India talk Pavitra

INDIA is the third largest producer of cotton after China and the U.S. The Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd Mahyco is one of the largest and most trusted seed companies in India. In 1998,after 8 years of negotiation, Monsanto became a 50% shareholder in the company and received approval to conduct countrywide field trials. The data compiled was never made public.

On the 26^th of March 2002 the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of India, gave the conditional clearance to Monsanto and Mahyco for commercial planting of the genetically engineered Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.) cotton in four states of southern and central India.

In June 2002, about 55,000 cotton farmers decided to grow Bt cotton, which was developed by inserting a gene of bacteria into the plant’s genome to enable it to resist bollworm, a major pest for cotton.

In the first few months the farmers were delighted with the crop since it grew fast and looked healthy. Most satisfying was that the leaves were not being eaten by worms.

Unfortunately, in the fourth month, the Bt cotton stopped growing and producing new buds while the existing cotton bolls did not get any bigger. The crop then wilted and dried up at the peak bolling stage. This was accompanied by leaf-drooping and shedding. There was also bursting of immature bolls and heavy infestation of bollworm. In the state of Andhra Pradesh 79% of the crop was lost. In Madhya Pradesh 100% of the crop was lost. In Maharastra, the Bt crop has failed across 30,000 hec. In Gujarat, it was completely destroyed by the bollworm.

Subsequently, about 200 farmers committed suicide.

The Bt. cotton failure has cost the farming industry a total loss of Rs. 1128 million or twenty million euro in 105000 acres across the country in one cropping season. The law states that any company that provides poor quality seeds, the performance of which does not match the claims made by the company, is to be held liable for the failure of the variety. Despite this Monsanto has refused to acknowledge the failure or provide any compensation to the farmers.

Monsanto claimed that the crop would be completely pest resistant. Results have clearly shown that the BT cotton crop was devastated by pest attacks. When the BT toxin in the crop proved ineffective in 90 days the farmers used pesticides bought from Monsanto. The spraying of these expensive pesticides had an adverse affect on the crop. The plants developed the leaf curl virus and the root rot disease and were destroyed. Monsanto took no responsibility.

Monsanto claimed that the crop would be resistant to the bollworm provided that there was a 20 percent refuge crop of non-BT cotton planted alongside the BT crop. This would ensure that the bollworm would attack only the conventional crop.

In reality however the bollworm not only attacked the conventional crop but also devastated the bt crop. A relative of the American bollworm called the pink bollworm developed with immunity to the BT toxin.

Also in these instances, the 20% refuge of conventional crop actually yielded a better harvest. In most cases it was only the conventional refuge crop that survived. Again Monsanto took no responsibility.

Monsanto claimed that there would be no attack from any other pests. But in reality sucking pests like Jassids, aphids and Thrips thrived on the Bt. Cotton. The sprays bought from Monsanto to control these pests were seven times more expensive than conventional sprays even though Monsanto had originally claimed that they would not be necessary.

Monsanto claimed that the yields of the bt cotton crop would be 15 times higher than the average yield of conventional cotton. But nowhere in the surviving farms did the crop exceed the average yield. A good bt crop produced 60 cotton bolls per plant while the conventional plant produced 250 to 300. The seeds cost the farmers four times more than the conventional seeds even though they have to be bought on a yearly basis, as they cannot reproduce. The labor costs also increased by 50%.

Following the dire publicity over the performance of its GM (Bt) cotton in India, and with many poor Indian farmers facing ruin, Monsanto-Mahyco came up with findings which it provided to the Indian government showing that it had been a great success. Greenpeace-India sent its own researchers to check up on how the data had been compiled and, amongst much else, the researchers collected testimonies from farmers who said that they had been advised by the company to inflate their real yield figures.

Monsanto claims that the negative publicity against them has been fabricated by competitors. They do not believe that they owe the Indian farmers any compensation and plan to continue with the sale of their seeds.

In studies carried out, it has been demonstrated that gm crops transfer their genes to soil fungi and bacteria. The affected fungi and bacteria then behave in abnormal ways and diminish their function in breaking down organic material, which makes nutrients available to plants. The soil will become progressively less fertile. After a few seasons of planting the gm crop the soil will not be able to host any other conventional crop. If farmers wish to switch back to conventional crops it could take a whole season to rehabilitate the soil. The economic consequences of which are clearly unfavorable. There is also the added cost of nutrients and fertilizers necessary to regenerate the soil. However the most dangerous threat is that after many seasons it could be impossible to revert back to the planting of any conventional crop. Because by then the soil could be completely infertile.

GM crops are genetically manipulated so that they die after one season and cannot reproduce. This is referred to as the terminator gene in the plant. It is promoted as a means of preventing transgenic contamination to other crops. This has proved to be false. It actually spreads not only male sterility but also herbicide tolerance in other crops. The pollen from the crops carrying the Terminator will infect the fields of farmers who either reject, or cannot afford the technology.

Any farmer whose crops are contaminated will then have to label all their produce as "gm contaminated". Monsanto can also sue them for the theft of genes.

This spread of transgenes has been found in maize landraces in remote regions of Mexico. In Canada, 32 out of 33 commercial seed stocks have been found to be contaminated. Pollen remains airborne for hours. As a result, there can be no co-existence of GM and non-GM crops.

It has already been shown by studies that nearly half the caterpillars of Monarch butterflies died when fed on pollen genetically modified with Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis). Some varieties of GM oilseed rape have been found to destroy the ability of bees to detect flower smells. A major seed dealer in the United States has said that there is evidence that earthworms are dying from the effects of Bt corn.

Glufosinate ammonium and glyphosate, used with herbicide tolerant GM crops that currently account for 75% of all GM crops worldwide, are both metabolic poisons. It is toxic to a number of beneficial insects, to larvae of clams and oysters, Daphnia and some freshwater fish, especially the rainbow trout. Monsanto will not take responsibility for the harmful effects of these chemicals on the afore mentioned species. Dr Arpad Pusztai’s study showed that experimental rats fed on GM potatoes suffered damage to their internal organs. The only study that has been carried out on human beings revealed that gm food transfers its modified genes to bacteria in the human gut.

Once a new species comes to life as a result of genetic manipulation with plants, animals and humans. Who will be held accountable?

On the 2^nd of January 2003 it was reported that the plan for the "protato" was presented at a conference in London by G. Padmanaban who as director of India's prestigious Indian Institute of Science had signed a secret deal with Monsanto that even his fellow scientists of the Institute knew nothing about.

The genetically engineered potato that is now being offered as part of an anti-hunger strategy has genes from the plant amaranth.

Particularly when fed to children under the age of 13 the genetically engineered potato will in fact create malnutrition. It denies to children the other nutrients available in grain amaranth and not available in potato. This genetically engineered potato will in fact spread iron and calcium deficiency in children. The already malnourished children who will be the main consumers of the protato stand to suffer even greater deficiencies.

The cow has been made sacred in India because it is a keystone species for agro-ecosystems. And cow dung, biomass and biodiversity are the non-violent organic alternative to genetic engineering and chemicals.

Farmer’s organizations in India and in Africa are saying "no" to GMO’s on the basis of their freedom to choose to be organic. This means being free of genetic contamination that results from GM crops. Genetic contamination robs farmers of their freedom to be GM free. Organic agriculture in India is increasing farm productivity by 2 to 3 times, increasing farmers incomes, and protecting public health and the environment.

A major factor in agriculture is the availability of water. Bt cotton consumes much more water than non-Bt hybrids do. The ruin faced by the farmers is of critical interest to India, which has the world's largest acreage of cotton (25% at nine million hectares) but accounts for just a little over 12% of the production. The BT cotton disaster decreased production dramatically creating havoc in the Indian economy.

On the 7^th of March 2003 India went on to reject 23,000 tonnes of GM corn-Soya blend. This shipment was a part of the $ 100 million US government's annual food aid to parts of India that suffer from chronic malnutrition.

On the 5^th of January 2004, the Indian government announced details of a six-year plan to develop new genetically engineered crops that will provide better nutrition. Government scientists say this kind of research is urgently needed to improve the health of the developing world. The "Plant Genome Research Road-Map", as it's called, was unveiled at the Indian Science Congress.

The Indian movement against GM will continue to fight any genetic manipulation of crops that might be proposed by the government or multinationals. Farmers across the country have declared themselves Gm free and have been staging protests and forming movements like Quit India Monsanto and Cremate Monsanto. Activists in India believe that neither affluent populations nor those struggling to survive have the need for an inadequately tested technology that has the potential to cause devastation on a global scale in the years to come. We have no need for a technology that has proved beyond doubt to be fatal to the environment.

This has been our experience in India, the question you have to ask yourselves is what will happen to Ireland when the first genetically modified crop is planted?

Pavitra Chalam
pavichalam@yahoo.com

23^rd April 2004

My report contains information from research carried out by the following institutions:

1) Research foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, India

2) Forum for biotechnology and food security, New Delhi

3) The AgBioIndia bulletin

4) Greenpeace India

For further information on the content in the report please visit the following links.

http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Nov/msg00031.html

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-11/30shiva.cfm

http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/feedtheworld.htm

http://www.vshiva.net/aticles/gmo_failure.htm

http://www.vshiva.net/aticles/risks_ge&unsound_science.htm

http://www.vshiva.net/aticles/seeds_suicide.htm