Author Archives: admin

A talk with Devinder Sharma – Part 1

Posted on by

Devinder Sharma

Mr. Devinder Sharma is an agricultural scientist, journalist, writer and policy analyst who is well known around the world.

He had been called as an expert to be part of a working group in Geneva to prepare the groundwork on rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas, conducted in July 2013. Mr. Sharma had presented his paper there, and some of his points appears to have been adopted into the background paper since published by the Geneva Academy, of which I have a copy for personal study.

The first paragraph of the last page of the report by Christophe Golay on the Legal Reflections on the rights of peasants and other working groups in rural areas, prepared based on the above meeting of the working committee states :

  • The negotiation that begins within the working group mandated to elaborate a UN Declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas is a new exercise for peasant organizations, and in particular La Via Campesina. But it is not a new exercise for the UN and states that have been engaged in similar negotiation in the last 40 years, when they drafted international instruments protecting the rights of women, children, migrant workers and members of their families, persons belonging to minorities, human rights defenders, persons with disabilities, and indigenous peoples. 

Sharma had started out studying Plant Breeding and Genetics and holds a Masters degree. He has been working for ten years with a mainstream Indian newspaper as an agricultural expert. During this time, the newspaper encouraged him to go to remote corners of India and spend sufficient time there to soak in the ambience and lifestyle, and the trials and tribulations of rural India, before composing his articles on what works and what might not, to improve rural Indian agriculture, lifestyle or economy.

 This is something the media did in the past, as a social duty. This is also what the media does not engage with any more, ever since corporate moguls began controlling most of the world media, and kept profit as the main goal for their existence – quality and breadth of news delivered was no more to be the focus.

The first part of the talk covers basically the following points:

  • Extreme bias towards the west and high-tech solutions within the Indian education system, and the thinking of both the educated class and the policy makers. This is pushing India towards economic dependence and subservience to the west. India will have to find its own solutions by thinking outside of the western box. Unfortunately, not enough folks are listening. This however, is a global problem, and not just an Indian problem. I can relate to this sitting in Canada.
  • Exploitation of the rural landscape by the urban culture: this was noted and eloquently penned by Tagore a century ago. This has been the topic of discussion between greats of the time, including conversation between Tagore and Gandhi, towards seeking a solution for a free India of the future. Tagore had rightly realized that pushing the British out would not solve the problem of exploitation, which was systemic, and would need a change in paradigm – a new thinking and a new system to redress the relationship between urban and rural societies. Mr. Devinder Sharma has pointed out that this exploitation has not only not been eradicated by Independent India after the end of British Rule – it has in fact increased. While exploitation was limited to the labour of the rural population, now it has expanded to the resources lying under the feet of Rural india, and also to the very land they had been using for millennia. Everything is now being stolen. Again, this is not just a problem of India – but a global problem, created by free trade, corporatocracy and a hegemony of the west.
  • Biodiversity – this is the saddest story of all – how the worlds biodiversity and richness of natural biomass or poorer nations is being stolen and those life forms being patented by foreign nations and corporations, with collusion and help from the very elite of those nations. How the Indian elite is knowingly or unknowingly being used as pawns to hand over their national resources to foreign corporations and governments. The extent of this mechanism created for international long term exploitation is both mind boggling, and depressing.

 That is life, and that is what has been covered so far with the interview with Mr. Devinder Sharma of India. It was interesting to hear Mr. Sharma mention Vavilov of the Soviet Union, a brilliant man that attempted to collect food plant samples from around the world, and identified the Indian subcontinent as one of the hot spots of biodiversity. Stalin eventually got him killed in prison, because Vavilog’s ideas on genetics did not fit the then prevalent Communist ideas, where people’s or plants biological heritage was not supposed to matter, and excellence was solely to be saught from after-birth factors, and that all plants, like all men, were created equal. That, of course, was outside of the scope of this discussion, and was not covered.

You can find the talk listed at the bottom of this page. It can be playing directly by clicking on it. You can also find it in iTunes, if you look for a podcast under the name of Tony Mitra, and go through the list of episodes. It can be identified by the logo at left.

 i hope the readers will like this podcast and will look forward for the rest of it.

Letter to a mayor

Posted on by

A letter to a Mayor: We are writing letters to all mayors and councillors of all municipalities of British Columbia, requesting them to vote favourably towards declaring the province as GE/GMO free in the Annual General Meeting of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) come september.

I personally have written to six municipalities, one email to each mayor and each councillor of these places. I intend to send many more. There are other volunteers also engaged similarly. We sometimes get a response from them, sometimes not.

Here is a sample:

Dear xxxx,

This letter requests your support for the resolution on genetically engineered (GE, also known as GMO) crops and animals at the 2013 UBCM Convention. The resolution reads:

that UBCM ask the British Columbia government to legislate the prohibition of importing, exporting and growing plants and seeds containing genetically engineered DNA, and raising GE animals within BC, and to declare, through legislation, that BC is a GE Free area in respect to all plant and animal species.

Serious concern has been expressed across BC about genetically engineered crops and animals. To date: 12 municipalities have passed individual resolutions declaring themselves a GE Free zone (Powell River, Salt Spring Island, Denman Island, Nelson, Kaslo, New Denver, Rossland, Richmond, Saanich, Metchosin, Telkwa, City of North Vancouver). At the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities meeting in April 2013, the same resolution as above was adopted by 51 municipalities.  In addition the UBCM has endorsed four resolutions expressing concern about genetically engineered crops in 1999 concerning monopolization of our food supply, 20006 and 2009 concerning mandatory labeling, and 2012 concerning the GE apple.  

My concerns about genetically engineered crops and animals are as follows:

Safety Questions

  • GE crops are not an extension of traditional breeding methods (or hybridization), they are created by inserting new gene sequences into organisms, often from unrelated species. 
  • GE crops have not been demonstrated to be safe; the standards for judgment by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada are lax. When the CFIA reviews an application for a novel food, its “evidence” comes from the corporation making the application and this data is kept secret. There is no independent testing of GE crops or animals in Canada, so the bottom line is we don’t know if these crops are safe or not. 
  • Unlike 166 other countries, Canada, has not ratified nor put into effect the articles of the Cartagena Protocol which provides guidelines to be adopted for placing rigorous safety checks before GMO is introduced into a region and an environment. As a result, there are insufficient safeguards at the federal level against damage to health and environment through GMO.

Corporate control

  • GE crops are about making profits for companies, often large multinationals. Five agricultural biotechnology corporations now control most of the technology needed to develop GM crops, as well as the agrochemicals and crop germplasm and seeds.  
  • GE seeds are patented which allows companies to take control over living organisms. 

 

Pollen drift

  • Contamination of non-GE crops by GE crops is inevitable
  • Some species, such as canola, cross-pollinate more easily than others. If you are next to a farm growing GE canola it is impossible to grow non-GE canola because of contamination from GE pollen.  
  • The same is likely with some of the GE crops that have recently been approved or are now being developed, for example the GE alfafa (recently approved) GE apple (under development). This will lead to significant economic loss for organic farmers, who use alfalfa as a rotational crop.
  • Now GE alfalfa has been approved it will make growing conventional and organic alfalfa impossible over the long term.

There is consensus across British Columbia that we urgently need to consider other possibilities than GE crops, and to support farmers transitioning away from growing GE crops to sustainable farming practices.

May I recommend three important sources of information on GE crops and animals?

  1. The first is GMO Myths and Truths, a synthesis of 600 scientific studies carried out by three geneticists, and published in 2012. http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58
  2. The second is a TED talk given by geneticist Dr. Thierry Vrain, who formerly worked as a Federal spokesperson for GE crops but, after analysis of recent studies, is seriously concerned about their health and environmental impact, which can be found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQkQXyiynYs
  3. The third is an expert panel report prepared by the Royal Society of Canada on request received from Health Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada, on the future of Food Biotechnology. The report stresses on the need for precaution and conducting rigorous and independent testing of GMO for health and environmental effects before they are to be approved. These recommendations are not being followed. http://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/GMreportEN.pdf

I hope I can count on your support in this crucial matter. Should you have further questions, I shall be more than happy to answer them on phone or face to face.

Sincerely,

Tony Mitra

No need to follow USA on GMO issues:

I have been observing the unfolding situation in Canada with regard to GMO for some years now. Initially, I used to sign petitions and consider that as the discharge of my civic duty. I have seen how those discharge of our civic duty failed to stem the rot.

Of late, I have been questioning myself, ourselves, and the methods used so far to keep the Canadian environment clean and our food healthy and our lives less contaminated by unnatural substances. Along with that, I have come to question the deep link Canadians have with Americans, on the issue of GMO.

I used to live in the US for many years before I migrated to Canada. While being fond of both, I have one critical comment to make about the US when it comes to GMO. By far the majority of the corporations producing GMO and agricultural toxins are from the US. US has, again, by far the most number of GMO being grown there. US has been feeding GMO to its people for the longest time and in the widest scope. Americans have been exposed to GMO more than any other nation on the planet. USA has not yet allowed GMO to be labelled in the food stores, nor set up mandatory independent tests on the safety of GMO. USA has systematically refused to sign or ratify any of the international conventions of protocols when it comes to GMO and its potential hazards.

For all these reasons – USA is the very worst place to be in this entire planet, if one wishes to keep GMO away from his/her dinner plate.

And, American people, with all due respect, have not been able to do anything worth bragging about – when it comes to pushing back at the corporations that enjoy total control of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of the Government as well as the media.

And Canada of late has been busy trying to swallow the “Copy Americans” pill in many ways, particularly on GMO.

In the process, Canada has tarnished its stellar image of the past of being environmentally and socially conscious nation. Things have gone so bad that the rest of the world now laughs at Canada as an insignificant poodle of USA when it comes to GMO, climate change and such.

Therefore, taking example from USA, in my mind, is trying to reproduce the failures of the American people of keeping their lands free of dangerous chemicals and transgene crops.

The solution cannot be found by copying somebody. The solution has to be found by sitting outside of the box and thinking Canadians. Americans cannot solve Canada’s problem, not that the US is at all interested in it. Likewise, Europe, or even Ottawa, cannot solve these problems. It is a problem that needs involvement of the people, and novel methods to deal with.

I often hear, in Canada, with regard to motions to label GMO – about waiting for Americans to first label it. Without that, Canada has no chance of getting its GMO labelled. I find this statement not only unacceptable, but tantamount to capitulation to American hegemony.

If labeling is desired by the people – they must follow this up with their respective governments regardless of what the people of US do.

Canada does not, and should not, wait for the US, or any other country, to take the lead in food security.

Canada is supposed to be a free and independent country. Its people need to mull over the definition of “independence”.

Think outside the box. Observe what is happening in the US, but give much more weightage to other nations that are doing a whole lot better than the US on this issue.

If you have to follow examples – at least try to find the best example to follow, instead of the worst one.

This is not to disrespect either American or Canadian or any other people.

LINKS:

Monsanto’s GMO Killer Seeds: Profits Above Human Health. This is a recent article from Global Research, dated May 26, 2013. Click on the image for the link.

The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization committed to preserving and building sources of non-GMO products, educating consumers, and providing verified non-GMO choices. Shared belief is that everyone deserves an informed choice about whether or not to consume genetically modified organisms.

Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops:

  • Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops
  • Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops
  • Are strictly regulated for safety
  • Increase crop yields
  • Reduce pesticide use
  • Benefit farmers and make their lives easier
  • Bring economic benefits
  • Benefit the environment
  • Can help solve problems caused by climate change
  • Reduce energy use
  • Will help feed the world.

All these are false claims – as explained in GMO Myths and Truths.

Thanks.

Hudson, Quebec sets legal precedence in banning federally approved pesticide at Municipal level

Posted on by

Hudson is a township sandwiched between the city of Montreal, to the east and the farms and forests to the west, in the province of Quebec, Canada.

And through the last decade of the last millennia on to the first years of this one, she created history of a kind – she withstood several levels of high profile legal challenges, all the way till the supreme court of Canada, on its Municipal level ban of cosmetic and other lawn pesticides.

This became a precedence making event, and the cascading effect was various other provinces ended up enacting bans on cosmetic lawn pesticides at the municipal level as well as initiatives taken at provincial levels to ban harmful pesticides.

A full length documentary video has been produced named “A Chemical Reaction – The story of a true green revolution” whose web description goes as – “

A Chemical Reaction, is a 70 minute feature documentary movie that tells the story of one of the most powerful and effective community initiatives in the history of North America.  It started with one lone voice in 1984.  Dr. June Irwin, a dermatologist, noticed a connection between her patients’ health conditions and their exposure to chemical pesticides and herbicides.  With relentless persistence she brought her concerns to town meetings to warn her fellow citizens that the chemicals they were putting on their lawns posed severe health risks and had unknown side effects on the environment.”

Jennifer Dumoulin

To learn more about the case, and to understand how Canadian law works with regard to Municipalities jurisdiction in banning what it might consider to be harmful to its residents and environment, I tried to call the persons involved. The key person was Ms June Irwin, who as a doctor first noticed the link between ill health and exposure to pesticides in her own patients, and single handedly pushed the issue through the Municipality of Hudson, which eventually, through initiatives and efforts of the then mayor, environmental agent and councillors, ended up in an enforced by-law that banned application of all pesticides in the town without specific permit, and where violators were subject to heavy fines.

June Irwin was not available, as she was on a holiday. So I got the next best person – the current Environmental agent in the town of Hudson – Ms Jennifer Dumoulin, to speak with me on record, for the purpose of creating this audio podcast, as an educational tool for the public and to raise awareness. There appears to be significant level of interest outside of Hudson and Quebec, and even outside of Canada, to learn how Municipalities might address such concerns from its residents, through actions taken initially at the level of Municipal Councils.

The audio podcast is just over 17 minutes long. It can be listened by clicking the player button at the bottom of this blog. Alternately it can also be downloaded and stored for listening at leisure, through iPhone or iPod and similar devices through iTunes store, free of charge. To find this Podcast and other episodes from me, search for Tony Mitra in the search field in iTunes Store and you should find it. The name of this specific Podcast is – Jennifer Dumoulin of Hudson Quebec on pesticide ban.

I hope this Podcast and information will be of value to the discerning listeners. My thanks go to Jennifer Dumoulin for agreeing to speak with me on record, for taking time out to do so, and for being patient with my questions.

Above is a recorded talk with Ms. Jennifer Dumoulin of the Municipality of Hudson in 2013.

Below is a link to part of the movie made on June Irwin.

Update on July 2, 2018

This is the story of June Irwin, the lone Canadian pesticide warrior that changed the face of Canadian law regarding rights of Municipalities with regard to controlling pesticides in residential areas.

June Irwin was a dermatologist that single handedly changed Canada, and strengthened the hand or ordinary citizens in protecting their neighbourhood from toxic chemical attack by pesticide peddling corporations.

Born in 1935, June was a doctor, a dermatologist, living in the town of Hudson, Quebec, Canada, back in the 1980s and 1990s. She noticed children coming to see her with rashes on their skin, that apparently developed after they played in the grass lawns outside their homes and in public spaces such as in schools and playgrounds.

After checking on the causes and noting the timing of herbicide spray (cosmetic pesticides application in residential areas) and almost synchronous ailments in children’s and pets skin problems, she came to the conclusion that lawn and other cosmetic pesticides were bad for human and animal health.

She contacted the town Municipality, and appealed that these pesticides be banned from residential and public areas. The Municipality declined to act, on the grounds that the pesticides and their application were federally approved and the issue is outside the jurisdiction of town Municipalities.

June disagreed. Undeterred, she appealed first to her clients, the parents of children and owners of pets that were getting sick while playing on the grass. Then she went door to door to meet everybody else.

June had a pleasant and helpful demeanour and was very well regarded in her town. She slowly started gathering the townspeople behind her on this issue.

In two years, the call to ban lawn and other cosmetic pesticides from the town became a political force that the Municipal councillors could no longer ignore. They were literally going to be kicked out of their office and replaced by a new breed, unless they worked to ban these pesticides and make the town safe for children to play in the grass.

The town of Hudson passed a law, banning use of cosmetic pesticides.

Hudson got promptly sued by the spraying companies, supported by the pesticide promoters, in the provincial Court, on the grounds that the Municipality had neither the scientific proof of harm nor the legal jurisdiction, to ban these chemicals.

The town fought the case and won the battle on two provisions of the law:
1) Even if a product or practice is approved federally, it may be restricted locally if it is deemed unsafe for the people.
2) A town did not need to provide absolute and irrefutable proof that a chemical is directly responsible for diseases. A town may have a reasonable suspicion of harm, for passing laws to protect its citizens from the suspected harm.

The chemical lobby did not give up, and sued the town in the Canadian Supreme Court. By then, the province of Quebec had risen to support its small but valiant little town of Hudson, championed by this courageous little lady. So the province of Quebec passed a province wide law banning the use of cosmetic lawn pesticides, and promptly inserted itself into the Supreme Court case, as co-defendant alongside the little town of Hudson.

A few years down the line, the town of Hudson and the province of Quebec won the Supreme Court case. Neither the town, nor the province, needed to produce irrefutable proof of harm. All they needed was a reasonable suspicion of harm, in order to ban these pesticides.

This provided the legal basis, the jurisprudence, for the rest of Canada to follow. Town after town passed these laws, and were never to be legally challenged again.

Today, in my own hometown of Delta, BC, Canada, lawn and residential area weeds may not be killed by any pesticides. The town corporation uses mechanical means and labour to control roadside weeds. Pesticides and herbicides are not only banned in residential and public spaces, but they cannot even be sold in local stores.

The only area the towns are yet unable or unwilling to push back at herbicides, is its use in agriculture, prairie, forests and marshes.

June Irwin showed the path and proved that just a single frail lady is all it takes to change your neighbourhood and the world.

I spoke with June Irwin time to time from some ten years ago, to learn more of her work in Hudson and to catch up on the story. About three years ago I learned she was unwell and might be battling cancer.

She passed away last year at age 83.

Margaret Meade was spot on when she said:
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.

I love you, June. I shall never forget you.

Relevant Links:

Carmen Wakeling – Part 2

Posted on by

It has been two months since I sat across Carmen at her beautiful farm in Comox Valley, Vancouver Island, to hear the story of Eatmore Sprouts farm and her love for the land, the lifestyle, and the community.

The first part of our talk has been up on an earlier blog linked here. Today, I cover the second part, almost without editing. Since the recording was done outdoors, on a windy day, and with birds chirping, and a other man made sounds of farm activity in the background, the audio is more lively, real and rustic, instead of hospital clean and lab produced.

Her farm produces, among other things around 4,000 pounds of organic alfalfa sprouts every week, which she sells wholesale and can be found in stores in the island, in the lower mainlands, as well as in other provinces. This is a significant part of her business.

But, is Health Canada approving GM alfalfa, the future of that business looks uncertain. Genetic pollution may finish off all sources of organic alfalfa seeds in Canada. She ponders the future and watches the dark clouds gather over the horizon, with events that might change the face of traditional farming in Canada.

Her objection to GM food, she claims in her own blog on her web site, is multifaceted and relates to seed independence, health concerns, fact that independent safety tests are not done in Canada, genetic pollution, use of chemicals, the difficulty of organic and genetic farmers to co-exist without contamination, the consumer;s inability to choose or reject GMO due absence of labelling, to name a few.

As I sat listening to her, my mind wandered, to lands near and far, to far off regions, nation and continent, where people like Carmen are watching the gathering clouds over the horizon, and pondering the future of our collective food security, health, and fate of the traditional organic farmers.

The second part covers a half hour where she explains her work, and the issues with GM crops in the valley, were some of the dairy farmers prefer to feed their cattle with GM corn. As a result, tension may be rising in the community, as various communities in the island are having their municipalities declaring themselves GE free, and the dairy farmers are resisting any move that they see as a threat to their survival.

These are questions that are not just valid for the Comox valley, but for the entire planet.

[youtube zvbf3m7IApI]

BRAI bill – India’s Monsanto protection act

Posted on by

Ex Health Canada Scientist and whistleblower Dr. Shiv Chopra had stated that the war on GMO, along with that of vaccines, might be won or lost in India. Following the same view, Teresa Lynn, a mother and a grandmother born and raised in British Columbia, sends a letter to the Government of India, requesting it to reject the newly proposed BRAI bill.

Crop circle in protest against BRAI bill
Crop circle in protest against BRAI bill

Bt. Cotton enters India through the backdoor

Bt.Cotton entered India through the back door. By the time the Government had the item on its table, to approve of disapprove, the crop was already all over the place. Hence the Govt approved it, belatedly. In fact, it was suggested that the Govt might as well approve it, since it is already present everywhere.

The story of the cotton farming in India is shaping up to be an unmitigated disaster as well as a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions, with over a quarter million farmer suicides recorded in the past decade, mostly in the cotton belt, and driven by a debt spiral and economic collapse of the small farmers.

Bt. Brinjal is halted

IN the background of that episode, came the issue of bt.Brinjal (Bt.Eggplant). Brinjal (eggplant) originated in India. India enjoys the highest diversity of the plant, more than six thousand varieties of it. IN some areas, every twenty miles presents a different kind of Brinjal, evolved and hybridized over long experimentation to suit that soil, air, temperature, rainfall and humidity.

Monsanto and its Indian partner attempted to introduce the transgenic Bt.Brinjal in 2010, and the food security activists, farmers unions, sustainable agriculture promoters, and concerned citizens started a mega-mvoement to protest introduction of Bt. Brinjal. The movement got so big that the environment minister went into a fact finding spree and a public discussion with scientists and experts – to arrive at the decision that Bt. Brinjal posed an unacceptable risk to India’s food security and biodiversity, and blocked its introduction by a moratorium.

The citizens of India had won the day.

Provincial versus Federal Jurisdiction

While official introduction of GMO was halted, what remained was field trials of some GMO. Here the ministry of Agriculture maintained that field trials cannot be stopped. Needless to say, the Ministry of Agriculture, just like the Ministry of Science and Technology, is pushing for GMO, and show scant concern for either biosafety or food security.

However, when field tests were being planned, seven provincial Governments complained to the centre, that such field tests were planned in their territory without consulting with the provincial Government, and this was resisted by the state Government.

Subsequent to such pressure, the Federal Government passed a directive that the Provincial Governments should be consulted, and their approval obtained, before initiating field trials of GMO. Seven provinces did not agree to field trials. These are: Kerala, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Bihar and West Bengal, basically provinces of the South, centre and east of India. These are heavy in agriculture. As a result, even field trials became restricted. Future of GMO in India got into the doldrums.

Cartagena Protocol

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety to the Convention on Biological Diversity is an international agreement which aims to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health. It was adopted on 29 January 2000 and entered into force on 11 September 2003.

This Protocol apply to the transboundary movement, transit, handling and use of all living modified organisms that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health. It calls for setting up risk management systems to ensure transgenic organisms imported into the country are going to be safe.

India is a signatory since 2003. Among many other provisions within the Protocol, one is exampled here –  Article 23, which deals with public awareness and participation in Government decision making with regard to GMO.

ARTICLE 23 – PUBLIC AWARENESS AND PARTICIPATION

1. The Parties shall:

(a) Promote and facilitate public awareness, education and participation concerning the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms in relation to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health. In doing so, the Parties shall cooperate, as appropriate, with other States and international bodies;

(b) Endeavour to ensure that public awareness and education encompass access to information on living modified organisms identified in accordance with this Protocol that may be imported.

2. The Parties shall, in accordance with their respective laws and regulations, consult the public in the decision-making process regarding living modified organisms and shall make the results of such decisions available to the public, while respecting confidential information in accordance with Article 21.

3. Each Party shall endeavour to inform its public about the means of public access to the Biosafety Clearing-House.

BRAI bill

The GMO promoters, which included the big money, corporate world, finance, banking and almost the entire political hierarchy of Delhi, got into higher gear to find ways and means to introduce GMO patented by foreign corporations.

Thus, the BRAI (Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India) bill came to be written – and awaits passage in Parliament. The details of this bill is regressive and is already being called India’s own Monsanto Protection Act. It tries to create a single window clearing house for approval of GMO, placing the regulatory (risk assessment) and the promotion of GMO under the same ministry (of Science and Technology) – a clear and deliberately created conflict of Interest.

The Government announced the bill on June 10, giving the public one month (till July 10) to respond to it.

Meanwhile, the Indian civil society has learned, that to ward off GMO in India, the public needs to exert sustained strong pressure to counter the GMO lobby, and be ever vigilant against it.

And thus, the civil society and the activist groups are gearing up again to counter this threat.

Public Response

There are two motions already unrolled by various groups. The first is to write a rebuttal to the Government, asking them to scrap the BRAI bill.

The second is a petition to allow more than one month, for the public awareness and participation. I wrote a letter to the Govt. of India, as did Teresa Lynn of British Columbia, Canada. My letter is copied here. Teresa’s letter is presented as an audio podcast at the bottom of this blog, and also in iTunes.

My letter to the Govt of India

I have sent my letter to the Govt. Of India by email, as below:

———————————————————————————

Mr. Alok Chatterjee, Director, Rajya Sabha Secretariat , Room # 005, Ground Floor, Parliament House Annexe, New Delhi 110001, India

Telephone +91-11-2303 4597, Fax +91-11-2301 5585,

Email : rsc-st@sansad.nic.in

Subject : Response to the proposed BRAI bill

Dear sir,

I am a non resident Indian citizen residing in Canada. I write this letter in response to the Governments invitation for feedback from the public regarding the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India act, published by the Govt. Of India on the 10th of June, 2013.

I believe this bill is regressive instead of progressive towards safety, and if implemented is going to be more harmful for the Indian public as well as its environment, than if the bill did not exist. Therefore, I believe this bill should be rejected. The reasons for the same are briefly listed below.

1. Wrong science

The biotechnology behind the creation of GMO is 70 years old, backdated, and proven to be faulty. The technology is based on the assumption that one gene in a plant genome codes for one protein and nothing else. Therefore, if that gene can be exchanged with another gene from another organism, then the implanted gene would only do what it was doing in its original host organism, and nothing more. This has proven to be wrong in the last ten years, ever since the human genome project was completed in year 2002. Everybody was expecting human genome to have over 100,000 genes, because it was known that the human body requires and produces, over 100,000 proteins. However, the genome project proved that humans have only around 20,000 genes and a lot of unrecognized “junk DNA”. Now it is understood that the junk DNA is not junk at all, but some sort of a control mechanism, the brain, of the DNA ecosystem, that tells individual genes what protein to produce and what not to, depending on situation. In other words, a gene first of all produces a lot more than a single protein, and secondly, what it may or may not produce is controlled often not just by the gene alone, but the entire genome ecosystem or control mechanism of the organism. Subsequently, independent studies have indicated that there are a lot of collateral DNA damage and unintended consequences in GMO crops, and that proteins that were not intended may also be produced as a side effect. A lot of proteins are very toxic, such as snake or scorpion venom. Independent study seems to indicate severe adverse effect on animals exposed either to GM crop or to accompanying GM herbicide. Also, detrimental side effects of consuming such crops can lead to all kinds of problems over the long term, sometimes evident after decades, or even in the next generation of children.

Therefore, precautionary principle calls for independent and rigorous test of the products for ill effects on humans and the environment, and not depend on test results provided by the patent holding biotech industry itself, which has a vested interest to see its product approved.

2. Wrong Ministry

The testing of bio-safety should be under the ministry of environment, and away from the ministry of Science and Technology. This product poses a serious and possibly irreversible threat to India’s biodiversity. The ministry of science has a mandate, to promote GMO without putting in place any mechanism to independently test GMO by labs and institutions that cannot be influenced by the ministry, or the industry.

3. Wrong examples : Canada’s example is what India should not follow

Here in Canada, the cross pollinated contamination of GM canola is so complete across the entire country that it is now virtually impossible to get organic, non-contaminated canola seed for a farmer. As the organic product becomes difficult to produce, and the regulations tend to promote GM crops and make it economically harder for farmers to produce traditional variety, the number of small farmers are decreasing, and agriculture is taken up by large agri-corporations that spray the fields with pesticides from the air, and raise mechanized GM crop, large cutting labor cost, and enjoying a temporary economic benefit of economics of scale. But in due course, insects and weeds develop resistance to the GM crops, thence requiring several times more pesticide, or stronger pesticide, all of which are patented and comes at a high cost.

By losing the organic Canola, Canada is lost a huge export market to the EU, who will not touch GM canola.

Today, less than 1 percent of Canadian population is engaged in farming. Average age of Canadian farmer is above 60. Half of the farmers will retire within the next five years. 75% of the farmers have no succession plan. Farmers in Canada is going extinct, to be replaced by robotic mechanized, industrial scale, chemical dependent, unnatural GM harvest, which is heading for a disaster, both for health and for environment.

Grassroots resistance is rising across the nation and may become a political issue in the coming election.

India cannot afford to make its farmers extinct and need not follow the Canadian, or Australian or the US trend. Natural, non GM farming is labor intensive and can employ a huge population – which has proven to be good for india. India does not need to change that model and push farmers out of farming.

4. Wrong security: Food security sacrificed

India should not hand over its food security to patent held in foreign corporations and take away the farmers rights to replant their seeds, like they have done for the past ten thousand years. India does not need to mortgage its food security to corporations.

This bill is dangerous for food security of a nation of over a billion people, and plays with the livelihood of hundreds of millions of farmers.

5. Wrong ecology : Loss of biodiversity

India is enormously rich in its biodiversity, all of it either naturally evolved or is a result of collective effort of generations of farmers across the land and across time. This rich heritage will prove useful and key for survival. GM crops promote mono-culture, where thousands of kinds of a plant go extinct and only one patented kind remains. This is a recipe for disaster. Climate change, loss of water resource, excess pesticidal toxins in the soil, extinction of beneficial insects bees and micro-organisms are all going to cumulatively make the GM crop unsustainable and India faces a crisis of a kind it may overcome only by using the heirloom seeds that have been specifically raised to deal with difficult conditions such as draught, flood, or incursion of saline or brackish water due sea level rise etc.

India had over 100,000 strains of rice a few decades ago. Today, it hardly has 2,000 strains and those too are disappearing rapidly, thanks to excessive dependence on an unsustainable agricultural model ever since the false green revolution. This is a crisis that is irreversible. Those special strains were generated through hit and trial on special conditions over millennia of experimentation and cannot be reproduced in a hurry, and certainly not by the biotech industry.

6. Wrong policy : Public discussion and access to information

By being signatory to the Cartagena Protocol, India has agreed to put in place various safeguards against inadvertent damage to the nations bio-safety through introduction of GMO. This included engaging in public debate and placing all relevant details in the public domain, so that independent verification can be done by people and institutions that do not have a conflict of interest. This bill attempts to bypass the public discourse as well as curtail access of bio-safety and other information because of proprietary confidential information of the patent holder. Safety information for public should always take precedence over proprietary intellectual property rights. If the biotech firm is not willing to divulge all details of the product and its safety tests for public scrutiny, then the products should be automatically considered unsafe and unsuitable.

7. Wrong characteristics : GMO do not increase yield

Despite being touted as the solution to population increase, GMO are not produced for higher yield. GMO are specifically produced so that their accompanying pesticide can be applied in greater quantity, thus increasing sale of the patented pesticide and herbicide. Besides, hunger is a function of poverty and not of availability of food. India itself is a good example of producing enough food but making to expensive for the poor man, thus allowing hunger and malnourishment to persist. GMO only accelerates the same – food will get most expensive, and the farmers get poorer and more debt ridden.

8. Wrong power : Concentration of authority in the hand of the Union Government

The control of bio-safety needs to be de-politicized and de-centralized. But the bill attempts to do the opposite and concentrates power within the science and technology ministry, so the regulators and the promoters of GMO are under the same roof and in the same bed – a serious conflict of interest and unacceptably dangerous concentration of power.

9. Wrong priority : GM crops being promoted for plants that do not need to be changed.

Plants that have no problem with pesticide or production and originated in the region and has the maximum diversity, do not need to be replaced by GMO. There has to be first of all an analysis of if the plant at all needs to be improved. Such “NO need evaluation” should be mandatory. Bt. Brinjal example highlights this case amply.

10. Wrong risk management

The bill proposes no risk management mechanism.

It is for all these reasons that I strongly urge the Government to reject his bill outright.

If one needs to create a bill for safety against GMO, suggest follow Norways “Act of 2nd April 1993 No. 38 Relating to the Production and Use of Genetically Modified Organisms, etc. (Gene Technology Act)”. It provides a good example of ensuring public and environmental safety with relation to GMO.

Thanking you

(name and address added)

——————————————–

Teresa Lynn‘s letter is included here as a podcast, linked at the bottom of this blog page. A lady born and raised in British Columbia, she believes, like Dr. Shiv Chopra mentioned, that this is a global struggle against GMO and India is a key battlefield where the war might be won or lost. And so, we lent her time, and her voice, in joining countless others in requesting the Government of India not to abandon its citizens, its food security, its ecology and its biodiversity, in favor of corporate profit. You can listen to this 4.5 minute podcast by clicking the triangular play button at the bottom of this page. You can also find  it in iTunes, by searching for podcasts under my name  – Tony Mitra. The logo of the iTunes podcast is shown at at left.

 

Reference links:

 

 

Dr. Thierry Vrain in Surrey, a critique of Genetically Engineered agriculture

Posted on by

This is the seventh video I have filmed, edited and put up, on Dr. Thierry Vrain. The first three of them were on his organic farm (Innisfree Farm) in Comox valley. The next three were short clips of me interviewing him in his study, about GMO and why there were cause for serious concern on the value, and business plan, of GM crops.Thierry Vrain

And then he came to Surrey, BC, to address general public at the Northwood United Church in front of three hundred people. He made an hour long speech accompanied with a powerpoint presentation projected on a large screen behind him. Thierry, in his soft and patient manner, untangles the long story of how the GMOs came to interest the farmers on the promise of lowering labour in weed and pest control efforts, by replacing it with easily available and applicable pesticides, and also by using specialized genetically engineered crops that are either tolerant to specific pesticide/herbicide or produce toxins themselves, that would kill the pests without the need for additional pesticide. That, initially, worked like magic, and saved a lot of labor for the farmers. But, the gain was to be short lived, while the damage and danger, turned out to be rather ominous for the health of the people as well as sustainability of a biologically diverse ecology.

Where Thierry is especially effective is explaining to the general public about the intricacies of genetics, and how the GMO technology is not as precise and controlled as people normally associate high tech science to be.

His hour long presentation was received in virtual pin drop silence by the rapt group of listeners, only some of whom had already some knowledge about GMO, while a large group had not much idea of what GMO really is and how much one should be concerned regarding the business plan, the science, the process and the end product of Genetically Engineered Agriculture.

[youtube l8I4ePHnJbc]

This remarkable event came to be thanks to the following groups :

Event Sponsors 
1. Coalition for a GE free Surrey
2. GMO free Langley
3. The Council of Canadians
Media and Other Sponsors / help groups
1. Raoul Bedi, Conscious Media Consultant and Food Security writer , of the Vedic Harmony Centre.
2. Andrew Rezmer of Conscious Living Radio
3. THE BOVINE blog.
4. GE free BC
5. Tony Mitra : tonu.org

Aruna Rodrigues, the Supreme Court of India, The Government, and GMO

Posted on by

Ms. Aruna Rodrigues describes herself as an ordinary citizen of India. And yet, she has taken on an extraordinary endeavour. She has, through a writ petition in the supreme court of India, challenged the Government of India, no less, in its reckless promotion of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). She hopes to have the court to put a stop to bringing in all GMO, and set up completely independent regulatory body that can be influenced neither by the politicians nor by the biotech industry, to conduct safety tests on these GMO against possible risk to humans as well as natural biodiversity of the nation.

Aruna Rodrigues

Aruna Rodrigues

She started on that case about ten years ago, and it took her two years to gather sufficient data to file the case, in 2005. The famous case is now drawing to a close, and many feel that she has an even chance, and some claim it is better than an even chance, that she might succeed.

At stake here might be the very future of India’s food security and food sovereignty. There has been many in recent years that claim that India’s science and commercial institutions are being used to solve American problems, often at the disadvantage of India’s own interests. Some claim that this agenda comes high up from the Govt, and that it may be a sell-off of national interest for the purpose of assisting foreign commercial goals.

Of relevance here ia a special clause in the Indian constitution, in article 32, which might be unique to India and absent in other democracies, which gives the power to an ordinary citizen of India, to challenge the Government in the Supreme Court, if the citizen’s basic and fundamental rights, as guaranteed in the constitution, are infringed upon by the Government.

Also of relevance is the Cartagena Convention on Biological Diversity, often called the Cartagena Protocol, which came into force in 2003 and to which India is a signatory. This protocol seeks to protect the biological diversity of individual nations, against possible threat by introduced Living Modified Organisms (LMO) created by the Biotech industry, and which might be imported through trade negotiations. This protocol in fact became the binding international agreement on Biosafety. The Protocol stipulates, among other things, that parties shall consult the public in decision-making processes and place important decisions in this regard in the public domain. India, in spite of having signed it, may not have followed the protocol in the manner in which it promoted GMO.

And so, I had requested Aruna for a telephone talk on record, for the purpose of creating a public awareness podcast on this important issue, which affects not just India, but literally half the world. The famous court case is drawing to a close. There are many that hope, myself included, that she might actually win the case, and force the Government of India in doing what is right for the people of India, and stop this reckless introduction of untested and possibly unsafe GMO products to promote interests of foreign biotech corporations.

The under 19 minute podcast can be listened to by clicking the play button at the bottom of this page. Alternately, folks can also subscribe to my podcast from iTunes, and have it downloaded for listening at leisure through their iPhone or iPod etc.

My thanks go to Ms Aruna Rodrigues for allowing me to speak to her on a short notice.
I shall be happy to receive your feedback – at tony.mitra@gmail.com

Relevant Reference:
  1. Order of the Supreme Court in 2012, about formation of expert committee : http://indiankanoon.org/doc/126946252/
  2. PDF copy of the original interim report from the Expert Committee, as submitted to the Supreme Court of India in 2012, essentially recommending that field trials of GMO be stopped till instruments are put in place and independent safety assessment study can be done effectively : http://indiagminfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SC-TEC-interim-report-oct17th-2012-GMO-PIL.pdf
  3. A report from Hindu, in 2012, about the first (interim) report of the expert committee to the Supreme court, essentially recommending a 10 year ban on all field trials of GMO : http://indiankanoon.org/doc/126946252/
  4. A report from David Andow (one of the scientist whose report was presented to the Indian supreme court) on Bt.Brinjal : https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/science_acj/Xu3sTURqQk
  5. Article from Raw Earth Living on Bt. Brinjal : http://rawearthliving.wordpress.com/2010/02/25/legal-cases-laid-ground-for-gmo-bt-brinjal-ban-india/
  6. Cartagena Protocol : http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/text/
  7. List of Signatories to the Cartagena Protocol (note USA and Canada are almost the only countries missing) : http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/parties/

Dave Goulson on Neonicotinoid insecticide affecting wellbeing of bees

Posted on by

There is a marked difference to the attitude of people across the atlantic, when it comes to acceptance of industrial chemicals into our food system, and Europe is providing to be more cautious than North America. The case of neonicotinoids insecticide is an example. The EU have imposed temporary ban on a few of these chemical, whereas there is no similar movement in the North American continent that I know of. This ban was based on a few high end research done on the effect of these insect nerve agents. There are many news articles from Europe that cover this story, as exampled here in the screen shot on the British news outlet – The Guardian. You can click on the image and go to the source.

One of the important scientific reports that was pivotal in EU reaching a decision to ban some neonicotinoids was done by Prof. Dave Goulson, currently with the University of Sussex in the UK. He was gracious enough to speak with me on phone for the purpose of this podcast.

Prof. Goulson studied Biology at Oxford University, and did a PhD on butterfly ecology at Oxford Brookes University. THen he served as a lecturer at University of Southampton for 11 years, where he specialized in bumblebee ecology and conservation. In 2006 he became Professor of Biology and Stirling University and in 2006, founded the Bumblebee Conservation Trust, a charity devoted to reversing bumblebee declines. In 2013 he moved to Sussex University.

Dave Goulson

Dave Goulson

Dr. Goulson has published over 200 scientific articles on the ecology of bees and other insects, and am author of “Bumblebees; their behaviour, ecology and conservation (2010, Oxford University Press)” and “A Sting in the Tale (2013, Jonathan Cape)”, a popular science book about bumblebees.

He is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society, and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. In 2010 I was BBSRC “Social Innovator of the Year” and in 2013 I won the Marsh Award for Conservation Biology from the Zoological Society of London. The conversation is presented here is just under 40 minutes long.

The most recent book that he wrote – A Sting in the Tale” (not tail), is available in north America as an e-book for Amazon kindle or Apple iPad as well as in hardcover. I have downloaded the first few pages of the book in my iPad as a sample, and intend to buy the full book, from what I read already. The book promises to be a good science book on the bees but with a humorous tone that attempts to keep the uninitiated reader glued to the tale, and an essential read for those concerned about ecology and sustainability the natural plant world around us and its intimate and complicated relationship with insects, and other small organisms.

 

The 40 minute conversation is converted here as a podcast. You can listen to it directly by clicking the play button at the bottom this page.

Contact Tony Mitra.

Women of Comox Valley – Carmen Walkeling

Posted on by

It was on a sunday, late in April 2013, that I visited the organic farm “Eatmore Sprouts” of Ms Carmen Wakeling. This visit was made possible because of effort and initiative of Ms Peggy Carswell of “Fertile Ground”. She was a friend of Carmen and was visiting her, when she mentioned that I was coming to Comox Valley and that I was interested in meeting with organic farmers of the regions, with a view to possibly recording a video or two of the farms for raising public awareness.

And it was Carmen that agreed to take time out on a Sunday, and wait for me at her farm, even as I was a few minutes late.

I write this series of blogs about the women of Comox valley because I find so many of them constructively engaged in sustainable farming issues, which I find encouraging as well as inspirational. The world was, at one time, engaged with sustainable farming. That was the only way to farm. And then came industrial civilization and the invention of mass scale monoculture and chemical dependent high input farming, with genetically modified and untested food varieties in a farming model that had less involvement of people and more of machines, factory products, lawyers and politicians. And before we realized, the organic natural farmers were on the back foot, and shrinking in number.

Besides, I have personally found womenfolk to have a more caring, healing, outlook to life. Existence did not have to be a battle of survival where my success is only possible with someone else’s demise. There was a more nurturing way to look at life.

Anyhow, I found Carmen to be both enterprising, level headed, efficient, charming, and yet friendly and accommodating – one you would immediately take to as a friend.

This is the first part of our interview. The others will appear here, so stay tuned. I hope you will like it.

[youtube ymQMrn-G-Hc]

Women of Comox valley – Peggy Carswell 2

Posted on by

During our three days of stay at Kel & Peggy’s home, there was time to listen to their relationships with people of the tea growing region of North East India, in the province of Assam, and their work towards teaching the locals on the forgotten methods of sustainable chemical free farming, and same time their attempt to set up a fair trade system for the small tea growers of the region.

Peggy

Peggy

In this second video clip, a mere 7 minute episode, she describes how they managed to get Dr. Debal Deb to Assam for a few days, to teach folks the art and the need for seed preservation, and to interact with school children about same. Apparently, it was the children rather than the grown ups that recharged Dr. Deb’s optimism about the future. Like they said – child is the father of man.

What makes this video more interesting for me is that Debal is a personal friend of mine, apart from being a unique zero carbon footprint scientist and a mystic. There is a sizzling noise from the background, as something was cooking in the attached kitchen, and we apologize if folks find it disconcerting.

[youtube ab9wkcFoFrw]

The 7 minute talk is converted here as a podcast. You can either listen to it directly from this page by clicking the play button at the bottom of this page. For those that wish to store the audio and listen at leisure through their iPod, iPhone or iPad etc, can do so from Apple iTunes. Type “Tony Mitra” in the iTune Store search field, and the podcast should show up. One can subscribe to the podcast (its free) and listen to the episodes later. All the episodes are almost exclusively related to GMO.