India's regulatory capitulation over GMOs is facing growing condemnation from experts as well as massive popular opposition.
TAKE ACTION: Stop the BRAI Bill!
*Recommend the withdrawal of this dangerous Bill
URGENT: Only two days to go before this petition goes to the Parliamentary Standing Committee requesting them to withdraw the BRAI Bill promoting GMO approvals in India. Please sign and share: http://www.change.org/stopbrai
*Save your food from foreign corporations - prevent BRAI. Show your support! http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/What-We-Do/Sustainable-Agriculture/GE-campaign/join_hands_save_your_food/
KEY NEWS AND VIEWS FROM INDIA
1.No to GM crops
2.GM Free India Coalition response to Sharad Pawar
3.Of seed sovereignty and a genetically modified Bill
---
---
1. No to GM crops
T.K. RAJALAKSHMI
Frontline (India's National Magazine), September 6 2013
http://www.frontline.in/social-issues/general-issues/no-to-gm-crops/article5037750.ece
*The Technical Expert Committee wants field trials of GM crops put on hold until gaps in the regulatory system are addressed.
With the National Food Security Bill generating much debate and even sections within the government questioning the viability of the scheme it envisages, a line of thought has emerged in favour of introducing genetically modified (GM) foods and crops in order to meet the requirements of the scheme on a long-term basis. While the Bill itself is inadequate in its coverage and is exclusionary at various levels, it has given rise to the spectre of GM foods once again.
The final report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) set up by the Supreme Court following a public interest petition regarding the environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) becomes all the more important in this context. The report, released on June 30, has found major gaps in the existing regulatory system and rejected the proposal to release GMs crops on the grounds that there are no “compelling” reasons for allowing the release of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis, a commonly occurring bacterium found in insect-rich habitats and soils) for food.
It has recommended that GM crops should not be allowed in areas of origin or diversity as the committee’s understanding seems to be that the release of a GM crop into such areas could have great ramifications and has the potential for a negative impact on non-GM crop varieties. It has noted that to justify the introduction of GM crops in areas of origin “there needs to be extraordinarily compelling reasons” and an absence of “other choices”. “GM crops that offer incremental advantages or solutions to specific and limited problems are not sufficient reasons to justify such release. The TEC did not find any such compelling reasons under the present conditions. The fact is that unlike the situation in the 1960s [when there was a shortage of foodgrains], there is no desperate shortage of food [now] and, in fact, India is in a reasonably secure position,” it has noted. In a letter on July 23, the contents of which underscore the urgency of the issue, representatives of the Coalition for a GM-free India urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to accept the report without delay.
The six-member TEC reserved its most scathing indictment for the regulatory mechanism. The report comes in the context of the introduction of the contentious Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, which, according to experts and representatives of political parties, is not only inadequate but rather shorn of anything even remotely to do with proper regulation of GMOs. Rather, the Bill was perceived as a facilitator.
The TEC has noted that the regulatory system “has major gaps and these will require rethinking, investment, and relearning to fix”, and these need to be addressed before conducting more field trials. It has also called for a moratorium on field trials of Bt (as suggested in its interim report in October 2012) in food crops intended for commercialisation until there was more definitive information from a sufficient number of studies about the long-term safety of Bt crops.
Apparently, the largest number of applications for field trials of GM crops received by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) was for Bt transgenics, including in food crops such as rice. The TEC has taken the view that the safety of Bt transgenics with regard to chronic toxicity has not been established. The largest deployment of transgenics worldwide is in soyabean, corn, cotton, and canola, all of which are primarily used for oil or feed after processing. The TEC is emphatic that as there are no global examples of Bt transgenics “for any major food crop that was being directly used for human consumption”, there is no “compelling reason for India to be the first to do so”.
The second largest number of applications, the TEC has observed, are for herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops. The committee’s view is that “HT crops would most likely exert a highly adverse impact over time on sustainable agriculture, rural livelihoods, and environment” and has found them completely unsuitable in the Indian context. It has also recognised the fact that the first GM food crop to be approved for commercial release was Bt brinjal in 2009 but the then Minister of Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, rejected the recommendation and placed a moratorium on the release following widespread protests by farmers. It has been the status quo since then. The incumbent Minister, Jayanthi Natarajan, is not known to be in favour of GM crops unlike Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, who rightly or wrongly feels that the introduction of GM crops will help address food security issues. That there is a lack of consensus on the issue in the government is not surprising.
Explaining the need for a foolproof biosafety protocol, the report notes: “Based on the review of the dossiers, the professional expertise and standards across the institutions appears unsatisfactory… it is ultimately the expertise available in the regulatory system that sets the standards for conducting and evaluating the biosafety tests. Unless this expertise and capacity is present, no amount of facility creation will address the issues.” It has said “a deeper understanding of the process of risk assessment is needed within the regulatory system for it to meet the needs of a proper biosafety evaluation. This is not available in the country at present.”
It further states: “In several cases, the reporting of data as well as methods and analysis has been incomplete and cursory; there are also deficiencies in selection of samples, methods of analysis, and statistical tests, making it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions…. the number of such cases that have come to the notice of the TEC also reflects on the manner in which the toxicology data has been examined and the regulatory body for having accepted the reports… that there are serious deficiencies in reporting of the data in the dossiers and more importantly in the way in which these have been examined and conclusions accepted by the regulatory body.” It has pointed out that unless the purpose of the tests is kept in mind, “the risk assessment is likely to fail to meet its objectives”.
The TEC has recommended the setting up of a secretariat of experts to fix gaps in biosafety needs, necessarily supplemented with international expertise and the evaluation of GM safety dossiers in reputed regulatory bodies. It has maintained that it is not possible for a single committee such as the GEAC or the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation to carry out all the evaluation. It has suggested that the regulatory bodies be located either in the Ministry of Environment and Forests or in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and that members of this body be free of conflict of interest.
Positions and perceptions
The TEC considered a wide spectrum of positions and perceptions on the regulation of GM crops, which included a belief that the regulation was excessive and that it restricted the scope of biotechnology and denied the benefits of GM crops to society, especially the poor. A second view was that this technology was relatively new and there was limited information on safety, especially food safety, and the effects of long-term and widespread consumption and commercial release of GM crops on the environment. This view advocated that it would be prudent to carry out extensive field trials to evaluate the health and environmental aspects of allowing GM crops.
A third view, which was not mutually exclusive of the other two, was that the concentration of intellectual property and resources for research on GM crops in the private sector was resulting in perverse and exploitative relationships of public institutions with the private sector in developing countries and that these had not been successful in meeting the development and sustainability goals. This view held that the control of GM crop biotechnology by the private sector was affecting the ability to deploy it towards the public good in developing countries.
The TEC has taken a balanced view on the matter. The technology, according to it, comes with the promise of benefits as well as associated risks with regard to environmental safety and health. These risks need to be recognised and addressed for GM products to gain social acceptance. The report has taken stock of the fact that in view of the broad scope of GM technology and the range of possible products, risk assessment will have to be considered on a case-by-case basis even though there may be some issues common to most cases. But it is firm that unless the gaps in the regulatory system are addressed, public confidence in it will suffer. On the sequence of testing GM crops, the TEC says, that the tests “should be done under the minimum conditions of exposure”.
The Coalition for a GM-free India has urged the government to take the recommendations “seriously and act on them in the interests of food safety, security, and sovereignty as well as protection of environment and farm livelihoods”.
The TEC consisted of Imran Siddiqi, plant development biology scientist and a group leader of the Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology; P.S. Ramakrishnan, professor emeritus of environmental sciences and biodiversity, Jawaharlal Nehru University; P.S. Chauhan, a genetics technology and food safety expert; P.C. Kesavan, a former scientist of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre; B. Sivakumar, former Director of the National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad; and R.S. Paroda, former Director-General of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research.
It is learnt that Paroda, the Agriculture Ministry’s nominee who was inducted into the committee as its sixth member in November 2012 after the interim report was filed, did not endorse the final report. His inclusion was perceived as controversial as his organisation was said to be receiving funding from biotech majors, which constituted a clear conflict of interest. The TEC’s recommendations on the conflict of interest assume special significance in this respect.
The TEC has also pointed out, quoting from the Agriculture Ministry’s submission to the committee, that the Ministry had no locus standi or rationale to challenge its interim report as it was a conflicted party and by its own admission, as quoted in the report, had no mandate in biosafety assessment and was only carrying out the role of promotion with regard to transgenic technology. The Ministry did not concur with the interim report and submitted a rejoinder in the court.
The coalition has urged the government to accept the “well-reasoned, reasonable, and sound recommendations” and “start overhauling the process of modern biotechnology regulation in India”. “Vested interests should not be allowed to prevail and prevent the acceptance of this report which is based on sound science, justice and the principle of sustainability,” it has said.
The TEC recommendations could have an impact on the BRAI Bill, which is with the Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests. “When read together with the TEC final report and the existing critiques of the Bill, it is evident that the BRAI Bill that your government has introduced in Parliament should be withdrawn as it is designed to be a single-window mechanism for easy approval of GMOs without regard for independent, rigorous scientific assessments and pertinent issues beyond science,” the coalition has stated.
Senior political parties, such as the Left parties, have thrown their weight behind the TEC report. There is no doubt that there is an urgent need to address these issues. Hastily crafted laws are hardly the answer to such complex issues that have far-reaching and long-term consequences for food security and agriculture.
---
---
2. GM Free India Coalition response to Sharad Pawar
Below is the letter from the Coalition for a GM Free India to India's avidly pro-GM Agriculture Minister, Sharad Pawar, in response to a recent media interview in which he admitted things could go wrong with GM crops and talked about the massive opposition they are facing in India.
To: Shri Sharad Pawar,
Minister for Agriculture,
Government of India
Dear Shri Sharad Pawar,
Sub: Urging you to abide by your statement made in a CNN-IBN interview "if things go wrong" with GM crops- reg.
Greetings! This is in response to the interview you gave to Ms Rupashree Nanda of CNN-IBN, put up on the IBNLIVE website on the 3rd of August 2013[1] and telecast as a smaller clip subsequently.
1. We are glad to note that you have agreed in this interview that those who are raising concerns and asking for a proper machinery to be put into place for evaluating GMOs are right. You have also acknowledged that the Supreme Court is saying the same thing. But surprisingly, you have tried to subvert the process in the Court of independent experts taking a critical look at the current regulatory regime with an eye to making it robust and credible, by bringing an “expert” who represents conflict of interest given that his organization receives financial support from biotech corporations like Monsanto and Mahyco. We wish that you had respected the basic principle of independent scientific expertise guiding us in this effort, rather than vested interests and hope that at least in the future hearings, your Ministry will abstain from derailing fair processes of evaluation.
2. You argued your case around the need for trials, saying that testing is needed through [open air] trials and that stopping trials is an extreme step. We have presented on many occasions the risks associated with open air trials, that too of unknown organisms in the environment, compounded by the apathetic and irresponsible regulatory system in the country. It is well known that in India, there is no sequential testing that happens with regard to safety of GMOs and more importantly, though a Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology was constituted by your Ministry in 2003, and its report accepted in 2004, one of the main recommendations of this Task Force related to Need Assessment, and Assessment of Alternatives, has never been followed in reality. This is also the matter that is being heard by the Court in any case, and like we mentioned earlier, did not require vested interests to step in. The only way that we can build public confidence in any regulatory regime is to rid such a regime of any traces of conflict of interest. In that context, what Dr R S Paroda has to say in the Supreme Court is just not credible and valid as far as we are concerned.
3. You tried to use the usual argument heard from you and other transgenic proponents in the past, trying to make it appear that Bt cotton has been an unqualified success in India and that it is because of the Bt technology used in cotton that India became an exporter of cotton, and has become the second largest producer of cotton in the world. We take this opportunity to point out that the truth lies elsewhere, and this is known to the top cotton scientists employed by your Ministry. Their analyses shows that cotton yield increases have been most impressive in years when Bt cotton has not expanded in the country and that yields have been on the decline in the recent past. The picture with regard to pesticide use is unclear too, even as it is very apparent that fertilizer use in cotton has gone up, irrigated cotton area has increased, and there has been a massive shift from varietal cotton to hybrids. You have repeatedly ignored these other determinants of yield in the past too and we would like to know what is at stake here, that Bt or transgenic technology has to be portrayed as the factor for the current cotton scenario in India by your ministry? Is it pressure from external forces? Is it lobbying by the industry? Is it the lack of any scientific study or post-release monitoring by the regulatory bodies? Is it just a mindset around what are considered as “frontier technologies”?
4. You mentioned in this interview that there are many countries in the world which are successfully taking advantage of this technology and improving their productivity and production. This is an incorrect statement. There are only a handful of countries around the world which have opted for GMOs in their food and farming. An overwhelming majority of countries have not, and therefore, the question of “many countries” taking advantage of transgenics does not arise. Further, there are studies, including by advocates of transgenic technology, that show that the picture with regard to yields is highly mixed across crops, regions and years. We also know that technically, no transgenic crop exists in commercial use out there which can increase yields. Your informants on this matter are propagating falsehoods and we urge you to verify the veracity of these statements.
5. You alluded to the Green Revolution in the 1960s, propagation of hybrid seeds and tremendous opposition to this in those days. Once again, this whole argument is incorrect, Sir. Green Revolution did not rest on hybrid seeds. And there was no opposition so to speak, leave alone tremendous opposition. The kind of public debate being witnessed with transgenic technologies is indeed needed on most agricultural technologies, given that technologies like pesticides or hybrid seeds or other technologies, indeed leave their own environmental, health and economic impacts on millions. As a healthy democracy, we should encourage democratization of science and technology related decision-making too at all levels; we should also be ensuring that such debates lead us towards greater social justice, plurality and sustainability and not away from them.
6. You brought in the usual Malthusian arguments around food security and tried to justify why transgenics are needed. However, as a letter to the Minister for Environment & Forests by scores of eminent scientists earlier this year pointed out (also available at http://indiagminfo.org/?p=540), transgenic technology has got nothing to do with food security – not in terms of increasing yields; not in terms of addressing the deep-rooted access and distribution issues hindering food security of millions and not in terms of ensuring sustainable development. What’s more, the countries which have adopted transgenic crops at a significant scale have deteriorating or decelerating food security indicators! We urge your ministry to drop this fallacious argument around transgenics needed for food security needs, given that the more pressing need is to revive the rural agrarian economy and focusing on agro-ecological alternatives that will improve production, reduce cost of cultivation, bring down indebtedness and reduce risks in farming.
7. When asked a specific question about foreign-funded NGOs coming in the way of promotion of GM crops, you gave an inexplicable response, Sir (though we are indeed happy that for the first time, it has been acknowledged that Monsanto is indeed a “controversial” corporation, even as a red carpet is being put out by governments here to this controversial corporation) – you implied that such NGOs are funded by the USA, and that double standards are being practiced in terms of America having accepted GM seeds, and spreading opposition elsewhere. This is again far from the truth. It is well known that America’s trying its best to push transgenics into India, as it is trying elsewhere too. The Bt brinjal R&D in India was supported by a USAID-led consortium project called as ABSP II, as you know. Lobby groups that are pushing GMOs into India like ISAAA or ABLE are supported by American corporations and foundations, as you are aware. It is an open secret that the American government sent Dr Nina Federoff during the Bt brinjal decision-making time in February 2010 to influence India’s public debate here, and that the Indo-US KIA has been used by the American side to push for regulatory changes in India to suit American economic interests. In Africa too, it is the funds of organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation promoting transgenics as a development solution there. How is it plausible that you are arguing that America (its government or its corporations or its foundations or its citizens) are funding the anti-GM movement here, when the American agricultural economy depends on global markets accepting transgenics, including in India? Isn’t it obvious that corporations like American-headquartered Monsanto, which already controls 95% of Indian cotton seed market thanks to Bt cotton, is one of the biggest beneficiaries of the promotion of transgenics by your Ministry?
8. Finally, and importantly, Sir, in the initial part of the interview, you said categorically that “supposing something goes wrong,…..if it is affecting the environment, if it is affecting the soil, it is affecting water, if it is affecting other crops, this is affecting human beings, this is affecting animals, yes, we have to take corrective action; even, we have to stop”. We are glad that you stated this, Sir. Because we want to share with you overwhelming scientific evidence that shows that things indeed go wrong on all the fronts that you have listed, and more. Attached is a compilation of peer reviewed scientific studies, mostly independent, that show the adverse impacts of GM crops on the environment, on soil, on other crops, on health and so on (also available at: http://indiagminfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Sci-ref-April-2013-complete.pdf). Since you have stated that we have to stop if things go wrong, we urge you to stop the promotion of GMOs in India, based on this evidence.
Sincerely
Rajesh Krishnan
Coalition For GM Free India
[1] http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/411717/singleparty-rule-no-longer-acceptable-in-india-sharad-pawar.html
---
---
3. Of seed sovereignty and a "genetically" modified Bill
Chethan Kumar
Deccan Herald, August 19 2013
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/352102/of-seed-sovereignty-039genetically039-modified.html
Bangalore - Celebrating the 67th year of Independence, India is slowly losing her seed sovereignty, even as environmentalists and farmers’ organisations fight in vain.
“Dependence on foreign seeds is as good as selling our land. The government is blind while framing new laws,” Rajesh Krishnan, co-convenor, Coalition for Genetically Modified (GM) Free India told Deccan Herald.
While protests saw Bt brinjal being put on the back burner in the country, Bt cotton, led by the US firm Monsanto, has made severe inroads in the country.
Karnataka, which had one per cent of its cotton-growing areas under Bt cotton in 2002, has 74 per cent now, some other states have 99 per cent (see box).
“Removal of non-Bt varieties with government support has seen 95 per cent of India’s cotton seed market lie with Monsanto,” Harish K S, president, Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha’s (KRRS) Hasiru Sene, said.
According to Coalition for a GM-Free India, 10 years after Bt Cotton officially entered India, its manufacturers have only managed to hide the truth under hypes and false promises.
False hype
The false hype is typified by recent advertisements by Mahyco-Monsanto claiming, “Bollgard boosts Indian cotton farmers’ income by over Rs 31,500 crore”. This has been pulled up by the Advertising Standards Council of India for false information.
Based out of St Luis in the US, Monsanto in India is called Monsanto India Limited, Monsanto Holding Private Limited, Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech, besides holding 26 per cent share in the Indian seed company Mahyco.
Monsanto, which holds permission to sell the only approved Bt cotton variety in India, according to Greenpeace, has been caught red-handed, trying to steal from our rich agriculture seed heritage.
Wheat patent
In 2003, Greenpeace claims, Monsanto got a patent granted in the European patent office for a variety of wheat that it had originally developed from Nap Hal, an Indian wheat variety.
“Monsanto went ahead and tried patenting not just the wheat variety but even all the usages of it, which includes making breads or rotis etc. A legal battle by farmer unions in India and Greenpeace and the civil society finally led to the European Patent office revoking this patent,” Greenpeace said in a study titled, “BRAI Bill, 2013-India’s Monsanto Promotion and Protection Act?”
Bt Brinjal
It also points out that the National Biodiversity Authority had filed the first ever bio-piracy case against Monsanto and its Indian partner Mahyco for appropriating 16 local varieties of brinjal to develop genetically modified brinjal.
It also notes how Monsanto controls the seed market in the US, where it has sued many farmers for conserving seeds and using it in the next season, a practice farmers across the globe have had for decades.
In 2012, Monsanto even got an Act protecting it from law suits in the US, and people like Rajesh argue that India’s BRAI (Bio-technology Regulatory Authority of India) Bill 2013, is poised to give more and more control to such companies and that it must be seriously revisited.
“The Bill in its current form can be clearly seen as a mechanism to give multi-national biotech giants like Monsanto a free hand to control our food and farming,” says Greenpeace.
The Bill has a diluted standard of liability and is not compliant to principles of deterrent liability, absolute liability and polluter pays principle, which are upheld in the Supreme Court of India.
This can work well for Monsanto and the likes which have an array of contamination cases against them, it says.
It adds that this is a dangerous recipe for corruption in the country that will lower the bar for approval of risky GM crops.
The Bill, among other things, will take away state governments’ rights to prevent introduction of such seeds, which is in direct contradiction of the Constitution that deems agriculture as a state subject.