FACTS againest MYTHS V0L-V-10-1999.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
—21KAS ADHYAYAN KENDRA
INFORMATION BULLETIN
Vol V # 10/99
Subverting the South’s Food Production:
The Myths Behind GM Crops
“How do you dominate a country where 700m people are
directly dependent on farming?
You infiltrate its agriculture. Who controls a country’s food
security controls that country.
Monsanto is doing this. It only wants to make money.
To do this, it wants to control the seed business.
The days of direct colonisation are over; the days of indirect
colonisation are not...”
-Prof. Pushpa Bhargava
Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology, quoted in The Guardian Weekly, London, July 8,99.
COMMENT
lobal food production are under the
threat of being dominated by TNCs and
India is no exception to this threat.
^^iotech TNCs are investing heavily into
genetically engineered food crops vying with
each other to the lucrative Indian market
whilst promoting its use among farmers. An
ominous addition to this threat was the recent
high-powered attempt to introduce the so-called
‘Terminator’ genetic system
by the US Dept, of Agriculture
in cooperation with US TNCs.
The Department along with
the
FDA
and
the
Environmental Protection
Agency regulate GM crops
and foods in the US. However,
these agencies reportedly
appeared to sound... like
cheerleaders for genetic
engineering, rather than
impartial judges of a novel
G
~
and powerful technology. All three agencies
have set policies that no public records need be
kept of which farms are using genetically
engineered seeds, nor does anyone need to label
any crops or any food products with
information about their genetically engineered
origins. In the US, every food carries a label
listing its important ingredients, with the
remarkable exception of genetically engineered
ingredients...”.1 Such policies have two main
effects. They keep the public in ignorance on
the rapid spread of genetically engineered
foods; and they will prevent
epidemiologists from tracing
health effects, should any
appear, because no one
knows who has been exposed
to novel gene products.
Sensing the Terminator
Technology as a threat to
their survival other biotech
agglomerates quickly came
up with their own version of
the technology. The British
firm, Zeneca, introduced the
/AgTS against MYTHS_______ _______________________
for private circulation only
)
Verminator so-called because' one of its
introduced genes comes from a mouse.
Immediately in its wake came'a new range of
technologies with over dozen patent claims
being filed for these “discoveries”, dubbed as
Traitor Technology (for negative traits bred in
a seed). The more formal name for these
technologies is GURTS — Genetic Use
Restrction Technologies. These technological
“breakthroughs” serve to prevent seeds from
germinating in the next generation and thus
prevents traditional farmers from saving seeds
from their harvest for the next season. Once
these farmers can be persuaded to use such
-GM seeds, they will become dependent on
these mega corporations for their seeds each year. The fact that these seeds, in effect, 'selfdestruct’ after use, secures the corporation’s
patent rights to the seeds without the need for
any external policing by the patent holder. This "s
new technology is totally dominated by the US
TNC, MONSANTO. Along with five other
mega-corporations (Novartis, AgroEvo,
Dupont, Zeneca and Dow), Monsanto controls
the world’s food supply. With its merger with
another US TNC, American Home Products,
the new company which emerged from the
union, will be the largest agro-chemical/life
industries company in the world with a market
capitalisation of $96 b.
In the race for the world’s scarce resources
India is a prime target by these mega
corporations.(See previous issue of FAM on
biotechnology). For Monsanto,India is
particularly attractive as it is the biggest cotton
growing country in the world earing Rs.25,000
crores in export earning each year.
Consequently, it is also a huge market for
agrochemicals and seeds. The entry of these
corporate giants into the food sector sparked
off widespread reaction all over the country and
began heating up when Monsanto tied up with
Maharastra Hybrid Seeds C., Ltd., (MAHYCO).
Mahyco got permission to import developed
cottonseed from the TNC on March 30,1996.
Subsequently, it applied to DBT (Dept, of BioTechnology) for a multi-centric trial permit
which was granted to it on July 27,1998.
Monsanto, was also given permission by the
DBT to conduct field tests of genetically
engineered Bt Cotton in 25 locations in A.P.,
Maharastra, Gujarat, Karnataka, M.P.,
Haryana, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu.
These developments are indeed Orwellian in
their nature and impact; rooted in the
(^ FACTS against MYTHS
discoveries in molecular biology in the second
half of this century. These discoveries promoted
a mechanistic vision of organisms as being no
more than bundles of genes with determined
functions that new technologies are able to
identify, isolate and re-combine at will. As a
result, those with the necessary technology and
capital (i.e. the life industry) see the world
living resources as interchangeable parts with
which to play an immensely profitable “cut and
paste” game. Their technologies are promoted
as the most efficient tool — even the only one
— to overcome the problems like hunger and
starvation, etc., faced by humankind. But they
are part and parcel of a paradigm characteristic
with mass production of goods and sendees by
mega TNCs. Genetic engineering with its GMOs
are thus the latest avatars in this paradigmic
construct involving arrogant interference with
nature. Ironically, however, even prior to tl^fc
introduction of GMOs the spread of so-callecf
high-yielding, patented hybrids had swept
away a large number of these local seed strains
or consigned the ghosts of their genes to the
vaults of cryogenic seed banks.(See issue
previous to this for function of seed Banks)
Clearly, the GMOs will ultimately impact the
environment, health and agriculture. It has
already led to a host of related problems — the
depletion of the gene pools, biodiversity
degradation, loss of plant verities with
dependence on toxic chemicals, rise in the
vulnerability in biological and economic terms,
undermining the resistance to drought and
diseases.
Thus, in agreeing to buy biotec seeds from the
TNCs, Indian farmers will be dependent UP°^
a single supplier for all their seed and chemicals
needed to allowed those seeds to thrive. A small
number of “life science” corporations will have
a monopoly on the seed needed to raise all the
world’s major food crops. Then the hungry, like'
the well-fed, will have to pay the TNCs of this
new technology for permission to eat. This
makes it imperative to expose the hollow and
grandiose claims on GM crops.
MYTH: The aggregate shortage offood in
the world and the concern to address the
crisis prompted the growth of genetic
engineering as a sure-shot solution.
FACT: Paraphrasing Gandhi’s well-known
observation, there is enough food in the world
but not enough for everyone’s greed! According
to the UN’s World Food Programme, more than
enough food is already being produced to
provide everyone in the world with a nutritious
and adequate diet.
joint-venture with the giant grain TNC.
Cargil, to create and market new grain
processing and animal feed products.
More to the point, hunger has seldom been the
result of an aggregate shortage of food. It has
instead consistently been one of inequalities in
political and economic power. As economist
Amartya Sen points out, hunger is the
inevitable outcome of the normal workings of
so-called market economy. In such an economy,
food goes to those who have the money to buy
it. “Only those who have the income to translate
their biological needs into “effective demand”
get to eat. In today’s global supermarket, people
earning $25 a year, if they are lucky, must
compete for food with people in the same or
other countries who earn $25 a hour, or even
$25a minute”. To illustrate: In Costa Rica
^Central America), while beef production
Wubled between 1959 and 1972 per capita beef
consumption in the country fell from 30 pounds
to less than 19. The reason? US consumers
could pay higher prices for the meat than Costa
Ricans. It is the market logic that explains why
20% of parents and 10% of children in Britain
experience “food poverty”; why Ethiopia used
its prime agricultural land at the height of the
1984 famine to produce livestock fed for
European markets and why insuffient food is
a perennial feature of life for an increasing
number of people.
►► USAID, among others encouraged
certain countries in the South e.g.
Egypt to provide top priority to
investment in livestock production.
Thus, from 1980 to 1997 crop production
in Egypt rose merely by 10 per cent but
livestock production leapt by almost 50
per cent1 Egypt now grows more food
for animals than for its human
population — almost 40 per cent of the
total farmland is under animal fodder.
But what about food crops for the
people? Well,that is taken care of by
Uncle Sam! Human supplies of grain
for the Egyptian people have been made
up through importing US grain. And
with this, the country’s external debt
was five times the value of its exports
while the biggest beneficiaries from
Egypt’s switch to livestock production
have been large US grain merchants
e.g. Cargill which had exported US
grains at hugely subsidised prices to
Egypt- A clear-cut illustration of
dumping food on the South!
Thus, genetic engineering in agriculture will
do nothing to address these underlying
structural causes of hunger. It will instead only
exacerbate the situation.
MYTH: The biotech industry’s research are
Ubtivated strictly by the urgency to a)
address the crisis ofglobal food production
and the need to b) feed the hungry in
especially the South with inexpensive and
nutritious food.
FACT: This is nothing but advertising puffery.
Few of the foods it has produced so far are
benefiting the poor in the North let alone the
poverty-stricken masses in the South. To
illustrate:
►► In the US, G.M. crops, soybeans and
maize,are being grown but 90 per cent
of the former and 60 per cent of the
latter are primarily for feeding farm
animals. The focus of their genetic
research is on animal feed. In 1998
Monsanto,for instance, announced a
( FACTS against MYTHS
The related myth of mass production ofnutrious
food for the poor is just another tall claim.
Biotech research in food is primarily geared in
meeting the commercial needs of the food
processing industry rather than the nutritional
needs of poor. Monsonto’s high-starch potato,
for example, has been developed to make
commercial-grown potatoes more suitable for
the deep-fry vats of fast food outlets not just in
Northern countries but increasingly in the
South like in India; and not quality or cheaper
food. Flavr-Savr tomatoes had been engineered
some years ago by Calgene (now part of
Monsanto) for delayed ripening so that they
would have a longer supermarket shelf-life. In
the US, they had to be withdrawn from sale
because it failed to meet public acceptance.
(The tomatoes are now re-cycled into tomato
purees!). The same applies to soya that is not
used for animal feed. What is left over, around
60 per cent, goes into processed foods —
ranging from bread, ready-made meals and
sauces to biscuits, cakes and chocolate—all
containing substances derived from GM soya.
More to the point on cost reduction,
biotechnology actually increases the costs of
farmers. This takes places in the following ways:
3
►► technological fees charges by TNCs e.g.
Monsanto, etc., for using their
technologies (e.g. fees charged as part
of the Technology Agreements for crops
like Bollgard cotton, etc.,);
►► increased use of insecticides (e.g.
Monsonto’s Roundup) and pesticides
when in built organic defenses of GM
•
plants fail (e.g. in the case of Bt cotton);
►► increasing prices of agro-chemicals and
patented seeds;
►► payment of royalties to TNCs for use of
seeds originally taken from poor
farmers;
great news for firms, airlines and car
manufactruers. But this type of trade is
nonetheless an energy-and-resource-intensive
system which is highly polluting. Above all, it
will not improve — nutritionally — the health
of the people generally and that of the starving
masses in the South in particular.
MYTH: The Terminator Technology will
benefit the world agricultural community
by insuring farmers with the opportunity
to share in the advantage of enhanced
planting seed that has a clear advantage
over the centuries-old but outdated
practice of farmer-saved seed,a major
obstacle today to farmers in the South.
►► the monopoly control on seeds through
IPRs,and the growing ownership of
mega TNCs over the entire agricultural
system
FACT: Not so! How can this technology be
Finally, the point on tackling global hunger.
To keep the record straight, from the period of
the 70s to 1990 the track record of tackling
this problem has been poor. Lappe and Collins
in “World Hunger: The 12 Myths” had pointed
out that despite increasing the food available
to each person in Latin America by 8 percent,
the number of those actually going hungry
went up 19 per cent; as also in South Asia. In
a seeming paradox food production increased
faster than the rate of population growth, but
so did the number of people going hungry.
More to the point, the Terminator seed will
actually drive 5 b. traditional farmers out of
plant breeding who cannot afford to buy seeds
each year. After all, it is these very creative
farmers who since ages have generated and
conserved productive varieties in their farms.
80 per cent of the crops from these fields are
from saved-seeds rather than proprietary seed
stocks purchased at a company shop;
In the South where the rural poor are
increasingly landless labourers history shows
that it is a hard task “to steer the benefits of
agricultural research towards labourers”.2
Processed foods like GM food do not provide
many of the health benefits that fresh foods
do. The result is that instead of at least in
enhancing the health of the people these socalled convenience food have adverse impact
on peoples’ health. To illustrate, a 1996 British
study of malnutrition among poor families
showed that “by far the most energetic action”
to address the problems of costly low-quality
foods has come “from within deprived
communities, which have set up projects to
improve access to healthier food, for instance,
food-buying cooperatives, battering project and
subsistence agriculture”.
These technologies may allow some fruits and
vegetables grown by commercial producers in
the South to reach consumers in the North more
easily without perishing quickly.lt will also be
("FACTS against MYTHS
deemed an “opportunity” when traditional
farmers will have little or no option but to grow
such seed?!
►> unintended plant targets could be
affected by the technology, the full
impact of which would not become
apparent until subsequent seasons;
►► the nutritional consequences of grain
produced
using
this
genetic
modification are unknown. Even^|
those of cotton, whose seed caske is uSff
as animal feed, the crops will enter the
food chain;
►> There will be possible impact on
biodiversity via gene transfer but a
more immediate concern is the advance
of mon-cropping. Single genotypes
covering large areas are not only
vulnerable to pests and diseases but
their promotion inhibits work to
encourage conservation farming based
on diversity and location specific
varieties;
» Terminator or ‘suicide seeds’ will
depend on chemical activation. As Dr.
M.S. Swaminathan, credited to be the
architect of the so-called Green
Revolution, queries: what will be the
impact of the chemical ‘tetracycline’,
used for activation, on soil ecology.
To corroborate, there is also the cost factor. For
most farmers, the need to buy Monsonto’s seed
each year (instead of using saved ones) will lead
to a steep rise in their input costs and, and in
many cases, bankruptcy.Along with the
Terminator variety Monsonto’s seeds will
certainly cost more than the traditional
ones.This means that farmers will also have
to pay a so-called technology fee which
American farmers are already paying @ $8/an acre to Monsanto.1 While this may not pose
a major problem for the rich farmers, small and
poor farmers will be ruined by these increased
costs of seeds. These small and marginal
farmers whose economic survival depends on
being able to save seed from one year to the
’next, are also likely to be ruined by the added
input costs. Not only will they have to pay for
their seeds every year: they will also have to
buy chemical herbicides and fertilizers.
Herbicide use in the South, particularly on
smaller farms, is low because it is cheaper to
employ people to get ride of weeds. Many small
farmers are hard pressed by removal of
subsidies due to SAP have slid into debt. Just
as with the so-called Green Revolution, the
result is likely to be a new way of farm
bankruptcies, leading to landlessness for poorer
farmers and an increased concentration of
land as rich farmers and land sharks buy up
bankrupted farms. In Punjab, its high input
costs resulted in the number of small holdings
declining by nearly a quarter between 1970
and 1980. Many were left destitute — a
^situation that the “Gene Revolution”.now
threatens many of those who survived the
turmoil of the "Green Revolution".
MYTH: In terms ofcrop yield and a host of
other benefits GMcrops have greater
advantages and benefits than traditional
cropping methods that are outdated.
FACT: Not so! Gradually but steadily it is
becoming clear that traditional agricultural
systems are, on the contrary, far more
beneficial than these so-called new techniques
of genetic engineering. For instance, a Report2
corroborated this pointed by illustrating that
►► the application of naturally developed
and locally adapted plant varieties have
thrived successfully in the Garhwal
district of the Himalayas. Traditional
( FACTS against MYTHS
grains e.g. ‘Thapachini’ and ‘Jhumkiya’
have out-performed the so-called highyielding hybrids in terms of
straightforward productivity. They also
have a higher percentage of grain to
husk and produce more fodder for
cattle. Besides, they require less than
10 per cent of the inputs hybrids
demand and they become in all respects
more efficient and farmer-friendly.
►► A researcher at the Essex University
cites evidence from 2 countries of 2 m.
households farming five million
hectacres more usustainably.He
provided further examples of nearly
250,000 farmers in southern Brazil
using such green techniques to double
maize and wheat yields; 200,000 in
Kenya likewise doubled maize yields;
and 100,000 coffee farmers in Mexico
who went entirely organic and
increased productivity by 50 percent;
►► One million wetland rice farmers in 9
Asian countries have shifted away from
pesticide dependence to sustainable
agriculture and increased yields by
approx. 10 percent.
MYTH: GM crops are eco-friendly sound
and socially responsible as it raises
farmers’ wealth, makes farming less
tedious and polluting, and provides people
with a choice.
FACT: GM crops stimulate the evolution of
“super weeds” and “super bugs” necessitating
higher doses of chemicals and make food
supplied more vulnerable to pest damage.The
out crossing of engineered traits to other plants
also poses a major threat to food products. In
addition, the adoption of geneticallyengineered crops is likely to reduce genetic
diversity, resulting in freer types of food crops;
the narrowing of the genetic base of food adds
to the likelihood of pest and disease epidemics.1
While the TNC, Monsanto, had claimed that
its products like glyphosate weed killer.
Roundup, is eco-friendly, “biodegradable”, etc.,
to mammals, birds and fish, there is mounting
evidence that glyphosate-based herbicides can
be lethal to beneficial insects such as ladybirds
and lacewing flies which are predators of
common agricultural pests such aphids(c.h.)
In the US, evidence has emerged showing that
the pollen which has been genetically
engineenered to contain a toxin gene can
unintentionally kill the monarch butterfly.
Citing a report in the journal, Nature, TWN
Features3 stated that American scientists at
Cornell University discovered the pollen from
GE corn containing a toxin gene, Bt, which
killed 44% of monarch butterfly caterpillars
which fed on milkweed leaves dusted with the
pollen. In the same experiment, caterpillars fed
with the usual (non-engineered) pollen all
survived!
Finally, the point on “choice”. Given the
ecological, economic and social risks of GM
crops, many farmers — if they had access to
complete information — might prefer not to
grow such crops. But bio-tech companies and
their supporters attempt,hook or crook, to deny
farmers the opportunity of planting non
engineered crops.
MYTH: Ecologists and environmentalists
are unwittingly endangering the lives of
starving peoples in the South by calling
for a ban on GM crops.
FACT: Implicit in this claim (disclaimed above)
is that GM foods will feed growing numbers of
starving people in the South. This has
tremendous moral appeal. Its claimants appear
highly responsible, even altruistic. Yet, as
exposed above, this is a false claim. The claim
may seem plausible provided we are
conveniently blind to the root causes of hunger
and famine, and mistakenly assume that the
hungry must be so because there is not enough
food.
By presenting starvation as a problem of food
shortage,supporters of genetic engineering
offer a seductively simple, but false, analysis
of global hunger. To quote the representative
at the Convention on Biological Diversity, T.
Egziabher of Ethiopia: “There are still hungry
people in Ethiopia, but they are hungry
because they have no money, no longer
because there is no food...”
Undoubtedly, more food will have to be grown
in future if the increasing numbers of people
the world over are to be adequately fed. But
those who starve or go hungry today (whether
in the South or in USA) do so mainly because
they are denied ready access to food. A whole
range of unjust and inequitable political and
economic structures, especially those relating
to land and trade, in combination with
ecological degradation, marginalise poorer
people and deprive them of the means to earn.
FACTS against MYTHS
MYTH: Consumers are protected from the
potential hazards of GM crops through the
establishment of an alert mechanism, the
mandatory labeling clause that their food
product is GM Free.
FACT: However, according to the consumer
movement,'* “Genetic Food Concern” of UK,
many companies are conning consumers into
believing that their products are “GM Free” (i.e.
totally unaffected by GM).However, a rare
exception is the firm WEETABIX! It has a total
GM-free policy which includes ensuring that
the wheat starch and added vitamins in their
products have not been produced by GMenzymes.
Many other companies, however, resort to all
sorts of tactics to hoodwink the consumer. They
give assurances like; “Our products contain no
GM ingredients, GM material, or GM protein”. |
For instance, GREGGS, the nationwide bakery
chain ofUK had maintained recently that they
had removed all GM soya and maize “protein”
from their products. But in reality several of
their products are effected by GM derivatives
and enzymes!
Moreover, such types of statements usually
implies that GM derivatives or enzymes are
present, or that GM has been used in some part
of the production process. Such firms and
businesses do not supply a guarantee in
writing, that the product contains no GM
ingredients, derivatives or enzymes, and that
no GM has been used in any part of the
production process
MYTH: The protection ofpatents and other
forms of intellectual property rights like I
TRIPPs is essential. In the long run
patents help in a) stimulating innovation,
b) improving agricultural development
and thereby benefiting society at large
through disclosures of such inventions^
FACT: This false claim now extends to plants,
micro-organisms, biotechnology, food and
essential drugs!
Above all, the claim refers to the Basmati
patent claimed by the US firm, RiceTec. The
patent-claim to this rice variety is derived from
the Indian Basmati crossed with semi-dwarf
varieties including Indica varieties. The
Basmati varieties are farmers varieties bred
since millennia by Indian farmers. The method
of crossing different varieties to mix traits —
in this case the Basmati characteristics from
Basmati and the semi-dwarf features — is also
not novel. It is a very common method of
breeding.
In fact, the national agricultural system has
released new semi-dwarf varieties, Kasturi and
Pusa Basmati-1. The patent application states
these “new varieties more properly should be
described as Basmati substitute or quasi
basmati”. However, it uses the same breeding
step of crossing Basmati varieties with semi
dwarf varieties to claim “characteristic and
qualities similar or superior to those of good
quality Basmati rice grains produced in India
and Pakistan.
Thus, on the one hand the patent is for rice
derived from Indian Basmati which has the
essential characteristics of Indian Basmati and
is hence a variety “essentially derived” from a
Mrmers variety. It cannot therefore be treated
as novel. On the other hand, the patent claims
the “invention” of a “novel line”. RiceTec’s
Basmati 867 cannot be “same as traditional
Basmati” and novel at the same time! The
characteristics for which RiceTec has claimed
a patent are derived from traditional Basmati.
However, the patent claim basically denies the
prior breeding by farmers and by denying the
role of farmers as breeders, falsely claims a
derivation as an invention.
If the false claim to invention is maintained,
then RiceTec and the US Patent Office'deny
the innovation and creativity of Indian farmers
embodied in the Basmati from which Basmati
867 is derived. In the future, such myths, which
are an infringement of the collective right and
llection innovation of traditional farmers
erywhere, can actually be used to treat the
farmers as infringing on the RiceTec.
«
If patents like RiceTec were recognised in India,
the patent claim could force Indian farmers
growing Basmati to pay royalty since the claim
covers functionally equivalent varieties
Patents on such living matter, according to
Vandana Shiva,5 redirects attention towards
those products that provide for the broadest
and easiest patent protection, not for the largest
public good. Rather than being a measure of
innovation, patents and IPRs are more of a
statement of territory than a measure of
innovation. But when those “territories” are
food and the substances behind the production
of food, there is an order of protected power
that is broad and far reaching.
( FACTS against MYTHS
As already pointed out, these developments
emanate from the discoveries in molecular
biology. Since then, they have been exploited
to perform a highly profitable “cut and paste”
game called “innovation” that helps transform
living organisms into raw material and the
hereditary base of their properties into “genetic
resources” which are then used in their
“inventions”.
The other related claim is sheer rhetoric. It is
not the countries who are supposed to benefit
from worldwide intellectual property protection
who are demanding patent protection. The
demand is being put forth by TNCs!
Patent protection in agriculture is really
protection from traditional farmers. It will
displace the farmer as a competitor, transform
him into a supplier of free raw material, and
make him dependent on industrial supplies for
vital inputs like seeds. In short, it will
ultimately discredit and destroy traditional
knowledge-systems about seeds and livestock
including methods of soil rejuvenation and
water management. The cow for instance will
give way to patent livestock and according to
this (mythical) claim, the calf of the patented
livestock will be subject to royalty charges.
REFERENCES:
1.
Food? Health? Hope? Genetic Engineering and
World Hunger, Comer House, Dorset, 199S.
2.
Selling Suicide, Christian Aid,London,1999
3.
Fight Hots Up Against G.M.Crops, TWN
Feature, Goa.
4.
Action Against G.M. Food, Internet
downloading, Sept.29. 1999.
5.
Shiva, V., Dr., The Basmati Patent, Bija
No.21/22, Delhi. (Scientist at The Research
Foundation for Science, Technology & Ecology)
6.
Ghose, S. The Monsanto Trials, The Lawyers
Collective, #3, Mumbai, 1999.
7.
Bell, J.GM Food Turns Political Hot Potato,
SEEDLING, March, 1999
8.
Say No To Genetically Engineered Food, PAN
AP Safe Food Campaign, Malaysia, 1998.
For more information on the critique of GMOs
(Genetic Modified Organisms) see:
An anti-GM Food Web site:
wkweb4.cablemet.co.uk/brown/index.htm.
7
PROTESTING OVER G.M. CROPS
In early January 1998, 120 members of the French
peasant farmers' union, Confederation Paysaanne,
entered a Norvatis warehouse in Jnprac, France, to
destroy transgenic maize (corn) seeds. They were
protesting the French government's decision to allow the
growing of genetically modified maize. During the action
the genetically modified maize was mixed up with non
modified maize and 'humidified'. Novartis has estimated
the protesters damaged 30 tons of the grain.
Protestors Humudifying Grain!
Source: Safe Food Campaign Fast Sheet, Pesticide Action Network (PAN) Asia and the Pacific
I
I
1
I
I
Produced and Published by:
I
Vikas Adhyayan Kendra
I
D-l Shivdham, 62 Link Road,
Malad West, Mumbai 400 064, INDIA I
Facts Against Myths is a monthly bulletin offactual
information on a number ofdevelopment myths and
fallacies, etc, including information against alien
development models, paradigms and false concepts
on caste, creed and gender.
S : 882 2850 & 889 8662
Fax : 889 8941
Email: vak@bom3.vsnl.net.in
Design & Layout: Kartiki Desai
Printed by : Omega Offset, 2/3, Emerald Corner,
Maratha Colony, Tilakwadi, Bclgaum 590 006.
I
I
I
I
I
S62 The Secretary
Community Health Cell
No.367 Srinivasa Nilaya
Jakkasandra, I Main, I Block
Koramangala, Bangalore 560 034
Not viewed