por Jonathan Benson
NaturalNews
Representing one of the most agriculturally bio-diverse nations in the world, India has become a primary target for biotechnology companies like Monsanto and Cargill to spread their genetically-modified (GM) crops into new markets. However, a recent France 24 report explains that the Indian government has decided to take an offensive approach against this attempted agricultural takeover by suing Monsanto for “biopiracy,” accusing the company of stealing India’s indigenous plants in order to re-engineer them into patented varieties.
Brinjal, also known in Western nations as eggplant, is a native Indian crop for which there are roughly 2,500 different unique varieties. Millions of Indian farmers grow brinjal, which is used in a variety of Indian food dishes, and the country grows more than a quarter of the world’s overall supply of the vegetable.
And in an attempt to capitalize on this popular crop, Monsanto has repeatedly tried to commercially market its own GM variety of brinjal called Bt brinjal. But massive public outcry against planned commercial approval of Monsanto’s “frankencrop” variety in 2010 led to the government banning it for an indefinite period of time.
But Monsanto is still stealing native crops, including brinjal, and quietly working on GM varieties of them in test fields, which is a clear violation of India’s Biological Diversity Act (BDA). So at the prompting of various farmers and activists in India, the Indian government, representing the first time in history a nation that has taken such action, has decided to sue Monsanto.
“This can send a different message to the big companies for violating the laws of the nation,” said K.S. Sugara, Member Secretary of the Karnataka Biodiversity Board, to France 24 concerning the lawsuit. “It is not acceptable … that the farmers in our communities are robbed of the advantage they should get from the indigenous varieties.”
You can watch the full France 24 video report of India’s lawsuit against Monsanto here:
Farmers and active members of the public in India have been some of the world’s most outspoken opponents of Monsanto’s attempted GM takeover of agriculture. Besides successfully overturning the attempted approval of Bt brinjal, these freedom fighters have also successfully destroyed several attempted Monsanto GM test fields.
In other related Natural News:
WI judge declares that individuals have no fundamental right to own cows, drink raw milk
(NaturalNews) After being petitioned for clarification about his decision in a recent legal case involving individuals freedom to consume raw milk and own “shares” of dairy cows, Judge Patrick J. Fiedler vehemently declared that individuals “do not have a fundamental right to consume the foods of their choice,” and essentially reiterated his state’s position that raw milk is simply off limits.
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), on behalf of Zinniker Family Farm in Elkhorn, Wi., and several other farms, filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) back on Feb. 25, 2010, asking it to clarify its interpretation of the law in regards to raw milk (http://www.ftcldf.org/litigation-wi…).
Wisconsin is among the most restrictive US states as far as raw milk is concerned. Raw milk sales to consumers are prohibited — but private cow share agreements in which individuals purchase “shares” of their own cows, are exempted. However, due to the onslaught of raids in recent years against raw dairies, private raw milk buying clubs, and even raw milk cow share programs, the plaintiffs simply wanted to clarify Wisconsin’s stance concerning these alternate forms of accessing raw milk.
And they got their answer. According to a recent report byThe Complete Patient, Judge Fiedler believes that no individual has a “fundamental right” to consumeanyfood without government permission. Even though the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution establishes that the government has no business interfering in the affairs of individuals outside of what has been specifically enumerated to it, which, of course, includes freedom of food choice, Judge Fiedler apparently believes otherwise.
To summarize Judge Fiedler’s response, which was obviously written in an arrogant and condescending tone, individuals have no fundamental right to own or use dairy cows, to consume the milk from their own cows, to board their cows off their own property, or even to produce and consume the foods of their own choice, period.
You can read Judge Fiedler’s entire disturbing response here:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/storage/WIorder-clarification9-11.pdf.
Groups like FTCLDF will continue to challenge such illegal and unconstitutional restrictions against raw milk, particularly in individual states like Wisconsin where officials have illegally prohibited it. But individuals that value this priceless freedom must also also stand up and resist Big Brother’s concerted assault against food freedom, no matter form it may take. More: http://www.naturalnews.com/033727_food_freedom_cows.html#ixzz1ZKf6Z9SG.
