1.The Busy American: Nina Fedoroff lobbies hard in New Delhi
2.Why Jairam is right
3.Jairam Ramesh hits back at scientists for Bt brinjal criticism
4.Questioning of Democratic Decision-Making on Bt Brinjal Unfortunate
NOTE: After the failure of US and GM industry lobbying (item 1), the industry and its political and scientific supporters are staging a very nasty backlash, involving attacks not just on the Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, who's decided on a moratorium, but attacks on scientists (both Indian and overseas) who've raised concerns about Bt brinjal. According to Ramesh, "I have independent reports from ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research) scientists that those who raised even mild queries on introduction of Bt brinjal are now being harassed".
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/more-brawl-over-bt-brinjal/385472/
---
---
1.The Busy American
Nina Fedoroff lobbies hard in New Delhi
SHANTANU GUHA RAY
Tehelka Magazine, Vol 7, Issue 07, Dated February 20 2010
http://ow.ly/16FYa
IF SHE was asked what messed the show, Nina Fedoroff, Science and Technology Adviser to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, would surely blame it on the blizzard that delayed her flight. As a result, she got a few hours to lobby for genetically modified (GM) crops in the Indian Capital. If she had arrived on time, Fedoroff would have got a day and a half out of her visit, whose schedule was coordinated by the office of Knowledge Commission Chairman Sam Pitroda.
Around the time when Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh announced a moratorium on Bt brinjal, Fedoroff dropped in on Planning Commission Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, regarded as belonging to a section of government favourably disposed towards genetically modified crops. Ahluwalia merely said they discussed “agricultural issues”.
Fedoroff is a strong votary of GM crops, to the extent of being regarded as a spokesperson for US seed multinationals like Monsanto, the principle purveyors of GM seeds. Fedoroff had famously told The New York Times in 2008 that only GM technology could feed the world and became a target for sustainable farming enthusiasts worldwide. She followed up her that statement by telling a group of US agri-scientists that although Europe and Japan were averse to GM foods, Africa and India were clamouring for them and couldn’t wait for Europe to make up its mind. Fedoroff has also co-authored a book in favour of GM foods, titled Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Foods.
Highly-placed sources told TEHELKA that Fedoroff was also scheduled to meet Science and Technology Minister Prithviraj Chauhan, another strong votary of Bt brinjal, but it fell through. Her meeting with anti-GM activist Vandana Shiva did not work out either. Fedoroff eventually met up with some scientists. That was at 1500 hours, at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology. By then, the moratorium had been announced. No one knows if she is still blaming the weather for those lost hours.
---
---
2.Why Jairam is right
Sunita Narain
Business Standard, February 12 2010
http://www.business-standard.com//india/storypage.php?autono=385392
*The research isn't unequivocal and hasn't been publicly-funded either - given the concerns, it's not worth the risk
As I write this, the Union minister of environment and forests has decided to put the introduction of Bt brinjal on hold. Let me make my own bias clear. I am not an anti-GM-person; I have no ideological problems with the use of genetically modified technology to improve crop yield. But, I am definitely anti-Bt brinjal. My reasoning is as follows:
First, we are talking about brinjal: Genetically modifying, for the first time ever, a vegetable that is a common food item of near-daily use and that is sometimes eaten uncooked. So, we cannot compare such technology modification with that of Bt cotton, which is, at best, used as fodder or is processed to make cottonseed oil. Indeed, all other GM crops used widely across the world are either eaten in processed form (soya) or used after industrial refining (corn or rapeseed oil). Thus, in this case, simplistic correlations ”” that genetically modified crops are safe, or known to be so ”” cannot be applied.
Second, the jury is out and still arguing about the tests done to establish the safety of this genetically-modified vegetable vis-Ã -vis our health. The debate centres around two issues. One, whether enough has been done to study the chronic impact of this daily vegetable on our bodies and health. Two, who has done these studies.
The studies by Monsanto-Mahyco, the owner company, show most tests have been conducted on acute toxicity, a lethal dose of 50 or more ”” a dose at which there would be mortality of 50 per cent or more. The company has also done studies on allergic reactions and skin irritation. On the other hand, studies on sub-chronic toxicity are few ”” 90 days on rats, rabbits and goats. The question that emerges is: Are the studies good enough to understand the long-term impact of ingesting Bt brinjal? The company says yes, maintaining 90 rat days are roughly equivalent to 20-21 human years. Opposing scientists say no, the chronic impacts need a different protocol of study.
Furthermore, there is still the open issue of how the Cry1Ac toxin breaks down in food and in our bodies. The company says it has data to show the protein breaks down in cooked food and in our digestive system, but admits it remains active in an alkaline medium. The opposing view is that brinjal is often eaten raw and that even our digestive system is mildly alkaline. The jury, as I said, is still out.
Another big issue is whether you and I, who are going to eat this vegetable, can “trust” the research that has largely been conducted by the company that stands to gain the most if the go-ahead is given. Currently, all research is funded by companies and then presented to regulators for clearance. This leads to an enormous lack of credibility ”” people do not believe what the companies say has been done. And, given the horrific and scandalous track record of private research misguiding policy in the case of drugs or food, why should this be surprising? It is clear we need a new system: Research must be publicly funded and openly scrutinised. The money must come from companies, but in the form of a cess collected into a fund. Without that, even good research will be tainted by bad public faith.
My third reason for rejecting Bt brinjal is more basic and fundamental. In fact, I want the right to decide if I want to eat Bt brinjal or not. But India has no labelling system to distinguish the GM-hybrid from its lowly, ordinary cousin. You and I will have no choice. Furthermore, it is virtually impossible to set up a labelling system for a vegetable in a country of the size of India, where tests would have to be done on the farms of GM and non-GM crop growers.
Labelling also demands the country must have a laboratory network and a functioning regulatory system, so that GM content can be analysed and conveyed to consumers. This is far from the set-up that we have in the country. Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), for instance, tried to get edible oil checked for GM traces but was turned away by most laboratories in India: they could not carry out the tests or had limited facilities; the tests were prohibitively expensive or not possible. Bt brinjal, therefore, causes the similar problem of wanting "modern" technology without “modern” facilities to ensure safety and regulation ”” the same deadly combination.
Over and above this, there are concerns about what this "foreign” introduction will do to the biodiversity of brinjal ”” India is the centre of origin of this vegetable, with as many as 2,500 varieties grown here. While the company's scientists say Bt brinjal will not contaminate other varieties, research also shows that cross-pollination is definitely possible. Can we risk losing these staples ”” long, short, round or twisted ”” from our table?
To me, the outcome is clear: Bt brinjal is not worth the risk and the uncertainty that it causes. This is not a verdict on GM crops. It is a demand for a choice: To eat or not to eat. The minister's decision must be supported.
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
---
---
3.Jairam Ramesh hits back at scientists for Bt brinjal criticism
Kalpana Jain / New Delhi
Business Standard, February 12 2010
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/jairam-ramesh-hits-back-at-scientists-for-bt-brinjal-criticism/385471/
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh today hit back at scientists who had accused him of holding biased public consultations on Bt brinjal. He said Vikram Sarabhai and Satish Dhawan, the two science stalwarts of India, would not have behaved in similar manner.
"My conscience is clear. I have listened to all points of view,” said Ramesh. He has come under criticism from a section of the scientific community for putting on hold commercialisation of Bt brinjal.
"Scientists are not Gods,” he told Business Standard, refusing to accept as final the word of GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee), a statutory body. Some GEAC members have been accused of ignoring conflict of interest issues, even as they took a critical decision of approving Bt brinjal for commercial cultivation.
“I’ve not opened my mouth on conflict of interest issues,” said Ramesh. He did not mention some committees in the ministry which had to be reconstituted as they had direct conflict of interest issues in power and mining, two critical sectors that require environmental clearances. A comment from a scientist, strongly in favour of Bt brinjal cultivation, urged the government to accept the work of India’s agriculture universities and a “private partner, who is equally committed”. “The scientists involved in generating the ECII (expert committee II) report are outstanding and internationally recognized for their contribution,” he said.
Scientists in ECII had voiced concern over the long-term effects of Bt technology in food crops.
Vasantha Muthuswamy, a former scientist with the Indian Council of Medical Research, said: “Our collective wisdom is limited on recombinant technology. Therefore, we are treading carefully. Decisions have been based on current evidence in science. But we must have a system of post-marketing surveillance to assess health impacts.” Those familiar with the health systems know that post-marketing surveillance, even in the case of medicines, is poor and overall surveillance is virtually nil despite several efforts since the outbreak of plague in 1994 to put a comprehensive system in place.
Several top scientists, including Green Revolution scientist M S Swaminathan opposed the introduction of Bt brinjal without further testing.
"Is M S Swaminathan not a scientist? Is Pushpa Bhargava, who set up the department of biotechnology not a scientist.” the minister asked.
As for the road map ahead, he said: "An independent regulatory body needs to be set up, a consensus is needed on the tests required, the duration of those tests and where they are to be conducted." Also, the moratorium period should be used to "get politics right". Asked to suggest a timeline for this actions, Ramesh said: "It'll take a few years. What’s wrong with waiting?"
---
---
4.Questioning of Democratic Decision-Making on Bt Brinjal Unfortunate
Orissa Diary, February 12 2010
http://orissadiary.com/CurrentNews.asp?id=16719
Bhubaneswar (Orissa): A spate of reports in the past two days citing various scientists and others targeted at the Bt Brinjal decision-making process by Jairam Ramesh is very unfortunate and unacceptable. UNCAGE condemns such malicious campaigns by biotech proponents and their PR agencies. It is unfair that democratic processes in which thousands of citizens participated, including hundreds of scientists of the country, were being discounted and the outcome being questioned.
While there could certainly be shortcomings in the decision-making processes and while there could be different views on the decision made by the Minister for Environment & Forests, it is important to uphold democratic decision-making on an important issue pertaining to the seed and food sovereignty of the nation.
While agreeing that Jairam Ramesh’s consultation processes as well as his decision fell short of an ideal situation that a majority of people wanted, these consultation processes were a first-of-its-kind, in line with India’s Cartagena Protocol commitments.
“It is unfortunate that certain scientists are insinuating that some sort of gate-keeping was done to keep them and their voices out of the consultation how is that even possible? Is it possible to appoint some people at each consultation venue to recognize who is coming, whose stand is what and then keep a select set of people out?
The people who got a chance to speak were picked up randomly and quite a few scientists and civil society activists and even farmers who spent their hard earned money to take part in the consultations did not get a chance to speak.
However, this cannot be used to insinuate that gate-keeping was happening to keep out "dissenting voices", said Kavitha Kuruganti, member of Coalition for GM Free India, of which UNCAGE is a part.
She pointed out that several well known biotech proponents spoke in all these consultations and had as much a chance as others to voice their views. In fact, the Minister specially invited some people like Dr K C Bansal of IARI, Dr Balasubramanian of TNAU, Mahyco's MD Dr M K Sharma etc., to speak. In Bhubaneswar too three scientists aired their positive views on Bt Brinjal without being harassed in any manner.
Reacting to the prominent front page story this morning of a English national daily saying that “scientists” slam ‘key study’ behind Bt Brinjal ban, we point out that everyone knew that Seralini only did an independent analysis of Mahyco’s Bt Brinjal biosafety dossier. This was the first time ever anyone studied the data independently since even the regulators had not bothered to do so earlier. Even the MoEF note on Bt Brinjal on February 9th 2010 calls it a “report” that the Minister received, which it is. Therefore, to wrongly call it as a ‘Study’ and then to have a story that points out that it is not a ‘Study’ is just misleading.
Coming to Prof Seralini’s work, while the ECII (Expert Committee II on Bt Brinjal) relied on dated papers and unpublished papers from Monsanto wherever it suited them to take their decision in favor of Bt Brinjal’s release, one of the most recent scientific papers on GMO safety and safety evaluation is from December 2009, where Prof Seralini and his team have published a paper in the prestigious International Journal of Biological Sciences. This published paper illustrates how deeper and different safety evaluation actually shows the unsafe nature of 3 GMOs that have been approved in the past.
Prof Radhamohan of UNCAGE pointed out that after a majority of people including farmers, scientists, civil society representatives, medical professionals and others expressed their concerns and views against Bt Brinjal in the consultations, after more than eleven states have written to the Centre saying NO to Bt Brinjal’s approval at this point of time, after both the Supreme Court observers in the apex regulatory body have written to Jairam Ramesh against its approval and after scores of experts from India and abroad have also written to him cautioning against an approval, what choice did the Minister have?
While the Coalition would have liked him to reject Bt Brinjal on the simple precautionary grounds that this controversial product is unneeded given safer and sustainable alternatives and knowing that Genetic Engineering in our food and farming is inherently hazardous, it expressed its appreciation of the Minister’s difficult position while coming up with his decision and said that it hopes that the Minister will now address more fundamental issues around GM crops in Indian food and farming systems.