How Spread of Bt Cotton Contaminates the Food Chain

Bharat Dogra

The author is a free-lance journalist who has been involved with several social initiatives and movements.

While hazardous GM technology was allowed to be spread more easily in cotton on the ground that it is a non-food crop, it is clear that when cattle, sheep, goats etc. feed on Bt cotton residues, then health hazards also spread to the entire food-chain.
According to the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, “Bt (bacillus thuringiensis) toxin in its natural, non-GM form, when used as an insecticidal spray, behaves differently in the environment than Bt toxin produced in GM plants. Natural Bt toxin breaks down in daylight and only becomes active in the guts of insects. However, with GM Bt crops, the plant is engineered to express the Bt protein in every cell. If any part of the plant is eaten, the toxin is inevitably consumed.”
This threat to the food-system from Bt cotton will grow in future keeping in view the on-going efforts to find more ways of processing cottonseeds to make them consumable by human beings in attractive ways.
In this context what is most worrying is that many cattle and other farm animals have perished (or else their health has suffered badly) after eating Bt cotton residues.
According to a cover-story in the Tehelka journal, “The GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) in January 2008, cited reports from the Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI) and the Andhra Animal Husbandry Department which showed ‘conclusive proof of safety’ to animals from Bt cotton feed.
“But when Anthra, a veterinary research organisation, filed an RTI with the IVRI asking for a copy of the report, the institute responded saying ‘no studies had been done by them and that the IVRI had not submitted any reports to the GEAC’.”
Dr Sagari R. Ramdas, co-Director of Anthra, writes: “Since 2005, shepherds and farmers from different parts of India, particularly the states of Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka and Maharashtra, have reported their cattle falling sick after it has grazed on genetically modified cotton or have been fed Bt cotton seeds and in some instances have died. Despite several reports and representations to concerned regulatory and research institutions both at national and state levels, alerting them to the seriousness of the issue, there has been a persistent reluctance amongst the scientific establishment to respond, investigate and research the core issue. On the contrary the reaction of the establishment has been bureaucratic and dismissive of the observations.
“Between 2005 and 2009 Anthra, an organisation led by women veterinary scientists researching the impact of Bt cotton on animals in different parts of India, has been closely investigating the reported morbidity and mortality observed in sheep and goat flocks, which have been grazed on harvested Bt cotton crop in Andhra Pradesh. Shepherds unambiguously declared that their animals, which had never died or fallen sick while being grazed on regular cotton fields since the past 10 years, began to exhibit morbid changes when grazed on the GM crop.
“In Haryana, there was a strong correlation between feeding Bt cotton seeds and cotton seed cake to milch animals, and drop in milk yield and several reproductive disorders such as prolapse of uterus, premature birth of calves, increase in the incidence of abortions and decrease in conception rate.”
In addition it should be noted that longer-duration studies have further confirmed the high risk of GM foods. As the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture has pointed out, “GM crops are usually approved on the basis of tests performed by the industry on rats and other animals over periods of upto 90 days. In rats, this corresponds to a human life span of about 12 years. This is much too short for long-term health effects such as organ damage or cancer to show up. The first long term independent study ‘Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup tolerant genetically modified maize’ by the French molecular biologist, G.E. Seralini of the Committee for Research and Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN), came out in 2012. This two-year study linked herbicide tolerant maize and the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup to premature death and cancer in rats. Although this peer reviewed study has been criticised by a number of regulators and scientists (many with industry links), this study has also received statements of support and positive comments from more than 300 scientists from 33 countries.” MAINSTREAM WEEKLY

Russia is infected with genetically modified seeds

The Russian Federation is going to tighten the legislation on GMOs. It was proposed to ban the import into Russia of products containing GMOs. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev instructed the relevant agencies to develop specific proposals on this issue by October 15.  Pravda.Ru discussed the danger of GMOs and genetically modified products with experts.

Despite the criticism, Russia currently has relatively stringent legislation on GMOs (only the EU has stricter legislation, with the United States and Canada being the most liberal in this regard).

For example, in Russia producers are required to specify the information on GMOs on the labels. The import and use of GMO seeds on the territory of Russia is also prohibited. The issue of genetically modified seeds and the use of genetic engineering in agriculture is cornerstone and strategically important.

Despite the fact that the import of seeds of agricultural crops to Russia is prohibited, violators are finding loopholes in the Russian legislation on GMOs. Alexei Alekseyenko, the deputy of the Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Surveillance, talked about it with Pravda.Ru.

"In Russia the import of genetically modified seeds is banned, but there is a danger of its illegal importation. There is a risk of GMOs spreading further into the Russian populations that are not genetically modified.
According to our information, recently quite a large batch of seeds of genetically modified crops was brought to Odessa, and there are attempts to smuggle these seeds into Russia in small batches. The seeds are registered as a food grain or as not genetically modified. That is, there is an urgent need to take very serious action on a national scale.

The seriousness of the problems with genetically engineered seeds was confirmed by head of the National Association for Genetic Security Elena Sharoikina: "Though sowing of genetically modified seeds is not allowed in Russia, no one ever checked agricultural fields, so no one knows for sure whether GMO seeds are planted. In this regard our association began agricultural GM-monitoring. These are independent control checks for the presence of GMOs in Russian fields. To date, we have managed to check the fields in the Belgorod region. GMO was not found, and we checked different varieties of corn and soybeans."

There are some problems (and not only in Russia) with control not only of seeds for agriculture, but also the control of finished products that may contain GMO, as well as farm produce. To keep track of all of this, we need many special laboratories, professionals, and a robust control system. "There were cases, and quite numerous, when modified components were found in products that were supplied as non-genetically modified. First, there was a big scandal in New Zealand in the beginning of 2000s, when a large batch of allegedly hybrid corn was supplied there from the U.S. During tests, foreign gene constructs were found in the corn. It also has to do with the fact that there is a constant antigenic drift in nature, and genetic material of modified organisms penetrates the population of non-modified ones," Alexei Alekseyenko toldPravda.Ru.

Despite the fact that in the minds of the majority a single image of GMOs has been formed, the picture is not that unambiguous. Experts even say that there are more dangerous and less dangerous GMOs (although the overall negative component is not denied. Many recent studies, including Russian ones, speak about the health dangers of GMOs):
 

"I'll talk about vegetable products. Foreign genes are introduced into the genome so that the plant starts to produce certain substances that, for example, repel pests, or reduce their dependence on herbicides and so on. That is, gene structures vary greatly.

If a plant begins producing its own herbicide, it means that this herbicide will get into our body when we eat the plant. Other gene constructs are less dangerous to the consumer, and some are even more dangerous because they were injected genes to turn these crops into technical ones so they produce a substance that will show up during the production process. Such plants are not intended for consumption. But due to the horizontal drift of the genetic structure of genes other populations are also exposed to it," Alekseyenko said.

The Chairman of the Board of Directors of "Dymov" company Vadim Dymov agreed with this observation:
"GMOs have negative traits and also positive traits, but unfortunately, the public generally is aware of the negative side, and this might be right. GMO restricting will benefit both the economy and, most importantly, the consumer society, because the most important thing is the safety of consumer products, and not the interests of the industrial and financial groups, so I support the decision of the Russian authorities.
Genetic engineering is especially dangerous in agriculture. Soy that is often cited as an example of a plant with genetically modified code is nothing compared to some other examples. Potatoes with a scorpion gene are much more serious business."  Pravda Ru

GM food fight

GM food fight



People buy vegetables and fruits in a local supermarket in Fuyang, Anhui Province in August. There is no sign for genetically modified (GM) foods. Photo: CFP

When the People's Daily on September 16 published a list of genetically modified (GM) foods permitted for import or sale in China, the goal was to highlight the stringent safety procedures required for the sale of GM foods.

But instead, the report, which included details of the approved GM crops such as cotton, rice, corn and papaya, with papaya and cotton approved for commercial plantation, prompted public discussion about whether there is sufficient information available to consumers regarding GM foods.

It also reignited the debate among the Chinese academic community, setting off a storm of vitriolic comments and outrageous debates about whether or not the food is safe, as high profile advocates and critics took to the Internet to dish out conflicting advice.

Celebrity war of words

On the morning of September 7, over 20 Net users signed up to pick and eat GM corn at the China Agricultural University in Beijing.

The activity was suggested by well-known science advocate and GM food supporter Fang Zhouzi through Weibo, who stated that "though there is no scientific research value in tasting GM corn, there is value in terms of science popularization, and opportunities should be provided for Chinese people to eat GM food every day."

Opponents of GM food quickly hit back online. Cui Yongyuan, a famous CCTV anchor, was the first to strike a blow.

"You can choose to eat GM food, but I can choose not to; you can say you know about 'science', but I have my reasons and right to doubt whether the 'science' you know about is scientific or not," responded Cui.

Fang hit back, acknowledging Cui's right to choose not to eat GM foods, but said that spreading unfounded rumors could hinder the development of China's agricultural sector. "What I have publicized is science recognized by authoritative scientific institutions around the world. What is there to doubt?" he asked.

The online quarrel lasted for a week and in a vote, Net users overwhelmingly sided with Cui. The debate between the two represented a microcosm of a wider schism in academic circles over the role GM foods should have in Chinese society.

The experts weigh in

"It would become a war of words if we only discuss whether GM foods are safe or not," Na Zhongyuan, a director with the Yunnan Institute for Ecological Agriculture, told the Global Times.

Na, one of the more radical voices in the debate, even rejects the notion that GM foods can boost crop yields. Calling it "pseudoscience", he rails against the idea that China should follow the US in this manner, saying China's situation is different.

He said most GM crops are used for processing materials in the US, not as food. "I have relatives in the US. They don't eat GM food at all," said Na, adding that GM food also poses risks to the environment.

At the direct opposite end of the spectrum, Yan Jianbing, a professor with the College of Life Science and Technology at Huazhong Agricultural University, said that GM foods are 100 percent safe. Using GM soybeans as an example, Yan said they are more productive than non-GM soybeans, and thus oil made from GM soybeans are cheaper, which benefits consumers.

Confused consumers

In fact, debate over GM technology is going worldwide. A survey by Thomson Reuters in 2010 shows that 21 percent of people in US believe GM foods are safe while 64 percent are not sure and 90 perent support to label GM foods.

Many Chinese consumers find it hard to identify whether or not products are made from GM foods. One woman, surnamed Wu, from Zhejiang Province, told the Global Times that she prefers to avoid GM food, but finds it very difficult.

 "I can't always check the labels, and when it comes to pork, there's no way to tell if the pig has been fed GM fodder," she said.

Sometimes, it is impossible. As one example, according to Fang, almost all domestically produced papayas are genetically modified. Soybean oil is another difficult purchase for those wanting to avoid GM food, as there are five times more oils made from imported soybeans when compared to those made from domestic beans. Although GM soybeans can't be planted in China, there are often no ways of checking the foreign brands.

"If we don't eat GM crops like soybeans directly, we might eat oil made from them; even if we don't eat oil made from them, we might eat pork from pigs who are fed with GM materials," said Yan, indicaiting that the era of GM technology has inevitably come.

Earlier this month, 12 lawyers from four different provinces wrote a joint letter to the China Food and Drug Administration and the Ministry of Agriculture, demanding that they disclose information about GM food to meet the public's right to know and exercise free choice, the Guangzhou-based Yangcheng Evening News reported.

Shi Baozhong, one of the 12 laywers, told the Global Times that the list published by the People's Daily was not sufficient to inform consumers about GM foods. He said that the administration had agreed to give a written reply by September 16, but  they have not received a reply.

As far as the official government stance goes, most GM foods are safe. GM foods which have undergone safety evaluation and are sold in markets are as safe as non-GM foods, according to Lin Min, a member with the State Agricultural GM Crop Bio-safety Committee, cited on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Lin stated that GM foods have been on the market around the world for 17 years. People who eat GM foods account for 80 percent of the world's population, and there hasn't been proven case or safety problems related with GM food,  Xinhua News Agency reported. Global Times

GM foods make its way to China market

Every year, Wang Xiuqiong defies a particular norm in the name of tradition: She makes her own moon cakes. As summer comes to a close, supermarkets and other shops around China quickly fill up with the Chinese pastry around the Mid-Autumn Festival, which fell on Sept 19 this year. The holiday food is a popular gift for friends, family and colleagues.

But keeping with tradition can prove difficult, as Wang, a native of Beijing, soon found out. Soybean oil is Wang's secret ingredient in her moon cakes, but this year she learned that most soybean oil sold in supermarkets is genetically modified (GM). For Wang, that's a big no-no. The supermarket near her home used to have a shelf dedicated to non-GM soybean oil, but the shelf was removed several months ago. A clerk at the supermarket told Wang it's almost impossible to find non-GM soybean oil suppliers. Wang ended up using sunflower seed oil to make moon cakes this year, fearing health hazards from using GM soybean oil.

Wu Mei, an official in charge of data collection at the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics, said it's quite hard to buy non-GM soybean oil in big cities, as only small oil manufacturing factories in rural areas produce it. "Over 90 percent of the soybean oil for sale in Beijing is genetically modified," she said.

Market share boom

A decade ago, the market share of GM soybean oil in the edible oil market was quite slim. According to the General Administration of Customs, the proportion was less than 2 percent in 2001. While by June 2013, it had surged to 43 percent, according to the China Soybean Industry Association, an industrial union of soybean farmers, processors and traders, as well as scientific researchers throughout China.

The change started in 2001 when China joined the WTO and imports of agricultural products increased. As a result, China's traditional agricultural industry received a heavy blow from more advanced foreign competitors, including GM soybeans from the United States and GM rapeseed from Canada and Australia. These were sold in China at lower prices than locally cultivated soybeans and rapeseed, taking a toll on domestic industries.

According to Xinhu Futures, a Shanghai-headquartered company that offers futures brokerage, investment consulting and asset management services, soybean output was 8.5 million tons in 2012 in China while 71.65 million tons were consumed. In 2012, China imported 58.38 million tons, rising 11.2 percent year on year.

China is also world's largest corn importer and much of that too is genetically modified. In 2013, the country's corn imports will total 7.2 million tons, among which 80 percent are genetically modified, according to a report from SCI International, a professional watcher of China's commodities. The report also said that most of China's imported corn comes from the United States and 95 percent of US-imported corn is genetically modified.

Xie Jiajian, an associate researcher with the Institute of Plant Protection under the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), said GM products have grabbed a big market share in global agricultural trade. As a major importer of agricultural products, China is bound to come in contact with more and more GM agricultural products.

Data from the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) showed that 81 percent of the world's soybeans, 81 percent of its cotton, 35 percent of corn and 30 percent of oilseed rape was genetically modified in 2012, and most of those products have been sold to China.

The popularity of GM foods in China may be growing, but so too is the debate on whether it is safe to consume. Many Chinese resist GM foods simply because they fear it may cause cancer. "The government has allowed the import of GM soybeans, so it owes us a convincing explanation on whether or not it's safe," said Wang, the Beijing native.

The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) says concerns over GM foods are unnecessary. China's GM foods must comply with three principles: First, the food must be traced back to its origins; second, the food should have a label saying it's genetically modified; third, the food should be controlled within certain regions so that all residents have the right to know and to choose. The MOA has also called on experts to promote GM foods throughout China. So far, the MOA has approved the import of GM cotton, soybeans, corn and oilseed rape.

An attitude change

As long as no attempts are made to change the population's attitude toward GM foods, skepticism will continue.

Research on GM grains in China goes back to Yuan Longping, father of hybrid rice. Chinese people have generally accepted hybrid rice but not GM soybeans, mainly because of a lack of promotion and popularization.

"The fact is, people are surrounded by GM foods, even if they are unaware of it," said Deng Zhixi, deputy director of the Research Center for Rural Economy under the MOA. "No matter if it is in China or the United States, you can't survive without eating GM foods. There are less and less non-GM foods now. We should take a more rational approach toward it." Deng said the United States had led the world in the GM breeding technology. If China is mired in endless disputes instead of following the lead of the United States, food security could once again rear its ugly head in the future.

Huang Dafang, director of the Biotechnology Research Institute under the CAAS, said GM technology has yielded great social, economic and biological benefits during its 17 years of development. According to a report from the ISAAA, 28 countries planted GM crops in 2012.

There are three types of GM products. The first are products that are able to survive environmental challenges, such as insect-resistant, disease-resistant and frost-resistant products. Most GM products belong to this category. The second type enhances quality and nutrition. This group includes GM soybeans. The third type is for medical use, such as vaccines and medicine.

But everyday Chinese are unaware of the variations and uses of GM products, experts lament. "Changing people's attitude toward GM foods is a long process," says Huang. "The most urgent need is to clear their doubts and fear." ECNS

Cultivation of GM crops, plants urgent: Farmers

Indonesia

Cultivation of GM crops, plants urgent: Farmers 

Farmers say there is a growing need to shift to genetically modified (GM), or transgenic, seeds to cope with irrigation problems, climate change, pests and land conversions amid a rising demand for foodstuffs.

Farmers and Fishermen’s Society (KTNA) chairman Winarno Tohir said Indonesia was struggling to feed its 250 million population with damaged irrigation systems, which led to droughts during the dry season, adverse weather conditions that were not forecast, pest and weed outbreaks and land that had been converted to non-food plantations.

For example, local rice production was currently 9 percent below the nation’s total rice consumption, according to the KTNA’s latest study, with the gap estimated to widen further in line with the country’s 
economic growth.

“Coupled with a growing population, all these problems could lead us to 12 million tons in rice deficit alone by 2030 if we keep trying to solve them with our outdated agricultural technology,” Winarno said in a conference on Wednesday. “Hence, we’ll only become a market for other producing countries.”

He said the government needed to support farmers with biotech seeds through a genetic revolution program, to help them increase food production amid a growing amount of stagnant land.

In the long run, he said, the technology could help farmers cut their expenses and raise income.

Biotechnology has been applied by 16.7 million farmers in 29 countries around the world, including 19 developing countries, and has resulted in the cultivation of 160 million hectares of land in 2011 compared to 1.7 million hectares in 1996.

No biotechnology products have been cultivated, however, since a government regulation on biosafety and genetically engineered foods was first introduced in 2005, according to Winarno.

Among the industries in high need of transgenic crops was animal husbandry, which needed corn for livestock feed, he said.

Corn consumption is continuing to rise, with corn imports reaching 780,000 tons in the first quarter of this year, three times as much as the 260,000 tons imported in the same period last year, Agriculture Ministry data shows.

Central Statistics Agency (BPS) data also shows that grain consumption increased by an average 8 percent each year between 2000 and 2012, while corn yields increased on average by only 6 percent and corn per planted hectare increased by only 1 percent per annum.

KTNA data, meanwhile, shows that the country has spent US$2.5 billion on corn imports, 76 percent of which are transgenic.

A recent study by the Bogor Institute of Agriculture in West Java showed that the country could boost its corn production by 14 percent by applying biotechnology.

The National Genetically Modified Product Biosafety Commission (KKHPRG) actually approved the first genetically altered sugarcane crop earlier this year.

Commissioner Bambang Purwantara said that drought-resistant transgenic sugarcane seeds would be ready to be planted next year, the same year the country was expected to start growing transgenic corn. Jakarta Post

Pawar renews pitch for GM crops

Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar made a yet another pitch on Tuesday for introducing the genetically-modified (GM) crop into the country to meet the foodgrain requirement for implementing the food security scheme.

Addressing the National Rabi Conference, Pawar said record production during the last few years has given confidence to the policy makers to roll out the ambitious food security bill.

While the current farm output was sufficient to meet the present food grain requirement, Pawar said the real challenge was to sustain the growth in food output despite the drought and floods.

The country’s food grain production stood at 255.36 million tonnes in 2012-13.

Stressing the need to boost farm productivity to meet the fast growing requirement, Pawar said “wherever feasible and considered advisable by our scientists based on field trials and otherwise, we should not hesitate in introducing GM crops to reap the benefits of scientific research in this area.”

“We have no choice but to follow scientific technologies to sustain foodgrain production with limited agricultural land and water resources,” Pawar, who has been batting for the GM technology, told reporters. So far, Bt cotton is the only crop that has been allowed for commercial cultivation in the country.

A technical expert committee (TEC) appointed by the Supreme Court had recently recommended an indefinite moratorium on the field trials of GM crops till the deficiency in the regulatory system and safety issues are addressed.

When asked about the TEC recommendations, Pawar said “The matter is before the court. We are waiting for the decision. We are trying to keep facts before the Court explaining importance of GM crops.” HBL

We need to increase farm productivity: Pawar

Q: Production of foodgrain has increased over the years (from 230.78 million tonnes in 2007-08 to 259.29 million tonnes in 2011-12). India also has buffer stock to meet demand in a bad crop year. Still, we have seen rise in price of foodgrain. What are the factors behind it?

Even as India has consistently been producing foodgrains in good quantity and increasing share of agriculture in its export basket (10.22% in 2008-09 to 13.8% in 2012-13), agriculture minister Sharad Pawar is a worried man. He is worried about the country's future, wondering whether India will be able to meet food demand of growing population with the current level of farm productivity. He knows the solution, but resistance to his ideas troubles him. He thinks it's high time to accelerate pace of agricultural growth to meet "additional requirement" of foodgrains for proper implementation of the Food Security Act. He knows farm productivity can be increased by introducing genetically modified (GM) crops, besides simultaneously taking other steps. He even pleads for taking some bold steps to reap benefits of scientific research and suggests measures which can bring "food and nutritional" security. He shared his views and concerns during an interview to the TOI. Excerpts:

A: It is due to the Minimum Support Price (MSP). We have increased MSP for various foodgrains so that farmers can get better price. In fact, the cost of cultivation has been increased due to high prices of diesel, fertilizers and other raw materials and high labour (minimum wages) cost. We have to factor in all these while deciding the MSP. If we don't increase it, farmers will shift to other (non-foodgrain) crops. It will further complicate the matter. You know MSP is the benchmark. Market price is always higher than the MSP. Farmers have benefited from it and therefore they stick to foodgrain cultivation.

Q: It is good that farmers are getting better price. But it, in a way, affects common consumers due to high market price. Can't we have a solution where all sections can benefit without facing the pinch of price rise?

A: Government procures substantial quantity of foodgrain at MSP and distributes it at cheaper rate through public distribution system across the country. Under Food Security Act, 82 crore people will now benefit from all these measures by getting foodgrain (rice, wheat and coarse grains) at cheap rates. Nowhere in the world is foodgrain available at such a cheap rate. Production of foodgrain has increased substantially in the past five-six years. We had 259.29 million tonnes of foodgrain production in 2011-12 which was the highest in 60 years. We have also become foodgrain exporter. In the year 2012-13, we exported agricultural produce worth Rs 2.32 lakh crore. We are, in fact, the largest exporter of rice and second largest exporter of cotton, sugar and wheat.

Q: Will the current level of production sustain the food requirement in future, taking into account our growing population and shrinking cultivable land?

A: Yes, this is a major concern. India accounts for only 2.4 % of the world's geographical area and 4% of its water resources, but supports about 17% of the world's population. We cannot expand land. That's why I have consistently been telling my colleagues (in the Cabinet) to think about it and take adequate measures. We have to increase productivity. We have to take four measures. First, we have to improve irrigation facility and bring more and more area under irrigation, taking into account the limited availability of water resources. And for this, we need more investment. Second, we have to lay emphasis on research so that our scientists can develop new varieties of seeds. Third, we have to ensure availability of fertilizers. Finally, we have to constantly offer better MSP to farmers. I firmly believe that if we follow these measures, our food security obligations can easily be sustainable.

Q: As far as better quality of seeds are concerned, Indian scientists and their counterparts in other countries have come out with many transgenic (genetically modified) varieties which can increase productivity. But there has been lot of resistance to it in India. What is your stand?

A: As far as GM crops are concerned, it should be the responsibility of any government to take maximum precaution to see its impact before releasing such seeds for commercial production. Take number of years of field trials to see whether these transgenic varieties have any bad impact on soil, water, other crops, human being, birds, animals and overall environment. One has to thoroughly check all these for years. And if we come to the conclusion after field trials that it does not affect human health and environment, then we don't have choice but we have to use GM seeds to increase productivity. TOI

Adopt GM crops to meet food requirement under food law: Sharad Pawar

Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar today said the country should adopt genetically modified (GM) crops in order to meet extra requirement of foodgrains under the landmark food security law.

"We have to accelerate the pace of agricultural growth on sustainable basis to meet the additional requirement of foodgrain for proper implementation of the Food Security Act," Pawar said addressing a national rabi conference.

Stating that the government is "very conservative" on GM crops, he however advocated: "Wherever feasible and considered advisable by our scientists, based on field trials and otherwise, we should not hesitate in introducing GM crops to reap the benefits of scientific research in this area."

The current production levels are more or less sufficient to meet the current requirements. However, the real challenge is to sustain this growth despite occurrence of drought and floods, he added.

The government has allowed commercial cultivation of Bt cotton, while moratorium has been put on Bt brinjal. Permission has been given to private companies to conduct field trials of GM crops such as cotton, corn and maize in Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat.

However, a technical committee appointed by the Supreme Court had recently recommended an indefinite moratorium on open field trials of GM crops till the deficiencies in the regulatory and safety systems are effectively addressed.

Asked about the Supreme Court panel's recommendations, Pawar said: "The matter is before the court. We are waiting for the decision. We are trying to keep facts before the Court explaining importance of GM crops."

The country has "no choice" but to follow scientific technologies to sustain foodgrain production in limited agricultural land and water resources, he told reporters on the sideline of a conference on rabi crops here.

The ambitious food law -- considered as 'game-changer' by the Congress-ruled UPA government and described by the Opposition parties as 'political gimmick' ahead of 2014 general elections -- aims to provide a legal right over cheaper foodgrains to about 82 crore people.

Foodgrain production stood at 255.36 million tonnes in 2012-13 crop year (July-June). PTI

INDIA ‘GM Crops Won’t Solve India’s Food Crisis’

WALL STREET INTERVIEW

‘GM Crops Won’t Solve India’s Food Crisis’

Dilnavaz Variava

She is honorary convener for consumer issues for the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture, an alliance of farmers, scientists, economists, non-governmental organizations and citizens who advocate for ecologically and economically sustainable agriculture.

INTERVIEW

Earlier this month, India’s Parliament passed a bill aimed at delivering subsidized food to around 800 million people. While well-intentioned, the law is expensive and has raised questions about whether India produces enough food to meet demand.

Proponents of genetically modified food say GM technology will boost production to meet India’s food requirements, but critics argue that it is unsustainable, and that the main challenge is not one of production but distribution.

Dilnavaz Variava doesn’t believe that GM food will address India’s food crisis. She is honorary convener for consumer issues for the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture, an alliance of farmers, scientists, economists, non-governmental organizations and citizens who advocate for ecologically and economically sustainable agriculture.

Ms. Variava has worked for a range of organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund India, where she was chief executive, and the Bombay Natural History Society. She has also served on several federal government committees as well as one in Maharashtra for the development of agriculture.

Ms. Variava spoke with The Wall Street Journal’s India Real Time about GM food in India. Edited excerpts:

The Wall Street Journal: Parliament’s passage of the Food Security Bill reflects the urgency of addressing the food security challenge. Would genetically modified food do this?

Dilnavaz Variava: India has enough food grain — almost two-and-a-half times the required buffer stock — and yet 200 million Indians go hungry. The problem of sufficiency is not one of production, but of economic and physical access, which the Food Security Bill attempts to address. Poverty, mounds of rotting food grain, wastage and leakages in the Public Distribution System are the real causes of food insecurity. GM food cannot address this.

WSJ: Is there evidence from other countries that GM food improves food security?

Ms. Variava: Macroeconomic data for the largest adopters of GM food indicate the opposite. In the U.S., food insecurity has risen from 12% in pre-GM 1995 to 15% in 2011. In Paraguay, where nearly 65% of land is under GM crops, hunger increased from 12.6% in 2004-06 to 25.5% in 2010-12. In Brazil and Argentina, GM food has not reduced hunger. In any event, GM does not increase yields, as the Union of Concerned Scientists established through a review of 12 years of GM in the U.S.

WSJ: How does GM food differ in quality from non-GM food?

Ms. Variava: About 99% of all GM crops have either one or both of two traits that make food unsafe: a pesticide-producing toxin (Bt) present in every cell of the plant and a herbicide tolerant trait that enables the plant to withstand herbicides used to kill weeds. While food safety regulators have cleared GM foods as safe, many independent scientists disagree. Their studies point to health risks: allergies, cancer, reproductive, renal, pancreatic and hepatic disorders. They say regulators give safety assurances based on studies which the GM industry conducts for a maximum period of 90 days on lab rats. This corresponds to a human life span of less than 15 years, which is too short for long-term health effects such as organ damage or cancer to manifest.

WSJ: In India, why did the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee call for a moratorium on field trials of GM crops in July?

Ms. Variava: The TEC majority report by five scientists from the fields of molecular biology, toxicology, nutrition science and biodiversity called for an indefinite moratorium on field trials, stating that ‘the regulatory system has major gaps.’ They concluded that the quality of information in several GM applications was far below that necessary for rigorous evaluation. They recommended a moratorium on field trials for Bt in food crops until there was more definitive information on its long-term safety, and for crops for which India is a center of origin/diversity. They also recommended a ban on the release of ‘herbicide tolerant’ crops, which are inadvisable on socioeconomic grounds in a country where farms are small and weeding provides income to millions of people.

WSJ: Does the report take food security into account?

Ms. Variava: Yes, the report notes that although India has a food surplus in production terms, one-third of the world’s malnourished children live here. It does not see GM as the answer to this.

WSJ: Does it make sense to ban even field trials of GM food?

Ms. Variava: Field trials involve open-air releases of GM. Given that rice and wheat survived their supposed destruction after field trials in U.S. and caused import bans leading to losses of millions of dollars to U.S. farmers, field trials are not harmless scientific experiments. Banning field trials makes sense until a strong biosafety and liability regime is in place.

WSJ: Isn’t India taking regulatory steps to promote the safe use of modern biotechnology, for example with the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill?

Ms. Variava: The BRAI Bill appears to be promoting rather than regulating GM. It proposes a single window clearance, with power to clear GM crops dangerously concentrated in the hands of just five people. All its other committees are merely advisory. It will overrule the constitutional powers of state governments over agriculture and circumscribe the Right to Information and legal redressal. It does not mandate long-term studies, assure labeling and post-release health monitoring, or have adequate punitive provisions. There is no mandatory consideration of safer alternatives or preliminary need assessment based on socioeconomic factors. GM crops are input intensive, requiring adequate fertilizers and timely irrigation. With over 70% of India’s farmers being small and impoverished, and 65% dependent on the vagaries of the monsoon, GM is a high cost, high debt and high risk technology for India. The BRAI Bill does not ensure caution for this unpredictable and irreversible technology.

WSJ: What would economically and environmentally sustainable agriculture for India look like?

Ms. Variava: A World Bank commissioned study found that agro-ecological approaches and not GM provide the best solution to the world’s food crisis.In March 2011, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food also reported that small scale farmers could double food production within 5 to 10 years by agro-ecological farming.

An Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India study for West Bengal found that organic farming could increase net per capita income of a farmer in the state by 250%, lead to wealth accumulation of 120 billion rupees ($1.9 billion), generate exports worth 5.5 billion rupees ($87 million) and create nearly two million employment opportunities over five years.

In Andhra Pradesh, Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture was started in 2005-06. It promoted ecologically and economically sound agriculture with state government and World Bank support. About 10,000 villages with one million farmers practice non-pesticidal management on over 3.5 million acres. Pesticide use in the state has decreased by more than 45%. Net income increases were 3,000 to 15,000 rupees per acre, in addition to meeting a household’s food needs. WSJ

INDIA ‘Curbs on GM crop trials have paralysed seed industry’

‘Curbs on GM crop trials have paralysed seed industry’

With uncertainty dogging trials of genetically modified crops, the Indian seed industry is in a state of limbo, Chairman of the Association of Biotech Led Enterprises – Agriculture Group (ABLE – AG) V.R. Kaundinya said.

He told Business Line that “February 8, 2010 will remain an unforgettable day for the industry, for it was on that day the then Minister for Environment and Forest Jairam Ramesh imposed a moratorium on Bt Brinjal. Since then, GM trials have turned patchy. Further, with the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) becoming inactive in the last 18-months or so and the subsequent decision to withdraw GM (Genetically-modified) crop trials since May this year, the situation has worsened for the investors in this space,” he said

The industry has lost confidence as the entire investment in GM crop developments has taken a beating.

Industry players are in a wait-and-watch mode even for setting up labs. All our calculations have gone haywire, Kaundinya said.

Stating that stopping GM trials is a retrograde step and not the answer, he said the industry, instead, has been asking the Government to strengthen the regulatory process.

Meanwhile, with the matter in the Supreme Court and several State Governments not giving the No-Objection Certificate for field trials, the entire exercise has almost come to a halt.

“This is neither in the interest of the industry nor the farmer,” he said.HBL

Will Monsanto Destroy Another Crop?

Will Monsanto Destroy Another  Crop?

The U.S. wheat industry was nearly brought to its knees after the discovery of a genetically modified strain Monsanto had tested years ago was inexplicably found growing in an Oregon farmer's field. Because most of the rest of the world rejects GM wheat and the wheat from the Pacific Northwest is mostly targeted for export, the ramifications of the discovery were massive.

Now it's deja vu all over again. A Washington State farmer had his alfalfa crop rejected by a broker after it tested positive for the presence of genetic modification. The implications for this recurrence are just as profound as they were for wheat.

Several countries immediately imposed bans on the import of U.S. wheat and an investigation that's still ongoing was launched to figure out how a strain of genetically modified wheat that Monsanto said it completely destroyed except for the small amount the U.S. government supposedly has under lock and key in its vaults made it into the wild.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, alfalfa, with a value of around $8 billion, is the fourth-most widely grown field crop in the country, surpassed only by corn, wheat, and soybeans. Alfalfa hay, which the Washington farmer was selling, is a valuable export and hit a record high of $1.25 billion last year. Washington is one of the country's largest export alfalfa producers.

Like the runaway wheat strain, the tainted alfalfa was found to contain the genetic presence of the Round-Up Ready trait. That's the powerful and deadly herbicide that kills any plant life its sprayed on unless Monsanto has rejiggered its genetic code to withstand its onslaught. You can spray the herbicide on Round-Up Ready seed all day long, and it will still grow because of its genetic modification. 

The only difference between alfalfa incident and the wheat one earlier this year is the U.S. government permits farmers to grow genetically modified alfalfa; it prohibits GM wheat from being grown because of the global opposition to it. 

And that highlights one of the biggest risks opponents of GM foods have pointed out: once you start growing a genetically modified crop, you can't protect non-GM fields from being contaminated. One farmer can grow GM alfalfa -- or corn or soybeans -- and another across the road can choose not to, but wind and bees can can cause the fields to be cross-pollinated, and the non-GM farmer is left without recourse.

The episode raises some far-reaching fears. Farmers now are at risk if they practice the time-honored tradition of seed saving, and not just here, but all around the globe. DuPont just acquired South Africa's largest seed company that owns a large storehouse of maize germplasm, one of the most important crops on the continent where Monsanto already owns 50% of the market. Once they start accepting GM seed, they'll quickly learn they're no longer allowed to save it as the chemical giants own the food chain.

Not only should alfalfa farmers be worried because many countries including China don't allow any imports of GM crops, but alfalfa hay might not be able to be fed to domestic livestock because the introduction of GM contaminants can ruin their sales. And no just of beef, but organic dairy and other animal-based products. Monsanto says all is well as other importers like United Arab Emirates, have no restrictions on genetically modified crops and negotiations are under way with China too.

Once again the livelihood of farmers is being threatened by the pursuit of Monsanto to expand its reach over agriculture. We continue to be assured there's no harm to come from eating GM food,s but we are continuously reminded why such foods need to be labeled at a minimum. 

As this looks like it's going to become a recurring nightmare for our nations farmers, let's all take bets on which crop will be next to threaten their futures and put the country's economy at risk, all for Monsanto and the biotech industry's benefit. FOOL

GMOs safe, says US biotech expert

BY PHYLLIS MBANJE

GENETICALLY-modified foods (GMOs) are safe for human consumption and have no side effects, an American biotechnology expert stated last week.

Over the years, concerns have been raised in Zimbabwe over the safety of GMOs and their long-term effects on human beings.

But visiting US-based Wayne Parrott from the University of Georgia in the US, said contrary to common beliefs that GMOs were harmful, over 600 studies conducted over the years had proved that they were safe for human consumption.

Parrott, a professor of Crop Science specialising in plant breeding and genomics, was responding to a question on the safety of GMOs during a live social media chat held in Harare recently.

“No negative side-effects. They [GMOs]are as safe as conventional food,” he said.

Parrott said some countries in Africa were slowly adopting the concept.

“It is happening slowly but surely,” said Parrott. “There are GM crops being planted in South Africa, Burkina Faso, Sudan and Egypt. “People avoid the use of GMOs as a natural aversion to new technologies, which breeds misinformation but it can be overcome with education.”

Parrott has published over 80 journal articles in revered publications, along with 12 book chapters and three patents.

Zimbabwe has instituted a ban on GMOs until studies have been conducted on the possible effects on health and environment.

However, some of the members of the public who participated in the live media chat insisted that GMOs should be fully explored.

“GMO food has not been sufficiently tested for its effects upon the human body. Recent tests however, suggest they are a biochemical hazard to humans. Not to mention they lack the average nutritional content of organic food,” said one listener.

A food advocacy group formed by Food Matters Zimbabwe (FMZ), a local non-governmental organisation, has called on all citizens to contribute to ongoing debates on the health and environmental effects of GMOs, which have largely remained an unknown subject in the country.

The group, which consisted of experts from various sectors like agriculture, civic society, biotechnology and ordinary citizens, pledged at a GMO meeting recently that they would come up with a position paper that specifies the course of action that should be taken to ensure that the country is safeguarded against an influx of GMOs.

The group said there was little detailed research-based information on what GMOs are and the likely effect that they may have on humans and the environment.

Speaking at the same meeting, Isaiah Mharapara from Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Network (Fanrpran) said there was need to get tangible evidence to help consumers make informed decisions on GMOs.

“Currently, the government is taking a precautionary stance, there is no information on GMOs and their effects,” he said.

Mharapara also said it was prudent that GM foods should be labelled so that the consumers know what they are eating and make an informed choice.

“Most of these countries that produce GMOs do not label their products, which is unfair to the end-user. It should be mandatory to label GM foods,” he said.

Food Matters Zimbabwe representative, John Wilson said multinational companies were benefitting from the production of GMOs, at the expense of foods that are produced locally.

“Very little is going into sectors like agro-economy which recognises the role of indigenous knowledge systems,” he said.

Wilson said countries like the United States, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa were planting huge tracts of GMOs.

Wilson said in 2010 the USA produced 67 000 hectares of GMOs, a clear sign that it was big business. The Standard

“A lot of money goes into the process of genetic enhancement, wouldn’t it be better to channel that money into productive sectors?” he said.

USDA Won't Investigate GMO Alfalfa Contamination

USDA says it won't take action to determine origin of alfalfa harvested from field believed to be seeded in a non-GMO variety due to the crop's deregulation


"For nearly a decade,Center for Food Safety has vigorously opposed the introduction of GE alfalfa, precisely because it was virtually certain to contaminate natural alfalfa, among other severe environmental and economic harms," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for Center for Food Safety. "We warned this administration and the industry repeatedly of the significant risk to farmers and the environment.  Tragically, neither listened, and this latest contamination is the result of that negligence."

The USDA announced this week that the discovery of genetically modified material in a non-GM alfalfa field in Washington is a "commercial issue" and will not be investigated by the agency. GM alfalfa has been deregulated – or approved by the USDA for commercial sale – since 2011.

The contamination, which could either be a result of cross pollination or direct contamination of purchased seed, was first reported to the Washington Department of Agriculture in August. The presence of GM material was confirmed Sept. 12, a spokesman said.

GM alfalfa opponents say the contamination could threaten trade of the crop because many importing countries, such as Japan and Saudi Arabia, reject GM materials. According to the Center For Food Safety, which challenged the deregulation of GM alfalfa in a federal court tin 2006, the situation highlights "the inadequacy of the U.S. regulatory structure for GE crops."

But according to the WSDA, testing of the alfalfa revealed that while it did contain "a low-level presence" of the GM trait that makes it resistant to glyphosate application, the levels were "well within ranges acceptable to much of the marketplace."

"There is strong market demand for Round-Up Ready alfalfa and conventional alfalfa varieties, including those with low-level presence of Round-Up Ready traits, both domestically and abroad," a WSDA statement concluded. Like the USDA, it will not be taking further action to determine the cause of the contamination.

Instead, the discussion is likely to spill into the commercial realm. According to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection service, the presence of approved GE traits in a non-GE crop is a commercial issue and "the agriculture industry has approaches to minimize their occurrence and manage them when they occur."

The alfalfa situation is different from the discovery of GE wheat in an Oregon field this spring because GE wheat is not commercially available. Testing of such varieties are still regulated by USDA.

The discovery does, however, shake loose continuing uncertainty on the part of special interest groups that previously litigated against GM alfalfa's deregulation. FarmFutures

Africa shouldn't take GM crops lightly, but neither can it ignore their potential

Jane Karuku is president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

Boosting food production is vital for Africa's long-term prosperity – that means all viable options should be properly considered

Concerns about biosafety may have deterred some African governments from embracing GM technology. Photograph: Ian Waldie/Getty Images

In the unlikely event that I had forgotten just how controversial and polarising genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are, the past few days would have provided a very sharp reminder. Last week, our organisation, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), released a 204-page report (pdf) into the state of Africa's agriculture. It covered, in detail, the wide range of obstacles and challenges facing African countries as they seek to transform their agricultural productivity, as well as considering what opportunities there are to deliver this ambition.

Perhaps inevitably, however, our mention of GMOs dominated coverage of the report. We saw headlines such as "Agra helping agribusiness conquer African agriculture", and accusations that our organisation was promoting "genetically modified colonialism".

With hindsight, we should not have been surprised by this reaction. After all, our report noted how the controversial and complex nature of GMOs can make it incredibly difficult to hold a reasoned debate. It is why companies, organisations and scientists tend, when they can, to steer clear of voicing their opinions on the subject. All fear their position will be exaggerated.

I also have to acknowledge that the words used by the author of that specific chapter were open to misrepresentation, a mistake we must accept. What they don't do, however, is herald any change in Agra's long-established position on GMOs – a position which, I believe, reflects the cautious and balanced approach needed when considering any new technology.

GMOs are currently grown in only three countries – South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt. The slow adoption of this technology stems from various factors, not least a cautious approach that recognises all technologies come with risks as well as benefits.

These risks must not be overlooked, particularly as many African countries are still putting in place biosafety regulations – both on paper and in practice. It is no surprise that a number of African governments feel they still lack the capacity to manage GM technology adequately.

Equally important are the controls that many countries outside our continent have placed on GM crops. These controls have an impact on Africa's current trade and could undermine its potential as a major supplier of food to the rest of the world.

In the long run, however, Africa – a continent where one in four people still go hungry, and where annual food imports exceed $20bn – must carefully examine the potential of all new technologies to boost food production. This does not mean pushing GMOs or any other technology on reluctant governments or citizens. Agra believes it is the responsibility and prerogative of African governments to determine their position on GMOs.

But neither does it mean slamming the door shut on discussion, debate or research that might provide real benefits. So why does Agra not fund research, awareness campaigns or the development of GMOs adapted for Africa? We believe there are cheaper, readily available technologies that can effectively help smallholder farmers improve their harvests and yields.

Through our programme for Africa's seed systems, we are supporting the development of improved crop varieties – developed through conventional breeding methods – of key food crops, such as maize, cassava and beans.Importantly, we are also making sure that when these improved crops are developed, they find themselves in the hands of African farmers.

We are working with 16 national research institutes and farmers across Africa to develop seeds suited to our continent's varied environments. We are supporting the development of local entrepreneurs and companies who can distribute these seeds, along with fertiliser and other technologies, and helping to improve access to finance so that farmers can buy them.

These initiatives are making a difference. Last year, schemes supported by Agra produced enough seed of improved varieties to plant an estimated 3.85m hectares (9.6m acres). Throughout the continent, the adoption of our new varieties – none of which are genetically modified − is leading to record yields. For example, a recent study of an improved variety of maize seed in Kenya has shown yields increasing by a third.

We are seeing real progress across the continent; for the time being, therefore, our focus will remain on conventional breeding methods. For better or for worse, depending on who you ask, GMOs are unlikely to impact African food security in the near future. In the meantime, we need to have an informed, dispassionate conversation that includes all parties. The Guardian