Global contamination

The world is facing contamination of natural

environment from two sources. One, the uncontrollable release of
radioactive contaminants from the crippled Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant and the
Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary other from illegal planting of Genetically Engineered seeds worldwide by criminal
corporations like Monsanto, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta and Dow Chemicals. The four
reactors at Fukushima Nuclear Power facility, owned by Tokyo Electric Power Company
[TEPCO], were knocked out of operation by the 9.1 earthquake off the Japanese coast that
caused tsunami waves. The waves killed over 18,000; thousands remain unaccounted for. The
damage was so severe that it has virtually knocked out the supply chain of Japanese industries
including major car manufacturers.

The tsunami waves damaged the cooling system of the reactors that started uncontrollable
meltdown process. That led to release of lethal radiation in the form of Strontium-90 and Iodine-
131 that has been found at high enough levels as far as France and now covers the entire United
States. The radiation spread all over the world by 15th March and India is also receiving high dose.
Senior scientists have warned that the situation is so bad in Japan that the entire Tokyo region with 40
million people may have to be evacuated; others are advocating evacuation of the entire Japanese
population to safer regions. The Government of India has already instructed Port Authorities to test all
ships originating from Japanese ports because the ships and their consignments will be radioactive.

The Japanese accident had to happen. The technology for generating electricity using uranium has time
and time again proven to be unsafe. Every nuclear reactor is now a ticking nuclear bomb; similar explosion
can happen is any of the 400-odd operational reactors. It can happen to any reactor located on fault zones
and especially those located on the coasts because of vulnerability to natural disasters. Underplaying such
possibilities is essentially a public lie.

The second source of contamination is coming from illegal planting of Genetically Modified seeds. In an
asinin example of bravado, one of GM seeds companies, had the temerity to plant GM corn adjacent to Bihar
Chief Minister's ancestral farm in Bihar. When he was told that GM maize has been planted he spoke with
Sharad Pawar to stop this sort of illegal planting. Sharad Pawar has been insisting on allowing GM crops to be
planted. Then Nitish Kumar called up Jairam Ramesh under whose Ministry comes Genetic Engineering
Approval Committee. Despite Jairam Ramesh directive to stop this sort of illegal planting, how GEAC is
conducting the trials right under the nose of powerful Chief Minister remains shrouded in mystery. The
GEAC and the entire group of scientists working for the GM seeds multinational corporations are pushing
for a new GM technology Bill against the wishes of majority of farmers and the wishes of the Indian civil
society.

Contamination from GM seeds is irreversible; no technology exists to decontaminate natural seeds. This
sort of large scale contamination is a proven fact and it is a deliberate act on part of seeds corporations to
contaminate every natural seeds worldwide. They don't want to leave any option to consumers who would
like to eat natural foods grown from natural seeds. Such irresponsible behavior amounts to subjecting
world's population to the largest biological experiment without our consent. And this biological
experiment, that will destroy the natural environment and human and animal health, the Government of
India is actively colluding.

The two sources of contaminations one radiological and the other biological- have the property of
altering natural genetic structure of all living things. Both are known to cause degenerative diseases and
environmental destruction on massive scale. The two events show how science itself has been
enslaved to serve corporate interest.

Krishan Bir Chaudhary

 Vol. 2 No. 4 April, 2011

Editor :

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary,

President,
Bharatiya Krishak Samaj,
F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Ambitious Trade Liberalisation and Indian Agriculture: 2
Delhi-110091 * Ranja Sengupta
Advisory Board :
Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup 6
S. P. Gulati, Sect. G.O.I., Retd. * Jill Richardson
Lingraj B. Patil
Prof. Sanjay Jadhav
Dr. R.B. Thakare
The Great Seed Robbery 8
D. Guruswamy, Adv. * Dr. Vandana Shiva
Rajesh Sharma “Bittoo”
Pratap Singh, DIG Retd. Southern Action, Judges Round Table 11
Hatam Singh Nagar, Adv.
K. Sareen * P. V. Satheesh
Ajay Singh
Ajit Singh Adv. Learning From Japan's Nuclear Disaster 13
* Amory Lovins
Desiged by : Rahul Sharma
Aastha Chaudhary
Letter on GM Crops to CM Bihar 19
Printed & Published by :
Farmer and scientist network hits IRRI and Sec. 22
Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary on behalf of
Bharatiya Krishak Samaj.
BioFach China 2011 celebrates 5th birthday 23
Printed at Everest Press, E-49/8, Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-20. Opinion: Control over your food: 24
Published at : *Christopher D. Cook

F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091 Open letter on use of banned pesticides 26

Mob.:9810331366, Telefax:011-22751281,
E-mail: bkspresident@gmail.com
bharatiyakrishaksamaj@gmail.com Farmers and Seed Producers Launch 27
Website:- www.kisankiawaaz.org
Lawsuit seeks to invalidate Monsanto's GMO patents 30
* Rady Ananda

April - 2011
Ambitious Trade Liberalisation and Indian Agriculture:
Proposed EU-India Free Trade Agreement
* Ranja Sengupta
W hen the European Union and India
launched talks on a bilateral trade and
investment agreement in 2007, the
negotiations were expected to be long and complex.
But since then its development implications have
been of increasing concern to stakeholders, policy
analysts and civil society in India and Europe.
The FTA includes chapters on goods (both
agricultural and industrial commodities), services,
intellectual property and contains provisions that go
way beyond the WTO or are WTO plus. In addition,
there are chapters on areas left untouched in the WTO
as these were considered sensitive for developing
countries; namely investment, public procurement
and competition policy.
Dispute settlement and trade facilitation are also
included. The EU wants a chapter on sustainable
development, which includes provisions on labour
and environment standards which India has refused to
include so far, on the grounds that these are non-trade
issues.
Agriculture remains a sensitive issue in India with
almost 70% of its population still directly dependent
on it. Indian agriculture, unlike big capital based
European agriculture, revolves around numerous
small farmers who earn their livelihoods from
cultivating small plots of land, and with limited access
to resources like water, seed and fertiliser. 83695
thousand marginal farmers (those own less than 1
hectare of land) who represent 65% of farmers in
India, own only 20% of total land, with an average
holding size of 0.38 hectares2. Only 46.13% of the
area under such holdings receives any form of
irrigation3. Rural poverty estimates vary between
28.3% and 87%4.
The agriculture sector also has a higher proportion of
women workers compared to other sectors. Tribal,
indigenous communities also form a sizeable chunk.
All these are constituencies with low education, skills
and low productive resources.
2 Kisan Ki Awaaz
India's agriculture sector has also suffered from low
investment and policy neglect, and farmers'
productive ability is constrained by grossly
inadequate infrastructural facilities like road and
transport systems, marketing and storage facilities.
The institutional credit system, technology
development and extension services are still weak.
Unlike Europe, Indian farmers enjoy very little direct
subsidy on agriculture. The Indian farmer is still
largely left to fend for himself and to eke out a living
by producing food both for his own consumption as
well as for the market. Their ability to feed themselves
is intrinsically linked to their ability to sell, and
therefore, to produce.
It is not surprising, therefore, that agriculture and food
security emerge as critical issues in India's trade
agreements, be it the WTO or in its Free Trade
Agreements. At the WTO, India has often taken strong
positions to safeguard its farmer's livelihoods, be it
from import surges or from Western subsidies or on
development and food security considerations.
Considering that the FTAs in general and North-South
FTAs in particular, move towards a WTO plus
framework for agriculture, the impact of such
liberalisation on this sector remains critical. In
addition, this particular FTA brings together many
interlinked chapters all of which can have a combined
and cumulative impact on not only the way India
trades but on its entire production and distribution
systems.
There are several features of this FTA that must be
looked at in detail in order to have an understanding of
the possible consequences on Indian agriculture.
The Provisions in EU-India FTA and Impact on
Agriculture
India's current agricultural trade is low and accounts
for only 2.9% of its merchandise imports. But that is
also because India still imposes quite a high applied
April - 2011
tariff (duty) at a simple average of 31.8% (2009) on
agricultural products while its notified bound or
maximum duty is 113.1%. On the other hand, Indian
products face a much lower duty of 13.8% in EU
markets of agricultural products.
Again, India offers duty free access only in fruits,
vegetables and plants (21.7%) and vegetable oils
(72.9%) while 60% of India's agricultural products
can technically enter EU duty-free.
However, even though the EU has low tariffs, it gives
high subsidies to its agricultural producers which
work both as a protective instrument in its domestic
market, as well as a competitiveness enhancing
instrument for EU's exporters.
Indian products also face high non tariff barriers
(NTBs) like food and other standards as well as
technical barriers in EU, making exports difficult,
while NTBs are lower in India. Given the tariff and
NTB structures in the two countries, the EU obviously
has much more to gain in terms of tariff reduction
while India's gains lie in getting NTBs reduced,
simplified and harmonised and in the removal of EU
subsidies, a much discussed issue in the trade talks
even at the WTO.
But what does the FTA contain? Tariff reduction to
zero is included on at least 90% of tariff lines. Export
taxes have to be totally removed, threatening the
government's control over domestic food supply even
in times of a crisis.
There may even be a standstill on the exempted tariff
lines, i.e. duties cannot be raised from current MFN
levels. Non tariff barriers in the form of standards,
sanitary and phyto sanitary measures and technical
barriers (TBTs) are also being discussed.
However most of EU FTAs show that affirmation of at
least WTO standards has been followed. According to
unverified information, there are no Special Products
(SP)5. The Special Safeguard Mechanism (SSM),
over which India took a strong stand in the WTO, is
also much diluted. Apparently, EU has allowed only a
volume trigger6 but not a price trigger7.
However removal of EU's agricultural subsidies is not
on the cards. Under the Common Agricultural Policy
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
(CAP) which still takes up 32% of EU budget, EU still
gives huge amounts of subsidy to its farmers on dairy,
poultry, cereals. Enough literature exists (for example
UNCTAD 20078) to show that domestic subsidies are
very much trade distorting and affects global prices
thus reducing competitiveness of smaller producers in
developing countries.
However subsidies cannot be negotiated under any
free trade agreement as it is a multilateral issue and
can, therefore, be negotiated, only at the WTO level.
Therefore the EU-India FTA in agriculture harps on
the reduction of tariffs but is silent or hazy on the
removal of non tariff measures like subsidies,
standards and TBTs.
Projections
Impact assessment studies suggest very little gain in
commodity trade. Trade surplus in agriculture will
turn into a trade deficit and a long run fall in
agricultural employment is predicted9. A small
increase in agricultural exports will be countered by a
larger increase in agricultural imports.
While India's share in EU's markets in primary
products, cereals, other crops and products from
animal origin will remain constant (at 0.3, 1.2, 0.6 and
0.1% respectively), EU will increase its share in all
these markets as a result of the FTA10. For example,
in primary products EU's share increases from 4.9% to
16.7% by 2020, and from 17.6% to 23.5% in cereals.
In products of animal origin, EU's share is projected to
increase from 7.5% to 10.4% by 2020.
The asymmetric nature of this agreement is expected
to hurt commodity producers in agriculture and
industry, including dairy, poultry, wheat, sugar and
confectionary, oilseeds, plantation products and
fisheries (the latter is under NAMA).
Apart from EU's subsidised competitiveness in dairy
and poultry products, EU's global trade patterns show
increasing exports in commodities such as wheat,
oilseeds, plantation products; commodities which still
enjoy high applied tariffs in India. EU is also
interested in selling wines and spirits to India, where
India's current applied tariff is a high 70.8% (on
beverages and tobacco).
EU has made signalled that meaningful market access
3
by India for wines, beer and spirits and in other areas
of key offensive interests to EU like dairy, poultry,
cereals, fisheries, and processed agricultural products
(PAPs), often by removing them from the negative
list, is essential for the conclusion of the FTA.
Once these protections are removed, EU products are
likely to flood Indian markets in these segments.
European exports can also destroy value added agro
processing in India, as well as basic crops by
destroying the linkage with local processing industry.
A Skill Biased FTA
The structure of this FTA benefits Indian services
compared to agriculture and even manufacturing.
Even within services, the benefits are likely to accrue
only to skilled areas such as IT & banking.
With literacy rate just above 60%, the lack of these
skills among large sections of the population,
especially among farmers and agricultural workers,
makes it difficult for them to shift between sectors.
They will most likely end up among India's growing
informal workers which accounts for 92% of India's
total employment (420 million) and poverty among
non-agricultural unorganized workers (both men and
women) is estimated at 20.6 per cent (NCEUS 2007).
Women are special victims of such shifts.
TRIPS plus Intellectual Property Rights
The EU has been quite insistent on its requirement for
TRIPS plus IP protection. This affects not only issues
like access to cheap medicines by threatening India's
generic production of medicines, there but agriculture
and food related issues as well.
For example ratifying UPOV 1991 according to EU's
demands, will prevent Indian farmers from saving,
using and freely exchanging seeds. In addition,
provisions under the present law, such as the
registration of extant and farmers' varieties and
benefit sharing provisions to compensate farmers' for
their innovations will also be threatened.
In addition, the IPR text also includes patent term
extension by five years which also refers to plant
protection products (Correa 2009). Such measures
4 Kisan Ki Awaaz
can affect Indian farmers' access to seeds, traditional
cultivation systems, encourages monoculture, and
adversely affect bio diversity.
Strong investment rights threaten access to natural
resources like land, water, energy sources
Strong investment provisions that allow foreign
access to land, minerals, water and forest products will
surely threaten livelihoods, food security and basic
sustenance of small farmers, tribal communities,
women and children who already have unequal
access.
It can heighten land grabbing in resource rich areas,
thus taking away critical access to cultivable land and
other productive resources from tribal, indigenous and
rural communities. It can even threaten the survival of
our agriculture based industrial sectors by starving
them of raw material through investment and removal
of export taxes.
Services and Public Procurement
The liberalisation of retail services can also put
pressure on small farmers' livelihoods. Not only do
big supermarkets ask for very high standards and
reject produce on grounds of not meeting that quality,
they can gradually take away farmer's access to local
markets. Sometimes farmers are initially given high
prices but with increasing dependence on big buyers
from retail chains, the prices have often come down.
In addition, if government procurement is liberalised
in India, then special acquisition from farmers for the
Public Distribution System (PDS) may also become
difficult and European producers will have to be given
equal treatment to this mechanism which essentially
provides price support to Indian farmers.
The Global Agricultural Market and India's Food
Economy
What this does to India's food economy and food
security are also urgent questions. In a situation of
volatile global market, speculation in agricultural
commodities and a still persisting food crisis,
depending on imported food and curtailing the ability
of domestic producers to produce their own food may
not be prudent options.
April - 2011
Both producers and consumers are hurt by the
volatility in global prices.
Current State of Play: When do We sign the Deal?
Alternative information shows the deal is expected to
be concluded March/ April or June this year. However
final signing may have to wait till the end of the year.
While a lot of the talks in agriculture and NAMA are
now over, differences remain over some sensitive
segments like dairy, poultry, wines and spirits.
It is obvious that EU will not give up on its demands in
the agriculture sector. EU also wants its agricultural
GIs (highly relevant to wines and spirits) to be
recognised in exchange for recognition of India's non-
agricultural Gis.
This can also be a problem because India's
underdeveloped IP system in agriculture cannot
compete with EU's well advanced system of IP
recognition. In exchange for giving significant market
access India wants an asymmetrical package from EU
on agriculture.
This consists of longer implementation periods and
asymmetrical coverage expressed. However, EU
actually wants India to improve its offer on tariff line
coverage, and increase its offer to 95%.
While subsidies are still off limits, discussions are still
continuing on safeguards such as special products and
the special safeguard mechanism.
On the non tariff barrier front, India wants more from
EU on conformity assessment which has been a major
problem for Indian exporters in the past.
The Process of Negotiations and the Indian
Democracy
The lack of consultation and transparency during the
process of these negotiations has been a consistent
worry to CSOs and development policy analysts. The
lack of consultation with all stakeholders, especially
vulnerable groups like farmers, indigenous groups,
women, patients groups, MSMEs, have been a feature
of such FTA negotiations.
In India and EU, neither the draft text nor the impact
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
assessment studies have been shared with
stakeholders, state governments or with civil society,
making alternative development friendly analyses by
independent non government agencies very difficult.
Final sensitive lists are not made public, and there has
been almost no effort on the part of the government to
prepare affected stakeholders for dealing with the
impact of such agreements.
The political process surrounding such negotiations
remains undemocratic and non-transparent. There is
no parliamentary oversight and ratification of this and
other FTAs in India.
Even state (or provincial) governments are not
consulted in this process nor are their ratifications
mandatory. This is in conflict with the fact that
agriculture is a 'state subject' in India11 . In Europe
while the European Parliament has ratification
mandate, their ability to ask for changes in the text
remains limited.
In conclusion, the EU-India FTA is expected to have
significant impact on livelihoods, access to food and
productive resources in Indian agriculture, especially
of the poor and marginalised.
That such an important policy measure can be
introduced without transparent and extensive
consultations with stakeholders undermines Indian
democracy.
In terms of EU's trade policy, the joint perusal of CAP
and the demands made in its FTAs with developing
countries seriously undermines EU's image of being
supportive of sustainable development in the Third
World.
EU's insistence on including agriculture belies the
European Commission's claims that agriculture is not
a major issue in the negotiations.
It is clear that EU recognises that it is a hugely
sensitive sector for India in terms of its livelihood and
food security implications, but is still continuing with
aggressive demands in this sector.
* Senior Researcher, Third World Network
5
Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup
Ready Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages
* Jill Richardson
A bombshell has been quietly dropped on the
website of the Farm and Ranch Freedom
Alliance.
I should disclose, upfront, that the Farm and Ranch
Freedom Alliance (FARFA) is founded and run by my
close friend Judith McGeary. Said bombshell is an
open letter written by Dr. Don Huber, professor
emeritus at Purdue University, to Tom Vilsack,
presenting a finding of a correlation between either
glyphosate or Roundup Ready crops and a new,
previously unknown organism that may be the cause
of animal miscarriages and infertility.
As the letter, printed below, notes, this research is still
preliminary. However, Huber, who has 40 years
experience working as a scientist for "professional
and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for
natural and manmade biological threats, including
germ warfare and disease outbreaks," believes this
should be treated as an emergency until more research
can confirm or disprove these initial findings.
Needless to say, the recent deregulation of GE alfalfa
is something to think about, because that will
dramatically increase the use of Roundup on animal
feed and the feeding of Roundup Ready crops to our
livestock. There is more to be said on this, but I want
to tread carefully and stick to facts that I can confirm,
so stay tuned.
Open letter of Dr. Don Huber:
Dear Secretary Vilsack:
A team of senior plant and animal scientists have
recently brought to my attention the discovery of an
electron microscopic pathogen that appears to
significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and
probably human beings.
Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very
serious, and is in much higher concentrations in
Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn-suggesting
6 Kisan Ki Awaaz
a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of
Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!
This is highly sensitive information that could result
in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and
significant disruption of domestic food and feed
supplies.
On the other hand, this new organism may already be
responsible for significant harm (see below). My
colleagues and I are therefore moving our
investigation forward with speed and discretion, and
seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to
identify the pathogen's source, prevalence,
implications, and remedies.
We are informing the USDA of our findings at this
early stage, specifically due to your pending decision
regarding approval of RR alfalfa.
Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a
promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such
approval could be a calamity.
Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable
action at this time would be to delay deregulation at
least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR
system, if it does.
For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the
professional and military agencies that evaluate and
prepare for natural and manmade biological threats,
including germ warfare and disease outbreaks.
Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are
facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk
status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an
emergency.
A diverse set of researchers working on this problem
have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which
together presents the following disturbing scenario:
Unique Physical Properties
April - 2011
This previously unknown organism is only visible
under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an
approximate size range equal to a medium size virus.
It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-
fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such
micro-fungus ever identified.
There is strong evidence that this infectious agent
promotes diseases of both plants and mammals,
which is very rare.
Pathogen Location and Concentration
It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready
soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation
feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and
cattle placentas.
Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease
The organism is prolific in plants infected with two
pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and
farmer income-sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy,
and Goss' wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in
the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani
fsp glycines).
Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure
Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this
organism in a wide variety of livestock that have
experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility.
Preliminary results from ongoing research have also
been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.
The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of
infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past
few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse
operations. These include recent reports of infertility
rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous
abortions in cattle as high as 45%.
For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed
wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over
the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same
herd that were raised on hay had no abortions.
High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed
on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed
management using glyphosate.
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Recommendations
In summary, because of the high titer of this new
animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its
association with plant and animal diseases that are
reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA's
participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an
immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR
crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with
glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a
threat to crop and animal production and human
health.
It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of
glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this
pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to
weakened plant and animal hosts.
It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil
pathogens and is already implicated with the increase
of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant
defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces
the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn
can cause animal disorders.
To properly evaluate these factors, we request access
to the relevant USDA data. I have studied plant
pathogens for more than 50 years.
We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of
increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders.
This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding
and solving this problem.
It deserves immediate attention with significant
resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical
agricultural infrastructure.
Sincerely,
COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease
Recovery System (NPDRS)
Http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/4523/resear
cher-glyphosate-roundup-or-roundup-ready-
crops-may-cause-animal-miscarriages
7
 The Great Seed Robbery
* Dr. Vandana Shiva
T he seed, the source of life, the emobodiment of
our biological and cultural diversity, the link
between the past and the future of evolution,
the common property of past, present and future
generations of farming communities who have been
seed breeders is today being stolen from the farmers
and being sold back to us as “propreity” seed, owned
by corporations like Monsanto.
Under pressure of the Prime Minister's Office (which
in turn is under the pressure of the White House
because of signing the U.S India Agriculture
Agreement) the States are signing MOU's with seed
corporations to privatise our rich and diverse genetic
heritage.
The Government of Rajasthan has signed seven
MOU's with Monsanto, Advanta, DCM-Sriram,
Kanchan Jyoti Agro Industries, PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd,
Krishidhan Seeds and J.K. Agri Genetics.
While what is being undertaken is a great seed
robbery under the supervision of the State, it is being
called PPP - Private Public Partnership.
The MOU with Monsanto focuses on Maize, Cotton,
and vegetables (hot pepper, tomato, cabbage,
cucumber, cauliflower, water melon).
It will in effect hand over to Monsanto millennia of
breeding by farmers. The State will subsidize
Monsanto's breeding.
It will allow Monsanto's propaganda to replace
extension by promoting “awareness building
activities under Monsanto's “gurukulam” training
package with recommended package of practices for
Rajasthan”.
The State infrastructure will thus function for
promotional activities of the companies. The private
companies seed distribution will be based on “seed
supply and distribution arrangements involving
leverage of extensive government owned network”.
8 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Thus farmers varieties will be replaced by increasing
“Seed Replacement Rate” which in effect erases in
one season million of years of evolution and
thousands of years of farmers breeding.
Instead of breeding and distributing public varieties,
the state agriculture universities are acting against
their public mandate and violating the public interst
by facilitating the privatization of the seed supply.
Brainwashing by Monsanto based on “guest lectures
by Monsanto's global experts and scientists” is being
labeled as “knowledge transfer”.
Selling hybrids and then GMOs is being subsidized by
using public land for “Technology demonstration
farms to showcase products technology and
agronomic practices on land made available by the
Government of Rajasthan”.
Besides the handing over seed and land, “Monsanto
will be helped in the establishment of infrastructure
towards the fulfillment of the collaboration objectives
specified above through access to relevant capital
subsidy and other schemes of the Government of
Rajasthan”.
While public resources will be made available to
Monsanto as a subsidy, “Monsanto's propriety tools,
techniques, technology and knowhow and intellectual
property rights with respect to the crops shall remain
the property of Monsanto although utilized in any of
the activities outlines as part of the MOU.”
This is clearly an MOU for privatization of our seed
and genetic wealth, and a violation of farmers rights.
The seed supply that the agriculture universities are
handing over to Monsanto are not the property of the
state, nor of Monsanto. They are the common property
of farming communities.
While the Government of Rajasthan has signed seven
MOU's, in the final analysis it is the MNC's who will
control he seed by buying out local companies or
locking them in licensing arrangements.
April - 2011
This is precisely what happened in the cotton seed
sector. 60 Indian seed companies have licensing
arrangements with Monsanto which has the
intellectual property on Bt. Cotton. In the final
analysis, this is not an issue of technology, but of seed
monopoly.
The Government has argued that these MOU's will
introduce hybrids in Rajasthan. However, “processes
like hybridization are the technological means that
stop seed from reproducing itself.
This provides capital with an eminently effective way
of circumventing natural constraints on the
commodification of the seed. Hybrid varieties do not
produce true-to-type seed, and farmers must return to
the breeder each year for new seed stock.
To use Jack Kloppenburg's description of the seed: it
is both a means of production and a product. Whether
they are tribespeople engaged in shifting cultivation
of peasants practicing settled agriculture, in planting
each year's crop, farmers also reproduce the necessary
element of their means of production.
The seed thus presents capital with a simple biological
obstacle: given the appropriate conditions, it
reproduces itself and multiplies.
Modern plant breeding has primarily been an attempt
to remove this biological obstacle, and the
biotechnologies are the latest tools for transforming
what is simultaneously a means of production and a
product into mere raw material.
The hybridization of seed was an invasion into the
seed itself. As Kloppenburg has stated, it broke the
unity of the seed as food grain and as a means of
production.
In doing so, it opened up the space for capital
accumulation that private industry needed in order to
control plant breeding and commercial seed
production.
And, it became the source of ecological disruption by
transforming a self-regenerative process into a broken
linear flow of supply of living seed as raw material
and a reverse flow of seed commodities as products.
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
The decoupling of seed from grain also changes the
statues of seed.
The commodified seed is ecologically incomplete and
ruptured at two levels: First, it does not reproduce
itself, while by definition, seed is a regenerative
resource.
Genetic resources are thus, through technology,
transformed from a renewable into a nonrenewable
resource. Second, it does not produce by itself; it
needs the help of other purchased inputs. And, as the
seed and chemical companies merge, the dependence
of inputs will increase.
Whether a chemical is added externally or internally,
it remains an external input in the ecological cycle of
the reproduction of seed. It is this shift from
ecological processes of production through
regeneration to technological processes of
nonregenerative production that underlies the
dispossession of farmers and the drastic reduction of
biological diversity in agriculture.
It is at the root of the creation of poverty and of non-
sustainability in agriculture.
Where technological means fail to prevent farmers
from reproducing their own seed, legal regulations in
the forms of intellectual property rights and patents
are brought in.
Patents are central to the colonization of plant
regeneration, and like land titles, are based on the
assumption of ownership and property. As the Vice
President of Genentech has stated, “when you have a
chance to write a clean slate, you can make some very
basic claims, because the standard you are compared
to is the state of prior art, and in biotechnology there
just is not much.”
Ownership and property claims are made on living
resources, but prior custody and use of those resources
by farmers is not the measure against which the patent
is set. Rather, it is the intervention of technology that
determines the claim to their exclusive use.
The possession of this technology, then, becomes the
reason for ownership by corporations, and for the
simultaneous dispossession and disenfranchisement
9
of farmers. We need to only look at the cotton seed of land. Further exploring the more common mixed
supply to see what corporations hijack of seed means. farming wherein pearl millet is sown with mung bean.
Monsanto's now controls 95% of the cotton seed
market. It controls 60 Indian seed companies through It has been observed that mixed farming system
licensing arrangements. registered more returns (69%) as compared to mono-
cropping system. The increased return in mixed
It pushed the price of seed from Rs. 7/kg to Rs. cropping is attributed to lower occurrence of weed and
3600/kg, with nearly half being royalty payments. It reductions in pesticides due to judicious use of inter
was extracting Rs. 1000 crore per annum as royalty spaces.
from Indian farmers before Andhra Pradesh sued
Monsanto in the MRTP commission. 200,000 farmers Also at times the supplementary crop commands a
have committed suicide in India since corporate higher price than the staple crop. A similar study for
takeover of seed started as a result of globalization. mixed cropping was also undertaken wherein a
comparison between monocrops of maize and mixed
Rajasthan is an ecologically fragile area. Rajasthan crops of maize, cowpea combined was studied.
farmers are already vulnerable. It is a crime to
increase their vulnerability by allowing corporations The results herein were in consonance with the
to steal their genetic wealth and then sell them findings of above two case studies. The maize,
patented, genetically engineered seeds. We must cowpea combined crop recorded 31% more returns
defend seeds as our commons. We must protect the than maize monocrops.
seeds of life from the seeds of suicide.
Seed sovereignty is the foundation of food
The future of the seed, the future of the food, the future sovereignty. Seed freedom is the foundation of food
of farmers lies in conservation of biodiversity of our freedom.
seed.
The great seed robbery threatens both. That is why it
Contrary to the myth that we need to hand over our must be stopped.
seed supply to corporations to increase food
production, farmers varieities when used in agro-
ecological systems have the potential to double food
production in 10 years according to the U.N.
Greener the ideas,
Navdanya's research also shows that biodiversity
based ecological agriculture produces more food than
monocultures.
secure the Earth is .....
In the arid tract of Rajasthan farmers only take-up
single crop not because of higher economic return but
have no choice due to vagaries of nature.
Light up the lamp
It is seen that the income derived from monocropping
of pearl millet resulted in a net income of Rs. 3280. Of
the total return that farmer achieved 60% was
spending the inputs only.
of awareness.
In contrast by adopting mixed farming system a total
gain of Rs. 12,045 was recorded wherein the
expenditure incurred was a mere 19%. A mixed
- Aastha Chaudhary -
cropping in the surveyed villages comprised of pearl
millet, moth bean and sesame grown together in a unit

10 Kisan Ki Awaaz April - 2011

 Southern Action, Judges Round Table
on Genetic Engineering
* P. V. Satheesh
March 27, 2011 - “While making any legislation for
regulatory bodies for genetic engineering in food and
agriculture, the predominant factor should be the
interest of the Indian society as consumers, farmers
and the Indian soil and other components of the
environment. Regulatory procedure has to be
independent and not oriented on data inputs got at the
instance of manufacturing community”.said a panel
of three eminent judges from AP, Karnataka and
Kerala and the Chief Justice of Orissa High Court.
This observation came at the end of a Round Table for
senior judges held for the first time in India to discuss
the Emerging Jurisprudence of Genetic Engineering:
Food, Farming and Biosafety. “Information regarding
the identity of the persons involved in such process
should be available in the public domain for such
scrutiny as would ensure transparency and credibility
of such establishments”. the honourable judges added
in their “observations”
The High Court Judges who attended the Round
Table were Mr Justice Gopal Gowda, Chief Justice
of Orissa High Court,Mr Justice Goda Raghuram
Senior Judge from AP High Court. Mr Justice
Thottathil B Radhakrishna from Kerala High Court
and Mr Anand Byra Reddy from Karnataka High
Court.
The Round Table was organized by the National Law
School University of India [NLSUI], Bangalore,
Southern Action of Genetic Engineering [SAGE],
Hyderabad and Institute for Cultural Action [ICRA],
Bengalooru.
The judges also recognized the “emergence” of the
following facts and observations from the
submissions from farmers from Andhra Pradesh,
Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu and experts from
all over the country.
Indirectly referring to the often heard argument that
the introduction of Genetic Engineering is a part of
India's international obligations, the judges observed
that “The obligations of the Nation to give effect to its
international obligations and covenants and treaties,
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
though maybe in the exclusive Union domain for
legislation, such legislation should necessarily be
within the format of the fundamental rights of the
citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution; since
otherwise it would be a piece of law in conflict with
the Constitution and hence void and inoperative”.
In the context of the earlier provision made in the
Government of India's Biotechnology Regulatory
Authority of India [BRAI] Bill, that anyone who
would be questioning the safety of GE products
without scientific proof, would invite imprisonment
and a hefty fine, the judges made a significant
“observation”: “Any provision which would enable
the silencing of the Indian public voice should
necessarily be excluded from any such statute”.
“….its [Genetic Engineering's] application in the field
of food and farming should be permitted only by
ensuring that it does not in any manner impair the
biodiversity and other ecological parameters”. Was
another important observation by the judges.
Eleven farmers from AP, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu
made a series of submissions before the judges
explaining the havoc wrought by the Bt Cotton on
their farms. Their main contention was that Bt cotton
had not given them economic benefits. As a matter of
fact, they had become poorer, their soils had become
more toxic, their animals, grazing on Bt Cotton stalks,
had either died, or have become sick and in many
cases had become infertile.
Besides the farmers who made these submissions,
over 30 farmers and environmental activists from AP,
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Orissa attended the
Round Table. Eminent legal luminaries such as Mr
Prashant Bhushan and Ms Shalini Bhutani along with
the researchers from NLSUI Commons Cell made
submissions on Biotechnology Regulation Authority
of India Act, Seed Amendment Bill and other
important national and international law which form
the context for the biotechnology related laws
Padma Vibhushana Dr. P. M. Bhargava, eminent
11
scientist who was the founder Director of Centre for
Cellular and Molecular Biology [Hyderabad], Dr
Yellappa Reddy of Karnataka, Dr Vijayan, eminent
biologist and formerly Chair of the Kerala State
Biodiversity Board and Dr Abdul Qayum, expert
researcher of Bt Cotton from Hyderabad made their
Expert Analysis of the issues and made their
submissions.
The two day Round Table concluded with the a set of
15 observations from the panel of judges after their
deliberations. The most important ones are quoted
below:
1. The BT cotton seeds were introduced by
holding out that product as one that would provide
tremendous growth in the agricultural produce and
also as one with exceptional resistance to pests,
thereby reducing the requirement of pesticides, but an
actual practice it was found that except for an initial
boost in production for one or two years, there was
consistent failure in the subsequent years.
2. Though the BT cotton seeds were sold to
the farmers by making them believe that no pesticides
would be required to be used in the cultivation of BT
cotton, it turned out to be false in actual experience.
3. .the farmers were duped into cultivating
BT cotton without proper information being given to
them as regards the identity and quality of the cotton
seeds that were provided.
4. In the cultivation of BT cotton, it is found
that there was large scale loss of crop, compared to
what was impressed upon the farmers by the suppliers
of the seeds. In good number of farms, a huge amount
of pods did not mature appropriately and break open
naturally, which is absolutely necessary to take
appropriate crop and yield. There were also instances
where even before the pods matured, the leaves of the
BT cotton plants started drying and the plants dying
off without providing any yield.
5. The cultivation of BT cotton including
through the stage of harvesting the pods, led to
adverse health conditions for the farmers. Even farm-
workers refused to do the operations. Commencing
from severe irritations and other external
manifestations of skin diseases, there were cases of
12 Kisan Ki Awaaz
bronchial and other allied health problems. Skin
conditions which were, literally, non-healing, were
experienced by the womenfolk, who are
predominantly engaged in the harvesting activities.
6. There was also loss of cattle. The
traditional cotton plants and leaves provide fodder.
There are also areas where cattle growers used even
offer a goat or so in return for an opportunity for their
cattle to graze on cotton farms. But when cattle
consume the leaves of BT cotton plants, the generated
grave health situations leading also to death of the
animals. Diarrhoea and even diseases which the
veterinarians could not diagnose led to loss of cattle. It
was also noticed that there was growth in the mortality
rate, abortion rate, infertility rate and such other
situations in the cattle, which would've had the
opportunity to graze, or were provided BT cotton
plant leaves for consumption. Productivity of cattle
decreased. Now, cattle have unidentifiable health
challenges. Apart from the financial and other
implications of such loss, among farming
communities, such situations also lead to disharmony
in the neighbourhood.
7. Even when the farmers chose to do away
with cultivation of BT cotton and return to either
cultivation of traditional cotton or other cultivations,
is including sugar cane, sunflower, rice, vegetables,
pulses etc, the adverse soil conditions arising out of
BT cotton cultivation retarded the process and led to
requirement of heavy costs to rejuvenate the soil
fertility.
8. It was also noticed that attack of pests
increase on traditional forms whenever there is BT
cotton cultivation the neighbourhood.
9. In one part of Karnataka, excellent local
varieties of traditional seeds were available, which,
with the introduction of BT cotton, is essentially lost.
The non-availability of traditional cotton seeds is a
great challenge. The fact remains that even the
government or agencies do not take up the issue and
provide traditional seeds to support the farmers.
National Convenor, SAGE,
ddshyderabad@gmail.com
April - 2011
 Learning From Japan's Nuclear Disaster
* Amory Lovins
A s heroic workers and soldiers strive to save
stricken Japan from a new horror--
radioactive fallout--some truths known for
40 years bear repeating.
An earthquake-and-tsunami zone crowded with 127
million people is an unwise place for 54 reactors. The
1960s design of five Fukushima-I reactors has the
smallest safety margin and probably can't contain
90% of meltdowns. The U.S. has 6 identical and 17
very similar plants.
Every currently operating light-water reactor, if
deprived of power and cooling water, can melt down.
Fukushima had eight-hour battery reserves, but fuel
has melted in three reactors.
Most U.S. reactors get in trouble after four hours.
Some have had shorter blackouts. Much longer ones
could happen.
Overheated fuel risks hydrogen or steam explosions
that damage equipment and contaminate the whole
site--so clustering many reactors together (to save
money) can make failure at one reactor cascade to the
rest.
Nuclear power is uniquely unforgiving: as Swedish
Nobel physicist Hannes Alfvén said, "No acts of God
can be permitted."
Fallible people have created its half-century history of
a few calamities, a steady stream of worrying
incidents, and many near-misses. America has
beenlucky so far.
Had Three Mile Island's containment dome not been
built double-strength because it was under an airport
landing path, it may not have withstood the 1979
accident's hydrogen explosion. In 2002, Ohio's Davis-
Besse reactor was luckily caught just before its
massive pressure-vessel lid rusted through.
Regulators haven't resolved these or other key safety
issues, such as terrorist threats to reactors, lest they
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
disrupt a powerful industry. U.S. regulation is not
clearly better than Japanese regulation, nor more
transparent: industry-friendly rules bar the American
public from meaningful participation. Many
presidents' nuclear boosterism also discourages
inquiry and dissent.
Nuclear-promoting regulators inspire even less
confidence. The International Atomic Energy
Agency's 2005 estimate of about 4,000 Chernobyl
deaths contrasts with a rigorous 2009review of 5,000
mainly Slavic-language scientific papers the IAEA
overlooked.
It found deaths approaching a million through 2004,
nearly 170,000 of them in North America. The total
toll now exceeds a million, plus a half-trillion dollars'
economic damage. The fallout reached four
continents, just as the jet stream could swiftly carry
Fukushima fallout.
Fukushima I-4's spent fuel alone, while in the reactor,
had produced (over years, not in an instant) more than
a hundred times more fission energy and hence
radioactivity than both 1945 atomic bombs.
If that already-damaged fuel keeps overheating, it
may melt or burn, releasing into the air things like
cesium-137 and strontium-90, which take several
centuries to decay a millionfold. Unit 3's fuel is spiked
with plutonium, which takes 482,000 years.
Nuclear power is the only energy source where
mishap or malice can kill so many people so far away;
the only one whose ingredients can help make and
hide nuclear bombs; the only climate solution that
substitutes proliferation, accident, and high-level
radioactive waste dangers. Indeed, nuclear plants are
so slow and costly to build that they reduce and retard
climate protection.
Here's how. Each dollar spent on a new reactor buys
about 2-10 times less carbon savings, 20-40 times
slower, than spending that dollar on the cheaper,
faster, safer solutions that make nuclear power
13
unnecessary and uneconomic: efficient use of
electricity, making heat and power together in
factories or buildings ("cogeneration"), and
renewable energy.
The last two made 18% of the world's 2009 electricity
(while nuclear made 13%, reversing their 2000
shares)--and made over 90% of the 2007-08 increase
in global electricity production.
Those smarter choices are sweeping the global energy
market. Half the world's new generating capacity in
2008 and 2009 was renewable.
In 2010, renewables, excluding big hydro dams, won
$151 billion of private investment and added over 50
billion watts (70% the total capacity of all 23
Fukushima-style U.S. reactors) while nuclear got zero
private investment and kept losing capacity.
Supposedly unreliable windpower made 43-52% of
four German states' total 2010 electricity. Non-
nuclear Denmark, 21% windpowered, plans to get
entirely off fossil fuels. Hawai'i plans 70%
renewables by 2025.
In contrast, of the 66 nuclear units worldwide
officially listed as "under construction" at the end of
2010, 12 had been so listed for over 20 years, 45 had
no official startup date, half were late, all 66 were in
centrally planned power systems--50 of those in just
four (China, India, Russia, South Korea)--and zero
were free-market purchases. Since 2007, nuclear
growth has added less annual output than just the
costliest renewable--solar power --and will probably
never catch up.
While inherently safe renewable competitors are
walloping both nuclear and coal plants in the
marketplace and keep getting dramatically cheaper,
nuclear costs keep soaring, and with greater safety
precautions would go even higher.
Tokyo Electric Co., just recovering from $10-20
billion in 2007 earthquake costs at its other big
nuclear complex, now faces an even more ruinous
Fukushima bill.
Since 2005, new U.S. reactors (if any) have been
100+% subsidized--yet they couldn't raise a cent of
14 Kisan Ki Awaaz
private capital, because they have no business case.
They cost 2-3 times as much as new windpower, and
by the time you could build a reactor, it couldn't even
beat solar power.
Competitive renewables, cogeneration, and efficient
use can displace all U.S. coal power more than 23
times over--leaving ample room to replace nuclear
power's half-as-big-as-coal contribution too--but we
need to do it just once.
Yet the nuclear industry demands ever more lavish
subsidies, and its lobbyists hold all other energy
efforts hostage for tens of billions in added ransom,
with no limit.
Japan, for its size, is even richer than America in
benign, ample, but long-neglected energychoices.
Perhaps this tragedy will call Japan to global
leadership into a post-nuclear world.
And before America suffers its own Fukushima, it too
should ask, not whether unfinanceably costly new
reactors are safe, but why build any more, and why
keep running unsafe ones.
China has suspended reactor approvals. Germany just
shut down the oldest 41% of its nuclear capacity for
study. America's nuclear lobby says it can't happen
here, so pile on lavish new subsidies.
A durable myth claims Three Mile Island halted U.S.
nuclear orders. Actually they stopped over a year
before--dead of an incurable attack of market forces.
No doubt when nuclear power's collapse in the global
marketplace, already years old, is finally
acknowledged, it will be blamed on Fukushima.
While we pray for the best in Japan today, let us hope
its people's sacrifice will help speed the world to a
safer, more competitive energy future.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/19-
1
April - 2011
 Letter on GM Crops to CM Bihar
March 23, 2011
To
Shri Nitish Kumar Ji
Hon'ble Chief Minister of Bihar
Patna.

Dear Nitish ji,

I was horrified to learn that GM seeds have been planted adjacent to your village farm and pleased to hear that
you have rejected Sharad Pawar's request to allow open field trials of genetically modified [GM] seeds in Bihar.
The issues at stake go beyond mere conflict of policy between MoEF and MoA, personal stake of powerful
politicians in seeds business and business operations of transnational corporations [TNCs] in Bihar or India or
other developing countries.

At stake are human and animal health, sustainability of future generations, conservation of flora and fauna
including aquatic life forms, indeed the entire ecosystem and the very survival of earth as natural living system.
The issues at stake concern our food security and food sovereignty won for us over 8,000 years by our farmers.
The issues at stake concern our food habits and culture, our essential way of life. These statements may sound
dramatic at first sight; however, by the time you have considered all the evidences which I can submit for your
perusal on demand, you may find them factual and truthful.

Contamination: Open field trials have caused widespread contamination of natural seeds with alien GM traits.
The contaminated food crops contained genetically modified organisms in stable and toxic form. Not only same-
specie but trans-species [horizontal] contamination is also a scientifically established fact. Cross-pollination
between 'engineered' specie and natural plants is causing havoc worldwide. This contamination is irreversible.
Decontamination is impossible. Once our seeds are contaminated with GM organisms, the contamination will
be in perpetuity.

Illegal planting is widespread; legal open field trials are merely a ruse to fool the farmers and the people. 39
countries reported contamination from illegal plantings in 2005. [Map 1]

Loss to farmers: Since Ag-biotech is an imperfect science, very frequently GM seeds do not germinate and
farmers are forced to bear the loss. These seeds also require proprietary pesticides despite claims that the crops
would be pest-resistant. The US and Canadian farmers have reported 16 times increase in the use of chemicals to
protect Biotech crops. In India there are more suicides among farmers who have opted for Bt Cotton seed [Bt
seeds are genetically engineered seeds containing Bacillus thurengeinsis genes]. Mixed seeds are also sold to
them (traditional mixed with GM); after only a few years they can't obtain a harvest: their seeds do not germinate
[Minimum germination should be 85% or more]. The technology for producing 'Traitor' and 'Terminator' seeds
is also commercially available. Many American rice exporters lost millions of dollars when their rice tested
positive at European ports. EU, Russia and Japan have zero tolerance for GM crops. The Russian Government
demanded sovereign guarantee from the Government of India that its rice does not contain GMOs. Open field
trials will expose our farmers to undesirable contamination which will cause huge revenue loss.

Loss to organic farmers: Farmers who have adopted organic or natural method of farm management are most
threatened. German organic farmers sought an increase in contamination level from 0.1% to 0.9% [nine times
increase] because their crops are increasingly getting contaminated with GMOs and the high cost of testing at

April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz 19

0.1% level of contamination, which, in the words of a leading organic farmer Wolfgang Wiebecke, was 'very
unfortunate.'

Adverse health impacts: The adverse impact on health and the environment has also been established. GM
foods cause sterility, infant mortality, organ defects, multiple organ failure, childhood diseases, fetal
abnormality, mild to severe allergies; about 65 diseases have been traced to foods containing GM ingredients.

In the only human study to date [Sussex University] seven terminally ill patients volunteered to eat GM food.
After just one meal toxins with specific traits were found to have contaminated human gut bacteria [friendly
bacteria that aid digestion] and were found in colon in stable and active form. Sheep grazing on Bt Cotton field in
Vidarbha died mysteriously. Autopsy report showed multiple organ failure.

“All these commercialized cultivated GMOs have been modified to contain pesticides, either through herbicide
tolerance or by producing insecticides, or both, and could therefore be considered as “pesticide plants.” Almost
all GMOs only encode these two traits despite claims of numerous other traits…… Genetic modifications can
induce global changes in the genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, or metabolomic profiles of the host…..We can
conclude, from the regulatory tests performed today, that it is unacceptable to submit 500 million Europeans and
several billions of consumers worldwide to the new pesticide GM-derived foods or feed, this being done without
more controls (if any) than the only 3-month-long toxicological tests and using only one mammalian species”
[Giles Seralini et.al]

In his classic 'Seeds of Destruction,' William Engdahl, cites the example of a German farmer Gottfried
Glockner's experience with GM corn. Glockner planted Bt176 event of Syngenta essentially as feed for his
cows. Being a scientist, he started with 10% GM feed and gradually increased the proportion, carefully noting
milk yield and any side effects. Nothing much happened in the first three years but when he increased the feed to
100% GM feed, his animals "were having gluey-white feaces and violent diarrhea" and "milk contained blood."
Eventually all his seventy cows died. Prof Angelika Hilbeck of Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found
from Glockner's Bt 176 corn samples Bt toxins were present "in active form and extremely stable." The cows
died of high dose of toxins. Nitish ji, slow and painful death of humans and animals will become the biggest
problem in years to come.

Not if, but when human food is 100% contaminated should be a sobering thought.

Potential adverse impact on Home Remedies, Ayurvedic, and Unani: India is known worldwide for its
wisdom in the uses of medicinal herbs. That wisdom gave rise to the 'Little Tradition' of folk and home remedies
and eventually codified into the 'Great Traditions' of Ayurvedic and Unani systems. These systems rely heavily
on natural plant material. Since horizontal contamination is an established fact, only time will tell how our mega-
biodiversity of medicinal plants have been contaminated and if they would work as intended by our 'Little' and
'Great' Traditions of Healthcare.

Monopolistic control over global seeds' supply: The Ag-biotech industry is dominated by just five TNCs:
Monsanto, Bayer, Dow Chemicals, DuPont and Syngenta. Monsanto has major market share globally of all
transgenic seeds, particularly of food and fodder crops. These TNCs have been systematically taking over small
seeds companies and forcing others to discontinue production of natural hybrids. Two years ago American rice
farmers were forced to plant GM seeds because natural hybrids were not available in the market. Monsanto
Corporation has boldly stated that all of the seeds on the planet will be transgenic in 10 - 15 years' time.

The Regulatory Environment and Geo-politics of Seeds: The sole purpose of producing GE or GM seeds is to
patent seeds and eventually all life forms. It is now well known that GM seeds neither increase yield nor enhance
nutrition and yet these seeds are being pushed onto hapless nations and poor farmers.

20 Kisan Ki Awaaz April - 2011

The regulatory framework has been largely undermined by obfuscating GM foods as 'Generally Recognized as
Safe' [GRAS] and yet, the regulators treat the GM seeds as substantially different from natural to be allowed
patenting. This contradiction has not been challenged by any Government; civil society initiatives to treat GM
seeds and foods have borne some results but Courts in the US have largely supported the TNCs allowing
unregulated planting of GM seeds and introduction of GM foods without proper bio-safety assessment. In other
words: world's largest biological experiment on humans has been going on since 1993 unchecked.

In order to ensure that these MNCs had absolute control over global seeds supply, Intellectual Property Rights
[IPR] regime was forced upon the world while simultaneously laws curbing monopolies and restrictive trade
practices were diluted. In order to enforce the IPR regime, World Trade Organization [WTO] was knocked into
shape: how they take decisions remains shrouded in mystery. The patent for 'Terminator' seeds, seeds that only
germinate after certain proprietary chemicals are added, is jointly held by US Government and Monsanto
Corporation. Henry Kissinger commissioned National Security Study Memo #200 [NSSM200] in 1974 and in
this report he targets 13 developing countries including India and advocates the use of food as weapon. When the
technology for gene splicing and patenting of life forms was allowed in 1978 by the US Supreme Court, the
Kissinger Plan could be transformed into realistic operational possibility by just one US
corporation….Monsanto. Monsanto is the Trojan horse.

If I could summarize the nature of Agriculture Biotechnology [or Ag-biotech] in one sentence, it would be: GM
seeds are weapons of mass destruction [WMD]. They are designed as such and that in essence is the geo-
politics of seeds. Today, the situation is that five TNCs, the producers of transgenic seeds, quite simply can
arrange hunger and mass culling at any point on the planet (even in Russia and China), by simply refusing
to sell seeds to the country. To add to farmers' woe, we are not producing natural hybrids in substantial quantity
and farmers don't save seeds, largely a gift of the Green Revolution.

The Regulators and Conflict of Interest: The GEAC has been packed with pro-industry persons, few have any
serious credentials. Most have direct stake in promoting GM seeds; some are even related to owners of GM
seeds' firms. Despite many exposes, they continue to hold positions in this regulatory body. [Annex 1]

I have written many articles published worldwide, appeared on national TV-channels in India, Pakistan and
Nepal, and spoken all over India; people are scared, media is silent, governments complicit, and regulators
utterly compromised. And I have often said that if these TNCs can be stopped by any, it'd be either the people of
Bihar or Kerala or both. Now I hear that the Left Government of Kerala has allowed genetically engineered crops
to be planted there. That leaves Bihar's farmers alone to battle it out. If the farmers of Bihar lose out to this latest
onslaught on our food security and food sovereignty, rest assured that India will too. The only way to deal with
them is to detect contamination and have the perpetrators arrested and jailed without giving them a chance for
out of court settlement as happened in Percy Schmeiser vs. Monsanto, Canadian Supreme Court. Schmeiser, a
farmer, agreed to an out of court settlement.

All I expect from you is to save Bihar, perhaps set an example for the rest of India to follow, to stop the historical
mistake of allowing one company enslaving India; in the 18th Century it was East India Company, today it is
Monsanto. The style has not changed; the covenants have not changed. India was a prize then; India continues to
remain the prized last frontier to be conquered by destroying its food growing capability.

Kind regards

Arun Shrivastava MBIM, CMC

Former Professor of Strategic Management & Policy
Former Principal Officer, Economic Development Unit, Birmingham
4286, B 5 & 6, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi 110070

April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz 21

Farmer and scientist network hits IRRI and Sec. Alcala on GM Rice as
wrong medicine for ailing Filipinos during IRRIs 51st anniversary
April 4, 2011- Farmer and Scientist under the banner of
Resistance and Solidarity against Agrochem TNCs
(RESIST) led a simultaneous rally of more than 200
peasants, scientists, fisherfolks, students, ex-IRRI
workers and NGOs in front of the International Rice
Research Institute (IRRI) in Laguna and at the
Department of Agriculture (DA) in Quezon City, calling
for IRRIs immediate closure coinciding with its 51st
anniversary.
Dr Chito Medina, National Coordinator of MASIPAG
and Convenor of RESIST said that IRRI is now gearing
for another Green Revolution which focuses on the use
of Genetically Modified (GM) Rice as a strategy to
supposedly address climate change and malnutrition.
Currently, IRRI is undertaking confined field tests of the
so-called Vitamin A Rice, genetically modified rice that
produces beta carotene. This technology was said to be
designed to combat vitamin A deficiency (VAD) which
causes blindness among children in Asia. According to
news reports, the said GM rice will also be field tested at
Philrice in Munoz, Nueva Ecija. The National
Committee on Biosafety has already permitted the
confined field trials and they are now waiting for the
approval of the Bureau of Plant Industry for the multi-
location field trials. After two cropping seasons, it is
projected that the GM rice will be commercialized by
2013.
Medina however assailed the institutions promoting
Vitamin A Rice, and that GM rice is the wrong medicine
for the ailing farmers and the people as well. “We should
understand that Vitamin A deficiency is not a problem of
insufficient food sources but of food inaccessibility due
to poverty and its associated conditions. Filipino
families are too poor to have access to food that would
provide a balanced diet.
It is also important to point out that the problem on
'hidden hunger' is exacerbated by loss of other food
sources due to mono-cropping agricultural technology
through the Green Revolution brought about by IRRI”
Medina said. Wilfredo Marbella, RESIST Convenor and
Deputy Secretary General for Internal Affairs of the
Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) said, “We
urge Sec. Alcala to stop the field trial of GM rice. Sec.
Alcala is said to be an advocate of organic agriculture.
22 Kisan Ki Awaaz
We dare him to prove this by stopping the GM Rice field
trial as well as the BT Eggplant field testing now.”
Medina added that “GM rice such as Vitamin A Rice will
only induce more poverty. GM technology is expensive,
and could pose danger on peoples' health and the
environment. GM rice also prevents farmers from
sharing and exchanging seeds as the technology and
genes that make up the GM rice is being owned by
numerous corporations. What the farmers need is not
expensive technology but a sustainable one that helps the
environment recover and put the farmers interests, needs
and aspirations in its center.”
“We do not need GM food because we already have what
we need. As a farmer, we have the responsibility to
ensure safe food for the people and having a land to till
combine with a practice of a sustainable agriculture
system will ensure it, ” stated Nestor Villanueva,
spokesperson of the KASAMA-TK (KMP chapter in
Southern Tagalog).
“With the help of MASIPAG, SIBAT and other NGOs
under RESIST, we have been practicing and promoting
organic agriculture to ensure safe food for the people and
will enrich the fertility of the soil, increase farm
productivity, reduce pollution and destruction of the
environment, protect the health of the farmers and
consumers and save on imported farm inputs. This is the
voice of the people, whom they refer to be their 'boss' and
yet, they are not listening to us. ”
To dramatize how to combat GM rice and Vitamin A
deficiency, the protesters are going to eat foods that are
rich in Vitamin A and other nutrients such as pinakbet
and ginisang gulay in a 'boodle fight' in front of IRRI's
gate. While in Quezon City, the protesters will spray
pesticides in front of the DA office to convey their
message that GM rice is dangerous. The simultaneous
action in Laguna and Quezon City is organized by KMP,
KASAMAT-TK, MASIPAG, BISSIG and Pesticide
Action Network Asia Pacific (PAN AP). ##
For reference:
Dr. Chito Medina, MASIPAG +639175442196
Wilfredo Marbella, KMP +639176073065
April - 2011
 BioFach China 2011 celebrates 5th birthday
Growing awareness of organic quality in the Chinese market
March 2011- The international players in the
organic sector meet for the fifth time in the Chinese
metropolis of Shanghai from 26-28 May.
BioFach China, the International Organic Trade Fair
and Conference and daughter of the world-leading
BioFach exhibition in Nürnberg, has developed
splendidly since its premiere in May 2007. The
upward trend is also clearly shown by the Chinese
domestic organic market and the export figures. There
is an increasing demand for organic in China and
internationally.
During his visit to the world-leading exhibition
BioFach in Nürnberg in February 2011, Crane Fan,
Managing Director of NürnbergMesse China since the
beginning of 2011, declared that the international
share of exhibitors and visitors at this year's BioFach
China is expected to grow again: for example, there
will be an Italian pavilion for the first time. Eight firms
from Italy will present Italian organic products to the
visiting professionals under the umbrella of the
organic association Consorzio Il Biologico Società
Cooperativa. Australian, French and Swiss firms and a
number of German manufacturers have also already
booked their stands.
Growing awareness of organic in China
The fourth BioFach China in 2010 excelled with a
good 11,500 trade visitors and the organizer expects
even more visitors in 2011. Not without reason: Crane
Fan notices a distinctly increased awareness of organic
products in Chinese society. The topic is significantly
more present in the media than previously. The
organizer will also contribute to training and
publicizing the organic concept during BioFach China
2011, with seminars on a variety of subjects.
A new trend became apparent on their stands:
Whereas the companies had previously concentrated
more on raw material trade, they also presented a
number of semi-finished and finished products this
year. In this context, more people are interested in
organic baby food, natural textiles, body care,
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
cosmetics and detergents and cleaning agents. Health-
conscious consumers are looking for trustworthy
products. Natural cosmetics and organic food from
Europe enjoy a trust lead here.
China's megacities are the leaders in organic
consumption
According to surveys by the China Organic Food
Certification Centre (COFCC), the Chinese organic
sector developed extremely dynamically in the past
years. The number of organic companies more than
quadrupled between 2004 and 2009, and is still
increasing strongly. The number of organic products
grew from almost 600 to some 5,000 in this period. The
megacities are the leaders in organic consumption, but
customers in the heavily populated regions in the
south-east are also increasingly reaching for organic
products.
In demand: box schemes and Community
Supported Agriculture
Box schemes and online marketing are gaining more
and more significance in China. The Community
Supported Agriculture (CSA) model of farms
supported and co-financed by consumers, which is
widespread in the USA, is also gaining a foothold in
China. The conditions for a brilliant birthday edition
of BioFach China in the Shanghai Intex Exhibition
Centre are excellent.
Other BioFach global events in 2011:
BioFach America, Baltimore: 22- 24 Sept. 2011
BioFach América Latina and ExpoSustentat,
São Paulo: 5-7 Oct. 2011
BioFach Japan, Tokyo: 1-3 Nov. 2011
BioFach India, Bangalore:10-12 Nov. 2011
Www.oneco.biofach.de
23
 Opinion: Control over your food:
Why Monsanto's GM seeds are undemocratic
*Christopher D. Cook
Large biotech agribusinesses like Monsanto control much of the global seed market with
genetically modified (GM) crops. This centralization of GM seeds threatens food safety,
food security, biodiversity, and democratic ideals.
Question: Would you want a small handful of
government officials controlling America's entire
food supply, all its seeds and harvests?
I suspect most would scream, "No way!”
Yet, while America seems allergic to public servants
with no profit motive in mind controlling anything
these days, a knee-jerk faith in the "free market" has
led to overwhelming centralized control of nearly all
our food stuffs, from farm to fork.
The Obama administration's recent decision to
radically expand genetically modified (GM) food
approving unrestricted production of agribusiness
biotech company Monsanto's "Roundup Ready"
alfalfa and sugar beets marks a profound deepening
of this centralization of food production in the hands
of just a few corporations, with little but the profit
motive to guide them.
Even as United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) officials enable a tighter corporate grip on
the food chain, there is compelling evidence of GM
foods' ecological and human health risks, suggesting
we should at very least learn more before allowing
their spread.
Numerous peer-reviewed studies suggest these crops
the result of reformulating plant and animal genes,
with minimal oversight and no food labeling
disclosures increase allergens in the food supply.
And according to the World Health Organization,
"The movement of genes from GM plants into
conventional crops...may have an indirect effect on
food safety and food security.
This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize
24 Kisan Ki Awaaz
type which was only approved for feed use appeared
in maize products for human consumption in the
United States of America.”
Corporate-controlled seeds are undemocratic
But these corporate-controlled seeds pose an even
graver threat:
Both the technology and economy of GM crops are
intrinsically anti-democratic. What's wrong with
having a few corporations control virtually every
aspect of our sustenance? Far from abstract, the
genetic and proprietary control of our diets by a
handful of companies (Monsanto, DuPont, and
Syngenta combined own an astounding 47 percent of
the global seed market) directly robs consumers and
farmers of the most basic right to choose what they
will eat and grow.
The entire concept of creating and selling patented
GM seeds is based on proprietary corporate
control:
The seeds are non-replenishing and must be
purchased anew each season, eliminating the time-
honored farmer tradition of saving and re-using seeds.
Anyone doubting Monsanto's obsession with control
can just ask just ask the thousands of farmers who
have been sued and spied upon for alleged "seed
piracy" at least 2,391 farmers in 19 states through
2006, according to Monsanto website documents
obtained by the Washington, DC-based Center for
Food Safety (CFS).
A report by CFS, using company records, found that
"Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million
dollars and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating
and prosecuting farmers.”
April - 2011
Or ask Monsanto. Under the headline, "Why Does
Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?" on its
website, the firm states:
"When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they
sign an agreement that they will not save and replant
seeds produced from the seed they buy from us. More
than 275,000 farmers a year buy seed under these
agreements in the United States.”
Threats to food safety, biodiversity
The USDA, and even some leaders of the organics
business such as Whole Foods and Stonyfield Farms,
endorse the notion of "coexistence" between GM and
organic crops a comforting yet flawed claim.
Numerous organic farmers have reported the
unwanted arrival of GM seeds contaminating their
fields, rendering organic crops unmarketable.
Even more troubling, "Roundup Ready" and other
herbicide-resistant seeds by their nature promote the
use of toxic herbicides the use of which, contrary to
industry claims, has risen as GM crops have
proliferated, according to USDA data.
Even with buffer zones to segregate GM and organic
fields, "Some degree of cross-pollination will occur
regardless of what mechanism is going to be put in
place," agronomist Jeff Wolt, of Iowa State
University's Seed Science Center, told the Associated
Press.
The GM threats to biodiversity and democracy are
closely related.
When you pair proprietary technology that's designed
to retain company control of seeds (the very lifeblood
of our food supply) along with highly concentrated
market control, you get a hazardous blend of
ecological, economic, and political centralization.
According to research of industry statistics by the
non-profit ETC (Action Group on Erosion,
Technology and Concentration), "the top 3 seed
companies control 65% of the proprietary maize seed
market worldwide, and over half of the proprietary
soybean seed market…Monsanto's biotech seeds and
traits (including those licensed to other companies)
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
accounted for 87% of the total world area devoted to
genetically engineered seeds in 2007."
Of course, few of us think about market control when
we're hustling through supermarket aisles getting our
shopping done.
But when our elected leaders (from both parties)
approve the expansion of risky seeds that endanger
biodiversity as well as farmer and consumer choice,
there should be more than a little outcry.
Food Safety Act: five food recalls that rattled the
industry
Genetically centralized control over seeds and the
future of our food supply isn't inevitable. Over 80
towns across the state of Vermont, and numerous
counties across the country have approved moratoria
on GM crops.
Monsanto has encountered mass farmer and political
resistance in India and throughout much of Africa and
Europe.
The Obama administration's effective rubber stamp
on Monsanto's latest GM products is out of step with
international thinking about food democracy and
biodiversity, and an affront to that very American
notion of consumer and producer choice and voice in
the marketplace.
Http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinio
n/2011/0223/Control-over-your-food-Why-
Monsanto-s-GM-seeds-are-undemocratic
25
 Open letter on use of banned pesticides
No.DAL:Gen.:2011: 19th March, 2011

The Editor
IBN 7, Global Broadcast News
Express Trade Tower
NOIDA-Uttar Pradesh

Subject: News about use of banned pesticides Clorodane, Heptachlor and Ethyl Parathion & their residue

Dear Sir,

We would like to draw your kind attention to a News telecast last week (most probably on 10th March 2011) by your esteemed
Channel regarding use of banned pesticides and their residue found in food products. It seems that the Channel in order to
create a sensation carried out this News without verifying the facts. Accordingly, we would like to draw your kind attention
to the following facts:

1. In the world, only one international company was manufacturing Technical Heptachlor and Clorodane and when
these products were banned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India as well as in other countries, this company had
scrapped its plant over 20 years ago. The moot question therefore, is about their availability. If yours esteemed Channel could
make these two products available to us in India, we hereby volunteer to buy the entire quantity.

2. Ethyl Parathion This has been banned the world over, including India, over three decades ago. Even the raw material
to formulate it is not now available. Under such a scenario, the question of its residue in fruits and vegetables is not at all tenable.
Here too, we shall be pleased to purchase the total quantity, if your esteemed Channel could make the same available.

3. The Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India is the nodal agency for continuously monitoring pesticides residue
in fruits and vegetables. This agency analyzed 8228 samples of vegetables and 4156 of fruits collected during April 2008 to
March 2010 from different Mandis in the country, and as per their report, there was no indication of use of any pesticide banned
under the Insecticides Act 1968. This information was given by the Hon'ble Minister of State for Health & Family Welfare, Shri
Dinesh Trivedi in Parliament while answering to an Unstarred Question No.714 dated 1 March 2011. Since such news items
(often based on ill founded scientific facts) create a fear psychosis amongst the public at large about the prevailing use of
pesticides, through your esteemed Channel, we are throwing an open challenge to prove the veracity of banned pesticides
residue in fruits and vegetables in the scientifically drawn samples from anywhere in the country, in the presence of India's Apex
Body, the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. In case this gets
scientifically proved, we would offer 'A reward of Rs. Ten Crore' for this yeoman's service.

We had never imagined that a responsible News Channel , of your credibility , will carry such a News without fully verifying it
from the Government Apex Body and/or from the Pesticides Industry Association-Crop Care Federation of India , so as not to
create a panic amongst the public at large.

We do expect that as a responsible Channel, you would telecast a clarification as per above mentioned facts, in the same slot in
which the earlier news was telecast, and would confirm the same to us. We shall be pleased to provide any further clarification
along with authenticate supporting documents, if so desired.

Thanking you,

(R.G.AGARWAL)
Chairman
Dhanuka Agritech Limited
14th Floor, Building No.5-A
DLF Cyber Terrace, Cyber City
DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon-122001 (Haryana)

26 Kisan Ki Awaaz April - 2011

 Farmers and Seed Producers Launch
Preemptive Strike against Monsanto
NEW York: - March 30th, 2011 - Lawsuit Filed To
Protect Themselves from Unfair Patent Enforcement
on Genetically Modified Seed Action Would Prohibit
Biotechnology Giant from Suing Organic Farmers
and Seed Growers If Innocently Contaminated by
Roundup Ready Genes On behalf of 60 family
farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural
organizations, the Public Patent Foundation
(PUBPAT) filed suit today against Monsanto
Company challenging the chemical giant's patents on
genetically modified seed.
The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue
preemptively to protect themselves from being
accused of patent infringement should their crops ever
become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically
modified seed. Monsanto has sued farmers in the
United States and Canada, in the past, when there are
patented genetic material has inadvertently
contaminated their crops.
The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade
Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal
district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge
Naomi Buchwald. Plaintiffs in the suit represent a
broad array of family farmers, small businesses and
organizations from within the organic agriculture
community who are increasingly threatened by
genetically modified seed contamination despite
using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff
organizations have over 270,000 members, including
thousands of certified organic family farmers.
"This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue
organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's
transgenic seed or pollen should land on their
property," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive
Director. "It seems quite perverse that an organic
farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be
accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has
made such accusations before and is notorious for
having sued hundreds of farmers for patent
infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests
of our clients.”
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Once released into the environment, genetically
modified seed can contaminate and destroy organic
seed for the same crop. For example, soon after
Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for
canola, organic canola became virtually impossible to
grow as a result of contamination.
Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and
alfalfa also face the same fate, as Monsanto has
released genetically modified seed for each of those
crops as well. Monsanto is currently developing
genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus
putting the future of all food, and indeed all
agriculture, at stake. "Monsanto's threats and abuse of
family farmers stops here.
Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic seed and
organic crops ends now," stated Jim Gerritsen, a
family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is
President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and
Trade Association. "Americans have the right to
choice in the marketplace - to decide what kind of food
they will feed their families.”
"Family-scale farmers desperately need the judiciary
branch of our government to balance the power
Monsanto is able to wield in the marketplace and in
the courts," said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy
Analyst for The Cornucopia Institute, one of the
plaintiffs.
“Monsanto, and the biotechnology industry, have
made great investments in our executive and
legislative branches through campaign contributions
and powerful lobbyists in Washington.”
In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to
declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated
by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, they need
not fear also being accused of patent infringement.
One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto's
patents on genetically modified seed are invalid
because they don't meet the "usefulness" requirement
of patent law, according to PUBPAT's Ravicher, the
plaintiffs' lead attorney in the case.
27
"Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing
today proves that genetically modified seed has
negative economic and health effects, while the
promised benefits of genetically modified seed -
increased production and decreased herbicide use -
are false," added Ravicher who is also a Lecturer of
Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New
York.
Ravicher continued, "Some say transgenic seed can
coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that's not
possible, and it's actually in Monsanto's financial
interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have
a total monopoly over our food supply," said
Ravicher. "Monsanto is the same chemical company
that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT,
PCB's and other toxins, which they said were safe, but
we know are not. Now Monsanto says transgenic seed
is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not."
The plaintiffs in the suit represented by PUBPAT are:
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association;
O rg a n i c C r o p I m p r o v e m e n t A s s o c i a t i o n
International, Inc.; OCIA Research and Education
Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association,
Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers
and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic
Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.;
Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont;
Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm
Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association;
Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society;
Mendocino Organic Network; Northeast Organic
Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic
Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative;
Sustainable Living Systems; Global Organic
Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm
Defenders Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense
Fund; FEDCO Seeds Inc.; Adaptive Seeds, LLC; Sow
True Seed; Southern Exposure Seed Exchange;
Mumm's Sprouting Seeds; Baker Creek Heirloom
Seed Co., LLC; Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC;
Seedkeepers, LLC; Siskiyou Seeds; Countryside
Organics; Cuatro Puertas; Interlake Forage Seeds
Ltd.; Alba Ranch; Wild Plum Farm; Gratitude
Gardens; Richard Everett Farm, LLC; Philadelphia
Community Farm, Inc; Genesis Farm; Chispas Farms
LLC; Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc.; Midheaven
Farms; Koskan Farms; California Cloverleaf Farms;
North Outback Farm; Taylor Farms, Inc.; Jardin del
28 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Alma; Ron Gargasz Organic Farms; Abundant Acres;
T & D Willey Farms; Quinella Ranch; Nature's Way
Farm Ltd.; Levke and Peter Eggers Farm; Frey
Vineyards, Ltd.; Bryce Stephens; Chuck Noble;
LaRhea Pepper; Paul Romero; and, Donald Wright
Patterson, Jr. MORE:
Dr. Carol Goland, Ph.D., Executive Director of
plaintiff Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association
( O E F FA ) s a i d , " C o n s u m e r s i n d i c a t e ,
overwhelmingly, that they prefer foods made without
genetically modified organisms. Organic farms, by
regulation, may not use GMOs, while other farmers
forego using them for other reasons. Yet the truth is
that we are rapidly approaching the tipping point
when we will be unable to avoid GMOs in our fields
and on our plates. That is the inevitable consequence
of releasing genetically engineered materials into the
environment. To add injury to injury, Monsanto has a
history of suing farmers whose fields have been
contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs. On behalf of
farmers who must live under this cloud of uncertainty
and risk, we are compelled to ask the Court to put an
end to this unconscionable business practice."
Rose Marie Burroughs of plaintiff California
Cloverleaf Farms said, "The devastation caused by
GMO contamination is an ecological catastrophe to
our world equal to the fall out of nuclear radiation.
Nature, farming and health are all being affected by
GMO contamination. We must protect our world by
protecting our most precious, sacred resource of seed
sovereignty. People must have the right to the
resources of the earth for our sustenance. We must
have the freedom to farm that causes no harm to the
environment or to other people. We must protect the
environment, farmers' livelihood, public health and
people's right to non GMO food contamination.”
Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises
organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic
Seed Growers and Trade Association based in
Montrose, Colorado, said, "Today is Independence
Day for America. Today we are seeking protection
from the Court and putting Monsanto on notice.
Monsanto's threats and abuse of family farmers stops
here. Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic
seed and organic crops ends now. Americans have the
right to choice in the marketplace - to decide what kind
of food they will feed their families
April - 2011
- and we are taking this action on their behalf to
protect that right to choose. Organic farmers have the
right to raise our organic crops for our families and our
customers on our farms without the threat of invasion
by Monsanto's genetic contamination and without
harassment by a reckless polluter. Beginning today,
America asserts her right to justice and pure food.”
Ed Maltby, Executive Director of plaintiff Northeast
Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA) said,
"It's outrageous that we find ourselves in a situation
where the financial burden of GE contamination will
fall on family farmers who have not asked for or
contributed to the growth of GE crops. Family
farmers will face contamination of their crops by GE
seed which will threaten their ability to sell crops as
organically certified or into the rapidly growing 'Buy
Local' market where consumers have
overwhelmingly declared they do not want any GE
crops, and then family farmers may be faced by a
lawsuit by Monsanto for patent infringement. We take
this action to protect family farms who once again
have to bear the consequences of irresponsible actions
by Monsanto.”
David L. Rogers, Policy Advisor for plaintiff NOFA
Vermont said, "Vermont's farmers have worked hard
to meet consumers' growing demand for certified
organic and non-GE food. It is of great concern to
them that Monsanto's continuing and irresponsible
marketing of GE crops that contaminate non-GE
plantings will increasingly place their local and
regional markets at risk and threaten their
livelihoods.”
Dewane Morgan of plaintiff Midheaven Farms in
Park Rapids, Minnesota, said, "For organic
certification, farmers are required to have a buffer
zone around their perimeter fields. Crops harvested
from this buffer zone are not eligible for certification
due to potential drift from herbicide and fungicide
drift. Buffer zones are useless against pollen drift.
Organic, biodynamic, and conventional farmers who
grow identity-preserved soybeans, wheat and open-
pollinated corn often save seed for replanting the next
year. It is illogical that these farmers are liable for
cross-pollination contamination.”
Jill Davies, Director of plaintiff Sustainable Living
Systems in Victor, Montana, said, "The building
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
blocks of life are sacred and should be in the public
domain. If scientists want to study and manipulate
them for some supposed common good, fine. Then we
must remove the profit motive. The private profit
motive corrupts pure science and increasingly
precludes democratic participation.”
David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of
plaintiff Food Democracy Now! said, "None of
Monsanto's original promises regarding genetically
modified seeds have come true after 15 years of wide
adoption by commodity farmers. Rather than
increased yields or less chemical usage, farmers are
facing more crop diseases, an onslaught of herbicide-
resistant superweeds, and increased costs from
additional herbicide application. Even more appalling
is the fact that Monsanto's patented genes can blow
onto another farmer's fields and that farmer not only
loses significant revenue in the market but is
frequently exposed to legal action against them by
Monsanto's team of belligerent lawyers. Crop
biotechnology has been a miserable failure
economically and biologically and now threatens to
undermine the basic freedoms that farmers and
consumers have enjoyed in our constitutional
democracy.”
Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for
plaintiff The Cornucopia Institute said, "We need the
court system to offset this power and protect
individual farmers from corporate tyranny. Farmers
have saved seeds since the beginning of agriculture by
our species. It is outrageous that one corporate entity,
through the trespass of what they refer to as their
'technology,' can intimidate and run roughshod over
family farmers in this country. It should be the
responsibility of Monsanto, and farmers licensing
their technology, to ensure that genetically engineered
DNA does not trespass onto neighboring farmland. It
is outrageous, that through no fault of their own,
farmers are being intimidated into not saving seed for
fear that they will be doggedly pursued through the
court system and potentially bankrupted.”
The Cornucopia Institute
Http://www.cornucopia.org/2011/03/farmers-
and-seed-producers-lunch-preemptive-strike-
against-monsanto/
29
 Lawsuit seeks to invalidate Monsanto's GMO patents
* Rady Ananda

A landmark lawsuit filed on March 29 in US

federal court seeks to invalidate Monsanto's
patents on genetically modified seeds and to
prohibit the company from suing those whose crops
become genetically contaminated.
invention must not be 'injurious to the well being,
good policy, or sound morals of society,'” notes the
complaint in its opening paragraphs, citing Lowell v.
Lewis.

“A new invention to poison people … is not a patentable invention.” Lowell v. Lewis, 1817
The Public Patent Foundation filed suit on behalf of
270,000 people from sixty organic and sustainable
businesses and trade associations, including
thousands of certified-organic farmers. In Organic
Seed Growers and Trade Association, et al. v.
Monsanto, et al. (U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, Case No. 11 CIV 2163),
PUBPAT details the invalidity of any patent that
poisons people and the environment, and that is not
useful to society, two hallmarks of US patent law.
The suit points to studies citing harm caused by
Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, including human
placental damage, lymphoma, myeloma, animal
miscarriages, and other impacts on human health.
Plaintiffs condemn Monsanto for prohibiting
independent research on its transgenic seeds and for
its successful lobby efforts to ban GM food labeling.
Many raise the specter of allergic reaction to GM
foods, proof of which is hidden by lack of labeling.

"As Justice Story wrote in 1817, to be patentable, an The suit also confronts the propaganda that transgenic

30 Kisan Ki Awaaz April - 2011

seeds improve yield and reduce pesticide use, citing
reports on failure to yield and increased pesticide use.
The complaint mentions a 2010 lawsuit by West
Virginia after several studies contradicted yield
results claimed in Monsanto's ads. And, it notes the
growth in glyphosate-resistant superweeds.
“Thus, since the harm of transgenic seed is known,
and the promises of transgenic seed's benefits are
false, transgenic seed is not useful for society.”
This means, should the court agree, that all transgenic
seeds fail the test of patent law. The suit has the
potential to reverse patent approval on all biotech
seeds, impacting BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Dow, and
Syngenta, and others.
Genetic contamination of natural plants occurs where
GM seeds are grown, no matter who developed them.
Ingesting food which has had its DNA mucked with is
dangerous, regardless of who does the mucking.
What makes Monsanto different is its US seed
monopoly. Well documented by market authorities,
Plaintiffs point out that, “Over 85-90% of all
soybeans, corn, cotton, sugar beets and canola grown
in the U.S. contains Monsanto's patented genes.”
Through its monopoly, Monsanto has spiked the cost
of seeds. In the past decade, corn seed prices increased
135% and soybean prices 108%, the suit asserts.
As recently as 1997, soybean farmers spent only 4-8%
of their income on seeds, “while in 2009, farmers who
planted transgenic soybeans spent 16.4 percent of
their income on seeds.”
Monsanto has also used its dominant position to limit
competition from other herbicide producers, as well,
the suit alleges.
Listing 23 US patents by Monsanto, Plaintiffs also
accuse the firm of “double patenting” thus
strengthening its monopoly over the entire field of
transgenic seeds:
“Although the United States patent system allows
improvements on existing inventions, it does not
permit a party to extend its monopoly over a field of
April - 2011 Kisan Ki Awaaz
invention by receiving a patent that expires later than
and is not patentably distinct from a patent it already
owns….
“Monsanto began applying for patents on glyphosate
tolerance in the mid 1980s. Its first patents on the trait
were granted in 1990 and are now expired.
After pursuing its earliest patents on glyphosate
resistance, Monsanto continued to seek and receive
patents on Roundup Ready technology for over two
decades….
“In acquiring the transgenic seed patents, Monsanto
unjustly extended its period of patent exclusivity by
duplicating its ownership of a field of invention
already covered by other Monsanto patents.”
The suit then concludes, “Monsanto's transgenic seed
patents are thus invalid for violating the prohibition
against double patenting.”
Genetic Contamination
Here's the mother of all arguments, which makes the
most sense to the lay public. How dare Monsanto sue
farmers damaged by genetic contamination of their
crops? That's like a pugilist suing for damage to his
hand after he punches an unwilling victim.
“Plaintiffs cannot be held to have infringed any
Monsanto transgenic seed patent if Plaintiffs become
contaminated by Monsanto's transgenic seed through
no intentional act of their own.”
Monsanto admits that its product contaminates natural
crops. That must be why it recently altered its
Technology Stewardship Agreement to transfer
liability for its products to the farmers who buy them.
The suit logically asserts that genetic contamination
amounts to trespass on the property of those who do
not want GE seeds, causing them substantial
economic harm.
We saw that when Bayer's transgenic seeds
contaminated a third of the US rice supply, causing the
European Union to close its market to US rice. Bayer
has faced 6,000 lawsuits due to that contamination and
market closure.
31
On top of lawsuits already lost or settled, last month,
Bayer lost a $137 million lawsuit by Riceland Foods.
The new suit notes that, “The worldwide total
economic loss due to the [2006 GM rice]
contamination event was estimated at $741 million to
$1.285 billion.”
Impact on the Biotech Food Industry
The suit argues that because “contamination is
reasonably foreseeable,” Monsanto thus loses its
patent rights whenever it sells its GM seeds.
This wouldn't stop it from selling the seed, but it
would allow farmers to save seeds from transgenic
crops. No company can stay in business without
repeat customers, especially ones that spend millions
on research and development.
And, because transgenic contamination is not limited
to Monsanto's seeds, all biotech seed companies
would likewise face dissolution of their intellectual
property rights.
Other harm from biotechnology does not stop with
Monsanto's seeds or chemicals, either.
To protect the world from the biotech food industry,
which extends to animals, patenting life itself should
be banned.
This lawsuit might take us closer to a return of that
legal standard, prior to the 2001 High Court decision
in J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International.
In that case, Oyez explains:
“Farm Advantage filed a patent invalidity
counterclaim, arguing that sexually reproducing
plants, such as Pioneer's corn plants, are not
patentable subject matter within section 101.
Farm Advantage maintained that the Plant Patent Act
of 1930 (PPA) and the Plant Variety Protection Act
(PVPA) set forth the exclusive statutory means for
protecting plant life.”
The court disagreed, and thus allowed patents on
sexually reproducing life forms, which extends to
animals. Of note, the decision was written by
32 Kisan Ki Awaaz
ethically-challenged Clarence Thomas, a former
Monsanto attorney.
Thomas also refused to recuse himself from a 2010
case involving Monsanto. (Geertson Seed v Monsanto
involved contamination of natural alfalfa.)
Among the plaintiffs in the PUBPAT suit is Navdanya
International, headed by Dr. Vandana Shiva who has
long fought biopiracy.
Genetic patents “have unleashed an epidemic of the
piracy of nature's creativity and millennia of
indigenous innovation,” Shiva wrote at Navdanya.
The new lawsuit couldn't come a moment too soon,
given the USDA's recent decision to allow rice
modified with human genes by Ventria Bioscience.
Such approval begs the question: At what point is the
line into cannibalism crossed? Biotech and
pharmaceutical companies have produced several
hundred “pharma crops” food that contains vaccines
against a variety of diseases.
The FDA and USDA would have us ignore that this
scheme fails to consider appropriate dosage specific
to a person's age, weight and medical condition, the
very foundation of pharmaceutical science.
The biotech industry is out of control, and poses a
significant danger to humans and the environment.
PUBPAT's lawsuit marks a significant step toward
restoring a safe, sane and consensual food supply.
Http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context
=va&aid=24103
April - 2011
 Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary addressing
Bharatiya Krishak Samaj Sammelan in U.P.