Bt brinjal: Jairam Ramesh trying to legitimise the GEAC fraud

India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh. He is trying to cover-up the lapses on the part of GEAC in according environment clearance to India's first genetically modified food crop -- Bt brinjal

In what appears to be a massive cover-up operation for the scientific swindle perpetrated in the case of the controversial approval granted by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to India's first poisonous food crop -- Bt brinjal, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh is now trying to legitimise the fraud.

By announcing a series of stakeholder consultations at 7 locations across the country, Jairam Ramesh is simply trying to deflect attention from the more pressing need to open up the fraudulent manner in which the GEAC granted approval to Bt brinjal. By holding stakeholder consultations, he is deliberately trying to bury the scandal.

A news report in Business Standard (Ramesh to begin talks on Bt brinjal in January: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ramesh-to-begin-talksbt-brinjal-in-january/381153/) says, and I quote: During his month-long tour, Ramesh would seek views from scientists, agriculture experts, farmers’ organisations, consumer groups and non-government organisations (NGOs) on the report submitted by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) on Bt brinjal in October.

The committee has recommended that Bt brinjal is safe for environment release in India. In accordance with the event-based approval mechanism, GEAC may approve all the Bt Brinjal hybrids and varieties containing event EE-I developed by Mahyco, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, and field tested so far.\

Informed sources told Business Standard that Ramesh had already announced that the proposed consultations aim at arriving at a careful decision in the public and national interest. The decision with regard to allowing Bt Brinjal for human consumption would be made after the consultation.

Therefore, the need for prescribing additional studies needs to be carried out on a case-by-case basis and consideration of data generated during the biosafety assessment. According to GEAC, raising the bar of the regulatory process based on hypothetical concerns and apprehensions would be highly detrimental for research and development in the area of agricultural biotechnology, especially for public sector institutions and the benefits to the society at large.

If you read the above paras carefully, you realise that the Ministry for Environment & Forests (MoEF) appears satisfied with its own regulatory process. This is nothing surprising, knowing that each Ministry tries to protect its actions (and officials), and it was primarily for the same reasons probably that the former Chief Minister of Haryana, Mr Om Prakash Chautala, did not initiate any action against its then Director General of Police S P S Rathore, who is now being charged with abetment of suicide of the Chandigarh-based minor girl, Ruchika.

I see a similarity because I think Jairam Ramesh is also trying to provide a cover-up for the wrong doings of the GEAC. Instead of holding a public dialogue on the dirty games played in the name of scientific regulation, he is very cleverly shifting the onus onto stakeholder consultations, which primarily means there was nothing wrong with the regulatory process.

This is where he goes utterly wrong. The report of the Expert Committee-II was a complete sham.

I am aware that Jairam Ramesh is basically trying to defend his Ministry's reply to an earlier Parliament question, which in my opinion was simply a part of the cover-up operation. If if you have missed the report, here it is: Indian Parliament misled by Ministry for Environment on Bt brinjal issue http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/12/indian-parliament-misled-by-ministry.html

Bt brinjal approval was rigged. Jairam Ramesh cannot turn a blind eye to the charges made against the GEAC (and the EC-II). By doing so, he is simply playing the role Mr Chautala allegedly played in the Rathore case in Haryana (for readers outside India, I suggest you google SPS Rathore and you will get to know why the nation is outraged at what this former cop did to a minor girl who later committed suicide).

Like the public outcry is now bringing justice to Ruchika, the regulatory authorities have to be made answerable to the people. Like what the Haryana police (and government at that time) did to protect its Director General of Police, the MoEF cannot provide a cover-up to the wrong doings of the GEAC. Each and every action of the GEAC has to be publicly scrutanised. After all, the GEAC decisions impacts the masses.

If Jairam Ramesh has missed seeing the communications pointing to the unscientific manner in which the EC-II accorded environmental clearance to Bt brinjal, I draw his attention to my blog: India's GM scandal: Bt brinjal approval rigged (http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/11/indias-gm-scandal-bt-brinjal-approval.html) These have to be responded to. He cannot simply dismiss it.

The MoEF has to first provide for an independent public scrutiny of the GEAC report, before any stakeholder consultations can be held across the country. I see no reason why Jairam Ramesh cannot hold a public audit of the GEAC report? Why can't he appoint a three member panel (a panel comprising distinguishing personalities) that should review the decision of the GEAC? And why not?

There should be a provision for a strict punishment for the GEAC members, if the panel feels that the approval process was rigged. I would suggest slapping Section 305 (abetment to a crime) against the GEAC chairman and his team. The time has come to hold the scientific regulatory system accountable.

Just for record, I draw Jairam Ramesh's attention to a statement arrived at by some of the most distinguished scientists: "Bt brinjal has not been properly tested for health or environmental safety. In feeding trials, numerous significant differences were noted compared to the best corresponding non-Bt controls.

Bt brinjal appears to contain 15% less kcal/100 g, has a different alkaloïd content, and 16-17 mg/kg Bt insecticide toxin poorly characterized for side effects, and produced by the plant genetically modified for this. In animals fed this GMO, several parameters were effected including blood cells or chemistry, with significant differences according to the period of measurement during the study or the sex of the animal. These include prothrombin (blood clotting) time, biochemical parameters such as total bilirubin (an indicator of liver health).

Alkaline phosphatase was also changed, as well as feed consumption and weight gain; milk production in cows was 10- 14% higher. There was more milk and more roughage dry matter intake as if the animals were treated by a hormone. Rats GM-fed had diarrhoea, higher water consumption, liver weight decrease as well as relative liver to body weight ratio decrease".

Interestingly, the EC-II treats these glaring health impacts as biologically insignificant, which even a biotechnology student will disagree with. How can the MoEF brush these shocking details under the carpet? Doesn't it point to the real motive behind the approval process?

And now let us look at how cleverly the GEAC has designed the consultation process. My information is that Jairam Ramesh has simply okayed what the GEAC proposed.

1. The consultations will be held in 7 cities:  the first public consultation in Kolkata on January 13, followed by Bhubaneshwar on January 16, Ahmedabad on January 19, Hyderabad (January 22), Bangalore (January 23), Nagpur (January 27) and finally at Chandigarh on January 30. Why at these seven cities only? To this, Jairam Ramesh replies that these are the areas where brinjal cultivation is maximum.

The justification being proposed for these locations is flawed, and therefore smacks of an ulterior motive. Bt brinjal is a genetically modified food crop, which will be allowed for commercial sale after what Jairam Ramesh will gather from these consultations. This is simply a wrong approach.

Being the first genetically modified food crop, any assessment for its approval should be based on what the consumers have to say. The consultations should be therefore held in metros like Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Ludhiana, Guwahati, Lucknow, and for that matter in all the state headquarters.

2. The consultation process itself is a joke. Each of the consultation will begin at 12 noon, and finish by 1530. In just three and half hours, Jairam Ramesh is wanting people to register their views. Isn't that a farce in the name of stakeholder consultation? Who are you trying to befool, Mr Jairam Ramesh?

3. The ICAR has already given its approval for Bt brinjal. We also know that the GEAC has only examined the data provided by the GM companies. Which means that the regulatory process has taken into consideration (and has also upheld) what the scientists and the industry had to say. So why bring the scientists and industry again into the stakeholder consultations? Isn't that an effort to scuttle the limited process?

Instead of asking the Centre for Environment & Education (CEE) to hold these consultations, I suggest you hand over the entire case to Central  Bureau of Investigations (CBI). This scientific fraud must be exposed, and the guilty punished, for the sake of welfare and health of the billion-plus people.

Microfinance is a national shame

My article on the loot being perpetuated by Microfinance institutions (MFIs) evoked a lot of response. You have probably seen the spate of comments on my blog. If not, here is the link: http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/11/micro-finance-institutions-on-looting.html

The article was also reproduced on various sites. Interestingly, wherever it was posted, it brought in strong reactions from people who were caught unaware about the high rate of interest being charged by the MFIs. On a site http://www.indiamicrofinance.com/
a write-up appeared on Nov 27 2009 under the head: Devinder Sharma's negative assessment of microfinance institutions.

The article said: Recently in an article on his blog Ground Reality he has penned what seems to be a scathing criticism of the microfinance sector as a whole.

Devinder’s assessment is the latest in a long list of negative articles that have appeared on the microfinance sector in India.Considering that SKS Microfinance intends to list within the next 4 month one can only expect these voices to get shriller and louder.

As another blogger has rightly noted that SKS Microfinance is on its way to become India’s Compartamos and it has even appointed the same bank (Credit Suisse) that was the underwriter for the Compartamos issue to manage it’s IPO. Once SKS Microfinance lists and it’s balance sheet and margins become public knowledge it would be reasonable to expect all hell to break lose, atleast from the leftist brigade in India.

Below this, it reproduced my article from the blog. I think the website was expecting people to express their anger at what I wrote. Instead, the letters were supportive of what I had raised. You can read the entire piece (along with the comments if you scroll down) at http://indiamicrofinance.com/blog/microfinance/microfinance-articles/devinder-sharmas-negative-assessment-of-microfinance-institutions.html

I also draw your attention to another important report (also published on the same website, which needs to be appreciated). The website reproduces a report from Boston Globe. It is published under the head: Microfinance dosn't work, claims Boston Globe (read the report at http://indiamicrofinance.com/blog/microfinance/microfinance-articles/microfinance-doesnt-work-claims-boston-globe.html)
I also draw your attention to another report from the pages of Wall Street Journal. But before you read it, I think what is becoming very clear is that there is an urgent need to push for a radical reform in microfinance. We have to build up public pressure on the MFIs to cut down on the rate of  interest, and at least bring it at par with what is being offered in the urban centres. There is no justification for charging a stupendous rate of interest from the poorest of the poor. MFIs are guilty of a crime, and I see no reason why they shouldn't be held accountable for the loot they have indulged in all these years.

The fact that SKS Microfinance is planning a public issue is still more worrying. To me it is like allowing the people in the cities to make profits literally from sucking the blood of the poor people.

What a shame. 

Now, read the WSJ article:

Group Borrowing Leads to Pressure

By Ketaki Gokhale

Hasina Bano, a silk-factory worker from Ramanagaram, says that, for her, the most difficult aspect of microfinance is that debts can become public knowledge in the community. So when she got in over her head with loans, she had two big problems: Difficulty repaying, and public shame.

While hers is just one person's experience, it's one indication of what can go wrong when microlenders suddenly flood into a community with almost no experience borrowing money.

Hasina Bano, 27 years old and the mother of three, makes about $8 a week working in a silk factory, and says she owes her microlender a weekly payment of $7.20.
A key premise of microlending is that borrowers must organize into groups of five, and guarantee each others' loans. The reason is twofold: It spreads the lender's risk, and it uses peer pressure to encourage borrowers to pay off the debt.

Microlenders argue that because women like Ms. Bano have no collateral or credit history, the group-lending system is the only means they have to ensure repayment. "Most of the members can cheat us, therefore we give loans only on group guarantee," said S. Panchakshari, operations manager of the Bangalore-based BSS Microfinance Private Ltd., in an email.

By the same token, borrowers within a group are expected to "support each other in times of trouble," said Samit Ghosh, the founder of Ujjivan, another Bangalore-based microlender.

Ms. Bano's experience indicates that the social pressure can be tough to bear.

Ms. Bano, 27 years old, makes about $8 a week working in a silk factory, and says she owes her microlender a weekly payment of $7.20. She has struggled to make the payments for years. Meantime, her groupmates are watching and waiting -- because they can't secure new loans until she has repaid her share.

"It's not just the debt that is a burden," says Ms. Bano, who says she twice tried to commit suicide because of the situation. "It's the shame of everybody knowing. Outside they all say to me, 'How could you get yourself into this mess?'

The mother of three said she had never taken loans before the microlenders came to town. Now she says she is obliged to take out a new loan with a different group of women to pay off her existing debt. To pay the debt, she says she has sold off her valuable possessions -- a mixer, a television, some brass vessels, a water boiler, and the family's mobile phone. A government ration card, which would give her 6 liters of oil and 20 kilograms of rice, was given away for $10.

The communal aspect of microlending has led to "fighting between friends, and even sisters," said Lalitha Sharma, another recipient of the loans. Two women in Lalitha's lending group ran away from their debts in 2007, leaving her and others to pay off their debts.

Mr. Ghosh of Ujjivan says: "We are ourselves worried about (the borrowers) running away" from debts, which is why "we tell our members to only bring people they know and trust" into their lending group. The system works best when group members help find a person who flees debt. "Frankly, if they can't help find the person, they have to chip in and pay up."

Meanwhile, Ms. Bano is fretting about what she'll do once the current payment strike comes to an end in Ramanagaram. "Where do I get the money from?" she said. "The people from the (microfinance) center don't give us any slack. I used to hide in my mother's place, and still they wouldn't leave."

Ironically, she has found some support in her microfinance groupmates -- they persuaded her that suicide isn't the answer, she says. "They try to stop me by saying, 'You'll repay the loan someday or another, but if you die, who'd take care of your children?'" Ms. Bano says.

Punjab farmers slide deeper into indebtedness; PAU still not being held responsible for the grave farming crisis

I am at present travelling in Punjab, considered to be the food bowl of the country. Behind the facade of rural prosperity is hidden the sordid saga of growing indebtedness. I have been highlighting the sorry state of farm affairs for quite sometime. But I guess agricultural scientists and policy makers are afraid to acknowledge the prevailing crisis because the needle of suspicion will only point towards them in return.

All these years, the Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) had asked farmers to increase productivity. The higher the productivity, the more the income from farming, we were repeatedly told. This was however not true. The more the productivity, more has been the outstanding debt. Unfortunately, no one had the courage to question the faulty promise being doled out by the PAU, year after year.

While the PAU scientists are rewarded with 6th Pay Commission arrears and increase in monthly salaries, the virile farmers of Punjab have come under huge debt. This is certainly not fair. It is high time, PAU is held responsible for the Punjab farm crisis and some sort of punishment must be spelled out.

Agricultural scientists have blood on their hands. They should not be allowed to go scott free.

Newspapers in Punjab have for the last few days been carrying reports based on a study released by Prof H S Shergill of the Institute for Development and Communication in Chandigarh. The study shows that farm debt has increased five fold in the past ten years. Isn't this a clear pointer to the faulty farming frame that Punjab is being forced to follow year after year? Why can't scientists look beyond the NPK model of farming, and try to restore soil health and rejuvenate the environment. Why can't scientists for once come to rescue of the Punjab farmers instead of indirectly helping the Chemical fertiliser and pesticide companies?

Rising farm debt in Punjab
http://www.southasiapost.org/2009/20091215/edit.htm

FARMERS in India have been trapped in debt for ages. Farmers were said to be born under debt and they bequeathed only debt to next generations. Earlier these were money lenders who behaved like sharks, sucked the blood of peasantry, leaving them to nurse their wounds and lead a life of misery.

Relief came in dozes. Now after independence and thanks to Green Revolution that pushed into commercial mode the debt has continued to rise as never before. It is true that the entire indebtedness is not due to farming practices and needs, but major portion is due to that. At times the debt ridden farmer finds no other way bit to commit suicide. During the last one decade, over one lakh and fifty thousand farmers have taken this route which is both cowardly and brutal.

Average debt per farm household is Rs 1.39 lakh. 72 per cent of farm households are more heavily involved in debt. 17 per cent cannot pay back even the interest. 60 per cent of the debts trapped are small or marginal farmers.

Last decade Punjab has witnessed five times increase in the debt burden of the farmers. A study conducted by a well known economist professor Harjinder Singh Shergill of the institute of Development and Communication establishes that Punjab farmers who were in debt amounting to Rs 5,700 crore in 1997, now have a debt liability of over Rs 30,394 crore. This is the latest unofficial estimate based on field survey and other data. Now the per farm household debt has become almost three times over these 10 years - from Rs 52,000 per household in 1997 to Rs 1.39 lakh in 2008.

Further, per acre amount of debt has more than doubled over the same period from Rs 5,721 to Rs 13,062.

Nearly 72 per cent of farm households are more heavily involved in debt. Out of these around 17 per cent are in virtual ‘debt trap’ in the sense that they cannot pay even the annual interest on their loans from their current farm income. Shergill has said there was little chance of their repaying the accumulated debt from the current income.

Professor Shergill has concluded that the outstanding debt component has increased at a faster rate (14.13 per cent per year) than total farm debt (8.81 per cent per year) over this period. The mortgage debt, however, has declined over this period and may completely disappear in the near future.

Interestingly, the debt of small and marginal farmers has grown at a slower rate (1.29 per cent per year) than the debt of medium and big farmers (2.71 per cent per year). Almost 60 per cent of these ‘debt trapped’ farm households are marginal and small farmers and most of these ‘debt trapped’ farm households (86 per cent) belong to the Malwa region.

When compared to income generated from the farms, the debt amount has increased from being 68 per cent in 1997 to 84 per cent in 2008. Then as a proportion of the value of machinery owned by Punjab farmers, the debt amount has gone up from being 15 per cent in 1997 to 53 per cent in 2008.

Despite steep rise in farmland prices in the state, the amount of farm debt is now (2008) equal to 4 per cent of the total value of farmland of the state, compared to it being 3 per cent in 1997.

Almost 30 per cent of the farm households of the state borrowed some money for long-term, non-productive purposes during the agricultural year 2007-08. The average amount of these loans per borrowing farmer was Rs 1.25 lakh, and the per operated acre amount worked out to Rs 12,826.

Northern Malwa farmers borrowed the highest amount of non-productive loans for reasons such as house construction and repair (44.38 per cent of total amount), marriages and social ceremonies (41.41 per cent of total), and purchase of durable consumer goods (25.41 per cent of total). The main sources of these loans were: commission agents and money lenders (54.48 per cent of total amount) and commercial banks (28.96 per cent of total). The share of Cooperative Credit Institutions in non-productive long-term loans was rather small, being only 3.36 per cent.

Interestingly, though not related to the study, but it may be added that the Punjab farmers received only 1.3 per cent of the national debt waiver in the form of relief announced by the union government in its last budget.

Perils of GM foods -- Devinder Sharma in conversation with Ajay Kanchan

Sometimes back I was interviewed by the Bollywood film director Ajay Kanchan on the issue of Genetically Modified crops/foods. It was a wide ranging interview, some excerpts of which have been featured in the documentary film Poison on the Platter. Ajay Kanchan has put the rest of the interview in three parts for the benefit of those who are keen to understand the complexities and the politics behind GM technology, and what it means for you.

I am sharing the three part interview with you. I hope you find it useful.

1. Perils of GM foods -- Devinder Sharma in conversation with Ajay Kanchan. Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5gyWRrfkbE&feature=related

2. Perils of GM foods -- Devinder Sharma in conversation with Ajay Kanchan. Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwFUl4GKBDA&feature=youtube_gdata

3. Perils of GM foods -- Devinder Sharma in conversation with Ajay Kanchan. Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRrMdFEHbUU&NR=1
 

India's poverty line is actually a Starvation line

There is something terribly wrong with growth economics. After all, 18 years after India ushered in economic liberalisation, the promise of high growth to reduce poverty and hunger, has not worked. In fact, it has gone the other way around: the more the economic growth, the higher is the resulting poverty.

A report by an expert group headed by Suresh Tendulkar, formerly chairman of Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, now estimates poverty at 37.2 per cent, an increase of roughly 10 per cent over the earlier estimates of 27.5 per cent in 2004-05. This means, an additional 110 million people have slipped below the poverty line in just four years.

The number of poor is multiplying at a time when the number of billionaires has also increased. Economic growth however does not reflect the widening economic disparities. For instance, the economic wealth of mere 30-odd rich families in India is equivalent to one third of the country’s growth. The more the wealth accumulating in the hands of these 30 families, the more will be country’s economic growth. A handful of rich therefore hide the ugly face of growing poverty

If these 30 families were to migrate to America and Europe, India’s GDP, which stands at 7.9 per cent at present, will slump to 6 per cent. And if you were to discount the economic growth resulting from the 6th pay commission, which is 1.9 per cent of the GDP, India’s actual economic growth will slump to 4 per cent.

Anyway, the complicated arithmetic hides more than what it reveals. Poverty estimates were earlier based on nutritional criteria, which means based on the monthly income required to purchase 2,100 calories in the urban areas and 2,400 calories in the rural areas. Over the years, this measure came in for sharp criticism, and finally the Planning Commission suggested a new estimation methodology based on a new basket of goods that is required to survive – includes food, fuel, light, clothing and footwear.

Accordingly, the Tendulkar committee has worked out that 41.8 per cent of the population or approximately 450 million people survive on a monthly per capita consumption expenditure of Rs 447. In other words, if you break it down to a daily expenditure, it comes to bare Rs 14.50 paise. I wonder how can the rural population earning more than Rs 14 and less than say even Rs 25 a day be expected to be over the poverty line. It is quite obvious therefore that the entire effort is still to hide the poverty under a veil of complicating figures.

India’s poverty line is actually a euphemism for a starvation line. The poverty line that is laid out actually becomes the upper limit the government must pledge to feed. People living below this line constitute the Below the Poverty Line (BPL) category, for which the government has to provide a legal guarantee to provide food. It therefore spells out the government subsidy that is required to distribute food among the poor. More the poverty line more is the food subsidy.

If the government accepts Tendulkar committee report, the food subsidy bill will swell to Rs 47,917.62-crore, a steep rise over the earlier subsidy of Rs 28,890.56-crore required to feed the BPL population with 25 kg of grains. This is primarily the reason why the government wants to keep the number of poor low. In other words, the poverty line reflects the number of people living in acute hunger. It should therefore be called as a starvation line.

I remember a few years back, a group of charitable organisations in England presented a list of demands to the government for helping the poor. Unlike India, where BPL category only receives food rations, and that too severely short the minimum nutritional requirement for a human body, the first demand of the UK charities was to provide the poor in England with washing machines.

India’s poverty estimates therefore are the most stringent in the world. I don’t know the economic justification of hiding the true figures, but politically it makes terrible sense. Each government therefore is happy to gloss over the starvation figures in the guise of poverty estimates. I wonder when India will include a basket of essential good like footwear, cycles, sewing machines, solar lamps, water purifiers etc for the poor. This is simple economics, and not political compulsion as the media will like us to believe.

Going back to the poverty line arithmetic, the 2007 Arjun Sengupta committee report (officially the report of the National Commission on Enterprise in Unorganised Sector), which had estimated that 77 per cent of the population or 836 million people, were unable to spend more than Rs 20 a day, is probably a correct reflection of the extent of prevailing poverty.

In addition to monthly income, poverty estimates must incorporate the human development index as prepared by the United Nations Development Programme. India should therefore have two ways to classify the poor. The Starvation line, needing direct cash transfers in addition to the basic requirement of food supplies. And a Poverty line, needing not only food (but in lesser quantities) but also other economic necessities like sewing machines, water-purifiers, pressure cookers etc

A smaller version of the article appeared in Deccan Herald Dec 22 2009
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/42581/its-starvation-line.html

The slip shows. The Indian GM industry in panic.

When the going gets tough, the loser's panic. And the desperation grows.

Well, this is the story of the duo -- Dr Ron Herring (from Cornell) and Dr Shantu Shantaram -- doing the rounds across the country on behalf of the GM industry. After the New Delhi panel discussion organised by the Institute of Economic Growth on Dec 3, the duo went to Ahmedabad and from there to Thiruvanthapuram in Kerala.

You have probably read about the New Delhi meet, and the FAQs that come up again and again, on this blog earlier. Just in case you missed it, here is the link: http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/12/gm-denial-industry-cornell-university.html

My colleague Sreedevi Lakshmi Kutty was in Thiruvanthapuram early this week and did manage to attend for sometime the two-day conference where both Ron Herring and Shantu Shantaram were present. She sends me this report.

I was in Kerala on a vacation last week and during that time came across this workshop on "Modern biotechnology in Indian Agriculture” (on Dec 13-14). This was organised under the banner of AICBA Delhi and FBAE Bangalore. This was a pro-GM industry conference, where Monsanto also made a presentation. 

Interestingly, when the GM industry organises a conference, no one (and that includes the scientists and the media) ever question the need for the other perspective to be heard so that a balanced view can be evolved. But when the civil society holds a conference on the relevance of GM foods/crops, the first question asked is that why is the industry not represented. Double standards, isn't it?

Anyway, much of what transpired at the conference was pro-GM propaganda. Such was the extent of the bias that any difficult question from the audience invited the wrath of the speakers whose effort was to silence the questioner in a quelling and patronizing manner. Still I sat through the proceeding, and interestingly was a witness to the presentation by Dr Shantaram, who was full of vitriol and venom, and this happens only when you lack substance. 

Dr Shantaram’s presentation was on “The desperate saga of anti-GM activism in India”. By the end of his talk, Dr Shantaram's desperation was at its peak. Speaking before an audience which was predominantly comprising bio-tech students from various colleges in Kerala and college teachers from various science/biotech and related departments, he had no reasons to feel so panicky.

He began his tirade listing the various segments of society who are against GM crops (NGOs, INGOs, environmentalists, particularly urban environmentalists whom he called the “environmental taliban”, farmer groups, leftists, socialists, disgruntled scientists, journalists, mediocre science professors, literauteurs, film stars, religious heads and so on - he had a very sarcastic expression on his face when he listed these groups). It was quite amusing to know from Dr Shantaram that almost the entire society was opposed to GM technology. 

He talked about "organikers -- agriculture fundamentalists” with a lot of scorn, and said that throughout the world they were creating a lot of problems for the introduction of GM crops. In the US, because of the "organikers,"  the government had stopped allowing GM content in labeled organic foods.

According to his own argument, except for the companies and scientists working on GM crop development, pretty much everyone is against GM crops. Well, what more reasons you need, I thought, for the GM industry and its own breed of genetically modified scientists to stop researching on what the society does not want.

Dr Shantaram explained that the objections to GM crops were primarily due to an organized and orchestrated effort of a bunch of people who are against GM crops “for no reason except to oppose them”. His opined that nothing except the science put forward by the promoters of GM crops is valid and the GM crops should be accepted based on that. The opinion of the society does not matter. He pooh-poohed science related, health related, social, economic, ethical or environmental concerns regarding GM crops. He said that we (human beings) are all about conquering nature.

Dr Shantaram went on so say that the concern being voiced about the need to buy seeds repeatedly by farmers is not an issue at all. He said that if any of us (the audience) are the seed companies or in the seed business, would we like our customers to approach us only once? Why wouldn't we like our business to multiply? Wouldn't it be economically viable for us to ensure that farmers buy seed from us every year?  

He then blamed Dr Pushpa Bhargava for his note about the 29 tests required before introducing a GM crop and then told the audience that these tests require a couple of decades and if any of us were to start bio-tech businesses can we afford that kind of time and money before we can bring a product to market?

At least inside the closed door environs of that workshop Dr.Shantaram spelt out his agenda. He is in the GM fray for the bio-tech businesses; in his talk there was no mention of social good, larger interests of society, consumer safety, precautionary principle or any such thing!

In addition to Dr Bhargava, he named Devinder Sharma, Dr Suman Sahai and Dr V S Vijayan of the Kerala Bio-diversity Board (since he was in Kerala that day) for obstructing the march of the GM industry in India. They were openly criticized in absentia for their stand on GM crops. He then castigated the Kerala govt’s decision to keep Kerala GM free and said that it was a move that was very distressing for him. However he believed that “GM crops will find their way into the State”.

Such was his desperation that he said that if Kerala doesn’t allow GM crops, the State should not grow any crops as none are traditional crops. 

When the session was opened for Q&A, the otherwise acquiescent audience had a few things to say. The first comment was from a college professor who stood up and said that the decision of the Kerala government to keep Kerala GM free is very wise move as the Western Ghats is one of the mega bio-diversity hotspots of the world and it is essential to preserve it. Some others seconded it and the rest of the audience spontaneously applauded. This of course irked Dr Shantaram, whic clearly reflected on his face.

Some more hands went up and many stood up to ask questions. By then, Dr Shantaram and his team were on the defensive. Another agricultural scientist on the panel, Dr Ananda Kumar from IARI New Delhi (who is known to be a big supporter of the GM industry) was on the aggressive asking another member of the audience to explain how Kerala was protecting its bio-diversity. 

Someone from the panel asked sarcastically: "what use is bio-diversity to Kerala?” In response, another professor stood up and talked about bio-diversity conservation particularly the Silent Valley (curiously he was not given the microphone to speak and therefore many could not hear him clearly). By then the audience was pretty incensed and it was clear that the organizers had lost control over their own invited and hand-picked audience and abruptly a tea break was announced. 

Then mysteriously a person stood up and was given the microphone. He identified himself as Jayapal Reddy, a farmer from Andhra Pradesh, and said that he is a cotton farmer who moved over to Bt cotton. He has observed that in his pre-Bt cotton days, he had no birds on his farm and now he finds many birds appearing. He then turned to Dr Shantaram and dis-ingenuously asked him to explain this phenomenon.

Dr Shantaram mumbled something in response and did not take up the opportunity.  However the audience clearly thought that the farmer was brought in by the organizers. This was proven beyond doubt when post the tea-break (almost 60% of the audience didn’t return) this “farmer” was provided an unscheduled session (he was not listed on the agenda).

Well, if you think the GM industry has only these faces to represent them, you are mistaken. The Biocon queen Kiran Mazumdar Shaw has also stepped on the podium. She has been making completely flawed statements in favour of the technology, and has unabashedly been lying. Why do you have to tell a hundred lies, Madam Shaw? Why can't you say that you don't know anything about agriculture and farming rather than make stupid statements?

I have received several requests from readers to put the record straight, and I will surely do that in the days to come.

College students padyatra in Old Walled City of Delhi on Bt brinjal

I haven't seen this happening for long. College students in a colorful and long padayatra snaking through the narrow lanes of the Walled City of Delhi, stopping consumers and explaining about GM foods to them. If you walked through the meandering lanes of old Delhi, around the area popularly called Chandni Chowk, you can imagine what a treat it must be to see the young students flashing placards and distributing leaflets to ignorant citizens.

More than 600 students from Zakir Hussain College and Youth for Safe Food walked through the streets of old Delhi distributing pamphlets and interacting with curious onlookers as to what Bt brinjal meant to them. I spoke to Ankit and Radha, the two amazing youngsters who have been relentlessly on their toes mobilising the young college students about the inherent dangers from Bt brinjal, and they told me that it was a spectacular padyatra. They strongly feel that this is perhaps one of the best ways to reach out to public and create an informed debate about safe food.

I am sure in the days to come we will see more colleges and youth organisation taking to streets creating awareness about the havoc that awaits the society with the introduction of GM food crops into the country.

Here is a press release about the padyatra:

New Delhi, December 17th 2009: A Lok Chetna Padayatra with more than 500 youth participating in it, reached out to citizens of the Old City of Delhi to create awareness on the issue of GM foods and Bt Brinjal in particular here today. The padayatra, taken out by the students of Zakir Husain College and Youth for Safe Food put out information on GM foods and about Bt Brinjal in particular to the residents of the Old City of Delhi and contended that creating an informed debate on the issue is the only democratic way forward for decision-making on GM foods like Bt Brinjal.

“A majority of the countries around the world do not allow GM crop cultivation and many aware citizens are exercising their right to safe food because informed debates have allowed them to make such decisions. We realize the importance of such a debate in India too at this juncture, as the government is trying to decide on whether Bt Brinjal should be approved or not. Let us remember that GE seeds constitute an irreversible technology and therefore, a very cautious approach is the only wise way forward” said Dr Mohd. Aslam Parvaiz. “We need ordinary citizens to get involved in decision-making related to something as basic as the food that we eat for our sustenance and survival and we hope that this padayatra will contribute to citizens making informed choices about their food”, he added.

Bt Brinjal has been cleared by the Indian regulators in October 2009 amidst concerns and reservations expressed from various quarters. No such GM vegetable has ever been introduced anywhere else in the world and no GM foods have been allowed for cultivation in India so far.

"Bt Brinjal has been developed in India despite the fact that we are the Centre of Origin & Diversity for this crop. All clearances have been given based on the crop developer’s data and there are several reports which show that objectionable conflicting interests were allowed to drive the decision-making for recommending Bt Brinjal. Media reports showed the Chairperson of an Expert Committee which had cleared Bt Brinjal himself expressing the need for more tests on this new product and he had gone on record to say that we do not know at this point of time how much damage these foods will cause.

He clearly reiterated what many scientists around the world are concerned about – that GE foods are not equal to normal foods. Further, no long term studies exist so far on Bt Brinjal to assess its chronic impacts and there is a serious dearth of independent research to prove its safety. Worse, independent analyses of the crop developer’s data show that it is unsafe for human and animal health. It is in the context of all this knowledge existing with us that we decided to reach out to fellow citizens so that they can make informed decisions about this matter”, said Nayani Nasa of Youth for Safe Food.

Indian Parliament misled by Ministry for Environment on Bt brinjal issue

If you have followed the answers that the Ministry for Environment & Forests (MoEF) have time and again provided for questions asked in both Houses of Indian Parliament, you would have noticed that the responses look to be as if they have been copied straight from the ISAAA documents. That makes me wonder whether the MoEF has taken on a new responsibility of becoming a voice of the GM companies since ISAAA is an industry outfit (even though they call themselves an NGO).

I am not the least surprised.

The Department of Biotechnology has been doing it for several years now. In fact, every time I hear an advisor or a senior DBT official speaking it looks as if an ISAAA person is making a presentation. In fact, I admire ISAAA for making DBT stoop so low, bringing the department completely in its grips.

But what startled me the other day was the reply tended by the MoEF to a question asked by Brinda Karat of the CPM in Rajya Sabha on Dec 14. I don't know whether Brinda Karat realised it (and whether she asked some supplementaries) but to my understanding the MoEF had misled the Rajya Sabha (the Upper House).

The question that Brinda Karat asked pertained to a conflict of interest arising from some members of the EC-II (Expert Committee-II) being involved with development of Bt brinjal. The report of EC-II is what the GEAC used to accord environment clearance to India's first poisonous food crop, Bt brinjal.

The reply tendered by MoEF is:

None of the expert committee (EC2) members set up by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) have been involved in the development of Bt brinjal expressing event EE-I developed by M/s Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd. (Mahyco), Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore and University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad. As authorized by the GEAC, large scale field trials with Bt brinjal expressing event EE-I was conducted under the supervision of Director, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR) Varanasi. IIVR is a national level vegetable research institute under the aegis of the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR). The studies have been conducted by IIVR with the support and full knowledge of Director General, ICAR and Deputy Director General (Horticulture), ICAR. All members of the Expert Committee are experts from public sector institutions. Therefore, no conflict of interest is envisaged.

This information was given by the Shri Namo Narain Meena, Minister of State in the Ministry of Finance and currently looking after Ministry of Environment and Forests in a return reply to question by Smt Brinda Karat in the Rajya Sabha today.

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=55814

Now if you read carefully, the MoEF says there was no conflict of interest. This is not true. The Coalition for GM Free India has already detailed the way the decision of the EC-II was rigged. This document has already been featured on this blog.

Nevertheless, let us now look at what the Down to Earth fortnightly says. In an article entitled:

How Bt brinjal was cleared
Anti-GM groups say expert panel acted under pressure

Savvy Soumya Misra has clearly outlined the mischief. You can read the full article at
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20091231&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=3

In this article, she has highlighted the 'conflict of interest'. Under the head All Mahyco's men, Savvy has very painstickingly put together the list of experts (on EC-II) who were party to the research process. Isn't that a conflict of interest? If that is true, does it not mean that the MoEF had misled the Rajya Sabha? Shouldn't the MoEF be taken to task for misleading the Upper House? Misleading the House is serious issue, and can be referred to the privilege committee? Is Brinda Karat listening?

Here is what Down to Earth says:

All Mahyco’s men
Members of the Expert Committee 2 that cleared Bt brinjal

K K Tripathi, also member of Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation, has a complaint pending against him with the Central Vigilance Commission for abuse of power. Complainant Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd alleged Tripathi was promoting interests of certain companies—specifically Mahyco—and harming others.

Mathura Rai, director of the Indian Institute of Vegetable Research in Varanasi, was the lead investigator of the large-scale field trials of Mahyco’s Bt Brinjal in the past two years. The institute is part of the USAID-funded Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSP II). The Project has on its agenda “supporting Mahyco in gaining regulatory approval for the technology”.

Vasantha Muthuswamy, former chief of ICMR, and B Sesikeran, director of the National Institute of Nutrition, were instrumental in preparing guidelines for safety assessment of GM food in India for the South Asia Biosafety Programme funded by USAID. The biosafety programme and ABSP II work in collaboration.

P Ananda Kumar, project director, National Research Centre of Plant Biotechnology, is a Bt brinjal developer.

Dilip Kumar, director of the Central Institute of Fisheries Education in Mumbai, had taken up a Mahyco-sponsored study on Bt brinjal as fish feed two years ago.

Farmers cultivate medicinal rice; No need for GM pharma crops

There is wisdom in Mahatma Gandhi's words. When he said that the Earth has enough for man's needs, but not for his greed, he was also referring to the huge biodiversity that exists and which has solutions for mankind's problems. Agricultural science has simply failed to learn from the sagacious words of Mahatma, and followed a regressive science approach which has led to the world reaching a tripping point.

And yet, the world refuses to learn. Such has been the change in mindset of generation after generation that the entire effort has been to programme the thinking in such a way that we are left to believe that if we don't follow the technological path (and this implicitly implies branded technology -- Monsanto, Syngenta, Du Pont etc) to farming, the world will slide into hunger and deprivation.

The spin doctors have been continuously at work for decades now. But my worry is that if we don't change the farming pathway towards a sustainable livelihood direction, we are in any case doomed. Look at the way the world is warming up, and this has happened more conclusively in the past 40 years or so. Industrial agriculture has played a dominant role in global warming.

If the world still wants to continue on the same path, I think we will be faced with the same fate, much sooner than expected, that once roaring Indus Valley Civilisations in 2600 BC, viewed through the largest city settlements at Mohenjodaro and harappa, and also the way the flourishing Hindu kingdom of Angkor Wat in Cambodia in the 12th century, simply vanished at the cruel hands of Climate Change.

The ruins are there for us to see, but we refuse to draw any lessons.

Industrial farming, which was based on the chemicals used in the 2nd World War, has added on to global warming, and is leading to desertification. We are now extending the same approach through the regressive Genetic Engineering technology. In addition to chemicals, the harmful impact of which the world is now increasingly realising, we are now adding biological pollution, something that can never be recalled, can never have legally binding emission cuts.

The GM industry is re-writing the story of Alice in Wonderland. It is trying to convince a stupid race (all races in history have been stupid, otherwise we wouldn't be faced with a bleak future) that GM foods will now provide you all the nutrition and medicines that your body needs. The more the educated you are, the more the chances that you will accept the spin doctrine. So much so for your intelligence!

What we do not know is that nature has provided us enough for our needs, whether it is nutrition or medicine. We fail to recognise this, because we are a lathargic race and have begun to live on doles, even getting our knowledge from the doles provided very conveniently through the knowledge capsules on the internet. We do not want to move our ass and venture out. If you are an agricultural scientist or an economist, the chances are that you are very content sitting in front of your computer terminal to draw insane theories and recommendations that have largely fuelled global problems.

It is in this context that I draw strength from our farmers, who have been custodians of our biodiversity. They have all the time-tested solutions for sustainable farming, and thereby feeding the world. But we refuse to learn from them. We think only Monsanto, Syngenta and Adidas can take us to the 22nd century, not realising that the world may boil before that.

The farmers on the other hand are not taking us back into the cave age, but showing us the door to a sustainable future.

Gangadhar Hosamani is one such farmer from Halligeri village in Karnataka. He has been cultivating a dozen of rices which have medicinal properties. You don't need the dangerous GM pharma crops that are being developed surruptiously around the world in the name of medicinal food plants. I remember sometimes back the John Hopkins University in the US had tried unsuccessfully to foster a genetically modified banana containing a gene for Hepatitis-B.

The arguments were same. The university was trying to convince policy makers of the dire need to grow GM bananas in India in view of the large population suffering from Hepatitis-B. What it was not telling us was that John Hopkins was actually looking for large scale field trials, since the US does not allow that.

Mercifully, we were able to stall its entry into India.

I bring you the report on the strains of medicinal rice that Gangadhar is cultivating. This report appeared in Deccan Herald.

Organic farmer reclaims traditional paddy strains http://www.deccanherald.com/content/41267/organic-farmer-reclaims-traditional-paddy.html

By AnandaTeertha Pyati

Gangadhar Hosamani, an organic farmer from Halligeri village in Dharwad taluk, has grown a dozen varieties of medicinal paddy.

With over one lakh varieties of paddy, India has long been a leader on the paddy front. But, thanks to the introduction of high-yield varieties, traditional paddy strains gradually disappeared. But, there is still hope, thanks to farmers like Gangadhar. As part of the ‘Save our Rice’ campaign, Sahaja Samrudha, an organic farmers’ group identified some paddy growers and transferred the responsibility to conserve medicinal paddy to them.

Each variety of paddy has its speciality. Aromatic Ambe More and Kari Gajivili, Kari kala bhatta are used for new mothers. While Kari Bhatta is used to control herpes, Dodda baira nellu is good to control acidity. Sannakki, Navara of Kerala, Atikaraya of coastal areas, Maapille samba of Tamilnadu, Madali of Maharashtra have also been grown on his land.

“Scientists are talking about GM varieties. With these efforts, companies are capturing the seed market. If the corporates take over, the situation of farmers will worsen,” explains G Krishna Prasad, convenor of ‘Save our Rice’ campaign.

How Monsanto takes control over seed

We have heard of the dirty games the big business plays. It is not only in areas like arms, drugs, chemical pesticides, automobiles, and the banking/insurance sector that dirty games are played. Food and agriculture has now emerged as an area where the role of business and industry, and the kind of takeover and aquisitions that are taking place needs to be better understood.

The Associated Press has done quite a good expose on how Monsanto is trying to expand its Empire. In recent history, Empire has been associated with evil design. Whether it was the erstwhile British Empire, or the more contemporary American Empire that we are all faced with, and which is leaving no stone upturned to extend the control of one of its biggest corporations -- Monsanto -- over the global seed supply. The US knows that controlling seed is like controlling entire food chain. And once you control the food chain, you actually control the society.

The report below is an effort to know how seedy the seed Empire is. If in the US, smaller seed companies are being eaten up by the big fish, imagine what will happen to the seed supply in the developing world in the years to come.

Monsanto seed business role revealed

By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD
AP AGRIBUSINESS WRITER

ST. LOUIS, Dec 13 -- Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.

With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.

Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes.

Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments.

The company has used the agreements to spread its technology - giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached.

For example, one contract provision bans independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission - giving Monsanto the ability to effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes.

Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws. The practices also are at the heart of civil antitrust suits filed against Monsanto by its competitors, including a 2004 suit filed by Syngenta AG that was settled with an agreement and ongoing litigation filed this summer by DuPont in response to a Monsanto lawsuit.

The suburban St. Louis-based agricultural giant said it's done nothing wrong.

"We do not believe there is any merit to allegations about our licensing agreement or the terms within," said Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles. He said he couldn't comment on many specific provisions of the agreements because they are confidential and the subject of ongoing litigation.

"Our approach to licensing (with) many companies is pro-competitive and has enabled literally hundreds of seed companies, including all of our major direct competitors, to offer thousands of new seed products to farmers," he said.

"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."

At issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of the world's food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its seed prices at will, which in turn could raise the cost of everything from animal feed to wheat bread and cookies.

The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers.

Monsanto's broad use of licensing agreements has made its biotech traits among the most widely and rapidly adopted technologies in farming history. These days, when farmers buy bags of seed with obscure brand names like AgVenture or M-Pride Genetics, they are paying for Monsanto's licensed products.

One of the numerous provisions in the licensing agreements is a ban on mixing genes - or "stacking" in industry lingo - that enhance Monsanto's power.

One contract provision likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto's traits "shall be destroyed immediately."

Another provision from contracts earlier this decade- regarding rebates - also help explain Monsanto's rapid growth as it rolled out new products.

One contract gave an independent seed company deep discounts if the company ensured that Monsanto's products would make up 70 percent of its total corn seed inventory. In its 2004 lawsuit, Syngenta called the discounts part of Monsanto's "scorched earth campaign" to keep Syngenta's new traits out of the market.

Quarles said the discounts were used to entice seed companies to carry Monsanto products when the technology was new and farmers hadn't yet used it. Now that the products are widespread, Monsanto has discontinued the discounts, he said.

The Monsanto contracts reviewed by the AP prohibit seed companies from discussing terms, and Monsanto has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated.

Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements.

"I would be so tied up in what I was able to do that basically I would have no value to anybody else," he said. "The only person I would have value to is Monsanto, and I would continue to pay them millions in fees."

Independent seed company owners could drop their contracts with Monsanto and return to selling conventional seed, but they say it could be financially ruinous. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene has become the industry standard over the last decade, and small companies fear losing customers if they drop it. It also can take years of breeding and investment to mix Monsanto's genes into a seed company's product line, so dropping the genes can be costly.

Monsanto acknowledged that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers are seeking documents and interviewing company employees about its marketing practices. The DOJ wouldn't comment.

A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the office is examining possible antitrust violations. Additionally, two sources familiar with an investigation in Texas said state Attorney General Greg Abbott's office is considering the same issues. States have the authority to enforce federal antitrust law, and attorneys general are often involved in such cases.

Monsanto chairman and chief executive officer Hugh Grant told investment analysts during a conference call this fall that the price increases are justified by the productivity boost farmers get from the company's seeds. Farmers and seed company owners agree that Monsanto's technology has boosted yields and profits, saving farmers time they once spent weeding and money they once spent on pesticides.

But recent price hikes have still been tough to swallow on the farm.

"It's just like I got hit with bad weather and got a poor yield. It just means I've got less in the bottom line," said Markus Reinke, a corn and soybean farmer near Concordia, Mo. who took over his family's farm in 1965. "They can charge because they can do it, and get away with it. And us farmers just complain, and shake our heads and go along with it."

Any Justice Department case against Monsanto could break new ground in balancing a company's right to control its patented products while protecting competitors' right to free and open competition, said Kevin Arquit, former director of the Federal Trade Commission competition bureau and now a antitrust attorney with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in New York.

"These are very interesting issues, and not just for the companies, but for the Justice Department," Arquit said. "They're in an area where there is uncertainty in the law and there are consumer welfare implications and government policy implications for whatever the result is."

Other seed companies have followed Monsanto's lead by including restrictive clauses in their licensing agreements, but their products only penetrate smaller segments of the U.S. seed market. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene, on the other hand, is in such a wide array of crops that its licensing agreements can have a massive effect on the rules of the marketplace.

Monsanto was only a niche player in the seed business just 12 years ago. It rose to the top thanks to innovation by its scientists and aggressive use of patent law by its attorneys.

First came the science, when Monsanto in 1996 introduced the world's first commercial strain of genetically engineered soybeans. The Roundup Ready plants were resistant to the herbicide, allowing farmers to spray Roundup whenever they wanted rather than wait until the soybeans had grown enough to withstand the chemical.

The company soon released other genetically altered crops, such as corn plants that produced a natural pesticide to ward off bugs. While Monsanto had blockbuster products, it didn't yet have a big foothold in a seed industry made up of hundreds of companies that supplied farmers.

That's where the legal innovations came in, as Monsanto became among the first to widely patent its genes and gain the right to strictly control how they were used. That control let it spread its technology through licensing agreements, while shaping the marketplace around them.

Back in the 1970s, public universities developed new traits for corn and soybean seeds that made them grow hardy and resist pests. Small seed companies got the traits cheaply and could blend them to breed superior crops without restriction. But the agreements give Monsanto control over mixing multiple biotech traits into crops.

The restrictions even apply to taxpayer-funded researchers.

Roger Boerma, a research professor at the University of Georgia, is developing specialized strains of soybeans that grow well in southeastern states, but his current research is tangled up in such restrictions from Monsanto and its competitors.

"It's made one level of our life incredibly challenging and difficult," Boerma said.

The rules also can restrict research. Boerma halted research on a line of new soybean plants that contain a trait from a Monsanto competitor when he learned that the trait was ineffective unless it could be mixed with Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene.

Boerma said he hasn't considered asking Monsanto's permission to mix its traits with the competitor's trait.

"I think the co-mingling of their trait technology with another company's trait technology would likely be a serious problem for them," he said.

Quarles pointed out that Monsanto has signed agreements with several companies allowing them to stack their traits with Monsanto's. After Syngenta settled its lawsuit, for example, the companies struck a broad cross-licensing accord.

At the same time, Monsanto's patent rights give it the authority to say how independent companies use its traits, Quarles said.

"Please also keep in mind that, as the (intellectual property developer), it is our right to determine who will obtain rights to our technology and for what purpose," he said.

Monsanto's provision requiring companies to destroy seeds containing Monsanto's traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp.

Competitive bids from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars, according to DuPont.

"If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell," Boies said. "It requires them to destroy things - destroy things they paid for - if they go competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw."

Quarles said some of the Monsanto contracts let companies sell their inventory for a period of time, rather than be required to destroy it. Seed companies also don't have to pay royalty fees on the bags of seed they destroyed.

"Simply put, it was designed to facilitate early adoption of the technology," he said.

Some independent seed company owners say they feel increasingly pinched as Monsanto cements its leadership in the industry.

"They have the capital, they have the resources, they own lots of companies, and buying more. We're small town, they're Wall Street," said Bill Cook, co-owner of M-Pride Genetics seed company in Garden City, Mo., who also declined to discuss or provide the agreements. "It's very difficult to compete in this environment against companies like Monsanto."

Importing wheat at a time of glut

India's food (mis)management has never been so grotesque. In fact, I have always been baffled by the ad hoc decisions that are taken just to satisfy the demand of various lobbies, and without caring for any long term policy imperatives. And more often than not, such ad hoc decisions create unforseseen problems.

At a time when India is saddled with huge wheat stocks (it had 25.2 million tonnes of wheat stocks on Sept 1, more than double the PDS requirement of 11 million tonnes), I do not understand the need and urgency to allow wheat imports to southern States. I am aware the millers in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and even Assam and West Bengal have been pressing the Ministry of Food and Agriculture to allow imports since the price of imported wheat at ports is relatively cheaper than the wheat stocks moved from northern India.

So while India allows wheat imports to meet the requirement of the wheat millers in southern parts of the country, the surplus in north India is mopped by the private trade and the giants in food trade including Cargill, ADM and ITC. And do they provide you wheat at cheaper prices?

If you have been lately to the food retail outlets to buy Aashirvaad brand of wheat atta (marketed by ITC), you will be shocked to read the prices. The Grade 1 atta costs Rs 35 a kg, and the grade II costs Rs 25 (as written on the pack) but is available at roughly Rs 19 a kg. Now why should ITC be allowed to charge such a high price for wheat atta is hard to fathom.

Wasn't ITC always claiming that food retails will help to squeeze out the middlemen, and that will benefit the farmers as well as the consumer? If this is how the ITC is benefitting the consumers, I wonder what name can be given to exploitation.

Anyway, coming back to wheat imports, news reports state that wheat prices have shot up by Rs 80 or so in the past few days in southern India. On Tuesday, wheat prices were ruling between Rs 1610-1615 per quintal in Coimbatore, Bangalore and Mysore. This is because the imported wheat from Australia is coming at a higher price, Rs 1540-1550 per quintal. By the time the imported stocks reach the mills, the price touches Rs 1630-1640.

The same wheat flour mills which had been pressing the government to open up imports, are now planning to file tenders before the Food Corporation of India (FCI) to seek grain under the open release. FCI's wheat costs Rs 1590.86 in Karnataka, 1585.17 in Tamil Nadu, and Rs 1563.99 per quintal in Andhra Pradesh in December. The FCI has already announced open release of 500,000 tonnes of wheat between Sept-December. The reserve price of wheat with FCI is Rs 1437.90 a quintal.

The wheat flour mills in souther India have so far contracted for 18-20,000 tonnes of wheat from Australia.

Even if the quantity allowed for imports is low, there is no justification for opening up the domestic market for imports. This is primarily the reason why much of the wheat procured from the northern parts of the country rots and has to be carried over for a number of years.

Wheat can only be cultivated in northern parts of the country, and that is why the problem with its frieght charges to distant places in south India.

Now if this is not enough, the Ministry of Commerce & Industry has allowed the export of organic wheat and rice. Quietly a notification has been issued to this effect. The export of organic wheat and rice was banned in 2007 and 2008, respectively. Non-basmati organic rice exports are allowed to a maximum annual limit of 10,000 tonnes, while for organic wheat the upper limit is 5,000 tonnes.

Once again, I don't understand the logic of exporting organic wheat and rice. I fail to understand why organic wheat and rice cannot be made more popular in the domestic market? I am sure Indians would love to pay a higher price for organically produced safe food. In any case, if the gullible consumers can pay Rs 35 a kg for ITC's Aashirvaad atta, which they claim is procured from Madhya Pradesh, the price of organic wheat too would be in that range.

Look at what ITC claims:

Aashirvaad Select 100% MP Sharbati atta comes from the plush, fertile soil of Madhya Pradesh, tended by the right amounts of sunshine and rainfall. The land here truly sprouts gold. The gold that we call ´sharbati´. The ´sharbati′ wheat is sourced directly from farmers through ITC′s e-choupals and then blended using the traditional ´chakki-grinding′ method to give you that superior, discerning taste that you well deserve.

MP Chakki Atta: Aashirvaad MP Chakki Blend is made only from the finest MP wheat. This wheat is again sourced through ITC′s e-choupals from the golden fields of the most carefully cultivated wheat.

Whole Wheat Atta - 0% maida and 100% Atta: Aashirvaad Whole Wheat Atta has 0% maida and 100% atta. This means you serve soft, fluffy rotis and a whole lot of health and happiness.

I thought the whole purpose of setting up a network of e-chaupals was to make grains cheaper for the consumers besides of course providing a remunerative price to growers.

However it appears, India is keen to grow safe and healthy food for people living outside the country, whereas for its own population it literally provides unhealthy grains which often meet cattle feed standards.

India 'ditches' the developing world at Copenhagen

This is not the first time. India is no longer keen to be associated with the developing countries. Whether it is WTO or the Climate Change negotiations, India is trying to break away from the G-77 and align with the bad guys. I mean the rich industrialised countries, especially the G-7.

I think the G-77 must see through the political realities. The best option for G-77, if it wants to protect its interests, is to throw out the BASIC countries -- India, China, Brazil and South Africa -- from the coalition. It has to be done sooner or later, the sooner the better. 

Anyway, my colleague Bhaskar Goswami is in Copenhagen. He sends his 3rd daily dispatch today. I bring you his report from the Climate Change convention. Also, if you scroll down you can read the reports that he sent earlier.

One cannot help but feel a sense of pity for Yvo de Boer, the UN Climate Chief whose cup of woes seems to be overflowing. First came “Climategate” which was followed by the leaked “Danish Text”, though it is debatable whether de Boer personally had much to do with drafting the text since it aims to strip his organisation from most of the functions it has historically performed at the COP negotiations. Instead, the Danish proposal intends to rest it with the OECD countries.

With Denmark refusing ownership (or authorship!) of the text, de Boer has been left alone facing the ire of developing countries and civil society organisation; the latter’s numbers as well as vociferous demonstrations at the Bella Center swelled manifold today.

No wonder de Boer looks gloomier than the overcast city.

Adding to his woes is a development that has brought negotiations to a grinding halt. A small island nation in the Pacific has stood up to the might of the world. Tuvalu earned the world’s respect by demanding binding and immediately actionable emission cuts yesterday and the Chair had no choice but to put it on record that the negotiations are “suspended”. However, the negotiations resumed soon after and everyone presumed that it is business as usual.

Tuvalu achieved the impossible by causing a suspension of COP negotiations yet again today. And this time round it is a suspension for real. Further, the Association of Small Oasis States (AOSIS) group has claimed that it has the support of 100 member countries that are against the provisions of the Danish text. In this melee, one country that has lost credibility and trust is India.

A small island nation of around 12,000 inhabitants achieved where negotiators and leaders of an emerging power - India - failed miserably. Yet again India broke bread with the sole super power of the world and sacrificed the interest of developing countries to secure a seat at the high table. It however remains to be seen whether that seat (on the UN Security Council as per Jairam Ramesh’s leaked letter a month back) actually materialises. What does matter is that India today stands isolated at Copenhagen. No wonder India’s Chief Negotiator, Shyam Saran, had to rush back to New Delhi to seek counsel and fresh instruction on how to get out of this mess. He is expected back at Copenhagen along with Minister Jairam Ramesh tomorrow.

There is however another viewpoint that is holding fort: the Tuvalu proposal is a fallback option of developed countries after the failure of the Danish Text. The next few days would possibly clear the fog on this issue.

Multilateral negotiations are always an opportunity for sharing “authentic and exclusive news”. One such news doing the rounds today is that the Danish Text was drafted with full knowledge of and consultation with India. This is quite possible given that Jairam Ramesh had proposed something similar a month back. What is puzzling is the list of other countries that are now emerging as co-authors – Brazil, China, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and Algeria. The tentacles of climate betrayal seem to have spread across continents that have virulently opposed any concessions for developed countries.

Meanwhile, newspapers today reported that the police confiscated paint bombs, shields and other gear from an empty property in the city next to which hundreds of activists are staying. While it is not clear whether any arrests have been made, Bella Centre and COP participants may not get to watch multicoloured walls… or blackened faces of negotiators who seem to have betrayed the cause for preventing further global warming. The big day however is Saturday when 60,000 demonstrators are expected to take to the streets marching from the Parliament to Bella Centre to demand a fair climate deal.

9th Dec: http://d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=696
8th Dec: http://d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=686

Bangalore gets its first Organic Restaurant

Inaugurating Lumiere, Bangalore's first organic restaurant.

Amidst all the hectic schedule of delivering public talks and debating the future of GM crops at a series of panel discussions last week, it was like a whiff of fresh air when I was invited to inaugurate Bangalore's first organic restaurant.

At a time when the newspapers are buried under the threat of sea water rising, floods and droughts becoming freak and recurring, and all such depressing news reports that you read every other day, any initiative to reduce our carbon footprint and at the same time provide safe and healthy food is more than welcome. It is the need of the day.

By lighting a traditional lamp, and in the presence of some of well-known organic growers, researchers, activists, and guests, I humbly launched Bangalore's first organic restaurant -- Lumiere -- at a modest opening ceremony in the evening of Dec 5, 2009. Also present were the local MLA, and the Additional Director of Horticulture. 

This is the second organic restaurant that Manjunath P R, a software engineer-turned-organic farmer and entrepreneur, has started. He returned from the US to set up his first organic restaurant venture, in Cochin. Manjunath had a shy and soft-spoken Ambriose to join him at Cochin, and is joined by Ashok and others at Bangalore. And I am sure it requires quite an entrepreneurial acumen to collect organic products, from even very distant places, to ensure that the consumer is delivered a perfect organic meal.

I was particularly bowled over by the very soft, artistic, aesthetically done organic interiors of the restaurant. Lumiere also takes you around the world of organics, providing you an insight into the world of food supply and the rich biodiversity that we are losing with every passing day. It is not only an effort to create an appropriate ambiance, but also to make an average consumer learn more about the beautiful world outside, a world that is becoming a victim of increasing consumerism and unprecedented commercialisation.

You don't realise that you are actually responsible for destroying your biodiversity. By going organic, you actually take the first step in conserving and preserving nature's bounties.

Lumiere may be a small step for Bangalorians, but it can surely turn into a giant leap for Indians. Knowing the increasing realisation about the dangers of consuming what is available off-the-shelf in India, I am sure organic food will gradually turn into a nationwide movement.

I am pasting below the Organic Alternatives that Lumiere provides (it is taken from its brochure)

Vegetables

Lumiere has been cultivating vegetables organically in our own farm in Kanthalloore,Munnar from 2003. Since then we have started more farms in Kolar, Vypin and Naduvattom to meet the needs of our restaurants and customers. Apart from those available in our own farms, we procure from similar farms in India which are strictly following the organic farming practices.

Milk

The milk we use comes from our farms in Vypin, Kochi and Kolar, Karnataka. Because of the freshness and quality of the bio-dynamic farm milk, we are able to deliver high quality dairy products.

Poultry

We have poultry farms in Vypin, Kochi and Kolar, Karnataka. At Lumiere farms, birds are fed only highest quality natural materials—maize, rice derivates, soya and sunflower extracts, plenty of greens etc. No antibiotics, growth hormones, synthetic coloring agents, artificial stimulants or any material of animal origin are included in the feed.

Cage-free: The chickens are housed humanely and are kept on litter so that they are free to run around and have ready access to feed, water, perching and nesting privacy. They are not confined in cages, as is otherwise a common practice the country over.

Fish

An excellent source of protein, minerals and vitamins, fish is one of the healthiest eat you can find on our planet. We agree, nowadays the marine products are also contaminated due to increased wastage disposal from the industries, which is a cause of worry. But the sea food from the deep sea can be considered somewhat safe and it is cultivated naturally.

Rice & Wheat

We procure boiled as well as raw rice from organic farms of Kerala, Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu. Have a normal meal and feel the difference. We get Basmati rice from
organic farms in North India. Only organic whole wheat atta for our phulkas, rotis,
breads and other bakery products.

Oil

We use only organic sunflower and coconut oils in our kitchen. The organic olive oil for our salads and grills is imported.

No Red Meal

Considering health issues like increasing cholesterol, fatigue, uric acid and decreasing physical exercise we have decided not to serve red meat in our restaurant.

Wheatgrass

We promote Wheatgrass juice as a health drink, being rich in Chlorophyll, the basis
of all plant life. Science has proven that chlorophyll arrests growth and development
of unfriendly bacteria. Wheatgrass also contains 20 amino acids, several hundred
different enzymes not found in other foods, as many as 90 out of 102 possible minerals, vitamins and other important nutrients. It is a great supplement for people on diet, for sports people, and for people who want to maintain a healthy immune system.

Other Ingredients

Other ingredients like spices, pulses and legumes are all sourced from certified organic farms in India. All these are also available for purchase in our eco-shop in the same premises.

Contact: 080-25405059/25405060

The GM denial industry -- Cornell University, GM companies and agricultural scientists

For the past few days I have been debating the GM crops issue with representatives from the biotech industry and agricultural scientists at public debates/discussions in New Delhi and Bangalore. I started with a public debate in New Delhi on Dec 3 organised by the Institute for Economic Growth (IEG), which had Ron Herring of the Cornell University; Shanthu Shantaharam, Visiting Prof, Princeton; Mahendra Dev, Chairman Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP); K C Bansal, Prof at the National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology, Delhi; and J V Meenakshi, Prof Delhi School of Economics.

(From left) Narayan Reddy, organic farmer; Devinder Sharma, chairman of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security; T.M. Manjunath, former director of Monsanto Research; and Ramanjini Gowda, Head of the Department of Biotechnology, UAS, Bangalore, at a public discussion in Bangalore on Monday.

(pic from The Hindu, Dec 8)

This was followed by a public debate at the Bangalore International Club on Dec 4, where I shared the dias with Dr K K Narayanan, Managing Director of Methelix Life Sciences, Bangalore. The next public debate that I participated was at the Institute for Agricultural Technologies (IAT) at Bangalore on Dec 7. Organised by a Bangalore-based NGO, Civic, it had four panelists: Dr T M Manjunath, former Director of Research, Monsanto; Dr P H Ramanjinigowda, Head, Depart of Biotechnology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore; the distinguished organic farmer Dr Narayan Reddy and I.

I will not go into the merits and demerits of the arguments raised, but what I feel there is a dire need to answer some of the commonly asked questions. I am framing below four arguments from the proponents of GM technology that emerged in these interactions. To borrow from what George Monbiot says (he said it in the context of the ongoing debate about Climate Change), and to relate it to the debate on GM crops, it is quite obvious that a 'denial industry' is fast at work. This refers to those who are paid to say that GM crops/foods pose no threat to human health and environment. As he says, and I agree, the great majority of people who believe this have not been paid, have been duped. 

You keep stumbling across familiar phrases and concepts which you can see every day on the comment threads. These comments are often planted by PR companies and hired experts. I wasn't therefore taken by surprise to hear the same arguments again and again. Let us look at some of the prominent arguments.

Argument 1: There are over 1 billion people living in hunger worldwide, and their number will swell to over 2 billion by the end of 2020. Therefore the world needs to produce more, and need to adopt GM crops.

It is true that the world has 1.02 billion people living in hunger. I feel this is an understatement, and the number of hungry is several times more than what the FAO computes. But given the figures of the hungry population, does it mean that there is shortage of food in the world? The answer is No. We have 6.7 billion people on Earth today, and the food we produce in the world today is good enough for 11.5 billion people, which means we produce twice the quantity of food that we require today.

Why there is hunger in the world is because one part of the world is eating more and the other part of the world is left to starve. It is a political question, and needs a political will to eradicate hunger.

Argument 2: GM crops produce more. 

This is untrue. There is no GM crop in the world that gives a higher yield than the existing crop varieties. In fact, the USDA data itself shows that the productivity of GM corn and GM soybean is much less than the existing varieties. So when scientists tell you that GM crops produce more, please be sure they have been paid to say so. They are simply lying.

Arguement 3: GM crops (like Bt cotton/Bt corn) produce their own toxins, and thereby reduce the use of pesticides making the environment (and food) safe. 

This is also untrue. Although Bt cotton/Bt corn produce their own toxins, and act more or less like a biological pesticide, all they can do is to reduce crop losses. But even here, we find that the pesticides reduction is only in first or second year, and subsequently farmers have to apply more pesticides. Several studies have shown that in the US also, pesticides use has not decreased.

A classic example here is of the Bt cotton cultivation in China. Bt cotton introduction in China was hailed as a 'silver-bullet.' I remember the scientific journal Science had done a report detailing out how stupendous the gain was for the Chinese farmers from the adoption of Bt cotton. Even then I had challenged the analysis saying that it was done for the first 2-years only whereas the Chinese government did know that pesticides usage had multiplied in the next two years. In other words, four years after the introduction of Bt cotton in China, pesticides use was back to the normal.

A latest study was Cornell University and a Chinese institute have conclusively shown that pesticides usage has increased by 8 per cent over the normal, and Chinese farmers cultivating Bt cotton are actually incurring losses. The study also brings out the change in the pest population with some new insects appearing on the horizon.

In India, the government has not allowed a similar study to be done on Bt cotton. And even the analysis done by CESS Hyderabad that brings out the economics of Bt cotton is fundamentally flawed. I am willing to debate with Mr Mahendra Dev, who is presently the Chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), and who did the study on behalf of CESS.

The National Centre for Agricultural Economic Research (NCAP) in New Delhi has now been entrusted with the responsibility to work out the socio-economics of Bt cotton. There is no need to wait for their study. We already know the conclusions that the NCAP study would arrive at.

Economists are no better than the agricultural scientists. If they had done their job honestly, Indian farmers wouldn't have been left high and dry. Agriculture wouldn't have been unremunerative, forcing the farmers to quite in increasing numbers.

Arguement 4: The regulatory mechanism has already evaluated the performance of Bt brinjal, and we should have faith in the system

This is a very dangerous argument. In India (like in the US), the GEAC operates more or less like a rubber stamp for the GM industry. Those who have the most to lose if the science is proved to be wrong are trying their best to emerge as champions of GM science. As George Monbiot says, those who have perversely sought to justify the secretive and chummy ethos that some of the studies GEAC observations reveal. If science is not transparent and accountable, it is not science.

I fully endorse this statement. Although made in the context of climate change, it holds true for GM crops research.

You have already seen my critique of the GEAC report on this blog. You probably already know that CNN-IBN has in one of its exclusive reports quoted the chairman of the EC-II accepting that adequate tests have not been done to know whether Bt brinjal will be safe or not.

And finally a word of advice to American experts like Ronald Herring from Cornell University, who had earlier headed the Department of Government, and has now emerged as a spokesperson for GM technology.

The US, which is the citadel of GM crops in the world, has not been able to solve its own hunger. At the recent World Food Summit at Rome in mid-November, it was clearly brought out that hunger in the US is now at its peak, the highest or the worst (as you see it) in the past 14 years. More than 49 million people in America, that is one in six, live in hunger. If GM crops are so high producing, please try to first remove hunger in your own country.

Instead of wasting your energies trying to convince the policy makers in India, please devote the same time and effort to eradicate hunger in America.

Also, the US agriculture is one of the most environmentally devastating and ecologically suffocating. US agriculture survives on subsidies. Withdraw the Green Box support, and the US agriculture collapses like a house of cards. Also, the US agriculture is one of the biggest contributors to global warming (if measured as a proportion of the US carbon footprint), it is time the Cornell University shift the focus of its research to its own devastating farming systems. I know the Department of Government at Cornell University is simply a covert USAID operation in the name of research. It is high time your government (and your former department) focuses on its own domestic crisis in agriculture.

You will be doing a great service to your own country. If you think your universities have nothing much to offer for your own country, I am willing to help you. Indian farmers would be too willing to show you the sustainable path. Come, let us work to salvage agriculture in the great lands of the Americas.