Coalition asks USDA to bolster monitoring of GM crops

Coalition asks USDA to bolster monitoring of GM crops

Monsanto subject of increased scrutiny as stock sinks more than 13% in recent months

Dozens of farm organizations, food processors, millers, retail companies, bakeries, and seed businesses have signed a letter calling for improvements in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) oversight of experimental trials of genetically modified (GM) crops.

The letter, which calls for enforceable standards for confining GM crops, as well as active monitoring and testing to ensure compliance, was largely prompted by the USDA’s May 29 announcement that an Oregon farmer had mysteriously discovered unapproved GM wheat in his field. The contamination prompted Japan and South Korea to suspend U.S. wheat imports, while other Asian countries where carefully watching.

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack insisted the Oregon discovery was an “isolated incident,” while Monsanto, which manufactured and conducted field trials of the GM wheat several years ago, suggested in a public conference call a week ago that the company was the victim of sabotage of anti-GM activists. “It's fair to say there are folks who don't like biotechnology and who would use this as an opportunity to make problems,” said Robb Fraley, Monsanto's CTO.

Meanwhile, Monsanto executives and insiders are selling Monsanto stock in noteworthy volumes, trending the stock price downward. CEO Hugh Grant sold off 40,000 shares at $97.74, and Janet Holloway and Gerald Steiner – both high-level executives – recently unloaded more than 10,000 shares each, Mike Adams reported today in Natural News. Some hedge funds are also selling off Monsanto stock, most likely due to sharply increased "negative sentiment," Adams wrote.

Monsanto share prices dipped to $94.81 in August, down 13.2 percent from a peak of $109.22 prior to the Oregon news in May. According to a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll, 82 percent of Americans think GMO foods should be labeled, while a mere 9 percent say they shouldn’t.

More than 400 field trials of GM wheat have been approved by officials across the United States over the last two decades. However, the introduction of GM wheat was halted in the country 10 years ago due to market rejection abroad. Many U.S. food and beverage companies also reject GE wheat.

Whole Foods Market became the first national grocery chain to set a deadline for full transparency on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The company plans to have all products in its U.S. and Canadian stores labeled for GMOs by 2018. 

Chipotle Mexican Grill began labeling its GM ingredients in March, and ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s, owned by Unliver (which despite its evangelized sustainability status has spent heavily to defeat GMO labeling laws) recently hatched a plan to completely eliminate all GMOs from its U.S. and Canadian product line by next year. Its products made in Europe are already non-GMO.

Wheat harvests are in full swing as the USDA continues its secretive investigation into the Oregon contamination event. Todd Leake, a North Dakota conventional wheat grower who farms more than 2,000 acres, joined other growers in a meeting with Secretary Vilsack last week asking for a halt on GM wheat trials.

“It’s extremely important that the USDA moves to protect the conventional wheat industry from the threat of contamination,” Leake said. “Several GE wheat field trials are underway in North Dakota and have the potential to contaminate our spring wheat supply. Our export markets have zero tolerance for GE traits in our wheat products. They’re importation policies are not going to change. If another contamination event surfaces, the consequences would be devastating. We don’t want to lose our export markets to other countries.”

Kurt Staudter of the Vermont Brewers Association, which represents 30 breweries, said his members are deeply concerned about GM wheat making its way into the food supply. “Many of our members have been pioneers in the organic beer world, and they want to ensure sources of non-GE wheat are preserved to meet customer demand,“ Staudter said. “We don’t want wheat to follow the path of GE corn, where complete segregation has not been a reality.”

Steve Crider, a government and industry liaison for Amy’s Kitchen, added: “It's time for the U.S. to seriously evaluate how GE crops impact the markets we serve. These evaluations must begin before open-air field trials are allowed.”

“Annually, we use over 10 million pounds of organic wheat,” Crider said. “Therefore, the integrity of non-GMO wheat is essential to our continued success as a business. ‘GMO-free’ is what our customers demand and expect, both domestically here in the U.S. and our extensive export program abroad into Asia, the E.U., and the Middle East markets we serve.”

Ingredients labeled “organic” are legally required to be free of GMOs. Sustainable Industries

INDIA: Farmers seek biotech solutions to crop woes

Farmers seek biotech solutions to crop woes

Farmers from across the country protested against recommendations of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) at Jantar Mantar on Thursday. They demanded latest technologies in agriculture. The rally was led by the Consortium of Indian Farmers Association (CIFA) with participation from other farmers' groups.

CIFA secretary general Chengal Reddy said, "Farmers confront several farm productivity challenges... Biotechnology or genetically modified crop can offer us solutions."

Reddy said farmers need biotechnology and the right to choose and freedom to farm. "We have full faith that the Supreme Court will do what is right for farmers in need of technology to increase productivity and prosperity," he said. IE

India: Pro and anti-GM crop groups slug out the controversial issue in power corridors

Pro and anti-GM crop groups slug out the controversial issue in power corridors 

Days after testing their strength on Delhi's streets, both anti and pro-GM crop groups sought to slug out the issue in the Capital's power corridors on Friday. Though politicians gave both the groups a patient hearing, the fate of genetically engineered crops lies with the Supreme Court which is set to resume hearing on a public interest litigation on this controversial matter. The pro-GM crop group comprising representatives of the Consortium of Indian Farmers Association ( CIFA) and other organizations from nine states met the agriculture minister Sharad Pawar and pitched for allowing use of biotechnology in farm sectors to increase food-grains productivity in the country. They also resolved to meet the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh next month and mobilize support of as many parliamentarians as possible in favour of their demand so that farmers can reap the benefit of modern science in agriculture. The anti-GM crop groups including Coalition for GM Free India and Greenpeace, on the other hand, submitted signed petitions of over four lakh activists to T Subbarami Reddy - chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on science & technology and environment & forests - asking him to recommend the government to withdraw the controversial Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill. Both groups presented their views on pros and cons of use and non-use of genetically modified crops in India. The anti-GM crop groups believe that the BRAI Bill is meant to facilitate entry of genetically engineered food-grains in India through a single window clearance. They said the Bill was, in fact, an attempt to circumvent public opposition to GM crops in the country. The supporters of GM crop, however, want this legislation to see light of the day at the earliest as they think it would provide them right to choose and freedom to farm, specifically when there is no scientific evidence of any adverse affect of such food on human health and environment. After meeting the agriculture minister, the CIFA's secretary general P Chengal Reddy said the group having support of lakhs of farmers from across the country would like the government to put the biotechnology regulatory authority under the ministry of agriculture so that it can work for the farmers' interest in promoting sustainable farm practices. Reddy said, "Farmers confronts with several farm productivity challenges like labour costs, insects, weeds, diseases and unpredictable weather. Biotechnology or GM crop can offer them several solutions. We need biotechnology and the right to choose. We have full faith that the Supreme Court will do what is right for farmers who need technologies to increase productivity". The pro-GM groups were also very critical to the recommendations of a five-member Technical Expert Committee (TEC) which has called for a halt on genetically modified crop filed trials in the country till the regulatory issues are addressed. In fact, the environment ministry is also in favour of the Committee whose views saw a sharp division within the scientific community. Terming the TEC's recommendations as prejudiced, Reddy said the committee had, in fact, considered information from only those sources that supported its point of view. "We will expose them before the Supreme Court", he said. A group of scientists, meanwhile, appealed to the apex court to reject the recommendations of the committee. They argued that the committee's suggestion was against the established mainstream science on GM crops' safety and utility. 

"India needs science, which can be converted into technology that benefits the farmers and consumers. The recommendations of the TEC demoralize thousands of public sector scientists and students of agricultural biotechnology. If the TEC report is implemented, all research will be put into cold storage denying farmers and the nation the benefits of modern science and technology. Let science innovate. Let Indian scientists research freely. And let farmers choose," said Desh Pal Verma of the department of molecular genetics, Ohio State University. TIMES

INDIA GM crop: SC fails to consider expert panel report

GM crop: SC fails to consider expert panel report

Copy of report was not available to govt counsel, several other parties in public interest petitions

The much-awaited report of the expert committee on genetically modified crops could not be considered by the Supreme Court today as its copy was not available to the government counsel and several other parties in the public interest petitions (PILs).

Moreover, the separate report of Dr R S Paroda complaining that the opinion of the other five members of the panel was not available to him was not circulated before the proceedings.

The bench headed by Justice H L Dattu directed the registry to make available the report, lying in a sealed bundle and weighing some 15 kg, to all the parties before the case is taken up after four weeks.

The report is said to have recommended withholding open field trials of GM crops, till the gaps in the regulatory system are addressed. It has been assailed by the Association of Biotech Led Enterprises which has dubbed it as regressive.

Senior counsel representing the companies, K K Venugopal, stated that a comprehensive bill to set up a biotech regulator will be introduced in Parliament in the winter session. The bill has elaborately considered every issue.

“The court should keep out of this highly complex issue,” he submitted.

Prashant Bhushan, counsel for the opponents of GM food, said that the bill was a “red herring”. He also said that Dr Paroda suffered from intense conflict of interest on the issue.

The judges said that even if Parliament passes a bill, the court can make suggestions to fill up lacunae, according to what emerges from the court proceedings.

Two petitions raising the dangers of GM food were pending in the court from 2004 and several committees have gone into the issue. The six-member committee is the latest one and its report has been a matter of heated debate recently, even leading to rallies in the capital. BS

GM bananas: from nutrition to disease resistance

GM bananas: from nutrition to disease resistance

Professor James Dale and his team at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) have come far since gaining support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) in 2005. Initially focused on vitamin-rich genetically modified (GM) bananas for growers in Uganda, work has extended to India with disease resistance thrown into the mix, while Dale mentions the possibility of collaboration with Nigerian and Indonesian scientists in the future. Catching up with him in Brisbane, www.freshfruitportal.com hears why transgenic bananas may face less resistance than other GMO crops, and their potential if consumers accept the technology.

When Banana Bunchy Top Virus (BBTV) struck Australia in 1913, Dale said it brought down the amount of plantations in South East Queensland from more than 500 to four in a decade, but strict control measures were able to reign in the disease.

One hundred years later, BBTV is still causing problems internationally, particularly in Africa where it has wreaked havoc in many countries that don’t have an effective level of regulatory oversight for containment.

And as growers around the world know well, BBTV is not the only problem that threatens their livelihoods as fungus Black Sigatoka advances in the Americas and Panama Disease Tropical Race IV takes hold in Asia and Australia’s Northern Territory.

Banana breeding stations do exist to take on this pressing issue, but the fruit’s extremely low seed count makes developing disease resistant varieties very tough via conventional methods.

“Cavendish bananas were never bred and all of the commercial cultivars are essentially sterile so the challenge for improving bananas is really difficult,” Dale says.

“The really depressing thing is that humans are bloody good at moving diseases around. We move weeds around, we move insects around and we move plant diseases around very efficiently – in a few instances it’s natural phenomena, but in most instances it’s somebody doing something really stupid.

This curse may be a blessing for proponents of genetically modified bananas, compared to those involved with other GMO crops who at times have faced public outcry for contaminating non-GMO farms through cross-pollination.

“You could have a wild-type banana and a genetically modified banana a close distance apart and nope, there’s no exchange of genetic material.

“In the early 1990s we decided we were going to get involved in genetic modification. I should say that was before anybody said that it was a naughty thing to do – we thought, ‘wow, what a fabulous opportunity to actually improve bananas’, and there’s a huge number of vegetatively propagated crops which you can’t breed from from the already accepted cultivars.

This fact has likely been instrumental for the establishment of QUT’s GM field trials south of Innisfail in North Queensland; the heart of Australia’s banana-growing district.

“We invited any of the banana growers who wanted to come before we planted the field trial, and we went through everything. It took a couple of hours, and they were really comfortable with what we’re doing,” he says.

“There’s no threat because there’s no transgene flow.”

Disease resistance

Dale says his team of 15 people is still working on resistance to Bunchy Top but hasn’t “quite got there yet”, and has also developed a way of controlling Panama Race I – which wiped out previous staple banana variety Gros Michel – through stress tolerant genes.

“For the original genes we’d put in, the best one was from a nematode and that gave us a hint of what we should do, and then we went and looked for the plant equivalents and we’ve been able to use those.

“That’s one strategy. Another is we’ve gone to a wild diploid banana called musa acuminata [spp.] malaccensiswhich grows in Indonesia and Malaysia. Some of those plants are absolutely immune to Tropical Race IV.

He says the malaccensis banana is full of seeds and a teeth-breaking bite into one is awful, but it could be possible to utilize its genes for disease resistance.

“There are about 25,000 types of genes, so it’s needle in a haystack type of stuff. So we’ve got to identify the right gene; we haven’t got the results from the field trial in the Northern Territory yet.

“Because it’s a slow-forming disease, we’d want to have the results probably by the end of next year. We’d be confident if we had lines there that are still standing up, and none of them are diseased, that there’s real resistance there.”

He adds that this variety is also resistant to Black Sigatoka, but his team is not working on that fungus.

“We know that malaccensis is also resistant to Black Sigatoka, so that will come. And it would be interesting to see how some of the big banana companies cope with that, when they’d say , ‘gee, we wouldn’t have to spray if we had these GM bananas’.”

Nutrition for the developing world

Dale’s work received a boost in 2004 when the BMGF put out a call for expressions of interest around grand challenges in global health.

“Most of those global challenges were new vaccines, antibiotics and the control of insect vectors of human diseases; there was one grant challenge nine, which was to develop staple crops with a complete set of micronutrients.

“We’d already started to work with the National Agricultural Research Organization in Uganda so I suggested we make an expression of interest.

“In Uganda their staple food is bananas, and in that whole region there’s very high banana consumption, very high levels of Vitamin A deficiency, and very high levels of iron deficiency; anemia.”

QUT received the funding to collaborate with their Ugandan counterparts, and Dale says “remarkable” progress has been made since then.

“So we’ve now got bananas with more than double our target levels that we wanted for provitamin A.”

He says bananas already have vitamin A through beta-carotene and alpha-carotene, but genetic modification has allowed the scientists to augment the level.

“We were able to take the genes from one of them [beta-carotene] that makes very large amounts and put that banana gene into East African Highland Bananas and into Cavendish.

“The whole issue of vitamin deficiency is really complex – micronutrient deficiencies particularly. There is still this very poor population that don’t buy food and don’t access health clinics, and that can be anywhere between 30-50% of the population in developing countries.

“How do you get to them? They grow staple starch crops and then a little bit of variability but they don’t get enough of the micronutrients from those other crops to be able to supplement.”

The first field trial for Vitamin A was in 2009, with a plan of developing the technology in Australia and then transferring that technology but not the plants to Uganda.

“Now that project is moving into the development phase where we can go and develop an elite line that we’ll take all the way through to farmer release in Uganda, and that will be available to other countries in the region if they want it.

He adds the next part of the Ugandan project is to increase iron levels, which is “much harder”.

“But we’re getting there. We’ve got a 50% increase but we actually want a 400% increase. We’ve got our next field trial in Australia already happening.”

On the back of the Ugandan collaboration’s success, QUT was approached by the Indian government to work on a similar project with its Department of Biotechnology.

“They wanted disease resistance as well, which we put in – they want resistance to bunchy top and Panama wilt.”

Gaining acceptance

Dale says the biggest emotional impact that banana diseases have had on him personally was seeing the effects of Bunchy Top in Malawi in 2008.

“It was really concerning – you see  fields just completely decimated by these diseases. There’s no yield, they don’t get anything.

“Even though bananas aren’t a staple crop in Malawi, it’s their cash crop, and when they don’t have any cash the kids don’t go to school or the local health center.

“If that happened in Nigeria or Uganda, it would be horrendous. We’re doing a lot of talking with people in Nigeria to expand the program to include Bunchy Top resistance.”

He adds that if a new Bunchy Top project started it would include Indonesia as well.

But trials for various traits in GM bananas is just one step for Dale. The next are deregulation and consumer acceptance.

“There’s no  point in having a wonderfully disease-resistant banana if the general public aren’t going to eat it, because the growers won’t grow it.

“I think that is a time issue, and I think what we’ll see over the next decade is quite a significant change as to the reaction against genetically modified plants, particularly as we get more sophisticated in what we do; mainly plant genes, mainly traits that are really important, not just from a few companies but with lots of people doing it.”

He emphasizes that the products of BMGF-funded GM banana projects will be freely available to resource-poor farmers anywhere in the world. - freshfruitportal

JOE DOWNTOWN: FIGHTING MONSANTO WITH MONEY

Three months ago, Angie Morelli, head of GMO Free Vegas, directed one of the largest anti-Monsanto marches in the country, with some 3,000 protesters shutting down part of Las Vegas Boulevard and drawing national media coverage.

For those who missed it, the protest was about this: Monsanto, a multinational agricultural biotech company, is a leader in the creation of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. That includes corn, which plays a part in roughly 70 percent of the foods we eat.

How GMOs might affect the health of those who eat them is a hotly debated topic, but at a minimum, protesters want Congress to force food manufacturers to label items made from genetically altered organisms. In May, 800 scientists from around the globe signed a letter expressing concerns about the threat of genetically modified foods. They asked for “the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least five years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public inquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all.”

The European Union has already enacted strict regulations on these new foods, and earlier this year some 5 million farmers sued Monsanto for $7.7 billion related to the company’s royalty charges on seeds.

In the U.S., elected leaders had done virtually nothing regarding GMOs until March, when Congress passed a farm bill that included a proviso widely known as the “Monsanto Protection Act.” In essence, it prevents a judge from enforcing an injunction on genetically modified seeds. There’s a chance, however, for Congress to delete the proviso in October, which is part of Morelli’s goal.

Morelli, 30, spent five years in the Marines, including time in Afghanistan, where she maintained Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion helicopters. The only female in her detachment, she was chosen for the post because she was smart, focused and very good at her job. Those same skills have helped her succeed in her civilian business, Customistic, a custom T-shirt/decal shop on Decatur Boulevard near Sahara Avenue. They also helped her oversee that massive anti-GMO/Monsanto protest on May 25.

The protest was such a success that Morelli—whose Vegas childhood rivals any hard-times story Charles Dickens could dream up­—has been asked by various groups to run for state office. She smiles at the requests but flatly refuses. As much as she loves Las Vegas, Morelli doesn’t want to be a politician.

Like so many others, she’s disenchanted with local and federal elected leaders. The way she sees it, for a few thousand dollars in campaign donations, most politicians become willing corporate pawns and the voters be damned.

Morelli, though, is a doer, not a complainer, so right now she is focusing on continuing the fight against genetically modified foods. “The more we let it go, the worse it gets,” she says.

She’s planning another protest march on Oct. 12, and Morelli has also come up with a fairly ingenious boycott she has dubbed the Corn and Currency Revolt.

Taking a cue from the ’60s grape boycott organized by Cesar Chavez in California, Morelli wants people to boycott GM corn. That’s step one. But it’s the currency part of her plan that might force politicians to pay attention.

In a YouTube video posted recently, Morelli talks about politicians being “bought” via corporate campaign donations. “Since they only understand money,” Morelli is asking people to slip a single dollar into an envelope addressed to their congressman, adding a note that the cash is to buy his or her vote against the Monsanto Protection Act.

“Our dollars,” Morelli says, “will speak volumes.”

lasvegasweekly

GM Seeks New Pastures in Pakistan

GM Seeks New Pastures in Pakistan

After a string of setbacks in India in recent years, the genetically modified seed industry is now targeting Pakistan as its next frontier, say activists.

“They want to recoup the market loss that they would suffer through the ban on GM food field trials in India,” Dr Azra Sayeed, an environmentalist and food security expert, told IPS. She termed it a “fresh onslaught of imperialist corporations” and their “unquenchable thirst for profits.”

Wheat in India. Credit: Kinshuk Sunil/CC BY-SA 2.0

On Jul. 23 a technical expert committee set up by India’s Supreme Court recommended an indefinite moratorium on field trials of genetically modified crops until the government tabled suitable mechanisms for regulation and safety.

A parliamentary standing committee on agriculture had also asked, in an August 2012 report, for a ban on GM food crops in the country, and in March 2012, five Indian states – Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Uttarakhand and Karnataka – took a decision to prohibit environmental release of all GM seeds.

Sayeed, who represents Heading Roots for Equity, a Karachi-based non-governmental organisation that advocates the right to food for poor communities, is alarmed that three multinational companies – Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta – have recently approached Pakistan’s ministry of food security with a request to launch GM maize and cotton.

The Pakistan Environment Protection Agency has also been asked for an environmental impact assessment.

Sayeed said the U.S.-based agro-chemical giant Monsanto had long been trying to get approval for transgenic corn based on field tests carried out by the corporation itself.

Hailing the indefinite moratorium on GM foods and crops in India as “a very progressive pro-people position,” she said the reasons behind the moratorium were equally valid for Pakistan.

The alternative would “be a crushing blow not only in the erosion of indigenous food crops but would also have further devastating impacts on small and landless farmers,” Sayeed said.

A spate of farmer suicides across India, and especially in areas where GM cotton seeds were introduced over a decade ago, attracted attention to potential impact of GM crops on poor farmer’s incomes.

Prince Charles’s comment on a possible connection between farmers’ suicides and GM crops in an address to a Delhi conference in 2008 gave a fillip to activists campaigning against the Indian government’s caving in to the mainly U.S.-based GM food industry.

So why is GM such a dirty word and why does it leave such a bitter taste in everyone’s mouth?

Pervaiz Amir, an economist who is a member of the prime minister’s Commission of Climate Change, said that to many, GM meant “uncontrollable mutations that create monsters. It is seen as playing god by genetically modifying the makeup of a species or variety,” he told IPS.

But those advocating GM products say they can lead to higher gains in productivity. Yet there are other experts who argue that GM technology is not the only way to break the yield barrier and reach food security.

“Pakistan has the potential to double its present production of all crops just by higher input use and better water management, and by removing some institutional constraints,” Amir said. At the same time, he said, the role of markets is crucial in determining a country’s food security.

Pakistan, he said, produced not only for Pakistan but for the Middle East, Afghanistan and parts of Central Asia. “We have the potential and even the science, but lack the management to produce what we can produce the best.”

Amir compared GM seeds to drone strikes. “Loss of control is loss of almost everything including sovereignty,” he said.

“It conflicts with the Punjab Tenancy Act of 1929 which does not allow non-agriculture interests to own agricultural land,” said Yusuf Agha, a Karachi-based activist who is preparing to file a public interest litigation in the Supreme Court challenging the land lease Corporate Farming Ordinance of 2000.

He said that if multinationals succeed in finding their way into Pakistan’s agriculture and lure farmers to buy GM seeds, farmers will be deprived of their natural seed bank which they have been cultivating over centuries.

In July this year, over 500 organic farmers in India’s Gujarat state announced that they would develop individual seed banks to resist the onslaught of genetically modified seeds.

“All GM seeds should be banned, and natural renewable resources belonging to all humanity must be left unpatentable and unmonopolised,” argued environmentalist Najma Sadeque, who has been studying agricultural trends in Pakistan for two decades.

Her book, The Great Agricultural Hoax, is a storehouse of information on the “poisonous consequences” of making crops and people dependent on GM.

However, Professor Atta-ur-Rahman, a UNESCO recognised scientist, argued in an interview with IPS that GM foods are not detrimental to health. “There is not a single incident worldwide to prove that; these are just fears.”

But he said Pakistan needs to develop GM crops through its own developed technologies. “Imported seeds can often contain death commands whereby you cannot produce more crops from the seeds that are produced by the first crops. This can make us perpetually dependent on others for our agriculture needs, and we can thus become susceptible to exploitation by foreign countries wishing us to toe their lines.” IPS

Indian yields up 30% from Bt cotton – Minister

Bt cotton is the only genetically modified crop that is available for commercial cultivation in India. According to Mr. Tariq Anwar, Indian Minister of State for Agriculture and Food Processing Industries, 90% of cotton cultivation acres in the last decade were under Bt cotton. Recently, the minister emphasized that due to Bt cotton, India’s cotton production has benefited and that, there is no scientific evidence to show that Bt cotton cultivation has adversely impacted the ecology and human/cattle health. According to the information given by Mr. Anwar to the Lower Assembly of the Parliament (Lok Sabha) recently, the cotton yield has increased by 30% due to the introduction of Bt cotton. Bt cotton and hybrid seed technologies have played important roles in enhancing the yield and production of cotton in India. Government of India estimates that cotton sowings during this Kharif season (summer sowing season starting in July) is about 11.093 million hectares. On August 22nd, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee of India has approved experimental field trials for the purpose of generating biosafety data for genetically modified crops such as cotton. F2F Government following a policy of case by case approval of genetically modified crops The government is following a policy of case by case approval of genetically modified (GM) crops,said Tariq Anwar, minister of state for Agriculture and Food Processing Industries in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday. He said that extensive evaluation and regulatory approval process takes place before any GM crop is approved for commercial cultivation.This included generation of relevant biosafety 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 he said. As on date, Bt Cotton was the only GM crop that has been introduced for commercial cultivation in the country. Since inception of Bt. Cotton, there have been objections from some of the non-governmental organizations besides civil society on agriculture, etc., on the grounds that biosafety assessment of Bt Cotton before its introduction and post release monitoring is not adequate and that Bt cotton is not suitable for cultivation in rainfed areas . Further cattle death and farmers suicides have been attributed to introduction of Bt cotton in some regions such as Warangal and Vidarbha. "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 (approximately 12 million hectares, of which 90% is under Bt cotton) and productivity of cotton has gone up significantly,""said Mr Anwar. He said that during the post Bt cotton era, 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. Bt cotton effectively control bollwsorms, especially Helicoverpa armigera, thus preventing yield losses from an estimated damage of 30% to 60% each year in India. The biggest gain from the technology is in the form of reduced insecticide usage for bollworm control. Yields are estimated to have increased at least by 30% due to effective protection from bollworm damage," he said.ET