1.GM crops are just a red herring
2.A Law Unto Itself
3.Criticising GM crops may land you in jail
4.Biotech regulation bill will gag media, activists

NOTE: The second article (A Law Unto Itself) contains a very useful point by point summary of some of the main concerns arising out of India's Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill drafted by the Department of Biotechnology.

* Main aim is to create a single-window clearing-house for GM foods/crops
* Planned regulatory authority to have overarching powers over state governments, existing laws
* No room for farmers or civil society in approval process
* Penal action for raising objection without scientific evidence
* No independent risk assessment of data submitted to the authority
* No provision for revoking approvals, inadequate liability clause
* No informed choice for consumers through mandatory labelling

The press release (item 1) sees the bill as part of a two-pronged assault aimed at imposing GM crops without adequate public and scientific consideration. The first prong is the hyping of GM crops as a vital option for food security. This not only aims to lower regulatory barriers but allows politicians and bureaucrats to pose as embracing progressive "solutions" without addressing the real problems.

EXTRACTS: "They are behaving like a vendor instead of a regulator," Pushpa M Bhargava, a member nominated by the Supreme Court to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). (item 3)

"The Bill is undemocratic and unconstitutional. It will legalise food colonialism," said Umendra Dutt of Kheti Virasat Mission. Social activist Hemant Goswami pointed out, "The proposed Bill does not have any provision to punish corporates and people who conceal adverse effects of genetically modified organisms and food." (item 4)

Like the Bt brinjal moratorium - when public and scientific communities' voices found space - it is crucial that health and bio-safety concerns are addressed before the bill becomes law. But science or no science, the "draconian" parts of the bill highlights a greater need for debate and thought. Let's not rush this through. (item 2)

"There is a blind and fanatic belief about GM crops being a solution to the problem of food security which is certainly not based on sound scientific facts... Dr Kranthi's paper incorporated into the Environment Minister's decision-note on Bt Brinjal shows that insecticide use in cotton is actually going up and yields are on the decline. While GM crops pose inherent problems, the unscientific and unsubstantiated hype about the benefits (that too picked up from industry publicity materials), is proving to be a red herring and a wasteful diversion of resources away from sustainable, farmer-led technologies", said Kavitha Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab. (item 1)
---
---
1.GM CROPS ARE JUST A RED HERRING:
TIME THE GOVT. ADDRESSED FARMERS' REAL ISSUES WITH REAL SOLUTIONS
Press Release of Coalition for a GM-Free India, February 27 2010

New Delhi: Representatives of civil society groups from across the country addressed the media in the capital today denouncing the proposed Biotech Regulator Bill and the unsubstantiated hyping up of GM crops in the context of food security. They urged Members of Parliament to completely reject the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill drafted by the Department of Biotechnology. They termed it as 'a wrong bill by the wrong people for the wrong reasons'. They also questioned the Agriculture Ministry's and Science & Technology Ministry's hyping up of GM crops as an important option for food security and called it a red herring, diverting attention and resources from real issues and lasting solutions.

Speaking on the BRAI Bill, Dr Ramanjaneyulu of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (Hyderabad) said, "The veil of secrecy being built into BRAI and the undemocratic shaping of the proposed Biotech Regulator Bill are highly suspect; it is apparent that the agenda for setting up a regulator has already been hijacked. Promoters of GM crops cannot be regulators and the very need for a regulator arises from the express recognition of the risks associated with modern biotechnology. Since the proposed version of the Bill does not begin with this understanding and recognition, it is faulty and does not address the fundamental issues related to biosafety or biotechnology. What we need is a National Biosafety Protection Authority, to be housed in the Environment Ministry". The setting up of a comprehensive biosafety protection mechanism can't be a knee-jerk reaction and has to be well thought out, taking into account views of the various stakeholders (experts from various fields and the larger
public) keeping in view the long term interests of the nation and the people, he said.

"There is a blind and fanatic belief about GM crops being a solution to the problem of food security which is certainly not based on sound scientific facts; the haste with which the BRAI Bill is being introduced in the Parliament does not forebode well for the nation. The few countries which have adopted GM crops have begun to experience various adverse effects and therefore it is incumbent upon us to take abundant precaution while evolving a policy and regulatory mechanism. Data shows that the largest-cultivated GM crop in the world - GM soybean - has actually led to yield declines in countries like the USA (USDA data) even as they resulted in tremendous increase in the use of weedicides.  Further, latest CICR findings with Bt Cotton in the Southern Zone show that the hype around Bt Cotton and yield increases is unsubstantiated. Dr Kranthi's paper incorporated into the Environment Minister's decision-note on Bt Brinjal shows that insecticide use in cotton is actually going up and yields are on the decline. While GM crops pose inherent problems, the unscientific and unsubstantiated hype about the benefits (that too picked up from industry publicity materials), is proving to be a red herring and a wasteful diversion of resources away from sustainable, farmer-led technologies", said Kavitha Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab. She was reacting to the conclusion derived from the recent Prime Minister’s meeting with his cabinet colleagues on this issue which stated that "biotechnology is an important option for higher agricultural production and food security".

Speaking about the moratorium on Bt Brinjal, Sreedevi Lakshmi Kutty of Thanal in Kerala said, "Worldwide, more and more regions are opting to remain GM-Free. In fact, the hype around GM crops adoption spreading is limited to just GM Soy and GM Cotton that too in a few countries. In 2009, no new country allowed any GM crop in several countries which have allowed GM crops, there has been a decline in the GM crop area. In a situation like this, the Agriculture Minister and the S&T Minister seeking and exhorting to adopt GM crops is difficult to accept. The pressure on the Minister for Environment & Forests was unwarranted both around the democratic process that he conducted and the outcome of the process, where around 14 state governments took a stand against Bt Brinjal's approval, both the Supreme Court observers to the regulatory bodies advised against its approval and the scientific community in India showed its deep disagreement".

"The moratorium period cannot be decided arbitrarily and unscientifically. One of the reasons why the moratorium has been imposed is that there have been no independent and long term tests done on Bt Brinjal - if the experts who come together to decide on further tests decide on life time feeding studies in a rat model for instance, that would take at least three years, one assumes. For inter-generational studies, it should take longer. How can any arbitrary time period be fixed on this without first figuring out what further tests? It is also important to note that Mr Jairam Ramesh had made a note of NPM experience in Andhra Pradesh in his decision-note. However, this is being completely ignored amidst the hype about biotech crops, as though these proven alternatives do not exist. This has to be addressed squarely", said Selva Ganapathy of AID-Delhi.

Touching upon the failure of various legislations to protect farmers' rights in a matter like Bt Brinjal, Leo Saldanha of Environment Support Group (Bangalore) said, "The story of Bt Brinjal varieties developed under the ABSPII project is a classic case of appropriation of farmers’ rights by private corporations, using our public sector universities as the medium. In fundamental violation of the Biological Diversity Act, the rights of communities who gave the local varieties for genetic manipulation by the universities has remained unacknowledged under the Act and thus constitutes a serious attack on the seed sovereignty of the local farmers. It is not clear who now owns Bt Brinjal varieties developed with the proprietary 'event' in these varieties now. The institutions which are supposed to be addressing the issues of conservation and protection of diversity as well as community's rights over biological resources are keeping silent and this is quite unacceptable.  We have now
moved
our State Biological Diversity Board to initiate action against this serious violation in the case of Bt Brinjal developed by MAHYCO and University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad."

All the groups urged Members of Parliament to be wary of the BRAI Bill and the unjustified hyping of GM crops in the context of food security and reject these moves outright.

For more information, contact:
1.    Kavitha Kuruganti 09393001550 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
2.    G V Ramanjaneyulu 09000699702 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
3.    Sreedevi Lakshmi Kutty 09967712384 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
4.    Leo Saldanha 09448377403 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
5.    Selva Ganapathy 09891358457 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

References
1.  This information is actually part of a note sent by Mr Anupam Barik, Director, Kapas Vikas Nideshalaya, Directorate of Cotton Development, Govt of India, F. NO. D-3-14/09TMC/719, to Directors of Agriculture in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka with a table on CICR's 2-year evaluation study on Bt Cotton hybrids on the basis of their yield performances in the South Zone. A calculation of simple averages shows that the average Bt Cotton hybrid's Seed Cotton Yield per hectare is: 2307.1 kgs (SD+/-219.6 kgs) (this is the average for 52 hybrids). The average non-Bt Cotton check's seed cotton yield is 2068 kgs/hectare, which is a difference of 95.6 kgs per acre, a small difference of around 10.4% and nothing as projected by the industry and others. We do not have details of how CICR has done this study. However, the average Lint Yield of Bt Cotton hybrids evaluated is 710.5 kilos per hectare, with a standard deviation of 89 kgs/hectare. What is very important to note is that the
Lint Yield of Non-Bt Cotton Check is 802 kgs/hectare, which is higher by 91 kgs per hectare. This higher Lint Yield in non-Bt Cotton is 12.9% higher than the average for the Bt Cotton hybrids as per this CICR data.
---
---
2.Policy: GM Bill
A Law Unto Itself
Amidst the Bt rumpus, a new GM bill may muzzle public concern
Lola Nayar, Chandrani Banerjee
Outlook, March 8 2010
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264454

Science Versus The Rest: Draft Bill Concerns
* Main aim is to create a single-window clearing-house for GM foods/crops
* Planned regulatory authority to have overarching powers over state governments, existing laws
* No room for farmers or civil society in approval process
* Penal action for raising objection without scientific evidence
* No independent risk assessment of data submitted to the authority
* No provision for revoking approvals, inadequate liability clause
* No informed choice for consumers through mandatory labelling

The surcharged debate over GM (genetically modified) crops and food has blundered into ominous terrain. Do civil society and scientists have the right to question government decisions on deployment of GM crops and foods? If a new draft bill for setting up a national biotechnology regulatory body goes through Parliament in its present form, exercising this right could be at the protesters' peril. In plainspeak, that's imprisonment for a minimum of six months and a fine to boot.

That's what Section 63 of the third revised draft of the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill proposes for those questioning the safety of GM crops without scientific evidence or record. "It is clearly meant to harass civil society groups concerned about the application of this hazardous technology," says Kavitha Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat Mission. Her concern: the bill proposes a regime that rests on narrow risk assessment procedures and that too without any independent testing mechanism.        
 
Plans to place the new draft bill in Parliament during the budget session is moving at a fast pace even as the prime minister seeks to bring about a rapprochement between his ministers of agriculture, science and technology, HRD and environment on promoting GM crops to boost food security. But fissures among the scientists and political decision-makers make it tough going. “These are the type of bills that either create controversy or get passed silently in Parliament because it involves huge business interests of corporates and MNCs,” warns constitutional expert Rajeev Dhawan.

Even environment minister Jairam Ramesh is unhappy. “There is a fundamental flaw in the bill...it overrides the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The way it is presently crafted is unacceptable,” says Jairam. Actually, there's not much time to sort things out. After vetting, and incorporating changes suggested by the law ministry, the draft bill was sent this month to the cabinet secretary, who referred it to a committee of secretaries. The ministries have time till the end of February for their feedback. "By early March the draft bill would have taken a final shape for seeking cabinet approval," Dr M.K. Bhan, secretary, Department of Biotechnology (dbt)””which is framing the draft””told Outlook.

Charges that the draft bill is draconian are unpalatable to Bhan, who stresses, "Nobody is trying to keep civil society out of the system." Law minister Veerappa Moily assures, "There will be no adverse impact on the scientific community. If they have concerns, they will be heard.” He further clarified that “we are just administrators. We will see to the execution while they (the scientific community) will help formulate the policy".

However, despite being part of the initial consultation process, many scientific, legal and environmental experts are questioning aspects of the draft bill. Some say many of the clauses are detrimental to the public and environment.

Strongly opposing the idea of “gagging scientists and whistle-blowers” instead of providing them protection, agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan feels that apart from the proposed regulatory body there should be multiple layers of scrutiny as in the US. Besides the US Environment Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Agriculture Plant Health Inspection Service, strict liability laws act as deterrents for erring companies in the US.

The first breakthrough in GM technology was achieved in 1953 but the scientific community imposed a voluntary moratorium for two decades. Though restrictions have been eased as regulatory frameworks evolved, many countries remain cautious - Australia and China among others have lately imposed some curbs. The UK, the first to pass GM laws, is among nations that have ensured public interest representation in the process. In the case of companies seeking to keep some information confidential, they have to give proper justification.            
 
Some of these issues have not been properly framed in the draft bill, say experts. A major flaw is that"“nowhere has the compliance to the Cartagena Protocol on Bio-safety (of which India is a signatory) been brought in," says Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign. "Instead, we have a completely ad-hoc approach." On another front, civil activist and Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Parikh is upset that a suggestion for a three-tier approach for scientific risk assessment, clearance and monitoring has been overlooked. Instead, there is no clarity on parameters of risk assessment, the functions of the regulatory authority and the product ruling committee.

How will this all pan out? Swaminathan - who headed the taskforce that in 2004 recommended setting up a regulatory authority - remains hopeful that greater climate change literacy and GM awareness due to incidents over the past three months will get reflected in the regulatory body. "I hope all these churning of views will help us set up a regulatory body that will ensure bio-safety, health, crop safety, security of farmers’ income and trade security (like with basmati)," says the agriculture scientist.

That's important, because debates on climate change and GM crops have eroded public faith in scientists and in science. Bhan, a paediatrician before taking charge of dbt, rues the fact that scientists, including himself, are seen as being on the other side and not part of society. He contends,"Policy should be decided as a society but products can only be assessed through a competent, science-based, transparent regulatory system."

All this does serve up an aura of disquiet, but it's not surprising that things have come to such a pass. Like the Bt brinjal moratorium - when public and scientific communities' voices found space - it is crucial that health and bio-safety concerns are addressed before the bill becomes law. But science or no science, the "draconian" parts of the bill highlights a greater need for debate and thought. Let's not rush this through.
---
---
3.Criticising GM crops may land you in jail
Imran Khan
Express Buzz, 26 Feb 2010
http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?264454

BANGALORE: Criticising Genetically Modified (GM) products could land you in jail - if the draconian draft Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill (BRAB) of 2009, which will be tabled in the current session of the parliament by the UPA government, is passed.

In an unprecedented muzzle on the right to freedom of speech of the citizen, Chapter 13 section 63 of the draft bill says, “Whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about the safety of the organisms and products”¦shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees or with both.” The BRAI Bill drafted by the department of bio-technology under the Ministry of Science and Technology comes on the heels of a moratorium on Bt Brinjal announced by the Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.

"What they are doing is much worse than what Hitler or Mussolini did. Through this bill, they want to take absolute authority. They are behaving like a vendor instead of a regulator," Pushpa M Bhargava, a member of the Supreme Court appointed Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) said.

There are also other provisions in this bill which are disconcerting.

Article 27 (1) of the bill seeks to keep the information related to the research, approval and science of the GM Products out of the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

In other words, farmers, NGOs and Environmental groups that have been on the forefront of the campaign against BT Brinjal and other genetically modified crops, can longer obtain information about it.

Not only that, the three member experts of the Department of Biotechnology will override any existing legislation about GM technology in the states.

The draft bill also states that the BRAI will set up its own appellate tribunal which will have the jurisdiction to hear arguments on the issues concerning biotechnology. In case of any disputes, petitioners can only approach the Supreme Court of India.

"The BRAI bill is more draconian than what the nation faced during the Emergency" says Devinder Sharma, writer and Food Policy Analyst. “If the Bill was already in force, I would have been in jail. Jairam Ramesh too would have been in jail for challenging the health and environmental claims of the company developing Bt Brinjal," he said. The bill demonstrates the extraordinary hold the multinational companies have over the UPA government, he added. Kavitha Kurugunti of Kheti Virasat Mission said that this bill is just a way to silence the voices who are opposed to GM technology.
---
---
4.Biotech regulation bill will gag media, activists
Indian Express, Feb 26 2010
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/-Biotech-regulation-bill-will-gag-media--activists-/584678

Fearing that it would gag the media and social activists, and put them behind bars for airing opinion on genetically-modified crops, the Alliance for GM Free and Safe Food, a conglomerate of 120 organisations, opposed the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill.

Members said if the Bill is passed, it would become difficult to obtain information on GM crops under the RTI Act. “The proposed Bill, which would be introduced in this session of the Parliament, will take away the right to protest and speak against activities of corporates and government on genetically-modified food,” said members of the alliance on Thursday.

Quoting from the text of the Bill, lawyer Reeta Kohli said, “Section 63 is a direct assault on the media’s freedom of speech. It reads, ‘Whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about the safety of the organisms and products, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to Rs 2 lakh or with both’.”

“The Bill is undemocratic and unconstitutional. It will legalise food colonialism,” said Umendra Dutt of Kheti Virasat Mission. Social activist Hemant Goswami pointed out, “The proposed Bill does not have any provision to punish corporates and people who conceal adverse effects of genetically modified organisms and food.”

Another social worker Onkar Chand said the casual manner in which the government was dealing with the BRAI Bill was a cause of concern. Professor V C Nanda said, “Members of the bio-regulatory authority should be appointed from all the states, and it should be a larger body and not just have three members.”