Hyderabad, 15th June, 2010: A Greenpeace report released today said the monetary benefits of organic cotton farming are much greater than using the Genetically Engineered variety that makes farmers more vulnerable to financial collapse due to high debts and increased costs of cultivation.

The report titled “Picking Cotton – The choice between organic and genetically-engineered cotton for farmers in South India’ shows that in the year 2009-10 farmers cultivating cotton through organic practices earned 200% more net income than farmers who grew Genetically Engineered cotton [Bt cotton].

The Greenpeace report is a comparative analysis of two methods of agriculture among cotton farmers in Andhra Pradesh. It not only shows the economic benefit of ecological farming (in this case organic) but also that Genetically Engineered (GE) cotton, despite using many toxic pesticides, still has greater crop loss to pests.

“Our study illustrates how farmers growing GE cotton face high debts and high costs of cultivation, becoming more vulnerable to financial collapses”, said Dr Reyes Tirado, Scientist, Greenpeace International, who authored the report.

Bt cotton1 farmers not only use 26 different pesticides, including pesticides targeting pests that the GE cotton is supposed to control, but also lose financially due to their higher input costs.

In the region of Andhra Pradesh the cost of cultivation is much higher for Bt cotton farmers. The Bt cotton farmers incurred 65% higher debt –accumulated during 2008/09 and 2009/10– than the non-Bt organic cotton farmers.

The farmer distress in the state had lead to the central government announcing a 5 year relief package for farmers amounting to 20,000 crores in the year 2008.

“It is preposterous that on the one hand government dolls out thousands of crores in the name of bringing relief to farmers while on the other they permit and promote Bt cotton cultivation and ensure that the farmer can never escape the debt treadmill.” said Dr G.V Ramanjaneyalu, Executive Director of Centre for Sustainable Agriculture who was present at the report release.

The controversies around Bt cotton have finally forced the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the agency responsible for the commercial release of GE crops in the country, to do a review of its performance since 2002, the year it was released.

“Bt cotton has only benefitted the multinational seed giants like Monsanto who has earned 1580 crore Rupees as royalty from its patented Bt cotton seed since its release” [1] said Rajesh Krishnan, sustainable agriculture campaigner with Greenpeace India. He concluded that “Cotton farming that uses ecological practices and avoids genetically engineered seeds and agrochemicals is the most beneficial for Indian farmers”,

Greenpeace is demanding that the Indian government bans Bt cotton cultivation, takes an active role in supplying sufficient quantity and quality of non-Bt seeds and supports organic and ecological cotton farming.

Ends

Contacts:

Dr Reyes Tirado, Scientist, Greenpeace International,

Mob: 0 97316 43053, email: reyes.tirado@greenpeace.org

Rajesh Krishnan, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner, Greenpeace India

Mob: 0 98456 50032, email: rajesh.krishnan@greenpeace.org

Syed Mehaboob, Media Officer, Greenpeace India, syed.mehaboob@greenpeace, +91 9731301983

Dr G.V Ramanjaneyalu, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture

Mob; 0 9006 99702, email: Your browser may not support display of this image. ramoo.csa@gmail.com

Notes to the Editor:

1. Battle royal over Bt cotton royalty, 28/05/2010, Latha Jishnu, business rediff,

http://business.rediff.com/report/2010/may/28/battle-royal-over-bt-cotton-royalty.htm- last checked on 13/6/2010

2. The report is available at http://greenpeace.in/safefood/uncategorized/picking-cotton-the-choice-between-organic-and-genetically-engineered-cotton-for-farmers-in-south-india/

Bookmark this

Greenpeace activists hang a banner outside Science Ministry

“It’s the duty of a citizen to prevent anyone from committing an act that can jeopardise the rights of the people to safe food and the country’s food security. This is precisely why we as citizens are demanding a citizens’ arrest (1) of Minister Chavan at his office today.” said Jai Krishna, Campaigner, Campaigner for Sustainable Agriculture, Greenpeace India.

Bt Brinjal, the first proposed GM food crop in the country has been indefinitely put on hold by the moratorium announced by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) earlier in February. Following this, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) has proposed the BRAI bill, 2009, (2) to replace the GEAC (under the MoEF).

The proposed central authority with three bureaucrats as the decision makers, denies the rights of the state governments to refuse GM crops. So far the governments of Kerala and Orissa, have opposed the bill as it takes away their right to regulate GM seeds in agriculture, which according to the constitution, is a state subject.

Additionally, BRAI has the authority to supersede information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The bill also proposes a section that imposes penalties like imprisonment and fine of up to Rs. two lakh for persons ‘misleading’ public on GM crops.

The proposed authority will be under the MoST and the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), which is a clear case of conflict of interest. DBT has a mandate to promote and fund research on GM crops and will also help in establishing the BRAI. Minister Chavan has also publicly supported GM crops and even upholding biotech industry funded reports to support GM crops.

Over the last few weeks 25,000 Indian citizens have sent petitions to the Prime Minister demanding the withdrawal of the BRAI bill in its present form. Last week, in a public survey conducted by GfK Mode, an independent market research agency, 89% of the public across six cities said that they have the right to protest or reject government decisions on GM foods. A majority (80%) of them demanded an impartial, independent government agency to test and certify GM crops and 78% wanted all information on GM food prior to the approval of GM crops.

“We need an impartial and independent agency which is democratic and transparent, and has a mandate to put people’s health, biosafety, food security and environment before corporate interests. It should promote ecological farming solutions which are more reliable than the unpredictable, unsafe, and corporate driven technologies like GM crops. (3) We are requesting the Prime Minister to withdraw the bill as its inherently flawed and encourages a regulatory system that serves only corporate interests” said, Jai Krishna, Campaigner for Sustainable Agriculture, Greenpeace India.

Greenpeace Demands

• The BRAI bill draft should be immediately withdrawn.
• An immediate ban on all field trials of GM crops happening across the country.
• Agricultural research to focus on ecological alternatives, to identify agro-ecological practices that ensure future food security to the country and livelihood security to our farmers and farm labourers.

Notes :
1. sec 43(1) of the CrPC: Arrest by private person and procedure on such arrest.
Any private person may arrest or cause to be arrested any person who in his presence commits a non-bailable and cognizable offence, or any proclaimed offender, and, without unnecessary delay, shall make over or cause to be made over any person so arrested to a police officer, or, in the absence of a police officer, take such person or cause him to be taken in custody to the nearest police station.
2. a brief of the bill is available: lhttp://greenpeace.in/safefood/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/GM-Flyer-lr.pdf.
3. the poll is available at: http://www.greenpeace.org/india/press/reports/public-opinion-survey-on-ge-fo

For more information, video and photos, please log on to: www.safefoodnow.org
* Jai Krishna, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner, Greenpeace, +91 98455 91992 jaikrishna.ranganathan@greenpeace.org
* Seema Javed, Senior Media Officer, Greenpeace, +91 99100 59765, seema.javed@greenpeace.org
* Syed Mehaboob, media officer, Greenpeace, +91 9731301983, syed.mehaboob@greenpeace.org

Bookmark this

April 16, 2010, New Delhi: An overwhelming majority – 94 per cent – of people say that they have the right to reject genetically modified foods (GM foods), revealed a citizens’ opinion poll released today by Greenpeace. The poll on genetically modified foods intended to understand citizens’ awareness and preferences related to GM foods, their trust on regulatory agencies and their right to say no.

The government declared a moratorium on Bt brinjal but the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill (BRAI) 2009, proposes drastic changes in the regulatory system, which takes away the right to say no to GM foods.

The poll, conducted by an independent market research company GfK Mode gives a much needed perspective on citizens’ views on GM foods. 5599 citizens across various socio-economic levels, age, literacy levels and income groups in Mumbai, Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata, Guwahati and Indore were interviewed for the poll.

Results of the poll:

• Awareness on GM foods is low as compared to other environment or public issues. About 33 per cent of the people have heard about either Bt brinjal or GM foods. Only 27 per cent say they understand what genetically modified foods are.
• More importantly, only 21 per cent women know about GM foods even though they are the decision makers on food issues in households.
• Lower income groups also know very little about GM foods or Bt brinjal.
• Irrespective of their awareness or knowledge levels, a majority (69 per cent) want packaged food to declare through labeling whether or not it contains genetically modified organisms. 61 per cent people want labeling on unpackaged foods as well.
• A majority of the respondents, almost 78 per cent, stated that they have the right to information on all aspects of GM crops before the Government makes irreversible decisions on GM foods.
• Companies which produce GM foods are not trusted by a majority of the people. Only 36 per cent people trust them. A majority, 80 per cent, preferred an independent, impartial government agency to test or certify GM foods.
• An overwhelming 94 per cent citizens believe that they have the right to protest or reject government decisions related to the commercialisation of genetically modified foods. This was regardless of their stance on the issue.

The proposed BRAI bill 2009[i], which aims to replace the existing Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), carries with it the same flawed regulatory regime. The bill establishes a bureaucratic decision making system, and prevents intervention of elected representatives or other ministries, even state governments, violating their constitutional rights over the approval of GM crops.

Additionally, BRAI has the authority to supersede information request under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The bill also proposes a section that imposes penalties like imprisonment and fine of upto Rs two lakh for persons misleading public on GM crops without scientific proof. Civil society organisations, including National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), have termed it as a blatant subversion of the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and expression.

The authority will be under the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Department of Biotechnology which is a clear conflict of interest. Department of Biotechnology has a mandate to promote and fund research on GM crops and will also help in establishing the BRAI. The bill might be tabled in the present session of the parliament by Minister Prithviraj Chavan.

“The poll gives us a clear indication of what has been seen in the public consultations on Bt Brinjal. We need an impartial and independent agency which is democratic and transparent, and has a mandate to put people’s health, biosafety, food security and environment before corporate interests. We don’t want it to be a single window clearance system for GM crops. It should promote ecological farming solutions which are more reliable than the unpredictable, unsafe, and corporate driven technologies like GM crops. The BRAI bill draft should be immediately withdrawn,” said Jai Krishna, Campaigner, Greenpeace India while releasing the report.

He further stated that “While there is so much of public resentment on GM crops the Indian government has been going ahead and giving permissions to open field experiments of various GM crops including GM rice which could contaminate our traditional crops and thereby threaten our food safety and environment.”

Greenpeace Demands

• The BRAI bill draft should be immediately withdrawn.
• An immediate ban on all field trials of GM crops happening across the country.
• Scientific research to focus on ecological alternatives, to identify agro-ecological practices that ensure future food security to the country and livelihood security to our farmers and farm labourers.

The opinion poll has been submitted to the Prime minister’s office and to Minister of Science and technology Prithiviraj Chavan.

To download this press release and the opinion poll please go to http://www.greenpeace.org/india/press/reports/public-opinion-survey-on-ge-fo

Notes to the Editor
[i] Though the official version of the BRAI 2009 bill is unavailable, several news articles have appeared on the concerning clauses of the bill.

Bookmark this

]]> http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/citizens-uphold-their-right-to-know-about-and-reject-gm-foods/feed/ 0 http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/the-bill-to-end-the-right-for-safe-food/ http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/the-bill-to-end-the-right-for-safe-food/#comments Mon, 01 Mar 2010 11:34:13 +0000 Greenpeace http://greenpeace.in/safefood/?p=1257

Never in the past had crops that we cultivate had to undergo such scrutiny, and rightfully so, as in the case of GE crops.

Genetically Engineered (GE) crops are organisms created artificially in labs through a process called recombinant DNA technology. The unpredictability and irreversibility of Genetic Engineering and the uncontrollability of GE crops in the environment coupled with studies pointing at the potential risk to human health and environment has resulted in a controversy across the world around the need for introducing such potentially risky organisms. This had also resulted in most countries in the world putting in place a precautionary approach towards GMOs reflected in their regulatory systems. India currently has a regulatory system in place, the intention and efficiency of which had been under question.

The debate in India on GE crops had started with Bt cotton, the only commercially approved GE crop in the country (March, 2002) and had become shrillest around the approval of Bt Brinjal, the first GE food crop in India. The fact that government, pointing at precautionary principle, finally rolled back an approval given by GEAC, the apex body for approval of GMOs in our country, has validated the concerns raised by many against the existing regulatory system. While the inadequacy of the existing system had long since been pointed out by many including the Swaminathan Task Force on Agri-biotechnology (2004), it’s shocking the manner in which the Ministry of Science and technology is trying to lower the bar for the approval of GE crops and changing all the rules of the game to quell any future dissent against them.

This is being done through a bill that is to be tabled in the Parliament in the Budget session of 2010. This has been named as The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India bill.

Flawed process:

The Present bill has its origins in 2005, and a draft version has been in circulation (in 2008). The selective consultations for these were totally biased and were done by the bio-tech consortium of India limited, an agency created to promote biotechnology in India. The Department of Biotechnology drove the process for the erstwhile NBRA and also drives the present version, BRAI.
Several comments were received from the civil society and the scientists, farmers and consumers to change the structures, decision making processes and the need for ethical, and socio economic considerations before approving a GE (genetically engineered) crop. All these have been totally ignored in the present bill.

What is wrong with the bill?

Centralised, bureaucratic decision making with mere advisory role to elected representatives like Ministries and state governments.

The apex authority is the “Biotechnology regulatory authority of India” – (BRAI) with a chairperson, and two members, all scientists with either a bio tech or a health background.

The decision making process:

• Three divisions in BRAI to take applications with GE in agriculture, GE in pharma and GE in industrial or environmental uses.
• A risk assessment unit to evaluate risk and not necessarily to conduct independent tests.
• A product ruling committee to recommend approvals.
• Final decision by the BRAI.

Ministerial representatives are placed among the Inter Ministerial Advisory Board and State Governments are restricted to their respective “State Biotechnology Regulatory Advisory Committee”.

With this structure, neither open air field trials, nor final approvals can be opposed by the state governments.

In comparison, the existing structure provides the final decision of any GE crop to the state governments. There are seven ministerial representatives in the GEAC – can intervene in each and every decision of the authority – a situation required for providing checks and balances on decisions that can have serious ramifications on diverse ranging from a citizens health to the countries trade security.

Conflict of interest between the BRAI and the Ministry of Science &Technology

The BRAI is hosted by the Ministry of Science and technology. Dept of biotechnology – under the ministry of S&T, has the mandate of promotion of GM crops. DBT funds several GE crop development projects using public funds and is the nodal agency for redirecting funds from foreign governments to GM crop development projects. It has been seen with the existing regulatory system where the Review Committee for Genetic Manipulation [RCGM], the committee under the DBT, has been mired in controversies with regard to conflict of interests. Many members of the RCGM are GM crop developers and body itself was sitting with in a department which was promoting GM crops.

With the promotion and regulation of GE crops under the same ministry, there is huge conflict of interest.

Transparency- an option decided by the authority.

The Right to Information Act, 2005(RTI) is been considered as the one of the best tools for ensuring transparency in governance. It has immensely helped the citizen to exercise his/ her democratic rights to know about how our government takes decisions and has been empowering the public in various governance issues.

A recent central information commission order has even made it mandatory for the all bio safety data presented by the company to the regulatory authority to be disclosed to the public even when a GE crop is in a field trial stage. This order, the result of a 30 month long RTI appeal for the bio safety data of GM crops by Greenpeace, can now ensure independent review of the data on GE crops and enables participation of the civil society.

The section 27 (1) and (2) of the BRAI bill super cedes the requirement of the Right to information act and places the decision to disclose information for public interest with the authority instead of the central information commission or the Delhi High court as required by the RTI act 2005. This means that once BRAI is in place the citizen’s right to know about safety of GM crops is killed for ever. This would kill any informed public debate on GM crops in future, one of the aspects that helped in stopping Bt Brinjal.

Penalty for questioning GMOs:

While the decision of GE food is decided by a 3 member bureaucratic system, there is an extreme interest shown in gagging the voice of dissent.

The sec 63.of the bill, says, that persons misleading the public about the bio safety of GE crops without scientific evidence can be imprisoned for 6 months or fined for 2 lakh rupees or both.

This goes against the spirit of precautionary principle which says that even if there is no scientific consensus on the harm ensued evidence of potential harm is enough to stop GM crops from being released in to the environment. BRAI is thus not only violates this golden principle on GM regulation but also is a gag order to keep alternative opinions of scientists, health experts, environmental experts and the fourth pillar of democracy- the free press away from public sphere. It’s a fundamental violation of the basic human rights.

No concept of rollback of approvals, labeling of GE food or liability of the crop developer:
No labeling, liability or rollback of products:

Present day testing procedures of GE crops are grossly inadequate to ensure its safety or ascertain its environmental impacts. Despite this being the case, there are no sections talking about roll back of approvals, or labeling of GE crops, or liability of the crop developer due to economic losses by contamination.

Remediation of contamination :

Following a contamination incident (or in the case of a wrong approval), remediation of the site and redress mechanisms for the affected are required to ensure the safety of public health and the environment. These find no note in the bill.

Socio economic assessments missing:

Socio economic studies for assessing GE crops are not part of the existing regulations. They don’t find any mention in the new one either.

If BRAI is on, safe food is off. Withdraw the bill!

If the BRAI is passed as an act in the parliament this session, Bt Brinjal will be back, and following it is Bt rice, Bt tomato, GE mustard and 40 other food crops.

Minister Chavan’s biotech bill can make approval of unsafe GM food a decision of 3 technocrats; overrule the citizen’s right to know, kill the consumer right choose by refusing labeling while pushing the country into a treadmill of GM foods and jeopardise food security and sovereignty.

The Prime Minister must withdraw the bill and an authority with the mandate for protection of bio-safety must be created. Precautionary principle must be the guiding principle of the policy towards regulating GM crops. A transparent and democratic process must be followed in the creation of this new authority.

Lets join together to stop the bill. It is clear for the consumer, that the end of choice for safe food starts here.

For more information : www.safefoodnow.org

Contact : Jaikrishna R, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner, Greenpeace India,
mob: 91 98455 91992, Email: jaikrishna.r@greenpeace.org

Bookmark this

The bill to end the right for safe food]]> http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/the-bill-to-end-the-right-for-safe-food/feed/ 6 http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/proposed-biotechnology-authority-threatens-safe-food/ http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/proposed-biotechnology-authority-threatens-safe-food/#comments Mon, 01 Mar 2010 05:54:25 +0000 Greenpeace http://greenpeace.in/safefood/?p=1254

The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India [BRAI] bill is to be tabled in the ongoing budget session of the parliament.

Responding to the content of the draft bill Jai Krishna, Sustainable Agriculture campaigner, Greenpeace said “It’s outrageous that the government is trying to lower the bar for bio-safety tests of GM food crops through the proposed regulatory system.”

“This draft bill further exposes Science and Technology minister Prithviraj Chavan direct links with the GM industry. Instead of working closely with the environment and health ministers to strengthen bio-safety regulation and safeguard human health respectively, Chavan is trying to change the rules of the game to facilitate the back door entry of Bt Brinjal and GM Rice.”

The Science and Technology minister Prithviraj Chavan in an official response to former Union health Minister Anbumani Ramdoss in July 2009, was caught red handed using unsubstantiated GM industry data to support his promotion of GM crops.

The Chavan Biotech bill will ensure that all state governments lose their right to say no to GM crops and the MoEF is reduced to be a mere spectator.

“Greenpeace is concerned that the Chavan Biotech Bill will restrict the decision making power to just 4 technocrats in BRAI, who will be authorized even to overrule the citizen’s right to Information under the RTI act as the BRAI will decide what matters are of public importance and what information will be shared.” said Jai Krishna.

It is surprising that the Prime Minister continues to have confidence in Minister Chavan’s ability to conduct a democratic, fair and scientific debate about GM food in a democracy.

The PM must tell Chavan that that mandate for the new law should be protection of bio-safety & health rather than promotion of GM crops. The bill in its current form must be withdrawn and a transparent, democratic process must be initiated in formulating a bio-safety protection authority.

Bookmark this

Proposed Biotechnology Authority threatens safe food]]> http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/proposed-biotechnology-authority-threatens-safe-food/feed/ 3 http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/former-monsanto-m-d-says-no-to-bt-brinjal/ http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/former-monsanto-m-d-says-no-to-bt-brinjal/#comments Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:13:20 +0000 Greenpeace http://greenpeace.in/safefood/?p=1188

Public consultations on Bt Brinjal ends with a strong No to GM food crops

Bangalore, 6th Feb: The last and final public consultations by the Minister for Environment and forests, Mr Jairam Ramesh, saw some dramatic developments today the most important being the former Monsanto India Managing Director Mr. T.V. Jagdishan saying no to Bt Brinjal. Scientists in huge majority asking for a Ban on Bt Brinjal and The minister announced that a final decision on Bt Brinjal will be made by him on the 10th of February at 12.30 pm.

The consultation held in Bangalore, known as a centre of Biotechnology saw the agricultural scientists, molecular biologists, Ecologists, Medical practitioners etc from premiere institutions in the city pointing out the dangers with the genetic Engineering as a technology in general and Bt Brinjal in particular. The scientists severely criticised the lack of scientificity in the manner the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee approved Bt Brinjal. 21 out of 30 scientists spoke against Bt Brinjal.

The most interesting development of the day was the former Monsanto India Managing Director Mr. T.V. Jagdishan saying no to Bt Brinjal. While pointing out that private companies only have profit in their mind when introducing new technologies he questioned the lack of seriousness with which the government regulatory authorities are treating something as dangerous as genetically modified crops.

The day started with the first speaker from the farmers side Kodihalli Chandrashekhar asking the minister about the need for this haste in approving Bt Brinjal he categorically stated that farmers in this country has not asked for genetically modified crops but it was the seed companies in collusion with the Agricultural universities who have been thrusting such GM crops down the farmers throat. This was followed by farmers who even challenged the proponents of Bt Brinjal to do comparative studies with most effective pest management technologies like Non Pesticide management being practiced by farmers in lakhs of acres.

The minister while concluding the consultation announced that a final decision on Bt Brinjal will be made by him on the 10th of February at 12.30 pm. He also promised the gathering that all the letters that have been written to him on this matter by all stakeholders and the reasons for his decision would be put up on the Ministry’s website.

“The seven public consultations saw a majority of the farmers, scientists, consumers and other sections of the society showing deep concerns on Bt Brinjal. This is nothing but the tip of the iceberg,” said Rajesh Krishnan, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner Greenpeace. He also stated that “We hope that the minister and the government would take the public and scientific concerns seriously. Any decision that overlooks would undemocratic and detrimental for the whole world.”

Greenpeace demands a complete ban on the environmental release of any Genetically Modified organisms .

Notes to editor
Updates and photographs on all the public consultations so far are available at www.safefoodnow.org

For More Information contact
Rajesh Krishnan, campaign Manager, Sustainable Agriculture Campaign, Greenpeace -
mob: 91-9845650032, email: rajesh.krishnan@greenpeace.org

Dr. Seema Javed-Sr.Media Officer Greenpeace -91-9910059765

Bookmark this

Former Monsanto M.D. says no to Bt Brinjal]]> http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/former-monsanto-m-d-says-no-to-bt-brinjal/feed/ 3 http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/moratorium-on-bt-brinjal-not-a-long-term-solution/ http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/moratorium-on-bt-brinjal-not-a-long-term-solution/#comments Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:49:18 +0000 Greenpeace http://greenpeace.in/safefood/?p=1141

Greenpeace welcomes the minister’s decision not to allow Bt brinjal to contaminate Indian agriculture.

The minister must now reassure the nation that the moratorium will not lead to a back door entry of Bt brinjal or the 55 other food crops which are in different stages of trial in the country.

Stringent monitoring measures should be immediately put in place to ensure that no releases of GM crops happen and a strong message be sent out by making GM developers liable for any accidental or illegal releases.

The moratorium is a good step towards charting the path for sustainable agriculture and food security for our country.

Notes to the editor:
The report of the minister is available at
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/minister_REPORT.pdf

For More Information contact:
Rajesh Krishnan, campaign Manager, Sustainable Agriculture Campaign, Greenpeace-
Mob: +91-98456 50032, email: rajesh.krishnan@greenpeace.org

Dr. Seema Javed-Sr.Media Officer Greenpeace -91-99100 59765

Bookmark this

]]> http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/moratorium-on-bt-brinjal-not-a-long-term-solution/feed/ 7 http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/bangalore-stands-against-bt-brinjal/ http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/bangalore-stands-against-bt-brinjal/#comments Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:39:01 +0000 Greenpeace http://greenpeace.in/safefood/?p=1112


The consultation was filled with people against Bt Brinjal

After being postponed twice, the Bangalore public consultation finally took place on Saturday. Like all the other consultations this one too said a no to Bt Brinjals. This was the last consultation in the series of seven which took place in different parts of the country.

Farmers, scientists, researchers, students, consumers, mothers, individuals, doctors and NGO groups flocked the Jnana Jyoti Auditorium and queued up to register. Banners, posters and big brinjals were already set up all around the entrance.

The consultation finally started at 9:30am. Jairam Ramesh was clear about the order in which he wanted to listen to the opinions. He requested all to give each other a chance. The farmers were the first to speak. Mr. Kodihalli Chandrashekhar, representing the farmers, asked the minister about the haste in approving Bt Brinjal. He was followed by farmers who challenged the proponents of Bt Brinjal to do comparative studies with most effective pest management technologies like non pesticide management being practiced by farmers in lakhs of acres.

16 famers spoke against Bt Brinjal and an equal number of farmers were pro BT

The doctors and scientists spoke next. Mr. (Dr.) Jagadeesh, Ex MD, Monsanto made his stand very clear. ‘Do we really need Bt Brinjal in this country?’ – He asked Jairam Ramesh. Having worked for Monsanto for the past 18 years he said he knew how things worked and understood the US agenda well. He requested Jairam Ramesh not let Bt Brinjal enter the country without enough testing.

An ayurveda practitioner also caught Jairam Ramesh’s attention with his arguments. He was asked to give all of it in writing. Out of 30 scientists 21 spoke against Bt Brinjal.

Lastly the NGO’s and civil bodies were given the opportunity to speak. Here Shridhar from Thanal (Kerala) spoke about the large scale acceptance of cultivation of Bt Cotton, which resulted in 26% rise in sale of pesticides due to rise in secondary pests attack. This point was also noted by Jairam as a matter of concern and something that needs further probing.

Concerned consumers, MDMK party (Coimbatore), research students from IISC all submitted letters to the minister. They professed their deep concern and a clear stand against Bt Brinjal.

Jairam Ramesh mentioned at the end of the consultation that he had chosen all the cities very strategically. Karnataka being the state where most of the science institutes reside and the hub for NGO’s gave him enough reason to make sure that Bangalore was one of the cities for the consultations.

Outside the consultation about 500 people were shouting slogans. Students from across the city, some dressed in Brinjal costumes, others with painted faces and placards saying ‘Stop Bt Cultivation’, Monsanto GO Back, NO GMO’s and among others.

The consultations have come to an end. But the battle is not over yet. Jairam Ramesh will be announcing his decision on 10th February. After which the Prime Minster will take the final call on this issue. Our hopes are pinned on Jairam Ramesh’s verdict. Hopefully he will echo the NO which he has heard at all the consultations.

Signing off

Team Bangalore


Bookmark this

Bangalore stands against Bt Brinjal]]> http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/bangalore-stands-against-bt-brinjal/feed/ 4 http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/bt-brinjal-creates-furore-in-hyderabad/ http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/bt-brinjal-creates-furore-in-hyderabad/#comments Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:54:56 +0000 Greenpeace http://greenpeace.in/safefood/?p=1073


The people inside the venue made their stance against Bt Brinjal clear

Approximately 50 activists against Bt Brinjal geared up for the consultation early on Sunday morning in Hyderabad. However, once we reached the main gates of the Central Research Institute of Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA), we were stopped by the police who saw some of us in brinjal costumes and carrying placards. One of the inspectors outside even told us that he didn’t want us to go in because we are saying No to Bt Brinjal! After much persuasion that this is a public consultation and we have every right to be there, they let us in. Soon the venue was swarmed by farmers wanting to participate in the consultation. A large number of pro- Bt Brinjal farmers filled up the auditorium and started chanting slogans.

Due to the tight security around the venue we were not allowed to interact with Jairam Ramesh when he arrived. Although he was quite interested in speaking to the four brinjal mascots standing behind a well maintained line of control by the Police. Throughout the consultations the brinjal mascots volunteered to roam around outside the auditorium, engaging anti-Bt Brinjal protestors as well as Bt Brinjal supporters.

After an hour of chaos, the consultations began. Farmers were called to talk first, followed by scientists, NGOs and other interested individuals. A lot of farmers stated their reasons for wanting Bt Brinjal. Most of the reasons centered around the need to eliminate the high costs and harmful effects of using pesticides on their brinjals. They vociferously denied allegations of being bought out by Monsanto.

The farmers speaking against Bt Brinjal highlighted the need for saving our seeds from the hands of corporate seed giants like Monsanto and argued for pesticide free farming. The session finally ended with 14 farmers speaking in favour, and 12 against.

The session with the scientists was a little more sobre. The Minister was able to call on about 20 scientists. While there was opposition to some of the facts presented by anti-Bt scientists, the data that was presented on the toxicity levels, nutrition and efficacy of clinical trials being done on the crop was largely undisputed. Approximately 13 scientists spoke against Bt and five spoke for it.

It was indeed heartening to see huge majority of the scientists opposing the introduction of Bt brinjal in a city like Hyderabad which a seat of scientific excellence, reiterating the fact that the fears against GM food are not merely emotional but stem from scientific concerns.

The NGOs spoke next. Their stand was predominantly anti-Bt Brinjal. After four NGO representatives spoke, two doctors who were vehemently against Bt Brinjal were allowed to speak.

Though a little disappointed with the protests and chaos during the consultation Jairam Ramesh announced that he understands that there are valid concerns on Bt Brinjal and and he will keep that in mind while making his decision public on February 10th.

Over to Bangalore now where the last of the public consultations is happening.

Signing off
Team Hyderabad



Bookmark this

Bt Brinjal creates furore in Hyderabad]]> http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/bt-brinjal-creates-furore-in-hyderabad/feed/ 1 http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/national-ban-on-bt-brinjal-a-necessity/ http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/national-ban-on-bt-brinjal-a-necessity/#comments Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:39:19 +0000 Greenpeace http://greenpeace.in/safefood/?p=1069

Kolkata, January 27th 2010: Representatives of Scientists, activists, farmers and agricultural labour unions today expressed the need for a national ban on Bt Brinjal, the first GM food crop in India to have reached a commercialization stage and deliberated on its impact on the environment, agriculture and livelihoods of farmers in West Bengal.

Bt Brinjal, a genetically modified Brinjal variety developed by Mahyco- (partner of agri biotech giant Monsanto) has been recommended for commercial approval by the apex approval authority, the Genetic Engineering approval committee (GEAC) in October last year. But public resistance forced the Union minister for environment and forests (i/c), Minister Jairam Ramesh intervene and hold public consultations to assess the scientists, experts and the public opinion on Bt Brinjal before taking a final decision on the commercialisation.

The first three consultations in Kolkata, Bhubaneshwar and Ahmedabad saw scientists, farmers, consumers and environmental groups totally rejecting Bt brinjal on account of concerns on health, environment, threat to farmer’s seed rights etc. Official letters from the State Government has been sent from West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar stating that Bt Brinjal would not be permitted in the respective states. Also state governments of Madhya Pradesh, Kerala, Chattisgarh have also declared that they are not in favour of release Bt Brinjal.

Explaining about the issues with contamination because of cross pollination, Mr. Safiq-ul Alam, an agricultural expert and extension personnel said “Even if Bt Brinjal is not planted in the State, natural cross pollination and transport of seeds, Bt Brinjal from the rest of the country still can cause irreversible contamination pose a threat to the rich agri biodiversity of Brinjal in West Bengal. World over, no GM crop is approved in their centres of origin and diversity. India being the centre of origin and great centre of diversity, should not approve Bt Brinjal”

Swapan Ganguly from the Paschim Bango Khet Mazdoor Samiti, said “With the rich and diverse nature of India’s agriculture, we do not need an unknown technology whose impact is likely to be adverse on agricultural workers health and safety. Moreover, such technologies which only serve the business interests of a few corporates is certain to destroy Indian agriculture”.

“Ecological farming with non toxic chemicals nor GMOs is becoming popular among many farmers in the state. Introduction of any GM crop by either by force or accident is being unjust to these farmers and charting the wrong path in the agricultural policy. Moreover, no assessments have been done on the productivity and the natural pest resistance of the indigenous Brinjal varieties that farmers are cultivating organically from their own seeds for last 200 years” said Anshuman Das from DRCSC, an organisation working on organic farming for the last 28 years.

The starting of the public consultations also saw interesting political developments with the Minister for agriculture Sharad Pawar publically stating his support for Bt Brinjal and stating that the central government should not interfere in the decision made by GEAC.

In a riposte, the environment minister had sent an official letter to Sharad Pawar clearly stating that the issue of Bt brinjal is a matter of great importance as it is the first Genetically modified food crop and as there are concerns raised on this issue. Quoting the case of Bt cotton, the only GM crop commercialized in India, Jairam Ramesh also empahsised that it is the prerogative of his ministry to take the final call on this matter.

“It is shocking to see that when a majority of the Brinjal producing states have rejected Bt Brinjal, experts and public are raising concerns on Bt Brinjal in the public consultations, Union ministers are taking the side of seed Industry and promoting Bt Brinjal.” said Jai Krishna, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner,Greenpeace. “Considering the threat Bt Brinjal poses to West Bengal and Indian agriculture, it is time for all political parties in the State to take positions against GM food crops and ensure that the Central Government does not approve Bt Brinjal.” he demanded.

The Public consultations would reach a midpoint today with the Nagpur consultation. This would be followed by consultations in Chandigarh on the 29th of January, Hyderabad on the 31st January and Bangalore on the 6th of February.

Vision, video, photos, report information:
Soma Sanyal Ghosh, 90516 80810
Jai Krishna. R, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner, Greenpeace, 0-98455 91992
For information/ videos on consultations in Bhubaneshwar, Ahmedabad and Nagpur and , visit: www.safefoodnow.org

For further clarifications:
Anshuman Das, Development research communication and services centre. (DRCSC), 9433079847
Swapan Ganguly, Paschim Bango Khet Mazdoor Samiti.9433264109

Bookmark this

]]> http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/national-ban-on-bt-brinjal-a-necessity/feed/ 1