Central government receives proposal for commercial planting of GM mustard
The central government of India will destroy the country’s mustard seed markets if it approves the commercialisation of GM mustard.
Note that the article below (item 2) says, “In 2002, the then Union government had rejected proposal for commercial planting of private sector seed manufacturer's, Bayer's transgenic mustard plant. The debate, science and regulations on GM food crops has considerably evolved since then.”
While there is now more scientific evidence than there was in 2002 of various types of harm from GMOs, we see no evidence that the regulations in India have “evolved” – despite the recommendation of a Supreme Court-appointed expert committee that even GMO field trials be banned until India had a competent regulator in place.
As for the GM mustard developer Deepak Pental's claim that "the safety of GM Mustard had been proven by the continued cultivation, sale and export of Canola oil in Canada since 1995 and in the US since 2002, which is based on similar transgenic technology" – words fail us. Even the most die-hard pro-GMO zealots admit, when challenged, that all GMOs are different, that each GMO must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and that evidence of safety or risk on one GMO doesn't substitute as evidence on another GMO.
1. GM mustard should not be allowed in India: This is unneeded, unwanted and unsafe
2. Centre receives proposal for commercial planting of GM mustard
—
1. GM mustard should not be allowed in India: This is unneeded, unwanted and unsafe
GM Free India Coalition
IndiaGMInfo, November 1, 2015
http://indiagminfo.org/?p=1163
Following a news report confirming that an application for approval for commercialization of GM mustard has been moved with the apex regulatory body GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee in the Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change), the Coalition for a GM Free India reminded the government about the serious consequences of this GMO’s release, and warned the government of serious resistance all over the country. Farmer Unions and citizen groups had earlier started a Sarson Satyagraha urging the government not to jeopardise our food, farming and environment by introducing GM mustard.
This is the first time India would be considering commercial cultivation approval of any GM food crop after an indefinite moratorium was placed on Bt brinjal five years ago in February 2010. This GM mustard, developed by Delhi University, called Dhara Mustard Hybrid 11 (DMH11) adopted the transgenic technology to facilitate hybridization on claims of increased yields through such a hybrid. In creating such a GM mustard, male sterility has been induced in one of the parental lines, in addition to using herbicide tolerance trait.
Rajesh Krishnan, Convenor of Coalition for a GM-Free India pointed out that this GM mustard hybrid has been created mainly to facilitate the seed production work of seed manufacturers whereas farmers already have a choice of non-GM mustard hybrids in the market, in addition to high yielding mustard varieties. More importantly, there are non-GM agro-ecological options like System of Mustard Intensification yielding far higher production than the claimed yields of this GM mustard of DU.
He said, “This GM mustard is also a backdoor entry for various other GM crops in the regulatory pipeline – while herbicide tolerance as a trait has been recommended against by committee after committee in the executive, legislative and judiciary-based inquiry processes in India related to GM crops, this GM mustard uses herbicide tolerance. Contamination is inevitable of all other mustard varieties, while India is the Centre of Diversity for mustard.
“This is clearly one more GMO that is unwanted and unneeded and is being thrust on citizens in violation of our right to choices, as farmers and consumers”. He also reminded that most state governments were not even willing to take up field trials of this GM mustard and only Punjab and Delhi had allowed the same.
“GEAC is functioning in a highly secretive fashion, and while the nation does not know what is happening inside the regulatory institutions with applications like this GM mustard, biosafety data is being repeatedly declined by the regulators.
“What are the regulators hiding and whose interests are they protecting? Why should the regulators be trusted for their safety assessment when in the case of both Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, the Supreme Court Technical Expert Committee (SC TEC) which took up a sample biosafety analyses in 2013 showed that the regulators were wrong in concluding the safety of these GMOs? The Supreme Court in 2008 had ordered that biosafety data be placed in public domain when petitioners in the GM PIL argued that unless the toxicity and allergenicity data are made known to the public, the applicants and concerned scientists in the country would not be in a position to make effective representations to the concerned authorities.
“On 26/6/2009, the CIC [Central Information Commission] passed Orders in the case of RCGM (another regulatory body) withholding biosafety information and directed that the regulator should comply with the CIC decision on 22/11/2007 for providing existing data with regard to other agricultural products, before any massive farm trial. While these orders exist, my RTI application for biosafety data has been declined with regard to this GM mustard.
“We would also like to remind the government that in the case of Bt brinjal, the regulators sought public feedback and the Government of India took up public consultations before taking a final decision on Bt brinjal’s commercial cultivation fate in india. However, this current Government seems to be keen to conduct regulatory processes in a secretive fashion. Our past requests to meet with the Environment Minister to share our concerns met with no success. As the government gets more secretive and opaque around regulation, the public has a right to know what are they afraid of, if everything is safe and scientific?”, said Kavitha Kuruganti, Convenor of Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) who has been seeking biosafety data under RTI Act without any success.
It is also pertinent to remember that GEAC continues to exhibit objectionable conflict of interest in its constitution and five years after the Bt brinjal moratorium decision in the country, nothing has improved as far as citizens’ interests are concerned, she said.
The Coalition demands that the Union Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Prakash Javadekar, under whose Ministry comes GEAC, to:
. immediately intervene and stop the processing and approval of this GM mustard;
. make public all the information regarding the safety tests of the GM Mustard without which no appraisal of this GMO should be taken up.
Notes to Editor:
For more information on this GM mustard and concerns around the same, please visit www.indiagminfo.org/?p=880 .
—
2. Centre receives proposal for commercial planting of GM mustard
Nitin Sethi
First proposal for open use of transgenic food crop in five years
Business Standard (India), October 31, 2015
http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/centre-receives-proposal-for-commercial-planting-of-gm-mustard-115103101209_1.html
Since the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government put a moratorium on commercial cropping of Monsanto's Bt Brinjal in 2010, the Centre has received the first-ever proposal for clearance in five years to let farmers grow a transgenic food crop - a genetically modified hybrid variety of the mustard plant. The decision on the proposal would have to be taken by the environment ministry on behalf of the Union government.
This would not be the first time that a proposal for commercial cultivation of GM Mustard comes up before the government. In 2002, the then Union government had rejected proposal for commercial planting of private sector seed manufacturer's, Bayer's transgenic mustard plant. The debate, science and regulations on GM food crops has considerably evolved since then.
Dr Deepak Pental, developer of the GM mustard seed at Delhi University, said that he had sent the proposal to the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) in mid-September. The GEAC is the statutory authority that appraises proposals for field trials and commercial release of GM crops but its views are not binding on the government. The final call on such clearances lies with the Union environment, forests and climate change minister.
A senior official in the environment ministry said a date for the meeting of the GEAC had not been set as yet and was not likely in the coming week. A member of the GEAC, speaking to Business Standard on the condition of anonymity, said a meeting of the committee was likely after November 8.
The planting season for mustard ends in the third week of November. Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana account for nearly 70 per cent of India's production of the crop.
The National Democratic Alliance has permitted field trials of GM crops in the past, despite opposition from Swadeshi Jagran Manch, an RSS-affiliate. Though decision-making on the issue has been put behind a veil of opaqueness. The GEAC took a decision last year to not disclose the agenda of its meetings or other information on the proposals it reviews pro-actively and provide it only in response to specific queries under the RTI Act.
In the recent past, the environment ministry also refused to disclose data from biosafety tests of the transgenic mustard asked under the RTI Act stating that the issue (regarding GM mustard) was "under process". The applicant's appeal against the ministry's decision to not share data is now pending before the Central Information Commissioner.
In the past, when appraising the Bt Brinjal for commercial release the GEAC, under the UPA government, had proactively put out selective information shared by the promoters and sought public comments on it. Then, on orders of the Supreme Court, it was also forced to put out all biosafety data from the trials on the specific transgenic plant. Subsequently, the GEAC recommended the commercial cropping of the transgenic Brinjal plant but the decision was over-ruled by the then environment minister.
Pental said it was up to the government to decide if it wanted to disclose the biosafety data in public domain or not.
Pental claimed his transgenic mustard hybrid variety provided a 30 per cent higher yield than other varieties. He also claimed the costs for the hybrid seed would be considerably lower. Critics of the GM Mustard hybrid say the comparison was made against non-hybrid seeds and other non-transgenic hybrids also provide similarly higher productivity. Organisations such as the Coalition for a GM-Free India, warn of contamination by transgenic mustard seeds, citing cases from the US and other countries and say the particular hybrid producing technology would aid seed manufacturers more than the farmers. Paintal claimed groups, individuals and NGOs opposing the technology do so on ideological grounds. He said the safety of GM Mustard had been proven by the continued cultivation, sale and export of Canola oil in Canada since 1995 and in the US since 2002, which is based on similar transgenic technology. He said three to four years had been wasted in conducting the bio-safety studies in India with the process having been complicated by Jairam Ramesh as environment minister for the UPA government.