cotton fibre
=
<p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-india-cotton-patent-2566752905.html">https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-india-cotton-patent-2566752905.html</a>
</font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://ecowatch.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=214ab5fbb3f6015d74ffab4ec&id=fafd67bfa9&e=c2e8fdabfa" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Report: Monsanto May Leave India After Losing GMO Cotton Patent</font></a></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-india-cotton-gmo-2559650068.html"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-india-cotton-gmo-2559650068.html</font></a></div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div><div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><a rel="nofollow" target="blank" href="https://ecowatch.us7.list-manage.com/track/click?u=214ab5fbb3f6015d74ffab4ec&id=fafd67bfa9&e=c2e8fdabfa" style="text-decoration-line: none;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Report: Monsanto May Leave India After Losing GMO Cotton Patent</font></a></span></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-india-cotton-gmo-2559650068.html"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-india-cotton-gmo-2559650068.html</font></a></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Could <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/monsanto" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Monsanto's</a> six-decade presence in India be coming to a halt?</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court ruled that the biotech giant cannot claim patents for Bollgard and Bollgard II, its <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/gmo-genetically-modified-organism/" style="text-decoration-line: none;">genetically modified</a> cotton seeds, in the country.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Citing India's Patents Act of 1970, the court said that plant varieties and seeds cannot be patented, thereby rejecting Monsanto's attempt to block its Indian licensee, Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., from selling the seeds.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"What it means is effectively Monsanto has no patent on seeds in India and they have never had it. They have tried to hoodwink the seed companies and farmers for years claiming they have a patent and making huge amounts of money from that," Diya Kapur, a lawyer for Nuziveedu Seeds, told <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-11/monsanto-can-t-have-patent-on-bt-cotton-in-india-court-says" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Bloomberg</a>.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">As Dilsher Dhillon wrote in <a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/Without-its-GM-cotton-patents-Monsanto-may-stop-doing-business-in-India/articleshow/63731936.cms" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Business Insider India</a>, Wednesday's verdict could prompt Monsanto to pull out of the country:</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-left: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">With the latest ruling, Monsanto's claims against Nuziveedu for unpaid royalties have been waived because its patents are invalid. It will now have to settle for the rates decided by the government.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-left: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">This is a significant blow for Monsanto, the world's largest seed producer, as it currently licenses its seeds to nearly 50 domestic companies through its local joint venture with Mahyco Seeds Ltd. It could, in all probability, lead to the company's complete exit from India.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monsanto had already threatened to stop business in India after the government imposed price controls on cotton seeds in 2016.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monsanto first introduced its GM-technology in India in 1995. Today, more than 90 percent of the country's cotton crop is genetically modified. These crops have been inserted with a pest-resistant toxin called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Business Insider's Dhillon noted that the ruling has significant implications for Monsanto and farmers alike:</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-left: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">While yields have increased significantly, Monsanto has long been accused of overcharging farmers for its seeds, especially given the fact that their ability to resist pests diminishes with time. The high cost of seeds and royalties left thousands of farmers in a vicious cycle of debt, which inevitably <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/vandana-shiva-we-must-end-monsantos-colonization-its-enslavement-of-fa-1882075931.html" style="text-decoration-line: none;">led to many suicides</a> when crops failed. As a result, the government was forced to start regulating Bt cotton prices in 2006.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin-left: 20px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Hence, the Delhi High Court's ruling can be seen as a moral reckoning on Monsanto. But it also has wider implications. Yes, it will reduce prices for farmers, given that seed licensing companies pass on the royalty costs to them, but it could prove to be the death knell for innovation in the agriculture sector—something that will hurt farmers in the long run.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">However, the company's presence in India may ultimately be decided by its pending <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-bayer-merger-food-system-2558653192.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">mega-merger with Bayer AG</a>.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Bayer is generally seen as a company with a more collaborative approach towards governments. If Bayer sits down at the negotiating table with the Indian government and works out a solution, then it's possible that the next generation of Bt cotton technology may still see the light of day in India at some point in the future, although it may take years," Abhijit R. Akella, vice president at IIFL Institutional Equities, told <a href="https://www.livemint.com/Money/IqGVoZWtUksBGRmJHGcKMK/Court-verdict-on-Bt-cotton-a-blow-to-Monsanto-but-not-the-e.html" target="blank" style="text-decoration-line: none;">Mint</a>.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">A Monsanto India spokesman said the company was "very disappointed" with the court's ruling.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">"Today's order will have wide-ranging, negative implications for biotech-based innovation across many sectors within India, and is inconsistent with other international markets where agricultural innovation has flourished," the spokesman said.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Monsanto said it might challenge the decision in India's Supreme Court.</font></p><p style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></p></div><div><p><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></p></div></div><div>
</div><div>=</div><div>
</div><div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">=</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/environment/senates-first-biotech-hearing-decade-was-lopsided-pro-industry-affair">http://www.alternet.org/environment/senates-first-biotech-hearing-decade-was-lopsided-pro-industry-affair</a></font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">
</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="4">C</font><span style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">entral to the hearing is the the issue of labeling food products containing GE crops. Senator Stabenow called for the adoption of legislation on GE food labeling, presumably with language that will preempt the authority of states to adopt more stringent labeling standards. </span><span style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Senator Stabenow</span><span style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> said that she wants labeling that “doesn’t stigmatize biotechnology.” The GE food industry is urging Congress to act to override state labeling before the</span><span style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/04/vermont-wins-legal-challenge-to-its-ge-labeling-law/" style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px; color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Vermont label law</a><span style="font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">goes into effect in July 2016.</span></font></div><p class="news_content" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong><font face="Times New Roman">RELATED: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/monsanto-scandal-biotech-giant-solicited-academics-fight-their-pro-gmo-war" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">How Monsanto Solicited Academics to Bolster Their Pro-GMO Propaganda — Using Taxpayer Dollars</a></font></strong></p><p class="news_content" style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">The committee heard government and industry witnesses on the federal regulation of agriculture biotechnology, with limited input from consumer critics. Two panels (one representing agencies, the other industry) received questions from the 20 committee members on GE crops, biotechnology, ad labeling. The agency panel represented “business as usual,” discussing administrative procedures at length, while the industry panel stressed the science of GE. The Just Label It group, a coalition of organizations advancing labeling, called for the public’s right to know. Environmental groups not invited to testify criticized the lopsided hearing and the government’s opposition to GE labeling of food.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">While Senators spent two of the three hours questioning agency officials on their regulatory procedures of GE crops and biotechnology, no answers were given that address scientific studies needed to ensure their safety.</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);"> When asked by Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) if there was anything that made GE crops harmful to the environment, all of the members of the regulatory panel said “no,” despite impacts of GE crop production on the environment, reliance on hazardous weed killers in herbicide-tolerant crops, and the associated <a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2014/06/monarch-butterfly-decline-linked-to-ge-crops-and-shrinking-habitat/" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">decline of monarch butterflies</a>.</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">EPA’s Office of Pesticide Program indicated that it registers “plant incorporated protectants” (PIPs) in 86 GE crops and acknowledged pest resistance problems. Insects that are the target of the engineered plant, incorporated with a pesticide, develop resistance, putting farmers’ crops at risk because of their dependency on the technology. Organic agriculture identifies genetic engineering as an “excluded method” and prohibits its use in certified organic production.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px !important;"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">As the GE technology advances, farmers are increasingly threatened with crop loss, as was the argument made by Texas cotton farmers last year when 3 million acres of GE cotton was threatened by weed resistance to Monsanto’s herbicide-tolerant Roundup. </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">The state of Texas, on behalf of the farmers, requested that EPA allow the use of a triazine herbicide not registered for use on cotton under an emergency exemption (</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act), but EPA </span><a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2014/07/epa-denies-hazardous-pesticide-use-on-3-million-acres-of-texas-cotton-field/" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">denied the reques</a><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">t because it said that exposure to triazines, linked to hermaphroditism in frogs, “already show[s] unacceptable risk levels.”</span></font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><strong><font face="Times New Roman">RELATED: <a href="http://www.alternet.org/food/gmos-safe-act-will-block-states-requiring-gmo-labeling" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Orwellian Nightmare: Congress May Block States from Requiring GMO Labeling</a></font></strong></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">In 2012, Washington State University researcher <a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2012/10/increased-pesticide-use-and-resistant-weeds-the-troubling-legacy-of-ge-crops/" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">Charles Benbrook, Ph.D. found</a> that the use of herbicides in the production of three genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops (cotton, soybeans and corn) has increased, contrary to industry claims that biotechnology will reduce pesticide applications. According to a <a href="http://www.wssajournals.org/toc/wees/59/3" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">series of studies in the journal <em>Weed Science</em></a>, at least 21 different species of weeds Monsanto’s “Roundup-Ready” crops, which leads to an increased pesticide use to try to combat resistance, escalating the pesticide treadmill effect. The latest herbicide tolerant <a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2015/04/epas-expansion-of-24-d-enlist-duo-challenged/" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">GE corn and soybean plants are engineered to be used with the herbicide 2,4-D</a>, one-half of the mixture of Agent Orange and linked to non Hodgkins lymphoma. Experts expect increased public exposure to 2,4-D through the food supply and in the environment, leading to weed resistance.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">At the Agriculture Committee hearing, the first panel included of officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Center for Food Safety and FDA’s Director of Applied Nutrition, Susan Mayne, Ph.D., took opposing positions on GE labeling with the government witness arguing that mandatory labeling is unnecessary because the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) does not recognize a “material” difference between GE and conventional crops. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a long-time member of the committee, cited the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s interpretation of GE crops as “novel for patent purposes” and asked the panel why agencies were in disagreement about the differences between GE and conventional crops. Dr. Mayne responded that, if there were a material difference in the food safety and nutrition between GE and conventional crops, FDA would support labeling.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">The second panel consisted of five members of the agricultural, production, and consumer industry. Joanna Lidback, producer and farmer from the Farm at Wheeler Mountain, voiced her concerns about the costs associated with GE crops used to feed her dairy cows. She calculated an increase of $48,000 per year on her farm if GE feed was ever banned, but no calculations for the costs of the proposed GE label. With economic hardships in mind, organic farmers <a href="http://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2014/03/survey-finds-ge-contamination-of-organic-farms/" style="color: rgb(241, 96, 44); text-decoration: none;">are threatened with adverse economic impact</a> due to the contamination from GE pollen drifting onto their crops. Organic farmers also report losses due to a need to establish buffer zones.</font></p><p style="margin: 0px 0px 22px; font-size: 18px; line-height: 32px !important; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font face="Times New Roman">In opposing labeling Daryl Thomas, Senior Vice President of Herr Foods, Inc., stated, “Mandatory labels on food products are reserved for critical information about nutrition and safety. GMO ingredients don’t change the nutritional profile or safety of our products.”</font></p><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">...</font></div><div><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"></font></div></div><div>==</div>