GM crops plagued by
Biosafety concerns: Greenpeace
While one cannot but
deny the benefits of technology, it seems it has its risks too, which
need to be addressed. In the case of GM crops, a plethora of issues
have been raised on issues of biosafety
…
![](/IMG/364/45364/gmfimage06.gif)
Genetically modified crops or GM crops have been in the eye of a storm
in India. It was in August 2008 that the Supreme Court issued a notice
to the central government on an application seeking a moratorium on
release of any genetically-modified crop till an independent testing
lab is being set up in the country. It was only in February that SC had
lifted its ban on GM crops and allowed the GEAC to approve new crops
and events for field trials after proper guidelines and biosafety norms
have been put in place. The ban was slapped following a
petition that complained of genetic contamination owing to the large
scale field trials of some GM crops. Bt cotton, the first transgenic
(non-food) crop to be commercially released in India in 2002 has been
widely debated for its performance, impact on the environment,
biodiversity and health of cattle. Bt Brinjal is soon going to be
India’s first GM food crop after it clears the biosafety
approvals. A host of other crops such as rice, okra and potato are also
in the queue. However, there have been constant doubts on the safety of
the trials. Trials of Bt rice in the central Indian state of Jharkhand
also came under sharp criticism by the Delhi-based nongovernmental
organization Gene Campaign in September. According to Gene
Campaign’s convener Suman Sahai, an independent survey of the
trial sites by her organization revealed serious gaps in the methods of
the Maharashtra Hybrid Company (Mahyco), an Indian partner of
biotechnology company Monsanto.
The threats posed by GM crops in view of the current
regulatory systems have been highlighted in a report by the
Yokohama-based United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies
(UNIAS) released during a summit on the UN Framework Convention on
Biodiversity in Bonn, Germany in May this year. According to the study
lead author, Sam Johnston, India faces a huge risk because safety norms
on genetically modified crops are not being enforced which makes the
country vulnerable to bioterrorism attacks. Citing the lack of
technical, policy and enforcement capacities in developing countries,
Johnston said, “If you don’t have the ability to
monitor technology, the technology can be used for bioterrorism as you
are not biosecure. Just rolling out the technology is not the answer as
enormous number of people are resistant to it.”
The last few years have seen a spurt in the number of GMOs in India.
According to Greenpeace, in 2005 research was focused on 21 crops
containing staple cereals, lentils, vegetables, fruits, and the
research investment was low. But today rice alone has about 24
different GMOs. Tomato is the second most experimented food crop with
23 events. The other major crops are sorghum and tobacco closely
followed by brinjal, groundnut, pigeon pea, potato, mustard, sugarcane,
cowpea and soy. Brinjal however is the first crops to go into large
scale field trials and is thus anticipated to be the first crop to be
approved. Field trials are a long drawn-out process in which companies
have to prove that their GM seeds are non-toxic, superior to the
natural alternative and environmentally safe. The results have to be
approved by the GEAC. Over 236 GMOs, of which 169 are food crop
varieties, are in different stages of trials at different private and
public institutes in India.
The argument
While those in favor of GM crops might say they are the answer to the
world’s food crisis, opponents of GM crops have their own
arguments. Greenpeace released a report titled “Genetic
Gamble” in October that delves into the subject of
India’s GM food proliferation citing the pertinent danger
that inadequately tested GM could pose to consumer health, agriculture,
environment, and even revenues earned from food exports. “One
of the most glaring regulatory gaps is the system in which biosafety of
GM crops is given the least importance. The startling fact is that even
after two years of field trials, none of the regulatory bodies have any
conclusive evidence on the biosafety of GM rice, okra and
mustard.” stated Dr Mira Shiva, Initiative for Health and
Equity & Society. They argue that there is no labeling or
regulation of imported GM food and that the contamination of organic or
non-GM crops are not acknowledged. Unlike EU, where food labeling laws
are strict, but still need enforcement, Indian laws are almost
non-existent.
They argue that there have been no long term studies done to indicate
the safety of the first GM food crop of India. And while at the
international level, GM food has been either banned or strict
restrictions implemented in the European Union, Japan, South Korea and
many countries in Africa, India continues to promote GM as the panacea
for its food and agriculture problems, said Jai Krishna, campaigner
from Greenpeace. Greenpeace advocates that no open air release of GMOs
should happen unless there are independent long term health and
environmental impact studies conducted and published for an independent
public scrutiny conducted on them.
Arguments against GM
crops
A summary of anti-GM views:
- None of the GM crops that are being developed today in the
country are capable of an increased yield. All GM traits are for stress
tolerance/ pest resistance/ herbicide tolerance. Yield is not a mere
biological trait.
- No long term tests have been conducted to determine the
potential side effects /allergies. Company’s labs produce
their own safety studies and deny public access to them.
- No Precautionary approach. The safety of GM foods are
tested after or during open air field trials, where violations have
been repeatedly found, leading to irreversible contaminations
- Does not distinguish GM from non GM. The deliberate release
of GMOs means there is no choice left for either the consumer or the
farmer to choose.
- No Transparency: The biosafety tests are done by companies
that stand to benefit from the technology and are no published for an
independent assessment or allowed a free and fair public scrutiny.
GEAC member against MNCs
Dr Ramadoss also opposed to the import of GM food crops into
the country. Following Dr Ramadoss’ announcement,
well-known molecular biologist, and the Genetic Engineering Approval
Committee (GEAC) member Dr Pushpa Bhargava had written a letter to the
Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh, urging him to ban GM food crops being
imported into the country by pointing out that many of the approvals
given to MNCs went virtually unchecked without any safety checks or
research. India, being an agriculture intensive country, would be taken
over by MNCs. Bhargava, who was appointed by the Supreme
Court to observe the functioning of India’s apex GM
regulatory committee, GEAC, has suggested a list of tests to be
conducted and also pointed out that less than 10 percent of these tests
were actually conducted.
Bt food products in the EU goes through a
rigorous review to ensure safety, this task is carried out by the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA has a panel of independent
scientific experts that cooperates closely with national authorities of
all member states in analyzing the safety of the products. This panel
ensures that the highest standards of safety are applied when testing
new biotech crops. Only products that have been assessed as
safe are allowed to reach the market. The French Academies of Medicine,
Pharmacy and Sciences stated that no evidence of health problems exist
in the countries where Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been
widely eaten for several years.
A recent authoritative study by the European Commission’s
scientific advisory body the Joint Research Centre (JRC) reconfirmed
the commission’s findings of 2001, that there is no evidence
that genetically modified foods have harmful effects on public health
and that there is sufficient evidence available for scientists to draw
conclusions about the safety of biotech products. The 2001 study by the
European Commission had concluded that the use of more precise
technology and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably makes them even
safer than conventional plants and foods.
“India
would cease to be a free country if its agriculture is brought under
the control of foreign multinational companies”
Excerpts from the letter that Prof. PM Bhargava, former director,
CCMB has written to the Prime Minister appraising
him of the dangers of unchecked approval of GM crops.
![](/IMG/366/45366/bargava.gif)
Prof. PM Bhargava, expert member, GEAC
My dear Prime Minister,
I am writing to bring to your notice the dangers of virtually unchecked
approval of genetically modified crops in the country that is largely
serving the interest of multinational companies such as
Monsanto. This approval is granted, according to
the present procedure, by a Committee of the Department of
Biotechnology (DBT) followed by a Committee (Genetic Engineering
Approval Committee) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
There is a public interest petition pending in the Supreme Court (filed
by Aruna Rodrigues) asking for a moratorium of a few years on the sale
of genetically modified (GM) seeds and approval of GM
crops. In pursuance of this case, the Supreme Court
has nominated me to attend the meetings of the GEAC, which has made me
acutely aware of our failings in the area.
I have provided to the GEAC a list of tests that must be done before a
GM crop is approved. However, only less than 10
percent of these tests are actually being done before approval of GM
crops. Not only that, in the absence of a national
facility to do these tests or verify the results of tests done by
others, the seed companies are either doing the tests
themselves or having them done by laboratories in the country on
samples provided by the seed companies. These laboratories do not have
a facility to determine whether a seed is a normal seed or a
GM seed. Therefore, for all practical purposes,
there is no objective way today to ensure safety of a GM crop before it
is approved for field trials or commercialization. We already
have incontrovertible evidence that a great deal of damage has been
done by Bt. cotton (the only GM crop released so far, with many others,
including food crops, in the pipeline) to a section of farmers in
India, as well as to farm animals.
Mrs Aruna Rodrigues told me that she had forwarded the list of tests
mentioned above, that I had recommended to the GEAC, to
randomly selected well-known scientists who are experts in the
field, for their opinion, along with a copy of the
counter-affidavit of the GEAC which said that these tests are not
necessary (and which also cast personal aspersions on me!).
She has forwarded to me replies from the ten scientists who were
approached by her. All of them, without exception, have unequivocally
supported my list of tests; none of them are my personal
friends. I am enclosing copies of the replies of three
scientists who are connected with three of the best-known institutions
in the world. I would be happy to send your office all the
other replies as well.
I, therefore, agree with the contention of Mrs Aruna
Rodrigues in the above mentioned petition that is pending in
the Supreme Court, that we should have a five to seven
year’s moratorium on the sale of GM seeds and the
planting of any GM crop in the country. During this
period, we should set up an appropriate laboratory to carry out all the
necessary tests and to verify the results of others that may have been
carried out. I have given to the GEAC a blue-print
of such a laboratory which would easily take five years to be
fully operational. We seek your support to the above proposal.
May I in the end say that as India is primarily an agricultural
country, with 60 percent of its population deriving
its total income from agriculture and agriculture-related activities,
it would cease to be a free country if its agriculture is brought under
the control of foreign multinational companies through control of seed
and agrochemical production. The marketing of GM seeds by the
multinational companies is a step in this
direction. What is worrying is that as much as 30
percent of our seed production today may be, directly or indirectly,
already in the hands of foreign multinational companies. We must
prevent this trend. The proposed moratorium would be one important step
in that direction.
Yours sincerely, (P
M Bhargava)
|
Shalini Gupta