[prakruti] GM Failures Continue

[Guest guest]

At 01:02 AM 4/17/08, you wrote:

> " Prakruti, Mumbai " <prakruti >

>Cc: List Serve Organic Experts...snip... isapindia >

> " R. Santhanam " <rsanthanam_delhi

>[prakruti] GM Failures Continue

>

>

>Url: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmFailuresContinue.php

>Search date: 17th April 2008

>ISIS Press Release 16/04/08

>

>GM Failures Continue

>

>The GM industry has been ailing at least as far back as 2005, but kept

>alive by an aggressive campaign of disinformation. GM Watch

>(www.gmwatch.org) brings you the latest

>GM failures 2007-2008

>A fully referenced version of this report is posted on ISIS members’

>website. Details here

>An electronic version of this report, or any other ISIS report, with full

>references, can be sent to you via e-mail for a donation of £3.50. Please

>e-mail the title of the report to: report

>

>GM cotton debacle in India

>GM cotton has been failing in India and elsewhere for years [1] (Broken

>Promises, SiS 22), escalating the epidemic of farmers’ suicides [2] (Stem

>Farmers’ Suicides with Organic Farming, SiS 32). Unfortunately, the Indian

>government has allowed the commercial planting to continue with drastic

>consequences.

>

>BT cotton failed in Vidarbha

>A study on the introduction of Bt cotton in India’s cotton-growing belt of

>Vidarbha revealed that it failed in the region. Suman Sahai, director of

>Gene Campaign, which conducted the study, said that despite knowing that

>Bt cotton would not work in rainfed areas, the state government introduced

>it. The high input costs of Bt cotton increased indebtedness, and the

>study showed that 70 per cent of small farmers lost their landholdings as

>collateral for loans that they could never repay.

>

>The study also showed that farmers who adopted Bt cotton had a net lower

>income than non-Bt cotton farmers. Seed dealers had promised farmers that

>they would get 12­15 quintals per acre when the actual yields were 3­5

>quintals [3]

>In February 2007, five districts of Vidarbha where Bt cotton was widely

>adopted reported nearly 1 500 farmers committing suicide in the previous

>20 months [4].

>

>More livestock deaths from grazing Bt cotton

>With reports of deaths of livestock that had grazed on Bt cotton in 2006

>still fresh [5] (Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton, SiS 30), more

>deaths and illnesses in sheep and goats were seen in the early months of

>2007. Symptoms included bloating of the stomach, black patches on the

>intestines, lung congestion, green and red mucus flow from nostrils,

>reddish urine, sneezing, and skin allergies. Women cotton pickers also

>reported skin allergies [6], another problem with Bt cotton reported

>widely in 2006 [7] (More Illnesses Linked to Bt Crops, SiS 30).

>

>Minister gives compensation to Bt cotton farmers

>Tamil Nadu minister for agriculture Veerapandi S. Arumugam distributed

>compensation to 996 farmers whose crop suffered after using

>Monsanto-Mahyco's GM Bt cotton seeds. The firm offered compensation of Rs.

>5 000 per acre [8]

>

>Andhra Pradesh Agriculture Department warns against Bt cotton

>The state department of agriculture in Andhra Pradesh has finally conceded

>that Bt cotton is not beneficial to rainfed farmers. The commissioner and

>director of the state department of agriculture has furthermore admitted

>that “the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops, engineered for

>a specific trait, was also resulting in new pest problems”[9]

>

>New pathogens with Bt cotton

>Punjab Agricultural University plant pathologists have warned about a high

>incidence of fungal and bacterial pathogen problems associated with Bt

>cotton [10]

>

>Failing the world’s hungry

>

>The great GM miracle?

>BBC Radio 4’s Costing the Earth set out to answer the question of whether

>GM crops are the answer to feeding the world’s starving. The programme

>tellingly concluded [11], “Despite the hype, pro-GM advocates failed to

>identify a genetically modified crop that could be planted today to put

>food in the hungriest mouths.”

>

>UK chief scientist plays fast and loose with the truth

>So lacking is the biotech lobby in success stories that it resorted to

>stealing one from sustainable agriculture. Late last year, the UK

>government’s outgoing chief scientist Sir David King stated that a GM

>breakthrough in Africa had increased crop yields by 40­50 percent. But the

>project he described had nothing to do with GM crops. It was a ‘push-pull’

>system of managing pests and increasing yield that relies on companion

>planting, a mainstay of organic and sustainable farming. Commenting on the

>incident, Dr Richard Horton, the editor of medical journal The Lancet,

>said Sir David took his faith in science into “the realms of totalitarian

>paranoia”[12].

>

>Pests and superweeds on the rise

>

>US corn pest expansion a consequence of GM crops?

>A corn pest that can devastate yields may be increasing in prevalence

>across Illinois and other states because Bt crops are reducing predators

>that once kept the pest at bay [13]. Western bean cutworm, a major pest in

>Nebraska and Colorado, was first detected in Illinois in 2004, and has

>since spread to 49 counties.

>

>US superweeds on the march

>In Arkansas, state agriculture officials are turning to Syngenta to solve

>problems of Roundup-resistant weeds caused by Monsanto’s GM crops. The

>Arkansas Agricultural Extension Service is teaming up with Syngenta to

>push farmers to add the company’s herbicide, Reflex, to their arsenal.

>They raise the possibility that by bombing their fields with Reflex before

>planting their cotton, farmers have a chance to avert a possible

>“explosion” of superweeds this summer.

>

>Chillingly, a scientist brought in to advise the state seemed to suggest

>that such broad-spectrum herbicides might need to be applied year-round to

>avoid a resistance outbreak, even when fields are resting between

>plantings [14]: “We need almost a season-long programme of controlling

>[superweeds]. Any gap in the season could increase the likelihood of

>resistance evolution.”

>

>

>Transgenic contamination and economic losses in billions

>

>GM rice claims exceed $1 billion

>Hundreds of lawsuits have been filed and more are expected in the wake of

>the GM contamination of US rice. In one class action suit, attorney Don

>Downing has filed suit on behalf of hundreds of Missouri and Arkansas

>farmers, representing over 248 000 acres of rice.

>

>Downing said [15], “Many farmers have decided to quit planting as much

>rice as they have in the past... the rice price isn't where it would have

>been had this not happened - and we’ve lost a chunk of our export market.”

>Total compensatory damages may approach or exceed $1 billion - and that's

>before taking into account punitive or statutory damages.

>

>Robobank: less US rice farming due to GM

>According to Rabobank, rice acreage in the US in 2007­8 was likely to

>decline due to concerns over GM contamination, which has already led to

>the loss of a major share of the EU market [16].

>

>Attack of the mutant rice

>Collectively, farmers and seed companies have lost hundreds of millions of

>dollars as a result of the US rice contamination, according to an article

>in Fortune magazine. The rice was never approved for commercial growing,

>so the contamination must have come from GM trials. “This is the most

>traumatic thing I've seen in the rice industry in 30 years,’ said Darryl

>Little, the director of the Arkansas State Plant Board, who has tried to

>clean up the mess [17] “It's been devastating.”

>

>GM drags down value of farmer’s crops

>The huge expansion of GM maize and soy in the US, Argentina and Brazil has

>dragged down the world price of grains, and that is having an impact on

>the viability of farms, British farmer Peter Lundgren told GM Watch. He

>said the world price of grains is set by the Chicago Board of Trade and is

>therefore sensitive to the US grains market.

>

>When the US adopted GM varieties and failed to ensure segregation of GM

>and GM-free varieties, it lost its two most profitable markets, Japan and

>Europe. That left the US attempting to dump its excess grain (mainly GM)

>onto the world market or into food aid. Both actions dragged down the

>world price. Now that the Bush administration is pouring funding into

>biofuels, the previously exportable surplus of GM maize is in demand by

>the domestic bioethanol industry. Suddenly the dragging effect was removed

>and the world price of grains doubled [18]

>

>GM canola has destroyed the organic market

>As a result of the introduction of GM canola (oilseed rape) in Canada,

>organic canola farmers say they’ve suffered loss of market access; loss of

>income; loss of choice; and loss of control over what they produce, how

>they produce it, what value it has, and who will buy it [19].

>

>Organic canola farmers in Saskatchewan say coexistence doesn’t work and

>they want legal redress. But, in May 2007, the Saskatchewan Court of

>Appeal denied the farmers class-action status in a lawsuit aimed at

>recouping damages from Monsanto [20].

>

>GM canola fails non-organic farmers too

>For anyone under the illusion that at least GM crops are turning round the

>fortunes of non-organic growers, Statistics Canada figures show that

>despite rising grain prices and the surge in demand for agrofuels,

>Canadian farmers’ incomes continue to decline. In other words, any

>economic benefits are going to the likes of Monsanto, Cargill and Exxon.

>Meanwhile, the number of farms in Canada continues its descent - down 7

>percent in five years [21].

>

>Market failure of GM hormone

>A growing number of US consumers are choosing milk that comes from cows

>not treated with Monsanto’s controversial GM growth hormone, rBGH (also

>known as rBST and Posilac), the New York Times reports [22]. The

>marketplace has responded, and now many food retailers, from Whole Foods

>Market to Wal-Mart Stores, sell milk that is labelled as coming from cows

>not treated with the hormone. Some dairy industry veterans say it’s only a

>matter of time before nearly all of the milk supply comes from cows that

>weren’t treated with Posilac. The article commented: “It may be the last

>stand of Posilac.”

>Monsanto has attempted to defeat consumer choice by introducing bills to

>US states that would ban milk labels claiming products are “growth

>hormone-free”[23]. Pennsylvania dairies successfully fought to keep their

>labels. Monsanto is now using a front group, American Farmers for the

>Advancement and Conservation of Technology, or Afact, to fight its corner.

>Afact describes itself as a grass-roots organization that came together to

>defend members’ right to use Posilac. But the New York Times revealed that

>Afact was organized in part by Monsanto and a Colorado consultant who

>lists Monsanto as a client. Furthermore, it has received help from Osborn

> & Barr, a marketing firm whose founders include a former Monsanto

>executive and receives financial support from Monsanto [24].

>

>-----

>The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 51885, London NW2 9DH

>telephone: [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20 7272 5636]

>

>General Enquiries sam - Website/Mailing List

>press-release - ISIS Director m.w.ho

>

>MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPLICIT

>PERMISSION. FOR PERMISSION, PLEASE CONTACT enquiries

>Permision obtained for E mail forwards, referencing web site. Santhanam .R.

 

******

Kraig and Shirley Carroll ... in the woods of SE Kentucky

http://www.thehavens.com/

thehavens

606-376-3363

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release 2/14/05