Print

India's Gene Campaign is preparing for possible legal action against India's GM regulatory body, the GEAC, in order to hold its members to account for proceeding with Bt cotton approvals when they had full knowledge of the potentially disastrous implications of releasing Bt cotton varieties to farmers for commercial cultivation.

"Despite all this evidence being available with the GEAC, it has continued to release more and more Bt cotton varieties, causing grave financial losses and suffering to several thousand farmers, leading to enormous hardships and even suicide by many of them."

As Gene Campaign's President, the geneticist Dr Suman Sahai, notes below, they decided to serve Notice under the Environmental Protection Act "since we believe the losses and deaths of farmers due to GEAC's sins of commission was about as grave as it can get."
-------

Dear Jonathan

Gene Campaign has issued a notice to the government to lodge a complaint against the persons responsible in the GEAC, for commission of a grave offence in the matter of commercial approvals granted to Bt cotton varieties. The Notice was served under section 19(b) of the Environmental Protection Act (All GM matters are governed by the EPA).

Scientific data available from the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur, India's premier cotton research agency and an ICAR institution, clearly shows that in spite of the

GEAC having full knowledge about the ineffectiveness of the Bt technology in India, the same was granted approval for commercial cultivation. The GEAC has thus acted in violation of the Rules of 1989.

Even after the approvals were granted, and reports of the Mahyco-Monsanto Bt cotton failure were reported, far from revoking the approval granted to the Bt cotton varieties, GEAC continued to grant further approvals to other varieties of Bt cotton presented by other seed companies but all carrying the same Bt technology.

The report of the CICR states specifically that "it is important however to ensure that appropriate Bt cotton cultivation strategies must be designed to ensure the survival of susceptible insects and also to ensure mating between the Bt surviving and non Bt-surviving insects". Adding that "Such strategies have not yet been developed for the small farmer and predominantly un-irrigated cotton growing systems of countries such as India."

Despite all this evidence being available with the GEAC, it has continued to release more and more Bt cotton varieties, causing grave financial losses and suffering to several thousand farmers, leading to enormous hardships and even suicide by many of them.

I am attaching the Notice under section 19(b) of the Environmental Protection Act. We have sent copies of the Notice to the Prime Minister and other ministers to urge speedy action. Notice under 19 (b) is seldom used but we decided to invoke it since we believe the losses and deaths of farmers due to GEAC's sins of commission was about as grave as it can get. If the offence is proven, the punishment is jail terms! Naturally, all hell has broken lose and there is much scrambling (with the help of Monsanto which is now saying 'we have never claimed that it was a perfect technology'!) to frame responses to the Notice. The time available to govt. is 60 days after which we will take legal action if the response is not satisfactory!

All best,
Suman
Dr. Suman Sahai
President
Gene Campaign
------

To
The Secretary
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
3 August 2005
Subject : Notice under Section 19 (b) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.

Sir,

I am sending this notice to you to file a complaint for commission of offence under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act and the Rules respectively) and for taking action against the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for violating the provisions of the Act and Rules for the manufacture, use, import, export and storage of hazardous micro organisms and genetically engineered organisms or cells, 1989 (Rules of 1989) framed under the Act.

GEAC, which functions under the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF) is responsible under the Rules of 1989 for approval of activities involving large scale use of hazardous micro organisms and recombinants and research & industrial production from the environmental angle. Among others, Rules 4, 7, 13 and 14 are relevant for this notice. The composition of the GEAC consists inter alia, of the Director General, Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) as an expert member besides other members and the Additional Secretary, MoEF being the Chairman. The GEAC had granted approvals for commercial cultivation of three varieties of Bt cotton MECH 12, MECH 162, MECH 184 belonging to Mahyco-Monsanto in 2002, for a period of 3 years. Subsequently, more varieties of Bt cotton belonging to other companies have also been granted approval for commercial cultivation.

A cause of immense concern has been the failure of the MECH varieties of Bt cotton belonging to Mahyco- Monsanto, which has been widely reported from many parts of India. This has resulted in grave financial losses and suffering to several thousand farmers, leading to enormous hardships and even suicide by many of them.

A publication authored by eminent scientists of the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur, India's premier cotton research agency and an ICAR institution has appeared in "Current Science" Vol. 89, No. 2 dated 25th July, 2005. This research publication has raised immense concern and disquiet by revealing that the Bt technology being used in India is per se ineffective and incapable of properly controlling the bollworm which it is supposed to target.

The principal findings made by Gene Campaign and other NGOs like Greenpeace, during three year studies in the field have been validated by the CICR study, like the finding that pesticide savings are not significant in India since Bt cotton was not really effective against bollworm. Gene Campaign studies had found that protection offered by Bt cotton hybrids lasts only up to about 90 days, after which the effect wears off; and that the cotton boll is severely attacked by the bollworm.

According to the CICR research article in Current Science, the research findings were first submitted to Current Science on April 7, 2004. This means that this was the data derived from the cotton harvest of the year 2002- 2003, the first commercial crop of Bt cotton.

1. The CICR paper points out that that Bt toxin production becomes negligible in the second half of the crops' life cycle therefore there is little protection against bollworm after 110 days.

o The CICR study finds that bollworm attack is heaviest on the bolls since Bt toxin expression was very low there, the economically most important part of the cotton plant.

o The CICR scientists have shown that the Bt cotton hybrids being produced in India were unstable and unpredictable, the result of faulty technology in which gene expression is not reliable.

o The CICR report says that since the Bt cotton does not provide sufficient protection, farmers must use chemical pesticides to protect their crops.

ß Most alarmingly, the CICR study has very clearly shown that Bt cotton cannot be effective in India because the major cotton pest here, the bollworm, is not very susceptible to the Cry1Ac toxin of Bt cotton.

ß The Cry1Ac toxin based technology, which is being used, cannot ever really succeed in India. Cry1Ac toxin works well against the tobacco budworm, Heliothis virescens which is the major pest of cotton in USA. Bt cotton varieties in USA cause 99-100 % mortality in Heliothis, hence they are successful in providing protection to US cotton farmers.

The scientific data and the conclusions drawn by the Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur were available with the ICAR and they had full knowledge of the potentially disastrous implications of releasing these Bt cotton varieties to farmers for commercial cultivation.

May I point out that in addition to these shocking findings, is the fact that these scientific data were available to the ICAR early and certainly during the first 2003 crop, when widespread failures were reported by a number of agencies, including the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Director General of ICAR is an ex officio member of the GEAC and yet did not raise his voice about the clear cut scientific evidence that an ICAR institution had provided that the cry1Ac based Bt technology would not be successful in India.

Despite the availability of evidence from India's premier cotton research institute which is a government research institution, that the Bt cotton varieties were based on a flawed technology, the GEAC has continued to release Bt cotton varieties for many other parts of India.

Even more shockingly, in an obvious cover up, the website of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/othinfo.html ) lists the 2002-2003 and 2004- 2005 reports of the CICR , but it does not post the CICR report for the year 2003- 2004 which would have had to carry CICR’s incriminating results on the fundamental and basic flaws in the Indian Bt technology that have been indicated in its earlier report and later presented conclusively in the Current Science paper.

Even the 2002- 2003 CICR report that has been posted on the GEAC website, states clearly that the Bt technology in India is not stable, since there was too much variability ( up to 67 fold) in the production of the Cry1Ac toxin in the cotton plant.

The 2002- 2003 report of the CICR further says that "it is important however to ensure that appropriate Bt cotton cultivation strategies must be designed to ensure the survival of susceptible insects and also to ensure mating between the Bt surviving and non Bt-surviving insects". Adding that "Such strategies have not yet been developed for the small farmer and predominantly un-irrigated cotton growing systems of countries such as India."

All this evidence has been available to the GEAC and yet it has continued to release more and more Bt cotton varieties .

The above clearly shows that inspite of the GEAC having full knowledge about the ineffectiveness of the Bt technology in India, the same was granted approval for commercial cultivation. The GEAC has thus acted in violation of the Rules of 1989. Even after the approvals were granted, and reports of the Mahyco-Monsanto Bt cotton failure were reported, far from revoking the approval granted to Mahyco-Monsanto, GEAC continued to grant approvals to other varieties of Bt cotton presented by other seed companies but all carrying the same Bt technology.

The GEAC was also aware that its mandated stipulation of maintaining a 20% insect refuge for managing resistance build up during Bt cotton cultivation has not been complied with at all. Despite blatant non-compliance under 13 (2) c of the Rules, far from revoking the approval granted to Bt cotton, GEAC has continued to grant subsequent approvals for the commercial cultivation of Bt cotton in other parts of India. GEAC has further violated the Rules of 1989 by not supervising and effectively monitoring the implementation of the terms and conditions stipulated by it in the approvals.

The above facts clearly constitute both failure and contravention of the provisions of the EPA Act, 1986 and Rules of 1989, making the members of GEAC liable for commission of an offence. The GEAC’s actions are against the environment, the livelihoods of farmers and the overall interest of the nation.

The Central Government should ask all the authorities under the Rules of 1989, to furnish complete statistics, data and reports of the field trials, risk assessment and comprehensive biosafety studies under section 20 of the Act , and make it public. Transparency on these matters is of critical importance and is the need of the hour.

I am sending this notice to you to lodge a complaint against the persons responsible in the GEAC for commission of the offence.

Iam sending a copy of this notice to Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India, Sri A Raja, Minister for Environment and Forest, Sri Sharad Pawar, Minister for Agriculture and Sri Kapil Sibal, Minister for Science & Technology, for urgent action as any further delay will jeopardize further the livelihoods of farmers and the national interest.

Sincerely
Dr Suman Sahai
Gene Campaign

Enclosures

1. Kranthi, KR., Naidu, S., Dhawad, C.S., Tatwawadi A., Mate. K., Patil, E., Bharose A.A. Behera, G.T., Wadaskar R. M., Kranthi S., (2005) Temporal intra-plant variability of Cry1Ac expression in Bt- cotton and its influence on the survival of the cotton bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera), Current Science, Vol. 89, No.2, July 25, pp291-298

2. Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur, Annual Progress Report 2002-2003 http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/cicr0203.doc

3. Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur, Annual Progress Report 2004-2005 http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/cicr0405.doc

4. Web page, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, Accessed on 03 August 2005 http://www.envfor.nic.in/divisions/csurv/geac/othinfo.html

5. Sahai S., (2002) Sowing Disaster’s Seeds, Outlook, June 3, pp53

6. Sahai S., Rahman, S., (2005) Field Study of Bt cotton performance in Andhra Pradesh 2004-2005: Mahyco-Monsanto fails again, illegal varieties rampant. www.genecampaign.org

7. Sahai, S., Rahman S., (2004) Bt Cotton , 2003-2004; Fields swamped with Illegal Variants, Economic and Political Weekly, June 24, pp2673-2674

8. Sahai, S., Rahman S., (2003) Performance of Bt Cotton; Data from First Commercial Crop, Economic and Political Weekly, July 26, pp3139-3141