2020 Farm Bill India - discussion.

[sandeep]

Quality 

https://theprint.in/opinion/what-economists-like-ashok-gulati-still-dont-understand-about-agriculture-in-india/513848/

Quote

What economists like Ashok Gulati still don’t understand about agriculture in India
YOGENDRA YADAV SEPTEMBER 30, 2020

Do Indian farmers understand the agrarian economy better than Ashok Gulati? Ridiculous as it might sound, the answer could well be: yes.

Professor Ashok Gulati is the leading agricultural economist in India, and among the scholars I read, consult and respect. He combines solid scholarship with genuine concern for the farmers. He has the spine to stand against governments of the day, including the Narendra Modi-led one, and if need be, against farmers’ movements. In line with his position over the years, he has welcomed the three new agricultural bills, calling it the 1991 moment for Indian agriculture. Most enthusiasts of this measure, including ThePrint’s Editor-in-Chief Shekhar Gupta, have used his arguments to support these laws.

Sadly, Gulati is profoundly mistaken. It is not a mistake of biased scholarship, bad data or poor reasoning. It is a profound error of an economics that seeks to offer policy advice to the government. This became clear to me for the first time when reading a rich exchange between two economists, Jean Dreze and Ashok Kotwal. In response to Kotwal’s advocacy of cash transfer over subsidised food to the poor, Dreze drew a distinction between an economist who advises the government and an economist who advises the poor. The policy advisor must think of the possible benefits while assuming that his or her suggestions will be implemented fully and in the right spirit. The advisor to the poor must focus on the likely consequences of a policy, how would a policy be implemented, on the ground. Dreze said that on paper, direct cash transfer can be the most economical and efficient way to help the poor, but food-grain delivery through ration shops is their best real-life option.

This is true of the three agricultural legislations as well.

Economists vs farmers
On paper, the economic rationale for these laws follows from the textbook of economics and can be stated best in Professor Gulati words in The Indian Express: these laws “provide greater choice and freedom to farmers to sell their produce and to buyers to buy and store, thereby creating competition in agricultural marketing. This competition is expected to help build more efficient value chains in agriculture by reducing marketing costs, enabling better price discovery, improving price realisation for farmers and, at the same time, reducing the price paid by consumers. It will also encourage private investment in storage, thus reducing wastage and help contain seasonal price volatility”. How can anyone, except those with ideological blinders, disagree with these measures? The opposition’s claims that farmers won’t get minimum support price (MSP) is “plain falsehood”, writes Swaminathan Iyer, another economist I read with respect.

Their reasoning is not bad. But their assumptions about ground realities are shaky. And their projections about how these acts will be implemented are wishful thinking. Naturally, their conclusions are profoundly mistaken. A farmer, who doesn’t understand the intricacies of economics, intuitively arrives at a better ‘impact assessment’ of these laws than these ‘disciplined’ minds. If you prefer a formal argument and not just intuition, don’t go for a regular economist, but read an anthropologist like Mekhala Krishnamurthy, an activist like Kavitha Kuruganti, or a grounded economist like Sudha Narayanan.

Assumptions vs reality
Let me examine four assumptions that must hold for these laws to bring the promised bonanza to farmers. The first assumption is that farmers lack choice when selling their crops because they are forced to sell it to the sarkari mandi, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). This is a false picture, because only one quarter of all agricultural produce is sold through these mandis. Three-fourth of Indian farmers already enjoy the freedom that the government promises them. What this overwhelming majority of farmers actually needs is not freedom from mandis, but more and better-operated mandis. In all these years of travelling and meeting farmers, I hear them complain about the absence of mandis or about its poor functioning, but I have never met a farmer who complains about not being allowed to sell outside the mandi.

The second assumption is that the laws would save the farmers from exploitation by the commission agent (‘arhtiyas’, in north India). This assumption is also unreal, not because arhtiyas don’t cheat farmers but because big agribusinesses would not get rid of middlemen. Big companies simply cannot deal directly with thousands of farmers; they need someone to aggregate. In all probability, the same arhtiyas who worked in sarkari mandi would offer their services to the private agribusiness that sets up a private mandi. So, the farmers will suffer two layers of middlemen in the new private mandis: the bad-old commission agent plus the new corporate super middleman.

The third assumption is that the market would function in a fair manner, so that farmers would get a slice of the additional profits made by stockist or trader thanks to greater efficiencies, larger volumes and lower costs in the new system. But no one has explained the basis for this very benevolent assumption. Why would the private traders wish to part with any additional profit they make? Why would they not collude to deny the farmers a fair price? Why would they not resort to ‘agri-business normalisation’, offer good prices for a few seasons and then squeeze the farmers? That depends on the bargaining power of the farmers. Currently, the farmers are very weak vis-à-vis traders and mandi officials, but can occasionally arm-twist them through political representatives. In the new system they would lose even this limited clout. The dispute resolution mechanism proposed in the new laws is a joke. The economists put their faith in the emergence of farmers cooperatives (Farmer Producer Organisations, in the official lingo), but that will take years, if not decades.

The fourth assumption is that the government will maintain and enhance its investment in agricultural infrastructure. Nothing can be more naïve than this. Farmers understand it better than the economists that these three laws are not just policy measures; these are signalling devices. The Modi government is announcing its intent to withdraw from agriculture in terms of investment, regulation and extension work. Private players would invest in warehouses and cold storages, so the government can step back. The real point about the creation of a “trading zone” outside the APMC is not the opening of private trade (because trade within the APMC is almost entirely private trade) but of unregulated trade. We are shifting into an unregulated and non-transparent trade in agriculture with no mechanism to record, collect and collate data, and no requirement for registration of traders. And contractual farming would be the perfect excuse to withdraw from extension services as well.

A signal to farmers
The farmers can read the writing on the wall: retreat of the state means loosening of the little influence they occasionally wield. They have heard about the recommendations to step back from procurement. They can visualise the consequences of dismantling of APMCs; they can smell the withdrawal from Minimum Support Price. And they know about the latest decision to ban export of onions as a sign that the government will never hesitate to step in when farmers might stand to make profit. They read political signals better than economists.

The author is the national president of Swaraj India. Views are personal.

 

[Tibarn]

Good moves by the Modi government.

 

It's funny socialists like Salim still get traction in India. I blame the general lack of economics-literacy in the Indian education system. Then again, no one votes for him, so I guess I am selling Indians short here.  

 

If Modi does half of what that clown is whinging about, India would experience an agri-sector boom. 

 

The next thing Modi should do is make Salim's co-traveller, Vandana Shiva "disappear". At minimum, maybe put her in jail with the Geelani-types. There isn't a single person more responsible for spreading misinformation on GMOs in India.   

 

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by Tibarn

[coffee_rules]

42 minutes ago, sandeep said:

Quality 

https://theprint.in/opinion/what-economists-like-ashok-gulati-still-dont-understand-about-agriculture-in-india/513848/

 

 

Who YoYa Salim or Ashok Gulati?

[BacktoCricaddict]

18 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

 

Who YoYa Salim or Ashok Gulati?

Like most things, this will come down to implementation.  I am not sure about the veracity of the claim that 75% had freedom to sell wherever, but other than that, the author makes some really good points.  I am especially wary of the same dalals being hired by large multinationals and continue their goondagardi.  The intent of these farm bills is solid.  But ground realities will unfold only later and the govt better keep an eye on it.  

 

This is why we have to advocate for the development of high-yield, high-quality, indigenously developed crop varieties that will help Indian farmers and consumers.  But, thanks to the fearmongering of the anti-biotech movement, every Indian government has put a lid on that, falsely conflating biotechnology with multinationals.  

 

When I left India in the '90s, Indian biotech was not up to par and large Western multinationals monopolized ag biotech.  Indian scientists simply did not have necessary resources to develop these crops.  It is not the case anymore.  Indian scientists with today's infrastructure are highly capable of making it happen - if eNGOs, gowmutra agriculture advocates and the govt would get out of their way.  

 

[sandeep]

13 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

, the author makes some really good points.  I am especially wary of the same dalals being hired by large multinationals and continue their goondagardi.  The intent of these farm bills is solid.  But ground realities will unfold only later and the govt better keep an eye on it.  

+1

[velu]

protests are there only in the social media i guess .. 

 

anyway labor reforms will be there soon  .. probably we can expect much more meltdown 

[coffee_rules]

44 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

Like most things, this will come down to implementation.  I am not sure about the veracity of the claim that 75% had freedom to sell wherever, but other than that, the author makes some really good points.  I am especially wary of the same dalals being hired by large multinationals and continue their goondagardi.  The intent of these farm bills is solid.  But ground realities will unfold only later and the govt better keep an eye on it.  

 

 

 

When I left India in the '90s, Indian biotech was not up to par and large Western multinationals monopolized ag biotech.  Indian scientists simply did not have necessary resources to develop these crops.  It is not the case anymore.  Indian scientists with today's infrastructure are highly capable of making it happen - if eNGOs, gowmutra agriculture advocates and the govt would get out of their way.  

 

 

gowmutra jibe  Totally uncalled for. Isn't urea used as a fertilizer in agriculture?

 

If ground realities unfold later, why are they protesting now? 

Edited September 30, 2020 by coffee_rules

[BacktoCricaddict]

2 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

 

gowmutra jibe  Totally uncalled for. Isn't urea used as a fertilizer in agriculture?

 

If ground realities unfold later, why are they protesting now? 

Advocates of faith-based farming (and Gowmutra advocates are among them) bring the ridicule on themselves. On the one hand, they reject proven ag technologies because they are videshi.  On the other hand, they exaggerate, with no evidence of course, the benefits of urine as an elixir that does all sorts of wonders.  The only reasoning?  The cow is sacred.  I respect the cow being sacred to them, but you can't extend it to everything.  

 

It's the same thing with American and European advocates of things like biodynamic agriculture, agroecology and other fanciful concepts.  They oppose using nitrogen fertilizer that we know works and can be used safely, but would rather propagate unproven ideas because they think their ancestors were better off growing food in that manner.  

 

When one starts with the premise of faith that a waste product from a sacred animal is also sacred, everything they say about it will only be good.  This is why science trumps tradition - in science, you start with the question, do the experiment, and see if what you thought is really true.  If it is not, you kick your ego to the curb and try something else.  But, with faith, that does not happen. 

 

BTW, the concentration of urea in gowmutra or any mutra is not enough to grow anything.  Even assuming that gowmutra has 10x the concentration of urea as human urine (which it probably does not, because that would be toxic), you would need ~ 30400 121000 litres of gowmutra per acre per season.  Good luck finding that many cows to pee that much. 

------------------------------------------------------

To answer your other question, two possibilities:

(a) They have been exploited by these traders and in their experience, the exploitation will continue.  Whether it is a rational fear, I don't know, but I can understand it.

(b) Opposition and other people who stand to lose from these laws are creating trouble

 

Most probably both (a) and (b) are true.

 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

4 hours ago, Tibarn said:

Good moves by the Modi government.

 

It's funny socialists like Salim still get traction in India. I blame the general lack of economics-literacy in the Indian education system. Then again, no one votes for him, so I guess I am selling Indians short here.  

 

If Modi does half of what that clown is whinging about, India would experience an agri-sector boom. 
 

  He is famous for being a secular socialist always opposing any policy of the BJP Govt . So all those Media houses interested in being the checks and balances give him the platform. 

Quote

 

The next thing Modi should do is make Salim's co-traveller, Vandana Shiva "disappear". At minimum, maybe put her in jail with the Geelani-types. There isn't a single person more responsible for spreading misinformation on GMOs in India.   

 

 

 

 

From what I have read about her and heard her Ted Talks, her opposition to GMO food is not about the science, but the economics. Her organization Navdanya is fighting for biodiversity of farming, a practice used by our ancestors to maintain richness of the soil. That organ also advocates on seed distribution and fighting IPR over toxic culture of big corps patenting seeds that were common to the farmers like Basmati etc. That US co list the patent war back in 2002. 
 

Some environmentalists in US believe in toxicity of GMO (Carcinogenic) which is not based on any actual science and is misinformation.  But she has claimed that the big Corp economics of patent holding companies of GMO seeds and their monopoly of seed usage has made farmers lose control of their own grown seeds and is the main cause for farmer suicides. Can you or @BacktoCricaddict critique that aspect of GMO?

 

Shiva is a tolerable feminist as she comes from science and not humanities like YoYa. She talks some sense some of the time. I hate activists like Greta and others talking trash without any logic. 

@BacktoCricaddict responding to you, regarding Gomutra, the sacred part is coming in only because of its alleged medicinal value, could be placebo effect that most traditional meds are based on. But cow urine in farming is not based on placebo but some research in agricultural sciences like this one from ICAR

 

ICAR backs use of cow urine in organic farming

 

“”ICAR officials said that the use of fermented cow urine enhances soil fertility and it can also be turned into liquid fertiliser as a pesticide for crops. Liquid manure from cow urine is easy to make and is good for plants in comparison to artificial fertiliser.””

 

Do you call this coming from gaumutra activists? Liquid manure means mxing it with water. 
 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by coffee_rules

[sandeep]

@coffee_rules I think you're unnecessarily getting defensive and both of you are talking past each other...

[coffee_rules]

2 minutes ago, sandeep said:

@coffee_rules I think you're unnecessarily getting defensive and both of you are talking past each other...

Don’t understand. I am asking those questions seriously. Not defending gaumutra believers. I don’t believe in its special powers , so where is the defense? I only questioned the jibes in what thought was based on science.

[BacktoCricaddict]

44 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

  He is famous for being a secular socialist always opposing any policy of the BJP Govt . So all those Media houses interested in being the checks and balances give him the platform. 

From what I have read about her and heard her Ted Talks, her opposition to GMO food is not about the science, but the economics. Her organization Navdanya is fighting for biodiversity of farming, a practice used by our ancestors to maintain richness of the soil. That organ also advocates on seed distribution and fighting IPR over toxic culture of big corps patenting seeds that were common to the farmers like Basmati etc. That US co list the patent war back in 2002. 
 

Some environmentalists in US believe in toxicity of GMO (Carcinogenic) which is not based on any actual science and is misinformation.  But she has claimed that the big Corp economics of patent holding companies of GMO seeds and their monopoly of seed usage has made farmers lose control of their own grown seeds and is the main cause for farmer suicides. Can you or @BacktoCricaddict critique that aspect of GMO?

 

Shiva is a tolerable feminist as she comes from science and not humanities like YoYa. She talks some sense some of the time. I hate activists like Greta and others talking trash without any logic. 

@BacktoCricaddict responding to you, regarding Gomutra, the sacred part is coming in only because of its alleged medicinal value, could be placebo effect that most traditional meds are based on. But cow urine in farming is not based on placebo but some research in agricultural sciences like this one from ICAR

 

ICAR backs use of cow urine in organic farming

 

“”ICAR officials said that the use of fermented cow urine enhances soil fertility and it can also be turned into liquid fertiliser as a pesticide for crops. Liquid manure from cow urine is easy to make and is good for plants in comparison to artificial fertiliser.””

 

Do you call this coming from gaumutra activists? Liquid manure means mxing it with water. 
 

 

 

Anna, give me some time to answer the question about GMO corporations (it will be long-winded).  But don't mistake Vandana Shiva for a scientist.  I have no idea who YoYa is, but Dr. Shiva is a philosopher pretending to be a scientist.  Her Doctor of Philosophy is in Philosophy (not in Physics).  Her doctoral dissertation was on the "PHILOSOPHY of Physics," which is interesting, but it is not Physics.  But she claims to be a physicist.  She is an out-and-out humanities person (nothing wrong with that) with very little understanding of biology, especially biotechnology.  Now, even if she was a physicist (again, she is not), she is out of her depth in molecular biology - which is what one needs to understand how biotechnology works.

 

As for gomutra - from the article:  Incidentally, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, has received 50 proposals from different academic and research institutes to study the benefits of cow urine and milk under the Scientific Validation And Research On ‘Panchgavya’ (concoction of cow dung, cow urine, milk, curd and ghee) programme.

 

Once the results of these studies come in and the data shows that it is real, I will accept it.  So far, I have seen no systematic evidence that any of this works.  But as I proved with 5-min back-of-the-hand math, it cannot work as a urea replacement.   

 

 

 

[coffee_rules]

CA, Guru, I knew you’d pick on those lines from the article. Anyway, cow urine fertilizer is big deal in organic farming and also next to composting food wastes to be used as fertilizer.

 

 Ow on GMO, please elaborate on the politics of ethics of it, some are questioning if modifying an existing gene  is indeed an invention? For me, it is, but the economics of large scale production , they should charge the end user and not the producer.

Edited September 30, 2020 by coffee_rules

[coffee_rules]

29 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

But don't mistake Vandana Shiva for a scientist.  I have no idea who YoYa is, but Dr. Shiva is a philosopher pretending to be a scientist.  Her Doctor of Philosophy is in Philosophy (not in Physics).  Her doctoral dissertation was on the "PHILOSOPHY of Physics," which is interesting, but it is not Physics.  But she claims to be a physicist.  She is an out-and-out humanities person (nothing wrong with that) with very little understanding of biology, especially biotechnology.  Now, even if she was a physicist (again, she is not), she is out of her depth in molecular biology - which is what one needs to understand how biotechnology works.

 

I had seen her videos and talks, she talks loud and well.  I knew she had a science degree from Punjab university, as per bio on her book. But, read her Wiki, even that liberal site is not kind to her. She is into many controversies, plagiarism etc., seems to be not as honest as I had thought. Well, thanks for schooling

[BacktoCricaddict]

49 minutes ago, coffee_rules said:

CA, Guru, I knew you’d pick on those lines from the article. Anyway, cow urine fertilizer is big deal in organic farming and also next to composting food wastes to be used as fertilizer.

 

 Ow on GMO, please elaborate on the politics of ethics of it, some are questioning if modifying an existing gene  is indeed an invention? For me, it is, but the economics of large scale production , they should charge the end user and not the producer.

 

Not really.  It is being tried on small scale in various places but there is no systematic, quantitative evidence in its favor as a viable nitrogen source.  Cow manure, yes.  Cow urine, no.  Why?

 

Normal urea concentration in human urine is 0.15 g/L.  I assumed cow urine has 1.5 g/L (could not find any numbers quickly).  Amount of urea generally used is 350-400 pounds/acre.   Easy math to show why it is even not worth trying to use it as a urea substitute.  Now, maybe Nitrogen in urine is absorbed easier?  Possible.  

 

Definitely I will elaborate on the politics or ethics.  Need more time (not like doing quick urea arithmetic :-)) 

 

Any comments about Shiva not being a scientist?  

Edited September 30, 2020 by BacktoCricaddict

[coffee_rules]

12 minutes ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

 

Not really.  It is being tried on small scale in various places but there is no systematic, quantitative evidence in its favor.  Cow manure, yes.  Cow urine, no.  

 

Definitely I will elaborate on the politics or ethics.  Need more time (not like doing quick urea arithmetic :-)) 

 

Any comments about Shiva not being a scientist?  

 

She is speaks from science or masquerades as one. I thought she was doing some kind of research. Turns out a celebrity activist. 

[Tibarn]

17 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

  He is famous for being a secular socialist always opposing any policy of the BJP Govt . So all those Media houses interested in being the checks and balances give him the platform. 

I think Salim is just doing some last-minute time-pass before he ends up in jail.  

https://www.opindia.com/2020/09/delhi-riots-conspiracy-chargesheet-part-1-yogendra-yadav-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-december-13/

 

The funny part of that article is that he claims the arguments made by Alduri and Iyer are just assumptions, but literally every single point of his is either an assumption or an unsourced anecdote shot off the shoulders of unnamed farmers that he supposedly spoke to or supposed experts that he name-dropped. (Apparently Kejriwal didn't listen to his vast experience with farmers otherwise he would have won the elections in Punjab/Haryana  )   He name-drops people no one has heard of/cares two-hoots about the opinion of, but he doesn't link either a research paper or even another article written by these people to support literally anything he says . 

 

Just an example: groundbreaking arguments like this is considered worthy of publishing by rags like Print 

Quote

The economists put their faith in the emergence of farmers cooperatives (Farmer Producer Organisations, in the official lingo), but that will take years, if not decades.

 

Thank you Salim bhai for sharing with us your otherworldly powers of clairvoyance.  What these two economists predict are unfounded assumptions/wishful thinking, but his writing an article filled with his empty assumptions are to be taken seriously because he has spent his career "talking with farmers."   

 

It's a waste of time to give such disinformation agents clicks.

 

Quote

From what I have read about her and heard her Ted Talks, her opposition to GMO food is not about the science, but the economics. Her organization Navdanya is fighting for biodiversity of farming, a practice used by our ancestors to maintain richness of the soil. That organ also advocates on seed distribution and fighting IPR over toxic culture of big corps patenting seeds that were common to the farmers like Basmati etc. That US co list the patent war back in 2002. 

Some environmentalists in US believe in toxicity of GMO (Carcinogenic) which is not based on any actual science and is misinformation.  But she has claimed that the big Corp economics of patent holding companies of GMO seeds and their monopoly of seed usage has made farmers lose control of their own grown seeds and is the main cause for farmer suicides. Can you or @BacktoCricaddict critique that aspect of GMO?

Well she made some  baseless claims on a couple of genetically modified organisms such as blaming Bt cotton for farmer suicides(which was debunked by http://cdm15738.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/14501/filename/14502.pdf and  https://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907) and then pressuring the Indian government to not accept GMO plants after the Orissa Cyclone in 1999 (basically denying people food because of her opposition to GMOs). She was against the Green Revolution as well while claiming to be speaking for farmers. The Green Revolution had issues, but it also made India food-secure. I doubt one would find any farmer from our wheat-belt who would go back and time and reject the Green Revolution. 

 

What makes her akin to a modern-day supervillain is her opposition to Golden Rice. This was a variety of GMO rice made with increased beta-carotene/vitamin A content, designed for regions which eat rice but also has significant micronutrient deficiencies.  It was being offered to free of charge to developing countries like India, China, and those of SE Asia. Several lakh children in developing countries either go blind or even die due to those specific deficiencies, which Golden Rice was designed to counteract. She and her co-travelers spread so much misinformation/fake news, that the entire project became toxic. There is no telling what number of children died or were forced into avoidable blindness due to her agenda. 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have a problem with Navdanya's mission-statement. It's just an NGO that promotes organic farming. There is nothing I have against encouraging organic farming or maintaining plant-biodiversity/soil-health . The only issue with organic farming is that if everyone did it, it would require much more farm land.

 

Ultimately Biotech companies will have more control over the seeds they generate than the farmers who buy them and sow them. That is part of their IP.  The idea would be that the increased yields would increase farmer income to such an extent that they would be able to afford the continual input cost(buying new seeds).

I mean, it shouldn't be mandated that the farmers have to buy GMO seeds, but they should be given the choice of if they want to or not. That would be actual seed freedom, IMO, just like how foods in grocery stores are marked GMO or non-GMO, and one has the option of avoiding them if one is concerned. If farmers want to avoid GMOs, they should have the option, and if they want to use them, that should be available to them as well. 

 

Some people have an issue with the fact that the biotech companies are mostly foreign, but we have Indian biotech companies now as well, and, for those Swadeshi-minded, one could make the requirement that any foreign investment by biotech companies would be required to be a minority partner, while an Indian company has a majority-stake in the venture with tech-transfer. We already do that with other industries. 

 

 

 

[BacktoCricaddict]

1 hour ago, Tibarn said:

I think Salim is just doing some last-minute time-pass before he ends up in jail.  

https://www.opindia.com/2020/09/delhi-riots-conspiracy-chargesheet-part-1-yogendra-yadav-umar-khalid-sharjeel-imam-december-13/

 

The funny part of that article is that he claims the arguments made by Alduri and Iyer are just assumptions, but literally every single point of his is either an assumption or an unsourced anecdote shot off the shoulders of unnamed farmers that he supposedly spoke to or supposed experts that he name-dropped. (Apparently Kejriwal didn't listen to his vast experience with farmers otherwise he would have won the elections in Punjab/Haryana  )   He name-drops people no one has heard of/cares two-hoots about the opinion of, but he doesn't link either a research paper or even another article written by these people to support literally anything he says . 

 

Just an example: groundbreaking arguments like this is considered worthy of publishing by rags like Print 

 

 

Thank you Salim bhai for sharing with us your otherworldly powers of clairvoyance.  What these two economists predict are unfounded assumptions/wishful thinking, but his writing an article filled with his empty assumptions are to be taken seriously because he has spent his career "talking with farmers."   

 

It's a waste of time to give such disinformation agents clicks.

 

Well she made some  baseless claims on a couple of genetically modified organisms such as blaming Bt cotton for farmer suicides(which was debunked by http://cdm15738.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/14501/filename/14502.pdf and  https://www.nature.com/news/case-studies-a-hard-look-at-gm-crops-1.12907) and then pressuring the Indian government to not accept GMO plants after the Orissa Cyclone in 1999 (basically denying people food because of her opposition to GMOs). She was against the Green Revolution as well while claiming to be speaking for farmers. The Green Revolution had issues, but it also made India food-secure. I doubt one would find any farmer from our wheat-belt who would go back and time and reject the Green Revolution. 

 

What makes her akin to a modern-day supervillain is her opposition to Golden Rice. This was a variety of GMO rice made with increased beta-carotene/vitamin A content, designed for regions which eat rice but also has significant micronutrient deficiencies.  It was being offered to free of charge to developing countries like India, China, and those of SE Asia. Several lakh children in developing countries either go blind or even die due to those specific deficiencies, which Golden Rice was designed to counteract. She and her co-travelers spread so much misinformation/fake news, that the entire project became toxic. There is no telling what number of children died or were forced into avoidable blindness due to her agenda. 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have a problem with Navdanya's mission-statement. It's just an NGO that promotes organic farming. There is nothing I have against encouraging organic farming or maintaining plant-biodiversity/soil-health . The only issue with organic farming is that if everyone did it, it would require much more farm land.

 

Ultimately Biotech companies will have more control over the seeds they generate than the farmers who buy them and sow them. That is part of their IP.  The idea would be that the increased yields would increase farmer income to such an extent that they would be able to afford the continual input cost(buying new seeds).

I mean, it shouldn't be mandated that the farmers have to buy GMO seeds, but they should be given the choice of if they want to or not. That would be actual seed freedom, IMO, just like how foods in grocery stores are marked GMO or non-GMO, and one has the option of avoiding them if one is concerned. If farmers want to avoid GMOs, they should have the option, and if they want to use them, that should be available to them as well. 

 

Some people have an issue with the fact that the biotech companies are mostly foreign, but we have Indian biotech companies now as well, and, for those Swadeshi-minded, one could make the requirement that any foreign investment by biotech companies would be required to be a minority partner, while an Indian company has a majority-stake in the venture with tech-transfer. We already do that with other industries. 

 

 

 

 

So, can I heart, trophy and upvote this post all at the same time?

[BacktoCricaddict]

On a related note, India needs to start promoting orphan crops, especially high-fibre, high-nutrient food ancient grains like jowar, bajri/bajra and ragi.  There needs to be incentive to enhance the genetics of these crops to improve yield, taste, ease of cooking, and shelf-life and for farmers to grow and export them worldwide - into mainstream stores and not just ethnic stores.  Use some celebrity chefs to promote recipes with these grains world over.  There is so much potential here - like quinoa, bulgur wheat etc.  

 

This Senegalese chef is doing it for an ancient African grain:  https://phys.org/news/2017-08-senegalese-miracle-grain-sahel-prosper.html  

 

  

[coffee_rules]

1 hour ago, BacktoCricaddict said:

On a related note, India needs to start promoting orphan crops, especially high-fibre, high-nutrient food ancient grains like jowar, bajri/bajra and ragi.  There needs to be incentive to enhance the genetics of these crops to improve yield, taste, ease of cooking, and shelf-life and for farmers to grow and export them worldwide - into mainstream stores and not just ethnic stores.  Use some celebrity chefs to promote recipes with these grains world over.  There is so much potential here - like quinoa, bulgur wheat etc.  

 

This Senegalese chef is doing it for an ancient African grain:  https://phys.org/news/2017-08-senegalese-miracle-grain-sahel-prosper.html  

 

  

 

Everybody I know in India and their uncles are eating millets on a daily basis. It has high yield (low seeding rate) and there are a lot of indigenous millet crops from India, which has been out of production due to focus on rice, wheat, sugarane etc. India should stop growing sugarcane which needs so much water and also with the stubble burning causes environment issues. Mandya district in Kar grows so much sugarcane, it has caused much turmoil due to using up a lot of cauvery water is a cause for dispute.

Edited October 1, 2020 by coffee_rules