INDIA: Agriculture ministry sticks to its 'pro-GM crops' stand in Parliament

INDIA

Agriculture ministry sticks to its 'pro-GM crops' stand in Parliament

Dismissing concerns expressed by activists and civil society against use of genetically modified (GM) crops in the country, the Union agriculture ministry on Tuesday said that such objections have been "very speculative" and "without any reasonable assessment".

The ministry, known for its pro-GM crops stand, articulated its point in response to a Parliament question in Lok Sabha and assured the members that the government is "following a policy of case by case approval of GM crops" after extensive evaluation and regulatory process for commercial cultivation.

"This includes generation of relevant bio-safety information, its elaborate analysis to ensure food, feed and environmental safety. A final view on the commercialization of GM crop plants is taken only when there is a clear economic and technical justification besides suitability for environment and human consumption", said the ministry in its written response.

The ministry's reiteration to its well-known stand came merely five days after thousands of activists and anti-GM crops experts from across the country gathered here at Jantar Mantar for a day-long protest demanding that the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and multinational seed companies must quit India.

The protestors had marched to Parliament, asking the government to withdraw the controversial Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, 2013 as they believe that it will only fast-track the entry of GM food crops in India. They had also demanded that the Prime Ministers Manmohan Singh must unfurl national flag, made of non-Bt cotton, on Independence Day.

Allaying concerns of activists over use of Bt Cotton, the agriculture ministry on Tuesday said, "Since inception of Bt. Cotton, there have been objections from some of the NGOs besides Civil Society on Agriculture... The objections have been very speculative, without any reasonable assessment of the technological strengths of Bt-cotton. In spite of the controversy regarding Bt cotton, the ground reality is that during the last decade, area under cotton cultivation (approx. 12 million hectares, of which 90% is under Bt cotton) and productivity of cotton has gone up significantly".

The ministry also stressed that the Indian economy has benefited as India is the second largest exporter of cotton. "There is no scientific evidence to show that Bt cotton has adversely impacted the biodiversity or human/cattle health. The main purpose of Bt cotton was to control bollworms to enhance yield and production of cotton in the country," it said. TIMES

Scientists Condemn Destruction of Golden Rice Field Trial

Scientists Condemn Destruction of Golden Rice Field Trial

Golden Rice Project

Golden petition. Researchers have launched a petition protesting the destruction of research plots of golden rice (right) in the Philippines.

Scientists are striking back at activists who destroyed genetically modified (GM) "golden rice" plants in a test field in the Philippines last week. "It is an unconscionable criminal act to destroy a field trial conducted in accordance to international safety norms," reads an online petition that has garnered nearly 2000 signatures in the past few days.

Golden rice carries two foreign genes that together produce beta carotene, a precursor of vitamin A. Scientists and public health advocates see golden rice helping to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, a scourge of the poor in developing countries that can lead to blindness and other health problems. But critics argue that GM food crops pose poorly understood health and environmental risks, and some have tried to halt research by destroying test plots, such as those in Philippines.  

Scientists must respond to such attacks, petition organizers say. "It is important that the community come together and explain there is a scientific consensus on the safety of GM crops," says geneticist Channapatna Prakash of Tuskegee University in Alabama, who initiated the petition. He says when they reach 5000 signatures they will send the statement to policymakers and politicians in the Philippines and other countries to convince them that "they must move forward with this research."  ScienceMag

Former Greenpeace boss slams environment secretary over support for GM food

Lord Peter Melchett. Picture: Nigel Sutton

A former executive director of Greenpeace, who lives in Kentish Town, has lashed out at environment secretary Owen Paterson for supporting genetically modified (GM) food.

What is GM?

GM– the facts

GM stands for genetic modification or genetically modified.

It is the process of altering plant genes, animals or micro-organisms by “cutting and pasting” a gene from another living thing.

Genetic modification allows genes to be transferred from one species to another to develop characteristics that would be very difficult or impossible to achieve through traditional breeding, such as a resistance to disease or certain pesticides, which can stunt plant growth.

Genetically modified rice, known as golden rice, could be a good source of Vitamin A for children in developing countries, where deficiencies are common. But it has not yet been made commercially available.

Lord Peter Melchett, one of the most vocal campaigners against GM food, said Mr Paterson’s June speech encouraging GM companies to carry out their research in the UK had “little impact” and “actually did more to harm GM”.

Lord Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association, a charity campaigning for planet-friendly organic food and farming, said: “There was absolutely nothing new in his speech at all.

“He couldn’t do much worse as a Conservative minister having Conservative Home, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph criticise him.”

Ever since it became a possibility to genetically engineer crops to resist disease or pesticides in 1977, public opinion over GM has been divided, with the majority of people against the technology.

In 2004, a survey found more than a third of people were opposed to GM food, with 85 per cent saying that the public doesn’t know enough about the potential long-term effects of GM crops on our health.

However, about half of people asked thought that GM crops could hold future benefits for the environment, consumers and those in developing countries.

Mr Paterson wants the UK and Europe to catch up with countries such as the US in its production of GM crops in order to reap the potential benefits from new technologies.

Lord Melchett believes the UK needs to stop using GM crops for animal feed, taking the lead from many European countries.

“There is still GM in animal feed coming through into what we buy,” he said. “Europe is ahead of us in getting rid of it as we still have GM soya and maize in our animal feed here.

“I think people are outraged that most supermarkets are selling meat, milk and eggs that come from animals fed on GM feed. They are not labelling it as GM and so doing it secretly. That’s what gets people angry.

“If GM is as wonderful as they make it out to be – it’s going to save the world and all this rubbish – why don’t they put GM on their products?” he said.

“There’s a reason for keeping it secret. We’re just asking for some honesty and decency.” Ham&High

GMO: What do you know?

GMO: What do you know?

Posted by Ralph Schwartz

Genetically modified organisms. Why should we care?

This question will be pressed upon conscientious voters this fall as they consider Initiative 522. If it passes, it will require labeling of raw agricultural products as "genetically engineered." Processed foods with such ingredients would also be labeled. There are certain exemptions, which opponents criticize as arbitrary. I only post that link for the convenience of its information, not the side it takes. The pro website yeson522.com doesn't have a similarly easy-to-read chart of exemptions.

In fact, the Yes on I-522 people could have done better elsewhere on its FAQ page. After all, we're talking about some thorny science here when it comes to a debate on whether genetically modified food is any better or worse for you than good old fashioned genetically undisturbed food.

I was looking forward to the answer to one frequently asked question:

"I've heard that there are studies that show there are no effects of genetically engineered foods on humans, then why do we need special GE/GMO labels?"

This is good. Approach the critics' No. 1 position statement head-on, and tell people exactly why to vote yes on I-522.

The answer, however, is unsatisfying. Here it is, in part:

"Just like you have the right to know the nutritional content of your breakfast cereal or favorite candy bar, Yes on 522 allows shoppers to have more control over their grocery shopping decisions.

"A 'yes' vote on 522 allows Washington shoppers to make informed decisions when buying food for themselves and their families."

But informed how? We're talking about genes here, not iron or calcium.

* * *

There's a good overview of these early days in the I-522 campaigns here, with light shed from the perspective of the similar, and failed, Proposition 37 in California.

In two sentences, the article from foodsafetynews.com summarizes the two sides' strategies:

"The 'Yes' campaign is stressing the public’s right to know what is in their food, while generally staying away from claims that GMOs are unsafe to eat. The 'No' campaign will tell Evergreen State voters such labeling will just food costs without any benefit basis (sic)."

This brings me back to the "informed decision" / "right to know" problem. What part of "genetic engineering" don't voters understand? All of it, probably. A label with those two words doesn't deliver information to the average shopper.

PCC Natural Markets also has a page on I-522 and asks the crucial question, "Why do we need a mandatory labeling system?"

Yes, please, tell me.

"Growers using genetically engineered seed, and manufacturers using the products grown from those seeds, have an obligation to share that information with consumers," PCC says. The grocer helped write I-522 and gather signatures.

This doesn't help. I am one of those reporters who didn't study genetics in college, so mandatory labels aren't sharing anything with me.

OK, so let me do what reporters do. Let's dig.

What does the American Medical Association think about GMOs?

It took a stand a year ago, calling for "mandatory pre-market safety testing" but not mandatory labels.

This was a half-measure. The Chicago Tribune article linked above suggested the AMA didn't go so far as to recommend labels because "it considers (GMOs) not to be materially different from other kinds of food."

Still, mandatory, independent pre-market testing by the Food and Drug Administration is a higher bar than the testing manufacturers commission for themselves. What the AMA said at the time indicated it was responding more to public concern than to scientific information:

"Recognizing the public’s interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public. We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods."

So the AMA doesn't believe GMOs are harmful. Then again, scientists in a new field rarely are all in agreement, and sure enough, you can find a body of medical experts who do believe GMOs are bad for you.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine asserts, "GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption, and ... there is ample evidence of probable harm." (Check out the link above for the Academy's full argument.)

The AAEM calls for not just labeling but a moratorium on genetically engineered foods, until the risks are better understood.

One sentence in an Aug. 10 article on I-522 in The Seattle Times gets to the nut of it:

"People who oppose GMOs want labeling because they say genetically engineered crops have not been studied or regulated enough to know whether they are harmful."

Fair enough.

* * *

The National Academy of Sciences says there is no evidence of harmful effects from GMOs. So, The New Yorker asks, are genetically engineered foods a victim of human psychology, our tendency to irrationally associate the "negative-seeming attribute" of not being natural with an unproven attribute such as000 being bad for you?

From The New Yorker blog post, dated Aug. 8:

"When it comes to new, unknown technologies, data always loses out to emotion. For instance, people judge the risks of radiation from nuclear power plants to be much higher than those from medical X-rays—a conclusion that is not backed up by the data and is at odds with the advice of most risk experts—simply because nuclear power plants seem more foreign and inspire greater dread. What’s more, when we’re in a state of heightened emotion, we don’t weigh risks and benefits equally—risks take on an outsized impact and benefits begin to pale in comparison.

"Once an initial opinion is formed ... it is very difficult to shift it with new evidence."

That's a lot to chew on between now and November. Bellingham Herald

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/08/14/3147025/gmo-what-do-you-know.html#storylink=cpy

GMO info; schoolyard beatdowns

OPINION/COMMENTS

We received a good comment on my post yesterday, "GMOs: What do you know?" that links to more information on the "Yes to 522" side. (Initiative 522 would require labels on raw agricultural products that are genetically modified and on processed foods with GM ingredients.)

An editor had to send me the comment because it never posted. This new format for the Politics Blog doesn't accept comments with links -- a standard restriction in comment forms that is intended to reduce spam. It came without the commenter's name, so I don't know who sent it. It reads thusly:

"Ralph, If you are truly seeking answers about GMOs, Bellingham based The Non-GMO Project is a great local resource.

"If you want to drill down into the nutritional science, cause-and-effect GMO issues, Bellingham based Certified Nutritionist Tom Malterre is an individual that can break down very complex problems so just around anyone can understand them. Here is a video interview I did with Tom at the Justice Begins with Seeds Conference in Seattle two weeks ago. (links to Toms website, social networks, Autism Research Institute webinar is in the text box below the video.)"

I approached this with the same thirst for knowledge I expressed in my post yesterday. Yes, I thought, now I will get to the core reasons why genetically engineered food should be labeled.

I won't mince words. The 10-minute video was another disappointment.

For one thing, it's not an interview. It's a stand-up by Tom Malterre, in the style of an on-the-scene TV news reporter. An interview would provide the opportunity for good, challenging questions on Malterre's position.

Turns out that Malterre is a faculty member with the Autism Research Institute, which on its front page walks this tenuous line between trying to not be scientifically inaccurate while at the same time insinuating an unverified claim:

"Although there is as yet no documented connection between GMOs and autism, there is much discussion on the relationship. Note: Google lists 857,000 entries for 'GMOs and autism.'"

We are all advanced enough in the Internet era to know that just because it's on Google doesn't make it true.

For the record, the causes of autism are unknown, though promising studies point to genetics and brain structure.

In the video, Malterre suggests a link between GMOs and/or the pesticide RoundUp, and autism, irritable bowel syndrome, eczema, the rise in antidepressant prescriptions, and increasing violence in society. Again, he's careful not to claim a link. He just says it's possible. Whether the casual listener or the members of the audience not well versed in science can discern the difference is an open question.

Bottom line: Malterre himself says "no one knows" whether GMOs are bad for you. But he is definitely suspicious. He said a yes vote on I-522 would enable the consumer to conduct his/her own experiment, to see if removing genetically engineered food from one's diet improves eczema, mood swings, etc.

A yes vote at the ballot box, he says, will enable consumers to vote in a way that really counts -- with their money.

Speaking of money, Malterre included in the video a pitch for his cookbook. He's got the credentials -- he's a certified nutritionist -- but his claims would have more gravity if they weren't wrapped around a sales pitch.

To conclude on GMOs: Deciding how to vote in November hinges on a dilemma. Vote yes, and consumers can avoid genetically engineered foods just in case they are harmful. Vote no, and the economy of companies that rely on sales of GM foods isn't disrupted for no good reason (possibly).

If that is the decision-making calculus in play, I predict Washington voters will approve I-522.

* * *

To shift gears and discuss commenting.

Commenting is the most important element to the Politics Blog. I have learned a hell of a lot by reading people's responses to what I wrote and to each other. The blog is fortunate to have so many intelligent readers who are willing to engage the ideas brought forward here.

But there is a downside, as you've all seen firsthand. The comments can devolve into schoolyard bullying. The new blog format, introduced last week, seems to encourage this because it indents replies directly under the first post, which makes the thread of statement and responses easier to read.

In my post yesterday about the Republicans in Congress, I removed a handful of comments that either included foul language or simply mean verbal assaults. I know the Internet is fertile ground for bullying, known in the vernacular as trolling, but it is my responsibility to erase it when I see it. So if you're tempted to curse at someone or question whether they qualify as a human being, I would suggest resisting.

I kept the following comment exchange up because it wasn't mean-spirited enough to warrant removal, but still -- how much is the conversation advanced by an exchange like this? Bellingham Herald

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/08/15/3149649/gmo-info-schoolyard-beatdowns.html#storylink=cpy

Monsanto’s Stock Becoming High Risk as Demand for GMO Labeling Grows

Monsanto’s Stock Becoming High Risk as Demand for GMO Labeling Grows

More than 90 GMO-labeling bills were introduced in at least 26 US states over the past year

Whether you believe genetically engineered (GE) foods ought to be labeled or you believe they ought to be outright banned, this very debate means bad news for notorious Big Ag biotech giant Monsanto.

Photo by Alexis Baden-Mayer/Flickr

In a recent article published by conservative Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail, well-known growth investor and columnist Chris Umiastowski, P.Eng., MBA, wrote about the instability of Monsanto’s longterm stock value in light of the swelling demand for GE labeling. Citing his focus on long term stocks, he notes:

… it’s just as important to know what stocks to avoid as it is to know which ones to invest in. Most growth trends don’t last forever and you don’t want to be stuck holding the bag when growth disappears or reverses.

While mandatory GE labeling has been implemented in some European countries, Umiastowski acknowledges that the lack of GE labeling in the US and Canada has “played to Monsanto’s advantage,” especially since their glyphosate-resistant GE crops must be sold along with the company’s blockbuster herbicide, RoundUp.

But considering that there have been more than 90 pieces of proposed legislation to label GE ingredients in at least 26 different states across the U.S. over the last year, Umiastowski sees the trend leaning towards more GE labeling. He comments on the growing risk of owning Monsanto’s stock:

Their reliance on selling genetically modified seeds is quite high, especially with over half of sales happening in the US market. Consumer awareness over potential health issues is on the rise, as evidenced by the company’s actions in Europe. If this consumer behaviour [sic] grows around the world, Monsanto’s growth suffers, as does the share price. Personally, I’d rather own a business that is not only growing at a solid clip, but feels good to hold in my portfolio. For me, Monsanto doesn’t cut it.

One such measure is Washington State’s ballot initiative 522, which allows voters to decide on GE labeling this November without the interference of state or federal officials potentially watering down the legislation. Threatened by the potential for this initiative to set further precedents for more labeling, pro-industry groups are already pouring money from out of state into the “No” campaign.

The concerns over the potential health risks of GE industrial agriculture are also growing among those who are most vulnerable to them: Children. Recently, 14-year-old Rachel Parent, founder of Kids Right to Know—a group dedicated to the youth movement to label GE foods—discussed the issue on the prime-time Canadian business news program, The Lang and O’Leary Exchange.

“I believe it’s our future. If you are going to do something to our food, we should definitely know about it, and we are the ones who might have to live with these consequences. So why not be informed about it?” said Parent in response to why she feels so strongly on the issue. Earthisland

ECOWATCH

Labeling genetically modified foods in Washington

Labeling genetically modified foods in Washington

We have a right to know

Initiative 522 supporters, who want genetically modified foods to be labeled, gathered for a rally outside a Grocery Manufacturers Association meeting at the Westin Hotel in Seattle. [Mark Harrison, The Seattle Times.]

The recent article regarding the labeling of foods that contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) failed to mention that genetically engineered crops require more of Monsanto’s herbicide, Roundup, because the weeds it is supposed to kill have become resistant to it and have turned into super weeds, requiring more of the chemicals that generate huge profits for Monsanto. [“On voters’ plates: genetically engineered crops,” page one, Aug. 11.]

It is beyond me why anyone would think that eating genetically modified foods doused with more chemicals than conventional foods is a healthy thing. The animal studies coming out are proving them to be anything but healthy. The monarch butterfly population has plummeted by 59 percent in the past year, because all that Roundup has killed most of the milkweed, which is their primary food source. If something isn’t done soon, they could be gone forever.

It’s dangerous that the U.S. government and Monsanto have unleashed GMOs into the marketplace without any conclusive long-term studies. They’ve turned the American people into guinea pigs.

Mother Nature exists for our benefit. Monsanto exists solely for its own best interests and profits, so having it control our food supply is scary.

Vote yes on Initiative 522! We have a right to know exactly what we’re eating, and to avoid GMOs if we chose. Seattle Times letters to the editor

INDIA: GM and the biodiversity balderdash

INDIA

GM and the biodiversity balderdash

By Shanthu Shantharam

The author is professor, Seed Technology Center and Biosafety Institute for Genetically Modified Agricultural Products (BIGMAP), Iowa State University.



The alarmists have had a field day. — V. Sreenivasa Murthy

GM works. Farmers have taken to it. And, preserving biodiversity is no virtue in itself.

Strong parallels can be drawn between the recent anti-biotech and anti-nuclear movements. To begin with, both have nothing to do with safety; they are really a cultural/political war against modern science and progress.

The Prime Minister and the Government persevered in the case of nuclear power. It is time the Government showed a similar resolve for biotechnology.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture, in its 500-odd page report, severely indicted the GM crops technology and called for complete cessation of even field tests, which are so crucial to research and development activities.

Condemning one of the truly transformative technologies of our times without a sound scientific rationale has harmed India’s agricultural progress.

Increase farm productivity

Indian farm productivity is in doldrums and with increase in population growth and changing climatic conditions, there is no way India can feed its population in 2050 without modern science and technology. The much-touted Food Security Bill will become useless as do most of such “bleeding heart” programmes, if India does not increase its agricultural productivity.

The parliamentary report repeats the same old tired arguments proffered by anti-technology activists. It raises the question who might really have drafted the report. The report targeted the highly successful Bt cotton as a disaster for Indian farmers.

This is nothing but balderdash and contrary to all the empirical field data published by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC and the Centre for Economic and Social Sciences (CESS), Hyderabad.

Bt benefits

Researchers from highly reputed institutions such as the Inter Academy Report on GM crops of India; economic assessment by the National Academy of Agricultural Sciences of India; Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Andhra University, the Gokhale Institute, Pune; Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; and publications in reputed scientific journals like the Science and the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences USA have documented the phenomenal success of Bt cotton in India.

The fact is more than 95 per cent of cotton-growing areas in the country is now under Bt cotton. The proven net benefits are environmental protection, reduced human exposure to insecticides, and measurable socio-economic benefits. The Parliamentary Report also praised the moratorium on Bt brinjal, saying that that India has over 2,200 varieties of brinjal that would take care of all future needs of the country.

The scientific fact is there are no more than 200 authentic brinjal varieties, most of which have gone out of cultivation.

More than 70 per cent of brinjal grown in India are modern day hybrids that are genetically modified, albeit using classical breeding techniques.

As much as it is valuable to have diversity in a crop variety, useless biodiversity is not a virtue unless it has redeemable features to the benefit of the grower. In this day and age, an overriding concern must be the financial benefit of the poor farmer, and not some feel-good reason that all “biodiversity” is good.

After all, agri-ecosystem is a man-made ecosystem solely for doing beneficial agriculture.

Weed management

The Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) goes even further and recommends a ban on the Herbicide Tolerant (HT) GM crops on the basis that they will deprive livelihoods (poverty wages) of the poor agricultural labourers, mostly women and children. It is back-breaking work that nobody wants to do, and as such there is acute shortage of farm labour all over the country.

Indian farmers need technologies that can save on labour and bring efficiency. Indian agriculture loses 30-40 per cent of its crops due to weeds.

Efficient weed management is the crying need of the hour to increase India’s moribund agriculture, and for that we need modern science and technology.

The TEC has thrown all scientific objectivity to the winds and ignored voluminous credible literature in support of the safety and utility of GM crops.

There is no justification for recommending a halt to research in biotech food crops, even though over three trillion meals made out of GM crops have been eaten, the world over, in the past decade and a half. The suggestion to halt research till a utopian regulatory set-up is created is ridiculous.

There is not a single internationally reputed scientific body that endorses the kinds of tests the TEC recommends.

The Government of India must boldly push ahead with GM crops technology with the same resolve shown for the nuclear energy. THE HINDU BUSINESS LINE

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/gm-and-the-biodiversity-balderdash/article5026084.ece