, “Statistics clearly show that MDR-TB is an increasing burden and much of this is due to a failure of basic TB control. The international TB community must advocate for investment in the expansion of quality basic services and preventative care on the frontline where it matters most. The onus is on us all to ensure that access to correct treatments, both for patients and health care providers, increases exponentially.” Countries need to move quickly to implement the new regimen by formally incorporating it into their national TB guidelines. Accurate and early diagnosis along with shorter, cheaper and more effective treatment can help countries deliver on their promises to end TB by 2030 or earlier as envisaged in Sustainable Development Goal 3.3

Vanishing Act: Why Insects Are Declining And Why It Matters

Christian Schwägerl


Every spring since 1989, entomologists have set up tents in the meadows and woodlands of the Orbroicher Bruch nature reserve and 87 other areas in the western German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. The tents act as insect traps and enable the scientists to calculate how many bugs live in an area over a full summer period. Recently, researchers presented the results of their work to parliamentarians from the German Bundestag, and the findings were alarming: The average biomass of insects caught between May and October has steadily decreased from 1.6 kilograms (3.5 pounds) per trap in 1989 to just 300 grams (10.6 ounces) in 2014.

“The decline is dramatic and depressing and it affects all kinds of insects, including butterflies, wild bees, and hoverflies,” says Martin Sorg, an entomologist from the Krefeld Entomological Association involved in running the monitoring project.

Another recent study has added to this concern. Scientists from the Technical University of Munich and the Senckenberg Natural History Museum in Frankfurt have determined that in a nature reserve near the Bavarian city of Regensburg, the number of recorded butterfly and Burnet moth species has declined from 117 in 1840 to 71 in 2013. “Our study reveals, through one detailed example, that even official protection status can’t really prevent dramatic species loss,” says Thomas Schmitt, director of the Senckenberg Entomological Institute.

Declines in insect populations are hardly limited to Germany. A 2014 study in Science documented a steep drop in insect and invertebrate populations worldwide. By combining data from the few comprehensive studies that exist, lead author Rodolfo Dirzo, an ecologist at Stanford University, developed a global index for invertebrate abundance that showed a 45 percent decline over the last four decades. Dirzo points out that out of 3,623 terrestrial invertebrate species on the International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] Red List, 42 percent are classified as threatened with extinction.

“Although invertebrates are the least well-evaluated faunal groups within the IUCN database, the available information suggests a dire situation in many parts of the world,” says Dirzo.

A major survey of threats to insect life by the Zoological Society of London, published in 2012, concluded that many insect populations worldwide are in severe decline, limiting food supplies for larger animals and affecting ecosystem services like pollination. In Europe and the United States, researchers have documented declines in wild and managed bee populations of 30 to 40 percent and more due to so-called colony collapse disorder. Other insect species, such as the monarch butterfly, also have experienced sharp declines.

Jürgen Deckert, insect custodian at the Berlin Natural History Museum, says he is worried that “the decline in insect populations is gradual and that there’s a risk we will only really take notice once it is too late.”

Scientists cite many factors in the fall-off of the world’s insect populations, but chief among them are the ubiquitous use of pesticides, the spread of monoculture crops such as corn and soybeans, urbanization, and habitat destruction.

A significant drop in insect populations could have far-reaching consequences for the natural world and for humans, who depend on bees and other invertebrates to pollinate crops. A study by Canadian biologists, published in 2010, suggests that North American bird species that depend on aerial insects for feeding themselves and their offspring have suffered much more pronounced declines in recent years than other perching birds that largely feed on seeds. The analysis is based on data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey. The decline in birds that feed on flying insects appears to be significantly stronger than in perching birds in general, according to co-author Silke Nebel, now with the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority in Ontario.

Scientists have described 1 million species of insects so far, and estimate that at least 4 million species worldwide are still unrecorded. For people living in areas with ample wilderness and a plethora of biting mosquitoes that carry malaria and other diseases, a decline in insect populations might seem like an outlandish concern. But in areas with intensive industrialized agriculture, the drop in insect populations is worrying.

Dirzo, Science (2014)

According to global monitoring data for 452 species, there has been a 45 percent decline in invertebrate populations over the past 40 years.

So far, only the decline of honeybee populations has received widespread public attention, in large measure because of their vital role in pollinating food crops. The rest of the insect world has been widely ignored. Often insects are perceived as a nuisance or merely as potential pests. But while certain insect species, such as the European corn borer, undoubtedly cause enormous damage in agriculture, scientists emphasize the ecological importance of diverse and abundant insect populations.

In Britain, an alliance of 22 publicly funded environmental research institutions has compiled a list of ecosystem services delivered by insects: “Over three-quarters of wild flowering plant species in temperate regions need pollination by animals like insects to develop their fruits and seeds fully,” the group says. The researchers emphasize that pollinating insects improve or stabilize the yield of three-quarters of all crop types globally — one-third of global crop production by volume.

Germany’s Federal Agency for Nature Conservation stresses that insects are a major food source not only for birds, but also for bats and amphibians. Another important role is played by specialized insects such as long-legged flies, dance flies, dagger flies, and balloon flies, which prey upon pest species.

Deckert of the Berlin Natural History Museum has compiled a long list of factors that contribute to insect loss. One factor — the widespread overuse of nitrogen fertilizer — enables a few plant species such as corn to thrive, while the majority of plant species that live in symbiotic relationships with highly specialized insects dwindle.

In large parts of Europe, the U.S., and South America, monocultures cover vast areas of the landscape, creating “biological deserts” devoid of hedges or ponds where insects could reproduce. Attempts to make the European Union’s agricultural system more environmentally friendly have largely failed in recent years.

Of particular concern is the widespread use of pesticides and their impact on non-target species. Many conservationists view a special class of pesticides called neonicotinoids — used over many years in Europe until a partial ban in 2013 — as the prime suspect for insect losses. The European Food Safety Authority is currently reviewing the ban. Other pesticides are widely used worldwide.

“There are many indications that what we see is the result of a widespread poisoning of our landscape,” says Leif Miller, director general of the German chapter of BirdLife International.

Yet even environmental campaigners like Miller admit that the root causes and the full dimension of the problem aren’t yet fully understood. “I suspect it is a multiplicity of factors, most likely with habitat destruction, deforestation, fragmentation, urbanization, and agricultural conversion being the leading factors,” says Stanford ecologist Dirzo.

To understand the problem better, scientists are now urging increased monitoring efforts. Given the importance of insects for agriculture and biodiversity, one might assume that in rich countries like Germany, insect populations are being closely studied. But this is not the case. “For the 30,000 insect species in Central Europe, only a few specialists exist, and they often carry out monitoring as a side job,” says Deckert.

In-depth monitoring only exists in select regions or for specific species. In Germany, only 37 insect species are closely tracked, according to the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation — a mere 0.12 percent of all species.

A recent increase of monitoring efforts stems from the rise of “citizen science” projects, where lay people with an interest in the outdoors are trained to collect data. One such project is a butterfly monitoring program run in association with Butterfly Conservation Europe. Each year, thousands of volunteers comb through the landscape to compile lists of butterflies they encounter.

Globally, however, comprehensive data for long-term comparisons does not exist. “Unfortunately, information on invertebrates in general, including insects, is very limited, restricted to a few groups and a few localities,” says Dirzo.

That’s why Wolfgang Wägele, director of the Zoological Research Museum in Bonn, is now calling for a large-scale monitoring effort. Wägele and his team have developed a plan for an automated biodiversity surveillance system, which would photograph, videotape, capture, or audio-record animal and insect species and perform automatic analysis of species richness and abundance. “We have weather stations all over the country, so let’s add a dense network of biodiversity stations so we can measure automatically how much life there is in our landscapes,” says Wägele

He plans to use automated identification techniques, either through artificial intelligence image analysis or genetic fingerprinting, or by matching acoustic recordings with data collections. For example, if grasshoppers make their characteristic sounds near the station, the species will be identified and the number of insects recorded. If an aerial insect lands in a trap, its genome will be compared to a database.

For larger insects like butterflies, scientists can use photographic image analysis to come up with a precise identification.

“Such a system could collect, identify, and record species data 24/7 and gather data we desperately need to assess the decline of insects,” says Wägele.

Recently, a pilot installation for the system already discovered a new mosquito species, now called Ctenosciara alexanderkoenigi, in the museum’s park. The nationwide monitoring scheme is currently under funding review by Germany’s Federal Research Ministry.

Many biologists support more intensive monitoring efforts, but point out that in Europe there’s already enough knowledge about insect decline to start addressing root causes — mainly in agricultural policy. According to conservation organizations like BirdLife International, new attempts are necessary to “green” EU agricultural policy in a substantial way by creating incentives for enriching landscapes with hedgerows, reducing fertilizer and pesticide use, and better rewarding organic agriculture. Previous efforts to do so have largely failed.

“The key question is whether governments view biodiversity as an add-on or as something that is of existential importance for our future,” says Deckert.

Deepening social inequality in New Zealand

Tom Peters & Chris Ross

Two recent reports point to growing social inequality, with poverty affecting hundreds of thousands of people, as a result of the austerity measures imposed by New Zealand’s government since the 2008 financial crisis.

Statistics NZ revealed last month that, as of July 2015, the wealthiest 10 percent of people controlled 60 percent of the country’s wealth, up from 55 percent between 2003 and 2010. Around 45 percent of the wealth was concentrated in the top 5 percent. The richest 1 percent held 22 percent.

By contrast, the bottom 40 percent of households held just 3 percent of all household wealth. While the country’s property bubble is a major source of profit for the ruling elite, it has contributed to an immense burden of debt for working-class families. Three out of five homeowners has a mortgage, with a median value of $172,000. According to the Treasury, household debt has risen by 26.2 percent in five years to a total of $246 billion. The ratio of debt to disposable income has risen to 163 percent.

Meanwhile, state support for the poorest members of society has been largely stripped away. A “Vulnerability Report” published on June 15 by the Council of Christian Social Services (CCSS) outlined the impact of cuts to welfare services, combined with the soaring cost of housing and stagnant wages, over the past six years. CCSS executive officer Trevor McGlinchey said a “‘new normal’ of desperation to find housing, food and sufficient income to survive has emerged for many families.”

Median weekly earnings increased by just $82 (15.2 percent) from 2009 to 2015, while rent for a four-bedroom house in the cheapest quartile in Auckland’s working-class suburbs of Otahuhu and Mangere went up by $115 and $94 (32 and 24 percent) respectively. House prices in the city have soared 64 percent. Over the same period, the government has pushed thousands of people off the public housing waiting list, which has dropped from 10,341 to 3,476.

More than 41,000 people (1 in 100) were homeless in 2013, a 19 percent increase compared with 2006, according to recent analysis of Census data. A growing number of people are in debt to government departments, including Work and Income (WINZ) and Housing New Zealand, which offers loans for emergency accommodation. From 2009 to 2015, total debt owed to government departments increased by 144 percent, from $25.9 to $63.2 million.

WINZ has reduced its emergency food grants by 28 percent over the past six years, while charities have reported skyrocketing demand for food parcels. The agency routinely cuts benefits as punishment, for instance if a recipient misses an appointment. Between July 2013 and September 2014, there were 80,202 of these “financial sanctions,” including 27,778 benefit cuts to households with children.

In response to these reports, the political establishment is seeking to wash its hands of any responsibility for the deepening social crisis.

Radio NZ recently interviewed Porirua resident Situa Tangatauli, who does three cleaning shifts a day on the minimum wage. She and her husband together work 80 hours a week but still struggle to provide adequate food for their family. Their children are often sent to school with nothing more than a biscuit for lunch.

Asked what was being done to help families like the Tangataulis, Finance Minister Bill English touted grossly inadequate increases to the minimum wage (from $12.50 in 2009 to $15.25 in 2016) and an extra $25 for some welfare recipients. He said it was “pretty challenging” to reduce inequality “apart from confiscating people’s assets,” which he ruled out.

In fact, the National Party government’s austerity measures since 2008 have “confiscated” billions of dollars from the poor and transferred this wealth to the rich. It has cut taxes for top income earners and corporations, increased the regressive Goods and Services Tax and pushed thousands of people, including single parents, off welfare payments. Spending on healthcare and education has been effectively cut, and thousands of jobs have been shed in government departments and publicly-owned companies, including Solid Energy, NZ Post and KiwiRail.

With the support of the opposition Labour Party, New Zealand First and the Greens, the government has allocated $20 billion for new military hardware over the next 15 years. The spending, aimed at incorporating New Zealand into the US-led war preparations against China, will be funded at the expense of social programs.

Labour’s finance spokesman Grant Robertson expressed nervousness about rising alienation from the political establishment as a result of the crisis. He told Radio NZ: “The ramifications of inequality have become clear in recent days in the Brexit vote and also in the way the US presidential primaries have played out... [Inequality] creates a large group of disenfranchised people who feel forgotten and alienated. They then become easy targets for peddlers of fear and hate.”

Such statements are completely hypocritical. Labour has joined the right-wing populist New Zealand First in whipping up xenophobia and nationalism. Both parties have scapegoated immigrants, particularly Chinese people, for supposedly taking jobs and for the housing shortage.

Labour, which received its lowest vote in 92 years in the 2014 election, is far less concerned about the growth of right-wing nationalism than the prospect that the leftward movement of the working class could come into conflict with all the established parties.

In a July 3 press release, Labour leader Andrew Little declared: “National’s economy is not delivering for most New Zealanders, because they are too focused on looking after the few at the top. This is not the New Zealand we want. The only way to turn it around is to change the government.”

In reality, the onslaught against the working class began with the pro-market “reforms” of the Labour government of Prime Minister David Lange between 1984 and 1990. Labour transformed government departments into profit-driven State Owned Enterprises, halved the top income tax rate and oversaw the destruction of tens of thousands of jobs. It imposed substantial deindustrialisation and a rapid increase in social inequality. From 1980 to 1990, the share of gross domestic product going to income earners dropped from 60 percent to 50 percent.

The 1990s National government continued the attacks, including brutal reductions in unemployment and sickness benefits. The 1999–2008 Labour government did not reverse any of these cuts. The Labour Party essentially agrees with the current government’s austerity measures and will only deepen them if it wins the 2017 election.

Chinese Walmart workers engage in wildcat strikes

Linda Tenenbaum

A group of Walmart workers in China has embarked on a series of co-ordinated wildcat strikes across the country against oppressive new working conditions.

The strike began last Friday in a chain store in the southern city of Nanchang, in Jiangxi Province, against attempts by the company to impose a new system allowing managers to schedule an unlimited number of hours per day, totalling up to 174 hours per month (an average of just over 40 per week), with no overtime pay.

By Monday, the action spread to a second Nanchang store, as well as to others in Chengdu in the southwest, some 1,500 km away, and Harbin in China’s northeast. The stores nevertheless remain open, with Walmart bringing in supplementary labour from other sites.

The strike has been organised by the Walmart Chinese Workers Association (WCWA), an unofficial union formed by several Walmart employees over the past two years. In a message of solidarity to Walmart workers in the United States, the WCWA published an open letter on its blog, declaring: “We have reason to believe that your conditions today will be ours tomorrow.”

Walmart opened its first store in China in 1996 and now has 433 retail outlets around the country. In mid-May, it reportedly pressured workers to sign onto a new flexible working hours agreement. Already angered by years of collaboration between the company and the Chinese government-backed union, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), the workers responded with petitions and protests during the next six weeks, culminating in demonstrations inside Walmart stores.

Signs taped on workers’ backs read: “Walmart workers rise up against deception, determined to defend rights.” A striker at the Chengdu store carried a placard reading: “We support Walmart workers in the US for the Fight for 15,” in a reference to a campaign in the US for a minimum wage of $15 per hour.

The WCWA has used the WeChat mobile messaging platform to communicate with and mobilise Walmart’s workforce. While the majority of the 100,000-strong Walmart workforce has not, as yet, participated in the strike, more than 40 WCWA WeChat groups have sprung up. These have around 20,000 members, or 20 percent of Walmart’s Chinese employees, despite continuing reported threats to staff from management.

The new scheduling means shifts could last as long as 11 or 12 hours a day, ending the regular 40-hour week for full-time workers. For the increasing number of part-time workers, the instability associated with “flexible hours” will make it difficult to maintain a second job. At the same time, the rapid rise in inflation over the past decade, which has seen real wages plummet, has left many employees earning little more than the local minimum wage, and no compensation for the added burden of irregular hours.

Up until now, strikes in China, while escalating in number, have been concentrated in individual workplaces and locations. The rapid spread of the Walmart strike, along with the determination of the workers to reach out to their national and international co-workers, highlights the increasingly explosive social tensions building up throughout the country as the economy stagnates and millions of workers face unemployment and desperate poverty.

Today’s Financial Times commented: “The strike has realised the Communist party’s fear of co-ordinated cross-country labour unrest just as China prepares to lay off millions of workers as a result of the industrial slowdown. The number of worker disputes in the country has soared in recent years, doubling from 2014 to reach 2,774 protests in 2015, according to China Labour Bulletin, a Hong Kong-based workers’ rights organisation.”

The FT quotes Anita Chan, professor of sociology at the Australian National University, who said: “It is unprecedented for workers to organise this way. Most strikes are in one workplace. This is different—Walmart has many stores in China and uses the same management methods in all the stores. So these workers understand everyone’s situation: they are all the same.”

These comments underscore the significance of the Walmart struggle and the growing restiveness throughout the country. In February, a week-long strike by several hundred stainless steel workers in Guangzhou, southern China closed a factory of 2,000 workers after the ACFTU agreed to significant reductions in workers’ pay. Despite the fact that riot police were called in and the strike was declared illegal, the company eventually agreed to back off and abandon the new pay system.

In April, police in China’s northeastern province of Heilongjiang arrested more than 30 mineworkers who had led large protests the previous month over unpaid wages, highlighting the Chinese Communist Party leadership’s concerns over growing social unrest. Once again, the protests only ended when the company involved agreed to pay the miners two months’ pay.

According to “Labor Notes” a US-based pro-trade union web site, the Walmart Chinese Workers Association has written an open letter to Walmart China and the ACFTU demanding that the company abandon the new scheduling system, stop interfering with union elections and end its harassment of elected union representatives. It also insists that the union representatives actually represent the workers’ interests.

One of the Walmart workers, quoted on the site, said: “Since the union election last year, I communicated a lot with the ACFTU as a Walmart worker, explaining the situation to them. But it did not have much effect.

“ACFTU told me that the local unions should take the lead. But it is precisely because local unions are not helping us that we seek help from the ACFTU’s national office. ACFTU always tells us it is investigating and considering, but [there is] no satisfactory outcome.”

The worker’s comments indicate the frustration and anger of the Walmart workers with the company, and with the union that has served as its loyal agent. But while the political character of the WCWA leadership is not yet clear, the comments also point to the political dangers and challenges that confront, not only the Walmart workers, but the Chinese working class as whole.

Neither the ACFTU nor the Chinese government can be pressured or reformed. As the Walmart workers themselves are beginning to recognise, the Chinese working class can advance only through the development of independent organs of struggle, in collaboration with its international counterparts—the workers in the US, across Asia, Europe and the world—in a political struggle against the entire CCP regime, which functions as a cheap labour enforcer for global capital.

Protests against utility hikes in Kiev

Andrea Peters

Thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of Kiev on Wednesday to protest against recent utility price hikes. Participants, whose numbers were estimated at between 5,000 and 20,000, blocked roads and marched through the center of Ukraine’s capital, gathering in front of the building that houses the Cabinet of Ministers. Police and national guardsmen kept watch over the demonstration.

On July 1, the government doubled the cost of hot water and heating, just months after imposing significant increases in the cost of gas and electricity. These latest moves follow repeated utility price hikes over the course of the last two years that have resulted in a near tripling of costs for basic services since late 2013. Electricity prices are set to rise again in September.

The International Monetary Fund, holder of the purse strings on a $17.5 billion bailout package, insists that Ukraine bring the cost of utilities up to so-called market levels.

Protesters at Wednesday’s march demanded the immediate rescinding of the price hikes, as well as an increase in wages to meet the legal minimum of 3,067 hryvnia ($123) per month and the boosting of pensions and other social benefits. They held aloft signs that read, “Utility tariffs—terror against the people,” and “The growth of tariffs—a step towards destitution.” Media coverage reported chants of “European salaries for European prices.”

Head of Ukraine’s National Commission for Energy, Housing, and Utilities Services Regulation, Dmytro Vovk, made clear on Wednesday that from the standpoint of the government the populace had nothing to complain about as the cost of household electricity in leading European countries is 10 times higher than in Ukraine.

According to activists, 30 to 40 percent of a Ukrainian family’s income is spent on utilities. This immense burden has been exacerbated by a general rise in consumer prices, which have increased by 79 percent over the last two years. In 2015, overall inflation stood at 43.3 percent and the value of the hryvnia fell.

There are widespread expectations of further increases in the near future in the costs of foodstuffs—dairy products, water, beer, and sweets, among others—as the government prepares to pass new sales tax legislation. One industry analyst predicts that this will take a further 500-800 hryvnia out of the average family annual budget ($20-32 US), in a country in which the average monthly wage is $200.

Eighty percent of the Ukrainian population now lives on less than $5 per day, a United Nations measure of basic poverty. There has been a dramatic fall in the production of bread and baked goods over the past five years, a decline attributed to slumping demand driven by spreading poverty. Ukrainian workers frequently do not get paid, with wage arrears in the country rising by over 42 percent last year.

In an interview in late June with the Kyiv Post, a miner from the country’s northwest explained that miners are basically double-charged for electricity; first they do not get paid for their work digging coal and then they get gouged paying for the electricity produced with the coal they extracted.

On Wednesday, Ukrainian Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman met with leaders of the Federation of Trade Unions, which organized the demonstration. “Common language has been found,” he tweeted, while giving no indication that the government had any plans to reverse course.

Despite efforts on the part of Ukraine’s trade unions to keep a handle on the situation, discontent in the country continues to grow. In recent remarks, former utilities minister Aleksei Kucherenko predicted a further intensification of social protests during the fall. “For the moment, people have only received their hot water bills,” he said. “After this, electricity prices will rise by nearly 30 percent starting from the first of September. And then they’re going to see their heating bills. And there’s going to be an entirely different reaction.”

The relentless assault on the living standards of the Ukrainian working class is a direct outcome of the right-wing, US-backed coup executed in Kiev in 2014. Taking advantage of broadly felt dissatisfaction with the corrupt regime of Viktor Yanukovych, which was supported by Russia, Washington and Brussels mobilized far-right forces in Kiev on the basis of virulent Ukrainian nationalism, anti-Russian chauvinism, and commitment to market austerity.

The result—rather than ushering in a new era of democracy, as was claimed at the time—has been a disaster for millions of ordinary Ukrainians, 9,500 of whom have been killed during the conflict in the Donbass, 1.7 million who have been turned into refugees, and tens of millions who have been transformed into paupers.