Misselling of Investment products - crime against humanity

Misselling of investment products has reached menacing level. I am illustrating my point through some paper clippings alone. Many people has lost their life savings due to misselling.
Our own Suchitra Sen has been vicitim of misselling. Even CMD of a Central PSU has lost lot of money , in-spite of his access to superior information.

I have been a victim of mis-selling myself says Hoshang Noshirwan Sinor, newly appointed chief executive officer of Association of Mutual Funds of India (Amfi)



Mis-selling is rampant despite Amfi laying down a code of conduct for funds and distributors. Is there a way out?

I have been a victim of mis-selling myself so I would know. When I took over Amfi, the first thought that came to my mind is how do we stop somebody from mis-selling or misguiding gullible investors. More and more fund houses are launching complex products that frankly even many agents would not understand properly. Not only do some of them mis-sell, they also misguide. Something needs to be done. I have no ready answer at this stage, but this is on top of my agenda.

(source : Posted: Sun, Mar 7 2010. 10:45 , Money Matters LIVEMINT.COM)

This is what has happened to the head of most important financial institution.

Few paper cuttings will illustrate my contention clearly :

See how a former banker quit banking, since his main job has been relegated to selling (misselling) insurance and destroying wealth for investors. 

Watershed article in Money Today Magazine. See how nicely people are cheated!

    What to do, if you have bought wrong policies ?

  Are Endowment & Moneyback ( both are sold either as ULIP or Traditonal or Opaque policy) policies good for you ?

Money back policy is the worst policy one can buy and it is only product which the agents sale in a missionary zeal. Almost eveRy investors ends up buying Table 14 or 18 of LIC Charts for various policies.

Can an agent say " one particular policy is giving 11% return " ?

No, completely illegal - read ....what CS Rao the head of apex body of Insurance (IRDA - which is RBI of Insurance Companies)

Buying Mutual Fund during NFO is good ? 
Read....

                  What is the actual meaning of 9% p.a. flat rate of  loan ?

Many people buy stocks directly. It is better to invest through Mutual fund with the help of expert fund manager. Very people (less than 2%) people can outperform an expert fund manager. 

Daniel Kahneman won nobel prize on Behavioural Economics in 2002, although he is a psychologists. He shows how people take irrational decision due to loss aversion etc. How people talk about winning bets and do not talk about loss. How costly is that in a long time. 

Listen to it form the master.

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000053951

RTI - a very powerful tool in the hand of ordinary citizen - FAQ - practical approach

RTI or Right to information Act 2005 stands for Right To Information and has been given the status of a fundamental right under Article 19 and 21 of the Constitution. It has been able to bypass the iron curtain of Official Secrets Act 1923.

Article 19 under which every citizen has freedom of speech and expression and have the right to know how the government works, what role does it play, what are its functions and so on. It has something to do with Government. So apart from Govt Departments like, say, Ministry of Human Resources, it is also applicable to panchayat office, Govt Co like Indian Oil, ONGC,West Bengal Industrial Dev Corpn Ltd. etc.

The term which has been used in appropriate competent authority and appropriate Govt in the Act - from whom information can be sought. As such competent authority and appropriate Govt includes President of India, Governor of India,Chief Justice of India (SC and High court), Speaker of Loksabha and Assembly.

e.g. RTI activists has been able to get qualification of MPs even from the speaker of Loksabha.

Article 21 talks about Protection Of Life And Personal Liberty. No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

RTI is not applicable to a Pvt Co, say, ITC directly. But the information can received indirectly. However Section 2(f) says information includes information relating to any Pvt body which can be accessed by a public authority. e.g. you can ask Excise deptt how much Excise is paid by ITC, you can ask IT Deptt what are the assets declared by, say, Amitabh Bachchan in his Income Tax return.

The basic object of the Right to Information Act is to empower the citizens,promote transparency and accountability in the working of the Government and utilization of public money.We  have 3 tier Govt - Central, State and Local body. Anybody or deptt which is funded or established directly or indirectly by public money (e.g. all District Magistrate[DM] and their office) is answerable to us. Analogically just like a maid servant appointed in our house , is answerable to us, so are the DMs. That is why all political organization should be under RTI (they are not paying any Tax - so indirectly funded by us - e.g. Congress is paying a token rent of only Rs 10,000 for a property valued at few crores).RTI activists are trying to include them under the purview of RTI.

Some popular RTI queries are : Passport delay, Income Tax Refund,copies of answer sheet,FIR status, Scholarship,Employee Provident fund transfer or withdrawal status , recruitment policy of a PSU,compensation for land etc.

It is a two tier Act - State level and Central level. Therefore it has two tier jurisdiction depending upon whether it pertains to State or Centre. For example in case of Central Govt Deptt prepoer forum is CIC.

The procedures:

1. Apply to PIO or Public Information Officer. In case of Central Govt  Organization it is called Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer in case of State Govt organization. In my Co ( Govt Co - under Companies Act 2013) Company Secretary is the PIO. One can write just PIO instead of writing the name. PIO is appointed u/s 5 of the Act.

However in case of Vishwabharati / IIT / office of President of India PIO is PIO and not CPIO.

2. It should be accompanied by Indian Postal order/ Non judicial stamp paper/ Demand draft or Banker's Chq /Court fees of Rs 10 in West Bengal. It is Rs 10 in most of the states.No fee for BPL. Some states do not accept Demand Draft etc. In case of DD there is a practical problem "Payable to whom?". Indian Postal order is universally acceptable in all the states.

3. The Indian Postal order ideally should not contain the name of the company unless you are sure. Even if IPO is blank (ie not endorsed) PIO is obliged to fill it up himself and not harass the information seeker on frivolous grounds. In some companies PIO wrongly return back the IPO saying it is not endorsed (meaning the name is not mentioned in IPO).

4. Ideal format - with this format email may be given 

5. PIO has to reply maximum within 30 days. However in case of life and liberty it should be maximum 48 hours. e.g. in case of a senior citizen staying alone in Salt Lake (say), even denial of restoration of telephone line or gas connection can be covered under 48 hours clause. This term life and liberty can be interpreted depending upon facts and circumstances of the case and cannot be compartmentalized. Everything is left to your interpretation - though it can be challenged.

6. Information is sought under section 6 of RTI Act 2005.

7. If PIO thinks he can ask for IPO ( or other mode ) of higher value to recover cost - but it cannot be a ground of delay. Both the process should go parallely.

8. PIO can reject the RTI on the ground of section 8(1) of RTI Act 2005, because it is confidential commercial information (In fact in my Co one case was rejected under section 8 of RTI Act) or sensitive information which is likely to hinder social fabric or provocative information which can jeopardize national integrity (e.g. no. of Policeman deployed in Babri Masjid).

However under section 8(2) if public interest warrants divulging such information, then it can be published. e.g. Singur case agreement was open for 4 days before it was withdrawn on the intervention of Ratan Tata.

But under section 8(3) it can be divulged after 20 years by Govt. , if it thinks, it is fit to do so.

9. Process of application :

10. If applicant is not happy with the answer or question is rejected altogether, then applicant can appeal to Appellate Authority(AA). In my office, AA is the Managing Director.

In RTI, SPIO is the most important person and 1st Appellate Authority is the weakest point in the chain. It needs to be strengthened.

11. If you are not happy with the order of AA then your 2nd appeal lies to Information commission - in case of state to State Information Commission or SIC (or CIC in case of C Govt related question).

Appeal can be made under section 19 of RTI Act 2005.

12. Appeal vs Complaints

In the following cases ,

under section 18  

of RTI Act 2005, complain can be 

made directly to the Information Commission. 

13. If PIO does not give information and is adjudged guilty then he has to pay a fine of Rs 250 per day subject to a maximum of Rs 25,000. However habitual defaulter can even be terminated.

14. The role of PIO is to give information and pass on information to the concerned deptt for a suitable reply. If PIO has documentary evendience that information has not been given by the concerned department - then the deptt will be held guilty and not the PIO. Under RTI there is nothing called internal document unless it falls under section 8. Information supplied by a department can be supplied to the information seeker in verbatim. In 2006 the Congress tried to bring an amendment to exclude file notings from the Acts purview, but thankfully the Act has not been enacted.

15. PIO has to submit Quarterly Statistics and Quarterly return to CIC.

16. State Chief Information Commissioner under section 19(8) read with section 20 of RTI Act may instruct a Company to follow the rules which they are not following, failing which penal provision may be applicable. 

17. Proactive disclosure - U/s  4(1)(b) is required. There are 17 points under this sub section – information in respect of which needs to be given in the website. 

- this disclosure will reduce the number of RTI Applications and many RTI Applications may be disposed of referring to the website.

18. It may be mentioned here that  stress may be given on Record Management. Proper Record Management system be prepared, which will classify the period for which various documents need to be maintained, otherwise records will have to be maintained for ever. 

e.g. If it is classified the certain records (e.g. Tender Documents) are to be kept for 5 years, then general public cannot ask for documents, beyond that, under RTI. In absence of this record management system, we might have to give Tender Document to RTI applicants since inception. 

The Bengal Records Manual 1943 may be looked into. It inter alia says that Class A records will contain papers to be permanently preserved, Class B records will contain papers to be destroyed after 12 years, and Class C records will contain papers that need not be kept for more than 3 years (e.g. Peon’s leave rules).

https://www.land.gov.bd/upload/documents/2018/03/1520398269.pdf 

19. If you give information in the website, you can simply refer the RTI applicant to the website. 

20. Public servant’s salary should be in public domain. 

21. SPIO should mention the name of Appellate Authority u/s 7 (8) of RTI Act, where the appeal can be preferred , whenever information request has been rejected. While rejecting an RTI , grounds of rejection must be explained in the reply.

22. CJI, Shri Ranjan Gogoi has given verdict that Supreme Court is also under RTI Act. 

23. Information means whatever is recorded in file. It does not mean creation of information. In other words, if RTI information seeker asks for data, which has to be created before for them, it ought to be refused. 

24. Section 22 of RTI Act says it overwrites any other Act. 

25. SCIC or CIC can evoke Section 22 of RTI Act. e.g. a Govt. Servant can appeal to CAT to ask for ACR, where promotion has been denied. SCIC can ignore Section 8 of RTI Act and instruct the Department u/s 22 of RTI Act, give copy of ACR. In one particular case, promotion was granted on the basis of ACR. 

26. CIC or SCIC is not a Court of Justice. 

27. SPIO may seek assistance of any other officer of the same Department u/s 5(4) of RTI Act for proper discharge of his duties, then such other officer will be deemed to be SPIO u/s 5(5) of RTI Act and will be responsible for contravention. 

28. If any information sought pertains to another Department, the fact should be mentioned to the applicant and transfer the application or relevant part of the application to that public authority u/s 6(3) of RTI Act, instead of just returning it back to the applicant

29.If the information sought is so voluminous that it would obstruct normal work or disproportionately divert resource of the public authority, then u/s 7(9) of RTI Act , it can be denied. e.g. in a village school, where there only 2 office bearer, if last 15 years data relating to meeting etc is sought.In my office, it is sometimes found, some people are asking 31 questions, not related to each other and had to be refused.

30.U/s 11 of RTI Act, 3rd party information can be denied. This is a very tricky section. If 3rd party request beforehand that certain information cannot be given then it may be followed by the Commission/SPIO. A person should not go to SCIC/CIC, before approaching Appellate Authority.

31. RTI can override Office Secret Act. 

32. Municipal Chairman can’t be Appellate Authority, since he is not an Officer as per RTI Act

 

33. NGO who gets fund from Govt. also comes under RTI. 

34. If a person is custodian of certain records, he cannot be held responsible, if during charge handover and take over, his list of files does include that. 

35.Online RTI reply is not recognized under RTI Rules in WB till date. Though online query followed by manual copy is acceptable

36.Under Article 166(3) of Constitution Governor can make business Rules e.g. record manual, secretariat manual. Point 35 can be done by Govermor under this clause.

37. IPO received should be deposited in bank. Court fee stamp goes to state treasury , so it need not be re-used

For any help one can take the help of RTI activist Mr. Amitava Choudhury based in Kolkata at 9836 10 76 24  or 9433 70 76 24 - amitavachoudhury.cal@gmail.com. He can be approached for any help - personally or professionally. Without his help, this article could not have been written.

https://onlinerti.com/

http://www.righttoinformation.gov.in/

https://rtionline.gov.in/

GMO - boon or curse - two contrasting views

source of cartoon : for link click here
Anybody who is concerned with various burning issues the world is facing, will recognize that GM seeds or Genetically modified seeds is of prime concern for the human population. But the views are so divergent, that it is difficult for a person of reasonable intellect to decipher, which one is more acceptable. I have been reading on this subject for quite some time , but none of them has been able to satisfy me fully. However recently I read three wonderful articles from two different sides of the spectrum. Let us not be judgmental and read with open mind.

Before that for the starters, Genetically modified foods or biotech foods are foods derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), specifically,genetically modified crops. GMOs have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques.

These techniques are much more precise than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change. Other techniques by which humans modify food organisms include selective breeding and somaclonal variation. I think that green revolution started in India by Mr Swaminathan is done by using this method.

According to wikipedia "While there is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food,critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds." Genetically engineered plants are generated in a laboratory by altering their genetic makeup and are tested in the laboratory for desired qualities. Scientists first discovered that DNA can transfer between organisms in 1946.The first genetically modified plant was produced in 1983, using an antibiotic-resistant tobacco plant. In 1994, the transgenic Flavr Savr tomato was approved by the FDA for marketing in the US. Therefore the commercial sale of genetically modified foods began in 1994, when Calgene first marketed its Flavr Savr which delayed ripening tomato. There are differences in the regulation of GMOs between countries, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the USA and Europe. Whether they should be labelled or not.

'It is also being argued that GM seeds bought from corporations come with a TERMINATOR GENE. That means the seeds borne by those same crops cannot be reused for growing crops. For second use, you have to buy from company again. You are thus dependent on the company for seeds. After some time, the normal seeds will no longer be available in enough quantity, to return to organic farming and you become slave to the company ..... This is FOOD IMPERIALISM.' However there can be a counter argument,what is more harmful: 1. An indigenous variety laden with fertilizers and pesticides (which could cause cancer in 5-10 years) 2. A modified strain which can do better with less chemicals but may cause cancer in 15-20 years.

And the main culprit is Monsanto : the largest company in the world which is into this business.In fact it is so powerful that it controls government.So it must be veryyyyy BIG. Let us see how big it is. In the financial year 2012, in India, its Sales was Rs 386 crore and profit was Rs 50.32 crore (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/monsanto-india-ltd/profitandlose/companyid-13395.cms) in contrast the Reliance Industries was more than Rs 339,792 crore (around 62 Billion $ ) and profit was more than Rs 18,000 Crore (around 3.2 Billion $) in the financial year 2012 (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/reliance-industries-ltd/profitandlose/companyid-13215.cms), which makes the turnover of Reliance similar/bigger than GDP of Sri Lanka !!

Let us see, how big  Monsanto world wide : Monsanto's sales  in the financial year 2012 was 12 Billion $ and profit was 1.7 Billion $ (http://www.forbes.com ). Just to remind you that Sales/ turnover of Walmart is more than 400 Billion $ .

Lets read what Greenpeace Executive Director / chief of India, Samit Aich writes in ET on 25.1.13. 

"It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary principle-based approach and impose a moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal, till such time independent scientific studies establish to the satisfaction of the public and professionals the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact to human health and environment, including the rich genetic wealth of brinjal existing in the country," said the then-Union minister for environment, Jairam Ramesh, on Bt brinjal moratorium. This decision, he further stated, "is both responsible to science and responsive to society", which also represents the GM debate in India.... It created the space for scientific concerns on the impact of GM crops on human health and the environment, besides those on socioeconomic considerations.

It is not surprising to see the opposition to GM crops in India, like elsewhere, was started by scientists on the impact of GM. Stalwarts like Dr M S Swaminathan and Dr Pushpa Bhargava have recommended precautionary-based approach towards Bt brinjal and, more recently, the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) appointed by the Supreme Court has emphasised on a science-based cautious approach towards open releases of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). It proves that the science community continues to have concerns around GM crops.

The TEC, made up of eminent scientists from the fields of molecular biology, toxicology, biodiversity and nutrition science, in their interim report to the court, highlighted the potential impact of GMOs on health, biodiversity and socioeconomic realities and the abysmal standards of GM regulation in India.

While the biotech seed industry lobbies went around town tarnishing the TEC recommendations, more than 120 scientists made a submission to the Supreme Court urging the Hon'ble judges to accept the TEC report. More than 20 farmer unions from across the country too wrote to the apex court demanding the same.

In the last 15 years, India has witnessed modern biologists, socio-economists, ecologists and health experts raising concerns on the mindless rush towards GM crops. It is unfortunate that these scientific concerns are being sidelined and trampled by the powerful GM lobby led by MNCs like Monsantoand their cronies. GM crops are a false solution to the global food and farming crisis. If there is one thing that is a constant, it is the propagation of the myth that GM crops are a necessity, if the world has to feed its growing population. The same myth is propelled in India as well, both by the seed industry and its supporters..

However, the latest global food projections by USDA show that the current world food production can feed 13 billion people, double the existing population.

Similarly, in India, we are sitting on one of world's biggest hoards of food grainaround 667 lakh tonnes (till January 1, 2013), which is 2.5 times more than the government's benchmark for buffer stocks. It is disgusting how 21 million tonnes of wheat perish every year due to lack of storage and distribution facilities. How is it that the government insists on more production in the name of food security while we sit on mountains of food grain, wasting it?

In fact, intensive agricultural practices promoted by GoI like the Green Revolution have destroyed the soil and polluted and depleted water table in the Indo-Gangetic plains of Punjab, Haryana and western UP. Mindless usage of toxic pesticides has further added to it and GM crops are a continuation of these input-intensive models of farming.

However, this has not saved farm livelihoods. Going bythe National Crime Records Bureau, more than 2.5 lakh farmers have committed suicide in the last 20 years, most of it due to agrarian distress, and a majority of them were from the cotton belt of Vidarbha, where aggressive promotion of Bt cotton took place. It has exposed the government's bluff of GM crops being the panacea for agrarian distress.A 10-year review of Bt cotton by the Central Institute of Cotton Research, Nagpur, shows that yield has not increased in proportion to acreage of Bt cotton. 

Even the IAASTD report, to which India is also a signatory, calls for a fundamental change in farming practices and acknowledges that GE crops are highly controversial and will not play a substantial role in addressing the key problems of climate change, biodiversity loss, hunger and poverty. The initiative sponsored by the United Nations and the World Bank had 450 scientists analysing developments in agricultural science and technology and their impacts in the last 50 years.

So, if our government and all of us are serious about solving our food and farming crisis, it really is high time that we stop parroting the seed industry and start focusing on progressive science of agroecology.

For the link click here 

Now read what Swaminathan A Aiyar wrote in ET

Last week, Greenpeace's chief in India, Samit Aich, wrote a column in ET on genetically-modified crops. In this, he repeated an old green falsehood, that Bt cotton has failed to raise cotton yields in India. For the truth, consult the government's Economic Survey 2011-12 (see accompanying graphic).

Bt cotton cultivation began in 2002, and its acreage shot up from 0.29 million hectares in 2002 to 9.4 million hectares in 2011-12.

India's cotton yield was 225 kg per hectare in 1990-91. It fell to 190 kg per hectare in 2000-01, a bad monsoon year. Bt cotton cultivation began in 2002, and its acreage shot up from 0.29 million hectares in 2002 to 9.4 million hectares in 2011-12. By this time, the Bt variety accounted for 90% of cotton acreage. The result? Cotton yield rose to 362 kg per hectare in 2005-06, and then increased further with fluctuations to 510 kg per hectare in 2010-11.

In a decade, the yield more than doubled. The truth is clear. Bt cotton has raised yields hugely. Greenpeace and other activists lack the honesty to admit they were wrong. Instead, they desperately search for studies showing poor Bt cotton results in some conditions or areas. These may show, for instance, that Bt cotton fared much less well in Vidarbha than Gujarat. So what? How does that change the truth that Bt cotton has been a boon overall? When Bt cotton was introduced in India, activists claimed it had low yields and would be uneconomic.

Once the crop started spreading in India, activists produced fresh field studies purporting to show that Bt cotton had actually reduced yield and ruined farmers. At that time, I asked farmer leader Sharad Joshi of the Shetkari Sanghatana for his views. He said, "Let the activists stick to ecological issues. Why are they talking about yields? The farmer knows better than any scientist or activist what his farm yields. Let him decide." But, I said, the activists say illiterate farmers might be misled by seed companies. So why not look at yield studies by scientists? Joshi replied, "The illiterate farmer is no fool. If he finds that a new variety yields more, he will expand his acreage regardless of what any activist or scientist says.

If his yield falls, he will abandon that variety regardless of what any seed companysays. Forget scientists or ecologists or seed companies. The farmer knows best." I learned about the wisdom of farmers as a young journalist in 1966. I was part of a press group taken to see the progress of TN-1 rice, a high-yielding variety the government was promoting as its spearhead for a green revolution in rice. Despite aggressive promotion by state governments, farmers refused to adopt TN-1.

They also rejected another variety, Tainan-3. Only when IR-8 arrived two years later did farmers test it and declare that high-yielding varieties worked. Only then did the green revolution in rice take off. Farmers refused to accept varieties just because scientists or researchers claimed these were good. Farmers proved they were hardheaded realists, who could not be taken for a ride. So, Greenpeace and other activists need to end prevarications about gullible Indian farmers being duped to grow uneconomic Bt cotton. Farmers have switched massively from other crops to Bt cotton.

They pay hefty rentals (over Rs 50,000 per hectare in Punjab) to lease land to grow Bt cotton. Would they be so stupid as to pay such high rentals if it was uneconomic? Activists now warn that pests are developing resistance to old varieties of Bt cotton, and so, new, costlier varieties will have to developed. So what? Antibiotics have saved millions of lives the world over, and have hugely improved and lengthened human life. But bacteria have developed drug resistance, and to overcome this new, costly antibiotics have to be developed. Does this mean antibiotics have not been a boon? 

Alexander Fleming won the Nobel Prize for discovering penicillin.Today, many bacteria are resistant to penicillin. Will Greenpeace demand that Fleming's Nobel Prize should be revoked? 

The boon of antibiotics would be even bigger without drug resistance, but it remains a boon even with resistance. Exactly the same holds for Bt cotton. Aich and other activists keep implying or saying outright that anyone having a good word for GM crops is a crony of multinational seed companies. Really? Is the agriculture ministry a division of Monsanto? Is the finance ministry, which brings out the Economic Survey, a paid hack of Monsanto? Am I a paid hack? The claim that anybody who disagrees with green activists is a crony of seed companies is outrageous green McCarthyism. It is intellectually bankrupt and morally malodorous.

Aich touches on many GM issues other than Bt cotton. In effect, he seems to be saying, let us disagree on Bt cotton and move on to other GM issues. Sorry, but I will not move on since his position on Bt cotton is not a mere disagreement. It is a falsehood.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/columnists/swaminathan-s-a-aiyar/higher-yields-farmer-preferences-show-bt-cotton-detractors-spreading-patent-falsehoods/articleshow/18246681.cms

Lets read even more interesting article by him:

Mark Lynas, a green activist who once ranted against and destroyed fields of genetically modified (GM) crops, has recanted and apologised for "demonising an important technological option." Other activists like Greenpeace and Vandana Shiva need to do the same.

(See http://www.marklynas.org/). 

Lynas says when he first heard of Monsanto's GM soya, he thought a nasty US corporation was putting out a monster food by mixing genes. He helped kindle fears that effectively shut down GM foods in Europe and in developing nations like India. But having gone into the science behind it—and getting the Royal Society science book prize for his 'Six Degrees'—he found his beliefs on GM foods were myths.

"I'd assumed that GM would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide.

"I'd assumed that GM benefited only the large companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs.

"I'd assumed that Terminator technology (which Monsantowas accused of) was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did this long ago, and that Terminator never happened.

"I'd assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and Roundup-Ready soya bean in Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them.

"I'd assumed GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for instance. GM just moved a couple of genes whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way.

"But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and tomato? Turned out that viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us—it's called gene flow."

Lynas argues that a global population of 9.5 billion by 2050 will require a doubling of food output. To achieve that with low-yielding organic technology, huge forests and grasslands will have to be cleared and cultivated. This will devastate the environment, biodiversity, and water supply. No, the world needs higher yields, and GM is a way of achieving that.

Organic farming is fundamentally the same as traditional pre-green revolution technology that kept the world at the Malthusian edge of starvation throughout history. 

Fortunately, modern scientists led by Nobel Laureate Norman Borlaug showed that high yielding varieties (with manipulated wheat genes) using large doses of fertiliser could more than double yields and thus prevent mass starvation. Indian youngsters have no idea how terrible and humiliating were the droughts of 1965-66 that made India entirely dependent on US food aid to stem starvation.

Fortunately, the Green Revolution then replaced organic with high-yield farming, and converted India from a starvation area to a food exporter. Borlaug said organic farming could meet the demand of elites for superior, costly food.

But it could not meet mass needs. Greenpeace and other activists seem determined to push the world into food scarcity, falsely claiming that organic farming can produce as much as high-yielding varieties. By spreading false scares about GM foods and demanding ever-more testing, says Lynas, activists have increased the time for regulatory clearances from 3.7 years to 5 years, and raised the cost of bringing a GM variety to market to a whopping $139 million. Only the biggest multinationals like Monsanto can stay in this game.Thus, activists have conferred monopoly status on the very companies they claim to abhor. Last year, Greenpeace activists destroyed a GM wheat crop in Australia. But another GM wheat trial showed a yield increase of 30 per cent.

Activists wanting to destroy a variety before it is tested are like medieval churchmen burning books and persecuting Bruno and Galileo to prevent scientific truths from coming out. 

Organic produce is not safer, says Lynas. In 2011, Germany's organic beansprouts caused 23,500 cases of kidney failure and 53 deaths.Consumers who died thought, wrongly, that they were eating something safer than fertilised vegetables. Lynas says, "The GM debate is over...We no longer need to discuss whether it is safe. Over a decade and a half with three trillion GM meals eaten, there has never been a single substantiated case of harm. You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid."

Americans have happily eaten GM maize and soya for 15 years. European governments have been intimidated into banning GM foods, yet European tourists visit the US and eat GM foods there without any harm. 

Yet, Lynas is wrong in saying the debate is over. Pro-Greenpeace scientists say that not even 15 years and three trillion meals are enough to establish safety. They seek to kill GM through endless delays that make GM production uneconomic.

The debate will not end till the public realises it has been taken for a green ride. Lynas tells activists: "You are entitled to your view. But you must know by now that they are not supported by science."

The world needs more green rebels like Lynas.

For full article read the following link Click here

Now time for some laughter, through a wonderful cartoon ..click here

Let there be more light ! and debate !