GM food 'dumped on India as aid'

[tony mitra]

This is for you, Kyi Yo. I was checking up on some information relating to genetic modification of both plant and animal species, and was searching the back archives of Nature magazine in the bioscience sector, and accidentally came across this crisp snippet of news about GM food being dumped as aid many years ago on India, and possibly other natiosn too. And guess who raised the alarm - you heroine, Ms Vandana Shiva.

Here is the article. I thought you might have an interest in it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

News
Nature 405, 875 (22 June 2000) | doi:10.1038/35016231

GM food 'dumped on India as aid'
K. S. Jayaraman, New Delhi, New Delhi

A Delhi-based environmentalist group has accused the United States of 'dumping' genetically modified (GM) soya and corn on India in the form of food aid "in a bid to create an artificial market and keep the tottering genetic-engineering giants afloat".

The United States began sending food to Orissa in November 1999. The US Agency for International Development does not deny that it supplies GM food in aid packages, saying that it does not distinguish between GM and non-GM food.

Vandana Shiva, president of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE), says that the $4.2 million US food aid sent to cyclone victims in the state of Orissa last October contained genetically modified forms of soy beans and corn rejected by traditional markets in Europe and Japan.

The discovery was revealed by test reports from Genetic ID, an American company that tests for GM organisms in food. The company tested samples of food that had been collected from Orissa and sent for analysis by RFSTE, and concluded that "significant levels of genetically modified DNA were detected in the samples".

India has no policy on GM foods at present. The secretary of the Department of Biotechnology, Manju Sharma, says that the department is still "in the process of finalizing" the policy in consultation with the ministries of health, the environment, food and agriculture.

Shiva complains that, in the absence of policy and test facilities, India has become an illegal dumping ground for unwanted GM foods. She claims that the US government "used the money intended for relief to the poor to subsidize the biotech industry, in order to create market entry for GM products".

---------------

This is one of many cases were Ms Shiva was to engage in, eventually taking on mega corporations to European courts and winning the cases on behalf of either poor countries, or indigenous groups and such.

The Genetically modified crop is now again a hot issue in the WTO discussions relating to access to the agricultural sector of the developing world. Apparently some of these GM crops have higher yield, but they come with a few catches. One is they are unsuited in different habitats unless special fertilizer is used, and the second is, the plants are impotent. In other words, the yield can be cooked and eaten, but the seed is no good for replanting, so the farmer would need to continually buy the special fertilizer and the seed.

Now there is some accusations cropping up that if the farmer cannot cope with the cost of the fertilizer and seed and decides to dump the program and go back to indigenous seeds, he might find that the repeat use of chemical fertilizers has so disturbed the natural distribution of micro organisms of the soil that original seeds do not work very well either.

The term bio piracy, and agricultural imperialism, were catch-phrses to be coined shortly after all that, and the battle has just begun looks like, with discussions on WTO rounds getting increasingly exciting with tempers rising to red hot levels in recent months.

Anyhow, thought you might like to check on it.

Cheers
:)

[crimzonsol]

Thats Monsanto for you.
Monsanto patented the "kill gene" supposedly to protect indiginous plants.
Monsanto also can have your entire yield and stash of seeds destroyed if there is atleast one seed contaminent.
Monsanto also is also in the process of patening almost all the different types of wheat grown in the US. That would mean that farmers would have to pay them to be able to grow there crops.
Monsanto also is trying to patent the Human Geonome, The something Pig geonome and is developing an industrial Agent orange.
I could go on and on about Monsanto.

[Labrocca]

I don't see the story here. Some food was given to India as aid and it was GM food...so?

They sent food..not seeds.

[Kyi Yo]

*Happy grin as I settle in with my laptop* Hey Tony, thanks!

A topic near and dear to my heart. I've spent an enormous amount of time and energy helping the Indigenous peoples of north and south America protect their DNA resources, both human and plant.

I've long ben an admirer of Dr. Shiva's, and we've collaborated on a lot of international responses to some of what's going on, especially the "Terminator technology".

There is a large group of activists who work independently within their countries on these issues, but we have a very large network and we all work together on these issues internationally. It was our voices and writings behind a lot of the language within several of the documents protecting our lands, plants, animals and peoples from genetic exploitation by the huge biotech industry.

It's really satisfying to have been able to stop the Human Genome Diversity Project and we're making great strides in stopping the National Geographic Society's, Genographic Project. I did the work here and in Canada against both projects, working with the network of Tribal Leaders. In the latest New York Times article about this project, the lead researcher in charge of gathering Indigenous DNA from tribes here in the US was lamenting the fact that he couldn't get any Tribes to cooperate.

The international work is going slower unfortunately. We did get a resolution through the UN working group on Indigenous Peoples calling for the NGS to "cease and desist" and to return any DNA they have collected. Since we've been so successful here in the US and Canada, we're turning the focus of our efforts internationally.

Concurrently, with the work to protect Indigenous DNA is the work to protect plant DNA. Tribes in the US were again the focus of my work. I worked with individual tribes at their regional gatherings. Each tribe has it's own governmental structure so what we did was provide them information and draft legal language that they could modify to their situation and specific treaties to codify into tribal law to protect the bio-piracy of their traditional knowledge of medicines and foods.

There has been a gradual change in the undercurrent within patent law and it's efficacy as we've won case after case and each nation state implements laws to protect their plant resources. There are now very strict laws in place designed to keep the US based biotech firms from exploiting the worlds genetic resources.

There have been a few nation states who have actually committed to "full participation" by their entire nations i.e. DNA databanks of their entire citizenry. Here in the US there was a slow move in that direction, it's not stopped, but we've been effective in raising awareness so people don't automatically buy into the DNA hype.

If you take a look at the claims of greater yield and how those studies (funded by the corporations) were done, you'll find that the numbers have been manipulated as have the crops. What they don't tell you is that there is essentially NO oversight on the safety and environmental impact of these crops. Which is the main reason the Europe and a growing list of nations have a ban on GM foods and crops.

Okay, I ran out of juice here..... lol...... I am now stray-less. They've all flown out of the nest. My last two left today, one is on her way to Green Bay, WI with my truck loaded with all her "stuff". She's stopping over with my sister (cousin in American ways) in Bismarck, ND. I've been busy, packing, going through bedding, dishes, household goods to help them set up housekeeping. Also doing the visiting to say goodbye to everyone and going away dinners. My house is trashed, my cat had a run in with the skunk who lives under the shed and now my house smells skunky! We had a fight over the bath thing, but he's smelling a whole lot better, sulking at the foot of my bed.

One day, I hope to meet Dr. Shiva. I've long admired her work and do what we can do to support her efforts.

I have so much more to share with you on this subject, but my brain is fragmented right now..... *grins*.

Gee dah gee nau mutsin Nuskuni! (We don't have words for goodbye, those are only used for the deceased. We say "I look forward to speaking/seeing you again my friend.")

[tony mitra]

HI Larbnocca,

This is a very contentious issue on various fronts. One is the case that developed blocks such as Europe and Japan had banned export of US GM crop for human consumption, for whatever reason, while some third world nations had not yet done it because they either did not know enough about GM crops to have an opinion or did not have the mechanism to check such issues.

One of the reason Europe and Japan had banned it, was that there was insufficient research done on this product to see if it has an adverse effect on the consumer.

The other part of the argument has been that the US could very well have purchased local (US) standard crops and sent for aids in the third world, but by including GM crops which is not yet accepted worldwide, it was pushing the untested GM crops on third world, essentially using those people as human guinea pigs in the labs, to find what effect it has, without knowledge or permission of those people.

Kyi Yo,

Here is some food for your thoughts:

The current WTO impass on the DOHA round of talks also seems embroiled on issues somewhat related to such items, though not exclusively so.

One classic example is the recent impasse in Geneva, where USA and Europe bickered on details of farm subsidy, while both of them came to a deadlock against Brasil and India, all relating to agricultural market access.

US manufacturers of Gm crop would like more access to the most populous markets, all of them in the developing world such as China and India. But neither China nor India is too keen to open that market, unless a couple of things happen first – 1) USA (and also Europe) removes the internal subsidy it offers to its big farms, thereby making their product artificially cheaper to produce than poor farmers in rural areas of the developing world, 2) proves new crops are acceptable and safe and 3) allows the developing world to adjust to the system in such a manner that its large agricultural population (dirt farmers) do not go out of business and out of work.

Basically, what India and China has been arguing is that for a large portion of their population, farming is at subsistence level, and the only way these people can survive. If they are to go out of business, the nation cannot support them on an alternative trade, and essentially these people will die of hunger.

For India, the issue is even more critical than China because Indian farmers historically take their loans seriously, and if they cannot pay back, they often commit suicide, by eating the same pesticide that they have to buy to protect specialized crop. To cap things off, over 700 million such farmers are spread around a country that is democratic, and this vote block can turn the Government on its head, if they take a policy that is going to impoverish this base. So, the matter is not just of free trade and profit, but of the very existence of these people. As industry grows in india, people are slowly leaving dirt farming and moving to these jobs, but the process cannot be adopted overnight.

In other words, interest of big corporations, either Indian or foreign, takes second place behind interest of this majority vote block in India. This is not the case for China (no democracy) nor USA or Europe (dirt farmers do not exist any more, and farming is big corporate business).

Add to it the issues of Africa. Most of them know only one item they can produce, i.e agricultural product. And since they too are dirt poor and work with their bare hands, and are willing to work for a few cents a day, they could, or should, be able to produce potato, or cereals, a lot cheaper than rich nations can. Therefore, all things being fair and equal, they should be able to sell food products to the rich nations in exchange for machines and industrial goods from the western nations. But all things are never equal and fair.

What has changed in the last ten or twenty years, is that some of these poorer nations, or developing countries, have enough smart economists and policy makers to cotton on to these basics and are taking the trade battle back to the rich nations. Instead of pleading, they have learned now to use the what tools they have to drive a hard bargain.

For example, they cannot force the US to remove all subsidy in its own agricultural sector (Mr. Bush would not have it, and neither would the Europeans). But in exchange, they (the poor nations) are now refusing to open their market to industrial products from the west, unless the agricultural subsidy is removed.

In other words, the poor but populated nations are not opening their lucrative machined goods market, unless the west opens its own agricultural market in a fair manner.

And since the DOHA round’s primary goal is “development” and not “profit”, the poorer nations are holding the rich to the wording. Actually, the last I heard, USA is wanting to remove the world “development” from the discussions, so that the poorer nations do not cling to that.

I would say that these trade discussions, which otherwise would appear rather drab and one sided, are becoming very interesting, as the world enters a new phase or global trade, and where poor nations are beginning to show as much selfish zeal as the rich have done in the past – in a classic tussle.

Below is an article from Ms Susan Schwab, who represents USA in the trade negotiations for the DOHA rounds. It is also a classic case where she avoids giving any detail, but otherwise seems to point a finger at every direction other than her own Government, in how to solve the impasse.

I find her one comment really absurd
The question has become: will each of the leading countries, including the major emerging economies that are likely to gain the most from the round in the short term, take the difficult steps necessary to reach an agreement?

To me this is absurd because it defies logic. If the emerging economies are really likely to “gain” in the most, then why should such a step be “difficult”, and why indeed should they resist it? Logic seems to imply the opposite, that some nations are not willing to take these steps because they do not perceivable any gain to be had.

Brasil is in an unique place where it has some agricultural advantage and can take on the west in many of its goods, but only if subsidy is equally removed from all parties. On that ground, it often ends up supporting China, India and the poorer nations of Africa.

At one point, apparently the US delegation lead by Ms Schwab agreed to gradually reduce US farm subsidy from 27 billion annually to 22 billion annually. USA claimed they are a democracy and cannot cut subsidy drastically because of democratic forces.

Brasil refused to accept that and wanted USA to cut it immediately to 5-10 Billion dollar range before Brasil would even discuss opening its market for US manufactured goods without tarriff. India apparently wanted USA to cut subsidy to zero, and not even 5-10 biliion level, and actually walked out of the talks claiming this to be a waste of time for everyone, leaving the rest at the table in Geneva and headed for the airport. This caused a mini upheaval as Brasil too walked out soon after than, leaving Ms Schwab to get mad and having only the Europeans to scream at.

I would love to get my hands on the full transcript of the exchanges in Geneval on the DOHA rounds, but such is not coming from from the US, Brasil, EU, China or India.

Russia is more or less out of these arguments because its own demography is so different from everyone else, that its interests are wholly different.

Anyhow, I include the entire article of Ms Schwab from Financial Times. Read it for yourself. To me, this is an example of vague talk. I do not know if her last name is linked with Charles Schwab, the investment firm.

How flexibility can salvage Doha
By Susan Schwab
Published: October 3 2007 19:34 | Last updated: October 3 2007 19:34

A successful agreement in the Doha round is within reach, but it could slip through our fingers unless a handful of major developed and developing countries demonstrate their willingness to confront difficult choices. If this once-in-a-generation opportunity is missed, the price would be paid primarily by the poorest people on the planet.

Last month, leaders of the 21 Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation economies – developed and developing, representing almost half of world trade – met at the Apec summit in Sydney. All 21 pledged to exercise “the political will, flexibility and ambition to ensure that the Doha round negotiations enter their final phase” and called on their trading partners to do the same.

In Sydney, and more recently before the United Nations General Assembly, George W. Bush, US president, emphasised the importance of shared responsibility in the World Trade Organisation, where agreements require the consensus of all 151 members. The reality of the Doha negotiations is that no single country can make it a success, but a handful of countries unwilling to make the necessary contributions can bring the round to a halt. We must avoid that.
What are the contributions that the major trading countries must make? The leaders in Sydney spelled out the path we must follow: “real and substantial openings in agriculture, industrial products and services” and “real and substantial reductions in trade-distorting subsidies”.

In Geneva right now, Doha round negotiators have draft texts in agriculture and industrial products that offer the only reasonable prospect of meeting the Apec leaders’ standards. These texts were prepared by the chairs of official WTO negotiating groups, whose aim was to draw leading members out of their comfort zones. In other words, all the leading nations will be faced with making additional contributions – involving tough political decisions.

The negotiators certainly succeeded with regard to the comfort zones. The question has become: will each of the leading countries, including the major emerging economies that are likely to gain the most from the round in the short term, take the difficult steps necessary to reach an agreement?

The US has already taken a step. When asked directly and publicly by the chairman of the agriculture negotiating group if we were prepared to negotiate within the range of subsidy reductions in his text, we said “yes”, provided that the other leading nations did the same with respect to new market access for agricultural and industrial goods.
Lamentably, most of the other leading members have yet to state their intentions. Even worse, some have signalled an unwillingness to negotiate within the texts’ ranges or a desire to nullify market-opening commitments through loopholes.

Now is the time for the other leading nations to step up. The European Union has. Singapore, Chile, Mexico and others have. Members with the highest tariffs and other barriers to agriculture – Japan, Switzerland and others – should state openly their agreement to negotiate within the chairman’s range for agricultural market access.

The most advanced emerging economies – Brazil, China, India, Argentina and South Africa – should be equally clear that they will negotiate both agricultural and industrial tariff reductions within the ranges specified for advanced developing countries by the chairmen of those negotiating groups.

Even with these commitments, there are many tough issues still to be addressed, including an ambitious outcome on services and negotiations on trade facilitation, rules and trade capacity building. These must be negotiated in the same spirit of creating a comprehensive agreement that opens markets for all members of the WTO.

The potential benefits are clear. Expanded trade and investment offer a more durable way to reduce poverty than is achievable through aid alone. Since the burden of tariffs falls dis¬proportionately on the poor, reducing tariffs is most important for the least well-off. Expanding global markets also gives farmers and workers more chances to offer their products and services.

We are at a critical point in the negotiations. To move forward, it is critical that all WTO members signal that they will join the US in negotiating within the ranges and flexibilities in both texts.

This is a binary choice – yes or no. “Yes, but” or “we will be flexible” or “you go first” are no longer answers that will drive the Doha round to a timely conclusion. Anything short of this commitment should turn the spotlight on any nation risking the round.

But if the other major developed and developing countries are ready to pledge to negotiate within the market access and subsidy ranges on the table in Geneva, we have a shot at reaching the goals set out when WTO members launched the Doha round. We can do it – but only if we act together and now.

The writer is the US trade representative
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
So, here is some more material for you, Kyi Yo.
Cheers. :)