Indian High Court Reinstates Criminal Proceedings Against Monsanto And Its Partners In India's First Case Of Bio-Piracy

An environmentalist dressed as a eggplant participates in a protest, outside the Department of Agriculture office in Quezon City, Metro Manila, against the invasion of genetically-modified organisms, or GMO, to mark World Environment Day on June 5, 2012. Reuters/Cheryl Ravelo

IBTimes

The apex court in India’s southern state of Karnataka dismissed pleas last week to halt criminal prosecution against senior representatives of Monsanto's subsidiary Mahyco, University of Agricultural Sciences, a local university, and a partner company for violating provisions of India’s Biodiversity Act, paving the way for a continuation of India’s first ever bio-piracy case that could set a precedent for the induction of genetically modified, or GM, crops in the country.

Senior officials of Mahyco-Monsanto, UAS Dharwad and Sathguru Consultants were accused by the National Biodiversity Authority, or NBA, and the Karnataka State Biodiversity Board, or KSBB, of using seeds of at least six local varieties of eggplant in creating a GM eggplant breed, known as Bt Brinjal, without mandatory approvals required under the Biodiversity Act 2002.

“Bt Brinjal is a clear case of bio-piracy, perhaps the first of that sort in India. Ms. Monsanto-Mahyco company has used local variety of brinjal (that too with no prior approval of concerned authorities) to develop Bt Brinjal. As per the Biodiversity Act it's a criminal case. It is a cognizable offence,” V. Gayathri, an activist against GM crops in India and the editor of Sahaja Saaguvali, an agricultural magazine, told International Business Times.

The Karnataka High Court on Oct. 11 asked the NBA and KSBB to pursue criminal proceedings against the accused after hearing a public-interest petition filed by Environment Support Group, or ESG, a Bangalore-based charitable trust, in 2012, accusing authorities of delaying criminal prosecution against Monsanto and other accused in the case.

Leo F. Saldanha, coordinator of ESG, told IBTimes in an email, that "there were several efforts to impede investigation of NBA and KSBB" and added that the latest ruling is significant because it is the first-ever criminal case on biopiracy in India based on the Biodiversity Act.

“A decision in this will serve as a precedent in such cases in future.  Besides considering the fact that there is extensive loot of our bio resources for commercial gain by corporations, the manner in which this case is handled will serve as a test of rigor of our regulatory agencies in tackling such crimes and securing India's biodiversity,” Saldanha told IBTimes.

According to the Biodiversity Act, genetic modification is not permitted in endemic breeds of a plant. But, the eggplant varieties used by Monsanto and its partners in creating Bt Brinjal were native breeds of Karnataka. And activists claim that Mahyco and others involved in the development of Bt Brinjal used the country’s biological resources without proper permission.

“In this case, even if they had approached the concerned authorities, they would not have got clearance for modifying the native varieties of the crop they used, as it is against law… so they did it clandestinely without divulging details about the local breeds used or the research they conducted,” Gayathri said.

Bt Brinjal is India’s first GM food crop and it was developed by inserting a crystal protein gene, developed by Monsanto, from the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis, into the genome of various local eggplant cultivars, which, according to the manufacturers, can withstand pests and yield a bigger, healthier crop.

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the country's biotechnology regulator approved commercialization of Bt Brinjal in October 2009, triggering countrywide protests and a debate on the use of GM crops. Following representations from environment protection groups and opposition to GM from various state governments, the Ministry of Environment and Forests imposed a moratorium on Bt Brinjal in February 2010 and called for public consultations across the country. The final decision on the issue is pending.

Critics of the GM eggplant claim that Bt Brinjal can result in the extinction of the crop's native varieties, which are believed to be cultivated across the nation. They also allege, by citing the example of GM cotton, known as Bt Cotton, that Monsanto’s claim that GM crops can increase yield is misleading and false.

“The spurious Bt cotton seeds sold by Mahyco-Monsanto to the farmers during the current season in Karnataka have totally failed. Farmers are heartbroken to see the yield failure after spending hugely on crop,” Gayathri said, adding that, “Bt cotton yield has been steadily decreasing as the area of cultivation is increasing,” while Monsanto has almost monopolized seed sales.

According to data compiled by Sahaja Saaguvali, Monsanto has entered into licensing agreements with most seed companies in India. And, out of 22.5 million acres of GM cotton, 21 million acres are planted with its seed - Bollgard. The company now controls nearly 93 percent of the market share of cotton seeds in India, threatening the existence of local cotton varieties, critics claim.

Monsanto did not respond immediately to questions from IBTimes.

Food Security Act boon or bane?

Vidyasagar Ramamurthy, Child Protection Specialist, UNICEF, speaking at the State level Consultation on National Food Security Act 2013 | EPS

Arguments raged over the effectiveness of the Food Security Act in  bringing down malnutrition in country during the State- level Consultation on National Food Security Act 2013 organised in Chennai by TN-Forces on Wednesday.

While some of the speakers alleged that the Act was only a pretext to allow the entry of Genetically Modified Food Producers and for the import of foreign grains into the country, others felt that the Act, in spite of the challenges, will ensure accountability from government.

Speaking at the event, former IAS officer, M G Devasahayam, said that while what was needed was improvement of the existing PDS system, the government had jeopardised it with the Food Security Bill. “There is no thrust on increasing agriculture. Farmers are forced to abandon their farms and come to the cities. The production is going down. Within a few years, this would meant that the Act will facilitate import of grains from abroad and entry of GM food companies,” he said.

He said that decentralisation of agriculture should be the way forward and that the Act was only an attempt to fool the public and garner votes. “Of late, the only bills that are being passed are those facilitating foreign institutions, be it the Nuclear Act, the FDI in retail bill, etc., and this is no different,” he said. 

Professor K Shanmugavelayutham of TN-Forces pointed out that while there were a number of weaknesses in the Act, it had been effective in providing a redressal mechanism. “In spite of the fact that we had systems like the PDS, it was not possible to take the corrupt officials or government to task since there was no act. Now the civil society has the power to make them accountable,” he said.

Vidyasagar Ramamurthy, Child Protection Specialist, UNICEF pointed out that availability of the food grains in the society, accessibility, affordability and also absorption must be ensured. ENS

FILM ON GMO: 'GMO OMG'

Film: GMO OMG

BY JERILYN FORSYTHE 

Genetically modified organisms

It’s a phrase you’ve likely heard recently—or maybe not—that sounds like it belongs in science class. It doesn’t sound like something that should be discussed at the dinner table. But genetically modified organisms, GMOs for short, have everything to do with what we’re eating. In fact, they’re often what we’re eating, as Colorado-born filmmaker Jeremy Seifert (pictured, left) attempts to point out in his most recent production, GMO OMG.

The documentary follows Seifert—across the country, through the aisles of Whole Foods, eating at his dinner table—in his search for answers about the mysterious GMO and how it fits into his family’s everyday life. This isn’t Seifert’s first film, he directed Dive!, a documentary on American waste culture, which was named best “Call 2 Action” film by the Boulder International Film Festival In 2010. GMO OMG, which debuted earlier this year, has already picked up publicity, as well as pointed criticism, from big names such as the Dr. Oz Show, and the New Yorker.

We sat down with Seifert, and his producer and Denver resident Josh Kunau (pictured, right), to dig into their experience making GMO OMG. We wanted to know what they learned, and why they think the rest of us should be paying attention.

5280: When did you first become interested in GMOs?

Jeremy Seifert: My imagination was first captured by the story out of Haiti. You have 10,000 rural farmers marching in the streets yelling out ‘Down with Monsanto,’ and they symbolically burned seeds. I didn’t quite understand why they would do that or what was at stake. I remember calling Josh and saying ‘Hey, what do you think about this story out of Haiti—it’s really fascinating to me.’ 

5280: What was the most impactful moment for each of you during the making of the film? 

JS: The voice of the people, the man-on-the-street interviews. Ninety-eight percent of people that I asked the very simple question, Do you eat GMOs?, answered What the hell is that? Or if I said genetically modified food, they’d say Oh, like McDonald’s? But very few people knew what [GMOs] were. And, yet, we are eating them.

Josh Kunau: I think for me it was realizing that you have your chemical companies and the companies that produce GMOs saying These are safe, trust us. And then you start finding out that they’ve never released the raw data. You start finding out that [the products] were put on the market with three-month trials and studies, and that there are still questions about whether or not they are safe.

5280: Was it difficult to find science—on either side—regarding GMOs?

JK: We hired a person, who was from the University of Colorado and had his PhD in neuroscience, to go through of all of our research. He said the scariest thing for him was that every time one report came out against GMOs, the very next day there’d be 25 scientists attacking that person. Pro-GMO scientists will say it’s completely solid science, it’s safe, and yet the more we dealt and dived into it, the more we found it was just unknown. There’s uncertainty. The thing is, if you want to disprove a study scientifically, you need to repeat the study and get a different result, but no one in our government or the corporations is doing that or calling for that.

5280: Most of the negative press about the film is a critique of a lack of science and data. What has been your reaction to that?

JS: You just heard from Josh we hired a PhD in neuroscience for three months, and we had a Fulbright scholar on board for almost the entire film that headed up the research, and I was doing tons of research myself too. We interviewed and talked to a number of amazing scientists, but we decided to tell the story the way we told it because of that widespread ignorance. We tell a personal story. I remember, someone said, ‘Seifert dumbs down the debate on GMOs’. Well, there is no debate in the public. We haven’t had the conversation in this country, because most people don’t know what it is or that they’re eating them. So we told this story in this way, to wake people up to this basic reality. I would love to make a science film on GMOs: Take the top five scientists in the world who take issues with GMOs, and the top five that support them, and let them talk. But that’s a completely different film.

JK: If we were to make harsh claims based on some of the [science] we found, it would be easily criticized by the industry. And so it wasn’t that we were shying away from the science, we just found that it’s so confusing that we can’t make concrete statements.

5280: So, why should we all care about GMOs again?

JK: You know, GMOs involve a big spectrum: Is Roundup safe? Herbicides? Pesticides? It’s not even just as simple as are GMOs safe or not safe? It’s everything that comes along with that. The cautionary tale should say don’t do it until we’re sure. And right now, we’re not sure.

JS: We’ve been through this with the lead industry, the tobacco industry, the banking system…haven’t we learned that industry and big corporations will lie and say anything to stay on top and to sell their products? I mean, duh.

5280: Your family is shown quite a bit in this film; why did you feel that was important or necessary?

JS: I am a father of three children, and as I studied more and became more involved in the filmmaking process and this issue, I noticed that we were literally surrounded by GMOs. They were this inescapable food. I mean, literally, you couldn’t go to the supermarket down the street, or the ice cream truck outside of the house, or to any fast food, or even regular restaurants. Everything was GMO. It became more personal as a father because of that responsibility to care for [my kids] and feed them. And so that’s the twist the film took on—this is really more of a personal story and a story of discovery and what is happening right here in our own country. 

5280: One of the most poignant moments of the film is when you go to a Monsanto building and try to speak with someone in person. What happened?

JS: It was just weird. When I walked in there was a woman on the phone and she said 'yeah, hold on—Jeremy?' I said 'yeah.' She said, 'It’s for you.' And it was a woman in a different facility that I had called the day before to ask if I could interview someone. And, of course, after a few minutes, there were a few other people standing there, like they knew I was coming, and like they knew me as soon as I walked in. It was a little unsettling. If I’m just walking in there saying ‘I’m a father and I noticed that you’re essentially feeding my children—I can’t escape your product, it shows up everywhere, and I want you to reassure me that it’s safe.’…and to basically be kicked out. I didn’t think they’d give me a real interview, but I thought surely they would at least talk to me.

JK: If they’re so proud of their product, why won’t these companies label it? They say ‘We stand for this,” but then why won’t they stand there and give an interview? 5280

Crazy GMO debates

It’s non-GMO month, say natural food retailers. Really. Kind of a crazy irony, as you and your peers harvest millions of GMO crop acres. These are the same grains that we all have consumed in food for more than 17 years -- without a single instance of adverse health or environmental effects.

But this fact falls on deaf ears among food activists who refuse to consider the sound, peer-reviewed science that has proven the safety of every genetically engineered crop on the market. The technology behind every product, individually, has been analyzed and deemed safe by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, Health Canada, USDA, European Commission Joint Research Center and the National Academy of Sciences.

Your normal grocery store, caught in the middle, is being supported by its Grocery Manufacturers Association who launched a new educational website http://bit.ly/1fV6vfi to bring science forward and help consumers understand the safety of GM ingredients.

Anti-GMO activists choose to market fear through untrue exaggerated claims, causing science-challenged consumers to buy into the food label frenzy. And to further capitalize upon and profit from this fear, natural food co-ops and Whole Foods are moving forward with their own non-GMO certification process.

Activists who tout GMO research studies on rat tumors, Monarch butterfly deaths, tainted Mexican corn and many other issues cited to help flame the fears have all been proven wrong by unbiased researchers -- who are not beholden to Monsanto as activists claim. Real science can be powerful, just ask former architect of anti-GMO activism, Mark Lynas, who now supports GMO crops after accepting scientific information as a solution. Read his story here http://bit.ly/1fUxGqD.

I’ve written about seed genetics for more than 30 years. I’m a proponent of food choices including organic. But I’ve also held both farmers’ and seed companies’ feet to the proverbial fire over better management of GM crops (i.e. refuge, single trait or herbicide reliance, etc.). When managed correctly, this technology is amazing. But study the issues yourself. Read a current editorial by Scientific American “Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea,” http://bit.ly/16w8zp9.

Also, I highly recommend reading a Boston Review magazine story “The Truth About GMOs” written by Pamela Ronald, University of California-Davis plant pathologist and chair of the Plant Genomics Program. Better yet, read the book “Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Food,” by Nina Fedoroff, a leading authority in genetics and molecular biology at Penn State University, and Nancy Marie Brown, science writer.

Armed with real information, I challenge each of you to spend time every week to listen and help consumers overcome any fears they bring up. Tell your story. This is vitally important to your livelihood.

I sincerely thank you for reading, for viewing more valuable content on csdigest.com, for subscribing to our newsletters and for being willing to Think Different.

Kurt Lawton

Editor

klawton@csdigest.com

The Planting of Genetically Engineered Corn Stopped by a Mexican Court

Sources: Environmental and Food Justice, Vía Orgánica, Animal Politico,http://www.beyondpesticides.org

On October 10, a judge in Mexico issued an injunction against the planting and selling of genetically engineered (GE) corn seed, effective immediately, within the country’s borders. The decision comes nearly two years after the Mexican government temporarily rejected the expansion of GE corn testing, citing the need for more research. The decision prohibits agrichemical biotech companies, including Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Syngenta, PHI Mexico, and Dow AgroSciences, from planting or selling GE corn seed in Mexico, though imports of GE food will still be allowed.

This move follows the filing of a class action lawsuit on July 5 by farmers, beekeepers, environmentalists, and scientists, in total representing 53 citizens and 20 civil associations. “The action encompasses what we have been calling for over the past fifteen years: the protection of maize as the staple food of Mexicans and the preservation of our country, free of transgenic crops…” said Adelita San Vicente, representing seed interest group Fundación Semillas de Vida A.C.

The injunction was granted by Judge Jaime Eduardo Verdugo J. of the Twelfth District Court for Civil Matters of Mexico City, who cited “the risk of imminent harm to the environment” due to GE crops. The order requires Mexico’s Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación) and Secretary of the Environment (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) to immediately “suspend all activities involving the planting of transgenic corn in the country and end the granting of permission for experimental and pilot commercial plantings.”

According to Greenpeace Mexico, which has been heavily involved in the sustainable agriculture campaign and GE dialogue, the injunction is just the first step toward the definitive protection of the country’s biological diversity, and full recognition of Mexicans’ right to a healthy environment, safe food, and untainted corn as a cultural heritage.

The lawsuit is supported by scientific research, dating from 2001 and documenting the ongoing contamination of Mexico’s native corn varieties by transgenes from GE crops, including Monsanto’s Roundup ready varieties and the herbicide-resistant varieties marketed by DuPont Pioneer and Bayer CropScience.

With 53 percent of caloric intake and 22 percent of protein in the Mexican national diet coming from corn, the grain represents an important daily staple that is also inherently interwoven into the country’s cultural heritage. National campaigns, including “Sin Maiz, No Hay Paiz” (“Without Corn There is No Country”), have rallied against the introduction of GE corn into Mexico, raising debates about the need to safeguard national heritage, save native seeds, and protect environmental and human health.

The injunction against GE crops in Mexico is still a far cry from an outright ban. Further legal proceedings are now expected to follow, where all parties will enter into a legal arguments supported by experts who present supporting evidence for and against genetically modified corn. For the moment, the injunction prohibits the planting of GE seeds, allowing the plaintiffs time to gather support for their case.

In the U.S., there have been several injunctions against GE crops that have temporarily stopped their planting. For example, in 2007, a U.S. District judge filed an injunction against the planting or sale of GE alfalfa until the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducted a legally required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Four years later, upon completing the EIS —which determined unregulated GE alfalfa would contaminate natural alfalfa, cause the loss of U.S. export markets, dramatically increase pesticide use, and drive the rise of Roundup-resistant superweeds— USDA announced plans to again deregulate GE alfalfa. In response, Beyond Pesticides along with other environmental and farming organizations filed a suit challenging the agency’s deregulation. In 2012, a U.S. District Judge in San Francisco ruled that USDA’s decision to deregulate GE alfalfa was not unlawful.

The explosion of GE crops on the market has led to growing pest and weed resistance, which has resulted in increased pesticide use. This treadmill threatens wildlife, particularly sensitive species. A 2012 study found the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), which is sprayed on thousands of acres of Roundup Ready corn and soybeans, to induce morphological changes in three species of frogs. GE crop-induced herbicide applications are also indirectly affecting the health of beneficial species. Widespread applications of Roundup destroy sanctuary land and the plant species that support beneficial insects and other wildlife.

The best way to stop the planting of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. is to purchase foods that have the USDA certified organic seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited from food production. For more information on this issue, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on genetic engineering and see our related Daily News entries.

To mark World Food Day, GM-Free Maharashtra screens film on agri giant

To mark World Food Day, GM-Free Maharashtra screens film on agri giant

The World According to Monsanto, a film by Marie-Monique Robin was screened by GM-Free Maharashtra (a group created across the state to inform, discuss and take collective action whenever required to keep the seed, crop and tree cultivation and distribution in Maharashtra GM-free) to mark the occasion of World Food Day. The screening took place at Comet Media Foundation, Mumbai, on Wednesday.

The film provided an indepth look at the domination of the agriculture industry by one of the world’s largest sustainable agriculture company called Monsanto. The company has been facing a lot of flak from across the world for genetically-modified (GM) offerings.

The film combined various secret documents with first-hand accounts by victims, scientists, and politicians, and attempted to expose why the company had become the world’s poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology. 

The film further showcased how various regions from different countries faced issues because of the use of generic trans fats produced by Monsanto. It pointed out how various products by the company adversely affected human health and biodiversity. One of them being PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).

It also threw light on India and the situation in Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. FnBnews

At the end of the screening, there was a group discussion on the film in which Geeta Jhamb, and Shaheen Contractor, researcher, The LEAF Initiative, were among those who participated. Jhamb said, “Such companies, which bring and promote GM products, don’t really intend for green revolution in India, in fact, what they do can be called as gene revolution.”