China drafts legal proposal to completely shut down GE rice

We're ecstatic to announce a new legal initiative in China that's set to keep GE away from the country's staple food.

"This is actually a world-first initiative that deals with GE food legislation at state law level," said Fang Lifeng, the Food and Agriculture campaigner of Greenpeace.

The State Council has released the draft proposal of a grain law that establishes legislation restricting research, field trials, production, sale, import and export of genetically engineered grain seeds. The draft stipulates that no organization or person can employ GE technology in any major food product in China.

"There are currently too many loopholes and weak control over GE food and technology in China. This law needs to clarify what 'relevant laws and regulations' can be applied to regulate GE crops. We urge legislators to accelerate the legislation of Genetically Engineered Organisms Bio-safety Law, and also to enhance the supervision of GE food and other products. Otherwise, this law will only be lip service," Fang said.

According to a Greenpeace investigation, over the last 20 years investment on GE technology has been 30 times that on ecological agriculture. "This is a big obstacle for the development of modern sustainable agriculture in China", Fang continued, "China's money must be spent on supporting food that is safe for human consumption and the production of which has taken into account environmental impacts. And GE technology has clearly failed to do either."

"No country should go down the path of GE crop commercialization. Instead every country should reduce the financial support on GE technology and put more investment on agricultural technology that has proved to be safe and effective. This includes ecological agriculture, green technology to control pests and disease, molecular marker-assisted selection, etc."

Oppose GM food

The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill is the ultimate threat to the safety of our food. The bill will create a body that will allow genetic modification of our food. It is due to be tabled in the upcoming session of Parliament. Right now, state governments can reject any open release or field experiments of genetically modified(GM) crops in their respective states. With the BRAI in place, state governments will lose this power.

Public opposition has kept the Central government from tabling the bill in Parliament so far. We must ensure that the bill is not tabled in the upcoming session as well. This can happen if State governments also oppose the introduction of this controversial bill. Write to your Chief Minister and ask her/him to oppose the BRAI bill because it threatens our food safety.

http://www.greenpeace.in/take-action/save-your-food/write-to-your-CM.php

Earlier, opposition from people and various state governments, helped get a moratorium on the genetically modified Bt brinjal.^[1] People across the country have been expressing their displeasure with this bill,^[2] that can bring Bt brinjal back. If the States join in, then the Central government will find it difficult to introduce this bill in Parliament. The BRAI bill will ease the entry of dangerous GM food into our country.^[3] The body created, will become the autocratic approver of GM crops. BRAI can even override the Right to Information act and deny us information on the safety of GM food. Write to your CM and ask her/him to save your food from genetic modification.

Support to make India GM FREE

ರೈತರ ವಲಸೆ: ಕೃಷಿ ಬೆಳವಣಿಗೆಗೆ ಮಾರಕ

ಬೆಳೆಯುತ್ತಿರುವ ನಗರ, ಪಟ್ಟಣಗಳ ಸುತ್ತಲಿನ ಕೃಷಿ ಭೂಮಿಗಳು ಕಣ್ಮರೆಯಾಗುತ್ತಿವೆ. ಅವು ರಸ್ತೆ, ಲೇ ಔಟ್, ಅಪಾರ್ಟ್‌ಮೆಂಟ್ ಕೈಗಾರಿಕಾ ಕಾಲನಿಗಳಾಗಿ ಮಾರ್ಪಾಡಾಗುತ್ತಿವೆ. ನಗರಗಳ ಬಡವರು ಮತ್ತು ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಯುವಕರು ಕೂಲಿಗಾಗಿ ನಗರಗಳನ್ನು ಅವಲಂಬಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಗ್ರಾಮೀಣ ಯುವ ಜನರಂತೂ ಸದಾ ನಗರಗಳ ಕಡೆಗೇ ನೋಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಇದು ಈ ಹೊತ್ತಿನ ವಾಸ್ತವ.

ಕೆಲಸ ಹುಡುಕಿಕೊಂಡು ದೇಶದ ಉದ್ದಗಲದಲ್ಲಿ ಲಕ್ಷಾಂತರ ಮಂದಿ ರೈತರು,ರೈತ ಕಾರ್ಮಿಕರು ಪಟ್ಟಣಗಳತ್ತ ವಲಸೆ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ವಿಶ್ವಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ಅಂದಾಜಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ 2015ರ ವೇಳೆಗೆ ಭಾರತದಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಮಾರು 40 ಕೋಟಿ ಜನರು ಬೇಸಾಯದಿಂದ  ವಿಮುಖರಾಗುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅವರೆಲ್ಲ ನಗರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದಾದರೂ ಕೆಲಸ ಹುಡುಕಿಕೊಂಡು ಅಲ್ಲೇ ಉಳಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ವರದಿ ಹೇಳಿದೆ. ಇದಕ್ಕೆ ಪೂರಕವಾಗಿ ನ್ಯಾಷನಲ್ ಸ್ಯಾಂಪಲ್ ಸರ್ವೆ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆ ನಡೆಸಿದ ಸಮೀಕ್ಷೆ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಶೇ 40ರಷ್ಟು ರೈತರು ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಬೇಸಾಯದಿಂದ ರೋಸಿ ಹೋಗಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಬೇಸಾಯ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರೇನಾದರೂ ಕೆಲಸ ಹುಡುಕುವ ಇಂಗಿತ ಅವರದು. ಇಷ್ಟು ದೊಡ್ಡ ಪ್ರಮಾಣದಲ್ಲಿ ಜನರು ಬೇಸಾಯದಿಂದ ವಿಮುಖರಾದರೆ ಆಹಾರ ಭದ್ರತೆಯ ಗತಿ ಏನು?

ಇನ್ನು ಕೆಲ ಅಧ್ಯಯನಗಳ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ತಮಿಳುನಾಡಿನ ಶೇ 70ರಷ್ಟು, ಪಂಜಾಬಿನ 65ರಷ್ಟು, ಉತ್ತರ ಪ್ರದೇಶದ 55ರಷ್ಟು ರೈತರು ಬೇಸಾಯದ ಬವಣೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಪರಿಹಾರ ಕಾಣದೆ ಪಟ್ಟಣಗಳತ್ತ ಗುಳೇ ಹೋಗುವ ಸನ್ನಾಹದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಹೀಗಾದರೆ  `ಕೃಷಿ ನಿರಾಶ್ರಿತ`ರು ಎಂಬ ಹೊಸದೊಂದು ವರ್ಗವೇ ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಯಾಗಲಿದೆ. 

 ಆಹಾರ ಭದ್ರತೆ, ಪೌಷ್ಟಿಕಾಂಶಗಳ ಕೊರತೆ, ಹೆಚ್ಚುತ್ತಿರುವ ಶಿಶು ಮರಣ, ಪರಿಸರ ಮಾಲಿನ್ಯ, ಕೋಮು ಗಲಭೆ ಇತ್ಯಾದಿ ಸಮಸ್ಯೆಗಳು ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಉಲ್ಬಣಗೊಂಡಿವೆ. ಇವಕ್ಕೆಲ್ಲ ಮೂಲ ಕಾರಣ ಬೇಸಾಯ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ತೋರಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ನಿರಾಸಕ್ತಿ. ಬೇಸಾಯ ಈಗ ಲಾಭದಾಯಕ ಅಲ್ಲ. ದೇಶದಲ್ಲಿ ಶೇ. 65ರಷ್ಟು ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳು ಬೇಸಾಯವನ್ನು ಅವಲಂಬಿಸಿ ಜೀವನ ನಡೆಸುತ್ತಿವೆ. ಆದರೆ ಅಂಥವರ ಜೀವನ ಮಟ್ಟ ಕುಸಿಯುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಬೇಸಾಯ ತ್ಯಜಿಸಿ ಬೇರೆ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಅವಲಂಬಿಸಿರುವವರು ಮತ್ತೆ ಬೇಸಾಯದತ್ತ ಬರುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆ ಕಡಿಮೆ. ಅಳಿದುಳಿದ ರೈತರು ತಮ್ಮ  ಭವಿಷ್ಯದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಚಿಂತಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ.

ಬೇಸಾಯ ಇಂದು ಯಾರಿಗೂ ಬೇಡದ ವೃತ್ತಿ. ಹೀಗಾಗಿ ಸಮೃದ್ಧವಾಗಿರಬೇಕಿದ್ದ ಹಳ್ಳಿಗಳು ಬೆಂಗಾಡಾಗಿವೆ. ಮಾರ್ಗದರ್ಶನದ ಕೊರತೆಯಿಂದಾಗಿ ಬೇಸತ್ತ ರೈತರ ಮನವೊಲಿಸಿ ಮತ್ತೆ ಹಳ್ಳಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸಮೃದ್ಧವಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಬೇಕಿದೆ. ಸ್ವಾವಲಂಬಿ ಜೀವನದ ಕೇಂದ್ರಗಳಾಗಿದ್ದ ಹಳ್ಳಿಗಳು ರಾಜಕೀಯ ಪಕ್ಷಗಳು ಕೊಡುವ ಸಣ್ಣಪುಟ್ಟ ಆಮಿಷಗಳಿಗೆ ಕಾದು ಕುಳಿತಿವೆ. ದುಡಿಯುವ ಶಕ್ತಿ ಇರುವ ಯುವಕರು ಪಟ್ಟಣಗಳ ಕಡೆಗೆ ಗುಳೆ ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಬೇಸಾಯದ ಪ್ರಗತಿಗೆ ಮಾರಕವಾಗಿದೆ. ಉತ್ಪಾದನೆಯೂ ಕಡಿಮೆಯಾಗಿದೆ. 

ಏನು ಮಾಡಬೇಕು?: ಕೃಷಿ ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯಗಳು ಯುವಜನರಿಗಾಗಿ ಪ್ರತ್ಯೇಕ ತರಬೇತಿ ಹಾಗೂ ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕ ನೆರವು ಒದಗಿಸಬೇಕು.  ಕೃಷಿ ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯಗಳು ಯುವ ರೈತರ ಅಗತ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಮರೆತಿವೆ. ಕೃಷಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ತೊಡಗಿರುವ ಯುವಕರಿಗೆ  ತರಬೇತಿ ಹಾಗೂ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿತ್ವ ವಿಕಸನ ಶಿಬಿರಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡಬೇಕಿದೆ.

 

ಕೃಷಿ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳು ರೈತರ ಕ್ರಿಯಾಶೀಲತೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಅನುಭವಗಳನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿ ಮಾರ್ಗದರ್ಶನ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು. ಕೃಷಿ ವಿಜ್ಞಾನಿಗಳು ರೈತರ ಜಮೀನಿನಲ್ಲಿ ತಮ್ಮ ಬಹು ಸಮಯವನ್ನು ಕಳೆಯಬೇಕು ಹಾಗೂ ಹಳ್ಳಿಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸ ಮಾಡಬೇಕು

 ರೈತರಿಗೆ ಸಮಾಜದಲ್ಲಿ ಸರಿಯಾದ ಸ್ಥಾನಮಾನವಿಲ್ಲ. 

 

ಸಮಾಜವೂ ರೈತರನ್ನು ಅಸಡ್ಡೆಯಿಂದ ಕಾಣುವುದನ್ನು ನಿಲ್ಲಿಸಬೇಕು. ಬೇಸಾಯಗಾರರ ಕುಟುಂಬಗಳಿಗೆ  ಹೆಣ್ಣು ಕೊಡಲು ಹಿಂದೇಟು ಹಾಕುವ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಬದಲಾಗಬೇಕು. ಯುವ ರೈತರು ನಗರಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೋಗದಂತೆ ತಡೆಯಬೇಕು. ಹೊಸದಾಗಿ ಬೇಸಾಯ ಮಾಡುವವರನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿ ಪ್ರೋತ್ಸಾಹಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ.

ಸಾವಯವ ಕೃಷಿಗೆ ಒತ್ತುಕೊಟ್ಟು ಮುಖ್ಯ ಆಹಾರ ಧಾನ್ಯಗಳ ಬೆಳೆಗಳನ್ನು ಬೆಳೆಯಬೇಕಿದೆ. ರಾಸಾಯನಿಕ ಕೃಷಿಗೆ ತಿಲಾಂಜಲಿ ಹೇಳಬೇಕು. ಸ್ವಾವಲಂಬಿ ಬೇಸಾಯದತ್ತ ಹೆಜ್ಜೆ ಹಾಕಬೇಕು.

 

ರೈತರು ಸಹಕಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳನ್ನು ಆರಂಭಿಸಿ ಕೃಷಿ ಉತ್ಪನ್ನಗಳನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡುವಂತಾಗಬೇಕು. ಈ ಕುರಿತು ಕೃಷಿ ಇಲಾಖೆ ಮತ್ತು ಕೃಷಿ ವಿಶ್ವವಿದ್ಯಾಲಯಗಳು ವಿಶೇಷ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳನ್ನು ರೂಪಿಸಬೇಕು. ಕೃಷಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಸ ಅವಿಷ್ಕಾರಗಳನ್ನು ನಡೆಸಲು ಬೆಂಬಲ ನೀಡಬೇಕು.

ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ಪದ್ಧತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೃಷಿ ಆಧಾರಿತ ಕೋರ್ಸುಗಳನ್ನು ರೂಪಿಸಬೇಕು, ಕೃಷಿ ಬದುಕು ಕಟ್ಟಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ಅನುಕೂಲವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಶಿಕ್ಷಣ ನೀತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಕಾರ್ಯಗೊಳಿಸಬೇಕು.

 

ಕೈಗಾರಿಕೆ ಅಥವಾ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೃಷಿ ಭೂಮಿ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಬಾರದು. ಕೃಷಿ ಭೂಮಿಯನ್ನು ಕೃಷಿಯೇತರ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಪರಿವರ್ತನೆ ಮಾಡಕೂಡದು. ಕೃಷಿ ಆಧಾರಿತ ಆರ್ಥಿಕ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿಗೆ 

400 shades of lipstick found to contain lead, FDA says

A recent federal analysis showing that 400 shades of popular lipstick contained trace amounts of lead has exacerbated an ongoing dispute between regulators and consumer activists over how much lead is safe in cosmetics. Five lipsticks made by L’Oreal and Maybelline, owned by L’Oreal USA, ranked among the top 10 most contaminated of the cosmetics, according to testing by the Food and Drug Administration. Two Cover Girl and two NARS lipsticks also landed in the top 10, as did one made by Stargazer.

For years, the Campaign for Safe Cosmeticshas been pushing the government to set limits for lead levels in lipstick. The FDA has resisted, insisting that the amounts detected in various rounds of testing do not pose safety risks. But in a letter to the agency this month, the consumer group said that federal regulators have no scientific basis for this conclusion and it pressed the government to take action. Reports of lead in lipstick date to the 1990s, and have resurfaced periodically since then. In 2007, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics tested 33 red lipsticks and found that two-thirds of them contained lead — and that one-third exceeded the FDA’s limit for lead in candy. The FDA followed up in 2008 with its own tests on 20 lipsticks and expanded its analysis to include 400 lipstick shades in the most recent study.

But the agency, which posted its latest findings on its Web site in December, said that comparing lipstick to candy is unfair. “It is not scientifically valid to equate the risk to consumers presented by lead levels in candy, a product intended for ingestion, with that associated with lead levels in lipstick, a product intended for topical use and ingested in much smaller quantities than candy,” the FDA said in its online comments.

The Personal Care Products Council, a trade group that represents the cosmetics industry, agreed with the FDA’s assessment. Halyna Breslawec, the council’s chief scientist, said her group has petitioned the agency to limit the amount of lead allowed in cosmetics. The consensus on what that limit should be — 10 parts per million, Breslawec said — is higher than the levels detected by the two rounds of FDA testing and is in line with proposals in Canada and Germany.

The FDA is evaluating whether it should recommend an upper limit. Breslawec said that lead is not intentionally put in lipstick or any other cosmetic but that many color additives approved by the FDA are mineral-based and therefore contain trace levels of lead that is naturally found in soil, water and air. But determining the true safety level for lead in cosmetics remains the stumbling block. The FDA’s most recent analysis found the highest lead concentration — 7.19 parts per million — in Maybelline’s Color Sensational Pink Petal lipstick. But the average lead contamination in the 400 lipsticks it tested last year was 1.11 parts per million, very close to the average from the agency’s 2008 analysis. The FDA, which hired a private laboratory to do the testing, selected lipsticks based on the parent company’s market share, although it also included a few brands from niche markets.

“We do not consider the lead levels we found in the lipsticks to be a safety concern,” the FDA said in its online comments. “The lead levels we found are within the limits recommended by other public health authorities for lead in cosmetics.” The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has a different take on the results. The lead content in Maybelline’s Pink Petal is more than twice as high as levels found in the previous FDA report and more than 275 times the level found in the least-contaminated product in the recent report, the group wrote in a letter to the agency this month. The least-contaminated product — Wet ’n’ Wild Mega Mixers Lip Balm — was also the least expensive, the group said in a separate statement, “demonstrating that price is not an indicator of good manufacturing practices.”

The group cited federal research that concluded that there’s no safe level of lead exposure for children, and experts stressed the need to shield children and pregnant women from exposure. “Lead builds in the body over time, and lead-containing lipstick applied several times a day, every day, can add up to significant exposure levels,” Mark Mitchell, co-chairman of the Environmental Health Task Force for the National Medical Association, said in the group’s statement. California, a trailblazer when it comes to lead regulation, has grappled with this issue.

In 2008, after reports on lead in lipsticks resurfaced, the state attorney general’s office examined whether cosmetics firms had run afoul of a California law that requires businesses to provide a reasonable warning if they knowingly expose consumers to chemicals that can cause cancer or reproductive harm. The state concluded, based on public data, that the concentration of lead in lipsticks was too low to trigger the law. The duty to warn consumers would not arise until the lead concentration reached five parts per million, the state said.

In the FDA’s study, the overwhelming majority of the lipsticks fell below that threshold. But two exceeded it — Maybelline’s Pink Petal and L’Oreal’s Colour Riche Volcanic. The California attorney general’s office has taken no further action.

taken from Online Business Magazine

GM food banned in Monsanto canteen

Monsanto, the biggest promoter of genetically modified food, was hoist with its own petar when it was disclosed that it has a staff canteen in which GM produce is banned.

The firm running the canteen at Monsanto's pharmaceuticals factory at High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, serves only GM-free meals, Friends of the Earth said. In a notice in the canteen, Sutcliffe Catering, owned by the Granada Group, said it had taken the decision "to remove, as far as practicable, GM soya and maize from all food products served in our restaurant. We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confident in the food we serve."

Monsanto confirmed the position. "Yes, this is the case, and it is because we believe in choice," said the company's spokesman, Tony Coombes. But employees at Monsanto's agribusiness plant at Cambridge were happy to eat GM produce, he said. "The notice in the restaurant there says some products may contain GMOs [genetically modified organisms] - because our staff are happy to eat food sprayed with fewer chemicals."

Monsanto says crops engineered to be tolerant of its own weedkillers need less pesticide, but critics say that though the dosage may be less, the impact on the environment of these pesticides is much greater. Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth's food campaigner, said: "The public has made its concerns about GM ingredients very clear - now it appears that even Monsanto's own catering firm has no confidence in this new technology."

taken from The Independent Online Magazine