http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4147551008386395793
The Dangers of Genetically Modified Food - Jeffery Smith Lecture (video)
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
DANGERS OF GM FOODS-The Dangers of Genetically Modified Food - Jeffery Smith Lecture(video)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4147551008386395793
GM FOODS-GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS
Genetically-modified foods (GM foods) have made a big splash in the news lately. European environmental organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM foods for months, and recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically-modified corn pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars have brought the issue of genetic engineering to the forefront of the public consciousness in the U.S. In response to the upswelling of public concern, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held three open meetings in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, California to solicit public opinions and begin the process of establishing a new regulatory procedure for government approval of GM
What are genetically-modified foods?
The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. For two informative overviews of some of the techniques involved in creating GM foods, visit Biotech Basics (sponsored by Monsanto) http://www.biotechknowledge.monsanto.com/biotech/bbasics.nsf/index or Techniques of Plant Biotechnology from the National Center for Biotechnology Education http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/techniques.
What are some of the advantages of GM foods?
The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:
Pest resistance Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to Herbicide tolerance For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup A farmer grows these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-
Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases, .
Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings.
Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable Nutrition Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A). Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all.
Pharmaceuticals Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines.
Phytoremediation Not all GM plants are grown as crops. Soil and groundwater pollution continues to be a problem in all parts of the world. Plants such as poplar trees have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil18.
How prevalent are GM crops?
What plants are involved?
According to the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biocon). Some examples of these plants include tomatoes and cantalopes that have modified ripening characteristics, soybeans and sugarbeets that are resistant to herbicides, and corn and cotton plants with increased resistance to insect pests. Not all these products are available in supermarkets yet; however, the prevalence of GM foods in U.S. grocery stores is more widespread than is commonly thought. While there are very, very few genetically-modified whole fruits and vegetables available on produce stands, highly processed foods, such as vegetable oils or breakfast cereals, most likely contain some tiny percentage of genetically-modified ingredients because the raw ingredients have been pooled into one processing stream from many different sources. Also, the ubiquity of soybean derivatives as food additives in the modern American diet virtually ensures that all U.S. consumers have been exposed to GM food products.
The U.S. statistics that follow are derived from data presented on the USDA web site at http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/biotechnology/. The global statistics are derived from a brief published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) at http://www.isaaa.org/publications/briefs/Brief_21.htm and from the Biotechnology Industry Organization at http://www.bio.org/food&ag/1999Acreage.
Thirteen countries grew genetically-engineered crops commercially in 2000, and of these, the U.S. produced the majority. In 2000, 68% of all GM crops were grown by U.S. farmers. In comparison, Argentina, Canada and China produced only 23%, 7% and 1%, respectively. Other countries that grew commercial GM crops in 2000 are Australia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Mexico, Romania, South Africa, Spain, and Uruguay.
Soybeans and corn are the top two most widely grown crops (82% of all GM crops harvested in 2000), with cotton, rapeseed (or canola) and potatoes trailing behind. 74% of these GM crops were modified for herbicide tolerance, 19% were modified for insect pest resistance, and 7% were modified for both herbicide tolerance and pest tolerance. Globally, acreage of GM crops has increased 25-fold in just 5 years, from approximately 4.3 million acres in 1996 to 109 million acres in 2000 - almost twice the area of the United Kingdom. Approximately 99 million acres were devoted to GM crops in the U.S. and Argentina alone.
In the U.S., approximately 54% of all soybeans cultivated in 2000 were genetically-modified, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996. In 2000, genetically-modified cotton varieties accounted for 61% of the total cotton crop, up from 42% in 1998, and 15% in 1996. GM corn and also experienced a similar but less dramatic increase. Corn production increased to 25% of all corn grown in 2000, about the same as 1998 (26%), but up from 1.5% in 1996. As anticipated, pesticide and herbicide use on these GM varieties was slashed and, for the most part, yields were increased (for details, see the UDSA publication at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer786/.
What are some of the criticisms against GM foods?
Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations and other scientists and government officials have all raised concerns about GM foods, and criticized agribusiness for pursuing profit without concern for potential hazards, and the government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It seems that everyone has a strong opinion about GM foods. Even the Vatican and the Prince of Wales have expressed their opinions. Most concerns about GM foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns.
Environmental hazards
Unintended harm to other organisms Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature21 showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further.
Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides.
Gene transfer to non-target species Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue.
There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned above. Genes are exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to ensure that non-target species will not receive introduced genes from GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do not produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not contain the introduced gene. Cross-pollination would not occur, and if harmless insects such as monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive.
Another possible solution is to create buffer zones around fields of GM crops. For example, non-GM corn would be planted to surround a field of B.t. GM corn, and the non-GM corn would not be harvested. Beneficial or harmless insects would have a refuge in the non-GM corn, and insect pests could be allowed to destroy the non-GM corn and would not develop resistance to B.t. pesticides. Gene transfer to weeds and other crops would not occur because the wind-blown pollen would not travel beyond the buffer zone. Estimates of the necessary width of buffer zones range from 6 meters to 30 meters or more30. This planting method may not be feasible if too much acreage is required for the buffer zones.
Human health risks
Allergenicity Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions31. Extensive testing of GM foods may be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies. Labeling of GM foods and food products will acquire new importance, which I shall discuss later.
Unknown effects on human health There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health. A recent article published in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats.This study claimed that there were appreciable differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes. Yet critics say that this paper, like the monarch butterfly data, is flawed and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flower lectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals. The scientists who created this variety of potato chose to use the lectin gene simply to test the methodology, and these potatoes were never intended for human or animal consumption.
On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM foods do not present a risk to human health.
Economic concerns
Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and non-profits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations.
Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the farmers that they involuntarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains when their crops were cross-pollinated shows. One way to combat possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM plants. These plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to plant in the next growing season. In an open letter to the public, Monsanto has pledged to abandon all research using this suicide gene technology35.
How are GM foods regulated and what is the government's role in this process?
Governments around the world are hard at work to establish a regulatory process to monitor the effects of and approve new varieties of GM plants. Yet depending on the political, social and economic climate within a region or country, different governments are responding in different ways.
In Japan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has announced that health testing of GM foods will be mandatory as of April 2001. Currently, testing of GM foods is voluntary. Japanese supermarkets are offering both GM foods and unmodified foods, and customers are beginning to show a strong preference for unmodified fruits and vegetables.
India's government has not yet announced a policy on GM foods because no GM crops are grown in India and no products are commercially available in supermarkets yet. India is, however, very supportive of transgenic plant research. It is highly likely that India will decide that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the risks because Indian agriculture will need to adopt drastic new measures to counteract the country's endemic poverty and feed its exploding population.
Some states in Brazil have banned GM crops entirely, and the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers, in collaboration with Greenpeace, has filed suit to prevent the importation of GM crops. Brazilian farmers, however, have resorted to smuggling GM soybean seeds into the country because they fear economic harm if they are unable to compete in the global marketplace with other grain-exporting countries.
In Europe, anti-GM food protestors have been especially active. In the last few years Europe has experienced two major foods scares: bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in Great Britain and dioxin-tainted foods originating from Belgium. These food scares have undermined consumer confidence about the European food supply, and citizens are disinclined to trust government information about GM foods. In response to the public outcry, Europe now requires mandatory food labeling of GM foods in stores, and the European Commission (EC) has established a 1% threshold for contamination of unmodified foods with GM food products.
In the United States, the regulatory process is confused because there are three different government agencies that have jurisdiction over GM foods. To put it very simply, the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. The EPA is responsible for regulating substances such as pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment. GM crops such as B.t. pesticide-laced corn or herbicide-tolerant crops but not foods modified for their nutritional value fall under the purview of the EPA. The USDA is responsible for GM crops that do not fall under the umbrella of the EPA such as drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown for animal feeds, or whole fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption. The FDA historically has been concerned with pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and food products and additives, not whole foods. Under current guidelines, a genetically-modified ear of corn sold at a produce stand is not regulated by the FDA because it is a whole food, but a box of cornflakes is regulated because it is a food product. The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially equivalent to unmodified, "natural" foods, and therefore not subject to FDA regulation.
The EPA conducts risk assessment studies on pesticides that could potentially cause harm to human health and the environment, and establishes tolerance and residue levels for pesticides. There are strict limits on the amount of pesticides that may be applied to crops during growth and production, as well as the amount that remains in the food after processing. Growers using pesticides must have a license for each pesticide and must follow the directions on the label to accord with the EPA's safety standards. Government inspectors may periodically visit farms and conduct investigations to ensure compliance. Violation of government regulations may result in steep fines, loss of license and even jail sentences.
As an example the EPA regulatory approach, consider B.t. corn. The EPA has not established limits on residue levels in B.t corn because the B.t. in the corn is not sprayed as a chemical pesticide but is a gene that is integrated into the genetic material of the corn itself. Growers must have a license from the EPA for B.t corn, and the EPA has issued a letter for the 2000 growing season requiring farmers to plant 20% unmodified corn, and up to 50% unmodified corn in regions where cotton is also cultivated41. This planting strategy may help prevent insects from developing resistance to the B.t. pesticides as well as provide a refuge for non-target insects such as Monarch butterflies.
The USDA has many internal divisions that share responsibility for assessing GM foods. Among these divisions are APHIS, the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, which conducts field tests and issues permits to grow GM crops, the Agricultural Research Service which performs in-house GM food research, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service which oversees the USDA risk assessment program. The USDA is concerned with potential hazards of the plant itself. Does it harbor insect pests? Is it a noxious weed? Will it cause harm to indigenous species if it escapes from farmer's fields? The USDA has the power to impose quarantines on problem regions to prevent movement of suspected plants, restrict import or export of suspected plants, and can even destroy plants cultivated in violation of USDA regulations. Many GM plants do not require USDA permits from APHIS. A GM plant does not require a permit if it meets these 6 criteria: 1) the plant is not a noxious weed; 2) the genetic material introduced into the GM plant is stably integrated into the plant's own genome; 3) the function of the introduced gene is known and does not cause plant disease; 4) the GM plant is not toxic to non-target organisms; 5) the introduced gene will not cause the creation of new plant viruses; and 6) the GM plant cannot contain genetic material from animal or human pathogens (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/bbep/bp/7cfr340).
The current FDA policy was developed in 1992 (Federal Register Docket No. 92N-0139) and states that agri-biotech companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation. Companies working to create new GM foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to follow the FDA's recommendations after the consultation. Consumer interest groups wish this process to be mandatory, so that all GM food products, whole foods or otherwise, must be approved by the FDA before being released for commercialization. The FDA counters that the agency currently does not have the time, money, or resources to carry out exhaustive health and safety studies of every proposed GM food product. Moreover, the FDA policy as it exists today does not allow for this type of intervention.
How are GM foods labeled?
Labeling of GM foods and food products is also a contentious issue. On the whole, agribusiness industries believe that labeling should be voluntary and influenced by the demands of the free market. If consumers show preference for labeled foods over non-labeled foods, then industry will have the incentive to regulate itself or risk alienating the customer. Consumer interest groups, on the other hand, are demanding mandatory labeling. People have the right to know what they are eating, argue the interest groups, and historically industry has proven itself to be unreliable at self-compliance with existing safety regulations. The FDA's current position on food labeling is governed by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which is only concerned with food additives, not whole foods or food products that are considered "GRAS" - generally recognized as safe. The FDA contends that GM foods are substantially equivalent to non-GM foods, and therefore not subject to more stringent labeling. If all GM foods and food products are to be labeled, Congress must enact sweeping changes in the existing food labeling policy.
There are many questions that must be answered if labeling of GM foods becomes mandatory. First, are consumers willing to absorb the cost of such an initiative? If the food production industry is required to label GM foods, factories will need to construct two separate processing streams and monitor the production lines accordingly. Farmers must be able to keep GM crops and non-GM crops from mixing during planting, harvesting and shipping. It is almost assured that industry will pass along these additional costs to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Secondly, what are the acceptable limits of GM contamination in non-GM products? The EC has determined that 1% is an acceptable limit of cross-contamination, yet many consumer interest groups argue that only 0% is acceptable. Some companies such as Gerber baby foods42 and Frito-Lay have pledged to avoid use of GM foods in any of their products. But who is going to monitor these companies for compliance and what is the penalty if they fail? Once again, the FDA does not have the resources to carry out testing to ensure compliance.
What is the level of detectability of GM food cross-contamination? Scientists agree that current technology is unable to detect minute quantities of contamination, so ensuring 0% contamination using existing methodologies is not guaranteed. Yet researchers disagree on what level of contamination really is detectable, especially in highly processed food products such as vegetable oils or breakfast cereals where the vegetables used to make these products have been pooled from many different sources. A 1% threshold may already be below current levels of detectability.
Finally, who is to be responsible for educating the public about GM food labels and how costly will that education be? Food labels must be designed to clearly convey accurate information about the product in simple language that everyone can understand. This may be the greatest challenge faced be a new food labeling policy: how to educate and inform the public without damaging the public trust and causing alarm or fear of GM food products.
In January 2000, an international trade agreement for labeling GM foods was established.More than 130 countries, including the US, the world's largest producer of GM foods, signed the agreement. The policy states that exporters must be required to label all GM foods and that importing countries have the right to judge for themselves the potential risks and reject GM foods, if they so choose. This new agreement may spur the U.S. government to resolve the domestic food labeling dilemma more rapidly.
Conclusion
Genetically-modified foods have the potential to solve many of the world's hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon chemical pesticides and herbicides. Yet there are many challenges ahead for governments, especially in the areas of safety testing, regulation, international policy and food labeling. Many people feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous potential benefits. However, we must proceed with caution to avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology.
What are genetically-modified foods?
The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. For two informative overviews of some of the techniques involved in creating GM foods, visit Biotech Basics (sponsored by Monsanto) http://www.biotechknowledge.monsanto.com/biotech/bbasics.nsf/index or Techniques of Plant Biotechnology from the National Center for Biotechnology Education http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/techniques.
What are some of the advantages of GM foods?
The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:
Pest resistance Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to Herbicide tolerance For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup A farmer grows these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-
Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases, .
Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings.
Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable Nutrition Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A). Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all.
Pharmaceuticals Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines.
Phytoremediation Not all GM plants are grown as crops. Soil and groundwater pollution continues to be a problem in all parts of the world. Plants such as poplar trees have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil18.
How prevalent are GM crops?
What plants are involved?
According to the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/biocon). Some examples of these plants include tomatoes and cantalopes that have modified ripening characteristics, soybeans and sugarbeets that are resistant to herbicides, and corn and cotton plants with increased resistance to insect pests. Not all these products are available in supermarkets yet; however, the prevalence of GM foods in U.S. grocery stores is more widespread than is commonly thought. While there are very, very few genetically-modified whole fruits and vegetables available on produce stands, highly processed foods, such as vegetable oils or breakfast cereals, most likely contain some tiny percentage of genetically-modified ingredients because the raw ingredients have been pooled into one processing stream from many different sources. Also, the ubiquity of soybean derivatives as food additives in the modern American diet virtually ensures that all U.S. consumers have been exposed to GM food products.
The U.S. statistics that follow are derived from data presented on the USDA web site at http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/biotechnology/. The global statistics are derived from a brief published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) at http://www.isaaa.org/publications/briefs/Brief_21.htm and from the Biotechnology Industry Organization at http://www.bio.org/food&ag/1999Acreage.
Thirteen countries grew genetically-engineered crops commercially in 2000, and of these, the U.S. produced the majority. In 2000, 68% of all GM crops were grown by U.S. farmers. In comparison, Argentina, Canada and China produced only 23%, 7% and 1%, respectively. Other countries that grew commercial GM crops in 2000 are Australia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Mexico, Romania, South Africa, Spain, and Uruguay.
Soybeans and corn are the top two most widely grown crops (82% of all GM crops harvested in 2000), with cotton, rapeseed (or canola) and potatoes trailing behind. 74% of these GM crops were modified for herbicide tolerance, 19% were modified for insect pest resistance, and 7% were modified for both herbicide tolerance and pest tolerance. Globally, acreage of GM crops has increased 25-fold in just 5 years, from approximately 4.3 million acres in 1996 to 109 million acres in 2000 - almost twice the area of the United Kingdom. Approximately 99 million acres were devoted to GM crops in the U.S. and Argentina alone.
In the U.S., approximately 54% of all soybeans cultivated in 2000 were genetically-modified, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996. In 2000, genetically-modified cotton varieties accounted for 61% of the total cotton crop, up from 42% in 1998, and 15% in 1996. GM corn and also experienced a similar but less dramatic increase. Corn production increased to 25% of all corn grown in 2000, about the same as 1998 (26%), but up from 1.5% in 1996. As anticipated, pesticide and herbicide use on these GM varieties was slashed and, for the most part, yields were increased (for details, see the UDSA publication at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer786/.
What are some of the criticisms against GM foods?
Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations and other scientists and government officials have all raised concerns about GM foods, and criticized agribusiness for pursuing profit without concern for potential hazards, and the government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It seems that everyone has a strong opinion about GM foods. Even the Vatican and the Prince of Wales have expressed their opinions. Most concerns about GM foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns.
Environmental hazards
Unintended harm to other organisms Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature21 showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further.
Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides.
Gene transfer to non-target species Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue.
There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned above. Genes are exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to ensure that non-target species will not receive introduced genes from GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do not produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not contain the introduced gene. Cross-pollination would not occur, and if harmless insects such as monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive.
Another possible solution is to create buffer zones around fields of GM crops. For example, non-GM corn would be planted to surround a field of B.t. GM corn, and the non-GM corn would not be harvested. Beneficial or harmless insects would have a refuge in the non-GM corn, and insect pests could be allowed to destroy the non-GM corn and would not develop resistance to B.t. pesticides. Gene transfer to weeds and other crops would not occur because the wind-blown pollen would not travel beyond the buffer zone. Estimates of the necessary width of buffer zones range from 6 meters to 30 meters or more30. This planting method may not be feasible if too much acreage is required for the buffer zones.
Human health risks
Allergenicity Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions31. Extensive testing of GM foods may be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies. Labeling of GM foods and food products will acquire new importance, which I shall discuss later.
Unknown effects on human health There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health. A recent article published in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats.This study claimed that there were appreciable differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes. Yet critics say that this paper, like the monarch butterfly data, is flawed and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flower lectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals. The scientists who created this variety of potato chose to use the lectin gene simply to test the methodology, and these potatoes were never intended for human or animal consumption.
On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM foods do not present a risk to human health.
Economic concerns
Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and non-profits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations.
Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the farmers that they involuntarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains when their crops were cross-pollinated shows. One way to combat possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM plants. These plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to plant in the next growing season. In an open letter to the public, Monsanto has pledged to abandon all research using this suicide gene technology35.
How are GM foods regulated and what is the government's role in this process?
Governments around the world are hard at work to establish a regulatory process to monitor the effects of and approve new varieties of GM plants. Yet depending on the political, social and economic climate within a region or country, different governments are responding in different ways.
In Japan, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has announced that health testing of GM foods will be mandatory as of April 2001. Currently, testing of GM foods is voluntary. Japanese supermarkets are offering both GM foods and unmodified foods, and customers are beginning to show a strong preference for unmodified fruits and vegetables.
India's government has not yet announced a policy on GM foods because no GM crops are grown in India and no products are commercially available in supermarkets yet. India is, however, very supportive of transgenic plant research. It is highly likely that India will decide that the benefits of GM foods outweigh the risks because Indian agriculture will need to adopt drastic new measures to counteract the country's endemic poverty and feed its exploding population.
Some states in Brazil have banned GM crops entirely, and the Brazilian Institute for the Defense of Consumers, in collaboration with Greenpeace, has filed suit to prevent the importation of GM crops. Brazilian farmers, however, have resorted to smuggling GM soybean seeds into the country because they fear economic harm if they are unable to compete in the global marketplace with other grain-exporting countries.
In Europe, anti-GM food protestors have been especially active. In the last few years Europe has experienced two major foods scares: bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease) in Great Britain and dioxin-tainted foods originating from Belgium. These food scares have undermined consumer confidence about the European food supply, and citizens are disinclined to trust government information about GM foods. In response to the public outcry, Europe now requires mandatory food labeling of GM foods in stores, and the European Commission (EC) has established a 1% threshold for contamination of unmodified foods with GM food products.
In the United States, the regulatory process is confused because there are three different government agencies that have jurisdiction over GM foods. To put it very simply, the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. The EPA is responsible for regulating substances such as pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment. GM crops such as B.t. pesticide-laced corn or herbicide-tolerant crops but not foods modified for their nutritional value fall under the purview of the EPA. The USDA is responsible for GM crops that do not fall under the umbrella of the EPA such as drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown for animal feeds, or whole fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption. The FDA historically has been concerned with pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and food products and additives, not whole foods. Under current guidelines, a genetically-modified ear of corn sold at a produce stand is not regulated by the FDA because it is a whole food, but a box of cornflakes is regulated because it is a food product. The FDA's stance is that GM foods are substantially equivalent to unmodified, "natural" foods, and therefore not subject to FDA regulation.
The EPA conducts risk assessment studies on pesticides that could potentially cause harm to human health and the environment, and establishes tolerance and residue levels for pesticides. There are strict limits on the amount of pesticides that may be applied to crops during growth and production, as well as the amount that remains in the food after processing. Growers using pesticides must have a license for each pesticide and must follow the directions on the label to accord with the EPA's safety standards. Government inspectors may periodically visit farms and conduct investigations to ensure compliance. Violation of government regulations may result in steep fines, loss of license and even jail sentences.
As an example the EPA regulatory approach, consider B.t. corn. The EPA has not established limits on residue levels in B.t corn because the B.t. in the corn is not sprayed as a chemical pesticide but is a gene that is integrated into the genetic material of the corn itself. Growers must have a license from the EPA for B.t corn, and the EPA has issued a letter for the 2000 growing season requiring farmers to plant 20% unmodified corn, and up to 50% unmodified corn in regions where cotton is also cultivated41. This planting strategy may help prevent insects from developing resistance to the B.t. pesticides as well as provide a refuge for non-target insects such as Monarch butterflies.
The USDA has many internal divisions that share responsibility for assessing GM foods. Among these divisions are APHIS, the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, which conducts field tests and issues permits to grow GM crops, the Agricultural Research Service which performs in-house GM food research, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service which oversees the USDA risk assessment program. The USDA is concerned with potential hazards of the plant itself. Does it harbor insect pests? Is it a noxious weed? Will it cause harm to indigenous species if it escapes from farmer's fields? The USDA has the power to impose quarantines on problem regions to prevent movement of suspected plants, restrict import or export of suspected plants, and can even destroy plants cultivated in violation of USDA regulations. Many GM plants do not require USDA permits from APHIS. A GM plant does not require a permit if it meets these 6 criteria: 1) the plant is not a noxious weed; 2) the genetic material introduced into the GM plant is stably integrated into the plant's own genome; 3) the function of the introduced gene is known and does not cause plant disease; 4) the GM plant is not toxic to non-target organisms; 5) the introduced gene will not cause the creation of new plant viruses; and 6) the GM plant cannot contain genetic material from animal or human pathogens (see http://www.aphis.usda.gov/bbep/bp/7cfr340).
The current FDA policy was developed in 1992 (Federal Register Docket No. 92N-0139) and states that agri-biotech companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation. Companies working to create new GM foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to follow the FDA's recommendations after the consultation. Consumer interest groups wish this process to be mandatory, so that all GM food products, whole foods or otherwise, must be approved by the FDA before being released for commercialization. The FDA counters that the agency currently does not have the time, money, or resources to carry out exhaustive health and safety studies of every proposed GM food product. Moreover, the FDA policy as it exists today does not allow for this type of intervention.
How are GM foods labeled?
Labeling of GM foods and food products is also a contentious issue. On the whole, agribusiness industries believe that labeling should be voluntary and influenced by the demands of the free market. If consumers show preference for labeled foods over non-labeled foods, then industry will have the incentive to regulate itself or risk alienating the customer. Consumer interest groups, on the other hand, are demanding mandatory labeling. People have the right to know what they are eating, argue the interest groups, and historically industry has proven itself to be unreliable at self-compliance with existing safety regulations. The FDA's current position on food labeling is governed by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which is only concerned with food additives, not whole foods or food products that are considered "GRAS" - generally recognized as safe. The FDA contends that GM foods are substantially equivalent to non-GM foods, and therefore not subject to more stringent labeling. If all GM foods and food products are to be labeled, Congress must enact sweeping changes in the existing food labeling policy.
There are many questions that must be answered if labeling of GM foods becomes mandatory. First, are consumers willing to absorb the cost of such an initiative? If the food production industry is required to label GM foods, factories will need to construct two separate processing streams and monitor the production lines accordingly. Farmers must be able to keep GM crops and non-GM crops from mixing during planting, harvesting and shipping. It is almost assured that industry will pass along these additional costs to consumers in the form of higher prices.
Secondly, what are the acceptable limits of GM contamination in non-GM products? The EC has determined that 1% is an acceptable limit of cross-contamination, yet many consumer interest groups argue that only 0% is acceptable. Some companies such as Gerber baby foods42 and Frito-Lay have pledged to avoid use of GM foods in any of their products. But who is going to monitor these companies for compliance and what is the penalty if they fail? Once again, the FDA does not have the resources to carry out testing to ensure compliance.
What is the level of detectability of GM food cross-contamination? Scientists agree that current technology is unable to detect minute quantities of contamination, so ensuring 0% contamination using existing methodologies is not guaranteed. Yet researchers disagree on what level of contamination really is detectable, especially in highly processed food products such as vegetable oils or breakfast cereals where the vegetables used to make these products have been pooled from many different sources. A 1% threshold may already be below current levels of detectability.
Finally, who is to be responsible for educating the public about GM food labels and how costly will that education be? Food labels must be designed to clearly convey accurate information about the product in simple language that everyone can understand. This may be the greatest challenge faced be a new food labeling policy: how to educate and inform the public without damaging the public trust and causing alarm or fear of GM food products.
In January 2000, an international trade agreement for labeling GM foods was established.More than 130 countries, including the US, the world's largest producer of GM foods, signed the agreement. The policy states that exporters must be required to label all GM foods and that importing countries have the right to judge for themselves the potential risks and reject GM foods, if they so choose. This new agreement may spur the U.S. government to resolve the domestic food labeling dilemma more rapidly.
Conclusion
Genetically-modified foods have the potential to solve many of the world's hunger and malnutrition problems, and to help protect and preserve the environment by increasing yield and reducing reliance upon chemical pesticides and herbicides. Yet there are many challenges ahead for governments, especially in the areas of safety testing, regulation, international policy and food labeling. Many people feel that genetic engineering is the inevitable wave of the future and that we cannot afford to ignore a technology that has such enormous potential benefits. However, we must proceed with caution to avoid causing unintended harm to human health and the environment as a result of our enthusiasm for this powerful technology.
iPETITIONS-BANDIPUR NATIONAL PARK
I wanted to draw your attention to this important petition that I recently signed:"support nightime closure of highways in bandipurNP"http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/9to6BNP?eI really think this is an important cause, and I'd like to encourageyou to add your signature, too. It's free and takes less than a minuteof your time.regards,
Nobin Kurian
www.nobinkurian.blogspot.com
Friday, June 12, 2009
ZERO BUDGET FARMING-SUBASH PALEKAR
Mr. Palekar said the technology could be an alternative to the ‘Green Revolution’ and organic farming.
Mr. Palekar, hailing from Amaravati, heads the Zero Budget Natural Farming Research, Development and Extension Movement.
He said the failure of the Green Revolution had driven lakhs of farmers in the country to suicide, mainly due to the high cost of production and non-remunerative price of farm produce.
“Zero budget natural farming needs only one cow to cultivate 30 acres of farm land. Productivity can be doubled or even trebled.
“Besides, it is free from health hazards, as no chemical or organic materials are used for farming.”
He said though the government claimed that the country had achieved food self-sufficiency, it has been importing foodgrains every year since independence. As per the government’s own estimate, by 2050, the population of the country would double and hence our food production has to be trebled. However, food production in the country has been declining over the years. Land fertility
The fertility of land has been lost due to excessive use of chemical fertilizers in vast areas where the Green Revolution took place.
It has caused grave health and environment problems. But, the government has not yet found an alterative to it. They are now promoting organic farming, which is also destructive and has high cost of production.
So for sustainable development, the zero budget natural farming is the best alternative.
He said zero budget farming was not only low cost but gave high productivity too. For example, it has been found that in zero budget farming, the productivity of Basmati rice was 24 quintals an acre as against 10 quintals in chemical farming.
The average production of Basmati per acre in the country is between 8 quintals to 12 quintals.Natural inputs
It does need inputs such as farm yard manure (cow dung manure), compost, vermicompost, organic fertilizers, chemical fertilizers, hybrid seeds of genetically modified seeds, chemical insecticides or fungicides, tractors, weedicides, micronutrients, etc. It requires only 10 per cent water and 10 per cent electricity than what is required under chemical and organic farming. Irrigation water
That means zero budget farming can save 90 per cent of irrigation water and electricity.
It utilises only natural resources as inputs.
The cost of production of the main crop is nil. It generates more production and profit than chemical or organic farming in the first year itself. It also increases the fertility of the soil, Mr. Palekar said.Farmers pleased
There were a couple of farmers from the district who participated in the workshop and shared their experience of zero budget farming.
Chandrasekharan of Vithunassery in Nemmara panchayat, who has adopted zero budget farming on his 1.32-acre land, said he expected to earn a profit of Rs.1 lakh from his farm.
Another farmer from Kanjikode, Manoj Kumar, who has cultivated banana, paddy, vegetables, coconut, etc., on his16-acre farm, said he was getting good yield and higher price for his produce. Mr. Manoj Kumar said he was pleased with results of zero budget farming on his farmland.
Mr. Palekar, hailing from Amaravati, heads the Zero Budget Natural Farming Research, Development and Extension Movement.
He said the failure of the Green Revolution had driven lakhs of farmers in the country to suicide, mainly due to the high cost of production and non-remunerative price of farm produce.
“Zero budget natural farming needs only one cow to cultivate 30 acres of farm land. Productivity can be doubled or even trebled.
“Besides, it is free from health hazards, as no chemical or organic materials are used for farming.”
He said though the government claimed that the country had achieved food self-sufficiency, it has been importing foodgrains every year since independence. As per the government’s own estimate, by 2050, the population of the country would double and hence our food production has to be trebled. However, food production in the country has been declining over the years. Land fertility
The fertility of land has been lost due to excessive use of chemical fertilizers in vast areas where the Green Revolution took place.
It has caused grave health and environment problems. But, the government has not yet found an alterative to it. They are now promoting organic farming, which is also destructive and has high cost of production.
So for sustainable development, the zero budget natural farming is the best alternative.
He said zero budget farming was not only low cost but gave high productivity too. For example, it has been found that in zero budget farming, the productivity of Basmati rice was 24 quintals an acre as against 10 quintals in chemical farming.
The average production of Basmati per acre in the country is between 8 quintals to 12 quintals.Natural inputs
It does need inputs such as farm yard manure (cow dung manure), compost, vermicompost, organic fertilizers, chemical fertilizers, hybrid seeds of genetically modified seeds, chemical insecticides or fungicides, tractors, weedicides, micronutrients, etc. It requires only 10 per cent water and 10 per cent electricity than what is required under chemical and organic farming. Irrigation water
That means zero budget farming can save 90 per cent of irrigation water and electricity.
It utilises only natural resources as inputs.
The cost of production of the main crop is nil. It generates more production and profit than chemical or organic farming in the first year itself. It also increases the fertility of the soil, Mr. Palekar said.Farmers pleased
There were a couple of farmers from the district who participated in the workshop and shared their experience of zero budget farming.
Chandrasekharan of Vithunassery in Nemmara panchayat, who has adopted zero budget farming on his 1.32-acre land, said he expected to earn a profit of Rs.1 lakh from his farm.
Another farmer from Kanjikode, Manoj Kumar, who has cultivated banana, paddy, vegetables, coconut, etc., on his16-acre farm, said he was getting good yield and higher price for his produce. Mr. Manoj Kumar said he was pleased with results of zero budget farming on his farmland.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
NOT SO WINDY....
The wind, a favorite power source of the green energy movement, seems to be dying down across the United States. And the cause, ironically, may be global warming — the very problem wind power seeks to address.
The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists disagree whether that is happening. But a first-of-its-kind study suggests that average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, especially in the Midwest and the East.
"It's a very large effect," said study co-author Eugene Takle, a professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University. In some places in the Midwest, the trend shows a 10 percent drop or more over a decade. That adds up when the average wind speed in the region is about 10 to 12 miles per hour.
There's been a jump in the number of low or no wind days in the Midwest, said the study's lead author, Sara Pryor, an atmospheric scientist at Indiana University.
Wind measurements plotted out on U.S. maps by Pryor show wind speeds falling mostly along and east of the Mississippi River. Some areas that are banking on wind power, such as west Texas and parts of the Northern Plains, do not show winds slowing nearly as much. Yet, states such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Kansas, Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia, northern Maine and western Montana show some of the biggest drop in wind speeds.
"The stations bordering the Great Lakes do seem to have experienced the greatest changes," Pryor said Tuesday. That's probably because there's less ice on the lakes and wind speeds faster across ice than it does over water, she said.
Still, the study, which will be published in August in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, is preliminary. There are enough questions that even the authors say it's too early to know if this is a real trend or not. But it raises a new side effect of global warming that hasn't been looked into before.
The ambiguity of the results is due to changes in wind-measuring instruments over the years, according to Pryor. And while actual measurements found diminished winds, some climate computer models — which are not direct observations — did not, she said.
Yet, a couple of earlier studies also found wind reductions in Australia and Europe, offering more comfort that the U.S. findings are real, Pryor and Takle said.
It also makes sense based on how weather and climate work, Takle said. In global warming, the poles warm more and faster than the rest of the globe, and temperature records, especially in the Arctic, show this. That means the temperature difference between the poles and the equator shrinks and with it the difference in air pressure in the two regions. Differences in barometric pressure are a main driver in strong winds. Lower pressure difference means less wind.
Even so, that information doesn't provide the definitive proof that science requires to connect reduced wind speeds to global warming, the authors said. In climate change science, there is a rigorous and specific method — which looks at all possible causes and charts their specific effects — to attribute an effect to global warming. That should be done eventually with wind, scientists say.
Jeff Freedman, an atmospheric scientist with AWS Truewind, an Albany, N.Y., renewable energy consulting firm, has studied the same topic, but hasn't published in a scientific journal yet. He said his research has found no definitive trend of reduced surface wind speed.
One of the problems Pryor acknowledges with her study is that over many years, changing conditions near wind-measuring devices can skew data. If trees grow or buildings are erected near wind gauges, that could reduce speed measurements.
Several outside experts mostly agree that there are signs that wind speed is decreasing and that global warming is the likely culprit.
The new study "demonstrates, rather conclusively in my mind, that average and peak wind speeds have decreased over the U.S. in recent decades," said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.
A naysayer is Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist in New York who said the results conflict with climate models that show no effect from global warming. He also doubts that any decline in the winds that might be occurring has much of an effect on wind power.
But another expert, Jonathan Miles, of James Madison University, said a 10 percent reduction in wind speeds over a decade "would have an enormous effect on power production."
Pryor said a 10 percent change in peak winds would translate into a 30 percent change in how much energy is reaped. But because the research is in such early stages, she said, "at this point it would be premature to modify wind energy development plans."
The idea that winds may be slowing is still a speculative one, and scientists disagree whether that is happening. But a first-of-its-kind study suggests that average and peak wind speeds have been noticeably slowing since 1973, especially in the Midwest and the East.
"It's a very large effect," said study co-author Eugene Takle, a professor of atmospheric science at Iowa State University. In some places in the Midwest, the trend shows a 10 percent drop or more over a decade. That adds up when the average wind speed in the region is about 10 to 12 miles per hour.
There's been a jump in the number of low or no wind days in the Midwest, said the study's lead author, Sara Pryor, an atmospheric scientist at Indiana University.
Wind measurements plotted out on U.S. maps by Pryor show wind speeds falling mostly along and east of the Mississippi River. Some areas that are banking on wind power, such as west Texas and parts of the Northern Plains, do not show winds slowing nearly as much. Yet, states such as Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Kansas, Virginia, Louisiana, Georgia, northern Maine and western Montana show some of the biggest drop in wind speeds.
"The stations bordering the Great Lakes do seem to have experienced the greatest changes," Pryor said Tuesday. That's probably because there's less ice on the lakes and wind speeds faster across ice than it does over water, she said.
Still, the study, which will be published in August in the peer-reviewed Journal of Geophysical Research, is preliminary. There are enough questions that even the authors say it's too early to know if this is a real trend or not. But it raises a new side effect of global warming that hasn't been looked into before.
The ambiguity of the results is due to changes in wind-measuring instruments over the years, according to Pryor. And while actual measurements found diminished winds, some climate computer models — which are not direct observations — did not, she said.
Yet, a couple of earlier studies also found wind reductions in Australia and Europe, offering more comfort that the U.S. findings are real, Pryor and Takle said.
It also makes sense based on how weather and climate work, Takle said. In global warming, the poles warm more and faster than the rest of the globe, and temperature records, especially in the Arctic, show this. That means the temperature difference between the poles and the equator shrinks and with it the difference in air pressure in the two regions. Differences in barometric pressure are a main driver in strong winds. Lower pressure difference means less wind.
Even so, that information doesn't provide the definitive proof that science requires to connect reduced wind speeds to global warming, the authors said. In climate change science, there is a rigorous and specific method — which looks at all possible causes and charts their specific effects — to attribute an effect to global warming. That should be done eventually with wind, scientists say.
Jeff Freedman, an atmospheric scientist with AWS Truewind, an Albany, N.Y., renewable energy consulting firm, has studied the same topic, but hasn't published in a scientific journal yet. He said his research has found no definitive trend of reduced surface wind speed.
One of the problems Pryor acknowledges with her study is that over many years, changing conditions near wind-measuring devices can skew data. If trees grow or buildings are erected near wind gauges, that could reduce speed measurements.
Several outside experts mostly agree that there are signs that wind speed is decreasing and that global warming is the likely culprit.
The new study "demonstrates, rather conclusively in my mind, that average and peak wind speeds have decreased over the U.S. in recent decades," said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.
A naysayer is Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate scientist in New York who said the results conflict with climate models that show no effect from global warming. He also doubts that any decline in the winds that might be occurring has much of an effect on wind power.
But another expert, Jonathan Miles, of James Madison University, said a 10 percent reduction in wind speeds over a decade "would have an enormous effect on power production."
Pryor said a 10 percent change in peak winds would translate into a 30 percent change in how much energy is reaped. But because the research is in such early stages, she said, "at this point it would be premature to modify wind energy development plans."
GLOBAL WARMING- NEW STUDY REPORT
In a new study, a team of scientists has found a direct relationship between carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and global warming.The study was done by Damon Matthews, a professor in Concordia University’s Department of Geography, Planning and the Environment, along with colleagues from Victoria and the UK.
The team used a combination of global climate models and historical climate data to show that there is a simple linear relationship between total cumulative emissions and global temperature change.
Until now, it has been difficult to estimate how much climate will warm in response to a given carbon dioxide emissions scenario because of the complex interactions between human emissions, carbon sinks, atmospheric concentrations and temperature change.
Matthews and colleagues show that despite these uncertainties, each emission of carbon dioxide results in the same global temperature increase, regardless of when or over what period of time the emission occurs.
These findings mean that we can now say that if you emit that tonne of carbon dioxide, it will lead to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change.
If we want to restrict global warming to no more than 2 degrees, we must restrict total carbon emissions, from now until forever, to little more than half a trillion tonnes of carbon, or about as much again as we have emitted since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
“Most people understand that carbon dioxide emissions lead to global warming, but it is much harder to grasp the complexities of what goes on in between these two end points,” said Matthews.
“Our findings allow people to make a robust estimate of their contribution to global warming based simply on total carbon dioxid
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
ഭാരതപ്പുഴയുടെ കൈവഴികളില് വ്യാപക കൈയേറ്റo: നിയമസഭാസമിതി
Date : June 11 2009
ഭാരതപ്പുഴയിലെ മണല്ക്കൊള്ള: നിയമഭേദഗതിക്ക് ശുപാര്ശചെയ്യും -നിയമസഭാസമിതി
പാലക്കാട്: ഭാരതപ്പുഴയിലെ മണല്ക്കൊള്ള നിയന്ത്രിച്ച് പുഴ സംരക്ഷിക്കുന്നതിന് നിലവിലുള്ള നദീസംരക്ഷണനിയമത്തിലെ വ്യവസ്ഥകള് കര്ശനമാക്കാന് നിയമഭേദഗതിക്ക് പാര്ശചെയ്യുമെന്ന് നിയമസഭാ പരിസ്ഥിതികമ്മിറ്റി വ്യക്തമാക്കി. അനധികൃത മണല്വാരല് ഇനിയും അനുവദിച്ചാല് പുഴയുടെ മരണമായിരിക്കും ഫലമെന്നും കമ്മിറ്റി അഭിപ്രായപ്പെട്ടു.
ഭാരതപ്പുഴ സംരക്ഷണത്തിന് സമഗ്രപദ്ധതി തയ്യാറാക്കാന് ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥര്, പരിസ്ഥിതി സംഘടനാ പ്രവര്ത്തകര്, ജനപ്രതിനിധികള് എന്നിവരുടെ സാന്നിധ്യത്തില് നടന്ന തെളിവെടുപ്പിലാണ് സമിതി അംഗങ്ങള് ഇക്കാര്യം അറിയിച്ചത്. ഭാരതപ്പുഴയില് ജില്ലയുടെ പരിധിയില്മാത്രം 100 അനധികൃത കടവുകളുണ്ടെന്ന് സമിതി ചെയര്മാന് രാജാജി മാത്യു തോമസ് എം.എല്.എ. പറഞ്ഞു. മണല് മാഫിയയുടെ പ്രവര്ത്തനം ശക്തമാണ്. നിലവിലുള്ള നിയമംകൊണ്ട് ഇവരെ തടയാനാവുന്നില്ല. മണല്റെയ്ഡും കാര്യക്ഷമമല്ല.
ഭാരതപ്പുഴയുടെ കൈവഴികളില് വ്യാപക കൈയേറ്റവും നടക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. ഇത് തടയാന് നദീസംരക്ഷണനിയമം ഭേദഗതിചെയ്ത് വ്യവസ്ഥകള് കര്ക്കശമാക്കണമെന്ന് രാജാജി മാത്യു തോമസ് പറഞ്ഞു. അനധികൃത മണല്വാരല് ജാമ്യമില്ലാത്തവകുപ്പില് ഉള്പ്പെടുത്തണം. മണല്വാരുന്നവര്ക്കും അവര്ക്ക് നേതൃത്വം കൊടുക്കുന്ന മാഫിയകള്ക്കുമെതിരെ കേസെടുക്കാന് സമിതി ശുപാര്ശചെയ്യും. മണല്റെയ്ഡിനും പുഴ സംരക്ഷണത്തിനും സായുധരായ പോലീസും പരിസ്ഥിതി പോലീസും വേണമെന്നാണ് സമിതിയുടെ അഭിപ്രായമെന്ന് അംഗങ്ങള് പറഞ്ഞു.
ഭാരതപ്പുഴ സംരക്ഷണത്തിന് പ്രത്യേക അതോറിട്ടി രൂപവത്കരിക്കുന്നകാര്യം പരിഗണനയിലുണ്ട്. മണലിന് ബദലായി എം.സാന്ഡ് ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നതിനും മണല് ഉപയോഗം കുറയ്ക്കുന്നതിനും നിര്ദേശങ്ങളുണ്ട്. സമിതിയുടെ റിപ്പോര്ട്ട് എത്രയുംപെട്ടെന്ന് സര്ക്കാരിന് സമര്പ്പിക്കുമെന്ന് ചെയര്മാന് പറഞ്ഞു. കമ്മിറ്റി അംഗങ്ങളായ വി.ഡി. സതീശന്, എം. ഹംസ, എ.എം. യൂസഫ് എന്നിവരും തെളിവെടുപ്പില് പങ്കെടുത്തു. തുടര്ന്ന് കല്പാത്തിപ്പുഴയിലെ കൈയേറ്റസ്ഥലവും മലമ്പുഴ മാന്തുരുത്തിയിലുള്ള ഐ.എം.എ.യുടെ മാലിന്യസംസ്കരണകേന്ദ്രമായ ഇമേജും സന്ദര്ശിച്ചു.
source: Mathrubhumi
Date : June 11 2009
മണല്ക്കൊള്ള: പോലീസ്-റവന്യു ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥര്ക്കെതിരെ രൂക്ഷവിമര്ശനം
പാലക്കാട്: അനധികൃത മണല്വാരലിനും മണല്മാഫിയയ്ക്കും കൂട്ടുനില്ക്കുന്നത് പോലീസ്-റവന്യു ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥരാണെന്ന് ജനപ്രതിനിധികളും പരിസ്ഥിതി പ്രവര്ത്തകരും. ഇവര് ആത്മാര്ഥമായി ശ്രമിച്ചാല് മണല്വാരല് ഒരുപരിധിവരെ നിയന്ത്രിക്കാന് പറ്റുമെന്നും ജനപ്രതിനിധികള് പറഞ്ഞു. എന്നാല് ആവശ്യത്തിന് സന്നാഹങ്ങളും ആള്ബലവും ഇല്ലാത്തതാണ് പ്രധാനപ്രശ്നമെന്ന് ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥര് പറഞ്ഞു. ബുധനാഴ്ച കളക്ടറേറ്റില് ഭാരതപ്പുഴ സംരക്ഷണത്തിന് നടത്തിയ നിയമസഭാസമിതി തെളിവെടുപ്പിലാണ് ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥര്ക്കെതിരെ രൂക്ഷവിമര്ശനമുയര്ന്നത്.
അധികൃതരുടെ മൂക്കിനുതാഴെ റെയില്വേസ്റ്റേഷന് സമീപം അനധികൃത മണല്വാരല് വ്യാപകമായിട്ടും ഇക്കൂട്ടരെ ഒതുക്കാനായിട്ടില്ലെന്ന് ഒറ്റപ്പാലം നഗരസഭാ ചെയര്മാന് കെ.പി. രാമരാജന് കുറ്റപ്പെടുത്തി. അനധികൃത മണല്വാരലിനെക്കുറിച്ച് റവന്യുഅധികൃതര്ക്ക് വിവരംനല്കിയാല്പോലും നടപടിയെടുക്കുന്നില്ലെന്നും അദ്ദേഹം പറഞ്ഞു. ജനകീയ ചെക്പോസ്റ്റ് സ്ഥാപിച്ച് മണല്മാഫിയകളെ നിയന്ത്രിക്കുന്ന വിളയൂര്പഞ്ചായത്തിന്റെ മാതൃക മറ്റ് പഞ്ചായത്തുകളും സ്വീകരിക്കണമെന്ന് ഗ്രാമപ്പഞ്ചായത്ത് പ്രസിഡന്റ് പറഞ്ഞു. റിവര് മാനേജ്മെന്റ് കമ്മിറ്റിയില് പരിസ്ഥിതി പ്രവര്ത്തകരെ ഉള്പ്പെടുത്തി സമിതിയുടെ പ്രവര്ത്തനം കാര്യക്ഷമമാക്കണമെന്ന് ഭാരതപ്പുഴ സംരക്ഷണ സമിതി സെക്രട്ടറി ഡോ. പി.എസ്. പണിക്കര് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടു. കെ.പി. സുരേഷ്രാജ്, എ. ഭാസ്കരന്, ബാലന്, ശിവപ്രകാശ്, മണികണുന്, എസ്. ഗുരുവായൂരപ്പന്, ടി.കെ. അച്യുതന്, പ്രേംദാസ്, കണക്കമ്പാറ ബാബു തുടങ്ങി നിരവധി സംഘടനാ പ്രതിനിധികളും ജനപ്രതിനിധികളും ചര്ച്ചയില് സംസാരിച്ചു.
ഭാരതപ്പുഴയിലെ മണലിന്റെ ലഭ്യതയെക്കുറിച്ച് സെസ് പഠനംനടത്തണമെന്ന് യോഗത്തില് ആവശ്യമുയര്ന്നു. മലപ്പുറം, തൃശ്ശൂര്, പാലക്കാട് ജില്ലകളിലെ മണല്പാസ് വിതരണം ഏകീകരിക്കുക, ജില്ലയിലെ കമ്പ്യൂട്ടര്പാസ് വിതരണത്തിലെ പാകപ്പിഴകള് പരിഹരിക്കുക, കഞ്ചിക്കോട് വ്യവസായമേഖലയിലെ ഫാക്ടറികളില് നിന്നുള്ള മലിനീകരണം തടയുക, മലമ്പുഴയുടെ വൃഷ്ടിപ്രദേശത്തുള്ള ഇരുമ്പുരുക്കുകമ്പനിയുടെ പ്രവര്ത്തനം തടയുക തുടങ്ങി വിവിധ ആവശ്യങ്ങള് ചര്ച്ചയില് ഉന്നയിച്ചു. ഒട്ടേറെ നിവേദനങ്ങളും നിയമസഭാ സമിതിക്ക് നല്കി. അതേസമയം, ഭാരതപ്പുഴ ഒഴുകുന്ന തൃശ്ശൂര്, മലപ്പുറം, പാലക്കാട് ജില്ലകളില് റിവര് മാനേജ്മെന്റ് ഫണ്ടിന്റെ വിനിയോഗത്തെക്കുറിച്ച് പരാതികള് ലഭിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടെന്ന് നിയമസഭാ സമിതി വ്യക്തമാക്കി. ഫണ്ട് നല്ലരീതിയില് വിനിയോഗിക്കാന് നടപടിയെടുക്കും.
തീരങ്ങളില് മുളയും രാമച്ചവും വെച്ചുപിടിപ്പിക്കും. സംസ്ഥാനത്ത് ഏറ്റവുമധികം മണല്ക്കൊള്ള നടക്കുന്ന പുഴകളിലൊന്നാണ് ഭാരതപ്പുഴ. മൂന്ന് ജില്ലകളിലെയും ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥര് ഒറ്റക്കെട്ടായി പരിശ്രമിച്ചാല് മാത്രമെ പുഴയെ സംരക്ഷിക്കാനാവൂ. ഭാരതപ്പുഴയിലെ മണല്നിക്ഷേപത്തെക്കുറിച്ചും മണലെടുപ്പിനെത്തുടര്ന്നുള്ള പാരിസ്ഥിതിക പ്രശ്നങ്ങളെക്കുറിച്ചും വിശദമായ പഠനം നടത്താന് ശുപാര്ശചെയ്യുമെന്നും കമ്മിറ്റിയംഗങ്ങള് പറഞ്ഞു.
മണല്വേട്ടയ്ക്ക് ഡിവൈ.എസ്.പി.തലത്തില് സ്ക്വാഡുകള് രൂപവത്കരിച്ച് ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥര്ക്ക് ആവശ്യത്തിന് സുരക്ഷ ഉറപ്പാക്കിയാല് മണല്റെയ്ഡ് കാര്യക്ഷമമാക്കാനാവുമെന്ന് പോലീസ്-റവന്യു ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥര് പറഞ്ഞു. പാലക്കാട്, മലപ്പുറം കളക്ടര്മാരായ എം.സി.മോഹന്ദാസ്, എ.ടി.ജയിംസ്, മൂന്ന് ജില്ലകളിലെയും പോലീസ് സൂപ്രണ്ടുമാര്, റവന്യുഅധികൃതര്, സെസ് ഡയറക്ടര്, മൈനിങ് ആന്ഡ് ജിയോളജി ഡയറക്ടര്, പരിസ്ഥിതി, ജലവിഭവം, റവന്യു, തദ്ദേശസ്വയംഭരണ വിഭാഗങ്ങളിലെ ജില്ലാതല ഉദ്യോഗസ്ഥര്, ഗ്രാമപ്പഞ്ചായത്ത് പ്രസിഡന്റുമാര്, സെക്രട്ടറിമാര് എന്നിവര് യോഗത്തില് പങ്കെടുത്തു.
Legislative committee on environemnt of kerala's public hearing faced challenging issues in Palakkad
Content of the memorandum submitted to the Legislative committee on environment, Government of Kerala, at Palakkad Collectorate conference hall, today (10th June, 2009).
Humble submission before Hon: Legislative committee on environment.
Subjects demanding urgent attention, enquiry and action are submitted below:
1. Requesting eviction of encroachment on the banks of River Bharathapuzha and its tributaries such as Kalpathy, Korayar, Varattayar, Chittur puzha, Gayathri Puzha, Ayiloor puzha, Thoothapuzha and Kunthipuzha. Letters and complaints submitted to the Chief minister and the District collectors 3 years back with satellite images and photographs didn’t find any action.
2. The ecosystem of these rivers had already damaged by unethical sand mining activity. Numerous plant and animal species disappeared, water turned polluted, conflicts and quarrels started everywhere in the villages of Palakkad due to water scarcity and related to ownership of the awailable water.
3. The dredging operation in Purathur of Ponnani river mouth resulted in extinction of sand islands where the migrant birds used as feeding ground, the activity resulted to increase the inward flow from sea water which polluted the pure river water by salt water contamination. The effect is experiencing up to Ottappalam which is still moving towards the up streams of river Bharathapuzha.
4. Pollution caused to soil, water and air by the industrial companies and Pepsi like multi national corporate still continues even after implementing legal steps by the government.
5. There is no solution is found to the environmental hazards made by the windmills in Attapadi. By blocking the elephants tracts by the suzlon company, elephants started moving in human habitation area and resulted in killing peoples in the last year. The situation getting worse and worse.
6. Killing of elephants and other wildlife by train hits in walayar forests continues. The recommendation demanding shift of railway tracks from forest areas shall be taken at utmost importance.
7.Urgent action requested to the unauthorised activities such as converting agricultural lands to barren lands, land filling, pond filling, obtaining Kerala Land Utilisation certificate (KLU) through illegal way etc. action requested to stop issuing KLUs to the lands which was cultivable before10 years.
8.Permanent solution requested to the forest encroachment, finalizing ecologically feasible EFL (Ecologically Fragile Land) Laws and Rules and bill on protecting paddy filed and watershed areas.
9.Include Thoothanpara and such forest areas in the core zone of Parambikulam Tiger Reserve.
10. Ban chemicals and pesticides in the field of agriculture (which directly pollutes Bharathapuzha and its tributaries).
Faithfully by,
S.Guruvayurappan,
Co-ordinator, Aashrayam Rural Development Society, Kollengode, Palakkad, Kerala.
South Indian co-ordinator, Wildlife Protection Society of India – New delhi.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Result:
The legislative committee on environment took up the issues (submitted and explained before the committee and the audience by the NGO co-ordinator) seriously and made the major recommendation to enforce strict action to the encroachers of Bharathapuzha and its tributaries. The same was the leading news on print and media with regard to the meeting.
Humble submission before Hon: Legislative committee on environment.
Subjects demanding urgent attention, enquiry and action are submitted below:
1. Requesting eviction of encroachment on the banks of River Bharathapuzha and its tributaries such as Kalpathy, Korayar, Varattayar, Chittur puzha, Gayathri Puzha, Ayiloor puzha, Thoothapuzha and Kunthipuzha. Letters and complaints submitted to the Chief minister and the District collectors 3 years back with satellite images and photographs didn’t find any action.
2. The ecosystem of these rivers had already damaged by unethical sand mining activity. Numerous plant and animal species disappeared, water turned polluted, conflicts and quarrels started everywhere in the villages of Palakkad due to water scarcity and related to ownership of the awailable water.
3. The dredging operation in Purathur of Ponnani river mouth resulted in extinction of sand islands where the migrant birds used as feeding ground, the activity resulted to increase the inward flow from sea water which polluted the pure river water by salt water contamination. The effect is experiencing up to Ottappalam which is still moving towards the up streams of river Bharathapuzha.
4. Pollution caused to soil, water and air by the industrial companies and Pepsi like multi national corporate still continues even after implementing legal steps by the government.
5. There is no solution is found to the environmental hazards made by the windmills in Attapadi. By blocking the elephants tracts by the suzlon company, elephants started moving in human habitation area and resulted in killing peoples in the last year. The situation getting worse and worse.
6. Killing of elephants and other wildlife by train hits in walayar forests continues. The recommendation demanding shift of railway tracks from forest areas shall be taken at utmost importance.
7.Urgent action requested to the unauthorised activities such as converting agricultural lands to barren lands, land filling, pond filling, obtaining Kerala Land Utilisation certificate (KLU) through illegal way etc. action requested to stop issuing KLUs to the lands which was cultivable before10 years.
8.Permanent solution requested to the forest encroachment, finalizing ecologically feasible EFL (Ecologically Fragile Land) Laws and Rules and bill on protecting paddy filed and watershed areas.
9.Include Thoothanpara and such forest areas in the core zone of Parambikulam Tiger Reserve.
10. Ban chemicals and pesticides in the field of agriculture (which directly pollutes Bharathapuzha and its tributaries).
Faithfully by,
S.Guruvayurappan,
Co-ordinator, Aashrayam Rural Development Society, Kollengode, Palakkad, Kerala.
South Indian co-ordinator, Wildlife Protection Society of India – New delhi.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Result:
The legislative committee on environment took up the issues (submitted and explained before the committee and the audience by the NGO co-ordinator) seriously and made the major recommendation to enforce strict action to the encroachers of Bharathapuzha and its tributaries. The same was the leading news on print and media with regard to the meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
