Fwd: HERE IS THE REAL STORY - DOW admits bribing officials for introducing pesticides.

[Guest guest]

Note: forwarded message attached.

Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers

Dear members The whole story also implies , we Indian scientists (entomologists and plant pathologists) need to be very conscious before making recommendation related to pesticides as we observe fraudulent and improper pesticides registration and regulation in the country. Our history shows our scientists recommended many pesticides to farmers merely on the basis of field trial. In reality , agricultural entomologists/pathologist recommend the pesticides by

assuming that whatever approved pesticides available in the market is followed proper protocol before approval and issuing licence to the company. The pesticides company’s interest is only making profits that is the one of the reasons the company gives gifts etc. in scientists forum or sponsor the lunch or dinner where scientists gathered to approve recommendation for farmers. There should not be any influence of company’s interest on scientists independent work. Scientists should not be forced directly or indirectly to request company to sponsor our this or that events. Dr.Y.C.ZalaAgricultural EconomistWebsite: http://yczala.250free.com/index.htmIndian Society For Sustainable Agriculture <indiansocietyforsustainableagri wrote: Home | Previous Page U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 20000 / February 13, 2007 Accounting and Auditing Enforcement Release No. 2554 / February 13, 2007 Securities and Exchange Commission v. The Dow Chemical Company, Civil Action No. 07CV00336 (D.D.C.) SEC Files Settled Enforcement Action Against The Dow Chemical Company for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violations The Securities and Exchange Commission today filed a settled civil action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that The Dow Chemical Company (Dow) violated the books and records and internal controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) [sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)], in connection with an estimated $200,000 in improper payments made by a fifth-tier foreign subsidiary of Dow to

Indian government officials from 1996 through 2001. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's complaint, Dow consented to pay a $325,000 civil penalty. The complaint alleges that the Dow subsidiary, DE-Nocil Crop Protection Ltd. ("DE-Nocil"), headquartered in Mumbai, India, manufactured and marketed pesticides and other products primarily for use in the Indian agriculture industry. According to the complaint, beginning in 1996, DE-Nocil made approximately $39,700 in improper payments to an official in India's Central Insecticides Board to expedite the registration of three DE-Nocil products. Most of these payments were made through agreements with contractors which added fictitious charges on its bills, or issued false invoices, to DE-Nocil. The contractors then disbursed these extra funds, at DE-Nocil's direction, to the CIB official. The complaint also alleges that from 1996 and to 2001, DE-Nocil made $87,400 in improper payments to

state officials in order to distribute and sell its products. The complaint alleges that, in addition to these payments, DE-Nocil also made improper payments to Indian government officials consisting of an estimated $37,600 for gifts, travel, entertainment and other items; $19,000 to government business officials; $11,800 to sales tax officials; $3,700 to excise tax officials; and $1,500 to customs officials. In sum, over a six-year period, DE-Nocil distributed an estimated total of $200,000 in improper payments through federal and state channels. According to the complaint, none of these payments were accurately reflected in Dow's books and records, and Dow's system of internal accounting controls failed to prevent the payments. In a related proceeding, the Commission today issued a settled cease-and-desist order against Dow finding that that Dow violated the books and records provisions and internal controls provisions of the Exchange Act in

connection with the improper payments made by DE-Nocil. Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, Dow consented to the entry of the order that requires Dow to cease and desist from violating those provisions. http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2007/lr20000.htm Home | Previous Page Modified: 02/13/2007Indian Society For Sustainable Agriculture <indiansocietyforsustainableagri

wrote: Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary BHARAT KRISHAK SAMAJ (Former Chairman-State Farms Corporation of India) A-1, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi-110013 EXECUTIVE

CHAIRMAN Tel.: 24359508, Telefax: 24359509, ® 0120-2794088, Mob.: 9810331366 E- Mail: bksnd 20th February, 2007 Respected Shri Sharad Pawar Ji, Sub: Immediate inquiry into fraudulent and improper pesticides registration and regulation in the country and Liability-fixing – demand – reg. As you might be aware, Dow Chemicals was fined with a civil penalty of $ 325,000 by the US Securities & Exchange Commission [sEC] after reports of improper payments to regulatory officials in India had emerged from the company's own accounting. The payments of upto 8.8 million Indian rupees were reported to have been made by De-Nocil, the then subsidiary of Dow Chemicals for getting various regulatory clearances for Dow's pesticides business in India during 1996 and 2001. One senior official in the Central Insecticides Board of India had reportedly received around 1.6 million rupees for registering Dow's pesticides in India during the said period and while state officials had received the remaining amount for licensing related to distribution and sale of these pesticides. This is a shameful episode and reinforces the public picture with regard to pesticides regulation in the country. Dow Chemicals is also the owner of Union Carbide Corporation, which was responsible for the Bhopal genocide and the subsequent poisoning of thousands of lives that continues to this day due to contamination from tonnes of toxic chemicals lying around in the factory premises. Dow Chemicals to this day has not come

forward to accept its pending liabilities in this case even as valuable lives of Bhopalis are being lost, while thousands of others continue to suffer. Dow Chemicals continues to sell in India some Class I pesticides like Monocrotophos while most of the developed world has banned this pesticide years ago. Their flagship product Dursban (chlorpyrifos) is banned for domestic use in the US, Dow's home country. The company has no qualms using double

standards for this product between American citizens and Indians and continues to make money out of it in India. Dow's dishonest practices have been highlighted a number of times by many activist groups in the country, notably of Bhopal disaster survivors. For instance, Dow Corning, a joint venture of Dow Chemicals, obtained regulatory approval from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for setting up a factory near Pune despite submitting a map of

one of its factories in the USA instead of a local site map as required by Indian law. While that is the known and well established case with Dow, this entire episode brings to the fore the serious and unacceptable shortcomings related to pesticide regulation in this country. We have been pointing out repeatedly that pesticide regulation should begin with pest management as the basic premises including safer alternatives in the hands of farmers being used in the assessment related to efficacy of a particular pesticide. However, a chemical-based risk

management approach has always driven pesticide regulation, including tests related to safety and efficacy. There is no independent scrutiny of data being generated and it is the industry-generated and sponsored data that is used as the basis for decision making. The entire process is opaque and narrowly framed. Further, there is very little scope for scientific reviewing allowed. Corrupt practices in pesticide registration have been highlighted by vigilant media several times in the past. However, no action has been taken to improve the regulatory systems. There are numerous problems pertaining to enforcement of the regulatory regime too. For instance, Dow [ http://www.dowagro.com/india/index.htm ] recommends several of its pesticides for crops and uses not recognized by the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee [CIBRC] as per its public database. This is a blatant violation of the Insecticides Act. To take a few examples, the following Dow products are not recommended by the CIBRC

[ http://cibrc.nic.in] for the recommendations that Dow is putting out to the farmers. Pesticide Dow's brand name CIBRC recommendation violations Atrazine Atracil 50% WP Not recommended for potato and bajra, though the company recommends it. Mancozeb Saviour Not recommended by CIBRC for chilli, though the company recommends

it Dichlorvos 76% EC Vapona 76% EC CIBRC recommendation not present for soybean, sugarcane, castor, groundnut, mustard, sunflower, though company recommends it for these crops and specific pests on these crops Oxyflourfen 23.5% EC Goal Onion, potato and tea do not figure in CIBRC's recommendations Spinosad 45% SC Tracer 45% SC Cotton does not figure in CIBRC's recommendations though it does in the company's recommendations In this country, each insecticide is registered for a

particular crop and use in particular dosages, based on some research protocols that have been devised in the regulators' own wisdom. However, blatant violations of such registration norms and recommendations are not taken cognizance of and no liability is fixed on such violators despite repeated reports. The entire episode of 88 lakh rupees being paid as bribes to pesticide regulators in the country is shameful and makes a mockery of the deep agrarian crisis that farmers in the country are experiencing. Such a crisis has a strong connection to the pesticides treadmill that has been thrust upon farmers in the name of scientific pest management. This

treadmill has serious ecological, economic, political and health fall-outs for the farming community and the regulatory regime has always chosen to turn a blind eye to this. Compounding this is the corrupt nexus between the industry and the regulators. This current case of Dow bribing regulators for getting pesticides into the Indian market is simply unacceptable even within the narrow official framework of risk assessment and regulation related to pesticides that your ministry adopts and calls for immediate fixing of liability for violations. We would like to remind you here that when you headed the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Pesticide Residues in 2003, you had made observations on the non-prescribed use of chemical pesticides and wrong advice and supply of pesticides to farmers by vested interests and so on. You noted with concern several serious shortcomings of pesticide registration processes in the country and the overall regulation of its production, marketing and use. We demand the following immediately in this case: order Dow Chemicals to withdraw all the products permitted during 1996 and 2001 immediately from the markets all over the country since the safety and efficacy data is in serious doubt now initiate a full inquiry into the entire episode to get a clear picture of which officials at the Central and state governments were at the receiving end of the 'improper payments' made by the company during the

period in question as well as to cover the subsequent period till date. Such an inquiry process should include responsible media and civil society members for a transparent and fair process. Take action against all the regulators found guilty of accepting the 'improper payments' by invoking Prevention of Corruption Act and the relevant sections of the Insecticides Act Initiate action against the company straightaway as it had itself confessed to the improper payments, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, through the Department of Company Affairs and under the Indian Penal Code. Look into other irregularities that have been pointed out in this letter related to recommendations in violation of CIBRC recommendations and fix liability for the same. We demand that such an inquiry be completed within the next two weeks, action taken and the report made public so that it acts as a deterrent for others. Your Sincerely, (Krishan Bir Chaudhary) Shri Sharad Pawar Ji, Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture Govt. of India Krishi Bhawan Dr Rajendra Prasad Road New Delhi 110 001. ANNEXURE 1: SOME DOW PESTICIDES REGISTERED DURING 1996-2001 IN INDIA Brand Name Chemical Name Atracil 50% WP Atrazine Saviour Mancozeb Delthene Acephate 75% SP Vapona Dichlorvos 76% EC Goal Oxyflourfen 23.5% EC Dursban 10G Chlorpyrifos 10%G Bengard 50% WP Carbendazim 50% WP Nurelle D

505 Chlorpyrifos 50% EC + Cypermethrin 5% EC Cilcord 10% EC Cypermethrin 10% EC Miraculan Triacontanol 0.05% EC Cilcord 25% EC Cypermethrin 25% EC Trooper 75% WP Tricyclazole 75% WP Pride 20% SP Acetamiprid 20% SP Clincher 10% EC Cyhalofop butyl Treflan 48% EC Trifluralin 48% EC Monocil 36% SL Monocrotophos Success 2.5% SC Spinosad 2.5% SC Magister 10% EC Fenazaquin 10% EC Miticil 50% EC Ethion

50% EC Tracer 45% SC Spinosad 45% SC Source: Compiled through a search on the Dow AgroSciences India website. -------------------------Jagannath Chatterjee <jagchat01 wrote: Dow to US watchdog: we bribed Indian officials forclearanceshttp://www.indianexpress.com/story/24122.html- Sonu Jain (Courtesy: Eaglesm23) NOCIL: SEC ruling details how Dow Chem senior management greased palms of top regulatory officials through petty contractors NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 23: Dow Chemicals has admitted that to “expedite” registration of its pesticides in India between 1996 and 2001, its senior management in India approved and made “irregular payments” to government officials, at the Centre and in states, including an influential member of the registration committee of the Central Insecticide Board, the Agriculture Ministry’s apex regulatory authority responsible for approving pesticides. This startling disclosure appears in a February 13

ruling by the US Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) which got Dow to pay $325,000 in penalty after the chemical giant detailed the steps it had taken to investigate and expose the corruption and takeclean-up action. Dow conducted an internal investigation and voluntarily approached thecommission. “We have not received any official communication on this as yet,” P K Mishra, Secretary, Agriculture, told The Indian Express tonight. “This sounds very serious and we will make enquiries.” Michigan-based Dow is the largest manufacturer of chemicals, pesticides and plastics. DE-Nocil was established in 1994 as a joint venture when a majority-owned Dow subsidiary, Dow Elanco, acquired 51% stake in the local National Organic ChemicalsIndustry (Nocil). In 1997, Dow Elanco, became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dow and was renamed Dow Agro Sciences. In 2005, Dow attained 100 per cent ownership of DE-Nocil. The SEC report details the way money was

allegedly routed from the company to government officials. Before a pesticide is marketed, the company requires registration at the Central level by the Central Insecticide Board (CIB). Within CIB, is a six-memberregistration committee. “A key member” of this committee, the SEC says, “was able to determine if and when a company’s agricultural chemical would be registered. And, in effect, the CIB official would refuse or delay registrations unless he received financial payments. The individual left CIB in 2000.’’The others who received payments are “licensing officers’’ in each state. These are officials who could prevent the sale of the product by drawing samples and falsely claiming that the samples were misbranded or mislabeled. This would have meant the company challenging these accusations in court. “However, rather than face a suspension in sales ofproducts caused by false accusations, companies would make petty cash payments to state inspectors,’’

says the report. Most of these payments to state-level officials were petty amounts — well under $100, amounting to 87,400 in these five years. “DE-Nocil’s commercial vice president, who later became a technical development leader, developed an improper payment practice to facilitate these registrations, they used consultants and unrelated companies to make these improper payments,’’ statesthe SEC report. DE-Nocil personnel enlisted one of their contractors, an Indian product formulator. to accumulate funds on their behalf. The contractor, through an agreement with DE-Nocil, added fictitious charges called “incidental charges’’ on its bills to DE-Nocil. The contractor agreed to segregate the funds representing these incidental charges and to disburse these funds as directed by DE-Nocil. When needed, DE-Nocil contacted the contractor and asked it to disburse the funds to third party “consultants’’ who delivered the fund to CIB official.

DE-Nocil made approximately $20,000 in improper payments to the CIB official through this contractor. The second contractor , also one of DE-Nocil’s product formulators, issued a false invoice for $12,000 in capital equipment. The payment authorised by DE-Nocil’s Managing Director was then delivered to the CIB official. The payments resulted in the expedited registrations, Dow estimated that DE-Nocil generated $435,000 in direct opening margin from accelerated sales of theseproducts, 76% of which went to Dow. An independent auditor retained by Dow identified $75,600 of payments and by extrapolations estimated that $125,000 additional amount was paid. P.S. Obviously the CBI and investigative media was sleeping all these years! The fish are biting.Get more visitors on your site using Search Marketing. Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Answers--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~You received this message because you are d to the Google Groups "GRASSROOTS in action" group. To post to this group, send

email to GRASSROOTS-in-action (AT) googl (DOT) com