BT COTTON: PANACEA or TROJAN HORSE...?

Collapse of the cotton sector in sub-Saharan Africa

Bt cotton: Panacea or Trojan horse…?

Background:

The cotton sector has collapsed throughout cotton producing and exporting countries in Africa, throwing millions of cotton farmers and their families across Africa deeper into poverty, hunger and misery.

There are several external and internal root economic, structural and political causes behind the collapse of the sector (i.e. US/EU illegal cotton subsidies, structural over supply, $US exchange rate fluctuations, increase in the price of oil and chemical inputs, no local value addition, dumping of used clothing, lack of political will and deficit of intelligent and sound economic policies in African cotton producing countries, exploitation of cotton farmers, human greed, corruption, mediocrity, etc.

The cotton sector is the backbone of the economy in many cotton producing countries in Africa and provides employment and income to millions of small-scale cotton farmers and their families in Tanzania and across Africa.

Cotton sector in Tanzania:

According to statistics published by the Tanzanian Cotton Board, the cotton sector in Tanzania provides employment to over 40% of the population, contributes 15%-20% to the GNP and is the second largest source of foreign exchange.

However, over 80% of the cotton produced in Tanzania is currently exported raw (non-processed ) in the form of lint.

"Kifua" economy...

Tanzania cotton & textile trade

According to statistics published by the Tanzanian Cotton Board, the Tanzanian government generates on average $US 40 million annually in cotton lint exports, but annually imports $US 80 million of textiles and garments, out of which 62% constitutes used clothing known as “kifua”, which literally translates into “dead white men’s clothing…”

Thus, such self-defeating and mediocre economic policies not only generate important financial loses for the people of Tanzania, but also floods the market with cheap "dead white mens' clothing" which destroys the local textile industry.

Furthermore, lack of local processing and local value addition fails to create crucially lacking and desperately needed local employment and generate income within the sector and economic growth within the economy.

To add insult to economic injury, local inhabitants are left with no other alternative than to wear their humiliation daily in the form of “kifua” or “white mens’ dead clothing…”

As nyerere rightly said:

« Africans produce what they do not consume and consume what they do not produce. That has become the basis for african economic enslavement. »

In fact, the architecture of African economies has not changed over the last 100 years, since the infamous Berlin Conference carved up and colonized Africa in 1884-1885. Indeed, Africa is still in its essence a plantation (and a mining) colonial economy trapped in the “Colonial Pact…” And fifty years after so-called "independence", Tanzania and other African countries still “produce what they do not consume and consume what they do not produce…”

Bt cotton: Panacea…?

Barrack Obama and the Monsanto-dominated US administration are politically pressuring African governments to massively introduce Bt cotton in Africa as a “solution” to revive the cotton sector, after having deliberately killed the sector in Africa through illegal US cotton subsidies paid to US multinationals who “dump” their excess production below production costs on the world market/casino.

However, Bt cotton does not address let alone resolve the root economic, structural and political causes behind the collapse of the sector in Africa. On the contrary, Bt cotton significantly worsens the situation by offering to “triple” yields and increase production – using expensive patented sterile seeds and a cocktail of toxic pesticides and herbicides - in a context of structural over supply which is the root economic cause of declining cotton prices which have led to the collapse of the sector…

Vicious trap cycle

To make up for the loss in revenue resulting from low and constantly declining real prices of cotton on the world market, farmers produce and export more cotton, which in turn results in creating a further excess supply of cotton on the world market, further reducing both world cotton prices and farm gate prices, thus further marginalizing and impoverishing both cotton farmers and cotton producing & exporting nations, in conformity with King’s Law of Demand.

King’s Law of Demand

King’s Law of Demand clearly states that a surplus/deficit in a commodity will lead to a proportionally greater decline/increase respectively in the price of the said commodity relative to the surplus or deficit. (i.e. a surplus of 10% in the supply of cotton will lead to a decline of more than 10% in the price of cotton, and vice versa.)

Thus, increasing cotton yields and production will further decrease cotton prices,in conformity with King's Law of Demand...

This is a vicious and deadly trap cycle which is at the root of global poverty in Africa and in the so-called "Third World."

As the Brandt Commission wrote and warned 30 years ago:

“ Structural over-supply in the commodities markets lies at the heart of global poverty and instability” (Willy Brandt, Brandt Report).

Furthermore, Monsanto, the US (through USAID) and their African cronies fraudulently claim that Bt cotton decreases pesticide use and therefore increases farmers’ income by reducing production costs while reducing environmental pollution.

In fact the exact opposite is true, and both independent scientific studies and empirical evidence have debunked these fraudulent claims.

In fact, cotton pests naturally and inevitably develop resistance to Bt cotton and therefore Bt cotton farmers have to use more and more expensive and toxic pesticides to combat pest resistance which increases both their production costs and environmental pollution while decreasing yields, income and profitability.

Furthermore, the genocide of Indian cotton farmers tragically testifies to the socio-economic consequences of Bt cotton. In fact, over 200,000 indebted & bankrupt Indian farmers have lost their lands, seeds and livelihoods and committed suicide since 2002...

As Vandana Shiva writes:

"Every suicide can be linked to Monsanto. Monsanto’s GMOs do not improve farmers’ lives. They have pushed farmers to suicide. 200,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last decade. 84% of the suicides in Vidharbha, the region with highest suicides are linked to debt created by Bt–cotton.

While Monsanto claims its GMO Bt cotton gives 1500 Kg/acre, the average is 300–400 Kg/acre. The claim to increased yield is false because yield, like climate resilience is a multi–genetic trait. Furthermore, pesticide use has increased 13 times as a result of the use Bt cotton seeds in the region of Vidharbha, India.

GMOs are non–renewable, while the open pollinated varieties that farmers have bred are renewable and can be saved year to year. The price of cotton seed was Rs 7/kg. Bt cotton seed price jumped to Rs 1,700/kg. This is neither ecological nor economic or social sustainability. It is eco–cide and genocide."

source: http://www.goal-2025.com/2011/02/26/climate-change-and-agriculture-by-dr-vandana-shiva/

There is of course plenty of information and evidence over the internet on the genocide of cotton farmers in India.

However, despite both the scientific and the empirical evidence and the genocide of Bt cotton farmers in India, African countries are being politically pressured by the US administration, Monsanto and their African cronies to widely adopt Bt cotton as the “solution” to revive the sector.

In fact, Burkina Faso has tragically planted 260,000 ha of bt cotton this year (2010-2011) And the government of Mali has recently granted regulatory approval for open field testing of Bt cotton last year ( Dec 01, 2010). Furthermore, Tanzania has also recently announced plans to massively introduce Bt cotton within the next few years…In fact, the Tanzanian Cotton Board has announced in October 2010 that it will introduce Bt cotton "any time" to "triple" output.

An article published in Bloomberg states:

" Tanzania will start growing genetically modified cotton and offer credit to farmers to almost triple the country’s output, the Tanzania Cotton Board said. The legal framework to grow the genetically modified cotton strain, or BT, had been set up and trials would start “any time,” Marco Mtunga, a regulation officer at the Dar es Salaam- based board, said by e-mail today. “The timeline for introduction of BT has not been charted but the legal framework is in place,” he said. “Results from the pilot indicates that productivity will go up as farmers will receive inputs on credit, reliable extension services will be provided in collaboration of the private sector and the government.”

source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-16/tanzania-to-grow-genetically-modified-cotton-triple-output-board-says.html

As stated above, Bt cotton does not address let alone resolve the root economic, strutural and political causes behind the collapse of the sector in Tanzania and throughout Africa. On the contrary, bt cotton proposes as a « solution » to “triple” output using expensive patented sterile seeds and a cocktail of expensive and toxic chemicals in a context of structural oversupply which is at the root cause of the collapse of the sector!

"Tripling" production will only worsens the current situation by further increasing global supply which will result in further decline in cotton prices, in conformity with King's Law of Demand, thus further impoverishing both cotton farmers and cotton producing & exporting countries in Africa.

But as the proverb says: “ none are blinder than those who refuse to see…”

And Greed is blind…

Below is an overview of the root economic, political and structural causes behind the collapse of the cotton sector in Africa and the socio-economic consequences, health hazards and irreversible genetic pollution and environmental destruction of Bt cotton and GMO's and the (hidden) geopolitical objectives of the US administration, Monsanto and the biotech industry.

I. THE PROBLEM

« A well defined problem is half-resolved .» Einstein

Root economic, political & structural causes behind the collapse of the cotton sector

External factors:

1) US/EU Cotton subsidies

- + 5 billion/year

- Artificially stimulates production in the US/EU which leads to structural overproduction

- Excess production “dumped” on the world market ( i.e. sold below cost of production)

- Supply > Demand

Result:

-> Collapse of cotton lint prices on the world market

-> Millions of non-subsidized cotton farmers in Africa cannot profitably produce, sell and market their cotton on the world market, despite having the lowest farm-gate production costs in the world, and sink deeper into poverty, hunger and misery

2) $US exchange rates

- Cotton lint sold in $US on the world market

- Thus, a devaluation in the $US leads to a further loss in revenue for both cotton farmers and cotton producing-exporting African countries.

3) Increase in the price of oil & inputs

- Inverse relationship between $US and oil prices

- A devaluation in the value of the $US leads to an increase in the price of oil ( to
offset the loss in export revenue from the devaluation effect of the $US)

Results:

-> Increase in the price of oil-based farm inputs ( fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.) resulting from an increase in the price of oil and from unfavorable Terms of Trade

-> Furthermore, an increase in the price of oil translates into an increase in the cost of transport, thereby increasing production costs.

- The deadly inverse relationship between a devaluation of the US dollar and the increase in the price of oil increases the cost of production of cotton farmers on the one hand, while significantly decreasing both the real price of cotton and the revenue and profitability of cotton producers on the other.

Internal factors:

Total deficit of leadership, political will and intelligent economic policies from so-called African “leaders” and governments to revive the sector

Inexistant infrastructures (energy, roads, etc.) which translates into high energy costs, high transport costs, high production/processing costs, etc. and high taxes which result in loss of competitiveness and profitability for farmers, ginners, etc.

Dumping of "kifua" ( used clothing which literally translates into "dead white mens' clothing) on the local market which destroys the local cotton and textile industry.

NO LOCAL VALUE ADDITION

- No local value addition in cotton producing countries ( over 80-90% of cotton exported raw/non-processed)

- No local employment creation, no revenue generation, no wealth creation, no economic growth generated within the sector and in the economy as a whole.

- Fiber exported raw and thus price subjected to the dictate of the world market/casino, distorted by cotton subsidies and the “invisible hand” of speculators and multinationals ( through IMF & World Bank policies that favor overproduction and export of monoculture so-called "cash" crops ( i.e. cotton, coffee, cocoa, etc.)

Reliance on lint exports: vicious trap cycle

- Africa’s/Tanzania’s exclusive reliance on cotton lint exports (+80%-90%) makes it entirely dependent on the dictates of the world market and on external factors over which Tanzania/Africa have no control ( i.e. subsidies, oversupply, $US exchange rate, oil prices, input costs, etc.

- Sector trapped in the “ Colonial Pact”( Export raw cotton and import (used) clothing at a loss…( to add insult to economic injury)

POLITICAL FACTORS:

- IMF Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) and World Bank suicidal economic policies imposed on African countries and blindly followed by so-called african "leaders" which have dismantled local subsidies to African cotton farmers/agriculture and privatized the sector, and which keep African economies trapped in the "Colonial Pact" and in the vicious trap cycle of debt, so-called "aid" and poverty and misery.

BT COTTON: PANACEA…?

Bt cotton does not address nor resolve the above outlined root economic, political & structural causes behind the collapse of the sector.

On the contrary, bt cotton proposes as a « solution » to “triple” output using expensive patented sterile seeds and a cocktail of expensive and toxic chemicals in a context of structural oversupply which is at the root cause of the collapse of the sector!

Furthermore, both independent scientific studies and empirical evidence have demonstrated the socio-economic consequences and the serious health and irreversible environmental hazards associated with Bt cotton and GMO’s ( details below)

Socio-economic cost of Bt cotton

“Indian farmers suicide is directly related to Bt cotton” Vandana Shiva

"Every suicide can be linked to Monsanto," explained scientist Vandana Shiva to the U.K. Independent. After subsidies were lifted, the cost of cotton production rose dramatically, especially when GM cotton was introduced because it required the application of expensive pesticides and herbicides. Natural varieties of cotton, on the other hand, do not necessarily require chemical applications to grow and flourish. And since farmers can save and reuse natural seeds every year, all is not lost during years of poorer yields because farmers can often try again the next year.

But in the GM crop paradigm, the stakes are far higher. Farmers must borrow large sums of money to invest in GM technology. They do so based on promises that yields will increase and profits will soar. But when the promises fail to pan out and farmers are unable to keep paying for the expensive pesticides, they typically end up losing everything, including access to reusable heirloom seeds.

So, many end up killing themselves because they literally have nothing left.
In fact, one statistic from a government report in India states that more than 90 percent of known suicide victims were in debt, which was largely brought about when farmers took the plunge into GM crops from their former methods.

"One farmer every 30 minutes commits suicide in India now, and sometimes three in one family," explained Palagummi Sainath, an Indian journalist, to the U.K. Independent. Left with nowhere to turn and a complete loss of their livelihoods, many farmers are literally drinking their crop pesticides. And since many of these suicides go unreported or unnoticed, actual rates could be even higher than those reported."

source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/indias-hidden-climate-change-catastrophe-2173995.html

Does Bt cotton REALLY decrease pesticide use and increase yields…?

"If the facts dont fit the theory, change the facts." Einstein

Monsanto fraudulently claims that Bt cotton will decrease insecticide usage and increase yields, thereby reduce production costs and increase farmers’ profits while reducing environmental pollution.

However, the following scientific and empirical evidence debunk these fraudulent claims.

Does Bt cotton efficiently combat pests & reduce pesticide usage…?

Insects have naturally become resistant to Bt cotton; as a result, farmers have to spray more and more expensive and toxic insecticides, further increasing their production costs, while irreversibly polluting and destroying the environment and the entire ecosystem.

Pests "thriving and reproducing" on Bt cotton fields in India and China

Two recently published scientific studies carried by (PRO-GMO) government scientists in both India and China ( the 2 largest producers of bt cotton) reveal exponential increase in both secondary cotton pests and pesticide use/expenditure on Bt cotton fields in both India & China

An article in the latest issue of the journal Current Science raises serious questions about the long-term viability of genetically-modified Bt cotton to actually do what it's intended to do, increase pest resistance.

Pests "thriving and reproducing" on Bt cotton fields in India and China

Scientists have found for the first time bollworms pests not only living and surviving on GM cotton, but having offspring that can complete their full lifecycle there.

Looking at two varieties of Bt cotton in commercial use, containing both single and double genes intended to be toxin to the bollworms, the scientists found that the pests were able to survive and reproduce on Bt cotton fields.

Report co-author Aralimarad Prabhuraj told Kolkata's The Telegraph:

"We saw virtually no differences between the biology of insect populations reared on the GM cotton and the non-GM cotton ... We have indeed seen a dramatic boost to India's cotton, but we had always anticipated that at some point in time, we'll encounter pests that can withstand the modified plants. No one knew when it would happen."

India: exponential increase in pests and pesticides use and falling productivity

Keshav Kranthi, a leading Indian entomologist and acting director of India's Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR)] has told the Indian government that the rapid adoption of GM cotton by farmers across the country has coincided with:

-> The rise of hitherto unknown insect pests

-> Increased pesticide applications by farmers

-> Declining cotton productivity over the past three years

Kranthi says 90 per cent of the current GM cotton hybrids appear susceptible to mealybugs and whiteflies. Insecticide use in cotton appears to have increased from Rs 640 crore [6,400,000 rupees] in 2006 to Rs 800 crore [8,000,000 rupees] in 2008, his report said.

China: exponential increase in secondary pests and pesticides usage

Another scientific study published by (pro-GMO) government scientist in China found that Seven years after the commercialization of Bt cotton there, the expenditure on pesticides by Bt cotton farmers was more or less the same as for conventional (non-GM) growers, despite the extra expenditure the Bt farmers were making on GM seeds in order to reduce (supposedly) their need to spray.

Excerpt from the study:

"Seven years after the initial commercialization of Bt cotton in China, we show that total pesticide expenditure for Bt cotton farmers in China is nearly equal to that of their conventional counterparts, about $101 per hectare. Bt farmers in 2004 on the average, have to spray pesticide 18.22 times, which are more than 3 times higher compared with 6 times pesticide spray in 1999."

China: exponential increase in secondary pests and pesticides usage

Detailed information on pesticide expenditures reveals that, though Bt farmers saved 46% Bollworm pesticide relative to non-Bt farmers, they spend 40% more on pesticides designed to kill an emerging secondary pest.

These secondary pests (one example is Mirid) was rarely found in the field prior to the adoption of Bt cotton, presumably kept in check by bollworm populations and regular pesticide spraying.

The extra expenditure needed to control secondary pests nearly offsets the savings on primary pesticide frequently cited in the current literature

In India the picture appears to be even worse with pesticide applications on Bt cotton significantly overtaking those on conventional cotton.

Another recent scientific study published by anthropologists from Washington University (WU) in St. Louis has revealed that Bt cotton is causing significant problems for sustainable farm management, while offering little to no actual increases in yield.

"We are seeing erosion of benefits (with Bt cotton) as non-target pest populations are booming," says Glenn Stone, Ph.D., professor of anthropology in Arts & Sciences at WU, and author of a paper on the issue that appears in the journalWorld Development. "It has also brought a quickening of technological change and undecipherability, which is the real underlying problem."

Though Bt cotton appears to have brought about a slight increase in yields, based on certain statistics, Stone explains that yields were already on the rise prior to the introduction of Bt cotton. And the same problems that plagued agriculture prior to Bt cotton -- many of which were caused by other unsustainable farming practices -- have only become worse now that Bt cotton is the norm in many Indian villages.

"I would love to see Bt seeds as a real solution to these farmers' insect problems, as many have claimed, but this may be a bit naive," he writes. "Each new technology -- hybrids, then pesticide after pesticide -- brought about short-term gains but further eroded farm management."

At least with conventional cotton varieties, farmers were able to save and reuse seeds, and operate independently from the control of powerful biotechnology giants like Monsanto. Now, those who have adopted Bt cotton are stuck in Monsanto's clutches with little to no remedy.

Do GMO’s REALLY increase yield…?

According to a recently published scientific report - Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops - written by Doug Gurian-Sherman and published by the Union of Concerned Scientists in March 2009, the scientific and empirical evidence does not support that claim.

Dr. Doug Gurian Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who was former biotech specialist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and former adviser on GM to the U.S Food and Drug Administration. Sherman states, “Let us be clear. There are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.”

Doug Gurian-Sherman writes:

“For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields. That promise has proven to be empty. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.”

The report concludes that genetic engineering is unlikely to play a significant role in increasing food production in the foreseeable future. The biotechnology industry has been promising better yields since the mid-1990s, but Failure to Yield documents that the industry has been carrying out gene field trials to increase yields for 20 years without significant results

DOES BT COTTON INCREASE YIELDS?

Bt cotton has not been genetically modified to increase yields.

In India, for example, a comparative study of Bt and non-Bt cotton grown in the states of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh found that bolls on the non-Bt cotton plants were bigger and more plentiful. The non-Bt cotton had 95 bolls per plant on average and the Bt cotton had only 50.[26]

Another study of 225 farmers from the Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh, India, found that Bt cotton yields were on average 35% lower than non-Bt cotton crops.

Both studies also found that the conventional cotton had a better quality fibre, resulting in a better price in the market.

According to the authors of the Warangal study,

“In Warangal, all the farmers who had grown Bt crop witnessed a drop in the price for their produce as well as less preference by the traders. So they had resorted to mixing of both Bt and non-Bt seed cotton to offset the drop in the price as well as to push their Bt produce under the cover of non-Bt seed cotton."

"Another important reason for mixing Bt and non-Bt was the shorter staple length of the Bt seed cotton. As Bt seed lint was attracting less price and preference from the market, they had mixed the two before taking their produce to the market.”[27]

Bt cotton quality & market price

In the US, where Bt cotton has been cultivated since 1996, there is an on-going debate over the Bt technology’s effect on cotton fibre and quality.

William Dunavant Jr, the CEO of Dunavant, one of the world’s largest cotton merchants, believes that the Bt technology is reducing the quality of American cotton. “I still believe the seed is a major, major problem and I think a lot of people agree with that,” he told participants to a 2002 national cotton conference in the US.[43]

Farmers and researchers in the US and Australia have also expressed their concern that GM cotton can have a negative impact on cotton quality, especially under certain environmental stresses.

This is what has happened in India, where Bt cotton was commercialised in 2002. Farmers there received a lower price for Bt cotton because it was of poorer quality.[44]

Market price

" It is production costs, not the interaction between supply & demand that determines prices of commodities." David Ricardo – Principles of taxation and of political economy

Contrary to the above economic law, cotton prices are dictated by the world market/casino based on supply & demand previsions, stock levels, climate, political situation and other speculative parameters.

Cotton prices are distorted by US subsidies, oversupply, $US exchange rate, etc. and manipulated by the “invisible hand” of speculators and multinationals ( through IMF/World Bank economic policies favoring overproduction)

Cotton prices in Tanzania

Average farm gate price (Tanzania):

The cost of production for cotton is above 30 US cents in Tanzania, but farmers are now being paid 25 US cents per kilogram mainly as a result of the oversupply in the global market. This fall of 5 US cents from the previous price of 30 US cents per kilogram follows a report by the International Cotton Advisory Committee that world cotton production in 2004/05 was forecast to be 800,000 tonnes above consumption. Global cotton stocks are estimated to be at 8.66 million tonnes.

http://www.grain.org/btcotton/?id=301

Currently, the US dollar exchanges at 1,500/- against the shilling and indications are the green back will strengthen further. Despite all stakeholders of the cotton subsectors - TCB, cotton buyers and ginners - deciding against speculating next year's cotton prices, a mere simple analysis hints that there would be slim chance of farmers receiving 800/- per kilogramme.

http://allafrica.com/stories/201011090695.html

IS BT COTTON PROFITABLE...?

Cost of Bt cotton patented seeds (India 2009/10):

- Monsanto’s Bollgard II: 750 IR/450g

- « Technology fee » ( royalty/patent): 1100 IR/450g

- Consumption/ha: 2,25 kg ( 2 packets/acre = 5 pck/ha)

- Total seed cost /ha: 9250 IR/ha = $US 200/ha

So is Bt cotton profitable…?

Profitability analysis:(Tanzania)

• Cost of patented seeds: $200/ha
• Cost of insecticides ( India/China): $100/ha
• Average yield (2009/India): 800-1000 kg/ha
• Farm-gate production cost: $300-$375/mt
• Farm-gate price (Tanzania): $250-$300/mt

-> Thus, $50 - $125/mt LOSS for farmers!

Note: above production cost do not include labor & other farm inputs, equipment & tools, land cost, depreciation, interest, taxes, etc.

So is Bt cotton profitable…?

Ginning/lint cost:

• Cotton seed farm-gate/break-even cost/price: $US 300-$375/mt
• (GOT 38%): $US 986/mt
• Other ginning costs (est): $300/mt
• Total lint cost ( ex-factory) $US 1286/mt
. CIF (est): $300/mt
. Total landing cost (CIF): $1586/mt
• Average lint CIF price (1975-2009): $0,71/Ib
= $US 1540/mt

-> Ginners’ profit/loss: - $US 46/MT

Furthermore, farmers and ginners will go bankrupt in case of changes in any of the external following factors beyond their control:

• insufficient rain or drought
• Oversupply on the world market
• Fall/decrease in the world price of cotton
• Decrease in the exchange rate/value of the $US
• Increase in the price of oil
• Increase in the price of patented seeds/chemical inputs

Bt cotton unprofitable « solution »

Thus Bt cotton is clearly an unprofitable « solution » that does not address nor resolve the root economic & structural causes behind the collapse of the cotton sector in Tanzania and Africa. On the contrary it significantly makes the situation irreversibly worse!

Patenting of seeds & Terminator Technology

• Furthermore, farmers are not allowed to save and plant Bt cotton seeds the following year

• Farmers must buy expensive patented (sterile) seeds, pesticides, herbicides and other expensive and highly toxic chemical inputs from biotech company each year

• Policy enforced contractually and through Terminator Technology which renders bt cotton seed sterile after harvest.

MONSANTO CONTRACT PROHIBITS SEED SAVING

Monsanto’s contracts specify that:

• The farmers cannot save seeds for replanting

• The farmer cannot share or exchange seeds with anyone else

• The farmer has to pay 120 times the technology fee ( $200/ha X 120 = $24,000!) plus any legal fees incurred by Monsanto if the farmer does not respect the terms of the contract

• The farmer has to comply with any inspectors Monsanto sends to his or her fields

http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=184

As Dr. Mercola writes:

"Perhaps their biggest assault to your food supply is what’s known as Terminator Technology. These are seeds that have been genetically modified to “self-destruct.” In other words, the seeds (and the forthcoming crops) are sterile, which means farmers must buy them again each year.

The implications that terminator seeds could have on the world’s food supply are disastrous: the traits from genetically engineered crops can get passed on to other crops. Once the terminator seeds are released into a region, the trait of seed sterility could be passed to other non-genetically-engineered crops, making most or all of the seeds in the region sterile. If allowed to continue, every farmer in the world could come to rely on Monsanto for their seed supply!"

http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Politics/Politics/france_finds_monsanto_guilty_of_lying_211120090805.html

Bt cotton: requires TWICE as much water!

• Thus, in case of insufficient rainfall or drought – very likely outcome with current weather patterns- BANKRUPTCY for indebted farmers.

• Result, bankruptcy, loss of land and livelihood…(ex: India)

Note: Over 500,000 cotton farmers in Tanzania X 10 dependent family members = + 5 million Tanzanians and over 100 million cotton farmers & their families accross Africa!

Consequences:

-> Economic bankruptcy for both farmers and African countries heavily dependent on cotton export revenue.

-> Farmer indebtness, bankruptcy and loss of land and livelihood

-> Indebted cotton farmers will lose both their traditional seeds and their land + 500,000 cotton farmers in Tanzania (+10 million across Africa + their dependent families ) = over 100 million Africans dependent on cotton revenue.

Furthermore, over 85% of the Tanzanian/African population live off their small landholdings using saved seeds…

How will they survive once all their traditional seeds have been irreversibly contaminated, sterilised and patented…?

And how will they buy expensive patented sterile seeds every year to eat…?

And how will they feed themselves and their families after loosing their landholdings through bankruptcy…?

Where will they go…?

What will they do…?

How will they survive, eat and feed their families…?


Food for thought...

IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS OF BT COTTON & GMO’s

Bt cotton destroys the environment, kills the soil as well as farmers…

Bt cotton kills the soil...

A recent scientific study carried out by Vandana Shiva from Navdanya in India, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year).

In 3 years, the study found that Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus. Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%.

Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%.

At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food, concludes the report...

Source: www.navadanya.org

How will farmers grow food to feed themselves with dead soil...?

BT COTTON: INEVITABLE & IRREVERSIBLE GENETIC CONTAMINATION OF ORGANIC COTTON PRODUCTION AND ORGANIC AGRICULTURE IN AFRICA

Bt cotton: Opening Pandora's Box...

Excerpt from GRAIN report on genetic contamination of organic cotton production
and organic agriculture:

“Co-existence between conventional and GM cotton is not possible. If Bt cotton is introduced in the region, the contamination of non-Bt cotton is inevitable. As there is no way to easily distinguish between Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton, Bt cotton will easily end up being mixed into the conventional cotton supply when farmers drop off their harvests, when the cotton is transported, or when seeds are cleaned and distributed. Contamination will also take place in the fields through cross-pollination, either by way of wind or, more likely, by way of insect pollinators.”


" Bt cotton contamination could destroy the emerging organic cotton production sector in the region. Organic cotton farmers receive higher prices for their cotton, but their practices have to conform to stringent certification requirements. In general, these requirements prohibit genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Under the “Basic Standards for Organic Production and Processing” of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural movements (IFOAM): “The use of genetically engineered organisms or their derivatives is prohibited… Organic processed products shall not use ingredients, additives or processing aids derived from GMOs.”[34] African organic cotton farmers, therefore, could lose the organic status of their cotton if their fields are contaminated by neighbouring Bt cotton fields or if their seeds are contaminated."

In India, where the context is somewhat similar, the situation is out of control with widespread mixing of Bt and non-Bt cotton and the emergence of a huge black market in “generic” and non-regulated Bt cotton varieties.[31]

Empirical cases of genetic contamination worldwide

There have now been episodes of GM contamination in Argentina, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Greece, Holland, India, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Sweden, Thailand, the UK and the USA, Spain, Germany, amongst others. [95]

In fact many biotech scientists have signed on to a statement that says that GM contamination is inevitable and scientific evidence confirms the “inevitable” and irreversible hazards of genetic contamination of local food crops by GM crops.

Nature Biotechnology candidly pointed out, ‘gene containment is next to impossible with the current generation of GM crops … gene flow from GM crops to related plants thus remain a primary concern for regulators and one that companies need to address’. [91]

Even C.S. Prakash from agbioworld.com– the pro-biotechnology industry’s spokesperson par excellence – has stated that the fact that GM contamination has occurred is now not disputed by the GM opponents. ‘Quist and Chapela have subsequently presented data that further supports the presence of transgenes in maize landraces – a point that has not been disputed’, argued Prakash [85] ‘It is important to recognize that the kind of gene flow alleged in the Nature paper is inevitable...’ [90]

SUPERWEEDS

« Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results… » Einstein

Since 2004, “super weeds” (pigweed, horse weed, ragweed, etc. ) have developed resistance to Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” herbicide which is used on Bt cotton and other GM crops, forcing farmers to use more and more expensive and toxic herbicide…

In the US ‘superweeds” have rapidly spread across Sun Belt states and other grain basket states of the US (Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri). Today, 100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia. In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicenter of the super weed explosion, North Carolina State University’s Alan York told local media.

Pesticides, insecticides & herbicides treadmill…

Over time, weeds develop resistance to herbicides, explains Javier Souza Casadinho, professor at the University of Buenos Aires and regional coordinator of the Latin American Action Network for Alternative Pesticides. "Producers must use more applications, and in higher doses with higher toxicity—the application has gone from three liters in 1999 to the current dose of 12 liters, per hectare," says Souza.

According to the UK-based Soil Association, which campaigns for and certifies organic food, Monsanto was well aware of the risk of super weeds as early as 2001 and took out a patent on mixtures of glyphosate and herbicide targeting glyphosate-resistant weeds.

“The patent will enable the company to profit from a problem that its products had created in the first place,”says a 2002 Soil Association report

Monsanto’s technical development manager, Rick Cole, said he believed super weeds were manageable. “The problem of weeds that have developed a resistance to Roundup crops is real and [Monsanto] doesn’t deny that, however the problem is manageable,” he said.

“Solution” offered by Monsanto: Use more toxic pesticides…

Indeed, according to Monsanto press releases, company sales representatives are encouraging farmers to mix glyphosate and older herbicides such as 2,4-D, a herbicide which was banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway over its links to cancer, reproductive harm and mental impairment to combat weeds resistance to glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Roundup. 2,4-D is also well-known for being a component of Agent Orange, a toxic herbicide which was used in chemical warfare in Vietnam in the 1960s.

As Einstein rightly said:

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

Do GMO’s REALLY decrease pesticide usage…?

Monsanto and other chemical and biotech companies have also fraudulently been claiming that GMO’s decrease the usage of *pesticides ( * herbicides, insectides and other chemicals used in industrial agriculture),thereby increasing farmers’ income by decreasing production costs while reducing environmental and ecological pollution from agricultural chemical pesticides.

However, once again both scientific and empirical evidence debunk this fraudulent claim.

As noted above, farmers have to buy and spray more and more expensive and highly toxic insecticides and herbicides to combat insect and superweeds resistance.

According to the following (independent) scientific report published in November 2009 - "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" – authored by Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., Chief Scientist at The Organic Center:

"GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. Farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds."

The report is based on official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres planted to conventional, non-GE varieties.

The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait.

GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.

PESTICIDES & HERBICIDES TREADMILL

Moreover, according to a report published in 2009 by Friends of the Earth titled "Who benefits from GM crops", the widespread adoption of GM "Roundup Ready" crops combined with the emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on major field crops from 1994 to 2005. The trend continues. In 2006, the last year for which data is available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped a substantial28%, from 75,743 million lbs in 2005 to 96,725 million lbs in 2006.

More and more farmers are being told – by agronomists and by Monsanto - to combat glyphosate-resistant weeds by applying other chemicals, such as paraquat, diquat and atrazine, often in combination with higher rates of glyphosate. USDA pesticide data confirm this trend: rising glyphosate use even while use of other more toxic herbicides also increases, or at best remains constant.

The widespread adoption of Roundup Ready GM crops in the US has driven a more than 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate on soybeans, maize and cotton from 1994 to 2005. In 2006, the last year for which data are available, glyphosate use on soybeans jumped by a substantial 28%.

Increasing glyphosate use has driven an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, which in turn has led to rising use of other herbicides to control them. For instance, the amount of 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange) applied to U.S. soybeans more than doubled from 2002 to 2006. The use of atrazine (banned in the EU due to links to health problems) on corn/maize increased by 12% between 2002 and 2005.

Brazilian government authorities have documented an 80% increase in glyphosate use from 2000 to 2005, together with the rapid emergence of weeds that are resistant to the chemical. Use of glyphosate grew 79.6% during this period, much faster than the increase in area planted to Roundup Ready soya.

In Argentina, overall glyphosate use has more than tripled from 65.5 million litres in 1999/2000 to over 200 million litres in 2005. In 2007, agricultural experts reported that a glyphosate-resistant version of Johnsongrass (Sorghum halapense) was infesting over 120,000 ha of the country’s prime cropland. Johnsongrass, an extremely damaging perennial, is a monocot weed that is considered one of the worst weeds in the world, and resistance to glyphosate will make it all the more harder to control. The emergence of glyphosate-resistant Johnsongrass is directly attributable to the huge increase in glyphosate use associated with near total dependence on Roundup Ready soybeans in Argentina.

The main recommendation to control resistant weeds is to use a cocktail of herbicides other than glyphosate, including more toxic weedkillers such as paraquat, diquat and triazine herbicides such as atrazine.18 It is estimated that an additional 25 million litres of herbicides will be needed each year to control resistant weeds, resulting in an increase in production costs of between $160 and $950 million per year.

source: Friends of the Earth report: "Who benefits from GM crops"

HUMAN & ANIMAL GMO HEALTH HAZARDS

Let food be thy medicine and let thy medicine be thy food…"(hippocrates)

Bt cotton fields and other GMO crops are heavily sprayed with Monsanto’s Round Up Ready toxic herbicide which has been linked serious animal and human health hazards. Although the cotton fiber is not eaten, the seeds are consumed by both animals and humans in the form of cotton seed oil and animal feed.

An independent scientific study written by an Argentine scientist and leading embryologist, Dr. Andres Carrasco, a professor and researcher at the University of Buenos Aires, reports that Monsanto's Round-Up-Ready herbicide used on cotton and other GMO crops “ causes birth defects, malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers.”

"The cultivation of GM RR soy endangers human and animal health, increases herbicide use, damages the environment, reduces biodiversity, and has negative impacts on rural populations. The monopolistic control by agribusiness companies over GM RR soy technology and production endangers markets, compromises the economic viability of farming, and threatens food security." writes Carrasco in a new scientific study - GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? – released in septembre 2010

Inhabitants living in proximity of GM soya fields in Argentina have reported that "We have had children born with only two thumbs and no fingers, malformed kidneys, children with six fingers. We have had babies born without an anus, or with malformations in the intestines."

Monsanto's Round-Up-Ready herbicide causes cells to die in human embryo...

The study in Argentina is not the only research concluding that Monsanto’s Roundup and other herbicides containing glyphosate as their active ingredient is harmful to human health. Gilles-Eric Seralini, professor at the University of Caen and specialist in molecular biology, led a study that concluded the herbicides in the Round Up Ready package causes cells to die in human embryos.

"Even in doses diluted a thousand times, the herbicide could cause malformations, miscarriages, hormonal problems, reproductive problems, and different types of cancers," said Dr. Seralini

Moreover, several other independent scientific studies have linked GMO consumption to serious human and animal health hazards

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has recently issued and published an alarming statement which states that “ there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects.

“The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans. ”

THE (hidden) GEOPOLITICAL OBJECTIVES OF THE US ADMINISTRATION, MONSANTO & THE BIOTECH INDUSTRY

"CONTROL OIL AND YOU CONTROL NATIONS
CONTROL FOOD AND YOU CONTROL PEOPLE."

Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State under Nixon ( and Nobel Peace Price laureate!)

Of course, the real objectives of the US and the biotech companies are NOT " to fight hunger & poverty" in Africa...

On the contrary...

GMO’s: Trojan horse…

In fact, GMO’s are used as a weapon and a Trojan horse by the US administration, Monsanto and the biotech industry to serve their own economic & financial interests and to achieve their (hidden) geopolitical agenda.

As GRAIN writes in its report on Bt cotton:

« Bt cotton is a Trojan horse used by biotech multinationals to take total control over both the cotton and the agricultural sector in Africa…It seems fairly clear that Bt cotton is being used as a Trojan horse to open Africa completely up to GM agriculture.”

http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=184

In fact, GMO's are a Trojan horse used by the US administration and the biotech industry to take over complete control over the supply of seeds ( and thus of food ) in Africa and worldwide through the following mechanism:

-> Inevitable & irreversible GENETIC CONTAMINATION of traditional seeds

-> STERILISATION of all contaminated seeds through the use of the jointly US government and Monsanto owned "Terminator Technology " which renders all contaminated seeds sterile.

-> PATENTING of all contaminated seeds.

As a result, Africans farmers will forever lose all their traditional seeds and will be obliged to purchase expensive patented sterile GMO seeds from biotech multinationals every year, thereby making farmers and millions of Africans exclusively and dangerously dependent on a handful of biotech companies to eat and thus to live...

Furthermore, GMO's are NOT intended to "fight hunger and poverty" in Africa". Rather, GMO's will be used to produce fiber, agrofuels, animal feed, industrial and pharmaceutical raw materials using patented GMO food seeds/crops grown on vast seized tracks of land in Africa for consumption in affluent countries, NOT to produce food for starving Africans...

Famine & genocide

Thus, GMO's will lead to the biggest recorded FAMINE in the history of Africa & to the GENOCIDE of millions of Africans...!

The root causes of hunger & poverty

Hunger - the worst form of violence - is a direct result of unfair global trading rules and exploitative economic practices and suicidal economic policies imposed on Africa by the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, blindly followed by so-called african "leaders" and governements which result in abject human poverty and hunger.

There is more than sufficient food to feed everyone in Africa and around the world. The problem lies in its inequitable distribution and in the lack of financial resources required to purchase it by the vast majority of the human population.

Thus, simply increasing food production without addressing the root economic, political and structural causes of poverty and without distributional justice will NOT resolve hunger.

As Mahatma Gandhi rightly stated:

"There is enough food in the world to satisfy everyone's needs but not everyone's greed."

WHAT TO DO TO AVOID THIS GENOCIDE…?

Ban GMO’s using the Precautionary Principle

African governments must immediately declare a moratorium and ban all open field testing and commercial growing of Bt cotton and GMO's, and ban all commercial imports as well as so-called “food aid” containing GMO’s using the Precautionary Principle contained in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety ratified by Tanzania and which states:

"In order to protect the environment, (and taking into account risks to human and animal health) the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

Furthermore, Article 10.6 and 11.8 of the Biosafety Protocol states that:

"Lack of scientific certainty due to insufficient relevant scientific information and knowledge regarding the extent of the potential adverse effects of a GMO on biodiversity, taking into account risks to human health, shall not prevent a Party of import from taking a decision, as appropriate, with regard to the import of the GMO in question, in order to avoid or minimize such potential adverse effects."

Another often used definition from the Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle states: “

When an activity raises threats to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context, the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof (of the safety of the activity)."

Nothing less than the future survival of the African people is at stake…

II. Support and implement intelligent economic policies to revive the cotton sector in Tanzania & Africa

Local value addition

Support & implement local value addition & consumption of (organic) cotton in Tanzania/Africa and ban "kifua" ( dead mens' white clothing) to promote and protect the local textile industry.

Local processing and consumption of (organic) cotton is currently the only viable solution to revive the sector.

Although organic cotton provides an ecologically sustainable alternative for cotton farmers in Africa, efforts must be made to add-value to the organic cotton by processing it locally, from spinning yarn to weaving cloth to making garments, so as to add value, create desperately lacking and needed local employment and generate income along the entire supply chain and create economic growth within the overall economy.

Furthermore, local value addition will enable African cotton producing and exporting nations to break free from the vicious trap cycle of global trade distorting cotton subsidies and from the dictates of the world market/casino.

Last but not least, local value addition will enable African cotton producing nations to achieve self-sufficiency in garment production and consumption that reflect African cultures, traditions, values, designs, etc., while saving much needed scarce foreign exchange reserves currently being depleted to import "kifua" ( dead white mens' clothing), to add insult to economic injury...

Thus, processing the (organic) cotton locally would revive both the cotton and the textile sector, create desperately lacking and needed local employment and income, and thus positively reduce poverty among the local population.

As Thomas Sankara rightly said:

« Africans must produce what they consume and consume what they produce. »

He was of course assassinated for his “dangerous” proposition…

SLAVERY, US COTTON SUBSIDIES, BT COTTON & SLAVERY…

History repeats itself…

Cotton has turned out to be a curse for Africa, as testified by History…Indeed, millions of Africans were captured, enchained and shipped to the so-called "New World" to work as slaves on cotton plantations in America over 300 years ago.

US cotton subsidies replaced African slaves working on American cotton plantations following the abolition of slavery in 1848.

And today – 150 years after the (official) abolition of slavery – Bt cotton will restitute Slavery in the cotton fields in Africa, once again with the complicity of so-called African “leaders”…

History tragically repeats itself…

GMO's are truly the last nail in the coffin of Africa...

May God protect Africa...

Truthfully,

Arya

arya@yajnacentre.com