Prelude
O
nce again the specter of genetically modified farming via seeds brought into the country by multinationals is raising its head as the endorsement for GM Mustard’s “environmental release” testifies. Against this backdrop, it is useful to recall the late Prof. Pushpa M. Bhargava (22 February 1928 – 1 August 2017), widely considered the father of modern biology in India and his warnings against such measures. Sounded in early 2009, among others, in an article for ‘The Tribune’ in which he questioned the quality of both the GM being peddled by multinational seed corporates and the manner in which such moves towards Bt Brinjal for instance, were finding traction within policy circles despite critical opposition about dubious research findings being passed off by the same corporate interests as authentic.
In an accompanying piece over a hundred doctors appeal to Prime Minister Modi to step back from the introduction of GM Mustard into the country on grounds that should make policy wonks and the public get real. The Beacon
[An Early Warning]
Pushpa M. Bhargava
One of the important outcomes of the democratic traditions set up in many parts of the world in the second half of the last century is that people today do not want to be taken for a ride by the powers that be, within the country or from outside.
However, widespread ignorance, unethical and corrupt politicians and bureaucrats, social and religious prejudices, deliberate creation of ever-increasing economic disparity between the top 20 per cent and the bottom 80 per cent, passing lies as truths, emphasis on form rather than function, division of society into a miniscule minority of exploiters and a vast majority of the exploited, and dominance of the selfish interests of a few over the legitimate interests of the vast majority, have created conditions wherein a small minority in our country is constantly attempting to take for a ride the vast majority.
An outstanding example is the attempt by a small but powerful minority to propagate genetically modified (GM) crops to serve their interests and those of multinational corporations (MNCs) (read the US), the bureaucracy, the political setup and a few unprincipled and unethical scientists and technologists who can be used as tools.
The ultimate goal of this attempt in India, of which the leader is Monsanto, is to obtain control over Indian agriculture and thus food production. With 60 per cent of our population engaged in agriculture and living in villages, this would essentially mean not only a control over our food security but also over our farmer security, agricultural security and security of the rural sector.
Suffice it to mention, whosoever controls seed and agro-chemical production in the country, for all purposes, controls India.
The first step by Monsanto was to control cotton production as a test case and to ensure in the process strategies for removing all barriers that could come in the way of the eventual objective of controlling food production through control of seed production by providing new types of seeds such as GM seeds.
Dr. Pushpa Mittra Bhargava, Founder-Director (CSIR-CCMB)
There is no doubt that Bt cotton has benefitted some farmers and, on balance, there has been a rise in the production of cotton. There is also no doubt that many farmers have suffered because Bt cotton did not work in their case, or caused allergy, or led to the death of their cattle that grazed on the remnants of the cotton plants after cotton had been harvested.
However, all these problems have been pushed under the carpet by the powers that be, in spite of the virtually uninterrupted record of Monsanto over four decades of breaking laws and engaging in unethical acts.
The two Committees, RCGM of the Department of Biotechnology and GEAC of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, that are responsible for the approval of GM crops for environmental release seem to have never questioned what Monsanto has done in the past or wanted to do now nor did they take note of any of the numerous scientific research publications by well-known and highly credible scientists working in prestigious institutions and with no personal agenda, that have appeared in some of the world’s best known scientific journals.
Indeed, these publications sound a note of caution against indiscriminate release of GM crops which (like water hyacinth and parthenium that did not exist in the country when we became independent), once released, cannot be recalled, irrespective of the damage they might be doing. This writer has been a nominee of the Supreme Court on GEAC since last year.
No note has also been taken by the RCGM or GEAC of the fact that GM crops are banned in most parts of the world; they are largely confined to four countries: the US, Canada, Argentina and Brazil. They are banned in most countries of the European Union and in the UK. Countries such as Greece, Austria, Germany, Switzerland and even small states such as Tasmania too have banned them.
An important question that may be asked in regard to Bt cotton and now Bt Brinjal (the first GM food crop cleared by GEAC for environmental release is: Did we need them? We have already shown integrated pest management (IPM) and bio-pesticides that we have developed, to be eminently successful for both cotton and brinjal – in fact, for 85 crops.
The use of IPM is a part of the National Agricultural Policy passed by Parliament in 2001. We have not used it because it has been more rewarding for those in power to have Monsanto propagate its Bt cotton – and now Bt Brinjal.
Another question that we should ask is that if we do need any GM crop, why don’t we develop it on our own, as we did our nuclear energy and space programmes?
We made our own genetically engineered Hepatitis B vaccine which brought down the price of the product in the market 50-fold. Many of our laboratories, both in the private and public sector, have had the ability to develop Bt cotton, Bt brinjal or Bt-whatever.
When I was the Chairman of Avesthagen (the first plant biotechnology company in the country), I had offered to develop Bt Cotton for a couple of crores which would be 3 per cent of the cost that Monsanto had initially asked for giving its own Bt cotton technology to the Department of Biotechnology, when C.R. Bhatia was its Secretary.
In fact, the Cotton Research Institute has developed a variety (not a hybrid like Monsanto, for which seeds have to be purchased for every planting) of Bt cotton. Normally, it should replace Monsanto’s Bt cotton, but I would predict that if the present policy continues, this will not happen, in spite of the fact that when one uses a variety, one can use the seeds one produces himself.
A few words about Bt brinjal that has been in the news since the afternoon of October 14, 2009, when the GEAC cleared it for environmental release. When Monsanto’s dossier containing all the bio-safety tests that they had done was put in the public domain earlier this year, there were serious criticisms of it by many scientists from various parts of the world including me. This writer’s criticism centred around the following:
-A large body of concerned, knowledgeable and reputed scientists have agreed that some 30 or so tests need to be done before a GM plant is cleared for environmental release. Monsanto had done only less than 10 of these tests.
-Even these tests were done largely by Monsanto, and we have no facility in the country to even determine whether the tests were actually done, leave aside decide their validity. All attempts made by us to have such a setup in the country have been deliberately thwarted or put in a spin — as has been done by the GEAC recently.
-Some of these tests were done by accredited laboratories but on samples provided by Monsanto — a company which has proved itself to be most untrustworthy.
-There were many scientific errors even in the tests that were done by Monsanto.
In view of these criticisms from within the country and abroad which were all made in writing, the GEAC appointed a committee (EC-II) to review the criticisms. Its report was circulated to the members late in the afternoon of October 9. October 10 and 11 were holidays on account of the week-end.
Consequently, we were essentially given just one day — October 12 (Monday) — for reviewing the 102-page fairly dense report.
The person most affected was this writer as most of the other members of GEAC were either a part of EC-II or already strongly committed to GM crops irrespective of any criticism. I had to travel to Delhi on October 13 to attend the meeting of the GEAC on October 14. I, therefore, did not have time to go through this report in detail.
Also Read: Unsustainable farming Will Worsen with GM mustard Clearances: Bharat Dogra
However, with the editorial experience that I have had, a quick scan through the report made it clear that there were internal inconsistencies in the report, inconsistencies between the report and the earlier data that had been put in public domain and outright scientific absurdities.
My suggestion at the GEAC meeting on October 14 that as we were not given enough time to go through the report, discussion on it should be postponed for a month or so, and a meeting specially called to discuss it to which all those who had commented on Monsanto’s bio-safety studies earlier and whose comments EC-II had attempted to answer in the report, should be invited; this meeting should also be attended by members of the GEAC, members of the EC-II, and scientists from Monsanto. Those invited from outside India could be told that the Government of India will be unable to take care of their travel expenses.
This proposal was completely ignored. Besides this writer, the rest of the opposition to the approval of the report of EC-II came from two members of the GEAC who were not a part of the EC-II.
Dr Ramesh Sonti of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad, who is a Bhatnagar Prize winner and a member of all the national science academies, even made the point that there was something fundamentally wrong with the technology used by Monsanto to generate its Bt brinjal. Another member of the GEAC said that we should first determine whether we need Bt brinjal from the socio-economic point of view — a very wise suggestion which was also ignored.
It is interesting that Monsanto has been saying all along with confidence that Bt brinjal will be ready for marketing after the October 14 meeting. But what happened after 2.30 pm on October 14 was what neither Monsanto nor the GEAC (nor I) expected. There was a huge reaction to it by the people and the media.
What was, perhaps, most satisfying was the statement that Mr Jairam Ramesh, Union Minister for Environment and Forests issued on October 15, that put off any decision on the recommendations of the GEAC till everyone concerned had enough time to comment on the report of EC-II and the required discussion had taken place.
Also Read: Roads to Ruin: India’s Unsustainable Farming. Ashoak Upadhyay
I can understand the pressure Jairam Ramesh must have been under not to issue the above statement. If he had not done so, we would have had Bt brinjal on our table without knowing that what we may be eating could be injurious to our health. It was as much a personal victory for him as for democracy and sanity in the country.
In fact, it is perfectly possible that the increased health problems in the US in the last decade have been due to increased consumption of GM-corn and GM-soya. It took a long time to find out that smoking causes cancer, or Kesari dal causes lathyrism in our country.
Genetic engineering is one of the most powerful technologies in the world. However, like nuclear technologies or space technologies, we need to ensure that it is used not to fill the coffers of a few but for public good. For this, we would need to do the following:
-
We must set up our own laboratory which would have high public credibility and which could do all the required bio-safety and related tests.
-
We should determine whether we need Bt brinjal at all. In other words, we must do a socio-economic survey.
-
We must determine if there are alternatives to genetic modification for fighting pest attack on brinjal in the country. This writer will be happy to give anyone who asks, all the details that establish that integrated pest management and biopesticides work better than genetic modification for preventing or alleviating pest attack on brinjal.
-
If, in spite of all the above, we find that we need Bt brinjal, then we should set up an appropriate testing mechanism that would ensure that all the required safety tests can be done — and then make our own Bt-brinjal.
-
We must pass labeling laws according to which any product that contains more than 0.01 per cent of GM food material must be labelled as GM. We must know what we are eating.
****
Nullify Environmental Release, Uproot GM Mustard Plants: 111 Doctors Urge Modi
Counterview Desk
[In a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, as many as 111 medical professionals, most of them senior doctors, has expressed concern with regard to human health implications of the genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant (HT) mustard that got approved by Government of India, with indications that it has already been planted in at least six locations.]
Text:
As medical professionals and nutritionists, we welcome your initiatives to encourage farming without toxic synthetic chemicals. This should be India’s policy on food. We are, therefore, deeply concerned about the dangerous ‘environmental release’ of a genetically modified (GM) mustard DMH-11 and its two parental lines which are tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate ammonium. We are not opposed to application of gene technologies in medicine, as it is done after thorough testing, consumed by individual choice, closely monitored by expert doctors, with the GMO-mediated medicines/supplements prepared in contained conditions without any release of GMOs into the environment and can be halted/recalled. GM in farming and food is both uncontrollable and irreversible and affects both present and future generations. It involves modified heritable material that has the ability to procreate and spread in living organisms. In terms of health impacts, an adequate scientific body of evidence exists about various adverse health impacts on immunity, reproductive health, growth and development, vital organs and even carcinogenicity – from a combination of toxic genes used in genetic engineering, the GE process itself and the deadly chemicals used on GM crops. It must thus be a last resort when no other options exist and subject to proper long term biosafety tests for transparent peer review. It has been seen time and time again, however, that crop developers and regulators circumvent the need for comprehensive testing, because they know that the inherent lack of safety in this technology will get captured in the results of such testing.
In the case of GM mustard, a patently untenable claim is being made including in submissions to the Supreme Court that the herbicide glufosinate will only be used for seed production and that farmers will be prevented by legislation from spraying it for weed control. Illegal HT cotton and illegal spraying of the dangerous herbicide glyphosate has been taking place for the past decade or more, without Governments being able to stop it. Once environmentally released, GM mustard will spread and so will the use of glufosinate. Our entire population consumes mustard as seeds, leaves and oil. As medical professionals, we feel it is our duty to warn about the serious adverse impacts of Herbicide Tolerant GM crops which, in effect, this GM mustard DMH-11 is.
- The Herbicide Tolerance (HT) Genetic Modification of DMH-11 mustard and its parental lines enable the spraying of the herbicide, glufosinate, which will be absorbed as higher toxic chemical residues by this GM HT mustard, passed on downstream to consumers. This ignores the recommendations of three High Level Committees: The Technical Expert Committee of the Supreme Court (2013) and the unanimous reports of two multi-party (including BJP) Parliamentary Standing Committees (2014 and 2017) which examined GM crops in detail. All the Committees recommended a complete ban on Herbicide Tolerant crops in Indian conditions, giving cogent reasons. We endorse these recommendations and request you to halt the open air planting of GM mustard DMH-11. We urge the uprooting of any seeds that have been planted before they reach the flowering stage and DMH-11 spreads irreversibly.
- We emphasize that opposition to GM is scientifically sound. In 2001 over 760 eminent scientists highlighted the unpredictable and unintended dangers from the genetic modification process including “…the spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes that would render infectious diseases untreatable, the generation of new viruses and bacteria that cause disease, and harmful mutations which may lead to cancer.” They urged all Governments “to impose an immediate moratorium on further environmental releases, including open field trials, in accordance with the precautionary principle as well as sound science”. Over the past 25 years, the poor performance and the irreversible risks of GM crops have been such that only 5 countries still account for 91% of global GM crop area. Most countries follow the Precautionary Principle and do not grow GM crops (ISAAA data). Many of the early apprehensions by scientists have now been validated, despite the difficulty in conducting epidemiological studies in the absence of labelling laws in USA which is the largest and longest GM crop growing nation. A larger body of scientific studies through experimental studies is also present that captures the adverse impacts.
- Herbicide Tolerance (HT) genetic modification allows the GM HT crop to survive the indiscriminate spraying of a particular toxic herbicide, while all other non-HT plant life like weeds, mixed crop, trap crop, fodder etc. coming in contact with the herbicide, dies. The decimation of all plant life other than the GM HT crop deprives the poor of nutritious ‘weeds’ as food and medicine, reduces fodder for animals which in turn has implications for animal-based nutrition, eliminates desirable diversity of crops for home consumption and forces consumers to ingest the herbicide residues on the HT crop. Beekeepers also report that in GM crop areas, bees are adversely impacted and GM contamination of honey will affect its quality and exportability.
- Herbicides are powerful pesticides and the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food at the UN General Assembly’s Human Rights Council in 2017 (A/HRC/34/48) highlighted their dangers: “Pesticide exposure has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility. They can also cause numerous neurological health effects such as memory loss, loss of coordination, reduced visual ability and reduced motor skills.…. chronic effects of pesticides may not manifest for months or years after exposure…”
- The genetic modification with Bar,Barnase, Barstar genes, originating from 2 strains of bacteria which have never been part of human diet, and the insertion of a novel cassette which includes promoters, enhancers etc. can create novel proteins with unpredictable impacts. Further, the Herbicide Tolerance (HT) genes embedded in the GM mustard will facilitate the spraying of a herbicide, glufosinate ammonium, which is damaging for health. We are shocked that GEAC has till date not put biosafety test data up for peer review despite an order by the Central Information Commissioner in 2016 calling for it and despite Supreme Court orders on the same. We also understand that the necessary long term, intergenerational and other biosafety tests have not been done, and the limited tests done on GM mustard (lesser in number than were taken up for Bt brinjal even though mustard is grown on 11-fold more area). All this makes DMH-11 clearance as ‘safe’ for environment release by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) highly questionable and objectionable. It is also disturbing that an independent testing laboratory for verifying safety claims by GM developers has not yet been set up despite repeated recommendations for it.
- Glyphosate herbicide was once used with almost all GM HT crops, increasing 15 fold in 20 years. When weeds became resistant through constant exposure, other more toxic weedkillers started to be increasingly used. Glufosinate ammonium is an organophosphorous compound, acting as a systemic, broad spectrum and non-selective herbicide which kills a wide range of plants and soil microbes. Though it is classified by WHO as slightly riskier than glyphosate, it has not yet been the subject of independent research like glyphosate. The experience of denial of harm by crop developers and regulators for glyphosate, and the eventual revelations of harm should be a warning for us about the risks of glufosinate ammonium.
- When independent researchers issued warnings about glyphosate based on animal studies, these were denied and derided. Inaction by regulators can go on for decades, as happened with tobacco and DDT, in the case of products which cause harm over long durations. Independent researcher Dr Nancy Swanson and others (2014) reported highly significant (R=>0.90) Pearson correlation co-efficient between increase in GM crops, glyphosate use in USA and diseases such as acute renal failure, senile dementia, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, autism, inflammatory bowel syndrome and cancer of thyroid, liver, bladder, pancreas and kidney. This was derided, but should have been studied.
When, in 2015, WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer defined glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, US regulators supported the developers’ contention that glyphosate was safe. Only after US courts began imposing penalties of millions of dollars on Monsanto (now Bayer) and over $ 10 billion was paid by Bayer to settle about 100,000 claims mainly of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, has GMO labelling been mandated from Jan 2022.
- A complete ban on all HT crops, including GM mustard which has herbicide tolerance properties, as they increase the use of herbicides dangerous to health.
- A halt to all GM crop releases until an independent test laboratory is established as recommended by the late Padma Bhushan Dr. P. M. Bhargava, Supreme Court nominee to GEAC and eminent Founder Director of the Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology.
- Uprooting of all DMH-11 mustard that has been planted, to prevent the accidental or deliberate spread of a GM HT mustard in the country.
- Halting the illegal spread of GM crops and illegal use of herbicides.
- Implementation of the recommendations of the Technical Expert Committee of the Supreme Court, and the reports of the Parliamentary Standing Committees.
People have put their faith in you and nothing is more important than their health and that of their children. We are confident that you will fulfil their faith.
******
Courtesy : Counterbiew Recommended Reading: War Within the War: The Fight Over Land and Genetically Engineered Agriculture
Leave a Reply