NEWS FROM INDIA
1.GEAC under pressure to vet GM food imports
2.Sheep death: the truth revealed
---
---
1.GEAC under pressure to vet GM food imports
ASHOK B SHARMA
Financial Express, June 26 2008
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/GEAC-under-pressure-to-vet-GM-food-imports/ 327507/0

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) [India's apex GM regulator] is now under pressure to check illegal imports of GM food. Greenpeace India has revealed that the Dorito's Cool Ranch Corn chips manufactured by Frito Lays Inc for US Pepsico and imported into the country contained GM ingredients.

The GEAC in its 86th meeting. on Wednesday, spent considerable time on deliberating on this issue. Greenpeace was specially invited to present its findings and tests it had conducted through an independent laboratory in Germany on imported food picked up randomly from a super market store in Delhi.

The analytical report from Eurofins (Gene Scan) submitted by Greenpeace India revealed that the corn chips had the presence of GM ingredients like Roundup Ready Soybean in addition to MaxGard Maize (MON-863) and Roundup Ready (NK-603) Maize. “We noted that the analytical report indicated the limit of detection (LoD) of the method is 0.01%. It does not indicate the percentage of GM content in the sample," said one senior official of the GEAC.

The GEAC decided that it would conduct further tests on the imported samples through an independent agency.

India has so far approved only GM cotton for commercial cultivation and not any other crops. Hence, commercial presence of any GM food in the country is illegal. Illegal imports of GM food is in violation of the Rules, 1989 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The annual amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy made in April 2006 clearly said that no GM products which are not properly labeled as such should be imported. The Union commerce ministry also issued a notification that violation of provision by importers would attract penal action under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

However, the implementation order was withheld on the pretext that appropriate guidelines for implementation need to be approved. The Union ministry of health took the initiative in forming a core group of stakeholders to finalise the guidelines.

The core group already submitted its report on mandatory labeling of GM food within a year and the government has not yet taken any decision on the group’s recommendations. In the previous year, the GEAC gave its approval to the imports of oils extracted from GM soybeans without any label and restrictions.

A new Food Safety and Standards Authority has been set up after the enactment of a new law. But the authority is yet to become functional till date it has no members, but only a chairman. Hence, as of now, it is the responsibility of GEAC and the health ministry under PFA Act to regulate illegal GM food.

Greenpeace India in this context has asked for immediate recall of illegal GM food in the market to prevent any health or environmental hazards.
---
---
2.Sheep death: the truth revealed
R. PRASAD
The Hindu, June 26 2008
http://www.hindu.com/seta/2008/06/26/stories/2008062650021500.htm

The Supreme Court nominee to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Dr. P.M. Bhargava, has called the bluff of the committee. It had attributed the sheep death in Andhra Pradesh two years ago to nothing connected to the sheep grazing on Bt cotton leaves.

The GEAC had concluded that the death might have been due to high content of nitrates/nitrites, residues of hydrocyanide (HCN) and organophosphates, which are common constituents of pesticides used in cotton cultivation. It had in effect given a clean chit to Bt cotton.

The GEAC's observations were based on the two reports ”” one from the Directorate of Animal Husbandry based in Hyderabad and the other from the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh. It also noted that the Andhra Pradesh State Government had examined the issue.

The contradiction

However, Dr. Bhargava, had found the reports of the two institutes as also the State Government's letter totally contradicting the GEAC's version. For instance, the State Government's letter to the GEAC had stated that the samples were "negative for HCN, Nitrates, Nitrites, Alkaloids and Glycocide.”

Even the report from the Veterinary Research Institute, U.P. had clearly stated that the Bt cotton samples did not show the presence of HCN, Nitrate/Nitrite, Alkaloids and Glycocides. And in a communication to the GEAC last month, Dr. Bhargava had contested the committee's version on HCN and noted that "HCN is not a common constituent of any pesticide.”

Apart from the cause of death, the GEAC had stated that "”¦ prior to the release of Bt cotton in India, a battery of studies to assess the safety of Bt toxin to the environment and animals was conducted.”

"This is not true as well," noted Dr. Bhargava. For instance, the letter from the Andhra Pradesh Government had observed that "”¦the biosafety studies were not taken up in sheep and also trials did not include continuous grazing/feeding of complete Bt cotton plants by animals."

No safety data

Even the letter from the Sri Venkateshwara University, Andhra Pradesh, which was made available to Dr. Bhargava by the GEAC, contradicts the committee's version. The letter clearly notes that "the biosafety studies on grazing on Bt cotton crop by sheep are lacking."

The letter from the Andhra Pradesh Government had also stated that "”¦the biosafety studies were not taken up in sheep and also trials did not include continuous grazing/ feeding of complete Bt cotton plants to animals.” The letter then went on to suggest that “”¦ biosafety studies should be on applied aspects like continuous grazing of animals on harvested or intact Bt cotton plants.”

“So there is enough reason to say that no serious studies have been done to ensure the safety of Bt cotton in animals,” Dr. Bhargava emphasized.

And in a communication to the GEAC last month, Dr. Bhargava had stated based on the all the reports that “this would be a major argument to suspend all cultivation of Bt cotton until we have definitive data on the toxicity of Bt plants to animals on field.”