JUNE 2010 National Magazine of Farmers Voice

8/7/2019 JUNE 2010 National Magazine of Farmers Voice

1/36


2/36

gditn~~F a r m e r s s h o r t - c h a n g e d a g a in :

T h e r a c k e t e e r i n g i n w a r e h o u s i n g a n d s t o r a g e f a c i l i t yWarehousing plays a crucial role in the food value chain, from production todistribution and retailing. Food isproduced by farmers. They produce food, feed,fodder and fibre that sustain this nation of 1.24 billion people. They needwarehousing facility and all those support systems promised to them six decades ago by Nehru's government. Instead, theUPA-II wants to establish COLD-CHAIN that only supports the corporations who buy raw foods cheap from dyingfarmers, convert them into processed foods for domestic and export consumption. The farmers have been short changedtime and time again.

Please recall that the Reserve Bank of India [RBI] in 1946 formed an "India Rural Credit Survey Committee" thatrecommended the establishment ofwarehouses to strengthen the rural credit and marketing.As a result of the recommendations of the Committee, the Government of India enacted the Agricultural Produce(Development and Warehousing) Corporation Act, 1956. Among the four key recommendations were:Scientific storage: InWarehouses the stored produce could be protected from the vagaries of weather and pests [rodents,insects, etc.] and substantially reduce post harvest losses that according to various estimates ranges between Rs. 20,000 to50,000 annually.Financing: Warehouses were mandated to meet the financial needs of farmers with a provision for issuing'WAREHOUSING RECEIPT.' Itwas felt that the farmer could obtain cash support from any bank against the receipt forhis/her stock.Price stabilization: Warehouses would help in regulating the price levels by regulating the supply of foodgrain in themarkets. More goods from the buffer would be released when supplies are less. They would also advice farmers when tosell when there was glut in the market. Thus they would monitor the supply and demand in the interest of farmers. Itwouldalso prevent distress sale.Extension services: Provision for appointing technical officers was made at each warehouse who would advice farmers onseeds, fertigation, irrigation, etc, for various crops consistent with data from market intelligence.Strategies to reach out to the farmers were further refined with talks of smaller rural warehouses to large nodal warehouses.Itshould be noted during the early days, the CWCs and SWCs had highly committed staff. They performed admirably andthat was responsible inno small measure for rapid agricultural growth during late 50s right up to early seventies.Should Government promote cold chain when they could not provide vital warehousing services to 148 million farminghouseholds? Who benefits from cold chain? Farmers or large corporation? Why should investments in cold chain besubsidized as it is planned? Ifpeople came to know of the true purpose of Warehousing Act of 1956, taxpayers wouldn'tmind subsidizing hundreds of thousands of warehouses [large, medium, small or micro]. But warehousing corporations.However, if people get to the truth of how warehousing corporations short changed farmers and how cold chains are goingto indirectly subsidize large food corporations and many multinational food and agribiz corporations, I doubt even oneperson would support this sort oflop-sided policy.The governments [both Central and State] need to re-focus their effort at rapidly expanding warehousing capacity forfarmers, stop indirectly subsidizing large firms' control over small producers through cold chains. Most importantly, thegovernment must revive the original concept enshrined in the 1956Act because the situation for farmers is deteriorating bythe day. Itwill not be too long before India faces amajor food crisis.


3/36

- -~Editor:

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

S. P.Gulati, Sect. G.O.I., Retd.Lingraj B. PatilDr. Mangesh DeshmukhDr. R.B. ThakareD. Guruswamy, Adv.Rajesh Sharma "Bittoo"Pratap Singh, DIG Retd.Hatam Singh Nagar, Adv.K. SareenAjay SinghOesiged by: Rahul SharmaAastha ChaudharyPrinted & Published by :Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary on behalf ofBharatiya Krishak Samaj.Printed at Everest Press, E-49/8, OkhlaIndustrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-20.Published at :F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091Mob.:9810331366, Telefax:011-22751281,[email protected]:[email protected]:- www.kisankiawaaz.org

The views expressed by theauthors are their own. Theeditor does not acceptresponsibility for returningunsolicited publication material.Disputes arising if any will beunder Jurisdiction of DelhiCourtSingle copy Rs. 25/-, Annual Rs. 300/-

[ _ _ V _ O I _ . _ 1 _ N _ O _ . _ 6 J u _ n _ e _ , _ 2 _ 0 1 _ 0 J

KISAN KI AWAAZNational Magazine of Farmers' VoiceCONTENTS

Bill for a biotech authority ...*Dr. Pushpa M. Bhargava (Padma Bhusan)Here is some more..*JOSHUA FRANKNew Study Exposes the...- *Dr. Mercola

New Alarm Bells About...*NICHOLAS D. KRISTOFMonsanto gives Haiti ...- *JONATHAN M. KATZ' I - " T T I if ~ q;'t ~ ' I ' " ' i f 7 . . .- *~O ~ < f u : ~.mScientists call for GM review ...- *Ian SampleGenetically Modified Com ...*Jaelithe JudyReishi Mushrooms Offer. ..*William Rudolph, journalistStudy Links Pesticides ...- *Melissa BreyerBill Gates funds covert ...- *Mike AdamsHow useful is Genetic Engineering ...---- *Bharat DograUS Farmers Are Bailed Out ...*Devinder Sharma

New SubscriptionAnnual subscription charge ofRs 300/- for our monthly journal'KISANKIAWAAZ'may please be sent by cheque/Draft, drawn infavour of BHARATIYA KRISHAK SAMAJ,F-l/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-l10091.Complimentary CopySuggestions for improvement are invited

2

5

9

1214

15

19

21

23

24

26

31

32

1u n e - 2 0 1 0 Kisan Ki Awaaz
mailto:[email protected]:E-mail:[email protected]://www.kisankiawaaz.org/http://www.kisankiawaaz.org/mailto:E-mail:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/36

Bill for a biotech authority-It's draconian and full of scientific absurdities*Dr. Pushpa M. Bhargava (Padma Bhusan)When Mr Jairam Ramesh, Union Ministerfor Environment and Forests, put anindefinite moratorium on the release ofgenetically modified Bt brinja1 on February 9, heactually made a far more important statement thatIndia is not tied down to the apron strings of anymultinational corporation or country, specifically, theUnited States. Sandeep Joshi

This came as a surprise to the rich and the powerful,the politicians and the bureaucrats (exceptionsgranted), who benefit by India's being an appendageofMNCs and the US.A lot of what has happened in the country in the lastfew years had made the above clan fully complacentabout Mr Ramesh's decision that irrespective of theenormity of the evidence and public opinion againstBt brinja1, he would permit its commercialisation andthus open irreversibly the floodgates for US control ofIndian agriculture, of our food security andsovereignty, farmers' security and the security of therural sector.

And whosoever controls Indian agriculture, de factocontrols India. The unpleasant fact is that the aboveclan, comprising a miniscule proportion of Indians,believes it stands to gain enormously by such a sellout. However, Mr Ramesh disappointed them.We congratulated him for his bold decision but alsorealised that we have only won the battle and not thewar. So, Nina Federoff of the US who was here whenMr Ramesh announced his decision, almost certainlyto influence his decision in favour of Bt brinja1, didnot return to the US empty-handed.Nina was probably told by Mr Ramesh's opponents inthe government, "Don't worry. We have ways andmeans oflegally reversing Mr Ramesh's decision. Wewill pass a Bill to set up a National BiotechnologyRegulatory Authority (NBRA) under the Departmentof Biotechnology which will take away the power ofdecision-making in regard to OMOs from the

Ministry of Environment.Wewould thus be able to do what you want us to do".Ithas not been their concern as to what happens to 99per cent of the "less fortunate" Indians. The Bill mustbe the most draconian Bill. Consider some of itsprovisions.* Section 63 says, "Whoever, without any evidence orscientific record misleads the public about the safetyof the organisms (OMOs) and (their) products, shallbe punished with imprisonment for a term which shallnot be less than six months but which may extend toone year and with fine which may extend to two 1akhrupees orwith both".And who will decide whether there is "evidence orscientific record"?A three-member authority which will be chosen(probably in consultation with Monsanto and itssupporters in India) by a selection committee thatwould be easy to influence, as it would have nonominees of the civil society that will bear the brunt ofthe failure of a OM crop or the harm caused by it.No matter how strong the evidence is or how good thescientific record is and no matter how flawless thereputation of the person criticising the release of aOMO is, the regulatory authority can brush all thataside and put the person injail.This writer wonders what it will do to foreign criticswith an impeccable scientific record and reputation.Ask for their extradition?The National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority(NBRA) will work under the Department ofBiotechnology (DBT) in the setting up of which thiswriter had a significant role and which this writer hasknown reasonably well as a member of its firstScientific Advisory Committee.The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) is today the

2 June - 2010isan Ki Awaaz


5/36

most ardent vendor ofGMOs inthe country. Thus, thevendor will be the regulator which would be againstthe principle ofnatural justice.The Appellate Tribunal proposed in the Bill is an eye-wash as it will also work under the DBT. Strangely, itshall not be bound by rules of evidence contained inour Evidence Act.Agriculture is a State subject and well over 10 states,cutting across political affiliations had, de facto or dejure, expressed opposition to Bt brinjal.The Bill (Section 34) now envisages only an advisoryrole for the state government in regard to release ofGMOs. They cannot oppose it, even thoughagriculture is a State subject.The Bill is full of scientific absurdities. Thus, it calls"transformation, polyploidy induction and mutationbreeding" as "natural processes". They are all human-controlled processes to bring about genetic changes.The Bill's definition of "modem biotechnology" isridiculous and highly restrictive. It is like saying thatby "modem science" we mean "modem biology".The Bill does not encourage a totally independent

laboratory to do all the required tests, to be controlledjointly by all the stakeholders as stated in the proposalfor such a laboratory that this writer had submitted tothe Genetic Engineering Approval Committee(GEAC) at their request, which proposal Mr Rameshhas supported inprinciple.No reasons are given as to why a new authority. It isnot stated as towhat iswrong with the present system.The Bill is against any kind of transparency (Section27.1).Given the situation in the country in respect of, forexample, corruption and unqualified commitment ofthe government to MNCs and the US, it is most likelythat GMOs will be released without any testwhatsoever or just face-saving tests donesuperficially.If the Bill is passed, there will be only two alternativesfor our countrymen: to make sure that the Bill is notnotified or isrepealed in a reasonable time; or to beginthe Third War ofIndependence!

*Former Vice-Chairman of the NationalKnowledge Commission and founder-director,Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology,

Delhi Network of Positive People and some of the Forum members staged anenergetic protest demonstration against the EU India FTA talks at UdhyogBhavan. Protesters raised slogans such as "European Commission Go back","FTANahi Chahiye", "Halt EU India FTA' and soon.

June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz 3


6/36

Multinational Companies wreaking havocthrough GM Food

May 14, 2010 -Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh Prof.Prem Kumar Dhumal has said that some of the multinational companies were wreaking havoc in India byspreading their tentacles through Genetically Modified(GM) food, which needs to be curbed by imposingadequate restrictions. He said that like drug mafia, seedmafia was operating in India through powerful networkand strong mechanism of multi national companies. TheGenetically Modified seeds and food were responsible forbringing physical disorders and deformity in humanbeings not only in other countries of the world but India aswell and it was amatter ofgrave concern.Chief Minister was addressing senior officers of the StateGovernment including Deputy Commissioners after themost significant keynote address delivered by PadamBhushan Dr. P.M. Bhargav, an international authority onGM food here today.Prof. Dhumal said that Genetically Modified food had anadverse affect on the health of human beings but a strongnexus between the market forces, GM food had madeinroads into our society. He said that East India Companyhad made the country slave for more than 200 years andnow the multi national companies were controlling ourAgriculture and related economic activities indirectly. Hesaid that according a survey report, in Punjab the use ofGM food by the consumers had led to the deformity amongchildren and the fertility age of women had been reduceddrastically.Chief Minister said that it was quite surprising that how acountry of more than 120 crore people had becomehelpless before the network of seed mafia and GM food.He said that obsolete technology being imported to Indiaon the terms and conditions of other countries and thepersonal interests of some people and scientists hadgripped our country.Referring to the media hype created by some vestedinterests about swine flu, some times back, Chief Ministersaid that some dishonest people sitting in World HealthOrganization (WHO) had tried to spread panic in Indiaabout this flu and their hidden agenda was to sell themedicines and drugs oftheir own companies and people.Prof. Dhumal said that the State Government will considerthe proposal for imposing moratorium on GM food evenfor more than 15years apart from holding an International

Conference on the various issues concerning GM food.Earlier, Dr. P.M. Bhargava in his keynote address opinedthat the last century had witnessed enormous progress inthe field of nuclear technology, space and geneticengineering and all these had posed a great threat to themankind. He said that GM food had more than 60 adverseaffects on the health of human beings. India being anagrarian society, more than 70 percent population lived inrural areas while 62 percent of the population was engagedin agriculture and allied economy.Referring to the organic farming, Dr. Bhargava told thatthis new concept in farming was fast gaining popularityand in Andhra Pradesh where two lacs acres of agricultureland was under organic farming will be enhanced to onecrore acre ofland during the next few years. The market fororganic produce was fast expanding in the country and thevegetables and other agro- products so produced werebeing exported to numerous countries from India.He said that Indian Council for Agriculture Research(lCAR) had published more than six volumes compilingtherein more than 4000 traditional agriculture practiceswhich were in vague in India since times immemorial andmost of them these needed to be revived. More than 90 suchpractices were validatedEmphasising upon the curbs required for discouraging GMFood, Dr. Bhargava maintained that it was high time thateveryone rise to the occasion and find out ways and meansto completely ban the import of genetically modified seedsand food in our country.Welcoming the Chief Minister and partictpants, ShriNarender Chuahan, Principal Secretary, Irrigation andPublic Health said that Dr. P.M. Bhargava was aninternational luminary in the field of science andtechnology, especially on the food front he had madeoutstanding contribution. He hoped that the valuablerecommendations and observations of Dr. Bhargava willhelp in the policy formulation for the future agriculturalscenario of our hilly State.Dr. Nagin Nadda, Member Secretary of Science andTechnology Department and Director of H.P. PollutionControl Board proposed vote ofthanks.

Http://himachalpr.gov.in/pressreleaseEng.asp?id=4889

4 June - 2010is an K i Aw aa z
http://http//himachalpr.gov.in/pressreleaseEng.asp?id=4889http://http//himachalpr.gov.in/pressreleaseEng.asp?id=4889


7/36

Here is some more about the clout of Monsanto.Elena Kagan and Monsanto

*JOSHUAFRANKAlfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in theUnited States and Monsanto wants to controlit. On April 27, the Supreme Court heardarguments in a case that could well write the future ofalfalfa production in our country.Fortunately, for those who are concerned about thepotential environmental and health impacts ofgenetically engineered (GE) crops, Supreme Courtnominee Elena Kagan isnot yet residing on the bench.For the past four years, the Center for Food Safety(CFS), a Washington DC-based consumer protectiongroup, and others have litigated against Monsanto andthe United States Department ofAgriculture (USDA)regarding the company's Roundup Ready alfalfa.The coalition has focused their fight againstMonsanto's GE alfalfa, based on concerns that theplants could negatively impact biodiversity as well asothernon-GE food crops.In 2007, a California US District Court ruled in alandmark case that the USDA had illegally approvedMonsanto's GE alfalfa without carrying out a properand full Environmental Impact Statement.The plaintiffs argued that GE alfalfa couldcontaminate nearby crops with its geneticallymanipulated pollen. Geertson Seed Farm, with thehelp of CFS, claimed that the farm's non-GE cropscould be damaged beyond repair by Monsanto'sRoundup Ready alfalfa.Monsanto's well-paid legal team appealed the court'sdecision, but, in June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals upheld the previous ruling and placed anationwide ban on Monsanto's Roundup Readyalfalfa."USDA should start over and truly evaluate thecontamination of non-GM alfalfa and the potentialaffects on seed growers, organic and natural meatproducers, dairy producers, and conventional and

organic honey producers," said farmer and anti-GEadvocate Todd Leake shortly after the ruling.Monsanto, however, didn't back down and appealedthe Ninth Circuit's decision to the US Supreme Court.In stepped Elena Kagan, whose role as solicitorgeneral is to look out for the welfare of Americancitizens in all matters that come before the high court.Unfortunately, Kagan opted to ditch her duty andinstead side with Monsanto. In March 2010, a monthbefore the Supreme Court heard arguments in thecase, the solicitor general's office released a legal briefdespite the fact that the US government was not adefendant in the case.Monsanto appealed the lower court's decision so theUSDA was not party to the suit. The SolicitorGeneral's office produced an amicus brief during thepetitioning stage of the appeal at the behest of theSupreme Court.As Kagan's office argued, "The judgment of the courtof appeals should be reversed, and the case should beremanded with instructions to vacate the permanentinjunction entered by the district court."Despite numerous examples of cross-pollination ofGE crops, Monsanto argued during the April 27 courtproceedings that this was highly unlikely to occur.CFS and other plaintiffs are concerned that a federallaw could be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.Courts in Oregon and California have already arguedin previous cases that GE seeds must also be studied asto the potential impact on other conventional andorgamc crops.Surprisingly, it seems that Kagan does not support athorough study of GE seeds and their potential impacton environmental and human health.In doing so, Kagan has sided with conservativejustices on the court who appeared skeptical that the

June - 2010 5isan Ki Awaaz


8/36

lower courts had made the right decision in banningGEalfalfa.During the Supreme Court hearings, Chief JusticeJohn Roberts questioned whether the Ninth Circuithad the authority to issue a ban on GE alfalfa. Robertscontented that the court ought to have insteadremanded the issue back to the USDA.Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia took his defenseof Monsanto even further, stating, "This isn't thecontamination of the New York City water supply," hesaid. "This isn't the end ofthe world, itreally isn't."Apparently Scalia and Roberts aren't up on the latestscientific analysis that Monsanto's GE crops have, infact, bred new voracious super-weeds, which haveforced farmers to "spray fields with more toxicherbicides, pull weeds by hand, and return to morelabor- intensive methods like regular plowing.""Bowing to pressure from Monsanto and the otherbiotech companies, our federal agencies approved[GE] corn and cotton without requiring anymandatory testing for environmental impacts,"Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the CFSrecently wrote."And the expected happened: a few years later,independent university researchers - again not thegovernment - discovered that this [GE] pesticide was

potentially fatal to Monarch butterflies and otherpollinators ...Without mandatory government testing, we'reclueless about the universe of keystone pollinatorsand other species that are being decimated as the [GE]plants continue to proliferate in our fields."The Supreme Court's decision on Monsanto's alfalfaban will likely come early this summer. JusticeStephen Breyer recused himself from the case becausehis brother Charles Breyer oversaw the lower court'sdecision against the company.Unsurprisingly, Justice Clarence Thomas, who onceworked in the legal department for Monsanto, did notrecuse himself from the matter.While Elena Kagan has no experience on the benchand has provided the public with little to noinformation about where she stands on some of themost important issues of the day, the fact that she cameto bat for Monsanto two months ago, at a time whenthe company is reeling from negative press, may shedsome light on how she could rule in future GE cases ifshe's confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice.

Http://www.counterpunch.org/frank0519201 O.html

Elena Kagan: Toward a Pro-GM Supreme Court?MAY 12 2010- It's a good thing for Elena Kagan that there's no non-GMO litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. She'd flunk.Assolicitor general, Kagan is supposed to represent the interests of the American people in matters that come before the Supreme Court.Instead, she has gone to bat for Monsanto. In a case that the court is currently considering, Monsanto is trying to overturn a 2007California decision that imposed a nationwide injunction on planting the company's genetically modified alfalfa. In March, Kagan'soffice interceded onMonsanto's behalf even though the government was not a defendant inthe appeal. The original suit was brought byGeertson Seed Farms and a collection of environmental groups, who claimed that pollen from Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfacould contaminate neighboring plots of conventional alfalfa, causing irreparable harm to Geertson's non-GMO business.The decision that Kagan and Monsanto object to was issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who ruled that during the Bushadministration, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) should not have given its blessing to GM alfalfa withoutconsidering possible environmental, financial, and health consequences (a requirement under the law). Erring on the side of caution,Breyer said that until the USDA conducted the proper environmental assessment, no GM alfalfa could be grown. The appeal that is nowbefore the court has a telling aside. Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from the case because Charles Breyer, the lower courtjudge, is his brother. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas, who was once a lawyer for Monsanto, did not recuse himself.The case will probably be decided this summer, prior to Kagan's taking up her new post, assuming she is confirmed. But she sti ll mighthave an opportunity to show her true colors. Last fall, another lower-court judge ruled that the Bush-era USDA erred when it approvedGM sugar beets without a proper environmental assessment. The Obama administration was given the opportunity to drop the USDA'scase, but the Justice Department told the court that its position had not changed. We'll see if Monsanto pursues that case through theappellate courts. Whatever happens, it's all but certain that the Supreme Court has not heard the last ofG MOs.6 June - 2010isan Ki Awaaz
http://http//www.counterpunch.org/frank0519201http://http//www.counterpunch.org/frank0519201


9/36

N ord ics sa ilin g w ith th e w in ds of g lob alizatio n- L am yDirector-General Pascal Lamy, in a speech at theGlobalization Forum in Copenhagen on 20 May 2010,cited the Nordic countries as models in harnessingglobalization. "To embrace it to maximize its benefitswhile minimizing its costs for that, we need to worktogether," he said. He saidhe saw a strong need to have a"Nordic flag" in the architecture of global governance.This is what he said: Some thoughts about the currenttrends in the global economy and how the Nordiccountries can face together the challenges of ourglobalised world.Globalisation is transforming our economies, our socialfabrics, our culture. We are becoming much more inter-dependent. Greater economic integration has allowedmillions to be lifted out of poverty. It has alsoempowered millions who now have access toinformation and education. But globalisation has alsoshown a darker side.Whether we speak of the HlNl flu last year or of thefinancial explosion that led to the current economiccrisis, whether it is about C02 emissions or over-fishing, we have also realised that disruptions in onecomer of the world can no longer be ignored since theirimpact is likely to be felt athome.We can choose to be the bystanders of globalisation.And our citizens will feel disempowered. They will nolonger accept the constraints imposed on them by anever changing world. Nationalism, populism andforeigner scapegoating will spread. Orwe can choose toharness globalisation. To embrace it to maximise itsbenefits while minimising its costs. For that, we need towork together. We are globally responsible, even iflocally accountable. We are also accountable to futuregenerations.This isprecisely what the Nordic countries have chosen.You have decided to join hands, to pool part of yoursovereignty to face together these challenges. You didnot start this from scratch. In fact you share a commonculture and history. There is a sense of cohesion andcommon destiny that unites you, a "Nordic dimension".You all have open economies, with relatively lowbarriers to trade and investment, with robust property

rights andpro-business environments. But you have alsochosen a strong social model by investing heavily ineducation, health care, social security and innovation.Education has contributed to social mobility andempowers citizens to better themselves. Education isalso at the heart of an essential component in oureconomies today: innovation.Social security and health care ensures a decent livingstandard for all citizens, regardless of their economicsituation. It reduces the anxieties provoked by thechanges brought about by globalisation. This is a modelwhich meets the consensus ofboth left and right forces inyour countries. And despite the many criticisms of thesystem as too complex, too cumbersome and too costlyto survive, you have proven that it can work. In fact it isnow a model which many in Europe and around theworld wantto emulate.Today this model of economic opening and social safetynet faces a triple challenge. On the one hand the cost ofthe social model is increasing. It is very good but veryexpensive and therefore questions about itssustainability do arise. And this at a time when publicfinances are overstreched as a result of the crisis will, inmy view, lead to an inevitable questioning ofparts of thesocial model.My sense is that it will need to be adjusted, but I believethe adjustments should be made bearing in mind twoconsiderations: a continued focus must be placed on theweakest and most vulnerable; and that reduction ofspending on education, research and development, andinnovation should be avoided these elements empowerpeople.The second is the demographic challenge. Europe is theonly continent where population will decline by 2050.Nordic societies are ageing. This has an impact on thesocial dynamism, on innovation and growth and takes asevere toll on public spending. Immigration is thesolution, but asweknow raises itsown challenges.The third challenge is that of growth. Without robustgrowth we will not be able tomaintain the social model.We will falter under the weight of our public debt. Wemust therefore invest in growth policies which means



10/36

structural reforms. They will be painful in the short termbut will increase the growth potential in the long term.This today is amust.Many of these challenges require domestic responses.But they need to be underpinned by international actionto address their global dimension. More and betterglobal governance is therefore a necessity. In recentyears we have seen a rebalancing inworld power. Therehas certainly been a rebalancing in the world economy.The share of developing countries in global GDP is. .mcreasmg.Their share of world trade has increased. Many of theseemerging economies are now huge investors in otherdeveloping countries, but also in developed economies.The world is changing and the structures of globalgovernance need to adjust. The global economic crisishas accelerated the move towards a new architecture ofglobal governance, in what I have called a "triangle ofcoherence" .On one side of the triangle lies the G20, replacing theformer G8, providing political leadership and policydirection. Its representativity has improved even ifmorecan be done. Many small and medium sized countrieswhich have been and are key bridge builders, middlegrounders which can help construct compromises, feelthey should have a seat atthe table, whether individuallyor through a system of constituencies. On another sidelie member-driven international organizationsproviding expertise and specialized inputs, be theyrules, policies or programmes.The challenge they face is one of coherence in theactions of their members in the different organisations.The heads of the respective organisations can contributeto this coherence, but as the good old English sayinggoes "coherence starts at home". The third side of thetriangle is the G-I92, the United Nations, providing aforum for accountability.In the longer term, we should have both the G20 and theinternational agencies reporting to the "parliament" ofthe United Nations. In this respect, a revamping of theUN Economic and Social Council could lend support tothe recent resolution adopted by the UN GeneralAssembly on UN-system wide coherence. This trianglewould constitute a potent mix of leadership,inclusiveness and action to ensure coherent andeffective global governance. With time, the G20 couldeven be a response to the reform of the UN Security

Council. But a structure of global governance of thistype needs to be underpinned by a set of core principlesand values, some sort of "global economic contract", toanchor economic globalization on a bedrock of ethicalprinciples and values which would renew the trust thatcitizens need to have that globalization can indeed workfor them.I believe Nordics have a role to play in this emerging,new global architecture. The values of solidarity, ofjustice, of inclusive growth, of sustainable developmentwhich you represent must be ingredients of this globaleconomic contract.You have demonstrated this in your efforts to build aglobal deal to tackle climate change. I know that many ofyou were disappointed that the summit which took placeprecisely in this city did not result in a Global ClimateChange Agreement. And yet, I do not believe it was asbad as many have described it. Global governance isoften made of crab walking, of apparent defeats andprocedural messes but which produce steps forward.To judge the Copenhagen Accord, one cannot stop atwhat happened last year, since far more important iswhat has happened this year with respect to thisAccord.By the 31 January deadline set in the CopenhagenAccord, all of the world's major emitters had notifiedeither their emissions caps, or actions to reduceemissions, that they would undertake. In fact about 100countries have responded to the deadline, amounting to80per cent ofworld emissions. This result isnot enough,but it is a step forward and certainly the result of yourefforts.You also demonstrate this in your solidarity withdeveloping countries through your developmentcooperation. Here again your contribution has helped liftmany boats in poor countries. We will have anopportunity to discuss this together at the UNMillennium Development Goals Summit in September.I believe it will be important that the internationalcommunity, and you as leaders inthis field, send a signalthat, despite the severe crisis, you will maintain yourcommitment to helping the poorest raise their owncapacity to develop. That you will continue to empowerthem to fight against poverty with their own weapons.Not because of a charitable sentiment, but because this isa question ofjustice, as well as efficiency. I see a strongneed to have a "Nordic flag" in the architecture of globalgovernance.



11/36

New Study Exposes the Dark Side ofNew Genetically Engineered 'Killer Weeds' ...*Dr. Mercola

May 06 2010 - A report has found that farmers are planting too many so-called Roundup Readycrops. These plants are genetically engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup, which allowsfarmers to spray the chemical to kill weeds without harming their own crops. But overuse of thisapproach to weed control is becoming a problem. Use of Roundup has increased to the point thatweeds are also becoming resistant to the chemical. That means that farmers have to start usingadditional herbicides, some of them even more toxic than Roundup. More than 80 percent of thecorn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States are genetically engineered.

The National Research Council report, which isbeing described as "the first comprehensiveassessment of how genetically modified (GM)

crops are affecting all U.S. farmers," paints a dangerouslyrosy picture about genetically engineered crops. Whiletouting benefits like lower production costs, higher yieldsand declines in insecticide use, the report does not givejustice to the seriousness of one glaring, and potentiallydevastating, finding: Superweeds.GMCrops Create Superweeds and Super-Pests!Since 1996, when GM crops were first introduced, at leastnine species of U.S. weeds have developed resistance toglyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp herbicide. Incase you're not familiar with Roundup, Roundup Readysoybean, cotton and com crops are the world's largestgroup of genetically modified crops. This particularvariety of GM crops became so popular because it allowsfarmers to spray Monsanto's Roundup herbicide directlyonto their fields without harming the crops. Ordinarily, ifyou were to spray Roundup, or any other glyphosate-basedherbicide, onto aplant, it would die.As you might imagine, the use of Roundup herbicide hasincreased dramatically since the GM Roundup Readycrops were introduced, and now the repeated exposureshave given Mother Nature all she needs to stage hercomeback. Weeds have evolved so that they're resistant toRoundup, and as a result, farmers are applying even moreherbicides to crops.This is, in fact, the National Research Council's advice tofarmers who are facing issues with superweeds:

"In particular, farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistantcrops should not rely exclusively on glyphosate and need toincorporate a range of weed management practices,including using other herbicide mixes." In other words, ifapplying loads of Roundup no longer works, simply startdousing your crops with other chemical mixtures and oneof them is bound to work! Problem solved! Of course, it isnot nearly that simple.80-90 Percent of Some U.S. Crops are GeneticallyModifiedOne day, perhaps, when the health and environmental risksofGM foods have been widely accepted, more people willlook back on this statistic and shake their heads. For now,however, while several European countries have bannedGM com and other GM crops, the United States hasallowed the technology to overwhelm much of commercialfarming.As of right now, about 85 percent of the com grown in theUnited States is genetically engineered to either produce aninsecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. Andabout 91-93 percent of all soybeans are geneticallyengineered to survive massive doses of Roundupherbicide. Also, according to the Institute for ResponsibleTechnology, about 76 percent of cotton, 75 percent ofcanola and more than 50 percent of Hawaiian papayagrown in the United States are genetically modified aswell.The Institute for Responsible Technology has alsocompiled these other sources of GM foods to watch out for,including:



12/36

*Zucchini and yellow squash (small amount)*Dairyproducts from cowsinjected with rbGH*Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processingagents, including the sweetener aspartame(NutraSweet) and rennet used tomake hard cheeses*Meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals thathave eaten GM feed*Honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources ofpollen.*Tobacco (Quest brand)Now, more than a decade after these crops have beenmonopolizing the market, the first report is released onhow they might impact farmers. Most rational individualswould question why this type of report wasn't done first.You and your family are already eating these foods, and thecountry has, in many ways, already taken steps that cannotbe undone. Herbicide-resistant weeds are already poppingup all over the United States, and only time will tell howwidespread and difficult to control they will ultimatelybecome.GMCrops are Not BeneficialRegardless of the favorable slant the National ResearchCouncil took in their report, it's time for people to realizethat while the declared motive behind GM food is analtruistic one -- to alleviate hunger, poverty andmalnutrition worldwide -- in reality, the ruthlesspropagation ofGM crops are intended to create previouslyunimaginable profits above anything else. Despite theirassurances, we're already beginning to see the real price ofall that tinkering with Mother Nature: unnatural cropcombinations that can harm your health and potentiallycause generational DNA changes, for example. Not onlythat, but contrary to promises, GM crops are FAILINGMISERABLY all across the world. The reality simply isn'tliving up tothe hype ofincreased yields ofhealthy crops.After 30 years of GMO experimentation, we have thedata to show:*No increase in yields: on the contrary GM soya hasdecreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-

GM soya. Up to 100 percent failures ofBt cotton have beenrecorded in India. And recent studies by scientists from theUSDA and the University of Georgia found that growingGM cotton in the U.S. can result in a drop in income by upto 40 percent.*No reduction in pesticides use: on the contrary, USDAdata shows that GM crops has increased pesticide use by 50million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the U.S., and the useof glyphosate went up more than 15-fold between 1994 and2005, along with increases in other herbicides to cope withrising glyphosate-resistant superweeds.*Roundup herbicide is lethal to frogs and toxic tohuman placental and embryonic cells. Roundup is used inmore than 80percent of all GM crops planted in the world.

*GM crops harm wildlife, as revealed by UK and U.S.Studies.* Bt-resistant pests and Roundup-tolerant superweedsrender the two major GM crop traits useless. The evolutionof Bt resistant bollworms worldwide have now beenconfirmed and documented.*Vast areas of forests, pampas and cerrados have beenlost toGM soya in LatinAmerica.*Epidemic of suicides in the cotton belt ofIndia. 100,000farmers between 1993-2003, and an estimated 16,000farmers a year since, have committed suicide since Btcotton was introduced.* Transgene contamination is completely unavoidable,as science has recently revealed that the genome (whetherplant, animal or human) is NOT constant and static, whichis the scientific base for genetic engineering of plants andanimals.Instead, geneticists have discovered that the genome isremarkably dynamic and changeable, and constantly'conversing' and adapting to the environment. Thisinteraction determines which genes are turned on, when,where, by what and how much, and for how long. They'vealso found that the genetic material itself has the ability tobe changed according to experience, passing it on tosubsequent generations.



13/36

*GM food and feed linked to deaths and sicknesses bothin the fields in India and in lab tests around the world. Forexample, in April 2006, more than 70 Indian shepherdsreported that 25 percent of their herds died within 5-7 daysof continuous grazing on Bt cotton plants. Given themyriad of data showing disastrous consequences for theenvironment and human health, I am not exaggeratingwhen I say that genetically modified foods are, from myperception, one ofthe most significant threats that we haveagainst the very sustainability ofthe human race.YouIrea GM Guinea PigThat's right. We all are, unfortunately.How did this happen?

Michael Taylor, a former vice president of public policyand chief lobbyist at Monsanto Company(who is now thesenior advisor for the FDA) isthe person who "oversaw thecreation ofGMO policy," according to Jeffrey Smith, theleading spokesperson on the dangers of GM foods. Smithcontinues:"If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness anddeath, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policythat facilitated their introduction holds a uniquelyinfamous role in human history. That person is MichaelTaylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becomingpolicy chief atthe FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto'svice president and chieflobbyist."The FDA policy being referred to is the 1992 GMOpolicy, which stated:"The agency is not aware of any information showing thatfoods derived by these new methods [genetic engineering]differ from other foods in any meaningful oruniform way."In fact, the overwhelming consensus among the FDA'sown scientists were that genetically modified foods wereinherently dangerous and could create allergies, toxins,new diseases and nutritional problems, and of course theyshould be labeled because they are a food additive and newfood additives must be labeled.However, Smith explains, the FDA was directed by theWhite House to promote the biotechnology industry, andthey knew that if they labeled GM foods, most Americans

would avoid it like the plague. So, true to form, theysupported the economic interests of the biotech companiesatthe cost oflong-term human and environmental health.You Can Still Avoid GM FoodThe only silver lining to all of this is that you still have achoice in whether or not to consume GM foods. No, GM-containing foods are not labeled. And, yes, it takes somediligence on your part to determine whether the food youare eating is GM-free, but if enough people stop taking partin this massive GM experiment, food manufacturers willlisten and stop buying GM ingredients. For a helpful,straightforward guide to shopping Non-GMO, please seethe Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute forResponsible Technology.

In addition, the natural food industry has decided to tumOctober ofthis year into "Non-GMO Month," and October10th (10/10/10) will be "Non-GMO Day." Please let yourfriends and family know about this important event, butdon't wait until then to get started. You can make every dayaN o-GMO Day, and I suggest, for the sake of your healthand the environment's, that you do.Please Remember You CAN Make a Difference!GMO foods have not been in Europe since 1999 because ofpublic opposition. We have already been successful incausing industry to cut down their use of HFCS and ourcampaign last year against the swine flu vaccine worked toradically reduce the number of people immunized. SoPLEASE download this report and boycott GMO foods.Vote with your wallet and you will not only keep yourselfand your family safe but your action will catalyze thenecessary change to eliminate these dangerous crops fromour food supply.

Sources:New York Times April 13, 2010BNET April 16, 2010National Research Council April 13, 2010

June - 2010 11is an K i Aw aa z


14/36

New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer*NICHOLAS D. KRISTOFThe President's Cancer Panel is the MountEverest of the medical mainstream, so it isastonishing to learn that it is poised to joinranks with the organic food movement and declare:chemicals threaten our bodies.The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-pagereport on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisicalapproach to regulation may have far-reachingconsequences for our health.

I've read an advance copy of the report, and it's anextraordinary document. It calls on America torethink the way we confront cancer, including muchmore rigorous regulation of chemicals.Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regulardoctor visits, self-examinations and screenings suchas mammograms.The President's Cancer Panel suggests other eye-opening steps as well, such as giving preference toorganic food, checking radon levels in the home andmicrowaving food in glass containers rather thanplastic.In particular, the report warns about exposures tochemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damageseems to be greatest.Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected inumbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the studywarns that: "to a disturbing extent, babies are born'pre-polluted.' "It's striking that this report emerges not from thefringe but from the mission control of mainstreamscientific and medical thinking, the President'sCancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group ofthree distinguished experts who review America'scancer program and report directly to the president.One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel memberswho joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., anoncologist and professor of surgery at HowardUniversity, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an

immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center inHouston. Both were originally appointed to the panelby former President George W.Bush."We wanted to let people know that we're concerned,and that they should be concerned," Professor Leffalltoldme.The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement andfragmented authority, as well as the existingregulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unlessstrong evidence emerges to the contrary."Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000chemicals in use in the United States have been testedfor safety," the report says. It adds: "Many known orsuspected carcinogens are completely unregulated."Industry may howl. The food industry has alreadybeen fighting legislation in the Senate backed byDianne Feinstein of California that would banbisphenol-A, commonly found in plastics and betterknown asBPA, from food and beverage containers.Studies of BPA have raised alarm bells for decades,and the evidence is still complex and open to debate.That's life: In the real world, regulatory decisionsusually must be made with ambiguous and conflictingdata. The panel's point is that we should be prudent insuch situations, rather than recklessly approvingchemicals of uncertain effect.The President's Cancer Panel report will give a boostto Senator Feinstein's efforts. It may also help theprospects of the Safe Chemicals Act, backed bySenator Frank Lautenberg and several colleagues, toimprove the safety of chemicals on the market.Some 41 percent ofAmericans will be diagnosed withcancer at some point in their lives, and they includeDemocrats and Republicans alike.Protecting ourselves and our children from toxinsshould be an effort that both parties can get behind if



15/36

enough members of Congress are willing to put thepublic interest ahead of corporate interests.One reason for concern is that some cancers arebecoming more common, particularly in children. Wedon't know why that is, but the proliferation ofchemicals inwater, foods, air and household productsiswidely suspected as a factor.I'm hoping the President's Cancer Panel report willshine a stronger spotlight on environmental causes ofhealth problems not only cancer, but perhaps alsodiabetes, obesity and autism.This is not to say that chemicals are evil, and in manycases the evidence against a particular substance isbalanced by other studies that are exonerating. Tohelppeople manage the uncertainty prudently, the reporthas a section of recommendations for individuals:~articularly when pregnant and when children aresmall, choose foods, toys and garden products withfewer endocrine disruptors or other toxins.(Information about products IS at

www.cosmeticsdatabase.com orwww.healthystuff.org.)~For those whose jobs may expose them to chemicals,remove shoes when entering the house and wash workclothes separately from the rest ofthe laundry.~Filter drinking water.~Store water in glass or stainless steel containers, or inplastics that don't contain BPA orphthalates(chemicals used to soften plastics). Microwave foodin ceramic or glass containers.~Give preference to food grown without pesticides,chemical fertilizers and growth hormones. Avoidmeats that are cooked well-done.~Check radon levels in your home. Radon is a naturalsource of radiation linked to cancer.

The New York Times

Need to make water conservation a people's movement: PM panelNew Delhi, May 29 The Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change yesterday approved in principle the National WaterMission and suggested that its basic approach should be to make water conservation a people's movement in India. For this, it isessential to mobilise citizens and state governments for focused action on water conservation and augmentation, a statementissued by the PMO said.The Prime Minister, who chaired the council, highlighted the need to create a general consciousness about the need to use waterin the most sustainable manner. Given the fact that there were multiple uses for water and an integrated approach based on basindevelopment planning needed to be evolved, he said political leadership at the local body level, state level and civil societyorganisations needed to be involved in activities of the National Water Mission. Ministers and other members of the councilendorsed these views.Itwas stated that the first step in this direction would be to prepare a comprehensive water data base in the public domain and theimpact of climate change on water would be assessed. Action had to be focused on vulnerable areas, where ground water wasoverexploited. Itwas also decided that water-use efficiency should be raised by 20 per cent through the promotion of newtechnologies.Members felt incentives should be created for using water in a sustainable manner. Itwas felt that there was need to focus onresearch and development requirements of the mission. Many members stressed the need to use opportunities from the MahatmaGandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which already prioritises community-level water security and offers anopportunity to convert water conservation into a people 's movement.Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Power Minster Sushi 1Kumar Shinde, Water Resources Minister Pawan Bansal, Non-Conventional and Renewable Energy Resources Minster Farookh Abdullah, Urban Development Minister Jaipal Reddy,Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Kumari Selja, Environment and Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh and members of theCouncil were present at the meeting

(Source: Tribune News Service)June - 2010 13isan Ki Awaaz
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/


16/36

Monsanto gives Haiti $4 million in hybrid seeds*JONATHAN M. KATZ

MON

N'D FOODSHALL BEGROWNTHAT WEDON'T OWNAdministrators Note: Another successfulinfiltration by the 'Se.ed and Food Mafia' topollute the food m an economicallychallenged country -- all in the name of helping thepoor]

PORT-AU-PR!NCE, Haiti:- U.S. agriculture giantMonsanto Co. IS donating $4million worth of seeds toHaiti, the biotechnology manufacturer's first majorforay into the chronically hungry nation.The corporation, based in Creve Coeur, Missouri,announced a pledge this week of 475 tons (431 metrictons).of com and vegetable seeds. Some 130 tons (118metnc tons) have been delivered and are on their wayto fanners as of Friday."We looked at what would be well-suited to Haitiangrowing conditions," said Elizabeth Vancil, thecompany's development partnership director.Fanners will have to buy the seeds at markets to avoidflooding the local economy with free goods, butMonsanto will not receive any revenue from the salesVancil said. 'A spokesman for the U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment program distributing the seeds could

not immediately provide more details.Haiti's agriculture ministry approved the donationwhile U~S.and S,:itzerland-based Kuehne and Nagelare assisting with the shipping and logisticsMonsanto said. 'The announcement raised concerns in Haiti that thedonation would include genetically modified seedsfor which the country does not have a regulatorysystem. Monsanto representatives said no such seedswill be included.Instead they are sending hybrid seeds, which areproduced by manually cross-pollinating plants. Thecompany said the seeds produce larger yields thannon-hybrid seeds, but that with such a variety newseeds have to be purchased and planted every year.For decades Haiti has been unable to feed itself, whilelocal farms have been wiped out by competition fromcheap foreign food and free food aid -- especially fromthe. United States. The U.N. World Food Programestimates 2.4 million Haitians, a quarter of thecountry, do not have enough to eat.The Jan. 12 earthquake damaged warehouses androads when it wrecked much of the capital and killed agovernment-estimated 230,000 to 300,000 people.But the urban disaster had less effect on food thanHait~'s past calamities, such as a string of 2008hurricanes that ruined market roads and fieldsworsening hunger and causing some children to die inisolated villages."What we're really focused on now are these firstshipments and trying to help during this currentcrisis," Vancil said. Doing future business in Haiti"would be good, but it's not a requirement by anymeans."

Source: Bloomberg Business Week14 June - 2010isan Ki Awaaz


17/36

' : : 1 1 ( d J~o f i m I ~ ~~ (31~~ , ~ll(d14 f i bIif) ;gcil ~ )e r n - I I ~ ftflfll'11 II 3ifl"-dl ti l \-16tfi" ~ 1R fet:il ti l anf~ ~l;::e ~ ~ w

WI tl F q f d WJ\-lTT ~ ~:(Itti l l G } ~ fet~:(fl tR q i- ~ 1R d'1ttll f~f,g~l(l~ .,g- ~ I~I ftflfll'1T - ; f ~ qi- ~.,g- II F p H fld ~'t qff ~ w r t I ~ lOll1 t f iT~trttti( am=q ~f414 qff t I e r n - t f iT ttllf~~ qi- G J 1 I T 1R ~trt(~fdl ~ ~3i I~ I~ ~ 62 cpf m - ~ ~ ftf) fll'1 WI t I ~ e r n - qff \-]1)C a m : ~C'FllllOi~ \ - T I ~ t I ~ dflttil ~ 1"t l f'1ttiAll '11tti(:(lItO ~ ail~l Pltti \:#1(1'11~ WI t ~ ctm C'llttid51 t ? ~trtftfl a m : trt~(I~l~ ttiAlf1~1 qi- ~:(11'l1 1Re r n - q)f anf~ ~ a m : 70 y fa:( Id q)JlJ ~ w r t I lOi'1{:1I a m : fettti IfI qff3i Itrtl~ ~ "d "W ~ 1R 3lTmfur t I d lOilOi ~ ~ '11a n qff '6 1 '1(I f~I t f iT \-]1)Cd~ll n t f iT tti "riiI1 ~ (f?lf 58 Yfa:( Id 31f'bltti 1 ( 1 ~ ~ flOi'I tti ( stti I( W t I(l~llI( ~ .,g- f~C'ldl tl e r n - qff 120 ~ II \ - T I d~llrr t f iT C'lH9I1tti(l~ ~tti(l ~ .,g-~I~I 3iltrtl~l q)f ~ a rtR ~ qff ~ tf)()- q i- lU'aJlJ .,g-e f t ~ w r t Iqfll ~ .,g- 'fITq ~ \ -TJT t I fI(tti I( qff e r n - q i- ~ IlOll0 I ~C'li i T II 14 tti (1~ 80fttlfll'1 fcfUm '1lfij~1 qff ~ .,g- ~ qf


18/36

:(ItHT qff ~ 1"{ 6ll~ll


19/36

m - ~ a t , _ i t f~'91'11 q;l d'9~1 ffi'_l q i- ~q) ~ - q mq e f t ~ , ~ ~1"tf flOicldll ~ " t f i T l I f t c : bl(l~ a m : ' _ l f l J q)f 31f'6l~~01 1"tf ~ ~ 'illf~l(,trt~(I~l~ ~lOllf1~i ttiF?llOi 31,_nq it~ ~ ~ - q d("ql~~dl trt~l~ qi- ~ ~~ ~ ~ , _ m t lj)'11'hI q)lfT W t ~ a m : ~lOll1 f

e r n - qi- ~ fCl:(GtfCl~lcl~, tfi.-~l~~'qR tfi ~1 a m : ~ fet~ 1'1 tfi '-~1q i- ~ , _ i t ~ ~ If~~ "m '1;9'-G1" ihft~ lOll11 qi- ~:( Ii'll 1R " 1 T i l ' 1 ) - a m : d'1ttl1d ~ '11~ qi- ~ trtlXiII( ~ ' 1 ) - a m :"GtlcllOill" ihft ~'t ~lOllf1~r f


20/36


21/36

Scientists call for GM review after surgein pests around cotton farms in China

*Ian SampleF arm land struc k b y infestatio ns o f b ugs fo llowingwidespread adoption of 8t cotton m ade by biotech giant M onsantoScientists are calling for the long-term risks ofOM crops to be reassessed after field studiesrevealed an explosion in pest numbers aroundfarms growing modified strains of cotton.The unexpected surge of infestations "highlights acritical need" for better ways of predicting the impact

Traditional cotton famers have to spray their cropswith insecticides to combat destructive bollwormpests, but Bt cotton produces its own insecticide,meaning farmers can save money by spraying itless.But a IO-year study across six major cotton-growingregions of China found that by spraying their crops

of OM crops and spotting potentially damagingknock-on effects arising from their cultivation,researchers said.Millions of hectares of farmland in northern Chinahave been struck by infestations of bugs following thewidespread adoption of Bt cotton, an engineeredvariety made by the US biotech giant, Monsanto.Outbreaks of mirid bugs, which can devastate around200 varieties of fruit, vegetable and com crops, haverisen dramatically in the past decade, as cottonfarmers have shifted from traditional cotton crops toOM varieties, scientists said.

less, farmers allowed mirid bugs to thrive and infesttheir own and neighbouring farms. The infestationsare potentially catastrophic for more than 10m small-scale farmers who cultivate 26m hectares ofvulnerable crops in the region studied.The findings mark the first confirmed report of massinfestations arising as an unintended consequence offarmers using less pesticide a feature ofBt cotton thatwas supposed to save money and lessen the crops'environmental impact.The research, led by Kongming Wu at the ChineseAcademy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing, ispublished in the USjournal, Science.



22/36

"Our work highlights a critical need to do ecologicalassessments and monitoring at the landscape-level tobetter understand the impacts ofGM crop adoption,"DrWu told the Guardian.Environmental campaigners seized on the study asfurther evidence that GM crops are not theenvironmental saviour that manufacturers have ledfarmers to believe."This is a massive issue in terms of the environment,but also in terms of costs for the farmer. The plan withGM crops was to reduce costs and environmentalimpact, but neither of these things seem to behappening, because over time, nature takes its course,and that was bound to happen.The supposed benefits in yield can be cancelled out byunintended consequences like this," said KirtanaChandrasekaran, a food campaigner at Friends of theEarth.In the past decade, farmers in India and elsewherehave noticed that herbicide-tolerant GM crops havedeveloped resistance to pesticide sprays, againreducing the benefits of the crops, Chandrasekaransaid. "Reliance on GM isnot sustainable.We need to get back to using local varieties of cropsthat are adpted to the conditions, and develop anintegrated system of pest management."While many countries around the world haveembraced GM crops, they have never taken root inBritain, where multinational companies have facedprotests and vandalism to crop trials in recent years.Britain's large-scale field trials of herbicide-tolerantGM crops in 2003 found changes in herbicide use hadan impact on weeds and insects that might also affectcountry wildlife.Dr Wu's team monitored insecticide use from 1992 to2008 at 38 farms throughout the six northern Chineseprovinces of Henan, Hebei, Jiangsu, Anhui,Shandong and Shanxi. They also kept records ofmiridbug populations at the farms between 1997 and 2008.Before switching to GM cotton, farmers used morebroad-spectrum insecticides to kill bollworms andother pests.

But as more farmers began growing Bt cotton, theiruse of sprays declined, leading to a steady rise inpests,including mirid bugs.Over the decade-long study, cotton farms flipped frombeing a grave for mirid bugs to a source of the pests,where populations grew rapidly and then spilled out tofeed on a variety of flowering crops in neighbouringfarms.Bt cotton is modified to produce a natural insecticidethat is made by a soil bacterium called Bacillusthuringiensis. The toxin specifically targetsbollworms, which can devastate cotton yields.Additional reporting by Celia ColeBT cotton timeline1990: Cotton plants genetically engineered to produceenough Bt toxin (derived from the Bacillusthuringiensis bacterium) to be protective againstinsects1996: First Bt cotton varieties, known as BollgardCotton inUS, introduced commercially by Monsanto,and Delta and Pine Land Company1997: China begins cultivating Bt cotton, increasingarea ofthe crop planted to 1.8mhectares worldwide2003: Britain's large scale field trials of herbicidetolerant GM crops. Showed that changes in herbicideuse had an impact onweeds and insects that might alsoaffect country wildlifem hectares worldwide2009: 49% of cotton production worldwide IS Btcotton, or 16m hectares2010: No GM crops grown commercially in the UK.Spain is the biggest grower in Europe, but there arealso significant amounts of crops grown in France,Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Portugal.

Http://www.guardian.co. uk! environment1201 O/may/13/gm-crops-pests-cotton-china/print

http://http//www.guardian.co.http://http//www.guardian.co.


23/36

G en etica lly M o dified C orn a n d S o y B reed S u p erw eed s*Jaelithe JudyThe law of natural selection dictates that specieswill adapt, over time, to a changingenvironment. And unfortunately for Americanfarmers who rely on GM crops, it seems that some ofthe world's most invasive weeds are followingnature's laws to the letter when it comes to competingwith genetically modified soybeans and com.

Genetically modified com and soybeans developedby Monsanto in the 1990s to be resistant to thesynthetic herbicide glyphosate (better known byMonsanto's trademarked name for the weedkiller,Roundup ), have nearly taken over the American rurallandscape.More than 80 percent of soybeans and more than 70percent of com produced in the United States are thegenetically modified, herbicide-resistant variety.And not without reason. Genetically modifiedsoybeans and com make it possible for farmers toplant their crops without tilling the soil to kill weedsfirst. With Roundup Ready crops, farmers can simplydouse an entire field in glyphosate; then plant theirseeds.According to the corporate producers ofGM com andsoy, this method of farming is actually better for theenvironment than traditional large-scale farmingmethods.Why? Because no-till farming reduces the runoff offertilizer and pesticides into water systems andprevents degradation and erosion ofthe soil.But environmentalists and natural food advocateshave been wary of GM foods since their introduction.Some scientists have argued for years that companieslike Monsanto don't do enough to test the safety, or theenvironmental impact, of their genetically modifiedcrops before putting them on the market.Though there is still scant scientific evidenceregarding the long-term effects of genetically

modified foods on human health, there have been afew animal studies on the effects of certain types ofgenetically modified foods that may be cause forconcern.In 2008, an Austrian study indicated thateating GM com may cause a decline in fertility innuce.And in January of this year, a study published in theInternational Journal of Biological Sciences warnedthat a comparative analysis ofMonsanto's own data onthe effects of genetically modified com, indicates thata diet heavy in GM com may cause organ damage inrats.Even as the safety of herbicide-resistant GM foodcrops continues to be called into question by studiessuch as these, it now appears the very selling pointsthat bioengineering companies used to convincefarmers to switch to genetically modified crops, mayno longer apply.In a world where nearly every field for miles and milesis sprayed every spring with a uniform fog ofglyphosate, the weeds GM com and GM soy weredeveloped to fight have done the only thing they can tosurvive -- they have adapted.According to a report on genetically modified foodsrecently released by the National Academy ofSciences Board on Agriculture and NaturalResources, up to nine species of invasive plants thatinterfere with food production are now naturallygenetically resistant to Roundup.The report notes, "the nearly exclusive reliance onglyphosate for weed control, a practice accelerated bythe widespread introduction of glyphosate-resistantcrop varieties, has caused substantial changes inweedcommunities. "Which means that some farmers who are alreadypaying premium prices for the Roundup Ready seedsthat are supposed to keep them from having to till theirsoil to kill weeds must now till anyway.



24/36

Farmers who have depended on Roundup andRoundup Ready crops for years to reduce their use ofother, more toxic herbicides, are finding they mustnow add those other herbicides on top of a generousapplication of glyphosate.Just over a decade after their development, theseartificially created, genetically modified plants thatwere meant by their creators to permanentlytransform agriculture, are already in danger of beingmade obsolete by nature's own power to rearrangegenes.This points us to the obvious question: if geneticallymodified crops, designed to resist herbicides, providesuch a brief window of benefit to farmers, why usethem at all?There are heirloom varieties of com and soy that havebeen grown by organic farmers for literally hundredsofyears -- foods that were developed through the veryold-fashioned, time-tested biotechnology calledcrossbreeding -- foods that have proven their safety bysafely feeding generations of people.Though heirloom crops often require moreindividualized attention than conventionalcommercial crops to thrive, some of them aresurprisingly resistant to various problems and pests ifthey are given the right nutrients in the rightenvironment.It is absolutely true that the world needs innovativescientific solutions to provide our growing globalpopulation with sustainable food.But instead of trying to best nature, we may do well toseek new ways to thrive by nature's own rules. Innature, variety is the genuinely vital spice oflife.Species thrive in nature by harnessing the power ofdiversity, capitalizing on the constant naturalvariations on their own genetic codes to adapt andcompete in an ever-changing environment.A tiny variation in the thickness of a com stalk or thetaste of a leaf may hold the key to successfulcompetition in a new set of circumstances.And in nature, natural selection allows those traits to

spread asneeded from one generation to the next.The traditional crossbreeding techniques used bypeople for thousands of years, sped and guided, butdid not hamper this process. We changed the plants,but also left them free to keep changing.Nature's rules do not produce vast, miles-widemono culture stands of identical clones of a singleplant, all bearing a single set of genetic instructions,for a very good reason: that model of life is notsustainable on a changing planet.Life needs genetic variation to thrive. By trying tocontrol the genetic code of our food plants so tightly,making sure every planted, patented seed bears theproper modified genes, we actually cage and cripplethem. They cannot adapt without our assistance.But the weeds and pests that threaten our food supply -- wild creatures outside our genetic control-- still can.And they have. Will we learn from it?

Http://www . car e 2. com / c a use s / rea 1-food/blog/genetically-modified-corn-and-soy-make-s uperweeds/

Find allAgricultu re Po lic iesFarmers IssuesP ro ducts NewsVideo & Magazine.F or More Info rmatio n.

Www.kisankiawaaz.org

http://www.kisankiawaaz.org/http://www.kisankiawaaz.org/


25/36

Reishi Mushrooms Offer Helpfor Those with Rheumatoid Arthritis

*William Rudolph, journalistMay 27, 2010 (NaturalNews) One of the keymeasures of a long and well lived life is adaptability. Aperson's ability to adapt to changing circumstancesgoes a long way toward predicting longevity. Thisinvolves the responsiveness and functionality of theimmune system. A robust immune system capable ofadjusting to ever-changing situations is a key factor inpreventing the manifestation of a cold or cancer, oranything in between.One important aspect of immune function is its abilityto self-regulate downward when needed so that itdoesn't become hyperactive and attack your owntissues, as in the case with Rheumatoid arthritis.Fortunately, nature has delivered an amazinglyversatile herb in the Reishi mushroom with the provencapacity to deliver relief and even assist in reversingthis condition.Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disorderthat can be characterized by chronic inflammation ofthe tissues and organs, but itusually attacks the joints.This hyper-inflammatory response can lead to thedestruction of cartilage and the loss of mobility.Symptoms ofRAcan include swollen and stiff joints,accompanied by considerable pain and loss offunction. It is three times more common in womenthan men, with the first onset of symptoms usuallyoccurring between the ages of 40 and 60.RA is usually treated by mainstream medicine withcortisone-like steroids that suppress the immunesystem. Even in low dosages, these drugs can causeosteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, weight gain, orhigh blood sugar. Most importantly, this unnaturaland dangerous approach to artificially suppressing theimmune system can leave you susceptible toinfections.Reishi mushroom, also known as Ganodermalucidum, is one of the oldest known herbal medicinesin traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). It is native toChina, Japan, and North America, has been used forthousands of years, and is revered for its longevity-

promoting capabilities. Reishi influences cells thatregulate the immune system - namely, lymphatic cellsand interferon alpha and interferon beta cells - and hasthe ability to "educate" these cells of immunity so thatthey better respond to the body's needs.In other words, with the help of Reishi, if cells of theimmune system are not responsive enough, they willbe called to action, or if they are hyperactive such as inthe case of an autoimmune disorder such as RA, theywill back down.In a 2007 study published by the University of HongKong, the polysaccharide peptides in Reishi werefound to "significantly inhibit the proliferation ofRheumatoidArthritis Synovial Fibroblasts (RASF)."

Where steroid medications suppress the immunesystem, Reishi doesn't stimulate or suppress but rathereducates, helps modulate, and teaches the cells of theimmune system how to self-regulate more effectively.When your white blood cells graduate from the Schoolof Reishi, they are better equipped to manage yourimmune system.Reishi capsules or a Reishi tea that you consume todaymay have been one hundred years or more in themaking. First, a tree grows and lives for decades,absorbing energy and nutrients from the sun and thesoil. Then, when the tree begins to die, mushroomswill attach to the tree, absorb the life force and furtherconcentrate the nutritional content and medicinalqualities that the tree has acquired throughout its life.Once the mushrooms are harvested and encapsulatedor made into powders or teas, this concentrated lifeforce is transferred to its end user. This processrepresents unleashing the power of Mother Natureonto your immunity.

Http://www.naturalnews.com/02887 4_reishi _arthritis.html

http://http//www.naturalnews.com/02887http://http//www.naturalnews.com/02887


26/36

Study Links Pesticides and ADHD*Melissa Breyer

May 17, 2010- Exposure to pesticides is associatedwith increased risk ofAttention-Deficit HyperactivityDisorder (ADHD) in children, according to a team ofscientists from the University of Montreal andHarvard University.Published in the journal Pediatrics, the study focusedon 1,139 children from the general U.S. populationand measured pesticide levels in their urine.The authors conclude that exposure toorganophosphate pesticides, at levels commonamong U.S. children, may contribute to a diagnosis ofADHD.In the past, exposure to organophosphates has beenassociated with negative effects onneurodevelopment, such as behavioral problems andlower cognitive function.However earlier studies have focused on populationswith greater pesticide exposure relative to the generalpopulation.This study was conducted with 1139 children 8 to 15years of age, representative of the general U.S.population. The findings showed that children withhigher urinary levels of organophosphate metaboliteswere more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria forADHD.According to the study, approximately 40organophosphate pesticides are registered with theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for usein the United States.The EPA considers food, drinking water, andresidential pesticide use major sources of exposure.Residential pesticide use is common, but theimportant source of exposure to pesticides for infantsand children would be from the diet, says the NationalAcademy of Sciences .The U.S. Pesticide Residue Program Report for 2008notes that measurable concentrations of the

organophosphate malathion were found in 28 percentof frozen blueberry samples, 25 percent of strawberrysamples, and 19percent of celery samples.Children are thought to be at greatest risk fromorganophosphate toxicity because the developingbrain is more susceptible to neurotoxic ants and thedose ofpesticides per body weight is likely to be largerfor children.Children 6 to 11years of age have the highest urinaryconcentrations of dialkyl phosphate (DAP)metabolites (markers of organophosphate exposure),compared with other age groups in the U.S.population. As well, children have fewer detoxifyingenzymes, which contributes to their vulnerability.The best way to limit exposure to pesticides is to limitthe intake of foods with high pesticides loads. Whatare the worst culprits for pesticide residue?The Shopper's Guide developed by EnvironmentalWorking Group (EWG) is based on data from nearly87,000 tests for pesticide residues in producecollected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture andthe U.S. Food and Drug Administration.Here are the top 15 fruits/vegetables from the guidethat contain the most pesticide (number one being theworst). It is advised, whenever possible, to purchasethese items organically:1.Celery, 2. Peaches, 3. Strawberries4.Apples, 5.Blueberries (Domestic), 6.Nectarines7. Sweet Bell Peppers, 8. Spinach,9.Kale / Collard Greens, 10. Cherries, 11.Potatoes12. Grapes (Imported), 13. Lettuce,14. Blueberries (Imported), 15. Carrots

Mail by googlegroup.com24 June - 2010isan Ki Awaaz


27/36


28/36

B i l l G a t e s f u n d s c o v e r t v a c c in e n a n o t e c h n o lo g y*MikeAdamsThe Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is gaining areputation for funding technologies designed toroll out mass sterilization and vaccinationprograms around the world. One of the programs recentlyfunded by the foundation is a sterilization program thatwould use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against aman's scrotum to render him infertile for six months. Itmight accurately be called a "temporary castration"technology.

Now, the foundation has funded a new "sweat-triggeredvaccine delivery" program based on nanoparticiespenetrating human skin. The technology is describes as away to " ...develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skinthrough hair follicles and burst upon contact with humansweat to release vaccines."The research grant money is going to Carlos AlbertoGuzman ofthe Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research inGermany and Claus- Michael Lehr and Steffi Hansen oftheHelmholtz- Institute for Pharmaceutical Research. Theseare both part of the Gates Foundation's involvement in the"Grand Challenges Explorations" program which claimsto be working to "achieve major breakthroughs in globalhealth."...breakthroughs like mass sterilization and nanoparticievaccines that could be covertly administered even withoutyour knowledge, it turns out. These nanoparticles could beused in a spray mist that's sprayed on to every person whowalks through an airport security checkpoint, for example.Or it could be unleashed through the ventilation systems ofcorporate office buildings or public schools to vaccinatethe masses. You wouldn't even know you were beingvaccinated.This technology is potentially very dangerous to yourhealth freedom. Using it, governments or drug companies(which are all the same thing these days) could create avaccine skin cream that's handed out and described as"sunscreen." But when you put it on, you're actuallyvaccinating yourself as the nanoparticles burrowunderneath your skin and burst, releasing foreign DNAinside your body.Ahistory ofcovert mass medicationBut why would the government medicate people withouttheir knowledge or consent, you ask? They already do it

with water fluoridation. Fluoride is a drug, and regionaland national governments all over the world are using thewater supply as a way to deliver the fluoride drug to peoplewhether they need it or not -- and without any propermedical diagnosis or prescription.So if governments are already covertly medicating peoplewith fluoride in the water supply, they've set the stagemass-vaccinating people through similar channels, such asthe air supply in buildings. And thanks to Bill Gates, thisnanotechnology needed to pull this off is now beingfunded. Is this really a "major breakthrough in globalhealth?"I suppose it is if you believe in covert medicine where youdose people with drugs or vaccines without theirknowledge. Western medicine is so offensive to rationalpeople that it can't even operate out in the open. That 's whyit resorts to covert contamination of the water supply inorder to force the public to swallow its drugs.Fluoride and covert medicineOh, by the way, to anyone who argues that fluoride is not adrug, remember this: According to the FDA, any chemicalsubstance that has a biological effect on the human body is,by definition, a drug. Therefore fluoride is a drug, too .

Even more, fluoride is promoted with outlandish claimsabout "preventing cavities" by swallowing it, making it an"unapproved drug" according to the FDA. So how is itthatthis unapproved drug can be dripped into the water supplyand forced upon hundreds of millions of people without asingle diagnosis of fluoride deficiency or even a singleprescription from a doctor?The answer is that western medicine is so arrogant that itdoes not believe it needs to follow any rules, regulations orlaws. It is a system of "bully" medicine where drugs areshoved down your throat by being covertly dripped into thewater supply without your consent. So why should webelieve vaccines will be any different? If mainstreammedicine can find a way to force every person tounknowingly be injected with vaccines, make no mistakethey will pursue it!And such efforts will no doubt have the continued financialsupport ofBill Gates.Http://www.naturalnews.com/028887_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html

http://http//www.naturalnews.com/028887_vaccines_Bill_Gates.htmlhttp://http//www.naturalnews.com/028887_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html


29/36

Farmer relief package turns suicidal: CAGAgriculture being the main source of incomefor the country, the government earlierannounced some fund relief for the distressedfarmers.But things has not worked according. The number ofsuicide by the farmers surprisingly has onlyincreased.THE GOVERNMENT has pumped in Rs 5,000 crorein the suicide belts ofVidarbha over the last two years.Yet, farmers continue to kill themselves.Now, a performance audit by the Comptroller andAuditor General (CAG) of India has exposed thefutility ofthe package ..A report titled Performance Audit of Farmers Packageby the CAG of India, has concluded that the packagehas failed in its basic purpose, that of reducing theagrarian crisis in the six affected districts ofVidarbha.The districts are Yavatmal, Amravati, Wardha, Akola,Buldhana and Washim"Reduction in farmers distress in Vidarbha does notinspire confidence," the report emphatically states.Adding that unless corrective measures are taken,"The agrarian distress would start rising again in theclosing years ofthe package.Such distress could increase significantly particularlyafter the moratorium of loan repayment expires,"cautions Sunil Dadhe, the accountant general (audit)in his concluding remarks.A survey, covering 41,663 farmers in 383 villages ofthe six districts worst hit by cotton failures inVidarbha, was part of the CAG audit of the farmerspackages announced by the state and centralgovernments in2006.It found that 36 per cent of farmers were not evenaware ofthe state and central government packages.

The audit slams the government for weak monitoring,delays in payments of compensation and lack ofcoordination in implementing the packages. The auditconducted between March and June 2007 highlightssome glaring deficiencies.It is the first report evaluating implementation of thepackages since they were announced two years back.The CAG report says that government directives formoneylenders to free farmers lands were turned downby the High Court when moneylenders approached it.Neither did the government challenge the court rulingnor did it strengthen the existing laws in favour of thefarmers.A door-to-door survey in 2006 by the state showedthere were 13.48 lakh distressed and 4.34 lakh verydistressed farmers in these six districts. But they werenot considered when benefits were handed out.Short-term measures like help-lines and reschedulingloans were ineffective for most farmers. The reportalso questioned long-term goals, like creatingirrigation potential and subsidiary occupations forfarmers.As per CAG report, it is now official that all claimsmade by the state administration as per asimplementation of relief packages are concern weremisleading and far away from the ground reality thathas killed more innocent distressed Vidarbha farmers.Here is the detail of CAG report officially released byMaharashtran government.Suicides by debt-ridden Vidarbha farmers haveactually accelerated after Prime Minister ManmohanSingh announced the multi-crore relief package in2006.The state administration is blamed for lack of co-ordination and a faulty implementation ofplans.The CAG statistics reveal that the suicide graph has



30/36

been on the rise. From 712 farmers in 2005-06, to1414 suicides in 2006-07 the total suicide deathsreported fromApril-July 2007-08 stood at 608.The report was tabled in the state legislature , hoursbefore the seven-week budget session was prorogued.Dadhe has demolished the state government's claim,that alls well after funds flow from the relief package.In fact the CAG team has asserted that there is nomonitoring of the implementation of the packages."Though the state created the Vasantrao Naik ShetiSwawalamban Mission (VNSSM) for monitoring ofthe implementation of the packages, it had nodedicated staff apart from its director general and adriver.Consequently, it failed to even watch the expenditureincurred by the implementing departments undervarious components,' ,the report said.The auditors, who surveyed 363 villages covering41,663 farmers, said the state failed to implement itsannouncements that farmers who took loans fromunregistered moneylenders can treat themselves freefrom that loan.In fact, the CAG survey revealed that 75 per cent oftheir respondents were unaware of this announcementin absence of adequate and effective publicity.The CAG report reveals that illegal money lendershave got relief from the courts after the assistantregistrars of the cooperative societies (ARCS)declared the farmers free from debts.In 18 writ petitions filed by the money lenders theNagpur bench of the Bombay High Court passedorders setting aside the orders oftheARCS."The government neither appealed against the orders(in the Supreme Court) nor took any remedial actionlike amendment of the relevant acts to secure theinterests ofthe indebted farmers.Consequently the affected farmers did not get theintended benefit of the government decision ofDecember 2005," it said.

A scrutiny of the state government records inAmravati by the CAG has revealed that 224 eligiblefarmers were deprived of the compensation ofRs 2.14lakh due to non-availability of funds, speakingvolumes about the state administration's handling ofthe issue.The report said that many banks claimed interestwithout extending fresh loans to the distressedfarmers. Of the 17.64lakh farmers in the six districts,9.29 lakh cases of loan having outstanding principleamount of Rs 1,369 crore were proposed to berescheduled after waiver of interests.However, fresh loans of Rs 673 crore (43 per cent)were given in 4.84lakh cases. "The waiver of interestin all these cases did not help the families of thefarmers concerned in income augmentation since loanwas not rescheduled.Further the government waived interest on 1. 92 lakhfarm workers, though the packages did not envisageassistance to those who were not farmers," the reportsaid.The Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti (VJAS) presidentKishor Tiwari urged UPA government to order CBI.inquiry in this matter as issue of huge malpractices inmore than Rs.5000 crore.This failure of relief package has resulted tomore than3000 suicides offarmers.In fact VJAS has demanding that due to total apathy ofadministration and causal attitude, coupled withmassive corruption has made this condition of ruralVidarbha so pathetic and aggravated that the agrariancrisis grew more after the announcement of reliefpackage;as the relief did not reached the dyingfarmers intime even after the lapse of two year.It is the need of the time to provide food securityhealth care to minimum 4.34 lakh farming familieswho are identified by administration as farmers indeep distress, Tiwari added.

HUp:llwww.merinews.

JUNE 2010 National Magazine of Farmers Voice

Documents

Transcript of JUNE 2010 National Magazine of Farmers Voice