Dear Friends and Colleagues,

The UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which has been criticised over the years for its alleged support of biotechnology, has come under further attack from its own Deputy Director-General.  Louise Fresco has resigned in protest and written a letter which is highly critical of Director-General Jacques Diouf and his approach.

In the letter, which was leaked to the UK paper the Observer, Fresco is apparently fed up with the FAO's failure under Diouf to address the real needs of the hungry.  Insiders suggest that Mr Diouf is instead more supportive of multinational agribusiness companies.

Many NGOs would support these beliefs, particularly over the report that the FAO produced in 2004 called "Agricultural Biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?", which failed to include basic facts about the way that patented GM crops would harm the rural poor and allow companies like Monsanto to create monopolies.  The report failed to consult with any NGO groups working directly with farmers on the issue, ignored a wealth of evidence about the problems that GM has brought to farmers around the world, and used controversial data to prove its point.  Unsurprisingly, it concluded that GM had the potential to  feed the hungry.

In response, over 650 civil society organisations from over 120 countries signed a letter of objection to the report, claiming that the "FAO declares war on farmers, not on hunger."  They said that the report "...sadly, raises serious questions about the independence and intellectual integrity of an important United Nations agency."

Last week, the Asian Peasant Coalition, an alliance of organisations across Asia, added their voices to the criticism of FAO, pointing out that the organisation supports harmful liberal economic policies that allow exploitation and poverty, and has failed to identify and address the real causes of hunger.  

Hopefully these events signal that it is time for FAO to take a good look at itself and the interests of those it claims to represent.

Best wishes,

Teresa

*****************************************

1.UN Food Agency Deputy Resigns Over Leader's 'Culture of Silence' Article from the Observer.  Date: 14 May 2006 Jo Revill http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1774642,00.html?gusrc=rss

2.FAO Accused of Persecuting Farmers in Asian Countries Article from the Jakarta Post.  Date: 17 May 2006 http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060517.J01

3. "FAO Declares War on Farmers, Not on Hunger" Press Release from Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN). Date: 16 June 2004  http://www.grain.org/front/?id=24

4. FAO Declares War on Farmers not on Hunger Open Letter to Mr Jacques Diouf, Director General of FAO.  Date: 28 May 2006 http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=180

5. New Studies Contradict FAO Report and Show that Genetically Engineered Bt Cotton Fails to Benefit Farmers Communication from The Deccan Development Society, Andhra Pradesh (AP) Coalition in Defence of Diversity and GRAIN.  Date: 16 June 2004 http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?id=129 ****************************************

1.UN Food Agency Deputy Resigns Over Leader's 'Culture of Silence'

Article from the Observer.  Date: 14 May 2006 Jo Revill http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1774642,00.html?gusrc=rss

The United Nations body which combats world hunger was in turmoil last night after one of its most senior officials resigned, claiming that her boss ruled through 'silence, rumour and fear'.

Louise Fresco, assistant director-general of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), handed in her notice last week, angered at the way the agency was being run by its Senegalese director-general, Dr Jacques Diouf. In a scathing letter of resignation, which has been leaked to The Observer, she criticises him for the direction of the agency and its inability to offer the poorest countries proper advice on agriculture.

She writes to Diouf: 'I am sad that you have isolated yourself so much from most senior managers. Combined with a lack of transparency in decision-making, you have stimulated a culture of silence, rumours and even fear.

'FAO deserves a reform, but a fundamental reform which does not limit itself to hastily moving units across departments or dispatching generalist decentralised teams. FAO needs visionary leadership to move itself out of its bureaucratic paralysis. But such leadership can only flourish if it builds on the commitment of all staff.

'We need to become an exemplary body, not only technically but also in our mode of operation: committed, compassionate and critical.'

The FAO was set up after the Second World War to help developing nations overcome food shortages by offering agriculture support and technical expertise, as well as framing policies which would allow them to compete against wealthier countries.

With a budget of $765m this year, it aims to help improve the production, processing, marketing and distribution of food and agricultural products, and also to promote rural development. But there has been criticism that it replies too heavily on involvement from agribusiness, and does little to encourage independence and projects that would boost the nutritional levels of the poorest countries.

In January, Diouf was elected for a third term of office which upset many officials, according to one insider. In 2004, Diouf attracted huge protests from campaigners in more than 80 countries for an FAO report on biotechnology, which, his critics said, was a thinly-veiled attempt to support genetically engineered crops. They said the study failed to point out that it would disadvantage the world's poorest farmers, and that one major company, Monsanto, dominated the market in genetically modified seeds.

One UN insider, who asked not to be named, said: 'There is a general perception that Diouf has done very little to work closely with other UN bodies. He seems keener to spend time with the US guys running multinational companies than he does to sort out problems on the ground. There have been tensions brewing over its lack of any clear strategy and they are coming to the surface now.'

According to Fresco's letter, 'there is no single cause that explains the crisis that has affected FAO for several years. The role of agriculture is changing, demands on our specialised expertise are growing and there is no doubt that we have a unique global role. But the organisation has been unable to adapt.'

She writes that the FAO is 'caught in a vicious circle' in which most countries appreciate its work for specific projects but do not like it as a whole. She adds that it has not been able to build coalitions and that its reputation is in decline. 'Unfortunately, its leadership has not proposed bold options to overcome this crisis.'

Fresco, who is leaving to take up a professorship at the University of Amsterdam after nine years at the FAO, said there had been no serious questioning of the organisation's direction and in particular the balance between the work it does in the field - working with the poorest countries to overcome their problems - and the more centralised research.

'Whatever is done now is too little and too late,' she writes. 'The current intent at reform does hardly anything to alleviate these problems.. '

A spokesman for the FAO said last night that it could not comment on the contents of a private letter. The spokesman said: 'I understand that Louise Fresco has written a private letter to the D-G explaining her reasons for resigning but it was a private letter which has not been published.

'My understanding is that she does not intend to make a public comment on this, and neither does Dr Diouf.'

***************************************

2.FAO Accused of Persecuting Farmers in Asian Countries

Article from the Jakarta Post.  Date: 17 May 2006 http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060517.J01

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is supporting the liberal economic and production policies that persecute farmers, an Asian non-governmental organization alleges.

The Asian Peasant Coalition (APC), a grouping of agricultural organizations across Asia, claimed Tuesday in Jakarta that the FAO had failed to meet its target of combating hunger in the region.

"Poor Asian farmers were further weakened and subjected to increasing exploitation. It leads to the worsening of hunger, poverty and landlessness," the APC said on a statement handed out on the sidelines of the 28th FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific here Tuesday.

The APC -- which boasts 14 million members from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan and the Philippines -- said that more and more farmers had no access to land, which was increasingly taken over by transnational corporations.

Taking Philippines as an example, APC Research Coordinator Carl Anthony said that more than 35 percent of Filipinos were going hungry. This is because of landlessness, trade liberalization and monopolistic practice by transnational corporations.

"Farmers are forced to plant mangoes, pineapple and asparagus -- instead of rice or corn -- simply to fulfill the needs of the wealthy countries," Carl told The Jakarta Post.

More than 7 out of 10 farmers in the Philippines, he said, do not own the land they toil. Nearly 60 percent of agricultural land is owned by 13 percent of landowners.

Carl demanded that the FAO discard all of its policies that are detrimental to the people, especially farmers. According to him, in 2004 the FAO promoted the development of genetically modified products.

"We reject this. For us, the way to improve the condition of farmers in Asia is to give them access to land so that they can toil it," he said.

If the farmers get access to land, they will improve their lives and eventually strengthen the economy of the nation.

Carl said that governments should not depend on genetically modified products because it would only benefit transnational corporations.

David Dawe, a senior food system economist at FAO in Bangkok, separately said that farmers and fishermen in the region found difficulties due to inflation.

Speaking at the FAO forum Tuesday, David said that farmers could solve their problems through intensification and diversification of activities outside agriculture.

"Many farmers, however, will not make it due to limited access to resources," he said.

David said that per capita production of fisheries and wood declined as a result of shrinking bases, increased population and, in some cases, over-exploitation in the past.

 *****************************************

3. "FAO Declares War on Farmers, Not on Hunger"

Press Release from Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN). Date: 16 June 2004 http://www.grain.org/front/?id=24

Through an open letter delivered at noon today to the Director General of FAO in Rome, hundreds of civil society organisations from across the world denounce that the recent annual report of FAO (the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation) is disgraceful and biased and a public relations tool for the genetic engineering industry

16 June 2004.

The FAO report ("Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?") was publicly released on the 17th of May in coordinated Press Briefings in Rome and Washington DC. In the space of a few weeks more than 650 civil society organisations and 800 individuals from 120 countries have drafted and signed an open letter to the Director General of FAO. Amongst the signatories are many peasant organisations, social movements and scientists as well as NGOs.

The letter strongly condemns the bias of the report against the poor, against the environment and against sustainable food production. The letter notes that the publication of the report "...sadly, raises serious questions about the independence and intellectual integrity of an important United Nations agency."

The 200-plus page document attempts to appear neutral, but it is highly biased in favour of the biotech industry and ignores available evidence of the adverse ecological, economic and health impacts of genetically engineered crops.

Contrary to what FAO proposes, the 1450 signatories to this letter argue that genetically engineered crops don't help in the fight against hunger in the world: "History demonstrates that structural changes in access to land, food, and political power - combined with robust, ecological technologies via farmer-led research - reduce hunger and poverty. The 'gene revolution' promises to take us in the opposite direction."

Unsurprisingly, the report has been received enthusiastically by the biotech industry, scientists and others that push this technology and claim that genetic engineering is necessary to eradicate world hunger. This has been reflected in global media headlines.

"For those of us in civil society organisations and social movements that considered the FAO as an institution that we could relate to and a forum to debate these issues and possibly move forward, this is a tremendous setback", states the letter. "The report turns FAO away from food sovereignty and the real needs of the world's farmers, and is a stab in the back to the farmers and the rural poor FAO is meant to support."

"We believe that FAO has broken its commitment to civil society and peasants' organizations to consult on issues of common concern", the open letter states. It continues: "Farmers and civil society organizations will meet in the coming months to determine what further actions should be taken regarding FAO and the negative repercussions of this report."

The open letter was delivered at noon today to the Director General at FAO's headquarters in Rome.

-- ends  

Notes to Editors:  + Over 650 organisations and 800 individuals from 120 countries signed an open letter to FAO. The full text of the open letter, and a list of those who have signed it, can be downloaded from: http://www.grain.org/

+ The FAO press release about its report, and the report itself can be found at: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/41714/index.html

+ A response by the Director General to the Open Letter is also on the www.grain.org website

 *******************************************

4. FAO Declares War on Farmers not on Hunger

Open Letter to Mr Jacques Diouf, Director General of FAO.  Date: 28 May 2006 http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=180

Dear Mr Diouf,

We, the undersigned organisations, movements and individuals involved in farming and agricultural issues, wish to express our outrage and disagreement with the FAO report released Monday, May 17th ("Agricultural biotechnology: meeting the needs of the poor?"). This report has been used in a politically-motivated public relations exercise to support the biotechnology industry. It promotes the genetic engineering of seeds and the further skewing of research funding towards this technology and away from ecologically sound methods developed by farmers. The way in which the report has been prepared and released to the media, sadly, raises serious questions about the independence and intellectual integrity of an important United Nations agency. The report turns FAO away from food sovereignty and the real needs of the world's farmers, and is a stab in the back to the farmers and the rural poor FAO is meant to support.

We are deeply disappointed that FAO has breached its commitment (and your own personal pledge) to consult and maintain an open dialogue with smallholder farmers' organizations and civil society. By failing to consult such organizations in the preparation of this report FAO has turned its back on those who are most directly affected by the technologies it promotes.

Rather than recommending the strengthening of the role of smallholder farmers in the management of their agricultural biodiversity and improvement of crops vital to their livelihoods, which some of FAO's field work actively and successfully promotes, this report proposes a technological "fix" of crops critical to the food security of marginalized peoples - calling for the development of transgenic cassava, potato, cowpea, millet and teff.

Hunger in the world is growing again despite the fact that global per capita food production has been higher than ever before. Issues of access and distribution are far more important than technology. If we have learned anything from the failures of the Green Revolution, it is that technological 'advances' in crop genetics for seeds that respond to external inputs go hand in hand with increased socio-economic polarization, rural and urban impoverishment, and greater food insecurity. The tragedy of the Green Revolution lies precisely in its narrow technological focus that ignored the far more important social and structural underpinnings of hunger. The technology strengthened the very structures that enforce hunger. A new 'gene revolution' will only exacerbate the worst errors of the Green Revolution. Has FAO learned nothing?

History demonstrates that structural changes in access to land, food, and political power - combined with robust, ecological technologies via farmer-led research - reduce hunger and poverty. The 'gene revolution' promises to take us in the opposite direction. It is based on astronomically costly, elite, industry-dominated research using patented technologies. The same resources, if directed to farmer-led, participatory research networks, would generate far more equitable, productive and ecologically sound technologies.

Although the 200-plus page document struggles to appear neutral, it is highly biased and ignores available evidence of the adverse ecological, economic, and health impacts of genetically engineered crops. For example, the report bluntly states that transgenic crops have delivered large economic benefits to farmers and helped reduce the use of pesticides. This assertion is based on field data from a highly selective set of studies of Bt cotton. Contradictory research is ignored. The data used from India are based exclusively on field trials conducted by Monsanto in 2001. The report ignores data collected from farmers' fields by several state governments and other independent researchers during the 2002 season (the year Bt cotton was released). These show that Bt cotton failed. The small, inconclusive studies of Bt cotton in Mexico, Argentina and South Africa are disingenuously used to bolster support for transgenic cotton varieties. Reference to another study suggesting benefits for cotton farmers in Burkina Faso and Mali concludes without much of a base that West Africa - already under unjustifiable trade pressures - will lose millions of dollars if they do not embrace Bt cotton.

Although the FAO report does mention that genetic engineering is dominated by corporations, it overlooks the fact that only one company - Monsanto - owns the GM seed technology sown over 90% of the total world area sown to transgenics. Five companies make up virtually 100% of the transgenic seed market. This represents an unprecedented dependence of farmers on global agribusiness that FAO should view with alarm and for which FAO should propose alternatives. Just proposing that more public research funding is dedicated to it, is not a solution. More investment in this technology - as the FAO recommends - will inevitably increase corporate monopoly control over the world's food supply. Impoverished countries will be forced to accept patent laws, contracts and trade regimes that weaken their internal capacity to fight hunger. Four days after your report was published, the Supreme Court of Canada shamefully sided with Monsanto against Canadian farmers Percy and Louise Schmeiser simply because the corporation's patented seed contaminated their farm. In a number of countries contamination is already resulting in cases where farmers are threatened or prosecuted because genetically engineered pollen blew in their field!

The more farmers are dependent on the biotech industry, the fewer options they will have to support and further develop their own farming and livelihood systems. It is unacceptable that FAO endorses the need for intellectual property for corporations. This amounts to FAO support for corporate biopiracy since the genetic resources that corporations seek to patent result from the collective breeding work of farmers over thousands of years.

Genetic contamination is polluting the very heart of the world's centres of crop diversity. Yet FAO brushes aside this tragedy with hardly a comment. Yet, for the very cultures that created agriculture this is an aggression against their life, against the crops they created and nurture, and against their food sovereignty. For several decades the FAO has been leading an international debate to address the issue of genetic erosion. With the advent of genetic engineering the threat of erosion has increased. As the normative intergovernmental institution for genetic resources, FAO should be developing policies to prevent genetic erosion and take action to address the negative global implications.

We are stunned to find that, to prevent gene contamination (while protecting corporate monopoly), the report supports the absurd option of using Terminator technology, a technology that would prevent farmers from saving and re-using harvested seed. Farmers' organizations, civil society organizations, many governments and scientific institutions have condemned this technology. As Director General of FAO, you stated in 2000 that FAO was against genetic seed sterilization. Incredibly, your report endorses a technology that would risk the food supply of the 1.4 billion people who depend upon farm-saved seed around the world.

These biases, omissions and unsubstantiated conclusions turn this report into a disgraceful public relations tool for the biotech industry and for those countries that seek to export this technology. It is an insult to those FAO member governments that, courageously, have been resisting industry and political pressure and who are developing viable alternatives for long-term seed security and food sovereignty. It is a rejection of the efforts of those scientists and policy makers - some within FAO - who have contributed to the new participatory technology development, agro-ecological methodologies, sustainable productivity and other approaches that put the role and rights of farmers first.

We believe that FAO has broken its commitment to civil society and peasants' organizations to consult on issues of common concern. There was no consultation with smallholder farmers' organisations, yet there appears to have been extensive discussion with industry. For those of us in civil society organisations and social movements that considered the FAO as an institution that we could relate to and a forum to debate these issues and possibly move forward, this is a tremendous setback. Farmers and civil society organizations will meet and consult in the coming months to determine what further actions should be taken regarding FAO and the negative repercussions of this report.

Yours Sincerely,

(people and organisations signing on)

************************

5. New Studies Contradict FAO Report and Show that Genetically Engineered Bt Cotton Fails to Benefit Farmers

Communication from The Deccan Development Society, Andhra Pradesh (AP) Coalition in Defence of Diversity and GRAIN.  Date: 16 June 2004 http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?id=129

On May 17th the FAO released a report, Agricultural Biotechnology, Meeting the needs of the poor?, painting a positive picture of GM crops and recommending that more resources be put towards the development of GM technologies for developing countries. The centre-piece of the report is its analysis of farmer experiences with Bt cotton around the world, which the FAO uses to claim "that resource-poor smallholders in developing countries can gain significant benefits from the adoption of transgenic crops in terms of higher and more stable effective yields, lower pesticide costs and reduced health risks from chemical pesticide exposure." But the FAO report ignores what is actually happening on the ground, as Bt cotton fails to deliver benefits to small-scale farmers around the world. Today, two new studies on Bt cotton in India and West Africa by the Andhra Pradesh (AP) Coalition in Defence of Diversity and GRAIN provide more evidence of Bt cotton's failure in the fields and of the FAO's failure to defend the interests of small-scale farmers. They come at a time when FAO’s Director General received a letter signed by over 1500 organisations and individuals, expressing their outrage and disagreement with the FAO report.

The report by the AP Coalition, entitled "Did Bt cotton fail AP again in 2003-2004?" surveyed 164 small-scale Bt cotton farmers from three districts of Andhra Pradesh during the 2003-2004 season. It found that while Bt cotton marginally reduced pesticide use and increased yields, the overall profits for farmers growing Bt cotton were 9% lower. This directly contradicts the data circulating from a study carried out by AC Nielsen on behalf of Monsanto, which claims that farmer profits increased by 92%, and it points to how unreliable industry data can be. The Monsanto survey, conducted by a marketing agency, contacted farmers through questionnaires just once after their crop period. Since the great majority of Indian farmers never keep account of what they have spent on their agriculture, such a one-off questionnaire based study can always be misleading. The AP Coalition study, in contrast, worked with farmers continuously, contacting them every 15 days and always keeping close to the realities of the situation. It is therefore alarming that the FAO report would base its enthusiastic portrayal of Bt cotton in India exclusively on data collected by Monsanto during its 2001 field trials. The report simply ignored the many subsequent official and independent studies of farmer experiences with Bt cotton that overwhelmingly demonstrate the failure of Bt cotton in India.

The FAO's assessment of Bt cotton is littered with this kind of selective use of information. It's look at farmer experiences with Bt cotton in South Africa is based on a single study of the Makhatini Flats area conducted by researchers from Reading University (UK), which relies on farm record data supplied by Vunisa Cotton, the area's sole cotton merchant and supplier of cotton inputs. No mention is made of the drought problems that have plagued cotton farmers in the area over the past three years and that have sparked serious debt problems for small Bt cotton farmers. According to a study by South African NGO Biowatch, the debt problem is so severe that Vunisa Cotton and the Landbank (the company financing Bt cotton) have withdrawn from the Bt cotton scheme because farmers cannot repay their debts. The FAO report also fails to mention Bt cotton's disastrous introduction in Indonesia, where farmers, angered by Bt cotton's failure to live up to its promises, forced Monsanto to quickly pull Bt cotton off the market. In two years of planting in Indonesia, Bt cotton increased pesticide use and left farmers in a spiral of debt.

The rock bottom-point of the FAO's look into Bt cotton is its suggestion that West African cotton farmers will lose hundreds of millions of dollars in potential profits if they don't adopt Bt cotton. This suggestion is based on a single study that uses an artificially low price for Bt cotton seeds (at least four times less than what it should be) and the same narrow set of data used in the FAO report. GRAIN's new report on Bt cotton's potential introduction in West Africa provides an entirely different picture.

The GRAIN report, entitled "GM Cotton set to invade West Africa: Time to act!", finds that Bt cotton will not significantly reduce pesticide use nor provide any economic advantages to farmers in the region. Local cotton farmers, scientists and NGOs consulted for the study say it would be far more effective for public institutions to focus on supporting pesticide reduction programmes that have already proven successful and that do not depend on foreign technologies. Curiously, the FAO report is totally silent on the Farmer Field School projects for cotton that the FAO is currently supporting in West Africa. The latest results from the FAO's Integrated Pest and Production Management project in Mali show that, by using local resources and knowledge, cotton farmers were able to reduce their pesticide use by 70%, while increasing their yields by 25% and their revenues by 49%. No costly and risky foreign technology required!

GRAIN has developed a website on Bt cotton that provides a more balanced picture of farmer experiences (http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm ). Both the Bt cotton reports from the AP Coalition and GRAIN are available on this website. The report from the AP Coalition is also available on the website of the Deccan Development Society (www.ddsindia.com) The GRAIN website also offers a compendium of resources on Bt cotton, some of which are listed below. Those seeking to voice their discontent over the FAO report can still sign-on to the open letter to FAOs Director General endorsed by GRAIN and over 1500 other organizations and individuals, available on the GRAIN website (www.grain.org).

Going Further:

GRAIN "GM Cotton set to invade West Africa: Time to act!", June 11, 2004: http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=184

Abdul Qayum and Kiran Sakkhari, Did Bt cotton fail AP again in 2003-2004? A season long study of Bt Cotton in Andhra Pradesh, AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity, Deccan Development Society, and Permaculture Association of India, June 10, 2004 : http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?links or  http://www.ddsindia.com

FAO Declares War on Farmers not on Hunger (An open letter to Mr. Jacques Diouf, Director General of FAO), New from GRAIN, May 28 2004: http://www.grain.org/nfg/?id=180

FAO, "The State of Food and Agriculture 2003-2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor?" May 2004: http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/Y5160E/Y5160E00.HTM

The following are available from the GRAIN Bt cotton website ( http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm ):

Results from the IPPM-Mali (FAO) cotton programme for 2003-2004 (Résultats pour l'année 2003-2004 du Programme GIPD - Mali (FAO) The 375 cotton farmers participating in this integrated pest managmenet and production program reduced insecticide use by 68%, while increasing yields and revenues. Article is only available in French http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?links

"No Difference Between Bt, Non-Bt Cotton Output," The Financial Express (New Delhi) , June 10, 2004 : http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?links

AC Nielsen, "Performance of Bollgard Cotton in 2003", study of Bt cotton in India commissioned by Monsanto, March, 2004: http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?links

Bt Cotton Performance Reports from India, 2002, National Monitoring Committee and respective state governments, http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?links

Lim Li Ching, "Broken Promises" Institute of Science in Society, May 2004: http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?links (Summarises farmers experiences with Bt cotton in Indonesia and India)

Dr. Charles M. Benbrook, "GMOs, Pesticide Use, and Alternatives: Lessons from the U.S. Experience," June 2003 : http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?links

Elfrieda Pschorn-Strauss, "Bt Cotton and Small-scale Farmers in Makhathini – A Story of Debt, Dependency, and Dicey Economics" Biowatch South Africa, April, 2003:  http://www.grain.org/research/btcotton.cfm?links (A full report on the failure of Bt cotton in South Africa will soon be released by Biowatch ( http://www.biowatch.org.za/ )