After GM trial ban, BJP, Sena MPs heading for Monsanto-funded study tour

MPs will first attend a 'Farm Progress Show' in Iowa, then visit the Monsanto headquarters in St Louis, Missouri

Three weeks after the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) overruled field trials for 15 genetically modified (GM) crops, a group of members of Parliament from BJP and the Shiv Sena are heading to the US on a week-long study tour sponsored by global seed giant, Monsanto. The group departs on Saturday.

The MPs will first attend a 'Farm Progress Show' in Iowa, then visit the Monsanto headquarters in St Louis, Missouri. The trip will cost an estimated $6,000 (Rs 363,540) per head for travel, food and accommodation, according to a Monsanto spokesperson, who confirmed the company would bear these costs.

"In line with industry practice, we have extended invitations to farmers, industry experts, media and members of Parliament across the political spectrum to visit the show and experience for themselves the advances in agriculture all over the world," said the spokesperson. "Parliamentarians with interest in agriculture and seeking to advance their knowledge of agricultural technology, across party lines, responded to the invitation."

On July 29, Environment & Forests Minister Prakash Javadekar overruled the recommendations of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) and put a halt to the field trials of 15 GM crops, including of brinjal and rice, after protests from pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) bodies, Swadeshi Jagran Manch and Bharatiya Kisan Sangh.

But, the Monsanto spokesperson said, the trip bore no relation to the ruling party's decision to put GM crop trials on hold. The 'Farm Progress Show' is a three-day event that has been held in Iowa since 1953 and attracts thousands of farmers and delegates every year.

"The visit is from August 24 to 30. Monsanto has arranged this visit. We will visit their plant to see the latest technology related to the agriculture sector," Prataprao Ganapatrao Jadhav, the Shiv Sena MP from Buldhana, Maharashtra, said in an interview.

His party colleague in the Lok Sabha, Krupal Balaji Tumane, MP from Ramtek in Maharashtra, confirmed he was part of the group. "Apart from Iowa, we are also scheduled to visit Washington," he said. Tumane and Jadhav said others in the group included two MPs from Andhra Pradesh, one each from Gujarat and Rajasthan and four each from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

Others in the group, such as BJP MP from Siwan Om Prakash Yadav and the party's Bulandshahr MP, Bhola Singh, were unavailable for comment.

However, BJP MP from Aligarh, Satish Gautam, claimed he had opted out of the visit. Gautam said party president Amit Shah asked all party MPs in Uttar Pradesh to prepare for the by-elections to a dozen Assembly seats in the state. "There will be a by-election to the Noida Assembly seat and I have decided to devote my time to election work," he said. The by-elections are unlikely before mid-October.

Monsanto declined to reveal the size of the delegation but said invites had been sent to "18 to 20 people". MPs were invited on the basis of their interest in the use of technology in agriculture.

When contacted, a senior agriculture ministry official said the ministry was not aware of the MPs' visit to the US. "If it is a private visit organised by a company for individual MPs, they are not required to keep us in the loop. Such visits need the agriculture ministry's approval only in cases where the government is involved," the official explained.

Earlier this month, junior agriculture minister Sanjeev Kumar Balyan said in reply to a Parliament question in the Lok Sabha that the government policy was to allow GM crops after full scientific evaluation of their bio-safety and impact on the environment and on consumers. This is also BJP's stated position, as stated in its election manifesto.

BS

‘Don’t follow MNC-promoted GM crop science blindly’

According to Dr Ashwani Mahajan, national convenor of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, those who oppose GM crops field trials are not opposing science. In an interview with Yojna Gusai and Mukesh Ranjan, Dr Mahajan not only accuses the Modi government of succumbing to pressure from MNCs, but also blames it for playing politics on economic issues.

Despite Swadeshi Jagaran Manch being an affiliate of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, there appears a surprise element in your objection to a Bharatiya Janata Party government’s decision to go for field trials of GM crops. What’s your take on it?

We don’t have a political view; our activities are based on national interest. What is being done is the area of our interest. Therefore, if the BJP or any other party does something which is in national interest, we will support it wholeheartedly. But since the present government decided to go ahead with the field trials of genetically modified crops without taking into consideration the opinion of the scientific community and also the long-term interest of our farmers, we raised our concerns and registered our protest over it.

What are your main objections to field trials of GM crops?

In our meeting with environment minister Prakash Javadekar, we informed him about our concerns. We told him that the issue is still pending in the Supreme Court, which had appointed a technical expert committee (TEC). All five members of this TEC are scientists, who said that there is no regulatory mechanism in place to monitor such an exercise. Secondly, at present, there is no seed certification system for GM seeds. Also, we have informed the government that the US may have allowed GM crops, but consumers in that country are not in its favour. Then, there is a case where European countries have vehemently said “no” to GM crops. Therefore, we argued that there is no need to push this in a hurry.

Do you think that this hurry is because of pressure from MNCs?

Perhaps yes. But we have impressed upon the government that whenever there is a dispute in Parliament, the matter is sent to a parliamentary standing committee. Similarly, more threadbare discussion is required before launching field trials. Thus, the previous government did not allow this to happen. We even reminded the Central government of the BJP poll manifesto, which categorically said that GM seeds will not be allowed.

However, the environment minister has said that the development of science cannot be stopped. What do you have to say about this?

We are also not against science. We are saying that GM field trials should not be allowed unless scientific evaluation of these seeds on human and soil health are undertaken. We need to build the case accordingly. Regulatory mechanism is not in place — this is the worry of all scientists. We are not living in an age of Galileo. As Galileo was opposed, we are not opposing science.
MNCs are in favour of GM seeds, but there is no scientific study conducted by the Government of India about the impact of field trials. It is the duty of the state to protect the interest of the present and future generations. If you want to conduct field trials, you can do it later after fulfilling your duty.

How do you see the role of MNCs in pushing for field trials?

The so-called science, which is being promoted by big businesses is becoming a superstition; one should not follow it blindly. They say that the US has adopted GMO foods, but they are telling half-truth as consumers are not ready for GM food. People all around the world are unhappy. The logic propagated by the MNCs is misplaced. For example, they say that Bt cotton is a success, but there has been no scientific study done to find out whether GM seeds actually increase production.

How do you see the government’s eagerness to allow foreign direct investment in different key sectors of the Indian economy?

I will again say that we are not against FDI in any sector. But before that, the government should bring out a white paper on this so that we can see how it has benefited our economy so far. I have no doubt in my mind that the previous UPA regime mismanaged the whole economy. And then, in his last Budget speech, the then finance minister said FDI is our compulsion. But I don’t agree with this because we believe that FDI is not the solution to our economic woes.

But given the high import liability of the government, it warrants a need for FDI otherwise current account deficit (CAD) goes for a toss.

Instead of FDI, growth should be our economic mantra. For this, demand is there in our country; our people are hardworking and intelligent. Thus we have all the ingredients for growth. We just need to channelise them. We should emphasise on some kind of self-reliant growth path so that import dependence reduces substantially. If the foreign money had the power to solve our problems, countries like the US and European nations would not have faced any crisis.

But don’t you think that the BJP government is following the same economic path as the UPA, particularly in the case of hiking the FDI limit in the insurance sector?

Yes. What they are doing is just politics and what we are asking is to take steps for nation-building. When the FDI proposal had come for the first time during the National Democratic Alliance rule in 2002, we had opposed it and thus there was a parliamentary resolution that the figure will not go beyond 26. Since then, our stand has not changed. It was only because of our pressure that the exact quantum of FDI was incorporated as part of the legislation and therefore, no government can tamper with it without the approval of Parliament. We are totally against any move to allow brown field investment by foreign players. Such investments only help a select few to become richer. For any FDI proposal, technology transfer should be made mandatory.

There is a debate going on in the country on whether the Comptroller and Auditor-General should audit projects under the public-private partnership (PPP) model. What do you think?

For me, PPP is a failed model as cost of projects escalates manifold. And despite the fact that public wealth is involved, no one is held responsible. It was first adopted in road projects and then it was expanded to airports and now the government has decided to introduce it in the Railways. In case of core infrastructure involving natural resources, the government should evolve a better mechanism to do economic activities. In this case also, we demand a white paper as the country has the right to know whether it has been beneficial or not.

India should not shut itself to GM crops

India should not shut itself to GM crops

The flip-flop of the government in permitting genetically modified (GM) crops for trials is discouraging. The general refrain has been “we are not against GM crops. Their long-term impact on health safety and biodiversity needs to be studied before the trials are permitted”. What is the long-term impact? In our country GM technology has become synonymous with the use of Bt crops. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has been in commercial use for nearly 75 years, first as a spray of the bacterial spores, to be followed additionally by transgenic Bt crops (corn, cotton, soybean, etc). Nearly 20 years of research went into using Bt gene as a biocide to combat major pests. Bt protein works only in the alkaline gut of the insect, but gets degraded in the acidic environment of animal or human. Bt crops have gone through extensive trials, both for environmental safety and health parameters in experimental animals. Millions of people (in the United States, Canada, China, etc) and livestock have been consuming Bt corn for over 15 years. Europe imports GM foods. Would developed countries allow their population and livestock to be fed on unsafe food?

Bt gene has not been transferred to any non-target organism, although horizontal gene transfer takes place in nature. Bt gene is not dominant and there is no authenticated report of environmental pollution or health hazard. Although these are scientific arguments attesting to the safety of Bt gene, there has been no compromise on the conduct of trials.

Arguments on the disappearance of biodiversity are not tenable, since farmers have traditionally been cultivating only specific varieties or hybrids of a given crop. This has happened ever since man started practising agriculture. Bt gene has actually been introduced into almost all varieties of cotton in India and this will only lead to greater protection of biodiversity. In the GM approach, strategies such as gene pyramiding and refuge cultivation are available to combat resistance development. GM crop cultivation can integrate with conventional practices, etc, including organic farming.

If all this knowledge is not considered as relevant to long-term effects on health, safety and biodiversity, one only gets the feeling that the country does not repose faith in science. India accounts for 18% of the world population and 15% of the global livestock— but occupies only 2.3% of global land area. Degradation of land, soil erosion, mineral deficiencies, depletion of water resources and global warming can all have major impact on agriculture, which is not keeping pace with the rate of population growth.

Should we not look for a technology that would address the issue of agricultural productivity even under adverse conditions of biotic (pest infection) and abiotic (drought and salinity) stresses as well as the nutrition status of the agri-product?

India has formulated very strict guidelines for the conduct of GM trials. All that it takes is to make the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) autonomous and make state- and district-level monitoring committees more effective to conduct field trials. Can’t this be fixed in three months, instead of complaining all the time that we do not have a regulatory system in place? Bangladesh has approved the commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal. Twenty small farmers planted Bt brinjal in four different regions and have benefited by 30% increase in yield and a 80% decrease in pesticide spray. Bangladesh could take a bold decision to move ahead and all the data India generated over a period of eight years only led to embargo of even a trial Bt brinjal cultivation in the country. I guess Bt brinjal from Bangladesh would taste better. HT

G Padmanaban is INSA senior scientist, department of biochemistry,

Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

The views expressed by the author are personal

Over 230,000 Sign Petition To Stop Coca-Cola Funding Anti-GMO Campaign

Over 230,000 Sign Petition To Stop Coca-Cola Funding Anti-GMO Campaign

MOSCOW, Over 230,000 people signed a petition urging Cola-Cola to stop funding anti-GMO campaign on a change.org website that provides a free petition tool for 65 million users.

Just 65,000 signatures more are needed in order for the petition to be considred.

The Nation of Change reported earlier on Wednesday that Americans were set to boycott Coca-Cola products after the public became aware that the company spent millios to defeat Washington and California initiatives that mandated clear labelling of GMO ingredients on food packages.

Except for Coca-Cola, eight other American food companies opposed the initiative: Kellogg’s, General Mills, Dean Foods, Smucker’s, Safeway, Kraft, Cion-Agra, and PepsiCo.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) Labeling Ballot Initiative (I-522) in Washington and Proposition 37 in California were first defeated by the Monsanto American corporation, which is a leading producer of genetically engineered seed and of the herbicide glyphosate. Monsanto spent over $11 million to defeat GMO labelling.

Labelling of food containing genetically modified organisms is required by law in Europe.

The Coca-Cola Company, founded in 1886, is an American multinational corporation, which produces and retails nonalcoholic beverages. The company distributes its refreshments all over the world. Its annual revenue amounted to $46,8 billion in 2013.

The Coca-Cola Company has often been criticized on a number of environmental issues.

In Australia, the Coca-Cola's plastic packaging was found in the digestive systems of countless dead Australian birds, fish and other wildlife.

In the United States, regional farmers argued that they experienced water shortages as Cola-Cola overused water supplies in some locations.

In 2003, Indian Centre for Science and Environment announced that it has found chemicals causing cancer in Coca-Cola beverages, a claim that the company rejected. RIA

French attempt to ban GM maize rejected

A move by the French government to ban Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) maize MON 810 has been rejected by the European Food Safety Authority (ESFA).

Following a request from the European Commission, the ESFA evaluated the documentation submitted by France as part of its request to prohibit the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in the EU.

However, the ESFA said that neither the scientific publications cited in the documentation submitted by France with relevance to maize MON 810 nor the arguments put forward by France reveal any new information that would invalidate the previous risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations made by the EFSA GMO Panel.

The EFSA goes on to say that it considers the previous GMO Panel risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on maize MON 810 remain valid and applicable. Therefore, EFSA concludes that, based on the documentation submitted by France, there is no specific scientific evidence, in terms of risk to human and animal health or the environment, that would support the adoption of an emergency measure on the cultivation of maize MON 810. Agriland

The marketing of MON 810 was approved by the European Union in 1998. However, several EU Member States invoked safeguard clause or emergency measures to provisionally restrict or prohibit the marketing of maize MON 810 on their territory.