1 to 36 November 2015

www.kisankiawaaz.org Vol.7 No.11. , 2015 November

Rs. 25/-

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary addressing National Agrochemicals Conference 2015 organized by FICCI on 18th November 2015, New Delhi

In left Shri Hukmdev Narayan Yadav

MP, & Chairman Parliamentary Standing

Committee on Agriculture &

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary President,

Bharatiya Krishak Samaj,18th November 2015,

New Delhi

Editor : Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary, President, Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091

Advisory Board : S. P. Gulati, Sect. G.O.I., Retd. Lingraj B. Patil Ashok B Sharma Ms. Rohini Reddy Ms. Jyoti Surse D. Gurusamy, Adv. Rajesh Sharma “Bittoo” Pratap Singh, DIG Retd. Hatam Singh Nagar, Adv. K. Sareen

Designed by : Rahul Sharma Aastha Chaudhary Printed & Published by :

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary on behalf of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj. Printed at Everest Press, E-49/8, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-20.

Published at :

F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091Mob.:9810331366, Telefax:011-22751281,E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]:- www.kisankiawaaz.org

Altered genes and twisted truth 2* K P Prabhakaran Nair

NEW PATHOGEN FOUND IN ROUND UP READY 5

Pests destroy Bt Cotton: GMOs not sustainable 7* Sandhya Jain

Olive Oil Superior to Mammography In Preventing 9* Margie King, Health Coach

Eat More Nuts to Lower Cancer Risks 10* Margie King, Health Coach

The medical industry is losing the cancer battle. 11* Sayer Ji

“Are GM crops better for consumers?” 13

letter to PM on import of illegal GM Soya meal 16

Digital India Project & Agriculture 19* Dr. Amrit Patel

FDI - INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND ECONOM 24* Yılmaz Akyüz

9 Ways That Eating Processed Food Made the World Sick 29* Dr. Mercola

1November 2015KISAN KI AWAAZ

November, 2015 Vol. 7 No.11

The views expressed by the authors are their own. the editor does not accept responsibility for returning unsolicited publication material. Disputes arising if any will be under Jurisdiction of Delhi Court

Krishan Bir Chaudhary

PM should ban import of illegal GM Soya meal

Respected Sh. Modi Jee,We are writing this to bring to your notice that there is a sinister move by a section of the poultry and feed industry to completely wipe out our own soybean cultivation, for their short term gain. We understand that large scale import of soybean meal is being contemplated at cheap prices from South America, China and USA, to flood the Indian market, inspite of the fact that more than adequate quantity of soybean meal is available from locally produced soybean. Our current laws do not permit import of any GMO based food or feed item. We fear that the importers may bring in GMO soybean meal at cheap rates, which will get cleared at ports without testing for presence of GM organisms. As you are aware, India is the only country in the world which grows Non-GM soybean and if imports of GM material starts, it will amount to playing a fraud on our farmers, who cannot compete with farmers in the exporting countries.

Currently, import of soybean meal is freely permitted, with a low customs duty of 15%. Import of GM is strictly prohibited. Soybean prices in these countries are between 30 to 40% lower because of huge subsidies and imports of cheap soymeal will leave no outlet for indigenous production, which will directly hurt the farmers, who are already suffering from huge losses caused by erratic monsoon this year. It is unfortunate that the poultry industry which is opposing import of finished products from abroad, on the ground that they cannot compete, is wanting to import soybean meal, without any sympathy or consideration for the poor Indian farmer and want him to compete with the farmer abroad.

There appears to be a deep rooted conspiracy against soybean farmers of India. Import of GM soybean meal, a clamor for import of soybean itself, discouragement to soy cultivation by political leaders, active involvement of foreign seed and pesticide companies in promoting GM Soy cultivation, promotional activities by a foreign agency to encourage import of soybean .are moves which directly point towards killing soybean cultivation in India. We cannot allow our farmers' interest to be jeopardized by selfish elements. We would, therefore, request you to kindly immediately put a ban on soybean meal import. Kindly also issue instructions to all customs officers that the law of the land with regard to prohibition on import of GMOs is strictly followed and any soybean meal imported into India is checked in a Government laboratory to ensure that it does not contain traces of GM material.

Sh.Narendra ModiHon'ble Prime Minister of IndiaNew Delhi

Editor : Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary, President, Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091

Advisory Board : S. P. Gulati, Sect. G.O.I., Retd. Lingraj B. Patil Ashok B Sharma Ms. Rohini Reddy Ms. Jyoti Surse D. Gurusamy, Adv. Rajesh Sharma “Bittoo” Pratap Singh, DIG Retd. Hatam Singh Nagar, Adv. K. Sareen

Designed by : Rahul Sharma Aastha Chaudhary Printed & Published by :

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary on behalf of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj. Printed at Everest Press, E-49/8, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-20.

Published at :

F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091Mob.:9810331366, Telefax:011-22751281,E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]:- www.kisankiawaaz.org

Altered genes and twisted truth 2* K P Prabhakaran Nair

NEW PATHOGEN FOUND IN ROUND UP READY 5

Pests destroy Bt Cotton: GMOs not sustainable 7* Sandhya Jain

Olive Oil Superior to Mammography In Preventing 9* Margie King, Health Coach

Eat More Nuts to Lower Cancer Risks 10* Margie King, Health Coach

The medical industry is losing the cancer battle. 11* Sayer Ji

“Are GM crops better for consumers?” 13

letter to PM on import of illegal GM Soya meal 16

Digital India Project & Agriculture 19* Dr. Amrit Patel

FDI - INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND ECONOM 24* Yılmaz Akyüz

9 Ways That Eating Processed Food Made the World Sick 29* Dr. Mercola

1November 2015KISAN KI AWAAZ

November, 2015 Vol. 7 No.11

The views expressed by the authors are their own. the editor does not accept responsibility for returning unsolicited publication material. Disputes arising if any will be under Jurisdiction of Delhi Court

PM should ban import of illegal GM Soya meal

Respected Sh. Modi Jee,We are writing this to bring to your notice that there is a sinister move by a section of the poultry and feed industry to completely wipe out our own soybean cultivation, for their short term gain. We understand that large scale import of soybean meal is being contemplated at cheap prices from South America, China and USA, to flood the Indian market, inspite of the fact that more than adequate quantity of soybean meal is available from locally produced soybean. Our current laws do not permit import of any GMO based food or feed item. We fear that the importers may bring in GMO soybean meal at cheap rates, which will get cleared at ports without testing for presence of GM organisms. As you are aware, India is the only country in the world which grows Non-GM soybean and if imports of GM material starts, it will amount to playing a fraud on our farmers, who cannot compete with farmers in the exporting countries.

Currently, import of soybean meal is freely permitted, with a low customs duty of 15%. Import of GM is strictly prohibited. Soybean prices in these countries are between 30 to 40% lower because of huge subsidies and imports of cheap soymeal will leave no outlet for indigenous production, which will directly hurt the farmers, who are already suffering from huge losses caused by erratic monsoon this year. It is unfortunate that the poultry industry which is opposing import of finished products from abroad, on the ground that they cannot compete, is wanting to import soybean meal, without any sympathy or consideration for the poor Indian farmer and want him to compete with the farmer abroad.

There appears to be a deep rooted conspiracy against soybean farmers of India. Import of GM soybean meal, a clamor for import of soybean itself, discouragement to soy cultivation by political leaders, active involvement of foreign seed and pesticide companies in promoting GM Soy cultivation, promotional activities by a foreign agency to encourage import of soybean .are moves which directly point towards killing soybean cultivation in India. We cannot allow our farmers' interest to be jeopardized by selfish elements. We would, therefore, request you to kindly immediately put a ban on soybean meal import. Kindly also issue instructions to all customs officers that the law of the land with regard to prohibition on import of GMOs is strictly followed and any soybean meal imported into India is checked in a Government laboratory to ensure that it does not contain traces of GM material.

Sh.Narendra ModiHon'ble Prime Minister of IndiaNew Delhi

2 KISAN KI AWAAZ

Altered genes and twisted truth

here is a disconcerting parallel between what happened in the US back then and what happened in India in 2006. Monsanto was T

already into Bt cotton and trying to push Bt brinjal through its Indian subsidiary Mahyco (Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company). The former Chief Justice of India, the late Y.K. Sabharwal, said against the background of an on-going PIL on GM crops in the Supreme Court that an “independent, competent and committed expert committee” examine the question of GM crops vis-à-vis Bt brinjal. An independent expert committee set up under the chairmanship of this writer found several instances where the safety protocol prescribed by the Department of Biotechnology was breached, in field and laboratory trials. The report of this committee was submitted to the Supreme Court in October 2006. The forerunner of the biotechnology industry was the molecular biology establishment. James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA structure, was a founding member and, for obvious reasons, a big proponent of genetic engineering. He was extremely vocal, claiming genetic engineering was safe and that earlier concerns had been exaggerated. And the molecular biologists in favour of pushing ahead with genetic engineering without adequate safeguards wielded great power in the US National Academy of Sciences. Druker claims: “The National Academy of Sciences - because their agenda was so strongly influenced by molecular biologists - were afraid of a full and fair review of the possible ecological problems of releasing genetically engineered organisms.” Dr. Philip Regal, an eminent biologist and believer in scientific integrity and accountability, became the point man for attempting to get genetic engineering venture aligned with sound science during the first 15 to 20 years of its existence.

Dr. Regal and some collaborators managed to put together two major conferences, and were shocked to learn just how many high-risk projects genetic engineers had in the pipeline. The prime objective of those so engaged was driven by the motto “Come what may, we have to have a product genetically engineered to reach the market”. Dr Regal's attempts to stall these projects had little success. The media, on the whole, tended to support the adventurers. “The media tended to present all of the statements about how good these foods were and how safe they were in the mouths of the scientific experts. Anytime concerns were raised, they would put that in the mouth of non-scientists; activists presented as not knowing very much about science.” That same tactic is used to great effect today. Rarely if ever does a concerned scientist get any kind of airtime in conventional media. Scientists are also crippled by threats of losing grant money, or their career. It's not very different in India where the Prime Minister's Office in UPA-II unrolled the red carpet for vocal votaries of the GM lobby. Ministers affiliated to the ministry of environment and forests, directly responsible for the GM agenda, who expressed an opinion contrary to the PMO were unceremoniously shifted and others who favoured GM were brought in. The classic case involved Jayanthi Natrajan, who voiced strong objections to open field testing of GM crops without a safety protocol in place. She was moved out and replaced by Veerappa Moily who at one stroke cleared several field trials during the fag end of the UPA-II regime. The central agenda of the GM lobby was to keep regulations at the barest minimum right from the start. If safety regulations had been stricter, it's unlikely that the industry would have been able to pull it off.

November 2015

* K P Prabhakaran Nair

3KISAN KI AWAAZ

“If that fraudulent groundwork hadn't been laid by the mainstream scientific establishment, especially the molecular biology establishment, the FDA could not have done what it did. It wouldn't have had the aura of scientific respectability, nor could Monsanto and the biotech industry have later been able to do what they've done. “As Dr. Philip Regal mentioned: 'Within the scientific community, gossip became as good as truth; as good as fact.' And people just parroted what they heard other people saying.” In the 1980s, a major GMO disaster took place with the essential amino acid L-tryptophan, produced by genetic engineering. In the US it killed at least 27 people and over 1,500 were sickened. The novel disorder that afflicted these unfortunate people was named eosinophilia–myalgia syndrome (EMS). In the mid-1980s, one of the main developers of L-tryptophan supplements, Showa Denko Corporation of Japan, decided it could turn out more L-tryptophan in the same time if they endowed the bacteria they were using with extra genes. The bacteria have the genetic components to synthesise L-tryptophan. Showa reasoned that by giving the bacteria an extra copy of those genes more L-tryptophan would be produced more quickly. But in order to achieve maximum production rates, they also had to boost one of those genes with a promoter from a virus, which led to a very unnatural situation. Druker notes in his book, “They were messing around in very radical, unprecedented ways with the metabolism of bacteria that have been safely used for many, many years.” There were early reports of the supplement causing trouble, and as production was increased, it appears to have become more toxic. L-tryptophan was prescribed by physicians for patients suffering from depression and sleep disorder. The supplements were manufactured conventionally. Disaster struck only when the GE version came into the market.

“The scientific evidence is very clear: tryptophan supplements were not a problem. To our knowledge, the only tryptophan supplement that ever created a problem was the one created through genetically engineered bacteria.” Druker continues, “The final version [of this genetically engineered bacteria], which was the most souped-up, cranked out not only a lot of L-tryptophan but some unusual contaminants. The profile of that toxic tryptophan was highly unusual. It contained many more contaminants than most products do. They were very low level, though. It was still pure according to pharmacological standards. It tested pure. Generally, most chemicals are not dangerous at that extremely low concentration, but at least one of those [contaminants] was, and it created a major epidemic. “This epidemic... was only determined because the symptoms were highly unusual and unique... It was fortuitous in a sense that it was such a strange disease, otherwise, it would not have been even recognized, and those tryptophan supplements would still be marketed and still be killing and maiming people.” The FDA response was to take all brands of L-tryptophan, conventionally produced and genetically engineered, off the shelves. It used this occasion to attack natural supplements with a pristine safety record. Prior to the release of the GE version of L-tryptophan, the supplement had never led to a problem in anyone. Most people, including many scientists, do not know that this epidemic was caused by a genetically engineered food supplement. Druker dismisses the stand of the pro-GM side that the toxins originated during the manufacturing process. He suggests that the bacterial enzymes, probably within the bacteria themselves, or in the broth before it was put through the purification system, were responsible, which would place the blame squarely on genetic tampering itself. In the early '80s, corporations such as Monsanto saw great commercial opportunity for genetic

November 2015

2 KISAN KI AWAAZ

Altered genes and twisted truth

here is a disconcerting parallel between what happened in the US back then and what happened in India in 2006. Monsanto was T

already into Bt cotton and trying to push Bt brinjal through its Indian subsidiary Mahyco (Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company). The former Chief Justice of India, the late Y.K. Sabharwal, said against the background of an on-going PIL on GM crops in the Supreme Court that an “independent, competent and committed expert committee” examine the question of GM crops vis-à-vis Bt brinjal. An independent expert committee set up under the chairmanship of this writer found several instances where the safety protocol prescribed by the Department of Biotechnology was breached, in field and laboratory trials. The report of this committee was submitted to the Supreme Court in October 2006. The forerunner of the biotechnology industry was the molecular biology establishment. James Watson, co-discoverer of the DNA structure, was a founding member and, for obvious reasons, a big proponent of genetic engineering. He was extremely vocal, claiming genetic engineering was safe and that earlier concerns had been exaggerated. And the molecular biologists in favour of pushing ahead with genetic engineering without adequate safeguards wielded great power in the US National Academy of Sciences. Druker claims: “The National Academy of Sciences - because their agenda was so strongly influenced by molecular biologists - were afraid of a full and fair review of the possible ecological problems of releasing genetically engineered organisms.” Dr. Philip Regal, an eminent biologist and believer in scientific integrity and accountability, became the point man for attempting to get genetic engineering venture aligned with sound science during the first 15 to 20 years of its existence.

Dr. Regal and some collaborators managed to put together two major conferences, and were shocked to learn just how many high-risk projects genetic engineers had in the pipeline. The prime objective of those so engaged was driven by the motto “Come what may, we have to have a product genetically engineered to reach the market”. Dr Regal's attempts to stall these projects had little success. The media, on the whole, tended to support the adventurers. “The media tended to present all of the statements about how good these foods were and how safe they were in the mouths of the scientific experts. Anytime concerns were raised, they would put that in the mouth of non-scientists; activists presented as not knowing very much about science.” That same tactic is used to great effect today. Rarely if ever does a concerned scientist get any kind of airtime in conventional media. Scientists are also crippled by threats of losing grant money, or their career. It's not very different in India where the Prime Minister's Office in UPA-II unrolled the red carpet for vocal votaries of the GM lobby. Ministers affiliated to the ministry of environment and forests, directly responsible for the GM agenda, who expressed an opinion contrary to the PMO were unceremoniously shifted and others who favoured GM were brought in. The classic case involved Jayanthi Natrajan, who voiced strong objections to open field testing of GM crops without a safety protocol in place. She was moved out and replaced by Veerappa Moily who at one stroke cleared several field trials during the fag end of the UPA-II regime. The central agenda of the GM lobby was to keep regulations at the barest minimum right from the start. If safety regulations had been stricter, it's unlikely that the industry would have been able to pull it off.

November 2015

* K P Prabhakaran Nair

3KISAN KI AWAAZ

“If that fraudulent groundwork hadn't been laid by the mainstream scientific establishment, especially the molecular biology establishment, the FDA could not have done what it did. It wouldn't have had the aura of scientific respectability, nor could Monsanto and the biotech industry have later been able to do what they've done. “As Dr. Philip Regal mentioned: 'Within the scientific community, gossip became as good as truth; as good as fact.' And people just parroted what they heard other people saying.” In the 1980s, a major GMO disaster took place with the essential amino acid L-tryptophan, produced by genetic engineering. In the US it killed at least 27 people and over 1,500 were sickened. The novel disorder that afflicted these unfortunate people was named eosinophilia–myalgia syndrome (EMS). In the mid-1980s, one of the main developers of L-tryptophan supplements, Showa Denko Corporation of Japan, decided it could turn out more L-tryptophan in the same time if they endowed the bacteria they were using with extra genes. The bacteria have the genetic components to synthesise L-tryptophan. Showa reasoned that by giving the bacteria an extra copy of those genes more L-tryptophan would be produced more quickly. But in order to achieve maximum production rates, they also had to boost one of those genes with a promoter from a virus, which led to a very unnatural situation. Druker notes in his book, “They were messing around in very radical, unprecedented ways with the metabolism of bacteria that have been safely used for many, many years.” There were early reports of the supplement causing trouble, and as production was increased, it appears to have become more toxic. L-tryptophan was prescribed by physicians for patients suffering from depression and sleep disorder. The supplements were manufactured conventionally. Disaster struck only when the GE version came into the market.

“The scientific evidence is very clear: tryptophan supplements were not a problem. To our knowledge, the only tryptophan supplement that ever created a problem was the one created through genetically engineered bacteria.” Druker continues, “The final version [of this genetically engineered bacteria], which was the most souped-up, cranked out not only a lot of L-tryptophan but some unusual contaminants. The profile of that toxic tryptophan was highly unusual. It contained many more contaminants than most products do. They were very low level, though. It was still pure according to pharmacological standards. It tested pure. Generally, most chemicals are not dangerous at that extremely low concentration, but at least one of those [contaminants] was, and it created a major epidemic. “This epidemic... was only determined because the symptoms were highly unusual and unique... It was fortuitous in a sense that it was such a strange disease, otherwise, it would not have been even recognized, and those tryptophan supplements would still be marketed and still be killing and maiming people.” The FDA response was to take all brands of L-tryptophan, conventionally produced and genetically engineered, off the shelves. It used this occasion to attack natural supplements with a pristine safety record. Prior to the release of the GE version of L-tryptophan, the supplement had never led to a problem in anyone. Most people, including many scientists, do not know that this epidemic was caused by a genetically engineered food supplement. Druker dismisses the stand of the pro-GM side that the toxins originated during the manufacturing process. He suggests that the bacterial enzymes, probably within the bacteria themselves, or in the broth before it was put through the purification system, were responsible, which would place the blame squarely on genetic tampering itself. In the early '80s, corporations such as Monsanto saw great commercial opportunity for genetic

November 2015

4 KISAN KI AWAAZ November 2015

engineering in agriculture. It is important to remember that had preliminary groundwork by molecular biologists not been laid out, Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and smaller players would not have invested the huge sums they did in GM seeds as they would have never been able to get these products presumed GRAS by the FDA. So the path forward was open. It is at this point that Michael Taylor, a partner at a major Washington, D.C., law firm that represented Monsanto entered the scene. After serving as Monsanto's legal counsel, Taylor was installed as Deputy Commissioner on Food Policy at the FDA, a position that did not exist before Taylor got the job. This is a very carefully crafted business strategy to push GM crops globally. Druker gives the following reason: “It was because, I think, as I looked through the records, there were FDA scientists who were objecting to the drafts of the policy statement, saying, 'Wait, what's happening to all the scientific elements in this?' ... I believe that Michael Taylor was brought in at that critical junction to start getting things moving in the direction that the Bush White House and the people directing the FDA wanted. “Certainly, we can see within the memos... where the clout was. It was coming from the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. Economic and political considerations were trumping the scientific considerations. And the poor FDA scientists were spending their time trying to do their job as scientists, and it turned out it didn't come to anything.” The decisions of the political establishment at the time dovetailed with that of the biotechnology establishment. Two points deserve mention, first, deregulation by President Ronald Reagan to give a push to the American economy and that of his Vice-President Dan Quayle when he announced the FDA policy as a regulatory relief for the industry. He said “We're freeing the industry from any new burdens and regulations”. What he did not know at the time was that the industry was also being freed

from a very stringent law enacted in 1958, which stipulated that any new additives to the food chain cannot just be “presumed to be safe”, but, “demonstrated to be safe”.

This is the law FDA broke, pretending it simply did not exist. This allowed the biotech industry to perpetuate and increase market penetration without ever having to actually prove the safety of any product. Remember, the safety of GE foods is merely presumed. It's not proven. Sadly, Druker's lawsuit against the FDA was stymied partly by the judge's pro-establishment bias, but mainly by the FDA's stand that genetically engineered foods are GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe).

It happened despite nine scientists with impeccable credentials taking the unprecedented step of signing a complaint, as plaintiffs, to say that genetically engineered foods are unsafe for human consumption. It proves, beyond a shade of doubt, that when the powers-that-be are driven by capitalistic and pecuniary tendencies, human values get short shrift. What has India to learn from this? The Bhopal gas tragedy destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of Indians but the culprits went scot free, showing how far they had reached into the government. Now, with Monsanto relentlessly pushing its GM products with the help of establishment scientists and politicians we have a “gene revolution” at our doorstep. In 1905, the philosopher George Santayana famously said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. It seems to sum up the case pretty much for those Indians intoxicated by this opportunity for enrichment. They are so carried away by the myth of this half-baked technology that they are willing to put millions of Indian lives in peril.

http://vijayvaani.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?aid=3740

5KISAN KI AWAAZ

NEW PATHOGEN FOUND IN ROUND UP READY SOYA

* Dr.Don M. Huber

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn-suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen's source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:

Unique Physical Properties

November 2015

OVER 85% OF GM CROPS ARE HERBICIDE TOLERANT - SINCE MONSANTO, SYNGENTA, DOW, DUPONT ETC

ARE ESSENTIALLY PESTICIDE COMPANIES WHO HAVE AS MUCH OR MORE TO GAIN FROM SALE OF

HERBICIDES AS FROM GM SEEDS. THERE IS LITTLE CONCERN FOR THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THE

TECHNOLOGY EITHER ON FARMERS OR CONSUMERS OR THE EXCHEQUER WHICH PAYS FOR FARMER

LOSSES AND LOAN WAIVERS.

GM TECHNOLOGY HAS A NARROW FOCUS. IN THE CASE OF BT COTTON, THE BOLL WORM WAS

CONTROLLED BUT THERE ARE HUGE INFESTATIONS OF SUCKING PESTS IN VIDARBHA AND OF WHITE

FLIES IN PUNJAB. THESE WERE NEVER PESTS BEFORE BT COTTON.

THERE IS A CONCERTED ATTEMPT TO BRING HERBICIDE TOLERANT GM SOYA . IT IS WORTH READING THIS

LETTER TO TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY AGRICULTURE, USDA, FROM

engineering in agriculture. It is important to remember that had preliminary groundwork by molecular biologists not been laid out, Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta and smaller players would not have invested the huge sums they did in GM seeds as they would have never been able to get these products presumed GRAS by the FDA. So the path forward was open. It is at this point that Michael Taylor, a partner at a major Washington, D.C., law firm that represented Monsanto entered the scene. After serving as Monsanto's legal counsel, Taylor was installed as Deputy Commissioner on Food Policy at the FDA, a position that did not exist before Taylor got the job. This is a very carefully crafted business strategy to push GM crops globally. Druker gives the following reason: “It was because, I think, as I looked through the records, there were FDA scientists who were objecting to the drafts of the policy statement, saying, 'Wait, what's happening to all the scientific elements in this?' ... I believe that Michael Taylor was brought in at that critical junction to start getting things moving in the direction that the Bush White House and the people directing the FDA wanted. “Certainly, we can see within the memos... where the clout was. It was coming from the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. Economic and political considerations were trumping the scientific considerations. And the poor FDA scientists were spending their time trying to do their job as scientists, and it turned out it didn't come to anything.” The decisions of the political establishment at the time dovetailed with that of the biotechnology establishment. Two points deserve mention, first, deregulation by President Ronald Reagan to give a push to the American economy and that of his Vice-President Dan Quayle when he announced the FDA policy as a regulatory relief for the industry. He said “We're freeing the industry from any new burdens and regulations”. What he did not know at the time was that the industry was also being freed

from a very stringent law enacted in 1958, which stipulated that any new additives to the food chain cannot just be “presumed to be safe”, but, “demonstrated to be safe”.

This is the law FDA broke, pretending it simply did not exist. This allowed the biotech industry to perpetuate and increase market penetration without ever having to actually prove the safety of any product. Remember, the safety of GE foods is merely presumed. It's not proven. Sadly, Druker's lawsuit against the FDA was stymied partly by the judge's pro-establishment bias, but mainly by the FDA's stand that genetically engineered foods are GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe).

It happened despite nine scientists with impeccable credentials taking the unprecedented step of signing a complaint, as plaintiffs, to say that genetically engineered foods are unsafe for human consumption. It proves, beyond a shade of doubt, that when the powers-that-be are driven by capitalistic and pecuniary tendencies, human values get short shrift. What has India to learn from this? The Bhopal gas tragedy destroyed the lives of tens of thousands of Indians but the culprits went scot free, showing how far they had reached into the government. Now, with Monsanto relentlessly pushing its GM products with the help of establishment scientists and politicians we have a “gene revolution” at our doorstep. In 1905, the philosopher George Santayana famously said “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. It seems to sum up the case pretty much for those Indians intoxicated by this opportunity for enrichment. They are so carried away by the myth of this half-baked technology that they are willing to put millions of Indian lives in peril.

5KISAN KI AWAAZ

NEW PATHOGEN FOUND IN ROUND UP READY SOYA

* Dr.Don M. Huber

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn-suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen's source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:

Unique Physical Properties

November 2015

OVER 85% OF GM CROPS ARE HERBICIDE TOLERANT - SINCE MONSANTO, SYNGENTA, DOW, DUPONT ETC

ARE ESSENTIALLY PESTICIDE COMPANIES WHO HAVE AS MUCH OR MORE TO GAIN FROM SALE OF

HERBICIDES AS FROM GM SEEDS. THERE IS LITTLE CONCERN FOR THE SIDE EFFECTS OF THE

TECHNOLOGY EITHER ON FARMERS OR CONSUMERS OR THE EXCHEQUER WHICH PAYS FOR FARMER

LOSSES AND LOAN WAIVERS.

GM TECHNOLOGY HAS A NARROW FOCUS. IN THE CASE OF BT COTTON, THE BOLL WORM WAS

CONTROLLED BUT THERE ARE HUGE INFESTATIONS OF SUCKING PESTS IN VIDARBHA AND OF WHITE

FLIES IN PUNJAB. THESE WERE NEVER PESTS BEFORE BT COTTON.

THERE IS A CONCERTED ATTEMPT TO BRING HERBICIDE TOLERANT GM SOYA . IT IS WORTH READING THIS

LETTER TO TOM VILSACK, SECRETARY AGRICULTURE, USDA, FROM

This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.

Pathogen Location and Concentration

It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.

Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease

The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income-sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss' wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).

Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure

Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.

The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.

For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

Recommendations

In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA's participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.

I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.

Sincerely,

COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber

Emeritus Professor, Purdue University

APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)

7KISAN KI AWAAZ November 2015

he whitefly attack on the Bt Cotton crop in Punjab and Haryana, which has decimated almost fifty per cent of the harvest, T

demolishes the myopic view of the Genetically Modified Organisms industry that introducing a bacterium into plant genes produces disease-resistant high-yielding crops on a sustainable basis. The devastation has triggered over two dozen suicides among farmers, though district authorities are reluctant to speak on record. Rajasthan's Ganganagar district has also been affected.

GM seeds, nearly four times costlier than normal hybrid seeds, need expensive pesticides and fertilisers to thrive. This inflates costs and degrades the quality of soil in which GM crops are planted, which affects yields in subsequent crops.

Even without chemical inputs, a study by the Australian government has found that the Bt toxin expresses itself in the plant's root zone and affects soil biodiversity and ecosystem function, thus impacting yields of subsequent crops. Further, GM crop productivity declines swiftly, forcing farmers to use more fertilisers and pesticides to maintain output, thus increasing costs (and debts) while continuously degrading the soil.

Punjab and Haryana produce nearly 4.5 million bales of cotton annually. During 2013-14, Punjab had yields of 800 kg/ha., which plunged to 528 kg/ha. in 2014-15, while Haryana yields dropped from 761 kg/ha. to 665 kg/ha., according to industry sources. This year's crisis was aggravated by the supply of spurious pesticides; but productivity declines annually even without untoward events. The experience in Andhra

Pradesh shows that Bt Cotton can affect yields of subsequent crops (wheat, others) by as much as 30 per cent. GM crops have failed in the past as well. In 2007, the pest, Mealy Bug, ravaged Punjab's cotton fields; it was checked by stopping the use of pesticides which allowed its natural predator, Beetle Larvae, to thrive.

At the time, the Central Institute of Cotton Research, Nagpur, found that most Mealy Bug strains were not indigenous, which suggests they came along with the Bt Cotton seeds. It was noted

that the non-Bt crop survived due to natural resistance and the practice of mixed cropping, which prevented the bug from spreading between the rows – a major vindication of indigenous farming practices.

Observant farmers in Punjab uprooted their Bt Cotton crop on realising it was irrecoverable, and planted basmati rice. But the State

Government has refused to buy their harvest, saying this is the domain of the Centre.

The disaster affected the Chief Minister's home district, causing the government to rush relief to the tune of Rs 8,000/acre to farmers and Rs 800/acre to farm labourers, but aggrieved farmers argue that fair compensation should be in the realm of Rs 40,000/acre to affected cultivators and Rs 20,000/acre to labourers.

The afflicted area is huge: Haryana 5.80 lakh ha.; Punjab 4.50 lakh ha. Scientists at the Central Institute for Cotton Research now warn that whitefly could hit all winter (rabi) crops, most notably wheat.

Pests destroy Bt Cotton: GMOs not sustainable

* Sandhya Jain