"National Biotech Regulatory Act" - Write to Mr Kapil Sibal now, asking for extension of deadline for public feedback....

The West Bengal Government was in the dark when the field trials were started in the State

The data on heat stability studies carried out on Bt protein in brinjal serve to highlight the serious lapses in the way the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) examines the biosafety data of genetically modified plants, leading to overlooking of key facts.

Heat stability study is conducted to show how the Bt protein gets destroyed when it is cooked. This study is done to demonstrate the safety of genetically modified (GM) food.

The summary of the study by the company states that Bt protein found before cooking is absent once it is cooked, in the case of Bt brinjal. Oops, the slip shows — Bt protein is reported to be present even in non-GM brinjal before cooking!

“It is ridiculous that the data shows Bt protein in non-GM brinjal,” said Dr. P.M. Bhargava, the Supreme Court nominee to the GEAC.

Unfair to mistrust

The minutes of the 85th GEAC meeting, while defending its policies, had stated: “…it will be unfair to mistrust the samples and data generated by the applicant, without any basis.” In the meeting last week, the GEAC had agreed to have a review meeting for which scientists, NGOs and all others would be invited to assess all aspects of GM crops. “Apart from looking at the methods for determining the safety of GM crops that are currently undergoing field tests, all biosafety and environmental data would be looked into, including new data on biosafety,” said Dr. Bhargava.

The review meeting, if it is ever held, is sure to expose the way GEAC has been indiscriminately permitting seed companies to conduct field trials in gross violation of the guidelines, and not penalising the companies for such violations.

Take for instance the highly critical communication sent by Prof. T.K. Bose, Member of the West Bengal State Agriculture Commission, to Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co Ltd, Mumbai (Mahyco, in which Monsanto has a stake) in January this year.

It stated: “… The Government of West Bengal has been informed through e-mail that Mahyco has been conducting trials on Bt bringal in West Bengal in 2007. The matter was never communicated to the State… It is very unfortunate and I am extremely sorry to know that Mahyco is now also determined to contaminate the unique germplasm of brinjal in West Bengal…”

Even in the case of Bt okra, Mahyco had started a trial in Nadia District, West Bengal, in September last year based on the permission of the panchayat. The State’s permission came only later this year. Same is the case with Bt rice trial conducted in 2006. The State came to know of the trial much later.

The report submitted by the Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya (BCKV), the State Agricultural University of West Bengal which was responsible for evaluating the field trials, brought out the unethical ways in which Mahyco conducted the trials. The report observed:

Finished stage

“Rice and okra trials were almost at finished stage and the entire field was at over mature and drying stage when the State Agriculture University (SAU) went for assessing the field trials.” This meant that the University, which went for field assessment in about 10 days after it was informed of the field trials, could make no meaningful assessment.

“The location of the GM rice was in a rice cultivation area and the okra trials in a vegetable growing area.” The guidelines clearly state that open field trials cannot be conducted in a crop cultivation area. It finally noted: “The farmer, whose land was used, was totally unaware of the consequences of GM rice cultivation.”

The review meeting is now looked upon by many where such discrepancies can be highlighted.

http://www.thehindu.com/seta/2008/07/03/stories/2008070350751500.htm

India’s department of biotechnology will midwife the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA), tasked with assessing the safety of GM products before their commercial release, but will have no role in its functioning, officials said. The authority will regulate GM plants, animals and micro-organisms used in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and GM organisms used in human and veterinary health and industrial and environmental applications. The agency will be created through a biotechnology regulatory bill expected to be ready for introduction in Parliament by September, an official said.

“We will have no engagement beyond the creation of the authority,” said Maharaj Kishan Bhan, the biotechnology department secretary. In an attempt to ensure autonomy, the head of the NBRA will hold the rank of a secretary (in the central government), he added.

But activists campaigning against GM crops said the creation of an organisation tasked with safety assessment should ideally have been the mandate of the ministry of health or the ministry of environment rather than biotechnology.

The agency will have dedicated teams of scientists and officials who will conduct safety assessments, a task currently done by the Genetic Engineering Advisory Committee (GEAC), a body set up by the ministry of environment and forests.

NGOs such as Greenpeace and the New Delhi-based Gene Campaign have long charged the GEAC and the biotechnology department’s own review committee on genetic manipulation of lack of transparency on data of safety trials of GM crops. Activists have also accused both of ignoring irregularities in GM crop field trials.

“And we see nothing in the draft bill for the new authority that suggests that the new agency will be more transparent than the GEAC,” said a Greenpeace activist.

“Every legislation tends to draw its mandate from the ministry that steers it... we fear there will be a pro-biotechnology bias (at the NBRA),” said Kavitha Kuruganti, with the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad.

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1080630/jsp/nation/story_9482893.jsp

The Supreme Court nominee to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Dr. P.M. Bhargava, has called the bluff of the committee. It had attributed the sheep death in Andhra Pradesh two years ago to nothing connected to the sheep grazing on Bt cotton leaves. The GEAC had concluded that the death might have been due to high content of nitrates/nitrites, residues of hydrocyanide (HCN) and organophosphates, which are common constituents of pesticides used in cotton cultivation. It had in effect given a clean chit to Bt cotton. The GEAC’s observations were based on the two reports — one from the Directorate of Animal Husbandry based in Hyderabad and the other from the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Uttar Pradesh. It also noted that the Andhra Pradesh State Government had examined the issue.

The contradiction

However, Dr. Bhargava, had found the reports of the two institutes as also the State Government’s letter totally contradicting the GEAC’s version. For instance, the State Government’s letter to the GEAC had stated that the samples were “negative for HCN, Nitrates, Nitrites, Alkaloids and Glycocide.”

Even the report from the Veterinary Research Institute, U.P. had clearly stated that the Bt cotton samples did not show the presence of HCN, Nitrate/Nitrite, Alkaloids and Glycocides. And in a communication to the GEAC last month, Dr. Bhargava had contested the committee’s version on HCN and noted that “HCN is not a common constituent of any pesticide.” Apart from the cause of death, the GEAC had stated that “… prior to the release of Bt cotton in India, a battery of studies to assess the safety of Bt toxin to the environment and animals was conducted.”

“This is not true as well,” noted Dr. Bhargava. For instance, the letter from the Andhra Pradesh Government had observed that “…the biosafety studies were not taken up in sheep and also trials did not include continuous grazing/feeding of complete Bt cotton plants by animals.

No safety data

Even the letter from the Sri Venkateshwara University, Andhra Pradesh, which was made available to Dr. Bhargava by the GEAC, contradicts the committee’s version. The letter clearly notes that “the biosafety studies on grazing on Bt cotton crop by sheep are lacking.”

The letter from the Andhra Pradesh Government had also stated that “…the biosafety studies were not taken up in sheep and also trials did not include continuous grazing/ feeding of complete Bt cotton plants to animals.” The letter then went on to suggest that “… biosafety studies should be on applied aspects like continuous grazing of animals on harvested or intact Bt cotton plants.”

“So there is enough reason to say that no serious studies have been done to ensure the safety of Bt cotton in animals,” Dr. Bhargava emphasized.

And in a communication to the GEAC last month, Dr. Bhargava had stated based on the all the reports that “this would be a major argument to suspend all cultivation of Bt cotton until we have definitive data on the toxicity of Bt plants to animals on field.”

http://www.hindu.com/seta/2008/06/26/stories/2008062650021500.htm 

The scientists also stated that transgenic technology is imprecise with unpredictable and irreversible consequences.

The letter reminds Mr Sibal of the adverse health, environmental and trade impacts of GE crops and remarks on the unscientificity of current assessments of GE crops where no comparison is made with available ecological alternatives. The letter also points out to the impropriety of Mr Sibal's Ministry taking major decisions that affect Indian farming.

"Your Ministry cannot decide on the future of Indian Agriculture – by the Constitution of India, it will be Panchayats, state governments and the Ministry of Agriculture in the Government of India which will do so", says the letter.

Mr Sibal, asked about the Government of India's stand had stated that it is "of course, pro-GM" in a television byte to a national private channel. In their response, the scientists say, "In fact, if you are "of course, pro-GM", your Ministry and its many Committees have no business regulating GM crops – the bias, conflicting interests and unscientificity in the regulatory system have always been apparent here".

This is significant, given the attempts underway by the Department of Biotechnology to hastily finish consultations on a draft National Biotechnology Regulatory Bill, 2008. The processes being adopted by the DBT have come under fire from farmers' organizations and state governments in Bangalore and Hyderabad last week. The proposals to set up a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority under the DBT with its vested interest in promoting modern biotechnology has received flak from many civil society groups.

Senior ICAR/ICMR scientists (retired) are part of the signatories of the letter to Mr Sibal, as a response to his stand, like Dr T K Bose, Dr D K Bagchi, Dr M S Chari, Dr Ramesh Bhat etc.. Signatories to the letter also include eminent doctors, decorated with Padma awards, like Dr Inderjit Kaur and Dr Daljit Singh from Punjab.

Farmers, Greens thump DBT

So when the unpublicised forum began with mainly the industry and academia as participants, the organisers came under heavy fire from "uninvited" farmer groups and NGOs such as Greenpeace who demanded a broader and more open platform for debate. The DBT officials, ultimately, dropped the consultation's official status and turned the event into a knowledge-sharing exercise. The event was being coordinated by the Biotech Consortium India Limited, a public limited company that is partly financed by the corporate sector. This became a bone of contention as the the protestors accused the DBT of collaborating and discussing potential Central statutes with "a party that holds vested interests" in seeing the draft through as quickly as possible.

Leo F. Saldanha of the Environment Support Group struck the first punch: "You are talking of setting up a regulatory authority and your key speakers are all industry representatives with a vested interest. Are you going to draft a legislation that suits their demands?" he asked. "We are talking about an authority which proposes to take over the role of assessing the health, safety and environmental impacts and the agricultural worthiness of genetically modified (GM) crops. The process of seeking comments on this has been given to a private industry-governed consortium making us believe that this exercise is futile and nothing but a waste of time," said Greenpeace India campaigner Rajesh Krishnan.

Greenpeace had been previously invited in May 2005 for a similar consultation process for the National Biotechnology Development Strategy and had submitted comments on the lack of transparency, GM contamination and public-private partnership. None of the comments or suggestions reflect in the present draft, the group said.

Organic farmer Vivek Cariappa, president of the Organic Farmers' Association in HD Kote, Mysore, actually did a round of the State Government offices on Tuesday to learn that local authorities were completely in the dark about the 'consultation' exercise. "I have spoken to the principal secretary to the chief minister, the director of agriculture, the commissioner of agriculture. Nobody knew anything about the consultation," he told this newspaper.

Besides agriculture, law and order is a State subject as well. And starting from 1998, when the first field trials for genetically modified (GM) crops happened in the State, there have been numerous protests from farmers' groups in Karnataka. The State government's involvement is essential because it would be responsible for any losses, mishaps, or disasters related to agriculture.

It took quite some time for DBT representatives to realise how emotive the issue could get for farmers reportedly affected by GM contamination. Responses such as "We have sent a letter to the chief secretary…if the letter is not percolating down it is none of our business; we are not here to issue thousands of letters for such consultations," from them only added to the anger.

Cariappa is a 100 per cent certified organic farmer, but when he went to get his crops tested, the results showed the presence of genetically-modified DNA in his crops. He blamed it on cross pollination from GM crops (the GM industry says such things don't happen). "About 130 registered small organic farmers in HD Kote have lost their organic produce status. This is destroying our dignity," Cariappa raged. The financial implications for these farmers can hardly be underestimated: organic cotton gets a 30 per cent premium in the export market over conventional cotton.

The DBT did discuss with different state representatives, including from Karnataka, various aspects of the draft on setting up the authority on May 24 in Delhi: monitoring, enforcement, communication, outreach, capacity building, technical and financial support. Dr S.R. Rao, an advisor with the department, said it was expecting feedback from the states by June 30. However, after today's hullabaloo, the DBT has decided to call another "open" meeting, this time involving the State government. Before that happens, farmers want the draft to be translated into Kannada (it was available only in English) and circulated at the district level.

http://www.deccan.com/business/business.asp#Farmers,%20greens%20thump%20DBT

GM concerns in Agriculture

After a controversial entry into cotton, international corporations promoting Genetically Modified crops are trying to expand their reach into food. The promised benefits would appear compelling in an era of food shortages and low productivity, but the uncertainty about their wider impact on human health and the environment underscores the need for strong biosafety regulations. Progress in strengthening biosafety has been slow. That has not, however, prevented the unregula ted spread of GM crops. Countries such as Brazil have been presented with a fait accompli, forcing them to regularise their cultivation. Considering the absence of data from long-term studies, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was evolved five years ago to help member countries monitor transboundary movement of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). But the protocol has not made much headway in realising its goal of creating a legally binding instrument for liability and redress, in situations where use of GMOs results in potential harm to people or the environment. At the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol held in Bonn from May 12 to 16, progress on the issue was limited to laying out a road map to 2010, when the liability and redress instrument will be discussed. This tardy pace stands in contrast to the aggressive global promotion of GM crops.

The recent finding of the Japan-based UN University Institute of Advanced Studies that the 100 countries participating in the Cartagena Protocol do not have the training necessary for implementing biosafety regulations underscores the scale of the problem. Genetic modification of crops relies on introducing genes from unrelated organisms into a crop species to produce traits such as pest resistance, which cannot conceivably be produced through traditional breeding methods. Cotton spliced with a toxin-producing bacterial gene to resist the bollworm pest is an example. But the hidden environmental effects of such manipulation — as for instance the contamination of wild species — are cause for deep concern; a significant body of research records the unintended flow of engineered genes to wild species, raising serious biodiversity concerns. In the area of health, the effects of genetically modified food remain to be fully assessed. Consumer confidence in such food is understandably low, and in several countries, notably in Europe, these foods are voluntarily kept off store-shelves. The resistance of GM companies to food-labelling has only added to the deep distrust. Given the contentious aspects, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee has before it little evidence on the basis of which it could approve GM food crops. Checks are also called for against the sale of unlabelled imported food.

http://www.hindu.com/2008/06/11/stories/2008061153320800.htm : Editorial on June 11, 2008

GM Brinjals: Boon or Curse?

Mumbai, June 10th 2008: Is genetically modified food the solution to food shortages and their soaring prices? As India inches closer to producing its first genetically modified vegetable, Bt brinjal, probably as early as January next year, debate is raging among experts, and violent protests are fast building up.

The Bt brinjal has the same Cry1Ac gene from Bacillus Thuringiensis as cotton. The gene is supposed to make the plant tolerant to the Shoot and Fruit Borer insect which attacks it throughout its life cycle. India’s yield-loss due to these insects is estimated to be about $221 million (Rs900 crores).

Earlier this year, on January 25, the supreme court issued a notice to the Union government on a public suit, seeking annulment of the government’s order that exempts genetically modified foods and crops from mandatory laboratory tests. The bench made recommendations for appointment of two eminent scientists including PM Bhargava to allay the fear of the petitioner that the government might be playing into the hands of multinationals.

PM Bhargava is country’s leading molecular scientist who founded the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology and is now a special invitee to the GEAC (genetic engineering approval committee) set up by the ministry of environment and forests as an inter-ministerial body to oversee the contentious issue. The supreme court invited Bhargava to help bring transparency to the process of allowing field trials of GM food.

Says Bhargava, “All Bt cotton seeds as well as the data for GM utilisation in India should be withdrawn. We have been trusting Monsanto (a multinational corporation) till now, which is absurd as no verification of its tests have been done so far.” According to him, “The government should set up its own testing facility so that Monsanto knows that we can verify the tests it has conducted.”

MK Sharma, managing director, Mahyco Monsanto disagrees as he states, “The tests have been conducted on animals like chicken, rats, rabbits etc by not only us but many other independent companies and research centers.”

Bhargava, however, is not convinced, and also comments on the GEAC by saying, “I am surprised by the action of the GEAC. How could they allow these GM activities to take place without conducting proper tests first.” A member of the GEAC who does not wish to be named told DNA, “These views are Bhargava’s alone. We have applied our own expertise in the matter.”

Other activists who have played a major role in the GM issue in India echo Bhargava’s views. They point to the ‘Warangal incident’ in which more than 2,000 sheep died after grazing on a Bt cotton field for seven days.

India is not the only country where GM activists are demanding a ban on GM products. Hungary became the first country in eastern Europe to ban GM crops when it illegalised the planting of Monsanto’s MON 810 maize in January 2005. French president Nicolas Sarkozy announced on January 11 that his country would invoke an EU safeguard clause enabling it to suspend the marketing and cultivation on its territory of even a GM crop that has EU-wide authorization. The decision came after France’s ‘Provisional High Authority on GM Organisms’ presented its report. The Scottish government in November 2007 also made an unprecedented intervention in Brussels to try and help ban genetically modified (GM) crops throughout Europe. There has been an effective moratorium on GM crops in the European Union, with none approved for cultivation since 1998. The activists in India have very similar ideas.

“GM brinjal should be banned. The country’s health is at risk which cannot be allowed,” says Kishore Tiwari of the Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti. He also adds, “Many parts of Europe have banned GM foods because of severe health and environmental issues.” According to him, all GM activities should be stopped at once.

Kavita Karungati from Coalition for GM Free India is another expert who opposes GM brinjal. According to her, “It poses great damage to our health. Many civil right groups and farmers also oppose Bt brinjal.” She also adds, “Brinjal shortage is not an issue in the country and it should remain like that.”

Monsanto’s Sharma however defends Bt brinjal by saying, “It’s a known fact that most of these experts oppose this new technology. A normal farmer sprays pesticide at least 50 to 80 times in the whole lifecycle of a brinjal crop so you can imagine how much pesticide a normal person who eats brinjal has to swallow. Bt brinjal is a new technology which only harms some pests and not humans by any means.” According to him, “The reality is that the farmers need Bt crops.”

Suman Sahai of the Gene Campaign, which plays an active part in the GM issue, counters Monsanto’s argument. “Bt brinjal should not be launched in the country as the Bt toxin gene produces poison and when it can harm pests, where’s the proof that it won’t be harmful to humans,” she questions, adding, “It should not be produced at the moment as we really don’t have adequate testing material.”

Rajesh Krishnan of Greenpeace echoes the opinion. “GM activities are not at all good for India,” he says, adding, “Farmers end up using a cocktail of pesticides as secondary pests increase. Also, these GM activities only help the companies and not the farmers or the consumers.”

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1170081&pageid=0

The Color Purple

“There was no barrier around the whole field and I visited the field five times, which should not have been allowed,” said Selvam. R. Selvam, president of the Erode District Organic Farmers Federation

First cotton; now brinjal. Both have their centre of origin in India and this must be one of the few countries where there has been very little debate on the safety or even necessity of genetically modified (GM) crops. While Bt cotton is already grown in India, there are growing protests against the release of India’s first GM food crop: brinjal.

In one sense, India shares with other countries the rather dubious record of not sharing data on the safety of transgenic crops. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) maintains that all research data is up on its website.

However, Divya Raghunandan of Greenpeace had to file a Right to Information (RTI) petition to demand the reports of bio-safety and other tests. While the Chief Information Commissioner has ordered the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) to part with the information, the DBT has shown a marked reluctance to do so, insisting that the records were voluminous and she should inspect it under supervision in the office.

A non-compliance petition was filed before the CIC and once again the DBT was directed to give the information. Meanwhile Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (MAHYCO) got a stay from the Delhi High Court.

In February, the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) in Coimbatore had banners across its entrance saying it was now owned by Monsanto. This was after farmers found that it was conducting field trials of transgenic brinjal being developed by Monsanto’s partner MAHYCO on the campus.

Violations

R. Selvam, president of the Erode District Organic Farmers Federation, wrote to the GEAC listing the violations in the field trials at TNAU. He said the prime violation was the refugia or the buffer zone stipulation. Instead of five rows there were two rows, and that too with a lot of gaps. Another major violation was that the brinjals were dumped in an abandoned well, instead of being burnt.

“There was no barrier around the whole field and I visited the field five times, which should not have been allowed,” said Selvam. He says the University is maintaining a germ plasm of traditional brinjal varieties, which is why the trial of transgenic brinjal is absolutely unacceptable. The priorities of research are totally misplaced, he pointed out. “Millions of coconut trees are infected with termites in the state but the University is conducting trials of Bt brinjal.”

Dr. Veeraraghavan Thatam, Dean, TNAU Horticultural College and Research Institute, Coimbatore, said that it was very difficult to convince people about the science of transgenic crops, which only helped give crops resistance to pests. He said transgenic brinjal was designed to resist the fruit and shoot borer, which often decimated the crop.

He said all the rules set by the Department of Biotechnology were adhered to and the tested brinjals were incinerated. The research studies are on the website and people were free to read it, he pointed out. The GEAC, in turn, said that it would examine all aspects of the issue and only then take a decision.

While field trials of GM crops are in progress since five years or so, very little information was available till Greenpeace filed an RTI petition. In 2005, for the first time, there was a clear picture of the genetic experiments on food crops being conducted in India. There were 21 different food crops being engineered, mainly rice, brinjal, okra, tomato, cabbage, cauliflower, mustard, groundnut, pigeon pea, potato, corn.

Almost all these crops have been engineered with the insect resistant gene (Cry1 Ac) also referred to as the Bt gene.

Lack of information

In fact Aruna Rodrigues’ petition in the Supreme Court was spurred by concerns on lack of information on biosafety and regulation. In India, before a GM crop can be commercialised, it must go through glasshouse trials, then two years of multi-location research trials in open fields and then large-scale trials. Only transgenic brinjal has reached the stage of large-scale trials.

On May 8, 2007, the Court directed that there must be 200 meters isolation distance between the trial fields and the neighbouring fields cultivating the same crop to avoid contamination. The GEAC will examine this issue and prescribe the isolation distance depending upon the nature of the crop.

Two intervening applications in the Supreme Court complained that the data regarding toxicity and allergenicity have not been placed in public domain by those conducting the trials, with regard to nine crops to be field tested.

While the government told the apex court that, as regards Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, required data has already been put on the website; in regard to seven other crops, data is being collected and as soon as the full data is available with the GEAC, it would be put on the website.

Greenpeace points out that field trials are open-air experiments conducted in fields. They pose a risk to the environment and health because these untested GM plants could cross pollinate and contaminate nearby crops, and related wild varieties. Rice exporters protested against the testing of GM rice in the basmati growing areas last year and the government took a policy decision not to allow field trials in basmati growing areas. It has already stopped transgenic research in basmati rice.

Even in the case of Bt cotton, field trials between 1995 and 2001 were supposed to evaluate the economic, social and environmental impact. But an illegal Bt cotton hybrid was found growing on over 10,000 acres in Gujarat, which completely exposed the lack of regulation.

In 2005, 21 civil society organisations across six states across the country formed the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee (MEC) since the one set up by the government was not doing its job. The MEC documented 19 cases of field trial violations where farmers mixed the field trial produce with non-GM cotton and sold it in the market.

Already, transgenic rice, groundnut, brinjal, okra, tomato, groundnut cauliflower and cabbage are being tested in India.

While civil society groups are stepping up pressure with all-India protests, it is time the government reviewed its experience with transgenic cotton before embarking on clearing other crops.

© Copyright 2000 - 2008 The Hindu

http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2008/06/08/stories/2008060850110500.htm (on 8th June 2008)

‘More research needed before BT crops enter the food chain’

Ludhiana, May 30: Amidst the din of aggressive campaigning for promotion of BT cotton in Punjab, scientists from Punjab Agricultural University have called for a more proactive role of the agriculture industry in trainer training, farmers’ training and more research on bio-transgenic crops before allowing them into the food chain.

These observations came to fore during a symposium held by the All India Crop Biotechnology Association, a body of India’s agriculture biotech companies. The Association’s executive director, R.K. Sinha said more Bt crops are on the cards apart from Bt cotton, including Bt brinjal, okra, cauliflower, cabbage and rice. To this, Dr R.K. Dhawan, a senior entomologist from PAU, said, “While there is no problem with Bt cotton for we are not eating cotton, I would suggest that before we allow entry of Bt cops in our food chains, their impact and side effects need to be researched more.”

Dr Dhawan added, “For this, we would call for a more proactive role of the industry that not only holds training programmers for farmers but also for trainers, that is the scientists. Apart from this, the industry, like the scientists, need to look into the future and realise that while with Bt cotton we have been able to control one pest effectively, the crop has been hit by mealy bug, which is otherwise very easy to control.”

Assuring that this suggestion would be taken as a feedback to the industry, R.K. Sinha said, “Bio-transgenic crops help us achieve in a little time what we would actually achieve in a 100 years. And as far as side effects of bio-transgenic crops are concerned, we have no reported case till date, though such crops are being grown since the 90s in the US and since early 2000 in India.”

When asked as to why the biotech industry does not sponsor research in institutes like PAU, which it (the industry and its associations) otherwise use as a mouthpiece, just as done at today’s symposium, Sinha remarked, “At present, there is no tie-up as the Government of India has many programmes for promotion of biotechnology in universities. But future collaborations can be considered.”

On the issue of large-scale opposition to bio-transgenic crops by NGOs, Sinha said, “The Indian Parliament is conscious of the interests of the nation. The people sitting in the Parliament are the ones whom we elect and it is they who have given the green signal to BT crops.”

http://www.indianexpress.com/printerFriendly/316696.html, by Amrita Chaudhry

India not enforcing safety norms for GM crops: UN Study

Sydney, May 28, 2008 (IANS): India faces a huge risk because safety norms on genetically modified crops are not being enforced, says a UN study, adding that it also makes the country vulnerable to bioterrorism attacks. The study's Melbourne-based lead author Sam Johnston told IANS from Bonn: "India still has a huge problem of biosafety enforcement. Many farmers are using genetically modified crops without government approval. For example, it was recently reported in The Hindu Business Line that 28 percent of area in Gujarat was planted with illegal GM crops."

While India has been trying to live up to its international obligations laid out in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) seriously, it does face big implementation problems, risking biosecurity, the study warns. The study was released in Bonn Tuesday night during the ongoing summit of the UN Frmaework Convention on Biodiversity.

As many as 100 developing countries are unprepared to effectively manage and monitor the use of modern biotechnologies, exposing the world community to serious biosafety threats, cautions the two-year study of internationally funded training programmes in biotechnology and biosafety. The study also warns that the lack of an effective biosafety regime undermines the potential for developing countries to consider the role of biotechnology in critical areas such as addressing climate change.

Citing the lack of technical, policy and enforcement capacities in developing countries as "a potentially contributing factor to the spread of bioterrorism" - the deliberate release of naturally-occurring or human-modified bacteria, viruses, toxins or other biological agents - Johnston said: "If you don't have the ability to monitor technology, the technology can be used for bioterrorism as you are not bio-secure".

"Just rolling out the technology is not the answer as enormous number of people are resistant to it. In the absence of a biosafety mechanism, people are justified in worrying about the impacts of genetically modified technologies," Johnston said.

Over the last 15 years nearly 5,000 biotech companies have been established worldwide, employing 200,000 people with an investment of $63 billion in 2005, out of which some $20 billion was spent on research and development. "Food security is an enduring issue. Without an effective biosafety regime and with increasing use of genetically-modified crops in many developing countries, future trade bans and disruptions are inevitable. There are many instances when export crops have been contaminated by genetically modified crops when they are not meant to be. For example, recently Japan has banned rice coming from the US and China," Johnston told IANS.

According to the study, "across biotech sectors, the industry secured 32 new product approvals in the USA in 2005. Patent demand has seen similar growth, with 188,213 biotechnology patents being issued in 1990, rising to a preliminary total of 299,163 patents by the end of 2003″.

The report by the Yokohama-based United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies (UNIAS) states that "there is no effective international system of biosafety at the moment" because of widespread training and management deficiencies in most countries of Africa, Central Asia, Oceania and the Caribbean.

The study also highlights the meagre resources available, which are being further slashed, from developed countries for biosafety capacity building in developing countries. In the past 15 years, only an estimated $135 million have been invested globally by public and private sources from the developed world in capacity building in developing country.

The findings raise fundamental questions about "the extent to which capacity deficits are undermining the promise that advances in biotechnology would directly address the needs of the poor," said UNU-IAS Director A.H. Zakri in a statement.

The use of biotechnology in agriculture and other sectors will certainly increase. There is a global will towards biosafety measures to complement the development of biotechnology, which is manifested in widespread ratification of the CPB which came into force nearly five years ago on Sep 11, 2003. However, the study emphasises that consequences of dysfunctional biosafety regime need further examination.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/india-not-enforcing-safety-norms-

for-gm-crops-un-study_10053615.html, by Neena Bhandari

Indian GM regulators' decision making incorrect & illegal

Hyderabad, May 27, 2008: Information obtained by representatives of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) under Right to Information Act reveals that several important decisions pertaining to GMOs of regulatory bodies like Genetic Engineering Approval Committee [GEAC] and Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation [RCGM] are procedurally incorrect and simply illegal. The 80th meeting of GEAC, for instance, had only six official GEAC members present when some crucial decisions were taken in the month of October 2007. CSA put out its findings on the eve of a GEAC meeting to take place on May 28th 2008 – the agenda includes discussion on major changes in testing for GMOs in India in addition to consideration of applications for seed production of Bt Brinjal.

"In the 80th meeting of the GEAC in October 2007, only six members of the 29-member GEAC were present. There were also two representatives from the Ministry of Food Processing Industry and ICAR, who are not the designated constituents of the GEAC – it still does not constitute even a one-third quorum. It was in this meeting that a limited field research trial of transgenic tomato by IARI was approved – one of the six GEAC members present on that day's meeting was from the same Centre in IARI! GEAC also allowed Bt Rice and GM potato trials for Rabi 2007 in this meeting – all of this is illegal given the lack of quorum in the meeting", said Dr Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad.

Similarly, the 61st meeting of the RCGM in December 2007 had only nine members present out of the 31-member RCGM listed on www.dbtbiosafety.nic.in website. GEAC in turn depends on RCGM decisions and recommendations – in any case, six GEAC members are also RCGM members!

It is also interesting to note other indicators of the inappropriate decision-making processes within regulatory bodies in India. While the RCGM is taking decisions related to open air trials upto the stage of limited field trials and for clearing biosafety (GEAC apparently does not look at the data, as is evident from the decision making that has happened in the past), the Minister at the helm of affairs, Mr Kapil Sibal was recently heard to state that the government of India is "of course, pro-GM". If the Minister takes this stand, the regulatory committees inside his Ministry would, unsurprisingly, be biased and unscientific – seven of the RCGM members are from the DBT.

"Given the fresh information on regulatory errors in India, given the feedback to GEAC from the SC-appointed Special Invitee to GEAC Dr Pushpa Bhargava and given the biased stand of Mr Kapil Sibal, we demand that these regulatory bodies be scrapped immediately and all decisions revoked. An analysis of the functioning of these bodies shows that they do not adhere to procedures nor are they scientific in their analysis. Looking into the meetings from May 2006, we found that some of the members of GEAC did not attend more than 2 to 3 meetings. One member did not attend even one meeting. It is not clear what each member's contribution is inside the meeting in any case! Even in the RCGM, there are members who have not attended meetings. We believe that grave regulatory lapses of this kind compound the problems with Genetic Engineering as a technology and violate the commitments of India on various fronts to its citizens and to the international community", added Kavitha Kuruganti, CSA.  

The GEAC apparently has no quorum legally laid down for its meetings and the RCGM too admits that there is no official record or notification in this regard. The RCGM adopted one third members' presence as the quorum requirement as most official meetings have that norm.

This is a Press Release from Centre for Sustainable Agriculture

Few checks to prevent entry of GM foods

Chennai, May 23: Ports in India face an enormous burden in scientifically analysing products from countries growing genetically modified crops. No GM organisms can be imported unless sanctioned by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the nodal agency that functions under the Ministry of Environments and Forests. Only two food imports have been approved, according to an MoEF response to an RTI submission: refined vegetable soybean oil and crude degummed soybean oil by Catholic Relief Services and Care India as food aid in 2002. But a couple of weeks ago, packets of Doritos potato chips available in select supermarkets, including in Chennai, were revealed to contain two strains of GM corn.

An independent German laboratory found Mon 863 (for pest tolerance) and NK603 (for herbicide tolerance) in a sample picked up by Greenpeace from Delhi. The U.S.-based manufacturer Pepsico says that it does not market the product in India and has not exported it directly. The supermarket is believed to have acquired it through an independent importer via Mumbai.

Mandatory certificates attesting the GM status of imports checked at customs and the judgment of Port Health Officers at the 16 points of entry into India are the only checks in the system to prevent raw or processed food items that have unlawful GM strains from turning up in products in the market.

Sources in the Health Ministry said that samples of all food imports are tested for safety. But tests for GM strains are not performed on a regular basis. Not all ports have facilities to detect genetic engineering, and though samples of consignments can be sent for testing elsewhere, these laboratories are overburdened, senior officials from customs and the Port Trust point out.

The scale of the task involved in checking suspicious consignments is large; food items from countries that grow certain GM crops, including Argentina, Brazil and the U.S., might not be GM-free because those governments do not require crop segregation or food labelling, Dr. Ajay Parida, MS Swaminathan Research Foundation, told The Hindu. Manufacturers in these countries, he said, do not test for GM strains because they say it would increase the price of the food items and pass the burden to the consumer.

The Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, entrusted a regulatory body under the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare with the responsibility for GM foods. The body, known as the Food Safety Standard Authority, together with the scientific panel for genetically modified organisms the Act recommended, has not yet become functional.

Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules 2006 places the responsibility for authorising GM foods back with the GEAC. In August last year, the GEAC exempted GM processed food where the end product was not living, such as oils from GM seeds, from the 1989 rules for import/manufacture of GM organisms.

However, the exemption was on February 25, 2008 held in abeyance until September 30, 2008 or until further notification by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regarding regulation of GM processed foods.

The Food Safety Standards Authority, headed by Mr G. Balachandran, is expected to begin working next month.

http://www.thehindu.com/2008/05/23/stories/2008052359971300.htm by Sarah Hiddleston

GEAC calls for socio-economic survey of Bt Brinjal

GEAC's cautious move follows the sharp criticism of the founder director of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Pushp M Bhargava about the lack of health and bio-safety data of GM crops in the country. He also pointed out the incidence of sheep mortality reportedly due to grazing over Bt cotton fields in Warangal and Adilabad districts in Andhra Pradesh.

The Supreme Court while passing an interim order in a writ petition filed by Aruna Rodrigues, PV Satheesh and Rajiv Baruah had said that Bhargava and MS Waminathan should be invited in the GEAC meeting.

Though the GEAC has called for socio-economic survey of Bt brinjal it is yet to take a decision on proper biosafety and health data as suggested by Bhargava.

The GEAC is slated to meet May 28, 2008 and on the agenda for discussion is the consideration of conducting experimental seed production of Bt brinjal by Mahyco, apart from issues relating to commercial releases and field trials of different Bt cotton hybrids.

GEAC has, however, agreed that there is an urgent need to suggest integrated resistance management strategy in respect of Bt cotton as suggested by KR Kranthi of the Central Institute of Cotton Research. Kranthi had suggested that such a strategy needs to be implemented to prevent increased pest attacks on Bt cotton. The GEAC is of the view that until a suitable integrated resistance management strategy is put in place the current practice of maintaining 20% area as refuge should be strictly complied with.

GEAC has also decided to review the Supreme Court's order on biosafety protocol.

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/GEAC-calls-for-socio-economic-survey-of-Bt-brinjal/313798/#, by Ashok B Sharma

Minister for Science should get scientific & democratic

"Mr Kapil Sibal is making a fool of the nation by putting up the pretence of regulation of GMOs in this country and spending public money, while it is clear that he has only one interest in his mind – increasing commercial markets for the biotech industry. Unlike the Minister for Health who wants the film industry players to stop smoking on the screen because he has the health interests of the citizens at heart, Mr Sibal does not really care for the biosafety or health of India. We have always been saying that the regulators sitting in GEAC or RCGM were only acting as rubber stamps for the industry and the Minister's statements confirm this. All regulatory bodies should be immediately dissolved, in the face of the Minister's statement", said Dr Devinder Sharma, Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security.   

Mr Yudhvir Singh of the Bhartiya Kissan Union [BKU] added, "To begin with, why is the Minister for Science & Technology deciding on agriculture issues – what about the Ministry of Agriculture or the state governments or in a democracy like ours, the primary stakeholders like farmers and consumers? On what basis is the government pro-GM, when a majority of countries in the world have studied and rejected genetic engineering as an agricultural technology? The Minister and his regulatory Committees should be held liable for the various adverse effects of Bt Cotton in the country including livestock deaths and illnesses, in the face of their biased, inadequate and improper assessment of the technology".

"The remarks of the Minister come at a time when opposition to GM crops – and Bt Brinjal in particular – is growing from farmers' movements and consumer organizations in the country, supported by several political parties. Even UPA partners like CPI-M have demanded a ban on field trials of Bt Brinjal in the recently concluded Parliament session. Worldover, wherever there has been an informed debate on GM crops, the technology has been rejected. In the case of India, the government which is working in tandem with the biotech industry, is steamrollering over any democratic processes for fear of such a rejection building up", pointed out Ms Kavitha Kuruganti, Member Secretary of the Coalition.

Kapil Sibal's statement is ironical, coming at a time when the Supreme Court-appointed Special Invitee to GEAC, Dr P M Bhargava has written a scathing letter to the GEAC pointing out the glaring lacunae in our regulatory system and clearly saying that GM crops should be an option only if there are no other alternatives. Dr Bhargava had also called for a comprehensive review of the Bt Cotton experience in the country before any further decisions are taken. Incidentally, alternatives to chemical pesticides as well as GMOs are successfully established by farmers on lakhs of acres in this country.

This is a Press Release from Coalition for a GM-Free India

Hundreds of farmers & consumers from 15 states call for a ban on GM crops

New Delhi, May 6th 2008: Hundreds of farmers and consumers from fifteen states of India, under the broad banner of ‘Coalition for a GM-Free India’ congregated at Jantar Mantar in the Capital today, to demand for a complete ban on Genetically Modified [GM or GE] crops and foods in India. Hundreds of others joined them by signing on to “Ban GM” petitions and banners. The protestors were supported in their call by representatives of political parties covering the spectrum of UPA, NDA and UNPA. Well known celebrities like Milind Soman, Nafisa Ali, Nandita Das, Amala Akkineni, Sonal Mansingh, Rabbi Shergill etc., also declared that they would remain “GM-Free” and urged their followers to remain so too.

The protestors declared that they refuse to become guinea pigs in the experimentation that the Indian government is subjecting all Indians to, in the name of GM crops & foods and announced that they would step up their campaign by creating a widespread informed debate on the issue.

The protest comes at a time when Indian regulators are considering the applications for (experimental) seed production for Mahyco’s Bt Brinjal, the first such genetically modified vegetable anywhere in the world with the Bt (gene extracted from Bacillus thurengiensis) gene in it. Castigating the government for their false bogey of increased need for food security in the country, the Coalition set the record straight by pointing out that experience with GM soybean, the largest cultivated GM crop in the world actually shows a decrease in yields with genetic modification. Further, genetic engineering as a technology cannot increase productivity since yield is a “multi-genic” function. “If you first take away lands from agricultural use, cut down the food grains land and shift grains for bio-fuel production and livestock feed and if the government’s policies are generally anti-farmer, how can food security be ensured by the nation?”, the meet questioned. They further pointed out that in the name of food security, unsafe food cannot be thrust down on Indians, especially when it is rejected in a majority of countries the world over.

The protest meet pointed out that if Bt Brinjal is allowed into India, the choice to choose between Bt Brinjal and other brinjal is completely lost for consumers of the country, since systems of segregation and labeling are impossible in India. The meeting reiterated that “this kind of tinkering with our food safety and our very health is completely undemocratic for any government”. At a time when organic and ecological farming is gaining demand and popularity both amongst farmers and consumers and at a time when India’s advantage on this front is becoming stronger, allowing even GM field trials is unwise and reckless on the part of the government and shows a lack of vision for Indian farming. The Coalition promised to reach out to more farmers and consumers in the near future and step up their resistance against GM crops. At the end of the one-day protest, the protestors submitted their memorandum of demands to Mr Sharad Pawar, along with anti-GM banners with thousands of signatures.

Memorandum submitted to Sharad Pawar, Minister for Agriculture, Government of India

This is a Press Release from "Coalition for a GM-Free India"

Farmers protest over genetically modified crops in Delhi

New Delhi, May 6th 2008 (ANI): Farmers from different parts of the country on Tuesday demonstrated at the Jantar Mantar on Parliament street over the use of genetically modified crops in the country.Organised by Coalition for a GM-free India, the protesting farmers demanded that the genetically modified technology should be banned in the country, as it was against the Indian farmers' interest. Protestors said that with the spread of genetically modified (GM) crops, farmers' rights could be seized in the name of the Intellectual Property Rights and patents.

"This technology is against the interests of the peasants of the country. Farmers' rights would be snatched from them in the name of the IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) and patent rights. Moreover, this technology causes adverse impact on the health and environment. Therefore, this technology should not be practiced in the country," said Kavitha Kuruganti of Coalition for a GM-free India.The protestors included leaders of the Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU).

"Bt (Cotton) is poison and this has been spreading fast in our farms. People till recently used manures and other methods for a good harvest and led a healthy life. Bt brinjal is the first GM (genetically modified) food crop, which will be approved for a second and final season trial before commercialization," said Ram Singh Solanki, a leader of Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU).As per the Cotton Advisory Board, India's GM cotton area is estimated at 6.33 million hectares or 66 per cent of the total cotton area in 2007- 08 that is up from 3.69 million hectares in 2006-07. The government of India allowed commercial cultivation of Bacillus Thuringiensis or Bt cotton, the country's first GM crop in 2002. (ANI)

http://in.news.yahoo.com/ani/20080506/r_t_ani_nl_general/tnl-farmers-protest-over-genetically-mod-99cbaa1.html

Farmers seek ban on GM crops

New Delhi, May 6: Several hundred farmers under the banner of "Coalition for a GM-free India" gathered here on Tuesday to demand a ban on genetically modified (GM) crops and food, saying these would affect not only humans but also livestock, soil and environment. They urged political parties to take a categorical stand on GM crops in the run-up to the general elections. "It is an unwanted, irretrievable, undesirable technology," they said.

The protesters were supported in their call for a GM-free India by representatives of political parties across the spectrum. Celebrities like Milind Soman, Nafisa Ali, Nandita Das, Amla Akkineni, Sonal Mansingh and Rabbi Shergill also declared their support. Vandana Shiva, Yudvir Singh and members of the Bhartiya Kisan Union also participated in the protest.Addressing the farmers, BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi said GM crops were yet another attempt by corporates to take over Indian agriculture.

Rajya Sabha member K. Malaisamy and his colleagues from the AIADMK said GM crops would affect the entire country. The protest comes at a time when regulators were considering applications for (experimental) seed production for Mahyco's Bt brinjal, the first such genetically modified vegetable in the world. Criticising the claim that GM crops were the answer to food security, the Coalition said experience with GM soyabean had shown that the largest cultivated GM crop in the world had actually shown a decrease in yields with genetic modification.

http://www.thehindu.com/2008/05/07/stories/2008050760301200.htm

Farmers from 15 states protest, seek ban on GM crops and food

New Delhi, May 6: Hundreds of farmers and consumers from 15 states today converged near Parliament demanding a complete ban on Geneticaly Modified or Engineered (GM or GE) crops and food saying that such 'unsafe' cultivation and consumption, already rejected by a majority of countries, should not be thrust down on the unsuspecting Indians. The protest came at a time when the Indian regulators were actively considering to allow the seed production of brinjal with Bt (Bacillus thurengiensis) gene, known as Bt Brinjal- the first GM vegetable yet to be commercially produced anywhere in the world.The agitating assemblage was supported by six mainstream MPs and nd several well-known celebrities like Milind Soman, Nafisa Ali, Nandita Das, Amala Akkineni , Sonal Mansingh and Rabbi Shergill who pledged that they would remain GM-free and urge their followers to do so.Addressing the protesters gathered under the borad banner of "Coalition for a GM-Free India", several speakers castigated the government for raising "false bogey of increased need for food security in India and which could be met with GM food only".

In fact, the Coalition leaders said, it was concocted and motivated presumption since the GM soyabean had proved that GM crops could not increase productivity since "yield is a 'multi-genic' function"."If you take away lands from the agricultural use, cut down the goodgrains land and shift to bio-fuel production and live stock feed and if the government's policies are anti-farmer, how can food security be ensured?" the meet questioned.The protest meet pointed out that if Bt Brinjal, promoted by Mahyco, a subsidiary of Monsanto- an American multinational, was allowed into India, the choice to choose between Bt Brinjal and non-GM brinjal would be completely lost for the consumers since the system of segregation and labelling were impossible in the country.

"This kind of tinkering with our food safety and our health is completely undemocratic for any government, particularly when organic and ecological farmiong is gaining ground both among the farmers and consumers", the meet in a memorandum submitted to Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar at the end of daylong protest said."Allowing GM trials shows that the government lacks a vision for Indian farming and succumbing to the pressure and mechinations of multinational companies out to introduce an industrial dependent agriculture in the country," the meet said.

On the other hand, Mahyco said brinjal is an important vegetable in the Indian diet and the brinjal crop is heavily sprayed with the most destructive pesticide. Hence it needed insect-tolerant variety which is being produced as Bt Brinjal with help of advanced

http://news.webindia123.com/news/Articles/India/20080506/946749.html

Farmers protest over genetically modified crops in Delhi

New Delhi, May 6th 2008 : Farmers from different parts of the country on Tuesday demonstrated at the Jantar Mantar on Parliament street over the use of genetically modified crops in the country. Organised by Coalition for a GM-free India, the protesting farmers demanded that the genetically modified technology should be banned in the country, as it was against the Indian farmers' interest.

Protestors said that with the spread of genetically modified (GM) crops, farmers' rights could be seized in the name of the Intellectual Property Rights and patents."This technology is against the interests of the peasants of the country. Farmers' rights would be snatched from them in the name of the IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) and patent rights. Moreover, this technology causes adverse impact on the health and environment. Therefore, this technology should not be practiced in the country," said Kavitha Kuruganti of Coalition for a GM-free India.

The protestors included leaders of the Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU). "Bt (Cotton) is poison and this has been spreading fast in our farms. People till recently used manures and other methods for a good harvest and led a healthy life. Bt brinjal is the first GM (genetically modified) food crop, which will be approved for a second and final season trial before commercialization," said Ram Singh Solanki, a leader of Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU). As per the Cotton Advisory Board, India's GM cotton area is estimated at 6.33 million hectares or 66 per cent of the total cotton area in 2007- 08 that is up from 3.69 million hectares in 2006-07. The government of India allowed commercial cultivation of Bacillus Thuringiensis or Bt cotton, the country's first GM crop in 2002. ANI

http://www.andhranews.net/India/2008/May/6-Farmers-protest-over-43609.asp

New Delhi: Farmers on Tuesday demanded a complete ban on genetically modified (GM) crops and food in India saying it would not only affect humans and livestocks, but also soil and environment.Protesting against GM crops in the national capital, farmers under the banner of 'Coalition for a GM-Free India' voiced against government's decision to allow field trials of bt brinjal in the country.

Addressing the farmers, senior BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi said that GM crops are yet another attempt by corporates to take over Indian agriculture. He exhorted farmers to resist it forcefully.Member secretary of the Coalition, Kavitha Kuruganti expressed similar views and said that allowing GM field trials shows lack of vision for Indian farming."The government should make it clear as to where does it intend to take the country's farming by promoting GM food and crops, which are harmful for one and all," she said.

On bt brinjal, farmers' representatives pointed out that entry of such vegetable in India would put an end to consumers choice of differentiating between normal and genetically modified brinjal, as there is lack of segregation and labeling facility in India.They said the government should take a cue from the adverse impacts of bt cotton cultivation."Farmers who even touched the crop developed allergy while animals grazing on it died. The fate would be similar in case of any other GM crop and food," they said, adding that studies on GM food have found various adverse health results like stunted growth, impaired immune systems, bleeding stomach and reduced digestive enzymes among humans.The farmers' call was also supported by cine stars Nafisa Ali and Milind Soman among others.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Earth/Farmers_seek_ban_on_GM_crops_in_India_/articleshow/3016029.cms

Protest against GM crops in Delhi - The Financial Express

New Delhi, May 6th 2008: Hundreds of farmers and consumers from 15 states gathered in the Capital demanding a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops. The protest under the banner of the Coalition for a GM-free India comes at a time when the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is slated to consider Mahyco's application for experimental seed production of its Bt brinjal. Mahyco's joint director of research, Usha Barwale Zehr said, "The last time we had a food crisis, we were bailed out by the Green Revolution.

India's food grain output for 2007-08 is estimated at 227.32 million tonne, against China's 490 million tonne, the third straight year of bumper harvests in that country. Clearly, we need a more rational approach to new technologies that could help our farmers increase food production." She cited beneficial aspects of Bt brinjal. The protestors, however, drew support in their call from a spectrum of political parties, including UPA, NDA, and UNPA. Members of parliament from AIADMK Molaiswamy, Elavarasan, Anbalasan, and Govindarajan addressed the gathering.

Among other political leaders present were the former Union science and technology minister Murli Manohar Joshi of BJP and the former agriculture minister of Andhra Pradesh, VS Rao. Social activist, Swami Agnivesh also supported the call of the protestors. The protestor also submitted a memorandum to the Union agriculture minister, Sharad Pawar. One of the leader of the protestors, Kavitha Kuruganti of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture said, "If Bt brinjal is allowed in India, the choice to chose between Bt brinjal and conventional brinjal will be completely lost for consumers since the system of segregation and labelling are not possible."

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Protest-against-GM-crops-in-Delhi/306329/

More Pictures - http://picasaweb.google.com/gvramanjaneyulu/DelhiGMProtest/photo#519750095505491360

Let Bt baigans be baigans - Hindustan Times - Editorial

New Delhi, May 8th 2008: If and when it's cleared, the first genetically modified (GM) food crop in the country, Bt brinjal, will be grown by farmers, not by sloganeering activists. Of course, the sloganeering activists will insist that they have the farmers backing them in opposing GM crops. And if that doesn't quite work, then they'll use that old chestnut: activists know best. On Tuesday we saw the 'Coalition for GM-Free India' protesting in New Delhi with "farmers from 15 states". Now, we are firmly of the belief that just because GM seeds bear higher yields and require less inputs despite its higher costs, that doesn't automatically mean that Indians are ready to eat any old thing. Remember the crappy American PL-480 wheat that came to India in the 1950s?

But then, for every PL-480 wheat, there has also been IR8 rice — a high-yielding, 'safe' variety developed by the International Rice Research Institute that India adopted in the 1960s to meet its straining food requirements. There are naysayers and there are naysayers to the whole Bt debate in India.

Founder of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology and special invitee to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, P. Bhargava, is against the current GM brinjal project because he is not at all satisfied with the lack of data on health and bio-safety provided by the company pushing for Bt brinjal, Mahyco. Fair enough. Let's get independent data and get it right. But no, says the other naysayers who seem to have picked up fashionable ideas from GM-hating (and food-surplus) Europe. Let's not have 'horrible' GM at all. How they intend to get more crops for a growing population only they know. Well, actually they don't. Only the farmers will.

"Allowing GM Crops into Andhra Pradesh is illegal - Ban them"

Hyderabad, April 8th 2008: Addressing an anti-GM protest meet here today, farmer leaders of all major farmers' organizations in the state of Andhra Pradesh demanded that the AP government take a clear anti-GM stand and ban GM crop trials in the state as has been done in other states like Kerala and Orissa. The protest has been organized by the Coalition for a GM-Free AP, a network of civil society organizations and farmers' groups.

Speaking on the occasion, Mr Sarampalli Mallareddy, Vice President, All India Kisan Sabha (affiliated to CPI-M) said, "When the first trials of Bt Cotton began in the state and the country, the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh passed a resolution against any GM crops and their trials in the state. Any cultivation or trials in the state of such crops is therefore illegal". He demanded that the AP government ban such trials in the state and not allow any GM food crops.

Mr Raghava Reddy, President of Bhartiya Kisan Sangh pointed out that the government polices were allowing MNCs like Monsanto total control over our agriculture. He pointed out that when chemical pesticides were brought in, we were told that no harm will come out of them when the reality today points out to a different picture. The same can be anticipated from GM crops and the government should have a long term vision about the impacts of such a technology, he said.

"We are not against technology and we welcome any technology that helps in improving the environment, economy and health of our citizens – however, GE crops do not deliver these. They increase the cost of production, cause deterioration in health and MNCs are making profit out of this. We want sustainable agriculture practices to be promoted", said Mr Samineni Ramarao, President, AP Rythu Sangam.

Sri Ramakrishna, ex-MLA and President, Rythu Sangam (affiliated to CPI) said that the all-party forum created of farmers' unions in the state in the case of Minimum Support Price for paddy will also take up this anti-GM cause.

"Self reliance in seeds is very important and if all farmers start creating their own seeds, no MNC can make profits out of farmers and I urge all farmers to acquire those simple breeding skills – after all, companies are exploiting seed-producing farmers on the one hand and seed-consuming farmers on the other. We need to put an end to this", said Mr Gollamarri Shoury David, National Executive Committee Members of Bharatiya Janata Kisan Morcha, affiliated to the Bharatiya Janata Party.

Jamalaiah, President of the Andhra Pradesh Shepherds and Goatherds Union promised that their struggle would be intensified to get the government answerable to the deaths of livestock after grazing on Bt Cotton fields. He demanded a complete halt to all research on GM crops until investigations on animal deaths are comprehensively done and made public.

"Genetic Modification is not true science, as it claims", pointed out Mr Ramesh, General Secretary of Jana Vignyana Vedika, a people's science movement, which expressed its solidarity to the anti-GM cause.

Mr B Venkateswarlu and Mr Chittoor Rambabu also participated in the protest meet on behalf of Telugu Rythu, affiliated to the Telugu Desam Party [TDP]. Mr Jeevan Kumar of Human Rights Forum also addressed the gathering.

The protest was attended by more than 250 farmers and consumers from different parts of Andhra Pradesh including ones affected by losses incurred with Bt Cotton, ones who have experienced allergies while working in Bt Cotton fields and ones who have lost their livestock upon grazing on Bt Cotton. Further, scores of farmers who practice ecological farming were also protesting, urging the AP government to ban GM crop trials in the state.

This protest was one of the events organised to mark a "Global Day of Action Against GM Crops", including many protests all over India in different states.

This is a Press Release from Centre for Sustainable Agriculture

Kerala reiterates its NO to GM crops & foods - "Government of Kerala will not allow GM crops & foods: Kerala CM"

Trivandrum, April 11th 2008: Speaking at the inauguration of a two-day national seminar on "GM Crops & Biodiversity Conservation" organised by the Kerala State Biodiversity Board, the Chief Minister of Kerala, Sri V S Achuthanandan assured the people of Kerala that no policy which will have adverse impact on farmers and/or environment will be brought in by the government, including GM (Genetically Modified) crops.

After two days of deliberations on all aspects related to GM crops, the seminar concluded resolving that "release of GM crops into the environment and GM foods into the market should be banned to protect the health, agriculture and biodiversity of the nation". At the concluding ceremony today, this declaration was endorsed by the Minister for Agriculture Sri Mullakkara Ratnakaran who pointed out that the government cannot consciously restrict choices of farmers by introducing GM crops or allowing their field trials.

The workshop was attended by more than 150 delegates consisting of representatives of different State Biodiversity Boards, farmers and farmer organizations, agricultural scientists, educationists, students, consumer organizations, industry and civil society organizations. The meeting discussed at length issues like GM crops & Biodiversity, GM crops & Food sovereignty, Health Hazards of GM crops and biosafety regulation, Genetic Contamination from GE crops and IPR issues. Existing official data on economics of GM crops were also discussed.

Participants in the workshop also pointed out that it is not possible for Kerala alone to be GM-Free if neighboring states allow GM crops and that a precautionary approach to GM crops is needed at the national level.

Farmers and civil society groups taking part in the seminar pointed out that they had several large scale ecological farming experiences being successfully established in Andhra Pradesh, Tamilnadu, Maharashtra and Kerala and given that such alternatives exist, there is no necessity for bringing in GM crops.

The meeting passed a "Kerala declaration on GM crops and Biodiversity" unanimously in the presence of the State Agriculture Minister.

KERALA DECLARATION ON GM CROPS & BIODIVERSITY

A two day national seminar convened by the Kerala State Biodiversity Board on 10 and 11 April 2008 at Trivandrum on GM crops & Biodiversity Conservation, attended by more than 150 delegates consisting of representatives of different State Biodiversity Boards, farmers and farmer organizations, agricultural scientists, educationists, students, consumer organizations, industry and civil society organizations,

After critically examining the following impacts of Genetically Modified crops (including Bt Cotton in India and other GM crops elsewhere in the world):

* genetic contamination of existing seed diversity and erosion of biodiversity,

* endangering of the diversity of crops for some of which India is the Centre of Origin,