While scientists call GM crops a Trojan horse that will secretly demolish the Bharatiya agriculture scene, the PMO is flooded with protest letters against the genetically modified (GM) mustard
Manoranjana Gupta
India has become a key battleground for global corporate agriculture lobbies where multinational biotech companies have built a nexus with Indian regulatory bodies in an attempt to unleash ‘bio-terrorism’ in the country. However, with the situation fast spinning out of control and counter-lobbies springing into action, the government has now been forced to adopt a more cautious approach before taking a final decision on the controversial “environmental release of genetically modified crops such as HT mustard”.
GM Mustard/ Opinion : Will Sarson ka Saag become junk?
The all-powerful domestic regulator in India for transgenic products—Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) had touched a hornet’s nest early May this year when it gave a green signal to GM mustard, paving the way for the introduction of further genetically engineered crops in India. This despite the fact that there was a shocking evidence on how these crops lead to health and environmental catastrophe.
While there is an adamant lobby within India pushing for the much-touted “gene revolution”, there are razor-sharp scientists’ and farmers’ bodies that have at the moment managed to force the government to back off from “commercial exploitation of GM crops” and instead examine all their objections before taking the final decision. The anti-GM crops lobby has several stakeholders, including Swadeshi Jagran Manch and Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, who have sounded alarm bells. In a representation to the Union Environment Ministry, the Kisan body BKS has warned that the Bt Cotton disaster of Vidarbha will repeat itself if GM mustard is commercialised. Similarly, the Swadeshi Jagran Manch has pointed out the culpability of multinational company Monsanto in the Vidarbha cotton farmer suicides and the government’s denial of the same. The SJM has said that the collateral damage from use of GM crops is nothing but a slow poisoning of our nation.
Further impetus has been given to the anti-GMO lobby by a Parliamentary panel on Science & Technology and Environment & Forests comprising 31 Members of Parliament that has warned against the commercialisation of GM crops unless the bio-safety and socio-economic desirability is evaluated through a “transparent” process and an accountability regime is put in place. The committee has said that even imported GM foods must be labelled accordingly so that the public is not duped.
The warning from the Parliamentary committee has come at a time when the government is preparing its response to be
submitted to the Supreme Court on whether it will allow or reject the commercialisation of GM crops.
A member of the Technical Expert Committee appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as a distinguished fellow of the MS Swaminathan Research Foundation, Prof (Dr) PC Kesavan rejects all transgenic crops and in no uncertain terms condemns regulatory bodies which have granted approvals to these. He lambasts scientists’ bodies such as NAAS which are promoting unscientific and dangerous myths for their own vested interests.
A majority of experts felt that our country should have learned from the Bt Cotton disaster in Vidarbha, where multinational seed company, Monsanto, rode roughshod over cotton farmers leaving in its wake false claims and doctored information, farmers’ under debt suicides and dead livestock. They assert that despite a huge outcry against the failure of Bt Cotton, Monsanto has till today never acknowledged that its insect-resistant hybrid was a failed experiment in India that compelled farmers to commit suicide.
What is worse is that the lobby of GM crop propagandists is now using its muscle and trying to bulldoze our scientists, ignoring their warnings about the adverse impact of GM foods on health and environment, and hurtling mankind towards a disaster which will eventually affect every single person living on this planet.
Government to re-examine
As if history is repeating itself, the present public and scientific outcry is much the same that had stopped GM Bt brinjal from being commercialised as India’s first GM food crop.
The government then had played cautiously and imposed a moratorium on genetically modified Bt brinjal. In a similar vein, the government has now decided to examine all objections raised by scientists and farmers before taking a decision on genetically engineered (GE) mustard, as per the recent statement in Parliament given by the Union Environment & Forests Minister Dr Harsh Vardhan.
With the Parliamentary panel having added weight to the huge public outcry, the government has now buckled under the pressure and decided to call both sides for a fresh review of the situation. It has decided to call a high-level meeting of scientists, environmentalists as well as other experts to debate this contentious issue. This signals at least a significant delay in the implementation of the environmental release of HT Mustard and that in itself may be a good beginning. Meanwhile, many more Swadeshi organisations, as well as scientists’ and doctors’ organisations, have flooded the Prime Minister’s Office with complaints and memoranda regarding the hazards that will be caused by the so-called “environmental release” of transgenic mustard.
Developed by Delhi University-based Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants (CGMCP), HT mustard is argued to be superior as it is resistant to pests and diseases. Supporters also claim that its commercialisation would mean better yields, lower use of pesticides and more environment-friendly practices. The pro-GM lobby has also touted the claim that HT Mustard is not a product of the multinational private sector, but that of the Indian public sector.
However, the same is countered by leading Public Health Physician Dr Mira Shiva who reasons that anything that is inherently unsafe such as the Ht Mustard created through transgenic technology is bound to remain unsafe whether it is from the public or the private sector. She said, “GM mustard happens to be a herbicide-tolerant GMO developed with 100 crore taxpayers’ funds. What is inherently unsafe (created through transgenic technology) is bound to be unsafe whether it is from the public sector or private sector.”
The most pertinent question here is who influences the pro-GM crops lobby in India? Who builds up and finances networks of local scientists, policy-makers, and spokespersons to ensure GM policies work for its US corporate consortium partners?
Independent writer Colin Todhunter says Ht Mustard is a Trojan Horse and set to be a money spinner for the US multi-billion dollar herbicide companies like Bayer and Monsanto. It will secretly overthrow the Indian seed companies and subvert the interest of the Indian farming community.
The US government uses USAID to actively promote GM agriculture. The focus is on USAID’s major programs for agricultural biotechnology and the regions where these programmes are most active in Africa and Asia. These USAID programmes are part of a multi-pronged strategy to advance US interests with GM crops. Increasingly, the US government uses multilateral and bilateral free trade agreements and high-level diplomatic pressure to push countries towards the adoption of many key bits of corporate-friendly regulations related to GM crops. And this external pressure has been effectively complimented by lobbying and funding from national and regional USAID biotech networks.
At the core of this diplomacy lies the interests of the billion dollar US multinationals for which US goes into target countries and looks for promoting GM crops for commercialisation. Then it puts a scientific team together, works out the relevant IPR and regulatory issues and, in the meantime, invests heavily in public relations.
Misleading propaganda
Contrary to propaganda, GM crops do not increase yield potential, rather they often decrease it. While the yields of major crops have increased over recent decades, this is due to conventional breeding, not GM crops. High yield is a complex genetic trait resulting from many genes working together in ways that are not fully understood yet by scientists. It cannot be genetically engineered into crops with the existing crude techniques – or with any techniques in the development pipeline. Good farming methods, such as maintaining soil fertility, are equally or more important to maximizing yields. A study comparing agricultural productivity in the United States and Western Europe over the last 50 years, focusing on the staple crops of maize, canola, and wheat, found that the US’s GM production was lowering yields and increasing pesticide use as compared to Western Europe’s non-GM production. Contrary to claims that Europe’s reluctance to embrace GM is causing it to fall behind the US, the opposite is true: the US’s adoption of GM crops appears to be causing it to lag behind Europe in both productivity and sustainability.
As far as the claim of reducing pesticides through GM crops goes, it is nothing but a white lie. GM herbicide-tolerant crops are engineered to survive after being sprayed with
herbicide, most often glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup. All plant life in the field is killed except for the GM herbicide-tolerant crop. Over 80% of all GM crops grown worldwide are engineered to tolerate one or more
herbicides. Around 98% of commercialised GM crops are engineered to tolerate herbicides or to express Bt toxin insecticides. Herbicides and insecticides are technically pesticides. GM herbicide-tolerant crops have led to massive increase in herbicide use. Data collected by the US Department of Agriculture shows that GM herbicide tolerant crops have led to a 239 million kg increase in herbicide use in the US between 1996 and 2011.
The Federation of Medical Professionals in Argentina, representing 30,000 doctors and health professionals, asked for a ban on GM crops and glyphosate herbicides due to its health impacts. The fact is that 17 of the 20 developed countries in the world have consciously rejected GM agriculture. It will be folly to assume that their policy makers are ignorant fools, says former cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian.
The major cause of the increase in herbicide use on GM crops is the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant superweeds. Overuse of Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides on GM herbicide-tolerant crops has caused selection pressure, meaning that only those weeds that are resistant to the herbicide survive spraying and pass on their resistant genes to the next generation of weeds. Farmers have to spray more herbicide, or mixtures of herbicides, to try to control the weeds. The area of US cropland infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds expanded to a massive 61.2 million acres in 2012, according to an industry survey.
However, India’s own National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS) feels that GM crops have met all regulatory and biosafety standards and performance tests and therefore should not be denied to the farmers at any cost.
False claims
GM proponents have long claimed that genetic engineering will deliver healthier and more nutritious “bio fortified” crops. However, no such nutritionally enhanced GM foods are available in the marketplace. Some GM foods have been found to be less nutritious than their non-GM counterparts, due to unexpected effects of the genetic engineering process. The best-known attempt to nutritionally improve a crop by genetic engineering is beta-carotene-enriched GM “golden rice”. Beta-carotene can be converted by the human body to vitamin A. The crop is intended for use in poor countries in the Global South, where vitamin A deficiency causes blindness, illness, and death. However, despite over a decade’s worth of headlines hyping golden rice as a miracle crop, it is still not available in the marketplace.
The notion that GM crops are needed to feed the world’s growing population is repeated everywhere. But it is difficult to see how GM can contribute to solving world hunger when GM crops do not have higher intrinsic yields. Nor are there any GM crops that are better than non-GM crops at tolerating poor soils or challenging climate conditions. This is because, like high yield, tolerance to poor soils and extremes of weather are complex genetic traits involving many genes working together in ways that are not fully understood. Complex traits such as these cannot be genetically engineered into a crop.
Virtually all of the currently available GM crops are engineered for herbicide tolerance or to contain a pesticide or both. Interestingly, the two major GM crops, soy, and maize, mostly go into animal feed for intensive livestock operations, biofuels to power cars, and processed human food – products for wealthy nations that have nothing to do with meeting the basic food needs of the poor and hungry. The GM corporations are answerable to their shareholders and are interested in profitable commodity markets, not in feeding the world. A World Bank-sponsored report on the future of agriculture compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries did not endorse GM crops as a solution to the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change, noting “variable” yields.
GM proponents claim that GM is a precise technique that allows gene coding for the desired trait to be inserted into the host plant with a predictable outcome and no unexpected after-effects. But the genetic engineering process being crude, imprecise and highly mutageni, causes unpredictable changes in the DNA, proteins, and biochemical composition of the resulting GM crop. It can result in unexpected toxic effects, crop failure in the field and unpredictable effects on the environment. Claims that new genetic engineering techniques are making GM technology more precise and predictable are not supported by evidence.
Misplaced Assertion
Meanwhile, so far the government had been acting tough with Anti-GM Mustard Activists in India, alleging that they were twisting facts for ideological reasons and trying to derail and hijack the scientific progress being made by the country by seeking prohibition of open field trials and release for commercial cultivation of mustard hybrid, DMH-11, developed by Delhi University scientists.
The Environment Ministry has said that the Anti-GM lobby is making “misleading” statements when they assert that DMH-11 has no trait for yield increase. The Delhi University scientists have not claimed that the barnase-barstar system increases yield. It is meant for pollination control and production of hybrids by making one parental line male sterile. The government says the barnase-barstar system is a more efficient and versatile system for hybrid seed production. DMH-11 has reported a yield increase. Higher yielding GM mustard hybrids can be produced by back-crossing more productive lines.
In recent months, the government has accused the anti–GM lobby of peddling the bizarre conspiracy theory that DMH-11 is a ploy to benefit Bayer, which sells the herbicide phosphinothricin under the brand name Basta. It says Bayer’s patent on the molecule has lapsed. Two Indian companies are producing the herbicide and exporting it, so Bayer has no monopoly. There are no safety issues with the herbicide either. The government in its response asserts that the biosafety data on DMH-11 shows it presents no danger to human or animal health.
The Environment Ministry justifies not putting the full dossier of 3,285 pages on the website as demanded by the anti-lobbyists. It says the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety itself says all the information need not be disclosed as it could compromise the developer”s intellectual property rights and the data could be used by rivals. The summary put out on the website is sufficient for the public to make an informed judgment. The ministry says it has exceeded global best practice requirements, by inviting the public to see the full dossier without any part being redacted at the GEAC’s premises in Delhi.
Bt Cotton expert and eminent scientist currently working at the International Cotton Advisory Committee, Dr Keshav Kranthi, says there is enough data as evidence to show that field trials were shoddy, inferences drawn were unscientific and blind supporters were being guided by their own vested interests.
The government says GM technology is needed for hybrid mustard production because non-GM technology has not proved to be versatile or stable under extremely cold conditions prevailing in the mustard-growing regions of north India. It says mustard is grown on about 6 million hectares but the yield is stagnating despite 79 per cent seed replacement by farmers, and 75 per cent of the area under the crop being irrigated.
The main reason trotted out for introducing GM Mustard relates to higher yields—a totally unsubstantiated claim. Indeed, of the top 13 mustard-rapeseed growing countries, only three are permitted for GM seeds—none of these exceed yields of 2,000 kg/hectare, as
compared to non-GM yields in the UK, Germany, France, and Czech, which routinely exhibit yields of 3,000 kg/hectare. Blind proponents of GM crops routinely flog higher yield as the main raison d’être, which is contrary to the facts; conveniently not mentioning the other major negative effects of GM cultivation.
The proposed GM Mustard is a herbicide-tolerant GMO (genetically modified organism), which is not good news for the health of farmers, consumers, bees, and rural employment. The international experience is of wide expansion of highly undesirable herbicides as a result of herbicide- tolerant GM varieties, leading to serious environmental and health issues.
Outrightly rejecting transgenic crops, India’s most veteran
agriculture scientist Dr MS Swaminathan says that the biosecurity of the nation should be the first concern which includes the safety of the environment as well as the well-being of the farming community.
Field Trials Must
Dr Swaminathan has called for the urgent setting up of a Parliament-approved Bio-safety Regulatory Authority. He has warned against the commercial release of GM crops saying it should be done only “after necessary bio-safety clearances are given”. Swaminathan has said there should be no further delay in constituting a National Bio-safety Authority which is the only way to inspire public confidence.
Swaminathan has clarified that field trials of GM crops must take place but their commercial release would have to be done only “after the necessary bio-safety clearances are given”. He has further clarified that only the ICAR should be authorised to organize an All India Coordinated Project for the field testing of GM crops in the farms of Agriculture Universities with appropriate precautions. This will provide a uniform method of assessment in farm university-controlled land fields, It is noteworthy that Swaminathan’s call for field trials under the aegis of ICAR comes at a time when the trials for HT Mustard undertaken for the purpose of GEAC have come under fire and senior scientists have flagged several loopholes in the methods of field trials that were undertaken by the technology developer on HT Mustard saying that there was no correct assessment of impact of these trials.
Keeping in mind the intrinsic damage that GM crops can do to humans, the Founder Director of the Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology and Supreme Court’s Nominee in the GEAC, Dr Pushpa Bhargava, felt that a moratorium of about 7 years is required on release of any GM crop till their safety can be assured through stringent trials.
Swadeshi Jagran Manch and Kisan bodies have reminded the PMO of farmers’ suicides that have rocked the nation’s conscience. Professional scientists bodies have come out openly against the regulatory authority GEAC’s decision to release HT Mustard. Added to that has been the latest warning issued by the Parliamentary panel which has called for an urgent relook at the entire controversy before the
country takes an irreversible leap. All this has made the government take a step back. At least for now… nobody is pressing the “killer switch.”
(The writer is a senior journalist and media entrepreneur)
Comments