GMO appraisal should include social utility, sustainability requirements - biosafety experts

Press release, New Delhi, May 10 2011: At a time when India is about to introduce a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill in Parliament for applications related to modern biotechnology - and also when the Bt brinjal debate is coming to the fore again with the GEAC consulting experts several of whom represent conflicting interests - a visiting Norwegian biosafety expert pointed out that GMO impact assessment should include social utility and sustainability requirements before their environmental release.

Dr David Quist, a senior scientist heading the Scientific Advisory Unit at the Centre for Biosafety, GenOk, Norway addressed the media in Delhi on the subject of biosafety of GMOs and the Norwegian Gene Technology Act in particular, along with another GM expert, Dr John Fagan of Genetic ID. Both were in India to contribute to a capacity building workshop on Biosafety of GMOs, with local organizers the Center for Sustainable Agriculture and the Center for Environmental Education that took place in Hyderabad from May 1 to May 7 th, 2011.

"The Norwegian Gene Technology Act has been created to ensure that production and use of genetically modified organisms and production of cloned animals takes place in an ethical and socially justifiable way, in accordance with the principle of sustainable development and without detrimental effects on health and environment", Dr Quist shared.

"The [Norwegian Gene Technology] Act recognizes that the risk appraisal of GMOs is a multi-dimensional issue, and not just a scientific one. Norway hence opts for a "Impact Assessment", which integrates a scientifically-based environmental risk assessment with an analysis of the social utility and contribution to sustainable development of the GMO on a case by case basis." Dr. Quist explained.

"Combining these aspects in one assessment allows Norway to consider not only whether the GM product is safe, but whether it is necessary, and contributing to a sustainable future. This applies not only to GM production in Norway, but also to its production in countries from which GM may be imported from. Safety for Norway and safety for other countries is regarded as no different."

"Transparency, accountability and public participation are essential features in the Norwegian legislation. There are strict legal requirements for public access to information, producer liability, and termination of GMO product use that may be approved but later found to pose adverse effects."

Public hearings are also mandated regarding all applications for commercial and deliberate release, including experimental releases, before any decisions on GMOs are taken. "Without these provisions, one cannot reasonably expect the public to have any confidence in the process, or the safety of products that come out of it", he added.

"I understand that India is about to introduce a Bill in its Parliament for creating a statute to regulate GMOs. A rough approximation to the Norwegian approach is present in the bottom line laid down by the Task Force on Agri-Biotechnology set up by the Government of India: 'economic well being of farm families, food security of the nation, health security of the consumer, protection of the environment and the security of our national and international trade in farm commodities'.

"Based on the Norwegian experience, and my work in GMO risk assessment, I believe that the proposed BRAI should be centered around such an approach. There still remain notable uncertainties regarding the use of GMOs in India that need to be addressed, including their appropriateness and utility for addressing the complex set of problems facing Indian agriculture and the Indian farmer.

"My interest as a scientist is to see that good science and rigorous standards are behind the claims of safety and efficacy of any GMO, and that the data is transparent and is independently reproducible. This is not some sort of special requirement, but fundamental principles of good science practice. Based on my still limited reading of regulatory processes on GMOs in this country, India still needs a sincere effort to address these policy shortcomings in its regulatory practices", he said.

Dr. Quist encouraged India to make full use of the emerging guidance documents on risk assessment being developed under the Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety, of which Dr. Quist serves as the Norwegian Representative on its Risk Assessment expert committee. He further urged India to ratify the Nagoya Supplementary Protocol on Liability & Redressal with GMOs, in which India was an active contributor to the outcomes that were finalized last year, and also to devise a strong liability regime within the country as present in the Norwegian legislation.

Dr John Fagan, Chief Scientific Officer of Genetic ID and one of the world's leading authorities on biosafety, GMO testing and non-GMO certification, added that there is ever-emerging evidence on the questionable safety of GM crops from around the world.

"India did the wise thing by placing a moratorium on the commercial release of Bt brinjal, given the lack of certainty over its safety and the many other issues of concern around this GM food. It would be unwise to think of any limited release of this GMO as is being proposed by some experts since this technology is irreversible and uncontrollable.

"I understand that the Minister for Environment & Forests who imposed the moratorium is also aware of the difficulty in quarantining a GMO and India's advantage of being a non-GMO producer of various crops except cotton will be jeopardised if it continues its many open-air trials of different crops around the country. I believe that the applications of this technology in India should be governed by strict policy directives keeping in mind sustainable development objectives", he said.

Notes:

i. An English version of the Norwegian Gene Technology Act is available online at:
http://www.regjeringen.no/en/doc/Laws/Acts/gene-technology-act.html?id=173031

ii. The regulations relating to its Impact Assessment, in English, can be found at:
http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/md/dok/lover_regler/forskrifter/2005/regulations-relating-to-impact-assessmen.html?id=440455

For more information, contact:
Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture: 09000699702 & This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Kavitha Kuruganti, Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA): 09393001550 & This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

SUB: INVITATION TO MEDIA BRIEFING BY NORWEGIAN EXPERT ON BIOSAFETY CONCERNS WITH GM CROPS, BRAI BILL & NORWEGIAN GENE TECHNOLOGY ACT, at INDIAN WOMEN'S PRESS CORPS, MAY 10TH 2011, AT 3 PM.

...Norwegian biosafety expert - Dr David Quist, Senior Scientist and Head of Scientific Advisory Unit at the Centre for Biosafety - GenOk in Tromso (Norway) will address media representatives on the issue of a statutory regime for India, in the backdrop of progressive legislations like the Norwegian Gene Technology Act. He will be accompanied by another biosafety expert, Prof John Fagan, Chief Scientific Officer of Genetic ID group of labs.

Members of the Coalition for a GM-Free India will also be present in this media briefing for an update on the latest developments with regard to Bt brinjal and other GMO-related issues.

WHAT?:NORWEGIAN EXPERT ON BIOSAFETY, DR DAVID QUIST, ALONG WITH PROF JOHN FAGAN OF GENETIC-ID ADDRESS MEDIA ON BIOSAFETY ISSUES AROUND GM CROPS & STATUTORY REGIMES ON THE SAME

WHEN?:ON MAY 10TH 2011, AT 3 PM

WHERE?:AT INDIAN WOMEN'S PRESS CORPS, No. 5, WINDSOR PLACE, NEW DELHI 1 (CLOSE TO HOTEL LE MERIDIEN)