1.'Third war of independence averted'
2.Consumers should have choice on Bt brinjal
3.Chavan puts weight behind bt brinjal, says it is safe

NOTE: Chavan (item 3) is the same minister who put out Government statements quoting biotech industry propaganda verbatim: http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264220

EXTRACT: Dr Bhargava: "The biggest lesson is that we showed up the people who are trying to sell our country... it is a declaration of India's independence."
---
---
1.'Third war of independence averted'
R Akhileshwari
Deccan Herald, 14 February 2010
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/52512/third-war-independence-averted.html

Dr P M Bhargava, one of the most unrelenting opponents of the commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal in India, believes that last week’s decision of the Centre makes the third war of Independence by India unnecessary.

"The first war was in 1857 which we lost; the second one we won and got independence. We would have had to fight the third war of independence if Bt brinjal cultivation was given the go-ahead. We needn't fight it now," he said in an interview here.

Dr Bhargava, who was nominated to the biotech regulator, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee by the Supreme Court, has been a vocal proponent of people-oriented science, research and policies. Founder of the Hyderabad-based pioneering Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Dr Bhargava has been at the forefront of the fight against Bt crops and particularly Bt brinjal for the past few years.

He is all praise for Union Minister Jairam Ramesh, who he says showed 'very rare courage' in rejecting commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal.

“The decision is unparalleled and fantastic. His statement is extraordinary. It addresses all concerns voiced,” he said. The credit goes partly to Jairam and partly to the Ahmedabad-based Centre for Environment Education set up by the Sarabhai family that took the lead in the debate around Bt brinjal.

Asked about the message sent out to the world at large and especially to American MNCs that see India as a huge opportunity to exploit to fill their already overflowing coffers, Dr Bhargava said India has shown to the world that it would not be tied to the apron strings of the US or its MNCs. "We have shown the world that India takes decisions on the basis of the country's interests," he said.

Unity of vested interests

Does he agree that there is a nexus between vested American interests and the Indian establishment, Dr Bhargava said, "Nexus is certainly there... (between American MNCs and) a large section of politicians, bureaucrats and rich people whose commitment is not to the country but to make money."

So, what are the implications of India's decision? "It is a setback to irresponsible GM technology. People won't get away with murder under the banner of GM. I am not saying all GM technology is bad considering its uses in medical field but in food and agriculture, a lot needs to be done before it is accepted."

Dr Bhargava recommended that the GEAC and the technical committees such as Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation should be dissolved and in their place an independent committee be set up with people and experts who command credibility and have no vested interests in genetic engineering. To continue further research and long-term research that is needed to show up the impact of Bt technology on people, a network of organisations is needed considering that at present all tests are done by Monsanto and its affiliates like Mahyco. An extraordinary coalition that cut across political ideologies, social and economic thought and beliefs and affiliations came together to oppose Bt brinjal. "Clearly, we need to consolidate this network and work for the security and independence of India, setting aside party/narrow ideologies," he said.

Biggest lesson

This chapter in India's history has a few lessons for some among us, Dr Bhargava said. "The biggest lesson is that we showed up the people who are trying to sell our country.    Another lesson is that in the end, truth always wins”¦In short, it is a declaration of India's independence," he said.
---
---
2.Consumers should have choice on Bt brinjal
Times of India, 14 February 2010
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-toi/all-that-matters/Consumers-should-have-choice-on-Bt-brinjal/articleshow/5570673.cms

Jairam Ramesh, the Union minister for environment and forests, has agreed to put Bt brinjal on hold. I believe this is the right and only decision that he could have taken

The fact is that we are not talking about a new technology of genetic modification here. We are talking about its use in a daily-use vegetable, cooked in our homes. Let us understand that Bt brinjal, if permitted would have been the world’s first genetically modified vegetable. It is therefore completely erroneous to argue that Bt brinjal should be cleared because the world is already growing genetically modified plants and believe these are safe.

Bt cotton for instance, is not eaten directly by us. Even genetically modified food crops like corn, soya or rapeseed are processed before they are eaten. The world has virtually no experience of the long-term health implications of a genetically modified vegetable like brinjal, eaten often and sometimes raw in our homes. Caution, indeed precaution, is therefore needed.

If we accept this, then we must also understand that the jury is out and still arguing about the tests done to establish the safety of this gene-modified vegetable on our health.

The studies by Monsanto-Mahyco ”” the owner company ”” show the bulk have looked at acute toxicity, a lethal dose 50 or more, a dose at which there would be mortality of 50% 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 impacts 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. This is also complicated by the fact that brinjal has several natural toxins, which could resurface when the metabolism is disturbed.

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.

The Bt brinjal matter also raises other issues of concern. First, there is the critical issue of independence of research. Who does the research, which is then used to assess and clear the food as safe to eat? Currently, it is the company, in this case Monsanto-Mahyco, which carries out the research and presents the data to the regulator. Given the tremendous lack of credibility of food, drug and agri-business companies, the question is: can we trust this research?

The situation gets worse as even public institutions, like the agricultural universities get involved with private partnerships for research. It is then difficult to find researchers without conflict of interest. And it is difficult to assess if we can believe what we are told. And remember these are all matters of our body, our health and our environment.

Second, there is the critical question of the loss of biodiversity because of the release of genetically modified plants into the environment. In this case, just consider what is at stake. India is the world’s centre of origin for brinjal; we have enormous diversity of this crop ”” 2,000 known and recorded varieties are grown differently across the country. Just think of the number of varieties that make it to your kitchen. There is a real threat that this diversity could be lost, as Bt brinjal would contaminate other crops or simply wipe them out. Is this acceptable?

Third, there are unresolved and critical issues of the control of seeds in the hands of farmers with the introduction of such monopolized technologies. As in the case of Bt cotton, there is little public research on varieties, rather than hybrids, where farmers can reuse the seeds. The Seed Bill is in Parliament. It must be discussed to ensure farmers control and diversity.

Fourth, there is the simple issue of choice. After all, as consumers we must be allowed to decide if we want to eat Bt brinjal or not. The problem is three-fold. One, we do not even have a labeling system to distinguish and inform us of the GM content in the processed imported foodstuff we may already be eating. Some years ago, a notification to mandate labeling was prepared, but it remains a draft, lost somewhere in the stillborn Food Safety and Standards Authority.

Second, we don’t have the laboratory capabilities at the scale needed to check our foods for contamination. Thirdly, it is difficult and expensive to test for Bt in food. So, once introduced, we will have no choice but to eat Bt brinjal, like it or not.

Now the challenge is that before the next genetically modified crop comes calling for approval, the system to safeguard our health must be put in place. There is no other choice.

Sunita Narain is director of Centre for Science and Environment
---
---
3.Chavan puts weight behind bt brinjal, says it is safe
Hindustan Times, 14 Feb 2010
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Chavan-puts-weight-behind-Bt-brinjal/H1-Article1-508628.aspx        

Four days after environment minister Jairam Ramesh put a moratorium on the commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal, Union Science and Technology Minister Prithviraj Chavan on Saturday said that the genetically modified vegetable was safe as per the research.

Chavan, who is himself a scientist, said emotions should be kept away from scientific merit.

"This whole exercise has been done in nine years. Scientists have studied the whole structure completely and are completely satisfied that Bt brinjal is safe for human consumption," he told reporters when asked about the controversy over Bt brinjal.

Chavan was speaking following the signing of the second bilateral India-UK Science and Innovation Council collaboration agreement on civil nuclear energy, health, water and food production.

"Depending on what scientists have done over a period of time, we are satisfied. If you go by science, Bt brinjal is safe," said Chavan. "We will have a debate in a scientific manner. My only request is that don't emotionalise the issue. Let's discuss the issue on scientific merit alone."

"Definitive answers, you will have to wait for the parliament. Let me tell you that we stand by the system of bio-safety checks we have put in place. It begins at institutional level," he said.

Chavan emphasised on setting up of a regulatory authority for the bio-safety standards. The government has initiated the process for setting up of National Bio-Technology Regulatory Authority.

Research on the genetic-modified varieties are done at the Department of Science and Technology labs where safety issues are examined. Then they go to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, which is the apex agency for giving permission for commercial cultivation of the crops.

The GEAC had given approval for the commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal last October.

“I am not saying more or less. They (GEAC) have cleared it. There is no more or less to it,” he said to a question.