ndia: Bhargava slams move to adopt GM cropshttp://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=56708
Even as Environment minister Jairam Ramesh is scheduled to begin consultations on the safety and feasibility of approving genetically modified (GM) brinjal, or Bt brinjal, on January 13, Dr P M Bhargava, top scientist, has cautioned against its adoption. If India adopts genetically engineered food crops, there are chances that the country will lose out on the potential export market worth Rs 100,000 crore for its fruits and vegetables, according to Bhargava.
Comment: Why can't Indian Government listen to our own scientists? Is this the plan of the Indian Minister Jairam to bring down Indian market internationally?
“The widespread aversion to GM food products also cannot be ignored. A majority in the U.S., the European Union and Japan among others are against it. Even Zambia and Nigeria have stood up against GM food products. If India still approves Bt. Brinjal, that will be the single, greatest tragedy in the history of independent India,” Dr. Bhargava said.http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/03/stories ... 911800.htm
# Unintended harm to other organisms Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature21 showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed22, 23. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further.
# Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides.
# Gene transfer to non-target species Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue.
There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned above. Genes are exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to ensure that non-target species will not receive introduced genes from GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do not produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not contain the introduced gene24, 25, 26. Cross-pollination would not occur, and if harmless insects such as monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive.
Another possible solution is to create buffer zones around fields of GM crops27, 28, 29. For example, non-GM corn would be planted to surround a field of B.t. GM corn, and the non-GM corn would not be harvested. Beneficial or harmless insects would have a refuge in the non-GM corn, and insect pests could be allowed to destroy the non-GM corn and would not develop resistance to B.t. pesticides. Gene transfer to weeds and other crops would not occur because the wind-blown pollen would not travel beyond the buffer zone. Estimates of the necessary width of buffer zones range from 6 meters to 30 meters or more30. This planting method may not be feasible if too much acreage is required for the buffer zones.
Human health risks
# Allergenicity Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions31. Extensive testing of GM foods may be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies. Labeling of GM foods and food products will acquire new importance, which I shall discuss later.
# Unknown effects on human health There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health. A recent article published in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats32, 33. This study claimed that there were appreciable differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes. Yet critics say that this paper, like the monarch butterfly data, is flawed and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny34. Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flower lectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals. The scientists who created this variety of potato chose to use the lectin gene simply to test the methodology, and these potatoes were never intended for human or animal consumption.
On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM foods do not present a risk to human health.
Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and non-profits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations.
Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the farmers that they involuntarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains when their crops were cross-pollinated shows. One way to combat possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM plants. These plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to plant in the next growing season. In an open letter to the public, Monsanto has pledged to abandon all research using this suicide gene technology35.
24 New tools for chloroplast genetic engineering (Nature Biotechnology, Vol 17, No 9, pp 855-856, Sep
25 Tandem constructs: preventing the rise of superweeds (Trends in Biotechnology, Vol 17, No 9, pp 361-
366, Sep 1999)
26 Containment of herbicide resistance through genetic engineering of the chloroplast genome (Nature Biotechnology,
Vol 16, No 4, pp 345-348, Apr 1998)
27 Efforts to bioengineer intrinsic resistance to insect pests into crop plants have made use of a natural bacterial
toxin, Bt, from Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Science, Vol 284, No 5416, p 873, May 1999)
28 Inheritance of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin (Dipel ES) in the European Corn Borer (Science,
Vol 284, No 5416, pp 965-967, May 1999)
29 Buffers urged around Bt corn fields (Environmental News Network http://www.enn.com/enn-newsarchive/
30 GM crops: public perception and scientific solutions (Trends in Plant Science, Vol 4, No 12, pp 467-469,
31 Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans (New England Journal of Medicine, Vol
334, No 11, pp 688-692, 1996)
32 Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small
intestine (Lancet, Vol 354, No 9187, pp 1353-1354, Oct 1999)
33 Safety of genetically modified food questioned: Interview with gene scientist, Dr Arpad Pusztai(http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/gmo-j03.shtml
34 The Lancet scolded over Pusztai paper (Science, Vol 286, p 656, Oct 1999)
Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/disc ... s-main.php
Deborah B. Whitman