After GM trial ban, BJP, Sena MPs heading for Monsanto-funded study tour

MPs will first attend a 'Farm Progress Show' in Iowa, then visit the Monsanto headquarters in St Louis, Missouri

Three weeks after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) overruled field trials for 15 genetically modified (GM) crops, a group of members of Parliament from BJP and the Shiv Sena are heading to the US on a week-long study tour sponsored by global seed giant, Monsanto. The group departs on Saturday.

The MPs will first attend a 'Farm Progress Show' in Iowa, then visit the Monsanto headquarters in St Louis, Missouri. The trip will cost an estimated $6,000 (Rs 363,540) per head for travel, food and accommodation, according to a Monsanto spokesperson, who confirmed the company would bear these costs.

"In line with industry practice, we have extended invitations to farmers, industry experts, media and members of Parliament across the political spectrum to visit the show and experience for themselves the advances in agriculture all over the world," said the spokesperson. "Parliamentarians with interest in agriculture and seeking to advance their knowledge of agricultural technology, across party lines, responded to the invitation."

On July 29, Environment & Forests Minister Prakash Javadekar overruled the recommendations of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) and put a halt to the field trials of 15 GM crops, including of brinjal and rice, after protests from pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) bodies, Swadeshi Jagran Manch and Bharatiya Kisan Sangh.

But, the Monsanto spokesperson said, the trip bore no relation to the ruling party's decision to put GM crop trials on hold. The 'Farm Progress Show' is a three-day event that has been held in Iowa since 1953 and attracts thousands of farmers and delegates every year.

"The visit is from August 24 to 30. Monsanto has arranged this visit. We will visit their plant to see the latest technology related to the agriculture sector," Prataprao Ganapatrao Jadhav, the Shiv Sena MP from Buldhana, Maharashtra, said in an interview.

His party colleague in the Lok Sabha, Krupal Balaji Tumane, MP from Ramtek in Maharashtra, confirmed he was part of the group. "Apart from Iowa, we are also scheduled to visit Washington," he said. Tumane and Jadhav said others in the group included two MPs from Andhra Pradesh, one each from Gujarat and Rajasthan and four each from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

Others in the group, such as BJP MP from Siwan Om Prakash Yadav and the party's Bulandshahr MP, Bhola Singh, were unavailable for comment.

However, BJP MP from Aligarh, Satish Gautam, claimed he had opted out of the visit. Gautam said party president Amit Shah asked all party MPs in Uttar Pradesh to prepare for the by-elections to a dozen Assembly seats in the state. "There will be a by-election to the Noida Assembly seat and I have decided to devote my time to election work," he said. The by-elections are unlikely before mid-October.

Monsanto declined to reveal the size of the delegation but said invites had been sent to "18 to 20 people". MPs were invited on the basis of their interest in the use of technology in agriculture.

When contacted, a senior agriculture ministry official said the ministry was not aware of the MPs' visit to the US. "If it is a private visit organised by a company for individual MPs, they are not required to keep us in the loop. Such visits need the agriculture ministry's approval only in cases where the government is involved," the official explained.

Earlier this month, junior agriculture minister Sanjeev Kumar Balyan said in reply to a Parliament question in the Lok Sabha that the government policy was to allow GM crops after full scientific evaluation of their bio-safety and impact on the environment and on consumers. This is also BJP's stated position, as stated in its election manifesto.

BS

‘Don’t follow MNC-promoted GM crop science blindly’

According to Dr Ashwani Mahajan, national convenor of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, those who oppose GM crops field trials are not opposing science. In an interview with Yojna Gusai and Mukesh Ranjan, Dr Mahajan not only accuses the Modi government of succumbing to pressure from MNCs, but also blames it for playing politics on economic issues.

Despite Swadeshi Jagaran Manch being an affiliate of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, there appears a surprise element in your objection to a Bharatiya Janata Party government’s decision to go for field trials of GM crops. What’s your take on it?

We don’t have a political view; our activities are based on national interest. What is being done is the area of our interest. Therefore, if the BJP or any other party does something which is in national interest, we will support it wholeheartedly. But since the present government decided to go ahead with the field trials of genetically modified crops without taking into consideration the opinion of the scientific community and also the long-term interest of our farmers, we raised our concerns and registered our protest over it.

What are your main objections to field trials of GM crops?

In our meeting with environment minister Prakash Javadekar, we informed him about our concerns. We told him that the issue is still pending in the Supreme Court, which had appointed a technical expert committee (TEC). All five members of this TEC are scientists, who said that there is no regulatory mechanism in place to monitor such an exercise. Secondly, at present, there is no seed certification system for GM seeds. Also, we have informed the government that the US may have allowed GM crops, but consumers in that country are not in its favour. Then, there is a case where European countries have vehemently said “no” to GM crops. Therefore, we argued that there is no need to push this in a hurry.

Do you think that this hurry is because of pressure from MNCs?

Perhaps yes. But we have impressed upon the government that whenever there is a dispute in Parliament, the matter is sent to a parliamentary standing committee. Similarly, more threadbare discussion is required before launching field trials. Thus, the previous government did not allow this to happen. We even reminded the Central government of the BJP poll manifesto, which categorically said that GM seeds will not be allowed.

However, the environment minister has said that the development of science cannot be stopped. What do you have to say about this?

We are also not against science. We are saying that GM field trials should not be allowed unless scientific evaluation of these seeds on human and soil health are undertaken. We need to build the case accordingly. Regulatory mechanism is not in place — this is the worry of all scientists. We are not living in an age of Galileo. As Galileo was opposed, we are not opposing science.
MNCs are in favour of GM seeds, but there is no scientific study conducted by the Government of India about the impact of field trials. It is the duty of the state to protect the interest of the present and future generations. If you want to conduct field trials, you can do it later after fulfilling your duty.

How do you see the role of MNCs in pushing for field trials?

The so-called science, which is being promoted by big businesses is becoming a superstition; one should not follow it blindly. They say that the US has adopted GMO foods, but they are telling half-truth as consumers are not ready for GM food. People all around the world are unhappy. The logic propagated by the MNCs is misplaced. For example, they say that Bt cotton is a success, but there has been no scientific study done to find out whether GM seeds actually increase production.

How do you see the government’s eagerness to allow foreign direct investment in different key sectors of the Indian economy?

I will again say that we are not against FDI in any sector. But before that, the government should bring out a white paper on this so that we can see how it has benefited our economy so far. I have no doubt in my mind that the previous UPA regime mismanaged the whole economy. And then, in his last Budget speech, the then finance minister said FDI is our compulsion. But I don’t agree with this because we believe that FDI is not the solution to our economic woes.

But given the high import liability of the government, it warrants a need for FDI otherwise current account deficit (CAD) goes for a toss.

Instead of FDI, growth should be our economic mantra. For this, demand is there in our country; our people are hardworking and intelligent. Thus we have all the ingredients for growth. We just need to channelise them. We should emphasise on some kind of self-reliant growth path so that import dependence reduces substantially. If the foreign money had the power to solve our problems, countries like the US and European nations would not have faced any crisis.

But don’t you think that the BJP government is following the same economic path as the UPA, particularly in the case of hiking the FDI limit in the insurance sector?

Yes. What they are doing is just politics and what we are asking is to take steps for nation-building. When the FDI proposal had come for the first time during the National Democratic Alliance rule in 2002, we had opposed it and thus there was a parliamentary resolution that the figure will not go beyond 26. Since then, our stand has not changed. It was only because of our pressure that the exact quantum of FDI was incorporated as part of the legislation and therefore, no government can tamper with it without the approval of Parliament. We are totally against any move to allow brown field investment by foreign players. Such investments only help a select few to become richer. For any FDI proposal, technology transfer should be made mandatory.

There is a debate going on in the country on whether the Comptroller and Auditor-General should audit projects under the public-private partnership (PPP) model. What do you think?

For me, PPP is a failed model as cost of projects escalates manifold. And despite the fact that public wealth is involved, no one is held responsible. It was first adopted in road projects and then it was expanded to airports and now the government has decided to introduce it in the Railways. In case of core infrastructure involving natural resources, the government should evolve a better mechanism to do economic activities. In this case also, we demand a white paper as the country has the right to know whether it has been beneficial or not.

India should not shut itself to GM crops

India should not shut itself to GM crops

The flip-flop of the government in permitting genetically modified (GM) crops for trials is discouraging. The general refrain has been “we are not against GM crops. Their long-term impact on health safety and biodiversity needs to be studied before the trials are permitted”. What is the long-term impact? In our country GM technology has become synonymous with the use of Bt crops. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has been in commercial use for nearly 75 years, first as a spray of the bacterial spores, to be followed additionally by transgenic Bt crops (corn, cotton, soybean, etc). Nearly 20 years of research went into using Bt gene as a biocide to combat major pests. Bt protein works only in the alkaline gut of the insect, but gets degraded in the acidic environment of animal or human. Bt crops have gone through extensive trials, both for environmental safety and health parameters in experimental animals. Millions of people (in the United States, Canada, China, etc) and livestock have been consuming Bt corn for over 15 years. Europe imports GM foods. Would developed countries allow their population and livestock to be fed on unsafe food?

Bt gene has not been transferred to any non-target organism, although horizontal gene transfer takes place in nature. Bt gene is not dominant and there is no authenticated report of environmental pollution or health hazard. Although these are scientific arguments attesting to the safety of Bt gene, there has been no compromise on the conduct of trials.

Arguments on the disappearance of biodiversity are not tenable, since farmers have traditionally been cultivating only specific varieties or hybrids of a given crop. This has happened ever since man started practising agriculture. Bt gene has actually been introduced into almost all varieties of cotton in India and this will only lead to greater protection of biodiversity. In the GM approach, strategies such as gene pyramiding and refuge cultivation are available to combat resistance development. GM crop cultivation can integrate with conventional practices, etc, including organic farming.

If all this knowledge is not considered as relevant to long-term effects on health, safety and biodiversity, one only gets the feeling that the country does not repose faith in science. India accounts for 18% of the world population and 15% of the global livestock— but occupies only 2.3% of global land area. Degradation of land, soil erosion, mineral deficiencies, depletion of water resources and global warming can all have major impact on agriculture, which is not keeping pace with the rate of population growth.

Should we not look for a technology that would address the issue of agricultural productivity even under adverse conditions of biotic (pest infection) and abiotic (drought and salinity) stresses as well as the nutrition status of the agri-product?

India has formulated very strict guidelines for the conduct of GM trials. All that it takes is to make the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) autonomous and make state- and district-level monitoring committees more effective to conduct field trials. Can’t this be fixed in three months, instead of complaining all the time that we do not have a regulatory system in place? Bangladesh has approved the commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal. Twenty small farmers planted Bt brinjal in four different regions and have benefited by 30% increase in yield and a 80% decrease in pesticide spray. Bangladesh could take a bold decision to move ahead and all the data India generated over a period of eight years only led to embargo of even a trial Bt brinjal cultivation in the country. I guess Bt brinjal from Bangladesh would taste better. HT

G Padmanaban is INSA senior scientist, department of biochemistry,

Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

The views expressed by the author are personal

Over 230,000 Sign Petition To Stop Coca-Cola Funding Anti-GMO Campaign

Over 230,000 Sign Petition To Stop Coca-Cola Funding Anti-GMO Campaign

MOSCOW, Over 230,000 people signed a petition urging Cola-Cola to stop funding anti-GMO campaign on a change.org website that provides a free petition tool for 65 million users.

Just 65,000 signatures more are needed in order for the petition to be considred.

The Nation of Change reported earlier on Wednesday that Americans were set to boycott Coca-Cola products after the public became aware that the company spent millios to defeat Washington and California initiatives that mandated clear labelling of GMO ingredients on food packages.

Except for Coca-Cola, eight other American food companies opposed the initiative: Kellogg’s, General Mills, Dean Foods, Smucker’s, Safeway, Kraft, Cion-Agra, and PepsiCo.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Labeling Ballot Initiative (I-522) in Washington and Proposition 37 in California were first defeated by the Monsanto American corporation, which is a leading producer of genetically engineered seed and of the herbicide glyphosate. Monsanto spent over $11 million to defeat GMO labelling.

Labelling of food containing genetically modified organisms is required by law in Europe.

The Coca-Cola Company, founded in 1886, is an American multinational corporation, which produces and retails nonalcoholic beverages. The company distributes its refreshments all over the world. Its annual revenue amounted to $46,8 billion in 2013.

The Coca-Cola Company has often been criticized on a number of environmental issues.

In Australia, the Coca-Cola's plastic packaging was found in the digestive systems of countless dead Australian birds, fish and other wildlife.

In the United States, regional farmers argued that they experienced water shortages as Cola-Cola overused water supplies in some locations.

In 2003, Indian Centre for Science and Environment announced that it has found chemicals causing cancer in Coca-Cola beverages, a claim that the company rejected. RIA

French attempt to ban GM maize rejected

A move by the French government to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) maize MON 810 has been rejected by the European Food Safety Authority (ESFA).

Following a request from the European Commission, the ESFA evaluated the documentation submitted by France as part of its request to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in the EU.

However, the ESFA said that neither the scientific publications cited in the documentation submitted by France with relevance to maize MON 810 nor the arguments put forward by France reveal any new information that would invalidate the previous risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations made by the EFSA GMO Panel.

The EFSA goes on to say that it considers the previous GMO Panel risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on maize MON 810 remain valid and applicable. Therefore, EFSA concludes that, based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment, that would support the adoption of an emergency measure on the cultivation of maize MON 810. Agriland

The marketing of MON 810 was approved by the European Union in 1998. However, several EU Member States invoked safeguard clause or emergency measures to provisionally restrict or prohibit the marketing of maize MON 810 on their territory.

China vows zero tolerance for GM rice

China vows zero tolerance for GM rice

BEIJING, July 29 (Xinhua) -- Chinese authorities have vowed zero tolerance and harsh punishments for illegal sales and growing of genetically modified (GM) crops days after media exposure of GM rice on sale at a supermarket in central China.

"The ministry will punish any companies or individuals who illegally grow or sell GM grains, and there will be no tolerance for these practices," said a statement sent to Xinhua on Tuesday by the office in charge of GM food safety with the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA).

China Central Television (CCTV) found GM rice, which is illegal to sell or grow commercially in China, on sale in a supermarket in Wuhan, capital city of central Hubei Province, the broadcaster reported on Saturday.

CCTV commissioned tests on five packs of rice picked at random from the supermarket's shelves. Three were found to contain a GM variety.

CCTV also found evidence that GM rice was being sold in neighboring Hunan, Anhui and Fujian provinces.

While working to develop modern biotechnology, China has taken a wary approach to GM crops, fearing possible risks.

It has allowed several GM crops to be grown, including cotton, peppers, tomatoes and papayas, and has authorized imports of GM soybeans and corn.

However, it does not allow commercial production or sale of GM grains, including rice, although the authorities have approved the experimental planting of two strains of pest-resisted GM rice.

The safety certificates issued for this experimental planting in 2009 expire this year, and commercial production is yet to be started.

Authorities have stressed that this approval of experimentation does not equate to a broader official favoring of GM grains.

"The granting of safety certificates for GM food is not equal to allowing commercial production," Tuesday's statement quoted an anonymous official as saying.

Approval is needed for GM crops, be it production of seeds, testing or growing, the official added.

The ministry has ordered all provincial agricultural authorities to strengthen oversight and fight illegal production and sale of seeds for GM crops, according to the statement.

Chen Xiaohua, deputy minister of the MOA, said earlier this year that China would continue to take an "active and cautious" policy toward GM crops and had set no timetable on the commercial production of GM products.

Field Trials of Genetically-Modified Crops: No Decision Yet, Says Government

NDTV:  Two affiliates of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or the RSS - Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM) and the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) - today met Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar and claimed a decision granting approval for field trials of genetically-modified (GM) crops has been put on hold. The government, however, said no decision has been taken as yet.

"Government has not taken any decision on the issue. Government will not take any decision in haste," said Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar.

A delegation of the two organisations, part of the wider RSS family, met Mr Javadekar to register their protest against the go-ahead given by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) on July 18 to field trials of 15 GM crops, including rice, mustard, cotton, chickpea and brinjal.

The members of the SJM and the BKS cited reports by a parliamentary standing committee on agriculture and a Supreme Court-appointed "Technical Expert Committee" to demand that the decision on going ahead with the field trials be deferred.

The standing committee, in its reported tabled in Parliament on August 9 last year, had, the SJM pointed out, clearly recommended "the stopping of all field trials under any garb." The experts committee set up on the Top Court's directive, in its final report, also came out against holding field trials "until a robust regulatory mechanism is put in place," the statement added.

The GEAC's decision to allow field trials of 15 GM crops had also been criticised by parties such the DMK, and activists opposed to the introduction of such crops in India. In a statement issued last week, DMK chief M Karunanidhi said, "Even during the UPA government, they had revoked their approval given to cultivate Bt brinjal, following strong protests against it. So, the BJP government should immediately intervene in this issue and revoke their approval given for field trials of GM crops."

Government allows cultivation of genetically modified crops after full scientific evaluation: Sanjeev Kumar Balyan

Government allows cultivation of genetically modified crops after full scientific evaluation: Sanjeev Kumar Balyan 

NEW DELHI: The government allows cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops after full scientific evaluation of biosafety and impact on environment as well as on consumers, Parliament was informed today.

In India, cotton is the only GM crop (Bt cotton) approved for commercial cultivation.

"The government policy is to allow GM crops after full scientific evaluation of its biosafety and impact on the environment and on the consumers," Minister of State for Agriculture said PTI

Monsanto Should Lose Some Battles to Win the War Over GMOs

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2014/07/22/monsanto-should-lose-some-battles-to-win-the-war-over-gmos/?partner=yahootix

Farmers, consumer forums write to Jayalalithaa on clearance to GM field trials

Farmers, consumer forums write to Jayalalithaa on clearance to GM field trials

CHENNAI: Several farmers, consumer forums and activists have slammed the hurried granting of permission for genetically modified (GM) food trials for rice, mustard, chick pea and other crops.

In a letter to the chief minister J Jayalalithaa, they said the approval of an unsafe technology such as GM by a centralized body like Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) would compromise the interest and priorities of the state. Agriculture was a state subject, they pointed out.

"The chief minister had made it clear that she would not allow GM in Tamil Nadu and we hope she will reiterate that stand by opposing such forcible thrust of field trials on the states," said Vettavalam Manigandan, president of the Tamil Nadu Vivasaayigal Sangam.

Raising concerns over the speed shown by the GEAC in clearing 60 of the pending 70 applications for field trials of different genetically modified crops, S Selvam, president of the TN organic farmers association, asked "What is the need for such a hasty release just before the cropping seasons starts, particularly when so many states had earlier clearly indicated that they were not for conducting field trials?."

"It is unfortunate that in a state with such a large diverse pool of traditional paddy reserve, the Madurai Kamaraj University has decided to pursue a GM rice research and that too on popular white ponni, indicating a bankruptcy of intelligence," said Ram of the Tharcharbu Uzhavar Iyakkam, terming the field trial permission as unwanted and unwarranted. He also added that many of the farmer unions and groups across Tamil Nadu were planning a protest across the state and also are writing directly to the chief minister and the union minister of environment and forests. TOI

Trials and regulations

The promise and performance of genetically modified crops in agriculture is once again under the spotlight, with the sanction given by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee for confined field trials of several food crops. In its last days, the UPA government decided to end the moratorium on trial cultivation of these engineered varieties, and to allow experiments aimed at generating biosafety data. The GEAC has now taken further steps to allow field trials of rice, brinjal, mustard, chickpea and cotton, and import of GM soyabean oil. Clearly, there can be no credible argument against scientific experiments in agriculture that advance the goal of developing plant varieties that can withstand drought, resist pests and raise yields to feed the growing world population. But this should be done through a transparent regulatory process that is free of ethical conflicts. Proponents of GM crops funding research in agricultural universities represents one such conflict. To aid transparency, research findings should be made available in the public domain for independent study. But India has taken only halting steps towards establishing a strong regulatory system; the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, 2013, which provided for multi-level scientific assessments and an appellate tribunal, has lapsed.

While the Central government has not permitted the commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal in India, the recent case of neighbouring Bangladesh shows that regulatory mechanisms must be put in place before such crops are grown, whether for research or for the market — and they must be functional. Although the licence to produce the crop in Bangladesh required that the GM variety be isolated from indigenous ones to prevent genetic contamination, the condition was not followed. Field trials in India, in which the State governments have a say, must ensure that there are sufficient safeguards against such violations. If GM food is allowed to be sold to consumers, they must have the right to know what they are buying, and labelling should be made mandatory. Here again, the Bangladesh experience shows that such a condition may be difficult to enforce. There is no consensus on the performance of GM crops and the results have been mixed. They have had some beneficial impact on tillage practices and in terms of curbing the use of insecticides, but as the Union of Concerned Scientists in the U.S. points out, they have created monocultures and may be affecting birds and bees. All this underscores the need for a cautious approach — one that fosters scientific inquiry, allows for scrutiny and is underpinned by regulation. Enacting a comprehensive law that covers all aspects of GM crops should be a priority. THe Hindu

Environment Ministry clarifies on field trials of Genetically Modified crops

Environment Ministry clarifies on field trials of Genetically Modified crops 

NEW DELHI: Environment Ministry today clarified that it has given no approval for field trials of certain varieties of Genetically Modified (GM) crops. 

The ministry, however, said that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has recommended certain cases for field trials. 

"Field trials of #GMCrops is not a Government Decision. It is a recommendation of a Committee," Javadekar tweeted tonight. 

Genetically-modified brinjal may be the latest Bangla illegal immigrant

Genetically-modified brinjal may be the latest Bangla illegal immigrant 

PUNE: Despite India's moratorium on the release of genetically-modified (GM) Bt brinjal, there is a possibility of gene contamination of Indian brinjals from Bangladesh due to illegal entry of Bt brinjal seeds through the porous border between the two countries. 
Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco), which developed the Bt brinjal technology, has transferred it to the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI). Mahyco, whose 26per cent stake is owned by US life sciences co is hoping that the new Union government will expedite the release of Bt brinjal in India. 

CD Mayee, former co-chairman of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, said: "In the absence of a permission to use them in India, there is a threat of illegal entry of Bt brinjal seeds into India via Bengal, Orissa and Bihar." Eggplant is a popular vegetable in West Bengal, which has banned field trials of genetically modified crops. 

West Bengal's science and technology department, state biotechnology council and the agriculture department are against GM crop field testing. Tushar Chakraborty head of Gene Regulation Lab, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology in Kolkata, said: "The draft biotechnolgy policy of West Bengal specifies this position. But, so far, we have not seen any concrete action in the border areas to stop this menace or threat." 
According to the scientists, if cultivated on large scale, one season will be enough for gene contamination to take place and will be too complex to control. Brinjal and its numerous wild and cultivated varieties and related species may be contaminated. "It will be like the case of GM canola (rapeseed), which is silently being withdrawn due to mass contamination in US and Canada to its wild relatives . South and north Bengal, Assam and Tripura will be at risk," said Chakraborty. ET

Genetically modified ‘super banana’ to be tested on Americans

A vitamin-enhanced ‘super-banana’ developed by scientists is to be tested on humans. The trials are to take place in the US over a six-week period. Researchers aim to start growing the fruit in Uganda by 2020.

The bananas are ‘super’ because they have been genetically engineered to have increased levels of vitamin A – a deficiency of which can be fatal.

Hundreds of thousands die annually worldwide from vitamin A deficiencies, while many others go blind, the project's leader told AFP.

“The consequences of vitamin A deficiency are dire with 650,000-700,000 children worldwide dying...each year and at least another 300,000 going blind,” Professor James Dale stated.

“Good science can make a massive difference here by enriching staple crops such as Ugandan bananas with pro-vitamin A and providing poor and subsistence-farming populations with nutritionally rewarding food,” Dale said.

The project was created by Queensland University of Technology (QUT) in Australia and supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

“We know our science will work,” Dale said. “We made all the constructs, the genes that went into bananas, and put them into bananas here at QUT.”

Dale added that the genetically modified banana flesh is more orange than a usual banana, but otherwise looks the same.

The highland or East African cooking banana is a dietary staple in East Africa, according to the researchers. However, it has low levels of micronutrients, particularly vitamin A and iron.

If the project is given the go-ahead for Uganda after the US trials, micronutrient enriched/modified crops could also be given the green light for Rwanda, Kenya, and Tanzania.

“In West Africa farmers grow plantain bananas and the same technology could easily be transferred to that variety as well,” Dale stated.

GMOs and Gates

The claim that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) pose no risk to human and environmental health is far from settled, despite industry assertions.

In October, 93 international scientists said there was a lack of empirical and scientific evidence to support what they said were false claims made by the biotech industry about a so-called “consensus”on GMO safety. They said more independent research is needed, as existing studies which say that GMOs are safe are overwhelmingly funded and supported by biotech companies.

The Gates Foundation has a history of supporting GMO research and technology – at least since 2010, when the non-profit invested in a low amount of shares in biotechnology giant Monsanto. Gates has amped up support for GMOs so that “poor countries that have the toughest time feeding their people have a process,” adding that “there should be an open-mindedness, and if they can specifically prove [GMO] safety and benefits, foods should be approved, just like they are in middle-income countries.” Such support has resulted in criticism and suspicion of the foundation's agenda.

As for the worry that GMO seeds are increasingly consolidated in the hands of major agribusiness powers, Gates said in February 2013 – after his foundation reportedly sold the approximately $23 million in Monsanto shares it owned – that there are "legitimate issues, but solvable issues" with GMO technology and wider use. He added that one solution may be offering crops already patented but requiring no royalty dues.

Gates has supported the use of GMO crops in the developing world, as well as “large-scale farm land investments by foreign states in the developing world,” AFP wrote in 2012. Months ago, Gates stressed his support for GMO farming in Africa.

“Middle-income countries are the biggest users of GMOs...Small farmers have gotten soy beans and cotton and things like that. But we’re trying to get African agriculture up to high productivity – it’s about a third of rich-world productivity right now – and we need the full range of scientific innovation, with really good safety checking, to work on behalf of the poor,” Gates told Quartz in January.

GMO crops are now grown in 28 countries, or on 12 percent of the world's arable land, with the acreage doubling every five years. However, in the European Union, only two GMO varieties have so far been licensed for commercial harvesting (compared to 96 in the US).

In the US, an overwhelming majority of Americans say they support the labeling of GMO products – an effort that has gained traction in some states and interest in nearly all others.

Opponents of labeling – including powerful food industry and biotechnology players – are currentlymobilizing their resources on the national level to stem the tide of sentiment against GMO proliferation. These groups have worked with supportive members of Congress to introduce federal legislation that would block states from passing mandatory GMO labeling measures like Vermont's, despite the “right to know” movement’s rising popularity.

GMOs have been in the food supply since the 1990s, and are included in roughly 70 to 80 percent of products available to American consumers, according to food manufacturers. The most widely used GMO crops in the US are corn, soybeans, and canola. RT.com

Survey: Overwhelming Majority Of Americans Say Want GMO Labeling

An overwhelming majority of Americans think that genetically engineered (GE) foods should be labeled before they are sold, according to a new Consumer Reports poll released on Monday.

The nationally-representative phone survey found that 92 percent of respondents think that GE foods, or those made with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), should be labeled accordingly. Further, 92 percent also think that the government should legally require the labeling of GE salmon—which may soon be approved and sold in stores—despite the fact that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently requires neither labeling nor pre-market safety assessments of GE food.

The survey, taken in April 2014, assessed the importance of various factors that consumers weigh when purchasing food. According to the results, 72 percent said it was important or very important to avoid genetically engineered ingredients when making purchases.

“This poll underscores that, across the country, consumers want labeling of GE food, including GE salmon, and consider safety standards set by the government of such food imperative,” said Jean Halloran, Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union.

Growing public opposition to GE foods comes as numerous states have begun to surpass the FDA by passing their own labeling legislation.

Last month, Vermont became the first state to require the labeling of foods with genetically modified ingredients. Similar legislation, which included “trigger clauses” that require a certain number of other states to also enact similar laws, passed in both Connecticut and Maine. Lawmakers in Massachusetts, Oregon, Colorado, and New York are also weighing labeling proposals. http://www.mintpressnews.com/

Food For Thought

Food For Thought

espite last-minute clearances given to stalled field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops by former environment minister Veerappa Moily, seed companies have failed to benefit so far. With the brief window left in the ongoing sowing season, they remain hopeful and are mounting pressure on the new government to ease procedural requirements.

Among the UPA government’s many attempts to woo India Inc. in its final days was its approval of field trials for GM crops. However, the failure to officially intimate the seed companies of these approvals meant that field trials could not be undertaken at the beginning of the kharif season. Plus, the clearance given on 27 February came with the rider that state governments must approve the trials on a per-crop basis, leading to further delays, claim seed companies.

The approvals were a re-validation of the earlier clearance given by the regulator, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), in March 2013. It was applicable to 10 genetically engineered crops, among which were maize, rice, wheat and cotton. New applications were taken up in April 2014 but no formal announcement was made. The GEAC, which comes under the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), has had  three meetings in consecutive months since March to discuss proposals pending since last year. Though approvals have been reported in the media, no official letters were sent out and the decisions of the meetings were not put up on the website as per requirement. As a result, no immediate action on the ground was possible.

Monsanto India MD Gyanendra Shukla explains: “Our permit for maize trials, which was issued earlier, has been re-validated. For new proposals, however, we are waiting for a response from the GEAC.” Companies like Monsanto India, Bayer CropScience, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds, government universities and research institutes like the Directorate of  Oil Seeds Research, Central Potato Research Institute, International Crops Research Institute for Semi-arid Tropics and Indian Agricultural Research Institute have been at the forefront of the pro-GM debate in India. There are over 150 local and international private and public sector institutions developing and selling seeds.

Unhappy about the prolonged delay, since former environment minister Jayanthi Natarajan had, in 2013, suspended all GEAC meetings and field trials citing an ongoing case in the Supreme Court (SC), seed companies say India is, as a result, decades behind in science and technology development in the sector. Says Joerg Rehbein, head of Bayer CropScience Indian Subcontinent, “The delay in the approval of field trials has also significantly lowered the confidence level of companies involved in GM crop research.”

The Delayed Dialogue
Any new trials this year are subject to states granting no-objection certificates (NOC). In principle, states like Gujarat, Punjab and Maharashtra have approved the trials. But even with the in-principle approvals, there are crop-by-crop variations — for example, the unwillingness of Punjab to permit GM potato field trials. Again, states like Odisha and West Bengal have flatly refused to permit GM trials. The delay in issuing NOCs, along with other administrative protocols of tying up with the local agricultural institute or university and locating and leasing land, has left very little time in the current sowing season, say seed companies which complain of huge economic and time setbacks.
 

AROUND THE WORLD

• As of 2011, 73% of the global GM market was controlled by 10 companies • As of 2013, agricultural land under GM globally was 3.4%, or 170 million hectares, of the 5 billion hectares of total agricultural land • Of this, 40.8% was in the US, 20.4% in Brazil, 14.03% in Argentina , 6.8% in Canada, 6.3% in India, 2.34% in China and 8.33% across 22 other countries • 2012 was the first year in which developing countries accounted for a majority (52%) of the total GM harvest

Currently, market estimates place investment in agricultural bio-technology in India at around Rs 10,000 crore. Most seed companies, citing competition among other reasons, are unwilling to share numbers, especially in India where the industry is still in its infancy. For example, though it is known that Monsanto invests Rs 7,500 crore on in-breeding and biotechnology globally, spent just “a few crores” in India.

Given that development of a single strain in a particular plant costs close to Rs 500 crore and anything from 8-10 years, the seed manufacturers are eager to resolve concerns and start testing and commercialising their products.

Monsanto India’s Shukla believes that given the seasonal nature of agricultural research and its dependence on the monsoon, the timing of decisions with respect to trials is critical. Seetharama Nadoor, executive director with the Bangalore-based Association of Biotechnology-led Enterprises (ABLE), says he recently (almost two months after Moily’s clearance) received intimation from the MoEF that the GEAC will be functioning normally and all procedures in place for clearances will resume. He adds that the letter does not address some concerns of the companies waiting to start field trials. “We have written back to them to clarify three points — publish minutes of the last GEAC meeting online; send GEAC approval letter to the companies whose trials have been approved; and assist in getting state government NOCs,” says Nadoor.

After the 18-month limbo , the only  bright spot for biotech companies in the wake of the February clearance has been its affect on share prices — Monsanto India’s stock jumped 5 per cent while Bayer CropScience rose 1.41 per cent.
 

break-pahe-break

The Long And Short Of GM
The very mention of GM crops usually generates extreme reactions — either you hate it or you love it. Thus, many an approval is followed by a hasty withdrawal, a court stay order or government waffling. Says Ajay Kakra, associate director, Agriculture and Natural Resources practice, PwC India, while the technology is very promising, “the trouble starts in application, especially of food crops as there is no concrete data available on its implications on direct human consumption”.

The pending petition in the Supreme Court was filed in 2005 and was used by Natarajan to withhold permission for field trials. The court is yet to decide the case and is said to be studying the Technical Expert Committee’s reports that demand an overhaul of regulations, protection of bio-diversity and an independent monitoring body, among others, before allowing open field trials. Petitioners against GM crops claim Moily’s nod for trials can be interpreted as a violation.

Mhow-based Aruna Rodrigues, the lead petitioner in the Supreme Court for a moratorium on GM crops says the regulatory mechanism is lax and porous, marked by a serious conflict of interest. GM contamination of non-GM crops from field trials, even under stringent conditions, is a proven fact. In India, she points out, BNBt, a local cotton gene, was found contaminated with Monsanto’s Bt cotton; whether “accidental or deliberate” is not known, according to the S.K. Sopory Committee report. Rodrigues has submitted an additional affidavit in court against the February approval for open field trials — the SC is yet to take it up.

The issue of propriety of GM technology is a big concern in India where most farmers are poor. Over the years, Monsanto has sued and won against 100-odd farmers for infringement of patents — even in fields where farmers had no clue as to how GM traits entered produce from their fields.

 

THE GM JOURNEY A bumpy ride so far...

Mar 2002: Use of GM technology for commercial agricultural use allowed, starting with Bt cotton, the only GM crop grown commercially in India till date Sep 2005: Writ petition filed by Aruna Rodrigues in SC seeking a moratorium on the release of any GM crop, pending a comprehensive and rigorous bio-safety protocol Oct 2009: Bt brinjal cleared for commercialisation Feb 2010: Moratorium imposed on the release of Bt brinjal after much protest Feb 2010: MoEF minister Jairam Ramesh submits report on Bt brinjal, requesting an indefinite moratorium May 2012: The Supreme Court constitutes the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) to look into the matter Aug 2012: A parliamentary standing committee says that a high-level committee is needed to decide the fate of GM crops Oct 2012: TEC submits an interim report, and then a final report in Aug 2013. It demands a revision of the regulations, evaluation of GMOs by an independent body. A ruling is still pending on the issue Mar 2013: Jayanthi Natarajan, then MoEF minister, disallows further field trials based on TEC report; writes a note to the PMO voicing her concerns Mar 2013: GEAC holds a meeting, nothing comes of it Jan 2014: PM Manmohan Singh says GMO important to India’s food security; scientists ask SC to allow trials, list benefits of GMOs crops Feb 2014: MoEF minister Veerappa Moily gives the go-ahead for open field trials, with the rider that state governments must approve of them first Mar 2014: Rodrigues files an additional affidavit requesting the SC to take action on the recent clearance of field trials, since the matter is still sub judice Apr 2014: Three court hearings between 22 Apr to 9 May; no judgement yet; next hearing on 15 July

Regulations to do with GM crops are full of loopholes, says Kakra. “There are two aspects to GM regulation — first, the rules for trials, which are stringent. Then, there is labelling, where India has rules for a few crops, leaving scope for many non-labelled crops to enter mainstream human consumption chains.” Others like Nadoor say  the technology is essential in India. For example, a recent estimate by the National Research Centre on Biotechnology put the annual loss to the pigeon pea crop (arhar dal) in the region of 30-40 per cent — largely due to pests and vagaries of the weather. The need for technology becomes all the more critical given that India already uses all its cultivable land, with virtually no room for expansion. 

Bayer CropScience’s  Rehbein says there is a lot of potential for GM crops in India. Citing the success of Bt cotton, he says, “A farmer can grow 2-3 crops a year compared to most Western countries where farmers can grow only 1-1.5.” He adds that the new government will give the sector a boost. “Based on the approvals, we aim to plant the trials in the kharif season subject to NOCs from the states.”
 

KEEPING WATCH There are several Acts and rules that govern GMOs:

The release of transgenic crops, or genetically modified organisms (GMO), in India is governed by the Indian Environment Protection Act 1986 GMOs are covered by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) and the Ministry of Agriculture In 1989, the government outlined the rules for manufacture, use, import, export and storage of hazardous microorganisms/ genetically engineered organisms or cells Five authorities were created to manage GMOs — the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), Institutional Biosafety Committees (IBSC), Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), State Biotechnology Coordination Committee (SBCC) and District Level Committee (DLC). The last two are not fully operational as yet, while the GEAC is the apex body of the lot Copyright issues for GMO come under the Indian Patent Act 1970, which outlines rules on patenting of seeds or commercial use of patented agricultural products

Hoping for the best, seed manufacturers are looking to streamline and regularise the process. Considering Gujarat is among the first and biggest users of Bt cotton — the only commercial GM crop in India — the hope is not baseless.  

moyna@businessworld.in; mmatbworld@gmail.com

businessworld.in

Monsanto stealing and patenting Indian products - Mohawk Elder Tekarontake

The situation in Ukraine and the policies of the United States internationally with regard to sovereignty, resources and force all have their origins in the founding of the American state on the genocide of the native people and the stealing of their resources, says elder with the Mohawk Nation Tekarontake.

Hello! This is John Robles, I'm speaking with Tekarontake – an elder with the Wolf Clan of the Mohawk Nation. This is part 2 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com. You are listening to an interview in progress.

Tekarontake: You can travel all over North America, one of the most wealthiest lands in the world, and yet native people are at the bottom, are stilll the poorest, in just about every one of our communities, those are the only places where socialism is encouraged.

Where our people as individuals, we don't have rights. Only though the corporations that have been established on our territories called tribal councils and band councils that the government recognized, they are the only ones who have the right to make business, control business and so on. And our people are just peasants.

Our people have no rights. The thing is that they give the corporations tax exemption and they are telling our people that we are tax exempt but yet they are trying to tax us.

The thing is that what they did was – we are a nontaxable people and that's our birth right, but they want us to give up our birth right for a privilege they call tax exemption, because if they can give you that exemption, they can take it away.

They want us to alienate ourselves from who we are. But we are not willing to do this. And the thing is that they've stolen so many of our children and put them into residential schools and brainwashed, and took the Indian out of them. And many of the people today, they don't know what their rights are.

They are only now finding out because those of us who have never relinquished this, we continue to fight this and a lot of us are not part of the corporation. Most of the people that are part of corporation, they don't even understand what any of that means. They think that being part of the corporation makes them an Indian. But that's how much the government has confused the people.

There are those of us who continue to adhere to our traditional ways and maintaining the birth right that we've always had, we are continuing to try to educate our own people, as well as the non-native community as to what is really the truth, what is really going on.

So, we continue our stand on this and we maintain our principles and our philosophy. And again we are faced with this situation with the State of New York.

Just a couple months back some of our men were charged supposedly with running an illegal gambling establishment. But there was nothing illegal about what they were doing. And even the federal government and the state admitted that there was no wrongdoing. But they used the corporation to push the issue and got a district attorney to support it and took these men to court. And the state lost. The jury acquitted these men and said that there was no wrongdoing.

Robles: I'm sorry, can you... for our international listeners because a lot of people don't know about the situation with gambling, and tobacco and alcohol tax exemptions and stuff. Can you explain a little bit about how that is on the small areas of land where the indigenous people have been trapped? What their laws are regarding gambling and stuff?

Tekarontake: You see, there was no law against any of these things. There was a case, I believe it was in California, where the court said that the governments had no right to tell our people that they couldn't do these things. And a lot of this gaming industry and tobacco, and all that, it wasn't something our people thought up. Our people always had tobacco. We traded tobacco, we had different types of tobacco, some as trade goods and other tobacco we use for our ceremonies.

So, when the Europeans landed here, that was one of the things our people offered as a trade good, tobacco. And in fact, it was the tobacco that financed the American Revolution.

The thing is that it is not so much the businesses we do. The thing is if our people are going to do a business, and the outside has their hands in our business, then it is okay. As long as the outside get their cut, like the state and the municipalities and the federal government, if everybody gets their share of it there is no problem. But if our people do a business and the outside gets no share of it, then they call it illegal. Basically, it is mafia tactics that they use against our people.

Robles: I'm sorry, let me expand on that from there. We are seeing mafia tactics. If I could, give me a minute here. I'd like to expand on that because it's been bothering me for a while too and it is not just against the native peoples, it is their global policy against everyone. And it is like they've gone insane. I mean, this mafia tactic, now they are threatening the Russian Federation with sanctions, they are threatening other countries with bombing them, they are threatening everybody in the world with something, if they don't give up their resources and give up their sovereignty, and give up their rights.

Tekarontake: That's right!

Robles: And I think it's come to the point where they've gone insane. I don't know what do you want to call it. This delusional exceptionalism they have. They've kept subjugating our people in the US, the native American people, the indigenous peoples, the black peoples, the ancestors, the slaves they treated like dirt as well. That's been contained, but I think that's now spreading outward. And I think now the world in general is starting to see a little bit of the real beast that is…I don't know what else to call them, this cancer that has inhabited North America for..

Tekarontake: It is for over 500 years.

Robles: I mean, the same thing with the sanctions. We are going to take away this unless you give us this gas. You are going to buy this. It almost made me sick a couple days ago to hear Obama say, I don't know if you heard this quote, he said "we are blessed with such wonderful resources." I'm paraphrasing. He said – we are blessed in this country with resources, we want to sell to Europe. And they are telling Europe – you can't buy Russian gas. Russian sells gas to Europe very cheap. And he says – we are going to give you "our" blessed resources. I'm just thinking in my head – those are stolen resources. You are not blessed with anything.

Tekarontake: That's right! The thing is that everything the US and Canada, and all the countries in the western hemisphere, the resources that they claim they own, they don't own it, it is what they've stolen. They stole it from the indigenous peoples of the Western hemisphere. And yet the poorest people in the western hemisphere are the indigenous people. And they are telling us that we don't have a right to any of this stuff and that this is theirs. They make a law and then they legislate it, and they say – well, this is the law.

When they came to this land, our people extended a hand of friendship. We extended to them what we call the Two Row Concept, meaning that everyone should treat each other with respect.

And we told them that we would never interfere with their language, their laws, their customs, their traditions, their people or any of these things. They were free to exercise all those things. But the thing they needed to always keep in mind is that this land here is our Mother and that our Mother is a good mother, and that she would take care of them, but to remember that this is our Mother.

And we told them that we will give you the right to go the depth of a plow so that you can sustain yourselves. But it is only to sustain yourself. It does not mean that we have given you the land, the depth of the plow. We allowed you the use of this land. As long as you follow the way of respect, there will be no issue. But as soon as they became large enough in number, as soon as they were able to decimate so many of our communities and our people with their diseases and so on, and put us in a state of poverty, and weakness, they moved in to try to take away everything else that we still had. And they are still trying to do that to us today.

Robles: I'm sorry, if I could, because this is a correlation with what they are doing right now in Ukraine.

Tekarontake: That's right!

Robles: What they are doing right now, they've gone in there and again they made the people believe that if they join the EU, if they join the West, their lives are going to be better. But all these agreements and everything, and these hidden agreements, they are going to completely devastate and impoverish the Ukrainian people.

And the goal there is, again, the resources. They want to sell them gas, they want to make money of these people, they want the gas that is the Russian gas, they to control that, they want to control the territory of Ukraine.

It is the same lying, stealing, cheating game, only now it is 2014 and they've become technologically more sophisticated in packaging their theft, but it is the same thing. Would you agree with that?

Tekarontake: Oh, yes! That's always been the way of thieves.

Robles: And they are not going in there and killing the Ukrainian people, they are getting these neo-Nazis, who they are also using and manipulating, to go in there and kill and terrorize the Ukrainian people.

Tekarontake: Oh, yes! It is like a bacteria, it looks for a place to land. And it starts there and just going to work in its way till it engulfs the whole body, and destroys it, takes the life out of it.

The thing is that they want you to resolve all of their issues. They'll talk about: it's a violation of international law. But the law can't apply to one and not to the other.

And the thing is that they make the rules and say: "Well, we'll tell you who is a nation and who is not a nation, who has sovereignty and what is sovereignty and so on...

They have not even defined anything. Every time they open their mouth, this terminology changes its meaning. Even the language changes its meaning all the time. And they try to acquire intellectual property rights even to people's language, so that they can alter the language so the language will mean something other than what the people know that it has always meant. There is not a thing that they don't try to take total control over.

For instance, our people are the people who cultivated and created a thing called maize or corn. Our people have continued this agricultural life for hundreds of thousands of years. And now, today, companies like Monsanto claim that they own the intellectual property rights to this corn.

One of the native people, he grew corn and it just happened that Monsanto had a corn field not far away and they cross-pollinated. So, the corn kind of changed a bit and so Monsanto sued this native farmer saying that the corn he planted is their corn, because of the cross-pollination. It is ridiculous, suing a native for growing corn, corn that they have grow as far back as anyone can remember.

Robles: Some day you need to sue them for growing corn, for eating corn, because it was the indigenous people that gave them corn and tobacco, and watermelons, and potatoes were not in Europe, tomatoes, certain types were only in North America, what else?

Tekarontake: You know, the thing is that 75% of the world's diet originated out of the western hemisphere. 75% of the medicines that the world uses today also originated out of the western hemisphere. Indigenous people were using all of these things. And many of these things they cultivated, because they didn't grow naturally, like the different beans. There are hundreds of varieties of beans, hundreds of varieties of corn. Tomatoes were a poisonous plant, but our people cultivated it so it could be edible. There are just so many things. There are hundreds of different types of squashes and pumpkins.

But the thing is that what the white man does is when he goes to your land and because we didn't do things the way he did, he starts to register these things, he patents these things, he claims he has the intellectual property rights to these things and he has the property right on this and that.

You take a simple thing like aspirin. Aspirin in its natural form comes from the willow tree. And you boil that and you use that, and it takes away your pain and fever, and other things.

But the white man refines these things and he puts it into a pill, and then he claims it as his. But the thing is – when he refined it, it is no longer like the natural product in its natural form, because the natural form has no side-effects. But when they refine it, yes, it might help you with your fever, it might help you with your aches and pains, but by refining now this stuff eats away your stomach, it eats away other organs…

Robles: That's a great example, because aspirin causes internal bleeding in your stomach. I can't take aspirin.

Tekarontake: That's right! But if you took it in the natural form, it wouldn't do that. So, there are many medicines like this. Quinine…you know, there are just so many.

And even many of the good things that our people did, like gathering and growing of hemp. Our people split the fibers of hemp and made cloth, they made ropes, they made other byproducts, oils and so on. And it was used for good purposes. And you have coca that's been used by indigenous peoples for centuries. And these things never caused the problem.

But when they started creating these hybrids and started refining these things, and making them into powders and so on, and they started to abuse it, now one of the biggest industries in North America and in the world is the drug trade. And they make it sound like it is all these cartels. But who the heck is behind all of this? Who is creating the market for it? The FBI, the CIA....

Robles: Exactly! Look at Afghanistan.

You were listening to an interview with Tekarontake – an elder with the Wolf Clan of the Mohawk Nation. That was part 2 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com
Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_04_12/Monsanto-is-stealing-and-patenting-Indian-products-Mohawk-Elder-Tekarontake-5052/

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_04_12/Monsanto-is-stealing-and-patenting-Indian-products-Mohawk-Elder-Tekarontake-5052/

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_04_12/Monsanto-is-stealing-and-patenting-Indian-products-Mohawk-Elder-Tekarontake-5052/