BANGLADESH: MODIFIED BRINJAL TAKEN TO COURT

Modified brinjal taken to court

Campaigners against genetically modified (GM) crops yesterday filed a writ petition with the High Court against a government move to release Bt brinjal, a GM crop, for the first time in the country.

The court is likely to hear the writ today, lawyers concerned said.
The writ was filed by five green activists including an organiser of Naya Krishi Andolon, Farida Akhter.
The move came seven days after the same group served a legal notice on the agriculture secretary, executive chairman of Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council and director general of Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (Bari), asking them to refrain from commercial release of Bt brinjal.
On July 15, Bari applied to the National Technical Committee for Crop Biotechnology seeking commercial release of Bt brinjal next month.
Earlier, Bangladeshi scientists had readied the country’s first GM crop — brinjal infused with pest-resistant genes — which could see a drastic fall in the use of harmful pesticides in the crop.

Of all vegetables produced in the country, brinjal tops the list in terms of pesticide use.

Fruit and shoot borer, considered the most devastating pest in South and Southeast Asia, ravages brinjal fields and can cause loss of the crop by as much as 70 percent unless a heavy dose of pesticide is used.

Contacted, Farida Akhter said yesterday they filed the writ apprehending that release of the GM crop would cause loss of biodiversity and create “biological pollution” in the environment.
Dr Md Rafiqul Islam Mondal, director general of Bari, told this correspondent yesterday an additional attorney general would defend the case on behalf the government. He insisted that the process of release of Bt brinjal would go through all biosafety regulatory processes, and those opposing its release would have a fair chance to raise their voice during “public consultation” before the government takes a final decision in this regard.
Once the crop is released, Bangladesh will join a group of 28 countries which grow GM crops. Though it will be the country’s first home-grown GM crop, consumers have long been exposed to GM foods through consumption of imported GM soybean oil. THE DAILY STAR

The cost of India’s Green Revolution

ARTICLE BY AMARJEET KAUR

AMAR IS CURRENTLY INTERNING WITH WDM IN THE CAMPAIGNS AND POLICY TEAM

The cost of India’s Green Revolution

This June the G8 took another step towards creating the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition. This private sector driven development implies it will solve hunger by rolling out fertilizers, GM seeds and other non organic inputs. Whilst the talk around the New Alliance is glossed over with rhetoric about ending hunger it is worth remembering the impacts of the last big global push to create food security. The ‘Green Revolution’ in India was first undertaken by the state of Punjab in the 1960’s. Then as today the announced plan was supposed to overcome the famine crisis and enable the country to be able to provide enough food to feed its citizens. However, the revolution involved moving away from natural pesticides and conventional grains and towards chemical pesticides, hybrid seeds, and later on GM seeds. As promised, agricultural output did increase in some Indian states, with national wheat production increasing from 10 million tonnes in 1960, to almost 95 million tonnes in 2012. However the Green Revolution is largely criticised for not tackling the root causes of hunger; indeed, these gains came at a price.
The use of GM crops has intensified the situation of water scarcity in the region, as the high-intensity nature of the crops require increasing amounts of water over time, leading desperate farmers to dig deeper and deeper underground in search of water. Farming with GM crops also led to a reduction in the genetic diversity amongst crops, which in turn led to crops being more susceptible to pests and diseases. GM crops have also led to an increase in the use of pesticides; this is mainly due to the crop itself becoming increasingly vulnerable to disease, as well as pests becoming resistant to the original levels of pesticide, with higher levels of pesticide being used to tackle both these issues. Another contributor to pesticide use is the terminology being used in the Punjab. Using the word “pesticide” provides us in the English speaking world with a negative association with chemical pesticides, as the word sounds harmful and maybe even toxic. Yet in Punjab, farmers refer to pesticides as “dava”, which when translated means medicine, providing them with a positive association with the chemical inputs, and encouraging them to use pesticides when farming.
This increasing use of pesticides has placed an increasing financial burden on farmers, but since the micronutrients in the soil are being depleted by the use of GM crops and chemicals, farmers have begun to see reduced crop yields, resulting in lower incomes. Farmers are also faced with higher costs due to hybrid and GM seeds needing to be repurchased every year; whereas with conventional seeds they were able to save seeds and reuse them the following harvest.  These factors place the farmer under financial strain, and since there are few legitimate finance lenders, many typically turn to loan sharks. The inability of farmers to pay off their loan leads to the tragic act of suicide, with statistics from 2011 revealing that the rate of suicide for farmers was 47% higher than the overall Indian population.
There has also been weak regulation of the pesticide industry in India, with pesticides that have been banned for health reasons in many other countries widely available in the nation. Some chemicals are also available in dangerously high concentrations such as Organophosphorous. This chemical has been blamed for the recent deaths of school children in India after high quantities of the chemical were found in the children’s free school meals. In Punjab, the home of the Green Revolution, scientists have found that the villages using higher amounts of pesticides are also the ones with higher rates of cancer. The problem has become so severe that there is now even a “cancer train” which takes citizens from the Punjab to the town of Bikaner, where the government’s centre for cancer treatment is located. Passengers on board the train say that they don’t doubt that pesticides are behind the rise of cancer in Punjab.

The success of southern states in India that have already moved towards organic farming has begun to inspire Punjabi farmers to move away from chemical inputs and GM crops. The state of Sikkim is now largely using organic inputs and soil nutrients and aims to be an entirely organic state by 2015. Within Sikkim farmer field schools are being organised to provide farmers with practical training on sustainable methods of farming, such as how to identify which insects are good for agriculture and which are pests; as well as how to deal with pests if they are found without the use of chemicals. Organic farmers in Sikkim have begun to achieve a higher quantity of crop as well as a better quality, and these results are proving an attractive draw for non-organic farmers to make the switch. The success of Sikkim has been aided by the high level of support received from the state government. The government of Punjab has made statements of its support for organic farming, but until it backs those statements up with funding and technical assistance, Punjab will have a tough time of leaving pesticides and GM crops behind as well as the problems that come with them. WDM.ORG.UK

INDIA: ACTIVIST PLEADS SC ON GMO

Activist pleads SC to ignore former ICAR DG's findings on GMO

An anti-genetically modified crops activist has asked the SupremeCourt to accept the final report of its technical expert committee while "ignoring" any findings by its member and former DG of Indian Council of Agriculture Research R S Paroda, alleging that he had "conflict of interest" on the issue. 

The affidavit filed by activist Aruna Rodrigues, who had sought a complete moratorium on field trial of GMO, said the final report and documents by the expert committee (TEC) recommended no field trials till regulatory gaps are addressed as there have been serious shortcomings in the GMO regulatory process. 

The affidavit filed through advocate Prashant Bhushan said the TEC in their 'covering letter' to their final report indicated that Paroda was not present to sign it on June 30, 2013, nor did he give a dissenting note. 

Further, it said TEC enclosed Paroda's contribution separately. "That document enclosed with the Report shows that the overall conclusion of his (Paroda's) analysis is that 'confined' field trials and their regulation should simply be under the purview of the regulators to decide the outcome," the affidavit said.

The anti-GMO activist said the affidavit was being filed to provide evidence that "the apex court's mandate of independence as a regulatory objective and specifically in the context of its TEC has been breached" with Paroda's induction. 

The affidavit claimed that there is evidence of both institutional and personal conflict of interest that enmesh Paroda. 

"Given the serious conflict of interest that involves him on both grounds, the Government clearly misled this court by suggesting his name for a Supreme Court-appointed TEC which is required to arrive at its findings without bias," it alleged. 

"Paroda ought to have recused himself for the same reason, especially after his conflict of interest became a public issue," the affidavit said. PTI

TIME TO SHED OUR PREJUDICES AGAINST GM: SYNGENTA

ARTICLE BY SYNGENTA


K. C. RAVI

The author is Vice-President, Syngenta, South Asia. The views are personal.

Time to shed our prejudices against GM

We need all the available technologies to meet the demand for food.

The Technical Expert Committee (TEC) recommendations to the Supreme Court do not augur well for agriculture biotechnology in the country.

The TEC has called for an indefinite moratorium on open field trials of Genetically Modified (GM) crops till the deficiencies in the regulatory and safety systems are effectively addressed.

The spin-offs of the move leads us to wonder “to be or not to be” in the agriculture biotechnology space in India.

There can be no doubt about the benefits of this technology, as espoused in recent statements by both the Prime Minister and President of India. Pranab Mukherjee said recently at the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) foundation day, “Development and introduction of genetically modified crops have the potential to revolutionise agriculture. The concerns over their perceived risks should be addressed by following internationally accepted procedures for assessing safety parameters.”

Asking us to follow restraint and reason about GM crops, Manmohan Singh had said at the 100th Science Congress, “Complex issues, be they genetically modified food or nuclear energy or exploration of outer space, cannot be settled by faith, emotion and fear but by structured debate, analysis and enlightenment. A scientific approach and understanding of these issues are therefore as vital as our core scientific capabilities.”

Soon thereafter, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar said that the Government can’t take the “luxurious decision” of banning field trials of GM crops, while ensuring that “abundant precaution” had been taken to ensure safety to the health of humans, animals and the environment.

This was a direct reference to the Parliamentary Standing Committee report which had also recommended a 10-year moratorium on GM crop trials.

WHY WE NEED IT

The adoption and success of Bt cotton is part of folklore . It is an well recognised how India has transformed itself from a net importer of cotton to a net exporter and occupy the fourth position in the world in terms of production.

Such was the initial euphoria that people believed if IT was India Today, BT (read as Biotechnology and not the gene bacillus thuringiensis) was Bharat Tomorrow. But today, a mass hysteria has been triggered by the opponents of BT.

Ever since the second biotech crop, Bt brinjal, was stopped from being commercialised, the debate has taken a turn for the worse. Even field trial research can be conducted only after obtaining a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from State governments.

But if one were to step back and view the debate dispassionately, it would be clear that every technology since the evolution of mankind has brought with it concerns and challenges.

And the cardinal principle that has guided mankind to adopt technologies is to maximise benefits and minimise risks.

When I was young, my grandmother often used to say that even to tread hard on mother earth is detrimental to the environment, leave alone running heavy machines.

Similarly, if we were intent on ruling out the side effects of allopathic medicines, we would have to stop consuming all forms of medication. Biotech formulations in pharmaceuticals have, however, been accepted for human consumption.

There is ample evidence -- with many parts of the world growing or consuming genetically modified products -- that agricultural biotechnology has the potential to improve productivity, secure yields, and improve the quality of crops while minimising any environmental impact. If we are to feed an estimated 9 billion people by 2050, then GM and other biotechnology options which enhance yields should be available to farmers. According to one estimate, we shall require to produce twice as much food from the same area of farmland, and with less water, in the next 40 years.

MOVE ON

We need all available agricultural technologies, including biotechnology, to meet the current and projected global demand for food, feed, fibre, and biofuels. Plant breeding and genetic modification should help.

The various concerns can be overcome if concerted efforts are made by government, public institutions, scientific community, private players and NGOs. We have built quite a rigorous regulatory regime. Field trials should not stop.

India cannot afford to go back at this stage after putting so much time, effort, energy and resources to build the requisite infrastructure and capacity.

A new centre for agriculture biotechnology was announced even in the last Budget, adding to the enormous public sector infrastructure at the Centre and the States. The stage is set for a robust biotechnology regime. Shunning it is surely not the best option. THEHINDUBUSINESSLINE

USA: GM WHEAT - JAPAN RESUMES PURCHASES

Genetically modified wheat: Oregon farmers cheer Japan's decision to resume purchases

Oregon's wheat farmers, already in the thick of this year's harvest, have one less thing to worry about. And it's a biggie.

Drought, crop prices and equipment breakdowns are still on the list of troubles, but Japan's agricultural ministry announced Tuesday that it will resume buying western white wheat from the Pacific Northwest -- a crop valued at up to $500 million a year to Oregon farmers.

The announcement ended months of uncertainty for growers in Oregon, Washington and Idaho. The discovery of genetically modified wheat plants growing in an Oregon field this spring had threatened to shut down their biggest export market.

"It's good news," said Steve Mercer, vice president of communications for the trade groupU.S. Wheat Associates. He said Japan has placed a purchase order for 90,000 metric tons of western white wheat, which is a blend of varieties called soft white wheat and club wheat. Both varieties are grown in the Pacific Northwest, and the order will be shipped from Columbia River ports, Mercer said.

Japan and South Korea postponed wheat purchases in May after learning unapproved "Roundup Ready" wheat plants had been found growing in an eastern Oregon field in April.

Most of the wheat grown in the Pacific Northwest is exported to Asian nations, where it's made into noodles, cakes, crackers and cookies. But buyers there don't want genetically engineered food, and reacted swiftly to cut off purchases when news broke of the rogue plants. South Korea resumed wheat purchases earlier in July after initial testing failed to find more genetically engineered plants or seed.

Oregon Wheat Commission chief executive Blake Rowe said Japan's turnaround is "very welcome" to the state's wheat farmers, who are in the midst of harvest this summer.

"It's great news to have our largest, longest and most reliable customer back buying wheat," he said.

An ongoing investigation by the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, has found no more genetically modified plants, seed or grain. The agency said this week that it has interviewed 270 growers but has not yet been able to say how the plants came to be in the Oregon field. The plants were a variety developed by Monsanto Co. to resist its Roundup herbicide, but never approved for commercial production.

Japan will test for genetically modified material in wheat shipments, adding to a testing regimen that includes checking for residue of 120 chemicals, Mercer said. Japan buys about 1 million metric tons of western white wheat annually, and Mercer praised Japan's "science-based approach" to the investigation.

"It was from caution that they made the choice they did, and they went forward in very reasoned way," he said.

Condon-area farmer Walter Powell said cooperation by state and federal agencies, trade groups, farmers and the Northwest congressional delegation was crucial in easing export partners' concerns about genetically engineered wheat.

"Realistically, in the back of my mind, I know that if Japan or Korea or Taiwan do any testing and it turns up positive, we've got a whole different scenario," Powell said. "But for right now, it's a tremendous relief."

Hiroshi Furusawa, Japan's consul general in Portland, said Tuesday that "satisfactory" results of the APHIS investigation were a key factor in resuming wheat purchases. Testing in Portland and in Japan should spot any future problems, he said.

"We do rely on what you grow here, and we are pleased once again to be able to resume importing wheat," Furusawa said. "I value this relationship very much, and I'm glad it's continuing."

U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., applauded Japan's decision, saying it "comes at the perfect time for wheat growers and for the state's economy."

Wyden said the resumption of wheat purchases could not have been accomplished without the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "unprecedented transparency and openness" regarding the investigation. APHIS, the investigating agency, is a division of the USDA.

--Eric Mortenson OREGONLIVE

INDIA: NEED A DEBATE ON GM CROPS TOO LIKE ON ECONOMY

Just like on economy, we need a debate on GM crops too

Throughout last week we were treated to some kind of media circus that pitched Nobel laureate Amartya Sen against Columbia University professor Jagdish Bhagwati. A lot of it was unseemly; but the good thing that came out of it was that even those readers who’d normally not pay attention to such topics, ended up reading it and came away better informed. (After some initial wading, I figured if you had read just this piece by Mihir Sharma, you’d have got all that you needed to know about this debate.)

Unfortunately in this verbal duel we forgot to read and debate this news: The Technical Expert Committee (TEC) constituted by the Supreme Court, which is hearing the public interest litigation seeking moratorium on public field trials of Genetically Modified (GM) crops, came out with its report. In this report the panel is seeking a freeze on open field trials of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). The report says, the “system has major gaps and these will require rethinking and relearning to fix.”

The court will now seek a response from the government and if the apex court accepts this report with its current recommendations, then, many scientists say, it could prove detrimental to all genetic modification in agricultural research in India.

Enormously serious as this news was, it could have equally benefited one and all if we had a “scientific” debate on the subject by some senior scientists. How about the most respectable pro-GM scientist G Padmanaban, professor emeritus and former director of IISc pitched against one of the founding fathers of biotechnology in India, Pushpa M Bhargava who is now one of the most ardent critics of the use of GM technology for solving some agri issues. Incidentally, the American Journal of Science organized a debate between the two a few months ago, conducted by editor Bruce Alberts. Alas, such debates don’t carry much charm for mainstream Indian media, both newspapers and magazines.

I asked both senior scientists why we don’t we have debates on this issue and if they’d want to participate someone were to organise one. Unsurprisingly both seem very willing and keen to have such open debates as long as the rules are defined; it doesn’t get personal and statements are backed by scientific evidence.

To get the facts first, I’ll state their positions upfront. Both are distinguished biochemists but have now taken up the role of being the public face of pro- and anti-GM technology.

Padmanaban believes that the TEC report is very “disappointing” though it was a foregone conclusion. “If you saw the four out of five names in the committee, and knew their stated positions on this, it was known that they’d give a report like this, one that’d curb GM research. There’s just one dissenting voice in the committee.”

The position that Padmanaban has taken is that the biodiversity fear created by the anti-GM community is magnified several times over and that as long as the particular gene that is being introduced in the crop, in this case Bt, is tested for safety, there’s no danger to the biodiversity. As for harm to the humans, he says people have consumed Bt corn for over 15 years in at least six countries and there’s no scientifically validated study that shows any harm to human health or environment. In short, the GM technology is as safe or not  any other breeding technique in agriculture.

Bhargava’s stated position is: we need more testing, given that GM crops are grown by just a handful of countries (90 UN member countries do not grow GM crops) and the growing public opinion (of which he is a very prominent voice) warrants that more tests need be done. In the American Journal of Science debate, Bhargava cites an example that is not quite scientifically validated: He says if the increase in incidence of gastrointestinal disorders among Americans and the use of GM crops were to be plotted, there’d be an “overlap in the curves”. He even mentions high incidence of autism, and other health problems.

Well, as far as I know (and can search the literature) there’s no published scientific evidence to prove this correlation between GM food consumption and various health problems. (In fact, I remember asking Mriganka Sur, who heads the Simons Center of Autism at MIT, Mass., last year if scientists had any handle on the increasing cases of autism in the US and he said they didn’t have a clue, it could even be the increasing use of plastics, environmental pollution, etc. In this video, Sur talks about the challenge of autism spectrum disorder and how he’s gearing up to solve it, one mutation at a time.)

So as the GM issue gets muddled — yes, that’s the word to describe it when it comes to its perception and understanding in India — if we had a sustained public debate that relied on science rather than dogma or hearsay, we’d all come away more informed. Today, with every Supreme Court move, the subject gets harder to grasp.

Things have come to such a state that most newspapers don’t even accept opinion pieces from scientists that aim at explaining the technology, says Padmanaban. Citing the example of a respectable, large newspaper (whose name I have promised him I will not disclose), he says he’s had many instances where the editorial team just keeps mum on such articles, once even admitting that the “editor did not want pro-GM articles”.

The science Academies in India could have at least arranged a few discussions among the editors of the country but they put their foot in their mouth when in 2010, at the time of being called upon to prepare a scientific report, they messed it by “plagiarizing” and doing a shoddy job of it. “Science is a big casualty in all this and it’s highly misinterpreted,” laments Padmanaban.

Prof Bhargava too agrees that more intellectual public debates would help. “I’d love to do such debates. I’ve said umpteen times let’s have a scientific discussion; let it be moderated by someone we trust.” He gets nostalgic about some debates in the past, notably one that was held on the “scientific temper” at the Nehru Centre in Mumbai, where every seat in the Discovery of India Hall was occupied during the three-day public debates.

He says the TEC report is very well produced with exhaustive references, whereas the industry body, ABLE, gives only sound bites or quotes to the media.
Now, that’s a serious provocation. How about ABLE taking the TEC report and producing a scientific rebuttal, at least to points that need a scientific rebuttal? (Policy issues of course rest with the govt.)

I’d also agree with Prof Bhargava when he says that it upsets him that at 85 he has to come out and speak while others don’t come forward. Ideally, it should be the practicing scientists who should come out and debate in the open. Both Bhargava and Padmanaban, 75, have lived their active laboratory years, if they get into any such slugfest, it’s due to their commitment to science and society! Why are other scientists, pro or anti-GM, socially insensitive? FIRSTPOST

CHANGING SCENARIO IN BIOTECHNOLOGY

Seed giants try to change image of GMO crops

In an unprecedented partnership, the major seed and crop science companies have come together to launch a website hoping to improve the image of genetically-engineered crops.

GMOAnswers.com went live on Monday, serving up data about the industry, answering questions from the public, and linking to studies that claim no harmful effects from altering a crop's DNA.

Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta, BASF and Bayer CropScience are all behind the venture as members of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

So-called GMO seeds accounted for 35 percent of the $34 billion global commercial seed business last year, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

However, Europe has all but banned crops grown from GMO seeds, and there's growing resistance to them in the U.S., where nearly all corn and soybeans used to feed livestock have been modified.

In response, the industry is no longer avoiding the "GMO" acronym, instead putting it front and center of its campaign. The biggest threat to the industry may be efforts in different states to force the labeling of food products with GMO ingredients. 

"Food is personal, so we want to open the door for personal discussions," said GMO Answers spokeswoman Cathleen Enright. "We recognize we haven't done the best job communicating about GMOs—what they are, how they are developed, food safety information—the science, data and processes."

Critics do not believe industry efforts will succeed in convincing consumers GMO foods are safe. "This latest effort will likely do little to stop the consumer backlash against genetically engineered foods that has been brewing for years," Wenonah Hauter of Food & Water Watch told Reuters.

The industry worries that food labeling could turn off consumers and encourage farmers to return to traditional seeds, which could, in turn, lead to smaller yields.

A story in this weekend's New York Times reports that many citrus farmers in Florida believe the only thing that may save the state's orange crop from an incurable disease will be DNA from another species.

"People are either going to drink transgenic orange juice or they're going to drink apple juice," said one University of Florida scientist. The fear is that given the choice, Americans will choose apple juice.

Whole Foods has committed to "full GMO transparency" by 2018, and Chipotle Mexican Grill is doing the same, "moving to remove such products from its supply chain."

GMO Answers includes a question and answer section. "How can you be sure that GMO foods won't affect human health long term?" asked one commenter from Albany, N.Y.

A reader responds, "After 17 years of commercial GM crops and therefore food, there has not been a single documented case of harm from consuming GM food. Proving a negative is impossible so we are left with looking at the track record of safety."

Another counters, "I do not understand how any serious scientist could make the argument that GMOs are safe because X number of meals have been eaten without anyone getting sick. The same argument was made about cigarettes for decades." CNBC