YAJNA CENTRE : Building Gandhi's Non-Violent economic architecture...

FUKUSHIMA STILL A TICKING TIME BOMB FOR JAPAN AND FOR THE WORLD

2012-01-19T04:47:00.000-08:00

Click on the title above or on the link below to watch an interview with world renowned physicist Michio Kaku about the TRUE and REAL nuclear contamination hazards of the Fukushima nuclear tragedy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rrxmy6R3m90&feature=youtu.be

CANADIAN THINK THANK SUES GOVERNMENT AND BANK OF CANADA OVER UNCONSTITUTIONAL BANKING POLICIES & PRACTICES

2012-01-19T03:50:00.000-08:00

PRESS RELEASE TORONTO, ON., CANADA- 19/12/2011

TWO CANADIANS AND A CANADIAN ECONOMIC THINK TANK CONFRONT THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL POWERS IN THE CANADIAN FEDERAL COURT.

THE CANADIANS PLEAD FOR DECLARATIONS THAT WOULD RESTORE THE USE OF THE BANK OF CANADA FOR THE BENEFIT OF CANADIANS AND REMOVE IT FROM THE CONTROL OF INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE ENTITIES WHOSE INTERESTS AND DIRECTIVES ARE PLACED ABOVE THE INTEREST OF CANADIANS AND THE PRIMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

Canadian constitutional lawyer, Rocco Galati (pictured above), on behalf of Canadians William Krehm, and Ann Emmett, and COMER (Committee for Monetary and Economic Reform) on December 12 th , 2011 filed an action in Federal Court, to restore the use of the Bank of Canada to its original purpose, by exercising its public statutory duty and responsibility. That purpose includes making interest free loans to municipal/provincial/federal governments for “human capital” expenditures (education, health, other social services) and /or infrastructure expenditures.

The action also constitutionally challenges the government’s fallacious accounting methods in its tabling of the budget by not calculating nor revealing the true and total revenues of the nation before transferring back “tax credits” to corporations and other taxpayers.

The Plaintiffs state that since 1974 there has been a gradual but sure slide into the reality that the Bank of Canada and Canada’s monetary and financial policy are dictated by private foreign banks and financial interests contrary to the Bank of Canada Act.

The Plaintiffs state that the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), the Financial Stability Forum (FSF)and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) were all created with the cognizant intent of keeping poorer nations in their place which has now expanded to all nations in that these financial institutions largely succeed in over-riding governments and constitutional orders in countries such as Canada over which they exert financial control.

The Plaintiffs state that the meetings of the BIS and Financial Stability Board (FSB) (successor of FSF), their minutes, their discussions and deliberations are secret and not available nor accountable to Parliament, the executive, nor the Canadian public notwithstanding that the Bank of Canada policies directly emanate from these meetings. These organizations are essentially private, foreign entities controlling Canada’s banking system and socio-economic policies.

The Plaintiffs state that the defendants (officials) are unwittingly and /or wittingly, in varying degrees, knowledge and intent engaged in a conspiracy, along with the BIS, FSB, IMF to render impotent the Bank of Canada Act as well as Canadian sovereignty over financial, monetary, and socio-economic policy, and bypass the sovereign rule of Canada through its Parliament by means of banking and financial systems.

A copy of the lawsuit can be downloaded/read at the following link:

http://www.comer.org/content/COMER_CourtCaseFiling.pdf

You can also watch the press conference by clicking on the title page above or at the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar_WRqoa4kM

I hereby wish to express my deep respect and admiration to the plaintiffs for their intelligence, courage and integrity. Let the Light of Truth shine brightly into the dark corners of conspiracy, deceit and betrayal...

I encourage all Canadians who wish to live as Free men/women to educate themselves about the fraudulent workings of the global banking/financial system (i.e. Private Central Banking and Fractional Reserve Banking)

As Henry Ford wisely said: " It is good that the people do not understand the workings of the financial and banking system, for if they did, there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

And as Goether rightly said: " None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe to be free."

12 YEAR OLD GIRL TELLS THE UN/WORLD TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND ALL LIFE ON THIS PLANET AND TO PRACTICE WHAT THEY PREACH!

2012-01-17T04:45:00.000-08:00

MUST WATCH this 5 minute speech made by a 12 year old girl (Severn Cullis Suzuki - daughter of David Suzuki) at a UN environmental conference telling the delegates and the world to protect the environment and all life on this planet and to practice what they preach...!

click on the title above to watch the speech on Youtube or copy and past the following link in your browser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQmz6Rbpnu0&feature=related

Please share and circulate widely, thank you.

DOMINION FARMS: SOCIO-ECONOMIC, HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIAL RICE FARMING IN KENYA

2011-09-09T10:32:00.000-07:00

“When they came,they promised to ensure food security. They also promised to improve infrastructure, build more health centres and schools, besides opening up employment opportunities for our youth. But all we are now seeing is increased poverty and a degraded environment.”

“Prior to the coming of the investor,we were able to access fresh and cleanwater from Yala River and were able to use thenatural resources from the swamp. Now weare forced to consume contaminated water becauseof the degraded environment as a result of Dominion’s activities.” Angeline Owako from Siaya

US company ( Dominion Farms) looking to farm rice in Nigeria and Tanzania left trail of devastation in Kenya GRAIN, 7 September 2011

The people in Nigeria and Tanzania living on the lands now being targetted by US-owned Dominion Farms can learn a lot from the film Good Fortune ( copy below), which provides a behind-the-scenes account of the struggle of a local community in Kenya to defend their lands and livelihoods from Dominion Farms.

Please click on the link below to view the documentary:

http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/19226

Battle over the Yala Swamp

Multi million investment turns outto be a case of a deal gone sour

By OLOO JANAK

The Dominion Farms at Yala Swamp on theshores of Lake Victoria in Siaya County ofNyanza Province is turning into a bitter sweetinvestment tale that has seen the local communityturn against what they initially welcomedwith open hands.

It all began in 2005, when an American investor,Calvin Burgess, President of DominionGroup of Companies and Chief Executive ofDominion Farms, appeared at the Yala Swamparea dangling what the local community andtheir leaders believed was carrot that wouldtransform their lives and end poverty.

At inception, Dominion Farms presented amixture of economic and spiritual transformationto the sleepy and conservative Yala Swampcommunity, largely the Alego and Yimbo communities.Former Kisumu Town MP Reverend KenNyagudi was for a long time the Kenyan face ofthe Dominion investment through a religiousoutfit that drew in thousands of followers whobelieved they would get instant and long termbenefits from this multi-billion project.At the Dominion Farm in Yala, a big whitecross stands on a small hill in the centre of therice fields, a testimony to this religious inclination.Villagers say this used to be a sacredplace for prayer, now fenced off and made inaccessibleto them by the farm management.

Despair

The high hopes and aspirations of thelocal communities that were built throughchurch summons and public barazas promisingchange in their lives appear to have virtuallycollapsed into despair seven years later.It has left in its wake, a trail of complaints,disappointments and spawned a conflict betweenthe local people and the DominionFarms management, sucking in local leadersand government officials.

“They came with promises and we supportedthe projects hoping it would changeour lives but now they have instead turnedagainst us, destroying our very sources oflivelihoods,” says Fred Okumu, a communityleader from Kadenge Village in Alego.

The complaints range from denial of accessto community roads linking Alego and Yimboas well as the surrounding villages, which havebeen fenced off to denial of access to sourcesof water or pollution of water sources.Women complain that they have had miscarriages due to contaminated water while livestockowners say they have been counting losses as mostof their animals have since become sick, thin or died. “This farm has brought division among us,with some of our relatives supporting the investmentwhile others like us are complaining about itsnegative effects,” says Mary Paul, from Bar OlengoVillage. She adds: “Families have separated due tothe ongoing conflict with the farm management.”

Members of the local community complain thefarm management has blocked water or divertedsome canals causing water to flood their farms anddestroy crops, further impoverishing them.The neighbouring community members havebeen on a collision path with the Dominion Farmsmanagement for a long time and despite many engagementmeetings, the disagreements have notbeen sorted out. There have been demonstrationsagainst the farm managers.

Recently, the villagers accused DominionFarm management of destroying their sugarcane,maize and horticultural crops in a sectionof land which they say was set aside for theiruse, part of the 150 acres outlined in agreement.Dominion farm signed an agreement with theSiaya and Bondo County Councils to the effectthat they would give the community 150 acreson each county side. They say grazing lands havebeen reduced and some of their sources of freshwater are now inaccessible.

The communities have allies, especially nongovernmentalorganisations that have steppedin to build the capacity of local communities toengage with the farm managers and governmentand also look at the issues of conservation ofthis unique ecosystem. The area is the breedingground for hundreds of species of fish that populateLake Victoria.

Friends of Yala

A network of about seven civil society organisationsunder the umbrella of “Friends of YalaSwamp (FOYS)” have established a secretariat inSiaya town as part of the effort to engage the communitiesin advocacy campaigns to demand fortheir rights to sustainable utilisation of the land.During a recent community and media encounterforum organised by the Institute for Lawand Environmental Governance (ILEG), whichis part of the Friends of Yala Swamp (FOYS) andin partnership with Media Diversity Centre, aproject of African Woman and Child FeaturesService in Bondo township, it was clear membersof the community have deep seated grievancesthat call for urgent intervention.

Coordinator of FOYS, Dalmas Owino Okellosays they have faced hostility from the DominionFarm owners and local government officials whoaccuse them of inciting the local communityagainst the project.“We receive threats and are being followedaround. At community meetings and even at theoffice, we get visitors who are clearly out to intimidateus so that we can stop empowering the communityin addressing their concerns,” he observes.

Okello says they have made efforts to reachout to the Dominion Farm management, thetwo county councils of Siaya and Bondo as wellas government officials to bring about a multistakeholderapproach to solving the conflict buthave met resistance.

Dominion Farms signed a 25-year leaseagreement with Siaya County Council to investin the Yala Swamp area growing rice, maize andother crops and to also improve fishing usingmodern methods.According to Dominion, the agreement allowedthem to reclaim and use 6,900 hectaresof the swamp, 3,700 hectares in phase one andanother 3,200 hectares in phase two.“We have only reclaimed and put 3,000 hectresto use yet the community is now being incited tobelieve we are encroaching into their land,” saysChris Abir, director and general manager at DominionFarms. He adds: “We allowed the communityto use part of what we reclaimed andinformed them when we wanted to utilise the sectionbut they have now refused to move out.”He says the local community and some of thepoliticians do not appreciate the importance of theinvestment worth KSh5 billion.

Abir argues thatthe investment has transformed the local economy.“We have built shallow wells for the communityaround the farm and are in the process ofputting up a water project that will serve morethan 1,000 people in the area,” he says adding,“We have also employed 1600 people.”Denying claimsOther benefits, Abir says, include support toRatuoro Health Centre where they have constructeda laboratory. They also incur an expenditureof KSh1 million annually to pay fees forlocal children in secondary schools, repair roadsand improve food security.Abir denies claims that the company hascompromised some of the local leaders and governmentofficials to turn a blind eye to the grievancesof the local community.“There are some leaders and NGOs who havechosen to make Dominion Farms look like a devil.At some point they incited the community to literallychase and stone me and the Chief Executive,Calvin Burgess in broad daylight!” he told the Rejectduring an interview at the their offices in Ratuoro recently. As far as Dominion is concerned, thecommunity cannot claim lack of participation andinvolvement since their councillors participatedat every stage through the negotiations and finalagreement.“They are represented by the councillors whosigned the agreement with us. If the councillorsdid not do a good job as they claim, that isnot our business. They should engage the twocouncils which hold the Yala Swamp in trust forthem,” observes Abir.

The Dominion venture at Yala produces 14million kilogrammes of rice, which reportedlyaccounts for 20 per cent of Kenya’s annual riceproduction. This, they say, has improved food securityin Siaya County and nationally.The community has been involved in frequentdemonstrations and has even filed a courtcase at the High Court in Kisumu, contestingwhat they claim to be Dominion’s expansion into“their land”.

Until the case is disposed of, communityengagements and other fora for consultationhave effectively been paralysed.The community denies claims that they wantthe project to close down and insist what they demandare the practical benefits that the managementpromised at inception, a stop to encroachmenton their farms. They have taken issue withthe poor compensation of the farms bought underthe project which was pegged at KSh45,000per acre.However, the Dominion aquaculture managerEnos Were says this price was almost doublethe going price of land at the time.Were puts the value of land at the time the dealwas brokered at KSh23,000 per acre. However,until the current stalemate is dissolved, the arearesidents will not reap maximum benefits from theswamp.

THE REAL HUMAN, ECONOMIC, POLITICAL and STRUCTURAL CAUSES BEHIND THE FAMINE IN THE HORN OF AFRICA

2011-07-24T14:30:00.000-07:00

THE ROOT CAUSES BEHIND THE FAMINE IN THE HORN OF AFRICA: LANDGRAB, AGROFUELS AND THE AFRICAN SO-CALLED “LEADERS” AND GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR COLONIAL MASTERS DISGUISED AS "DEVELOPMENT EXPERTS"

Millions of poor, destitute Africans are yet again facing starvation in several countries in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, Soudan, Uganda and Kenya.) The official cause attributed to the famine by African governments is drought and the identified culprit is Nature, along with the usual blame-it-on "terrorism/Al Quaida" propaganda...

In a recent article on the causes of famine in Somalia, Michel Chossudovsky writes,

"According to the UN, a situation of famine prevails in southern Bakool and Lower Shabelle, areas in part controlled by Al Shahab, a jihadist militia group affiliated to Al Qaeda. Both the UN and the Obama administration had accused Al Shahab of imposing "a ban on foreign aid agencies in its territories in 2009". What the reports do not mention, however, is that Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen (HSM) ("Movement of Striving Youth") is funded by Saudi Arabia and supported covertly by Western intelligence agencies.The backing of Islamic militia by Western intelligence agencies is part of a broader historical pattern of covert support to Al Qaeda affiliated and jihadist organizations in a number of countries, including, more recently, Libya and Syria."

source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25725

The REAL terrorists however, are the African so-called "leaders", governments and their white colonial masters (UK/US) and their agents disguised as "development experts" and so-called "aid" organizations (UN, WFP, USAID,DFID, Western NGO's, etc.) and their murderous neo-colonial institutions ( IMF - International Monetary Fraud; World Bank(sters) and the WTO - World Terrorist Organization)- who together, are systematically looting the resources of Africa and exploiting, oppressing and starving millions of Africans in the process.

ETHIOPIA BUYS WAR TANKS WORTH $US 100 MILLION AS MILLIONS STARVE

In Ethiopia, while millions of Ethiopians are facing starvation, the criminal US-backed government of Ethiopia has just purchased 200 war tanks worth US$ 100 millions to crush rising opposition among its own starving population ( using so-called "aid" money from Western/UK taxpayers destined for “emergency food aid donation”)

In an article published online, Thomas Mountain writes:

" Ethiopia is on another arms buying spree as millions of Ethiopians starve due to the worst drought in 60 years. According to Prime Minister Meles Zenawi Ethiopia is purchasing 200 battle tanks from Ukraine for over $100 million.

Was it a coincidence that the day before Meles’ announcement, the British foreign aid office announced a $60 million “emergency food aid donation” to Ethiopia?

One of the primary reasons Ethiopia needs 200 tanks is to conduct its counterinsurgency campaigns against the ethnically based armed uprisings slowly engulfing much of the country. From the Ogaden in the south east, to Tigray in the north to Gambella in the west, and now it is reported, even spreading to much of Oromia in the south west, the Ethiopian regime needs to be able to crush its own people and the latest installment of armor is long over due."

link to the article with full references and links:

http://tesfanews.net/archives/2428

As Obang Metho further explains,

“ As Ethiopians are threatening to rise up against the large-scale robbery of land and resources; accompanied by the widespread perpetration of human rights abuses; the Meles regime just has purchased 200 new tanks for $100 million (USD) rather than meet the growing food needs of the 13 to 16 million Ethiopians who must rely on falling levels of food aid from donor countries in the coming months. Who will these tanks be used against if not Ethiopian citizens who are only wanting to survive in their own land?

Tanks work well against lightly armed guerilla fighters and even better when it comes to crushing civilian uprisings, something those in the western and UN “aid” agencies are fully cognizant of. Now that Ethiopia has become a source of “peacekeepers” in Sudan some of these Ethiopian tanks may be used to uphold Pax Americana on the North-South Sudanese border which includes Sudan’s oil fields.

According to several humanitarian organizations including Human Rights Watch, Ethiopia’s military campaigns have triggered a serious humanitarian crisis. Ethopian military crackdown has led to widespread violence in which entire villages have been destroyed. Citizens also suffer from arbitrary arrests, theft, rape and murder by Ethiopian soldiers. “In October 2007, The Independent reported that the situation in Ogaden had begun to mirror the Darfur conflict, with refugees stating that government troops had burned villages and raped and killed civilians.”

In its report, Human Rights Watch claims that;

“civilians have been killed in what appears to be a deliberate effort to mete out collective punishment against a civilian population suspected of sympathizing with the rebels.”

HRW says it has documented dozens of cases of severe abuse by Ethiopian troops in the Ogaden, including gang rapes, burned villages and what it calls “demonstration killings,” like hanging and beheading of populace, meant to terrorize the population.

We Africans have been the target of colonialization, slavery and exploitation in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and a target of African dictators and their foreign cronies in the 20th century. We have had enough and will not tolerate this new onslaught of exploitation and dehumanization in the 21st century! Many want to keep us Africans poor, disenfranchised and vulnerable only to more easily take advantage of the pillaging of our continent.” Writes Obang Metho.

You can listen to an audio interview by Obang Metho available online at the following link:

http://afrobeatradio.net/2011/07/13/the-great-ethiopia-land-grab/

For more info on the landgrab on human rights violations in Ethiopia, please contact:

Obang Metho, Executive Director of the SMNE
Phone 202 725-1616. Email: Obang@solidaritymovement.org.
Website: www.solidaritymovement.org

NEW SCRAMBLE FOR AFRICA: LANDGRAB, GMO's & AGROFUELS

A century after the infamous Berlin Conference, History tragically repeats itself, this time with the criminal complicity of so-called African "leaders" and governments:

Moreover, while millions starve in the horn of Africa (and throughout the continent), the same so-called African “leaders” are selling and/or leasing millions of hectares of fertile agricultural land to foreign countries and to private foreign companies to grow genetically modified (patented and sterile) GMO so-called “food” crops for export and as raw material to produce agrofuels, animal feed and other industrial and pharmaceutical products for export and consumption in affluent countries.

According to a research paper published by the US based Oakland Institute, in 2009 alone, over 60 million hectares of prime fertile land in Africa ( the size of France) has been leased and/or sold to foreign private companies and/or foreign governments/countries to produce food, agrofuels, animal feed and other raw materials for export and consumption in affluent countries - NOT to feed starving Africans.

“In 2009 alone nearly 60 million ha– an area the size of France – was purchased or leased in comparison to an average annual expansion of global agricultural land of less than 4 million ha before 2008.” writes Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.

The investigative reports on the massive landgrab in Africa can be read at the following link:

http://media.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/files/LandGrab_final_web.pdf

TANZANIA: 500,000 REFUGEES REPATRIATED TO "LEASE" LAND TO US AGRIBUSINESS COMPANY TO PRODUCE AGROFUELS...

In Tanzania, over 500,000 Burundian refugees ( fleeing Genocide and their own criminal and oppressive governments in Burundi) have been forcefully repatriated to Burundi and relocated elsewhere in Tanzania and over 300,000 ha of land from the refugee camps has been "leased" to a US agribusiness company – Agrisol Energy – to produce agrofuels, animal feed /livestock and other raw materials for export and consumption in affluent countries – using local food crops.

The report from the Oakland Institute can be read at the following link:

http://media.oaklandinstitute.org/land-deals-africa/agrisol-energy-llc

ETHIOPIA: COUNTRY LAND FOR SALE AT $US 0,99 CENTS FOR 99 YEARS

Hedge funds buy Ethiopian farms at $1 an acre

In Ethiopia, millions of acres of fertile land has been leased and/or sold over to private companies to produce food, agrofuels and other raw materials for export – NOT to feed Ethiopians - while Ethiopians literally starve to death.

In an article published in the UK Sunday Times on July 24, the author writes:

"As Britain prepares to send £38m ($43m) in emergency aid to Ethiopia to fight famine, the Addis Ababa government is selling millions of acres of prime farmland to foreign investors, including British and
American hedge funds.

More than 7 million acres is to be put up for sale, in addition to nearly 7m
acres already sold. The land, which includes arable land, pasture, forests and wetland, goes for as little as $1 (£0.69) an acre on a 100-year lease. Much of it will be irrigated by a network of canals fed by Gibe III, a controversial dam still under construction on the Omo River.

Foreign acquisition is forcing local communities, many of them semi-nomadic, off their traditional lands and depriving them of access to water sources.

Chinese, Indian and Saudi Arabian agribusinesses have all bought land in Africa to protect against future food shortages at home. According to a report by the Oakland Institute, a California-based environmental think tank, British and American hedge funds are behind many of the biggest land purchases.

The report claims many of the deals are unregulated and opaque, and lead to the rights of local farmers and peasants being violated. "Many of the deals will provide few jobs and force many thousands of people off the land," said Anuradha Mittal, Oakland's director.

Human rights groups say the land sales will do nothing to address Ethiopia's long-term food crisis. "No one should believe that these investors are there to feed starving Africans. These deals lead only to dollars in the pockets of corrupt leaders and foreign investors," said Obang Metho, an Ethiopian rights campaigner in America.

Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia's prime minister, has defended overseas investment as the best way to pull the country out of poverty. "Anything from wheat and other cereals up to tea, coffee, palm oil and rubber can grow in the country and they [investors] will be very much welcomed," he said.

Farmers claim investors' interests and rights are being prioritised at the expense of their communities.

Farming minister Abera Deressa said recently that Ethiopia did not need to be agriculturally self-sufficient because it would "become a middle-income country in the next decade and just buy food from the world market". As many as 3.2m Ethiopians rely on foreign aid, making it the world's largest recipient.

Land sales in the Omo River area have been shrouded in secrecy and locals say they have been threatened with arrest if caught speaking to foreigners about the dam project or the resettlement of local farmers.

"Anyone opposing government development projects will be crushed like a person standing in front of a bulldozer," said a police chief.

Aid workers allege that units from Ethiopian special forces have been arresting young men in areas where the land is being cleared for foreign investors.

In Hana, a small settlement in the southeast, a foreign development worker said scores of locals had been badly beaten by Ethiopian special forces, with at least one left in a coma. "The trials of these people were very quick, often on doubtful charges, and the sentences seemed more severe than usual. They are being told if anyone expresses negative opinions about the plantations they will be arrested," he said.

Felix Horne, a consultant for Human Rights Watch, has seen widespread malnutrition in the Gambella region in western Ethiopia, where farmers have been moved off land and left with nowhere to grow their own food.

"I have never seen people so malnourished in this region. The situation is very bad now and everyone fears it will get worse," he said.

Horne says those who have resisted being moved into government villages have been beaten, arrested and in some cases raped. He was also told by locals that the government had been withholding food aid from relocated families."

Please watch this hearbreaking investigative documentary on the massive "langrab" of land in Ethiopia:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/ethiopia-centre-global-farmland-rush?CMP=twt_gu.

KENYA AUTHORIZES IMPORTATION & GROWING OF GMO's and OPENS PANDORA's BOX TO MORE POVERTY, HUNGER AND FAMINE...

In Kenya, the country is facing a huge shortage in local maize – the staple food of millions of Kenyans and Africans - as a direct result of the incompetence and corruption of the Kenyan government and so-called "leaders". In response, the Kenyan government has tragically authorized the importation of GM maize from South Africa, thereby opening Pandora’s box to the inevitable and irreversible widespread genetic contamination of local maize crops both in Kenya and throughout the region (borders are porous and GM maize does not require a visa to cross borders!). This, of course, is the REAL (hidden) agenda and objective of Monsanto and the biotech industry - i.e., to contaminate, sterilise and patent all local maize seeds/crops and to take over total control over the agricultural sector in Kenya and in the entire region. Moreover, God only knows what is inside those GM maize seeds…???

Again, the shortage of local maize in Kenya is attributed to "drought" and blamed on Nature. However, the real culprits are none others than the so-called Kenyan “leaders” and the Kenyan government which, over fifty years after so-called “independence” are not even capable of producing maize/food in sufficient quantity to feed their own populations. They are more skilled at exploiting, oppressing and starving their own population while they systematically loot the resources of the country and their people – in complicity with their white colonial masters.

The resulting widespread poverty, hunger, famine, disease, illiteracy, war, etc. in the region and throughout Africa are the “fruits” of over 50 years of systematic exploitation and oppression of African people and looting of African resources by so-called African “leaders”, governments and the so-called African “elite” themselves – in complicity with their white colonial masters disguised as “development experts…”

Indeed, African so-called “leaders” and the so-called “elite” have mastered – nay, have surpassed the “skills” of their colonial masters in exploiting, oppressing and starving their own people and systematically looting the resources of Africa - which makes them the worst and most dangerous ennemies of Africans!

THE ROOT ECONOMIC, POLITICAL and STRUCTURAL CAUSES BEHIND THE FAMINE IN SOMALIA AND IN THE HORN OF AFRICA:

Michel Chossudovsky further explains and exposes the root causes behind the famine in the horn of Africa:

" Somalia remained self-sufficient in food until the late 1970s despite recurrent droughts. As of the early 1980s, its national economy was destabilized and food agriculture was destroyed. The process of economic dislocation preceded the onset of the civil war in 1991. Economic and social chaos resulting from IMF "economic medicine" had set the stage for the launching of a US sponsored "civil war".

An entire country with a rich history of commerce and economic development, was transformed into a territory. Somalia had been a colony of Italy and Britain. In 1969, a post-colonial government was formed under president Mohamed Siad Barre; major social programs in health and education were implemented, rural and urban infrastructure was developed in the course of the 1970s, significant social progress including a mass literacy program was achieved.

The early 1980s marks a major turning point.The IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program (SAP) was imposed on sub-Saharan Africa. The recurrent famines of the 1980s and 1990s are in large part the consequence of IMF-World Bank "economic medicine".

In Somalia, ten years of IMF economic medicine laid the foundations for the country's transition towards economic dislocation and social chaos. By the late 1980s, following recurrent "austerity measures" imposed by the Washington consensus, wages in the public sector had collapsed to three dollars a month.

While "external" climatic variables play a role in triggering off a famine and heightening the social impact of drought, famines in the age of globalization are man-made. They are not the consequence of a scarcity of food but of a structure of global oversupply which undermines food security and destroys national food agriculture. Tightly regulated and controlled by international agri-business, this oversupply is ultimately conducive to the stagnation of both production and consumption of essential food staples and the impoverishment of farmers throughout the world.

Moreover, in the era of globalization, the IMF-World Bank structural adjustment program bears a direct relationship to the process of famine formation because it systematically undermines all categories of economic activity, whether urban or rural, which do not directly serve the interests of the global market system."

source: Somalia: the Real Causes of Famine (excerpts), by Michel Chossudovsky
First published in 1993, Third World Resurgence and Le Monde diplomatique
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25725

THE ROOT ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND STRUCTURAL CAUSES OF POVERTY AND HUNGER

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."

There is obviously no human justice (an oxymoron) in this low-world. However, a Higher Justice awaits all those guilty of this Crime Against Africa, Humanity, Nature and God.

May God protect Africa and feed the millions starving...

Hunger is the WORST form of Violence.

With great sadness and anger,

Arya

UPLIFTMENT OF THE WEAKEST vs SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST

2011-07-23T01:09:00.000-07:00

Must Earth Human Beings obey and live according to the cruel Law of Nature which governs the animal kingdom – i.e. Survival of the Fittest - for its own individual and collective survival and upliftment? Or can it rise above it and obey a Higher Law which I define as “Uplifment of the Weakest” ?

Of course, human beings do not eat each other literally as is the case among animals - who are governed by this Law of Nature. But, isn’t socio-economic exploitation and oppression of weaker members of human society by the “fittest” not the same in essence?

Although humans do not “eat” weaker members of their society, they secure their own life and prosper at the expense of weaker human beings through economic exploitation, oppression, injustice, violence, dishonesty, theft, looting, war, etc.

As Gopi Krishna writes:

“ The cruel struggle for existence draws into play those resources of the body and properties of the mind which help one to overcome the other competitors and rivals in the race for survival. The emphasis of this struggle would therefore be on the strength of brain and muscle, on endurance and courage, on cleverness and wit, on strategy and cunning, on deceit and trickery, planning and plotting, falsehood and sham, or on violence and aggression, to achieve the dominating position in the battle.These are the traits that we continually see at work in the animal kingdom everywhere on land, in the ocean or the air.

But the moral virtues that have been highly regarded since the dawn of civilization and are admired even today are the very opposite of these traits. Innocence has a greater appeal to the heart than cleverness, frankness than duplicity, truth than falsehood, simplicity than sophistication, humility than pride, honesty than deception, self denial than indulgence, pacifism than aggression, calmness than violence, artlessness than deceit and trickery and so on. Some of these virtues are in direct opposition to the essential qualifications needed for the ruthless battle for self existence. But the learned have no awareness of the factors that have brought about this change in the instinctive armor necessary for survival.”1

“ The present-day world is a strange compound of opposites, a fantastic blend of anomalies and contrarieties. We establish democratic institutions to raise autocrats to power, and profess faith in God to ignore Him in our actions and elude Him in our thoughts. We profess concern for human beings and yet
devise methods for their total destruction at the same time. And we proclaim love for our nation while bleeding our weaker brethren white for gain.

We applaud fair play in order to have the larger share, and we honor justice in order to outwit the rest. We express brotherly love for our neighbors often just to malign him, and we show our burning desire for peace by secretly preparing for war.

Our science-oriented, glamorous culture has created a peculiar social environment ideally suited for highly sophisticated minds with a strongly marked polarity that makes them talk in one way and act in another.

We have developed minds which, without a single qualm of conscience, can sacrifice all that they profess of religion, faith, God, morals, virtue or lofty ideals, if that helps in our day-to-day pursuit of the objective dear to our heart, be it position, power, pleasure, fame or wealth”.2

Thus, by exploiting and oppressing weaker human beings, the "fittest" members of human society are indeed obeying and living according to the law of the jungle that governs the animal kingdom, namely – Survival of the Fittest.

We can therefore conclude that those who obey and live according to this lower Law of Nature are indeed animals and not Human Beings in the true sense of the word. Indeed this in essence - not our superior intellect - is the determining factor that differentiates a true Human Being from an animal. In fact, our superior intellect combined with our obedience to the law of the jungle makes us the most dangerous and destructive animals on this planet!

It therefore follows from the above that a true Human Being is someone who obeys and lives his life in conformity to a Higher Law which I define as Upliftment of the Weakest - in opposition to Survival of the Fittest.

Imagine the consequences on human society and civilization resulting from obeying and living according to this Higher Law: The fittest members of society helping to uplift the weaker members - instead of exploiting and oppressing them to promote their own selfish interests - as is the case now. Indeed, the entire economic architecture of Earth human beings is based on exploitation and oppression of weaker members of human society.

Surely it would revolutionize human civilization on Earth, uplift human society and put an end to human poverty, hunger, disease, ignorance, war, conflict and unending and ever expanding human misery.

Utopian dream…?

Why can Earth humans not make this utopian dream a reality?

What is so utopian about it…?

"Alas!" said Zee, her grand face softening into an angel-like compassion, "this predominance of the few over the many is the surest and most fatal sign of a race incorrigibly savage. See you not that the primary condition of mortal happiness consists in the extinction of that strife and competition between individuals, which, no matter what forms of government they adopt, render the many subordinate to the few, destroy real liberty to the individual, whatever may be the nominal liberty of the state, and annul that calm of existence, without which, felicity, mental, or bodily, cannot be attained?

Our notion is, that the more we can assimilate life to the existence which our noblest ideas can conceive to be that of spirits on the other side of the grave, why, the more we approximate to a divine happiness here, and the more easily we glide into the conditions of being hereafter.

For, surely, all we can imagine of the life of gods, or of blessed immortals, supposes the absence of self-made cares and contentious passions, such as avarice and ambition. It seems to us that it must be a life of serene tranquillity, not indeed without active occupations to the intellectual or spiritual powers, but occupations, of whatsoever nature they be, congenial to the idiosyncrasies of each, not forced and repugnant--a life gladdened by the untrammelled interchange of gentle affections, in which the moral atmosphere utterly kills hate and vengeance, and strife and rivalry. Such is the political state to which all the tribes and families of the Vril-ya seek to attain, and towards that goal all our theories of government are shaped.

You see how utterly opposed is such a progress to that of the uncivilised nations from which you come, and which aim at a systematic perpetuity of troubles, and cares, and warring passions, aggravated more and more as their progress storms its way onward.

The most powerful of all the races in our world, beyond the pale of the Vril-ya, esteems itself the best governed of all political societies, and to have reached in that respect the extreme end at which political wisdom can arrive, so that the other nations should tend more or less to copy it. It has established, on its broadest base, the Koom-Posh--viz., the government of the ignorant upon the principle of being the most numerous. It has placed the supreme bliss in the vying with each other in all things, so that the evil passions are never in repose--vying for power, for wealth, for eminence of some kind; and in this rivalry it is horrible to hear the vituperation, the slanders, and calumnies which even the best and mildest among them heap on each other without remorse or shame."

"Some years ago," said Aph-Lin, "I visited this people, and their misery and degradation were the more appalling because they were always boasting of their felicity and grandeur as compared with the rest of their species. And there is no hope that this people, which evidently resembles your own, can improve, because all their notions tend to further deterioration.

They desire to enlarge their dominion more and more, in direct antagonism to the truth that, beyond a very limited range, it is impossible to secure to a community the happiness which belongs to a well-ordered family; and the more they mature a system by which a few individuals are heated and swollen to a size above the standard slenderness of the millions, the more they chuckle and exact, and cry out, `See by what great exceptions to the common littleness of our race we prove the magnificent results of our system!'"

"In fact," resumed Zee, "if the wisdom of human life be to approximate to the serene equality of immortals, there can be no more direct flying off into the opposite direction than a system which aims at carrying to the utmost the inequalities and turbulences of mortals. Nor do I see how, by any forms of religious belief, mortals, so acting, could fit themselves even to appreciate the joys of immortals to which they still expect to be transferred by the mere act of dying. On the contrary, minds accustomed to place happiness in things so much the reverse of godlike, would find the happiness of gods exceedingly dull, and would long to get back to a world in which they could quarrel with each other."3

1. Gopi Krishna: http://www.kundaliniresearch.org/pubs/moral_sense_and_present_crisis/

2. Kundalini - Gopi Interview with Claes Nobel 1970

3. Excerpts from VRIL: THE DAWN OF THE COMING RACE By Lord Bulwer Lytton (1871)

INDIA: STOP "LANDGRABBING" COLONIAL, EXPLOITATIVE and OPPRESSIVE PRACTICES IN AFRICA!

2011-06-23T07:12:00.000-07:00

“If it is unacceptable for Ethiopians to go to India, China or Saudi Arabia and clear their land without consulting the people, it is unacceptable here. We are human too and we care about the future of our children like everyone else...my message to the foreign investors is, listen to the owners of the land!” (An Anuak man from the Gambella region of southwestern Ethiopia)

An Open Letter to the People of India: a Day Light Robbery in Ethiopia

Dear People of India:

I greet you in peace and hope that the good people of India, who have yourselves thrown off the shackles of colonialism only 63 years ago, will join with Ethiopians and other Africans in confronting the hundreds of Indian companies who are now at the forefront of colluding with African dictators in robbing the people of their land, resources, lives and future! As either prospective buyers or simply as justice-loving Indians, you deserve to have full disclosure regarding the nature of these Ethiopian “business deals,” the impact it is having on “real people” on the ground, and the risks of “doing business” in Ethiopia with the current dictator of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi.

On June 8, 2011, Oakland Institute (OI) http://www.oaklandinstitute.org and the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE) www.solidaritymovement.org released a joint investigative report on Ethiopia, Understanding Land Investments in Ethiopia, http://www.solidaritymovement.org/downloads/110608UnderstandingLandDealsInAfrica.pdf, part of a larger study of nine African countries affected by the new phenomenon called land-grabs. In Ethiopia, these “land-grabs” are being carried out as foreign investors make deals to lease some of the most fertile agricultural land for up to 99 years at negligible prices. Because private land ownership is prohibited in Ethiopia, “land deals” are being negotiated in secret agreements between these foreign investors and the Ethiopian government; without any consultation with the people.

My name is Obang Metho and I am writing this to you on behalf of the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia (SMNE), a non-violent, grassroots social justice movement of diverse Ethiopians committed to bringing truth, justice, freedom, equality and the respect for human and civil rights to the people of Ethiopia and beyond. Our guiding principles are based on putting “humanity before ethnicity,” or any other distinctive that dehumanizes other human beings; and secondly, that “no one is truly free until all are free,” meaning that ignoring or contributing to the injustice, exploitation and oppression of our neighbors, near or far, creates greater insecurity and disharmony for all of us in this global world.

I come to you first and foremost as a fellow human as I call you to join our effort to stop the plundering of Ethiopia and Africa by African dictators, their cronies and their foreign partners—some of whom are Indian—who are hungry for our resources but care little for our people. An indigenous Ethiopian man described it this way: “This regime is one of the most hated regimes in Ethiopian history… they kill the people like they are nothing and with no remorse.” In light of this, I must warn you that those who are “doing business” in Ethiopia, are partnering with an illegitimately elected dictator and his authoritarian regime built on the brutal suppression of the rights of its citizens. The intent of my open letter is to expose the dark underside of these “deals” with the hope of joining forces with those in India who demand justice and human rights for all.

Ethiopia is controlled by a repressive regime, posing as a democracy, which maintains its power not by the ballot, but by the bullet; clearly shown by its99.6% claim to victory in the 2010 election and complete closing off of any political space. All sectors of society are tightly controlled by a one-party minority regime (TPLF), which politicizes all benefits—including business opportunities, education, jobs, agricultural supports and even food aid (see recent Human Rights Watch report http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/10/18/ethiopia-donor-aid-supports-repression )—and punishes any dissent; creating a silenced Ethiopian society.

Ethiopians are pro-business and pro-investment; particularly as Ethiopia is reported to be the second poorest country in the world with 90% of the people living under the poverty level. What we oppose is the daylight robbery of Ethiopia by modern day bandits who are willing to make secret deals with a corrupt government that would be illegal in India and other more developed countries. Abundant resources; combined with a disenfranchised public, few protective regulatory mechanisms, a lack of transparency, duty-free deals and regime promises of cheap labor have brought opportunists from all over the world—from India, China, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Turkey and beyond—all hungry to eat off the weakened carcass of the future hopes of the Ethiopian people.

Into this environment, have come over 500 Indian companies—more than from any other country in the world—to capitalize on this “goldmine of opportunity.” One Ethiopian from the Oromia region protested: “Our land is being given to the Indian companies and anyone who speaks out against it is labeled as a terrorist who is not supposed to have any rights or question any actions by the government.”

Why would any Indians be part of this? Any who resent the colonial past of your own country, should know that it began through the British East India Trading Company; where some of the more unscrupulous often colluded with corrupt indigenous government officials. What would Gandhi say today were he to know that Indians, who were only freed from the shackles of colonialism in recent history, were now at the forefront of this “land-grabbing” as part of the race for foreign control over African land and resources; currently being called the Neo-Colonialism of Africa?

Karuturi Global Ltd, (KGL), the largest investor, has now leased 300,000 hectares in Gambella for 99 years; allegedly paying only $1.19 US per hectare; starting six years from now. This is the equivalent of 55 rupees per hectare! The local people have not been consulted nor compensated and are now being forced from ancestral land and told to build their own homes in resettlement villages.The Karuturi contract, as well as others that have been seen, show no benefits to the local people despite what was said publically. Instead, the regime promises foreign investors that the land will be handed over to them as “vacant” land, free of any impediments. Because villages of people have been living on this newly leased land for centuries, their resettlement elsewhere is being assured in these contracts. Anticipating resistance from the displaced, the regime also promises to provide “security” to these companies.

No one is representing the people or refuting government claims. One indigenous Anuak man in the highly fertile Gambella region complained, “This land is not just “nobody’s land” as the government claims; it is our life! Without it, we could have never existed as a people. I don’t think we will accept our land being given away to foreigners without resisting.” Many Anuak have already been displaced and many more have been warned to leave their homes so Karuturi Global Ltd, can take possession of their land but the people have refused. Please watch the following 12 minutes video of the families who have been forced from their ancestral land. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/21/ethiopia-centre-global-farmland-rush?CMP=twt_gu. In response, Ethiopian troops have arrived in Gambella; arresting increasing numbers of Anuak. Some have disappeared; others have been killed. Whenever the troops come, human rights violations increase. This is not new.

In 2003, 424 Anuak leaders who were opposed to the exploration of oil—due to lack of input from the people and adequate measures to prevent environmental destruction—were brutally massacred in three days. Extra-judicial killings, arrests, rape and destruction of property continued for two years. See Human Rights Watch report: Targeting the Anuak: Human Rights Violations and Crimes against Humanity in Ethiopia's Gambella Region http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2005/03/23/ethiopia-crimes-against-humanity-gambella-region. Investigations by Genocide Watch called these acts of genocide and crimes against humanity; linking culpability to top Ethiopian leadership. The case is now referred to the International Criminal Court.

As Ethiopians are threatening to rise up against the large-scale robbery of land and resources; accompanied by the widespread perpetration of human rights abuses; the Meles regime just has purchased 200 new tanks for $100 million (USD) rather than meet the growing food needs of the 13 to 16 million Ethiopians who must rely on falling levels of food aid from donor countries in the coming months. Who will these tanks be used against if not Ethiopian citizens who are only wanting to survive in their own land?

Companies like Karuturi, Ruchi Soya Industries Limited, Enami Biotech, Supra Floritech, Sharpoorji Pallonji and Co, Praj Industries and others doing business in Ethiopia, should be warned of the risks of complicity in human rights violations or corrupt practices—including bribes and kickbacks—when partnering with a regime known for both; particularly as the government attempts to evict citizens from their land.

Additionally, once this TPLF/EPRDF regime ends—something inevitable considering the rising outrage surrounding these deals—a whole new set of laws will be put in place and any prior agreements will not be binding. Instead, companies seeking to do long-term business in Ethiopia should put pressure on this regime to ensure that no unethical business practices were followed and that the civil and human rights of the people were upheld. As Gandhi warned, “There have been tyrants, and murderers, and for a time they can seem invincible, but in the end they always fall. Think of it—always.”

My fellow people of India, from far away, you may not hear the cries of the Ethiopian mothers, see the tears flowing on the cheeks of the children, feel the pain in the hearts of the elders or know the desperation of the fathers as they lose hope in providing for their families. You may not see the increasing numbers of Ethiopian children with swollen bellies, the emaciated people dying in the streets or the homeless children searching for food, for Ethiopia is already widely known for these images of suffering; however, to Ethiopians, the level and depth of poverty has tragically deepened despite claims of double digit economic growth—the profits of which all must be ending up in the pockets of those in power who have sold out on the people. Only good leadership, accompanied by good governance, will change the image of Ethiopia. As the people of Ethiopia engage in a fervent struggle for such change, will the people of India support or hinder them?

What would you do if an Ethiopian company came to India and evicted citizens from millions of hectares of their own land in order to grow food for export; affecting food security for generations? Would you stand for it? As Indians anticipate the vote on the National Right to Food, does that same right apply to Ethiopians?

In 1947, the Brits did not offer independence to the Indian people, but liberation only came when the Indian people rose up to peaceably demand their God-given rights—something that has made India a shining example to the world. Will you deny us the same?Ghandi’s fight for Indian independence was undergirded with a deep belief in the worth and dignity of every human being. It inspired the greatest movements for freedom and rights in the 20th century; including the Civil Rights Movement of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

We Africans have been the target of colonialization, slavery and exploitation in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and a target of African dictators and their foreign cronies in the 20th century. We have had enough and will not tolerate this new onslaught of exploitation and dehumanization in the 21st century! Many want to keep us Africans poor, disenfranchised and vulnerable only to more easily take advantage of the pillaging of our continent.

Will you help work within India to bring greater transparency and compliance with whatever protective laws and safeguards are in place in India? Will Indian individuals, social justice groups, the media, policy making groups, religious groups and all other stakeholders join us in our struggle for freedom from a dictatorial regime robbing us of our future?

Ethiopians are ready for their liberation and they will slowly, but surely claim it, but we ask you not to be a roadblock. Africans know that when two elephants fight, the grass in the middle is trampled. Right now, the people of Ethiopia and Africa are in the middle of a giant struggle for African resources. Many who are profiting want Africans to stay just as they are—struggling for survival so they “do not get in their way.” Yet, behind the scenes of these business deals, real people are suffering.

Gandhi said, “Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty.”What does this mean today?As investors, companies and nations seek opportunity; let none of us forget the shared humanity of our brothers and sisters both near and far and our God-given responsibility to live “humanely” among each other. Only then will we have reason to hope for greater peace, harmony and cooperation among peoples and nations, for “no one will be free until all are free!

Your African brother,

Obang Metho, Executive Director of the SMNE
Phone 202 725-1616. Email: Obang@solidaritymovement.org. Website: www.solidaritymovement.org

You can find more about The Oakland Institute (OI) through its website at http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/

source: http://farmlandgrab.org/post/view/18812

MONSANTO, THE INDIAN RULING CLASS and THE MASS GENOCIDE OF INDIAN FARMERS

2011-06-02T03:36:00.000-07:00

" More than a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years—the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history."

A study (yet another) recently published by The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at New York University School of Law, found that:

" It is estimated that more than a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 years—the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history. A great number of those affected are cash crop farmers, and cotton farmers in particular. In 2009 alone, the most recent year for which official figures are available, 17,638 farmers committed suicide—that’s one farmer every 30 minutes."

The entire study can be downloaded/read at the following link:

http://www.chrgj.org/publications/docs/every30min.pdf

Furthermore, as the world-famous and respected activist Vandana Shiva clearly states:

"Every suicide can be linked to Monsanto. Monsanto’s GMOs do not improve farmers’ lives. They have pushed farmers to suicide. Over 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. This is neither ecological nor economic or social sustainability. It is ecocide and genocide."

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

The root economic and political causes of farmers' suicide

Farmers' suicide in India are a result and a combination of Bt cotton/GMO's, corporate-sponsored flawed agricultural policies and suicidal economic policies imposed by the IMF/World Bank (i.e. market liberalization, privatizations, removal of subsidies to local farmers, etc.), blindly followed and implemented by corrupt and incompetent officials within the Indian government.

Some personal reflections addressed to the so-called Indian « elite » and ruling class :

From the British Empire & Mahatma Gandhi to the US Empire and Monsanto…

History tragically repeats itself…

Is it not a tragic irony of History that over fifty years after Mahatma Gandhi’s lifelong struggle to liberate Indians from the socio-economic exploitation and political oppression of the British Empire, - by ingeniously using the cotton sector and the Charka (spinning wheel) as a “weapon” for achieving Swadeshi ( i.e. economic & thus political independence)- the new “Empire” (US) and Monsanto are recolonizing the Indian cotton and agricultural sector and committing mass Genocide of Indian farmers in the process, with the political support and criminal complicity of the so-called Indian "ruling class" and "elite"...

Mahatma Gandhi is surely weeping tears from his Soul looking down at the deeply Violent, oppressive, exploitative, unjust, immoral, anti-spiritual and hellish society YOU the morally bankrupt so-called Indian “elite” and the corrupt Indian ruling class have built in India over the last + 50 years…

History tragically repeats itself, this time with the political support of high officials within the Indian government, the Indian ruling class and the so-called Indian “elite”, etc., all of whom have chosen to ignore the spiritual and moral lessons imparted by Mahatma Gandhi, and instead have skillfully mastered the deceitful, exploitative, oppressive and murderous “skills” of their previous and current colonial masters (US)…

NO, you the Indian ruling class and the so-called Indian “elite” have indeed surpassed the Immorality, Greed, Injustice, Exploitation and Oppression of both your previous and current colonial masters. Indeed, even your former British colonial masters never committed the Genocide that you have allowed your current colonial masters (US) to commit through your political support and criminal complicity, which has lead to the Genocide of +250,000 helpless Indian farmers and their families over the last 16 years!

You are all guilty of GENOCIDE and Crimes Against Humanity, Nature and God.

There is obviously no Justice in this low world. However, a Higher Justice awaits each one of you wretched souls.

You have wilfully chosen to disregard the moral and spiritual teachings of Mahatma Gandhi.

However, you cannot ignore or escape the immutable Universal Law of Justice or the Law of Karma.

Indeed you will inevitably "reap what you have sowed"...

And the worthless fiat paper money ($US) paid for your loyal “services” to your colonial masters will be of no use to you in the Higher Court of Universal Justice.

Wait & See…

Some spiritual reflections and warnings from the Other Side…

What vanity or lack of wisdom drives
The guiding spirits of this age to doubt
The fact that laws celestial rule the lives
Of men and cannot be infringed without
Incurring penalties that must be paid
For individual or collective breach,
In strict accordance with the canons laid
For our collective crimes or sins of each?

Undoubtedly impartial jurists sift
The actions which debase us or uplift,
And after judging the ancestral pool
Decree a just reward, delayed or swift.

When deathless laws, we clearly understand,
Rule mighty suns and planets, sea and land,
Could not the wise Creator find one which
Would keep this moving lump of clay in hand?

Nor learned skepticism nor other trash,
Now ranked as wisdom, shall survive the crash,
Which soon will come to teach our wiseacres
That godless reason can become a curse,
And breed Satanic minds, if left alone,
With matchless intellect but hearts of stone:
A crop which is inevitable if
The attitude of scholars, hard and stiff
Towards sublime belief and faith, does not
To Revelation its true place allot.

Can we determine, when we ponder deep
On it that heaven has framed no laws to keep
Mankind upon the Path to reach the goal
It has appointed for the human soul;
And men are free to act as they decide,
To wallow in sin or to drown in pride,
And there is no Almighty Power to deal
With them, the fever of the mind to heal?

Behold the time has come when once again
The auguries of prophets shall come true,
And man, a rebel grown too proud and vain,
With tears for heaven's clemency shall sue.

Gopi Krishna – The Shape of Events to Come

www.gopikrishna.net

2012 or COLLECTIVE KARMA ?

2011-05-12T07:17:00.000-07:00

Some spiritual reflections on natural disasters and other coming chaotic world events.

What vanity or lack of wisdom drives
The guiding spirits of this age to doubt
The fact that laws celestial rule the lives
Of men and cannot be infringed without
Incurring penalties that must be paid
For individual or collective breach,
In strict accordance with the canons laid
For our collective crimes or sins of each?

Undoubtedly impartial jurists sift
The actions which debase us or uplift,
And after judging the ancestral pool
Decree a just reward, delayed or swift.

When deathless laws, we clearly understand,
Rule mighty suns and planets, sea and land,
Could not the wise Creator find one which
Would keep this moving lump of clay in hand?

Nor learned skepticism nor other trash,
Now ranked as wisdom, shall survive the crash,
Which soon will come to teach our wiseacres
That godless reason can become a curse,
And breed Satanic minds, if left alone,
With matchless intellect but hearts of stone:
A crop which is inevitable if
The attitude of scholars, hard and stiff
Towards sublime belief and faith, does not
To Revelation its true place allot.

Can we determine, when we ponder deep
On it that heaven has framed no laws to keep
Mankind upon the Path to reach the goal
It has appointed for the human soul;
And men are free to act as they decide,
To wallow in sin or to drown in pride,
And there is no Almighty Power to deal
With them, the fever of the mind to heal?

Hence, I do not predict but just inform
The world about a mighty Cosmic Law,
Which soon may raise a hideous global storm,
Out of the present groove mankind to draw.

Existence of this Force may soon be felt
When steel and cement walls like wax will melt,
And fuse to rise in clouds of fiery dust;
The Wrath of Heav'n on man's unbridled lust,
Against which every prophet raised his voice,
But often failed to sway the fatal choice.

Those who treat nature as a lifeless rock,
Insensible to virtue, vice and crime,
And fancy that its motion, like a clock,
They can adjust at will from time to time,
One awful day must see it come to life
Confronting them with fierce, aggressive swarms,
And then with loss, distress and slaughter rife
The whole of nature will seem up in arms.

Hence when disastrous situations rise,
Producing consternation and dismay,
A wise man can with confidence surmise:
The Law has been infringed in some way.
Destructive wars that cause the world concern
Present no riddle to the enlightened mind,
Which in the raging tempest can discern
The attempt of nature safety-vents to find.

Behold the time has come when once again
The auguries of prophets shall come true,
And man, a rebel grown too proud and vain,
With tears for heaven's clemency shall sue.

Gopi Krishna – The Shape of Events to Come
www.gopikrishna.net

THE MADNESS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

2011-05-10T09:57:00.000-07:00

The legacy of Tchernobyl: The cost of “cheap” and “safe” nuclear energy…

After Chernobyl, Fukushima…

And after Fukushima…?

The incurably wounded, burnt or maimed
Present a sight that should make us ashamed;
So dreadfully battered, mangled, filled with scars,
As if crushed to a pulp with iron bars,
Unfit to attend to any vital need,
To rise unaided, ease themselves or feed;
Acutely conscious minds in fleshy tombs,
Or monstrous freaks born of inhuman wombs;
Their life one long-drawn night of agony,
Allowed to feel but not to hear or see,
The face a shapeless lump devoid of eyes,
And mouth a hole through which the spirit cries;
The types of human wretches who alive
Although dead to the world, in pain, survive
Out of the victims of a modern war,
Maintained in strict seclusion from us far.

This is the mockery to which, with thought
And care, civilization has been brought,
Setting for many years a hell ablaze
On earth to live in, shudder at, and gaze
On ghastly suffering and appalling wrecks,
As if a vampirish seductress becks
The gaudy caravan by devious means,
To taste the horror of infernal scenes.

Gopi Krishna –The Shape of Events to Come

www.gopikrishna.net

Please see the following slide pictures below and think about the "cheap" and "safe" nuclear energy next time you switch on the lights in your home...

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl

THE MADNESS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY, WEAPONS & WAR

2011-05-10T06:25:00.000-07:00

Pictures of babies & children from Chernobyl, Iraq and Afghanistan, innocent victims of nuclear contamination and nuclear warfare (and human insanity). A Higher Justice awaits all those responsible for this Crime Against Humanity and Life.

AFTER TCHERNOBYL, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ and FUKUSHIMA, WHO WILL BE THE NEXT VICTIMS...?

Prophetic Warning on the madness of nuclear energy, weapons and war...

In all the stormy epochs left behind
Had e'er man such a morbid state of mind
As now, when he has built to win in war
Atrocious weapons that can end his kind?

The world condition has come to a pass
Where greatest danger to the human mass
Comes not from natural causes or disease,
But from the leading men who hold the keys
Of power in their weak but ambitious hands,
And can employ the might of powerful lands
To cause death and destruction on a scale
Before which all the powers of language fail.

One of the ways to meet this deadly threat
To safety is for masses not to abet
The men in power in their ambitious aims,
Which would be hard since they propose their names.

Moreover the rulers do not act alone
For many a wealthy and ambitious drone,
Surrounding them, like kites, plans and conspires
To plunge a nation in the awful fires
Of war, which in this era has become
Pure homicidal mass-delirium.

Now watching helplessly, with deep alarm,
The growing stockpile of the nuclear arm,
Some try in vain to stem the rising flood
Their own imprudence o'er the planet spread,
Which gave unbridled license to the strong,
With full impunity to do a wrong,
Mistaught there is no God to judge their deeds,
And no Celestial Court to award the meeds.

No other single factor ever did
Such harm to mankind as was done, amid
The glamorous progress of the present age,
By scholars who condemned the illumined sage,
Deceived by reason, like an impish wraith,
Who cut unwisely at the roots of faith.

It is not reason but a second sight,
A higher faculty that can throw light
On this recondite subject, at this time
Of such a moment and importance prime,
That every other major problem fades
Into unimportance, as if lost in shades,
For at this critical juncture human life
Is balanced on the thin edge of a knife,
Is in the gravest jeopardy because
We lack in knowledge of Celestial Laws.

Nuclear Weapons: A Symptom of Abnormality

Let us sincerely for a moment ask
Ourselves, when resting from the daily task,
Does not existence at this or that place
Of nuclear engines jeopardize the race?

Is not the threat so imminent and grave
That we may one day find it hard to save
Not just ourselves and all we love and own,
But all the art and culture that has grown
With man's unceasing, patient labor done
By countless generations one by one?

Is not the danger, from what we are told
By scores of experts, many hundredfold
More than that posed by all the plagues combined?
For it can cause extinction of mankind;
Or, at the least, kill millions or distort
In such a ghastly way that nothing short
Of death can end their frightful suffering more
Intense than that of any cancer sore.

What stupor then prevents from crying out,
The myriads doomed without a shade of doubt,
Millions condemned to lifelong agony
So terrible one cannot bear to see?

What destiny creates this nonchalance
Towards a fast approaching Kali's* dance;
Which, if not warded off, will leave behind
Millions dead, millions wounded, millions blind,
Millions disfigured, millions maimed and crazed;
Their assets blown up or to the ground razed?

No one to ease their pain or mourn the loss,
For all the dazed survivors too will cross
Into a horrid world e'en worse than hell,
To face grim famines and diseases fell.

Why are our scholars loath to use their pen
To tell the naked truth to common men?
Do they believe the danger is not so
Immediate or so serious as I show?

Do they suppose the piles of nuclear arms
Will vanish as does snow when sunshine warms
Or that a thousand billion worth of stocks
Will lie unused like subterranean rocks
Or that the havoc of a nuclear war
Will not be so great or extend so far
As I depict, and mankind might survive
The blow, without much loss, to live and thrive?

Our failure to respond to such a threat
Reveals a symptom for the first time met
In human history, for at no time
Have masses acted such a pantomime;
Remained so passive with no word or sign
To show they are not dumb and stupid kine,
But have the common sense at once to grasp
That they are threatened by a deadly asp,
About to bury deep its deadly fangs
In them, and that their life by a thread hangs.

What widely met oblivion tightly holds
The rich and poor in its confining folds?
Or what hypnotic influence sends to sleep
Distinguished scholars that, like docile sheep,
They nimbly trot towards a slaughter house
Obediently, as quiet as a mouse?

The strange indifference which we now display
Towards the greatest problem of our day,
Towards an issue that now holds the scales
Between our life and death, and grief entails,
Call it inertia or, whate'er it be,
A keen observer cannot fail to see
And think it foolish of us, if not worse,
That we should grow so mentally perverse
As ev'n grim prospects of extinction stir
No feeling in us that may be we err,
And ought to ponder on this point to find
The reason for this numbness in our mind?

For probing this point, as well as we can,
We cannot but mark that in modern man
A strange departure from a healthy mode
Of thought has come about, as if a load
Sits heavy on his brain, that he has grown
Indifferent to his death e'en when foreknown.

Were there not something in our actions wrong,
The Evil Forces could not grow so strong,
Could not create in us the fatal trends
To slaughter millions for our selfish ends,
Could not have brought the masses down so low
To be the dumb spectators of a show,
Which now keeps mankind in a state of dread
With clouds of mass destruction o'er her head.

Perhaps, our attitude is partly due
To this, that we have not a picture true
Of what will happen in a nuclear bout,
And, may be, some of us regard with doubt
The claims made for the hideous nuclear blast,
And think the damage cannot be so vast,
Or that the neutral countries will remain
Unharmed and suffer no distress or pain.

But such a stand is yet again a sign
That we are acting like unthinking kine,
For e'en young children know well what befell
When two small nuclear bombs created hell
In Japan, forcing that brave land to sue
For peace, to avoid more such bolts from the blue.

What havoc would result when nuclear darts
A thousand times more powerful, strike the hearts
Of densely peopled towns and countrysides
To spread a vapor in which death resides,
To emit a radiation that can kill
At scores of miles or burn to ash or grill?

What would befall when dozens, if not more,
Of latest nuclear shafts bombard a shore?
And what would happen when to win in war,
The two belligerents, from each other far,
In hundreds use their most destructive darts,
All aimed at densely populated parts
Of hostile lands to spread, where'er they fall,
For many hundred miles a lethal pall
Of deadly fallout long to hang on earth,
Causing outrageous weather, famine, dearth,
And forming soon into a biting cloud
Enwrap mankind in a corrosive shroud.

We should remember that a missile war,
Whether the combatants are near or far,
Will not be fought out on a foreign shore,
But in our country, at our very door,
And to our chambers will be wafted fast
The flesh-consuming poison of the blast,
Creating dreadful havoc far and near,
Such scenes of devastation, death and fear
That can the dazed survivors rob of will,
Their minds unhinge or with sheer horror kill.
Too soon the whole disrupted human world
Into the depths of chaos will be hurled,
The scene of panic-stricken, frantic crowds,
Unnerved completely by the mushroom clouds,
And stunned, when they entirely shattered find
The interlinked economy of mankind,
Their bank, industrial center, shopping site
Looking like silent graveyards during night,
Of all the glitter, pomp and show bereft,
With not a single living creature left.

The earth enveloped in despair and gloom
For ev'n a moment's joy will have no room.
Like shipwrecked sailors on an island cast
To live in utter want and often fast,
Millions will wilderness make their abode
To live in travail with a crushing load
Of sorrow, suffering and remitless toil
To build the world anew right from the soil.

I am not writing this to fling a scare,
But if it be an error to lay bare
Alarming truths of vital moment for
The whole of mankind at this crucial hour,
Of such importance on them does depend
Whether the race will live or come to end,
I must plead guilty now, and press the plea
That judgment should rest with the progeny,
Which will be better able to decide
How exigent it was to stop the tide,
That sweeping o'er the earth had washed away
Resistance to this Evil of the day.

If after all the experience gained by us,
And all our knowledge we do not discuss,
And take more seriously the aftermath
Of such a pitfall, looming in our path,
Which shall not only shatter all our bones,
But turn our homesteads into sand and stones,
It means that either we are gripped by sloth,
And would burn rather than turn, like a moth,
From bright ambitious dreams that hold us fast
And draw us headfirst to a holocaust;
Or, like birds fascinated by a snake,
We lie immobile leaving things to take
Their course, until the Bomb makes us its prey,
While we wait hypnotized the fatal day.

Or we are not convinced that such war can
Come to destroy the whole dream world of man,
And hope that luck or prudence will prevail
To bar the use of this infernal hail,
Or that no one is of sense so bereft
To fight a war in which no one is left.

But who can say what irreparable harm
Will follow when this foul, Satanic arm,
Like hundreds of volcanoes, bursts to pour
A vitriolic ash on every shore,
Causing climatic rigors never met,
The harmony of nature to upset.

The havoc caused is sure to take a shape
As awful as the door of hell agape,
Would show to horror-stricken mortal sight,
To freeze the marrow with benumbing fright,
As shrieking, groaning wretches twist and writhe
In dreadful postures, and in thick gasps breathe
Corrosive fumes, laid on a scorching bed,
Under a ceiling of fire overhead,
With cold sweat streaming down the anguished face,
While red-hot pins tear off flesh from its place,
No water to assuage the parching thirst
Or cool the burning fever, growing worse.

For days and weeks to endure infernal pain
Until delirium grips the tortured brain,
And soothing death the torment comes to ease,
When their contortions and convulsions cease,
Beyond the reach of aid, as no one near
Is left alive a helping hand to bear.

With such a prospect and two bloody wars
Before our eyes, what mental twist debars
The elite from seeing that a bloodier third,
With nuclear weapons, plunging all the world
Into a blazing hell-fire, to our shame,
Might be fought leaving mankind broke and lame,
So dreadfully mangled that it would take an age
To patch the damage done by nuclear rage?

Why do we disbelieve or disregard
The words of those who put us on our guard
Against a possibility that can be
A stark reality for you and me,
Or all of us, demanding from our part
Preventive efforts done with all our heart?

Look at the people passing unconcerned,
Absorbed deep in what they have lost or earned,
And mark there is no serious talk about
What should, indeed, fill them with fear and doubt:
About the alarming state the world is in
Where our existence hangs upon the spin
Of change to cause the initial clash that can,
In but a day effect the wreck of man,
And then no one can tell what will befall
Or who will suffer-others or us all.

There must be some defect beyond our ken
Which, yet unnoticed by the world of men,
Has caused a partial torpor of the sense
Of safety, made this instinct slack and dense,
Has in some way eclipsed the Orb of Light,
The Source of all our sense of wrong and right,
Has somehow caused obstruction in the Ray,
Which keeps the evil threatening us at bay,
And like the commonly met morbid streak,
In those towards drink or vice who are weak,
Is not perceptive of the nuclear threat,
Although to other hazards most alert.

Is there not something morbid in this calm,
This sense of safety, this pretense and sham,
That keeps us tongue-tied and somehow contrives
To make us dead to a danger to our lives?
Which having now become a usual trait
Keeps us from knowing our abnormal state?
Keeps us from knowing e'en that there is ground
For worry, for which some cure must be found?
While some deceived by hope that Heaven will save
The world somehow, ignore the yawning grave,
Again forgetting that Celestial Laws
Are always just in the events they cause.

There might come heavier blows that will not spare
Anyone but will be for all to share;
For those who tamely follow a wrong lead
Cannot escape the guilt of evil deed.
The more our weapons gain in power and range
The more the urgency that we should change.

When heaven intends, to suit the Cosmic Plan,
To change unhealthy habits formed by man,
To humble and deflate his bloated head,
Or cleanse the poison skeptic thought has spread;
In short, when there occurs a need for change,
A tangled thread of life to rearrange,
Then ere the evil grows beyond repair
To cure it, as a vacuum in the air,
When it exceeds a certain point, entails
From denser regions furious storms and gales;
Terrestrial life creates a mental storm
A faulty social order to reform.

See how a raging tempest sweeps away
The dust and dirt and throws in disarray
One whole affected region, bringing down,
Like match-sticks, giant trees in many a town
And country, smashing doors and window panes,
And hurling down the roofs in streets and lanes,
Causing a pandemonium while men dash
For shelter, midst the deafening din and crash
Of falling debris and the thundering roar
Of wind, in fury rising more and more,
Until with fitful gusts its rage abates,
When men and things resume their normal states.

Does not the same befall when dreadful storms
Of riot and revolution change the forms
Of governments and social systems which
In man's progressive movement cause some hitch?

Did not the same befall whene'er the rage
Of great historic wars in any age
Hit kingdoms and world empires, like a blast,
Their sovereignty and boundaries to recast?
Did not then millions with their precious lives
Remove impediments which, with the gyves
Of wealth and power, enchained a massive part
Of mankind, ruling it with as much art
As is displayed now by some nations which
In man's advancement cause again a hitch,
And so, as has befallen oft before,
The same dread process may recur once more;
This time with more destructive weapons than
Those used before by power-besotten man?

Alas, our lust for power or wealth untold
Should so befool us and our thinking mold
That, with our brilliant intellectual rise,
We should think that the measures we devise
Or contemplate, untrue to man and God,
As diplomatic trick, pretense or fraud,
Can e'er succeed against the Almighty Plan
Of Heaven aimed at the unity of man.

Can we arrest the movement of the earth,
Or shorten by an inch its mighty girth,
Prevent the sun from rising in the east,
Or cool its fiery ardor in the least,
Or hold a while an atom from its course
Without encountering its explosive force?

If not, what lack of sense in us denies
The knowledge that when nought under the skies
Can flout the laws of nature or its might
Resist, can puny man put up a fight,
By mean resort to sneaking trick and ruse,
Against a measure Heaven decides to use?
So either nature is unjust and blind,
Or there is some unfathomed Law behind
Our present fatal choice to act like this,
And has a meaning which today we miss,
But must become apparent at its time
To strengthen mortal faith in Laws Sublime;
And if it be not so, then Faith should cease
And leave men free to frolic as they please.

For if you hold belief in God, can He
Be so impotent or leave men so free
That they kill millions, as one kills a louse,
While He looks timidly on, like a mouse?
An infantile belief that cannot stand
The probe of reason or the keen demand
Of stern morality, for it would mean
That Satan is the master, and we lean
On God, as slaves to false beliefs, and not
Because He is the ruler of our lot.

I know my these few words will not avail
Against the summoned force of Doom's assault,
But hoping better counsels might prevail
For Heaven's mercy soon to mend our fault;
I, in obedience to an Inner Voice,
Coming from regions deeper than the mind,
Beyond the sphere of mortal will and choice,
Make this submission to alert mankind
That we have passed beyond the safety line
In our immoderate thirst for wealth and might,
Which is against Creation's Grand Design,
And forces Nature too to set us right.

Past all defenses, past all ramparts built
At such enormous cost as could suffice
To keep earth's starving millions from the guilt
Of crimes committed for a morsel twice
A day, the infernal engines, as if wrought
By nature for requite through mortal hands,
Shall spread destruction, poison, death and rot
Among the people of contending lands.

And this to such a staggering extent
That future men shall shudder at the thought,
And centuries of time and labor spent
On pomp and vanity shall come to naught.
The awe-struck world shall shiver, numb with fright,
Deprived of feeling, movement, joy and mirth,
As monstrous globes of fire site after site,
Teeming with human crowds, wipe off the earth.

Thus shall be fought, to purge the poisoned world
Of sin, a bloody Mahabharata*,
With hellish arms by human agents hurled,
To re-establish faith in Moral Law.

Conclusion

Today mankind cannot survive for long,
Divided into fragments, if a strong
Decision-making body at the head
Of one United World, whose rule is spread
To each and every corner of the globe,
Is not appointed soon to look and probe
Into the main affairs of every state,
Drawn from all nations now, and not too late,
Kept on the o'erall task to build and plan
A new world order for progressive man.

It is high time that mankind heeds the signs
Which point to what the racial mind designs,
What is the surest method we can find
To build a war-free world for humankind,
And end the menace of a nuclear war
Which, from all indications, is not far,
To save from horror, death and agony
Millions of guiltless souls who cannot see
How close they are to yawning jaws of death
Or life-long torture borne to the last breath.

Of all this mad race for supremacy
In nuclear power the only end can be
A confrontation on a luckless day,
And this is what my visions, too, portray.

A cry arises from my troubled heart,
A crushing load descends to press me down,
I feel all of my body ache and smart
And in a gloomy sea of sorrow drown,
As with eyes open and the mind awake
I am allowed to watch scene after scene
Of stark, appalling horror that will make
The blooming earth, now lovely and serene,
A foul inferno, glowing red in space,
Where human lust, become the cause of doom,
Millions will kill, and millions clean efface,
Or slowly with dire agony consume.

Whole towns will vanish or in ruins lie,
And deserts burn where crowded cities were,
Millions with hunger, thirst or terror die,
And millions run round shrieking mad with fear.
Millions disfigured, crippled, wounded, maimed,
Tortured at every step, would limp and crawl,
Their faces pale with anguish, eyes inflamed,
With hardship or exhaustion dead to fall.

Men, women, children, sick, infirm and weak
Disheveled, sleepless, hungry, plagued by flies,
Too ill to drive them off, to move or speak,
In vain will look for help till their hope dies.
No horror story e'er conceived so far,
No tale of ghastly murders ever told,
No picture of the havoc done in war
Can match the ghastly scenes that will unfold.

Fiery cyclones racing with lightning speeds,
And flaming hurricanes, extending far,
Will chase escaping crowds to burn, like reeds,
Or roast them coal-black, as if dipped in tar.
This false, deceptive glamor, pomp and show,
In which pretentious vanity delights,
Nemesis will into disorder throw,

And on more sober lines rebuild the sites.
For nature has decreed that every time
Man barters his soul to indulge his lust,
All that he harvests by this heinous crime
Against himself, will be reduced to dust.

This age of boundless wealth, uncounted goods
And endless wonders, which grow day by day,
May end soon, for on it disaster broods,
And scorching hurricanes are on the way
To close an era that has grown too rich
And reckless for man's health and safety both,
And, if not ended at this moment, which
Would seriously distort his inner growth.

Why view the future with a sinking heart,
And try to find retreats to escape the doom,
The Lesson is designed to cause a smart,
For wholesale healthy changes to make room.

The wonder is we readily accept
The world of matter from the tiniest grain,
But when it comes to mind do we suspect
A World of which an Atom runs our brain?
This atom, clothed in flesh, we call the soul,
Ordained by slow ascent to know itself,
But oft in dark about its real goal,
Is lured by tempting pleasure, power and pelf.

For ages alchemists endeavored hard
To find the secret of eternal youth.
But nature does her Treasures so well guard
That few of them could hit upon the Truth,
Which is that hidden in the mortal frame
There is a splendor, blissful, calm and bright,
Not bound by time, devoid of form and name,
Which keeps the flame of life in us alight.

This wonder of creation we cannot
Imagine nor describe nor paint nor draw,
For here we reach the end of human thought,
The point where scholars line up with the raw.

These are the alternatives to choose from:

Either cremation in a nuclear storm,
And for the injured torment to the end,
A bleak and blasted world in which to spend
One's life, all comfort, joy and rest denied;
Or to renounce hate, prejudice and pride,
Excess, immoderation, greed and lust
For power, to foster mutual love and trust,
In tune with Faith's decrees and Laws of God,
To foot the same Path which the Enlightened trod.

Our progress on the path of truth involves
Greater concern for other's woe and weal,
Because the more the human mind evolves
The more it oneness with the rest should feel.

This is the reason why the enlightened mind
Has shown this noble trait throughout the past:
True Love and deep concern for all mankind
With selfless zeal for service to the last.

That is how nature regulates the play
Of life, as she ordains the eves and morns.
Some come, with bleeding hands, to sweep away
What some have sown and scattered-pins and thorns.

Remember, life can be a fairy tale,
A dancing sunbeam when it bathes in light
Some charming landscape, a blooming hill or dale,
And makes all that it touches alive and bright,
If for a fraction of the time we spend
In idle gossip, fun or vain pursuit,
We pray to Heaven a helping hand to lend
To those in pain, distress or want acute,
To see their shrunken hearts expand with joy,
And hope return to light their darkened lives;
To ease their pain and grief or to destroy
Their fear until the ebbing strength revives.

This highly gifted being is not born
To work himself to death for earthly things,
But to irradiate, like the sun at morn,
The light of love which cheer and warmth brings.

What, after all, is thoughtful man here for?
To toil and sweat for wealth or seats of power?
And lose them both at death or in a war,
Living in dread of this to the last hour?
There is enough provision, talent, wealth
To keep the race in plenty and in peace,
If greed and lust for power by trick or stealth
Did not the artless of these treasures fleece.

A warring mankind cannot co-exist
With modern weapons, one of them must cease:
Either complete ban on the Iron Fist
Or One World Order, for which labor pleas.
Contentment, truth, compassion, love and peace
Are more necessary for the health of brain
Than all the fabulous wealth of Rome and Greece,
To keep evolving mankind safe and sane.

Excessive lust, ambition, passion, greed
For earthly goods or power or carnal feasts
Can warp and twist the tender human seed,
And change the angels-to-be into beasts.

Allowed to wallow longer in the mire
Of reckless pleasure, craze for power and gold,
Mankind one day consumed in nuclear fire
Might cease-her story but a legend old.
The tragedy is that our leading minds,
Regardless of the crisis we are in,
Engrossed in their ambitious dreams of kinds,
Know not that we against our future sin.

This is why Revelation came to warn
Mankind, in time, to moderate her lust,
But treating Faith as a fictitious yarn
Science this crisis on the race has thrust.

Next two eventful decades will unfold,
An awe-inspiring Drama, staged by Fate,
To end the present order, as foretold,
With fires of war lit by greed, power-lust, hate.

When dust has settled on the fiery scene,
Then on the ashes of the past would rise
A One-World State built on the Golden Mean
To make man happy, healthy, peaceful, wise.

That air-befouling, earth-polluting ware
Upon which greed's ambitious empire stands,
Replaced by safer types, with thought and care,
Will pass from wasteful into thrifty hands.

In every civilization of the past
The storm came, when to pleasure, rank or gold
The rich and powerful, hungry to the last,
Like children mad for toys, their soul had sold.

The high and mighty of our day, again,
Do what their counterparts did in the past,
And hostile to the still-evolving brain,
Wait for their exit, too, the atomic blast.

Unlike the men of learning, I do not
Depend on effort for creative thought,
Or on the opinions of great men to find
Support for the new thought born in my mind.

A formless Presence, infinitely wise,
An ocean of thought from which insights rise,
A grace unbounded and compassion deep,
Permit me many a time to have a peep
At a stupendous Something which no mind
That found access to it has e'er defined.

And born of firm conviction that cannot
Be had from aught conceived by mortal thought,
Or aught observed by eye or heard by ear,
But far more clear and intimately near,
I write these verses, like a pupil taught
By silent whispers coming out of naught.

And having gained this rare estate akin
To that of ancient seers, allowed to win
Approach to higher planes of consciousness,
So marvelous that no words can express
The wonder of it, I, although remiss
In many ways, transported to a bliss
And to abodes of such effulgent light,
Dancing before my vision day and night,
Such a Divine, effulgent silvery sheen,
Which fills with glory all the objects seen,
That in unbounded wonder at this sight,
At this enchanting Eden always bright,
I live in ecstasy day, night and morn,
Into a new world of experience born,
So rich, so full of grandeur, peace, delight,
That mind and senses, ravished by the sight,
Their contact with the external world withdraw

To watch the Inner with amaze and awe.
And Ah! the glorious realm in which I live,
Transporting, elevating, always new,
Beyond the horizon of my hopes and dreams,
All our philosophies and clever streams
Of thought, beyond conception, knowledge, guess,
That cannot be imagined more or less,
As foreign to the normal human mind
As sunlight is to one from birth is blind,
Or sugar to a man devoid of taste,
Or rapture of love to a virgin chaste:
A state of consciousness as far removed
From our conceptions though hard to be proved,
As light from darkness, summit from the base;
The future common asset of the race,
Towards which with slow, halting steps our brains
Are working their way up pulled back by chains
Which, due to ignorance, we often forge,
When we ourselves with earthly dainties gorge.

The difficulty, faced by ancient seers
To bring conviction home to their compeers,
Crops up as people cannot see the way
How this mysterious soul-uplifting ray
Of Cosmic Consciousness can bring about
So marvelous a change, remove all doubt
About Divinity, transform a man
Into a gifted seer, with power to scan
The complex problems which confront mankind,
At times too mixed up for a normal mind;
But clear as crystal to an illumined sage,
Ordained to expose the errors of his age.

The flash of great discoveries, matchless skill,
And gift of poesy, not gained at will,
And inspiration of great authors rise
From depths of consciousness, where genius lies,
Thence come the moods and visions that create
New gems of thought and masterpieces great
Of science, art, and literature which
Have made mankind so cultured, wise and rich.

The fire that has transformed the face of earth
From man's cortical matter ne'er took birth;
But comes, by Grace, from regions far away
Where mortal lusts and passions hold no sway,
Where sovereign Consciousness in state abides,
And in the appointed manner mankind guides
With vision, insight, flash of thought or trance
Which scholars wrongly attribute to chance.

The blooming garden of creative thought
In man, which has such sweeping changes wrought,
That from a helpless, weak, impoverished state
He touched the peak of progress in a spate
Of great discoveries that had lain concealed
In mortal mind for long to be unsealed,
By Chosen Vessels, only at the time
And place ordained before by Laws Sublime,
And who can say what other priceless gems
Still lie uncovered to become the stems
For e'en more precious buds of thought and skill
To raise evolving mankind higher still.

From war to peace, barbarism to the height
Of culture, to ideals and visions bright,
Man is ascending step by step without
The least idea what all this is about,
Why this bewildering life, why peace and war,
Why love and hate and why these problems bar
The understanding of what brought him here
To think and wonder, to run here and there
To meet his pressing needs, to have a weight
Around his neck, tied hard by cruel Fate.

These hard, unanswered Riddles from the dawn
Of reason many vainly brooded on,
To leave as mystified as when they came,
Including wise men of great name and fame,
All working, sleeping, loving, hating in
Their own peculiar way to lose or win,
To pass the round of day, night, eve and morn,
And leave as empty-handed as when born.
The sweating labor done through all their life,
The daily chores, the struggles and the strife,
All fading, like an ended dream at morn,
With the last breath of every mortal born,
A dancing bubble on the ocean's face,
Lost in immensities of time and space.

All this alarm of war and threat of guns,
Of frightful missiles and dread megatons
Is nature's warning of a faulty trend
Which makes material goals the aim and end
Of life, for man comes not to act a farce,
To be a well-led, brightly harnessed horse,
Who makes his round of duties with his eyes
Only half open to the earth and skies,
Oblivious to his glorious destiny,
From what he is now what he has to be.

Man does not know that he has woken up
To earthly life to sip the ambrosial cup
Of Life Sublime, to realize that he,
Free from the earth belongs to Eternity:
The cream of earth, the bright Immortal Spark,
The priceless Gem of Life, lost in the dark
Of ignorance, the Glory of the Sun
And stars, the countless host contained in One.

The fragment and the whole, of all the known,
The knower in his majesty alone;
The ocean, all-surpassing, e'er supreme
Of Cosmic Consciousness a Deathless Beam
That has to know itself to rise above
The lower passions, high in Truth and Love,
And building on this earth a Paradise,
In ecstasy to roam the boundless skies;
And drawn in oneness with all that exists,
Released from mental clouds and sensual mists,
To taste the bliss of rapturous union with
The Fount of Life-the Eternal Ground beneath
The massive Cosmos of effect and cause,
Which melts away, as if it never was!

Gopi Krishna – The Shape of Events to Come

www.goptikrishna.net

Please also watch the following pictures:

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essay/chernobyl

http://www.xs4all.nl/~stgvisie/VISIE/extremedeformities.html

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Baby2003.htm

AGRA DOES NOT SUPPORT GMO's IN TANZANIA & AFRICA...?

2011-04-17T06:50:00.000-07:00

"A special advisor to former United Nations Secretary General, Kofi Annan, Dr Tesfai Tecle and Nairobi based AGRA president, Dr Namanga Ngongi said in Dar es Salaam, (Tanzania) recently that GMOs are a complicated family of crops hence sophisticated to regulate which makes it impossible for countries like Tanzania to adopt. [...]

Dr Tesfai said AGRA’s position on GMOs is clear by encouraging production of local high breed seeds through agriculture research institutions and private companies based in the countries where the alliance operates. “AGRA’s position is that we don’t support genetically engineered seeds,” Dr Tesfai stated

Ngongi further added: “AGRA simply helps to improve and upscale the technology that is already on the ground while GMOs are new technologies being introduced.”

source: http://dailynews.co.tz/business/?n=18106&cat=business

However, these fraudulent statements are simply a deceitful strategy adopted by AGRA in response to the widespread opposition to GMO's in Africa. Contrary to what AGRA says, the real (hidden) objective of AGRA is to introduce GMO's into Tanzanian/African agriculture. In fact, that is its raison d’être !

I hereby wish to share with you the following information which Dr Tecle and Dr Ngongi carefully failed to reveal about AGRA’s true (hidden) agenda and mission in Africa.

Excerpts of some recently published articles on AGRA:

The Close Alliance Between Gates Foundation and Monsanto

In an article published online this month, Dr Mercola writes:

As I discussed last month, Wikileaks has revealed just how deeply entrenched the US government has become with Monsanto. It's long been known that the government was being unduly influenced, but the leaked cables revealed the reality is far worse than expected; the US Department of State is actively promoting the private interests of Monsanto across the world.

As revealed by previous Wikileaks documents, the Bush administration conspired to find ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified (GM) seeds, mainly by engaging in aggressive trade wars against reluctant nations.

But it doesn't end there.

As if that's not enough, Monsanto now also has one of the wealthiest and most influential "philanthropists" supporting their agenda and spreading misleading propaganda, namely Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft. Between his close ties to Monsanto and his aggressive pro-vaccine stance—without regard for safety on either issue—Gates may just be one of the most destructive "do-gooders" on the planet.

As reported by Netline, Monsanto and other biotech companies have collaborated with the Gates Foundation via the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) to inject genetically modified crops into Africa. The Gates Foundation has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to AGRA, and in 2006 Robert Horsch was hired for the AGRA project. Horsch was a Monsanto executive for 25 years.

In 2006, the Gates Foundation appointed Dr. Robert Horsch as the Senior Program Officer in the Global Development Program, which directly supervises the AGRA initiative. Horsch came to the foundation after 25 years on the staff of the Monsanto Corporation …

“The collusion of the Gates Foundation with Monsanto corporation is no accident, as high level officials leading AGRA are former Monsanto executives. The recent purchase by AGRA of $500,000 worth in Monsanto stocks was vivid proof of that close relationship.Despite many words by Gates officials since the inception of the AGRA agenda denying that GMO seeds would be used as part of AGRA, their close relationship with Monsanto has now been revealed to be a key element in their agronomic “new green revolution” strategy.”

Source :http://www.agriculturalmissions.org/netline_2011_002.htm

In a previous Huffington Post article, Eric Holt Gimenez – Executive Director of Food First - sums it up nicely:

“ Under the guise of "sustainability" the Gates Foundation has been spearheading a multi-billion dollar effort to transform African into a GMO-friendly continent. The public relations flagship for this effort is the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), a massive Green Revolution project. Up to now AGRA spokespeople have been slippery, and frankly, contradictory about their stance on GMOs.”

The first Director of AGRA was Gary Toenniessen, a career program officer for Rockefeller Foundation. He said AGRA was not ruling out GMOs and if and when they were introduced it would be with all the appropriate "safeguards."

After AGRA was criticized for not having any Africans, Kofi Anan was named Chairman in 2007. He first said GMOs were out of the picture, the next day he recapitulated.

Last Spring, Joe DeVries, who runs the AGRA seed program was asked by a Worldwatch blogger if they were engaging in genetic engineering. "Read our lips," said Joe DeVries. "We are not promoting or funding research for GMOs (genetically modified organisms)..."

“ In fact, in Kenya alone AGRA has used funds from the Gates Foundation to write grants for research in genetically modified agriculture. Nearly 80% of Gates' funding in Kenya involves biotech and there have been over $100 million in grants to organizations connected to Monsanto. In 2008, some 30% of the Foundation's agricultural development funds went to promoting or developing genetically modified seeds” (See Ending Africa's Hunger)..

“ More to the point is that--as Monsanto and Gates are fully aware--to establish a healthy GMO industry one first needs a strong conventional breeding program in place: labs, experiment stations, agronomists, extensionists, molecular biologists... and farmer's seeds. All of which Gates, Rockefeller, Monsanto and AGRA are actively lining up.”

“ They also need the power of U.S. government funding. That is where the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Casey-Lugar come in. USAID is now headed up by former Gates employee Rajiv Shah. The Casey-Lugar Global Food Security act ties foreign aid to GMOs. When the Gates Foundation places a bet, they like to hold all the cards.”

“ Africa's seeds are a potential windfall investment for Monsanto. Regardless of the philanthropic side of its intentions, cloaked in the sheep's clothing of AGRA, the Gates Foundation is moving stealthily opening African seed market to global corporations. When the research, extension, and U.S. foreign aid is all in place Monsanto will swoop in for the feast.” Writes Eric Holt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-holt-gimenez/monsanto-in-gates-clothin_b_696182.html

“It would be naive at this point to think that these collaborations are designed to solve any other problem than how to help Monsanto monopolize the world's food supply with expensive GM seeds that have to be purchased each year and require expensive chemical treatment” writes Dr Mercola.

Gates' Financial Conflicts of Interest Sheds Additional Light on his Foundation's Agenda

“If you had any doubts about where the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is really placing its bets, AGRA Watch's recent announcement of the Foundation's investment of $23.1 million in 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock should put them to rest, furtherwrites Eric Holt

In the second quarter of 2010, the Gates Foundation purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock with an estimated worth of $23.1 million.

In August of last year, AGRA-Watch wrote:

"The Foundation's direct investment in Monsanto is problematic on two primary levels," said Dr. Phil Bereano, University of Washington Professor Emeritus and recognized expert on genetic engineering.

"First, Monsanto has a history of blatant disregard for the interests and well-being of small farmers around the world, as well as an appalling environmental track record. The strong connections to Monsanto cast serious doubt on the Foundation's heavy funding of agricultural development in Africa and purported goal of alleviating poverty and hunger among small-scale farmers. Second, this investment represents an enormous conflict of interests."

http://www.seattleglobaljustice.org/2010/08/for-immediate-release-gates-foundation-invests-in-monsanto/

“It seems clear that despite the denials that GM seeds would be used as part of AGRA's strategy, the close ties between the Gates Foundation, AGRA, and Monsanto, and the financial conflicts of interest between the Gates Foundation and Monsanto appear to be "a key element of AGRA's "new green revolution" strategy," Netline writes.

“ Genetically modified crops represent one of the most significant threats to life on this planet and must be stopped. Unfortunately, there's no shortage of smart men misusing their intelligence. Bill Gates is just one of the most prominent in this group”, concludes Dr Mercola

Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/03/05/wikileaks-exposes-unholy-alliance-of-us-government-bill-gates-and-monsanto.aspx

Key positions in AGRA are all held by people who owe their careers to Monsanto and the biotech industry:

In 2006, the Gates Foundation appointed Dr. Robert Horsch as the Senior Program Officer in the Global Development Program, which directly supervises the AGRA initiative. Horsch came to the foundation after 25 years on the staff of the Monsanto Corporation …

Another major player hailing from the St. Louis biotech hub is Lawrence Kent of the Danforth Center, an institute that is heavily funded by Monsanto. … Unsurprisingly, on January 8, 2009, St. Louis Post Dispatch reported that the Gates Foundation has awarded a $5.4 million grant to the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, to “help the center secure the approval of African governments to allow field testing of genetically modified banana, rice, sorghum and cassava plants that have been fortified with vitamins, minerals and proteins.”

Lutz Goedde, another hire from the biotech industry, is the former CEO and President of Alta Genetics, and is credited with making Alta the world’s largest privately owned cattle genetics improvement and artificial insemination company. All three are working for the Gates Foundation, funding projects aimed at the developing world.

“AGRA is the biggest grantee of the Gates Foundation. With over $262 million committed, AGRA is poised to become one of the main institutional vehicles for changing African agriculture..”, writes Anurandha Mittal from the Oakland Institute.

http://crossedcrocodiles.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/agra-monsanto-gates-green-washing-poor-washing/

I rest my case.

Truthfully,

Arya

SAGCOT: NEW GREEN (OR GREED) REVOLUTION FOR TANZANIA ?

2011-04-17T05:02:00.000-07:00

MONSANTO, USAID and AGRA’s BLUEPRINT FOR A “GREEN REVOLUTION ” IN TANZANIA & SOUTHEASTERN AFRICA.

"SAGCOT is an initiative which I believe personally is the best model to fast track the green revolution in Tanzania.”Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete, President of the Republic of Tanzania

Background

On January 2011, President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete of Tanzania alongside Hugh Grant – Chairman and CEO of Monsanto - and Rajiv Shah - USAID administrator - officially presented and inaugurated the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT) Investment Blueprint at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland.

In a foreword to the SAGGOT Investment Blueprint, President Kikwete said:

“Tanzania is, in essence, an agricultural country where agriculture means almost everything. Over 80 percent of the people live in the rural areas and agriculture is their main source of livelihood. Agriculture, therefore, holds a unique position with
respect to the socio-economic wellbeing of Tanzania and her people. It is a critical factor in efforts to reduce and, ultimately, eradicate poverty in the country. We cannot eradicate poverty, promote balanced socio-economic growth and achieve food
security without transforming our agriculture.

Since independence, transforming agriculture has been the focus of government policies and actions of all administrations. When we came into office in 2006, we completed the design of the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy (ASDS) and the Agriculture Sector Development Programme (ASDP). The former was the policy and the latter its action plan for a green revolution in Tanzania. The objective was to take bold actions to enable Tanzania to realize her aspirations of a modernized and highly productive agriculture.

In 2009, a new strategy called "Kilimo Kwanza‟, meaning „Agriculture First‟ was designed. The new strategy, properly anchored the involvement of the private sector in the development of agriculture. It underscored the critical importance of the private sector participating actively in agricultural production, provision of agricultural inputs, crop marketing and in the agricultural value chain.

It is in this context that, the Government welcomed the idea of the SAGCOT initiative. This is a public private partnership well-placed to achieve the objectives of Kilimo Kwanza…In the end, we will succeed to create a corridor of highly productive and competitive agriculture at the local, regional and global market place. Food security will be assured and wealth creation for the smallholder farmers would become a reality. We will also witness significant poverty reduction among the people who live in the corridor and its surroundings.

The southern agricultural corridor can be the breadbasket of Tanzania and beyond. We, in Government are convinced that the initiative supports our objectives for a
Tanzanian green revolution. "SAGCOT is an initiative which I believe personally is the best model to fast track the green revolution in Tanzania"1

Please also watch the following speech made by President Kikwete at a press conference during the inauguration of SAGCOT in January 2011 at the World Economic Forum in Davos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpOLkoqHw0E

What is the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor of Tanzania (SAGCOT)…?

SAGCOT is a public-private agricultural “partnership” project between the Tanzanian government and a consortium of US and foreign biotechnology, chemical and other agribusiness multinational companies, local private stakeholders, banks, multilateral “donors” and the US and Norwegian government.

It is led by an Executive Committee co-chaired by the Minister of Agriculture of Tanzania, and the Executive Vice President (North and Central Africa) of Unilever. Both the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) and USAID are members of its Executive Committee.

According to information published by the World Economic Forum:

“ The project is led by 17 global partner companies of the World Economic Forum who provide strategic leadership and championship of the initiative. These include: Archer Daniels Midland, BASF, Bunge Limited, Cargill, The Coca-Cola Company, DuPont, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Metro AG, Monsanto Company, Nestlé, PepsiCo, SABMiller, Syngenta, Unilever, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., and Yara International.

A diverse network of global and local stakeholders are engaged in initiative dialogues and partnerships. The World Economic Forum manages the initiative, engaging a wide array of stakeholders in its dialogues, partnerships, and thought leadership activities. The Forum‟s Global Agenda Council on Food Security, a high-level multi-stakeholder group, provides advisory and leadership support to the initiative.” 2

The SAGCOT fits into the framework of the New Vision for Agriculture, a commercial, market driven, export-oriented agricultural policy developed and led by a consortium of private foreign multinational companies from the World Economic Forum.

An official press statement published on Monsanto’s website states:

“ Speaking at a press conference at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Tanzanian President Jakaya Kikwete announced the launch of a new initiative designed to alleviate hunger in his country and propel agriculture into a new era of productivity. The initiative, called A New Vision for Agriculture, is the result of joint efforts between 17 global partner companies and the governments of Tanzania, Vietnam and the United States.

Also participating in the press conference were Hugh Grant, Chairman and CEO of Monsanto, Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever and Rajiv Shah, Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

In his opening address, President Kikwete described the challenges his country faces, including "ensuring food security, eradicating widespread rural poverty and promoting sustainable economic growth."

He also outlined the evolution of his thinking about cooperating with corporate partners. After realizing that most of Tanzania's existing agricultural interventions were solely government-led, Kikwete said he decided to seek assistance from business interests. "[I felt] we should find ways of involving the private sector in the development of agriculture in Tanzania. We came up with a new vision we called Kilimo Kwanza, which means „agriculture first.'"

According to Kikwete, the initiative promises to create more than 500,000 jobs and lift 2 million people out of poverty.

In his own remarks, Hugh Grant took the opportunity to put the world's agricultural challenges into perspective. "By the time we trudge home tonight through the ice and the snow, another 200,000 people will have arrived on our planet." To meet the needs of a growing population, A New Vision for Agriculture is designed to achieve what Grant called the "20-20-20" plan: increase crop production worldwide by 20%, reduce the emissions from agriculture by 20% and reduce rural poverty by 20%.

Wrapping up the press conference, Rajiv Shah announced that USAID was contributing $2 million to Tanzania's "catalytic fund," designed to help launch A New Vision for Agriculture.

"In the current environment of rising food prices, we believe it is smarter and more efficient to support agriculture in order to prevent the more costly and harmful famines, food riots and failed states that will result if we do not make these investments." 3 said Rajiv Shah.

“We are witnessing an unparalleled opportunity right now for innovative, large-scale private sector partnerships to achieve significant impact on global hunger and nutrition. USAID is committed to creating new public-private partnerships in Feed the Future focus countries to advance their national investment plans”

“ USAID will join multinational companies like Yara, General Mills, Monsanto, Syngenta and others in support of the investment blueprint for years to come, and hopes to expand the blueprint in the future to at least five additional African countries,” Rajiv Shah boastfully and confidently stated.4
Syngenta - the Swiss multinational biotechnology company – who is a corporate partner
in the SAGCOT stated:

“We are delighted to be a founding member of the SAGCOT initiative and are committed to making it a success,” said Robert Berendes, Head of Business Development at Syngenta. The development of farming in Africa, and especially for smallholder farmers is critical to ensuring food security in the region and globally. Syngenta aims to identify specific projects to invest in within the Tanzania corridor - a key focus will be on enabling access to inputs, sharing agronomic knowledge and developing appropriate technology.”

Syngenta will play a role in helping to provide opportunities for smallholder farmers to engage in profitable and sustainable agriculture. This will involve incentivizing stronger links between smallholders and commercial agribusiness, including „hub and outgrower‟ schemes that allow smallholders in the vicinity of large-scale farms to access inputs, extension services, value-adding facilities and markets.” 5

AGRA - who helped to fund the initial project study and sits on the Steering Committee of SAGCOT – was also present at the lauch of SAGCOT In Davos.

AGRA President Dr Namanga Ngongi stated that “Tanzania like so many African countries has enormous agricultural potential that is ready to be unlocked with the right investment. Agriculture in Tanzania and all of Africa can become a model of efficiency, high productivity, and sustainable development. This initiative is very much in line with AGRA‟s breadbasket approach and the CAADP compacts to catalyzing a Green Revolution.” 6

Official stated objectives of SAGOT

The SAGCOT Investment Blueprint states that its aims are to “convert smallholder farmers into commercial farmers” and “to establish a critical mass of profitable, modern commercial farming and agri-business, focusing on carefully selected areas and crops with high market potential.”

Building on existing operations and planned investments, the clusters will be centered on areas of particularly high agricultural potential and might include nucleus large-scale commercial farms and smallholder outgrower schemes; serviced farm blocks; processing and storage facilities available to commercial and smallholder farmers; and improved infrastructure to farms and local communities.” 7

The SAGCOT Concept Note further states:

“Southern Tanzania has significant “natural” potential for building a profitable agriculture sector. It has good soils, climate and water resources and a reasonable and improving “backbone” infrastructure providing access to local, regional and international markets

“ There is huge potential to develop a sustainable commercial farming sector in Tanzania serving regional and overseas markets, as recognised by the Kilimo Kwanza initiative.

Kilimo Kwanza calls for the private sector to mobilise new investment to promote a modern and profitable agriculture sector in Tanzania. It also calls for a transformation of smallholder farmers into commercial farmers.

SAGCOT will be the first major initiative to be launched under Kilimo Kwanza, and will establish a model for future agricultural growth partnerships that can be replicated throughout the country.” 8

The SAGCOT Investment Blueprint further explains:

“ Tanzania‟s southern corridor links the port of Dar es Salaam to Malawi, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. It benefits from good „backbone‟ infrastructure – including road, rail and power – and passes through some of the richest farmland in Africa. The area could become a globally important producer of crops and livestock.
Today, however, its agricultural potential is largely dormant and the majority of the rural population remains poor and food insecure.

Building on Tanzania‟s “Kilimo Kwanza” („Agriculture First‟ strategy), the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint describes how $2.1 billion of private investment will be catalysed over a twenty year period, alongside public sector grants and loans of $1.3 billion. The result will be a tripling of the area‟s agricultural output. Approximately 350,000 hectares will be brought into profitable production, much of it farmed by smallholder farmers, and with a significant area under irrigation.

Over the next 20 years, SAGCOT will facilitate the development of agriculture clusters in the southern corridor. They will be centered on areas of high agricultural potential with shared infrastructure where economies of scale can rapidly develop. Cluster development will be driven by the private sector based on the needs and opportunity of each area. Additional clusters will be added as SAGCOT moves forward.” 9

The SAGCOT Investment blueprint was officially presented and inaugurated by President Kikwete at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland in January 2011. The project is now in its implementation phase and fully operational.

TANZANIA and SOUTHEASTERN AFRICA: NEW BRAZIL and ARGENTINA…?

Some personal observations and reflections:

The SAGCOT does not “only” aim to industrialize and privatize agriculture in Tanzania and in Southeastern Africa, but – worse – it will transform Tanzania and the entire region into vast private agro-industrial monoculture plantations to grow local grain and other food crops as raw material to produce agrofuels, animal feed, and other industrial and pharmaceutical products for export and consumption in affluent countries, using patented GM seeds on over five million ha of prime fertile and irrigated land in the targeted “southern corridor” of Tanzania (as a starter), that stretches from Dar es Salaam across Tanzania all the way into Malawi, Zambia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo ! (see detailed map in report)

In a nutshell, the real long-term objective of the SAGCOT is to reproduce the Brazilian and Argentinean agricultural “model” of privately-owned, export-oriented, industrial monoculture plantations of soya, maize, sugarcane, etc. using GM patented food seeds and crops.

Please watch this short 12 minutes documentary for an overview of the health and the socio-economic genocide and environmental ecocide resulting from this agricultural “model” in Paraguay/South America.

Killing Fields: The battle to feed factory farms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-gBRQSXp5s

In fact, the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint clearly and unambiguously spells out this objective:

Excerpts from the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint 9:

"There are similarities between the southern corridor ( of Tanzania) and the Cerrado region of Brazil as it was in the early 1970s, before it became a major global agriculture producer. Climatic and soil conditions are broadly comparable and many of the same crops can be grown (e.g. maize, soya, rice, sugarcane). SAGCOT has an advantage over the Cerrado in having direct access to the Port of Dar es Salaam and relative proximity to Asian markets

In the Cerrado, soya bean production increased fivefold from 9.9 million tones in 1975 to 51.4 million tonnes in 2005. The success of the Cerrado is commonly attributed to a combination of:

• public sector support for research, infrastructure and low-cost finance for farmers, supported by minimum price guarantees, and
• significant private investment, which created economies of scale and scope for all players in the agriculture value chain.

The Cerrado experience shows that, where the natural conditions are suitable, investment in commercial agriculture can result in rapid growth of profitable production and farm incomes. Brazil‟s success shows what can be achieved in a relatively short period of time if there is properly coordinated public and private investment in commercial agriculture.

But it also poses a challenge for Tanzania and other countries yet to realise the potential of their agriculture sectors: competition in international markets is intense. To compete successfully in those markets Tanzania will have to catch up with the likes of Brazil and match their levels of efficiency and scale."

However, rapid development and agricultural growth of the sort achieved in Brazil is accompanied by risks. For example, in the Tanzanian context rapid modernization of the farming sector could disrupt traditional livelihoods, exclude smallholder farmers and have unintended environmental impacts.

Although the report recognizes the negative socio-economic consequences and “risks” and environmental hazards associated with this agricultural “model”, it claims to “ promote a form of agricultural development that directly benefits smallholder farmers and rural communities” and that “ it will undertake careful environmental impact assessments” to address these “risks”. 9

The SAGCOT Investment Blueprint further explains the economic rationale of its agricultural “model”:

“African agriculture is attracting increased interest from the private sector. With a rapidly rising global population, the world‟s grain output must rise by around 70 per cent and meat output will have to double by 2050. With the right type of investment and political support, Africa could switch from being a net importer to a major exporter of agricultural products, in particular to markets in the Middle East and Asia.

However, for this to happen countries like Tanzania will have to become more competitive. There are other land-rich parts of the world – such as Brazil and Eastern Europe – which are already attracting the majority of private capital flows.

To illustrate the market opportunity, the diagram below compares Tanzania‟s current competitiveness against imported soya beans from Brazil. Although production costs are higher than Brazil‟s, the international freight and other shipment costs to East Africa far outweigh this disadvantage (Figure 1.4). It should therefore be possible for Tanzania to compete effectively with foreign imports. A similar picture emerges for crops such as wheat and rice.”10

Figure 1.4 Import substitution in short-term (CIF and landing charges, cost at Dar es Salaam)

GM SOYA BEANS COST:

 Tanzania $US 400/mt
 Brazil: $US 600/mt

See graphs on pg 13 of the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint for detailed comparative analysis and further details. 11

GMO’s:

The report carefully avoids to specifically mention the term “GMO’s”, although it does so subtly by using “new seed varieties” and “improved seeds” instead of “GMO’s”.
Excerpts from the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint:

“ The approval process for the commercial release of new seed varieties and plant material is cumbersome because of the many legislative requirements and the
numerous government departments involved. Improved seeds is often the easiest way to increase yields without incurring significant extra costs, but is an option unavailable to most Tanzanian farmers.

There are also policy areas that are important where SAGCOT will work with advocacy organisations such as the Agricultural Council of Tanzania: for example, streamlining processes for approval and release of new seed varieties; facilitating access to titled land; removing export bans where unnecessary or counterproductive; and improving incentives for commercial agricultural production through the taxation system.

Kilimo Kwanza already recognises the need for reforms in many of these areas. The challenge is to implement the reforms quickly and ensure that they lead to tangible changes on the ground, including at the Local Government Authority level where key decisions are made regarding approvals for commercial agriculture investments.”

The Government of the United Republic of Tanzania recognises the constraints on commercial agriculture and supports the Kilimo Kwanza initiative launched by the Tanzania National Business Council. The objectives of Kilimo Kwanza respond to many of the pressing needs for reform in the agricultural sector and the initiative acknowledges the pressing need to move from subsistence to commercial farming. A final requirement is to improve the business and policy environment such that it that supports, rather than hinders, the development of commercial agriculture.” 12

Furthermore, in a recent article published in Reuters, Jerry Steiner, Executive Vice President of “sustainability” at Monsanto (never mind the oxymoron) clearly states:
“The initiative's partners would first work with local governments to formulate policy and address infrastructure shortcomings, then assess the seed -- both conventional and genetically modified -- and other inputs appropriate for any given region.”13

"As a company we are positioned all the way along that supply chain for that integrated solution to get out there," 14 added Craig Binetti, who oversees DuPont's nutrition & health business.(never mind the oxymoron)

The presence of Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont and BASF as corporate “partners” in the project makes the intended introduction of GMO’s into the SAGCOT obvious and inevitable.

Concluding remarks:

It thus becomes unambiguously clear from the above that the SAGCOT aims to produce local grain and food on vast privately-owned agro-industrial GMO monoculture plantations to be used as raw material to produce agrofuels, animal feed and other industrial and pharmaceutical products for export and consumption in affluent countries, NOT to feed hungry Tanzanians and Africans…

Furthermore, delocalizing and reproducing the Brazilian and Argentinean agricultural “model” in Tanzania and Southeastern Africa will result in environmental ecocide and in the health and socio-economic genocide of millions of Tanzanians, as testified by the empirical and scientific evidence resulting from imposing this agricultural “model” in South America.

It is also worthy and worrisome to note that the consortium of biotech, chemical and agribusiness multinational companies involved in the SAGCOT project are the exact same corporations involved in the production of GMO soya, maize, sugarcane and other GMO “food” crops produced in South America and exported as agrofuels, animal feed, etc. for consumption in affluent countries.

As Einstein rightly stated:

“ Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Converting millions of small holder subsistence farmers in Tanzania and in the region into so-called “commercial farmers” and transforming the smallholder-dominated agricultural sector in Tanzania and in the region into vast privately held, export-oriented, monoculture industrial plantations using expensive patented sterile GMO seeds and toxic chemicals is not a panacea for achieving President Kikwete’s stated objectives of “ achieving food security, eradicating widespread rural poverty and promoting balanced socio-economic development and sustainable economic growth.”

As Olivier de Schutter - UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food – clearly writes in his recent report:

“We won‟t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations” The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers‟ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.” 15

The solution

AGROECOLOGY IS THE SOLUTION TO FEED TANZANIA, AFRICA AND THE ENTIRE WORLD.

As Olivier de Schutter writes in his recent report - Agro-ecology and the right to food 16 - presented on March 08, 2011 before the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva:

“To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available. Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live - especially in unfavorable environments.”

“To date, agroecological projects have shown an average crop yield increase of 80% in 57 developing countries, with an average increase of 116% for all African projects,” De Schutter says. “Recent projects conducted in 20 African countries demonstrated a doubling of crop yields over a period of 3-10 years.”

“Agroecology applies ecological science to the design of agricultural systems that can help put an end to food crises and address climate-change and poverty challenges. It enhances soils productivity and protects the crops against pests by relying on the natural environment such as beneficial trees, plants, animals and insects.”

“Conventional farming relies on expensive inputs, fuels climate change and is not resilient to climatic shocks. It simply is not the best choice anymore today,” De Schutter stresses. “A large segment of the scientific community now acknowledges the positive impacts of agroecology on food production, poverty alleviation and climate change mitigation -- and this this is what is needed in a world of limited resources.”

“ Malawi, a country that launched a massive chemical fertilizer subsidy program a few years ago, is now implementing agroecology, benefiting more than 1.3 million of the poorest people, with maize yields increasing from 1 ton/ha to 2-3 tons/ha.” “However, despite its impressive potential in realizing the right to food for all, agroecology is still insufficiently backed by ambitious public policies and consequently hardly goes beyond the experimental stage.”

The report identifies a dozen of measures that States should implement to scale up agroecological practices.

“Agroecology is a knowledge-intensive approach. It requires public policies supporting agricultural research and participative extension services,” De Schutter says. “States and donors have a key role to play here. Private companies will not invest time and money in practices that cannot be rewarded by patents and which don‟t open markets for chemical products or improved seeds.”

De Schutter also urges States to support small-scale farmer’s organizations which demonstrate a great ability to disseminate the best agroecological practices among their members. “Strengthening social organization proves to be as impactful as distributing fertilizers. Small-scale farmers and scientists can create innovative practices when they partner”, De Schutter explains.

“We won‟t solve hunger and stop climate change with industrial farming on large plantations. The solution lies in supporting small-scale farmers‟ knowledge and experimentation, and in raising incomes of smallholders so as to contribute to rural development.”

“If key stakeholders support the measures identified in the report, we can see a doubling of food production within 5 to 10 years in some regions where the hungry live,” De Schutter says. “Whether or not we will succeed this transition will depend on our ability to learn faster from recent innovations. We need to go fast if we want to avoid repeated food and climate disasters in the 21st century.”

Olivier De Schutter was appointed Special Rapporteur on the right to food in May 2008 by the United Nations Human Rights Council. He is independent from any government or organization.

The root economic and political causes of hunger & poverty in Africa

Poverty and hunger - the worst form of Violence - are a direct result of unfair global trading rules, 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 governments 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 African 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 and poverty in Africa.

As Mahatma Gandhi rightly stated: "There is enough food in the world to satisfy everyone's needs but not everyone's greed."

Notes & references:
1. Foreword by president Kikwete to the SAGCOT Investment Blueprint
2. http://www.weforum.org/issues/agriculture-and-food-security/index.html
3. Monsanto press statement published on Monsanto’s website : http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/tanzanian-president-announces-new-vision-for-agriculture.aspx
4. Press release published on USAID’s website http://www.usaid.gov/press/releases/2011/pr110128.html
5. Press release published on Syngeta’s website
http://www2.syngenta.com/en/media/eventsandpresentations-WEF2011-SAGCOT.html
6. Press release published on AGRA’s website:
http://www.agra-alliance.org/content/news/detail/1238
7. SAGOT Investment Blueprint
8. SAGCOT Concept Note
9. SAGCOT Investment Blueprint
10. Ibid
11. http://www.agdevco.com/images/stories/pdf/TANZANIA/invest-blueprint-sagcot.pdf
12 SAGCOT Investment Blueprint
13 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/15/us-food-summit-agriculture-idUSTRE72E7Q020110315
14 ibid
15 Press release by Olivier de Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food: http://www.unscn.org/layout/modules/news/documents/Agroecology_press_release.pdf
16 Ibid

You can download a PDF copy of the following reports at the following links:

SAGCOT Investment Blueprint:

Executive Summary:

http://www.agdevco.com/images/stories/pdf/TANZANIA/ibp_executive_summary.pdf
Entire report :

http://www.agdevco.com/images/stories/pdf/TANZANIA/invest-blueprint-sagcot_high_res.pdf

The SAGCOT Concept Note:

http://www.africacorridors.com/sagcot/documents/SAGCOT%20Concept%20Note.pdf
SAGCOT official website:

http://www.africacorridors.com/sagcot/

New Vision for Agriculture report from the World Economic Forum (WEF)

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/IP/AM11/CO/WEF_AgricultureNewVision_Roadmap_2011.pdf

Agro-ecology and the right to food, report by Olivier de Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food:

http://www.unscn.org/layout/modules/news/documents/Agroecology_report.pdf

BT COTTON: PANACEA or TROJAN HORSE...?

2011-03-01T03:55:00.000-08:00

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

OPEN LETTER TO DANIEL MATERUKA - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE AATF - REGARDING THE OPEN-FIELD TESTING OF MONSANTO'S WEMA GM MAIZE IN EAST AFRICA

2011-01-28T00:23:00.000-08:00

OPEN FIELD TRIALS OF MONSANTO’S (so-called) “DROUGHT TOLERANT” GM MAIZE TO BEGIN IN EAST AFRICA

GM maize trials to begin in East Africa

By Katy Migiro

NAIROBI, Oct 15 (Reuters) - Confined field trials of genetically modified maize will begin in Kenya and Uganda this year once regulators approve it, the U.S.-based non-profit African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF) said.

Scientists from Kenyan and Ugandan government research bodies, Monsanto (MON.N) and research body International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) developed the 12 varieties of Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) due to be planted.

Maize is the most widely grown staple food in Africa and is badly affected by drought. The scientists aim for the drought-resistant GM maize to increase yields by 24 to 35 percent.

"Everything we have seen in the simulated trials shows that we can safely test transgenic maize varieties in carefully controlled and confined field trials in Africa," James Gethi, the WEMA-Kenya country coordinator, said in a statement seen by Reuters late on Thursday.

Scientists conducted mock trials in simulated conditions in Kenya and Tanzania in 2009. The transgenic maize will now be planted in 1-2 hectare confined fields once Kenya and Uganda give regulatory approval.

The world's poorest continent, where agriculture contributes up to a quarter of GDP in some countries and is an important source of foreign exchange, is increasingly turning to genetically modified crops to bolster food supplies.

But critics and consumers, mostly in Africa and Europe, have questioned the safety of GM foods and have banned their import or cultivation due to fears they could harm humans and wildlife.

If the maize is approved, it will be licensed to AATF, which is funded by the United States and British governments.

"The expected WEMA transgenic drought-tolerant maize seed will be sub-licensed to local seed companies royalty-free for a term or duration to be determined based on future product deployment agreements," AATF Communications Officer Grace Wachoro said in a statement to Reuters.

"The confined field trials will enable the project to address safety issues."
AATF said the resulting trial maize crop will be destroyed in accordance with Kenyan and Ugandan research regulations.

Trials are also planned for South Africa, Mozambique and Tanzania.

More than 30 countries, including all of the European Union, have restricted or banned the production of GM crops because they are not considered proven safe.

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE69D1Q320101015

I am deeply concerned and worried about the serious health hazards, the irreversible environmental damage and the negative socio-economic consequences that could result from open-field trials (to be followed by commercial cultivation) of the WEMA GM maize in Tanzania and throughout the region.

In fact, there is ample independent scientific and empirical evidence from around the globe which clearly links GM maize - and GMO’s in general - to serious human and animal health hazards, irreversible environmental and ecological destruction and negative socio-economic consequences for both farmers and countries growing GMO’s.

In a study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, scientists have linked three of Monsanto's GM maize to organ damage.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Furthermore, several EU states and other countries around the world have banned GM maize and other GMO crops based on independent scientific and empirical evidence which link GM maize and other GMO crops to serious negative health hazards on both human and animals and to serious irreversible damage and destruction to the environment and the entire ecosystem. The German government has recently banned Monsanto's GM Maize (MON 810)- the only GMO crop authorized by the EU - calling it "a danger to the environment.."

Tragically, however, at the same time East African countries are set to begin open-field testing of Monsanto's so-called "drought-resistant" GM maize to " fight hunger and poverty..." The AATF is blindly pursuing regulatory approval for open field testing of its WEMA GM maize in Tanzania and throughout the region, irrespective of the documented scientific and empirical evidence on the hazards and consequences associated with GM maize/GMO’s, and in violation of the Precautionary Principle contained in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which Tanzania has ratified.

I have written to the Executive Director of the AATF – Mr. Daniel Mataruka – to express my worries and deep concern about this issue. Unfortunately - although not surprisingly - I have not yet had a response from the AATF. I am enclosing a copy of my email below for your information.

Daniel Mataruka
Executive Director
The African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF)
P.O. Box 30709
Nairobi 00100, Kenya
Email: aatf@aatf-africa.org
Cc: n.muchiri@aatf-africa.org

Re: Safety of open-field testing of Monsanto’s WEMA GM maize in East Africa

Mr. Mataruka,

I am writing to you regarding the open field trials of the 12 so called ‘drought tolerant” varieties of Monsanto’s Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) scheduled to begin this year in Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Mozambique and Tanzania, as indicated in a press release by the AATF published on your website.

Source: http://www.aatf-africa.org/userfiles/PressRelease-WEMA-CFT.pdf

I hereby wish to briefly share with you and draw your attention to the following documented independent scientific evidence linking GM Maize to grave human and animal health hazards and to inevitable and irreversible environmental genetic pollution and environmental destruction, before you open Pandora’s box with your dangerous experiments…

NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH GM MAIZE & GMO’s

Scientific study links Monsanto’s GM Maize to organ damage

In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, an independent scientific study published by Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini - a molecular biologist at the University of Caen (France) and President of the Scientific Council of the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering - in the International Journal of Biological Sciences has linked three of Monsanto’s GM maize with organ damage.

Three varieties of Monsanto’s GM corn – Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup® herbicide-absorbing NK 603 – were approved for consumption by US, European and several other national food safety authorities. The data used for this approval, ironically, is the same data that Professor Seralini and other researchers used and studied to link Monsanto’s three GM maize varieties with organ damage.

The data “clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system,” reported Séralini.

Link to the study: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#headingA11

This latest study conforms with a 2007 study by professor Seralini on Monsanto’s (Mon 863) maize, published in Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, using the same data. (see below)

In May 2005, a report by the Independent in the UK revealed that secret research conducted by Monsanto on its GM maize MON863 showed significant variations between the rats fed with conventional maize and those fed with MON863 . These included an increased number of white blood cells in the males, reduced immature red blood cells in females, a significant increase in blood sugar in the females or a higher frequency of physical irregularities in the kidneys of the males, such as reduced weight and inflammation.

Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini has conducted an analysis of the Monsanto study, the results of which are briefly summarized below:

The study revealed that rats fed the GM maize for three months showed signs of liver and kidney toxicity, as well as differences in weight gain between the sexes.

Professor Seralini writes:

"Our counter-evaluation show that there are signs of toxicity and that nobody can say scientifically and seriously that consumption of the transgenic maizeMON863 is safe and good for health," "We have the first signs of toxicity that appear at the level of body weight, the kidneys, and the liver, and that are also different between the sexes indicating deeper effects at the hormone level."

"Considering that the human and animal populations could be exposed at comparable levels to this kind of food or feed that has been authorised by several countries, and that these are the best mammalian toxicity tests available, we strongly recommend a new assessment and longer exposure of mammals to these diets, with cautious clinical observations, before concluding that MON863 is safe to eat," "The GM maize should not be allowed to be licensed as food or feedstuff in EU countries," said lead author of the study, Professor Gilles Eric Séralini

Environmental group Greenpeace has demanded an immediate and complete recall of MON863 from the global market, and also called on an urgent reassessment of all other authorised GM foods by governments.

"It is the first time that independent research, published in a peer-review journal, proves that a GMO authorised for human consumption presents signs of toxicity," said Arnaud Apoteker from Greenpeace France.

The study is published on-line in the peer-review journal Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology.

http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/Quality-Safety/Serious-concerns-raised-over-

Furthermore, several other independent scientific studies have found serious negative human and animal health effects associated with GMO consumption.

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

The AAEM writes:

“Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

A recent 2008 study links GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn. This study also found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation. Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth and disruption of the intestinal immune system."

"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 " concludes the AAEM

ENVIROMENTAL HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH GM MAIZE & GMO’S

Furthermore, several EU states and over 30 countries around the world have declared a moratorium and banned GM maize and other GMO crops based on documented independent scientific and empirical evidence which link GM maize and other GMO crops to grave negative health effects on both human and animals and to serious irreversible hazards to the environment and the ecosystem as a whole.

Germany bans Monsanto’s GM Maize, calling it “ a danger to the environment.."

The German government has banned Monsanto's GM Maize (MON 810) last year - the only GMO crop authorized by the EU - calling it "a danger to the environment.."

“The decision was announced on by German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner, writes the BBC. Ms Aigner, said she had concluded that "there is a justifiable reason to believe that... MON 810 presents a danger to the environment". Ms Aigner said the decision to ban it now, based on new data, was purely scientific, not political.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7998181.stm

France, Greece, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria and Hungary have all banned Monsanto's genetically modified maize using the EU’s precautionary principle because of serious scientific concerns on the long-term effects of the GM maize on the environment. The cultivation of all other GM crops is banned in the EU.

GENETIC CONTAMINATION “INEVITABLE” & IRREVERSIBLE

Genetically modified maize contaminates crops in seven German states
Despite a Europe-wide ban

Genetically modified maize has contaminated local maize crops in seven German states, according to research from Greenpeace. The state's agriculture ministry confirmed the research on Sunday. "This is, to date, the largest scandal concerning genetically modified seeds in Germany," said Alexander Hissting, an agriculture expert with Greenpeace.

The scandal occurred in March of this year, when Pioneer and other agribiotech corporations sold 23 different varieties of maize seeds contaminated by Monsanto’s illegal NK603 to farmers who cultivated them on 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) in seven states in Germany, where contaminated farmers had to destroy their crops. [6] According to the German-based Foundation on Future Farming [7], the seed companies refused to accept liability and have not compensated farmers for up to hundreds of millions of Euro in economic losses.

Greenpeace says the corn already growing in the fields must now be destroyed, which could lead to millions of euros in losses for farmers. According to the organization's research, blood tests in animals have shown genetically modified corn to have a significant effect to the liver and kidneys.

"Putting the consumer at risk is not up for discussion," said Hissting.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5657053,00.htm

“Massive Genetic contamination” of local maize in Spain

A report published by Greenpeace titled “ Impossible Coexistence” warns about the health and environmental hazards of GM Maize commercially grown in Spain and the “massive genetic contamination” of local maize crops:

The commercial cultivation of GM maize in Spain is causing “massive genetic contamination” according to Greenpeace.

“ The first cases of GE contamination have already occurred in Spain. In 2001, organically grown maize in the Navarra region was contaminated by Bt176 maize and, as consequence, farmers suffered losses since the crop couldn't be marketed as organic produce.

"In several cases the affected farmers suffered economic losses, as they were not able anymore to sell the contaminated maize at a premium market value,"claimed the report.

"Despite guarantees by various Spanish governments that guidelines and controls would ensure safety, farmers and consumer choice the reality has been the opposite.
"The Spanish experience demonstrates that GM and non-GM co-existence is a fallacy," said Ritsema.

"Testimonials from farmers demonstrate that the unabated growth of the GM industry now represents the single largest threat to their livelihoods, especially in the regions Aragn and Catalonia where GM crops are mainly cultivated."

Greenpeace claims that the report, written in cooperation with farmer organisation Assemblea Pagesa and civil society group Plataforma Trangnics Fora!, is based on research including laboratory tests of samples taken from the maize fields of 40 Spanish organic and conventional farmers.

It claims to show that in almost a quarter of the investigated cases, unintended and unwanted presence of GM maize was found in the maize fields of non-GM farmers. The pressure group says that contamination was as high as 12.6 per cent.

The Spanish situation highlights the need for measures to prevent the genetic contamination of conventional and organic crops and should serve as a warning for the other European countries.

"This report should be taken as a warning to the Commission and Europe in general of the dangers of GM production, " said Greenpeace campaigner Geert Ritsema

Allowing contaminated seeds to be put on the market would lead to a creeping and unmonitorable contamination of all European farmlands by GMOs that would make it impossible to sustain a GE-free supply after a few years. GE companies should instead be made legally and financially liable for the environmental and economic damages their products can cause.

Preventing genetic contamination and other negative effects of GE crops should now be the number one priority for the Spanish Government instead of actively promoting GE agriculture in Spain. We call on Spain to apply the precautionary principle and to stop the growing of GE crops. The Spanish example should be a warning signal to other European countries not to allow GM crops.

As a result, Greenpeace is calling on the Spanish authorities to suspend the cultivation of GM in Spain. It is also calling on EU ministers and the European Commission to prevent the cultivation of GM crops in other EU countries.

Link to the report:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/features/new-report-slams-gm-maize-in-s/

Genetic contamination of local maize in Mexico

Furthermore, a scientific study published in decembre 2008 in the Journal of Molecular Ecology confirms the genetic contamination of native Mexican corn in southern Mexico, as reported earlier by Chapela and Quist in 2002 (see below). The study found evidence of the 35S Promotor, a trait widely used in genetically modified crops to promote herbicide or disease resistance.

Source : http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_17133.cfm

link to study:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2008.03993.x/pdf

On 17 September 2001, Mexico’s Secretary for Environmental and Natural Resources released partial results of its own study, confirming that transgenic maize had been found in 15 of 22 areas tested in Oaxaca and nearby Puebla. [15]

Just over two months later, Chapela’s team published in Nature. ‘We report’, wrote Chapela and Quist, ‘the presence of introgressed transgenic DNA constructs in native maize landraces grown in remote mountains in Oaxaca, Mexico, part of the Mesoamerican centre of origin and diversification of this crop’. In plain English, they were reporting contamination of native corn by its GM equivalent.

‘Whatever the source, it’s clear that genes are somehow moving from bioengineered corn to native corn’, says Chapela. ‘This is very serious because the regions where our samples were taken are known for their diverse varieties of native corn, which is something that absolutely needs to be protected. This native corn is also less vulnerable to disease, pest outbreaks and climatic changes.’ [17]

In January 2002, the Mexican Ministry of the Environment confirmed their findings from the previous year and said that in some remote regions of Oaxaca and Puebla, between 20–60 per cent of tested farms had traces of transgenic material. [53]

In April, Jorge Soberon, the executive secretary of Mexico’s National Commission on Biodiversity, announced the findings of the Mexican government’s research at the International Conference on Biodiveristy at The Hague. Soberon confirmed that the tests had now shown the level of contamination was far worse than initially reported in both Oaxaca and Puebla. A total of 1876 seedlings had been taken by government researchers and evidence of contamination had been found at 95 per cent of the sites. One field had 35 per cent contamination of plants alone. [86]

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, 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]

My question to you Mr Daniel Mataruka regarding the safety of open-field testing of WEMA GM Maize in East Africa:

In view of the above independent scientific evidence documenting the health and environmental hazards associated with GM maize and the “inevitable” and irreversible genetic contamination of local maize crops by GM maize:

a) How can you guarantee the safety of the WEMA GM maize on both human & animal health, the environment and the ecosystem?

b) Have you carried out independent scientific health and environmental risk assessment studies for each one of the 12 varieties of the WEMA GM maize as legally required by article 15 of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety?

Article 15 RISK ASSESSMENT

1. Risk assessments undertaken pursuant to this Protocol shall be carried out
in a scientifically sound manner, in accordance with Annex III and taking into
account recognized risk assessment techniques. Such risk assessments shall be
based, at a minimum, on information provided in accordance with Article 8 and
other available scientific evidence in order to identify and evaluate the possible
adverse effects of living modified organisms on the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to
human health.

As stated in Annex III of the Protocol : RISK ASSESSMENT -Objective

The objective of risk assessment, under this Protocol, is to identify and
evaluate the potential adverse effects of living modified organisms on the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the likely potential
receiving environment, taking also into account risks to human health.

c) What regulatory, precautionary and preventive measures have the ATFF, Monsanto and its institutional partners put in place to prevent and protect the local maize crop from “inevitable” (and irreversible) genetic contamination resulting from the open field testing of the WEMA GM maize in East Africa?

d) And finally, who will be legally and financially liable in case of damage to both human & animal health and to the economy, the environment and the ecosystem as a whole resulting from the open-field testing (and planned commercial planting) of the WEMA GM maize?

I thank you for shedding some light into my interrogations, and I look forward to your response.

Note: Although the AATF has acknowledge receipt of my letter (see below), they have not yet responded to my inquiry.

RE: Safety of WEMA Maize...Thursday, January 13, 2011 2:54 AM
From: "Muchiri, Nancy (AATF)" View contact details
To: arya@yajnacentre.com
Cc: "Wachoro, Grace (AATF)"

Dear Arya,

This is to confirm receipt of your mail and enquiry to which we will respond as soon as possible.

Kind rgds for now

Nancy Muchiri
Communications and Partnerships Manager,
P.O. Box 30709, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya
Tel: 254-20 422 3700 • Direct line 254-20 422 3733 • Fax 254-20 422 3701
Via USA – Tel: 1 650 833 6660 • Fax: 1 650 833 6661 • Cell 254 735992206
E-mail: n.muchiri@aatf-africa.org
www.aatf-africa.org

Notes & references

4. Testimonies of Contamination, Greenpeace, 15 October 2009. This report documents the socioeconomic and human impacts of GM contamination, based on testimonials from farmers and food producers who have been directly or indirectly harmed as a result of contamination in Spain, the only EU Member State whose government allows the commercial cultivation of GM maize. The testimonials depict the stark reality of serious contamination of conventional and organic crops and the food chain. Download report: http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/eu-unit/press-centre/reports/testimonies-ofcontamination-15-10-09.pdf
6. These include five seed varieties sold by Pioneer Hi-Bred and 18 by Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow AgroSciences and other agri-biotech companies. The contamination was discovered by Lower Saxony’s Ministry of Agriculture at the beginning of March 2010. For details see:
7. Foundation on Future Farming: http://www.gmo-free-regions.org/foundation.html
14 Quist and Chapela (2001) op cit, p541.

15 Dalton (2001) op cit.

16 Quist and Chapela (2001) op cit, p543.

17 Yang,S (2001) Transgenic DNA Discovered in Native Mexican Corn, According to a New Study by UC Berkeley Researchers, University of California Press Release, 29 November.
53 ETC Group (2002) GM Pollution in the Bank? Time for “Plan B”, News Release, Winnipeg, 4 February; Magallon Larson, H (2002) Interview with Author, 5 March.
86 Brown, P (2002) ‘Mexico’s Vital Gene Reservoir Polluted by Modified Maize’, The Guardian, London, 19 April.

90 Prakash, C (2002) Joint Statement of Scientific Discourse in Mexican GM Maize Scandal, 24 February.

91 Nature Biotechnology (2002) op cit, p527.

95 Villar, J (2001) GMO Contamination – Around The World, Friends of the Earth International, Amsterdam; Hager, N (2002) Seeds of Distrust, Craig Potton, Nelson, pp12–20.

LE GENOCIDE HUMAIN ET ENVIRONNEMENTAL DU SOJA OGM DE MONSANTO EN AMÉRIQUE DU SUD

2011-01-25T07:25:00.000-08:00

Photo d'un bébé au Paraguay contaminé par les herbicides ( Round Up Ready de Monsanto) pulvérisés dans les plantations industrielles de soja OGM en Amérique du Sud, exporté en Europe pour nourrir le bètail... ( Source: GM Watch)

LE SOJA OGM DE MONSANTO DETRUIT LES HUMAINS, LES ANIMAUX, L’ENVIRONNEMENT ET LA PLANETE TOUTE ENTIERE

MonSatan et l’industrie agro-alimentaire américaine et brésilienne ( Cargill, ADM, Bunge, etc.) doivent être tenu responsable et jugé pour Génocide et Crime contre l’Humanité et Crime contre la Nature.

Un rapport scientifique publié en septembre 2010 dresse un bilan désastreux de la monoculture industrielle du Soja OGM de Monsanto cultivé à grande échelle en Amérique du Sud et exporté au sein de l’UE pour nourrir le bétail dans les pays Européens et pour produire des agrocarburants – au détriment de la production vivrière locale – en empoisonnant et en chassant les petits paysans de leurs terres et en détruisant et en polluant l’environnement tout entier ( déforestation, pollution des terres, de l’eau et de l’écosystème tout entier)

Les consommateurs européens qui consomment de la viande nourries avec du soja et du mais OGM ( bœuf, porc, volailles, etc.) ainsi que les produits issus de ces animaux ( lait, fromage, œuf, etc) sont directement responsable de ce génocide humain et environnemental – soit par ignorance ou pire par indifférence…

Le SEUL moyen efficace de mettre en terme à ce génocide humain et écologique, c’est de boycotter et de ne plus acheter la viande et les produits des animaux nourris avec du soja et autres « aliments » OGM…

Malheureusement, la législation européenne actuellement en vigueur au sein de l’UE n’exige pas l’étiquetage des animaux nourris aux OGM ni des produits issus de ces animaux.

Donc, les européens doivent faire pression sur les politiques afin de rendre l’étiquetage des animaux nourris aux OGM obligatoire et éviter comme la peste d’acheter et de consommer les viandes et les produits issus des animaux nourris aux OGM.

Ainsi, tout l’industrie du soja OGM s’écroulera (sans violence) et l’on pourra mettre un terme au génocide humain et environnemental de la culture du soja OGM en Amérique du Sud.

Voir les documentaires suivant sur les conséquences socio-économiques, sur la santé et sur l’environnement de la culture du soja OGM au Paraguay :

Les champs de la mort

www.feedingfactoryfarms.org/index.php?id=36

Paraguay’s painful harvest :

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3778190655853164866#

www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/4od#3073077

Extrait du rapport scientifique sur les conséquences de la culture du soja OGM en Amérique du Sud : Le Soja OGM: Durable? Responsable?

Effets du glysophate ( ingrédient actif de l’herbicide Round Up Ready de Monsanto pulvérisé sur les plantations de soja) sur la santé et l’environnement

Une nouvelle étude confirme le lien entre le glyphosate et les malformations congénitales

" En 2009, un scientifique du secteur public argentin, le professeur Andrés Carrasco, a révélé dans ses conclusions que, à des doses largement inférieures à celles utilisées en agriculture, les herbicides à base de glyphosate causent des malformations chez les embryons de grenouilles. De plus, des embryons de grenouilles et de poulets traités aux herbicides à base de glyphosate ont présenté des malformations semblables à celles observées chez les bébés humains exposés à ce type d’herbicides.

Le professeur Carrasco a relevé que « les conclusions du laboratoire sont comparables aux malformations observées chez les humains exposés au glyphosate pendant la grossesse. » Il a ajouté que ses conclusions ont des graves implications pour les humains parce que les animaux de laboratoire ont des mécanismes de croissance semblables à ceux des humains.

Le professeur Carrasco a observé des malformations chez des embryons qui ont reçu une injection de 2,03 mg/kg de glyphosate. La limite maximale de résidus autorisée dans le soja dans l’Union Européenne est de 20 mg/kg, soit une teneur 10 fois supérieure
Études épidémiologiques sur le glyphosate

Des études épidémiologiques sur l’exposition au glyphosate montrent un lien avec de graves troubles de santé, notamment:

• naissances prématurées et fausses-couches,32
• myélome multiple (un type de cancer),33
• lymphome non-Hodgkin (un autre type de cancer),34 35
• altération de l’ADN.36

Des études montrent que le glyphosate a des effets toxiques graves sur la santé et l’environnement. Les ingrédients ajoutés ou les adjuvants du Roundup accroissent sa toxicité. Les effets nocifs du glyphosate et du Roundup ont été constatés même avec les teneurs couramment utilisées en agriculture et trouvées dans l’environnement.

Les conclusions sont notamment:

• Dans les cellules humaines, le Roundup cause la mort totale des cellules en 24 heures. Ces effets sont observés avec des teneurs largement inférieures à celles recommandées pour l’usage agricole et correspondant aux faibles teneurs de résidus retrouvés dans les aliments pour humains ou animaux.6
• Les herbicides à base de glyphosate sont des perturbateurs endocrinaux (c’est-à-dire des substances qui interfèrent avec le fonctionnement hormonal) dans les cellules humaines. Ces effets sont constatés avec des teneurs jusqu’à 800 fois inférieures aux teneurs de résidus autorisées dans certaines cultures utilisées dans l’alimentation animale aux états-Unis. Les herbicides à base de glyphosate endommagent l’ADN des cellules humaines à ces teneurs.7
• Les adjuvants du glyphosate et du Roundup endommagent les cellules placentaires humaines à des concentrations inférieures à celles recommandées en agriculture.8 9 10
• Le glyphosate et le Roundup endommagent les cellules embryonnaires et placentaires humaines à des concentrations inférieures à celles recommandées en agriculture.11
• Le Roundup est toxique et mortel pour les amphibiens, chez lesquels il a causé une chute de 70 pour cent des variétés de têtards.12 Une expérience utilisant des concentrations plus faibles a provoqué une mortalité de 40 pour cent.13
• Les herbicides à base de glyphosate et l’AMPA, principal métabolite du glyphosate (produit de décomposition du glyphosate dans l’environnement), modifient les points de contrôle du cycle cellulaire chez les embryons d’oursins de mer en interférant avec le mécanisme physiologique de réparation de l’ADN.14 15 16 17 On a observé que cette perturbation entraîne une instabilité génomique et éventuellement à l’apparition de cancers chez l’homme.
• Le Roundup est toxique pour les rats femelles et cause des malformations du squelette chez leurs foetus.18
• L’AMPA, principal produit de décomposition du glyphosate dans l’environnement, altère l’ADN dans les cellules.19
• Ces conclusions montrent que le glyphosate et le Roundup sont très toxiques pour bon nombre d’organismes et pour les cellules humaines.

Le soja OGM RR est-il propre pour la consommation ?

Depuis que le soja OGM RR a été approuvé pour la commercialisation, des études ont révélé des effets pervers chez les animaux de laboratoire nourris à ce soja, contrairement aux groupes témoins nourris aux aliments non-OGM:

• Les souris nourries au soja OGM RR ont présenté des changements cellulaires dans le foie, le pancréas et les testicules;61 62 63
• Les souris nourries au soja OGM ont montré des signes plus aigus de vieillissement dans leur foie;64
• Les lapins nourris au soja OGM ont présenté des troubles enzymatiques dans les reins et le coeur;65
• Des changements dans l’utérus et les ovaires ont été observés chez les rates nourries au soja OGM.66
• Dans une étude multigénérationelle sur des hamsters, la plupart des individus nourris au soja OGM avait perdu leur fertilité à la troisième génération. On a également constaté une croissance plus lente et une mortalité plus élevée parmi les chiots.67
• Les conclusions semblent indiquer que le soja OGM RR pourrait poser des risques graves pour les humains. Les différences observées entre les animaux nourris aux OGM et aux aliments non-OGM contredisent l’hypothèse selon laquelle le soja OGM est en substance équivalent au soja non-OGM.

Du soja OGM RR caché dans les aliments animaliers

Environ 38 millions de tonnes de produits de soja sont importés chaque année en Europe, dont l’essentiel est utilisé pour les aliments pour animaux. Seuls 5 millions de tonnes sont certifiés sans OGM. Les produits d’animaux élevés à base d’aliments OGM n’ont pas besoin de porter une étiquette OGM, en avançant les hypothèses que:

• l’ADN des OGM ne survit pas au processus de digestion des animaux;
• les animaux nourris aux OGM ne sont pas différents des animaux nourris aux aliments non-OGM;
• la viande, le poisson et les oeufs des animaux nourris aux aliments OGM ne sont pas différents des produits des animaux nourris aux aliments non-OGM.
Mais ces hypothèses sont fausses. Diverses études montrent qu’on trouve des différences dans les animaux alimentés au soja OGM RR par rapport aux animaux alimentés sans OGM, et qu’on peut détecter de l’ADM OGM dans le lait et les tissus (c’est-à-dire la viande) de ces animaux.
• L’ADN des plantes ne se décompose pas entièrement dans l’appareil digestif, mais se retrouve dans les organes, le sang et même dans les petits des souris.68 L’ADN des OGM ne peut pas faire exception.
• L’ADN OGM provenant du maïs et du soja OGM a été observé dans le lait des animaux nourris aux produits des cultures OGM. La pasteurisation ne détruit pas l’ADN OGM.69
• L’ADN OGM issu du soja a été trouvé dans le sang, les organes et le lait des chèvres. On a observé une enzyme, la déshydrogénase lactique, à des concentrations très élevées dans le coeur, les muscles et les reins des agneaux nourris au soja OGM RR.70 Cette enzyme s’échappe de cellules endommagées, signe que des cellules ont peut-être été touchées.

Ces études montrent que des différences peuvent être observées chez des animaux nourris au soja OGM RR et ceux élevés à base d’aliments non-OGM, et que de l’ADN des OGM peut être détecté dans le lait et les tissus corporels (viande) de tels animaux.

Le soja OGM RR a-t-il un meilleur rendement ?

Les médias répètent souvent, sans faire preuve d’esprit critique, que le soja transgénique a un meilleur rendement. Mais ce n’est pas exact.

Au mieux, les cultures OGM ont une productivité équivalente à celle des cultures conventionnelles, mais le rendement du soja transgénique est constamment plus faible. Un examen de plus de 8 200 essais de variétés de soja réalisés dans des universités aux États-unis a montré une diminution du rendement de 6 à 10 pour cent du soja OGM RR par rapport au soja non-OGM.71 Des essais sur le terrain du soja OGM et non-OGM montrent que la moitié de la baisse de productivité est imputable à l’effet perturbateur du processus de transformation génétique.72 Cependant, on a aussi observé que le glyphosate réduit la résistance et le rendement des cultures (voir « Le glyphosate a des effets négatifs sur les sols et les cultures »).Des données venant d’Argentine montrent également que les rendements du soja OGM sont équivalents ou inférieurs à ceux du soja non-OGM.

Conséquences environnementales

Le soja OGM RR stimule l’explosion de « super mauvaises herbes »

Les mauvaises herbes résistantes au glyphosate (super mauvaises herbes) sont le principal problème des agriculteurs qui cultivent le soja OGM RR. Les monocultures du soja axées sur l’usage d’un seul herbicide, le glyphosate, créent les conditions d’une plus forte utilisation d’herbicides. Au fur et à mesure que les mauvaises herbes deviennent résistantes au glyphosate, il faut plus d’herbicide pour les détruire. On atteint un point où le glyphosate perd toute efficacité et où les agriculteurs sont obligés de revenir à des herbicides plus anciens et toxiques tels que le 2,4-D. Cela accroît les coûts de production et aggrave la dégradation de l’environnement.

De nombreuses études confirment que l’usage généralisé du glyphosate sur le soja RR a entraîné une explosion des mauvaises herbes résistantes en Amérique du Nord et du Sud, ainsi que dans d’autres pays.

Le soja OGM RR réduit-il l’usage des pesticides/herbicides ?

La réduction de l’usage de produits agrochimiques est un principe fondamental de la durabilité. L’industrie des OGM a longtemps prétendu que les cultures OGM ont permis de réduire l’usage de pesticides (« pesticide » est utilisé ici dans un sens technique pour inclure les herbicides, les insecticides et les fongicides. Les herbicides font partie des pesticides).

Amérique du Nord: dans un rapport publié en 2009, le Dr Charles Benbrook, agronome, a étudié les allégations selon lesquelles les cultures OGM réduisent l’usage de pesticides, en utilisant des données du ministère de l’Agriculture américain (USDA) et du National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) de l’USDA.92 Benbrook a constaté que par rapport à l’usage de pesticides en l’absence de cultures tolérantes aux herbicides OGM et Bt, les exploitants agricoles ont appliqué environ 318 millions de kilogrammes de pesticides de plus suite à la plantation de semences OGM au cours des 13 années de leur commercialisation. En 2008, les espaces occupés par les cultures OGM exigeaient plus de 26 % de pesticides supplémentaires par hectare que ceux couverts par les variétés non-OGM.

Les cultures tolérantes aux herbicides OGM ont fait monter l’usage des herbicides de 382,6 millions de kilogrammes en 13 ans - annulant complètement la modeste baisse de 64,2 millions de kilogrammes de l’usage des insecticides chimiques attribuable au maïs et au coton Bt
le Dr Benbrook calcule une augmentation de 41,5 millions de kilogrammes de l’usage d’herbicides en 2005 due à la culture du soja OGM RR, par rapport au soja non-OGM. Au cours des 13 années concernées, l’usage d’herbicides sur le soja OGM RR a augmenté de 175,5 kilogrammes (soit environ 0,55 kg par hectare). Le soja OGM RR est à l’origine de la hausse de 92 pour de cent de l’usage d’herbicides sur les trois cultures tolérantes aux herbicides.

Amérique du Sud: En Argentine, selon Monsanto, le soja OGM RR représente 98 pour cent des plantations de soja. Le soja OGM RR a entraîné une montée en flèche de l’usage de produits agrochimiques dans le pays.

Le Dr Charles Benbrook a analysé les changements de l’usage d’herbicides en Argentine dus à l’expansion du soja OGM RR cultivé par semis direct entre 1996 et 2004, en se basant sur les données de la CASAFE (association argentine de l’industrie des produits phytosanitaires).97 Il a constaté que parallèlement à l’expansion du soja RR, les taux d’application du glyphosate sur le soja par hectare ont constamment augmenté. Chaque année, les agriculteurs ont été obligés d’appliquer plus de glyphosate par hectare que l’année précédente pour lutter contre les mauvaises herbes. La quantité moyenne de glyphosate utilisé sur le soja a augmenté de façon constante chaque année, passant de 1,14 kg/hectare en 1996/97 à 1,30 kg/hectare en 2003/04.

Les agriculteurs ont également dû pulvériser plus souvent. Le nombre moyen d’applications de glyphosate sur le soja a augmenté chaque année, passant de 1,8 en 1996/97 à 2,5 en 2003/04.98 Cela s’expliquait par la prolifération des mauvaises herbes résistantes au glyphosate, car les agriculteurs ont été obligés d’utiliser de plus de plus de glyphosate pour essayer de lutter contre les mauvaises herbes. Ceci est une approche fondamentalement non durable de la production du soja.
On prétend souvent que l’essor de l’usage de glyphosate est positive parce qu’il est moins toxique que les autres produits chimiques qu’il remplace.99 Cependant, les conclusions des études détaillées ci-dessus (« Effets du glyphosate sur la santé ») montrent que le glyphosate n’est pas inoffensif.

De plus, depuis 2001 en Argentine, les quantités d’autres herbicides, y compris le 2,4-D et le dicamba, produits toxiques, n’ont fait qu’augmenter. Ceci est dû au fait que les agriculteurs recourent aux herbicides qui ne sont pas à base de glyphosate pour essayer de lutter contre les mauvaises herbes résistantes au glyphosate.10
Le soja OGM RR en Argentine: problèmes écologiques et agronomiques
Le modèle de culture du soja OGM RR - semis direct et usage abondant des herbicides - a eu de graves effets environnementaux et agronomiques en Argentine, notamment:

• la prolifération des mauvaises herbes résistantes au glyphosate;
• l’érosion des sols;
• la perte de la fertilité des sols et des nutriments;
• la dépendance d’engrais synthétiques;
• la déforestation;
• une désertification potentielle;
• la disparition d’espèces et une baisse de la biodiversité.

La production du soja OGM RR appauvrit les sols en Amérique du Sud

L’expansion de la monoculture du soja en Amérique du Sud depuis les années 1990 a entraîné l’intensification de l’agriculture à large échelle. Cela a eu pour conséquence une baisse de la fertilité des sols et l’augmentation de l’érosion, ce qui a rendu certains sols inutilisables.103 Une analyse des nutriments des sols en Argentine laisse entrevoir qu’ils seront entièrement épuisés dans 50 ans au rythme actuel d’appauvrissement de ces éléments nutritifs et d’accroissement des champs de soja.104 Les agriculteurs ont abandonné leur pratique traditionnelle de la conservation des sols par la rotation des cultures pour s’adapter à l’expansion rapide du marché du soja.

Les régions où les sols sont pauvres nécessitent de grandes quantités d’engrais synthétiques et minéraux après deux années de culture.106 C’est une approche non durable de la gestion des sols tant du point de vue économique qu’écologique.

Conséquences socio-économiques

Argentine: l’économie du soja

L’Argentine est souvent citée comme un exemple de la réussite économique du modèle du soja OGM RR. Plus sérieusement, les critiques de l’économie du soja affirment qu’elle a eu des conséquences sociales et économiques graves sur les personnes ordinaires. Ils déclarent que le soja a affaibli la sécurité alimentaire nationale et le pouvoir d’achat alimentaire dans une grande partie de la population, et aggravé l’inégalité dans la distribution des richesses.

Une étude de 2005 menée par Pengue a montré que la production du soja RR a provoqué de graves problèmes sociaux en Argentine, notamment:

• l’exode de populations traditionnellement agricoles vers les villes d’Argentine;
• la concentration de la production agricole entre les mains d’un petit nombre de grands exploitants agrocommerciaux;
• la réduction de la production alimentaire et la perte par une grande partie de la population d’un accès sûr et fiable à un régime alimentaire diversifié et nutritif.

Il a relevé que l’introduction du soja RR en Argentine a eu des effets dévastateurs sur la sécurité alimentaire en détournant les cultures alimentaires. La production du soja a, dans les cinq ans précédents, détourné 4 600 000 hectares de terres autrefois réservées à d’autres domaines deproduction tels que la laiterie, les arbres fruitiers, l’horticulture, le bétail et les céréales.139

Sans aucun doute, l’économie du soja n’a pas réussi à alimenter la population argentine. Les statistiques du gouvernement montrent qu’entre octobre 1996 (année d’introduction du soja OGM) et octobre 2002, le nombre de personnes n’ayant pas accès au « Panier alimentaire de base » (la référence du seuil de pauvreté pour le gouvernement) est passé de 3,7 à 8,7 millions, soit 25 pour cent de la population. Au second semestre 2003, plus de 47 pour cent de la population vivait en dessous du seuil de pauvreté et n’avait pas accès à une alimentation équilibrée.140
La production du soja OGM RR est une forme « d’agriculture sans agriculteurs » et est source de chômage. Dans les monocultures de soja RR, la quantité de travail exigée baisse entre 28 et 37 pour cent par rapport aux méthodes de culture conventionnelles.141 En Argentine, la production du soja RR par la haute technologie ne demande que deux travailleurs par 1000 hectares par an.142

VIOLATIONS DES DROITS HUMAINS

Paraguay: déplacement violents de populations

Le Paraguay est l’un des principaux producteurs mondiaux du soja OGM RR, avec une production estimée à 2,66 millions d’hectares en 2008, une hausse par rapport aux 2,6 millions d’hectares en 2007. Le soja OGM RR représente environ 95 pour cent des cultures de soja.

L’expansion du soja dans le pays est liée à de graves violations des droits humains, notamment la confiscation de terres. Un documentaire de la chaîne de télévision britannique Channel 4,, intitulé Paraguay’s Painful Harvest (La Douloureuse récolte du Paraguay), a décrit la façon dont la culture industrielle du soja OGM RR a entraîné de violents affrontements entre les paysans (campesinos), les propriétaires terriens étrangers et la police.158

Certains paysans déplacés essaient de regagner leurs terres par des initiatives d’« invasions de terres. »159 Selon le Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, le gouvernement du Paraguay a utilisé l’armée pour les réprimer.160

Le résumé et le rapport scientifique complet est disponible au lien suivant:

http://www.gmwatch.eu/component/content/article/12479-reports-reports

Voir aussi les documentaires suivants sur les violations des droits humains et les conséquences socio-économiques de la culture du soja OGM au Paraguay:

Les champs de la mort

www.feedingfactoryfarms.org/index.php?id=36

Paraguay’s painful harvest :

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3778190655853164866#

www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/4od#3073077

A méditer et couts à intégrer dans le « prix aubaine » la prochaine fois que vous achetez/mangez votre steak/hamburger, lait, fromage, poulet, œuf, etc.

En effet, tous ceux qui mangent de la viande nourries aux OGM ainsi que leurs produits sont directement responsable – par ignorance ou pire par indifférence - du génocide humain et écologique de la culture du soja en Amérique du Sud…

Bon appétit !

OPEN LETTER TO RAJIV SHAH - USAID ADMINISTRATOR -REGARDING THE SAFETY OF (so-called) "FOOD AID"...

2011-01-11T00:37:00.000-08:00

OPEN LETTER TO RAJIV SHAH - USAID ADMINISTRATOR -REGARDING THE SAFETY OF GMO (so-called) "FOOD" SHIPPED AS (so-called) "FOOD AID" IN AFRICA and WORLDWIDE

RAJIV SHAH
USAID ADMINISTRATOR
WASHINGTON, USA

I am writing to you regarding the scientifically documented health and environmental hazards associated with genetic contamination of GM maize and other GM “food” crops shipped to Africa and worldwide as “food aid” by pharma and industrial GM crops grown in the US.

HIV linked to maize consumption in Africa

I recently came across a USAID-funded scientific research paper published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which was undertaken to “ test the hypotheses that consumption of mycotoxin-prone staple foods is related to the incidence of HIV infection in Africa.”

The author writes: “fumonisin has been proposed as a positive factor in HIV pathology. Fumonisin is predominantly a contaminant of maize (11) resulting from fungal growth (Fusarium verticillioides) after damage by pests such as the cornstalk borer (Busseola fusca)"

Alarmingly, the lead researcher & author of the paper - Jonathan H William - found that “ HIV transmission frequency is positively associated with maize consumption in Africa.”

Link to the study: http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/1/154.abstract

However, there is not an iota of scientific evidence in the literature that correlates fumonisin-contaminated maize with HIV transmission. The author himself writes “ there is no evidence in the literature of some property of normal maize that could influence the susceptibility of humans to HIV infection.” “The basis for the relation between maize and HIV needs careful consideration. Clearly, these are preliminary findings that need further research."

I am naturally alarmed and extremely worried about the findings of this study since maize is a staple food for over 300 million Africans across the continent who consume it daily.

ProdiGene & HIV "edible" maize vaccine

While doing further research on this subject, I came across an investigative article written by Robert Wingfield (1) which carried out further research into this issue and found a disturbing link between the conclusions of this study, USAID and a US biotech company called Prodigene that developed a GM 'pharma" maize containing a key protein found on the surface of the monkey form of HIV (gp120) to be used as an “edible vaccine” against the HIV virus…

An article published in the New Scientist 3 on 12 April 2002 titled - Edible HIV vaccine breakthrough – states:

“Maize genetically modified to contain a key protein found on the surface of the monkey form of HIV has been created by US company ProdiGene. This development brings an edible, more effective, HIV vaccine for people a step closer, says the US National Institutes of Health."

source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2161-edible-hiv-vaccine-breakthrough.html

The Journal of Drug Targeting also published an article 4 on the same subject in January 2003 titled - Advantageous Features of Plant-based Systems for the Development of HIV Vaccines relating to the development of genetically modified maize to express “the SIV major surface glycoprotein gp130 (analogous to HIV gp120).”

source: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10611860410001669992

ProdiGene & USAID...

Furthermore, during the course of his investigative research, Robert Wingfield found that the CEO of Prodigene –Anthony G Leos - was appointed on the Board of USAID in 2002 by President George Bush...

An article published online states:

Anthony G. Laos Appointed to Board for International Food and Agriculture Development by President Bush

Article Excerpt

COLLEGE STATION, Texas -- ProdiGene, Inc., a leader in the development and manufacturing of recombinant proteins from transgenic-plant systems, announced today that Anthony G. Laos, President and CEO of ProdiGene was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as a member of the Board for International Food and Agriculture Development (BIFAD).

source: http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2156870/Anthony-G-Laos-Appointed-to.html

USAID & GM Food Aid

USAID, as you know, has been distributing millions of tons of GM maize and other GMO crops as (so-called) “food aid” across Africa over the last 15 years & is aggressively & fraudulently promoting GM food crops in African agriculture to "fight hunger and poverty..." USAID itself clearly states that among other things its role is to "integrate GM into local food systems" and "spread agricultural technology through regions of Africa."

As Greenpeace writes in its report titled "USAID and GM Food Aid":

" The problem of GM maize in US food aid is partly due to the fact that the US
government provides a considerable proportion of its food aid in the form of maize from US farms, which is then shipped to areas of need. The simple fact is that USAID has chosen to supply GM maize as food aid."

" It is clear that the current program of food aid donation is the latest twist in a crude 10-year marketing campaign, led by USAID, designed to facilitate the introduction of US-developed GM crops into Africa. USAID clearly states, however, that among other things its role is to "integrate GM into local food systems" and "spread agricultural technology through regions of Africa."

As Robert Wingfield writes :

" In summary, we have the president of a company producing HIV tainted strains of corn on the board of an organization ( USAID) that is involved in providing genetically modified crops to sub Saharan Africa, where corn consumption is now being linked to HIV infection rates."

Disturbing fact and link...

Coincidence...?

Robert Wingfield further writes:

" More information has come to light about Prodigene since this article was originally published. The following two articles explain what happened to Prodigene and establish a link between Prodigene and the Obama administration.

Rajiv Shah, Obamas Top USAID appointee, was working under a man named Tom Vilsack at the USDA. Tom Vilsask was involved with Prodigene and the push for limited regulation on biopharma crop growers.

ProdiGene eventually went out of business, but not before it received a $6 million investment from the Governors Biotechnology Partnership, chaired by Iowa governor, Tom Vilsack, currently Shah’s boss at the USDA.

Vilsack didn’t want any restrictions placed on experimental pharma crops. In reaction to suggestions that pharma crops should be kept away from food crops, Vilsack argued that ‘we should not overreact and hamstring this industry.’”

Furthermore, Roger Beachy, director of the Monsanto-funded Danforth Plant Science Center, now diector of the newly-formed National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)-the institute Rajiv Shah helped to establish when he got to the USDA - joined Vilsack in support of ProdiGene and against regulation of pharma crops when he was still the director of the Danforth Center. He said in 2004 that scientists must be free to experiment in open fields: A ban would significantly halt the technology of producing drugs more cheaply in plants" than through current methods, Beachy said. And if work on biopharming to grow industrial chemicals were halted, "then you have stopped another kind of advance that we're looking for to give an economic advantage to our farmers.

After a short stint at USDA, Rajiv Shah has been picked by the Obama Administration to head up the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)."

Source:www.the3report.com/index.php/blog/hiv_infected_corn_genocide_in_sub_saharan_africa/

Furthermore, another article published online titled - Who is Rajiv Shah, What are Haiti concerns about Shah/USAID: USAID-supported Bio tech firm develop HIV tainted GM corn: HIV Infection Rates Increase with eating US Corn in Sub Sahara Africa – states :

" Rajiv Shah, Obama's head of USAID, worked for USDA, is connected to Monsanto and the spread of GMOs and has connection with the defunct Prodigene and their pharm-seeds and may be promoting the interests of Monsanto and Prodigene as USAID's head.

Monsanto has given corn seeds to Black Haiti under USAD's Rajiv Shah reign, his connections to Monsanto and Prodigene, spermicidal-corn is relevant to know. Also relevant to know, in light of US food aid and US food dumping in Haiti and especially in light of Monsanto's gift of corn and other hybrid seeds to Haiti is the connection of US corn in Black Africa to increased HIV rate. That US corn consumption is now being linked to HIV infection rates in Black Africa."

Link to the (highly disturbing) bio article on Rajiv Shah:

http://open.salon.com/blog/ezili_danto/2010/07/10/who_is_rajiv_shah_what_are_haiti_concerns_about_shahusaid

My questions to you :

How do you – as Administrator of USAID - justify and explain the troubling link between ProdiGene, Anthony G Leos and USAID…?

And what were/are your own personal connections, interests and relations with ProdiGene...?

Gp120 HIV maize vaccine…promotes HIV!

Furthermore, a study done by HIV researcher Dr Veljko Veljkovic - virologist in the Laboratory for Multidisciplinary Research, Institute of Nuclear Sciences in Belgrade,Yugoslavia - showed that any Aids vaccine containing the gp120 glycoprotein or the gene coding for it could strongly interfere with the immune system and make the host more vulnerable to the virus.

As Dr. Veljko Veljkovic explains:

“The envelope glycoprotein, gp120 of HIV-1, is similar to the region of human immunoglobulins that binds antigen, a crucial feature of the immune response. Thus, any AIDS vaccine containing the gp120 could interfere with the immune system and make people more vulnerable to the virus. There is evidence suggesting that gp120 can interfere with and undermine the immune system and can readily recombine with viruses and bacteria (used as vectors) to generate new pathogens. In the longer term, this could accelerate disease progression in HIV patients that do not yet have symptoms.”

And as Dr. Mae-Wan Ho from the London-based Institute on Science in Society (ISIS) further writes:

“Most AIDS vaccines are based on the HIV glycoprotein gp120, that a number of virologists have warned, not only undermines the immune system of individuals but is also likely to create deadly viruses and bacteria that can spread through entire populations.

But A company in Texas, ProdiGene, is now putting gp120 into GM maize as a ‘cheap, edible oral vaccine’ against HIV. This will surely lead to widespread contamination of our food crops with disastrous consequences, as Vejkovic and I have written in a correspondence now published in the journal. Not only is this extremely hazardous for human beings. It will affect all organisms in the food chain and multiply the opportunities for this gene to recombine with bacteria and viruses in the environment, of which 99% cannot be cultured and are hence completely unknown.”

source : http://www.i-sis.org.uk/gmbiopost.php

ProfiGene & genetic contamination

Furthermore, as you already know, in 2002 ProdiGene was involved in two genetic contamination incidents in which two strains of its GM pharma corn contaminated maize and soya crops in the US.

As Dr. Mae-Wan Ho further writes :

" Worries about food crop contamination, which have dogged the industry from its inception, were confirmed in fall 2002 when the USDA discovered that ProdiGene, a pharma/industrial crop company, had allowed corn plants engineered to produce a veterinary drug (vaccine for pig diarrhea) to emerge as volunteers in a Nebraska soybean field. The company harvested the pharma corn along with the soybeans, and subsequently transported the contaminated soybeans to a grain elevator where thousands of bushels of commodity soybeans were contaminated."

" ProdiGene was also responsible for a separate incident that same fall, in which pharma corn in Iowa genetically modified to contain the glycoprotein gene gp120 of the Aids virus HIV-1 that has been built into GM maize as a “cheap, edible oral vaccine” was suspected of having cross-pollinated with feed corn in adjacent fields."

A plant geneticist at the University of California commented that the government were lucky to find the Prodigene pharm crops, and he said,

“What if the GM corn had come up inside a corn field? It could have crosspollinated and you’d have no idea where it was” (Cohen 2002).

And the Union of Concerned Scientists wrote:

“Considering all the potential routes for contamination of food with pharm crops, it is a frightening possibility that the Union of Concerned Scientists believe that contamination of the food system may already have occurred."

Genetic contamination of food crops by pharma & industrial crops

In the spring of 2003, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) convened an expert workshop on protecting the U.S. food and feed supply from contamination by crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals.

The experts who participated in that workshop wrote the technical report A Growing
Concern: Protecting the Food Supply in an Era of Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crops independently of UCS, which developed policy recommendations based on its own analysis of this report.

Excerpts from the report

" Food crops, primarily corn, are currently being genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals. These crops are referred to as “pharma” crops when they produce drugs, hormones, and other therapeutic agents,and industrial crops when they produce compounds such as plastics for use in industry. Many of these substances are being produced in corn and other food crops visually indistinguishable from their non-industrial counterparts.”

There are two major routes by which pharmaceutical and industrial transgenes can inadvertently contaminate commodity crops and, therefore, the food and feed supply. One of these is the physical mixing of seed—pharma seed can be inadvertently spilled or mixed during seed production, harvest, storage, transport, and handling.

Contamination can occur by direct mixing of the crops in the growing year or potential future contamination from volunteer plants the following year.

The other route is pollen, which contains the male reproductive cells necessary for the fertilization of plants and the production of seed.

Pollen containing genes for the pharma product can pollinate commodity crops, leading to contamination during the growing year.

The potential contamination of food crops with the hundreds, if not thousands, of drugs or industrial compounds promised by this industry poses new and serious risks to the safety of the food system.

The U.S. commodity corn and soybean production systems are structured to mix grain
from many sources before it is ultimately used. Without substantial modification, such a system cannot protect the human food and animal feed supply systems from contamination by pharma crops."

UCS observations & conclusions based on the report

" After careful analysis, we have concluded that current U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulations governing such crops, although stronger than they have been in the past, are still insufficiently stringent to assure the complete protection of the food supply in the United States."

" Our report concludes that the current production process and production areas for corn and soybean cannot be used without substantial modification to ensure virtually zero contamination of the human food and animal feed supplies."

" Moreover, the routes of contamination in existing commodity crop production systems are so numerous that even very strong regulatory systems may not be sufficient to prevent the contamination of the food system with crops genetically engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial compounds."

" The problem of pharma crop seeds being mixed with normal seed after harvesting is also a real possibility. Mistakes have already been made with other GE crops. For example, a variety of GE corn meant only for animals feed known as Starlink, turned up in foods across the U.S."

" Considering all the potential routes for contamination of food with pharm crops, it is a frightening possibility that the Union of Concerned Scientists believe that contamination of the food system may already have occurred."

The entire report can de downloaded at the following link :

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/impacts_genetic_engineering/a-growing-concern-protecting.html

Furthermore, many other scientists have expressed the same concerns and fears about genetic contamination of food crops by pharma crops. The US National Academy of Scientists warn that ‘it is possible that crops transformed to produce pharmaceutical or other industrial compounds might mate with plantations grown for human consumption, with the unanticipated result of novel chemicals in the human food supply’. [97]

Dr Norman Ellstrand, a professor of genetics at the University of California, Riverside, and a leading expert on corn genetics, says that ‘if just 1 percent of [American] experimental pollen escaped into Mexico, that means those landraces could potentially be making medicines or industrial chemicals or things that are not so good for people to eat. Right now, we just don’t know what’s in there’. [98]

Even pro-GMO industry representatives have expressed concern about this grave issue: ‘Most people are assuming that plants being used for these purposes [bio-pharming] will not enter the food supply, but if you assume that you need to have controls in place to make sure that does not happen,’ says Michael Taylor, ex Vice-President of Monsanto.

‘Just one mistake by a biotech company and we’ll be eating other people’s prescription drugs in our corn flakes’, argues Larry Bohlen, from Friends of the Earth in the USA. [99]

My question to you regarding the safety of GM maize and other GMO "food" crops shipped and distributed in Africa and worldwide as "food aid":

In view of the above documented scientific and empirical evidence regarding the inevitable genetic contamination of maize and other food crops by pharma and/or industrial GM crops in the US:

a) How can you guarantee & prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that the GM maize and other GMO (so-called) “food” crops shipped & distributed in Africa and worldwide by USAID as (so-called) “food aid” has not been inadvertently contaminated by pharma and/or industrial GM crops – such as ProdiGene’s “edible maize vaccine” containing the gp120 HIV virus - and is therefore safe for human and animal consumption, for the natural environment and the ecosystem as a whole?

b) What regulatory, safety, precautionary and preventive measures has USAID developed, put in place and implemented to prevent genetic contamination of GM maize and other GMO “food” crops distributed in Africa and worldwide as “food aid” by pharma and/or industrial GM crops?

I thank you for shedding light into these interrogations and I look forward to your response.

Truthfully,

Arya
A concerned Human Being and a seeker of Truth.

arya@yajnacentre.com

References:

97 Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants of the National Academy of Sciences (2002) Environmental Effects of Transgenic Plants: The Scope and Adequacy of Regulation, National Academy Press, p68.

98 Schapiro, M (2002) ‘Sowing Disaster?’, The Nation, 10 October.

99 Friends of the Earth (2002) Drugs And Chemicals Will Contaminate Food Supply Concludes New Report, Press Release, Washington, 11 July.

MAIZE/CORN: CURE or SOURCE OF HIV/AIDS IN AFRICA...?

2010-12-27T03:39:00.000-08:00

A recently published scientific study from South Africa claims to have genetically modified maize to cure the HIV-Aids virus. At the same time, however, another scientific study from the University of Georgia (US) has found that " HIV transmission frequency is positively associated with maize consumption in Africa." ( see below for details)

So the question is: Is maize a cure or a source for HIV-Aids infection...?

Maize as a cure for HIV:

GM Pharmaceutical maize

I recently came across the following scientific studies which claim to have developed a genetically modified (GMO) pharmaceutical maize as a cure for HIV in Africa…

An article titled “ Will corn help cure aids ? ” published in Scientific Blogging in May 2008 states:

“scientists from the Universidad de Lleida in Spain have published a study confirming that maize seeds are an effective and sure platform within molecular agriculture to alleviate diseases. Over the next few years AIDS could be one of the first diseases to benefit from these results…”

“ In March, transgenic maize became the first plant to be developed commercially for medical use. The PNAS article (2) published the following findings: A maize seed with genes from the 2G12 antibody (already known for its capacity to neutralise infection from the virus) could produce antibodies against the transmission of HIV.”

The entire article and the published study can be read respectively at the following links:

http://www.science20.com/news_releases/will_corn_help_cure_aids

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TBH-4RTW3K8-
3&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=6648ec77809ab7957a3797388daf8494

Two years later ( June 2010) , scientists from South Africa published a paper titled - Creation of a high-yielding recombinant maize hybrid for the production of a microbicide to prevent HIV-1 transmission - which states in its Abstract:

“ The aim of this study was to use conventional breeding to increase the production in maize of the human monoclonal antibody 2G12, known to have potential therapeutic properties in the prevention of HIV-1 transmission.”

“ The recombinant antibody, together with a fluorescent marker, was introduced into two South African high-performing maize elite inbred lines by crossing them with a transgenic maize line that had been transformed with the monoclonal antibody 2G12. This plant-derived antibody provides a means of producing a microbicide component that could be used with other HIV-neutralising antibodies as an additional approach to prevent HIV infection.”

Links to the study:

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?pid=S0038-23532010000300018&script=sci_arttext

http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajs/v106n5-6/v106n5-6a18.pdf

Anti-HIV maize meal…

At about the same time, I received an email from a Kenyan company called Wanji’s that promotes and sells a maize meal called Wanjis Uji Special-HIV AIDS, which according to information published on their website is an “ immune booster made from a proximate blend of cereals and tubers and fortified with essential vitamins and minerals necessary to fight infectious cells and improve the CD4 count especially in people with chronic illnesses”, and has been developed to “ meet the specific nutritional needs of persons with immunodeficiency virus infection (HIV)...”

Source & website: http://wanjis.com/hiv-food/

"HIV TRANSMISSION IS POSITIVELY ASSOCIATED WITH MAIZE CONSUMPTION IN AFRICA", says scientific study...

However, while these studies and anti-HIV pharma maize and Wanji's maize meal products claim to fight HIV infections in Africa, another scientific study found that “ HIV transmission frequency is positively associated with maize consumption in Africa.”

A scientific research paper from the University of Georgia recently published ( May 2010) in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition was undertaken to “ test the hypotheses that consumption of mycotoxin-prone staple foods is related to the incidence of HIV infection in Africa.”

Alarmingly, the lead researcher & author of the paper - Jonathan H William - found that “ HIV transmission frequency is positively associated with maize consumption in Africa.”

Link to the Reuters article & to the published study:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65848I20100609

http://www.ajcn.org/content/92/1/154.abstract

ProdiGene & "edible" HIV maize vaccine...

Furthermore, while doing further research on this subject, I came across an investigative article written by Robert Wingfield which carried out further research into this issue and found a disturbing link between the conclusions of this study, and a US biotech company called Prodigene that in 2002 developed a GM 'pharma" maize containing a key protein found on the surface of the monkey form of HIV (gp120)to be used as an “edible vaccine” against the HIV virus…

An article published in the New Scientist on 12 April 2002 titled - Edible HIV vaccine breakthrough – states:

“Maize genetically modified to contain a key protein found on the surface of the monkey form of HIV has been created by US company ProdiGene. This development brings an edible, more effective, HIV vaccine for people a step closer, says the US National Institutes of Health."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2161-edible-hiv-vaccine-breakthrough.html

ProdiGene & USAID...

Furthermore, during the course of his investigative research, Robert Wingfield found that the CEO of the Prodigene – Anthony G Leos - was appointed as head of USAID in 2002 by President George Bush...

USAID & GM Food Aid

USAID is a US government (so-called) “aid” agency that is distributing millions of tons of GM (so-called) “food aid” across Africa & is aggressively & fraudulently promoting GM food crops in African agriculture to "fight hunger and poverty..." USAID itself clearly states that among other things its role is to "integrate GM into local food systems" and "spread agricultural technology through regions of Africa."

As Robert Wingfield writes :

" In summary, we have the president of a company producing HIV tainted strains of corn on the board of an organization ( USAID) that is involved in providing genetically modified crops to sub Saharan Africa, where corn consumption is now being linked to HIV infection rates."

Disturbing link & fact...

Coincidence…?

I let you research the subject further and draw your own conclusions...

I invite you to read the entire investigative article with links and references at the following link:

http://www.the3report.com/index.php/blog/hiv_infected_corn_genocide_in_sub_saharan_africa/

I have written to the lead researcher/author of the study - Jonathan H William - re. the findings of his research and the troubling link between Prodigene and USAID and other issues related to the findings of his study. You can read a copy of the correspondence exchanged between us published on this blog at the following link:

http://yajnacentre.blogspot.com/2010/12/maizecorn-linked-to-hiv-in-africa.html

I let you think & draw your own conclusion as to whether maize promotes or cures HIV…?

Food for thought & for your life...(literally)

MONSANTO'S GM ROUND-UP-READY SOY POISONS & KILLS HUMANS, ANIMALS, THE ENVIRONMENT & THE ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM..

2010-12-20T10:25:00.001-08:00

The above photograph shows a baby with sores caused by agrochemicals spraying in a GM soy-producing region of Paraguay ( source: GM WATCH )

“You people. We thought you folks had taken everything you
could. You took our land, you took our homes. You stole our
pottery and our songs and our blankets and our designs. You
took our language and, in some places, you even took our
children. You snatched at our religion and at our women. You
destroyed our history and now, now it seems you come to suck
the marrow from our bones.”

Jeanette Armstrong, an indigenous woman from Canada at a meeting on the Human Genome Diversity Projecti

"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."

In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Scientific studies collected in the new report confirm links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer, and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells.

Residents have also reported environmental damage from glyphosate, including damage to food crops and streams strewn with dead fish. These accounts are backed by studies in the report that show glyphosate is toxic to the environment.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12503-sustainable-responsible-gm-soy-with-glyphosate-and-the-rtrs

Monsanto and the agro-industrial multinationals ( Cargill, ADM,Bunge, etc.)are not the only criminals responsible for this GENOCIDE and Crime against Humanity and Nature. The GM soya being produced in Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and in other south american countries is exported to the EU and to other affluent countries to feed cattle and other livestock. Thus, all those who eat meat (beef, pork, chicken, and other livestock) and their produce ( milk, cheese, eggs, etc.) fed with GM soya, GM maize and other GM crops, are directly supporting this genocidal industry/system - through ignorance or worse through indifference - and are thus equally responsible for the resulting socio-economic, health and enviromental GENOCIDE of GM soya production...

The solution

" A chain is only as strong as its weakest link..."

The weakest link in the GMO "chain" is the purchasing choice & power of the consumer.

If european & american consumers stopped buying and eating livestock ( and their produce) fed with GM soya/maize, then the whole industry/system would collapse...

Peaceful, non-violent, non-cooperation with the system...

Food for thought next time you buy/eat your hamburger, milk, pork chops, chicken or eggs...

note: Labelling of animals - and their produce - fed with GMO's is not legally required in both the US and in the EU. Thus, consumers do not realize that each time they purchase and consume meat ( beef, chicken, pork and their produce) fed with GMO's, they are directly supporting this genocidal industry/system.

Please watch the following documentaries for an overview of the health, environmental and socio-economic GENOCIDE of GM soy cultivation in South America:

Killing Fields

the battle to feed factory farms

A hidden chain of destruction stretches from the factory farms in Europe to the forests of South America - where huge soy plantations, grown to feed chickens, cows and pigs in Europe, are wiping out wildlife and making climate change worse.

To make way for soy plantations, thousands of people are being forced from their land. Indigenous people are being evicted and forests are being cleared.

This ground breaking film investigates the impacts of growing soy in South America and shows how small scale farming that is good for people and the environment is losing out to big business of pesticides – poisoning rural communities, water sources and nature.

Meanwhile in Europe small scale farming that is good for people and the environment is losing out to big business.

This ground breaking film investigates the impacts of growing soy in South America to feed factory farms in Europe. Our campaign gives people unwittingly caught up in this damaging chain hope that they can break out of it.

Link to download/view documentary:

http://www.feedingfactoryfarms.org/index.php?id=3

Also watch following BBC documentary on the same subject:

Paraguay’s painful harvest :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3778190655853164866#

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/unreported-world/4od#3073077

New scientific report on the health hazards and the socio-economic and environmental consequences of GM Round Up Ready Soya

A group of international scientists have released a report detailing health and environmental hazards from the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy and the use of glyphosate (Roundup®) herbicide.

The report, GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?,[1] highlights new research by Argentine government scientist, Professor Andrés Carrasco,[2] which found that glyphosate causes malformations in frog and chicken embryos at doses far lower than those used in agricultural spraying.

“The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy,” said Carrasco.

Carrasco, director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Argentina, is a co-author of the new report. The report is released with testimonies of Argentine villagers whose lives have been radically disrupted by the cultivation of GM soy.[3]

In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Scientific studies collected in the new report confirm links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer, and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells.

Carrasco said people living in soy-producing areas of Argentina began reporting problems in 2002, two years after the first big harvests of GM Roundup Ready soy. He said, "I suspect the toxicity classification of glyphosate is too low ... in some cases this can be a powerful poison."

Residents have also reported environmental damage from glyphosate, including damage to food crops and streams strewn with dead fish. These accounts are backed by studies in the report that show glyphosate is toxic to the environment.

Scientists and others who speak out against Argentina’s GM soy agricultural model report censorship and harassment. In August 2010 Amnesty International called for an investigation into a violent attack by an organized mob on an audience assembled to hear Carrasco talk about his research in the agricultural town of La Leonesa.

“Responsible” soy?

GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible? challenges commercial claims that GM soy cultivation is sustainable and that the glyphosate herbicide it is sprayed with is safe. In 2011 the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS), a multi-stakeholder forum on sustainable soy production, will launch a voluntary label for “responsible” soy that will reassure ethically minded traders and consumers that the soy was produced with consideration for people and the environment.[4] It will label GM soy sprayed with glyphosate as responsible.[5]

RTRS members include multinational companies such as ADM, Bunge, Cargill, Monsanto, Syngenta, Shell, and BP, and NGOs such as WWF and Solidaridad.

Claire Robinson of GMWatch, a group that campaigns against GM foods and crops, said, “It is a cruel farce to call the GM soy with glyphosate farming model sustainable and responsible.

“The RTRS criteria are so weak that they don’t protect people from the known health hazards of GM soy and glyphosate shown in the new report.[6][7]

“The RTRS also ignores serious social problems caused by GM soy monocultures. Livelihoods and food security have been lost as land that used to grow food for people to eat is given over to toxic GM soy monocultures.

“Over 200 civil society organizations have condemned the RTRS criteria as corporate greenwash.[8] It’s time for responsible members of the RTRS to abandon this discredited body.”

Europe imports around 38 million tons of soy per year, which mostly goes into animal feed.[9] Food products from GM-fed animals do not have to carry a GM label.

The maximum glyphosate residue limit allowed in soy in the EU is 20 mg/kg. Carrasco found malformations in embryos injected with 2.03 mg/kg glyphosate, nearly 10 times lower.[10] Soybeans have been found to contain glyphosate residues at levels up to 17mg/kg.[11]

The summary & full report can be downloaded at the following link:

http://www.gmwatch.eu/images/pdf/gm_sum_eng_v12.pdf

http://www.gmwatch.eu/images/pdf/gmsoy_sust_respons_full_eng_v14.pdf

About the authors and publishers of GM Soy: Sustainable? Responsible?

This report was compiled by an international coalition of scientists who hold the view that the complete body of evidence on GM soy and glyphosate herbicide should be made accessible to everyone – government, industry, the media, and the public. The

scientists and their contact details are as follows:

Michael Antoniou Michael Antoniou is reader in molecular genetics and head, Nuclear Biology Group, King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK. Mobile +44 7852 979 548. +44 20 7188 3708. Skype: michaelantoniou. Email: michael.antoniou@genetics.kcl.ac.uk

Paulo Brack is professor, Institute of Biosciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil; and member, CTNBio (National Technical Commission on Biosafety), Brazil. +55 51 9142 3220. Email: paulo.brack@ufrgs.br

Andrés Carrasco is professor and director of the Laboratory of Molecular Embryology, University of Buenos Aires Medical School, Argentina; and lead researcher of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET), Argentina. Mobile +54 9 11 6826 2788. +54 11 5950 9500 ext 2216. Email: acarrasco@fmed.uba.ar
John Fagan founded one of the first GMO testing and certification companies. He co-founded Earth Open Source, which uses open source collaboration to advance environmentally sustainable food production. Earlier, he conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cell biology from Cornell University. Mobile +1 312 351 2001. +44 20 3286 7156. Email: jfagan@earthopensource.org

Mohamed Ezz El-Din Mostafa Habib is professor and former director, Institute of Biology, UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil, and provost for extension and community affairs, UNICAMP. He is an internationally recognized expert on ecology, entomology, agricultural pests, environmental education, sustainability, biological control, and agroecology. +55 19 3521 4712. Email: habib@unicamp.br

Paulo Yoshio Kageyama is professor, department of forest sciences, University of São Paulo, Brazil; a Fellow of the National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) of the ministry of science and technology, Brazil; and former director, National Programme for Biodiversity Conservation, ministry of the environment, Brazil. +55 19 2105 8642. Email: kageyama@esalq.usp.br

Carlo Leifert is professor of ecological agriculture at the School of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development (AFRD), Newcastle University, UK; and director of the Stockbridge Technology Centre Ltd (STC), UK, a non-profit company providing R&D support for the UK horticultural industry. +44 1661 830222. Email: c.leifert@ncl.ac.uk

Rubens Onofre Nodari is professor, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil; former manager of plant genetic resources, ministry of environment, Brazil; and a Fellow of the National Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) of the ministry of science and technology, Brazil. +55 48 3721 5332. Skype: rnodari. Email: nodari@cca.ufsc.br

Walter A. Pengue is professor of agriculture and ecology, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina; and scientific member, IPSRM International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management, UNEP, United Nations. Mobile +54 911 3688 2549. +54 11 4469 7500 ext 7235. Skype: wapengue. Email: walter.pengue@speedy.com.ar

OTHER DOCUMENTED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON THE NEGATIVE HEALTH EFFECTS OF GM SOY ON BOTH HUMANS AND ANIMALS

GM-Soy: Destroy the Earth and Humans for Profit

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 by: Dr. Gregory Damato, Ph.D., citizen journalist

http://www.naturalnews.com/026334_soy_Roundup_GMO.html

(NaturalNews) Genetically modified (GM) soy accounts for 91 percent of soybeans planted in the US and is rapidly growing throughout the world [1]. The dangerous biotech created science behind the introduction of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) is rapidly mounting and can no longer be ignored by scientists or the public. The biotech propaganda of increasing crop yield and ending world hunger have been proven false, and attempts to skew the simple fact that the sole reasoning for the mass introduction of untested, toxic and dangerous GMOs into our plants, soil, animals and genes is to increase profits at any expense for the large multinational biotech companies.

Transgenic or GM soy is created by haphazardly blasting a gene into the soybean that allows the bean to be resistant to the cytotoxic effects of Roundup (glyphosate). Farmers are able to dose their entire soybean fields with glyphosate and only kill the weeds. But, wouldn't it make sense that if something kills anything (including weeds) it also would be killing human cells? Also, what health effects are evident from consuming soybeans which have been genetically altered with a promoter virus to ensure the gene slips past the immune system of the plant?

Monsanto created Roundup in the 1970's to kill weeds and has since catapulted this product to be the world's number one selling herbicide. Before the patent on Roundup was set to expire in 2000, Monsanto needed a surefire way to keep the profits of Roundup from bottoming out. Monsanto quickly began purchasing the majority of the world's seed companies while simultaneously creating GMOs that farmers needed to sign contractual agreements to only use Roundup. Subsequently, revenue from Roundup never dropped and in fact topped more than $4 billion in 2008, up 59% from 2007 [2].

GM-soy is estimated to be present in up to 70% of all food products found in US supermarkets, including cereals, breads, soymilk, pasta and most meat (as animals are fed GM-soy feed). Although Monsanto has consistently relied on industry-funded data to declare the safety of GM-soy and glyphosate, objective research published in peer-reviewed journals tells another story.

Toxicity of Glyphosate

A recently published study by Italian researchers [3] examined the toxicity of four popular glyphosate based herbicide formulations on human placental cells, kidney cells, embryonic cells and neonate umbilical cord cells and surprisingly found total cell death of each of these cells within 24 hours. The researchers reported several mechanisms by which the herbicides caused the cells to die including: cell membrane rupture and damage, mitochondrial damage and cell asphyxia. Following these findings, the researchers tested G, AMPA and POEA by themselves and concluded that, "It is very clear that if G, POEA, or AMPA has a small toxic effect on embryonic cells alone at low levels, the combination of two of them at the same final concentration is significantly deleterious".

Although previous researchers have proposed that the supposed "inert ingredients" alter the role of cell membrane disruptors in fish, amphibians, microorganisms [4] and plants [5], independent of G, this study is the first of its kind to report similar findings in human cells. The researchers concluded that, "the proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R [Roundup] formulation-treated crops" which are pervasive in GM-soya.

Furthermore, a recent study presently being prepared for publication by embryologists and biologists in Argentina found that glyphosate induced malformations in amphibian embryos [6]. Reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, an increase in the death of cells that help form the skull, and deformed cartilage were effects that were repeatedly found in the laboratory experiments, said lead researcher, Carrasco. Carrasco explained that in the first phase of the experiment, amphibian embryos were submerged in a solution of herbicide diluted in water in a proportion that was 1,500 times weaker than that used today on genetically modified soybeans. The embryos subsequently suffered head deformations. In the second stage, embryonic cells were injected with glyphosate diluted with water, alone. The deleterious impact was multiplied, showing that the active ingredient accounts for the toxicity, rather than the additives, Carrasco said.

"One should be able to suppose, with certainty, that the same thing that happens to amphibian embryos can happen to humans," said Carrasco, whose team of specialists in biology, biochemistry and genetics has been working on the study for 15 months. The researchers concluded that, "It is clear that glyphosate is not innocuous and that it does not degrade or break down, but accumulates in cells".

Dangers of GM-Soy

In addition to the toxicity of glyphosate, several animal studies have found several health issues directly related to the consumption of GM-soybean. Rabbits fed GM-soy were found to have altered enzymatic activity in their livers as well as a higher metabolic activity [7]. Microscopic analyses of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes [8]. Much of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit.

Molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, Ph.D., described that the findings "are not random and must reflect some 'insult' on the liver by the GM soy." Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King's College London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it "could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia" [9].

A study presented in December of 2005 by Dr. Ermakova found that rats fed a GM-soy flour diet had 56 percent of their offspring die at birth compared to only 8 percent in the control group [10]. Ermakova (2005) also reported that, "From the data it is evident, that 36% of the pups from the GM soya group weighed less than 20 g, in comparison with the 6% in the positive control group, and with the 6.7% found in the traditional soya supplemented diet group. Study of pups' organs mass showed that the organs of small pups from GM group were tiny in comparison with the same of other groups except the brain mass. This fact indicated that the pups from the GM group were the same age as others, but changes were occurred with the development of internal organs" [10]. Furthermore, Ermakova found that the male rats who were fed GM soy had their testicles change color from normal pink to dark blue.

Researchers also found that the cells in the pancreatic cells of mice fed Roundup Ready soy had profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes [11]. Furthermore, mice fed GM soy were found to have altered young sperm [12] and even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA [13]. Clearly, GMOs are either an arrogant blend of controlling life through food or an insidious plot for population control.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/026334_soy_Roundup_GMO.html#ixzz1Bn6TUwsx

GM SOY LINKED TO STERILITY, INFANT MORTALITY IN HAMSTERS

By Jeffrey Smith, Executive Director, Institute of Responsible Technology

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html

"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)—so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.

He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

"Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly."
He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile."

The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.

Hair Growing in the Mouth

Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in the mouths of hamsters.

"Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of a mucous."

At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, "This pathology may be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.)." Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.

Preliminary, but Ominous

Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, "It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself." Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.

In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they're called "Roundup Ready." Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering.

Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed

Surov's hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce.

In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova's feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.

Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry's problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior." Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.

In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up

Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova's simple, inexpensive studies.

In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!

Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.

Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment

Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don't think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry's massive uncontrolled experiment.

Alexey Surov says, "We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them."

For more info on the scientifically documented health dangers of GMO's, please visit The Institute for Responsible Technology website at:

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/

s

POPE BENEDICT (quietly) IN FAVOR OF GMO's

2010-12-20T08:51:00.000-08:00

Vatican agrees that countries must be empowered to increase domestic
agricultural production and that genetically modified crops
(GMOs) have a role in this process, but not everybody in the
Church is comfortable with them. The Vatican cannot force all
bishops to endorse biotechnology, he said, particularly if their
opposition has to do with concerns over protecting profits
oflarge corporations who hold the patents for the crops, versus
feeding the hungry.

Vatican officials remain largely supportive of genetically modified
crops as a vehicle for protecting the environment while feeding
the hungry, but -- at least for now -- are unwilling to
challenge bishops who disagree.

While the Vatican's message on caring for the
environment is loud and clear, its message on biotechnologies
is still low-profile (ref. b). Quietly supportive, the Church
considers the choice of whether to embrace GMOs as a technical
decision for farmers and governments.

The Vatican's own scientific academy has stated that there is no evidence
GMOs are harmful, and that they could indeed be part of addressing global
food security. However, when individual Church leaders, for
ideological reasons or ignorance, speak out against GMOs, the
Vatican does not -- at least not yet -- feel that it is its duty
to challenge them.

Linking development with use of agricultural technologies
(i.e., biotechnologies), pope Benedict stressed good governance
and further infrastructure development
as essential to increasing food security over the long-term.
(Note: Benedict's mention of agricultural technologies is a
small but significant step towards more vocal Vatican support
of biotechnologies.

Post will continue to lobby the Vatican to
speak up in favor of GMOs, in the hope that a louder voice in
Rome will encourage individual Church leaders elsewhere to
reconsider their critical views.

Newly Leaked Cable: Pope ‘quietly supportive’ of GMOs

By Rady Ananda

Posted on December 20, 2010

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/pope-supports-gmos/

Just released yesterday, a November 19, 2009 leaked cable indicates Pope Benedict XVI supports genetically modified foods, though he will not publicly admit it. A June 2009 cable from the US Vatican Embassy confirmed the Pontiff’s refusal to take a stance on GM foods, which was verified in December 2010 by a Vatican spokesperson. However, this latest cable tells quite a different story:

“Linking development with use of agricultural technologies (i.e., biotechnologies), Benedict stressed good governance and further infrastructure development as essential to increasing food security over the long-term. (Note: Benedict’s mention of agricultural technologies is a small but significant step towards more vocal Vatican support of biotechnologies. End Note)”

The analyst further concludes:

“While the Vatican’s message on caring for the environment is loud and clear, its message on biotechnologies is still low-profile (ref. b). Quietly supportive, the Church considers the choice of whether to embrace GMOs as a technical decision for farmers and governments.”

Providing much more analysis than the June 2009 cable, the November 2009 cable indicates strong support within the Vatican scientific community, which apparently remains unaware of the biotech industry’s penchant for suppressing science:

“The Vatican’s own scientific academy has stated that there is no evidence GMOs are harmful, and that they could indeed be part of addressing global food security.

However, when individual Church leaders, for ideological reasons or ignorance, speak out against GMOs, the Vatican does not — at least not yet — feel that it is its duty to challenge them.”

Vatican proponents of GM foods may have missed several scientific reports [1] that highlight problems with GMOs. As previously reported, several times:

* GM foods have been linked to organ damage and sterility in mammals, while others correlate rising diabetes and obesity rates with GMO introduction. There’s also the question of allergic reaction to GM foods, proof of which is hidden by lack of labeling.

* GM crops (and GM forests) are genetically modified to produce or tolerate pesticides. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, has been linked to birth defects, cancer and miscarriages in humans. Pesticides are suspected in causing or contributing to mass bee, bat and butterfly die-off, as well as a pandemic amphibian decline. Their use is also linked to 11 million acres of superweeds in the U.S.

* Further, GM crops cannot be contained. They’ve spread in nations all over the world, even becoming established in the wild.

Given such strong evidence of environmental harm, the Pope’s strong advocacy of the environment would logically include opposition to GM crops. In fact, we find the opposite.

This latest cable further confirms that globally promoting genetically modified foods is a high priority for the US State Department. As discussed in a prior piece, numerous leaked cables reveal a strong focus by embassy officials on cataloging how nations perceive GMOs, boosting GM acceptance in Africa, and even going so far as to discuss spiking food prices to spur GM acceptance in Europe. The latest cable is no different:

“Post will continue to lobby the Vatican to speak up in favor of GMOs, in the hope that a louder voice in Rome will encourage individual Church leaders elsewhere to reconsider their critical views. End Comment.”

Strong opposition within the church cites the monopoly control over food held by multinational corporations:

“The Vatican cannot force all bishops to endorse biotechnology, he said, particularly if their opposition has to do with concerns over protecting profits oflarge corporations who hold the patents for the crops, versus feeding the hungry. In the Philippines, he noted, bishops strongly protested GMOs in the past. (Note: South African Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier’s November 16 comments to a news agency that ‘Africans do not need GMOs, but water’ is another example of specific Church leaders skeptical about the potential benefits of new biotechnologies. End note.).”

Corporate control of the food supply is only one problem with biotech foods, albeit a major one. After fourteen years of commercial experience, the U.S. is fast becoming the poster child for why nations, and the Church, should reject such technology.

Here is the original article with links to the cables and other relevant info:

http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/pope-supports-gmos/

Below is the complete summary of the leaked Nov 2009 cable

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 VATICAN 000119

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2034
TAGS: AORC BEXP EAGR ENRG FAO PGOV PREL SENV UN DA SF
VT

SUBJECT: POPE TURNS UP THE HEAT ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

REF: A. A) VATICAN 104
¶B. B) VATICAN 96

VATICAN 00000119 001.2 OF 002

CLASSIFIED BY: Rafael Foley, Pol Chief.
REASON: 1.4 (b), (d)

¶1. (SBU) Summary: Pope Benedict addressed the opening of the
World Food Summit urging leaders to care for the world's hungry
and protect the environment. Similarly, at the UN General
Assembly, the Vatican nuncio stressed the need for a
comprehensive international energy policy that protects the
environment and limits climate change. Meanwhile Vatican
officials remain largely supportive of genetically modified
crops as a vehicle for protecting the environment while feeding
the hungry, but -- at least for now -- are unwilling to
challenge bishops who disagree. End Summary.

¶2. (U) In remarks at the opening of the World Food Security
Summit in Rome on November 16th, Pope Benedict devoted over one
third of his speech to the link between food security and
environmental degradation. The Pope stressed that states have
an obligation to future generations to reduce environmental
degradation. Citing the probable link between environmental
destruction and climate change, he stated that protecting the
environment requires "change in the lifestyles of individuals
and communities, in habits of consumption and in perceptions of
what is genuinely needed." Benedict urged the international
community to promote development while safeguarding the planet.

¶3. (SBU) The Pope also stated that access to "sufficient,
healthy and nutritious" food is a fundamental right upheld by
the Catholic Church. Linking development with use of
agricultural technologies (i.e., biotechnologies), Benedict
stressed good governance and further infrastructure development
as essential to increasing food security over the long-term.
(Note: Benedict's mention of agricultural technologies is a
small but significant step towards more vocal Vatican support
of biotechnologies. End Note)

¶4. (C) In a separate meeting November 11, Poloff spoke with
Monsignor James Reinert, the point person on food security and
biotechnology at the Vatican's Council of Justice and Peace - a
Vatican think tank on social issues . Reinert said the Vatican
agrees that countries must be empowered to increase domestic
agricultural production and that genetically modified crops
(GMOs) have a role in this process, but not everybody in the
Church is comfortable with them. The Vatican cannot force all
bishops to endorse biotechnology, he said, particularly if their
opposition has to do with concerns over protecting profits
oflarge corporations who hold the patents for the crops, versus
feeding the hungry. In the Philippines, he noted, bishops
strongly protested GMOs in the past. (Note: South African
Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier's November 16 comments to a news
agency that "Africans do not need GMOs, but water" is another
example of specific Church leaders skeptical about the potential
benefits of new biotechnologies. End note.).

¶5. (U) Comment: The Vatican is publicly stressing in various
fora the need to care for the environment in the run-up to the
Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. Pope Benedict places caring
for the environment ("the creation") as a central social,
economic and moral issue to his papacy.

The Pope's proposal to
curb environmental degradation is for people everywhere to
reject excessive materialism and consumerism. In the Vatican's
view, unsustainable lifestyles in developed countries--and not
population growth worldwide--is to blame for global warming.

Vatican officials claim that the planet has the capacity to feed
and sustain its expanding population, provided resources are
properly distributed and waste controlled. Until recently,
Vatican officials often noted that the countries that released
most of the greenhouse gases were not the world's most populous.
As China and India industrialize and release more greenhouse
gases, however, the Vatican may find it more difficult to blame
climate change on lifestyles only. Even as this happens,
however, the Vatican will continue to oppose aggressive
population control measures to fight hunger or global warming.

¶6. (SBU) While the Vatican's message on caring for the
environment is loud and clear, its message on biotechnologies
is still low-profile (ref. b). Quietly supportive, the Church
considers the choice of whether to embrace GMOs as a technical
decision for farmers and governments. The Vatican's own
scientific academy has stated that there is no evidence GMOs are
harmful, and that they could indeed be part of addressing global
food security. However, when individual Church leaders, for
ideological reasons or ignorance, speak out against GMOs, the
Vatican does not -- at least not yet -- feel that it is its duty
to challenge them. Post will continue to lobby the Vatican to
speak up in favor of GMOs, in the hope that a louder voice in
Rome will encourage individual Church leaders elsewhere to
reconsider their critical views. End Comment.
DIAZ

source: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/11/09VATICAN119.html

WIKILEAKS REVEALS US PRO-GMO AGENDA IN AFRICA...

2010-12-20T08:15:00.000-08:00

Leaked reports reveal US government pushing hard for GMOs in Africa

Friday, December 10, 2010 by: Jonathan Benson, staff writer

http://www.naturalnews.com/030683_GMOs_Africa.html

(NaturalNews) Information obtained from several WikiLeaks reports exposes a potential U.S. government plot to thrust genetically-modified organisms (GMO) on the continent of Africa. According to verbiage found in the leaked messages, it appears that the recent creation by the Pentagon of AFRICOM, a U.S. military command post headquartered in Africa, was at least in part done for the purpose of securing access to the continent's natural resources, as well as establishing a GMO foothold there.

According to a summary of the reports written by Richard Brenneman, former associate editor of the magazine Psychology Today and a longtime journalist, AFRICOM is the brainchild of a retired four-star Air Force general who is now a paid lobbyist for the agrofuels industry. This fact alone suggests that the efforts of the new military post will play at least some role in serving such interests, including those of the biotechnology industry that clearly benefits from the expanded use of GMOs.

One report sent by Tom Cunningham, the head of operations at the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) on April 9, 2009, explains that the agency desperately needed as much information as possible about any individuals connected with the African Great Lakes in order to formulate "Mission Strategic Plans (MSPs)." These plans includes tackling "Mineral Resources", as well as "Food Security and Agriculture (FOOD)."

Specifically under "Food Security and Agriculture", the report explains that African officials must be persuaded to accept and propagate GMOs throughout Africa. It also mentions verifying the status of "structural adjustments" and "infrastructure improvements" that needed to take place in order to accommodate the introduction of GMOs.

The other reports go on to explain various other political efforts that relate to GMOs and agrofuels, but the main thrust seems to indicate a clear agenda by certain government agencies to take whatever steps necessary to expand GMO use both in Africa and around the world.

Below are excerpts and details of the leaked wikileak reports on spreading GMO's in Africa:

Leaked cables reveal GMO, agrofuel agendas

Posted on 2010 December 5, by richardbrenneman

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/leaked-cables-reveal-u-s-gmo-agrofuel-agendas/

UPDATED

The U.S. is targeting African officials to push genetically modified crops on Africa, and promoting agrofuels appears to be a significant item on the State Department’s agenda.

Those facts were revealed in our search of the American cables released by WikiLeaks and have not been reported by the nation’s news media.

The cables confirm the fears of Third World activists reported here on previous occasions. We would simply note that the Pentagon’s recently created military command for Africa — AFRICOM — was created by the now retired Air Force four-star general who retired to become a paid lobbyist for the agrofuel industry.

Now straight to the cables, which are available for online searches here(see original article for link).

African resources targeted by Clinton’s State Department

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had been in office less than three months when the head of operations for her department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research [INR] sent out a cable on 9 April 2009 titled “REPORTING AND COLLECTION NEEDS: AFRICAN GREAT.”

The message was classified SECRET//NOFORN, meaning that no copies were to be provided to any foreign nationals. First, Cunnigham tasked her spooks with gathering “the following information as possible when they have information relating to persons linked to African Great Lakes: office and organizational titles; names, position titles and other information on business cards; numbers of telephones, cell phones, pagers and faxes; compendia of contact information, such as telephone directories (in compact disc or electronic format if available) and e-mail listings; internet and intranet ‘handles’, internet e-mail addresses, web site identification-URLs; credit card account numbers; frequent flyer account numbers; work schedules, and other relevant biographical information.”
The intelligence gathering effort will “guide participating USG [U.S. government] agencies as they allocate resources and update plans to collect information on African Great Lakes. . .The priorities should also serve as a useful tool to help the Embassy manage reporting and collection, including formulation of Mission Strategic Plans (MSPs).”

Specific countries targeted were the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi, and Rwanda. Under the heading “Country-Specific Issues,” the first heading, taking precedence over “Genocidal Legacy Issues” is “Mineral Resources, ” which would seem to confirm that a major focus behind the creation of AFRICOM was control of Africa’s oil riches.

But the issue of immediate concern is to be found under the heading “Food Security and Agriculture (FOOD).” Among the areas targeted for intelligence collection are three that should alarm bells for African activists and others concerned with resource issues, specifically:

– Government acceptance of genetically modified food and propagation of genetically modified crops.

– Status of structural adjustments and infrastructure improvements to increase agricultural producer income and reduce migration to urban areas.

– Information on surface and groundwater resources, to include sources, treatment, distribution and storage.

The interest in government policies on GMOs sounds a warning that the State Department is pushing the interests of the powerful U.S. corporations which have taken the lead in pushing proprietary crops and their accompanying suites of patented herbicides and pesticides.

“Structural adjustments” is a particularly ominous pair of words, usually invoked by outfits like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund when mandating privatization of basic resources in exchange for financial aid.

Sarkozy and the GMO industry

The next cable, classified CONFIDENTIAL, was sent by U.S. Ambassador Craig R. Stapleton on 26 October 2007 during Condoleeza Rice’s tenure at State prior to French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s first state visit to the U.S. It’s titled “PRESIDENT SARKOZY’S FIRST OFFICIAL VISIT TO THE U.S.: POLICY COORDINATION WITH A SELF-CONSCIOUSLY INDEPENDENT FRANCE.”

GMOs, as well as pharmaceuticals, are mentioned in the 14th paragraph:
¶14. (SBU) The U.S.-French economic relationship remains robust, with over $1 billion in commercial transactions per day taking place between the two countries’ firms. During President Sarkozy’s visit, CEOs from some of the most important of these will meet, for the first time in several years as the French-American Business Council (FABC) to exchange views on policy priorities. U.S. firms have been almost unanimously positive about the Sarkozy government. Nonetheless there are a number of regulatory unknowns that could potentially impact U.S. commercial interests. Among these are the GOF’s evolving views on genetically-modified organisms, IPR in the digital environment and pricing policy as it relates to pharmaceutical spending.

UPDATE: And then there’s this from the same cable, pointed out by reader Madeline Love [see the comments], revealing that Sarkozy’s “opposition” to GMO crops may be little more than a deft bit of political cover:
¶33. (SBU) GMO Moratorium: When Sarkozy [French President] came into office not only did he create a ‘mega’ environment ministry, but he also directed it to undertake a process, the ‘Grenelle’, involving all sectors of the economy to reshape French environmental policies. Among the topics considered in the Grenelle was what to do about Genetically Modified Organisms, a subject of considerable domestic concern in France. The result is that France is currently considering a moratorium on biotech planting that would significantly undermine U.S. agricultural exports to Europe. We believe President Sarkozy may support the politically popular moratorium in order to gain capital to use in his reform efforts.

GMOs, agrofuel and Great Britain

The next cable, marked UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY, recounts discussions on both agrofuels and GMOs with then British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on 25 April 2008. The heading: UK FOOD SUMMIT HIGHLIGHTS PM BROWN’S CONCERN.

Cause for special concern for African land use activists is the British push for large-scale plantation agriculture, but there lots more about GMOs and agrofuels as well

Here’s the relevant text:

¶1. (SBU) Summary: At an April 22, PM Brown-hosted meeting to address increases in food prices, participants disagreed about future trends and the impact of biofuels, agreed that action needed to be taken both for immediate social protection and longer-term agricultural investment, and that care should be taken not to talk up a “crisis.” The UK press release following the meeting included a broad range of proposed actions that the UK plans to pursue both domestically and internationally, ranging from increased assistance to a WTO trade deal and improved World Bank and IMF effectiveness. DFID also announced a new GBP 455 million ($910 million) five-year assistance package. In DFID’s view, the current crisis is being caused by high and rising food prices, not a shortage of food. End Summary.

¶2. (SBU) On April 22, PM Brown hosted a one and a half hour meeting to discuss ways the international community could respond to the growing global food price crisis. Overseas Development Institute (ODI) Director Simon Maxwell, who was called on to set the stage at the meeting, told us he was surprised that the meeting, which was originally intended to be a small private event, was publicized and expanded to include more international players. Participants included UK government ministers, international organizations such Josette Sheeran from the World Food Program, business, academics and others. For the full list, see paragraph 16.

¶3. (SBU) PM Brown opened the meeting, introducing the list of action areas he had asked the Japanese Prime Minister to put on the G8 agenda, including short tern measures to deal with immediate hardship and long term structural measures as outlined in paragraph 13. (see also www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page15321.asp). UK Development Secretary Douglas Alexander concluded the meeting by
SIPDIS emphasizing the need for the international architecture to keep up. He noted that this had been a key theme at the World Bank Development Committee in Washington earlier in April. He also expressed surprise there had not been more discussion about concluding a WTO trade deal as a means to address food price concerns.

Food Prices and Biofuels

¶4. (SBU) Participants disagreed about likely food price trends and the impact of biofuels. UK Environment Secretary Hilary Benn noted that the futures market for wheat showed the price falling more than 25 percent from current levels by next year. Cargill’s Ruth Rawling predicted that wheat prices would come down quite quickly, noting that there is a harvest somewhere on the planet every sixty days, except for rice. ODI estimated that prices would fall back from their current peak to roughly what they had been in the early 1990s. (See ODI’s discussion paper on the topic at http://www.odi.org.uk/publications/briefing/ bp37-april08-rising-food-prices.pdf)

¶5. (SBU) On the other hand, Stefan Tangermann from the OECD Trade & Agriculture Directorate said their modeling showed maize prices for the next ten years would be 60 percent higher than during the past decade and that half of this increase was due to biofuels.

Joachim Von Braun, Director General, Inter Food Policy Institute Research (IFPRI) suggested a moratorium on maize for biofuels. Their modeling showed it would reduce maize prices by 20 percent immediately and wheat prices by 10 percent, with further reductions because it would discourage speculation.

¶6. (SBU) Others defended biofuels. Benn wanted to see hard facts and analysis on biofuels. Mike Bushell, from agri-business company Syngenta, argued against demonizing biofuels. Rawling argued against rigid mandates and in favor of buy-out clauses for biofuels. She also noted that flexibility is essential since biofuel targets are fixed in terms of fuel markets not food markets, and 2.5 percent of the fuel market can represent as much as 20 percent of a food market.

Causes and Remedies

¶7. (SBU) Maxwell told us the headline messages about social protection in the short run and agricultural investment in the long run were clear to the participants, but everything else about causes and remedies was contested. Paul Collier, Oxford University, argued that the main cause was growth in China, which no one wants to reduce. He also pointed to “follies” that he wanted to undo, specifically U.S. biofuels subsidies, and the EU refusal to accept genetically modified crops. Collier wanted to see large-scale farming in Africa along the lines of the Brazilian model. (For details, see Collier’s April 15 article in the Times: Food Shortages: Think Big. www.timesonline.co.uk) On April 24, Malcolm Bruce, MP and chairman of Parliament’s International Development Committee (IDC), speaking at an IDC evidence session dismissed Collier’s suggestion that African countries adopt the Brazilian model as a “professorial point of view, not a politician’s.”

We hope that people on the left side of the spectrum will stop smearing WikiLeaks and really explored the cables. They are filled with revelations of the sort we’ve featured here.

Come on guys, let’s all start digging.

Article source with references & links:

http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2010/12/05/leaked-cables-reveal-u-s-gmo-agrofuel-agendas/

Bt COTTON BOOSTING PESTICIDE USE IN INDIA & CHINA

2010-12-20T06:34:00.000-08:00

Bt cotton boosting pesticide use

Tuesday, 16 February 2010 14:02

GM WATCH

http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=11944:bt-cotton-boosting-pesticide-use

NOTE: GM lobbyists have tried to paint Bt cotton in India as a massive success story that's cut insecticide use and boosted productivity. Now 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

The picture of what's been happening in India emerging from the research of this pro-GM scientist, ties in with the findings of research in China (also undertaken by GM supporters) which showed 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.
http://www.grain.org/btcotton/?id=374

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

EXTRACT: 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.
---
---
Cotton lessons for Bt brinjal
G.S.MUDUR
The Telegraph, February 15 2010
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100216/jsp/nation/story_12110833.jsp

New Delhi: Crop scientist Keshav Kranthi would hate being labelled campaigner against genetic engineering. He says he supports plant biotechnology and wants India to pursue the myriad promises it offers.

But in the polarised debate on the genetically modified (GM) brinjal, Kranthi has aligned himself with groups calling for caution before its release, citing little-known but serious trouble with cotton rarely articulated before.

Kranthi, acting director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) in Nagpur, has warned that poor management of the technology has spawned an abundance of predictable and unexpected problems. 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, and declining cotton productivity over the past three years, he has told the government.

Indian regulators approved GM cotton engineered with a bacterial gene to resist an insect — based on technology similar to that in GM brinjal — in 2002. Kranthi asserts there are no scientifically-authenticated safety issues over GM cotton from anywhere.

Farmers have adopted the GM cotton, which now makes up 90 per cent of the crop in some areas, and virtually eliminated its target pest — bollworms. India's annual cotton output has jumped from 3 billion kg to 5.3 billion kg over the past decade.

But new insects, including one called a mealybug, not known as cotton pests, have spread, causing significant economic losses, Kranthi said in a report sent to the ministry of environment and forests with his comments on GM brinjal.

"Cotton is a tricky crop - we should have been more careful," Kranthi said. "There are lessons to be learnt from this experience for future genetically modified crops, brinjal or anything else," he told The Telegraph.

The environment ministry last week imposed a moratorium on the release of GM brinjal that will remain in place until independent studies are able to establish its safety and there is scientific consensus that it can be released.

Many crop and biotechnology industry scientists have pitched yield and economic gains from GM cotton to farmers as striking examples of the fruits of biotechnology, arguing that GM brinjal would deliver similar benefits.

But a mealybug named Phenacoccus solenopsis, not observed earlier in India, has spread across northern, central and western states after it was first recognised as a cotton pest about five years ago, Kranthi said. In desperation, farmers have begun to spray "extremely hazardous" pesticides on the cotton to fight the insect, which has a waxy coating over its surface that makes it hard to kill with less toxic pesticides, he said.

The reduced use of pesticides on GM cotton and the proliferation of GM cotton hybrids that are susceptible to these insects may have contributed to the emergence of these pests, according to Kranthi's report. "The inappropriate choice of hybrids and the arbitrary and prolific spread of GM cotton hybrids have created conditions congenial for the rapid multiplication of these new insects."

Kranthi sees himself as an insider, a biotechnology believer, urging caution. "Someone has to point this out," said Kranthi, a 47-year-old entomologist who had articulated similar concerns five years ago in the journal Current Science from the Indian Academy of Sciences.

But other scientists disagree with him. “He’s wrong on this. New insect pests always overtake old ones. This could be part of a natural cycle that has nothing to do with GM cotton,” said Thirkannad Manjunath, a senior entomologist who has worked with both government and private crop science institutions.

Another scientist who heads a private biotechnology company said the emergence of new pests was not surprising. “The significantly reduced use of pesticide sprays would have allowed these (non-bollworm) insects to multiply,” said K.K. Narayanan, who is also a member of the Association of Biotechnology-Led Enterprises. “We’ve always maintained that genetic modification (of plants) is only part of a package of crop management practices.”

But 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 in 2006 to Rs 800 crore in 2008, his report said.

The report also points out that seed companies have produced over 600 GM cotton hybrids, and farmers in cotton-growing districts find themselves having to choose from 150 to 200 hybrids. Yet India’s cotton productivity has declined over the past three years — from 560kg lint per hectare in 2007 to 520kg lint in 2008 to 512 kg lint in 2009. A wrong choice of hybrids, Kranthi said, may be contributing to this drop. “A wise choice of GM cotton hybrids which are tailored for geographical regions after taking into account their susceptibility to other pests may have led to much better outcomes.”

Some scientists point out that mandatory state and district-level technical committees for crop genetic engineering that could have guided the appropriate choice of hybrids are missing in many states. “The hybrids used depend on farmers, seed suppliers and university extension centres,” said C. Kameswara Rao, director of the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education in Bangalore. “This has nothing to do with GM cotton or approvals,” he said.

Bt cotton boosting pesticide use in China

GRAIN

source: http://www.grain.org/btcotton/?id=374

"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. 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."

Study link: Tarnishing Silver Bullets: Bt Technology Adoption, Bounded Rationality and the Outbreak of Secondary Pest Infestations in China (Shenghui Wang, David Just, Jul-2006)

http://www.grain.org/research_files/SWang_tarnished.pdf

MONSANTO'S GM Bt COTTON USELESS: COTTON PESTS THRIVING & BREEDING IN Bt COTTON FIELDS...

2010-12-20T06:03:00.000-08:00

Worms eat into GM crop myth - Insects expected to drop dead thrive on cotton plants

The Telegraph, India

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101212/jsp/frontpage/story_13290179.jsp#top

New Delhi, Dec. 11: Insects expected to drop dead after feeding on genetically modified cotton plants have instead been found for the first time in India to be thriving and even successfully breeding on the plants.

Government entomologists have detected natural bollworms — pests of cotton — capable of feeding, surviving and reproducing on commercial varieties of GM cotton, and spawning progeny that can also complete a full life cycle on the plants.

The entomologists at the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Raichur, Karnataka, say their observations coming within eight years after the start of commercial cultivation of GM cotton in India put a question mark on the wisdom of relying heavily on GM plants, particularly to fight crop pests.

“We saw virtually no differences between the biology of insect populations reared on the GM cotton and the non-GM cotton,” said Aralimarad Prabhuraj, associate professor of agricultural entomology at the UAS. The results of their studies appeared yesterday in the journal Current Science, published by the Indian Academy of Sciences.

The GM cotton plants are designed to produce a bacterial protein that is toxic to bollworms. But the bollworm larvae picked up by the UAS researchers from their experimental farms in Raichur defiantly survived the toxins produced by the plants.

Previous studies from the US, China and India have shown that bollworms can feed on GM cotton plants. But the new study is the first to demonstrate that bollworms can breed on the GM cotton and produce fertile offspring that also have the same capability.

The rise of GM cotton in India has been hailed by the biotechnology industry, many crop scientists and sections of farmers as a runaway success. India’s annual cotton production has more than doubled from 2.3 million tonnes in 2002 before the introduction of GM cotton to 5.4 million tonnes in 2008. Agricultural statistics suggest that cotton productivity has also increased from 302kg per hectare to 567kg per hectare.

“We have indeed seen a dramatic boost to India’s cotton,” Prabhuraj said. “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,” Prabhuraj told The Telegraph.

The UAS researchers said their study did not probe whether the bollworms survived because they have turned resistant to the toxin in the GM cotton plants or because the amount of the toxins in the plants are below a minimum level needed to kill the insects.

“The damage caused by the bollworms to the GM cotton plants suggests that rather than banking on GM technology alone, we need to lay emphasis on integrated pest management, or IPM,” said Yerbahalli B. Srinivasa, a team member at the Institute of Wood Science and Technology, Bangalore. In IPM, farmers are encouraged to use multiple strategies to combat pests.

Prabhuraj and Srinivasa say that without IPM, the population of insects capable of surviving GM plants may grow beyond a tipping point where the crop losses would be significant.

A senior biotechnology scientist said the UAS findings aren’t surprising.

“We’ve known for decades that insects can develop resistance,” said Shantu Shantaram, executive director of the Association of Biotechnology-Led Enterprises. “We completely agree that GM plants should be used in tandem with IPM,” Shantaram said.

A five-year study by scientists at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute in New Delhi has shown that the durability of GM cotton varieties can be extended through IPM, Shantaram said. But IPM demands regular, at times even daily, monitoring of pests in the field, and a calibrated response to the pest populations.

“This requires a lot of effort and labour, and not all farmers may be able to practise this,” Shantaram said.

The UAS study observed survival and breeding of bollworms on both first-generation as well as a second-generation GM cotton. The second-generation varieties are loaded with two toxins, and thus viewed as a superior alternative to GM cotton with only one toxin.

The link to the study: Survival and reproduction of natural
populations of Helicoverpa armigera on
Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur, India

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/10dec2010/1602.pdf