Www.kisankiawaaz.org Vol.1 No.6.

June,2010
 Editor’s desk
Farmers short-changed again:
The racketeering in warehousing and storage facility
Warehousing plays a crucial role in the food value chain, from production to
distribution and retailing. Food is produced by farmers.They produce food, feed,
fodder and fibre that sustain this nation of 1.24 billion people. They need
warehousing facility and all those support systems promised to them six decades ago by Nehru's government. Instead, the
UPA-II wants to establish COLD-CHAIN that only supports the corporations who buy raw foods cheap from dying
farmers, convert them into processed foods for domestic and export consumption. The farmers have been short changed
time and time again.

Please recall that the Reserve Bank of India [RBI] in 1946 formed an “India Rural Credit Survey Committee” that
recommended the establishment of warehouses to strengthen the rural credit and marketing.

As a result of the recommendations of the Committee, the Government of India enacted the Agricultural Produce
(Development and Warehousing) Corporation Act, 1956. Among the four key recommendations were:

Scientific storage: In Warehouses the stored produce could be protected from the vagaries of weather and pests [rodents,
insects, etc.] and substantially reduce post harvest losses that according to various estimates ranges between Rs. 20,000 to
50,000 annually.

Financing: Warehouses were mandated to meet the financial needs of farmers with a provision for issuing
'WAREHOUSING RECEIPT.' It was felt that the farmer could obtain cash support from any bank against the receipt for
his/her stock.

Price stabilization: Warehouses would help in regulating the price levels by regulating the supply of foodgrain in the
markets. More goods from the buffer would be released when supplies are less. They would also advice farmers when to
sell when there was glut in the market. Thus they would monitor the supply and demand in the interest of farmers. It would
also prevent distress sale.

Extension services: Provision for appointing technical officers was made at each warehouse who would advice farmers on
seeds, fertigation, irrigation, etc, for various crops consistent with data from market intelligence.

Strategies to reach out to the farmers were further refined with talks of smaller rural warehouses to large nodal warehouses.
It should be noted during the early days, the CWCs and SWCs had highly committed staff. They performed admirably and
that was responsible in no small measure for rapid agricultural growth during late 50s right up to early seventies.

Should Government promote cold chain when they could not provide vital warehousing services to 148 million farming
households? Who benefits from cold chain? Farmers or large corporation? Why should investments in cold chain be
subsidized as it is planned? If people came to know of the true purpose of Warehousing Act of 1956, taxpayers wouldn't
mind subsidizing hundreds of thousands of warehouses [large, medium, small or micro]. But warehousing corporations.
However, if people get to the truth of how warehousing corporations short changed farmers and how cold chains are going
to indirectly subsidize large food corporations and many multinational food and agribiz corporations, I doubt even one
person would support this sort of lop-sided policy.

The governments [both Central and State] need to re-focus their effort at rapidly expanding warehousing capacity for
farmers, stop indirectly subsidizing large firms' control over small producers through cold chains. Most importantly, the
government must revive the original concept enshrined in the 1956 Act because the situation for farmers is deteriorating by
the day. It will not be too long before India faces a major food crisis.

Krishan Bir Chaudhary

 Vol. 1 No. 6 June, 2010

KISAN KI AWAAZ
National Magazine of Farmers’ Voice
Editor :

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary,

President, CONTENTS
Bharatiya Krishak Samaj,
F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Bill for a biotech authority... 2
*Dr. Pushpa M. Bhargava (Padma Bhusan)
Delhi-110091
Here is some more.. 5
Advisory Board : *JOSHUA FRANK
S. P. Gulati, Sect. G.O.I., Retd. New Study Exposes the... 9
Lingraj B. Patil — *Dr. Mercola
Dr. Mangesh Deshmukh
Dr. R.B. Thakare New Alarm Bells About... 12
D. Guruswamy, Adv. *NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Rajesh Sharma “Bittoo”
Pratap Singh, DIG Retd. Monsanto gives Haiti... 14
Hatam Singh Nagar, Adv. — *JONATHAN M. KATZ
K. Sareen
Ajay Singh Hkkjr esa fdlkuksa dh nqnZ'kk D;ksa \... 15
— *Mk0 d`".k chj pkS/kjh
Desiged by : Rahul Sharma
Aastha Chaudhary Scientists call for GM review... 19
— *Ian Sample
Printed & Published by :
Genetically Modified Corn... 21
Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary on behalf of *Jaelithe Judy
Bharatiya Krishak Samaj.
Reishi Mushrooms Offer... 23
Printed at Everest Press, E-49/8, Okhla *William Rudolph, journalist
Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi-20.
Study Links Pesticides... 24
Published at : — *Melissa Breyer

F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091 Bill Gates funds covert ... 26

Mob.:9810331366, Telefax:011-22751281, — *Mike Adams
kbc@kisankiawaaz.org
E-mail:bharatiyakrishaksamaj@gmail.com How useful is Genetic Engineering... 31
Website:- www.kisankiawaaz.org ---- *Bharat Dogra

US Farmers Are Bailed Out… 32

The views expressed by the
authors are their own. The
editor does not accept
responsibility for returning
unsolicited publication material.
Disputes arising if any will be
under Jurisdiction of Delhi
Court
Single copy Rs. 25/-, Annual Rs. 300/-
*Devinder Sharma
New Subscription
Annual subscription charge of Rs 300/- for our monthly journal
'KISAN KI AWAAZ' may please be sent by cheque/Draft, drawn in
favour of BHARATIYA KRISHAK SAMAJ,
F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091.
Complimentary Copy
Suggestions for improvement are invited

June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz 1

 Bill for a biotech authority-
It's draconian and full of scientific absurdities
*Dr. Pushpa M. Bhargava (Padma Bhusan)
W hen Mr Jairam Ramesh, Union Minister
for Environment and Forests, put an
indefinite moratorium on the release of
genetically modified Bt brinjal on February 9, he
actually made a far more important statement that
India is not tied down to the apron strings of any
multinational corporation or country, specifically, the
United States. Sandeep Joshi
This came as a surprise to the rich and the powerful,
the politicians and the bureaucrats (exceptions
granted), who benefit by India's being an appendage
of MNCs and the US.
A lot of what has happened in the country in the last
few years had made the above clan fully complacent
about Mr Ramesh's decision that irrespective of the
enormity of the evidence and public opinion against
Bt brinjal, he would permit its commercialisation and
thus open irreversibly the floodgates for US control of
Indian agriculture, of our food security and
sovereignty, farmers' security and the security of the
rural sector.
And whosoever controls Indian agriculture, de facto
controls India. The unpleasant fact is that the above
clan, comprising a miniscule proportion of Indians,
believes it stands to gain enormously by such a sell
out. However, Mr Ramesh disappointed them.
We congratulated him for his bold decision but also
realised that we have only won the battle and not the
war. So, Nina Federoff of the US who was here when
Mr Ramesh announced his decision, almost certainly
to influence his decision in favour of Bt brinjal, did
not return to the US empty-handed.
Nina was probably told by Mr Ramesh's opponents in
the government, “Don't worry. We have ways and
means of legally reversing Mr Ramesh's decision. We
will pass a Bill to set up a National Biotechnology
Regulatory Authority (NBRA) under the Department
of Biotechnology which will take away the power of
decision-making in regard to GMOs from the
2 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Ministry of Environment.
We would thus be able to do what you want us to do”.
It has not been their concern as to what happens to 99
per cent of the “less fortunate” Indians. The Bill must
be the most draconian Bill. Consider some of its
provisions.
*Section 63 says, “Whoever, without any evidence or
scientific record misleads the public about the safety
of the organisms (GMOs) and (their) products, shall
be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than six months but which may extend to
one year and with fine which may extend to two lakh
rupees or with both”.
And who will decide whether there is “evidence or
scientific record”?
A three-member authority which will be chosen
(probably in consultation with Monsanto and its
supporters in India) by a selection committee that
would be easy to influence, as it would have no
nominees of the civil society that will bear the brunt of
the failure of a GM crop or the harm caused by it.
No matter how strong the evidence is or how good the
scientific record is and no matter how flawless the
reputation of the person criticising the release of a
GMO is, the regulatory authority can brush all that
aside and put the person in jail.
This writer wonders what it will do to foreign critics
with an impeccable scientific record and reputation.
Ask for their extradition?
The National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority
(NBRA) will work under the Department of
Biotechnology (DBT) in the setting up of which this
writer had a significant role and which this writer has
known reasonably well as a member of its first
Scientific Advisory Committee.
The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) is today the
June - 2010
most ardent vendor of GMOs in the country. Thus, the
vendor will be the regulator which would be against
the principle of natural justice.
The Appellate Tribunal proposed in the Bill is an eye-
wash as it will also work under the DBT. Strangely, it
shall not be bound by rules of evidence contained in
our Evidence Act.
Agriculture is a State subject and well over 10 states,
cutting across political affiliations had, de facto or de
jure, expressed opposition to Bt brinjal.
The Bill (Section 34) now envisages only an advisory
role for the state government in regard to release of
GMOs. They cannot oppose it, even though
agriculture is a State subject.
The Bill is full of scientific absurdities. Thus, it calls
“transformation, polyploidy induction and mutation
breeding” as “natural processes”. They are all human-
controlled processes to bring about genetic changes.
The Bill's definition of “modern biotechnology” is
ridiculous and highly restrictive. It is like saying that
by “modern science” we mean “modern biology”.
The Bill does not encourage a totally independent
laboratory to do all the required tests, to be controlled
jointly by all the stakeholders as stated in the proposal
for such a laboratory that this writer had submitted to
the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee
(GEAC) at their request, which proposal Mr Ramesh
has supported in principle.
No reasons are given as to why a new authority. It is
not stated as to what is wrong with the present system.
The Bill is against any kind of transparency (Section
27.1).
Given the situation in the country in respect of, for
example, corruption and unqualified commitment of
the government to MNCs and the US, it is most likely
that GMOs will be released without any test
whatsoever or just face-saving tests done
superficially.
If the Bill is passed, there will be only two alternatives
for our countrymen: to make sure that the Bill is not
notified or is repealed in a reasonable time; or to begin
the Third War of Independence!
*Former Vice-Chairman of the National
Knowledge Commission and founder-director,
Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology,

Delhi Network of Positive People and some of the Forum members staged an
energetic protest demonstration against the EU India FTA talks at Udhyog
Bhavan. Protesters raised slogans such as "European Commission Go back",
"FTA Nahi Chahiye", ''Halt EU India FTA' and so on.

June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz 3

 Multinational Companies wreaking havoc
through GM Food
May 14, 2010 -Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh Prof.
Prem Kumar Dhumal has said that some of the multi
national companies were wreaking havoc in India by
spreading their tentacles through Genetically Modified
(GM) food, which needs to be curbed by imposing
adequate restrictions. He said that like drug mafia, seed
mafia was operating in India through powerful network
and strong mechanism of multi national companies. The
Genetically Modified seeds and food were responsible for
bringing physical disorders and deformity in human
beings not only in other countries of the world but India as
well and it was a matter of grave concern.
Chief Minister was addressing senior officers of the State
Government including Deputy Commissioners after the
most significant keynote address delivered by Padam
Bhushan Dr. P.M. Bhargav, an international authority on
GM food here today.
Prof. Dhumal said that Genetically Modified food had an
adverse affect on the health of human beings but a strong
nexus between the market forces, GM food had made
inroads into our society. He said that East India Company
had made the country slave for more than 200 years and
now the multi national companies were controlling our
Agriculture and related economic activities indirectly. He
said that according a survey report, in Punjab the use of
GM food by the consumers had led to the deformity among
children and the fertility age of women had been reduced
drastically.
Chief Minister said that it was quite surprising that how a
country of more than 120 crore people had become
helpless before the network of seed mafia and GM food.
He said that obsolete technology being imported to India
on the terms and conditions of other countries and the
personal interests of some people and scientists had
gripped our country.
Referring to the media hype created by some vested
interests about swine flu, some times back, Chief Minister
said that some dishonest people sitting in World Health
Organization (WHO) had tried to spread panic in India
about this flu and their hidden agenda was to sell the
medicines and drugs of their own companies and people.
Prof. Dhumal said that the State Government will consider
the proposal for imposing moratorium on GM food even
for more than 15 years apart from holding an International
4 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Conference on the various issues concerning GM food.
Earlier, Dr. P.M. Bhargava in his keynote address opined
that the last century had witnessed enormous progress in
the field of nuclear technology, space and genetic
engineering and all these had posed a great threat to the
mankind. He said that GM food had more than 60 adverse
affects on the health of human beings. India being an
agrarian society, more than 70 percent population lived in
rural areas while 62 percent of the population was engaged
in agriculture and allied economy.
Referring to the organic farming, Dr. Bhargava told that
this new concept in farming was fast gaining popularity
and in Andhra Pradesh where two lacs acres of agriculture
land was under organic farming will be enhanced to one
crore acre of land during the next few years. The market for
organic produce was fast expanding in the country and the
vegetables and other agro- products so produced were
being exported to numerous countries from India.
He said that Indian Council for Agriculture Research
(ICAR) had published more than six volumes compiling
therein more than 4000 traditional agriculture practices
which were in vague in India since times immemorial and
most of them these needed to be revived. More than 90 such
practices were validated
Emphasising upon the curbs required for discouraging GM
Food, Dr. Bhargava maintained that it was high time that
everyone rise to the occasion and find out ways and means
to completely ban the import of genetically modified seeds
and food in our country.
Welcoming the Chief Minister and participants, Shri
Narender Chuahan, Principal Secretary, Irrigation and
Public Health said that Dr. P.M. Bhargava was an
international luminary in the field of science and
technology, especially on the food front he had made
outstanding contribution. He hoped that the valuable
recommendations and observations of Dr. Bhargava will
help in the policy formulation for the future agricultural
scenario of our hilly State.
Dr. Nagin Nadda, Member Secretary of Science and
Technology Department and Director of H.P. Pollution
Control Board proposed vote of thanks.
Http://himachalpr.gov.in/pressreleaseEng.asp?id=4889
June - 2010
Here is some more about the clout of Monsanto.
Elena Kagan and Monsanto
*JOSHUA FRANK
A lfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the
United States and Monsanto wants to control
it. On April 27, the Supreme Court heard
arguments in a case that could well write the future of
alfalfa production in our country.
Fortunately, for those who are concerned about the
potential environmental and health impacts of
genetically engineered (GE) crops, Supreme Court
nominee Elena Kagan is not yet residing on the bench.
For the past four years, the Center for Food Safety
(CFS), a Washington DC-based consumer protection
group, and others have litigated against Monsanto and
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
regarding the company's Roundup Ready alfalfa.
The coalition has focused their fight against
Monsanto's GE alfalfa, based on concerns that the
plants could negatively impact biodiversity as well as
other non-GE food crops.
In 2007, a California US District Court ruled in a
landmark case that the USDA had illegally approved
Monsanto's GE alfalfa without carrying out a proper
and full Environmental Impact Statement.
The plaintiffs argued that GE alfalfa could
contaminate nearby crops with its genetically
manipulated pollen. Geertson Seed Farm, with the
help of CFS, claimed that the farm's non-GE crops
could be damaged beyond repair by Monsanto's
Roundup Ready alfalfa.
Monsanto's well-paid legal team appealed the court's
decision, but, in June 2009, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld the previous ruling and placed a
nationwide ban on Monsanto's Roundup Ready
alfalfa.
"USDA should start over and truly evaluate the
contamination of non-GM alfalfa and the potential
affects on seed growers, organic and natural meat
producers, dairy producers, and conventional and
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
organic honey producers," said farmer and anti-GE
advocate Todd Leake shortly after the ruling.
Monsanto, however, didn't back down and appealed
the Ninth Circuit's decision to the US Supreme Court.
In stepped Elena Kagan, whose role as solicitor
general is to look out for the welfare of American
citizens in all matters that come before the high court.
Unfortunately, Kagan opted to ditch her duty and
instead side with Monsanto. In March 2010, a month
before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the
case, the solicitor general's office released a legal brief
despite the fact that the US government was not a
defendant in the case.
Monsanto appealed the lower court's decision so the
USDA was not party to the suit. The Solicitor
General's office produced an amicus brief during the
petitioning stage of the appeal at the behest of the
Supreme Court.
As Kagan's office argued, "The judgment of the court
of appeals should be reversed, and the case should be
remanded with instructions to vacate the permanent
injunction entered by the district court."
Despite numerous examples of cross-pollination of
GE crops, Monsanto argued during the April 27 court
proceedings that this was highly unlikely to occur.
CFS and other plaintiffs are concerned that a federal
law could be affected by the Supreme Court's ruling.
Courts in Oregon and California have already argued
in previous cases that GE seeds must also be studied as
to the potential impact on other conventional and
organic crops.
Surprisingly, it seems that Kagan does not support a
thorough study of GE seeds and their potential impact
on environmental and human health.
In doing so, Kagan has sided with conservative
justices on the court who appeared skeptical that the
5
lower courts had made the right decision in banning potentially fatal to Monarch butterflies and other
GE alfalfa. pollinators ...

During the Supreme Court hearings, Chief Justice
John Roberts questioned whether the Ninth Circuit
had the authority to issue a ban on GE alfalfa. Roberts
contented that the court ought to have instead
remanded the issue back to the USDA.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia took his defense
of Monsanto even further, stating, "This isn't the
contamination of the New York City water supply," he
said. "This isn't the end of the world, it really isn't."
Without mandatory government testing, we're
clueless about the universe of keystone pollinators
and other species that are being decimated as the [GE]
plants continue to proliferate in our fields."
The Supreme Court's decision on Monsanto's alfalfa
ban will likely come early this summer. Justice
Stephen Breyer recused himself from the case because
his brother Charles Breyer oversaw the lower court's
decision against the company.

Apparently Scalia and Roberts aren't up on the latest
scientific analysis that Monsanto's GE crops have, in
fact, bred new voracious super-weeds, which have
forced farmers to "spray fields with more toxic
herbicides, pull weeds by hand, and return to more
labor-intensive methods like regular plowing."
"Bowing to pressure from Monsanto and the other
biotech companies, our federal agencies approved
[GE] corn and cotton without requiring any
mandatory testing for environmental impacts,"
Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for the CFS
recently wrote.
Unsurprisingly, Justice Clarence Thomas, who once
worked in the legal department for Monsanto, did not
recuse himself from the matter.
While Elena Kagan has no experience on the bench
and has provided the public with little to no
information about where she stands on some of the
most important issues of the day, the fact that she came
to bat for Monsanto two months ago, at a time when
the company is reeling from negative press, may shed
some light on how she could rule in future GE cases if
she's confirmed as the next Supreme Court justice.

"And the expected happened: a few years later,

independent university researchers - again not the Http://www.counterpunch.org/frank05192010.html
government - discovered that this [GE] pesticide was

Elena Kagan: Toward a Pro-GM Supreme Court?

MAY 12 2010- It's a good thing for Elena Kagan that there's no non-GMO litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. She'd flunk.As
solicitor general, Kagan is supposed to represent the interests of the American people in matters that come before the Supreme Court.
Instead, she has gone to bat for Monsanto. In a case that the court is currently considering, Monsanto is trying to overturn a 2007
California decision that imposed a nationwide injunction on planting the company's genetically modified alfalfa. In March, Kagan's
office interceded on Monsanto's behalf even though the government was not a defendant in the appeal. The original suit was brought by
Geertson Seed Farms and a collection of environmental groups, who claimed that pollen from Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa
could contaminate neighboring plots of conventional alfalfa, causing irreparable harm to Geertson's non-GMO business.

The decision that Kagan and Monsanto object to was issued by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who ruled that during the Bush
administration, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) should not have given its blessing to GM alfalfa without
considering possible environmental, financial, and health consequences (a requirement under the law). Erring on the side of caution,
Breyer said that until the USDA conducted the proper environmental assessment, no GM alfalfa could be grown. The appeal that is now
before the court has a telling aside. Justice Stephen Breyer recused himself from the case because Charles Breyer, the lower court
judge, is his brother. Notably, Justice Clarence Thomas, who was once a lawyer for Monsanto, did not recuse himself.

The case will probably be decided this summer, prior to Kagan's taking up her new post, assuming she is confirmed. But she still might
have an opportunity to show her true colors. Last fall, another lower-court judge ruled that the Bush-era USDA erred when it approved
GM sugar beets without a proper environmental assessment. The Obama administration was given the opportunity to drop the USDA's
case, but the Justice Department told the court that its position had not changed. We'll see if Monsanto pursues that case through the
appellate courts. Whatever happens, it's all but certain that the Supreme Court has not heard the last of GMOs.

6 Kisan Ki Awaaz June - 2010

 Nordics sailing with the winds of globalization- Lamy
Director-General Pascal Lamy, in a speech at the
Globalization Forum in Copenhagen on 20 May 2010,
cited the Nordic countries as models in harnessing
globalization. “To embrace it to maximize its benefits
while minimizing its costs for that, we need to work
together,” he said. He said he saw a strong need to have a
“Nordic flag” in the architecture of global governance.
This is what he said: Some thoughts about the current
trends in the global economy and how the Nordic
countries can face together the challenges of our
globalised world.
Globalisation is transforming our economies, our social
fabrics, our culture. We are becoming much more inter-
dependent. Greater economic integration has allowed
millions to be lifted out of poverty. It has also
empowered millions who now have access to
information and education. But globalisation has also
shown a darker side.
Whether we speak of the H1N1 flu last year or of the
financial explosion that led to the current economic
crisis, whether it is about CO2 emissions or over-
fishing, we have also realised that disruptions in one
corner of the world can no longer be ignored since their
impact is likely to be felt at home.
We can choose to be the bystanders of globalisation.
And our citizens will feel disempowered. They will no
longer accept the constraints imposed on them by an
ever changing world. Nationalism, populism and
foreigner scapegoating will spread. Or we can choose to
harness globalisation. To embrace it to maximise its
benefits while minimising its costs. For that, we need to
work together. We are globally responsible, even if
locally accountable. We are also accountable to future
generations.
This is precisely what the Nordic countries have chosen.
You have decided to join hands, to pool part of your
sovereignty to face together these challenges. You did
not start this from scratch. In fact you share a common
culture and history. There is a sense of cohesion and
common destiny that unites you, a “Nordic dimension”.
You all have open economies, with relatively low
barriers to trade and investment, with robust property
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
rights and pro-business environments. But you have also
chosen a strong social model by investing heavily in
education, health care, social security and innovation.
Education has contributed to social mobility and
empowers citizens to better themselves. Education is
also at the heart of an essential component in our
economies today: innovation.
Social security and health care ensures a decent living
standard for all citizens, regardless of their economic
situation. It reduces the anxieties provoked by the
changes brought about by globalisation. This is a model
which meets the consensus of both left and right forces in
your countries. And despite the many criticisms of the
system as too complex, too cumbersome and too costly
to survive, you have proven that it can work. In fact it is
now a model which many in Europe and around the
world want to emulate.
Today this model of economic opening and social safety
net faces a triple challenge. On the one hand the cost of
the social model is increasing. It is very good but very
expensive and therefore questions about its
sustainability do arise. And this at a time when public
finances are overstreched as a result of the crisis will, in
my view, lead to an inevitable questioning of parts of the
social model.
My sense is that it will need to be adjusted, but I believe
the adjustments should be made bearing in mind two
considerations: a continued focus must be placed on the
weakest and most vulnerable; and that reduction of
spending on education, research and development, and
innovation should be avoided these elements empower
people.
The second is the demographic challenge. Europe is the
only continent where population will decline by 2050.
Nordic societies are ageing. This has an impact on the
social dynamism, on innovation and growth and takes a
severe toll on public spending. Immigration is the
solution, but as we know raises its own challenges.
The third challenge is that of growth. Without robust
growth we will not be able to maintain the social model.
We will falter under the weight of our public debt. We
must therefore invest in growth policies which means
7
structural reforms. They will be painful in the short term
but will increase the growth potential in the long term.
This today is a must.
Many of these challenges require domestic responses.
But they need to be underpinned by international action
to address their global dimension. More and better
global governance is therefore a necessity. In recent
years we have seen a rebalancing in world power. There
has certainly been a rebalancing in the world economy.
The share of developing countries in global GDP is
increasing.
Their share of world trade has increased. Many of these
emerging economies are now huge investors in other
developing countries, but also in developed economies.
The world is changing and the structures of global
governance need to adjust. The global economic crisis
has accelerated the move towards a new architecture of
global governance, in what I have called a “triangle of
coherence”.
On one side of the triangle lies the G20, replacing the
former G8, providing political leadership and policy
direction. Its representativity has improved even if more
can be done. Many small and medium sized countries
which have been and are key bridge builders, middle
grounders which can help construct compromises, feel
they should have a seat at the table, whether individually
or through a system of constituencies. On another side
lie member-driven international organizations
providing expertise and specialized inputs, be they
rules, policies or programmes.
The challenge they face is one of coherence in the
actions of their members in the different organisations.
The heads of the respective organisations can contribute
to this coherence, but as the good old English saying
goes “coherence starts at home”. The third side of the
triangle is the G-192, the United Nations, providing a
forum for accountability.
In the longer term, we should have both the G20 and the
international agencies reporting to the “parliament” of
the United Nations. In this respect, a revamping of the
UN Economic and Social Council could lend support to
the recent resolution adopted by the UN General
Assembly on UN-system wide coherence. This triangle
would constitute a potent mix of leadership,
inclusiveness and action to ensure coherent and
effective global governance. With time, the G20 could
even be a response to the reform of the UN Security
8 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Council. But a structure of global governance of this
type needs to be underpinned by a set of core principles
and values, some sort of “global economic contract”, to
anchor economic globalization on a bedrock of ethical
principles and values which would renew the trust that
citizens need to have that globalization can indeed work
for them.
I believe Nordics have a role to play in this emerging,
new global architecture. The values of solidarity, of
justice, of inclusive growth, of sustainable development
which you represent must be ingredients of this global
economic contract.
You have demonstrated this in your efforts to build a
global deal to tackle climate change. I know that many of
you were disappointed that the summit which took place
precisely in this city did not result in a Global Climate
Change Agreement. And yet, I do not believe it was as
bad as many have described it. Global governance is
often made of crab walking, of apparent defeats and
procedural messes but which produce steps forward.
To judge the Copenhagen Accord, one cannot stop at
what happened last year, since far more important is
what has happened this year with respect to this Accord.
By the 31 January deadline set in the Copenhagen
Accord, all of the world's major emitters had notified
either their emissions caps, or actions to reduce
emissions, that they would undertake. In fact about 100
countries have responded to the deadline, amounting to
80 per cent of world emissions. This result is not enough,
but it is a step forward and certainly the result of your
efforts.
You also demonstrate this in your solidarity with
developing countries through your development
cooperation. Here again your contribution has helped lift
many boats in poor countries. We will have an
opportunity to discuss this together at the UN
Millennium Development Goals Summit in September.
I believe it will be important that the international
community, and you as leaders in this field, send a signal
that, despite the severe crisis, you will maintain your
commitment to helping the poorest raise their own
capacity to develop. That you will continue to empower
them to fight against poverty with their own weapons.
Not because of a charitable sentiment, but because this is
a question of justice, as well as efficiency. I see a strong
need to have a “Nordic flag” in the architecture of global
governance.
June - 2010
 New Study Exposes the Dark Side of
New Genetically Engineered 'Killer Weeds'…
*Dr. Mercola
May 06 2010 - A report has found that farmers are planting too many so-called Roundup Ready
crops. These plants are genetically engineered to resist the herbicide Roundup, which allows
farmers to spray the chemical to kill weeds without harming their own crops. But overuse of this
approach to weed control is becoming a problem. Use of Roundup has increased to the point that
weeds are also becoming resistant to the chemical. That means that farmers have to start using
additional herbicides, some of them even more toxic than Roundup. More than 80 percent of the
corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States are genetically engineered.

T he National Research Council report, which is
being described as “the first comprehensive
assessment of how genetically modified (GM)
crops are affecting all U.S. farmers,” paints a dangerously
rosy picture about genetically engineered crops. While
touting benefits like lower production costs, higher yields
and declines in insecticide use, the report does not give
justice to the seriousness of one glaring, and potentially
devastating, finding: Superweeds.
GM Crops Create Superweeds and Super-Pests!
“In particular, farmers who grow GE herbicide-resistant
crops should not rely exclusively on glyphosate and need to
incorporate a range of weed management practices,
including using other herbicide mixes.” In other words, if
applying loads of Roundup no longer works, simply start
dousing your crops with other chemical mixtures and one
of them is bound to work! Problem solved! Of course, it is
not nearly that simple.
80-90 Percent of Some U.S. Crops are Genetically
Modified

Since 1996, when GM crops were first introduced, at least
nine species of U.S. weeds have developed resistance to
glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundUp herbicide. In
case you're not familiar with Roundup, Roundup Ready
soybean, cotton and corn crops are the world's largest
group of genetically modified crops. This particular
variety of GM crops became so popular because it allows
farmers to spray Monsanto's Roundup herbicide directly
onto their fields without harming the crops. Ordinarily, if
you were to spray Roundup, or any other glyphosate-based
herbicide, onto a plant, it would die.
As you might imagine, the use of Roundup herbicide has
increased dramatically since the GM Roundup Ready
crops were introduced, and now the repeated exposures
have given Mother Nature all she needs to stage her
comeback. Weeds have evolved so that they're resistant to
Roundup, and as a result, farmers are applying even more
herbicides to crops.
This is, in fact, the National Research Council's advice to
farmers who are facing issues with superweeds:
One day, perhaps, when the health and environmental risks
of GM foods have been widely accepted, more people will
look back on this statistic and shake their heads. For now,
however, while several European countries have banned
GM corn and other GM crops, the United States has
allowed the technology to overwhelm much of commercial
farming.
As of right now, about 85 percent of the corn grown in the
United States is genetically engineered to either produce an
insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And
about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically
engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup
herbicide. Also, according to the Institute for Responsible
Technology, about 76 percent of cotton, 75 percent of
canola and more than 50 percent of Hawaiian papaya
grown in the United States are genetically modified as
well.
The Institute for Responsible Technology has also
compiled these other sources of GM foods to watch out for,
including:

June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz 9

* Zucchini and yellow squash (small amount)
*Dairy products from cows injected with rbGH
*Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing
agents, including the sweetener aspartame
(NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses
*Meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that
have eaten GM feed
*Honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of
pollen.
*Tobacco (Quest® brand)
Now, more than a decade after these crops have been
monopolizing the market, the first report is released on
how they might impact farmers. Most rational individuals
would question why this type of report wasn't done first.
You and your family are already eating these foods, and the
country has, in many ways, already taken steps that cannot
be undone. Herbicide-resistant weeds are already popping
up all over the United States, and only time will tell how
widespread and difficult to control they will ultimately
become.
GM Crops are Not Beneficial
Regardless of the favorable slant the National Research
Council took in their report, it's time for people to realize
that while the declared motive behind GM food is an
altruistic one -- to alleviate hunger, poverty and
malnutrition worldwide -- in reality, the ruthless
propagation of GM crops are intended to create previously
unimaginable profits above anything else. Despite their
assurances, we're already beginning to see the real price of
all that tinkering with Mother Nature: unnatural crop
combinations that can harm your health and potentially
cause generational DNA changes, for example. Not only
that, but contrary to promises, GM crops are FAILING
MISERABLY all across the world. The reality simply isn't
living up to the hype of increased yields of healthy crops.
After 30 years of GMO experimentation, we have the
data to show:
*No increase in yields: on the contrary GM soya has
decreased yields by up to 20 percent compared with non-
10 Kisan Ki Awaaz
GM soya. Up to 100 percent failures of Bt cotton have been
recorded in India. And recent studies by scientists from the
USDA and the University of Georgia found that growing
GM cotton in the U.S. can result in a drop in income by up
to 40 percent.
*No reduction in pesticides use: on the contrary, USDA
data shows that GM crops has increased pesticide use by 50
million pounds from 1996 to 2003 in the U.S., and the use
of glyphosate went up more than 15-fold between 1994 and
2005, along with increases in other herbicides to cope with
rising glyphosate-resistant superweeds.
*Roundup herbicide is lethal to frogs and toxic to
human placental and embryonic cells. Roundup is used in
more than 80 percent of all GM crops planted in the world.
*GM crops harm wildlife, as revealed by UK and U.S.
Studies.
* Bt-resistant pests and Roundup-tolerant superweeds
render the two major GM crop traits useless. The evolution
of Bt resistant bollworms worldwide have now been
confirmed and documented.
*Vast areas of forests, pampas and cerrados have been
lost to GM soya in Latin America.
*Epidemic of suicides in the cotton belt of India. 100,000
farmers between 1993-2003, and an estimated 16,000
farmers a year since, have committed suicide since Bt
cotton was introduced.
* Transgene contamination is completely unavoidable,
as science has recently revealed that the genome (whether
plant, animal or human) is NOT constant and static, which
is the scientific base for genetic engineering of plants and
animals.
Instead, geneticists have discovered that the genome is
remarkably dynamic and changeable, and constantly
'conversing' and adapting to the environment. This
interaction determines which genes are turned on, when,
where, by what and how much, and for how long. They've
also found that the genetic material itself has the ability to
be changed according to experience, passing it on to
subsequent generations.
June - 2010
*GM food and feed linked to deaths and sicknesses both
in the fields in India and in lab tests around the world. For
example, in April 2006, more than 70 Indian shepherds
reported that 25 percent of their herds died within 5-7 days
of continuous grazing on Bt cotton plants. Given the
myriad of data showing disastrous consequences for the
environment and human health, I am not exaggerating
when I say that genetically modified foods are, from my
perception, one of the most significant threats that we have
against the very sustainability of the human race.
You're a GM Guinea Pig
That's right. We all are, unfortunately.
How did this happen?
Michael Taylor, a former vice president of public policy
and chief lobbyist at Monsanto Company(who is now the
senior advisor for the FDA) is the person who “oversaw the
creation of GMO policy,” according to Jeffrey Smith, the
leading spokesperson on the dangers of GM foods. Smith
continues:
“If GMOs are indeed responsible for massive sickness and
death, then the individual who oversaw the FDA policy
that facilitated their introduction holds a uniquely
infamous role in human history. That person is Michael
Taylor. He had been Monsanto's attorney before becoming
policy chief at the FDA. Soon after, he became Monsanto's
vice president and chief lobbyist.”
The FDA policy being referred to is the 1992 GMO
policy, which stated:
"The agency is not aware of any information showing that
foods derived by these new methods [genetic engineering]
differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."
In fact, the overwhelming consensus among the FDA's
own scientists were that genetically modified foods were
inherently dangerous and could create allergies, toxins,
new diseases and nutritional problems, and of course they
should be labeled because they are a food additive and new
food additives must be labeled.
However, Smith explains, the FDA was directed by the
White House to promote the biotechnology industry, and
they knew that if they labeled GM foods, most Americans
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
would avoid it like the plague. So, true to form, they
supported the economic interests of the biotech companies
at the cost of long-term human and environmental health.
You Can Still Avoid GM Food
The only silver lining to all of this is that you still have a
choice in whether or not to consume GM foods. No, GM-
containing foods are not labeled. And, yes, it takes some
diligence on your part to determine whether the food you
are eating is GM-free, but if enough people stop taking part
in this massive GM experiment, food manufacturers will
listen and stop buying GM ingredients. For a helpful,
straightforward guide to shopping Non-GMO, please see
the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, created by the Institute for
Responsible Technology.
In addition, the natural food industry has decided to turn
October of this year into “Non-GMO Month,” and October
10th (10/10/10) will be “Non-GMO Day.” Please let your
friends and family know about this important event, but
don't wait until then to get started. You can make every day
a No-GMO Day, and I suggest, for the sake of your health
and the environment's, that you do.
Please Remember You CAN Make a Difference!
GMO foods have not been in Europe since 1999 because of
public opposition. We have already been successful in
causing industry to cut down their use of HFCS and our
campaign last year against the swine flu vaccine worked to
radically reduce the number of people immunized. So
PLEASE download this report and boycott GMO foods.
Vote with your wallet and you will not only keep yourself
and your family safe but your action will catalyze the
necessary change to eliminate these dangerous crops from
our food supply.
Sources:
New York Times April 13, 2010
BNET April 16, 2010
National Research Council April 13, 2010
11
New Alarm Bells About Chemicals and Cancer
*NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
T he President's Cancer Panel is the Mount
Everest of the medical mainstream, so it is
astonishing to learn that it is poised to join
ranks with the organic food movement and declare:
chemicals threaten our bodies.
The cancer panel is releasing a landmark 200-page
report on Thursday, warning that our lackadaisical
approach to regulation may have far-reaching
consequences for our health.
I've read an advance copy of the report, and it's an
extraordinary document. It calls on America to
rethink the way we confront cancer, including much
more rigorous regulation of chemicals.
Traditionally, we reduce cancer risks through regular
doctor visits, self-examinations and screenings such
as mammograms.
The President's Cancer Panel suggests other eye-
opening steps as well, such as giving preference to
organic food, checking radon levels in the home and
microwaving food in glass containers rather than
plastic.
In particular, the report warns about exposures to
chemicals during pregnancy, when risk of damage
seems to be greatest.
Noting that 300 contaminants have been detected in
umbilical cord blood of newborn babies, the study
warns that: “to a disturbing extent, babies are born
'pre-polluted.' ”
It's striking that this report emerges not from the
fringe but from the mission control of mainstream
scientific and medical thinking, the President's
Cancer Panel. Established in 1971, this is a group of
three distinguished experts who review America's
cancer program and report directly to the president.
One of the seats is now vacant, but the panel members
who joined in this report are Dr. LaSalle Leffall Jr., an
oncologist and professor of surgery at Howard
University, and Dr. Margaret Kripke, an
12 Kisan Ki Awaaz
immunologist at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in
Houston. Both were originally appointed to the panel
by former President George W. Bush.
“We wanted to let people know that we're concerned,
and that they should be concerned,” Professor Leffall
told me.
The report blames weak laws, lax enforcement and
fragmented authority, as well as the existing
regulatory presumption that chemicals are safe unless
strong evidence emerges to the contrary.
“Only a few hundred of the more than 80,000
chemicals in use in the United States have been tested
for safety,” the report says. It adds: “Many known or
suspected carcinogens are completely unregulated.”
Industry may howl. The food industry has already
been fighting legislation in the Senate backed by
Dianne Feinstein of California that would ban
bisphenol-A, commonly found in plastics and better
known as BPA, from food and beverage containers.
Studies of BPA have raised alarm bells for decades,
and the evidence is still complex and open to debate.
That's life: In the real world, regulatory decisions
usually must be made with ambiguous and conflicting
data. The panel's point is that we should be prudent in
such situations, rather than recklessly approving
chemicals of uncertain effect.
The President's Cancer Panel report will give a boost
to Senator Feinstein's efforts. It may also help the
prospects of the Safe Chemicals Act, backed by
Senator Frank Lautenberg and several colleagues, to
improve the safety of chemicals on the market.
Some 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with
cancer at some point in their lives, and they include
Democrats and Republicans alike.
Protecting ourselves and our children from toxins
should be an effort that both parties can get behind if
June - 2010
enough members of Congress are willing to put the www.cosmeticsdatabase.com or
public interest ahead of corporate interests. www.healthystuff.org.)

One reason for concern is that some cancers are
becoming more common, particularly in children. We
don't know why that is, but the proliferation of
chemicals in water, foods, air and household products
is widely suspected as a factor.
¶For those whose jobs may expose them to chemicals,
remove shoes when entering the house and wash work
clothes separately from the rest of the laundry.
¶Filter drinking water.

I'm hoping the President's Cancer Panel report will ¶Store water in glass or stainless steel containers, or in
shine a stronger spotlight on environmental causes of plastics that don't contain BPA orphthalates
health problems not only cancer, but perhaps also (chemicals used to soften plastics). Microwave food
diabetes, obesity and autism. in ceramic or glass containers.

This is not to say that chemicals are evil, and in many
cases the evidence against a particular substance is
balanced by other studies that are exonerating. To help
people manage the uncertainty prudently, the report
has a section of recommendations for individuals:
¶Particularly when pregnant and when children are
small, choose foods, toys and garden products with
fewer endocrine disruptors or other toxins.
(Information about products is at
¶Give preference to food grown without pesticides,
chemical fertilizers and growth hormones. Avoid
meats that are cooked well-done.
¶Check radon levels in your home. Radon is a natural
source of radiation linked to cancer.
The New York Times

Need to make water conservation a people's movement: PM panel

New Delhi, May 29 The Prime Minister's Council on Climate Change yesterday approved in principle the National Water
Mission and suggested that its basic approach should be to make water conservation a people's movement in India. For this, it is
essential to mobilise citizens and state governments for focused action on water conservation and augmentation, a statement
issued by the PMO said.

The Prime Minister, who chaired the council, highlighted the need to create a general consciousness about the need to use water
in the most sustainable manner. Given the fact that there were multiple uses for water and an integrated approach based on basin
development planning needed to be evolved, he said political leadership at the local body level, state level and civil society
organisations needed to be involved in activities of the National Water Mission. Ministers and other members of the council
endorsed these views.

It was stated that the first step in this direction would be to prepare a comprehensive water data base in the public domain and the
impact of climate change on water would be assessed. Action had to be focused on vulnerable areas, where ground water was
overexploited. It was also decided that water-use efficiency should be raised by 20 per cent through the promotion of new
technologies.

Members felt incentives should be created for using water in a sustainable manner. It was felt that there was need to focus on
research and development requirements of the mission. Many members stressed the need to use opportunities from the Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, which already prioritises community-level water security and offers an
opportunity to convert water conservation into a people's movement.

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Power Minster Sushil Kumar Shinde, Water Resources Minister Pawan Bansal, Non-
Conventional and Renewable Energy Resources Minster Farookh Abdullah, Urban Development Minister Jaipal Reddy,
Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Kumari Selja, Environment and Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh and members of the
Council were present at the meeting
(Source: Tribune News Service)

June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz 13

Monsanto gives Haiti $4 million in hybrid seeds
*JONATHAN M. KATZ

not immediately provide more details.

Haiti's agriculture ministry approved the donation,

while UPS and Switzerland-based Kuehne and Nagel
are assisting with the shipping and logistics,
Monsanto said.

The announcement raised concerns in Haiti that the

donation would include genetically modified seeds,
for which the country does not have a regulatory
system. Monsanto representatives said no such seeds
will be included.

Instead they are sending hybrid seeds, which are

produced by manually cross-pollinating plants. The
company said the seeds produce larger yields than

A dministrators Note: Another successful

infiltration by the ‘Seed and Food Mafia' to
pollute the food in an economically
challenged country -- all in the name of helping the
poor]
non-hybrid seeds, but that with such a variety new
seeds have to be purchased and planted every year.

For decades Haiti has been unable to feed itself, while

local farms have been wiped out by competition from
cheap foreign food and free food aid -- especially from
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti:- U.S. agriculture giant
the United States. The U.N. World Food Program
Monsanto Co. is donating $4 million worth of seeds to
estimates 2.4 million Haitians, a quarter of the
Haiti, the biotechnology manufacturer's first major
country, do not have enough to eat.
foray into the chronically hungry nation.
The Jan. 12 earthquake damaged warehouses and
The corporation, based in Creve Coeur, Missouri,
roads when it wrecked much of the capital and killed a
announced a pledge this week of 475 tons (431 metric
government-estimated 230,000 to 300,000 people.
tons) of corn and vegetable seeds. Some 130 tons (118
metric tons) have been delivered and are on their way
But the urban disaster had less effect on food than
to farmers as of Friday.
Haiti's past calamities, such as a string of 2008
hurricanes that ruined market roads and fields,
"We looked at what would be well-suited to Haitian
worsening hunger and causing some children to die in
growing conditions," said Elizabeth Vancil, the
isolated villages.
company's development partnership director.
"What we're really focused on now are these first
Farmers will have to buy the seeds at markets to avoid
shipments and trying to help during this current
flooding the local economy with free goods, but
crisis," Vancil said. Doing future business in Haiti
Monsanto will not receive any revenue from the sales,
"would be good, but it's not a requirement by any
Vancil said.
means."
A spokesman for the U.S. Agency for International
Development program distributing the seeds could
Source: Bloomberg Business Week

14 Kisan Ki Awaaz June - 2010

 Hkkjr esa fdlkuksa dh nqnZ'kk D;ksa \
Mk0 d`".k chj pkS/kjh ¼v/;{k] Hkkjrh; d`"kd lekt½
ns'k es vkt fdlkuksa esa vlUrks"k HkM+d
jgk gSA fiNys yxHkx ,d n'kd esa nks
yk[k ls T;knk fdlkukssa us dtZ ds cks> ls
ncdj vkRe gR;k;sa dh gSA ns'k dks
vktkn gq;s 62 o"kZ gks x;s ijUrq fdlku
vkt Hkh nq[kh gSA mls mldk gd ugha
fey jgk gS ;g dSlk yksdra= gS \ tcfd
ns'k dk vkfFkZd <kapk vkSj 70 izfr'kr
vkcknh iwjh rjg d`f"k ij vk/kkfjr gSA
m|ksxks dks dPpk eky rFkk 58 izfr'kr
jkstxkj d`f"k ls feyrk gSA ns'k dh 120
djksM+ ls T;knk vkcknh dk isV vius [kwu
ilhus ls lhap dj Hkjrk gSA ljdkj dh
fdlku fojks/kh uhfr;ksa dh otg ls
vkfFkZd gkykr [kjkc gksrs tk jgs gSA
vkt Hkh d`f"k dk;Z gsrq laLFkkxr _.k
ek= 27 izfr'kr fey ik jgk gS vkSj 73
izfr'kr fdlku egktuksa vkSj vk<fr;ksa ls
dtZ ysdj dke pyk jgs gSA ftl ij mls
cgqr T;knk C;kt nsuk iM+rk gS A fdlkuksa
dks mudh Qly dk okfto ewY; ugha
feyrk tcfd [ksrh dh ykxr izfr fnu
c<+ jgh gSA
Ns'k es txg txg fdlkuks dh Hkwfe dk
vf/kxzg.k fd;k tk jgk gSA mnkjhdj.k ds
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
uke ij fo'ks"k vkfFkZd tksUl cuk;s tk jgs
gSa fons'kh /ku ds cy ij mudh fgLlsnkjh
esa fj;klrsa [kM+h dh tk jgh gSA tehu dks
dkSfM+;ksa ds nkeksa ij tcjnLrh ywVk tk
jgk gSA bl ns'k dh Hkz"V vkSj csyxke
fudEeh ukSdj'kkgh cM+s vkS|ksfxd ?kjkuksa
vkSj cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa ds b'kkjksa ij
dke dj jgh gSA eujsxk vkSj fodkl dh
reke ;kstukvksa dh /kujkf'k dks Hkz"V
vf/kdkjh ,oa usrk feydj Mdkj jgs gS A
ctV esa Hkh m|ksxksa dks yk[kks djksM+ #i;ksa
dh NwV djks ds ek/;e ls nh tk jgh gS A
ns'k ds xzkeh.k bykdksa esa 14 djksM+ 80
yk[k ifjokj jgrs gS buesa ls 8 djksM+ 14
yk[k fdlkuksa ds ifjokjksa esa ls vk/ks ls
T;knk ifjokj dtZ eas Mwcs gS A lcls
T;knk Hk;kud fLFkfr rks fodflr izkUr
vka/kzizns'k 82 izfr'kr] rfeyukMq 75
izfr'kr] egkjk"Vª 55 izfr'kr ifjokjksa dh
cu x;h gSa] tks dtsZ ds tky esa Qal x;s
gS A ;g lc d`f"k {ks= dks xyr fn'kk esa
ys tkus dk ifj.kke gSA fdlkuksa dh
vkRegR;k;s Hkh lcls T;knk bUgh izns'kks es
gqbZ gS A vkt 'kgjh {ks=ksa ds yksxksa dh
Ø; 'kfDr c<+h gS rks nwljh vksj xzkeh.k
{ks=ksa ds yksxksa dh Ø; 'kfDr ?kVh gS A
15
'kgjksa dh bl ubZ miHkksDrkoknh ih<h dh
otg ls ns'k dh laLd`fr Hkh [krjs es iM
x;h gs A bu gkykrksa us nqfu;k esa izfl)
Hkkjrh; thou n'kZu ds ewY;ksa ds fy,
dfBu pqukSfr;kW mRiUu dh gSA
xzkeh.k {ks=ksa esa 1993&94 esa csjktxkjh dh
nj 5-6 izfr'kr Fkh tks vkt c<+dj 11
izfr'kr ls Hkh T;knk gks x;h gSA 'kgjh
{ks=ksa esa Hkh 6-7 izfr'kr ls c<+dj 10
izfr'kr ls T;knk gks x;h gSA xzkeh.k
vkSj 'kgjh nksuksa {ks=ksa esa cjkstxkjh c<+h
gSA blds lkekftd vkSj vkfFkZd
nq"ifj.kke lkeus vk jgs gS] vkSj vijk/k
c<+ jgs gSA bllsa ;g Li"V gS fd ljdkj
dh uhfr;ksa ls dgha Hkh jkstxkj ds lk/kuksa
esa c<+ksRrjh ugh gSA bl nkSj es xjhc vkSj
xjhc gks x;k gS vkSj vehj vkSj vehj gks
jgs gSA D;ksafd reke vkfFkZd uhfr;ksa dk
ykHk iwathifr;ksa dks fey jgk gS blfy,
vehj vkSj xjhc ds chp dh [kkbZ cgqr
pkSMh gksrh tk jgh gS A ns'k es dsUnz vkSj
jkT; ljdkjksa ds vkUrfjd _.kksa esa Hkh
/kqWvk/kkj o`f) gqbZ gSA ns'k ds Bsdsnkjksa us
fodkl ds uke ij vU/kk/kqU/k dtZ ysdj
ns'k dks vkdaB rd dtsZ esa Mwcks fn;k gS
A nkeksa ij mRikn O;kikfj;ksa }kjk [kjhn dj
fodflr ns'kksa esa fu;kZr c<+kus ds fy;s
d`f"k dks Hkkjh vuqnku fn;k tk jgk gSA
vUrjkZ"Vªh; cktkj esa d`f"k mRiknksa dh
16 Kisan Ki Awaaz
dher Hkkjh vuqnkuksa dh otg ls de gS
vkSj fodkl'khy ns'kksa ds cktkj ij dCtk
djus ij ywV epk;saxsA fdlkuksa dh d`f"k
Hkwfe dks dEifu;ksa dks Bsds ij fnyok dj
mUgha dEifu;ksa ds egaxs cht vkSj miknkuksa
ds paxqy esa Qalk dj ljdkj xqyke cuok
nsxhA isVsUV dkuwu esa cnyko djus ls
tSfod o ikS/k lzksrks esa Hkkjrh; Lora=rk
dk leiZ.k rFkk cht vkSj ikS/kksa ds ckjs es
gekjs ijEijkxr Kku dk fons'kh dEifu;ksa
}kjk vigj.k dk jkLrk lkQ dj fn;k gS A
ns'k dh [kk|kUu lqj{kk dh lcls izFke
vko';'drk ^chtks* dks ljdkj cht
dkuwu cuk dj mls cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa dks
lkSius tk jgh gS D;ksafd ns'k ds ifCyd
lSDVj vkSj izkbosV lSsDVj dh fLFkfr cgqr
detksj gS blfy;s chtksa ds O;kikj ij
cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;kW vklkuh ls dCtk dj
ysaxh vkSj tc cht muds dCts esa gks
tk;sxk rks ns'k dh jksVh ij Lor% mudk
dCtk gks tk;sxk A
fdlkuksa dh nksgjh ywV gksrh gS tc fdlku
eagxs d`f"k miknkuksa dks [kjhn dj iSnkokj
esa o`f) djds viuk mRikn cktkj es ykrk
gS rks Hkko fxj tkrs gS vkSj tSls gh lLrs
vius Hk.Mkjksa es Hkj fy;s tkrs gSa rks Hkko
c<+ tkrs gSA c<+s gq;s Hkko dk ykHk flQZ
O;kikfj;ksa dk gksrk gSA Qly T;knk iSnk
June - 2010
gks tk;s rks Hkh fdlkuksa dks mldk ykHk
ugha feyrkA cMs dkiksZjsV ?kjkus vkSj
cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ka d`f+=e vHkko iSnk dj
ewY; o`f) dj Hkkjh equkQk dek jgs gS
vkSj miHkksDrkvksa dk 'kks"k.k dj jgs gS A
cktkjhdj.k vkSj mnkjhdj.k ds uke ij
ns'k dh [kk|kUu lqj{kk ij cgqjk"Vªh;
dEifu;ksa dk lcls cM+k geyk gksxk A
vkt d`f"k 'kks/k xyr fn'kk es tk jgk gS
^^Hkkjr&vesfjdk d`f"k Kku le>kSrs** ls
ns'k ds d`f"k fo'ofo|ky;] dsUnzh;
vuqla/kku dsUnzksa vkSj d`f"k foKku dsUnzksa
ds lHkh oSKkfud ^^eksulsUVks** tSlh
dEiuh ds b'kkjksa ij ukpsaxs vkSj mudh
rduhd ds fy;s cktkj cuk;saxs vkSj
^^okyekVZ** tSlh cM+h dEifu;kW fjVsy ds
cktkj ij dCtk dj ysxhA d`f"k vk;kr
ij ek=kRed izfrcU/k lekIr djus ls vkt
ns'k esa d`f"k mRiknksa dk vk;kr dbZ xquk
c<+ x;k gS A ns'k es ftruk d`f"k mRiknksa
dk vk;kr c<+sxk mruh T;knk csjkstxkjh
c<+sxhA vkt ljdkj fo'o O;kikj laxBu]
fo'o cSad vkSj vkbZ0,e0,Q0 ds ncko esa
cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa ds fy;s cktkj cukus
ds fy;s dk;Z dj jgh gSA ljdkj reke
uhfr;ksa 15 izfr'kr ^^bf.M;k** ds fy;s
cuk jgh gS 85 izfr'kr ^^Hkkjr** ds fy;s
dkSu uhfr;ksa cuk;sxk \ d`f"k lcflMh dk
ykHk Hkh m|ksxksa dks feyrk gS ;g fdlkuksa
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
ds cSad [kkrksa esa lh/ks nh tk;s] d`f"k ;ksX;
Hkwfe dk vf/kxzg.k ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,]
d`f"k esa mRikndrk c<+kus ds fy, gfjr
[kkn vkSj dEiksLV ds iz;ksx dks c<+kok
fn;k tk;s] cM+s iSekus ij flapkbZ dh
;kstuk,W cuk;h tk;s] d`f"k _.kksa ij C;kt
nj de fd;k tk;s] pØo`fRr C;kt lekIr
fd;k tk;s] dtkZ u pqdkus ij tsy Hkstuk
cUn fd;k tk;s] ns'kh xk;ksa dh uLyksa ds
fy, vuqla/kku dsUzn cuk;s tk;s] d`f"k
'kks/k dk dk;Z fgUnh o lHkh {ks=h;
Hkk"kkvksa esa izdkf'kr dj izR;sd xkao esa
fdlkuksa rd igqWpk;k tk;sA
ljdkj tehu dks cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa vkSj
dkiksZjsVl~ dks Bsds ij fnyokdj djksM+ks
fdlku ifjokjksa dks D;ksa cjckn djuk
pkgrh gS\fdlkuks dks d`f"k ls ckgj ykdj
dgkWa ys tk;sxh] dgkWa ls jkstxkj ds lk/ku
eqgS;;k djsxh \
laln es fdlkuksa ds izfr oQknkj vkSj
mudh vkokt mBkus okys izfrfuf/k de
gksus dh otg ls laln es fdlkuksa dh
etcwr ykWch ugh gS] blfy;s fdlkuksa ds
fgrksa ds fy;s uhfr;kW ugha cu ik jgh gSA
tkfr;ksa vkSj /keksZ es ckaVus dh jktuhfr
dks le>uk gksxk vkSj mlls Åij mBuk
gksxk vkSj laxfBr gksuk iM+sxkA ns'k esa
fdlkuksa dh vkcknh 70 izfr'kr vkSj
jktuSfrd rkdr vkSj ljdkj esa fgLlsnkjh
17
yxkuk ux.; gSA lcls [krjukd ckr ;s gS
fd vkt ns'k esa cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa us
/ku ds cy ij viuk [ksy cM+s iSekus ij
'kq: dj fn;k gS vkSj muds nyky fdlku
laxBuksa esa ?kqldj /ka/ksckth esa yx x;s gS
A dqN laLFkkvksa us rks cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;kWa
ds fgrks esa dke djus dh Bsdsnkjh ysuh
'kq: dj nh gS vkSj fons'k ;k=k, dj jgs
gS A tcfd os uk rks fdlku gS] u fdlku
usrk vkSj u gh d`f"k ekeyks ds fo'ks"kK gS
blfy, gkykr ;s gS fd muds }kjk fy[ks
tkus okys i=ksa ds elkSns Hkh cgqjk"Vªh;
dEifu;ksa ds nyky cuk dj ns jgs gS A,sls
yksx cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa ds /ku ds cy
ij fdlkuksa ds uke ij dk;ZØe dj
dyafdr dj jgs gS A
ge oS'ohdj.k ds 19 o"kksZ dk fglkc ns[ks
rks Li"V dg ldrs gS fd ns'k vkfFkZd
ijk/khurk dh vksj rsth ls c<+ jgk gSA
fons'k O;kikj ?kkVk Hkh yxkrkj c<+rk tk
jgk gS] gekjh vkfFkZd uhfr;kW ns'k dks
[krjukd fn'kk es ys tk jgh gSA d`f"k
mRikn {ks= esa fons'kh dEifu;ksa dks [ksrh
Bsds ij vuqcU/k djkus dh rS;kjh] u;k
cht dkuwu ykxw djuk] [kqnjk cktkj es
fons'kh iwWth fuos'k] lalksf/kr isVsUV dkuwu]
fo'o O;kikj laxBu] fo'o cSad]
vUrjkZ"Vªh; eqnzk dks"k] cgqjkZ"Vªh; dEifu;ksa
dk [kqyk izos'k] ,l0bZ0tSM0 es cgqjk"Vªh;
18 Kisan Ki Awaaz
dEifu;ksa dks vius m|ksx yxkus dh
vuqefr vkSj mUgsa lHkh djks ls eqDr
j[kuk ns'k ds lkFk /kks[kk gS] blls ns'k dks
[kjcksa :i;ksa dk fjoSsU;w dk uqdlku gks
jgk gSA ftUgs ns'k dk vke vkneh vHkh
le> ugh ik jgk gS] vusdksas a cqf)thoh Hkh
vHkh Hkfo"; ds [krjksa dks HkkWi ugh ik
jgs gSA dqN yksx rks futh LokFksakZ dh
[kkfrj cgqjkZ"Vªh; dEifu;ksa ds xq.kxku
djus esa yxs gS A 'kk;n mUgs ns'k dh
xqykeh dh rLohj ;kn ughaA jktuSfrd
nyksa esa Hkh bu [krjksa ds ckjs esa psruk
'kwU; dh fLFkfr utj vk jgh gSA iawthoknh
fodkl ds mnkjhdj.k ds nkSj es vkt
fdlkuksa dks cpkus ds fy;s lHkh dks
vkokg~u djuk gksxk fd vc fdlku vkRe
gR;k ugh djsxk] cfYd la?k"kZ djsxk vkSj
viuh oksV dh jktuSfrd 'kfDr ds cy ij
lRrk esa Hkkxhnkj cusxkA rHkh fdlku
cpsxk---------------- [ksr cpsxk -----------
----- jksVh cpsxh--------------vkSj ns'k
cpsxk A
June - 2010
 Scientists call for GM review after surge
in pests around cotton farms in China
*Ian Sample
Farmland struck by infestations of bugs following
widespread adoption of Bt cotton made by biotech giant Monsanto
S cientists are calling for the long-term risks of
GM crops to be reassessed after field studies
revealed an explosion in pest numbers around
farms growing modified strains of cotton.
The unexpected surge of infestations "highlights a
critical need" for better ways of predicting the impact
of GM crops and spotting potentially damaging
knock-on effects arising from their cultivation,
researchers said.
Millions of hectares of farmland in northern China
have been struck by infestations of bugs following the
widespread adoption of Bt cotton, an engineered
variety made by the US biotech giant, Monsanto.
Outbreaks of mirid bugs, which can devastate around
200 varieties of fruit, vegetable and corn crops, have
risen dramatically in the past decade, as cotton
farmers have shifted from traditional cotton crops to
GM varieties, scientists said.
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Traditional cotton famers have to spray their crops
with insecticides to combat destructive bollworm
pests, but Bt cotton produces its own insecticide,
meaning farmers can save money by spraying it less.
But a 10-year study across six major cotton-growing
regions of China found that by spraying their crops
less, farmers allowed mirid bugs to thrive and infest
their own and neighbouring farms. The infestations
are potentially catastrophic for more than 10m small-
scale farmers who cultivate 26m hectares of
vulnerable crops in the region studied.
The findings mark the first confirmed report of mass
infestations arising as an unintended consequence of
farmers using less pesticide a feature of Bt cotton that
was supposed to save money and lessen the crops'
environmental impact.
The research, led by Kongming Wu at the Chinese
Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing, is
published in the US journal, Science.
19
"Our work highlights a critical need to do ecological
assessments and monitoring at the landscape-level to
better understand the impacts of GM crop adoption,"
Dr Wu told the Guardian.
Environmental campaigners seized on the study as
further evidence that GM crops are not the
environmental saviour that manufacturers have led
farmers to believe.
"This is a massive issue in terms of the environment,
but also in terms of costs for the farmer. The plan with
GM crops was to reduce costs and environmental
impact, but neither of these things seem to be
happening, because over time, nature takes its course,
and that was bound to happen.
The supposed benefits in yield can be cancelled out by
unintended consequences like this," said Kirtana
Chandrasekaran, a food campaigner at Friends of the
Earth.
In the past decade, farmers in India and elsewhere
have noticed that herbicide-tolerant GM crops have
developed resistance to pesticide sprays, again
reducing the benefits of the crops, Chandrasekaran
said. "Reliance on GM is not sustainable.
We need to get back to using local varieties of crops
that are adpted to the conditions, and develop an
integrated system of pest management.”
While many countries around the world have
embraced GM crops, they have never taken root in
Britain, where multinational companies have faced
protests and vandalism to crop trials in recent years.
Britain's large-scale field trials of herbicide-tolerant
GM crops in 2003 found changes in herbicide use had
an impact on weeds and insects that might also affect
country wildlife.
Dr Wu's team monitored insecticide use from 1992 to
2008 at 38 farms throughout the six northern Chinese
provinces of Henan, Hebei, Jiangsu, Anhui,
Shandong and Shanxi. They also kept records of mirid
bug populations at the farms between 1997 and 2008.
Before switching to GM cotton, farmers used more
broad-spectrum insecticides to kill bollworms and
other pests.
20 Kisan Ki Awaaz
But as more farmers began growing Bt cotton, their
use of sprays declined, leading to a steady rise in pests,
including mirid bugs.
Over the decade-long study, cotton farms flipped from
being a grave for mirid bugs to a source of the pests,
where populations grew rapidly and then spilled out to
feed on a variety of flowering crops in neighbouring
farms.
Bt cotton is modified to produce a natural insecticide
that is made by a soil bacterium called Bacillus
thuringiensis. The toxin specifically targets
bollworms, which can devastate cotton yields.
Additional reporting by Celia Cole
BT cotton timeline
1990: Cotton plants genetically engineered to produce
enough Bt toxin (derived from the Bacillus
thuringiensis bacterium) to be protective against
insects
1996: First Bt cotton varieties, known as Bollgard
Cotton in US, introduced commercially by Monsanto,
and Delta and Pine Land Company
1997: China begins cultivating Bt cotton, increasing
area of the crop planted to 1.8m hectares worldwide
2003: Britain's large scale field trials of herbicide
tolerant GM crops. Showed that changes in herbicide
use had an impact on weeds and insects that might also
affect country wildlifem hectares worldwide
2009: 49% of cotton production worldwide is Bt
cotton, or 16m hectares
2010: No GM crops grown commercially in the UK.
Spain is the biggest grower in Europe, but there are
also significant amounts of crops grown in France,
Germany, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Portugal.
Http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/m
ay/13/gm-crops-pests-cotton-china/print
June - 2010
Genetically Modified Corn and Soy Breed Superweeds
*Jaelithe Judy
T he law of natural selection dictates that species
will adapt, over time, to a changing
environment. And unfortunately for American
farmers who rely on GM crops, it seems that some of
the world's most invasive weeds are following
nature's laws to the letter when it comes to competing
with genetically modified soybeans and corn.
Genetically modified corn and soybeans developed
by Monsanto in the 1990s to be resistant to the
synthetic herbicide glyphosate (better known by
Monsanto's trademarked name for the weedkiller,
Roundup), have nearly taken over the American rural
landscape.
More than 80 percent of soybeans and more than 70
percent of corn produced in the United States are the
genetically modified, herbicide-resistant variety.
And not without reason. Genetically modified
soybeans and corn make it possible for farmers to
plant their crops without tilling the soil to kill weeds
first. With Roundup Ready crops, farmers can simply
douse an entire field in glyphosate; then plant their
seeds.
According to the corporate producers of GM corn and
soy, this method of farming is actually better for the
environment than traditional large-scale farming
methods.
Why? Because no-till farming reduces the runoff of
fertilizer and pesticides into water systems and
prevents degradation and erosion of the soil.
But environmentalists and natural food advocates
have been wary of GM foods since their introduction.
Some scientists have argued for years that companies
like Monsanto don't do enough to test the safety, or the
environmental impact, of their genetically modified
crops before putting them on the market.
Though there is still scant scientific evidence
regarding the long-term effects of genetically
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
modified foods on human health, there have been a
few animal studies on the effects of certain types of
genetically modified foods that may be cause for
concern.In 2008, an Austrian study indicated that
eating GM corn may cause a decline in fertility in
mice.
And in January of this year, a study published in the
International Journal of Biological Sciences warned
that a comparative analysis of Monsanto's own data on
the effects of genetically modified corn, indicates that
a diet heavy in GM corn may cause organ damage in
rats.
Even as the safety of herbicide-resistant GM food
crops continues to be called into question by studies
such as these, it now appears the very selling points
that bioengineering companies used to convince
farmers to switch to genetically modified crops, may
no longer apply.
In a world where nearly every field for miles and miles
is sprayed every spring with a uniform fog of
glyphosate, the weeds GM corn and GM soy were
developed to fight have done the only thing they can to
survive -- they have adapted.
According to a report on genetically modified foods
recently released by the National Academy of
Sciences Board on Agriculture and Natural
Resources, up to nine species of invasive plants that
interfere with food production are now naturally
genetically resistant to Roundup.
The report notes, "the nearly exclusive reliance on
glyphosate for weed control, a practice accelerated by
the widespread introduction of glyphosate-resistant
crop varieties, has caused substantial changes in weed
communities."
Which means that some farmers who are already
paying premium prices for the Roundup Ready seeds
that are supposed to keep them from having to till their
soil to kill weeds must now till anyway.
21
Farmers who have depended on Roundup and
Roundup Ready crops for years to reduce their use of
other, more toxic herbicides, are finding they must
now add those other herbicides on top of a generous
application of glyphosate.
Just over a decade after their development, these
artificially created, genetically modified plants that
were meant by their creators to permanently
transform agriculture, are already in danger of being
made obsolete by nature's own power to rearrange
genes.
This points us to the obvious question: if genetically
modified crops, designed to resist herbicides, provide
such a brief window of benefit to farmers, why use
them at all?
There are heirloom varieties of corn and soy that have
been grown by organic farmers for literally hundreds
of years -- foods that were developed through the very
old-fashioned, time-tested biotechnology called
crossbreeding -- foods that have proven their safety by
safely feeding generations of people.
Though heirloom crops often require more
individualized attention than conventional
commercial crops to thrive, some of them are
surprisingly resistant to various problems and pests if
they are given the right nutrients in the right
environment.
It is absolutely true that the world needs innovative
scientific solutions to provide our growing global
population with sustainable food.
But instead of trying to best nature, we may do well to
seek new ways to thrive by nature's own rules. In
nature, variety is the genuinely vital spice of life.
Species thrive in nature by harnessing the power of
diversity, capitalizing on the constant natural
variations on their own genetic codes to adapt and
compete in an ever-changing environment.
A tiny variation in the thickness of a corn stalk or the
taste of a leaf may hold the key to successful
competition in a new set of circumstances.
And in nature, natural selection allows those traits to
22 Kisan Ki Awaaz
spread as needed from one generation to the next.
The traditional crossbreeding techniques used by
people for thousands of years, sped and guided, but
did not hamper this process. We changed the plants,
but also left them free to keep changing.
Nature's rules do not produce vast, miles-wide
monoculture stands of identical clones of a single
plant, all bearing a single set of genetic instructions,
for a very good reason: that model of life is not
sustainable on a changing planet.
Life needs genetic variation to thrive. By trying to
control the genetic code of our food plants so tightly,
making sure every planted, patented seed bears the
proper modified genes, we actually cage and cripple
them. They cannot adapt without our assistance.
But the weeds and pests that threaten our food supply -
- wild creatures outside our genetic control -- still can.
And they have. Will we learn from it?
H t t p : / / w w w. c a re 2 . c o m / c a u s e s / re a l -
food/blog/genetically-modified-corn-and-soy-
make-superweeds/
Find all
Agriculture Policies
Farmers Issues
Products News
Video & Magazine.
For More Information.
Www.kisankiawaaz.org
June - 2010
 Reishi Mushrooms Offer Help
for Those with Rheumatoid Arthritis
*William Rudolph, journalist
May 27, 2010 (NaturalNews) One of the key
measures of a long and well lived life is adaptability. A
person`s ability to adapt to changing circumstances
goes a long way toward predicting longevity. This
involves the responsiveness and functionality of the
immune system. A robust immune system capable of
adjusting to ever-changing situations is a key factor in
preventing the manifestation of a cold or cancer, or
anything in between.
One important aspect of immune function is its ability
to self-regulate downward when needed so that it
doesn`t become hyperactive and attack your own
tissues, as in the case with Rheumatoid arthritis.
Fortunately, nature has delivered an amazingly
versatile herb in the Reishi mushroom with the proven
capacity to deliver relief and even assist in reversing
this condition.
Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disorder
that can be characterized by chronic inflammation of
the tissues and organs, but it usually attacks the joints.
This hyper-inflammatory response can lead to the
destruction of cartilage and the loss of mobility.
Symptoms of RA can include swollen and stiff joints,
accompanied by considerable pain and loss of
function. It is three times more common in women
than men, with the first onset of symptoms usually
occurring between the ages of 40 and 60.
RA is usually treated by mainstream medicine with
cortisone-like steroids that suppress the immune
system. Even in low dosages, these drugs can cause
osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease, weight gain, or
high blood sugar. Most importantly, this unnatural
and dangerous approach to artificially suppressing the
immune system can leave you susceptible to
infections.
Reishi mushroom, also known as Ganoderma
lucidum, is one of the oldest known herbal medicines
in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). It is native to
China, Japan, and North America, has been used for
thousands of years, and is revered for its longevity-
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
promoting capabilities. Reishi influences cells that
regulate the immune system - namely, lymphatic cells
and interferon alpha and interferon beta cells - and has
the ability to "educate" these cells of immunity so that
they better respond to the body`s needs.
In other words, with the help of Reishi, if cells of the
immune system are not responsive enough, they will
be called to action, or if they are hyperactive such as in
the case of an autoimmune disorder such as RA, they
will back down.
In a 2007 study published by the University of Hong
Kong, the polysaccharide peptides in Reishi were
found to "significantly inhibit the proliferation of
Rheumatoid Arthritis Synovial Fibroblasts (RASF)."
Where steroid medications suppress the immune
system, Reishi doesn`t stimulate or suppress but rather
educates, helps modulate, and teaches the cells of the
immune system how to self-regulate more effectively.
When your white blood cells graduate from the School
of Reishi, they are better equipped to manage your
immune system.
Reishi capsules or a Reishi tea that you consume today
may have been one hundred years or more in the
making. First, a tree grows and lives for decades,
absorbing energy and nutrients from the sun and the
soil. Then, when the tree begins to die, mushrooms
will attach to the tree, absorb the life force and further
concentrate the nutritional content and medicinal
qualities that the tree has acquired throughout its life.
Once the mushrooms are harvested and encapsulated
or made into powders or teas, this concentrated life
force is transferred to its end user. This process
represents unleashing the power of Mother Nature
onto your immunity.
Http://www.naturalnews.com/028874_reishi_arth
ritis.html
23
 Study Links Pesticides and ADHD
*Melissa Breyer
May 17, 2010- Exposure to pesticides is associated
with increased risk of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder (ADHD) in children, according to a team of
scientists from the University of Montreal and
Harvard University.
Published in the journal Pediatrics, the study focused
on 1,139 children from the general U.S. population
and measured pesticide levels in their urine.
The authors conclude that exposure to
organophosphate pesticides, at levels common
among U.S. children, may contribute to a diagnosis of
ADHD.
In the past, exposure to organophosphates has been
associated with negative effects on
neurodevelopment, such as behavioral problems and
lower cognitive function.
However earlier studies have focused on populations
with greater pesticide exposure relative to the general
population.
This study was conducted with 1139 children 8 to 15
years of age, representative of the general U.S.
population. The findings showed that children with
higher urinary levels of organophosphate metabolites
were more likely to meet the diagnostic criteria for
ADHD.
According to the study, approximately 40
organophosphate pesticides are registered with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use
in the United States.
The EPA considers food, drinking water, and
residential pesticide use major sources of exposure.
Residential pesticide use is common, but the
important source of exposure to pesticides for infants
and children would be from the diet, says the National
Academy of Sciences.
The U.S. Pesticide Residue Program Report for 2008
notes that measurable concentrations of the
24 Kisan Ki Awaaz
organophosphate malathion were found in 28 percent
of frozen blueberry samples, 25 percent of strawberry
samples, and 19 percent of celery samples.
Children are thought to be at greatest risk from
organophosphate toxicity because the developing
brain is more susceptible to neurotoxicants and the
dose of pesticides per body weight is likely to be larger
for children.
Children 6 to 11 years of age have the highest urinary
concentrations of dialkyl phosphate (DAP)
metabolites (markers of organophosphate exposure),
compared with other age groups in the U.S.
population. As well, children have fewer detoxifying
enzymes, which contributes to their vulnerability.
The best way to limit exposure to pesticides is to limit
the intake of foods with high pesticides loads. What
are the worst culprits for pesticide residue?
The Shopper's Guide developed by Environmental
Working Group (EWG) is based on data from nearly
87,000 tests for pesticide residues in produce
collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Here are the top 15 fruits/vegetables from the guide
that contain the most pesticide (number one being the
worst). It is advised, whenever possible, to purchase
these items organically:
1. Celery, 2. Peaches, 3. Strawberries
4. Apples, 5. Blueberries (Domestic), 6. Nectarines
7. Sweet Bell Peppers, 8. Spinach,
9. Kale / Collard Greens, 10. Cherries, 11. Potatoes
12. Grapes (Imported), 13. Lettuce,
14. Blueberries (Imported), 15. Carrots
Mail by googlegroup.com
June - 2010
 US states move to ban BPA even
while US FDA does nothing
Alternative Medicine in the News
May 2010 - An increasing number of USA states
are considering banning bisphenol-A (BPA)
from food and drink containers in response to
growing concerns that the chemical causes
cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and other serious
illnesses.
Despite disregard by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) about its potential
dangers, states like Connecticut and
Massachusetts have passed legislation outlawing
the chemical from being used in food and drink
containers.
For years, the FDA has denied that BPA is
dangerous, even when numerous studies have
indicated that the chemical leeches into food and
disrupts hormones.
After being pressed to reevaluate its position by
the National Toxicology Program and others
who disagreed with the FDA's position, the
agency reluctantly agreed to take a look at the
evidence once more.
Last month, the FDA announced that it now has
"some concerns" about BPA's effect on brain
development in children and babies, but would
not admit that the chemical is dangerous or
unsafe.
The agency has stated it will not issue a ban on
BPA, even though it agrees that the chemical is
likely problematic.
Spokesmen from the American Chemistry
Council (ACC) agreed with the FDA's decision,
insisting that a ban on BPA is unnecessary.
According to ACC, research indicates that BPA
is perfectly safe.
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
Industry rhetoric is not enough to convince the
public, however, which is increasingly opposed
to the chemical's use in food containers.
Many manufacturers have responded to the
outcry over BPA by voluntarily eliminating it
from their containers and noting on labels that the
products are "BPA free".
In addition to Connecticut and Massachusetts,
the city of Chicago and Suffolk County, New
York have also banned BPA from food containers
as has the entire nation of Canada.
New Mexico, Maryland, Missouri, California,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and
Washington, D.C., also have pending legislation
to ban the chemical as well.
According to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), plastic containers
whose bottoms bear a 3 or 7 in the triangle
recycling logo likely contain BPA.
Those with a 1, 2, 4, 5, or 6 most likely do not.
HHS also recommends not using plastic
containers that are scratched since they are more
likely to leech toxic chemicals.
It is always good practice not to put really hot
liquids into plastic containers, since doing so can
encourage leeching of chemicals like BPA.
Freezing plastic bottles is also a bad idea because
it can encourage leeching as well.
Sources-
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...
25
Bill Gates funds covert vaccine nanotechnology
*Mike Adams
T he Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is gaining a
reputation for funding technologies designed to
roll out mass sterilization and vaccination
programs around the world. One of the programs recently
funded by the foundation is a sterilization program that
would use sharp blasts of ultrasound directed against a
man's scrotum to render him infertile for six months. It
might accurately be called a "temporary castration"
technology.
Now, the foundation has funded a new "sweat-triggered
vaccine delivery" program based on nanoparticles
penetrating human skin. The technology is describes as a
way to "...develop nanoparticles that penetrate the skin
through hair follicles and burst upon contact with human
sweat to release vaccines.”
The research grant money is going to Carlos Alberto
Guzman of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research in
Germany and Claus-Michael Lehr and Steffi Hansen of the
Helmholtz-Institute for Pharmaceutical Research. These
are both part of the Gates Foundation's involvement in the
"Grand Challenges Explorations" program which claims
to be working to "achieve major breakthroughs in global
health.”
...breakthroughs like mass sterilization and nanoparticle
vaccines that could be covertly administered even without
your knowledge, it turns out. These nanoparticles could be
used in a spray mist that's sprayed on to every person who
walks through an airport security checkpoint, for example.
Or it could be unleashed through the ventilation systems of
corporate office buildings or public schools to vaccinate
the masses. You wouldn't even know you were being
vaccinated.
This technology is potentially very dangerous to your
health freedom. Using it, governments or drug companies
(which are all the same thing these days) could create a
vaccine skin cream that's handed out and described as
"sunscreen." But when you put it on, you're actually
vaccinating yourself as the nanoparticles burrow
underneath your skin and burst, releasing foreign DNA
inside your body.
A history of covert mass medication
But why would the government medicate people without
their knowledge or consent, you ask? They already do it
26 Kisan Ki Awaaz
with water fluoridation. Fluoride is a drug, and regional
and national governments all over the world are using the
water supply as a way to deliver the fluoride drug to people
whether they need it or not -- and without any proper
medical diagnosis or prescription.
So if governments are already covertly medicating people
with fluoride in the water supply, they've set the stage
mass-vaccinating people through similar channels, such as
the air supply in buildings. And thanks to Bill Gates, this
nanotechnology needed to pull this off is now being
funded. Is this really a "major breakthrough in global
health?"
I suppose it is if you believe in covert medicine where you
dose people with drugs or vaccines without their
knowledge. Western medicine is so offensive to rational
people that it can't even operate out in the open. That's why
it resorts to covert contamination of the water supply in
order to force the public to swallow its drugs.
Fluoride and covert medicine
Oh, by the way, to anyone who argues that fluoride is not a
drug, remember this: According to the FDA, any chemical
substance that has a biological effect on the human body is,
by definition, a drug. Therefore fluoride is a drug, too.
Even more, fluoride is promoted with outlandish claims
about "preventing cavities" by swallowing it, making it an
"unapproved drug" according to the FDA. So how is it that
this unapproved drug can be dripped into the water supply
and forced upon hundreds of millions of people without a
single diagnosis of fluoride deficiency or even a single
prescription from a doctor?
The answer is that western medicine is so arrogant that it
does not believe it needs to follow any rules, regulations or
laws. It is a system of "bully" medicine where drugs are
shoved down your throat by being covertly dripped into the
water supply without your consent. So why should we
believe vaccines will be any different? If mainstream
medicine can find a way to force every person to
unknowingly be injected with vaccines, make no mistake
they will pursue it!
And such efforts will no doubt have the continued financial
support of Bill Gates.
Http://www.naturalnews.com/028887_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html
June - 2010
Farmer relief package turns suicidal: CAG
A
farmers.
griculture being the main source of income
for the country, the government earlier
announced some fund relief for the distressed
But things has not worked according. The number of
suicide by the farmers surprisingly has only
increased.
THE GOVERNMENT has pumped in Rs 5,000 crore
in the suicide belts of Vidarbha over the last two years.
Yet, farmers continue to kill themselves.
Now, a performance audit by the Comptroller and
Auditor General (CAG) of India has exposed the
futility of the package..
A report titled Performance Audit of Farmers Package
by the CAG of India, has concluded that the package
has failed in its basic purpose, that of reducing the
agrarian crisis in the six affected districts of Vidarbha.
The districts are Yavatmal, Amravati, Wardha, Akola,
Buldhana and Washim
"Reduction in farmers distress in Vidarbha does not
inspire confidence,” the report emphatically states.
Adding that unless corrective measures are taken,
"The agrarian distress would start rising again in the
closing years of the package.
Such distress could increase significantly particularly
after the moratorium of loan repayment expires,"
cautions Sunil Dadhe, the accountant general (audit)
in his concluding remarks.
A survey, covering 41,663 farmers in 383 villages of
the six districts worst hit by cotton failures in
Vidarbha, was part of the CAG audit of the farmers
packages announced by the state and central
governments in 2006.
It found that 36 per cent of farmers were not even
aware of the state and central government packages.
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
The audit slams the government for weak monitoring,
delays in payments of compensation and lack of
coordination in implementing the packages. The audit
conducted between March and June 2007 highlights
some glaring deficiencies.
It is the first report evaluating implementation of the
packages since they were announced two years back.
The CAG report says that government directives for
moneylenders to free farmers lands were turned down
by the High Court when moneylenders approached it.
Neither did the government challenge the court ruling
nor did it strengthen the existing laws in favour of the
farmers.
A door-to-door survey in 2006 by the state showed
there were 13.48 lakh distressed and 4.34 lakh very
distressed farmers in these six districts. But they were
not considered when benefits were handed out.
Short-term measures like help-lines and rescheduling
loans were ineffective for most farmers. The report
also questioned long-term goals, like creating
irrigation potential and subsidiary occupations for
farmers.
As per CAG report, it is now official that all claims
made by the state administration as per as
implementation of relief packages are concern were
misleading and far away from the ground reality that
has killed more innocent distressed Vidarbha farmers.
Here is the detail of CAG report officially released by
Maharashtran government.
Suicides by debt-ridden Vidarbha farmers have
actually accelerated after Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh announced the multi-crore relief package in
2006.
The state administration is blamed for lack of co-
ordination and a faulty implementation of plans.
The CAG statistics reveal that the suicide graph has
27
been on the rise. From 712 farmers in 2005-06, to
1414 suicides in 2006-07 the total suicide deaths
reported from April-July 2007-08 stood at 608.
The report was tabled in the state legislature , hours
before the seven-week budget session was prorogued.
Dadhe has demolished the state government's claim,
that alls well after funds flow from the relief package.
In fact the CAG team has asserted that there is no
monitoring of the implementation of the packages.
"Though the state created the Vasantrao Naik Sheti
Swawalamban Mission (VNSSM) for monitoring of
the implementation of the packages, it had no
dedicated staff apart from its director general and a
driver.
Consequently, it failed to even watch the expenditure
incurred by the implementing departments under
various components,' ' the report said.
The auditors, who surveyed 363 villages covering
41,663 farmers, said the state failed to implement its
announcements that farmers who took loans from
unregistered moneylenders can treat themselves free
from that loan.
In fact, the CAG survey revealed that 75 per cent of
their respondents were unaware of this announcement
in absence of adequate and effective publicity.
The CAG report reveals that illegal money lenders
have got relief from the courts after the assistant
registrars of the cooperative societies (ARCS)
declared the farmers free from debts.
In 18 writ petitions filed by the money lenders the
Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court passed
orders setting aside the orders of the ARCS.
"The government neither appealed against the orders
(in the Supreme Court) nor took any remedial action
like amendment of the relevant acts to secure the
interests of the indebted farmers.
Consequently the affected farmers did not get the
intended benefit of the government decision of
December 2005,'' it said.
28 Kisan Ki Awaaz
A scrutiny of the state government records in
Amravati by the CAG has revealed that 224 eligible
farmers were deprived of the compensation of Rs 2.14
lakh due to non-availability of funds, speaking
volumes about the state administration' s handling of
the issue.
The report said that many banks claimed interest
without extending fresh loans to the distressed
farmers. Of the 17.64 lakh farmers in the six districts,
9.29 lakh cases of loan having outstanding principle
amount of Rs 1,369 crore were proposed to be
rescheduled after waiver of interests.
However, fresh loans of Rs 673 crore (43 per cent)
were given in 4.84 lakh cases. "The waiver of interest
in all these cases did not help the families of the
farmers concerned in income augmentation since loan
was not rescheduled.
Further the government waived interest on 1. 92 lakh
farm workers, though the packages did not envisage
assistance to those who were not farmers,'' the report
said.
The Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti (VJAS) president
Kishor Tiwari urged UPA government to order CBI.
inquiry in this matter as issue of huge malpractices in
more than Rs.5000 crore.
This failure of relief package has resulted to more than
3000 suicides of farmers.
In fact VJAS has demanding that due to total apathy of
administration and causal attitude, coupled with
massive corruption has made this condition of rural
Vidarbha so pathetic and aggravated that the agrarian
crisis grew more after the announcement of relief
package;as the relief did not reached the dying
farmers in time even after the lapse of two year.
It is the need of the time to provide food security
health care to minimum 4.34 lakh farming families
who are identified by administration as farmers in
deep distress, Tiwari added.
Http://www.merinews.com/article/farmer-relief-
June - 2010
Broccoli Component Limits
Breast Cancer Stem Cells
May 27 2010- Sulforaphane, a compound found in
broccoli, could help treat breast cancer by targeting cancer
stem cells, which fuel the growth of tumors.
Sulforaphane was tested in both mice and cell cultures. It
targeted and killed the cancer stem cells and prevented new
tumors from growing.
Science Daily reports:
“Current chemotherapies do not work against cancer stem
cells, which is why cancer recurs and spreads. Researchers
believe that eliminating the cancer stem cells is key to
controlling cancer.”
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
If you've read this newsletter for awhile, you've surely
heard that broccoli is one of nature's most potent cancer-
preventing foods. Several studies attest to this fact.
One of the reasons that broccoli seems to work is related to
a compound called sulforaphane. It selectively targets
cancer stem cells, and by doing so, it effectively prevents
the cancer from spreading and/or recurring.
This is something current chemotherapies cannot do, but
food can!
If that's not a powerful testament to the inherent wisdom
and symbiotic relationship between man and food, I don't
know what is.
The Health Boosting, Cancer Preventive Mechanisms
of Broccoli
A diet of mostly whole, organically-grown foods is the
most effective way to prevent disease and achieve optimal
health there is. No doubt about it.
And while Science Daily states that “the concentrations of
sulforaphane used in the study were higher than what can
be achieved by eating broccoli or broccoli sprouts,” that
has certainly not been the case in other studies.
In fact, one study published in PLoS, found that just four
extra servings of broccoli per week could protect men from
prostate cancer.
One serving of broccoli equates to about two spears. So
we're only talking approximately 10 spears a week, folks.
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
That's it!
In that case, the researchers determined that the cancer-
protective benefits were derived from a particular
sulforaphane compound called isothiocyanate, which
sparks hundreds of beneficial changes in your genes. It
activates some genes that fight cancer, and switches off
other genes whose job it is to aid in tumor growth.
Now, if you go back about 10 years, researchers looking at
broccoli for cancer prevention discovered that
glucoraphanin a precursor to sulforaphane boosts cell
enzymes that protect against molecular damage from
cancer-causing chemicals.
So the biological mechanisms behind broccoli's ability to
act as a cancer preventive aid are numerous, and they
function on multiple levels within your system.
The healing, restorative power of vegetables have been
researched and known for some time, but remain largely
unappreciated; overshadowed by the massive marketing of
pharmaceutical drugs that seek to provide symptomatic
relief, and processed, denatured foods, filled with man-
made chemicals and unnatural additives and flavors all of
which do more harm than good in the long term.
Meanwhile, as illustrated in a 2001 study, women who
consumed at least 2.5 servings of fruit and vegetables daily
as adolescents were 46 percent less likely to develop
ovarian cancer.
I can't think of any drug that can beat those prevention
odds.
Broccoli has also been found to be effective against other
types of cancer, including lung cancer ,skin cancer, and
stomach cancer.
!Additional health benefits also include:
!Reversing diabetes damage
!Restoring your immune system
!Preventing and treating ulcers (it may actually be more
effective than modern antibiotics against the bacteria that
cause peptic ulcers!)
Is Broccoli the Right Choice for You?
While I believe foods, especially vegetables, are a far
smarter choice to treat serious health challenges like cancer
29
than using most drugs, certain foods such as broccoli may
not be ideal for everyone.
One of the most serious mistakes a protein type can make is
to consume large amounts of dark green vegetables. This
tends to over-alkaline your system and worsens rather than
improves your health if you're a protein type, despite the
many beneficial phytonutrients that are present.
This is where a deep appreciation of nutritional typing will
assist you in selecting the best vegetables for you.
Although broccoli, and even more so, broccoli sprouts,
contain the highest amounts of isothiocyanates, other
cruciferous vegetables also contain this compound,
including:
brussels sprouts, cauliflower, cabbage , arugula,
watercress , horseradish
Good News! Free Nutritional Typing Will Soon Be
Available
I strongly believe that nutritional typing is the master key
to determining your optimal diet, and an optimal diet is
essential to increasing your health without ever touching a
drug.
This is why I will soon give away my nutritional typing
program completely free of charge.
So keep on the lookout for this offer in a future issue of this
newsletter!
I want you to be aware of just how important it is to
understand your body at a deeper level, because if you are a
protein type and were to eat too much broccoli, the other
effects of broccoli might push your metabolic
biochemistry in the wrong direction and thus override its
benefits.
When you eat properly for your particular type, however,
you will experience increased daily energy, improved
emotional well-being, a feeling of satiety and satisfaction,
and, of course, optimized health and weight so you live
longer.
Further Guidelines to Help Avoid and Treat Breast
(and Prostate) Cancer
The guidelines for preventing and treating breast cancer
and prostate cancer are almost identical.
Below are 15 lifestyle recommendations for how to avoid
and treat both types of cancer:
Optimize your vitamin D levels with appropriate sun
exposure. Ideally, it would be best to monitor your vitamin
30 Kisan Ki Awaaz
D levels. Control your insulin levels, and be sure to limit
your intake of processed foods.
Eliminate sugar as much as possible as it's been shown
again and again that sugar feeds cancer. Fructose is
especially problematic so also be sure to limit your fructose
intake.
Eat broccoli and/or cauliflower sprouts, depending on your
nutritional type.
Consume fresh vegetable juice daily - including one small
tomato (lycopene).
Get appropriate amounts of animal-based omega-3 fats
such as krill oil, and reduce your intake of omega-6 oils.
Consume freshly ground flaxseeds - two ounces every
other day. Selenium - 400 mcg per day.
Vitamin E - 400 units per day. (Please note: Only natural
vitamin E should be used, not synthetic. Additionally,
mixed tocopherol is more preferable than alpha-
tocopherol, as the gamma tocopherols are particularly
useful antioxidants.)
Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or
charbroiling them. Better yet eat as many of your foods raw
LINK as you can.
Get appropriate exercise. One of the primary reasons
exercise works is that it drives your insulin levels down.
Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways
to reduce your cancer risks.
Have a tool to permanently erase the neurological short-
circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC
states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is
likely that this factor may be more important than all the
other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is
addressed.
My favorite tool, as you may know, is the Emotional
Freedom Technique. Get enough high-quality sleep
Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins and sources
of heavy metals. Reduce your exposure to EMFs like cell
and portable phones.
Check your ferritin level and make sure you don't have iron
excess as this can clearly increase your risk of cancer.
June - 2010
How useful is Genetic Engineering
*Bharat Dogra
I n the context of agriculture and animal husbandry,
genetic engineering has far-reaching implications
as it allows the introduction into plants and
animals of entirely new characteristics, including
genes originally found in unrelated plants, animals or
micro-organisms. This is very different from
traditional breeding practices, and we need time to
consider all its possible impacts.
However, technology is spreading so fast that very
adverse consequences can result even before we have
the time to understand the implications. At a very
early stage of its development this technology has got
heavily concentrated in the hands of a few giant
corporations which are interested in its quick
commercial exploitation recover their investments
and reap profits. In the process, critics fear, very
serious and irreversible damage can be caused to our
environment, to our food system and to the health of
millions of people.
Several scientists involved in studying the
implications and impacts of genetic engineering got
together at the International Conference on
“Redefining of Life Sciences” organised at Penang,
Malaysia, by the Third World Network. They issued a
statement (the Penang Statement, or PS) which
questioned the scientific basis of genetic engineering.
This statement said: “The new biotechnology based
upon genetic engineering makes the assumption that
each specific feature of an organism is encoded in one
or a few specific, stable genes, so that the transfer of
these genes results in the transfer of a discrete feature.
This extreme form of genetic reductionism has
already been rejected by the majority of biologists and
many other members of the intellectual community
because it fails to take into account the complex
interactions between genes and their cellular,
extracellular and external environments that are
involved in the development of all traits.
“It has thus been impossible to predict the
consequences of transferring a gene from one type of
June - 2010 Kisan Ki Awaaz
organism to another in a significant number of cases.
The limited ability to transfer identifiable molecular
characteristics between organisms through genetic
engineering does not constitute the demonstration of
any comprehensive or reliable system for predicting
all the significant effects of transposing genes.”
In a widely quoted paper titled “The Biotechnology
Bubble” Dr Mae-Wan Ho (who heads Bio-
Electrodynamics lab of the Open University in the
UK), Joe Cummins (Professor Emeritus of Genetics in
Canada) and Hartmut Meyer have summarised the
results of several experiments, trials and commercial
releases of GMOs. They write : “There are many signs
of the problems caused in genetic engineering
organisms. For every product that reaches the market,
there are perhaps 20 or more that fail. It is particularly
disastrous for animal welfare.
The “superpig” engineered with a human growth
hormone gene turned out arthritic, ulcerous, blind and
impotent. The “supersalmon” engineered, again, to
grow as fast as possible, with genes belonging to other
fish, ended up with big monstrous heads and died from
not being able to see, breathe or feed properly.
The latest clones of the transgenic sheep Dolly are
abnormal and eight times as likely to die at birth
compared with ordinary lambs. Even products that
reach the market are failing, including crops that have
been widely planted.
Recently 17 distinguished scientists from Europe, the
USA, Canada and New Zealand wrote to the Prime
Minister of India warning against “the unique risks (of
GM crops) to food security, farming systems and bio-
safety impacts which are ultimately irreversible.” This
letter adds, “The GM transformation process is highly
mutagenic leading to disruptions to host plant genetic
structure and function, which in turn leads to
disturbances in the biochemistry of the plant. This can
lead to novel toxin and allergen production as well as
reduced/ altered nutrition quality.”
31
 US Farmers Are Bailed Out,
Indian Farmers Are Left To Die
*Devinder Sharma
Ground Reality
A midst the raging debate on the farm suicide
toll in India comes this interesting report
about the huge agricultural subsidies being
doled out to the US farmers.
In India, nearly 200,000 farmers have taken the fatal
route to escape the humiliation that comes along with
growing indebtedness (in the absence of direct
income support) between 1997 and 2008.
The US has paid a quarter of a trillion as farm
subsidies in almost the same period, between 1995
and 2009. Farmers not only get "direct support", they
also receive the benefit of "counter-cyclic payments",
"market loss payments" and now subsidies under the
crop insurance programme and the bio-fuel
programme.
No wonder, while Indian farmers take to gallows, US
farmers (I am talking of the big farmers/Corporate
firms) quietly proceed on a cruise holiday every year.
The report "Government's Continued Bailout for
Corporate Agriculture"http://bit.ly/accyio published
by Environmental Working Group (EWG)
endorses what is being said in this column time and
again. Let us look at some of the salient findings:
1. US paid a quarter of a trillion in farm subsidies
between 1995 and 2009.
2. Direct payments have averaged around $ 5 billion
every year since 2005.
3. Subsidies under the crop insurance programme
have tripled -- from $ 2.7 billion in 2005 to $ 7.3
billion in 2009.
4. Since 1995, crop insurance subsidies have crossed
$ 35 billion.
5. Between 1995 and 2009, the richest 10 per cent of
32 Kisan Ki Awaaz
the farm families pocketed 74 per cent of the entire
subsidy.
6. On an average, the wealthiest 10 per cent received a
total payment of $ 445,127 in the past 15 years
.
7. Small farmers received an average of $ 8,862 per
recepient in the same period.
Now this should be some form of an eyeopener. After
all, when we tell Indian farmers to increase
productivity (and I see this being the usual refrain
among agricultural scientists, agribusiness companies
and parliamentarians) I fail to understand how
enhancing crop yields would increase farm income.
I have often asked this question to senior scientists and
economists, who unfortunately have no idea of the
political economy that determines farm wealth in the
OECD countries.
They tend to believe that farmers in US/Europe are
rich because they have high productivity. To my
understanding, this is the primary reason why Indian
farmers continue to suffer.
They have been misled to believe that the higher their
crop productivity, the more will be their income. In the
US, farmers are surviving because of direct income
support (in various forms) and not because of the
'farm-to-fork' kind of market operations.
The US knows the cost of feeding the loss-making
farms is much more than what is normally spent on
importing food. But it still is willing to take that risk
knowing that food self-sufficiency is fundamental to
national sovereignty.
In fact, it goes a step ahead. It is making an all out
effort (along with the EU) to be the food bowl of the
globe. The more the world depends upon US/EU for
food, the more will be the political dominance of these
two blocks over the entire world.
June - 2010
Hkkjr esa fdlkuksa dh nqnZ'kk D;ksa \
R.N.I.. No. DELENG/2009/30545 DL(E)-20/5324/2010-2012

Save Tree, Save Water, Save Fuel,

To make the Earth Cool

To Save Farmers Rights,

To Save Land Rights,
To Save Food Rights,

Be the member of
Bharatiya Krishak Samaj
(A National Farmers Organisation)
By the Farmers,
Of the Farmers,
For the Farmers.

Dr. Krishan Bir Chaudhary

President,

If undelivered return to : F-1/A, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-110091,Telefax: 011-22751281