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