How India fits in the picture of GM Crops? In India, experiments have been carried out and GM crops like the Golden Rice (which is rich in proteins) have been used. Unfortunately, the GM business is owned by top multinational companies and agribusiness is only for vested interests. One of the prime fears related to biotechnology is that the GM crops may lead to a monoculture and devastate the biodiversity that maybe like a self serving bio weapon on a target nation. This decade is crucial for India in which it wil have to take decisions on the prospect of GM crops. While experimentation is going on in India, we need to retain our traditional knowledge and practices. The socaled coarse grains like bajra and milets may be more nutritious for the farmers (or even the af luent) than rice and wheat. For beter nutritional security, we may need traditional food habits and food grains, cereals and milk suited to our agricultural zones. Warning bels INDIA is the third largest producer of coton after China and the U.S. The Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Co. Ltd Mahyco is one of the largest and most trusted seed companies in India. In 1998, after 8 years of negotiation, Monsanto became a 50% shareholder in the company and received approval to conduct countrywide field trials. The data compiled was never made public. On the 26th of March 2002 the Genetic Engineering Approval Commitee of India, gave the conditional clearance to Monsanto and Mahyco for commercial planting of the geneticaly engineered Bacilus thuringiensis (Bt.) coton in four states of southern and central India. In June 2002, about 55,000 coton farmers decided to grow Bt coton, which was developed by inserting a gene of bacteria into the plants genome to enable it to resist bolworm, a major pest for coton. In the first few months the farmers were delighted with the crop since it grew fastand looked healthy. Most satisfying was that the leaves were not being eaten by worms. Unfortunately, in the fourth month, the Bt coton stopped growing and producing new buds while the existing coton bols did not get any bigger. The crop then wilted and dried up at the peak boling stage. This was accompanied by leaf drooping and shedding. There was also bursting of immature bols and heavy infestation of bolworm. In the state of Andhra Pradesh 79% of the crop was lost. In Madhya Pradesh 100% of the crop was lost. In Maharastra, the Bt crop has failed across 30,000 hec. In Gujarat, it was completely destroyed by the bolworm. Subsequently, about 200 farmers commited suicide. The Bt. cot on failure has cost the farming industry a total loss of Rs. 1128 milion or twenty milion euro in 105000 acres across the country in one cropping season. The law states that any company that provides poor quality seeds, the performance of which does not match the claims made by the company, is to be held liable for the failure of the variety. Despite this Monsanto has refused to acknowledge the failure or provide any compensation to the farmers. Monsanto claimed that the crop would be completely pest resistant. Results have clearly shown that the BT coton crop was devastated by pest atacks. When the BT toxin in the crop proved inefective in 90 days the farmers used pesticides bought from Monsanto. The spraying of these expensive pesticides had an adverse afect on the crop. The plants developed the leaf curl virus and the root rot disease and were destroyed. Monsanto took no responsibility. Monsanto claimed that the crop would be resistant to the bolworm provided that there was a 20 percent refuge crop of nonBT coton planted alongside the BT crop. This would ensure that the bolworm would atack only the conventional crop. In reality however the bolworm not only atacked the conventional crop but also devastated the bt crop. A relative of the American bol worm caled the pink bolworm developed with immunity to the BT toxin. Also in these instances, the 20% refuge of conventional crop actualy yielded a beter harvest. In most cases it was only the conventional refuge crop that survived. Again Monsanto took no responsibility. Monsanto claimed that there would be no atack from any other pests. But in reality sucking pests like Jassids, aphids and Thrips thrived on the Bt. Coton. The sprays bought from Monsanto to control these pests were seven times more expensive than conventional sprays even though Monsanto had originaly claimed that they would not be necessary. Monsanto claimed that the yields of the bt cot on crop would be 15 times higher than the average yield of conventional cot on. But nowhere in the surviving farms did the crop exceed the average yield. A good bt crop produced 60 coton bols per plant while the conventional plant produced 250 to 300. The seeds cost the farmers four times more than the conventional seeds even though they have to be bought on a yearly basis, as they cannot reproduce. The labor costs also increased by 50%. Folowing the dire publicity over the performance of its GM (Bt) cot on in India, and with many poor Indian farmers facing ruin, MonsantoMahyco came up with findings which it provided to the Indian government showing that it had been agreat success. GreenpeaceIndia sent its own researchers to check up on how the data had been compiled and, amongst much else, the researchers colected testimonies from farmers who said that they had been advised by the company to inflate their real yield figures. Monsanto claims that the negative publicity against them has been fabricated by competitors. They do not believe that they owe the Indian farmers any compensation and plan to continue with the sale of their seeds. In studies carried out, it has been demonstrated that gm crops transfer their genes to soil fungi and bacteria. The afected fungi and bacteria then behave in abnormal ways and diminish their function in breaking down organic material, which makes nutrients available to plants. The soil wil become progressively less fertile. After a few seasons of planting the gm crop the soil wil not be able to host any other conventional crop. If farmers wish to switch back to conventional crops it could take a whole season to rehabilitate the soil. The economic consequences of which are clearly unfavorable. There is also the added cost of nutrients and fertilizers necessary to regenerate the soil. However the most dangerous threat is that after many seasons it could be impossible to revert back to the planting of any conventional crop. Because by then the soil could be completely infertile. GM crops are geneticaly manipulated so that they die after one season and cannot reproduce. This is referred to as the terminator gene in the plant. It is promoted as a means of preventing transgenic contamination to other crops. This has proved to be false. It actualy spreads not only male sterility but also herbicide tolerance in other crops. The polen from the crops carrying the Terminator wil infect the fields of farmers who either reject, or cannot aford the technology. Any farmer whose crops are contaminated wil then have to label al their produce as gm contaminated. Monsanto can also sue them for the theft of genes. On the 2nd of January 2003 it was reported that the plan for the protato was presented at a conference in London by G. Padmanaban who as director of Indias prestigious Indian Institute of Science had signed a secret deal with Monsanto that even his felow scientists of the Institute knew nothing about. The geneticaly engineered potato that is now being ofered as part of an antihunger strategy has genes from the plant amaranth. Particularly when fed to children under the age of 13 the geneticaly engineered potato wil in fact create malnutrition. It denies to children the other nutrients available in grain amaranth and not available in potato. This geneticaly engineered potato wil in fact spread iron and calcium deficiency in children. The already malnourished children who wil be the main consumers of the potato stand to sufer even greater deficiencies. The cow has been made sacred in India because it is a keystone species for agroecosystems. And cow dung, biomass and biodiversity are the nonviolent organic alternative to genetic engineering and chemicals. Farmers organizations in India and in Africa are saying no to GMOs on the basis of their freedom tochoose to be organic. This means being free of genetic contamination that results from GM crops. Genetic contamination robs farmers of their freedom to be GM free. Organic agriculture in India is increasing farm productivity by 2 to 3 times, increasing farmers’ incomes, and protecting public health and the environment. A major factor in agriculture is the availability of water. Bt coton consumes much more water than nonBt hybrids do. The ruin faced by the farmers is of critical interest to India, which has the worlds largest acreage of coton (25% at nine milion hectares) but accounts for just a litle over 12% of the production. The BT coton disaster decreased production dramaticaly creating havoc in the Indian economy. On the 5th of January 2004, the Indian government announced details of a six year plan to develop new geneticaly engineered crops that wil provide beter nutrition. Government scientists say this kind of research is urgently needed to improve the health of the developing world. The Plant Genome Research Road Map, as its caled, was unveiled at the Indian Science Congress. The Indian movement against GM wil continue to fight any genetic manipulation of crops that might be proposed by the government or multinationals. Farmers across the country have declared themselves Gm free and have been staging protests and forming movements like Quit India Monsanto and Cremate Monsanto. Activists in India believe that neither af luent populations nor those struggling to survive have the need for an inadequately tested technology that has the potential to cause devastation on a global scale in the years to come. We have no need for a technology that has proved beyond doubt to be fatal to the environment. India Becoming a Dumping Ground for GE Crops As the world wakes up to human health and environment nuisance from the geneticaly modified (GM) crops, India is fast turning into a dustbin for the new technology. In March, Western Australia became the first Australian state to ban outright planting of GM food crops. Its Premier, Geof Galop, said he did not want to jeopardize his state¹s canola industry at a time when international consumer sentiment was opposed to GM crops. Within a few days of this decision, Victoria imposed a fouryear moratorium on the cultivation of GM oilseeds rape to protect its clean and green image. South Australia and Tasmania have already banned GM crops. Four states imposed a moratorium on growing GM crops in a space of five days.In the United States, Mendocino county in California became the nation¹s first to ban the raising and keeping of geneticaly engineered crops or animals. In March, the hily state of Vermont, in a historic decision, voted overwhelmingly to support a bil to hold biotech corporations liable for unintended contamination of conventional or organic crops by geneticaly engineered plant materials. This bil is the first of its kind in the world that aims to protect a farmer from being sued by the seed companies if his crops are contaminated with GMO material. In Britain, the dramatic turnaround by Bayer Crop Science to give up atempts to commercialize GM maize, have ensured that the country remains GM free til at least 2008. Despite Tony Blair¹s blind love for the industry, tough GM regulatory regime came in the way of the adoption of the technology. In Japan, consumer groups announced their intention to present a petition signed by over 1,000,000 people to Agriculture and AgriFood Minister, Bob Speler. The petition cals for a ban on GE wheat in Canada. Japan is one of the biggest markets for Canadian wheat. In April, however, the Genetic Engineering Approval Commitee (GEAC) in India approved another Bt coton variety for the central and southern regions amidst reports that the go ahead came without adequate scientific testing. The approval also comes at a time when the US Department of Agriculture¹s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking public comment on petitions from Mycogen Seeds to deregulate two lines of geneticaly engineered insectresistant coton. APHIS is seeking public comment on whether these coton lines pose a plant pest risk. Such has been the casual approach to regulate the mostcontroversial technology that it has become practicaly dificult to keep track of the new GEAC chief. They keep on changing at a pace faster than that expected from musical chairs. At the same time, while Britain had set in place a tougher regulatory regime making the companies liable for any environmental mishap, India continues to ignore the warning. The regulations that the GEAC had announced at the time of according approval to Bt coton in 2002 were only aimed at pacifying the media. The GEAC has not been held accountable for the deliberate atempts to obfuscate the public opinion in an efort to help the seed industry make a fast buck. It is a widely accepted fact that the safety regulations, including the mandatory bufer zone or refuge around the BT coton fields, were not adhered to. Yet the Ministry of Environment and Forests refrained from penalizing the seed company. Nor did it direct MahycoMonsanto to compensate crop losses that the farmers sufered in the very first year of planting Bt coton in 200203. That the crop had failed to yield the desired results was even highlighted in a parliamentary commitee report.Not al GM decisions are taken in accordance with scientific principles. While a NGO petition before the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) seeking an enquiry into the entire monitoring, evaluation and approval process was ignored, the US authorities have launched an investigation into reports of aleged bribing of Indonesian government oficials who approved Bt coton. Both the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission are examining whether a former consultant to Monsanto made an improper US $50,000 payment in early 2002. Monsanto spokeswoman Lori Fisher was quoted as saying: These are serious alegations and we wil continue to cooperate. Reuter reports that the company is one of the world’s leading developers of geneticaly modified seeds, but has had trouble geting some of its biotech crops approved in foreign countries, including biotech coton introduced in Indonesia in 2001. Monsanto closed down the biotech coton sales operations in 2003 after two unsuccessful years that came amid complaints over yields and pricing. India has meanwhile become a favored destination for the biotechnology industry that is virtualy on the run from the US, European Union and Australia. In Europe, a 2002 survey showed 61 per cent of the private sector canceled R&D as a result of moratorium actions. With highly critical reports of regulatory mechanism coming in from respectable independent institutions, the trend in US is also towards stil more tougher regulations thereby forcing biotechnology companies to grow the next generation of GM crops in abandoned mines, using artificial lighting and air filtration to prevent polen movement. In India on the other hand, besides coton, genetic engineering experiments are being conducted on maize, mustard, sugarcane, sorghum, pigeonpea, chickpea, rice, tomato, brinjal, potato, banana, papaya, cauliflower, oilseeds, castor, soyabean and medicinal plants. Experiments are also underway on several species of fish. In fact, such is the desperation that scientists are trying to insert Bt gene into any crop they can lay their hands on, not knowing whether this is desirable or not. The mad race for GM experiments is the outcome of more funding from the biotech companies as wel as support from the World Bank, FAO and the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). Interestingly, while the rest of the world is stopping GM research in the tracks lest it destroys the farm trade opportunities due to public rejection of the geneticaly engineered food, Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) merrily continues to sow the seeds of thorns for agricultural exports thereby jeopardizing the future of domestic farming. But then, who cares for the farmers as long as GM research ensures the livelihood security for a few thousand agricultural scientists.
Posted on: Sat, 22 Nov 2014 08:53:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015