The film ‘Cotton for My Shroud,’ a heart-rending story about cotton farmers of Vidarbha in Maharashtra (western state of India) is directed by Kavita Bahl and Nandan Saxena. The national award winning movie, made by Top Quark Films throws light on how cotton farming with Bt (Genetically modified) cotton has led to a spate of farmer suicides in recent times.  

Kavita Bahl

Kavita Bahl, co-director of the documentary, quit her thriving career of 7 years as a journalist at Indian Express to delve into the reasons behind the suicide of nearly 300,000  farmers over the last 16  years.  She felt there was greater need to provide Vidharba farmers a medium to share their angst, emotions and helplessness.  In her interview with Bhavani Prakash of Eco WALK the Talk (EWTT), Kavita shares the journey, challenges and emotional turmoil she underwent to bring out the movie straight from a despaired Vidharba Farmer’s heart.

EWTT: What prompted you to leave your career to become filmmakers?

KAVITA BAHL: We took to journalism for we wanted to work for the voice-less, face-less people who exist on the margins and get nothing more than lip-service from those who rule this nation. We started as journalists. I worked for ‘The Indian Express’ for seven years, while Nandan worked for television in what we used to call ‘our previous lives’. In 1996, we quit news and current affairs programming to focus on real issues.

Now, we work in the genres of documentary and poetry films. Our work spans the domains of ecology, livelihoods, development and human rights.

In 2006, the cotton farmers’ suicides shook us very badly. We could not sit and watch the drama unfold from our armchair vantage point. We decided to explore the reasons that had driven the farmers to the wall.

EWTT: The movie captures the poignant situation in Vidarbha – where farmers are forced to commit suicide to escape debt.What do you think is the awareness level nationwide about this issue?

KAVITA BAHL: The disturbing fact that 2,90,470 farmers have committed suicide in last 16  years (1995-2011), is not ‘news’ enough for the media. Unfortuntely, farmer suicides have been reduced to just another set of statistics. Not enough is either being reported or written about the agrarian crisis in the Indian media. The urban and rural divide runs deep here. Our films often evoke surprise from urban audiences who were hitherto unaware of the extent of crisis in the lives of the farmers in their country. If India lives in its villages, then the plight of the villages should not be brushed under the carpet by the media and the ruling classes.

EWTT:  Why do you think GM cotton has spread so rapidly in Vidarbha? Is there a danger of GM crops taking over agriculture in India? What needs to be done to prevent this from happening?

KAVITA BAHL:  In India, the states of Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh, Bt cotton is grown commercially. In last 10 years, the area under Bt cotton has touched almost 90% of the total area under cotton cultivation in India.

The sector is dominated by small and marginal farmers who are totally dependent on the government machinery for advice and seeds. And, in a scenario where all the local seed companies have been bought over by business corporations like Monsanto, traditional seeds have been edged out of the market and out of the reach of the farmers.

Farmers have always relied on their traditional knowledge and wisdom. Given a choice they would prefer to continue with traditional seeds which are hardy, can grow easily and are pest-resistent. Unlike the modern farming which is expensive and chemical intensive, this farming is inexpensive and farmer-friendly. In any case, when it has been proved that Bt seed does not increase the yield manifold as is touted by the luring advertisements, why would the farmer want to fall into the death trap of Bt?

While the pro-GM corporate lobby is strong, the anti-GM lobby in India is proving to be stronger. The people of India through various forums have indicated their resistance to GM crops and the government has been forced to put a moratorium on the GM brinjal or eggplant. However, people have to be vigilant and prevent any back-door entry by the pro-GM lobby as happened in the case of Bt cotton.

While the ongoing corporatisation and monopolisation of seed threatens seed sovereignty, it also poses a threat to  the bio-diversity rich countries like India.

The following video gives quick trailer of the movie.

Here is a synopsis of  ”Cotton For My Shroud” 

Since 1995, a quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide – the largest wave of recorded suicides in human history. Most of them were cotton farmers from Vidarbha in Maharashtra.Once known for its fine cotton, Vidarbha is now called the ‘graveyard of farmers’.‘Cotton for my shroud’ tries to understand from a grass-roots perspective what is driving the cotton farmers to despair – is it a crisis of farm credit or are they victims of faulty paradigms of development?  The escalating cost of inputs like seed, fertiliser and pesticide has made farming unsustainable. In the summer, the lack of resources or institutional credit for sowing the fields drives poor farmers to end their lives. In the winter, the depressed rates of cotton become the proverbial last straw.While the state and the media label these deaths as suicide, the cotton fields of Vidarbha remain a mute witness to genocide.The film documents the diabolical designs of American multinationals like Monsanto to control our seed supply. A nation that does not have food security, cannot claim to be independent. And the ruling elite are again complicit in this second colonisation of India.The film was shot over two visits to the hinterlands of Vidarbha. Narrated in the first person, it gives us a window into the drama and despair that forms the warp and weft of life at Vidarbha.

EWTT: What were the reactions and responses from the villages you shot in and researched through?

KAVITA BAHL: It would have been impossible to tell their story truthfully, without the access the farmers of Vidarbha gave us. Almost all the people we met had similar experiences with the Bt honeytrap.

They felt betrayed by the government extension agencies that are supposed to guide the farmers, they feel violated by the multinational corporations that are poisoning their land with chemicals and genetically modified cotton seeds that do not live up to the promises and tall claims made by Monsanto. They have lost respect for the Fourth Estate for they feel that most of the media has been bought over by powerful politicians and multinationals.

There is a general feeling of despair and hopelessness in the villages. Most agricultural households find it difficult to sustain themselves, with the rising input costs and depressed rates of whatever they produce. The children of farmers do not want to take to farming in this scenario.

Thanks to the support extended by Vidarbha Jan-andolan Samiti, an NGO actively involved in advocacy on farmers’ issues, we could reach many villages and understand the finer nuances of this rapidly unfolding tragedy.

EWTT: How long did the film take to make?

KAVITA BAHL: It has taken us almost five-and-a-half years to complete this film.We started filming in June 2006. The second trip to Vidarbha was in November and December. We did some additional filming in 2007. Then came the speed-breaker.  We came back from Vidarbha quite depressed at the state of affairs. For months, we had nightmares. The wails of the widows and children echoed in our ears still. It was difficult to shake it off and get on with the edit. (“After all, its just another project”, our friends would exhort.)

We sat on the footage for two years. But it was difficult to bury the ghosts and sweep the film under the carpet, as if nothing had ever goaded us to visit Vidarbha. We were not comfortable with canning the film. We owed a lot to the people who had opened their hearts and hearths to two outsiders, in their moment of grief. We could not betray their trust. We started editing the film. As we previewed and digitised the footage, we re-lived the horror that had unfolded before our eyes in 2006.

We finished the edit in 2011. The first public screening was at Cinemax Versova during the Mumbai Film Festival (October 15, 2011). In October 2011, the film won the Gold for best script at the IDPA Awards. This year, it has been awarded the Rajat Kamal (Silver Lotus) for Best Investigative Film at the 59th National Film Award

EWTT: What can the public do to support your movie, and to support farmers of Vidarbha?

KAVITA BAHL: We believe that a post film crowd-funding is also possible. The film is self-funded by the film-makers. If people think that it is a sincere effort towards highlighting the mounting crisis in the lives of cotton farmers, they can contribute by purchasing the DVD copies of the film. These contributions shall go towards making language versions of the film. However, their responsibility does not end here. They should also screen the film and raise awareness about this issue.

We have been screening the film in film festivals, academic institutions, public forums. We invited the members of the Parliament to a special screening at the Constitution Club earlier this year. Various colleges in Delhi University have invited us to screen the film and talk to the students.

Those who are interested in doing so can write to us here.

We believe that ultimately the solution lies with the people and not the government alone. In the spirit of true democracy, the citizens’ voice should be heard and acted upon. The constitution of India puts “We the People…” firmly in the driver’s seat.

We hope that one day – the voice of our farmers shall also be heard in the corridors of power. We hope that the media, activists and people of India stand in solidarity with the farmers and together we put an end to the blood-bath initiated by the policies of the Green Revolution. We hope that Monsanto will be asked to pack its bag and leave India. We hope to escape the scourge of Bt and Genetically-modified crops. We hope that that India will retain its seed freedom and independence.

EWTT: What are you planning to do next?

KAVITA BAHL: We are trying to raise contributions for making the Marathi and Hindi versions of the film to take it to the villages where we filmed in 2006. There is demand for Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Punjabi, Odiya, French & Spanish versions as well.

About the interviewer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com.  She is a sustainability speaker, trainer and writer can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Further links you may be interested in:

EWTT:   Nero’s Guests and Farmer Suicides in India

EWTT: Dr Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity andSustainable Development

EWTT:  India’s GM Bill: Anti-people, Anti-nature

EWTT: Go GM Free in Australia

Share/Save

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev

It is a rare opportunity indeed to meet someone who deeply understands the connect between ourselves and the living planet, and is taking direct action in terms of mobilising people into planting millions of trees, whilst simultaneously giving the practical tools to profoundly change one’s own inner wellbeing.

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev, founder of Isha Foundation talks to us in Singapore recently (Video below) about Project Green Hands, the largest tree planting effort in India in the state of Tamil Nadu, and the work that’s being carried out to enable its progress. The project received the “Indira Gandhi Paryavaran Puraskar award,” the highest environmental award in India in 2010.

Sadhguru travels around the world spreading his message of peace and the need for ‘inner engineering’ or change – from global forums such as the World Economic Forum at Davos, World Peace Congress and United Nations Millennium Peace Summit, right to villages in the heart of rural India.

On Earth Day 2012 Sadhguru had said,

“How audacious that we can even think that we will allot a day for the earth! Both day and night happen only because of the revolutions of the earth. Our very body is an extract from this planet. Everything that we are is earth. For human beings who have forgotten that they have just temporarily come out of the womb of this earth and that they will one day be sucked back into this earth, for them, this day is a reminder that you are a part of this earth. If humanity has to live for a long time, you have to think like the earth, act like the earth and be the earth, because that is what you are. 

I am often asked by people, “Why is a spiritual leader, a yogi, planting trees?”  Why? Because trees are our closest relatives. What they exhale, we inhale; what we exhale, they inhale and keep our lives going. It is just like the outer part of our lung. You cannot ignore your body if you want to live. The planet is in no way different from that. What you call “my body” is just a piece of this planet.

The video interview:

Video link here

Here is the edited transcript for the above video interview with Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: 

Bhavani Prakash:  Thank you Sadhguru, for speaking to us at EWTT, it’s a real honour for me to be here with you today. At EWTT, we raise awareness about environmental issues and also share stories of positive change.  Sadhguru, you have spread peace and joy to millions of people all over the world and have specially initiated Project Green Hands, which is the largest tree planting initiative in India in the state of Tamil Nadu, with the objective of planting 114 million trees that will raise the tree cover to 33% (Sadhguru: We are not anywhere near the number!)

Bhavani Prakash: Why and how did you start the Project Green Hands? What is the progress so far?

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev:  In the year 1998, United Nations- certain agencies from the United Nations made a prediction that by 2025, 60% of Tamil Nadu will be a desert. I did not like it, I don’t like any prediction because predictions take into account only the cold facts, not human aspirations. What is beating in human heart is ignored completely. But I wanted to confirm, so I drove around Tamil Nadu to see if this is true. Then I came to the conclusion that they are wrong because in my estimate it wouldn’t go upto 2025, it would happen much faster.

Rivers which have been there for thousands of years have evaporated in the last twenty years; water table has sunk over thousand feet in many places and desertification is bound to happen very very rapidly. So I thought, what is the best thing to do? The simplest thing to do is, with global warming, temperature rise is happening. We made a calculation if there is increase in half a degree centrigrade of temperature, how many millions of tons of extra evaporation will happen to the oceans. If that many tons of water get evaporated where does it go? It all becomes cloud cover. One of the things that happens is the peninsula which is southern India, will receive excessive rain. When rain happens, without the necessary vegetative cover over it, without the green cover over it, the top soil will go away very quickly and the run off will create deserts very fast. It’s not ‘no rain’ which creates desert, it’s excessive rain without green top (that) will create. So the simple solution was to increase the green cover.

Tamil Nadu green cover on that day was 16.5%. National aspiration is 33%, so we made a barefoot calculation. If we need to make it 33% for the area of Tamil Nadu, we needed 114 million trees. So when I said 114 million trees, people thought I don’t know what the number is. We have over 62 million population. If all of us plant one tree, nurture it for 2 years and plant one more, we got the number. But such things never happen because efforts are never made in that direction. But people thought this was an impossible number.

So as a demonstration, I wanted to just give them the thrill of doing something which works.  The mountain where we are, we are at the foothills of a mountain, this particular hill which immediately behind ashram turns brown in the month of April and May. Because in this mountain, there is no single tree over 20 years of age – they have removed everything. The rest of the mountain is very thick rain forest, this particular hill is like this. Because there was illegal furniture industry taking away the timber we kind of stopped that process. It took a certain amount of social upheaval to stop it but we did. So then I devised a way of planting over this hill during rainy season.

It just took us about 22 to 23 days, about 4 to 5 thousand volunteers and I had to just provide them 2 meals a day and just had to create a song to keep the enthusiasm up and we planted up this hill.  Over 6 million seeds, we planted  in a certain way ensuring that the sprouting would be almost 100%. But because of the wildlife certain amount will die. This whole hill became green in 2 years time. Today, if you come and see, you will see in summer months, it will not turn brown.  Our temperatures have come by at least 3 degrees in summer because of this 22 days of work. So I gave them a demo that you don’t have to give up your life to do this. Making a mountain green, they thought they have to give up their life – so it was a kind of a demo and then they got enthusiastic.

Then I went about speaking to farmer groups and villages.  The simple message that I gave them is just this. As you sit here and breathe, what you exhale the trees are inhaling, what the trees exhale you are inhaling. This is a partnership. This is a relationship without which you cannot do. You can do without any other relationship but this relationship you cannot break or in other words, one half of your lung is hanging out there in the tree.  So it’s not a tree, its part of your breathing equipment. So this message went across to people. They emotionally felt that this is something they have to do because one part of the lungs is hanging out there in tree and have to take care of it. If they want to healthy, if they want to be happy, if they want to live well, if their children have to live well, this has to be done. This is something they understood.

Today, I think we have close to 17 million surviving trees which has  brought in almost over 7% green cover back to the state. This is the official figure. The google maps say it’s much more. So a big movement started and many people started planting. The awareness that this has to happen has almost reached the whole population. The media and people came out in big numbers. The call for green hands planting this year – this is our 30^th year – I told them you have to plant 30 lakh trees, that is 3 million trees, but people came back with a plan and said they will plant 6 million trees. So I said fine. This year they are planting 6 million trees, so about 1,100 nursery across the state in private lands and donated lands, no government help. Planting is not happening in government land – all on private land. We convinced the farmer that he has to convert 10% of his farming land into trees. More food should come out of trees than crops. Right now the proportion is disproportionate so that’s what we are working towards.

Bhavani Prakash:  In another interview, you had said that you spent a lot of time, many years, to work on planting trees in people’s minds…..

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: Yes, that is the most difficult terrain (laughs).

Bhavani Prakash: ….. before you got them to plant trees in soil.

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: Planting trees in the soil is easy because soil likes trees and trees like soil (laughs). But planting trees in people’s minds was the big job. The first six years that’s all we did – planting trees in people’s minds. But now that it’s rooted in people’s minds,  it’ll happen on the land quite effortlessly as six million trees in not a small number.

Bhavani Prakash: How did you do that? How did you engage with communities and also what do you see the impact now on these communities?

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: As I said, it became an experiential process, people understood that their existence is not separate from the trees. We put it across in an experiential way through skits, through plays, through songs, through videos and celebrities coming and talking about it. We organised whole events across Tamil Nadu, so it became clear to people, ordinary people, village people, people who are everyday struggling for their livelihood. These are the people who did it, it’s not some big corporation or some other great sponsorship, it’s ordinary people on the street.

Bhavani Prakash: One question that is asked about tree planting initiatives is the choice of trees and the long term maintenance of the trees. So how does the program ensure this?

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: The choice of trees in not our choice, its indigenous trees. We have chosen 108 indigenous trees – only trees which are local. We don’t bring anything from outside.  The survival rate is because we don’t allow anybody to plant more than 2 trees. 2 children will plant one tree in partnership. So right now, we have taken up this in the schools is a big way, where 2 children in partnership will grow one tree – which is doable. If you make a person plant a hundred trees or a thousand trees, invariably he is not going to take care of it unless he has resources to do it. But 2 trees is something that he will take care of,  so generally give them 3 and say you must plant 2 and encourage one more person to plant one.  So this has set forth a whole culture today. You will see in Tamil Nadu in weddings people are giving away saplings instead of coconut.  People are coming and taking from us, which is a significant change. How many of this (the) wedding guest will actually plant? The thing is we don’t just give it away, we are also kind of encouraging as to how to plant, what to do and things. Even if they don’t, just the shift in culture from giving a coconut or a fruit or something else, they have shifted to give a live sapling. When a grown plant is given to you, you can’t just throw it like this and go. There is a certain involvement in that and plantings happen. So we are also making sure that they receive that and if they say ‘I don’t know where to plant,’ we take it and plant it for them.

Bhavani Prakash: We spend money in so many frivolous ways, and as you mentioned, in unwanted gifts for various occasions such as festivals and birthdays and anniversaries. How can we encourage our friends and families (to plant trees instead)?

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev : You must do it. It’s very, very important, that sensible and meaningful gifts are given, not frivolous and meaningless gifts. So we have set up a website which says “Give Isha.”  So through giveisha.org/pgh people can (donate) either for their own birthday or friend’s birthday or children’s birthday or other occasions.

Bhavani Prakash: Apart from the scientific importance of trees which are important for combating climate change, recycling air and water…..

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: No, no, we are not combating climate change -yes, that will be a consequence. We plant trees because we understand it’s deeply, deeply connected with our lives, so the science of breath for one and in many other ways is connected. So the relationship is far more than just its utility, it’s life. Without our life they can survive, without their life we cannot survive.

And as you know in the past, most people got enlightened under a tree so we are also building infrastructure for your enlightenment.  You better plant one now, just in case you are planning to get enlightened. At least you must have a decent tree to sit under. Otherwise nobody will believe….

Bhavani Prakash: I’ll do a Bodhi tree then. (Laughs)

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: (laughs) If you got enlightened in your bedroom, nobody will believe you. At least you must be sitting under a tree. (Laughs) 

Bhavani Prakash:  In Asia and in most ancient cultures of the world, we grew up with a feeling of reverence for nature and mother earth and that’s fast disappearing in this new age on consumerism and greed, fuelled by rapid economic growth. How can we regain the emotional connect, that love and respect for the earth?

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: It has to be brought forth in children, in the education systems. We are looking at the planet as a commodity.  We are not looking at it as a source of our life, which is a serious, serious mistake and an extremely crass way of existence. So, if you look at your mother as a delivery system for you, it’s a very gross way of existence. If you look at the planet as commodity, it’s a very gross way of existence. It’s time this is conveyed to the children of the planet because they are the future generations and if that has it happen, then this generation has to get it too first. It has to spread the message it’s very, very important.

Bhavani Prakash: If we continue business as usual it is estimated that by end of this century …

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: A century…you think it will last that long? (laughs)

Bhavani Prakash: (laughs and continues)…it’s expected that the planet will become warmer by 4 to 6 degrees Celsius …

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: Singapore won’t exist (then) (laughs)

Bhavani Prakash: What action needs to be taken urgently by every sector of society – by individuals, organisations, communities, policy makers? What action needs to be taken to prevent catastrophic consequences? Can we avert calamity? Is it inevitable? Do we have enough time to act?

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: One thing is (that) the way we consume the planet has to change. You can’t stop it.  It has to change for which breakthrough technologies need to happen. Another important thing is and one of the most immediate things is to plant trees. Particularly planting trees is effective only up to 33 degrees from the equator, north and south. But south of the equator there isn’t much land to plant, expect Africa and certain parts of America. Nowhere else there is land, but in the north, there is plenty of land. So southern India or large segment of India falls into that, Singapore in that range and many other countries are there. Upto 33 degrees from the equator is the most effective place to plant trees.  If you plant it in temperate climates, it will not contribute in a very big way to the climate change process. But maximum impact happens here so that is where we need to plant. These lands which are within 33 degrees on either side of the equator, this is where we must plant maximum trees. Because this where it makes the difference.

This is an immediate remedy or (rather) it’s not a  remedy, it’s a small correction. But if we don’t even make this small correction then (with) other things such as technological breakthroughs, nobody can predict the time. It may happen this year or it may happen a century later. We don’t know when it will happen. We definitely need to invest in that direction but there is no guarantee as to when it will happen. So planting trees is something we can do and see that it happens and the impact is immediately visible. Consuming less in so many ways has to be done, technologies have to be improved but those things will not happen immediately. They can take time.

Bhavani Prakash:  I suppose we must also conserve what we have?  We are losing so much forest within this tropical belt….

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: That’s what I said. You cannot reduce consumption without technological advancement, it will not happen. You can only talk about it. It’s not going to happen, because you cannot curtail human aspirations. But you can curtail human population. The tree population should increase, human population has to come down.  We have bred irresponsibly.

In the last 100 years i.e., in the beginning of the century we were just 1.5 billion. Today we are 7 billion plus. United Nations is making predictions that by 2050 we will be 9.6 billion people. 9.6 billion people means we will have to live with 40% less resource than what we are enjoying now. When I say resource, I am not talking about oil or gold or something. I am talking about food that you eat, water that you drink and air that you breathe.  This is going to be serious problem. So 9.6 billion people in another 40 years, not even 40, in 36 years,  is a dangerous bomb sitting in front of us. Either we curtail this consciously or Nature is going to do it to us in a very cruel manner.  If we do it consciously we can call ourselves human beings. If Nature does it us, we are just creatures on this planet.

Bhavani Prakash: Sadhguru, what is true happiness and joy…..?

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev:  No, no this is not ecological. (Smiles)

Bhavani Prakash: (Smiles) No, I am going to link it…

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev:  How can you sit on a tree and be happy? You have to be a monkey. (Laughs)

Bhavani Prakash: How can we connect this notion of individual happiness and joy to the wellbeing of all fellow human beings, the wellbeing of all species on this planet, the health of all ecosystems?

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: Don’t worry about the happiness of other beings, if you keep this one being happy (pointing to himself), no really…. If you are in a certain state of pleasantness within you, you will be pleasant to everything around you, invariably isn’t it?  When you are happy, are you not nice to people around you? But when you are unhappy are you very nice?   So people are too concerned about fixing the world. No, you fix this (pointing to himself), if this is feeling pleasant, it will naturally be pleasant to everything. So the problem is always – we want to fix the world and then fix this (oneself). It won’t happen, it’s only going to be talk.

Bhavani Prakash: Finally, there is saying that goes like this:  ”Hope without action is just wishful thinking.” Conversely, action without hope is impossible to sustain. So how can those who are really passionate about doing better for the world, encourage others to take action, impactful action, without losing hope.

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev: The thing is, your action should not be based on hope. Your action should be based on your clarity of vision. You know this needs to be done, so you do it. Is it going to happen or not going to happen, that’s not your business. Your business is that you did everything possible that needs to be done. Is it going to happen or is it not going to happen? If you calculate that now,  you will give it up tomorrow morning.

That’s not necessary. (Whether) It is going to happen or not going to happen is subject to many things, but did you do what you could do or not,  is the basic thing. So every human being has to look at this. “Oh it’s ok, if I plant a tree, is the world going to change?” Whether it changes or not, it’s just that out your concern you have done everything that you can do. You have not left anything undone. Always this is so in one’s life. In every human being’s life,  if you do not do what you cannot do, that’s not the issue. If you do not what you can do, that’s a disastrous life. So my wish is that no human being should become a disaster.  Every human being should do what he can do. What he cannot do….nobody can do what he cannot do. (laughs)

Bhavani Prakash:  Thank you Sadhguru for your wonderful words of wisdom and guidance.

****************************************************************************************

If you wish to plant a tree via Project Green Hands (PGH) : Donate via www.giveisha.org/pgh
Visit Project Green Hands‘ website and join PGH on Facebook

****************************************************************************************

Further links you may be interested in:

EWTT: World Environment Day 2012: Support Project Green Hands

About the interviewer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com.  She is a sustainability speaker, trainer and writer can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Share/Save

Michelle Desilets

Michelle Desilets is Founder and Executive Director of Orangutan Land Trust, a UK-based NGO which supports sustainable solutions for the long-term survival of the orangutan in the wild.  She is also Founder of Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation UK, and Member of the Board of Borneo Orangutan Survival Germany, which supports the largest primate rescue and protection project in the world.

She was in Singapore recently when she talked to us about the threats to orangutans, especially from the palm oil industry. Orangutan Land Trust is a key player in the campaign for sustainable palm oil, and Desilets shares some of the nuances in the debate about sustainable palm oil, the challenges in the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) process, and what would be more effective to save the rainforests – boycotting palm oil, or more direct action through petitions which influence industry and government behaviour.

Watch the interview with Michelle Desilets here:

Video link here

Desilets aim to secure at least 1 million hectares of rainforest for the continued and long term survival of the orangutan. Support Orangutan Land Trust’s efforts here

Please support the campaign to save Tripa Peat Swamps.

Join the Facebook page : Save the Tripa Peat Swamps, and sign petitions via Avaaz, Change.org or Care2

ABOUT THE INTERVIEWER:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com.  She is a sustainability speaker, trainer and writer can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Further links you may be interested in:

EWTT: The fight for Borneo’s soul

EWTT: Nestle buckles to Greenpeace pressure on unsustainable palm oil

EWTT: How to find Hidden Palm Oil in Supermarkets

EWTT: Engaging local communities in S.E.Asian Peat Swamp Regeneratio

Share/Save

Wanda Embar (WE)  is the Founder of Veganpeace, a website dedicated to “inspire people to strive towards a more peaceful world where animal and human rights are respected and honored.” 

Embar, who was born in Leiden, the Netherlands studied mathematics at the University of Leiden and later at the University of Toulouse, France. She then relocated to Wisconsin, U.S.A., where she currently resides. Embar became vegetarian around 1985, by following her older sister’s example. After reading about the suffering dairy cows go through, she turned vegan in 1990. It was then she saw how connected the meat and dairy industry are. 

Livestock is now estimated to cause around 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and has huge environmental impact. In this interview, Embar highlights the philosophy behind veganism and some of the key behavioural issues related to it. 

EWTT: When did you become sensitive to animal suffering?

Wanda Embar:

Embar: I grew up eating meat. I was surrounded by cats and other little creatures and loved animals, but I’d never made the connection. Meat was just a normal part of the meal on our dinner table. When I was about 15 years old, my older sister had become vegetarian after a teacher had talked to her class about animal suffering. As a younger sister I just followed her lead. After that I looked up books about vegetarianism in the library and started to read about the issues. I was shocked when I found out how animals are raised and killed for our meals. I was also completely convinced that other people would immediately become vegetarian if they found out what I had just read. My parents were the first people I shared my new found knowledge with. It was a very rude awakening for me when they didn’t react the way I expected them too. I was hurt, upset, but as a teenager, I was especially angry. After that I started to talk to basically anyone who wanted to listen to me about vegetarianism, mostly to my friends at school.

Asian Asparagus Wraps-(c) Vegan Peace

EWTT: Was your decision to turn vegan because of a love for all animals or the belief that animals have a right to a good life?

Embar: I would say both. I definitely have a love for animals, which I’m sure has influenced the decisions I’ve made in life. I was also born with a very strong belief in justice. That’s why I can’t help but care about so many different issues in this world.

EWTT: Was your shift to a vegan diet a gradual process or more like an overnight decision?

Embar: I turned vegan the day I read a paragraph about dairy cows in a Dutch book about vegetarianism. (I’d been vegetarian for about 5 years.) The book talked about how calves are removed from their mothers, very soon after birth. It also mentioned how dairy cows are slaughtered at about the age of 3 to 4 years, whereas they can live to be 25 years old. That’s when I realized that the dairy industry was just as cruel as the meat industry. I was still living at home and remember opening my bedroom door, calling my mother (who was about to buy groceries) and saying that I didn’t want to drink milk anymore. That’s the day I became vegan. It was on February 27th 1990.

EWTT: How did your family react?

Friendly Sheperd's Pie-(c)Vegan Peace

Embar: My mother was a bit worried. I hardly knew anything about veganism yet and didn’t even know whether there were any other vegans in Holland. So it was all still new for us. But my family supported me, mostly because they knew that there was absolutely no way they could possibly change my mind.

EWTT: How about your children?

Vegan Cupcakes-(c)Vegan Peace.

Embar: Since my husband and I, are both vegan, we are raising our two children (aged 10 and 12) as vegan. I believe that a vegan diet is healthier, so it’s a natural choice to raise our children that way. And of course it also makes a lot of sense to raise children with compassion. It’s very easy and gentle to explain to them that a tomato grows on a plant, but I can’t imagine how I would explain to them about  how a piece of meat reaches the dinner table. Children are born with a natural love for animals and it’s beautiful to be able to nurture that.

EWTT: What is the hardest thing about becoming a vegan?

Embar: If I have to answer this question for me personally, then the answer is “nothing”. I’ve never had any trouble becoming vegan and never missed anything. I’ve been a vegan for 21 years now and there hasn’t been a single day where I “missed” something or had a craving for a non-vegan food. I know that’s not the same for other people though. Many vegans (including my husband) are really helped by having other vegans around them for support. I also know that many vegans (especially here in America) really have a hard time giving up cheese. Cheese seems to be more difficult to give up than meat.

                                                                                                                             

EWTT: You believe that going completely vegan instead of cutting down on meat or dairy consumption is the ideal situation. But for most people, isn’t meat reduction a more achievable goal?

Embar: That is a very good question. You correctly assumed that I consider being totally vegan the ideal situation and I would like to elaborate on the reasons why a bit. Firstly – and what brought me personally to ‘veganism‘ - I don’t believe that animals exist on this Earth simply to serve us humans. Unless it’s necessary for our own survival, I don’t see any valid reason to exploit and abuse our fellow sentient beings.

Secondly the vegan lifestyle can be the solution to some other major problems we are dealing with. It’s important for us to realize that ‘veganism’ doesn’t just benefit the lives of the non-human inhabitants of this Earth but us too. Here is why:

We are growing gigantic amounts of grains to be fed to farmed animals, while people in this world are dying from hunger. It takes up to 16 pounds of grain to produce just 1 pound of meat. That’s a very inefficient way of producing food, which we can’t afford in this overpopulated world.

To make room to grow these huge amounts of grains, we also destroy the beautiful nature on this Earth. We are destroying millions of acres of rain-forests so we can grow crops to feed to factory-farmed animals.

And if that weren’t bad enough, meat consumption has also been linked to major health problems like heart disease, obesity and cancer.

So yes, veganism is the ideal situation for this planet and all the creatures who inhabit it.

                                    

EWTT: Our society is largely non-vegan and most meat is factory-farmed.  How to you stay positive that the transition will come about?

Embar: It is not easy, but I deal with it by trying to understand how humans behave and why they behave that way. We are all born in this very complex world, with already existing norms and values. It is very normal to just want to blend in with our current society and to accept their way of life. That’s the easy way to live and it’s understandable that most people choose to go that direction.

Branding Animals.Courtesy:The Animals Voice

It’s comforting for me to know, that the majority of people seem to have a natural love for the animals that they encounter in life (like pets or zoo animals). It’s also comforting to know that most people would be absolutely disgusted if they were face to face with what goes on in a factory farm. This is both comforting and frustrating, because people seem to have a natural reaction to want to close their eyes and ignore whatever makes them feel uncomfortable, which is made very easy for them since most animal cruelty happens completely out of sight. What also helps me to deal with people, is being very aware of my own imperfections and my own tendencies to want to ignore suffering. When money is tight, I’ll also buy clothing in a regular store, regardless of everything I know about sweatshops.

And what helps me maybe most is the way I became vegan. As I’d mentioned, I became vegan after reading just one simple paragraph about the dairy industry in a Dutch book about vegetarianism. This book was a newer and changed edition of the same book I had read a few years earlier.

After I’d become vegan, out of curiosity, I went to the library and looked at the older edition. I was absolutely shocked and amazed when I found that same paragraph about the dairy industry in this older version. This meant that I’d already read it a few years back, without it having any effect on me at all. This really helped me to understand other people and to know that they not only need the right information, but they also have to be at the right time in their lives to want to change.This all helps me to understand and stay patient, which doesn’t mean that I don’t have moments of frustration.

EWTT: How do you think a transition to a less meat oriented society can come about?

Embar: Every person is different and has their own comfort levels, that’s why I don’t suggest any single way in doing this. Some people might have no problem switching to a vegan diet overnight, while other people are more comfortable incorporating a vegan meal once a week. There is no right or wrong, it all helps. Caring is what matters most.However I encourage people to try eating more plant-based foods. An important reason people might want to try transitioning towards a vegan diet is the message it gives to society. Money is a major tool people have to voice their opinion. The way you spend your money lets society know what actions you do and don’t support. Every time you buy a vegan food product instead of an animal product, you increase the demand of vegan products and decrease the demand of animal products.This might not seem like much while you are doing your groceries, but it definitely counts.

 

EWTT: Do you believe a humane way to raise animals for meat is possible?

Courtesy: Veganpeace

Embar: No. I really don’t believe that it is possible to commercially raise animals in a humane way. Any commercial institution has to make economic decisions, to be able to both exist and thrive. I believe that it is impossible to put animal lives in this equation, without it negatively affecting their quality of life. It is simply impossible to meet the demands for animal products, while treating animals compassionately.                                                       

A few years ago I contacted this small Dutch farm where they raise chickens for eggs. This farm allowed you to ‘adopt’ chickens and to see them on a webcam. I asked them about common issues in the egg industry. A woman, one of the owners of the farm, answered me in an admirable honest way. She told me that they indeed have to dispose of male chicks (which are useless in the egg industry). She also mentioned that when the chickens are about 2 years old, they are slaughtered, because their eggs become too fragile to transport. She mentioned that as long as people demand animal products, they have to make economic decisions like that. And this is of course true for all animal industries, not just the egg industry.

EWTT: What about Dairy? What about milk that comes from cows that are allowed to graze on pasture and be their natural self. No hormones and antibiotics are administered. Would you consume dairy products from such farms?

Embar: No. I believe that the breast milk from cows is meant for their

Dairy Cows Courtesy:Veganpeace

own babies. And like I mentioned in a previous question, I don’t believe it is possible to raise animals in a humane way. Even small farms have to deal with issues like male calves , as male calves aren’t of much use at a dairy farm. And issues like older cows not giving enough milk anymore.

I also would like to mention that “natural cows” don’t need to be milked. Cows have been bred in a way that makes them produce these huge quantities of breast milk. A “natural cow” would produce just enough breast milk for her own baby to drink.

EWTT: What is your view on the following statement “Plants may also feel pain”

Embar: Unless you want to go the fruitarian route (I know some fruitarians), we have to eat plants. The meat industry kills more plants than eating these plants directly. The meat industry has to first feed plants to the animals that produce the meat. Then the animal has to be killed. That causes a lot more suffering then directly eating the plants.

 

EWTT: From the time you became a vegan 1990s to now, do you see any dramatic changes about how people perceive Veganism. 

Embar: One huge change I see is that more people now know what the word ‘vegan’ means. In the 1990s, vegans were basically treated like weird aliens. Today when you mention the word “vegan”, many people even know someone that is vegan in their inner circle. So we are definitely growing as a group. This of course is helped a lot by the presence of the internet, which we didn’t have in 1990. Spreading information has become so much easier now.

People also seem to be more open to accept the vegan diet as a healthy option, even though the old “where to you get your protein” question never seems to go away.

I’ve also noticed how through the years ‘veganism’ is slowly becoming a more integrated and accepted part of our society. In 1990 it was as good as impossible to enter a restaurant and to ask about vegan menu options. Today it still doesn’t always work, but it’s a lot easier (at least in the US). You can even find some “regular” restaurants that use the word “vegan” in their menu.

Vegan Food Pyramid

The quality and selection of vegan products in health food stores has definitely greatly improved these last few years, which helps in making vegan products a lot more accessible. Regular grocery stores are also starting to carry more and more vegetarian items.

 

 

 EWTT: What is the future of veganism?

Embar: My dream is that one day the animal industry will be abolished, but I highly doubt that I will live to see that happen. What I do know is that we will continue to grow and spread information. The majority of people like to follow the general way society is set up and I believe that ‘veganism’ is slowly becoming one accepted way of living. That will make it easier for future generations to decide to go in that direction. It’s never easy to join a minority, let alone be the only one you know that chooses a certain lifestyle, which is currently still the reality for many vegans. I’m confident that will change.

 

What Every Vegan Should Know About Vitamin B12

Very low B12 intakes can cause anaemia and nervous system damage.

The only reliable vegan sources of B12 are foods fortified with B12 (including some plant milks, some soy products and some breakfast cereals) and B12 supplements. Vitamin B12, whether in supplements, fortified foods, or animal products, comes from micro-organisms.

Most vegans consume enough B12 to avoid anaemia and nervous system damage, but many do not get enough to minimise potential risk of heart disease or pregnancy complications.

To get the full benefit of a vegan diet, vegans should do one of the following:

• eat fortified foods two or three times a day to get at least three micrograms (μg or mcg) of B12 a day or
• take one B12 supplement daily providing at least 10 micrograms or
• take a weekly B12 supplement providing at least 2000 micrograms.

 Read more from The Vegan Society

 

**************************************************************************************************************

About the Interviewer:

Bharathi Shiva volunteers as Editor for Eco WALK the Talk.com

***************************************************************************************************************

Share/Save

Emma Freedman Photo by Edmund Lee

Emma is only 12 years old, but age is no excuse for the visionary girl from Corralitos, California to champion a cause she ardently believes in – that of saving the orangutans. We were touched and inspired by her passion after from her recent trip to Sabah, Borneo, Malaysia where she presented a US $1000 cheque to the Sepilok Orangutan Rehabilitation Centre. She had been raising these funds over the last two years, but as she says, this is just the beginning of her journey towards her noble goal.

Emma’s interview shows that the voice of a child can teach us much more about courage, dedication and the impact of human action than weighty tomes and erudite analyses. 

EWTT: Tell us about yourself.

Emma: My name is Emma Freedman. I’m 12 years old. I’m in 7^th Grade and I am home-schooled. I have an unusual education right now, as my family goes on a lot of trips. So 2 years ago, when we were going on a trip to Borneo, I got to visit a rehabilitation centre for orangutans. I learnt about how they are in danger of becoming extinct in a couple of years if they don’t get help. My brother Max and I were so touched by how graceful and human-like they are. We felt that it wasn’t fair that they didn’t have a good chance of survival. We needed to help them. When I came back home, I told all my friends about how we needed to help save the orangutans.

EWTT: Tell us more about your first encounter with orangutans?

Emma: The first time I saw orangutans was two years ago in Borneo. I saw several young orangutans, they played with each other a lot. It was funny because they interacted with each other like human kids interact with each other, like by tumbling around. I also was getting into photography and one of the interesting things was watching them when they came to the feeding platform. It was so much to take in. When I took pictures of them, I realised how much expression they showed on their faces, and how the light catches in their eyes like they do in ours.  They react to each other like humans do. We share so much. Even their name, ‘orang-utan’ means ‘man of the forest’. They really deserve to have their home.

EWTT: What do you think is the biggest threat to the survival of orangutans?

Emma: The biggest issue for them is that their habitat is being destroyed, and they live in the rainforest. The rainforests right now are being destroyed to make way for palm plantations, for palm oil. One of the problems is something that I actually learnt on this trip, that there is what is called a ‘corridor of life.’ Some groups of orangutans that still remain are on these pockets of the jungle.  There are palm plantations built out to the edge on one side, and the Kinabatangan river the other. But the river is eroding the corridor. The habitats of the orangutans are getting smaller and smaller. So the deforestation and river are taking them away. It’s important for groups of orangutans to breed with each other, but right now the jungle is getting cut off into smaller pockets and they can’t connect with each other any more.

EWTT: How did you feel when you learnt about how rainforests and the orangutans are disappearing during that first trip two years ago?

Emma: We got to see the orangutans for one day during our first trip, and I don’t think I had ever thought very much about animals and how their habitats are being destroyed. I was kind of shocked, and also scared for them, especially because they really are depending on us and because we have the power to take their habitat away. We also have the power to save them. I think I felt like I was needed for something;  I was needed to help save them. It wasn’t even specifically me, but I just realised that everyone can help, everyone can do something important for them.

But I was also angry, and now that I think about it, I was even blocking myself from having ideas because I was listening to the anger.  I was so angry at Malaysian people for planting palm plantations, I was angry at chocolate companies for buying palm oil, I was angry at people for buying chocolate.  Then I realised that the anger wasn’t really getting me anywhere.  Once I listened to myself,  I made the decision to step through the door, and accept that saving the orangutans was important to me, I directed my anger on what I could do, and maybe I even felt the best I had ever felt in my whole life.

EWTT: At what point did you feel that anger and transformed into action?

Patty Freedman (Emma’s mom) explained: We were on a 4 day visit at that time. We went up river driving 2 ½ hours in the van and we saw nothing but palm plantations. On the way back, we saw orangutans again, and I think something changed for her. Then later we were staying at a hotel where a lot of the researchers were also having lunch. We felt like we were in the right place at the right time.

Emma: We would see the orangutans in the morning, and the middle part of the day, we would interview researchers. I would sit and write down a whole lot of ideas. They came pouring out of me.  It was such a sudden change. As soon as I saw the orangutans again, I wanted to do something right then. I wanted to help save them.

Max and Emma

All evening, we (my brother Max and I) were writing down ideas and then later while my parents were trying to put us to bed, I was still writing down ideas. And then I had even more ideas, and they kept trying to make us go to sleep. And then just before sleeping I said to my dad, “Just one more thing, thank you for taking me seriously.”

It was really important to me that I knew I found something important, I found an opportunity to help, to make a difference in the world, and I was so happy that they were supporting me.

EWTT: That is lovely. You’ve got really wonderful parents.  Tell us the things you’ve been doing for the orangutans over the last 2 years back home in California?

Emma with handmade crafts

Emma: In the past 2 years, I have raised a thousand dollars –  mostly I’ve done bake sales and lemonade sales with my friends. We’ve also made and sold stuffed animals, of orangutans from recycled sweaters.

Patty: She sold jam as well. Every time there was an opportunity, and this was what was so interesting, the cause was always on top of her mind. She’d keep asking, “what can I do, how could this connect with the orangutans?”

Emma: Another thing is that when I’m working on this project to save the orangutans, since I’m home-schooled, I can focus on one big project and nothing else for a day. Also when I’m working on this project, there are so many things involved in it, such as science and writing and art, and anything I want to weave into it.

Every year I do a science project which has to do with my interests. This year, I thought it would be great if I could involve it with my orangutan project, because I’m always looking for new opportunities to raise awareness about orangutans. I tested the water in the Kinanbatangan river, so when I present my science project, I will raise awareness about how the palm plantations affect the river. Two years ago, at our county fair, I made a public exhibit about the orangutans, and put all the letters I had written to companies and displayed the orangutan stuffed animals I had SEWN, and also lots of  information for people to read about the orangutans. About 10,000 people came to the fair.

It was really exciting for me because I got the highest prize at the county fair, but the important part for me was that even the judges were paying attention, and they learnt about the orangutans.

EWTT: Tell us about your recent trip this week to Borneo where you actually handed in your cheque from the funds you’ve been collecting through all your hard work. Your dad mentioned it was a difficult journey.

Patty : We camped near Kinanbatangan river for four days, there was no running water, no electricity and so it was very challenging – we had very little sleep and very little to eat.

Emma: One of the most important things about the trip was that I paid for us (my mom and my brother Max) to go to Borneo from my pocket money, because I wanted to go back and see the orangutans. I realise now that I was almost a little bit worried that I would be disappointed, but instead it was even better because it was really worth it.  We didn’t even get to go for very many days, but one day that we went, I got to see what success was for this orangutan centre. There were two orang-utans that were orphans, and the centre had raised them and released them in the wild, and now these two orangutans both had babies. They were so cute.

Emma giving a cheque to Orangutan Appeal UK

EWTT: How would you tell other children and grownups for that matter to take action?

Emma: Really, all they need to do is learn about the destruction that’s going on. Right now, a lot of people don’t even know about or think about the orangutans, like I didn’t before I went to see them.

The important thing is to reduce the demand for palm oil, to read labels and avoid products which contain palm oil.

EWTT: What do you plan to do next?

Emma:  I made this new goal. I want to become a child ambassador for the Sepilok Orangutan Rehabilitation Centre that I visited in Borneo. I may be able to write something for their newsletter and inspire other kids. That’s really important because I know that my generation is the tipping point for the orangutans. It’s now more important than ever to teach other kids about how they need our help, because they deserve more of a chance. They are so much like humans, except they can’t speak, so it’s important for me to speak for them, and for all of you to speak for them too.

**************************************************************************************************

To join Emma in her cause of raising awarness for the Orangutans, please contact her through helpborneo[at]gmail.com

You may also check out her website at Jungle Heroes.org 

To help the orangutans that Emma visited in Sepilok, Borneo,  please make donations to the UK based Orangutan Appeal

*************************************************************************************************

About the Interviewer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk. She discovered her passion and sense of urgency for raising awareness about the environment when she first learnt about the fate of rainforests of the world and vanishing species like the orangutans, as a volunteer guide at the Singapore Botanic Gardens. That led to the creation of this website.

She writes and conducts talks and workshops on sustainability and can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Do follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Further links you may be interested in:

EWTT: How to find hidden palm oil in supermarkets

Red Suitcase: Kinabatangan Tribulations

Share/Save

Lim Li Ching

Lim Li Ching, who is co-author of the book “GMO Free” works with the biosafety and sustainable agriculture programs at Third World Network (TWN),  an international NGO based in Malaysia. TWN covers developmental issues, policy advocacy work, climate change, WTO, Biosafety issues, to advance social justice with a pro-poor agenda. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Oakland Institute .

The book “GMO Free”, a compilation of the studies by the Independent Science Panel comprising prominent scientists in the field, summarises a vast amount of literature and extensive scientific evidence. As the subtitle states, the book, “Exposes the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply”.  Lim Li Ching spoke to us recently and shares her views on various aspects of the GM debate.

EWTT: How did you get interested in studying genetically modified foods and ecological agriculture?

LLC: While I was in school, I was inspired by a cousin who worked for Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth Malaysia) and was always a ‘green’. I did my first degree in Ecology, then worked with WWF Malaysia on marine conservation issues for several years. My focus then shifted to development issues e.g., poverty alleviation. I then did my MPhil in Development Studies. After graduating I lived in the UK for several years, where I worked for both the Third World Network (TWN) with their biosafety/GM programme and the Institute of Science in Society, one of TWN’s partner organizations.

EWTT: Tell us about the Independent Science Panel whose summary of findings is in your book.

LLC: The Independent Science Panel (ISP) was set up about 8 years ago, at the height of the GM debate in the UK, and chaired by Dr Mae Wan Ho, Director of The Institute of Science in Society (ISIS). ISIS is an independent think tank with the aim of promoting science for public good, independent of commercial or other special interest.

The ISP brought together a team of scientists who had questions about GM safety, and they submitted dossiers and responses to regulators. Their study of existing literature and scientific evidence, basically confirmed concerns over the safety of GMOs, and also established the benefits of various forms of sustainable agriculture. They make a strong case for a worldwide ban on all environmental release of GM crops and to pave the way towards ecological farming methods.

EWTT: Can you elaborate on why the concept of ‘substantial equivalence’ followed by US regulatory authorities, and some other countries is flawed and not universally adopted?

LLC: The concept of susbstantial equivalence is a regulatory one, which claims that a novel food (for example, GM foods) should be considered the same as and as safe as a conventional food if it demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food. However this concept has been heavily criticized as being unscientific and not well defined.

One key issue is that US is the leading producer and developer of GM crops. They use the concept to basically take away the need for regulation of GMOs by saying that as they are ‘substantially equivalent’ to their conventional counterparts, they don’t need to come under the regulatory process. The reality however is that apart from US and a few other GM producers, many other countries think that GMOs are different and that they do carry specific risks, and because they move around due to international trade, there has to be some sort of international regulation.

EWTT: What are the international regulations concerning GMOs?

LLC: The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety which is under the Convention on Biological Diversity largely regulates the export and import of GMOs between countries, but it also sets the international minimum standards on biosafety, so many countries that are parties to the Protocol like Malaysia for example, have set up their own national laws on GMOs. The basis of laws related to the development, production and research of GMOs and the environmental release of GMOs is that ‘they are different from their conventional counterparts and carry potential risks’ and ‘you can’t just release these organisms into nature without any controls in place.’  They have to undergo an approvals process, for example, if a developer or producer of GMOs wants to export a GMO into a country, it would have to get the prior permission of the country concerned, which will do a risk assessment, and make a decision on whether to accept it or not.

The key here is that if you look at some of the international standards such as the Codex Alimentarius guidelines for food safety assessments for foods containing GMOs, they look at ‘substantial equivalence’ as a starting point. Many countries who have regulations on biosafety say well, substantial equivalence is a starting point, and a comparative way of looking at things, and as we have years and years of experience with conventional foods, so we can question, ‘are there any differences and any particular differences that should be followed up?”

So while there is still a big debate on the safety of GMOs, to me it is settled as we have an international treaty that deals with it which clearly says that GMOs are different, they carry specific risks, and there is a need for regulation.

EWTT: What is the state of biosafety regulation in Asia?

LLC: Worldwide, there are currently 161 parties to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which came into force in 2003. Singapore is not a party to the Protocol, although it does have some guidelines on the issue. Its attitude towards GMOs are more permissive as compared to other countries in the region.

Malaysia has ratified the Cartagena Protocol and a national law was passed in 2007 on biosafety. The crux, of course, lies in the implementation and enforcement of the law.

As a party to the Protocol, it sets up the process envisaged, so if for example, Monsanto wants to market its products, it has to go through an approvals process, and get the approval of the government. There is basically a risk assessment done through a committee which evaluates the dossiers. As an NGO, we used to sit on the GM advisory committee in Malaysia and we were able to access the technical dossiers and give our comments. The process could be improved and of course there are gaps, but in general at least we have a law that regulates GMOs.

Of course, we can always question whether this committee has the capacity, and have they given due consideration to other impartial opinions? But this is an issue that a lot of countries have had to grapple with, and it is not unique to Malaysia. The fact is that there is at least a law, and you can’t just send GM products to our country. There is some kind of regulatory process, and we have to assess them, and then take a decision of whether to import them.

Asia-Pacific countries which are a party to the Cartegena Protocol on Biosafety

Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.

NOT a Party: Singapore, Australia, US  (though Australia has mandatory labelling of GM food)

Full list of nations which are parties to the protocol can be found here

“India is a party to the Protocol and has its own laws governing GMOs. It went through this regulatory process where it put on hold the introduction of Bt Brinjal.  Philippines is another party to the Protocol, however it is one country that is actively planting GM crops despite various NGO objections.   In China, they actually have public funds allocated for biosafety research, which many countries don’t have. They have commercialised GM cotton and GM trees, but there is a big debate in China about GM rice. There is concern, and this has taken a lot of time to go through the system as it is a staple food crop and they don’t want to get it wrong. So China has a slightly different situation, as there is public research and not just industry research, so even there is a lot of biotechnology development, there is a bit of a countervailing force.”  (Lim Li Ching)

EWTT: What do the various studies on safety of GMOs for human consumption say?

LLC: When we look at the health studies on GMOs, the recent papers by Domingo and Bordonaba (2011), and Seralini et al. (2011) show that the database on which to make a judgement on safety has been very small. At the same time, there has been a big push for these products leaving us with a situation where regulation is trying to play ‘catch up’, because GMOs are already out there in the environment and food supply chain of many countries whereas the safeguards are not yet in place.

One of the biggest lessons we can learn is that the changes or effects of GMOs we are talking about are likely to take a long time before they manifest. There have been a few studies that point to what we can call ‘early warnings’, that provide some results that need to be looked at in more detail, but you can see the trend that in most studies funded by the GM industry, scientists say, ‘no problem.’ On the other hand, most studies done by truly independent groups are saying, ‘there’s something we need to look at here’.

The problem is that every time a study like this raising doubts on GMOs is published, there’s a lot of backlash, and vilification of the scientists. There’s a lot of criticism and unwillingness to have an honest engagement to really look at the issue and say, ‘this is a problem.’ As scientists, we need to do more research and try and answer these questions, to look at all the things that are being raised now.

This is one issue that very much characterises the GM debate. Though there is still a big scientific debate going on about the concerns regarding GMOs, there is a big push by the industry to release them into the environment.

A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants
Jose L. Domingo, Jordi Gine Bordonaba
Environment International 37 (2011) 734–742
http://bit.ly/ge44Uu

Abstract
In recent years, there has been a notable concern on the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods/plants, an important and complex area of research, which demands rigorous standards. Diverse groups including consumers and environmental Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) have suggested that all GM foods/plants should be subjected to long-term animal feeding studies before approval for human consumption. In 2000 and 2006, we reviewed the information published in international scientific journals, noting that the number of references concerning human and animal toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods/plants was very limited. The main goal of the present review was to assess the current state-of-the-art regarding the potential adverse effects/safety assessment of GM plants for human consumption.

The number of citations found in databases (PubMed and Scopus) has dramatically increased since 2006. However, new information on products such as potatoes, cucumber, peas or tomatoes, among others was not available. Corn/maize, rice, and soybeans were included in the present review. An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. All this recent information is herein critically reviewed.

………
Final remarks

In the same line of our previous papers (Domingo, 2000, 2007; Domingo-Roig and Gómez-Arnáiz, 2000), the main purpose of this review-article was to critically revise the published scientific literature on potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants. It was noticed that the total number of general references on GMOs in general, and GM foods/plants in particular, found in the databases PubMed and Scopus has considerably increased between our 2006 search (Domingo, 2007) and the current one. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed.

Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies (Domingo, 2007). The scientific community may finally be able to critically evaluate and discuss all that information, which was not possible until now. Scientists know quite well how different may be the information published in reputed international journals, which has been submitted to peer-review processes, from those general comments/reports not submitted to this selective procedure.

A relatively remarkable finding of the present review is that the published scientific literature between October 2006 (Domingo, 2007) and August 2010 (current review) on edible GM plants, concerns only to three products: corn/maize, soybeans, and rice, rice being comparatively the less abundant. We have not been able to find citations involving investigations on GM potatoes (except a review by Arvanitoyannis et al., 2008), peas, tomatoes, pepper, etc., after October 2006. A summary of experimental studies (October 2006–August 2010) concerning dietary administration of those products to various animal species is shown in Table 1. With respect to corn/maize, various studies have concluded that the transgenic varieties 1507 (MacKenzie et al., 2007), 59122 (Malley et al., 2007; Juberg et al., 2009; He et al., 2008),1507×59122 (Appenzeller et al., 2009a), 98140 (Appenzeller et al., 2009b; McNaughton et al., 2007), Y642 (He et al., 2009), and MON 88017 (Healy et al., 2008) were as safe as conventional quality protein maize. In contrast, Séralini’s group raised concern regarding some commercialized GM maize (NK 603, MON 810 and MON 863) (Séralini et al., 2007, 2009; de Vendômois et al., 2009).

Similarly, scientific controversy is also present in relation to the safety of GM soybeans. While it has been reported that 356043 (Sakamoto et al., 2007) and 305423 (Delaney et al., 2008) soybeans were as safe as conventional non-GM soybeans, some authors are still concerned by the safety of GM soybeans and recommend to investigate the long-term consequences of GM diets and the potential synergistic effects with other products and/or conditions (Malatesta et al., 2008a,b; Cisterna et al., 2008; Magaña-Gómez et al., 2008).

In the period here revised, October 2006–August 2010, a few reviews on health risks of GMfoods/plants have been also published (Dona and Arvanitoyannis, 2009; Magana-Gomez and de la Barca, 2009; Key et al., 2008). In general terms, all these authors agree in remarking that more scientific efforts are clearly necessary in order to build confidence in the evaluation and acceptance of GM foods/plant by both the scientific community and the general public. Especially critical is the recent review by Dona and Arvanitoyannis (2009), who remarked that results of most studies with GM foods would indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects, and might alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters. These authors also concluded that the use of recombinant GH or its expression in animals should be re-examined since it has been shown that it increases IGF-1 which, in turn, may promote cancer. A harsh response to that review was recently published in the same journal (Rickard, 2010). This is indeed only an example on the controversial debate on GMOs, which remains completely open at all levels.

Finally, we would like to indicate that the review on allergenicity of GM plants has not been included herein. European legislation stipulates that GMOs have to be monitored to identify potential adverse environmental effects (Reuter et al., 2010). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently published a Scientific Opinion regarding assessment of allergenicity of GM plants and microorganisms and derived food and feed (EFSA, 2010). Detailed information on this important issue is available here.

EWTT: One of the studies that pointed to a fundamental flaw in the GM technology itself was Arpad Putzai’s study that raised a lot of debate in the UK in the late 1990s? Do you think the GM technology is based on a flawed theory?

LLC: Though I’m not a geneticist, I can refer you to the work of my co-author Dr Mae Wan Ho who is one. Her book, “Living with the Fluid Genome” really looks at this in detail, and what we are discovering about gene expression. You are correct in saying, that the foundations of genetic engineering is based on One Gene = One Protein = One Trait, a central dogma which has actually been shown not to be true, because we know that one gene can produce many different proteins and many different traits. When scientists sequenced the human genome, they expected to find a lot more genes than they did, and then they realised through processes like alternative gene splicing, that scientists are getting more and more information that shows that this kind of linear thinking doesn’t hold true anymore.

The human body has about 100,000 proteins. It was expected before that each protein would have a corresponding gene. However a report by the Human Genome Project
in 2000 only found about 30,000 genes in the human body – which is roughly the same as mice and not much more than a weed with 26,000 genes.

So when you have so many more proteins per gene, a gene can be found to express itself in many different ways, which is not a deterministic process as was once thought. Dr Mae Wan Ho also explains in her book how environmental factors affect gene expression, so when you slice a gene and insert it into another species, you cannot predetermine with full certainty how it is going to behave.”

EWTT: What are the concerns about horizontal and vertical gene transfer?

LLC: Horizontal gene transfer is gene trasfer between unrelated species and is more common among single-celled organisms such as bacteria. Unintended horizontal gene transfer of GM genes to bacteria is a potential biosafety concern. Some of these concerns are outlined in this publication, ‘Unintended Horizontal Transfer of Recombinant DNA’ by Kaare M. Nielsen and Daniele Daffonchio.

In addition, genetic engineering is forcing different species to share genes that they won’t normally share in nature, for example a moth gene in an apple or a fish gene in strawberries. As we have discussed before, there is no scientific consensus on the safety of such gene transfer, there is still a scientific debate going on, and there are papers which show there are concerns about the health impacts. The question is, whether regulation is sufficient, and that it actually calls for the application of the precautionary principle that we don’t release something into nature, unless we fully understand its implications.

Vertical gene transfer is gene transfer to progeny by sexual reproduction, e.g., pollen flow between the same or related plant species. In the case of GMOs, this could lead to ‘contamination’, whereby genes from GM crops are found in wild relatives, native species, or conventional crops. You may recall the story of Ignacio Capela, a scientist from the University of Berkley who came under very heavy attack by the biotech industry when he found that native species of corn in Mexico had got contaminated by GM corn.

Scientists are concerned about the impact on biodiversity. I can refer you to a paper entitled, ‘Vertical (Trans)gene Flow: Impliations for Crop Diversity and Wild Relatives’ by David Quist  which talks about vertical gene flow and why it’s an issue.

On the commercial side, there’s an issue because if GM genes contaminate non-GM crops, there will be a market rejection, particularly of organically grown crops, where organic standards exclude genetic engineering.

EWTT: How can the public engage in the GM debate?

LLC: Consumer awareness is very important for this whole issue. In Europe for example, the awareness about food safety is quite high – they’ve had the history of the BSE debate (mad cow disease).

Perhaps in Asia the awareness is not that high, though people are becoming increasingly conscious of where their food is coming from, and how it is produced. In the absence of GM labelling, buying organic with 3rd party certification which excludes GMOs, is one way of making the choice.

To learn more about organic labelling, look at the Certified Organic Labelling Guide by Organic.org, and GMO Free Guides that apply to certain countries.   Some of the countries with mandatory labelling of GMOs are EU, Australia, Japan and China. Voluntary labelling is followed by Canada and Hong Kong among others.

The public should be encouraged to find out more about the food they eat, because it affects us fundamentally, and the GM debate is situated within a bigger debate of how our food is produced globally, and how it impacts biodiversity and food security.

There’s a lot of attention these days on agriculture because of high food prices. People in international institutions and development circles are saying we need to invest in agriculture, given the history of not investing in agriculture, despite it being very important for developing countries where it affects a larger proportion of the population. The question is, can we change the way we produce food under the broad umbrella of industrial agriculture of which GM is a part? This has proven to be too resource and energy intensive in terms of chemicals and other inputs. There is also a concern about climate change because of the greenhouse gas emissions from industrial agriculture.

Yes we have produced enough food to feed the poor so far, and of course, people are still hungry which is largely a political, distribution issue. In terms of quantity of food there is enough, but then it has come at a huge cost to the environment and also at a cost to the farmers.

So when people start thinking about where our food comes from, they should not take it for granted, and query the type of production system the world has, and the ones that are dominant of which GM is a subset.

Raising awareness is definitely important, and people are getting to know there are a lot of issues intertwined with this, such as animal welfare, consuming less meat due to climate change and biodiversity and so on. When you look at developing countries where agriculture is so important, so many things come into play such as trade rules, subsidies for agriculture, Official Development Assistance – these are big issues, and integral issues.

So yes, public awareness is critical for the future of the planet.

**********************************************************************************************************
About the interviewer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk.com and an anti-GM advocate. She can be contacted at bhavani[at] ecowalkthetalk.com .  Join EWTT on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

**********************************************************************************************************

Further Links you may be interested in:

1. Mitigating and Adapting to Climate Change through Ecological Agriculture by Lim Li Ching

2. Overhaul of Agricultural Systems Needed by Lim Li Ching

3. Co-Editor of Book “Biosafety First” Lim Li Ching

4. TWN’s Biosafety website

5. YouTube: Dr Mae Wan Ho video:Part 1 , Part 2 , Part 3 and Part 4

6. Video: the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety

7. EWTT: Dr Mira Shiva: Health Effects of GM Food

8. EWTT: Safe Food Guide: GMO Free Food

9. EWTT: Dr Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development

10. EU and Institute for Health and Consumer Protection (Pg 6) : GM Policy Status in Selected Countries

11. Study showing “Association of financial or professional conflict of interest to research outcomes on health risks or nutritional assessment studies of genetically modified products”

Photo Courtesy: Corn – EJFoodBlogspot.com

Share/Save

Dr Mira Shiva is a renowned medical doctor and public health activist from India. She was a member of the Drug Pricing Review Committee in 2001, and has been a member of various bodies such as the National Population Commission, National Human Rights Commission, Voluntary Health Association of India, Health Equity and Society, All India Drug Action Network, Doctors for Food and Biosafety and Diverse Women for Diversity.

She gave her feedback to various public hearings on the introduction of Bt Brinjal (aubergine) in India. In February 2010, the Indian Government made a decision to halt the commercial production of Bt Brinjal, the world’s first genetically modified (GM) aubergine or eggplant with insecticidal toxin protein from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis)

In this video taken at Navdanya, Dehradun, India, Dr Mira Shiva spoke to us about her feedback to various public hearings on the introduction of Bt Brinjal.

Video link here

Here are some explanations to some of the names and terms mentioned by Dr Mira Shiva in the video:

1. She refers to Arpad Pusztai at the Rowett Institute who investigated the possible health hazards of GM potatoes which had been genetically modified by a gene from snowdrop bulbs.

As summarised by Mae-Wan Ho and Lim Li Ching in their Independent Science Panel study called “GMO-Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of Our Food Supply.”

The studies showed that the two transgenic lines which originated from the same transformation experiment, and were both resistant to aphid pests, were NOT substantially equivalent in composition to parent-line potatoes, nor to each other.

More importantly, the results showed that diets containing GM potatoes had, in some instances, interfered with the growth of the young rats and the development of some of their vital organs, inducing changes in gut structure and function, and reducing their immune responsiveness to injurious antigents.  In contrast, the animals fed on diets containing the parent, non-GM potatoes, or these potatoes supplemented with the gene product, had no such effects.”

Arpad Pusztai also gave an affidavit during the Bt Brinjal hearing in India last year

According to Arpad Pusztai and Susan Bardocz in “Potential Health Effects of Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Plants: What Are the Issues?”

The basic tenet of the biotechnology industry engaged in the production of genetically modified (GM) crop plants and foods is that no ‘credible’ evidence exists that GM crops damage the environment or that GM foods harm human/animal health. Accordingly, they are as safe as their ‘substantially equivalent conventional counterparts’ and need no safety testing. The general acceptance of such a view could, of course, save a great deal of money for the biotechnology industry that otherwise would have to be spent on very expensive environmental and health risk assessments of their GM products.

However, practically all recent reviews that have critically assessed the results of GM crop/food safety research data published in peer-reviewed science journals have come to the conclusion that, at best, their safety has not yet been adequately established, or at worst, that the results of risk assessment studies, particularly (but not exclusively) those carried out independently of the biotechnology industry, have raised important safety concerns which have not been properly settled.

2. Dr Mira Shiva mentions Ann Venemen to show how pro-industry some US goverment appointments have been. Ann Venemen has been profiled here.

3. Dr Mira Shiva also refers to a study by Irina Ermakova. The study has been described by Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception in his article, “ Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically Engineered Soy”

” The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar industry.

Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing.

Ermakova’s first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other groups (see photo below).

Photo of two rats from the Russian study, showing stunted growth – the larger rat, 19 days old, is from the control group; the smaller rat, 20 days old, is from the “GM soy” group.
But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls.

Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote “PRELIMINARY STUDIES” on the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of GM food.

Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in controversy.

GM Soy’s Divisive Past

The soy she was testing was Monsanto’s Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of Monsanto’s “Roundup” brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.

The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA’s 1992 policy that states, “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”[1] The statement, it turns out, was deceptive.

Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed that the FDA’s own experts agreed that GM foods are different and might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto’s former attorney (and later their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food policy as “just a political document” without scientific basis, and warned that industry would “not do the tests that they would normally do” since the FDA didn’t require any.[2] He was correct.

There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety studies and no human clinical trials—in spite of the fact that millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate tests on “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,”[3] and animal feeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes Ermakova’s research particularly significant. It’s the first of its kind.”

For the rest of the article by Jeffrey Smith, please click here.

Photo courtesy:

Bt Brinjal pictures from Navdanya’s campaign brochures.

Further links you may be interested in:

EWTT: Vandana Shiva: Traditional Knowledge, Biodiversity and Sustainable Living (Recent Interview with Dr Vandana Shiva at Dehradun, India on the myth of GM, growth and development and ecological agriculture)

YouTube: Health Implications of Bt Brinjal Dr. Vandana Shiva, a renowned environmentalist, discusses some of the health implications on the genetically modified eggplants that are trying to be forced into India.

Google Videos: The Dangers of Genetically Modified Food by Jeffrey Smith

Share/Save

Shailendra Yashwant (Photo by Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert)

Shailendra Yashwant is Campaign Director of Greenpeace Southeast Asia and founding member of the Greenpeace offices in India and Southeast Asia. The Southeast Asia office manages about 120 staff including campaigners and fund raisers.

Based in Bangkok, Yashwant currently oversees a range of campaigns including climate change, renewable energy, forests, clean water and sustainable agriculture in the Southeast Asian region. He is an award winning photojournalist, and has been involved with key environmental movements in India, Nepal and Bangladesh before he joined Greenpeace in 1998.

Greenpeace International, with offices in over 40 countries is one of the world’s leading non-governmental environmental organisations.  It takes no corporate sponsorship or government grants, with its entire funding sourced directly from the general public.

Yashwant talked to us during his visit to Singapore last month, where he had been invited as a speaker at the first ever Climate Change Summit for the Asia’s Insurance Industry.

BP:  How do you see the various faces of Greenpeace, whose activism can range from “in your face” demonstrations that often gives it an eco-terrorist image, to “pin-striped suit” negotiations with businesses and governments?

SY: Greenpeace celebrates its 40th anniversary in October 2011. Fortunately, our core value of non-violence is such a solid part of our profile for the last 4 decades that the eco-terrorist label never sticks – it’s like water off duck’s back, really .

Our campaigning has always been based on an IDEAL approach – Investigate, Document, Expose, take Action and Lobby. We are well known for our meticulous investigations and systematic scientific research.

We even we have an independent science lab based in the University of Exeter in England and in fact we are considering setting up a science unit for Southeast Asia in Singapore, if we get the permission to do so .

Lobbying is an important part of our campaigning style. In fact, we are as comfortable in our orange overalls while taking direct action as we are in pin-striped suits which we have to wear regularly to engage with executives of our targets companies, senior government officials and attend UN conferences where we have observer status.

I remember the first UN meeting I attended, when we demanded a ban on all F-gases. That’s the first intervention that Greenpeace or any international environmental organisation for that matter did on climate change. Greenpeace has even developed solutions like GreenFreeze , the world’s first CFC free refrigerator that is now a norm in the industry.

BP: How has Greenpeace evolved over the years?

SY: Our style of protests also known as direct action, has certainly changed and evolved. We still protest at the sites of environmental crime to show what is endangered or threatened , like chaining ourselves to bulldozers in forests or blocking pipes that release toxic effluents in rivers.

What has evolved in last four decades is the technology and lately we’ve begun using the power of social network to involve more people in our protests.

In 2009 we ran a hugely successful online campaign targeting Unilever. We made a spoof video of their television commercial for Dove soap, to bring attention to the fact that products like soap, shampoo, chocolates used palm oil, a product that came from forest destruction in places like Indonesia. We were demanding that multinational companies like Unilever, Nestle and others stop buying palm oil from companies that were involved in forest destruction for expanding their plantations in Indonesia.

It was amazing to see the video viral on social networks with more than 300,000 people writing to Unilever echoing our demands. The company had very little choice but to listen to the demands of their consumers.

We repeated this tactic with the Kitkat campaign targeting Nestle on the same issue with tremendous results again last year.

Our business is to communicate the environmental crisis, and to reach out to more and more people to engage on these critical issues. We think that reaching out to huge numbers is now possible.

[Click here for EWTT's summary of the Nestle KitKat campaign.

Read also the latest success of Greenpeace's campaign here to get palm oil conglomerate Golden Agri Resources, to commit not to clear peatlands and forests of High Conservation Value]

BP: Do you also find that the attitudes of governments and businesses have changed over the years, especially towards Greenpeace?

SY: Absolutely. This paradigm shift that everyone is talking about has already started happening. I think that governments are willing to listen because the impacts are obvious.

Industrial effluents at Vapi (Photo by Shailendra Yashwant)

For example, in the state of Gujarat in India, at what is known as the Golden Corridor that stretches from Vapi to Ankleshwar– a major hub of chemical industries , that manufactures intermediary chemical compounds for export.

We began investigating by first documenting impacts, by taking pictures of red cows and blue dogs, and farmers and fishermen suffering from skin diseases. Later we tested water in the rivers to discover high toxic content due to direct release of effluents from the chemical factories. We released the results of our investigations, including the pictures and then took direct action by blocking pipes that were discharging in the rivers. Nothing happened. We were pushed back from Gujarat.

A few years later, the number of women suffering from miscarriages increased dramatically and an alarming rise in health disorders were reported. That got people worried. Now they were calling for the reports that were released 10 years earlier about the harmful effects of dyes and chemicals released in the rivers. The local Pollution Control Board is actually now on our side. The first 5 years, they were against me. So you see these little shifts. They are not tectonic but they are happening. We are not anywhere near saving the planet yet of course.

[Vapi appeared in 2006 & 2007 in the Blacksmith's Institute's List of Top 10 of Worst Polluted Places and also cited by Mother News Network in 2011 as one of the 15 most toxic places in the world to live]

BP: How is your current campaign against deforestation in Indonesia shaping up in the context of REDD-plus?  What kind of legal or market frameworks would you like to see in place?

SY: First of all, we want all stakeholders to be involved. We can’t just have governments and businesses sitting down together without the indigenous peoples and communities, local government and civil society. These people have to be involved for any decision making. Don’t jump into the carbon markets and make promises, but involve all stakeholders. Don’t give any more new concessions till such a joint discussion takes place. Also, don’t allow the existing concessions to be cleared. Before anything else, we need to reassess what is really left, what can be protected, put a value to the forests especially when it is reduced to this size. These three are key: stakeholder involvement, a moratorium that allows a full assessment, and in many parts of the world we don’t want the REDD or post Cancun money that is coming in to become an excuse for developed countries to continue emitting.

In fact, we’re saying only those countries which have shown a track record of reducing their carbon emissions should be allowed to participate in these schemes.
Nothing much happened in Cancun, by the way. We’re focussing now on the bilateral deals, for example, the Norway-Indonesia deal and the Australia-Indonesia deal only because you have to show the Indonesian government and the local governments and players that there is a value to standing forests. You can actually make money from a standing forest. It’s unfortunately all about money.

[Click here for the joint Friends of the Earth FOE and Greenpeace's document, "REDD: The realities in black and white"]

BP: You’re also campaigning for increasing the uptake of renewable energies in the region. Where would you like to see change?

SY: We’d like to see governments revisiting their GDP projections, this growth-linked fossil fuel use projections. What are your real energy requirements, where are they going to come from? Stop thinking grid.

Netherlands is the best example of how each building or community has its own little energy production centre. They are therefore responsible for how it is run, whether it is polluting or not, whether it is green or not.

We want to see existing technology, not rocket science. Our Energy [R]evolution document shows there are existing technologies whether wind, solar, biomass, microhydro – all these alternative energy production systems that can meet our requirements.

[Click here to read more about Greenpeace's Energy [R]evolution campaign]

BP: What is the main impediment to the shift to renewables?

SY: It is government subsidies to fossil fuel. And you can see that in many countries – the coal industry is practically running the governments, for example in Indonesia. After a lot of campaigning in India, they’ve declared ‘no go’ zones in Indian forests.  The Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh’s latest statement that we will protect Indian forests from coal mining in forests, which is very good. However, Indian companies such as the state owned Coal India and Tata Power in the private sector are now buying coal mines in Indonesia.

BP: Because you’re in charge of the Greenpeace Southeast Asia, you’re able to see what’s happening at a regional level more clearly!

SY: Absolutely. The biggest impediment to renewables is the clout of these industries.

BP: What are you thoughts on the Nuclear Liability Bill in India which seeks to limit the maximum liability in case of a nuclear accident?

SY: Everyone who is worried about this bill is genuinely worried. This is not only about hazards associated with nuclear waste and accidents, it’s also about public finance. Whose money are you spending?

No new nuclear power plant in the last 15 years has been built within the projected costs or within the projected time.    Despite this, the massive public protest for the biggest nuclear power plant proposed in Jaitapur, India for 10,000MW is being suppressed.

BP: What are your ecological agriculture campaigns in Thailand and Phillipines?

Ifugao GMO free Rice Terraces in Phillipines

SY: While campaigning against GMOs, we’re working with a number of farmers in Thailand and the Philippines. On the rice terraces in Ifugao, Phillipines, we got the local government to announce it to be GM free. The area is a UN World Heritage site. The region has the best organic farmers for centuries.

Unfortunately, there are industries in the area waiting to sell their chemical fertilisers and pesticides, but we have blocked them. Right now our sustainable agriculture work is in blocking GMOs and spreading awareness about the effects of chemical fertilisers, not only on food, but also on water.

The biggest threat to water in Indonesia in fact, is the agriculture runoffs. So we’re still developing a larger campaign where we go beyond saying no to GMOs and talk about what organic and ecological agriculture really means, what sustainability actually means when applied practically.

[Click here to read more about Greenpeace Phillipines' anti-GMO campaign]

BP: What are your plans for the region?

SY: In Southeast Asia, we currently have offices in Indonesia, Thailand and the Philippines. In fact, Greenpeace Southeast Asia marked its 10 years of campaigning in the region in 2010. In the near future, we are looking into setting up offices in Singapore and Malaysia. We also have offices in India, East Asia which include China, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.

BP: Could you tell us about the Mitra Foundation that you are personally involved with?

SY: Mitra Foundation is my pet project back home in India, where together with my wife and a few friends who call ourselves Mitras, have been helping educational campuses raise ‘energy conscience’ amongst their students by implementing energy efficiency measures while phasing in the use of renewable energy to meet the energy needs.

We have had modest success as at least 3 campuses in Bangalore and Pune, of the five that we have been working at. They have not only improved energy efficiency but also installed solar and micro wind energy systems.

We are very excited about setting up ‘solar libraries’ at Adivasi (indigenous people) schools of Dahanu in Maharashtra , who have no access to books or electricity. You can find out more about our work at www.mitrafoundation.org

BP: What gives you hope for the future?

SY: Personally, I get my energy from meeting young people around the world. It’s their dynamism, enthusiasm and excitement for a better tomorrow that keep me going.

You will agree that we have far more people alive today, due to better education and exposure to a variety of new ideas, techniques and methods. I believe that we have far more creative potential than ever before, which gives me hope that we can find whole new ways of living on the planet sustainably.

Links to follow:

Website:  Greenpeace Southeast Asia
Facebook: Greenpeace Southeast Asia (Thailand), Greenpeace India, Greenpeace Indonesia, Greenpeace Phillipines, Greenpeace International

Connect with Shailendra Yashwant through his blog and on Twitter

********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

About the interviewer:

Bhavani Prakash is the Founder of Eco WALK the Talk .com. She is passionate about the role of individuals and communities in bringing about the much needed change we need to see in the world. She was an economist in her previous avatar, and is now an environmental and social justice activist using social media as well as offline community participation in her advocacy of a greener, fairer and happier planet. She writes and conducts talks and workshops on sustainability and can be contacted at bhavani[at]ecowalkthetalk.com. Follow Eco WALK the Talk on Facebook, Twitter, Linked IN and YouTube

Further links you may be interested in:

1.        Environmental Justice – A Photo Essay by Shailendra Yashwant

Scribd link here

2. Breakfast Grille Podcast with Shailendra Yashwant , “ Saving the World Step by Step, Inch by Inch”

Shailendra Yashwant talks on this Podcast about Green Peace’s campaigns, strategies and some of its ‘wins’

3. Articles by Shailendra Yashwant:
The Nation: Indonesia’s bold attempt to prevent deforestation

InfoChange India News Toxic Tours – II: Alang: Death zone (Hazards of Ship Breaking)

4. BBC: Orangutan survival and the shopping trolley “Shailendra Yashwant, Greenpeace director for Southeast Asia, said this illegal logging is widespread and includes major suppliers to the UK’s food and household product market. ”We want the Indonesian government to immediately announce a moratorium on further deforestation…beginning with peat lands.”

Share/Save

Indian President Pratibha Patil looking at Raghuvanshi's seeds

Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi is a high school dropout and visually impaired farmer from Tadia, a village in Northern India. His sheer determination and enterprise has led him to develop several organic varieties of grains and vegetables, which he distributes relentlessly to thousands of farmers throughout his region. In 2008, he was invited to Turin, Italy with well known environmentalist and seed activist, Vandana Shiva, where he was made a member of the Slow Food Movement. He was  bestowed the National Award for Innovation in Agriculture in 2009 by the President of India Pratibha Patil, and his work has also been acknowledged by the National Innovation Foundation, Ahmedabad, India

Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi, 50, a high school dropout and visually impaired farmer from the village of Tadia, 30km from Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh in Northern India, has much to show that the spirit of rural India is alive, vibrant and pulsating with life and the spirit of enquiry.

With the onslaught of chemically intensive farming, which promotes only a dry, mechanistic approach and a reductionist attitude to nature and farming, Raghuvanshi’s efforts in sustaining traditional seed varieties epitomizes the Indian tradition of grassroots research and innovation at the village level.

On the land that he owns jointly with his brothers, Raghuvanshi uses about three acres to do his plant breeding work and to preserve his seed varieties in a living seed bank. He utilizes another 9-10 acres of land for growing rice, wheat, pulses, oilseeds and vegetables to meet his family’s needs and to grow green fodder for his cows.  He lives with his wife and six children, his mother and one of his brothers.

Raghuvanshi’s improved seed varieties

Spurred by crop losses and financial setbacks caused by chemically dependent farming nearly 15 years ago, Raghuvanshi was inspired to develop new seed varieties. Continuing where his father had left off, he started developing a living seed bank with select wheat, paddy, arhar (split red gram), moong (split green gram), peas and vegetable seeds for their high yields, disease resistance and ability to adapt to sudden climate changes.  Another cause he advocates is the protection of indigenous breeds of cows.

The timely encouragement from Dr. Mahatim Singh, former professor at Benaras Hindu University also encouraged him to develop new varieties of seeds in a short period of time, with good results.

His paddy and wheat varieties which he imaginatively calls Kudrat ( Hindi for “nature”) and Karishma (miracle) have performed well wherever they have been sown. They adapt very well to extremes of temperature, rainfall and other climate change. They are also open pollinated and hence can be saved by the farmer for next season’s crop. What’s more, they are superior in taste and flavour as they have been selected and developed from old, traditional varieties. Being high yielding, they do not require massive chemical inputs like other seeds available in the Indian market. A little cowdung manure and irrigation produces a bountiful crop.

Raghuvanshi has developed 80 varieties of wheat, 25 varieties of paddy, 10 varieties of lentils besides peas, mustard, papaya, ladies finger and vegetable varieties. His paddy seeds yield 25-30 quintals per acre and wheat varieties give about 18-20 quintals per acre. He has met with several agricultural scientists and they have been amazed by the results he had produced despite lack of modern research facilities, a well equipped lab or research grants.

The seeds developed by Raghuvanshi are under trial at several agricultural universities and government research stations. Their patents are still pending so they are not available commercially at present.

Helping small and marginal farmers

Raghuvanshi works hard to help small and marginal farmers improve their yields and incomes. He welcomes farmers and visitors at his farm to see and learn things first hand, and also train farmers in the basics of selection and plant breeding.

He has gone on several beeja yatras (seed rallies) and distributed his seeds in 100gm to 500gm packets to 2 million farmers in 14 states over the past 15 years. Using banners, posters and loudspeakers, Raghuvanshi uses catchy slogans to get his message across to the farmers like “Apni kheti apni khad, apna beeja apna swad” (one own’s farming, one’s own fertilizer) and “Beeja bachao, desh bachao” (Save seeds, save the nation)

If planted under good soil conditions a 100 gm seed packet can produce upto 40 kgs of seed in one growing season, which can then be utilized to plant 10-15 acres of land with paddy in the next season. This brings about food security and above all food sovereignty for a farm family.

It has been gratifying to him that Monsanto’s and Mahyco’s sales of hybrid seeds have dropped wherever he has taken out his beeja yatra as the yields of his seeds is far superior to their hybrid and terminator seeds. Above all, it frees farmers from the cycle of debt and dependence.

Although fully aware of the controversy raging around the introduction of Bt Brinjal (Genetically Modified Eggplant) in India, he feels that the real solution lies in showing the farmers the superior yields of his improved brinjal variety.  The use of neemcake and mustard oilcake on a regular basis as soil conditioners will also prevent the aggressive attack of pests which hybrid brinjal varieities are susceptible to, he states categorically.

The need for trustworthy allies and business savvy

From the outset, Raghuvanshi has realized the importance of having strong allies in his campaign to save indigenous seed varieities.  He has linked up with various small organizations that are working at the grassroots level in various parts of India.

Raghuvanshi has been reluctant to become fully commercial or to sell out his seed varieties to seed companies whether Indian or foreign.  Nevertheless in order to sustain his Beej Dana Mahadana * campaign and to support his large family he has felt the need to raise funds.

At present he has entered into verbal agreements with growers in Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Assam and Orissa. The arrangement is simple: Raghuvanshi provides the initial batch of his seed varieties and his partners get the seeds multiplied by various farmers in their respective areas.  A rough sale price for the seeds is agreed upon when the crop is harvested and the partners proceed to sell the seeds to farmers acknowledging Raghuvanshi as the source of the particular seed variety.  A certain commission is then paid to Raghuvanshi after the sales are over.

Although this arrangement is straightforward, Raguvanshi has been duped several times by unscrupulous partners in the past  who refused to give him a single paisa (smallest unit of Indian currency) and made handsome profits from the sale of his seed varieties. As the patent for his seed varieties is still pending, Raghuvanshi cannot resort to legal action against these defaulters and conmen. Powerful political support from a good NGO and the speedy registration of his seed patents is the only means by which this lacuna can be filled.

Perhaps the greatest advantage that Raghuvanshi enjoys is that his three young sons are also continuing as farmers in the village and are assisting him in his plant breeding as well as outreach work.  In a era when the children of farmers are migrating to cities en masse and do not wish to make agriculture their livelihood, Raghuvanshi’s sons are a shining example of what concerted team effort by a farm family can achieve over the years.

Life flows on just like the Ganga (River Ganges)

Raghuvanshi is till today in the thick of action, travelling to various parts of India, giving interviews, dispatching his seeds in response to requests from farmers,  bringing out new seed varieties and above all enjoying his interactions with the young and the old, the rural and the urban people, the growers and the consumers.  Rooted in the spiritual tradition of his forefathers, he views everything in life as a prasad (offering) from the Divine Mother.  He insists that he is only an observer and that the real source of bounty and plenty is the Mother Goddess.

When cross questioned closely as to his methodology or his research strategy he simply cites serendipity as the overarching factor in his plant breeding work.  Reaching out to the farmers of south India is a challenge but Raghuvanshi is determined to take them into his fold despite the language barrier.  Doors seem to open magically for him and his Kudrat seeds multiply prolifically in all soils and in all states.  He has shown Indian farmers their own strength and the power of deshi (indigenous) seeds. And thus life flows on just like the Ganga!

*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Dr. Anjali Pathak is a naturopath, writer and organic farming consultant  who has worked with the growers and the planters of the Northeast, the Dooars and the Nilgiris in India.  She uses indigenous methods including those of vrikshayurveda in her work. Her book ANNAM BRAHMA: Organic Food in India, Pilgrims Publishing was released in 2009. She has supported Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi in his Beeja Dana Mahadana campaign.  She may be contacted at (0522) 2333523; 09450540363; e-mail: maijinaini@rediffmail.com.

If any NGO or farmer is prepared to distribute KUDRAT seeds in his/her area to a good number of farmers, Raghuvanshi is prepared to send a few quintals of seed to such people. If farmers want a larger quantity of seeds for their own farms against cash payment Raguvanshi will accomodate them as well. His contact details are:

Shri Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi

Village Tadia, Post Jakhini, Dist. Varanasi, U.P.

Mob: 09956941993

* Beej dana mahadana campaign

Realizing the urgent necessity of saving indigenous or deshi seeds Raghuvanshi has been truly generous in launching the BEEJ DANA MAHADANA campaign nearly a decade ago. The aims and objectives of this campaign are:

1) to introduce farmers in all parts of India to the various Kudrat and Karishma varieities of seeds developed by Raghuvanshi through the free distribution of 100—200 gm. seed packets

2) to encourage farmers to start their own living seed banks in their own villages to conserve their local seed varieties

3) to teach farmers the basics of plant selection and plant breeding so that they can develop their own varieties to meet their own needs in the future

4) to encourage the farmers to keep local breeds of cows

5) to inspire and urge famers to give up the use of chemicals in farming and to convert to organic farming in toto

6) to inculcate pride in the profession of farming and thus halt the rural migration to cities

7) to provide small and marginal farmers with improved farm yields and improved incomes through the cultivation and sale of Kudrat varieities

8 ) to defeat the reach of foreign multinational companies like Monsanto and to place India’s food security on a strong footing by placing the control of the seed in the hands of the farmer thus putting an end to farmer suicides which are a direct result of using expensive hybrid seeds that require costly farm inputs

9) to improve the health of both the rural and urban population by the consumption of cereals, pulses, oilseeds and vegetables produced from deshi (indigenous) seeds

10)  to propagate ancient Vedic practices like agnihotra which have a beneficial effect upon farming, farm animals and farmers

Share/Save