Tag Archives: genetically modified

India files biopiracy lawsuit against Monsanto, says biotech giant is stealing nature for corporate gain more

Wednesday, September 28, 2011 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033714_biopiracy_Monsanto.html#ixzz1aOtGwLiB

(NaturalNews) Representing one of the most agriculturally bio-diverse nations in the world, India has become a primary target for biotechnology companies like Monsanto and Cargill to spread their genetically-modified (GM) crops into new markets. However, a recentFrance 24report explains that the Indian government has decided to take an offensive approach against this attempted agricultural takeover by suing Monsanto for “biopiracy,” accusing the company of stealing India’s indigenous plants in order to re-engineer them into patented varieties.

Brinjal, also known in Western nations as eggplant, is a native Indian crop for which there are roughly 2,500 different unique varieties. Millions of Indian farmers grow brinjal, which is used in a variety of Indian food dishes, and the country grows more than a quarter of the world’s overall supply of the vegetable.

And in an attempt to capitalize on this popular crop, Monsanto has repeatedly tried to commercially market its own GM variety of brinjal called Bt brinjal. But massive public outcry against planned commercial approval of Monsanto’s “frankencrop” variety in 2010 led to the government banning it for an indefinite period of time.

But Monsanto is still stealing native crops, including brinjal, and quietly working on GM varieties of them in test fields, which is a clear violation of India’s Biological Diversity Act (BDA). So at the prompting of various farmers and activists in India, the Indian government, representing the first time in history a nation that has taken such action, has decided to sue Monsanto.

“This can send a different message to the big companies for violating the laws of the nation,” said K.S. Sugara, Member Secretary of the Karnataka Biodiversity Board, toFrance 24concerning the lawsuit. “It is not acceptable … that the farmers in our communities are robbed of the advantage they should get from the indigenous varieties.”

You can watch the fullFrance 24video report of India’s lawsuit against Monsanto here:
http://www.france24.com/en/20110921…

Farmers and active members of the public in India have been some of the world’s most outspoken opponents of Monsanto’s attempted GM takeover of agriculture. Besides successfully overturning the attempted approval of Bt brinjal, these freedom fighters have also successfully destroyed several attempted Monsanto GM test fields.

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/033714_biopiracy_Monsanto.html#ixzz1aOsxr8h6

Farmer Suicides: Why?

By Kamala Das

Farmer Suicides: Why?

India is home to 1.25 billion people 722% of which live in villages. As much as 60% of the work force works in agriculture in some capacity. Over the last two decades however, more and more people have been seeking non-agricultural work in cities, and urban townships. Mass migration from rural to urban areas has increased rapidly since 1991. An estimated 70-73 million people have migrated away from rural India because of a myriad of problems, such as lack of education, jobs, farming support, and opportunity and a lack of infrastructure for things like clean water and health care.

 In 1991 an exchange rate crisis caused by fiscal and balance of payment deficits, pushed India near bankruptcy. As part of a bailout deal with India, the International Monetary Fund directed India to sell 67 tons of gold to the IMF, which was transferred to London as collateral. Also, India had to devalue the rupee and restructure economically to make the country more open to foreign trade. Since independence from the British in 1947, India had operated a state-controlled economy called the License Raj system. As part of the deal with the IMF, India got rid of the License Raj system and liberalized the economy.

A key player in the economic restructuring was Indian Prime Minister Manmohan. Singh. He moved India from a socialist economy into a capitalist one. He opened international trade and investment, initiated privatization of certain public sector companies, enacted inflation control measures, broke up state monopolies, and removed obstacles standing in the way of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). At this time, India entered into an era of globalization.

 Trade liberalization, and globalization has forced India to compete with more developed countries, when only a percentage of her people were of the mind or education level to do so. There is no doubt however that economic reforms have brought with it many opportunities and chances for education, greater access to health care and public utilities, and an international competitor and contributor to many technological fields, among other things. Act Naturally acknowledges that there have been positive changes. Our work however, focuses on those who have been left behind as India heralds a new age of prosperity.

 Not everyone in the world, and certainly not in India’s rural expanse, participated in the machine of money exchange and consumerism to the scale that would make India attractive to foreign investment. At the time of these vast economic changes some villages still bartered wheat for haircuts and shoe repair, saved seeds, and used cow manure to grow their crops. Over the next two decades, generations of people; their values, culture, customs, means of producing food, relationship to land, and way of relating to wants and needs would have a new system, one that required money at its core to be successful, overlaid on top of their day to day challenges.

 “With an influx of new money, products, and advertising these “poor people,” became overnight poster children for modernization by the developers. They all were  potential markets. Tantalizing ads selling everything from new cellphones, to Coke, to diapers, to Himalayan shampoo, sparked conversation, then desire for a disposable world of stuff that has/had no real relevance to  their practical day to day reality but never the less, with enough exposure, had tantalizing appeal . It was as if these new products could do something that nothing else had done – improve their social standing. The older generation was skeptical, but the younger generation craved it immediately.

The self definition through things fetish was engineered long ago by advertising agencies, and has had immense success in  America. India patterns its success off of western business models. It’s a carrot on a stick that the farmer is chasing right off of his field.” — Kamla Vishvas

 The promise of money in more urban areas to carve out a better life, has become the mantra that moves the young and old away from their family plots and often into cramped urban conditions. But that is not the only reason. The introduction of chemical agriculture since India’s Green Revolution began in 1966, has created more input costs to the farmer and these prices too have risen. The lack of government support for farming, because of an uneven focus on the IT, Biotech and Pharmaceutical industry, has left many farmers to the agendas of agribusiness giants like Monsanto, Carghil and ADM all American made.

 As reported in PRAXIS: The Fletcher Journal of Human Security,  in an article entitled, “The Paradox of Indias Bread Basket: Farmer Suicides in Punjab” written  by Mallika Kaur;

 “During the Green Revolution, production was improved with the use of modified seeds that increased yield only when combined with expensive chemical fertilizers and irrigation. Unable to afford sufficient amounts of these expensive inputs, small farmers found their holdings becoming progressively less profitable. Meanwhile, grain prices remained comparatively low even as input costs increased. Now, three decades later, the small and marginal farmers of Punjab, in trying to pursue environmentally and economically unsustainable agrarian practices, are accumulating high debt while lacking alternative sources of income. As a result, farmers, their unions, concerned NGOs, and several academics conclude that agriculture has become a losing proposition in Indian Punjab, the farming heartland of South Asia for generations.”

Farmers go into more and more debt year after year since signing initial contracts for “crop packages” – genetically modified seeds like BT-Cotton, that require companion herbicide for best results. These expensive seeds require the farmer to buy them year after year as it is a breach of contract with Monsanto to save seed. Every year he must take out a loan from someone or somewhere. Most rural farmers do not have official documentation of their land. This means credit and collateral is questionable, so they choose to deal with private money lenders even though private money lending is officially illegal. When a farmer can no longer pay their debt, two common scenarios play out. 1. They commit suicide or; 2.  Their  family land is seized by debt collectors.

These pressures, coupled with land grabs by foreign interests made possible by the SEZ or Special Economic Zones Act passed in 2005, and the Land Acquisition Act, has meant that more and more agricultural lands are abandoned, sold to foreign interests for nonagricultural purposes, seized by private money lenders cashing in on their debts, and/or turned fallow do to exhaustion of the ecosystem with chemicals.

It is not coincidence that the issue of farmer suicides was brought to the attention of the government in the early 90s just as India was liberalizing trade, by a journalist who focused on rural reporting named P. Sainath. Palagummi Sainath was the rural Affairs editor of the Hindu at that time. Although the numbers have a margin of error do to difficulties with official reporting, it is estimated by the NCRB that over 200, 000 farmers have committed suicide in the last 15 years. The NCRB is the National Crime Records Bureau, part of the Ministry of Home Affairs,  is responsible for collecting and analyzing crime data in India. Some reporters say the number is as high as one suicide every half hour!

Summary of Causes

There are many causes for the stress in the farming community that leads some farmers take their own lives. They are dominantly related to public policy and economic strategy. Act Naturally has identified 22!:

  • Lack of support from a government that is focused more on India’s  technological future
  • Legal tender system forced through majority rule on communities that bartered
  • No advice from the government on how to conduct agricultural operations or adjust to changes in climate
  • Income from farming is not enough to meet the minimum needs of the family
  • Widening gap “price scissors” between industrial and agricultural prices
  • World Trade Organization and developed nations’ subsidies that make India’s products uncompetitive in world markets thus lowering demand and price. This is particularly true in the case of cotton farmers in Vidarbha whose cotton competes against subsidized U.S. cotton
  • Corruption at every level of government siphons off certain relief monies before they reach the intended
  • Absence of adequate social support infrastructure at the level of village. No counselors. Issue is taboo.
  • Rising prices of dowry causing huge hardships on family. The price of everything in the open economy is more, and the husbands families are demanding more as they seen grander lives advertised
  • Relief packages organized by the central government did not take in account farmer’s demands, or those of civil society organizations, local government bodies or panchayats as reported by an audit of the state done by Green Earth Social Development Consulting.
  • The same open market policy followed by India which has been a boon to foreign investors coming into the IT industry and benefiting Indian IT Engineers is causing an ever widening price gap between the food the farmers must eat to survive and the price the farmers get for their food in the market.
  • Rising cost of cultivation
  • Lowering water tables and lack of irrigation facilities. Expensive bore wells are now needed in some states. Poorer farmers can’t afford, and their lands are  bought out by larger more successful farms.
  • Reduction in agricultural subsidies
  • Environmental pollution
  • A push for cash cropping and mono cropping means a total loss of income when crop fails
  • Pressure to use genetically modified  seeds that are not acclimated to the fluxes in India’s climate. Pests are adapting.
  • Subdivision of land through successive generations of sons in certain areas make the size of land too small to grow enough food to sell
  • Compensation for acquired lands are often mismanaged by farmers who have not had experience or education on money management. Money is spent quickly. After it’s gone there is no land to produce a livelihood
  • Compensation for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and SEZ are often under the fair market price
  • Threat of violence to farmer and family from illegal debt collectors

 In the next blog article, I’ll introduce the solutions. There are many ways  in which NGOs, non-profits, farming educators,  local governments, cooperatives, unions, members of independent media, activists, volunteers and philanthropists  can come together, bypassing culturally tolerated systems of corruption, to direct efforts that fortify the stability of India’s farmers. These are outlined  in the next issue.

India’s Green Revolution of Control

Imagine, one day you are walking, and see a single Dandelion in a grassy field and wonder, “how did it get there?” One scenerio is that the wind scattered it’s seed. Then moisture activated endogenous enzymes to start respiration and ATP growth production and when the first little sprout uncoiled itself to the sun, chances are, this wasn’t noticed by you, or anyone. Yet this marvel happens a trillion by a trillion times a day, silently, (humbly). And though modern life has disassociated many of us from such inquiries into nature, we rely on its success no less now than before.

For a farmer in the Nirmar region of Madhya Pradesh India, planting cotton year after year, these inconspicuous moments begin a process of tending, hardwork, survival and hope. Rajesh and his family farm a piece of family land that lies 2 km east of the Narmada river in the Narmada Belt. Here the soil is rich black cotton soil (Regur). His father and his father before him, had success with cotton in this semi arid region. So before the onset of the kharif monsoon, they plant, and then harvest their bolls in October.

Until the Green Revolution, where bureaucratic policy and agribusiness pushed solutions on farmers that we untested with disastrous longterm results for soil health and biodiversity, the word “organic” was something akin to saying “small aunt”. Of course ants are small therefore you don’t need an adjective. Cotton farming had always been “organic”, using fertilizers from composts, and animal wastes, and ploughing fields with oxen, so no need for the adjective “Organic.”

Farmers, like Rajesh, recognize a delicate balance of all the elements, and recognize an ebb and flow of uncertainty from year to year. They don’t perform a chart analysis of each year. There are no lofty theories spinning around in their heads as to why the clouds didn’t come until late June. They just plant, perhaps pray and have to accept what comes. He did not waste time in a school learning curriculum sponsored in part by initiatives from the Ministry of Agriculture, or a multinational agribusiness corporation. He and his family learned by doing. And what they learned is this:

The earth takes some back for itself. Sometimes the mole gets the potato and the aphid the leaf. There are things that are uncertain. In the past and in still some present cases , farmers lives were scaled to fit the conditions around them. Scale is an important concept in balance. One side of the teeter totter in other words can not have more weight than the other, or one side sinks. If a farmer who relies on the sale of his crop to survive wants a new Maruthi car and finances it against his farm, betting that future sequential years will give him good yields to pay off the loan, then he is ignoring previous intelligent observation. Such as, in 1999-2002 the rainfall was almost half of that of other years and his yield was lower in those years. The example farmer is now stuck with a car, whose gas he can’t afford and a loan whose originators are pressing him for money. Remember this scenario when I address farmer suicides in rural India. Or click here or here.

In post modern urban life everything is outsourced; Want food? Go to a resteraunt. Feel sick? Go to a doctor. Trouble walking? Glide on moving floor panels, Segways or have an able bodied bike rickshaw driver take you there. Then afterwards walk on a treadmill at the gym. Compare this lifestyle to Rajesh and his family in Madhya Pradesh and you see that in their case, many things negotiate with other things directly for survival. The human feeds the family cow to benefit from the cows milk the same day. The cows dung is used for the fuel and fertilizer. The cows urine is used to make special fermented compost tea to feed soil organisms that will help grow the cotton. The cows milk is heated, the cream separated and collected and eventually made into ghee. The bull is used to plow the field. The bull eats fodder collected by women in the forest. The women pound freshly harvested wheat and make paranthas later that day. The family eats dal and paranthas and work at the harvest with Rajesh. The littlest ones are left behind with Rajesh wife who watches them and pounds laundry made of cotton against some stones at the river. Everyone and everything has a role that is directly linked to the other. Everyone and everything is in a relational order, being once an eater to one day becoming the eaten.

While harvesting, noone will notice the complex organic processes that make up soil ecology, but they have no doubt benefited from it. Beneath their feet, deep in the soil are the sturdy roots of the cotton plant and in-between these are beneficial fungi called mycorrhiza. These mycorrhiza feed off the carbohydrates that are in the root tissues of the cotton plant. In exchange, the tiny fungi assist the plant in uptaking minerals and moisture. They ensure the cotton plant gets its “recommended daily allowance” of potassium and zinc. When the soil is fallow, there are no mycorrhiza and the cotton plant will not yield.

There are countless things not directly observable, or even measurable with instruments. Take for example that a, “Sick plant actually sends for a beacon, carried in the infrared, attracting insects. It is then the insect’s role to dispose of this plant deemed unfit for life by nature.

By learning how to “tune into nature,” may you learn to better understand God’s beautiful design and come to work with nature by enhancing her energies rather than attempting to overpower and rule over her” (“Tuning into Nature” by Phillips S. Callahan, PH.D, reprinted in Annam Braham: Organic Food in India pg. 220)

Like sitting at a magic show, we see the effects but not the mechanics of the trick. If we send in our best scientists to explain the trick, we no longer are captivated by the magic. It is sometimes in our not knowing what the purpose is or how it got there that we find our greatest worth. We can observed directly that healthy plants attract less pests, and sick plants, as demonstrated above, beacon natures recyclers without knowing the “reasons”. And if we change one thing, the results are unpredictable over time.

We have in our environment today many things that were there before we were born – gifts that more often than not we seldom take the time to notice or appreciate. One of these gifts is top soil which can take up to 500 years to form naturally. The delicate balance of erosion, composting, micoorganisms such as bacterial, algae, anthropods, fungi and their complex habitats all interact in mutually beneficial relationships, unseen or often overlooked. Another gift is the manifestation of adaptive intelligence that is visible all around us.

Just like we have taken our lives to present day to know what we know, all of nature undergoes the same process. The cotton plants seed has such intelligence. Through successive generations of natural selection it has developed changes in its physical morphology to enable it to survive shifts in environmental conditions, on a micro and macro scale. We cannot know to what the extent of this intelligence is, nor do we know the length of which the seed has been incarnating in order to develop its present day response to a late monsoon. One simple reason for this is that in general humans, especially those in the scientific community, address themselves as a separate entity from the environment, therefore they know only what they can test. Flat world continues. A myopic way of looking at things would be to only acknowledge the changes the plant responds to that we can observe with our five senses during our lifetime. But this precludes the chance that there are things the plant has by way of intelligence that came before us, and that our observation isn’t in some way limiting the outcome by our narrow bandwidth of perception. In physics this is called the Heisenberg Principle of Observation.

We as humans have an exacting relationship with nature. Every cell has evolved in relation to the environment around it to present day, and when the internal and external environment becomes pathological, then too evolution sorts things out – Cancer, diabetes, auto immune disorders, infertility, autism, weakened constitutions etc. When we consider the concept of “genetically modifying” any living thing, be it a seed, or a goat, it becomes a rather “big” assumption that we can modify nature to suit our needs without considering its observable interrelational complexities, let alone it’s non-observable complexities without a backlash of generational proportions.

“Rajeshji, App tikh hai?” Are you ok? “Nahi.” Rajesh is worried. He sits looking at his field which is spotted with bronze colored wilting plants. Four years ago he heard news about the boll worm being a problem and destroying crops on the other side of the river. A poster plastered on the wall of a tea stall showed a picture of a nearby farmer having obtained, “20 quintals of yield per acre of BT Cotton!” Rajesh asked the other farmers what they thought, and by then, all of them were simply repeating poster bylines. Now he’s in trouble. He spent nearly all his family savings to buy miracle seeds that costs 300% more than those typically sold in town, not to mention he usually saved his seed from season to season.

For the first two years using the new seed  his crop grew stunted, and the yield was average. The last two years some plants have died of root rot. Others had a strong vegetative growth and a flowering but then the leaves dry, wilt and turn bronze. This year the boll worms are back in force. The plants are sick and beaconing to nature to recycle me. Rajesh did not understand that Bt Cotton seeds were not like other seeds. A seed looks like a seed. He knows nothing about genetic engineering. The technology, nor the consequences are understood by the common farmer in India. And this is something Mayhco, Monsanto’s Indian subsidiary, depends on, ignorance.

BT Cotton requires three foreign genes to be inserted through genetic engineering: The Cry1AC gene which encodes for an insecticidal protein which is derived from Bacillus Thuringiensis, and two other genes are inserted by force into the cotton genome.

“The conscious choice of a few genes for mobilization and widespread replication substitutes human judgement for natural selection. From a theological viewpoint it is questionable that the agribusiness scientific staff have the collective wisdom to determine what constitutes the good when it comes to desirable genes. The fact that their choice could be self-sustaining (e.g., if the gene escaped into the wild) is cause for further concern. Initially, this and other adverse impacts potentially resulting from mass scale transgenic operations are likely to be invisible.” (Marc Lappe and Britt Baily, Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of Your Food [Monroe, Me.:Common Courage, 1998], 114 )

Rajesh neighbor’s crop is ok. He used native seeds for the last four years, though his yield has been slightly below standard. In between his bobs of cotton tops are thick rows of bright marigolds. He tells Rajesh that they will trap the boll worms before they can harm the cotton plant. Rajesh decides to use the marigolds in the future. Nature has an ironic way of showing us her wisdom is best. The antidote always grows nearby.

Later that week Rajesh reads that other farmers are having a similar problems through Madhya Pradesh. Despite the realities on the ground, Mahyco managing director is quoted saying, “Using our seeds cut the pesticide use in half…..if there are any failures do to the farmers not using proper refugia standards and cross pollination between BT and Non-BT varieties…”

When Rajesh took out his savings to buy the seeds he did not know the company he was buying his seeds from. He was in a marginal situation, and taken in by aggressive dishonest advertising and ignorance of the biotech industry. Had he known the history of Monsanto, he would have been understandably cautious if not appalled that the government of his India would allow such a monolithic influence to operate within its borders. Many bribes exchanged hands before Rajesh saw the advertising.

To understand how and why the government of India would allow Mahyco, a subsidiary of Monsanto,with its gruesome track record to operate in India, we must look into India’s past, starting with the famines that laid waste to the nation shortly after partition, then study the Green Revolution, and then the slow erosion of land rights through The Land acquisition Act, and the co-opting of farmers seed rights through Indian Seed Patent Act and Seed Bill of 2004.

This is the subject of other articles on this blog. You can research the legislation through the links on the sidebar entitled Acts and Legislation. This subject will be covered more in depth in subsequent posts. However, there is a need to go over the basic world history and political beginnings of what has been called the “Green Revolution,” in order to put Rajeshs’ situation into context.

“A funny thing happens when corporations assist in shaping the farming policy of a nation, the policy benefits the corporation and not the farmers. Afterall, the corporation must grow in order to make a profit for its shareholders and not those who grow the food to feed its shareholders.” – Kamla Vishvas

With product development, there is a concept called “planned obsolescence.” This is an approximate end of life date created somewhere in the design or manufacturing process of a certain product.

“A policy of producing consumer goods that rapidly become obsolete and so require replacing, achieved by frequent changes in design, termination of the supply of spare parts, and the use of nondurable materials.”

It ensures that a car for example, won’t run trouble-free for 40 years, or that a AA battery has to be replaced in your tv remote. In this case, you have to buy new parts, have regular service, and change the batteries. At each node, more money is exchanged for goods and services. Over successive generations of consumers exposed to this model, they come to accept that things have to be replaced. Therefore the possibility that technology exists that could replace inferior products that wear out, with ones that won’t, is sealed from their imaginations. The consumers demand less because they don’t know they can demand more.

Things that last rarely go into mass production, because, it is..not…profitable. At present, few industries including the agricultural “industry” deviate from this model. In agriculture however, the disposable product, food, has one problem. With seed saving from year to year, and using bio-wastes produced from beasts of burden that assist in fertilizing food, and growing food in season and in accordance to rainfall patterns, the farmer and his/her laborers have a closed system whose profits benefit himself and the supporting community only. In order to introduce planned obsolescence, and profiteering, the product had to become dependent on external goods and services. Thus soil fertility was put on the marketplace and destroyed, plants became weakened, less nutritious, and susceptible to pests, seeds were bought instead of saved and the human body thus became an object, dependent on the pharmaceutical industry. At each stage of “industrialized, planned obsolescent” agriculture, there is a produce to solve the problem.

By the way, the pharmaceutical industry  coincidentally enough has many conflict of interest high-profile positions in the agrichemicals industry. (Be patient, this is a future blog entry).

Introduction:


In 1961 India was teetering near the edge of mass famine. On the other side of the world the U.S.  Kennedy Administration approved the use of chemicals, those we now know included dioxin, to destroy vegetation in Vietnam. The chief producers of this chemical was Monsanto and Dow Chemical.

In Mexico, a high yielding wheat variety was growing with the aid of mechanized agriculture technologies and fertilizers. This wheat was part of a political manuever to control the worlds foods supply under the auspices of “feeding the poor of the world,” and it’s success was about to change the future of India’s food sovereignty to present day.

1961 was the beginning of the “Green Revolution” in India. The Green Revolution opened the doors for the market transition of war chemicals into agricultural chemicals, such as Round Up(Glyphosate) and then thirty years later to genetically engineered crops.

Prior to the 1960s, The U.S. had begun funding “re-education” campaigns for shifting India’s native seed varieties to those same varieties  being tested in Mexico under sponsorship of U.S. special interest groups.

The Rockefeller Foundation and five U.S. land grant universities provided monetary and infrastructural assistance to Indian agricultural universities and research institutions and suggested a curricula appropriate to educating scholars and farmers to meet the challenge of introducing High Yielding Varieties of rice and wheat. Thus the donor country is and was responsible for the philosophical and value system transition of India’s traditional farming practices.

Present Day, Monsanto, Carghil, ADM, and Dupont among others  are following the the  successes of the “reorientation” campaigns funded by the Rockefeller Foundation to launch new products.

Monsanto India’s website reads verbatim: “MIL collaborates with thousands of channel partners to ensure farmers access its superior quality products in thousands of villages across the country. The Company also partners with State Governments, State Agriculture University and other leading Agricultural Institutions on developmental and agronomic testing. Additionally, it works with rural youth in thousands of villages to ensure that the right expertise and knowledge reaches lacs of farmers through year  farmer awareness and education programs.”

There are more than 20,000 documented varieties of rice on the Indian subcontinent. There are about 3000 varieties of rice in Uttarakhand itself. There are countless varieties of desi wheat. The Green Revolution narrowed down these varieties to 8. The interdependent network, from microorganisms, to beetles to birds, that thrived with the cultivation of 20,000 various rice varieties, in a few years entered into what activist and writer Rachel Carson, coined as “Silent Spring.” The tragic byproduct of the Green Revolution, was loss of biodiversity, because of either ignorance of malice of a few powerful organizations.

His Story:

“In 1940, the Avila Camacho administration took office in Mexico. The administration’s primary goal for Mexican U.S. Vice President-Elect Henry Wallace, who was instrumental in persuading the Rockefeller Foundation to work with the Mexican government in agricultural development, saw Avila Camacho’s ambitions as beneficial to U.S. economic and military interests.[12]

The Rockefeller Foundation contacted E.C. Stakman and two other leading agronomists. They developed a proposal for a new organization, the Office of Special Studies, as part of the Mexican Government, but directed by the Rockefeller Foundation. It was to be staffed with both U.S. and Mexican scientists, focusing on soil development, maize and wheat production, and plant pathology.” (Wikipedia).

The Office of Special Studies in Mexico became an informal international research institution in 1959, and in 1963 it formally became the The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center also referred to as the CIMMYT. The agronomist responsible for Mexico’s wheat variety, and later the Indian rice and wheat varieties, Norman Borlaug.

“ NEW DELHI: Long before Mr Bush and Dr Rice came by to leapfrog US-India ties to a new level, it was Prof. Wheat who jump-started and nourished the relationship. Norman Borlaug, the genial scientist-pacifist who died of cancer in Dallas on Saturday, was as much India’s ‘annadaata’ as he was the Father of the Green Revolution. Around the time Dr Borlaug arrived on the scene in the mid-1960s, the specter of famine, shortages, and starvation hung over the sub-continent. India was importing huge quantities of food grains from the US – much of it dole – to feed its growing millions in a manner that was famously described as “ship-to-mouth” sustenance.

Enter Norman Borlaug, a strapping, self-made, sun-burnt American from the farmland of Iowa, who had spent more a decade by then in Mexico after hard-earned doctorate in Depression-era US. What he had pulled off in experiments in Mexico was a miracle, that if successfully applied in India, would fill its granaries to overflow – as it eventually did.

By cranking up a wheat strain containing an unusual gene, Borlaug created the so-called ”semi-dwarf” plant variety — a shorter, stubbier, compact stalk that supported an enormous head of grain without falling over from the weight. This curious principle of shrinking the plant to increase the output on the plant from the same acreage resulted in Indian farmers eventually quadrupling their wheat — and later, rice — production.” (The Times of India, Norman Borlaug, India’s ‘annadaata’, dies at 95: Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN, Sep 13, 2009, 08.04pm IST)

“Norman Borlaug was invited to India by the adviser to the Indian minister of agriculture M. S. Swaminathan. Despite bureaucratic hurdles imposed by India’s grain monopolies, the Ford Foundation and Indian government collaborated to import wheat seed from CIMMYT. Punjab was selected by the Indian government to be the first site to try the new crops because of it s reliable water supply and a history of agricultural success. India began its own Green Revolution program of plant breeding, irrigation development, and financing of agrichemicals.” (Wikipedia)

A new variety of rice, labeled IR8 that produced more grain per plant when grown with irrigation and fertilizers was developed during this time, and is till in use in fields throughout Asia. Both this rice variety and the wheat “designed” during this time are considered a HYV, a high-yield-variety that is dependent on fertilizers.

“High yielding crops are bred specifically to respond to fertilizers and produced and increased amount of ground weight. “The terms often used with these plants that make them successful are harvest index, photosynthate allocation, and insensitivity to day length. The harvest index refers to the above ground weight of the plant.

During the Green Revolution, plants that had the largest seeds were selected to create the most production possible. After selectively breeding these plants, they evolved to all have the characteristic of larger seeds. These larger seeds then created more grain yield and a heavier above ground weight. This larger above ground weight then led to an increased photosynthate allocation. By maximizing the seed or food portion of the plant, it was able to use photosynthesis more efficiently because the energy produced during this process went directly to the food portion of the plant.” (About.com)

Primary Productivity is measured in terms of output efficiency or dry ass/hectare/kiloliter of water consumed) while Visible Productivity is measured in terms of gross output or dry mass/hectare. Hence it is very likely that while Visible Productivity seems to be going up, the underlying Primary Productivity is going down sharply.

“ So far all of our efforts have been to increase the: Visible Productivity by enhancing the Secondary Productivity which in itself is a perfectly sensible thing to do. The so called Green Revolution has been all about increasing our Visible Productivity through enhancing Secondary Productivity. The enhanced Secondary productivity has given us a false sense of pride that Visible productivity is up.

However, the reality is that Primary Productivity has been steadily declining over the years and we are unaware because our entire focus was just measuring the Visible Productivity. In the Punjab for instance, efforts to increase the Secondary Productivity of farmers through external inputs has severely impaired the Primary Productivity of the land and farmers are now facing a decline in the Visible Productivity even though external inputs are the same.” (Annam Brahman: Organic Food in India p. 184 submitted by Natueco farmer Krishi Tirth, in the District Dewas of Madhya Pradesh)

The chemical fertilizers commonly used for these types of varieties are called “NPK”, or Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium. This mix of nutrients, focuses on energy and protein production necessary for cell growth. All plants take what they need, only when they need it. The leftovers of excess nutrients and additives from the fertilizers, create salt, arsenic, and nitrates all of which leech into the ground water. Consequently, the Punjab-Harayana area has high levels of contamination in lower and lower levels of groundwater.

Plants convert nitrogen to make proteins essential to new cell growth. An abundance of nitrogen, however, will make the plant weak and soft. Potassium, which is responsible for the manufacture and movement of sugars and starches, as well as cell division is locked out by high salinity is the soil which is a by-product of using chemical fertilizers.

Consider that plants are “accumulators”, and “hyperaccumulators”. The root system pulls nutrients from water into its stem, leaves, and flowers.  Some nutrients  are used to convert some things to other things, and no longer remain, but there are micronutrients that remain in the over all cellular “skeletal” structure and fluid of the plant. Plants, like the human body also require, calcium, magnesium, sulfur, iron, manganese, zinc, copper, boron and a few other trace minerals to be healthy.

In nature they receive these elements from soil that is built from decomposition of things that have these minerals inside of them. Nothing is wasted. If these minerals are not there, in the case of monocropped soils, not only will the plant be lacking in vital nutritional content containing minerals, it will also like vitality, ojas.  When groundwater is contaminated with heavy metals, by-products of the petrochemical and agrichemical industry, the contamination also ends up in the body of the vegetable.

It will therefore not only have less taste (rasa), but less nutrition, and be susceptible to infestation, thereby requiring pesticides to protect the weak plants. It is not only the weak plants that attract pests, but the lack of competition. By having this increased crop homogeneity there are less predators to fight off pests. Thus one giant field, stripped of its biodiverse checks and balances, is a living target, and pesticides are used where before none, or only those organic in nature, were used.

One bad idea picks up more bad ideas

Because of the Green Revolution, the infrastructure around farms changed. Irrigation channels now brought water into fields that traditionally relied only on monsoon rains. Then to avoid the complication of nutrients spilling into these monocropped fields from overflow of rivers during the monsoon season, large embankments were constructed! One thing to note about irrigation channels in fields that are normally fallow do to heat and dry conditions, is that there is alot of evaporation before the water even reaches the field, and once there, because of continuous heat, only a small percentage of the water, makes it to the roots. The water that does soak back into the ground is full of fertilizer wastes. Because of an increased demand for water, large dams were built. The reservoirs of the dams displaced village farmland, and in certain areas, the downriver side of the dam changed the entire survival pattern, subsistence lifestyles, and habitat of both people, and animals.

The pairing of seed and fertilizer since the Green Revolution has shifted the agricultural practices in India dramatically from independent to dependent, as  new seeds and denatured soil requires fertilizers to grow crops, and the weakened plants require pesticides to protect them.

“The pseudo revolution affected the hills (in India) too and production declined. Although production increased in the plains with the coming of the Green Revolution, this increase was a flash in the pan, as result of magical hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers introduced. Chemical fertilizers squeezed the natural fertility of the Indian soils like a lemon, snatched the traditionally developed and saved seeds from the farmers, and also dealt the traditional knowledge system of Indian farmers a deathly blow.

In the 1960s and 1970s, farmers were given free mini kits of hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers by agriculture extension officials. Soon enough, many switched over to these and abandoned their old traditional seeds and organic manures. Chemical fertilizers did increase production initially. With government support and subsidy even the farmers of Uttarakhand took to these new ways. However, most farmers did not realize the hidden catch in the chemical farming in the beginning. Many sowed these hybrid seeds without manuring their fields, thinking that they would perform miracles year after year. But they were in for a rude shock when production plummeted immediately and their crops were attacked by diseases and pests.

How shrewed were the instigators of the Green Revolution! In the twinkling of an eye the farmers lost their traditional seeds which ensured biodiversity, to monocultures and big corporations. The farmer became dependent upon purchased inputs. It would be a hyperbole to call the Green Revolution a conspiracy which came in the guise of development. Today the Indian farmer is a slave to this revolution and to the multinational corporations that manufacture the hybrid seeds and chemical fertilizers.” (Annam Brahma: Organic Food in India. Barahanaja Mixed Organic Farming in Uttarakhand. pg. 253)

So why how did generations of subsisteance farmers fall into this trap? It is by  design.

The story starts long ago and centers around  re-orientation  programs sponsored by generous donations from powerful foundations.

It goes something like this.

A man named  Rockefeller and a man named Carnegie were very good friends and the most powerful men in America around the turn of the 20th century. They set up a tax exempt foundation called the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Fund. These two organizations began pumping money into universities, insisting they do drug research.

Rockefeller and Carnegie together financed the famous Flexner Report of 1910 written by Abraham Flexner, hired by Rockefeller and Carnegie.  Flexner traveled all over the country and made a very scholarly analysis of how bad the level of medical education was in America. The medical schools at the time ranged in quality, and some were very bad. It was an emerging science with many opinions on how to emerge.  Many schools relied on a combination of medicines,  from traditional herbalists called ecclectists,  to those who capitalized on opiate and cocaine based remedies, to  regular medicine which used methods such as bloodletting.

“Eclectic Medicine appeared as an extension of early American herbal medicine traditions, such as “Thomsonian medicine” in the early 19th century, and Native American medicine. Regular medicine at the time made extensive use of purges with calomel and other mercury-based remedies, as well as extensive bloodletting and Eclectic medicine was a direct reaction to those practices as well as the need to professionalize the Thomsonian medicine innovations.

Therefore, “Eclectics” were doctors who practiced with a philosophy of “alignment with nature,” learning from and using concepts from other schools of medical thought. They opposed the techniques of bleeding, chemical purging and the use of mercury compounds common among the “conventional” doctors of that time. The majority of eclectic medicine was botanical remedies.”

By the 1850s, several “regular” American doctors, especially from the New York Academy of Medicine, had begun using herbal salvesand other preparations. By the 1880 and 90s however, those medical facilities that did not pass the criteria of Rockefeller and Carnegie’s Flexner report, lost accreditation.

Besides the “regulars” or allopaths, there were botanics, eclectics, and homeopaths, all of which were instructed at small medical schools. Statistics for the year 1900 show that, in the U.S., allopaths numbered about 70,000, Eclectic doctors numbered 10,000, Homeopaths numbered 8,500, and physio-medicalists (followers of the botanic Samuel Thomson) numbered 1,500. Somewhere between 20% and 25% of all Americans received treatment from doctors of one of these sectarian schools of medicine. One of the most significant results of the Flexner Report was to destroy accreditation of the institutions which taught non-allopathic medical philosophies.” (Wikipedia)

Many schools closed, and other were consalidated. Those who were allopatic were offered tax-free grants.  Millions and millions of dollars  thus went to those medical schools that were cooperative and that were willing to go along with the recommendations made by Rockefeller and Carnegie.  The money paid for new buildings and equipment, and those same schools are the in prominence in America today.

A co-conspirator named Fred Gates and Flexner, and  all those whom they appointed, became Board members and consultants for all of these schools.  They helped shape the curriculum, climate and goals from then to present day allopathic medicine.

Fred Gates changed Rockefellers mode of philanthropy. He helped him set up  well-funded foundations that were run by experts who decided what topics of reform were relevant and profitable, actualizing Rockefellers idea that for every dollar given away in philanthropy you ought to be able to make at least a hundred back. The foundations operating as tax free entities would identify problems, (or create them) such as in the case of the medical schools,  then provide the solution. When there was no problem, they would find one to solve.

So an oil industrialist, Rockefeller, Gates a business person and Baptist minister, Carnegie, a steel industrialist and Abhraham Flexnor and author and educator who before writing the Flexner report had never stopped foot in a medical school, steered the American population away from looking to the natural world to solve their ailments  into drug dependent modern-day pharmaceutical profiteering. What qualified them to do this?

Profits cannot be strained from a unexploited people  who know how to  heal themselves. Just like there is a limit to profits when people and communities provide for their own food requirements. To change this situation, the above mentioned industrialists had to create a climate of dependence, and that now exists between India’s farmers and the same multinationals who created a false problem to be solved.

The shift to dependence:

“In an earlier generation, the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations spent millions on putting Third World agronomists in training programs at American universities where they would become converts to the Green Revolution. They certainly understood that becoming converts for corporate farming was almost a guarantee for continued success in an academic world that was awash in money from the Monsantos of the world.

In an article titled “The United States Intervention in Third World Policies” that appeared in the April 1986 Social Scientist, Jagannath Pathy drew attention to the massive seduction of academics by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations. This involved sending our “experts” overseas to help the benighted peasants as well as recruiting theirs for special training at places like Cornell and MIT. Indo-U.S. co-operation in agricultural research dates back to the efforts of the U.S. government to help India increase food production.

In 1953, F.W. Parker of the Technical Co-operative Mission arranged a number of studies determining the fertility status of soils. This laid the basis for the establishment of a chain of soil testing laboratories aided by USAID which subsequently paved the way for the introduction of chemical fertilisers in India.

In 1955, Rockefeller Foundation and five U.S. land grant universities assisted Indian agricultural universities and research institutions and suggested a curricula appropriate to reorienting scholars to meet the challenge of introducing HYVs of maize, sorghum and millets.

The U.S. gave $ 35 million for laboratory equipment and libraries. Every year 35 fellowships were instituted for training Indian students at U.S. institutions. Rockefellers provided $ 21.3 million up to 1973 and arranged for several visiting professors to visit India. It also provided travel grants for Indian government officials and university administrators to go to the U.S.

In 1982, Ralph W. Cummings, the Director of Rockefeller Foundation’s Indian agricultural research programme laid down guidelines for the establishment and development of agricultural universities. These guidelines focussed on higher agricultural productivity through diffusion of fertiliser responsive varieties.

The narrow genetic base of HYVs, disease and pest susceptibility of some of the parent varieties and the existence of vast monoculture soon exposed the crops to attacks by pests and diseases. As noted earlier, in the mid-1960s, USAID provided large loans to import much needed fertilisers. The U.S. and World Bank put pressure on the Indian government to encourage MNCs investment in local fertiliser production. Such a strategy could not have been pursued smoothly without the support of Indian agricultural scientists trained in the service of American interests (Abrol, 1983).

From 1952-72, the Ford Foundation spent $ 16 million providing generous grants to persons, institutions and government on a wide variety of nation building activities. It established and/or funded the Institute of Economic Growth, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, National Council of Applied Economic Research, Indian Statistical Institute and Institutes of Management at Calcutta and Ahmedabad. The Foundation trained about 50,000 extension workers. The National Institute of Community Development was established with the help of USAID and Michigan State University.

The whole pattern of education and research was thus modelled on the philosophy and value system of the donor country. U.S. experts provided advice on how to organise and develop science and technology, decided the priorities of research, recommended developmental models. Performance of major research and educational institutes like UGC. CSIR, ICAR, etc. is reviewed by experts from the U.S. and Western Europe. This delinking of science and technology from the concrete socio-political contexts has proved to be stultifying. “

ttp://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/food-imperialism-norman-borlaug-and-the-green-revolution/

“Because farming methods that depend heavily on chemical fertilizers do not maintain the soil’s natural fertility and because pesticides generate resistant pests, farmers need ever more fertilizers and pesticides just to achieve the same results. At the same time, those who profit from the increased use of fertilizers and pesticides fear labor organizing and use their new wealth to buy tractors and other machines, even though they are not required by the new seeds.

This incremental shift leads to the industrialization of farming. Once on the path of industrial agriculture, farming costs more. It can be more profitable, of course, but only if the prices farmers get for their crops stay ahead of the costs of petrochemicals and machinery. Green Revolution proponents claim increases in net incomes from farms of all sizes once farmers adopt the more responsive seeds.

But recent studies also show another trend: outlays for fertilizers and pesticides may be going up faster than yields, suggesting that Green Revolution farmers are now facing what U.S. farmers have experienced for decades-a cost-price squeeze.

But if increased food production has been the principal thrust of the new strategy it has not been the only one. Closely tied to the effort to increase output has been the transformation of agrarian social and economic relations by integrating once isolated areas or farmers into the capitalist market system. This “modernization” of the countryside, which has been an important part of so-called nation-building throughout the postwar period, has been facilitated by the dependency of the new technology on manufactured inputs.

The peasant who adopts the new seeds must buy the necessary complementary inputs on the market. In order to buy these inputs he must sell part of his crop for cash. Thus the international team widens the proportion of peasant producers tied into the national (and sometimes international) market as it succeeds in pushing the new technology into the hands of subsistence farmers. Obviously in the case of commercial producers, adoption only reinforces existing ties to the market. (Harry Cleaver’s “The Contradictions of the Green Revolution“,)

These development experts, however, apparently feel that widening the market by pushing new inputs is not always enough. Along with their recent admiration for the “progressive” peasant who jumps at any opportunity to grow more, they have been making an effort to teach personal gain and consumerism. In his widely read handbook, Getting Agriculture Moving, ADC president Arthur T. Mosher insists on the theme of teaching peasants to want more for themselves, to abandon collective habits, and to get on with the “business” of farming. Mosher goes so far as to advocate extension educational programs for women and youth clubs to create more demand for store-bought goods. The “affection of husbands and fathers for their families” will make them responsive to these desires and drive them to work harder.

A new study by another elite group, Resources for the Future (RFF), done for the World Bank on agricultural development in the Mekong Basin, also recommends substantial efforts to change the rural social structure and personal attitudes of peasants in such a way that new capitalist institutions can function more efficiently. The RFF, like others before it, suggests massive doses of international capital and more Western social scientists to help bring about the necessary changes. These tactics of the ADC and RFF are more than efforts to bring development to rural areas. They are attempts to replace traditional social systems by capitalism, complete with all its business-based social relations.” (source: http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/food-imperialism-norman-borlaug-and-the-green-revolution/)

The planned obsolescence of the Green Revolution has created a false crisis point just like before. In this global play, including all the prior actors, using the same script  that says   India is once again in trouble and cannot produce enough food to feed her people.  Now a new industry, the biotehcnology industry, has emerged with the solution to declining Visible Production.

Scores of young Indians are sent to schools to become doctors, and engineers, those of which are sent to schools with funding and assistance by the largest biotech and western pharmaceutical industry players in America. Sounds familiar? History repeats itself.

This time however, there is a third input for Indian farmers to buy: Patented-genetically modified seeds.

Fertilizer – produced by Monsanto

Pesticide – produced by Monsanto

GM Seed – produced by Monsanto

The May 27, 1998 The Wall Street Journal declared: “Monsanto Co. and DuPont Co. are betting the farm in bids to transform themselves into the Coke and Pepsi of genetically engineered crops. In the three years since the first transgenic seeds were introduced, crop biotechnology has grown from a young science to a hot business: About half of U.S. cotton fields, forty percent of soybean fields, and twenty percent of corn fields this year are genetically altered. Now, in a stunningly swift concentration of power, much of the design, harvest, and processing of genetically engineered crops is coming under these two companies.”

How do they position themselves for such rapid growth? They exert control over State Governments, Agriculture Universities and Institutions, and rural youth, farmers and villagers. They use the “problems” created and identified by tax extempt foundations, then step in as  the 21st century saviors from starvation. They use their influence, having ex board members in top political positions in the U.S. government, to change policy. (This is a whole separate other post). The Indian government readily colonizes itself under foreign interest who push their interests through bribes and investment.

To the informed and critical thinkers, the language of Monsanto’s intension in the country of India is not even hidden. This from their Indian website: “ MIL collaborates with thousands of channel partners to ensure farmers access its superior quality products in thousands of villages across the country. The Company also partners with State Governments, State Agriculture University and other leading Agricultural Institutions on developmental and agronomic testing. Additionally, it works with rural youth in thousands of villages to ensure that the right expertise and knowledge reaches lacs of farmers through year-round farmer awareness and education programs.”

Dr. Vandana Shiva is an activist, writer, seed saver  and founder of Navdanya in Dehradun India.  Navdanya is a network of seed keepers and organic producers spread across 16 states in India. It has its 54 seed banks.

Dr. Shiva says,

“We are at this watershed of human evolution. We will either continue to walk on the path of resource waste, resource monopoly and therefore resource conflict and have no workable societies or we will make a transition to resource prudence, conservation, equity sharing and peace.

If we don’t change the path there is no survival for the human species. The root causes of the current food prices are two fold: The first is the model of industrial farming which pretends to produce more while in reality it produces less. And the reality is eclipsed by not seeing what a piece of land can produce in terms of biodiversity, nutrition, local food sustainability and focusing only on the commodity tradee….So yes we have more corn and soy in the world….but the more corn and soya in the world the more hunger.

It is not solving the food problem. We have more commodity but not more food. We have a farming system that leaves rural communities indebted. They are growing food by spending more money. And in the process not eating what they grow because they have to pay back the credit for the seeds and chemicals. Add to this, the globalization model, the free trade model which in effect has moved control over food and agriculture into the hands of 5 agribusiness giants. (Monsanto  being one of them.)

They (the agribusiness giants) have created a system where they buy cheap from farmers because they create a situation where they are the only buyers. When when they have the control, they speculate and play on commodity futures. Food has literally become part of the global economic casino..and that is why the prices of food are rising. (Look at the housing industry and how fast housing prices went up.)

The first Green Revolution didn’t solve food problems it created. It left impoverished farmers…it reduced our ability to produce proteins and pulses by promoting monocultures of rice and wheat and in India and corn in Mexico. The beans disappeared the pulses disappeared the nutrition disappeared out of the food system. The chemicals appeared but the nutrition disappeared.

The second Green Revolution is based on genetic engineering, which introduces two kinds of crops herbicide resistant crops which means more herbicide gets sprayed and BT toxin crops which means more BT toxin is now in the plants and food were are eating. “Cows grazing on bt is killing the cows. …

It s also wrong to claim that genetic engineering will solve the food crisis “introducing more toxin in the plant does not increase the yield of food, it increases yield of toxins. The technology itself is not capable of increasing yield at this point because yield is a multi genetic trait. Many genes have to interact together to increase the yield. And that is why only toxins are being moved around.

Genetic engineering is based on a false reductionist science. Navdanya biodiverse small farms produce 5 times more than the monocultures. Seed has been a farmers resource. It has been a common property. They have been freely saved and exchanged.

When a company like Monsanto enters the seed supply system it does three things. It makes sure that all seeds of the farmer are destroyed either by giving incentives to farmer to give them the old seed or by basically making the farmer believe the new seeds will bring miracles. The second thing the company does when it enters any country or region is in face erode the public supply, and undermine public research. The third thing the company does is do aggressive advertising as if it is bombing a zone and if you go to “parts of India where farmers are committing suicide you watch the billboards you watch the an videos they use gods as seeds. I have seen (ads with the) god Hanuman bringing Monsanto seeds. Guru Nanak the founder of the Sikh religion selling Roundup. When a peasant in a simple society who has never had any sense of how these corporations function is brought a god around who his entire faith is organized, he tries first that faith to these new seeds and gets into the dependence without knowing its about the corporation (and their intent.

The model for economic life is for a bigger or bigger grab for diminishing resources. All conflicts are resource conflicts, but they just look different because we are so diverse…and it is so easy to cover up the basic issue with these cultural things.” Culture of Resistance PodCast  5/7/2010

Folk please excuse any spelling and grammar errors in this post.  I will revise. If you have any suggestions please contact me @ actnaturallyworldwide@gmail.com This is the end of  this post of the Green Revolution.  Next Post, Who EXACTLY is Monsanto?  I wanted to include an article from 2008 which speaks to the farmer suicides mentioned at the beginning of this post.

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops

By Andrew Malone
Last updated at 12:48 AM on 3rd November 2008

When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it’s even WORSE than he feared.

The children were inconsolable. Mute with shock and fighting back tears, they huddled beside their mother as friends and neighbours prepared their father’s body for cremation on a blazing bonfire built on the cracked, barren fields near their home.

As flames consumed the corpse, Ganjanan, 12, and Kalpana, 14, faced a grim future. While Shankara Mandaukar had hoped his son and daughter would have a better life under India’s economic boom, they now face working as slave labour for a few pence a day. Landless and homeless, they will be the lowest of the low.

Indian farmer

Human tragedy: A farmer and child in India’s ‘suicide belt’

Shankara, respected farmer, loving husband and father, had taken his own life. Less than 24 hours earlier, facing the loss of his land due to debt, he drank a cupful of chemical insecticide.

Unable to pay back the equivalent of two years’ earnings, he was in despair. He could see no way out.

There were still marks in the dust where he had writhed in agony. Other villagers looked on – they knew from experience that any intervention was pointless – as he lay doubled up on the ground, crying out in pain and vomiting.

Moaning, he crawled on to a bench outside his simple home 100 miles from Nagpur in central India. An hour later, he stopped making any noise. Then he stopped breathing. At 5pm on Sunday, the life of Shankara Mandaukar came to an end.

As neighbours gathered to pray outside the family home, Nirmala Mandaukar, 50, told how she rushed back from the fields to find her husband dead. ‘He was a loving and caring man,’ she said, weeping quietly.

‘But he couldn’t take any more. The mental anguish was too much. We have lost everything.’

Shankara’s crop had failed – twice. Of course, famine and pestilence are part of India’s ancient story.

But the death of this respected farmer has been blamed on something far more modern and sinister: genetically modified crops.

Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been promised previously unheard of harvests and income if he switched from farming with traditional seeds to planting GM seeds instead.

Prince CharlesDistressed: Prince Charles has set up charity Bhumi Vardaan Foundation to address the plight of suicide farmers

Beguiled by the promise of future riches, he borrowed money in order to buy the GM seeds. But when the harvests failed, he was left with spiralling debts – and no income.

So Shankara became one of an estimated 125,000 farmers to take their own life as a result of the ruthless drive to use India as a testing ground for genetically modified crops.

The crisis, branded the ‘GM Genocide’ by campaigners, was highlighted recently when Prince Charles claimed that the issue of GM had become a ‘global moral question’ – and the time had come to end its unstoppable march.

Speaking by video link to a conference in the Indian capital, Delhi, he infuriated bio-tech leaders and some politicians by condemning ‘the truly appalling and tragic rate of small farmer suicides in India, stemming… from the failure of many GM crop varieties’.

Ranged against the Prince are powerful GM lobbyists and prominent politicians, who claim that genetically modified crops have transformed Indian agriculture, providing greater yields than ever before.

The rest of the world, they insist, should embrace ‘the future’ and follow suit.

So who is telling the truth? To find out, I travelled to the ‘suicide belt’ in Maharashtra state.

What I found was deeply disturbing – and has profound implications for countries, including Britain, debating whether to allow the planting of seeds manipulated by scientists to circumvent the laws of nature.

For official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture do indeed confirm that in a huge humanitarian crisis, more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves here each month.

Simple, rural people, they are dying slow, agonising deaths. Most swallow insecticide – a pricey substance they were promised they would not need when they were coerced into growing expensive GM crops.

It seems that many are massively in debt to local money-lenders, having over-borrowed to purchase GM seed.

Pro-GM experts claim that it is rural poverty, alcoholism, drought and ‘agrarian distress’ that is the real reason for the horrific toll.

But, as I discovered during a four-day journey through the epicentre of the disaster, that is not the full story.

Monsanto

Death seeds: A Greenpeace protester sprays milk-based paint on a Monsanto research soybean field near Atlantic, Iowa

In one small village I visited, 18 farmers had committed suicide after being sucked into GM debts. In some cases, women have taken over farms from their dead husbands – only to kill themselves as well.

Latta Ramesh, 38, drank insecticide after her crops failed – two years after her husband disappeared when the GM debts became too much.

She left her ten-year-old son, Rashan, in the care of relatives. ‘He cries when he thinks of his mother,’ said the dead woman’s aunt, sitting listlessly in shade near the fields.

Village after village, families told how they had fallen into debt after being persuaded to buy GM seeds instead of traditional cotton seeds.

The price difference is staggering: £10 for 100 grams of GM seed, compared with less than £10 for 1,000 times more traditional seeds.

But GM salesmen and government officials had promised farmers that these were ‘magic seeds’ – with better crops that would be free from parasites and insects.

Indeed, in a bid to promote the uptake of GM seeds, traditional varieties were banned from many government seed banks.

The authorities had a vested interest in promoting this new biotechnology. Desperate to escape the grinding poverty of the post-independence years, the Indian government had agreed to allow new bio-tech giants, such as the U.S. market-leader Monsanto, to sell their new seed creations.

In return for allowing western companies access to the second most populated country in the world, with more than one billion people, India was granted International Monetary Fund loans in the Eighties and Nineties, helping to launch an economic revolution.

But while cities such as Mumbai and Delhi have boomed, the farmers’ lives have slid back into the dark ages.

Though areas of India planted with GM seeds have doubled in two years – up to 17 million acres – many famers have found there is a terrible price to be paid.

Far from being ‘magic seeds’, GM pest-proof ‘breeds’ of cotton have been devastated by bollworms, a voracious parasite.

Nor were the farmers told that these seeds require double the amount of water. This has proved a matter of life and death.

With rains failing for the past two years, many GM crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.

Having taken loans from traditional money lenders at extortionate rates, hundreds of thousands of small farmers have faced losing their land as the expensive seeds fail, while those who could struggle on faced a fresh crisis.

When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.

But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That’s because GM seeds contain so- called ‘terminator technology’, meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.

As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death.

Take the case of Suresh Bhalasa, another farmer who was cremated this week, leaving a wife and two children.

As night fell after the ceremony, and neighbours squatted outside while sacred cows were brought in from the fields, his family had no doubt that their troubles stemmed from the moment they were encouraged to buy BT Cotton, a geneticallymodified plant created by Monsanto.

‘We are ruined now,’ said the dead man’s 38-year-old wife. ‘We bought 100 grams of BT Cotton. Our crop failed twice. My husband had become depressed. He went out to his field, lay down in the cotton and swallowed insecticide.’

Villagers bundled him into a rickshaw and headed to hospital along rutted farm roads. ‘He cried out that he had taken the insecticide and he was sorry,’ she said, as her family and neighbours crowded into her home to pay their respects. ‘He was dead by the time they got to hospital.’

Asked if the dead man was a ‘drunkard’ or suffered from other ‘social problems’, as alleged by pro-GM officials, the quiet, dignified gathering erupted in anger. ‘No! No!’ one of the dead man’s brothers exclaimed. ‘Suresh was a good man. He sent his children to school and paid his taxes.

‘He was strangled by these magic seeds. They sell us the seeds, saying they will not need expensive pesticides but they do. We have to buy the same seeds from the same company every year. It is killing us. Please tell the world what is happening here.’

Monsanto has admitted that soaring debt was a ‘factor in this tragedy’. But pointing out that cotton production had doubled in the past seven years, a spokesman added that there are other reasons for the recent crisis, such as ‘untimely rain’ or drought, and pointed out that suicides have always been part of rural Indian life.

Officials also point to surveys saying the majority of Indian farmers want GM seeds  –  no doubt encouraged to do so by aggressive marketing tactics.

During the course of my inquiries in Maharastra, I encountered three ‘independent’ surveyors scouring villages for information about suicides. They insisted that GM seeds were only 50 per cent more expensive – and then later admitted the difference was 1,000 per cent.

(A Monsanto spokesman later insisted their seed is ‘only double’ the price of ‘official’ non-GM seed – but admitted that the difference can be vast if cheaper traditional seeds are sold by ‘unscrupulous’ merchants, who often also sell ‘fake’ GM seeds which are prone to disease.)

With rumours of imminent government compensation to stem the wave of deaths, many farmers said they were desperate for any form of assistance. ‘We just want to escape from our problems,’ one said. ‘We just want help to stop any more of us dying.’

Prince Charles is so distressed by the plight of the suicide farmers that he is setting up a charity, the Bhumi Vardaan Foundation, to help those affected and promote organic Indian crops instead of GM.

India’s farmers are also starting to fight back. As well as taking GM seed distributors hostage and staging mass protests, one state government is taking legal action against Monsanto for the exorbitant costs of GM seeds.

This came too late for Shankara Mandauker, who was 80,000 rupees (about £1,000) in debt when he took his own life. ‘I told him that we can survive,’ his widow said, her children still by her side as darkness fell. ‘I told him we could find a way out. He just said it was better to die.’

But the debt does not die with her husband: unless she can find a way of paying it off, she will not be able to afford the children’s schooling. They will lose their land, joining the hordes seen begging in their thousands by the roadside throughout this vast, chaotic country.

Cruelly, it’s the young who are suffering most from the ‘GM Genocide’  –  the very generation supposed to be lifted out of a life of hardship and misery by these ‘magic seeds’.

Here in the suicide belt of India, the cost of the genetically modified future is murderously high.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1082559/The-GM-genocide-Thousands-Indian-farmers-committing-suicide-using-genetically-modified-crops.html#ixzz1LAU9IzvX


An excerpt from: Organic Farming in India: Relevance, Problems and Constraints

ORGANIC FARMING IN INDIA : RELEVANCE, PROBLEMS AND CONSTRAINTS

Summary from the Report submitted by DR. S. NARAYANAN from the Department of Economic Analysis and Research National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai 2005

2.2 Need for Organic Farming in India
The need for organic farming in India arises from the unsustaina-bility of agriculture production and the damage caused to ecology through the conventional farming practices.The present system of agriculture which we call ‘conventional’ and practiced the world over evolved in the western nations as a product of their socio-economic environment which promoted an over riding quest for accumulation of wealth. This method of farming adopted by other countries is inherently self destructive and unsustainable.

The modern farming is highly perfected by the Americans who dispossessed the natives of their farms right from the early period of the new settlers in US (Wadia, 1996). The large farms appropriated by the immigrants required machines to do the large scale cultural operations. These machines needed large amount of fossil fuels besides forcing the farmers to raise the same crops again and again, in order to utilize these machines to their optimum capacities. The result was the reduction of bio-diversity and labour. The high cost of the machines necessitated high profits, which in turn put pressure to raise productivity. Then, only those crops with high productivity were cultivated which needed increased quantities of fertilizers and pesticides. Increasing use of pesticides resulted in the damage to environment and increased resistance of insects to them. Pesticides harmed useful organisms in the soil.

………….

The monoculture of high yielding seeds required external inputs of chemical fertilizers. The fertilizers also destroy soil organisms. They damage the rhizobia that fix nitrogen and other micro organisms that make phosphates available to plants (Wadia, 1996). The long term effect was reduction of crop yields. The damaged soil was easily eroded by wind and water. The eroding soil needed use of continuously increasing quantities of fertilizers, much of which was washed/leached into surface and underground water sources.

The Indian agriculture switched over to the conventional system of production on the advent of the green revolution in the 1970s. The change was in the national interest which suffered set backs because of the country’s over dependence on the foreign food sources. The national determination was so intense that all the attention was focused on the increase in agriculture production.

The agriculture and allied sectors in India provide employment to 65 per cent of the workers and accounts for 30 per cent of the national income. The growth of population and the increase in income will lead to a rise in demand for foodgrains as also for the agricultural raw materials for industry in the future. The area under cultivation, obviously, cannot be increased and the present 140 million hectares will have to meet the future increases in such demands. There is a strong reason for even a decline in the cultivated area because of the urbanization and industrialization, which in turn will exert much pressure on the existing, cropped area.

Science and technology have helped man to increase agricultural production from the natural resources like land. But the realization that this has been achieved at the cost of the nature and environment, which support the human life itself, is becoming clear. It has been fully evident that the present pattern of economic development, which ignores the ecology and environment, cannot sustain the achievement of man without substantial erosion of the factors that support the life system of all living things on the Earth. The evidence of the ill effects of development is well documented. As said earlier, we in India have to be concerned much more than any other nation of the world as agriculture is the source of livelihood of more than 6-7 million of our people and it is the foundation of the economic development of the country.

There were times when people lived close to nature with access to flora and fauna in healthier and cleaner surroundings. One has to look back at our present metropolitan cities or other large towns before the past fifty years as recorded in history/memmories of the present elder generation to see the striking differences in the surroundings in which the people lived there. Land, water and air, the most fundamental resources supporting the human life, have degraded into such an extent that they now constitute a threat to the livelihood of millions of people in the countiy.

Ecological and environmental effects have been highly publicised all over the world. Many times, these analysis have taken the shape of doomsday forecasts. Powerful interests in the developed western countries have also politicised these issues to take advantage of the poor nations of the world. Efforts to impose trade restrictions on the plea of environment protection are a direct result of these campaigns. But we have to recognize that the abysmal level to which we have degraded our resources ,requires immediate remedial measures without terming the demand for them as the ploys of the rich nations to exploit the poor.
Another turn of the events has been the blame game for ecological problems stated at the Earth Summit and other international conferences. The developed countries, it is true, are to a great extent instrumental to degrade the environment. However, the poorer countries of the world including India cannot delay or ignore the need for remedial measures, which are to be effectively implemented. We cannot gloss over the fact that we have also contributed to the degradation of ecology; look at the droughts and floods, disappearance of forests, high noise level and air pollution in the cities which are our own creations.

Organically cultivated soils are relatively better attuned to withstand water stress and nutrient loss. Their potential to counter soil degradation is high and several experiments in arid areas reveal that organic farming may help to combat desertification (Alam and Wani, 2003). It is reported that about 70 hectares of desert in Egypt could be converted into fertile soil supporting livestock through organic and biodynamic practices. India, which has some areas of semi-arid and arid nature, can benefit from the experiment.
The organic agriculture movement in India received inspiration and assistance from IFOAM which has about 600 organizational members from 120 countries. All India Federation of Organic Farming (AIFOF) is a member of IFOAM and consists of a number of NGOs, farmers’ organisations, promotional bodies and institutions.

The national productivity of many of the cereal crops, millets, oilseeds, pulses and horticultural crops continues to be one of the lowest in the world in spite of the green revolution. The fertilizer and pesticide consumption has increased manifold; but this trend has not been reflected in the crop productivity to that extent. The country’s farming sector has started showing indications of reversing the rising productivity as against the increasing trend of input use.
The unsustainability of Indian agriculture is caused by the modern farming methods which have badly affected/damaged production resources and the environment.

2.2.1 Affects of Modern Farming Technology
The role of agriculture in economic development in an agrarian country like India is a pre-dominant one. Agriculture provides food for more than 1 billion people and yields raw materials for agro-based industries. Agricultural exports earn foreign exchange. Modernization of Indian agriculture began during the mid-sixties which resulted in the green revolution making the country a foodgrain surplus nation from a deficit one depending on food imports. Modern agriculture is based on the use of high yielding varieties of seeds, chemical fertilizers, irrigation water, pesticides, etc., and also on the adoption of multiple cropping systems with the extension of area under cultivation. But it also put severe pressure on natural resources like, land and water. However, given the continuous growth of modern technology along with the intensive use of natural resources, many of them of non renewable, it is felt that agriculture cannot be sustainable in future because of the adverse changes being caused to the environment and the ecosystem. The environmental non-degradable nature of the agricultural development and its ecological balance have been studied in relation to the modem Indian farming system by experts which shows exploitation of land and water for agriculture, and the excessive use of chemicals.

Chemical Contamination
Fertilizers
Consumption of chemical fertilizers {N,P,K) has been increasing in India during the past thirty years at a rate of almost half a million tonnes on an average, a year. It was only 13.13 kg/ha in 1970-71, 31.83 kg/ha in 1980-81 and 74.81 kg/ha in 1995-96. It shot up to about 96 kg/ha during 1999-2000. Table 5 shows the consumption of fertilizers in India from 1970-71 to 2001-02.

Table 5 : Consumption of Chemical Fertilizers in India. Go to page 40.
Source : Indian Agriculture in Brief.

The present use of about 96 kg of fertilizers per ha in India appears to be modest compared to the advanced countries. Currently about 80 per cent of the fertilizer is consumed in only about 120 districts constituting less than 33 per cent of the gross cultivating area. Experts point out that the efficiency of fertilizer use in India is only 30-35 per cent as the balance 65-70 per cent reaches the under ground water. The intensity of their use in a few regions and a few crops are causes of serious concern to human health, soil, water, environment and thus to the sustainability of agriculture production in the country.

It is true that the increasing use of fertilizer at high rates has boosted agricultural production in the country. But it has also caused adverse impact on soil and water as well as environment. Several studies on the effects of high level of fertilizer application on soil health have confirmed the adverse impacts (Singh et. al., 1995).

Both drinking and irrigation water wells in large numbers have been found contaminated with nitrates, some of them are having even 45 mg per litre, well above the safe level.

Long term continuous use of high doses of chemical fertilizers badly affects the physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil. A study at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore confirmed the deterioration of soil health because of the reduction in water holding capacity, soil pH, organic carbon content and the availability of trace elements such as zinc in case of ragi crop even with the application of normal doses of fertilizer in the long run (Hegde, et. al., 1995).

In the long run, increasing nitrogenous fertilizer use leads to the accumulation of nitrates in the soil. The application of sulphatic fertilizers leaves sulphates in the soil. Rainfall and excessive use of irrigation water cause these chemicals to change the alkaline or acidic nature of the soil. The nitrates go to the rivers, wells, lakes etc. And also leak into the drainage system which goes into the drinking water contaminating the environment. It also causes depletion of the ozone layer adding to the global warming. Use of nitrogen in the form of ammonium sulphate in the rice crop emanates ammonia polluting the atmosphere. The heavy metals present in the fertilizers and sewage sludge leach into ground water. Table 6 shows the content of some heavy metals in fertilizers and sludges.

Table 6 : Content of Heavy Metals in Fertilizers and Sludges Go to page 41.
Source : Deb and Joshi (1994).

Pesticides
The use of chemical pesticides began with the discovery of toxicological properties of DDT and HCH during the Second World War. Many chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides like aldrin, dieldrin, toxaphane, chlordane, endosulfan, etc. came into the market during the second half of the last century. Simultaneously, organophosphate and carbonate compounds were employed in agriculture. A new group of insecticides, such as premethrin, cypermethrin, fenalerate, etc. which were effective at low doses came into being in the 1970s.

The use of pesticides has helped in increasing agriculture production and also led to the development of resistance in pests, contamination of the environment and resurgence of many pests.

There are about 1000 agrochemicals in use in the world over. India accounts for about 3.7 per cent of the total world consumption. At present, our consumption is about 90,000 tonnes of plant protection chemicals. It comes to about 500 grams per ha compared to 10-12 kg/ha in Japan and 5 kg/ha in Europe. However, the use of pesticides in India is uneven like the fertilizers. While in cotton it is about 3 to 4 kg/ha, in pulses it comes to below 500 grams/ha (Kathpal and Beena Kumari, 1997). Pesticide application is also concentrated in some areas as in the case of fertilizers mentioned earlier.

Agricultural chemicals have become a major input in Indian agriculture with the increasing demand for food, feed and fibre. The pesticide consumption was about 2000 tonnes annually during the 1950s. India happens to be the second largest manufacturer of pesticides in Asia after Japan. It is also of interest to know that in spite of increased consumption of plant protection chemicals, the produce loss due to insects and pests increased by 5 times during the period from 1988 to 1995.

Increasing application of fertilizer also leads to increasing use of pesticides to control pests and diseases. The trend of increasing fertilizer use also compels the farmers to enhance the use of pesticides as well. For example, the use of fertilizers in increasing amounts leads to growth of weeds and in the process of weedicide use many plants growing nearby also get killed, which reduces the biodiversity. Meanwhile, the weeds also develop resistance to herbicides and the quest to formulate even powerful herbicides begins.Pesticide consumption in India from 1970-71 to 2000-01 is shown in Table 7.

Table 7 : Pesticide Consumption in India. Go to page 43.
Source : Indian Agriculture in Brief.

Consumption of pesticides increased from 24.32 thousand tonnes in 1970-71 to 75 thousand tonnes in 1990-91 and it slowed down during the subsequent period. Insects, pests and diseases like viral, bacterial and fungal affect the high yielding varieties of crops.

Almost all pesticides are toxic in nature and pollute the environment leading to grave damage to ecology and human life itself. This indiscriminate use leaves toxic residues in foodgrans, fodder, vegetables, meat, milk, milk products, etc. besides in soil and water (Dhaliwal and Singh, 1993).

High doses of pesticides severely affect the aquatic animals, fish and the wild life. Insects develop resistance to insecticides in crops like cotton and in turn force the farmers to the excessive use of them. Cases of pesticide poisoning and human and animal deaths are also reported. Pesticides irritate the skin and the respiratory system in the humans gets damaged.
It was found that all water bodies like, rivers, canals, lakes, tanks and ponds and also the costal water were contaminated with high amounts of DDT, HCH and other organochlorine pesticides. River water is seen as more contaminated than other water sources.

Contamination of drinking water with DDT and HCH is reported from different states. Since the concentrations of contaminants are higher than MRL (0.5 ppb) values fixed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the seriousness of the problem can be gauged.

Pesticides also contaminate animal feeds and fodder. Green fodder, paddy and wheat straw contain residues of DDT and HCH. Several studies have confirmed this trend (Kathpal, 1997).

Milk and milk products are also affected by the pesticide use. Both bovine and human milk showed high levels of pesticide contamination. The sources of contamination of bovine milk are traced to the fodder and feed concentrates and in case of the human milk, the consumption of contaminated food by the lactating mothers is reported to be the reason.

Infant formula/baby milk powders also showed DDT and HCH contamination level ranging from 94 to 100 per cent. Butter and ghee, the other animal products revealed high contamination levels in many parts of the country.
Cereals like wheat and rice were seen contaminated highly by pesticides like, DDT, HCH and malathion. The case of vegetable, vegetable oil, honey, fish etc. is also not different as they too have unacceptable high pesticide residue content levels.

The adverse effect of pesticide contamination on humans in India is understood from the study of dietary intake. Such studies, although a few in number, have confirmed high levels of pesticides (mainly, DDT and HCH) contamination which come to more than 3 to 5 times than the agriculturally developed countries.

The daily intake of pesticide per individual is estimated to be about 0.51 milli-grams which is above the accepted level. The Indian Institute of Horticulture Research has reported contamination of 50 per cent of the fruits and vegetables sold in the Bangalore market with the residues of DDT and HCH (Prakash, 2003).

Use of herbicides over a period results in the shift of the weed flora. The weeds of minor importance, often, become major weeds. Repeated application of weedicides helps the development of resistance in weed at alarming proportions.

 The remedy recommended is rotation of herbicides or the use of other herbicides. Any way, the end result is contamination of ground water and soils inflicting damage on environment.

The number of herbicides registered in India comes to about 28 in 1997-98 which was only 10 before 10 years. This is often compared to about 300 herbicides available in the North America. There are only 10 herbicides manufactured in the country and the herbicides consumption was about 6000 Tonnes during 1994-95. It is reported that the level of herbicide use in rice, wheat, and tea in India is almost the same that of the world at large. Sugarcane, soyabean, groundnut, coffee, cotton, onion and potato are the other crops, which find widespread application of herbicides in India.

The contamination of water, air and soil with toxic synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides leads to increasing deaths of many creatures, and to human illness and mortality.

The end result is loss of biodiversity and natural harmony, increased expenditure to purify water, air, etc. The toxins in the food crops cannot be removed and the threat to human existence itself seems to be real.
The firms engaged in the manufacture and supply of agricultural inputs have a vested interest in keeping the input use increasing. Besides, they influence the government policy towards agriculture.

Salinity and Water logging
Water is one of the important inputs for the vigorous growth and high yields of crops. The modernisation of Indian agriculture has resulted in the increased use of irrigation water. The area under irrigation has grown substantially during the past three decades. Table 8 shows the gross irrigated area in the country. Please see the parent document for a complete showing of tables. 

The gross irrigated area of 38.18 million ha in 1970-71 increased to 49.73 million ha in 1980-81 and the next decade ending 1990-91 saw this further rising substantially to about 62.47 million ha. It increased to 72.78 million ha during 1997-98.

Heavy irrigation is necessary to get high production, as the new varieties cannot withstand water scarcity. This leads to salinity and water logging leaving the land uncultivable. Over exploitation of underground water is another effect. When water table falls, increasing energy will be required to lift water for irrigation.

Irrigation is necessary for the vigorous growth and high yields of crops in the modern method of cultivation. Many of the crops, particularly the rice and wheat high yielding varieties need more irrigation water than the traditional varieties. The area under irrigation in the country is only about 35 per cent and the remaining is still dependent on rains. So, there is a necessity to use irrigation water judiciously. Its excessive use results in severe ecological dangers like water logging of vast cultivated areas by seepages from canals. The loss of water through seepages and evaporation is estimated to be about 38 per cent. Flooding also results in run off and leaching losses of fertilizer nutrients, pesticides and soil particles. Excessive use of canal water makes the field vulnerable to soil erosion. The excessive irrigation in certain areas results in wastage as evident from the water logging of vast cultivated areas caused by the seepage from many virater sources.

Water logging is harmful to the soil. Seepage of canal water leads to salts present in the lowest layer of soil come up to the surface and the soil may turn alkaline or saline. Dams and multipurpose projects degrade the soil in the command area due to soil salinity and water logging. The chambel region in Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, the command area of the Bhakra Nangal, etc are the examples of water logging created by huge water irrigation projects.

Crops irrigated by sewage water have adverse effects on the health of the human population consuming the produce. The workers work on these farms also face health hazards.

Depletion of Energy Resources
Chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc are manufactured using the non-renewable materials like the fossil fuels. The global demand for oil and natural gas is increasing and thus the price of the inputs to agriculture is bound to rise. India’s petroleum resources, which presently meet only about 30-35 per cent of the consumption demand, are under pressure. Increasing demand for chemicals and energy in agriculture sector will have affects on our energy sources.
The investments in agriculture have to be increased to meet the rising input costs and larger areas are brought under farming to earn profits. Large farms have to transport the produce to distant areas. Again, energy will be required for transportation, processing and packaging.

The rice-wheat cropping pattern and the cultivation of crops like sugarcane require high irrigation, which results in the depletion of water level. Singh and Singh (1996) found that the water level in the states of Punjab and Haryana had gone down by 0.3 to 1 m per annum during a period of 10 years due to the excessive use of water for paddy crop.

Input-Output Imbalance
A crop, in its growth process, incorporates a part of the soil fertility into the parts of the plant. The roots remain in the soil. The leaves and stems are fed to the cattle/burnt as fuel/directly returned to the soil. The consumed part by cattle and human also go back to the soil. The practice of commercial farming leads to continuous export of the soil fertility to outside the farming areas as the organic matter leaves the locality. The soil nutrients in the form of farm produces continue to be exported. The import of chemical fertilizers cannot compensate the loss of soil nutrients through exports. The soil becomes powdery and gets eroded by wind or rain. If the harvests are exported from the country, the loss is higher (Anon, 1996).

…………….

Expansion of Cultivated Area
Not only the intensive cultivation through the use of technological inputs, but also the extensive crop production through Increase in the area under cultivation has been an important aspect of modern agriculture seen in India. Increasingly areas under forests are brought under plough along with the marginal, sub-marginal and undulating land. The net sown area was 140 million ha in 1970-71 and stood at 142 million ha at the end of 1997-98.

Reduction in Genetic Diversity
The genetic base of crops is very important and a reduction of genetic diversity leads to the emergence of pests on a large scale. Farmers, in olden times, apart from’ using the crop rotation methods to maintain the soil fertility also relied on the genetic means to increase crop production. Relying exclusively on nation’s own reserves of fertility and immunology, the farming community by evolving trial and error methods discovered.Hhybrid varieties of crops by crossing the related strains. These crosses were from the same environment and no violence was used to separate them from nature by maintaining the ecological balance (Alvares, 1996).

The high yielding varieties of crops are the crosses from different environments and distantly related strains. For example, the high yielding rice variety got by the crossing between the dwarf and non-dwarf varieties has major genetic weaknesses. The dwarf gene is susceptible to pest and viral attacks and the seed cannot manifest its potential without chemical fertilizer. Thus, an artificial environment has to be created for the growth of the crop (Alvares, 1996).

Thus synthetic fertilizers supplant natural fertility, which results in larger population of pests. The new technology adopted then depends upon the replacement of the local/traditional varieties of seeds. But this results in the reduction of genetic diversity and increase in genetic erosion. These modern technologies are but the result of clever manipulations of nature’s genes.
Low Productivity
The productivity of cereals, millets, oilseeds, pulses and plantation crops is very low in comparison with those in other countries in the world. This is in spite of our success in improving the quality of seeds and adoption of efficient technology. The impact of green revolution is showing signs of weakness and production appears to have decreased even after an increase in the inputs used (Veeresh, 1999).

The production of foodgrains in the country increased very substantially during 1960 to 1980 to reach 160 million Tonnes from 60 million tonnes. But the decade ending 1990 and 2000 did not witness such increases and the attainment of the targeted production of 240 million tonnes to meet the demand of the population by 2010 seems to be difficult.T

he reasons attributed to the low productivity are the drastic reduction in soil nutrients in the areas where fertilizer is used intensively in which the organic matter is not supplemented (Veeresh, 1999).

2.2.2 Benefits of Organic Farming
Organic agricultural practices are based on a maximum harmonious relationship with nature aiming at the non-destruction of the environment. The developed nations of the world are concerned about the spreading contamination of poisonous chemicals in food, feed, fodder and fibre. Naturally, organic farming system is looked upon as one of the means to remedy these maladies there. However, the major problem in India is the poor productivity of our soils because of the low level content of the organic matter.

The efficiency of the organic inputs in the promotion of productivity depends on the organic contents of the soil. There were many resemblances of organic farming principles in the traditional agriculture of India. But the former gives a more open and verifiable scientific foundation than the latter.

Healthy Foods
A study conducted in USA on the nutritional values of both organic and conventional foods found that consumption of the former is healthier. Apples, pears, potatoes, corn, wheat and baby foods were analyzed to find out ‘bad’ elements such as aluminum, cadimum, lead and mercury and also ‘good’ elements like boron, calcium, iron, magnesium sellenium and zinc. The organic food, in general, had more than 20 per cent less of the bad elements and about 100 per cent more of the good elements.

Improvement in Soil Quality
Soil quality is the foundation on which organic farming is based. Efforts are directed to build and maintain the soil fertility through the farming practices. Multicropping, crop rotations, organic manures and pesticides, and minimum tillage are the methods employed for the purpose. Natural plant nutrients from green manures, farmyard manures, composts and plant residues build organic content in the soil. It is reported that soil under organic farming conditions had lower bulk density, higher water holding capacity, higher microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen and higher soil respiration activities compared to the conventional farms (Sharma, 2003). This indicates that sufficiently higher amounts of nutrients are made available to the crops due to enhanced microbial activity under organic farming. The effect of organic cultivation on soil fertility as reported at the farm of Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur is given in Table 9. See the parent  document for all tables.

Increased Crop Productivity and Income
Field trials of organic cotton at Nagpur revealed that during the conversion period, cotton yield was low compared to the conventional (using fertilizer and pesticides) and integrated crop management (using 50 per cent each of organic and inorganic inputs). However, the yields of organic cotton started rising from third year. Cotton yields under organic, conventional and the mixed systems were 898, 623 and 710 kg/ha respectively at the end of the fourth year of the cultivation. The yield of soyabean under organic farming was also the highest compared to the other two systems (Annexure – 2).

The Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur conducted a study of economics of cotton cultivation in Yavatmal district of Maharashta. The cost of cultivation of cotton was lower in the organic farming than in the modern system (Annexure – 3). The low costs were due to the non-use of fertilizers and chemical insecticides. As a result of the low yields during the conversion period, the net income from the organic farm was lesser than the conventional farm. But the yield under organic method increased progressively equalling it to that of the conventional system by the sixth year (Annexure – 4). The input costs were low under organic farming and with a 20 per cent of premium prices of output, the net income increased progressively from fourth year under organic fanning. The appreciation of net income from organic cotton cultivation by the sixth year was 80 per cent over the conventional crop (Sharma, PD, 2003).

Results reported from 1050 field demonstration cum trials under the National Project on Development and Use of Biofertilizers in different parts of the country show* an increase of 4 per cent in yield in plantation crops, 7 per cent in fruit crops, 9 per cent in wheat and sugarcane, 10 per cent in millet and vegetable, 11 per cent in fibre, condiments and spice crops, 14 per cent in oilseeds and flowers and 15 per cent in tobacco (Bisoyi, et. al., 2003).

A study of 100 farmers in Himachal Pradesh during a period of 3 years found that the total cost of production of maize and wheat was lower under organic farming and the net income was 2 to 3 times higher. Both productivity and premium prices contributed to the increased profitability. Another study of 100 farmers of organic and conventional methods in five districts of Karnataka indicated that the cost of organic farming was lower by 80 per cent thanthat of the conventional one (Thakur, et. al., 2003). The cost benefit ratios mentioned for various crops table.  See page  52.

Low Incidence of Pests
The study of the effectiveness of organic cotton cultivation on pests at the farm of Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur revealed that the mean monthly counts of eggs, larva and adults of American BoUworm were far lesser under organic farming than under the conventional method (Sharma, PD, 2003).

Bio-control methods like the neem based pesticides to Ti-ichoderma are available in the country. Indigenous technological products such as Panchagavya (five products of cow origin) which was experimented at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore found to control effectively wilt disease in tomato (Prakash, TN, 2003).

Employment Opportunities
According to many studies, organic farming requires more labour input than the conventional farming system. Thus, India which has a very large amount of labour unemployment and under employment will find organic farming an attraction. Moreover, the problem of periodical unemployment will also get mitigated because of the diversification of the crops with their different planting and harvesting schedules resulting in the requirement of a relatively high labour input.

Indirect Benefits
Several indirect benefits from organic farming are available to both the farmers and consumers. While the consumers get healthy foods with better palatability and taste and nutritive values, the farmers are indirectly benefited from healthy soils and farm production environment. Eco-tourism is increasingly becoming
popular and organic farms have turned into such favourite spots in countries like Italy. Protection of the ecosystem, flora, fauna and increased biodiversity and the resulting benefits to all human and living things are great advantages of organic farming which are yet to be properly accounted for.

The report continues. I will highlight sections throughout the year. If you are interested and would like to download (for research purposes -not commerical purposes) and/or link to the report, please see “Print and Download” in my blog menu bar.

The report continues  with:

  • Proposed objectives in organic farming in India
  • International Conference on “Indian Organic Products-Global Markets” at the end of 2002.
  • Production and Exports
  • Regulations, regulatory framework
  • Accreditation  and certification of Organics. 
  • Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), Coffee Board, Tea Board and the Spices Board.
  • Development and Commerce.
  • Inspections, Research and Training
  • A National Institute for Organic Farming  (setup 2003)
  • Problems and Constraints
  • Absence of an Appropriate Agriculture Policy
  • The cost of certification, Low Yields
  • Vested Interests. Chemical and fertilizer companies.
  •  Lack of Quality Standards for Biomanures
  • Improper Accounting Method
  • Political and Social Factors
  • Prospects
  • Successes