Greenpeace today released the Safe Food Guide version 2.0 that ranks 25 of the most popular food companies which hold a major share of the market in India. Based on their responsibility towards Indian consumer on the GM food issue, the Guide categorizes companies as green, yellow and red.

Dabur and KRBL emerged as the top green/ companies while Nestle, PepsiCo, Haldiram and Hindustan Unilever Ltd among others faired poorly to find themselves on the red/list.

The current and long term policies of these companies on the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), their willingness to inform their position to consumers and proactiveness in ensuring a labelling and liability regime on foods derived from GM crops, were the main parameters used in this guide.

On the basis of these factors each company was assessed.

The Red list include companies like Nestle, Pepsico, Cargill, Hindustan Unilever Ltd , Britannia, Godrej Hersheys Ltd., Haldirams, MTR, Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd., Agrotech, Surya Foods, Amul, GSK, FieldFresh (Bharathi Enterprises] and Kelloggs. These companies have not taken any concrete steps to provide Indian consumers with GM free food for now or in future thereby being irresponsible.

Green list companies include Dabur India, KRBL Ltd. whose flagship product is India Gate rice and Vippy Industries .These companies have not only taken necessary steps to ensure that they remain GM-free now and in future but also are ready to engage with the government and relevant industry associations to keep the Indian food market free from GM food.

Yellow list companies include popular brands like Cadbury’s, ITC, Ruchi Soya, LT Foods, Heinz India, Bambino Agro and Kohinoor Foods Ltd., which have said that that they are committed to sourcing ingredients that are GMO-free but are yet to take a long-term position on being GM free or share their position with the consumers.

“Even though Bt brinjal, the first GM food crop reaching commercialiation stage has been put on a hold owing to public opposition across the country earlier this year, there are field trials for over 11 crops across the country, and imports of raw materials such as corn, canola and soya all of which threaten to contaminate the food supply chains.” said Shivani Shah, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner,Greenpeace India

The brands in the guide have been listed after a 3-month long process of direct communication with them. The final categorisation of companies into green, yellow and red is based on the response of these brands to this detailed process.

The Safe Food Guide is the only tool available in India for the consumers to know how responsible is their favourite food brands in providing them GM free food. The guide is also available for consumers in handy pocket size versions at Mother Earth Stores across the country. Buyers in Karnataka can get the smaller version also at Fab India stores in Karnataka. An online version is available at http://greenpeace.in/safefood/the-guide/

“The growing consumer rejection of GM foods makes it the responsibility of food companies to not only adopt long-term GM-free policies but also share this information with consumers through various media,” Shah said.

The Guide also highlights consumer attitudes towards GMOs in India. In 2010, in a consumer opinion poll conducted by GfK Mode,

* Over half of the citizens questioned in India (53%) said they would reject food brands containing GMOs.
* A majority (77%) have shown a preference for foods that come from ecologically grown sources.
* 69% want packaged food to declare through labeling whether or not it contains genetically modified organisms.
* 61% people want labeling on raw fruits, vegetables etc. and unpackaged foods as well.

It’s evident that food brands operating in India have a long way to go to in terms of providing consumers with a choice of GM free food . Greenpeace demands that food businesses pay heed to consumer demands and adopt a No GM policy at the company level and engage with government to keep the Indian market free from GM food.

Bookmark this

Science is not just about creating what does not exist in nature; it is also about understanding nature and finding out the implications if we meddle with it. With GM crops scientists are doing just the former, conveniently forgetting the latter. One cannot blame them wholly as scientific research is now run by profit motives. The outcome of this is that corporations make money out of such technologies or they only make technologies that can be en-cashed.

This is clear from the fact that Monsanto, the American seed giant which developed Bt cotton, controls almost the entire cotton seed market in India and has made Rs 1560 crores as royalty from it so far. This money has come from the most impoverished Indian farmers who were forced to take extreme steps due to the rising input costs and failing markets. While there have been many reports on the impacts of Bt cotton on farm animals, labourers, ecosystem and it’s complete failure in many places, there has not been a single long term bio-safety study of its impacts on human health and environment.

Interestingly, Monsanto itself says that Bt cotton is failing to stop Bollworm, the pest that it is supposed to eliminate. The irony is that some of us, including the policymakers and public sector scientists, who are more loyal than the king, continue to praise Bt cotton and are selling out to US corporate interests. At times I wonder whether to call those who do this, ignorant or criminals?

It is not surprising to see that ministers like Prithviraj Chavan (Minister for Science and Technology) quote from figures given by the industry on Bt cotton’s success and vouch for GM crops. It is also not surprising that the GM regulatory system in the country is now being smoothened through BRAI for more such crops to be approved so that companies like Monsanto can make more profits.

Those who oppose this will always be called as luddites by those who own these technologies and even science today. As someone who is trained in bio-technology and considers himself a student of nature, I shudder to think of the times when such profit motivated corporations will tell us what is science and imprison anyone who questions it, as was given in the last version of BRAI bill leaked in the media.

If we do not stop the march of GM crops and laws that ensures it not only do we threaten our food safety and security but also our sovereignty as a nation and our existence as free thinking individuals.

- Rajesh Krishnan
Sustainable Agriculture
Campaign Manager

Bookmark this

New Delhi, 17th August 2010: Greenpeace today condemned the UPA Cabinet approval to Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill 2010 and appealed to all political parties to oppose it from being tabled and passed in Parliament .

“Greenpeace appeals to all political parties to demand a withdrawal of the cabinet approval of the BRAI Bill 2010. We also demand a redrafting of the contents post consultations with public as well as all the state governments,” Greenpeace Campaigns Manager Rajesh Krishnan said.

The bill was given a clearance by the Cabinet yesterday.

This approval within a few months of the moratorium on Bt Brinjal in February 2010, seems to be an premeditated effort to re-approve Bt brinjal.

“The BRAI bill is an outcome of a non transparent and non-consultative process, devoid of any public participation or discussions with State governments which have had rejected the introduction of Bt brinjal in February 2010, prior to the moratorium on Bt Brinjal,” Krishnan added.

The bill proposes a centralized technocratic authority to approve GM (genetically modified) crops with no involvement from democratically elected governments, and has a fundamentally erroneous premise on the safety and necessity of GM crops while entirely depending on safety tests conducted by the companies producing GM seeds to evaluate the environment and human health impacts.

Bookmark this

Guwahati, 3 Aug 2010: Greenpeace India today launched “Living Soils”, a nationwide campaign with a call to implement Government policies to save soils from the harmful impacts of chemical fertilizers. This campaign assumes significance in the context of the Central Government acknowledging[1] the agrarian crisis due to soil degradation and initiating a reform in its fertilizer subsidy policy. As part of the campaign, a series of social audits will be organized in selected districts of Assam, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab and Karnataka.

“The ‘Living Soils Campaign’ will bring out grass root level realities concerning soil health and soil fertility management policies of the Central Government, including the newly launched Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS)[2] for chemical fertilizers and Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY)[3].which aims at overall agriculture development. These will be reviewed using a participatory approach, basically to examine their capability to solve the soil degradation crisis and the impending food security threat” said Gopikrishna SR, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner, Greenpeace India. He further stated that “The information, observations, data, and insights collected from the grass roots will be compiled and submitted to the policy makers at the Centre and respective states”.

Soil is an ecosystem which is home to several living organisms. Organic matter both in terms of quality and quantity is vital to sustain life in this ecosystem. Indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers gradually leads to its degradation. Deteriorated/dead soils lead to poor plant growth and thus reduced productivity of agricultural system.

“Any policy in Agriculture will be successful, only if we have a vibrant soil ecosystem. If the soils are dead, all investments in Agriculture will go waste. So there is an urgent need to act on a comprehensive policy to support ecological fertilization practices. This is critical to ensure food security of the country”, said Dr Amiya Sharma, Executive Director, Rashtriyia Gramin Vikas Nidhi (RGVN).

Every year Central Government spends around Rs 50,000 crores on chemical fertilizer subsidies, and this is a major driver that catalyzes intensive chemical fertilizer usage4. The Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS) policy which was brought in to correct this problem continues to support only chemical fertilizers, and hence fails in its own cause. The new policy proves to be an old wine in new bottle.

“On one hand our Union Government worries about the declining agricultural productivity due to soil degradation and food security and on the other hand they continue to support chemical fertilizers. Support for organic fertilization practices in mainstream agriculture is very minimal. This anomaly can jeopardise the Agriculture production system”, said Tapan Sharma of Diamond Club Community Center, Sipachar, Darrang.

“We should not wait for the problems to appear. In the case of Assam we should learn from bad experiences from other regions and go the ecological way at the earliest, said Kulendra Deka, General Secretary of North East Centre for All Round Development (NE CARD), Darrang

In Assam, the survey and the public hearing will be organized in Darrang district, which has one of the highest per hectare fertilizer consumption in the State.

Apart from the direct visible impacts, manufacture and use of chemical fertilisers also contributes significantly to emissions of greenhouse gases, and thus climate change. The total emissions from the manufacture and use of synthetic nitrogen fertilisers represent six per cent (3% from manufacture and 3% from usage) of India’s total emissions, comparable to sectors like cement or iron and steel industries, and to emissions from the entire road transport system[4& 5]. Chemical fertilizers also contaminate drinking water[6] and pose threat to human health..

Several states in the country including Karnataka, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Nagaland, Sikkim, Mizoram and Uttarakhand have initiated policies to support ecological farming. North eastern states have taken more pro-active roles. Sikkim, Nagaland, and Mizoram have decided to go completely organic. But the Central Government continues to push the high external input chemical intensive model of farming, which is evident from the new NBS policy and the decision to push intensive agriculture models in the eastern states under RKVY.

Pursuing an agenda to ensure healthy soils and sustainable Agriculture production Greenpeace has been making the following demands

1. Create an alternate subsidy system that promotes ecological farming and use of organic soil amendments.
2. Shift the irrational subsidy policy for synthetic fertilisers to sustainable ecological practices in agriculture.
3. Re-focus scientific research on ecological alternatives, to identify agro-ecological practices that ensure future food security under a changing climate.

Notes:

1. In 2009, during the budget speech, Union Finance Minister expressed concerns over the declining response of agricultural productivity to increased fertilizer usage and initiated a reform. Union Finance Minister’s budget speech can be accessed at http://indiabudget.nic.in/ub2009-10/bs/speecha.htm (Refer para. 34 in this page for his statement on fertilizer subsidies)

2. Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS)

The newly introduced subsidy system for chemical fertilizers, made effective from 1 April 2010. As per the Government it was devised to address the issue of soil degradation due to indiscriminate fertilizer use. However it proved to be old wine in new bottle as it continues to support chemical fertilizers only with no support for organic fertilization. A short summary of Greenpeace policy brief on NBS is enclosed. Full version can be accessed at http://www.greenpeace.org/india/press/reports/fertilizer-subsidy-policy-brie

3. Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojans (RKVY)

Concerned by the slow growth in the Agriculture and allied sectors, the National Development Council (NDC), in its meeting held on 29th May, 2007 resolved that a special Additional Central Assistance Scheme (RKVY) be launched. One of the components of RKVY is soil health management. More details about RKVY at http://rkvy.nic.in

4. Subsidising Food Crisis – A Greenpeace India report on impact of chemical fertilizer subsidies on environment (soil and climate) can be accessed at: http://www.greenpeace.org/india/press/reports/subsidising-food-crisis

5. Production of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser is a very energy intensive process, and requires large amounts of fossil fuel energy, and hence emits Green House Gases. Application of Nitrogen fertilizers in the fields releases N2O. The concern over N2O emissions arises from its long atmospheric life (166 ± 16 years) and its higher global warming potential (296 times that of CO2).

6. Chemical fertilisers in our water – A recent study by Greenpeace India in the Malwa region of Punjab which has shown that drinking water was heavily contaminated with nitrates. 20 percent of all sampled wells had nitrate levels above the safety limit of 50 mg per litre as established by the World Health Organisation (WHO). The report can be accessed at: http://www.greenpeace.org/india/press/reports/chemical-fertilisers-in-our-wa-2

7. Ecological fertilization includes a wide array of eco-friendly practices that nourishes soil and facilitates the natural cycles within the soil ecosystem. Fertilization using Farm Yard manure, Green leaf manure, biofertilizers, compost etc forms part of this model. In addition to this there are several practices developed by farmers through years of observation and on farm experimentation.

For more information, please contact:

* Gopikrishna SR, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner, Greenpeace India. Mob: +91 9900897341, email: gkrishna@greenpeace.org
* Prarthana Banikya, Greenpeace India, Mob: +91 7399105251

Bookmark this

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

Picking Cotton

Poverty and hunger continue to be widespread in India. The majority of these hungry and poor people live in rural areas, with a livelihood dedicated to agriculture. Some 86% of Indian farmers are smallholders, of less than 5 acres (2 hectares). About 65% have rain-fed farms without irrigation facilities.

There is widespread propaganda that genetically-engineered (GE) crops provide the silver bullet for poverty and hunger eradication. On the other hand, recent global analyses have concluded that ecological farming – using low-cost, locally available and agro-ecological technologies – is effectively reaching the same aim.

We compared the economic livelihoods of rain-fed smallholding cotton farmers in South India growing Bt cotton (‘Bt cotton’: cotton varieties genetically engineered to produced an insecticidal toxin) with those growing non-Bt organic cotton. This study, therefore, is a comparative analysis of two contrasting methods of agriculture: Bt cotton cropping that comes together with chemically intensive agriculture vs. ecological farming in the example of organic cotton farmers.

Our goal is to document the realities of farming taking place right now in the Indian cotton regions, and thus the focus of our analysis is the economic livelihood of the cotton farmers themselves. Our study is not a technical analysis of the performance of the genetically-engineered Bt trait isolated from its surrounding circumstances, but an analysis of what results when farmers grow Bt cotton under the conditions faced by the majority of farmers in India (and other developing countries) – i.e. smallholding farms, rain-fed and poor.

Millions of Indian farmers are dependent on the money brought in by their annual cotton crop. The cotton crop represents by far the largest income for these households, and in nearly all cases is crucial for the farmer’s family’s survival. In India, cotton represents one of the most economically important commodities in the country and it is central to the livelihood of the many millions of farmers who grow cotton every year. Cotton is one of the major traded commodities worldwide, with a global export value of about $12 billion US dollars, similar to the global export value of a staple grain as important as rice (FAOSTATS 2010). When the cotton fields fail to produce a good crop, as in the dry year of 2009, millions of Indian farmers and their families are left in deep economic distress. This case study shows the economic stability and benefit for Indian farmers of farming cotton organically and without genetic engineering and toxic chemicals.

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

]]> 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

]]> http://greenpeace.in/safefood/news-blog/proposed-biotechnology-authority-threatens-safe-food/feed/ 3