The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee’s recommendation that Bt brinjal be commercialised is a significant marker in the country’s slow and somewhat hesitant embrace of agri-biotechnology. The nod has come a full seven years after approval for the country’s first transgenic crop — Bt cotton. But Bt brinjal is the country’s first approved genetically modified (GM) food crop and the decision of the GEAC, the high-level committee under the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests, may be read as an affirmation of a key principle. It is that transgenic seeds will be approved for commercialisation as long as they adhere to the bio safety and other requirements demanded by the regulatory process. This may well spur the process for clearance of other transgenic food crops at different stages of the regulatory and approval process. It is imperative that Union Minister for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh, who says he will study the GEAC’s recommendation in depth before giving a final stamp of approval, bases his decision solely on the body of scientific data culled from Bt brinjal trials. He should ignore the huge pressure from organisations that have no time for the scientific evidence while claiming to speak for the environment and the public. It is not just the ‘organic’ movement but also the pesticide industry lobby that is viscerally opposed to Bt crops, which acquire a pest-resistant character with the introduction of a gene derived from a common soil bacterium ( bacillus thuringiensis).
Introduced commercially in the United States in the mid-1990s, genetically modified crops have expanded substantially in recent years. An estimated 125 million hectares were under such cover in 2008 in 25 countries, including China, Brazil, Egypt, and Australia. Even in GM-phobic Europe, seven countries, including Germany and Portugal, grow genetically modified maize commercially. It is nobody’s case that the massive spread of agro-biotechnology is proof of its safety. India’s regulatory process must continue to put transgenic plants through a battery of rigorous tests — for toxicity, allergenicity, bio safety, agronomic worth, and so forth — before recommending commercial release. It is also important that the country addresses issues such as labelling GM products through an independent regulatory process that commands public confidence. Legislation must be speedily introduced to set up a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority, as recommended in 2004 by a task force led by eminent agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan. In a country where agricultural productivity and food security are vital issues, agri-biotechnology holds great promise. We need to regulate its application, not allow it to be strangled by misconceived or motivated campaigns.
Keywords: Bt brinjal, GEAC, GM, genetically modified food crop, M.S. Swaminathan, agri-biotechnology, Bt cotton, seeds, bio safety, Indian agriculture, farmers, agricultural productivity, food security
In the early years of the tobacco industry's commercial push for selling their products, that industry also provided "scientific evidence" which included a large number of scientists working for the industry, providing volumes of "scientific data"to prove that cigarette smoking is harmless to health. The industry even pointed to prominent medical doctors smoking cigarettes, and vilified organisations "claiming to speak for the environment and the public." You reported that "transgenic seeds will be approved for commercialisation as long as they adhere to the bio-safety and other requirements demanded by the regulatory process". What are the bio-safety requirements? No scientist can guarantee what is declared as "biosafe" today will remain so after his career years. Remember the thalidomide episode? That was a drug approved by scientists on similar government-appointed approval committee elsewhere. Remember the same kind of scientific spirit earlier, when doctors removed whole sections of human brains to treat certain psychological illnesses? Please, please, science is admirable and useful, but don't turn it into a religion.
If all these people commenting here are certain that GM brinjal will be the cause of their doom, how come they do not realize that the one they are eating right now has been a result of constant gene modification since the 60's through breeding. I see it has only made them healthier and pretty feisty. Indians consume bitter gourd which is classified a poisonous plant worldwide except in China which has a much milder edible variety unlike the Indian vegetable.
I have already given my support to Greenpeace in opposing GM (genetically modified) food products, I oppose Nestle trying to con our citizens in buying their GE Foods. Let's not try to be GOD or compete with Nature. Let nature give its natural food to us & we who have survived for so long in this planet will survive later too.
You ask that Minister "base his decision solely on the body of scientific data culled from Bt brinjal trials." Who has access to this data? Were the trials legal? The rules of the GEAC state that that large scale trials will not be allowed unless the complete bio-safety data has been generated. Is the GEAC short-circuiting the process of establishing safety - presuming what they are supposed to prove? What does this tell us about any future certificates of safety this "Approval Committee" may grant? What record does GEAC have in enforcing its rules or punishing violators? Abysmal. Mahyco has repeatedly violated the conditional permissions given for trials, including by taking up trials in locations where they were not permitted". Why would Monsanto Mahyco need to call upon police to protect its field trials? And whom are the police supposed to protect? Your faith in the "regulatory process" brings tears to my eyes. Who will regulate the regulator? GEAC has been unable to enforce rules and regulations governing GM crop trials. GEAC comprises members who are themselves developers of GM crops and members of bodies sponsored by the biotech industry. Since you know all this as well as we do, please explain your flip dismissal of public concerns about this destructive technology.
Although Bt cotton is supposed to take out the pesticides from cotton fields what is happening in the field is a different story. There are independent studies and reports which say that pesticide use in cotton has not reduced as expected. There are even reports from pesticide industry that their sale of pesticides like endosulfan and profenofos has increased in Bt cotton areas. What does it show? When the same Bt is used in Brinjal can we expect a different result? Why should the pesticide industry be against GM crops then? Many a times these companies produce both GM seeds and pesticides and this is well established in the case of Monsanto that they make double profit by selling both. br/> On the other hand there are so many organic and NPM cotton and brinjal farmers in this country who could become eco-friendly and people-friendly and these are well appreciated by farmers, bureaucrats and even politicians. The pesticide use has come down in the country because the sustainable agriculture movement has actually taken roots in the villages as well as in the urban areas. So your argument that pesticide industry is also against genetic engineering is baseless.
I'm so shocked and distressed by this article - that too in a paper which is otherwise sensible. I fail to understand why the paper has such thinly veiled contempt for the 'organic'[your quotes not mine] movement. As a citizen of this country, and a supporter of organic movements, I have a right to know exactly what it is I am eating and feeding my children and if it is not proved beyond doubt that genetic tampering is safe, it's a violation against me - especially since we know that realistically speaking, the chances of actually segregating and labeling vegetables in India are very slim. On another note, what about the farmers - why should they be subjected to the tyranny of large multinationals who control seeds - should we stand by and watch our crop diversity be reduced to a few species simply because a few other countries think its good enough for them? Your editorial is a disgrace and brings down the integrity of your paper in one fell swoop - implying that campaigns to protect our crops and farmers are 'misconceived or motivated' is pure libel against these groups. It also leads this reader to wonder what motivated 'The Hindu' to write this completely subjective editorial backed by faulty research.
There is a saying that for every person who overcomes hesitation to voice his/her opinion in public, there are 100 others who hold similar opinion but just feel too shy or timid to express themselves. If this is true, then the number of people commenting above, who feel disappointed by this unwise editorial from the HINDU, a newspaper which has, for all these years, been held in high esteem, is an indication of how biased and subjective (not to speak of rampant and commercialized materialism)- news reporting in this country has become.
This article is an absolute disgrace for a newspaper like the Hindu which I have otherwise found to be the least of all print media evils. I can cite more than one "scientific" study gravely questioning the long term health impacts of GMO. I too am a person of science (Computer researcher to be precise), and for most of my life, have had "time" only for science. So, think twice before passing outrageously arrogant remarks such as the citizen groups having "no time" for scientific evidence. Health hazards is just one side of the GM coin. Perhaps, a more detrimental aspect is farmer-centric. With seeds which are to be controlled by MNCs, the small and the marginal farmers - the bulk of our agri community - are set to face devastatingly high input costs.
I wonder how the key principle of “bio safety and other requirements” has been established, when no independent studies have been done. The regulator is merely going through some data and conclusions provided by the company which is going to market this product. Isn’t avoiding “conflict of interest" one of the basic principles in decision making which has been violated many times over in the case of GM crops? Your editorial exhorting the Minister to go with “science” assumes that science has governed the GEAC decision! Well our new-found fondness for science and the naive belief about the neutrality of it is ridiculous when we consider that science is being used more for commercial profit than anything else. In the case of GM technology science is mixed up in corporate profits and conflict of interest. Since when have we started believing that large transnationals are working for the greater common good and not their profits? GM crops are not only about science even when the science is clean and objective)they are about food safety, consumer choice, health, agro-ecology, farmer livelihoods, seed sovereignty, social justice, bio-diversity and bio-safety and above all the threat of irreversible contamination of the bio-sphere.
Safety data presented by developer Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd (Mahyco) to the government is not complete. Bt brinjal brought down appetite in goats, altered prothrombin (which helps blood clot) in rabbits and glucose levels in broiler chickens in its tests. It also induced resistance to kanamycin, an antibiotic. The study also questioned safety tests conducted by Mahyco, based on which the government is conducting trials. It said in toxicity tests on insects, Mahyco used an "improper" toxin. "This could also make these tests not valid,"
Quote: "We need to regulate its (agri-biotechnology) application, not allow it to be strangled by misconceived or motivated campaigns." Unquote Misconceived or motivated campaigns? Against what? This is not politics we are dealing with, but public health, and destruction of food supply. No regulation worth its name will reverse the damage to the food supply, and the industry itself may indulge in strangling all adverse reports arising from public consumption of GM foods. The private Bt industries/companies pushing GM foods, are driven only by profit motives, and have been known to indulge in motivated campaigns against well-meaning individuals and organizations who are genuinely concerned about the long-range effects of GM foods.
I am little dumb-founded by the editor's sudden take on civil society. Eminent scholars like Devinder Sharma, Nammalvar, CSA of Hyderabad and many other agri-scientists working for decades have raised concerns on GM and have been asking for proper research and field trials in the first place as it concerns not only safety and security of 1 billion people but also our entire agriculture. Discrediting their work is shocking, to say the least. I guess only The Hindu is discrediting itself in the process.
"In a country where agricultural productivity and food security are vital issues, agri-biotechnology holds great promise." In what way can GM food contribute to productivity and food security? Productivity - the productivity of farm lands has gone down due to extensive use of chemical fertilizers (and pesticides) leading to depletion of soil nutrition (even Dr.M.S.Swaminathan concurs). GM technology does not replenish soil health and neither does it reduce pesticide use. The premise that per acre yield will increase is based on a few trials but for each such trial there is a trial which has shown decreased yields from GM use. Vidharba is one example. Food security - This is in jeopardy today due to a multitude of factors- broken distribution system, failed monsoon, inadequate infrastructure, meager compensation etc. GM technology will have no impact on any of these factors except for one - compensation - which will likely decrease due to increased input cost. I really hope 'The Hindu' editorial team is more responsible in voicing strong support to phenomena that are highly debated in the social sphere as the paper has influence among the polity.
It is surprising, that a newspaper like The Hindu, published an editorial that did not put up an analysis before arriving at a sweeping conclusion. It is disheartening to see, while the West is battling GM based foods, the affected agro-giants are pursuing unsuspecting markets like India. There are many health safety risks associated with GM-based foods especially Bt brinjal and Bt corn. I would really appreciate a complete look/report in The Hindu at the long term benefits/damages of GM seeds. This may be the best solution to meet growing demands, but is it sustainable in the long run for farmers, in terms of health care concerns and soil protection? How are the concepts of Ayurveda going to be affected?
The editor writes, "He should ignore the huge pressure from organisations that have no time for the scientific evidence while claiming to speak for the environment and the public." The editor is saying Greenpeace has no time for scientific evidence! Did the editor at least try to get in touch with Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) - who called Bt Brinjal unfit for human consumption?
I was quite shocked to read the editorial from The Hindu today. I have read ample data about the dangers of genetically modified foods. Recently an Austrian study on genetically modified corn showed that it caused infertility. Apart from this the fact that we are willing to sell our biodiversity to vested interests. The social, economic and environmental factors weigh very strongly against genetically modified food. This piece does not seem to weigh all the data on the hazards of GMOs. It seems almost like it is an advertisement for Monsanto or other vested interests.
Can somebody please help stop this Bt brinjal phenomena? I am a lover of baingan ka bharta ; the outstanding Indian dish. This whole new angle of Bt brinjal is making me feel scared to go buy brinjal in the future. Will next generation be able to eat the food the natural way at all and enjoy Indian cuisine (the old way)? it seems the lobbying power of "Pro Bt brinjal" with government (who has no right to decide the change in nature on things)is too much. How can they let it pass? Who is so excited about this? Why doesn't our agricultural minister come out clearly on this and explain to people why this is going forward? At least let's see if he can convince the people of India on this step. Yes we elect people so that they can govern the state but that doesn't mean once they are elected they can take the decision they want to. They need to consult with people of India whom they represent. And is it necessary that whatever happens in the developed nations (so called development)has to be followed here? Why in our country? I think Gandhiji would have had solved this entire issue of pesticide reduction in Bt brinjal by saying lets encourage organic farming and use cow dung instead of using GM brinjal and change its basic nature. This would remove pesticide from the scene entirely and preserve the brinjal variety the way it is.
As a biotechnology researcher I find it appalling that a paper like the Hindu is pushing a pro-GM stance rather than being balanced about a technology that is still very much in its infancy. There is a lot of data about the health hazards from genetically modified food, while there is no conclusive data about its safety for human consumption. The EC report on Bt Brinjal is one of the most shoddy scientific reports I have seen. It is thoroughly inadequate. As a researcher I would say there are many possibilities from gene technology, however not anytime in the near future. We still have a long way to go in fully understanding how genes work, and it is nothing but hubris to think we know enough at this juncture. To push this technology commercially in its current state, especially with regard to food, works against one of the highest scientific and ethical principals, namely the precautionary principle. The government should invest in more laboratory research of gene technology, as it can hold many benefits. But to release gene technology-based products into markets would be akin to creating a nuclear bomb from a fractional understanding of quantum physics.
For a country like India where the population is ever increasing, drifting away from agriculture, facing acute food shortages, more and more numbers of children are malnourished, GM crops may prove to be a boon if made use in a controlled and careful manner.The advantages from some of the GM-crops far outweigh the disadvantages.
The question that this editorial begs is: where is the ecological bio-safety research to support the claim that these BT products are actually safe? The sad story in our regulatory process is that it is not based on adequate scientific research. A pity that The Hindu falls for this. By the way, I am an advocate of Bt technologies. All I'd like to see is real, serious research done on biosafety.
Genetically modified crops are the need of the present era to meet the demands of ever growing population. When many developed countries are using it after testing side-effects why cannot we do the same? If we continue to be ignorant on this issue and do not respond speedily it is we who will be deprived of high quality products.
It is surprising to see newspapers like 'The Hindu' writing such factually incorrect editorials which sound more like a biotech seed industry press release, rather than an editorial by a responsible newspaper. While spewing venom at the concerns raised by civil society and concerned citizens on the introduction of Bt Brinjal, the first Genetically Modified food crop to be introduced in our country, you seem to have forgotten the body of evidence that was provided to the expert committee to validate the concerns.I wonder whether the author has read those concerns before writing them off.
I also want to point to a factual mistake here. In April 2009, Germany had banned the cultivation of Bt corn, the only crop that was allowed in the past for cultivation.
The other point that one hears quite often is the mention of pesticide lobby opposing GM crops. What is surprising is the fact that the big GM seed giants like Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer etc are also the biggest pesticide companies in the world. In fact studies in China and US had shown that pesticide usage has gone up after the introduction of GM cotton.
One fundamental question that the regulatory body or the government fails to ask is the need for such risky technologies where public money is wasted on building and maintaining infrastructure to assess the risk, when alternatives exist. Non pesticide management is an agriculture practice that is fast catching up in the country. Andra Pradesh, the pesticide capital of the country is leading the way where last year there was close to 20 lakh acres of different crops under NPM.
What GM crops take away is also the common man's right to choice over food. Whereever it has been introduced it is seen that they contaminate the regular crops and the consumer is left with no choice but to eat it. This is true even in countries like US where although consumer polls have shown that 1/3rd of the population does not want to eat GM food; they are left with no choice. Last but not the least, the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and technology for Development [IAASTD], which was the biggest global assessment of agricultural technologies anchored by United Nations, in its report released in 2008 says that future of agriculture is small farmer-focused ecological farming. It is all the more true for countries like ours whose largest chunk of farmers is small and marginal. It will be a shame if India walks in to the GM trap where the beneficiaries are only big biotech seed companies. It is sad that responsible media have unfortunately taken the side of the seed giants against the citizens.
The Govt should have taken this decesion long back.
I hope Ramesh will give green signal to this.
In the early years of the tobacco industry's commercial push for selling their products, that industry also provided "scientific evidence", which included a large number of scientists working for the industry, providing volumes of "scientific data" to prove that cigarette smoking is harmless to health. The industry even pointed to prominent medical doctors smoking cigarettes, and vilified organisations "claiming to speak for the environment and the public." You reported that "transgenic seeds will be approved for commercialisation as long as they adhere to the bio-safety and other requirements demanded by the regulatory process". What are the bio-safety requirements? No scientist can guarantee what is declared as "biosafe" today will remain so after his career years. Remember the thalidomide episode? That was a drug approved by scientists on similar government-appointed approval committee elsewhere. Remember the same kind of scientific spirit earlier, when doctors removed whole sections of human brains to treat certain psychological illnesses? Please, please, science is admirable and useful, but don't turn it into a religion.
Please Email the Editor