15 November 2004 - Bayer pulls out of Genetic Engineering Research in India; Admits to Greenpeace the Future is in 'Conventional' Breeding
Indian President Supports Transgenic Technology, But Sounds A Note Of Caution
Exporters Cautious Over Worries On GM Food - Food Industry To Maintain Image Of Being Supplier Of Non-GM Foods
Future Of GM Crops Uncertain Despite Govt Project On Transgenic Foods
New Asian Experiences Of Food Security
Announcement of Release of GE Potato in India is Premature
Southern Cotton Becoming Bt Resistant
A new scientific study of GM (Bt) cotton production in Andhra Pradesh
The lobby interests of MNCs can rule the roost
A lesson from the field
AP Govt to fight Bt companies in court - http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=75290
Hyderabad: The Andhra Pradesh Government today announced it would move MRPC over the issue of ''abnormally high trait value'' imposed by the multinational Monsanto and other companies selling genetically-modified Bacillus Thuringensis (BT) cotton seeds to farmers. Agriculture Minister N Raghuveera Reddy told a press conference here that a leading advocate had been engaged to file the petition before the Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRPC) on January two against Mahyco, Monsanto, Proagro, Raasi, Nuzividu and Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech Ltd.
Upset with the Centre allowing field trials of Bt ladies finger without taking the State Government into confidence, it had taken up the matter with the Union Government, he said, adding, ''We need to be informed for monitoring whether the field trials are being carried out as per the conditions laid down by the Centre.'' Pointing out that though no patent rights were granted for multinational companies producing Bt cotton in India, they were charging 300 times of the bare seed cost, Mr Reddy said adding that the trait value charged was much lower in other countries.
''We will fight to the finish to protect the interest of farmers.'' Seed producing farmers were getting only Rs 200 to Rs 250 for a pack of 450 gm from MNCs and their subsidiaries, which provided source material, and charging over Rs 1250 as trait value was totally unjust, he said. Bt cotton seeds worth Rs 129.95 crore were sold in the state since 2001-02.
Replying to a question, he said Mahyco had been blacklisted for not paying compensation of Rs three crore fixed by the Government for farmers who lost their crops growing Bt cotton during 2003, following a study by an independent team of scientists. Making it clear that the State Government was not against technology per se, and was ready to take up genetically-modified crops in a big way, he said it would not allow companies to fleece the farmers.
NGOs unearth non-transpareny in GM Crops field trials - High incidence of pests in Bt Okra
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content-id=112815
ASHOK B SHARMA - Posted online: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 at 0054 hours IST
NEW DELHI, DEC 27: The Hyderabad-based Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) has found high incidence of several diseases and pest on Bt Okra under field trials in Narakoduru village in Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh. The CSA team led by Gangadhar Vagmare, Ram Prasad and Kavitha Kuruganti found incidence of bacterial leaf spot, cercospora leaf spot, yellow vein mosaic, spotted bollworm, powdery mildew, spodoptera, jassids, aphids and white fly on Bt Okra developed by Mahyco. The CSA team noted that so far there had been four sprays of pesticide as per the admissions made by the farmer and a employee of Mahyco.
Field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops in India have always been shrouded in secrecy and mystery Such field trials are usually not publicly declared. This gives almost no opportunity to the general public about the on-the–spot verification of the required biosafety norms to be followed and the accuracy of the data to be generated on basis of the trials.
Ms Kuruganti said that the CSA team visited the field of a farmer, Ardula Koteswara Rao in Narakoduru village in Guntur District in Andhra Pradesh. She said : “This is probably the first time since 2001-02 that a GM food crop is being tested in a farmer’s field rather than in greenhouses and campuses of companies and agri-research institutes.” The trial is being conducted on a 40-cent plot leased in from the farmer by Mahyco. The farmer has been paid Rs 7000 as lease rent, she said and added : “the local farmer’s body, Rythu Sangam has already begun protesting against the field trial which is violating all biosafety norms. The farmer was not informed that the company would conduct trials of a GM food crop.” The CSA team has reported that the concerned farmer and his family consumed the untested and not-yet-cleared-for-safety Bt Okra from the trial plots at least twice, without knowning the consequences. The CSA team reported a series of violation of biosafety norms The CSA team noted that the sowing began onAugust 7, 2005 as per Mr Brahma Raju, an employee of Mahyco. The seeds were first grown in nursery bags and later transplanted. The transplanting took place quite late in the season as compared to the usual sowing time, according to the farmer.
Report of a Fact Finding Visit to Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh
Objective: To look at the performance of Bt Cotton in Guntur district of Andhra Pradesh
Details: The visit was made by Mr Ramprasad (Entomologist) and Ms Kavitha Kuruganti of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture on 22nd and 23rd November, 2005.
Villages visited include Pedapalakalur, Perecherla, Nidumukkala, Endrayi, Tallacheruvu and Achampeta. In addition to farmers in these villages, farmers spoken to include ones from Cherukupalem, Chamarthi, Kothapalli and Mittapalem of Achampeta block. The team also saw field trials of Bt Cotton in Jangamguntlapalem (Krishidhan Seeds) and Kantepudi (Pravardhan Seeds).
Fields of Bunny Bt Cotton, RCH2 Bt Cotton, J K Durga and Bhaskar [non-Bt Cotton], Super Bunny [non-Bt Cotton], illegal Bt Cotton like "Brahma Bt", "Rudra Bt", "Kurnool Bt" and field trials of Pravardhan Seeds and Krishidhan Seeds were visited during the visit.
Findings of the visit:
· Nearly all the farmers met during the visit felt that Bt Cotton fared worse than non-Bt Cotton this year, especially in terms of economics and yields.
· Farmers consistently reported that Bt Cotton is stress-intolerant and could not withstand heavy rains. While some farmers attributed the far-less-than-promised performance to rains, others had already made a comparison with non-Bt Cotton fields which were showing more tolerance to the excessive rains and had observed that Bt Cotton was decidedly worse.
· There were some fields where illegal Bt Cotton was better than approved Bt Cotton, as per the farmers.
· In a village like Nidumukkala, except for some demonstration plots by Bt Cotton companies, the rest of the village has gone in for unapproved Bt Cotton. It was not just monocropping of Bt Cotton, but monocropping of unapproved hybrids here. Farmers are not satisfied with what they are obtaining and many reported that they would go in for a mix of Bt and non-Bt Cotton next year.
· Data from the department indicates that Rasi Seeds had sold around 35000 packets, while Nuziveedu Seeds had sold around 2000 packets of approved Bt Cotton. Most sales were in Piduguralla, Narasaraopeta and Macherla areas. The total cotton area reported by the agriculture department is around 97 thousand hectares in Guntur district this year. While the department has sales figures only for approved Bt Cotton, our own visits to villages indicate that at least 60-80% cotton land in many villages is under Bt Cotton, including unapproved Bt Cotton hybrids. There were some germination failure cases of Bunny Bt Cotton at the beginning of the season and the company had compensated some farmers through seed replacement.
· While the cost per acre for Bt Cotton as well as non-Bt Cotton hovered around Rs. 10,000/acre, the average yields being reported by farmers with Bt Cotton were around 4-7 quintals, while non-Bt Cotton yields are around 7-10 quintals/acre.
· Farmers had sprayed upto 12-13 times on Bt Cotton. For instance, B Prasad Babu of Pedapalakalur had sprayed 13 times and had also applied fertilizers four times. Farmers have also said that fertilizer application for Bt Cotton was higher.
· We came across the case of a farmer whose advertisement appeared in the papers that day, claiming 15 quintals of produce from his Bunny Bt Cotton farm, while the farmer had harvested only 2 quintals uptil then [Mr T Prasanna Kumar, Nidumukkala]. He expects another eight quintals or so only. His cost of cultivation per acre is around 18000/- rupees per acre and his ten quintals of produce might just about fetch a return of Rs. 18000/-. Incidentally, his first two quintals of produce were sold for only Rs. 1500/quintal. This might mean that the farmer the company is showcasing for other farmers in their publicity may not even break even! Only the yield of ten quintals is being talked about ? the farmer in this case had applied nearly three times the usual fertilizer application on cotton. There were also seven sprays of chemical pesticides on this plot by the time of our visit. Included in his cost of cultivation mentioned here are land lease costs of Rs. 6000/acre
· Other farmers like Manchineni Ram Mohan Rao who had gone in for "Kurnool Bt Cotton" [unapproved Bt Cotton] in the same village had spent upto Rs. 15000/acre, including on 15 sprays of pesticides. So far, he has obtained only 2 quintals per acre and expects only around 5 more. The market rate for cotton is ranging around Rs. 1200/quintal to Rs. 1700/-. In Achampeta, farmers like Ala Koteswara Rao had spent around Rs. 10,000/acre with yields hovering only around 1-2 quintals/acre
· A meeting with a large number of farmers in the outlet of Vinay Sai Traders in Achampeta town found that most farmers have had unsatisfactory experience with Bt Cotton ? both approved and unapproved. Expenditure per acre was around Rs. 10,000/- to 12,000/- for most farmers here. The number of pesticide sprays was around 7-8. The yields were however in the range of 2-4 quintals only. Non-Bt Cotton farmers with expenses in the same range reported higher yields of upto 6-7 quintals/acre.
· Bt Cotton farmers reported high incidence of sucking pests like aphids, jassids, whitefly and diseases like black arm and leaf spot. There is severe reddening of the crop witnessed in many locations
· Many farmers opined that Bt Cotton's stress intolerance has to be balanced with non-Bt Cotton and its ability to withstand stress. For next year, farmers interviewed are of the opinion that a shift to maize might be better. Many farmers also felt that a mix of Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton might ensure better results.
CONCLUSIONS:
· Bt Cotton's stress intolerance was clear when fields of Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton right adjacent to each other were inspected in Achampeta. With the same growing conditions, Bt Cotton's vulnerability to higher incidence of sucking pests and diseases was obvious here.
· The economics of Bt Cotton was more adverse than on non-Bt Cotton. In this district, most farmers had spent more on Bt Cotton in terms of seed cost [for approved Bt Cotton] and on fertilizers. The difference in pesticide sprays between Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton was only in the range of 3-4 sprays, that too on inexpensive pesticides. Both Bt cotton growers and non-Bt Cotton growers had to go in for expensive pesticides.
· For thousands of illegal Bt Cotton growers, there are no accountability mechanisms that could hold the sellers liable for the losses incurred.
· Even for the ones who went in for approved Bt Cotton, unless the government makes a better analysis of the technology and its shortcomings, there may not be much reprieve.
In this context, the government has to pro-actively assess the performance of Bt Cotton in comparison to non-Bt Cotton, understand the technology and its full ramifications and support the farmers in making informed choices rather than allow unilateral aggressive propaganda in favour of Bt Cotton.
Bt Cotton in Khammam: A fact finding report
Objective: To investigate into the widespread disease and pest damage in Bt Cotton being reported by farmers in Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh.
A team of agriculture scientists from Centre for Sustainable Agriculture [CSA] consisting of Dr. Raghunath (entomologist) and Mr.Zakir Hussain (pathologist) and Mr Ramesh, Field Coordinator of SECURE, a local NGO visited Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh to investigate the performance of Bt cotton this season. This team visited Palvancha (Pattinagar village), Burgumpahad (Lakshmipuram and Sanjeevreddypalem village) and Julurupad (Kommugudem and Karrivaripalem villages) mandals of Khammam district on 18th and 19th of November. The team had discussions with and visited fields of Bt cotton farmers, non-Bt cotton farmers, input-agents and farmers growing illegal Bt cotton.
Findings:
· This season, there was high rainfall with floods in Khammam district and the incidence of Helicoverpa is less compared to last year.
· Sucking pest incidence was severe in all the cotton fields and secondary pest outbreak is more in these areas. There is outbreak of spodoptera (tobacco caterpillar) and Sylapta derogate (Cotton leaf roller) in Khammam district. These are normally minor pests in cotton but have become major pests this year. In fact the severity of these pests is more in Bt cotton fields compared to Non-Bt cotton fields.
· Coming to sucking pests, the incidence of Jassids is severe in Bt cotton compared to Non-Bt cotton. There is 50-60% damage in Bt cotton due to jassids. The leaves in Bt cotton have become red and plants are stunted in growth. There are only 15-20 bolls/plant in Bt cotton compared to 40-50 bolls in Non-Bt cotton. The Bt cotton fields are stunted in growth and appeared like red bushes with minimum Bolls.
· This year, according to official reports from Department of Agriculture, about 80% of the cotton area has been planted with illegal Bt Cotton and farmers popularly call it as "GUDDA Bt". There are around 20000 acres of area in Khammam district under legal Bt Cotton. The remaining area is under Non-Bt Cotton which includes other commercial Hybrids.
· In these various kinds of Bt and non-Bt Cotton, the worst hit cotton plots are Legal Bt cotton fields viz., RCH-2 Bt and Bunny?Bt with Jassids and secondary pests like Spodoptera and Sylapta. This clearly shows that minor pests that were not causing major damage have become major due to Bt-Cotton.
"Bt-Cotton is not suitable to our climatic situations and we became fools by growing Bt cotton this year", says Chilukuri Nageswara Rao a pesticide dealer and commission agent of Lakshmipuram village of Burgumpahad. "Non-Bt is giving more yields and crop is healthy compared to Bt Cotton which has become reddened", says Badeti Radhamma of Nakeerpet of Burgumpahad. Several farmers complained that they incurred severe losses by growing Bt Cotton this year.
"I am ready to commit suicide", an RCH-2 Bt farmer by name Bhukya Mangithya of Kommugudem cried out in frustration. "I have grown Mahyco Bt Cotton last year and I have not made any profit out of it. This year, with a lot of hope I opted for RCH-2 Bt Cotton as suggested by the local commission agents. The result is that I suffered a huge loss and till date, I got only 2 quintals and I may get another 1 quintal extra, per acre. When I took this cotton to the market, the buyers are saying that the cotton quality is poor and I got only Rs.700/quintal. How can I survive with Rs. 1400 this year?". He said that he spent nearly Rs.77000 on the 7 acres on which he has grown Bt Cotton and in return, got only Rs.19600. "I am panicking now, not knowing what to do. My family members have already become agriculture labourers. In this situation, there is no other way except committing suicide", he said.
"Our entire village has opted only for Bt-Cotton this year. Now, we are waiting for any Bt Cotton company representative to come back to us so that we can tie him up in our village" says Vadda Venkata Narayana of Karrivarigudem, a village adjacent to Kommugudem. "We opted for Bt Cotton as commission agents spread the message that Bt Cotton can control pink bollworm also and instead, our fields became red carpets" added Daravath Raamulu of the same village.
When the Fact Finding Team was discussing with a farmer of Bt cotton in Sanjeevreddy palem village of Burgumpahad mandal, a team of Field Assistants of a Bt Cotton company came to the field. Finally they said to the farmer, "Brother, you spray Tracer once and your crop will yield tremendously. In the next village, there is a Bunny Bt Cotton plot where each plant has 200 bolls. You should also go for Bunny Bt Cotton next year". This is the way by which the next year's ground is being laid for the next year to lure farmers towards Bunny Bt cotton.
The FFT also sought to understand why so many farmers have opted for Bt Cotton this year. Some of the points that emerged are:
· It is promoted as a variety instead of a GE crop
· Propaganda by industry that it solves major pest problems like Pink bollworm
· Some are spreading news that Non-Bt Cotton cannot survive between Bt Cotton fields all around. This forces everyone to shift to Bt Cotton
· False message about very high yields of Bt-Cotton in some plots in neighboring villages
· Credit support by commission agents and input agencies for the farmers growing Bt cotton.
Finally, instead of a proper analysis of the situation, the rumors being spread are that RCH-2 Bt Cotton has failed completely and that Bunny Bt Cotton performed better. Next year, many farmers are planning to go for Bunny-Bt Cotton in a big way and the Company has already started advertising about Bunny Bt Cotton in the villages.
CONCLUSIONS:
It is evident from the fact finding visit that Bt Cotton has badly failed the farmers. Even their cost of cultivation has not been covered this year and many farmers are ready to commit suicides.
The incidence of sucking pests and secondary pests has been damagingly high on Bt Cotton. This is something that needs deep investigations from the government. Farmers have to be advised accordingly, based on these investigations so that they are not lured by aggressive marketing which does not mention all these shortcomings and hazards of Bt Cotton.
This struggle will be as long as the policy environment (of government extension agencies and universities) blindly supports Bt Cotton without making scientific assessments on the need and desirability of bringing in Bt Cotton and its impacts.
It is also clear that Bt Cotton companies have begun their aggressive marketing once again, targeted to maximize sales for next year.
Agriculture cannot be allowed to become a gamble that farmers take, full of unpredictability of success or failure. Bt Cotton certainly is a game of unpredictability, with its established extreme uneven performance across years and its extreme stress intolerance. Farmers have to be protected pro-actively from such technologies.
The government should also make immediate moves to get the companies to pay compensation to all loss-incurring farmers, for bringing in a defective technology and hyping it up as the magical solution for all the problems that farmers are facing.
A DISASTER CALLED BT COTTON - Suman Sahai - The Times of India, 1 December 2005
Two days ago the government admitted for the first time that Bt cotton had indeed failed in parts of India. The Agriculture Minister conceded in the Rajya Sabha that Bt cotton had failed in Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh. He asked state governments in all cotton growing regions to constitute an enquiry into the quality of seeds available to farmers and the spread of spurious seeds. At the same time, in Madhya Pradesh, the Governor has asked the state government to find out the causes of the failure of Bt cotton and called for compensation to farmers. The Mahyco-Monsanto and Rasi varieties of Bt cotton have reportedly failed in large parts of Madhya Pradesh causing serious losses to farmers. A report from Nimad district in Madhya Pradesh states that Bt cotton is causing allergic reactions in those coming into contact with it and cattle have perished near Bt cotton fields in another district.
Reports of the failure of Bt cotton have been coming in steadily after the harvest of the first crop of 2002-2003. Gene Campaign's study of the first Bt cotton harvest in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra had shown that 60% of the farmers who cultivated Bt cotton in these regions had suffered such losses that they could not even recover their investment. Several agencies including governmental and non-governmental organisations, independent media groups, academic institutions and state governments have been reporting that Bt cotton is failing in many parts of the country. Based on the Andhra Pradesh government's report of Bt cotton failure, the state has banned the sale of the Mahyco-Monsanto varieties of Bt cotton because it caused large scale losses to farmers. Recently a 20 member group of NGOs have conducted surveys in several cotton growing regions and found the seed had failed to germinate in many places like Tamil Nadu, so farmers had to buy expensive Bt cotton seed two, even three times to sow their crops. In addition, wilt which started in Bt cotton fields in Madhya Pradesh was now found to be spreading. The reasons for this are not yet known.
In addition to these reports came scientific data that showed why the Bt cotton crop was failing in India. The Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur, published a paper to show that India?s Bt cotton technology is faulty and inadequate to protect India?s cotton crops where the major pest is the bollworm. Bt cotton hybrids being produced in India were found to be unstable and unpredictable and not very effective against the bollworm because the Bt technology being used here was created for the US, to protect America's cotton crops against its major pest, the tobacco budworm, not the bollworm.
The CICR study says that poor Bt cotton performance in India is also likely to be due to the fact that in India, Bt cotton is produced as hybrids , not true varieties, like in China, Australia and South Africa. Indian regulators must also answer why hybrids are being promoted, when they will force the farmer to buy seeds for every new planting? Why did the GEAC not take the decision that only true breeding varieties of Bt cotton would be permitted in India, not only because they perform better but also because they would be a cheaper option for farmers who could save seeds for the next harvest?
Along with these developments is the continuing spread of illegal Bt cotton varieties which began with the appearance of Navbharat 151 in Gujarat some years ago but which has since proliferated into a number of variants being bred in several parts of the country. Now, Bt cotton varieties are being sold which do not even contain the Bt gene. Farmers are being fooled by unscrupulous seed providers and no action is taken against them by the principal regulating authority, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). The GEAC has failed to check the problem of illegal seeds, it refuses to answer queries from the public or share information with it. The GEAC has further refused to press for compensation for losses suffered by farmers; instead, it has continued to release a slew of new Bt cotton varieties even though it knows that the cultivation of Bt cotton is taking place without the implementation of the mandated insect refuge management strategy that the GEAC itself has prescribed.
Even as these issues remain unaddressed, comes the report that the GEAC has already approved the first stage of tests of the new Monsanto cotton, Bollgard II which contains not one Bt gene, as the older varieties but two. Monsanto has been given permission for the final field trials for Bollgard II, which it boasts is "ten times better" than the older Bt cotton. Monsanto, government scientists and members of the GEAC would be fully aware that scientific papers in prestigious journals have already pointed out that the one gene Bt cotton and the two gene Bt cotton cannot be cultivated in the same region, they cannot coexist. If they are made to do so, the development of resistance in the bollworm will be very rapid and the technology will fail even faster than predicted earlier.
Scientists recommend that if the two-gene Bt cotton is to be introduced, the one that Monsanto claims is "ten times better", the existing one gene Bt cotton must be withdrawn from cultivation. It does not need a genius to figure out that this is absolutely impossible in India. Where we have failed to check the spread of illegal variants, does some one seriously believe that all the existing legal and illegal one gene Bt cottons can be withdrawn from farmers fields? Will companies who have licensed the expensive one gene technology from Monsanto and are just bringing their varieties to the market, be prepared to abandon their investments so that Monsanto can be exclusively allowed to plant its two gene Bt cotton? Or does the GEAC simply not care what happens to the farmer, so far as Monsanto gets to release its varieties?
The Bt cotton saga has gone on long enough, so has the obduracy of government's regulatory agencies and their anti-farmer stance. Scientific evidence is disregarded; field reports of crop failures seem to make no dent. What will it take to get a policy on GM crops in this country that work for the farmers, not against them? If Bt cotton is a technology that could benefit our farmers, it should be developed for Indian conditions, farmers must be adequately trained in the use of this complex and alien technology and provisions for compensation in the event of crop failure must be rigorously enforced.
Debate rages over Bt cotton - Sanjay Tiwari - NDTV (India), Wednesday, November 30, 2005
http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?category=National&slug=Debate+rages+over+Bt+cotton&id=81889
(Nagpur):
In Vidharbha's cotton fields, a debate is raging over genetically modified cotton or Bt cotton, which claims to be pest resistant. Farmers like Marutrao Admane bought and planted Bt cotton after the cotton department aggressively promoted it, but pests infested their crop. When Admane called the seed company, they asked him to spray pesticides, but that didn't help either. "The bollworm still attacked the plants. The flowers fell twice, first during Pola festival and then after the unseasonal rains," he said. Spraying pesticides defeats the whole purpose of buying Bt cotton, as the seed is about four times more expensive than the normal cotton seed and is supposed to save money on pesticides.
Spurious seeds
Bt cotton seeds were made by American company Monsanto and after several rounds of testing, the seed was cleared for use in India. Indian seed companies then got licenses to make their own version of Bt cotton. In Maharashtra, for instance, farmers can choose from seven versions of Bt cotton seeds, among them Banni, Raasi and Mahabeej. However, BM Khadi, Director, Institute of Cotton Research, claims that illegal or spurious versions of Bt cotton have entered the market and that's why the crop is getting attacked by pests. "Those who have bought genuine seeds have faced no problems. Only those who have procured spurious seeds from unknown agencies are in trouble," said Khadi.
Farmers desperate
But farmers like Admane say they bought the official version and still got attacked by pests. And as farmers' suicides cross the 180 mark this year, the debate is getting more and more explosive. Desperate to reduce some of their debt burden, farmers opted for the Bt cotton variety this time. But they hardly hope to get even 1/4th of their crop. Adding to their woes, even the state government has refused to hike the cotton prices this year.
Greenpeace seeks total ban on field trials of GE food crops - New Delhi, November 29, 2005
http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=176243&cat=India
Greenpeace has demanded a total ban on all field trials of genetic engineering food crops aimed at preventing it from entering the food chains in the country and also unveiled the 'biohazard hotspots map' of India revealing the shocking scale of field trials of Genetically Engineering (GE) of food crops.
After meeting the Health Minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss today, Greenpeace GE Campaigner Divya Raghunandan told reporters here that ''Greenpeace activists have sought urgent intervention of the Minister to ban all field trials of GE Food crops in the country.'' The Greenpeace expressed concerns on various revelations occurred during trials in the foreign countries which were dangerous to health.
The map, a result of Greenpeace investigations revealed that 21 vegetables including brinjal, cabbage, tomato, cereals including kabuli channa and pigeon peas and fruits like banana, musk melon and water melon are being genetically engineered in at least 26 institutions in 16 cities, she added. ''The Australian research clearly demonstrates that GE is a dangerous technology. Unexpected and unpredicted effects can occur with far reaching implications to the environment, animal and human health. Our wheat, pigeon pea and chick pea is exposed to rsearch and similar genes and the Ministry of Health must prevail upon the Ministry of Science and Technology to abandon this and other such irresponsible experiments,'' said Ms Raghunandan.
The presumption of safety with foreign genes in our food is dangerous. Instead of taking a precautionary approach, the scale and scope of research on GMOs in the country suggests that the government would soon allow commercial cultivation of these dangerous foods, the Greenpeace Campaigner said and added, ''If urgent action is not taken, it is feared that within two years the government will allow atleast one of these crops to be sold in the markets.'' She also said ''lack of transparency is preventive effective public scrutiny. Public health is at risk and the government must make available all data from all institutions, including private ones on health and safety impacts of rsearch on GMOs for public scrutiny by independent scientists.''
The 2004 Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) clearly states that ''various uncertainties exist regarding the safety of these foods, because there is limited scientific evidence regarding their toxicity or health risks, the methodology used for assessing the risk is not robust enough or sensitive enough and the molecular and genetic effects of the technology are unpredictable in nature,'' Ms Raghunandan said. She urged the Ministries of Health and Science and Technology that the New Biotech Policy should be reoriented to focus on biosafety concerns and risks to health caused by GE foods.
Centre [ie central government] admits failure of Bt cotton in 2 States - Gargi Parsai - The Hindu, Nov 27 2005
http://www.hindu.com/2005/11/27/stories/2005112716091200.htm
State Governments to take action against producers, suppliers of spurious seeds *The GEAC has not renewed permission for cultivation of three Cotton Mahyco [Monsanto's partner in India] hybrids
*Tamil Nadu Government advised to constitute special flying squads to prevent sale of illegal seeds
*Andhra Pradesh seeks compensation amounting to Rs. 3.84 crores from Monsanto-Mahyco NEW DELHI:
The Government on Friday conceded the failure of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. Subsequently, permission for sale of the Monsanto-Mahyco varieties of MECH seeds had not been renewed for Andhra Pradesh this kharif. The Centre has asked the cotton-growing State Governments to take action against producers, suppliers and vendors of spurious Bt cotton seeds that have failed to germinate or are non-Bt cotton seeds being sold in the name of transgenic seeds at exorbitant prices. It has also asked States to monitor the performance of Bt cotton by constituting State level and district level coordination committees. Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar told the Rajya Sabha that the Andhra Pradesh Government had reported large-scale complaints against Bt cotton seeds that had failed in Warangal district and other parts of the State during kharif 2004 causing losses to farmers. The State Government had sought compensation amounting to Rs. 3.84 crores from Monsanto-Mahyco. The company had appealed before the State-level Memorandum of Understanding Committee and the High Court.
The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has not renewed permission for cultivation of three Mahyco cotton hybrids, including Bt MECH-12, Bt MECH-162, Bt MECH-184 for Andhra Pradesh. The State Government has imposed a ban on sale of Bt cotton hybrids of the company during kharif 2005. In Rajasthan too some Bt cotton had performed poorly due to inadequate rain, a long dry spell and high temperature during the crop's growth period, the Minister said. The Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) in Nagpur has been notified as referral laboratory for detecting the presence or absence of Bt gene in the cotton seeds. The Department of Seed Certification in Tamil Nadu has also established a laboratory for similar purpose in Coimbatore. The State Governments have been advised to constitute special flying squads to prevent sale of illegal Bt.cotton seeds and undertake massive campaigns to educate farmers on the subject.
India : Failure of Bt cotton turns farmers' hopes down - Nov 25 2005 - http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/textile-news/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=9001
Failure of Bt cotton in Madhya Pradesh has not only afflicted farmers but also put the highest office on its toe in the state. The governor, Balram Jakhar has asked the state government to find out the reasons of failure of Bt cotton. Farmers had purchased Bt cottonseeds at excessive prices with a hope that they would earn high profits with it. But their hopes turned down and now farmers are in losses and become debtors. He added that he has requested the state to look into the sale of seeds and catch the persons responsible for the situation. Sufficient compensation should be given to the farmers to make up their loss. Jakhar is the chairman of Bharat Krishak Samaj, the largest farmers' association of country. There is occurrence of wilt on Bt cotton fields in Badwani-Thikri area in Madhya Pradesh in this season. This triggers heavy losses to farmers of Mech 162 Bt, Mech 184 Bt, Mech 6301 Bt and RCH 2 Bt. A network of 20 local NGOs has carried out a study and found out that wilt is now spreading to non-Bt cotton fields from Bt cotton fields. The network of NGOs dismissed that wilt is a result of any abiotic or a fault in farmers' techniques in Bt cotton farming.
Governor asks MP govt to probe failure of Bt cotton - ASHOK B SHARMA - Financial Express, November 24, 2005
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=109530
NEW DELHI, NOV 23: Farmers' distress arising out of the failure of Bt cotton In Madhya Pradesh has drawn the attention of the highest office in the state. The governor, Balram Jakhar has asked the state government to find out the causes for failure of Bt cotton which has landed farmers into indebtedness and heavy losses. Speaking to FE, Mr Jakhar said, "I have asked the state government to find out the causes of failure of Bt cotton. Farmers had purchased Bt cotton seeds at exhorbitantly higher prices with a hope that it would give better yields. But matters have turned different and now farmers are in losses and pushed into indebtedness." He added, "I have asked the state government to investigate the sale of seeds and find out the persons responsible for the situation. The farmers need to be adequately compensated for the losses." Mr Jakhar is the ex-officio chairman of the country's largest farmers' body, Bharat Krishak Samaj.
According to reports, there is incidence of wilt on Bt cotton fields in Badwani-Thikri belt in Madhya Pradesh in the current season, causing heavy losses to growers of Mech 162 Bt, Mech 184 Bt, Mech 6301 Bt and RCH 2 Bt. A study done by a network of over 20 local NGOs found that wilt phenomenon is now spreading to non-Bt cotton fields from Bt cotton fields. The network of NGOs ruled out that wilt is a result of any abiotic or as a short-coming in farmers? practices with Bt cotton.
Bt cotton causing allergic reaction in MP; cattle dead - Bhopal, Nov 23 2005 - http://news.webindia123.com/news/showdetails.asp?id=170692&cat=Health
Genetically-modified Bt Cotton, used for farming in Madhya Pradesh's Nimad region, is causing allergic ailments among people even as cattle have reportedly perished after consuming its seeds. The disturbing fact surfaced recently at a public hearing organised by Dhar district's Krishi Upaj Mandi. As per a scientist's report, presented during the hearing, at least 14 milch animals perished and several cultivators fill ill. It was alleged that use of the seeds led to a rise in cases of skin diseases.
On the other hand, state Director (Agriculture) L P Patel expressed ignorance over the news but assured that the government would order an inquiry if ''such incidents actually occurred''. ''Those gathering, lifting and even touching the cotton were suffering from victims of allergy. Mr Amulya Nidhi, who is undertaking a study in Dhar and Badwani districts, mentioned complaints of allergy,'' said social activist Ashish Gupta who was present at the hearing. Farmers' skin turned red, swelling occurred, eyes reddened and breathlessness was experienced. Some victims suffered a burning sensation in the eyes, watering, itching, swelling of eyelashes, sneezing and running noses.
Presenting Mr Nidhi's report of four villages within Dhar and Badwani districts, Dr Gupta claimed that the former chanced upon 23 patients, including ten severe cases, who suffered symptoms within about five hours of touching the cotton. ''The study revealed that persons who covered their body parts remained unaffected. Bhura Bai of Dhar district's Khaparkheda village said that her entire family was severely hit, while handling the crop, and had to be hospitalised. A poisonous bacterial gene was introduced in the cotton and is killing caterpillars,'' he added.
Paying the price of Bt Cotton - C Rajasekhar - The Hindustan Times, November 21, 2005
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/5922_1553438,0015002100000000.htm
(The author is Assistant Professor, National Law Institute University, Bhopal)
APPARENTLY, Bt cotton has come with a huge price tag attached - Bt cotton farmers in Nimar are supposed to have lost about Rs 400 crore, as nearly half of the crop grown on about 4 lakh acres has wilted. What is Bt cotton and what is the genesis of the present controversy? Bt cotton is a genetically engineered cotton seed that contains a gene akin to the common soil bacteria, bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which produces a toxin lethal to the cotton pest, bollworm. The controversy began in 1998 when the joint venture, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd (Mahyco) - Monsanto Biotech Limited (MMBL) - started its field trials of Bt cotton in nine states including MP without the written approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).
In March 2002, regulatory approval was given to Bt cotton for commercial cultivation on the grounds that the Bt cotton field trials gave greater yields, generated higher incomes for farmers and required lesser pesticide sprays than non-Bt cotton crop. Mysteriously, the detailed results of the field trials have still not been disclosed to the public.
A recent survey conducted by the Beej Swraj Abhiyan in association with two NGOs, Sampark and WASP in Jhabua and Dhar districts, belie the tall claims made by Bt cotton seed makers. While Bt cotton growers incurred an expenditure of Rs 2127.13 per acre on fertilisers, wages, pesticides and irrigation, non-Bt cotton farmers spent just Rs 1014.86 per acre. While a 450-gm packet of Bt cotton seed cost around Rs 1600-2000, a non-Bt cotton packet cost between Rs 400-500. Moreover, the difference in pesticide sprays for both Bt cotton sprays and non-Bt cotton sprays was not statistically significant. Finally, Bt cotton growers earned a net profit of Rs 1493.53 per acre, non Bt cotton farmers earned Rs 2663.12 per acre, that is, about 75 per cent more. Clearly, in economic terms, Bt cotton farmers have been left high and dry!
The episode also indicates a complete regulatory failure - though the National Biotechnology regulatory regime provides for State Biotechnology Coordination Committees and district-level committees on paper, in practice they have proved completely ineffective. However, the most disturbing feature is the transformation of the character of farming in the State ? instead of maximising food security and ecological security, farmers are being induced by private sector seed or agribusiness companies to grow profit maximising cash crops without a proper assessment of costs, benefits and risks.
While the NGOs have demanded that the State Government secures compensation from seed companies, it may be legally difficult to do so, as farmers have purchased these seeds from the companies in their personal capacity. Nevertheless, Agriculture Minister Gopal Bhargava must immediately appoint a committee comprising agriculture scientists, top-ranking agriculture officials, geneticists and representatives of NGOs and farmers to probe the issue thoroughly.
Amongst other things, the committee could seek the results of the field trials done by MMBL in the State; share information with Southern states like AP and Karnataka about their experiences with Bt cotton; collect data on area and output under commercial cultivation of Bt and non-Bt cotton crop in the State, the yields per acre, incomes of farmers and quality of Bt and non-Bt cotton crop and a full biodiversity assessment of Bt cotton crop including the frequency of pesticide sprays, its effect on soil microorganisms and birds, bees and butterflies who act as pollinators and the risks of transfer of genetically engineered traits to non-genetically engineered crops through pollination.
Besides this, the Agriculture Minister must also ensure that in future whenever seeds of a company are introduced into the local market, the Agriculture Department must test samples of these seeds and district- and block-level officials of the department must guide the farmers appropriately in this regard. Finally, all said and done, when even the West is adopting a cautious approach towards biotech farming, do we really need genetically engineered cotton and other crops in the State? Agriculture being a State subject and the ruling party being one that espouses indigenous solutions, Bhargava should tread with wisdom and caution - lest agriculture is transformed into a scary reality show in the State.
Report of a Fact Finding Team's Visit to Nanded district, Maharashtra
Purpose: To investigate into the performance of Bt Cotton in Dharmabad block of Nanded district in Maharashtra. This effort is part of the monitoring taken up by the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee [MEC] set up to monitor Bt Cotton across five states of India .
A Fact Finding Team [FFT] consisting of Mr Palash Ranjan Ghoshal, agriculture scientist from YUVA, Nagpur; Ms Kavitha Kuruganti of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Secunderabad; Mr Ravi Shetty, a farmer and social worker from Dharmabad and Mr Gopal Patil, General Secretary of Maharashtra Sarpanch Sanghatana in Nanded went into villages in Dharmabad block of Nanded district to look into reports of failure of Bt Cotton in the area. The visits to villages and farmers were made on November 12th and 13th, 2005 and the FFT was accompanied by a couple of media persons
Villages visited: Karkheli, Junni, Dharmabad, Balapur and Babulgaon
Hybrids inspected in the fields: Bunny Bt, RCH 2 Bt, RCH 144 Bt, MECH 184 Bt Cotton [all Bt Cotton hybrids] and Ankur 09, Chamatkar, Maruthi, Durga and Gowri [non-Bt Cotton]
Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton Farmers met/Fields visited: Tanwir Hussain Ahmed Hussain, Sarpanch, Karkheli village; Anwar Hussain, Sakharam Shetty, Dutta Shetty Desai, Krishna Laxman Hemke, Shaik Abdul Mastan, Peerabai [all from Karkheli village], Gore Miyan [Balapur], Suryakant Namdevrao Chidre [Rampur], Digambar Rao Patil, Pundlik Digambar Patil, Sainath Kishanrao Shurudwad, Utham Reddy [all from Junni], Laxman Gangadhar More and Kushal Rao [from Babulgaon]
Scientists met: Dr Bhosale [entomologist] and Dr S Bhattare [breeder] in Cotton Research Station, Nanded (met by a smaller group on 14th November 2005)
Dealer met: Chandrakant Patil of Patil Agro Services, Dharmabad who is also qualified in agriculture sciences
FINDINGS:
* Almost all Bt Cotton plots, in various degrees, had a particular condition being referred to as "Itkar Rog" by the farmers. The plants were red in color, mostly on the leaves and the stem. Whole fields appear red even from a distance. There is stunted growth and very few bolls - average number of bolls per plant seen and reported is only around 15-20 bolls/plant. There was no clear indication of particular hybrids being more adversely affected, as per the FFT, though some farmers felt that late duration varieties have survived the disease better in a comparative sense. Not all plots were uniformly affected.
* Farmers report that while the 'disease' symptoms [reddening of leaves] started to show sometime before the recent rains, full-blown outbreak spread rapidly within seven days of continuous rains around the middle of October
* Non-Bt Cotton plots were not affected to the same degree - the symptoms that were witnessed on non-Bt Cotton plots were to a much lower degree and they were affected almost two weeks after the symptoms first showed on Bt Cotton plots. The problem emerged on and is spreading from Bt Cotton, farmers informed everywhere
* In plots such as Tanwar Hussain/Anwar Hussain's, where both Bt Cotton [Bunny Bt and MECH 184 Bt] were sown right next to non-Bt Cotton [Ankur 09], the contrasting picture was striking, with the Bt Cotton part of the land affected and reddened by the disease while the non-Bt Cotton plot is still green and is blooming. There were no differences in the management practices adopted on both plots and the rainfall/soil conditions were the same. Bt Cotton's vulnerability to the damage seen, compared to non-Bt Cotton is apparent here. This was the case with Gore Miyan of Balapur too
* While farmers like Dutta Shettyba Desai have invested upto Rs. 10,440/- per acre, the yields obtained and expected are only around 2 quintals, which means a negative return of Rs. 7000/- per acre. There were other farmers too, whose costs of cultivation have not been covered by this year's produce and the market price it is fetching
* For many other Bt Cotton farmers, yields are much lower than what was promised by the company's propaganda. Net Incomes were as low as Rs. 500/- per acre for some farmers. While expected yields were around 10-12 quintals per acre, the actual yields are around 4 quintals on an average
* On non-Bt Cotton fields, yields - both obtained and expected ? are around the same, with the costs being much lower
* There is no bollworm attack reported either on Bt Cotton or on non-Bt Cotton plots
* Many Bt Cotton farmers have not only invested almost 400% more on seed cost alone, but had applied more fertilizers and other chemicals to save their crop. This meant more cost of cultivation per acre on Bt Cotton, decreasing the net returns further
* Number of sprays on Bt Cotton ranged from 1 to 5 sprays for sucking pests, with equal number of sprays on non-Bt Cotton too
* There is a lot of sucking pests infestation, of jassids specifically seen on Bt Cotton plots during the FFT's visit
* Bt Cotton companies like Rasi Seeds and Mahyco have begun investing in taking farmers to exposure visits to plots which are good and which have received intensive management inputs to start influencing farmers' seed purchase decisions for next year
* The team discovered that field trial plots of certain companies like J K Seeds are no better than the conditions found on commercially grown Bt cotton plots [stunted growth, reddening of plants, very low yields]
* Farmers have repeatedly observed that Bt Cotton is very stress-intolerant, unable to withstand conditions of lack of rains or excessive rains
* Farmers, who have visited Bollgard II plots of Mahyco, in an exposure trip organized by the company, have reported that they have been informed by the company that Bollgard II is effective against sucking pests also. This is reflective of the false propaganda taken up by the companies while selling Bollgard I
* It was found that in many Bunny Bt Cotton plots, germination rates were as low as 10-30%, reflective of the story of germination failure found in Andhra Pradesh. However, the company did not take responsibility for this failure of germination and there are very few farmers whose seed has been replaced by the company. For four bags of Bunny Bt Cotton bought, only one bag was replaced after germination failure was reported, even in those cases where replacement took place
* No refuge is being maintained around Bt Cotton plots
* Farmers are also reporting a similar problem of "Itkar Rog" from last year that had appeared in the month of October. In that year, the incidence was very low and was not economically damaging
* The team came across cases like that of Mohammed Zahid, who have been intimidated by the seed companies, when he lodged a complaint against defective seed a few years back - this kind of intimidation has made many other farmers think twice about the usefulness of lodging complaints in case of crop failure
* Farmers also reported a variety of marketing strategies used by the companies to attract more and more farmers towards Bt Cotton. One of the farmers made an observation saying that the difference between Bt Cotton marketing and that of other seeds seems to be the entry of "brands" into seed business - that of Monsanto's Bollgard, in this case
* No teams of agriculture scientists or of department officials have visited the farmers in these villages and their fields to investigate into the large scale failure of crop so far and to advise them on measures to be taken up
Another important finding of the visit was that many farmers were experiencing soil quality deterioration in the fields in which Bt Cotton has been grown. For instance, Krishna Laxman Hemke of Karkheli reports a decrease in yield of around 5 quintals of blackgram on the plot that he had used to grow Bt Cotton. Even farmers who have been growing Bt Cotton in successive years continuously are reporting dramatic decreases in yields. This requires further investigation and attention of the government.
The scientists met mentioned that the current situation of the crop was because of excessive infestation of sucking pests, especially jassids, of magnesium and nitrogen deficiency, due to a drop in temperature, due to water logging and poor drainage in some fields and due to grey mildew. However, they reported that the jassid attack and deficiency of magnesium/nitrogen were the main reasons. If that is the case, how come non-Bt Cotton was not affected to the same extent, the FFT members sought to know. The scientists explained that the tolerance of Bt Cotton to stress was low, that their resistance to sucking pests was very low [compared to non-Bt Cotton] and that since there is a large number of bolls per plant on Bt Cotton as compared to non-Bt Cotton, the requirement for nutrients like magnesium is higher for these plants.
CONCLUSIONS & OBSERVATIONS:
* Aggressive marketing was allowed by the companies despite adverse reports by Maharashtra Government?s own surveys of Bt Cotton. For instance, an official report of Maharashtra Government in 2002-03 reported that Bt Cotton performance was not satisfactory, compared to non-Bt Cotton which was giving higher yields. In 2004-05, one of the major observations of the government was that sucking pests were higher on Bt Cotton, compared to non-Bt Cotton. The official reports also point out that organic cotton farmers in different districts are successful in getting higher yields than Bt Cotton farmers. The report also indicates that there is a greater susceptibility of Bt Cotton to wilt under heavy rain conditions, compared to other popular hybrids. Despite such observations, the government did not regulate the extent of sales and cultivation of Bt Cotton in the state. This resulted in large extents of monocropping of Bt Cotton in several parts of the state.
* If Bt Cotton requires different management practices like application of some micro-nutrients like magnesium, this was not informed to the farmers beforehand, during the marketing of Bt Cotton. If this is a new discovery by the government, this is unacceptable since field trials, if they were scientific and long enough, would have shown the additional/new management requirements for Bt Cotton. Similarly, marketing propaganda of Bt Cotton did not focus on the higher vulnerability of Bt Cotton to sucking pests. In fact, there are misleading advertisements by companies like Ankur which show that a particular variety of Bt Cotton is also resistant to sucking pests.
* The monocropping of Bt Cotton [upto almost 95% in some villages like Karkheli] has resulted in a greater vulnerability of the crops to various pests and diseases, as can be expected. In this case, it was an excessive and damaging incidence of sucking pests like jassids.
* Given that sucking pests are higher on Bt Cotton its vulnerability to higher incidence of various diseases spread by these sucking pests is higher too. The government should have had the foresight to analyse and anticipate such an eventuality.
* Bt Cotton?s stress intolerance and heightened vulnerability is evident by the differential situation found on Bt and non-Bt Cotton plots and is an observation made by dealers, scientists and farmers met.
* Farmers have undertaken all the recommended practices and have even sown as per the soil and irrigation conditions recommended by the companies/dealers [we came across farmers who explained why they had sown RCH 2Bt in a particular plot and Bunny Bt in another by citing the information provided on seed leaflets]. However, the adverse results are to be found irrespective of such management practices being adopted.
* Concerned government departments have not taken any pro-active steps to either assess the situation or to advice the farmers about what is to be done to salvage their crops.
* There are other serious issues which require urgent attention of the government including observations related to soil quality deterioration. This was reported by many farmers met. Yields are shown to be continually decreasing even by farmers who had been growing Bt Cotton successively in the past few years.
* Losses in just the village of Karkheli, for instance, are to the tune of 4 crore rupees [the FFT was informed by the sarpanch that the village had grown Bt cotton on around 65% of its 4000-odd acres of land]. There are many families whose entire survival mechanism for the coming year has been snatched away from them. Their high-interest debts are going to mount, with the family having to look for alternative livelihood options. This is a serious matter and the government needs to intervene pro-actively on this issue.
Given the official admissions in the earlier years of Bt Cotton?s vulnerability to wilt and this year's picture of widespread losses, it is important that the government re-assess Bt Cotton and its suitability in the state. The government has to come up with a scientific and conclusive picture on the suitability of Bt Cotton including its vulnerabilities and unpredictabilities and disseminate the findings widely amongst farmers so that they can make informed choices and not be lured by aggressive marketing
DEMANDS & RECOMMENDATIONS
* The government has to initiate a scientific and comprehensive assessment of the extent of losses on Cotton in general, and on Bt Cotton in particular and assess the differences in performance of Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton in comparable situations.
* Through this and the government?s findings from previous years, it has to come up with conclusive recommendations on the suitability of Bt Cotton for the farmers of the state
* Simple and farmer-friendly mechanisms for fixing liability on the Bt Cotton companies for the losses being experienced at present and for compensating farmers to be put into place immediately (for technology deficiencies and for not informing farmers adequately about particular management practices to be adopted to overcome shortcomings of the technology)
Report of a Fact Finding Team's visit to Warangal district
Purpose: To look into the performance of Bt Cotton in Warangal district, as part of the Monitoring & Evaluation Committee [MEC]'s effort to monitor Bt Cotton across five states of India .
A Fact Finding Team [FFT] consisting of Shri S Malla Reddy, President, AP Rythu Sangam (a farmers' union consisting of more than 300,000 members); Shri Krishna Reddy, President of the Warangal District Unit of AP Rythu Sangam; Shri P Damoder of Sarvodaya Youth Organisation; Shri Rajashekar and Ms Kavitha Kuruganti of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture and some media representatives visited villages and cotton fields in Warangal district and had detailed discussions with farmers on November 6th and 7th, 2005.
Context : When the first reports of an unusual disease on Bt Cotton came out, a Fact Finding Team visited villages and inspected fields in Warangal district on September 9th, 2005 on behalf of the Monitoring & Evaluation Committee [MEC] set up by civil society organizations. At that point of time, the unusual disease was reported from Warangal district on an estimated extent of 50,000 acres. The government soon after this confirmed the disease to be Tobacco Streak Virus [TSV] being spread by the high incidence of sucking pests like thrips, mostly on Bt Cotton and the incidence was confirmed on more than one lakh hectares of Bt Cotton from various districts like Adilabad, Khammam, Guntur and Warangal.
The full impact of the disease and high incidence of sucking pests is now being felt by farmers in districts like Adilabad and Warangal, towards the end of the season, at the time of harvest. The issue has come to the notice of local elected leaders and parliamentarians in Warangal district [especially from the Opposition] who wanted the government to come to the rescue of farmers (October 25th, local papers). Earlier, several senior political leaders and parliamentarians of the district visited villages/fields in Hasanparthi and Sangem blocks, along with officials like the Joint Director of Agriculture [JDA, the senior most agriculture department official in the district] and with media representatives. As per media reports, when the JDA argued that the crop loss was due to climatic conditions and due to excessive incidence of pests and diseases this season, indignant farmers showed the visiting teams crops in neighboring plots which were doing well - if the crop loss is due to environmental reasons, how are the adjacent plots performing so well, the farmers demanded to know. The visiting teams reportedly concluded that RCH2 Bt (of Rasi Seeds company, in its second year of commercial cultivation) seeds were defective/adulterated and the officials promised to get the seed samples tested. The political leaders, who estimated the losses to the farmers to be around 400 crores of rupees (US$ 8 millions), wanted the government to put into place adequate compensation mechanisms. The district administration promised to come up with proposals to support farmers in this context.
On 27th October, the administration did announce a series of proposed measures in a press conference. The District Collector, along with senior agriculture scientists and officials agreed that almost all the farmers who had grown RCH2Bt Cotton had incurred heavy losses. They argued that the only way forward was to try and salvage the crop as much as possible - RCH2 Bt hybrid is a 180-195 day duration crop and there are still 20-35 days - left, they said. Four recommendations were put forward for this purpose - (a) spray 2% DAP; (b) grow intercrops; (c) apply a booster dose of urea of upto ten kilos an acre and (d) spray adequate quantities of monocrotophos on the crop.
The government also announced that if needed, monocrotophos would be supplied on subsidy for all the 1.2 lakh acres of RCH2 Bt Cotton, with the estimates showing that the quantity needed would be 40 thousand litres and the cost to be incurred by the government being 1.2 crores of rupees. The District Collector informed that maize seed would be provided on subsidy to be grown as the next crop.
The JDA blamed climatic conditions [low rainfall initially and recent heavy downpours] for the losses being witnessed, and the agriculture scientists said that RCH2 is intolerant to such conditions.
It was in this context that the FFT, consisting of farmers' unions visited the district on November 6th and 7th, 2005.
FINDINGS:
Members of the Fact Finding Team [FFT] visited villages in Atmakur and Sangem blocks and later met with the Joint Director-Agriculture, Dr M Jayaraj, in his office. Media representatives also visited farmers and their fields along with the team.
Villages visited include Akkampeta, Sthambampalli, Oorugonda, Durgampeta, Oglapur and Damera. The team also visited the same fields that were visited during the FF visit in September (from Sthambampalli & Oorugonda villages).
Some of the farmers met include Ravi s/o Ramulu, Hamsala Reddy, Kumaraswamy s/o Lingareddy, Raju s/o Rajalingam (non-Bt), Ooradi Sammaiah, Erukula Ramana (non-Bt), Vemula Sadaiah, K Prathap Reddy s/o Mallareddy [all in Akkampeta village], B Babu Rao (Sarpanch of Sthambampalli village), K Shankar Rao s/o Manikayya, H Narsing Rao, Kole Sambaiah, K Chander Rao [from Sthambampalli village], Chelupuri Sambaiah, Chelpuri Mallaiah, Chennareddy, Tirupati Reddy [non-Bt], Venkatalaxmi w/o Bhikshapati [fields in Oorugonda/Durgampet villages], Akula Komaraiah (non-Bt), Ravipal Reddy [in Oglapur village], Arrepalli Easwaraiah, Damera Rajaiah (non-Bt), Kumalu, Ashoda Raju, Narayan Reddy, Ravinder Reddy [in Damera village].
* Despite many different interventions by farmers (to boost boron/magnesium supply, to take care of sucking pests with chemical sprays and application of more fertilizers), the crop condition is in a bad state. The crop looks very apparently reddened, with individual plants stunted, leaves reddened and shriveled, curled upwards or downwards with very few squares and bolls. These various interventions only meant that the cost of cultivation increased, with none of the farmers reporting that the situation had been brought under control by the use of various products as per recommendations.
* Farmers are reporting an average of one quintal of cotton harvested so far per acre, with another 2-3 quintals expected per acre. The average cost incurred per acre is around 8-9 thousand rupees, with just the chemicals applied costing around 4 to 5 thousand rupees.
* The price being obtained per quintal of cotton sold ranged from a ridiculously low amount of Rs. 700/quintal to Rs. 1400/-/quintal. This means that for a majority of Bt cotton farmers, even the cost of cultivation cannot be recovered from the yields and their market value.
* In the case of non-Bt Cotton farmers, the average (expected) yields are around 7-8 quintals per acre, with the cost of cultivation being about the same as Bt Cotton farms.
* Agricultural workers are reporting difficulty in picking Bt Cotton ? the number of bolls is very low and they are having to search the entire plant carefully, which is time consuming. The number of bolls per plant in various Bt Cotton fields (including MECH hybrids brought from Maharashtra, Bunny Bt, Mallika Bt and Pro-Agro marketed RCH 368 Bt hybrids) is around 15-40, with a majority of the fields showing only 15-20 bolls/plant.
* There is also high incidence of spodoptera on many of the fields and expensive pesticides had to be used for the control of the pest.
* All the Bt Cotton fields visited show a high and damaging incidence of sucking pests [thrips, jassids, aphids etc.] and diseases like TSV and angular leaf spot.
* In the case of some farmers like Vemula Sadaiah of Akkampeta village, the contrast between Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton is starkly visible. On the same land, with the same management practices, he had grown Bt Cotton on one side and the non-Bt Cotton seeds supplied for refuge rows on another side. The Bt Cotton side of the farm is visibly red and has stunted growth of plants with very low yields expectable.
* The damage is most apparent and of a very high, non-recoverable degree on RCH2 Bt Cotton plots, followed by MECH hybrids, Bunny Bt, RCH 368 Bt etc., in that order within the Bt Cotton plots.
* Farmers are beginning to realize that Bt Cotton hybrids are presenting peculiar problems in terms of diseases and sucking pests year after year and many are beginning to question the way the government permitted the commercial release of the technology.
Discussions with the JDA also revealed that the department of agriculture, unlike in other states, is not monitoring Bt Cotton on the ground and it has been probably left to agriculture scientists to do so. Out of a total cotton area of 146,756 hectares in the district, 91,150 hectares are under different kinds of Bt Cotton, as per the data provided by the JDA. This constitutes 62% of the cotton land.
CONCLUSIONS:
* A monoculture of Bt Cotton, that too of Bollgard brand, has been allowed on a large extent of area ? this shows a complete lack of foresight and understanding in regulation and crop planning. The vulnerability of such a monoculture to large scale failure in case of pest and disease outbreak is obvious. Even in terms of resistance management, this presents a very poor model as even scientific studies/models of CICR would show. In countries like Australia, when Bt Cotton was introduced, it was done so with a ceiling of only 30% of total cotton land permitted under Bt Cotton. Such a widespread monoculture was also the result of aggressive marketing adopted by the Bt Cotton companies. However, there was no regulation evident of such marketing. The government is clearly accountable for lack of regulation in this case.
* The vulnerability of Bt Cotton crop to greater incidence of sucking pests is well recognized. This also implies a greater susceptibility of Bt Cotton to a variety of diseases ? in this case, it is being reported by scientists that thrips are the vectors for the spread of tobacco streak virus that is causing the stunted growth and reddening of Bt Cotton plants. All of this should have been anticipated by the scientists/companies promoting the crop and the regulators too.
* As one perceptive farmer, Ravinder Reddy of Damera village, pointed out, farmers have some hope left of salvaging their crop even after an attack of bollworm ? with proper control measures, the crop can be salvaged for at least the second and subsequent flushes. However, high incidence of sucking pests and diseases means very little chances of recovery for the plant. Bt Cotton, with its non-holistic approach to pest management, means that farmers are faced with a variety of new problems even if the bollworm is indeed controlled. In years like this year, where there has been a very low incidence of bollworm in any case in all crops, Bt Cotton seeds clearly show what they lack and what they can cause - is this how seeds for a predominantly small and marginal farmers' community should be, a reductionist pest-by-pest approach?
* There is also much confusion being transmitted to the farmers, adding to their costs. While the department of agriculture analyses the current problem as that resulting from micro-nutrient deficiencies (the soils of Warangal lack certain micro-nutrients like boron and magnesium, we were informed by the JDA; "such nutrients are required more in the case of Bt Cotton"), the agriculture scientists say that the current problem is because of TSV and the vulnerability of particular Bt Cotton hybrids to adverse weather conditions. Farmers who have tried to adopt recommended practices for both situations have come up with unimpressive results. Citing environmental reasons is ridiculous given that non-Bt Cotton plots are faring well, right next to Bt Cotton plots. Similarly, if Bt Cotton needed other management practices than what the farmers are used to (application of micro-nutrients), why were they not educated beforehand? What kind of proof does the government and do the companies have, to show that they have introduced the Bt Cotton seeds, only after analyzing such differential management requirements and have also educated farmers about it? Have they talked about this in their pre-sales propaganda? Who is to be made accountable now?
* Why is the administration, which also is supposed to have a District Level Committee [DLC] headed by the District Collector under the EPA rules, coming up with recommendations to be adopted by the farmers only in the last 20-30 days of the crop season? What was done since August, when the first reports of the disease and other problems began pouring in?
* Monocrotophos, which is now being recommended in the final days of the crop season, is scheduled to be banned from India. Spending 1.2 crores of rupees on this chemical, a Class I product, at this juncture of Monocrotophos?s life and the crop season, is suspect. Incidentally, there are very effective and inexpensive methods to control sucking pests (and transmitted diseases) through NPM approaches, which do not require the use of any synthetic pesticides. In any case, the huge subsidy that the government would provide would go to the chemical corporations and not the farmers. What kind of yield increases is the government promising with the measures that it is recommending? Where is the liability on the Bt Cotton companies in all this, given that public funds would be spent to save farmers whereas the companies are going scot-free?
* There have been views expressed in various quarters that the extent of loss is such that the companies cannot ever hope to compensate the farmers for their losses, leave alone cover for the expected and promised yields. Because of this, the pressure not to give in and pay compensation to even a few farmers is very high on the companies [lest thousands of other farmers line up with claims]. The companies would do their best to deny that their technology or seed has got anything to do with the current situation. Should companies be allowed to sell more than what they can be made accountable for? Did the companies not think about such a situation before they went in for a technology, given that the current situation was a distinct possibility? Did they inform farmers about the serious shortcomings of particular hybrids and the Bt technology? This is also a valuable lesson for all those Indian companies lining up at the doors of Monsanto to get the Bollgard gene sub-licensed to them at huge costs. On the one hand is the huge amount of royalty that the American multinational is bound to collect from these small Indian companies (who have enjoyed some amount of credibility with cotton farmers so far, in different pockets of the country) and on the other hand is the distinct possibility of the crop failing for a variety of reasons, and therefore, compensation to be paid to farmers. How are these companies going to survive in such a situation?
DEMANDS & RECOMMENDATIONS:
* Admit that the current situation is a problem resulting from the Bt technology - this is a case of monoculture crops that are vulnerable to sucking pests and therefore, higher incidence of disease, as well as unpredictable and unusual incidence of pests/diseases. Acknowledge the differences clearly being seen between Bt Cotton and non-Bt Cotton fields on the ground
* Make a comprehensive assessment of the extent of losses and all the reasons for the same
* Stop providing recommendations which would imply more costs to farmers unless such recommendations are accompanied by guarantees of better results; advocate non-pesticidal, inexpensive and effective ways of controlling sucking pests
* Resolve the differences between the agriculture department and research scientists in their analysis and recommendations
* Make such government (agriculture research) officials who have recommended particular brands of Bt Cotton with farmers liable for the losses seen now
* Put into place immediately liability mechanisms where the responsible companies and those providing the technology pay adequate compensation to farmers.
* Stop Bt Cotton approvals in the state of Andhra Pradesh and support non-chemical, non-GE alternatives which are fetching very good results for farmers who are practicing such alternatives.
Farmers hail PVP & FR Act notification - ASHOK B SHARMA, Financial Express, Bombay, India - Posted online: Monday, November 14, 2005 at 0000 hours IST
New Delhi, Nov 13 Farmers have hailed the government’s decision to notify the Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights (PVP&FR) Act, 2001. They said that though the decision is belated, it would solve the farmers’ problems to a great extent. The legislation was passed by Parliament way back in 2001 and received Presidential assent in the same year, but was withheld from notification, which prevented its implementation over the past few years. The Act, apart from protecting farm bio-diversity, allows farmers to save and exchange seeds in unbranded form for use in the next crop season. The Act has also banned registration of seeds containing terminator technology vide section 18 (1) (C). The government has recently constituted Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Board under the chairmanship of Dr S Nagarajan for implementation of the Act.
Speaking to FE, executive chairman of Bharat Krishak Samaj (BKS) Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary said: “The PVP&FR Act was long withheld from its implementation due to pressure from the interested lobby of seed companies. This law gives some leverage to farmers in matters of use of seeds, though not complete freedom. There had been recent attempts to nullify this meagre freedom given to farmers under this Act by the introduction of amendments to the Seeds Act in the Parliament. The farmers will not tolerate any such move and demand immediate withdrawal of the proposed amendments to the Seeds Act. Rather PVP&FR Act should be further amended to give more freedom to farmers.”
Dr Chaudhary had earlier expressed concern over Delta & Pine Land announcing its new plans to foray into the seed sector, after it got patent rights for its terminator technology in patent offices abroad. He now said that with the notification of PVP&FR Act, the country is better poised to deal with this situation. Dr Chaudhary was the sole farmers’ representative to the recently held global conference on biotechnology hosted by Asia-Pacific Association of Agriculture Research Institutions (APAARI) and FAO in Bangkok where he demanded that the seed multinationals compensate farmers for failure of Bt cotton.
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=108540
Below is the press release from the Government of India:
PRESS INFORMATION BUREAU GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
CENTRE ISSUES NOTIFICATION ON PROTECTION OF PLANT VARIETY & FARMERS RIGHTS AUTHORITY
New Delhi, Kartika 20, 1927 - November 11, 2005
The Protection of Plant Variety & Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Authority has come into being with the enforcement of the Act, 2001, and the Rules framed thereunder. A notification to this effect was issued today by the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation. The Authority would now regulate all matters pertaining to plants and seeds varieties of the country and would act as the national registry for documentation, indexing and cataloguing of all flora of the country, including extant varieties, farmers’ varieties and land races. The Authority will also be registering new varieties thereby protecting the breeders’ rights, inclusive of both farmers and the industry.
The Authority represents the interests of a wide spectrum of stakeholders, which include the scientific community, farmers’ organizations, women, tribal entities and State and Central Government as also the State Agricultural Universities.
The PPV&FR Authority is a major step forward in stimulating investment in the agricultural seed and plant sector and would greatly encourage development of new plant varieties. It will protect the interests and rights of farmers and the farming community and recognize their contribution to the selection and preservation of traditional varieties. The Authority also has the mandate to administer the National Gene Fund which ill help conserve and protect our plant genetic resources/biodiversity.
The PPV&FR Authority is presently functioning out of the premises of National Agricultural Science Centre at Pusa, New Delhi, and is headed by Dr. S Nagarajan, recently appointed as its chairman.
Wilting of Bt cotton in Madhya Pradesh - farmers demand ban on companies - Kerala, 14 Nov 2005 http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=fullnews&id=52326
Bhopal: The genetically modified Bt cotton crops in over two lakh acre area in Nirmar region in western Madhya Pradesh suffered partial or complete wilting causing a loss of more than Rs 400 crores, the affected farmers said today. The farmers, who held a public hearing last month at Kukshi in Dhar district, urged the state government to ban multi-national Monsanto and other companies which sold Bt cotton seeds in the state and sought compensation. Several varieties, which had been banned in Andhra Pradesh for similar reasons, had been allowed to be marketed in Madhya Pradesh. ''Instead of banning these varieties, the state government gave extension to these companies for another three years'', Mr Mohanlal Patidar, President of Kukshi Mandi Samiti, told reporters today. ''The 'banned' varieties were causing huge losses to the farmers in MP, the state government should have been vigilant and banned it'', said Agriculture scientist Dr Debashish Banerji, who was among the panelists at the public hearing attended by about 500 farmers....The experience of the farmers of Nimar has shown that there is an urgent need to review the genetically modified technology as the effects of this technology on agriculture, farmers, environment and human health has not been properly evaluated'', Dr Banerji said. During the public hearing, a health report presented by Mr Amulya Nidhi showed that Bt cotton was causing severe to moderate allergy to people coming in contact with it.
GENE CAMPAIGN DEMANDS LEGAL ACTION AGAINST GEAC - Press Release, 14 November 2005 - http://www.genecampaign.org
Gene Campaign today called for legal action under the Environment Protection Act, against the members of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for criminal negligence and willful suppression of facts in the Bt cotton case, leading to grave economic losses to the farming community, resulting in several instances of farmer suicides. A number of studies conducted by a variety of agencies, including government departments have reported over the last three to four years that Bt cotton is failing in many regions and farmers are suffering huge losses. The GEAC has so far taken no action in this regard.
Gene Campaign's studies starting with the first harvest of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in 2002-03, showed that the crop had performed so poorly that 60 % of the farmers could not even recover their investment. Recent data from a monitoring team set up by twenty grassroots level organizations working on agriculture, have documented the widespread failure of Bt cotton crops in Madhya Pradesh and Andhra.
*Many varieties of Bt cotton have failed to germinate so the farmer has had to buy the seed two to three times.
*The mandatory insect management strategy of planting non-Bt refuges is not being followed by the majority of farmers, thus ensuring that this technology can not work in the field for long but the GEAC has not acted against this violation.
*Earlier reports that the quality of the Bt cotton is inferior to non-Bt cotton is being substantiated year after year for a range of Bt cotton varieties.
*The rampant spread of illegal cotton varieties, many of them spurious and not even containing the Bt gene, have flooded the market in all cotton belts and the farmers are being fooled by unscrupulous elements.
*The Bt technology has proved to be largely ineffective against the bollworm so the pesticide use has not shown any significant reduction and coupled with the expensive seeds, the economics of Bt cotton are adverse for the farmers.
*The clear beneficiaries are the seed companies who have GEAC?s permission to sell their seeds despite recorded failures.
As all this unfolds across the cotton growing regions, a study conducted at the Nagpur based Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), provides the scientific basis for the failure of the Bt technology in India and shows why this technology developed for the US, cannot be transplanted here. The US cotton is protected by Bt technology (in which the toxin expression is high in leaves), because its main pest, the tobacco budworm, is a leaf feeder and therefore susceptible to the Bt approach. In India the main cotton pest is the bollworm, which feeds on the cotton bolls, rather than the leaves . The CICR study clearly shows that with the Bt technology in India, the toxin is practically non-existent in the bolls which are the principal target of the bollworm, hence the technology will not work to protect Indian cotton.
In the face of all this chaos, farmer losses and widespread crop failure, the GEAC has not taken any action.
- There has been no action taken against suppliers of Bt seeds,
- no instructions for compensation to farmers,
- no action to stop violations and control spurious seeds,
- no information on whether the GEAC has conducted a fact finding study, nor any indication of the findings, if such a study was conducted.
- But the GEAC continues to release a series of Bt cotton varieties year after year.
Dr Suman Sahai, Director of Gene Campaign said this state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue, the GEAC must be held accountable for its deeds of omission and commission and be made to explain its actions. Gene Campaign had issued notice to the GEAC under section 19(b) of the Environment Protection Act (1986) on August 3 2005, for commission of offence under the Act, by continuing the approval to Bt cotton varieties despite evidence of its widespread failure. The GEAC had 60 days to respond to the notice which fell on 2 October, 2005. Gene Campaign said they waited for an additional 30 days to give the GEAC ample time to respond but they have not done so.
The failure of the GEAC to respond to the notice amounts to admission of the charges leveled against it and hence legal action should be initiated for violation of the provisions of the Environment Protection Act (1986) leading to grave economic losses to the farming community, resulting in several instances of suicides.
Dr Suman Sahai said that GEAC's silence and refusal to take action in the Bt cotton case where fresh evidence of failures is coming in everyday, indicates that influences are at work which favor the continued sale of Bt cotton seed even if it means devastating losses to farmers. She said that after the clear evidence provided by the senior scientists at the Nagpur based Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), that the Bt technology in India is destined to fail because it simply does not address the cotton growing conditions in India, GEAC has still not come out with a position on the CICR study. GEAC has held two meetings on the CICR findings on 10 August and 16 September, 2005 but has made no comments. This raises further suspicion about the motivations and conduct of the GEAC.
Dr. Suman Sahai
Contact: DR. SUMAN SAHAI. Phone: - +91 11 29556248; 98-110-41332 Email: genecamp@vsnl.com
Gene contamination may affect organic exports - By B S Satish Kumar - Deccan Herald News Service
http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/nov112005/state1912320051110.asp
Bangalore:
An internationally renowned scientist has cautioned that the country's organic exports might be rejected due to gene contamination, if India permits commercial cultivation of genetically modified (GM) food crops. Hungary-based toxicologist and nutrition expert Arpad Pusztai, who was in Bangalore recently, told this reporter that there was every possibility of organic crops getting polluted due to crossing-over of genes from the GM food crops, if the government gives permission for commercial cultivation of GM food crops. The caution by the scientist -- who conducted a pioneering study on the impact of GM potatoes on rats and concluded that these varieties affected their growth as well as their health -- comes at a time when NGOs and green activists are suspecting that the government is setting the stage for allowing commercial cultivation of certain GM food crops in the near future. As the average land-holding size of farmers in India is just around 1.50 hectares, it is simply impossible to prevent crossing-over of genes and genetic pollution due to GM crops, the scientist argues. "Organic agriculture and BT cannot co-exist, especially in India due to small land-holdings," he remarked, while taking a different view from that of the Indian policy makers, who are for such a co-existence. At present India has allowed commercial cultivation of only cotton crop. This has not polluted organic food crops, as normally the genetic pollution occurs within similar species, the scientist explained.
Certification
Pointing out that any organic produce has to be certified by an authorised agency to show that it is grown organically, he said the Indian organic produce can never pass certification tests if GM food crops are allowed to be cultivated. Most of the Western countries, especially the European ones, which can provide a huge market for Indian organic produce, are very particular about non-GM crops and have stringent certification, he pointed out. "The problem with GM crops is that they are unpredictable. With whatever research has been done so far, it is not possible to ascertain the impact of GM crops on human health. We are yet to achieve precision regarding research in this field.....Hence, we should exercise caution and conduct more research before jumping into commercial cultivation of GM food crops," he cautions. "In the absence of safety studies, lack of evidence cannot be interpreted as proof of safety." He denied the argument that BT is a must to take care of India's increasing food requirements. Even organic farming can take care of food requirements provided you pump the same amount of money into research that is being invested on BT research.
Excess food
Citing a FAO study, he says the world has 125 per cent more food than the requirement of the global population. But it has not been able to reach all due to distribution problem and not due to production shortage. Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner Thangamma Monnappa too observed that empirical evidence from all over the world shows that contamination does occur wherever GM crops have been introduced alongside conventional or organic crops.
Are GM foods safe enough? - ASHOK B SHARMA - Financial Express, November 07 2005 - http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=107906
World over there is an ongoing debate about acceptance or rejection of foods having traces of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which is otherwise called GM foods. The advocates of transgenic technology say that there is no credible evidence either to substantiate that GM crops damage the environment or GM food can harm human and animal health. Some even say that as GM crops and foods are safe as their "substantially equivalent conventional counterparts", they need no testing. They go to the extent of decrying the critics, who have logical and scientific arguments, as "obstructionists." Dr Arpad Pusztai, an eminent nutrition expert and toxicologist of international repute, is one who dismisses such arguments of the blind supporters of transgenic technology by saying that in the absence of safety studies, lack of evidence cannot be interpreted as proof that it is safe. He further says, "Rather few well-designed studies published to date show potentially worrisome biological effects of GM food, which the regulators have largely ignored." Incidentally Dr Pusztai was in Delhi to address a group of scientists on Saturday. In his presentation he disclosed that a recent review done by Wolfanberger and Phifer published in Science in 2000 concluded that most pertinent questions on environmental safety of GM crops have not yet been asked for, let alone studied. On the health safety aspect, he said that so far only 19 peer-reviewed papers have been published. Only one human clinical trial was conducted and only a few animal studies done so far. Dr Pusztai alleged that the industry's and regulator's preferred "safety assessments" are based on the poorly defined and not legally binding concept of "substantial equivalence." "In such a situation it is difficult to conclude that GM foods are safe," he told the spell-bound audience. Referring to the growing concerns about food safety, Dr Pusztai said that the report of the Royal Society of Canada said that "substantial equivalence" is fatally flawed and regulations based on it expose Canadians to potential health risks. The British Medical Association has also said there is "insufficient evidence" to take a decision on health safety. Pointing to the gaps in risk assessments, he suggested that more tests should be carried out on animals and humans, particularly in the alimentary tract. The trials of the first GM crop, Flavr-Savr tomato have shown 7 out of 40 rats died within two weeks due to necrosis. In humans, glandular stomach lesions can lead to life-threatening haemorrhage, particularly in the aged people and patients on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, he said. Dr Pusztai referred to the findings of Fares and El-Sayed about Bt potatoes disruption, multinucleation, swelling and increased degradation of ileal surface cells in rats. In a study done by Dr Pusztai himself alongwith Dr Ewen showed that when rats were fed with GM potatoes it induced proliferative growth in the stomach and the intestines and also caused lymphocyte infiltration. Dr Pusztai finally asserted that more researches should be done to pin-point effects of GM foods before any approval is done. Hope the world would be wise to follow his advice.
Farmers concerned over D&PL’s terminator patent - http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=107018
ASHOK B SHARMA - Posted online: Friday, October 28, 2005 at 0054 hours IST
NEW DELHI, OCT 27: Indian farmers have expressed grave concern over the patent rights accorded to Delta & Pine Land in Europe and US over its controversial terminator technology. They have expressed fears that the company which has recently declared that it would foray into the country’s farm sector in big way, may bring in the terminator technology. This terminator technology is detrimental to the interests of farmers, they said.
Speaking to FE, the executive chairman of Bharat Krishak Samaj, Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary said: “The government should take immediate steps to ban terminator technology in the country. It should immediately review the activities and intentions of Delta & Pine Land. The company should not be allowed any field trials of terminator seeds. The pollen flow from plants with terminator technology to other crops will have dangerous consequences. It would make the pollen-affected crops sterile.” Mr Chaudhary said that it the hidden agenda of the corporate houses is to monopolise the seed sector. It is for this reason the seed companies are producing hybrid seeds which the farmers cannot save for the next season. They usually do not produce conventional varietal seeds which the farmers can save for the next season. Now with the terminator technology, the seed companies intends to complete their agenda of monopolising the entire seed sector as the plants of terminator technology will produce only sterile seeds, he said.
Greenpeace has recently exposed the details of the patent for the controversial “terminator technology” granted in Europe on 5 October 2005. The terminator patent has been approved for all plants that are genetically engineered so that their seeds will not germinate. Further research by the "Ban Terminator Campaign", a network of farmers' unions and environmental organisations revealed that a patent was also granted in Canada on 11 October 2005. "Farmers should be aware that corporations all over the world are re
