Feeding Off The Poor

Most of you have read, either in a journal or corporate newspaper, that genetically modified crops (GMO's) are the answer to poverty and worldwide hunger. Concealed in the pith of that altruistic claim is the fact that whether it be a promising new drug or a miracle seed every untested innovation is first tried out on the planet's most vulnerable. The reason is both logical and opportunistic, the poor being the most desperate are likely to offer the least resistance.

So it came as little surprise when Mangala Rai, India's secretary of the Department of Agriculture Research and Education stated that large scale cultivation of transgenic crops would probably be the only solution to his country's intractable food and land issues. At an international conference last year Mr. Rai went on to say that “India's self-sufficiency in food is crucial and the only way to ensure that is to adopt the GM technology. There cannot be two views on the issue."

But while the supporters of GM crops are quick to belittle their critics as "environmental kooks" and "Luddites" the truth is we have not had these modified food-crops around long enough to adequately assess their long-term negative effects. Surely greater caution would have been sensible rather than committing to what could easily end in an irreversible catastrophe.

How much GM is grown in Europe?

Very little. The documents boast the area increased by 21 per cent last year, proving "growing interest". But it still only covered 0.119 per cent of Europe's agricultural land.

What are the problems?

Mainly environmental. Official trials in Britain showed that growing GM crops was worse for wildlife than cultivating conventional ones. Worse, genes escape from the modified plants to create superweeds and to contaminate normal and organic crops, denying consumers a choice to be GM-free.

Do they endanger health?

Hard to tell. Some studies show that they may do, others (including almost all those by industry) are reassuring. The trouble is that very few truly independent, peer-reviewed research has been done. Most consumers have sensibly concluded that they would sooner be safe than sorry, particularly as they get no benefit from buying GM.

Can they feed the world?

Almost certainly not. Despite all the hype, present GM varieties actually have lower yields than their conventional counterparts. The seeds are expensive to buy and grow, so wealthy developing-world farmers would tend to use them and drive poor ones out of business, increasing destitution. The biggest agricultural assessment ever conducted – chaired by Professor Robert Watson, now Defra's chief scientist – recently concluded that they would not do the job.

But beyond whether or not GMO's are an answer to the growing imbalance in the global food supply is the question of who exactly are these "miraculous" inventions designed to help.

The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops

When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this reporter's chilling dispatch reveals, it's even WORSE than he feared.

"The children were inconsolable. Mute with shock and fighting back tears, they huddled beside their mother as friends and neighbors prepared their father's body for cremation on a blazing bonfire built on the cracked, barren fields near their home.

As flames consumed the corpse, Ganjanan, 12, and Kalpana, 14, faced a grim future. While Shankara Mandaukar had hoped his son and daughter would have a better life under India's economic boom, they now face working as slave labour for a few pence a day. Landless and homeless, they will be the lowest of the low.

Shankara, respected farmer, loving husband and father, had taken his own life. Less than 24 hours earlier, facing the loss of his land due to debt, he drank a cupful of chemical insecticide.

Shankara's crop had failed - twice. Of course, famine and pestilence are part of India's ancient story. But the death of this respected farmer has been blamed on something far more modern and sinister: genetically modified crops."

As the Daily Mail reports, Shankara, like millions of other Indian farmers, had been beguiled by the promise of riches. Instead he was left penniless and unable to pay off his debts. It has been estimated that 125,000 farmers have already taken their lives as a result of these bio-tech companies' impatience to use India as a testing ground.

The Bugs Strike Back

Activists from Vidarbha Jan Andolan (VJAS) are exposing the fact that GMO's are far from the panacea the techno-utopians would have us believe. They report that myriad plants and ruby crops are being severely infected by Mealy Bug, gifted by imported Bt.cotton supplied MNC Monsanto. The VJAS warned that the coming khariff season will see its wider effect and larger area spread that is set to destroy not only next year's cotton crop but the region's entire harvest.

In West Vidarbha there are an estimated 3 million distressed and debt trapped cotton farmers. VJAS president Kishor Tiwari urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to ban Monsanto Bt. Cotton seeds and avert an agrarian crisis. He also demanded that the government probe how the Mealy Bug spread in Vidarbha region.

[The letters "Bt" stand for Bacillus thuringiensis, a toxin-producing bacterium found naturally in soils. Scientists have isolated certain genes responsible for the production of these toxins and have then used genetic engineering techniques to insert them into cotton. The resulting cotton plants produce the Bt toxins and susceptible pests die when they eat them. "Biotech cottonseed is no panacea for insect control" -Sam Dryden, CEO of Emergent Genetics (Seed World, 15:10)

Unfortunately, the activists may have be waging a losing battle. As of this year Monsanto's GM cotton already covered over 75% of India's cotton-growing regions. And while it may be driving the country's poor farmers to commit suicide for the investor class the returns have been bullish:

Monsanto India Net Profit jumps to Rs 15.71 Crores
Monsanto India Limited has announced the standalone Results for the quarter ended on 30-SEP-2008. The Net Sales was at Rs. 7880 lacs for quarter ending on 30-SEP-2008 against Rs. 7062 lacs for the quarter ending on 30-SEP-2007. The Net Profit / (Loss) was at Rs. 1571 lacs for the quarter ending on 30-SEP-2008 against Rs. 1183 lacs for the quarter ending on 30-SEP-2007.

The Net Sales was at Rs. 31864 lacs for half year ending on 30-SEP-2008 against Rs. 24892 lacs for the half year ending on 30-SEP-2007. The Net Profit / (Loss) was at Rs. 8791 lacs for the half year ending on 30-SEP-2008 against Rs. 6961 lacs for the half year ending on 30-SEP-2007.

Whether we are willing to acknowledge it or not, the fact is companies like Monsanto are conducting the largest biologic experiment in the history of the world-- and they are conducting it on us all without our consent.

The United Nations Millennium Campaign Finally Weighs In.

"The first of the Millennium Development Goals - halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger by 2015 - is essential for eradicating poverty, as most of the poor live in rural areas.The role of agriculture is, therefore, key to the fight against poverty. Nevertheless, over the last years rich countries diminished their official development assistance for agricultural development and some of them proposed and pushed for a new model of agriculture based on biotechnology.

Such a new model of agriculture is presented by its supporters as a means to contribute to the elimination of poverty, as it intends to maximize crop production. However, it does not take into consideration that policies fighting hunger: need a more comprehensive approach; must take into consideration socio-economic and environmental peculiarities, especially local needs and traditional knowledge and practices.

Genetically modified technology goes against these basic requirements, as it is designed to suit multinational enterprises in the North. "The fight to poverty and hunger will not be won and people will still go hungry if the fundamental causes of hunger and food insecurity are not tackled".

So what say you? Are the hand-wringers simply backward reactionaries willing to let the poor continue to starve or are we ignoring a ticking ecological time-bomb?