Letter to Editor

Follow PM Standing Committee Recommendations – Ban GM Food Crops

Follow PM Standing Committee Recommendations – Ban GM Food Crops

25th August 2012

GM crops are no way forward by SATYARAT CHATURVEDI
The Hindu, 24 August 2012
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/article3812825.ece?homepage=true#comments

Dear Editor,

It is very good to hear directly from one of the members of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture. People must unite behind this committee’s recommendations and see that the government of India stop all field trials and ban Genetically Modified food crops (such as Bt. brinjal).

“For years the biotechnology industry has trumpeted that it will feed the world, promising that its genetically engineered crops will produce higher yields.

That promise has proven to be empty, according to Failure to Yield, a report by UCS expert Doug Gurian-Sherman released in March 2009. Despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase U.S. crop yields.”

from: Union of Concerned Scientists report: Failure to Yield
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/failure-to-yield.html

Concerned Scientists in India must study and report on matters like this that impact policy and people’s lives.

——–

Original Article
GM crops are no way forward
SATYARAT CHATURVEDI

SHARE  ·   COMMENT (52)   ·   PRINT   ·   T+

Food security is not about production alone; it is also about bio-safety, and access to food for the poorest

We are predominantly an agricultural economy, with the agricultural sector providing employment and subsistence to almost 70 per cent of the workforce. There have been some remarkable contributions from the agriculture sector to food grain production in the last six decades, when from a meagre 50 million tonnes in the 1950s, the country has been able to produce a record 241 million tonnes in 2010-2011. Despite these achievements, the condition of the farming community is pitiable considering that 70 per cent of our farmers are small and marginal, and there is a complete absence of pro-farmer/pro-agriculture policies which has led us to an environment of very severe agrarian distress.

PROS AND CONS

In this situation, food security has been one of the main agendas of the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government and also one that the government has been struggling with. There is a strong opinion among policymakers that biotechnology holds a lot of promise in achieving food security and that transgenic crops, especially, are a sustainable way forward. But given the opposition and controversies surrounding Genetically Modified (GM) crops and the differences of opinion among stakeholders, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture decided to take on the mammoth task of an objective assessment of the pros and cons of introducing GM crops.

We expect the observations in our report to answer the big question on the role of GM crops in achieving food security. We hope the recommendations will be acted upon at the earliest. The committee felt this was all the more necessary in the light of the Prime Minister’s exhortation at the Indian Science Congress about the full utilisation of modern biotechnology for ensuring food security but without compromising on safety and regulatory aspects.

THE LESSONS

In India, the only commercialised GM crop is Bt cotton. Industry and the Central government have painted a picture of success about it — saying it has led to an increase in production and that the costs of cultivation have gone down. But the ground reality is starkly different. This was evident during the extensive interactions of the committee with farmers in different cotton growing regions around the country during study visits in March 2012.

Besides analysing the facts and figures provided by government agencies and listening to eminent cotton scientists, the committee’s consultation with farmers in Vidharbha helped us conclude that the Bt cotton saga is not as rosy as made out to be. In Vidharbha, the per-acre investment in cultivating traditional varieties, or even pre-Bt hybrids, could be less than Rs. 10,000. That was certainly the case until the first half of the previous decade. But for Bt cotton, even the un-irrigated farmer is spending upwards of Rs. 15,000-18,000 or even more per acre. And irrigated farmers complain of input costs exceeding Rs. 45,000 per acre. While the investment and acreage rose dramatically, the per acre yield and income did not increase in equal measure and actually fell after initial years. Indeed, the Union Agriculture Minister spoke of Vidharbha’s dismal yields on December 19, 2011 in the Rajya Sabha.

It was clear that at least for the rain-fed cotton farmers of our country, the introduction of Bt cotton offered no socio-economic benefits. On the contrary, it being a capital intensive practice, the investment of farmers increased manifold thus exposing them to greater risks due to massive indebtedness. It needs to be remembered that rain-fed farmers constitute 85 per cent of all cotton growing farmers.

Added to this, there is desperation among farmers as introduction of Bt cotton has slowly led to the non-availability of traditional varieties of cotton. The cultivation of GM crops also leads to monoculture and the committee has witnessed its clear disadvantages. The decade of experience has shown that Bt cotton has benefited the seed industry hands down and not benefited the poorest of farmers. It has actually aggravated the agrarian distress and farmer suicides. This should be a clear message to policymakers on the impact of GM crops on farming and livelihoods associated with it.

THE RISKS

From the various deliberations to which the committee was privy, it is clear that the technology of genetic engineering is an evolving one and there is much, especially on its impact on human health and environment, that is yet to be understood properly. The scientific community itself seems uncertain about this. While there are many in this community who feel that the benefits outweigh the risks, others point to the irreversibility of this technology and uncontrollability of the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) once introduced in the ecosystem. Hence, they advocate a precautionary approach towards any open release of GMOs.

One of the concerns raised strongly by those opposing GM crops in India is that many important crops like rice, brinjal, and mustard, among others, originated here, and introducing genetically modified versions of these crops could be a major threat to the vast number of domestic and wild varieties of these crops. In fact, globally, there is a clear view that GM crops must not be introduced in centres of origin and diversity. India also has mega biodiversity hotspots like the Eastern Himalayas and the Western Ghats which are rich in biodiversity yet ecologically very sensitive. Hence it will only be prudent for us to be careful before we jump on to the bandwagon of any technology.

The committee’s findings on the GEAC-led regulatory system for GM crops show that it has a pro-Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and pro-industry tilt. It has also come under the scanner due to its inefficiency at the time of Bt Brinjal approval and for behaving like a promoter of GM crops rather than a regulatory body mandated to protect human health and environment from the risks of biotechnology. The DBT, whose mandate is to promote GM crops and fund various transgenics research, has a nominee as the co-chair of the GEAC, who gives the final approval for environmental and commercial release of GM crops.

The current regulatory system is shameful and calls for a complete makeover. While the government has been toying recently with the idea of a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority, the committee dismisses this and instead recommends an all-encompassing Biosafety Authority. While the committee has also evaluated international regulatory systems on GM crops, it recommends the Norwegian Gene Technology Act whose primary focus is bio-safety and sustainable development without adverse effects on health and environment, as a piece of legislation in the right direction for regulating GM crops in India.

The committee strongly believes that the problem today is in no measure comparable to the ship-to-mouth situation of the early 1960s. Policy and decision-makers must note that the total food grain production rose from 197 million tonnes in 2000-2001 to 241 million tonnes in 2010-11. A major argument by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation before the committee in favour of GM crops was their potential to ensure the country’s food security. But the issue of food security is not about production alone; it also means access to food for the poorest. Moreover, there is no evidence as yet that GM crops can actually increase yields.

The committee, therefore, recommended the government come up with a fresh road map for ensuring food security in the coming years without jeopardising the vast biodiversity of the country and compromising with the safety of human and livestock health.

The committee unanimously feels that the government should take decisive action on the recommendations of this report and rethink its decision of introducing transgenics in agriculture as a sustainable way forward.

(Satyarat Chaturvedi is spokesperson, Indian National Congress, and member of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture)

Keywords: GM cropsfood security

Advertisements
Standard
Letter to Editor

Bt Brinjal is almost on your table

I have been trying to post a comment on this Indian Express article Bt Brinjal is almost on your table but it is not appearing – maybe there is a time lag.

Thousands of citizens have written to Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss to oppose GM foods in India. He too has stated that he opposes GM foods and will not allow Brinjal or other foods without sufficient research. Who conducts and interprets this research and who decides when it is sufficient? We are learning from studies elsewhere that crops modified with genes of other species pose serious health risks that may appear in 3rd or 4th generations. We cannot put ourselves, our land or our farmers at such risk.

Health Minister had this to say in response to thousands of voices which said “I am no lab rat”to him

“As a minister from PMK and also as the Union minister, I will continue opposing it. As far as the recent controversy is concerned Bt brinjal is being brought into the country without appropriate research on its safety. We should oppose it collectively. The ministry of health and family welfare as a policy will ensure that a holistic research ( on Bt brinjal) is done – including health impacts and farmer issues. We will definitely not allow it into India otherwise.”

Standard
Comment

GM Rice

It seems that the article is not in public domain. Based on the abstract, I have a few questions about this “unprecedented push” towards GM rice.

1. Were there any physiologic studies on human beings? What genetic changes were made? Does it have human DNA in it?

2. The UN Environment Programme study indicates that organic farming can feed Africa. What is the need for GM-rice other than ownership of it?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world … 68641.html

3. Rice is basic food in the world. What corporations are pushing this? Why put such a staple of human kind into few corporate hands?

I wouldn’t depend on Nature to give us the answers to these though. It’s record of scientific integrity where biotechnology is concerned has some serious blots.

When Berkeley researchers, Ignacio Chapela and David Quist published a paper on Mexican maize contamination (Nature, Nov 2001), there was a huge backlash from the Biotech Industry and the magazine bent over backwards to take it back.

Monsanto’s Dirty Tricks Campaign Against Fired Berkeley Professor Ignacio Chapela
Corporate skepticism: Turning doubt into dollars
Rampant Conflict of Interest in Mexican Corn Controversy
Worthy’s ‘Responses to Metz, Fütterer and Kaplinsky’s Correspondences in Nature, 27 June 2002’

John Paull, who has posted a comment on this article, has reported on China’s drive towards organic agriculture: http://orgprints.org/13563/

I would not necessarily depend on China to safeguard our food safety either. What do we learn from the ongoing melamine disaster?

When possible I will try to get the full text of this from a library.


Tue Oct 21, 2008 9:07 am

Agriculture: Is China ready for GM rice?

In an effort to avoid a food crisis as the population grows, China is putting its weight behind genetically modified strains of the country’s staple food crop. Jane Qiu explores the reasons for the unprecedented push.

Jane Qiu
WANG FENG

In a paddy field 30 kilometres south of Fuzhou, the capital of China’s Fujian province, Wang Feng is surveying a massive green and yellow chessboard before him. Wang, a rice researcher at the Fujian Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and his colleagues have been developing genetically modified (GM) rice strains to resist pest infestation, and have been testing in these plots for a decade. Two strains from Wang’s team are now awaiting regulatory approval by the agricultural ministry for commercial growth. It could represent the largest commercialization of a GM foodcrop. Rice is a staple for most of the country’s 1.3 billion people and a primary source of calories for more than half the world’s population.


other comment

True, we need to look at more than only the science. Still on the science of GMOs, here are some talks on its flaws:
http://www.responsibletechnology.org

We also have to be concerned about the economics and injustice that is being promoted in the name of science. Even if the science were ok we’d need to be concerned about it. The monopolistic actions, anti-trust violations and complete control over seeds. Why would we expect a corporation like Monsanto to care about farmers and food security? Even in the US Monsanto is actively putting seed cleaners (the people who help farmers save their seeds) out of business.
http://www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/news/10040.htm
Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers This CBS News report is subtitled: Monsanto Goes To Great Lengths To Protect Its Patents On Genetically Modified Crops


Standard