Munlochy GM Vigil

Centre to reveal ill-effects of Bt cotton to public - Ashok B Sharma - Financial Express, August 2 2007
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=248767
Allerginicity: The Supreme Court bench issued notices for making public the protocol for detecting contamination in field trials of GM crops
New Delhi, August 1 The Centre has agreed to place the toxicity and allergenicity data relating to Bt cotton in the public domain. Additional solicitor-general Amarender Saran told the Supreme Court in the course of hearings on a petition filed by Aruna Rodrigues and others calling for a moratorium on GM crops on Wednesday that the government was willing to share bulky data related to toxicity and allergenicity of Bt cotton and that he would also hand over a soft copy to all the petitioners. The data would be placed on the website hosted by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).
The bench consisting of Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan, justice CK Ravindran and justice Dalbir Bhandari acting on a fresh application filed by Aruna Rodrigues issued notices to the government for making public the protocol for detecting 0.01% genetic contamination in the field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops.
Rodrigues' counsel Prashant Bhushan said, "We had filed an application before the apex court not to allow field trials of GM crops until biosafety committees are set up in states concerned. We have also asked for the removal of CD Mayee as the co-chairperson of GEAC as he is on the board of a global biotech promoter agency - ISAAA. Mayee's holding such dual posts amounts to conflicts of interests. The court has accepted our application and has sent notices to the government."
The petitioner's application had also sought a direction to the government to provide a comprehensive list of the 24 varieties and hybrids that were approved between May 1-September 22, last year under nine listed crops, namely Bt Cotton, transgenic okra, tomato cauliflower, brinjal, rice, castor, groundnut and potato.

ASSOCHAM report on Bt cotton incredulous - APCDD ridicules survey report - The Hindu, July 31 2007
http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/31/stories/2007073160550800.htm
HYDERABAD: AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity (APCDD), representing civil society groups against genetically modified crops, has challenged the recent Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (ASSOCHAM)'s survey report on Bt cotton farming and termed it "incredulous." At a press conference here on Monday, P.V. Satheesh, convenor of the APCDD, said the survey was part of a huge campaign launched by the genetic engineering industry to bamboozle public opinion. The seed major, Monsanto has produced 29 short films to counter the APCDD's film, "A disaster in search of success: Bt cotton in global south", he added.
Wrong priorities
"For Monsanto and the ASSOCHAM, foreign direct investment is far more important than the lives of the farmers lost in the pursuit of Bt cotton that left a trail of Bt-infected toxicity in the soils and plants leading to livestock morbidity." Releasing the findings of the APCDD's own survey, he said the Bt cotton farmers earned just nine per cent more, a paltry difference of Rs. 380 per acre between Bt and non-Bt and not "additional income of Rs. 7039 crore as claimed by ASSOCHAM." Similarly cultivating Bt cotton was more expensive as farmers have to spend more on pest control than others.
New diseases
The raising of Bt cotton has brought to the fore diseases like "root rot", not seen by cotton farmers before, he said. The survey also found that genetically engineered seed industry was deliberately closing all non-Bt options to farmers, forcing them to go in for Bt cotton. The APCDD wanted the Government to promulgate a law to ensure production and distribution of non-Bt seed up to 50 per cent of their trade volume and to ask National Institute of Nutrition to investigate death of cattle after grazing in areas where Bt cotton was grown.

Court issues notice to the Union of India
Dear Friends
As many of you are aware, there was a Supreme Court Hearing on the GMOs PIL by Aruna Rodrigues and others this morning. The petitioners had put in an Interim Application with evidence pointing out that
* even basic institutions mandated under the EPA 1989 Rules like State Biotechnology Coordination Committees (SBCC) are missing in many states or are non-functional since the time of constitution in a few others, even as open air field trials are happening across the country for nearly a decade now.
* that the GEAC is stepping out of the May 8th 2007 Supreme Court orders in terms of considering newer "events"/GM crops than were allowed during May - September 2006 whereas the SC orders of May 8th specify otherwise
* that the additional biosafety conditionalities imposed by the Court in terms of designating scientists for each trial, contamination testing for every trial etc., are routine, quite possible to be taken up and that the regulators should demonstrate that such safeguards are well in place, in compliance with the May 8th Orders (so far, there is a demonstrated absence of any such compliance)
* that the contamination testing should happen in an open scientific manner with correct sampling and statistically valid samples to ensure zero contamination and for that to happen, the protocols have to be announced in the public domain including bonafide reference materials, laboratories where such testing would take place etc.
* that environmental, toxicity and allergenicity data related to all 9 crops being field tested should be put up in public domain ....
In today's hearing, the Court issued notice to the Union of India [ie the central government] to respond to this interim application of the petitioners and also directed the respondent to put up allergenicity and toxicity data on their website. This is for your information. For more information, contact Ms Aruna Rodrigues, Petitioner, on 098-263-96033.
Kavitha
Kavitha Kuruganti, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, 12-13-445, Street # 1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad 500 017
www.csa-india.org; www.indiagminfo.org Phone: +91-9393001550

GMOs Supreme Court PIL - GM FOOD FIELD TRIALS BY THE GEAC
PRESS RELEASE
THE G OF I IS SUBJECTING INDIANS TO THE RISKIEST & FASTEST EXPERIMENT ANYWHERE WITH REGARD TO GM FOODS AND ANIMAL FEED
"GM Crops have been proved to be toxic and cannot feed the world. It is also important to understand very clearly, that it is the parental lines used to make GM crops that deliver crop traits including higher 'yield'. The claims of the biotech GE industry about the safety of GM crops & higher yields per se, are flagrantly dishonest and are meant for the ingestion of politicians and policy-makers to provide the ammunition they need to promote GM Crops with farmers and the public. Scientists know that GM crops by threatening biodiversity kill the golden goose that nourishes its genetic manipulations" (Petitioners).
The Supreme Court of India has stated that there must be "NO" contamination from field trials of 8 food crops and Bt cotton and has imposed the most stringent conditions of isolation distances, accountability and most critically a validated, Event-based Protocol to test for contamination of the environment and farmers? fields to a LOD (Limit of Detection) of at least 0.01%. These protocols must be announced before the commencement of any field trial. The 9 GM crops are: BT COTTON, TRANSGENIC OKRA, CAULIFLOWER, BRINJAL, RICE, CASTOR, GROUNDNUT, TOMATO AND POTATO.
It is not surprising that the GEAC has taken a light view of these stipulations in their last 78th meeting on the 22nd June 2007, given their pro GM bias. Petitioners have therefore strenuously guarded the Court's bio-safety safeguards in their latest Court Submission to insist that scrutiny and rigour for the letter and spirit of the ORDER are enforced. The safeguards and regulatory provisions must be demonstrated to be in place before the commencement of any field trial.
Contamination is an absolute and irreversible threat and there can be no tolerance for any slippages by the Regulator. The Court's attention has been drawn to the fact that India is the Centre of Origin for rice and brinjal among other plants. The contamination of Mexican maize landraces (Mexico is the centre of origin for maize) exposes the magnitude of the problem of GM contamination in India. Peru, recognising the extremely serious implications of contamination has banned transgenic potato for which it is a centre of diversity, along with other native crops. Speaking of the contamination of US long grain rice, US Rice Federation Vice-President said: "The traits are in the system, you cannot guarantee statistically that you'll ever get rid of them".
These facts emphasise the added grave dangers to India from field trials of rice and brinjal. Far from taking a page from Peru, the GEAC on the contrary, demonstrates recklessness in approving field trials in Chhattisgarh which is in the corridor of the centre of origin of rice, and in the rice bowls of Kerala and West Bengal and brinjal in Orissa which has over 200 varieties of brinjal. In its 75th meeting in March 2007, the GEAC, at the instance of the basmati rice exporters and the Ministry of Commerce, decided not to allow field trials of GM rice in the basmati growing areas of the country, because of the threat of contamination. The lack of logic and consistency in not applying like for like in similar situations is unscientific and dangerous.
GM Crops Are Not Regulated In India: The evidence that even after 6 years into GM crops, the Regulator has failed to comply with the most basic norms governing the release of GMOs is overwhelming. State Governments are supposed to approve field trials. They are not even informed; nor the farmers, in whose fields transgenic crops are planted. Now, the evidence that Mahyco pays for inspection of field trials by State Governments (Rs 45,000/ given to the BCKV (State Agr. Commission) in West Bengal, which was returned) demonstrates a serious irregularity that seeks to undermine the issue of probity in public life and promote bias. This clearly is in the knowledge of the Regulator as the amounts were paid by cheque
The ISAAA, the GEAC and the MoEF Are Openly Allied: The MoEF openly promotes GMOs. The Workshop on Agricultural Biotechnology was held on the 7th June 2007. The event was supported by the Ministry of Environment and Forest under the GEF-World Bank biosafety capacity building project; jointly organised by The Chandigarh Press Club, the Punjab State Council for Science and Technology, Ministry of Environment and Forest and the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). The ISAAA is the industry-backed vehicle for promoting GM crops. The 78th Meeting of the GEAC faithfully echoes the views of the ISAAA about the implausibility of a protocol for testing for contamination at a Limit of Detection (LOD) of 0.01%. The fact that these views have no scientific backing is of little relevance, GIVEN THAT THE ISAAA IS EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTED WITHIN THE GEAC BY NO LESS THAN DR. MAYEE, THE CO-CHAIR WHOSE REMIT AS A DIRECTOR OF ISAAA IS TO PROMOTE GM CROPS. This is exactly the role that the GEAC, as Regulator has performed in India, violating the public trust and astoundingly, betraying the national interest and sovereign issues of food security, which critically include the necessity to protect India's genetic wealth from plunder by the biotech GE Industry and its destruction through GMO contamination. Thus, India's regulation is in effect being co-driven by the GM industry.
Petitioners have 'prayed' for bio-safety data to be put in the public domain for the scrutiny of scientists and that Dr. CD Mayee and other persons who are associated with the Biotechnology industry seeking approvals from the regulatory bodies, are removed from the GEAC.
Aruna Rodrigues Co-Petitioners: PV Satheesh; Devinder Sharma; Rajeev Baruah - Dated 25thth July, 2007

Not cottoning on - EAR TO THE GROUND - Sreelatha Menon / New Delhi - Business Standard, July 22 2007
http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage.php?autono=291862&leftnm=4&subLeft=0&chkFlg=
The government seems to be oblivious to the farmers paying with their lives to learn about cotton farming in the times of open market. Ask any US expert about suicides by cotton farmers in India, and you would find his innocence touching. There is no linkage between cotton and suicides, you will be told. Cheap subsidised US cotton has nothing to do with the deaths in Vidarbha. In any case, farmers are off cotton here. In Vidarbha, farmers are turning to soya, while in Punjab, where the Bt cotton crop has been invaded by the mealy bug, paddy is being planted.
Despite US subsidies of around $5 billion to its handful of 25,000 cotton farmers, cotton prices are steadying, thanks to subsidies of another kind. More lucrative subsidies are available for growing maize in the US as the country needs the crop for ethanol. Therefore, a large number of cotton farmers there are shifting to maize. The result of all this is that cotton exports from the US are going down and the prices up. However, the rising rupee keeps India from reaping the gains.
But, in Vidarbha, neither the prices nor the prime minister's relief package have inspired hope. Growers have turned their back on cotton. There was barely 30 per cent sale of cotton seeds this time, says Vijay Jaywandhia, one of the prominent farm activists in the region. The region's farmers are turning to soya in a big way and GM-free soya cakes are likely to fetch them good prices in the European market, Jaywandhia points out. But the suicides have not stopped. About 50 were reported this month. The reason is said to be Nabard's decision to halve the credit this year in Vidarbha . Even as the Vidarbha farmers are paying with their lives to learn about cotton farming in the times of open market, Bt cotton farmers in Punjab are already staring down the brink. Bt cotton crops in at least four districts of the state have been destroyed by the mealy bug. At least 40 per cent of the crop has been razed and paddy sown instead, says Bhaskar Goswami of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security. Farm organisations in Punjab confirm this.
The village of Badal, the birthplace of Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, is one of the sites of Bt disaster. Bhatinda, Muktsar, Ferozepur and Faridkot, all cotton districts, have been equally affected. The price the Bt farmer pays goes something like this. He invests Rs 6,000 on an acre of cotton. He destroys it, as local newspapers are reporting daily, and sows paddy again at a price of Rs 6,000. Now, these are usually the lands taken on lease, after paying a rent of Rs 15,000. So, the production price goes up by Rs 6,000. With Rs 27,000 spent on an acre, he needs to sell rice at Rs 10 a kg to break even. The minimum support price is a mere Rs 600 a quintal.
The response of the central government to all this has been casual. The Union agriculture ministry has been telling the Punjab newspapers that agriculture is a state subject and it cannot do anything. But the fact remains that 135 varieties of Bt cotton have been cleared in the last three years, not by the Punjab government but by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Union environment ministry. It has to explain why seeds immune to primary bug infection were not tested for secondary pest manifestations like the mealy bug.
The losses are steep in terms of scale as 61 per cent of Punjab's cotton farmers have gone for Bt cotton this year. This is double the national average, say experts. But this concerns none. And given the combined stony gaze of the commerce, environment and agriculture ministries to the Indian farmer, why should anyone blame the US or seed companies like Monsanto and Raasi if they protect their own interests?

Indian Cotton Meadows Turn Into Killing Fields - BERNAMA, JULY 18 2007
http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news_lite.php?id=274030
NEW DELHI, July 18 (Bernama) -- One middle-aged Indian cotton farmer kills himself every eight hours -- either unable to overcome grinding poverty or repay his debts. Over the last 48 hours at least eight farmers committed suicide in hard-pressed Vidarbha in Maharashtra, a cotton-farming village -- now turning into one of India's killing fields as more vulnerable farmers kill themselves in this remote district. Since January this year, 506 farmers had taken their own lives despite the government's multimillion relief package to help cotton farmers, simply because aid failed to reach the target group, claim relief workers. And, since June 2005, more than 5,000 farmers pathetically killed themselves all over India, leaving their wives and children in worse financial doldrums.
The death tolls tell a poignant story of how Indian farmers succumb to free trade competition that has destroyed their revered economic lifeline - cotton farming - with cotton prices dipping in the global market while highly subsidised farmers from rich nations corner cotton trade, leaving Third World widows in grim villages. "Vidarbha was once a white gold mine. We gave the world the best soft cotton. Our cotton was liked by Europeans because it was cheap and shirts made from our cotton kept them warm," Kishore Tiwari, the president of Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti (Peoples' Protest Forum), a farmers lobby group, told Bernama.
With cotton prices fetching poor prices, at merely 1,700 rupees (RM154) per quintal or 100kg compared to 2,500 rupees (RM227) in 2005, farmers with paltry earnings found it impossible to cope with spiralling cost of living, even in rural areas, said Tiwari. "Cost of healthcare, education and food has gone up but farmers' earnings continue to drop. In fact, each farmer's income, according to a government survey, is negative (-400 rupees), which means economically he is not earning anything," he added. Citing a government national survey conducted last June, Tiwari said about 1.3 million farmers out of 1.72 million, from eight villages, lived in financial distress while 400,000 were in a critical stage. "It's a mass genocide here," he described, adding that some two million farmers were now in dire need of financial aid because the only cash crop they relied on had failed miserably.
Since the cotton and textile quota restriction was removed in 2004, Third World cotton planters suffer to keep their livelihood fertile - facing severe rivalry from producers like China and the highly-subsidised American farmers, who can dispose their cotton cheaply in the international market. Moreover, the majority of Indian farmers grow BT cotton (genetically- modified cotton) that requires a large amount of investment, for irrigation and fertilisers, which are not within the reach of these poor farmers. "Ninety five per cent of BT cotton are grown in non-irrigated land here, where there is no proper irrigation or water supply. So the yield is low and BT cotton farming requires a lot of money for fertilisers," said Tiwari.
In booming India, the agriculture sector remains an integral part of the economy though contributing a fifth of India's economic output. Some 600 million people rely on farming for direct or indirect source of income. Yet in a largely investment-driven Indian economy, the third largest in Asia, after Japan and China, with a projected nine per cent gross domestic product growth for 2007-2008, farmers are still squeezed for a living. There is no quick-fix to revive this ailing sector and Tiwari said only a long-term, government-backed programme could remove farmers' misery in Vidarbha, located about 1,000km from the bustling financial hub of Mumbai, capital of Maharashtra. "We want protected economy for cotton and credit facilities for farmers. Government must restore healthcare, education and create employment opportunities for the masses, and promote organic or natural farming which is cheaper than growing BT cotton," he added.
On the horizon, the Indian monsoon may continue to drench India for at least another month, perhaps bringing some respite for Vidarbha farmers. "But when the monsoon slips away the "mass genocide" will bound to continue," cautioned Tiwari.

NEW VIDARBHA SEASON - Bt-ing the farmers! - Jaideep Hardikar - India Together, 2 Jul 2007
http://www.indiatogether.org/2007/jul/agr-btvidarb.htm
As the fresh sowing season starts, beleaguered cotton farmers, already steeped in debt, are being forced to opt for the more-expensive Bt (genetically modified) cotton. Inputs dealers in Vidarbha say that there is hardly any non-Bt hybrid variety available in the market this year. Jaideep Hardikar reports.
2 July 2007 - Nagpur - When the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh visited Vidarbha last July, the Vidarbha farmers hoped bad days were coming to end, their destiny would change. Skeptics had warned the region's agrarian economy, which has collapsed totally, could not be resurrected with piecemeal packages. They were right. The relief is turning out to be a mere band-aid, as it indeed was meant, with policies remaining unchanged on all fronts ? credit, seeds, prices and imports, to name a few. But, as the fresh sowing season starts, worrying signs are already evident. Beleaguered cotton farmers, already steeped in debt, have little choice but to opt for the more-expensive Bt (genetically modified) cotton this season.
Inputs dealers say that there is hardly any hybrid variety available in the market this year. "We get good margins on Bt from the companies. Also, the companies haven't marketed hybrids this time around." To be frank, says one dealer, "we are not keeping non-Bt seed, for it has no future." Estimates indicate entire cotton area to be under Bt, results of which have been very discouraging for the rain-fed region. Divisional Commissioner (Amravati) Sudhir Goyal says this year would be a 100 per cent Bt year. Meaning, nearly a 100 per cent cotton area would be occupied by Bt cotton.
While cotton prices are crashing every year, a total shift to the genetic modified cotton will hike up production costs, leading to a steep risk of heavier losses, farm activists say. The central problem is that India provides no cushion to millions of farmers from the risks involved. When hybrid seeds were introduced, they wiped out desi cotton. Now Bt cotton would wipe out hybrids and farmers would be left with no choice but to buy expensive Bt seeds. The top scientists at the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) fear it is a signal for disaster, which will be accentuated many times if monsoon fails. For one, only three-per-cent cotton area in Vidarbha has protected irrigation. Two, Bt cotton is highly capital intensive. In a region where income levels of farmers have been steadily dwindling, any exposure to risk could be suicidal. The chief minister, who is advocating that farmers practice yoga and spiritualism, could do well to regulate markets and ensure fairplay by the seed companies.
After Bollguard-I (first generation Bt), Monsanto has introduced in the market Bollguard-II in more or less the same genotypes (varieties). The price of a 450-gm packet of seed is Rs.1350, several times the cost of non-Bt seeds. A package of Bollguard-I comes at Rs.750. A packet of same quantity of non-Bt will come at Rs.400-450, while the desi cottonseed, grown in very few areas, costs Rs.50 a kg. Farmers' leader Vijay Jawandhia argues, "Bt cotton has not brought about any increase in productivity. Also, it has not reduced the use of chemicals." Last year, with 60 per cent area under Bt, the production of cotton in the state could only match the average annual production - about 190 lakh quintals.
State government reports and statistics too suggest that Bt cotton has not brought about any rise in productivity or decline in pesticide use. In 2005, Maharashtra's Agriculture Commissioner wrote in his note to the central government and later the National Commission of Farmers about the poor performance of Bt in the state. Also, Maharashtra government has in four years paid to farmers about Rs.400 crore in compensation due to the failure of Bt cotton in Vidarbha and other parts. Suman Sahai, Convenor of Gene Campaign, New Delhi, says: "The only long term feasible and sustainable approach to controlling pests in cotton would be not the Bt gene but a long term integrated pest management approach."
An estimate suggests that over 30 lakh packets of Bt cottonseeds would be sold this season, enough to cover well over ten lakh hectare farms in the region. That's more than a double-fold rise in the acreage over last year, officials point out. A disaster of unmanageable proportions is on the cards if there is any fluctuation in monsoon, fears Kishor Tiwari of the Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti. So far, rains haven't betrayed the farmers, but as the entire Vidarbha reels under inclement weather, some areas are staring at first sowing being washed away. Already, the farm suicides in 2007 are nearing 500. Tiwari laments that a cotton farmer commits suicide every six hours in Vidarbha, and the rate has been picking up alarmingly, pooh-poohing the government claims that the suicides in Vidarbha have declined due to the implementation of special relief packages.
Interestingly, the Maharashtra Agriculture Minister, Balasaheb Thorat, recently admitted that Bt had failed in Vidarbha and cautioned farmers not to sow it. "We will introduce new crop patterns for every district in the entire state," Thorat said after a Kharif review meeting in Nagpur earlier in May. "We want Vidarbha farmers to shift to soybean," the minister proposed, "because the prices are good and cultivation is cheaper." But it's too late, and the damage is done. Also, farm activists point out the government-run Mahabeej seeds corporation is itself marketing Bt cottonseeds to inputs dealers, while the minister advises caution. There is a lot of double-speak on the part of the government, charges Tiwari.
Yet, what's concerning activists is the permission granted to nearly 53 new genotypes of Bt cotton by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). As many as 35 of those varieties would be introduced in the central India. Over 60 Bt varieties are already in the market here and few more are on the anvil. But there's hardly any study on the performance of new genotypes in Vidarbha. "We don't yet know whether these varieties will suit the agro-climatic and soil conditions; moreover releasing the second generation Bt (Bollguard II) for a wide spread commercial use is surely disastrous," says a senior CICR scientist, speaking under condition of anonymity. He also warns that it is only a matter of time before the widespread emergence of resistance in bollworms. "It has already happened in Gujarat, where bollworms have developed resistance to Bt."
Peasants' confusion is only being compounded by the introduction of new varieties this season. As companies compete for greater market share, they are promoting their brands fiercely and relentlessly, and farmers are being exposed to greater risks.
Jaideep Hardikar is a Nagpur based journalist. He won a 2005 scholarship to research the agrarian crisis in Vidarbha from the Prem Bhatia Memorial Trust, New Delhi. He has also been a recipient of several national media fellowships and was the winner of the 2003 Sanskriti award from Sanskriti Foundation, New Delhi.

GM-free status sought for State To prevent influx of genetically modified crops Special Correspondent - The Hindu, 13 July 2007 - http://www.hindu.com/2007/07/13/stories/2007071357250400.htm
*Demand in the wake of permission given to Monsanto
*Issue taken up with Union Agriculture Minister
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran has written to the Union Minister of Agriculture Sharad Pawar opposing experimental cultivation of genetically modified crops in Kerala. The Minister urged the Centre to declare Kerala as a GM-free State and prevent the influx of genetically modified crops. Mr. Ratnakaran wrote to Mr. Pawar in the light of permission granted to a private agency under the control of Monsanto Corporation to try genetically modified rice in some paddy fields in Palakkad district. Kerala is rich in biodiversity and 50 per cent of its geographical area is part of the Western Ghats which is a global biodiversity hotspot. Cultivation of genetically modified crops in this area will be detrimental to the ecosystem, the Minister said.
Workshop
The Agriculture Minister said that the Government would organise a workshop soon to create awareness of the effects of the entry of imperialist forces in the food sector.

Loud no to Bt Brinjal - BHUBANESWAR - Orissa Government Decides To Prevent Entry Of The GM Crop, TI0706-28 - Rajaram Satapathy I TNN
Bhubaneswar: The Orissa government will not allow Bt Brinjal inside the state because it fears that the genetically modified crop may endanger the bio-safety of native farm products. "We are not for any genetically modified (GM) crop, let alone Bt Brinjal. There is no credible scientific study to stand by the GM crops. Nor are there reports from any where in the country about farmers welcoming it," agriculture minister Surendra Nath Nayak said. "On the contrary, public protests against GM crops are galore," he added. Nayak made known the government stand in the backdrop of public protests against the reported move of the Centre for field trial of Bt Brinjal in the coastal Kendrapada, Cuttack, Bhubaneswar and Puri.
Reports said Bt Brinjal figures on the agenda of the genetic en-gineering approval committee (GEAC) under the Union ministry of environment and forests and intense lobbying has been going on for allowing field trial of it in several states, including Orissa. Orissa, a few years back permitted Bt Cotton, now grown mostly in four tribal districts. "We allowed Bt Cotton because it was not a food item and would bring bigger gains to farmers. But reports are not very encouraging. Farmers caught in input, output and marketing riddles do not seem happy. We are closely watching the situation," the minister said.
Speculation is rife that the state government may not be able to put a rider on field trial of Bt Brinjal or for that matter any GM crop. Brinjals are said to have originated from India. Orissa alone has 226 known varieties of brinjals. There is no dearth of brinjals as a vegetable in the state and in and around Bhubaneswar scores of varieties of brinjals are grown.
It is feared that Bt Brinjal would contaminate the native varieties, beside causing genetic pollution to the estimated 700 varieties of paddy and the more than 7,000 species of flora in the state. The minister maintained that the government would "surely intervene" as it involved the future of farmers and the state's rich biodiversity. He said instead, the state government is encouraging "organic farming", particularly in veg-etable cultivation. "The use of fertiliser and chemical pesticide in vegetables is the root cause of many diseases. To counter this, the government has made budgetary provisions this year to give subsidy for popularising vermiculture in villages," the minister said.

Comment from Aruna Rodrigues, the chief-petitioner in the Public Interest Litigation before India's Supreme Court:
The GEAC [India's key regulatory body for GM field trials] has stated that they will allow field trials of GM food crops once a validated protocol for contamination at a LOD (Level of Detection) of 0.01 per cent is submitted by the Applicants and approved. The fact is that this condition is pure illusion, a GEAC distortion of the Supreme Court ORDER of the 8th May 2007. The S. Court on the 8th May did not lift its Order of the 22nd September 2006; and therefore it continues to bar fresh approvals of all field trials including Bt cotton.
No matter the guise under which the GEAC is acting, even so, it is a positive thing that the GEAC has taken note of the legal notice sent to them by Petitioners' counsel, Prashant Bhushan, which warned that we would be forced to file for 'contempt of Court' if it carried out its agenda.
Contamination through field trials is a fact; so also the consequent threat to biodiversity and human and animal health. There is tangible relief therefore, that we have been able to stop these GM food crop field trials.

GEAC PUTS STRINGENT CONDITIONS - Govt says no to GM crops - From Kalyan Ray, DH News Service, New Delhi:
India may have to wait for years to witness the entry of a genetically modified food crop in the market as the centre has come out with an approval condition that the experts are saying is "impossible" to meet. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) on Friday has asked the agro-biotech companies to submit "validated protocol for detection of 0.01 per cent level contamination" before clearing multi-location research trials of genetically modified rice, okra, maize and brinjal, official sources said. This means unless the crop developers are able to find out how would they spot presence of trace amount of bt protein (0.01 per cent) which may have been leaked to other non-target plants, the centre will not approve multi-location trials, which is a must before commercial release.
"But such a stringent contamination detection level is unheard of anywhere in the world. The technology simply does not exist," Bhagirath Choudhary, the India representative of the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) told Deccan Herald.
Best standard
The best standard is from the European Union which stipulates a detection level of 0.9 per cent. The Japanese standard is five per cent while the USA does not have any detection level standards. Arguing that contamination should not be an issue till large scale trial, Mr Choudhary said such a step might also ruin the research in the green house as 0.01 per cent contamination is a common occurrence there. The technology to detect such low level of contamination simply doesn't exist.
Even as the research was going on for quite some time, the anti-GM activists including have protested time and again on any governmental plan for allowing their commercialisation. The GEAC did not approve six transgenic bt rice hybrids, three GM bt okra hybrids and bt brinjal being developed at places like University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. Round up ready corn hybrids that can survive a particular insecticide, yield guard corns with higher productivity and flex cotton hybrids that produces better quality yarns were also not approved by the committee.
Interestingly, the committee has approved import of soybean oil obtained from round-up ready Soybean by the Solvent Extractors' Association of India.
Large scale field trials of new varieties of bt cotton expressing new genes did not get approval as the bio-safety studies are inadequate. This includes cotton hybrids expressing Cry1C gene, sources said.

GEAC denies nod for multi location trials of GM food crops - ASHOK B SHARMA - Financial Express, June 23 2007
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=167916
NEW DELHI, JUN 22: The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has not approved multi-locational research trials (MLRT) of genetically modified (GM) food crops. The field trials of GM crops, which was on the agenda for Friday's discussion included six Bt rice hybrids, three Bt okra hybrids, two GM corn crops, eight Bt eggplant hybrids. The committee had asked seed companies concerned to submit validated protocol for detection of 0.01% level of genetic contamination, subject to which the field trials of GM food crops would be considered. The GEAC, however, approved the procedure for import of soyoil extracted from Roundup Ready Soybeans as proposed by Solvent Extractors' Association of India .
The GEAC, in its 78th meeting on Friday, approved MLRT of several Bt cotton hybrids expressing genes and events which were earlier approved. It also approved strip trials of Bt cotton hybrids expressing genes and events approved earlier. GEAC allowed experimental seed production of Bt cotton hybrids in different parts of the country. Permission to conduct MLRT of Bt cotton expressing approved gene/ events have been approved. This includes BG I cotton hybrids, BG II cotton hybrid, cry1Ac gene, 3 intra-hirsutum hybrids, 2 inter-specific hybrids, 3 inter-specific hybrids, 5 Bt cotton hybrids, Bollgard cotton hybrids has been given. The MLRT will be done in central and south zones at various locations. The committee has also approved the proposal for strip trials of Bt cotton expressing approved gene/events. This will cover 35 Bt cotton hybrids, 115 transgenic Bt cotton hybrids, 29 intra-specific Bt cotton hybrids and others will be included. Experimental seed production of Bt cotton expressing approved gene/events has also been given approval. The Large Scale Field Trials of Bt cotton expressing new gene/events did not get approval because they did not complete full bio-safety studies. This include cotton hybrids expressing Cry1C gene and seed production of cotton hybrids

GM crops will not be allowed in Kerala declares Kerala Agriculture Minister. Environmental and Farmers Organisations hail decision.
Press Release - 23rd June 2007, Trivandrum
Environmental organisations and Farmers Organisations in Kerala today hailed the Kerala Government and welcomed the declaration of the Kerala Agriculture Minister Sri Mullakara Rathnakaran not to allow Genetically Modified Crops in the State.
"No GM crop trials and cultivation will be allowed in Kerala" the Agriculture Minister stated in the 9.30 pm News Hour discussions in the Malayala Manorama channel yesterday. He detailed the reasons for this decision, stating that farmers in Vidharbha and Andhra Pradesh were led to suicide by the planting of Bt-Cotton and that he will not allow anything like that to happen in Kerala. He was responding to the issue of the 78th Genetic Engineering Approval Committee's agenda for approving field trials of six hybrids of Bt-rice in Palakkad region. "Kerala is a State with rich agro-biodiversity and the government see it as its top priority to protect it" he said. According to the Minister, farmers from other states like Tamilnadu are resisting the entry of GM crops. "Here the Government and the Agriculture department will take up the issue along with farmers not to allow genetically modified crops in to the field ", he said.
Earlier in the day, the Kerala Assembly heard the official statement of the Government on the issue. The Kerala Law Minister Sri M Vijaykumar, speaking for the Chief Minister, responded to submissions by Sri M P Shreyams Kumar, MLA. He stated that "Kerala Agriculture Department has not given permission to the company Mahyco to conduct field trails of GM crops in the State. The Supreme Court has also not allowed any fresh approvals of field trials. Moreover, the M.S. Swaminathan task force on biotechnology has clearly pointed out that the agro-biodiversity rich regions like Western Ghats should be kept free from GM crops. The State Biodiversity Board also recommends in its Strategy and Action Plan to avoid experiments of GM crops in such biodiversity rich areas". The Minister also pointed out that such experiments can only be conducted under the supervision of the Bio safety Committee of the Kerala Agriculture University upon following their Bio safety Code. The permission of the State and the Panchayath where the trials are to be conducted is mandatory before approval is given.
While appreciating the decision of the Agriculture Minister, Thanal along with Desiya Karshaka Samithi and Ecological Protection Forum Palakkad and other environmental and farmers organisations across the State, pointed out that a farming in Kerala can be made sustainable only by supporting local initiatives in Organic and ecological farming, reviving high yielding and resistant, locally specific traditional seeds and practices and local production of organic manure and ecological pest control methods. This will reduce cost of production while giving good nutritional and economic value to the final produce. Research support that is being siphoned off for biotechnology and other frontier sciences is not going to help feed the State, they said, and so more support must be sought from the Centre for locally specific agriculture revival initiatives.
For more information contact
S Usha, Thanal Ph : (0)9447022775 - Sridhar R, Ph : (0)9995358205
Thanal, H-3 Jawahar Nagar, Kawdiar, Thiruvananthapuram - 695003, Kerala, India.
Ph : +91-471-2727150, 5543001
Email : thanal@md4.vsnl.net.in - website : www.thanal.org

Protect Bt cotton from leaf spots, warn PAU scientists - Express News Service, June 21 2007
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=242363
Ludhiana, June 21: Leaf spots on cotton due to different fungal and bacterial pathogens have gained significance with the cultivation of Bt cotton, say PAU plant pathologists Dr HS Rewal and Dr Chander Mohan. According to them, last year, high incidence of pathogen-alternaria blight was reported in many fields in Bathinda, Mansa and Faridkot districts. Because of the attack of different fungal and bacterial pathogens, the cotton leaves develop pale green leaf spots with irregular margins. These spots enlarge, turn brown and are recognized easily due to the presence of concentric zones. Severe infection causes shedding of leaves specially where soil is light in texture.
The disease is more serious on plants having low vigour, or those which are raised in fields having low potash. According to the scientists, another type of leaf spot is also gaining importance. The pathogen attacks both leaves as well as the bolls. Circular to semi-circular brown coloured spots with broad violet margins appear on leaves, bracts as well as bolls. Later, small dark dot like structures are formed inside these spots. The fungus is seed borne and also survives on dead leaves. The disease is favoured by high humidity and rains. Dense growth in Bt cotton is favourable for the development of this pathogens.
As per these scientists, bacterial leaf blight, also known as angular leaf spot, is characterized by black arm and boll rot, depending upon the portion of the plant affected. The disease appears on leaves in the form of minute, water soaked, angular spots which later on turn brown. The disease extends up to the veins and veinlets, which also turn black.
Spots on bolls appear as round water soaked areas which later turn dark brown or black, and are slightly depressed. Spotted bolls may fail to open and lint may be discoloured with a yellow stain. Before boll rot is evident, dark irregularly shaped spots are observed on bracts surrounding the lower portion of bolls. Under severe disease conditions, defoliation takes place. The bacterium survives in seed as well as plant debris.
The scientists have highlighted that seed treatment before sowing is the best remedy against the leaf spot.

Mortality of livestock linked to Bt cotton yet again - The Siasat Daily, June 21 2007
http://www.siasat.com/english/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=189182&Itemid=79&cattitle=Hyderabad
Hyderabd, June 22: Notwithstanding the stout denials by Monsanto-Mahyco, the Animal Husbandry Department has again confirmed that the mortality of livestock that grazed on harvested fields of Bt cotton was indeed observed in February and March this year too, especially in Warangal and Adilabad. The confirmation is contained in a letter sent by the Director of Animal Husbandry Department to the Chairperson of Genetic Engineering Approval Committee on May 9.
The Director specially asked the GEAC to take into consideration the opinion of sheep growers and arrange for bio-safety studies on applied aspects like continuous grazing of animals on harvested or intact Bt cotton plants and the quantitative analysis of Bt protein in different stages even after harvesting. In the letter, the Director recalled that last year when similar reports came in, the department had undertaken investigation and analysis of plant samples like leaves, boll, seed and other portions for presence of possible toxins and their ill effects in animals.
These tests were conducted in national and State institutions like Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Western Regional Disease Diagnositc Laboratory, Pune, and Department of Agriculture Biotechnology of Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University. The results showed that the death of sheep could be due to high content of nitrates/nitrites and residues of hydro cyanide (HCN) and organophosphates. The same kind of mortality of livestock was observed this year too causing economic loss to farmers. The samples this time were sent to the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izzatnagar, in addition to other institutions. However the results showed that samples were negative for these compounds.
Precaution
As a precautionary measure the department asked its staff to create awareness among shepherds and to advise them to not to graze their animals in harvested Bt cotton fields till definite cause was established. Kavita Kuruganti, consultant to Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, told The Hindu that the letter had confirmed through official channels not only the toxicity phenomenon but that previous bio-safety studies on Bt cotton had left out important applied aspects of village-level practices.

PANCHAYATS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WRITE IN TO GEAC - PRESS RELEASE
GEAC also asked to abide by new orders and conditions related to field trials
New Delhi, June 21, 2007: More than 80 Panchayats from Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal had written to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) seeking clarifications related to the new condition for GM crop field trials in the country which requires crop developers to get prior permission from the concerned panchayat. The panchayats wanted GEAC to provide them information on what are the potential risks associated with GE crops and their open air field trials in addition to asking the regulator what accountability mechanisms exist in case of violations. These letters were sent to the GEAC on the eve of its 78th meeting tomorrow, where the apex regulatory body is considering approvals to scores of field trials, including GM food crops. Earlier, in its December 13th 2006 meeting, GEAC had decided that applicants for GM food crop trials have to obtain prior permission from concerned panchayats.
Meanwhile, many members of the Coalition for GM Free India also wrote in to the GEAC yesterday, reminding them about new orders and conditions related to GM crop field trials. They reminded the GEAC that the Supreme Court in its May 8th 2007 orders had not vacated the September 2006 orders which imposed a stoppage on any further approvals. They also pointed out that in the January 2007 meeting of the GEAC, the regulators have noted that the state level and district level committees meant to oversee trials, as per the Environment Protection Act [EPA], are not in place as things had not changed since then.
The Coalition members accused the GEAC of not discussing important issues like impacts of Bt Cotton on livestock, as pointed out by the animal husbandry department of Andhra Pradesh, in its haste to approve more and more GM crops. They questioned the GEAC about the action taken (or lack of it) to fix liability on the concerned companies under the EPA penal clauses for violations pointed out by Andhra Pradesh and Chattisgarh government, reports of which were shared with the GEAC.
GEAC's inability to monitor open air field trials that it approves (based on DBT's approvals) has been documented again and again and in fact admitted by the GEAC itself in its meeting minutes. In majority of cases, the regulatory body itself is not informed of where the trials are happening in the country. State governments like Chattisgarh, which have inquired into the matter last year, have documented several violations and yet, no action has been taken by the GEAC on the matter. It is well known that across the world GE contamination scandals which led to serious economic losses for farmers have mostly arisen from lax field trials.
For more information, contact:
1. Sri Kultar Singh, Sarpanch, Sandhwan village, Faridkot dist, Punjab: 092-164-00457
2. Sri Krishnan Kutty, Perumatti Panchayat, Palakkad dist, Kerala: 094-470-12369
3. Sri Yudhvir Singh, Bharatiya Kissan Union (BKU): 098-681-46405
4. Sri Devinder Sharma, Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security: 098-113-01857
Annexure:
Letter from Coalition for GM Free India members to GEAC:
June 20, 2007
To
The Chairperson
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC)
Ministry of Environment & Forests
Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003.
Fax: 011- 24363967
Dear Sri Parsheera
Sub: Consideration of proposals for GM crop field trials-78th GEAC meeting-22/6/2007
We have taken note of the Agenda points put up for the 78th GEAC meeting to be held on 22nd June 2007. There are many open air field trials being considered for various food crops like brinjal, rice, maize, potato, bhindi etc. as well as new events of GM cotton. In this connection, we would like to remind the GEAC:
That the Supreme Court's orders of May 8th 2007 have not vacated the orders of September 2006 and that is something that the petitioners have already communicated to the MoEF through their
advocate.
That it is a dangerous practice to take up open air field trials without assessing the biosafety of a GMO, especially given the now-official confirmations related to various violations during field trials and the confirmation of the lack of monitoring capabilities of the regulators. Further, some of the applications are for large scale field trials, without having cleared biosafety assessments.
That the GEAC has still not fixed any liability for the violations pointed out by Chattisgarh government as well as now being pointed out by the Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal governments.
That in the January 2007 meeting of the GEAC, you have noted that state level and district level committees are not in place to oversee field trials [Agenda 1.0 (a) (i)] and that this should be done
That in the January 2007 meeting again, it was also decided that full details of the crops, sites, coordinator of the field trial etc. should be submitted before approval is accorded by the GEAC/RCGM
That in the December 2006 GEAC meeting, it was decided that applicants have to obtain prior permission of the concerned panchayats before approval is accorded
That the Supreme Court orders of May 2007 also lay down the need for a validated, event-specific protocol (at an LoD of at least 0.01%) to be submitted by the approved institution
That the Court also ordered that the name of a Scientist and other details about who will be responsible for all aspects related to the trial should be submitted to the GEAC.
WE would also like to remind GEAC that in its last meeting, as a response to the report received from the Director-Animal Husbandry, Government of Andhra Pradesh, the GEAC asked some experts to look at the report and give their views in the next meeting, which is the one on June 22nd. However, the listed agenda
has no mention of this and we request the GEAC to include it immediately into the agenda.
We also demand that the GEAC discuss the report of the Chattisgarh government's inquiry committee on the violations documented in the field trials there and fix liability under EPA penal clauses.
Finally, we demand that the GEAC discuss and share information to its members and the general public on what happened to the Show Cause notices sent to various crop developers who have failed to comply with the conditional approvals given in 2006.
As the apex regulatory body created to protect the interests of Indian farmers and consumers and for protecting the environment, we expect the GEAC to address all the above points in its upcoming meeting.
Sincerely,
(Member Organisation, Coalition for GM Free India)

Bt cotton can kill farm animals, Andhra Govt cautions farmers - Chetan Chauhan - The Hindustan Times
http://www.hindustantimes.com/storypage/storypage.aspx?id=668d24de-52af-419a-b448 f816af6960e5&MatchID1=4469&TeamID1=2&TeamID2=4&MatchType1=1&SeriesID1=1110&PrimaryID=4469&Headline='Bt+cotton+fields+can+kill+farm+animals
New Delhi - June 17 2007
The Andhra Pradesh government has advised farmers not to allow animals to graze on Bt cotton fields after four institutes reported the presence of toxins in them. Goats and sheep grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton fields were found dead in Warangal and Adilabad districts in 2006 and in the first two months of 2007. The Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, the Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, the Western Regional Disease Diagnostic Laboratory and the department of agriculture, NG Ranga Agriculture University found the presence of nitrates and nitrites, and residues of organophosphates in Bt cotton plants. Dr L Mohan, director, Andhra Pradesh animal husbandry department, said: "The deaths have resulted in huge economic losses for farmers."
Andhra Pradesh, which had earlier moved the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices tribunal against the high price of Bt seeds, said no bio-safety studies of Bt cotton seeds had yet been conducted. MK Sharma, managing director, Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech India Ltd, makers of the genetically modified Bt cotton, said: "Bt cotton is being grown in nine states, and no such complaint has come except from a few villages in Andhra. We conducted safety studies before the trials and all Bt seeds were found to be safe."
The Andhra government has informed the union ministry of environment and forests about its findings. The ministry has ordered a probe.
chetan@hindustantimes.com

'IMPORTING AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE IS LIKE IMPORTING A LOSS' - Tehelka, 9 June 2007
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main31.asp?filename=Bu090607Punditspeak_8.asp
Chairperson of the Planning Commission's Task Force on Agro-biodiversity and Genetically Engineered Organisms and founder of Gene Campaign, Suman Sahai has been advocating for farmers' rights and against the dangers of genetically-modified (GM) crops for more than a decade. One of India's foremost agro-economists, Sahai feels the country should avoid buying expensive GM seeds from global monopolistic corporations when it has the resources to develop indigenous technology. What is required, she told Harsha Baruah and Swati Mongia, is to develop a methodology to solve problems at an affordable cost and increased agricultural research
*Our farmers are in crisis. Do you think it is time we overhaul the current agricultural model?
The current agricultural model is disastrous. The current agricultural research system is a disaster - so is the current level of agricultural scientists, and the way they are required to perform is abysmal. I cannot emphasise strongly enough how terrible the state of our agricultural research system is. And if India is facing one crisis today, it is the crisis of Bharat. You cannot go on weeping that agriculture is 1.4 percent - you need a 4-percent growth to break-even. And nothing is being done about it.SEZs are coming up on agricultural land. Why are they not being set up in urban areas? Why is DDA land not being taken for SEZs?And ultimately, you have to make a fundamental decision - is the progress and development of this country going to happen via 98 percent of India or 2 percent of Bharat?
*But things have started happening, right? Biotech is the latest buzzword
The problem is that it has come very quickly into commercial application. Today, biotechnology has become a very sought-after post, and young people are going in for training offered by lots of private scholarships. But where is the infrastructure? Eventually, we are producing a whole bunch of young people who think they have biotech degrees but are clueless. We talk of Bt Cotton - why is there not a single public sector institution in this country that has come up with an Indian variety? When American farmers wanted Bt Cotton, Monsanto developed it for them. Now it wants to expand its market, so it's come here. But do Indian farmers want Bt Cotton?
*But the counter to this is that our farmers are cynical about adopting such technologies
Wrong. Farmers are never cynical. Farmers are always open and receptive to trying out new technologies and that is part of the problem with importing new technology. Nobody's taught the farmers; nobody's carried out any training programmes or orientation processes, there are no troubleshooting centres where the farmer can go when he is in trouble. There have been reports that in many areas Bt Cotton has failed both in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. This incidentally has been in the state government reports, which have been kept under wraps for long. Why has a review not been done? Today, without any review and analysis, you go and approve 62 varieties of Bt Cotton.
*So you would not encourage farmers to go for Bt Cotton?
No. The way it is being done, it's not worth it. Essentially, the Bt approach to pest-management is in any case a very short-term approach. There's a fundamental thing to understand - no pest remains where it was as it develops resistance. Bt Cotton is also very expensive - Rs 1,850 a pack. A domestic pack comes for Rs 300.
*Are you suggesting that these technologies are meant for Western countries that have the right infrastructure
And also subsidies that can offset the technology costs. There are 25,000 cotton farmers in the US -whether they plant the Bt seed or not, they are going to get a huge package. So, new technology can only be brought into agrarian countries like India. Monsanto wouldn't be bothered about whether the farmers succeed or not. They want to sell seeds and make a profit.
*What dangers do you see from Bt seeds?
To health, to the environment - Bt is after all a toxic gene - a poison-producing gene that you take out from a bacterium. The bacterium has genes like this in order to repel its attackers. You take out this poison-producing gene from the bacteria, and you put it into a bottle - which you are going to put into rice, tomato, potato, brinjal - everything in India is going the Bt way. So human and animal health face a very big danger. The other thing is environment. I totally oppose GM crops. India is the birthplace of rice. No rice is found in forests. If you have foreign genes in genetically-engineered rice, the genes, through pollen, will move into the natural gene pool of rice. This is scary, as it can really spoil your native gene pool. All countries that are centres of origin, like Mexico, for instance, have a ban on GM crops. China has a ban on soya bean, Peru on potato. India is a very strange country - the home of the largest-eaten staple food in the world is experimenting with GM rice.
*What about farmers deaths. How would you handle it?
Nobody gives a damn. Nothing translates on to the ground. What is the pm's scheme when 60 percent of the farmers in Vidharba have mortgaged their land and will not get it back? And in this area you're promoting Bt cotton. Repay their loans - statements will not create solutions. I think the greatest shame for India in the last 60 years is farmer suicides. We as a nation need to hang our heads in shame if even one farmer kills himself, and hundreds have. Yet nothing has changed. Rural credit has been identified as one of the most devastating reasons. Where is the support for the farmer?
*But sometimes stocks are also returned because there is no demand
That's not true. Huge bales of cotton are lying outside Nagpur, because the government has decided to import Chinese cotton. People import cotton because the cotton commission works on an import-export basis. Importing agricultural produce is importing a loss, because you're importing somebody else's product, not your farmers'. In 60 years we've had no agricultural policy - how can Bharat prosper?
*Would you then say that there is no merit in this talk of a second Green Revolution?
I don't want to use the term Second Green Revolution because corporations are using this term for genetic engineering. The Green Revolution is viewed as a very positive development by the political leadership in this country. It used technology which made India self-reliant and stopped forever our dependence on imports. So the association with the Green Revolution is extremely positive. You won't meet any politician in the country who wouldn't think that it was an instrument which saved political humiliation. Ad gurus have understood the positive association with the Green Revolution and are trying to capitalise on it. The two technologies are like chalk and cheese. The Green Revolution was publicly owned. Research was done in public sector institutions, seeds were owned by the farmer and nobody had any control. There were no intellectual property rights, no patents - nothing. The so-called Second Green Revolution is an entirely privately-owned technology. Every single thing belongs to roughly six corporations. The seed, technology and genes are patented.

Govt withhelds GM food info - Prachi Bhuchar - NDTV, May 13 2007 (New Delhi)
http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070011902
Earlier this week the Supreme Court gave the go ahead to the Centre to conduct field trials of some [already approved] Genetically Modified (GM) crops. The court also directed the Centre to give details about the toxicity levels of these crops. But last month, in response to a Right to Information application, the government had refused to share these details.
We should know what we eat. That was the premise on which an environmental group filed a petition under the Right to Information Act last month, asking for specific data on field trials of genetically modified food crops, including their toxicity and allergicity levels. The Information Commission directed the department of biotechnology to provide this information within 10 days but when the response from the government came it was far from satisfactory. ''Multi-location field trials are okay but bio-safety information cannot be disclosed,'' the government said in a reply. The reason had more to do with addressing commercial interests than safeguarding public health. Surprisingly, though it has approved their multi-location field trials, the government said the data on rice, bhindi and mustard was yet to be evaluated. This answer, experts say, is less convincing and more confusing.
''It is ridiculous that the government does not want to provide information on something that affects our health. We asked them a straightforward question and they did not want to give an answer,'' said Geneticist Dr Suman Sahai. But the health ministry feels stricter norms should be in place before GM foods can be consumed. ''I have expressed my concern to the ministry of environment and the science and tech ministry as well. Before they give a go ahead for field trials they have to ensure there is more information available, otherwise there is a serious health concern,'' said Union Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss.
Absence of proper mechanism
Some of the other concerns are that is no mechanism in place for GM food labeling and consumers are in dark about what they are eating. Even the farmers are clueless about bio-safety hazards during field trials and people who regulate field trials are also on committees that give approval to firms to enter India. In most countries field trials of GM crops have been on the decline since 2003. Also, there's evidence that genetic engineering have dangerous consequences. In India, both farmers and scientists have always stopped short of greeting trials of GM food crops. While farmers say it would damage other crops, scientists feel its still is a potential health and environmental hazard.
''Nowhere in the world has GM foods led to food security. Once we introduce GM organisms into the environment there is no control. There is crossing over onto other organisms. Companies have been accused of taking bribes [presumably a reference to their bribing of officials] in other countries. How can the government deal with such companies,'' said Dr Pushpa Bhargava, Scientist. But biotechnologists at the genetic engineering approval committee, which gives these trials the go-ahead, say safety norms have never been compromised. Does India need GM food at all? Experts say with Asia being the next big market for biotech firms, it is here that the future of these foods will be decided, especially since it is a growing nation where food security remains a constant concern.

AIADMK Protests in Coimbatore - Protest criticizes DMK for not banning GM seeds - Headed by Muthuswamy, AIADMK MLAs and farmers participate
Coimbatore, May 5th 2007: Prominent AIADMK [All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam] leaders protested here against the DMK government's inaction and demanded an immediate ban on GM seeds. Led by Mr Muthuswamy, Secretary, AIADMK, Members of Legislative Assembly [MLAs], party workers and farmers participated in a protest rally here today. The District President of AIADMK Mr Veluswamy, MLA, presided. Ms Jayalalithaa, party chief of AIADMK will soon be explaining why GM crops should be banned, said Mr Muthuswamy. Our traditional cropping patterns and people's health will be affected adversely by the Central government introducing GM crops, he charged.
Impacts on soil health:
Bt Rice seed is expected to affect the environment, soil fertility and other life forms adversely; apart from this, these seeds make our food poisonous. That this seed increases rice productivity is a blatant lie. A scientist from Scotland had studied the impacts of GM food and found that it has potential adverse effects on human health.
Agricultural produce from these crops will be rejected in export markets.
No use in developed countries:
People in developed countries are also not using GM crops and in the interest of public health, the government has to immediately ban GM seeds in India. Since Tamil Nadu government has not taken any measures towards this, despite being part of the Coalition at the Centre, this meeting has been organized against the Tamil Nadu's inaction in the matter, said Ms Jayalalithaa. The participants included: S Muthuswamy, District Secretaries: S M Veluswamy (MLA), Pollachi Jayaraman, (MLA), Tirupur Sivasamy, Damodaran, Ex-Minister in the AIADMK government etc.
[Translation of major portions of a news item in Tamil in "Makkal Kural" daily (People's Voice), 5th May 2007]

Ban on trials of GM crops to continue - Nitin Sethi - THE TIMES OF INDIA, 12 May 2007
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Ban_on_trials_of_GM_crops_to_continue/articleshow/2036223.cms
NEW DELHI: The GM industry has nothing to cheer about. SC [Supreme Court] has not vacated its order on fresh field trials of genetically modified crops. The apex court has only allowed ongoing and earlier approved trials to continue, while not vacating the ban that it had imposed in an interim order of September 22 2006, banning any fresh field trials of GM crops. The court, in its order, said, "The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) shall take sufficient precautions to see that these (ongoing and already approved) trials are not causing any contamination to the cultivation in the neighbouring fields." In order to pin down responsibility in case of any mishap, the court said: "In all trials that are being conducted, the name of the scientist and other details of who will be responsible for all aspects of the trials should be reported to GEAC and there should be regular supervision by them."
The court, in fact, tightening the leash on the government, has also ordered that the government release data on any tests of toxicity and allergenicity that may have been conducted on the four species of Bt Cotton already approved by the government. The precedent setting order has elated the green groups as they have been constantly asking for such data to be put out in the public domain.
Meanwhile, the lawyer for the petitioners in the case, Prashant Bhushan, has sent a legal notice to the environment ministry for the ?misinterpretation? of the SC order by minister of state for environment and forests, Namo Narain Meena. In a speech, the MoS was quoted as saying, "The stay on Genetic Engineering Approval Committee has been vacated today (May 9) during judicial hearing."

Aruna Rodrigues: We still don't have the ORDER [from the Court] and may not have it till Monday; in which case it is important to give out the Order as we heard it along with the interpretation of that Order because what is being carried across the Country in the press is a host of contradictions and claims largely based on GEAC [India's GM regulator] press briefings. Only the GM case was heard by the Supreme Court on the 8 May before the Chief Justice and two other Justices -- so it was a full day affair. This is the ORDER (as we heard it)
(a) 4 Bt cotton varieties which have already been approved (includes Bolgard II). The main point is that no NEW varieties of cotton will be allowed.
(b) Field trials that were approved between May and Sept. 2006 may continue. These pertain to a specifed list of vegetables and oilgrains. NO OTHERS.
They are subject to 3 conditions:
(a) Isolation distances will be increased to 200m around the test field
(b) A lead scientist will be named who will assume full responsibity for the field trial in all its aspects, most importantly for contamination
(c) The GEAC will specify a validated test protocol for contamination with a LOD (level of detection) of 0.01%.
(d) Toxicity & Allergenicty data for all GMOs that are released.
IMPLICATIONS
1. While there has been a relaxation in principle of the ORDER of the 22nd December, in point of fact the restricitions that the GEAC are bound up in, place the most severe conditions on them and open up a whole arena of action for farmers and civil society groups. If the Union of India and its Regulator, do not comply, they will face contempt of Court. It will be virtully impossible for them to carry out field trials given our small landholdings, with isolation distances of 200m.
2. It is also important to remember that the GEAC has still not complied with the ORDER of the Court of the 15th Feb which asked the Regulator to provide details about "what would be the biological implications of these tests". Thus, they must provide toxicity and allergenicity data under the still outstanding ORDER as well. Civil society will certainly ask for this to be put in the public domain i.e. the GEAC website, starting with Bt Brinjal and Bt cotton events.
3. The test protocol for contamination has to be announced before the commencement of the release of the GMO, whether cotton or anything else. This means genetic sequences of the GMOs must be disclosed. Civil society has only one objective, NO contamination is acceptable. Nor will we be bound by less than state-of-the-art testing facilities to test for contamination at the lowest possible level -- traceability levels. International labs will therefore be deployed by civil society for back up tests to ascertain whether farmers' fields and food have been contaminated.

Below are some of the issues that will be coming up before the Indian Supreme Court in the latest round of the Public Interest Litigation brought by Aruna Rodrigues and her co-petitioners.
The failure of Indian regulators to comply either with the order of the Supreme Court or that of Central Information Commission (CIC) to make public the data generated by tests carried out on GM crops, has helped to exemplify the critical issue of whether GMOs are being released without adequate testing and/or without key biosafety data being analysed.
The petitioners will be drawing attention to:
(a) Toxicity and allergenicity: the fact that there are major gaps internationally in safety testing.
In India GMOs are, it now seems clear, being released without safety testing data, at least as regards the vital aspect of toxicity and allergenicity. Evidence of this exists for okra, mustard and rice.
India's regulators have refused to provide the relevant information for Bt brinjal and will be penalised accordingly. It is only a question of time before they will have to comply, but their refusal to date raises the question of what they have to hide.
(b) Conflict of interest: exemplified by CD Mayee, co-chair of India's apex GM regulatory body - the GEAC - and at the same time a director of the biotech industry funded and directed ISAAA which is active - with Mayee's active involvement - in promoting GM in India.
(c) Safety Testing Protocols - the gaps, the fraud and the complexities given that the uncertainties of GM are inhererent in the technology (unintended effects).
The petitioners will be drawing attention to the views on safety testing of international experts like Arpad Pusztai, David Schubert and Gilles Eric Seralini.
This is from the last page of the affidavit.
Says Schubert, "Secondary modifications could be assayed by monitoring of the introduced gene product by mass spectroscopy; changes in gene expression could be assayed by DNA chips; and metabolically active molecules could be measured biochemically". The problem says Schubert is, of course, that, "unless we know exactly what to look for, we are likely to miss the relevant changes. However, even extensive animal testing might not detect the consequences of deficiencies in beneficial plant products. GM food is not a safe option, given our current lack of understanding of the consequences of recombinant technology".
The above evidence highlights the laxness that prevails internationally, and in India in current health safety testing in the absence of specified protocols and the degree of rigour and transparency that is required to ensure that safety testing is undertaken according to the evolving best science and practices, which alone will ensure that the public are not guinea pigs in the experiment with GM crops. Other ecological and biosafety aspects, farming economics, farmer rights and development present other complexities and will require much more work to determine their impacts. The warnings of Schubert, Pusztai and Seralini among a host of other scientists must be heeded. In the light of this data, the Regulator's non-compliance with the Order of this Hon'ble Court of 15th February 2007 is extremely serious and represents a less than transparent response which must be corrected. The Order states: "The Union of India will file a report within six weeks stating therein as to what would be the implications of the biological results of these tests". Therefore, to comply with this Order, the first requirement is for all bio-safety data for every crop that has been field tested and for Bt cotton which has been commercialised, to be published on the Ministry's website for scrutiny by independent experts. Data for allergenicity and toxicity are a particular requirement. The absence of any data will be taken to mean that the required tests have not been conducted. In the meanwhile, it is also required that: the Hon'ble Court may direct the respondents to immediately:
(a) provide a comprehensive list of field trials of GMOs that have been conducted during 2005-2007 with their locations, and with their genetic sequences;
(b) institute a comprehensive and systematic plan in the public domain and with the involvement of civil society for comprehensive, nationwide testing for contamination of farmers' fields and food from Bt cotton and from field trials of various crops;
(c) in the meanwhile, to institute an autonomous panel of Independent scientific and credible experts mandated to protect India's biodiversity, as Ombudsman, to oversee GM biosafety and GM policy; and
(d) that environmental releases of GMOs will not be permitted till each GMO to be released is cleared by such a panel as above, of independent scientific and credible experts, having first been subjected to a comprehensive, rigorous biosafety test protocol in the public domain as prayed for in the WP and that GM imports are subjected to the same oversight with mandatory labelling of any imports so cleared.

Letter from P.V. Satheesh, Director of the Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defence of Diversity to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh
http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/06/stories/2007050609020400.htm
Dear Mr Chief Minister
A news of extraordinary significance that you will address the World Agricultural Forum is buried somewhere in Page 5. For us, the civil society activists working with the poor and their agriculture, this is an exciting news. This is significant not only for the fact that you as the head of a great agrarian state will be addressing this Global Farm Forum but also for the location where this forum is being held. Mr Chief Minister, you are surely aware that St Louis is the headquarters of Monsanto Corporation, a corporation that has handed down despair, destruction and death to cotton farmers in Andhra Pradesh through its hyped up sales pitch for Bt Cotton. Small farmers who trusted the propaganda blitz of Monsanto and planted Bt cotton, had all their hopes dashed to the ground, as it started performing disastrously year after year.
When you are addressing the Forum Mr Chief Minister, please share the following results of the sustained independent scientific study that the AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity [APCID] has been carrying out since last five years in the cotton growing areas of the state. They point to an unqualified failure of Bt cotton in AP
In terms of economics:
*To cultivate, Bt cotton cost 17% more than the non Bt cotton
*NPM [non-pesticidal management] farmers, who used neither Bt nor any pesticides on their farms, spent 23% less than Bt farmers.
*In terms of yield, Bt cotton?s advantage was a paltry 6%.
*The net return for Bt farmers was 35% less than NPM farmers
*Reduction in pest management costs, which is the USP [Unique Selling Point] of the Bt industry was another myth. Actually Bt farmers spent 3% more on pest management costs over non-Bt farmers. In fact Bt farmers spent 100% more than NPM farmers to protect their cotton against pests.
*Thus the Bt industry's claim that it has the answer for the pest problem was the biggest lie.
Mr Chief Minister, while disclosing this miserable economics of Bt cotton, please do not forget to tell the World Agricultural Forum that the greatest danger being posed by the Bt cotton to Indian farmers is the never-seen-before diseases that it is spreading on the cotton fields.
*Root Rot disease, which had never affected cotton plants in their century old history has struck Bt cotton plants.
*Tobacco Streak Virus, a new virus infestation, never seen before, has struck Bt cotton in AP and using it as a vector has spread to other cotton fields.
*Bacterial Leaf Blight hit Bt cotton viciously and was more intense on it than non Bt fields
*All these forced farmers to uproot Bt plants from their own fields to detoxify the soil in hundreds of hectares in Nalgonda District.
Mr Chief Minister, you must speak about all this in St Louis. Because that is the Forum which will be used by the Genetic Engineering industry to blow their own trumpets and say how brilliant has been their performance. Already inspired research funded by the GE industry has started saying how great has been the performance of Bt cotton in India. Unless the other side of the picture is brought out, this mega hype will blind people to reality and make them think that Bt cotton has been a God Sent for Indian farmers.
You must also tell the Forum Mr Chief Minister, how the surveys conducted by your own government unambiguously proved that farmers growing Monsanto?s Bt cotton had lost heavily. As a consequence your government ordered Monsanto to pay compensation. You must also tell the world through the Forum that when the arrogant Monsanto flouted your government's orders, you asked them to pack up and get out of AP. This is very significant because a number of weaker nations do not know how to deal with corporate power and arrogance.
It is another matter [and we leave it to your conscience to tell this Forum or not], how President Bush came calling on you and probably twisted your arms behind the scenes and forced your government to readmit Monsanto even if on the ruse of reduced prices. Because the survival of Monsanto and Genetic Engineering is a part of the US foreign policy in the same manner as their aggression in Iraq. They pursue both with a satanic passion and achieve the same result: death of hundreds of thousands of powerless people. If possible, Mr Chief Minister, please make this comparison and tell the world how US politics is so closely intertwined with its desire to control the food and seed industry to maintain its global hegemony.
The reduced price is itself another important story. That your government forced Monsanto to sell its Bt cotton seeds at 40% of its original prices illustrates how profit hungry corporations bleed poor farmers to death by charging unpardonable prices, criminally oblivious to the tragic consequences of their string of lies and hype coupled with back breaking prices of their products. This is important because the Monsantos of the world justify their existence by telling their own countrymen that their biotechnology is meeting the needs of the poor. Right now this is the debate in the UN's Solutions Exchange forum and you won't believe the outright lies and half truths served on this forum on behalf of Bt cotton.
Finally, Mr Chief Minister tell the world through the Forum how your government has taken up Non Pesticidal Management [NPM] of pests as a major plank of your agricultural policy. How this is pursued through one of largest anti poverty programme in the world called VELUGU which is a women-focused initiative. And how brilliantly this programme combines the gendered vision of agriculture where all life forms are seen with deep respect. In this manner, by bringing together the poor, the women and NPM, how your government has been able to redefine agriculture and dispel the myths of genetic engineering as the answer for small farming. This is an important statement to make, Mr Chief Minister. Because in the World Agricultural Forum, you will probably be the only courageous politician who will be able to tell the truth and call the naked US emperor that he is not wearing any clothes at all. You will be shocked to know that US is trying to bring a law which says that Genetically Engineered seeds are organic!! Talk about an Orwellian world!
We wish you the best, Mr Chief Minister and hope that you will keep truth and the interests of millions of the small and marginal farmers of AP above the interests of big farmers and agro chemical industry who will surely try to twist your arm. Please tell all the truths from AP. This is very important for the world to listen.
In solidarity
P V Satheesh

How Safe Is Bt Cotton For Livestock? - By Kavitha Kuruganti - CounterCurrents.org, 1 May 2007
http://www.countercurrents.org/kavitha010507.htm
Not many seem to be aware that a serious controversy is dogging GM crop cultivation in India after repeated reports emerged about livestock getting killed or falling sick after grazing on Bt Cotton fields. The limelight is once again on two important aspects related to GM crops - their safety and their regulation.
As the area of Bt Cotton kept increasing year after year within the Cotton extent in various states, right from 2004-05, there have been reports of goats and sheep taking ill and dying after grazing on these fields. It has to be noted that open-grazing of animals on cotton fields, after the cotton is harvested and before the stalks are removed, is a traditional practice in many parts of the country. Further, given the shrinking grazing lands in villages, open grazing on residual crop plants is unavoidable. No experiences of cotton plants being toxic to animals are present hitherto. It is also important to note that such practices don't exist elsewhere, especially in the developed world from where we seem to import our biosafety assessment protocols. The regulators here obviously did not foresee a situation of open grazing given that they are cut off from the reality of rural India. No studies have been done to this day to test toxicity in conditions that simulate real life open-grazing situation of farmers/shepherds of the country.
In 2006, civil society organizations like the Andhra Pradesh Goatherds & Shepherds Union, Anthra (an organization consisting of veterinary scientists, working on livestock issues) and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (consisting of agriculture scientists working on ecological alternatives in agriculture) pointed out an unusual phenomenon on a widespread scale, of animals falling sick and dying after grazing on residual Bt Cotton fields. Interestingly enough, the fact finding visits of these groups happened after eleven shepherds from eleven different blocks of Warangal district brought their animals to the Animal Diseases Diagnostic Laboratory [ADDL] in Warangal town for postmortem analysis as they found that their animals were dying of unusual symptoms. There was a mix of nervous, respiratory and digestive symptoms observed. Amongst other observations, the concerned veterinary surgeon wrote "Poisoning fed on Bt Cotton", as tentative diagnosis in her postmortem register. It was quite by chance that a representative of the Shepherds Union saw the postmortem register of February and March 2006 and in the month of April, a fact finding visit was commissioned by these three organizations.
The initial response to these reports was ridicule. The reports in 2005 in the local media were completely ignored. How can Bt toxin kill mammals, was the usual argument - it only works on lepidopteran pests with an alkaline medium in the intestines, it was argued. It could be pesticide residues that were causing the toxicity, said others. The shepherds must be making up the reports in a bid to claim insurance, speculated yet others. It seemed as though complete negation of the phenomenon is the only response possible from the regulators and the biotech industry. There was no scientific temper exhibited with regard to wanting to investigate the reports further nor was there a sense of responsibility on the part of the regulators to put speculation at rest, to act in the interest of farmers and shepherds. After all, it was the very livelihoods of poor people at stake here with each death setting the farmer back substantially on the economic front.
Unfortunately, one small team that went to the affected villages on behalf of the animal husbandry department of Andhra Pradesh could not come back with much evidence. The few Bt Cotton plant samples that they analysed tested positive for nitrates and nitrites. Nitrate content was found to be more than 2% [strong positive] and symptoms matching nitrate poisoning.
The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee [GEAC], the apex regulatory body for GM crops in the country whose mandate is to assess the biosafety of every product that it allows for release into the environment, did not pursue the matter beyond discussing it in a couple of meetings, that too under pressure from civil society groups. The Department of Biotechnology [DBT], a strong advocate of GM crops, was instructed by the GEAC to take up a systematic foliar material feeding toxicity study. The DBT found many excuses for not doing so! Other than prescribing such foliar toxicity studies for future biosafety assessment, the GEAC ordered no such studies by the Bt Cotton companies nor did it keep other issues in abeyance until some transparent, scientific, independent and systematic investigations were completed. It was business as usual for the regulators and the industry.
In January 2007, the first reports of animals getting affected started emerging again and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture sent a preliminary assessment report to the GEAC, DBT, animal husbandry and agriculture department officials. In February, in Adilabad district, after coming across the hitherto-unknown phenomenon of animals getting affected after grazing on Bt Cotton fields, the animal husbandry department pro-actively put out an advisory to farmers asking them not to graze their animals on Bt Cotton plants. The department officials here are convinced of the toxicity of the Bt Cotton plant but are waiting for laboratory analyses to understand what the exact toxin at work here is.
What is amazing to hear however is that no protocols have been put in place in the past one year in case such a phenomenon erupts again! The initial samples that have been sent from Adilabad by the department veterinarians have reportedly been rejected since they were not fit for analysis. A special team was then sent to Adilabad for collecting samples and investigations are on to understand the presence of toxins, if any, in these samples. Initial analysis shows that the samples have tested positive for HCN. The investigations will obviously not be conclusive and comprehensive until it is understood wherefrom such nitrogen-compounds are accumulating on Bt Cotton plants. Is it because of the genetic engineering process itself which is known to result in unpredictable effects? Is it related to higher application of nitrogenous fertilizers that farmers are being asked to use on Bt Cotton? Is it a combination of the Bt Cotton plant's interaction with its environment that is resulting in the toxicity and which was never captured in the field trials because such trials are done mostly for agronomic assessment? Aren't there some indications of such a phenomenon in the sub-chronic toxicity test on goats in the case of Bt Brinjal that the crop developer submitted to the GEAC, when statistically significant changes were found in haemotological and clinical parameters - why did not the GEAC ask for the raw data on this?
Farmers whose animals are affected are reporting that because of low pest incidence this year, they have not used much pesticides and in any case, the last time pesticides have been used on the crop, it was in the month of October - if it is pesticide residues that are indeed causing the toxicity, it is important to ask insecticide regulators in the country why they are registering such toxic pesticides in the country which leave such lethal impacts even after four months!
Meanwhile, the GM regulators of the country are guilty of not having paid attention to an unusual phenomenon that farmers are convinced is connected to Bt Cotton [the regulators like listening only to 'experts' sold to corporate science] and for not investigating it systematically. They are also guilty of not keeping farming livelihoods as the central point of their regulation. At least now, there should be transparent, scientific, independent and long term studies to understand this phenomenon now officially recognized by the animal husbandry department officials of Andhra Pradesh. Until such studies show conclusively that the causes of this phenomenon lie elsewhere, no further GM crop development and releases should be allowed in the country.
[Kavitha Kuruganti is with Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad]

ARE REGULATORS FOR REGULATING OR FOR POPULARISING GM CROPS? - Press Release, May 1 2007
Hyderabad/Bathinda, May 1, 2007: Reacting to media reports on several GM regulators in the country themselves claiming huge benefits from GM crops, that too in the name of "trainings on biosafety", Kheti Virasat Mission and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture questioned the role of regulators of GE crops in the country. Are they meant to take objective, scientific and pro-people assessment of the impacts of GE or are they meant to popularize GM crops as though the verdict is already out, the civil society organisations asked. The two groups which are part of the Coalition for GM-Free India also questioned the role of World Bank in such 'biosafety capacity-building' projects, one of which is being implemented by the Ministry of Environment & Forests through the Global Environment Facility.
"It is not clear on what basis are such claims of benefits being made such as pesticide reduction or farmers shifting away from water-guzzling crops like rice (linked to Bt Cotton adoption!) when we know very well that monitoring of GMOs right from field trials stage is almost completely absent/unscientific in this country", said Ms Kavitha Kuruganti, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, based in Hyderabad. She said that given the absence of monitoring (absence of political will as well as capabilities) it had fallen upon civil society groups to take up careful monitoring of the GM experience so far in the country.
"Hundreds of farmers are reporting health problems like skin allergies but the government chooses not to assess such impacts and therefore will always claim that there is no authentic report. A report from Madhya Pradesh by a team of doctors has been submitted to GEAC on this issue - as a member of GEAC how can Dr Ananda Kumar claim that there is no such report from any part of the cotton belt. They said the same thing with impacts on livestock after open grazing on Bt Cotton fields. Today, the animal husbandry department of Andhra Pradesh state government itself is advising farmers not to graze their animals on Bt Cotton fields suspecting some yet-to-be-identified toxin in the GM plant", she added.
Umendra Dutt of Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab further pointed out, "Mr Balachandran, Joint Secretary, MoEF (who claimed yesterday in Chandigarh that Bt Cotton resulted in the focus shifting away from water guzzling crops like rice) is the same person who admitted recently in an international context that India faces a major constraint due to the lack of capacity to effectively implement the Biosafety Protocol. [1] It is surprising that without setting up effective systems or without actually building capacities related to biosafety assessment and without justifying the source of his claims, he can get so enthusiastic about GM crops", he said. "If adoption is equal to something being 'biosafe', pesticides should also be encouraged by the regulators", he argued.
"It seems that most regulators who are supposed to be independent, scientific and pro-people in their assessment of this particular agricultural technology have already concluded in favour of the technology rath