gene gun at your head - BT Brinjal

[diga]

Kudos to Jairam Ramesh for banning the BT Brinjal till all the results are evaluated... Need more politicos like him How can a lowly vegetable be an issue of national security? Is there a foreign hand in your belly? Src: Tehelka - Shoma Choudary

IMAGINE THE lowly brinjal you have always known turning into a sci-fi gizmo — with an uncharted potency for good and evil. Imagine a food turned into a pesticide — and you will have a measure of the essential uncertainty around Bt brinjal. When Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh announced his indefinite moratorium on Bt brinjal on February 9, he halted a juggernaut that could have swept India to a point of no return. His decision has earned everyone a precious window of pause — a time to reevaluate, reconsider, retest. Most of all, time first for everyone to familiarise themselves with what is at stake. The need to expand public involvement in this debate has become more urgent because, though Jairam Ramesh called his moratorium “indefinite”, the window of time he earned might be slammed shut sooner than he or anyone else imagined. Since his announcement, sections of the media and political establishment have been running a dogged campaign to isolate him and whisk the debate away from what they call “public noise” into the inscrutable world of pure science — a euphemism for single-window clearances. When Science and Technology Minister Prithviraj Chavan told the Indian Express, “Slogan shouting and protests should not cloud scientific vision in the country,” he could have been mouthing the thwarted exasperation of the entire pro-Bt lobby. Just a cursory glance at the monetary stakes involved would explain some of the frustration. As the 8th largest seed market in the world, India has a $ 1 billion per year seed industry, currently occupied by the unorganised and public sector — waiting to be corporatised. According to a Business Standard report, the corporate seed industry is growing at 15 percent annually; and 85 percent of India’s seed market still remains to be penetrated. Just the Bt cotton seed industry accounts for Rs 2,000 crore annually. Bt brinjal was only the outrider. Ranged behind it is an army of Bt crops waiting for the regulatory drawbridge to be lifted: rice, tomato, potato, wheat, okra. The list runs to 41. One billion Indian stomachs to be corporatised and Jairam Ramesh had put a spoke in it. Industry could not have been happy. In this session of Parliament, the Department of Biotechnology — which comes under the science ministry and whose stated objective is to promote GM crops and so has an inherent conflict of interest — will be putting up an ominous piece of legislation: the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 (NBRAI, 2009). This draft Bill, which is still marked “secret”, is full of undemocratic and draconian clauses. First, it proposes to take away power from the current, flawed but broad-based committee under the environment ministry and hand approval of GM crops over to a committee of three technical experts under the science ministry — not only making them vulnerable to manipulation, but turning an ethical, environmental, economic and health issue into a purely technological one. Not just this, instead of enhancing transparency and information disclosure, the NBRAI seeks to protect corporates with legal cover for retaining Confidential Commercial Information. (It is revealing that Greenpeace had to fight a 30-month RTI battle with the Department of Biotechnology to release the Bt brinjal bio-safety dossier submitted by Mahyco, the company that has developed the crop in India in conjunction with American seed giant, Monsanto. The department claimed sharing the dossier would compromise Mahyco’s commercial interests! It was finally made public by a Supreme Court order.) The bill also turns the federal nature of India on its head and proposes to take away the constitutional authority state governments have over agriculture and health and give the technical committee overriding power. (The fact that 10 state governments across political parties refused to allow the entry of Bt brinjal might cast light on this clause.) Apart from many other disturbing provisions ( see box: Wrong Bill for Wrong Reasons), most shockingly, Section 63 of the NBRAI Bill proposes imprisonment and fine for anyone who “without evidence or scientific record misleads the public about safety of GM crops”. That could put all activists and journalists in jail for merely asking questions. Why this desperation to bulldoze Bt crops onto India? If these crops are for the public good, why this fear of debate? Why this need to muzzle? Why this hesitation to convince? Before one probes these questions about Bt brinjal, at a much more elemental level, if the pro-Bt lobby succeeds in yanking this debate away from the public domain, nothing would be more disastrous for the country. Whether one agrees with him or not, the way in which Jairam Ramesh went about making his decision on Bt brinjal can only be applauded as a high note for Indian democracy. Knowing the many issues riding on it, when the committee currently empowered to approve GM crops — the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) — cleared it for commercial release on October 14, 2009, he uploaded the report on his ministry website and invited independent feedback till December 31, 2009. Following this, in an unprecedented move, he consulted over 8,000 people (scientists, agriculture experts, farmers’ organisations, consumer groups and NGOs) — “public noise” — through seven public consultations across the country. Finally, on February 9, 2010, soon after he announced his moratorium, in a superbly transparent and well-written document, he tabulated all the reasons for his decision and uploaded it on the ministry website, along with all the feedback he had received, for public scrutiny. But for this transparency, the cloudy story of Bt brinjal would never have come to light. Dr S Parasuraman, director of Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, was part of the original expert committee (EC 1) set up to evaluate Bt brinjal, as well as part of a special Technical Review Committee. When EC 1 was disbanded and EC 2 was set up, he was not invited to be on it. Given his experience with EC 1, he says it was only to be expected. His account is just the tip. “I was constantly surprised at the way meetings of the Technical Review Committee were conducted,” says he. “Our job was to read all the reports produced by Mahyco and the institutions associated with them. I read through 5,000 pages of documents and produced my own report in response. As far as I know, I was the only one to put my observations down in writing. I was appalled at the lack of scientific rigour in these reports. There was no credible methodology, no objective analysis; 99 percent of the reports produced from various institutes were the result of research programmes funded by Mahyco. There was no independent thought or inquiry informing the research. At every meeting, there was a level of complacency the scientists brought in — almost as if they had not grasped the consequences of the introduction of a Bt food crop. Giving approval was their moot point.” Parasuraman’s statements as an insider echo the highly disturbing findings of a group of eminent Indians and 18 international scientists. On February 8, they wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress head Sonia Gandhi to draw attention to a letter written by Prithviraj Chavan in July 2009, while he was a Minister of State in the prime minister’s office, in response to a letter from then Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss, addressed directly to the PM in February 2009 In his letter to the PM, Ramadoss had raised questions about the potential health impact of GM foods. Chavan’s reply — written almost five months later — assured Ramadoss that “the various issues raised in your letter have been examined carefully and by applying the best scientific evidence available today”. However, in an exposé that has far-reaching implications — and pretty much sums up the problem with the GM food debate — these civil society members and international scientists have now revealed that much of Chavan’s letter was excerpted directly from promotional materials of the agricultural biotechnology industry, in particular the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) — “an organisation that at best can be described as pseudo-scientific, funded primarily by Monsanto and other biotechnology multinational companies and whose purpose is to promote and facilitate the commercial introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops in the developing world.” These scientists then go on to rebut Chavan’s claims paragraph by paragraph, citing authoritative references, hoping to “bring out the true facts of GM crops” to enable an informed discussion on their “unique risks to food security, farming systems and bio-safety impacts which are ultimately irreversible.” Finally, they urge the prime minister, “for the sake of the safety of the Indian people, and the welfare of Indian farmers, to readdress the official position on GM crops.” (Read full text) Had Jairam Ramesh and others not traded “pure science” for some “public noise”, we would have known none of this. We would have been sitting at our dining tables today eating Bt brinjal — without adequate testing, without labeling, and without our consent. All in the name of the Second Green Revolution. And sanctioned by the highest offices in the land. THE CURIOUS case of Bt brinjal then starts with a root question: do we really need it? India is the country of origin for brinjal and has 2,400 species. (Some of these wild species have medicinal properties used in ayurveda and unani.) Although brinjal is grown on only half a million hectares in the country, its annual yield is 8 million tonnes. As far as anyone can tell, there is no crisis in India’s brinjal production. So why are we being asked to switch to a vegetable injected with the contentious Bt gene — making it almost the first Bt food crop anywhere in the world that would be directly ingested, as versus being processed or fed to cattle. This question becomes even more urgent when both common sense and India’s legal infrastructure — in this case, the National Environment Policy 2006 — states that a “precautionary principle” must govern our agricultural strategies, especially when there is doubt about the cause-and-effect; doubt about risk assessment, doubt about efficacy, doubt about cumulative, long-term consequences, and doubt about regulatory and management measures. An fact, far from the certainty one associates with science, doubt seems to be the key leitmotif of Bt seeds. To start with the basics: Bt — bacillus thuringiensis — is a soil bacterium that produces insecticidal proteins. Around the 1980s, Monsanto developed and patented a technology that enabled this gene to be injected into seeds — turning the plant into a kind of living pesticide. It appears that the moment a target pest eats the plant, it dies. No one though has yet fully ascertained what happens to humans who eat it. Dr Samir Brahmachari, a proponent of GM foods and director general of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, rightly asserts that there is no human receptor for the Bt gene; he believes this is proof that Bt foods are perfectly safe for human consumption. Other scientists, however, say that sufficient tests have not been done to ascertain in what other ways the Bt gene can react — alchemise — within the human body. After all, living organisms have an uncanny way of mutating along unpredictable lines. The key point is, though all of this suggests some kind of scientific precision, Bt technology is far from precise and the resultant crop is, in many senses, an inherently unstable and unknowable organism. (See box: Bt FAQs) Since its invention, the arguments for and against Bt have ranged roughly along these lines. Votaries of Bt seeds claim they give higher yields, are pest resistant, and, therefore, reduce the use of pesticides. This, they argue, will bring down farmers’ expenses and shore up food security. Those who oppose it have a list of much darker and deeper questions. How safe are Bt seeds for human health? Have they been sufficiently tested? Given the huge corporate money driving this sector, can we trust the clearances given to them and regulatory mechanisms around them? How does one stop them from cross-contaminating other fields through wind and insect pollination? How does one stop them from overrunning and destroying bio-diversity? Since they target only particular pests, how effective are they with other pests? Do target pests also become resistant after a while? Do Bt crops then really reduce pesticide usage? Do they inherently give more yields? Given how expensive the seeds˚ are, and that they force farmers to buy fresh seeds every season, how do they really benefit farmers? Given that GM foods are not labeled, where does that leave the ethical issue of consumer choice? Do Bt seeds have terminator genes? If companies like Monsanto patent all seeds, how can societies protect themselves from corporate control over food production? For answers to all these claims and counter questions, we have only four sets of experiences to go by: the story of Bt brinjal; the experience of Bt cotton in India; the experiences of Bt crops elsewhere in the world; and the story of Monsanto. Unfortunately, the story of Bt brinjal so far is mostly not a pretty one. Take just the two primary issues of insufficient testing and faulty clearances. Apart from the ambiguities already documented in this article, Bt brinjal was cleared by the GEAC based purely on data and samples provided by Mahyco and the institutions it used for testing. No independent testing was done. The authenticity of the samples was not ascertained. In a detailed note, Dr PM Bhargava, one of India’s most eminent microbiologists and a Supreme Court-appointed observer to the GEAC, raised 29 flags on the bio-safety dossier produced by Mahyco and cleared by the GEAC. Among his many disturbing observations, it turned out that in some tests the control sample itself was false: the non-Bt brinjal sample that was not cooked, for instance, scored positive for Bt protein! In many of the toxicity tests, the test was not done on a plant extract containing the Bt gene, but on a surrogate protein. (At one of Jairam Ramesh’s Bengaluru consultations, TV Jagadisan, a former managing director of Monsanto in India, declared publicly that the company had routinely got clearances for its agro-chemicals from the Insecticides Board based on the company’s own data. Later, he told TEHELKA that it was inevitable that such data would be “made to look favourable to the company”.) ( Read Interview ) Dr Arjula Reddy, vice chancellor of an Andhra university and co-chairman of the EC 2 (which recommended approving Bt brinjal), however, refutes all these allegations. In a sense. According to Reddy, all the tests that were prescribed under law were done. He admits there might be a case for more testing, but seemingly oblivious to his unethical position, he says, “After nine years, at this late stage, how can one ask the company for fundamental new tests? On the one hand, the government is encouraging research in GM crops, on the other, it is rejecting them. How can this work?” As co-chairman of a key regulatory body, it might have helped Dr Reddy to remember that he was positioned to be the custodian of consumer and farmer interests, not corporate convenience. Dr Reddy, however, points to other key areas of worry. The weakening of the public research system has meant all agricultural research today is driven by the private sector. This, he says, “has blurred the concept of public good. The profit motive has taken over.” Worse, with at least 56 GM foods in the pipeline, 41 of which are food crops, he admits that Indian scientists can have no idea what the impending large-scale arrival of GM foods will do to the human body. Or the environment. Or bio-diversity. “This has to be part of a larger policy decision,” says he. He adds that there are five versions of the Bt cotton gene in the Indian market today. “To my knowledge,” he says, “many of these are not functioning well, but farmers will find it very difficult to tell between them. How will they distinguish? What is the policy on all this?” Finally, exposing the moral and scientific fuzziness around GM foods in general, he says, “China has already introduced transgenic rice. We went by the reasoning that people eat at least half a kilo of rice a day, and if they have already gone ahead, why are we fussing so much over brinjal, whose intake is much less?” By all accounts, Dr Reddy is a respected scientist. His views therefore serve well to explain the prevalent psychological mindset in the pro-Bt community — a mindset that is based more on eagerness than empiricism. This sense that China has done it, so why not us; and that raising questions about GM foods is tantamount to national betrayal is echoed in statements made by senior ministers like Chavan, HRD minister Kapil Sibal and Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar — all three aggressive proponents of Bt brinjal. According to a recent Indian Express report, in fact, the prime minister has apparently called for a meeting between all these ministers and Jairam Ramesh because Pawar is worried that such “ad hoc” decisions as stalling Bt brinjal would set the “clock back” and “demoralise Indian scientists”. (It might be good to ask, what was the clock ticking towards? And is science supposed to be about sentiment or rigour? And why should public interest be held ransom to scientists’ emotions? If the NBRAI comes into force, of course, one supposes one could be jailed for merely asking all that.) But what of Dr Reddy? Did he really hold these views? In another disturbing revelation, Dr Bhargava says he received a confidential call from Reddy about two weeks prior to the GEAC’s decision. Reddy apparently told him that eight of the additional tests Bhargava had asked for, as a Supreme Court-appointed member of the GEAC, had not been done; and even among the tests that were done, many were not satisfactory or adequate. Reddy apparently also told Bhargava that he was under “tremendous pressure” to clear Bt brinjal and had calls from “the agriculture minister, GEAC and industry”. According to Bhargava, Reddy indicated he was in a big dilemma; Bhargava advised him to follow his conscience. But two weeks later, Reddy approved Bt brinjal. Asked about this, Dr Reddy said, “Everyone in Hyderabad knows me, no one can put pressure on me.” Despite TEHELKA’s efforts, Sharad Pawar could not be reached. Again, this is only one of the many ugly controversies the GEAC is dogged by. To name just a few others: The composition of its second expert committee (EC 2) is fraught with conflict of interest. Of the 16 members in the committee, the concerns about Reddy and Tripathi have already been outlined. Apart from this, three members were directly involved in conducting the bio-safety tests sponsored by Mahyco, yet were being entrusted to review their own tests, instead of merely making a presentation to the committee! One member is a Bt brinjal developer himself. Two members played a lead role in recasting the regulatory guidelines for GM foods to “harmonise” them with Codex guidelines through a project funded by USAID (an American fund), and rejected many of the tests their peers were asking for. Two members were merely observers; one member did not attend any of the meetings. That leaves just five members out of 16 on whom no aspersion can be cast. But one of the other major concerns epitomised by the rocky journey of Bt brinjal is the issue of labeling. Monsanto has consistently — and contentiously — refused to label its GM foods. This is the key reason why many countries in Europe have banned GM foods. In India, though, the callous attitude towards labeling is appalling. Dr Samir Brahmachari of CSIR is on record saying he is “100 percent sure” Bt brinjal is safe for human consumption because American Bt soya and corn are already being consumed by us in India without our knowledge [my italics], and so if we had to fall ill we already would have; but there is no case that proves this. It would be futile to remind him that even if we were falling ill because of our involuntary Bt food intake, we can’t know because there is no testing going on to establish the connection! That apart, Brahmachari and others like him seem completely unmindful of the fact that not labeling is a unethical thing to do, as well as contradicts the Cartagena Protocol to which India subscribes and which states that the right to informed consumer choice is a moral and ethical imperative. (Incidentally, Brahmachari refused to speak to TEHELKA.) All these assertions of “substantial equivalence with conventional crops” are highly contentious. As already documented in this article, regulatory bodies are anything but kosher. Also, according to cases cited by Dr PM Bhargava and sent to Jairam Ramesh, Monsanto has a bad history of suppressing incriminating data. In one particularly startling case, Monsanto omitted to mention in its 1996 published study on GM soyabeans that GM soya contained significantly lower levels of protein and other nutrients and toasted GM soya contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin (protein) that may block the body’s ability to assimilate other nutrients. Further, the toasted GM soy contained as much as seven times more trypsin inhibitor, a major soya allergen. Monsanto had titled their study: “The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean is equivalent to that of conventional soyabeans.” This incriminating information was only recovered by an investigator in 2005. (It would be good to remember that the need for GM soyabean first came up because of a herbicide called Round Up produced by Monsanto itself. When this was sprayed in fields it was found that not only did it destroy weeds, it also destroyed the soya. So Monsanto developed Round Up resistant soya and marketed both!) In another disturbing incident cited by Bhargava, until it was forced to do so by a German court, Monsanto refused to reveal its own secret animal feeding studies, which revealed serious abnormalities in rats fed GM corn, citing Confidential Business Information. One of its Bt corn products was subsequently banned in some EU countries. Such sleights-of-hand by Monsanto was best summed by Michael Pollan in an exhaustive 1998 New York Times article, Playing God in the Garden: “In a dazzling feat of positioning,” Pollan wrote, “the industry has succeeded in depicting these plants simultaneously as the linchpins of a biological revolution — part of a ‘new agricultural paradigm’ that will make farming more sustainable, feed the world and improve health and nutrition — and, oddly enough, as the same old stuff, at least so far as those of us at the eating end of the food chain should be concerned.” THE APPARENT success of Bt cotton in India is a big game-changer for many people. To get real first-hand feedback, TEHELKA sent reporters out to four major cotton- growing areas: Bhatinda (Punjab); Vidarbha (Maharashtra); Warangal (Andhra Pradesh) and Surendranagar (Gujarat). At first glance no one can deny Bt cotton has generally been a huge success story in terms of productivity and reduced use of chemical pesticides. Ninety percent of cotton farmers in India now cultivate Bt cotton. (See box: Cotton Fields Back Home) Yet, TEHELKA’s ground reports also point to some significant patterns that — ironically — reinforce many doubts about Bt crops even while acknowledging their potential for success. One of the most seductive promises of Bt seeds is that they assure uniformly increased yields. This is misleading because there is nothing inherent in the Bt gene that enhances yields: yields only go up because the Bt plant annihilates its dominant pest-type. So Bt cotton, for instance, has been engineered to destroy the American bollworm; Bt brinjal to defeat the fruit and shoot borer. Beyond this, Bt crops are as susceptible to environmental and other financial variables as ordinary crops. Key among these seem to be a farmer’s access to water and the size of land holding — implying financial strength. Bt cotton in Gujarat is a big success story, but apart from the demise of the pest, the reasons for this, it seems, is that farmers there have much larger land holdings and the region has had good monsoons for six consecutive years. In Vidarbha, where the access to water is dismal, the yields are much less and small farmers continue to commit suicide, even though the American bollworm has been controlled. As Dr Bhargava points out, the danger in using just one kind of seed across geographic regions is that “the capability of a genetic organism is determined by its genetic make-up, but the environment determines the extent to which these capabilities would be converted into abilities.” The story of Bt cotton indicates other generic worries about Bt crops: the high cost of Bt seeds for small farmers; disappearance of desi seeds; contamination across fields; the rise of secondary pests like the mealybug in cotton; and variable health impacts. In Bhatinda, for example, almost every Bt cotton farmer TEHELKA spoke to complained of a chronic skin allergy among those who worked the fields. Local doctors confirmed this. In Gujarat, however, there were no such complaints. In Andhra Pradesh, over 2005- 2008, there were complaints of sheep and goats falling ill or dying when allowed to graze on Bt cotton foliage or Bt cotton seeds and seed cake for an extended period of time. The GEAC in January 2008, however, cited reports from the Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI) and the Andhra Animal Husbandry Department which showed “conclusive proof of safety” to animals from Bt cotton feed. But when a Anthra, a veterinary research organisation, filed an RTI with the IVRI asking for a copy of the report, in shocking proof of the essentially compromised nature of the GEAC — and the influential arm of corporates involved? — the institute responded saying “no studies had been done by them and that the IVRI had not submitted any reports to the GEAC.” Finally, there is the big question of pests developing resistance. Nature has a way of asserting itself over Man: in many scattered accounts, after the initial 3-4 years, farmers say the American bollworm is making a comeback — a sign that it has become resistant to the Bt gene. The director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research, Nagpur (which has done a comprehensive review of Bt cotton in India, which is soon to be made public), in fact, flagged this capacity for pest resistance and the emergence of new pests as a major area of concern to Jairam Ramesh, even though he supported Bt brinjal. Worryingly, in Andhra Pradesh, the problem seems much more widespread. Contradicting the claims made for Bt cotton, every farmer TEHELKA interviewed spoke of continuing bollworm incidence in their fields. In fact, a government survey on Bt cotton performance in 2002-2003, the first year it was commercially cultivated in India, and conducted by the Andhra Pradesh Department of Agriculture, found startlingly similar results. Out of 6,949 farmers who opted for Bt cotton that year, the survey covered 3,709 farmers: 3,689 farmers reported bollworm incidence. The question is, on the one hand, if the most significant trait of Bt seeds is that they reduce the use of chemical pesticide, and on the other, it is becoming apparent that pests are capable of developing a resistance to it — given all the risks and unknowables involved in Bt seeds, is the trade-off worth it? Is the risk worth it? THE QUESTION of risk, in fact, lies at the heart of the Bt debate. Almost everyone accepts there is a great unknown: one side is willing to jump off the deep end, even if it means fudging the uncomfortable stuff; the other side would like some good reasons. Given the overall success of the Bt cotton story, there are also very real practical conundrums: confusing cost-benefit ratios. Depending which side of the divide you are on, some people are throwing their weight in with the benefits, others with the costs. Tempting, therefore, as it is to ascribe motives — given the scale of money involved and Monsanto’s reputation for hectic lobbying and manipulation— it would be unfair to suggest that only monetary considerations is driving the pro-Bt lobby in India. (Though there is enough circumstantial evidence of that). For many good people in the camp, an inexplicable psychological mindset — eagerness versus empiricism; panic; a subservience to things American or Chinese; even genuine belief — might explain it better. As a key protagonist in the government (who wishes to remain anonymous) says, “India is heading for disaster. Our agricultural output is stagnant, but population and per capita consumption is on the rise. Overuse of pesticides has destroyed our top soil. We do not have any more arable land. So, what’s the answer?”

[Brainfade]

There is no peer-reviewed science that shows any toxicity associated with Bt-crops. Compared to many other pesticides used in developing nations, Bt is benign (http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v21/n9/full/nbt0903-1003.html. The link is from Nature, a premier science journal. Not some hack throwing out anecdotal cases of skin allergies. Heck, organic farmers spray Bt toxin regularly on their crops. Pest-resistance to pesticides is not unique to Bt, but happens with every other pesticide. So, would you rather plant Bt-brinjal or overspray the plants with all sorts of harmful pesticide combinations because the bugs develop resistance over time to everything out there? There are other ways to manage pest resistance to Bt. An integrated pest-management system with buffer zones, pest refuges, thoughtful crop rotation are all effective. Overall, from a purely science standpoint, the benefits of Bt crops far outweigh its risks. It is a bald-faced lie to suggest otherwise. Jairam Ramesh's ban is not grounded in science. The socioeconomic reasons may be valid, but to cite science is just a convenient ploy. Oh, and by the way, the gene gun is obsolete and has not been used in at least a decade in the development of transgenics. So much for your fear-mongering post title :).

[diga]

There is no peer-reviewed science that shows any toxicity associated with Bt-crops. Compared to many other pesticides used in developing nations' date=' Bt is benign (http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v21/n9/full/nbt0903-1003.html. The link is from Nature, a premier science journal. Not some hack throwing out anecdotal cases of skin allergies. Heck, organic farmers spray Bt toxin regularly on their crops. Pest-resistance to pesticides is not unique to Bt, but happens with every other pesticide. So, would you rather plant Bt-brinjal or overspray the plants with all sorts of harmful pesticide combinations because the bugs develop resistance over time to everything out there? There are other ways to manage pest resistance to Bt. An integrated pest-management system with buffer zones, pest refuges, thoughtful crop rotation are all effective. Overall, from a purely science standpoint, the benefits of Bt crops far outweigh its risks. It is a bald-faced lie to suggest otherwise. Jairam Ramesh's ban is not grounded in science. The socioeconomic reasons may be valid, but to cite science is just a convenient ploy. Oh, and by the way, the gene gun is obsolete and has not been used in at least a decade in the development of transgenics. So much for your fear-mongering post title :).

I do realize that.. more pesticides is more harmful than a BT crop. Educating the farmer is the best way to farming. As for as Jairam Ramesh's ban is concerned, its just a moratorium till further tests are evaluated. Atleast he has the balls to say no till further tests are done, unlike Pritviraj Chouhan who copies verbatim the promotional material from a sister organization of Monsanto to promote the transgenic technology. BTW, that title is from the article itself. Not the one I gave.

[Brainfade]

I do realize that.. more pesticides is more harmful than a BT crop. Educating the farmer is the best way to farming. As for as Jairam Ramesh's ban is concerned, its just a moratorium till further tests are evaluated. Atleast he has the balls to say no till further tests are done, unlike Pritviraj Chouhan who copies verbatim the promotional material from a sister organization of Monsanto to promote the transgenic technology. BTW, that title is from the article itself. Not the one I gave.

Am not sure what more tests need to be done from a scientific standpoint? The safety of Bt crops is unequivocal, unless one buys into the hysteria that stems from anecdotal evidence. JR is just buying into the hysteria or just appeasing the enviro-activists. He could just come out and say that he is against Monsanto/Mahyco monopolizing our seed industry and harming the farmer economically. Impose a moratorium and negotiate with the corporates to find a solution that that benefits the farmer. That would be a very valid strategy. As such, transgenic technology itself is no more harmful than conventional crop improvement, and to state as such is unscientific. In the OP, there was a reference to "less arable land." Transgenics provide a way to improve per hectare yields - a straightforward solution to get more yield on the same amount of land. With Round-Up ready technology, you can institute no-till farming, resulting in less soil erosion and better top-soil retention. It is time to dump the hysteria and accept transgenics as a valid tool in sustainable farming practice - not a panacea, but a tool.

[diga]

Am not sure what more tests need to be done from a scientific standpoint? The safety of Bt crops is unequivocal, unless one buys into the hysteria that stems from anecdotal evidence. JR is just buying into the hysteria or just appeasing the enviro-activists. He could just come out and say that he is against Monsanto/Mahyco monopolizing our seed industry and harming the farmer economically. Impose a moratorium and negotiate with the corporates to find a solution that that benefits the farmer. That would be a very valid strategy. As such, transgenic technology itself is no more harmful than conventional crop improvement, and to state as such is unscientific. In the OP, there was a reference to "less arable land." Transgenics provide a way to improve per hectare yields - a straightforward solution to get more yield on the same amount of land. With Round-Up ready technology, you can institute no-till farming, resulting in less soil erosion and better top-soil retention. It is time to dump the hysteria and accept transgenics as a valid tool in sustainable farming practice - not a panacea, but a tool.

claims by the anti-BT lobby 1. "the Bollworm that plagued cotton has not disappeared. Bt cotton was supposed to eliminate it, but they seem to have become resistant. This defeats the claim that Bt reduces pesticide use" 2. Labelling Bt brinjal in order to distinguish it from ordinary brinjal is a near-impossible logistical exercise in India 3.Bt Brinjal was cleared by the GEAC based purely on data and samples provided by Mahyco and the institutions it used for testing. No independent testing was conducted and the authenticity of the samples was not ascertained 4. 11 Of 16 people who oversaw Bt brinjal’s clearance had either been professionally involved with Mahyco or had serious conflicts of interest 5. Bt Brinjal uses a gene that could make us resistant to antibiotics and could further worsen the tuberculosis scare in India; a disease already showing extreme drug resistance 6.According To some studies, GM crops could destroy useful insects as well as change the microflora of the soil. Another study of Bt maize claimed that it affected Monarch butterflies 7.India Does not have the health infrastructure required to detect any chronic health problems of the sort being connected with Bt brinjal, let alone new and as yet unsuspected one

[Brainfade]

one of the claims by the anti-BT lobby is that 1. "the Bollworm that plagued cotton has not disappeared. Bt cotton was supposed to eliminate it, but they seem to have become resistant. This defeats the claim that Bt reduces pesticide use" 2. Labelling Bt brinjal in order to distinguish it from ordinary brinjal is a near-impossible logistical exercise in India 3.Bt Brinjal was cleared by the GEAC based purely on data and samples provided by Mahyco and the institutions it used for testing. No independent testing was conducted and the authenticity of the samples was not ascertained 4. 11 Of 16 people who oversaw Bt brinjal’s clearance had either been professionally involved with Mahyco or had serious conflicts of interest 5. Bt Brinjal uses a gene that could make us resistant to antibiotics and could further worsen the tuberculosis scare in India; a disease already showing extreme drug resistance 6.According To some studies, GM crops could destroy useful insects as well as change the microflora of the soil. Another study of Bt maize claimed that it affected Monarch butterflies 7.India Does not have the health infrastructure required to detect any chronic health problems of the sort being connected with Bt brinjal, let alone new and as yet unsuspected one

#5 is laughable. There is not even a basis to hypothesize it, let alone a shred of evidence to support such a hypothesis. #6 is wrong. Bt does not kill useful insects. Its specificity is its beauty. Its effects are restricted to the larvae of specific lepidopteran insects. The Cornell Bt-Monarch study was debunked. They fed butterflies ridiculous amounts of Bt in a lab setting. All the others, except for #1, are hysteria. The safety of Bt crops is unequivocal (see Nature article I posted in an earlier response). The safety of Bt brinjal has been affirmed by 6 academies of science in India - it may have been approved before independent bodies affirmed it. But now it has been confirmed. It may have been approved by the 11 of 16 former Mahyco people etc., but now independent confirmation of its safety exists. #1 is the only one worth considering from a scientific standpoint. One must understand that pest resistance to any pesticide will occur. That is nature's way. You can use organic pesticides or DDT that kill all insects, resistance will occur. Or you can use Bt, which is specific to the bollworm. And resistance will occur. What gets lost in the discussion is that resistance is rare and can be managed by integrated pest management methods, especially refuges of genetic variation to minimize the development of resistance. It is simple and sustainable. And this thread is testimony to how the anti-GMO world works. Make an allegation. Sit back and watch the burden of proof shift to the scientist, who has to spend time and energy explaining the science and debunking the myth. I have no affiliation with any biotech company. Am an independent science professor working at a small academic institution who gets his undies in a wad when intelligent people let themselves be duped by anti-science hysteria. When they let their hate for big corporates cloud their judgement of the technology itself. When they buy into the "natural" "organic" marketing hype while ignoring the science and not considering for a moment that the natural organic hype is also being pushed by a multibillion dollar mega industry.

[diga]

And this thread is testimony to how the anti-GMO world works. Make an allegation. Sit back and watch the burden of proof shift to the scientist, who has to spend time and energy explaining the science and debunking the myth.

Isnt it how its supposed to work "when you are selling something, you need to convince me to buy it"?

[Brainfade]

Isnt it how its supposed to work "when you are selling something' date=' you need to convince me to buy it"?[/quote'] I appreciate the opportunity, but it would be easier and more reasonable if the same old debunked, non-scientific arguments were not recycled, reused and regurgitated. And if all transgenic technology was not lumped in with "big bad Monsanto wants to control the earth" hysteria. Moreover, what is there to sell? Bt Brinjal is bringing more yield at lesser environmental and toxicological cost. You never questioned brinjal breeders/farmers all these years about their farming methods, did you? Finally, if seed-control is the issue, let the govt address that and not trash science. As for me, I just follow the science. If there is a well-controlled, independent, reproducible study published in a good journal that showed that transgenics are frankenfood, I will gladly shift my stance.

[Brainfade]

Oh, and by the same token, how come organic farmers are not held to the same scrutiny? As consumers, how do we so quickly and easily buy into the veracity of their claims?

[diga]

Moreover, what is there to sell? Bt Brinjal is bringing more yield at lesser environmental and toxicological cost. You never questioned brinjal breeders/farmers all these years about their farming methods, did you?

What I heard was Monsanto was pushing the BT-Brinjal & India as the land of origin of the brinjal, with over 2,400 varieties & an annual yield of 8 million tonnes, there is no crisis in production.. So there is some resistance to it

Oh, and by the same token, how come organic farmers are not held to the same scrutiny? As consumers, how do we so quickly and easily buy into the veracity of their claims?

Agree about this though.. As consumers, we hardly verify any claims made by the organic farmers & end up paying more

[diga]

seed sovereignty and a 'genetically' modified Bill

Celebrating the 67th year of Independence, India is slowly losing her seed sovereignty, even as environmentalists and farmers’ organisations fight in vain. “Dependence on foreign seeds is as good as selling our land. The government is blind while framing new laws,†Rajesh Krishnan, co-convenor, Coalition for Genetically Modified (GM) Free India told Deccan Herald. While protests saw Bt brinjal being put on the back burner in the country, Bt cotton, led by the US firm Monsanto, has made severe inroads in the country. Karnataka, which had one per cent of its cotton-growing areas under Bt cotton in 2002, has 74 per cent now, some other states have 99 per cent (see box). “Removal of non-Bt varieties with government support has seen 95 per cent of India’s cotton seed market lie with Monsanto,†Harish K S, president, Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha’s (KRRS) Hasiru Sene, said. According to Coalition for a GM-Free India, 10 years after Bt Cotton officially entered India, its manufacturers have only managed to hide the truth under hypes and false promises. False hype The false hype is typified by recent advertisements by Mahyco-Monsanto claiming, “Bollgard boosts Indian cotton farmers’ income by over Rs 31,500 croreâ€. This has been pulled up by the Advertising Standards Council of India for false information. Based out of St Luis in the US, Monsanto in India is called Monsanto India Limited, Monsanto Holding Private Limited, Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech, besides holding 26 per cent share in the Indian seed company Mahyco. Monsanto, which holds permission to sell the only approved Bt cotton variety in India, according to Greenpeace, has been caught red-handed, trying to steal from our rich agriculture seed heritage. Wheat patent In 2003, Greenpeace claims, Monsanto got a patent granted in the European patent office for a variety of wheat that it had originally developed from Nap Hal, an Indian wheat variety. “Monsanto went ahead and tried patenting not just the wheat variety but even all the usages of it, which includes making breads or rotis etc. A legal battle by farmer unions in India and Greenpeace and the civil society finally led to the European Patent office revoking this patent,†Greenpeace said in a study titled, “BRAI Bill, 2013-India’s Monsanto Promotion and Protection Act?†Bt Brinjal It also points out that the National Biodiversity Authority had filed the first ever bio-piracy case against Monsanto and its Indian partner Mahyco for appropriating 16 local varieties of brinjal to develop genetically modified brinjal. It also notes how Monsanto controls the seed market in the US, where it has sued many farmers for conserving seeds and using it in the next season, a practice farmers across the globe have had for decades. In 2012, Monsanto even got an Act protecting it from law suits in the US, and people like Rajesh argue that India’s BRAI (Bio-technology Regulatory Authority of India) Bill 2013, is poised to give more and more control to such companies and that it must be seriously revisited. “The Bill in its current form can be clearly seen as a mechanism to give multi-national biotech giants like Monsanto a free hand to control our food and farming,†says Greenpeace. The Bill has a diluted standard of liability and is not compliant to principles of deterrent liability, absolute liability and polluter pays principle, which are upheld in the Supreme Court of India. This can work well for Monsanto and the likes which have an array of contamination cases against them, it says. It adds that this is a dangerous recipe for corruption in the country that will lower the bar for approval of risky GM crops. The Bill, among other things, will take away state governments’ rights to prevent introduction of such seeds, which is in direct contradiction of the Constitution that deems agriculture as a state subject.

[randomGuy]

Not taking potential monopolization, potential health impacts etc into consideration, just the following quote from opening post making me not keen BT brinjal :

India is the country of origin for brinjal and has 2,400 species. (Some of these wild species have medicinal properties used in ayurveda and unani.) Although brinjal is grown on only half a million hectares in the country, its annual yield is 8 million tonnes. As far as anyone can tell, there is no crisis in India’s brinjal production. So why are we being asked to switch to a vegetable injected with the contentious Bt gene — making it almost the first Bt food crop anywhere in the world that would be directly ingested, as versus being processed or fed to cattle