1.India's citizens reclaim democratic process on GMOs
2.Documents available so far
3.Background by Aruna Rodrigues
---
---
1.India's citizens reclaim democratic process on GMOs

Ever felt that the approval of GM crops and foods by GM 'regulators' across the world has lacked transparency, due democratic process, and scientific rigour?

Then take a look at India for a lesson in how we can begin to take back the power we've given away to corporations and their bought-and-owned politicians and scientists.

Over the past week we've put onto our website (http://www.gmwatch.org/ - Latest News) a stack of documents from independent scientists and other experts submitted to the Indian government, commenting on its Expert Committee's (EC II) recent approval for commercialisation of GM Bt brinjal (aubergine/eggplant).

The approval process appeared to be based on junk science generated by the GM company Mahyco (a subsidiary of Monsanto), who created the GM Bt brinjal in question. Their data was not made fully public or independently evaluated.

When the approval announcement met with public outcry, the Minister for the Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, intervened and launched a public consultation and review process.

In response, a group of citizens, independent scientists, and other experts stepped into the knowledge gap to shine a light on the questions and problems around Bt brinjal that Mahyco and its friends in the Indian government didn't want the public to know about.

For example, Aruna Rodrigues (lead petitioner in the GM Public Interest Lawsuit in the Supreme Court), with members of civil society, has set up an Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel in an extra-governmental process to do the job that the 'regulator' failed to do.

We'll continue to put more documents up as they come in.
---
---
2.Documents available so far

Is this what Indians should be trusting? The story of the Expert Committee that recommended Bt Brinjal Kavitha Kuruganti
http://bit.ly/d1W17V

Response to conclusions of the Expert Committee on Bt Brinjal - microbiologist Dr Johannes Manjrekar
http://bit.ly/bzVN2V

Health effects and risks of Bt foods/Conflicts of interest in Bt brinjal approval - health professionals' letter to minister
http://bit.ly/cIsaXN

Why Bt brinjal should not be allowed into the food supply - Immunologist and biologist Dr David Schubert
http://bit.ly/c7cRjI

Effects on health of transgenic Bt brinjal - CRIIGEN member Dr Joël Spiroux de Vendômois, MD
http://bit.ly/b7dXAd

Bt brinjal health risks - Dr Arpad Pusztai
http://bit.ly/bFziyy

No long-term safety research on Bt brinjal - Letter to Indian Council of Medical Research from Aruna Rodrigues
http://bit.ly/9lVs88

Mealy Bug Plagues Bt Cotton in India and Pakistan: The new menace that came with Bt cotton Dr Mae-Wan Ho
http://bit.ly/cKJ5c8

Bt cotton and livestock: health impacts - Dr Sagari R Ramdas (paper)
http://bit.ly/aTL1ho

Bt cotton and livestock deaths: Letter from Sagari R Ramdas to environment minister
http://bit.ly/cWJcYf

Bt brinjal and absence of safety testing - addendum from Dr Sagari R Ramdas
http://bit.ly/bO1l4Q

Molecular characterization of Bt brinjal "inadequate", results "unpredictable" - genetic engineer Dr David Williams
http://bit.ly/bO2f9h

Comment on the risk assessment of Bt brinjal - Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman
http://bit.ly/by1OFl

Bt brinjal analysis "too poorly conducted" to assume safety - Prof Jack Heinemann - Part I
http://bit.ly/ct9rPc

Bt brinjal analysis "too poorly conducted" to assume safety - Prof Jack Heinemann - Part II
http://bit.ly/cT2wrP

Risk assessment of toxins derived from Bt - important peer reviewed study Christoph Then
http://bit.ly/a3ngla

Response to Expert Committee on Bt brinjal - Kavitha Kuruganti - Part I
http://bit.ly/agV18j

Response to Expert Committee on Bt brinjal - Kavitha Kuruganti - Part II
http://bit.ly/9Nt3hN

Response to Expert Committee on Bt brinjal - Kavitha Kuruganti - Part III
http://bit.ly/8XTbXN

Response to Expert Committee on Bt brinjal - Kavitha Kuruganti - Part IV
http://bit.ly/aNMOD8

Appeal by farmers' group representative on Bt brinjal to minister
http://bit.ly/9tyY5Q

"GM Facts" from farmers' group representative to environment minister
http://bit.ly/dDnfcQ

Organic cotton contaminated by GM cotton
http://bit.ly/bEmete

Non-GM soy contaminated by GM cotton and export impact
http://bit.ly/c60XoZ
---
---
3.Background by Aruna Rodrigues

Aruna Rodrigues (lead petitioner in the GM Public Interest Lawsuit in the Supreme Court) explains what happened in the lead-up to this massive democratic initiative:

On 14 October 2009 the Bt Brinjal Expert Committee II Report (EC II R), dated 8 October 2009 was tabled at a meeting of India's GM Regulator, the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee). The GEAC accepted the recommendations of the Bt brinjal EC II R and approved the commercialisation of Bt brinjal, Event EE1, with three abstentions, including Dr Pushpa Bhargava.  

On 15 October 2009, the Minister of Environment and Forests, the Honourable Shri Jairam Ramesh, intervened to stop the approval process of Bt brinjal because of the nationwide criticism of the EC II Report and the haste with which the GEAC gave its approval. Shri Jairam Ramesh acted immediately to put the EC II R on the Ministry Website and invited documented responses to the EC II R by the end of December 2009.  
 
This deadline could not be maintained. The submissions will continue to come in until the end of January.

The other half of the review process instituted by Jairam Ramesh was the Public Consultation. This is now in process.
 
Purpose of the Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel  (SPRP)
 
On 3 November, Aruna Rodrigues (lead petitioner in the GM Public Interest Lawsuit in the Supreme Court), in a meeting with Shri Jairam Ramesh, suggested a formula of peer review of the EC II Report in order to “Provide the Minister with a level of confidence that questions of a scientific and technical nature have or have not been adequately addressed by the EC II Report, in justification of its recommendation for the commercial planting of Bt brinjal."
 
That proposal by Aruna Rodrigues, with its members and the basis and rationale for their selection, was accepted by the Minister.

The scientists were selected for their expertise and experience in specific disciplines of science, to enable the 'Panel' to fulfil its purpose and objective. National boundaries were not felt to be a limiting factor, but care has been taken to ensure that a necessary balance has been exercised. The selection criteria also require the scientists to be 'independent' and with no industry links. It is called the Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel  (SPRP).

The members of SPRP have been carefully selected and are eminent. Their combined expertise covers the spectrum of the main issues involved. They are also independent, with the exception of Dr MS Swaminathan, who is a long time patron of ISAAA, the lobby group funded by biotech to promote GM crops, with India as a focus. He is the government nominee, however, accepted by the Supreme Court along with Dr Pushpa Bhargava as independent observers of and invitees to the GEAC Meetings. Therefore the argument for his presence on the Panel was accepted by us. However, in view of the fact that it is not being convened by the government, Dr Vishwa Mohan Katoch, a serving bureaucrat and Director General of the ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research), has declined and so also has Dr. MS Swaminathan. The members now are:
   
The Scientific Peer Review Panel members:
* Prof. Sissel Rogne - Chairperson
* Dr Pushpa M Bhargava - Molecular Biologist: SC Invitee to the GEAC Meetings (Nominee: civil society)
* Dr MS Chari Agricultural scientist, NPM/IPM
* Prof: Terje Travik - Health Impacts                  
* Prof. David Andow - Environmental Impacts
 
We were promised genuine transparency, no conflicts of interest, and proper processes for reporting and analyses. As far as I am concerned, one half of this process is the vital process of work by the Scientific Peer Review Panel (SPRP). By the end of December, when there was still no sign of any move by the Ministry of E & F to convene the Panel, I informed the Minister that civil society would convene it. I said in an email to JR Ramesh:

"I'd like to emphasise that the process of submissions from scientists that you have initiated, is unique, of great importance and lasting value. As a result, we will receive responses from some of the most eminent scientists in the world, based on good will, and free work for India. This is truly amazing and reflects the importance of India, the importance of GM crops with their enormous implications and a truly altruistic concern on the part of scientists who are by and large, not known to us personally. It is vital that the biosafety issues of the EC II Report are properly assessed in the light of this documentation. The SPRP, as an independent panel, is our best insurance for that proper process and will provide you the level of confidence you need for a well judged decision on Bt brinjal. Furthermore, the SPRP analyses and recommendations must serve as a permanent record to guide the emergence of a biosafety and risk assessment protocol for GM crops that is stringent,
independent, transparent and exemplary. Only then will it instill confidence that India's national interest of biosafety and food security are paramount with the government and are being well served. Therefore, we may not let go of such an opportunity. Please take it to its logical conclusion."

I did not receive a reply and so now this is the process that we have kicked into operation. We will receive maybe around 25 submissions altogether, responding to the Minister's call and essentially replying to the Bt brinjal ECII Report. The valuable thing is that these reports also cover GMOs, not just Bt Brinjal. So they will be of use everywhere.
 
They include the ORIGINAL four (Doug Gurian-Sherman, Jack Heinemann; Judy Carman and Gilles-Eric Seralini) who had responded to Monsanto's Dossier (published on the Ministry website in Aug 08, finally complying with the Supreme Court Order of 18 months previously). The Bt Brinjal ECII Report responded to these critiques by essentially dismissing them out of hand.