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

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