US emerging as the world's largest cancer economy.

Is the US emerging as the world's largest cancer economy? Well, when I say a cancer economy what I mean is an economy sustained to a larger extent by the growing incidence of the killer disease. The more is the incidence of cancer, the more is the medical costs involved, and that adds on to the country's GDP. It's obviously a drain on the society but at the same time for the medical industry it provides an immense business opportunity. And some would say a profiteering medical industry will provide for more jobs !

In 2008, the US National Institute of Health (NIH) estimated the total annual cost that cancer was causing to the economy at $ 201.5 billion, which included $ 77.4 billion of health expenditures and $ 124 billion as the indirect mortality costs. After all, in a country where more than half a million people are expected to die of cancer this year, and that works out to 1,600 every day, nearly 75 per cent of the health care costs revolve around the cancer epidemic.

This startling analysis is presented in a blog Inspired Bites written by Robyn O' Brian (Link: http://blogs.prevention.com/inspired-bites/2013/11/18/how-the-cost-of-cancer-is-eating-our-economy/) that I came across yesterday. Quoting a report of the President's Cancer Panel she writes: " (The Panel) is urging all of us to do our part to reduce the burden of this disease.  Most notably, they encourage all Americans to reduce their exposures to contaminants like pesticides, insecticides and other chemicals now so pervasive in our food.  Why? Because 41 per cent of us are expected to get cancer in our lifetimes, 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women. It did not used to be this way.  And can we really eat to beat this disease as the President’s Cancer Panel suggests? It’s tough to do with a food supply so dependent on synthetic chemicals.  In the last fifteen years, new ingredients, synthetically engineered in laboratories to withstand increasing doses of toxic weedkillers, have quietly been inserted into our food.  And while correlation is not causation, the soaring use of these chemicals corresponds so directly with the soaring rates of certain cancers that at the very least, it merits an investigation."

Although, as she says, while correlation is not causation, there is a definitely a growth pattern that is clearly visible. Food contamination is certainly linked to the growing incidence of cancer. And if the Panel itself is suggesting to people to be watchful of pesticides, insecticides and other chemicals in food, the indications are loud and clear. I would have however expected more serious efforts visible in America to curb the use of chemicals, including pesticides and insecticides, based on the recommendations of this report. The failure to take the report seriously is not only disappointing but if I may be allowed to say so it is reflective of a criminal neglect. 

Especially at a time when US President Barack Obama has been trying to push for medicare, I thought the best way to prevent the disease from taking such a massive human toll in future would have been to go in for safe food. When Michelle Obama launch organic gardening in the White House complex, she obviously conveyed a powerful statement, but her husband failed to get the message right. As Charles Benbrook has conclusively shown that between 1996 and 2011, an era when GM crops proliferated in the US, the application of pesticides has risen by 404 million pounds. This data alone should have forced the US Department of Agriculture to come down heavily on the industrial farming systems. 

While the USDA continues to push for more of the same, the US President has been trying his best to push the harmful technologies to the developing world. His global food security initiative promotes the faulty and harmful technological approach as the mankind's saviour. This is where the US President fails, and fails miserably. In his desperation to find ways and means (even if these are harmful in the long run) to jack up the economy, he is trying to create conditions for the US health care industry to profit. He is aggressively using the g-20 to push his flawed economic approach. And that makes me wonder when will the world get a political leader who looks beyond the financial capital; who goes all out to build on the human capital.  

Till then, I can only pray for the well-being of Americans. If 1 in 2 men, and 1 in 3 women is expected to live with cancer in the years to come, God save America. But please don't pass on this deadly killer to the developing world. We already have enough problems at hand. 

Dalai Lama: "If only Tibet had Oil ..."

A teenager died this week in the 70th case of immolation since Feb 2009 in Tibet -- India Today photo

Several years ago, must be sometimes between 1988-89, I was interviewing Dalai Lama at McLeod Ganj, a suburb of Dharamsala, where he lives in exile. I was then the State Correspondent for the Indian Express, posted in Shimla. It was during the course of the pretty-long interview wherein we had discussed about what Dalai Lama called as 'cultural genocide' in Tibet, I asked him whether the peaceful path he had always advocated and stands for would ever get him closer to an autonomous Tibet.

Dalai Lama burst out laughing. He said he knew that most young Tibetans would be calling him 'foolish' Dalai Lama for refraining them from adopting a militant path. He then went on to explain how the youth were getting impatient. We talked a little bit about the peaceful methods of Mahatma Gandhi from where he drew inspiration. And then, after a little while I asked him something like this: "You seem to be so helpless about the future of Tibet, and with the international community not pitching in for you, what is that you regret the most?"

Dalai Lama went quiet for sometime, and then he said: "If only Tibet had oil ..."

I have never forgotten those words. They still reverberate in my mind. Whenever I read any report about the struggle for free Tibet, Dalai Lama's words come back to me loud and clear. So when I read the New York Times report China's strange Tibetan silence (reprinted by Hindustan Times, Nov 11, 2012, http://bit.ly/UAVKBe), which talked of the series of self-immolation's that continues unabated since Feb 2009 killing 55 people while the remaining 15 are still grappling with life, I shudder at the silence that prevails in China, in India and of course worldwide. While Tibet burns, the world looks the other way.

Still worse, the report says: Whether it be antipathy or apathy, many Chinese have been unconsciously swayed by government propaganda that describes the self-immolators as "terrorists" even as unrelenting censorship blocks any public airing of their grievances, which include complaints about restrictions on Tibetan Buddhism and educational policies that, in some areas, favour Mandarin over Tibetan. I can understand the Chinese not wanting to talk about it, but what stops the United Nations Security Council from calling for a debate or discussion on the Tibetan uprising? Why can't US President Barack Obama, who got a second term last week, not have the courage to voice concern if not reprimand China for its act of repression? Why can't the European leaders -- British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel raise this grave issue?

Well, we know why the world is quiet. As Dalai Lama had said: "If only Tibet had oil..."

I was reading another damming report in the Time weekly. Captioned: As Tibetans Burn Themselves to Protest Chinese Rule, Communist in Beijing Stress Happiness in Tibet (Time Nov 10, 2012, http://ti.me/VTUkHG). The report began by saying: "Two days before, five Tibetans had self-immolated in three different parts of the high plateau, among them three teenage monks and one young mother from Rebkong (known as Tongren in Chinese). Two other Tibetans burned themselves in Rebkong this week, according to overseas Tibetan groups. 
 
Separately, in Xining, the provincial capital of China‘s western Qinghai province, where many Tibetans live, hundreds of Tibetan students joined together on the evening of Nov. 9 for a candlelight vigil to honor the protesters who, as flames engulfed their bodies, invariably shouted for an end to Chinese repression and the return of the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader who fled into exile in India after a failed uprising against Chinese rule more than five decades ago."

It is intriguing how the supreme sacrifice of one man in a distant land -- Tunisia -- triggers an Arab Spring toppling the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Libya while it continues to threaten the governments of Syria and Jordan. Mohamed Bouaziz had doused himself before setting himself on fire, and the fire had spread so quick and so wide. That was in Dec 2010. And I don't think Bouaziz could have ever imagined the power of self-immolation. But how come, self-immolation by a young monk Tapey, in his mid-twenties, on Feb 27, 2009, in Tibet (http://bit.ly/ifvMLO) goes largely unnoticed outside Tibet's borders.

Within Tibet, Tapey's death had certainly triggered a storm. According to the International Campaign for Tibet 70 people have immolated themselves. This is indicative of the terror and repression that prevails in Tibet. But regardless of the grave human tragedy and continuous violation of human rights, the Chinese propaganda machinery continues to claim (as per the Time report): “The last 10 years was the period when the people in Tibet have gained the most benefits,” we were told by Padma Choling, the chairman of the Tibetan Autonomous Region. The accomplishments of the Communist government in Tibet were examined in voluminous detail. Airports have been built, schooling made free. Complimentary medical checks are being offered for monks and nuns, who can now watch the state-run news on televisions powered by new power lines. Kilometers upon kilometers of new roads have unfurled across the Tibetan moonscape.
 
The government has built greenhouses, shower facilities and garbage dumps for thousands of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries or nunneries with more than 20 clerics. Government health officials have given crucial information to nuns about how women’s bodies work. All Tibetan farmers and herders will be gifted “safe new houses” by 2013, according to Padma Choling. The urban unemployment rate is only 2.69% in the Tibetan Autonomous Region, reported a Han official in charge of the local Organization Department.

Tibetan capital Lhasa, we were instructed, has been voted the happiest city in China four times in a five-year period. “Happiness is dynamic, happiness need to be experienced,” enthused Che Dalha, the Communist Party secretary for Lhasa. “Today’s Lhasa is just like what they sing in the song: The sky in Lhasa is the most blue; the clouds in Lhasa are the most white; the water in Lhasa is the clearest; the air in Lhasa is the freshest; the sunshine in Lhasa is the brightest; and the people in Lhasa are the happiest.”

I bet if Tibet had oil, the United Nations, the World Bank/IMF and the Oil MNCs would have forced the big powers to act. The geo-political situation would have undergone a dramatic change. President Obama would have appealed (and issued a subtle warning) to the Chinese government for maintaining human rights. European governments too would have followed, and peace making countries like Switzerland, Norway and Sweden would have been active. Perhaps there would have been no need for it. The fight for the control of oil would have got Tibet its much desired Independence long ago.

Dalai Lama was so right: "If only Tibet had oil ...."

FDI in retail: Made in the United States

India has buckled to outside pressure by allowing in the multinational retailer — the only beneficiary of this move

For U.S. President Barack Obama there could be nothing more cheering. The ‘underachiever’ now goes to the presidential polls with a lot of confidence — India’s decision to open up FDI in multi-brand retail comes as a shot in the arm for the beleaguered American economy and will obviously boost his poll prospects. 

Mr. Obama certainly knows what is good for the U.S. economy; Prime Minister Manmohan Singh also knows what is in America’s interest. Mr. Obama, for instance, wanted to stop outsourcing to protect U.S. jobs. No amount of persuasion from India changed his mind. Similarly, knowing how important FDI in retail is for him, he had pitched for a new wave of economic reforms. It was surprising to see Mr. Obama telling India what is good for us.

Aided and abetted by TIME magazine and credit rating agencies like Standard&Poor’s, Fitch and Moody’s, India finally buckled under global pressure. What is little known is that India was also under a G-20 obligation to remove all hurdles to the growth of multi-brand retail.

But is FDI in retail really good for India? Will it improve rural infrastructure, reduce wastage of agricultural produce, and enable farmers to get a better price for their crops? While a lot has been said and written about the virtues of big retail, let me make an attempt to answer some of the big claims. 

Agriculture: The Prime Minister has repeatedly projected FDI in retail as a boon for agriculture. Unfortunately, this is not true. Even in the U.S., big retail has not helped farmers — it is federal support that makes agriculture profitable. In its last Farm Bill in 2008, the U.S. made a provision of $307 billion for agriculture for the next five years.

Where is the justification for such massive support if big retail was providing farmers better prices? And let us not forget, despite these subsidies studies have shown that one farmer in Europe quits agriculture every minute.

The second argument is that big retail will squeeze out middleman and therefore provide a better price to farmers. This is again not borne by facts. In the U.S., some studies have shown that the net income of farmers has come down from 70 per cent in the early 20th century to less than four per cent in 2005.

This is because big retail actually brings in a new battery of middlemen — quality controller, standardiser, certification agency, processor, packaging consultants etc. It is these middlemen who walk away with the profits and the farmer is left to survive on the subsidy dole.

Monopolistic power enables these companies to go in for predatory pricing. Empirical studies have shown that consumer prices in supermarkets in Latin America, Africa and Asia have remained higher than the open market by 20 to 30 per cent.

And finally, the argument that multi-brand retail will provide adequate scientific storage and thereby save millions of tonnes of food grains from rotting. I don’t know where in the world big retail has provided backend grain storage facilities?

FDI is already allowed in storage, and no investment has come in. Let it also be known that even the 30-per-cent local sourcing clause for single-brand retail has already been challenged and quietly put in cold storage by the Ministry of Commerce. 

Employment: The Indian retail market is estimated to be around $400 billion with more than 12 million retailers employing 40 million people. Ironically, Wal-Mart’s turnover is also around $420 billion, but it employs only 2.1 million people. If Wal-Mart can achieve the same turnover with hardly a fraction of the workforce employed by the Indian retail sector, how do we expect big retail to create jobs? It is the Indian retail sector which is a much bigger employer, and big retail will only destroy millions of livelihoods

State government’s prerogative: Very cleverly, the Central government has allowed the State governments the final say in allowing FDI in retail. This may to some extent pacify those State governments opposed to big retail. However, the industry is upbeat and knows well that as per international trade norms, member countries have to provide national treatment. Being a signatory to Bilateral Investment promotion and Protection Agreements (BIPAs), India has to provide national treatment to the investors. Agreements with more than 70 countries have already been signed. State governments will, therefore, have to open up for big retail. Industries will use the legal option to force the States to comply.

And more importantly, let us look at how the virus of big retail spreads, even if the promise is to keep it confined to major cities. Recently, a New York Times expose showed how Wal-Mart had captured nearly 50 per cent of Mexico’s retail market in 10 years. What is important here is that as per the NYT disclosure “the Mexican subsidiary of Wal-Mart, which opened 431 stores in 2011, had paid bribes and an internal enquiry into the matter has been suppressed at corporate headquarters in Arkansas”.

In India, we are aware that Wal-Mart alone had spent Rs.52 crore in two years to lobby, as per a disclosure statement made in the U.S. It has certainly paid off. 

(Devinder Sharma is a noted food and agricultural policy analyst).

Source: Made in the United States, The Hindu, Sept 15, 2012

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3897906.ece