MAY 2010 National Magazine of Farmers Voice

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

1/36


2/36

Govt. Should put Moratorium on all GM CropsBliaratiya Krishak Samaj is against the irreversible, uncontrolled, and potentiallydangerous release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment. Weare also concerned about the health hazards of GMproducts. The International Scientistscommunity have given their reports and proved that GM Crops cannot increase theproductivity andcannot feed thehunger.There should be Mandatory Labelling of all GM products, irrespective of the percentagetraces of GM materials present in the product in any form whatsoever. Labelling normsshould clearly state that it is a GM product. There should be no soft provision to state "MayContain GMTraces" . GMproducts is entering in the market illegally through imports. As ofnow only approved GM product in the country is Bt cotton. But we are sorry to note freeclandestine imports ofGM seeds and GM food and feed into the country, flouting all regulatorynorms. Unapproved imported GM seeds are being cultivated in this country, in blatant violationof bio safetynorms.

Adequate tests should be done inthe country to establish the safety ofGM products to be approvedfor imports. Test should establish safety of health and environment. The process and results of suchtests should be made transparent . If such adequate tests cannot be conducted in the country toestablish health and environment safety, precautionary principles of the Cartagena Protocol on Bio Isafety should be applied to deny imports of GMproducts for food, feed, processing and cultivation.However for research purposes, imports may be allowed, but with a strict provision ofnot allowing itsrelease in the environment. Caution should be taken that the research materials are not clandestinelydiverted for use in food, feed and processing for consumption.Here is the relevant portion of the Cartagena Protocol: lack of scientific certainty due to insufficientknowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a living modified organism onconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Party of import, taking also into accountrisks tohuman health, shall not prevent that Party from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard tothe import of the living modified organisms in question .....to avoid or minimise such potential adverseeffects."

There are in pipeline a number of GM food crops for approval. There is no sufficient sophisticatedmechanism in this country to establish the safety ofGM crops. The most worrying situation hasbeen'Created by the India-US Knowledge Initiate inAgriculture Research and Education.Through thispact US isputting pressure to relax our regulatory norms onGMproducts.Now the Govt. is planning to dismantle GEAC of environment ministry and to set up anautonomous regulator under ministry of science and technology for all GM products. Such amove would be dangerous the GEAC should continue under ministry of environment and issuesrelated to environment , human and animal health should be vigorously addressed withtransparency . Health ministry & ICMR should be more responsible and they should beagressive in expressing concerns over the safety ofGM foods. l ; : . r _We, therefore, demand a moratorium on release of all GM crops . ~ ..

KRISHAN BIR CHA


3/36

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

Advisory Board:Ashok B. SharmaS. 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 Singh

Oesiged by: Rahul SharmaPrinted & 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]

The views expressed by theauthors are their own. Theeditor does not acceptresponsibility for returningunsolicited publication material.Disputes arising if any will beunder Jurisdiction of DelhiCourt

Single copy Rs. 25/-, Annual Rs. 300/-

[ _ V _ O _ I _ . 1 _ N _ O _ . 5 M _ a _ Y , _ 2 _ 0 _ 1 _ 0 JKISAN KI AWAAZNational Magazine of Farmers' Voice

CONTENTSScientists letter to Prime Minister... 2

Yagya for Bountiful Rains .. 6

Social Costs of Globalisation ... 7- * Helena Norberg-HodgeIndependent People's Tribunal... 10

Genetically Modified Soy Linked ... 12- * Jeffrey SmithGenetically Modified Crops are not. . . 19- * Dr. Hans Herren and Dr. Marcia Ishii-EitemanStifling the Economy ... 21- * Robert E. LighithizeWhy Go Organic? 23

IRRI's Board Meeting ... 25

The Benefits of Wheatgrass ... 27- * Dr. Ann Wigmore~wm~~~'3""~ ... 30-*J ;[CfiT:{T~US Farmers Oppose "Big Ag" ... 31---- * Dr. Eva Novotny

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

M a y - 2 0 1 0 1isan KiAwaaz
mailto:[email protected]:E-mail:[email protected]:E-mail:[email protected]:[email protected]


4/36

G E N E T IC A L L Y M O D I F IE D C R O P S :IN D E P E N D E N T S C IE N T IS T S W R I T E T O T H E P R IM E M IN IS T E R O F IN D IAThis sign-on letter is prompted by the communication, authored inJuly, 2009, by Mr PrithvirajChauhan, written in his capacity at that time as Minister of State in the Prime Minister's Office.This letter entitled "Concern on Introduction of Genetically Engineered Crops and Food" wasan official response to a letter from Dr A Ramadoss, addressed to Prime Minister DrManmohan Singh, dated 2nd February 2009, when he held the portfolio as India's Minister ofHealth.In its opening paragraph it says: "the various issues raisedin your letter have been examined carefully and byapplying the best scientific evidence available today".However, the signatories to this letter wish to respectfullybring to the attention of Prime Minister Dr ManmohanSingh, numerous factual and scientific errors within theChauhan letter. From the content of this letter and itsphraseology, it is apparent that much of it was excerpteddirectly from promotional materials of the agriculturalbiotechnology industry, in particular the InternationalService for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications(ISAAA), an organisation that at best can be described aspseudo-scientific, funded primarily by Monsanto and otherbiotechnology multinational companies and whosepurpose is to promote and facilitate the commercialintroduction of genetically modified (GM) crops in thedeveloping world. Inaccurate information has led toerroneous policy on GM crops and Bt brinjal in particular.Therefore, in the context of the current debate on theintroduction in India of its first major GM food crop, Btbrinjal, to be grown on a commercial scale, we stronglyurge the Prime Minister to consider the factual andauthoritative scientific content ofthis letter.We hope that this letter will help to bring the true facts ofGM crops into the open to enable an informed discussionon their unique risks to food security, farming systems andbio-safety impacts which are ultimately irreversible. Weurge the Prime Minister, for the sake of the safety of theIndian people, and the welfare of Indian farmers, to re-address the official position on GM crops. The globalcommunity needs India to lead in the matter of exemplaryregulation ofthese crops.We highlight some ofthe many major inaccuracies found inthe Chauhan letter in italicized quotes, followed by ourcomments with numbers in parentheses indicating items inthe list of supporting References.

I. "With the rapid progress inadvanced biology, biotech crops have been developed withthe help of genetic engineering tools to possess specialcharacteristics that make them better. ----also known asGenetically Modified (GM) or Genetically Engineered(GE) crops. The most common traits deployed in biotechcrops so far include insect resistance, herbicide tolerance,

virus resistance and improved product quality.This statement broadly oversteps the facts and is in facterroneous.D More than 95% of all GM crops are engineered toeither synthesise an insecticide (Bt toxin) or to tolerate abroad spectrum herbicide (e.g. Roundup, Liberty) orboth.D Despite many years of research, no GM crop iscurrently "deployed" with "improved product quality" as isclaimed.D To date there are only four major commercialisedGM crops (soya, maize/com, cotton, canola/oilseed rape)most of which (soya, com, canola) are used primarily asanimal feed. All were commercialised in the late 90's. Sincethen, no other commercially viable GM crop applicationhas made it to market, especially due to farmers notaccepting other GM crops (such as wheat, potatoes, andrice) for negative economic reasons (lack ofbuyers, loss ofexport markets).D GM crops have not been widely accepted aroundthe world. 95% of all GM food crops are grown in only 5countries: the US, Canada, Australia, Argentina, andBrazil. If you include fibre crops (cotton) India and Chinawould be included. Only one GM crop is approved forcultivation within the European Union, MON810 com,which has been banned by several member states invokingdocumented health and especially environmental risks.D Only two minor food crops have been released inthe USA (squash, papaya) and one in Mexico (squash),which are engineered in an attempt to make them virusresistant. The outcome has been a mixed blessing; GMsquash is resistant to some viruses but renders it moresusceptible to attack by beetles.ii. "It is expected that development of crops withtolerance to drought and salinity, improved nitrogen useefficiency, enhanced yield, quality and nutritionalproperties coupled with existing traits will be technicallyfeasible in the near future and be a real value addition inIndia. From a technological perspective, what is feasibletomorrow is even more promising but scientists and IndianIndustry need a predicable regulatory and socialenvironment. At the national level, it will make agriculturemore efficient and competitive to meet the challenges ofhunger, poverty, malnutrition and food security in

2 May - 2010is an K i A w aa z


5/36

tomorrow's world (Global Knowledge Centre on CropBiotechnology, 2008)"These "promises" taken verbatim from ISAAA industrypromotional material do not match either scientific fact orreality.D "tolerance to drought and salinity, improvednitrogen use efficiency, enhanced yield, quality andnutritional properties" are hypothetical claims which havebeen made by industry for 15 years. Despite vast sumsinvested in research they have failed to deliver on thesepromises. The listed traits are genetically complex. Thebasic problem is that GM as employed in agriculture isconceptually flawed, crude, imprecise and poorlycontrolled technology , that is incapable of generatingplants that contain the required multiple, co-ordinatelyregulated genes that work in an integrated way to respondto environmental challenges.D Contrastingly, crop varieties already exist that aretolerant to drought or salinity, or have improved nitrogenuse efficiency either naturally or specifically bred byconventional methods, and augmented in some cases bymodem non-GM biotechnology gene mapping ("markerassisted selection"; MAS). For example a novel upland ricevariety, Birsa Vikas Dhan 111 (PY 84), has recently beenreleased in Jharkhand bred using backcrossing augmentedwith MAS with selection for multiple traits for improvedroot growth and performance under drought conditions .These methods are sustainable and safer approaches to cropimprovement, less expensive and give significantly higherreturns on investment. A fundamental redirection isrequired in agricultural investment in these areas.D GM has failed to produce crops with improvednitrogen use efficiency whereas conventional breeding andimproved farming methods have made significantimprovements in this area.111. "The most compelling case for biotechnology andmore specifically biotech crops, is their capability tocontribute to increasing crop productivity, conservingbiodiversity, reducing the environmental footprint ofagriculture, mitigating climate change and reducinggreenhouse gases, increasing stability of productivity andproduction, the improvement of economic, health andsocial benefits, the cost-effective production of renewableresource-based biofuels and thus provide significant andimportant multiple and mutual benefits to producers,consumers and global society."These claims again are a reiteration of industry promotionalmaterial and have no basis in science or the empiricalevidence relating to the performance ofGM crops.D ProductivityGM has not increased yield potential.Yields from GM crops to date have been no better and inthecase of GM soya have been consistently lower. A 2009report reviewing more than 20 academic studies clearlyshows that the cultivation of GM herbicide-tolerantsoybeans has not increased yields. Insect-resistant com,

meanwhile, has at best only improved yields marginally.This report found that increase in yields for both crops overthe last 13 years was due to traditional breeding orimprovements in agricultural practices.D Conserving biodiversityIn South America, GMsoy has been instrumental in speeding destruction of theAmazon rainforestD Reducing the environmental footprint ofagricultureGM crops have led to vast increases in pesticideuse, not decreases and therefore reduction of agriculturalpollution cannot be claimed.D Mitigating climate changeNo-till agriculture usingherbicide-tolerant GM seeds does not reduce greenhousegas emissions. Contrastingly, the high soil carbonsequestration within organic matter inherently produced byagro-ecological farming methods markedly reducesgreenhouse gas emissions.D Climate change brings sudden, extreme, andunpredictable changes in weather, which requires that acropping system be flexible, resilient and as geneticallydiverse as possible. GM technology offers just theopposite.D Stability of productivity and productionis muchlower with many of the GM crops commercialised today.Herbicide tolerant GM soya is far more sensitive to heat ordrought stress than conventional soya.D Improvement of economic, health and socialbenefitsconsistently, introduction of GM crops is linked toloss ofmarkets and degradation of rural communities, andevidence continues to mount regarding the health hazardsofGMcrops.D BiofuelsReports from the World Bank and theUnited Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation haveidentified the biofuels boomnot lack of GM foodsas themain cause ofthe current food crisis.D The IAASTD report* concludes that GM crops donot increase yield, have little to offer global agriculture andfood security and the challenges of poverty, hunger andclimate change. Instead it recommends applying low-inputagro-ecological farming practices, whose use in thedeveloping world has produced dramatic increases inyields and food security. [*The single largest researchexercise on global agriculture in history, which wasconducted with funding frommultiple UN agencies and theWorld Bank. This report, published as Agriculture at aCrossroads, was produced under the auspices of theInternational Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge,Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). Itinvolved around 400 scientists and twice that number ofpeer-reviewers. It underwent two rounds of openinternational peer-review and was ratified overwhelminglyat the intergovernmental plenary in April 2008, includingby India.]iv. "The concerns conveyed by you that thetechnology may induce instability in genetic level and haveadverse health impact is not supported by scientificevidence".

May - 2010 3is an K i A w aa z


6/36

This is a scientifically indefensible statement because:D GM transformation can produce novelbiochemical processes that are unpredictable and for whichthere isno natural history to assume are safe.D The GM transformation process is highlymutagenic leading to disruptions to host plant geneticstructure and function, which in turn leads to disturbancesin the biochemistry ofthe plant. This can lead to novel toxinand allergen production as well as reduced/alterednutritional quality.D It is not a question of if there are disturbances togene function and biochemistry but to what degree theywill be present within any given GM plant. For example,the levels ofmore than 40 proteins are altered significantlyin the commercialised GM MON810 com compared toequivalent non-GM com, which included production of anew allergenic protein.D Numerous animal feeding studies demonstratenegative health impacts of GM feed on kidney, liver, gut,blood cells, blood biochemistry and the immune system.D Of greatest concern is that studies show negativehealth effects with GM crops that have already beenapproved and which have been grown commercially for 10-13 years. This highlights the inadequacy of the originalcriteria and set of data on the basis of which marketingapproval was and is still being granted.Note: MON810 has since been banned by many EUcountries including France and Germany.V. "Biotech or GM crops are approved forenvironmental clearance/commercial release by regulatoryauthorities after passing through various regulatory stagesstarting from IBSC- MEC, RCGM and GEAC. The three-tier system is in the hands of the best scientists,technologists, agricultural and environmental experts in thecountry. ... The regulatory system is adequate, reliable,efficient and transparent.... These SOPs are consistent withbest international practices".This position oversteps the mark and is technicallyinaccurate as highlighted above and as further evidencedbelow:D India's Regulators do not require independent bio-safety tests, but uncritically accept as evidence of safety,research conducted by the company who is applying forcommercial clearance of the product. This raises seriousquestions regarding impartiality and conflicts of interest,which are clearly justified, based on published evidence ofbias inthe research conducted by industry that is contrary toaccepted normal scientific conduct.D GM food compositional analysis is superficial andthe minimum required to establish "substantialequivalence", a scientifically conceptually flawedparameter that is virtually meaningless with respect todetermining health risk.D Experimental design used by the applicant isflawed, almost invariably containing irrelevant "control"non-GM comparator crop varieties, which serve to mask

rather than to isolate and reveal the effect of the GMtransformation process.D The biological testing required is not adequate todetect either acute or chronic toxic effects ofGM foods. Atbest, only 90-day feeding studies are required by thegovernment's SOPs without an obligatory requirement fortoxicological and histological evaluation. In order to assessmedium and long-term (life-long) health impacts it isnecessary to conduct lifetime and multigenerationalfeeding studies. Only these will reliably determine fertilityand chronic health impacts, which is essential because it isthe intension that people will be eating GM foods for theirwhole lifetime.D Experimental data is invariably not madepublically available for independent scientific scrutinyunder the pretext of commercial confidentiality. This hasrequired court action (both in Europe and India) in order toobtain the information needed to assess the quality of theresearch submitted by industry to be scrutinised byauthoritative bio-safety experts. Such independent re-evaluation of submitted industry data has repeatedly foundthat this research and its interpretation thereof to be flawed,inadequate, biased and thus misleading.D All of the above points are directly relevant to thecurrent safety dossier ofBt brinjal and imply that the Indiangovernment's current requirements for GM food safetyassessment are inadequate and need to be augmented.vi. "Given that the discovery and use of Bt hascompleted hundred years in 2002 and Bt technology has along history of safety, proven efficacy and benefits, Btbrinjal promises to be of great value to Indian farmers. Itmay be noted that those who stand to gain from wide use ofpesticides, often provide misleading information forcommercial interests. The GM food assessed and approvedthrough rigorous science based regulatory process hasbeen endorsed by Nobel laureates and leading globalscientists" .This statement ignores research showing:D Bt toxin is a proven potent immunogen raisingjustifiable concerns that it can give rise to allergicreactions.D Animals fed diets containing Bt com have shownsigns of directtoxicity.D Independent re-evaluation of Monsanto's ownresearch on their Bt com crops shows negative healtheffects even in short-term (90-day) animal feeding studies.D The Mahyco- Monsanto dossier of the rawexperimental data of animal feeding studies with Bt brinjalshows highly statistically significant negative signs oftoxicity on the functioning of multiple organ systems suchas liver, kidney, blood and pancreas in all animals tested(especially rats, rabbits and goats). It is very important tonote that these adverse effects were observed after only atmost, a 90-day feeding time, which raises serious concernsabout the safety of consuming this product over an entirelifetime. Long-term (at least 2-year) animal feeding

4 May - 2010is an K i A w aa z


7/36

studies were not done and are stated as not required by theapex Regulator, contrary to the science, which requiresthese studies to detect chronic slow-onset toxicity andcancer.D There istherefore, no scientific justification for thesafety claim of Bt brinjal by India's regulators, which arebased on an uncritical acceptance of the interpretation ofthe data submitted by Mahyco-Monsanto. This has beenheavily criticised by eminent scientists of internationalstanding.vi. "Biotech crops are environmentally friendly andhave contributed significantly to reducing the emission ofgreenhouse gases from agricultural practice".

manufactured from oil and natural gas.D OM crops do not reduce greenhouse gasemissions.D Recent data from the US Department ofAgriculture has shown a vast increase in herbicide usesince the introduction of OM crops tolerant to theapplication of these agrochemicals.D Therefore, the introduction of OM crops hasexacerbated rather than reduced agriculture's carbonfootprint and is clearly unsustainable.Alternative proven technologies that can reduce theamount of fossil fuel used in farming already exist. Thisincludes methods for reducing fertiliser applications,selecting farm machinery appropriate for each task,managing soil for conservation, limiting irrigation andagro-ecological farming techniques.

These claims again simply quote material from industrypromotional material, which as noted above is notsupported by data in published peer review scientificjournals:D OM crops are designed to be used in conjunctionwith synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, which are

..... ~1111 '1 1 .....Dr M ic ha el A nto nio u, K in g's C olle ge L on don S ch oo l o f Me dic in e, UK (m ic ha el.a nto nio u@k cl.a c.u k)D r T homa s Behn, GenOk - C en te r fo r B io sa fe ty , T romso , N orwa y (th oma s.b oh n@u it.n o)Prof Philip L . Be re an o, Un iv er sit y ofWashington, USA ([email protected] .edu)P ro f Mar ce llo Bu ia tt i, Un iv er sit y o f F lo re nc e, I ta ly (mbu ia tt is te r@gma il.c om)P ro f L aw re nc e Busc h, M ich ig an S ta te Univ er sity , U SA (lb usc h@ms u.e du )P ro f J oe Cumm in s, U niv er sity ofWestern On ta rio , Canada ( jc ummins@uwo .c a)P ro f J ac kA . H ein emann , U niv er sity of Canterbury, New Zealand (jack .he [email protected] .nz)P ro f Ange lik a H ilb eck, Sw is s F ed er al I ns tit ut e o f Te chno lo gy , Zu ric h ( an ge lik a.h ilb ec [email protected] th z.c h)P ro f Ma lc olm Hoop er , S ch oo l o f S cie nc es, U niv er sity o f S un de rla nd , UK (ma lc olm .h oo pe r@v ir gin .n et)P ro f Carlo Le if er t, N ewcas tl e Un iv er sit y, UK ( c.le if er t@nc l.a c.u k)P ro f E R O rsk ov OBE, Ma ca ula y In stitu te a nd A berd een U niv ersity , UK (b .o rsk ov@ma ca ula y.a c.u k)P ro f G ille s-Er ic S er alin i, Un iv er sit y o f Caen , F ran ce ( se ra linLgi lle s-e ric@neu fJ r)P ro f D av id S ch ub er t, S alk In stitu te fo r B io lo gic al S cie nc es, C alifo rn ia , U SA (sc hu be rt@ s alk .e du )D r Joel Spiroux de Vendomois, CRIIGEN , Paris , F ranc e ( jmspir ou x@wanadoo .f r)P ro f Br ian Wynne , Lanc as te r Un iv er sit y, UK (b.wynn e@l an ca st er .a c.u k)P ro f L ou ise V an de la c, U niv er sity o f Qu eb ec a t Montr ea l, C an ad a (v an de la c.lo uise@uq am .c a)Dr Chr is ti an Velot, Un ivers it y Pari s-Sud , France ( chr ia ti an .vel [email protected]. fr )

May - 2010 5is an K i A w aa z


8/36

Y a g y a for Bountiful Rains & Food SecurityWater, the unique resource on the planet earth, is theelixir for sustaining all forms of life. Our religiousscriptures have repeatedly mentioned the importanceof water and rivers in different contexts. Water isquoted to be Life or "Jeevanam". Since respecting theNature was inborn, water was considered divine. Rig-Veda is full of'shlokas' inpraise ofWater, Sun andAir,the three essentials of our environment. Lord Krishnaas revealed in the Episode on 'Kaliya Mardan, tried tosensitize the people on pollution of surface waterbodies.The importance of water as an important componentfor enhancing agricultural production is well known.It is estimated that by 2020, agriculture is expected touse 29% more water to sustain the current level ofproduction, while the water availability is expected todecrease by 12%.

Shri Chiranjilal Dhanuka Trust,Vrindavan, a strong believer ofancient wisdom and Vedictraditions, for the first time,under the sponsorship ofDhanuka Agritech Limited,New Delhi, which is activelyinvolved in the development ofthe farming community,organized eleven KundiyaAtirudra Mahayagya at the most sacred and reveredSri Krishna Nagri, Vrindavan starting from NewSamvat-2067 (16 March 2010) to 24 March2010.

The Yagyasthal was thronged daily by over 600devotees (Renowned Agricultural Scientists, ViceChancellors of Agricultural Universities, Directorsof Agriculture, MPs and MLAs, Agri-InputDistributors and Dealers, Progressive farmers,Religious Heads, and Others).During these nine days, over fivethousand devotees from fifteenStates across the country, namelyAndhra Pradesh, Bihar,Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat,Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka,Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar

Pradesh, and West Bengal witnessed this mega event.On the first day, a Seminar was organized on'Rainwater Conservation and Food Security' inwhicha large number of Farmers and Agri Input Dealersfrom different States participated. Shri PrabhakarKelkar, President, Bharatiya Kisan Sangh andDr Krishan Bir Chaudhary,President, Bharatiya KrishakSamaj highlighted the need toconserve rainwater andefficiently use the same duringdry spells.Also drew the attentiontowards the spiraling rise in ------cost of inputs and wished thatthe Government initiates steps for controlling theprice rise and ensure appropriate return to farmers. Inour country, droughts and low rainfall are nowbecoming a recurring phenomenon and the most oftenreasons ascribed for this are climate change andglobal warming.Food security is the backbone of the national security.Enhancing food grain production is going to be aherculean task as there is shrinking holding size,decreasing availability of irrigation water, high costof inputs, non-remunerative price support, lesssupport for rural infrastructure development, etc. Thecountry has witnessed several major droughts whichseriously impacted farm output, created shortage ofdrinking water, fodder deficiency for cattle and lowwater in reservoir.The Group Chairman Shri R. G.Agarwal, ofDhanukaAgritech Limited, New Delhi in his welcome andintroductory remarks focused on reviving ourtraditional rainwater harvesting traditions 'Gaon KaPaani Gaon Mein' and 'Khet Ka Paani Khet Mein'. Hesaid that in India more than 70% of annual rainfalltakes place during the three months of monsoon, andonly 30% of the rainwater is utilized, while theremaining 70% goes as a run off to the sea carryingwith it precious soil and nutrients and causing lossesto human life and property through floods.

Contd onPage no.- 96 Kisan Ki Awaaz May - 2010


9/36

Social Costs Of Globalisation* Helena Norberg-Hodge

05April, 2010 "...America is a new kind of society thatproduces anew kind ofhuman being. That human being- confident, self-reliant, tolerant, generous, future-oriented - is a vast improvement over the wretched,servile, fatalistic and intolerant human being thattraditional societies have always produced."Dinesh D'Souza, What's SoGreatAboutAmericaImplicit in all the rhetoric our leaders spout aboutglobalisation is the idea that the rest ofthe world shouldeventually be brought up to the standard of living of theWest, andAmerica in particular. Read between the linesof the 'sustainable development' argument and you'llfind the American Dream lurking: it is globalisation'stouchstone, its apparent endpoint.But if this isthe direction globalization istaking us, it isworth examining where America itself is headed. Agood way to do so is to take a hard look at America'schildren, since so many features of the global mono-culture have been inplace their whole lives.They are like canaries in a mineshaft: if the AmericanDream isn't working for them, why should anyone,anywhere, believe it would work better for their ownchildren?As it turns out, children in the US are far from"confident, self-reliant, tolerant, generous, and future-oriented". One indication ofthis isthat an estimated fivemillion of them are being given at least one psychiatricdrug. This disturbing trend is growing rapidly.The number of children ages 2-4 for whom stimulantand anti -depressant drugs have been prescribedincreased 50percent between 1991and 1995.In the following four years, prescriptions for anti-depression drugs rose even more steeply, climbing 151percent for children in the 7-12 age group, and 580percent for children six and under.For most people in the less 'developed' world it isimpossible to imagine 2-year old children so depressedthat they need prescription drugs. Equally hard tofathom are many other symptoms of social breakdownamong America's children. Eating disorders, forexample. The number of pre-pubescent children witheating disorders is onthe rise, with girls asyoung as four

showing signs of anorexia.Cosmetic surgery, another symptom of insecurity andpoor self-image, is also on the increase, with thenumber of teen-age girls having their breastsaugmented quadrupling, and liposuction procedurestripling, injust the past fiveyears.What about violence, which is a more commonsymptom ofbreakdown for boys? Consider the fact thatthere have been at least 25 school shootings in the USsince 1996, claiming the lives of 35 students. Theyoungest killer? A six-year oldboy.What has made America's children so insecure andtroubled? Anumber of causes are surely involved, all ofwhich can be traced back to the global economy. Ascorporations scour the world for bigger subsidies andlower costs,jobs move with them, and families aswell:the typical American moves eleven times during theirlife, constantly severing connections between relatives,neighbours and friends.Within almost every family, the economic pressures onparents systematically rob them of time with even theirown children. Americans put in longer hours at workthan people in any other industrialized country, and thetrend is ever upward: Americans work the equivalent ofone week longer per year than they did a decade ago,more than fiveweeks longer than in 1970.As a consequence more and more young children arerelegated to the care of strangers in crowded day-carecentres. Older children are often left in the company ofviolent video games or the corporate sponsors of theirfavourite television shows. Time spent in nature -fundamentally important to our psychological wellbeing - is increasingly rare.Globalization and the spreading consumer culture thuswork to displace the flesh-and-blood role models -parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, friends andneighbours - that children once looked up to, replacingthem with media and advertising images: rakish movieand rock stars, steroid-enhanced athletes andairbrushed super-models. Children who strive toemulate these manufactured 'perfect' idols are leftfeeling insecure and inadequate.

May - 2010 7isan KiAwaaz


10/36

In this sense, what is often seen asAmerican 'culture' isnot a product of the American people. It is, in fact, anartificial consumer culture being foisted on peoplethrough advertising and the media.This consumer culture is fundamentally different fromall those cultures which for millennia were shaped byclimate and topography - by a dialogue betweenhumans and the natural world.This is a new phenomenon, something that has neverhappened before: a culture determined by technologicaland economic forces, rather than human and ecologicalneeds. Itis not surprising that American children, manyofwhom seem to 'have everything', are sounhappy: liketheir parents, their teachers at school and even theirtelevision heroes, they have been put on a treadmill thatis ever more stressful and competitive, ever moremeaningless and lonely.America's children are among the first victims of aculture shaped by commercial interests and mediamoguls, and an increasing number of Americans arewaking up to this fact.There is a growing trend towards turning the televisionoff, towards consciously seeking nature and communityinstead. These are incredibly important and hopefulsigns.Nevertheless, as the globalization juggernaut steam-rolls along the number of victims worldwide is growingexponentially. Today millions of children fromMongolia to Patagonia are targets of a fanatical andfundamentalist campaign to bring them into theconsumer culture. The cost is massive in terms of self-rejection, psychological breakdown andviolence.These children are just as vulnerable as their Americancounterparts to the sales pitches of corporateadvertisers, who tell them that this brand of make-upwill inch them closer to perfection, or that wearing thatbrand of sneakers will make them more like their sportshero.Sales of dangerous bleach for skin and hair, and contactlenses advertised as 'the colour of eyes you wish youwere born with', are skyrocketing in the South.This psychological impoverishment is accompanied bya massive rise in material poverty. Even in America adecade-long economic 'boom' could not lift anestimated 35million people above the poverty line.And what about the millions drawn into rapidlygrowing Third World slums every year, with little hopeof escape?

What about the factory workers in sweatshops andmaquiladoras, and the small farmers in their dying ruralcommunities?What about the indigenous peoples being driven toextinction, and those whose ways of life are sothreatened by the forces of globalization that they tumto fundamentalism, even terrorism?The central hope of the American Dream - that ourchildren will have a better life than we do - seems tohave vanished. Many people, in fact, no longer believethat our children really have any future at all.Nonetheless policymakers insist that globalization isbringing a better world for everyone. How can there besuch a gap between the cheerleading rhetoric and thelives of real people? Part of the disconnect results fromthe way globalization's promoters measure 'progress'.It is all too easy to compare America's consumercornucopia today with what was available 50 or 150years ago. More often, the baseline from whichcomparisons are made is rooted in the Dickensianperiod of the early industrial revolution, whenexploitation and deprivation, pollution and squalorwere rampant. From this starting point, our child-labourlaws and40-hour workweek look like real progress.Similarly, the baseline in the Third World is theimmediate post-colonial period, with its uprootedcultures, poverty, over-population and politicalinstability. Based on the misery of these starting points,political leaders can argue that our technologies and oureconomic system have brought a far better world intobeing, and that globalization will bring benefits to the"wretched, servile, fatalistic and intolerant humanbeings" in the remaining 'undeveloped' parts of theworld.In reality, however, globalization is a continuation of abroad process that started with the age of conquest andcolonialism in the South and the Enclosures and theIndustrial Revolution in the North; from then on asingle culture and economic system has relentlesslyexpanded, taking over other cultures, other peoples'resources and labour. Far from delivering us frompoverty, the globalising industrial system continuallycreates it.Today, on the eve ofthe Johannesburg summit, it is vitalthat we connect growing physical and emotionalpoverty -whether inside or outside the US -to the wholeindustrial system, to a history that included robbingpeople from all over the world of their natural

8 May - 2010isan Ki Awaaz


11/36

resources, labour and self-respect. Our leaders simplyfail to connect the dots between 'progress' andpoverty.Erasing other cultures, replacing them with an artificialculture created by corporations and the media can onlylead to an increase in social breakdown and poverty.Even in the narrowest economic terms, globalisationmeans continuing to rob, rather than enrich, themajority. In 1960, the income of the richest fifth of theglobal population was 30 times that ofthe poorest fifth;by 1997 the gap more than doubled, with the richestfifth receiving 74 times more than the poorest fifth. Thisis globalisation atwork.By forcing everyone on the planet to rely on the same,narrow range of resources, globalisation is creatingartificial scarcity, thereby adding to real poverty andexacerbating violent conflict.Contrary to the often-repeated claim that global trade ismaking conflict less likely, a recent World Bank studyhas found that countries whose economies are highlyspecialised - precisely what the free traders prescribe -are 20 times more likely to find themselves in civil warthan countries whose economies are diversified.Withthose in the industrialised world using ten times theirshare of the earth's resources, it is a criminal hoax to

promise that everyone in the 'undeveloped' world cando the same.The global spread of this fantasy has been profoundlydestructive to people's ability to survive in their owncultures, in their own place onthe earth. Ithas evenbeendestructive to its most privileged beneficiaries.America's children are telling us we need a verydifferent dream - one shaped by culture and nature, notby corporate greed.Helena Norberg-Hodge is an analyst of the impact ofthe global economy on cultures and agricultureworldwide and a pioneer of the localisation movement.She is the founder and director of the InternationalSociety forEcology and Culture (ISEC).He book Ancient Futures has been described as an"inspirational classic" by the London Times andtogether with a film of the same title, it has beentranslated into 42 languages. She is also co-author ofBringing the Food Economy Home and From theGround Up: Rethinking Industrial Agriculture.In 1986,she received the Right Livelihood Award, or the"Alternative Nobel Prize" asrecognition for her work inLadakh

Contd. from page no. 6....

Countercurrents.org

He called for community response to conserve rainwater and requested all thosepresent in the Yagya to take a pledge that they will do their best for assuring conservation ofthe rainwater.Shri Agarwal said that for those coming especially from the rural areas, there was an added responsibility ofmotivating the villagers to join hands together in maintenance of the village ponds and conservation ofrainwater. Further, he drew the attention towards the recently advertised 'Scheme for Repair, Renovation andRestoration of Water Bodies' by theGovernment of India, which has aprovision of central assistance. He calledupon the Agri-Input Dealers to facilitate thefarmers in filling of applications and gettingthe assistance from the Government for dug-out po n d san d ,! rainwater conservation,be sid est ak in g initiative for at least onedug-out pond in his area with communityparticipation.S h riA gar w a I informed that they arecelebrating year 2010 as 'Water Conservation Year'. After this mega yagya, year-round plans have been drawn totake this message throughout the country by organizing Seminars and Exhibitions in close cooperation of theState Agricultural Universities, Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVK), State Departments ofAgriculture, NGOs, Agri-Input Dealers and Farmers

Rahul Sharma - Reporter, KISAN KIAWAAZ



12/36

Independent People's Tribunal on Land Acquisition,Resource Grab and Operation Green Hunt

NEW DELHI - The Independent People's Tribunaltook place from 9th 11th April, 2010, at theConstitution Club, New Delhi.This was organized by a collective of civil societygroups, social movements, activists, academics andconcerned citizens in the country.The people's jury, comprising ofHon'ble Justice P. B.Sawant, Justice H. Suresh, Professor Yash Pal, Dr. V.Mohini Giri, Dr. P. M. Bhargava, and Dr. KS.Subramanian heard testimonies from the affectedpeople, social activists and experts from AndhraPradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Orissa, and WestBengal.The jury heard the testimonies of a large number ofwitnesses over three days from the States ofChhattisgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal and Orissa aswell as some expert witnesses on land acquisition,mining and human rights violations of OperationGreen Hunt. The immediate observations of the Juryare as follows:Tribal communities represent a substantial andimportant proportion of Indian population andheritage.Not even ten countries in the world have more peoplethan we have tribals in India. Not only are they crucialcomponents of the country's human biodiversity,which is greater than in the rest of the world puttogether, but they are also an important source ofsocial, political and economic wisdom that would becurrently relevant and can give India an edge.In addition, they understand the language of Naturebetter than anyone else, and have been the mostsuccessful custodian of our environment, includingforests.There is also a great deal to learn from them in areas asdiverse as art, culture, resource management, wastemanagement, medicine and metallurgy. They havebeen also far more humane and committed touniversally accepted values than our urban society.It is clear that the country has been witnessing gross

violation of the rights of the poor, particularly tribalrights, which have reached unprecedented levelssince the new economic policies of the 90's.The 5th Schedule rights of the tribals, in particular thePanchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Actand the Forest Rights Act have been grossly violated.These violations have now gone to the extent wherefully tribal villages have been declared to be non-tribal. The entire executive and judicialadministration appear to have been totally apatheticto their plight.The development model which has been adopted andwhich is sharply embodied in the new economicpolicies of liberalization, privatization andglobalization, have led in recent years to a huge driveby the state to transfer resources, particularly land andforests which are critical for the livelihood and thesurvival of the tribal people, to corporations forexploitation of mineral resources, SEZs and otherindustries most of which have been enormouslydestructive to the environment.These industries have critically polluted waterbodies, land, trees, plants, and have had a devastatingimpact on the health and livelihoods ofthe people.The consultation with the Gram Sabhas required bythe PESA Act has been rendered a farce as has theprocess of Environment Impact Assessment of theseindustries.This has resulted in leaving the tribals in a state ofacute malnutrition and hunger which has pushed themto the very brink of survival.Itcould well be the severest indictment of the State inthe history of democracy anywhere, on account of thesheer number of people (tribals) affected and thediabolic nature of the atrocities committed on them bythe State, especially the police, leave aside theenormous and irreversible damage to theenvironment.It is also a glaring example of corruption financial,intellectual and moral sponsored and/or abetted by



13/36

the State, that characterizes today's India, cuttingacross all party lines.Peaceful resistance movements of tribal communitiesagainst their forced displacement and the corporategrab of their resources is being sought to be violentlycrushed by the use of police and security forces andState and corporate funded and armed militias.The state violence has been accentuated by OperationGreen Hunt in which a huge number of paramilitaryforces are being used mostly on the tribals. Themilitarization of the State has reached a level whereschools are occupied by security forces.Even peaceful activists opposing these violent actionsof the State against the tribals are being targeted by theState and victimized.This has led to a total alienation of the people from theState as well as their loss of faith in the governmentand the security forces.The Government both at the Centre and in the Statesmust realize that it's above-mentioned actions,combined with total apathy, could very well be sowingthe seeds of a violent revolution demanding justiceand rule of law that would engulf the entire country.We should not forget the French, Russian andAmerican history, leave aside our own.Recommendations:Stop Operation Green Hunt and start a dialogue withthe local people.Immediately stop all compulsary acquisition ofagricultural or forest land and the forced displacementofthe tribal people.Declare the details of all MOUs, industrial andinfrastructural proj ects proposed in these areas andfreeze all MOUs and leases for non-agricultural use ofsuch land, which the Home Minister has proposed.Rehabilitate and reinstate the tribals forciblydisplaced back to their land and forests.Stop all environmentally destructive industries aswellas those on land acquired without the consent of theGram Sabhas in these areas.Withdraw the paramilitary and police forces from

schools and health centres which must be effectuatedwith adequate teachers and infrastructure.Stop victimizing dissenters and those who questionthe actions ofthe State.

Replace the model of development which isexploitative, environmentally destructive, iniquitousand not suitable for the country by a completelydifferent model which is participatory, givesimportance to agriculture and the rural sector, andrespects equity and the environment.Itmust be ensured that all development, especiallyuse of land and natural resources, is with the consentand participation of the Tribal communities asguaranteed by the Constitution.Credible Citizen's Commissions must be constitutedtomonitor and ensure this.Constitute an Empowered Citizen's Commission toinvestigate and recommend action against personsresponsible for human rights violations of the tribalcommunities.This Commission must also be empowered to ensurethat tribals actually receive the benefit of whatevergovernment schemes exist for them.

www.toxicswatch.com

http://www.toxicswatch.com/http://www.toxicswatch.com/


14/36

G e n e t i c a l l y M o d if i e d S o y L i n k e d t o S t e r i l i t y , I n f a n t M o r t a li t y i n H a m s te r s*Jeffrey Smith

New Study Confirms Fears About Mammal Sterility from GMOsAfter feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especiallythe group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation,mo~t GM soy.-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, anda high mortality rate among the pups. If this isn't shocking enough .....April 20, 2010 "This study was just routine," saidRussian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could endup as the understatement of this century. Surov and hiscolleagues set out to discover if Monsanto'sgenetically modified (OM) soy, grown on 91% of USsoybean fields, leads to problems in growth orreproduction. What he discovered may uproot amulti -billion dollar industry.After feeding hamsters for two years over threegenerations, those on the OM diet, and especially thegroup on the maximum OM soy diet, showeddevastating results. By the third generation, most OMsoy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. Theyalso suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rateamong the pups.And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the thirdgeneration even had hair growing inside theirmouthsa phenomenon rarely seen, but apparentlymore prevalent among hamsters eating OM soy.The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute ofEcology and Evolution of the Russian Academy ofSciences and the National Association for GeneSecurity, is expected to be published in three months(July 2010)so the technical details will have to wait.But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in anemail.He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproductionrate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet,but one was without any soy, another had non-OMsoy, a third used OM soy, and a fourth containedhigher amounts of OM soy. They used 5 pairs ofhamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8litters, totally 140 animals.Surov told The Voice of Russia,"Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we

noticed quite a serious effect when we selected newpairs from their cubs and continued to feed them asbefore. These pairs' growth rate was slower andreached their sexual maturity slowly."He selected new pairs from each group, whichgenerated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups bornto the control group and 78 to the non-OM soy group.In the OM soy group, however, only 40 pups wereborn. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefoldhigher death rate than the 5% seen among thecontrols. Of the hamsters that ate high OM soycontent, only a single female hamster gave birth. Shehad 16pups; about 20% died.Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation]showed that many animals were sterile."The published paper will also include measurementsof organ size for the third generation animals,including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the teamcan raise sufficient funds, they will also analyzehormone levels in collected blood samplesHair Growing in the MouthEarlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper inDoklady Biological Sciences showing that in rareinstances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in themouths of hamsters."Some of these pouches contained single hairs;others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairsreaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth.Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with aregular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairsgrew vertically and had sharp ends, often coveredwith lumps ofamucous."(The photos of these hair bundles are truly disgusting.Trust me, or look for yourself.)



15/36

At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmisethat such an astounding defect may be due to the dietof hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, "Thispathology may be exacerbated by elements of thefood that are absent in natural food, such asgenetically modified (OM) ingredients (OM soybeanor maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides,mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.)." Indeed, the numberof hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher amongthe third generation of OM soy fed animals thananywhere Surov had seen before.Preliminary, but OminousSurov warns against jumping to early conclusions. Hesaid, "It is quite possible that the OMO does not causethese effects by itself." Surov wants to make theanalysis of the feed components a priority, to discoverjust what is causing the effect and how.In addition to the OMOs, it could be contaminants, hesaid, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup.There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup onthese beans; they're called "Roundup Ready."Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that theplants can tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.Therefore, OM soy always carries the double threat ofhigher herbicide content, couple with any side effectsof genetic engineering.Years ofReproductive Disorders from GMO-FeedSurov's hamsters are just the latest animals to sufferfrom reproductive disorders after consuming OMOs.In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the RussianNational Academy of Sciences, reported that morethan half the babies from mother rats fed OM soy diedwithin three weeks. This was also five times higherthan the 10% death rate of the non-OMO soy group.The babies in the OM group were also smaller (seephoto) and could not reproduce.In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feedingtrials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in thefacility a commercial rat chow using OM soy. Withintwo months, the infant mortality facility-widereached 55%.When Ermakova fed male rats OM soy, their testicleschanged from the normal pink to dark blue! Italianscientists similarly found changes in mice testes(PDF), including damaged young sperm cells.

Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent micefed OM soy functioned differently.An Austrian government study published inNovember 2008 showed that the more OM com wasfed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), andthe smaller the babies were.Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had troublewith pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigseven had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags ofwater. After months of investigations and testing, hefinally traced the problem to OM com feed. Everytime a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reportedJerry's problems, he would receive calls from morefarmers complaining of livestock sterility on theirfarm, linked to OM com.Researchers at Baylor College of Medicineaccidentally discovered that rats raised on corncobbedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductivebehavior." Tests on the com material revealed twocompounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females"at concentrations approximately two-hundredfoldlower than classical phytoestrogens." One compoundalso curtailed male sexual behavior and bothsubstances contributed to the growth of breast andprostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found thatthe amount of the substances varied with OM comvarieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor waslikely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm ofJerry Rosman and others complaining of sterilelivestock.In Haryana, India, a team of investigatingveterinarians report that buffalo consuming OMcottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequentabortions, premature deliveries, and prolapseduteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have alsodied mysteriously.Denial,Attack and Canceled Follow-upScientists who discover adverse findings from OMOsare regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, andeven fired. When Ermakova reported the high infantmortality among OM soy fed offspring, for example,she appealed to the scientific community to repeatand verify her preliminary results. She also soughtadditional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead,she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolenfrom her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she



16/36

said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, toldher to stop doing any more GM0 research. Noone hasyet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive studies.In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of hercolleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy willsolve the overpopulation problem!Surov reports that so far, he has not been under anypressure.Opting Out of the Massive GMO FeedingExperimentWithout detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactlywhat is causing the reproductive travesties in Russianhamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, andlivestock in India and America. And we can onlyspeculate about the relationship between theintroduction of genetically modified foods in 1996,

and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weightbabies, infertility, and other problems among the USpopulation. But many scientists, physicians, andconcerned citizens don't think that the public shouldremain the lab animals for the biotech industry'smassive uncontrolled experiment.Alexey Surov says, "We have no right to use GMOsuntil we understand the possible adverse effects, notonly to ourselves but to future generations aswell. Wedefinitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this.Any type of contamination has to be tested before weconsume it, andGMO isjust one ofthem."Sources -Http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-s mit h / g e net i c a IIy - mod i fi e d-soy_b_544575.htmI?utm_source=newsIetter&utm_medium=email&utm _campaign=readbIogl

GM crops cause liver and kidney damageA report published in the International Journal ofMicrobiology has verified once again that Monsanto'sgenetically modified (GM) crops are causing severehealth problems. A legal challenge issued againstMonsanto forced the multi-national agriculture giantto release raw data revealing that animals fed itspatented GM com suffered liver and kidney damagewithin just three months.Adding to the mounting evidence that GM crops aredangerous all around, this information provides adamning indictment against Monsanto whichcontinually insists that its GM products are safe. Notonly are GM crops proving disastrous for theenvironment, but study after study, including thoseconducted by Monsanto itself, is showing that GMfoods are detrimental to health.Monsanto's data indicated that the company hadconducted tests on three varieties of its GM com, twoof which contain the dangerous Bt protein, and onedesigned specifically to resist Monsanto's Roundupherbicide. All three are widely grown in the UnitedStates while only one is currently grown inEurope.Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, a French researcher from theUniversity of Caen, was tasked with examining thedata and providing a review. While stopping short ofdeclaring GM crops to be toxic, he did emphasize thatchronic negative effects were apparent and that therewere "statistically significant" indications of kidney

and liver damage.The specific effects observed in test rats included abuildup of hormones in the blood, indicating that theirliver and kidneys were not functioning properly. Onevariety of the com led to elevated blood sugar levelsand increased triglyceride levels in female rats givenit.Dr. Seralini concluded that, because GM crops areforeign substances that have never been a part of anormal diet, there is no telling what the long-termeffects of consumption will be on people. In animals,significant disruption of normal bodily function hasbeen observed even in the short term.Genetically manipulated food crops are not fit forhuman consumption and should not be classified asfood. No legitimate study has ever proven them to besafe or nutritious. The burden of proof is on theproducers of such crops to verify their safety and, todate, all data has revealed that they are unsafe.Claims that GM foods will end world hunger arebaseless, propagated only by those that have afinancial interest in converting the world's foodsupply to their own patented varieties in order tocontrol it.Sources - http://www.dailymail.co.uklnews/art. ..

http://www.dailymail.co.uklnews/art.http://www.dailymail.co.uklnews/art.


17/36

I , n t h e I : o v i r n g m e m o r y o f V e t e 'r a n F a rm e r L e a d e r D r . P lf ln ja b R a o D e s h m l lk ha g ' r , a n d p r o g r a m m e w a s o r g a n is e d by S h r ! S h iv a j '~ L o k V id y a p e e th

' i n T o w n I H a l ~ , A l mr a w a t i ( M H R ) o n 1 0 A p rU 2 0 1 0

lOr. Krishaln, Bir Chaudlhary"IPr"8sidlelnl't"Bharatiya KrishakSamaj"adrassinlg the farmers

Ma,y- 20~IO I K i i l S 8 1 1 1 Ki Awaaz


18/36

I n th e lo v in g m e m o r y o f V e l e r ' a n [ F a rm e r L e a d e r D r. P u n ja b IR a o D e s h m u k ha '9 r a n d p r o g l r , a , m ,me w a s , o r g a n i s e d b y S h ri S h iv a j ~ lo k V i d y a p e e t h

in T o w n H a l 'l , A m ra w a t i ( M [ H I R ) o n 1 0 A p r i i l 2 0 1 [ 0

16 I K i i l S 8 1 1 1 Ki Awaaz May - .2010


19/36

Nation,al Workshop on Orlganic Agric'ulltureQ,rganii,zed by I!!I Swadeshi Jagra,n Sanghlin H'i.ndi' Bh,avan, Bhlopal on 1'1Apri'l 1201: 0 ,I

O n d a is f r o m l e f t . . .M r~ M . K ~R a i , I A g 'r ic u I t u re i P r o d u e t i o n C 1 0 m m l s l o n e r

M ~ I R a ,g h a v J i I B h a i , F i in a n c e M li in is te r (M a d h ya . P r ,a d e sh )D l r l l I K r i s l h a . n B , ir C h a u d l h a r y , IP lre s id en t" B h a lra ti iy a K l r is h ,a k S a lm , a ji

, M r . R a le s h S h a rm a , C h i e f ' o l ' f S ' w a d e s h i J a g lr a n S a n g h

May - .2010 Klsan Ki Awaaz ] 7


20/36

Nation,al Workshop on Or'ganic Agric'ulltureQ,rganii,zedl by I!!I Swadeshi Jagra.n Sanghlin Hlrrdl Bh,avan, B,h1opal on 1'1Apri'l201 0 ,I I

M r . R a g h a v J li B h a i & D l r . K r is h a n B ir C h a u d h a lr yF e l ' ic i t a t in g to F o rm e r Im r c to r D r . G . S . K a u s h a l

Klsan KiAwaaz May - 2010


21/36

G e n e t i c a ll y m o d if i e d c r o p s a r e n o t t h e a n s w e r*Dr. Hans Herren and Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman

The Senate is considering a bill that would overhaulthe way Americans deliver foreign aid. With morepeople going hungry than ever before, the bill'sattention to global hunger could not come at a bettertime.The Global Food Security Act would streamline theaid process and focus on long-term agriculturaldevelopment. But something has gone awry inside thebill. A closer look reveals that its otherwisecommendable focus may be seriously undermined bya new clause lobbied for by one of America's largestseed and chemical companies.This bill includes a mandate that we spend foreign aiddollars developing genetically modified (GM) crops.No other kind of agricultural technology ismentioned. Unsurprisingly, Monsanto has lobbiedmore frequently on this bill than any other entity.The trouble with a mandate for GM crops is this: itwon't work. A recent report by the Union ofConcerned Scientists demonstrates that GM cropsdon't increase crop yields. USAID has already spentmillions of taxpayer dollars developing GM cropsover the past two decades, without a single successstory to show for it, and plenty of failures.A recent, highly touted partnership between USAIDand Monsanto to develop a virus-resistant sweetpotato in Kenya failed to deliver anything useful forfarmers.After 14 years and $6 million, local varieties vastlyoutperformed their genetically modified cousins infield trials. Another 10-year USAID project for GMeggplant in India recently met with such outcry fromscientists and Indian farmers alike that thegovernment put amoratorium on its release.Growing insect resistance to genetically modifiedcotton and com shows that the technology is alreadyfailing farmers and will continue to fail over the longterm. Sadly, today's GM obsession shows everyindication of duplicating the first ill-fated "GreenRevolution" that trapped millions of farmers on apesticide treadmill while devastating the functioningofthe ecosystems onwhich we depend.

Fortunately, we have alternatives. Improved farmingpractices, conventional breeding and agro-ecologicaltechniques deliver far better results, without the risksand high input costs that accompany GM seeds.A 2008 study by the United Nations Conference onTrade and Development found that "organicagriculture can be more conducive to food security inAfrica than most conventional production systems,and ... is more likely to be sustainable in the longterm."Even the chief agricultural scientist ofPunj ab a homeof the Green Revolution argues that Indian farmersshould farm organically.Meanwhile, the World Bank and UN agencies havecompleted the most comprehensive analysis of worldagriculture to date: the International Assessment ofAgricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology forDevelopment (IAASTD).This four-year study by more than 400 scientists anddevelopment experts from 80 countries and approvedby 58 governments found that reliance on resource-extractive industrial agriculture is risky andunsustainable, particularly in the face of worseningclimate, energy and water crises.It noted that expensive, quick fixes including GMcrops fail to address the complex challenges thatfarmers face, and often exacerbate already badconditions. Instead, the IAASTD highlighted theneed to build more resilience into our food systems byincreasing investments in agro-ecological sciences,small-scale biodiverse farming methods and farmer-led participatory breeding programs.The success of ecological agriculture rests not only inits immediate outcomes of better and more reliableperformance, but also in its ability to address theunderlying cause of hunger: poverty.Congress could learn from the thousands of Kenyanfarmers who have obtained bumper crops and higherhousehold income through the ecological pestmanagement system known as "push-pull."

May - 2010 19isan Ki Awaaz


22/36

By planting a variety of grasses in and around theircornfields, these farmers have suppressed insect pestand weed populations, reduced input costs, doubled ortripled their com harvest, increased forage forlivestock, supplied their families and local markets,paid off debts and set aside money to pay for school,medicines and other needs. No amount of gene-splicing (or lobbying or advertising) by Monsanto hasever accomplished this much for anAfrican family.Ultimately, tackling global hunger and povertyrequires more than a focus on productiontechnologies. The bigger, more fundamentalchallenge today is about restoring fairness anddemocratic control over our food systems.This requires strengthening local food economies,increasing small-scale farmers' control of seed andland, and importantly breaking up corporatemonopolies in agriculture and establishing fairerregional and global trade arrangements.

If Congress is serious about addressing world hunger,they should take their lead from the mostcomprehensive science and from farmers on theground not from Monsanto lobbyists.Herren is co-chairman of the InternationalAssessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scienceand Technology for Development (IAASTD) andpresident of the Millennium Institute andBioVision.Ishii-Eiteman is a lead author ofthe UN-sponsoredIAASTD Global Report. She is senior scientist anddirector ofthe Sustainable Food Systems Programat Pesticide Action Network.HUp: / /thehill. co m/ opinion/ op-ed/93 9 07-genetically-modified-crops-are-not-the-answer

F ollo w o rg anic farm ing and p ro ce ed ind ig eno us faste rBhopal, April 11, Madhya Pradesh Finance ministerRaghavji exhorted the farmers to adopt organic farmingand to promote 'Swadeshi'.He was addressing a national training workshop onorganic farming, organised by Bharatiya SwadeshiSangh at Hindi Bhavan.The minister said that the State government wouldcooperate in the implementation of organic farmingpolicy through Swadeshi Jaivik Sena.Renowned Farmers Leader and Expert on InternationalPolicies &Technologies Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary,in his key note address attacked the government, andsaid that the farmers cannot comprise on their rights onseeds because the seeds is the basic need of the farmersand we cannot surrender our food security ofthe countryto the MNCs.He alleged that in the name of second green revolutiongovernments in nexus with multinational companiesare cheating farmers and public of the country.Heappealed to the State government to ban GeneticallyModified Seeds immediately.He told in details on security of food items, danger ofGM Seeds, human health, environment, self-dependant.

He critised the SEZ policies & said that it's landgrabbing by the large corporates ofthe poor farmers.Agriculture production commissioner M K Raiemphasising on the inportance of the organic farmingsaid that it was our aim to prosper farmers throughorganic farming and make farming, a profitablebusiness.Former Agriculture Director Dr. GS Kaushal said thenow the time has come for regional seeds, fertilisers,gobar gas plants, and organic pesticides and to givetraining to youth of rural areas of the state with makingof gobar gas cylinder, Tiles, Colours, Hardboard, Soap,Oil and other daily useable items by which rural youthcan make small scale industries in their villages andmake villages self dependant.Dr. Shankar Patidar in his address has appealed to thefarmers topractise organic farming and save cows.At the function Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary felicitatedto Hiralal Dunge, Dharmendra Goswami, Rubi Sarkar,Inderjeet Singh Sengar andjoint director Mehra.Organisation chief Rajesh Sharma captain V P Singh,Manju Sharma and other were also present on theoccasion.

20 May - 2010isan KiAwaaz


23/36

S t i f l i n g t h e E c o n o m y , O n e A r g u m e n t a t a T im e*ROBERT E. LIGHTHIZER

FRUSTRATED with years of delay andstonewalling, 130 members of Congress urged theObama administration to punish China formanipulating the value of its currency to the detrimentofAmerican exports.But this issue does not stand alone; it is part of thelarger, murkier world of international trade policy,centered on the Doha round of World TradeOrganization negotiations.These talks, which began in 2001, long ago became aquagmire. It's time to admit the global economy haspassed them by and pull the plug on them.The trade talks, which never had more than modestsupport from American businesses, were intended notjust to lower barriers to trade, but particularly to"ensure that developing countries, and especially theleast-developed among them, secure a share in thegrowth of world trade commensurate with the needsoftheir economic development."Given that Western countries had enjoyed significanteconomic growth in the 1980s and 1990s, helpingpoorer states seemed like anoble goal.There was never much reason tobelieve that the Doharound would really help United States workers andbusinesses.American farmers in particular dislike the negotiators'focus on reducing or eliminating their governmentsubsidies given the limited gains they would see inreal foreign-market access.Global trade officials claimed that Doha could be usedto further open developing markets like China andIndia toAmerican manufacturers, but as the NationalAssociation of Manufacturers has pointed out foryears such countries have refused to put on the tableany significant market-opening offers.Finally, efforts to use the Doha round to improveexport opportunities for American service providershave also gone nowhere.

As trade ministers have chattered on for nearly adecade, the world has changed. The notion that weshould adjust global trading rules to help the rest ofthe world compete with the West has becomeoutdated.Since 2001, the West has suffered its worst economiccrisis since the Great Depression. In the United States,we have seen our financial services sector whichaccounted for 40 percent of American corporateprofits in 2007 implode.Since the start of these talks, we have run up acumulative trade deficit with China ofmore than $1.5trillion, and have lost some four millionmanufacturingj 0bs.Meanwhile, the World Bank projects that developingcountries will enjoy 5.2 percent growth in 2010 and5.8 percent growth in 2011 while "high income"countries will experience growth rates of only 1.8percent in20 10 and 2.3 percent in 2011.Under these circumstances, why would we continuewith the same tired agenda for trade negotiations? It islike trying to improve standard-definition TV in theworld ofhigh-def.Unfortunately, President Obama is reading from thesame nine-year-old talking points as the tradebureaucrats. On March 11, in comments echoing partof his State of the Union address, he re-committed hisadministration toworking "towards an ambitious andbalanced Doha agreement."That is amistake. The president should push for a newUnited States trade agenda suitable for a world inwhich the Western countries are losing ground while"developing" countries like China, Brazil and Indiaare surging.Any serious multilateral trade talks should addressfour main topics:THE UNITED STATES-CHINA TRADEBALANCEOur trade deficit with China grew from $103 billion in



24/36

2002 (the first full year after China joined the W.T.O.)to $268 billion in 2008 an increase of 160 percent inonly seven years.Although the recession has forced Americanconsumers to reduce their purchases of Chineseimports, our 2009 trade deficit with China was stillalmost $227 billion.This imbalance has become a symbol of Americandecline and poisoned many Americans' view of freetrade.By some estimates, China's aggressive exports andreluctance on imports could lower global worldproduction by 1.4 percent and cost Americans 1.4millionjobs.CURRENCY MANIPULATIONChina has stockpiled some $2.4 trillion in foreigncurrency reserves in its determination to keep theyuan from rising as market forces would normallyrequire and maintain its trade advantage.No wonder almost a third of the House demanded lastweek that the Obama administration take some action.Many experts believe that the artificially low interestrates caused by Chinese currency manipulationcontributed directly to the real estate bubbles in theWest that exploded with such disastrous results.UNFAIR TAX RULESThe United States relies primarily on income taxes topay for government services, while most of ourtrading partners depend on value-added taxes onpurchases.Under current W.T.O. rules, countries with value-added taxes are allowed to give tax rebates to theircompanies on exported goods, and to impose thosetaxes on imports.Companies in nations with income taxes, however,are not allowed similar treatment. Thus an Americanproduct shipped to France is effectively taxed twice,while a French product can be sent here effectivelytax-free.The consequences are serious: a 2004 analysisconcluded that this practice cost American exporters

more than $100 billion per year.REGULATORY DISPARITIESForeign companies often benefit from relatively weaklabor and environmental rules that enable them tooperate with significantly lower costs than theirUnited States competitors.This leaves American manufacturers with threeoptions: lose market share, cut profit margins ormoveabroad.Indeed, one of the main concerns about proposedclimate change legislation is that such laws wouldresult in significant carbon "leakage," as carbon-emitting manufacturers flee to countries with lowerstandards.If we want an efficient global market, we should bemore serious about making sure companies in allnations play by the same rules.Ending the Doha round will not be easy. Many tradebureaucrats, both here and abroad, will cling to themantra that doing sowould hurt free trade.But Americans would be receptive to an argumentfocused on their concerns: in a 2008 Rasmussen poll,73 percent of respondents said that a free-tradeagreement had had a negative effect on their families,while only 14 percent said they had benefited fromsuch an agreement.And while other countries would undoubtedly resistchanging a global trading system that puts Americansat a severe disadvantage, we have enormous leverage,in the form of the world's largest market. We shoulduse that leverage.Finally, what do we have to lose? The Doha talks arenever going to significantly help Americans anyway.One benefit of the recession and the pause in the Dohatalks is that President Obama has a rare opportunity tore-focus our trade agenda. He should take it.

Robert E. Lighthizer, a lawyer, was a deputy traderepresentative in the Reagan administration.

22 May - 2010isan KiAwaaz


25/36

Why Go Organic -Here are the ten top reasons to GO ORGANICEFFECTS ON OUR TOPSOILThe soil of our earth is the foundation of the wholehuman and environmental food chain and thus oursurvival. The typical organic farm is teaming with lifefrom butterflies, to frogs, to bees, to you name it.Conventional farms have polluted and depleted andthus "dead" soils.They have been rendered sterile, using herbicides andpesticides to kill other life forms. Also through thevast degradation of .....,."'.."....._..,.our soil, we are losingcropland topsoilseven times fasterthan it is beingreplaced naturally.This ties in to thephilosophy of raw-wisdom that theconventional visionof nature is death-centered mechanicalrather than life-centered.EFFECTS ON OURWATERSNearly 700 hundred toxic chemicals pollute ourgroundwater, many of them coming from agricuturalpesticides and herbicides. These chemicals causecancer and other debilitating illnesses and are notremoved by conventional means. Virtually all thedrinking water in the US is polluted and 2/3rds of ourown bodies are made up ofwater.IMPACT ON ENERGY USEConventional farming methods use far more gas andpetroleum, both to create chemical fertilizers and totill, cultivate and harvest crops. Organic farms aremore labor-intensive. Government subsidizedconventional farms use 12% of the US total energyconsumption.

Ten Top ReasonsUltimately we pay the far, far higher price either intaxes and/or the horrid devastation that yields globalwarmmg.IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF NUTRITIONUS agriculture uses more than 800 different toxicpesticides. Over 3,000 chemicals overall are mixedinto our foods directly, and nearly 10,000 are used inthe production and storing of foods. Most of thesechemicals are harmful to our health.They may engender cancer, birth defects,neurologicalillnesses, dementia

and other seriousdysfunctions.According to theEPA, 60% ofherbicides, 90% offungicides and 30%of pesticides arestrongly. .carcmogemc.The NationalAcademy of Sciencesestimate as far back as1987 that pesticidescould cause over amillion cancer casesin the US alone overour lifetimes.

On the positive side, organic produce has repeatedlybeen proven to have higher levels of essentialnutrients, being grow in more living, mineral-rich,composted soils.EFFECT ON FARM WORKERSStudies have shown a link between pesticide use andParkinson's disease, leukemia and cancers amongfarm workers. An NCI study found that farm workersemployed on conventional farms had 6x higher risk ofgetting cancer.A California study showed that farm workers in the



26/36

field had the highest occupational illnesses rates of allCalifornia workers.IMPACT ON SMALL FARMER SURVIVALMost organic farms are family-owned with less than a100 acres. There has been a vast decimation of familyfarms for the past few decades. At the tum of the 20thcentury, farming was the primary livelihood in theUS.Now it represents less than 1%. Organic farmingremains among the last refuges for surviving familyfarms amid competition from large industrial farmsthat try to "cut-throat monopolize" the market. Over amillion family farms have been lost over the lastcouple decades.REAL ECONOMIC COSTSARE LESSAmid the illusions of the marketplace created bypolitical forces, again many fail to see that organicfoods are actually cheaper overall. First conventionalfarming is hugely subsidized and has hidden coststhat are borne by all taxpayers. If you add the healthand environmental costs, organic produce is reallyand truly the least expensive.We must remember that in the US medical costs haverisen from 5% to 16% of the GNP in the last 20 years.Then there is hazardous waste removal costs and thatof toxic substance testing and regulation, soil erosion,loss of fertility, wildlife decimation, and so on and soforth ad infinitum. You get the picture.PROMOTES BIODIVERSITYOrganic farms tend to preserve heirloom varietieswhile large conventional farms do not and engage insterile, mechanistic monocropping. The latterrequires increasingly more lethal pesticide use as pestbecome resistant over time and crops become subjectto wholesale blights. Itwas monocropping, followedby a blight, that caused the famous Irish potatofamine.PROTECTS OUR CHILDREN'S FUTURE

This often leads tomuch more cancer latter in life. Thedamage can be passed on genetically to affect allsubsequent generations in a harmful way. This is whywe need to detox or help our bodies get rid oflifetimetoxic loads.If all-organic food buying seems expensive at first,consider skipping a meal to help your body detox. Orfast for a day. Or shop at a direct farmers market, plantyour own organic home garden, work a few hours foryour local food coop and/or farm in exchange, and soon. Be creative. Where there is a will there is always away!MOVES AWAY FROM AN UNWISE VISION OFNATUREAll living forms have awareness because life'sfoundation resides in a presence of consciousness.From tiny nano-bacteria to huge dinasours, livingorganisms have awareness. This awareness forms, inmy experience, the universal relationshipof connection in all of nature, and ultimately thefoundation of oneness that interconnects all livingcreatures.The mechanical worldview of the 17th centurydisrupts and destroys this weave. This is because itsview isbased on universallyseparative symbols (mathsymbols used to create the mechanical vision).The mechanical view is thus based on oppositeprinciples to those of life in nature. This is the rootreason why when the mechanical vision is deeply (notsurface) applied, this unravels the connective weaveof ecospheres.Actually the deeper applications threaten thesustainability oflife on earth. This is further why toxicpesticides and herbicides are being banned in severalnations. Otherwise we follow a death-deliveringapproach to farming with carcinogenic impacts onour body and vast disruptions of surrounding nature.SO WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR GOORGANICForthese ten reasons and more, let us very wiselyChildren ingest up to 4X the level of toxic residuescompared to that of their parents. Tests have shown GO ORGANIC TO THRIVE.that exposure in early life, as early as in the womb ,reveals residues in the placenta fluids.

Source- www.healingtalks.com24 May - 2010isan KiAwaaz
http://www.healingtalks.com/http://www.healingtalks.com/


27/36

First day of IRRI's board meetingA sian farmers shout 5 0 years is enough, protest at Los BanosApril 12, 2010 - About a thousand Asian and Filipinofarmers, agriculturists, scientists, students and advocatesprotested at the gates of the International Rice ResearchInstitute (IRRI) in Los Banos, Laguna to call for itspermanent closure coinciding with its 50th year ofexistence.The protest is in line with culmination of the Year of RiceAction (YORA) 2009 2010 international campaign,composed of countries such as Philippines, Malaysia,India, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Nepal, Laos PDR, Cambodia,Thailand, Bangladesh and Pakistan vowed anew to protectbio-diversed traditional and indigenous varieties of riceagainst the genetically-engineered promoted by theInternational Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and agro-chemical TNCs such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, DowAgroSciences andBASF.YORA is campaigned by Kilusang Magbubukid ngPilipinas (KMP, Peasant Movement of the Philippines),Pesticide Action Network Asia-Pacific (PAN-AP),Resistance and Solidarity against Agro-chem TNCs(RESIST) and MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnershipfor Development) of the Philippines, Asian PeasantCoalition (APC) , Alliansi Gerakan Reforma Agraria(AGRA) in Indonesia, All Nepal Peasants Federation(ANPFa), Tamil Nadu Women's Forum in India, Vikalpaniin Sri Lanka, and more than ten organizations inAsia.The protest action was also joined by hundreds offarmersfrom KASAMA-TK (KMP Southern Tagalog) and fromMASIPAG."We would like to call the attention of IRRI's Board ofTrustees (BOT), particularly Dr. Robert S. Zeigler, IRRI'sDirector-General from the United States and Dept. ofAgriculture Sec. Bernie Fondevilla and convey ourmessage that its about time for IRRI to evaluate itsexistence. IRRI's BOT should listen to the farmers that itsresearch did not benefit rice consumers and farmersworldwide.In fact, it will celebrate its 50th anniversary in the midst ofa global food crisis where at least 2.9 million people (andcounting) have already died of hunger as of today.," saidDanilo Ramos, KMP Secretary-General and also theSecretary-General of the Asian Peasant Coalition (APC).The Board of Trustees ofIRRI is composed of Zeigler, P.Stephen Baenziger of the United States, Ralph AnthonyFischer of Australia, Mutsuo Iwamoto of Japan, Joyce

Kikafunda of Uganda, Seong-Hee Lee of Korea, JillianLenne of United Kingdom, Mangala Rai and UshaBarwale Zehr of India, Emerlinda Roman, president ofUniversity of the Philippines system, Achmad Suryana ofIndonesia, Mohammed Syeduzzaman of Banglades,Elizabeth Woods ofAustralia and Zhai Huqu of China."IRRI had enough existence and opportunities ofexploiting farmers globally. It should be abolishedimmediately if we want to save bio-diversity of ricevarieties and preserve the lives and health of farmers whohave been exposed to deadly agro-chemicals it promotes,alongwith giant agro-chem TNCs," he said."Entrusted with the world's rice germplasm, IRRI iscurrently revising its Intellectual Property Right (IPR)policy to enable some give and take with its new clientelethe corporates.Two questions arise immediately: how are these changesgoing to sit with IRRI's public mandate? And what impactwould this have on small farmers?," said Shalini Bhutaniof Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN)."Its rice collection and the material it develops from it isIRRI's biggest asset. At the heart of the redesign of its IPRpolicy is the question of how IRRI can raise financialresources from these materials? The business reality isthat farmers' material is industry's raw material, andfarmers themselves isthe seed industry's target market.So it makes sense for IRRI, in need of funding, and theprivate sector, wanting seeds to commercialise, and eagerto take a greater piece of the potentially enormous riceseed market, to tum the situation around for their ownbenefit," added Bhutani."All IRRI invented were the chain and shackles put tofarmers, forcing them to use expensive and fatal agro-chemicals so that agro-chem TNCs could rake up super-profits as people starve," addedMarbella."IRRI should be held liable for the significant extinctionof traditional rice varities across the world. Whileenvironmentalist are staking their lives to protect theenvironment and bio-diversity, IRRI, with all its multi-billion dollar funds, power and influence are consciouslywiping-out natural genus of rice native to differentcountries.This is a ferocious crime against mother earth and against



28/36

the future ofmankind," said Erpan Faryadi, Vice-chair forInternal Affairs ofAPC andAGRAsecretary general fromIndonesia

MAY 2010 National Magazine of Farmers Voice

Documents

Transcript of MAY 2010 National Magazine of Farmers Voice