GEO Watch | Vandana Shiva responds to The New Yorker

Vandana Shiva Photo by Sander de Kraker

Moderator’s
Note: The August 25 issue of The New Yorker magazine included an article by Michael Specter attacking Vandana Shiva and her “fiery opposition
to globalizatioand…genetically modified crops”(GMOs). Specter’s pro-GMO piece
is a colonialist hack job that reminds me of Rudyard Kipling, writ: when he
describes Indians as having “skin the color of burnt molasses and the texture
of a well-worn saddle”, as if such a statement reflected anything other than an
underlying sense of superiority and distant ‘exoticizing’ observation.  At best, Specter’s New Yorker report is
what one colleague described as “meretricious” i.e., apparently attractive but having
in reality no value or integrity.

I eagerly post Vandana Shiva’s own detailed
response to Specter, which was posted earlier today to Seed Freedom and other websites.

Seeds of
Truth – A response to The New Yorker

Dr. Vandana Shiva

(A response to the article ‘Seeds of Doubt’ by
Michael Specter in The New Yorker)

I am glad that the future of food is being discussed,
and thought about, on farms, in homes, on TV, online and in magazines,
especially of The New Yorker’s caliber. The New Yorker has held
its content and readership in high regard for so long. The challenge of feeding
a growing population with the added obstacle of climate change is an important
issue. Specter’s piece, however, is poor journalism. I wonder why a journalist
who has been Bureau Chief in Moscow for The New York Times and Bureau
Chief in New York for the Washington Post, and clearly is an experienced
reporter, would submit such a misleading piece. Or why The New Yorker
would allow it to be published as honest reporting, with so many fraudulent
assertions and deliberate attempts to skew reality. ‘Seeds of Doubt’ contains
many lies and inaccuracies that range from the mundane (we never met in a café
but in the lobby of my hotel where I had just arrived from India to attend a
High Level Round Table for the post 2015 SDGs of the UN) to grave fallacies
that affect people’s lives. The piece has now become fodder for the social
media supporting the Biotech Industry. Could it be that rather than serious
journalism, the article was intended as a means to strengthen the biotechnology
industry’s push to ‘engage consumers’? Although creative license is part of the
art of writing, Michael Specter cleverly takes it to another level, by assuming
a very clear position without spelling it out.

Specter’s piece starts with inaccurate information,
by design.

“Early this spring, the Indian environmentalist
Vandana Shiva led an unusual pilgrimage across southern Europe. Beginning in
Greece, with the international Pan-Hellenic Exchange of Local Seed Varieties
Festival, which celebrated the virtues of traditional agriculture, Shiva and an
entourage of followers crossed the Adriatic and travelled by bus up the boot of
Italy, to Florence, where she spoke at the Seed, Food and Earth Democracy
Festival. After a short planning meeting in Genoa, the caravan rolled on to the
South of France, ending in Le Mas d’Azil, just in time to celebrate
International Days of the Seed.”

On April 26th, 2014, at the Deutsches Theater Berlin,
one of Germany’s most renowned state theatres. I gave a keynote speech for a
conference on the relation of democracy and war in times of scarce resources
and climate change. From Berlin I flew into Florence for a Seed Festival
organized by the Government of the Region of Tuscany, Italy, The Botanical
garden of Florence (the oldest in Europe), Banca Etica and Navdanya.  I
was joined by a caravan of seed savers, and we carried on to Le Mas d’Azil
where we had a conference of all the European seed movements.

It would be convenient in the narrative that Specter
attempts to weave, to make this exercise look like a joyride of ‘unscientific
people on a “pilgrimage”’. Writing about the European governments, universities
and movements accurately would not suit Specter’s intention because the strong
resistance (including from governments) to GMOs in Europe is based on science.

My education doesn’t suit his narrative either: a
Ph.D. on the ‘Hidden Variables and Non-locality in Quantum Theory’. Specter has
reduced my M.Sc. Honors in Physics to a B.Sc. for convenience.  Mr.
Specter and the Biotech Industry (and The New Yorker, by association)
would like to identify the millions of people opposing GMOs as unscientific,
romantic, outliers. My education is obviously a thorn in their side.

“When I asked if she had ever worked as a
physicist, she suggested that I search for the answer on Google. I found
nothing, and she doesn’t list any such position in her biography.”

Specter has twisted my words, to make it seem like I
was avoiding his question. I had directed him to my official website since for
the past few months I have repeatedly been asked about my education. The
Wikipedia page about me has been altered to make it look like I have never
studied science. The Biotech Industry would like to erase my academic
credentials. I have failed to see how it makes me more or less capable of the
work I do on evolving and ecological paradigm of science. I consciously made a
decision to dedicate my life to protect the Earth, its ecosystems and
communities. Quantum theory taught me the four principles that have guided my
work: everything is interconnected, everything is potential, everything is
indeterminate, and there is no excluded middle. Every intellectual breakthrough
I have made over the last 40 years has been to move from a mechanistic paradigm
to an ecological one. I had the choice to continue my studies in the
foundations of Quantum Theory at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
(TIFR) or to take up a research position in interdisciplinary studies on
science policy at IIM, Bangalore. I chose the latter because I wanted a deeper
understanding of the relationships between science and society.

This was my email response to Specter, copied to the
editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick:

 tight
schedule must have kept Specter from mentioning Africa in his piece, although
he intended to, given that a considerable amount of the world’s poor are also
in Africa and must be fed. But Africa might not have needed addressing,
probably because the Biotech Industry is happy with the progress they are
making in deploying GMO cotton and banana in Africa. In the US, six-week human
trials of these bio-fortified bananas are happening as I write this. And what
are these bananas? They are bananas into which they have put a gene found in
another variety of banana that has elevated levels of Beta-Carotene. They could
have just used the banana with higher Beta-Carotene if the intent was to
alleviate Vitamin A Deficiency, but there’s no money in that.

Specter calls me a Brahmin, which is
inaccurate and a deliberate castist aspersion, insinuating falsely, elitism.
‘Shiva’ is not a Brahmin caste name. My parents consciously adopted a
caste-less name as part of their involvement in the Indian Independence
Movement that included a fight against the caste system. But this is
inconvenient to Specter’s narrative.

Specter’s gift for half-truths is evidenced when he
says:

“Shiva said last year that Bt-cotton-seed costs had
risen by eight thousand per cent in India since 2002. In fact, the prices of
modified seeds, which are regulated by the government, have fallen steadily.”

“Bt-cotton-seed costs had risen by eight thousand per
cent in India since 2002” is incorrect. I did not say that. The cost of cotton
seed after the 2002 approval of Bt-cotton, when compared to the price of cotton
seed before Monsanto entered the market in 1998, has increased exponentially.
The percentage was used in reference to this increase. I was a little
conservative when I said “8000%”, since I didn’t maximize the number for
effect. I’m not predisposed to hyperbole. I am grateful to Specter for pointing
this out. I’ll redo the math now.

Monsanto entered the Indian market illegally in 1998,
we sued them on 6th Jan in 1999. Before Monsanto’s entry to the market, local
seeds cost farmers between ₨5 and ₨10 per kg. After Bt Cotton was allowed into the
market Monsanto started to strengthen its monopoly through (i) ‘Seed
Replacement’, in which Monsanto would swap out farmers seeds with their own,
claiming superiority of their ‘product’, and (ii) ‘Licensing Agreements’ with
the 60 companies that were providing seeds in the Indian market at the time.
Monsanto ensured a monopoly on cotton seeds in India and priced the seeds at ₨1,600 for a package of 450 gms (₨3555.55 per kg, out of which the royalty component
was ₨1,200). ₨3555.55
is approximately 711 times ₨5, the pre-Bt price. The
correct percentage increase would be 71,111%. It is this dramatic price
increase that I always talk about.

The reduction of prices that Specter mentions was
because the State of Andhra Pradesh and I took the issue to the Monopoly and
Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (India’s Anti-Trust Court) and Monsanto
was ordered, by the MRTP Court and the Andhra Pradesh Government, to reduce the
price of its seed. Monsanto did not willfully reduce its prices, nor was an
“Invisible Hand” at work. He quotes the Farmers Rights Clause in Indian law
from the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers Rights Act, deliberately
misnaming a clause as an act, misleading anyone who might want to do some
research of their own, as many readers of The New Yorker do.

“Shiva also says that Monsanto’s patents prevent poor
people from saving seeds. That is not the case in India. The Farmers’ Rights
Act of 2001 guarantees every person the right to “save, use, sow, resow,
exchange, share, or sell” his seeds. Most farmers, though, even those with tiny
fields, choose to buy newly bred seeds each year, whether genetically
engineered or not, because they insure better yields and bigger profits.”

I do say Monsanto’s patents prevent poor people from
saving seeds. They prevent anyone who is not ‘Monsanto’ from saving or having
seeds including researchers and breeders. This is true in most parts of the
world. Specter makes it appear as though Indian farmers are protected and have
always been, merely by mentioning “The Farmers’ Rights Act of 2001”. I happen
to have been a member of the expert group appointed by our Agriculture Ministry
to draft that very act. We have worked very hard to make this happen and I am
very proud of the fact that India has built Farmers Rights into its laws. But
the farmers are not completely protected since Monsanto has found clever ways
around the laws, including collecting Royalties renamed as ‘Technology Fees’.
This issue has many pending cases in Indian courts.

This section in Specter’s piece is designed to
deliberately break the established connections between GMOs, Seed Patents and
IPRs, and mislead his readers to echo Monsanto’s attempt to hide the
catastrophic implications of a seed monopoly and Bt-Cotton’s failure in India
as it tries to enter new markets in Africa proclaiming it’s success in India.
Indian farmers can’t choose to buy genetically modified or hybrid varieties.
Choosing would require choice, an alternative. Monsanto has systematically
dismantled all alternatives for the cotton farmer. Monsanto’s hold on corn,
soya and canola is almost as strong as their monopoly on cotton. Approximately
$10 billion is collected annually from U.S. farmers by Monsanto, as royalty
payments. Monsanto has been sued for $ 2.2 billion by Brazilian farmers for
collecting royalty on farm-saved seeds.  The seed market is no longer
governed by market forces. The element of choice is missing altogether. The
farmer can only choose if he has an option.

In its evidence to the Parliamentary Standing Committee
on Agriculture, the Monsanto representative admitted that half the price of
Monsanto seeds is royalty. My work and the work of movements in India, has
prevented Monsanto from having patents on living resources and biological
processes. Article 3(J) of our patent clause was used by the Indian Patent
Office to reject Monsanto’s broad claim patent application on climate resilient
seeds. In other countries that do not share our history, Monsanto uses such
patents to sue farmers, such as Percy Schmeiser in Canada (for $200,000) as
well as 1,500 other farmers in the US. In the case of Monsanto vs Bowman,
Monsanto sued a farmer who had not even purchased seeds from them.

If Specter had really listened, he would have heard
what I was actually saying about seed monopolies, even if it was inconvenient
to his story. I’m sure that during his research over the last 8 months, he
would have come across at least some of these examples of oppression.

“Although India bans genetically modified food crops,
Bt cotton, modified to resist the bollworm, is planted widely. Since the
nineteen-nineties, Shiva has focused the world’s attention on Maharashtra by
referring to the region as India’s “suicide belt,” and saying that Monsanto’s
introduction of genetically modified cotton there has caused a “genocide.”
There is no place where the battle over the value, safety, ecological impact,
and economic implications of genetically engineered products has been fought
more fiercely. Shiva says that two hundred and eighty-four thousand Indian
farmers have killed themselves because they cannot afford to plant Bt cotton.
Earlier this year, she said, “Farmers are dying because Monsanto is making
profits—by owning life that it never created but it pretends to create. That is
why we need to reclaim the seed. That is why we need to get rid of the G.M.O.s.
That is why we need to stop the patenting of life.””

If Specter had actually travelled across the cotton
belt in Maharashtra State (surely the Monsanto office could have easily
directed him there), he would have heard from his trusted sources that there is
a decline in Bt Cotton cultivation in favor of Soy Bean due to failed Bt crops.
He would have heard of Datta Chauhan of Bhamb village who swallowed poison on
November 5, 2013, because his Bt cotton crop did not survive the heavy rains in
July that year. He would have heard of Shankar Raut and Tatyaji Varlu, from
Varud village, both who committed suicide due to the failure of their Bt
Cotton. Tatyaji Varlu was unable to repay the Rs. 50,000 credit through which
he received seeds. Specter could have met and spoken to the family of 7 left
behind by Ganesh, in Chikni village, following the repeated failure of his Bt
Cotton crop. Ganesh had no option but to buy more Bt Cotton and try his luck
multiple times because Bt Cotton was the only cotton seed in the market,
brilliantly marketed under multiple brand names through Licensing Arrangements
that Monsanto has with Indian companies. Multiple packages, multiple promises
but the contents of each of those expensive packets is the same: it’s all Bt.
It’s vulnerable to failure because of too much or too little water, reliant on
fertilizer, and susceptible to pests without pesticide, all additional costs.
The farmer, with a field too small to impress Specter, does not choose Bt
Cotton of his free will. That choice is dictated by the system Specter attempts
to hail.

Specter and the BioTech twitter brigade have found
resonance and are harping on my “confusing a correlation with causation”.
Allow me to explain the cause to these scientific and rational
people and hopefully help them pull their heads out of the sand.

By destroying the alternative sources of seed, as I
explained earlier, a monopoly was established. Promises were made of higher
yield and a reduction of pesticide costs to initially woo farmers. With a
monopoly, Monsanto increased the price of seeds since it didn’t have to compete
in the market. In India, the agents that sell Monsanto seeds also sell the
pesticides and fertilizer, on credit. A Bt Cotton farmer starts the cultivation
season with debt and completes the cycle with the sale of the crop after
multiple applications of fertilizer and pesticide acquired on more credit. As
the Bt-toxin was rendered useless, the crop was infested by new pests and yields
of Bt Cotton started to decline, more fertilizer and pesticide were purchased
and used by the farmers in the hope of a better yield next time around,
destroying soil health. Degraded soil led to lower yields and further financial
losses to the farmers. Many farmers would plant seed from another brand, not
knowing it was the same exact Monsanto seed Bollguard, and that it would
not fare any better and would require more fertilizer and pesticide than
before, going deeper and deeper into debt. This cycle of high cost seeds and
rising chemical requirements is the debt trap, from which the farmers see no
escape, and which drives these farmers of the cotton belt to suicide. There is
a cause for each and every farmer taking his own life, he is not
driven to it by correlation. And the cause is a high cost monopoly system
with no alternative. If it were any other product,
Monsanto would be liable for false advertising, and a product liability claim
due to intentional misrepresentation regarding Bt Cotton. Specter promotes a
system of agriculture that fails to deliver on its promises of higher yield and
lower costs and propagates exploitation.

Not only does Specter support a system which leaves
no alternatives for farmers, he also promotes the force feeding of consumers,
with GMOs, including victims of disasters.

In 1999, ten thousand people were killed and millions
were left homeless when a cyclone hit India’s eastern coastal state of Orissa.
When the U.S. government dispatched grain and soy to help feed the desperate
victims, Shiva held a news conference in New Delhi and said that the donation
was proof that “the United States has been using the Orissa victims as guinea
pigs” for genetically engineered products. She also wrote to the international
relief agency Oxfam to say that she hoped it wasn’t planning to send
genetically modified foods to feed the starving survivors. When neither the
U.S. nor Oxfam altered its plans, she condemned the Indian government for
accepting the provisions.

Specter is ill informed about the cyclone in Orissa,
or he copied this information from another inaccurate report accusing me of
making the cyclone victims starve. The US aid was a blend of corn and soy, not
grain. The agency distributing it was C.A.R.E. After the cyclone in 1999 that
devastated the east coast of India, Navdanya was involved in the rehabilitation
of the victims on the ground in Orissa and has been involved in such efforts
each time there has been a calamity in that region. The shipment Specter
mentions, under a humanitarian guise, was an attempt to circumvent India’s ban
on the import of GMOs. The farmers who received the tainted shipment called it
inedible. A nondescript mixture of soy and corn is not food for rice eating
peoples. We tested this mixture and found it to be genetically engineered corn
and soya. The results were sent to the Health Ministry and the Government
ordered an immediate stop to the illegal import of GMOs. The
hybrid rice available in the market would not grow in the saline soil left
behind by the cyclone. Navdanya provided the farmers with salt-tolerant
varieties to allow them to rebuild their livelihoods and for them to have food.
The Orissa farmers, later, shared their salt-tolerant seeds with the victims of
the tsunami that hit Tamil Nadu in 2004. Monsanto, through its influence in
USAID, has used every natural and climate disaster to push its GMO seeds on
devastated communities, including Haiti after the earthquake, where farmers
protested against this imposition. Monsanto has also taken thousands of patents
on climate resilience in traditional seeds and has acquired climate research
corporations to exploit the vulnerability of communities in the future. This is
not humanitarian from any perspective.

Specter is also supporting the Biotech Industry
attack on Governments passing GMO labelling laws in the U.S. Coincidentally,
following The New Yorker piece, Michael Specter just wrote another piece
questioning GMO labeling in America. The Biotech Industry is now suing the
state of Vermont for its labeling laws. The grounds of Monsanto’s suit is that
labeling their product would infringe on Monsanto’s first amendment right.
Specter’s two articles work very well together.  An obvious question is
whether Specter set out to do a profile on me at all or whether this was a
calculated attempt to attack the burgeoning anti-GMO movement within the
US?Both articles were conveniently timed to mislead consumers in the US about
legislation in their own country by using fallacies about the situation in
India.

“Between 1996, when genetically engineered crops were
first planted, and last year, the area they cover has increased a
hundredfold—from 1.7 million hectares to a hundred and seventy million. Nearly
half of the world’s soybeans and a third of its corn are products of
biotechnology. Cotton that has been engineered to repel the devastating
bollworm dominates the Indian market, as it does almost everywhere it has been
introduced.”

Being the only seed in the market through monopoly
would, of course, be domination. The Bt-cotton seed is not dominating markets
because it is effective. Bt-cotton has led to the emergence of resistance to Bt
in the Bollworm and the emergence of pests that never affected cotton earlier,
forcing the increased use of pesticides accompanied by lower yields. Specter
quotes acreage but fails to mention that in the US, Round-Up Ready corn and
soya are plagued by super-weeds. The only new ‘technologies’ being touted by
the Biotech Industry are Bt and Ht (Herbicide Tolerant). Both these
‘technologies’ have failed to deliver on what they promised- the control of
pests and weeds. This is because they got the science wrong, the
ecological science that allows us to understand pests and weed control, and the
evolution of resistance in pests and weeds.

Almost a century and a quarter after The Jungle
Book, Specter is stuck in Kipling’s India. He uses imagery of elephants and
natives to subtly invoke a fetishized idea of eastern cultures that resonates
with a western perspective, a truly romantic one.

“The majority of local farmers travel to the market
by bullock cart. Some walk, and a few drive. A week earlier, a local
agricultural inspector told me, he had seen a cotton farmer on an elephant and
waved to him. The man did not respond, however, because he was too busy talking
on his cell phone.”

The third person account of a farmer on an elephant
with a mobile phone makes for a lovely visual. What is Specter trying to
achieve with this? There is an implication of contradictions here, an idea that
milestones in ‘development’, like the cell phone, symbols of modernity, have no
place in the same frame as an elephant. If Specter looked around, listened and
understood, he would have noticed that the cell phone is a necessity of life in
the 21st century, even in India. In fact, India has more mobile phone
subscribers than the US. We also have elephants and they do exist together.
Elephants cost more than a midsize car, to buy and to keep, especially in a
semi-arid area like Aurangabad.

Invoking imagery of a quaint India reveals an
ethnographic prejudice that fits right into the strategy of seemingly ‘helping’
India while extracting, like colonizers, capital and natural resources from the
colonies. In ways other than the obvious, Specter sounds like an Angrez
Sahib (English Sahib) describing the ‘natives’ in 1943, when he
notes

“skin the color of burnt molasses and the texture of
a well- worn saddle”

One can only hope that he may overcome his disdain of
non-white, non-industrial populations, Indian farmers, and farmers in general,
because he seems to view them as inferior and incapable of feeding themselves
and their growing population even though the Food and Agriculture Organization
reports that 70% of global food comes from small farms. It shows the sort of
narrow minded thinking that is paraded as reason in a bid to justify the
imposition of GMOs to create new sources of royalties. A system of food
production that accounts for only 30% of the food people eat cannot be presented
as a solution to hunger.

Specter attempts to use the 100-degree heat and dusty
roads to distract from the elephant in the room, which incidentally has a
farmer riding it, no cell phone, just crippling debt. How are second-hand
stories from one village, during a fleeting visit “a scientific study” about
the situation across the 3,500,000 hectares of cotton cultivation in
Maharashtra State. I have been going to Vidarbha in Maharashtra since 1982 when
we launched Samvardhan, the national organic movement, from Gandhi’s
ashram in Seva Gram. I have seen, first-hand, a proud region of hard working,
productive farmers, growing diverse and multiple crops, reduced to indebtedness
and a complete desperation. And Navdanya has been working in this devastated
region for the past two decades to create hope and alternatives for the farmers
and the widows of those who were driven to suicide. The crisis we witness today
is like the crisis created by colonialism. Specter mentions the Great Bengal
Famine but only provides partial information.

“In 1943 alone, during the final years of the British
Raj, more than two million people died in the Bengal Famine. “By the time we
became free of colonial rule, the country was sucked dry,” Suman Sahai told me
recently.” 

The Bengal Famine was caused by the ongoing war as
well as a tax in which the British took 50% of every farmer’s crop. This sort
of taxation, in today’s India has taken the form of royalties, especially in
cotton. Even before a seed has been planted, money has left the farm and made
its way to St. Louis. It can’t be difficult to see the similarity between seed
monopolies and colonialism.

The real reason for the Bengal Famine was
speculation–as evidenced by Amartya Sen’s extensive work–that drove the prices
of food so high that most people could not afford it. It was mostly a man-made
famine. The same system of speculation that caused famines, like that of 1943,
exists today. It’s now more organized, more lethal and captained by Wall
Street. Large Agri-business, armed with near-monopoly power, increase prices
beyond market determined increases in costs.

Although, Specter writes about India becoming an
exporting nation, he hides the fact that as a result of ‘Free Trade’ India has
now become heavily dependent on imports of oil-seeds and pulses—staples for
millions of Indians.  In the nineties, because of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), prices of tortillas in Mexico City rose sharply while
the price of corn, sold by Mexican farmers, went down. Free trade does not
imply free-market, and more often than not it means the poor go hungry while
profits of corporations, especially in agriculture, increase.

International financial speculation has played a
major role in food price increases since the summer of 2007. Specter quotes
import and export data many times in his piece. Most of this trade is mandated
by trade agreements written by these very corporations. Due to the financial
collapse in America, speculators moved from financial products to land and
food, which explains the increasing speculation on food and land-grab. This
directly affects prices in domestic markets. Many countries are becoming
increasingly dependent on food imports. Speculators bet on artificially created
scarcity, even while production levels remain high.  Based on these
predictions, Big Agriculture has been manipulating the markets. Traders keep
stocks away from the market in order to stimulate price increases and generate
huge profits afterwards.

In Indonesia, in the midst of the soya price hike in
January 2008, the company PT Cargill Indonesia was still keeping 13,000 tons of
soybeans in its warehouse in Surabaya, waiting for prices to reach record
highs. This artificial inflation of prices is a result of profits to be made
from financial speculation, and creates hunger when there is actually enough
food to feed everyone on the planet. Frederick Kaufman, in his Harpers
Magazine article entitled, “How Wall Street starved millions and got
away with it”, writes that “imaginary wheat bought anywhere affects real
wheat bought everywhere.”

Specter would have served The New Yorker and
himself well by doing a little more research before narrating the stories from
his trip to India. His one-day trip speaking with one farmer and a nameless
agricultural inspector is hardly part of scientific reasoning. Specter’s piece
is ripe with fabrication. He says he went and met cotton farmers near
Aurangabad in:

“late spring, after most of the season’s cotton had
been picked.”

For the record, in the Maharashtra state, cotton is a
Kharif crop, sown in June or July depending on the monsoon and harvested
between the months of November and February. It is unlikely that the farmers
would have waited for Mr. Michael Specter to show up this May so that he could
catch the tail end of the harvest.  As curiously, Specter chose not go to
the Vidarbha region with the most Bt-Cotton related farmer suicides.

We work with the farmers and the widows in Vidarbha
to rebuild their lives and give them hope. Farmers that have escaped the debt-trap
created by Bt Cotton and it’s ancillary requirements of chemical fertilizers
and pesticides have done so through the use of seeds made available through
organic farming and community seed banks set up by Navdanya. Through the
availability of these seeds and not having to buy pesticides and fertilizers,
the net income of these farmers has increased.

Nilesh, a Bt cotton farmer in Chikni village in
Yavatmal District, for an acre in 2013-14, spent ₨1,860
for seeds, ₨1,000 for pesticides, ₨1,500
for fertilizer, ₨500 for irrigation. Without
adding any other expenses he might have had his expenses amount to ₨4,860 per acre. His yield per acre of 1 quintal (100
kg) that sold for ₨4600 left him with a loss
of ₨260 per acre. In contrast, Marotirao Deheka who farms
organically in Pimpri village in Yavatmal District spent ₨400 on seeds, ₨750 on
irrigation, ₨3,000 on all other costs to a lower total of ₨4,150 per acre. Yet, his yield of 3 quintals, which
sold for ₨15000, earned him a net profit of ₨10,850.

The role of  “journalist-turned-activist”, or
more accurately “pundit,” we now see across the pro-GMO lobby. Take the case of
the British “activist”, Mark Lynas, who touts himself as an anti-GMO turned
pro-GMO activist. Following his conversion, he has subsequently written
extensively in favor of GM crops. But no one in the UK’s anti-GMO movement had
ever heard of Mark Lynas – until his much publicized talk in Oxford. Like
Specter, Lynas has become one of the strongest, most articulate voices for the
GMO movement. The question remains – are these journalists “sponsored” by the
GMO movement? Or are they simply writers who believe that GMO crops are good
for the world (despite information to the contrary)?

Whatever is the case, it’s undeniable that the
pro-GMO lobby is adopting a more sophisticated approach to its propaganda
machine. It has turned its story of debt, hunger and suicide into the
articulate voices of storytellers, of communicators, of respectable media
houses.

Has The New Yorker been influenced by loyalty
to its benefactors? Marion Nestle, a dear friend, and Francis Lappe’s (another
dear friend) daughter, Anna Lappe, received invitations from Condé Nast to
participate in an image clean up for Monsanto.  They obviously refused.
Please refer to the recent article (August 7, 2014) entitled:  Read the
Emails in the Hilarious Monsanto/Mo Rocca/Condé Nast Meltdown http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/08/monsanto-and-conde-nast-offered-big-bucks-writers-pr-project

For the record, ever since I sued Monsanto in 1999
for its illegal Bt cotton trials in India, I have received death threats, my
websites have been hacked and turned into porn sites, the chairman of a girls’
college founded by my grandfather, has been harassed. Actions have been taken
to impede Navdanya’s work by attempting to bribe my colleagues to leave – and
they have failed. None of these systemic attacks over the last two decades have
deterred me from doing my research and activism with responsibility, integrity,
and compassion. The concerted PR assault on me for the last two years from
Lynas, Specter and an equally vocal Twitter group is a sign that the global outrage
against the control over our seed and food, by Monsanto through GMOs, is making
the biotech industry panic.

Character assassination has always been a tool used
by those who cannot successfully defend their message. Although they think such
slander will destroy my career, they don’t understand that I consciously gave
up a ‘career’ in 1982 for a life of service. The spirit of service inspired by
the truth, conscience and compassion cannot be stopped by threats or media
attacks. For me, science has always been about service, not servitude.

My life of science is about creativity and seeing
connections, not about mechanistic thought and manipulated facts.

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational
mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant
and has forgotten the gift.” 

- Albert Einstein