tagged w/ Bt cotton
-
"Since 1995, a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide - the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history. Most of them were cotton farmers from Vidarbha in Maharashtra. Once known for its fine cotton, it is now called the 'graveyard of farmers'. The escalating cost of inputs like seed, fertiliser and pesticide has made farming unsustainable. In the summer, the lack of resources or institutional credit for sowing the fields drives poor farmers to end their lives. In the winter, the depressed rates of cotton become the proverbial last straw. While the state and the media label these deaths as suicide, the cotton fields of Vidarbha remain a mute witness to genocide."
Awards: Gold Award for Script at the IDPA Awards-2011
More at the link"Since 1995, a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide - the... more
-
-
http://gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/13556-how-monsanto-tried-to-con-pakistan
NOTE: This is a big story in Pakistan and seems to reflect increasing scepticism in the media about the value of Bt cotton.
--
---
Is Pakistan on the right path on Bt cotton?
Naufil Shahrukh
Weekly Pulse, December 16 2011
http://www.weeklypulse.org/details.aspx?contentID=1603&storylist=2
Cotton remains the second most significant crop in Pakistan after wheat and is the main foreign exchange earning cash crop for us. Our textile industry requires around 2-3 million bales annually to meet its production demands so we import it from India and other places as per requirements. To meet the deficit, the policy makers thought it is imperative that we increase the cotton crop yield and save foreign exchange. Currently we produce on an average between 12-14 million bales. Genetically modified or Bt Cotton was proposed as an option to explore.
A small U.S based, hi-tech or GM Seed and traits company (Monsanto) initially offered Bollgard-1 (BG-1) technology to Pakistan. It later turned out that the company’s patent for this purpose had expired and it was forced to accept this. In a letter written to the Punjab government, its (Monsanto's) Country Head acknowledged this fact. Prior to this, the government was ready to sign an agreement with Monsanto which would have resulted in payment of 'technology fees' to Monsanto worth billions of rupees! Once this information became public knowledge as a result of this letter, the Punjab government rightly called off negotiations in 2008 and ultimately did not sign the proposed agreement on 'BG-1 technology'. This saved the national and provincial exchequer significant money and adopting an outdated technology. Interestingly, Bollgard-1 cotton seeds were being grown in Pakistan since 2004-5 and seemed the bureaucrats negotiating with the US company were unaware of this.
In 2008, the same company came up with a new proposal that it will bring the upgraded Bollgard-2 cotton seed technology. The genetic modification in a cotton seed is that Bollgard-1 seed has a Cry-1AC gene introgressed in addition to its natural genetic make-up and it is effective against Pink, Spotted and American Bollworms or 'Sundee'. The toxin from this gene, tears apart the guts of the Bollworms. Bollgard-2 seed has a gene Cry-2AB in addition to Cry-1AC and is effective against Army Bollworms or 'Sundee' in addition to the previous three. So basically, the bollgard-2 is a minor up gradation to the original Bollgard-1 seed technology.
The company proposed that since Pakistan has weak 'Intellectual Property Rights' or IPRs therefore, it needed Government protection or 'Back-stop' to succeed in Pakistan as 'unscrupulous' elements could copy or replicate its Bollgard-2 technology. It signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the then Federal Ministry of Food & Agriculture in April, 2010 which envisaged that provincial governments of the Punjab and possibly Sindh should sign agreements with the company. In brief, the company would sell the Bollgard-2 seeds in the market however, in case people copied or replicated the technology or grew 'saved' seeds, a third party will be engaged which will conduct a survey to see how much seed was sold by the company in the market and the remaining quantity would be classified as 'unpaid' seed. The company indulges in similar practices in the US and Canada where it has sued scores of farmers for ‘saved seeds’.
Government was then to pay the company an amount of 21 U.S dollars per acre for the 'unpaid' acres as ‘compensation for losses’, royalty and ‘backstop’ agreements. Practically, it could mean that in Punjab, if such a survey 'proved' that 4 million acre worth of seed was sold by Monsanto and 2 million was 'unauthorized' or obtained/grown through other channels, Monsanto would be paid 21 U.S dollars per acre for those two million acres! This would mean a sum of US dollars 42000000/- will be paid to the company by the government every year. Nowhere in the world does such 'government backstop' guarantees or arrangement exists.
At this point in time in fact, even mandatory regulatory field trials were not complete when the MOU was signed in April, 2010. So there was no way to know, whether this technology would increase cotton yield in Pakistan or not! But some elements within Punjab bureaucracy, continuously tried to get the agreement signed for this technology between Monsanto and the Punjab Government.
In November, 2010, bureaucracy almost managed to get the Monsanto proposal approved by the Punjab Government. However, the Chief Minister Punjab came to know about the relevant issues and stepped in to prevent a hasty decision. It was learnt that Bollgard-1 and 2 technology is completely ineffective against Cotton Leaf Curl Virus (CLCuV), White Fly and Mealy Bugs. These pests are the main reason why Pakistan Cotton crop loses 2-3 million bales every year. Thus, while the company would have been selling the seeds and making money through Government ‘compensation’ and sovereign guarantees every year, the real problems were still there and the ‘latest technology’ would have cost the Punjab government between 30-70 million U.S dollars every year with no guarantees of yield increase. The regulatory trials by this company in 2010, proved its technology was ineffective against the main pests (CLCuV etc) in Pakistan.
More at the link
http://c1eatdrinkbettercom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2010/07/Monsanto-BT-Cotton.jpghttp://gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/13556-how-monsanto-tried-to-con-pakistan... more
-
-
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16112805
The record suicide rate among farmers in India continues to rise and is threatening the country's stability and future development, according to campaigners.
They are blaming the government's policies for the agrarian crisis and are demanding it takes urgent action.
More than a quarter of a million farmers have killed themselves in the last 16 years in what is the largest recorded wave of suicides in history.
Kishore Tiwari, a campaigner with the Vidharbha Jan Andolan Samiti in Maharashtra state in central India, says cotton farmers have been particularly badly affected.
Many of them have only just moved to growing cash crops - like cotton - in the last few years.
He says the farmers have taken on large debts to buy hybrid seeds, which are often unsuited to the harsh and temperamental Indian climate.
"They are sold these modern seeds and modern chemicals and have to take on large debts to buy them.
"The problem is they need a lot of water which is in short supply and then when the crop is poor and they have to repay the money lenders, they despair and commit suicide."
Mr Tiwari says the suicides are a symptom of a wider crisis in the countryside.
India's has one of the fastest growing economies in the world but its roots are in the countryside and much of it is being left behind.
In a country with aspirations, moving away from a life of subsistence is attractive but it can also be deadly.
Vandana Moohorle is now bringing up her children alone after her husband killed himself by drinking pesticide.
Like many farmers, he had been persuaded to use genetically modified seeds by the possibility of a better harvest. What he wasn't told was that they needed more rain than the region provided.
His wife blames the government and the large agricultural companies for exploiting the rural poor who dream of a better life.
"He was always tense" she said. "He had borrowed a lot of money for pesticides and fertilizers and now I will have to pay back his debts. Debt is the reason for all the suicides around here and it's the people in charge who are responsible for it."
Across rural India there is now widespread despair. The fields are also filling up with widows.
Activists say it is the other side of India's economic success story.
Beyond the headlines of fast growth, most of the country is still poor and is being left behind by a corrupt political class who are preoccupied with their own greed.
They point to the alarming suicide numbers to prove their point.
More than 60% of India's population still depends on the countryside for survival but with unfettered globalisation and little support from the government, the rural classes are badly exposed.
In the face of rising inflation and with no safety net, the ultimate act of desperation is often their only answer to the new world they live in.
It is a sobering fact but on average one farmer now commits suicide in India every 30 minutes.
And campaigners say the problem will only get worse without direct intervention from the government in the form of subsidies and agricultural educational programmes.http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16112805
The record suicide rate among... more
-
-
Wild cotton in Mexico has been contaminated with genetically modified material, posing a risk to biodiversity, experts say.
This worrying conclusion was reached by six scientists at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and the National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity (CONABIO) in a research study published this month in Molecular Ecology, an international journal.
In their article "Recent long-distance transgene flow into wild populations conforms to historical patterns of gene flow in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) at its centre of origin", the experts showed that cotton genes and transgenes can be transferred between populations thousands of kilometres apart by seed dispersal.
They also found that varieties of Mexican wild cotton that harbour transgenes (genes from one species introduced artificially into another) undergo rapid evolution, with unpredictable consequences.
"The genetic diversity of wild populations is very high, and that of cultivated cotton is very low. Gene flow can reduce the differentiation between populations, but we have no idea what impact that might have," the head of the research project, Ana Wegier of UNAM's Ecology Institute and the National Institute of Forestry, Agriculture and Livestock Research (INIFAP) told IPS.
"What we are seeing is the effect on biodiversity of 15 years of growing transgenic crops under permits," she said.
In order to boost cotton cultivation, in decline because of the collapse of international prices and the growing dominance of synthetic fibres, in 1996 the Mexican government authorised experimental planting of genetically modified cotton, without paying heed to studies of its biological interactions in the country.
Since 2009, transgenic cotton has been grown on a commercial scale on an area of over 100,000 hectares, producing harvests of 500,000 tonnes, according to the Mexican agriculture ministry.
Cottonseed is used mainly for oil and meal for animal feed, and transport of animal feed products might explain how transgenic seeds arrived in wild cotton populations.
The six authors collected 336 plants from 36 populations between 2002 and 2008. They also analysed seeds from three Mexican locations, the U.S. states of Texas and Virginia, and from Argentina, Brazil, India and Egypt. Of the 270 samples analysed, 66 were positive for transgenes.
The scientists found that 1.4 percent of 5,985 permits to plant genetically modified cotton issued by the Mexican authorities between 1996 and the beginning of 2008 fell within the area of distribution of two wild cotton metapopulations, as collections of interacting populations of the same species are called.
A further 4.2 percent of the authorised transgenic crops were within a 300-km radius from three metapopulations. The remaining 94.4 percent were over 300 km away from all wild cotton metapopulations.
As has already happened with native maize, contamination of wild strains could occur with other transgenic crops, which are slowly spreading in this Latin American country.
This concern is shared by 16,000 beekeepers in the southeastern state of Yucatán, where U.S. agribusiness giant Monsanto has a pilot plantation of genetically modified soy covering 30,000 hectares.
Monsanto's soy has been genetically modified to confer resistance to an herbicide, glyphosate, which is sprayed on the crop to kill off non-resistant weeds.
"In the soyfields, the bees turn very aggressive and instead of returning to the hive, they die on the way back, as the glyphosate applied to the crops damages their intestines," the local coordinator of the National Union of Autonomous Regional Campesino Organisations, Pablo Duarte, told IPS.
"Our fear is that not only will the bees die, but we will not be able to sell our honey," he said.
In Mexico, some 45,000 beekeepers collect approximately 56,000 tons of honey a year. Their main market is the European Union, followed by the United States and Canada.
But the EU Court of Justice has already banned the sale of honey containing pollen contaminated by unauthorised transgenes.
The first plots of genetically modified soy were evaluated in 2008. Currently 60,000 hectares of Mexican soil are producing transgenic soy.
snip
Although seed migration out of fields of genetically modified crops may be low, the study warns that once a single or a few transgenic individuals are dispersed into particular wild populations, they produce pollen that may fertilise local wild plants.
"Since transgenes are inserted within the nuclear genome, they can be dispersed both via pollen or seed," the document says.
Genetically modified organisms "are going to contaminate all the varieties we have, and then we will have to depend on seeds from the big companies," Duarte warned.
"If we lose our native seeds, we won't have seeds to plant. That's why we are asking the government to stop the sowing of transgenic maize and soy," he said.Wild cotton in Mexico has been contaminated with genetically modified material, posing... more
-
-
According to this article, the reality of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso in West Africa is far removed from the hyperbole. The cost of Bt cotton seed in Burkina Faso has quickly more than tripled in return for no increase in yields – exactly the opposite of the claims used to promote Bt cotton to Burkina Faso's farmers of massive increases in yield. These kinds of wildly misleading promotionals for Bt cotton are already familiar from India - see item 2 - and South Africa: http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12693
EXTRACT: ...in 2003, a pro-GM propaganda campaign was launched. In all media and organised forums on the subject, we heard the fabulous promises of GMOs: four times higher yields, fourfold savings on inputs.
...The increase in the cost of the [Bt cotton] seed, from 1600 FCFA [24 Euros/34 USD] per hectare for conventional seeds last year to 54000 FCFA [82 Euros/115 USD] hectare for GM seeds this year, is not accompanied by increasing yield as was promised.
---
---
1.Burkina Faso is a Trojan Horse for GMOs in Africa
Interview with Ousmane Tiendrébéogo, Secretary General of the National Union of Agropastoral Workers (Syntapa)
by Combat Monsanto
Journal of Alternatives, June 28 2011
Article in French: http://bit.ly/qSTmiR
[Unofficial English translation by Claire Robinson of GMWatch]
Ousmane Tiendrébéogo, Secretary General of the National Union of Workers of the Agro-Pastoral (Syntapa), and Burkina Faso cotton farmers' union activist for GMO-free Burkina Faso, has been in France for the past two weeks at the invitation of the Artisans of the Monde-Rhone Alps. Combat Monsanto took the opportunity to meet him and to examine the record of GMOs in Burkina Faso. The findings are alarming!
Combat Monsanto: Can you tell us a bit about yourself and Syntapa?
Ousmane Tiendrébéogo: I am a peasant cotton farmer in Burkina Faso and Secretary General of Syntapa. Syntapa was started in 2003, based on the observation that the National Union of Cotton Producers of Burkina Faso (UNPCB), the only organization bringing together producers, merely applied the policies of the government and completely forgot what should be its primary function – working for the interests of farmers. The Syntapa's mission is leading the fight for better compensation for farmers. In this context, Syntapa is fighting against GMOs (Bt cotton, biofortified sorghum) because, in addition to their adverse effects on health and the environment, they exacerbate the impoverishment of farmers.
CM: Can you expand on this? What does Syntapa claim with regard to GMOs?
OT: We are opposed to GMOs for several obvious reasons. The first reason is the catastrophic economic impact that the adoption of GMOs has had on farmers. The increase in the cost of the seed, from 1600 FCFA [24 Euros/34 USD] per hectare for conventional seeds last year to 54000 FCFA [82 Euros/115 USD] hectare for GM seeds this year, is not accompanied by increasing yield as was promised. Worse, the Bt cotton produces fewer seeds than the conventional variety, and is thus two times lighter in weight for the same output of fiber. Thus, peasant farmers, who are paid by the weight of their harvest, are the losers, whereas Sofitex [a state-controlled agro-industrial and commercial entity, involved in the entire cotton production cycle, including planting, ginning of seed cotton and export of cotton fiber] is the winner.
To take a concrete example: a truck full of conventional fiber weighed about 12 tons and generated 1.8 million FCFA [2748 euros] in revenue for the farmers. This same truck today, filled with the same amount of fiber, but from GM cotton, weighs 6 tons [50% less] and generates 900 000 FCFA [1374 euros, 50% less] for the farmers. This has caused significant financial losses for farmers during the first harvest of Bt cotton. Indebted farmers may have to sell their land, which will likely be bought by multinationals for monoculture export or biofuel.
Then we see an environmental impact: I saw farmers' herds of goats become seriously ill and die after GM cotton was planted in their fields. The authorities responded to this problem by ordering analyses of cotton leaves. But due to lack of funds and of independent testing bodies, the cotton samples were sent to Monsanto's own labs for testing.... Of course, the multinational, which sells Bt cotton, found nothing suspicious in the samples. We are not even sure that the analyses were even done.
Finally GMOs pose a safety problem: children have became ill through contact with the seeds and Sofitex itself advises pregnant women and children to stay away from GM seeds.
More at the link
http://en.sott.net/image/image/s3/73679/full/Nation_9_21_2009.jpgAccording to this article, the reality of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso in West Africa is... more
-
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql0mo-5jPbc&feature=player_embedded
A quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years—an average of one suicide every 30 minutes. The crisis has ballooned with economic liberalization that has removed agricultural subsidies and opened Indian agriculture to the global market. Small farmers are often trapped in a cycle of insurmountable debt, leading many to take their lives out of sheer desperation. We speak with Smita Narula of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University Law School, co-author of a new report on farmer suicides in India.
AMY GOODMAN: We turn to the issue of farmer suicides in India, where a quarter of a million farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years. On average, that figure suggests one farmer commits suicide every 30 minutes.
Today, the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU Law School will release a report called "Every Thirty Minutes: Farmer Suicides, Human Rights and the Agrarian Crisis in India."
The agricultural sector in India has become more vulnerable to global markets as a result of economic liberalization. Reforms in the country have included the removal of agricultural subsidies and the opening of Indian agriculture to the global market. These reforms have led to increased costs, while reducing yields and profits for many farmers.
As a result, small farmers are often trapped in a cycle of insurmountable debt, leading many to take their lives out of sheer desperation. The rate of suicide is highest among cotton farmers. Like other cash crops in India, the cotton industry is increasingly dominated by foreign multinational corporations that tend to promote genetically modified cottonseed and often control the cost, quality and availability of agricultural inputs.
To discuss this issue, we're joined by Smita Narula, faculty director of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at NYU.
Welcome to Democracy Now!
SMITA NARULA: Good morning.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about this report that you are just releasing today.
SMITA NARULA: Our major finding for this report is that all the issues that you just described are major human rights issues. And what we're faced with in India is a human rights crisis of epic proportions. The crisis affects the human rights of Indian farmers and their family members in extremely profound ways. We found that their rights to life, to water, food and adequate standard of living, and their right to an effective remedy, is extremely affected by this crisis. Additionally, the government has hard human rights legal obligations to respond to the crisis, but we've found that it has failed, by and large, to take any effective measures to address the suicides that are taking place.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean, this number is unbelievable. Thirty—every 30 minutes, an Indian farmer commits suicide?
SMITA NARULA: And that's been going on for years and years. And what these intense numbers don't reveal are two things. One is that the numbers themselves are failing to capture the enormity of the problem. In what we call a failure of information on the part of the Indian government, entire categories of farmers are completely left out of the purview of farm suicide statistics, because they don't formally own title to land. This includes women farmers, Dalit, or so-called lower caste farmers, as well as Adivasi, or tribal community farmers. In addition, the government's programs and the relief programs that they've offered fail to capture not only this broad category, but also fail to provide timely debt relief and compensation or address broader structural issues that are leading to these suicides in the country.
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the issue of globalization and how it's affecting these farmers.
SMITA NARULA: Sure. So, basically, ultimately, the proximate cause for a number of these suicides is farmer indebtedness. What lies behind that indebtedness is two decades of market liberalization in India, which have resulted in two simultaneous processes. First, the government has withdrawn significantly from the agricultural sector. It has reduced subsidies. It has decreased access to rural credit. Irrigation is insufficient and doesn't reach most farmers who need it. And at the same time, it has encouraged a switch over to cash crop cultivation, of which cotton is one example.
Simultaneously, the market has been opened up to global competitors, which makes Indian farmers extremely vulnerable. And at the same time, foreign multinationals now dominate industries, such as the cotton industry, including dominating the key inputs that are needed for cotton. In the case of cotton, in particular, the genetically modified Bt cottonseed has been promoted so effectively in India that it now dominates the entire sector, and between its cost, quality and availability, has an enormous impact on farmer costs and profits and yields to the point that it's landing them in enormous debt. And many of them, ironically, are actually consuming the very pesticide that they went into debt to purchase, to kill themselves when they can't escape that cycle of debt.
AMY GOODMAN: They're consuming the pesticide.
SMITA NARULA: That's correct.
snip
AMY GOODMAN: Talk about genetically modified seeds and U.S. multinational corporations.
SMITA NARULA: So, genetically modified seeds. Bt cottonseed is the cottonseed input that dominates the cotton industry now. And what the genetic modification promises to do is to produce a toxin within the seed that kills a very common pest that affects the cotton crop in India. The Bt cottonseed, which is — has been marketed by Monsanto, among other multinationals, requires two resources that are already scarce for most Indian smallholder farmers. That's money and water. Bt cottonseeds cost anywhere from two times to 10 times as much as regular cottonseed, and they also require a great deal more water in order to yield successful crops. The farmers often go to private moneylenders, who charge exorbitant interest rates, to purchase the seeds, on the promises and based on aggressive marketing that they will bring greater financial security. But then, because 65 percent of cotton farms in India are rain-fed and don't have access to irrigation, the crops inevitably fail. And also, increasing drought has made that the case for many farmers. So they've gone into insurmountable debt to purchase the inputs. They don't have the yields. They repeat this cycle for a couple of seasons. And by the end of it, they're simply trapped in a cycle that they can't get out of, and they consume the very pesticide that they purchased, in order to kill themselves. And—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql0mo-5jPbc&feature=player_embedded
A quarter... more
-
-
These subsidies are nothing more than payola for supporting industrial fossil fuel intensive GMO agriculture. No wonder some of these farmers don't want to stop planting these crops for their GMO masters. Making over 200,000 a year in planting their crap and trashing the planet seems like a good trade off for them. Are you really a farmer then, or simply no better than a greedy selfish Goldman Sachs vampire?
And I am not as nice about this as the EWG when it comes to Congress. If you aren't a farmer who actually works the land you should not get one. Period.
Excerpt:
"This would be a good place to point out that just five crops – corn, cotton, rice wheat and soybeans – account for 90 percent of all farm subsidies. Sixty-two percent of American farmers do not receive any direct payments from the federal farm subsidy system, and that group includes most livestock producers and fruit and vegetable growers.
Among the members of the 112th Congress who collect payments from USDA are six Democrats and 17 Republicans. The disparity between the parties is even greater in terms of dollar amounts: $489,856 went to Democrats, but more than 10 times as much, $5,334,565, to Republicans.
One reason for the disproportionate number of Republican lawmakers benefiting from farm subsidy programs is the current scarcity of rural Democrats in Congress – casualties of the Tea Party wave that swept into office in November of 2010. (This was despite the Democrats’ decision to bow to the wishes of the subsidy lobby by passing a status quo 2008 farm bill in a misguided bid to hang on to those seats.)
Several new members of Congress who won with tea party support have been less than eager to talk about farm subsidies ever since the news broke last year that they, or their families, personally benefit from those very taxpayer dollars.
EWG doesn’t believe that the payments to lawmakers are improper or illegal. But the fact that so many more Republicans in Congress receive so much more in farm subsidies than their Democratic colleagues does highlight the GOP’s controversial decision to spare those programs from the budget ax – even as it slashes funding for so many others. Consider:
•In January, David Rogers of Politico, and Phillip Brasher at the Des Moines Register, reported that the Republican Study Committee proposed to eliminate the meager federal funding for an organic food growers’ program without even mentioning the the possibility of cutting spending for entitlements that send checks out to largest producers of corn, cotton and other commodity crops – regardless of need.
•Then last week (March 21), National Journal reported that the Republican-led House Agriculture Committee is backing cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – previously known as food stamps – in the face of record enrollment levels triggered by high unemployment. But not even minimal reductions were proposed to the excessive payments to wealthy farms.
The GOP-led support for subsidies also comes at a time when big commodity farms clearly don’t need taxpayer funding.
The farm sector is white-hot, and has generally fared extremely well as recession gripped the rest of the economy. Farm income and prices for commodity crops are soaring. In 2008, $210,000 was the average household income of farms that received at least $30,000 in government payments that year. But according to the House Agriculture Committee and the Republic Study Committee, payments to those farms should stay in place while the record 43 million Americans enrolled in SNAP – millions of whom are unemployed for the first time – face slashes in the help they get to put food on the table.
It’s important to note that two of the Republican senators who collect subsidies – Charles Grassley of Iowa and Richard Lugar of Indiana – have been long-time leaders in the effort to reform federal farm programs. Both have fought to right the gross inequity of sending 74 percent of taxpayer-funded payments to the largest and wealthiest 10 percent of farm operations and landlords. The top-heavy support for the biggest operations puts smaller family farms at a serious disadvantage and works against a more diverse and resilient food production system that could stand up against wild swings in weather or global markets – and provide Americans with a healthier food supply.
Of course, Democratic members of Congress have historically been subsidy recipients too, notably former House Agriculture Committee Chairman Charles Stenholm of Texas and former Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.
Nor is the phenomenon of lawmakers receiving farm subsidies limited to the federal level. Recent media reports have shown that direct payments are even more common in state legislatures in Wyoming, Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho and South Dakota.
At EWG, we believe that farmers deserve a reasonable safety net to protect against damage from drought, storms and fickle markets. But the American public’s investment portfolio in agriculture needs to change. It’s indefensible to provide subsidies to well-off farmers and landowners, especially in the face of a booming farm economy and a federal budget squeeze. Meanwhile, farmers seeking modest federal support to protect water, land and wildlife are being turned away for lack of funds.
We’re also committed advocates for government transparency, and it’s deeply disturbing that the public’s ability to see who gets what from the federal farm subsidy system has been curtailed by the Obama administration. Under the Bush administration, the rules allowed the public to see through shell corporations and paper entities to identify the part owners of subsidized farms and show where the money ended up. The transparency pertained to lawmakers as well. For this analysis EWG was forced to resort to harvesting data from members’ disclosure forms. That was an arduous but ultimately worthwhile task when advocating for greater accountability and transparency, and it didn’t use to be necessary.
Some Congress members (or their families) collecting federal farm subsidies are major players in the annual farm subsidy drama, others have only bit parts in terms of the amount of subsidies they receive. Overall, the distribution of subsidies among members of Congress reflects the highly distorted distribution of farm subsidies among farmers and landlords in the United States – between 1995 and 2009, 10 percent of subsidy recipients collected 74 percent of all subsidies.
The current salary for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year, and members enjoy robust health benefits. But whether major or bit players, members of Congress who receive farm subsidies are part of a system that cries out for reform and poses stark choices between helping wealthy landowners or doing right by struggling farm and urban families and the environment."
continuedThese subsidies are nothing more than payola for supporting industrial fossil fuel... more
-
-
As more crops fail in India, the rate of suicides among farmers is climbing.
More than 17,368 Indian farmers killed themselves in 2009, the worst figure for farm suicides in six years, data from the National Crime Records Bureau indicate.
The suicides increased by 1,172 over the 2008 count of 16,196, bringing the total farm suicides since 1997 to 216,500.
"Poverty has assaulted rural India," journalist Palagummi Sainath, an expert on rural poverty in India, told Britain's The Independent newspaper. "Farmers who used to be able to send their children to college now can't send them to school."
Nearly all of the bereaved families of those who have committed suicide, he said, had problems with debts and land loss due to failing crops.
While the causes of poverty are complex, Sainath points to the long-term collapse of markets for farmers' produce. The price of cotton, for example, is 1-12th of the amount it was 30 years ago, in real terms. About half of the suicides are occurring in the four states of the country's Cotton Belt.
Vandana Shiva, a scientist-turned-activist, notes that the problem of farmer suicides started in 1997 when the Indian government removed cotton subsidies and genetically modified varieties of cotton were also introduced.
"Every suicide can be linked to Monsanto," Shiva told The Independent, saying that the biotech firm's modified Bt Cotton caused crop failure and poverty because it requires the use of pesticide and fertilizers.
India's increasingly erratic climate is taking a toll on Indian farmers as well.
In the past, farmers could prepare for droughts when they came every four years or so. Rajasthan, in northwestern India, only emerged from a 10-year drought this summer. And monsoons, which used to arrive once a year, have failed three times in the last 10 years across much of the country.
M.S. Swaminathan, chairman of the National Commission on Farmers, has called for a restructuring of the country's policies to help agriculture, saying the sector is entering a state of serious crisis, The Hindu newspaper reports.
Noting that 45 percent farmers in a national survey said they want to quit farming, Swaminathan said farming has become nonviable.
"Unless we revitalize farming and make our farmers enthusiastic, it is difficult to feed 1 billion people and 1 billion farm animals. It is going to be a difficult period."As more crops fail in India, the rate of suicides among farmers is climbing.
More... more
-
-
This is insidious. There is absolutely no need for GM rice in India. There are hundreds of natural varieties of rice in India. This is simply a move to once again place farmers in predicaments with expensive patented seed that will bring monoculture to India. This is the reality of globalization regarding food.This is insidious. There is absolutely no need for GM rice in India. There are... more
-
-
Farmers all over Vidarbha in eastern Maharashtra will stage candle-light protests on the eve of US President Barack Obama's visit Friday, seeking to draw his attention to the plight of agriculture sector in the region, an official said.
The US policy of providing huge subsidies to cotton farmers in America has triggered over 216,000 farmland suicides in India, Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti (VJAS) chief Kishor Tiwari said in a statement here Thursday.
He said that farmland widows would light a candle in all the affected villages in Vidarbha and they would make attempts to send a group of widows to Mumbai to protest Obama's visit.
'After permission was granted to commercially cultivate American Bt. Cotton, the lush green Vidarbha cotton fields became dying fields, claiming lives of more than 10,000 farmers -- who opted for this (Bt. Cotton) seed,' Tiwari said.
He said the NGO wants to inform the US president how the claims that Bt. Cotton brought genetic revolution in agriculture are a hoax and lead to distress for over three-fourths of farmers using it and an average of three suicides per day.
Tiwari pointed out that while the whole country gets ready to celebrate Diwali Friday, six farmers committed suicide in the past two days -- taking the toll to 645 in 2010Farmers all over Vidarbha in eastern Maharashtra will stage candle-light protests on... more
-
-
This stunning European documentary available for the first time in the US reveals the consequences of GMOs worldwide from BT cotton, BT canola, GM pigs, to GM salmon, which threatens natural species in the wild. It shows how unnecessary and profit driven this technology is, and how it is interfering in the natural processes of this planet.
When you play master of the universe without respect for the nature you are interfering in, the end result cannot be good.This stunning European documentary available for the first time in the US reveals the... more
-
-
EXTRACTS: ...in the year 2009-10 farmers cultivating cotton through organic practices earned 200% more net income than farmers who grew Genetically Engineered cotton [Bt cotton].
Bt cotton farmers... use 26 different pesticides, including pesticides targeting pests that the GE cotton is supposed to control, ... also lose financially due to their higher input costs.
In the region of Andhra Pradesh... the Bt cotton farmers incurred 65% higher debt...
---
---
Organic farming gives Indian farmers greater financial security
http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/organic-farming-gives-indian-farmers-greater-financial-security/
Hyderabad, 15th June, 2010: A Greenpeace report released today said the monetary benefits of organic cotton farming are much greater than using the Genetically Engineered variety that makes farmers more vulnerable to financial collapse due to high debts and increased costs of cultivation.
The report titled "Picking Cotton – The choice between organic and genetically-engineered cotton for farmers in South India" shows that in the year 2009-10 farmers cultivating cotton through organic practices earned 200% more net income than farmers who grew Genetically Engineered cotton [Bt cotton].
The Greenpeace report is a comparative analysis of two methods of agriculture among cotton farmers in Andhra Pradesh. It not only shows the economic benefit of ecological farming (in this case organic) but also that Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton, despite using many toxic pesticides, still has greater crop loss to pests.
"Our study illustrates how farmers growing GE cotton face high debts and high costs of cultivation, becoming more vulnerable to financial collapses”, said Dr Reyes Tirado, Scientist, Greenpeace International, who authored the report.
Bt cotton1 farmers not only use 26 different pesticides, including pesticides targeting pests that the GE cotton is supposed to control, but also lose financially due to their higher input costs.
In the region of Andhra Pradesh the cost of cultivation is much higher for Bt cotton farmers. The Bt cotton farmers incurred 65% higher debt –accumulated during 2008/09 and 2009/10– than the non-Bt organic cotton farmers.
The farmer distress in the state had lead to the central government announcing a 5 year relief package for farmers amounting to 20,000 crores in the year 2008.
"It is preposterous that on the one hand government dolls out thousands of crores in the name of bringing relief to farmers while on the other they permit and promote Bt cotton cultivation and ensure that the farmer can never escape the debt treadmill.” said Dr G.V Ramanjaneyalu, Executive Director of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture who was present at the report release.
The controversies around Bt cotton have finally forced the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the agency responsible for the commercial release of GE crops in the country, to do a review of its performance since 2002, the year it was released.
"Bt cotton has only benefitted the multinational seed giants like Monsanto who has earned 1580 crore Rupees as royalty from its patented Bt cotton seed since its release" [1] said Rajesh Krishnan, sustainable agriculture campaigner with Greenpeace India. He concluded that "Cotton farming that uses ecological practices and avoids genetically engineered seeds and agrochemicals is the most beneficial for Indian farmers."EXTRACTS: ...in the year 2009-10 farmers cultivating cotton through organic practices... more
-
-
In this monthly Monsanto Roundup courtesy of the Sustainable Agriculture Group on Current, we cover Bt cotton failure and pests, U.S. corporate shilling at Codex and strong arm tactical language against GMO critics at national biotech conference in Chicago, and a big stand planned against Monsanto by Haitian farmers for this Friday, World Environment Day. Plus some activism we can all do to stand up with Haitian farmers and farmers globally against this concerted attempt to take away our food sovereignty.
Monsanto out of our food!In this monthly Monsanto Roundup courtesy of the Sustainable Agriculture Group on... more
-
-
A documentary on GM crops, particularly Bt cotton, in India. The film covers losses suffered by farmers, allergies, animal deaths, field trial violations, state governments asserting their rights to reject GM, regulatory failures, and successful alternatives to GM. (Time for all 5 parts: 35:33)
It's time for satyagraha.A documentary on GM crops, particularly Bt cotton, in India. The film covers losses... more
-
-
EXTRACT: Monsanto presented GMO technology as the redemption of the cotton industry; in reality it has helped take growers to the bottom of an abyss, especially the small and medium cotton-growers of Cordoba and Tolima, who in the 2008-2009 harvest had enormous losses."
---
---
COLOMBIA: The Failure of GM Cotton
Carmelo Ruiz Marrero
Americas Program Biodiversity Report-April 2010
http://americas.irc-online.org/am/6726#2
GM cotton has been a failure in Colombia
Genetically modified (GM) cotton from the American biotechnology company Monsanto has been a failure in Colombia, announced the organization Grupo Semillas (http://www.semillas.org.co/). Last March, the Columbian Agricultural Institute (ICA) imposed a fine on Monsanto due to the poor performance of its GM cotton, which caused losses among cotton growers in the 2008/2009 season.
"Seven years after having released the seeds of GM cotton commercially, their failure is evident," declared the Colombian organization in an article circulated by the Network for a Latin America Free of Genetically Modified Organisms (Red por una America Latina Libre de Transgénicos).
"They did not live up to promises of being more productive, nor of reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides, nor the lowering of production costs, nor the generation of greater profits for growers. Monsanto presented GMO technology as the redemption of the cotton industry; in reality it has helped take growers to the bottom of an abyss, especially the small and medium cotton-growers of Cordoba and Tolima, who in the 2008-2009 harvest had enormous losses."
Civil society was not unprepared for this news. In August 2007 the participants of the Latin American Scientific Conference of Agroecology, celebrated that month in Antioquía, Colombia, wrote an open letter to the Colombian government rejecting the approval of GM crops in the country.
In the letter, they stated that, "In Colombia, genetically modified corn and cotton will create genetic crosses with native species that will cause genetic degradation or 'superweeds' in the productive agricultural ecosystems; in the same way, cultural tradition, historically the facilitator of national food security, will be vulnerable and ruined by the irresponsible policies of the Colombian state, which measures agricultural activity in terms of productivity and increases social inequality in the Colombian rural sector, forgetting their commitment to national sovereignty starting with food as a fundamental human right."
cont.EXTRACT: Monsanto presented GMO technology as the redemption of the cotton industry;... more
-
-
1.Bt cotton has failed admits Monsanto
2.Setback for Bt cotton; main pest develops resistance
3.Bt cotton flunks pest resistance test in Gujarat
4.Bt cotton ineffective against pest in parts of Gujarat, admits Monsanto
5.Cotton in India - Monsanto media release
NOTE: The picture now emerging about Bt cotton from pro-GM sources - Monsanto and India's Central Institute for Cotton Research - is one where:
*the main pest (bollworm) is developing resistance
*"new sucking pests have emerged as major pests causing significant economic losses"
*productivity of cotton has fallen
*pesticide expenditure has gone up
Monsanto is hyping its GM Bollgard II cotton as the answer (see item 5) but agricultural scientists are calling Monsanto's advice "ridiculous" as Bollgard II has no additional toxin to combat bollworm (item 4). In fact, US farmers recently complained about bollworms "slipping" through Bollgard II and needing to be treated with pesticides. "We were supposed to have enough control of bollworms with BGII to not have to treat for bollworms," said the farmers at a meeting with Monsanto where they pressed for a rebate on Monsanto's technology fee. Details of the meeting here: http://bit.ly/bdc3EN
---
---
1.Bt cotton has failed admits Monsanto
Dinesh C. Sharma
India Today, March 6 2010
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/86939/India/Bt+cotton+has+failed+admits+Monsanto.html
New Delhi - The ongoing debate on biotechnology crops in India took a new turn on Friday when American seed firm Monsanto disclosed that cotton pest--pink bollworm--has developed resistance to its much-touted Bt cotton variety in Gujarat.
The company has reported to the regulator, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), that pink bollworm has developed resistance to its genetically modified (GM) cotton variety, Bollgard I, in Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot districts in Gujarat.
This was detected by the company during field monitoring in the 2009 cotton season.
The Bt cotton variety in question was developed using a gene--Cry1AC--derived from soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. It was supposed to be resistant to pest attacks. But, of late, the pest has developed resistance to the gene.
The same gene has been used in Bt brinjal to make it resistant to pests. Bollgard cotton was cited as a great success of GM technology by Union science minister Prithviraj Chavan in his July 2009 letter to former health minister A. Ramadoss.
"Resistance is natural and expected," Monsanto said in a statement. The company blamed pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac protein in Gujarat to "early use of unapproved Bt cotton seeds" by farmers and "limited refuge planting". Farmers are supposed to maintain a distance between Bt cotton farms and other farms as a "refuge". It also advised farmers to take up "need-based application of insecticide sprays" and "properly manage crop residue and unopened bolls after harvest". A second generation variety, Bollgard II, introduced by Monsanto in 2006, contains two proteins, Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab.
The company says no resistance has been observed in the variety anywhere in the country, including Gujarat.
The revelation has not surprised environment action groups. "This is the pattern Monsanto has been following everywhere. Once Bollgard 1 fails, they start pushing Bollgard 2 and tell farmers to apply more pesticides. This is a vicious circle that Indian cotton farmers have got into," Devinder Sharma of Forum for Biotechnology and Food Safety said.
"There is a lesson here for Bt brinjal because the arguments in favour of the crop are same as those given for Bollgard cotton," Kavita Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat said.
In a report submitted to environment minister Jairam Ramesh, K.R. Kranthi of the Central Institute for Cotton Research had cautioned about the likely failure of Bt cotton. "Farmers are not following the recommended 'refugia'. With about 90 per cent area under Bt cotton, bollworms can develop resistance soon. The concern needs to be addressed on priority before it is too late," the report says.1.Bt cotton has failed admits Monsanto
2.Setback for Bt cotton; main pest develops... more
-
-
There have been a series of scientific reports indicating side effects of transgenic Bt corn or potatoes on the animals. To quote a few:
1. In July 2008, Austrian researchers found that feeding rats a diet containing the transgenic corn NK603 x MON810 affected the reproduction of mice that was detected in 3rd and 4th generation in the reproductive assessment by continuous breeding (RACB) study design. Some effects on the kidneys were also observed.1
2. In November, 2008, Italian researchers concluded that “the consumption of Bt MON810 maize … induced alteration in intestinal and peripheral immune response of weaning and old mice.”2
3. In December 2009, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois et al., studied the rats with feeds of three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. They observed that it causes hepatorenal toxicity. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system.3
4. Mice fed potatoes engineered to produce the Bt toxin developed abnormal and damaged cells, as well as proliferative cell growth in the lower part of their small intestines (ileum).4
How can transgenic Bt food be considered “safe” when there are so many studies showing adverse effects of Bt foods? Some studies have shown adverse effects on 3rd generation at the earliest and that too by Reproductive Assessment by Continuous Breeding (RACB) study design. The toxicological studies done by Mahyco do not include studies beyond 90 days of exposure. How can we consider Bt brinjal “safe” without proper, multigeneration studies?
B. Variety of Adverse Effects Due to GM Food in General
Certain studies have shown that the GM food can change the cell structure itself! Two of them:
1. Researchers studied effect of feeding GM soybean on mice and found out that it caused significant modifications in the nuclei (irregularly shaped nuclei) in the hepatocytes of GM fed mice.5
2. Scientists studied pancreatic acinar cell nuclei on the mice fed on genetically Modified soybean. The modifications observed in pancreatic acinar cell nuclei of GM-fed mice could be related to the reduction in digestive enzyme synthesis and secretion and can influence the pancreatic metabolism in mouse.6
Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). One study, done by Kroghsbo et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.23
C. Increase in Allergic reactions
Allergic reactions occur when the immune system interprets something as foreign, different, and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. And several studies show that they provoke reactions. To quote a few:
1. Rats fed Monsanto’s GM corn had a significant increase in blood cells related to the immune system.7
2. GM potatoes caused the immune system of rats to respond more slowly.8
3. GM peas provoked an inflammatory response in mice, suggesting that it might cause deadly allergic reactions in people.9
4. Scientists have demonstrated high immunogenicity of Cry1A proteins administered by intragastric route and cautioned the use of transgenic plants for human consumption.10
5. There have been reports of allergic reactions to Bt spray. The reaction was severe enough to cause hospitalisation in some of the cases.11,12,13
6. Bt toxin might also trigger reactions by skin contact. In 2005, a medical team reported that hundreds of agricultural workers in India are developing allergic symptoms when exposed to Bt cotton, but not when exposed to natural varieties.14
Although there may be many causes, it might be difficult to identify whether GM foods were triggering allergic responses in the population. Since our country does not conduct regular studies or keep careful records, we need to do allergic studies in great detail before GM food is permitted for human consumption.
D. GMOs are inherently unpredictable
It has been scientifically proved beyond doubt that genes are not carriers of a single trait. The effect of every gene is determined by the total situation in the cell. Therefore, the transfer of a single gene can not yield intended results and is inevitably unpredictable.
Insertion of transgene can lead to mutation, deletion and alterations of the genomic structure. All this can change RNA, protein, enzymes and other countless natural products in the organism. To cite an example,
The gene of soybean glycinin was transferred into potatoes with the aim to increase their protein content. However, the improvements in protein content or amino acid profile were minimal. In fact, the total protein content of the GM potatoes after the gene transfer became significantly less than that of the control line. Even more unfortunately, the contents of some vitamins were reduced while the amounts of both solanine and chaconine increased in the GM lines. In this light the claimed substantial equivalence of the GM and parent lines was not supported by the published results.15
As some of the changes are unpredictable and it is only possible to compare the known properties and constituents of GM and conventional plants. Unknown components are not looked for and in that case how can we analyse them?
Scientists have opined that just chemical analysis of macro/micronutrients and known toxins is at best inadequate and, at worst, dangerous. More sophisticated analytical methods need to be devised, such as mRNA fingerprinting, proteomics, secondary metabolite profiling and other profiling techniques.
Do we have facilities for this kind of studies? Are they mandatory at present? How are we going to label it safe without detailed investigations?
From Concerned Health Professionals for Biosafety in Food
January 19, 2010
To Shri Jairam Ramesh
Honourable Minister of State (Independent Charge)
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Government of India
Public Consultation on Bt Brinjal at AhmedabadThere have been a series of scientific reports indicating side effects of transgenic... more
-
-
My latest instalment posted to the Green Blog. Thanks to Leah, producer of Current Green for giving this important information a voice.My latest instalment posted to the Green Blog. Thanks to Leah, producer of Current... more
-
-
This leaves no doubt about how immoral business is. I can't even quote all of the blatant PR written in this piece, but have been busy spreading a bit of knowledge there. There was no mention of farmer lawsuits, patent law forcing the buying of seeds, pushing out NON GMO farmers, intimidation of scientists, transgenic contamination, test results regarding their BT crops, Indian farmer suicides, deforestation of the Amazon, farmers in Latin America being pushed off their land for soy monocultures, Monsanto in Iraq and Afghanistan, Plan Colombia, government bribes, revolving Washington DC policy, nor pending lawsuits regarding PCBs and the Supreme Court. Just one big wet kiss for Monsanto. I am actually nauseated after reading it. So if you are so inclined, make a visit over there and read what Forbes had to say in their fluff piece. This is what billions in profits gotten from the blood and biodiversity of this planet will buy you. Oh, and of course, no sugary sweet ad would be complete unless those who actually know the science and who care about the planet were called "enemies."
excerpt:
"The enemies haven't disappeared entirely. A 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists study calculated that only 14% of recent corn-crop yield increases are due to genetically engineered Bt corn. Roundup-ready corn and soy seeds don't increase crop yield at all, it found. Genetic engineering of crops "is inherently risky," says Greenpeace Policy Director Marco Contiero. "We cannot recall crops that are released into the environment." He says Monsanto's dominance decreases seed biodiversity."
Enemies? Shame on you, Forbes.This leaves no doubt about how immoral business is. I can't even quote all of the... more
-
-
EXTRACT: Cotton crisis and successive crop failures due to declining soil health goes hand in hand with the imported GM (genetic modification) technology, which is energy and input intensive.
"Bt cotton is a high-cost, energy-intensive technology," said farmers' leader Vijay Jawandhia. In an arid and rain-dependent agriculture region like Vidarbha, he said, this technology comes with huge risks. "Costlier the technology, higher the risk."
---
---
Soil in Wardha district deficient in 18 micronutrients: Study
Jaideep Hardikar
DNA, December 6 2009
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_soil-in-wardha-district-deficient-in-18-micronutrients-study_1320504
Mumbai: From a corner of his farm in Jhamkola, Daulat Mahure, 45, could see what Laxman Chelpelwar, 55, must have seen on his own field, some miles away in Mukutban village: stunted and wilting cotton plants, leaves red as dried blood, and hardly any cotton bolls. The two farmers were from South Yavatmal villages in the Painganga river basin along the Andhra border.
On November 16, Chelpelwar went out, apparently to inspect what must have looked to him a forlorn six-acre crop-less farm. According to his wife Pochubai, he returned home four hours later, and lay down on his bed without uttering a word. Minutes later he began to convulse violently.
"I was alone, I was frightened, and cried for help," she remembers. By the time her sons and some neighbours arrived, it was over. The post-mortem report revealed that Chelpelwar had consumed Endosulfan, a pesticide.
Five quintals. That was Chelpelwar's cotton yield in the first picking. His income from it: Rs15,000. His expenses: Rs50,000.Back in Jhamkola village, about 45 km from the cotton trading town of Pandharkawda, Mahure's cotton yield stood at one quintal: worth about Rs3,000. "I'm not lying," says his mother Jiblabai, who at 70 must work as a farm labourer, picking cotton, so that the family can eat.
Jiblabai says she came home from work on November 23 to find her son hanging from the ceiling of their two-room hut. He had killed himself when nobody was at home. "Daulat was devastated by the failed crops," says his father Kashinath.
Mahure's death left a trail of unanswered questions. The answers, like in Chelpelwar's case, lie buried in his seven-acre field where the cotton plants are drooping, and many are yet to find roots. The soil, says his farmer friend Datta Upre, has nothing in it to feed the plant.
Lalya, the destroyer
"Lalya wrecked us with the drought," said Upre. Lalya, a local term for the reddening of the cotton plants, has become a regular feature ever since the Bt cotton replaced hybrids, according to a number of farmers The Mag spoke to. The Maharashtra government has been compensating farmers in the region for 'lalya' almost every year since the Bt seeds came in.
Agriculture scientists say 'lalya' points to a lack of micronutrients and moisture content in soils, which are fast degrading. This year's scanty rainfall exposed the soil's deteriorating health. Bad soil health, says a senior soil scientist from the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) at Nagpur, mires plant growth and leads to low yields.
A recent study by the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) found, as a sample, the soils in Wardha district heavily deficient in 18 micronutrients that breathe life in plants and dictate the yields.
Farming in the rain-fed areas has become even more intensive after the onset of Bt technology. Intensive agriculture, while increasing productivity, has caused fresh problems in respect of nutrient imbalance, experts say. "No moisture and no nutrition in soil," said a CICR scientist, "is a certain recipe for crop failure." True in both, Mahure and Chelpelwar's cases.
A complex process, lalya unfolds with pest attacks, moisture stress and lack of micronutrients in soil. Temperature variation in the day and night accentuates its gravity.
Finally, the plant's chlorophyll content (which gives leaves its green colour) decreases with nitrogen deficiency, giving birth to another pigment called Anthocynin, which turns the foliage red.
If reddening starts before boll formation, it results in a 25 per cent drop in yield, said the CICR scientist, on condition of anonymity. "lalya," he declared, "is here to stay."
Lalya & Bt Technology
The disease, agriculture scientists say, has its roots in the American Bt technology that India imported on the pretext of improving productivity. Almost all the 500-plus Bt seed varieties sold in India this year are of the same parentage -- the American variety of Coker-3, a top CICR scientist said. "It means every seed has half American blood and half of Indian variety cross-pollinated with it."EXTRACT: Cotton crisis and successive crop failures due to declining soil health goes... more
-
