Friday, August 8, 2014

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

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.