chemical fertilisers in our water

8/3/2019 Chemical Fertilisers in Our Water

1/12

An ana lys is of nitra tes in the groundwater in Punjab

chemica lfertilisers

in ourwater

chemica lfertilisers

in ourwater


2/12

Greenpeace is a g loba l campa ign ingorganisation that acts to chan ge at t itudes

and behaviour, to protec t and conserve theenvironment and to promote p ea ce by:

to address thenumber one threat fac ing our p lanet: c li matechange .

by cha ll eng ing wastefu l anddestructive fish ing , and creating a g loba l network ofmarine reserves .

and

the anim a

l,

plants and peop

le that depend on them

.

by reduc ingdependence on fin ite resources and c a ll ing for thee li m ination of a ll nuc lear weapons .

w ith safer a lternatives tohazardous chem ic a ls in today's produc ts andmanufacturing .

by encourag ingsoc ia lly and eco log ica lly respons ib le farm ingpract ices .

Greenpeace ex ists because th is frag il eearth deserves a vo ic e . I t ne eds so lutions .It needs chang e . It needs ac tion.Greenpeace's goa lis to ensure the ab il ityof the e arth to nurture li fe in a ll its d iversity.A t Greenpeac e , we be li eve in the pow er ofthe many. The future of the env ironmentrests w ith the m illions of pe op le around thew orld who share our be li efs . Toge ther wecan t ack le environmenta l problems and

promote so lutions.

Cata lys ing an ene rgy revo lution

Defend ing our oce ans

Protecting the world's rem a in ing anc ient forests

Work ing for d isarmament and peace

Crea ting a tox ic free future

Supporting susta inab le agricu lture

We campa ign for creating a parad igm sh ift inagricu ltura l production- to transform howpo li tic ians ,industry, m ed ia and the pub li c seeagricu lture and to rep lace the industr ia l agricu ltureof corporate contro l, monoculture , genetica llyeng ineered crops , and synthetic agrochem ica linputs w ith susta inab le farm ing that has lo wexterna linputs, enhanc es agro-d ivers ity , protectsb iod ivers ity and he lps meet loca l food andemp loyment needs .

Contents

Report produced by Greenpeace Ind ia Soc iety,November 2009

LEAD AUTHOR

RESEARCH SUPPORT

DESIGN AND LAYOUTLigh thouse Creative s

PR INT IN GPrint ExpressionsPrinted on 100% recyc led paper

CONTACT

COVER IMAGEChild drinks water from the water pump near his housein Faridk ot, Punjab . Babies and infan ts living aroundag ricu ltura l areas who are fed water from we lls andpumps are the most vu lnerable to health risk s fromnitra tes like blue baby syndrome and cancer.

IMAGE CREDITPreethi Herman

Dr. Reyes TiradoGreenpeace R esearch Laboratories

Un iversity of Ex eterUn ited K ingdom

Gop i KrishnaSusta ina b le Agricu lture Campa ignerGreenpeace

go pi.

krishna@greenpeace.

orgww w.greenpeace .org

Introduction 2

The study - process and find ings 3

F ind ings 4

Po ten tial he alth impact of drink ing 6water contam ina ted with nitra tes

Appendix 9

This is Greenpeace


3/12

A chemicalintensive model of agriculturewas introduced in India in the 1960s aspart ofthe Green Revolution . Th is modelan d the supporting government policies ,such as the chem icalfertiliser subsidypolicy, provoked ind iscriminate use ofchem icals. Th is has not on ly led todeter ioration ofthe environment bu t alsodegraded and contaminated the natura lresources base , an d is now posing athrea tto human hea lth.

A recent Greenpeace ResearchLaboratories investigation on the effects ofsynthetic nitrogen fertiliser on groundwater

pollution in intensive agricu lture areas inthree districts of Punjab shows tha t

Th is nitra te pollutionis clear ly linked w ith the usage of synthe ticnitrogen fertilisers as

N itra te pollution in dr ink ing water can haveserious hea lth impact on humans,especia lly for babies and ch ildren. Th emo st sign ifican t poten tial he alth effects ofdr ink ing water contamina ted w ith nitra teare the blue-baby syndrome(methemoglob ine mia) and cancer.

Iron ica lly,this intens ive farm ing practice isalso notliving up to its promise ofsustained increase in food production . Asa consequence ,food production is now

affected by d im inish ing returns and fallingdividends in agricu lture intensive areas.App lication of nitrogen fertiliserscomprom ise s future food production bydegrading soilfertili ty, and compromise sthe health ofthe farmers and the ir famili esby polluting the drink ing water theydepend on. The situation is alarm ing asthe intensive model offarm ing has alreadydep leted the groundwater. Th is regionmigh t be suffer ing from widespread nitra tepollution on its diminish ing sources ofdr ink ing water.

There is an urgent need to sh iftto an eco-frien d ly agricu ltura l model, an d iden tify

20percent of a ll samp led we lls have nitrateleve ls above the sa fety limit of 50 mg o f

-nitrate per litre (50mg/L NO for drink ing3water estab lished b y the World Hea lthOrganisation (WH O).

higher theapp lication of nitrogen (urea)in thead joining fie ld , the higher the n itratepo llut ion found in the drink ing water fromthe same farm .

Introduction

agro-eco log ical practices tha t ensurefuture food security.Itis necessary now toacknow ledge the patt ern ofthe hazardstha tis becom ing a trend , and ad dressthem with research, political w ill , re levantpolicy and practices .

Image: Fertili ser industry in Bhatind a , Pu njab .Greenpeac es recorded data on agronomic practicesshows an average app li cat ion rate of 322 kg N perhectare in 2008-09 in the three d ist ricts of Bhatind a ,Ludhiana and Muktsar. It is higher than the averagesreported by the Fertili ser Assoc iat ion of Ind ia forPu njab (210 kg N per hectare for 2006-07)

2

GREENPEA CE / PREETHI HERMAN

Image: A lgae b loom covers the ent ire pond mak ingthe water look green. The b loo m is caused by nitrogenloads in the environment . In urban area s it isassoc iated w ith sewage and in agriculture areas ,with livestock sources and nitrogen fer tili se r inputs .


4/12

Th is stud y is an initial GreenpeaceResearch Laboratories investigation intothe effects of synthe tic nitrogen fertiliseron groundwater pollution in intensiveagricu lture areas in Punjab . We tes ted thelev el of nitra te in dr ink ing water fromgroundwa ter artes ian wells located w ithinfarms and surrounde d by crops (mostlyrice and whea t rotations).

N itra te pollution in groundwater isassociated w ith nitrogen loads in theenvironment.In urban areas ,itisassociated w ith sewage and in agricu ltureareas , with live stock sources and n itrogenfertiliser inp uts.

We tes ted groundwater fromartes ian wells located in farms awayfrom other poten tial sources ofnitra te contam ina tion (anima ls,human sewage),in order to focus onthe impact offertiliser app lication .We sampled farms located in threedistricts in Punjab where fertiliserconsumption is highest. D istricts:

, 18 farms samp led ,average well depth 160 feet.

, 18 farms sampled ,average well depth 51 feet.

, 14 farms samp led ,average well depth 157 feet.

F ifty groundwater wells weresampled in farms (with samplesdu p licated for higher accuracy)and 50 farmers were interv iewed fordata recording on agronom icpractices . When sampling

groundwater

,

we letthe wa

ter ou

tle

t(i.e ., a hand or electric pump) run for

approx ima te ly three minu tes beforeco llecting the samp le in a ster ileplas tic bott le . Measurements of pHand e lectric conductivity (E C ) weretaken on site atthe time of sampling(Hanna Ins truments, UK).

Sampli ng and test ingmethodology

- Ludhiana

- Muktsar

- Bhatinda

F

F

The study - process and find ings

- N itra te concentra tion (mg/L NO )in3water samples was tes tedcolorimetrically w ith thechromotrop ic acid metho d (Metho d10020, Tes t N Tube Vials, HachLange , UK), us ing a portab lespectrophotom eter (DR2400, HachLange , UK). The va lue given for eachsamp le is the average oftes ting twoor three sub-samples for improvedaccuracy. Samp les were keptin acoo l box after collection and weretested with a portab le HatchSpectrophotom eter w ithin ten hoursma ximum on the same day.

A llthe water tes ted is used fordr ink ing by farmers and famili es andfarm workers.

As contro l points, we samp led twowells tha t are also monitored by theCentra l Groundwater ControlBoard (CGW B). These wells arelocated w ithin the vill ages, with high

pollution probably com ing fromconcentra tion of human sewage andcatt le . The comparab le va lue s fromour tes ts and from the reportedva lues by CG WB pointto theagreement between ourme thodolog ies.

F

F

F

3

Image: A farmer washes rad ish from his farm in thewater pumped from the we ll . A Greenpeaceinvestiga tion shows that 22 percent o f all samp ledwells have nitrate levels above the safet y lim it of

-50mg/L NO for drink ing water estab lished by the3World Hea lth Organisat ion (WHO).

Tab le 1. Resu lts of contro l tests in two we lls monitored by the Centra l Groundwater Control Board and samp ledby our team in 2009.(CGWB va lues provided by the off ice of the D irector of C G W B in Chand igarh, March 2009)

D istrict, B lock , Vill age

Muktsar, Muktsar, Mu ktsar

Muktsar, G idderbaha , Doda

CGWB we ll ID

CG WB 44J-3C1

CG WB 44J-3C8

We ll

location

In vill age

In vill age

N itrate

(mg/L-N O )3

110.7

601.6

Reported CGW B

Nitrate value in

same well

175

578


5/12

Dr ink ing water extracted from artes ianwells in agricu ltura l areas Punjab showshigh pollution with nitra tes , an d thispollution corre lates w ith intens ive farm ingprac tices where nitrogen fertilisers areapplied in excess (F igures 1 and 2).

Ten of 50 samp led wells,i.e ., 20 percent ofall sampled we lls, have nitra te leve ls

-above the safety limit of 50 mg/L NO for3dr ink ing water estab lished by the WorldHealth Organisation (WHO )(see Table A1in Append ix and F igure 1).

Th e three samp led d istricts show

groundwa ter we lls tha t are high ly pollutedwith nitra tes , and 44 percent ofthefarm ing vill ages sampled (8 of 18 vill ages),have wells with pollution higher tha n thesafety limitfor drink ing water.

F ind ings

Th is nitra te pollution is c lear ly linked w ithexcess use of synthe tic nitrogen fertilisers(F igure 2). F igure 2 shows the correlationbetween application of nitrogen in the farm(mo stly urea) an d the nitra te pollutionfound in the groundwater well on the samefarm:

The data we recorded on agronom icprac tices show tha t nitrogen application is

the higher the ap p lication ofnitrogen (urea), the higher the n itratepo llut ion found in the drink ing water fromthe same farm .

4

F igure 1. N itrate concentration in each b locks (or tehsils)in Punjab where 50 groundwater we lls were samp ledin r ice and wheat farms. We samp led farms located in three d ist rict s, Bhatind a , Ludh iana and Muktsar,covering nine b locks a nd 18 vill ages.

100 .0

90 .0

80 .0

70 .0

60 .0

50 .0

40 .0

30 .0

20 .0

10 .0

0.0

d istr ict Bhatind a d istr ict Ludhian a d istr ict MuktsarBh a

tind a Ph ul Jagraon Ludh ian a Payal Ra iko

tMa lou

tG idderbaha Mu k

tsa r

limitfor relative lypo lluted water

WHO safety limitfor drink ing water

A ll three d ist ricts samp le d w ith in the state of Punjabhave farm we lls po lluted w ith nit rates from fert ili sers

higher tha n the a verages reported by theFertiliser Association ofInd ia for Punjab(210 kg N per hec tare for 2006-07), whilethe data we recorded from 50 farmerinterv iews show an average ap plicationra te of .The nutrien t demand ofthe crops is on lyabout 100 Kg N per hectare , and scien tificstudies show tha tthe best option is to addthis nitrogen through organic fertilisers(legumes , manure, etc .)to ensure soilfertili ty (Mader et al., 2002).

The nitra te pollution found in this stud y isremarkab ly high give n thatthe

groundwa ter in this area is quite deep,

an ditis genera lly assumed tha t deepgroundwa ter would be cleaner and lesspolluted than sha llow water. Th isrepresents a worrisome fact, give n theserious status of groundwa ter dep letion inthis region .In add ition to depleted

322 kg N per hectare in 2008-09

groundwa ter linked to intensiveagricu lture ,the region migh t be suffer ingfrom w idespread nitra te pollution in itsdiminish ing sources o f dr ink ing water.

Excess application of nitrogen fertilisersno t on ly compromises future foo dproduc tion by degrad ing soilfertili ty (asrecently high ligh ted in our reportSubsid ising Food Crisis (Ro y et al., 2009)),

bu t also compromises the hea lth ofthefarmers and the ir famili es by polluting thedr ink ing water they depend on.


6/12

5

F igure 2. Re lat ionsh ip between n itrogen app licat ion rate in a farm and n itrogen concentration in thegroundwater we llin the same farm. Th is ana lys is inc lude the data po ints that fa ll w ith in the med ian rangeof we ll depth (50-150 m), to exc lude extreme samp les in both ends .

250 300 350 400 450

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

+

+-

-

Urea app li c ation rate (N/ha)

H igher urea app li c ation resu lts in h igher n itrate po ll ut ion

2R = 0 .4002

Image: A farmer carrying a sack of chemica lfer tili ser to the field in Bhatind a , Pu njab . App licat ion of nitrogenfert ili sers compromise s future food production by degrad ing soilfer tili ty; and comprom ises the hea lth of th efarmers and the ir fam ili es by pollut ing the drink ing water they depend on .


7/12

N itra te pollution in dr ink ing water inagriculture areas come ma inly from

nitrogen fertilisers applied to farm soils(Galloway et al., 2003).

A large part ofthe nitrogen applied to so ilsis no ttaken up by the plan t and ends up inthe soil(Vitousek et al., 2009),from whereit moves to the atmosphere and to waterbodies (groundwa ter,lakes, river, an dcoastal areas) where it co ntamina tesdr ink ing water and the environment(Galloway et al., 2003).

The most sign ifican t poten tial he altheffects of dr ink ing water contaminated

w ith nitra te are b lue-baby syndrome(me themog lobine mia) and cancer.

Babies and infants living aroundagricu ltura l areas and who are fed waterfrom wells are the most vu lnerable tohe alth r isks from nitra tes . Add ition a lly,anyone drink ing from a contaminated wellor eating vegetab les w ith high lev els ofnitra te could be vulnerable to the lon gterm effects of nitra tes ,like various typesof cancer (Ward et al., 2005).

The greates t risk of nitra te poisoning(me themog lobine mia) occurs in infan ts fedw ith we ll water contam ina ted with nitra tes,and affects particu lar ly bab ies who arefour months old or younger (Greer et al.,2005).

B lue-baby syndrome (or methemoglob in-em ia) occurs when the haemoglob in in theb loo d loses its capacity to carry oxyge n,and this can ultima te ly cause asphyxiaand death. Th is occurs because n itrites

(resulting

from

the reduc

tion o

fthe ni

tra

tein the anaerobic conditions ofthe

d iges tive tract) b lock haemoglob in in theb loo d (Greer et al., 2005).

B lue-baby syndrome can provokecyanosis, headache , stupor,fatigu e ,tachycardia , coma , convulsions, asphyxiaand ultimately death (Ca margo andA lonso , 2006, Greer et al., 2005).

S ince 1945, more than 3,000 cases ofb lue-baby syndrome have be en reportedworldw ide , most of which were associated

w ith pr iva

te wells in farm ing areas w i

thhigh nitra te concentra tions (concentra tions

-> 50 mg/l NO ). Some health profess ion a ls3believe tha tthe blue-baby syndrome is

B lue-baby syndrome

Potentia l hea lth impact of drinkingwater contaminated w ith nitrates

often under- or m isd iagnosed (Townsendet al., 2003).

Dr ink ing water contamina ted w ith nitra tesor eating food similar ly affected has apoten tial ro le in deve loping cancers ofthediges tive tract, and has a lso beenassociated with other types of cancer(non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and b ladderand ovarian cancers)(Townsend et al.,2003, Ward et al., 2005).

Th e link between nitra tes and cancer

comes from the contribution of nitra tes tothe bacter ialforma tion of N-n itrosocompounds (like nitrosam ine s)in thediges tive tract, particular ly in the stomach.These nitrosam ines are among the mostpoten t ofthe known carc inogens inmammals (Cam argo and A lonso , 2006,Ward et al., 2005).

Some studies have shown thatlong-termconsumption of dr ink ing water w ith nitra teconcen tra tions even be low the maximum

-safety leve l of 50 mg/l N O may stimu late3the formation ofthese nitra te-related

carcinogens (nitrosam ine s)in the d iges tivesystem (Ward et al., 2005).

For example ,in Iowa (USA),the lev e ls ofnitra te in dr ink ing water be low therecommended WH O concentra tionstandard have been linked w ith anincreased risk of bladder and ovariancancers in women drink ing water frommunicipal and priva te farm wells (Weyer etal., 2001).

A recent study in Taiwan showed tha tdr ink ing water w ith high leve ls of nitra tes

was associated with increased risk ofcancer ofthe bladder (Chiu and Tsa i,2007).

Cancer

6

Image: This tra in that trave ls through Bha tinda toB ikaner, Ra jastan is a lso known as the cancer tra in .It routine ly carries cancer patients from Bhatinda whotrave l to B ikaner for treatme nt at the governme nt'sre g ion a l cancer center.


8/12

Image: A chil d washes her hands in the canal that provides ground water to the radish fie lds in Punjab . Bab iesand infants living around agricultural areas who are fed water from we lls and pumps are the most vulnerab le tohe alth risk s from nitrates.

Acknow ledgements:We wou ld like to thank the 50 farmerswho a llowe d us to carry out theinvestigation tests in the ir fie lds and inthe proces s taught us a lot about farmingin the Ma lwa reg ion of Pun jab .

7


9/12

8

As synthetic chemica lfert il iser

usage, resu lting in threat to our

food security and sa fety of drink ing

water, has increased because of

government subsid ies to them ,

Greenpeac e demands that

1. The G overnment need s to

create an a lternate subs idy system

that promotes e co log ica lfarm ing

and use of organic so il

amendments.

2. The G overnment need s to shift

th e irrationa l subsidy po li cy for

synthetic fert il isers to susta inab le

eco log ica l practices in agricu lture .

3. Sc ientific rese arch needs to

re focus on eco log ica l a lternatives,

to identify agro-ec o log ica l practices

that ensure c lean drink ing water

and future food security under a

chang ing c limate .


10/12

D istr ict

Bha tind aBha tind a

Bha tind a

Bha tind a

Bha tind a

Bha tind a

Bha tind a

Bha tind a

Bha tind a

Bha tind a

Bha tind a

Bha tind a

Bha tind aBha tind a

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

LudhianaLudhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Ludhiana

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

MuktsarMuktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

Muktsar

B lock or

Tehs il

BhatindaBhatinda

Bhatinda

Bhatinda

Bhatinda

Bhatinda

Bhatinda

Bhatinda

Bhatinda

Bhatinda

Phul

Phul

PhulPhul

Jagraon

Jagraon

Jagraon

Ludhian a

Ludhian a

Ludhian a

Ludhian a

Ludhian a

Ludhian a

Ludhian a

Ludhian aLudhian a

Ludhian a

Ludhian a

Ludhian a

Payal

Payal

Ra iko t

G idderbaha

G idderbaha

G idderbaha

Malou t

Malou t

Malou t

Malou t

Malou t

Mu ktsar

Mu ktsar

Mu ktsar

Mu ktsar

Mu ktsar

Mu ktsar

Mu ktsar

Mu ktsar

Mu ktsar

Mu ktsar

Vil lage

Pathra laPathra la

Pathra la

Raikekalam

Raikekalam

Raikekalam

Raikekalam

Raikekalam

Raikekalam

Raikekalam

Bhairupa

Bhairupa

DialpuraDialpura

Manuke

Manuke

Manuke

Bha iro Munna

Bha iro Munna

Bha iro Munna

Bha iro Munna

Bha iro Munna

Bhu tahari

Bhu tahari

Bhu tahariBhu tahari

Bhu tahari

Bhu tt a

Bhu tt a

Siahar

Siahar

Jhoorda

Bha laina

Doda

Doda

Abul Khurana

Abul KhuranaKutianwali/Sherawa li

Lamb i

Lamb i

Muktsa r

Muktsa r

Sakhanwali

Sangrana

Seerwa li

Seerwa li

Seerwa li

Vangal

Vangal

Vangal

Sam p le

ID

BH12BH13

BH14

BH5

BH6

BH7

BH8

BH9

BH10

BH11

BH1

BH2

BH3BH4

LU1

LU2

LU3

LU6

LU7

LU8

LU9

LU11

LU12

LU13

LU14LU15

LU18

LU19

LU20

LU16

LU17

LU4

MU8

MU4

MU5

MU9

MU10

MU14

MU11

MU12

MU2

MU3

MU21

MU22

MU15

MU16

MU17

MU18

MU19

MU20

pH

7.37.1

7.2

7.2

7.4

7.4

7.5

7.1

7.3

7.9

7.3

7.7

7.67.1

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.3

7.4

7.2

7.3

7.0

7.9

7.0

7.67.3

6.9

7.1

6.9

7.3

6.9

7.2

7.6

6.9

7.5

7.1

7.57.4

6.9

7.7

7.3

7.5

6.9

7.3

7.2

7.0

7.0

7.1

7.2

7.4

EC m S

3.66.3

3.6

2.2

2.2

2.4

0.7

1.7

1.2

1.7

1.5

1.3

1.21.8

1.0

1.1

1.3

1.0

0.9

0.8

1.0

0.8

0.3

0.7

0.30.5

0.7

1.0

1.1

0.7

0.7

1.2

2.0

3.3

3.2

1.4

1.4

2.4

1.6

2.3

1.3

1.8

3.8

2.6

1.8

1.5

4.2

6.5

5.2

1.6

Depth

of we ll

(m)

8085

40

110

140

100

50

90

105

45

300

450

350250

300

80

90

100

150

150

100

100

305

100

270180

160

65

70

200

115

350

50

80

50

60

4040

80

25

90

20

45

35

50

25

50

50

50

70

N it rogen

app li cation

(N/ha)

276430

272

272

385

398

272

272

385

340

272

302

306272

315

335

385

263

320

335

335

331

372

341

306306

284

306

249

311

306

442

306

272

335

385

261

346

431

374

278

278

335

324

267

312

306

335

N itrate

(m g/-L N O )3

45 .6

27 .0

5.0

6.9

25 .9

20 .5

0.5

12 .57.6

15 .2

19 .1

21 .5

28 .1

7.6

13 .7

0.7

12 .3

3.215 .4

21 .0

27 .0

7.8

9.5

27 .9

20 .9

27 .6

9.8

12 .8

22 .2

23 .2

7.4

27 .1

27 .5

40 .8

29 .1

38 .0

21 .6

29 .9

35 .5

29 .8

64 .3

55 .1

53 .2

61 .0

59 .6

53 .0

52 .0

50 .6

72 .8

94 .3

APPENDIXTab le A1 . Resu lts for every farm and water we ll sampled in Punjab in 2009. In red are va lues that are above the W HO sa fet ylim it for drink ing water o f 50 mg/L.

9


11/12

RE F ERENCES

Camargo , J. A. and A lonso , A . 2006.Ecolog ica l and toxico log ica l effects ofinorgan ic nitrogen pollut ion in aquaticecosystems: A glob al assessment .En vironment Internation a l 32 : 831.

Chiu, H . F. and Tsa i, S. S. 2007. N itrate inDr ink ing Water and R isk of Death fromB ladder Canc er: An Eco log ical Case-Control Study in Taiwan . Journa l ofTox icology and Environmenta l Hea lth , PartA 70 : 1000-1004.

G a lloway, J . N ., Aber, J. D ., Er isman, J . W.,Se itz inger, S. P., Howarth , R. W., C ow ling ,E . B . and Cosby, B . J . 2003. The N itrogenCascade. B ioS c ience 53: 341-356.

Greer, F. R., Shannon, M ., Comm it tee onNutrition and Committee on Environmenta lHealth 2005. In fant methemoglob ine m ia:the role of d ietary nitrate in food and water.Ped iat rics 116: 784-786.

Mder, P., F liebach, A ., Dubo is, D., Gunst,L., Fried , P. and N igg li, U . 2002. So ilFertili ty and B iod iversity in OrganicFarm ing . Sc ience 296: 1694-1697 .

Ro y, B . C ., Chattopadhyay, G . N . andTirado , R . 2009. Subsid ising Food Crisis:Synthet ic Fertili sers Lead To Poor Soil andLess Food . Greenpeac e Ind ia .http://www.greenpeace .org/ind ia/press/reports/subsid ising -food-crisis.

Townsend , A . R., Howarth, R. W., Bazzaz,F. A ., Booth, M. S., C leve land , C . C .,Co lli ng e , S. K ., Dobson , A . P., Epste in, P.R., Holl and , E . A . and Keeney, D . R. 2003.Human health effects of a chang ing glob a lnitrogen cyc le . Frontiers in Eco logy andthe Environment 1: 240-246.

Vitousek, P. M ., Nay lor, R., Crews, T.,David , M . B ., Dr inkwater, L. E ., Ho lland , E .,

Johnes, P. J ., Katzenberger, J ., Martine lli ,L. A . and Matson , P. A . 2009. Nutrientimbalances in agricultura l deve lopment .Science 324: 1519.

Ward , M . H ., deKok , T. M. and Leva llois, P.2005. Workgroup report: drink ing-waternitrate and hea lth-recent find ings andresearch needs. En vironmenta l Hea lthPerspect ives 113: 1607-1614.

Weyer, P. J., Cerhan, J. R ., Kross, B . C .,Ha llberg , G . R ., Kantamnen i, J ., Breuer, G .,Jones, M . P., Zheng , W. and Lynch, C . F.2001. Mu nic ipa l Dr ink ing Water N itrateLevel and Canc er R isk in O lder Women:The Iowa Women's Hea lth Study.

Ep idem io logy 12:

327-338.

10

Image: Intensive mode l offarm ing has already dep leted the groundwater and th is reg ion in Punjab might besu ffer ing from w idespread nitrate pollut ion on its dim inish ing sources o f dr ink ing water. There is an urgent needto shift to an eco-friend ly agricultural model, and identify agro-ecolog ica l practices that ensure future food security.


12/12

Greenpeace is a glob al organisa tion that uses non-v io lent direct action to tack le the

most cruc ia l threats to our p lanet's biod iversity and env ironment. Greenpeace is a

non-profit organisa tion , present in 40 countries across Europe , The Americas , As ia

and the Pac ific.

I t speaks for 2.8 m illion supporters worldw ide , an d ins p ires many m illions more to

take action every day. To ma int a in its independence , Greenpeace does not accept

donation s from governments or corporat ions but relies on contribu tion s fro m

ind ividu a l supporters and foundat ion grants.

Greenpeace has been campa ign ing aga inst environmental degradation since 1971

when a sma ll boat of vo lunteers and journalists sa iled into Amchitk a , an area north of

Alaska, where the USGovernment was conduct ing underground nuc lear tests.Th is

tradition of 'bearing w itness' in a non-v iolent manner continues today, and ships are

an important part of a llits campa ign work.

Greenpeace India Soc iet y

#60, We llington Street, Richmond Town,

Benga luru 560025, India .

t +91 80 41154861

ww w.greenpeaceind ia .org

chemical fertilisers in our water

Documents