[Biofuel] GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World

2005-01-28 Thread Keith Addison



Science Society Sustainability
http://www.i-sis.org.uk

ISIS Press Release 26/01/05

GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rhea Gala

A http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/GMCFATWFull.phpfully referenced 
version of this article is posted on ISIS membersâ website. 
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.phpDetails here


GM cotton not environmentally friendly or safe

Cotton is responsible for more than 10% of world pesticide use 
including some of the most hazardous, and 25% of all insecticide use. 
As weeds and insects become resistant, more and more pesticides are 
needed in a vicious circle that's a recipe for socio-economic, health 
and environmental disaster. About half of the GM cotton grown in the 
United States is herbicide resistant, and a comprehensive analysis by 
Dr. Charles Benbrook, a former Executive Director of the Board on 
Agriculture of the US National Academy of Science, confirmed that it 
required more herbicide than conventional varieties.


Most GM cotton crops worldwide are engineered with Bt for resistance 
to insect pests and promoted by firms like Monsanto as 
environmentally friendly, because they need less pesticide.


Monsanto's GM cotton 'Bollgard' carries the cry1Ac gene from soil 
bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, (Bt) to produce a toxin that kills 
some cotton pests including the boll weevil. However, Bollgard does 
not resist sucking pests, such as aphids, that might also damage the 
crop and will therefore require subsidiary spraying.


GM cotton not friendly to farmers

GM cottonseed prices include a 'technology fee' that can go up every 
year, and is calculated on supposed savings from reduced pesticide 
use with the Bt variety in a particular location.


All farmers growing Monsanto's Bt cotton sign a contract, called a 
Technology Use Agreement that is strictly applied. It stipulates that,


Farmers cannot save seed for replanting
Farmers are prohibited from supplying seed to anyone else Farmers 
must pay 120 times the technology fee, plus the legal fees of 
Monsanto, if they violate the contract.


The Indonesian experience: A cautionary tale

Indonesia was the first country in Southeast Asia to permit 
commercial GM farming against the warnings of scientists and 
activists on the environmental and socio-economic impacts. 
Fortunately, permission was granted only on a year-by-year basis, and 
the government reviewed the impact of the failed Bt crop.


The review was scathing. This Gene Revolution, it said, seemed to 
be a modern tool for cementing farmers' dependence on seeds and 
transnational agrochemical corporations appearing in developing 
countries in different guises. The evidence from Indonesia is that 
GM crops are nothing more than a profit-motivated deployment of 
scientific power dedicated to sucking the blood of farmers.


Monsanto promised Bt cotton would return 3-4 tonnes of cotton per 
hectare while requiring less pesticide and fertilizer than Kanesia, 
the local cotton variety. The seed was given to farmers with 
pesticide, herbicide, (including Roundup) and fertilizer as part of a 
credit scheme costing sixteen times more than non- Bt cotton. In 
fact, the average yield was 1.1 tonnes per hectare and 74% of the 
area planted to Bt-cotton produced less than one tonne per hectare. 
About 522 hectares experienced total crop failure. Despite that, the 
government extended approval for Bt cotton for another year; and the 
results were no better.


In 2001 farmers signed contracts, but in 2002 the seed price rose and 
the cotton price slumped. Farmers had no choice but to shoulder the 
debt and sell at the company's rate; as a result, 76% of farmers who 
joined the credit scheme couldn't repay their debt and many burned 
their cotton in protest against the government and the company (see 
Broken promises, SiS 22 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/isisnews.php).


In 2003, Monsanto halted operations saying that the Indonesian 
Government's decision to authorize Bt cotton production on a 
year-by-year basis had been a big obstacle to business investment. PT 
Monagro Kimia, a Monsanto subsidiary, was under investigation by the 
US Department of Justice and the Indonesian Corruption Eradication 
Commission on suspicion that a payment of US$ 50 000 was made to 
Indonesian officials in 2002.


In January 2005, Monsanto was found guilty of authorising the bribe 
and fined $1.5m (see http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMCCHHTAL.phpGM 
cotton: corruption, hype, half-truths and lies, this series).


Bt cotton in India: Lessons not learned

Bt cotton entered commercial production in India in 2002 without 
comprehensive assessment for detrimental effects, and despite fierce 
protests by farmers and public interest organizations. Only six of 
India's 29 states in the south and the west of the country have had 
permission to plant Monsanto's Bt cotton. Four strains of Bt seed 
were available with at least one Indian variant of the licensed 
Monsanto varieties.


A 2002 

RE: [Biofuel] GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World

2005-01-28 Thread Ed Starr

Greetings Concerned Cotton People,

There is a simple answer to eliminating pests of all kinds from cotton and
any other plant. It is called Vermiculture. Granted it is more trouble than
just spraying on a chemical but it doesn't hurt any living thing and it
helps the heck out of plants - they grow up to twice their normal rate and
size. As to pests, they don't like the chemistry of the castings and
therefore they stay away. None are actually killed but that is not the goal
- as long as the pests leave your crops alone you are just fine. 

 

I realize many will sniff in a critical manner, but no one yet has designed
a better system than this one which nature devised millions of years ago. By
the way, in the end it is overall a cheaper than pesticide system because of
yield increases, no environmental impact therefore no safeguards necessary,
no soil erosion, and many more benefits. For the desperate and the believers
among you, see the 2 attachments.

Good luck,

Ed Starr

 

(for Mondays  Thursdays-Main Ofc.)  |  Ed Starr  |  Star Marketing   |
949-496-0050  |  FAX  949-388-7828  |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  Dana
Point, CA, USA

 

(for Tue., Wed.  Fri-Home Ofc.)  |  Ed  Starr  |  Star Marketing  |
619-749-9647  |  FAX 619-749-9648  |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]

 

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Keith Addison
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Biofuel] GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World

 

The Institute of Science in Society

 

Science Society Sustainability

http://www.i-sis.org.uk

 

ISIS Press Release 26/01/05

 

GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World

 

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rhea Gala

 

A http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/GMCFATWFull.phpfully referenced 

version of this article is posted on ISIS members' website. 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.phpDetails here

 

GM cotton not environmentally friendly or safe

 

Cotton is responsible for more than 10% of world pesticide use 

including some of the most hazardous, and 25% of all insecticide use. 

As weeds and insects become resistant, more and more pesticides are 

needed in a vicious circle that's a recipe for socio-economic, health 

and environmental disaster. About half of the GM cotton grown in the 

United States is herbicide resistant, and a comprehensive analysis by 

Dr. Charles Benbrook, a former Executive Director of the Board on 

Agriculture of the US National Academy of Science, confirmed that it 

required more herbicide than conventional varieties.

 

Most GM cotton crops worldwide are engineered with Bt for resistance 

to insect pests and promoted by firms like Monsanto as 

environmentally friendly, because they need less pesticide.

 

Monsanto's GM cotton 'Bollgard' carries the cry1Ac gene from soil 

bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, (Bt) to produce a toxin that kills 

some cotton pests including the boll weevil. However, Bollgard does 

not resist sucking pests, such as aphids, that might also damage the 

crop and will therefore require subsidiary spraying.

 

GM cotton not friendly to farmers

 

GM cottonseed prices include a 'technology fee' that can go up every 

year, and is calculated on supposed savings from reduced pesticide 

use with the Bt variety in a particular location.

 

All farmers growing Monsanto's Bt cotton sign a contract, called a 

Technology Use Agreement that is strictly applied. It stipulates that,

 

Farmers cannot save seed for replanting

Farmers are prohibited from supplying seed to anyone else Farmers 

must pay 120 times the technology fee, plus the legal fees of 

Monsanto, if they violate the contract.

 

The Indonesian experience: A cautionary tale

 

Indonesia was the first country in Southeast Asia to permit 

commercial GM farming against the warnings of scientists and 

activists on the environmental and socio-economic impacts. 

Fortunately, permission was granted only on a year-by-year basis, and 

the government reviewed the impact of the failed Bt crop.

 

The review was scathing. This Gene Revolution, it said, seemed to 

be a modern tool for cementing farmers' dependence on seeds and 

transnational agrochemical corporations appearing in developing 

countries in different guises. The evidence from Indonesia is that 

GM crops are nothing more than a profit-motivated deployment of 

scientific power dedicated to sucking the blood of farmers.

 

Monsanto promised Bt cotton would return 3-4 tonnes of cotton per 

hectare while requiring less pesticide and fertilizer than Kanesia, 

the local cotton variety. The seed was given to farmers with 

pesticide, herbicide, (including Roundup) and fertilizer as part of a 

credit scheme costing sixteen times more than non- Bt cotton. In 

fact, the average yield was 1.1 tonnes per hectare and 74% of the 

area planted to Bt-cotton produced less than one tonne per hectare. 

About 522 hectares experienced total crop failure. Despite

RE: [Biofuel] GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World

2005-01-28 Thread Keith Addison




Greetings Concerned Cotton People,

There is a simple answer to eliminating pests of all kinds from cotton and
any other plant. It is called Vermiculture.


Nope: Vermiculture is the production of worms. Vermicomposting is the 
production of castings, to which you refer. Not just being picky, 
they're different - yes, vermiculture does produce castings too, but 
they're essentially a by-product, and yes, vermicomposting does also 
produce excess worms, but again they're a by-product. To achieve what 
you're claiming it has to be vermicomposting.


It's no news, by the way, nor that organic methods are highly 
productive and need no pesticides, it's quite well-covered in the 
archives, and very well-covered at Journey to Forever - we've been 
doing this for 25 years:


http://journeytoforever.org/compost_worm.html
Vermicomposting

http://journeytoforever.org/compost_wormlink.html
Vermicomposting resources

See also:

City farms

Organic gardening
Building a square foot garden
Plant spacing guides
No ground? Use containers
When to sow what
Seeds
Garden pond
Gardening resources

Composting
Making compost
Composting resources
Composting indoors
Vermicomposting
Humanure
Composting for small farms

Small farms
Small farm resources
Community-supported farms
Farming with trees
Farming with animals
Pasture
Pigs for small farms
Poultry for small farms
Aquaculture for small farms
Composting for small farms
Controlling weeds and pests

Small farms library


Granted it is more trouble than
just spraying on a chemical


Not in the long-run.


but it doesn't hurt any living thing and it
helps the heck out of plants - they grow up to twice their normal rate and
size.


Um... well., maybe. Have a look at the photograph of Chinese spinach 
seedlings on the vermicomposting page:


http://journeytoforever.org/compost_worm.html
Vermicomposting



As to pests, they don't like the chemistry of the castings and
therefore they stay away. None are actually killed but that is not the goal
- as long as the pests leave your crops alone you are just fine.

I realize many will sniff in a critical manner, but no one yet has designed
a better system than this one which nature devised millions of years ago.


George Sheffield Oliver helped. See:

Friend Earthworm: Practical Application of a Lifetime Study of Habits 
of the Most Important Animal in the World by George Sheffield Oliver, 
1941. Dr Oliver was one of the first to harness the earthworm to the 
needs of the farmer and gardener -- to make highly fertile topsoil 
for optimum crop growth, and to produce a constant supply of cheap, 
high-grade, live protein to feed poultry. He devised simple yet 
elegant and effective systems to bring costs and labour down and 
productivity up to help struggling farmers to make ends meet. Oliver 
had an observant and critical eye and understood Nature's round. His 
ideas on the nature of modern food and health (or the lack of it) are 
only now being confirmed, half a century later. A delightful book. 
Full text online.

http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library.html#oliver


By
the way, in the end it is overall a cheaper than pesticide system because of
yield increases, no environmental impact therefore no safeguards necessary,
no soil erosion, and many more benefits. For the desperate and the believers
among you, see the 2 attachments.


Sorry, Ed, no attachments:


Virus-free
As an essential anti-virus measure the list does not accept 
attachments. All attachments are automatically removed before 
messages are distributed to the members. It is not possible to 
receive a virus from the Biofuel list.

-- List rules:
http://wwia.org/pipermail/biofuel/Week-of-Mon-20040906/05.html

This article about a US worm-farmer is worth a read:

http://www.newfarm.org/features/0903/worms/index.shtml
Ups and downs of worm growing keep Georgia farmer on his toes
Worm farming can be lucrative, says Jack Brantley of Bear Creek Worm 
Farm É but it's like any other live-animal feeding operation. It 
takes experience, skill and patience. He recommends starting small.


Best wishes

Keith



Good luck,

Ed Starr



(for Mondays  Thursdays-Main Ofc.)  |  Ed Starr  |  Star Marketing   |
949-496-0050  |  FAX  949-388-7828  |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]|  Dana
Point, CA, USA



(for Tue., Wed.  Fri-Home Ofc.)  |  Ed  Starr  |  Star Marketing  |
619-749-9647  |  FAX 619-749-9648  |  [EMAIL PROTECTED]



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Keith Addison
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 9:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Biofuel] GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World

The Institute of Science in Society

Science Society Sustainability
http://www.i-sis.org.uk

ISIS Press Release 26/01/05

GM Cotton Fiascos Around the World

mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Rhea Gala

A http://www.i-sis.org.uk/full/GMCFATWFull.phpfully referenced 
version of this article is posted on ISIS membersâ website. 
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/membership.phpDetails