Thursday, December 24, 2015

NEWS : Govt. has to look into Bt cotton crop failure in Raichur: Experts

RAICHUR, December 24, 2015
Updated: December 24, 2015 16:35 IST  
Independent team of cotton experts examining a Bt cotton field destroyed by pink bollworm at Gonal village near Raichur on Thursday. - PHOTO: SANTOSH SAGAR
Independent team of cotton experts examining a Bt cotton field destroyed by pink bollworm at Gonal village near Raichur on Thursday. - PHOTO: SANTOSH SAGAR

The team of independent researchers said around 80 per cent of the Bt cotton crop was destroyed due to pink bollworm attack.

Following media reports on Bt cotton failure, an independent fact-finding team of experts visited Bt cotton fields in Raichur district on Thursday. The team visited fields in Gonal and Kadagamdoddi villages and interacted with the affected farmers.

In Gonal village, affected farmers were found desperately seeking suggestions and recommendations from the team members about alternative cotton seeds for cultivation. “We have suffered a massive blow with the failure of Bt cotton. We want some other varieties that could withstand pest attack and fetch better yield,” a farmer pleaded.

Speaking to media at a Bt cotton field in Gonal, about 15 kms from Raichur, Dr. Prakash, who headed the team, said that around 80 per cent of the Bt cotton crop was destroyed due to pink bollworm attack.
“A study report released from University of Agricultural Sciences in Raichur pointed out that around 40-50 per cent of Bt cotton crop in rain-fed area was destroyed in pink bollworm attack. We however found that the damage was over 80 per cent. The university should conduct fresh study and submit a report to government seeking appropriate actions for safeguarding the interests of affected farmers,” he said.
 Mr. Manjunath Holalu, another team member, pointed out that both Raichur and Dharwad agriculture universities had, in their Package of Practices reports recommended Bt cotton cultivation for rain-fed areas which goes against the recommendations of Central Institute for Cotton Research.

He also pointed out that Bollguard II variety of Bt cotton seeds, which was developed for controlling pink bollworm, had utterly failed.

“The instruction guide supplied with Bt cotton seed packet claims that it controls not only American, Spotted and Pink bollworms, but also highly effective against Spodoptera and Semi-loopers. But in reality it failed to control pink bollworm,” he observed. He showed the empty Bt cotton seed packets and the instructional manuals that he collected from farmers.

P. Srinivas Vasu, a team member, demanded the government hold Bt cotton seed companies responsible for the loss and compel them to pay compensation to affected farmers.

The team was comprised of Dr. H.R. Prakash, Agronomist and Rtd Additional Director, Department of Agriculture, Mr. Manjunath Holalu, Forestry and Environmentalist, P. Srinivas Vasu, ActionAid representative, Venkatesh Patel, a farmer, Syed Hafeez Ulha, convenor of Bharat Gyan Vigyan Samiti, Lakshman Gwoda, representative of Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha and others.

SOURCE : http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/govt-has-to-look-into-bt-cotton-crop-failure-in-raichur-experts/article8025665.ece

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

EVENT: झिरो बजेट नैसर्गिक (आध्यात्मिक) शेती - प्रशिक्षण शिबिर

Inline images 1

झिरो बजेट नैसर्गिक (आध्यात्मिक) शेती - प्रशिक्षण शिबिर
मार्गदर्शक: कृषी-ऋषी श्री. सुभाष पाळेकर
दिनांक : २३ ते ३० डिसेंबर २०१५ (बुधवार ते बुधवार - ८ दिवस)
स्थळ: तनपुरे महाराज मठ, मंदिर रस्ता, पंढरपूर, जि. सोलापूर
संपूर्ण शुल्क: प्रतिव्यक्ती रु.८००/- प्रशिक्षण, नाष्टा-भोजन सहित (निवास खर्च वेगळा)
नाव नोंदवासाठी संपर्क: ८८०६१३००९, ९४२१०६५१९३, ९९७०९९५२९६, ९७६३४७६३४६ 

धन्यवाद ! 
मिलिंद + दीपक

झिरो बजेट नैसर्गिक (आध्यात्मिक) शेतीचे संपूर्ण प्रशिक्षण शिबिर आता MP३ स्वरुपात

सोन्या पेक्षाही बहुमोल असे हे ज्ञान लुटा (Download करा ) आणि इतरांनाही वाटा. झिरो बजेट नैसर्गिक (आध्यात्मिक) शेतीचे संपूर्ण प्रशिक्षण शिबिर  आता MP३ स्वरुपात येथे "http://zbnfmp3.Blogspot.com" उपलब्ध झाले आहे. धन्यवाद !

EVENT: [zerobudgetnaisargiksheti] कृषी ज्ञान यज्ञ सोहळा: २३ ते ३० डिसेंबर २०१५


नमस्कार,

योग्य दिशा व मार्ग मिळत नसल्याने शेतकरी निराश/हताश होत आहेत. आत्महत्या हा उपाय नाही तर त्यांना झिरो बजेट नैसर्गिक (आध्यात्मिक) शेती चा मार्ग आवश्य दाखवा. आपल्या मार्फत खूप शेतकरी शिबिरात येतील अशी आशा करू या !  
जे आधी शिबीरात आले आहेत किंवा ज्यांना हया जन आदोलानाबद्दल माहिती आहे त्यांनी आपल्या गावातील किमान ५ शेतकऱ्यांना हया कृषी ज्ञान प्रशिक्षणात आवर्जुन पाठवावे.

भरपूर उत्पन्नाची, दर्जेदार मालाची, शुन्य खर्चाची, कर्ज मुक्त, चिंता मुक्त, विष मुक्त, कष्ट मुक्त, आत्महत्या मुक्त, शोषण मुक्त, रोग-किडी मुक्त, दुष्काळ मुक्त, अवकाळी संकट मुक्त अशी ही शेतकऱ्यांना खऱ्या अर्थाने सुखी–समृद्ध–स्वावलंबी करणारी निसर्ग, ज्ञान-विज्ञान, अहिंसा व आध्यात्म आधारित शाश्वत कृषी पध्दती.…
वरील व्याक्य खरं वाटत नाही ना ? मग पहा या यशोगाथा -


झिरो बजेट नैसर्गिक (आध्यात्मिक) शेती - प्रशिक्षण शिबिर
मार्गदर्शक: कृषी-ऋषी श्री. सुभाष पाळेकर
दिनांक : २३ ते ३० डिसेंबर २०१५ (बुधवार ते बुधवार - ८ दिवस)
स्थळ: तनपुरे महाराज मठ, मंदिर रस्ता, पंढरपूर, जि. सोलापूर
संपूर्ण शुल्क: प्रतिव्यक्ती  किंवा  पती+पत्नी  रु.८००/- प्रशिक्षण, नाष्टा-भोजन सहित (निवास खर्च वेगळा)
नाव नोंदवासाठी संपर्क: ८८०६१३००९, ९४२१०६५१९३, ९९७०९९५२९६, ९७६३४७६३४६ 

महत्वाची सूचना: खास करून नोकरी करण्यासाठी हे शिबीर नाताळच्या सुट्टीत आले आहे तेव्हा ह्या सुवर्ण संधीचा चांगला लाभ घ्या. नियोजन करा व शिबिरात येण्यासाठी नाव नोंदवा. 
( विशेष विनंती: IT क्षेत्रात काम करणाऱ्यांनी ह्या शिबिरात आवर्जून यावे. )


धन्यवाद ! 
मिलिंद + दीपक

Friday, November 27, 2015

Seralini’s team wins defamation and forgery court cases on GMO and pesticide research

On 25 November 2015, the High Court of Paris indicted Marc Fellous, former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for “forgery” and “the use of forgery”, in a libel trial that he lost to Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini. The Biomolecular Engineering Commission has authorised many GM crops for consumption.
The details of the case have not yet been publicly released but a source close to the case told GMWatch that Fellous had used or copied the signature of a scientist without his agreement to argue that Séralini and his co-researchers were wrong in their reassessment of Monsanto studies.

The Séralini team’s re-assessment reported finding signs of toxicity in the raw data from Monsanto’s own rat feeding studies with GM maize.  

The sentence against Fellous has not yet been passed and is expected in June 2016.

Defamation case

The latest ruling marks a second court victory for Séralini’s team.

In September 2012, an article written by Jean-Claude Jaillette in Marianne magazine said that “researchers around the world” had voiced “harsh words” about the research of Séralini and his team on the toxic effects of a GMO and Roundup over a long term period – research that was supported by the independent organisation CRIIGEN. The journalist wrote of a “scientific fraud in which the methodology served to reinforce pre-determined results”.

Séralini, his team, and CRIIGEN challenged this allegation in a defamation lawsuit. They were assisted by the notaries Bernard Dartevelle and Cindy Gay.

On 6 November 2015, after a criminal investigation lasting three years, the 17th Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Paris passed sentence. Marianne magazine and its journalist were fined for public defamation of a public official and public defamation of the researchers and of CRIIGEN, which is chaired by Dr Joel Spiroux de Vendômois.

The trial demonstrated that the original author of the fraud accusation, prior to Marianne, was the American lobbyist Henry I. Miller in Forbes magazine.

Miller had previously lobbied to discredit research linking tobacco to cancer and heart disease on behalf of the tobacco industry. Since then he has tried to do the same in support of GMOs and pesticides, through defamation.

The long-term toxicity study by Séralini’s team was republished after the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted it under pressure from lobbyists. Séralini’s team has just published a summary of the toxic effects of Roundup below regulatory thresholds.

Appeal for funding for CRIIGEN

These court actions have taken up an enormous amount of energy and funds. CRIIGEN cannot survive without public support.

This is why the CRIIGEN team is making a call for donations to support past and future legal cases and independent research:
https://www.leetchi.com/c/solidarite-de-le-criigen–association-du-pr-seralini

SOURCE : http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralinis-team-wins-defamation-and-forgery-court-cases-on-gmo-and-pesticide-research/

Friday, November 6, 2015

NEWS: Bt cotton turns out to be a disaster for Indian farmers

Last updated on: November 06, 2015 17:57 IST
 
The whitefly outbreak has intensified a debate over GM crops just as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's office reviews a proposal to allow farmers to grow GM mustard.


Image: Bhinder Kaur, widow of Kuldeep Singh, a cotton farmer who committed suicide in Bhatinda, Punjab. Photograph: Munish Sharma/Reuters

Indian farmers are for the first time abandoning genetically modified cotton after a devastating pest attack ravaged their fields, sowing doubts about the crop technology that had been hailed as a panacea.

The whitefly attack on the Bt cotton variety in Punjab and Haryana has caused a rural crisis: at least three farmers have committed suicide around the city of Bhatinda and tens of thousands protested to demand state aid.

These are some of the same farmers who more than a decade ago reaped the first bumper harvest of GM cotton that quickly caught on because it dramatically increased yields and raised living standards.

Cotton output has jumped fourfold since commercial cultivation of GM cotton was allowed in 2002, transforming India into the world's top producer and second-largest exporter.
That run may now falter, raising the risk of slower sales for Monsanto which has sold Bt cotton seeds to more than 7 million Indian farmers, mainly through local seed firms operating under licence.


Image: Farmer Darshan Singh plucks cotton from his damaged Bt cotton field on the outskirts of Bhatinda in Punjab. Photograph: Munish Sharma/Reuters

"We poured all our money into buying pesticides and worked day and night to save the crop. But it failed miserably," said Thana Singh, 67, whose son died after taking poison during a protest outside a government office in Punjab.

Singh and many other farmers plan to switch to food crops such as lentils to rebuild their livelihoods.
"My son was unable to overcome the stress. We were staring at massive losses caused either by the Bt cotton seeds, or maybe by fake pesticides," said Singh, who choked up with emotion as he walked through a field whose cotton pods and leaves were covered with whiteflies. "I don't want to touch Bt seeds until I have a firm answer."

The whitefly outbreak has intensified a debate over GM crops just as Prime Minister Narendra Modi's office reviews a proposal to allow farmers to grow GM mustard, an oilseed.
To lift India's woeful farm productivity, Modi has asked scientists to work closely with farmers to introduce high-yielding crop strains.

But a farmers' body affiliated to Modi's ruling party is bitterly opposing GM crops and is lobbying senior officials for a ban on Bt cotton and to block GM mustard.


Image: Malkit Kaur, mother of Kuldeep Singh, a cotton farmer who committed suicide, holds his portrait as Kuldeep's father Thana Singh (R), his brother Hardeep Singh (2nd R) and his widow Bhinder Kaur. Photograph: Munish Sharma/Reuters

High stakes
The stakes are high for Monsanto, which licensed a gene that produces its own pesticide to kill bollworms, the pest most lethal to cotton, to a number of local seed companies in lieu of royalties.
Monsanto also markets these seeds directly, but has a market share of just 2-3 percent. The local licensees together command 90 percent of the market.

Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt Ltd (MMB), a joint venture with India's Mahyco, said that Monsanto and the licensees have marketed their product as resistant to bollworms, but not against other pests.

"This technology is effective only against specific types of bollworms that are known to cause boll damage leading to yield loss and economic damage to the cotton crop and not other sucking pests," a spokesman said in comments emailed to Reuters.


Image: Jaswinder Kaur, a farmer, removes whitefly pest from cotton pods after plucking them from her damaged Bt cotton field. Photograph: Munish Sharma/Reuters

Spurious Seeds, Phoney Pesticides?
Punjab and Haryana have launched investigations, raiding the offices of some seed companies and pesticide makers to collect samples of the products sold to farmers.

Last month, police arrested the director of the Punjab state agriculture university suspected of involvement in allowing the sale of 19 pesticides that were found be ineffective.

The federal farm ministry said it was considering ways to limit the number of GM cotton hybrids being widely sold in India to eliminate those most prone to whitefly.

Experts say that dry conditions in northern India and Pakistan have helped the pest spread.
"Bt cotton seeds are as effective against bollworms as they were in 2002 and the widespread whitefly attack was primarily due to a prolonged dry spell," said Bhagirath Choudhary, director of the South Asia Biotech Centre, a not-for-profit scientific society.

Farmers grow GM cotton on 95 percent of the total 11-12 million hectares under the crop. Punjab and Haryana together produce about 4 million bales (1 bale = 170 kg) of India's total output of nearly 38 million bales.

"I don't see any significant drop in output because we haven't heard of any pest attack in Gujarat, Maharashtra, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh," Choudhary said, referring to the top producing states.

(Additional reporting by Rajendra Jadhav and Krishna N Das)

Thursday, November 5, 2015

REPORT : Twenty Years of Failure - Why GM crops have failed to deliver on their promises

Greenpeace Publication - 5 November, 2015

Twenty years ago, the first genetically modified (GM) crops were planted in the USA, alongside dazzling promises about this new technology. Two decades on, the promises are getting bigger and bigger, but GM crops are not delivering any of them. Not only was this technology supposed to make food and agriculture systems simpler, safer and more efficient, but GM crops are increasingly being touted as the key to 'feeding the world' and 'fighting climate change'.
The promises may be growing, but the popularity of GM crops is not. Despite twenty years of pro-GM marketing by powerful industry lobbies, GM technology has only been taken up by a handful of countries, for a handful of crops. GM crops are grown on only 3% of global agricultural land. Figures from the GM industry in fact show that only five countries account for 90% of global GM cropland, and nearly 100% of these GM crops are one of two kinds: herbicide-tolerant or pesticide-producing. Meanwhile, whole regions of the world have resisted GM crops. European consumers do not consume GM foods, and a single type of GM maize is cultivated in Europe. Most of Asia is GM-free, with the GM acreage in India and China mostly accounted for by a non-food crop: cotton. Only three countries in Africa grow any GM crops. Put simply, GM crops are not 'feeding the world'.
Why have GM crops failed to be the popular success the industry claims them to be?
 
LINK TO THE REPORT Twenty Years of Failure
 
SOURCE:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/Campaign-reports/Agriculture/Twenty-Years-of-Failure/

Sunday, November 1, 2015

GM MUSTARD SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN INDIA: THIS IS UNNEEDED, UNWANTED & UNSAFE

New Delhi, November 1st 2015: Following a news report confirming that an application for approval for commercialization of GM mustard has been moved with the apex regulatory body GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee in the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change), the Coalition for a GM Free India reminded the government about the serious consequences of this GMO's release, and warned the government of serious resistance all over the countryFarmer Unions and citizen groups had earlier started a Sarson Satyagraha urging the government not to jeopardise our food, farming and environment by introducing GM mustard.
This is the first time India would be considering commercial cultivation approval of any GM food crop after an indefinite moratorium was placed on Bt brinjal five years ago in February 2010. This GM mustard, developed by Delhi University, called Dhara Mustard Hybrid 11 (DMH11) adopted the transgenic technology to facilitate hybridization on claims of increased yields through such a hybrid. In creating such a GM mustard, male sterility has been induced in one of the parental lines, in addition to using herbicide tolerance trait.
Rajesh Krishnan, Convenor of Coalition for a GM-Free India pointed out that this GM mustard hybrid has been created mainly to facilitate the seed production work of seed manufacturers whereas farmers already have a choice of non-GM mustard hybrids in the market, in addition to high yielding mustard varieties. More importantly, there are non-GM agro-ecological options like System of Mustard Intensification yielding far higher production than the claimed yields of this GM mustard of DU. He said, “this GM mustard is also a backdoor entry for various other GM crops in the regulatory pipeline – while herbicide tolerance as a trait has been recommended against by committee after committee in the executive, legislative and judiciary-based inquiry processes in India related to GM crops, this GM mustard uses herbicide tolerance. Contamination is inevitable of all other mustard varieties, while India is the Centre of Diversity for mustard. This is clearly one more GMO that is unwanted and unneeded and is being thrust on citizens in violation of our right to choices, as farmers and consumers”. He also reminded that most state governments were not even willing to take up field trials of this GM mustard and only Punjab and Delhi had allowed the same.
“GEAC is functioning in a highly secretive fashion, and while the nation does not know what is happening inside the regulatory institutions with applications like this GM mustard, biosafety data is being repeatedly declined by the regulators. What are the regulators hiding and whose interests are they protecting? Why should the regulators be trusted for their safety assessment when in the case of both Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, the Supreme Court Technical Expert Committee (SC TEC) which took up a sample biosafety analyses in 2013 showed that the regulators were wrong in concluding the safety of these GMOs? The Supreme Court in 2008 had ordered that biosafety data be placed in public domain when petitioners in the GM PIL argued that unless the toxicity and allergenicity data are made known to the public, the applicants and concerned scientists in the country would not be in a position to make effective representations to the concerned authorities. On 26/6/2009, the CIC passed Orders in the case of RCGM (another regulatory body) withholding biosafety information and directed that the regulator should comply with the CIC decision on 22/11/2007 for providing existing data with regard to other agricultural products, before any massive farm trial. While these orders exist, my RTI application for biosafety data has been declined with regard to this GM mustard. We would also like to remind the government that in the case of Bt brinjal, the regulators sought public feedback and the Government of India took up public consultations before taking a final decision on Bt brinjal’s commercial cultivation fate in india. However, this current Government seems to be keen to conduct regulatory processes in a secretive fashion. Our past requests to meet with the Environment Minister to share our concerns met with no success. As the government gets more secretive and opaque around regulation, the public has a right to know what are they afraid of, if everything is safe and scientific?”, said Kavitha Kuruganti, Convenor of Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) who has been seeking biosafety data under RTI Act without any success. 
 
It is also pertinent to remember that GEAC continues to exhibit objectionable conflict of interest in its constitution and five years after the Bt brinjal moratorium decision in the country, nothing has improved as far as citizens’ interests are concerned, she said.
 
The Coalition demands that the Union Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Prakash Javadekar, under whose Ministry comes GEAC, to:
.  immediately intervene and stop the processing and approval of this GM mustard;
.  make public all the information regarding the safety tests of the GM Mustard without which no appraisal of this GMO should be taken up.
Notes to Editor:
For more information on this GM mustard and concerns around the same, please do visitwww.indiagminfo.org/?p=880 .
 
For more information on this GM mustard and concerns around the same, please do visit www.indiagminfo.org/?p=880 .
For more information, contact:
Rajesh Krishnan on 07559915032; rajeshecologist@gmail.com

Thursday, October 15, 2015

WATCH : Save our rice - Suma Josson


Published on Oct 6, 2015
This film is by Suma Josson, on the conservation of traditional paddy seeds by farmers in the three states of Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in India. Through their voices and those of scientists, small farmers and environmentalists, the film looks at the ecological benefits of these paddy seeds, organic farming, and the traditional knowledge systems. It is produced by Save Our Rice and Create.

NEWS: In India’s poorest district Nabarangpur, MNC seed majors are growing deep roots



Adivasi, Dalit farmers in Nabarangpur choose hybrids over traditional varieties.
The Indian Express

Written by Harish Damodaran | Nabarangpur (odisha) | Updated: October 15, 2015 8:56 am

It is India’s poorest district with over 70 per cent Adivasi and Dalit population — and yet a booming market for multinational and large domestic seed companies.

The likes of Bayer CropScience, Syngenta, DuPont-Pioneer, Tata-Metahelix, US Agriseeds, Shriram Bioseed, JK Seeds and Advanta are reckoned to have sold 600-650 tonnes of hybrid paddy seeds in Nabarangpur district this kharif season. At an average of six kg planted per acre, these would have covered more than one lakh acres, or 40 per cent of Nabarangpur’s estimated paddy area of 100,684 hectares (2.5 lakh acres) this kharif season. This is way above the 5 per cent share of hybrids in the country’s cultivated rice area.

“Traditional/local varieties account for barely a tenth of the district’s total paddy area today. The balance 90 per cent is under open-pollinated high-yielding varieties (HYV) developed by public sector institutions and privately-bred hybrids. Within the 90 per cent, there could be a roughly 60:40 split between HYVs and hybrids,” says Sushil Haldar, Deputy Director of Agriculture, Nabarangpur.

Such high levels of hybrid penetration may seem counterintuitive in a poor and backward district, dominated by Adivasi tribal communities such as Bhatra, Gond and Kandha.
It is even more pronounced in maize, where hybrid seeds coverage for Nabarangpur is 100 per cent, as against the national average of 60 per cent. In 2013, when acreages peaked, multinationals led by Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Limagrain and Syngenta — besides Shriram Bioseed, Kaveri Seeds and the Thailand-based Charoen Popkhand — reportedly sold 1,300-1,400 tonnes of hybrid maize seeds in the district. At 8 kg per acre, these would have got planted in 160,000-175,000 acres.
The widespread adoption of hybrid technology may owe partly to aggressive marketing by firms — clearly noticeable from the posters of various hybrid seed brands plastered across walls and roadside trees across the district.

But that isn’t the sole reason.

“With Sopori (an indigenous rice variety), I get only 10-12 quintals of paddy per acre, whereas it is 18-20 quintals from Pooja (an HYV bred by the Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack) and 25 quintals from Dhaanya (the hybrid brand of Tata-Metahelix),” says Prabhunath Pujari, who has a five-acre farm near the Kosagumuda block headquarters. This Adivasi grower has, in the current season, planted Pooja paddy in three acres and the Dhaanya DRH-748 hybrid in the remaining two acres.

Higher yield apart, farmers also cite lower labour requirement as a major advantage with hybrid paddy.

“Since the seed rate is six kg per acre, you can have a plant-to-plant distance of 10 inches and it takes only 10 labourers to transplant one acre in a day. In the case of varieties, you need to plant 20 kg, which means a spacing of just four inches between plants which requires four times the labour,” says Praful Kumar Nayak, who has a 25 acre farm in Badambada village of Kosagumuda block.

Nayak, who belongs to the Mirgan Dalit caste, grows Bayer CropScience’s Arize-6444 Gold hybrid and a publicly-bred HYV, MTU-1001, on 10 acres each. On the five remaining acres, he cultivates Haldigoti, a traditional paddy purely for his family’s consumption. “It costs Rs 1,600 to plant six kg of hybrid paddy seeds, compared to Rs 320 for 20 kg of MTU-1001. But this is compensated by higher yields and lower labour requirement. I plant MTU-1001 only because it is more disease-resistant,” he says.

Whatever might be the driving factors, one thing is clear: Nabarangpur’s farmers have taken to hybrid technology as much, if not more, than their counterparts in ostensibly richer and less backward parts of India.

SOURCE: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/in-countrys-poorest-district-nabarangpur-mnc-seed-majors-are-growing-deep-roots/

Saturday, October 10, 2015

Pests, Pesticides and Propaganda: the story of Bt Cotton


By Dr Vandana Shiva

A whitefly epidemic has devastated the Bt cotton crop in Punjab forcing farmers to use 10-12 sprays – each costing Rs 3200. This, in addition to the high cost of Bt seeds sold by Monsanto-Mahyco Biotech. In Maharashtra, Haryana and Punjab, farmers growing non Bt, desi cotton have not been impacted by pests like Bt cotton has. And organic farmers in Punjab had no whitefly attack.
http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Whitefly-destroys-2/3rd-of-Punjabs-cotton-crop-15-farmers-commit-suicide/articleshow/49265083.cms

Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprise (ABLE) is clearly un-able to distinguish between science and Industry propaganda.

A scientific approach, to what is happening in Punjab, would draw the  inference that pesticides and Bt are creating pests, while non Bt seeds and organic practices are controlling them.

The second step would be to identify the ecological processes that create pests in Bt crops, and in fields using heavy doses of pesticides.

The third scientifically enlightened step would be to promote effective and sustainable pest control technologies such as ecological agriculture, and stop pushing failed and costly technologies like Bt and the pesticides that are peddled with it.

Instead of responding scientifically, the biotechnology lobby group has repeated the false claims of Monsanto – which has trapped millions of our farmers in debt and pushed hundreds of thousands to suicide. 300,000 farmers suicides should be a wakeup call for any nation.

Ecological science teaches us that pests are created by industrial agriculture through the following processes.
  1. Promotion of monocultures
  2. Chemical fertilisation of crops – which makes plants more vulnerable to pests
  3. Emergence of resistance in pests by spraying of pesticides
  4. Killing of friendly species which control pests and disruption of pest-predator balance
Bt. crops are not an alternative to these pest creating systems. They are a continuation of a non-sustainable strategy for pest control, which, instead of controlling pests, creates new pests and super pests. Monsanto advertised that Bt cotton would not need pesticide sprays, clearly a case of false advertising. The primary justification given for the genetic engineering of Bt traits into crops was that Bt will reduce the use of insecticides. A Monsanto brochure showed a picture of a few worms and stated – “You will see these in your cotton and that’s O.K. Don’t spray”. Even today, Monsanto apologists claim that Bt has reduced pesticide usage. The Punjab devastation shows this is not true.

Bt crops are pesticide-producing plants that are supposed to control pests. In the US, where Bt technology is from, Bt crops are registered as a pesticide.

Bt toxins are a family of related molecules produced, in nature, by a soil Bacterium – Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt.). Farmers and gardeners have used Bacillus thuringiensis in it’s natural form, as an organic pesticide, for more than 50 years. In recent times, Bt. genes have been genetically engineered into crops, making each and every cell in the plant produce toxins, through most of its life. Naturally occurring Bt and genetically engineered Bt are not substantially equivalent. The Bt in the soil bacterium is a pro-toxin which is in an inactive state. It is therefore safe for non-target insects. It  is transformed into a toxin by enzymes in the gut of the caterpillar family of insects. In the genetically engineered plant Bt plant the expression of the toxin does not need this pathway. Bt plants contain an artificial, truncated Bt gene and less processing is required to generate the toxin. It is therefore less selective, and may harm non-target insects that do not have the enzymes to process the pro-toxin, as well as the pests like the bollworm for which it is intended. This difference in the nature of the Bt in its naturally occurring bacterial form, and its genetically engineered form in plants is the reason the non target species are being impacted while the target species evolves resistance.

The false claim of substantial equivalence by the Biotechnology industry has blocked the scientific research that would assess the difference. Science has been substituted by Propaganda.

Genetically engineered Bt. crops are being touted as a sustainable pest control strategy while their failure is evident. Bt. crops are neither effective nor ecologically sustainable. Instead of controlling pests, Bt crops are creating pests, as is evident from the outbreak of whitefly which destroyed more than 60% of the Bt cotton crop in 2015. Since Bt was introduced in India, pests that had historically never affected non Bt cotton have become major cotton pests. Massive outbreaks of aphids, jassids, army bugs, mealy bugs have compelled farmers to use more pesticides than before. When I sued Monsanto in 1999 for its illegal introduction of Bt cotton into India without the mandatory approval from the GEAC, the data from the open field trials that they were compelled to submit to the Supreme Court revealed that even at the trial stage Bt was increasing aphids and jassids by 300%. Clearly this was overlooked in the assessment by the GEAC.

In a peer-reviewed study, Swiss scientists found that Bt crops are more vulnerable to pest attacks because genetic engineering disrupts the metabolic processes in plants that contribute to resisting insects. 

Evidence for such disruption of metabolic pathways by GM plants has been found in many lab studies and synthesised in a meta analysis through systems biology (found here)
The Royal Society has found that the processes of genetic modification to resist the bollworm makes Bt cotton more susceptible to non target pests such as aphids, because the plant has been induced to express Bt toxin in every cell through genetic engineering. Bt cotton contains reduced levels of induced terpenoids, which help the plant resist other pests.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1758/20130042

Not only is Bt contributing to new pests, it is unable to control the target pest, the bollworm. In 1996, 2 million acres in the US were planted with Monsanto’s Bt. transgenic cotton called Bollgard. Bollworms were found to have infested thousands of acres planted with the new breed of cotton in Texas. The genetically engineered cotton did not survive the cotton bollworm attack. Monsanto was sued by 25 farmers over Bt. cotton planted on 18,000 acres, which suffered boll worm damage, following which, the farmers had to use pesticides in contrast to the corporate propaganda that genetic engineering meant an end to the pesticide era.

A second process through which Bt is contributing to increasing the pest problem, instead of reducing it, is by inducing Bt-resistance in pests and creating super pests.

The Bt. crop strategy is not a sustainable method for pest control because Bt plants continuously release toxins. Constant long-term exposure of pest populations to Bt encourages survival of individual pests that are genetically resistant to the toxin. As Margaret Mellon and Jane Rissler, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, state in their report Now or Never – “over many generations, the proportion of resistant individuals in pest populations can increase, reducing the efficacy of the Bt. toxin as pesticide.”

Scientists have estimated that widespread use of Bt. crops could lead to the loss of Bt’s efficacy against certain pest populations in as far as two to five years (Fred and Bruce, 1998). In India, the pink bollworm has developed resistance to Bt, and Monsanto is selling an even more expensive Bollgard II, which has stacked Bt genes. This too will contribute to evolution of resistance since the genetically engineered Bt crops continuously express the Bt toxin, throughout its growing season. Continued exposure to Bt toxins promotes development of resistance in insect populations, rendering Bt ineffective at the one job it is supposed to do.

The fact that the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) of the U.S. requires refugia of non-engineered crops to be planted near the engineered crops, reflects the reality of the creation of resistant strains of insects. Due to this risk of pest resistance, the EPA offers only conditional and temporary registration of varieties producing Bt. The EPA requires 4% “refugia” with Bt. cotton i.e. 4% of planted cotton is conventional and does not express the Bt. toxin. It therefore acts as a refuge for insects to survive and breed, and hence keeps the overall level of resistance in the population low. Even at a 4% refugia level, insect resistance will evolve in as little as 3 – 4 years. Even though Monsanto claims it has adhered to the regulations in India, it is common knowledge that the implementation of refugia has never been done. Additionally, the biosafety regulations have never been followed for Bt in India.

The failure of Monsanto’s Bollgard cotton in large areas in the U.S. shows the risks of extrapolating from trials on small plots to large scale commercial planting. A second lesson from the 1996 U.S. planting is that it is not easy to force farmers to leave refugia, at their own costs, in order to manage pest resistance. The extra costs of leaving 20 per cent land to non-Bt cotton to be sprayed with conventional insecticides should be internalised in assessment of the benefits of Bt cotton.
Scientists have recommended that 50 per cent area be planted with non-Bt cotton when farmers plant Bt cotton (Fred and Bruce, 1998). If farmers should not be planting more than half their acreage with Bt cotton, why should they be planting it at all?

One of the most significant reasons contributing to the pesticide treadmill has been the death of beneficial insects, and the emergence of resistance. More than 500 species of insects have become resistant to conventional insecticides, and there is empirical evidence that they can also adapt to Bt toxins (Fred Gould and Bruce Tabashnik,  1998  Bt cotton Resistance Management in Mellon and Rissler “Now or Never”).

Bt is destroying ecosystem sustainability and biodiversity, by killing beneficial organisms. Engineering a toxin into a plant can have its own hazards. Plants engineered to manufacture their own pesticides can harm organisms other than their intended targets. Soil inhabiting organisms, that convert organic matter into nutrients for the plants, can be harmed by the toxin preventing the regeneration of soil nutrients.

The full impacts of Bt crops have not been looked at, though indications are emerging that genetically engineered Bt is harmful to beneficial insects such as bees and ladybirds. Research at the Scottish Crop Research showed that ladybirds fed on aphids that were fed transgenic potatoes – laid fewer eggs and lived half as long as ladybirds on a normal diet (Brich et al, 1996/97).
Research from Cornell, in 1999,  found  that the Monarch butterfly -Danaus plexippus -was killed by ingesting milkweed leaves dusted with pollen from Bt cotton  (Losey J.E.: Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature, Vol 399, 20 May 1999: 314)

Research done on impact of Bt cotton on soil micro organisms showed a 22 % decline of beneficial micro organisms within 4 years.

These impacts on non-target species falsify the claims that the Bt toxin in Bt cotton only effects the cotton bollworm.
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v24/n7/full/nbt0706-749.html

The myth that GMO crops reduce pesticide use is also not true.
Two applications of genetic engineering account for most commercial planting, Bt crops and Ht crops. Herbicide tolerant crops account for 63 % of the cultivation of GM crops.
Bt crops have led to increase of pesticide use because of new pests , and pest resistance in the boll worm. As the directorate of plant protection shows, pesticide use has increased with increase of Bt cotton cultivation.

http://ppqs.gov.in/IpmPesticides.htm
Herbicide tolerant crops are designed to make crops resistant to herbicide spraying to allow for increased herbicide sales and use.
http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/01/pesticide-use-rises-as-herbicide-resistant-weeds-undermine-performance-of-major-ge-crops-new-wsu-study-shows/

Bt threatens Ayurveda and other Medical Practices.
Besides this, the Bt cotton will have a direct impact on the practitioners of the Indian system of medicines. The cotton seeds, roots, flowers, leaves, oil and cotton is used internally as well as externally in different ailments in the Indian system of medicines. The cotton seeds are used for increasing milk secretion; the use of Bt cotton seeds can cause serious health hazards to the mother and the child. Similarly, the roots are used during labour to enhance the uterine contraction. The ash of the cotton is taken to check bleeding from wound. The leaves are given as diurative. The introduction of Bt cotton in Indian varieties, safe from contamination until now, will have a dangerous effect on the traditional medical practices and the use of its seeds, leaves, roots, oil will be fatal for the patients.

India is the home of cotton diversity. We should use the biodiversity of cotton to our advantage to create ecological strategies of selecting pest resistance varieties, using integrated pest management and avoiding the risks of hazardous pesticides as well as the risks of genetically engineered crops. Instead, the ICAR is pushing for Bt in straight varieties of cotton which would contaminate all standing crops of non-Bt cotton, leaving farmers vulnerable to litigation and crop failure.

Scientific assessments tells us the GMO experiment with our seeds and crops must be stopped. Propaganda on behalf of the biotech seed industry, which in also the pesticide industry, will of course keep repeating that pesticides and Bt crops are a silver bullet. It is just that Monsanto gets the silver, Farmers get the bullet.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

Compilation on Natural way to keep mosquito away..

Dengue / Malaria is on rise these days. Instead of going the toxic route
or release of irreversible GM mosquitoes, let us adapt the
natural ways to keep mosquitoes away.
Hope you find following compilation useful;
> What attracts mosquitoe and how to repel them
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...
> Natural Insect pest control
http://eartheasy.com/live_natpest_c...
>Growing Mosquito repellent plant - Citronella

>
6 Plants Proven To Repel Mosquitoes  lavender, basil, catnip, Lemon balm, citronella grass, marigolds, 


> http://www.esvasa.com/?q=natural-mosquito-repellant  
Do add to it and also share your experiences on these methods 
Compiled by Tejal Vishweshwar

Friday, October 2, 2015

EVENT : ८ ते ११ ऑक्टो. २०१५ (४ दिवस)- झिरो बजेट नैसर्गिक शेती शिवार





























विशेष करून विदर्भ/मराठवाडयातील शेतकऱ्यांनी चुकवू नये अशी सुवर्ण संधी:
कृषी-ऋषी श्री सुभाष पाळेकारांसोबत झिरो बजेट नैसर्गिक शेती शिवार फेरी आणि कार्यशाळा. (पिके: संत्रा, मोसंबी व भाजीपाला) 

तारीख:  ८ ते ११ ऑक्टो. २०१५ (४ दिवस)
स्वरूप: २ दिवस प्रत्यक्ष शिवार फेरी + २ कार्यशाळा
शुल्क: रु. १५००/- प्रती व्यक्ती (नाष्टा, भोजन, निवास आणि २०० कि. मी. शिवार फेरीच्या प्रवासासाहित)
स्थळ: ता. काटोल जि. नागपूर 
संपर्क: मनोज - ९८२२५१५९१३  
हेमंतसिंग - ९१३०००१२१३ /७५८८६९०६८८

प्रवास आणि निवास व्यवस्थेसाठी नाव नोंदणी अत्यंत आवश्यक आहे. 


धन्यवाद!
मिलिंद - ९८९०६६४३२१
दीपक - ९८५०४३००८५


EVENT : VanUtsav Forest Festival (17to22 Oct 2015)

Six days of learning, sharing and music at Vanvadi

Dear All,
The Vanvadi Vanutsav this year is from Saturday, Oct 17 to Thursday, Oct 22 (Dussera), ie 6 days.

Held every October, the vanutsav is a confluence of young and old – to celebrate nature, community and creativity. Self-organised, with shared responsibility, it has an ‘open agenda’ format, where participants themselves offer to conduct any activities, workshops or discussions. These are announced on common wall charts, indicating date and time. People join what they like.

This year, we are trying to get some advance confirmations of workshops/activities, so that we can announce these to interested people. We propose to schedule the workshops and interactions on various aspects of land care and self-reliance over the 3 week days, Monday 19th to Wednesday, 21st Oct. The more popular, multi-generational activities and workshops will be offered over the Saturday- Sunday weekend (Oct 17-18), and on the last day (Dussera), Oct 22, when greater attendance of diverse age groups, visiting for a day or two, is expected.

From October 19 to 21, we plan to have sessions on subjects like how to get started on land; soil, forest and biodiversity regeneration; rainwater harvesting; natural/organic farming; permaculture; SRI; composting; bio-char; live hedges; seed saving; renewable energy; and ecological construction with local materials. Some of these will be conducted by experienced friends, including Vasantbhai Futane, Bernard (Auroville), Clea (Goa), Jacob Nellithanam, Ravi Venkat, Arjun ‘Dobigha’, and Sanjay Patil. A few more are yet to confirm. Other sessions may follow a format of open discussion. Do let us know if you would like to conduct a session.

We hope to collaboratively document summaries of these sessions – to serve as a continuing open learning resource.
O n Oct 17-18 (weekend), and on Oct 22
(Dussera), we expect to have a wider variety of workshops/activities (about 2-3 hours each) like: forest food walks, millet recipes and songs, small-space kitchen- gardening, traditional folk games, natural healing, swimming, jewellery making and other hand crafts, clay/cob sculpting, bird watching, star-gazing, story-telling, nature collages, etc. We welcome you to conduct any session you like, and preferably let us know in advance, so that we can inform others too.

There would also be community cooking, and a few hours of singing, music and dance every evening on all 6 days. (So do bring along your music instruments and song books!) The big music feasts to look forward to will be on: Saturday, October 17, 7 pm to 12 midnight; Oct 18, 7 am to 10 am; Oct 21, 7 pm to 12 midnight; and Oct 22 (Dussera), 7 am to 10 am.

Vanvadi is a collective organic forest farm (more forest than farm) in the foothills of the Sahyadris, between Mumbai and Pune, about 100 km from Mumbai, and 10 km from Neral station. It aspires to evolve into an ecological forest village community. Presently, it offers only rustic accommodation (roof and mud floor!) in a lovely natural environment, without grid electricity or piped water. Staying at Vanvadi is like a nature camping experience! We have shared sleeping arrangement for about 30 people in two dwellings. Sleeping under the open moonlit/starlit sky would also be quite pleasant in mid October. Those who have tents (or can borrow/hire one) are strongly encouraged to bring them along, and preferably inform us in advance. But please do bring along a sleeping bag or at least 2 sheets and a mat, as the nights may begin to get a little cold. (In case you need better organized private accommodation, please indicate, and we may be able to inform you of a few possibilities not far from Vanvadi.)

Voluntary Contributions:
In order to meet costs and support the work at Vanvadi, we request a voluntary contribution as suggested below. However, less or more – whatever you are comfortable with – would be equally appreciated. (Please do not let money be a deterrent!)
Cash contributions are deposited anonymously in a common collection bag slung on a pole/tree.
Suggested contributions: For 2 or more days – Rs 500 per day per adult, and Rs 250 per day per child;
For one day (24 hours) – Rs 600 per adult, and Rs 300 per child.
Any additional contribution would be a most welcome support in sustaining and nurturing Vanvadi as a natural community space!
Contributions in kind – for the vanutsav – are also welcome (eg organic/wholesome/local food); but please coordinate with us.

Basic Responsibilities:
In view of the potential hazards of a forest environment, all participants need to take full responsibility to look after themselves, and especially any children accompanying them. (Each child should be accompanied by an adult.)
The rock pool is over 18 feet deep, and for swimmers only; but a few shallower, waist-deep water-bodies are also available for non-swimmers and learners.

Keeping the Vanvadi space free of plastics and city litter is a strict rule. Any non- biodegradables you bring should be carried back. We also discourage chemical soaps, detergents, toothpaste, etc. and encourage any natural equivalents. (Do bring if you can!) Respect for the place, local people, fellow participants; and sharing vanutsav work, is generally expected.

Registration:
We can accommodate limited numbers. Advance registration will help secure your place, and keep you updated. Please email us soon at: vanutsav@gmail.com, preferably by September 30, informing us the names and ages of confirmed participants, and the dates on which they would attend. We also request a brief introductory para, mentioning any workshops/activities you may like to conduct. An update informing directions to Vanvadi, contact phone numbers, and the workshops/session being offered, will be sent out by October 3, 2015 to those who have registered.

We look forward to see you!

For registration and details:
Mayuree Pandit: mayuree.m@gmail.com 9930432804
Zui : zuimansata@gmail.com
022 23542420
Faiza: aziaf@riseup.net +91 9820683281
Sanjiv: sanjiv.valsan@gmail.com +91 9892212133
Bharat: bharatmansata@yahoo.com +91 9967371183


SOURCE: https://www.facebook.com/events/808132829295107/