It should also withdraw its "Nature Fresh" advertisements and render an apology for insulting Indian women and workers who use their hands to work.The company should allow representatives of the National Alliance for Women's Food Rights and ordinary women to investigate the working of its processing mills.

Shiva stated that in one of the company's "Nature Fresh" ads 37 checks are are referred to be imposed on younger women. In another ads, a dig is made at an older women's intelligence. The derogatory references to women's morals and intelligence is unethical and insult to womenhood.

She said that while our mothers and small chakkis provide safe, fresh flour, Cargill advertises its flour as "completely untouched by hand" and thereby projecting human hands and human labour as a contaminant that needs to be removed.

She said that this is not a recipe for safety, it is a recipe for unemployment and destruction of livelihoods. The Cargill's entry into the Indian wheat market is a death sentence to all the small scale flour processing mills located in villages and cities all over India.If small chakkis close down it would be difficult to get truly fresh flour, she said.

Vandana Shiva further stated that the stated processing of flour by Cargill only depletes the nutritive value of food. Flour which undergoes mechanical processing is merely the finely ground starchy component of the wheat grain, depleted of its minerals, fibre, B-vitamins, protien and fat.

Moreover, flour that is packed in plastic with preservatives to increase its shelf life cannot naturally be fresh. The consumer, therefore, has a right to know about the claims of Cargill that it is catering "fresh" flour.Shiva alleged that Cargill in the name of contract farming is exploiting Indian farmers. Citing examples she said that John Hamilton, managing director of Cargill Seeds India Pvt Ltd, being an active promoter of Indian Maize Development Association (IMDA) took the lead in organising and interacting with like minded people to impress the need for a common platform for promoting maize development in Karnataka in 1992. After the launch of this project, it has become clear that the Cargill's claim of promising higher incomes to farmers is nothing but a hoax.

Cargill's talk of higher farm income is a clever way to talk about capital intensification of agriculture and higher expenditure at farm level. This benefits Cargill and not the farmers, she said.

In fact, the farmer's income is actually lowered first because he spends more on costs of production and second because as more and more farmers produce the same crop through Cargill promotion, the prices of the commodity sags.

The high input costs is due to the fact that `contract farming' according to Cargill means that the farmer not only have to buy Cargill seeds or Cargill-specified seeds, but also use Cargill phosphates and other fertilisers specified by the company, have Cargill inspectors grade the produce and finally sell to Cargill at a determined price.

The cost of the inputs specified by Cargill are much higher than those produced by domestic companies.She said that Karnataka farmers' experience with multinational hybrid seeds of sorghum and sunflowers also show higher input costs and low returns to farmers, Cargill has also successfully lobbied with the Punjab Agri Export Corporation Ltd to become the first multinational in India to directly procure wheat and rice from farmers in Punjab.

It plans to enter into contract farming with farmers selected from farmer's profiles prepared by the government. In this context, Shiva said that FCI should continue to procure foodgrains directly from farmers in Punjab and not withdraw as being contemplated.Shiva also alleged that Cargill was also responsible from reducing foreign exchange of the country. In summer 1996, as a result of drought and disease, the US wheat crop was destroyed and a large demand for wheat was placed on the market.

India had a bumper crop at this time. Cargill and Continental bought wheat at $60 to $100 per tonne from India and sold it at $230 to $240 per tonne in the global market. Thus they made a net $130 to $170 profit per tonne while India lost $100 million in exports as it was forced to trade through the grain merchants.