Home>>Archives

Press Release on Week of Rice Bangladesh, 2008

Press Release

WEEK OF RICE, 2008

SAVE LOCAL RICE VARIETIES
NO TO HYBRID AND GE RICE
Date: 2 – 9 April 2008
Venue: Prabartana
2/8 Sir Syed Road, Mohammadpur, Dhaka – 1207
Organized by: Narigrantha Prabartana, Nayakrishi Andolon and UBINIG

2 April 2008

The 'Week of Rice Action' has started from April 2nd, 2008 with a festival, cultural programme and discussion session on Local rice varieties and with an urge to stop Hybrid and GE Rice. UBINIG, Nayakrishi Andolon and Narigrantha Prabartana organized the weeklong programme of the 'Week of Rice' from 2 April to April April 8, 2008. The inauguration was held at Narigrantha Prabartana, Dhaka. The event was initiated by exhibition of rice varieties, discussion meeting and cultural presentations.

A total of 450 varieties of rice were presented in the exhibition. The rice varieties included gernplasm of special attributes including rice for chira (pressed rice), khoi (popped rice), Muri (puffed rice) pitha (rice cake/snacks), cold tolerant rice, salt tolerant rice, drought tolerant rice etc. This rice exhibition will remain open up to 8 April 2008 at Narigrantha Prabartana (2/8 Sir Syed Road Mohammadpur, Dhaka-1207). The 'Week of Rice' will be observed in different districts (Tangail, Kushtia, Cox's Bazar, Chapainawabganj, Pabna, Barishal, Kurigarm, Jessore, Netrokona and Mymensing) amidst various events from 3-8 April 2008.

Akkas Ali, and Nabiron two Nayakrishi farmers; Farida Akhter, Executive Director, UBINIG and Dr. M.A. Sobhan, Research Consultant, UBINIG, addressed the discussion meeting among others. Akkas Ali mentioned that hybrid rice lacked variability and adaptability. The hybrid rice also lacks variability for quality attributes as well. Hybrid rice is not good for special purposes such as cooking polau, payesh and other delicacies. The local varieties of rice have all such qualities. But the local varieties are threatened for erosion due to the introduction of High Yielding Varieties (HYVs). High doze of pesticides are required for hybrid rice. Cultivation of rice with irrigation from underground water has created problem of short supply of water. The chemical agriculture is destroying our agriculture.

Farida Akhter mentioned, "eighty percent of land of the country is now offered for cultivation of rice. But still we are running short of food grains. This is because the high yield claim is turning into high input requirements and trade off with other food crops. The farmers have been allured for chemical agriculture for higher yield of crops. The partners of development including the World Bank compel the government to go for high input based modern agriculture. The entry of hybrid rice was initiated in 1995. The introduction of hybrid rice was allowed without any trial. The supply of hybrid rice is mainly dependent on import. Most of the hybrid rice seeds are imported from China and India and sold at 10 times higher price than the local seed. The promoters of Hybrid seeds take advantage of the natural disasters to impose on the farmers. After the flood and cyclone SIDR fifteen companies, including ACI, Syngenta were actively engaged in promoting hybrid rice seeds.

Critical debates are going on hybrid and GMO across the globe. These technologies are company owned, import dependent and not at all sustainable. The World Bank has been pushing those technologies into Bangladesh which failed in other countries".
Dr. M.A Sobhan mentioned that there were three agricultural periods in Bangladesh. These are rabi (winter), kharif- 1 (summer) and kharif – 2 (rain and autumn). The major crops of rabi include: pulses, oil seeds, potato, sweet potato, cereals, vegetables and spices. The rabi period include the Bangla month of Agrahayon-Chaitra. The kharif – 1 period covers Baishakh – Sraban. The main crop of this period is aus rice/jute. The kharif –2 period covers Sraban – Agrahayon. The main crop of this period is aman rice. Now a days the crops are not grown as per the conventional periods. Unduly the cultivation of high yielding varieties and hybrids of boro rice have been extended to non-conventional area at the cost of pulse, oil seeds, vegetables and other crops. Boro rice is cultivated with irrigation from underground water. These lands remain fallow for about 2-3 month after harvest of boro rice and before transplanting aman rice. There is a need for increasing rainfed aus rice and reducing boro rice area. The genetic base of rice has been narrowed down by HYVs and hybrids. Rice is now vulnerable to pest epidemics.

Shima Das Shimu moderated the discussion meeting.

Thanks

Sayyida Akhter

Coordinator

Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK), the first political party in India to say a clear NO to GE

Chennai, March 2nd 2007: Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) founder leader S Ramadoss today demanded the Tamilnadu government to ensure that the State remained free of genetically modified farm seeds and warned that he would lend his weight behind protests to block the entry of genetically modified farm inputs. Inaugurating an awareness campaign rally here to Save Rice and ensure Tamilnadu remained free of genetic crops, organised by Pasumai Thayagam and other NGOs, Ramadoss said there was an urgent need for the farmers, people and the NGOs to join hands to fight the threat of genetically modified seeds sold by multinational companies.

Assuring his full support to such movements, which seek to protect the nation's natural resources, the PMK leader said it was only because of some self-seeking bureaucrats, politicians, and scientists that multinational companies which sell 'such dangerous,' farms inputs were able to establish themselves here. In a clear note of caution to the Central and State governments Ramadoss said 'come what may you should never allow genetically engineered seeds in Tamilnadu.' Explaining that a lot of farmers were affected by cultivating Bt cotton, he urged the Tamilnadu government to give compensation to all the affected. Incidentally, the Union Minister for Health, Dr Anbumani Ramadoss belongs to PMK. While other parties in the country have taken up the issue of GM crops in an opportunistic manner, PMK is the first political party to clearly take a stand on GM crops.

"Activists promise a GM-Free India"

Hyderabad, February 27th 2008: Activists from fourteen states of India, consisting of farmers' organizations, NGOs, consumer groups and women's federations have pledged to keep India free of Genetically Modified foods and crops. Concluding a two-day national meeting (on February 25th and 26th 2008)which reviewed the available evidence on GM technology and its ramifications, the Coalition for GM-Free India today resolved to intensify the campaign to educate, create awareness and build public opinion against the hazardous implications of the technology.

"Last year, 2000 villages declared themselves GM Free where farmers took an informed decision to protect themselves against the onslaught of this imprecise corporate science. This year, another 2000 villages are expected to declare themselves GM-Free, spearheading a nation-wide resistance against GM crops", said Devinder Sharma, Coalition for GM-Free India.

The Coalition represents lakhs of farmers and consumers across the country. Among the important strategy decisions that emerged, the Coalition has decided to work towards making GM-Free India a political issue considering the forthcoming general elections.

States like Orissa, Kerala and Uttarakhand have already declared themselves GM-Free. In the days to come, more and more states are expected to follow suit.

Pointing out that the Government of India is acting irresponsibly and bowing before the money power of multinational biotech industry, Ms Janani of Orissa Nari Samaj said, "Majority of the countries in the world have rejected GM in their farming and they have done so after considering all options. The Government of India is clearly putting the interests of corporations before the interests of farmers". Orissa Nari Samaj fears that the expansion of cultivable area under GM crops will destroy the available biodiversity thereby threatening the nation's food security.

Representatives of the Coalition also denounced the hype about Bt Cotton contributing to spectacular yield increases in Indian cotton and clarified that in several states, the yield figures are actually showing unsteady trends and that in states like Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, some of their record yields were obtained from non-Bt Cotton and not Bt Cotton. In a state like Gujarat, increase in yields is attributed to good monsoons and increase in irrigation by around 33% in the past five years, amongst other reasons, by the state government of Gujarat.

Participating in the Press Conference were representatives of fourteen states – Sri Devinder Sharma from Delhi; Dr Nammalvar and Sri Selvam from Tamil Nadu, Sri Utkarsh Sinha from Uttar Pradesh, Ms Usha, Kerala; Mr Krishna Prasad from Karnataka; Mr Hartej Singh Mehta of Punjab, Sri Chandan Mukherjee, West Bengal; Mr Datta Patil, Maharashtra; Mr Sunil Kumar, Bihar; Mr Girija Nandan Upadhyay, Jharkhand; Mr Vijay Bhadu, Rajasthan; Mr Jagannath Chatterjee from Orissa; Sri Nilesh Desai from Madhya Pradesh and Dr Ramanjaneyulu/Ms Kavitha Kuruganti from Andhra Pradesh.

For more information, contact:

1. Devinder Sharma at 098-113-01857

2. Kavitha Kuruganti at 093-930-01550

Proposed Indian government rider may become a GM crop killer By Jacob P. Koshy

Cultivation of genetically modified plants will be allowed only if it is nutritionally superior to the natural variety, says the draft guideline.

New Delhi, 19th Sep 2007: The government is considering a proposal that says genetically modified (GM) crops, apart from passing several other field trials, also have to prove that they are nutritionally superior to their "natural" counterparts before they can be cultivated in any scale and, consequently, sold commercially.

The Supreme Court may have lifted an eight-month ban on field trials of generically modified or GM food crops (albeit with some riders) in May, but if the government decides to go ahead with this proposal, it will make it tougher for any GM crop to make the grade. Companies and research bodies developing GM eggplant, for instance, must, in addition to passing toxicity and allerginicity tests, show that this is nutritionally superior to ordinary eggplant. GM crops are usually cultivated because they promise high yields, good-looking vegetables and fruits, and are pest-resistant.

"A GM tomato can't just be big and juicy, but will have to prove that it's better than what you get now," said Vasantha Muthuswamy, senior deputy director general, Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), who helped draft the guidelines.

The guidelines even mandate that GM crops cultivated as animal feed—high yields are a big selling point in such cases—need to be nutritionally as good as the "natural" crop.

When genetically modified food crops were first allowed in the US a decade ago, some environmental groups alleged that they were of little nutritional value.

"We have taken all those matters into consideration, " Muthuswamy added. Currently called the Draft Notification of Nutrition Guidelines for Genetically Modified Foods, the document was prepared by ICMR at the National Institute of Nutrition in Hyderabad.

Though referred to as guidelines, companies would have to strictly adhere to them. "These guidelines have been submitted to the genetic engineering approval committee (or GEAC, the nodal government body that has the final say on GM crops), and once they clear it, it will be a mandatory for companies to follow them," Muthuswamy said.

Most of the guidelines are detailed chemical tests, and list the data to be collected and the format in which test studies have to be submitted. Richard Goodman, professor of food science, at the University of Nebraska and responsible for specifying similar guidelines for GM crops in the US said: "These procedures are vital and while it's not too difficult to chemically prove nutritional superiority, you need a highly qualified, dedicated set of technical experts to evaluate such test results. I hope the Indian government has thought of that aspect too."

While the department of biotechnology (DBT), one of the government agencies involved with GM foods, has always said it's short on technical staff, Muthuswamy said that specialized training for analysing nutritional guidelines was being given to DBT officials. "We have tied up with a Canadian company, AGBIOS, to provide training to our staff for this work. As of now, 60 scientists have specialized training and we hope to properly equipped within a year," she added.

Genetically modified eggplant is now at the penultimate stage of test trials and, if all clearances are given by GEAC, is expected to be commercially available in two years.

Source: http://www.livemint.com

Indian states, union territories told to form panel for Bt crop trial By Sanjay K Singh

New Delhi, Sep 21st 2007: The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that state governments and UTs have been instructed to constitute state biotechnology co-ordination committees (SBCC) and district level committees (DLC) to ensure safe field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops.
In an affidavit filed in the apex court, the ministry of environment and forests said the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee chairman has, on September 3, instructed the concerned chief secretaries to constitute SBCCs and DLCs.

State governments have been asked to instruct their department of agriculture and state agricultural universities to comply with the monitoring and reporting requirements in a timely manner, it added.

In order to ensure that the field trials of GM crops are conducted in a safe manner, the Centre has notified the monitoring cum evaluation committee (MEC), comprising multi disciplinary experts, to monitor and evaluate filed trials through state agricultural universities, the affidavit added.

Source: The Economic Times

Pest attack: Punjab Bt cotton crop may be set back by 25%

After a bumper cotton crop last year, this year has come has a shock to Punjab farmers, especially since 80% of the cotton acreage in Punjab falls under Bt crop
New Delshi, Aug 31st 2007: The cotton crop in Punjab, grown from the Bt cotton seed, has suffered a setback following attacks by a pest known as the mealy bug. “According to the (Punjab) agriculture department, even though more area is under the cotton crop this year, production will be approximately 20-25% less,” says a government official who did not wish to be identified.

After a bumper cotton crop last year, this year has come has a shock to Punjab farmers, especially since 80% of the cotton acreage in Punjab falls under Bt crop. Bt cotton seed is genetically modified to repel attacks by bollworms, a common cotton pest. The districts of Mansa, Bhatinda, Muktsar and Ferozepur are the worst-hit by this pinhead sized insect, which feeds on plant sap. The last major attack of mealy bug was in 1978 with few and sporadic attacks since then. Meanwhile, many of the farmers who didn’t plant Bt crop this year appear to be unaffected. “The reason has nothing to do with Bt or non-Bt crop,” said A.K. Dhawan, cotton expert at the Punjab Agricultural University. “The reason is organic farmers (those who use indigenous seed varieties) practice multi-cropping. Mealy bugs don’t fly. They attack row after row of cotton crop. In multi-cropping, various vegetables and cereals are sown in rows next to each other so mealy bugs die when they hit another crop row.”

Some organic farmers are glad. “I have five acres and I sow maize, lobia, soybean, cotton and vegetables. Though my neighbour’s crop (also five acres) has been badly affected by the insect, my crop is intact,” says Amarjeet Sharma, an organic farmer. Agricultural experts agree that when the focus is on controlling one pest, secondary pests can take over. “There have been numerous cases in China of such attacks on Bt cotton,” says Kavitha Kuruganti of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, a lobby group for organic farmers. “In Gujarat, the agriculture department has even set up a committee to look into the matter of attacks of mealy bugs and other pests on Bt cotton. The crop also requires high amounts of fertilizer inputs, which increases sugar content, thereby attracting sucking pests.”

Meanwhile, an association that represents seed sellers such as Monsanto-Mahyco Biotech Ltd, Rashi and Ankur notes that the problem is “not Bt related. Bt is only specific for bollworms. This has taken farmers by surprise. Not that they are not aware that they need to use pesticides with Bt cotton seed,” said R.K. Sinha, executive director, All India Crop Biotechnology Association, the umbrella organization for manufacturers of genetically modified seeds. “It has been observed that when 100% of a region goes under Bt cultivation, it becomes susceptible to pests,” says a pesticide company official who did not wish to be identified. “The best example is Gujarat. We expected this to happen in Punjab too as more than 80% is under Bt and it did.”

This year’s attack will not only reduce cotton yield but it has pushed up input costs of farmers as well. “The cost to farmers has increased by Rs2,500 per acre on account of pesticides to contain the attack,” the pesticide official said. He added that because of this attack, his company had in the last few weeks sold additional pesticide worth Rs300 crore. Input costs for Bt cotton farmers is higher to begin with as each seed packet costs around Rs750. Moreover, Bt can be grown only in intensively irrigated areas as opposed to indigenous seeds, which are hardier. Irrigation pulls up input costs for farmers because they have to run pumps.

http://www.livemint.com/2007/08/31003149/Pestattack-Punjab-Bt-cotton.html

Bt cotton not pest resistant

Patiala, Aug 24th 2007: The attack of the mealy bug on the Bt cotton crop in Punjab has stripped it of its aura and destroyed the illusion that it is resistant to all pests. Two years back the Punjab government had described the introduction of Bt cotton as a great achievement. However, this season, the third year after its introduction, thousands of acres in the Malwa region are facing attack by the pest. Desperate farmers, gripped by panic, are resorting to intensive pesticide sprays and some of them have started ploughing their fields. The state directorate of agriculture has put out advertisements in vernacular daily papers prescribing a list of pesticides for spray to control the bug.

Now agricultural experts have also started saying Bt cotton is not totally free from attacks by pests. Punjab agricultural director BS Sidhu said he or his department had never claimed that Bt Cotton was pest free. “Rather, we had told cotton growers that, except for the bollworm group, other pests could attack Bt cotton like any other cotton crop. Two years back the Punjab government had described the introduction of Bt cotton as a great achievement. However, this season, the third year of its cultivation, thousands of acres in the Malwa region are facing attack by the pest. Desperate farmers, gripped by panic, are resorting to intensive pesticide sprays and some of them have started ploughing their fields.

The state directorate of agriculture has put out advertisements in vernacular daily papers prescribing a list of pesticides for spray to control the bug. Now agricultural experts have also started saying Bt cotton is not totally free from attacks by pests. Punjab agricultural director BS Sidhu said he or his department had never claimed that Bt Cotton was spray free. “Rather, we had told cotton growers that except the boll worm group, the pests could also attack it like other varieties of cotton”, he said. When contacted, Dr Ashok Diwan of the entomology department also said Bt cotton was safe only from the pink, spotted and American bollworm while other pests could attack it.

Umendra Dutt, executive director of the Kheti Virasat Mission (KVM), Punjab, put a question before them that if Bt cotton was safe from only one pest then why was the hype about Bt cotton’s invincibility created. He said earlier cotton seeds were available for Rs 20 to 30 per kg and the farmers were then lured to purchase the Bt cotton seed for Rs 3,600 per kg. The previous Congress government had put out official advertisements that made tall claims about the advantages of Bt cotton, among them an increase in yield by 25% to 28% per hectare, net increase in income by Rs 10-15,000 per hectare and savings on agrochemicals up to Rs 1,000 per hectare.

Talking to TOI, Dutt claimed within a span of two months Rs 500 crore worth of pesticides to control the mealy bug were sold and, if the trend continues, the total sum may surpass Rs 800 crore. Apart from pesticides farmers had also applied chemical fertilisers like DAP and urea. “Not only causing huge losses to the already distressed farmers, the mealy bug has destroyed the illusion of Bt cotton’s infallibility.

“As the mealy bug is destroying the cotton crop in Punjab’s Malwa region, in desperation the farmers are intensively spraying pesticides that are toxic and costly on their crop. A major portion of the profits that farmers had hoped to reap from the Bt cotton crop has already been reaped by pesticide companies while the seed companies had already made a lot of money by selling farmers the expensive seed”, said Dutt.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chandigarh/Bt_cotton_not_pest_resistant/articleshow/2305806.cms

Activists cry foul about trials of Bt Brinjal

New Delhi, Aug 21st 2007: In allowing large-scale trials of Bt Brinjal, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the environment ministry may have violated its own June 2007 rule that states that such trials will be allowed only after complete biosafety data has been generated. "It is unfortunate that the GEAC has allowed large-scale trials of Bt Brinjal without biosafety having been cleared and without making the data public. In the process, it is breaking its own rules which were reiterated in its June 2007 meeting,” said Hyderabad-based Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) executive director G V Ramanjaneyulu.

"It is inappropriate for GEAC to have called for feedback from the public on the so-called biosafety data put up by Mahyco and not to share the expert committee's findings in a similar manner on its website before taking a decision on this matter," said CSA’s Kavitha Kuruganti.

In fact, numerous questions on biosafety have been raised on Bt Brinjal, particularly on the protocol of tests conducted or commissioned by Mahyco, data analysis and conclusions drawn. Some of the prescribed tests like foliar feeding studies (which have been mandated after reports of animal mortality and morbidity after open grazing on Bt Cotton fields) have not been completed on Bt Brinjal, assert environment and farm activist groups. This was evident from the perusal of GEAC minutes and the fact that no findings have been made public thus far, said CSA.

“The GEAC is shorting the circuits of processes and aiding a company which had not even bothered to follow the conditions imposed on it by the regulators in the previous permissions. Recent information shared by the GEAC under the Right To Information Act showed once again that Mahyco has repeatedly violated the conditional permissions given for trials, including by taking up trials in locations where they were not permitted," Mr Ramanjaneyulu added.

Large-scale trials have reportedly been allowed in 13 different locations, to be led and coordinated by the Indian Vegetable Research Institute in Varanasi and all trials would, it is understood, take place inside the NARS campuses (not in farmers' fields).

Meanwhile, an independent expert committee on Bt Brinjal set up by CSA and Thanal, which went through the all India coordinated research project on vegetable cultivation report for 2005-06 on Bt Brinjal trials, has noted that little additional information can be expected to be garnered from the ICAR-supervised agronomic trials for Bt Brinjal. "It is therefore not clear what else will the agronomic trials will prove," said Ms Kuruganti.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Commodities/Activists_cry_foul_trials_of_Bt_brinjal/articleshow/2296680.cms

GM crop trials no more in farmers' fields

New Delhi, Aug 22nd 2007: After the Supreme Court order, the Indian government has further made the multi-location research trials of new genetically modified (GM) crops tougher. The Centre recently banned MLRTs of GM crops in farmers' fields. These trials - which precede the large-scale field trials prior to commercial release - will henceforth have to be done by seed companies/institutions either in their own premises, research farms and long-lease lands or at farms belonging to state agricultural universities and Indian Council of Agricultural Research institutes.

At present, any new GM "event" or foreign gene construct incorporated in a host plant has to go through five stages before being accorded permission for commercial cultivation. In the first stage, the "event" itself has to take place in the laboratory, which involves transformation of a cotton or brinjal hybrid into a GM plant through insertion of a foreign gene. In the second stage, the company is allowed to conduct glasshouse experiments of the new "event" (by growing the transformed plants in enclosed pots), which is then followed by controlled field trials to test out performance in natural conditions. In the MLRT stage, the GM crop is planted in open fields in order to produce material that can be used for undertaking bio-safety studies, i.e. whether the grains or seeds produce any toxic or allergenic effect.

Till now, the MLRT was being done in selected farmers' fields on a limited scale. This was supposed to be done with informed consent from the farmers. But, with the Supreme Court in its May 8 judgment prescribing rigorous conditions difficult to be met in farmers' fields, it has been decided that MLRT would be held only in the fields belonging to companies or ICAR/SAU institutions.

The court had directed companies to maintain a minimum distance of 200 meters between the trial fields and the regularly cultivated fields, besides ensuring levels of detection of as low as 0.01 per cent (to confirm whether any 'contamination' of normal crop by the GM material has taken place). It is difficult to find farmers who will offer part of their fields and not grow anything else within 200 metres. By allowing MLRTs only in company or institutional farms, there is no danger of any contamination to farmers' fields. So the need for observing detection levels of one in 10,000 is also dispensed with. But that still leaves the question of what happens to the fifth stage of LST? How will companies find land for these trials that are to be conducted in different agro-climatic regions for evaluating agronomic performance and bio-safely on a bigger scale?

http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/aug/22gm.htm

Green signal to genetic food

New Delhi, Aug 18th 2007: India has become the first country in the world to allow large-scale field trials of genetically modified food crops with certain restrictions. Four hybrid varieties of Bt brinjal, promising better yield with less use of pesticides, will be tested across 11 locations in the country till April next year. “The large-scale field trials of a GM crop have been allowed for the first time,” an environment and forest ministry official said.

The ministry has, however, imposed restrictions. No trial can take place in fields owned by farmers. The trials will be conducted in Indian Council for Agricultural Research farms under the direct supervision of the Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR). This comes in the wake of farmer protests in Haryana and Uttar Pradesh over field trials of Bt rice. For the first time, the socio-economic impact of Bt brinjal and any change in its taste and nutritional value will also be done. The ministry has decided that specific skin sensitisation tests on guinea pigs and the impact of the plant on soil will be conducted as part of bio-safety studies.

The government also wants a minimum isolation distance of 300 metres to be maintained to check any contamination from transgenic food crop. This follows the Supreme Court’s direction to maintain a minimum isolation distance of 200 metres. The government has also accepted the suggestion of the Deepak Pental Committee, constituted to examine Bt brinjal, that independent studies on the toxicity of the crop should be conducted. Unlike Bt cotton, the GM food crops are for human consumption and even a slight toxicity can cause medical problems. So far, data generated by Bt brinjal companies shows no toxicity. The Bt brinjal development is significant because its success would open doors for large-scale tests on genetically modified tomato and okra, the other two food crops for which the ministry has allowed bio-safety studies last week.

However, the decision has stirred a hornet’s nest among groups opposed to GM crops. The Hyderabad-based Centre for Sustainable Agriculture said the trials should not have been allowed till complete bio-safety data is generated on Bt brinjal. “Some of the prescribed tests like foliar feeding studies (which have been mandated after reports of animal mortality and morbidity after open grazing on Bt cotton fields) have not been completed on Bt brinjal,” said its director Dr G.V. Ramanjaneyulu. India's tryst with GM crops started in 2002 when commercial cultivation of Bt Cotton was permitted. It was followed by large-scale protests but cotton traders said the technology made India the second largest cotton producer after China.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=d359f2e6-0aa6-465f-81f7-79cc7ed60f43&&Headline=Green+signal+to+genetic+food

India announces restrictions on GM Rice Imports

TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY PART-II, SECTION—3, SUB SECTION (ii)
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NOTIFICATION No. 13 (RE-2007) / 2004-2009
NEW DELHI, DATED 10 July, 2007

S.O. (E)    In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 read with paragraph 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy – 2004-09, the Central Government hereby amends Schedule – I (Imports) of the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items, 2004-09 as under:

1. Import Licensing Note No. (3) will be added at the end of Chapter 10 and will be read as follows:

"3. Import of GM rice is restricted. Import of rice in India is permitted only if the exporter is able to furnish a certificate from the competent Government Authorities from country of export that the exported rice is GM free."

2.  This issues in public interest.

Sd/-

(R.S. Gujral)
Director General of Foreign Trade
And Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India

CSA cautions AP government against GM crop trials in the state

July 12, 2007
Hyderabad

To 
Sri Y S Rajasekhar Reddy
Hon’ble Chief Minister
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Hyderabad.

Dear Sir

Sub: Genetically Modified crops – field trials & commercial cultivation in AP – Need for an immediate halt

You have come into power in 2004, promising to keep the best interests of farmers in mind, unlike earlier governments which were seeking to ruthlessly eliminate farmers in the quest of their "Vision 2020", aided by foreign bilateral and multilateral agencies. You had promised an important space for farmers in all your programmes and have announced ambitious programmes like Seed Village programme for increasing the farmers' self reliance when it comes to seed, a critical input in farming.

However, we find that you are making fundamentally wrong moves when it comes to GE/GM crops in the state and are showing a serious short-sightedness about technology and its potential impacts on farmers, caught in your own political expediencies. You are not exhibiting any basic understanding related to Indian farming and farmers' livelihoods, any more than your predecessors. We would like to remind you about a few points which are worth taking note of and based on which decisions in favour of farmers are expected from your government.

Honourable CM, As the leader of Opposition in the AP Legislative Assembly you have raised several concerns about the introduction of Bt Cotton and its subsequent failure in the state and it is not out of place to remind you about the same.

1. Your government would remember that it was here that Bt Cotton's first reports of failure were officially confirmed, even in the first year of the GM crop cultivation in 2002-03. In 2004-05, despite huge losses incurred by farmers, your government was unable to get the biotech companies to pay up compensation, despite having a Memorandum of Understanding in place with the company for its seed marketing activity in the state. The lack of accountability on the part of the companies and the fact that the state government discovered itself incapable of fixing liability (because of lack of any legislation with teeth which would give the required authority to the agriculture department) cannot be forgotten here in the context of any other GM crop making an entry into the state. Neither the Seeds Act nor the Seeds Control Order have left any powers with the state government to control GM seed trials.

2. It is in Andhra Pradesh that secret trials of GM seeds were first discovered in 1998 when the state government vehemently objected to such trials. The state government emphasized that Agriculture is a state subject at that point of time. Later, when civil society groups and media reported a similar trial of Bt Okra by Mahyco in 2005 in Narakodur village of Guntur district, the state government once again demanded that no trials be permitted by the Centre without prior information to and consent from the state. Things had not improved since then. We found out through RTI applications that the state is still not aware of trials happening in the state, even though civil society groups like ours are aware of more such trials.

3. It is in AP that the state government and the farmers learnt a tough lesson about monopolistic, exclusive and expensive intellectual property rights that govern GM technology. The state government spent tax-payers' funds to counter the market-greedy multinational company and its Indian counterparts, through the Monopolies & Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. In any case, for the farmer, your government has not brought about any benefits from this fight, since the farmers are being asked to sow two packets of Rs. 750/- each rather than one packet of Rs. 1600/-, at the end of the hyped up struggle. How does the farmer benefit if the per acre seed cost does not change?

Does the government want to resort to the MRTPC each time such anti-farmer pricing is adopted by the companies, which they would inevitably do, given that the government and the agri-research establishment have washed their hands off most crop seeds with the advent of hybrid technologies? Further, how can a technology which is fundamentally faulty and hazardous, provide benefits to farmers or consumers, even if it is given free of cost?

4. In Andhra Pradesh, there is no legal mechanism to oversee GM crop trials or their safety given that no State Biotechnology Coordination Committee, mandated under the Environment Protection Act's 1989 Rules, has been formed. This is one law that could have been used by the state government sensibly. However, you chose not to set up the SBCC and allowed GM crop trials to proliferate all over the state. From 1998 onwards, is there no lesson that the state government has learnt, that it wants to continue violating the law?

5. In Andhra Pradesh, the state government has taken up Integrated Pest Management (IPM) through its agriculture department and its scientists. As per data provided to us, IPM has yielded great results in the state in crops like rice, cotton, vegetables etc. In Cotton, while the average yield per hectare of Bt Cotton is 19.2 quintals, the average yield in the department’s experience of IPM – FFSs (Polam Badi) is 21.77 quintals. Despite such results, how can a government which professes to be working in the interests of farmers not have the political will to promote such pest management alternatives and why is it that the government instead wants to hand over the hapless farmers of the state into the hands of unscrupulous commercial interests in the seed and chemical industry? It is here in Andhra Pradesh that on five lakh acres of land, women farmers are taking the lead to show that pest management in farming is possible without pesticides or GE seeds, in a highly impressive programme supported by the Rural Development department. The improvement in the livelihoods of these poor farming households by a shift to NPM is visible and well-recognised.  

6. This state has 13.8 million people recorded as agricultural workers in 2001 census – this constitutes 40% of our population. Their very survival will be seriously and immediately jeopardized by the entry of the most popular variety of the GM technology today – crops with the trait of herbicide tolerance, for which field trial applications have been submitted to the GEAC this year by some multinational companies. Herbicide tolerant crops will mean that women especially, who are already marginalized in many spheres and who find (de-) weeding in farming as an employment opportunity, will further be marginalized.

7. It is here in Andhra Pradesh that farmers have experienced the full range of problems with relation to GM crops like Bt Cotton. Firstly, there were crop losses right from 2002-03 without any compensation paid for such losses. These losses were for various reasons. One important reason is the stress intolerance of Bt Cotton, observed and reported by farmers as well as scientists. Bt Cotton has been promoted aggressively in a state where 70% of cotton cultivation is under rainfed conditions. It is only in 2007 that the state agriculture university and the department of agriculture are recommending that Bt Cotton is not suitable in rainfed conditions. In the Vyavasaya Panchamgam of 2007-08, on page 129, ANGRAU (Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University) has the following to say about Bt Cotton:

   • in extreme weather conditions like water scarce situations and with heavy rains, Bt Cotton’s effect is not as expected

   • Bt Cotton does not have any tolerance against sucking pests; further, it has been found that incidence of sucking pests is higher on Bt Cotton as per studies

   • Studies are also showing that incidence of diseases is higher on Bt Cotton, compared to Non-Bt Cotton

   • After adverse conditions, development of tender shoots again in Bt Cotton is much lesser than on Non-Bt Cotton.

If that were so, why are seeds being procured at the personal behest of the agriculture minister? What steps has the department taken to ensure that rainfed cotton farmers do not opt for Bt Cotton? What steps have been taken to ensure seed choices for farmers in a situation when non-Bt Cotton seed is not stocked by dealers anymore?

8. The Agriculture University also points out that Bt Cotton requires more chemical fertilizer use. There is an increased dosage of chemical fertilizer as per recommendations of the university for Bt Cotton. Overall, this would mean an increased demand of chemical fertilizers to the tune of 9600 tonnes of Nitrogen, 4800 tonnes of Phosphorus and 4800 tonnes of Potash to cater to the requirements of Bt Cotton, just as 1/3^rd more fertilizers on the usual dosage recommended. Seed dealers when contacted, are recommending more dosages, expectably. This would mean a minimum of 22 crores of rupees more for Bt Cotton farmers at last year’s acreage. In a situation when chemical fertilizer demand against supply is resulting in farmers’ agitations across the country, how does the government propose to raise the additional supply? More importantly, how are the overall energy economics of such increased use of fertilizers compatible with claims about benefits from Bt Cotton? What about the deterioration to natural resources from increased use of such inorganics?

9. Apart from stress intolerance, Bt Cotton has also shown itself to be vulnerable to newer pests and diseases like mealy bug, stem borer, tobacco streak virus, bronze wilt etc. In fact, as per data obtained under Right to Information Act by our organization, any benefits of Bt Cotton over non-Bt Cotton are completely negligible compared to the number of newer and serious problems that emerge from its cultivation. The Andhra Pradesh agriculture commissioner has also officially written to the GEAC that any increases in productivity in cotton in the state are not related to Bt Cotton.

10. It is in Andhra Pradesh that the animal husbandry department has officially acknowledged an unusual toxicity phenomenon with animals grazing in an uncontrolled open fashion on Bt Cotton fields. They have asked farmers not to graze their animals on Bt Cotton fields and what's more, they have even recommended to the agriculture department not to allow any sales of Bt Cotton seeds until the whole phenomenon is studied in a scientific, comprehensive and transparent fashion to understand its links to Bt Cotton and the GM technology employed. If this could happen with a non-food crop, what lies in store for humans related to various GM food crops under trials as well as all fodder sources being converted to GM crops and its implications on farmers can be well imagined. Hundreds of agricultural workers are also reporting allergies from working in Bt Cotton fields in various districts of the state but no government agency has taken cognizance of this problem or investigated it systematically.

11. Andhra Pradesh boasts of a wide variety of brinjal, paddy, bhindi, jowar and maize. All of these are being jeopardized by the stealthy field trials in open air conditions that have been happening in the state – it is not out of place to remind the government that most contamination scandals related to GM crops have emerged out of field trials and we are seriously endangering the existing seed stock as well as any trade prospects from the state by allowing GM crop trials in the state. 

12. Finally, we would like to bring to your notice that Kerala state government has decided not to allow GM crop trials in the state, keeping in mind the importance of conserving biodiversity from contamination from GMOs. The Chief Minister and the Agriculture Minister have been repeatedly announcing this in the past two weeks. Similarly, Orissa agriculture minister has announced in the state Assembly that the state would not allow any GM crop trials in the state. West Bengal is seeking to amend its Nursery Act 2001, so that the state government could reserve the right to disallow GM crop trials in the state. You would remember that the Chattisgarh agriculture minister personally ordered and ensured the destruction of a Bt Rice trial in Raipur in 2006. Uttaranchal, which is an organic state, has disallowed any GM crop trials in the state. While these states are showing far-sightedness in protecting the interests of farmers and the natural resources in their respective states, the Andhra Pradesh government is yet to show any sustainable vision towards farming in the state. Please remember that when things go wrong, it is the state government which has to bear the brunt of the farmers' ire as well as be directly responsible for upholding the interests of farmers and not the Government of India.  Even constitutionally, agriculture is a state subject in India and we urge you to use the powers vested in the state government constitutionally in a responsible manner.

The GEAC, in its 78^th meeting held recently has approved various GM crop field trials in the state including for food crops like okra/bhindi. To uphold the interests of farmers and consumers in the state, we demand that the state government ban any GM crop trials in the state.

Sincerely,

G V Ramanjaneyulu

Executive Director

CC: Sri Raghuveera Reddy, Hon’ble Agriculture Minister, Govt of Andhra Pradesh

Loud No to Bt Brinjal: Orissa Government Decides to Prevent Entry of the GM Crop

BHUBANESWAR, 28th June 2007: The Orissa gov­ernment will not allow Bt Brin­jal inside the state because it fears that the genetically modified crop may endanger the bio-safety of native farm products. "We are not for any genetical­ly modified (GM) crop, let alone Bt Brinjal. There is no credible scientific study to stand by the GM crops. Nor are there reports from any where in the country about farmers welcoming it," agriculture minister Surendra Nath Nayak said. "On the con­trary, public protests against GM crops are galore," he added.

Nayak made known the gov­ernment stand in the backdrop of public protests against the reported move of the Centre for field trial of Bt Brinjal in the coastal Kendrapada, Cuttack, Bhubaneswar and Puri. Reports said Bt Brinjal figures on the agenda of the genetic en­gineering approval committee (GEAC) under the Union ministry of environment and forests and intense lobbying has been going on for allowing field trial of it in several states, including Orissa. Orissa, a few years back per­mitted Bt Cotton, now grown mostly in four tribal districts. "We allowed Bt Cotton because it was not a food item and would bring bigger gains to farmers. But reports are not very encour­aging. Farmers caught in input, output and marketing riddles do not seem happy. We are closely watching the situation," the min­ister said.

Speculation is rife that the state government, may not be able to put a rider on field trial of Bt Brin­jal or for that matter any GM crop. Brinjals are said to have originat­ed from India. Orissa alone has 226 known varieties of brinjals. There is no dearth of brinjals as a veg­etable in the state and in and around Bhubaneswar scores of va­rieties of brinjals are grown. It is feared that Bt Brinjal would contaminate the native va­rieties, beside causing genetic pol­lution to the estimated 700 vari­eties of paddy and the more than 7,000 species of flora in the state.

The minister maintained that the government would "surely in­tervene" as it involved the future of farmers and the state's rich bio-diversity. He said instead, the state gov­ernment is encouraging "organ­ic farming", particularly in veg­etable cultivation. " The use of fertiliser and chemical pesticide in vegetables is the root cause of many diseases. To counter this, the government has made budg­etary provisions this year to give subsidy for popularising vermi­culture in villages," the minister said. TOI news item by Rajaram Satapathy, TNN)

GM crops will not be allowed in Kerala: Agriculture Minister

Trivandrum, June 23rd 2007: Environmental organisations and Farmers Organisations in Kerala today hailed the Kerala Government and welcomed the declaration of the Kerala Agriculture Minister Sri Mullakara Rathnakaran not to allow Genetically Modified Crops in the State. "No GM crop trials and cultivation will be allowed in Kerala" the Agriculture Minister stated in the 9.30 pm News Hour discussions in the Malayala Manorama channel yesterday. He detailed the reasons for this decision, stating that farmers in Vidharbha and Andhra Pradesh were led to suicide by the planting of Bt-Cotton and that he will not allow anything like that to happen in Kerala. He was responding to the issue of the 78th Genetic Engineering Approval Committee's agenda for approving field trials of six hybrids of Bt-rice in Palakkad region. "Kerala is a State with rich agro-biodiversity and the government see it as its top priority to protect it" he said. According to the Minister, farmers from other states like Tamilnadu are resisting the entry of GM crops. "Here the Government and the Agriculture department will take up the issue along with farmers not to allow genetically modified crops in to the field ", he said.

Earlier in the day, the Kerala Assembly heard the official statement of the Government on the issue. The Kerala Law Minister Sri M Vijaykumar, speaking for the Chief Minister, responded to submissions by Sri M P Shreyams Kumar, MLA. He stated that "Kerala Agriculture Department has not given permission to the company Mahyco to conduct field trails of GM crops in the State. The Supreme Court has also not allowed any fresh approvals of field trials. Moreover, the M.S. Swaminathan task force on biotechnology has clearly pointed out that the agro-biodiversity rich regions like Western Ghats should be kept free from GM crops. The State Biodiversity Board also recommends in its Strategy and Action Plan to avoid experiments of GM crops in such biodiversity rich areas". The Minister also pointed out that such experiments can only be conducted under the supervision of the Bio safety Committee of the Kerala Agriculture University upon following their Bio safety Code. The permission of the State and the Panchayath where the trials are to be conducted is mandatory before approval is given.

While appreciating the decision of the Agriculture Minister, Thanal along with Desiya Karshaka Samithi and Ecological Protection Forum Palakkad and other environmental and farmers organisations across the State, pointed out that a farming in Kerala can be made sustainable only by supporting local initiatives in Organic and ecological farming, reviving high yielding and resistant, locally specific traditional seeds and practices and local production of organic manure and ecological pest control methods. This will reduce cost of production while giving good nutritional and economic value to the final produce. Research support that is being siphoned off for biotechnology and other frontier sciences is not going to help feed the State, they said, and so more support must be sought from the Centre for locally specific agriculture revival initiatives.

Panchayats across the country write to GEAC: GEAC asked to abide by new orders and conditions related to field trials

New Delhi, June 21st 2007:  More than 80 Panchayats from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal had written to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) seeking clarifications related to the new condition for GM crop field trials in the country which requires crop developers to get prior permission from the concerned panchayat. The panchayats wanted GEAC to provide them information on what are the potential risks associated with GE crops and their open air field trials in addition to asking the regulator what accountability mechanisms exist in case of violations. These letters were sent to the GEAC on the eve of its 78th meeting tomorrow, where the apex regulatory body is considering approvals to scores of field trials, including GM food crops. Earlier, in its December 13th 2006 meeting, GEAC had decided that applicants for GM food crop trials have to obtain prior permission from concerned panchayats.

Meanwhile, many members of the Coalition for GM Free India also wrote in to the GEAC yesterday, reminding them about new orders and conditions related to GM crop field trials. They reminded the GEAC that the Supreme Court in its May 8th 2007 orders had not vacated the September 2006 orders which imposed a stoppage on any further approvals. They also pointed out that in the January 2007 meeting of the GEAC, the regulators have noted that the state level and district level committees meant to oversee trials, as per the Environment Protection Act [EPA], are not in place – things had not changed since then.
The Coalition members accused the GEAC of not discussing important issues like impacts of Bt Cotton on livestock, as pointed out by the animal husbandry department of Andhra Pradesh, in its haste to approve more and more GM crops. They questioned the GEAC about the action taken (or lack of it) to fix liability on the concerned companies under the EPA penal clauses for violations pointed out by Andhra Pradesh and Chattisgarh government, reports of which were shared with the GEAC.

GEAC’s inability to monitor open air field trials that it approves (based on DBT’s approvals) has been documented again and again and in fact admitted by the GEAC itself in its meeting minutes. In majority of cases, the regulatory body itself is not informed of where the trials are happening in the country. State governments like Chattisgarh, which have inquired into the matter last year, have documented several violations and yet, no action has been taken by the GEAC on the matter. It is well known that across the world GE contamination scandals which led to serious economic losses for farmers have mostly arisen from lax field trials.

DBT defies CIC Orders

New Delhi, May 7th 2007: 10 working days after the Central Information Commission struck down at the Department of Biotechnology and ordered that toxicity, allergenicity data that determine the safety of Genetically Engineered (GE) rice, mustard, okra and brinjal be made public under the RTI act; the DBT refused to comply with the Commissions orders. Quite unlike any other food crop Genetically Engineered (GE) crops have the potential to release unknown proteins that can act as toxic products or cause allergies in animals and human beings. This is why all GE crops need to be tested for animal, environmental and human safety before they are available in the market. The specific tests are prescribed by the Ministry of Environment and Forests under the 1989 Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-Organisms, Genetically Modified Organisms or cells.

An example of a GE crop causing allergies was seen in the Starlink corn (with the Cry 9C gene) that was approved for cattle feed only but found its way into the human food chain in the US in 2001. More recently laboratory rats, fed with a genetically engineered corn(Mon 863) produced by Monsanto, showed signs of toxicity in kidney and liver, according to a new study published in the journal “Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. This was the first time that a GE product which has been cleared for use as food for humans and animals has shown signs of toxic effects on internal organs.[1]

Recently, the Joint Director of the Animal Husbandry Dept, Adilabad in Andhra Pradesh issued a media announcement that read, “It has come to our notice that in several blocks of the district, animals are falling sick after grazing on Bt Cotton fields…Because Bt Cotton is being grown in large tracts and because of a yet un-identified toxic material in these plants, it has come to our notice that animals, which are grazing on these fields are exhibiting symptoms like shivers, convulsions, running nose, bloat, bloody diarrhoea ect., and are dying. Therefore, we appeal to the farmers not to graze their animals on Bt Cotton fields.”

In May 2000, 761 independent scientists from 79 countries expressed their concerns, in an Open letter to all governments, about the hazardous release that GMOs pose to bio diversity, food safety, and therefore human and animal health. “We the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially an din open field trials for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to eb revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of agriculture and food security for all. The hazards of GMOs to biodiversity and human and animal health are now acknowledged by sources within the UK and US Governments. Particularly serious consequences are associated with the potential for horizontal gene transfer. These include the spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infectious diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases, and harmful mutations, which may lead to cancer.

We urge all governments to take proper account of the now substantial scientific evidence of actual and suspected hazards arising from GM technology and many of its products, and to impose an immediate moratorium on further environmental releases, including open field trials, in accordance with the precautionary principle as well as sound science.” Genetically Engineered Crops are living organisms that grow multiply and transfer their new characteristics to other plants in the vicinity through pollen flow or simply the mixing of GE and non GE seeds. Environmental threats posed by GE crops on soil biodiversity and useful insects on the field and the threat of GE contamination must also be checked by other prescribed environmental safety tests before GE crops are released into the environment. The allerginicity, toxicity, environmental safety tests act as checks and balances to ensure the safety of a GE crop before it is allowed into the market, quite like the case of drugs where people have suffered the loss of lives waiting for the safety procedures to be completed.

With regard to GE Brinjal the DBT in its response to Greenpeace on the 30th of May, states “since the consolidate and compiled data on toxicity allergencity and other biosafety data runs into thousands of pages and submitted to the GEAC by the applicant, the same can be scrutinized, in the Mo E&F in the presence of a GEAC representative as per the decision of the GEAC taken in its meeting held on 1.06.2006”. This is not complying with the CIC order that states “…with regard to Bt Brinjal, CPIO Deptt. of Biotechnology who has been directed to provide the existing data with regard to the other agricultural products will therefore also obtain this data to be provided to the appellant.” With regard to GE mustard, okra and rice the Department of Biotechnology in a response to Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace claims,“information on toxicity and allergenicity data on okra, mustard and rice is concerned…the date is under generation by the applicant and has not been submitted to the RCGM so far.” [2]

This response is incorrect and misleading as in an earlier communication from the Appellate Authority DBT, Dr. S. Natesh, on 31.01.07 “the toxicity and allergenicity data on transgenic rice, mustard and okra is under consideration of the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM)”. [3]
The contradiction within the DBT force us to conclude, either that the DBT has not received any data in which case on what basis did they grant permissions for open air multi-locational trials? The other conclusion is that the DBT has the data, they are lying about not having received it from the company and they have reasons for not sharing it with the public or inviting other scientists to review the analysis. In either case the DBT is acting in an undemocratic irresponsible manner.

In the light of these circumstances we demand that:

• All the government agencies including the DBT and the MoEF act in a transparent manner with regard to the tests conducted, data generated, the analysis on each and every GE crop being tested in this country.

• The DBT and MoEF must put out this data suo moto, as has also been directed by the CIC, and wait for a period of 3 months where the data can be reviewed by independent scientists.

• All field trials must be kept on hold until a more robust system of regulation is put in place where independent agencies conduct the tests.

Supreme Court Upholds Importance Of Biosafety

In the orders passed after the May 8th hearing in the GMOs PIL filed by Aruna Rodrigues and three others, the Supreme Court of India clearly upheld once again the importance of biosafety when it comes to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The Union of India applied for a vacation of the Court's orders in September 2006 which directed the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the apex regulatory authority in India) "to withhold (any) approvals till further directions are issued".

In September, the Court was not inclined to stop ongoing field trials which included 90 Multi-Location Trials (MLTs), 32 experimental seed production, 18 strip trials and 5 pollen flow studies for a variety of crops – these included Rice, Potato, Okra, Tomato, Groundnut, Brinjal, Cauliflower, Cabbage, Mustard, Castor, Corn and Sorghum in addition to GM cotton. The GEAC's meeting minutes between December 2006 - February 2007 showcase the inability of the apex regulatory authority to keep track of where the field trials are happening – if field trial locations are not known, how monitoring was taking place of either the efficacy of the technology or the biosafety aspects related to conducting the trials was not answered in any forum by the regulators so far. As sowings for Kharif 2007 draw close, the GM 'promoter-regulators' of the country along with the industry rushed to the Supreme Court praying for a vacation of the September orders, arguing that adequate framework exists to regulate GMOs in the country. The petitioners had enough evidence built to show that on the scientific front as well as the institutional front, the biosafety regime in India is seriously lacking and that field trials in a business-as-usual mode were going to jeopardize our environment irreversibly through contamination.

On May 8th 2007, the Supreme Court heard the petitioners (and the impleadment applications by farmers and rice exporters in support of the petition) and the respondents (the regulators as well as the biotech seed industry associations who had impleaded recently) in a nearly-daylong hearing. In its Orders at the end of the day, the Court did not grant the Government of India its prayer for a vacation on the ban on field trials. Instead, it clarified that if any trials are going on or are to go on pursuant to approvals granted between 2/5/2006 and 22/9/2006, these trials would be subject to additional conditionalities – that the GEAC should ensure that there is no contamination from these trials to other fields close-by. In all the trials which are being conducted, the name of the scientist who will be responsible and other details for all aspects of the trials should be reported to the GEAC and there should be a regular supervision by them. The Court also ordered that prior to bringing out the GM material from the greenhouse for conduct of open field trials, the approved institution should submit a validated, event-specific test protocol at an LOD of at least 0.01% to detect and confirm that there has been no contamination. The Court also asked to see the toxicity and allergenicity data, if any, related to Bt Cotton while allowing GEAC to permit commercial releases for four approved species of GM cotton. However, it ordered that no further GM cotton species be approved. By these historic orders, the Supreme Court has once again upheld the importance of biosafety issues related to GM crops. What was surprising to see was the alacrity by which the Ministry of Environment & Forests, housing the GEAC, put out a press release the next day which misreports the Court's orders in an irresponsible fashion as a vacation of the September 2006 orders. The reality is quite the contrary. Field trials, if any flowing out of approvals during May and September 2006, will be under stricter conditions.

In addition to the Court's orders, GEAC, under pressure from farmers' unions and civil society groups had already announced that field trial applications will be considered only if the applicant announces beforehand where the exact location of each such trial would be and with the prior written consent of the Panchayat in whose jurisdiction such a trial is proposed to be taken up. Further, the DBT and GEAC have also announced that no GM Rice experimentation will take place in the Basmati belt of India. It is however not clear how they intend to prevent GM rice seed being tested elsewhere in the country from reaching the basmati belt, given their pathetic history of regulating illegal Bt Cotton proliferation from Gujarat. Meanwhile, there are various developments against GM crops in different states of the country. In Tamil Nadu, after the PMK (Dr Anbumani Ramadoss, Union Health Minister represents this Party), it is now the turn of AIADMK to take a formal stand against GM crops. In a massive rally in Coimbatore on May 5th, several legislators and parliamentarians belonging to AIADMK demanded that the Central and Tamil Nadu state governments ban GM crops.

In Andhra Pradesh, the government is refusing to compromise on the pricing issue related to Bollgard II and is insisting on allowing sales only if the seed is priced at Rs. 750/ a packet. Further, the animal husbandry department here recommended the stoppage of sales of Bt Cotton seeds until it investigates into the phenomenon of toxicity to animals after grazing on Bt Cotton fields. Elsewhere, after the Chattisgarh government, it is now the turn of the West Bengal government to order an inquiry into the field trials that had happened in the state during Kharif 2006. The Chattisgarh government, through a formal inquiry, pointed out several objectionable violations in Mahyco's GM Rice and GM Okra trials in Raipur last year. All in all, despite some misleading and gloating headlines and editorials in several newspapers, the biotech industry and the GM regulators have an uphill task ahead in the coming year, having the Supreme Court, the state governments and various political parties holding them accountable, unlike in the past.

By Kavitha Kuruganti, Countercurrents.org, May 21st 2007

http://www.countercurrents.org/kavitha210507.htm

Are Regulators for regulating or for popularising GM crops?

Hyderabad/Bathinda, May 1st 2007: Reacting to media reports on several GM regulators in the country themselves claiming huge benefits from GM crops, that too in the name of "trainings on biosafety", Kheti Virasat Mission and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture questioned the role of regulators of GE crops in the country. Are they meant to take objective, scientific and pro-people assessment of the impacts of GE or are they meant to popularize GM crops as though the verdict is already out, the civil society organisations asked. The two groups which are part of the Coalition for GM-Free India also questioned the role of World Bank in such 'biosafety capacity-building' projects, one of which is being implemented by the Ministry of Environment & Forests through the Global Environment Facility.

"It is not clear on what basis are such claims of benefits being made such as pesticide reduction or farmers shifting away from water-guzzling crops like rice (linked to Bt Cotton adoption!) when we know very well that monitoring of GMOs right from field trials stage is almost completely absent/unscientific in this country", said Ms Kavitha Kuruganti, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, based in Hyderabad. She said that given the absence of monitoring (absence of political will as well as capabilities) it had fallen upon civil society groups to take up careful monitoring of the GM experience so far in the country. "Hundreds of farmers are reporting health problems like skin allergies but the government chooses not to assess such impacts and therefore will always claim that there is no authentic report. A report from Madhya Pradesh by a team of doctors has been submitted to GEAC on this issue – as a member of GEAC how can Dr Ananda Kumar claim that there is no such report from any part of the cotton belt? They said the same thing with impacts on livestock after open grazing on Bt Cotton fields – today, the animal husbandry department of Andhra Pradesh state government itself is advising farmers not to graze their animals on Bt Cotton fields suspecting some yet-to-be-identifie d toxin in the GM plant", she added.

Umendra Dutt of Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab further pointed out – "Mr Balachandran, Joint Secretary, MoEF (who claimed yesterday in Chandigarh that Bt Cotton resulted in the focus shifting away from water guzzling crops like rice) is the same person who admitted recently in an international context that India faces a major constraint due to the lack of capacity to effectively implement the Biosafety Protocol. [1]It is surprising that without setting up effective systems or without actually building capacities related to biosafety assessment and without justifying the source of his claims, he can get so enthusiastic about GM crops", he said. "If adoption is equal to something being 'biosafe', pesticides should also be encouraged by the regulators", he argued.

"It seems that most regulators who are supposed to be independent, scientific and pro-people in their assessment of this particular agricultural technology have already concluded in favour of the technology rather than to take a precautionary approach towards it! We have earlier heard about the Co-Chairperson of Genetic Engineering Approval Committee [the apex regulatory authority] also being on the Board of industry-funded bodies like ISAAA. They do not deserve to be sitting in regulatory posts in such a case. Public funds collected from tax-payers are being spent on popularizing the technology and creating more markets for the companies in the name of 'trainings on biosafety', including with the help of the World Bank. The World Bank should stop such funding", said Kavitha Kuruganti.

Central Information Commission directs DBT to make safety test data on Genetically Engineered crops public

New Delhi, April 17th 2007: In a verdict that has far-reaching consequences, the Central Information Commission (CIC) today directed the Department of Bio-technology (DBT) to make public the data generated from the tests carried out with genetically engineered crops by agro-biotech companies. The Chief Commissioner, Mr. Wajahat Habibullah delivered this RTI power-punch, in response to an appeal petition filed by Greenpeace, after the Review Committee on Genetic Modification (RCGM) under the DBT consistently refused to part with this closely guarded secret for over a year.

Striking down the DBT's contention that the data falls under Section 8.1.d, Mr. Habibullah pointed out that having heard the arguments and perused the document, we find that the request of the applicant for toxicity, allergenicity, (for GE rice, GE mustard, GE okra and GE brinjal) cannot be refused under the RTI act, and since that the appellate authority of DBT, in his order, held, that the information does fall under only sec, 8.(1).(d), any further grounds for non disclosure are invalid even if the data in reference are in the process of development. The information was also directed to be disclosed under section 4. (1). (d) of the RTI Act, which states “provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to affected persons”.

In February, last year, Greenpeace, under the Right to Information Act, had requested the RCGM to make public the toxicity and allergenicity data for GE brinjal, rice, mustard and ladyfinger. There was also a request to make the minutes of the RCGM meeting public. The RCGM refused to divulge the data on the grounds that disclosure of the information would harm the competitive position of the third party, in this case, the company making the GE crops, therefore placing the economic interest of the corporation above public interest.

"Our victory today is in keeping with the spirit of the RTI, and has only strengthened the RTI as a tool to building a participatory democracy. The GE corn (Mon 863) is the first, where a GE product, unfit for human consumption, has been commercialised deliberately (1). With the data in the public domain, it is now up to each of us to critically analyse the quality of our tests, the monitoring and evaluation mechanisms so as to ensure the health and safety of us and the environment, said Greenpeace campaigner," Divya Raghunandan, who had challenged the RCGM, and had filed the appeal petition before the CIC.

Commenting on the order of the Commission, Ms. Aruna Roy, one of the founder member of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI) and former member of the National Advisory Council (NAC) said, “this exceptional case before the Commission has paved the way for the RTI act to establish the right of citizens to access information regarding industry and its impacts. The people have a right to analyse the information and see the nature of its impacts on their lives. This decision will force the government to strike a balance between ensuring corporate accountability and fostering business.”

Supreme Court advocate, Mr. Prashant Bhushan said, “The Commission’s order is significant as past experience shows that RCGM has not used the right kind of protocols for bio-safety testing. Once it’s known that a system designed to protect human and animal health has approved a high-risk product without a proper, transparent and independent examination of its dangers, we need to have an immediate moratorium on all environmental releases of GMOs which pose an unprecedented threat to the health of humans, animals, microorganisms, and biodiversity in general. No GMOs must be released till we have put in place a transparent system in place with an independent regulator with no conflict of interests.”

GEAC finally takes cognisance of animal mortality/morbidity after grazing on Bt Cotton fields

Hyderabad, March 29th 2007: In its 75th meeting on March 14th 2007, GEAC, after nearly a year of discounting reports of animal morbidity/mortality after grazing on Bt Cotton, finally decided to act on it. The fact of the matter is that starting from 2005 onwards, there have been reports from various parts of Andhra Pradesh that animals which graze upon Bt Cotton fields are falling sick and/or dying.

In its 68th meeting on June 1st 2006, GEAC discussed a civil society fact finding team’s report sent to them and ridiculously enough, discussed only Cry1Ac and its toxicity, while the fact finding report was talking about the apparent toxicity of the Bt Cotton plant, and not just the Bt toxin! It is not as though the regulators do not know the difference. They behaved as though their business was to only discount such reports as exaggerated rather than immediately get into investigating such reports. In that meeting, the DBT was asked to take up a scientific study with the help of IVRI in this regard and DBT representatives agreed. Expectably, nothing moved.

In 2007, after official reports started emerging from Adilabad with the Animal Husbandry department there putting out an advisory to farmers not to graze their animals on Bt Cotton, the GEAC has finally begun to take cognizance of this unusual phenomenon which should have been scientifically investigated long ago.

The GEAC has now decided to depute a fact finding team consisting of Director-IVRI or his nominee; Dean of Veterinary College, Andhra Pradesh; Joint Director-Department of Animal Husbandry, Andhra Pradesh and Dr Nagaraju, Cotton Research Station, Andhra Pradesh to ‘examine the above issue and submit a factual report based on a site visit to Adilabad/Warangal districts’. The RCGM of the DBT meanwhile admits that there has been no study taken up by them [despite instructions from GEAC in June and August 2006] “in the absence of any proposals by concerned institutions”! Meanwhile, there is no accountability mechanism in sight for all those farmers and shepherds who have lost their animals.

Supreme Court Upholds Importance Of Biosafety
By Kavitha Kuruganti, Countercurrents.org, 21 May 2007
http://www.countercurrents.org/kavitha210507.htm

In the orders passed after the May 8th hearing in the GMOs PIL filed by Aruna Rodrigues and three others, the Supreme Court of India clearly upheld once again the importance of biosafety when it comes to Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). The Union of India applied for a vacation of the Court's orders in September 2006 which directed the GEAC (Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the apex regulatory authority in India) "to withhold (any) approvals till further directions are issued".

In September, the Court was not inclined to stop ongoing field trials which included 90 Multi-Location Trials (MLTs), 32 experimental seed production, 18 strip trials and 5 pollen flow studies for a variety of crops – these included Rice, Potato, Okra, Tomato, Groundnut, Brinjal, Cauliflower, Cabbage, Mustard, Castor, Corn and Sorghum in addition to GM cotton. The GEAC's meeting minutes between December 2006 - February 2007 showcase the inability of the apex regulatory authority to keep track of where the field trials are happening – if field trial locations are not known, how monitoring was taking place of either the efficacy of the technology or the biosafety aspects related to conducting the trials was not answered in any forum by the regulators so far.

As sowings for Kharif 2007 draw close, the GM 'promoter-regulators' of the country along with the industry rushed to the Supreme Court praying for a vacation of the September orders, arguing that adequate framework exists to regulate GMOs in the country. The petitioners had enough evidence built to show that on the scientific front as well as the institutional front, the biosafety regime in India is seriously lacking and that field trials in a business-as-usual mode were going to jeopardize our environment irreversibly through contamination.

On May 8th 2007, the Supreme Court heard the petitioners (and the impleadment applications by farmers and rice exporters in support of the petition) and the respondents (the regulators as well as the biotech seed industry associations who had impleaded recently) in a nearly-daylong hearing. In its Orders at the end of the day, the Court did not grant the Government of India its prayer for a vacation on the ban on field trials. Instead, it clarified that if any trials are going on or are to go on pursuant to approvals granted between 2/5/2006 and 22/9/2006, these trials would be subject to additional conditionalities – that the GEAC should ensure that there is no contamination from these trials to other fields close-by. In all the trials which are being conducted, the name of the scientist who will be responsible and other details for all aspects of the trials should be reported to the GEAC and there should be a regular supervision by them. The Court also ordered that prior to bringing out the GM material from the greenhouse for conduct of open field trials, the approved institution should submit a validated, event-specific test protocol at an LOD of at least 0.01% to detect and confirm that there has been no contamination. The Court also asked to see the toxicity and allergenicity data, if any, related to Bt Cotton while allowing GEAC to permit commercial releases for four approved species of GM cotton. However, it ordered that no further GM cotton species be approved. By these historic orders, the Supreme Court has once again upheld the importance of biosafety issues related to GM crops.

What was surprising to see was the alacrity by which the Ministry of Environment & Forests, housing the GEAC, put out a press release the next day which misreports the Court's orders in an irresponsible fashion as a vacation of the September 2006 orders. The reality is quite the contrary. Field trials, if any flowing out of approvals during May and September 2006, will be under stricter conditions.

In addition to the Court's orders, GEAC, under pressure from farmers' unions and civil society groups had already announced that field trial applications will be considered only if the applicant announces beforehand where the exact location of each such trial would be and with the prior written consent of the Panchayat in whose jurisdiction such a trial is proposed to be taken up. Further, the DBT and GEAC have also announced that no GM Rice experimentation will take place in the Basmati belt of India. It is however not clear how they intend to prevent GM rice seed being tested elsewhere in the country from reaching the basmati belt, given their pathetic history of regulating illegal Bt Cotton proliferation from Gujarat.

Meanwhile, there are various developments against GM crops in different states of the country. In Tamil Nadu, after the PMK (Dr Anbumani Ramadoss, Union Health Minister represents this Party), it is now the turn of AIADMK to take a formal stand against GM crops. In a massive rally in Coimbatore on May 5th, several legislators and parliamentarians belonging to AIADMK demanded that the Central and Tamil Nadu state governments ban GM crops.

In Andhra Pradesh, the government is refusing to compromise on the pricing issue related to Bollgard II and is insisting on allowing sales only if the seed is priced at Rs. 750/ a packet. Further, the animal husbandry department here recommended the stoppage of sales of Bt Cotton seeds until it investigates into the phenomenon of toxicity to animals after grazing on Bt Cotton fields.

Elsewhere, after the Chattisgarh government, it is now the turn of the West Bengal government to order an inquiry into the field trials that had happened in the state during Kharif 2006. The Chattisgarh government, through a formal inquiry, pointed out several objectionable violations in Mahyco's GM Rice and GM Okra trials in Raipur last year.

All in all, despite some misleading and gloating headlines and editorials in several newspapers, the biotech industry and the GM regulators have an uphill task ahead in the coming year, having the Supreme Court, the state governments and various political parties holding them accountable, unlike in the past.

Supreme Court allows field trials only under new conditions