Munlochy GM Vigil

Impact of field trials on GM-mustard sought by court - Indo-Asian News Service, December 16 2006
http://www.rxpgnews.com/india/Impact-of-field-trials-on-GM-mustard-sought-by-court_8720.shtml
(IANS) New Delhi, Dec 15 - The Supreme Court Friday asked a committee to examine the impact of field trials being conducted by Delhi University on a genetically modified mustard variety following expert opinion that such trials were toxic and harmful.
On Sep 22, the apex court had restrained the committee - Genetic Engineering Approval Committee - - from giving fresh approvals to genetically modified products, particularly for commercial purposes. Subsequently, Delhi University was allowed to carry out field trials of DMH-11 Mustard for research.
On Friday, a three-Judge bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal, Justice C.K. Thakker and Justice R.V. Raveendran asked the GEAC to examine the matter after counsel Prashant Bhushan opposed continuance of the field trials saying that the release of genetically modified organism/seeds even for research would have the potential of causing major health hazards once they were released into the environment. Bhushan produced opinions given by three eminent professors saying the field trials on GM-Mustard would result in release of toxic elements in the environment. They said that even at low levels the release of these organisms could prove toxic to the environment and the main areas required fuller study prior to the exposure of millions of people and millions of animals to the toxins.
Counsel for Delhi University said that the university had modified its research and no harm would be caused to the environment due to the field trials. The bench therefore directed the GEAC to give its opinion before proceeding further in the matter and adjourned the proceedings to January 2007.
Genetic panel to examine Delhi University field trials - Legal Correspondent - The Hindu, Dec 16 2006 (front page)
http://www.hindu.com/2006/12/16/stories/2006121614560100.htm
Court order on expert opinion that the exercise involving genetically modified crop is a health hazard
*GEAC approval not obtained for test; opinion sought
*Release of toxic elements hazardous, says petitioner
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has asked the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to examine the impact of ongoing Delhi University field trials on genetically modified DMH-11 mustard variety in the light of expert opinion that such exercises are toxic and harmful.
Academic research
The Court, which restrained field trials of genetically modified products with commercial implications, later permitted the University to sow seeds of the newly developed DMH-11 for academic research. On September 22, the Court, acting on a petition from Aruna Rodrigues and three others, had restrained the GEAC from according fresh approvals for genetically modified products, particularly for commercial purposes. The public interest litigation had sought a ban on release of genetically modified organism/seeds having the potential of causing major public health hazards.
On Friday a Bench comprising Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal and Justices C.K. Thakker and R.V. Raveendran directed the GEAC to examine the matter after it was brought to the Court's notice that GEAC approval was not obtained for this field trial. It asked the GEAC to give its opinion by the first week of January and directed that the case be listed for January.
Toxic elements
Petitioner's counsel Prashant Bhushan said genetically modified organism/seeds would pose major health hazards once they were released into the environment even for research. He cited opinions given by three eminent professors that the field trials on GM-Mustard would result in release of toxic elements that, even at low levels, could prove harmful to the environment. The main areas (relating to field trials) required a fuller study before exposing millions of people and millions of animals to the toxins.
Research modified
Appearing for the University, senior counsel P.P. Rao said it had modified its research and no harm would be caused to the environment by the field trials.
SC concerned over risks of open field trials of GM seeds - Times of India, 16 December 2006
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/India/SC_concerned_over_risks_of_open_field_trials_of_GM_seeds/articleshow/822947.cms
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Friday shared the public concern over the largescale ongoing field trials of genetically modified (GM) seeds in India and their potential to corrupt traditional crops like rice, cotton, brinjal, tomato, cauliflower, wheat and okra. However, it was cautious not to accede to petitioner Aruna Rodrigues' plea for a total ban on field trials till the statutory Genetic Engineering Advisory Committee (GEAC) gave the green signal to the outcome of laboratory safety tests on the GM seeds.
The issue on debate before a Bench comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justices C K Thakker and R V Raveendran was the field trials of GM mustard seed - DMH-11 - being carried out by Delhi University. The court, while allowing continuance of the trial, had warned the university that it could be asked to uproot the plants if they were found to be ecologically dangerous.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Prashant Bhushan, questioned the credentials of the independent members appointed by the government to the GEAC and alleged that one of them was a partner to the commercial interests of a multinational GM seed firm. This allegation soon turned into a finger-pointing exercise, with Additional Solicitor General Amarendra Saran questioning the credentials of the experts suggested by the petitioner for inclusion in GEAC. Not getting drawn into the seemingly unending trading of accusations, the Bench took note of the petitioner's argument that DMH-11 seed contained genetic use restriction technology (GURT) and asked GEAC to submit a report on the safety aspect of the field trials being carried out by Delhi University.
It also asked GEAC to respond to the expert opinions cited by the petitioner, which unequivocally cautioned against use of GURT seeds in field trials. Saran contended that the green revolution which made India self-sufficient in foodgrains, was due to the genetically modified seeds and that GEAC has not allowed any GM seed for field trial which could have an adverse impact on ecology or traditional crops

Moratorium on GM crops sought - ASHOK B SHARMA - December 02, 2006 - http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=147881
NEW DELHI, DEC 1: Indian rice exporters, concerned over the reported violations of biosafety norms in the field trials of Bt rice, have appealed to the Supreme Court to keep GM crops field trials in abeyance. The All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) has filed an intervention application in a writ petition filed by Aruna Rodrigues and others seeking a moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops. The writ filed by Aruna Rodgrigues and others is in the advanced stage of hearing. The next hearing is scheduled on December 15. AIREA executive director Anil Adlakha said : “We, in our intervention application, have urged that field trials of any GM rice should be kept in abeyance, till the regulatory provisions are made stringent and transparent for implementation of biosafety norms.There are reported cases of violations of biosafety norms in Bt rice field trials. We cannot be a silent spectator as such violations are likely to contaminate other rice with GM traces as happened recently in US and China. The US rice industry has suffered heavily as American shipments were refused on account of contamination with GM rice.”
The USA Rice Federation has proposed an action plan to the government to clean up commercial rice supply from GM traces to restore consumers’ confidence. According to reports it would take about 18-month time to complete the cleaning up exercise. With the reports of GM rice slipping into the food chain and causing adverse impact on trade, the Chinese government is apprehensive of releasing its Bt rice for commercial cultivation. According to the Manila-based International Rice Research Institute, Iran has not yet released its Bt rice for commercial cultivation, though ISAAA reports to the contrary. On Nobember 16, 2006 the Rice Exporters Association of Thailand and the Vietnam Food Association have reached an agreement to keep GM rice out of cultivation.
Greenpeace has recently brought to fore contamination of its rice supply with traces of GM on account of imports. All these sequences of events have placed the Indian rice exporters in a situation of concern as reported cases of violations of biosafety norms in Bt rice field trials was brought to fore by farmers organizations.

GM paddy runs into rough weather in TN - Arun Ram - DNA INDIA, December 11 2006 - http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1068790
CHENNAI: Field trials of genetically modified (GM) rice in Tamil Nadu may be nipped in the bud. While the Centre has done virtually nothing to dispel the Frankenstein theories about the anti-GM crop groups, the state is mulling a legislation to ban such trials altogether. "The government may issue a law banning GM crop trials. We hope the Centre will support us," said Tamil Nadu agriculture minister Veerapandi Arumugam. The minister's reply came in the wake of severe concerns raised by legislators across party lines. While Congress leader, Peter Alphonse, said: "GM crops will wipe out traditional crops", PMK legislator Velmurugan, said: "GM crops are being dumped in India to harm the farming sector."
The volley of political rallies began soon after a farmer's group uprooted BT paddy in a plot in Ramanathapuram village of Coimbatore last month. Mahyco-Monsanto had taken on lease the 20-acre field to try a variety of rice that has a larger yield and resists some common paddy diseases. The group under the banner of the Tamil Nadu Farmers' Association put up notices around the plot, calling it a bio-hazard element. It alleged the company was doing field trials in the land of Rangaraju, a farmer, without informing him that the crop is genetically engineered. "Some 37 people have died and 1,500 others have been crippled in the country after consuming GM crops," said Tamil Nadu Green Movement president Jeevanandam.
The only effort to dispel fears came from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU). "Our scientists have visited the fields and have found the trials to conform to the bio-safety guidelines set by the Union government," a TNAU official said. While the commercial release of GM crops in the country is regulated by the review committee on genetic manipulation under the department of biotechnology, experts feel that there is no convincing monitoring agency for safety standards during the trials. "We can quell all doubts if we succeed in establishing an autonomous and professionally eminent National Biotechnology Authority that can assess risks and benefits in a manner which inspires public, political, professional, farmers and media confidence.
The bottom line for any biotechnology regulatory policy should be the safety of the environment, the well being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external trade, and the biosecurity of our nation," said agriculture scientist MS Swaminathan.

Poor regulators do not a rich country make - Central Chronicle, December 12 2006 - http://www.centralchronicle.com/20061212/1212301.htm
In this past month, farmer associations in Haryana and Tamil Nadu have located and burnt field trials for genetically modified Bt rice. In Chhattisgarh the state government has stopped similar trials happening under its nose. It is all too easy to deride these actions as the handiwork of some misinformed eco-fundamentalists or miscreants out to seek 'cheap' publicity. It can also be argued that these actions will impede scientific progress designed to find answers to malnutrition and food insecurity in the country. It can then be logically concluded that these actions give the country a 'bad' name and dissuade foreign investment. But if critics of such civil action pause and ask what is it that forces people to take such extreme steps, they will invariably find that the blame lies elsewhere. This happens because our regulatory institutions are compromised and weak. Because popular confidence in their ability to work in public interest is low. The fact also is that industry systematically undermines these processes. On being caught out, it cries foul.
Take the instance of pesticide regulations, which I know well. A few years ago, we started testing for pesticide residues in our food and water. As we detected toxins and brought it to public attention, the pesticide industry started its blame game. It first accused us of bad science. When we defended our work, the attack shifted to intimidation with a steady bombardment of legal notices (which continue till date). After this too failed, their offensive has become personal. The owner of a leading pesticide company is now circulating obscene cartoons drawn by him on me. Being a woman, they consider me easy game.
The issue for us is different. We have found to our horror that industry is hardly regulated for environmental or food safety in India. That pesticides were registered without the mandatory setting of maximum residue levels or legal limits of what would be allowed in our food. The rest of the world regulates these economic toxins using a trade-off of nutrition versus poison. In other words, it decides first on how much pesticide can be ingested over a lifetime and then carefully stipulates how much is allowed in different items of our diet. We did not even have the concept of the safety threshold in our regulations. Whatever little research is done is not available to public.
This commonsense regulation of modern toxins requires credible scientific institutions that work in public interest. But institutions designed to monitor pesticide residues in India have been increasingly compromised because of their forced alliances with industry. The pesticide industry provides money for research and trials, sponsors its conferences, and it also gives jobs. Like it or not, it has become the benefactor in this private-public partnership. This market formula creates conflicts of interest when research has to be credible and, more importantly, publicly acceptable. In any case, all the data for registration of a new molecule is provided by the company that has discovered the chemical. When it has spent millions of dollars in developing the molecule, it has an obvious interest in its release. Regulation of pesticide residues requires state of the art public research: laboratories, inspectors and scientists. When registering a new pesticide in India, we never stop to check if we have the wherewithal to monitor its use, and if whether new equipment (and hence more money) is required. We never consider a mandatory cess on each new registration to pay for its management.
The case of genetically modified (gm) organisms is similar. Some people are ideologically opposed to gm crops. But there are others - like me - who want these crops introduced, but with all precaution to ensure our safety. In other words, we want a credible and effective (kicking) public regulatory policy and framework for the use of gm products in the country. But it seems that is too much to ask. We have no real policy to decide which gm crops should be allowed. Several parts of the world fear this technology and have disallowed any food products which contain gm organisms - accidentally or intentionally. us rice exports are in deep trouble because of this. gm rice has not been permitted anywhere in the world. Should we allow it? If yes, how are we to minimise economic, ecological and health damage? Should we allow field trials in states like Chhattisgarh, which is a centre of rice diversity? And what about states like Uttar Pradesh, which produce the prized basmati rice?
If we are to allow trials, how will our regulatory system ensure compliance? For instance, all the farmers who were questioned after their field was uprooted or burnt said that they did not know what was being planted. The field was leased out to the seed company Mahyco. The information about field trials was secret, till activists got it by using the Right To Information Act. The rules require that state- and district-level monitoring committees oversee the trials. In this case, even the state governments had no clue. If we assume compliance on all these counts, how will we test that our farm produce does not contain gm traces? Do we have the laboratories, or an effective monitoring and enforcement system to tell us if our rice or brinjal is gm? If we are to have a right to choose, it requires funds and facilities for ensuring effective regulations. Can we afford all this? We have no labelling requirements even; much of the food imported into India is likely to be gm. We can't assume that we are rich and powerful enough to use modern substances, but too poor to regulate their use in the larger interest of health and the environment. That would be wrong. No, it would be criminal. And it is.
The writer is Director, Centre for Science & Environment

Exporters worried over GM rice rejection - ASHOK B SHARMA - Financial, Express, November 28 2006
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=147469
NEW DELHI, NOV 27: Indian rice exporters are concerned over the growing rejection of genetically modified (GM) across the world. Recently producers in major rice exporting countries - Thailand and Vietnam - signed agreement to keep GM rice out of cultivation. The All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) has woken up to the situation and have asked the government not to allow any field trials or commercial cultivation of GM rice in the country. They say that the retention of the country's image as producer of non-GM foods would largely boost the prospects of rice exports. "Country earns millions of dollars in foreign exchange due to export of rice. India's long grain aromatic rice - basmati has a premium market abroad," said RS Seshadri of Tilda Riceland - a major exporter of basmati rice.
AIREA chief Anil Adlakha has already expressed his concern over the possible contamination of long grain non-GM rice if GM rice trials were allowed to be conducted in the country. Seshadri said "We must learn lessons from the recent contamination of food chain by GM rice under field trials in the US and China. The profitability of US rice industry has declined as many countries began rejecting the US shipments of contaminated rice." He said recently on November 16 in the Rice Exporters Association of Thailand and the Vietnam Food Association signed an accord in Bangkok to keep off GM rice. This accord was signed in presence of senior officials and ministers of both the countries. He said that this is a wake up call for India too.

Top rice exporters say no to genetically engineered rice - Greenpeace International, 28 November 2006
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/rice-exporters-say-no-GE-281106
Bangkok Thailand: Good news: the world's first and second largest exporters of rice have agreed to shun genetically engineered (GE) varieties. A recent agreement between rice traders from Thailand and Vietnam protects half the crop traded on the world market from the dangers of GE, and will put mounting pressure on other rice-producing nations to commit to a GE-free rice supply. According to our campaigner Jeremy Tager, the decision resulted from a  "massive backlash against the GE industry following recent scandals." Illegal and unapproved GE rice varieties from the US and China have contaminated the global rice supply, with disastrous results for many growers, distributors, and traders.
Last week, a historic meeting between the powerful Rice Exporters Association of Thailand and the Vietnam Food Association resulted in the joint announcement of a non-GE rice production policy. More than 30 of the largest rice producers and traders in Thailand and Vietnam were present to endorse the agreement. Only days earlier in India (the worlds third largest exporter of rice), the representative body for India's rice exporters announced they too were supporting a ban on GE rice field trials because of the threat they pose to their GE-free export markets. The Indian government has yet to take action to ban field trials.
Thailand has shown the world that it can lead in rice production without GE rice. As a key agricultural producer, Thailand stands to benefit more if it stops all open-field GE crop trials and declares a GE-free policy once and for all. Rice production accounts for 11 percent of the world's arable land, or 500 million hectares, 90 percent of which is produced on Asian farms of less than one hectare.
We are eating the GE industry's experiments
Stopping field trials is important because the results of GE rice experiments don't seem to be containable: they keep turning up where they're not welcome. Even as news of the Thailand Vietnam accord was breaking, we uncovered yet another major contamination, this time in the Philippines, where rice is the staple food. Bayer's LL601 has contaminated rice products coming from the US, which are currently on sale in Manila. So far in 2006, this unapproved and illegal variety has been found in at least 24 countries. Last week contamination was announced in several countries in Africa. Bayer ended field trials of the LL601 variety in the US five years ago. The global food industry is now facing massive costs associated with GE contamination, including testing costs, product recalls, brand damage, import bans and cancelled imports and contracts. At least five multi-million dollar class-action lawsuits have been filed by about 300 US rice farmers against Bayer, as they struggle to protect their livelihoods from GE contamination.
Rice has been part of our staple diet around the world for over 10,000 years, it is cultivated in 113 countries - in China alone there are 75,000 varieties. Studies of the potential ecological risks of GE rice show that there is a high risk of 'transgene escape' (gene flow) from GE rice to non-GE rice varieties. Research also shows that GE rice out-crossing may threaten wild rice varieties.
Importers are banning it too
The world's largest rice processing company, Ebro Puleva, has stopped all imports of rice from the US and is expected to bring legal action against Bayer as well. Ebro Puleva controls 30 percent of the EU rice market. This move is only one of dozens by traders, millers, exporters, producers and retailers to protect themselves and their customers from unwanted GE foods.
Greenpeace campaigns for GE-free crop and food production that is grounded in the principles of sustainability, protection of biodiversity and providing all people access to safe and nutritious food. Genetic engineering is an unnecessary and unwanted technology that contaminates the environment, threatens biodiversity and poses unacceptable risks to health.

Agreement on non-GE policy - APINYA WIPATAYOTIN - Bangkok Post, 28 November 2006
http://www.bangkokpost.com/281106_News/28Nov2006_news08.php
An agreement between Thai and Vietnamese rice exporters to maintain non-genetically engineered produce will enable Thailand to gain more access to the European Union market, Wanlop Pichpongsa, a member of the Thai Exporters Association, said yesterday. The association and the Vietnam Food Association last week agreed in principle to announce non-GE crops during a meeting in Bangkok. The agreement will be made official in March next year. Mr Wanlop said the agreement would present a big opportunity for Thai and Vietnamese rice exporters, who would enjoy better access to the EU market after the EU imposed a ban on rice imports from the United States, after GM strains were found in a rice shipment from the US last month. ''We should not waste this opportunity because the EU is seeking new sources of rice to replace the US,'' Mr Wanlop said.
Currently, Thailand's export of jasmine rice to the EU totalled about 250,000 tonnes a year, compared to 300,000 tonnes by the US to the same market. Thailand is the world's biggest rice exporter with 8.2 million tonnes a year, followed by Vietnam with 4.7 million tonnes. India and the US ranked third and fourth with 4.3 and three million tonnes, respectively. Meanwhile, Patwajee Srisuwan, an anti-GE campaigner for Greenpeace Southeast Asia, welcomed the private sector's initiative. ''This is a victory for farmers in the region. However, the threat of GE rice adulteration still looms large and it is necessary that the agreement be expanded to cover other Asian countries,'' she said.
In another development, the Administrative Court yesterday agreed to hear the case of GM papaya leakage to farms in Khon Kaen province.

GM FIELD TRIALS FACE THE IRE OF CHATTISGARH STATE GOVERNMENT NOW
State Government not informed about Bt Rice trial, close to the world's richest rice germplasm collection; trial conditions violated yet again
PRESS RELEASE
Raipur, November 24, 2006: After the Uttar Pradesh government, it is now the turn of the Chattisgarh state government to order an inquiry into a Bt Rice trial close to the state capital of Raipur. State officials have expressed their displeasure at the fact that they have not been informed about the trial even though conditions imposed on the company prescribe that it should inform the local panchayat, the concerned authorities in the district and state administration about the full details of the trial. For the first time in the controversial history of GM crop development in India, a state Minister had to rush to the trial spot to undertake damage control exercises as the local media and activists started reporting violations.
Yesterday, the state agriculture minister Mr Nankiram Kawar visited the Bt Rice trial plot in the field of a farmer called Jagdishlal Arora in Purara village close to Raipur city (a village that has been annexed into the city) after receiving reports from media and activists that trial has been conducted without information to state authorities and worse, that crop remains have been allowed to lie around including some grain without being destroyed as per biosafety guidelines. He ordered the immediate destruction of the remaining crop in the field by burning. Investigations reveal that destruction is still underway.
What is very important to note is that this trial has happened at a distance of only around one kilometer from the world's richest collection of rice germplasm available with the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vidyalaya, the state agriculture university.
"This is suicidal - allowing GM rice trials so close to our rich collection of rice diversity, most of which has been evolved by indigenous communities over centuries. How do the government and the company propose to make themselves liable in case of contamination - are the Environment Protection Act's liability clauses anywhere close to protecting such valuable legacy? We have been constantly pointing out that GM crop experimentation especially in the case of rice is against the Cartagena biosafety framework to which India is a signatory, given that India is a Centre of Origin and diversity for rice. It is shocking to see such short-sightedness in our regulators while it is very unsurprising to see that the company involved only has its own profits as its main concern and nothing else", said Jacob Nelllithanam of Richharia Campaign, Chattisgarh.
Dr Ilina Sen of Chattisgarh Jaiv Suraksha Manch added, "The selection of the farmer for the trial is questionable. Further, the team that went to visit the trial at the behest of the DBT has found that the Bt Okra plot next to the Bt Rice plot has already been harvested and that the Bt Rice plot was in mid-harvest. The team admitted that given this situation, they were unable to ascertain the safety and efficacy of the technology. The Mahyco officials contacted said that since our questions cover biosafety and statutory aspects, it is best to approach the regulatory authorities for details. Clearly, all is not well with the way these trials are happening".
This field trial of Bt Rice followed the routine pattern of violations found in most trials happening around India – the local Councillor Ms Vinod Bhaghel had no information about the trial nor did the district authorities in the agriculture department. Officials spoken to were complaining about the fact that some of the officials were told about the trial only towards the end of the season, that too when the Department of Biotechnology in the Government of India asked them to be part of A monitoring team to visit the plot.
Speaking on the phone with Kavitha Kuruganti of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Mr Prabhat Tridatta, senior official in the state agriculture department said that the state government has not given permission to the trial and that after collecting detailed information, they will write to the Government of India about their concerns. He also admitted that regulatory institutions laid down under the Environment Protection Act have not been set up in the state of Chattisgarh.
For more information, contact:
1 Mr Jacob Nellithanam, Richharia Campaign, at farmersrights@gmail.com or (0) 9425560950
2 Dr Ilina Sen, Chattisgarh Jaiv Suraksha Manch, at sen.ilina@gmail.com or 0771-2424669
For your information, Phone number of the Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Chattisgarh, Mr Pankaj Dwivedi: 0771-2221209/5080209; Deputy Secretary-Agriculture Mr Prabhat Kridatta - 0771-4080933
Kavitha Kuruganti, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, 12-13-445, Street # 1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad 500 017 - Phone: +91-9393001550

Protecting rice - Suman Sahai - Times of India, 18 November 2006
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/OPINION/Editorial/Protecting_rice/articleshow/460936.cms
Farmers belonging to the Bharatiya Kissan Union have set fire to the trial plots of a Bt rice variety belonging to Mahyco that was being field-tested in Karnal. It turns out that the trials were being conducted in violation of biosafety standards. Farmers on whose fields the trials were being conducted had no idea what was planted, nor did they understand the implications of genetically-engineered rice containing the toxin gene from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. Apart from the safety issue of eating genetically-engineered foods containing poison genes, there are other aspects that are particularly relevant to GE rice and India.
India is an exporter of both Basmati and non-Basmati rice and has significant trade interests in this crop. If Indian rice were to be contaminated with genetically-engineered Bt rice, which is certain to happen, traders would lose their traditional rice markets in the European Union, Africa and the Middle East. All these regions have declared their opposition to genetically-engineered foods. That is the reason why rice exporters have appealed to government to halt further trials of GE rice. India shouldn't take the risk of cultivating GE rice not just from the trade point of view but also because it is a major centre of origin for rice.
Mexico, which is the centre of origin and diversity for corn, has imposed a ban on not just the cultivation of GE corn, but also research in GE corn. Mexico has taken this position in order to safeguard the natural gene pool of corn, another major staple food of the world. India is one of the centres where rice originated. This means that the greatest number of rice and related genes are found in India. Centres of origin are considered high-risk areas for GE crops because if foreign genes contained in the GE variety were to move into the natural gene pool, the results could be potentially catastrophic.
Scientists promoting agbiotech argue that rice is a self-pollinating crop and will not accept outside pollen and genes. This is not true since cross-pollination is known to occur in rice and there are several studies that show that the extent of cross-pollination, depending on humidity and wind speed, can in fact be significantly high. Studies conducted in China and Latin America have shown that gene flow between GE rice and other rice happens at rates that are high enough to cause concern about gene transfers.
One of the growing concerns about the impact of genetic engineering is gene-silencing. Experiments show that the introduction of foreign genes can cause gene-silencing in the plant that is receiving the foreign gene. This means certain genes in the plant will become silent (non-functional) and not produce what they normally should. Gene-silencing could have very grave implications if it were to spread to the natural gene pool by careless scientists.
Maintaining genetic diversity is crucial for the long-term survival of any crop. When a crop variety somewhere becomes vulnerable either due to the onslaught of a disease or the soil becoming waterlogged or alkaline, scientists need to breed another variety of the crop for that region. They do this by searching for suitable genes in related varieties and the natural gene pool. If GE rice were to contaminate the native gene pool of rice and introduce harmful features like gene-silencing or change the normal functions of other genes, it would have terrible implications for food security of the rice-eating regions of the world.
Although genetically-engineered crops and foods are being pushed into the market, there is little investment in their regulation and monitoring. Apart from that, not enough is understood about what happens when foreign genes are abruptly pushed into the genetic material of plants and animals. That is the reason why the biosafety process places such a premium on the precautionary principle. Essentially this says that when faced with uncertainty, it is better to be cautious and not proceed with genetic engineering.
It is not clear what advantages can come about from GE rice but it is apparent what damage can be wrought by it. The most judicious course for India is to stay away from GE rice and protect the genetic integrity of this food crop for future generations.
The writer is convenor, Gene Campaign.

Farmers' association declares war on GE crops - Special Correspondent - The Hindu, November 16 2006
http://www.hindu.com/2006/11/16/stories/2006111603640500.htm
"These crops will endanger food security, poison the environment"
*Trials are being conducted clandestinely
*Companies such as Monsanto-Mahyco have poor bio-safety records
*Firms testing such crops are mandated to destroy them after trials, but the practice is never followed
CHENNAI: Representatives of the Tamil Nadu Velan Kappu Kuzhu said on Wednesday they would not allow genetically engineered crops to be tested or cultivated anywhere in Tamil Nadu.
"We are ready to face any consequence in our fight against these crops, which endanger food security and poison the environment. If need be, we will confiscate GE seeds from shops that sell them and destroy them," K. Chellamuthu, chairman, Tamil Nadu Farmers Association, told reporters.
Last week, members of the Kuzhu, an umbrella organisation of farmers, consumer organisations and environmental groups, staged a protest by uprooting GE paddy from a trial field at Alandurai near Ramanathapuram in Coimbatore.
Appeal to Chief Minister
"The trials are being conducted clandestinely by multinational companies such as Monsanto that is selling GE seeds through Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited. We are losing our traditional crop strains by the invasion of the MNC crops. We will try to create awareness of the threat posed by these crops and will appeal to Chief Minister M. Karuninidhi to make Tamil Nadu a GE-free State,'' Mr. Chellamuthu said.

Farmers want GE trials stopped - Statesman News Service, November 15 2006
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=2&theme=&usrsess=1&id=137002
CHENNAI, Nov. 15: After destroying (Genetically Engineered) GE crop experimentally planted in a 25 cent land at Alandurai in Ramanadhapuram village in Coimbatore district in a surprise move last week, the Tamil Nadu Velan Kappu Kuzhu (Tamil Nadu Agriculture Protection Group), a collective of farmers association, consumer groups and environmental organisations, have declared war on all field trials across the state and have given a call to the Indian government to bring a ban on all such experiments.
The association has come in for strong support from Greenpeace which is supporting them in Tamil Nadu while taking the initiative in other parts of India. The group declared that the government has failed to learn its lessons from the failed BT cotton experiments in Vidharbha in Maharastra and in Andhra Pradesh where farmers committed suicide, and said that further inaction will prove disastrous for human lives.
The activists in a surprise move on 10 November shocked the State when they entered a 10 acre paddy field where Baccilus thuringiensis (BT) rice was planted amid normal local crop plantation (done to prevent transfer through pollination) and uprooted and destroyed the GE rice crop in protest. Those who participated in the demonstration belonged to various movements in Tamil Nadu, including the Tamil Nadu Green Movement, Tamil Nadu Organic Farming Movement, Tamil Nadu Farmers Union of the CPI, Pasumai Thayagam of the PMK and the Farmers Toilers Party. The 10-acre plot belonged to a farmer Rangadurai, who was ignorant of such a trial taking place. The land was taken on lease by a private seed company called Mahyco for the trials. The activists alleged that Mahyco was just a front of the US based Monsanto, one of the MNCs involved in research and field trial of GE crops.
Mr Nammazhvar, veteran organic agriculture scientist, slammed the contention that MNCs were sinking crores to "wipe out hunger". "Farmers are knowledgeable of the technology needed to save their crops from pests as well as to increase crop production. Before 1950 no farmer used pesticide. Scientists in the name of Green Revolution have only harmed farming and consequently human interests itself in the last 50 years, a fact acknowledge by scientist M S Swaminathan himself, who spearheaded the project," he told reporters in Chennai on Wednesday. He also called a lie the contention of the scientist that this was a necessary project in the interest of humanity. "The GE crop farming which kills bio-diversity would concentrate crop control in MNCs hands and will make farmers dependent upon companies for the seeds," Mr Nammazhwar, who has been in the forefront of the movement, said.
Mr Chellamuthu of the Farmers Toilers Party, who was among those against whom the company has filed a case for the 10 November destruction, said he would not be cowed down by any action against the movement activists. He said he would work towards creating awareness among the public and will also meet the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister, Mr M Karunanidhi, demanding a ban on GE crops in the state.
Stating that there was a cyclic ignorance that the scientific community was exploiting, Mr Selvam, an organic farmer from Erode district, said: "IAS officers do not know science and scientists tell lies and the politician belives that the scientists are telling the truth." In the land leased for field trial, which in itself is a violation as it must be done in glass houses and not in the open, the IAS officer, the activists allege, conceals the fact that the trial is for GE crops. The trial is termed as one done for rice loaded with "proteins", whereas the protein here is a toxin.
Greenpeace activist Ms Divya Raghunandan pointed out that the Planning Commission during one of its deliberations on the 11th plan had even invited Monsanto officials to take part. The Indian government is also attempting to perpetuate a double standard by framing a draft on biotechnology policy which envisages a certification of all crops meant for exports that they are not genetically engineered. "It reflects the flawed vision of the government of India which proposes one standard for food consumption of Indians and another for foreign nations," she said. GE crops are banned in most developed nations, she added.

Farmers body opposes GE seeds - Chennai Online, 15 November 2006
http://www.chennaionline.com/colnews/newsitem.asp?NEWSID=%7BC79CFD01-0364-46BE-B19A-44EF38F9DE06%7D&CATEGORYNAME=TAMNA
Chennai, Nov 15: Justifying its recent action of destroying genetically engineered (GE) plants near Coimbatore, the Tamil Nadu Velaan Kaappu Kuzhu (Tamil Nadu Agriculture Protection Group) today said it would oppose use of GE and genetically modified (GM) seeds in the state "GM and GE are detrimental to sustainable agriculture, food security, environment and harmful to people. We will prevent GM and GE seeds from being used in the state", Dr V Duraimanickam, Tamil Nadu Farmers Association (TFA) general secretary and state Farmers and Toilers Party president P Chellamuthu told a press conference here.
On November 10, over 200 farmers, under the banner of the Tamil Nadu Farmers Association, destroyed rice plants in a GE rice field trial at Ramanathapuram village, about 20 km from Coimbatore.
Releasing a report on 'Future of rice' (being released internationally by Greenpeace and farmers movements), agricultural scientist Dr P Nammalwar said an estimated 1.4 lakh varieties of rice in over 100 countries had been developed keeping in mind area and climate specific conditions. "There are rice varieties that grow in deep water, rice being grown through irrigated water and rice that can resist drought conditions. This biodiversity can be destroyed by GM and GE seeds," he observed. He said rice had been grown in India for the last 15,000 years and wheat, for the last 20,000 years. Breaking this pattern and introducing GM and GE varieties could lead to "erosion of our rich biodiversity", he added.

BJP against use of genetically engineered crops - Ganesan threatens to launch agitation in State - Special Correspondent
The Hindu, November 14 2006 - http://www.hindu.com/2006/11/14/stories/2006111415650700.htm
CHENNAI: The Bharatiya Janata Party is opposed to using Tamil Nadu a "testing ground" for genetically engineered (GE) crops, L. Ganesan, president of its State unit, said here on Monday. Referring to an incident last week at a village near Coimbatore, where farmer-activists uprooted GE paddy crop on a trial field, Mr. Ganesan told reporters that it was for the Government to clarify doubts and allay apprehensions of the farmers on the implications of the use of such crops. The country had seen opposition to the adoption of genetically modified cotton crop. Mr. Ganesan threatened to lead an agitation to fill the jails if the Government went ahead with launching such crops.
On the State Government's assurance that farm lands would not be acquired for special economic zones (SEZs), Mr. Ganesan wondered from where the Government would get land for the SEZs when it had not provided two acres of waste land each to agricultural workers.
Briefing reporters about the deliberations of the BJP State executive which met at Erode on November 11 and 12, he said the party would hold protest meetings all over the State from December 7 to 13 for highlighting the problem of rising prices of essential commodities. Accusing the UPA Government at the Centre of adopting a soft approach on terrorism, he said the organisation would hold demonstrations in all "terrorism-hit areas" in the State. He would launch the programme in Madurai on November 17. This would be followed by events in places including Kanyakumari and Tirunelveli on November 18 and 19.
Former BJP national president Venkaiah Naidu would participate in one such event at Coimbatore.

Hazardous rice crop destroyed - Chennai Online (India), Nov 10 2006
http://www.chennaionline.com/colnews/newsitem.asp?NEWSID=%7B82FCB8B9-38C7-4D59-BF01-BFB8CE649977%7D&CATEGORYNAME=Technology
Coimbatore, Nov 10: Over 200 farmers, under the banner of Tamil Nadu Farmers Association, today destroyed rice plants in a genetically engineered field trial location at Ramanathapuram village in Alandurai Taluk, about 20 km from here. The farmers, led by P Chellamuthu, TNFA chairman and Peasants and Toilers Party president, uprooted and destroyed the matured rice plants in the field which was reportedly leased out to Mahyco-Monsanto for carrying out Bt.rice field trial (bt cry 1 Ac rice). The farmers, wearing headgears with anti-GE slogan written on them, marched to the field wearing gloves and safety masks. Activists put up a banner that declared the plot to be a GE rice field trial location and also planted bio-hazard signposts along the plot and the demarcated the area with tapes.
The GE rice was planted in 20 cents plot in the middle of a two acre land, for field trial "without the knowledge" of the land owner about the nature of the trial and its hazardous nature, Chellamuthu told reporters. He demanded that the district collector, heading the district level committee for monitoring field trials of GE crops, take cognizance of this trial and "blatant violation of guidelines by the company." TNFA insisted that the crop must be destroyed by burning as required under the Environment Protection Act 1986.
Representatives from Mahyco-Monsanto were not available to verify the TNFA claims. (Agencies)

Make research on modified seeds public - By Dhananjay Mahapatra - Times of India, 9 November 2006
http://www.checkbiotech.org/root/index.cfm?fuseaction=news&doc_id=13827&start=1&control=183&page_start=1&page_nr=101&pg=1
NEW DELHI - Supreme Court's poser on Wednesday to the Centre on an NGO's plea to make agri-multinationals a public research data on the effects - both positive and negative - of genetically modified (GM) seeds is sure to ruffle many feathers. For, while the multinationals focus on the high yield and pest-resistance qualities of the GM seeds, they rarely tell unsuspecting farmers, especially in third world countries like India, about the harmful side-effects on their long term use in traditional farming.
A Bench comprising Justices A R Lakshmanan and Tarun Chatterjee issued notice to the Centre asking it to respond to an application filed by NGO Gene Campaign, which through advocate Sanjay Parikh alleged that transparency in research data is a must for farmers to make an informed choice. Counsel said the NGO has been seeking data about trials of GM seeds before their approval for commercial cultivation, but the standard reply is that as the data sought for forms part of the intellectual property of the concerned firm, it cannot be made public. "It is shocking that information that has a bearing on public health and safety can be kept confidential under the present rules," the NGO said and alleged that this lack of transparency makes the GM seeds regulatory regime extremely weak and completely inadequate to protect public from possible health hazards.
It has requested the court to direct the concerned authorities to make public all data that is relevant to determining environment and health safety, including toxicity and allerginicity data, of a genetically engineered plan.

SC issues notice to Centre seeking moratorium on commercialization of Genetically Engineered crops - Satya Prakash - Hindustan Times, November 8 2006
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1839215,0008.htm
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Centre on a PIL seeking a moratorium on commercialization of Genetically Engineered variety of crops until a competent regulatory structure and rules were put in place. A Bench of Justice AR Lakshmanan and Justice Altmas Kabir issued notices to the ministries of Environment & Forests, Science & Technology and Agriculture after 'Gene Campaign' counsel Sanjay Parikh mentioned its application for an urgent hearing. Parikh urged the court to direct the authorities to stop commercialization of Genetically Engineered variety of crops until the outdated 1989 regulatory regime was updated.
The NGO sought a moratorium on the ground that the 1989 rules for manufacture, use, import, export and storage of hazardous micro-organisms, genetically engineered organisms or cells did not take into account the environmental norms generally followed in other countries. It contended the moratorium was necessary for protecting environment and public health, protected under the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. On a similar PIL by environmentalist Aruna Rodrigues, the court recently restrained the government from allowing any new field trials for Genetically Modified (GM) crops. The Government has, however, sought lifting of the interim ban.
Gene Campaign, which moved the court on the issue two years ago, has also sought a direction to authorities to make public all data relevant for determining environment and health safety standards. Parikh said the latest application was moved after the authorities refused to divulge "toxicity" and "allergenicity" data generated on trans-genic crops that were yet to get approval for commercial cultivation. The NGO said the authorities refused to provide such data under the RTI Act on the ground that these were intellectual property of the companies and had a commercial value. The disclosure would adversely affect the competitive advantage of the company generating the data, it was said. The authorities had further said that data could be provided only for crops, which had already been released and that too after issuing notice to the companies producing them.
Email: satya.prakash@hindustantimes.com

The future of GM crops is not in technology, but in economics - Sumit Bhaduri - DNA, November 5 2006
http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1062331
There have been over 2,000 suicides by farmers in Vidarbha over the last few years. The count is still rising, the reason almost uniformly being indebtedness. Two-thirds of these farmers mainly grew cotton and, from 2004, genetically modified (GM) Bt cotton at that. The Supreme Court's directive that the government stops any fresh approval of GM crop field trials is therefore significant. Don't we live in the much-hyped age of biotechnology where genetic manipulations are supposed to provide magical solutions to a variety of problems? Aren't GM crops necessary to increase food production substantially so that we can feed our one billion-plus population that still grows at a rather alarming rate and usher in a 'second Green Revolution'? In theory and in the long run maybe 'yes', but in practice and, as of now, 'no'.
The proponents of GM crops point out their potential to enormously increase productivity ?almost 30 percent in the case of Bt cotton. This increase has apparently almost doubled the profits from Bt-cotton compared to traditional varieties. Critics of GM crops point out that such claims are exaggerated. The increase in productivity does not reduce the potential risk associated with the use of GM plants, and there are other methods like 'organic farming' to achieve the same objectives. They also point out that the proponents of GM technology are interested parties and data supporting their claims must be subjected to objective scrutiny.
The Supreme Court appears to concur with the last point and has suggested to the government that independent experts be associated with the GEAC, the government agency that has the authority to allow further field trials. In the light of the SC ruling the agriculture minister is also talking about the cost benefit analysis of GM crops on a 'strict scientific' basis.
However, from a long term perspective this basic question remains unanswered: Does progress in technology evaluated on a 'strict scientific' basis automatically lead to economic benefits, or is it the other way round ? that investments made in S&T are productive and lead to social welfare only when the socio-economic climate allows diffusion and adoption of new technologies? The recent Bt cotton case clearly shows that the latter generally holds true. Even assuming that all the increased productivity numbers claimed by the Bt cotton proponents are correct, higher productivity is only one of the necessary conditions to lift farmers out of chronic indebtedness. The landholding pattern, irrigation facilities, minimum support price of cotton, not to mention natural calamities such as drought or flood, are some of the factors that determine the economic success or failure of cotton as a crop.
This is not something unique to India and cotton. It is worth recalling that genetic engineering came into existence only in the 80s, when the original Green Revolution (GR) pioneered by Norman Borlaug and based on plant breeding, was already about 20 years old. This was spectacularly successful in the Indian subcontinent, but failed in Africa. While wheat and rice productivity in Asia increased two to three fold, special breeds of maize and cassava failed in Africa, although these crops were specifically suited to the African climate. The reasons for this were many: lack of political will, corrupt administration, poor distribution, etc.
The debate around GM crops also illustrates the impact of globalisation on the interface of technology and economics. The most visible aspect of globalisation has been the shrinking influence of nation-states and the global search by private capital for new markets. Almost all the work that made the first GR possible was unpatented. Contrast this with the frenzied patenting activities that started around the same time that WTO and the TRIPS agreement came into effect. From the year 2000 almost 400 patents in gene-based plant breeding have been filed every year in America. This is more than ten times the total number of patents filed between 1960-80. The intense patent activity in plant breeding is a manifestation of global search by private capital for new markets and all claims of a 'second Green Revolution' must be judged keeping that in mind.
The ultimate economic impact of GM crops will be determined less by trumpeting its magical power and more by its societal acceptability. Advertisements, political pressures, etc. will have an effect, but a careful and objective risk-benefit analysis must find a place. The Supreme Court's ruling is hence a welcome step in the right direction.
The writer is a scientist. These are his personal views.

Report of the Independent Expert Committee on Bt Brinjal
From Kavitha Kuruganti - Centre for Sustainable Agriculture
Dear Friends
Please recall that in the last week of September 2006, we had put out a press release on an Independent Expert Committee set up on Bt Brinjal. The full report of the Committee is now ready...........see Reports Page for the full report
As can be seen, amongst many important observations and comments, the Committee has found that research guidelines that DBT has evolved (in its own wisdom), related to biosafety assessment of transgenic crops, have not been adhered to by the developers of Bt Brinjal. Further, the Committee notes that with the existing data, "it is not possible to arrive at any meaningful conclusions regarding the safety of the product" or "its efficacy". The committee also notes that from the ICAR-supervised trials' data [All India Coordinated Research Project on Vegetable Cultivation - AICRP], 'there is not much hope for Bt Brinjal'.
While making observations on protocols adopted and summaries of various studies including biosafety tests, the Committee notes that it is prudent to follow a precautionary approach.
The summary of the report of Independent Expert Committee is given below:
"An independent expert committee to look into issues related to Bt Brinjal found that DBT guidelines were not always followed by the developers of transgenic brinjal. It found that some tests as laid down by the DBT were not taken up in the safety evaluation or test protocols were not as per the specifications laid down in the guidelines.
The Committee acknowledged that recent published evidence on the genes and vectors used in evolving Bt Brinjal show that caution needs to be exercised in using these materials in plants and plant products meant for human use. Results of some toxicity tests show that unless raw data is examined and full report seen, it is not possible to arrive at any meaningful conclusions regarding safety of the product.
On the agronomic trials, Bt Brinjal is not compared with the best agronomic and pest management practices available nor have trials been taken up for at least three years. The Committee observed that parameters prescribed in the DBT's permission letter were not always meticulously followed by the company. Committee found that data from the company is insufficient for any conclusion to be drawn about the efficacy of Bt Brinjal. From AICRP data, there is not much hope for Bt Brinjal, the Committee noted.
The Committee made several relevant observations which need to be taken cognizance of, on the protocols used for other studies like pollen flow, cooking studies, aggressiveness & weediness, soil impacts study etc.
The Committee also noted that impact assessment beyond biosafety, including addressing issues like genius loci, of IPR regime on farmers' rights etc. is important. The Committee called for a holistic approach rather than a reductionist approach here.
The Committee noted that the issue of the Indian sub-continent being the Centre of Origin for brinjal is of considerable relevance and that need for Bt Brinjal should be re-examined against this background.
Given that there is uncertainty and variability in the risk assessment process and given that satisfactory methodologies to measure possible long term health effects or unintended/unexpected adverse effects of GM foods are yet to be evolved, the Committee noted that it is prudent to follow a precautionary approach".
For more information, contact:
1. Dr Ramanjaneyulu or Ms Kavitha Kuruganti of CSA at gvramanjaneyulu@gmail.com / kavitha_kuruganti@yahoo.com or at (0) 9391359702 / (0) 9393001550 resp.
2. Ms Usha Jayakumar of Thanal at ushathanal@gmail.com or at (0) 9846321118

India's rice industry warns against GE trials - Reuters, October 31 2006
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2006-10-31T191119Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-274412-1.xml
NEW DELHI (Reuters) - India's top rice exporters and farmers unions warned the government on Tuesday that further field trials of genetically engineered (GE) rice could jeopardise the livelihoods of millions of poor farmers across the country. The warning came just over a week after the European Union decided to compulsorily test all U.S. shipments of long-grain rice. That followed a discovery that U.S. imports to Europe were contaminated with genetically modified (GMO) rice. No biotech rice is allowed to be grown, sold or marketed on the territory of the European Union's 25 countries.
India has carried out field trials of mostly short-grain rice at 10 different sites across the country since 2005, but the Supreme Court last month suspended fresh tests on all crops until a further court hearing. Previous trials show no signs of GM seeds infecting rice exports. But importers and farmers fear the risk of contamination through mixing of seeds during storage or in transportation could affect consumer confidence and India's reputation as a "clean and reliable" rice exporter. "Indian rice is GM-free and we want to keep it that way," said R.S. Seshadri, director of Tilda Riceland and a member of the All-India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) - which represents exporters like Satnam Overseas, Sunstar, Kohinoor. "We are asking them not to do further testing ... we need to review guidelines and enforce stricter standards in light of what has happened in the U.S.," he told a news conference.
India is the largest producer and exporter of Basmati rice - a long-grain rice priced for its characteristic subtle aroma and delicious taste - and exported 1.15 million tonnes, generating 30.3 billion rupees in the 2005/6 financial year. Although most of the tests were on short-grain rice, farmers say many were not informed that field trials were taking place near their own rice paddys. If contamination occurs in exported stocks, buyers in Europe and Middle Eastern countries might ban Indian products, unions say. "The GM-testing happening in this country is a dirty joke which is being played on us," said Yudhvir Singh, a senior official from the Bharatiya Kisan Union, a union representing hundreds of thousands of farmers across India. "We run the risk of hundreds of thousands of farmers losing their livelihoods if bans are imposed or we lose consumer confidence in products."

Haryana farmers oppose GM crops - Sandeep Bhushan - NDTV, October 31 2006
http://www.ndtv.com/morenews/showmorestory.asp?slug=Haryana+farmers+oppose+GM+crops&id=95607&category=National
(Karnal): While Bt cotton remains in focus, there is further controversy surrounding genetically modified food crops like potato, brinjal, tomato and rice. Six edible crops have been cleared for field trials and for the first time, a field in Karnal's Rampura village was burnt just days before it would have been harvested because it was growing genetically modified rice. Locals say about 400 activists of the Bharatiya Kisan Union, which is affiliated to the Mahendra Singh Tikait group, torched the crop standing over an acre. "About 400 farmers stormed the rice fields. They told us this crop is poison, it will affect our cattle and children," said a farmer. The land was leased out by a local farmer to the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company or MAHYCO, the American multi-national Monsanto's partner in India, for a field trial that had been cleared by the Government of India.
'Unhealthy' technology
But farmers and activists object. They say genetically modified technology, which has now moved to food crops, is unhealthy, contaminates the ground and other crops and is also bad for the farmers because it promotes monopoly of seed companies. The situation in Karnal has been building up since the government allowed field trials of GM crops like brinjal, potato and tomato. A month ago, the Supreme Court had banned any further field trials of such crops - a shot in the arm for farmers and activists who have cited exactly such a ban in all European countries.
But influential opinion within the government has defended field trials. "It is a superior technology and has shown good results in other countries," said M S Swaminathan, Chairman, Farmers' Commission. However, the farmers are not willing to buy such an argument. "The BKU has decided that all GM crops will meet this fate. We are opposed to the seed companies and will not allow them to profiteer," said Harinder Singh, BKU, Karnal. The problem has been that neither the government nor private players have been transparent about the issue, giving rise to fears both among farmers and consumers. The onus is squarely on the government and private companies to prove that GM food promotes the greatest common good.

BKU torches GM rice test field in Karnal - GAUTAM DHEER - Indian Express, October 30 2006 - http://www.indianexpress.com/story/15675.html
CHANDIGARH, OCTOBER 29 : In a serious setback for field tests of genetically modified (GM) rice, activists of the Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) have torched the sole field in Haryana where tests for the modified rice variety were being carried out. The incident took place at Rampura in Karnal district on Saturday where modified rice was in the harvest stage. Some 400 BKU activists torched the crop, saying it would contaminate soil and affect the existing variety of rice. After the incident, BKU threatened to burn all such fields in the country where trials are underway. The Rampura land, where the tests were on, had been leased by a farmer to Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Ltd (Mahyco), Monsanto's seed partner in India. Mahyco-Monsanto was the first to release Bt cotton in India in 2002. Mahyco has been authorised by the Government's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to undertake field trials for GM rice in the country.
Rakesh Tikait, BKU's national spokesperson and son of BKU president Mahinder Singh Tikait, told The Indian Express that "such trials will be disastrous for the farmers as they will not only contaminate the soil, but also adversely affect yield from existing rice varieties". "On Friday, we got a tip-off from Hyderabad that such tests were underway in Karnal. So we decided to burn the harvest. We have also sent a team to Gorakhpur (UP) where similar trials are going on in a field. We are awaiting the report," Tikait said.
Sources said that no complaint has been registered by the Karnal police so far.
editor@expressindia.com

GM variety may spell trouble for Indian rice - The Hindu, October 30 2006 - http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/015200610300311.htm
New Delhi, Oct 30. (PTI): Commercial cultivation of genetically modified variety of rice in India could lead to restrictions being imposed by the European Union on the country's grain export to the region, the industry has warned. The country's leading rice exporters, who are planning to meet the Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar with their demand on this issue, said that EU has introduced new test requirements for rice import from the US after some consignments were found to be contaminated with unauthorised GM varieties. "Currently, the EU restrictions are applied to the US only. But as other countries flirt with GM, we can expect similar restrictions applied to them as well," the country's largest Basmati rice exporter Tilda Riceland's Director R S Seshadri told PTI. The rice industry is against the commercialisation of GM variety, another leading Basmati exporter Kohinoor Foods' Managing Director Gurnam Arora said. "We are planning to meet Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar on this issue," Arora aid.
India's rice export to the EU totalled Rs 507.31 crore in 2005-06, as against Rs 508.46 crore in the previous year. The country's total rice exports dropped 8 per cent to Rs 6,221.26 crore in 2005-06 from Rs 6,768.91 crore in the previous year. If India can toy with the idea of GM rice, the country's Rs 507.32 crore export market in Europe could be in trouble, KRBL Ltd, which markets India Gate rice brand, Chairman and Managing Director Anil Mittal said. "The US is now facing problems due to contamination of GM rice with other non-GM varieties in its export consignment to Europe," Seshadri said. America has a well-established export market of 3,00,000 tonnes in Europe. However, after the US government identified an unauthorised GM variety in its rice supply, the European Commission responded by introducing new test requirements. "Although test results showed that the contamination is approximately 1 grain in 3,000, the EU's rule of zero tolerance for any unauthorised GM, the situation is extremely volatile with the prospect of further restrictions beingintroduced," Sheshadri said.
GM rice variety remains illegal in Europe unless and until the specific variety has undergone rigorous approval, he added. Any GM varieties that might be cultivated in India in the future would have to get prior approval by the EU before export to the region. Otherwise, we can expect the same import restrictions to all Indian rice, including Basmati, he cautioned while adding, "we cannot allow something like that to happen to Basmati." Amira Foods India's Managing Director Karan Chanana echoed similar sentiments. "GM Basmati could spell death knell for the industry," he said. As there is a huge debate going on in the world about the acceptability of GM produce, Chanana said, "GM rice is not currently the requirement of the nation. We are not prepared for its consequences. Hence India should not allow GM rice on its soil."

BHARATIYA KISSAN UNION DESTROYS AND PREVENTS CONTAMINATION FROM A GM RICE PLOT IN HARYANA: Press Release
Finds out that farmer had not been given information on the trial in his land;
Ensures that DBT guidelines are followed by the company
Karnal, October 28, 2006: Activists of Bharatiya Kissan Union [BKU] and scores of villagers of Rampura village in Karnal district of Haryana destroyed a GM Rice plot in Haryana to prevent contamination from the rice plot and to ensure that DBT guidelines are not flouted. Included amongst them is Paramjit Singh, the farmer on whose land Mahyco is doing the trial but who has not been informed about what is being tried out on his land and the Sarpanch of the village, Mr Syamlal.
The BKU activists who went to investigate the trial in Rampura village found out that the farmer, who had leased out his land to Mahyco for Rs. 15,000/- for two acres had not been informed by the company about what kind of seeds are going to be sown on his land. Similarly, the panchayat head has not been given the full details of the trial.
"The way trials are conducted in the country is about playing with the ignorance of the farmers as this case shows. Given the unreliable track record of the company and the regulators in preventing contamination from the trial plots into the supply chain where unwary consumers are eating untested products, we had to ensure that such a thing does not happen from this trial. This is all the more dangerous in a basmati-rice growing belt of the country. We have now ensured that the DBT guidelines regarding destruction of GM plant material in the trial are not flouted", said Mr Rakesh Tikait, spokesperson of Bhartiya Kissan Union.
GM trial plots have become the biggest source of contamination all over the world and regular scandals about untested and uncleared [by regulation] products entering the consumption chain have become routine now. Recent scandals include GM rice contamination in the US and China . India also witnessed several contamination scandals in connection with GM crop trials including the illegal proliferation of Bt Cotton much before the regulatory authorities allowed its cultivation. Civil society investigations have pointed out again and again that material including seed material is allowed to get into the supply chain due to lax or even absent monitoring of trials by the regulators. Even this year, recent reports from Karnataka indicate that the Environment Protection Act is being violated by one of the trials happening in the state.
Mr Gurnam Singh, President, Haryana unit of Bhartiya Kissan Union stressed that given the economic and trade potential of Basmati rice from this belt, it is disastrous for GM rice trials to be conducted, that too secretively.
More than 500 farmers, including many farmers from Rampura congregated at the trial site and demanded its destruction.
For more information, contact:
1. Mr Rakesh Tikait, spokesperson, BKU at: (0) 9219666799
2. Mr Dharmendar Malik, BKU at: (0) 9219691168

SUPREME COURT DOES NOT LIFT SEPTEMBER 22nd STAY ON FURTHER FIELD TRIAL APPROVALS
Allows Delhi University To Go Ahead With Planting Of GM Mustard Until The Petitioner Responds To The Impleadment Application
Press Release
October 13th, 2006, New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India today allowed the Delhi University to plant its GM Mustard seeds for limited field trials, while giving two weeks' time to the GMOs-PIL petitioners to respond to the University's impleadment application. Without lifting last month's stay on further approvals on GM crop field trials by the GEAC, the Supreme Court allowed the Delhi University to go ahead with the GM mustard field trials on the basis that the Court would hear the matter again in five weeks' time and on the assurance provided by Delhi University that they would uproot the crop in case the Court orders them to do so, after hearing the petitioner's response.
Meanwhile, the Government has asked the Court to give them another couple of days to respond to the main petition in the PIL filed by Aruna Rodrigues and three others. When the respondents objected to the cooption of five independent experts recommended by the petitioners into the GEAC, the Court asked the Government to put its objections on record, to suggest any other names from the government's side as well as enquire whether the proposed experts are being/have been funded directly or indirectly by the biotech companies. By these pronouncements, the Court has indicated clearly that it has taken into cognizance the deep conflict of interest evident in the current regulatory regime in the country.
It has to be seen whether members of various regulatory bodies like GEAC and RCGM, who clearly reflect such conflict of interest, would now resign from such bodies by themselves.
The unfolding of the case so far clearly indicates that the Court has taken on board the main arguments of the petition which include that the biosafety protocols in the country - by design as well as enforcement - are questionable and would pose serious threat to the human health and environment of the country, that the GM crop applicants do not follow protocols, that there is no independent research conducted, no independent review of the results obtained by crop developers, that data is not put out in the public domain for expert scrutiny and so on.
The Petition mainly argues that no field trials should be allowed without comprehensive, scientific, reliable, transparent biosafety testing as asked for by the petitioners, including to test for the inherent dangers of the genetic engineering process itself. The current practice in India is to allow field trials to precede such rigorous biosafety testing which inevitably leads to irreversible contamination. This is compounded by absent or lax monitoring and accountability mechanisms.
Further, the PIL also showcased the inherent conflict of interest evident in the constitution of regulatory authorities. As reports have shown in the recent past, senior office-bearers and members of the GEAC are also part of industry-promoted bodies or are crop developers themselves in their personal or institutional capacities. Many of the GEAC members are ex-officio members from various departments and institutions with very little time or expertise to contribute to the decision-making processes related to GMOs.
For more information, contact:
Shri Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, Supreme Court of India at pbhushan@bol.net.in

GM regulator on panel funded by biotech majors - Manoj Mitta - The Times of India, 13 October 2006
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2162116.cms
NEW DELHI: The co-chairman of the regulatory body for Genetically Modified Crops, Charudatta Mayee, has triggered a conflict-of-interest debate by becoming a director of an international network funded by biotech majors such as Monsanto, Bayer and Dupont. Mayee told TOI that he did not attend the last two meetings of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) because he was thinking in terms of quitting the regulatory body to avoid "unnecessary controversy" over his appointment to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
Although ISAAA is dedicated to transferring biotechnology to developing countries, Mayee refutes the suggestion that his appointment to its board of directors on September 1 would get in the way of his regulatory job in India. "ISAAA is engaged in a noble mission globally and this is the first time an Indian has had the honour of being on its board," he said, adding that "There is no conflict between its object of promoting biotechnology and GEAC's function of regulating GM crops."
On the issue of ISAAA being funded by the very companies that file applications before GEAC, Mayee said that the network commands such respect around the world that it receives donations from governments as well. But, if he has already stopped attending GEAC's meetings and is planning to quit the regulatory body, it is only because, he says, "I don't want others to point fingers at me. After all, I am in the position of a judge."

"ENABAVI VILLAGE GOES GM-FREE – SAYS THAT FOOD SECURITY HAS NOT SUFFERED BY SHIFTING TO ORGANIC"
October 11, 2006, Eenabavi (Warangal district): While an international rice conference in Delhi is discussing the inevitability of genetically modified rice in ensuring national food security in India, Village Eenabavi in Warangal district declared itself GM-Free on October 11 th, 2006. Supported by organizations like CROPS, Centre for World Solidarity and Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, this small village in the heartland of farmer suicides in Andhra Pradesh is into its third year of chemical-free agriculture and is proving to the world that food security can indeed be secured without any chemical or GM solutions. On 11 th October, all the farmers in the village took an oath to remain GM-Free and organic.
Eenabavi is probably the first modern-day farming village that has gone completely organic, without the use of any chemical fertilizers or pesticides and without any GM seeds, to secure prosperity for each farming family in the village. This village which had gone down the intensive agriculture path, realized the folly of such agriculture around five years ago and decided to try out alternatives. Beginning with NPM (Non Pesticidal Management of crops), the farmers then decided to give up chemical fertilizers too.
"There was one farmer in the village who bought and sowed Bt Cotton with very bad results. All around us, we find other farmers suffering with losses from Bt Cotton. It was in that context, that we decided that we do not need any GM crops in our village and we have all taken an oath not to purchase or sow any GM seeds and not to consume any GM foods. We have healthy organic foods from our own lands that taste a lot better than conventionally grown crops. Our own health has improved after we shifted to organic farming", explained Mr Ittaboina Venkatadri, a leading farmer in the village.
Anjamma, another farmer, added that there have been no decreases in productivity of crops like paddy in the village, even after the shift to organic farming. She pointed out that the cost of cultivation has come down to negligible levels, enhancing the net incomes of farmers. The farmers here grow a variety of crops without the use of chemicals including paddy, chilli, vegetables, cotton, tobacco, maize etc. The village is also experimenting with the System of Rice Intensification [SRI] and the results have been positive so far.
Unlike most other villages caught in agrarian distress across the country, the villagers here want their children to continue with ecological farming and firmly believe that farming is the most viable livelihood possible for them. The farmers here are also willing to spread knowledge and skills about ecological agriculture and a Farmer Resource Centre run by the farmers of Eenabavi was inaugurated on this occasion by Shri Vijay Kumar, IAS, Chief Executive Officer of Indira Kranthi Patham in Andhra Pradesh. The meeting on October 11th was attended by around 700 farmers from neighboring villages.
For more information, contact: Kavitha Kuruganti, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture at kavitha_kuruganti@csa-india.org or - (0) 9393001550
Kavitha Kuruganti, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, 12-13-445, Street # 1, Tarnaka, Secunderabad 500 017 - Phone: +91-9393001550

Pental panel questions Mahyco Bt brinjal (eggplant) process - ASHOK B SHARMA - October 10, 2006
http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=142884
NEW DELHI, OCT 9: It seems that the seed company, Mahyco, may have to face difficulties in getting approval for the field trials of its four Bt brinjal hybrids. The expert panel, headed by Delhi University vice-chancellor Deepak Pental to assess the Mahyco’s claims and the concerns raised by NGOs, farmers and consumers’ groups, has started questioning the process of development of the company’s Bt brinjal hybrids and their impact. The 13-member panel was set up by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). It has questioned the marker-assisted process for development of Bt brinjal. Mahyco, in collaboration with the seed multinational, Monsanto has inserted Cry 1 Ac (Bt gene) with the help of marker NPTLL and plant virus promoter gene CaMV 35 S through agro-bacterium process of transformation. In this context, the Pental panel has questioned as to why the company did not use more advanced technology of insertion of gene without the help of markers.
“We have also asked Mahyco to clarify the impact of the inserted gene,” said a member of the panel. Mahyco had sought largescale field trials