Reason triumphs over Bt brinjal
India has done something unusual. It has defied the long-established trend of capitulating to corporate power on the seeds issue. After public consultations, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh decided against commercially releasing genetically modified brinjal (baigan). The brinjal, developed by US multinational Monsanto with Indian company Mahyco and two agricultural universities, had been earlier approved by an official expert committee.
Mr Ramesh deserves special praise for heeding farmers' concerns about GM foods. His public consultation approach sets a good precedent. It should become part of the official decision-making process.
Imposing the moratorium couldn't have been easy. Monsanto -- which controls 84 percent of the global GM seeds market and wields great influence in the US and Indian governments -- aggressively lobbied for Bt brinjal. Much of the corporate media also falsely depicted all GM technology as the key to India's food security.
Monsanto adopted a Trojan Horse strategy, working through universities, Indian Council of Agricultural Research laboratories, and Mahyco, a Maharashtra-based company linked with Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, which Monsanto partly owns.
Bt Brinjal is made by inserting into the plant's genetic code a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to produce pesticidal properties. Science doesn't exactly know the risks from the insertion of alien genes on the recipient organism, the likelihood of transfer of those genes to human systems -- and, hence, the impact on health.
Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin says he "would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another" from GM foods.
India grows 2,200 varieties of brinjal, with an output of 8.4 million tonnes. The risks of introducing GM brinjal remain unknown. The studies on the basis of which clearance was sought for Bt brinjal from the Genetic Engineering Approval (renamed "Appraisal") Committee were all done by Monsanto and its collaborators.
Most only look at acute toxicity and allergic reactions, such as skin irritation, but not the long-term effects of brinjal ingestion. These studies are based on 90-day tests on rats, which, Monsanto claims, are equivalent to 21 human years.
However, many scientists disagree and advocate a new testing protocol. They say normal brinjal has several natural toxins, which could become potent if the genetic material is reordered.
Scientists don't completely know if the toxin produced by the inserted gene in the brinjal breaks down in food or in the human gut. Even Monsanto admits it might remain active in an alkaline environment. And the human digestive system is (mildly) alkaline. We must therefore adopt the Precautionary Principle -- approve a technology only if it is proved safe for all living organisms and the environment. Until then, its development must be confined to the laboratory level.
Affirming the Precautionary Principle for Bt brinjal doesn't mean opposing GM technology or plant biotechnology as such. Farmers have for centuries practised seed selection and grafting to domesticate wild races of food plants.
Industry representatives say the Bt brinjal embargo will discourage private sector research and investment in GM food. In reality, the private sector has only been told to behave responsibly. In fact, Mr Ramesh has been soft on the GEAC, which ignored Mahyco-Monsanto's bypassing of procedures for importing genetic material and cultivating Bt brinjal.
This case should help focus attention on important issues like corporate control of seeds, effects of GM plants on biodiversity, and independence of scientific research.
Corporations make GM seeds such that the farmer cannot reproduce them and must return to the breeder-companies every year. They also want an intellectual property rights regime under which the farmer cannot even reproduce seeds for his/her own use. This is unacceptable. Decisions about rejecting or approving a GM crop must take into account the control issue, besides safety.
Preserving biodiversity is a high priority for South Asia, one of the world's greatest centres of genetic originality. We cannot afford genetic contamination and risk transmission of alien material to plants. GM crops pose that risk.
MNCs like Monsanto exploit mismanaged and under-funded ICAR laboratories and agricultural universities, some of whose researchers crave easy funding. This creates a conflict of interest. If the researcher isn't independent, the quality and integrity of his output may be questionable.
We cannot afford that. We all have a right to safe food and an environment free of genetic contamination and biodiversity loss. There must be close multi-stage peer-group monitoring of corporate-funded research, especially in respect of food.
GM isn't relevant to India's food security. What matters is sustainable, climate-responsible agricultural development based on India's natural endowments and constraints, including half its farmers' dependence on rain-fed agriculture.
A larger lesson is the consultation process used. Thousands of people -- including farmers, consumers, scientists, food safety and security activists, environmentalists and ordinary citizens -- were given a chance to express their views in public assemblies in seven cities.
This healthy model of decision and policy-making is superior to the prevalent closed, anti-democratic procedure. It lets excluded social classes express themselves on matters vital to them.
We must always consult the underprivileged on issues that affect them -- employment guarantees and food security laws; land acquisition for mining, industry, irrigation and infrastructure; and energy and water projects which have environmental impacts.
Today, poor Kondh tribals, who have conserved Orissa's ecosystem and biodiversity for centuries, face displacement from projects which will destroy the Niyamgiri mountain.
If such people were treated as citizens, and heard, government functionaries might realise their agency and rationality, and respect their dignity and self-worth. Governments may yet decide to ignore their concerns, but they at least would have to record the reasons for doing so.
Why, a high official never exposed to the dispossessed and underprivileged might suddenly develop sympathy for them and factor in their interests while designing a project.
This would be a good way of promoting participatory democracy which is sensitive to ordinary people's concerns, respects their rights, and empowers them. By embargoing Bt brinjal, Mr. Ramesh may have done a greater service to democracy than he intended.
Mr Ramesh deserves special praise for heeding farmers' concerns about GM foods. His public consultation approach sets a good precedent. It should become part of the official decision-making process.
Imposing the moratorium couldn't have been easy. Monsanto -- which controls 84 percent of the global GM seeds market and wields great influence in the US and Indian governments -- aggressively lobbied for Bt brinjal. Much of the corporate media also falsely depicted all GM technology as the key to India's food security.
Monsanto adopted a Trojan Horse strategy, working through universities, Indian Council of Agricultural Research laboratories, and Mahyco, a Maharashtra-based company linked with Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar, which Monsanto partly owns.
Bt Brinjal is made by inserting into the plant's genetic code a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to produce pesticidal properties. Science doesn't exactly know the risks from the insertion of alien genes on the recipient organism, the likelihood of transfer of those genes to human systems -- and, hence, the impact on health.
Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin says he "would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock after another" from GM foods.
India grows 2,200 varieties of brinjal, with an output of 8.4 million tonnes. The risks of introducing GM brinjal remain unknown. The studies on the basis of which clearance was sought for Bt brinjal from the Genetic Engineering Approval (renamed "Appraisal") Committee were all done by Monsanto and its collaborators.
Most only look at acute toxicity and allergic reactions, such as skin irritation, but not the long-term effects of brinjal ingestion. These studies are based on 90-day tests on rats, which, Monsanto claims, are equivalent to 21 human years.
However, many scientists disagree and advocate a new testing protocol. They say normal brinjal has several natural toxins, which could become potent if the genetic material is reordered.
Scientists don't completely know if the toxin produced by the inserted gene in the brinjal breaks down in food or in the human gut. Even Monsanto admits it might remain active in an alkaline environment. And the human digestive system is (mildly) alkaline. We must therefore adopt the Precautionary Principle -- approve a technology only if it is proved safe for all living organisms and the environment. Until then, its development must be confined to the laboratory level.
Affirming the Precautionary Principle for Bt brinjal doesn't mean opposing GM technology or plant biotechnology as such. Farmers have for centuries practised seed selection and grafting to domesticate wild races of food plants.
Industry representatives say the Bt brinjal embargo will discourage private sector research and investment in GM food. In reality, the private sector has only been told to behave responsibly. In fact, Mr Ramesh has been soft on the GEAC, which ignored Mahyco-Monsanto's bypassing of procedures for importing genetic material and cultivating Bt brinjal.
This case should help focus attention on important issues like corporate control of seeds, effects of GM plants on biodiversity, and independence of scientific research.
Corporations make GM seeds such that the farmer cannot reproduce them and must return to the breeder-companies every year. They also want an intellectual property rights regime under which the farmer cannot even reproduce seeds for his/her own use. This is unacceptable. Decisions about rejecting or approving a GM crop must take into account the control issue, besides safety.
Preserving biodiversity is a high priority for South Asia, one of the world's greatest centres of genetic originality. We cannot afford genetic contamination and risk transmission of alien material to plants. GM crops pose that risk.
MNCs like Monsanto exploit mismanaged and under-funded ICAR laboratories and agricultural universities, some of whose researchers crave easy funding. This creates a conflict of interest. If the researcher isn't independent, the quality and integrity of his output may be questionable.
We cannot afford that. We all have a right to safe food and an environment free of genetic contamination and biodiversity loss. There must be close multi-stage peer-group monitoring of corporate-funded research, especially in respect of food.
GM isn't relevant to India's food security. What matters is sustainable, climate-responsible agricultural development based on India's natural endowments and constraints, including half its farmers' dependence on rain-fed agriculture.
A larger lesson is the consultation process used. Thousands of people -- including farmers, consumers, scientists, food safety and security activists, environmentalists and ordinary citizens -- were given a chance to express their views in public assemblies in seven cities.
This healthy model of decision and policy-making is superior to the prevalent closed, anti-democratic procedure. It lets excluded social classes express themselves on matters vital to them.
We must always consult the underprivileged on issues that affect them -- employment guarantees and food security laws; land acquisition for mining, industry, irrigation and infrastructure; and energy and water projects which have environmental impacts.
Today, poor Kondh tribals, who have conserved Orissa's ecosystem and biodiversity for centuries, face displacement from projects which will destroy the Niyamgiri mountain.
If such people were treated as citizens, and heard, government functionaries might realise their agency and rationality, and respect their dignity and self-worth. Governments may yet decide to ignore their concerns, but they at least would have to record the reasons for doing so.
Why, a high official never exposed to the dispossessed and underprivileged might suddenly develop sympathy for them and factor in their interests while designing a project.
This would be a good way of promoting participatory democracy which is sensitive to ordinary people's concerns, respects their rights, and empowers them. By embargoing Bt brinjal, Mr. Ramesh may have done a greater service to democracy than he intended.
Praful Bidwai is an eminent Indian columnist
__._,_.___
