We have hope in you Mr Jairam Ramesh

Greetings from "My Right To Safe Food"

Now this analytical article below appears to make sense as following my much awaited meeting with Mr Jairam Ramesh on 23rd Dec 2009 in New Delhi, it left me wondering what the outcome of these intended stakeholder meets in a three and half hour dialogue each, in 7 states will bring about?

When I questioned and voiced grave concerns on Bt approval as a natural farmer on what my rights would be, should my fields be contaminated by the GM seed? "Why such daring rush to approve Bt Brinjal when the lives of over a billion were at stake"? He said lets get all the demons out of the critiques of GM foods heads. It may not be that bad after all. When I stated that US FDA was taken to court by one Mr Steve Drucker and 44,000 pages of scientific evidence poured out by their own scientists where research on safety was in question, this was kept hidden in the closet for reasons known to the Biotech industry and governments, he instantly surfed the net and found it, then requested his PA Rahul to make a note of this.

I urged him that if it has taken Monsanto probably 15-20 years to invent the GM seed after much research, then why not take another 10-15 years to conduct and invest in human public safety tests and declare it then safe for release? The answer was "Why wait for 15 years to pass by, the country may lose out on such progressive technology. We have to get it done and over with, why leave it pending!"

When I continued to pin this question "Why such hasty approvals, Sir?" Who said I am approving? First, Sangita please get me "The Tests to Establish Human Safety under two categories DONE and NOT DONE". Upon reciept, I will ensure we look into this and carry out the necessary tests to establish its health safety. To that I was much relieved, for in it, I saw a ray of hope and told him so. I said the nation would be deeply grateful, he would be always remembered as a wise and just Minister, should he consider the welfare of the public health of all us masses and that of our environment.

Being an optimist to the core, I sincerely hope Mr Jairam Ramesh stands to his word and pray he has enormous strength of conviction to stand for what is consciously right and not be swayed nor succumb by peer/industry pressure.

We look up to him for not letting our nation of unaware citizens down.

In solidarity

Sangita Sharma

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bt brinjal: Jairam Ramesh trying to legitimise the GEAC fraud by Devinder Sharma
Thursday, December 31, 2009
India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh. He is trying to cover-up the lapses on the part of GEAC in according environment clearance to India's first genetically modified food crop -- Bt brinjal

In what appears to be a massive cover-up operation for the scientific swindle perpetrated in the case of the controversial approval granted by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to India's first poisonous food crop -- Bt brinjal, Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh is now trying to legitimise the fraud.

By announcing a series of stakeholder consultations at 7 locations across the country, Jairam Ramesh is simply trying to deflect attention from the more pressing need to open up the fraudulent manner in which the GEAC granted approval to Bt brinjal. By holding stakeholder consultations, he is deliberately trying to bury the scandal.

A news report in Business Standard (Ramesh to begin talks on Bt brinjal in January: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/ramesh-to-begin-talksbt-brinjal-in-january/381153/) says, and I quote: During his month-long tour, Ramesh would seek views from scientists, agriculture experts, farmers’ organisations, consumer groups and non-government organisations (NGOs) on the report submitted by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) on Bt brinjal in October.

The committee has recommended that Bt brinjal is safe for environment release in India. In accordance with the event-based approval mechanism, GEAC may approve all the Bt Brinjal hybrids and varieties containing event EE-I developed by Mahyco, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, and field tested so far.\

Informed sources told Business Standard that Ramesh had already announced that the proposed consultations aim at arriving at a careful decision in the public and national interest. The decision with regard to allowing Bt Brinjal for human consumption would be made after the consultation.

Therefore, the need for prescribing additional studies needs to be carried out on a case-by-case basis and consideration of data generated during the biosafety assessment. According to GEAC, raising the bar of the regulatory process based on hypothetical concerns and apprehensions would be highly detrimental for research and development in the area of agricultural biotechnology, especially for public sector institutions and the benefits to the society at large.

If you read the above paras carefully, you realise that the Ministry for Environment & Forests (MoEF) appears satisfied with its own regulatory process. This is nothing surprising, knowing that each Ministry tries to protect its actions (and officials), and it was primarily for the same reasons probably that the former Chief Minister of Haryana, Mr Om Prakash Chautala, did not initiate any action against its then Director General of Police S P S Rathore, who is now being charged with abetment of suicide of the Chandigarh-based minor girl, Ruchika.

I see a similarity because I think Jairam Ramesh is also trying to provide a cover-up for the wrong doings of the GEAC. Instead of holding a public dialogue on the dirty games played in the name of scientific regulation, he is very cleverly shifting the onus onto stakeholder consultations, which primarily means there was nothing wrong with the regulatory process.

This is where he goes utterly wrong. The report of the Expert Committee-II was a complete sham.

I am aware that Jairam Ramesh is basically trying to defend his Ministry's reply to an earlier Parliament question, which in my opinion was simply a part of the cover-up operation. If if you have missed the report, here it is: Indian Parliament misled by Ministry for Environment on Bt brinjal issue http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/12/indian-parliament-misled-by-ministry.html

Bt brinjal approval was rigged. Jairam Ramesh cannot turn a blind eye to the charges made against the GEAC (and the EC-II). By doing so, he is simply playing the role Mr Chautala allegedly played in the Rathore case in Haryana (for readers outside India, I suggest you google SPS Rathore and you will get to know why the nation is outraged at what this former cop did to a minor girl who later committed suicide).

Like the public outcry is now bringing justice to Ruchika, the regulatory authorities have to be made answerable to the people. Like what the Haryana police (and government at that time) did to protect its Director General of Police, the MoEF cannot provide a cover-up to the wrong doings of the GEAC. Each and every action of the GEAC has to be publicly scrutanised. After all, the GEAC decisions impacts the masses.

If Jairam Ramesh has missed seeing the communications pointing to the unscientific manner in which the EC-II accorded environmental clearance to Bt brinjal, I draw his attention to my blog: India's GM scandal: Bt brinjal approval rigged (http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/11/indias-gm-scandal-bt-brinjal-approval.html) These have to be responded to. He cannot simply dismiss it.

The MoEF has to first provide for an independent public scrutiny of the GEAC report, before any stakeholder consultations can be held across the country. I see no reason why Jairam Ramesh cannot hold a public audit of the GEAC report? Why can't he appoint a three member panel (a panel comprising distinguishing personalities) that should review the decision of the GEAC? And why not?

There should be a provision for a strict punishment for the GEAC members, if the panel feels that the approval process was rigged. I would suggest slapping Section 305 (abetment to a crime) against the GEAC chairman and his team. The time has come to hold the scientific regulatory system accountable.

Just for record, I draw Jairam Ramesh's attention to a statement arrived at by some of the most distinguished scientists: "Bt brinjal has not been properly tested for health or environmental safety. In feeding trials, numerous significant differences were noted compared to the best corresponding non-Bt controls.

Bt brinjal appears to contain 15% less kcal/100 g, has a different alkaloïd content, and 16-17 mg/kg Bt insecticide toxin poorly characterized for side effects, and produced by the plant genetically modified for this. In animals fed this GMO, several parameters were effected including blood cells or chemistry, with significant differences according to the period of measurement during the study or the sex of the animal. These include prothrombin (blood clotting) time, biochemical parameters such as total bilirubin (an indicator of liver health).

Alkaline phosphatase was also changed, as well as feed consumption and weight gain; milk production in cows was 10- 14% higher. There was more milk and more roughage dry matter intake as if the animals were treated by a hormone. Rats GM-fed had diarrhoea, higher water consumption, liver weight decrease as well as relative liver to body weight ratio decrease".

Interestingly, the EC-II treats these glaring health impacts as biologically insignificant, which even a biotechnology student will disagree with. How can the MoEF brush these shocking details under the carpet? Doesn't it point to the real motive behind the approval process?

And now let us look at how cleverly the GEAC has designed the consultation process. My information is that Jairam Ramesh has simply okayed what the GEAC proposed.

1. The consultations will be held in 7 cities: the first public consultation in Kolkata on January 13, followed by Bhubaneshwar on January 16, Ahmedabad on January 19, Hyderabad (January 22), Bangalore (January 23), Nagpur (January 27) and finally at Chandigarh on January 30. Why at these seven cities only? To this, Jairam Ramesh replies that these are the areas where brinjal cultivation is maximum.

The justification being proposed for these locations is flawed, and therefore smacks of an ulterior motive. Bt brinjal is a genetically modified food crop, which will be allowed for commercial sale after what Jairam Ramesh will gather from these consultations. This is simply a wrong approach.

Being the first genetically modified food crop, any assessment for its approval should be based on what the consumers have to say. The consultations should be therefore held in metros like Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, Bangalore, Ludhiana, Guwahati, Lucknow, and for that matter in all the state headquarters.

2. The consultation process itself is a joke. Each of the consultation will begin at 12 noon, and finish by 1530. In just three and half hours, Jairam Ramesh is wanting people to register their views. Isn't that a farce in the name of stakeholder consultation? Who are you trying to befool, Mr Jairam Ramesh?

3. The ICAR has already given its approval for Bt brinjal. We also know that the GEAC has only examined the data provided by the GM companies. Which means that the regulatory process has taken into consideration (and has also upheld) what the scientists and the industry had to say. So why bring the scientists and industry again into the stakeholder consultations? Isn't that an effort to scuttle the limited process?

Instead of asking the Centre for Environment & Education (CEE) to hold these consultations, I suggest you hand over the entire case to Central Bureau of Investigations (CBI). This scientific fraud must be exposed, and the guilty punished, for the sake of welfare and health of the billion-plus people.

Feedback and Publicity following the public debates and lectures on GM foods in Bangalore - Dec 2009

Greetings from My Right to Safe Food"

Following the series of public debates and lectures on Food security & GM Foods which commenced from 4th Dec in Bangalore onwards, please read on....

4th Dec & 5th December 2009. -‘Be the Change’ Conference on Food, Health and Climate Change, the conference focused on the importance of becoming aware of our right to good safe food, steered by Seetha Ananthasivan, Director, Bhoomi Network. The conference was splendid. Organised with such finesse, fine attention to detail, be it in content and design it brought together powerful speakers with heads of educational institutes, teachers, educators, students, NGO's and lot others touching a deep inner chord of wanting to make that little difference and be the change. The support extended by Seetha and her team in a signature appeal to our Prime Minister " My Right to Safe Food - Our Right to Feed our children GM-Free Safe Food" is truly noteworthy.

4th Dec - “GM Crops in India-Hero or Villain? You Decide,’’ organised by the Bangalore International Centre, news related to this event was sent earlier.

5th Dec - Lumiere, Nature's partner is the first organic multi-cuisine restaurant launched in Marathalli, Bangalore, Inaugurated by Mr Devinder Sharma. Lumiere promotes safe holistic foods and takes great pride in growing organic vegetables and cereals. Mr Manjunath P R, and Mr Ashok masterminds behind this exquisite organic restaurant have set a new trend and precedent for others to follow in the standards of fine dining. Behind the scenes, i had the good fortune to witness the concerted tireless efforts taken by Mr Manjunath to ensure all ingredients that were not grown in his farms were outsourced from safe food growers, marginal farmers and like by stringently following the fair trade practices. The ambiance and decor in Lumiere reflected the painstaking efforts of tribal arts holistically portrayed by Mrs Nalini, an art activist whose humble demeanor was most touching. The well equipped kitchen dishing out aromas of delicate flavoured food, freshly baked breads and cakes was such a rare treat. My joy has no bounds. For once, i can visit a restaurant without having to worry where my oil, veggies, dairy and poultry produce and more comes from! Hope Lumiere ignites a chain of safe food cuisines throughout India.

7th Dec - The next public debate was "Genetically Modified (GM) Food Crop: How does this matter to a common man? was held at the Institute for Agricultural Technologies (IAT) at Bangalore on Dec 7, Organised by Civic, a Bangalore-based NGO. This charged interactive debate exceeded time frames due to interest ignited by the panel of speakers to consumers was made possible thanks to the dedicated efforts of Kathayani Chamaraj, Harish Poovaiah and Asha Kilaru of CIVIC.

7th Dec - A stimulating lecture by Devinder Sharma on “FOOD SECURITY AND GENETIC ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE” addressing IPR students was kindly organised by Dr Ramakrishna of the National Law School. Followed by the documentary film "Poison on the Platter". The impact of this brought together a group of concerned students... coming forward to carry the message of safe foods.

8th Dec - Thanks to Sr Albina, a dynamic and progressive principal of Mount Carmel College, my alma mator who gave us the privilege of addressing over 2000 students and faculty in a packed auditorium. “FATE OF FOOD” – “DO WE NEED GM FOODS?”followed by the film Poison on the Platter. Awakening these students on GM issues brought together yet another charged youth group, wishing to take the stride to stand up for their rights on safe foods. Faculty member Vimala, Head of Zoology extended warm support. Young Rithika who came charging out of the auditorium seeing our departure with a list of 28 core group students to strengthen the movement was most heartening.

These intense debates to give our Bangalore consumers informed choices and interviews carried with such ease by Devinder Sharma packed in so short a time frame was achieved thanks to allocation of his time, out of his hectic schedule.

All this and more, has given us further impetus to continue in our endeavor and not allow GM foods into our food chain. Young Pavithra Pasan, a final year biotech student volunteering at Ishana farms is in the process of finalising action plans drawing together all concerned groups from each of the lectures and debates attended.

Given the limited time frames, we will strive hard for our Bangalore voices to be heard by our Prime Minister, Sonia Gandhi and Jairam Ramesh.

In solidarity

Sangita Sharma
http://myrighttosafefood.blogspot.com/

Please find below the following news items covering by the respective media.

http://www.hindu.com/2009/12/08/stories/2009120861450400.htm

‘Genetically modified food crops will not improve productivity’
Staff Reporter

— Photo: Bhagya Prakash K.
(From left) Narayan Reddy, organic farmer; Devinder Sharma, chairman of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security; T.M. Manjunath, former director of Monsanto Research; and Ramanjini Gowda, Head of the Department of Biotechnology, UAS, Bangalore, at a public discussion in Bangalore on Monday.

BANGALORE: Expressing reservations on allowing commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal in the country, panellists at a public discussion stated that genetically modified (GM) crops would not improve productivity as claimed by some. They also urged the public to raise their voice against GM food crops, as it was in their best interests.

At a public discussion on “Genetically modified food: how does this matter to a common man,” organised here by CIVIC, chairman of the Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security Devinder Sharma said that introduction of GM crops might reduce crop loss to a certain extent, but would not increase productivity.

Stating that the global food production was sufficient, Dr. Sharma said that it was sufficient to feed 11 billion people, whereas six billion people inhabit the earth. “The argument in favour of introduction of GM food crops should not revolve around linking increased productivity and hunger,” he said. While there had been no human clinical trial conducted with respect to GM foods, no medical essay was available to treat any possible impact on genes, Dr. Sharma added.

He also said that agricultural scientists in India had been catering to the corporates than the public.

Why brinjal?
“If food security was an issue behind introduction of GM food crops, then why was brinjal chosen though it is not a staple diet? Why not pulses or cereals?” Narayan Reddy, a national award winning organic farmer questioned. He pointed out that a family used just about a kg of brinjal a week.

Bt brinjal may be resistant to fruit and borer disease, but not to many others. The introduction of GM food crops may create a monopoly situation, and farmers would not be able to purchase seeds, Dr. Reddy said.

“The Government should look into the foodgrains that were being lost in the FCI godowns if it wants to address the issue of hunger.” The problem in India was not about scarcity, but about wastage, he added.

However, justifying the introduction of GM food crops, the former director of Monsanto Research T.M. Manjunath said that research had shown that GM food crops had shown reduction in losses due to pests. Stating that Bt. cotton had become popular among the farmers, he said that from being a cotton importer India was now exporting it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

‘Propagating GM crops a corporate ploy’

Express News ServiceFirst Published : 08 Dec 2009 05:02:00 AM IST


BANGALORE: ‘‘Scientists have become pawns at the hands of the corporates '' said noted agricultural scientist and food, trade policy expert Devinder Sharma.

While speaking at a public discussion on `` Genetically Modified (GM) Food Crop: How does this matter to a common man? organised by NGO CIVIC at Institution of Agricultural Technologists (IAT) on Monday, Devinder Sharma said, agricultural scientists in the country need to take responsibility for the farmer suicides as it is because of their faulty science that they have to commit suicide, he said.Devinder Said, contrary to what the corporates and scientists are telling us, there is no shortage of food in the country.On the other hand, India has produced around 65 million tonnes of surplus food in the year 2003.He said, 40 years back we were deceived into believing that green revolution will solve the country's farmers' problems and will make the Indian farmer rich.But he said, according to the National Survey Sample of 2004, the average monthly income of farmer's is a meagre Rs 2,115.

--------------------------------------------
3. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/40075/scientists-have-become-pawns-corporates.html

Their role in promotion of GM crops flayed
‘Scientists have become pawns of corporates’
Bangalore, Dec 7, DH News Service:

Agriculture scientists came in sharp criticism for their role in promoting genetically modified crops, at a public debate here on Thursday.


The debate with the theme “What Genetically Modified (GM) food crops mean to the common man” organised by CIVIC, a not-for profit organisation saw speakers charging agriculture scientists becoming pawns of corporates selling BT products.

The debate organised by the CIVIC, a not-for-profit organisation, had academicians and farmers discuss the raging issue of BT products, all set to flood the Indian markets.

Narayan Swamy, a farmer who used to produce BT cotton, said agriculturists like himself were at the mercy of corporates who could raise the prices of seeds as they wished. Such arbitrariness was now forcing agriculturists back to organic farming, he said.

Another speaker, Dr Devinder Sharma said: “For 40 years since the Green Revolution, agriculture scientists have been misleading the general public on the merits of GM crops. Their claims of helping the farmers have fallen short of assuring anybody of the validity of these products.” Sharma shared the figures of average income of a Indian farmer coming to only Rs 2,115 as per the NSS data of 2002-03.

He held farm scientists responsible for the current failure of cotton crops in the country. “The figures speak for themselves. Cotton production in the past four years is at its lowest this year,” he said.

He argued the only solution provided by the scientists to the problems of Green Revolution was another “Green Revolution” for enhancing yields.

Countering Sharma, Dr T M Manjunath, who was earlier associated with GM seeds producer Monsanto, said people who opposed the GM crops had not understood the meaning of BT and biotechnological advances in science. “As per the figures provided by the Government of India, cotton production has tripled since 1950-51. It is only due to BT cotton that it has been possible for India to become an exporter in the product from being an importer prior to the Green Revolution,” he said.

Bt Brinjal tests inadequate: How safe is it? Rupashree Nanda / CNN-IBN

Greetings from "My Right to Safe Food"

Following the public debate at BIC 4th Dec 6.30pm, please find the a brief news report that appeared in New Indian Express. Public debates continue, to give consumers informed choices. Tomorrow 7th Dec, we proceed to the National Law School 9.30am and there after for a debate at IAT at 3pm. Please spread the message if you are truly concerned about the welfare of our children, health and environment.

http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=%60Corporates+behind+GM+Crop&artid=S8bwIGHAgLk=&SectionID=Qz/kHVp9tEs=&MainSectionID=wIcBMLGbUJI=&SectionName=UOaHCPTTmuP3XGzZRCAUTQ==&SEO=

`Corporates behind GM Crop'
Express News Service
05 Dec 2009 07:32:37 AM IST

BANGALORE: “Corporates are not interested to solve the food problem, instead they are hungry for profit,” said noted agricultural scientist and food, trade policy expert Devinder Sharma at the public interest debate “GM Crops in India-Hero or Villain? You Decide,’’ organised by the Bangalore International Centre on Friday. Sharma said that to understand the GM issue, one needs to know the politics of it first, where the whole agenda has been driven by corporates.He said, “We have been made to believe the country’s food requirement will shoot up, hence we need to go for GM technology, as it is assumed to increase the yield. This is completely false.” India has produced around 65 million tonnes of surplus food in the year 2003.Hence, he said, all this talk of food prices rising due to food shortage is an utter lie created by the traders. He said, it is a shame that scientists at the Indian Council of Agricultural Science are actually working for the corporate lobbies.Narayanan, MD, Metahelix Life Sciences and task force member of agricultural biotechnology, countered Sharma, saying in the next 15 years, India needs to produce 50 million tonnes of rice. He said with GM crops, the target could be met.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the second part of the CNN IBN Exclusive story on Bt Brinjal Expert Committee...This story apparently played several times yesterday and many of us might have missed it. What the story does not dwell upon is what now appears to be a strategic decision on the part of the regulators - to move away from the January mandate given to the Expert Committee when the sub-committee was first announced, to what it actually majorly focused on: on compliance with guidelines and not on establishing safety!

The Chair of the expert committee, is heard admitting in this interview:

"Genetically Engineered food products will not be equal to the non-genetically engineered food products. That's for sure. Now, how much damage, we do not know at this stage"!

Please pass this around widely....As concerned citizens and groups, write immediately to Mr Jairam Ramesh straightaway, asking for an immediate withdrawal of the report - jairam@vsnl.com and jairam@sansad.nic.in, mosef@nic.in. Phone/Fax No.: 011-24361727, 23463958 ; 24362222 (fax). Mark copies to Prime Minister, Phone: 011-23018939/23011156;
Fax: 011-23015603, 011-23019545, 011-23016857, 011-23014255, Email:pmosb@pmo.nic.in, pmindia@pmindia.nic.in, manmohan@sansad.nic.in and Ms Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, UPA at Phone: 011-23014161; 011-23012656 Fax: 011-23018651; 011-23017047; Email: 10janpath@vsnl.net, soniagandhi@sansad.nic.in

Just one line saying "BT BRINJAL CLEARED UNDER INFLUENCE OF PRESSURE & VESTED INTERESTS; SAFETY OF BT BRINJAL UNSURE AS PER THE EXPERT COMMITTEE CHAIR HIMSELF. WITHDRAW THE EC2 REPORT AND THROW OUT THE APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIALISATION OF BT BRINJAL IMMEDIATELY" should do.

(The earlier story link is at: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/controversy-continues-over-bt-brinjal-approval/106190-3.html)

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/bt-brinjal-tests-inadequate-how-safe-is-it/106477-3.html

CNN-IBN EXCLUSIVE

Bt Brinjal tests inadequate: How safe is it?

Rupashree Nanda / CNN-IBN
Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 17:50, Updated on Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 19:26 in India section

In October, an Expert Committee gave its approval to Bt Brinjal. Now not just activists or dissenters, even the chairman of that expert group concedes that necessary tests were not done. And without them, at this stage, we simply do not know whether Bt Brinjal is safe or not. CNN-IBN's Rupashree Nanda with this exclusive report.

Please click on the video link to hear Arjula Reddy speak to the correspondent, Rupashree Nanda.

http://ibnlive.in.com/videos/106477/bt-brinjal-tests-inadequate-how-safe-is-it.html

Public debate on GM foods in Bangalore

Greetings from " My Right to Safe Food"

“Right to choose safe food is a fundamental right of consumers in a democracy. Consumers must have informed choices.

To this effect, we have initiated a series of public debates on GM foods from 4th Dec 6pm onwards.

First interactive platform has been provided by BIC, a TERI initiative,
Please see their invite below, should anyone wish to register, please call 25359680 as the seating capacity is quite limited. It is First come First basis only.

Second initiative is courtesy The National Law School - 7th Dec 9.30am at their campus see invite below

Third, is courtesy CIVIC, organised at the IAT( queens road) on 7th Dec 3pm

Fourth, at Mount Carmels College on the 8th Dec 11.30am

Please join us and invite your network to understand the "Fate of our Food"

In solidarity

Sangita Sharma
http://myrighttosafefood.blogspot.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4th Dec 6pm at Bangalore International Centre, Auditorium, Teri Complex, 4th Main Road, 2nd Cross, Domlur 2nd stage, Bangalore


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIPRA & MHRD Chair on IPR
National Law School of India University
Bangalore

In association with ‘My Right to Safe Food’ Bangalore


Invites you for a lecture on


“FOOD SECURITY AND GENETIC ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE”
By
Dr. Devinder Sharma
(Chairman, Forum for Bio-technology and Food Security)

Venue: I year LL M Class Room
Date : 7th December, 2009, (Monday)
Time: 9. 30 a.m. to 11.20 a.m.

Ms. Sangita Sharma,
Dr.T.Ramakrishna
Dr Jeevan Kumar

--------------------------------------------------------------

INVITATION
to a public discussion on

Genetically Modified (GM) Food Crop:
How does this matter to a common man?

On 14th October 2009, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) granted permission for Indian farmers to grow a transgenic version of Brinjal (Bt Brinjal). A day later, Mr. Jairam Ramesh, India’s minister of environment and forests, said that permission for its cultivation will be given only after consulting “all stakeholders”. Ramesh says that the ministry will seek public comments until the end of the year and that he “will have a series of consultations with scientists, agriculture experts, farmers’ organizations, consumer groups and NGOs” in January and February 2010 before deciding whether to go forward.

There are various views floated by scientists, industry, farmers and consumer groups on the pros and cons of GM food crops. We believe that the ultimate user, the consumer needs to know more – from both the sides. This public discussion will attempt to answer the following from the perspective of scientists, farmers/growers, industry and consumers.
1. What are GM Food Crops? What is its relevance for a common man or consumer?
2. Do we need GM Food/Crop in India? Will it help eradicate hunger?
3. How safe is GM Food? Has it been fully tested for its safety for human and animal consumption?
4. Is the regulatory systems fool proof enough to ensure total bio safety?
5. How is it faring in other countries?
6. What is Karnataka States position on this?

We have the following distinguished speakers who will throw more light and answer
the common man.

Dr T Manjunath Agri-Biotechnology Consultant, Chairman Ex Director – Monsanto Research &

Dr.P.H.Ramanjinigowda Head – Dept of Biotechnology University of Agricultural Sciences Bangalore

Dr Devinder Sharma Chairman - Forum for Biotechnology and Food Security
Dr Narayan Reddy National awardee organic farmer


Date: 7th December, 2009 Time: 3PM to 6PM
Venue: Institution of Agricultural Technologists (IAT), Queen's Road, Bangalore 52.

Programme schedule:
3PM - Tea. 3.30PM to 4.30PM: Speech by panelists. 4.30PM to 6PM - Open house.

ALL ARE WELCOME

CIVIC (www.civicspace.in) is an organisation working with urban issues since 1992. It is a neutral platform for discussion and dialogue between public agencies and people.
Email: info@civicspace.in Ph: 08-22110584, 22711001

BREAKING NEWS - "RIGGING UP OF EXPERT COMMITTEE"

Greetings from "MY RIGHT TO SAFE FOOD"

Shocking indeed. The jig saw puzzle is meticulously solved and revealed by Kavitha Kuruganti from the Coalition for GM-Free India.

Please find attached a report from the Coalition which describes how the Expert Committee on Bt Brinjal was a rigged-up affair so to speak. To quote Kavitha
"(1) it was systemically rigged up by USAID through ABSPII and SABP projects and (2) by many individuals in the Expert Committee posing a question mark on the committee itself.

The biggest question mark is on the Chair, who seems to succumbed under pressure brought on him. The objectionable presence of many in the Expert Committee leads us to conclude that this was rigged up and was designed for a particular outcome - that of approving Bt Brinjal!

There is also an issue that is still somewhat unclear about how many GEAC members were actually present in the October meeting which further cleared the Bt Brinjal approval, since the minutes of the GEAC meeting don't have a list of the members present but the minutes seem to indicate (seem to indicate) that there were probably around 12-13 members not present".

Please view this link http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/ - Monday, November 30, 2009 - India's GM scandal: By Devinder Sharma

"Bt brinjal approval rigged The environmental clearance by an Expert Committee (called EC-II) set by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to accord approval to the controversial genetically modified crop -- Bt brinjal -- was actually rigged.
As a consumer, you need to understand how you were likely to be served poisonous food by a bunch of people (who operate in the name of scientists) whose only job is to promote the commercial interests of the private seed and biotech companies. The conflict of interest of most of the members of the EC-II comes out clearly in this exposure".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PRESS RELEASE ISSUED BY COALITION FOR A GM-FREE INDIA

“EXPERT COMMITTEE RIGGED UP: WITHDRAW BT BRINJAL EXPERT COMMITTEE REPORT”

New Delhi, November 30th 2009: In the light of new information emerging on the Bt Brinjal Expert Committee being compromised, casting a bigger shadow of doubt on fair and scientific inquiry into the safety and other issues related to Bt Brinjal, the Coalition for a GM-Free India demanded the immediate withdrawal of the report which recommended Bt Brinjal for India. News emerged yesterday on the Chairperson of the Expert Committee admitting to coming under pressure to approve Bt Brinjal. Further, fresh information on other members of the Expert Committee shows that this Committee was rigged up, said the Coalition.

The following are the new facts emerging on the Expert Committee which recommended Bt Brinjal for clearance (EC2 or Expert Committee II):

The Chairperson, Prof Arjula Reddy, confesses to coming under pressure from “Agriculture Minister, GEAC and the industry” to approve Bt Brinjal (Attached report has Dr Pushpa Bhargava’s statement on a telephonic conversation that Prof Reddy had to this effect with Dr Bhargava, the Supreme Court observer to GEAC, the apex regulatory body in India)
The Member-Secretary, Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM in the DBT), Dr K K Tripathi has a Central Vigilance Commission complaint pending against him for exercising undue discretionary powers to promote interests of companies of his choice (Mahyco, in this instance) and harm others. He sat in the Expert Committee which was considering Mahyco’s application, while the CVC complaint was still being examined!
At least two Bt Brinjal developers in the Expert Committee bring in conflicting interests. One of them is part of the Consortium project that is developing Bt Brinjal in India with American aid!
At least two members sat in the Expert Committee, reviewing their institutions’ own findings on Bt Brinjal biosafety!
At least two members who were expressly representing the Union Health Ministry sat as observers in the Expert Committee without providing any inputs into the EC2 process.

Further, the GEAC deviated from the agreed mandate for the Expert Committee, as minuted in its January meeting minutes, to set up a new mandate that allowed the EC2 to recommend Bt Brinjal for cultivation.

The Expert Committee was also privy to some data that was never put out in the public domain for independent scrutiny and analysis but which was used for decision-making.

“The new information on the Chairperson of the Expert Committee confessing to coming under pressure and actually showing that he has succumbed under pressure given the final contents of the EC2 report and the objectionable presence of several members who were carrying conflicting interests puts a huge question mark on the scientificity and objectivity of this Expert Committee in assessing Bt Brinjal and its safety. The Government of India asking us to respond to this rigged-up report is an irony, given that the outcomes are being pre-decided in this fashion. We demand that the EC2’s report be immediately withdrawn”, said the Coalition.

For more information, contact:

Kavitha Kuruganti, Kheti Virasat Mission: (0) 93-930-01550
Bhaskar Goswami, Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security: (0) 98-111-91335


Encl: "Is this what Indians should be trusting?" - a note on the rigged-up Expert Committee.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Aruna Rodriques from Sunray Harvesters

Aruna Rodrigues wrote:
9 November, 2009, 15:09

The following extracts from Supreme court submission are of relevance.

From Submission of Aug 08 to the SC
" Furthermore, it is on record that for toxicity and allergenicity, testing is grossly inadequate by international standards and even the ICMR guidelines have not been adhered to. Testing for chronic toxicity of GM food crops is essential and requires long term testing, a point agreed to by the ICMR representative and recorded at point 5.7 of Agenda item 4 of the 85th Meeting of the GEAC. It was further agreed that therefore, the ICMR bio-safety guide lines would be amended and that Dr Vasantha Muthswamy would interact with Dr Bhargava to prepare another draft (item 4.2 of the 85th Meeting)".

NOTE: This was never done. Now, at some point the draft guidelines of the ICMR were finalised and diluted went public

From Nov 1st Submision (please note, tests for chronic toxicity were objected to on grounds that they would take too long. Now we have diluted guidelines by the ICMR and these are the justification. (genetically engineered guidelines with intended effects!)

"There are very few established protocols internationally to determine the human health impacts of GE foods. These are generally piecemeal and fragmented. India is a faithful adherent of the US system where safety testing is undefined and haphazard. In the US it also voluntary because GE foods are given GRAS status (Generally Recognised As Safe). The methods of rigorous bio-safety and risk assessment in their time-scale are by definition, long term, to uncover the potential harmful changes in GE proteins in foods as a result of the transformation process. These include testing procedures for chronic toxicity. Yet the Regulators in their Reply are on record dismissing both, scientific methods of risk assessment and long term multi-generational animal feeding studies because they will take too long. The question must be asked: too long for whom? Whose advantage are the Regulators pushing?"

Definition Conflict of Interest From the Court Submission:

A conflict of interest is a situation in which someone in a position of trust has competing professional or personal interests, which make it difficult to fulfil his or her duties without grace or favour, i.e. impartially. A conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the person, profession, or court system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In solidarity

Sangita Sharma
http://myrighttosafefood.blogspot.com/

Response to the article by Dr. S Shantharam by leading organic farmers

Greetings from "My Right to Safe Food"

Powerful hard hitting, thought provoking response by Juli and Vivek Cariappa - Organic Farmer, Krishi Pandit, ex-Gram Panchayat member, President of Savayava Krishikara Sangha, Member Empowered Committee On Organic Farming, GOK, Member, State Horticulture Mission, GOK. to an interview with Dr S Shantaram, former Syngenta man and key player in India's industry-linked GM lobby group Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education (FBAE). http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=336
---------
I was rather surprised to read the article / interview with one Dr. Shantharam from the USA. The tone of the responses to the questions regarding GM food and the debate going on in India, was very much like the petulant tantrum of little children whose toy is taken away for their own protection, as they are not mature enough to handle things that can harm them!!

Some points I would like to clarify for the benefit for your readers who might take seriously what the good scientist had to say.

***Modern science is only about 200 years old. To say that what is in the lab is the only science is nonsense. Science happens in the fields and in daily life. What knowledge we have today is the result of "science" from a time long before modern science came into the picture. Modern science has a way of creating fascists. Scientists, barring a few, have become totally fascistic in their belief systems. There can be no other truth other than what they believe. Science should liberate the scientist taking him/her closer to the truth. Today that is far from the truth.

***The scientist says that only one crazy African Nation has said no to GE food. He should know that that is totally false. Included in that list is Switzerland, Ireland, Japan, and many European nations that have a very strict system of labelling, even Australia. This is only in processed food and grain. No nation has as yet allowed vegetables to be genetically engineered for human consumption. All Nations that export food are saying "No" to GE food as there are export sanctions against GE food.

***If GE was so good for us poor countries then why did the MNCs wait for patenting and the intellectual property laws in India to be changed? The only reason as any intelligent person will realise, is that it is because there is a huge amount of money to be made in India with patented seed. Maybe the scientist is not able to see this simple truth.

***The article gave the impression that "some NGOs and Organic Farmers" are misleading the farmers, and that organic farming is only a fashion that will die out. If that were true then why would the government of Karnataka and other state governments In India support a fashion - why would they believe in a self-reliant agricultural sector? Was Mahatma Gandhi making a fashion statement when he argued for rural sustainability? Why should the state invest Rs.100 Cr. Annually to promote organic farming? Is the government misleading the farmers then? The State Governments of Kerala, West Bengal, Uttranchal, Chattisgarh and Jharkhand have said NO to GE food. Are they stupidly misleading their people? Obviously not. They have serious doubts about the claims of the GE industry claims.

***Look at the issue of farmers' suicides - how many sustainable organic farmers have taken that extreme step in the past 25 years - NONE. So if the present government feels that the way to improve the rural economy is to go the sustainable orgainc way, does Shantharam feel that the government is fooling the people? Farmers' Unsustainability is a great profit maker for the agri-industry, is that being proposed by him?

***Shantharam also encouraged the readers to check certain websites for the truth regarding GE. His true mental picture and his convictions/bias were revealed when he gave websites of two of the most corrupted lobby groups in this field of GE food. ISAAA is a lobby group recently formed to push the GE issue funded by Monsanto; their papers are edited by Dr T. M. Manjunath who until recently was the head of reasearch of Monsanto India, and still is its mouthpiece. And IFPRA is the same but a little older. There are other websites also, like those of the Union of Concerned Scientists - from the world over: ucs.org, GMWatch, and one can look at the whole PIL (public interest lawsuit) in the Supreme Court of India (pil 260/2005). One can also type in on Google, words that bring a shiver to those who know what really happened - Starlink, thalidomide, endosulfan, EMS etc.

***Shantharam spoke about monoculture and how it can not happen here in India, because the land holding is small. As he has lived 15 years in the USA, I guess he has not visited or looked much this side. From Mysore to Bangalore, entire Mandya district grows only two crops in the irrigated area - sugarcane and paddy (rice). Entire Mysore district grows thousands of acres of cotton in the rainfed areas just as northern Karnataka and every state in India; this is monoculture even though the land holding is small. You do not need similar social conditions of the west to have the same downfalls from the imported technology.

***As all myopic scientists who see Indian history and heritage as that of poverty and famine, Shantharam also talks of the' begging years' of 1960-65. And how the great science saved our people from starvation. Shantharam forgets that we as a civilisation are more than 8000 years old, and have seen many famines and wars in the long past. I would say that it was the failure of our scientists then that they could not find any other solution (other than the so-called Green revolution) that would have saved our fertility, health and environment from chemicals and at the same time solved the food crises.. These were the same scientists who then told the farmers to use chemicals on our lands and called them medicines: ironically, these very same people today encourage organic farming!

***It was because of a PIL in the Supreme Court of India that the honorable Court Appointed an observer (Dr P. Bhargava, an eminent scientist himself) on the GEAC (genetic engineering approval committee), because the Judges in their wisdom felt that it was too important an issue to leave in the hands of scientists who had been put on the committee to promote genetic engineering in the first place. There was an obvious conflict of Interest.

***The reason why organic farmers have taken a stand against GM food is because they are more alert to the problems than others and see things in their fields in a different light than those who look at land as something only to make money .

***Dr. Shantharam also mentions, rather stupidly, that people always take the path that brings them most profit. Let them decide (he also says that
farmers do not know much!!). Is that why people drink Pepsi and Coke? Is that why a majority of farmers use tobacco? Is that why alcohol is such a rampant problem in rural areas? Is there no consideration for social pressure? Is the advertising industry ineffective in rural areas? The truth is that the seed industry has misled the farmers for their profit.

***Lastly, Shantharam apparently speaks from long experience in the laboratory and is working today at a prestigious foreign institution. Congratulations to him. Many educated people have opted to leave India for a lucrative and prestigious career. Their patriotism is not in question here, though their commitment to India is. They have contributed to the world scenario, but India, our nation, is built on the blood, sweat, tears and sacrifice of those who opted to stay behind, not the NRIs [Non-Resident Indians]. Unfortunately he is not qualified to talk about Indian agriculture, let alone policy.

It is natural that one says what one believes, but there are many who confuse the issues because they serve masters whose aims/goals are different from that of a sustainable, safe and responsible society. These are people who do not know the A of accountability or the B of Building-the-Nation nor the R of responsibility, nor the H of honesty.

The truth of the matter is that GM food as direct consumption has not been tried and tested on humans anywhere in the world. Can the scientists swear that GM food is safe for the old and infirm ? Is it safe for pregnant mothers ? Is it safe for the unborn fetus ? Can they prove that there will not be any deformed babies born (like with Thalidomide)? Can they prove that there will not be any deterimental effect on our soil after 10 years or more ? Can they prove that GM food will not destroy our health and sap our strength in the short or long run? Can they protect our seeds
from horizontal gene transfer and the contamination of our national heritage of germ plasm? The answer is -- "No".

Just like science thought that there was no water on the moon for more than 45 years, just like science said that DDT was harmless, just like all those things that science said and came out false, the answer to all those questions is "No".

Science does not know the answers. Science cannot be sure of anything. Only time can tell.

But besides this, what is the purview of science and the scientific community? To do research responsibly for the benefit of the whole of society. To question the correctness and social and environmental relevance of their research. To accept the validity of peer reviews and criticism and accept facts in a scientific manner. Science is about humility not arrogance, no one is bigger or greater than scientific fact. And in this case the science has a great potential for harm. In the practise of good science there is a principle called the “precautionary principle" which guides a responsible scientific community. It is law in our constitution.

So why should an untested technology be tried on an unsuspecting public? Is it because we are not a developed nation? Are we supposed to be guinea pigs for the "developed” world? These are the real questions that scientists like Shataram need to answer, instead of putting blame and ridicule on dissenting public opinion.

Science should make a scientist accommodating and open to dissent and debate.... Instead the biotech industry and its scientists are making a breed of arrogant, reductionist facists, who do not have the courage to think for themselves.

We are not opposed to using science to understand our world in a responsible and beneficial manner. Science must always address the consequences of its actions. Whether it is liked or not, there is a social contract between science and society which must be respected. When this contract is violated we begin to lose our trust in the scientific community. Agriculture has been a science long before it went into the lab, it continues to be a science in which we all take part in in our fields every single day.

The Organic Farming Mission, GOK, is building a dialogue with the University of Agricultural Sciences at Dharwad which is one of the institutions which has been doing Bt Brinjal trials. We are not interested in discarding something if it is worthy and safe for the agriculture of India and if it is proven to be safe for our children and their children to consume, but whatever the results may be, the scientific community must “respect the sanctity and integrity of all species, preserve and honour biodiversity and protect the environmental health of all inhabitants of this planet”.

Juli and Vivek Cariappa
Krac-a-Dawna Organic Farm
H.D.Kote Taluk 571121
Karnataka India.ph.+91-8221-210101
e-mail krac_a_dawna@yahoo.com
0r susslife@yahoo.co.in

Q & A about the relevance of Bt brinjal and the regulatory regime

Posted By Devinder Sharma to Ground Reality at 11/21/2009 11:03:00 AM

The debate over the environmental clearance for Bt brinjal in India is hotting up. There is a tremendous uproar against the technology that is visible, provided of course you want to see it. Many State governments have woken up, and opposed the introduction of Bt brinjal crop. West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Kerala are some of them. In the days to come, I am sure more State governments will oppose the technology.

It gives a clear pointer. At least the politicians are much better than the agricultural scientists. Vice-Chancellors of agricultural universities are completely on the bandwagon of the GM industry. None of them can muster courage to stand up and be counted. In a vitiated academic atmosphere where even the post of an Assistant Professor comes with a price tag (not everywhere, but most of the universities have earned quite a name for 'money-for-job' rackets operating for quite some time), you cannot expect anything better from these universities.

At the same time, the media is deliberately trying to downplay the resistance to GM foods, especially Bt brinjal. As I have said earlier, they are counting their chicken, which comes in the form of advertisements from these biotech and agribusiness companies. There are some exceptions, of course. At times, I do receive a set of questions to be answered. But I must acknowledge this is only a miniscule section of the journalists who appear keen to balance their story. The rest look for an opportunity to travel to the US for an exposure trip/orientation course in genetic engineering, and to qualify for that they are eager to show their writing skills and also 'understanding' about the technology.

Anyway, one such set of questions along with my answers is placed below.

Q: A Mahyco representative said that during the testing phase in which environmental biosafety and agronomic evaluation of Bt brinjal was carried out, an isolation distance of 300 metres was maintained as mandated by the regulators. And that this applies to the evaluation phase only.

Ans: The isolation distance between two plots is to ascertain how much is the gene flow from a Bt brinjal field to a neighbouring brinjal field. In India, the vegetable fields are back to back. The testing parameter should have actually laid out the experiment to evaluate the gene flow when fields are at a distance of one feet or so. In fact, there should be three different distances -- can be one feet, one meter and three meters. By just setting a standard (even if it is only for evaluation phase) for three metres the scientists have actually ensured they get the desired results. So, as I said in my blog, this is simply to make fool of the people who do not understand what the isolation distance means. If the isolation distance was, say one metre, the experiment would have failed.

Q: GM crops in India is a realty, regardless of the oppositions and reservations. Beginning from that premise, what kind of a regulatory system would satisfy you? As in, what strikes you as the obvious loopholes in the current trials and how can they be fixed?

Ans: First, I do not agree with your premise. Nuclear reactors were a reality 50 years back, and look what is happening now. All over the west the love-affair with nuclear reactors has disappeared. It is only in India that we are willing to accept even shit from the western countries. Some years back, I had exposed a plan to export cow dung and piggery droppings from Holland to India. It was dropped after people reacted and showed their anger following the exposure.

The present regulatory system is a complete sham. It has been designed by the pro-industry scientists (who are the beneficiary of the GM technology) for the industry. There is a need for 29 tests to be done before a GM food crop is allowed. In India, we conduct hardly 4 tests and that too just to satisfy the ignorant media. For instance, I don't understand how could health risks be ascertained after 90 days tests. It should be for a lifetime. At least, for the lifetime of a rat, which is 2 years.

Interestingly, GM foods are for the masses. GM drugs, which are for a a target population there are several stages of trials and even that is not foolproof. Why can't we follow at least the same regulatory mechanism for GM foods? We do not need the FDA kind of regulation for GM foods. We actually need RDA regulatory system that exists for genetically modified drugs in the US. Under the RDA, you are supposed to tell the regulators the negative impacts of the drug. This is exactly what we need to do in the case of GM foods.

And also, there is a dire need to bring in a clause for accountability. The Chairman of GEAC should be put behind bars if anything goes wrong. In fact, the former chairman and members of the GEAC should be already behind bars for the damage done to cotton farmers through the introduction of Bt cotton. Thousands of cotton farmers who grew Bt cotton in Vidharba for instance have been forced to commit suicide. Scientists have blood on their hands.

The EC-II report for instance says that the health risks from Mahyco's own feeding studies are 'statistical significant' but 'biologically insignificant'. How can this be possible? Who will questions the fraudulent cover-up provided by EC-II? Why can't the report be publicly discussed, why can't a team of respectable citizens from all walks of life, look into the claims? After all, GM food is not being consumed by scientists and company officials, it is to be eaten by the masses. So why shouldn't they decide? And if the EC-II report is proved to be fraudulent, shouldn't the members of the committee be punished, and that too in a manner that it becomes a deterrent for others?

Q: According to IFPRI, Washington DC, the regulatory process in India involves not only environmental risk assessment but also food safety assessment. India is known to be the country with a that has the largest biosafety requirements in terms of animal feeding tests. Do you agree?

Ans: Please don't hold IFPRI in such high esteem. It is a an industry think-tank and if you have read my views, I have been demanding closure of IFPRI. Just to give you an instance. The FAO is calling the land-grab by companies in Africa, Latin America and Asia as 'neo-colonism'. IFPRI is calling for a code of conduct. So you should know who IFPRI represents. I have known their present/past DGs (and I have shared the platform with some of them). They openly speak the language of biotech industry.

If India's regulatory system is so good, I think the US should close down FDA and look at the tests being done in India. If this was true, they wouldn't have opened several offices of FDA in India.

The way environmental clearance has been given to Bt brinjal, it only shows the scandalous manner in which the GEAC and the RCGM operates. Let me tell you, the Ministry of Environment & Forests has no courage to set the GEAC in order. The Department of Biotechnology on the other hand is stuffed with people (most of them are advisors) whose only qualification for the job is their proximity to the biotech companies.

Q: What are the implications of the 2006 CD Mayee report, that paved way for event based testing? Could you, once again, elaborate the pros and cons of an event-based regime for the mainstream audience?

Ans: This is again flawed. Many a times we have seen that the same event or the gene can act differently in different crops. MON810 corn variety which stands banned in most of Europe is one such classic example. If you were to go by the event-based regime than MON810 corn should not have posed any problems. Each transgenic therefore needs a fresh round of biosafety studies. Moreover, when you appoint a team under someone like C D Mayee, you know the outcome even before the report is submitted. Why can't we have a team let us say headed by someone who has no stake in the technology.

Q: Mayee quit GEAC following his appointment to ISAAA board. Just what kind of an organisation is ISAA ---the organisation counts among its donors, not just Monsanto, but also our ministry of science and environment. ..

Ans: ISAAA is an industry outfit. They call themselves NGO, but are in reality funded by the GM industry, and has allies like the Ministry of Science & Environment. Interestingly, the Dept of Biotechnology and ICAR always swear by the reports/studies of ISAAA and at the same time talk of taking all stake-holders views/opinions into account. I have often challenged the DBT Advisors to please tel who they represent if all their slides in presentations are by and large based on ISAAA.

ICAR is much worse. You canot become the director of any ICAR institute till you demonstrate your blind support for GM technology. CD Mayee has already managed to put a biotech industry person as a deputy director general. Even the next Director General of ICAR will be a biotech supporter (and mabe a GM practicioner himself). I can even name him now before the selection committee provides us the name.

Don't forget, CD Mayee did not quit GEAC on his own. He was forced to quit GEAC following pressure from NGOs. In addition to continuing on GEAC and ISAAA board, he was also chairperson of the agriculture scientists recruitment board. It is here that his role has to be examined. he has recruited many scientists to the top slots in ICAR who are known to be GM supporters/beneficiaries and there are question marks over their merit and credibility. #

Messiah of hope - Brazil shows how to fight hunger but do we Indians care?

Greetings from "My Right to Safe Food"

Now what is to stop India from doing what Brazil has achieved - A Zero Hunger Programme"??? President Lula of Brazil has achieved this admirable feat despite opposition. My Salutations.

As aptly described below by Andrew Mac Millan, it is up to all of us ( people) to demand such action from our elected leaders.

"But history suggests that unless their people demand urgent action on hunger, many leaders will forget their pledges. There is thus a need for a global campaign built on growing popular understanding of the scandal of hunger and malnutrition to galvanise leaders to declare their commitment publicly and agree to be held accountable. If they do, the world will be a better and safer place for all".

But,then does the 30% urban population in India care? Since the voice of the marginalised poor remains unheard nor does it ever make it to the breaking news on TV. Yet, the same urban sector expects to be provided with safe food from marginal farmers once the pride and backbone of the economy, now reduced to a begging bowl! Thanks to this disinterested educated sector with no efforts to understand where and how the food comes from but ingest only to appease the senses, keeping with the trends in society and publicly flaunt "we only eat safe foods". What a sad joke! Whilst the producer of food is mercilessly exploited and abused by the whims of policy makers hand in glove with industry, manic preoccupations are the order of the day. With no time, nor inclination, whose to challenge the fate of food? This callous attitude and superficial concerns surely merits the oncoming catastrophe, forsake traditional food for industrial food only to become victims of one own fate.

Aping the West in lifestyles and technologies is quite upbeat. The West having had their share of disasters lean hungrily towards our rich Indian cultural heritage and practice with pride and credit our ancient wisdom as "The messiah of hope". But what do we foolish Indians do, forsake our lot to stride in the name of progress, straight in the face of doom!

Interestingly, I learnt only yesterday, how most of Europe managed to stand their case against GM foods in their respective countries. Mind you, it was not their leaders who pledged the safety for their citizens and ban GM foods, it was the voice of the common masses/ people who were so forceful and loud that their leaders had no choice but to listen to the majority, lest they get uprooted from their seats of power. Focus and Care taken by volunteers within their own communities, where they would call upon meetings in the evenings, gather one and all... from children, students, mothers, seniors to gain momentum and oppose for what is right and safe. Concerning alarm bells raised spreading from one county to another like a raging fire. Please note, the enthusiasm of volunteers who took it upon themselves after work to create an uproar was only to safeguard their food, driven not by any prominent activists.

This concern to raise voices in unison on our rights as citizens unfortunately lacks sadly in our country. It has irked me no end as I spend countless days with so many concerned visitors from all walks in life to assure me of their support like as if it were my cause alone! Some even write to their network of friends to extend me support to feel they have done their bit so as to appease their conscience. Few others, start in zest with no follow up's giving excuses galore. What one needs is involvement of parents, children and society in general to start within their own communities, grow locally safe natural food on a daily basis. In doing so, the food thus produced will undoubtedly be healthier and more nutritious for the rich and poor alike and no poor will go hungry. Victory can be ours only then! If not we deserve what's to unfold.

In solidarity

Sangita Sharma
http://myrighttosafefood.blogspot.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/35428/brazil-shows-fight-hunger.html

Zero Hunger recognises that the immediate cause of hunger is not just lack of food by Andrew Mac Millan,

Thursday 12 November 2009

It is scandalous that in a world of ample food supplies, over one billion people face constant hunger — and the number is still rising. What makes matters worse is that we know how to end hunger, and yet few governments are doing so.

Brazil’s ‘Zero Hunger’ programme shows that it is possible to make very rapid progress towards eliminating hunger and malnutrition.

While the world committed itself to halving hunger by 2015, Brazil set out to eradicate it as quickly as possible. The halving target condemns millions to a lifetime of utter misery, ill-health, and social exclusion. Going for eradication creates a sense of urgency and triggers immediate action.

From his first day in office in January 2003, President Lula made hunger eradication his top priority. The full impact of Zero Hunger will only be felt when today’s children grow up. But there are already many signs that it is moving in the right direction. Brazil tops the list in ActionAid International’s recent scorecard of countries fighting hunger. It is not only improving nutrition on a vast scale but also stimulating economic growth where it is most needed, in the poorest corners of the country. And it is enabling millions of Brazilians to begin to play their full part in the life of their nation.

In just six years, infant mortality fell by 73 per cent and the number of people in extreme poverty dropped by 48 per cent.

Commitment

Brazil’s success shows what can be done by combining strong political commitment to an unambiguous goal; institutional reforms that lead central, state, and local governments to work together within a common strategy; and the full engagement of civil society.

Zero Hunger balances immediate measures to relieve suffering with fundamental reforms to address the underlying reasons for people being hungry in the first place. Lasting solutions are based on the formal recognition of the human right to food. They involve managing the economy more equitably, improving income distribution, broadening employment opportunities, raising minimum wages, and enabling more people to have access to land.

Zero Hunger, however, also recognises that, as in many other countries, the immediate cause of hunger is not lack of food. It is the fact that, even when economic growth is strong, many families simply cannot buy it. This recognition led to launching a monthly cash transfer programme that enables almost 12 million of the country’s poorest families to buy the food they need for a healthy life. By linking these grants to children’s school attendance and regular health checks, it ensures that the young are better fed, educated and healthy. An expanded school meals programme reinforces these effects.

Brazil is showing how the twin-track approach to hunger reduction, recommended by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), can be put into practice. It calls pairing immediate measures to improve access to food with an expansion in food output, especially by small-scale farmers. The increased demand for food stimulated by cash transfers is expanding markets for the output of Brazil’s family farmers, including the million who have benefited from land reform and are themselves vulnerable to food insecurity.

This support for small-scale farming is reinforced by targeted credit programmes and by state-run food procurement for emergency and institutional feeding programmes.

Guaranteed income

Zero Hunger demonstrates the vital role that direct action against hunger can play in reducing poverty and increasing the resilience of the poor to shocks. This has been very evident during the current economic crisis. Zero Hunger has enabled almost all Brazilians to enjoy a guaranteed income and access to essential food. It has also helped to sustain domestic consumption levels, which is one of the reasons why Brazil was able to overcome the crisis more quickly than many other countries.

The World Summit on Food Security, convened by FAO in Rome from November 16-18, will provide an opportunity for all governments to follow Brazil’s example and commit themselves to eradicating hunger — for once and forever. In the last two Food Summits, in 1996 and 2002, heads of state made bold promises, but most have failed miserably to deliver on their commitments. Hopefully this time, when the presidents, queens, kings and prime ministers go home, they will, like Lula, launch their own Zero Hunger programmes and help other countries to do likewise.

But history suggests that unless their people demand urgent action on hunger, many leaders will forget their pledges. There is thus a need for a global campaign built on growing popular understanding of the scandal of hunger and malnutrition to galvanise leaders to declare their commitment publicly and agree to be held accountable. If they do, the world will be a better and safer place for all.



--

Question of public debate on GM foods.

Many times I am asked by individuals, corporate heads "Why have we not called Mahyco for an public debate"? It appears to me that it is only us who are questioned, crying ourselves hoarse to awaken the public, when in reality, i suggest try reaching out to GM proponents who hide behind the shields of falsified claims by using 11 PR agencies to broadcast their manipulative findings without being confronted! Now, they never bother to invite us on any of their forums? The truth is - The GM proponents refuse to participate in any public debate.

Despite invites from director Ajay Kanchan and noted film maker Mahesh Bhatt on the making of the potent 28min documentary film, the GM proponents refused to comment nor appear, you can see it in the disclaimer for yourself.

Here again, Devinder Sharma has openly challenged them to a public debate, and to give the public informed choices, we await their acknowledgment. Recently, 24th Oct a one hour live programme on DD News "For and Against GM foods" had all my visitors and me captive.

Amidst a proactive audience, a articulate hostess who navigated the debate between a interactive panel comprising of Devinder Sharma from Forum of Food Security and Biotechnology, Suman Sahai from Gene Campaign, Mr Sompal ex Agriculture Minister against GM foods whose probing questions and their own findings stirred and ignited an uproar. Versus for GM foods was Dr Bansal, Principal scientist at the IARI New Delhi, along with another scientist (sorry whose name i cannot recall) from the Centre for Life Science at JNU who nervously kept referring, clutching to sheets of printed paper to share the manipulated evidence. The outcome clearly relayed evidence that the GM proponents have much to answer for, given the safety data by their own concerned scientific fraternity is cleverly overlooked and brushed under the carpet for reasons known.

We welcome such healthy debates which is in public interest and encourage TV channels, media to carry out more of these.

In solidarity

Sangita Sharma

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Raju Barwale, let us have a public debate on Bt brinjal
Devinder Sharma
Oct 30th 2009

It is probably late to comment on the press statement issued by Raju Barwale, Managing Director of the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco), the developers of the Bt brinjal. Pardon me, since I do not read the propaganda sites of either Mahyco or Monsanto (and the tribe) I had missed this. Someone had very kindly sent it to me a few days back, and I couldn't resist the temptation to comment on it.

This media statement, pasted below, is dated Oct 14, the day the environment clearance came. Interestingly, Raju Barwale, in the press release says that " Mahyco is awaiting the decision of the GEAC for environment-release of the insect resistant Bt cotton." Well, Mr Barwale, you didn't have to wait for long. The GEAC had the same day rubber stamped the report that many believe was written by one of your consultants in Hyderabad. You certainly couldn't have expected anything better from a committee which is known to be notoriously anti-environment and anti-people.

The report of the EC-II is a sham. It is a scientific scandal.

You say that 25 biosafety tests were rigorously conducted. If that is true, I don't know why Dr Pushpa Bhargava, the Supreme Court's nominee, is still not convinced about the biosafety testing. Do you think that he does not know his science? And what about the scandalous manner in which the EC-II had simply brushed aside the objections raised by independent scientists, NGOs and others?

Do you think we don't know our science? Do you think the nation does not have the capability to question the veracity of the so called scientific claims that your company has made? If GEAC is comprising of stupid people and is stuffed with scientists who are known in scientific circles as " son-in-law " of the Department of Biotechnology (since most of them receive funding for their research project), it does not mean that we have to accept their flawed analysis.

I am throwing a challenge to you, Mr Raju Barwale. Come, let us have a public debate on the veracity of your scientific claims. You and me, anywhere that you desire. Let us publicly debate, and let the nation then decide.

Meanwhile, pasted below the press release (from mahyco's website) for those who missed seeing it:

Bt Brinjal - Media Statement
Mahyco is awaiting the decision of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for environmental release of insect-resistant Bt brinjal. We look forward to a positive decision because it will help millions of our brinjal farmers who have been suffering from the havoc caused by the Brinjal Fruit and Shoot Borer (BFSB). Bt brinjal will help them tackle this pest in an environment-friendly manner and increase yields and farm income.
Insect-resistant Bt brinjal has been in development for nine years. It has been tested in full compliance with the guidelines and directives of the regulatory authorities to ensure its safety. It is the most rigorously tested vegetable with 25 environmental biosafety studies supervised by independent and government agencies. It has the same nutritional value and is compositionally identical to non Bt brinjal, except for the additional Bt protein which is specific in its action against the BFSB.
We believe in the soundness of the scientific basis of the regulatory system and the various studies and field trials carried out by various national research institutions, agricultural universities, etc., and in the future of this technology. Mahyco respects the decision of the GEAC and will provide any clarifications asked for. We are confident that we will be able to satisfy the GEAC about the safety of this technology for the environment and consumers, its usefulness to increase yields and farm income for brinjal farmers, and its beneficial impact on the environment and farm labour.
Raju Barwale
Managing Director
14th October, 2009

Brief analysis of Expert Committee - II report submitted to GEAC

Monday, October 19, 2009
Bt brinjal -- India's first poisonous food crop by Devinder Sharma
I am not the least surprised. Knowing that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is merely a rubber stamp for the biotech industry, the environmental approval to India's first genetically modified food crop -- Bt brinjal -- is no surprise. You couldn't have expected anything better from a bunch of stupid bureaucrats and scientists/officials masquerading as regulators. I am sure Michael Moore, if he had followed the ways of GEAC, would have already penned down a sequel to his The Stupid White Men.

India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh therefore has a monumental task on his hands. He has to appreciate the role of the GEAC (which falls under his ministry) even knowing they have done a shoddy job, and at the same time seek the help of the public at large before taking the final decision pertaining to the commercial release of India's first poisonous food crop. Not a simple task, and I know the tight-rope walking Jairam Ramesh will have to do in the days to come.

His task becomes more difficult when one learns that within days of the GEAC giving its nod, the seed company seeking the approval -- Mahyco -- had already made a presentation to the Prime Minister Office. And let us not forget, Jairam Ramesh's senior colleague and the sugar baron, the Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar is already known to have thrown his weight (and we all know how heavy he is ) behind GM crops.

In fact, I sympathise with the chairman of the Expert Committee-II (called EC-II), Dr Arjula R Reddy, who is also the vice-chancellor of the Yogi Yemana University in Hyderabad, to have worked under such difficult conditions. If I were in his place I would have tendered my resignation rather than stamp a report which is clearly the handiwork of USAID and Mahyco. Knowing the incompetence of the members of the EC-II (and I tried to talk to several of their colleagues before saying this) I doubt if they could ever write such a clean copy. Ask them to write two pages, and you will get to known what I mean.

About USAID, the little said the better. I have always referred to it as: US Artificial Insemination Department. And if you have ever been to Bangkok or Ho Chi Minh city, you will understand what I mean.

Nevertheless, coming back to the report of the EC-II, it is a complete sham. There is no other word to describe it. I wonder how could the so-called scientists on the panel be so stupid. I can understand the vested interest of the Cornell University scientists, but how come our own breed of scientists be so idiotic? Isn't it a reflection on the kind of people who dominate the corridors of scientific research in the country? This of course holds true for the advisors in the Department of Biotechnology, but I always thought that at least some scientists working in the ICAR and ICMR system would still be engaged in good science. Perhaps that category of scientists has already been marginalised.

This itself is a dangerous trend, too threatening for the future generations. It wouldn't therefore be unfair to say that Indian science is literally in a pit. Only Bindeshwar Pathak of Sulabh Sauchalaya can pull it out.

Now let us look at some of the conclusions arrived at by the EC-II. On page 2 of the report entitled: Report of the Expert Committee (EC-II) on Bt brinjal EE-1 developed by: M/S Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company Ltd. (Mahyco), Mumbai; University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Dharwad; and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU), Coimbatore (this report is available on the website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests), it states the following:

"Based on the recommendations of the EC-1, the GEAC in its 79th meeting held on Aug 8, 2007, permitted the conduct of large scale trials (LST) of By brinjal for two season under the direct supervision of Director, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR), Varanasi to conduct some additional biosafety related studies by M/S Mahyco. the field trials were subjected to compliance of the following conditions:

1. Maintaining an isolation distance of 300 metres.
2. Submission of validated event specific test protocol at limit of detection (LOD) of at least 0.01 per cent to detect and confirm there has been no contamination.
3. Designated a lead scientist who would be responsible for all aspects of the trials including regulatory requirements."

This is what is called as clear manipulation of the scientific norms. You first lay out conditions that are suitable for you to arrive at the conclusion you are aiming at, and then you make the recommendation based on the flawed parameters laid out. In the research trials at IIVR, the isolation distance between crop fields is kept at 300 metres (because you don't want the contamination to exceed the LOD of 0.01 per cent). Mahyco therefore got the result it was looking for.

But please tell me where in the country can you conform that Bt brinjal is grown with an isolation distance of 300 metres? Shouldn't the IIVR have known this? If not (and we all know that maintaining an isolation distance of 300 metres at the farm level is practically impossible) than the entire scientific experiment began on a faulty premise. The correct experiment should have been to measure the gene flow on adjoining crop fields of brinjal. That would have given us the correct picture. The experiment therefore was designed wrongly to yield the right results.

This is not the only flaw. I can point a number of glaring flaws in the way the experiments were conducted. Only stupid scientists could have endorsed these results.

Now move to the annextures. From page 66 onwards, the EC-II has responded to the issues raised by NGOs, National and International Groups on Bt brinjal biosafety studies. This is a very interesting section, and all you can say is how ashamed you are if this is the scholarship of so called distinguished scientists/officials on the panel. Take the response to the studies conducted by Prof G Seralini, University of Cannes, France. The response of the EC-II generally is: The EC-II is of the view that no additional information regarding toxicity and allergenicity needs to be generated.

Again it uses the same stupid arguement: Cry1AC protein has a history of safe use for human and animal consumption as GM crops such as Bt maize and Bt potato containing Cry proteins including Cry1AC protein have been consumed by millions of people without any adverse effects. [Each of the responses is simply a cover up. I will take that up subsequently]

I thought the EC-II was a research panel. Instead it has produced the relevant literature to justify its position while ignoring a plethora of scientific research that questions the claims. In any case, the EC-II should have conducted more research to address the issues and concerns raised rather than simply brushing them aside. Let us not forget, history is replete with examples where what was approved as safe by scientists had eventually turned out to be killer. The Orange Gas used by Monsanto in the Vietnam war is a class example. Even now, thousands of people are dying from the residual impact of the gas, which was once considered to be safe. DDT is another example.

Coming to food, we have numerous such examples. Trans fatty acids were once considered to be safe and of course essential for the processing industry. Today, several US States have banned the use of transfats. In fact, food has now become the biggest killer in the United States. More than 400,000 people die from food related ailments, including obesity, every year in the US alone.

Further, I want to ask the chairman of the EC-II a simple question. If I eat Bt brinjal, which you consider as absolutely safe, and I fall ill, is there any way I (or my doctor) can find out whether it was from the alien gene in the brinjal I ate? Do you have any medical assay anywhere in the world which can even pinpoint an ailment or a disease to an alien gene in the GM foods? What will happen Dr Reddy if your wife or children get seriously ill from eating Bt brinjal and your hospital treatment is unable to detect the real cause?

The answer is simple. It is because you allowed premature approvals for poisonous GM crops and foods, without asking the companies to first hold human clinical trials. My sympathy for you surely disappears. Scientists like you should be held responsible, and I think the time has come to make provisions for stringent possible punishment for the approval committees (inlcuding GEAC) if anything goes wrong. Scientists cannot be allowed to play with human lives, animals and the environment.

Thank you all for Warm Diwali Greetings

Today is " World Food Day". Lets strengthen forces to make each day a "Safe Food Day".

Each one of us carry this torch of light and take the responsibility and strive to protect our food chain against the assault by GM proponents.
It is up to us to safeguard our health and the future of our children.

Now the Good news is not all is lost. With mounting pressure on Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, we have some justice. In his words "Strong views have already been expressed on the Bt-Brinjal issue, both for and against. My objective is to arrive at careful , considered decision in the public and national interest. The decision will be made only after the consultations process is complete and all stakeholders are satisfied that they have been heard to their satisfaction.”

My gratitude to Mr Jairam Ramesh for being just and fair. But we have very little time but we cannot take this lying low. We need to garner your support asap to raise awareness platforms, as we have only two months left. Please lend your views to government as requested.

You may wonder why this crazed farmer is doing this, when i can sit pretty tight in my farm and enjoy the bountiful harvests. Well, one has no desire to live in a sick society where every third house has a cancer victim. Wake up and do you your bit please. This cause is not mine alone, it is ours.

Read below, released today. I have also attached the GEAC report which has been made public for scrutiny for you to give you opinion

In solidarity

Sangita Sharma
http://myrighttosafefood.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?667850

The government today said it will take a decision on the issue of commercial cultivation of controversial Bt brinjal only after holding a series of consultations with scientists, farmers, consumer groups and NGOs early next year.

The Environment Ministry has also sought public opinion in the matter till the end of the year.

Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said he proposes to have consultations with scientists, agricultural experts, farmers' organisation, consumer groups and NGOs in January and February.

"The decision will be made only after the consultation process is completed and all stakeholders are satisfied that they have been heard to their satisfaction," he said, a day after the government's biotech regulator gave nod for the commercialisation of the Genetically Modified vegetable whose suitability for human consumption has sparked a raging debate.

Except two, all the members of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), after going through the recommendations of two expert panels set up to access the data on the transgenic vegetable, had yesterday approved its environmental release.

Sources said P M Bhargava and Ramesh Soni, members of GEAC, disapproved of its release. However, the government has reserved its decision amid dissenting voices from various quarters including civil society groups, NGOs and food experts.

Bt brinjal is a transgenic vegetable which carries a gene called "Bt" from a bacterium which releases toxin to kill fruit and shoot borer insects.

However, GM food is claimed to be more pest-resistant and high-yielding.

If approved, Bt brinjal will be the first GM food in the country being developed by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, (Mahyco) a subsidiary of the US multinational Monsanto.

"The GEAC has given an independent decision in the matter. I will take a final call in the matter after the process of consultation is complete and all stakeholders are satisfied," Ramesh said.

The Environment Ministry has sought public opinion in the matter till the end of the year.

The NGOs and a section of experts have strongly condemned GEAC's decision alleging the approval for Bt brinjal was given without taking in account the scientists' opinion.

"The government should not clear any genetically modified food crop till the time we have strict provisions for labelling. Bt brinjal will be one of the few crops which are used for human consumption directly and not processed into bread," prominent NGO Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) said.

"Clearance of such a crop requires the authorities to practise extreme caution. Currently, in India there is no labelling regime for GM foods which will give consumers a choice to make a decision whether they want to consume GM food or not.

"Till this time this is done, regulators should not clear edible GM crops," said Sunita Narain, Director of CSE.

She said labelling of GM foods requires "a strengthened laboratory and regulatory framework."

Condemning the approval of Bt brinjal by GEAC, Coalition for a GM-Free India said "it is a shame that regulators in this country have put the interests of corporations over the interests of ordinary citizens."

"We are yet to see the expert committee report. But prima facie, it appears that the committee has not responded to all the issues raised about the safety of Bt brinjal adequately.

"More importantly, it appears that no satisfactory answers have been yet preferred about the very need for this Bt brinjal when safer, sustainable and affordable alternatives exist," the members of the coalition said in a statement here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" There is an opinion poll at http://www.indianexpress.com/ about GM crops. So far more than 75% have voted against it. Let's all add our voices and hope for a positive outcome."

Lets strengthen forces to make each day a "Safe Food Day".

Thank you all for Warm Diwali Greetings

Today is " World Food Day". Lets strengthen forces to make each day a "Safe Food Day".

Each one of us carry this torch of light and take the responsibility and strive to protect our food chain against the assault by GM proponents.
It is up to us to safeguard our health and the future of our children.

Now the Good news is not all is lost. With mounting pressure on Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, we have some justice. In his words "Strong views have already been expressed on the Bt-Brinjal issue, both for and against. My objective is to arrive at careful , considered decision in the public and national interest. The decision will be made only after the consultations process is complete and all stakeholders are satisfied that they have been heard to their satisfaction.”

My gratitude to Mr Jairam Ramesh for being just and fair. But we have very little time but we cannot take this lying low. We need to garner your support asap to raise awareness platforms, as we have only two months left. Please lend your views to government as requested.

You may wonder why this crazed farmer is doing this, when i can sit pretty tight in my farm and enjoy the bountiful harvests. Well, one has no desire to live in a sick society where every third house has a cancer victim. Wake up and do you your bit please. This cause is not mine alone, it is ours.
- Hide quoted text -

Read below, released today. I have also attached the GEAC report which has been made public for scrutiny for you to give you opinion

In solidarity

Sangita Sharma
http://myrighttosafefood.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?667850

The government today said it will take a decision on the issue of commercial cultivation of controversial Bt brinjal only after holding a series of consultations with scientists, farmers, consumer groups and NGOs early next year.

The Environment Ministry has also sought public opinion in the matter till the end of the year.

Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said he proposes to have consultations with scientists, agricultural experts, farmers' organisation, consumer groups and NGOs in January and February.

"The decision will be made only after the consultation process is completed and all stakeholders are satisfied that they have been heard to their satisfaction," he said, a day after the government's biotech regulator gave nod for the commercialisation of the Genetically Modified vegetable whose suitability for human consumption has sparked a raging debate.

Except two, all the members of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), after going through the recommendations of two expert panels set up to access the data on the transgenic vegetable, had yesterday approved its environmental release.

Sources said P M Bhargava and Ramesh Soni, members of GEAC, disapproved of its release. However, the government has reserved its decision amid dissenting voices from various quarters including civil society groups, NGOs and food experts.

Bt brinjal is a transgenic vegetable which carries a gene called "Bt" from a bacterium which releases toxin to kill fruit and shoot borer insects.

However, GM food is claimed to be more pest-resistant and high-yielding.

If approved, Bt brinjal will be the first GM food in the country being developed by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, (Mahyco) a subsidiary of the US multinational Monsanto.

"The GEAC has given an independent decision in the matter. I will take a final call in the matter after the process of consultation is complete and all stakeholders are satisfied," Ramesh said.

The Environment Ministry has sought public opinion in the matter till the end of the year.

The NGOs and a section of experts have strongly condemned GEAC's decision alleging the approval for Bt brinjal was given without taking in account the scientists' opinion.

"The government should not clear any genetically modified food crop till the time we have strict provisions for labelling. Bt brinjal will be one of the few crops which are used for human consumption directly and not processed into bread," prominent NGO Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) said.

"Clearance of such a crop requires the authorities to practise extreme caution. Currently, in India there is no labelling regime for GM foods which will give consumers a choice to make a decision whether they want to consume GM food or not.

"Till this time this is done, regulators should not clear edible GM crops," said Sunita Narain, Director of CSE.

She said labelling of GM foods requires "a strengthened laboratory and regulatory framework."

Condemning the approval of Bt brinjal by GEAC, Coalition for a GM-Free India said "it is a shame that regulators in this country have put the interests of corporations over the interests of ordinary citizens."

"We are yet to see the expert committee report. But prima facie, it appears that the committee has not responded to all the issues raised about the safety of Bt brinjal adequately.

"More importantly, it appears that no satisfactory answers have been yet preferred about the very need for this Bt brinjal when safer, sustainable and affordable alternatives exist," the members of the coalition said in a statement here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" There is an opinion poll at http://www.indianexpress.com/ about GM crops. So far more than 75% have voted against it. Let's all add our voices and hope for a positive outcome."