It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


You have quit Europe, now quit India, farmers tell Monsanto

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 12:16 AM

Cotton and the cloth made from indigenous cotton are a symbol of our freedom struggle”

Im glad that Quit Monsanto movement is being taken up with the independence day celebration ..Hopefully it should give enough national Interest from the public

“Monsanto, Quit India” and “Centre, reject Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill” were the demands raised by thousands of farmers and activists from across 20 States at a demonstration here on the eve of “Quit India” movement.

“Today, 93 per cent of the country’s cotton seed is controlled by Monsanto. It is now in the hands of the Prime Minister to protect our seed sovereignty as well as our food, farms and freedom.”

A report of the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Experts Committee on GMOs recently recommended that there should not be any field trials of GM crops until gaps in the regulatory system are addressed. The panel suggested early risk assessment and emphasised need for chronic and trans-generational toxicity testing of GM products on humans, livestock, environment and biodiversity.

The supreme court has always been one of the only trusted bodies in India which has always respected and helped the public of this country. From the recent "Patents" issue few months back to the current Monsanto quite movement

Cuttng across party lines, Members of Parliament joined the sit-in to express their solidarity with the coalition of about 250 civil society and farmers groups. BJP’s Murli Manohar Joshi and Dharmendar Pradhan (members of the Agriculture Standing Committee); DMK MPs, including T.K.S. Elangovan, T.M. Selvaganapathi, K.P. Ramalingam, A.K.S. Vijayan and S. Thangavelu; and MDMK’s A. Ganesamurthi expressed their support and assured farmers that they would take up the issue in Parliament.

posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by maddy21

Be careful what you wish for... Sometimes you throw the baby out with the bathwater..

Norman Borlaug

Norman Ernest Borlaug (March 25, 1914 – September 12, 2009)[2] was an American agronomist, humanitarian and Nobel laureate who has been called "the father of the Green Revolution",[3] "agriculture's greatest spokesperson"[4] and "The Man Who Saved A Billion Lives".[5] He is one of seven people to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal[6] and was also awarded the Padma Vibhushan, India's second highest civilian honor.[7]

Borlaug received his Ph.D. in plant pathology and genetics from the University of Minnesota in 1942. He took up an agricultural research position in Mexico, where he developed semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties.

During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations.[8] These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people worldwide from starvation.[9] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.

Later in his life, he helped apply these methods of increasing food production to Asia and Africa.[10]

posted on Aug, 9 2013 @ 10:24 PM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Thats a nice story on Norman Ernest Borlaug,
yet it has nothing to do with Monsanto, the chemical company
that brought us PCB's, and Agent Orange.

Borlaug didn't approve of the "green revolution" moniker, dubbing it "a miserable term"


The wheat breeding program he was involved in was the old fashioned kind,
in which the universities were continually about sharing seeds with the USDA;
freely shared for the betterment of humanity; the opposite of the giant chemical
companies such as Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta.

He was a visionary, but his vision was not one of bottom line corporate greed
and agricultural dominance.

he believed that the problems of hunger and poverty could be solved by increasing crop yields

And that is something that these large chemical companies have failed to deliver on.

GMO fails to deliver

A new peer-reviewed study published in the International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability
examined those claims and found that conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is
responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops. Additionally, GM crops, also known as
genetically engineered (GE) crops, can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use.

So, GE crops really do not provide a greater yeild as claimed.
Not only that, they do not even reduce pesticide use!

The study compared major crop yields and pesticide use in North America, which relies
heavily on GE crops, and Western Europe, which grows conventionally bred non-GE crops.
The study’s findings are important for the future of the U.S. food supply, and therefore for the
world food supply since the U.S. is a major exporter of many staple crops.

Latest Study Is Here:

Agroecological farming, as opposed to GMO can increase yields up to 179%.

A stunning multi-year study in Africa by the United Nations Environment
Programme provides an answer. High external inputs of chemicals and
fertilizers are needed for conventional industrial agriculture and it is for this
kind of agriculture that GM crops are designed. UNEP found in side-by-side
trials conducted in multiple countries that farmers using agroecological
science outperformed farmers using conventional approaches by up to

New Study: Monsanto Big Claims About GMO Food Yields Likely False


And that same Monsanto, brought us GMO transgene crops, holds the
Terminator gene patent, and is on a quest for world dominance in
agriculture, by means of banking schemes through avenue of
The IMF, and The World Bank.

The latest studies in on GMO show that its not a silver bullet,
nor a quantum leap in food production, rather it has brought
pestilance, and disease, while funding the bottom line
of these giant chemical corporations; profits.

Who do you want producing your food?
A giant chemical corporation, or a local farmer?
edit on 9-8-2013 by burntheships because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 08:52 AM
reply to post by burntheships

Actually it does -

Borlaug's name is nearly synonymous with the Green Revolution, against which many criticisms have been mounted over the decades by environmentalists and some nutritionalists. Throughout his years of research, Borlaug's programs often faced opposition by people who consider genetic crossbreeding to be unnatural or to have negative effects.[31] Borlaug's work has been criticized for bringing large-scale monoculture, input-intensive farming techniques to countries that had previously relied on subsistence farming.[32] These farming techniques reap large profits for U.S. agribusiness and agrochemical corporations such as Monsanto Company and have been criticized for widening social inequality in the countries owing to uneven food distribution while forcing a capitalist agenda of U.S. corporations onto countries that had undergone land reform.[33]

Borlaug's techniques are used by Monsanto and others. The blanket attitude people have developed when it comes to GM food / plants / what have you can be dangerous. We need food to feed people.. Ignoring the possibilities of GM items means more deaths, particularly in developing nations.

GM items in moderation and oversight can be beneficial to the people that are directly helped by the process.

If the argument is GM food is bad for people...

So is fast food...
So is steak / pork and fish...
So are fried items...

In moderation though the above wont kill you...

We need to get out of this mindset that because a company makes / does something that is bad then all actions by that company must be bad regardless.

Hence throwing the baby out with the bath water....

Explain the difference between the end result of cross breeding plants to develop a superior specimen that is more able to grow in areas the original was not or has a higher yield and using genetic modification to introduce those exact same characteristics.

The main difference is the ability to skip the generational process to bring out those desired results.

Why does it matter if a company uses genetic modification to obtain the same results by using a timely generational process?

posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 08:55 AM
You want to know why Monsanto is "bad"? Aside from the fact that their GMO crops are goddamn poisoning us, it's also because they have way too much influence over our government and its policies.

This nonsense trying to excuse these corporatist pigs is becoming sickening. Whose side are you on?
edit on 10-8-2013 by supremecommander because: (no reason given)

top topics

log in