FEBRUARY 2010 National Magazine of Farmers Voice

1Kisan Ki AwaazFebruary, 2010

2 Kisan Ki Awaaz February, 2010

Editor :

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

Advisory Board :

Ashok B. SharmaS. P. Gulati, Sect. G.O.I., Retd.Lingraj B. PatilDr. Mangesh DeshmukhDr. R.B. ThakareD. Guruswamy, Adv.Rajesh Sharma “Bittoo”Pratap Singh, DIG Retd.Hatam Singh Nagar, Adv.K. SareenSharad Agnihotri

Printed & Published by :

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary on behalf ofBharatiya Krishak Samaj.

Printed at Everest Press, E-49/8, OkhlaIndustrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-20.

Published at :

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

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

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

Suggestions for improvement are invited

Vol. 1 No. 2 February, 2010

KISAN KI AWAAZNational Magazine of Farmers’ Voice

CONTENTSHealth Scandal of the decade - Monsato’s GMOs... 2— Byron Richards

Monsanto : Decades of a dark history 6— Aruna Rodrigues

Doctors warn : avoid genetically...... 10— Jeffrey M. Smith

Supreme Court nominee Dr. Pushpa M. Bhargava’s points out bio-safety tests on GMOs not done 14

Letter by Prof. Jack Heinemann to Sh. Jairam Ramesh 19

Agricultural practices and carbon sequestration 22

Mounting pressure on Farmers’ 24— Prof. J. George

GMOs are going to create famine and hunger 27— John L. Allen Jr.

Bharatiya Krishak Samaj letter to Sh. Jairam Ramesh 32

New SubscriptionAnnual subscription charge of Rs 300/- for our monthly journal'KISAN KI AWAAZ' may please be sent by cheque/Draft, drawn

in favour of Kisan Ki Awaaz, F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091.


January 19, 2010 : In the 2010 growing seasonMonsanto plans to unleash its latest Frankenfoodexperiment on the American and Canadian public,a new version of genetically mutated corn witheight abnormal gene traits called GenuitySmartStax corn. It is the culmination of anastonishing scandal that has been steadily buildingover the past decade.

During this time, Monsanto’s mutated seeds havegrown to 90% of the U.S. soy crop and 85% of thecorn crop – and wheat is next on their agenda. Their efforts have been marked by corporatebullying and have drawn the attention of theJustice Department who is conducting anantitrustinvestigation.

All the while they have been spending millions onlobbying to fast track their agenda before theAmerican public even realizes what hitthem. Europeans are livid about the lack of safetytesting for this newest Monsanto experiment.

Monsanto is making an ominous power play tocorner the worldwide market on food and seeds. In the process they are adversely altering the verynature of food itself.

Few people would eat Monsanto’s “food” if theyunderstood what it was or knew that they wereeating it. President Obama and his family won’teat it. Neither did the Bush family. Evena Monsanto employee cafeteria rejects it. This isno laughing matter.

Your health and the health of your children andgrandchildren are at stake. It seems more like ascene from a horror flick than somethinghappening in modern day America. Imagine yourdigestive tract turned into a Roundup herbicidefactory and other warped genetic signals slowly

and progressively rotting away your health. Unlike acute food poisoning frominfectious E.coli, it is a slow and insidiouspoisoning.Why GMO Food is DangerousMonsanto’s GMO (genetically modified organism)technology inserts non-food genes, genes fromother species, into the DNA of food, altering thevery nature of food itself.

In some cases these genes make the crops moretolerant to the Roundup herbicide made byMonsanto and in other cases the genesabnormally cause the DNA of food cells toproduce toxic proteins that act as pesticides.

Most people are not comfortable with the conceptof altering the nature of food in a grand geneticexperiment with unknown consequences. Theidea of food producing its own internal toxin isequally abhorrent.

After all, who wants to eat toxic food? Evenfewer trust this technology in the hands ofMonsanto, a company with a history of blatantdisregard for human health. It was Monsantothat knowingly poisoned the planet with toxicPCBs.

The process of making GMO seeds also poseshealth risks. Viral promoter genes are usedduring this production process and become partof the DNA mix, posing a risk for new types ofviral disease.

An unintended side-effect of this productiontechnology is chronic activation or suppressionof normal genes in the modified plants. Thisalters the actual nutrient structure of food andthe function of the proteins within that food – avery serious matter.

Health Scandal of the Decade – Monsanto’s GMOPerversion of Food

*Byron Richards


The entire process of producing GMO seeds isalso unpredictable. It creates multiple randomgenetic events in every food cell invaded by themutant genes. Because each gene doesn’t justdo one thing and is highly interactive with othergenes, the production of GMO food is notconsistent and therefore safety cannot beguaranteed – especially when you understandthat our scientific knowledge of geneinterdependencies is in its infancy.

Eating food that is mutated by other non-foodspecies is a grand experiment to say the least. GMO mutants cantransfer to the living bacteria inyour digestive tract, as has been shown in animalexperiments. This can adversely change the wayyour gut bacteria behave so that they createpesticides and become more resistant to yourimmune system and medical treatments. If theGMO mutants were to transfer to an existinginfection in your digestive tract then it couldcreate your own superbug.

Because the proteins in GMO food arestructurally different than normal food theysignificantly increase the risk for allergy. Allergyis one form of inflammation that is likely to resultfrom GMO food, but there are many otherpotential sources. These include the mis-metabolism of the food, the inherent toxicity ofthe food, and the pesticide residues on the food.

These inflammatory problems of GMO food willadditively contribute to other forms ofinflammation such as pollution and stress andadd to the total inflammation burden sets thestage for many diseases. It is likely that GMOfood will have a significant impact on pregnancyproblems and developmental problems inchildren.

At this time nobody can rule out GMO as apossible causative factor in Autism, as the ratesof both have risen together. A recent re-evaluation of data provided by Monsanto showedthat various types of GMO corn caused significant

inflammatory organ damage to rats.

It has now been shown that the healthconsequence of eating high amounts of Roundupresidue that is being sprayed in ever-higheramounts on GMO crops is the disruption of yourendocrine system. A recent study shows thatthese residues of Roundup are highly interactivewith sex hormones and significantly disrupt theirfunction. A 2008 Austrian government studyshowed that feeding GMO corn to mice formultiple generations resulted in fertility issues andweakened kidneys, as well as changes inmetabolic pathways involved with inflammation,cholesterol, and protein.

GMO crops are also drastically andadversely altering soil quality. In fact, soil animalssuch as earthworms are now found to haveincorporated GMO mutant corn genes into theircells. This finding is of extreme importance topotential human health problems. There iscertainly nothing preventing this from happeningto humans.

For more information on the devastating healthconsequences of consuming GMO foodsread Jeffrey Smith’s books,Seeds ofDeception and Genetic Roulette.”

You may be wondering the obvious; if GMOs areso dangerous to eat then why are they allowedin the food supply?Corporate Cronyism - A Corrupt FDA Placesthe Public in DangerWe now know that FDA scientists originallyworking on the issue of the safety of GMO foodhad considerable concerns that included allergies,toxins, adverse nutritional effects, and newdiseases. They urged long-term studies but wereignored by FDA management who insteaddecided that GMO food was “substantiallyequivalent” to normal food. In 1992 thesemanagers issued the following policy statementin the Federal Register, “The agency is not aware


of any information showing that foods derivedby these new methods differ from other foods inany meaningful or uniform way.” In retrospect,that policy, which stands to this day, was a flatout lie and a treasonous betrayal of the publictrust.

Court cases have forced into public view thedocuments expressing the concerns of the FDAscientists. You can read them all at this link tothe BioIntegrity.Org website. In fact, rushingGMO foods to market also represents a seriousbreach of scientific integrity by the overallresearch community.

Today, the FDA is a world leader in proteomictechnology, the advanced analysis of proteinstructure and function. Italian researchers usingproteomics have already proven beyond anyquestion that GMO food is so genetically differentfrom normal food that it cannot possibly beconsidered substantially equivalent. Certainly theFDA could discover this fact for themselves in amatter of hours. Why are FDA scientists inhandcuffs and not taking action?

Part of the FDA management team’s culture ofcorruption is a revolving door with the variouscompanies they are supposed to be regulating,the very definition of corporate cronyism. Theseshenanigans have had the net effect of the FDAacting primarily as a police force bullyrepresenting various powerful lobbies that buyprotection and marketing favors, while stompingon the rights of the little guys like organic familyfarms and consumers.

In the case of food, Monsanto wins the gold medalfor influence pedaling at the expense of thehuman health.

One of the more egregious examples of cronyismis Michael Taylor. He was an FDA staff lawyerand Executive Assistant to the FDA Commissionerfrom 1976 to 1981. From 1981 to 1991 he workedat the law firm of King and Spaulding, acting as

Monsanto’s lawyer and lobbyist.

He was a major proponent for overturning theDelaney Clause, a 1958 law prohibiting theintroduction of known carcinogens to processedfoods, a law Monsanto hated and which waseventually overturned by Clinton in 1996. Hismain responsibility during this time was gainingregulatory approval of Monsanto’s geneticallymodified cancer-causing bovine growth hormone(rBGH).

To complete his efforts on the bovine growthhormone issue Taylor went back to work for theFDA in 1991 with the title Deputy Commissionerfor Policy at the Food and Drug Administration. He was directly responsible for writing the FDApolicy on “substantial equivalence” whichinitially ushered in the rBGH era and to this dayenables Monsanto to market its GMO mutatedfood with no appropriate oversight by the FDAas to safety. He also formulated policy thatprevented milk producers from informingconsumers that their milk was free of bovinegrowth hormone – intentionally preventingconsumers from being able to tell what was inthe milk product they were consuming.

After accomplishing his dirty work, he left theFDA in 1994 and went to work for Monsanto asVice President for Public Policy, working onMonsanto’s long range plans. More recently, hebecame a Senior Fellow at Resources for theFuture (RFF) and Director of the Risk, Resourcesand Environmental Management division.

In this role, he strategized how to get Monsanto’sGMO crops into Africa, working closely with theBill and Melinda Gates Foundation and theRockefeller Foundation. He also worked closelywith the Bush Administration, and is the pointman in helping an elite agenda to spread GMOseeds and biotech dependence around the world.

You guessed it – now he is back at the FDA ina new position the Obama Administration created


– Senior Advisor to the Commissioner, workingprimarily on issues of food safety! “I am pleasedto welcome Mike Taylor back to the FDA,”Commissioner of Food and Drugs Margaret A.Hamburg, M.D., said in announcing Taylor’sappointment. “His expertise and leadership onfood safety issues will help the agency to developand implement the prevention based strategy weneed to ensure the safety of the food we eat.”

As Monsanto, in anti-competitive collusion withDow, takes their new GMO toxic and mutatedcorn to market, stacked with eight genes, it shouldcome as no surprise that absolutely no safetytesting is being required by the FDA.

Never before have there been eight genes alteredsimultaneously within the cells of food. One geneis bad enough. Three is horrendous. But eight? The fact that the FDA is not requiring extensivesafety testing by independent sources of thishighly unpredictable and dangerous technologyis unthinkable. It is a grim day when the fox isin charge of the henhouse.There Is No Good Reason for Monsanto’sGMOsIf you listen to Monsanto and their businesscohorts such as Cargill, they state they are tryingto feed the world. In reality, the world couldeliminate Monsanto’s mutated food tomorrowand it would be a better place.

It could also do without Cargill acting asan unregulated food banker, profiting on themanipulation of food sales at the expense offarmers in a way that is every bit as bad as theworst of Wall Street.

There is no need for Monsanto’s GMO mutatedseeds. They offer no advantages. It is an industrybeing propped up by unelected bureaucrats andelected officials on the receiving end ofMonsanto’s multi-million dollar lobbyingoperation. Michael Taylor is one exampleof corporate crony influence, there are many

others. The USDA is profiting from Monsanto’sseeds that cannot be used the next growingseason (the Terminator aspect of the problem).

The EPA’s failure to regulate the amounts ofRoundup used on food is yet another scandal. It’s all about profits and control – whileundermining the world’s farmers and thebiodiversity and sustainability of crops.

Contrary to the Monsanto and Cargillpropaganda, GMO technology does not increasecrop yields, as has been fully documented in theUnion of Concerned Scientists report titled Failureto Yield. And GMO crops are very bad forthecarbon footprint.

The fact that the Obama administration is activelyforwarding Monsanto’s efforts should be a graveconcern to every American. Of course, the last16 years of Clinton and Bush also did everythingin their power to help Monsanto.

No wonder Americans are fed up. Politicians inboth parties are beholden to the golden idol, notthe best health interests of its citizens.

Take Back Our Food – Join the Fight

We the people can have a huge impact and wecan change this serious threat to human health. Don’t buy GMOs food. GMOs permeate corn andsoy products, beet sugar is now mutated, andwheat is next in line.

If you aren’t sure how to avoid GMO foods andbrands then follow the advice given on JeffreySmith’s Non-GMO shopping guide. Demandfrom your political representatives that all GMOfood be labeled as containing GMOs. This isn’tjust a political issue – this is about your personalhealth and the future of food.

*Source: CCN


Monsanto and our Government

The Bt brinjal safety dossier is the work and analysesof Monsanto with no oversight. This invalidates it.Yet, the Government Regulator feels empowered tobrush aside the serious objections to the dossier onsafety grounds by four internationally renownedscientists. It approved Bt brinjal for commercial releaseon the 14th Oct. hurriedly, despite requests by 3dissenting members including Dr Bhargava to providedue time to read the Expert Committee Report,especially given the flawed data, gaps and omissionsand outstanding evidence of environmental and healthhazards. The GEAC were in a great hurry; theydismissed these legitimate requests. The question iswhy? And what is the hurry?

We know that there is a massive conflict of interestwithin the Regulators, to the point that the linebetween Regulator and regulated is conspicuouslyblurred. Thus, Monsanto has a direct line and lobbyingability with our Regulators and is able to bringunprecedented pressure to bear. At a time when wehave evidence of graft and corruption of US companieslike Dow Chemicals bribing Indian bureaucrats withincrop insecticide departments and in other keyMinistries, it will be wise to remember that Monsantohas been indicted by US law enforcement agenciesmany times over in its corporate history. They standaccused of some of the greatest crimes againsthumanity.

The fact is that the Government of India has entrustedthe bio-safety of India, its food security, environmentand farming into the hands of Monsanto. This is likehanding over the keys of ones house to a known felonand proceeding on a holiday. An investigation isurgent and imperative to probe Monsanto in India andits HOLD over our Government.

THIS IS THE RECORD OF MONSANTO, OF HOW IT SERVES

SOCIETY AND MAKES ITS PROFIT

MONSANTO: DECADES OF A DARK HISTORY*Aruna Rodrigues

• 1969: Produces Lasso herbicide, betterknown as Agent Orange, which was usedas a defoliant by the U.S. Governmentduring the Vietnam War. “[Lasso’s] successturns around the struggling AgricultureDivision,” Monsanto’s web page reads.

1976: RoundUp is commercialized, becomingthe world’s top-selling herbicide.

1976: Monsanto produces Cycle-Safe, theworld’s first plastic soft-drink bottle. Thebottle, suspected of posing a cancer risk, isbanned the following year by the Food andDrug Administration.

• 1981: G.D. Searle gets FDA approval forNutraSweet (Monsanto completes itsacquisition of Searle in 1985, manufacturersof Aspartame).

• 1986: Monsanto found guilty of negligentlyexposing a worker to benzene at itsChocolate Bayou Plant in Texas. It is forcedto pay $100 million to the family of WilburJack Skeen, a worker who died of leukaemiaafter repeated exposures.

1986: At a 1986 congressional hearing,medical specialists denounce a NationalCancer Institute study disputing thatformaldehyde causes cancer. Monsanto andDuPont scientists helped with the study,whose author provided results to theFormaldehyde Institute industryrepresentatives nearly six months beforereleasing the study to the EPA, labor unionsand the public.

1986: Monsanto spends $50,000 againstCalifornia’s anti-toxics initiative, Proposition65. The initiative prohibits the discharge ofchemicals known to cause cancer or birth


defects into drinking water supplies.

• 1987: —Monsanto is one of the companiesnamed in an $180 million settlement forVietnam War veterans exposed to AgentOrange.

• 1988: A federal jury finds Monsanto Co.’ssubsidiary, G.D. Searle & Co., negligent intesting and marketing of its Copper 7intrauterine birth control device (IUD). Theverdict followed the unsealing of internaldocuments regarding safety concerns aboutthe IUD, which was used by nearly 10 millionwomen between 1974 and 1986.

• 1990: EPA chemists allege fraud inMonsanto’s 1979 dioxin study, which foundexposure to the chemical doesn’t increasecancer risks.

• 1990: Monsanto spends more than $405,000to defeat California’s pesticide regulationProposition 128, known as the “Big Green”initiative. The initiative is aimed at phasingout the use of pesticides, includingMonsanto’s product alachlor, linked tocancer and global warming.

• 1991: Monsanto is fined $1.2 million fortrying to conceal discharge of contaminatedwaste water into the Mystic River inConnecticut.

• 1993: The Food and Drug Administrationapproves controversial Posilac bovinesomatropin (BST) which was subsequentlybanned outside the US

• 1995: Monsanto is sued after allegedlysupplying radioactive material for acontroversial study which involved feedingradioactive iron to 829 pregnant women.

1995: Monsanto ordered to pay $41.1 millionto a waste management company in Texas

due to concerns over hazardous wastedumping.

• 1995: The Safe Shoppers Bible says thatMonsanto’s Ortho Weed-B-Gon Lawn WeedKiller contains a known carcinogen, 2,4 D.Company officials argue that numerousstudies have found no link to cancer.

• 1997 : The Seattle Times reports thatMonsanto sold 6,000 tons of contaminatedwaste to Idaho fertilizer companies, whichcontained the carcinogenic heavy metalcadmium, believed to cause cancer, kidneydisease, neurological dysfunction and birthdefects.

Monsanto said Agent Orange and PCB’s were safe,that Aspartame was safe. Aspartame causescancers and formaldehyde poisoning listedamongst 92 acknowledged health hazards on FDAfiles (produced in a court of law) and which is nowthe subject of a multi-million dollar law suit in theUS. Monsanto is now the agri-business giant,(Roundup Ready -RR) and brand leader in GMCrops (Bt and RR — herbicide tolerant crops). Itowns Terminator technology in partnership withthe US government, fudges, bribes and falsifiesdata to show its GMOs are safe.

• According to the U.S. Securities & ExchangeCommission, Monsanto bribed at least 140Indonesian officials or their families to getBt cotton approved without anenvironmental impact assessment (EIA). In2005, Monsanto paid $1.5 million in fines tothe US Justice Department for these bribes.

• Six Government scientists including Dr. Mar-garet Haydon told the Canadian SenateCommittee of Monsanto’s ‘offer’ of a bribeof between $1-2 million to the scientists fromHealth Canada if they approved thecompany’s GM bovine growth hormone(rbGH) (banned in many countries outsidethe US), without further study and how notes


and files critical of scientific data providedby Monsanto were stolen from a locked fil-ing cabinet in her office. One FDA scientistarbitrarily increased the allowable levels ofantibiotics in milk 100-fold in order to facili-tate the approval of rbGH. She had just ar-rived at the FDA from Monsanto.

• The US Patent and Trademark Office rejectedfour key Monsanto patents related to GMcrops that the Public Patent Foundation(PUBPAT) challenged because theagricultural giant is using them to harass,intimidate, sue - and in some cases bankrupt -American farmers. Monsanto devotes morethan $10 million per year to such anti-farmeractivities, over alleged improper use of itspatented seeds.

• The Alabama Court Judgement in February2002 best describes the sort of business thatMonsanto is in. In 1966, court documents ina case concerning Anniston residents in theUS showed that Monsanto managersdiscovered that fish dunked in a local creekturned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurtingblood and shedding skin as dropped intoboiling water. In 1969, they found fish inanother creek with 7,500 times the legal PCBlevel. But they never told their neighboursand concluded that “there is little object ingoing to expensive extremes in limitingdischarges – We can’t afford to lose one dollarof business”. In fact court documents revealedthat the company withheld evidence aboutthe safety of their PCBs to the residents ofthe town that were being poisoned by theirfactory to keep their profitable dollars. OnFebruary 22nd 2002, a court found Monsantoguilty on six counts of NEGLIGENCE,WANTONESS AND SUPRESSION OF THETRUTH, NUISANCE, TRESPASS ANDOUTRAGE. Outrage according to Alabamalaw is conduct “so outrageous in character andextreme in degree as to go beyond all possiblebounds of decency so as to be regarded as

atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilizedsociety.”

• Monsanto omitted incriminating data alto-gether from its 1996 published study on GMsoybeans. When the data was recovered laterby an investigator, it showed that GM soycontained significantly lower levels of pro-tein and other nutrients and toasted GM soymeal contained nearly twice the amount ofa lectin (protein) that may block the body’sability to assimilate other nutrients. Further-more, the toasted GM soy contained as muchas seven times the amount ot trypsin inhibi-tor, a major soy allergen. Monsanto namedtheir study: “The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that ofconventional soybeans”

• Monsanto hides evidence of the toxiceffects of its GM products. In Europe itrefused to reveal the results of its ownsecret animal feeding studies, which re-vealed serious abnormalities to rats fed GMcorn, citing CBI (Confidential BusinessInformation) until forced to do so by aGerman Court. One of its Bt corn products(the only GM crop grown in the EU) wassubsequently banned for planting in Franceand other EU countries based on the ap-praisal by Seralini of Monsanto’s owndossier.

• The India Story of Bt brinjal is virtually iden-tical. It has taken two years for these safetystudies to be put in the public domain. TheRegulator is complicit in having supportedMonsanto in its attempts to keep the studiessecret by claiming them as “confidential busi-ness information,” until forced to change theirstance by the Supreme Court Order. Theycomplied in Aug 08. Its Safety Dossier wasappraised by 4 independent and internation-ally acclaimed scientists (including Seralini).Their appraisals provide evidence of toxic-ity, badly designed studies, fuzzy data


Scientists in Canada have found evidence of the transgene present in geneticallymodified Roundup Ready corn in various soil-dwelling animals, pointing to “seriousimplications for environmental health and human safety.”

The transgene, which makes the corn resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, haspresented in four different animal types: macroarthropods and nematodes, andmicroarthropods and earthworms living in a field of Roundup Ready corn. About81% of nematodes tested positive for the transgene, and more than a third ofmicroarthropods.

”Whether the presence of transgenes in the soil food web presents a risk for soilanimals is not known,” wrote the scientists. This statement suggests that despitethe widespread use of GMOs for years, the environmental effects remain unknown.The bad news?

This evidence of concentrations of transgenic DNA in animals indicates that thetransgene does not significantly degrade within the food web. The guts of theseanimals could allow genetic transformation into native soil bacteria, which couldultimately move into plants and pose risks to human health.

Transgene from GM Corn Detected in Soil Animals

*Source: Ecological Farming Association

masked by too many controls; no ‘p’ values,a most serious omission; paucity of raw data;no peer review; gaps, major omissions andsample sizes which make sheer mockery ofgood biosafety testing. In short, the studiesare a smokescreen. The study defects are longand would fill a dossier on their own demer-its. It is difficult to avoid the serious conclu-sion of intent to mislead, even cover-up andfraud.

NOTE:

Monsanto is the company that the Government ofIndia has accepted as being on the Boardrepresenting the US side in the KIA (India–USKnowledge Initiative in Agriculture), which allowsMonsanto access to our premier agriculturalinstitutions across India. The GEAC is on record aswanting to “trust” Monsanto because it would bewrong not to do so without reason, despite

Monsanto’s history of corporate criminality. Thesafety assessment of Bt brinjal was undertaken byMonsanto, with no independent testing or oversight.

Legitimate criticism of the dossier by as many as fourscientists of impeccable international standing havebeen rejected by the Regulators and the thoroughlyunscientific assessment by the Expert Committeewhose members were drawn essentially from theRegulators, and who are manifestly not independent,and some of whom demonstrate a serious conflict ofinterest, have been astonishingly upheld. Is India asa nation prepared to allow the Government tomortgage the Nation’s future for all time: thecontamination of our biodiversity by GM, our foodsecurity, right to safe food & health, our farmers &farming environment, because of an inappropriateinvestment of “trust” by our Government and itsRegulator, in Mahyco-Monsanto?


*Source : guardian.co.uk

On May 19th, the American Academy ofEnvironmental Medicine (AAEM) called on“Physicians to educate their patients, the medicalcommunity, and the public to avoid GM (geneticallymodified) foods when possible and provideeducational materials concerning GM foods andhealth risks.”

They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’sposition paper stated, “Several animal studiesindicate serious health risks associated with GMfood,” including infertility, immune problems,accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changesin major organs and the gastrointestinal system.They conclude, “There is more than a casualassociation between GM foods and adverse healtheffects. There is causation,” as defined by recognizedscientific criteria. “The strength of association andconsistency between GM foods and disease isconfirmed in several animal studies”.

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internalmedicine specialist, and board member of AAEMsays, “I strongly recommend at strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. JohnBoyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all thetime, but now that soy is genetically engineered, itis so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says,“Physicians are probably seeing the effects in theirpatients, but need to know how to ask the rightquestions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M.Bhargava goes one step further.

After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals,he concludes that genetically modified organisms(GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharplydeteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert ofthe Salk Institute warns that “children are the mostlikely to be adversely effected by toxins and otherdietary problems” related to GM foods. He sayswithout adequate studies, the children become “theexperimental animals.”

The experience of actual GM-fed experimentalanimals is scary. When GM soy was fed to femalerats, most of their babies died within three weeks- compared to a 10% death rate among the controlgroup fed natural soy. The GM-fed babies werealso smaller, and later had problems gettingpregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testiclesactually changed color - from the normal pink todark blue. Mice fed GM soy had altered youngsperm. Even the embryos of GM fed parent micehad significant changes in their DNA. Mice fedGM corn in an Austrian government study hadfewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.

Reproductive problems also plague livestock.Investigations in the state of Haryana, Indiarevealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseedhad complications such as premature deliveries,abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses.

Many calves died. In the US, about two dozenfarmers reported thousands of pigs became sterileafter consuming certain GM corn varieties. Somehad false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags ofwater. Cows and bulls also became infertile whenfed the same corn.

In the US population, the incidence of low birthweight babies, infertility, and infant mortality areall escalating.

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food*Jeffrey M. Smith


Food designed to produce toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to producetheir own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugsbite the plant, the poison splits open their stomachand kills them. Biotech companies claim that thepesticide, called Bt - produced from soil bacteriaBacillus thuringiensis - has a history of safe use,since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteriaspray for natural insect control. Genetic engineersinsert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plantsdo the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, isthousands of times more concentrated than naturalBt spray, is designed to be more toxic, has propertiesof an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot bewashed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxicnatural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersedby plane to kill gypsy moths in the PacificNorthwest, about 500 people reported allergy orflu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergencyroom.

The exact same symptoms are now being reportedby farm workers throughout India, from handlingBt cotton. In 2008, based on medical records, theSunday India reported, “Victims of itching haveincreased massively this year . . . related to BTcotton farming.”

GMOs provoke immune reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies showsignificant immune dysregulation,” includingincrease in cytokines, which are “associated withasthma, allergy, and inflammation” - all on the risein the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. ArpadPusztai, changes in the immune status of GManimals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”Even Monsanto’s own research showed significantimmune system changes in rats fed Bt corn. A

November 2008 by the Italian government alsofound that mice have an immune reaction to Btcorn.

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteinswith allergenic properties, GM soy has up to seventimes more trypsin inhibitor - a known soy allergen,and skin prick tests show some people react to GM,but not to non-GM soy.

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soyallergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the USepidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualtyof genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants afterharvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Btcotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showedsevere irritation and black patches in both intestinesand liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts).Investigators said preliminary evidence “stronglysuggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin.. . . most probably Bt-toxin.” In a small follow-upfeeding study by the Deccan Development Society,all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days;those that grazed on natural cotton plants remainedhealthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazedon cotton plants for eight years without incident.On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Btcotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick thenext day; all died within 3 days.

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cowsin Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, andchickens in The Philippines.

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fedLiberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomatodeveloped bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 diedwithin two weeks.

Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of


poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn,according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.

Worst finding of all - GMOs remain inside ofus

The only published human feeding study revealedwhat may be the most dangerous problem fromGM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfersinto the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestinesand continues to function. This means that longafter we stop eating GMOs, we may still havepotentially harmful GM proteins producedcontinuously inside of us.

Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced fromBt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria intoliving pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of ourlives. When evidence of gene transfer is reportedat medical conferences around the US, doctors oftenrespond by citing the huge increase ofgastrointestinal problems among their patients overthe last decade. GM foods might be colonizing thegut flora of North Americans.

Warnings by government scientists ignored anddenied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration(FDA) had warned about all these problems evenin the early 1990s. According to documentsreleased from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus atthe agency was that GM foods were inherentlydangerous, and might create hard-to-detectallergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, newdiseases, and nutritional problems. They urged theirsuperiors to require rigorous long-term tests.

But the White House had ordered the agency topromote biotechnology and the FDA responded byrecruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s formerattorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy.

That policy, which is in effect today, deniesknowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares thatno safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to

Monsanto and the other biotech companies todetermine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor laterbecame Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously few studies, untraceable diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properlytested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not asingle human clinical trial on GMOs has beenpublished. A 2007 review of published scientificliterature on the “potential toxic effects/health risksof GM plants” revealed “that experimental dataare very scarce.” The author concludes his reviewby asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showingthat GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, asassumed by the biotechnology companies?”

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers,“The experiments simply haven’t been done andwe now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds,“Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this isperfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid ordeliberately lying.”

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, wewill probably never know because the cause willnot be traceable and many diseases take a verylong time to develop.” If GMOs happen to causeimmediate and acute symptoms with a uniquesignature, perhaps then we might have a chanceto trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a USepidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fastacting, deadly, and caused a unique measurablechange in the blood - but it still took more thanfour years to identify that an epidemic was evenoccurring.

By then it had killed about 100 Americans andcaused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or becomepermanently disabled. It was caused by a geneticallyengineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of


autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heartdisease, allergies, reproductive problems, or anyother common health problem now plaguingAmericans, we may never know.

In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a widevariety of problems, susceptible people may reactto GM food with multiple symptoms. It is thereforetelling that in the first nine years after the largescale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidenceof people with three or more chronic diseases nearlydoubled, from 7% to 13%.

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, theAAEM asks their “members, the medicalcommunity, and the independent scientificcommunity to gather case studies potentially relatedto GM food consumption and health effects, beginepidemiological research to investigate the role ofGM foods on human health, and conduct safe

methods of determining the effect of GM foods onhuman health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before takingthe doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People canstay away from anything with soy or cornderivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugarfrom GM sugar beets - unless it says organic or“non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO ShoppingGuide, co-produced by the Institute for ResponsibleTechnology and the Center for Food Safety, whichis available as a download, as well as in naturalfood stores and in many doctors’ offices. If even asmall percentage of people choose non-GMObrands, the food industry will likely respond asthey did in Europe - by removing all GM ingredients.Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be awatershed for the US food supply.

*Source: Institute for Responsible Technology

Wichita, KS - The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) today released its position paper onGenetically Modified foods stating that “GM foods pose a serious health risk” and calling for a moratorium on GMfoods. Citing several animal studies, the AAEM concludes “there is more than a casual association between GMfoods and adverse health effects” and that “GM foods pose a serious health risk in the areas of toxicology, allergyand immune function, reproductive health, and metabolic, physiologic and genetic health.” The AAEM calls for:

o A moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term safety testing and labeling of GM food.o Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community and the public to avoid GM foods.o Physicians to consider the role of GM foods in their patients’ disease processes.o More independent long term scientific studies to begin gathering data to investigate the role of GM foods on human

health.

“Multiple animal studies have shown that GM foods cause damage to various organ systems in the body. With thismounting evidence, it is imperative to have a moratorium on GM foods for the safety of our patients’ and the public’shealth,” said Dr. Amy Dean, PR chair and Board Member of AAEM. “Physicians are probably seeing the effects intheir patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions,” said Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM.“The most common foods in North America which are consumed that are GMO are corn, soy, canola, and cottonseedoil.” The AAEM’s position paper on Genetically Modified foods can be found at http:aaemonline.org/gmopost.html.AAEM is an international association of physicians and other professionals dedicated to addressing the clinicalaspects of environmental health.

About AAEM The American Academy of Environmental Medicine was founded in 1965, and is an internationalassociation of physicians and other professionals interested in the clinical aspects of humans and their environ-ment. The Academy is interested in expanding the knowledge of interactions between human individuals and theirenvironment, as these may be demonstrated to be reflected in their total health. The AAEM provides research andeducation in the recognition, treatment and prevention of illnesses induced by exposures to biological and chemicalagents encountered in airm food and water.

Physicians’ Association Calls for Moratorium on GMO Foods

*Source :American Academy of Environmental Medicine


1. DNA fingerprinting and proteomics analysis and full characterization, both structurally and functionally, of the differences between the GMO and the parent organism2. The total sequence of the transgene-flanking regions and the transgene, and identification of the site(s) of integration of the transgene in the GMO3. Changes in the glycosylation pattern4. Determination of any selective increase in transcription and translation, thus including a study of the transcriptome5. Changes in the relative concentration of major and important intracellular metabolites6. Changes in surface properties that may affect normal interaction between species, and with the environment, studied through scanning electron microscope and atomic force microscope7. Reproduction interference8. Gene flow9. Dispersal into areas where positive harm could be done (as happened with water hyacinth and parthenium)10. Development (if not already available) of a technique to determine with accuracy 0.01 percent contamination with GMO or its product11. In the case of GM food material, possible interaction with commonly used drugs, especially probiotics12. Acute toxicity studies with native (not “surrogate”) protein, GM seeds and other GM plant material that is normally ingested by animals, including cattle. These studies should be done both on experimental lab animals and on farm animals such as goat, sheep and cows)13. Chronic toxicity studies (including carcinogenicity) as above14. Effect on cattle GI microflora15. Effect on soil micronutrients in every region concerned (rain-fed, irrigated, semi-arid, etc.) where GMO is likely to be released or find its way16. Development of resistance to the trait that is introduced17. Increasing requirements for refuge crops, if any.18. Increase in susceptibility to pests and infectious agents other than those that may be expected to be killed by the transgene.19. Comparison of the growth characteristics of the GMO and the parent organism.20. Emergence of new dangers, for example of super weeds, following prolonged use of herbicide- resistant GM crops.21. Effect on the population density of non-susceptible pests, following at least five successive plantations – for example in the case of GM Bt plants.22. Automated karyotyping and gross chromosomal analysis.23. If the GMO is a plant, its biomass productivity in comparison to the parent.24. Comparison of inputs required for optimal growth of the GMO in comparison to the parent organism.25. Impact on ecology in controlled field trials (for example, on population of bees, and other useful insects). This would require total mapping of insects and other living species in every region where the GMO is intended to be released, over a substantial period of time.

Supreme Court’s nominee Dr. Pushpa M. Bhargava to GEAC points out thatthe following bio-safety tests on GMOs (Bt Brinjal) were not done


Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary visiting Brinjal fields with farmers at Village Makhamalabad, Nashik

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary visiting Grapes orchard at Village:Matori, Talluka:Nashik.


Bharatiya Krishak Samaj protesting & burning the effigy of GEAC at Nagpur


Mr. Jairam RameshMinister, Environment and Forests,Government of India

Re: Bt-brinjal Part One

Dear Minister Ramesh

It is my pleasure to respond to your request of 7 November 2009 for my views on the Monsanto-Mahycoapplication to approve open cultivation of Bt-brinjal for use as food. As you know, I was one of a number ofindependent scientists who read and critiqued the scientific information provided by the developer in itscase to demonstrate that the genetically engineered Bt-brinjal posed no safety concerns for human health orthe environment. I came to the conclusion that the molecular data, and some related analyses, were toopoorly conducted to make a definitive claim that this product is safe.

Since that time, the official Indian advisory body, GEAC, has ruled that the science provided by the companydoes satisfy them that Bt-brinjal is safe. I have only just learned, however, that new evidence in support ofthe claim of safety has become available. All or some of this evidence was gathered after the dossier wasmade publicly available in August of 2008. The new data was posted for viewing only days ago. I have beenunable to review the new data to determine if they adequately address the concerns I raised previously. Todo so properly, I will need additional time. Considering the volume of new data posted, I hope that you willextend your period of review until March of 2010.

Therefore, if you would permit me, I would prefer to respond to your request in two parts. In this letter, Iwill describe how I came to my present views on agriculture and my involvement in assessing other geneticallyengineered crops and the outcome of those assessments. This I believe to be important information becauseit is related to how I prioritise my assessment of the testing of Bt-brinjal, which will be the focus of my nextletter.

Traits such as Bt (insect tolerance in general) and HT (herbicide tolerance in general, often RR for roundupready) suit particular agroecosystems and philosophies of industrial agriculture. That is perhaps why, evenaccording to industry figures, 67% of all commercialised genetically engineered crops are grown in only 2countries, the United States and Argentina, and 80% in just 3 countries including Brazil. India, which theindustry describes as a GE megacountry, produces only 6% of the world’s GE crops and only uses 4% of itsagricultural land for GE. The industry figures are contested and may overstate the amount of GE producedoutside of the US and Argentina, making the concentration of GE crops in just a few agroecosystems evenmore telling.

As I discuss in my book Hope not Hype, only two countries on this planet have gambled with GE on morethan 35% of their agricultural land. Those two countries are Argentina and Paraguay (and decidedly notthe United States). They have over two-thirds of their agricultural land in GE production. Alongside thechange to GE production has been an increase in “food insecurity” and “very low food security” as measured

Letter to Shri Jairam Ramesh


by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.

Since India’s only genetically engineered crop at this time is cotton, it is worth considering how GE cottonvarieties in the US, where they have been in production the longest, are doing. Interestingly, the lateststudies do not vindicate the claim that the crops are reliably increasing yield or financial returns (this isdiscussed and fully referenced in detail in Chapter 5 of Hope not Hype). The latest research shows that overtime profits follow yield, but there is no consistent yield increase with GE cotton. There is year-to-yearvariation, with good yield years promoted by those who sell GE cotton seeds.

There are many reasons beyond safety to consider whether GE crops are the right kind of biotechnology foryour country. These were considered methodically and holistically by the single largest research exercise onglobal agriculture in history conducted with funding from multiple UN agencies and the World Bank. Thisreport, published in January as Agriculture at a Crossroads, was produced under the International Assessmentof Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). It involved around 400researchers and twice the number of peer-reviewers. Built on the IPCC model, it underwent two rounds ofopen international peer-review and was ratified overwhelmingly at the intergovernmental plenary in April2008.

The “IAASTD report” came to the conclusion that ‘business as usual’ will inevitably result in food and fuelneeds exceeding global ability to meet them. However, this isn’t a food shortage problem. The problemhistorically and presently is caused by social barriers and because of the model of agriculture for which mostGE products are designed. In fact, more GE is more ‘business as usual’. Some hunger in the future willprobably be due to production limitations, but again mainly because of conspicuous consumption in wealthycountries, loss of land and fertility in both developed and developing countries (because of use of fossil-fueldependent fertilizers), and poor policy decisions on water and biomass use. Unless the problem of “feedingthe world” is considered holistically, inappropriate technologies that are not sustainable will be proposed asstop-gap solutions and that would not address the major causes of shortage.

I was a lead author on Chapter 6 of the global report, and of the biotechnology section of the SynthesisReport. This latter role was why I was invited to represent the authors at the intergovernmental plenary atwhich the report was adopted. In addition to that role, I have been a biotechnology advisor to multiplegovernment agencies in New Zealand, and agencies of the US and Norwegian governments. I am listed bythe United Nations as a biosafety expert and serve on the Ad Hoc Technical Experts Group to the Secretariatof the Convention on Biodiversity. I publish in the international peer-reviewed literature including suchjournals as Science, Nature, Nature Biotechnology and Trends in Biotechnology and have an active laboratorywith three PhD students (with more on the way), a postdoctoral scholar and an honours student.

I am also the director of a research centre that voluntarily participates in the consultation in our countryover the use of GE crops as human food. Our food regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, is thecompetent authority for both Australia and New Zealand. They invite opinion, particularly scientific opinion,on applications for amending our food code to include GE crops on a case by case basis. I have reviewedthree applications in great detail, and four applications to date. Two applications for which I submittedcomments were withdrawn by the applicant (both ostensibly for commercial reasons, but there are reasonsto doubt that, at least for the second application).

Both applications that were ultimately withdrawn were from Monsanto. The first was for a modified wheat


plant in 2004.The most recent withdrawal was of Monsanto’s high lysine maize LY038. This is the mostinteresting case. My colleagues and I found over a hundred scientific flaws in the data. Nonetheless, theapplication was approved in several jurisdictions, including Australia/New Zealand, despite these problems.However, many of those flaws, and the most significant ones, were not considered permissible by manyEuropean countries or the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which refused to approve the maizeunless the key problems with the scientific dossier were addressed with new experiments and the results stillsupported approval. Instead of investing the small increment of money necessary to produce this science,Monsanto instead stopped all commercial development of LY038. Since we estimate that Monsanto had bythis time invested nearly US$1 billion in development, marketing and processing facilities, and by its ownadmission expected that this product would produce a revenue stream of US$1 billion/year, a few hundredthousand dollars of new scientific tests was to us an unlikely reason for withdrawing the product.

I relate this story for two reasons. The first is to let you know that I am not naïve to what it takes to make aquality dossier for an application to approve a GE plant and determine that it is safe for human health andthe environment. I have been doing this analysis for some time, and been found to be in agreement at leastwith some competent authorities. Strikingly, the major defect in the LY038 dossier was the use of the wrongcomparator. They used another GE variety against Codex Alimentarius and EU rules. Some jurisdictionswent to great lengths to excuse this fundamental flaw, but others held their ground. I could not find thecomparator even mentioned in the brinjal safety studies that I took special note of, much less a sense that thestudies consistently used the appropriate comparator.

Second is to say that while India can have whatever standards it wishes for deciding on GE foods, othercountries may close the door if proper and thorough safety testing has not been done. The LY038 applicationis instructive here. The Bt-brinjal dossier I viewed in August 2008 is, in my opinion, nowhere near thesophistication and quality of the LY038 dossier, and that dossier was still unacceptable to Europe. Many ofthe Bt-brinjal experiments, at least as described, would not satisfy Codex Alimentarius guidelines as appliedby careful regulators. Does India want a reputation for low standards in food? Does it want to put itsexports at risk? If the answers to these questions are ‘no’, then I would encourage you to set the standardwith Bt-brinjal that you would like the industry to meet now and in the future for any GE crop. It is easierfor industry to meet high government standards communicated clearly at the start than it is for governmentto raise industry standards later.

It is for me a serious error to assume that those with an interest in product development can also be biosafetyscientists. The extensive network of funding for research for the purposes of advancing commercial agendasincludes many in academia, so it is no longer valid to simply choose researchers from universities and callthem independent. A truly world-leading strategy would be to maintain a distance between the regulatorand the technology, and to certainly remove any consideration of trade from the regulator’s brief. Indiacould achieve this by supporting independent laboratories and researchers committed to public andenvironmental safety at both the basic research level and in review of technological applications. As we arewitnessing by the accumulation of research results from a small and widely spread independent researchcommunity, the truth ultimately comes out. The challenge will be for political leaders such as yourself toensure that the truth comes out before any undetected harms of new technologies.

With best wishes,Prof. Jack Heinemann24 November 2009


One of agriculture’s major opportunities to help mitigate theeffects of climate-warming gases lies in management of soilto increase organic content, thereby removing carbon fromthe atmosphere. Many scientists are conducting studies todetermine which agricultural practices will in fact sequestercarbon. Recent studies, summarized below, demonstrate thata number of biological, soil-based practices employed inintegrated systems have great potential to sequester carbon.In contrast, recent studies suggest that no-till, a form ofconservation tillage, has environmental benefits such asreducing soil erosion, but may not sequester more carbonthan conventional tillage (plowing).

Integrated soil-based practices

The most promising systems for carbon sequestration in soilcombine crop rotation and low or no inputs of pesticides,herbicides, and industrial fertilizers. Long-term studies doneby the Rodale Institute and others suggest that such systemsbuild (not simply conserve) significant quantities of soil organiccarbon through a variety of mechanisms such as enhancedabundance of mycorrhizal fungi. Several studies, includingsome done over long periods of time, have compared carbonaccumulation in organic (plowed) and conventional (plowed)systems1 and demonstrate that organic systems sequestermore carbon than conventional chemical-intensive systems.

In a head-to-head comparison between conventional no-tilland organic plowed systems, organic plowed systemssequestered more carbon even though the sampling wasrestricted to shallow soil, where no-till tends to show carbonaccumulation. Although more studies are needed, there aregood reasons to believe that organic systems would do atleast as well as conventional systems deeper in the soil. Currentorganic systems typically employ plowing to control weeds,and conventional plowed systems generally sequester morecarbon at greater soil depths than no-till (discussed below).

Systems that use crop rotations and green and animal manurehave shown higher biodiversity by foregoing chemicalpesticides, supplying more diverse habitats,4 and reducingnitrogen pollution. Systems that integrate livestock and crops,employ perennial pastures, and adopt many of the practicesused in organic production (e.g., long crop rotations,leguminous crops and cover crops, manure produced bylivestock as fertilizer) also have shown potential for improvedgreenhouse gas balance, reduced pollution, and higherprofitability. Further research on these promising approaches

will help optimize their benefits and determine their applicabilityacross geographic regions.

In summary, available data suggest that organic and near-organic farming systems achieve greater carbon sequestrationand other benefits compared with conventional systems.Further work, supported by adequate research funding, isneeded to realize the promise of these biologically sophisticatedproduction systems.

No-till practicesScientific evidence accumulated over the last two years hascalled into question the long-held view that no-till practicesresult in significant accumulations of carbon in the soil. Themost important of these reports are

1. Baker, J.M., et al. 2007. Tillage and soil carbonsequestration—What do we really know? Agriculture,Ecosystems and Environment 118:1–5.

This landmark review of the scientific literature found thatno-till fields sequestered no more carbon than plowed fields.Most previous studies measured carbon sequestration onlydown to about 30 cm. For example, a review often used tosupport no-till as a means to sequester soil carbon cited 140studies, none of which measured soil carbon below 30 cm.5However, the roots of crops—which deposit carbon in thesoil—often grow much deeper. In a review paper cited inBaker et al. that examined carbon changes to soil depths greaterthan 30 cm, most (35 of 51) of the studies found no significantdifference in carbon sequestration between plowing and no-till. In fact, on average, the no-till systems may have lostsome carbon over the period of the experiments. In summary,no-till tends to show increased carbon at shallow depths wherecrop residues are found, but at greater depths plowed soilstypically sequester more carbon.

2. Blanco-Canqui, H., and R. Lal. 2008. No-tillage andsoil-profile carbon sequestration: An on-farm assessment. SoilScience Society of America Journal 72:693–701.

This research compared soil carbon between plowed fieldsand fields managed with no-till practices for up to 30 yearson actual farms (as opposed to controlled field tests) in threeeastern states, using paired sites on each farm. Most of thesites showed no statistical differences between no-till andplowed fields in soil carbon accumulation when carbon fromthe entire soil profile (including depths below 30 cm) was

Agricultural Practices and Carbon Sequestration


BERLIN – [24.01.10] Leading European retailers and brands such as H&M, C&A and Tchibo have unknowinglybeen selling certified organic cotton clothing contaminated with genetically modified cotton from India, in asuspected fraud that is certain to shake consumer confidence in organic.

The scale of the alleged fraud uncovered by the German edition of the Financial Times newspaper is shocking - if it’saccurate. Lothar Kruse, a director of the independent testing laboratory Impetus in Bremerhaven, who examined thecotton fabrics claimed around “30% of the tested samples” contained genetically modified (GM) cotton. The head ofthe Indian agricultural authority, Apeda, Sanjay Dave, told the newspaper they were dealing with fraud on “agigantic scale.”

The GM cotton found in the brand’s collections has been traced back to India which now supplies nearly half of theglobal supply of organic cotton. According to Organic Exchange figures – to be released shortly – India produced61% of the total amount of organic cotton produced in 2008/09 with some 107,000 tonnes of fibre out of the total175,113 tonnes grown worldwide.

It was reported that Indian authorities discovered the alleged fraud back in April 2009 and fines were imposed atthat time on third party certification agencies EcoCert and Control Union, although no statements have yet been issuedby these organisations.

There has been a strong suggestion in the sustainable textile industry that all has not been well in certain sectionsof the Indian organic cotton sector for some time. Reports from reliable, trusted organisations and producer groupsabout fraud within the Indian sector of the organic cotton industry have been common-place. The industry now needsto establish firmer rules of governance over organic cotton production, while brands need to invest more in improvedsupply chain transparency and more thorough testing.

Brand reaction

The brands involved in the alleged fraud have been criticised for not adequately monitoring their supply chainselsewhere. Monika Buening of the Federal Consumer Affairs Agency said that both H&M and C&A needed to takeimmediate action to limit the damage. “The fashion chains (H&M and C&A) were not vigilant enough,” the FrankfurterRundschau newspaper quoted her as saying.

A spokeswoman for the Swedish clothing chain H&M told news agency AFP that the company became aware of theincident last year and admitted that GM cotton could have made it into H&M‘s organic range. C&A are said to beundertaking a thorough investigation.

Organic cotton ‘fraud’ uncovered

*Source: Eco Textile News

measured. Three of the 11 sites had greater soil carbonaccumulation in the plowed fields than in the no-till fields.The paper also reviewed 16 studies from around the worldthat examined carbon sequestration at soil depths greater than30 cm and found similar results.

3. Poirier, V., et al. 2009. Interactive effects of tillageand mineral fertilization on soil carbon profiles. Soil ScienceSociety of America Journal 73:255–261.

This study of sites in Quebec, Canada, over a period of threeyears also found that the amount of sequestered carbon didnot differ between no-till and plowing. These authors alsofound higher carbon accumulation from no-till only wherethe top several centimeters of soil were measured. When themeasurements included the entire soil profile, the higher

carbon accumulation in plowed fields at lower depthscompensated for the lower amount of carbon near the soilsurface. Different fertilization rates did not alter these results.

Summary of the science

The current scientific literature does not support favoring no-till over plowing for carbon sequestration. The emergingconsensus from numerous studies and reviews is that undera variety of environmental conditions no-till sequesters no morecarbon than plowing. The apparent advantage for no-till inprevious studies of carbon sequestration was an artifact ofsampling carbon only near the soil surface.

*Source : Union of Concerned Scientists


The agrarian crisis is continuing in different formsover the last few years. All hopes of any let up is likechasing a mirage. Why is it so? Why aren’t themanagers of the economy able to address the coreproblem and provide abatement to the millions offarmers in the country? Indeed the problem has beenkept in the ‘pending issues’ basket for too long toattain a complexity of a humongous mountain.

We have to untangle this complex web thread bythread to be meaningful. Let us take the issue ofagricultural commodity prices, the most burningissue both from the producers as well as theconsumers perspectives..

For many years now food rice inflation has been anissue. The headline food price inflation in recent timeshas touched nearly 20 per cent. The retail food pricesgrew faster than the prices received by farmers acrossthe country. The production landscape in thecountry is dominated by the marginal and smalllandholders.

This effectively means that no sooner the produce isharvested it is sold out to the designated agenciesdepending upon the arrangements and customsprevailing in the areas of production.

In case of staples certain areas enjoy a betterarrangement of transparent and fair public agencies.The marketed surplus ratios and the rulingprocurement price determine the earnings of thefarmers. After this he is as much a consumer as anyone else in the country irrespective of where s/heresides. The livelihood strategies are thus determinedby the farm income alone in majority cases.

The relevant policies in this respect notwithstanding,the problem have been aggravated mainly due to lackof leadership and foresightedness. The commodityspecific discussion thus becomes inescapable here toillustrate the provocative inference.

The sugar imbroglio is very much a live issue thathas been allowed to escalate to the current positiondue to a clash of sentiments. It is often said that‘politics is the art of the possibilities’. But in the caseof sugar and sugarcane pricing it has been made intothe art of the impossibilities.

The consumer price of sugar has nearly tripled butdithering goes on the sugarcane prices. The blamegame is goes on. First, the Group of Minister then,the Planning Commission’s Deputy Chairman issueda statement to pacify the consumer’s anger but to noavail. Finally, on Wednesday the cabinet committeeon prices (CCP) decided to import refined sugar atzero duty u to December 31 2010, decides to permitUP mills to process raw sugar outside the state.

The government had on Friday 8 January 2010provided sanction to sugar mills to extend by another15 months their export obligation fulfillment. Thiswhole episode smacks of what the noted economistJagdish Bhagwati has termed as ‘directlyunproductive, profit-seeking (DUP) activities’. Thetheory of DUP activities using the welfare-theoreticanalysis in fact maps out the levels of distortionsbefore and after the DUP activities.

The ill fated extraordinary gazette of India narratingthe Ordinance on the fair and remunerative price(FRP) was issued on 21st October 2009 to reinforceDUP activities that ensured security to the upstreamstakeholders involved in the sugar processing. Thethree page ordinance explicitly undermines theinterests of the sugarcane growers.

Contrarily, the directly unproductive profit-seekingactivity through this Ordinance was to explain that“reasonable return on the capital employed” means‘the return on the net fixed assets plus working capitalof a producer in relation to the manufacture of sugarincluding procurement of sugarcane on fair andremunerative price fixed under this section’.

Mounting Pressure on Farmer as Producer*Prof. J. George


The distortions in the policy space are clearly evident.The oversensitivity of the central authority towardsthe “producer” explained as ‘manufacturer of sugar- person carrying on business of manufacturingsugar’ and the cost of manufacturing sugar is clearlyvisible because FRP ‘means the price of sugarcanefixed by the central government under this section’.

The profit-seeking activities have been discernible forover a year now but were heightened duringFebruary 2009. Thus sufficient time was available tointroduce corrective and non-deforming policyregime.

It was the impending general elections andsubsequently it was the October 2009 assemblyelections in four states including Maharashtra.

The sugarcane producing landscape is under heavystress for leaving a huge carbon footprint. This stresswill preclude any further increases in the area underthe sugarcane crop that has been the main source ofsugarcane output growth for the past 60 years.

In order to fully reap the productivity enhancingpotential increased usage of chemical fertilisers andwater, mutatis mutandis, will further aggravate theclimate change dangers. A useful policy interventionwas available under the knowledge initiative inagriculture programme, if the authorities caredenough for the sugarcane productivity.

The choice of easy option, namely, to import duty-free raw sugar under the delightful DUP enhancingadvance license system (ALS) is indeed veryunfortunate. This was accompanied by relaxing theexport obligations as well as a liberal levy-sugar quotaand open sale regime.

No doubt ALS in sugar has a 10th Plan regimelineage, the foreign trade policy 2004-09 and/or thefaster and inclusive growth schedule of the 11th Planperiod could have easily ushered in a better policyregime.

This bitter sugar episode is yet another indication of

the deepening agrarian crisis in India. Immediately,the leadership must take full responsibility and mustrealise that the degrees of freedom are heavilystacked against any establishment of credibility tothe rulers.

Need one enumerate, yet again, the plight of publicdistribution system (PDS) and the Supreme Court’sinstructions to improve the performance of theministry?

The conflict of interest angle between the agricultureand the food and public distribution ministries isaggravating and fanning DUP activities. How dothey do it is the important query. The answer isavailable in the mosaic of statutes governing thesugar sector that immensely demonstrate the“everybody, somebody, anybody, nobody (ESAN)”syndrome.

The final outcome makes both the producers as wellas the consumers’ loose out heavily. If Prime Ministeris serious about performance appraisal of variousministries then the conflict of interest issue must beaddressed urgently. Similarly, the responsibleexecutives who have the intellect as well as therequisite domestic and global sugar information mustbe charged for willfully neglecting to safeguard theinterests of producers and consumers. The headsmust roll immediately to send a clear message. Thismust be accomplished without any further delay.

Consumers of refined sugar have a combinedstrength of about 40% in the total demand forsweetener segment. The remaining constitutes bulkindustry consumers like confectioneries, halwai’s,etc., who have, indeed craftily, raised the crescendoof deteriorating consumers plight before the festivalseason.

Hence any comprehensive long term policy regimeinescapably must address structural rigidities in theproduction base. Cane pricing is one important area.The duality and sharp divide between CACPproposed but ministry determined FRP (earlierknown as statutory minimum price-SMP)) and the


state advised price (SAP) must be resolved usingsound political economy precepts and not politics.

The open source knowledge base of sugar cycle inIndia indicates that the downslide takes 2-3 yearsand recovery takes another 4-5 years. In totality the6-8 year cyclical move given the extreme eventoccurrences due to the climate change may take alonger time period towards recovery. The three goodseasons of 2005/06 to 2007/08 was followed by a22% decline in sugarcane output and a steep (44%)slump in sugar production during the 2008/09 sugarseason.

The production landscape in fact must be used as alive case for carbon trading within the nationalboundaries and within various stakeholders. Theorganic sugarcane is an unexplored productdifferentiation segment waiting for sustainabilitydriven innovators a la C.K. Prahalad. The short termtrade and tariff measures may be required butextreme cautions are required since these instrumentsserve a fertile ground for DUP activities.

Nagpur, Jan27: Farmers under the leadership of the Maharshtra state unit of Bharatiya KrishakSamaj (Indian Farmers’ Organisation) today intercepted the Union environment minister, JairamRamesh while he was on his way to preside over the public consultation on Bt brinjal and shoutedslogans against the proposed introduction of Bt brinjal.

They burnt an effigy of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in the presence of theminister. According to them “the GEAC with some handpicked scientists and so-called experts wasresponsible for pushing the approval of Bt brinjal.”

The farmers said that the Bt brinjal not only can create ecological problem on account of gene flowresulting in genetic contamination, but also can prove hazardous to human and animal health asrevealed by series of studies by independent scientists. The GEAC has deliberately overlooked thesafety aspects of Bt brinjal, bowing to the pressures from US seed multinational, Monsanto and theUS Administration, they said.

The farmers shouted slogans against the corporate takeover of Indian agriculture and demanded thatthe seed multinationals should leave the country.

The national President of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary in a statement laudedthe farmers for demonstrating against the introduction of Bt brinjal. “The GEAC has committed ascientific fraud in approving Bt brinjal. Worlwide studies done by independent scientists have revealedhealth and ecological hazards of Bt brinjal,” he said.

The local police arrested the President of the Maharshtra unit of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, SanjayJadhav, the youth wing president of the Nasik unit of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, Dr Pramod Bairagi,and three other members of the Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, namely, Dada Saheb Gaikwad, RameshChangle and Bala Saheb Mate. The farmer leaders were released after six hour detention.

Bharatiya Krishak Samaj protests against introduction of Bt brinjal,burns GEAC effigy

*Source : http://www.mynews.in/News


While the Pontifical Academy for Sciencesdiscussed the pros of genetically modifiedorganisms, Columban Missionary Fr. SeanMcDonagh was across Rome making the case forthe “con” point of view. McDonagh organized asmall demonstration near the Piazza del Popolo,which was joined by a few left-of-center politicalmovements in Italy.

A large banner read, “No to GMOs, yes to foodsecurity,” and a smaller sign addressed the Vaticangathering: “Pontifical Academy of Sciences, do notally with those who, promoting GMOs, contributeto hunger in the world. Listen to the words of theHoly Father!” A well-known writer onenvironmental themes, McDonagh is a veteranIrish missionary who spent more than 20 years inthe Philippines. He’s an outspoken critic of GMOs;in 2003, he published Patenting Life? Stop! Is Cor-porate Greed Forcing us to Eat Genetically EngineeredFood? McDonagh spoke to NCR on the marginsof the demonstration.

Q: Promoters of GMOs bill them as a strategyfor combating hunger. Why do you claim theexact opposite?

At the moment, almost all GMOs (canola, Bt corn,soy) are actually animal feeds. You’re gettingmore of a meat dimension in the diets of peopleall over the world. It’s estimated that with atraditional Asian diet, including a little bit ofmeat, we could support about eight to nine billionpeople on the planet. But if we go down theEuropean route of eating a lot of meat, we’ll ableto support maybe one and one-half to two billion.In other words, the direction GMOs take us isgoing to create famine and hunger in many partsof the world. That’s number one.

Number two is because all genetically modifiedseeds are now patented, you’re giving enormous

control to a handful of corporations over theseeds of the staple crops of the world. It startedwith rice, then corn, now they’re looking to wheatand potatoes. This should be totally unacceptableto anyone. Forget about the science of whetherthey’re safe or not. To give six Westerncorporations, in the United States and Europe,control over the seeds of the world is outrageous.

I have a particular problem with patenting livingorganisms. It entered our human reality througha decision of the U. S. Supreme Court in 1980,with Diamond v. Chakrabarty. It was neverdiscussed in any parliament of the world. Thisextraordinary control, I would even call itdomination, has been given to corporations. This,by the way, comes at the same time that thesesame people are promoting ‘free trade.’ The levelsof mischievousness and deceit involved areactually gargantuan. If free trade is good, whyshouldn’t sharing knowledge freely be good ?

I come at it from the perspective of a missionary.I lived in the Philippines for 25 years, and I sawthe mixed results, even of the Green Revolution,on the poor. GMOs will only exacerbate that,because not only will you have to buy your seeds,but you also have to buy the glyphosate, whichis the Ready Roundup (a herbicide manufacturedby Monsanto designed for use with geneticallymodified crops.) You’re getting crops now withmultiple traits genetically engineered into them.There may be all kinds of problems with humanhealth and the environment, but even if thereweren’t, you might not want these traits.

What about claims of dramatically improvedyields?

The point of the recent “Failure to Yield” reportfrom the Union of Concerned Scientists is thatthe increase in yield in crops over the last 25 to

GMOs are going to create famine and hunger*John L. Allen Jr.


30 years has come from conventional breeding.It has nothing to do with GMOs at all, or verylittle. This report was just published two weeksago. I would consider it a very objective study. Itlooks at soy, at corn, at canola, and so on. There’sno increase in yields at all, which there was inthe Green Revolution, so it’s quite different.

My main concern, however, is giving this controlto corporations. For example, 60 percent oflettuce in the United States is now controlled byMonsanto. This is frightening. In the 19thcentury, all kinds of securities and exchangesagencies were created to move in on monopolies.

Of course, those were monopolies on things liketelephones. Now they want to build a monopolyon food. That, mind you, is precisely what they’reafter.

Feeding the world is about distributing food tothose who need it, or distributing land so thatpeople can grow their own food. I always givethe example of Brazil. It’s now the fourth largestexporter of food in the world, mainly animal feedsfor Europe and America, and yet 35 to 36 millionpeople go to bed hungry there every night.

Even if GMOs did increase the yield, is that extrafood going to go to the people who need it? Thereality is it won’t, because Monsanto is not theSt. Vincent DePaul Society. They’re out there tomake a big profit. They want to get monopolycontrol, and they make no bones about that.

All the experts at Catholic development agencieshave taken the position that this is not the wayto address food security, and that there’s nomagic bullet for hunger. What’s needed is landreform, financial aid to small-scale farmers,markets where they can get value so they’re notcaught by the middle man. I’ve spent 40 years atthis sort of work, and I know that’s the wayforward.

We also need to promote diversity in the diet.

This is the whole problem with the supposed“golden rice.” Why should you say to poor peoplethat they have to eat rice three times a day? Whynot a little bit of vegetables, so they’d get all thevitamin A they need? To me, it’s extraordinarythat $100 million has been spent on golden rice,when you could make a lot of vegetable seedsavailable in developing countries for that kind ofmoney.

What about the safety question?

The answer is, we don’t know. That’s the bottomline. Studies done, for example, by Arpad Pusztaiin 1999 on Bt corn, or on Bt potatoes that werefed to rats, found problems with their innerorgans and also problems with their brain. Beinga good scientist, he did not say, ‘Now we shouldreject the technology.’ He said we should look tosee where the problem might be. He wanted tosee if the problem was in the gene itself, becauseyou’re brining to the target organism a gene thatnormally the immune system of the targetorganism would attack. That’s what yourimmune system does.

He was ready to go into the various dimensionsof that question – for example, is it the promoter?That is, the virus or bacteria that’s actually usedto bring genetic material across to anotherorganism. What happened, of course, is history.He was fired from the Rowett Institute inScotland. He was accused of being a bad scientist.They said he would never get his researchpublished in The Lancet, which he actually did.All he was basically saying is that this technologycreates problems and we need to look at them.

The problem with regulatory agencies at themoment is that they’re much too tied to politicaland economic interests. The United States is avery good example. It’s amazing just how hardwired Monsanto is to the EnvironmentalProtection Agency and to the Food and DrugAdministration.


There’s a real problem there, as a researchershowed with the Bt potato. When he went to theFDA, they said, we deal with potatoes but notthe GM kind, that’s over at the EPA. When hewent to the EPA, they said, we don’t deal withfoodstuff, we deal with chemicals. Between them,they couldn’t figure out which one wasresponsible for allowing this to be brought ontothe market.

The real problem is that all the research on thesegenetically modified organisms is done by thecorporations, who then stand to gain trillions ofdollars. Biotech is one of the few industries thathas not taken a dip in the current economic crisis,for the very simple reason that you have to eatevery day. There’s almost no independentverification. A Russian scientist named Ermakovahas studied Bt soy, and found something similarto what Pusztai found with potatoes. I believeit’s incumbent upon government to do publicscience and to protect the common good ofordinary citizens.

We are now all guinea pigs. We don’t know whatthe impact will be, and it may be two or threegenerations before we find out. Don’t forget, withozone-layer-destroying CFCs it was 60 yearsbefore we knew they were harmful. They wereconsidered to be the wonder chemical, non-toxicand so on … you couldn’t get any better. It wasone man, British scientist Joe Farman, whoactually found out by land research in Antarcticathat they were doing irreparable damage to theozone.

It’s the same thing with impact on theenvironment: We don’t know. But we do knowthat if you bring GMOs into a country like thePhilippines, where we don’t have any idea howmany species are really there, now you’re playingRussian roulette.

What other justice concerns do you have withGMOs?

I have a particular concern if they introduce,which they’re threatening to do, this terminatorgene, a plant whose seeds are genetically blockedfrom reproducing. I believe that’s a huge moralissue. You’re creating something that will notgerminate on a second planting. I can’t think ofanything that’s so … I hate the word ‘evil,’ butcertainly morally wrong. It’s incredible thatsomeone would create an organism that isdeliberately sterile, particularly in the area offood. Food is a gift to all us, and obviouslynecessary for human life.

Companies argue that if they can’t protect theirinvestment somehow, there’s no incentive todo research and to develop better products.

The evidence shows the opposite. If you look atthe history of patents, most countries, includingthe United States, stole patents from othercountries until they got their own economic andtechnological processes up and going. A Koreaneconomist at Cambridge has done a very goodstudy on that, and he calls it “kicking away theladder.” You’re asking these so-called developingcountries to follow these patent laws, but let’shave a look at whether any of you actuallyfollowed it – beginning with post-Tudor Britain,right up to the United States, or more recentJapan and Korea.

Patents are for watches, not food. Patents alwayshave to consider the trade off between theindividual and the common good. Food, waterand air should not be under a regime of patents,because we all need them. If you don’t have airfor five minutes you’re dead, if you don’t havewater for five days you’re dead, and if you don’thave food for 60 days you’re dead. For Christians,this is the first request in the Our Father: ‘Giveus this day our daily bread.’ It’s a huge issue,and I think patents are completely morally outof place. Churches, especially the Catholicchurch, that claim to be pro-life should have aserious moral critique of this arrogance.


It’s also stealing, because what did they patent?They patented one small dimension of iot. Whatabout the farmers in the Philippines for the last5,000 years who created all the other traits?

What about the farmers down on the altiplanoin Peru who created 5,000 varieties of potatoes?Are they going to be compensated? I thinkgovernments should set up processes to say, okay,this is the money you’ve spent, this is the valueto society as we see it, and therefore you shouldget ‘x’ amount of money. Ownership, however,is something completely different.

Here’s another dimension of the injustice. Thenorthern world, the United States and Europe, ispoor biologically. Ireland, for example, has tenspecies of trees. Where I worked in thePhilippines, I got money from the Australiangovernment to do a study in a local forest. In asingle hectare, you could get up to 130 species oftrees.

There are 5,000 species total in that forest. Thesouth is rich biologically but poor financially.Northern countries are using trade agreementsto go down to the south, take advantage of itsdiversity, change slight little bits of it, and thenbring it back to patent it. It’s exploitation of theworst order. It makes Magellan, Cromwell, andthe Pizarro brothers look like dime-storeoperators.

Do you believe the Pontifical Academy for Sci-ences is being exploited?

It is. This is the Pontifical Academy for Sciences,so let’s start with the ‘pontifical’ part. It’s aCatholic organization. Who are the church’s realexperts in this area? I would say people likemyself. I would say particularly the aid anddevelopment agencies, such as Misereor, Cafod,and Caritas. … They thought so little of thisexpertise in the Catholic church that they didn’tinvite a single person from any one of thoseagencies.

Further, anyone who ever claims to be a scientistshould hear the other side. That goes back toPlato. What are they afraid of? Why didn’t theyset up a decent colloquium over there? Also, whydon’t they take into account numerousindependent studies in the last three years whichhave concluded that the way to food security isnot through GM crops? Why just discard all that?There’s a very recent study from Africa on theyields from organic farming, saying this is thekind of thing we should be promoting. I wouldconsider this gathering grossly incompetent.

Why do you believe they’re doing it this way?

They want to get rid of the very minimalregulations that we have at the moment. Theysaid it in the introduction to the study week, andevery one of them says it in his abstract. That’stheir goal. Bishop Sanchez Sorondo (chancellorof the Pontifical Academy) has said that thepurpose is to examine whether GM crops are safe,but I’m sorry, that’s not it. The purpose is to usethe prestige of the Pontifical Academy of Sciencesand its good name to beat on governments sothat you can reduce regulation.

I would also claim that they want to usesomething like the Potrykus rice as a batteringram against the regulatory process. The strategyis that if you get it through once, you’ve set theprecedent. They say they want it for altruisticreasons, but this language of talking about thepoor and about development is grosslymisleading. I’m a professional anthropologist whohas been working in the area of developmenteconomics, I think it’s patronizing.

Proponents of GMOs suggest that you’re guiltyof neo-colonialism, in the sense that you pre-sume to know what’s best for the poor in Af-rica and other places.

Let them come to where I was in the Philippines,and ask there. Let’s go to the southern part ofBrazil, or Argentina, where this is being pushed


on people. Let’s do a real empirical study, and Ithink you’d find that the people who are affectedby it are very negative towards it. I took up thisissue only because I saw the impact it’s had onpeople living there. I believe I have a better takeon what’s happening in the Philippines, forexample, than anyone in the study week …including the only person from the Philippinesthere, the director of the International RiceResearch Center, but he’s an American.

I was not against GMOs at first. When I arrivedI taught anthropology and linguistics at theUniversity of Mindanao in the Philippines, thebiggest agricultural university in the region.

At that stage, I thought, if you can plant cropsas far as the eye can see, why not? It was onlyas I began to see the other aspects, includingwiping out genetic diversity, that I changed mymind.

I looked back at my Irish experience. We used tohave these massive potato fields, and thensuddenly in 1845, one pathogen wiped them out.I began to learn a lot about the importance ofbiodiversity.

The pro-GMO argument is comparable to whatwe used to hear from the bankers. They used totell us we need a light touch with the regulations,because we’re the entrepreneurs, we’re the peoplewho create wealth that sends the boys and girlsto school and puts the Euro in the collection plateon Sunday.

If a banker came to you today and tried to saythat there shouldn’t be any regulation, we’d alllaugh. We wouldn’t even engage himintellectually. The same is true with these lads.The tide has gone out on what they want, andrightly so, because we’re dealing with very seriousissues.

Humankind has a very bad record of movingbiodiversity around to the wrong places. It’s like

the guy who brought rabbits out to Australiawith disastrous results. This is biological science,which is different from architecture orengineering. If those guys get something wrongand the building collapses, too bad, but you canfix it. Biology reproduces. The Australiangovernment can’t fix the rabbits. The level ofregulation should be multiple times morestringent than it is.

The study week invited an African bishop.What’s your sense of where African Catholicsstand on GMOs?

I’ve had conversations with African people,including religious orders, working in this area.We just had a conference in Assisi on ecologyand integrity of creation at the heart of Christianmission.

There are all sorts of efforts by religious to buildup organic agriculture in Africa. … I feel thisman shouldn’t have come here. If they’d invitedme, I wouldn’t go. You just give them legitimacy,and it’s not properly structured. I’m not ageneticist or a plant biologist, but based on theexpertise I have as a missionary, I know this isnot the way to go for sustainable agriculture. Ifit was, they’d have the right people at thismeeting.

Are you worried that the Vatican is going tocome out with an official pro-GMO statement?

Not at all. We were more concerned back in 2003,when Cardinal Renato Martino began to talk abouthow maybe GMOs could feed the world. We werevery worried then, but not so much now.

The Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, forexample, may not yet have assessed the science,but they have begun to see the impact ondeveloping countries. On January 1, there was anarticle inL’Osservatore Romano, in which Martinowas quoted on that side of it.


Date : Feb 5, 2010 Dear Shri Jairam Ramesh jee,

Since the approval of the Bt brinjal as a food crop by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC)in October 14, 2009, there has been series of public resentments and protests all over the country.

We appreciate your decision to withheld the release of Bt brinjal and go for public consultations. By nowafter public consultations in different parts of the country, we are sure that you must have personally feltthe nature of public opposition to this genetically engineered food crop. The opposition is on the basis ofsound scientific evidences and genuine concerns for food and environment safety.

Responsible citizens came on their own to oppose the introduction of Bt brinjal. The outburst of protest wassevere in Kolkata. Similar protests by farmers, health experts, consumers were noticed in Bhubaneswar,Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Chandigarh, Hyderabad. In Nagpur, the Maharashtra unit of Bharatiya KrishakSamaj met you and submitted a memorandum. The outfits of several political parties ranging from the rightwing BJP and the Left parties are opposed to the introduction of Bt brinjal.

India is the centre of origin for brinjal. As farmers we are very much concerned that by genetic contaminationby Bt brinjal many indigenous varieties may become extinct. Brinjal is also valued for its medicinal value inancient systems of medicine and hence introduction of Bt brinjal will be a problem. Introduction of Bt brinjalwill violate the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety to which India is a signatory

Way back in June 22, 2006, I wrote to the GEAC chairperson expressing my concerns. Reply to this letterwhich came about a year late in March 30, 2007 was evasive on many points I had raised.

There is no shortage of brinjal in the country. Rather this crop is grown in excess of demand leading towastages. The advocates of Bt brinjal are putting up false claims of protecting the crop from fruit and shootborer. There are 15 pests attacking brinjal. The farmers are successfully using conventional methods tocontrol all these pests.

We are concerned that introduction of Bt brinjal will have adverse impact on soil microbial species, soilnutrients and micro flora. Bt is a proven toxin. Sheep and goats grazing over Bt cotton field died and GEACturned a Nelson eye to these incidents which occurred in various parts of the country.

We have with us extensive studies done by independent scientists across the world pointing to the healthand ecological hazards of Bt crops. The company data on biosafety are inadequate to address these problems.We urge you to stop the introduction of Bt brinjal

With warm regards Dr. KRISHAN BIR CHAUDHARYPresidentBharatiya Krishak Samaj

Bharatiya Krishak Samaj letter to Minister of Environment &Forests on Bt Brinjal


Documents

FEBRUARY 2010 National Magazine of Farmers Voice