Uncategorized – Roots For Equity

Corporate-led model drives unsustainable consumption-production

r4e_admin — Thu, 08 Jul 2021 05:25:29 +0000

Civil society organizations (CSOs) recently launched a three-part webinar series on sustainable consumption and production, or the Sustainable Development Goals-12 (SDG-12), of the UN Agenda 2030, a news release from the Council for People’s Development and Governance (CPDG) said.

The series, which will discuss the nature, situation and the future of sustainability in terms of production and consumption a year after Covid-19 first struck, is spearheaded by CPDG, Ibon International, People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (PCFS) and Climate Change Network for Community-based Initiatives,

Dubbed “Beyond Covid-19: Promoting People-Powered Sustainable Consumption and Production,” the first part covered the current state of consumption and production in Asia and identified its root causes.

Azra Sayeed of PCFS explained the unequal power relations and the dominance of multinational and transnational corporations in global trade that ingrains unsustainable production and consumption to poor countries.

“A very small minority of people have believed that they can actually hold everybody hostage to their desire for profit. It’s not a new system—it’s a class-based paradigm like monarchy and slavery,” she said, citing the capture of developing countries’ markets and resources by very few rich and developed countries through unequal economic relations.

According to Sayeed, global economic elites are trying to further policies that maintain unsustainable consumption and production processes post-Covid-19.

“[The post-Covid-19] policy agenda is dictated by corporations who are responsible for the profit-seeking, blood-seeking paradigm while they control the world’s resources,” she added.

SDG 12 is among the goals adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2015, which aims to reduce and eliminate waste and pollution and ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns for curbing the adverse effects of climate change and environmental degradation.

However, critical CSOs argue that the goal and its indicators are problematic as it does not acknowledge the systematic barriers that hinder sustainability and deprive people of their rights.

“Unsustainable production and consumption are symptoms of systemic, structural barriers that rest on the social, cultural, political, and economic make-up of societies,” Lei Covero of Ibon International said.

The groups attribute the rise of zoonotic and other types of diseases to unsustainable economic processes.

Hence, they argue that the world must not return to “business-as-usual” and instead adopt truly transformational alternatives.

“The current system must be replaced by radically transforming the systems of production and consumption that dismantle inequality and take care of the people and the planet,” Covero said.

The second forum to be held on June 29 will cover people-centered, rights-based practices from countries across Asia, while the third session will tackle ways forward in campaigning and advocacy initiatives, coinciding with the opening of the UN High-Level Political Forum on July 13, where SDG 12 will be reviewed.

The entire webinar series serves as a build-up for the Global People’s Summit on Food Systems, a counter-summit led by PCFS and its seventeen allied organizations against the corporate-controlled United Nations’ Food Systems Summit that the groups denounce.

The recommendations from these sessions will be compiled as advocacy messages to be submitted to the UN High-Level Political Forum and other related advocacy spaces.

https://businessmirror.com.ph/2021/07/04/groups-corporate-led-model-drives-unsustainable-consumption-production/

Growing wheat in the hills of Pakistan

r4e_admin — Thu, 08 Jul 2021 05:08:40 +0000

July 1, 2021

Pakistan Kissan Mazdoor Tehreek (PKMT) is an alliance of small and landless farmers in Pakistan. Formed in 2008, PKMT is active in 16 districts across three provinces of Pakistan: Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Sindh. PKMT offers a collective voice to small farmers advocating for seed and food sovereignty, and equitable land distribution in Pakistan.

According to the World Food Program, Pakistan is one of the main producers of wheat on the planet; the country exports more than one million tons of the grain every year. Yet, despite massive food production, national nutrition surveys estimate that around a third of Pakistan’s population suffers from food insecurity.

To curb food insecurity and increase public health and nutrition, PKMT has taken the lead in collecting and regenerating traditional seeds. Its members maintain community seed banks, ensuring that locally adapted wheat, rice, corn and nutritious vegetable seed varieties that have been neglected since the Green Revolution are saved and exchanged among farmers. At the policy level, the organization has denounced Pakistan Amended Seed Act 2015, asking for seed laws that promote the rights of small farmers rather than agro-chemical corporations. PKMT filed a petition in Lahore High Court against this anti-farmer seed amended act.

With the Agroecology Fund’s support, PKMT is scaling up agroecology through its Jazba Farmers’ Cooperative, a network of farmers collaborating with researchers and students at the Nawaz Sharif Agriculture University, leading peer-to-peer educational programs on agroecological farming, and practicing agroecology on 18 cooperative farms in Shikarpur, Ghotki, Multan, Haripur and Dir. Since 2020, the cooperative has been producing and marketing locally milled organic wheat flour.

However, as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, farmers faced several production, transport, storage and marketing difficulties; these hardships were exacerbated by water scarcity, untimely rains, a locust outbreak, and a lack of availability of organic manure. Bakhtiyar Zeb, a wheat farmer and member of the Cooperative from Dir, in the foothills of the Himalayas, shares his story with the Agroecology Fund.

Could you tell us a little bit about yourself?

I, Bakhtiyar Zeb, have my own land and my family and I work on the land ourselves producing for our needs and some for the market. My father used to practice traditional agriculture, kept his own seeds, used oxen for ploughing and never used chemical fertilizers and pesticides. There was little or no expenditure related to agricultural production. The food we ate was nutritious. Life was simple, and did not have many of the material attractions that are part of our lives now.

When I started working on the land, I adopted modern agriculture practices and started using hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizer, and pesticide among others to get higher production. But gradually, I realized that this form of production was extremely costly and I could not save much. We were not able to get a good price for our produce in the market. Apart from this, the food produced was not nutritious anymore, and we found we were spending more money on medicines and going to the doctor. I also realized that we had become dependent on external inputs even for seeds; we were left at the mercy of corporations. Even though I have my own agricultural land, I cannot decide for myself. Then I decided to go back to my father’s practice. For the past 10 years I have been practicing traditional agriculture and agroecology; there may be less production but certainly less expenditure, as well. Above all, I am not dependent on any external input produced by corporations. I use my own seeds, my own cow dung as fertilizer. I am much more satisfied now: at least I have nutritious chemical-free food for my family.

My land is on top of a hill and it’s difficult terrain. My sons and I have gradually increased our cultivable land through terrace farming; we have done this using our own hands. It’s not possible to get machinery in this area. We have a number of cows and goats. My wife, and other women in the family collect all the animal dung and add it to our water tank (constructed by the government, this tank collects rainwater) and it mixes with the water used for land irrigation. It is tough labor as going up and down the hills with not very good walkways is very hard. My sons, once they come back from school, help me in the fields. So it is very hard labor for my entire family but there are many benefits.

What drove you to finally move from conventional agriculture to agroecology?

In 2010, I had sown hybrid maize on one acre. On another acre of land, I cultivated my own traditional maize seeds. I put the same amount of effort on both patches but the hybrid crop had a pest attack and the traditional crop was healthy with no pest attack. I also noticed that the hybrid seed needed more water than traditional seeds. The traditional maize was ready for harvest 10 days earlier than the hybrid maize. I sold the hybrid maize in the market because my family found traditional maize good for their own consumption. It is also good for our health as there is no chemical or pesticide used. If we care about our health and our family, we should not practice chemical agriculture.

Why is agroecology the right decision for you and your family?

Most importantly, it provides nutritious food for my family. Apart from that, it is a low-cost agricultural production method. It is beneficial since most of the time we don’t have cash to buy inputs. This traditional form of agriculture does not need much cash as most of the inputs are our own.

How has the Covid-19 pandemic affected your work?

Days and weeks have been very difficult as my daughter and I were infected with COVID-19. It was a very painful experience. I had a terrible cough, fever, and body ache. My sleep was badly impacted and I could hardly sleep for 13 days. I was unable to taste food. Self-isolation was not easy and I only realized this when I had to go through it myself: I wanted to be able to see the skies and my land, my crops! Even when I recovered I was very weak, and could not walk or even sit. Both my parents are diabetic and suffer from high blood pressure; to keep them safe we sent them to another brother’s place. Even after coming out of quarantine I still have a bad cough.

Has this crisis changed your views on food security and food sovereignty?

Since I am a member of Pakistan Kissan Mazdoor Tehreek (PKMT), I understand the importance of food security and food sovereignty. But certainly, the idea of food sovereignty got sharp attention during the COVID-19 period. The self-sufficient communities who have control on their food production are in a better condition as far as food is concerned. It is expected that there will be huge food shortages in the coming months and years. We decided that we will not sell our wheat crop in the market and will save for the expected days of food shortage. PKMT is also planning to store as much as they can store so that it can be distributed to needy PKMT members, if needed. There is already a shortage of wheat flour in the market, and spikes in wheat prices, even just 1.5 months after the wheat harvest. The government has decided to import wheat to resolve the issue.

What kind of responses are important now, from communities and from policy makers?

Pakistan is an independent country but it is considered to be ruled by feudals and capitalists. They are 2% of the total population of the country, but they rule and run the country. The same people make policies for their own interests, with no safeguards for the marginalized people. The people need to stand up and raise their voice. Only organizing and mobilizing peasant labor can bring some kind of relief in our lives. In terms of practical strategies, as mentioned above PKMT members have decided they will store their food crops for communities in need during this crisis. There has also been a call to grow our own vegetables as much as possible. Since I started practicing agroecology, I have grown vegetables in small pots within the boundaries of my home. I will keep doing this.

https://www.agroecologyfund.org/blog/2021/7/1/growing-wheat-in-the-hills-of-pakistan

Promoting the work of farmers while sitting in the city

r4e_admin — Tue, 06 Oct 2020 11:51:44 +0000

Introduction:
This is a summary of an interview of Ms Maheen Zia conducted by Naveed Ahmed, Seed Sovereignty Program Coordinator from Roots for Equity. The context of the interview is on Maheen Zia’s work with Karachi Farmer’s Market-based in Karachi, Pakistan.
Ms Zia is one of the key founders of the Karachi Farmer’s Market. She is working to highlight the work of farmers and give importance to their work. She is promoting the work of farmers while sitting in the city and has the passion and ability to work for farmers. We are grateful to her that she has given her time for this interview.

Question: What attracted you to create a farmers market?
Answer: The news keeps coming that our food has become contaminated, and pesticides, fertilizers and GMOs are being used for it. We are cut off from nature and at the same time, the way disease is growing, it is in front of us too. We are six people who decided to start the farmers’ market. In all of our (six founders) families someone has been sick. It has made us realize that what we were eating makes us sick, so what could be its alternative? Personally, my father had cancer. At that point we started looking for organic flour and milled flour (chaki ka atta) and started thinking about what we were eating. Now cancer has become very common – in every household, in our close friends’ families – someone has been through this disease.
We were searching for pure food items, someone tried to find desi eggs or milks – but we wanted to have a single market where we could buy what we needed for our households. We wanted to have a system that for those who were selling here we could check what they were saying was actually being practiced and it was correct. This is why we started the market; it was started in August 2015 – it will now be five years. It is a small market but in the past five years about 30% of the people regularly buy things from here. They know that products have been checked and are of quality.

Question: Artificial agriculture or chemical agriculture produces more. So why should farmers adopt agroecology?
Answer: If your income is good by giving poison to others, then this is not correct. First of all, it is wrong in principle to produce something of low quality just because you will get production and it will be sold. This is not being said for any particular farmer but making a point in general. For example, if you have land and you want to grow something that is harmful to health for others but grow pure food elsewhere for yourself, it is wrong. In this age, this is how the world has been set up, and it may be difficult to examine it in this manner. But the way you are growing now has a short time outlook. The way you are growing now, putting pesticides and fertilizers this will degrade your land in the next ten to twenty years – what will you do then? You will not even be able to exchange this land for another piece of land? This land will not be able to grow anymore. So for your present gain you are harming your future. The harm being inflicted on others by what you are growing is an other matter but you are destroying your future, as well.

Naveed: So in the beginning you pointed out the impacts on human health and now you are pointing out that farmers must practice agroecology as (chemical agriculture) impacts land and you will face other problems.

Maheen Zia: Land will be ruined; your health will be ruined. When you use pesticide, it will first affect your family, you will be impacted as well. I believe that there is acute poverty and hence people are helpless and their hands are tied, even when they understand, they don’t have an opportunity to do something else. There is a need to help them and understand their position (majbori).

Question: What benefit you get from farmer’s market?
Answer: It makes us happy! This is an opportunity for people, there are about 300-500 people that are buying from the Farmers’ Market. There is better food getting to their households, and through this small businesses have been set up and running – so a system has been initiated. But this is small, it’s just a handful of people– Karachi in itself is a very big city. A much bigger thing that has happened is the conversation that has been started – we need to eat organically grown food, or sustainable food, we need to consume pure food. Where can we get it? Why should we have pure food? Why is it so expensive? How can we increase its production so that prices can come down? So the discussion that has been started is very important and it has the potential to increase organic production.

Question: Will small and landless farmers benefit from agroecology?
Answer: Absolutely. They will benefit as over time, their land’s soil quality will become better, production will be better. If we can connect them to the market whatever they grow will fetch a better price, there is also a market available. There is only benefit and no harm. Whoever goes toward chemical agriculture there is only harm; you may be getting money from it at the moment but there is no barkat in this money – this is what I believe.

Naveed: If you practice agroecology you can retrieve land fertility and get an environmentally friendly ecosystem. The way the environment has been impacted, there is disease and global warming, the natural environment has been lost, using poison all of this has died and we can now regain all this through promotion of agroecology.

Question: From where did you get the seed?
Answer: If someone is coming from outside (the country) – I research on heirloom seeds – ancient seeds. Some seed banks keep these seeds and the seeds are from different area, they may not of your area but if the seed adapts to your climate than I think its okay. These seed are generally not invasive but it is very important that where you are they are suited (to that environment), they should be pest resilient; they have more nutrition. So, I search for the seed, try it out and if it starts off, then use it the next year. This is the beauty of real seed; from one seed you can get a whole field because each seed will give you plentiful. This is what nature is; in nature if you work a little hard, respect it, it will give you plentiful benefits. If you fight with nature than you will have to work hard every year, put poison every year, use chemical fertilizer and so in the end you have to work a lot and the result is still not favorable.

Question: You mentioned that you get seeds from the ancient seed bank.
Answer: There is a company in the USA called Rare Seeds. They explain the origin of the seed like I have an Iraqi plant and a Chinese beans plant. These companies provide a complete chain of information, where did this seed come from, in which year, which person cultivated it, for how many years they cultivated it, who brought this seed to us, they value the seed, and this is what their work is.

Question: Can we say that the indigenous people of those areas own these seeds?
Answer: No, because the indigenous people are in a very bad condition and they have also lost their seed, there should be an attempt to find those seeds as well; for example there is a particular bean seed Cherokee Tears. When the Cherokee people were driven out of their lands about 150 – 200 years ago, they brought seeds with them. So it’s not necessary that the indigenous people are preserving their seeds. There are some farming communities and there are some people who think like us that the real asset is your seed, it needs to be saved, especially at a time when hybrids are on the rise and GMOs are being promoted. So this is a very important work that they are doing. People are also buying from them. Small farmers buy from them and plant seeds. And then they save the seeds.

Question: Have you ever tried to get seeds from areas of Pakistan or the suburbs of Karachi?
Answer: Once I was filming in Sindh – near Badin – there was a project where they were reviving Indigo which is an ancient seed of this area and it was a plant that died out in the British era. I took the seed from there but its plant did not grow, I thought I would bring the seed again when I go back to Badin. I try that if I get a real seed I grow it. When I went to Hunza two years ago, I also brought seeds from there, but it did not grow. But maybe its climate was different, only a small sprout came out; it still is good to try things out. We need to build a network within our climate zone so that we can save the real seeds among us. Make many seed banks so that if one seed bank fails there are still other seed banks. Like once I had a beautiful sunflower seed, it had a beautiful flower; I distributed this seed to friends so it could be continued. We have a network of people who try to spread seeds in this manner. I also take seeds from the pansar. For example there is a taramera seed– these are still pure seeds – it’s a local variety; there is also kolongi, there is gaozaban but it did not germinate. I have now brought this seed from abroad and have saved seeds from it and will try it again this year. It’s a very useful plant – you can make tea from its leaves and use it for colds or flu. So this is what I do but a systematic system needs to be set up. This is a science and there are different types of seeds, some are self-seeding and you don’t need to keep them away from other plants. But other variety mix with each other for instant maize, it has to be kept a mile away from other varieties so that they do not cross-pollinate. If we are working on seed preservation, it is important to follow the procedure.

Question: Pakistani farmers are facing financial loss – how can we address this issue??
Answer: I have met only few farmers who came to the market and do not have a very good understanding of Pakistani farmers; I have met a few farmers but have not studied the issue deeply as yet and need to understand it as well. I think our economic situation is dependent on a cash economy and it drives everything. Before we used to have a barter system as well it may not have been so difficult for farmers. There are now so many barriers for farmers. Maybe I need to ask you this question why farmers are facing so many losses?
Green Revolution began under General Ayub. The whole world has been suffering the consequences of the fifty years of Green Revolution, of chemical agriculture. One third of the land is damaged which was arable and we could grow on it; if there is decreasing production and farmers are suffering losses– a big reason has to be that their land and water has been spoiled.

Question: If farmers adopt agroecology they will suffer financial loss. How can we compensate for this financial loss?
Answer: We need to think on ways forward. There needs to be a diversity of income. For example may be also including handicrafts. Also be involved in value added production so that they can have better value. All of us need basic education. It’s not a simple sum game. You will not get to know about everything from instructions on a packet. When we are growing things – it’s a natural process and we need to deepen our learning of nature, of soil. Why is soil so important, it’s not just dirt– it’s like our heart? All that we eat is based on this layer of soil. If we increase the quality of soil we will eat better. If we loose this soil then we will all face starvation. The quality of our soil is critical. We don’t understand the importance of water. These are Allah’s systems; they have been there for thousands of years. These systems were there before us and will be there after us. We are the ones who have destroyed these systems. We have used advanced technologies and believe that by using them we can make it better. But we need to go back to nature and study how systems are managed in nature.

Women Constituency STATEMENT ON Civil Society Mechanism (CSM)

r4e_admin — Mon, 14 Oct 2019 09:23:21 +0000

Public Panel

Public Debate: 10 Years After the Committee on Food Security (CFS) Reform

Civil Society Forum 2019, Rome, Italy 12-13 October, 2019

Azra Talat Sayeed

Women Constituency, Civil Society Mechanism (CSM)

The main thrust of the intervention was:

The Committee on World Food Security is facing many problems. These problems include the struggle between powerful countries such as the United States and China. The main economic paradigm used by various political actors is based on neoliberalism and hence policies of deregulation, privatization and trade liberalization are pushed. Huge corporations are being helped through the implementation of these policies to control our resources, labor and markets.

Women are half of the world’s population and immensely impacted though this fight for resources. So the demands that are resonating from the women of the world include control over resources. Land rights remain at the heart of our demands as women are by far the largest segment that is landless in the world. The corporate capture of land is resulting in immense land grab across countries, especially in the continents of the third world. As part of the control over resources land grab is top most; even rich countries, land scarce and food scarce countries are grabbing land. And hence instead of women being given priority in land titles, it is the corporate sector, which is controlling thousands of acres of land across our continents. Result is massive evictions of our people, especially the indigenous people who are being hunted and forced to leave their ancestral lands.

At the same time its not only land that women demand, they also demand access and control over all reproductive resources. It is clear that fisher women, pastoralists and others don’t necessarily need land rights but must have control over production, and the resources needed for production. Its also clear that women demand access and control over markets.

The current fight over resources is having a huge impact on the lives of women and face continuous violence. But this is not only physical violence, which is what is considered most. They also face constant economic violence as they paid less and even after all the work they have done, they have no control over their earnings. Therefore, patriarchy has a huge role in controlling the lives of women. Women are the ones who go hungry; in Pakistan women and children are the biggest segment who are part of the anemic and malnourished. Finally, they also face political violence as they are not part of the political decision-making

Women are at the fore front of demanding agroecology as a form of production to over come many forms of violence in their lives. One is that it allows them to grow wholesome healthy food free from the poisons of industrial chemical food production system. However, it needs to be reiterated that there can be no agroecology without land distribution in favor of women. Agroecology is also the way ahead to fight climate crisis.

Its critical that women’s rights are held paramount. Currently, very weak policies and strategies are used to dilute women’s rights. For us, empowerment of women is not equal to women’s rights; we are empowered and don’t need such platitudes. We demand to be considered equal and our inalienable rights to be recognized, promoted ad implemented.

ہفتہ وار زرعی خبریں 2018

r4e_admin — Wed, 14 Nov 2018 08:26:31 +0000

نومبر 1 تا 7 نومبر، 2018
گندم
پنجاب کی آٹا ملوں نے گندم برآمدکرنے کی مخالفت کرتے ہوئے گندم سے تیار شدہ اشیاء برآمد کرنے کا مطالبہ کیا ہے۔ حبیب الرحمن لغاری کی قیادت میں ہونے والے پاکستان فلور ملز ایسوسی ایشن، پنجاب کے اجلاس میں مطالبہ کیا گیا ہے کہ گندم برآمد کرنے کے بجائے آٹا اور گندم سے تیار شدہ دیگر اشیاء کی زمینی اور سمندری راستوں سے برآمد کی اجازت دی جائے۔ اس پالیسی سے ناصرف بند پڑی مقامی آٹا ملیں فعال ہونگی اور ہزاروں افراد کو روزگار ملے گا بلکہ ملک کو مزید زرمبادلہ بھی حاصل ہوگا۔
(ڈان، 1 نومبر، صفحہ2)

محکمہ زراعت پنجاب نے بارانی علاقے کے کسانوں کو گندم کی زیادہ سے زیادہ پیداوار کے حصول کے لیے منظور شدہ بیج کاشت کرنے کا مشورہ دیا ہے۔ محکمے نے کسانوں پر زور دیا ہے کہ 15 نومبر تک بیجائی مکمل کرلیں اور منظور شدہ بیج نارک 2009،BARS 2009 ، دھرابی 2011، پاکستان 2013، فتح جنگ 2016، احسان 2016، بارانی 2017، اور چکوال 50 کاشت کریں۔ محکمہ کے ترجمان نے مزید تجویز دی ہے کسان ایک ایکڑ زمین پر 40 سے 50 کلوگرام بیج استعمال کریں۔
(بزنس ریکارڈر، 2 نومبر، صفحہ 16)

ایوان زراعت سندھ (سندھ چیمبر آف ایگری کلچر) نے صوبے میں ربیع کے موسم میں پانی کی عدم دستیابی پر تشویش کا اظہار کرتے ہوئے گندم کی 50 فیصد بوائی متاثر ہونے کا امکان ظاہر کیا ہے۔ جنرل سیکریٹری زاہد بھرگڑی کی زیر صدارت ہونے والے اجلاس میں کسانوں سے زرعی قرضوں کی وصولی معطل کرنے کا مطالبہ کیا گیا ہے۔ زاہد بھرگڑی کا مزید کہنا تھا کہ روہڑی اور نارا کنال میں 50 فیصد پانی کم ہے اور یہ دونوں کنال ہی زیادہ تر گندم کے زیر کاشت رقبے کو سیراب کرتی ہیں۔
(ڈان، 5 نومبر، صفحہ17)

چاول
وزارت تجارت کے حکام نے کہا ہے کہ چاول کو خصوصی مراعات حاصل کرنے والے شعبہ جات کی فہرست میں شامل کرنے کے لیے تجویز تیار کرلی گئی ہے تاکہ اس کی برآمد میں اضافہ کرکے زرمبادلہ حاصل کی جاسکے۔ وزارت یہ تجویز اقتصادی رابطہ کمیٹی کے اگلے اجلاس میں پیش کرے گی۔ اس وقت پانچ شعبہ جات برآمدات میں اضافے کے لیے سیلز ٹیکس، بجلی اور گیس کی بندش سے استثنی اور بجلی کے نرخو ں میں رعایت حاصل کررہے ہیں۔ حال ہی میں رائس ایکسپورٹرز ایسوسی ایشن نے حال ہی میں وزیر اعظم کے مشیر برائے تجارت سے ملاقات میں چاول کو اہم برآمدی شعبہ جات کی فہرست میں شامل کرنے ہر زور دیا تھا۔
(ڈان، 1نومبر ،صفحہ10)

غذائی کمی
تھرپارکر کے خشک سالی سے متاثرہ علاقے مٹھی، کالوئی اور نگرپارکر میں غذائی کمی اور پانی سے ہونے والی بیماریوں کی وجہ سے مزید نو بچے جانبحق ہوگئے ہیں جس کے بعد اس سال مرنے والے بچوں کی تعداد 544 تک پہنچ گئی ہیں۔ محکمہ صحت کے عہدیداروں نے حکومتی موقف دہراتے ہوئے کہا ہے کہ مرنے والے زیادہ تر بچے وزن میں کمی کا شکار تھے جس کی وجہ کم عمری کی شادیاں ہیں۔ مرنے والے بچوں کے والدین کا کہنا ہے کہ ان کے گاؤں میں علاج کی سہولت میسر نہیں جس کی وجہ سے انھیں میلوں دور سفر کرکے مٹھی آنا پڑتاہے۔
(ڈان، 5 نومبر، صفحہ17)

خشک سالی
بلوچستان اسمبلی نے ایک متفقہ قرارداد کے ذریعے وفاق سے مطالبہ کیا ہے کہ خشک سالی سے متاثرہ علاقوں کو آفت زدہ قرار دیا جائے اور بلوچستان میں خشک سالی سے بری طرح متاثر ہونے والے کسانوں کے لیے فوری طورپر امدادکا اعلان کیا جائے۔ قرارداد بلوچستان نیشنل پارٹی (مینگل) کے ثناء ﷲبلوچ نے پیش کی۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ عالمی اداروں کے مطابق بلوچستان کو طویل عرصے سے خشک سالی جیسے حالات کا سامنا ہے۔ ان حالات میں بلوچستان کو آفت زدہ قرار دینا چاہیے اور وفاق کی جانب سے کسانوں کے لیے امدادی پیکچ کا اعلان کیا جانا چاہیے۔
(ڈان، 6 نومبر، صفحہ5)

گنا
سندھ ہائی کورٹ نے واجبات کی عدم ادائیگی سے متعلق گنے کے کاشتکاروں کی تقریباً 1,300 درخواستوں کا جائزہ لینے کے لئے سات رکنی کمیٹی تشکیل دیدی ہے۔ کمیٹی کے سربراہ گنا کمشنر ہونگے اور دونوں فریقین کے تین تین نمائندے اس کمیٹی میں شامل ہونگے۔ شوگر ملیں اپنے تینوں نمائندے اگلے تین دنوں میں مقرر کریں گی۔ یہ کمیٹی ان درخواستوں کی انفرادی طور پر جانچ کرے گی اور درخواست گزار یا اس کے وکیل کو درخواست میں کیے گئے دعوے کی تصدیق کرے گی۔ درخواست گزار کو لازمی طور پر کمیٹی کے سامنے اپنے دعوے سے متعلق دستاویزات پیش کرنے ہونگے۔ عدالت نے کمیٹی کو لازمی طور پر 45 دنوں میں کام مکمل کرنے اور سیکریٹری محکمہ زراعت کو اس کی رپورٹ عدالت میں جمع کروانے کی ہدایت کی ہے۔
(ڈان، 1 نومبر، صفحہ15)

ایک خبر کے مطابق گنے کی کرشنگ 15 نومبرسے شروع ہوگی جبکہ حکومت نے گنے کی قیمت 180 روپے فی من مقرر کی ہے۔ حسیب وقاص شوگر مل پر گزشتہ سال کسانوں کے 100 ملین روپے واجب لادا تھے اور مل کو غیر قانونی طور پر ننکانہ صاحب سے تحصیل جتوئی، ضلع مظفر گڑھ منتقل کیا گیا تھا۔ بڑی تعداد میں عوام بشمول کسانوں نے احتجاج کرتے ہوئے دعوی کیا ہے کہ گنے کا موسم قریب ہے اور حکومت نے بھاولپور اور رحیم یارخان اضلاع جانے والے پل بند کردیے ہیں۔
(ڈان، 5 نومبر، صفحہ6)

ماحول
ایک خبر کے مطابق معیاری اور صاف خورراک کی فراہمی یقینی بنانے کے لئے پنجاب فوڈ اتھارٹی کھیتوں میں سبزیوں اور پھلوں کو کیڑے مکوڑوں سے محفوظ رکھنے کے لیے چھڑکے جانے والے زہر یلے مواد کی لیبارٹری میں جانچ کرے گی۔ اتھارٹی کے ایڈشنل ڈائریکٹر جنرل محمد عثمان کا کہنا ہے کہ کئی کیڑے مار زہر فوری طور پر صاف نہیں ہوتے اور ان کی باقیات سبزیوں اور پھلوں میں رہ جاتی ہیں۔ اتھارٹی قوانین کے مطابق ان زہریلے اجزاء کے استعمال پر نظر رکھے گی۔
(دی ایکسپریس ٹریبیون، 1 نومبر، صفحہ11)

پنجاب فوڈ اتھارٹی نے لاہور میں 60 کنال زمین پر آلودہ پانی سے کاشت کی جانے والی سبزیوں کو ضائع کردیا۔ اتھارٹی کے عملے نے شاہدرہ ٹاؤن میں مولی، پالک ، گاجر، تربوز اور دھنیا سمیت مختلف فصلوں کو ضائع کردیا۔ ڈائریکٹر جنرل پنجاب فوڈ اتھارٹی کے مطابق صوبے میں آلودہ پانی سے کاشت کی جانے والی سبزیوں ے خلاف کارروائی جاری رہے گی۔ کیمیائی اجزاء سے آلودہ پانی سے کاشت کی جانے والی سبزیاں ہیپاٹائٹس اور دیگر امراض کی وجہ ہیں۔
(ڈان، 5 نومبر، صفحہ2)

پانی
وزیر اعظم عمران خان نے وزارت قومی غذائی تحفظ وتحقیق کے 9 ملین ایکڑ فٹ پانی کو محفوظ کرنے کے تین بڑے منصوبوں کی منظوری دیدی ہے۔ ملک بھر میں آبی ذرائع (واٹر کورسز) کی مرمت (لائننگ)، کھیتوں میں لیزر کی مدد سے زمین ہموار کرکے اور خیبر پختونخواہ میں چھوٹے ڈیموں اور آبی ذخیروں کے رقبے میں 60 ہزار ایکڑ اضافے کے زریعے پانی کو محفوظ کیا جائے گا۔ واٹر کورسوں کو بہتر کرنے کا منصوبہ نیشنل پروگرام فار امپرومنٹ آف واٹر کورسز ان پاکستان فیز ٹوکا آغازکیا جائیگا اور اس منصوبے کے تحت 73,000 واٹر کورسز کی مرمت کا ہدف حاصل کیا جائے گا۔ یہ فیصلہ کیا گیا ہے کہ حکومت تمام صوبوں خصوصاً سندھ کو زمین ہموار کرنے والے لیزر لیولر پر زرتلافی دے گی۔
(دی ایکسپریس ٹریبیون، 1 نومبر، صفحہ3)

زمین
ایک خبر کے مطابق پنجاب حکومت نے سیالکوٹ میں 26 زمینی ریکارڈ کے مراکز قائم کرنے کی منظوری دیدی ہے۔ ایک اعلی عہیدار کے مطابق محکمہ ریونیو نے ان مرکز کی تعمیر کے لئے مناسب جگہوں کی تلاش شروع کر دی ہے۔ یہ مراکز زمین کی منتقلی اور ’فرد‘ کے فوری اجراء میں سہولت فراہم کرینگے۔
(ڈان، 5 نومبر، صفحہ6)

نکتہ نظر
اس ہفتے کی خبروں کی ترتیب ہی ملک میں زرعی شعبہ میں حکومتی پالیسیوں کے تضادات کو واضح کررہی ہے۔ کہیں سرمایہ دار خود گندم کے بجائے اس سے بنی اشیاء کی برآمد کو ترجیح دینے کا مطالبہ کررہے ہیں اور کہیں بچے گندم اور دیگر غذائی اجناس نہ ہونے سے بھوک اور غذائی کمی کی وجہ سے دم توڑ رہے ہیں، خود حکومتی ادارے آلودہ پانی سے اگائی گئی فصلیں تباہ کررہے ہیں لیکن آبی وسائل کو آلودہ کرنے والے صنعتکاروں کے خلاف کوئی کارروائی نہیں کی جاتی اور کہیں خود حکومت ایسے مخصوص بیجوں کو فروغ دے رہی ہے جو بغیر کیمیائی اجزاء، کھاد کے پیداوار نہیں دیتے۔ سرمایہ داری نظام کا خاصہ ہے کہ یہ بھوک اور غربت برقرار رکھتا ہے اور اس کے خاتمے کے لیے پیش کیے جانے والے حل بھی مزید منافع کے حصول کے لیے ہی پالیسی سازی کی صورت عوام پر مسلط کردیے جاتے ہیں۔ اس کی ایک عام مثال ملک میں گنے کی بڑھتی ہوئی پیداوار ہے جس میں گندم اور دیگر غذائی فصلوں کے مقابلے کئی گنا زیادہ پانی استعمال ہوتا ہے جبکہ صرف سندھ میں ہی پانی کی کمی کی وجہ سے گندم کی کاشت میں 50 فیصد کمی کا خدشہ ظاہر کیا جارہا ہے ۔ ہر سال کی طرح سرمایہ دار بڑے پیمانے پر گنے سے چینی اور دیگر اشیاء تیار اور برآمد کرکے بھاری منافع حاصل کریں گے جبکہ گنا فروخت کرنے والے چھوٹے کسان گزشتہ سال فروخت کیے گئے گنے کی قیمت کے حصول کے لیے عدالتوں کے دھکے کھارہے ہیں۔ ضرورت اس امر کی ہے کہ اب حکومتی نیولبرل پالیسیوں کے تحت منڈی کے لیے زراعت کرنے کے بجائے ملک کے چھوٹے اور بے زمین کسان خود پائیدار زراعت کے اصول اپناکر صاف خوراک اگائیں جو ناصرف پانی کی کمی، غربت اور غذائی کمی سے خاتمے میں مددگار ہوگی بلکہ کسانوں کے لیے خوراک کی خودمختاری کے حصول کا ذریعہ بھی ثابت ہوگا۔

SLAVERY INC: HOW LEGISLATORS REINFORCE BONDED LABOUR IN SINDH

r4e_admin — Wed, 14 Nov 2018 08:25:07 +0000

Posted on November 5, 2018

Mohammad Hussain Khan Updated October 01, 2018

The hari-landlord relationship remains undocumented in Sindh. This makes peasants vulnerable to all forms of exploitation.

Weaker laws and regulatory framework deprive haris of legal protection. In many cases, they survive in subhuman conditions and fall prey to slavery.

Sindh Tenancy Act (STA) 1950 seeks to protect their rights, thanks to a relentless struggle by one of the greatest hari leaders of his era, Hyder Bux Jatoi. However, haris can hardly invoke its provisions to get their rights.

Yet this law, which describes a hari as a tenant, was amended by the Sindh Assembly in 2013. The most damaging amendment that the PPP, which derives its electoral strength from rural Sindh, introduced to it was the omission of the following words: “But the landlord shall not take any free labour from the tenant or a member of his family against his will.”

In other words, legislators have legalised slavery.

According to veteran labour rights activist Karamat Ali, this amendment shows that legislators are in a state of denial as they believe landowners don’t take begaar (free labour). “Legislators from urban areas also voted for the amendment,” he said.

Landowners maintain accounts of expenditures that they settle with haris after the harvest. Haris till the land under no written agreement

Practically, the hari-landlord relationship is governed under no law. Haris are not registered under the record of rights as permanent tenants as per the 1950 law. Usually, peasants share expenses incurred by their landlords as the latter purchase all inputs either by themselves or through local financiers. These local lenders charge interest rates that are multiple times higher than the mark-up on a typical bank loan.

For instance, a local lender provides farmers with a urea bag at Rs2,400 on credit even though its actual price varies between Rs1,600 and Rs1,700. The loan is usually adjusted once the crop is harvested and sold either in the market or to the same lender.

This undermines the monetary interests of haris who have to make do with a meagre share in the profit after the deduction of expenses. Landowners maintain accounts of expenditures and settle the same with haris after the harvest. Haris till the land under no written agreement.

A landlord lets haris cultivate separate pieces of land. They depend on the landlord for meeting their day-to-day needs as he ensures the supply of irrigation water, seeds, fertiliser, pesticides and tractors.

Although the STA is considered a pro-peasant law, rights bodies have come up with some draft amendments to make it more progressive. However, the Sindh government hasn’t considered those amendments yet.

Many people believe that elected representatives in rural Sindh are primarily from powerful landed aristocracy and get support from their urban counterparts. Overall, 10 amendments have been made to the law. But there hasn’t been any meaningful impact as far as conditions of the haris are concerned.

The STA calls for setting up tribunals to resolve hari-landowner disputes. But no such body has been set up so far.

One draft amendment calls for placing the tribunals under the judicial magistrate instead of a taluka-level assistant commissioner as enshrined in actual STA.

Another draft amendment calls for making a tribunal’s decision challengeable in “higher civil courts” contrary to the actual provision that says, “A decision of tribunal or in appeal by collector (deputy commissioner) and then by commissioner shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court.” But these amendments have not been considered.

Interestingly, farm workers and those working in the fisheries sector are now covered by the definition of “industrial labour” under Sindh Industrial Relations Act (SIRA) 2013. But the rules under the SIRA have not been issued yet.

Sindh Abadgar Board Vice President Mahmood Nawaz Shah says relevant departments lack the capacity to implement tenancy rules. Laws like the STA couldn’t take effect under a weak governance structure.

Mr Ali says conditions for farm labour are extremely poor. “They have no right to form a union. When a hari is not registered with the revenue department, he and his family can be evicted by the landowner any time,” he says.

Any payment of advances to haris is prohibited under Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 2015

An identical situation exists even in the formal labour sector where third-party employment by factory owners is commonplace now, he adds.

The cases of bonded labourers are usually reported against the backdrop of the poor implementation of tenancy laws. Such haris escape from the clutches of landowners to avoid paying the debt they obtained in advance. Any payment of advances to haris under Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act 2015 is prohibited. But the law is rarely implemented.

Peasant rights activists claim that 13.46 million people were employed in Sindh in 2012. Of them, as many as 7.74m were based in rural areas. A majority of them work as sharecroppers — landless tenants or peasants — as well as wage labour.

Trade unionist Nasir Mansoor asserts that even the STA has become obsolete now. He believes that only getting haris freed from bondage is no solution to the issue. An entirely new consultation is needed to look at the hari-landlord relationship, he stated, adding that peasants will continue ending up as losers otherwise.

Published in Dawn, The Business and Finance Weekly, October 1st, 2018

https://www.dawn.com/news/1435964/slavery-inc-how-legislators-reinforce-bonded-labour-in-sindh

‘THE WORLD IS AGAINST THEM’: NEW ERA OF CANCER LAWSUITS THREATEN MONSANTO

r4e_admin — Wed, 14 Nov 2018 08:23:36 +0000

Posted on October 11, 2018

October 8, 2018 / Published at The Guardian

by Carey Gillam and Sam Levin

Dean Brooks grasped on to the shopping cart, suddenly unable to stand or breathe. Later, at a California emergency room, a nurse with teary eyes delivered the news, telling his wife, Deborah, to hold out hope for a miracle. It was December 2015 when they learned that a blood cancer called non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) was rapidly attacking the man’s body and immune system.

By July 2016, Dean was dead. Deborah gets emotional recounting the gruesome final chapter of the love of her life. But in recent months, she has had reason to be hopeful again.

In an historic verdict in August, a jury ruled that Monsanto had caused a man’s terminal cancer and ordered the agrochemical corporation to pay $289m in damages. The extraordinary decision, exposing the potential hazards of the world’s most widely used herbicide, has paved the way for thousands of other cancer patients and families to seek justice and compensation in court.

“It’s like a serial killer, but it’s a product,” said Brooks, 57, who has a pending case against Monsanto, alleging that her husband’s use of the company’s popular weedkiller at their home led to his fatal disease. “It’s unconscionable … I don’t see how they can win. The world is against them.”

Brooks said she cried when she learned that a jury had ruled in favor of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, the terminally ill former school groundskeeper who became the first person to take Monsanto to trial over Roundup. The verdict stated that Monsanto “acted with malice”, knew or should have known its chemical was dangerous, and failed to warn consumers about the risks.

Monsanto has filed an appeal, and a hearing is scheduled for Wednesday in San Francisco. The stakes are high for Monsanto and Bayer, the German pharmaceutical giant that acquired the company earlier this year. Energized by the Johnson win, a snowballing series of courtroom challenges are now threatening the legacy and finances of the corporations – and the future of a chemical that is ubiquitous around the globe.

The fight against 8,000 plaintiffs

Monsanto has argued that “junk science” led to the jury’s ruling on the chemical called glyphosate, which the company brought to market in 1974. Sold under numerous brands, including Roundup and Ranger Pro, the herbicide is now worth billions of dollars in revenues and is registered in 130 countries, with approvals for use on more than 100 crops.

The Johnson v Monsanto trial was groundbreaking before it even began, because a judge allowed the plaintiff’s attorneys to present research and expert testimony on glyphosate and health risks – scientific evidence that the jury ultimately found credible and compelling.

Johnson, who is not expected to survive for more than two years, said he had prolonged exposures to glyphosate while applying the herbicide to school properties, at least twice accidentally getting large amounts of the chemical on his skin. Because Monsanto has insisted that the product is safe and has no cancer warnings on its labels, Johnson said he did not know about the risks until it was too late.

His award of $289m, which included $250m in punitive damages, is a game-changer for the 46-year-old, who will leave behind a wife and three children. But Monsanto is fighting to keep it from him.

“It’s a big red flag for the company,” said Jean M Eggen, professor emerita at Widener University Delaware Law School, adding of the verdict: “It brings more people out who might not otherwise sue.”

Roughly 8,700 plaintiffs have made similar cases in state courts across the country, alleging that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides led to various types of cancer. The impact could be huge if Monsanto continues to fight and lose in jury trials, and an accumulation of wins could force the company to consider settling with plaintiffs.

“It could become very costly,” said Eggen, comparing the fight to that of the tobacco industry, which aggressively fought cases in court but eventually decided settlements were the best option. “It’s really a business decision.”

Monsanto may ultimately consider changing the labels to warn consumers about cancer risks and work to settle with consumers who have had high exposures, said Lars Noah, University of Florida law professor: “It’s sort of a wake-up call that their strategy was unrealistic.”

Of the thousands of cases, there are more than 10 trials on track to start in 2019 and 2020, with court battles ramping up in California, Montana, Delaware, Kansas City and St Louis (where Monsanto is headquartered). Farmers, gardeners, government employees, landscapers and a wide range of others have alleged that Monsanto’s products sickened them or killed their loved ones.

“This is a tremendous number of trials for one year and will allow plaintiffs to get critical evidence in front of juries – evidence not seen before,” said the attorney Aimee Wagstaff.

The first plaintiffs who may have an opportunity to face Monsanto in a courtroom are Alberta and Alva Pilliod, a California couple. Alberta, 74, has brain cancer while her husband, 76, suffers from a bone cancer that he said has invaded his pelvis and spine – both forms of NHL.

Given their age and cancer diagnoses, their lawyers have argued they have a right to a speedy trial. Monsanto, however, has opposed the request, and a hearing on the matter is set for Tuesday.

The couple, who have two children and four grandchildren, used Roundup from the 1970s until a few years ago – around their yard and on multiple properties they purchased and renovated. The couple said they chose the herbicide because they believed it wouldn’t be harmful to the deer, ducks and other animals that roamed their property. They were also sure it was safe for themselves.

“We are very angry. We hope to get justice,” Alberta told the Guardian, noting that they didn’t use protective gear when they sprayed and would not have used Roundup the way they did if they knew the risks. “If we had been given accurate information, if we had been warned, this wouldn’t have happened.”

Alva said the cancer had destroyed their lives: “It has been a miserable few years.”

Their lawyers hope to go to trial before it’s too late. Alberta’s doctors have said she has “substantially high risk” for recurrence, has “deep brain lesions” from the cancer – and is likely to die if she does relapse.

‘We are not going to be silent’

The Pilliods and other plaintiffs taking on the company have long argued that Monsanto led a “prolonged campaign of misinformation to convince government agencies, farmers and the general public that Roundup was safe”.

Attorneys have cited internal Monsanto records that they say demonstrate how the company has manipulated and corrupted the scientific record with respect to the herbicide’s safety. The scrutiny has escalated in recent weeks.

On 26 September, the prominent scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology issued an “expression of concern”, saying that its published research finding glyphosate to be safe had not fully declared Monsanto’s involvement.

The high-profile correction came after litigation revealed that the company was involved in organizing and editing article drafts. Monsanto was linked to a scientific review that countered a crucial 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

More evidence could emerge at forthcoming trials about Monsanto’s questionable involvements in scientific papers, plaintiffs’ attorneys said.

A Bayer spokesman, Utz Klages, said in an email that the number of cases filed was “not indicative of the merits of the litigation”. He called glyphosate a “breakthrough for modern agriculture” and “cost-effective tool that can be used safely to control a wide range of weeds”.

Regulatory reviews and scientific studies have demonstrated that glyphosate is safe and not a cause of NHL, he said, adding: “The Johnson verdict is not final and concerns a single, specific case.”

John Barton, a California farmer who used Roundup for decades and was diagnosed with NHL in 2015, said he was eager to go to trial, especially since Monsanto and Bayer were still telling the public that glyphosate was safe.

“Monsanto needs to realize that we are not going to be silent any more,” said Barton, a third-generation farmer, who is part of a California lawsuit filed by the Baum Hedlund firm, which represented Johnson. “We are not going to roll over and play dead … People should be warned that this stuff is everywhere and we should be careful of this product.”

Barton, 69, said he also feared that his three sons could get sick due to their Roundup exposure.

“My dad exposed me to this. He never would’ve done that if he knew it was dangerous,” he added. “I have this guilt that I may have endangered my own sons.”

Deborah Brooks described NHL as “torture”, recounting her husband lying on towels on the floor trying to stop endless nosebleeds and the constant illnesses that plagued him while his immune system suffered.

“Nobody should have to go through that. It takes life in such a terrible way,” said Brooks, whose husband was 72 years old when he died. “I’m fighting for the honor of my husband and all the others that have come before and will come after … My heart goes out to those victims who don’t know they’re victims.”

Bayer declined to comment about the Brooks or Barton cases. A spokeswoman, Charla Lord, said in an email that because the Pilliods are both in remission and there was “no indication of any imminent cancer recurrence”, the company is arguing that an early trial date was not warranted.

Legal experts said it was possible the Johnson appeal could lead to a reduced monetary award. The courts could also find that there was insufficient evidence to prove that glyphosate causes cancer or that attorneys failed to demonstrate that the herbicide caused Johnson’s cancer.

Those outcomes could be devastating for Johnson and a setback for those fighting glyphosate. But cancer patients and families across the country will be able to push forward regardless of what happens in San Francisco, said David Levine, a University of California Hastings law professor.

“Even if Monsanto gets a complete victory here, it’s not going to stop other plaintiffs.”

http://careygillam.com/articles/article/the-world-is-against-them-new-era-of-cancer-lawsuits-threaten-monsanto

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/07/monsanto-trial-cancer-appeal-glyphosate-chemical

U.S. threats stun world health agency

r4e_admin — Wed, 14 Nov 2018 08:22:18 +0000

Posted on July 10, 2018

Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution by U.S. Stuns World Health Officials

By Andrew Jacobs

July 8, 2018

A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.

Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.

Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.

American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.

When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.

The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.

The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States.

Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico and the United States.

“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, since the late 1980s.

“What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on the best way to protect infant and young child health,” she said.

In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.

The State Department declined to respond to questions, saying it could not discuss private diplomatic conversations. The Department of Health and Human Services, the lead agency in the effort to modify the resolution, explained the decision to contest the resolution’s wording but said H.H.S. was not involved in threatening Ecuador.

“The resolution as originally drafted placed unnecessary hurdles for mothers seeking to provide nutrition to their children,” an H.H.S. spokesman said in an email. “We recognize not all women are able to breast-feed for a variety of reasons. These women should have the choice and access to alternatives for the health of their babies, and not be stigmatized for the ways in which they are able to do so.” The spokesman asked to remain anonymous in order to speak more freely.

Although lobbyists from the baby food industry attended the meetings in Geneva, health advocates said they saw no direct evidence that they played a role in Washington’s strong-arm tactics. The $70 billion industry, which is dominated by a handful of American and European companies, has seen sales flatten in wealthy countries in recent years, as more women embrace breast-feeding. Over all, global sales are expected to rise by 4 percent in 2018, according to Euromonitor, with most of that growth occurring in developing nations.

The intensity of the administration’s opposition to the breast-feeding resolution stunned public health officials and foreign diplomats, who described it as a marked contrast to the Obama administration, which largely supported W.H.O.’s longstanding policy of encouraging breast-feeding.

During the deliberations, some American delegates even suggested the United States might cut its contribution to the W.H.O., several negotiators said. Washington is the single largest contributor to the health organization, providing $845 million, or roughly 15 percent of its budget, last year.

The confrontation was the latest example of the Trump administration siding with corporate interests on numerous public health and environmental issues.

In talks to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, the Americans have been pushing for language that would limit the ability of Canada, Mexico and the United States to put warning labels on junk food and sugary beverages, according to a draft of the proposal reviewed by The New York Times.

During the same Geneva meeting where the breast-feeding resolution was debated, the United States succeeded in removing statements supporting soda taxes from a document that advises countries grappling with soaring rates of obesity.

The Americans also sought, unsuccessfully, to thwart a W.H.O. effort aimed at helping poor countries obtain access to lifesaving medicines. Washington, supporting the pharmaceutical industry, has long resisted calls to modify patent laws as a way of increasing drug availability in the developing world, but health advocates say the Trump administration has ratcheted up its opposition to such efforts.

The delegation’s actions in Geneva are in keeping with the tactics of an administration that has been upending alliances and long-established practices across a range of multilateral organizations, from the Paris climate accord to the Iran nuclear deal to Nafta.

Ilona Kickbusch, director of the Global Health Centre at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, said there was a growing fear that the Trump administration could cause lasting damage to international health institutions like the W.H.O. that have been vital in containing epidemics like Ebola and the rising death toll from diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the developing world.

“It’s making everyone very nervous, because if you can’t agree on health multilateralism, what kind of multilateralism can you agree on?” Ms. Kickbusch asked.

A Russian delegate said the decision to introduce the breast-feeding resolution was a matter of principle.

“We’re not trying to be a hero here, but we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world,” said the delegate, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak to the media.

He said the United States did not directly pressure Moscow to back away from the measure. Nevertheless, the American delegation sought to wear down the other participants through procedural maneuvers in a series of meetings that stretched on for two days, an unexpectedly long period.

In the end, the United States was largely unsuccessful. The final resolution preserved most of the original wording, though American negotiators did get language removed that called on the W.H.O. to provide technical support to member states seeking to halt “inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children.”

The United States also insisted that the words “evidence-based” accompany references to long-established initiatives that promote breast-feeding, which critics described as a ploy that could be used to undermine programs that provide parents with feeding advice and support.

Elisabeth Sterken, director of the Infant Feeding Action Coalition in Canada, said four decades of research have established the importance of breast milk, which provides essential nutrients as well as hormones and antibodies that protect newborns against infectious disease.

A 2016 study in The Lancet found that universal breast-feeding would prevent 800,000 child deaths a year across the globe and yield $300 billion in savings from reduced health care costs and improved economic outcomes for those reared on breast milk.

Scientists are loath to carry out double-blind studies that would provide one group with breast milk and another with breast milk substitutes. “This kind of ‘evidence-based’ research would be ethically and morally unacceptable,” Ms. Sterken said.

Abbott Laboratories, the Chicago-based company that is one of the biggest players in the $70 billion baby food market, declined to comment.

Nestlé, the Switzerland-based food giant with significant operations in the United States, sought to distance itself from the threats against Ecuador and said the company would continue to support the international code on the marketing of breast milk substitutes, which calls on governments to regulate the inappropriate promotion of such products and to encourage breast-feeding.

In addition to the trade threats, Todd C. Chapman, the United States ambassador to Ecuador, suggested in meetings with officials in Quito, the Ecuadorean capital, that the Trump administration might also retaliate by withdrawing the military assistance it has been providing in northern Ecuador, a region wracked by violence spilling across the border from Colombia, according to an Ecuadorean government official who took part in the meeting.

The United States Embassy in Quito declined to make Mr. Chapman available for an interview.

“We were shocked because we didn’t understand how such a small matter like breast-feeding could provoke such a dramatic response,” said the Ecuadorean official, who asked not to be identified because she was afraid of losing her job.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/08/health/world-health-breastfeeding-ecuador-trump.html