I don't think it has anything to do with commercial reasons and everything to do with what tests have shown. That GMOS are unsafe for human consumption.I don't think it has anything to do with commercial reasons and everything to do with... more
And just how much of it is in your stomach? These companies don't care. The only thing they care about is hearing cha ching.And just how much of it is in your stomach? These companies don't care. The only thing... more
What has been of particular interest in this and past debates on the subject is the way in which those who oppose GM crops are painted as being against science (see for instance, the editorial in The Hindu on 21 October, 2009 or Starved for Science by R Paarlberg). There is a blatant attempt by GM promoters to polarise the discussion and manufacture a science-vs.-antiscience debate. All those who oppose GM crops are neither anti-science nor luddites. Indeed, many scientists have been, and still are, critical of GM for a number of good reasons. Scientists and scientific academies, including the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences, have expressed serious concerns regarding the scientific rigour of experiments and the impacts of GM crops, especially on biodiversity.
Those who support GM crops generally believe that science and technology can solve most problems, and see crops as requiring tinkering to improve agriculture. It is such short-term and piecemeal thinking that led to the excesses of the Green Revolution causing damage to soils, depletion of ground water and other harms to ecosystems. There are other supporters of GM who continue to believe that private production of goods and services is inherently superior to public ones, even as governments have been bailing out the private sector in the last year! And then there are those who have financial gains to make if the GM industry prospers.
Let me compare the GM debate with the other major scientific debate - global warming. While scientists who work on climate change and global warming rightly embrace the precautionary principle, many who work in the area of GM plant technologies abandon it altogether. A charitable explanation is that this may have to do with differing perceptions of risk in each case. Perhaps global warming is seen as a serious threat to the entire world, and GM crops may not be understood in the same way. Moreover, some benefits have been attributed to these crops by promoters, making it harder for people to reject them.
But while the naysayers of climate change have now been marginalised through more research and data, those who are concerned about GM crops have been silenced through smear campaigns launched against them. Some of the scientists, like Arpad Pusztai, who raised questions regarding the health effects of GM crops, have had their careers turned upside down. In order to learn about the tentacles and might of agribusiness, one must ask Ignacio Chapela from UC Berkeley about his gut-wrenching tenure battle, which followed his publication in Nature on the contamination of wild strains of Mexican maize by GM maize
The mere use of technology does not make an approach scientific, but this is a common fallacy even among scientists. Good science is characterised by transparency and falsifiability. These do not figure in GM. Instead, faith, the antithesis of science, features in a big way. There are few peer-reviewed journal articles on GM crops. When companies make claims about various positive contributions from their engineered crops, their statements cannot be verified or tested independently. Policymakers and even other scientists who work in the same area have to accept the results on faith.
Earlier this year, an anonymous public statement was signed and submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 26 leading scientists, entomologists who work with insects that infect corn. It stated that scientists are unable to conduct independent research on GM crops as patents prevent full access to research materials and the ability to grow and study these plants. As a consequence, the scientists state, the data that the Scientific Advisory Panel of the EPA has available to it is unduly limited. This means the claims of GM proponents cannot be verified independently or indeed be falsified.
There is general agreement among scientists and academics on the adverse effects on biodiversity as a result of cross-pollination from engineered to non-engineered crops. Still, field trials for GM crops in unmarked areas blow caution and engineered pollen to the winds in closely cultivated fields in India.
The potential damage to human health from GM crops has been shown quite clearly in a few animal systems, but perhaps needs further study. There is good peer-reviewed published evidence to show that Bt toxins are both immunogens (a substance that provokes an immune response) and immunoadjuvants (a substance that enhances immune response) for mammals. Moreover, studies have shown that Bt toxins bind to the mammalian small intestine and have effects on its proper functioning. The concerns raised by the use of viral promoters, which are hotspots for genetic recombination, the use of antibiotic resistance genes, and strong gene promoters (sequences that facilitate the transcription of a gene) to ensure that the foreign genes are expressed, have already been highlighted by many scientists.
end of excerpt.What has been of particular interest in this and past debates on the subject is the... more
Monsanto’s money buys the “truth” even on public radio so that it too spreads Monsanto’s PR message “Produce more, Conserve More.” In reality, agriculture a la Monsanto is everything but conservation or sustainability. Read our analysis of Monsanto’s treatment by Marketplace.Monsanto’s money buys the “truth” even on public radio so that it too spreads... more
You can think this is nothing or that it isn't important. Tell that to your children in another ten to twenty years. There are scientists doing experimentation on these transgenes and DNA, and what they are seeing is troubling.
But don't believe them, only go by the corporate and government PR and let your own political biases be your guide. I am sure that will serve the preservation of biodiversity and ecology for your children well. And don't say you weren't warned. Allowing GMOs out into the environment unchecked was and is one of the gravest environmental crimes of this century.
http://current.com/groups/sustainable-agriculture/
The group giving you the important news you need to know about GMOs, food safety, and food sovereignty.You can think this is nothing or that it isn't important. Tell that to your children... more
I’ll admit it. I’m an unabashed fan of the First Lady. I read every article about the White House organic garden and I go to Michele’s farmers’ market every Thursday. I’m a fan and I’m a little jealous, too. She’s managed to educate DC school children and provide farm fresh food to state dinners. The garden I started at my daughter’s DC public school this spring was abandoned to the office and maintenance staff this summer, then plowed under in a schoolyard renovation before school started in the fall, and has yet to feed any students.
Because I admire the First Lady’s good example, I am shocked by the chemical agribusiness and biotech cheerleading of her husband’s administration. From USDA and FDA appointments of biotech and chemical industry insiders, to support for the preposterous idea that genetic engineering can feed the world, it is obvious that the Obama Administration is happy to assist agribusiness in its quest for world domination.
World domination sounds a little histrionic, doesn’t it? But, there’s no other way to describe the profit-at-any-cost business model of companies like Monsanto that seek to patent and control access to seeds and food and decide for the world what we can eat. The question that faces humanity today is, “Shall we let Monsanto, Cargill, McDonald’s and a handful of other multinational corporations decide the future of food?”
Proponents of the so-called Second Green Revolution, led by the chemical, biotech and industrial biofuels lobby, are spending millions each year on advertisements and donations to politicians, universities, and non-profits to convince us that the only way to feed the world and survive climate change is through high technology—relying on factory farm animal production, genetic engineering, toxic pesticides, nitrate chemical fertilizers, and compliant farmers, farm workers, and consumers.
With far fewer resources, the organic movement is generating the science to support an alternative view. Organic agriculture can feed the world, turn back climate change and make food production more resilient to droughts and floods. Organic agriculture can do it with biodiversity instead of biotech, greenhouse gas sequestration instead of emissions, integrated pest management instead of toxic pesticides, humus-rich compost instead of fossil fuel fertilizers or sewage sludge, more family farmers and better conditions for farm workers.
The question of which agriculture model will dominate food production is a question we only have one opportunity to answer. Once a seed or animal variety is extinct or contaminated with foreign genes, we will never get it back. In an age when a billion people are stuffed while a billion people are starved, most people on the planet suffer from either poor nutrition, exposure to toxic ingredients, diet-related diseases, or all three. Agriculture is a life and death issue for all of us.
So, which side is the Obama Administration on? The first answer to that question is, well, who’s in the Obama Administration?
Let’s start with the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack. While Iowa Governor, Vilsack was a leading advocate for Monsanto, genetic engineering, and factory farming.
The senior adviser to the Food and Drug Administration Commissioner on food safety is Michael Taylor. The Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Corp. from 1998 until 2001, Taylor exemplifies the revolving door between the food industry and the government agencies that regulate it.
Rajiv Shah is the USDA Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics and Chief Scientist. Agricultural policy experts initially expressed concern that Shah, Director of Agricultural Development Programs at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, lacked real experience in agriculture. Shah was the founding director of the Gates Foundation's agriculture program, which has donated $37 million to GM research.
much more about GMO cronyism at the link.I’ll admit it. I’m an unabashed fan of the First Lady. I read every article about... more
The third reporting of Monsanto news, GMO news, and news you need to know to stay ahead of the companies and governments out to take your food sovereignty away.
In this report I break down the news according to:
Activism: Pakistan, India, Mexico, Canada, Ireland, Germany
Legal: GM sugarbeets; standing up to Tom Vilsack on GMOs
Special Comment: Bill Gates; Monsanto "carbon credits"; food security
Also, all items discussed will be linked here along with the video by Jeffrey Smith of the Institute of Responsible Technology: Everything you HAVE TO KNOW About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods.
If you haven't watched this video yet you cannot afford not to.
There is good news amongst the status quo in regards to farmers standing up around the world and also some countries taking steps to label GMOs and ban them. Unfortunately, the U.S. is not one of those countries as our government continues to support the status quo for all of their talk about change.
On the whole however, we are seeing more vocal opposition and with Monsanto's stock going down this past quarter that is a hopeful sign that people are waking up to the deception that is GMO, the poisons sprayed on them, and their effect on our health and environment.
With a packed house, and time for only one more question, author Jeffrey Smith stepped to the mic and received the loudest applause of the morning with this question on genetically modified (GM) foods.With a packed house, and time for only one more question, author Jeffrey Smith stepped... more
Rural biotechnology has been promoted as a key tool to combat global hunger and poverty by increasing the productivity of farmers worldwide. The technology relies on genetically modified (GM) seeds and agrochemicals that are tailored to the genetic traits of the seeds. The biotechnology industry promised that farmers could increase their yields, lower production costs and reduce agrochemical use.
1 Instead, American farmers have faced higher costs without higher productivity, risked lawsuits from seed companies, and applied more agrochemicals as weeds and insects developed resistance to the genetic crop traits. The real winners have been the handful of biotechnology companies that patent specific genetic crop traits and sell the GM traits in seeds and affiliated agrochemicals to farmers. A few major chemical and pharmaceutical giants now dominate the seed industry, which once relied on universities for most research and development.
2 Between 1996 and 2007, Monsanto acquired more than a dozen smaller companies, and now controls an estimated 70 percent of all GM corn and 99 percent of all soybeans planted in the United States.
3 The few firms that do exist often have cross-licensing agreements for their patents that create partnerships between companies to sell seeds with specific combinations of traits from multiple firms.
4 A high level of concentration and cooperation can raise seed prices for farmers.
5 Most GM crops are destined for livestock feed, biofuel refineries or processed food ingredients, in part because major U.S. trade partners like Europe and Japan have not authorized the importation of many GM food products because of uncertainty about the possible human health and plant risks.
6 Consumers in these countries do not want to eat GM food.
7 Despite the limited export opportunity, the high cost of the GM seed and agrochemicals, and environmental impacts, international agribusinesses are promoting biotechnology as a key strategy for farmers in the developing world to combat global hunger.
What are genetically modified crops and where are they grown?
Genetic engineering can create, improve or modify crops by changing a plant's genetic traits.
8 Most commercial biotech crops are either herbicide-tolerant, which allows farmers to apply herbicides to kill weeds without damaging the crops, or insect-resistant, which theoretically protects the plants from destructive pests.
9 Biotech crops became commercially available in 1996, and by 2009, the vast majority of the corn, cotton and soybean crops in America were genetically modified.
10 Although biotech firms have promised high-yield and drought-resistant GM seeds, to date, these traits are not commercially available.
You can read the entire report from Food And Water Watch at the link.Rural biotechnology has been promoted as a key tool to combat global hunger and... more
From Youtube: "By now most people know that GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organisms. But how do GMOs affect us, the food we eat, and the environment? Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology provides a solid general overview in this interview."
A couple of cute cats sharing their serious research... excellent 44 minute radio/telephone interview.From Youtube: "By now most people know that GMO stands for Genetically Modified... more
Here's a fine op-ed written by friends at The National Family Farm Coalition and the Pesticide Action Network on how the Obama administration is ensuring that the food system remains firmly in the hands of those who screw it up for everyone else. It's a status quo we can all believe in.
OBAMA CAVES IN TO AGRIBUSINESS
Kathy Ozer and Marcia Ishii-Eiteman
“Lobbyists won’t find a job in my White House.” President Obama assured us with this claim upon inauguration. And yet he just nominated to two key posts “Big Ag” industry power brokers, who come straight from the chemical pesticide and biotechnology sectors. While they may not be registered as lobbyists, both men come from organizations representing powerful agribusiness interests, which every year spend millions of dollars in lobbying to advance their companies’ chemical and transgenic products.
Obama has tapped Roger Beachy, long-time president of the Danforth Plant Science Center (Monsanto’s nonprofit arm) as chief of the USDA’s newly created National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA). Created by the 2008 Farm Bill, NIFA is the new means of awarding the USDA’s external research dollars. As the director of NIFA (a nomination that doesn’t require congressional approval), Beachy will oversee the distribution of nearly $500 million in grants and other research funding. Sustainable agriculture initiatives are likely to suffer, as research dollars are awarded to projects that promote Beachy’s vested interests in biotechnology.
Islam Siddiqui, currently the VP of Science and Regulatory Affairs at CropLife USA, was nominated to the post of Chief Agricultural Negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative’s office. Why the president would nominate someone from the group that infamously chided the First Lady for refusing to use pesticides on the White House garden is a bit of a mystery, but perhaps it has something to do with all the money and work as a fundraiser that Siddiqui put into Obama’s campaign. This critical position is designed to use free trade agreements to open up foreign markets for U.S. agriculture goods—mostly to promote chemical-intensive, genetically modified products that undermine local food cultures in developing countries.
It’s crucial that the Senate Finance Committee hears from public witnesses while investigating his past roles. At CropLife International, Siddiqui led an initiative to weaken restrictions against fertilizers and pesticides, as part of the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round of negotiations. He also served as the senior agricultural trade advisor during the Clinton administration, and pressed for getting genetically modified crops and seeds approved for commercial use in the United States.
Now the United States will continue its efforts to export the worst aspects of U.S. agriculture to other countries, many of which are deeply wary of genetically modified seeds and the impacts of toxic pesticides on their communities. Mirroring those concerns, a landmark comprehensive United Nations and World Bank- sponsored International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science, and Technology for Development (IAASTD) has said that one of the best ways to feed the world is to increase investments in agro-ecological science and farming.
We don’t need more genetically modified seeds. What we need is enforcement of antitrust laws to break up monopoly control of the global food system, and fairer—not “freer”—trade arrangements to overcome poverty and hunger around the world.
end of excerpt
___
Feeding people sustainably and giving them food sovereignty brings peace. Not the same status quo shrouded in empty gestures.Here's a fine op-ed written by friends at The National Family Farm Coalition and the... more
An unusual new consumer safety video from director Jeffrey M. Smith, who has been described as “perhaps the greatest science communicator alive,” lays out all the spin, hype and dangers of DNA altered foods, in Everything You HAVE TO KNOW About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs), a free 84-minute keynote that is becoming this year’s most unlikely viral hit.An unusual new consumer safety video from director Jeffrey M. Smith, who has been... more
Monsanto Co., the world's biggest seed maker, said Wednesday its fourth-quarter loss widened to $233 million in the fourth quarter on a decrease in revenue, led by a drop in sales of its Roundup herbicide brand.
Its adjusted earnings narrowly beat Wall Street estimates, however.
Monsanto said its loss amounted to 43 cents per share in the quarter ended Aug. 31. That's larger than its loss of $172 million, or 31 cents per share, a year earlier.
When one-time items are excluded, Monsanto said it earned 2 cents per share on an ongoing basis, beating Wall Street estimates for earnings of 1 cent per share. The estimates typically exclude one-time items.
The company posted a $114 million charge for its restructing plan that began this that will cut 900 jobs, or 4 percent of its workforce.
Revenue fell to $1.88 billion from $2.05 billion the previous year.
Sales in Monsanto's seed and genomics division fell nearly 4 percent to $908 million during the quarter. Sales in the agricultural chemical division, which includes Roundup herbicide, fell 12.5 percent to $971 million.
The company's stock rose 8 cents to $75.44 in morning trading.Monsanto Co., the world's biggest seed maker, said Wednesday its fourth-quarter loss... more
(NaturalNews) For those of us wondering how bad the untested genetically modified food experiment is going to get before it gets any better, a ray of hope was just offered. A San Francisco judge, the very honorable, Judge Jeffrey White just ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture`s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service violated environmental law because of inadequate environmental testing of genetically modified sugar beets. He ruled that the agency failed to see if the genetically altered beets would eventually share their funky pesticide proof genes with other crops. Judge White noted that pollen from sugar beets can be blown long distances and pollinate other crops, including table beets and chard.
White wrote, "The potential elimination of farmers` choice to grow nongenetically engineered crops, or consumers` choice to eat nongenetically engineered food ... has a significant effect on the human environment."
The judge ordered the federal agency to produce an environmental impact statement after taking a hard look at the issue. A lesser look by the agency found that the sharing of genetically altered pollen was no cause for concern.
This is the second blow for Monsanto and according the Associated Press, a "similar ruling in 2007 forced a ban on planting Roundup Ready alfalfa until a re-examination was done." That environmental impact statement has yet to be completed, so it effectively halted the growth and sale of GMO alfalfa.
About half of the sugar beets used in the United States are currently Monsanto`s genetically modified variety and the judge didn`t rule about the harvest of the current crop.
If you haven`t been already, it`s wise to avoid sugar for a while to make sure you`re not consuming genetically modified sugar beets.
Genetically modified foods have been linked to smaller, less developed brains, livers and testicles. GMOs have been found to enlarge other tissues, including the pancreas and intestines. They`ve been known to atrophy the liver, while causing structural changes in the stomach and intestines. GMOs have additionally been linked to infertility and allergies. Here`s more: http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf.
All of the health problems associated with consuming genetically modified foods made the news in Europe years ago, when genetically modified crops were new. The citizens of Europe rebelled, which is why genetically altered foods are currently banned, or mostly labeled, in Europe.
In the U.S., the news wasn`t covered by mainstream outlets. As a consequence genetically modified foods are not labeled and consumers remain largely unaware. Genetically modified ingredients are available in the large majority of processed foods, and in the U.S. it`s actually illegal for manufacturers to label GMO products, as GMO products.
U.S. officials have been cited as saying that such labeling would "confuse consumers," and it`s widely known that the large majority of consumers don`t want to eat genetically modified foods. Their logic has been: if consumers knew which foods were genetically modified, they would avoid them and thereby make the wrong choice. The official said to have explained the government's logic at an international Codex meeting later denied doing so.
Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups brought the lawsuit. According to Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff, on Oct. 30 they will ask the judge for an injunction to ban new plantings until the environmental impact statement is complete.
An American Sugar Beet Growers Association spokesman said the association is going to fight for the right to grow genetically modified sugar beets. It wasn`t disclosed if, or how much, funding the association receives from Monsanto.
Genetically modified sugar beets are currently grown in eleven states and on 1.1 million acres.
More:
Seeds of Deception, Jeffery M. Smith(NaturalNews) For those of us wondering how bad the untested genetically modified food... more
28 countries, including more European countries as well as Sri Lanka, Singapore, and Thailand, have now been affected by contamination from genetically modified (GM) flax in Canadian exports since contamination was first reported on September 8.
Mere weeks are left before farmers in Canada finish harvesting their flax and yet farmers still don't know the source or full extent of the GM contamination - and it could be weeks before authorities in Canada confirm any details. Flax prices remain depressed.
GM flax is not approved for human consumption in the following 28 countries where contamination has now reached: Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Czech Republic, Spain, Denmark, Estonia, Norway, Finland, France, Greece, Romania, Portugal, Iceland, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Mauritius. Companies are removing products from the market as the GM flax has been found in cereals, bakery products, bakery mixtures and nut/seed products. 9 GM flax contamination notices have been filed so far through the European Commission’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed.
European authorities have named the source of contamination as the GM flax "Triffid", which was developed in Canada but was deregistered in 2001 and has been illegal to sell since that time. While there is a test for the Triffid flax available from the company Genetic ID, the Flax Council of Canada is delaying confirmation as it waits for the Plant Biotechnology Institute in Saskatoon to develop a new test for Triffid.
"Its been nearly a month since contamination was first found, but neither the Canadian government nor industry has come forward with any answers," said Stewart Wells, President of the National Farmers Union of Canada. "The continued uncertainty and unanswered questions show the need for more strict regulation of GM crops in Canada.”
"Farmers face the threat of unwanted contamination from GM crops, even when the crops are not supposed to be grown," said Arnold Taylor an organic flax grower and Chair of the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate. "Someone's going to have to pay for testing our crops for contamination and any required clean-up. Who will be liable?"
"The Canadian government still refuses to consider market harm when they decide to approve GM crops. This obviously has to change immediately," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. "The entire regulatory system needs urgent reform or we will see even more widespread market chaos."28 countries, including more European countries as well as Sri Lanka, Singapore, and... more
As farmers leave the land in record numbers, agribusiness and the associated industrialization of agriculture continue to expand. The consequences—intended and unintended—of this rapid restructuring of our food system reach well beyond the boundaries of what we think of as “the family farm.” The award-winning documentary short, AS WE SOW, documents the stories of survival and failure in the real heartland, a struggle pitting family against family, neighbor against neighbor, citizens against their government, and small, independent farmers against the giants of global agribusiness. At the center is the land itself: who will control it and how, and at what cost to people and communities, to our health and our environment, and, ultimately, to our democracy.
___________-
This is an American tragedy not only in regards to destroying agriculture as we know it, but also in regards to destroying the culture and heritage of America.As farmers leave the land in record numbers, agribusiness and the associated... more
Dr M.S. Swaminathan, considered the Father of the Green Revolution in India, finally stated his views on genetically-modified (GM) crops in an opinion piece published on August 26, 2009, in this newspaper. GM crops are produced by inserting foreign genes, mostly non-plant genes (bacterial, viral and animal genes) for obtaining hitherto non-existent, new characteristics in a crop. For instance, the Bt class of GM crops like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, have been engineered at the genetic level by the insertion of a bacterial gene so that the plant produces its own poison against chosen pests that feed on the crop.
Dr Swaminathan, who headed a task force on agri-biotechnology which gave its report in 2004 to the ministry of agriculture, began his report by reiterating what many of us believe: That "if agriculture goes wrong, nothing else will have a chance to go right". The report emphasises that the bottomline with regard to any policy on agri-biotechnology is "the safety of the environment, the well-being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external trade and the bio-security of our nation".
After presenting such a comprehensive requirement around any policy-making on GM crops in that report, it was surprising to see this recent article hype up the so-called benefits of GM crops and play down valid concerns.
Let me begin with some fundamental issues that Dr Swaminathan did not touch upon:
l Genetic modification by insertion of new genes is now known to cause mutations all along the genome of an organism and at the site of insertion.
l We have not yet understood the full complexity of the genomic regulation in an organism and, therefore, the changes brought about by genetic modification are unknown and also unpredictable. This is where the primary concern about this technology stems from — scientific evidence exists to show that the changes made are unsafe from an environmental and human health perspective. A fundamental flaw in Dr Swaminathan’s article was to make it appear that what is inherently unsafe can be made safe through regulation!
At another level, Dr Swaminathan talks about various GM crops and their benefits — it is interesting to note that except for the insect-resistance trait that he expands upon, none of the other crops actually exist! In reality, two kinds of GM crops exist — those that produce a pesticide from within the plant, like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal (sought to be introduced in India for the first time in the world, developed mostly by American agencies), and those that assimilate application of more pesticides and confer herbicide-tolerance characteristic to a crop. In fact, herbicide tolerance is the trait in nearly 81 per cent of the GM crop cultivation in the world today. Dr Swaminathan’s report talks about how this should be of low priority given the large number of agricultural labourers in various regions of the country. Today, several field trials of GM crops in India are centered around this trait — does it make sense to destroy existing opportunities of employment in agriculture and then create more and more budgets for National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) kind of programmes?
Coming to crops like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, where pesticide is now inside the plant, the central question is why such solutions are needed when safer ways of pest management are known and practiced. Within the National Agricultural Research System (NARS), from where recommendations to be carried to farmers about various desirable practices emerge, there are numerous examples of successful non-chemical pest management practices. In addition, hundreds of farmers practicing organic/ecological farming have their own successful experiences and innovations to share about non-chemical pest management.
more at the link.Dr M.S. Swaminathan, considered the Father of the Green Revolution in India, finally... more
Last week marked a little-known and under-reported symposium held in Rome under the auspices of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation – the World Seed Conference. Although the subject may appear obscure, the conference theme and the issues discussed, including plant variety protection and seed improvement techniques, could not be more important to millions of farmers in the developing world.
Between the heavy acronyms and technical terms used by the UN figures, government officials and industry representatives, the conference illustrated two clear themes; firstly, the desire of Northern-based business to continue a process of enclosure of key farming inputs such as seeds by way of technology. Secondly, a push by these same companies (supported by the US and EU countries) for an extension and tightening of intellectual property rights on plant genetic resources into the national law of poorer countries.
Under the guise of innovation and progress, breeding companies suggest that seed varieties developed in laboratories in the North and then sold to poorer farmers in the South can raise yields in crops, increase nutritional values, reduce pesticide and fossil fuels use as well as conserve biodiversity. In the words of one participant at the conference, his company utilised ‘the art and science of changing the genetics of plants for the benefit of humankind.’
Advocates from industry argue that to safeguard their investment in these manipulated ‘seed innovations’ governments should use a form of legal construction (intellectual property rights) to prevent farmers from re-using and changing seeds that are a ‘product’ of agribusiness. Industry lobbyists also suggest that such monopoly rights should extend to developed plants varieties that business cannot easily control by technology – for example due to natural reproduction.
However, the patenting of seeds, extension of plant variety protection and rollout of a global regime of intellectual property rights for agricultural inputs could have serious consequences for small-scale farmers in the developing world.
Techno-Fixes and Monopoly Control
Firstly, the intellectual property regime that many participants in the Conference wish to tighten and extend to poorer countries (what one participant called ‘the development of a new industry competitiveness on foreign markets’), legally prevents farmers from sharing and saving seeds for later harvests or for future generations.
Under a key intellectual property treaty first signed in the 1960s and last amended in 1991, called UPOV, and the later WTO TRIPS, governments agreed to prevent farmers from saving or sharing seeds with only a few limited exceptions. In countries that have accepted these intellectual property regimes, small-scale farmers have moved increasingly towards the use of imported seeds, suffering from a number of adverse effects including increased debt levels, displacement and worsening food security. Making the situation worse, under intellectual property laws, some governments refuse to subsidise or even prohibit the use of seeds that do not make an ‘official list’ – most often those that were previously shared and exchanged between communities.Last week marked a little-known and under-reported symposium held in Rome under the... more
