|
|
Dear Eaters,
Ready for what's next from Dow Chemicals? GE crops modified to be resistant to the herbicide that's a main ingredient in
Agent Orange!
The herbicide, 2,4-D, is linked to cancer, reproductive problems, and
Parkinson's and is banned entirely in parts of Canada and Europe. And
yet the USDA seems ready to approve the new GMO Corn and Soybeans,
unleashing a major increase in the use of 2,4-D.1
Now, the EPA is considering stepping in to stop or restrict the
application of 2,4-D, which would be a major blow to Dow's Agent Orange
veggies. Can you urge EPA to reject Dow's plans to spray this incredibly
toxic herbicide?
If you care about food safety or the environment, you know about
Roundup, developed by Monsanto, and so toxic to plants that Monsanto had
to engineer "Roundup Ready" crops that wouldn't be killed when farmers
applied Roundup to their fields.
From 1996, when Roundup Ready crops were introduced in the US, through
2008, there was a 383 million pound increase in the use of herbicides. Now, it turns out that weeds are becoming Roundup resistant, requiring the use of even stronger pesticides (like
2,4-D) and the engineering of crops that can withstand their use.
That's where Dow's "2,4-D resistant" corn comes in. Because the corn will be resistant to 2,4-D, farmers will be able to blast their fields with the main ingredient in Agent Orange.
We can expect the increase in the use of 2,4-D to be enormous.2
Big Ag armed with 2,4-D is a scary scenario — 2,4-D has been shown to be
contaminated with dioxins, is linked to numerous health problems, is
highly likely to drift onto neighboring fields, is frequently found in
groundwater, and is likely to already be negatively
impacting several species of at-risk animals. But despite this, the
USDA has not done any meaningful review of possible consequences to
human health, the environment, or other farms that could result from
approving "2,4-D resistant," genetically engineered
corn.
With the USDA seemingly ready to approve the 2,4-D resistant corn, the
EPA's involvement is crucial. If the EPA stands strong, and rejects
2,4-D, they can effectively kill Dow's 2,4-D resistant corn and soy.
Please take action now:
http://act.credoaction.com/r/?
Thanks for fighting to keep dangerous pesticides out of our food system,
Heidi Hess, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets
1. "Going Backwards: Dow's 2,4-D-Resistant Crops and a More Toxic Future," Center for Food Safety
2. "Dow, Monsanto Herbicide-Tolerant Crops Need U.S. Study," Bloomberg News, April 18, 2012. |
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
SPRAYING AGENT ORANGE ON YOUR FOOD OK WITH YOU?
Monday, June 18, 2012
JUNE 19, 2012 GMO UNTOUCHABLES HEARING- URGENT- CALL IN!
URGENT: Don’t Let the Biotech Industry Sneak This In!
June 18, 2012
Congress is considering a sneaky, pro-GMO rider to a funding bill, and it may become law without anyone realizing it—unless you take action NOW!
The biotech industry has managed to insert a dangerous rider in support of genetically engineered crops into the FY 2013 Agriculture Appropriations bill. It
is scheduled to be heard by the House Appropriations Committee
tomorrow, Tuesday, June 19, so we need you all to contact the committee
immediately and voice your opposition! This is why we are
taking the extraordinary step of sending out this newsletter a day
early, to give you time to send in your message right away.
The
provision would strip federal courts of the authority to halt the sale
and planting of illegal, potentially hazardous genetically engineered
(GE) crops while USDA is assessing those potential hazards. In other
words, even if a court said to halt the sale and planting of the
genetically engineered crop until a USDA environmental impact statement
was completed, the crop planting could still go forward!
Further, the provision would compel USDA to allow continued planting of that same crop upon request,
even if USDA finds that the crop poses previously unrecognized risks.
That’s right—the provision specifically mandates that the Secretary of
Agriculture shall, upon request by a farm operator or producer,
immediately grant a temporary permit authorizing the crops to continue
being planted or cultivated, even if a court has called a halt until an
Environmental Impact Statement is completed. They’re calling it the
Farmer Assurance Provision (Section 733), but far from safeguarding
farmers, the only parties whose interests are “assured” by this rider
are those of GE crop developers.
This
rider is almost certainly a response to the recent federal court
interventions we’ve been telling you about, preventing the sale,
distribution, or cultivation of non-regulated GE sugarbeets and GE alfalfa while full environmental evaluations are being done.
Environmental
Impact Statements take years to complete and are an important method to
slow—and perhaps even prevent—the planting of these dangerous
crops. The provision is terrible for many reasons:
- This is an appropriations bill, and this rider has nothing to do with appropriations. This is an attempt to sneak an unrelated provision into a must-pass bill in the hope that it won’t be noticed. While we believe the entire provision is a dangerous one, at minimum it should have been presented in a bill of its own, to give it the full public exposure such a controversial subject deserves. We suspect the reason it wasn’t done this way is because it could never pass on its own—and they know that!
- The provision circumvents the judicial process. In several recent lawsuits, federal courts have ruled for farmers, businesses, and public interest plaintiffs, finding that USDA had violated federal law by failing to adequately consider the potential harms of GE crops it had approved. This rider is specifically intended to prohibit courts from imposing such reasonable restrictions in the event of similar cases in the future, undermining judicial authority in the interests of maximizing biotech industry seed sales. This outlandish provision would prevent a court from putting in place court-ordered restrictions, even if the approval were fraudulent or involved bribery. Congress should be supportive of an independent judiciary that is able to evaluate issues that affect the public and put the legal brakes on fraud and abuse.
- It could cause substantial harm to farmers—not to mention the agricultural economy. The provision would allow non-GE crops to be contaminated by neighboring GE crops, without proper environmental studies being performed. Seeds, crops, and foods that are contaminated with GE material cannot be sold in many international markets. Agricultural commodities contaminated by GE crops that have not been approved for commercial use in the US are particularly shunned.
The
USDA already rubber stamps the approval and deregulation of GE crops.
This rider, by law, provides USDA with even greater authority to
continue to do so, no matter what the courts say.
The
Ag Appropriations bill will be heard in the full committee tomorrow
morning (Tuesday), and we hope that your messages will be enough to make
them strike this dangerous provision from the bill. After the committee
hearing tomorrow, the next step is for the bill to go to the floor,
where we will have another opportunity to stop them, if necessary.
Please contact the members of the House Appropriations Committee and oppose the rider TODAY—there’s not a moment to lose!
Sunday, June 17, 2012
WHO DOESN'T WANT US TO KNOW IF IT'S GMO?
Myths and Facts
About the CA Right to Know Initiative
Not everyone agrees with the idea that consumers have the right
to know what’s in our food. Some big corporations reap huge profits from
the lack of transparency in our food system. They have spent millions of dollars
lobbying to keep Americans in the dark about genetically engineered
food, even though this type of food is already labeled in more than 40
other countries.
Cost inventions: Allegations that labeling
genetically engineered food would raise the cost of groceries by
“hundreds of dollars” a year are false. There is absolutely no evidence
to back up these claims. If the California Right to Know initiative
becomes law, there will be no increased cost to consumers.
The initiative simply requires adding a little bit of ink to existing
labels. Companies have 18 months to comply with the new labeling law,
and they typically change their labels within this time period anyway.
Why don’t Americans also have the right to know if our food
contains genetically engineered ingredients? Opponents claim that
labeling would be scary, costly and confusing. This is simply not true.
Here are the facts about the opposition’s false claims.
Cost inventions: Allegations that labeling
genetically engineered food would raise the cost of groceries by
“hundreds of dollars” a year are false. There is absolutely no evidence
to back up these claims. If the California Right to Know initiative
becomes law, there will be no increased cost to consumers.
The initiative simply requires adding a little bit of ink to existing
labels. Companies have 18 months to comply with the new labeling law,
and they typically change their labels within this time period anyway.
Language lies: Claiming that “the language is
confusing” is a standard approach of opponents. In this case, the
opposition is working hard to convince people that the Right to Know
initiative will prevent non-GMO foods, such as canned olives, from being
marketed as “natural.” This is false. The initiative applies only to
genetically engineered foods. The California Attorney General’s office
has already rejected the opposition’s claims that the initiative could
be applied to non-GMO foods. The AG’s summary of the ballot initiative
clearly states that the initiative applies to genetically engineered
foods, not other foods.
National Public Radio partially retracted a blog about this issue after a source retreated from her statements. See: NPR retreats from story about CA Right to Know initiative.
Lawsuit boogeymen: Whipping up fears about trial
lawyers is a key strategy of the opposition. Their website claims the
initiative will authorize “bounty hunter lawsuits.” This claim is false
and makes no sense. The California Right to Know initiative does not
allow bounty hunter fees, so there is no economic incentive for lawyers
to sue. Furthermore, the labeling law is easy to comply with – it merely
requires labeling food that contains genetically engineered
ingredients. There is no reason to believe companies will violate the
law. Just as they accurately label their food for calories and fat
content, companies are likely to disclose genetically engineered
ingredients.
Americans can’t handle it? The opposition website
opens to a photo of a confused looking elderly gentleman staring at a
grocery store shelf. This implication is that American consumers won’t
be able to understand labels that include information about genetically
engineered ingredients. This is insulting. The truth is that the
overwhelming majority of Americans want to know if their food is
genetically engineered. Several polls indicate that 9 out of 10 voters
want mandatory labeling of GMOs (See Mellman 2011, Reuters 2010, Zogby 2012). A recent poll of 500 California adults by San Francisco television station KCBS found that 91% backed labeling.
We have a right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our children. It’s time for Californians to have the same rights as consumers in the rest of the world. For more information, see www.carighttoknow.org
We have a right to know what’s in the food we eat and feed our children. It’s time for Californians to have the same rights as consumers in the rest of the world. For more information, see www.carighttoknow.org
For more about who is opposing the California Right to Know initaitive, see Meet the Corporate Front Groups Fighting to Make Sure You Can't Know What's in Your Food. Also see this story about the former tobacco lobbyist heading up the opposition effort.
WHAT ARE FRANKENFOODS HIDING?
Who opposes transparency in our food system?
Fri, Jun 6, 2012 11:07 AMNot everyone agrees that consumers have the right to know what’s
in our food. Some large corporations have built a business strategy that
relies on the lack of transparency in our food system. They have
already spent millions of dollars
lobbying to keep the words “genetically engineered” off our food
labels, even though this type of labeling is standard in the rest of the
industrialized world.
The California Right to Know initiative is a simple initiative to
require labeling of genetically engineered foods. This type of labeling
is already required in more than 40 countries, including all of Europe,
Japan and even China. Yet opposition groups are hard at work trying to
convince Californians that labeling is weird, scary and expensive.
Who is opposing the California Right to Know initiative?
The main opposition front group appears to be “Stop Costly Food Labeling,” which is funded primarily by two trade groups based in Washington DC, thousands of miles from California. They are the Biotechnology Industry Organization and Grocery Manufacturers Association. These trade groups are funded by corporations such as Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Kraft and other large food manufacturers that routinely market genetically engineered food as “natural.”
Donations to “Stop Costly Food Labeling” go to the offices of the law firm Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk. Tom Hiltachk -- a former tobacco industry lobbyist who was a lead proponent of Proposition 23, the oil-industry funded attempt to suspend California’s landmark global warming law -- is leading the effort to oppose the Right to Know initiative.
For more information about the opposition, see “Meet the Corporate Front Groups Fighting to Make Sure You Can’t Know What’s in Your Food.”
Tobacco lawyers like Hiltachk are infamous for spreading false information about the health effects of tobacco. So it is unsurprising that Hiltachk’s "Stop Costly Food Labeling" group has been spreading misinformation about the California Right to Know initiative. For the truth about their false claims, see Myths vs. Facts.
The California Right to Know initiative is a simple initiative to
require labeling of genetically engineered foods. This type of labeling
is already required in more than 40 countries, including all of Europe,
Japan and even China. Yet opposition groups are hard at work trying to
convince Californians that labeling is weird, scary and expensive.Who is opposing the California Right to Know initiative?
The main opposition front group appears to be “Stop Costly Food Labeling,” which is funded primarily by two trade groups based in Washington DC, thousands of miles from California. They are the Biotechnology Industry Organization and Grocery Manufacturers Association. These trade groups are funded by corporations such as Monsanto, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Kraft and other large food manufacturers that routinely market genetically engineered food as “natural.”
Donations to “Stop Costly Food Labeling” go to the offices of the law firm Bell, McAndrews and Hiltachk. Tom Hiltachk -- a former tobacco industry lobbyist who was a lead proponent of Proposition 23, the oil-industry funded attempt to suspend California’s landmark global warming law -- is leading the effort to oppose the Right to Know initiative.
For more information about the opposition, see “Meet the Corporate Front Groups Fighting to Make Sure You Can’t Know What’s in Your Food.”
Tobacco lawyers like Hiltachk are infamous for spreading false information about the health effects of tobacco. So it is unsurprising that Hiltachk’s "Stop Costly Food Labeling" group has been spreading misinformation about the California Right to Know initiative. For the truth about their false claims, see Myths vs. Facts.
9 out of 10 AMERICANS WANT GMO'S LABELED
Historic Ballot Initiative On Food Labeling Could Influence Future Of Food
By Stacy Malkan
The California Secretary of State announced this week that the Right to Know initiative to label genetically engineered foods will be on the state’s November ballot. This will be one of the most closely watched ballot measures in the nation this fall. The outcome "could influence not just food packaging but the future of American agriculture," according to a recent front page story in New York Times.
The measure was placed on the California ballot through petitions signed by nearly one million voters who have been frustrated by the unwillingness of legislators to require labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMO). GMOs are crops that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria. An example is Bt corn, which is genetically altered to express the bacterial Bt toxin, which is poisonous to insect pests.
Recent national polling data show that nine out of 10 voters in the United States want mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Currently, the US is one of few industrialized countries that requires no such labeling, even though there is overwhelming bipartisan support for it.
"Consumers have a fundamental right to know what is in their food and make choices, so I think everyone should be working toward this," Albert Straus, president of the Straus Family Creamery in Petaluma, told the Associated Press.
The California Right to Know initiative is backed by a broad array of consumer, health and environmental groups, businesses and farmers – including Sierra Club, United Farm Workers, California Certified Organic Farmers, Consumer Federation of America and the California State Grange – and it is widely regarded as the best chance to achieve GMO labeling in the United States.
As Mark Bittman wrote in yesterday’s New York Times blog, “Most Americans want GMOs to be labeled in their food, but it’s been up to consumers to take matters into their own hands. The best hope for progress is in California, where voters will decide on a ballot initiative to require labeling in November. It will be an uphill battle, as there are plenty of front groups and organizations working to prevent labeling.”
Bittman said the government’s refusal to label GMOs is “demeaning and undemocratic.”
In March, more than one million people submitted comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on a petition for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, more than any other petition in FDA history. Twenty states have tried to legislate GMO labeling, but none have succeeded due to intense opposition from corporate special interests that are opposed to transparency in our food system.
All eyes are now on California, where the state's voters will be given a historic opportunity this fall to determine whether they have the right to know what's in their food.
For more information: www.CARighttoKnow.org.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stacy Malkan is media director of the California Right to Know campaign and a longtime environmental health advocate. She co-founded the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author of the new book, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry (New Society Publishers, 2007).
Source: http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/historic-ballot-initiative-food-labeling-could-influence-future-food
The California Secretary of State announced this week that the Right to Know initiative to label genetically engineered foods will be on the state’s November ballot. This will be one of the most closely watched ballot measures in the nation this fall. The outcome "could influence not just food packaging but the future of American agriculture," according to a recent front page story in New York Times.
The measure was placed on the California ballot through petitions signed by nearly one million voters who have been frustrated by the unwillingness of legislators to require labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMO). GMOs are crops that have had their DNA artificially altered by genes from other plants, animals, viruses or bacteria. An example is Bt corn, which is genetically altered to express the bacterial Bt toxin, which is poisonous to insect pests.
Recent national polling data show that nine out of 10 voters in the United States want mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. Currently, the US is one of few industrialized countries that requires no such labeling, even though there is overwhelming bipartisan support for it.
"Consumers have a fundamental right to know what is in their food and make choices, so I think everyone should be working toward this," Albert Straus, president of the Straus Family Creamery in Petaluma, told the Associated Press.
The California Right to Know initiative is backed by a broad array of consumer, health and environmental groups, businesses and farmers – including Sierra Club, United Farm Workers, California Certified Organic Farmers, Consumer Federation of America and the California State Grange – and it is widely regarded as the best chance to achieve GMO labeling in the United States.
As Mark Bittman wrote in yesterday’s New York Times blog, “Most Americans want GMOs to be labeled in their food, but it’s been up to consumers to take matters into their own hands. The best hope for progress is in California, where voters will decide on a ballot initiative to require labeling in November. It will be an uphill battle, as there are plenty of front groups and organizations working to prevent labeling.”
Bittman said the government’s refusal to label GMOs is “demeaning and undemocratic.”
In March, more than one million people submitted comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on a petition for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods, more than any other petition in FDA history. Twenty states have tried to legislate GMO labeling, but none have succeeded due to intense opposition from corporate special interests that are opposed to transparency in our food system.
All eyes are now on California, where the state's voters will be given a historic opportunity this fall to determine whether they have the right to know what's in their food.
For more information: www.CARighttoKnow.org.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stacy Malkan is media director of the California Right to Know campaign and a longtime environmental health advocate. She co-founded the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics and author of the new book, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry (New Society Publishers, 2007).
Source: http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/historic-ballot-initiative-food-labeling-could-influence-future-food
WOMEN IN AG - LEFT BEHIND TO HANDLE NEPAL FARMS
Nepal’s Female Farmers Fear Climate Change
-
When Arati Chaudhary’s husband left for India to find work as a migrant
labourer, the job of managing farm and family fell on her slender
shoulders.
Nepal is among the world's most climate vulnerable countries
“My family (of four children) will starve if I don’t work harder on
the farms this year. I just hope that it rains well in the monsoon
season (June-September),” Arati tells IPS in her village of Lamahi in
the remote Dang district, 500 km west of Kathmandu.
Agricultural experts believe that failing agriculture in the western
hills is exacerbating an existing trend of male migration to
neighbouring India – a country that allows Nepali nationals free access
and the right to work there.
“The quality of soil has gone down, there is extreme water shortage
and frequent disasters like landslides, pests and crop diseases have
reduced cultivable acreage,” Krishna Raj Aryal from Support Activities
for Poor Producers of Nepal, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), told
IPS.
While Nepal has largely recovered from the severe 2008-2009 drought,
the worst in 40 years, a World Food Programme (of the United Nations)
bulletin released in February said 3.33 million people in the country
were still suffering from acute food insecurity.
The same bulletin warned that the situation was likely to deteriorate
in Karnali and the far-western hill and mountain districts over the
first quarter of the year with food stocks depleting.
According to the state-run Nepal Agricultural Research
Centre, agricultural production only meets the country’s requirements
for three to eight months per year.
As food insecurity grows, more Nepali families are becoming dependent
on their male members finding alternate livelihoods in India rather
than stick with uncertain farming. This is particularly true of the
impoverished far western districts.
With over 80 percent of Nepal’s 27 million people dependent on
farming, the export of male labour means that the burden of dealing with
climate change falls squarely on the women.
Arati understands that rain has been erratic over Nepal over the last
few years but, being illiterate, she is not quite sure what the
constant talk of global climate change is all about.
“The weather has always been hard to predict, though the monsoon
rains have become noticeably scantier and more erratic,” she said.
Arati’s situation of being left to her own devices to cope with the
vagaries of the weather is no different from that of thousands of
female-headed farming households in the western region.
NGO leaders like Aryal worry that, in spite of the talk in the cities
about climate change, little is being done to educate rural women on
how to adapt to changing weather patterns or provide tangible support.
Government officials deny that the issue is being neglected and say
things will improve gradually in a country that is still finding its
feet after a debilitating ten-year civil war that ended with the
abolition of the monarchy in 2008.
Nepal is yet to give itself a new constitution that is acceptable to
all parties and ethnic groups. On May 27, Prime Minister Baburam
Bhattarai announced that parliament, elected in 2008 to write the
constitution, would be disbanded and elections held in November.
“Adaptation programmes need careful planning and we are seriously
working on minimising the impacts of climate change,” Deependra Bhadaur
Kshetri, vice-chairman of the National Planning Commission, told IPS.
The country’s National Adaptation Plan of Action is still under
process. Separately, the environment ministry is preparing a gender
strategy that is expected to address the problems faced by female-headed
households dependent on agriculture.
Nepal is placed among the most climate vulnerable countries in the
world due to its extreme geography (climbing from 60 m to over 8,800 m
above sea level) and its impoverished, natural resource dependent
population.
A 2007 study on the impact of climate change in Rasuwa
district by Resource Identification and Management Society (RIMS), an
environmental NGO, found steady increases in temperatures in the summer
and monsoon seasons between 1978 and 2007.
Analysing data for that period, RIMS found that in addition to the
temperature rise the average annual rainfall had dropped by about one mm
a year, with implications for agriculture in the region.
Nepal’s agriculture sector is greatly dependent on timely rainfall
(only 17 percent of land is irrigated), making farming highly vulnerable
to variations in rainfall patterns.
Almost 80 percent of Nepal’s annual rainfall occurs within the
monsoon months of June to September when Nepal is flooded with rain
while facing scarcity or drought in the other eight months of the year.
“There is little knowledge on climate change in the rural areas and
we need to educate people, especially women, on what is happening,” says
Gehendra Gurung, head of the disaster risk reduction and climate change
programme at Practical Action, an international NGO.
Gurung says women in the remote areas are seriously disadvantaged
because of low literacy rates and lack of access to information.
Compared to 75 percent literacy rate among Nepali males, the female
literacy rate is only 54 percent.
The last labour force survey carried out by the government and
released in 2008 showed a rise in female-headed households from 14
percent to 22 percent over a decade. Experts believe that even more
women are now heading households.
“The impact on the livelihoods of women is direct since, apart from
household work, they are more involved in farming and livestock keeping
than ever before,” says climate change expert with Practical Action,
Dinanath Bhandari.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United
Nations), countries such as Nepal, India and Bangladesh have about 60
percent of the female workforce engaged in agriculture.
In Nepal, the gender divide is pronounced with women involved in
agricultural, pastoral, wage labour and household work, according to the
2011 U.N. Environment Programme report, ‘Women at the frontline of
climate change – gender risks and hopes.’
Women in Nepal’s mountain regions carry out over 6.6 times the
agricultural work than men, according to the Kathmandu-based
International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development.
Women are also more dependent on natural resources since they are
charged with the responsibility of securing water, food and fuel for
cooking and heating in rural Nepal.
“Overall there has been little focus on the gender component and this needs to be recognised first of all,” says Bhandari.
Practical Action runs an adaptation programme where farmers have
replaced their rice farms with banana plantations, which are less
vulnerable to the vagaries of the weather.
“Ultimately it is the government that should take the call on running
adaptation and mitigation programmes,” says Gurung. “The voluntary
sector is limited to pilot and demonstration projects.”
Some NGOs are already implementing adaptation projects involving
large numbers of women. For example, a World Wildlife Fund (WWF) project
is engaged in improving agricultural production in the mountainous
district of Langtang.
Here some about 100 women are involved in promoting local seed
varieties and discouraging farmers from taking to hybrids which are not
viable in the long term due to the constant climate change.
“We have engaged these women to run the project and train local
people in adapting to extreme climatic conditions,” said Anil Manandhar,
country chief of WWF-Nepal.
The women collect and preserve local seed varieties and sell them to
female farmers at subsidised rates. In addition, WWF-Nepal runs a
Krishak Pathsala (Farmers’ School), where irrigation and water
conservation methods are taught.
“It is important that women are directly engaged in climate change
projects because they are now more involved than ever before in farming
and are the real victims of climate change,” said Manandhar.
* This article is one of a series supported by the Climate and Development Knowledge Network.
ORGANIC SEEDS MAKING HUGE COME-BACK
Back to the Future With Local Rice Seeds
Charitha Wijeratne (right) at his organic rice farm in Anuradhapura
-
By coaxing a bumper 3.2 tonnes of rice out of each acre on his organic
farm in this district famed for its ancient Buddhist monasteries,
Charitha Wijeratne has convincingly proved that using indigenous seeds
does not affect productivity.
“After three years of struggle, this
harvest season, we reaped 120 bushels (3.2 tonnes) per acre against the
average 80 bushels (2.1 tonnes) per acre yield,” Wijeratne, a sprightly
octogenarian and diehard Marxist, tells IPS.
Teaming up with Alex Thanthriarachchi, 62, a reformed militant
Marxist, Wijertane is on a mission to promote indigenous varieties of
rice and other staples as the best way for Sri Lankan farmers to deal
with changing climate.
Thanthriarachchi, currently secretary to senior minister S.B.
Navinna, was jailed for his role in the failed 1971 Marxist uprising in
Sri Lanka. He spent his two years in prison studying neighbouring
India’s hybrid-based ‘green revolution’ that resulted in the extinction
of thousands of local varieties.
Thanthriarachchi and Wijeratne scoured the countryside for years
looking for traditional rice breeds known to be resistant to droughts
and floods and requiring minimum farming inputs.
“This is organic farming at its best,” says Wijeratne, pointing to
his rice-growing land in the Eppawela and Thrippane villages where he
and his associates debunked the myth that indigenous rice produces lower
yields than hybrids.
Wijeratne’s 10-hectare farm at Thrippane is lush with
organically-grown coconuts, fruits and vegetables and attracts other
farmers in Anuradhapura as well as academics and green activists.
Indeed, Anuradhapura district, whose Buddhist monuments have earned
it recognition as a UNESCO heritage site, is now also emerging as a
centre for indigenous seed revival.
Ajantha Kumari Ratnamala, 34, is among a group of farmers dedicated
to training others who wish to use indigenous seeds. She has converted
her own 2.1- acre paddy field in Anuradhapura into a showpiece for
traditional seed varieties.
“Each acre gives me 80 bushels and although hybrids do give about 100
bushels, there are financial, health and environmental costs that are
too often ignored in production reckonings,” she tells IPS.
“Pesticides and insecticides needed for cultivating hybrids are not
only costly but also have persistent toxic compounds that seep into the
earth and contaminate the water table,” Ratnamala says. “Organic farming
uses cowdungh, a natural fertiliser that also discourages pests.”
As soil health improves after two to three years of regular organic
farming, so do yields. Organic rice also fetches better price at Sri
Lankan rupees 60 (45 cents) per kg against 22 – 30 cents per kg for
hybrid rice,” Ratnamala said.
Farmers in Anuradhapura, she said, are increasingly seeing the
advantages of returning to hardy traditional varieties that are
weather-resilient.
Nimal Wijeratne, 52, from Padaviya village, told IPS that of the
450-odd rice farmers in his area a third have switched to indigenous
seeds, defying government efforts to encourage the use of hybrids.
In 2006, the government requested the Food and Agricultural
Organisation (of the United Nations) for assistance in strengthening
national capacity in hybrid rice development as a means to boost food
security and alleviate poverty.
Rice, cultivated in Sri Lanka since 1,000 B.C., is the country’s
single most important crop, taking up 34 percent of the total cultivated
area.
Some 900,000 hectares are under rice, cultivated by about 1.8 million
farming families. Sri Lanka currently produces 2.7 million tonnes of
rough rice annually, satisfying around 95 percent of the domestic
requirement, according to the department of agriculture.
Rice growers are heavily dependent on timely, optimum rainfall for
good harvests, but established crop cycles have been disrupted by
changes in rainfall patterns, rising temperatures, floods and droughts.
“The biggest problems for rice growers are floods, droughts and
unpredictable weather conditions,” says Prof. Champa Nawaratna, senior
scientist at the agriculture department of the University of Ruhunu.
Nawaratna said the weather has been getting more unpredictable over
the past five years. “This year the rains came in February-March, but we
are not sure about next year,” she said, recalling the floods two years
ago which destroyed 50 percent of the crops.
“Based on existing research conducted at the University of Ruhunu we
can say that 50 percent of crops over a five-year period are likely to
get damaged by floods, though even this data is unreliable with weather
patterns changing so rapidly,” she said.
Nawaratna said colleagues in her department have also tested
indigenous paddy varieties and found them to be more resistant to the
vagaries of the weather.
Independent studies conducted by the Farmer Federation for the
Conservation of Traditional Seeds and Agri-Resources, a major
non-government organisation based in Homagama, outside Colombo,
corroborate the university’s findings.
Waruna Madawanarachchi, director of CIC Seeds Pvt. Ltd, the largest
single local manufacturer of hybrids in Sri Lanka, testifies to the fact
that there is demand for traditional rice breeds and that his company
actually outsources popular varieties like ‘Suwadel’ and ‘Kaluheenati’.
Kaluheenati, a dark red grain, is highly nutritious and traditionally
recommended for nursing mothers while Suwadel is a white and fragrant
variety.
“Farmers are producing their own hybrid seed which represents 80
percent of the demand while the balance 20 percent comes from the
formal, organised sector,” Madawanarachchi said. “However, once in four
years, farmers need to come back to us to buy new hybrid seeds from
companies like ours.”
According to Madawanarachchi, hybrid rice varieties are well
established in Sri Lanka and account for 99 percent of the total market
for rice seeds, estimated at 4.5 million bushels (122,468 tonnes)
annually.
But the bumper crops of fine, organically-grown indigenous rice
reaped by Wijeratne and Thanthriarachchi in Anuradhapura show which way
the wind is now beginning to blow.
Among those impressed by the achievement of the duo in producing
climate-resilient organic rice is R.W.K. Punchihewa, a senior lecturer
in agriculture biology at the University of Ruhunu, who also runs his
own two-acre organic farm at Padukka in the western region.
“For 24 years I worked at the department of agriculture and felt we
were going the wrong way in pushing a policy based on imported
rice-farming inputs,” Punchihewa told IPS.
“Pesticides and chemical fertilisers have killed the fish in the
hybrid-growing rice fields and ruined biodiversity in one the world’s
best ecosystems,” Punchihewa said. “Worse, farmers (growing hybrids) are
eternally in debt because of the high cost of inputs
“We need to revive traditional practices if agriculture is to be sustainable in Sri Lanka.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)