GMO - Entry into India and Consequences

[Avinash R]

Good end to BT Brinjal story
Government says 'No' to BT Brinjal
9 Feb 2010, 1624 hrs IST

The government on Tuesday (February 9) announced its crucial decision on BT Brinjal. Union Envirornment Minister Jairam Ramesh announced the government's decision to say 'No' to the introduction of the genetically modified vegetable in the country.

Announcing the government's decision at a press conference today, Jairam Ramesh said, "It is my duty to adopt a cautious approach on the BT Brinjal. as of now I am issuing a moratorium on the BT Brinjal until further notice. The long term effect on human health needs to be studied."

The government's decision on expected lines - comes even as there has been intense lobbying for the introduction of GM foods. The US had on Monday rushed its chief Scientific Advisor, Nina Fedorrof to New Delhi.

Nina Fedorrof , the world's biggest crusader for the cause met top policymakers, but has been unsuccessful for now in her efforts. Fedoroff had also met Planning Comission Deputy Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia.

[Jarita]

^^^ They have banned commercial production but no restriction on producing and buying seeds. Complete back door entry through contamination

[AjayKK]

The MOEF report released today:

http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-inf ... REPORT.pdf ( 800 kb -19 Pages)

Some points:

1. The decision concerns only Bt Brinjal and not any other GM food.
2. Reducing pesticide use is the need of the hour and Jairam Ramesh is happy with pesticide-free agriculture being in practice in Andhra Pradesh by 6 Lakh farmers
3. Concerns on Bt brinjal have been influenced by seed control by Monsanto in the cotton seeds market and perceptions of Monsanto in India.
4. Two government owned agricultural universities - TN Agri Univ, Coimbatore and Univ of Agriculture Studies, Dharwad were involved in the synthesis of Bt brinjal. The TN Agri Univ developed it by a Material Transfer Agreement with Monsanto.
5. Bt Brinjal would seriously affect diversity
6. No review of the role of GEAC. (After carefully worded statements that its processes were poor)
7. Jairam Ramesh spoke to his counterpart in China who said that they encourage research in GM cotton but do not support GM food crops. As a result all of China's cotton is indigenous GM cotton free of Monsanto etc.
8. Jairam Ramesh received inputs from various scientists and the contents of some of them are mentioned. Most were not in favour for Bt Brinjal.
9. Dr. M Vijayan - IIS Bangalore batted for "limited release" and Dr. G Padmanabhan - IIS Bangalore batted for "large scale commercialisation" alongwith measures to tackle GM contamination. Dept. of biotechnology and ICAR are for "large scale commercialisation"

Considering all factors and arguments, a moratorium has been announced on Bt Brinjal.

Though it is a good decision by MoEF and Jairam Ramesh, there is no clarification on what happens if another Bt XYZ seed for a food crop is developed? Will the same process be followed for every such Bt event?

IMHO, the moratorium should have been on all GM food crops until further tests and the role of GEAC should be reviewed.

[Jarita]

It's not over as yet.
We have to be very vigilant given back door entry and if possible get GM cotton out. Hybridized non GM seeds can help without putting control in hands of Monsantos of world

[Chinmayanand]

Eggplant on our faces

Environment and Forests Minister Jairam Ramesh’s decision to impose an open-ended moratorium on the commercial introduction of privately developed Bt brinjal shows once again that politics and civil society pressure, and not science, can often become the guiding lights of decision-making in this country. In the process, Mr Ramesh also missed a golden chance of devising a stable and sound policy on genetically modified (GM) crops. While announcing the moratorium on Mahyco’s Bt brinjal variety, Mr Ramesh argued that fresh ‘independent’ tests need to be done because in this case it was the company who did the majority of the tests and they were insufficient. In other words, he admitted that the existing regulatory process was faulty.

If that was the case, there are certain questions that must be answered before any new regulatory processes are set up: how was it passed by the government’s own Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), now called the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee? And if the experts on the body had failed to take an impartial and independent view, then they must be asked to explain this lapse. By not answering these questions and only harping on independent tests and new bodies, the government will end up duplicating its efforts and not answering the main question that is so central to the debate: are GM crops safe or not? Undermining a body set up by the government and its processes will not improve our confidence in regulatory authorities. Also just a change of nomenclature is not enough.

The minister also talked about public sector participation in the biotechnology sector. A good thought, but won’t they use the same GM technology that has become so controversial? There are many Indian private companies who are developing GM seeds. But since most of them don’t have deep pockets like a Monsanto, one wonders whether they will be eager to invest and put up a stiff competition to MNCs in the absence of clear-cut guidelines and policy on GM crops. The minister says that seed development is as important as space development. Rightly so, but what is our network of state-funded agricultural institutes doing? Why is their research, GM or otherwise, not reaching the fields? There are ways and means of improving our agriculture sector — one, but not necessarily the silver bullet — could be the GM technology. To get the best possible result for our farmers, the decisions should be grounded in science and not in emotion and rhetoric.

[joshvajohn]

Durgesh
The GEAC did not pass it unanimously but by majority. Two scientists who wanted to raise concerns and objections were voted out by others. If the main scientists including one who was represented by the Supreme court would have agreed then it would have been different cases. Even those who do not agree asked for more independent tests. But the way others pushed raised not only concerns but also suspicions in different corners about lobbying for these things. I think we also need to find a law to curb or fix a maximum amount spent for lobbies similar to one recently introduced in United States.

[AjayKK]

'India giving wrong signal by holding Bt brinjal prod'

London, Feb 12 (PTI) The Indian Government has sent a "wrong signal" to the industry by putting on hold commercial cultivation of genetically modified brinjal, Biocon India Chairman Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw has said.

"This is a very wrong signal Government has sent to the industry," Shaw told reporters here.

While playing cricket, if you are out then please allow me to bat. However, if I am out, it is a wrong signal to the spirit of the game.

Jairam Ramesh hits back at scientists for Bt brinjal criticism

“My conscience is clear. I have listened to all points of view,” said Ramesh. He has come under criticism from a section of the scientific community for putting on hold commercialisation of Bt brinjal.

“Scientists are not Gods,” he told Business Standard, refusing to accept as final the word of GEAC (Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee), a statutory body. Some GEAC members have been accused of ignoring conflict of interest issues, even as they took a critical decision of approving Bt brinjal for commercial cultivation.

As for the road map ahead, he said: “An independent regulatory body needs to be set up, a consensus is needed on the tests required, the duration of those tests and where they are to be conducted.” Also, the moratorium period should be used to “get politics right”. Asked to suggest a timeline for this actions, Ramesh said: “It’ll take a few years. What’s wrong with waiting?”

http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... sm/385471/

Correct approach IMHO.

However what prevents Mahyco to "distribute" GM seeds like it had done in the case of Cotton crop ?

http://vidarbhacrisis.blogspot.com/2010 ... ister.html

Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti(VJAS) president in a letter to Maharashtra Chief Minister Ashok Chavan urged him take in to account the complete failure of Bt.cotton in more than 3.2 million hectare in Maharashtra this year where state Govt. has officially declared drought due to crop failure ...

"It is officially confirmed that this year American seed company Monsanto has arranged for illegal trials of Bt.brinjal as they did for Bt. cotton in 2002-2003 through it's counterpart in India Mahyco ...."Tiwari alleged .

[Jarita]

Major marketing and PR going on post this episode. There are pro GMO articles coming out in WSJ etc (now we know where TOI learnt her trade).
Even so called green NDTV (where climate change is concerned) is speaking pro Bt Brinjal

[SwamyG]

This is no win by any regards. "They" have just taken a pause. It is just Doom and Gloom on this front.

[joshvajohn]

Two stunning victories for civil society
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home ... 570655.cms

[Jarita]

Union minister flays distribution of Bt corn seeds to tribals

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 561960.cms

SURAT: Union minister of state for tribal affairs and Congress MP from Bardoli Tushar Chaudhary has alleged that the Gujarat government was
supporting Monsanto company by distributing Bt corn seeds to tribal farmers in north Gujarat districts and also attacked it over the Bt brinjal issue.

[vera_k]

^^^

It's unclear whether this is GM/Bt corn or hybrid corn. All the references I could find talk about hybrid seeds.

Project Sunshine

150,000 tribal farmers to get hybrid corn seeds

[joshvajohn]

Farmer Suicides and Bt Cotton Nightmare Unfolding in India
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuicides ... nIndia.php

The result of more than 10,000 farm suicides of cotton farmers after introduction of Bt.cotton in Maharashtra since june-2005, which has been turned as farm suicide capital, of the nation, asked Maharashtra chief minister Ashok Chavan to oppose the Govt. of India proposal to grant sanction to the commercial production of another Bt.crop majority of chief ministers had come out against the commercialization of Bt Brinjal.

http://www.mynews.in/News/VJAS_urged_Ma ... 37493.html

Maharashtra ahead once again, in farmer suicides
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_m ... es_1346201

Bt brinjal and the politics of knowledge
http://business.rediff.com/column/2010/ ... wledge.htm

Top scientist pats Jairam on Bt Brinjal, smells conspiracy
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/top-scientis ... 90-11.html

[Chinmayanand]

Now, Pawar bats for GM crops to meet food security

[Jarita]

^^^ How much is this greedy guy getting from Monsteranto

Great strategy though - first create artificial food shortages and then bat for selected solution.

Problem and solution created by same set of people

[joshvajohn]

There must be a public enquiry about the Bt cotton and Farmers' suicide by the Supreme Court or by the Central Government.

Reaping bitter harvest of genetic meddling
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDeta ... yid=271096

Monsanto's BT Cotton: Indian Farmers Commit Suicide
http://www.celsias.com/article/monsanto ... -commit-s/

Now, a farmers’ suicide SENSEX
http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2010/02/3445

[joshvajohn]

BT Cotton and needed enquiry - suicides, suicides and suicides
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TX5pFbT1eI

[joshvajohn]

GM cotton crop farmed illegally
http://www.hindustantimes.com/GM-cotton ... 08926.aspx

‘Go Aheads Came On Monsanto’s Data’
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp ... aheads.asp

After the hysterics
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/After ... ics/582644


When there are arguments linking Farmers' suicide (200,000) and BT Cotton production in Vidharba area and other parts in India, Why Prime Minister and his council for Clear policy call it success in India? (PM's council for clear policy on genetically modified crops - http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 109489.ece)

“After the success of Bt cotton and the benefits it has brought to farmers in Gujarat and Maharashtra, it is imperative that the government must have a clear policy on genetically modified crops,” the council said.

http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 109489.ece

Please read some International scientific journals
Farmer Suicides and Bt Cotton Nightmare Unfolding in India
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuicides ... nIndia.php

A good neutral study here lots of scientific information and data connecting Farmer Suicides and Bt Cotton -
Economics, Food Shortages, GMOs, Soil Erosion & Contamination, Water Contaminaton — by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho January 26, 2010
http://permaculture.org.au/2010/01/26/f ... -in-india/



http://fbae.org/2009/FBAE/website/image ... cicdes.pdf

Doubts surround link between Bt cotton failure and farmer suicide
News
Nature Biotechnology 27, 9 - 10 (2009)
Corrected online: 9 February 2009 | doi:10.1038/nbt0109-9
Introduction
Doubts surround link between Bt cotton failure and farmer suicide

© Tom Pietrasik/Corbis

The daughter of a cotton farmer who committed suicide after failing to keep up loan repayments. His death and that of other Indian farmers is unlikely to be linked to Bt cotton as previously alleged.

Results from a new investigation into the tragic phenomenon of Indian farmers' suicides and the alleged link with genetically modified (GM) cotton have been published. The International Food Policy Research Institute's (IFPRI) analysis released in October provides the most robust evidence yet that suicide among farmers in India has several causes, but Bt cotton is not a major factor. Indeed, the authors of the report, Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence, argue that insect-resistant cotton encoding the cry1Ac toxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has been very effective in India overall, notwithstanding the significant levels of variation that individual farmers have experienced with the technology. The study is unlikely to be the last word on what remains a highly emotive question, given both the chaotic conditions under which adoption of transgenic hybrid varieties in India proceeded at the start of this decade and the lack of solid data underpinning the very real and complex tragedy of farmer suicide in the country.

Official statistics on the problem vary widely. The study authors, Guillaume Gruère and Debdatta Sengupta, both of IFPRI, an agriculture policy think tank based in Washington DC, and former IFPRI researcher Purvi Mehta-Bhatt, opted to use figures from the National Crime Records Bureau, whose data indicate that about 17,000 farmers take their lives in India every year. "I'm not sure if it's the perfect data, and I'm not sure if it's well measured," says Gruère.

However, other sources may underestimate the problem, he and his co-authors argue.

The report (http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/dp/IFPRIDP00808.pdf) attempts to bridge an information gap between official farmer suicide data on one hand, which offers scant detail on individual cases, and the adoption of GM bollworm-resistant cotton on the other. It draws on a wide variety of sources, including peer-reviewed farm-level studies, official data, reports from nongovernmental organizations and media reports issued during the 2002–2007 period. It argues that farmer suicide in India predates the official commercial introduction of Bt cotton by Dawalwadi-based Monsanto Mahyco in 2002—and its unofficial introduction by Ahmedabad-based Navbharat Seeds a year earlier—and that farmer suicide has accounted for a fairly constant portion of the overall national suicide rate since 1997 (the point at which the IFPRI analysis begins). The authors' analysis indicates there is no evidence, either at the national or state level, to suggest a causal connection between the two, although the situation in Andhra Pradesh is more ambiguous, they note, because the farmer suicide data do not follow a linear pattern in that region.

"To be brutally honest there was nothing in there which was significant, given the scatter [of data] you had," says Stephen Morse, professor of sustainable development at the University of Reading in the UK, whose farm extension studies were cited in the IFPRI report. "If they had done a proper [statistical] analysis they might have picked up something." But he too is highly sceptical of a causal link between Bt cotton failure and suicide. "There is no evidence of any kind of a jump or any kind of surge."

Seeking to draw any firm conclusions on Bt cotton adoption from the official data is a fraught undertaking, given the hugely confusing seed market that developed after its introduction. The number of approved transgenic hybrid varieties has risen rapidly, from just three in 2002 to 135 in 2007 and an estimated 150 in 2008. In Gujarat, in particular, a thriving cottage industry has emerged in parallel, in which farmers develop their own unapproved transgenic hybrids by backcrossing officially approved varieties with locally adapted conventional varieties. "If you compare the legal and illegal varieties, there has been no significant difference between the two," says Lalitha Narayanan, associate professor at the Gujarat Institute of Development Research, in Ahmedabad.

The picture is further clouded by the selling of mislabelled, counterfeit seed packets, which often contain more than one variety. One Indian official was quoted in SciDev.net defining four distinct categories of Bt cotton: "legal, illegal, fake legal and fake illegal."

Despite this confusion, at a macro level it is clear that the productivity of India's cotton growers has risen substantially since the introduction of Bt cotton and that the rate of increase in productivity has also jumped. Overall, national cotton production, including transgenic and conventional varieties, climbed from 15.8 million bales in 2001–2002 to 24.4 million bales in 2005–2006, according to the IFPRI report. Average yields rose from around 300 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) in 2002/03 to around 500 kg/ha in 2007–2008, whereas it took fifteen years, from 1982 to 1997, to take average yields from 200 kg/ha to 300 kg/ha. "One of the major factors is Bt cotton," says Purvi Mehta-Bhatt, who is now director of The Science Ashram, an agriculture capacity-building nongovernmental organization based in Verodara, in Gujarat, although other improvements have also contributed. "Agricultural management is improving day by day," she adds.

Even so, it is also clear that not everyone profited from the headlong rush—one academic observer called it a stampede—to embrace transgenic cotton production, particularly in the Vidharba District in northeast Maharashtra, in northwest Andhra Pradesh and in northern Karnataka. "Many things went wrong in the early phase, that's true," says Matin Qaim, professor of international food economics and rural development at Georg August University of Goettingen, in Germany.

IFPRI's Sengupta concurs. "A lot of varieties that were introduced were not suitable for dry land agriculture," she says. Moreover, sound information on how to cultivate the new Bt cotton varieties was poorly disseminated, with the result that some farmers sprayed pesticides excessively, adding significantly to their input costs. (Cotton accounts for only 5% of land under cultivation in India, but it accounts for around 45% of total pesticide usage). The expense of transgenic seeds—approved varieties initially cost about five times as much as conventional hybrids although recently introduced price caps have slashed the differential—created additional burdens. So too did the high cost of credit in some regions, particularly in Andhra Pradesh, where private moneylenders rather than financial institutions are the main source of loans for farmers. All of these vulnerabilities were exacerbated by the unscrupulous selling of counterfeit seeds, which often contained a mix of transgenic and conventional hybrids.

Crop failures were seized on by activist groups in India, such as Gene Campaign, which had previously campaigned against—and indeed successfully delayed—the commercial rollout of Bt cotton. "The statements they made weren't completely wrong, but they weren't completely representative," says Qaim, who says his own work in India is in agreement with the IFPRI findings. The evidence for the scale of Bt crop failures is anecdotal, as is any causal connection with farmer suicide. Where such failures did occur, the IFPRI report blames the conditions in which the technology "was introduced, sold, and used" rather than the technology itself.

Vandana Shiva, the country's most prominent anti-biotech activist, rejects this line of reasoning. "You cannot separate the technology from the context. That doesn't work at all," she says. Any seed that is sold to a farmer, she says, is sold on the basis that it will work for them within their specific ecological and socioeconomic contexts. She is critical of the overall report, moreover, including its failure to deal with what she sees as the real underlying problem. "Nothing in that paper is addressing the issue of debt, which is the prime cause of suicide," she says.

ADVERTISEMENT
Click here to find out more!

Morse, who is a geographer (some of whose work in India has been funded by St. Louis-based Monsanto), says the experience with Bt cotton in that country is broadly similar to the introduction of Bt cotton in the Makhathini Flats, in KwaZulu Natal Province in South Africa, where he has also performed field research (Nat. Biotechnol. 22, 379–380, 2004). He also sees parallels between the introduction of Bt cotton in India and an unsuccessful attempt to introduce conventional hybrid varieties of maize in Nigeria during the mid-1980s. "The same issues frankly have always been there," he says. Farmers take time to adapt to new varieties and conduct small-scale experimental plantings as part of their learning process. "Farmers have done this for centuries," he says. "The GM varieties are no different, I think, in terms of that basic dynamic."

The clash between an ecological approach to agriculture and one based on biotech remains, of course, at the heart of the exhaustive and circular debate on transgenic crops. Matin Qaim says it is a "pity" that no one has found a constructive way of adopting the two. "In my eyes both are important approaches. They're not actually mutually exclusive."
* In the version of this article initially published, in col. 3, line 3 in the last paragraph, Debdatta Sengupta was referred to as "he." The text should have read "she" as Sengupta is a woman. The error has been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

[Neshant]

I find this guy really suspicious. Almost everything he tries to push through is very much against the national interest. Either he's clueless or on the payroll of some foreign organization - CIA or one of their NGOs.

Why should India have any less right to per capita emissions than any other country. If anything India should have more rights since other countries are rich while India is poor.


---
Jairam Ramesh bid to rework stand on climate

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 600961.cms

NEW DELHI: Within a couple of days of the Prime Minister's Office announcing that Shyam Saran, PM's special envoy on climate change, was quitting, there's turmoil in the Indian climate team.

Indian negotiators are up in arms against minister of state for environment and forest Jairam Ramesh commissioning a study and proposing a meeting of experts that could redefine India's fundamental principle of `per capita emissions' norm while negotiating how the burden of reducing greenhouse gases is shared.

The exit of Saran, who was seen to have resisted the move to alter India's traditional red lines in climate change, has caught Indian negotiators off guard and deepened their suspicion of Ramesh's `flexibility' mantra.

The per capita norm, embodied in the Kyoto protocol, has been backed by successive governments and reiterated by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh himself.

Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, the seniormost Indian negotiator and member of the PM's council on climate change told TOI: ``I am deeply concerned that the per capita equity approach, which provides the foundation for India's position on climate change negotiations, is being questioned at the level of minister of state (Jairam Ramesh).''

The disquiet over Saran's sudden exit is echoed by some sources in government who aver that the PM wanted to retain Saran and was quite willing to elevate him to MoS rank. But the former foreign secretary was clearly facing difficult odds as his approach was being challenged by Ramesh who was seen to be increasingly driving climate change policy.

Saran's exit is being seen as heralding a swift change in India's stance on climate change. A pointer to this is seen in Ramesh's decision to commission Arvind Subramanian, an economist working with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a Washington-based think tank, to undertake a study to define equity in the context of climate change (these guys are funneling money into Jairam's pockets or what?)

[Jarita]

^^^ Jairam Ramesh is far better than Pawar and other chors
Looks like MMS is capitulating



http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Bt-br ... SOS/583151

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has stepped in to make it clear that Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh will not have the last word on the introduction of Bt Brinjal or any GM (genetically modified) food.
This comes after a strong note from Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar to the Prime Minister last week suggesting that ad hoc decisions on GM foods — a clear reference to the moratorium on Bt Brinjal — would “set the clock back”, demoralise Indian scientists and jeopardise R&D crucial to food security

The gallery of rogues

Those who disagreed with him(ramesh) included HRD Minister Kapil Sibal, Chavan and Pawar, and finally the PMEAC who favoured the introduction of GM food citing the success of Bt Cotton.

[Jarita]

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100223/j ... 136671.jsp

SEEDS OF FRESH TROUBLE
Malvika Singh
At the cost of sounding repetitive, I remain dumbstruck and increasingly suspicious of why some within the cabinet are protesting so vociferously against their own prime minister and the government’s decision to put a moratorium on the introduction of Bt brinjal. For citizens who remain outside the closed doors of ‘exclusive’ governance in a robust society built on democratic and inclusive norms and values, this no-holds-barred attack on a government decision by certain cabinet ministers, aired aggressively on the front page of dailies, bodes ill for the government in power. Desperate cries for genetically modified products to be introduced here for ensuring future food security reflect inappropriate and unwarranted reasoning. This is dangerous, and clearly the internal divisions and lobbies for and against that are in full play indicate a fearful lack of strategic thinking on agricultural practices.

[Jarita]

The Americans who hailed me for my position on climate change are bitterly attacking me on GM foods. I have been getting a lot of mails from people over there. The point is enlightened national interest should be the motivation at any given point.

http://www.frontline.in/stories/20100312270500800.htm

[AjayKK]

Gag on anti-GM voice

The new proposal to jail anyone questioning the safety of genetically modified (GM) crops has yet to become a law.

But the government appears to have already started muzzling anti-GM voices, environmental activists have alleged.

A regional government official and a professor of genetics from Italy - both important members of the GM-free movement - have been allegedly denied visa by the Indian government.

The two were supposed to speak at an international conference on "genetically modified organism-free movement" organised by the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology in Delhi on Tuesday.

Maria Grazia Mammucini is the director of the regional government of Tuscany's agency for agriculture, while Marcello Buiatti is a professor of genetics at the University of Florence and a member of the European Network of Independent Scientists.

They have played a key role in getting regions in Europe declared GM-free and were supposed to share their experience at the meeting.

"It seems the PM (Manmohan Singh) has said (environment minister) Jairam Ramesh can't have the last word on Bt brinjal. The fact is that the people have had the last word on this subject and politicians can't be allowed to undo that,"she (Shiva) said.
The agriculture agency of the Region of Tuscany headed by Mammucini was listed as one of the co-hosts of the event. Tuscany is one of the 49 regions in Europe that have officially declared themselves GM-free. In India, 13 states have so far said no to Bt brinjal and only Kerala has declared itself GM-free.

Debi Barker of the Center for Food Safety in Washington said it was a myth that GM crops in the US had brought down pesticide use or increased yields.

There was another report of TN Agri Univ., who developed the BT Brinjal seed in collaboration with Monsanto, saying that GM crops will solve all our agriculture problems, the usual pro GM argument. Maybe in a couple of years, we will have GM Brinjal and GM Rice, we are as such experts in buying time. Given the intense lobbying it seems inevitable.

[Muppalla]

Monsanto accepts its Bt cotton failed pest-control tests

In what is bound to strengthen environment minister Jairam Ramesh's stand that GM crop technology should be handled with precaution, Monsanto on Friday admitted that its Bt cotton variety had failed to control pests in four districts of Gujarat.

[AjayKK]

Ministry of Environment and Forests - Press Release - Wednesday, March 10, 2010

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=59349

Lok Sabha

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in its meeting held on 9.2.2010 has decided that the seed stock of Bt brinjal available with the developers should be deposited with the National Bureau of Plant Genetics Resources to prevent any potential leakage and contamination during moratorium. There is no proposal to invoke a liability clause as provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rules made therein provide for punitive action in case of non-compliance or violation of statutory provisions.

The Government has decided that the GEAC in consultation with eminent scientists would draw up fresh protocols for specific tests to establish the safety of Bt. Brinjal.

This information was given by the Minister of State for Environment and Forests (independent charge) Shri Jairam Ramesh in a written reply to a question by Shri P. Lingam, Gurudas Dasgupta and Bibhu Prasad Tarai in Lok Sabha today.

Another article :


Geo-politics of GM Crops

Ministry of Environment and Forests - Press Release - Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Declaration of GM Free State - Kerala

http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=59348

Lok Sabha

The Government of Kerala has informed that they have taken a decision to prohibit environmental release of all Genetically Modified (GM) seeds and keep the state totally GM free.

The Government of India is following a policy of case by case assessment of GM crops. A final view on the commercialization of GM plants is taken only when scientific studies establish that it is safe from the point of view of its long term impacts on human health and environment. However as agriculture is a state subject, it is the prerogative of the State Governments to decide whether to adopt GM seeds or not in their commercial production.

This information was given by the Minister of State for Environment and Forests (independent charge) Shri Jairam Ramesh in a written reply to a question by Shri E.T. Mohammed Basheer in Lok Sabha today.

[Jarita]

Looks like American GM noose is tightening around MMS's neck

On GM food, Govt begins its Jairam damage control

http://ow.ly/1b5T0

[Jarita]

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/stor ... GntEw72ik=

India up for sale to MNCs


The recent historic moratorium on Bt brinjal by Jairam Ramesh, minister of environment and forests, has created a network of citizens’ organisations around the country that have risen spontaneously from the ground, and have prevented the country’s agriculture becoming devoid of its diversity and moving in the direction of control by multinational corporations (MNCs). These corporations have strong links with the government of the United States of America US, and their sole objectives are (a) to make as much money as possible by any means, and (b) to eventually have total control over Indian agriculture, using every ruse known to the world of conmen. Unlike the government of India, they are fully aware that whosoever controls seed and agrochemical business in India, controls its agriculture. And whosoever controls our agriculture, controls India and its food security, for 62 per cent Indians derive their total sustenance from agriculture and, in our country, food security, food sovereignty, agriculture security, farmers security, and security of the rural sector, are synonymous and important components of national security and autonomy. If Bt brinjal had been approved, India would have, in course of time, ceased to be, de facto, an independent country and we, its citizens, would have had to start fighting the third war of independence which we would have eventually won, for truth always wins in the long run.


It is unfortunate that our government — our politicians and bureaucrats (exception granted) — and the rich and the powerful in the country, seem to be siding with the MNCs (read US), in their attempt to acquire control over our agriculture. This is reminiscent of India being ruled by the British through a class of Indians. Only the structure, colour and strategy of this class seem to have changed, while Britain has been replaced by the US plus the MNCs. Let us look at the evidence:


* We signed the India-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture during the first UPA government. Following this — and, perhaps, in preparation of this — our research and extension work in agriculture seems to have totally discounted our strengths and needs. Let me give some examples: The Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) has developed integrated pest management (IPM) and biopesticides for some 85 crops, including cotton and brinjal. Why have we not used these technologies instead of peddling Monsanto’s Bt crops?

Organic agriculture has been India’s forte. It brings better price for the produce. Andhra Pradesh already has two million acres under organic agriculture and has plans to take this area to 10 million in the next two or three years. Why are our Krishi Vigyan Kendras (I believe there is one in each district) not encouraging organic agriculture? Why does not ICAR have an institute devoted to organic agriculture?

Given today’s knowledge of molecular biology, why are our agriculture research scientists not developing varieties which would have the advantages of hybrids? The farmers can then have their own seeds and would not have to depend on seed companies. At a meeting that the director general of ICAR and I had co-chaired when I was the vice-chairman of the National Knowledge Commission, nine energy saving steps for agriculture were identified. Why have they not been taken?

The ICAR has published in several volumes, details of over 4000 traditional agriculture practices, many of which have been validated and cross-validated. We have many more documented by the National Innovation Foundation. Why are we not using the validated ones and taking steps to examine the remaining? Why are we not using our horticulture potential? For example, all the technology exists in the State Forest Research Laboratory of Arunachal Pradesh to grow over 600 orchids through tissue culture. These orchids can capture the world orchid market, replacing Thailand (for our orchids are far more beautiful and the world is tired of Thai orchids) and bring to Arunachal Pradesh a revenue of over Rs 10,000 crore a year. Why are we not pursuing the possibility?

Why is our department of agriculture not using the outstanding capabilities that our National Remote Sensing Agency has to, for example, identify diseased plants in a field so that one can prevent the spread of the disease?

* Ten of our leading CEOs signed the Indo-US CEO agreement (available on Planning Commission’s website) in which the Indian CEOs (led by Ratan Tata) agreed to put the lid on the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, promised not to give any trouble to Coca Cola and Pepsi irrespective of the quality and quantity of their misdeeds, and open our retail market to the US. There is already a US demand that India cuts down its subsidies to agriculture which are a pittance in comparison to what the US provides to its agriculturists.

* We recently signed secretly, an MoU on ‘Agriculture Cooperation and Food Security’ with the US, even though all the inputs we require — scientific, technological, managerial or social — to improve our agriculture to meet national demands (present or future) are available within the country. The MoU (The Hindu, February 24, 2010), for all practical purposes, appears to have handed over our food security and sovereignty, farmers security, agriculture security and security of the rural sector comprising 70 per cent of our population, to the US.

* The government has been supporting introduction of GM food and other crops in the country, which will eventually give control of our agriculture to US-based MNCs. Jairam Ramesh, taking into account overwhelming public opinion and unbiased scientific opinion has, rightly and courageously, in a statesman-like manner, put an indefinite moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal; he has gone on record to say that he has only two supporters in the government and the ruling party: the prime minister and Sonia Gandhi.

* Our surrender to the US seems to be total. If we buy nuclear reactors from the US (which we would be obliged to buy), we will pay most of the compensation in case of a nuclear accident, not the vendor of the reactor. And on the March 6, V K Saraswat, scientific adviser to our defence minister, said that the US is still denying us technology (Deccan Chronicle, March 7, 2010).


On November 10, 1698, Charles Eyre bought three fishing villages — Sutanuti, Govindpore and Dihi-Koikata — from a Bengali landlord for Rs1,300, and laid the foundation of today’s Kolkata. We are now trying to sell our entire country for a pittance (if for anything at all) to MNCs and the US. Those who are involved in this effort must understand that the citizens of this country are well-equipped to fight the third war of independence if that happens.

About the author:

Pushpa M Bhargava is the former vice chairman of the National Knowledge Commission

[AjayKK]

HardNews Magazine - April 2010 issue

TO B(t) OR NOT TO B(t)

Detailed article. From it,

Quite like the civilian nuclear deal with the United States that went through all kinds of legislative and political convulsions before it was passed in Parliament, the clearance of Bt brinjal is expected to test similar frontiers of Indo-US strategic partnership - this time in the realm of agriculture.

If Bt is to test "frontiers of Indo-US strategic partnership", then there must be no doubt that it will be introduced. I am sure, the two year moratorium will end few months from now.

K P Prabhakaran Nair, an agricultural scientist writes a two part opinion piece:

Monsanto’s true colour

It has been the prime beneficiary of food crisis

From Agent Orange to GM technology, quite a large presence.

[Jarita]

^^^ articles no longer on expressbuzz

[AjayKK]

Expressbuzz either moved it or removed it.

Because it had everything to do with the seed company ?

Here are the two articles from their e paper.

[AjayKK]

Research in 36 more GM crops in process: Ramesh

http://www.ptinews.com/news/619445_Re-i ... ss--Ramesh

The lobbyists are going to be after the GoI. Let us see if Jairam Ramesh is able to resist them. After Ramesh had oplaced the moratorium, i read a "Such Gup" type column in non English newspaper and it mentioned that a senior editor of a Dilli based newspaper called in Ramesh and asked to change his stance. The same editor is now being talked about in the 2G scam.

[Jarita]

ON March 5, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) officially approved the cultivation of six new strains of Bt cotton, paving the way for multinational corporations to tighten their grip on cotton cultivation in India.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/200 ... 240900.htm

[ash]

eh .... it was bound to happen sooner or later.
Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds

[Pranay]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/south_ ... 136310.stm

In GM Cottons' wake...

Has the introduction, and monopoly, of GM cotton seeds contributed to this tragedy? As ever, it depends who you ask. There is little middle ground.

The companies which produce the seeds emphatically deny it. They say there are broader social issues which have to be addressed.

But some farmers emphasise that the price of seeds has risen dramatically, and they now need more water... which leaves no room for manoeuvre when times are bad.

"When we used the old seed our production levels were a bit lower, but it cost us an awful lot less," explains Suresh Ganganna, as he watches cotton being picked in his field.

"We used less pesticide and less fertiliser as well. Now with the GM crop, the costs keep on mounting."

At the local market, bullock carts piled high with cotton are lined up in long rows. This is where farmers come to auction their crops and it soon becomes clear that some of them hold a different view.

"GM cotton is good, I like it," says Laxman Shambarna. "Our yield used to be much lower with the old seeds - now it's two and half times higher."

Countrywide India has doubled cotton production since the introduction of GM seeds, to become the second largest producer in the world.

And that has helped persuade the authorities in Delhi to think about the next step - a GM version of a food crop, in this case aubergine.

[Prem]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8696203.stm

Are GM crops the answer to India's food shortages?
With more than a billion mouths to feed, there is a fierce debate in India about whether to introduce genetically modified food crops. Scientists say they are crucial to tackling food shortages, but farmers and others are divided over the benefits. Doubts have been raised by the experience of growing genetically modified cotton in India, which has been blamed by activists for the suicides of thousands of farmers in the poorest parts of the country

[sumishi]

If possible, read the International Bestseller

"Seeds of Deception - Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You are Eating"
by Jeffery M Smith.

Excerpts from "Praise for Seeds of Deception"

"... Although Americans slept as the biotech industry quietly kidnapped our food supply, Europe sent the miscreants – typified by Monsanto – packing ..."
-- James S. Turner, Esq. Author, The Chemical Feast: The Nader Report on the Food and Drug Administration

"Seeds of Deception is the first book to make a convincing case for the existence of a genuine conspiracy on the part of the biotechnology industry to suppress free speech, debate and even scientific dialogue about the safety and value of GMOs. ... By putting together over a dozen episodes of interference and collusion against activists who have questioned the wisdom of proceeding unabated with this collective, non-consensual experiment with our food, Smith shows how industry proponents have done themselves and a whole generation of consumers a massive disservice in the name of corporate profits and short-term private gain."
--- Marc Lapp &, Ph.D. Co-Director, The Center for Ethics and Toxics (CETOS)

"The revelations in this book are being made public at a pivotal time in the global GMO debate, and could tip the scales against the biotech industry. The evidence refutes U.S. science and safety claims, and undermines the basis of their WTO challenge. It also presents a compelling argument that nations may use to ban GM foods altogether."
-- Andrew Kimbrell, Director, Center for Food Safety

FOREWORD by Frances Moore Lappe
[Frances Moore Lappe is the coauthor, with Anna Lappe, of Hope’s Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet]

What do genetically modified seeds have to do with democracy? Everything.

To me, this craze – just like the sudden emergence of grain-fed meat I first wrote about thirty-three years ago – is a symptom. It is a symptom of our silencing. Think about it: None of us called for genetic manipulation of seeds. No not one of us said, yes, this new technology will benefit me, my family, and my community. Just as with the risks of feedlot beef, now contributing to heart disease, groundwater depletion, antibiotic resistance, and more, no citizens were asked to weigh the risks of GMOs against possible gains. Yet today most of us are eating them, while kept completely in the dark as to the hazards we may be facing-for ourselves, our children, and the farming ecosystems on which our lives depend.

How has this assault on democracy happened?

As citizens, we've been duped and marginalized from our rightful role in momentous public choices. Surveys show that the majority of Americans share unease about the extent of corporate power within government, but that unease remains vague and unfocused. No more – for here Jeffrey Smith snaps us to attention: He offers the dramatic, fascinating, insider detail we need. He shows how a handful of corporations, led by Monsanto, has used its enormous wealth, as well as intimidation and deception, to turn Americans into nutritional guinea pigs. How we've been forced without our knowledge – as "our" government rejects citizen demands for labeling – to consume staple foods that have been virtually untested as to their effect on our health. When you read this extraordinary and courageous book, you will never see your country the same way again. You'll understand why other nations are appalled by U.S. actions to try to bully them into accepting genetically modified seeds. You'll see how out-of-step we are with countries where citizens have, thank God, found their voices to bring forth intense public dialogue, raising essential questions about GMOs.

Perhaps you'll conclude, as I have, that the genetic engineering craze – absorbing hundreds of millions of dollars and untold time and energy both of promoters and doubters – is yet another catastrophic diversion from the core question of any democracy: Why hunger amidst plenty? The GMO debate jumps over this question entirely, as self-interested corporations deliberately reinforce the myth that our planet's problem is scarcity from which only their products can save us. In fact, Monsanto, and other corporations seeking to make the world dependent on their engineered seeds, have had the gall to tell us we need their technology to "feed the hungry" when the bane of farmers around the world has long been overproduction, because too many people are so poor they can't afford what's already grown.

Jeffrey Smith has written a powerful, desperately needed book. My fervent hope is that in the years ahead we will look back and see his seminal work as a none-too-soon alarm that helps us to find our own courage to perceive GMOs as both a threat to health as well as a symptom of a deeper crisis. Genetic engineering could turn out to be our ultimate wake-up call. Where is democracy, we can ask, when just one company, Monsanto, controls 85 percent of all genetically engineered germplasm and has the power to saturate the commercial seed supply with genetically engineered varieties with no input from the public who must bear the consequences? Could genetic engineering be what finally shocks us into finding our voices to ask the questions we must if we are to create authentic democracy and heal our planet?


PREFACE by Arran Stephans
[Arran Stephens is the founding president of Nature's Path Foods, America's first-and largest-certified organic cereal manufacturer. He is also an artist, an organic gardener, and the author of Journey to the Luminous. (http://www.naturespath.com)]

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are the by-product of splicing genes from one species into the DNA of another, is a technology fraught with unknown and possibly disastrous consequences for our health and the environment. Those who had the most to gain, the multinational biotech companies, propounded a very convincing message through well-funded mass media, that biotechnology was the miracle that will solve world famine, reduce reliance on pesticides, or cure the diseases of humankind. Although gene-spliced plants like soy, corn, cotton, and canola were nonexistent twenty years ago, by 2002 they constituted the vast majority of the 145 million acres of GM crops planted in the four major GMO producing nations. That would cover nearly two and a half times the size of the United Kingdom, not counting all the non-GM fields that have been cross-pollinated by GM varieties. Milk in the U.S. has likewise been altered through the use of a genetically modified growth hormone injected into cows. Most of the foods in your local grocery store are now contaminated with GM food ingredients, without your knowledge or consent. As many have said, we are now in the middle of the largest feeding experiment in history and we human beings are the guinea pigs.

In Seeds of Deception, Jeffrey Smith has laid out an extremely compelling case against GMOs in a comprehensive, well-argued manner. Pulling together information from a wide variety of sources, he weaves a narrative that outlines the extent to which companies (and governments) have disregarded scientific evidence of health dangers and denied consumer access to critical information. This outstanding book should be required reading for all high school students, university students, and anyone concerned about what they and their family are eating. The magic of this book is that it takes scientific information and delivers it in a way anyone can understand, without losing the detail necessary to withstand scrutiny from contrary views.

One of society's greatest tools for change is the power of knowledge. It is my sincere hope that the profound knowledge in Jeffrey Smith's book will empower us to rein in this unproven, dangerous technology.

[Jarita]

Now it is Bt Maize.. This is a disease which they are quietly trying to slip under the door

http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/e ... njab/21354

Environmentalists, farmers to launch agitation against introduction of BT maize in Punjab
Punjab Newsline Network
Saturday, 19 June 2010
CHANDIGARH: Environment activists led by the Kheti Virasat Mission (KVM) and the Bharti kisan Union(BKU) on Friday said they would launch agitation and oppose every move of Punjab Government to promote BT maize seed in the state as genetically modified variries would take a toll on the environment.


The activists also demanded that Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal should explain on what basis his government had offered to introduce BT maize in the state to reduce the area under paddy cultivation.

KVM head Umender Dutt claimed that as per the latest scientific studies GM maize adversely affected the kidney and liver and that a study by the Austrian Government had also linked it to infertility.

Questioning the intention of the Chief Minister, social activist Hemant Goswami claimed it was apparent that the CM and his family were favouring industry for reasons best known to them. “The Punjab Government is pushing poison down the throat of people of Punjab,” he added.

Sukhdev Singh Kokrikalan, general secretary, Bhartiya Kisan Union (Ekta- Ugrahan), lamenting this move, claimed the genetically modified (GM) nexus was further trying to entrap farmers on the basis of many false claims.

[sumishi]

Jeez..!! All these people in positions of power have prostituted themselves to the Western corporatocracy!!!

[Jarita]

Andhra Gov introducing BT seeds with Govt. grants

http://www.vibhaseeds.com/html/corporateprofile.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 103936.cms

[sumishi]

We generally associate GMO with genetically modified food crops. But GMO stands for genetically modified organism, whose genes have been altered through genetic engineering.

Here's something new on the horizon, reported in yesterday's edition of The Times of India:
US scientists develop malaria-proof mosquito

There was an interesting "precursor" article in 2009 in Natural News which asks us to Watch Out for Flying Syringes, GMO Food Vaccines, and Forced Vaccinations.

Things do seem to be a little hoary, because Bill Gates Talks About Vaccines to Reduce World Population.

What about the track record of UN-linked health organisations like WHO?

Well, as an example, consider that Tetanus vaccine may be laced with anti-fertility drug.
Perhaps the Leading Edge Master Analysis of the Vaccination Paradigm may throw some more light onto the entire vaccination game.

So, it they release this GMO critter into the environment to replace the natural species, what more will they be doing besides the official aim of combating Malaria?