📌 Biotech policy : task force report

(from the archives)

Suman Sahai comments on the recently released report of Task Force on Biotechnology policy.

The Centre’s Department of Agriculture & Cooperation had appointed a Task Force in May 2003 to examine Agbiotechnology and make recommendations for its implementation. The body headed by Dr. M S Swaminathan was given the following mandate: to formulate a long-term policy on applications of biotechnology in agriculture; make suggestions for harmonizing decision making; recommend a role for the Agriculture Ministry and generate awareness.

Released earlier this year, the importance of the recommendations of the Task Force lies in the fact that this is the first effort to formulate a policy. Civil society organizations have been frustrated in the past by the refusal of the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) to engage in any dialogue on public concerns or be receptive to any suggestions for improving a clearly unsatisfactory system. The former head of DBT is famously on record for doggedly insisting that India did not need a biotechnology policy when all around her, from the most vocal protagonists to the most determined opponents, were demanding a national policy.

The task force process itself was somewhat participatory. NGOs, industry, academics and other stakeholders were consulted. The time frame was 3 months which was a limitation. The consultations were not as wide as I have seen for some other processes. The terms of reference of the task force did not include debate on the GM controversy itself, but rather how to improve the efficiency of Agbiotech. That was the limited mandate of the body.

One of the report’s basic recommendations is that the national policy should seek the ‘economic well-being of farm families, food security of the nation, health security of the consumer, protection of the environment and the security of our national and international trade’. If the recommendations of this Task Force are upheld, no policy implementation can deviate from these goals.

The report highlights the need to link transgenic research in India to the international market. Transgenic research should not be done on crops that we sell in the international market, like soybean, Basmati rice and Darjeeling tea. Readers will recall the hare brained schemes of the DBT to promote Bt Basmati and introduce the beta-carotene construct of Golden Rice into Basmati rice. Nobody seemed to be thinking that we are exporters of Basmati (and other) rice as well as soybean (to special niche markets) and that our major trading partners are all rejecting GM foods. So who would buy our Bt Basmati or our GM Soya?

The report is critical of the prevailing gung-ho climate when any proposal for research on a GM crop, however nonsensical the goal, is likely to get sanctioned, often at the cost of conventional research which is more likely to yield results of relevance. It recommends that all alternatives to GM technology should be examined and the GM route used only when other options are not available. There is an explicit injunction against using negative GM traits like herbicide tolerance that can reduce employment (by taking away the opportunity to earn wages by weeding) and impinge on rural livelihoods (by destroying vegetation that is used as nutritious leafy greens or fodder to support livestock).

The report says that our policy on transgenics should be sensitive to biodiversity conservation and the socio-economic context of our composite agrarian system. In other words, small farmer interests have to be protected. In recommending the breeding of both varieties and hybrids and supporting apomixis (asexual reproduction through seeds) as a strategy, the recommendation is clearly in favour of the farmers’ right to save seed from previous harvests.

The recommendation that Centres of Origin and diversity like the Jeypore tract for rice must be protected, is an important one. However the proposed mechanism for earmarking GM and non-GM zones does not appear to be feasible. The task force also did not look the implications of non-GM food preferences developing in the Indian domestic market in the same way that it has developed in the export markers. As a result it ends up advocating a policy of developing non-GM crops for export, but permitting GM crops for domestic consumers. If a country like India would do this, the cost of segregation would be high and in my opinion, segregation of GM and non-GM is practically impossible in India.

For example, if the cultivation of GM rice is permitted in certain areas but not in the diversity rich areas of Orissa, Jharkhand and Chattisgarh, there is no way of preventing GM rice landing up there. Foreign genes in that case are bound to move to wild relatives of rice in its centre of origin. We have seen the speed with which the illegal Bt cotton originally put out by Navbharat seed company has spread to almost all cotton growing areas, despite the fact that its planting is illegal. Similarly, contamination of native corn in Mexico has taken place inspite of the ban on the cultivation of GM corn in the country. Zoning or segregation is unlikely to work. The only way of protecting native germplasm from foreign genes with likely negative impacts is to disallow the GM version of that particular crop.

I have a disagreement on the edible vaccine strategy that forms part of the report. I do not believe India should invest in edible vaccines since it will be impossible to keep vaccine bearing fruit separate from ordinary fruits. Mixture with the food chain is inevitable since one bunch of bananas looks like another. It would be even harder to segregate grains. In the US, Starlink corn, which was not allowed as food but only animal feed, was found mixed up with food corn. In the Prodigene case in the US, a GM corn carrying pig vaccine was found mixed up with soybean for human use, showing segregation is not possible even in the highly regulated conditions of US agriculture. India should have a strict policy of allowing the expression of pharmaceutical molecules like vaccines only in non-edible plants.

With respect to regulation, the report has suggested much needed technical competence and transparency. I would have liked to see a greater role for civil society, as is the case in the Philippines and other ASEAN nations. The structure of the regulatory authority would benefit from greater autonomy, demonstrable competence and independence to inspire confidence. The authority should be able to not just assess Biosafety, environmental and long term ecological impact but also other aspects like social and economic impacts, particularly the impact on small farmers, of the introduction of a particular GM crop.

The Task Force report appears to be in favour of biotechnology because many submissions made by formal bodies and experts were overwhelmingly pro biotech.

This article appeared in India Together on 01 Sept 2004 -https://indiatogether.org/btechrept-agriculture/ 

📌 Challenging broad spectrum patents!

(from the archives)

The European Patent Office at Munich recently ran into opposition to a broad spectrum patent granted on all GM soyabean varieties to a Monsanto owned company.

On 5th May, an international group of civil society organisations in Munich, Germany challenged a patent granted to Agracetus (now a Monsanto company). The patent is for a particle bombardment (biolistic) method of transforming soybeans and importantly it was granted to cover all soybean varieties by the European Patent Office. This is a very broad spectrum patent awarded on all existing GM soybean varieties (and all other plants using the same GM technology used by the soyabean work). Greenpeace-Germany is coordinating this challenge.

Dr. Suman Sahai, president of the Delhi based non-government organization Gene Campaign was invited to Munich to depose as an expert to challenge the soybean patent before the Opposition Bench. The bench is a group of experts from the European Patent Office who sit to hear oppositions to a patent and decide on it. Others in the opposition coalition were Greenpeace Germany and civil society organizations from Canada, Germany as well as a scientific community member from China.

Interestingly, joining cause in opposition to this patent were the corporations Syngenta and De Kalb in Munich. Syngenta and De Kalb are in opposition because such a broad patent prevents them from entering the market with soyabean varieties of their own. They are obviously reluctant to accept that Monsanto will hold a monopoly on all GM soy varieties. Not surprisingly, before acquiring Agracetus Monsanto had opposed this patent. What is surprising though is the soy patent has been upheld in the EU which has so far had more liberal patent laws and greater reservations about plant patents. The grant seems to indicate an apparent shift in official EU policy. Ironically, a similar broad spectrum patent held by Agracetus on all GM cotton varieties, was struck down in the US.

A public meeting was organized by Greenpeace-Germany on May 6, to explain the negative consequences of such sweeping patents on the researchers and farmers of developing countries. Dr. Sahai said it is important to bring the attention of the west to the grave implications of such patent mediated monopolies on the food and livelihood security of developing countries since access to new technologies will be denied. In her deposition before the European Patent Office in Munich, Germany, Dr. Sahai argued for the canceling of the patent granted to Agracetus for transforming soybeans, covering all soybean varieties.

The philosophy and rationale of the patent system, which was to balance public and private interest. Now, with broad patents, monopolies are sought to be established in a way that private interest outstrips the public interest.

While some of the reasons cited for opposing the patent were technical, there were several arguments submitted that generic and question the very premise of granting any broad spectrum patent, soyabean included. According to those opposing this patent, if upheld it would effectively restrict access to this technology for anyone with new or novel ideas to further improve soybean. Any further research on soybean by any person or agency, without royalty payments to Agracetus would not be possible. This would create a situation that establishes monopoly, is anti-competitive and will stifle innovation and development in the field of agricultural research and crop development. In the present day of functional genomics, with its potential to discover new and novel genes that can be used for crop improvement, this broad spectrum patent will deter research to improve soybeans and other plants.

The impact of such a broad patent extending to all plants will become a grave impediment to the ability of developing country researchers to access new crop improvement technologies to breed new crops for their regions. Patents per se and such broad patents particularly have grave implications for farmers in developing countries. Restricting access to seed can strike at food and livelihood security by limiting the ability to access new seeds that can help to cope with biotic and abiotic stress situations that occur from time to time in agriculture. Patents of the kind being claimed and granted on biological materials and seeds are in essence faulty and cannot be defended since variability is a central feature of biology and the innovation is not reproducible. Every plant in a field of any crop variety will be different to the others.

Any patent on crop varieties and certainly one with such a broad scope is in essence inequitable and unjust since it appropriates the several innovative contributions made by other parties, specially farmers, who have created the land races and farmer varieties on the basis of which further breeding takes place. If it took a hundred steps to create a new crop variety, it would be safe to assume that farming communities have contributed at least the first 80 to 90 steps and the scientists such as the ones claiming this patent have contributed the last few steps. They cannot be allowed to appropriate the innovations and contributions of farming communities and other scientists by claiming a patent and that too one with such broad application.

In acknowledgement of the deeply critical nature of vital sectors like food and medicine for the survival and well being of communities in today’s developing countries, patent laws have granted a special status to these sectors. IPR regimes have been soft and flexible so that monopolies in the form of strong and exclusive patents do not become serious barriers to communities who have vulnerabilities with respect to food and health security. Broad spectrum patents go directly against the philosophy and rationale of the patent system, which was to balance public and private interest. The innovator was rewarded with a temporary monopoly on the invented product so that he/ she continued to benefit society by inventing new and useful products. This was the reason for ‘utility’ being such an important feature of a patent claim. Now, with broad patents, monopolies are sought to be established in a way that private interest outstrips the public interest. This attitude cannot be in the larger interest of most people and this patent must be opposed on that ground alone.

Later this month, the Opposition Bench ruled to uphold Monsanto’s broad patent. While the official decision will come out later, the civil society coalition that opposed the patent will go into appeal.

This article appeared in India Together on 01 May 2003 - https://indiatogether.org/brodpatnt-agriculture/ 

📍GM, agriculture, and food security

(from the archives)

India's position is opaque, based on incomplete research, and unresponsive to public health and food security issues. Dr. Suman Sahai lists recommendations from a national symposium.

A two day national symposium on “Relevance of GM Technology to Indian Agriculture and Food Security was organised by Gene Campaign on Nov. 26 and 27, in Delhi, to celebrate its 10th Anniversary. The Multistakeholder symposium brought together speakers and participants from across the entire range of views held on the subject of GM crops. Speakers ranged from strong supporters of GM technology to those equally strongly opposed to it and those with measured views. Participants included scientists, academics, social scientists, farmers, members of parliament, lawyers and judges, representatives of government, including the regulating agencies, various policy makers, the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS), the seed industry, food processing and retailing industries, environmentalists, consumer organisations, organic farmers (IFOAM) and civil society organisations.

The two-day event witnessed a series of high quality presentations and strong, focussed discussions. One thing that all speakers pointed out was the appalling state of the Regulatory Framework in India and the urgent need to change it. Members of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), India’s apex regulatory body explained the process of regulation and in the face of vociferous demand, agreed to put more data on the GEAC website.

Members of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee explained the process of regulation, and were met with vociferous demands for better information.

A series of recommendations emerged from the two-day consultations. These are being forwarded to the Government’s Task Force on Biotechnology, the GEAC, the Department of Biotechnology, the Minister of Science and Technology, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Environment as well as the Prime Minister’s Office.

Recommendations

1. A distinct law should be enacted to oversee Genetic Modification Technology and its implementation. This law must harmonise with other laws and national and international agreements.
2. A comprehensive biotechnology policy should be developed in consultation with all stakeholders.
3. A statutory National Bioethics Commission must be set up.
4. There should be a consultative and participatory process to prioritise crops and traits for genetic improvement through biotechnology with the goal of addressing the needs of small farmers and Indian agriculture.
5. Investment in public sector research should be increased and strengthened. Novel gene discovery in crops of relevance to India should get highest priority.
6. India must develop a policy for transgenic varieties of crops for which it is a Centre of Origin and Diversity. Commercial cultivation of GM rice should not be allowed until the nature of gene flow and its impact is understood.
7. The Herbicide Tolerance trait should be subject to rigorous cost and risk benefit analysis before being considered for adoption.
8. Alternatives to the GM approach must be carefully evaluated in each case before deciding on the GM route. A cost and risk benefit analysis must be conducted before deciding on a GM product.
9. Protocol for food safety tests must be vastly improved and mechanisms for long term monitoring of human health (post GM food release) be put in place.
10. Develop a stringent protocol to assess environmental and ecological impact.
11. There should be provisions for post-market surveillance and monitoring of GM products.
12. Have a policy to deal with bio terrorism urgently.
13. India must exercise caution in the IPR regime that it adopts. The current PPV-FR should be retained since it balances Breeders and Farmers? Rights.
14. A new statutory, independent National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority must be established.
15. Make GEAC more competent, transparent and accountable. Post data on research and development of GM crops and products on websites and local newspapers.
16. An annual review of all decisions on GM products must be presented to Parliament.
17. Conduct a scientifically sound study to assess attitudes and perceptions about GM technology among stakeholders in India.
18. Undertake a program of awareness about GM technology to educate the public.
19. Organize a series of public debates across the country to elicit the views of the people, to channel it into policy making. The government should fund this exercise.
20. There should be a moratorium on commercial cultivation of GM crops until the regulatory system is demonstrably improved. Research on GM crops, however, should continue.

This article appeared in India Together on 01 Dec 2003: https://indiatogether.org/gmconf-agriculture/

Marred by faith

“It is the scientists who are asking for regulation and precaution” Suman Sahai What do you think of environmentalist Mark Lynas’ sudden change of heart – from being an anti-GM crusader to a pro-GM crusader? It is a renewed propaganda push to create goodwill around GM crop. This is a product that very large corporations are trying to sell. India is a very particular target because of large scale rejections (of GM crop) in Europe, many parts of Africa and Latin America. For these corporations, there are only two big potential markets – India and China. Everybody knows it is impossible to influence Chinese policy because they are very determined about what they want and what not. India is perceived as a soft target with a big market and therefore a huge amount of propaganda is directed towards India and Indian policy making. What is your stand on promoting GM crops in India? As a scientist, geneticist, this is my subject. It is the scientists who are asking for regulation and precaution right from the beginning. The (GM) industry is trying to cut corners on regulation because adequate bio-safety testing costs money. It is my firm belief that had this technology been purely in public sector it would still be in the laboratory. It would only come to market after it was sufficiently and properly tested. If you want to engage in science and technology that has a downside – any potential risk of the GM product having an allergenic component – but potential for benefits, then you have to be super careful to evaluate safety. ____________________________________ Sahai is a geneticist, Padma Shree awardee and winner of 2004 Borlaug Award for contribution to agriculture and environment
	GM debate: Contrary to Lynas’s simplistic views, India’s real concerns are ad-hoc regulatory body, self-defeating bio-safety norms and worthless scientific data

Monsanto back to its old games

Suman Sahai

You have to admire the gumption of Monsanto Company, called not without reason the world’s most hated corporation. According to a report some weeks ago, Monsanto threatened to sue the state of Vermont in the US in yet another display of its unbridled power. Why? Due to overwhelming public demand, the elected representatives of Vermont, its legislators are contemplating passing a legislation that will require mandatory labelling of all genetically modified (GM) foods! But the legislators have been frozen in their tracks and are beginning to back off because representatives from the Monsanto Company threatened public officials that the biotechnology behemoth would sue the state of Vermont if they dared to pass a law that would require GM foods to be labelled. Legislators admitted privately that they were apprehensive of attracting the ire of this huge and influential corporation since they know that Monsanto would launch a vicious and prolonged attack on the state of Vermont, if the government went against their diktat.

Monsanto and other biotech corporations oppose labelling of GM foods because they fear, and rightly so, that the public would reject GM foods if they could tell it apart from normal foods that had not been tampered with. Monsanto has so far successfully blocked every effort to allow the labelling of GM foods in the US, despite overwhelming public demand for it. Such is its influence in the corridors of power (and not just in the US), that the US food and drug administration, America’s ombudsman body on all matters related to food, including its safety, has consistently upheld the Monsanto line of “substantial equivalence”. This line is Monsanto’s ploy to deny the very basis of labelling. Briefly explained, the theory of substantial equivalence says that there is no great difference between GM and non-GM foods, that they are substantially the same, or substantially equivalent to one another. Since normal, non-GM foods are not required to be labelled, their substantially equivalent counterpart, the GM foods, need not be labelled either! So what happened to consumer choice? If this perverse and manipulative logic does not make any sense to you… well… go figure!

Substantial equivalence is the biggest public lie being shamelessly told across the world. Unfortunately, Washington puts its weight behind this lie to intimidate other governments to toe the Monsanto line. Despite consistent evidence from laboratory studies with experimental animals that serious, often fatal conditions can result from consuming GM foods, Monsanto is able to get its way, thanks to Washington’s support.

Vermont legislators know to take Monsanto’s threats seriously since the company has a record of threatening people with lawsuits in their sustained and successful campaign to ensure that the consumer is not allowed to choose between GM and non-GM foods. This is simply done by not allowing GM foods to be labelled. Vermont’s history of past run-ins with Monsanto makes it cautious. In 1994, the state gave in to public demand for clean milk from cows that had not been injected with genetically engineered Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH). The legislators passed for the first time in the US, a law requiring mandatory labelling of milk and dairy produce that had been derived from cows treated with the highly controversial rBGH.

rBGH is banned in countries like Canada and Europe because it is found to cause severe health damage in the milch animals and poses a higher cancer risk for humans. Monsanto sued the state promptly as the law came. Shockingly, the US federal court ruled in the company’s favour, saying that milk producers have the right under the American statute called the First Amendment to remain silent on what their milk contains and whether their cows are injected with rBGH or not. The First Amendment gives a person or agency the right to withhold information in a court of law that it thinks will damage its case. This strange law enabled Monsanto to defeat the Vermont legislators and squash the public’s desire to have milk that was not treated with growth hormones.


Monsanto and its junior partner and ally in India, the Mahyco Seed Company, are flexing their muscles in India too to see how far they can go. Their blatant violation of field testing RR Flex cotton without permission was noted by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) but they managed to get out of that without any punishment. Similarly, their violations in field trials of GM rice in Jharkhand — in defiance of regulatory guidelines — was overlooked by the regulators. Much is whispered along the grapevine about the strategies that Monsanto-Mahyco use to get their way. Whatever these may be, the company must be warned that they and their cohorts in government and outside it will not be allowed to get away with the kind of practices that they are used to getting away with in other places.

India has a vibrant and vigilant civil society, which has demonstrated that it is committed to protecting the interests of the common citizen and upholding their right to clean and safe food. Whereas the Indian civil society is strongly supportive of good science, it equally condemns the manipulation and distortion of science to line the pockets of corporations.


The writer, a genetic scientist who has served on the faculty of the Universities of Chicago and Heidelberg, is convenor of the Gene Campaign

Source : Asian Age, New Delhi, June 06, 2012

INDIA'S GE FREE SOYA CAN CAPTURE WORLD MARKET

Suman Sahai

A shortage of products that are not genetically engineered (GE free), especially soybean and corn, is forcing countries that are averse to GE produce to change their stand. Countries in Asia like Japan and South Korea, that are traditional soybean users have rejected GE soybean so far but may now be forced to buy genetically engineered soybean, not just for animal feed but also for soy based food products.

Most of Europe demonstrates a near phobic rejection of foods that are genetically engineered. In Asia, affluent sections of society are averse to consuming gene-spliced foods. In the case of soybean, countries like Japan and South Korea have expressed a clear preference for soy products made from GE free soybean. This has raised the demand for non GE soya and increased its price premium. The net result is a situation where the supply of non GE soya is unable to keep pace with the demand. The shortage of GE free soya is created largely due to the fact that China, the largest producer of non GE soy is faced with growing inflation in the food sector and has decided to hold on to its produce for domestic use.

The short supply and the rising price premium on non-GE crops is now forcing food processors in South Korea to buy American GE corn for the first time for their starch and sweetener industry. This is the first ever use of a GE product in the food chain in this region. Following S Korea, Japan is likely to allow the import of GE soybean too. Both countries are reluctant buyers of GE soybean, forced to do it in order to make up the shortfall in domes-tic requirement because not enough GE free soya is available.

This is a golden opportunity for India to step up its production of non GE soybean and enter the international premium niche market. India as the only country after China to produce certified non GE soybean, can position itself as the new source of GE free soya for countries in Europe which seek bulk soya for animal feed and Asia, particularly China, Japan and South Korea which are looking for quality non GE soya for food.

Stepping up production of GE free soybean immediately should not be difficult. India has been cultivating it for some years in places like Uttaranchal, Madhya Pradesh and some parts of Maharashtra. The transition to soybean in Madhya Pradesh came from the Black Toor, a legume similar to soybean which is eaten as a daal. In the hills varieties of soybean are also eaten as daal. This is to say that the cultivation of soybean is not unknown in India so it will not be an alien crop that farmers are not knowledgeable about. The introduction of soybean will have another advantage, that of replenishing the soil. The nitrogen fixing legume will improve soil nutrition, enabling better second crops. A kind of win - win situation for the farmer.

In Vidarbha particularly, soybean could become the alternative to cotton, which has proved to be such a risky crop. A farmer rehabilitation package could be based on promoting soybean cultivation. This will be better suited to the water deficient situation in Vidarbha and will be less risky than the water guzzling cotton, particularly Bt cotton, which demands even more water than other cotton varieties. Soybean has already begun to replace cotton in Vidarbha as farmers move away from the Bt cotton that has brought disaster.

If India is to exploit the market vacancy successfully, the soya package must be carefully organized, with top class planting material and marketing channels stream-lined and tied up from the farmers' fields to the international buyer. Farm training in sanitary and phy-tosanitary measures will be necessary, so that farmers are careful about maintaining the health and purity standards of their produce. Where necessary, government should negotiate markets in other countries, much in the same way as Malaysia negotiates advantageous market condi-tions and low tariffs for its palm oil.

Policy aspects will also have to cover research programs on soybean. There will have to be a clear and explicit ban on any research on genetically engineering soya. The government must be very clear that it cannot dabble in research on GE soya, risk contamination and expect to capture growing international markets for GE free soybean.

It will need just one single instance of contamination with GE soy to bring the GE free niche market crashing down. We saw what happened to US rice exports after the detection of traces of a GE rice from Bayer, called LL 601 in rice consignments. Overnight there were no takers for American rice. Vietnam and Thailand entered with GE free rice and captured the rice market.

The directionless, largely copycat agenda for research on GE crops that is being supported by the DBT (Department of Biotechnology) and the Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) must be brought under a stringent review to conform with India's food as well as trading interests.

GE Crops and India's Trade Interests

Suman Sahai

A somewhat garbled invitation was sent out by the Department of Biotechnology calling for a Consultation on Guidelines for Regulation of Genetic Modification in Crop Plants and Farm Animals with Reference to Trade Security. Had I not earlier known the purpose of this meeting, I would never have figured out what the consultation intended to achieve.

The purpose as it happened, was to discuss a policy for genetically engineering crops that India was exporting. The immediate impetus for the meeting was the understandable nervousness of the Indian Rice Exporters Association after contamination of US rice stocks with an unapproved genetically engineered herbicide tolerant rice led to the total rejection of US rice and entailed huge costs to recall stocks from the UK, Germany, Italy, New Zealand and Japan where US rice had been exported.

The rice exporters wanted the Indian government to have a policy and safeguards in place to protect rice exports from the country from contamination with GE rice, since as one representative rather imaginatively suggested, "anything to do with GM would be the kiss of death "for India's rice exports.

The gentleman had a point. India exports not just Basmati, but non-Basmati rice as well, largely to Europe and West Asia but also to Africa, both regions that have rejected GE crops and foods. The total annual value of India's rice export is approximately Rs.6000 crores. The importers of Indian rice are countries where there is mounting opposition to GE foods. Producing GE rice in India or even researching and testing it in the fields is bound to result in the escape of GE rice.

The irresponsible and clumsy manner in which the Bt rice field trials were conducted by the Mahyco Seed Company indicate that given the shoddy implementation of GE technology in our country and the lack of accountability on the parts of agencies and regulators, contamination from trial plots and field sites is a certainty. The presence of GE rice in India, will undoubtedly lead to contamination, jeopardizing rice exports to countries that will not accept GE foods.

Soybean is the other crop which India exports which qualifies as a special case for consideration. India is the only country in the world now that is producing GE free soybean. Because of this status it has an assured export market in countries like Japan and South Korea that are sensitive about soybean as food and expressly seek GE free soya. In addition, companies that use soybean meal in food, particularly baby foods and food for convalescents, and which have given undertakings to produce GE free foods, are buyers of GE free soybean. This is a captive market available only to India and it can be expanded several times, creating a growing market for India's soybean farmers many of who are to be found in the distress areas of Vidarbha. Instead of offering inadequate doles, a proper policy introducing GE free, organic soybean may help Vidarbha farmers find their feet and rebuild their agriculture with self respect and dignity.

It is understood that the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) in the Department of Biotechnology has given permission to conduct research on GE herbicide tolerant soybean. This is extremely undesirable and should be stopped immediately. If India were to allow the cultivation of GE soybean ,or even its research and field trials, it would at once lose its assured export market. Becoming a GE soya producing nation, it would have to compete for markets with gigantic producers like Brazil, USA and Argentina, who are sitting on huge surpluses, unable to sell their produce easily on the world market.

I have no idea whether there was any policy outcome on GE crops and Indian trade interests from the DBT meeting. Both the soybean people and the rice exporters present there held the same view, that genetic engineering of crops in which India had trading interests, was undesirable. The MS Swaminathan led Task Force on Agbiotechnology has made the recommendation that the national policy on GE crops should seek the "economic well-being of farm families, food security of the nation, health security of the consumer, protection of the environment and the security of our national and international trade". Seeing the trend of sharply declining global markets for GE crops and foods, and the rapidly burgeoning market for organic food (currently valued at US $50 billion), it would be wise for India to recognize its USP in agriculture and develop the organic food sector, specially for exports.