NGOs Hit Out At Australia, Canada And New Zealand For Opening The Door To GM Ter

Multinational agri-businesses - just the type of upright, ethical and moral coporate citizens that will allow us to rest easy knowing they control the terminator technology and terminator seeds.<br><br> <b>Indian Cotton Farmers Betrayed</b><br><br> <i>Rhea Gala travels to Andhra Pradesh to find out why small farmers are still planting GM Bt cotton when it has failed miserably since its introduction four years ago</i><br><br> I have been following the increased planting of Bt cotton across India for the last four years with disbelief. We have heard that the crop has failed very badly, and yet farmers are still queuing to plant Bt cotton, the only genetically modified (GM) crop with commercial approval in the country. In November last year, I finally decided to travel to Hyderabad, capital of Andhra Pradesh, to find out what's really going on.<br><br> SNIP<br><br> Having taken the overnight train to Hyderabad from Bangalore, I travelled with Kavitha Kuruganti, development consultant, and Ram Prasad, entomologist, from the CSA to look at Bt cotton in Guntur District, known as “the pesticide capital of the world”. We ascertained that around 70 percent of cotton grown in the villages was Bt cotton, including many spurious cotton hybrids sold as Bt. Kavitha explained that in the absence of government regulation, a monitoring and evaluation committee comprising civil society organisations such as the CSA had taken on the responsibility of recording events and informing the public and government of the social and environmental tragedy unfolding. She said that farmers had been influenced by pervasive but utterly misleading advertising emanating from Monsanto and its licensees, and endorsed by celebrities, government officials, journalists, agricultural and corporate scientists, larger landowners and seed dealers who had either jumped on a media bandwagon or had vested interests in Bt cotton sales. For example, at the point of sale, when farmers are vulnerable, seed dealers will hype up the yield of a hypothetical farmer's Bt cotton because their profit is four times greater per drum than for non Bt seed.<br><br> We went to speak to seed dealers who told us that sucking pests were low on Bt, costs were high on non Bt, due to more pesticide sprayed, and predicted a higher yield for Bt. They said no problems had been reported for the Bt crop. When questioned on the poor condition of the Bt crop they said it was due to excess rain. But what we saw was quite different.<br><br> We found Bt cotton looking stunted and wilted with dry red leaves resulting from damage due to jassids, a sucking pest. These have caused 50 to 60 percent damage to Bt cotton, but much less on non-Bt cotton. We found a variety of pests including tobacco caterpillar in large numbers only on the Bt plants, and counted an average of only 15 to 20 bolls per plant on Bt cotton compared to 40 to 50 bolls on non-Bt cotton.<br><br> SNIP<br><br> Mr G Raja Shekar of the CSA and Mr MD Amzad Ali of Sarvodaya Youth Organisation introduced me to big and small Bt farmers in the Warangal area. Raja Shekar had found from experience that only five to ten percent of the authorised Bt cotton delivers a competitive crop, while 90 percent looks very poor and is failing badly. This matched my observation that a stunted, wilted, thin and pink-tinged crop was predictably Bt, while a tall healthy, boll heavy and verdant crop almost invariably turned out to be non-Bt.<br><br> So powerful was the belief system manipulated by Monsanto's propaganda that many farmers we spoke to tended to blame the problem on external factors, like flooding, disease, or sucking pests; though some observed that the non-Bt crop had not been similarly afflicted. In some areas, unfortunately, there were few non-Bt crops to compare.<br><br> We spoke to farmer Ravinder Reddy and his brothers, who had a larger holding that was hosting a Monsanto trial for a new Bt hybrid, with Bt and non-Bt control hybrids for comparison. The trial crop was in a very poor state with diseased bolls and dry wilted leaves. The control Bt was better but not as good as the non-Bt hybrid, which was tall, green, bollful and lush. The farmer nevertheless praised the trial crop, explaining that it did not attract insects while the non-Bt healthy plants did. “The Bt technology is superior,” he said, “it is all a question of management; the village farmers will follow my lead.” This statement, in full view of contradictory evidence, later made more sense to me when one of the bystanders turned out to be a Monsanto representative.<br><br> SNIP<br><br> Agricultural scientists Dr Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakkhari conducted the first independent study on Bt cotton and released their report Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh: A three year assessment in 2005. The study involved a season-long investigation in 87 villages of the major cotton growing districts - Warangal, Nalgonda, Adilabad and Kurnool. It found against Bt cotton on all counts and was vital in getting the hybrids involved banned in AP:<br><br> * It failed miserably for small farmers in terms of yield; non-Bt cotton surpassed Bt by nearly 30 percent and at 10 percent less expense<br><br> * It did not significantly reduce pesticide use; over the three years, Bt farmers used Rs2 571 worth of pesticide on average while the non-Bt farmers used Rs2 766 worth of pesticide<br><br> * It did not bring profit to farmers; over the three years, the non-Bt farmer earned on average 60 percent more than the Bt farmer<br><br> * It did not reduce the cost of cultivation; on average, the Bt farmer had to pay 12 percent more than the non-Bt farmer * It did not result in a healthier environment; researchers found a special kind of root rot spread by Bollgard cotton infecting the soil, so that other crops would not grow.<br><br> Complete article posted at the web site of the UK based Institue of Science in Society www.i-sis.org.uk: <a href="http://www.i-sis.org.uk/IndianCottonFarmersBetrayed.php">Indian Cotton Farmers Betrayed</a>

Why is any farmer cutting their own throat by using any genetic seeds?

They should the lessons from their experience with chemical fertilizers, herbacides, and pesticides. Even if yields may be more using these, although this is debatable as I have talked to at least one organic farmer whose yields were the same (I suspect this is the dirty secret of the organic industry that charges 3+ times the price) those yields have long ago reached a peak and now for all intents and purposes they are forced to pay the ever increasing costs for these inputs. Have their costs for these inputs ever gone down? No because those selling them fully realize that farmers almost can't get along without them, at least the regressive ones who refuse to educate themselves or do things differently, ie better.

In the same way, farmers' independence is threatened every time one of them uses genetic seeds. This is pretty strange behaviour from a segment of the population that likes to portray itself as independent and self-sufficient.

Farmers already have little independance. Seeds and pesticides are often sold together because they come from the same company. Bank loans are often co-signed by large processors who can dictate to the farmer how to run his farm. A farmer has enormous peer pressure from his entire community to work in a certain way. In some cases insurance is even tied to a specific way of farming and if things aren't done a certain way, then there is no insurance. And of course in many cases the farmer doesn't even 'own' the land but is just a manager for the corporation.

For years the world had struggled to get poor countries in a position to produce their own food. Wheat and rice is now being grown in countries and nations that once relied on other nations for their food. It seems the goodwill of these providing nations end with the dollar. How soon will these GM seeds cause the same famine again and increase the exporters profits. Canada should be most ashamed, as once a leader in helping these countries get back on their feet. Starvation is the cost of capitalism.

Time to acknowledge that Canada is NOT as lilly white as we pretend it is.

---
Vera Gottlieb

Yes, Canada is NOT as lily white as we would like to think. The media and our opposition parties get all hyped about the Gomery Report and political scandal while the things we really need to be paying attention to that our government is doing behind closed doors or deaf and blind media are the places we need to be shining some light on. Where are the MPs then? What good are they actually doing us?

Well, we know what goes around comes around so Canada will have to take it's lumps one day soon and the first person that says, "Why do they hate us?" had better be far, far away from where I'm standing.

---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

>>Well, we know what goes around comes around so Canada will have to take it's lumps one day soon and the first person that says, "Why do they hate us?" had better be far, far away from where I'm standing.<<

It's a shell game and we all fall into it. The attention the Gomery report gets, was what we demanded and the News Media feed us the best sellers. Canada spend billions on producing "reports" we want to see. Canadians are not unlike any other citizen and turn a blind eye to anything that's a downer. So little actualy gets in the limelight.
We can begrudge the Americans for all their underhanded and dirty tricks. They are in the limelight for all the world to see. It's what the world (including Canadians) can't see, that Canada had better start cleaning up, before it's revealed. Before Canada becomes like the USA.