How To Push GM Crops By Strangulating Regulations
By Devinder Sharma
17 October, 2011
GroundReality
Government seems to behell bent upon forcing GM food on us by proposing quick approvals to theindustry under the BRAI Act. “Wewill have 9 billion mouths to feed on this earth by 2050 and there will not beenough food for all of us which is why we need to make technologicalinterventions like GM crop to produce more food.”
At a time when food prices are soaringand agricultural land is increasingly turning into housing societies andshopping malls, increasing food production and providing food security for alltimes to come to all population is indeed a challenging task. We are repeatedly told, by scientists, economists and politicians, that as population grows in a geometric proportion, the country has to embark new technologies to producemore food. GM crops are therefore being pushed as the only alternative theworld has got.
This argument cuts ice with the leadersas well as the gullible masses. This is however not true. There is no shortageof food globally. The reality is that for a human population of around 7billion, the world produces food for at least 11.5 billion people. In terms ofcalories, against the acceptable per capita norm of 2400 to 2500 kcal, what isavailable is 4,600 kcal. So in reality we actually produce double the quantityof food than what we need today. We have more than enough food to feed thepeople even by the year 2050 when the earth’s population reaches 9 billion.
The need is to ensure that theavailable food reaches the hungry. Itis not a crisis of production, but is more of a political problem relating toaccess and distribution.
Take the case of India.It has one third of world’s hungry population – roughly 300 million people --deprived of food despite the availability of a continuous surplus of 60 milliontonne of food grains. I have always said that if we are really serious andsincere in addressing hunger and poverty, the time is now. We have huge foodsurplus with us, and at the same time India alone has the world’s largestpopulation of hungry. Why can’t we make the surplus food available to theneedy? Why don’t be launch a food security programme that builds onself-reliance rather than depend on entitlement doles for the poor? Why do wewant to go in for genetically modified (GM) or transgenic crops, which areunhealthy and environmentally damaging, and thereby create more problems?
To me this is sheer madness.
Why GM?
GM crops are developed throughinsertion of alien genes from different species which, it is claimed, gives thecrop an ability to withstand pests among other improved traits that areincorporated. However, several studies have indicated serious side effects ofconsuming GM food on animal and human health especially genetic defects seen inthe next generation. At the same time, the environmental risks outweigh thepotential benefits that are being claimed.
GM crops are primarily being promotedin the name of increasing productivity. There can be no bigger lie.
Let me makeit clear that there is not a GM crop that increases productivity. In fact, thebiotechnology industry has very cleverly infused the illusion of enhancedproductivity by treating reduction in crop losses as increase in productivity.Take the case of Bt cotton. It has been pushed in the name of increasing cropproductivity. In reality, Bt cotton acts more or less like a biologicalpesticide and like any other chemical pesticide reduces crop losses. Increasein crop productivity will only come through a genetic breakthrough, which isnot the case in case of GM crops. The last time the world witnessed a geneticbreakthrough in productivity was at the time high-yielding crop varieties weredeveloped that helped usher in Green Revolution.
For the sake of discussion, let meillustrate. Chemical pesticides are applied on standing crops to control pests.By doing so, pesticides reduce crop losses. GM crops, as I said earlier,perform the role of biological pesticides. By killing certain pests, GM cropsalso reduce crop losses. Why is that while we consider GM crops to beindirectly increasing productivity by reducing crop losses whereas we refuse toaccept that chemical pesticides increase crop productivity? Why we refuse togive credit to chemical pesticides for increase in crop yield, and if not thenwhy should we hold GM crops responsible for increasing productivity? (For adetailed analysis on the yield factor, please refer to my analysis: Do GMcrops increase yield, the answer is No. http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/03/do-gm-crop-increase-yield-answer-is-no.html)
In India,only one GM crop has been approved for commercialisation. It is being generallyclaimed that cotton production has gone up because of the increased acreageunder Bt cotton. In the last 5 years, the weather in the cotton belt hasgenerally remained fine benefiting even the limited non-Bt cotton acreage.Whenever the crop does well, the credit goes to the improved varieties. Andwhenever the production declines, the blame invariably shifts to aberrantweather. I wonder when scientists will start acknowledging the role weatherplays in increasing crop production!
Let me give you an example. Gujarat ishailed as a model of high production as far as Bt Cotton is concerned. In fact,International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), which for all practicalpurposes is an industry body, had even sung virtues of praise for Bt cotton tobe primarily responsible for 9 per cent growth in agriculture. am not denying that cotton crop ingeneral did well in Gujarat. But the other day I met formerMinister Dr Y K Alagh in Ahmedabad who told me that the agriculture growth thatIFPRI had worked out was hyped. It was something around 6 per cent, and not 9per cent.
Nevertheless, what is not beingacknowledged is the expansion in irrigation area in Gujarat. In recent years, irrigation wasbrought to an additional 35 per cent acreage as a result of which cropproduction took an upswing. Bt cotton too was a major beneficiary.
Another argument that I often hear isthat GM crops reduce the application of chemical pesticides as a result ofwhich the environment becomes much safer and cleaner. Given the acreagepresently under Bt cotton, the use of pesticides on cotton should have comedown by now. But it hasn’t. According to the Central Institute for Cotton Research(CICR) Nagpur,the usage of pesticides too has gone up. In 2005, Rs 649-crore worth ofchemical pesticides was used on cotton. In 2010, when roughly 90 per cent areaunder cotton is of Bt cotton variety, the pesticides usage has gone up to Rs880.40-crore.
The other question that I am oftenasked is that if Bt cotton is not all so good than how come farmers areincreasingly bringing more acreage under the transgenic seed. I agree that theacreage under Bt cotton is over 90 per cent today. But what is little known isthat the industries along with the agricultural scientists have very cleverlyremoved the non-Bt cotton seed from the market. Bt cotton trait has beenincorporated in hybrid cotton varieties, which means farmers have to buy seedafresh every year. They go to the market, and find only Bt cotton seedavailable. So what choice are they left with except to buy Bt cotton seed. Thearea under Bt cotton has therefore multiplied.
Remember, if Bt cotton was the saviour,there should have been a marked reduction in farmers suicides in the past 5years. More than 70 per cent farmer suicides still remain confined to thecotton belt.
The BRAI Act
After the open-ended moratorium imposedon the introduction of Bt brinjal, the industry has been aggressively pushingfor a tougher regulatory regime that minimises the role of the general public.The proposed BRI Act came in handy. The 2009 version of the bill, which wasleaked out, and caused enough public uproar, actually sought to muzzleopposition (Sec 63) to GM by seeking to impose fines and imprisonment on voicesraising concerns on GM crops. After the outrage dieddown, another version of the bill has been put in public domain. In my understanding, the grip of theGM-promoting companies will be further strengthened if the draft BiotechnologyRegulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Act is passed by the Parliament in itspresent form.
The idea of an independent authority toregulate biotechnology and offer single window clearance to new techniques wasmooted by a task force headed by Dr M S Swaminathan in 2003-04. However, therewere caveats mentioned for approving any biotechnology regulatory policy: thesafety of the environment, wellbeing of farming families, ecological andeconomic sustainability of farming systems, health and nutrition security ofconsumers, safeguarding of home and external trade and biosecurity of thenation.
The task force also recommended that “transgenics should be resorted to when other options to achievethe desired objectives are either not available or not feasible.” Though the Agriculture Ministry accepted thetask force’s report in 2004, the draft BRAI Act contains provisions which goagainst these very recommendations and hence invite strong objections. At thesame time I don’t understand when the United States can have a three-window regulatorysystem in place for GM crops (although not perfect) why does India have to rush through with asingle-window clearance house.
First, it is now being increasinglyrealised and accepted that GM crop is not safe for the environment. Whiledealing with target pests, it also affects the friendly insects and createssuperweeds thus creating imbalance in nature. The GM crop will also spell adeath knell for traditional varieties of the same crop. For instance, India currently has thousands of varietiesof Brinjal but introduction of Bt Brinjal would have led to contamination andgradual elimination of the traditional varieties. Meanwhile, the emergence ofsuperweeds has assumed menacing proportion in the US and Canada.
This trait of transgenic crop isagainst the spirit of the Biodiversity Act, which lists provisions forconservation of flora and fauna. I have never understood how can scientists andplanners talk of preserving biodiversity and promoting transgenics in the samebreath !
GM crop do not ensure economicsustainability of farming systems. As mentioned above not only farmers have tobuy costly GM seeds every year, the expenditure on pesticides and fertilizersincreases manifolds. Still more importantly, the implication on human health isthe least studied. Why risky and unhealthy food should be pushed onunsuspecting consumers when there is no shortage of food and nutrient crops.
The regulatory authority envisagedunder the draft bill is going to be under the Ministry of Science andTechnology which points towards conflict of interest because this is theministry with a mandate to promote biotechnology.
Further, the BRAI setup will replacethe current regulatory regime which is governed by the Environment ProtectionAct’s 1989 Rules to protect health, environment and nature from risks ofbiotechnology. Thisprotective attitude should also be adopted in the BRAI Act and the Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare should bethe nodal agency in regulatory biotechnology.
An all-powerful five-member committee(two being part-time members) is being suggested under the draft bill with“distinguished” scientists or senior bureaucrats as its three permanentmembers. This again highlights the fact that promoters of biotechnology will beappointed as regulators. The committee should instead have eminent people fromall walks of life to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. In addition,several committees are envisioned in the bill but all of them have beenaccorded advisory role with the five-member panel being supreme.
An environment appraisal panel has beenproposed which will be consulted in case of organisms and products havingenvironmental impact. However, the five-member authority can override thepanel’s opinion in case of difference of opinion thus making the whole set upan exercise in futility.
Under the federal structure of India,agriculture is a state subject but the proposed legislation gives only advisoryrole to the state governments in the form of “State Biotechnology RegulatoryAdvisory Committee” with no decision-making powers. It should be noted thatseven state governments have already rejected field trials of GM crops andduring anti-Bt Brinjal campaign last year, 13 state governments had said no tocultivation of Bt Brinjal in their areas. Recently, State governments have beengiven the powers to refuse field trials of GM crops, which are a welcomeinitiative and goes with the democratic norms. The BRAI Act seems to be a newtool to force GM crops down the throats of state governments.
Section 28 of the BRAI Act classifiessome information as confidential which can’t be supplied even under the RightTo Information (RTI) Act thereby making the whole decision making process aclandestine affair. Earlier, on a petition filed by Greenpeace seeking informationrelated to Bt Brinjal, the Supreme Court had ordered the regulators to put outall the biosafety data in public domain. The new provision seems to be adeliberate effort on the part of the industry to scuttle public scrutiny.
Lastly, since GM crops have alreadygenerated so much controversy with doubts being raised about its health andenvironment implications, isn’t it prudent to make independent and long termsafety trials mandatory for all GM crops before approval? The fact that thedraft BRAI Act does not have any provision for labelling, redressal and recallof a GM product makes the situation more worrisome.
Gullible Indians are already being usedas guinea pigs by international pharmaceutical industry which conducts itsclinical trials here without following the required protocol. BRAI Act will ensure we serve as guinea pigs for GM crops too.
(Based on an interview conducted by Manu Moudgil of www.goimonitor.com and the interview is available at: http://www.goimonitor.com/story/burden-gm-food-and-farcical-brai-act)
Devinder Sharma is a food and agriculture policy analyst. His writings focus on the links between biotechnology, intellectual property rights, food trade and poverty. His blog is Ground Reality
Comments are not moderated. Please be responsible and civil in your postings and stay within the topic discussed in the article too. If you find inappropriate comments, just Flag (Report) them and they will move into moderation que.
