INDIA ‘GM Crops Won’t Solve India’s Food Crisis’

WALL STREET INTERVIEW

‘GM Crops Won’t Solve India’s Food Crisis’

Dilnavaz Variava

She is honorary convener for consumer issues for the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture, an alliance of farmers, scientists, economists, non-governmental organizations and citizens who advocate for ecologically and economically sustainable agriculture.

INTERVIEW

Earlier this month, India’s Parliament passed a bill aimed at delivering subsidized food to around 800 million people. While well-intentioned, the law is expensive and has raised questions about whether India produces enough food to meet demand.

Proponents of genetically modified food say GM technology will boost production to meet India’s food requirements, but critics argue that it is unsustainable, and that the main challenge is not one of production but distribution.

Dilnavaz Variava doesn’t believe that GM food will address India’s food crisis. She is honorary convener for consumer issues for the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture, an alliance of farmers, scientists, economists, non-governmental organizations and citizens who advocate for ecologically and economically sustainable agriculture.

Ms. Variava has worked for a range of organizations, including the World Wildlife Fund India, where she was chief executive, and the Bombay Natural History Society. She has also served on several federal government committees as well as one in Maharashtra for the development of agriculture.

Ms. Variava spoke with The Wall Street Journal’s India Real Time about GM food in India. Edited excerpts:

The Wall Street Journal: Parliament’s passage of the Food Security Bill reflects the urgency of addressing the food security challenge. Would genetically modified food do this?

Dilnavaz Variava: India has enough food grain — almost two-and-a-half times the required buffer stock — and yet 200 million Indians go hungry. The problem of sufficiency is not one of production, but of economic and physical access, which the Food Security Bill attempts to address. Poverty, mounds of rotting food grain, wastage and leakages in the Public Distribution System are the real causes of food insecurity. GM food cannot address this.

WSJ: Is there evidence from other countries that GM food improves food security?

Ms. Variava: Macroeconomic data for the largest adopters of GM food indicate the opposite. In the U.S., food insecurity has risen from 12% in pre-GM 1995 to 15% in 2011. In Paraguay, where nearly 65% of land is under GM crops, hunger increased from 12.6% in 2004-06 to 25.5% in 2010-12. In Brazil and Argentina, GM food has not reduced hunger. In any event, GM does not increase yields, as the Union of Concerned Scientists established through a review of 12 years of GM in the U.S.

WSJ: How does GM food differ in quality from non-GM food?

Ms. Variava: About 99% of all GM crops have either one or both of two traits that make food unsafe: a pesticide-producing toxin (Bt) present in every cell of the plant and a herbicide tolerant trait that enables the plant to withstand herbicides used to kill weeds. While food safety regulators have cleared GM foods as safe, many independent scientists disagree. Their studies point to health risks: allergies, cancer, reproductive, renal, pancreatic and hepatic disorders. They say regulators give safety assurances based on studies which the GM industry conducts for a maximum period of 90 days on lab rats. This corresponds to a human life span of less than 15 years, which is too short for long-term health effects such as organ damage or cancer to manifest.

WSJ: In India, why did the Supreme Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee call for a moratorium on field trials of GM crops in July?

Ms. Variava: The TEC majority report by five scientists from the fields of molecular biology, toxicology, nutrition science and biodiversity called for an indefinite moratorium on field trials, stating that ‘the regulatory system has major gaps.’ They concluded that the quality of information in several GM applications was far below that necessary for rigorous evaluation. They recommended a moratorium on field trials for Bt in food crops until there was more definitive information on its long-term safety, and for crops for which India is a center of origin/diversity. They also recommended a ban on the release of ‘herbicide tolerant’ crops, which are inadvisable on socioeconomic grounds in a country where farms are small and weeding provides income to millions of people.

WSJ: Does the report take food security into account?

Ms. Variava: Yes, the report notes that although India has a food surplus in production terms, one-third of the world’s malnourished children live here. It does not see GM as the answer to this.

WSJ: Does it make sense to ban even field trials of GM food?

Ms. Variava: Field trials involve open-air releases of GM. Given that rice and wheat survived their supposed destruction after field trials in U.S. and caused import bans leading to losses of millions of dollars to U.S. farmers, field trials are not harmless scientific experiments. Banning field trials makes sense until a strong biosafety and liability regime is in place.

WSJ: Isn’t India taking regulatory steps to promote the safe use of modern biotechnology, for example with the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill?

Ms. Variava: The BRAI Bill appears to be promoting rather than regulating GM. It proposes a single window clearance, with power to clear GM crops dangerously concentrated in the hands of just five people. All its other committees are merely advisory. It will overrule the constitutional powers of state governments over agriculture and circumscribe the Right to Information and legal redressal. It does not mandate long-term studies, assure labeling and post-release health monitoring, or have adequate punitive provisions. There is no mandatory consideration of safer alternatives or preliminary need assessment based on socioeconomic factors. GM crops are input intensive, requiring adequate fertilizers and timely irrigation. With over 70% of India’s farmers being small and impoverished, and 65% dependent on the vagaries of the monsoon, GM is a high cost, high debt and high risk technology for India. The BRAI Bill does not ensure caution for this unpredictable and irreversible technology.

WSJ: What would economically and environmentally sustainable agriculture for India look like?

Ms. Variava: A World Bank commissioned study found that agro-ecological approaches and not GM provide the best solution to the world’s food crisis.In March 2011, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food also reported that small scale farmers could double food production within 5 to 10 years by agro-ecological farming.

An Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India study for West Bengal found that organic farming could increase net per capita income of a farmer in the state by 250%, lead to wealth accumulation of 120 billion rupees ($1.9 billion), generate exports worth 5.5 billion rupees ($87 million) and create nearly two million employment opportunities over five years.

In Andhra Pradesh, Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture was started in 2005-06. It promoted ecologically and economically sound agriculture with state government and World Bank support. About 10,000 villages with one million farmers practice non-pesticidal management on over 3.5 million acres. Pesticide use in the state has decreased by more than 45%. Net income increases were 3,000 to 15,000 rupees per acre, in addition to meeting a household’s food needs. WSJ

INDIA ‘Curbs on GM crop trials have paralysed seed industry’

‘Curbs on GM crop trials have paralysed seed industry’

With uncertainty dogging trials of genetically modified crops, the Indian seed industry is in a state of limbo, Chairman of the Association of Biotech Led Enterprises – Agriculture Group (ABLE – AG) V.R. Kaundinya said.

He told Business Line that “February 8, 2010 will remain an unforgettable day for the industry, for it was on that day the then Minister for Environment and Forest Jairam Ramesh imposed a moratorium on Bt Brinjal. Since then, GM trials have turned patchy. Further, with the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) becoming inactive in the last 18-months or so and the subsequent decision to withdraw GM (Genetically-modified) crop trials since May this year, the situation has worsened for the investors in this space,” he said

The industry has lost confidence as the entire investment in GM crop developments has taken a beating.

Industry players are in a wait-and-watch mode even for setting up labs. All our calculations have gone haywire, Kaundinya said.

Stating that stopping GM trials is a retrograde step and not the answer, he said the industry, instead, has been asking the Government to strengthen the regulatory process.

Meanwhile, with the matter in the Supreme Court and several State Governments not giving the No-Objection Certificate for field trials, the entire exercise has almost come to a halt.

“This is neither in the interest of the industry nor the farmer,” he said.HBL

Will Monsanto Destroy Another Crop?

Will Monsanto Destroy Another  Crop?

The U.S. wheat industry was nearly brought to its knees after the discovery of a genetically modified strain Monsanto had tested years ago was inexplicably found growing in an Oregon farmer's field. Because most of the rest of the world rejects GM wheat and the wheat from the Pacific Northwest is mostly targeted for export, the ramifications of the discovery were massive.

Now it's deja vu all over again. A Washington State farmer had his alfalfa crop rejected by a broker after it tested positive for the presence of genetic modification. The implications for this recurrence are just as profound as they were for wheat.

Several countries immediately imposed bans on the import of U.S. wheat and an investigation that's still ongoing was launched to figure out how a strain of genetically modified wheat that Monsanto said it completely destroyed except for the small amount the U.S. government supposedly has under lock and key in its vaults made it into the wild.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, alfalfa, with a value of around $8 billion, is the fourth-most widely grown field crop in the country, surpassed only by corn, wheat, and soybeans. Alfalfa hay, which the Washington farmer was selling, is a valuable export and hit a record high of $1.25 billion last year. Washington is one of the country's largest export alfalfa producers.

Like the runaway wheat strain, the tainted alfalfa was found to contain the genetic presence of the Round-Up Ready trait. That's the powerful and deadly herbicide that kills any plant life its sprayed on unless Monsanto has rejiggered its genetic code to withstand its onslaught. You can spray the herbicide on Round-Up Ready seed all day long, and it will still grow because of its genetic modification. 

The only difference between alfalfa incident and the wheat one earlier this year is the U.S. government permits farmers to grow genetically modified alfalfa; it prohibits GM wheat from being grown because of the global opposition to it. 

And that highlights one of the biggest risks opponents of GM foods have pointed out: once you start growing a genetically modified crop, you can't protect non-GM fields from being contaminated. One farmer can grow GM alfalfa -- or corn or soybeans -- and another across the road can choose not to, but wind and bees can can cause the fields to be cross-pollinated, and the non-GM farmer is left without recourse.

The episode raises some far-reaching fears. Farmers now are at risk if they practice the time-honored tradition of seed saving, and not just here, but all around the globe. DuPont just acquired South Africa's largest seed company that owns a large storehouse of maize germplasm, one of the most important crops on the continent where Monsanto already owns 50% of the market. Once they start accepting GM seed, they'll quickly learn they're no longer allowed to save it as the chemical giants own the food chain.

Not only should alfalfa farmers be worried because many countries including China don't allow any imports of GM crops, but alfalfa hay might not be able to be fed to domestic livestock because the introduction of GM contaminants can ruin their sales. And no just of beef, but organic dairy and other animal-based products. Monsanto says all is well as other importers like United Arab Emirates, have no restrictions on genetically modified crops and negotiations are under way with China too.

Once again the livelihood of farmers is being threatened by the pursuit of Monsanto to expand its reach over agriculture. We continue to be assured there's no harm to come from eating GM food,s but we are continuously reminded why such foods need to be labeled at a minimum. 

As this looks like it's going to become a recurring nightmare for our nations farmers, let's all take bets on which crop will be next to threaten their futures and put the country's economy at risk, all for Monsanto and the biotech industry's benefit. FOOL

GMOs safe, says US biotech expert

BY PHYLLIS MBANJE

GENETICALLY-modified foods (GMOs) are safe for human consumption and have no side effects, an American biotechnology expert stated last week.

Over the years, concerns have been raised in Zimbabwe over the safety of GMOs and their long-term effects on human beings.

But visiting US-based Wayne Parrott from the University of Georgia in the US, said contrary to common beliefs that GMOs were harmful, over 600 studies conducted over the years had proved that they were safe for human consumption.

Parrott, a professor of Crop Science specialising in plant breeding and genomics, was responding to a question on the safety of GMOs during a live social media chat held in Harare recently.

“No negative side-effects. They [GMOs]are as safe as conventional food,” he said.

Parrott said some countries in Africa were slowly adopting the concept.

“It is happening slowly but surely,” said Parrott. “There are GM crops being planted in South Africa, Burkina Faso, Sudan and Egypt. “People avoid the use of GMOs as a natural aversion to new technologies, which breeds misinformation but it can be overcome with education.”

Parrott has published over 80 journal articles in revered publications, along with 12 book chapters and three patents.

Zimbabwe has instituted a ban on GMOs until studies have been conducted on the possible effects on health and environment.

However, some of the members of the public who participated in the live media chat insisted that GMOs should be fully explored.

“GMO food has not been sufficiently tested for its effects upon the human body. Recent tests however, suggest they are a biochemical hazard to humans. Not to mention they lack the average nutritional content of organic food,” said one listener.

A food advocacy group formed by Food Matters Zimbabwe (FMZ), a local non-governmental organisation, has called on all citizens to contribute to ongoing debates on the health and environmental effects of GMOs, which have largely remained an unknown subject in the country.

The group, which consisted of experts from various sectors like agriculture, civic society, biotechnology and ordinary citizens, pledged at a GMO meeting recently that they would come up with a position paper that specifies the course of action that should be taken to ensure that the country is safeguarded against an influx of GMOs.

The group said there was little detailed research-based information on what GMOs are and the likely effect that they may have on humans and the environment.

Speaking at the same meeting, Isaiah Mharapara from Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Network (Fanrpran) said there was need to get tangible evidence to help consumers make informed decisions on GMOs.

“Currently, the government is taking a precautionary stance, there is no information on GMOs and their effects,” he said.

Mharapara also said it was prudent that GM foods should be labelled so that the consumers know what they are eating and make an informed choice.

“Most of these countries that produce GMOs do not label their products, which is unfair to the end-user. It should be mandatory to label GM foods,” he said.

Food Matters Zimbabwe representative, John Wilson said multinational companies were benefitting from the production of GMOs, at the expense of foods that are produced locally.

“Very little is going into sectors like agro-economy which recognises the role of indigenous knowledge systems,” he said.

Wilson said countries like the United States, Brazil, Argentina and South Africa were planting huge tracts of GMOs.

Wilson said in 2010 the USA produced 67 000 hectares of GMOs, a clear sign that it was big business. The Standard

“A lot of money goes into the process of genetic enhancement, wouldn’t it be better to channel that money into productive sectors?” he said.

USDA Won't Investigate GMO Alfalfa Contamination

USDA says it won't take action to determine origin of alfalfa harvested from field believed to be seeded in a non-GMO variety due to the crop's deregulation


"For nearly a decade,Center for Food Safety has vigorously opposed the introduction of GE alfalfa, precisely because it was virtually certain to contaminate natural alfalfa, among other severe environmental and economic harms," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director for Center for Food Safety. "We warned this administration and the industry repeatedly of the significant risk to farmers and the environment.  Tragically, neither listened, and this latest contamination is the result of that negligence."

The USDA announced this week that the discovery of genetically modified material in a non-GM alfalfa field in Washington is a "commercial issue" and will not be investigated by the agency. GM alfalfa has been deregulated – or approved by the USDA for commercial sale – since 2011.

The contamination, which could either be a result of cross pollination or direct contamination of purchased seed, was first reported to the Washington Department of Agriculture in August. The presence of GM material was confirmed Sept. 12, a spokesman said.

GM alfalfa opponents say the contamination could threaten trade of the crop because many importing countries, such as Japan and Saudi Arabia, reject GM materials. According to the Center For Food Safety, which challenged the deregulation of GM alfalfa in a federal court tin 2006, the situation highlights "the inadequacy of the U.S. regulatory structure for GE crops."

But according to the WSDA, testing of the alfalfa revealed that while it did contain "a low-level presence" of the GM trait that makes it resistant to glyphosate application, the levels were "well within ranges acceptable to much of the marketplace."

"There is strong market demand for Round-Up Ready alfalfa and conventional alfalfa varieties, including those with low-level presence of Round-Up Ready traits, both domestically and abroad," a WSDA statement concluded. Like the USDA, it will not be taking further action to determine the cause of the contamination.

Instead, the discussion is likely to spill into the commercial realm. According to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection service, the presence of approved GE traits in a non-GE crop is a commercial issue and "the agriculture industry has approaches to minimize their occurrence and manage them when they occur."

The alfalfa situation is different from the discovery of GE wheat in an Oregon field this spring because GE wheat is not commercially available. Testing of such varieties are still regulated by USDA.

The discovery does, however, shake loose continuing uncertainty on the part of special interest groups that previously litigated against GM alfalfa's deregulation. FarmFutures

Africa shouldn't take GM crops lightly, but neither can it ignore their potential

Jane Karuku is president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa

Boosting food production is vital for Africa's long-term prosperity – that means all viable options should be properly considered

Concerns about biosafety may have deterred some African governments from embracing GM technology. Photograph: Ian Waldie/Getty Images

In the unlikely event that I had forgotten just how controversial and polarising genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are, the past few days would have provided a very sharp reminder. Last week, our organisation, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (Agra), released a 204-page report (pdf) into the state of Africa's agriculture. It covered, in detail, the wide range of obstacles and challenges facing African countries as they seek to transform their agricultural productivity, as well as considering what opportunities there are to deliver this ambition.

Perhaps inevitably, however, our mention of GMOs dominated coverage of the report. We saw headlines such as "Agra helping agribusiness conquer African agriculture", and accusations that our organisation was promoting "genetically modified colonialism".

With hindsight, we should not have been surprised by this reaction. After all, our report noted how the controversial and complex nature of GMOs can make it incredibly difficult to hold a reasoned debate. It is why companies, organisations and scientists tend, when they can, to steer clear of voicing their opinions on the subject. All fear their position will be exaggerated.

I also have to acknowledge that the words used by the author of that specific chapter were open to misrepresentation, a mistake we must accept. What they don't do, however, is herald any change in Agra's long-established position on GMOs – a position which, I believe, reflects the cautious and balanced approach needed when considering any new technology.

GMOs are currently grown in only three countries – South Africa, Burkina Faso and Egypt. The slow adoption of this technology stems from various factors, not least a cautious approach that recognises all technologies come with risks as well as benefits.

These risks must not be overlooked, particularly as many African countries are still putting in place biosafety regulations – both on paper and in practice. It is no surprise that a number of African governments feel they still lack the capacity to manage GM technology adequately.

Equally important are the controls that many countries outside our continent have placed on GM crops. These controls have an impact on Africa's current trade and could undermine its potential as a major supplier of food to the rest of the world.

In the long run, however, Africa – a continent where one in four people still go hungry, and where annual food imports exceed $20bn – must carefully examine the potential of all new technologies to boost food production. This does not mean pushing GMOs or any other technology on reluctant governments or citizens. Agra believes it is the responsibility and prerogative of African governments to determine their position on GMOs.

But neither does it mean slamming the door shut on discussion, debate or research that might provide real benefits. So why does Agra not fund research, awareness campaigns or the development of GMOs adapted for Africa? We believe there are cheaper, readily available technologies that can effectively help smallholder farmers improve their harvests and yields.

Through our programme for Africa's seed systems, we are supporting the development of improved crop varieties – developed through conventional breeding methods – of key food crops, such as maize, cassava and beans.Importantly, we are also making sure that when these improved crops are developed, they find themselves in the hands of African farmers.

We are working with 16 national research institutes and farmers across Africa to develop seeds suited to our continent's varied environments. We are supporting the development of local entrepreneurs and companies who can distribute these seeds, along with fertiliser and other technologies, and helping to improve access to finance so that farmers can buy them.

These initiatives are making a difference. Last year, schemes supported by Agra produced enough seed of improved varieties to plant an estimated 3.85m hectares (9.6m acres). Throughout the continent, the adoption of our new varieties – none of which are genetically modified − is leading to record yields. For example, a recent study of an improved variety of maize seed in Kenya has shown yields increasing by a third.

We are seeing real progress across the continent; for the time being, therefore, our focus will remain on conventional breeding methods. For better or for worse, depending on who you ask, GMOs are unlikely to impact African food security in the near future. In the meantime, we need to have an informed, dispassionate conversation that includes all parties. The Guardian

Big money battle over GMO labeling initiative

A multi-million dollar advertising battle just launched that could determine how much you know about what goes into your food. It's about Initiative 522 on the November ballot. The initiative requires labels on food that has been genetically engineered.

"The question here is if we're going to be able to figure out what's in our food, if we have a right to know if genetically engineered ingredients are being used in our food," said Aaron Ostrom of the Yes-on 522 campaign.

Initiative supporters don't necessarily claim that such ingredients are unsafe. In fact, unless you shop very carefully, it's likely you consume some form of genetically modified food every day.

But there was trouble recently for Washington exports when some genetically modified wheat was found in Oregon, because Governments in Asia and Europe refuse to buy such crops.

Still, opponents say the initiative places a huge burden on our state's farmers.

"For farmers who would want to farm some GE crop, and some non GE crops they would have to essentially run two entirely farming organizations," said Dana Bieber of the No-on-522 campaign.
And opponents believe the initiative would confuse consumers. "Take the example of a steak," Bieber said. "A steak will come from a cow that has been fed GE grains so there is GE in the steak. It's exempt from Initiative 522 that's where we as consumers get misled."

But consumers, like grocery shopper, Olga Rohlfsen, are also anxious for information. "I feel like I'm responsible to give my kids some good food I would love to know when I buy food what's in it," Rohlfsen said.

Initiative sponsors have gone to court because they accuse opponents of trying to hide their big money donors like Monsanto and Dow Chemical. Opponents deny the accusation and say their donations are fully reported. KIROTV