NEWS FROM INDIA
1.GM crop lobbies irked by Ministry's 'inaction'
2.Indian agriculture can do without quick techno-fixes
3.GM crops claim to increase yields, but the problem is of access and distribution, not production
4.Death by cotton
5.Greenpeace challenges Pawar on GM crops
NOTE: Some very informative articles.
---
---
1.GM crop lobbies irked by Ministry’s "inaction"
Vishwanath Kulkarni
Business Line, March 3 2013
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/agri-biz/gm-crop-lobbies-irked-by-ministrys-inaction/article4472260.ece
Pro group wants regulator revived; anti group for Minister taking firm stance on transgenics
New Delhi: They have opposite views on genetically modified (GM) crops but are united on one issue — the inaction/silence of the Ministry for Environment and Forests (MoEF) on various issues.
For instance, the pro-GM lobby, led by multinational and domestic seed-makers, wants the Ministry to reconstitute the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) so that the trial process can move on.
Technically, there is no regulator for GM products now; the GEAC met last in April 2012.
“We want the GEAC to be reconstituted and a meeting held soon as the sowing window for kharif plantings is approaching fast,” said Ram Kaundinya, Chairman of the Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises (Agriculture Group) and CEO of UPL Advanta Seeds.
Some 50 applications relating to new crop biotech products are pending assessment and approval by the regulator.
Upper hand to Farm Ministry
On the other side, the greens want Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan to take a proactive stance. Although Natarajan is privately seen to be hawkish on commercialisation of GM crops, her not taking an open stance has allowed the Agriculture Ministry to steal the thunder by linking GM crops with food security.
Thus, by default, the Agriculture Ministry’s position has now become the official view of the Government in the debate on GM crops.
The recent "rhetoric" of Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar on allowing GM crop field trials has rattled the anti-GM lobby, which believes that his argument on linking food security to genetically modified technology will mislead the debate.
Making a case for GM technology to boost farm output, Pawar recently said that scientists should not be denied the right to conduct the field trials of such crops.
“Civil society wants the Environment Minister to respond publicly so that the Agriculture Minister does not mislead the debate on GM and food security in the country,” said Neha Saigal, Campaigner, Sustainable Agriculture, Greenpeace.
Food rights organisations, under the Right to Food Campaign (RFC), recently wrote to Pawar, urging him to tackle food security in more fundamental ways than linking it with genetically modified crops.
The RFC urged the Agriculture Ministry not to come in the way of much-needed changes in the transgenics scene in India, reminding it of the recommendations of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) appointed by the Supreme Court.
Expert panel
In its interim report last October, the TEC had called for a 10-year moratorium on field trials of GM crops. The Committee is expected to submit its final recommendations to the Supreme Court later this month.
---
---
2.Indian agriculture can do without quick techno-fixes
Kavitha Kuruganti
The Deccan Herald, Feb 27 2013
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/315430/indian-agriculture-can-do-quick.html
Shanthu Shantharam’s piece on February 13, 2013 in this paper had a screaming headline that said, “Ban on GM crops will imperil Indian agriculture”.
He was referring to the recommendations of a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) appointed by the Supreme Court to advise it on issues related to GMOs, bio-safety assessment regime in India, open air field trials, and alleges that they were “influenced by the anti-GM propaganda”. In the first instance, the TEC did not call for a ban on all GM crops or their trials.
It was ridiculous to accuse a group of scientists, nominated both by petitioners of a PIL in the SC and the Government of India as being influenced by anti-GM propaganda – obviously, the Government of India reposed its faith in these scientists when they were named and nominated (one of the two members nominated by the government in fact was coopted into the Sopory Committee inquiry into desi Bt cotton scam, for his expertise, reflecting once again on his credibility as an independent scientist). In fact, the new nominee to the committee, Dr R S Paroda, has been associated with Monsanto in its Biotech Advisory Council in the past; may be Shantharam would be happy to claim that Dr Paroda is the most scientific of all the members of the TEC.
What is interesting to note is that most independent scientists and scientists who work on aspects related to safety assessment have reservations on transgenics and often, the very need of GMOs in the field of food and farming.
However, the ones who have mastered the art of tinkering with genes and creation of GMOs are fully in favour. The latter may even be called as technicians (with due respect to them), while the former in fact are true scientists because figuring out if a gene is performing after integration into a new organism is easy enough, but finding out what else has changed in a complex regulatory web (at the molecular level as well as up to the external ecosystem level) is a challenging task which requires fine scientific brains.
Shantharam is quite wrong in lumping activists on one side and the "scientific community" on the other side, claiming that the scientific community that ushered in green revolution ‘successfully’ has a different take on the matter.
What he is missing out in the old strategy of trying to showcase activists as "anti-science" or "unscientific" on one side, and the scientists on the other side, is that hundreds of scientists across the country, representing different streams of expertise, are actually coming out into the open to ask for "good science" or "true science" to emerge in the case of modern biotech. They are advocating caution with regard to transgenics and are citing much scientific evidence to prove their point. It’s time that the proponents give up their fig leaf arguments around activists and actually engage in an informed debate.
Repeated claims
The repeated claims that modern biotechnology is a "million times" more refined does not behoove of true scientists. There are many studies that show that genetic engineering is imprecise and does induce instability in a genome. The proponents are repeatedly refusing to use latest science around proteomics, transcriptomics, etc., to take up risk assessment.
Coming back to the TEC recommendations, Shantharam is willfully choosing to misrepresent the recommendations. The TEC did not recommend a "ban" on field testing. They have made recommendations on how, when and where open air field trials can happen, while asking for a moratorium on two particular kinds of GMOs (Bt food crops for ten years and HT crops until an independent assessment on their impact and suitability). The ban was recommended on those crops for which India is the Centre of Origin and Diversity, which is a perfectly scientific recommendation.
In fact, the government should have pro-actively put in a policy directive on this itself, rather than wait for a TEC to come along and say this. It is worth noting that China, which is the Centre of Origin and Diversity for Soybean, which is also the largest consumer of soy, has not opted for GM soy, even though GM soy is the largest cultivated GM crop around the world.
Shantharam claims that almost 30 countries which have opted for GM crops have been eating GM foods without a shred of scientifically verifiable harm. He is not correct in announcing this – it is only a few countries which have gone in for GM food crops; in any case, most of the corn and soybean is also going into industrial, bio-fuel and feed uses. More importantly, in a country like the USA which does have GM food crops which are being consumed by American citizens to some extent as processed ingredients in their foods, can Shantharam and others show sound scientific evidence that the increasing illnesses in USA (be it of allergies or gastro-intestinal disorders and the like) are not connected to consumption of GM foods?
If one is truly concerned about Indian agriculture and doesn’t want to imperil it, the first requirement might be that we acknowledge the complexity of issues and not look at quick techno-fixes. There is no dearth of technologies out there (as acknowledged by the Planning Commission in its Plan documents too) –we need to think about recasting our extension systems, spread agro-ecological innovations that bring down costs for farmers, remove toxins from our environment and improve net incomes. We need to ensure remunerative prices. This is not just about agriculture, but about not imperiling our farmers too.
---
---
3.GM crops claim to increase yields, but the problem is of access and distribution, not production
Devinder Sharma
The Times of India, Feb 28 2013
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-02-28/edit-page/37331351_1_food-wastage-gm-crops-food-production
Speaking at the annual Oxford Farming Conference a few weeks back, the rebel environmentalist Mark Lynas, who went over to the all-powerful GM industry, was quoted as saying: "Research published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests the world will require 100% more food to feed the maximum projected population adequately."
It's not the first time this argument has been used, but considering the emphasis Lynas laid on the capabilities of controversial genetic engineering technology to meet the growing demand for food, a flurry of articles and editorials appeared. The underlying argument is the same. The world needs to produce more for the year 2050, and therefore we need GM crops.
Well, what population projections are we talking of? The planet today hosts seven billion people, and all estimates point to population growing to nine billion by 2050. According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), more than 870 million people were chronically undernourished in 2012, with almost 250 million of the world's hungry living in India.
These appalling statistics generate an impression of an acute shortfall in food production. At every conference, the same sets of statistics are flashed to justify the commercialisation of GM crops. But how much food is globally available? Is the world really witnessing a shortfall in food production? Or, for that matter, is there a shortage of food in India? These are the questions that have been very conveniently overlooked.
Let us therefore take a look at the performance of global agriculture in the year 2012. Despite the severe drought in the US and Australia, where wheat production is anticipated to fall by 40%, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates that the world still harvested 2239.4 million metric tonnes, enough to feed 13 billion people at one pound per day.
In other words, the food being globally produced today can feed twice the existing population. According to the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), against the average requirement of about 2,400 calories per capita, what is presently available is 4,600 calories. So where is the crisis on the food production front? The crisis is in food (mis)management, which surprisingly is being ignored.
In the US, Canada and Europe, 40% food is wasted. For example, Americans waste $165 billion worth of food every year, which could very well meet the entire requirement of sub-Saharan Africa. Food wasted in Italy, if saved, can feed the entire population of the hungry in Ethiopia. According to the UK Institution of Mechanical Engineers, almost half the food produced globally is allowed to go waste. Studies show that 50% of fruits and vegetables stocked by supermarkets in US actually rot. If all the food wastage was to be appreciably reduced, hunger and malnutrition can easily become history.
In India too, it is not a crisis in food production. On Jan 1, India had 66 million tonnes of food stocks. As someone has said, if you were to stack all those bags of grain one over the other, you could climb up to the moon and back. That's the quantity of food that has been available almost every year since 2001.
While visuals of food rotting in godowns are fresh in the memory, the government has been merrily exporting the surplus rather than feeding its hungry millions. This fiscal, wheat exports are expected to touch 9.5 million tonnes; rice exports have already crossed nine million tonnes in 2011-12. Instead of propping up food procurement and distribution, the food ministry is actually toying with the idea of withdrawing from procurement operations and using surplus stocks in futures trading, leaving the hungry to be fed by the markets.
Meanwhile, GM crops are being promoted as the answer to growing food needs. In reality, there is no GM crop in the world that actually increases crop productivity. In fact, the yields of GM corn and GM soybean, if USDA is to be believed, are actually less than the non-GM varieties.
Nor has the promise of a drastic reduction in the usage of harmful pesticides proved to be correct. Charles Benbrook of the Washington State University has conclusively shown that between 1996 and 2011, the overall pesticides use in US has risen by a whopping 144 million kg. In addition, as much as 14.5 million acres is afflicted with "super-weeds", weeds that are very difficult to control. And such has been the contamination that 23 weeds now fall in the category of "super-weeds".
Regarding safety, a few months back the revelations by Giles-Eric Seralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen in France, shocked the world when for the first time he demonstrated long-term studies involving rats fed for two years with Monsanto's Roundup-Ready GM maize. The rats had developed huge kidney and mammary gland tumours, had problems with their body organs and showed increased mortalities.
Against the usual practice of such studies involving feeding rats with GM foods for 90 days, Seralini had for the first time ever experimented with rats for two years, which corresponds to the entire human lifespan. As expected, the shocking results, peer-reviewed and published in a respected scientific journal, have already created quite a furore internationally.
I therefore don't understand the need to take a huge risk with human health and environment when there is food available in abundance. The greater challenge is to curb wastage, provide adequate access and ensure judicious distribution of food.
The writer is a food and agriculture analyst.
---
---
4. Death by cotton
Pavan Dahat
The Hindu, March 1 2013
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/death-by-cotton/article4462518.ece
In Maharashtra’s Mansawali village the story of farmer suicides continues as they continue to get entangled in the debt cycle of Bt cotton cultivation
The former Sarpanch of Mansawali village, Ashok Khadase, does not stop counting the honours his village received during his tenure as the village head. Mansawali is located in Hinganghat tehsil of Wardha district, around 60 km away from Wardha city.
“My village has been honoured with many State prizes. Mansawali was declared Tanta Mukti Gaon (dispute free village) three years ago. We also received Nirmal Gram Puraskar two years ago.”
But Ashok falls silent when it comes to farmers from his village who have committed suicide in the past few years. According to him, 15 farmers have committed suicide in the last 15 years and three in the last eight months.
Mansawali falls in the cotton belt of Yavatmal and Wardha district. Almost all the farmers in this village grow Bt cotton.
The latest case of farmer suicide here was on September 28 last year when 40-year-old Chakradhar Choudhary hanged himself in his house. Chakradhar owned three acres of land and cultivated Bt cotton.
“He never told me what he was going through but his frustration with farming was visible on his face,” says Jyoti, Chakradhar’s widow.
Jyoti is now left with a three-year-old son, a seven-year-old daughter and three acres of cotton field to look after which she does not want to visit. “Since our marriage, I worked in our field with my husband. Now without him, I don’t want to go there,” she says with tearful eyes.
“Depression due to debt was the main reason behind my husband’s suicide,” says Kavita Maroti Lohghare, whose husband Maroti committed suicide by consuming pesticide in 2008. “Every year, he hoped for profit but we could hardly recover the input cost of the BT cotton. He had taken a loan of Rs. 50, 000 from a bank and that year our bull also died,” adds Kavita.
Kavita received no help from the government and according to her the police did not count her husband’s suicide as a farmer suicide for “lack of documents”.
When asked about the reason behind the suicides, Mahesh Ingole, a farmer from the village who owns 30 acres, says: “Fluctuation in the prices of cotton seeds and fertilisers is the main reason for these suicides, because it increases the production cost of cotton.”
According to Mahesh, on a half-an-acre cotton field, a farmer has to spend Rs. 930 for a 450 gm seed bag of Bt cotton, Rs. 3,500 on DAV (fertilisers), urea and pesticide of around Rs. 2,500. “Including the labour cost, a farmer spends around Rs. 13,000 to Rs. 15,000 on half-acre from which he gets four quintals of cotton if the weather is conducive; otherwise it is 2.5 quintals. The market price of per quintal of cotton is Rs. 3,900 this year. So you can see the farmer is not getting even the production cost. A farmer gets into a debt trap due to this and ultimately decides to take an extreme step.”
Apart from Chakradhar and Maroti, 13 more farmers have killed themselves in Mansawali in the past few years. Chakradhar’s uncle Padmakar Chaudhary committed suicide in 2001. Padmakar’s 25-year-old son Vaibhav killed himself in early 2012.
Suresh Sabale (2004), Tukaram Balaji Bawane (2005), Vinod Kamble (2007), Gangubai Bhoir (2009) and seven other farmers have committed suicide in the last 15 years whose names Ashok Khadase do not remember.
According to some elderly villagers, Vinod Dadaji Khaire, Ganesh Gangadhar Bawane, Kawadu Pandurang Bonde, Chandu Tukaram Bawane, Sharad Janardan Kamble, and Nitin Bawane are the other farmers who decided to end their lives.
Chandu Bawane’s wife Nirmala also killed herself three years ago.
There was a suicide of Ritesh Khateshwar Jawade, but the reason could not be confirmed.
According to Ashok, Bt cotton crop requires large quantities of water but irrigation facilities in the village is very limited. Though the seeds companies promised that there won’t be any need to use pesticide, farmers have to spend more on pesticide. Padmakar Choudhary’s elder brother Vaikunth Choudhary, who has seen three suicides in his family, says, “None of the three had any addiction or any dispute with other villagers. The mains reason is the inability to even take out the production cost which drives a farmer into debt trap.”
Vijay Jhawandia, a farmer and a social activist, says “You can see farmers killing themselves. But one should also look into the conditions of farmers who are continuing with the farming. Their condition is no better.”
---
---
5.Greenpeace challenges Pawar on GM crops
New Kerala, Feb 20
http://www.newkerala.com/news/newsplus/worldnews-138406.html
New Delhi: Rejecting Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar's stance on GM (Genetically Modified) crops being the answer to India's food security question, 12 Greenpeace activists unfurled a massive banner with the message "Say NO to GM, Yes to Food Security" at the Food Corporation of India's godown in Delhi's Mayapuri area on Wednesday.
As the parliament prepares to kick off the budget session Thursday, Greenpeace says their "act reiterates that the solution lies in adopting a holistic view of food security with focus on better food distribution systems rather than promoting false solutions like genetically modified crops (GM)."
The police immediately came at the venue and detained the activists, they were later taken to Mayapuri police station.
Commenting on the detention, social activist Aruna Roy said, "The Greenpeace activists peacefully protesting against the position taken by Union Agri Minister, Sharad Pawar have been illegally detained. This detention is one more in a series of actions taken by the State to suppress dissent."
"They were in fact protesting against the Minister's attempt to trivialise the issue of food security by asserting that the controversial GM technology would, infact, offer security of food production. The Minister's support for GM food crops is highly controversial and there is an ongoing international debate on this issue. We condemn the detention and demand immediate release of peaceful protestors."
In the Monsoon Session of 2012, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture tabled their report on GM crops.
Greenpeace says one of the clear recommendations of the report was for the government to come up with a fresh road map to food security that does not adopt risky technologies like GM but addresses the shortcomings of storage, distribution and mismanagement of stocks. GM food crops are a panacea for food security is an argument made to serve the interests of the biotech sector.
Echoing the voice of the Parliamentary Committee, more than 150 scientists from across the country have written to Environment Minister Jayanthi Natarajan, expressing their displeasure at the Govt of India for promoting GM crops as a way forward for food security.
Neha Saigal, campaigner, Greenpeace India said, 'so far there has been no single GM crop developed for increasing yields and it has failed to show any such increase in yield in nearly 2 decades of its existence.
"Instead of forcing risky GM food down our throats, Mr Pawar needs to address the fact that millions of tonnes of grains in storage facilities across India, consistently fail to reach the people. And, as the environment minister, Smt Natarajan should take an unequivocal stand on GM crops", Saigal added.
"The UPA Government must not be distracted by GM crops as a solution to food security, but focus on an inclusive and comprehensive food security bill, as a crucial option to end hunger and malnutrition," said Kavita Srivastava, convenor, Right to Food campaign.
Greenpeace urged Jayanthi Natarajan, the decision maker on the environmental release of GMOs to intervene so that the MoA does not mislead the debate of food security.