Palaces For The People
Tuesday, December 09, 2003
 
Channelnewsasia.com

Time is GMT + 8 hours
Posted: 10 December 2003 0240 hrs

Unocal becomes first US firm to stand trial in US over rights abuses

LOS ANGELES : Oil giant Unocal was set to become the first US firm to stand trial in the United States for alleged human rights abuses abroad over the construction of a gas pipeline in Myanmar.

A trial of the California-based oil titan was poised to begin in Los Angeles early Tuesday in a case brought by Myanmar villagers who accuse Unocal of complicity in human rights abuses by the Southeast Asian country's brutal military junta, including forced labour, rape and torture.

The trial stems from two lawsuits filed by up to 15 unidentified villagers from the nation formerly known as Burma over the construction of the 62-kilometer (39-mile) Yadana natural gas pipeline.

The villagers claim in their long-running lawsuit that Unocal turned a blind eye as junta troops murdered, raped and enslaved villagers and forced them to work on the 1.2-billion-dollar pipeline in the early- to mid-1990s.

"Burmese soldiers enforced a system of slave labour and committed horrible acts of violence on Unocal's behalf," said Terry Collingsworth, executive director of the International Labor Rights Fund, which is representing some of the villagers.

Unocal, which did not operate the field that was owned by the Myanmar government, strongly denies any involvement in abuses.

At issue in the first part of the complex trial is whether Unocal can be held liable for the conduct of its subsidiaries which invested in the pipeline.

Daniel Petrocelli, Unocal's lead lawyer, said California's "alter-ego doctrine" bars plaintiffs from trying to tap a parent corporation if a subsidiary has valuable assets of its own.

Unocal executives have acknowledged that troops forced villagers to carry ammunition and supplies for the military and perform other labour in the vicinity, but they deny any of the labour occurred for the pipeline project.

But lawyers for the villagers maintain that Unocal is using its subsidiaries as corporate shells to avoid responsibility in the case.

In July, Judge Victoria Chaney, who is presiding over the case, rejected arguments by the energy firm that the case should be tried at least in part under the laws of Myanmar or Bermuda, where its subsidies were based, instead of under US law.

If Unocal manages to convince the court in the first phase of the trial, expected to last about 20 days, that its subsidiaries, rather than the parent company, should be targeted by any suits, it could move to have the abuse charges thrown out in the second phase of the trial.

 
Xinjiang incurs huge losses from natural disasters

Xinjiang incurs huge losses from natural disasters
China's westernmost Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region has incurred great economic losses from incessant natural adversities this year.

China's westernmost Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region has incurred great economic losses from incessant natural adversities this year.

Frequent earthquakes, storms, hails, floods and landslides have claimed 339 lives and caused more than 4 billion yuan (some 480 million US dollars) of direct economic loss and over 2 billion yuan of loss in agriculture, according to the disaster relief department of the regional civil affairs bureau.

Disasters like spring sandstorms led to a drop in farm yields, even practically no harvest in some places. Tempests and hail in summer affected 1.8 million people with a loss of 36 lives.

A dozen quakes measuring five or above on the Richter scale have jolted the region this year, killing 289 people with over 2 billion yuan (about 240 million US dollars) in economic loss.

The central government has earmarked more than 130 million yuan in relief funds and appealed for social donations to help the region's reconstruction, said Qu Songlin, deputy head of the department.

 
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0312&L=sanet-mg&F=&S=&P=12680

Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:57:14 -0600
Reply-To: Douglas Hinds
Sender: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group

From: Douglas Hinds
Organization: CeDeCoR, A. C.
Subject: Re: Patent Invalidity --- Part Two
Comments: To: "SERA - Sustainable,
Socially and Ecologically Responsible Agriculture"

In-Reply-To: <20031205055351.87649.qmail@web11206.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hello Lion and other SERA and sanet members following this thread,

Thursday, December 4, 2003 Lion discussed the validity of Monsanto's and other transgenic crop patents.

I have reformatted but left intact much of Lion's post before adding my comments below. Lion has made an important contribution which deserves consideration, a contribution that no one on either list has valid grounds for criticizing his having made, IMO. I've interpreted the legal issue from a related but somewhat different perspective, but this is an issue deserving of further study and possibly, legal action.

LK> The validity of US Patents needs to be understood within the LK> diverse elements of the US legal system.

LK> The congress makes laws, not the Patent Office (hereafter LK> abbreviated USPTO).

LK> The USPTO interprets patent applications and grants patents, LK> based on patent law.

LK> Courts interpret patent validity by various measures, including LK> current USPTO patent grant status. Courts may invalidate LK> patents, and the USPTO may invalidate patents.

LK> UTILITY patents are required to meet certain tests to justify LK> compliance with congress' enacting patent laws:

LK> an invention must be (1) NEW, (2) NOVEL, (3) NON-OBVIOUS TO LK> PRACTIONERS OF THE ART.

LK> A failure of any one element invaldates the patent.

LK> Petitioning the USPTO is the process to use to invalidate a LK> patent. Published statements from the inventor or assignee may LK> be introduced to demonstrate invalidity of a patent. If a patent LK> inventor or assignee declares that the invention is NOT NEW, NOT LK> NOVEL, IS INCREMENTAL OF THE STATE OF THE ART, a grant of patent LK> may be invalidated.

LK> Have there not been published statements made to the United LK> States government that various GMOs are not unique, not new, LK> merely incremental of the plant breeder's arts, and therefore no LK> new safety tests were required?

LK> Have there not been findings published by agencies of the United LK> States government (USDA, FDA) that GMOs are not substantially LK> new, not substantially novel, and therefore would be judged safe LK> because of the basic essential NON-DIFFERENCE between the pre- LK> and post-GMO condition?

LK> But even IF the patent is validated, UTILITY patents are LK> fundamentally different from Protected Variety Plant patents.

LK> A UTILITY PATENT PROTECTS THE INVENTION AND THE EXACT SPECIFIED LK> METHOD OF PRODUCING THE INVENTION. It cannot protect seeds and LK> sexual reproduction, as these are "prior art", NOT NEW, NOT LK> NOVEL.

LK> One cannot patent "seeding" because Mother Nature invented it, LK> not man, and by law prior art is not patentable. Only the NOVEL, LK> NEW invention part can be patented, not everything which merely LK> touchs that invention.

LK> The CLAIMS specifically describe what is covered by the patent, LK> and claims can be invalidated if prior art can be demonstrated LK> by proving that aspect of the invention existed in public LK> knowledge anywhere on earth prior to the date of invention LK> declaration.

LK> So, a circumstance exists where it has been in nobodies interest LK> to invalidate any biotech patents. Nobody challenged the LK> fundamental basis of the patent claims -- they just stood in awe LK> of the brazeness of the claimants.

LK> Percy Schmeiser argues in a CANADIAN COURT, and the court sees a LK> currently valid US patent and so rules.

Canada's Supreme Court has yet to rule on this (I believe) but has accepted the case.

LK> Smeiser's case scares other farmers into capitulation, and US LK> courts "notice" a decision (brought to their attention by LK> biotech lawyers) in Canada upholding a valid us patent.

LK> The proper forum was the USPTO, requiring them to invalidate the LK> patent based on their rules, which are different rules than the LK> courts follow.

LK> The courts look to see if the USPTO is validating a patent, then LK> proceeds with presumption on the side of the patentee. The USPTO LK> can invalidate at any time new evidence of prior art or LK> non-novelty is brought to their legal notice.

LK> To RECAP:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/161.html TITLE 35 > PART II > CHAPTER 15 > Sec. 161. Next

LK> Sec. 161. - Patents for plants

LK> Whoever invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any LK> distinct and new variety of plant, including cultivated sports, LK> mutants, hybrids, and newly found seedlings, other than a tuber LK> propagated plant or a plant found in an uncultivated state, may LK> obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and LK> requirements of this title.

LK> The provisions of this title relating to patents for inventions LK> shall apply to patents for plants, except as otherwise provided

LK> [NOTE: ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION!!!]

A wide interpretation of this is cited by Lion below, however.

LK> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/ LK> ...What is a plant patent?

LK> A plant patent is granted by the Government to an inventor (or LK> the inventor's hiers or assigns) who has invented or discovered LK> and asexually reproduced a distinct and new variety of plant, LK> other than a tuber propagated plant or a plant found in an LK> uncultivated state.

LK> The grant, which lasts for 20 years from the date of filing the LK> application, protects the inventor's right to exclude others LK> from asexually reproducing, selling, or using the plant so LK> reproduced. This protection is limited to a plant in its LK> ordinary meaning:

LK> * A living plant organism which expresses a set of LK> characteristics determined by its single, genetic makeup or LK> genotype, WHICH CAN BE DUPLICATED THROUGH ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION, LK> BUT WHICH CAN NOT OTHERWISE BE "MADE" OR "MANUFACTURED."

In this case, although the original GM variety was in fact created asexually via using a virus or "gene gun" on a seed cell or plant tissue (plants themselves have not responded well to gene insertion), once the gene has been incorporated into the now transgenic plant's genome (albeit in a hit-and-miss, poorly controlled, variable and unstable manner), SUCCEEDING GENERATIONS ARE NO LONGER ASEXUALLY PROPAGATED.

This may explain the need for the famous CONTRACT that's used: Seed can't be saved for future propagation. However, this can not legitimately apply to someone not signing said contract.

LK> * Sports, mutants, hybrids, and transformed plants are LK> comprehended; sports or mutants may be spontaneous or induced. LK> Hybrids may be natural, from a planned breeding program, or LK> somatic in source. While natural plant mutants might have LK> naturally occurred, they must have been discovered in a LK> cultivated area....

LK> Monsanto, a criminal corporation, has deceived the public, LK> deceived regulators, deceived courts, and deceived the USPTO LK> about the patent validity of its seed products.

LK> --- The public has been deceived that Monsanto held, by right, a LK> valid patent on Plants, but Monsanto markets no plants asexually LK> reproduced under plant patents.

Their original plant was asexually reproduced in the sense that the process used to insert the gene in the seed or tissue cell was certainly not a sexual reproductive process.

LK> -- Monsanto has UTILITY patents issued based on Novelty, Newness, LK> and Non-Obviousness, NOT PLANT VARIETY PATENTS.

For the process used to make them.

LK> -- Regulators were deceived that PATENTABLE, ipso facto NOVEL LK> ORGANISMS were incremental developments of insufficient newness LK> as to be virtually the same as UNPATENTABLE organisms.

LK> --- The courts have been deceived that possession of documents LK> issued on the basis of UTILITY patents were protected as LK> asexually reproduced plant patents; that because nobody had LK> interest to dispute the USPTO validity meant upholding USPTO LK> patent grants as a matter of default public policy.

LK> --- The USPTO was deceived that incremental development, LK> non-novelty, non-newness was being declared to regulators by LK> patentholder in defiance of documents filed under penalty of LK> perjury with USPTO.



LK> [This situation] requires men and women of conscience and lovers LK> of justice to respond to ongoing injustices of pending cases in LK> various court systems to document these facts, assemble the LK> documentation into a coherent whole, publish the location of the LK> documentation, disburse copies of concise summaries to LK> appropriate parties with links to the documentation. Because of LK> evidences of corporate corruption of persons and agencies in the LK> United States of America, mirror sites offshore should be LK> expeditiously established.

LK> when Monsanto acquired Agracatus it also acquired a patent which LK> covers all soybean plants genetically engineered using biolistics.

What's biolistics? It sounds like it's referring to the use of a "gene gun".

LK> As with other companies Monsanto is pushing the boundaries LK> between discovery and invention as well as seeking to gain the LK> broadest possible patents, despite this prior to Monsanto's LK> acquisition of Agracatus it challenged the validity of the broad LK> scope of the soybean patent.

Give them a fraction of an inchs' entrance and they'll take all they can get. The only principle involved is personal / corporate gain.

I see my interpretation of biolistics was right on target:

LK> United States Patent 5,015,580 LK> Christou , et al. May 14, 1991 LK> Particle-mediated transformation of soybean plants and lines

LK> Abstract

LK> A method and apparatus is disclosed for the genetic LK> transformation of soybean plants and plant lines by particle LK> mediated transformation. FOREIGN GENES ARE INTRODUCED into LK> regenerable soybean tissues BY coating on CARRIER PARTICLES LK> WHICH ARE PHYSICALLY ACCELERATED INTO PLANT TISSUES. The treated LK> plant tissues are then recovered and regenerated into whole LK> sexually mature plants. The progeny are recovered from seed set LK> by these plants and a portion of these progeny will contain in LK> their genome the foreign gene. THE PROCEDURE MAY BE USED TO LK> CREATE NOVEL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SOYBEAN PLANTS AND LINES.

LK> Assignee: Agracetus (Middleton, WI) LK> Appl. No.: 193357 LK> Filed: May 12, 1988

LK> -- Regulators were deceived that PATENTABLE, ipso facto NOVEL, LK> ORGANISMS were incremental developments of insufficient newness LK> as to be virtually the same as UNPATENTABLE organisms.

They have patented a process used for gene insertion.

The contradiction here is that GM crops are "new and novel" for the purpose of the patent and "substantially equivalent" for the purpose of avoiding comprehensive, long term tests.

In any case, the significant factor is not the contradiction - which can be put to one side with a bit of legalese by an equally unscrupulous lawyer and judge. The significant factor is power, and of course who wields it.

What we observe is part of developmental model designed to foster personal gain for a few while castrating and exploiting the rest. In the context of that model, the law and politics are tools like anything else. In philosophical terms, the failure of this model rests on it's failure to lead to anything intrinsically good except trade, consumption and more trade, since "good" is defined as whatever gives the model's designers and adherents more power over others, including a set of "rules" that provide them with a clear path ("the right") to exploit everyone else.

This is no more than playing with your mind, and is intended to instill a general sense of acceptance by virtue of it's inevitability, for their doing what would otherwise be unacceptable.

Don't swallow that pill.

They may own the ballpark, but there are better games to be played and better folks to play them with.

And that friends, is what we're here to construct. SERA is about looking for a better way. While we're doing that, we can continue to analyze these issues, which have to be dealt with in any case.

The questionable legal issue here is that having been granted a patent for a new and novel process used to insert a gene in what becomes sexually reproducible seed in succeeding generations, Monsanto and others have shifted their emphasis toward assuming rights, not in relation to the patented process itself but over the RESULTS of that process, in spite of the obvious fact that the letter of the law -as things now stand- does NOT grant them that right.

Additionally, they are assuming rights for varieties they hold no patent for, by virtue of an inevitable and natural contamination that occurred via processes that are neither new nor novel and in fact, form a traditional part of the current art of farming.

(See E. Ann Clark's excellent and emphatic statement on Schmeisser's behalf in this regard on the www.percyschmeisser.com website): http://www.percyschmeiser.com/crime.htm

IOW, while a hybrid is a hybrid in great part by virtue of it's inability to reproduce consistently under Open Pollenization and therefore, must be reproduced by continually re-crossing the sources (which by no means constitutes asexual reproduction but IS mentioned specifically -although not fully defined- in the classification) , the significant (patent and "value added" bearing) genetic characteristics of GM crops do not degenerate in the same way.

While they may be (and are in fact) unstable, any crossing that occurs is nevertheless likely to contain the GM gene, which is no longer contained in a plant developed under a patented process and in fact, is no longer contained in a plant that has the same characteristics as the one derived from the seed that was sold.

Additionally, it was created via sexual reproduction of a plant containing what became a stray and potentially unwanted gene.

In any case, it was not the variety that was patented but rather, the process used to insert a single or multiple traits.

The problem here is that there is nothing to prevent government from extending the patent's coverage in order to protect the patent holder's "intellectual property rights" and therefore, his, her or it's right to impose those rights to the detriment of the rest of the world, if that's their intention. (Let's see if that happens).

LK> "that the corporation be dissolved in all jurisdictions where it LK> conducts business."

That's easily enough done by not purchasing their products. Meanwhile, they'll still continue to contaminate fields as well as menace and litigate farmers.

Frankly, I don't think there's an army big and well equipped enough to make this stick over the major part of the planet. There is not doubt about it (and I have said this before): The USA is painting itself into a corner by banking on these kinds of tactics, which are unsustainable biologically, ethically, morally, socially, politically and economically.

If US & Canadian courts and the corporate goons in government are fronting for these kinds of abuses -abuses that will not be tolerated by the rest of the world- coupled with the failure of GM crops to perform as promised and in fact, consistently under-perform standard varieties, the only questions are how much damage is going to occur before this becomes apparent and what can we do to accelerate and implant public awareness.

One consideration is containing the damage, educating and litigating in the USA while preventing or impeding a repetition of the process elsewhere, For instance: During the WTO's Cancun event, GM lollipops was given out to kids and GM food was distributed within a nearby poor community.

Under Mexico's present Federal Penal Code this is a criminal offense. If those who perpetrated this crime can be identified, charges can be filed and extradition proceedings initiated. The patent holders aren't the only ones that can fire warning shots across the bow and make an example of the "offenders" they themselves create.

What's happening is happening for two simple reasons:

Those responsible for protecting the public interest are incompetent, have no foresight or could care less about what we and the rest of world want and deserve. They are riding the corporate biotechnology horse and will ride roughshod over anyone and anything that gets it their way if they're able.

GW Bush was at a total loss in the presidency before 9/11, intent only on accessing Alaskan oil, and cutting both corporate taxes and social programs.

Now I am getting faxes via my email linked Chicago number offering stocks emitted by a company that wants to feed biotech interferon to America's cows to keep them free of bioterrorism and another that sterilizes produce trucks for the same reason.

Meanwhile, the budget goes to GWB cronies Halliburton and Bechtol for "rebuilding" Iraq, as Iraqis pick off foreign troops one by one and Arnold decides to keep people he doesn't want there from driving legally, while eating the food they harvest.

Did anyone know that the USA would slide downhill or that things would get as bad as they are as fast as they have ? Did anyone know that Letting George Do It would lead to where it has?

I seriously doubt that the USA can survive four more years of this insanity. Let's hope it won't have to.

Douglas

********************************************************
 
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0312&L=sanet-mg&F=&S=&P=19357


Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 14:15:57 -0800
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group

Sender: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group

From: Heide Hermary
Subject: Re: Prakash Cheap Shot
In-Reply-To: <20031209213412.97621.qmail@web11201.mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed

Thank you, Lion, for passing along all the information you have in the last month or so. I, for one, did not know all this - most normal people don't expect such treachery. And how are we to find out except from people who don't mince words, and who have the courage to compile it and publish it for us. Heide

Lion Kuntz wrote:

>CS Prakash caught in lies many times in many places.
>Has credentials puffed up by phoney awards from his
>paymaster serial murderer corporations-owned
>front-propaganda mills. CS Prakash is a liar. CS
>Prakash is a fraud. CS Prakash is a hack phoney. The
>reason that CS Prakash has never sued for libel
>against all these charges of his frauds is because
>DISCOVERY allows subpoena of payment records of his
>employers which would blow the doors off their secrecy
>network, so Prakash has to stand and take the spittal.
>
>
>=================================
>http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Sound-Science-Prakash20jun03.htm
more....
 
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0312&L=sanet-mg&F=&S=&P=18635

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:34:12 -0800
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group

Sender: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group

From: Lion Kuntz
Subject: Re: Prakash Cheap Shot
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.2.20031209090426.00aa0d90@pop3.norton.antivirus>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

CS Prakash caught in lies many times in many places. Has credentials puffed up by phoney awards from his paymaster serial murderer corporations-owned front-propaganda mills. CS Prakash is a liar. CS Prakash is a fraud. CS Prakash is a hack phoney. The reason that CS Prakash has never sued for libel against all these charges of his frauds is because DISCOVERY allows subpoena of payment records of his employers which would blow the doors off their secrecy network, so Prakash has to stand and take the spittal.

================================= http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Sound-Science-Prakash20jun03.htm

mindfully.org note: The sound science of CS Prakash is quite different than what most of us take for granted. In a word, it is a sham—no more than expensive smoke and mirrors. It involves vicious underhanded tactics on attack any person, scientist, or organization that speaks out against genetic engineering. It includes multimillion-dollar disinformation campaigns, implicit and explicit threats, lawsuits, and any other means to discourage negative public comments from being known and/or believed. Personal attacks are more common than scientific attacks. This is because he, quite simply, lacks the one thing that he claims others do not possess, that being......sound science.

These attacks are financed and led by the likes of Monsanto, the company that we all know as the maker of Agent Orange, and other fine chemicals that have left the environment and people ruined. Prakash sound science is extremely myopic in scope—not at all inclusive of known facts. He is otherwise known as an industry flack or hack.

His own financers are the special interests who have arranged this Ministerial Conference in Sacramento. It is a "Dog and Pony Show" for biotech and irradiation corporations. The safety of biotech crops could not have been proven because they have been around for only a few years. Since there is no precedent to them, how can anyone know of their safety without long-term testing, which has not been done.

The benefits are so slim and/or negative that Monsanto has been bared from doing any business in one major state of India. There are hunger strikes by farmers against these crops. The farmers also burn GMO fields in protest and pull the crops. If a farmers field becomes contaminated by GMO pollen or seeds that farmer may be sued by the owner of the patent. And many farmers have been sued by Monsanto. They make vicious attacks on farmers in an attempt to ruin them financially and to tear apart the social structure of our society.

Prakash touts the endorsement of such people as Norman Borlaug. His ideas brought us the Green Revolution, which the "Gene Revolution" is supposed to remedy by making pesticides obsolete and increasing harvests. Neither of these promises has been delivered.

Genetically modified crops have nothing to do with feeding starving people. They are meant to control the food supply and make unforeseen profits for the people at the top of these corporations. ================================= http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Devinder-Sharma-Replies-Prakash.htm
more....

 
http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0312&L=sanet-mg&F=&S=&P=18635

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 09:25:14 -0800
Reply-To: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group

Sender: Sustainable Agriculture Network Discussion Group

From: Chuck Benbrook
Subject: Prakash Cheap Shot
Comments: To: Klaus Wiegand
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
 
CS Prakash caught in lies many times in many places. Has credentials puffed up by phoney awards from his paymaster serial murderer corporations-owned front-propaganda mills. CS Prakash is a liar. CS Prakash is a fraud. CS Prakash is a hack phoney. The reason that CS Prakash has never sued for libel against all these charges of his frauds is because DISCOVERY allows subpoena of records of his employers which would blow the doors off their secrecy network, so Prakash has to stand and take the spittal.


=================================
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Sound-Science-Prakash20jun03.htm

mindfully.org note:
The sound science of CS Prakash is quite different than what most of us take for granted. In a word, it is a sham—no more than expensive smoke and mirrors. It involves vicious underhanded tactics on attack any person, scientist, or organization that speaks out against genetic engineering. It includes multimillion-dollar disinformation campaigns, implicit and explicit threats, lawsuits, and any other means to discourage negative public comments from being known and/or believed. Personal attacks are more common than scientific attacks. This is because he, quite simply, lacks the one thing that he claims others do not possess, that being......sound science.

These attacks are financed and led by the likes of Monsanto, the company that we all know as the maker of Agent Orange, and other fine chemicals that have left the environment and people ruined. Prakash sound science is extremely myopic in scope—not at all inclusive of known facts. He is otherwise known as an industry flack or hack.

His own financers are the special interests who have arranged this Ministerial Conference in Sacramento. It is a "Dog and Pony Show" for biotech and irradiation corporations. The safety of biotech crops could not have been proven because they have been around for only a few years. Since there is no precedent to them, how can anyone know of their safety without long-term testing, which has not been done.

The benefits are so slim and/or negative that Monsanto has been bared from doing any business in one major state of India. There are hunger strikes by farmers against these crops. The farmers also burn GMO fields in protest and pull the crops. If a farmers field becomes contaminated by GMO pollen or seeds that farmer may be sued by the owner of the patent. And many farmers have been sued by Monsanto. They make vicious attacks on farmers in an attempt to ruin them financially and to tear apart the social structure of our society.

Prakash touts the endorsement of such people as Norman Borlaug. His ideas brought us the Green Revolution, which the "Gene Revolution" is supposed to remedy by making pesticides obsolete and increasing harvests. Neither of these promises has been delivered.

Genetically modified crops have nothing to do with feeding starving people. They are meant to control the food supply and make unforeseen profits for the people at the top of these corporations.
=================================
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Devinder-Sharma-Replies-Prakash.htm

Devinder Sharma replies to C.S. Prakash
Norfolk Genetic Information Network (ngin) 10may01

Devinder Sharma is a food and trade policy analyst. Mailing address: 96-A, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi-110 049 Tel: 656 2326

--- Subject: Re: rice genome To: Dr C.S. Prakash, Tuskegee University

Dear Dr Prakash,

A few months back the US-based biotechnologist, C.S. Prakash, responded to an article on the rice genome by New Delhi based food and trade policy analyst, Devinder Sharma. As Prakash's points are often raised by GM proponents, Devinder Sharma's detailed point by point replies are of particular interest.

Below Devinder's reply is his article, "Rice genome mapping NO RESPITE FOR THE HUNGRY"

I have tried to answer your concerns, point by point. What you said in your letter, is in bold letters, followed by my reply.

Devinder Sharma

[C.S.P.] You make some valid points about the problems facing rice farmers but you cite many current and past problems which have nothing to do with biotechnology.

[D.S.] Biotechnology CANNOT operate in isolation. It too operates under the prevailing political economy. To say that the rice genome mapping will help result in increased production in the years to come is simply an emotional and PR exercise, which cuts very well with the politicians and policy makers. But in reality, what is the use of these "biotechnological breakthroughs" when the farmers (in India, for instance) are being asked not to produce more?
=================================
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Prakash-To-Go13may03.htm

Response

I have read the article Time for the GM Moratorium to Go, by G. Conko and C.S. Prakash published in the Wall Street Journal (Europe), May 13, 2003. [At left]

The article quotes, as many others do, that in India, poor farmers have benefited greatly from GM crops, in this case, Bt cotton. The article says, "But many of the same GM crops available in North America are already helping poor farmers in South Africa, India, China, and the Philippines combat often-voracious insects while reducing the amount of insecticides or eliminating them altogether".

This is simply not true of India, and the authors know it. They are both familiar with the public debate on the Indian Bt cotton experience. Gregory Conko was present at a seminar I gave in IFPRI, Washington recently, where I presented results of a field study conducted by Gene Campaign, in two Indian states where Bt cotton was grown. This study shows that Bt cotton has performed very poorly in these states, pesticide use is only minimally reduced and these savings are not enough to offset the huge difference four to five times) in the price of seed. The Gene Campaign study shows that about 60 % of the farmers could not recover their investments and made losses.

There are other reports which point in the same direction. Studies done by the FAO, Greenpeace and the Government of Andhra Pradesh (AP), show similarly poor performance. The AP state government has admitted that Bt cotton has not done well and they are seeking compensation from Monsanto for farmers who have suffered losses, as is Gene Campaign.

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), India's apex regulatory body has asked for a state wise review of why the crop has performed poorly. The Standing Committee on Agriculture, in the Indian Parliament has pronounced after seeing the data, that it "sees no merit in Bt cotton" because the performance did not match the exaggerated claims. The GEAC has since witheld approval for commercialising Bt cotton in the North Indian states after the poor experience in South India.

Despite all this information floating on list serves and the media, Conko and Prakash, both well known biotechnology lobbyists, deliberately make a claim that is unsubstantiated and false. This kind of misinformation can be dangerous because it can influence policy makers to take decisions that could ultimately end up hurting the farmers. The Biotech lobby must draw the line somewhere and exercise some restraint in its promotional efforts.

*

Suman Sahai,
Gene Campaign, India.
http://www.genecampaign.org


=================================
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/Prakash-To-Go13may03.htm

*

More on Uncle Sam's new Minister of Information:
*

Prof Channapatna Prakash, the great deceiver
*

Seeds of dissent
*

Corporate Phantoms
*

Part of the Network: How CS Prakash and AgBioWorld are part of a network of pro-corporate extremists
*

GM food and Orissa - the real story
*

Prof Prakash - sent to lie abroad?
*

Dear Professor Prakash . . .
*

Prakash mouthing Andura's script?
*

Prakash lies proliferate
=================================
Monsanto: Up to its Dirty Tricks Again JONATHAN MATTHEWS / The ...
... Among early signatories to a pro-agbiotech petition launched by AgBioView list
editor, Prof CS Prakash, the following details can be found: NAME: emmanuel ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/ Monsanto-Dirty-Tricks-AgainMay02.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

UK Schools GM Scandal - US Propaganda Initiative Begins NLP ...
... CS Prakash took part in a US Speaker program on agricultural biotechnology in which
he and Matt Ridley, columnist in The Daily Telegraph, engaged in a public ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/ US-Propaganda-Initiative-UK.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

GM Crops Irrelevant for Africa JONATHAN MATTHEWS / ISIS 18sep03
... DeGrassi also notes: "Another surprising example of advocacy trumping facts is CS
Prakash, the influential biotechnology advocate who has advised the US Trade ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/ Irrelevant-For-Africa18sep03.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Seeds of Dissent: Anti-GM scientists are facing widespread ...
... The central co-ordinator of the attacks has been CS Prakash who is a professor of
Plant Molecular Genetics at Tuskegee University, Alabama, and who runs the ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/ Seeds-Dissent-Issue15apr02.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

US and Cooperating Countries File WTO Case Against EU Moratorium ...
... Joining Zoellick and Veneman at the Washington announcement were Dr. CS Prakash
(organizer of a pro-agricultural biotech declaration signed by 20 Nobel ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/US-WTO-Biotech13may03.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Genetic Engineering Jan-Jun 2003 mindfully.org
... Percy Schmeiser / SF Chronicle 20jun03: Sound Science Must Prevail
in Sacramento - CS Prakash (+ comments) / AgBioWorld 20jun03. ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/ge-2003-1.htm - 70k - Cached - Similar pages

"Eat GMO Food Or STARVE!" 14 Million Facing Starvation Unless ...
... commodities." And the kind of 'eat GM or starve' rhetoric coming out of USAID, an
organisation advised by biotech industry stalwart CS Prakash, also appears ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/ Eat-GMOs-Or-STARVE-Africa28jul02.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

1,500 March in Boston to Protest Biotech Food New York Times ...
... CS Prakash of Tuskegee University, as saying that "biotech crops allow farmers to
grow more food on less land with less synthetic pesticides and herbicides.". ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/1500-Protest-Boston.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

Biotech Crop Debate Focuses on Poor Countries Andrew Pollack / ...
... attitude that these farmers are gullible and ignorant and we have to take care to
protect them from Western influences is absurd," said CS Prakash, a professor ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/Debate-Poor-Countries.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Biotech's Hall of Mirrors: A Very Dirty Game JONATHAN MATTHEWS / ...
... first on the listserv of AgBioWorld, a pro-biotech group co-founded by Greg Conko
of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and one CS Prakash, who edits an ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/ Biotech-Mirrors-Matthews8mar03.htm - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

The fake persuaders: Corporations are inventing people to rubbish ...
... suspicion. Its moderator, the biotech enthusiast Professor CS Prakash,
claims to have no connection to the Bivings Group. But when ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Bivings-Group-14may02.htm - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Genetic Engineering 2001 mindfully.org
... Wall Street Journal 11may01. Devinder Sharma replies to CS Prakash
- Norfolk Genetic Information Network 10may01. Groups Seek FDA ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/ge-2001.htm - 101k - Cached - Similar pages

Pioneer v. JEM AgSupply may sprout rude awakening David Dechant / ...
... -- ---There is a consensus within the scientific community that genetic modification
is a safe method for improving food production." - CS Prakash. ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/GE3/Pioneer-vs-JEM.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

Your World
... Kenneth W Mirvis Ed.D. Design by: Snavely Associates, Ltd., Illustrations by: Patrick
W Britten, Science Advisor: CS Prakash, Professor Tuskeegee University. ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Biotechnology-And-You.htm - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

Chapela & Quist: Kernels of Truth KARA PLATONI / East Bay Express ...
... One major online forum was the site of AgBioWorld Foundation, run by CS Prakash,
a plant molecular genetics professor at Tuskegee University and vocal ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/ Chapela-Quist-Kernels-Of-Truth29may02.htm - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

The 'Golden Rice' Tale Ingo Potrykus / AgBioView 23oct00
... Iowa, which surfaced agreements on this line between all participants, including
major agboitech companies (for more information contact CS.Prakash; e-mail ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/Golden-Rice-Ingo-Potrykus.htm - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

Organochlorine-associated Immunosuppression in Prefledgling ...
... Roy Kirkpatrick, Michael Vaughan, Klaus Elgert, Prakash Nagarkatti, Sean Kennedy,
and two ... 69. Lahvis G, Wells RW, Kuehl DW, Stewart JL, Rhinehart HL, Via CS. ...
www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/ Organochlorine-Herring-Gulls-Fox.htm - 89k - Cached - Similar pages
=================================
http://www.envirotruth.org/moore.cfm (Natl Center For Public Policy propaganda-front)

GREENPEACE FOUNDER SUPPORTS BIOTECHNOLOGY
Moore Criticizes Colleagues for Opposing Golden Rice

Contact: C.S. Prakash at (334) 727-8023 or prakash@agbioworld.org
Patrick Moore at patrickmoore@home.com
=================================
http://www.clearproject.org/ACVvol9no5.html

2. New NCPPR website targets green activists
The National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) has launched a new web site to "tell the truth" about environmental and consumer activists who NCPPR consider to be a "public nuisance." (http://www.envirotruth.org)

The topics specifically addressed are biotech foods, chlorine, climate change, eco-terrorism and PVC/pthalates. Organizations such as Greenpeace, Health Care Without Harm, Sierra Club and others are taken to task for waging particular campaigns or using particular tactics. In every example, the only "truth" NCPPR comes up with is provided by the same small group of industry-funded scientists/public policy "experts" we've been hearing from for the past decade or more: Michael Fumento, American Council on Science and Health, Science and Environmental Policy Project, etc.
=================================
http://www.biotech-info.net/well_funded.html

Prakash Admits Agbioworld Bastard Child of "well-funded front for corporations"

Norfolk Genetic Engineering Network (NGIN)
March 6, 2002

In 'Part of the Network: How Prof CS Prakash and his AgBioWorld campaign are part of a network of pro-corporate extremists' (first published as an article in SPLICE, Vol. 7, Issue 6), NGIN first exposed how, since it's very inception, C. S. Prakash's AgBioWorld campaign had been tied into the Competitive Enterprise Institute - a rightwing thinktank funded by the likes of Philip Morris and Dow Chemicals and notorious for its extreme pro-corporate agenda.

http://www.prwatch.org/improp/cei.html>http://www.prwatch.org/improp/cei.html

In the article we exposed how the Prakash petition, AgBioWorld's launch pad, which had always been presented as a Third World scientist's rallying point for fellow academics, actually formed part of the Competitive Enterprise Institute's wider campaign against "death by regulation" - the same CEI campaign that has encouraged smoking as a political rejection of government education programmes because, according to the CEI, "there are things more valuable than health"!

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **
=================================
"Corporate Science on the Offensive"
... Dr. CS Prakash, Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee
University (USA), is the latest corporate recruit to deal with the ...
www.biotech-info.net/offensive.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

Battling Hunger with Biotechnology
Gregory Conko Director of Food Safety Policy Competitive Enterprise Institute
and CS Prakash Professor of Plant Molecular Genetics Tuskegee University. ...
www.biotech-info.net/battling_hunger.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

No bio-terror fear from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) say plant ...
... plants are unfounded". CS Prakash 334-727-8023 or 334-663-1511 AgBioWorld.com
October 29, 2001. Tuskegee, AL, Oct. 29 -- As letters ...
www.biotech-info.net/bioterror.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

"Boom and Bust of Insect Resistant Bt Cotton?"
"Boom and Bust of Insect Resistant Bt Cotton?". CS Prakash ISB NewsReport July,
1997. ... CS Prakash Center for Plant Biotechnology Research Tuskegee University. ...
www.biotech-info.net/boom.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

Amazing Disgrace
... Among early signatories to a pro-agbiotech petition launched by AgBioView list
editor, Prof CS Prakash, the following details can be found: NAME: emmanuel ...
www.biotech-info.net/disgrace.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

"Hundreds of Scientists Sign Biotechnology Declaration"
... for Civil Society, featured Dr. CS Prakash, Director of the Center for Plant Biotechnology
Research at Tuskegee University, the author of the proclamation. ...
www.biotech-info.net/biotech_declaration.html - 6k - Cached - Similar pages

Amazing Disgrace
... The central co-ordinator of the attacks has been CS Prakash who is a professor
of Plant Molecular Genetics at Tuskegee University Alabama, and who runs the ...
www.biotech-info.net/dissent.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Engineering Crops in a Needy World
... Another non-corporate scientist is CS Prakash, a 43-year-old Bangalore
native now based in Alabama. Prakash is a compact and intense ...
www.biotech-info.net/needy_world.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

Grains of Hope
... CS Prakash, a scientist at the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee
University in Alabama, recently accused anti-GM activists of being "well-fed ...
www.biotech-info.net/hope.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

Rice Genome Brings Hope, Controversy
... Completing the rice genome is a major landmark in our advancement in plant biotechnology,"
says CS Prakash, professor in plant molecular genetics and director ...
www.biotech-info.net/genome_hope2.html - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

"Critics of Biotechnology Are Called Imperialists"
... attitude that these farmers are gullible and ignorant and we have to take care to
protect them from Western influences is absurd," said CS Prakash, a professor ...
www.biotech-info.net/imperialist_critics.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

LOOK MOM! NO ANTIBIOTIC MARKER GENES!
"LOOK MOM! NO ANTIBIOTIC MARKER GENES!". CS Prakash Center for Plant
Biotechnology Research Tuskegee University. Selectable marker ...
www.biotech-info.net/LOOK_MOM.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

"The irony of illegal Bt cotton"
"The irony of illegal Bt cotton". CS Prakash The Hindu November 7, 2001.
THE ISSUE of illegal Bt cotton making headlines in the Indian ...
www.biotech-info.net/irony.html - 9k - Cached - Similar pages

"United States v. European Union"
... So do the Scientific Academies of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, the UK and the US
Dr. CS Prakash of Tuskegee University presented me with a statement signed by ...
www.biotech-info.net/US_v_EU.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

Hungry for Biotech
... Professor CS Prakash teaches plant molecular genetics at Tuskegee University.
He has recently received endorsements from 2,200 scientists ...
www.biotech-info.net/hungry_for_tech.html - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

Corporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on ...
... suspicion. Its moderator, the biotech enthusiast Professor CS Prakash,
claims to have no connection to the Bivings Group. But when ...
www.biotech-info.net/inventions.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

"Golden Rice and Beyond
... was part of a recent satellite meeting associated with the World Food Prize Symposium
2000 in Des Moines, Iowa (for more information, contact CS Prakash, e-mail ...
www.biotech-info.net/GR_and_beyond.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

Kernels of Truth
... One major online forum was the site of AgBioWorld Foundation, run by CS Prakash,
a plant molecular genetics professor at Tuskegee University and vocal ...
www.biotech-info.net/kernals_of_truth.html - 48k - Cached - Similar pages

The "Golden Rice" Tale
... Iowa, which surfaced agreements on this line between all participants, including
major agboitech companies (for more information contact CS.Prakash; e-mail ...
www.biotech-info.net/GR_tale.html - 55k - Cached - Similar pages

The Benefits of Biotech
... The Genetically Modified Crop Debate in the Context of Agricultural Evolution,
by CS Prakash. Plant Physiology, Vol. 126, No. 1 (2001). ...
www.biotech-info.net/biotech_benefits.html - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

The Maturation of Agricultural Biotechnology Risk Assessment ...
... Mann CC. 2002. Has GM corn `invaded' Mexico? Science 295: 1617-1618. Conko G
and Prakash CS. Report of transgenes in Mexican corn called into question. ...
www.biotech-info.net/research_maturation.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] THE “POLITICAL ECONOMY” OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY FOR THE ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Page 1. THE “POLITICAL ECONOMY” OF AGRICULTURAL BIOTECHNOLOGY
FOR THE DEVELOPING WORLD Klaus M. Leisinger* At the beginning of ...
www.biotech-info.net/political_economy.pdf - Similar pages

Animal Biotechnologies; Benefits and Concerns
... Madan ML, Prakash BS, Jailkhani S., Singla SK, Palta P and Manik RS 1993. ... 69-73. Meghan
CN, Scott CS, Bradley DG, MacHugh DE, Loftus RT and Cunningham EP 1998. ...
www.biotech-info.net/animal_ag.html - 59k - Cached - Similar pages
================================
GMWatch.org
... Attention was recently drawn to how "renowned Tuskegee scientist Dr. CS
Prakash" was "a key component" in Uncle Sam's global GM trade war. ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=912 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... To mark the US Dept of Agriculture's meeting this week for government minsters from
around the world in Sacramento, CS Prakash -- one of the invited speakers ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1007 - 41k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... com/content/business/agriculture/story/6907586p-7857123c.html One of the official
speakers at the US Dept of Agriculture event in Sacramento was CS Prakash. ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1241 - 23k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... The lead item in yesterday's AgBioView, the list of Prof CS Prakash and his pro-GM
AgBioWorld campaign, was a piece headed "Disgusted" by Paul Ohm, taken from ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1561 - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... Subject: GMW: AGBIOVIEW & ITS CAST OF GROTESQUES Date: Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:52:41
The lead item in yesterday's AgBioView, the list of Prof CS Prakash and his pro ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1569 - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... A good example is that of well known pro-GM pundit, CS Prakash, who recently touted
the wonderful results of this project without even bothering to find out ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1706 - 22k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... varieties are less than for conventional varieties." DeGrassi also notes: "Another
surprising example of advocacy trumping facts is CS Prakash, the influential ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1431 - 20k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... 413 Another surprising example of advocacy trumping facts is CS Prakash, the influential
biotechnology advocate who has advised the US Trade Representative. ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1006 - 33k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... According to CS Prakash, "As for Vandana Shiva's 'bullshit award', this was given
to her by her fellow countrymen who are tired of her tirade against anything ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1149 - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... Among CEI's long list of known sponsors are Philip Morris, Pfizer and Dow Chemicals.
CEI has played a key role in CS Prakash's AgBioWorld pro-GM campaign. ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1717 - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... manufacture of seemingly authentic public support." No wonder we gave Gary Bivings,
along with Monsanto and CS Prakash, a pants of the year award: http://ngin ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=957 - 17k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... net/interna.asp?idnews=18890 Biotech industry stooge CS Prakash who will be speaking
in Sacramento has issued the following press release: "Sound Science Must ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=962 - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... www.sacbee.com/content/business/agriculture/story/6907586p-7857123c.h tml One of
the official speakers at the Sacramento event was CS Prakash, the biotech ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1253 - 45k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... With this case, we are fighting for the interests of US agriculture,' said Veneman,
who was joined on the podium by Dr CS Prakash - one of the US's most pro ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1164 - 24k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... The lead item in a recent AgBioView, the list of Prof CS Prakash and
his pro-GM AgBioWorld campaign, was a piece headed "Disgusted". ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1607 - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... Another surprising example of advocacy trumping facts is CS Prakash, the influential
biotechnology advocate who has advised the US Trade Representative. ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1012 - 76k - Cached - Similar pages

GMWatch.org
... Technical_Paper_6.pdf http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1836 + PRAKASH CLAIMS
BENBROOK IS PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC Biotech front man Prof CS Prakash wrote to ...
www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1845 - 55k - Cached - Similar pages
=================================
http://www.checkbiotech.org/blocks/dsp_document.cfm?doc_id=32

17 Aug 2000
doc33a Do GMOs pay?

It's a question about dollar and cents. C. S. Prakash argues that, at the end, GMOs really pay off for the farmer.

C. S. Prakash
Progressive Farmer

One study leads to the conclusion that they might not. But that doesn‘t mean farmers won’t - or shouldn‘t - continue to use them. Genetically modified crops hit the dirt five years ago. The question about them today is not whether they work - Bts and Roundup Ready generally live up to production expectations. No, the question is about dollars and cents: There is evidence that the economic benefit of these new crops is slim, although it‘s not nonexistent.

=================================
http://www.bharattextile.com/newsitems/1986817

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=BT+cotton+failure+India&sa=N&tab=nw
Searched the web for BT cotton failure India.
Results 1 - 100 of about 5,700. Search took 0.36 seconds.

Bt cotton failure in China/Inquiry demanded in India
5 June 2002. BT COTTON FAILURE IN CHINA/INQUIRY DEMANDED IN INDIA.
FORUM FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY & FOOD SECURITY NEW DELHI-110 063, INDIA ...
ngin.tripod.com/050602a.htm - 8k - Cached - Similar pages

Indian government lied over GM cotton failure - Greenpeace India
... Although India has more land under cotton cultivation than any other ... shrugged off
the charges and attributed the failure of the first BT cotton crop in ...
ngin.tripod.com/140103c.htm - 5k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from ngin.tripod.com ]

Bt Cotton Failure: It's Now Official DEVINDER SHARMA / AgBioIndia ...
... reading: Please refer to AgBioIndia Bulletins at http://www.agbioindia.org/archives
for a number of reports and analysis on the failure of Bt cotton in India. ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/ India-Bt-Cotton-Failure5mar03.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

India's GM Bt Cotton: Incredible Success . . . or Failure? NGIN ...
... Failure of Bt. Cotton in India Research Foundation for Science, Technology
and Ecology, India Sep 26, 2002. Failure of Bt. Cotton ...
www.mindfully.org/GE/2003/ India-Bt-Cotton-Failure8feb03.htm - 46k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.mindfully.org ]

BT COTTON FAILURE IN CHINA/INQUIRY DEMANDED IN INDIA
[Index][Thread] BT COTTON FAILURE IN CHINA/INQUIRY DEMANDED IN INDIA. To: gentech@gen.free.de;
Subject: BT COTTON FAILURE IN CHINA/INQUIRY DEMANDED IN INDIA; ...
www.gene.ch/gentech/2002/Jun/msg00104.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages

2-Plants: Failure of Bt cotton in India (1)
[Index][Thread] 2-Plants: Failure of Bt cotton in India (1). To: GENET-news ;
Subject: 2-Plants: Failure of Bt cotton in India (1); ...
www.gene.ch/genet/2003/Apr/msg00061.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.gene.ch ]

Textile News - Textile - Cotton News - INDIA: Failure Of BT ...
INDIA: The failure of Bt cotton, and that too in its very first year of
planting is well-documented. So much so that even a Parliamentary ...
www.bharattextile.com/newsitems/1986373 - 27k - Cached - Similar pages

Textile News - Textile - Cotton News - INDIA: Central Team To ...
... and government officials in the state to study the failure of cotton crop and ... to
the despair of Sabarkantha farmers after their BT cotton variety Bollguard ...
www.bharattextile.com/newsitems/1986207 - 20k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.bharattextile.com ]

Failure of Bt Cotton in India
"Failure of Bt Cotton in India". ... Madhya Pradesh, the heart of the cotton-growing
belt in India, witnessed total failure of genetically engineered Bt cotton. ...
www.biotech-info.net/bt_failure.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Bt cotton -- bitter harvest
... of Madhya Pradesh, one of the cotton headquarters of India, endowed with fertile
black cotton soil, speak of a 100 per cent failure of the Bt cotton crop. ...
www.biotech-info.net/harvest_bitter.html - 10k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.biotech-info.net ]

Bt cotton India
... July: Report on Bt cotton failure in AP and Maharashtra Report ... on crop failure sent
to GEAC Mar: Andhra ... compensation, 2003 April: Monsanto refused Bt MECH-915 ...
life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/geeta/Btcotton_India.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

Bt-Cotton in India and US
... Bt cotton in concerned public eye. Modernized cotton farming in India 1980's Extension
into non-traditional areas 17 1997,1998 Nov-Dec Crop failure, indebtedness ...
life.bio.sunysb.edu/ee/geeta/Bt-Cotton.html - 38k - Cached - Similar pages

The Hindu : 'Bt cotton not a failure'
... 20. Contrary to the earlier reports that the genetically modified Bt Cotton had been
a failure in many areas, the Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) today claimed ...
www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2003/01/ 21/stories/2003012103171300.htm - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

The Hindu : Probe sought into failure of first Bt cotton crop
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Wednesday, Apr 16, 2003. ... Page Send this
Article to a Friend Probe sought into failure of first Bt cotton crop. ...
www.hinduonnet.com/2003/04/16/ stories/2003041601471300.htm - 14k - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from www.hinduonnet.com ]

Bt cotton in India: Barking up the wrong tree
... This is true in the case of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh in India. The failure has
been confirmed officially by Minister for Agriculture of the Government of ...
www.twnside.org.sg/title/service45.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

=================================

 
http://www.bharattextile.com/newsitems/1986373

INDIA: Failure Of BT Cotton Pushing Farmers Into A Booby Trap
The failure of Bt cotton, and that too in its very first year of planting is well-documented. So much so that even a Parliamentary Committee has put its stamp over the scientific blunder. According to an official report of the Andhra Pradesh Government on the performance of Bt cotton in 2002 — the first year of its commercialisation — "in North Telengana region, the net income from Bt varieties was five times less than the yield from local non-Bt varieties.

In Southern Telengana, the income from Monsanto's Bt crop was nearly seven times less than what was obtained from the indigenous non-Bt cotton varieties, demonstrating the resounding failure of the Monsanto variety."

Surprisingly, no uncomfortable questions have been asked, no heads have rolled, and no one has been held accountable. Neither the farmers have been compensated nor has the industry been blacklisted. The seed industry continues on with impunity, supplying what money watchers call, sub-standard seeds. Further, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has allowed the seed companies to incorporate the Bt gene into any cotton variety.

The GEAC has meanwhile turned defunct. The speed at which its chairman has been replaced puts at shame the infamous `revolving door' concept that exists in Europe and the US. Revolving door is a phrase that is used to indicate the ease with which commercial company executives and the bureaucrats switch jobs. All this raises the question: Should the Indian farmer suffer?

Proponents of the biotechnology industry, however, would not accept this. They keep harping about the significant economic returns that the farmer would get by cultivating Bt cotton. They talked of the benefit to the environment offering figures showing reduced pesticide use.

The Department of Biotechnology (as well as Mahyco-Monsanto) had claimed that despite the extravagant price of the modified seed, the net gain to farmers would be in the range of Rs 10,000 from an acre. The DBT secretary had even gone to the extent of claiming that the yield advantage to the growers would be as high as 80 per cent.

The claims of huge crop yield gains fell flat in the very first year of commercial planting. A look at the serious environmental risks that Bt crops entail, that have actually enabled the Dutch Government to apply the precautionary principle.

Like the GEAC, the Dutch have a Committee on Genetic Modification (Cogem) that is responsible for regulating GM crops in the Netherlands. But, unlike GEAC, Cogem recently sponsored a survey by nine prominent Dutch ecologists, who opined that in line with adherence to the precautionary principle, answers to ecological issues too important to be ignored are still lacking. These include outcrossing of transgenes to related plant species, effects on soil ecosystems and, in particular, impact on multiple layers of the food web.

In a paper "Dutch Precaution Keeps Bt Crops at Bay", Dr Mae-Wan Ho and Dr Jo Cummins, say that the plants are the primary producers to be eaten by primary consumers or herbivores which are, in turn, consumed by the secondary consumers, or carnivores. These feeding relationships form an intricate web of inter- and intra-specific interactions. Incorporating Bt transgenes in a plant genome results in the production of delta-endotoxins, thereby reducing feeding by herbivores. But effects on other levels remain largely unknown.

Quoting entomologists Bart Knols and Marcel Dicke of Wageningen University in the Netherlands, the authors say that accumulation of toxins in non-target herbivores may affect natural enemies, yielding secondary pests that may require chemical-based interventions to reduce crop losses. Persistence of toxins in the soil may affect soil arthropods, and disturbance of below ground interactions may in turn impact on the above ground food web. Further, how a plant allocates resources towards producing toxin affects its metabolism, and that may impact on herbivores and carnivores. These higher-level disturbances may favour evolution of Bt resistance in pests.

No wonder, pest resistance to Bt has emerged all over the globe. In India, it was observed in the very fist year of planting. Was it faulty approval to a faulty variety? In China, where more than five million hectares is under Bt cotton, farmers have to spray more pesticide to control the third and fourth generations of American bollworm insects. With each passing year, the number of pesticide sprays is doubling. In Australia too, farmers are being advised to use more pesticides to keep the insects at bay. If the pest resistance starts to break down in the second generation itself, where is the gain? What has been the advantage of passing on this risky and expensive technology to farmers, and at what cost? Isn't it a fact that the entire gain has been to the seed industry, which has walked away with huge profits, leaving the farmers and the environment in deep crisis?

As in the Netherlands, farming in India is predominantly small scale. And that raises additional concerns to the interaction between Bt crops and the surrounding natural or semi-natural ecosystems, the magnitude of which will be greater than in countries with large-scale Bt-crop cultivation, such as the US. Subsequently, the Bt pollen may have much larger impact on vulnerable and/or endangered insect species, several of which are already on the verge of extinction and survive only in isolated refuge areas. At the same time, studies have shown that cultivation of GM crops has increased the incidence of some fungus and secondary pests that were not a major problem earlier.

There have been no such studies in India. In fact, there are no serious studies to understand the consequences of the failure of regulatory system that allows unhindered multiplication and selling of seeds of inferior Bt cotton varieties.

In India, as elsewhere, the tests on Bt cotton, GM maize, Bt corn and several other crops now under trials, are actually fixed in a way that everyone thinks would enable the technology to pass them. As the British newspaper, Independent (October 12, 2003) said while commenting on the outcome of the research trials in Britain: "Everyone knew, even then, that the main danger to the environment from GM crops was that they would cross-pollinate with nearby plants. So the trials were deliberately designed not to focus on this... Instead they looked at the effects of using different kinds of weedkillers on the crops. Over the next three years, 283 fields across the UK were divided in half: One side was sown with the GM crops and sprayed with the special weedkillers which they had been bred to resist; the other was seeded with conventional crops, and treated with the usual herbicides... more recently, ministers and the industry have begun to be seized by the dread that it might all go horribly wrong, with ministers stressing that the results of the tests would be just one element in the final verdict. And so it seems to have proved."

Furthermore, the seed industry, the DBT and the plant scientists in India justified the introduction of Bt crops in the name of increasing productivity and thereby domestic production enabling the country to turn into a major exporter.

In reality, the government is busy lowering the Custom duties and tariffs to allow cheaper imports to flood the country. Ironically, while the cotton growers in the central region of the country find no buyers for their harvest, cotton imports are multiplying, more than twice in one year — from 21,000 tonnes in 1999 to 49,0 tonnes in 2000.

With the US, China and European Union refusing to reduce their subsidies to cotton growers, there is no possibility for Indian farmers to find a foot in the international market.

Cotton farmers are, therefore, faced with a two-pronged assault. The seed industry is luring them with expensive seed that is increasingly pushing them into bankruptcy and to the hitherto unknown `biological treadmill', whereas the cumulative impact of the World Trade Organisation is drastically reducing international prices and allowing for cheaper cotton to be dumped. Farmers are getting squeezed in the process. What, then, is their future? But then, who cares?

Source: Business Line

November 14, 2003 (25 days ago)

 
http://www.bharattextile.com/newsitems/1986817

INDIA: Govt. Admits Receiving Complaints On Failure Of Bt Cotton
NEW DELHI: Admitting that it had received complaints on the failure of Bt cotton, the first Monsanto-Mahyco developed genetically modified (GM) crop, the Government said it was ready to hold investigation in this regard.

Replying to queries by Opposition members during the question hour, the Minister of State for Agriculture, Mr. Hukamdeo Narayan Yadav, said the Government, examining the performance of the first transgenic crop allowed to be cultivated in five Indian States last season, however found favorable results of crop also.

Charging Monsanto, an American seed multinational, with experimenting on Indian farmers, Opposition members sought compensation to the growers who had suffered loss with the sowing of Bt cot- ton.

Evading a direct reply on the demand of compensation to the farmers, Mr. Yadav said, the Government was ready for holding investigation in this regard.

Raising the issue, Mr. Madhusudan Mistri (Cong) and Dr. DSouza (JD- S) wanted to know what was the Government's policy on sowing of GM crops in the country and accused that some officials responsible for allowing commercial cultivation of Bt cotton were in league with Monsanto and its Indian subsidiary, Mahyco.

However, the Minister denied the charge, saying that the Bt Cotton was put to trial for seven years before allowing its cultivation in Southern and Western states.

The Opposition members were up on their feet, disputing the Minister's claim on the trials and asserted that they were done in a lop-sided manner for only four years as the multinational company had managed to get permission for the cultivation of Bt cotton. -Agencies.

December 9, 2003 (today)

Powered by Blogger