Enforce Strict Liability Regime

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary

To Address Damages Caused by GMOs
It is high time that India live up to the principles of the Cartagena Protocol which it has
already ratified. The health and environmental hazards of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) as revealed by leading independent scientists are matters of grave
concern. The world leaders have admitted the situation and have adopted a global
treaty called the Cartagena Protocol to address the problem. This treaty has come into
force since September 11, 2003.

The Article 27 of the Cartagena Protocol calls for setting up of a global liability and
redressal mechanism for damages caused on account of transboundary movement of
GMOs otherwise called living modified organisms (LMOs)in the treaty. The Protocol also
calls upon countries for adopting precautionary principles for addressing the likely threats
of GMOs.

Setting up of a global liability regime and redressal mechanism for damages caused on
account of transboundary movement of GMOs is currently under discussion. India as a party
to the Protocol has called for a stringent global liability regime.

India, which is assuming leadership in several global fora on many critical issues, needs to set
examples at home. It should not only adopt precautionary principles to meet the threats of GMOs
but also adopt a stringent liability regime to address the damages caused on account of GMOs.

So far India has approved only one GM crop Bt Cotton for commercial cultivation. Cultivation of
Bt cotton has invited a host of problems. The assurances given by Monsanto and Mahyco have
failed and farmers are facing heavy losses on account of cultivation of Bt Cotton. The incidences of
suicides among farmers have increased since the introduction of Bt cotton. Bt cotton has attracted
new pests like mealy bugs. As bollworms and insects became resistant to the single transgene Bt
cotton, Monsanto and Mahyco introduced stacked genes Bt cotton and even this new product has
failed to give the desired results.

Sheep and goats grazing over Bt cotton fields faced death. This proves the health hazards and
poisonous effects of Bt genes. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) instead of
expressing concerns over these incidents are pushing for approval several GM food crops in the
pipeline at the instance of seed multinationals like Monsanto. It has given approval to Bt brinjal
without conducting adequate biosafety tests.

The government needs to wake up and enforce precautionary principles to meet the threats of
GMOs and put in place a stringent liability regime to book the culprits like Monsanto and
other GM seed companies to pay for the damages caused to the farmers and the nation. We
should learn from the Bhopal Gas tragedy how severe the consequences can be if we are not
vigilant and do not adopt any precaution. Bt cotton has already caused damages. Let us
wake up and prevent the damages likely to be caused by other GM crops
KRISHAN BIR CHAUDHARY
 Vol. 1 No. 4 April, 2010

KISAN KI AWAAZ
National Magazine of Farmers’ Voice
Editor :

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary,

President,
CONTENTS
Bharatiya Krishak Samaj,
F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Water Security of India 2
Delhi-110091 — * Lt Gen (Retd) M.M.Lakhera, Governor of Mizoram

Advisory Board : Ex Monsanto Lawyer : Clarence Thomas to Hear Major 4

— * D. Snodgrass
Ashok B. Sharma
S. P. Gulati, Sect. G.O.I., Retd. Set up National Biosafety Authority not - 6
Lingraj B. Patil — * Ashok B Sharma
Dr. Mangesh Deshmukh
Dr. R.B. Thakare Farm groups call for halt to patenting of seed 8
D. Guruswamy, Adv. — * Carey Gillam
Rajesh Sharma “Bittoo”
EARTH RIGHTS 9
Pratap Singh, DIG Retd.
— * Dr. Vandana Shiva
Hatam Singh Nagar, Adv.
K. Sareen
SOUTH INDIA A HOTTEST DESTINATION FOR 11
— *M B Naqvi
Desiged by : Rahul Sharma
Should India provide scaffold to them? 13
Printed & Published by : — *R Vaidyanathan
Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary on behalf of Hkwfe vf/kxzg.k dkuwu esa la'kks/ku fd;k tk; % 15
Bharatiya Krishak Samaj.
— *Mk0 d`".k ohj pkS/kjh
Printed at Everest Press, E-49/8, Okhla
Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-20. [kslkjh nky&lcls ikSf”Vd] lqjf{kr 19
---- *MkW-'kkfUryky
dksBkjh
Published at :
Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively 21
F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091 — *Adriana Stuijt
Mob.:9810331366, Telefax:011-22751281,
kbc@kisankiawaaz.org TRIPS Council addresses patents on life forms 22
E-mail:bharatiyakrishaksamaj@gmail.com — *Kanaga Raja
Website:- www.kisankiawaaz.org
Monsanto 7-State Probe Threatens Profit From 27
---- * Alison Fitzgerald
The views expressed by the
authors are their own. The Monsanto and Seed Giants 30
editor does not accept Agent Orange Victims Aren't Enough 32
responsibility for returning
unsolicited publication material. New Subscription
Disputes arising if any will be Annual subscription charge of Rs 300/- for our monthly journal
under Jurisdiction of Delhi 'KISAN KI AWAAZ' may please be sent by cheque/Draft, drawn in
Court favour of BHARATIYA KRISHAK SAMAJ,
F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091.

Complimentary Copy
Single copy Rs. 25/-, Annual Rs. 300/-
Suggestions for improvement are invited

April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz 1

 Water Security of India
* Lt Gen (Retd) M.M.Lakhera, Governor of Mizoram
Water is the
most precious
natural gift to all
living beings.
The water
resources of a
country play a
significant role
in its socio-
economic
development,
particularly in a
country like ours
w h i c h i s
predominantly
dependent on an agrarian economy.
As the second most populous country in the world
India has to cater for a huge demand for 552 billion
cubic metre (BCM) of fresh water needed by its
populace of over one billion people.
This demand is growing at an exponential rate and is
expected to reach the mark of 1050 BMC by 2025,
which will require the exploitation of all the available
water resources in the country (World Bank 1999).
As it is, the per capita availability of fresh water is
already declining at an alarming rate, for while on an
average over 5,000 cubic meters (CM) fresh water per
person per year (PP/PA) was available in 1947, it
decreased to less than 2000 CM/PP/PA in 1997, and
by 2025 it is expected to further reduce to well below
1500 CM/PP/PA.
Already, six of India's twenty major river basins have
fallen below the water scarcity threshold of 1000
CM/PA.
We should understand that we are facing a water crisis
today. But, fortunately, the crisis is not about having
too little water to satisfy our needs, rather it is a crisis
of managing our water resources.
Our water management is so bad that billions of
people- and the environment- are suffering from its
consequences (World Water Vision, p.xix).
2 Kisan Ki Awaaz
As our revered President said during his
Independence Day Speech of 2005, we must make
concerted effort to improve our management of
natural resource such as water. Fortunately, it is not a
very difficult task for India as it has the necessary
technology and expertise to achieve the required level
of water security.
The surface water sources in the country have been
estimated as 1869 BCM, but due to technical
difficulties, only 690 BCM, that is 37% of the total
surface water can be harnessed through major and
medium storage reservoirs.
There is a vast scope for increasing the harnessing of
our surface water sources and utilizing it for our
growing needs. What we need to do is create the
necessary desire and develop the required technology
which is not a very difficult task for our scientists and
engineers.
The ground water in india accounts for more then
85% of our rural Drinking Water Supply
programmes. It is now facing a threat from its
increased usage for agricultural activities. The over-
exploitation of this limited resource is not only
limiting the availability of the safe drinking water
supply in rural areas but also gradually eroding the
very source.
As it is, drinking water availability has reached a
critical stage in Andaman & Nicobar islands,
although these islands are in tropical region
experiencing good rainfall. The scarcity of potable
groundwater has been created in these islands owing
to geo-morphological reasons.
A scientific approach is needed for judicial
exploitation of the dwindling fresh water resources in
these tiny islands. One of such methods is the
optimum harvesting of the rainfall by storing it in
aquifers and then retrieving it for use by safe scientific
methods.
Pollution of surface and ground water is another
serious problem. Nearly 70% of surface and ground
water reserves are being contaminated by biological,
toxic, organic and inorganic pollutants (Min of Water
April - 2010
Report 2000). Rapid increase in agro-chemical usage
during the past five decades has contributed
significantly to the pollution of bothnsurface and
groundwater resoures.
Industrial growth and urbanization are other major
factors causing large scale pollution. A waste effluent
from industrial units often contains highly toxic
organic and inorganic substances. Over 50% of such
organic load originates from cities and adjoining
industries while thermal power units, tanneries and
mines in remote areas are the sources of large
emissions of heavy metal contaminants.
Poor drainage and bad management of irrigation
water causes water logging and consequent waste of
this precious resource in dense agricultural areas
across the country.
Salinity and alkalinity are other two considerable
problems in areas where Soil water is the main source
of irrigation. Desalination and dealkalination are
difficult and expensive processes. According to
estimates the total loss of agricultural land in India on
account of these factors was calculated at 5.76 million
hectares till 1991.
‘Biotechnology Bill favours Bt Brinjal’
Express News Service
Mangalore, March 22
“To release BT Brinjal for commercial cultivation, the
Union Ministry for Science and Technology is gearing up
to table the National Biotechnology Authority Bill in
Parliament, “ claimed Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary,
president of Bharatiya krishak Samaj, here on Monday.
“The science and Technology ministry and its Department
of Biotechnology are aggressive promoters of Genetically
modified (GM) crops.They are highly insensitive to its
consequences on health and the environment,” he added.
“The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC)
has not done its homework before gving its nod for the
clearace of Bt Brinjal.
Several lacunae were pointed out by eminent molecular
biologist Dr. Pushpa M Bhargava at the Genetic
Engineering Approval Committee meeting. But his
suggestions were overshadowed by people in GEAC who
have vested interests,” he alleged.
He stated that the lobbyists for GM crops have a found a
new friend in Union Science and Technology Minister
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
The National Water Policy, which was adopted in
1987, is the principal document stating the
government's position on water development issues.
It emphasizes the need for inter-basin transfer of
water to balance the water supply in surplus and
deficit areas within the country. It states:
“ Water should be made available to water short areas
by transfer from other areas including transfers from
one river basin to another based on National
Perspective after taking into account requirements of
the areas/basins.'’
However, Government policies and regulations on
water management have so far not been effective in
curbing the problems affecting the quality and
quantity of water supply. Form all indications, the
situation is getting grimmer. All possible efforts have,
therefore, to be taken urgently to improve the
availability of safe and utilizable water resources.
An effective step in the direction of achieving Water
Security is to involve the community by creating
“Enabling Environment” for emphasizing
conservation of the precious water resources and
their efficient utilization through self regulation.
Source- Towards Resurgent India
Prithviraj Chavan, who is ready to hold talks to pass the bill.
Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar favours the
release of Bt Brinjal. This Bill is being passed to silence the
uproar against its release,” he added.
The proposed draconian law will impose penalties against
criticism on modern biotechnology by any citizen, be it a
writer, journalist, scientist, research institution or
university.
The penalties for 'misleading public about organism and
product' are 6 to 12 months of imprisonment slapped with a
fine up to Rs 2 lakh.
“This law if passed, defies our belief in democracy. During
the colonial regime in India, we never had a law that dictates
people to consume hazardous food,” he alleged.
He alleged that special economic zones were projects for
robbing people. The government has lost Rs 1,79,000 crore
over a decade due to SEZ projects, he added.
Somanatha Naik of Guruvayanakere seva Trust was present.
Source :- Indian Express, March 23, 2010
3
 Ex Monsanto Lawyer :
Clarence Thomas to Hear Major Monsanto Case
* D. Snodgrass
I n M o n s a n t o v.
Geertson Seed Farms,
No. 09-475, the U.S.
Supreme Court will
hear arguments in a
case which could have
an enormous effect on
the future of the
American food
industry.
This is Monsanto's
third appeal of the case,
and if they win a
favorable ruling from the high court, a deregulated
Monsanto may find itself in position to corner the
markets of numerous U.S. crops, and to litigate
conventional farmers into oblivion.
Here's where it gets a bit dicier. Two Supreme Court
justices have what appear to be direct conflicts of
interest.
Stephen Breyer
Charles Breyer, the judge who ruled in the original
decision of 2007 which is being appealed, is Stephen
Breyer's brother, who apparently views this as a
conflict of interest and has recused himself.
Clarence Thomas
From the years 1976 1979, Thomas worked as an
attorney for Monsanto. Thomas apparently does not
see this as a conflict of interest and has not recused
himself.
Fox, meet henhouse.
The lawsuit was filed by plantiffs which include the
Center for Food Safety, the National Family Farm
Coalition, Sierra Club, Dakota Resources Council and
other farm, environmental and consumer groups and
individual farmers. The original decision :
The federal district court in California issued its
opinion on the deregulation of “Roundup Ready”
alfalfa pursuant to the Plant Protection Act on February
4 Kisan Ki Awaaz
13, 2007. Upon receiving Monsanto's petition for
deregulation of the alfalfa seed, APHIS conducted an
Environmental Assessment and received over 500
comments in opposition to the deregulation.
The opposition's primary concern was the potential of
contamination. APHIS, however, made a Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) and approved the
deregulation petition, thereby allowing the seed to be
sold without USDA oversight. Geertson Seed Farms,
joined by a number of growers and associations, filed
claims under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) as well as the Endangered Species Act and
Plant Protection Act. In regards to NEPA, they argued
that the agency should have prepared an EIS for the
deregulation.
Addressing only the NEPA claims, the court agreed
that APHIS should have conducted an EIS because of
the significant environmental impact posed by
deregulation of the alfalfa seed. A realistic potential
for contamination existed, said the court, but the
agency had not fully inquired into the extent of this
potential.
The court also determined that APHIS did not
adequately examine the potential effects of Roundup
Ready alfalfa on organic farming and the development
of glyphosate-resistant weeds and that there were
“substantial questions” raised by the deregulation
petition that the agency should have addressed in an
EIS.
Concluding that the question of whether the
introduction of the genetically engineered alfalfa and
its potential to affect non-genetic alfalfa posed a
significant environmental impact necessitated further
study, the court found that APHIS's decision was
“arbitrary and capricious” and ordered the agency to
prepare an EIS.
The court later enjoined the planting of Roundup
Ready alfalfa from March 30, 2007, until completion
of the EIS and reconsideration of the deregulation
petition, except for those farmers who had already
purchased the seed.
In May of 2007, the court enjoined any future planting
April - 2010
of the alfalfa. An order by the court in June, 2007
required disclosure of all Roundup Ready planting
sites.
Monsanto filed appeals in 2008 and 2009. In both
instances, they were unsuccessful in having the
original decision reversed, so they appealed to the
Supreme Court, who agreed to hear the case.
Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the
United States, behind corn, soybeans, and wheat.
South Dakota alfalfa farmer Pat Trask, one of the
plaintiffs, said Monsanto's biotech alfalfa would ruin
his conventional alfalfa seed business because it was
certain his 9,000 acres would be contaminated by the
biotech genes.
Alfalfa is very easily cross-pollinated by bees and by
wind. The plant is also perennial, meaning GMO plants
could live on for years.
“The way this spreads so far and wide, it will eliminate
the conventional alfalfa industry,” said Trask.
“Monsanto will own the entire alfalfa industry.”
Monsanto has a policy of filing lawsuits or taking other
Samaj Voices concern over BT Regulatory Bill
TIMES NEWS NETWORK
Mangalore: Bharatiya Krishak Samaj has expressed
concern over a move by the Union ministry for science
and technology that is gearing to table the National
Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill in
Parliament.
This, according to Krishan Bir Chaudhary, President of
the Samaj, is a new game plan in the offing after the
denial of the release of Bt Brinjal for commercial
cultivation and the Bill is draconian by all
considerations.
Chaudhary told reporters here on Monday that the
ministry and its department of biotechnology are
aggressive promoters of genetically modified crops,
unmindful of its health and environmental hazards
revealed by a series of studies done by scientists across
the globe.
“The lobbyists for GM crops have now found a friend
in union science and technology minister Prithviraj
Chavan and have urged him to table the Bill,” he said.
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
legal actions against farmers who harvest crops that
show the presence of the company's patented gene
technology. It has sued farmers even when they have
tried to keep their own fields free from contamination
by biotech plants on neighbouring farms.
The case has implications beyond alfalfa crops. About
eight hundred reviewed genetically engineered food
applications were submitted to the USDA, yet no
environmental impact statements were prepared.
Even as this diary is being written, a federal judge in
San Francisco is reviewing a similar case involving
genetically modified sugar beets. The decision is
expected this week and could halt planting and use of
the gm sugar beets, which account for half of America's
sugar supply.
Back to the Supreme Court case, oral argument is slated
to begin on April 27, 2010. With Breyer recused and
Thomas opting not to recuse, the bench appears to be
heavily tilted to Monsanto.
Source- http://coto2.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/ex-
monsanto-lawyer-clarence-thomas-to-hear-major-
monsanto-case/
Chaudhary said, that he has written a letter to UPA
chairperson Sonia Gandhi about the consequences of
introducing the proposed Bill as well as that of
allowing GM food in the country without proper trials.
Observing that the Bill would silence the voices of
public resentment, he said the union agriculture
minister Sharad Pawar too has come out openly in
favouring the release of Bt brinjal in the country.
Highlighting the obnoxious side of the Bill, Chaudhary
said it aims to impose penalties if there is any criticism
of modern BT by any citizen, be it a writer, journalist,
scientist, research institution or university.
The penalties for misleading public about organism
and products are six to 12 months of imprisonment and
fine up to Rs 2 lakh. The decision of the proposed
authority will be out of the purview of the law,
Chaudhary observed.
Source :- TIMES OF INDIA , March 23, 2010
5
Set up National Biosafety Authority not National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority
* Ashok B Sharma
The Indian science and technology minister,
Prithviraj Chavan has become proactive and intends
to push a Bill in the Parliament for enabling setting up
of a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority.
This Authority will have quasi-judicial powers and
act as a vehicle for speedy approval of genetically
modified (GM) crops.
Chavan's proactive stance stems from the denial to Bt
brinjal (eggplant) by the Indian environment and
forests minister, Jairam Ramesh in the face of the
widespread public protest against its approval by the
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC)
GEAC is not a quasi-judicial body. It is functioning
under the Union ministry for environment and forests.
The environment minister has discretionary powers to
withhold the approval of GEAC. GEAC, after all, is a
body of handpicked “scientists” many of whom have
conflicts of interests
Introduction of GM crops poses health and
environmental hazards which are widely recognized.
World leaders have, therefore, expressed concerns
and ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
which came into effect from September 11, 2003.
India has not only signed and ratified this global treaty
but also is an active participant
Chavan should read the writing on the wall and do
well to set up a Biosafety Authotity instead of a
National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority. He
should also know about the country's position on the
Cartagena Protocol.
Under the provisions of the Protocol India had called
for a defined international liability regime to redress
the damages resulting from transboundary
movements of living modified organisms (LMOs). It
had also called for setting up of a global fund on
mandatory basis for redressing the damages.
The Article 27 of the Cartagena Protocol calls for
setting up of a global liability and redressal
mechanism for damages caused on account of
transboundary movement of GMOs otherwise called
LMOs.
6 Kisan Ki Awaaz
India had submitted its views, in writing, on the
proposed global liability regime to the technical
group of experts.
Indian team led by Desh Deepak Verma, then a senior
official in the environment ministry, had pressed for a
liability regime at the second Meeting of Parties
(MOP-2) to the Cartagena Protocol held in Montreal
in mid-2005
The Union commerce ministry had set up a panel
headed by the then additional secretary, GK Pillai to
assess the impact of Cartagena Protocol on trade.
The panel assessed the global scenario of acceptance
or rejection of genetically modified (GM) crops and
food and how to deal with a situation of clandestine
imports of GM foods which are not yet approved in
the country.
So far Bt cotton is the only GM crop approved in the
country. The GEAC had so far been cautious in not
approving any GM food crop so far. Earlier the GEAC
under the chairmanship of AM Gokhale had denied
approval to three GM hybrid mustard seeds
developed by ProAgro in collaboration with Aventis
& PGS of Belgium for commercial cultivation.
The GEAC under Gokhale's chairmanship also
refused imports of hazards Star Link corn. But
Gokhale could not remain as GEAC chairman for
long as pro-GM lobbies wanted to see his exit.
The pro-GM lobbies should not cry foul at Jairam
Rameshes and AM Gokhales. They should be upright
in questioning themselves and their intentions.
Here are some of the extracts from the writings of the
ardent supporters of GM crops in India expressing
concerns over health and environmental hazards ----
Dr PK Ghosh, former advisor in the department of
biotechnology (DBT) and his colleagues in the same
department, Dr TV Ramanaiah and Dr KK Tripathi in
a joint paper, 'Capacity Building And Its Relevance To
Implementation of Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety'
said, “Scientific evaluation cannot guarantee cent per
cent safety, although this statement does not in any
April - 2010
way belittle the great assurance the scientific
experiments provide for.
The gray areas often constitute a percentage of
suspected risks and the present scientific
development does not allow to find precise answers to
such risks because of inadequate precision
assessment and management tools.”
According to the paper, “For example, the effects of
cross-pollination by transgenic pollen to its near
relatives cannot be accurately predicted.
The question of transfer of marker genes including
antibiotic resistant genes from living modified
organism (LMO) plants to micro-organisms and
further to higher life forms alongwith the effects of
such transfers cannot be quantitatively resolved.”
The expert trio further said, “Most developing
countries yet do not have adequate expertise in
assessing the environmental risks from GM plants
both on a short-term basis as well as on a long-term
basis.”
In particular reference to India, the expert trio said
that about 25 institutes in the country are engaged in
genetic engineering research but “in spite of such an
impressive infrastructure, most of these institutes are
unable to discover genes and transform plants into
transgenic cultivars of agronomic value.
Most of these institutes that have the capabilities are
working on imported polynucleotide constructs
including promoters, genes, terminator sequences,
plasmids etc.
The Indian institutes have not yet been able to develop
local materials of considerable economic value.” The
expert trio gave also similar opinion about private
sector companies engaged in transgenic technology in
the country.
Dr PK Ghosh, in another research paper, 'GMOs :
Indian Legal Framework And Scientific Progress'
have also raised some more doubts about the safety of
transgenic technology.
He said, “A genetically modified organism can be safe
but this can be unsafe too. This will depend upon the
transgenes, the host organism and the environment
where the GMO is being tested. In case of GM plants,
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
in laboratory experiment, viral disease resistant
transgenic plants have given rise to newer viruses by
recombination.
Transgenic rapeseed plants containing Bar genes
transferred the transgenic trait to near relatives of
Brassica spp. Insect resistant Bt plants coding for
specific Bt proteins developed Bt protein resistant
insects in laboratory experiments.”
Dr Ghosh further stated, “Transgenic soyabean
genetically modified to increase its sulfur containing
amino acids by incorporating Brazilian nut 2S gene
was allergenic to serum of the people who were
allergenic to Brazilian nut 2S protein.
Potatoes genetically modified with specific lectin
genes protected attack from insects but such potatoes
were not safe to rodents when they were fed with such
potatoes.
The transgenic pollens of corn coding for Bt proteins
killed the monarch butterfly larvae when they were
forcibly fed with such pollens.
It is expected that transgenic pollens coding for Bt
proteins would affect the silkworm larvae, as these are
insects that are susceptible to Bt proteins.”
Dr Ghosh added, “There are examples of micro-
organisms, especially genetically modified viruses
that turned virulent after modification. The longevity
of GM fish was found to be shortened, compared to
the non-transgenic controls.
Consequently, a case-by-case analysis of the safety of
each GMO needs to be conducted to assess
environmental safety as well as safety to humans and
animals.”
It is not only the NGOs, farmers' organizations, health
activists, independent scientists but also some ardent
supporters of GM crops who have expressed concerns
over health and environmental hazards.
Chavan should do well to take note of this situation
and press for setting up of a Biosafety Authority
instead of National Biotechnology Regulatory
Authority.
7
 Farm groups call for halt to patenting of seed
Monsanto target of farmer complaints
* Carey Gillam
ANKENY, Iowa, March 11 (Reuters) - A coalition
of family farmers, consumers and other critics of
corporate agriculture called on the U.S. government
to crack down on what they see as unfair
consolidation of the nation's food system into the
hands of a few multinationals.
Chanting "bust up big ag," a group of more than 250
packed a town hall meeting in the top corn-growing
state of Iowa to rally support ahead of a Justice
Department meeting aimed at scrutinizing
concentration in the seed business.
The Justice Department and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture are holding a meeting in Ankeny to
look at the "competitive dynamics in the seed
industry." U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack
and Christine Varney, the Justice Department's
assistant attorney general for antitrust, are slated to
attend.
The meeting in Ankeny is the first ever of its kind
and is slated as the first in a series of five such
gatherings planned by federal officials to gather
input on concentration in the poultry, dairy and
livestock industries.
While corporate giants like Wal-mart (WMT.N) and
Cargill are among the companies facing attack from
the farm and consumer groups, the events in Iowa
this week are largely targeted at global biotech seed
leader Monsanto Co. (MON.N).
The Justice Department and several state attorneys
general are probing allegations that Monsanto
controls the U.S. commercial seed market via
unfair, and in some cases illegal, practices.
"This monopolistic system is rigged against family
farmers," said George Naylor, and Iowa corn and
soybean farmer who said he struggles to find seed to
plant that is not controlled by Monsanto.
8 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Monsanto critics say the company, which develops,
licenses and markets genetically altered corn,
soybeans and other crops, manipulates the seed
market by buying up independent seed companies,
patenting seed products and then spiking prices.
Monsanto's Roundup Ready seed traits, which are
genetically engineered to resist Monsanto's
Roundup herbicide, are embedded in the majority
of all soybeans and corn grown in the United States,
a penetration level that helped Monsanto post net
income of $2.1 billion for 2009.
The farm groups said they hope the attention by the
Justice Department will spur policy moves in
Washington, chiefly a change that would eliminate
the ability of companies like Monsanto to patent
seed germplasm, and re-establish farmer rights to
save seed from their harvested crops and replant it.
"The crops that we grow are the basis of our
civilization. If anything belongs in the public
domain it is the crops we grow for food," said
Dakota Resource Council member and farmer
Todd Leake. "They claim that they own them. That
is not right. We need to turn that back."
Monsanto has said its technology helps farmers and
that their broad licensing of their technology to
other companies helps ensure competition is "alive
and flourishing."
U.S. Senators Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and Pat
Roberts of Kansas, both Republicans, weighed in
on the issue, cautioning that a U.S. probe might lead
to market intervention that could "stifle
innovation."
"Any new activity proposed must avoid the
unintended consequence of chilling innovation,
investment or job creation in American
agriculture," the senators said in letters sent to
Vilsack and Holder.
April - 2010
 EARTH RIGHTS
* Dr. Vandana Shiva
We need a new paradigm for living on the Earth
because the old one is clearly not working. An
alternative is now a survival imperative for the
human species. And the alternative that is needed
is not only at the level of tools, it is at the level of
our world view.
How do we look at ourselves in this world? What
are humans for? And are we merely a money-
making and resource guzzling machine? Or do we
have a higher purpose, a higher end.
The world order built on the economic
fundamentalism of greed and limitless growth
and the technological fundamentalism that there
is a technological fix for every social and
environmental ill, is clearly collapsing.
The collapse of Wall Street in September 2008
and the continuing financial crisis, signal the end
of the paradigm that put fictitious finance above
real wealth created by nature and humans that put
profits above people and corporations above
citizens.
This paradigm can only be kept afloat with
limitless bailouts that direct public wealth to
private rescue instead of using it to rejuvenate
nature and economic livelihoods for people.
It can only be kept afloat with increasing violence
to the earth and people. It can only be kept alive as
an economic dictatorship.
This is clear in India's heartland, as the limitless
appetitive for steel and aluminum for the global
consumer economy, and the limitless appetitive
for profits for the steel and aluminum
corporations is clashing head on with the rights of
the tribals to their land and homes, their forests
and rivers, their cultures and ways of life.
The tribals are saying a loud and clear “no” to
their forced uprooting.
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
The only way to get to the minerals and coal that
feed the “limitless growth” model in the face of
democratic resistance is the use of militarized
violence against the tribals, operation “Green
Hunt” has been launched in the tribal areas of
India with precisely this purpose, even though the
proclaimed objective is to clear out the
“Maoists”.
Under operation Green Hunt, more than 40,000
armed paramilitary forces have been placed in the
tribal areas which are rich in minerals and where
tribal unrest is growing.
Operation Green Hunt shows clearly that the
current economic paradigm can only unfold
through increased militarization and the
undermining of democratic and human rights.
The technological fundamentalism that has
externalized costs, both ecological and social and
blinded us to ecological destruction has also
reached a dead end.
Climate chaos, the externality of technologies
based on the use of fossil fuels, is a wake up call
that we cannot continue on the fossil fuel path.
The high costs of industrial farming is running up
against limits, both in terms of the ecological
destruction of the natural capital of soil, water,
bio- diversity and air, as well as in terms of the
creation of malnutrition, with a billion people
denied food and another two billion denied health
because of obesity, diabetes and other food
related diseases.
I believe we do.
I believe that we are members of the Earth family
of Vasudhaiva Kutumbkam. And as members of
the Earth family, our first and highest duty is to
take care of Mother Earth Prithvi, Gaia,
Pachamana.
9
And the better we take care of her, the more food
and water, health and wealth, we have.
“Earth rights” is first and foremost the rights of
Mother Earth, and our corresponding duties and
responsibilities to defend those rights.
Earth rights is also the rights of humans as they
flow from the rights of Mother Earth the right to
food and water, the right to health and a safe
environment, the right to the commons the rivers,
the seeds, the biodiversity, the atmosphere.
I have given the name Earth Democracy to this
new paradigm of living as an Earth Community,
respecting rights of Mother Earth.
Earth Democracy enables us to envision and
create living democracies. Living democracy
enables democratic participation in all matters of
life and death the food we eat or do not have
access to; the water we drink or are denied due to
privatization or pollution; the air we breathe or
are poisoned by.
Living democracies are based on the intrinsic
worth of all species, all peoples, all cultures; a just
and equal sharing of this earth's vital resources;
and sharing the decisions about the use of the
earth's resources.
Earth Democracy protects the ecological
processes that maintain life and the fundamental
human rights that are the basis of the right to life,
including the right to water, the right to food, the
right to health, the right to education, and the right
to jobs and livelihoods.
Earth Democracy is based on the recognition of
and respect for the life of all species and all
people.
Ahinsa, or nonviolence, is the basis of many
faiths that have emerged on Indian soil.
Translated into economics, nonviolence implies
that our systems of production, trade, and
consumption do not use up the ecological space of
other species and other people.
10 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Violence is the result when our dominant
economic structures and economic organization
usurp and enclose the ecological space of other
species or other people.
According to an ancient Indian text, the Isho
Upanishad:
The universe is the creation of the Supreme
Power meant for the benefits of [all] creation.
Each individual life form must, therefore, learn to
enjoy its benefits by forming a part of the system
in close relation with other species.
Let not any one species encroach upon other
rights.
Whenever we engage in consumption or
production patterns which take more than we
need, we are engaging in violence.
Non-sustainable consumption and non-
sustainable production constitute a violent
economic order.
In the Isho Upanishad it is said:
A selfish man over utilizing the resources of
nature to satisfy his own ever increasing needs is
nothing but a thief, because using resources
beyond one's needs would result in the utilization
of resources over which others have a right.
Earth Rights are the basis of equity, justice and
sustainability. On Earth Day 2010, the President
of Bolivia, Juan Evo Morales Ayma is organizing
a conference on Rights of Mother Earth.
The idea is to start a process for adopting a
Universal Declaration of the Rights of Mother
Earth on the lines of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Without Earth Rights, there can
be no human rights.
Earth Rights are Human Rights.
April - 2010
SOUTH INDIA A HOTTEST DESTINATION FOR FARM MACHINERIES
Labour Shortage a blessing in disguise for suppliers of equipment.
*M B Naqvi
Agriculture is undoubtedly the largest livelihood
provider in rural India. As we enter a new post - WTO
Scenario and IT revolution, new inventions are taking
place day by day in every sphere. Agriculture is not
culture now, it is Agri Business! Agriculture
constitutes over 25% of India's GDP. In recent years
much emphasis has been given by The Ministry of
Agriculture on commercializing agricultural
production in the country. Adequate production and
distribution of food has become a high priority and
global concern. In the fast changing world and
increasing competition in a globalized economy,
there is a need of exploiting the available resources at
maximum level and use of best technologies
available world over, to cope with domestic demand
of food and also to target export market.
This will be particularly relevant in South India,
where farmers grow a number of crops, but have
technical constraints in enhancing production and
productivity because of inadequate exposure to high
technology & inputs coupled with advanced
production practices, logistics and marketing. In
addition, shortage of labour is a major concern for
progressive farmers of South India who are ready to
offer more wages to farm hands. Therefore, they are
forced to become machinery-dependant in their farm
operations. As a result, South India is emerging as one
of the hottest destinations as well as a strong market
with buying potential for machinery and farm
equipment. In order to introduce latest mechanization
& technological innovations, AgriTech India 2010 is
being planned to launch products & services during
20th to 22nd August 2010 at Gayatri Vihar, Palace
Grounds, Bangalore.
New technology and advances in agricultural
practices have become all the more important against
the backdrop of a series of programmes that have
been launched by the Government of India, to attain 4
per cent annual growth in agriculture and to double
the production of horticulture crops in the on-going
eleventh five-year plan.
The main features of National Food Security Mission
is to enhance the output and per hectare yield of rice,
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
wheat and pulses on a sustainable basis. The thrust of
this programme is on dissemination of improved
technologies and farm management practices. The
Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana seeks to promote
higher investment in States in such projects as
horticulture, animal husbandry, macro & minor
irrigation, watershed development and marketing
infrastructure. National Horticulture Mission aims at
achieving holistic growth of the horticulture sector,
embracing the gamut of activities of production, post
harvest management, processing and marketing.
Macro Management of Agriculture that provides
flexibility to States is to develop programmes on the
basis of regional priorities in crop development. The
schemes under this programme also aim at improving
soil health, supply of quality seeds & other inputs and
promotion of farm mechanization. Development of
Agriculture Marketing Infrastructure, Grading and
Standardization, are designed to strengthen post-
harvest and marketing infrastructure by attracting
private investment. Agricultural Technology
Management, a new institutional arrangement, has
been created to strengthen extension activities and
technology dissemination.
The main thrust of all these programmes is on taking
Indian agriculture to greater heights of excellence
through spread of latest technology and modern
practices on-farm and off-farm that would cover pre-
and post- harvest activities, marketing and exports.
Recently a survey was conducted by Indian Flowers
& Ornamental Plants Welfare Association (iflora), a
body working for betterment of floriculture, Nursery
and green sector, found that Bangalore (Karnataka)
and Kadiam (A.P.), the main hubs for ornamental
plants production are providing employment to
thousands of families. There is a serious problem of
shortage of daily labour. The migration of labours to
neighbouring towns is on day-to-day basis and now
labourers are not working on daily basis but they are
asking for payment in lumpsum for the work given to
them. This is not economically viable to nursery
owners. Some times the work force is not available
when needed. Slowly nurseries are purchasing semi
automatic machines for pot plants and for filling &
11
packaging for supplies to Europe and other markets.
“We are not in a position to purchase fully automatic
machines, so we have purchased semi automatic
machines to continue with our operations and deliver
plants to our clients in domestic and gulf markets”
said a prominent nurseryman.
“The automation is the only solution for long term
sustainable supply of quality plants and trees from
A.P., Karnataka, Kerala and Tamilnadu where the
demand for farming machineries like small tractors,
green houses, fertigation and irrigation equipments is
rising every year due to non availability of manpower
even at Rs.300/- per day” said Mr S Jafar Naqvi,
President iFlora. The findings show that the
purchasing power of nurserymen to acquire different
farm equipment and inputs is far ahead in South India
in comparison with northern or eastern India.
Mr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary, President of Bhartiya
Krishak Samaj, a national body of farmers having
network in all states, is also playing a watchdog role
and working for the cause. The migration of north
Indian labourers towards South India is not possible
because of language problem as they speak only Hindi
and prefer to go to Western parts of India like
Maharashtra, Gujarat etc. The need for all kinds of
NBRA Bill will silence voices of public resentment’
Mangalore, Mar 22, DHNS- Department of Science and
Technology is promoting genetically modified (GM) crops
“The Union Ministry of Science and Technology is
gearing up to table the National Biotechnology Regulatory
Authority (NBRA) Bill in the Parliament. The Ministry,
which is promoting genetically modified (GM) crops, is
unmindful of its health and environmental hazards revealed
by a series of studies done by scientists across the world,” said
Bharatiya Krishik Samaj President Dr Krishna Bir
Chaudhary.
Addressing media persons here on Monday, Chaudary said
that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC)
had not done proper homework before giving its nod for the
clearance of Bt Brinjal. “Several lacunae were pointed out by
eminent molecular biologist Dr Pushpa M Bhargava, who
was a special invitee as per the Supreme Court directive, at the
GEAC meetings. But the GEAC, which is dominated by
persons having vested interests, ignored Bhargava's
suggestions and pushed for the release of Bt brinjal,”
Chaudhary alleged.
Through the proposed NBRA Bill, the voices of the public
resentment will be silenced as it makes criticism of modern
biotechnology an offence. Such law would not be keeping
12 Kisan Ki Awaaz
agricultural machinery (agro processing and value
addition) is very high in Southern states.
“To achieve targeted growth in Indian economy,
especially agribusiness for domestic exports, our
members are moving to purchase farm machinery
equipment, implements, tools, consumables,
transportation and packaging solutions. Green house
culture is another dimension for progressive farmers
of South India, where farmers are taking risk and
diversifying towards horticulture crops from
traditional crops” said Chaudhary.
In this scenario, surely, Kerala, Karnataka, A.P.,
Tamil Nadu will play a significant role to push up the
consumption of agri inputs in coming years.
Interestingly, the manufacturers of farm machines in
Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana and other parts are
expanding their network in southern states and the
opening of small workshops in all states for
maintenance and after sales services, is a new
employment opportunity for mechanical and
agriculture engineers taking degrees from ICAR
institutions.
* Chief Coordinator- Agri Tech India
with the traditions of a vibrant democracy, he said.
“Hazardous GM food should not be imposed on unwilling
people through draconian laws. In a democracy, people
should have the right to choose what they should eat,” he
added.
It has been scientifically proved that the consumption of GM
food may reduce immunity system in human body. Further, it
also would affect the digestive, metabolic functions and may
cause carcinoma, Chaudhary explained. “Genetic
engineering is not the way to find solutions to the problems in
agriculture sector. It is unfortunate that Indian government is
promoting Bt brinjal even though the nation do not face
shortage of it,” he said and demanded that the states should
ensure protection of seed rights of the farmers.
Now the people have come to know that there are two classes
of agriculture scientists in India. While one class work for
seed multinationals, another class pursue science in public
interest, he said. The objective of the seed multinationals is
very clear that they want to control the entire food chain, he
added.
Http://www.deccanherald.com/content/59523/nbra-bill-
silence-voices-public.html
April - 2010
 Should India provide scaffold to them? Foreign University Bill
*R Vaidyanathan
IT is not a coincidence that the Cabinet has approved
the Foreign Universities Bill around 100 years after
the publication of the booklet on Hind Swaraj written
by Mahatma Gandhi (it was written by him in 1908 on
his return voyage from London and published serially
in the columns of the Indian opinion edited by him).
Then within a year it was published in a book form to
be proscribed by the then Bombay government. In
response to the Bombay government's action, he
published the English translation.
He says in that fascinating book: “The English have
not taken India; we have given it to them. They are not
in India because of their strength but because we keep
them. Hence it is truer to say that we gave India to the
English than that India was lost.” (Mahatma Gandhi:
Collected works Volume 10 August 5, 1909 to April
1910).
Human Resources Minister has claimed that the
impact of the Foreign Universities Bill will be more
revolutionising than the spectrum allocation and
mobile phone. We only hope that he is talking about
the outcome and not the scandals!
These institutions (which are expected to set up shop
here) in the UK and the USA are broke and many
departments are getting closed.
To quote from a recent article in The Economist: “No
one should go broke because they chose to go to
college,” Barack Obama said in January in his state-
of-the-union speech. But American college students
worry they might, thanks to recent fee increases at
technical colleges and universities.
On March 4, students and disgruntled faculty staged
protests at around 100 campuses in over 30 states,
calling on state legislators and university
administrators to put a halt to recent tuition fee hikes
and funding cuts. In Oakland, California, student
protesters marched on to a big highway and stopped
the traffic. Elsewhere students carried coffins to
symbolize the death of affordable education.
According to the Centre on Budget and Policy
Priorities, a think tank, at least 39 states have
decreased their funding for public colleges and
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
universities or increased their tuition charges. In
California some public universities have increased
fees by more than 30 per cent. At the same time they
are cutting back on their offerings. Many have tried to
save money by laying off staff, closing academic
departments and reducing the number of classes
offered. Some are admitting more out-of-state
students who pay higher fees. Several institutions
have also started to cut the number of students they
enroll in order to save money.
Britain is much worse. In the post- Thatcher era, the
universities are struggling due to reduced state
funding and inability to increase the fees. Recently,
Cambridge announced that its doors will be thrown
open to public during summer, of course, for a price.
Another important reason provided by the current
ruling groups and the spin master sepoys in the media
is that it will help lakhs of youngsters who are going
abroad to pursue higher education and preserve
precious foreign exchange and also prevent spurious
institutions abroad luring our youngsters.
Let us analyze the different categories of youngsters
and reasons for going abroad. The first is primarily to
countries like Australia for skill related courses like
beauticians and cake making hoping to get work
permit in that country to settle down. That group is not
going to join cake making courses in Eluru or Nasik or
Dibrugarh or Batala even if offered by foreign
universities unless residence/ work permit dreams are
also provided in the convocation.
The second group is the highly qualified IIT/NIT
engineers for higher education to the USA. The level
of private corporate sponsorship is an attraction for
students of science and engineering stream and the
desire to get green card is deep-rooted.
The third category is the children of business people
and bureaucrats and other “Delhi caucus”
descendants who cannot get into institutions of higher
learning in India due to stiff entrance criteria. They
pay through their nose and get into any type of
institutions like “Tall Mountain” or “Deep Sea”
university and proudly come back and occupy
important positions in our government.
13
There are two categories. One is those who are
“educated” abroad and the other is “graduated”
abroad. The former imply being thrown out after
several attempts in that university and later somehow
managing to pass. It is this group which feels
threatened now due to spiraling cost of education
abroad; the limited visa regimes of western countries
and the threat from the ascendency of the “bankrupt
classes” through the merit route of JETs and CATs.
We find that the discussion and debate in the media
after the bill has been approved by the Cabinet is
regarding education market, education business,
returns on investment and the “selling of the brand.”
Unfortunately, nobody talks about learning,
knowledge and academics. Education is not any more
imbibing knowledge, the quest for attaining
perfection or even professional development. It is up
to our parliamentarians to decide what India wants
and what they would like to leave for the future
generations. One only wishes that some Gandhian
institution will distribute copies of the original 'Hind
Swaraj' to our parliamentarians to ensure that we do
not measure the quality of our life by retail footfalls or
soda consumption.
The Professor of Finance and Control,
Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore.

Bill on GM crops opposed

It is likely to be tabled soon in Parliament
MANGALORE:-23-March- Krishan Bir criticism of GM foods and crops, he said the new
Chaudhary, president of the Bharatiya Krishak Bill sought to muzzle the critics of the
Samaj, has expressed concerns over the National biotechnology regime. The clause, which is titled
Biotechnology Regulatory “Misleading public
Authority Bill, which is about (genetically
likely to be tabled soon in modified) organism and
Parliament. products”, advocates the
imposition of a penalty,
Mr. Chaudhary, a critic of including six to 12
genetically modified crops, months of imprisonment
who was here to participate and (or) a fine of up to
in a recently concluded Rs. 2 lakh.
seminar on biodiversity
organised by the Nagarika According to him, the
Seva Trust, was addressing most disturbing aspect
presspersons before his of the Bill is that the
departure on Monday. Biotechnology
Regulatory Authority
The Bill, which seeks to set MAKING A POINT:Krishan Bir Chaudhary, will have sole powers to
up a single national-level president of the Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, New Delhi, enforce the provisions
regulatory body with at the press conference in Mangalore on Monday. of the Act and that it will
exclusive authority over Somnath Naik, president the Nagarika Seva Trust is to his left operate outside the
the release and control of 'It is against the principles of federalism' purview of the regular
genetically modified crops ‘It seeks to silence critics of biotechnology regime' courts.
i n t h e c o u n t r y, w a s
described by Mr. Chaudhary as “draconian”. Calling for a national referendum on GM crops, he
Claiming that the basic premise of the Bill was said that the Indian Council of Agricultural
flawed, he said that it was against the principles of Research (ICAR) had become prone to influence
federalism that envisions agriculture as a State from “extraneous and alien forces”.
subject. (According to Section 81 of the Bill, the Act
will have an overriding effect) http://www.thehindu.com/2010/03/23/stories/20
10032362030300.htm
Pointing to a clause in the Bill that penalises public

14 Kisan Ki Awaaz April - 2010

 [kslkjh nky & lcls ikSf”Vd] lqjf{kr ,oa xq.kdkjh nky
*MkW-'kkfUryky dksBkjh
[kslkjh nky dks ns'k dh 16 Hkk”kkvksa esa vyx&vyx ukeksa ls tkuk ,oa igpkuk tkrk gSA eryc bldk [kku&iku
,oa mRiknu vktknh ds iwoZ lEiw.kZ ns'k esa gksrk FkkA bldh nky] izpfyr nkyksa esa lcls T;knk ikSf”Vd] Lokfn”V] lqjf{kr ,oa
vk;qosZfnd xq.kksa ls fuiw.kZ gksus ds ckn Hkh 'kwU; ykxr esa mRiknu gksus ls fdlkuksa dks cktkj esa de dher ij cspus ij Hkh
T;knk ykHk gksrk gSA

vknzrk izksfVu olk [kfut dkjcks js’kk dSyksfjt dSfY’k;e QkLQksjl yksg
nky ds uke ¼xzke½ ¼xzke½ ¼xzke½ ¼xzke½ ¼xzke½ ¼xzke½ ¼fd-dSyks- ½ ¼feyhxzke½ ¼feyhxzke½ ¼feyhxzke½
puk nky 09.9 20.8 5.6 2.6 59.8 1.2 372 56 331 5.3
rqvj nky 13.4 22.3 1.7 3.5 57.6 1.5 335 73 304 2.7
yk[k&yk[kksMh 10.0 28.2 0.6 2.3 56.6 2.3 345 90 317 6.3
Nutrient Composition of Indian Foods by Narsinga rao et al (1989)
vktknh ds iwoZ dky rd ;g nky turk dh igyh 8.42 yk[k Vu gksrk FkkA lu~ 2005-06 esa 6.26
ilan dh nky FkhA [kslkjh nky dh lPpkbZ dks iqu% le> djds yk[k gsDVj ,oa 3.45 yk[k Vu mRiknu gks x;kA blls nkyksa dh
mRiknu dks izksRlkgu fn;k x;k rks lc ls de le; esa ,oa de deh gqbZA fcdzh ij izfrcU/k yxkus ds iwoZ rd bldk mRiknu
[kpZ esa nkyksa dh leL;k dk gy fudysaxkA ;g nky euq”; ,oa egkjk”Vª] xqtjkr] mMhlk] vkU/kzizns'k] vklke] dukZVd]
leLr izk.kh&tkfr ds fy;s lcls T;knk ikSf”Vd gSA lkFk gh lcls e/;izns'k] NŸkhlx<+] fcgkj] >kj[kUM] fgekpy izns'k]
T;knk ek=k esa ukbZVªkstu tehu esa tek djus ls tehu dh ikuh mŸkjizns'k] mŸkjk[kaM] if'peh caxky] f=iqjk] tEeq&d'ehj]
,oa [kfutksa dks lks[kus dh {kerk dks c<+kus ls moZjk 'kfDr dks flDdhe ,oa rkfeyukMw tSls jkT;ksa esa /kku ¼pkaoy½ dh Qly ds
c<+krh gSA vdky] lw[ks ,oa vfro`”Vh ds le; Hkh ;g vPNk ckn iM+r tehu esa fd;k tkrk FkkA
mRiknu nsrh gSA
egkjk”Vª jkT; }kjk fcdzh ij yxs izfrcU/k dks
O;kikfjd foKku us vk;qfoZKku] vk;qosZn bR;kfn dh gVkus ,oa v/;kns'k dks tkjh dj nsus ds ckn ,dsMeh us mijksDr
iqLrdksa ls ;qok ih<+h dks jVk fn;k gS fd ;g tgjhyh nky gS] blls lHkh jkT;ksa ds eq[;eU=h;ksa] d`f”k vf/kdkjh;ksa ,oa d`f”k
turk blds mi;ksx ds izfr Hkzfer gks xbZ gSA dsUnz ljdkj ds fo'ofo|ky;ksa ds oSKkfudksa ls lEidZ djus ij ik;k fd izfrcU/k
LokLF; foHkkx ds ikl Bksl oSKkfud lcwr u gksrs gq, Hkh fnukad ds dkj.k mu jkT;ksa ds fdlku Hkh vius [kkus ds fy;s mRiknu rks
2.2.1961 dks lHkh jkT;ksa ,oa dsUnz 'kkflr izns'kksa dks djrs gS ijUrq cktkj esa csp ugha ikrs gS] blls mudk Hkh 'kks”k.k
vius&vius {ks= esa [kkí; vifjfeJ.k dkuqu 1955 dh /kkjk gks jgk gSA fdlkuksa ,oa oSKkfudksa dk ekuuk Fkk fd voSKkfud
44-A ds rgr bldh fcdzh ,oa laxzg ij izfrcU/k yxk nsus dh dyad dks gVkdjds fcdzh ,oa vkod&tkod dks Lora=rk iznku
lykg nsdj dyafdr fd;k x;kA bl xyr lykg ds dkj.k gh djus ls ns'k nkyksa ds {ks= esa iqu% vkRefuHkZj cusxk ,oa vPNs
ns'k esa nkyksa dh deh gqbZ ,oa o”kZ 2009 vkRefuHkZjrk dks lekIr ikSf”Vd /kku dk mRiknu T;knk ek=k esa gksus ls LokLF; ykHk
djus okyk fl) gqvkA gksxkA

lu~ 2000 ds iwoZ rd cMs mRiknd jkT;ksa tSls

e/;izns'k] fcgkj ,oa if'peh caxky ds }kjk lykg ugha ekuus ,oa
izfrcU/k ugha yxkus ls nkyksa dh deh fn[kykbZ ugha nhaA lu~ 1980
ds ckn ls dsUnz ljdkj izR;sd o”kZ dqN ek=k esa nkyksa dk vk;kr
djds deh dks nwj dj fn;k djrh FkhA lu~ 2000 esa e/;izns'k
¼NŸkhlx<+ us ugha½] 2003 esa fcgkj ,oa lu~ 2004 esa >kj[kUM
jkT;ksa }kjk canh yxk nsus ls nkyksa dk mRiknu T;knk izek.k esa de
gksus ls ladV fuekZ.k gks x;kA fons'kksa ls Hkh ekax ds vuq:i nkyksa
ds ugha feyus dh [kcjksa ls rqvj dh nky jkrksa&jkr 50 :i;s ls
100 :i;s izfr fdyksa fcdus ls nkyksa dh leL;k [kM+h gks xbZA
lu~ 1970-71 ds iwoZ [kslkjh dh [ksrh ljdkjh
vuqeku ds vuqlkj 16.72 yk[k gsDVj esa gksrh Fkh ,oa mRiknu
izfrcU/k yxkus ds fy;s ysFkkbZfjTe ¼pVjh&eVjh]
,d izdkj dk yaxMk½ jksx gksus dh ckr dks ,dsMeh vkWQ U;wVªh'ku
bEizqOgesUV us eux<+r fl) dj nsus ds ckn gh egkjk”Vª jkT;
ljdkj us izfrcU/k gVkus dk fu.kZ; fnukad 30.6.2004 dks
fd;kA egkjk”Vª ljdkj us dsUnz ljdkj dh 2.2.1961 dh lykg
ds vuqlkj 1961 esa fcdzh ,oa laxzg ij yxk;s x;s izfrcU/k dks
okil ysus@LFkxfr nsus dk v/;kns'k 28 ebZ 2008 dks tkjh
djds 47 lkyksa ds ckn iqu% [kqys cktkj esa fcdzh ,oa
vkod&tkod dks Lora=rk iznku dhA [kslkjh nky ds xq.kksa dh
lPpkbZ dks lkeus ykus ds fy;s ,dsMeh dks 20 lkyksa rd la?k”kZ
djuk iM+k] tks ;gk¡ MYys[kuh; gSA
egkjk”Vª jkT; ljdkj }kjk jkT; esa izfrcU/k dks

April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz 19

 LFkxukns'k nsa nsus ds ckn Hkh dsUnz ljdkj ds LokLF;
foHkkx }kjk izfrcU/k yxkus dh lykg dks okil ugha ysuk ,oa
'kks/k djus dh vko';drk dks 16 desfV;ksa ds xBu ds ckn Hkh
izfrikfnr djrs jgus ls iqu% iq”Vh gks tkrh gS fd izfrcU/k yxkus
dh lykg “kM+;U= ds rgr gh nha xbZ FkhA ;g lksp vkSj Hkh
etcqr gks tkrh gS tc 1955 esa xfBr xksikyu lfefr ,oa 60
lkyksa ds nkSjku xBhr 16 ls T;knk lfefr;ksa @ desfV;ksa esa ls ,d
us Hkh bldh nky ds :i esa fd;s x;s mi;ksx dks vkgkj esa
gkfudkjd ugha ik;k rFkk ysFkkfjTe jksx gksus dh iq”Vh ugha dhA
lfefr;ksa us izfrcU/k yxkus dh lykg Hkh ugha nha FkhA
[kslkjh nky dh lPpkbZ rks ;g gS fd lu~ 1844 ls
nqfu;k esa vdky ds le; fd;s x;s losZ{k.kksa] 1920 ls iz;ksx ,oa
'kks/k'kkykvksa esa i'kqvksa dks f[kykdj fd;s x;s v/;;uksa ,oa
vuqla/kkuksa ,oa 1964 ds ckn bl nky esa ik, tkus okys
rFkkdfFkr tgjhyk rRo ¼VkWDlhu½ ukWu izksVhu vehuks ,lhM
(BOAA/ODAP) dks 'kq) :i esa i'kqvksa dks f[kykus ds ckn Hkh
bl nky ds mi;ksx dks loksZrd`”V ik;kA blds ckn Hkh izfrcU/k
mBkus dh ekax ds oDr gh jk”Vªh; iks”k.k laLFkk }kjk vf/kd 'kks/k
djus dh jV yxk djds fojks/k djuk] varjjk”Vªh; “kM+;U= ds
ncko dh gh iq”Vh djrk gSA
jk”Vªh; iks”k.k laLFkk us 1990 ds ckn bl nky ij
'kks/kdk;Z djuk gh can dj fn;kA jk”Vªh; laLFkk }kjk VkWDlhu
jfgr nky LokLF; ds fy;s ,oa mlds cht [ksrh ds fy;s T;knk
ykHknk;d gksrs gS] bldk lcwr [kksts cxSj ,oa nkyksa dh leL;k
dk gy [kksts fcuk dke can dj nsuk] vk'p;Ztud gSA dsUnz
ljdkj ds LokLF; foHkkx ds ikl bl nky ds tgjhyh vFkok
gkfudkjd gksus dk dksbZ Bksl lcwr ugha gksus ds dkj.k gh izfrcU/k
yxkus dk vf/kdkj gksrs gq, Hkh [kk| ,oa vifjfeJ.k dkuqu ds
rgr dHkh Hkh mlus izfrcU/k ugha yxk;kA bldk mRiknu ,oa
mi;ksx djus okys izeq[k jkT;ksa ¼tSls NŸkhlx<+] if'pe caxky]
egkjk”Vª½ dks NwV nsuk ,oa ogk¡ ,d Hkh jksxh dk ugha ik;k tkuk Hkh
;gh fl) djrk gS fd bldk mi;ksx vkgkj esa gkfudkjd ugha
gSA tgk¡ rd xyr mi;ksx ¼T;knk ek=k esa yEcs le; rd½ ls
gkfudkjd gksus dh laHkkouk dk loky gS ogk¡ ikuh] ued] nw/k ls
ysdj lHkh izdkj dh nkysa] [kkíkUu] rsy ij Hkh ;g ckr ykxq gksrh
gS rks izfrcU/k dsoy [kslkjh nky ,oa mlls cuk;s tkus okys
inkFkksZ ij gh D;ksa\
ckaXykns'k ds oSKkfudksa us rks bl nky ds xq.kksa dh
igpku 1985 ds iwoZ gh djds vius ns'k esa ik, tkus okys
izkd`frd chtksa dh enn ls mRiknu dks nksxq.kk djus dk fu.kZ;
fy;kA ckaXykns'k dh igys dzekad ,oa usiky dh nwljs dzekad dh
Qly gSA bFkksfi;k us 1995 ls bldk mRiknu c<+k djds vdky
dk lkeuk fd;kA blh izdkj ls bVyh] fpyh] iksysUM] gaxjh] Lisu]
teZuh] QzkUl bR;knh jk”Vªksa us Hkh 1998 ls bldk mRiknu c<+kuk
izkjaHk dj fn;k gSA ;qjksfi;u ns'kksa esa izkd`frd [kslkjh nky ,oa
nky ls cus inkFkksZ dh gh ekax cktkj esa T;knk gSA [kslkjh nky esa
ukWu&izksVhu vfeuks ,flM ¼ch-vks-,-,@vks-Mh-,-ih-½ ds lkFk
gkseksvkjtfuu ,oa ukbZVªl vkWDlkbZM dks izfrjks/kd {kerk dks
c<+kusokyk ,oa euq”; dks vlk/; jkssxksa ls cpkus okyk vPNk rRo
eku djds izkd`frd chtksa ls gh nkyksa dk mRiknu dj jgs gSA
20 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Vius ns'k esa Hkh fiNys 50 lkyksa ds nkSjku mRiknu
djus] lsou djus ,oa migkj esa nsus ij izfrcU/k ugha gksus ls]
/kku dk mRiknu djus okys lHkh jkT;ksa ds fdlkuksa] xzkeh.k ,oa
vkfnoklh {ks= ds yksx [kslkjh nky dk nSfud Hkkstu esa mi;ksx
djds LoLFk ,oa lq[kh thou fuokZg dj jgs gSA laiw.kZ ns'k esa ,d
Hkh jksxh ds ugha ik, tkus ls ;g Hkh fl) gks tkrk gS fd nky esa
izkd`frd :i ls izkd`frd ek=k esa ik;k tkus okyk BOAA/ODAP
xq.kdkjh gS] fo”kkjh ugha gSA gekjs ns'k ds ofj”B oSKkfudksa ,oa
jktusrkvksa dh fons'kh jk”Vªksa dh tehu ij nkyksa dk mRiknu djds
nkyksa dh leL;k dk gy [kkstus dk O;DrO; ¼yksdlHkk&2009
dk½ “kM+;U= dh gh iq”Vh djrk gSA
'kkdkgkjh ns'k dks ekalkgkjh cuus ls jksdus ds fy;s]
[kslkjh nky dh lPpkbZ dks n`<+rk ls ns'k ds lkeus j[kuk
vko';d gSA
fons'kh jk”Vªksa ds oSKkfudksa dh rjg ,dsMeh ds dk;ksZ
ij fo'okl djds /kku dk mRiknu djus okys lHkh jkT;ksa ds
tkx:d] pfj=oku] jk”Vªoknh ukxfjd tks jk”Vªlar rqdMksth
egkjkt] ;ksxxq: J)s; Lokeh jkenso ckckth] J)s; Jh Jh
jfo'kadjth egkjkt] dzkafrdkjh eqfuJh r:.klkxj th egkjkt
ds lkFk vU; iqT;fu; larksa ,oa _f”k&eqfu;ksa ds vuq;k;h [kslkjh
nky dh lPpkbZ dks vius ,oa vius iwoZtksa ds vuqHkoksa ls
vius&vius {ks= dh iM+r ,oa vflaphr tehu ij mRiknu djus
,oa vkokt mBkus ds fy;s vkxs vkrs gS rks ns'k dks nkyksa ds {ks= esa
LokoyEch cukuk vFkkZr vfrfjDr 20-30 yk[k Vu nkyksa dk
mRiknu djuk dksbZ cM+h ckr ugha gSA
Izk'kkldh; vf/kdkjh;ksa ,oa oSKkfudksa ds ckn
jktusrkvksa esa ^^ukSdj** dh lksp ls oksa Hkh fo'o cSad dk bekunkj
ukSdj cu djds dke djus dh vknr cu tkus ls gy fcuk [kpZ
dk] vklku ,oa ?kj esa gh gksrs gq, Hkh ge mls viukus dk lkgl
ugha dj ik jgs gS] bldk [ksn gSA fons'kh jk”Vªksa ds lkFk nkyksa dh
iwfrZ ds laca/k esa djkjukek djus tk jgs gS] tks ns'k ds fy;s
nqHkkZX;iw.kZ fu.kZ; gksxkA vius gkFkksa ls d`f”k O;olk; dks [kRe
djus okyk dne fl) gksxkA laiUu jk”Vªksa dh lksp ls nkyksa dh
leL;k dk gy lks;kchu esa [kkstus ls gh nkyksa dh leL;k us
fodjky :i ?kkj.k fd;k gS] bldks le>us dh Hkh vko';drk gSA
fons'kh jk”Vªksa dh lksp ,oa enn ls rFkk lks;kchu dk
mRiknu c<+kus ls izksVhu ¼nkyksa½ dh leL;k dk gy ugha fudysxkA
myV ge ,oa gekjk ns'k jksxh gksdj ,oa xjhc cudjds xgjs
edM+tky esa Qal tk;sxkA gekjs ns'k ds gtkjksa lkyksa ds [kslkjh
nky dh [ksrh djus ,oa mi;ksx ds vuqHkoksa ij ge fo'okl djds]
'kkS;Z ,oa LokfHkeku dks txkdj ds djkjukek djus ds iwoZ vkxs
vkrs gS rks nkyksa dh leL;k gy gksxh] ge lc lq[kh] laiUu ,oa
fujksxh cu djds xoZ ds lkFk thou fuokZg dj ldrs gSA [ksrh
O;olk; dh j{kk Hkh gksxhA vko';drk gS] ekyd cudj ns'k fgr
esa ^^xqykeh ds dky** ds iwoZ dh rjg fu.kZ; djds dke djus ls
[kslkjh nky iqu% izfr”Bhr gksxh ,oa tehu xq.kdkjh [kkíUuksa dk
mRiknu djus ds fy;s l{ke fl) gksxhA
*v/;{k] ,dsMeh vkWQ U;qVªh'ku bEizqOgesUV]ukxiqj
April - 2010
 Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa
*Adriana Stuijt
South African farmers suffered millions of dollars in lost
income when 82,000 hectares of genetically-manipulated
corn (maize) failed to produce hardly any seeds.The plants
look lush and healthy from the outside. Monsanto has
offered compensation.
Monsanto blames the failure of the three varieties of corn
planted on these farms, in three South African provinces,on
alleged 'underfertilisation processes in the laboratory".
Some 280 of the 1,000 farmers who planted the three
varieties of Monsanto corn this year, have reported extensive
seedless corn problems.
Urgent investigation demanded
However environmental activitist Marian Mayet, director of
the Africa-centre for biosecurity in Johannesburg, demands
an urgent government investigation and an immediate ban
on all GM-foods, blaming the crop failure on Monsanto's
genetically-manipulated technology.
Willem Pelser, journalist of the Afrikaans Sunday paper
Rapport, writes from Nelspruit that Monsanto has
immediately offered the farmers compensation in three
provinces - North West, Free State and Mpumalanga. The
damage-estimates are being undertaken right now by the
local farmers' cooperative, Grain-SA. Monsanto claims that
'less than 25%' of three different corn varieties were
'insufficiently fertilised in the laboratory'.
80% crop failure
However Mayet says Monsanto was grossly understating the
problem.According to her own information, some farms
have suffered up to 80% crop failures. The centre is strongly
opposed to GM-food and biologically-manipulated
technology in general.
"Monsanto says they just made a mistake in the laboratory,
however we say that biotechnology is a failure.You cannot
make a 'mistake' with three different varieties of corn.’
Demands urgent government investigation:
"We have been warning against GM-technology for years,
we have been warning Monsanto that there will be
problems,' said Mayet. She calls for an urgent government
investigation and an immediate ban on all GM-foods in
South Africa.
Of the 1,000 South African farmers who planted Monsanto's
GM-maize this year, 280 suffered extensive crop failure,
writes Rapport.
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Monsanto's local spokeswoman Magda du Toit said the
'company is engaged in establishing the exact extent of the
damage on the farms'. She did not want to speculate on the
extent of the financial losses suffered right now.
Managing director of Monsanto in Africa, Kobus Lindeque,
said however that 'less than 25% of the Monsanto-seeded
farms are involved in the loss'. He says there will be 'a review
of the seed-production methods of the three varieties
involved in the failure, and we will made the necessary
adjustments.’
He denied that the problem was caused in any way by 'bio-
technology'. Instead, there had been 'insufficient fertilisation
during the seed-production process'.
And Grain-SA's Nico Hawkins says they 'are still support
GM-technology; 'We will support any technology which will
improve production.' See
He also they were 'satisfied with Monsanto's handling of the
case,' and said Grain-SA was 'closely involved in the claims-
adjustment methodology' between the farmers and
Monsanto.
Farmers told Rapport that Monsanto was 'bending over
backwards to try and accommodate them in solving the
problem.
"It's a very good gesture to immediately offer to compensate
the farmers for losses they suffered,' said Kobus van Coller,
one of the Free State farmers who discovered that his maize
cobs were practically seedless this week.
"One can't see from the outside whether a plant is unseeded.
One must open up the cob leaves to establish the problem,' he
said. The seedless cobs show no sign of disease or any kind
of fungus. They just have very few seeds, often none at all.
The South African supermarket-chain Woolworths already
banned GM-foods from its shelves in 2000. However South
African farmers have been producing GM-corn for years:
they were among the first countries other than the United
States to start using the Monsanto products.
The South African government does not require any
labelling of GM-foods. Corn is the main staple food for
South Africa's 48-million people.
The three maize varieties which failed to produce seeds were
designed with a built-in resistance to weed-killers, and
manipulated to increase yields per hectare, Rapport writes.
Http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/270101
21
TRIPS Council addresses patents on life forms and access to medicines
*Kanaga Raja
Geneva, March 2010 – A meeting of the regular
WTO TRIPS Council on 2 March amongst others
discussed the implementation of the "Paragraph 6"
solution in respect of the Doha Declaration on the
TRIPS greement and Public Health, and the review
of Article 27.3 (b) of the TRIPS Agreement relating to
the patentability of life forms and the protection of
plant varieties.
During the discussions at the TRIPS Council on the
review of Article 27.3 (b) of the TRIPS Agreement,
Bolivia tabled a submission (IP/C/W/545) calling for
an urgent and in-depth review of the said article.
Bolivia, in its communication, concluded that an
urgent review of Article 27.3 (b) was needed to
prohibit the patenting of all life forms, ensure the
protection of the innovations of indigenous and local
farming communities and prevent anti-competitive
practices that threaten food sovereignty in developing
countries.
Also at the meeting, India and Brazil reiterated their
concerns over the actions of customs authorities of
European Union member-countries in detaining
generic medicines whilst in transit to other
developing countries.
India told the TRIPS Council: "We wish this issue was
addressed with the seriousness it deserves and
resolved and we did not need to raise this issue in this
meeting. Unfortunately, we do not see any concrete
steps..."
On the issue of the implementation of the "Paragraph
6" solution, which is aimed at helping developing
countries with insufficient or no manufacturing
capacities in the pharmaceutical sector to import
cheaper generic medicines produced under
compulsory licensing, trade officials said that there
were continued differences among Members on
whether the fact that the "Para 6" system was only
used once would constitute sufficient evidence that
the system is failing.
According to trade officials, several developing
countries reiterated the view that the "Paragraph 6"
system might be failing. They cited the fact that the
22 Kisan Ki Awaaz
system has only been used once - Canada exporting to
Rwanda.
They again called for a workshop to look at real-life
experiences in using the system or in trying to use the
system.
On the other hand, trade officials said that a number of
developed countries continued to argue that the single
case in respect of Canada does not prove anything
because the system is only one of a range of options
for allowing the sick in poorer countries to access
affordable medicines.
Several pointed out that the only factual evidence
brought to the TRIPS Council so far by Canada -
suggests that the length of time needed for Canada to
export to Rwanda was not caused by the system but by
other factors.
Speaking on this issue, Egypt said that the issue
pertaining to the functioning of the solution to
guarantee access to medicines to countries with
limited or no manufacturing capacity is critical for
developing countries and particularly for Africa.
It expressed concern that the system has not been as
helpful in addressing this critical public health
problem as it had hoped.
The fact that the system has only been used once
raises questions as to its effectiveness, let alone
expeditiousness.
Likewise, said Egypt, the frail drive to accept the
amendment Protocol is incomprehensible in its own
right.
Many questions spring to mind, including
administrative and regulatory complexity of the
system, lack of appreciation of business methods in
supplying markets and associated overhead costs, as
well as constraining requirements.
These questions need to be addressed, said Egypt,
strongly supporting the proposal to organize a
workshop to address these questions and others of
relevance, and to include in this workshop s
April - 2010
participants from all the various stakeholders.
It urged those Members that seem reluctant to join the
consensus on convening this workshop with the
participation of all stakeholders to reconsider their
position in view of the direct issues of access to
medicines, and ultimately, of human rights involved
in this important problem.
Canada had provided its account of the use of the
system in an informal consultation on 12 February.
Canada asked for its account to be put on the record of
this formal TRIPS Council meeting.
Chairperson Ambassador Karen Tan of Singapore
summarized the informal consultation that she had
held on this issue on 12 February.
According to trade officials, in her summary,
Ambassador Tan said that she found the informal
meeting to be very constructive.
She felt that Members were interested in sharing
experiences on the use of the system and ready to
engage in practical and fact-based discussions in
order to have a full understanding of the operation of
the system.
As regards the specific points made by delegations,
some of them were concerned that the system had
been used only once by Rwanda and Canada, which
raised the question of whether the system had met its
objective of providing an expeditious solution to
problems faced by countries with insufficient or no
manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical
sector, she said.
The meeting also heard that the fact that the system
had only been used once did not imply that it was
inadequate, since there were also other ways to get
medicines to patients, she added.
Some delegations argued that the number of licences
issued under the system was not the proper measure of
its success, and that the use of the system by Rwanda
and Canada had demonstrated that the system could
work effectively; the system could only play a
supportive role in the wider effort to improve access
to essential medicines, and its mere existence might
have had a positive impact on drug prices, said
Ambassador Tan.
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
The Chairperson reported that concerns were also
expressed about a period of some three years that it
had taken to deliver the medicines to Rwanda in this
particular case.
She said that Canada shared experience on its use of
the system, giving a detailed account of the time-line
of the shipments under the system, attributing the
bulk of the time consumed not to the specific
requirements of the Paragraph 6 system, but to factors
such as identifying a recipient country for the
available medicine, and the government procurement
process in the recipient country which required a
competitive tendering process.
As regards the topics that might warrant more
discussion, the Chair said that some delegations
suggested that the focus could be on the experience
from the use of the system by Rwanda and Canada to
consider whether the system is working effectively.
Some delegations said that the performance of the
system could be appraised more generally to assess
whether there were any procedural problems
regarding its operation.
Some Members said that, bearing in mind that the
system was demand-driven, it would be helpful to
know whether there were some concrete obstacles
why potential importers did not procure under it.
Among other issues mentioned that might merit
further discussion were safety and efficacy of
medicines procured under the system, government
procurement, and the dissemination of information
with a view to building capacity in developing
countries to use the system, said the Chair.
According to the Chair, Members also discussed the
appropriate ways to address these issues, agreeing
that annual reviews were a good platform for sharing
experiences and evaluating the operation of the
system.
However, some delegations wished to complement
this work by organizing a dedicated workshop open to
all stakeholders.
Some other delegations said that the review process
was a member-driven exercise, but believed that its
usefulness could be enhanced, for example, by more
factual input, she said.
23
She also reported that there were calls for the Chair to
consult with interested delegations on how to best
address the issues raised in the discussion. A number
of delegations expressed their willingness to
participate in any consultations that the Chair might
decide to hold on the matter.
According to trade officials, Ambassador Tan's
successor, Mr Martin Glass of Hong Kong-China,
who took over at the end of the formal meeting, will
consult with Members about the workshop.
However, trade officials said that some developed
countries pointed out that the informal consultation
on 12 February was already held in response to a call
from several developing countries that wanted an
opportunity for Members to share their experience in
using or trying to use the system. Only Canada
actually did so, they said.
According to trade officials, the US said that
Members were being asked to take a decision (on
holding a workshop) under the "other business" part
of the meeting's agenda, which is normally reserved
for brief exchanges on issues raised at short notice and
not for decisions.
The discussion on the submission by Bolivia came
within the agenda items of review of the provisions of
Article 27.3 (b), relationship between the TRIPS
Agreement and the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), and protection of traditional
knowledge and folklore.
Speaking at the meeting, Bolivia said that with its
communication, it wants to continue to contribute to
the analysis of a topic that, in its understanding,
definitely needs a multilateral solution designed to
exclude the possibility of patenting life in all its
forms, including biological resources, micro-
organisms, genes, gene sequences and non-biological
and microbiological processes.
Bolivia then summarized the contents of its
communication on a review of Article 27.3 (b). It
considered that, among others, the exclusion of
patentability of life forms is one of the most important
issues within the Doha Development Agenda.
Highlighting a number of challenges, Bolivia said that
it is not the only one facing them, but that several
developing countries, small peasants or indigenous
24 Kisan Ki Awaaz
developing countries, small peasants or indigenous
peoples share these same concerns, that is, amongst
others, to put an end to bio-piracy, which is the
extensive patenting of life forms, the
misappropriation of biological resources originating
from developing countries by developed countries.
Also, to stop the increasing concentration of
corporate control over the agriculture industry due to
various acquisitions and overuse of intellectual
property rights, undermining the rights of indigenous
peoples, local community and farmers, including the
right to exchange and save seeds and the State's food
security and sovereignty.
Another concern is to limit the proliferation of trade
agreements and initiatives focused on enforcement of
intellectual property that pressure developing
countries to adopt a particular model of intellectual
property, which is not in the best interest of the
countries.
According to Bolivia, all these reasons allow the
Doha Development Agenda and the TRIPS Council to
have a strong case for an in-depth and accelerated
review of Article 27.3 (b).
According to trade officials, Cuba, Nicaragua,
Ecuador and Guatemala supported Bolivia.
Speaking generally under the agenda items of review
of Article 27.3 (b), TRIPS/CBD relationship and
protection of traditional knowledge and folklore,
India said that the inadequacy in the TRIPS
Agreement to combat bio-piracy and
misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional
knowledge (TK) needs no elaboration following the
exhaustive technical discussions on the issue over the
last 9-10 years.
The TRIPS Agreement continues to ignore the
numerous IPR-related obligations in the CBD
including obliging countries to cooperate to ensure
that patents and other IP rights do not run counter to
the objectives of the CBD (Article 16.5). This
contradiction not only obstructs the proper
implementation of the CBD but also causes an
imbalance in the TRIPS Agreement, said India.
It was disappointed to note that while work in the
CBD has been progressing steadily, there has been
lack of serious engagement in the TRIPS Council to
April - 2010
address the issue of misappropriation of genetic
resources (GR) and TK.
India further said that the steep rise in bio-prospecting
for natural remedies and other purposes, and patent
applications based on GR and associated TK, can
have undesirable consequences in the absence of
internationally acceptable legal regulations. "Justice
delayed is justice denied."
As regards the way forward, India pointed to
document TN/C/W/52 as providing a sound basis for
the way forward on substantive and procedural
treatment of TRIPS-CBD, GI Extension and GI
Register.
India noted that in discussions on the TRIPS-CBD
issue in this Council, reference has been made by
some Members in the past to the WIPO Inter-
Governmental Committee (IGC) on GR, TK and
folklore.
While it welcomed the renewed mandate of the IGC,
as also the constructive engagement of Members
there, the TRIPS Council should not get distracted by
the work in WIPO on the issue. The mandate of the
IGC is very different from the mandate in the Doha
Ministerial Declaration and Paragraph 39 of the Hong
Kong Ministerial Declaration.
What Members are discussing here is a mandatory
disclosure requirement to be incorporated in the
TRIPS Agreement. Serious and meaningful
discussions on this issue can take place only at the
WTO, said India.
Also speaking under these agenda items, Egypt said
that the protection of biological resources, traditional
knowledge and folklore presents an important
developmental issue for Egypt with implications on
the preservation and development of national
Egyptian natural and cultural
heritage.
It urged that the outcome of the negotiations on
TRIPS/CBD should lead to the mandatory
requirement for patent applicants to disclose the
origin of biological material and traditional
knowledge used in their inventions, evidence of prior
informed consent and benefit sharing arrangements
with the country of origin and the relevant
communities.
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
It also welcomed the proposal submitted by Bolivia
on the review of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS
Agreement. It considered that the three issues raised
in this proposal: the patenting of life forms; the
protection of plant varieties; and traditional
knowledge and the rights of indigenous communities,
represent central issues with key implications for
developing countries.
Under other business, India and Brazil raised the issue
of the EU's seizure of generic drugs while in transit to
a number of developing countries.
India said that during the three TRIPS Council
meetings last year, it had shared with Members the
serious impediments to access to medicines created
by the drug seizures at EU ports. It shared details of
the 17 seizures by the Dutch authorities in the year
2008, the seizure in Frankfurt in May 2009 and the
seizure in Paris in October 2009.
In all these seizures, the consignments originated
from developing countries and most were destined for
developing countries, including Brazil, Peru,
Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nigeria, Venezuela, and
Vanuatu.
It noted that in all cases, customs authorities acted on
the basis of EU Regulation 1383/2003.
"We wish this issue was addressed with the
seriousness it deserves and resolved and we did not
need to raise this issue in this meeting. Unfortunately,
we do not see any concrete steps," said India, adding
that therefore at this meeting, it wished to update
Members on developments since the October 2009
TRIPS Council meeting.
As to what India has done, it said that it has continued
its bilateral efforts with the EC at the level of
Ministers, senior officials in Capitals and the Indian
Mission to the EU in Brussels. "Far from our concerns
being addressed, we are yet to get details of the
seizures from EU authorities."
India further said that its commerce secretary and its
Ambassador to the EU had formally sought details of
the seizures including (i) the duration of the seizure;
(ii) names of the drug, exporter and importer; and (iii)
details of the IPR holder whose rights have been
allegedly infringed.
25
India recognized some steps taken by the EU. These
include the "Explanatory Note" of July 2009 issued to
Member States on the application of the EC
Regulation 1383/2003. However, the Note merely
shifts the blame on to Member States for applying
their national laws and the responsibility for
interpretation to the National Courts. The Note totally
disregards the permissiveness of the EC Regulation
itself, said India.
India also mentioned the process of Review of the
Regulation 1383 which started in September 2008.
This however, is a routine exercise commenced even
before the issue of drug seizures was raised in the
WTO and not aimed at addressing issues emerging
from the drug seizures.
As far as India was aware, the scope of the Review
excludes the Regulation's compatibility with WTO
provisions including GATT and TRIPS provisions
and the spirit of the Doha Declaration.
From India's point of view, it did not see any concrete
measures, including any signs of review of EC
Regulation 1383/2003, in-spite of its inconsistency
with provisions of GATT, the TRIPS Agreement and
the spirit of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health.
Stressing that the seizures symbolize TRIPS plus
enforcement, India said that generic drugs form the
backbone of public health programmes in developing
countries.
Targeting of legitimate generic medicines, which are
neither fake, nor counterfeit, nor pirated medicines,
will have deleterious consequences on access to
affordable and efficacious medicines and public
health budgets. Donations from some developed
countries to the poor populations of the world cannot
fill the gaps in a sustainable way.
India stressed that the widespread and repeated
seizures, under EC Regulation 1383, have an adverse
systemic impact on: (i) the principle of universal
access to medicines; (ii) national public health
budgets; (iii) legitimate trade of generic medicines;
(iv) South-South commerce; (v) use of TRIPS
flexibilities; and (vi) seriously impair the efforts of
civil society organizations engaged in providing
medicines and improving public health in the least
developed parts of the world.
26 Kisan Ki Awaaz
developed parts of the world.
"As long as the Damocles' sword of the Regulation
1383/ 2003 is hanging over our heads, we cannot take
comfort from the fact that the frequency of seizures
has reduced or that the matter is being looked into,"
said India, reiterating its call to the EU to urgently
review the Regulation and bring it in conformity with
WTO provisions including GATT, TRIPS Agreement
and the letter and spirit of the Doha Declaration on
Public Health.
Associating itself with India's statement, Brazil said
that it has repeatedly voiced its concern over the
seizure at European Union countries of generic drugs
in transit, on allegations of patent infringement.
Brazil said that at the last session of the TRIPS
Council, it had made reference to the fact that some
contacts had been held between representatives from
the Commission and from Brazil both in Brussels and
in Geneva.
It also mentioned that those "opportunities for
dialogue" had not produced, unfortunately, any
significant progress towards changing the most
controversial element of the said EC regulation,
"especially the principle of manufacture fiction".
"That is still the situation today... The fact that the
possibility of new seizures is still open is a matter of
concern to us," said Brazil.
According to trade officials, the EU said that it had
provided information in lengthy bilateral meetings,
and that its customs officers have to be able to check
shipments because of the large amount of counterfeit
drugs.
According to trade officials, the Council also
discussed briefly "non-violation" cases, where
positions remain unchanged, as well as various
aspects of technical assistance.
At the end of the meeting, Ambassador Tan handed
over the chair to Mr Martin Glass of Hong Kong-
China.
SUNS #6877
April - 2010
 Monsanto 7-State Probe
Threatens Profit From 93% Soybean Share
* Alison Fitzgerald
Washington, March 10 (Bloomberg) -- At least seven
U.S. state attorneys general are investigating
whether Monsanto Co., the world's largest seed
producer, has abused its market power to lock out
competitors and raise prices.
Iowa and Illinois, whose antitrust probes Monsanto
disclosed previously, have joined with Ohio, Texas,
Virginia and two other states in a working group
coordinating the inquiries, according to
investigators, farmers and seed dealers. They
declined to identify the sixth and seventh states.
The state investigations add to pressure on Monsanto
over allegations of abusive competitive tactics. The
U.S. Justice Department is probing the company's
marketing practices, and DuPont Co. has accused its
rival in licensing litigation of anti-competitive
actions.
At stake are the costs to farmers who produce $80.3
billion a year in corn and soybeans, used in products
ranging from Coca-Cola to cattle feed to ethanol.
“Monsanto has become such a dominant player in the
seed business that producers have real concerns that
the price they pay for seed is going to be anywhere
near reasonable,” said John Crabtree, a spokesman
for the Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, Nebraska, a
nonprofit group that provides services to farm
communities. “The fear is that the sky's the limit.”
Monsanto rose to dominance via its genetically
engineered Roundup Ready seed line, which was in
93 percent of the soybeans and 82 percent of the corn
produced in the U.S. last year.
The gene Monsanto adds to the seeds allows crops to
withstand use of its Roundup weed killer.
Rebates, Incentives
The states are probing whether Monsanto violated
any laws by offering rebates to distributors for
excluding rival seeds, imposing limits on combining
the product with other genetic enhancements, or
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
offering cash incentives to switch farmers to a more-
expensive generation of seeds, according to one
person involved in the probe who asked not to be
named because he isn't authorized to discuss it.
The five states known to be part of the inquiry
accounted for almost 39%, or $31 billion, of U.S.
corn and soybeans last year, based on U.S.
Department of Agriculture data.
A state- level investigation, on top of the federal one,
“can lengthen the lawsuit and potential settlements,
and it can increase uncertainty and costs for
Monsanto,” said Daniel Sokol, a law professor at the
University of Florida in Gainesville who edits a blog
on antitrust and competition policy.
Monsanto Vice President Jim Tobin will address the
concerns at a hearing March 12 in Ankeny, Iowa,
where the U.S. Justice and Agriculture departments
are holding a workshop on seed- industry
competition.
It's the first of a series of sessions the agencies are
sponsoring to examine whether consolidation in
agriculture is harming competition.
'Unsubstantiated Allegations’
“There have been unsubstantiated allegations of a
lack of competition in the seed market for several
years now,” said Kelli Powers, a spokeswoman for
St. Louis-based Monsanto. “We're confident an
objective review will revealcompetition is alive and
flourishing in the seed market.” Monsanto has a
“broad licensing approach that is “in fact pro-
competitive,” she said.
“We produced millions of pages of documents” for
the state working group, said Scott Partridge, a
Monsanto attorney, in an interview. “For about a year
now they haven't had any more questions.” Seed
producers and dealers say the state group has spoken
to them as recently as December about their
Monsanto licensing agreements.
27
The rebates investigators are exploring in the
Monsanto case are similar to incentives that have
figured in past antitrust inquiries that led to
settlements, said Herb Hovenkamp a professor at the
University of Iowa Law School in Iowa City and the
author of “Antitrust Law,” a 23-volume text.
FTC Sues Intel
The Federal Trade Commission sued Intel Corp. in
December alleging it used “threats and rewards,”
including rebates, to coerce companies not to buy
rivals' computer chips. In a separate civil dispute,
Intel agreed in November, without admitting any
liability or fault, to pay $1.25 billion to Advanced
Micro Devices Inc. to settle allegations Intel gave
discounts to customers that avoided AMD products.
Courts disagree on whether such financial incentives
are anti-competitive, Hovenkamp said.
“These things have been so controversial and so
heavily litigated that some firms have taken
preventative steps and just gotten rid of them,”
Hovenkamp said.
Monsanto phased out its market-share discounts as of
last year, said Powers, the spokeswoman.
Of Monsanto's $11.7 billion in revenue in the fiscal
year ended Aug. 31, 2009, $7.3 billion came from
sales and licensing of seeds and seed genes. Revenue
grew by an annual average of 17% from 2004 to
2009, as earnings expanded eight-fold to $2.11
billion, driven by genetically engineered products
and acquisitions of other seed companies.
Generic Roundup
Revenue then declined as generic rivals to Roundup
flooded into the U.S. from China. In the fiscal first
quarter ended Nov. 30, Monsanto had a loss of $19
million as sales declined 36% to $1.70 billion.
Monsanto lost 74 cents, or 1 percent, to close at
$71.28 in New York Stock Exchange composite
trading.
Showing that Monsanto engaged in anti-competitive
behavior that harmed residents of their states could
enable the attorneys general to demand civil
monetary damages in addition to any penalties that
28 Kisan Ki Awaaz
the Justice Department may seek, Hovenkamp said.
In one soybean licensing agreement reviewed by
Bloomberg, Monsanto offered the licensee financial
incentives to favor Roundup Ready seeds and
Roundup brand chemicals over those of competitors.
The dealer's agreement with Monsanto is
confidential, and he asked that his name not be used.
'You Had To’
Under the agreement, the licensee would earn a
rebate of 7.5 percent of the royalty it pays Monsanto
if Roundup Ready accounts for 70 percent of the
dealer's annual herbicide- resistant seed sales. The
rebate is halved if the Roundup Ready share is
between 50 percent and 75 percent, and isn't paid at
all below 50 percent.
Similar terms were in Monsanto's licensing
agreements with Stine Seed Co.until Monsanto
phased them out in recent years, according to Harry
Stine, president and founder of the largest closely
held seed company in the U.S., based in Adel, Iowa.
“In order to get the large rebate they would give you,
you had to minimize your sales of other companies'
seeds,” Stine said. “The rebates were so large that for
all practical purposes you had to do it.” At one time,
the requirement for earning the full rebate was as
high as 90 percent, he said. Stine has a collaborative
agreement to develop seeds with Monsanto, he said.
Gene Restrictions
The agreement reviewed by Bloomberg prohibited
the dealer from combining the Roundup Ready trait
with herbicide-tolerant traits that the licensee or
other companies developed.
It specifically bars the dealer from using any non-
Monsanto genetic modification that makes crops
tolerant to glyphosate, the herbicide found in
Roundup.
Such terms could be anti-competitive because
Monsanto controls such a large share of the corn and
soybean markets with its Roundup Ready gene,
Hovenkamp said.
Monsanto's Partridge said the company routinely
negotiates agreements that allow seed companies to
April - 2010
combine Roundup Ready with genetic modifications
of its competitors.
“Monsanto has a demonstrated track record of both
in- licensing and out-licensing trait technologies to
support the development of stacked products,” he
said in an interview.
“We've done this more than any other company in
this industry.”
Monsanto is also under scrutiny because the rising
price of its seeds has been a sore point for farmers,
said Peter Carstensen, a antitrust professor at the
University of Wisconsin Law School in Madison.
Farmers' Costs Rise
“Buying seed used to be not terribly costly,” said
Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic
Center in Boulder, Colorado, who in December
completed a study of 35 years of seed pricing. “Now
farmers are locked into these high seed costs on an
annual basis.”
The study showed that soybean farmers spent
between 4 percent and 8 percent of their farm income
on seeds from 1975 through 1997. Last year, farmers
who planted genetically modified soybeans spent
16.4 percent of their income on seeds, it found.
Monsanto's licensing royalty on soybean seeds with
the Roundup Ready trait climbed to $15.65 for each
140,000-seed bag last year from about $6.50 a
decade ago, according to the owner of one seed
company.
A bag of Roundup Ready seed sells for about $35 and
can plant three-quarters of an acre (0.3 hectare). He
asked not to be named because the terms are
confidential under his licensing agreement.
Monsanto sells him seeds including the genetic trait,
which he then reproduces and sells under his own
brand, the person said.
'Triple Stack' Corn
Farmers who adopt Monsanto's Roundup Ready 2
Yield technology, being introduced this year as a
replacement for Roundup Ready, will have to pay a
royalty of as much as $39.75 a bag, according to
documents reviewed by Bloomberg.
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Cal Dalton, a farmer in Pardeeville, Wisconsin, said
he switched to a competitor last year when Monsanto
sought a $30 price increase, to $210 a bag, for its
“triple stack” corn seed, a line that resists glyphosate,
rootworm, and corn borers.
Monsanto still earned a royalty on the purchase
because the seeds he bought carried the Roundup
Ready trait, he said.
The list price for Monsanto's “Yieldgard VT Triple”
brand of triple-stack corn seed rose to about $277.50
a bag this year from $201.83 in 2008, based on seed
prices per acre provided by Powers, the
spokeswoman.
She declined to discuss prices or royalties individual
customers pay.
Roundup Ready 2
In the licensing agreement reviewed by Bloomberg,
Monsanto agreed to rebate to the dealer as much as
4% of the dealer's royalty if he developed a plan to
move his customers from Roundup Ready to
Roundup Ready 2.
Monsanto says Roundup Ready 2 soybean seeds
boost crop yields by 4.7 bushels an acre compared
with traditional Roundup Ready.
Soybeans yielded on average 44 bushels an acre last
year, according to the USDA.
Stine, who said he's been on conference calls with the
state attorneys general group to discuss the
Monsanto investigation, hasn't made up his mind
whether Monsanto's dealings are anticompetitive.
“On the one hand,” Monsanto is “hard to get along
with and very restrictive,” Stine said.
“However, in general, their traits and products have
been superior to other companies'.”
Source:- Afitzgerald2@bloomberg.net.
29
 Monsanto and Seed Giants
Want to Ban Farm-Saved Seed
A new report from GRAIN reveals the new lobbying
offensive from the global seed industry to make it a
crime for farmers to save seeds for the next year's
planting.
This briefing traces the recent discussions within the
seed industry and explores what will happen if a plant
variety right becomes virtually indistinguishable
from a patent.
BACKGROUND
Seed companies already have strong legal support
from governments. In many countries, seed laws
require farmers to use only certified seed of
government-approved varieties.
That seed is often available only from commercial
seed companies.
A rapidly increasing number of governments also
grant legal monopoly rights for commercial seed, by
means of industrial patents and so-called plant variety
protection (PVP).
Until recently, both seed patents and PVP existed only
in developed countries.
But since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was
created in 1994, all member governments must
provide some form of monopoly rights on seeds.
There is now enormous pressure on developing
countries to adopt the developed country models.
Many have been persuaded to join the international
PVP system, managed by UPOV (International Union
for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants).
In the past ten years, UPOV has more than doubled its
membership. Most new members are developing
countries.
The UPOV system was originally set up in 1961, in
response to many years of lobbying by the seed
industry.
30 Kisan Ki Awaaz
What the companies really wanted was to have
industrial patents on seeds.
Patents give absolute rights to control all uses of the
seed, both for planting and for further breeding.
But at the time many governments felt that patents
would give industry too much power over farmers.
The UPOV PVP was created as a compromise. From
the beginning, it gave seed companies a monopoly on
only the commercial multiplication and the marketing
of seeds.
Farmers remained free to save seed from their own
harvest to plant in the following year, and other
breeders could freely use any variety, protected or not,
to develop a new one.
During the 1980s, the development of genetic
engineering attracted large transnational companies
from the pharmaceuticals and chemical sectors into
plant breeding.
With their much greater lobbying power, they began a
new offensive to strengthen monopoly rights on plant
breeding in developed countries.
First, they got industrial patents on plants bred with
genetic engineering (GE) and related techniques.
This meant, in practice, that they got the absolute
monopoly that conventional breeders had been
refused two decades earlier.
Second, the UPOV PVP rights were radically
expanded for all plant varieties, GE or conventional.
Since 1991, the PVP monopoly has applied not only
to seed multiplication but also to the harvest and
sometimes the final product as well.
The previously unlimited right for farmers to save
seed for the following year's planting has been
changed into an optional exception.
April - 2010
Only if the national government allows it can farm-
saved seed still be used, and a royalty has to be paid to
the seed company even for seeds grown on-farm.
Third, these much stronger monopoly rights are
required for membership in the WTO, as already
described.
This is the starting point for the new lobby offensive
now being prepared by the global seed industry.
The goal this time is to remove the few remaining
differences between the PVP system and patents, so
that companies will have an absolute monopoly over
seeds all over the world, regardless of which legal
system is used, for all crops and all countries.
THE REAL TARGET - FARM-SAVED SEED
Farm-saved seed will be a primary target of this
offensive. At least two-thirds of the global crop area is
currently planted with farm-saved seed every year.
In many developing countries, it represents 80--90 per
cent of all seed used, but even in developed countries
it commonly accounts for a large share (30--60 per
cent).
If farmers were legally forced to plant all of this area
with commercial seed, it could easily mean a doubling
of seed industry turnover, that is, an extra US$20
billion annually -- all taken out of farmers' pockets
and delivered to transnational giants such as DuPont,
Bayer, Syngenta, and Monsanto.
Another key industry demand will be to restrict or
eliminate the freedom to use PVP-protected varieties
for breeding -- the other major difference between the
UPOV system and patents.
The purpose is simply to block competition. If nobody
else is allowed to improve on a variety until after the
term of protection -- 20 years or so -- a seed company
will be able to sell the unimproved variety for a much
longer period, and postpone the cost of new research.
The net effect: increased profits for the PVP owner,
higher seed prices and fewer new varieties for
farmers.
The seed industry has every reason to fear breeders.
April - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
competition from farm-saved seed and more
innovative independent breeders.
Even individual farmers can often match or beat the
performance of commercial varieties by simple on-
farm selection.
With constantly stronger monopoly rights and
increasing consolidation into a few giant
conglomerates, seed companies have produced fewer
and fewer products of value to farmers.
The big strides in yield and resistance improvement
were made early in the 20th century, before any
monopoly rights were available on seeds.
And those improvements came mainly from selecting
and crossing the very best of the thousands of farmer
varieties which had been developed over centuries,
not from any industry-sponsored research.
The failure of commercial plant breeding has left
global agriculture badly prepared for the challenges
of the near future, such as climate change and the need
to wean ourselves off dependence on fossil fuels.
It is now time to start rolling back the monopoly
privileges of the seed industry, not to strengthen them
further.
Http://www.ghorganics.com/SeedGiantWanttoB
Find all
Agriculture Policies
Farmers Issues
Products News
Video & Magazine.
For More Information.
Www.kisankiawaaz.org
31
 Agent Orange Victims Aren't Enough for Monsanto;
Now GM Food
Pressure On Monsanto needs to keep increasing, to avoid more deadly
consequences from the folks who brought the world Agent Orange;
this time is it genetically modified food.
(LONDON) - It is to be hoped that the ruling of the
court will be in favour of common sense; in short the
safety of our food, so essential to every man, woman
and child on this planet.
It is nothing short of a crime that one company,
namely Monsanto, has control of 95% of the seeds
being planted for food.
Scientists in many countries are divided on the issue
of whether GM is good for us.
Yet with all the arguments for or against, how is the
parent wanting to feed their family to make an
assessment of what product on the shelf is safe to
buy?
The answer for me is avoid any food, seed, or a
product made with an ingredient from Monsanto.
I, like many of you readers, would have read of the
thousands of Indian Farmers that have committed
suicide due to being forced to purchase Monsanto
seeds.
Whereas before farmers saved the seeds from their
crops to plant for the following year, this is now not
allowed, indeed it is against the law, Monsanto's Law,
enforced by Monsanto's pack of lawyers.
Such practices cannot be allowed to continue; while
there has been some success in the courts against
Monsanto, the overwhelming rulings have been in
favour of the company spelling disaster for the farmer
and his family, leading many to bankruptcy, hence the
rash of suicides in India.
How has Monsanto become so powerful? Anyone
who has followed the history of the company will
know of the 'Revolving Door policy'.
Countless numbers of Monsanto 'employees' have
32 Kisan Ki Awaaz
gone on to to be government 'employees'.
And countless government 'employees' have, on
leaving government, been taken on by Monsanto.
It is tragic that within the present Obama
administration, this policy has continued.
One year ago the US Supreme Court denied the
appeal by lawyers for over 4 million Vietnamese
seriously affected by Agent Orange.
They also denied the appeal by US Veterans suffering
from Agent Orange.
The victors of that disgraceful ruling were the 37
chemical companies that manufactured Agent
Orange, no prizes for guessing that the leading
company of the 37 was Monsanto.
But even more scandalous was that Chief Justice
Roberts and Justice Stevens declined to take part in
the case, a case that involved over 4 million plaintiffs.
No reason was given for them declining, nor was any
reason given why another Justice namely Clarence
Thomas, did not decline to take part.
For two years he worked as a corporate lawyer in the
pesticide and agriculture division of Monsanto.
Whatever the ruling by the court, the campaign for
safe food has to continue as does the campaign
seeking justice for the victims of Agent Orange... to
win, Monsanto has to be stopped….
Http://www.salemnews.com/articles/march10
2010/agent-orange-ls.php
April - 2010