BANGLADESH: MODIFIED BRINJAL TAKEN TO COURT

Modified brinjal taken to court

Campaigners against genetically modified (GM) crops yesterday filed a writ petition with the High Court against a government move to release Bt brinjal, a GM crop, for the first time in the country.

The court is likely to hear the writ today, lawyers concerned said.
The writ was filed by five green activists including an organiser of Naya Krishi Andolon, Farida Akhter.
The move came seven days after the same group served a legal notice on the agriculture secretary, executive chairman of Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council and director general of Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (Bari), asking them to refrain from commercial release of Bt brinjal.
On July 15, Bari applied to the National Technical Committee for Crop Biotechnology seeking commercial release of Bt brinjal next month.
Earlier, Bangladeshi scientists had readied the country’s first GM crop — brinjal infused with pest-resistant genes — which could see a drastic fall in the use of harmful pesticides in the crop.

Of all vegetables produced in the country, brinjal tops the list in terms of pesticide use.

Fruit and shoot borer, considered the most devastating pest in South and Southeast Asia, ravages brinjal fields and can cause loss of the crop by as much as 70 percent unless a heavy dose of pesticide is used.

Contacted, Farida Akhter said yesterday they filed the writ apprehending that release of the GM crop would cause loss of biodiversity and create “biological pollution” in the environment.
Dr Md Rafiqul Islam Mondal, director general of Bari, told this correspondent yesterday an additional attorney general would defend the case on behalf the government. He insisted that the process of release of Bt brinjal would go through all biosafety regulatory processes, and those opposing its release would have a fair chance to raise their voice during “public consultation” before the government takes a final decision in this regard.
Once the crop is released, Bangladesh will join a group of 28 countries which grow GM crops. Though it will be the country’s first home-grown GM crop, consumers have long been exposed to GM foods through consumption of imported GM soybean oil. THE DAILY STAR

The cost of India’s Green Revolution

ARTICLE BY AMARJEET KAUR

AMAR IS CURRENTLY INTERNING WITH WDM IN THE CAMPAIGNS AND POLICY TEAM

The cost of India’s Green Revolution

This June the G8 took another step towards creating the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. This private sector driven development implies it will solve hunger by rolling out fertilizers, GM seeds and other non organic inputs. Whilst the talk around the New Alliance is glossed over with rhetoric about ending hunger it is worth remembering the impacts of the last big global push to create food security. The ‘Green Revolution’ in India was first undertaken by the state of Punjab in the 1960’s. Then as today the announced plan was supposed to overcome the famine crisis and enable the country to be able to provide enough food to feed its citizens. However, the revolution involved moving away from natural pesticides and conventional grains and towards chemical pesticides, hybrid seeds, and later on GM seeds. As promised, agricultural output did increase in some Indian states, with national wheat production increasing from 10 million tonnes in 1960, to almost 95 million tonnes in 2012. However the Green Revolution is largely criticised for not tackling the root causes of hunger; indeed, these gains came at a price.
The use of GM crops has intensified the situation of water scarcity in the region, as the high-intensity nature of the crops require increasing amounts of water over time, leading desperate farmers to dig deeper and deeper underground in search of water. Farming with GM crops also led to a reduction in the genetic diversity amongst crops, which in turn led to crops being more susceptible to pests and diseases. GM crops have also led to an increase in the use of pesticides; this is mainly due to the crop itself becoming increasingly vulnerable to disease, as well as pests becoming resistant to the original levels of pesticide, with higher levels of pesticide being used to tackle both these issues. Another contributor to pesticide use is the terminology being used in the Punjab. Using the word “pesticide” provides us in the English speaking world with a negative association with chemical pesticides, as the word sounds harmful and maybe even toxic. Yet in Punjab, farmers refer to pesticides as “dava”, which when translated means medicine, providing them with a positive association with the chemical inputs, and encouraging them to use pesticides when farming.
This increasing use of pesticides has placed an increasing financial burden on farmers, but since the micronutrients in the soil are being depleted by the use of GM crops and chemicals, farmers have begun to see reduced crop yields, resulting in lower incomes. Farmers are also faced with higher costs due to hybrid and GM seeds needing to be repurchased every year; whereas with conventional seeds they were able to save seeds and reuse them the following harvest.  These factors place the farmer under financial strain, and since there are few legitimate finance lenders, many typically turn to loan sharks. The inability of farmers to pay off their loan leads to the tragic act of suicide, with statistics from 2011 revealing that the rate of suicide for farmers was 47% higher than the overall Indian population.
There has also been weak regulation of the pesticide industry in India, with pesticides that have been banned for health reasons in many other countries widely available in the nation. Some chemicals are also available in dangerously high concentrations such as Organophosphorous. This chemical has been blamed for the recent deaths of school children in India after high quantities of the chemical were found in the children’s free school meals. In Punjab, the home of the Green Revolution, scientists have found that the villages using higher amounts of pesticides are also the ones with higher rates of cancer. The problem has become so severe that there is now even a “cancer train” which takes citizens from the Punjab to the town of Bikaner, where the government’s centre for cancer treatment is located. Passengers on board the train say that they don’t doubt that pesticides are behind the rise of cancer in Punjab.

The success of southern states in India that have already moved towards organic farming has begun to inspire Punjabi farmers to move away from chemical inputs and GM crops. The state of Sikkim is now largely using organic inputs and soil nutrients and aims to be an entirely organic state by 2015. Within Sikkim farmer field schools are being organised to provide farmers with practical training on sustainable methods of farming, such as how to identify which insects are good for agriculture and which are pests; as well as how to deal with pests if they are found without the use of chemicals. Organic farmers in Sikkim have begun to achieve a higher quantity of crop as well as a better quality, and these results are proving an attractive draw for non-organic farmers to make the switch. The success of Sikkim has been aided by the high level of support received from the state government. The government of Punjab has made statements of its support for organic farming, but until it backs those statements up with funding and technical assistance, Punjab will have a tough time of leaving pesticides and GM crops behind as well as the problems that come with them. WDM.ORG.UK

INDIA: ACTIVIST PLEADS SC ON GMO

Activist pleads SC to ignore former ICAR DG's findings on GMO

An anti-genetically modified crops activist has asked the SupremeCourt to accept the final report of its technical expert committee while "ignoring" any findings by its member and former DG of Indian Council of Agriculture Research R S Paroda, alleging that he had "conflict of interest" on the issue. 

The affidavit filed by activist Aruna Rodrigues, who had sought a complete moratorium on field trial of GMO, said the final report and documents by the expert committee (TEC) recommended no field trials till regulatory gaps are addressed as there have been serious shortcomings in the GMO regulatory process. 

The affidavit filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan said the TEC in their 'covering letter' to their final report indicated that Paroda was not present to sign it on June 30, 2013, nor did he give a dissenting note. 

Further, it said TEC enclosed Paroda's contribution separately. "That document enclosed with the Report shows that the overall conclusion of his (Paroda's) analysis is that 'confined' field trials and their regulation should simply be under the purview of the regulators to decide the outcome," the affidavit said.

The anti-GMO activist said the affidavit was being filed to provide evidence that "the apex court's mandate of independence as a regulatory objective and specifically in the context of its TEC has been breached" with Paroda's induction. 

The affidavit claimed that there is evidence of both institutional and personal conflict of interest that enmesh Paroda. 

"Given the serious conflict of interest that involves him on both grounds, the Government clearly misled this court by suggesting his name for a Supreme Court-appointed TEC which is required to arrive at its findings without bias," it alleged. 

"Paroda ought to have recused himself for the same reason, especially after his conflict of interest became a public issue," the affidavit said. PTI

TIME TO SHED OUR PREJUDICES AGAINST GM: SYNGENTA

ARTICLE BY SYNGENTA


K. C. RAVI

The author is Vice-President, Syngenta, South Asia. The views are personal.

Time to shed our prejudices against GM

We need all the available technologies to meet the demand for food.

The Technical Expert Committee (TEC) recommendations to the Supreme Court do not augur well for agriculture biotechnology in the country.

The TEC has called for an indefinite moratorium on open field trials of Genetically Modified (GM) crops till the deficiencies in the regulatory and safety systems are effectively addressed.

The spin-offs of the move leads us to wonder “to be or not to be” in the agriculture biotechnology space in India.

There can be no doubt about the benefits of this technology, as espoused in recent statements by both the Prime Minister and President of India. Pranab Mukherjee said recently at the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) foundation day, “Development and introduction of genetically modified crops have the potential to revolutionise agriculture. The concerns over their perceived risks should be addressed by following internationally accepted procedures for assessing safety parameters.”

Asking us to follow restraint and reason about GM crops, Manmohan Singh had said at the 100th Science Congress, “Complex issues, be they genetically modified food or nuclear energy or exploration of outer space, cannot be settled by faith, emotion and fear but by structured debate, analysis and enlightenment. A scientific approach and understanding of these issues are therefore as vital as our core scientific capabilities.”

Soon thereafter, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar said that the Government can’t take the “luxurious decision” of banning field trials of GM crops, while ensuring that “abundant precaution” had been taken to ensure safety to the health of humans, animals and the environment.

This was a direct reference to the Parliamentary Standing Committee report which had also recommended a 10-year moratorium on GM crop trials.

WHY WE NEED IT

The adoption and success of Bt cotton is part of folklore . It is an well recognised how India has transformed itself from a net importer of cotton to a net exporter and occupy the fourth position in the world in terms of production.

Such was the initial euphoria that people believed if IT was India Today, BT (read as Biotechnology and not the gene bacillus thuringiensis) was Bharat Tomorrow. But today, a mass hysteria has been triggered by the opponents of BT.

Ever since the second biotech crop, Bt brinjal, was stopped from being commercialised, the debate has taken a turn for the worse. Even field trial research can be conducted only after obtaining a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from State governments.

But if one were to step back and view the debate dispassionately, it would be clear that every technology since the evolution of mankind has brought with it concerns and challenges.

And the cardinal principle that has guided mankind to adopt technologies is to maximise benefits and minimise risks.

When I was young, my grandmother often used to say that even to tread hard on mother earth is detrimental to the environment, leave alone running heavy machines.

Similarly, if we were intent on ruling out the side effects of allopathic medicines, we would have to stop consuming all forms of medication. Biotech formulations in pharmaceuticals have, however, been accepted for human consumption.

There is ample evidence -- with many parts of the world growing or consuming genetically modified products -- that agricultural biotechnology has the potential to improve productivity, secure yields, and improve the quality of crops while minimising any environmental impact. If we are to feed an estimated 9 billion people by 2050, then GM and other biotechnology options which enhance yields should be available to farmers. According to one estimate, we shall require to produce twice as much food from the same area of farmland, and with less water, in the next 40 years.

MOVE ON

We need all available agricultural technologies, including biotechnology, to meet the current and projected global demand for food, feed, fibre, and biofuels. Plant breeding and genetic modification should help.

The various concerns can be overcome if concerted efforts are made by government, public institutions, scientific community, private players and NGOs. We have built quite a rigorous regulatory regime. Field trials should not stop.

India cannot afford to go back at this stage after putting so much time, effort, energy and resources to build the requisite infrastructure and capacity.

A new centre for agriculture biotechnology was announced even in the last Budget, adding to the enormous public sector infrastructure at the Centre and the States. The stage is set for a robust biotechnology regime. Shunning it is surely not the best option. THEHINDUBUSINESSLINE

USA: GM WHEAT - JAPAN RESUMES PURCHASES

Genetically modified wheat: Oregon farmers cheer Japan's decision to resume purchases

Oregon's wheat farmers, already in the thick of this year's harvest, have one less thing to worry about. And it's a biggie.

Drought, crop prices and equipment breakdowns are still on the list of troubles, but Japan's agricultural ministry announced Tuesday that it will resume buying western white wheat from the Pacific Northwest -- a crop valued at up to $500 million a year to Oregon farmers.

The announcement ended months of uncertainty for growers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. The discovery of genetically modified wheat plants growing in an Oregon field this spring had threatened to shut down their biggest export market.

"It's good news," said Steve Mercer, vice president of communications for the trade groupU.S. Wheat Associates. He said Japan has placed a purchase order for 90,000 metric tons of western white wheat, which is a blend of varieties called soft white wheat and club wheat. Both varieties are grown in the Pacific Northwest, and the order will be shipped from Columbia River ports, Mercer said.

Japan and South Korea postponed wheat purchases in May after learning unapproved "Roundup Ready" wheat plants had been found growing in an eastern Oregon field in April.

Most of the wheat grown in the Pacific Northwest is exported to Asian nations, where it's made into noodles, cakes, crackers and cookies. But buyers there don't want genetically engineered food, and reacted swiftly to cut off purchases when news broke of the rogue plants. South Korea resumed wheat purchases earlier in July after initial testing failed to find more genetically engineered plants or seed.

Oregon Wheat Commission chief executive Blake Rowe said Japan's turnaround is "very welcome" to the state's wheat farmers, who are in the midst of harvest this summer.

"It's great news to have our largest, longest and most reliable customer back buying wheat," he said.

An ongoing investigation by the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, has found no more genetically modified plants, seed or grain. The agency said this week that it has interviewed 270 growers but has not yet been able to say how the plants came to be in the Oregon field. The plants were a variety developed by Monsanto Co. to resist its Roundup herbicide, but never approved for commercial production.

Japan will test for genetically modified material in wheat shipments, adding to a testing regimen that includes checking for residue of 120 chemicals, Mercer said. Japan buys about 1 million metric tons of western white wheat annually, and Mercer praised Japan's "science-based approach" to the investigation.

"It was from caution that they made the choice they did, and they went forward in very reasoned way," he said.

Condon-area farmer Walter Powell said cooperation by state and federal agencies, trade groups, farmers and the Northwest congressional delegation was crucial in easing export partners' concerns about genetically engineered wheat.

"Realistically, in the back of my mind, I know that if Japan or Korea or Taiwan do any testing and it turns up positive, we've got a whole different scenario," Powell said. "But for right now, it's a tremendous relief."

Hiroshi Furusawa, Japan's consul general in Portland, said Tuesday that "satisfactory" results of the APHIS investigation were a key factor in resuming wheat purchases. Testing in Portland and in Japan should spot any future problems, he said.

"We do rely on what you grow here, and we are pleased once again to be able to resume importing wheat," Furusawa said. "I value this relationship very much, and I'm glad it's continuing."

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., applauded Japan's decision, saying it "comes at the perfect time for wheat growers and for the state's economy."

Wyden said the resumption of wheat purchases could not have been accomplished without the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "unprecedented transparency and openness" regarding the investigation. APHIS, the investigating agency, is a division of the USDA.

--Eric Mortenson OREGONLIVE

INDIA: NEED A DEBATE ON GM CROPS TOO LIKE ON ECONOMY

Just like on economy, we need a debate on GM crops too

Throughout last week we were treated to some kind of media circus that pitched Nobel laureate Amartya Sen against Columbia University professor Jagdish Bhagwati. A lot of it was unseemly; but the good thing that came out of it was that even those readers who’d normally not pay attention to such topics, ended up reading it and came away better informed. (After some initial wading, I figured if you had read just this piece by Mihir Sharma, you’d have got all that you needed to know about this debate.)

Unfortunately in this verbal duel we forgot to read and debate this news: The Technical Expert Committee (TEC) constituted by the Supreme Court, which is hearing the public interest litigation seeking moratorium on public field trials of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, came out with its report. In this report the panel is seeking a freeze on open field trials of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). The report says, the “system has major gaps and these will require rethinking and relearning to fix.”

The court will now seek a response from the government and if the apex court accepts this report with its current recommendations, then, many scientists say, it could prove detrimental to all genetic modification in agricultural research in India.

Enormously serious as this news was, it could have equally benefited one and all if we had a “scientific” debate on the subject by some senior scientists. How about the most respectable pro-GM scientist G Padmanaban, professor emeritus and former director of IISc pitched against one of the founding fathers of biotechnology in India, Pushpa M Bhargava who is now one of the most ardent critics of the use of GM technology for solving some agri issues. Incidentally, the American Journal of Science organized a debate between the two a few months ago, conducted by editor Bruce Alberts. Alas, such debates don’t carry much charm for mainstream Indian media, both newspapers and magazines.

I asked both senior scientists why we don’t we have debates on this issue and if they’d want to participate someone were to organise one. Unsurprisingly both seem very willing and keen to have such open debates as long as the rules are defined; it doesn’t get personal and statements are backed by scientific evidence.

To get the facts first, I’ll state their positions upfront. Both are distinguished biochemists but have now taken up the role of being the public face of pro- and anti-GM technology.

Padmanaban believes that the TEC report is very “disappointing” though it was a foregone conclusion. “If you saw the four out of five names in the committee, and knew their stated positions on this, it was known that they’d give a report like this, one that’d curb GM research. There’s just one dissenting voice in the committee.”

The position that Padmanaban has taken is that the biodiversity fear created by the anti-GM community is magnified several times over and that as long as the particular gene that is being introduced in the crop, in this case Bt, is tested for safety, there’s no danger to the biodiversity. As for harm to the humans, he says people have consumed Bt corn for over 15 years in at least six countries and there’s no scientifically validated study that shows any harm to human health or environment. In short, the GM technology is as safe or not  any other breeding technique in agriculture.

Bhargava’s stated position is: we need more testing, given that GM crops are grown by just a handful of countries (90 UN member countries do not grow GM crops) and the growing public opinion (of which he is a very prominent voice) warrants that more tests need be done. In the American Journal of Science debate, Bhargava cites an example that is not quite scientifically validated: He says if the increase in incidence of gastrointestinal disorders among Americans and the use of GM crops were to be plotted, there’d be an “overlap in the curves”. He even mentions high incidence of autism, and other health problems.

Well, as far as I know (and can search the literature) there’s no published scientific evidence to prove this correlation between GM food consumption and various health problems. (In fact, I remember asking Mriganka Sur, who heads the Simons Center of Autism at MIT, Mass., last year if scientists had any handle on the increasing cases of autism in the US and he said they didn’t have a clue, it could even be the increasing use of plastics, environmental pollution, etc. In this video, Sur talks about the challenge of autism spectrum disorder and how he’s gearing up to solve it, one mutation at a time.)

So as the GM issue gets muddled — yes, that’s the word to describe it when it comes to its perception and understanding in India — if we had a sustained public debate that relied on science rather than dogma or hearsay, we’d all come away more informed. Today, with every Supreme Court move, the subject gets harder to grasp.

Things have come to such a state that most newspapers don’t even accept opinion pieces from scientists that aim at explaining the technology, says Padmanaban. Citing the example of a respectable, large newspaper (whose name I have promised him I will not disclose), he says he’s had many instances where the editorial team just keeps mum on such articles, once even admitting that the “editor did not want pro-GM articles”.

The science Academies in India could have at least arranged a few discussions among the editors of the country but they put their foot in their mouth when in 2010, at the time of being called upon to prepare a scientific report, they messed it by “plagiarizing” and doing a shoddy job of it. “Science is a big casualty in all this and it’s highly misinterpreted,” laments Padmanaban.

Prof Bhargava too agrees that more intellectual public debates would help. “I’d love to do such debates. I’ve said umpteen times let’s have a scientific discussion; let it be moderated by someone we trust.” He gets nostalgic about some debates in the past, notably one that was held on the “scientific temper” at the Nehru Centre in Mumbai, where every seat in the Discovery of India Hall was occupied during the three-day public debates.

He says the TEC report is very well produced with exhaustive references, whereas the industry body, ABLE, gives only sound bites or quotes to the media.
Now, that’s a serious provocation. How about ABLE taking the TEC report and producing a scientific rebuttal, at least to points that need a scientific rebuttal? (Policy issues of course rest with the govt.)

I’d also agree with Prof Bhargava when he says that it upsets him that at 85 he has to come out and speak while others don’t come forward. Ideally, it should be the practicing scientists who should come out and debate in the open. Both Bhargava and Padmanaban, 75, have lived their active laboratory years, if they get into any such slugfest, it’s due to their commitment to science and society! Why are other scientists, pro or anti-GM, socially insensitive? FIRSTPOST

CHANGING SCENARIO IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

Seed giants try to change image of GMO crops

In an unprecedented partnership, the major seed and crop science companies have come together to launch a website hoping to improve the image of genetically-engineered crops.

GMOAnswers.com went live on Monday, serving up data about the industry, answering questions from the public, and linking to studies that claim no harmful effects from altering a crop's DNA.

Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta, BASF and Bayer CropScience are all behind the venture as members of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

So-called GMO seeds accounted for 35 percent of the $34 billion global commercial seed business last year, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

However, Europe has all but banned crops grown from GMO seeds, and there's growing resistance to them in the U.S., where nearly all corn and soybeans used to feed livestock have been modified.

In response, the industry is no longer avoiding the "GMO" acronym, instead putting it front and center of its campaign. The biggest threat to the industry may be efforts in different states to force the labeling of food products with GMO ingredients. 

"Food is personal, so we want to open the door for personal discussions," said GMO Answers spokeswoman Cathleen Enright. "We recognize we haven't done the best job communicating about GMOs—what they are, how they are developed, food safety information—the science, data and processes."

Critics do not believe industry efforts will succeed in convincing consumers GMO foods are safe. "This latest effort will likely do little to stop the consumer backlash against genetically engineered foods that has been brewing for years," Wenonah Hauter of Food & Water Watch told Reuters.

The industry worries that food labeling could turn off consumers and encourage farmers to return to traditional seeds, which could, in turn, lead to smaller yields.

A story in this weekend's New York Times reports that many citrus farmers in Florida believe the only thing that may save the state's orange crop from an incurable disease will be DNA from another species.

"People are either going to drink transgenic orange juice or they're going to drink apple juice," said one University of Florida scientist. The fear is that given the choice, Americans will choose apple juice.

Whole Foods has committed to "full GMO transparency" by 2018, and Chipotle Mexican Grill is doing the same, "moving to remove such products from its supply chain."

GMO Answers includes a question and answer section. "How can you be sure that GMO foods won't affect human health long term?" asked one commenter from Albany, N.Y.

A reader responds, "After 17 years of commercial GM crops and therefore food, there has not been a single documented case of harm from consuming GM food. Proving a negative is impossible so we are left with looking at the track record of safety."

Another counters, "I do not understand how any serious scientist could make the argument that GMOs are safe because X number of meals have been eaten without anyone getting sick. The same argument was made about cigarettes for decades." CNBC

www.GMOAnswers.com

GMO companies launch website to fight anti-biotech movement

A group of biotech seed companies on Monday launched an online forum to combat mounting opposition to genetically modified foods among consumer groups and activists.

The website, www.GMOAnswers.com, is designed as a "central online resource" for information on genetically modified organisms and their use in agriculture and food production, the Biotechnology Industry Organization said.

The website is backed in part by Monsanto, DuPont , Dow AgroSciences, a unit of Dow Chemical, and other companies whose products include seeds that have been genetically altered in ways the companies say improve food production.

The website launch is part of a broad campaign by the biotech industry to try to beat back growing calls for GMO food labeling and for tighter regulation of the biotech seed industry in the United States. European opposition to GMOs is so strong that Monsanto this month said it would withdraw all pending requests to grow new types of GMO crops.

Paul Schickler, president of DuPont Pioneer, the agricultural unit of DuPont, said anti-GMO forces have been using the Internet very effectively to get their message out, and industry wants to use the same strategy to combat what he said were notions "not always based in fact."

"This... is an effort to increase the dialogue. That is all we want," said Schickler. "Dialogue is good. Over time I think we'll come to a common understanding."

Critics predicted the industry effort to change consumer skepticism would fail, saying there is ample scientific evidence that GMO foods can contribute to health problems in animals and humans, and hurt the environment.

"This latest effort will likely do little to stop the consumer backlash against genetically engineered foods that has been brewing for years," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, a consumer organization.

The most popular gene-altered crops withstand dousings of weed-killing chemicals and produce their own insect-killing toxins. Biotech corn, canola, soybeans, and other crops are used in human food and animal feed around the world and biotech companies say they are heavily regulated and thoroughly tested.

But some scientific studies have cast doubt on the safety of these biotech crops.

Last year, Monsanto and other industry members spent $40 million to defeat a ballot initiative in California to require labeling of GMO food. Similar initiatives are underway in several other U.S. states and at the federal level.

Grocery retailer Whole Foods said this year it would require suppliers to label any product made with genetically modified ingredients. And the Natural Products Association, which represents 1,900 food industry players, has called for a uniform standard for GMO labeling to apply nationwide.

Burrito chain Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. recently became the first major U.S. restaurant chain do disclose GMO ingredients and is moving to remove such products from its supply chain. Reuters

Is GMO CORN making you sick? 

How one woman was told that the popular ingredient was the cause of her insomnia, headaches and chronic nausea

• Corn is in everything from take-away coffee cups to Vitamin E supplements
• Experts say that natural cross-pollination from genetically modified crops to organic crops means there is no such thing as GMO-free corn anymore

A woman who suffered from 'weird' symptoms like burning face rashes, pain in her joints, chronic fatigue, nausea, severe insomnia and a constant head cold, has opened up about her deteriorating health and how genetically modified corn may be to blame.

In an essay for Elle.com, Caitlin Shetterly, 37, explains how after nearly four years of frustrating doctor visits and no explanation in sight, the mother-of-one was diagnosed as having developed a reaction to genetically modified corn by allergist Paris Mansmann.

But the MD's directive to strip all corn from her diet was harder than the Portand, Maine resident and  author of Made for You and Me: Going West, Going Broke, Finding Home, could have ever imagined.

Mr Mansmann’s advice was to eliminate all corn, even organic corn, because 'it's almost impossible to find a corn source in the U.S. that doesn’t have the [genetically modified protein] in it,' he said.

Many experts agree that because of cross-pollination via winds, birds, and bees, from genetically modified crops to organic crops, there is no such thing as GMO-free corn anymore. 

A desperate Mrs Shetterly, whose tight, achy joints meant that her hands froze into claws while she slept and hurt to uncurl in the morning, expected Mr Mansmann's recommended diet to be a cinch.

'After all, how hard could it be to give up corn?' she wrote. 'The answer was: way harder than I imagined.'

Corn popped up everywhere: in tea bags, juice, and cheese culture; it lined her take-away coffee cups and even plastic bags full of frozen vegetables.

'Almost everything my family used, no matter how piously natural and organic, had corn in it. It came under the guise of dozens of names like “xanthan gum,” “natural flavors,” “free-flowing agents,” “vitamin E,” “ascorbic acid,” “citric acid,” and “cellulose,” to name a few,' she explained.

And because corn is fed to animals whose meat and eggs she ate, and whose milk she drank, Mrs Shetterly had to restrict her diet to only vegetables, grains other than corn, grass-fed beef and dairy, and wild fish. 

'We eschewed anything premade and began gathering foods from local sources we could trust. I stopped taking every medicine or supplement with corn in it (which was most of them). Wherever I went, I took my own stainless-steel coffee cup.''My husband and I threw ourselves into the corn-free diet with gusto: We began baking all our bread, we learned how to make our own flour tortillas and sweet treats like muffins and cakes.

Mr Mansmann estimated that it would take about four months of eliminating corn for the white blood cells called eosinophil - which were in overproduction thanks to the genetically modified corn's proteins, which were acting as allergens - to cycle out of Mrs Shetterly's body.

But blaming genetically modified foods for any kind of health problem is controversial.

Amal Assa’ad, MD, dismissed anxiety over the safety of genetically modified corn. 

'What’s wrong with chemicals?' she asked. 'A lot of chemicals have helped us—a lot of medications are chemicals.

'[Genetically modified organisms] produce better crops that have increased production, that are resistant to pesticides—crops that can feed the rest of the world.'

Starting in the Eighties, the biotechnology giant Monsanto began to genetically alter corn to withstand its herbicide Roundup, so that weeds but be eradicated but not crops. MAILONLINE

DuPONT BIOTECH: GMO CROPS WEB

Biotech firms seek to be more open on GMO crops

Acknowledging publically that they haven’t done a good job promoting their cause, biotechnology companies including DuPont have created a new website to answer questions about genetically modified crops.

The industry said the website, GMO Answers.con, was created to help consumers know more about the crops such as where they are grown and what the safety data says. The website says genetically modified organisms — or GMOs — are a major topic of discussion that fosters “a wide range of questions and emotions … ranging from excitement and optimism to skepticism and even fear. “

“We recognize we haven’t done the best job communicating about GMOs—what they are, how they are developed, food safety information—the science, data and processes,” said Cathleen Enright, a spokesperson for GMO Answers. “We want people to join us and ask their tough questions. Be skeptical. Evaluate the information and decide for yourself.”

Despite opposition in Europe and other parts of the world concerned over the impact biotech crops have on human health and the environment, they have become a major player in the agriculture community since they were first introduced commercially in the United States in 1996. Genetically modified crops are now grown in 30 countries by 17.3 million farmers on more than 420 million acres.

GMO Answers was created by the members of The Council for Biotechnology Information, which includes BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroSciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta. Chemical and agricultural giant DuPont owns DuPont Pioneer, its agricultural seed unit based in Johnston. Desmoineshregister

INDIA BARC GMO seeds

Every second idali in your plate is product of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre: R K Sinha

Every second idali in India is produced from urad dal (Black Gram) genetically modified by Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BRC) said chairman of Atomic Energy Commission and secretary to government of India, Department of Atomic Energy, Dr R K Sinha here on Friday. 

Sinha further said fifty per cent of the urad dal in India is produced from genetically modified seeds of BARC. He said atomic energy and radiation in particular is making tremendous contribution in the field of agriculture and medicine. 

Sinha who was in the city to participate in the graduation function of the 13th batch of one year orientation course of BARC Training School at Raja Ramanna Centre for Advanced Technology (RRCAT) Indore said atomic energy has many social aspects as well and its uses can improve lives of people by increasing crop production and better health care. 

Elaborating further Sinha said through radiation and breeding they have produced seeds of 41 kinds of crops including pulses, rice, jute, sunflower and ground nuts. "We develop solutions for certain issues like seeds for drought prone areas, seeds that require less pesticide and so on," said Sinha. Similarly radiation is used in field of medicine for treatment of cancer. The use of radiation technology has helped in checking multiplication of and transfer of cancer tissue from parts of body to other. 

Coming back to power, Sinha said at present India produces only 10 per cent of energy required as compared to any developed nation. The consumption of power in developed country is around 6000 units per person per annum, in Germany per capita consumption of power is 7000 units per person per annum, while in India it is just 700 units per person per annum. 

Per capita consumption of power is directly proportional to human development index of the country. Standard per capita per consumption is around 5000 units/year and India has long way to go. But in our country fuel resources (for production of power) is less and quality of coal is quit bad, so we have make use of other resources like solar energy and atomic energy. 

"India has abundance of thorium and we have to make thorium based nuclear power plant for energy security and energy independence of the country and we are making progress on that path," said Sinha adding that India can not depend on uranium based nuclear power plant as country will have to always depend on foreign sources for fuel supply. 

At present nuclear energy contribute only 3 per cent of our total energy production, DAE is planning to increase it up to 25 per cent of total power production in coming years. To make this possible 19 nuclear power plants including two in Madhya Pradesh are proposed in 12th plan. Four nuclear power plants are in advance stage of construction and it is expected to be commissioned by 2014 out this one is fast breeder reactor. TIMESOFINDIA

INDIA GM CROP

No labelling laws yet

Hyderabad: The safety of Genetically Modified crops and Bt toxins is still in doubt and yet no labelling laws have been implemented so far in India, to allow the consumer to make an informed choice. As a result, a consumer cannot tell whether he/she is buying a GM or a non-GM product.

Moreover, though the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) has recommended that field trials be discontinued, experts say there is ample chance that we are already consuming GM food.
Cottonseed oil, which is extracted from the seed of Bt cotton, is widely consumed and used as a constituent in several blended edible oils. Food products imported from the United States like soya and maize are invariably GM modified. 

Dr P.M. Bhargava, founder director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, said he never uses oils which have cottonseed oil as a constituent, and all food products imported from the United States “for the safety of my family.”

“We are definitely eating GM food, no doubt about it. Almost every food product from the US has some GM content. Unfortunately, we don’t even have a laboratory to test for GM contents. If we test all food products in the market for transgenic content, half of them will fail,” Dr Bhargava said.

P. Chandrasekhara Reddy, vice president (Sales and Marketing), GEF India, owners of Freedom Refined Sunflower oil, said that cottonseed oil is definitely used by some brands as a constituent in edible blended oils. “It is not directly edible but is used by some brands in blended edible oils, though not in a great proportion, but definitely as an important constituent,” Reddy said.

Rules for blended edible oils don’t allow constituent oils to be less that 20 per cent, which means consumption is pretty high. The representative of a major bioseed company this newspaper spoke to admitted that consumption of cottonseed oil is indirect consumption of transgenic food.

It is essential that laws mandating the labelling of any product with transgenic content should be in force, so consumers can choose whether or not to consume transgenic food. “We brought this to the government’s notice but no action has been taken by them,” Dr Bhargava said. Dr Narsimha Reddy of the Chetana Society also said that labelling laws should have come into force by now but haven’t.

Genetically modified crops are said to increase yield and guard against certain crop diseases, but the effect on human health has not been tested sufficiently. In its eagerness to increase agricultural production, the government may be compromising our health and has not even allowed us to make an informed choice.

Animal deaths due to Bt cotton neglected: TEC

The Supreme Court appointed Technical Expert Committee criticised the scientific community for its alleged reluctance to investigate death of animals fed Bt cotton leaves in AP.

In its report, TEC termed the closure of investigation on reported animal deaths as “sub-standard regulatory oversight and even negligence”.

The TEC also said that evidence attributing the animal deaths to Bt toxins didn’t elicit “a responsible and science-based response from the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation and the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee”.

In its report, the TEC gave four counts of proof against the investigation reports of the scientific agencies submitted by Dr Sagari Ramdas. The TEC cited a letter from the then incumbent director of Animal Husbandry, AP, Dr L. Gopal. The letter said the Bt cotton samples were sent to four different laboratories and the reports had proved the deaths were due to other reasons.

However, evidence showed that the reports of the laboratories, including the city-based Veterinary and Biological Research Institute and the AP Forensic Science Laboratory, were contradicting each other.

Dr Ramdas said evidence provided by the agencies refuting that the animal deaths were caused due to Bt toxins “would not stand any kind of international scientific scrutiny as they are based on incomplete testing protocols.” Deccan Chronicle

INDIA: BIOTECHNOLOGY BILL

Missing the purpose

Critics of the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill say that instead of providing a framework for regulation it seems geared to promoting biotechnology.

“IN their tearing hurry to open the economy to private prospectors, the government should not make the same fate befall the agriculture sector as has happened to the communications, pharma, mineral wealth and several other sectors in which the government’s facilitative benevolence preceded the setting up of sufficient checks and balances and regulatory mechanisms, thereby leading to colossal, unfettered loot and plunder of national wealth in some form or the other, incalculable damage to the environment, biodiversity, flora and fauna, and unimaginable suffering to the common man,” says the Departmentally Related Standing Committee on Agriculture in its report on “Cultivation of Genetically Modified Food Crops: Prospects and Effects” tabled in August 2012.

Deposing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture, S. Ramachandran Pillai, president of the All India Kisan Sabha, explained that the government, while devising strategies and policies, should not lose track of the fact that 70 per cent of India’s farmers were small and marginal. Speaking in the context of genetically modified (GM) crops, he said that common peasants did not get any benefit from them as profit was the chief driving force behind the use of GM crops. He also pointed out that the pro-poor features of the use of biotechnology should include solutions to the problems of food security, malnutrition, poverty, unemployment and backwardness.

Notwithstanding the concerns expressed by the Standing Committee and several experts, Jaipal Reddy, Minister for Science and Technology (S&T), introduced the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, 2013, in the Lok Sabha on April 23. Its stated aim is to promote the safe use of modern biotechnology by enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory procedures. Critics of the Bill claim, however, that there is an inherent contradiction in the Bill because while the nomenclature purports to provide a framework for regulation of biotechnology, the objectives seem somehow designed to promote it, thereby compromising the regulatory features. Biosafety protection should be its basis, they argue.

They also say that the wrong Ministry tabled the Bill; either the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) or the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare should have tabled it as the Ministry of S&T does not have the mandate to protect health or the environment. There is also a conflict of interest as the Ministry of S&T is a promoter of GM crops. Other problems with the Bill include its expediency clause, which, critics argue, undermines the constitutional authority of State governments. The Coalition for a GM-free India says that the BRAI Bill is a blatant attempt to bulldoze through the public’s concerns about GM crops and makes the regulatory mechanism weaker than that of the MoEF’s Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC).

Sixteen Members of Parliament, cutting across party lines, wrote to Jaipal Reddy on April 25 expressing their disappointment at the manner in which the Bill was introduced on the first day of Parliament after the Budget session; it seemed like an attempt to circumvent opposition to GM crops. They wrote: “The BRAI Bill is a single-window clearance mechanism for genetically modified crops in the country. There is growing scientific evidence on the adverse impact of GM crops on the safety of our food, farming and the environment…. The introduction of the BRAI Bill was unexpected as the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture had recommended that the BRAI Bill was not the way forward to regulate GM crops.” They urged Jaipal Reddy to withdraw the Bill and instead bring a biosafety protection law after effective and thorough pre-legislative consultations. “We need to protect and enhance biosafety and to ensure democratic processes are adhered to when dealing with issues as important as food, farming and the environment in our country,” they wrote. It was learnt that Jaipal Reddy wrote to the Speaker asking that the Bill be sent to a joint committee of both Houses because of the reservations expressed in this letter. But the Bill was instead referred to the Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests.

Critics of the Bill are also surprised at the minimalistic composition of the proposed BRAI, which only has five members, whereas the GEAC is a multi-ministerial, broad-based body. Under Section 26 of the Bill, an environmental appraisal panel has to be constituted, an idea mooted by the then Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, but this panel is rendered toothless because no norms and procedures have been laid down for the selection of its members. The panel’s opinion has to be sought in the case of organisms and products that will have an environmental impact, but the panel clearly lacks autonomy in function and authority. Additionally, the BRAI Bill does not include within its framework public consultations, a concept enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, of which India is a signatory. Nor does it make provision for the prohibition of GM organisms from particular areas or particular kinds of GMOs or even transgenic technology in particular crops.

It was in 2003-04 that the idea of an independent regulatory authority, termed then the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority, was formally mooted in the report of a task force, set up by the Ministry of Agriculture and headed by the eminent agriculture scientist M.S. Swaminathan. This task force had recommended that the bottom line of any regulatory authority in the country should be ensuring the safety of the environment, the well-being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, and the health and nutrition security of consumers and safeguarding domestic and international trade and the biosecurity of the nation. Critics argue that the Bill ignores this aspect completely, reducing regulation to mere technical parameters.

“While there is a lot of apprehension about the safety of the technology, what is more worrying is the absence of any liability clause or mechanism in the system that could compensate farmers and consumers in the eventuality of crop loss and harm to biodiversity, health, environment, etc. With the various crop insurance schemes also not being of much help to the majority of farmers, any prospective losses to them due to cultivation of transgenic agricultural crops will have a crippling effect on their fortunes, reeling as they already have been under a severe agrarian crisis for years now,” observed Basudev Acharia, the MP who headed the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The committee further observed that the Bill did not give the GEAC any role in policy matters relating to the research and development of GM crops, food security, pricing of GM seeds, commercialisation of GM crops and labelling for consumer awareness. In fact, the committee’s report, running into more than 500 pages, noted that 93 per cent of cultivated land the world over supported conventional cropping, and only a few countries carried out concentrated cultivation of GM crops. It also observed that neither costs nor benefits were currently perceived to be equally shared by all stakeholders, with the poor tending to bear more of the costs and receive fewer of the benefits. In the absence of any regulation, these concerns may well be valid and extend to contract farming practices as well.

Making a broad point on privatisation, the committee, quoting from a 2009 report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, observed that “as privatisation fuels a transfer of knowledge away from the commons, there is a contraction both in crop diversity and numbers of local breeding specialists. In many parts of the world, women play this role and thus a risk exists that privatisation may lead to women losing economic resources and social standing as their plant breeding knowledge gets appropriated. At the same time, entire communities run the risk of losing control of their food security.”

The government has allowed the public to send in its feedback and comments on the Bill by August 25 to the Departmentally Related Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forest. The earlier deadline for receiving comments was July 11. Individuals and organisations such as the Coalition for a GM-free India made representations to T. Subbarami Reddy, the Chairperson of the committee, to extend the deadline on the grounds that the National Advisory Council had stipulated that a time period of 90 days should be provided for public feedback and pre-legislative consultations.

Regulation in agriculture

Regulation of what happens in the name of agriculture has been a matter of contention for some time. Whether it was the introduction of Bt brinjal in 2010, the continued cultivation of Bt cotton in spite of widespread national and international opinion against it, or contract farming for profits, the latest trend in farming, issues of regulation have never been of great importance for policymakers.

Vijoo Krishnan, joint secretary of the Kisan Sabha, told Frontline: “The new seemingly lucrative move [contract farming] is an act of deception aimed at granting vast areas of fertile land on a platter to agribusinesses that have stakes in all stages from inputs to processing to retailing. The unbridled flexibility they have can threaten biodiversity, promote monoculture and cause a shift away from food crops and, in the context of the BRAI Bill, promote harmful and unwanted biotechnologies. Farmers would eventually be dispossessed of their land, tenants won’t have any rights and millions will be pushed into unemployment. It is a reversal of whatever limited land reforms have taken place and the subversion of land ceiling laws. Instead of promoting farmers’ cooperatives and subsidising farmers, the government is diverting RKVY [Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana, a Central assistance scheme for the agricultural sector] funds to aid corporate profiteering. Like PPP [public-private partnership] in infrastructure and roads, it will emerge as a huge scam. It is the latest in the package of concerted moves to corporatise agriculture.”

Kavitha Kuriganti of the Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture added: “There is a concerted effort to shape Indian agriculture on the American model, without appreciating the fact that American farming is inefficient and needs massive support to prop it up in various ways and without appreciating the inherent strengths of Indian agriculture. In India, studies have shown that it is indeed an unequal relationship between producers and corporate entities that get into contract farming. Margins accruing to farmers are no better than from regular markets. The overall atmosphere of corporatisation at all ends—including on inputs into farming, on resources that are needed for food production, on the output—presents a scary picture of control over our food and farming being handed over on a platter to corporations, whose bottom line is only profit.”

Therefore, whether it is Bt brinjal or any other GM food crop, the government’s approval and regulatory mechanisms seem highly problematic. And, generally, legislation brought in to regulate agricultural practices and biosafety issues has been far from adequate. The BRAI Bill is the latest example of this.

Bt brinjal

In 2010, following widespread protests, including by political parties such as those from the Left, Jairam Ramesh issued a moratorium on Bt brinjal. One of the grounds for the moratorium was that there was “no overriding urgency to introduce Bt brinjal here, the very first GM vegetable in the world”, as the Minister’s note said.

The BRAI Bill seeks to undo all that has been done. The Standing Committee on Agriculture maintained that the country did not need a BRAI Bill but a biosafety protection authority on the lines of the supervisory authority set up under Norway’s Gene Technology Act. Existing legislation in India seems hardly adequate to address the challenges posed by the opening up of agriculture and technology, and emerging forms of agriculture are quite outside the domain of any regulation. FRONTLINE