Suman Sahai
Here is yet another Mahyco-Monsanto tale, one of defiance and breaking the law even as the scientific community looks on. Monsanto is the world’s largest investor in seed and biotechnology research investing $1 billion/`5,000 crores and is also the leading producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed. It provides the technology in 90 per cent of the world’s genetically engineered seeds.
The Mahyco seed company had approached the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in its meeting on January 12, 2011 for permission to produce seed of genetically engineered cotton containing a herbicide tolerant gene. This non-Bt cotton was not proposed to be released as a herbicide tolerant (HT) crop but to be used as the refuge crop for when BG II RR Flex cotton is finally approved for cultivation. Currently it is in trials. BG II RR Flex refers to Bollgard II, a cotton hybrid that carries two Bt genes as well as a gene conferring tolerance to Roundup Ready, which is a herbicide. This double Bt, single HT cotton is a stacked cotton hybrid, which is piling on Bt genes to stay ahead of the bollworms that are fast catching up and becoming resistant to the Bt toxin inside the plant, which is meant to kill them.
Mahyco had already applied to GEAC in September 2010 to produce the same seed and had been turned down on the grounds that the hybrid had not cleared the regulatory process and did not have permission for environmental release. Therefore, according to the Rules of 1989, which govern biotechnology, Mahyco could not be given permission to produce seed of the unapproved cotton. But did Mahyco accept the GEAC ruling and desist from using the unapproved HT cotton seed? No it did not.
It went ahead, cocking a snook at GEAC, made seed of the unapproved non-Bt RR Flex cotton and is using it to plant the refuge crop in the trials of its double Bt, single HT cotton hybrid BG II RR Flex. A 20 per cent “refuge crop” of non-Bt cotton is required by the law, to be planted along with Bt cotton so that the invading bollworm has a non-toxic cotton to feed on, to delay the build up of resistance to the toxic Bt cotton. The Mahyco Company is merrily carrying on using the unapproved cotton as the refuge planting in the trials of its new double Bt, single HT cotton hybrid even after GEAC had denied it permission to do this.
So why is Mahyco breaking the law to plant (the unapproved) herbicide tolerant cotton as the refuge for its double Bt, single HT cotton hybrid? Because it slyly admits what we have been pointing out all along, that planting a herbicide tolerant crop, like the new Bt-HT cotton, and using the matched herbicide (Roundup Ready) during its cultivation will destroy all the neighbouring crops and the adjoining biodiversity. This will happen when Roundup Ready lands on them when fields of the HT crops are being sprayed. Only plants carrying the HT gene can survive the herbicide spray. Since the other crops and the surrounding biodiversity do not contain the HT gene, they will die when the Roundup Ready hits them.
HT crops can only be cultivated if all the other crops in the region are also HT (which is an impossibility), otherwise they will be destroyed when they catch the Roundup Ready spray drifting in the wind or if they get sprayed inadvertently. In several articles and submissions I have made to policy bodies, this is why I have argued that the herbicide-tolerant genetic trait must not be permitted for use in India. First because it will displace agriculture labour (weeding provides wage labour), second because it will destroy all the surrounding biodiversity that rural communities use as food, fodder, medicinal plants etc. and third because of what Mahyco-Monsanto now themselves admit, that Roundup Ready sprays will destroy all the other non-HT crops in the neighbourhood.
The Director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) in Nagpur acknowledges the problem with HT crops, saying that the refuge for the Bt-HT cotton must be planted with HT cotton during commercial cultivation. Otherwise the refuge will be killed by Roundup Ready spray drifts. According to the minutes of the 106th GEAC meeting of January 12, 2011, the CICR director’s views are recorded as follows: “If the Refugia in BG II RR Flex comprise only of non-Bt cotton without RR-Flex (HT trait), there is every likely possibility of the refugia patch getting destroyed due to spray drift or inadvertent application of ‘Round-up’ on the ‘non-RR-Flex-non-Bt-cotton’”. So the scientists admit there is a problem with the implementation of HT crops in real life. The CICR director, however, does not propose a strategy for how other crops and biodiversity should be protected when Mahyco’s new Bt-HT cotton is planted commercially and Roundup Ready is widely used in the fields.
Because Mahyco has blatantly defied the directions of the GEAC not to produce HT cotton seed until it gets regulatory approval, the regulators have decided to issue a showcause notice to the company, seeking explanation on why penal action should not be initiated against it under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA), for violations of the Rules of 1989. The Rules of 1989 are framed under the EPA that is the umbrella legislation.
It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds. Will the GEAC really follow through and take action against Mahyco for its defiant stand and blatant violations? Or will Mahyco walk home free as it has done in the past? It is openly mentioned that the Mahyco-Monsanto gang are used to getting their way with regulatory agencies like the GEAC. Do they indeed get away with things? The grapevine is full of gossip and names are mentioned openly. This situation is untenable for a society that lays claim to scientific achievement. After the disgraceful performance of the scientific community in the Bt brinjal case, let them redeem their reputation and tighten up the regulation of genetically modified crops so that it is rescued from being the farce that it is today.
Dr Suman Sahai, a genetic scientist who has served on the faculty of the Universities of Chicago and Heidelberg, is convenor of the Gene Campaign
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Saturday, March 26, 2011
CORPORATE FOOD SAVIOURS
Suman Sahai
Almost a billion people in Asia and Africa are plagued by hunger. The global firms pushing the “New Vision for Agriculture” have little to do with sustainable agriculture or solving the problem of hunger. Their goal is to corner resources like land and water as well as public sector finances and make these work to earn big profits for themselves
Seventeen corporations belonging to the consumer industries community of the World Economic Forum have announced their intention to enter the food business in the name of the poor. The alliance includes the world’s biggest life science corporations like Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and BASF, the world’s largest food commodities traders like Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill, processed food giants like Kraft Foods, Nestlé and PepsiCo, global retailers like Walmart and Metro in addition to diversified transnational corporations like SABMiller, Unilever, Yara International, Coca-Cola and General Mills.
These colossal entities that control the food chain starting from the genetically modified (GM) seed, fertilizer and pesticide to the grain and finally to the cakes and biscuits in large retail stores hope to become the saviours of global agriculture and the defenders of food security. Without a shred of embarrassment, they assert that their project works to “advance market-based solutions to agricultural sustainability”.
They call it the New Vision for Agriculture, and they have hijacked all the clichés of food security to portray their intent: “… over the past two years, food security and economic crises have highlighted both the urgent need and the potential for developing sustainable agricultural systems”. Or “Nearly one billion people — one out of six globally — lack access to adequate food and nutrition” . Their mantra to feed the 9 billion people expected to be on the planet by 2050 is to increase agricultural productivity through investment, innovation and the right policy framework! The sustainable agriculture growth they profess to initiate is to be achieved by market-based solutions.
It’s quite another matter that the poor are barely linked to the market except as consumers because they have nothing to sell and little means to buy with. The crisis of food is exemplified in India by the twin tragedies of rotting grain in buffer stocks and families suffering from endemic hunger. Almost a billion people in Asia and Africa are plagued by hunger even as large food stocks are traded in international markets by the very people who are the stewards of this New Vision of Agriculture, the Cargills, the Archer Daniel Midlands, the Bunges and so on.
The alliance claims that it seeks a “win-win” approach that leverages and multiplies each party’s investment. Revealed here is the real face of the New Vision for Agriculture, its corporate face that has little do with sustainable agriculture or solving the problem of hunger and malnutrition, but everything to do with cornering resources like land and water as well as public sector finances and make it work to earn big profits for themselves.
For instance, this New Vision for Agriculture has struck a deal in that part of Tanzania, (the south) which has bountiful water, good soils, favourable climate and a good infrastructure linked to regional and international markets. In short, ideal conditions for commercial agriculture. This is not the area that needs help because the conditions there are favourable anyway. It’s the sub-Saharan countries that need a leg up to improve agriculture, food security and nutrition but the New Vision for Agriculture is not going there.
What the New Vision proposes in Tanzania reads more like the land grab that is taking place all over Africa than any activity with the philanthropic intent of solving hunger. Land grabs are rampant in the favourable, fertile parts of Africa, where African governments and foreign corporations are striking unholy deals to corner large tracts of land belonging to small farmers. This is being leased out to produce food to be shipped out, not solve hunger at home.
By its own candid admission, the New Vision project proposes to involve itself only with profitable, modern commercial farming and agri-business. This too not everywhere but only in selected areas and only with crops with high market potential. According to current planning, the project leaders will identify “profitable, scalable agricultural and services businesses, with major benefits for smallholder farmers and local communities”. The politically correct categories of smallholder farmers and local communities are mentioned at appropriate places (although not too often). It is alleged the proposed projects will bring them major benefits, though how this will happen is not spelled out. The New Vision does not plan to establish anything in areas that require improvement but build only on existing operations mobilising and leveraging both public and private-sector investments into those opportunities that are viable. No talk here of investing in improving the viability of those units that are not so viable!
As part of their food security programme in Vietnam, the New Vision for Agriculture has made plans to develop coffee, tea, fish, fruit, vegetables and grain commodities for regional and global markets. A task force has been set up to oversee implementation. Members of the task force include Bunge, Metro, Cargill, Cisco, DuPont, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Monsanto and Unilever.
The current crop of New Visions and Alliances against Hunger look like con jobs. Curiously though, neither the crops selected to alleviate food insecurity nor the strategy to achieve this goal seems to strike the involved governments as the slightest bit incongruous. It says something about the state of affairs in the food domain that this in your face brazenness has not met with howls of protest from international agencies or national governments. On the contrary, even India, with its massive food security issues, is rushing to partner in this exercise. Shouldn’t we be doing something to stop this blatant exploitation? Isn’t anyone in any government thinking?
The writer is the Chief Editor of Gene News, published by the Gene Campaign Foundation
Almost a billion people in Asia and Africa are plagued by hunger. The global firms pushing the “New Vision for Agriculture” have little to do with sustainable agriculture or solving the problem of hunger. Their goal is to corner resources like land and water as well as public sector finances and make these work to earn big profits for themselves
Seventeen corporations belonging to the consumer industries community of the World Economic Forum have announced their intention to enter the food business in the name of the poor. The alliance includes the world’s biggest life science corporations like Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and BASF, the world’s largest food commodities traders like Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge and Cargill, processed food giants like Kraft Foods, Nestlé and PepsiCo, global retailers like Walmart and Metro in addition to diversified transnational corporations like SABMiller, Unilever, Yara International, Coca-Cola and General Mills.
These colossal entities that control the food chain starting from the genetically modified (GM) seed, fertilizer and pesticide to the grain and finally to the cakes and biscuits in large retail stores hope to become the saviours of global agriculture and the defenders of food security. Without a shred of embarrassment, they assert that their project works to “advance market-based solutions to agricultural sustainability”.
They call it the New Vision for Agriculture, and they have hijacked all the clichés of food security to portray their intent: “… over the past two years, food security and economic crises have highlighted both the urgent need and the potential for developing sustainable agricultural systems”. Or “Nearly one billion people — one out of six globally — lack access to adequate food and nutrition” . Their mantra to feed the 9 billion people expected to be on the planet by 2050 is to increase agricultural productivity through investment, innovation and the right policy framework! The sustainable agriculture growth they profess to initiate is to be achieved by market-based solutions.
It’s quite another matter that the poor are barely linked to the market except as consumers because they have nothing to sell and little means to buy with. The crisis of food is exemplified in India by the twin tragedies of rotting grain in buffer stocks and families suffering from endemic hunger. Almost a billion people in Asia and Africa are plagued by hunger even as large food stocks are traded in international markets by the very people who are the stewards of this New Vision of Agriculture, the Cargills, the Archer Daniel Midlands, the Bunges and so on.
The alliance claims that it seeks a “win-win” approach that leverages and multiplies each party’s investment. Revealed here is the real face of the New Vision for Agriculture, its corporate face that has little do with sustainable agriculture or solving the problem of hunger and malnutrition, but everything to do with cornering resources like land and water as well as public sector finances and make it work to earn big profits for themselves.
For instance, this New Vision for Agriculture has struck a deal in that part of Tanzania, (the south) which has bountiful water, good soils, favourable climate and a good infrastructure linked to regional and international markets. In short, ideal conditions for commercial agriculture. This is not the area that needs help because the conditions there are favourable anyway. It’s the sub-Saharan countries that need a leg up to improve agriculture, food security and nutrition but the New Vision for Agriculture is not going there.
What the New Vision proposes in Tanzania reads more like the land grab that is taking place all over Africa than any activity with the philanthropic intent of solving hunger. Land grabs are rampant in the favourable, fertile parts of Africa, where African governments and foreign corporations are striking unholy deals to corner large tracts of land belonging to small farmers. This is being leased out to produce food to be shipped out, not solve hunger at home.
By its own candid admission, the New Vision project proposes to involve itself only with profitable, modern commercial farming and agri-business. This too not everywhere but only in selected areas and only with crops with high market potential. According to current planning, the project leaders will identify “profitable, scalable agricultural and services businesses, with major benefits for smallholder farmers and local communities”. The politically correct categories of smallholder farmers and local communities are mentioned at appropriate places (although not too often). It is alleged the proposed projects will bring them major benefits, though how this will happen is not spelled out. The New Vision does not plan to establish anything in areas that require improvement but build only on existing operations mobilising and leveraging both public and private-sector investments into those opportunities that are viable. No talk here of investing in improving the viability of those units that are not so viable!
As part of their food security programme in Vietnam, the New Vision for Agriculture has made plans to develop coffee, tea, fish, fruit, vegetables and grain commodities for regional and global markets. A task force has been set up to oversee implementation. Members of the task force include Bunge, Metro, Cargill, Cisco, DuPont, Nestlé, PepsiCo, Monsanto and Unilever.
The current crop of New Visions and Alliances against Hunger look like con jobs. Curiously though, neither the crops selected to alleviate food insecurity nor the strategy to achieve this goal seems to strike the involved governments as the slightest bit incongruous. It says something about the state of affairs in the food domain that this in your face brazenness has not met with howls of protest from international agencies or national governments. On the contrary, even India, with its massive food security issues, is rushing to partner in this exercise. Shouldn’t we be doing something to stop this blatant exploitation? Isn’t anyone in any government thinking?
The writer is the Chief Editor of Gene News, published by the Gene Campaign Foundation
Friday, March 4, 2011
Will Mahyco Finally Get its Comeuppance?
Suman Sahai
The GEAC has decided to issue a show cause notice to the Mahyco seed company for defying its directions and going ahead with using a seed for which it did not have regulatory approval. The Mahyco seed company had approached the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) at its meeting on 12 January, 2011 for permission to produce seed of genetically engineered cotton containing a herbicide tolerant gene. This non Bt cotton was to be used as the refuge crop for when BG II-RR Flex cotton was finally approved for cultivation. Currently it is in trials. BG II-RR Flex refers to Bollgard II, a cotton hybrid that carries two Bt genes as well as a gene conferring tolerance to Roundup Ready which is a herbicide.
Mahyco had also applied to GEAC in September 2010 for permission to produce the same seed and had been turned down on the grounds that the cotton they wanted to use had not cleared the regulatory process. Therefore according to the Rules of 1989 which govern bio-technology , Mahyco could not be given permission to produce the seed of the unapproved cotton. But did
Mahyco accept the GEAC ruling and desist from using the unapproved HT cotton seed? No it did not.
It went ahead, cocking a snook at the GEAC, and made seed of the unapproved non-Bt RR-Flex-Cotton ( containing the HT gene) and is using it to plant the refuge crop in the trials of its double Bt, single HT cotton hybrid . A 20 percent ‘refuge crop’ of non Bt cotton is required by the Rules of 1989, to be planted along with Bt cotton so that the invading bollworm has a non toxic cotton to feed on, to delay the build up of resistance to the toxic Bt cotton. The Mahyco company is merrily using the unapproved cotton as the refuge planting in the trials of its new double Bt, single HT cotton hybrid even after GEAC had denied it permission! So why is Mahyco breaking the law to plant the unapproved herbicide tolerant cotton as the refuge for its double Bt, single HT cotton hybrid ? Because it slyly admits what we have been pointing out all along, that planting a herbicide tolerant crop, like the new Bt-HT cotton, and using the matched herbicide (Roundup Ready) during its cultivation will destroy all the
neighboring crops and the adjoining biodiversity. This will happen when the herbicide lands on them when fields of the HT crops are being sprayed. Since the other crops and the biodiversity do not contain the herbicide tolerant gene, they will die when the Roundup Ready hits them.
HT crops can only be cultivated if all the other crops in the region are also HT (an impossibility),
otherwise they will be destroyed when they catch the Roundup Ready spray drifting in the wind or get sprayed inadvertently. That is why in several articles and in the submissions I have made to policy bodies, I have argued that the herbicide tolerant genetic trait must not be permitted for use in India. First because it will displace agriculture labor (weeding provides wage labor), second, because it will destroy all the surrounding biodiversity that rural communities use as food, fodder, medicinal plants etc. and third because of what Mahyco-Monsanto now themselves admit, that Roundup Ready sprays will destroy all the other Non HT crops in the neighborhood.
The Director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) in Nagpur acknowledges this problem inherent in HT crops, and agrees that the refuge for the Bt-HT cotton must be planted with HT cotton during commercial cultivation, otherwise the refuge will be killed off by Roundup Ready spray drifts. The CICR director however does not propose a strategy for how other crops and biodiversity should be protected when Mahyco’s new Bt-HT cotton is planted commercially and Roundup Ready is widely used in the fields.
Because Mahyco has blatantly defied the directions of the GEAC- not to use the HT cotton seed until it gets regulatory approval - the regulators have decided to issue a ‘Show Cause’ notice to the company, seeking explanation on why penal action should not be initiated against it, for
violation of the ‘Rules of 1989. It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds. Will the GEAC really follow through and take action against Mahyco for its defiant stand and blatant violations? Or will Mahyco walk home free as it has always done in the past?
The GEAC has decided to issue a show cause notice to the Mahyco seed company for defying its directions and going ahead with using a seed for which it did not have regulatory approval. The Mahyco seed company had approached the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) at its meeting on 12 January, 2011 for permission to produce seed of genetically engineered cotton containing a herbicide tolerant gene. This non Bt cotton was to be used as the refuge crop for when BG II-RR Flex cotton was finally approved for cultivation. Currently it is in trials. BG II-RR Flex refers to Bollgard II, a cotton hybrid that carries two Bt genes as well as a gene conferring tolerance to Roundup Ready which is a herbicide.
Mahyco had also applied to GEAC in September 2010 for permission to produce the same seed and had been turned down on the grounds that the cotton they wanted to use had not cleared the regulatory process. Therefore according to the Rules of 1989 which govern bio-technology , Mahyco could not be given permission to produce the seed of the unapproved cotton. But did
Mahyco accept the GEAC ruling and desist from using the unapproved HT cotton seed? No it did not.
It went ahead, cocking a snook at the GEAC, and made seed of the unapproved non-Bt RR-Flex-Cotton ( containing the HT gene) and is using it to plant the refuge crop in the trials of its double Bt, single HT cotton hybrid . A 20 percent ‘refuge crop’ of non Bt cotton is required by the Rules of 1989, to be planted along with Bt cotton so that the invading bollworm has a non toxic cotton to feed on, to delay the build up of resistance to the toxic Bt cotton. The Mahyco company is merrily using the unapproved cotton as the refuge planting in the trials of its new double Bt, single HT cotton hybrid even after GEAC had denied it permission! So why is Mahyco breaking the law to plant the unapproved herbicide tolerant cotton as the refuge for its double Bt, single HT cotton hybrid ? Because it slyly admits what we have been pointing out all along, that planting a herbicide tolerant crop, like the new Bt-HT cotton, and using the matched herbicide (Roundup Ready) during its cultivation will destroy all the
neighboring crops and the adjoining biodiversity. This will happen when the herbicide lands on them when fields of the HT crops are being sprayed. Since the other crops and the biodiversity do not contain the herbicide tolerant gene, they will die when the Roundup Ready hits them.
HT crops can only be cultivated if all the other crops in the region are also HT (an impossibility),
otherwise they will be destroyed when they catch the Roundup Ready spray drifting in the wind or get sprayed inadvertently. That is why in several articles and in the submissions I have made to policy bodies, I have argued that the herbicide tolerant genetic trait must not be permitted for use in India. First because it will displace agriculture labor (weeding provides wage labor), second, because it will destroy all the surrounding biodiversity that rural communities use as food, fodder, medicinal plants etc. and third because of what Mahyco-Monsanto now themselves admit, that Roundup Ready sprays will destroy all the other Non HT crops in the neighborhood.
The Director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) in Nagpur acknowledges this problem inherent in HT crops, and agrees that the refuge for the Bt-HT cotton must be planted with HT cotton during commercial cultivation, otherwise the refuge will be killed off by Roundup Ready spray drifts. The CICR director however does not propose a strategy for how other crops and biodiversity should be protected when Mahyco’s new Bt-HT cotton is planted commercially and Roundup Ready is widely used in the fields.
Because Mahyco has blatantly defied the directions of the GEAC- not to use the HT cotton seed until it gets regulatory approval - the regulators have decided to issue a ‘Show Cause’ notice to the company, seeking explanation on why penal action should not be initiated against it, for
violation of the ‘Rules of 1989. It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds. Will the GEAC really follow through and take action against Mahyco for its defiant stand and blatant violations? Or will Mahyco walk home free as it has always done in the past?
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
On Record: 'Crux of food security lies in rainfed farming'
by Vibha Sharma
Founder of Gene Campaign Suman Sahai, recipient of the Padma 
Shri in the category of science and engineering, is an active voice on food security for the past many years. She is opposed to the UPA government’s Food Security Bill in the current form. Which is why, the announcement of the top government honour came as an "unexpected, but pleasant surprise" to her.
Shri in the category of science and engineering, is an active voice on food security for the past many years. She is opposed to the UPA government’s Food Security Bill in the current form. Which is why, the announcement of the top government honour came as an "unexpected, but pleasant surprise" to her. She speaks to The Tribune on the Padma Shri and about the food security legislation.
Excerpts:
Q: Were you expecting the Padma Shri, the fourth highest civilian honour of India?
A: It is an unexpected but a pleasant surprise. Gene Campaign has been critical of government policies but whenever we have done we have also tried to provide an alternative. Ours has not been a vicious, meaningless criticism. We disagreed only because we wanted a better situation for farmers and food security. It is a wonderful feeling to know that the government has the capacity to recognise constructive criticism. The award is in recognition of our contribution to agriculture and farmers’ and community rights.
A: It is an unexpected but a pleasant surprise. Gene Campaign has been critical of government policies but whenever we have done we have also tried to provide an alternative. Ours has not been a vicious, meaningless criticism. We disagreed only because we wanted a better situation for farmers and food security. It is a wonderful feeling to know that the government has the capacity to recognise constructive criticism. The award is in recognition of our contribution to agriculture and farmers’ and community rights.
Q: Your views on the Food Security Bill being considered by the Government and the National Advisory Council are hardly charitable. What are your objections and what is the alternative?
A: The problem with the Bill is that it has skipped the first nine steps and jumped to the last one. A whole lot of people who have no idea about food security have taken over the agenda. Welfare is one part but if you do not ensure a proper atmosphere for farmers to grow more, how will you get that extra food for distribution?
Right now there is something drastically wrong with the farming sector. Half of the farming community wants to get out of it specifically because it is not remunerative. If farmers are not making enough money to be encouraged to stay in the business, it would be a ridiculously simple approach to come up with a binding legislation on food security.How will you get that extra food from? There is no surplus grain in the international market. Food security equals food sovereignty. Otherwise you will always be vulnerable to external forces. You have to come up with a bigger vision and start from step number one, growing enough food. Solutions are not exactly rocket from step number one, growing enough food. Solutions are not exactly rocket science. They are fairly obvious.
A: The problem with the Bill is that it has skipped the first nine steps and jumped to the last one. A whole lot of people who have no idea about food security have taken over the agenda. Welfare is one part but if you do not ensure a proper atmosphere for farmers to grow more, how will you get that extra food for distribution?
Right now there is something drastically wrong with the farming sector. Half of the farming community wants to get out of it specifically because it is not remunerative. If farmers are not making enough money to be encouraged to stay in the business, it would be a ridiculously simple approach to come up with a binding legislation on food security.How will you get that extra food from? There is no surplus grain in the international market. Food security equals food sovereignty. Otherwise you will always be vulnerable to external forces. You have to come up with a bigger vision and start from step number one, growing enough food. Solutions are not exactly rocket from step number one, growing enough food. Solutions are not exactly rocket science. They are fairly obvious.
Q: What should be the plan of action before the government makes the final commitment?
A: First, agriculture has to be made sustainable for the farmer. Then there has to be a well-defined water policy, including one groundwater extraction. There is also no need to give free water or electricity to farmers who are not looking for freebies. They are more than willing to pay for conveniences you provide if they are making money.
If the farmer does find farming remunerative he will give up the production. If you want to make the country food secure, bring the water to rainfed area. The crux of food security lies in rainfed agriculture.
I strongly recommend shifting subsidy in urea to sustainable agriculture in rainfed areas. Solutions are neither complex nor cost-intensive. They are very simple, practical solutions, something that should have been implemented yesterday. The food security legislation currently is more like propaganda: it does not reflect the genuine desire to solve food problem. It is not a sustainable legislation.
A: First, agriculture has to be made sustainable for the farmer. Then there has to be a well-defined water policy, including one groundwater extraction. There is also no need to give free water or electricity to farmers who are not looking for freebies. They are more than willing to pay for conveniences you provide if they are making money.
If the farmer does find farming remunerative he will give up the production. If you want to make the country food secure, bring the water to rainfed area. The crux of food security lies in rainfed agriculture.
I strongly recommend shifting subsidy in urea to sustainable agriculture in rainfed areas. Solutions are neither complex nor cost-intensive. They are very simple, practical solutions, something that should have been implemented yesterday. The food security legislation currently is more like propaganda: it does not reflect the genuine desire to solve food problem. It is not a sustainable legislation.
Q: Punjab and Haryana farmers have been complaining of lowering of yields. What is your advice to them to increase productivity?
A: Move away from the current model of agriculture which has sucked out micronutrients of the soil without giving anything back in return. `A0As it is, the area is fairly arid and cultivating rice has just left a layer of concrete in places. Farmers should step back from this crazily intensive production system they have been following and improve the soil health.
Secondly, diversification does not mean growing kinnow. Rice and wheat have been taking away the same kind of nutrients. So, go back to oilseeds, pulses and other cereals. The soil has to be given an opportunity to recuperate. Pulses will put back some nutrients rice and wheat have been extracting. Also, reduce mechanisation.Farmers must realise that while they are building the soil health their rates of profit will go down but agriculture in this region has to take rest and then start off differently.
A: Move away from the current model of agriculture which has sucked out micronutrients of the soil without giving anything back in return. `A0As it is, the area is fairly arid and cultivating rice has just left a layer of concrete in places. Farmers should step back from this crazily intensive production system they have been following and improve the soil health.
Secondly, diversification does not mean growing kinnow. Rice and wheat have been taking away the same kind of nutrients. So, go back to oilseeds, pulses and other cereals. The soil has to be given an opportunity to recuperate. Pulses will put back some nutrients rice and wheat have been extracting. Also, reduce mechanisation.Farmers must realise that while they are building the soil health their rates of profit will go down but agriculture in this region has to take rest and then start off differently.
Source :The Tribune, 6 Feb, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
WikiLeaks on bio-terrorism : India is vulnerable to attacks by novel organisms
By Suman Sahai
THE media has been spilling the contents of the Radia tapes with salacious gossip about a minister running Air India into the ground to benefit private airlines, or the promiscuous ways of an industry tycoon. WikiLeaks is also getting space with stories of the less than reverential US attitude towards us despite all the soft-soaping going on in public about the power of rising India. What went unnoticed in this milieu of gossip and innuendos was a set of postings having unnerving contents. Dealing with bioterrorism, these minutes of the meetings of US diplomats with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) reveal the US evaluation of India’s lack of preparedness to handle any kind of bioterrorism.
Indian officials have been aware of the threat of bioterrorism at the hands of jihadi elements for some time. Two years ago a terrorist apprehended in Kashmir was found to be carrying a sophisticated device looking like a fountain pen, which contained strange and toxic chemicals. According to a WikiLeaks document, MEA officials admit that Indian intelligence agencies have picked up the conversation of suspected terrorists discussing the use of bio-terrorism. According to this leaked report, jihadi groups have opened up channels to identify people with PhD degrees in biology and biotechnology to recruit those sympathetic to their cause. No guesses for figuring out what these PhDs should be doing for their jihadi masters.
Though old-style bio-terror agents like anthrax bacteria and cholera germs are still effective, antidotes are known for these and can be deployed fast if the state agencies are alert and can respond in real time. The real fear of bio-terrorism, however, now comes from the next generation of biological organisms that are being created in the lab using new tools like genetic engineering and synthetic biology. Advances in biotechnology have put in the hands of scientists and laboratory technicians several methods and techniques, all of them quite uncomplicated, that can be used to create new organisms with hitherto unknown traits.
Given that there are hundreds of labs engaged in the exercise of cutting and splicing genes from one organism to another and that all the equipment and chemicals needed to do this are easily available, the potential of creating God-knows-what in the lab is magnified several-fold. India’s rich biological diversity offers a range of bacteria and viruses and thousands of lethal toxins that can be obtained from sources like micro-organisms and plants. All these have the potential of being cut and spliced at will, creating dangerous new organisms that have no pedigree and for which no antidotes are known. These are the monsters on the horizon, waiting to be picked up by terrorists with mayhem and destruction on their agenda.
So far as bugs like anthrax are concerned, we know their structure and understand their way of functioning. We know how to control and destroy them. If there were to be an anthrax attack as it occurred in the US a few years ago, people would know how to contain the bacteria in a short time after the smallest number of casualties. In the case of new organisms created by genetic engineering or synthetic biology, nobody knows their structure or their properties. Since they are not natural, they are not related to other organisms, which could offer clues about their functioning. The spread of such new organisms in a population could cause devastation because we would have no way of containing them or knowing how to destroy them fast enough.
Since threats from such novel organisms are rated as serious, the technologies of genetic engineering and synthetic biology are highly regulated. In May 2010, when Craig Venter announced his breakthrough “artificial life” a newly constructed micro-organism made up of genes synthesised in the lab, one of his first actions was to notify the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues so that official circles were in the know about what he was developing and could keep track of it. Since then the Presidential Commission has issued a number of recommendations for the emerging field of synthetic biology, most notably for coordinated federal oversight of scientists working in both large and small institutions.
In India, it is a matter of concern that there is little such oversight. It is ridiculously easy to procure biological materials such as harmful bacteria, viruses or toxins from academic laboratories since the supervision in these institutions is notoriously lax. According to the WikiLeaks report, there is a real fear that getting into a supposedly high containment facility to obtain lethal bio-agents is not very difficult in India and that “India's notably weak public health and agricultural infrastructure coupled with high population density means that a deliberate release of a disease-causing agent could go undetected for quite a while before authorities become aware”.
Of a piece with all this is our shabby regulatory system for genetic engineering which is known to be full of holes. Premier academic institutions do not follow the rules and prescribed regulatory procedures. A few years ago the field trials of Bt brinjal being conducted in the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) in Delhi had to be burnt down because they were being done in violation of the process laid down for such trials. The Mahyco company has been conducting field trials of Bt rice in Jharkhand in flagrant violation of all prescribed norms. When evidence of their violations, which were contaminating the native rice, was pointed out to the regulators, they refused to take action against the company and began to harass Gene Campaign instead for bringing this to light. There are rumours of even worse. That regulation can be influenced and clearances obtained for a price.
In addition to leaky and compromised science and technology systems, India is particularly vulnerable to bioterrorism attacks because there is almost no coordination between the ministries and departments that would need to pull together in immediate response to such an eventuality. Turf guarding, lack of communication and the near-total absence of cooperation among key stakeholders from different departments is a glaring and dangerous impediment to the country’s capacity to respond to a bio-terrorist attack. For officials milling around inflated with self-importance, sober introspection about our terrifying vulnerability to modern bio-terrorism would appear to be an urgent requirement. It is high time this “emerging global power” got its house in order to protect the life of its citizens.
The writer, an expert in genetics, is the convener of Gene Campaign.
Source : http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110111/edit.htm#4
Source : http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110111/edit.htm#4
Monday, December 27, 2010
Dangerous plastics in the kitchen
Suman Sahai
As endocrine diseases erupt in populations across the world and the incidence of all types of cancers register a sharp increase, surely we need to reflect on what we are doing wrong. The infamous Cancer Express from Punjab, so named because it carries cancer patients for treatment is testimony to the killer impact of chemicals in agriculture which enter our food and damage our health. The link between the chemical load in our food is increasingly better understood today but the food industry manages to keep regulation weak and standards as low as possible.
Take Bisphenol, it is a chemical used in plastic containers used to store food, food grade plastic bottles ( that is plastics approved to be used in food containers) , food cans and feeding bottles for babies. There is growing evidence that Bisphenol is harmful for health. Animal studies show that low doses of Bisphenol have adverse effects on the brain, reproductive system, and metabolic processes related to insulin balance and liver function. It may be related to cancer or even obesity and heart disease. The greatest sensitivity to Bisphenol is during early development and the substance is not flushed out as some drugs are, but accumulates over time in the body, causing damage to health
Despite the evidence, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the US allows the use of Bisphenol in food grade plastics and the plastic industry the world over takes its cue from that and allows Bisphenol to be used in plastic meant for use in the packing and storing of food. Microwaving food in plastic containers is particularly harmful. The plastic bottles that we use to store water at home should not be used and children should not be given plastic water bottles to take to school. Glass bottles are heavier but safer . Heat, detergents and scrubbing can break down Bisphenol and increase exposure. Consumers need to become aware of the dangers of Bisphenol and protest against its use in the food sector.
As endocrine diseases erupt in populations across the world and the incidence of all types of cancers register a sharp increase, surely we need to reflect on what we are doing wrong. The infamous Cancer Express from Punjab, so named because it carries cancer patients for treatment is testimony to the killer impact of chemicals in agriculture which enter our food and damage our health. The link between the chemical load in our food is increasingly better understood today but the food industry manages to keep regulation weak and standards as low as possible.
Take Bisphenol, it is a chemical used in plastic containers used to store food, food grade plastic bottles ( that is plastics approved to be used in food containers) , food cans and feeding bottles for babies. There is growing evidence that Bisphenol is harmful for health. Animal studies show that low doses of Bisphenol have adverse effects on the brain, reproductive system, and metabolic processes related to insulin balance and liver function. It may be related to cancer or even obesity and heart disease. The greatest sensitivity to Bisphenol is during early development and the substance is not flushed out as some drugs are, but accumulates over time in the body, causing damage to health
Despite the evidence, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the US allows the use of Bisphenol in food grade plastics and the plastic industry the world over takes its cue from that and allows Bisphenol to be used in plastic meant for use in the packing and storing of food. Microwaving food in plastic containers is particularly harmful. The plastic bottles that we use to store water at home should not be used and children should not be given plastic water bottles to take to school. Glass bottles are heavier but safer . Heat, detergents and scrubbing can break down Bisphenol and increase exposure. Consumers need to become aware of the dangers of Bisphenol and protest against its use in the food sector.
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Bt Brinjal Story
Suman Sahai & Carly Nichols
Bt brinjal was developed by India's Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco) using the modified gene Cry1Ac, under license from Monsanto. The modified Cry1Ac gene, found in the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, along with two other supporting genes, nptII and aad, are assembled in such a way that they work to produce an artificial insecticidal protein that is toxic to the targeted insect, in this case the fruit and shoot borer. Thus the intended effect is that the fruit and shoot borer is killed after ingesting any part of the Bt brinjal plant but that other organisms such as secondary insects, animals, and humans are unaffected. Field trials which must be performed before the release of GM crops are done to evaluate (a) the effectiveness of the insecticidal properties against the targeted insect; and (b) the safety of human, animal, and environmental health upon exposure to or consumption of the modified plant containing the transgenic construct.
Confined trials of Bt brinjal were first carried out between 2002 and 2004 and the data from these trials was submitted to the Review Committee of Genetic Modification (RCGM) in April 2006. On the basis of this data, generated and reported by Mahyco, RCGM recommended that GEAC should consider granting approval for large scale field trials of Bt brinjal.
In June 2006 Mahyco submitted bio-safety data to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the statutory and regulatory body for all genetically modified technology in India, and sought permission for large scale trials. GEAC decided to create a sub committee, called the Bt Brinjal Expert Committee I (EC-I), to look into the concerns raised by civil society on the accuracy of the submitted bio-safety data along with other overriding concerns such as cross contamination of normal brinjal by genes from Bt brinjal. These civil society concerns found expression in a May 2005 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by four activists, Aruna Rodrigues, Devinder Sharma, PV Satheesh, Rajeev Baruah (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005). The petition requested that field trials should only be allowed once “comprehensive, scientific, reliable and transparent bio-safety tests have been carried out” (Sreelata. 2006). This PIL eventually resulted in the Supreme Court issuing a ban on all GM field trials on September 22, 2006, pending scientific consensus on the risks involved with such field trials.
In July 2007 the EC-I submitted its report to GEAC, which recommended that 7 more studies on bio-safety be repeated to verify data which had been generated during the confined trials. Despite this, the EC-I gave the recommendation to go forward with large scale field trials. In August 2007 GEAC accepted this report and gave approval to begin large scale field trials. The Supreme Court subsequently lifted the ban on GM crop field trials so long as they abided by certain regulations such as isolation distance to prevent the risk of cross-breeding. As per GEAC direction, the Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR) implemented large scale trials of Bt brinjal at 10 research institutions across the country in 2007 and 11 in 2008. (Decisions taken in the 79th Meeting of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee held on 8.8.2007. <http://moef.gov.in/divisions/csurv/geac/geac-aug-79.pdf> ).
On a separate front, Gene Campaign, followed by Greenpeace, had asked under the Right to Information (RTI) Act for data to be released on toxicity and allergenicity tests conducted on Bt brinjal. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) refused to release this data saying it was Confidential Business Information. Gene Campaign approached the Supreme Court submitting that data having a bearing on public health could not be considered Confidential Business Information. In March 2008 the Supreme Court directed the Government to release allergenicity and toxicity data obtained from Bt brinjal.
Once the field studies carried out by Mahyco were obtained by civil society organizations data from them were sent to several expert scientists for independent reviews. These reviews yielded several reports by eminent scientists which questioned Mahyco’s experiment protocols as well as their interpretation of the data collected from trials (Carman 2009, Seralini 2009, Gurian-Sherman 2009, Heinemann 2009).
One notable report was authored by Gilles Eric Seralini in January 2009 just prior to the GEAC session slated to decide on the commercialization of Bt brinjal. Seralini, a biochemist with the Institute of Basic and Applied Biology (IFBA) at the University of Caen, found numerous discrepancies in Mahyco’s reporting of statistically significant data. For example, in goats which were fed Bt brinjal, blood took longer to coagulate and the bilirubin count had increased which indicates liver damage. Other adverse reactions were found in tests conducted on rabbits, cows, chickens, and rats which were fed Bt brinjal. These ranged from decrease in liver weight to changes in red blood cell profiles. Moreover the longest toxicity test which was conducted was for a 90 day duration which is far too short to gauge the risk of long-term effects such as cancer or tumour development. The overall validity of the trials has also brought into question as Seralini reports that Bt brinjal was modified to produce an insecticide toxin containing Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac modified sequences. However, in the toxicity tests (against target and non-target insects) a different Cry1Ac toxin was used instead.
Mahyco claims they disregarded the findings mentioned by Seralini for a variety of reasons. For example, deviations which did not show a linear dose response or a time response were disregarded, as were differences which showed up in either males or females, but not both. This omission of statistically significant results is contrary to standard scientific procedures. Seralini concluded his analysis of the mammalian biosafety trials by stating, “Clear significant differences [between Bt and non-Bt brinjal] were seen that raise food safety concerns and warrant further investigation. The GM Bt brinjal cannot be considered as safe as its non GM counterpart…it should be considered as unsuitable for human and animal consumption.”(Seralini. 2009).
Seralini also analyzed the environmental risks associated with the release of Bt brinjal. He characterized experiments done on the effect of Bt brinjal on non-target organisms, beneficial insects, and soil health as “woefully inadequate and give no assurances for the environmental safety of growing Bt brinjal.”(Seralini.2009). This is because indirect effects are not taken into account, such as the effects of Bt brinjal as it moves up the food chain. Seralini found that the gene flow studies performed were also inadequate as they failed to assess the risks of other methods of contamination, such as through the mixing of seeds. Based on these insufficient experiments Seralini recommended that Bt brinjal not be released into the environment for field trials or commercialization.
In January 2009 the IIVR submitted the results of the large scale trials. Due to concerns raised by several stakeholders, including experts such as Seralini, GEAC decided to constitute a second sub-committee (EC-II) to look into the adequacy of biosafety data which had been submitted as well as the broader concerns raised by stakeholders. The EC-II was to be overseen by Dr. P.M. Bhargava, a retired scientist with expertise in cell biology, who had been recommended by the Supreme Court as an observer in GEAC.
On October 14th, 2009 the Bt brinjal EC-II submitted its report, dated October 8, 2009, at the 97th meeting of GEAC. GEAC accepted the report and approved the environmental release of Bt Brinjal containing the event EE1 for commercialization. However, this approval was qualified by stating, "..as this decision of the GEAC has very important policy implication at the national level, the GEAC decided its recommendation for environmental release may be put up to the Government for taking final view on the matter"(GEAC 97th Meeting. October 14, 2009).
Within 48 hours of GEAC’s approval Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, intervened and halted the approval for commercialization. Responding to strong views expressed both for and against the release of Bt Brinjal, he extended an invitation to the public for comments. He further said that a decision regarding Bt brinjal’s release would only be made pending a nationwide consultation in January and February 2010.
From January 13th, 2010 to February 6th, 2010 seven public hearings on Bt-brinjal were organised by the Center for Environment Education (CEE) supported by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoE&F). These were held in Kolkata, Bhubaneshwar, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Chandigarh, Hyderabad and Bangalore. Almost 8000 people from different sections of society participated in these seven public hearings. Participants included farmer organizations, scientists, seed suppliers, state agriculture department officials, NGOs, allopathic and ayurvedic doctors, students and housewives.
On February 9, 2010, after concluding the public hearings, Minister Ramesh announced a moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal. This, he said, was done in response not only to public concern but also significant input from national experts and the international scientific community, pressure from an active and civil society, and opposition from ten State governments, including all the major brinjal producing ones (Decision on Commercialisation of Bt-Brinjal. 2010). He said this moratorium would remain until there was further safety testing and a regulatory system specifically for genetically modified crops set in place. The Minister further said that the moratorium period would be used to commission fresh scientific studies and improve the testing process. Ramesh stated “If you need long term toxicity tests, then you must do it, no matter how long it takes… There is no hurry. There is no overriding urgency or food security argument for [release of] Bt brinjal.”(Decision on Commercialisation of Bt-Brinjal. 2010). Ramesh also made clear that the moratorium period should also be used to implement a functioning independent regulatory authority and hold a parliamentary debate on private investment in agricultural biotechnology.
This decision by Ramesh was followed by a request from civil society for a report to be drawn up to further assess the EC-II report. David A Andow, an eminent scientist at the University of Minnesota, was requested to assess the EC-II report and the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of Bt brinjal. In his report Andow said that the ERA which was submitted to GEAC had a too narrow scope to adequately gauge the risks posed by the commercial release of Bt brinjal. Andow states, “the EC-II is criticized not for whether it has accomplished what it set out to do, but whether it set out to do the right thing in the first place”(Andow. 2010). Andow’s main conclusion from his analysis of the EC-II report along with the original Mahyco bio-safety dossier is that the EC-II has not effectively characterized the risks associated with the release of Bt brinjal. These risks include not only environmental contamination and bio-safety hazards but also socio-economic risks to smallholder farmers which comprise a large part of Indian agriculture. Andow recommended that the risks posed by Bt brinjal need to first be adequately characterized, after which a proper risk management analysis can be performed.
At the same time that Andow was requested for an independent expert analysis, Ramesh commissioned six of India’s top scientific academies (The Indian Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Academy of Engineering, The National Academy of Sciences (India), The Indian National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and The National Academy of Medical Sciences) to more broadly assess the feasibility and safety of genetically modified (GM) crops and their regulation. The report was supposed to specifically focus on the case of Bt brinjal.
On September 24th 2010 the Inter-Academy report was released which stated that Bt brinjal’s safety for human consumption had been established "adequately and beyond reasonable doubt"(Inter-academy Report on GM Crops. 2010). They supported the quick release of Bt brinjal at limited sites across the country provided that distance and isolation requirements were maintained. Countering the findings of Seralini and Andow, the Inter-academy Report said that environmental risks associated with Bt brinjal were “negligible” and that there would be “no appreciable effect of GM crops on biodiversity.” However, the Inter-academy Report quickly became embroiled in scandal as proven allegations of plagiarism and blatant pro-GM biases surfaced within days of the report’s release. (India Today. September 26, 2010. Indian Express. September 26, 2010)
By September 27, 2010, this report had been dismissed as unscientific and overtly influenced by pro-GM thinkers by not only civil society and activist groups but by Minister Ramesh, himself. It was found that significant sections of the text were plagiarised from an article published in 'Biotech News' magazine and authored by Dr. Ananda Kumar, a scientist who heads the National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology. The report did not contain proper references and was criticized for using an unscientific tone rife with generalizations and clichés. Minister Ramesh dismissed the report and stated that it did not “appear to be the product of rigorous scientific evaluation.” (Indian Express. September 28, 2010). The poor quality of the Inter-Academy report and the Minister’s response to it has further confused the matter of Bt brinjal in India. As it stands today, the moratorium on Bt brinjal continues.
References
Andow, David A. “Bt Brinjal: The Scope and Adequacy of the GEAC Environmental Risk Assessment”. Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota. August 2010.
“Bt Brinjal safe, says new report” Indian Express. September 26, 2010.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bt-brinjal-unsafe-says-new-report/688153/1 Accessed December 1, 2010.
Carman, Judy. “A Review of Mahyco’s GM Brinjal Food Safety Studies” Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Inc. January 2009
Decisions taken in the 79th Meeting of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee held on 8.8.2007. <http://moef.gov.in/divisions/csurv/geac/geac-aug-79.pdf>
Decisions taken in the 97th Meeting of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee held on 14.10.2009 <http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/decision-oct-97.pdf>
Gurian-Sherman, Doug. “Comments on Possible Consequences of Gene Flow from Bt Brinjal to Brinjal Wild Relatives in India, and the Inadequacy of the Current Risk Assessment”. April 2009.
Heinnemann, Jack. “Summary of Analysis of Mahyco Fruit and Shoot Borer Tolerant Brinjal”. Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety. July 2009.
Inter-Academy Report on GM Crops. September 2010. The Indian Academy of Sciences, The Indian National Academy of Engineering, The Indian National Science Academy, The National Academy of Agricultural Sciences The National Academy of Medical Sciences, The National Academy of Sciences (India). <http://subharmonics.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/transgenic-report-sep2010.pdf>
“No scientific rigour in report on GM crops: Ramesh”. Indian Express. September 28, 2010. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/No-scientific-rigour-in-report-on-GM-crops--Ramesh/689268 Accessed November 30, 2010
Ramesh, Jairam. Bt Brinjal: Note by Ministry of Environment and Forests. Decision on Commercialisation of Bt-Brinjal. February 9, 2010.
Seralini, Gilles-Eric. “Effects on Health and Environment of Transgenic (or GM) Bt Brinjal”. CRIIGEN. January 2009.
Sharma, Dinesh C.“Academies Copied to Push for Bt Brinjal” India Today. September 26, 2010. <http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/114057/India/academies-copied-to-push-for-bt-brinjal.html> Accessed December 1, 2010.
Sreelata, M. “Indian Supreme Court Bans GM Crop Trials”. Science and Development Network. October 31, 2006. <http://www.scidev.net/en/news/indian-supreme-court-bans-gm-crop-trials.html>. Accessed December 8, 2010.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004. Gene Campaign & Another Versus Union of India & Others. Supreme Court of India. <http://www.genecampaign.org/home_files/GM%20Writ%20Petition.pdf>
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005. Aruna Rodrigues & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. Supreme Court of India.
Confined trials of Bt brinjal were first carried out between 2002 and 2004 and the data from these trials was submitted to the Review Committee of Genetic Modification (RCGM) in April 2006. On the basis of this data, generated and reported by Mahyco, RCGM recommended that GEAC should consider granting approval for large scale field trials of Bt brinjal.
In June 2006 Mahyco submitted bio-safety data to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the statutory and regulatory body for all genetically modified technology in India, and sought permission for large scale trials. GEAC decided to create a sub committee, called the Bt Brinjal Expert Committee I (EC-I), to look into the concerns raised by civil society on the accuracy of the submitted bio-safety data along with other overriding concerns such as cross contamination of normal brinjal by genes from Bt brinjal. These civil society concerns found expression in a May 2005 Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by four activists, Aruna Rodrigues, Devinder Sharma, PV Satheesh, Rajeev Baruah (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005). The petition requested that field trials should only be allowed once “comprehensive, scientific, reliable and transparent bio-safety tests have been carried out” (Sreelata. 2006). This PIL eventually resulted in the Supreme Court issuing a ban on all GM field trials on September 22, 2006, pending scientific consensus on the risks involved with such field trials.
In July 2007 the EC-I submitted its report to GEAC, which recommended that 7 more studies on bio-safety be repeated to verify data which had been generated during the confined trials. Despite this, the EC-I gave the recommendation to go forward with large scale field trials. In August 2007 GEAC accepted this report and gave approval to begin large scale field trials. The Supreme Court subsequently lifted the ban on GM crop field trials so long as they abided by certain regulations such as isolation distance to prevent the risk of cross-breeding. As per GEAC direction, the Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR) implemented large scale trials of Bt brinjal at 10 research institutions across the country in 2007 and 11 in 2008. (Decisions taken in the 79th Meeting of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee held on 8.8.2007. <http://moef.gov.in/divisions/csurv/geac/geac-aug-79.pdf> ).
On a separate front, Gene Campaign, followed by Greenpeace, had asked under the Right to Information (RTI) Act for data to be released on toxicity and allergenicity tests conducted on Bt brinjal. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT) refused to release this data saying it was Confidential Business Information. Gene Campaign approached the Supreme Court submitting that data having a bearing on public health could not be considered Confidential Business Information. In March 2008 the Supreme Court directed the Government to release allergenicity and toxicity data obtained from Bt brinjal.
Once the field studies carried out by Mahyco were obtained by civil society organizations data from them were sent to several expert scientists for independent reviews. These reviews yielded several reports by eminent scientists which questioned Mahyco’s experiment protocols as well as their interpretation of the data collected from trials (Carman 2009, Seralini 2009, Gurian-Sherman 2009, Heinemann 2009).
One notable report was authored by Gilles Eric Seralini in January 2009 just prior to the GEAC session slated to decide on the commercialization of Bt brinjal. Seralini, a biochemist with the Institute of Basic and Applied Biology (IFBA) at the University of Caen, found numerous discrepancies in Mahyco’s reporting of statistically significant data. For example, in goats which were fed Bt brinjal, blood took longer to coagulate and the bilirubin count had increased which indicates liver damage. Other adverse reactions were found in tests conducted on rabbits, cows, chickens, and rats which were fed Bt brinjal. These ranged from decrease in liver weight to changes in red blood cell profiles. Moreover the longest toxicity test which was conducted was for a 90 day duration which is far too short to gauge the risk of long-term effects such as cancer or tumour development. The overall validity of the trials has also brought into question as Seralini reports that Bt brinjal was modified to produce an insecticide toxin containing Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac modified sequences. However, in the toxicity tests (against target and non-target insects) a different Cry1Ac toxin was used instead.
Mahyco claims they disregarded the findings mentioned by Seralini for a variety of reasons. For example, deviations which did not show a linear dose response or a time response were disregarded, as were differences which showed up in either males or females, but not both. This omission of statistically significant results is contrary to standard scientific procedures. Seralini concluded his analysis of the mammalian biosafety trials by stating, “Clear significant differences [between Bt and non-Bt brinjal] were seen that raise food safety concerns and warrant further investigation. The GM Bt brinjal cannot be considered as safe as its non GM counterpart…it should be considered as unsuitable for human and animal consumption.”(Seralini. 2009).
Seralini also analyzed the environmental risks associated with the release of Bt brinjal. He characterized experiments done on the effect of Bt brinjal on non-target organisms, beneficial insects, and soil health as “woefully inadequate and give no assurances for the environmental safety of growing Bt brinjal.”(Seralini.2009). This is because indirect effects are not taken into account, such as the effects of Bt brinjal as it moves up the food chain. Seralini found that the gene flow studies performed were also inadequate as they failed to assess the risks of other methods of contamination, such as through the mixing of seeds. Based on these insufficient experiments Seralini recommended that Bt brinjal not be released into the environment for field trials or commercialization.
In January 2009 the IIVR submitted the results of the large scale trials. Due to concerns raised by several stakeholders, including experts such as Seralini, GEAC decided to constitute a second sub-committee (EC-II) to look into the adequacy of biosafety data which had been submitted as well as the broader concerns raised by stakeholders. The EC-II was to be overseen by Dr. P.M. Bhargava, a retired scientist with expertise in cell biology, who had been recommended by the Supreme Court as an observer in GEAC.
On October 14th, 2009 the Bt brinjal EC-II submitted its report, dated October 8, 2009, at the 97th meeting of GEAC. GEAC accepted the report and approved the environmental release of Bt Brinjal containing the event EE1 for commercialization. However, this approval was qualified by stating, "..as this decision of the GEAC has very important policy implication at the national level, the GEAC decided its recommendation for environmental release may be put up to the Government for taking final view on the matter"(GEAC 97th Meeting. October 14, 2009).
Within 48 hours of GEAC’s approval Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, intervened and halted the approval for commercialization. Responding to strong views expressed both for and against the release of Bt Brinjal, he extended an invitation to the public for comments. He further said that a decision regarding Bt brinjal’s release would only be made pending a nationwide consultation in January and February 2010.
From January 13th, 2010 to February 6th, 2010 seven public hearings on Bt-brinjal were organised by the Center for Environment Education (CEE) supported by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoE&F). These were held in Kolkata, Bhubaneshwar, Ahmedabad, Nagpur, Chandigarh, Hyderabad and Bangalore. Almost 8000 people from different sections of society participated in these seven public hearings. Participants included farmer organizations, scientists, seed suppliers, state agriculture department officials, NGOs, allopathic and ayurvedic doctors, students and housewives.
On February 9, 2010, after concluding the public hearings, Minister Ramesh announced a moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal. This, he said, was done in response not only to public concern but also significant input from national experts and the international scientific community, pressure from an active and civil society, and opposition from ten State governments, including all the major brinjal producing ones (Decision on Commercialisation of Bt-Brinjal. 2010). He said this moratorium would remain until there was further safety testing and a regulatory system specifically for genetically modified crops set in place. The Minister further said that the moratorium period would be used to commission fresh scientific studies and improve the testing process. Ramesh stated “If you need long term toxicity tests, then you must do it, no matter how long it takes… There is no hurry. There is no overriding urgency or food security argument for [release of] Bt brinjal.”(Decision on Commercialisation of Bt-Brinjal. 2010). Ramesh also made clear that the moratorium period should also be used to implement a functioning independent regulatory authority and hold a parliamentary debate on private investment in agricultural biotechnology.
This decision by Ramesh was followed by a request from civil society for a report to be drawn up to further assess the EC-II report. David A Andow, an eminent scientist at the University of Minnesota, was requested to assess the EC-II report and the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of Bt brinjal. In his report Andow said that the ERA which was submitted to GEAC had a too narrow scope to adequately gauge the risks posed by the commercial release of Bt brinjal. Andow states, “the EC-II is criticized not for whether it has accomplished what it set out to do, but whether it set out to do the right thing in the first place”(Andow. 2010). Andow’s main conclusion from his analysis of the EC-II report along with the original Mahyco bio-safety dossier is that the EC-II has not effectively characterized the risks associated with the release of Bt brinjal. These risks include not only environmental contamination and bio-safety hazards but also socio-economic risks to smallholder farmers which comprise a large part of Indian agriculture. Andow recommended that the risks posed by Bt brinjal need to first be adequately characterized, after which a proper risk management analysis can be performed.
At the same time that Andow was requested for an independent expert analysis, Ramesh commissioned six of India’s top scientific academies (The Indian Academy of Sciences, the Indian National Academy of Engineering, The National Academy of Sciences (India), The Indian National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and The National Academy of Medical Sciences) to more broadly assess the feasibility and safety of genetically modified (GM) crops and their regulation. The report was supposed to specifically focus on the case of Bt brinjal.
On September 24th 2010 the Inter-Academy report was released which stated that Bt brinjal’s safety for human consumption had been established "adequately and beyond reasonable doubt"(Inter-academy Report on GM Crops. 2010). They supported the quick release of Bt brinjal at limited sites across the country provided that distance and isolation requirements were maintained. Countering the findings of Seralini and Andow, the Inter-academy Report said that environmental risks associated with Bt brinjal were “negligible” and that there would be “no appreciable effect of GM crops on biodiversity.” However, the Inter-academy Report quickly became embroiled in scandal as proven allegations of plagiarism and blatant pro-GM biases surfaced within days of the report’s release. (India Today. September 26, 2010. Indian Express. September 26, 2010)
By September 27, 2010, this report had been dismissed as unscientific and overtly influenced by pro-GM thinkers by not only civil society and activist groups but by Minister Ramesh, himself. It was found that significant sections of the text were plagiarised from an article published in 'Biotech News' magazine and authored by Dr. Ananda Kumar, a scientist who heads the National Research Centre on Plant Biotechnology. The report did not contain proper references and was criticized for using an unscientific tone rife with generalizations and clichés. Minister Ramesh dismissed the report and stated that it did not “appear to be the product of rigorous scientific evaluation.” (Indian Express. September 28, 2010). The poor quality of the Inter-Academy report and the Minister’s response to it has further confused the matter of Bt brinjal in India. As it stands today, the moratorium on Bt brinjal continues.
References
Andow, David A. “Bt Brinjal: The Scope and Adequacy of the GEAC Environmental Risk Assessment”. Department of Entomology, University of Minnesota. August 2010.
“Bt Brinjal safe, says new report” Indian Express. September 26, 2010.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/bt-brinjal-unsafe-says-new-report/688153/1 Accessed December 1, 2010.
Carman, Judy. “A Review of Mahyco’s GM Brinjal Food Safety Studies” Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Inc. January 2009
Decisions taken in the 79th Meeting of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee held on 8.8.2007. <http://moef.gov.in/divisions/csurv/geac/geac-aug-79.pdf>
Decisions taken in the 97th Meeting of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee held on 14.10.2009 <http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/decision-oct-97.pdf>
Gurian-Sherman, Doug. “Comments on Possible Consequences of Gene Flow from Bt Brinjal to Brinjal Wild Relatives in India, and the Inadequacy of the Current Risk Assessment”. April 2009.
Heinnemann, Jack. “Summary of Analysis of Mahyco Fruit and Shoot Borer Tolerant Brinjal”. Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety. July 2009.
Inter-Academy Report on GM Crops. September 2010. The Indian Academy of Sciences, The Indian National Academy of Engineering, The Indian National Science Academy, The National Academy of Agricultural Sciences The National Academy of Medical Sciences, The National Academy of Sciences (India). <http://subharmonics.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/transgenic-report-sep2010.pdf>
“No scientific rigour in report on GM crops: Ramesh”. Indian Express. September 28, 2010. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/No-scientific-rigour-in-report-on-GM-crops--Ramesh/689268 Accessed November 30, 2010
Ramesh, Jairam. Bt Brinjal: Note by Ministry of Environment and Forests. Decision on Commercialisation of Bt-Brinjal. February 9, 2010.
Seralini, Gilles-Eric. “Effects on Health and Environment of Transgenic (or GM) Bt Brinjal”. CRIIGEN. January 2009.
Sharma, Dinesh C.“Academies Copied to Push for Bt Brinjal” India Today. September 26, 2010. <http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/114057/India/academies-copied-to-push-for-bt-brinjal.html> Accessed December 1, 2010.
Sreelata, M. “Indian Supreme Court Bans GM Crop Trials”. Science and Development Network. October 31, 2006. <http://www.scidev.net/en/news/indian-supreme-court-bans-gm-crop-trials.html>. Accessed December 8, 2010.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 115 of 2004. Gene Campaign & Another Versus Union of India & Others. Supreme Court of India. <http://www.genecampaign.org/home_files/GM%20Writ%20Petition.pdf>
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005. Aruna Rodrigues & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. Supreme Court of India.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)