CCSR

Killer technologies will not increase our food production

2011-01-19T12:09:00.000+05:30

Posted: 18 Jan 2011 06:31 PM PST

Genetically modified (GM) crops are once again in the eye of a storm. With the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPM] taking a complete U-turn in its stated policy approach and now publicly supporting GM crops, the debate is heating up. National president of the All India Kisan Sabha, the farmers’ wing of the CPM, SR Pillai, has recently called those who oppose GM crops as being ‘superstitious’.

At the recently concluded 98th Indian Science Congress, industry lobbyists had made a strong pitch for GM crops. Ironically, while the Indian Science Congress has always refrained from discussing farmer suicides, it offered a platform to the biotech industry for promoting a risky and unstable technology.

This, however, doesn’t come as a surprise. In Europe, as the BBC reports, the GM controversy is back on the political radar. Politically incorrect efforts have been on for quite some time to re-energise the debate. Wikileaks tells us how the US embassy in Paris had, in 2007, urged Washington to start a military-style trade war against EU for opposing GM crops.

A year later, in 2008, the US and Spain had plotted to raise food prices in Europe to justify the need for introducing GM foods. With Europe still not accepting GM crops, India remains the prime target. Wikileaks informs that even India’s National Security Advisor, Shiv Shankar Menon, talked about the possibility of opening up to GM crops.

After Union environment minister Jairam Ramesh had imposed a moratorium on the commercialisation of Bt brinjal in early 2010, diplomatic and political pressure from the US has been increasing relentlessly. The multinational seed industry moved fast, first by taking a large number of journalists on an ‘educational’ trip to the US, and also within India, thereby shifting some of the media’s opinion in favour of GM crops.

At the same time, American multinational giants began the exercise to sway political opinion in favour of GM crops. The turnaround by CPM seems to be an outcome of one such approach. Nevertheless, it is important to explain some of the hotly debated aspects, which is lost in the hype being generated to push GM crops.

The first and foremost argument is that GM crops are important for a country that has more than 1 billion people to feed. It will ensure food security. The fact is there is no GM crop in the world that increases productivity. In fact, most of the GM crops under cultivation actually reduce productivity. The US Department of Agriculture admits that the productivity of GM corn and GM soya is less than that of normal varieties, and that makes me wonder how our politicians are suggesting GM crops for ensuring food security.

Furthermore, there is no shortage of food in the world. We have 6.5 billion people on Earth, and we produce food for 11.5 billion people. If more than 1 billion people go to bed hungry globally, it is because of the faulty distribution process rather than the unavailability of food. The same holds true for India, where one-third of the population cannot afford to buy food, but huge quantities of food is allowed to rot.

Almost all the GM crops that have been developed so far are for killing insects. Bt cotton, for instance, is supposed to kill sucking pests like pink bollworm, thereby reducing pesticides consumption. This, however, does not hold true for long. In China, cotton farmers growing Bt cotton are now reported to be spraying 10% more pesticides and thereby incurring losses.

In India too, as far as pesticides consumption on Bt cotton is concerned, its cultivation has, in reality, increased the application of pesticides. The Central Cotton Research Institute estimates that in 2006, pesticides worth Rs640 crore were sprayed on cotton. In 2008, it had increased to over Rs800 crore. Even in the US, where GM crops are widely cultivated, the usage of herbicides has increased by $300 million.

GM crops also create super weeds, which cannot be controlled by any chemicals so far. In the US, almost 15 million acres have become infested with super weeds. Georgia, for instance, has been turned into a wasteland due to infestation of super weeds. So far, at least 30 super weeds have been indentified in North America.

Numerous experiments all over the world have shown that GM crops pose tremendous health risks. Even Monsanto’s own studies on rats in Europe have demonstrated that the animals have problems with their body organs, and use of GM crops can also result in serious diseases and allergies. Some studies in Austria have shown that GM crops also lead to infertility.

Interestingly, all the scientists who dared to question the human safety aspect were hounded out of their jobs.

Already farmers are committing suicide because of the faulty technologies imposed on them. How many more farmers do we want killed before we stop using such killer technologies?

Source: Daily News & Views, Mumbai/Bangalore/Ahmedabad/

Pune/Jaipur

'US was advised to start trade war over GM crops'

2011-01-04T11:15:00.001+05:30

TNN, Jan 4, 2011, 06.25am IST

NEW DELHI: The US government was advised by its officials to start a military-style trade war against European countries that oppose GM crop cultivation, a new Wikileak release by the UK-based newspaper Guardian has shown. The US embassy in Paris in 2007, when France moved to ban GM corn by Monsanto, recommended that the US "calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits (those that oppose GM crops)." The leaked cables between US officials lay bare how the government was not averse to using it diplomatic and trade might to support companies like Monsanto spreading their business in other countries, going even to the extent of trying to use the Vatican to back its position. A cable mentioned: "Opportunities exist to press the issue with the Vatican, and in turn to influence a wide segment of the population in Europe and the developing world." The Guardian noted: "In other newly released cables, US diplomats around the world are found to have pushed GM crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative." The leaks are bound to ignite a debate in India again on GM crops. India had put a temporary moratorium on the cultivation of Monsanto's Bt Brinjal with activists claiming that the Indo-US agriculture knowledge mission was tied into interests pushing GM crops in India. Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh had put the 'precautionary principle' up front while banning the cultivation of Bt Brinjal temporarily. Read more: 'US was advised to start trade war over GM crops' - The Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-was-advised-to-start-trade-war-over-GM-crops/articleshow/7214048.cms#ixzz1A2dFTnSP

An Open Letter to the Governments

2010-12-03T10:59:00.000+05:30

Meeting at the 16th COP of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Cancun

People and communities throughout the global South need hundreds of billions of dollars each year to deal with the impacts of climate change, build resiliency and adopt alternative development pathways. The cost of compensation for past, present, and future damages due to climate change will only grow if, in addition, the necessary measures, are not taken in the industrialized countries to make a just transition to equitable, non-fossil fuel based economies.

We call on the governments of the world to comply with their obligations to ensure that new and additional public resources for climate finance are made available now in a way that is founded on the principle of historical responsibility, does not add to debt burdens, and is free from policy conditionalities.

We urge you to set up a Global Climate Fund under the authority of the UNFCCC that has an equitable governance structure, prioritizes the participation of affected communities, operates with full transparency, democracy, participation and accountability, and provides direct access to funding.

The World Bank and other multilateral development banks must not be given a role in establishing or governing the new Global Climate Fund nor in managing climate finance. Their nature, structure, track record, and policies, stand in contradiction to what should be the principles of fair and effective climate finance, and the structure and operations of a new fund.

· The World Bank is a lending institution that has long been imposing policy conditions and programs on South countries and peoples through its loans. Giving a role to the World Bank in climate finance will result in a significant part of climate finance flowing as loans, and will very likely come with conditionalities,

· The World Bank’s governance structures are undemocratic, with representation dominated by governments of rich, industrialized countries The Global Climate Fund should have a majority representation of South countries in its governance structure since they are the world’s majority and most affected by climate change. The needs and rights of communities impacted by climate change, and the transition to equitable and sustainable economies based on sovereign, democratic control and governance of natural resources must be at the center of decision-making on climate finance.
· The World Bank has a long track record of undermining human rights and ecological integrity. For example, in 2010 alone, the World Bank financed a record high $6.3 billion to fossil fuel projects, a 138% increase over the previous year. An institution that actively promotes the causes of global warming should not be given a role in global climate finance. Rather, it must be pressed to end such policies and practices, including the many false solutions that the Bank is now promoting.

· The World Bank actively privileges the private sector and private capital markets over public interests. Climate finance must be used to support the public good, not to promote private profit and the commodification of nature. It must come in the form of public resources, not rely on market-based programs for its generation and application. Innovative tools for raising public resources are already in our reach including redirecting fossil fuel subsidies and military spending, and taxing financial speculation.

We call on you, the governments of the world, to keep the World Bank and other multilateral development banks out of the new Global Climate Fund and out of climate finance.

Seed accountability

2010-11-13T13:59:00.002+05:30

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/112277/seed-accountability.html

By Devinder Sharma

There is no effort by the govt to provide exemplary punishment to the erring seed companies and also compensate the farmers. For past several weeks, thousands of farmers in Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Rajasthan, Bihar and Jharkhand have been left in the lurch. They had planted urd and til crops in a large acreage, and to their dismay no grain formation took place in the standing crop.Unable to bear the economic loss, at least four farmers have reportedly committed suicide. Thousands of farmers have been pushed deeper into economic distress.

This is not the first time that the so called ‘improved seed’ has failed the farmers. And yet, there is no effort by the government to provide exemplary punishment to the seed companies and at the same time adequately compensate the farmers.The controversial Seed Bill 2010 that has been placed in parliament in the ongoing session fails to address the long standing demand of farmers. Originally drafted in 2004, the new seed bill appears to have been written by the seed industry, for the seed industry.

The proposed amendments once again favour private seed companies and corporations at the expense of farmers.As the seed industry grows, sale of spurious and sub-standard seeds has also grown. Particularly the sale of hybrid seeds has become a lucrative business with a large number of fly-by-night operators. In the absence of tighter controls, it is the farmers who bear the brunt and continue to suffer silently.The Seed Bill 2010 proposes a maximum fine of Rs 1 lakh for not keeping proper record of purity and germination of seeds as per the laid-out standards. And in case of spurious seeds, the bill proposes a jail term extending to one year and a maximum fine of Rs 5 lakh. Crop losses suffered by farmers will be evaluated by a local expert committee which will work out the compensation to be paid to farmers.This is simply unfair. When seed fails to germinate or develop grains, it is the farmers’ livelihood that is destroyed. It is therefore a question of life and death for a farmer. The resulting loss cannot be measured simply in terms of the seed price that the farmer had incurred. Compensation must include the livelihood loss, and should include a minimum liability amount.What is therefore required is a Seed Liability Bill. Drawn on the lines of the Nuclear Liability Bill, the proposed Seed Liability Bill must provide for a minimum economic liability that the seed companies must undertake in event of a crop failure.

The proposed Seed Liability Bill should have the following components:a) The seed liability bill must provide for mandatory price controls. At present, companies are charging prices at will and that too without any rationale. Tomato seed price for instance varies between Rs 475 to Rs 76,000 per kg, and Capsicum seed price between Rs 3,670 to Rs 65,200 a kg. More recently, seed companies have taken the Andhra Pradesh government to the high court challenging its decision to regulate prices and royalty. Therefore, the seed bill must include power to decide on price and price controls (including royalties).b) Since the penalties/punishments have been mild, the government has failed to check the menace of fake, spurious and sub-standard seeds. Companies selling spurious and sub-standard seed should be black-listed. The penalty should include an imprisonment for a maximum period of 10 years and a minimum fine of Rs 10 lakh. The penalty should also be commensurate with the turnover of the seed company. In addition, in cases of complete crop loss, the seed company should be directed to pay an amount equal to expected crop output, plus a 50 per cent assured return as livelihood security.c) Provision for re-registration increases the monopoly of the seed company for at least 20 years. This is unacceptable for the simple reason that it brings in monopoly control over seed through the back door.d) While seeds may be registered with the National Register of Seeds, it is imperative that state governments must be given the authority to decide on which of these registered seeds can be licensed to be used in their state.e) The Seed (Control) Order, 1983, had allowed the unbridled import under open-general license of planting material and seeds of flowers, vegetables and horticultural crops. This order was exploited by unscrupulous seed trade and business to import plant materials without undergoing any rigorous quality checks. The seed imports have come with a heavy load of pests and diseases posing serious damages to crop cultivation and to the country’s food security. Many hitherto unknown pests have also entered the country.f) All imports of seeds therefore must undergo mandatory seed testing procedures, including multi-location trials, to ensure its adaptability to the Indian conditions. No self-testing or certificates from foreign seed certification agencies should hold true for Indian conditions. g) Seed imports should only be allowed after pest risk analysis and local adaptability have been assessed. There is a need for a liability clause to be introduced that makes seed exporter responsible for any pest outbreak and also for the clean-up operations. This assumes importance in the wake of the Bhopal gas tragedy where the chemical companies have simply evaded any liability for the toxic clean-up.

Global Week of Action against Debt and the IFIs

2010-10-07T17:36:00.000+05:30

October 7-17, 2010
Break the Chains - Transform the System

We’ve been told that the global economy is on the road to recovery. The Wall Street casino that triggered the global financial and economic crisis is back up and running; the largest banks are back to paying out enormous bonuses to their CEOs and investors; the International Financial Institutions (IFIs) have a new lease on life with massive increases in their operating capital and political role.
People and the planet should not pay the costs of the crises!
For the hundreds of millions of people around the world who were pushed even further into poverty and marginalization due to the crisis, and for the planet Earth itself, however, this “recovery” is meaningless. Together with the food, climate, and fuel crises, the economic crisis led to massive job and wage losses, cut-backs in the provision of basic human rights to healthcare, education, housing, water, electricity, and social security, violent evictions from land and territories, increased concentration of corporate control and exploitation of natural resources, and a rise in racist, gender, religious, and sexual discrimination, among other impacts. The costs of this truly systemic crisis continue to rise, including also skyrocketing social crisis and heightened militarization, war, and criminalization of protest, even while the financial sector is again reaping record profits.
Debt levels around the globe have also increased dangerously, as a result of policies designed to subsidize the wealthy and favor the free flow of capital in a market that was supposed to be self-correcting. The debt domination that countries in the global South have suffered for decades is beginning to affect countries in the North more directly, and the types of painful “austerity measures” that devastated populations throughout the South are more widely being applied in the North. Still, it is people and the planet in the South, and those most vulnerable in the North, that stand to bear the brunt of a renewed debt crisis.
The peoples of the South do not owe; they are the creditors!
The debt that is accumulating is not just financial however. By and large, the response to the crises has been a continuation of failed policies of the past, increasing the ecological, climate, social, and economic debts owed to working people and the marginalized. The alarming failure of governments in the North to make concrete commitments to settle their climate debt to the South, through deep domestic emissions cuts and compensatory finance and technology, threatens our collective future. Similarly, limited, lender-driven and conditioned debt relief has ignored the need to respect the self-determination and sovereignty of all peoples and to address demands to end the impunity of the casino economy and make reparations for the damage done through illegitimate indebtedness.
Other wrong-headed responses to the crises include: lending for crisis needs, fossil fuels, agrofuels, mega infrastructure and energy projects or so-called clean development mechanisms; promoting the carbon market and the notion of a “green” capitalism; and the central role given to highly questioned institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, regional development banks, the Financial Stability Forum, or the World Trade Organization.
People and the planet demand debt cancellation and reparations, NOW!
Enough is enough! What people and the planet are demanding is to break the chains of debt domination and the subjugation of all life to the dictates of the market in an economic system based on accumulation and overconsumption by the few, rather than justice and solidarity among the many. We, the peoples, must unite locally and globally to build alternatives of equity and equilibrium for all, without debts or domination.
Instead of more illegitimate debt and new institutions like the G20 - the self-proclaimed “premier forum for international economic cooperation”-, that exclude the majority of countries, it is time to transform a system whose failure has become increasingly evident. Rather than profiting from the crises on the backs of the same peoples, countries, and planet that for too long now have been paying the costs of their enrichment, the governments, corporations, and institutions of the North, together with elites in the South, must provide reparations for the debts they have incurred and their responsibility for these multiple crises and the disproportionate use of the planet’s resources.
Stop Illegitimate Lending – Transform the System!
We call on movements and organizations all over the world to join forces in this fight and to unite in the GLOBAL WEEK OF ACTION AGAINST DEBT AND IFIs, October 7-17. Together let us carry out actions wherever we are, in support of the following demands and ongoing struggles:
· No more debt in response to the crises provoked by the lenders
· Unconditional cancellation and repudiation of all illegitimate financial debts
· Restitution and reparations for ecological, climate, economic, social and historical debts owed by the governments and corporations of the North to the peoples of the South
· Respect for the sovereign right of countries to repudiate or stop servicing debt claims in order to meet their human and nature rights obligations
· Solutions to the economic, climate, energy, and food crises that are equitable, participatory, and transformational
· World Bank and regional development banks out of Climate Finance
· An end to the nefarious practices of vulture funds, which profiteer at the expense of impoverished countries and debt cancellation.
· No more irresponsible lending to finance destructive projects or to prop up illegitimate governments.
· Creation of new financial institutions and global and regional financial architecture that put people and the planet before profits and corporate power
· An end to the militarization and criminalization of social protest

KISAN SWARAJ YATRA

2010-10-02T22:43:00.001+05:30

KISAN YATRA flag off TODAY from Sabarmati

to JOIN - SEE the ROUTE with CONTACTs below

COME, JOIN THE YATRA!

JAI KISAN! “KISAN SWARAJ YATRA”

Date	Event at:	Night Stay at
GUJARAT: CONTACT KAPIL SHAH: 094-270-54132 or jatantrust@gmail.com
October 2, Sat	Sabarmati, Ahmedabad	Villages in Sabarkantha & Saurashtra (2 teams)
October 3, Sun	Saurashtra/Sabarkantha	Saurashtra/Sabarkantha
October 4, Mon	Bharuch	Bharuch
October 5, Tue	Dahod	Raipuria (In Jhabua)
October 6, Wed	(Banswara in Rajasthan - field visit to farmers)	Raipuria in Jhabua
MADHYA PRADESH: CONTACT NILESH DESAI: 094-253-29222 or ndesai52@gmail.com; JAYANT VERMA: 094-251-51871 or vermaj51@gmail.com
October 7, Thu	Petlawad	Raipuria
October 8, Fri	Badnagar	Raipuria
October 9, Sat	Indore	Bhopal
October 10, Sun	Bhopal	Jabalpur
October 11, Mon	Jabalpur	Jabalpur
October 12, Tue	Seoni	Nagpur
MAHARASHTRA: CONTACT AARTI PANKHARAJ: 094-224-60587 or aarti_pan23ngp@yahoo.co.in
October 13, Wed	Nagpur and Sewagram	Sewagram
October 14, Thu	Akola	Jalna
October 15, Fri	Jalna	Ralegaon Siddhi
October 16, Sat	Ralegaon Siddhi	Mumbai
October 17, Sun	Mumbai	Mumbai
October 18, Mon	TRAVEL TO GOA	Goa
GOA: CONTACT MIGUEL BRAGANZA: +91-832-2255913 or myofai@gmail.com
October 19, Tue	Goa	Goa
October 20, Wed	Goa	Dharwad
KARNATAKA: CONTACT KRISHNA PRASAD: 098-808-62058 or sahajasamrudha@gmail.com and KODIHALLI CHANDRASEKHAR: 098-442-93908 or kodihallikrrs@gmail.com
October 21, Thu	Dharwad	Haveri
October 22, Fri	Haveri, Ranebennur and Davanagere	Davanegere
October 23, Sat	Chitradurga, Shira, Tumkur	Bangalore
October 24, Sun	Bangalore	Bangalore
TAMIL NADU: CONTACT SELVAM RAMASWAMY: 094-436-63562 or organicerode@gmail.com and KANNAIYAN: 094-449-89543 or sukannaiyan69@gmail.com and VICTOR: 094-860-86938
October 25, Mon	Chennai, by afternoon	Ashram on ECR Road
October 26, Tue	Tiruvannamalai & Pondy	Pondicherry
October 27, Wed	Kumbakonam & Trichy	Trichy
October 28, Thu	Salem	Salem
October 29, Fri	Erode and Coimbatore	Coimbatore
KERALA: CONTACT SRIDHAR: 099-953-58205 or mail.thanal@gmail.com
October 30, Sat	Palakkad	Calicut
October 31, Sun	Calicut	Mananthavady
Nov. 1, Mon	Mananthavady	Mysore
Nov. 2, Tue	Mysore	Stay in Hosur??
Nov. 3^,4, 5 (Wed, Thu, Fri)	TRAVEL TO CHITTOOR….	Chittoor
ANDHRA PRADESH: CONTACT RAMOO: 090-006-99702 or ramoo@csa-india.org and KIRAN VISSA: 097-017-05743 or kiranvissa@gmail.com
Nov. 6, Sat	Chittoor	Kadiri?
Nov. 7, Sun	Anantapur	Hyderabad
Nov. 8, Mon	Hyderabad	Vijayawada (night driving)
Nov. 9, Tue	Vijayawada/Hanuman Junction	Visakhapatnam (night driving)
Nov. 10, Wed	Visakhapatnam	Koraput
ORISSA: CONTACT DEBJEET SARANGI: 099-385-82616 OR livingfarms@gmail.com and SAROJ MOHANTY: 097-771-54149 and S CHANDRASEKHAR: 09437973831 schandrashekar@siddharthvillage.org or BINAYAK SWAIN: 098-611-12338 or batnet97@hotmail.com
Nov. 11, Thu	Koraput	Koraput
CHATTISGARH: CONTACT JACOB NELLITHANAM: 094-255-60950 OR farmersrights@gmail.com
Nov. 12, Fri	Jagdalpur	Raipur
Nov. 13, Sat	Raipur	Bilaspur
Nov. 14, Sun	Bilaspur	Sambalpur
ORISSA: CONTACT DEBJEET SARANGI: 099-385-82616 OR livingfarms@gmail.com and SAROJ MOHANTY: 097-771-54149 and S CHANDRASEKHAR: 09437973831 schandrashekar@siddharthvillage.org or BINAYAK SWAIN: 098-611-12338 or batnet97@hotmail.com
Nov. 15, Mon	Sambalpur	Bhubaneswar
Nov. 16, Tue	Bhubaneswar	Baripada
Nov. 17, Wed	Baripada	Kaanthi (Medinipur, WB)
WEST BENGAL: CONTACT ANSHUMAN DAS: 094-330-79847 or dasanshuman@yahoo.com and DEBAL DEB: 094-326-74377 debaldeb01@yahoo.com
Nov. 18, Thu	Kaanthi, East Medinipur	Kolkata
Nov. 19, Fri	Kolkatta	“Basudha” farm, Bankura dist.
Nov. 20, Sat	Bishnupur	“Basudha” farm, Bankura dist.

JHARKHAND: CONTACT PANKAJ BHUSHAN: 094-729-99999 or mail.tarafoundation@gmail.com
Nov. 21, Sun	Dhanbad	Patna
BIHAR: CONTACT PANKAJ BHUSHAN: 094-729-99999 or mail.tarafoundation@gmail.com
Nov. 22, Mon	Patna	Muzaffarpur
Nov. 23, Tue	Muzaffarpur & Samastipur	Champaran
Nov. 24, Wed	Champaran	Gorakhpur
UTTAR PRADESH: CONTACT DHARMENDAR MALIK: 092-196-91168 or bku.tikait@gmail.com and UTKARSH SINHA: 099-357-36877 OR utkarshks@gmail.com
Nov. 25, Thu	Gorakhpur	Varanasi
Nov. 26, Fri	Varanasi/Sultanpur	Lucknow
Nov. 27, Sat	Lucknow/Bareilly	Moradabad
Nov. 28, Sun	Moradabad/Haldwani	Haldwani
UTTARAKHAND: CONTACT BIJU NEGI: 097-604-21947 or negi.biju@gmail.com
Nov. 29, Mon	Haridwar	Haridwar
Nov. 30, Tue	Roorkee/Saharanpur	Saharanpur
HARYANA: CONTACT UMENDRA DUTT & GURNAM SINGH OF BKU
Dec. 1, Wed	Kurukshetra/Ambala	Nahan
HIMACHAL PRADESH: CONTACT KULBHUSHAN UPMANYU: 09418412853 or kbupmanyu@gmail.com
Dec. 2, Thu	Nahan/Solan	Chandigarh
PUNJAB: CONTACT UMENDRA DUTT: 098-726-82161 or umendradutt@gmail.com
Dec. 3, Fri	Chandigarh/Ludhiana	Ludhiana
Dec. 4, Sat	Patiala/Sangrur	Bathinda
RAJASTHAN: CONTACT RANA: 094-141-33141 OR mlpctrust@gmail.com
Dec. 5, Sun	Bathinda & Hanumangarh	Bikaner
Dec. 6, Mon	Bikaner	Bikaner
Dec. 7, Tue	Jodhpur (by afternoon)	Jodhpur
Dec. 8, Wed	Beawar/Ajmer	Jaipur
Dec. 9, Thu	Jaipur	Rewari
HARYANA: CONTACT SUNDERLAL: 099-960-22534 or scriakhori@yahoo.co.in
Dec. 10, Fri	Rewari & Gurgaon	Gurgaon
DELHI: CONTACT NAYANI: 099-997-78674 OR nasa.nayani@gmail.com or Gautam at: g_agarwala1@yahoo.com or YUDHVIR SINGH: 098-994-35968
Dec. 11, Sat	Delhi	Delhi

2010-09-17T17:26:00.000+05:30

Who will feed Uttar Pradesh? In other words, who will feed India in the days to come?

Dr. Devender Sharma

It is the most populous State in the country, and is also the biggest producer of foodgrains. Land acquisitions will take away a third of the cultivable lands for non-farm use. Such huge diversion of farm lands will result in drastic cut in food production, and has threatening socio-political implications.

India is witnessing a thousand mutinies. Pitched battles are being fought across the country by poor farmers, who fear further marginalisation when their land is literally grabbed by the government and the industry. From Mangalore in Karnataka to Aligarh in Uttar Pradesh, from Singur in West Bengal to Mansa in Punjab, the rural countryside is literally on a boil. Large chunks of prime agricultural land are being diverted for non-agricultural purposes.

While the continuing struggle against land acquisition for instance by farmers in Aligarh, which took a violent turn, and became a political ploy is being projected as a battle by farmers for big money, the reality is that a majority of the farmers do not want to dispense with their ancestral land. They are being forced to do so. This has serious implications for food security.

Let us take the case of Uttar Pradesh. It is the most populous State in the country, and is also the biggest producer of foodgrains. Western parts of Uttar Pradesh, comprising the fertile Indo-Gangetic plains, have been considered part of the green revolution belt. According to the 2008 Statistical Abstracts of Uttar Pradesh, in addition to 41 million tonnes of foodgrains, the State produces 130 million tonnes of sugarcane and 10.5 million tonnes of potato.

Uttar Pradesh produces more foodgrains than Punjab but because of its huge population, it is hardly left with any surplus. What is however satisfying is that Uttar Pradesh has all these years been at least feeding its own population.

This is expected to change. And that is what I am worried about. The proposed eight Expressways and the townships planned along the route, along with land being gobbled by other industrial, real estate and investment projects are likely to eat away more than 23,000 villages, one fourth of the total number of villages. Although Mayawati government has dropped the townships along the Yamuna expressway, but the company that is investing in real estate claims that as per their pact with the State government, they have to be given land at an alternative location.

Former Agriculture Minister Ajit Singh has in a statement said that one-third of total cultivable land of Uttar Pradesh will be eventually acquired. The State government neither denies nor confirms this, but acknowledges that land diversion is ‘large’.

This means that out of the total area of 19.8 million hectares under foodgrain crops in Uttar Pradesh, one-third or roughly 6.6 million hectares will be shifted from agriculture to non-agriculture activity. Much of the fertile and productive lands of Western Uttar Pradesh will therefore disappear, to be replaced by concrete jungles. In addition to wheat and rice, sugarcane and potato would be the other two major crops whose production will be negatively impacted.

As per rough estimates, 6.6 million hectares that would be taken out of farming would mean a production loss of 14 million tonnes of foodgrains. In other words, Uttar Pradesh will be faced with a terrible food crisis in the years to come, the seeds for which are being sown now. Add to this the anticipated shortfall in potato and sugarcane production, since the area under these two crops will also go down drastically, the road ahead for Uttar Pradesh is not only dark but laced with social unrest.

Already a part of the BIMARU States, Uttar Pradesh will surely see surge in hunger, malnutrition and under-nourishment. I shudder to imagine the socio-economic and political fallout of the misadventure that the government is attempting with such a massive land takeover. If the State government’s can provide an incentive of Rs 20,000 per acre to those farmers whose lands are being taken away, I fail to understand why the same incentive cannot be provided to every farm family to protect agricultural land?

What is not being realised is that Uttar Pradesh alone will send all the estimates of the proposed National Food Security Act go topsy-turvy. At present, as per the buffer norms, the government keeps around 20 to 24 million tonnes as buffer stocks for distribution across the country through the Public Distribution System (PDS). In the last few years however the average foodgrain stocks with the government have been in the range of 45 to 50 million tonnes.

Even with such huge grain reserves, Food and Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has expressed his inability to provide 35 kg of grain per month to every eligible family. Imagine, what will happen when Uttar Pradesh alone will put an additional demand of 14 million tonnes. Who will then feed Uttar Pradesh?

Policy makers say that with rapid industrialisation the average incomes will go up as a result of which people will have the money to buy food from the open market and also make for nutritious choices. But the bigger question is where will the addition quantity of food come from? Already, Punjab and Haryana, comprising the food bowl, are on fast track mode to acquire farm lands. Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Chhatisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Punjab are building up ‘land banks’ for the industry and Rajasthan has allowed the industry to buy land directly from farmers setting aside the ceiling limit.

Internationally, the food situation is worsening ever since the 2008 food crisis when 37 countries were faced with food riots. Even now, food prices globally are on an upswing. As Russia extends the wheat export ban till the next year's wheat harvest sending global prices on a hike, deadly food riots were witnessed last week in Mozambique killing at last seven people. According to news reports, anger is building up in Pakistan, Egypt and Serbia over rising prices.

Knowing that the world can witness a repeat of 2008 food crisis that resulted in food riots in 37 countries, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has called for a special meeting to discuss the implications.

Extended drought and resulting wildfires has caused a 20 per cent drop in wheat harvest in Russia sending the global wheat prices on a spiral. Wheat futures obviously would take advantage, and according to Financial Times wheat prices have gone up by 70 per cent since January. India may therefore find it difficult to purchase food from the global market if it thinks it can bank upon the international markets to bail it out. This is primarily the reason why several countries, mainly China and the countries of the oil rich Middle East are buying lands in Africa, Lain America and Asia to grow food to be shipped back home for domestic consumers.

Gone are the days when a worried Jawaharlal Nehru, India's first Prime Minister, while addressing the nation on Aug 15, 1955 from the ramparts of the Red Fort in New Delhi said: "It is very humiliating for any country to import food. So everything else can wait, but not agriculture." That was in 1955. Fifty-five years later, in 2010, UPA-II thinks that food security needs of the nation can be addressed by importing food. Land must be acquired for the industry, because the industrial sector alone will be the vehicle for higher growth. There can be nothing more dangerous than this flawed approach. Is India slipping back into the days of ‘ship-to-mouth’ existence?

Stop Vedanta, stop India?

2010-09-04T12:28:00.000+05:30

B G Verghese
September 04, 2010, 0:53 IST

Minister of Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh’s order stopping Vedanta Aluminium and the Orissa Mining Corporation from mining bauxite in the Niyamgiri hills to feed the company’s Lanjigarh aluminum refinery plant located in one of the country’s poorest districts in the name of tribal interests tends to miss the wood for the trees. It is based on the report of a four-member expert group under N C Saxena that was set up after adverse Forest Advisory Committee findings.
Truth has many dimensions and sometimes the lesser truth may mask the greater. Balance and perspective are, therefore, important. The two reports that the minister relied on contain some sweeping generalisations based on exaggerated inferences.
The Niyamgiri hills extend over 250 square kilometres (sq km) of which only 7 sq km of one hilltop falls within the proposed mining lease area. Of this, only 3.5 sq km or 350 hectares will be mined and backfilled in phases, leaving no more than 20 hectares of exposed mine face at any one time. The Dongria Kondh and Kutia Kondh inhabiting the upper slopes and valleys of these hills, respectively, number less than 8,000 souls and are classified as primitive tribes. They are immiserised, practice jhum (or slash-and-burn agriculture, which means that these are not primeval forests), collect fruit and herbs and live on the margins of subsistence. None of them will be displaced by mining.
The laterite hill tops underlain by a hard bauxite pan do not hold the rain, sustain little forest and are totally uninhabited. Contrary to the assertions by the latest official committees, the removal of the bauxite layer and replacement of the laterite overburden with plantations will, according to the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute, encourage infiltration, recharge the aquifer and improve the water regime to everybody’s benefit. Nalco’s reclaimed Damanjodi mine in Koraput is a classic example of transformation.
The Saxena committee report, however, states that the entire Niyamgiri range may suffer a “major ecological and hydrological disaster”. The very survival of “20 per cent of the Dongria tribals” will be threatened as their habitat will be “severely disturbed” and road construction will bring wildlife and timber poachers. The charge that the mining area amounts to a cultural invasion of the sacred abode of the celestial Niyam Raja is contested. Earlier accounts would locate this site several kilometres away atop Hundijali hill.
The expert groups are sharply critical of violations of the Forest Rights Act, the alleged procurement of bauxite from 11 illegal Jharkhand mines and refinery expansion from one million to six million tonne before the settlement of individual and community tribal rights. The allegations misinterpret the law. The enclosure of 28 hectare adjacent to the refinery for an approved village plantation is also seen as an illegality. If this is the ultimate horror story, why were prior approvals and clearances repeatedly granted? And was the Supreme Court in error?
The Orissa government’s counter-argument is that the Forest Rights Act only came into force with the promulgation of its Rules in January 2008 and cannot be applied retrospectively. The Saxena committee retorts that the Forest Rights Act was enacted to set right the “historical injustices” suffered by the tribal people. This is valid. But when does history begin? Hirakud, Rourkela, the HAL MiG plant in Koraput and hundreds of other projects, completed and ongoing, are located on tribal lands. Are all these development omelettes to be unscrambled?
Historical injustices are often best made good by future action. Orissa, too, wants to industrialise, capitalising on rich mineral resources that, the Supreme Court has said, are national assets to which tribals have entitlements but not ownership. The Fifth Schedule, the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas Act (PESA), now the Forest Rights Act and the Supreme Court’s seminal Samatha judgment of 1997 show how tribal justice can be harvested to national interest.
The Saxena committee’s conclusion follows that the deprivation of primitive tribal groups “to benefit a private company” could “shake the faith of tribal people in the laws of the land which may have serious consequences for the security and well being of the entire country”. Clearly, the reference is to provoking the growth of Naxalism. The commonly cited causative factors underlying left-wing extremism are oppression and neglect. Does the Vedanta project fit this diagnosis?
The Niyamgiri hills have been untouched for centuries. Yet the Dongria Kondhs remain primitive, not on account of development but for lack of it. Development often causes disturbance and even trauma. But this is soon offset by good R&R, appropriate compensation, new stakeholder partnership models, income and employment opportunities and a whole multiplier effect. Vedanta is already active in skill development, education, health, nutrition, provision of safe drinking water, solar lighting and formation of self-help groups, and it has spent over Rs 100 crore on these. The company is further committed by a Supreme Court order to earmarking 5 per cent of its annual net profit or Rs 10 crore, whichever is higher, for economic and social development of an area within a 50 km radius of the project site and to greening the area through a special purpose vehicle.
Poverty is the enemy of the environment with mounting population pressure. Tens of millions of distress migrants move across India every year for lack of development. The country needs to add 12 million jobs annually just to keep abreast of a burgeoning labour force. We need faster and more participative growth and infrastructure to sustain this. To this end, bauxite must be mined and aluminum produced. The combination of bauxite and coal in close proximity enables India to produce cheap aluminum and assume a commanding position in the global non-ferrous market.
Tribal India must be enabled to progress. The environment must be enhanced. The current impasse affects not just Vedanta or Orissa. Rahul Gandhi’s rhetoric was misplaced. Stop Vedanta in the wrong manner and for the wrong reasons and we may stop India.

किसानों के गुस्से से हिली मायावती सरकार

2010-08-19T22:49:00.002+05:30

किसानों के गुस्से से हिली मायावती सरकार

यूपी सरकार ने घुटने टेके,मुआवाजा देने को तैयार

भू-अधिग्रहण विधेयक जल्दी आएगा: प्रणब

फिर मुश्किल में संजय

लखनऊ यमुना एक्सप्रेस-वे के मसले पर उत्तरप्रदेश में किसानों के भड़के गुस्से और विपक्ष की सक्रियता को देखते हुए मायावती सरकार ने नए अधिग्रहण आदेशों पर कदम पीछे खींचना शुरू कर दिया। सरकार ने सिद्धांतत: मान लिया है कि जमीन अधिग्रहण के नए आदेशों को रद्द करना ही उचित होगा।

मायावती सरकार की पब्लिक- प्राइवेट पार्टनरशिप (पीपीपी) की कई योजनाओं को अमल में लाने के लिए जमीनों के अधिग्रहण की अधिसूचना जारी की गई थी। इन इलाकों में किसानों को मनाने की प्रक्रिया भी तेजी से चल रही थी। कुशीनगर अंतरराष्ट्रीय हवाईपट्टी के निर्माण और बुलंदशहर के चोला में भूमि अधिग्रहण की अधिसूचना रद्द की जा रही है। चोला में 2600 एकड़ जमीन का अधिग्रहण होना था।

समितियों का गठन : राज्य सरकार ने भूमि अधिग्रहण से संबंधित विवादों का हल बातचीत से करने के लिए दो स्थायी समितियों के गठन का फैसला किया है। एक मंडल स्तर पर होगी दूसरी राज्य स्तर पर।

संशोधन करे केंद्र : मुख्यमंत्री मायावती ने कहा कि यूपीए सरकार अंग्रेजों के जमाने के भूमि अवाप्ति अधिनियम, 1894 के आधार पर ही जमीन का अधिग्रहण कर रही है। बदलते परिवेश में केंद्र सरकार को चाहिए कि वह इस अधिनियम में ऐसे संशोधन करे, जिससे किसानों का हित सुरक्षित रहे और सार्वजनिक उद्देश्यों के लिए भूमि अधिग्रहण की आवश्यकताओं की पूर्ति भी हो।

टिकैत भी कूदे : किसान आंदोलन में अब भारतीय किसान यूनियन भी कूद पड़ा है। यूनियन प्रमुख महेंद्र सिंह टिकैत शुRवार को अलीगढ़ जा रहे हैं। सरकार से हुए समझौते को नकारते हुए किसानों का धरना टप्पल गांव में बुधवार को भी जारी रहा। किसान यूनियन के प्रवक्ता धर्म्ेद्र कुमार ने बताया है कि अलीगढ़ के किसान नोएडा से कम मुआवजे को तैयार नही हैं। सरकार किसानों पर एक तरफा समझौता जबर्दस्ती थोपना चाहती है। किसानों की राय को सबसे ऊपर मान कर आगे की रणनीति तय की जाएगी।

आगरा में बैठक विफल : आगरा में भूमि अधिग्रहण से प्रभावित होने वाले किसानों और प्रशासन के बीच बैठक बुधवार को विफल हो गई। आगरा में मुआवजे को लेकर किसानों व पुलिस के बीच मंगलवार को झड़प हो गई

Biotech bill unlocks doors to GM food into country

2010-08-19T16:58:00.001+05:30

Jayashree Nandi | TNN

Bangalore: India may have just about opened its doors to genetically modified food. The Union cabinet on Monday cleared the controversial Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill which scientists call a backdoor entry for GM crops into India.
“I was apprised about the bill being passed on Monday but I don’t know whether it has been passed in its last draconian form that whoever misleads the public about the safety of GM organisms and products shall be punished with imprisonment and fine. Such clauses were not seen even in the worst times of the Soviet Union. Even if it has been modified, this is nothing but a backdoor entry for GM food into the country. It is also a means to sell our seed industry to huge multinational companies,” molecular biologist and biotechnology expert P M Bhargava told TOI.
This body will replace the current Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) and will focus on regulating research, manufacture, import and use of products of modern biotechnology, including GM products. Critics of introduction of GM products were opposed to this bill because it would curtail their freedom to talk or discuss against GM seeds or foods.
Chairman and managing director of Biocon, Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, told TOI that she did not have much information about the bill because it was focusing on genetically modified products in agriculture and not in the pharmaceutical space.
Bhargava and the sustainable agriculture campaigners of Greenpeace India have raised concerns about the non-consultative process adopted to draft the bill. “We want all political parties to demand a withdrawal of the cabinet approval of the BRAI Bill 2010. We also demand a redrafting of the contents post consultations with public as well as all state governments,” Greenpeace Sustainable Agriculture campaigner Rajesh Krishnan said.
G V Ramanjaneyulu, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, said two clauses from the bill were dropped but no one knows which clauses. “Our fear is that this body will act as a single window clearance for GM crops. The state will not have any power to resist introduction of GMOs. This, coupled with the Seed Bill 2010, is a disaster recipe for farmers,” he said.
In February, following a huge outcry from scientists, environmentalists and farmers, environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced a moratorium on the release of the genetically modified Bt-brinjal after several public consultations across the country. He had said his decision was based on a “cautious precautionary principle-based approach.”

‘Have some rationale while planning projects'

2010-08-10T12:00:00.001+05:30

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/08/08/stories/2010080853400300.htm

Irrational development projects lead to rights violations: Medha Patkar

Thrissur: Irrational development programmes have led to violation of

human rights of the under-privileged, social activist Medha Patkar has

said.

Addressing a meeting of the National Alliance of People's Movements

(NAPM) here on Saturday, Ms. Patkar, national convener of NAPM, urged

the Union and State governments to have some rationale while planning

projects and deciding sites for industries.

“Farm lands and even densely-populated areas have been evacuated for

infrastructure. No ruler is bothered about the problems of the

displaced people.”

The nexus between politicians and land mafia had resulted in loss of

precious land belonging to the common man, she said.

“On one side, there are wide national highways and huge flyovers and

on the other are the Adivasis, who have been denied all basic rights.”

People had to raise their voice for survival as the State failed to

protect people's Constitutional rights, she said. People's movements

had been trying to voice the agony of the marginalised sections in a

democratic manner, she said. Ms. Patkar said that State-sponsored

violence should be stopped to bring back peace to the tribal belt of

the country.

“The rulers want to evacuate the tribals from the resource-rich belt

to enable the corporate giants to occupy their land. Even the peaceful

struggles of people's movements are branded insurgence,” she said

She appealed to all democratic forces to unite and fight the brazen

attempts to grab the land of tribals and farmers.

Senior journalist B.R.P. Baskar delivered keynote address. Leaders of

various people's movements, including Laha Gopalan (Chengara land

struggle); T. Peter (Fish worker's struggle); Vilayodi Venugopal (Anti

CocoCola struggle, Plachimada); Hashim Chennampilly (Movement against

land acquisition for NH-17 and NH-47 widening); A. Latha (Athirappilly

hydel project issue); C.F. George (Chakkumkandam sewage issue) and

T.K. Vasu (Lalur Makineekarana Viruddha Samara Samithi) also spoke.

http://www.keralafishworkers.in

http://www.alakal.net

‘Have some rationale while planning projects'

2010-08-10T12:00:00.000+05:30

http://www.thehindu.com/2010/08/08/stories/2010080853400300.htm

Irrational development projects lead to rights violations: Medha Patkar

Thrissur: Irrational development programmes have led to violation of

human rights of the under-privileged, social activist Medha Patkar has

said.

Addressing a meeting of the National Alliance of People's Movements

(NAPM) here on Saturday, Ms. Patkar, national convener of NAPM, urged

the Union and State governments to have some rationale while planning

projects and deciding sites for industries.

“Farm lands and even densely-populated areas have been evacuated for

infrastructure. No ruler is bothered about the problems of the

displaced people.”

The nexus between politicians and land mafia had resulted in loss of

precious land belonging to the common man, she said.

“On one side, there are wide national highways and huge flyovers and

on the other are the Adivasis, who have been denied all basic rights.”

People had to raise their voice for survival as the State failed to

protect people's Constitutional rights, she said. People's movements

had been trying to voice the agony of the marginalised sections in a

democratic manner, she said. Ms. Patkar said that State-sponsored

violence should be stopped to bring back peace to the tribal belt of

the country.

“The rulers want to evacuate the tribals from the resource-rich belt

to enable the corporate giants to occupy their land. Even the peaceful

struggles of people's movements are branded insurgence,” she said

She appealed to all democratic forces to unite and fight the brazen

attempts to grab the land of tribals and farmers.

Senior journalist B.R.P. Baskar delivered keynote address. Leaders of

various people's movements, including Laha Gopalan (Chengara land

struggle); T. Peter (Fish worker's struggle); Vilayodi Venugopal (Anti

CocoCola struggle, Plachimada); Hashim Chennampilly (Movement against

land acquisition for NH-17 and NH-47 widening); A. Latha (Athirappilly

hydel project issue); C.F. George (Chakkumkandam sewage issue) and

T.K. Vasu (Lalur Makineekarana Viruddha Samara Samithi) also spoke.

http://www.keralafishworkers.in

http://www.alakal.net

Seeds Bill is put on hold

2010-08-04T16:44:00.000+05:30

29 Jul 2010 - 00:00

The agriculture ministry has put on hold the controversial Seeds Bill, 2004, following strong objections from the MPs, mainly on the pricing and penalty clauses.

Sources said while the penalty clause would be further referred to the law ministry for its opinion, the ministry would consider the suggestion of creating a national authority to decide pricing of the seeds.

“Two main issues need to be discussed further — pricing of seeds and the penalty in case the manufacturer faulters,” said agriculture minister Sharad Pawar.

The agriculture ministry, which wanted to introduce the bill in the ongoing Monsoon Session, had called around 40 MPs on Wednesday belonging to the Congress, BJP, TDP and the Left parties to seek their opinion on the legislation.

The Andhra Pradesh government has suggested various amendments to the bill, including regulation of prices, royalty on GM crop seeds, delegating powers to the states to decide compensation to the farmers, seeking tax returns by the seed companies, import of seeds and penalty to include both fine and imprisonment.

“There is an attempt to classify offences as minor and major ones. What we want is that farmers should not suffer in any situation,” said CPI MP D. Raja.

Farm scientist M.S. Swaminathan said the meeting was able to arrive at broad agreements but

some issues need to be sorted out. Besides AP, the other state governments who have an interest in the bill are Maharashtra and Gujarat.

Fight against hunger Lacking political will

2010-07-22T11:05:00.001+05:30

Deccan Herald, Bangalore 21 july, 2010

By Devinder Sharma

There can be nothing more disappointing. After 63 years of Independence, the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) has also expressed its helplessness in feeding the country’s hungry.The hungry must live in hunger. That’s the clear verdict. For a country which has the largest population of hungry in the world, and given that half of all children in India is under-nourished according to the National Family Health Survey III (2005-06), I was expecting Sonia Gandhi to spell out a time-bound programme to make hunger history. But from what we read in newspapers, the NAC recommendations will not make any significant difference to the life of millions of hungry and malnourished.From what I gather, Sonia Gandhi did probably make the effort. But it is her NAC team which failed to match her enthusiasm. If the NAC members had made meaningful suggestions, there is no reason why the NAC wouldn’t have made the right recommendations.Promising to provide 35 kg of foodgrains at Rs 3/kg to below the poverty line population, and ensuring 25 kg of grains to the APL households in 2000-poorest blocks in the country, is actually a clever move to move away from universalisation of food entitlements.I have never been in favour of a universal food entitlement approach. The middle class is capable of feeding itself. If they can buy swanky cars and consumer durables at the drop of a hat, they can also meet their food requirements.The challenge is to feed the hungry. According to ICMR norms, each able-body adult needs a minimum of 14 kg a month. Given that an average family comprise five members, each household would need 70 kg of grains. By providing 35 kg only, we are ensuring that the hungry remain perpetually hungry.They continue to sleep with an empty stomach. In any case, this much quantity was being made available to them earlier too. The purpose of bringing in a National Food Security Act (NFSA) is not to simply legitimise what was being delivered through the public distribution system (PDS) all these years.The argument against increasing the food allocations is that the annual procurement on an average is around 50 million tonnes and by promising more than 35 kg per household, the government will fail to provide the entitlement. Well, in my understanding this is merely an apology.Although food production in India remains stagnant over the years, and even then much of the procured foodgrains rot for want of proper storage, the fact remains that given an attractive price, Indian farmers are capable of doubling production. ConcernLet us look at China. Its population is approximately 200 million more than that of India. Against India’s foodgrain production of 230 million tonnes, China produces 500 million tonnes of foodgrains. Even with more than double food production, it imports huge quantities every year to meet the domestic needs. Unlike India, which exports foodgrains and other agricultural commodities by keeping its own people hungry, China has emerged as a major importer of food and agricultural products primarily to feed its teeming millions.In India, the average per capita availability of food grains is less than 500 gm a day. On the other hand, China provides six times more at 3 kg per day. No wonder, while India is trying to ride the high-growth trajectory with empty stomachs and emancipated bodies, China is building a healthy nation knowing well that a well-fed population is not only a political necessity but makes strong social and economic sense.Also, agriculture and food security is the first line of defence against insurgency. Resurrecting agriculture therefore should have been the first step to ensure long-term food security.I expected Sonia Gandhi to have over-ruled the mandarins of the Planning Commission, as well as from the food and agriculture ministry to lay out a blueprint for feeding the country for all times to come by incorporating measures like extending sustainable farming practices which do not acerbate the environmental crisis, and also making agriculture economically viable; by redesigning trade and development policies that do not open the floodgates to highly subsidised agricultural commodities, and also shifting the focus from corporate agriculture back to making small farms profitable and environmentally sustainable.Local production and local procurement is the key to any successful food security initiative. The proposed NFSA therefore should be overarching enough to incorporate suitable policies and plans that not only cuts into the domain of the ministry of food and agriculture, but also extends to ministry of environment and forests as well as the ministry of science and technology.Knowing that enhancing production remains outside the ambit of the NFSA, merely making a mention of it will not help. If the objective is to simply create a new position of food commissioner (with the rank of a supreme court judge) at the national level, and a series of state commissioners (with the rank of a high court judge), then the basic objective of feeding the hungry is lost.

Center For Contemporary Studies and ResearchII nd floor2/205, Vivek Khand, Gomti NagarLucknow 226010Phone +91 9235181113Fax +91 522 4005040Please join www.ccsrindia.blogspot.com to updates of the farmers struggle

Empty rhetoric for empty stomachs

2010-07-20T15:42:00.000+05:30

By Devinder Sharma
18 Jul 2010
The establishment needs to think beyond entitlements to completely remove hunger and malnutrition from India. Unfortunately, the proposed National Food Security Act fails to inspire much confidence.
How long the poor and the hungry will have to wait for their miseries to end?(photo: Gaurav Sharma)
There can be nothing more disappointing. After 63 years of Independence, the Sonia Gandhi-led National Advisory Council (NAC) has also expressed its helplessness in feeding the country's hungry.
The hungry must live in hunger. That's the clear verdict.
For a country which has the largest population of hungry in the world, and given that half of all children in India are under-nourished according to the National Family Health Survey III (2005-06), I was expecting Sonia Gandhi to spell out a time-bound programme to make hunger history, and at the same time overhaul the corruption-ridden public distribution system (PDS). But from what we read in the newspapers, the NAC recommendations will not make any significant difference to the life of millions of hungry and malnourished.
From what I gather, Sonia Gandhi did probably make the effort. But it is her NAC team which failed to match her enthusiasm. If the NAC members had meaningful ideas and suggestions, there is no reason why the NAC couldn't make the right recommendations. Come to think of it, the NAC recommendations will only bring cheers to the grain traders.
Promising to provide 35 kg of foodgrains at Rs 3/kg to below the poverty line population, and ensuring 25 kg of grains to the APL households in 2000-poorest blocks in the country, is actually a clever move to move away from universalisation of food entitlements. I have never been in favour of a universal food entitlement approach. The middle class is capable of feeding itself. If they can buy swanky cars and consumer durables at the drop of a hat, they can also meet their food requirements.
Unlike India, which exports foodgrains and other agricultural commodities by keeping its own people hungry, China has emerged as a major importer of food and agricultural products primarily to feed its teeming millions.
The challenge is to feed the hungry. According to ICMR norms, each able-body person needs a minimum of 14 kg a month. Given that an average family comprise five members, each household would need 60-70 kg of grains. By providing 35 kg only, we are ensuring that the hungry remain perpetually hungry. They continue to sleep with an empty stomach. In any case, this quantity was being made available to them earlier too. The purpose of bringing in a National Food Security Act (NFSA) is not to simply legitimise what was being delivered through the bogus PDS all these years.
The argument against increasing the food allocations is that the annual procurement on an average is around 50 million tonnes and by promising more than 35 kg per household, the government will fail to provide the entitlement. Well, in my understanding this is merely an apology. Although food production in India remains stagnant over the years, and even then much of the procured foodgrains rot for want of proper storage, the fact remains that given an attractive price, Indian farmers are capable of doubling production.
Let us look at China. Its population is approximately 200 million more than that of India. Against India's foodgrain production of 230 million tonnes, China produces 500 million tonnes of foodgrains. Even with more than double food production, it imports huge quantities every year to meet the domestic needs. Unlike India, which exports foodgrains and other agricultural commodities by keeping its own people hungry, China has emerged as a major importer of food and agricultural products primarily to feed its teeming millions.
In India, the average per capita availability of foodgrains is less than 500 gm a day. On the other hand, China provides six times more at 3 kg per day. No wonder, while India is trying to ride the high-growth trajectory with empty stomachs and emaciated bodies, China is building a healthy nation knowing well that a well-fed population is not only a political necessity but makes strong social and economic sense.
Also, agriculture and food security is the first line of defence against insurgency. Resurrecting agriculture therefore should have been the first step to ensure long-term food security.
I had therefore expected Sonia Gandhi to have over-ruled the mandarins from the Planning Commission, as well as from the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, to lay out a blueprint for feeding the country for all times to come by incorporating measures like extending sustainable farming practices which do not acerbate the environmental crisis, and also making agriculture economically viable; by redesigning trade and development policies that do not open the floodgates to highly subsidised agricultural commodities, and also shifting the focus from corporate agriculture back to making small farms profitable and environmentally sustainable.
There is no justification for India to fare below Sub-Saharan Africa in hunger and poverty rankings. Most of the African nations are torn by strife and have unstable governments. If those African countries had stable governments like India, I am afraid India would have been relegated to the bottom of the pile.
Local production and local procurement is the key to any successful food security initiative. The proposed NFSA therefore should be overarching enough to incorporate suitable policies and plans that not only cuts into the domain of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture, but also extends to Ministry of Environment & Forests as well as the Ministry of Science & Technology. It will require an overall economic policy shift to ensure that agricultural land is not acquired for the industry, and technologies like GM crops are not thrust upon the farming communities.
Knowing that enhancing production remains outside the ambit of the NFSA, merely making a mention of it will not help. If the objective is to make some political appointments by creation a new position of Food Commissioner (with the rank of a Supreme Court judge) at the national level, and a series of State Commissioners (with the rank of a High Court judge), then the basic objective of feeding the hungry is lost.
Although the NFSA has created a new category of "socially vulnerable" it is not sure as to how will that be implemented. On the contrary, it leaves a lot of room for misappropriation and corruption. The better option should have been to extend the 'below the poverty line' to 55 per cent of the population so as to also include those who are on the margins.
In fact, this would be in tune with the latest multi-dimensional poverty estimates developed by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Accordingly, eight States - Bihar, Chhatisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal - have more desperately poor people than 26 poorest African nations. As per the last count, India ranked 66th in the Global Hunger Index prepared for 88 countries.
There is no justification for India to fare below Sub-Saharan Africa in hunger and poverty rankings. Most of the African nations are torn by strife and have unstable governments. If those African countries had stable governments like India, I am afraid India would have been relegated to the bottom of the pile. I don't know how long we Indians can remain indifferent to growing hunger and malnutrition. Sadly, the NAC, after raising a lot of expectation in the beginning about the intent and scope of NFSA, has again failed to hit the nail on its head

Re-inclusion of Cotton Seed as Essential Commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Extension of period of validity

2010-06-22T14:38:00.000+05:30

The Union Cabinet today gave its approval to extend the period of validity of the continuation of Cotton Seed as an essential commodity beyond the initial period of six months for a further period of six months w.e.f. 22.6.2010.

With the extension of the validity period, the Government would continue to be empowered to regulate production, quality, distribution etc. of Cotton Seed and to curb the sale and spread of spurious Cotton Seed. Quality, production, distribution, etc. aspects of cotton seed will be subject to regulation under Seed Control Order 1983 thereby ensuring quality of seed particularly private hybrids of cotton/Bt Cotton seeds increasing the productivity and production. It is necessary to regulate the aspects of production, distribution and quality in the interest of the farming community and to prevent seed producers from resorting to unregulated trade practices.

As and when the Seed Bill is passed by the Parliament, rules are framed under the new Act and the new Act is brought fully into force, Cotton seeds would be regulated under this new regulation. Thereafter the notification of cotton seeds under the EC Act would be withdrawn.

Seed bill retake: Monitor seed prices, not just quality, say farmer groups

2010-06-05T11:36:00.002+05:30

Jyotika Sood

THE Union agriculture ministry will redraft the seed bill following complaints by MPs, states and farmer groups. Their main grouse is that the bill, which aims to regulate the quality of seeds, does not monitor their prices, crucial for farmers.

The Seed Bill 2010 was approved by the Cabinet in March and was to be tabled in the Rajya Sabha in mid-April. Sources in the ministry said MPs and state government have suggested over 100 amendments.

The bill, first drafted in 2004, updates the Seed Act of 1966 to address two main changes: genetically modified seeds and the entry of private and foreign seed companies. Farmers and seed producers contest its provisions on price, accountability and distribution of regulatory powers between the Centre and states. Andhra Pradesh—the seed production capital of India—is backing farmer groups (see: Andhra wishlist). On May 3, state agriculture minister N Raghuveera Reddy led a delegation of 15 MPs and farmer groups to meet Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The delegation also met Union agriculture minister Sharad Pawar and United Progressive Alliance chairperson Sonia Gandhi.

Unregulated price

At present, most states do not control the prices of seeds sold by hybrid seed companies.

The companies fix their own prices. They often exploit farmers, said D Narasimha Reddy, chief adviser with Chetana Society of farmers and activists in Andhra Pradesh. “It has been six years (since the 2004 draft) and the Centre has failed to include a clause related to seed price, which should be the essence of the bill,” he said.

Seed producers oppose this.

• Proposed amendments

• Andhra wishlist

The National Seed Association of India, a group of over 200 seed producers, said price controls—by Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, for example—are making hybrid seed business unsustainable. According to the association, the seed industry has invested more than Rs 6,000 crore in research and infrastructure over the past 20 years.

Research and development involved in developing hybrids along with the challenges of weather makes it a high-risk business—the chance of developing a product that is successful in the market is less than 50 per cent, it said.

Inadequate compensation, penalty

The seed bill proposes setting up a national committee to compensate farmers in case seeds fail to perform as promised. Farmer groups argue that a national compensation committee is too distant and expensive for small farmers. How can small farmers access it when their grievances are not properly addressed at the state level, asked M Kodand Reddy, chairperson of the Andhra Pradesh Kisan and Mazdoor Congress. He suggested a district-level committee.

Proposed penalties for misbranding or selling substandard seeds include a fine of Rs 5,000 to Rs 25,000. This is too small for a seed producer earning crores of rupees, said an official in the Andhra Pradesh agriculture department.

Inspector raj

The bill gives seed inspectors the power to take samples from anyone selling, buying or transporting seeds. The inspector can even search and seize seeds without a warrant. Such unbridled power, many fear, would give rise to a bureaucracy with farmers at the receiving end.

The seed bill also affects Centre-state politics by limiting states’ role in seed regulation—states will have limited membership in the central seed committee, the main regulatory body. “Agriculture is a state subject. How can state governments be deprived of substantial power to take decisions?” asked Reddy.

Another concern is that the bill by allowing import of seeds may turn farmers’ fields into sites for experiments. ngos and farmer groups are asking that imported seeds be first tested and certified and then sold to farmers

Extending Green Revolution to Eastern India

2010-06-02T13:20:00.003+05:30

Union Budget 2010 has allocated additional Rs.400 crore under Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana for extending green revolution to the Eastern Region of the country comprising of Bihar, Jharkhand, Eastern UP, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and West Bengal.

Green revolution envisages adoption of new seed varieties, farm machines, nutrients, pesticides and knowledge based intervention as developed for different agro climatic zones. Essentially, the objective is to increase the crop productivity by intensive cultivation through promotion of recommended agriculture technologies and package of practices.

In order to implement the initiative, a preliminary meeting with the State Agriculture secretaries/Directors of Agriculture of Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa, UP and West Bengal was held on 18th March, 2010 during the National Kharif Conference at New Delhi. A background note based on the report of the working group of sub-committee of National Development Council on Agriculture & related issues on region/crop specific productivity analysis and agro –climatic zones chaired by Hon'ble C.M. Government of Orissa suggesting agro ecological zone wise strategy for agriculture development was circulated to all the States.

It was brought out in the meeting that the Eastern Region was primarily rice based farming system, the efforts envisaged are to increase the productivity of the rice and other crops of the farming system like maize, oilseeds and pulses. There are crop development programs and schemes that are promoting technologies for increasing the productivity of these crops in these States particularly targeting the low productivity districts. The current initiative should develop the missing links in the agriculture infrastructure in a manner that enhances the efficacy of such schemes and programs. For example programs relating to drainage in the flood prone area, shallow tubewells, farm machinery, soil amelioration for salinity, rainwater harvesting etc could be planned as per the needs of the different agro ecological sub regions.

In this context it was decided that each State would prepare a strategic plan prioritizing the key areas in terms of technology promotion for addressing the main constraints that were impeding the agriculture productivity despite there being a good potential for development. This strategic plan would also take into account the current ongoing initiatives for the identified priorities and would seek to supplement those efforts with the budgetary allocation made available this year.

Based on the agreed strategic plan, an action plan prepared by the State Government in terms of specific programs and components identifying the locations where the initiative could be implemented was then considered by the SLSC headed by the Chief Secretary of the State with representation from Ministry of Agriculture and Planning Commission.

The following strategies are being adopted, in general, for maximising productivity and production of crops in the eastern region. Each concerned State has evolved its own micro-level strategies.

(i) In situ water harvesting/conservation through adoption of cultural practices like bed furrow in deep black cotton uplands and flat sowing & ridging later in red soils.

(ii) Reclamation of soil salinity through application of gypsum particularly in oilseed crops along with micro-nutrients like zinc, iron & sulphur in deficient soils.

(iii) Reclamation of acidic soils through liming/paper mills sludge/application of organic manures/green manuring to improve physical condition of the soil.

(iv) Promotion of Integrated Nutrient Management to ensure balanced use of fertilizers/organic manures/bio-fertilizers.

(v) Adoption of soil & water conservation practices namely; summer ploughing, broad bed furrow, compartmental bunding, pre-monsoon sowing and rain water harvesting (Farm ponds) to check soil erosion and recycling runoff.

(vi) Enhancement of irrigation Water Use Efficiency through adoption of micro-irrigation system (Sprinkler & Drip).

(vii) Promotion of high value crops namely; sweet sorghum, maize, pulses and oilseeds in addition to hybrid rice in the region.

(viii) Adoption of sustainable crop sequence by discouraging rice after rice in the region. The suggested crop sequence for the region are:

(a) Rice-groundnut-green gram;

(b) Rice-groundnut-green manure;

(d) Cotton-green gram/green manure; and

(e) Soybean-sunflower-green gram.

(ix) Promotion of IPM through Farmers Field Schools (FFSs).

(x) Strengthening of extension system in the region.

(xi) Promotion of credit link insurance in the region.

(xii) Strengthening of agro-processing industries through promotion of contract farming.

The allocation to different States for the year 2010-11 is given in the accompanying table.

Name of State Allocation (in Rs crore)

Bihar 63.94

Chhattisgarh 67.15

Jharkhand 29.60

Orissa 79.67

U.P. 57.27

West Bengal 102.37

TOTAL 400.00

MP:SB:CP:backgrounder green revolution(1.6.2010)

GM in the public eye in Asia

2010-06-01T14:05:00.000+05:30

By GRAIN

Monsanto’s plans to push genetically modified (GM) food crops in Asia ran into a wall on February 9, 2010 when India’s Environment Minister put a moratorium on the introduction of a variety of GM brinjal (eggplant) containing Monsanto’s patented Bt gene. China too has been hesitant to approve GM food crops, notably GM rice. It appears that these Asian governments, both outspoken proponents of GM agriculture, are not only feeling the heat from their people’s strong resistance to GM food crops but are also being forced to think twice about turning their seed supplies over to Monsanto and the other foreign transnational corporations (TNCs) that control the global GM seed market. What they seem to be saying is, “Yes, we want GM seeds, but we want our public institutions to be involved in their development to safeguard the national interest.” It’s a pretty hollow argument, given how “public” research is in bed with corporate interests these days and how removed GM agriculture is from the needs of Asia’s farmers. For Asia’s small farmers is there really any difference between a national GM crop and a transnational one?

A fuzzy line between public and private in China

In his report imposing a moratorium on Bt brinjal, the Indian Environment Minister referred, amongst other things, specifically to India’s lack of a “large-scale publicly funded biotechnology effort in agriculture” that can serve as a countervailing power to Monsanto, and pointed to China’s publicly funded programme in GM, which he says is far ahead of India’s. 1 The moratorium is thus in part intended to give India time to catch up with the TNCs and its neighbour, and the long-term path still points to GMOs. This was not what the local protests against Bt brinjal across India were about. They were against GM crops per se, not simply Monsanto’s version. For the protesters, a strong national biotech programme is not going to shield Indian farmers from corporate profiteering and the other pitfalls of GMOs, as China’s example shows.

read the rest here:

http://www.grain.org/articles/?id=67

Genetically modified crops are not the answer

2010-05-03T15:13:00.000+05:30

Dr. Hans Herren and Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman

The Hill, 22 April 2010

http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/93907-genetically-modified-crops-are-not-the-answer

The Senate is considering a bill that would overhaul the way Americans deliver foreign aid. With more people going hungry than ever before, the bill’s attention to global hunger could not come at a better time. The Global Food Security Act would streamline the aid process and focus on long-term agricultural development. But something has gone awry inside the bill. A closer look reveals that its otherwise commendable focus may be seriously undermined by a new clause lobbied for by one of America’s largest seed and chemical companies.

This bill includes a mandate that we spend foreign aid dollars developing genetically modified (GM) crops. No other kind of agricultural technology is mentioned. Unsurprisingly, Monsanto has lobbied more frequently on this bill than any other entity.

The trouble with a mandate for GM crops is this: it won't work. A recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists demonstrates that GM crops don't increase crop yields. USAID has already spent millions of taxpayer dollars developing GM crops over the past two decades, without a single success story to show for it, and plenty of failures. A recent, highly touted partnership between USAID and Monsanto to develop a virus-resistant sweet potato in Kenya failed to deliver anything useful for farmers. After 14 years and $6 million, local varieties vastly outperformed their genetically modified cousins in field trials. Another 10-year USAID project for GM eggplant in India recently met with such outcry - from scientists and Indian farmers alike - that the government put a moratorium on its release. Growing insect resistance to genetically modified cotton and corn shows that the technology is already failing farmers and will continue to fail over the long term. Sadly, today's GM obsession

shows every indication of duplicating the first ill-fated "Green Revolution" that trapped millions of farmers on a pesticide treadmill while devastating the functioning of the ecosystems on which we depend.

Fortunately, we have alternatives. Improved farming practices, conventional breeding and agro-ecological techniques deliver far better results, without the risks and high input costs that accompany GM seeds. A 2008 study by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development found that "organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and … is more likely to be sustainable in the long term." Even the chief agricultural scientist of Punjab - a home of the Green Revolution - argues that Indian farmers should farm organically.

Meanwhile, the World Bank and UN agencies have completed the most comprehensive analysis of world agriculture to date: the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). This four-year study — by more than 400 scientists and development experts from 80 countries and approved by 58 governments — found that reliance on resource-extractive industrial agriculture is risky and unsustainable, particularly in the face of worsening climate, energy and water crises. It noted that expensive, quick fixes - including GM crops - fail to address the complex challenges that farmers face, and often exacerbate already bad conditions. Instead, the IAASTD highlighted the need to build more resilience into our food systems by increasing investments in agro-ecological sciences, small-scale biodiverse farming methods and farmer-led participatory breeding programs.

The success of ecological agriculture rests not only in its immediate outcomes of better and more reliable performance, but also in its ability to address the underlying cause of hunger: poverty. Congress could learn from the thousands of Kenyan farmers who have obtained bumper crops and higher household income through the ecological pest management system known as "push-pull." By planting a variety of grasses in and around their cornfields, these farmers have suppressed insect pest and weed populations, reduced input costs, doubled or tripled their corn harvest, increased forage for livestock, 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 has ever accomplished this much for an African family.

Ultimately, tackling global hunger and poverty requires more than a focus on production technologies. The bigger, more fundamental challenge today is about restoring fairness and democratic control over our food systems. This requires strengthening local food economies, increasing small-scale farmers' control of seed and land, and - importantly - breaking up corporate monopolies in agriculture and establishing fairer regional and global trade arrangements.

If Congress is serious about addressing world hunger, they should take their lead from the most comprehensive science and from farmers on the ground — not from Monsanto lobbyists.

Herren is co-chairman of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) and president of the Millennium Institute and BioVision. Ishii-Eiteman is a lead author of the UN-sponsored IAASTD Global Report.

Bill for a biotech authority

2010-05-03T11:27:00.002+05:30

It’s draconian and full of scientific absurditiesby Pushpa M. Bhargava

WHEN Mr Jairam Ramesh, Union Minister for Environment and Forests, put an indefinite moratorium on the release of genetically modified Bt brinjal on February 9, he actually made a far more important statement that India is not tied down to the apron strings of any multinational corporation or country, specifically, the United States.

Sandeep Joshi

This came as a surprise to the rich and the powerful, the politicians and the bureaucrats (exceptions granted), who benefit by India’s being an appendage of MNCs and the US. A lot of what has happened in the country in the last few years had made the above clan fully complacent about Mr Ramesh’s decision — that irrespective of the enormity of the evidence and public opinion against Bt brinjal, he would permit its commercialisation and thus open irreversibly the floodgates for US control of Indian agriculture, of our food security and sovereignty, farmers’ security and the security of the rural sector.
And whosoever controls Indian agriculture, de facto controls India. The unpleasant fact is that the above clan, comprising a miniscule proportion of Indians, believes it stands to gain enormously by such a sell out. However, Mr Ramesh disappointed them. We congratulated him for his bold decision but also realised that we have only won the battle and not the war. So, Nina Federoff of the US who was here when Mr Ramesh announced his decision, almost certainly to influence his decision in favour of Bt brinjal, did not return to the US empty-handed.
Nina was probably told by Mr Ramesh’s opponents in the government, “Don’t worry. We have ways and means of legally reversing Mr Ramesh’s decision. We will pass a Bill to set up a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) under the Department of Biotechnology which will take away the power of decision-making in regard to GMOs from the Ministry of Environment. We would thus be able to do what you want us to do”.
It has not been their concern as to what happens to 99 per cent of the “less fortunate” Indians. The Bill must be the most draconian Bill. Consider some of its provisions.
*Section 63 says, “Whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about the safety of the organisms (GMOs) and (their) products, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees or with both”. And who will decide whether there is “evidence or scientific record”?
A three-member authority which will be chosen (probably in consultation with Monsanto and its supporters in India) by a selection committee that would be easy to influence, as it would have no nominees of the civil society that will bear the brunt of the failure of a GM crop or the harm caused by it.
No matter how strong the evidence is or how good the scientific record is and no matter how flawless the reputation of the person criticising the release of a GMO is, the regulatory authority can brush all that aside and put the person in jail.
This writer wonders what it will do to foreign critics with an impeccable scientific record and reputation. Ask for their extradition?
lThe National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) will work under the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) in the setting up of which this writer had a significant role and which this writer has known reasonably well as a member of its first Scientific Advisory Committee.
The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) is today the most ardent vendor of GMOs in the country. Thus, the vendor will be the regulator which would be against the principle of natural justice. The Appellate Tribunal proposed in the Bill is an eye-wash as it will also work under the DBT. Strangely, it shall not be bound by rules of evidence contained in our Evidence Act.
lAgriculture is a State subject and well over 10 states, cutting across political affiliations had, de facto or de jure, expressed opposition to Bt brinjal. The Bill (Section 34) now envisages only an advisory role for the state government in regard to release of GMOs. They cannot oppose it, even though agriculture is a State subject.
lThe Bill is full of scientific absurdities. Thus, it calls “transformation, polyploidy induction and mutation breeding” as “natural processes”. They are all human-controlled processes to bring about genetic changes.
lThe Bill’s definition of “modern biotechnology” is ridiculous and highly restrictive. It is like saying that by “modern science” we mean “modern biology”.
lThe Bill does not encourage a totally independent laboratory to do all the required tests, to be controlled jointly by all the stakeholders as stated in the proposal for such a laboratory that this writer had submitted to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) at their request, which proposal Mr Ramesh has supported in principle.
lNo reasons are given as to why a new authority. It is not stated as to what is wrong with the present system.
lThe Bill is against any kind of transparency (Section 27.1). Given the situation in the country in respect of, for example, corruption and unqualified commitment of the government to MNCs and the US, it is most likely that GMOs will be released without any test whatsoever or just face-saving tests done superficially.
If the Bill is passed, there will be only two alternatives for our countrymen: to make sure that the Bill is not notified or is repealed in a reasonable time; or to begin the Third War of Independence!
The writer is a former Vice-Chairman of the National Knowledge Commission and founder-director, Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad

GEAC may renew battle over Bt brinjal

2010-04-17T16:38:00.001+05:30

The government panel that was snubbed by Jairam Ramesh plans to challenge the minister on moratorium

Jacob P. Koshy

New Delhi: The battle over genetically modified brinjal may resume shortly as an environment ministry agency readies its ammunition against arguments that the vegetable, the introduction of which has been halted by a government moratorium, threatens biodiversity and is unsafe for human consumption.

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) will be going up against environment minister Jairam Ramesh, who was responsible for the decision to suspend cultivation of Bt brinjal after the panel had approved it. GEAC, a body of experts created by the government to approve genetically modified (GM) crops, is preparing to question much of the literature cited by Ramesh in his decision to impose the moratorium.

At its meeting last month, the body comprising biotechnologists from several universities and government laboratories decided to compile all reports cited by Ramesh and prepare a riposte in two months, said two people who were at the meeting.

“There are no new issues raised by the minister. All the points made were pretty much tackled by committees constituted by GEAC and made available publicly,” said one of the participants cited above. “So, we’re planning to recompile them and separate science from fiction.”
Ramesh didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Prior to approving Bt brinjal for commercial cultivation, GEAC had commissioned two expert panels in 2007 and 2008 to address concerns raised by activists that the genetically transformed brinjal was an environmental and health threat.

On 2 February, Ramesh announced an “indefinite moratorium” on the release of transgenic brinjal, effectively ruling out the entry of other genetically modified food crops that could have come in through the door opened by Bt brinjal. By doing so, Ramesh also raised questions about the regulatory process surrounding approvals for GM crops in India by GEAC.

Key literature cited by Ramesh in his decision included a critique of the GEAC panel reports by Giles Seralini, a French scientist with Criigen, an anti-GM lobby, and Pushpa Bhargava, former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, and a vocal critic of the existing GM technology approval process. He also highlighted concerns raised by M.S. Swaminathan, a noted agriculture scientist.

Ramesh had asked GEAC to engage with scientists and civil society groups to draw up fresh protocol for additional tests. “The moratorium will continue for as long as it is needed to establish public trust and confidence,” he had said in February.

Ramesh’s decision had irked science and technology minister Prithviraj Chavan and agriculture minister Sharad Pawar, and moved Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to call a meeting in February to work out a compromise. After the meeting, Singh in a press statement only directed that all outstanding issues regarding Bt brinjal be resolved soon, without setting a deadline.
As reported by Mint on 26 February, GEAC may propose an extended rat-feeding study test, where the rodents are fed genetically modified proteins for 180 days, as opposed to the prevalent 90 days, to test for toxicity.

The brinjal in question, which contains a gene artificially introduced into its genome from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, has been developed by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, University of Dharwad, under a free licence from Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd (Mahyco). Among other firms, Monsanto Co., which owns a 26% stake in Mahyco, also has technologies for introducing the Bt gene in other food crops, including rice, maize and wheat.
India allowed commercial cultivation of Bt cotton in 2001.

The use of Bt cotton in India has increased yield from 308kg per hectare in 2001 to 508kg per hectare in 2006, says Cotton Corp. of India Ltd, which helps in selling the commodity.
jacob.k@livemint.com

Agriculture and the India-U.S. 'Strategic Alliance': The Deadly Danger of Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland and Wal-Mart

2010-04-14T16:37:00.000+05:30

by Analytical Monthly Review

Analytical Monthly Review, published in Kharagpur, West Bengal, India, is a sister edition of Monthly Review. Its April 2010 issue features the following editorial. -- Ed.
There are points when long-term trends emerge openly in the present, and a process normally visible only from a distance becomes an unmistakable part of daily life. The displacement (or better dispossession) of rural petty cultivators and producers became noticeable with the adoption of "Green Revolution" expensive technical farming in the 1960s and 1970s, and gathered speed from the time of the neoliberal "reform" regime adopted by the ruling class in 1991. Claims were often made that expanded production for export would create industrial jobs for the masses expelled from the countryside. Such claims were false. Instead vast slum belts surround the cities, and brazen claims of employment gains are falsified by the word "informal" and the misery it denotes. The anguish of this immiserated population echoes with every price rise of foodstuffs, while yet more cultivators are dispossessed.
Yet seventy percent of the population is even now rural, and under ever greater strains. Lakhs of farmer suicides have occurred in the last decade, and the causes are clear to every honest observer. Neoliberal "reforms" subjected farmers' incomes to the wild swings of world speculative markets, and restricted state subsidised credit to a small minority of cultivators. Usury, suddenly celebrated for its "market" magic, finished the murderous job. Even the small minority worthy of credit from the organised banking sector face a full-scale crisis. Large parts of Punjab and Haryana, epicentre of "Green Revolution" farming with chemicals, high-yield seeds and irrigation, now face desertification in the next decades. A recent report by the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology asserts that the state's agriculture "has become unsustainable and nonprofitable." G.S. Kalkat, chairman of the Punjab State Farmers Commission, claims that if farmers in Punjab don't change the way they grow food, a "Dust Bowl" will result. Social manifestation of this crisis is best described by a report from Punjab.
Locals call Train No. 339 by a chilling name -- "the cancer train." It routinely carries at least 60 cancer patients who make the overnight journey with their families to the town of Bikaner for treatment at the government's regional cancer center. Research by one of the most respected medical institutes in India recently found that farming villages using large amounts of pesticides have significantly higher rates of cancer than villages that use less of the chemicals."
The oncoming disaster is not now in dispute on any level. In the recent budget, an amount of Rs.900 crore has been allocated (i) to extend the green revolution (!) to the eastern region of the country comprising Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Eastern UP, West Bengal and Orissa; (ii) to organise 60,000 "pulses and oil seed villages" in rain-fed areas during 2010-11 and provide an integrated intervention for water harvesting, watershed management and soil health, to enhance the productivity of the dry land farming areas and (iii) for launching climate resilient agriculture initiative in the green revolution areas to be sustained through conservation farming, which involves concurrent attention to soil health, water conservation and preservation of biodiversity. It is also mentioned that to spur the growth in this sector, the Government intends to follow a four-pronged strategy covering (a) agricultural production; (b) reduction in wastage of produce; (c) credit support to farmers; and (d) a thrust to the food processing sector.
On the face of it, this section of the budget appears deeply inconsistent; implicitly acknowledging the disasters that have ensued from the "green revolution" while pledging to extend it. The cause is that the underlying program of this government could not be mentioned; the massive introduction of patented seed owned by the giants of U.S. agribusiness. Only gradually has this central element -- a total subjugation of Indian agriculture to the dominant U.S. agri-monopoly corporations -- slowly emerged into the light of day. The positive side of this contradiction is that educated opinion is today so sensitised to the issues that the regime must resort to subterfuge. The negative side is that the extension of the power of U.S. imperialism into our most crucial domestic affairs, agriculture and food security -- abetted in every way by the Manmohan Singh government -- continues apace.
The process has been going for a long time. It received a boost during the visit of Manmohan Singh to the USA and the Joint Statement with U.S. President George Bush of July 18, 2005 where it was announced that the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agreed to work together for an otherwise undescribed new "India-U.S. Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture Education, Research, Services and Commercial Linkages". An agreement signed at New Delhi on November 12th, 2005 spelled out the heart of the matter while leaving all crucial details undisclosed:
A key feature of this Initiative will be a public-private partnership where the private sector can help identify research areas that have the potential for rapid commercialization, with a view to develop new and commercially viable technologies for agricultural advancement in both countries.
The nuclear agreement occupied the media when U.S. President George Bush visited India in March, 2006, while the formal signing of the shadowy deal with which we are concerned -- the "Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture" (KIA) -- went largely unnoticed. The KIA then came into existence, with a Board dominated by representatives of U.S. agribusiness giants Monsanto, Wal-Mart and Archer Daniels Midland. Astoundingly, the full details of the KIA deal were still not made public. A Delhi-based nongovernmental organization (NGO), Gene Campaign, finally managed to obtain some details under the Right to Information Act. The details were shocking; the Indian side is required to prostitute its publicly funded agricultural research to the masters of U.S. agribusiness. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is required to provide free access to its entire network of 47 agricultural laboratories and universities for U.S. companies and research institutes to carry out joint research with ICAR in biotech areas "that have the potential for rapid commercialization" (Nature Biotechnology 24.481, 2006).
A study by Kavitha Kuruganti, based on her reading of the minutes of the KIA Board's meetings, reveals:
While some amount of joint research work seems to be underway, an analysis of the board meeting minutes so far reveals that a major thrust of the KIA is to change some important regulatory regimes pertaining to agriculture in India.
The KIA is expected to lend a focused impetus to changes sought by private agri-business corporations, including many large American multinational corporations (MNCs) like Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland Co. Given that they are on the KIA board, it is impossible that they will not drive as many changes as possible that would suit their business interests. In more than two board meetings, there were express points made on how the private sector could provide more inputs for the regulatory process -- this is ironical given that most regulation in any case is meant to regulate such a private sector and to protect the interests of consumers and producers. There is an inherent conﬂict of interest in these private players determining the shape and systems of regulation!
Harmonisation of legislation is mentioned in different contexts including in the US-India CEO Forum plans. Going through the developments on the KIA front, it appears that the following regulatory regimes related to Indian farming/food are being sought to be changed through the KIA: (1) regulation of genetically modiﬁed organisms (GMOs); (2) contract farming; (3) seeds regulation; and (4) intellectual property rights (IPRs) in agriculture. (Economic & Political Weekly, November 29, 2008)
The true agenda of the KIA -- the destruction of the regulatory regime in the interests of U.S. agribusiness and its Indian coconspirators -- has emerged step by step. In April 2006, the Indian Ministry of Commerce issued a notification requiring all food import consignments to be certified for their genetically modified ("GM") status. The United States objected to this in the Technical Barriers to Trade committee in the WTO in May 2006 as discrimination and asked for its suspension. The Manmohan Singh government, hearing its master's voice, immediately complied in July 2006, and changed its regulation for soyabean-related imports. Soon after, Bush administration undersecretary of state for political affairs Nicholas Burns boasted of the success of the Bush "drive" on India "culminating in impressive agreements regarding civilian nuclear power, trade, science and agriculture with India's reformist prime minister, Manmohan Singh." Burns, in his relatively unguarded comments, salivates at the prospects now open for U.S. capital: "While the civilian nuclear initiative has garnered the most attention, the U.S. and Indian governments have [also] launched joint ventures in agriculture. . ."; "Our first priority is to continue giving governmental support to the huge growth in business between the Indian and American private sectors"; ". . .the potential benefits to American interests [are] so substantial. . ."; "These are heady times for India and the United States."
The key sector was identified from the first -- the global market for seeds. U.S. agribusiness has developed seeds with "terminator genes" so that only one crop can be grown. And even failing such certain means to enslave the world's farmers, seeds are patented and U.S. global military power stands behind its demand that all nations respect its "intellectual property". United States multinational corporations already dominate India's organised seed market, with more than half of all sales. But eighty percent of India's farmers obtain their seeds by traditional means, and not by purchase. And the Indian regulatory regime, as with every major country in Europe and Asia, placed strict controls on the introduction of GM seeds in view of the immense possible health risks and the no less serious threat of the loss of food sovereignty. On this front the attack would be made.
As with all basic elements of U.S. global imperial policy, the shift from Bush to Obama left unchanged the well-planned assault on regulatory resistance to the spread of patented genetically modified seeds:
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made it a point to visit the Indian Agricultural Research . . . and reiterate her country's commitment to bringing about policy changes in the Indian farm sector that US agri-business would like to see. Clinton said she favoured a strong intellectual property or patent regime (IPR) to safeguard the ownership of agricultural research, as that would be in 'everyone's interest'. A contention rejected by Indian agri-policy analysts who say it would primarily benefit owners of biotechnology research -- the MNCs who produce 'Bt' seeds, as genetically modified or GM crops have come to be popularly known (patents would ensure that no one else would be allowed to produce or sell these seeds). Her technology advisor, Nina Federoff, is a strong votary of genetically modified crops, to the extent of being regarded as a spokesperson for US seed multinationals like Monsanto, Dow and DuPont. In fact, Federoff triumphantly pointed out to a group of US agri-scientists last year that although Europe and Japan were cautious about GM foods, Africa and India were clamouring for them! (Bhavdeep Kang, "Why the US Is So Keen to Sell Bt Brinjal to India," Rediff.com, November 19, 2009)
The chosen agent for the assault was genetically modified brinjal [eggplant –ed.] seed ("Bt-brinjal"). The careful preparation of the KIA now was brought into play. As noted above, from the first the KIA, its Board dominated by Monsanto, Wal-Mart, and Archer Daniels Midland, was focused on placing the regulatory regime under the control of agribusiness. And it scored an immediate success over the regulatory regime with the approval of Bt-brinjal by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). But a storm of concerned protest erupted, and at last the entire conspiracy came under public scrutiny.
Under immense pressure from organisations of farmers, the scientific community and every species of national-minded public opinion, Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh declared a moratorium on the introduction of Bt-brinjal early in February, 2010. But it quickly developed that he was relatively isolated in the government, as the immensely wealthy Union Agriculture Minister Shawar Pawar organised a campaign to reverse the decision. At the same time a Bt-brinjal propaganda campaign was unleashed in the mass media, more or less openly financed by the agribusiness interests. As a sign that what is here at issue is far more serious than any single such decision, it now appears that the Manmohan Singh regime has prepared legislation to use the police power to crush opposition to agribusiness and to wipe out the existing regulatory regime.
According to a report by K. P. Prabhakaran Nair, an agricultural scientist:
Now, recently two things are happening quietly -- First is the drafting of the draconian Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill (BRAI) which will be tabled in Parliament soon. The second was the memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Washington and New Delhi which will make the American presence in the Indian farm sector very strong. The MoU has been quietly approved by the Cabinet, against established protocol, without taking Parliament into confidence. It is titled 'Agriculture Cooperation and Food Security' between India and the US. The MoU is primarily intended to enable private American investments in the country. It also seeks to privatise the huge Indian network of agricultural extension. The nutrition security component of the MoU calls for access of Indians to 'diverse diet and diversified and fortified foods' -- a euphemism for genetically modified (GM) foods. India is a big market and with the draconian Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill in the offing, the US government with the Cabinet's approval of the MoU will have no problems in dumping GM foods in the Indian market. The food and nutrition security component will give access to India's great genetic diversity of crop plants for commercialisation to the advantage of the US because of its superior technological skills. The opening up of food security policy dialogue is also a matter of great concern, as it will impose on India the US model of agribusiness and vertical integration of food chain, greatly impacting and consolidating monopolies, because of the extensive and efficient US infrastructure. Indian food sovereignty will simply be lost.
The proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill (BRAI) 2009 criminalises opposition to the agribusiness agenda. Section 63, Chapter 13 of the Bill which deals with various "offences and penalties", reads:
Whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about the safety of the organisms and products specified in Part I or Part II or Part III of the Schedule I, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees or with both.
GM products covered under the Schedule I include genetically engineered plants and organisms, DNA vaccines, cellular products, gene therapy products, stem cell products and other such genetically engineered or transgenic products. "Evidence", "scientific record" and "misleading" are undefined in the bill. As for public knowledge of the activities of the new all-powerful Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India, Section 27 (1) reads:
Disclosure of confidential commercial information, such information shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005, be retained as confidential by the authority and not be disclosed to any other party.
Thus the details of BRAI's decisions on the properties and effects of all patented genetically modified materials can neither be obtained by the public, nor legally challenged.
We now see the totalitarian extent of the "strategic alliance" with the United States. Presented as a "second green revolution" under the benevolent guidance of U.S. agri-monopoly corporations -- Archer Daniel Midland, Cargill, Monsanto, and Wal-Mart -- what we see instead is a further extension of police control over intellectual and political dissidents. The further introduction of expensive agricultural technology (and patented seeds cannot be other than expensive) can only serve to accelerate the dispossession of poor cultivators. The vagaries of weather and world markets will generate price rise, hunger, anger and resistance. Which in turn will be met with new high-technology means of repression courtesy of the same titans of U.S. private enterprise, ever able to profit from each new disaster.
The reality is that Washington and the U.S. agribusiness giants seek by patenting life forms to gain worldwide control of food supply. As Henry Kissinger said in 1970, "control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people". What is at issue is imperialism. The Manmohan Singh path of subjugation to U.S. capital offers no hope of a way out of the impending agricultural crisis; rather the reverse. Rational agriculture, in which humans are able to sustain themselves and to heal the metabolic rift, is not possible without overthrowing the current system that prizes production for profit above all else. As Karl Marx said (Capital, vol. III, chapter 6, section 2):
The moral of the tale is that the capitalist system runs counter to a rational agriculture, or that a rational agriculture is incompatible with the capitalist system (even if the latter promotes technical developments in agriculture) and needs either small farmers working for themselves or the control of the associated producers.

An Open Letter to Oxfam America on its Stance on Biotechnology

2010-04-13T18:12:00.002+05:30

http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/?q=node/view/552

Mr. Jeremy HobbsExecutive Director, Oxfam International

Ray OffenheiserPresident, Oxfam

Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Offenheiser

We the undersigned, as part of the global food justice and food sovereignty movement, are writing to you to express our grave concerns with the recent position publicized by Oxfam America in support of agricultural biotechnology as a viable solution for addressing poverty faced by resource poor and subsistence farmers in developing countries. We deemed necessary to write to you not just because of a recently released book, but also because Oxfam America appears to be positioning itself as a ‘good broker’ for independent research on Bt cotton in West Africa with support from the Gates FoundationRecently released, Biotechnology and Agricultural Development: Transgenic Cotton, Rural Institutions and Resource-Poor Farmers, reports on the outcome of an Oxfam-America project funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

The book, edited by Robert Tripp, assesses the socio-economic impacts of genetically modified cotton on smallholder farmers in India, China, Colombia, and South Africa. Although the book alleges its neutral stance on biotechnology, it appears very biased in favor of transgenic crops. Its conclusion “transgenic crops offer enormous possibilities” not only contradicts several major assessments conducted by the International Assessment of Agriculture, Science, Technology and Development (IAASTD) and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), it also ignores a significant body of natural and social science literature on the topic. As colleagues who share the principles of Oxfam’s mission to “influence the powerful to ensure that poor people can improve theirlivesand livelihoods,” we are deeply troubled that the study and its scientifically questionable (at best) conclusions, falsely support practices that hinder rather than help efforts to save lives, end poverty, and promote social justice. The publication betrays the vibrant global movement that is demanding a more ecologically sustainable and socially just agriculture, free from corporate control.In reviewing the publication we find it problematic for the following reasons, which we elaborate upon in this letter:

1. False advertising on appearing neutral while endorsing GM crops

2. Incomplete research using selective information to arrive at a pro-GM conclusion

3. Its focus on GM crops as a solution to help resource-poor and subsistence farmers climb out of povertyVeiled Endorsement of Biotechnology The book claims its neutral stance on Bt cotton and purports that the study is “located outside the polarized debate.” The editor states strongly up front that “The narrow focus will not allow sweeping judgments certifying that transgenic crops are good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate.” Yet judgment about the benefits of Bt cotton is pervasive throughout the book.Conclusive statements lauding Bt cotton are made, such as, “Transgenic cotton producing insecticidal toxins is a highly effective technology in the battle to control pest damage to cotton,” and “the technology has proven generally successful in providing additional protection against several important cotton pests.” Each chapter features sweeping claims, such as that provided for the Chinese case study: “Bt cotton has made a significant contribution to Chinese cotton production… the new technology provided effective pest control and allowed farmers to increase their productivity.”

According to the book, in South Africa “research has clearly shown that the Bt cotton technology works.” The authors conclude that in India “Bt hybrids contribute to cotton productivity.” Although the chapter on Colombia takes a more measured approach by positing that “it is not possible to attribute all of the productivity gains of Bt growers to the transgenic technology but itwouldcertainly appear that it has made a positive contribution to those who have been able to use it.” None of the above can be characterized as being neutral.

Furthermore, review of a very limited volume of existing data on the topic to draw its conclusions is not neutrality, but rather indicates a clear bias.Incomplete Research Using Selective DataThe book omits critical empirical data and analysis that would otherwise lead to a widely different conclusion about the alleged productivity and success of Bt cotton. Also the findings within each country case study are contradictory.The book cites the Makhathini Flats experience in South Africa as the model example which “has been hailed as proof that GM crops can benefit smallholders in Africa.” Most informed observers know well that Makhathini Flats is considered a Potemkin village for the biotech industry whose lobbyists swoop down in delegations to visit a handful of carefully nurtured farmers with scripts extolling the wonders of Bt cotton.

The book claims, “The majority of the literature has reported impressive adoption rates and positive economic returns.” How the authors arrived at such a sweeping claim of Bt cotton’s success is baffling.The study ignores significant scientific findings that arrive at a substantially different outcome. According to a five-year study of farmers in Makhathini Flats conducted by Biowatch South Africa, the majority of small-scale farmers did not benefit from Bt cotton. In fact, in their drive to purchase Bt cottonseeds—which are double the price of conventional seed—farmers amassed on average $1,322 in debt. Of the 36 farmers studied, only four made a profit, whereas 80 percent defaulted on their loans.

Another study published in 2006 in the academic journal Review of African Political Economy found that widespread adoption of GM technology in the Makhatini Flats was the result of limited choices for farmers. The adoption rate was high in the first years because farmers had no other option – one company provided both credit and seeds. Although Bt cotton was supposed to reduce farmers’ dependence on pesticides, the study found that this was not the case due to the emergence of secondary pests, like jassid. Ignoring these findings, the book based on Oxfam’s project concludes “Research has clearly shown that the Bt cotton technology works and that both large-scale and smallholder farmers can benefit.”The chapter on China cites a 2002 and 2004 study (Huang et al) that found that “farm-level surveys in northern China show that the adoption of Bt cotton has raised cotton yields and allowed farmers to reduce their insecticide use.” The authors, however, fail to include findings from a major 2006 Cornell study jointly conducted with the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy and Chinese Academy of Science.

The team of researchers included Per Pinstrup-Andersen, the 2001 Food Prize Laureate and former Director General of IFPRI. The Cornell study found that seven years after the initial commercialization of Bt cotton in China, the profits enjoyed by Bt cotton growers quickly diminished due to the emergence of secondary pests. Another finding was that Bt cotton farmers spent more on secondary pest control as their conventional counterparts: $16 per hectare for Bt growers, versus $5.70 per hectare for non Bt farmers. By 2004, Bt cotton growers earned 8 percent less than theircounterparts because GM seed cost triple the amount of conventional seed. It is also worthy to note that even before adoption of Bt cotton, pesticide use among Chinese farmers was already quite high in China, which does not bode well for current rates.

In the case of India, the study omits other findings that counter its conclusions. The authors write, “The introduction of Bt cotton has coincided with increasing cotton yields and production in the past few years.” Summary of the book states, “although Bt cotton contributes to yield increases, its original purpose was to lower the requirements for insecticide use…The Bt growers spray less frequently than the non-Bt growers for bollworm… the Bt growers make somewhat fewer total insecticide applications and use a considerably lower quantity of insecticides….”In the first week of March, biotech agriculture giant Monsanto admitted to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of India, that field monitoring of the 2009 cotton season showed that pink bollworm has developed resistance to its genetically modified (GM) cotton variety, Bollgard I, in Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot districts in Gujarat. This admission verified 2004 findings of the scientists at the Central Institute of Cotton Research in India who warned of the risk of pest resistance to Bt varieties in a paper published in the Indian Academy of Science publication.

The authors established a theoretical model to predict resistance development in bollworms due to overuse of the cry1Ac gene.In a recent report submitted to Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister before Monsanto’s admission, K.R. Kranthi of the Central Institute for Cotton Research had cautioned that bollworms are developing resistance. The report also warned that not only has Bt cotton been rendered ineffective, it has also led to detection of some new pests never before reported from India, which are causing significant economic losses. Two reputable Indian publications, The Hindu and India Today, recently established that cotton productivity dropped from 560 kg lint per hectare in 2007 to 512 kg lint per hectare by 2009. While the Oxfam study found that “Bt growers make somewhat fewer total insecticide applications and use a considerably lower quantity of insecticides,” the two Indian publications reported an increase in pesticide expenditure by cotton farmers from Rs. 597 crore in 2002 to Rs. 791 crore in 2009.The chapter on Colombian farmers’ experiences with GM cotton concludes “it has made a positive contribution to those who have been able to use it.” This conclusion, however, is not backed by the data presented by the authors. For one, if Bt cotton was so successful, then why did the percentage of land devoted to Bt cotton production drop from 70% in 2005 to 40% by 2009? The Oxfam study admits that GM seeds did not save “farmers significant investment in insecticides,” but claims that “the technology’s principal advantage appears to be its yield enhancement.” But higher yields were not uniform across the areas studied. How can the authors conclude BT cotton to be a success when they found higher uses of insecticides for GM seed that costs three times the price of conventional seed? With a more complete and unbiased review of the extensive literature, the book may have drawn different conclusions.Focus on GM Misses the Mark, Deflects from Real ChangeWe are troubled by the book based on Oxfam’s project, not only because of its veiled endorsement of biotechnology based on selective data, but because it diverts attention from real solutions for smallholder and subsistence farmers: structural reform and ecologically based agriculture.

We are alarmed by the emphasis on the promise of transgenic crops and advocating for greater institutional support to facilitate the technology. The study concludes that “Transgenic crops may make an important contribution, but even their most ardent supporters should agree that many other things must be in place in order for farmers to take full advantage of the technology.” This dangerously misses the mark if the goal is to achieve small holder-farmer viability and agricultural development. As we’ve countered in this letter, the Oxfam study’s narrow focus on short-term economic performance and yield productivity (based on faulty and selective data) without factoring in externalities clearlyundermines any limited gains by farmers growing Bt cotton. It goes against Oxfam’s own advice that policymakers need two types of information to weigh transgenic crops: externalities and the impact on farmers and the agricultural economy.Unfortunately, the study focuses narrowly on yields and profit (using selective data) and “does not provide a rigorous assessment [of] environmental, health, and gender impacts.” Yet it contradicts itself. According to its March 18th press release, “An innovation such as a transgenic crop is not simply a technical solution, it is an intervention with social, economic, and political consequences.” Yet none of these effects are weighed, such as the long-term viability for small-scale farmers, the impact of increased use of insecticides on the health of farmers, their families and the ecosystem, high cost of GM seeds, and dependency on private companies for seed.According to the book, “The exceptional controversy engendered by agricultural biotechnology has pushed us into asking the wrong kinds of questions and engaging in the wrong types of debate.” Yet Oxfam America’s study misses the mark and deflects growing attention from real solutions now being discussed at the highest official channels (IAASTD and the UN) to grassroots food justice communities around the world.The Oxfam study does not challenge the consequences of resource-poor farmers’ dependency on seed that is vulnerable to the vagaries of pricing set by three multi-national corporations. According to the USDA National Statistics Service, biotech soybean seeds have more than doubled in price from 2001 to 2009 from $23.90 a bushel to $49.60 a bushel. According to a report by Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering, royalties paid to Monsanto for the Roundup Ready trait in soybeans has also nearly tripled in the last decade from $6.50 in 2000 to $17.00 per bag by 2009.The study’s narrow focus narrow focus completely ignores structural inequalities faced by small-scale and subsistence farmers in the Global South, such as the massive subsidization of agribusiness corporations in the EU and US, forced trade liberalization policies, and legacies of colonialism.

This study gives the green light to biotechnology instead of challenging corporate control over our food systems. Instead of promoting a holistic approach built on ecologically based farming systems where extensive studies have demonstrated a wide swath of environmental, social, and economic benefits that hold great promise in resolving the ongoing food crisis and the adverse impacts of climate change, Oxfam America hails biotech.ConclusionOxfam America’s endorsement of biotechnology sets a very dangerous precedent of being used by the industry in their struggle to force the adoption of GM crops in spite of strong global resistance.

The book based on the outcome of Oxfam America’s project and the shocking endorsement of transgenic crops in the face of diverse and voluminous literature countering their stance, threatens to damage Oxfam’s relationship with longtime allies and its reputation as an independent organization. Oxfam, with this study, appears to be siding with corporations, who have used cotton in their efforts to promote GM crops as a whole. Bt cotton is a Trojan horse for future GM crops, including sorghum, cassava, maize, rice and all the staple crops in the world.This reckless move also raises questions whether Oxfam America’s position endorsing GM crops is a result of significant funding from the Rockefeller and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations.

The Rockefeller Foundation provided financial support for Oxfam America’s Biotechnology and Development report. In November 2009, Oxfam America received a $491,270 grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation “to support the monitoring of bacillus thuringiensis cotton impact in West Africa.” These two foundations are explicit promoters of biotechnologies. The Gates Foundation has important ties with Monsanto, the leading company in the biotechnology industry, which has been using ‘revolving doors’ with Foundations and Government Agencies, to erase obstacles and reach its current leading position on the market.

Unfortunately, historically and today, agroecological research and development receives a fraction of what biotechnology R&D receives, which this grant by the GatesFoundation perpetuates.Furthermore, Oxfam America supports the Global Food Security Act of 2009, also known as the Lugar-Casey Act, and claims it will “improve long-term food security by investing in long-term agricultural development.” The section 202 of this Act includes “research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including gm technology.” This bill gives favored treatment of biotechnology that is controlled by two or three companies, mostly by Monsanto which has invested over $8.6 million in lobbying Congress last year to pass the Lugar-Casey Act.Oxfam America is surrendering to the biotech industry and their corporate extensions and private foundations. By doing so it is selling out those it has committed to help and support, including resource-poor farmers, and all those defending health, biodiversity, and the environment. We hope Oxfam America will retract its stance on biotechnology and join the global farmer, environmental, and justice movements united around the world calling for an end to corporate domination and contamination of our food.

Sincerely,African Center on Biodiversity, South Africa (Mariam Mayet, Executive Director)Bharatiya Krishak Samaj/Indian Farmers Association, India (Krishan Bir Chaudhary, President)Center for Food Safety, U.S. (Debi Barker, International Director)CNOP (Coordination Nationale des organizations Paysannes/ National Coordination of Peasant Organizations), Mali (Ibrahima Coulibaly, President)Grassroots International, US (Nikhil Aziz, Executive Director)Thamizhaga Vivasayigal Sangam/Farmers Association Of Tamil Nadu, India (S.Kannaiyan, Organizer)The Oakland Institute, US (Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director

GM crops cause liver and kidney damage

2010-04-12T11:45:00.001+05:30

A report published in the International Journal of Microbiology has verified once again that Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) crops are causing severe health problems. A legal challenge issued against Monsanto forced the multi-national agriculture giant to release raw data revealing that animals fed its patented GM corn suffered liver and kidney damage within just three months.

Adding to the mounting evidence that GM crops are dangerous all around, this information provides a damning indictment against Monsanto which continually insists that its GM products are safe. Not only are GM crops proving disastrous for the environment, but study after study, including those conducted by Monsanto itself, is showing that GM foods are detrimental to health.

Monsanto's data indicated that the company had conducted tests on three varieties of its GM corn, two of which contain the dangerous Bt protein, and one designed specifically to resist Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. All three are widely grown in the United States while only one is currently grown in Europe.

Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, a French researcher from the University of Caen, was tasked with examining the data and providing a review. While stopping short of declaring GM crops to be toxic, he did emphasize that chronic negative effects were apparent and that there were "statistically significant" indications of kidney and liver damage.

The specific effects observed in test rats included a buildup of hormones in the blood, indicating that their liver and kidneys were not functioning properly. One variety of the corn led to elevated blood sugar levels and increased triglyceride levels in female rats given it.

Dr. Seralini concluded that, because GM crops are foreign substances that have never been a part of a normal diet, there is no telling what the long-term effects of consumption will be on people. In animals, significant disruption of normal bodily function has been observed even in the short term.

Genetically manipulated food crops are not fit for human consumption and should not be classified as food. No legitimate study has ever proven them to be safe or nutritious. The burden of proof is on the producers of such crops to verify their safety and, to date, all data has revealed that they are unsafe. Claims that GM foods will end world hunger are baseless, propagated only by those that have a financial interest in converting the world's food supply to their own patented varieties in order to control it.