Is genetic modification and GM food good or bad?

Expert grower and horticulturist urges us to keep an open mind

Would you eat genetically modified (GM) food? The gut reaction of the majority of us it seems is to say ‘no’.

It is a question the Prime Minister refused to answer recently, despite being asked ten times.

But the chances are, he, you and most of us already have – or at least we are likely to have consumed meat, milk or eggs from animals fed on GM maize or soya, that is imported into the EU in large quantities.

There is no requirement for such products to be labelled differently and only one supermarket in the UK assures customers, at least for the time being, its supply chain is GM free.

The debate concerning genetically modified organisms, or GM foods, was reignited recently by a keynote speech made by Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary. Calling for a more informed discussion on genetic modification, Mr Paterson said he owed a duty to the British public to reassure us that GM is safe, proven and beneficial.

However, with frightening Frankenstein foods making the headlines again, and surveys showing the majority of shoppers wanting GM food banned from supermarkets, the debate was already becoming reactionary and ideological before a more reasoned approach could even begin.

Most reports mentioned the Flavr Savr tomato, which in 1994 in the US became the first commercially grown genetically modified product to be granted a licence for human consumption.

Intrigued by the issues, and prompted by repeated images of the red fruit, it was time to contact our very own tomato expert, Tony Girard from West Chiltington, for a more rational discussion about GM.

Tony is not an expert in GM, nor does he have vested interests or stakes in companies associated with the technology.

Instead, the 69 year old is a horticulturist who was at the forefront of commercial tomato growing in the UK for more than 30 years, responsible for the expansion of Sussex-based large scale tomato producer Van Heyningen Brothers to around 200 acres under glass.

The vice chair of the SCI Horticultural Group and past president of The Institute of Horticulture was also instrumental in pioneering the large scale use of the growing of crops in ‘grow bags’ and developed the pot herb business in the UK, the product of which is now very familiar in all supermarkets.

He now works for Koppert Biological Systems and, as its UK Director, helps to support the production of crops with little or no use of harmful chemicals – an awesome arsenal of ‘good guys’ consisting of bugs, bacterium and fungi used to control pests instead.

Chatting in the beautiful gardens of his Wells cottage, we discussed the definition of ‘natural’ and why GM causes such great concerns for so many.

Holding a tomato from his kitchen, Tony reflected how the original tomato wasn’t sweet, was very small, and looked distinctly unattractive. It was also thought to be poisonous.

“Everything that we eat these days started off as being something which is found in nature – but it’s been selected and reselected, cultivated and nurtured until it is something that we want,” said Tony, emphasising the ‘we’, before adding: “As opposed to what nature provided us with in the first place.

“So, we can call what we see today perfectly natural, but natural compared to when? 100 years ago? 1 million years ago?

“Everything evolves, and with tomatoes, the cross pollination breeding programmes that have taken place over many years bring us to where we are now,” he said, looking again at his shop-bought specimen.

Mankind has always applied science and technology, with selective breeding in the past and new fertilizers and pesticides more recently, to achieve the results we have wanted.

So, is GM just an extension of this historical process - the appliance of science on the genetic level, now that advances in technology permit such manipulation? Or is GM a true step-change?

“It is a step-change,” asserted Tony, going on to describe how with genetic engineering genes are removed from one plant species and moved to another to facilitate desirable characteristics.

And the same process can be carried out between an animal species and plant which he said was ‘far more concerning’ and is ‘difficult for most people to comprehend’.

“It has been described as like Frankenstein science, maybe – that is one way of describing it but I don’t see it that way,” he said.

“But it is science, and all of us benefit from science one way or another.

“There are bad things which have happened and still will, but should that prevent us from harnessing the good because of the fear of the bad?

“That doesn’t really take us forward,” he said, answering his own question.

For most of Tony’s career in the commercial growing business, GM was either non-existent or in its infancy. But what the technology could offer has always been desired.

“Customers would come to me and say we want something earlier, later, bigger, fatter, wider, striped, better tasting, and I would say ‘yes’, ‘fine’, if you want to wait ten years then maybe we’ll have something better!

“GM can help, not always, but can help that to happen faster,” said Tony, before questioning: “Is it good? Is it bad?” This time he left his rhetorical questions hanging. But Tony is a realist, and regardless of morality, there will always be a commercial imperative to improve yields, flavour or the look of products.

The UK and the EU are losing their competitive edge and falling behind other global regions less constrained by ideological concerns about GM.

Frustrated how the GM debate has been closed down in recent times here, with consumers and the public often left ignorant and confused amidst the rival fanaticisms of global agribusinesses and environmental campaigners, Tony said: “We must remain open minded.

“We should take the trouble to be well-informed and therefore decisions should always be made on good solid information.

“ Unfortunately good solid information doesn’t always come to the fore - it is all too often manipulated or contrived,” he said.

Undoubtedly, there are significant issues with GM, but it is very hard to argue they only concern safety fears regarding GM products and their consumption by humans.

More pressing perhaps should be concerns regarding ecological contagion, as well as economic implications, since GM techniques and crops are subject to intellectual property laws.

“To say no to GM isn’t right, that’s just burying one’s head in the sand,” concluded Tony.

“But just saying there is no problem at all is also wrong,” he added. “There’s been improvement in what we do as mankind forever.

“GM is part of development and progress, ending up with plants that are more resistant to pests, diseases, drought and high/low temperatures.

“Also requiring less fertilizers and harmful chemicals and in doing so, exerting less pressure on the environment.

“Let’s not forget that many materials and minerals are being used up at an unsustainable rate.

“We just have to produce more of what we want or need while reducing inputs.”

Tony did state that the alternative would be to initiate global population control, reducing mankind’s numbers to a lower more sustainable rate of increase. But this is an issue even more fraught with moral, environmental and existential issues than the genetic modification debate.

Returning to the topic of conversation and genetic engineering’s potential to solve issues we face, Tony said: “It is fascinating, and it can also be frightening if people are frightened of the unknown.

“Other people get hugely excited by the unknown.

“What I certainly know of it now is nothing compared to the possibilities which there may be coming down the line in the future.

“Is it good? Is it bad? I will leave that for others to judge.”

Advocacy movement against GM foods in Ghana

Food Sovereignty Ghana, an advocacy movement, has slammed Ghanaian legislators for unanimously passing the Biosafety Act to make room for Genetically Modified foods in the country.

The movement said despite the hostility between the opposition New Patriotic Party and the ruling National Democratic Congress, they agreed to pass the Act, which “most Ghanaians are strongly opposed to”!

A statement issued by Ali Masmadi Jehu-Appiah, Chairperson of the organisation and copied to Ghana News Agency in Accra on Tuesday, said Ghana should reject Genetically Modified(GM) foods in the light of the announcement by Monsanto Corporation, to withdraw applications for Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) in the Europe Union.

It said the corporate entity took the decision because of non-acceptance on scientific grounds and rejection by civil society.

The statement said this position was strengthened by the recent recommendations by the Technical Experts Committee of the Supreme Court of India.

“It must be recalled that India was one of the countries which embraced genetic engineering in their agriculture. Thus, they have enough experience to draw the appropriate lessons and evaluate its usefulness for their people and their environment.

“What they have to say about it should be of interest to us... in Ghana. It is, therefore, highly significant that a scientific committee comprising some of the best brains in India is recommending an indefinite moratorium on GE crops, “ the statement said.

“We take this opportunity to reiterate our call for a moratorium on GM foods in Ghana”.

The statement said there are amazing disease resistance breakthroughs that do not require GE technology.

“Despite the public relations efforts of agribusinesses and the scientists... to promote GMO as key to increase food production, there is much evidence showing that GMO’s have not contributed to major yield increases, nor drought resistance, and has generated superweeds and superbugs that require increased use of even more dangerous herbicides and pesticides.

“The vast majority of current GMO crops are used for animal feed, not for people. Then people eat the GMOs when we eat those animals.”

The statement said the irrevocable contamination of the food chain with genetically modified organisms is an unconscionable horror that must not be allowed to happen to Ghana “and we call upon every Ghanaian who eats food to remain vigilant and to demand democratic accountability from their elected representatives”.

“We call on the President to do the right thing and to impose an indefinite moratorium on GM foods in Ghana until it is clear that such an irrevocable step is absolutely crucial for our survival, and not simply a highly misconceived business venture by some unscrupulous corporations who, being turned away by India and Europe, have no qualms about now using Ghanaians as Guinea pigs, for their private profits,” the statement said. GNA

The Environmental Impact of GMOs

The Environmental Impact of GMOs

The debate around genetically modified organisms (GMO) is huge and heated on either side. One of the major considerations when arguing against the use of GMO products is the potential for environmental harm. What exactly are the environmental risks to consider in regards to GMOs?

First of all, it is important to understand what a GMO is precisely. The World Heath Organization (WHO) defines them as organisms whose DNA has been altered in a non-natural way. GM plants are usually changed to be insect resistant, virus resistant, or herbicide tolerant. With these changes come some potentially problematic environmental challenges.

Firstly, toxicity is a huge issue surrounding chemical pesticides and herbicides, used commonly with GMOs, in addition to the toxicity inherent to these plants. GMOs may be toxic to non-target organisms, bees and butterflies being the most talked-about examples currently. Bees are hugely important in the pollination of many food crops, but are unfortunately extremely endangered by modern agricultural techniques, such as GM crops. Monarch butterflies are specifically at risk from GMO maize plants. In addition to bees and butterflies, birds are also at risk from pesticides, and work as biological control agents and pollinators, again, like bees.

Furthermore, the longterm effects of GMOs are not certain. Pests that are targeted by these agricultural methods can adapt to pesticides and herbicides, in addition to the DNA changes in GM plants to make them ¨resistant.¨ This means that they will not always be effective, but their toxic legacies will remain.

Cumulative effects of products such as GMOs are important to take into consideration. Evidence also suggests that small genetic changes in plants may produce even larger ecological shifts, meaning that there is potential for GMO´s to become persistent and weedy in agricultural conditions, since they are modified to be resistant to some modern agricultural techniques. This can also mean being invasive in natural settings, where GMOs, of course, do not occur naturally. It is not impossible for new, human modified, plants to become invasive species in delicate, natural ecosystems.

Finally, biodiversity, while it is critical in all ecosystems and to the sustainability of all species, is put at risk by GMOs. When GM crops are planted, generally in a monocrop fashion, many heritage seeds are no longer used. The nature of GMOs means fewer weed flowers and, therefore, less nectar for pollinators. Toxins released into the soil through the plants´ routes mean fewer soil bacteria, which are integral to healthy soil for plants to grow without the use of chemical fertilizers. Toxic residues are left in the soil of GM crops. Nutrients are not returned to the soil in mono crops and from GMO foods, meaning that soil is becoming dry and void of all nutrients, generally integral to the growing process. A cycle of dependence on GMO seeds and chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is then created in order to grow a single crop. In addition to soil issues, the irrigation used to grow GM foods naturally carries all of these problems into water sources and into the air. This exposes different bacteria, insects, and animals to the same problems.

All of these impacts must be taken into consideration in the larger picture; GMO´s DNA may end up in soil, compost, animal feed and byproducts, and other living organisms from insects to larger pests. Bees can transport pesticides, herbicides, and DNA through the air into the environment. Once a plant is introduced in an agricultural environment, it is reasonable to assume it will become part of a larger ecosystem, meaning the problem of environmental damage done by GMOs is much larger than simply potentially harming our health.

Aside from environmental issues, GMOs are the topic of social and ethical debates as well. It goes without saying that we live in an inter-connected world, where the way we interact with nature can cause a complex array of consequences. Being informed on the food we are consuming, and the way modern agricultural techniques are affecting the environment, is one effective way of consciously interacting with the natural world. One Green Planet

Education on genetic seeds necessary

Education on genetic seeds necessary

At the Delta Area Young Farmer Emerging Issues Conference hosted by the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation recently at the Monsanto Learning Center in Scott, Ab Basu, the managing director of state affairs for Biotechnology Industry Organization, and Jerry Slocum of the USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture addressed issues regarding genetically modified organism and labeling.

Basu first expressed his excitement about the preemption bill in Mississippi, which would allow them to fight bans on biotech seeds at the state level instead of county by county.

The biotechnology industry is currently fighting the ban on biotech seeds county by county in Oregon, where it costs between $500,000 to $750,000 per county.

To fight the ban at the county level they have to organize with farm bureaus, county farm bureaus and farmers in order to make the appropriate impact.

Basu said a theory, based on their research, is that there is a merger between organic companies and global environmental groups, because a couple of years ago “a lot more money poured in to fight the use of genetically modified organisms.”

These two groups are fighting by going after fertilizers, pesticides and by targeting GMOs by trying to get labeling on all food that was made with GMOs.

There are 28 countries and 420 million acres, as of last year, growing biotech seeds.

Although GMOs are on the raise across the globe, there has been a drastic decrease in approval of new GMO technology, which Basu attributes to a backlog in the USDA and political reasons that stem from misinformation.

The labeling of foods that use GMOs is inconsistent with science-based U.S. policy, sends a false message to consumers and has a negative impact on innovation, according to Basu.

“We embrace ‘right-to-know’,” said Basu. “We want consumers to be educated as to what they’re eating and where their food comes from. We don’t want, however, the food companies to have to be in the position to have to put warning labels on their packages.”

The food companies are highly against the idea of GMO labeling on the front of their packaging because they have spent years and significant amounts of money developing their brands.

“We’re working with anyone and everyone we can to try and educate the legislative leadership that this is not something they want to do and the repercussion for farmers could be pretty negative and pretty extensive,” said Basu.

Basu encourages farmers to work with the farm bureaus to oppose anti-GMO legislation and to educate their communities about what they use, why they use it, and the environmental and efficiency benefits they receive from using GMOs.

“It’s been a long struggle, but it’s been an important fight,” said Slocum.

According to Slocum, there are 78 million acres of planted soybeans in the United States, 95 percent of which are GMOs.

Of all the soybeans grown in Mississippi, 96 percent are GMOs.

Ninety percent of the 97 million acres of corn grown in the U.S. is GMO, while the corn in Mississippi is 95 percent GMO.

Ninety-three percent of the 10 million acres of cotton grown in the U.S. are GMOs and in Mississippi 99 percent of the cotton are GMOs.

“It’s the most rapidly adopted technology in the history of agriculture,” said Slocum. “Faster than the tractor. Faster than hybrid seed.”

According to Slocum, the U.S. government, including the USDA, FDA, and EPA, are highly in favor of genetically modified technology.

United States Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsac, according to Slocum, said, “There’s only two reasons to label food. One is to talk about nutritional content and two, to warn people of dangers in the food like an allergy.”

Organizations want to label GMO food because of the way it’s produced but Slocum points out that organic food is labeled by the way it is produced and that none of it, including the seeds are tested.

“Everything that you grow is tested if it’s biotech,” said Slocum. “It’s the most tested food in the history of mankind.”

The debate over biotech food has shifted from the question of safety, to the disruption of ecosystems, and has now shifted to the public’s “right-to-know.”

“Over 3 billion meals have been served with biotech foods around the world and not one person has died or gotten sick as a result,” said Slocum.

There have been no ecosystems have been destroyed, and developing nations are adopting biotech faster than the U.S.

“We live in the most litigious society on the planet and if anyone could sue Monsanto because their products weren’t safe, they would have sued them a long time ago,” said Slocum. “We stand on the high ground. It’s the most tested and proven way to produce food on the planet.” THE BOLIVAR COMMERCIAL

Federal District Courts Request FDA to Define “Natural”

Federal District Courts Request FDA to Define “Natural” With Respect to Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMO) Foods

By NAT LAW REVIEW

Three federal district court judges have recently requested the FDA to state whether the terms “natural” or “all natural” can be used to refer to foods containing genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) to help resolve pending consumer class actions over the term. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the Northern District of California started the trend in Cox v. Gruma Corp., a case in which the plaintiff alleges that Gruma’s use of “all natural” on its tortilla shells violates various consumer protection laws because they contain genetically-modified corn. In Van Atta v. General Mills, pending in Colorado and involving GMOs in granola products, a magistrate judge agreed with Judge Rogers and recommended a stay of proceedings in the case pending the FDA’s response to Judge Rogers’s request. Most recently, in Barnes v. Campbell Soup Co., also pending in the Northern District of California and involving GMOs in various soups, a different judge also stayed the case pending the FDA’s response.

These cases are potentially important because there are many pending consumer class actions, particularly in California, over whether the use of some variant of the term “all natural” is proper in light of one of more ingredients in the food at issue. Indeed, some quip that food labeling litigation has replaced tobacco and asbestos as the favorite category of suit for the plaintiffs’ bar. Thus, the FDA’s response to the request by these courts, and the courts’ further actions based on the response, could resolve or guide the resolution of many of these cases.

It is often said that the FDA does not have a definition of “natural.” There is reason to question this common wisdom. As noted in one of our Alerts from December 2011, it is true that the FDA published a notice in the Federal Register in 1993 stating that it declined to adopt a definition of “natural.” It is equally true, however, that at the end of that same notice the FDA stated that it planned to maintain “its current policy… not to restrict the use of the term ‘natural’ except for added color, synthetic substances, and flavors as provided in [21 C.F.R.] § 101.22. Additionally, the agency will maintain its policy… regarding the use of ‘natural,’ as meaning that nothing artificial or synthetic (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in the food.”

Further, the FDA has sent warning letters based on this “non-definition” from the Federal Register. On the other hand, in 2010 it declined a request from a federal district court in New Jersey to state whether high-fructose corn syrup is “natural.” It will be interesting to see if the FDA responds to the current requests and how any response the FDA may provide to the requests compares to the Federal Register “non-definition.”

These cases are also interesting because they raise questions concerning the powers of two of the three branches of our federal government with respect to each other. The FDA already faces serious resource constraints. What if several courts start asking it to define natural or other terms with respect to numerous different ingredients, not just GMO ingredients? If the courts impose deadlines, FDA may have to shift resources from other presumably important work to comply with the deadlines. Congress imposed statutory deadlines for FDA to issue several food safety regulations in the Food Safety Modernization Act and FDA failed to comply with them. What happens if it misses a court’s deadline? What if two or more courts impose conflicting deadlines? If the courts do not impose deadlines, it could be quite some time before the FDA responds. What happens to the cases in the interim? Will discovery be stayed as it has been in the cases mentioned above? If so, could important evidence be lost? If not, will the courts and parties waste lots of valuable time and money while they await the FDA’s response? Hopefully none of this will come to pass, but these questions do show how making such requests to FDA could lead to problems. © 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

GM FOODS - US-Europe trade talks

Divisive debate on genetically modified foods a battleground in US-Europe trade talks

One of the biggest stumbling blocks to securing a massive free trade agreement between the United States and Europe is a sharp disagreement on genetically modified foods. Much of the corn, soybean, sugar beets and cotton cultivated in the United States today contains plants whose DNA was manipulated in labs to resist disease and drought, ward off insects and boost the food supply. Though common in the U.S., they are largely banned in the 28-nation European Union. Washington wants Europe to ease restrictions on imports of GMO foods, but the EU is skeptical they are safe. Intense emotions on both sides of the divide make it difficult to separate between strongly held belief and science. Here is a look at key points in the debate.

SAFE OR UNSAFE?

Most studies show GM foods are safe for human consumption, though it is widely acknowledged that the long-term health effects are unknown. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has generally recognized GM crops as safe and the World Health Organization (WHO) has said no ill health effects have resulted on the international market.

Opponents on both sides of the Atlantic say there has been inadequate testing and regulation. They worry that people who eat GM foods may be more prone to allergies or diseases resistant to antibiotics. But they have been hard pressed to show scientific studies to back up those fears.

GM foods have been a mainstay in the U.S. for more than a decade. Most of the crops are used for animal feed or in common processed foods such as cookies, cereal, potato chips and salad dressing.

Europe largely bans genetically engineered foods and has strict requirements on labeling them. They do allow the import of a number of GM crops such as soy, mostly for animal feed and individual European countries have opted to plant GM crops. Genetically engineered corn is grown in Spain, though it amounts to only a fraction of European farmland.

The American Medical Association favours mandatory, pre-market safety testing, something that has not been required by U.S. regulators. The WHO and the U.N. food agency, the Food and Agriculture Organization, say the safety of GM foods must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

CAN GM FOOD HELP COMBAT WORLD HUNGER?

By 2050, the world's population is projected to rise to 9 billion from just over 7 billion currently. Proponents of GM foods say they are safe and can boost harvests even in bad conditions by protecting against pests, weeds and drought. This, they argue, will be essential to meeting the needs of a booming population in decades to come and avoiding starvation.

However Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program, an advocacy group, said genetic engineering for insect resistance has provided only a modest increase in yields since the 1990s and drought-resistant strains have only modestly reduced losses from drought.

Moreover, he said conventional crossbreeding or cross-pollinating different varieties for desirable traits, along with improved farming are getting better results boosting yields at a lower cost. In fact, much of the food Americans eat has been genetically modified by those conventional methods over thousands of years, before genetic engineering came into practice.

"Overall, genetic engineering does not get nearly the bang for the buck as conventional breeding" and improved agricultural practices, Gurian-Sherman said. UCS advises caution on GM foods and favours labeling, though it acknowledges the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated.

Andrea Roberto Sonnino, chief of research at the U.N. food agency, said total food production at present is enough to feed the entire global population. The problem is uneven distribution, leaving 870 million suffering from hunger. He said world food production will need to increase by 60 per cent to meet the demands of 9 billion by 2050. This must be achieved by increasing yields, he added, because there is little room to expand cultivated land used for agriculture.

GMOs, in some instances, can help if the individual product has been assessed as safe, he said. "It's an opportunity that we cannot just miss."

TO LABEL OR NOT TO LABEL?

Europe requires all GM food to be labeled unless GM ingredients amount to 0.9 per cent or less of the total. The U.S. does not mandate labels on the view that GM food is not materially different than non-modified food. Opponents of labeling say it would scare consumers away from safe foods, giving the appearance that there is something wrong with them.

U.S. activists insist consumers should have the right to choose whether to eat GM foods and labeling would offer them that choice, whether the foods are safe or not. They are pushing for labeling at the state and federal level. California voters last year rejected a ballot initiative that would have required GM food labeling. The legislatures of two other U.S. states, Connecticut and Maine, have passed laws to label GM foods and more than 20 states are contemplating labeling.

COULD GM FOOD TORPEDO THE TRADE DEAL?

Absolutely. The U.S is pressing for the restrictions on importing GM food to be eased but there is no sign that the EU's firm opposition is softening. German Chancellor Angela Merkel said recently that Europe will defend its restrictions in the trade negotiations. Some in the U.S. see the European resistance as just another form of protectionism that promotes domestic products over imported ones.

GM foods are not the only seemingly intractable issue standing in the way of a comprehensive free trade agreement. They are part of a broader set of restrictions on both sides related to agriculture and food safety. There are also significant differences on intellectual property and financial regulations, among other thorny issues. AP

GM CROP INDECISION WILL COST INDIA DEAR

The GM crop indecision will cost India dear

The majority recommendation of the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) favouring an indefinite ban on the field trial of genetically modified (GM) crops has again revived an issue that has been hanging fire for about three and a half years.

With the jury still out on whether the ideological opponents or the scientific supporters are going to have the last laugh, researchers working in this field continue to be caught in uncertainty.

While state governments are not granting them permission for field trials for further research, the Centre has not told them to give up either.

The fact that judiciary will take a decision on this complex scientific issue based on the advice of a clutch of scientists is an outcome of the abdication of its duty by the political executive to steer the direction of GM crop research in India.

If Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is to blame for failing to take a decision, this way or the other, since February 2010 when then environment minister Jairam Ramesh put Bt brinjal commercialisation in deep freeze despite regulatory approvals, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has done little apart from crying foul and pleading helplessly with state governments to allow field trials in their states.

The ministers who have held Science and Technology portfolios in this time — and there have been a few — have not indicated much interest.

Neither has current Environment Minister Jayanthi Natrajan shown any urgency in following up on the unilateral requirements stipulated by her predecessor from the government on this issue.

Forget a decision, the government has not demonstrated initiative to even reach a consensus on the least common ground for researchers to continue or discontinue their work.

GM crop research, consequently, has been left hostage to activists who have forged a united front against it, with its fate resting on the argumentative skills of lawyers based on suggestions of a few scientists.

This indecision may not cost immediately, as much as the uncertainty over regulatory clearances for roads, power, mining and other infratstructure sector has hurt the country in the past few years of the UPA-II government. However, India will certainly lose out in the long term. 

Ravish Tiwari 

Ravish is a senior assistant editor based in Delhi

THE INDIAN EXPRESS