INDIA: Pawar asked to stop promoting GMOs

Pawar asked to stop promoting GMOs

Citing an interview given by Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar to CNN-IBN on the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Group (TEC) on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), the Coalition for a GM-Free India has urged him to stop promoting GMOs in India.

In a letter written to the Minister on Wednesday, the coalition reminded him that he had agreed with the view that those who were raising concerns and asking for a proper machinery to be put in place for evaluating GMOs were “right.”

Yet, the Agriculture Ministry was “derailing the fair process of evaluation of the current regulatory regime,” by bringing in an expert who allegedly has conflict of interest.

On the Minister’s view that testing of GMOs was required and banning field trials as suggested by the TEC, would be “an extreme step,” coalition representatives Kavita Kuruganti and Rajesh Krishnan said there was no “sequential testing” in India. The recommendations of a Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology that recommended need assessment for GMOs and assessment of alternatives had never been followed.

Countering Mr. Pawar’s argument that Bt cotton had been a success in India, the coalition members said scientists concluded that yields had been most impressive when Bt cotton had not expanded in the country and output was on the decline in the recent past.

“The picture with regard to pesticide use is unclear, even as it is apparent that fertilizer use in cotton has gone up, irrigated cotton area has increased and there has been a massive shift from varietal cotton to hybrids.”

The activists rebutted Mr. Pawar’s argument that several countries were taking advantage of the technology and improving their productivity and production saying there were only “a handful of countries” and studies showed that the yields varied across crops, regions and years.

“We also know that technically, no transgenic crop exists in commercial use out there which can increase yields.”

Urging for democratisation of science and technology and of related decision-making at all levels, the activists said the kind of public debate witnessed on transgenic technologies should be encouraged.

Arguing that transgenic technology had nothing to do with “food security” in terms of increasing yields or addressing deep-rooted access and distribution issues or ensuring sustainable development, the activists said countries that adopted GM crops on a significant scale had deteriorating or decelerating food security.

“We urge your Ministry to drop this fallacious argument given that the more pressing need is to revive the rural agrarian economy and focusing on agro-ecological alternatives that will improve production, reduce cost of cultivation, bring down indebtedness and reduce risks in farming.” THE HINDU

INDIA: Allow ‘desi’ technology to counter Monsanto, argues Biocon chief

Allow ‘desi’ technology to counter Monsanto, argues Biocon chief

Veteran biotechnologist Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw says the best way to counter transnational seed company Monsanto’s “monopoly” in India’s cotton seed sector is to allow competition to develop similar technologies, maintaining that activism against genetically modified (GM) crops is stifling the efforts of Indian firms.

Though a substantial level of the country’s cotton contains Monsanto’s technology, which is licensed to over 25 Indian seed companies, the Chairperson and Managing Director of biotech firm Biocon said the criticism that this will put India’s seed sovereignty in jeopardy is too far-fetched.

“The best way to counter such a monopoly is to allow competition to develop similar technologies,” she told PTI in Bangalore. “All this activism against GM crops is stifling the efforts of the Indian companies as well the public sector institutions to come up with competing technologies. The anti-GM activists may thus be helping the multinationals to hold on to their monopoly.”

On the Supreme Court-appointed technical experts committee (TEC) on GMOs (genetically modified organisms) recently recommending that there should not be any field trials of GM crops until gaps in the regulatory systems are addressed, Ms. Mazumdar-Shaw said the report has disregarded the enormous body of evidence attesting to the safety and benefits of GM crops.

According to her, one of the members (Dr. R S Paroda, former Director General of Indian Council of Agricultural Research), who was added to the committee in order to bring in someone with real expertise in agriculture, has not signed the report, and he has presented a separate report which in all likelihood is at significant variance with the former.

“It may also be noted that the members of the TEC who have signed the report have for a long time opposed the introduction of GM crops and therefore it is not at all surprising that they recommended the ban. If you have been following the story, this report has been roundly condemned, not just by scientists, but by several other stakeholders, including farmers,” Ms. Mazumdar-Shaw said.

She said “India’s regulatory system is well designed - the proof is that after over a decade of commercialisation of Bt cotton, there is not a single credible report of any harm to humans, animals or the environment.

“On the other hand, the benefits have been many; the production, productivity and farmer incomes have all gone up! The functioning of our regulatory system is being stifled by strident activism and misleading campaigns. Even our legal structures are being misused to this end...”

“... Well, this does not mean that there is no scope for further improving the present regulatory system. But for this you need not stop the trials. Do you think we should stop all construction work in the country because the building regulations need improvements?” she asked.

Asked about the Union Minister for Environment and Forests, Jayanthi Natarajan expressing concern at field-testing of GM crops, she said: “If the minister has expressed such a concern, it is certainly unfounded.”

She also argued that the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill (which is yet to be tabled in Parliament) does effectively address some of the inadequacies of the present system.

It was prepared after wide-ranging consultations among all stakeholders including the public, Ms. Mazumdar-Shaw said.

However, it can be further refined and that should happen through discussions in various fora including the Parliament.

Demand for outright rejection of the bill based on mere canards is not in the interest of democratic functioning.

On Agriculture Ministry favouring GMOs, and Environment Ministry wanting to put field trials of GM crops in abeyance till the Parliament passes BRAI bill, she said: “The agricultural ministry is mandated to promote Indian agriculture and if they find GM crops to be a potent option to reach this end, what is wrong with it? ” The Environment and Forest Ministry is mandated to protect the environment and promote its sustained use for the welfare of countrymen, Ms. Mazumdar-Shaw said.

“There are many studies which have established that GM crops can reduce pesticide use and consequently increase the number of beneficial insects and other non-pest organisms, in addition to reducing human and animal exposure to noxious chemicals...”

“The claims that GM crops can harm biodiversity and the environment are mere propaganda and not supported by facts.

If we go by facts and hard data, the regulatory system should actually be a facilitator for the responsible introduction of technologies like GM crops, which can actually promote environmental sustainability,” Ms. Mazumdar-Shaw said.

She argued that field trials have to continue under the present system while the new regulatory bill is being discussed and passed. Field trials are essential to evaluate the safety and efficacy of any crop improvement technology.

“The time to pass a bill by our Parliament can range from months to many years! Development of new technologies that can potentially pull out our agriculture from the dire situation that it is in presently should not be delayed unnecessarily. As Pandit Nehru has said, “everything else can wait, but not agriculture,” Ms. Mazumdar-Shaw commented.

She disagreed with Ms. Jayanthi Natarajan’s reported statement that robust and proven fail safe scientific protocols to prevent damage from GM crops are yet to be developed in India, saying “We have a fairly good regulatory system and it should be allowed to function without being derailed by political interventions. Of course, it can and need to be continuously improved and strengthened.”

Asked if she thought the government must take an “extremely well calibrated and judicious approach” as the GM technology could impact millions of farmers and alter food supply chains permanently, she agreed that government should take a well calibrated and judicious approach.

“And that means, field trials should be continued and the regulatory system should be allowed to function in an unfettered manner. Improvements to the system should be continuous and based on actual facts and scientific principles,” Ms. Mazumdar-Shaw added. PTI

AUSTRALIA: Petition backs GM trials

Petition backs GM trials

AUSTRALIAN plant scientists have joined their global colleagues, academics and other crop biotechnology supporters to condemn the recent destruction of scientific field trials of Golden Rice by activists in the Philippines.

Anti-biotechnology activists destroyed the genetically modified (GM) rice trials on August 8 to subvert months of government funded research work, while sabotaging further data collection.

Golden Rice contains a gene which helps to produce Vitamin A and is seen as a means of helping to alleviate malnutrition for millions of people in developing countries like the Philippines.

Lack of vitamin A has been attributed to diseases which cause up to two million deaths and 500,000 cases of irreversible blindness each year.

The activist attack has been challenged in an online petition initiated by United States-based geneticist Channapatna Prakash of Tuskegee University in Alabama.

Dr Channapatna is aiming to gather 5000 signatures to help show policy makers and politicians in the Philippines the importance of continuing on with the plant research.

The petition collected 1000 signatures in the first 24 hours and had almost 3000 by Sunday night.

In an open letter accompanying the petition, Dr Channapatna said GM crops are “a critical resource in accelerating increases in crop productivity in general and enhancing their nutritional value to treat malnutrition and nutrient deficiencies”.

“In that context, Golden Rice is a critical resource in fighting the devastating consequences of widespread vitamin A deficiency in developing nations,” he wrote.

“Research on Golden Rice at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) is part of their humanitarian work to reduce vitamin A deficiency, a serious condition of malnutrition mostly affecting women and children by causing sickness and leading, in many cases, to blindness and premature death of millions each year.

“Golden Rice, when it becomes freely available to farmers as planned, can substantially contribute to the alleviation of this important aspect of malnutrition.

“Not a single one of the many claims of negative health or environmental effects uniquely made against GM crops has withstood scientific scrutiny.

“It is an unconscionable criminal act to destroy a field trial conducted in accordance to international safety norms.”

The petition was signed by University of Canberra toxicology expert and former Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) risk assessment general manager Andrew Bartholomaeus.

In adding his signature to the list, Dr Bartholomaeus said, “I care about the health and prosperity of future generations”.

“As a toxicologist with 30 years of experience in food, cosmetics, pesticides and pharmaceuticals I know the claims about risks of GM food are disingenuous and reflect a political rather than moral position,” he said.

“The lives of millions are at risk from the mindless actions of ill informed anti-biotech activists.”

In signing the petition, Alex Taylor of Oxford in the UK said, “670,000 children under five will die this year because of Vitamin A deficiency, we can prevent that”.

Anastasia Bodnar of Rockville Maryland in the US said “Genetic engineering has the potential to do a lot of good in the world”.

“Increased nutrition, higher yields, reduced inputs - the only thing stopping us is activists who just refuse to consider the science.”

Former anti-GM activist and UK environmentalist Mark Lynas promoted the petition on his Twitter account, tweeting “Ignorance triumphs when good people say nothing”.

He also described comments by Greenpeace in a New Scientist article on the Golden Rice vandalism as “stupid”.

In outlining reasons for the activist attack in the article, Greenpeace’s Philippines based program manager Beau Baconguis said not enough safety testing was done on any GM crops.

She said the activists took matters into their own hands due to concerns about their crops being contaminated.

But experts from the IRRI dismissed any risks of contamination saying the confined field trials were fenced and covered and rice self-pollinated and was therefore unlikely to spread to other crops.

The petition was also backed by University of Georgia Crop Science Professor Wayne Parrott.

In an interview with Fairfax Agricultural Media in March, Professor Parrott said those who oppose crop-biotechnology based on anti-science views should spend a day living in impoverished countries and experience first-hand what impact their activism is having on lives.

He said most of his outreach work was conducted in Latin America, where food security needs are urgent.

He said anti-GM activists needed to live for one day as a Central American peasant to realise “just what it is they are denying the people who need the technology the most”.

“Food is an emotional issue,” he said.

“People are not always rational about their food.

“Therefore, the anti-GM lobby can yet kill the technology around the world.”

Queenslandcountrylife

India: Pro-GM crops groups to pitch for use of biotech in farming

Pro-GM crops groups to pitch for use of biotech in farming

Amid intense public debate over the impact of Genetically Modified (GM) crops on health and environment, thousands of farmers from across the country will assemble in the city on Thursday to make an appeal to policy makers for infusion of bio-technology to increase agricultural productivity in the country which needs uninterrupted supply of food-grains in adequate quantity to feed its growing population.

The farmers will make this pitch merely days after thousands of anti-GM crops activists strongly appealed to the government not to allow even field trials of genetically engineered crops in India.

The activists also wanted the government to withdraw the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill which, they believe, would only facilitate commercial use of GM crops in India through a single-window clearance.

However, the farmers -- who will assemble at Jantar Mantar under the banners of the Consortium of Indian Farmers Association (CIFA) and the Shetkari Sanghatana - will try to impress upon the government the importance of technology, highlighting how the genetically modified foods are being used successfully in many countries like USA, Canada, Brazil and Argentina without showing sign of any adverse impact on health of consumers.

Dismissing the anti-GM crops debate as ones which is dominated by fear and prejudice, P Chengal Reddy, secretary general of the CIFA, said, "We have decided to make people aware of the importance of bio-technology in agriculture and expose the duplicity of both political leadership and NGOs who have been opposed to it without any evidence".

Reddy said the farmers' organizations would also try to convince the policy makers, arguing how the technology is needed not only to increase productivity but also make farming attractive to poor farmers who have to live in abject poverty in absence of any support from government or private agencies through investment in the agriculture sector.

Many anti-GM crops organizations, including Greenpeace, have a strong reservation against the use of genetically modified food. They have, over the years, put forward arguments and scientific findings, forcing the government to tread very cautiously in this area.

Rajesh Krishnan, co-convenor of the Coalition for GM Free India, said individual genes as well as the genetic engineering process are known to create a lot of adverse health and environmental impacts, as documented in scientific studies all over the world.

The coalition will, in fact, on Friday submit a memorandum comprising over three lakh signed petitions to T Subbarami Reddy - the chairman of the parliamentary standing committee of science & technology and environment & forest - asking him to suggest the government to withdraw the controversial BRAI Bill. The parliamentary panel is currently reviewing the Bill which was introduced in Lok Sabha in April. TIMES

No to GM crops

No to GM crops

The Technical Expert Committee wants field trials of GM crops put on hold until gaps in the regulatory system are addressed. By T.K. RAJALAKSHMI

With the National Food Security Bill generating much debate and even sections within the government questioning the viability of the scheme it envisages, a line of thought has emerged in favour of introducing genetically modified (GM) foods and crops in order to meet the requirements of the scheme on a long-term basis. While the Bill itself is inadequate in its coverage and is exclusionary at various levels, it has given rise to the spectre of GM foods once again.

The final report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) set up by the Supreme Court following a public interest petition regarding the environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) becomes all the more important in this context. The report, released on June 30, has found major gaps in the existing regulatory system and rejected the proposal to release GMs crops on the grounds that there are no “compelling” reasons for allowing the release of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, a commonly occurring bacterium found in insect-rich habitats and soils) for food.

It has recommended that GM crops should not be allowed in areas of origin or diversity as the committee’s understanding seems to be that the release of a GM crop into such areas could have great ramifications and has the potential for a negative impact on non-GM crop varieties. It has noted that to justify the introduction of GM crops in areas of origin “there needs to be extraordinarily compelling reasons” and an absence of “other choices”. “GM crops that offer incremental advantages or solutions to specific and limited problems are not sufficient reasons to justify such release. The TEC did not find any such compelling reasons under the present conditions. The fact is that unlike the situation in the 1960s [when there was a shortage of foodgrains], there is no desperate shortage of food [now] and, in fact, India is in a reasonably secure position,” it has noted. In a letter on July 23, the contents of which underscore the urgency of the issue, representatives of the Coalition for a GM-free India urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to accept the report without delay.

The six-member TEC reserved its most scathing indictment for the regulatory mechanism. The report comes in the context of the introduction of the contentious Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, which, according to experts and representatives of political parties, is not only inadequate but rather shorn of anything even remotely to do with proper regulation of GMOs. Rather, the Bill was perceived as a facilitator.

The TEC has noted that the regulatory system “has major gaps and these will require rethinking, investment and relearning to fix”, and these need to be addressed before conducting more field trials. It has also called for a moratorium on field trials of Bt (as suggested in its interim report in October 2012) in food crops intended for commercialisation until there was more definitive information from a sufficient number of studies about the long-term safety of Bt crops.

Apparently, the largest number of applications for field trials of GM crops received by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) was for Bt transgenics, including in food crops such as rice. The TEC has taken the view that the safety of Bt transgenics with regard to chronic toxicity has not been established. The largest deployment of transgenics worldwide is in soyabean, corn, cotton and canola, all of which are primarily used for oil or feed after processing. The TEC is emphatic that as there are no global examples of Bt transgenics “for any major food crop that was being directly used for human consumption”, there is no “compelling reason for India to be the first to do so”.

The second largest number of applications, the TEC has observed, are for herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops. The committee’s view is that “HT crops would most likely exert a highly adverse impact over time on sustainable agriculture, rural livelihoods and environment” and has found them completely unsuitable in the Indian context. It has also recognised the fact that the first GM food crop to be approved for commercial release was Bt brinjal in 2009 but the then Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, rejected the recommendation and placed a moratorium on the release following widespread protests by farmers. It has been the status quo since then. The incumbent Minister, Jayanthi Natarajan, is not known to be in favour of GM crops unlike Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, who rightly or wrongly feels that the introduction of GM crops will help address food security issues. That there is a lack of consensus on the issue in the government is not surprising.

Explaining the need for a foolproof biosafety protocol, the report notes: “Based on the review of the dossiers, the professional expertise and standards across the institutions appears unsatisfactory… it is ultimately the expertise available in the regulatory system that sets the standards for conducting and evaluating the biosafety tests. Unless this expertise and capacity is present, no amount of facility creation will address the issues.” It has said “a deeper understanding of the process of risk assessment is needed within the regulatory system for it to meet the needs of a proper biosafety evaluation. This is not available in the country at present.”

It further states: “In several cases, the reporting of data as well as methods and analysis has been incomplete and cursory; there are also deficiencies in selection of samples, methods of analysis, and statistical tests, making it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions…. the number of such cases that have come to the notice of the TEC also reflects on the manner in which the toxicology data has been examined and the regulatory body for having accepted the reports… that there are serious deficiencies in reporting of the data in the dossiers and more importantly in the way in which these have been examined and conclusions accepted by the regulatory body.” It has pointed out that unless the purpose of the tests is kept in mind, “the risk assessment is likely to fail to meet its objectives”.

The TEC has recommended the setting up of a secretariat of experts to fix gaps in biosafety needs, necessarily supplemented with international expertise and the evaluation of GM safety dossiers in reputed regulatory bodies. It has maintained that it is not possible for a single committee such as the GEAC or the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation to carry out all the evaluation. It has suggested that the regulatory bodies be located either in the Ministry of Environment and Forests or in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and that members of this body be free of conflict of interest.

Positions and perceptions

The TEC considered a wide spectrum of positions and perceptions on the regulation of GM crops, which included a belief that the regulation was excessive and that it restricted the scope of biotechnology and denied the benefits of GM crops to society, especially the poor. A second view was that this technology was relatively new and there was limited information on safety, especially food safety, and the effects of long-term and widespread consumption and commercial release of GM crops on the environment. This view advocated that it would be prudent to carry out extensive field trials to evaluate the health and environmental aspects of allowing GM crops.

A third view, which was not mutually exclusive of the other two, was that the concentration of intellectual property and resources for research on GM crops in the private sector was resulting in perverse and exploitative relationships of public institutions with the private sector in developing countries and that these had not been successful in meeting the development and sustainability goals. This view held that the control of GM crop biotechnology by the private sector was affecting the ability to deploy it towards the public good in developing countries.

The TEC has taken a balanced view on the matter. The technology, according to it, comes with the promise of benefits as well as associated risks with regard to environmental safety and health. These risks need to be recognised and addressed for GM products to gain social acceptance. The report has taken stock of the fact that in view of the broad scope of GM technology and the range of possible products, risk assessment will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis even though there may be some issues common to most cases. But it is firm that unless the gaps in the regulatory system are addressed, public confidence in it will suffer. On the sequence of testing GM crops, the TEC says, that the tests “should be done under the minimum conditions of exposure”.

The Coalition for a GM-free India has urged the government to take the recommendations “seriously and act on them in the interests of food safety, security, and sovereignty as well as protection of environment and farm livelihoods”.

The TEC consisted of Imran Siddiqi, plant development biology scientist and a group leader of the Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology; P.S. Ramakrishnan, professor emeritus of environmental sciences and biodiversity, Jawaharlal Nehru University; P.S. Chauhan, a genetics technology and food safety expert; P.C. Kesavan, a former scientist of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre; B. Sivakumar, former Director of the National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad; and R.S. Paroda, former Director-General of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research.

It is learnt that Paroda, the Agriculture Ministry’s nominee who was inducted into the committee as its sixth member in November 2012 after the interim report was filed, did not endorse the final report. His inclusion was perceived as controversial as his organisation was said to be receiving funding from biotech majors, which constituted a clear conflict of interest. The TEC’s recommendations on the conflict of interest assume special significance in this respect.

The TEC has also pointed out, quoting from the Agriculture Ministry’s submission to the committee, that the Ministry had no locus standi or rationale to challenge its interim report as it was a conflicted party and by its own admission, as quoted in the report, had no mandate in biosafety assessment and was only carrying out the role of promotion with regard to transgenic technology. The Ministry did not concur with the interim report and submitted a rejoinder in the court.

The coalition has urged the government to accept the “well-reasoned, reasonable and sound recommendations” and “start overhauling the process of modern biotechnology regulation in India”. “Vested interests should not be allowed to prevail and prevent the acceptance of this report which is based on sound science, justice and the principle of sustainability,” it has said.

The TEC recommendations could have an impact on the BRAI Bill, which is with the Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests. “When read together with the TEC final report and the existing critiques of the Bill, it is evident that the BRAI Bill that your government has introduced in Parliament should be withdrawn as it is designed to be a single-window mechanism for easy approval of GMOs without regard for independent, rigorous scientific assessments and pertinent issues beyond science,” the coalition has stated.

Senior political parties, such as the Left parties, have thrown their weight behind the TEC report. There is no doubt that there is an urgent need to address these issues. Hastily crafted laws are hardly the answer to such complex issues that have far-reaching and long-term consequences for food security and agriculture. Frontline