May 25 ‘March Against Monsanto’ planned for over 30 countries

SEATTLE, Wash. (May 1, 2013) – March Against Monsanto has announced that on May 25, tens of thousands of activists around the world will “March Against Monsanto.” Currently, marches are being planned on six continents, in 36 countries, totaling events in over 250 cities, and in the US, events are slated to occur simultaneously at 11 a.m. Pacific in 47 states.

Tami Monroe Canal, lead organizer and creator of the now-viral Facebook page, says she was inspired to start the movement to protect her two daughters. “I feel Monsanto threatens their generation’s health, fertility and longevity. I couldn’t sit by idly, waiting for someone else to do something.” [The full March Against Monsanto mission statement can be read here.]

An organizer for the march in Athens, Greece, Roberta Gogos, spoke about the importance of the events in austerity-impacted South Europe. “Monsanto is working very hard to overturn EU regulation on obligatory labeling (questionable whether it’s really enforced in any case), and no doubt they will have their way in the end. Greece is in a precarious position right now, and Greece’s farmers falling prey to the petrochemical giant is a very real possibility.”

Josh Castro, organizer for Quito, says he wants to protect Ecuador against Monsanto’s influence, too. “Ecuador is such a beautiful place, with the richest biodiversity in the world. We will not allow this Garden of Eden to be compromised by evil multinational corporations like Monsanto. Biotechnology is not the solution to world hunger. Agroecology is.”

Partners facilitating the organizing of March Against Monsanto include The Anti-Media, Activists’ Free Press and A Revolt – Digital Anarchy. Major sponsors include GMO Free USA, NationofChange and Films for Action. Official website: www.march-against-monsanto.com.

Click here for downloadable version of this press release.

For media inquiries, contact Emilie Rensink at emilie@activistsfreepress.org. To schedule an interview or for general information, contact Tami Monroe Canal at tamicanal@gmail.com. For sponsorship inquiry, contact Nick Bernabe at nickog_2021@yahoo.com.

The commission has proposed five pieces of legislation to replace and clarify existing regulation, a whopping 70 legal texts governing the European Union’s food chain. The package includes rules to better prevent and eradicate pests and animal diseases across the union and to toughen up controls and penalties against food fraud.

Environmental groups have taken aim at one part of the proposal that regulates the production and marketing of seeds and other “plant reproductive material,” such as young plants and tubers. At present, companies have to register seeds in each country where they want to sell them; under the new law, procedures valid in one member state would automatically be recognized across the European Union. This would make the variety registration process faster and more conducive to innovation, the commission says. (These rules don’t apply to seeds used for testing and scientific activities, or those maintained by seed banks for conservation purposes.)

But groups like the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements and the Soil Association say that the proposal perpetuates criteria for “distinct, uniform and stable” varieties that favor large companies producing homogeneous seeds. Besides, critics claim that annual registration fees would be prohibitive for small companies, pushing them out of the E.U. market. “The plans play directly into the hands of larger corporations that prioritise mass-production of monoculture seed varieties, at the expense of diversity,” José Bové, a Green member of the European Parliament from France, said in a statement.

Wednesday, 24 April 2013 12:54
There is urgent action needed to avoid damage by the upcoming new EU regulation of seed marketing. The new regulation will de facto ban old and rare varieties and farmers varieties and threaten the exchange and selling of seeds of diversity.

DG SANCO (the General Direction of the EU for Sanitary and Consumer affairs) has been working on a proposal for a new regulation since years. On Monday, the 6th of May they will present their proposal to the conference of commissioners. They could not get a consensus of the two other affected DGs, DG AGRI (agricultural affairs) and DG ENVI (environmental affairs). Both opposed the last draft of the proposal, and DG SANCO is not looking for a consensus.

The new regulation has mainly been drafted by Isabelle Clement-Nissou, an employee of GNIS, the French lobby of the Seed Industry. Madame Clement-Nissou was sent as a national expert to Brussels by the French government and is supposed to „support“ DG SANCO. The drafts for the proposal became worse from the first to the second draft; and it is expected that the final proposal is going into the same direction.

Since there is no consensus between the three DGs, the commissioners have to vote on the proposal. If a majority of commissioners votes against the proposal, it should be stopped. If they vote in favour, it will be given to the EU Parliament and to the Council.

The seed industry is pushing the legislation, because they’ve spent a lot of money to influence the seed legislation. Furthermore, they don’t want it to be postponed after the election of a new parliament in May 2014. They take the risk that the commissioners vote against it – and we think: the commissioners should do so! There is only a little chance to get a majority of commissioners to vote against the current proposal, but we still should try.

Each country of the EU has one commissioner in Brussels, so we need 14 votes against the proposal. The commissioners of DG AGRI and DG ENVI should vote against, so we need 12 more.

Please write to the commissioner of your country and convince him/her to vote „NO“ on the proposal of DG SANCO on 6th of May.

Try to make a link from his/her department to the seed issue, and try to make clear to him/her that the proposal for a new EU seed legislation will affect the cultural and biodiversity heritage of your country and the freedom of farmers to use the seeds and the varieties they want to.

There are two example letters in Dutch to send to the Dutch Commissioner Neelie Kroes and the Belgium Commissioner Karel De Gucht. It is also possible to write your own personal letter. Their email addresses are < karel.de-gucht@ec.europa.eu> and < neelie.kroes@ec.europa.eu>.

It is also possible to sign a petition organised by the European Seed Campaign on this issue:

https://www.openpetition.de/petition/online/seed-diversity-under-threat-no-european-seed-regulations-for-the-benefit-of-the-seed-industry#googtrans(de%7Cen)

And a version in Dutch: https://www.openpetition.de/petition/online/zadendiversiteit-wordt-bedreigd-geen-europese-regulering-ten-gunste-van-de-zadenindustrie#googtrans(de%7Cnl) (The number of people signing in the different available languages will be counted up before the petition will be handed in. So more people signed than the number you see on the page in English)

No prohibition of seeds and diversity!

By the obligation to register varieties before marketing, the new regulation will be a de facto prohibition of old and rare varieties and of farmer varieties.

Please write to your commissioner in Brussels no later than the 28th. He/she has to make a statement on the proposal from 24th of April on, the sooner, the better. On the 6th of May, we must obtain at least 14 objections, otherwise this proposal will become the official proposal.
Tags:EuEuropaSeedsZadenZadenwetgeving

“…advances in genetic engineering promise the expression of multiple Cry toxins in Bt-plants, known as gene pyramiding. Therefore, studies on non-target species are requirements of international protocols to verify the adverse effects of these toxins, ensuring human and environmental biosafety.

Due to its growing use in agricultural activities, Bt presence hasalready been detected in different environmental compartments such as soil and water. Consequently, the bioavailability of Cry proteins has increased, and for biosafety reasons their adverse effects might be studied, mainly for non-target organisms. Studies are therefore needed to evaluate Bt toxicity to non-target organisms;  the persistence of Bt toxin and its stability in aquatic environments; and the risks to humans and animals exposed to potentially toxic levels of Bt through their diet.

Thus, we aimed to evaluate, in Swiss albino mice, the hematotoxicity and genotoxicity of four Bt spore-crystals…”

The scientists already knew that Bt toxin was very toxic and potentially deadly at levels above 270 milligrams per kilogram (basically ppm), so they instead tested levels ranging from 27mg/kg, 136mg/kg, and 270mg/kg for one to seven days (each of the Cry toxins were separated out and tested individually to maximize accuracy and total info).  It was quite clear right off the bat that these Cry toxins were quite hemotoxic even at the lowest level of 27mg/kg administered only one time and one day as they clearly had damaged the blood, particularly in reference to red blood cells.  The quantity and size of the erythrocytes (RBCs) were both significantly reduced, as was the overall levels of hemoglobin for which oxygen to attach to.  All major factors regarding RBCs demonstrated some level of damage present for all levels of toxin administered and across all Cry proteins, although there were some clear variances present between different proteins and levels for certain factors.  The white blood cell count was also quite noticeably raised, and as expected it dramatically increased depending on the duration the subject was tested for.    The tests clearly demonstrated that Cry proteins were cytotoxic to bone marrow cells, accounting for a portion of the measured effects. It should also be noted that a previous study found that these proteins caused hemolysis (they killed blood cells) in vitro, particularly seeming to target the cell membranes of red blood cells.

Cry1Ab (the protein produced in common Bt corn and soy) induced microcytic hypochromic anemia in mice, even at the lowest tested dose of 27 mg/Kg, and this toxin has been detected in blood of non-pregnant women, pregnant women and their fetuses in Canada, supposedly exposed through diet [34]. These data, as well as increased bioavailability of  these MCA in the environment, reinforce the need for more research, especially given that little is known about spore crystals’ adverse effects on non-target species.”

While Bt toxin is not known to bioaccumulate in fat cells and internal organs, it is of note that the study demonstrated clearly that there was a significant increase in measurable negative effects of the toxin as time progressed especially concerning the higher doses.  Also of note was the increased inflammatory response, while it was quite minor, the scientists consider it to be statistically significant due to the intricacies of their chosen test subjects’ biology.  No measurable genotoxicity was found.

Nicolas Giroux, UNDP in Europe and Central Asia

I am working with UNDP’s Knowledge and Innovation team in Bratislava as web communications intern. One part of my work is publishing posts from all the country offices in Europe and Central Asia. It is a great opportunity to learn from all the projects being implemented by UNDP in the region.

I’m especially interested in projects related to local governance, territorial development or social innovation.

And for me, these areas of development are closely linked to what I call “the citizen local initiatives.”

Nicolas Giroux, UNDP in Europe and Central Asia

I am working with UNDP’s Knowledge and Innovation team in Bratislava as web communications intern. One part of my work is publishing posts from all the country offices in Europe and Central Asia. It is a great opportunity to learn from all the projects being implemented by UNDP in the region.

I’m especially interested in projects related to local governance, territorial development or social innovation.

And for me, these areas of development are closely linked to what I call “the citizen local initiatives.”

initiatives.”

Paradigm shift by François Rouillay

Today, many people think that human development and well-being is the responsibility of big institutions, including governments, that claim to know the best solutions to address economic and social problems and how they must be implemented.

Unfortunately, these institutions are stuck in heavy bureaucratic and hierarchical proceduresthat make them often totally disconnected to the real concerns of citizens.

Their capacity for adaptation is extremely low, and by the time a project or a measure is ready to be implemented, the diagnosis on which they based their intervention is already out-dated.

Many citizens in the world acknowledge this fact and duly note the failures of the past. They prefer not to wait for the help to come anymore. Instead, they decide to act. Directly and concretely, with no underlying ideology, to answer very specific problems in their specific areas.

A million peaceful revolutions

These people are not famous but they are growing in number. And little by little, in the shadow of the busy agitated world, they pave their own path toward a better world.

These “million peaceful revolutions” (in French) are not created against governments, but rather in parallel.

“The citizens who implement new initiatives do them because they must be done. Very often, the political power doesn’t support them because they believe more in big infrastructures for development. The simple means are not in their mind”

Bénédicte Manier, “One million peaceful revolutions” (this is my translation, and the book is in French).

In every single area of life, there is now an alternative way of living and thinking about our society, based on cooperation instead of competition, on sharing instead of keeping for oneself.

Food

People grow their own food everywhere (the incredible edible movement), they consume differently (organic food, direct selling, community-supported agriculture, the international slowfood movement), they produce differently (agroecology, biodynamic agriculture), they take action for saving agriculture biodiversity (Kokopelli, Navdanya) and keeping the soils alive (LAMS).

“Take care of me, food to share”

Business

The cooperative model expands everywhere in many different sectors. In India, the Lijjat cooperative society employs now more than 43,000 women. Check this non-exhaustive list on wikipedia.

Knowledge and education

People share their knowledge for free everywhere, reinventing education: on the Internet of course (look at this Pearltree example), but also doing woofing, or competency and knowledge sharing in many citizens-led workshops like the Reciprocal Exchange Networks of Knowledge French organization.

Housing

People share their house in many ways: couch surfing, family house exchanges. They invent of new ways of living in community creating community land trusts, cooperative housing (Coop Lezarts in Canada for example) and they even collaborate to build their own high environmental quality houses like the ecovillage of Ithaca in New York, USA.

Energy

People collaborate to invest in renewable energies creating green energy cooperatives like Enercoopin France. They reach autonomy, and even more. In India, the Barefoot College educate poor women in building solar panels for their village. In Belgium, Vent d’Houyet educates people on renewable energies and jointly invest in citizens’ wind-pumps.

Shopping and trade

People now share, give, reuse, recycle, repair, help and consume in many untraditional ways. Here is a blog that makes a list of consumption’s alternatives in almost every aspects of life.

Politics

People literally skip the traditional politics: they help themselves and make the best decisions for their community. Here is the edifying example of Kuthambakkam village in Tamil Nadu, India.

Transportation

Car-sharing becomes very common (more than 3 million people do it in France). Hitch-hiking is not seen as a poor transportation anymore: it’s a new way of traveling. And bikes become more and more popular.

Health

People manage their own health centre and open them for free (or based on income) to everyone. Many examples are in the USA such as the Ithaca Health Centre or the Berkeley Free Clinic but similar alternatives rose in Belgium with the Community Help Service, or in India with the Tribal Health Centre.

Money

People create their own local currency to support their local economy. They create cooperative banking systems like La Nef in France – more accounting for real economy. They crowdsource their projects like with Kiva, and create social and environmental investment funds like the Cigales in France.

Ithaca banknote

The future is here and now

The few initiatives I presented here are only examples: but they are real. They are not coming from some high idealist hippie of the 70′s. And they represent thousands (millions?) of similar projects implemented in the five continents. They exist and they work, today.

Considering that, what’s the role of traditional institutions?

I believe that they must support citizen initiatives since citizens have generally more intelligent,responsive, resilient and sustainable solutions than their bureaucratic governments: they know what to do, with what, and how to manage resources in the best way for their community.

To me, our future is already here and now. And this paradigm shift needs to be supported as much as possible if we are to improve human development. This implies that top-down policies must be completed (or even replaced) with bottom-up policies. It is the only and best way to solve the multidimensional crisis of our time (financial, economical, social, environmental, spiritual), which should be seen as a great opportunity to evolve.

A new world is rising and brings a great wind of hope for our common future.

The study led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini and published in Food and Chemical Toxicology has found that
both the GM maize and Roundup acted as endocrine disrupters and resulted in the females dying 2 – 3 times
more than the control animals. (Seralini et al 2012)
The females that were fed either GM maize or non GM maize with minute roundup residues, developed large
mammary tumours almost always more often than and before controls. All the non-control females, except for
one that had ovarian cancer, had mammary hypertrophies (enlarged mammary glands) and in some cases
hyperplasia with atypia (nodules in the mammary glands).
These pictures are examples of the types of mammary gland tumours (breast cancer) that the scientists
found in the rats. Photos permission of Seralini et al 2012
The pituitary gland was the second most disabled organ and the sex hormonal balance was modified in females
fed with the GMO and Roundup treatments.
The treated males presented 4 times more large palpable tumours than controls and these occurred up to 600
days earlier. The treated males had liver congestions and necrosis that were 2.5 – 5.5 times higher than the controls as well as marked and severe kidney nephropathies (kidney damage) that were also generally 1.3 – 2.3
greater than the controls.
This study was the first 2 year feeding trial conducted on rats designed to see the effects of GM over an
animal’s lifetime. Currently, no regulatory authority requests mandatory chronic animal feeding studies to be
performed for edible GMOs. However, several studies consisting of 90 day rat feeding trials have been
conducted by the biotech industry even though there is no requirement to do this.
Regulatory authorities use a basic chemical analysis of a GM variety and compare this with it closest non GM
variety. If this chemical composition is much the same, the GM variety is declared as substantially equivalent
and suitable for uncontained commercial release.
The comparison of the chemical composition of the GM maize used in this study (NK603) revealed no particular
difference and consequently it was classified as substantially equivalent. Similarly a 90 day feeding trial
showed no significant differences between the controls and the rats fed the GM maize variety.
The results of the 2 year feeding study show that the current regulatory system for approving GM crops for
consumption are inadequate for assessing the effects of eating these foods over a normal lifetime.
Multiple Health Problems
Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and colleagues published a study that reviewed 19 studies of animals fed with
GMO soy and corn in the peer reviewed scientific journal Environmental Sciences Europe. The studies covered
more that 80% of the GMO varieties that are widely cultivated around the world.
Their review found significant levels of negative effects to kidneys and livers in the animals that were fed
GMOs. The scientists stated: ‘…the kidneys were particularly affected, concentrating 43.5% of all disrupted
parameters in males, whereas the liver was more specifically disrupted in females (30.8% of all disrupted
parameters).’
One of the key conclusions is that the current testing methodologies, length of feed trials and the parameters
measured are insufficient to evaluate the health problems that are caused by diets of GMOs. The scientists
clearly stated that this lack of proper testing protocols is socially unacceptable in terms of consumer health
protection. (Seralini et al 2011)
GM Soy has Adverse Effect on the Offspring
One of the most concerning issues is the negative effects that occur in the offspring of rats and mice that are
fed GM diets. These effects include increased infant mortality, reduced litter sizes and reduced body weights
of the offspring.
In experimental trials male and female mice were fed GM soy and then mated. The early stage embryos (4-8
cells) showed a temporary decrease in gene expression. This was not found in embryos whose parents ate
natural non-GM soy. (Oliveri 2006)
There is strong body of science that shows that subtle changes to gene expression in embryos can cause
permanent negative effects in the development of offspring.
A Russian rat study conducted by Dr Irina Ermakova and colleagues found that offspring of rats fed in GM soy
had higher levels of mortality than rates fed with non GMO soy. (Ermakova 2006) The scientists noted that babies of the rats that were fed GMO diets developed at slower rate, had
lower weights and looked markedly different than the babies of rates that were fed non GMO diets.
Images permission of Jeffery M Smith
The photo on the upper right is the offspring from mothers fed natural soy. In the lower left is the GM group.
Images permission of Jeffery M SmithThe GMO group has a significant reduction in average weight. Images permission of Jeffery M Smith
Difficulties with Conception
Dr Ermakova and her colleagues found that the mated offspring of the GM group did not conceive. This is a
serious concern that needs to be fully investigated with more scientific research.
GM Soy Damages Testicles
One of the possible causes for the developmental differences and the lack of fertility in the offspring of mice
that are fed GMOs is that several studies have found that GMO diets cause structural changes to the testicles.
A study published in the European Journal of Histochemistry found that testicles of mice fed GM soy had
altered structures and function which influenced sperm development. (Vecchio 2004)
Images permission of Jeffery M Smith
Effect on Mothers and Children
The greatest concern for humans is that the toxin from pesticide producing GMOs can be found in bloodstream
of women and their unborn children. A Canadian study published in the scientific journal, Reproductive
Toxicology, found the pesticide toxin from GMO crops in the blood samples of women and their unborn babies.
The GMO toxin was found in 93 percent of maternal blood samples and of greater concern in 80 percent of
fetal blood samples. These women were eating the typical Canadian diet. (Aris and Leblanc 2011)
Given the evidence of the changes to the offspring of animals fed a GMO diet, this Canadian study should be
the cause of great concern amongst health professionals and regulators to ensure that the GMO foods that are
currently being consumed are not doing damage to our future generations. GM potatoes damaged rats
Studies published in highly respected medical journal The Lancet and in the peer reviewed Journal Nutrition
and Health by Dr Arpad Pusztai showed multiple serious problems with rats that were fed GM potatoes. The
scientific studies found that the rats that were fed on the GMO developed smaller brains, livers and testicles,
had partial atrophy of the liver and damage to immune system. The studies showed that the rats developed
potentially precancerous cell growth in the linings of their stomach and intestinal walls. (Pusztai 2002, Ewen
and Pusztai 1999)
The picture on the left is the intestinal wall of a rat that was fed on non GMO potato. Picture on right is from
a rat that was fed on GMO potato. These types inflammatory growths are potentially precancerous and can
lead to bowel cancer, which has become one of the forms of cancer that is increasing in humans
Images permission of Jeffery M Smith
The picture on the left is the stomach wall of a rat that was fed non-GMO potato. On the right is the stomach
wall of a rat that was fed the GM-potato. These inflammatory growths are potentially precancerous
Images permission of Jeffery M Smith
GMO Soybean Products
There are several animal studies that show range of adverse effects from consuming GMO soybean products.
Mice fed GMO soy for 8 months had a profound drop in the amount of digestive enzymes produced by their
pancreas. (Malatesta 2002 a, Malatesta 2003). Researcher also found that the liver cells were damaged or
misshapen and there was altered gene expression. They found that there was a higher rated metabolic activity
that suggested that the liver was reacting to a toxic insult. (Malatesta 2002 b) The above photos show how the membrane surrounding the nuclei of liver cells was more irregular
in the GM-fed mice. Images permission of Jeffery M Smith
The above photos show that within the nuclei of the liver cells, the structure called the nucleoli
was also misshapen in the GM-fed mice. Images permission of Jeffery M Smith
Rats fed GM soy also showed changes in their livers. Images permission of Jeffery M SmithBT Corn
In a study by Monsanto made public because of a lawsuit, rats fed Bt corn developed signs of liver and kidney
toxicity. These included kidney inflammation and kidney lesions, and decreased kidney weight. The latter
symptom is typically related to blood pressure problems. They also developed increased basophiles which are
related to allergies. The study showed that they had increased lymphocytes or white blood cells which are part
of the immune system indicating a reaction to infection or possibly disease. A 10% increase in blood sugar, and
decreased immature red blood cells by 50%. (Burns 2002, Seralini 2007)
GM Corn
When Liberty Link corn was fed to chickens, twice the number of chickens died. But, the test conducted by the
industry was designed so poorly, even a doubling of the death rate was not statistically significant. (Leeson
1996)
FlaverSavr Tomato
The first GM crop that was looked at by the US FDA was the FlavrSavr tomato, engineered to have a longer
shelf-life. Calgene, its producers, were the only company to give the United States FDA raw feeding study
data. They did a study with rats but the rats refused to eat the tomato.
They force fed rats the FlavrSavr tomato for 28 days. 7 of 20 rats developed stomach lesions. Another 7 of 40
died within 2 weeks. In the documents made public, scientists said that the study doesn’t show “a reasonable
certainty of no harm.” The FDA did not block the introduction of the tomato.
The company had created two lines of the GM tomato, both with the same gene inserted. One was associated
with these high rates of lesions and deaths, the other was not. The company voluntarily decided to market the
one that was not associated with the rat problems.
This also provides an example of how the same crop inserted with identical genes, may have very different
results. And it provides a good example of what can go wrong with GMOs. (FDA 1993, Pusztai 2002)
GM Pea
In Australia, CSIRO researchers took a gene from a kidney bean which produced proteins that acted as a
pesticide, and inserted it into peas to kill the pea weevil. The researchers did an allergic-type test on mice
that no other GMO food crop developer had done before.
When they exposed mice to the pesticide proteins from the kidney beans, it caused no reaction. They
expected the same to happen when mice were exposed to the “same” protein produced by the transgene inside
the peas. In fact, the amino acid sequence was identical in both proteins as the one produced by both the
bean and the pea. But the mice developed an inflammatory response to the protein produced in the GMO peas.
It was an immune type response that was very dangerous, suggesting that the peas might create a deadly
anaphylactic shock or other types of immune or inflammatory reactions in humans.
To understand why the GMO pea caused the sever allergy problems, the researchers looked very carefully at
the protein structure and found that the sugars that had attached to it had a slightly changed pattern. They
said it was the slightly changed pattern of the sugars that made the peas harmful.
The problem is that the potentially deadly GM peas had already passed all the allergy tests that are normally
used to get GM foods on the market. The only reason they were stopped was because the crop developer had
chosen to use a mice study that had never been used on any other GM food crop. This shows that the
regulatory system, as practiced, is a failure, and may be letting deadly allergens on the market.
To the credit of the CSIRO they discontinued bringing the GMO pea to the point where it would be grown
commercially. (Prescott 2005)
LTrytophan
In the late 1980s an epidemic that killed about 100 Americans and caused another 5-10,000 to fall sick or
become permanently disabled was traced to an amino acid health supplement called L-tryptophan.
Ltryptophan is a common amino acid that is found in milk products. For many years it was extracted from milk
and sold as health supplement to help people sleep.
A Japanese company Showa Denko started to produce L-tryptophan from genetically engineering the bacteria.
The epidemic was traced back to the L-tryptophan that was produced from the genetically engineering the
bacteria. It took years to discover that the epidemic was underway. It required a series of coincidences, plus the fact
that the disease had three concurrent characteristics. The disease:
• Was new with unique symptoms that stood out
• It was acute so people went to doctors or hospitals
• It came on quickly, so they went to doctors right after taking it
According to the Los Angeles Times , July 10, 1991: ‘A Japanese chemical manufacturer was ordered to pay
more than $2 million to four people who used L-tryptophan, a food supplement linked to a rare blood
disorder that killed at least 27 people.
The state arbitration panel’s order late Monday was the nation’s first damage award against manufacturer
Showa Denko Co., said Turner Branch of Albuquerque, N.M., vice chairman of a steering committee for
attorneys representing L-tryptophan victims.’
The Misconceptions
The GMO protagonists promote the image that they are only speeding up the natural crossbreeding processes
used by farmers and breeders for millennia by inserting the new gene with the desired trait directly into the
new organisms.
This distortion of the facts needs to be corrected.
The Natural Breeding Misconception
One critical issue is that multiple genes are being transferred across kingdoms and species such as bacteria,
viruses, plants and animals in ways that do not occur by natural breeding methods.
All living things are classified according to a ranking system that starts with species. Closely related species
are grouped together under a rank that is called a Genus. Closely related Genera (the plural of genus) are
grouped together under the rank of Family. Closely related Families are grouped together under the rank of
Order. There are seven ranks. Starting with the highest they are: kingdom, phylum or division, class, order,
family, genus, species.
Plants, Animals, Fungi, Viruses and Bacteria belong to separate Kingdoms. Natural breeding can take place
between some species that belong to the same genus and very occasionally between species of different
genera. However species that belong to different families do not breed and definitely species that belong to
different Kingdoms such as plants, animals, fungi, bacteria and viruses do not breed in nature. Plants for
example do not breed with animals, bacteria or viruses.
Genetic engineering allows for the transfer of genes between Kingdoms in a way that can never occur
naturally. This is something that has never occurred before and it creates a new frontier with many
uncertainties due to science’s limited understanding about genetics.
The Single Gene Misconception
The other great misconception is that researchers are only inserting one new gene.
At this stage science is not sophisticated enough to insert a single gene and get it to work. To overcome this
problem, scientists have to combine the gene with the desired trait (such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide
production) with other genes that will make it work. Researchers also insert genes that help them to identify if
the new gene is working within the chromosome.
This becomes a complex construction of transgenes that can come from bacterial, viral, fish, plant and other
sources.
Inserting the Gene Sequence
Another misconception is that the gene is neatly inserted into the cell chromosome. Genes are grouped
together inside the cell in long strands call chromosomes. Researchers use what can be best described as a
shotgun approach when they push new genes into a chromosome. They either shoot the genetic material into
the target cells, insert it after weakening the cell membrane with an electric shock/chemical, or use a
modified microorganism such as a virus to infect the target cell with the new genes.
The problem with these approaches is that the researchers do not know if genes have been inserted into a
chromosome and if they have been inserted they do not know where the new genes have landed in any of the
chromosomes and if they will work. Antibiotic Resistance Marker Genes
The most common method of discovering if the new gene will work involves using Antibiotic Resistance Marker
Genes. These genes come from bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. The marker genes are attached to the
gene with the desired trait (herbicide resistance as an example) and they are shot into the target cells. These
cells are then cultured and an antibiotic is added. The cells that live have adopted the new genes as they are
resistant to the antibiotic.
These are then grown out as plants. The big problem with these plants is that every part of the plant has genes
for antibiotic resistance. Many scientists and medical professionals have expressed concerns about these genes
being horizontally transferred into the gut and mouth bacteria of humans and animals eating genetically
modified food. They are worried that this could create bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotics needed to
cure infections.
Horizontal gene transfer is where microorganisms take up genes directly through their cell walls rather than by
the normal method of reproduction. It has been shown to occur with the antibiotic resistant super bugs that
are now found in many hospitals.
When the potential danger of this was pointed out to the genetic scientists they dismissed it as impossible.
Several studies have since shown that these antibiotic resistance genes can be transferred to bacteria in as
little as two hours after eating genetically modified food.
New Scientist in July 2002 reported on a scientific experiment that showed that this can happen to bacteria in
the human digestive system: For the first time, it has been proved that bacteria in the human gut can take up
DNA from genetically modified food.
Currently every commercially released GMO plant has the antibiotic resistance genes in every cell. They should
be banned for this reason alone.
Queensland researchers have developed a fluorescent marker gene that comes from a jellyfish. This gene can
be used to select the cell with the desired trait as they fluoresce under an ultraviolet light. This will be a
major improvement in the safety of GMOs over the current technology, however it does not address the
multiplicity of more serious problems.
The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Promoter (CaMV)
When foreign DNA is inserted into organisms, three things usually happen. The most common one is that the
foreign DNA is digested to provide energy and building blocks for the cell. It can also be rejected. The other
response is to close over the foreign DNA and deactivate it.
All of these responses are defence mechanisms to overcome attacks by pathogens (disease). The host organism
defends itself by getting rid of the foreign material. This is the reason why transplant recipients have to take
anti-rejection drugs. When organisms detect foreign DNA a whole range of responses, collectively known as the
immune system, can be activated to repel or destroy the invaders.
When foreign genes are shot/infected into a cell, they tend to be digested, rejected or closed over. Either way
this means that the target organism will not have the desired trait from the new gene.
To overcome this, genetic scientists build a construction with a section of the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV).
The CaMV gives the signal that activates or promotes the new gene. It ensures that the gene is active so that
its desired trait, like herbicide resistance, works in the new plant. Problems with the CaMV
There are several problems with the CaMV. Every current GMO plant is part virus. Every cell of their bodies
contains the active section of a virus. With billions of these plants now released into the environment, many
scientists believe that there is a great risk of horizontal transfer of the viral genetic code from GMO plants into
invading viruses, creating new virulent transgenic viruses.
The Union of Concerned Scientists states: ‘Recombination can occur between the plant-produced viral genes
and closely related genes of incoming viruses. Such recombination may produce viruses that can infect a
wider range of hosts or that may be more virulent than the parent viruses.’
According to Dr Mae-Wan Ho of the Institute of Science in Society, London: ‘GM constructs are designed to
cross species barriers and to invade genomes. In other words, GM constructs are more likely to transfer
horizontally. Genetic engineering will accelerate the generation of new viruses and bacteria.’
When GMO scientists and researchers are questioned on this the standard reply is that the cauliflower mosaic
virus is harmless and doesn’t affect humans. Many harmless viruses change into forms that can be serious. The
various forms of the flu are the classic example. Seventy years ago AIDS was restricted to monkeys and didn’t
affect humans. SARS is a slightly modified common cold virus and is now a seriously fatal disease with the
potential for massive epidemics.
According to Helen Pearson writing in the journal Nature, April 2003: ‘In a simple overnight experiment,
researchers transformed a coronavirus that is lethal to cats into one that infects mouse cells by replacing a
single gene. The result strengthens the idea that the SARS coronavirus might have arisen when an animal and
human virus met and swapped genes, says the study’s lead scientist’
The fact is no scientist can predict what would happen if transgenic viruses and bacteria emerged from GMO
plants. It was only a short time ago these same scientists were saying pollen drift from GMOs would not affect
nearby crops and that the horizontal transference of antibiotic resistant genes from GMOs into gut
microorganisms was not possible. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho further states: ‘This CaMV promoter is also known to work
for genes all across the living world: in plants, bacteria, fungi, and, as we discovered recently in the
literature more than 10 years old, also in frog eggs and human cells. It is able to substitute, in part or in
whole, for the promoter of many other viruses. Viruses are not only everywhere in the environment, they
also lie dormant in the genomes of all organisms, bacteria, plants and animals without exception. And there
is evidence that such dormant viruses can be reactivated as a result of genetic recombination.’
Unstable GM Constructs
A serious problem with the CaMV is that it has been proven to be unstable within the chromosomes of GMO
plants. Researchers from the John Innes Center, UK one of the world’s major biotechnology research centres,
have found that during field trails of GM plants, that later generations became unstable and variable.
The CaMV moves from one part of a chromosome to another and activates the new gene next it. This means it
randomly causes genes within the plant to work in ways that would not occur normally. It could lead to all
sorts of future problems like making plants that have small amounts of beneficial phyto nutrients, express
them in toxic amounts, cause hormones and other regulatory functions to be pushed out of balance and cause
future chaos in the genetic makeup plants and animals that we do not understand. It is the equivalent of
Russian Roulette with DNA. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho sums up the potential dangers of this technology: ‘GM constructs are designed to cross species
barriers and to invade genomes. In other words, GM constructs are more likely to transfer horizontally.
Horizontal gene transfer will increase the opportunity for genetic recombination. The GM constructs are
already of mixed origins, with base sequences similar to the genetic material of many pathogenic bacteria
and viruses. That, again, as every geneticist should know, will greatly increase the probability for genetic
recombination, and with a wide assortment of bacteria and viruses.’
What is most concerning with this is that this viral promoter gene and other GM constructs have escaped into
the wild relatives of GMO plants and also contaminated a sizeable proportion of non GMO crops like corn,
canola and soybeans.
The potential danger is being completely ignored by regulatory authorities, with no ongoing research looking at
these potential pathogenic transgenic viruses and bacteria. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho warns: ‘The scientists set up
guidelines, based largely on assumptions, all of which have fallen by the wayside as the result of new
scientific findings. Instead of tightening the guidelines, our regulators have relaxed them as commercial
pressures built up. It does not take a great feat of imagination to see why genetic engineering will accelerate
the generation of new viruses and bacteria.’
Lack of Research
Many scientists have expressed concern that the current regulatory systems are inadequate in ensuring the
safety of GMOs, Professor Seralini and his colleague have expressed great concern over the lack of scientific
testing for the adverse health effects associated with GMOs. They stated: ‘…that it is unacceptable to submit
500 million Europeans and several billions of consumers worldwide to the new pesticide GM-derived foods or
feed, this being done without more controls (if any) than the only 3-month-long toxicological tests and using
only one mammalian species, especially since there is growing evidence of concern…’ (Seralini et al 2011)
Conclusion
We a looking at a large scale uncontrolled experiment and we do not know the outcomes. Logic and common
sense would state that we need a moratorium on the release of all GMOs until there is good quality, long term
peer reviewed science that ensures that there are no risks. To do otherwise is to leave a massive problem for
future generations.
Never forget that the scientist who invented DDT received a Noble Prize because of the immense benefits this
discovery was supposed to bring to the world. We are still paying the hidden price of a lack of understanding
of the long term consequences of this discovery.
Major Acknowledgement
Many of the pictures and some of the text comes from a comprehensive GMO presentation by Jeffrey M. Smith,
Executive Director, Institute for Responsible Technology. www.responsibletechnology.org. Prof. Giles-Eric
Séralini for permission to print the images from Séralini, G.-E., et al. Long term toxicity of a Roundup
herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2012),

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005

References Cited
Aris A. and Leblanc S, 2011, Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods
in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reproductive Toxicology. 2011 May; 31(4):528-33. Epub 2011 Feb 18.
Burns J. M., 2002, “13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-
Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002,” December 17, 2002
Ermakova I.V. 2006, “GMO: Life itself intervened into the experiments,” Letter, EcosInform N2 (2006): 3-4.
Ewen S.W.B and Pusztai A, 1999, “Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus
nivalis lectin on rat small intestine,” Lancet, 1999 Oct 16; 354 (9187): 1353-4.]
FDA, 1993, Department of Veterinary Medicine, FDA, correspondence June 16, 1993. As quoted in Fred A.
Hines, Memo to Dr. Linda Kahl. “Flavr Savr Tomato: . . . Pathology Branch’s Evaluation of Rats with Stomach
Lesions From Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity Studies . . . and an Expert Panel’s Report,” Alliance for
Bio-Integrity (June 16, 1993).
Leeson S, 1996, “The Effect of Glufosinate Resistant Corn on Growth of Male Broiler Chickens,” Department of
Animal and Poultry Sciences, University of Guelph, Report No. A56379, July 12, 1996.]
Malatesta M, et al, 2002 a, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Pancreatic Acinar Cells from Mice Fed on Genetically
modified Soybean,” Journal of Anatomy 201, no. 5 (November 2002): 409;
Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan , Rocchi M.B, Serafini S, Tiberi C, Gazzanelli G, 2002 b, “Ultrastructural
Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically
Modified Soybean,” Cell Struct Funct. 27 (2002): 173-180
Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E, Rocchi M. B. L., Baldelli B, Gazzanelli G, 2003, “Fine Structural Analyses
of Pancreatic Acinar Cell Nuclei from Mice Fed on GM Soybean,” Eur J Histochem 47 (2003): 385-388. Oliveri et al., 2006, “Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantation Embryos from Mice Fed
on Genetically Modified Soybean,” 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy),
September 7-10, 2006.
Prescott V.E, et al, 2005, “Transgenic Expression of Bean r-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results in Altered
Structure and Immunogenicity,” Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry (2005): 53.
Pusztai A, 2002, “Can science give us the tools for recognizing possible health risks of GM food,” Nutrition and
Health, 2002, Vol 16 Pp 73-84;
Seralini G.E., Cellier D., Spiroux de Vendomois J., “New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically
modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity” by (2007) Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 52, 596-602.
Séralini et al., 2011, Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements.
Environmental Sciences Europe 2011 23:10.
Séralini, G.-E., et al. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified
maize. Food Chem. Toxicol. (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2012.08.005
Vecchio L et al, 2004, “Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean,”
European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct-Dec 2004):449-454.]

http://www.mynews.in/News/governments_land_grab_drive_to_endanger_farmers_livelihood_food_security_N548752.html

http://www.ehitavada.com/News_Paper_Images/2013/04/28/news_images/news_219650.jpg

http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=26663

http://www.theindianawaaz.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12390&catid=14#.UYIpWa0jHB4.facebook

http://news.anypursuit.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=24198

It is a paradoxical situation where the government is gearing up to pilot the Food Security Bill in the Parliament, it is engaged in grabbing prime farmland and gifting it  to corporate houses for reaping super profits.

The UPA government’s much touted programme for rendering food security has turned out to be a hoax. Its deliberate intention of alienating farmers from their source of livelihood stands exposed. According to official records the country has already lost 4,91,000 hectare farmland in 2006-11. The farm growth has plateaued and the rate of population growth is not yet contained. With the continual shrinkage of farmland, the country will be headed for the problem of feeding millions of hungry mouths. The ultimate resort will be to import food at higher global prices.

The aggressiveness in which the government is pushing the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill, 2011 shows that it is neither concerned about the nation’s food security nor the livelihood of farmers.

The old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has clearly defined that the farmland should be acquired for public purpose particularly for defence, railways, irrigation and for setting up of educational institutions, hospitals by the government. But the new Bill has sought to redefine the concept of “public purpose” by recognising the activities of public-private partnership projects and “private companies for public purpose.”

Now public purpose includes infrastructure projects, all activities or items listed in the notification of the government in the Department of Economic Affairs – Infrastructure section vide March 27, 2012 excluding private hospitals, private educational institutions and private hotels. However apart from necessary industrial corridors or mining activities, healthcare, transportation, the Bill allows setting up of  manufacturing zones as designated in the national manufacturing policy, projects for sports, tourism, transportation or space programme

The Bill mentions some proposed farm related activities on acquired land but failed to restrict it only for activities by farmers or farmers’ cooperatives. It said that these activities can be taken up by the government or “by an institution set up under a statute”, thus paving the way for private sector involvement.

Farmers should also be permitted to do the same activities of development on their own lands on payment of external development charges as permitted to builders by the authority.

There had been a series of agitations in the past by farmers when the government launched the scheme of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). Prime farmlands were grabbed in many places for setting up of SEZs.  Till date 389 SEZs have been notified of which 170 are functional.

The government has now realised that these SEZs were set up on lands in excess of their actual requirement. The Commerce and Industry Minister Anand Sharma has admitted the folly committed by his predecessor Kamal Nath. He has scaled down the minimum requirement for a multi-product SEZ from 1000 hectare to 500 hectare and for a sector-specific SEZ from existing 100 hectare to 50 hectare. For IT and ITES SEZs the minimum 10 hectare land area has been done away with. Now there would be no minimum land requirement for setting up an IT/ITES SEZ, but only the minimum built up area criteria would be required to be met.

This measure of scaling down of land requirement has been done to enable the SEZs to be eligible for duty benefits. The Commerce Minister has done his best to bail out the SEZs. But has not thought of how the excess land lying vacant would be utilised. He should have thought of returning these excess land to agriculture.

It is high time that the government come out with a National Land Use Plan and have a fresh look at categorisation of land on basis of this Plan. India should learn from Brazil which has brought large chunks of non-farm land into agriculture.

But the Bill when first introduced in the Parliament said that compensation to be paid in rural areas will be double the market value which is referred to as Indian Stamp Duty and for urban areas it will be equal to the Indian Stamp Duty plus solatium in both the cases equivalent to 100% of the market value.

The date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.

Further amendments has been proposed reducing the compensation amount in rural areas, under the pretext of its proximity to urban area.

The amendments proposed in the Bill has given full powers to the District Collector to acquire land with a view to hasten the process of land transfer and without entertaining resentments from unwilling farmers. Earlier it was proposed in the original Bill that a committee be set up to examine the proposal for acquiring more than 100 acre land. The Committee will be headed chief secretary and consist of secretaries of finance, revenue, rural development, social justice, tribal welfare, panchayati raj and concerned departments as may be specified by the State Government and three non-official experts from the relevant fields.
But in the amendments the proposal for setting up a committee has been done away with and all powers are vested in the District Collector.

“Provided that in respect of a public purpose in a District for an area not exceeding such as may be notified by the appropriate Government, the Collector of such District shall be deemed to be the appropriate Government,” the amendment proposed to the Bill said,

As per precedence and conventions if the Government proposes 150 amendments then the Bill should be again referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee or a Select Committee or a Joint Committee. Here the Government has proposed 154 amendments changing the character of the Bill.

In the amendments to the Bill only 20% of the developed land has been offered to the farmers in lieu of compensation while the UP Government in its land acquisition policy of 2011 had offered 23% of developed land which the farmers refused to accept.

Section 28A of the old Act provided for benefits to all affected families of the enhanced compensation awarded by the Court to one individual. There is no such provision in the current Bill. One should have a similar section in the new law too.

In Chapter XI of the Bill  – Temporary Occupation of Land – should be deleted as it s allows Government to acquire land for a company against farmers wishes. Companies are likely to misuse the powers given under this section, as they will first take land on a temporary basis, and when it becomes totally unfit for cultivation then ask the Collector to acquire it permanently. No arbitrary powers should be given to the District Collector.

The Bill draws differentiates land acquisition in non-scheduled areas and scheduled areas. It says as far as possible, no acquisition of land shall be made on the Scheduled Areas. Where such acquisition does take place it shall be done only as a demonstrable last resort. It further says that any land acquisition is to take place in the Scheduled Areas, the prior consent of the concerned Gram Sabha or the Panchayats or the autonomous District Councils, by resolution, at the appropriate level in Scheduled Areas shall be obtained. Most of the farmers in non-scheduled areas have small and medium sized holdings and are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. Farmers in non-scheduled areas need the similar treatment at par with their tribal brethren in scheduled areas. The mechanism for land acquisition should be the same across the country.

Apart from several controversies, the Bill no way is likely to benefit the farmers and would spell a danger to food security by encouraging grabbing of prime farmland.

http://www.millenniumpost.in/NewsContent.aspx?NID=27179

http://news.anypursuit.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=24216

The government is planning another sell out of farmers’ interest at the alter of the proposed India-EU Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA). Several rounds of negotiations have taken place and the talks are at an advanced stage.

Country’s auto industry and the pharmaceutical sector have sensed that their interests are being compromised and being organized and vocal they have raised their voices against negotiating for a possible adverse outcome.

On the otherhand, the most unfortunate aspect is that the farmers in the country are not so well organized as the industry bodies and, therefore not able to speak and assert in one voice. Number of fake organizations have come up claiming to represent the farmers and this situation has made easy for the Government to handpick some of them to get the policies and actions of the Government endorsed. Genuine organizations of farmers are often marginalized and are not invited by the Government for soliciting their views.

Therefore in bilateral and multilateral negotiations, be it the WTO negotiations or talks for FTAs, it is easy for the Indian negotiators to trade off farmers’ interests for achieving favourable outcomes in other sectors.

Recently during the visit of the Indian Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh to Germany, an agreement on seeds was signed between the two countries and between National Seeds Association of India and the German Association of Plant Breeders.

According official sources the agreement aims at strengthening cooperation in plant variety protection, conservation of plant genetic resources and cooperation between Indian and German agricultural research institutions and seed companies.

India has an excellent legislation Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act 2001. This legislation has enough provisions for protecting farmers’ rights over seeds. Another similar legislation Biological Diversity Act 2002 ensures protection of country’s biodiversity from acts of biopiracy. In fact these legislations and documentations help India to fight attempts of biopiracy and patenting of traditional knowledge.

Several attempts were made in the past to dilute the provisions of these two important legislations by signing bilateral agreements at the global level. Interested lobbies wanted India to the second version of the International Convention for the Protection of the New Varieties of Plants – UPOV II – set up by European legislation. This move was resisted by civil society and farmers’ organisations in India as this would spell danger for Indian farmers.

The Government should explain the details of the agreement signed with Germany on seeds, plant variety protection and conservation of plant genetic resources as it had not discussed with farmers before striking this agreement.

India is in a haste to strike a BTIA with the European Union as early as possible. The main intention is to bail out the European Union from the crisis it is undergoing

Germany is a comparatively stable economy in the crisis-ridden Eurozone. The Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, being aware of this fact, had sought the German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s help in pushing the negotiations for an early finalisation of India-EU BTIA.

During Indian Prime Minister’s recent visit to Germany a Joint Declaration of Intent was signed by the Indian Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution and Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology of the Federal Republic of Germany on the Establishment of an Indo-German Working Group on Quality Infrastructure for Cooperation in Standardisation, Conformity Assessment and Product Safety.

According to official sources this Joint Declaration aims to strengthen bilateral cooperation in standardization, conformity assessment and product safety through advancing bilateral economic and technical cooperation, intensifying dialogue and promoting coordinated activities in international organizations. Also provides for establishing and Indo-German Working Group Quality Infrastructure.

Indian food consignments to Europe are being rejected by applications of several non-tariff barriers like sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) norms. SPS measures are usually used as a political weapon to wilfully check exports from India and other developing countries.  On the otherhand Europe wants India to open its doors for the entry of highly subsidised European food products, wines and spirits.

India’s dairy sector is likely to be adversely impacted if the subsidised European dairy products are allowed to flood Indian market. The negotiations at the WTO had reached a deadlock as European Union and other developed countries refused to phase out their high level of subsidy which has distorted global trade.
Indian auto industry is also apprehensive if luxury cars and auto parts are allowed to enter Indian market.  Europe is eager that India open the doors for investment in banking, insurance and retail chain.

Indian pharma industry is apprehensive about the introduction of an IPR clause in the India-EU agreement which may lead to seizure of generic drug manufacturer’s bank account and immovable property on mere suspicion of an patent infringement.  India’s cheap life saving generic drugs have not only help the poor people in the country, but also poor people in other developing countries, particularly in Africa.  This has also helped the country to earn foreign exchange through exports of generic drugs.

The Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh and Indian negotiators owe a responsibility to the people  that the interests of farmers, auto and pharma sectors should not be sacrificed at the alter of the proposed India-EU BTIA.

Following the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Germany, the negotiations for India-EU BTIA took place in Brussels in April 15. The Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry and Textiles, Anand Sharma who led the Indian negotiators for the Brussels talks had this to say : “I have just returned from Brussels and I am happy to share with you that the negotiations for the India-EU BTIA are progressing well and both sides have given a clear mandate to negotiators for concluding a balanced and fair agreement at the earliest. I am confident that over the next couple of months, we should see intensification of this process and hope that we will be able to arrive at a broad understanding soon.”

The intensification of negotiations will soon begin and the negotiators are given the mandate for an early conclusion of India-EU BTIA. Before any likely disaster can happen the farmers and the leaders of the auto and pharma sectors need to rise up to the occasion and prevent the impending catastrophe.