|
The study has nothing to do with the impact
of adopting Bt brinjal but a projection of who will gain and how much, if the
private and public sector collaborate in this kind of research. These results
would apply as much to Bt brinjal, as to any other proprietary product, a fan or
light bulb or a vaccine, developed by private-public partnership. The point is
that this study, like the other one by Chong, does not deal with evaluating
socio-economic impact and so sheds no light on the likely impact on farmers,
particularly small, resource poor farmers if an expensive and complex technology
like Bt brinjal is adopted. Nor does it contribute anything to understanding the
obvious aspects like consumer and market acceptance .or the trade implications
of adopting a transgenic food crop.It is disingenuous on the part of Mahyco to
pass off these unrelated studies as socio-economic validation of Bt brinjal and
it is hapless of the GEAC to accept it as such.
The Indian experience of the first GE
crop,Bt cotton has not been a very good one. Several studies have demon strated
that the Bt technology is economically unviable and has failed to fulfil its
promise of decreased pesticide use and increased yield. In addition, the
biosafety of the Bt cotton plant has been questioned. There have been reports of
allergic reactions in people who have been in contact with Bt cotton plants.
Mortality of cattle and sheep have been
reported from Madhya Pradesh, Andhra
Pradesh and Maharashtra, where the animals have grazed on Bt cotton plants left
in the field. No pathological studies have been done to determine the cause of
death of the animals that died, nor are any studies being conducted on long term
feeding impact. It is likely that Bt cotton has invoked both allergic and toxic
response in humans and animals, the Bt gene is after all, one that produces a
toxin, but this must be properly tested. Without evaluating any of the evidence
available on the allergic and toxic aspects of Bt cotton, the GEAC is moving
ahead to grant permission to two food crops,Bt brinjal and Bt okra, both
containing the same toxin gene. Rushing ahead to promote GE foods with such
disregard for safety considerations is indefensible on the part of the GEAC.
In its defence of Bt brinjal, Mahyco claims
that the crop is substantially equivalent to non-Bt counterparts in its chemical
composition and that no statistical differences between Bt brinjal and non-Bt
brinjal groups were observed.
This claim is based on tests carried out
almost exclusively in private laboratories and submitted by Mahyco to GEAC,
which has elected to accept such tests at face value. There are demands
world-wide, as also in India, that data on biosafety testing should be conducted
by independent experts with public participation, rather than by commercial
companies with a vested interest in the sector. There are a growing number of
studies pointing to the negative health
impact of GE crops and foods. Monsanto's
own experiments on its GE maize Mon 863,showed severe organ damage in rat
feeding studies. The Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation (CSIRO),Australia
recently abandoned its project to develop peas, genetically engineered to
protect it from a pest called pea weevil. It found that a new protein was formed
that caused inflammation in the lungs and increased serum antibody levels of the
mice that were fed GE peas.
The government of India recognises the need
to label GE food, and its position in the labelling meetings of the Codex
Alimentarius,has been consistently in favour of mandatory labelling.
Accordingly, the Ministry of Health has drafted rules under the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act to include labelling of Genetically Engineered food and
food ingredients. At the moment there are no mechanisms in place to label GE food
and food products, nor have any awareness programs been conducted to explain
the nature of GE foods and the need for labelling them. For most consumers,
especially rural consumers, GE foods are a black box and unless they are made
aware of the nature of GE foods, labelling would be meaningless. Despite these
big gaps in preparedness, the GEAC is all set to approve the LSTs of Bt brinjal,
which would soon be followed by the approval for its commercial production.
There is as yet, no convincing reason to
include genetically engineered foods in our food basket, whatever the
Agriculture Minister might choose to say .Conventional breeding is still
providing adequate choices in all crops; plenty of alternative approaches are
available to provide good, healthy food; Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is
known to be the only pest management strategy that will endure in the long run.
The collapse in China of the Bt cotton crops shows the flaws of the Bt approach
to disease resistance which has folded in just a few years.
None of this seems to inform our policy
planners and executors of GE technology. Gene Campaign's writ petition in the
Supreme Court has asked for a technically competent, transparent and inclusive
regulatory process that is capable of taking informed decisions in a sector that
is of such crucial relevance to the future of 70 crore farm families in this
agrarian country. Little has moved on that front. There is no national policy
yet, no improvement in the technical competence of the GEAC, which remains a
piece of bureaucratic insanity, and little inclination to involve the public in
the decision-making process. This, along with the strong inclination towards the
goals of commercial companies rather than its farmers, makes India's regulatory
system incapable of taking decisions in the public interest.
×Back ×GenenewsHomeØ |
