Cooking Consent (Indian Express Style)
By Neerja Dasani
11 May, 2010
Countercurrents.org
‘Bt Brinjal Brabble – Season 2’ is scheduled for a summer release with the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) members expected to get into their superhero suits once again. While most of us might not have the stomach for more, one English newspaper will have its penknives sharpened.
In Season One they produced four edits throwing hollow blows at Jairam Ramesh and his ‘hysterical’ supporters while singing paeans to genetic engineers. Their voracious appetites made them consume truths much like the NHRC team in their Batla House ‘encounter’ report. In an over-simplistic style that insulted not just readers but also the institution of journalism, they divided the world into scientists and protestors, the rational and the emotional and the primitive versus the factual.
Our journey into journalistic integrity began with ‘Bt Entreaty’ (February 8, 2010), with the assurance “…Bt brinjal has been thoroughly and comprehensively tested; the theoretical science that backs up arguments for its safety remain unchallenged.” Since in their schematics a person cannot be both a scientist and a protestor, they found no need to mention founder director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), P. N. Bhargava’s warning that it was cleared by the GEAC without proper tests and under pressure from the developer Monsanto-Mahyco. An odd omission considering he was the independent nominee of the Supreme Court to the GEAC.
This was followed by an unpardonable lie: “In India, farmers have taken to Bt cotton in a big way — and paranoid fears that giant foreign combines would seek to make rapacious profits by exploiting small Indian farmers have not materialised.” Maybe, Monsanto can manipulate their memory genes so they can recollect recent coverage by their own reporters clearly contradicting this (‘Four years of bitter harvest’, November 20, 2009). There have been several reports on the sharp rise in farmers’ suicides after the introduction of Bt cotton, particularly in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra where the governments most aggressively marketed the seed. How can a national paper so callously fail to mention these facts? Or are some facts more privileged than others?
Soon followed ‘Bt, Interrupted’ (February 10, 2010), an edit in which contradictions revealed far more than content. The ‘unambiguous obstructions by state governments’ were ‘remarkable’ but Jairam Ramesh’s decision was still unilaterally enforced and merely ‘playing to the gallery’. Then came the really perplexing part: “Given the rocky experience with genetically modified crops, especially food, this seemingly reasonable approach is nothing but obfuscation.” Say what?
The GEAC to them is a body beyond reproach. In their unmodified praise you will find no mention of the FIR registered against its member secretary – as well as a complaint with the Central Vigilance Commission – by Hyderabad-based Nuziveedu Seeds, which deals in Bt Cotton, pointing out how the said official had been using undue discretionary powers to promote the interests of Mahyco at the cost of others. (‘Q & A: Bt Brinjal’, Outlook, February 11, 2010).
The next assault, ‘After the Hysterics’ (February 22, 2010), hit a new low in editorial standards. The rhetoric unleashed read like the psychobabble of an adolescent, who’d just discovered Ayn Rand: Bt Brinjal’s introduction was held up by a few, who indulged in ‘reflexive hysteria about biotech – that these monstrous GM plants would contaminate their ‘natural’ neighbours with GM pollen and eradicate biodiversity, or would spur the growth of ‘superweeds’, resistant to pesticides, or have health hazards for those who unwittingly consume them.’ These they magnanimously conceded were ‘vital’ but ‘vague fears.’
Unfortunately, these planted pieces were not born of terminator seeds, so generalisation prospered. The Environment Minister ignored ‘an array of expert opinion and many sane and responsible voices in his own government defending technology and underscoring its need for Indian agriculture.’
What the reader learnt from this was rejection of a particular type of genetically modified crop was rejection of all technology from the wheel onwards. Furthermore, those that raise questions about Genetically Manipulated (GM) food were apparently threatening all forms of biotechnology from stem cell research to assisted reproduction. And these ‘sane and responsible voices’, are they the same ones responsible for food inflation touching nearly twenty per cent?
The last edit ‘Hot Potatoes’ (March 5, 2010) was the most shocking. It was an immature celebration of a decision that led to mass protests throughout the European Union, i.e, the European Commission’s approval of GM potato cultivation. Nowhere did they mention that consent was given only for industrial purposes and not for the food chain. What the readers got instead was: “Like brinjal, potato is a food crop that belongs to the broad category of non-tuber bearing Solanum species. Certainly, every genetically modified crop has to be carefully appraised for its environmental and health impacts. But indications that the world is moving on to new agricultural technologies should return policy-makers to the dubious utility of an argument that’s fuelled the moratorium: what’s the hurry for India to take a call right now?”
This then is their ‘specious’ logic: potatoes and brinjals are all part of one big happy vegetable family. Why bother mentioning only some countries accepted the decision while others like Italy and Austria strongly condemned it?
In journalism schools you’re told the press’s role in a democracy is that of a watchdog, always on guard, fearlessly speaking truth to power. But here we are, content licking the feet of ‘institutional mechanisms’ that looked the other way while 1,66,304 farmers killed themselves in the last decade.
The readers though aren’t looking away. The online version of the paper doesn’t have a single comment in support of the editorial stance. On the contrary, there is anger at the thought of the seed money that went into misleading them. They are clearly better informed of international agreements on precautionary measures such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
The annual GM industry-funded survey by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agro-biotech Applications shows seven of the 25 GM countries grew less GM crops in 2009. No more countries adopted GM and just 2.7 per cent of global agricultural land was used for GM soy, corn, canola and cotton.
A recent article ‘Global GM Crop Slowdown’ links this to widespread public concern over their safety. It quotes the Director of Gene Ethics Bob Phelps as saying: “GM is not a global industry. Just six countries dominate cropping, with USA, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada and China growing 95 per cent of all GM crops. No new crops have been commercialised since 1996. Of 513 million small farmers world-wide, just 2.75 per cent grow any GM. Most farmers will not grow GM as yields are lower than the best conventional varieties, the patented seed is more expensive and cannot be saved for replanting.”
In ‘Manufacturing Consent’ (1988), Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, warn of the dangers of an independent mainstream media that follows a ‘propaganda model’. Their ‘societal purpose’, they said, ‘is not of enabling the public to assert meaningful control over the political process by providing them with the information needed for the intelligent discharge of political responsibilities. On the contrary…it is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state.” The worst part is papers such as this one do it not because they are forced to but because they choose to. The only one with no ‘free choice’ is the reader.
