The case of the proposed National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill is getting curiouser (or should I say getting solved). Ever since the controversial provisions in the proposed draft bill became known, the first reaction on everyone's lips was who could be so stupid to incorporate such draconian provisions that puts the critics of the GM technology behind bars. Even communist China does not have such laws in force.
In case you missed it, the specific provision that I am talking about, reads: "Whoever, without any evidence or scientific record, misleads the public against the safety of the organisms and products specified in Part 1, Part II or Part III of Schedule 1, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to one year and with fine, which may extend to two lakh rupees, or with both."
No sooner the news broke out, the Science & Technology Minister Prithviraj Chavan was quick to deny it saying that the draft bill does not contain any such provisions. I was not amused since I had myself seen the draft bill, but I thought maybe the Minister had probably not read the bill. Or maybe he was trying to buy time by convincing the public that it was merely a diatribe against his ministry, and in the meanwhile drop the controversial provisions from the final draft that has still to be placed in Parliament.
Coomi Kapoor from the Indian Express has perhaps provided us the right answer. In her column "Inside Track" (Sunday Express, Feb 28, 2010), she writes that the bill was actually drafted in March 2008 when Kapil Sibal was the Minister for Science & Technology.
Now I understand why Prithviraj Chavan (he succeeded Kapil Sibal) was caught unaware about the draconian provisions in the proposed draft bill. Well, thank you Coomi for clearing the mist or to put it more succintly for solving the mystery. It is important for the nation to know the extra mile Ministers can walk to back multinationals and big business.
Anyway, discussing Budget 2010 with the yoga guru Swami Ramdev on Aastha TV channel on Feb 26, I brought up the issue of the draconian provisions in the proposed draft bill. Swami Ramdev was shocked to learn that the government could even think of introducing such a law.
Nevertheless, when I said that if the NBRA law was already in force, I as well as Swami Ramdev would have been in jail by now, he warned: "I dare them to arrest me. They will get a taste of what it means to gag independent voices," and added: "My opposition to GM foods will continue."
I hope Kapil Sibal is listening.
Feb 28, 2010
Budget 2010: What it means for agriculture
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has left the onerous task of increasing agricultural production to the monsoons.
Like all his predecessors, beginning with Mr Manmohan Singh as the Finance Minister in 1991, Mr Mukherjee has also eulogised the farmer and stressed on the need to strengthen farming, but has failed to provide a definite roadmap to boost food production. Nor has he given any fiscal incentive significant enough to the beleaguered farming community, since they are not part of the urban aam admi class that he knows of, to bail them out of the prevailing economic hardship.
The crisis in agriculture is not as much as of stagnating productivity but is essentially driven by falling incomes in farming. There is a complete drought of thinking when it comes to mechanism that can make a definite contribution to farmers’ welfare. Increasing Minimum Support Price (MSP) has outlived its utility since the benefit goes to only about 30 to 40 per cent farmers who have something to sell in the mandis. More than 60 per cent of the farmers have remained outside the gambit of MSP and it is high to make a historic correction.
I wasn’t therefore expecting much from Budget 2010 as far as agriculture is concerned, knowing that policy makers do not have inkling about what is going wrong with agriculture, but considering the phenomenal food inflation and economic distress farmers faced from the extensive drought conditions in Kharif 2009, the Finance Minister could have been a little more generous to announce a slew of stimulus incentives/measures to prop up the sagging farm morale.
I am aware that the Finance Minister has little scope for financial manoeuvrability given the tight fiscal package at his disposal, but there could have been a more drastic cut in the stimulus package that was given to the industry, and these benefits could have been easily passed onto farmers through a bonus on wheat, rice and coarse cereals like jowar, bajra and ragi. Farmers need economic stimulus, and it requires political courage to cutback on the industry stimulus and instead give it to the more needy farmers.
Coming back to the big ticket that the country was waiting for, Mr Pranab Mukherjee has very cleverly announced a four-point strategy to revitalise agriculture which is good on intent, but weak in content. I had expected the UPA government to really focus on rejuvenating agriculture and thereby giving strong signals for taking the farm sector to achieve a growth rate of 4 per cent. At present, agricultural growth rate is minus 0.2 per cent, certainly a drag on the economy.
Except for enhancing the credit package to farmers by an additional Rs 50,000-crore (taking the total credit to 3.75 lakh crores), and providing a interest subsidy of 2 per cent (including 1 per cent given last year) on timely repayment of crop loans, the four-point strategy that he announced is more of a token than anything meaningful. Proving Rs 300-crore for reviving oilseeds and pulses production in 60,000 villages in the dryland regions is also a misplaced strategy.
The shortfall in oilseeds production is not due to the inability of the farmers to increase productivity, but because of the government’s deliberate efforts to reduce import tariffs on edible oils as a result of which cheaper imports have flooded the domestic market. In 1993-94, India was almost self-sufficient in edible oils, but the continuous reduction in import tariffs over the years has turned the country into world’s second biggest importer.
Productivity of oilseeds and pulses therefore cannot be increased unless the government brings back the import tariffs. India can bind import tariff for oilseeds at 300 per cent under the WTO, but has brought it down to zero. Similarly for pulses, the import duty is zero. Unless the tariffs are restored, there is no way Indian farmer can compete with cheaper subsidised imports. Importing cheaper food is like importing unemployment.
Taking the green revolution to the north-eastern states, for which he has provided an allocation of Rs 400 crore, is also a flawed strategy. Why I am saying this is because it is the green revolution technology that has destroyed soil fertility in Punjab, Haryana, Western Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. It is because of the devastation that green revolution has caused to the natural resource base that farmers have taken to suicides. To take the green revolution model to the northeast therefore means that the country hasn’t learnt any lessons from the debacle.
Budget 2010 does have some inkling of pragmatic approach. Pranab Mukherjee has done the right thing by not enhancing the llocation under NREGA. In 2009, he had made a budgetary provision of Rs 39,100 crore, and this year kept it at Rs 40,100 crore. This is a wise decision considering that NEGA is a new scheme, and has a lot of problems withimplementation. Making more allocation gives room for more leakage and corruption.
At the same time, I am delighted to find that the Finance Minister has extended the health insurance cover (that was initiated last year to BPL families) to also NREGA workers who have put in a minimum of 15 days of labour. In the years to come, there is a desperate need to extend health insurance cover to the entire farming class also, which has still not been given crop insurance.
Reading the Economic Survey 2010 along with the Budget allocations, it is quite clear that the agricultural reforms that the government is focusing on aim only at allowing more private and corporate control over agriculture. The food policy initiatives that are spelled out in the Economic Survey indicate more thrust on food retail and industrialisation of agriculture, which means more will be the burden on the farmers from external inputs.
This is a misplaced emphasis, and comes from a class of economists who are not in tune with the ground realities. Already, the wish-list spelled out in the Economic surveys of past 3 to 4 years has pushed agriculture to an unmanageable crisis. It is high time that a sincere effort is made to reverse the disturbing trend, and bring back the smile on the face of the farmer. This can be done, provided the political leadership demonstrates willingness.
Like all his predecessors, beginning with Mr Manmohan Singh as the Finance Minister in 1991, Mr Mukherjee has also eulogised the farmer and stressed on the need to strengthen farming, but has failed to provide a definite roadmap to boost food production. Nor has he given any fiscal incentive significant enough to the beleaguered farming community, since they are not part of the urban aam admi class that he knows of, to bail them out of the prevailing economic hardship.
The crisis in agriculture is not as much as of stagnating productivity but is essentially driven by falling incomes in farming. There is a complete drought of thinking when it comes to mechanism that can make a definite contribution to farmers’ welfare. Increasing Minimum Support Price (MSP) has outlived its utility since the benefit goes to only about 30 to 40 per cent farmers who have something to sell in the mandis. More than 60 per cent of the farmers have remained outside the gambit of MSP and it is high to make a historic correction.
I wasn’t therefore expecting much from Budget 2010 as far as agriculture is concerned, knowing that policy makers do not have inkling about what is going wrong with agriculture, but considering the phenomenal food inflation and economic distress farmers faced from the extensive drought conditions in Kharif 2009, the Finance Minister could have been a little more generous to announce a slew of stimulus incentives/measures to prop up the sagging farm morale.
I am aware that the Finance Minister has little scope for financial manoeuvrability given the tight fiscal package at his disposal, but there could have been a more drastic cut in the stimulus package that was given to the industry, and these benefits could have been easily passed onto farmers through a bonus on wheat, rice and coarse cereals like jowar, bajra and ragi. Farmers need economic stimulus, and it requires political courage to cutback on the industry stimulus and instead give it to the more needy farmers.
Coming back to the big ticket that the country was waiting for, Mr Pranab Mukherjee has very cleverly announced a four-point strategy to revitalise agriculture which is good on intent, but weak in content. I had expected the UPA government to really focus on rejuvenating agriculture and thereby giving strong signals for taking the farm sector to achieve a growth rate of 4 per cent. At present, agricultural growth rate is minus 0.2 per cent, certainly a drag on the economy.
Except for enhancing the credit package to farmers by an additional Rs 50,000-crore (taking the total credit to 3.75 lakh crores), and providing a interest subsidy of 2 per cent (including 1 per cent given last year) on timely repayment of crop loans, the four-point strategy that he announced is more of a token than anything meaningful. Proving Rs 300-crore for reviving oilseeds and pulses production in 60,000 villages in the dryland regions is also a misplaced strategy.
The shortfall in oilseeds production is not due to the inability of the farmers to increase productivity, but because of the government’s deliberate efforts to reduce import tariffs on edible oils as a result of which cheaper imports have flooded the domestic market. In 1993-94, India was almost self-sufficient in edible oils, but the continuous reduction in import tariffs over the years has turned the country into world’s second biggest importer.
Productivity of oilseeds and pulses therefore cannot be increased unless the government brings back the import tariffs. India can bind import tariff for oilseeds at 300 per cent under the WTO, but has brought it down to zero. Similarly for pulses, the import duty is zero. Unless the tariffs are restored, there is no way Indian farmer can compete with cheaper subsidised imports. Importing cheaper food is like importing unemployment.
Taking the green revolution to the north-eastern states, for which he has provided an allocation of Rs 400 crore, is also a flawed strategy. Why I am saying this is because it is the green revolution technology that has destroyed soil fertility in Punjab, Haryana, Western Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. It is because of the devastation that green revolution has caused to the natural resource base that farmers have taken to suicides. To take the green revolution model to the northeast therefore means that the country hasn’t learnt any lessons from the debacle.
Budget 2010 does have some inkling of pragmatic approach. Pranab Mukherjee has done the right thing by not enhancing the llocation under NREGA. In 2009, he had made a budgetary provision of Rs 39,100 crore, and this year kept it at Rs 40,100 crore. This is a wise decision considering that NEGA is a new scheme, and has a lot of problems withimplementation. Making more allocation gives room for more leakage and corruption.
At the same time, I am delighted to find that the Finance Minister has extended the health insurance cover (that was initiated last year to BPL families) to also NREGA workers who have put in a minimum of 15 days of labour. In the years to come, there is a desperate need to extend health insurance cover to the entire farming class also, which has still not been given crop insurance.
Reading the Economic Survey 2010 along with the Budget allocations, it is quite clear that the agricultural reforms that the government is focusing on aim only at allowing more private and corporate control over agriculture. The food policy initiatives that are spelled out in the Economic Survey indicate more thrust on food retail and industrialisation of agriculture, which means more will be the burden on the farmers from external inputs.
This is a misplaced emphasis, and comes from a class of economists who are not in tune with the ground realities. Already, the wish-list spelled out in the Economic surveys of past 3 to 4 years has pushed agriculture to an unmanageable crisis. It is high time that a sincere effort is made to reverse the disturbing trend, and bring back the smile on the face of the farmer. This can be done, provided the political leadership demonstrates willingness.
Feb 27, 2010
Finance Minister and Budget 2010: Khao and Khilao exercise
Feb 26 was the Budget day. For several days, the electronic media had created an unprecedented hype. If you have been following the media, it looks as if on the Budget day Aladdin is going to reveal his magic lamp before the nation. I sometimes wonder why is the Budget treated like an annual carnival, and has turned out to be a media event like never before.
While you listen endlessly to the same experts parroting the same lines throughout the day, it is the TV channels actually who have the last laugh. They walk away quietly to the bank.
The Finance Minister goes to bed very satisfied. He has been the cynosure of all eyes, focal point of attention and enough admiration (for some days prior and after the event). He couldn't have asked for anything more. His advisors are happy at pulling the plugs silently. The senior lot among them are happy at being seen on the TV channels, something that would never happen if they were not associated with the Budget making process.
Listening to them, and realising that their bloated egos border on arrogance, I feel dejected at the class of people who prepare the Budget documents. They are more often than not, senior bureaucrats and economists, who have no idea how the country looks like. Often deliberating the fine prints with them on the TV, I have come to the conclusion that it is this set of advisors who need to be shown the door.
The same arguments. The same analysis. I mean the similarity with the corporate agenda is quite blatant. It is difficult to find out whether they wear the corporate tie or the government's hat. They are all part of the revolving door culture. Their economic understanding not going beyond business deals (call them discussions, if you like) at the regular corporate lunches/dinners.
Still worse are the economists. Over the years, I have realised that the mainline economists are the real problem. Right from Lord Meghnad Desai to Dr B B Bhattacharya (a regular on TV, which makes me wonder what does he do as a Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University), I am greatly disappointed at the shallow understanding they have about economics.
I know they are distinguished in their respective fields, and I should be holding them in awe. This is what I have never done in my life, and this is what has actually made me stand up for the right cause. I have always questioned their flawed economic thinking (which does not go beyond the textbooks), and I hold them responsible for much of the mess the country is passing through. I can assure you that the world would be a much better place to live if we dump these main stream economists.
Interestingly, I find most of the mainline journalists also have contempt for these economists (except for those who thrive as corporate voices). In person, they often tell me that they actually invite them because they have been directed to do so. They know that what these distinguished economists are telling is nothing but a pack of lies, but the tragedy is that no one stands upto them. No one has the courage to even disagree, politely.
I agree. The tragedy of modern times is that we have lost the ability to stand up and question. Even if we know that what is being told to us is simply a glib talk aimed primarily to patronise industry and business, we remain quiet. We do not stick our neck out, knowing that we might have to face the chopping block sooner than later. By remaining quiet, we actually become a part of the crime that we abhor.
Take the Budget 2010. You saw the Opposition parties walking out over the announcement of a petrol price hike. The economists on the TV shows repeatedly said that it was a difficult task for the Finance Minister, and he was left with no option but to raise the petrol prices given the burgeoning fiscal deficit. None of the political stalwarts, and the economists and analysts on the TV shows, told us that there was a way out.
Instead of passing on the burden to the masses, Finance Minister could have gone in for a more drastic cut on the stimulus package for the industry. More than Rs 3.5 lakh crore has been doled out to the industry in the name of economic stimulus (which is actually a subsidy), and the FM could have easily taken out Rs 1 lakh crore from this stimulus. But he didn't do it, because his advisors and the industry lobbied hard for retaining it. Instead he passed on the burden to the people.
In reality, there is no need for the economic stimulus package. To give you an indication, some of the Indian companies are looking for acquisitions abroad, and the sale of BMWs is picking up fast. Why do they need economic stimulus or in reality such a huge subsidy? This is what Noam Chomsky calls as 'tough love'. Tough for the poor, and love for the rich.
Yes, and it is primarily for this reason that annual Budgets have become a corporate exercise. As someone said, it has actually turned into a khao and khilao (eat and make others eat) exercise. No wonder, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) lay out lavish carpets for the print and electronic media.
Not only do the CII and FICCI provide space for the media to set up temporary studios, they also ensure that the media becomes their loudspeaker. Media has always returned the favour. It take two to tango.
While you listen endlessly to the same experts parroting the same lines throughout the day, it is the TV channels actually who have the last laugh. They walk away quietly to the bank.
The Finance Minister goes to bed very satisfied. He has been the cynosure of all eyes, focal point of attention and enough admiration (for some days prior and after the event). He couldn't have asked for anything more. His advisors are happy at pulling the plugs silently. The senior lot among them are happy at being seen on the TV channels, something that would never happen if they were not associated with the Budget making process.
Listening to them, and realising that their bloated egos border on arrogance, I feel dejected at the class of people who prepare the Budget documents. They are more often than not, senior bureaucrats and economists, who have no idea how the country looks like. Often deliberating the fine prints with them on the TV, I have come to the conclusion that it is this set of advisors who need to be shown the door.
The same arguments. The same analysis. I mean the similarity with the corporate agenda is quite blatant. It is difficult to find out whether they wear the corporate tie or the government's hat. They are all part of the revolving door culture. Their economic understanding not going beyond business deals (call them discussions, if you like) at the regular corporate lunches/dinners.
Still worse are the economists. Over the years, I have realised that the mainline economists are the real problem. Right from Lord Meghnad Desai to Dr B B Bhattacharya (a regular on TV, which makes me wonder what does he do as a Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University), I am greatly disappointed at the shallow understanding they have about economics.
I know they are distinguished in their respective fields, and I should be holding them in awe. This is what I have never done in my life, and this is what has actually made me stand up for the right cause. I have always questioned their flawed economic thinking (which does not go beyond the textbooks), and I hold them responsible for much of the mess the country is passing through. I can assure you that the world would be a much better place to live if we dump these main stream economists.
Interestingly, I find most of the mainline journalists also have contempt for these economists (except for those who thrive as corporate voices). In person, they often tell me that they actually invite them because they have been directed to do so. They know that what these distinguished economists are telling is nothing but a pack of lies, but the tragedy is that no one stands upto them. No one has the courage to even disagree, politely.
I agree. The tragedy of modern times is that we have lost the ability to stand up and question. Even if we know that what is being told to us is simply a glib talk aimed primarily to patronise industry and business, we remain quiet. We do not stick our neck out, knowing that we might have to face the chopping block sooner than later. By remaining quiet, we actually become a part of the crime that we abhor.
Take the Budget 2010. You saw the Opposition parties walking out over the announcement of a petrol price hike. The economists on the TV shows repeatedly said that it was a difficult task for the Finance Minister, and he was left with no option but to raise the petrol prices given the burgeoning fiscal deficit. None of the political stalwarts, and the economists and analysts on the TV shows, told us that there was a way out.
Instead of passing on the burden to the masses, Finance Minister could have gone in for a more drastic cut on the stimulus package for the industry. More than Rs 3.5 lakh crore has been doled out to the industry in the name of economic stimulus (which is actually a subsidy), and the FM could have easily taken out Rs 1 lakh crore from this stimulus. But he didn't do it, because his advisors and the industry lobbied hard for retaining it. Instead he passed on the burden to the people.
In reality, there is no need for the economic stimulus package. To give you an indication, some of the Indian companies are looking for acquisitions abroad, and the sale of BMWs is picking up fast. Why do they need economic stimulus or in reality such a huge subsidy? This is what Noam Chomsky calls as 'tough love'. Tough for the poor, and love for the rich.
Yes, and it is primarily for this reason that annual Budgets have become a corporate exercise. As someone said, it has actually turned into a khao and khilao (eat and make others eat) exercise. No wonder, the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) lay out lavish carpets for the print and electronic media.
Not only do the CII and FICCI provide space for the media to set up temporary studios, they also ensure that the media becomes their loudspeaker. Media has always returned the favour. It take two to tango.
Feb 25, 2010
कृषि का अमेरिकी माडल
For my friends who are a little uncomfortable with English, here is my article in Hindi that analyses a couple of the fundamental reasons behind the prevailing agrarian crisis. The change in the mindset of the agricultural students, made possible through the land-grant system of education that we borrowed blindly from US of A, and on which our agricultural universities are based, is primarily the reason for our obsession with risky alien technologies.
I am therefore not the least surprised when agricultural universities lobby tooth-and-nail to push for harmful technologies like Bt brinjal. They have been programmed to reject anything that is traditional and sustainable. They have been made to believe that following the sophisticated technology model from the US is the only way out for India. They think that the spate of farmer suicides is merely a price that the country has to pay for higher production.
I think the greatest challenge is to reform the prevailing agricultural research and education system. It is time we go in for a complete overhaul of the research curriculum in a manner that we begin to respect our own time-tested technologies, and are able to understand how these technologies/farming systems lead us to sustainable farming, with no addition to global warming, and do not result in farmer suicides.
I am beginning a series on where we went wrong. In the days to come, I will bring you more such articles.
कृषि का अमेरिकी माडल
http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/news/opinion/general/6_3_6207894.html
Feb 24, 2010
स्साकसी शुरू हो गई है। वन एवं पर्यावरण मंत्री जयराम रमेश ने बीटी बैगन पर फैसला टाल कर बर्र के छत्ते में हाथ डाल दिया है। अब तक उनके कम से कम तीन वरिष्ठ सहयोगी शरद पवार, पृथ्वीराज चव्हाण और कपिल सिब्बल इस फैसले के विरोध में खड़े हो चुके हैं। यह जताने की कोशिश हो रही है कि बीटी बैगन को ठंडे बस्ते में डालने से भारत की खाद्य सुरक्षा को आघात लगा है। हमें यह भी बताया जा रहा है कि विज्ञान का समाज से कोई सरोकार नहीं होता और हर सूरत में विज्ञान ही श्रेष्ठ है, चाहे यह दोषपूर्ण और नुकसानदायक क्यों न हो।
नियामक इकाई जेनेटिक इंजीनियरिंग अप्रूवल कमेटी द्वारा बीटी बैगन को हरी झंडी देने में किए गए तमाम भ्रष्टाचार और वैज्ञानिक छल-कपट की अनदेखी करते हुए ये मंत्री बीटी बैगन की व्यावसायिक खेती को अनुमति देना चाहते हैं। यह मिथ्या धारणा कि विज्ञान किसानों के लिए हमेशा फायदेमंद है, पहले ही खेतों को लहूलुहान कर चुकी है। पिछले 15 साल में करीब दो लाख किसान आत्महत्या कर चुके हैं। अगर विकल्प प्रदान किया जाए तो 45 प्रतिशत से अधिक किसान खेती को छोड़ देना चाहते हैं।
पहले ही, रासायनिक पदार्र्थो, जैसे खाद, कीटनाशक और हाइब्रिड बीजों ने मिट्टी की सेहत खराब कर दी है और भूजल को सोख लिया है। किंतु इससे पहले मैं यह बताऊं कि हरित क्रांति ने कृषि को कैसे तबाह किया है फिलहाल यह समझना जरूरी है कि कृषि-व्यापार उद्योग ने किस तरह हमारी सोच को बदल दिया है। किसी न किसी तरह हमारे दिमाग में यह बात बैठा दी है कि प्रौद्योगिकी हमेशा मुक्तिदाता होती है। यह देखना अहम है कि वर्तमान संकट को बढ़ाने में हमारी सोच में बदलाव का कितना बड़ा हाथ है।
बेहद चालाकी से यूएस एजेंसी फार इंटरनेशनल डेवलपमेंट ने अमेरिका के लैंड ग्रांट माडल के आधार पर भारत में कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों की स्थापना की है। यह भारत की आवश्यकताओं के बजाए मुख्यत: अमेरिका की इच्छा के अनुरूप स्थापित किए गए हैं। हमें बताया गया है कि कृषि घटिया और पिछड़ा धंधा है और अकुशल लोगों का काम है। अमेरिकी तर्ज पर हमारे कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों में यही सिखाया जाता है।
कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों में यह भी सिखाया जाता है कि अगर आप भारतीय कृषि में सुधार लाना चाहते हैं तो अमेरिकी कृषि माडल अपनाना होगा। हम आंख मूंदकर अमेरिकी कृषि प्रौद्योगिकी को अपना रहे हैं, नतीजे में भारतीय कृषि को भयानक संकट झेलना पड़ रहा है। अगर कृषि अनुसंधान और शिक्षा का अमेरिकी माडल इतना ही बेहतर है तो खेती बर्बादी के कगार पर क्यों है? किसान आत्महत्या क्यों कर रहे हैं और अन्नदाता भूखा क्यों है? क्या इसका यह मतलब नहीं है कि कोई भयावह गड़बड़ी हो रही है? एक राष्ट्र के रूप में हमें इसकी पड़ताल करनी चाहिए और पलटकर पीछे देखना चाहिए।
किसान जानते हैं कि उन्होंने धरती माता को लूट लिया है और वे अधिक समय तक इससे उपज हासिल नहीं कर सकते। कृषि वैज्ञानिकों को यह स्वीकार करना चाहिए कि जिस प्रौद्योगिकी की वे वकालत कर रहे थे, उसने धरती को बंजर बना दिया है और धीरे-धीरे यह रेगिस्तान में तब्दील होती जा रही है। उन्हें भारत की परखी हुई प्रौद्योगिकी पर भरोसा रखना चाहिए, जिन पर आयातित सोच से आघात पहुंचा है।
अब लैब से जमीन प्रौद्योगिकी की आवश्यकता है। हमने सबसे बड़ी गलती यह की कि परंपरागत खेती और किसानों से सीखने की कोशिश नहीं की। कृषि संकट के तमाम हल उनके पास हैं। हम यह मानकर उन्हें दरकिनार कर देते हैं कि उन्हें कुछ पता ही नहीं। नतीजा यह है कि किसान साल दर साल परंपरागत ज्ञान से विमुख होते जा रहे हैं। हम सब अंधेरे में भटक गए हैं।
कृषि वैज्ञानिक नहीं जानते कि बंजर जमीन में कैसे उर्वरता लाई जाए। कृषि को बचाने के सरल उपाय के रूप में वे परदेसी प्रौद्योगिकी के आयात पर निर्भर रहना चाहते हैं और इसीलिए बीटी बैगन पर जोर लगा रहे हैं। एक बार बीटी बैगन को अनुमति मिल जाती है तो यह अनेक जीएम फसलों की बाढ़ ला देगा। इस प्रकार की फसलें, चाहे इनकी आवश्यकता न हो और इनसे उत्पादन भी न बढ़े, कम से कम कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों का तो कल्याण कर ही देंगी। तब कोई भी यह नहीं कह पाएगा कि ये विश्व विद्यालय हाथ पर हाथ धरे बैठे रहे।
पिछले 40-50 साल से हमें बताया गया है कि जितना रासायनिक खाद डालोगे उपज में उतनी ही बढ़ोतरी होगी। यह एक गलत सोच है और इसने हमारी आशंका से अधिक नुकसान पहुंचाया है। अध्ययन से पता चलता है कि भारत के जिन जिलों में खाद की खपत अधिक है, उनमें उत्पादकता उतनी ही कम है। दूसरी तरफ, जिन जिलों में अधिक उत्पादकता है, वहां खाद की खपत कम है। देश में प्रति हेक्टेयर सर्वाधिक उपज वाला जिला केरल का वायानाद है। जबकि खाद की खपत में इसका स्थान 600 जिलों में से 315वां है। इससे क्या आपको नहीं लगता कि खाद की खपत घटनी चाहिए। किंतु जैसे ही आप यह बात कहेंगे, कृषि वैज्ञानिक हायतौबा मचाना शुरू कर देंगे कि इससे राष्ट्र की खाद्य सुरक्षा खतरे में पड़ जाएगी।
यही हाल बीटी बैगन का है। यह भी कृषि-व्यवसाय उद्योग की पैदावार है। इसीलिए राजनेताओं और कृषि वैज्ञानिकों का इसे जबरदस्त समर्थन हासिल है। हमें इस पर ध्यान देना चाहिए कि औद्योगिक उत्पादों से नुकसान अधिक होता है। अगर आप सही फैसला नहीं लेते तो दूसरो को दोष न देना। हम सबको इसलिए परेशानी उठानी पड़ सकती है कि यह महत्वपूर्ण और नाजुक फैसला वैज्ञानिकों और नीति निर्माताओं के हाथ में है।
I am therefore not the least surprised when agricultural universities lobby tooth-and-nail to push for harmful technologies like Bt brinjal. They have been programmed to reject anything that is traditional and sustainable. They have been made to believe that following the sophisticated technology model from the US is the only way out for India. They think that the spate of farmer suicides is merely a price that the country has to pay for higher production.
I think the greatest challenge is to reform the prevailing agricultural research and education system. It is time we go in for a complete overhaul of the research curriculum in a manner that we begin to respect our own time-tested technologies, and are able to understand how these technologies/farming systems lead us to sustainable farming, with no addition to global warming, and do not result in farmer suicides.
I am beginning a series on where we went wrong. In the days to come, I will bring you more such articles.
कृषि का अमेरिकी माडल
http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/news/opinion/general/6_3_6207894.html
Feb 24, 2010
स्साकसी शुरू हो गई है। वन एवं पर्यावरण मंत्री जयराम रमेश ने बीटी बैगन पर फैसला टाल कर बर्र के छत्ते में हाथ डाल दिया है। अब तक उनके कम से कम तीन वरिष्ठ सहयोगी शरद पवार, पृथ्वीराज चव्हाण और कपिल सिब्बल इस फैसले के विरोध में खड़े हो चुके हैं। यह जताने की कोशिश हो रही है कि बीटी बैगन को ठंडे बस्ते में डालने से भारत की खाद्य सुरक्षा को आघात लगा है। हमें यह भी बताया जा रहा है कि विज्ञान का समाज से कोई सरोकार नहीं होता और हर सूरत में विज्ञान ही श्रेष्ठ है, चाहे यह दोषपूर्ण और नुकसानदायक क्यों न हो।
नियामक इकाई जेनेटिक इंजीनियरिंग अप्रूवल कमेटी द्वारा बीटी बैगन को हरी झंडी देने में किए गए तमाम भ्रष्टाचार और वैज्ञानिक छल-कपट की अनदेखी करते हुए ये मंत्री बीटी बैगन की व्यावसायिक खेती को अनुमति देना चाहते हैं। यह मिथ्या धारणा कि विज्ञान किसानों के लिए हमेशा फायदेमंद है, पहले ही खेतों को लहूलुहान कर चुकी है। पिछले 15 साल में करीब दो लाख किसान आत्महत्या कर चुके हैं। अगर विकल्प प्रदान किया जाए तो 45 प्रतिशत से अधिक किसान खेती को छोड़ देना चाहते हैं।
पहले ही, रासायनिक पदार्र्थो, जैसे खाद, कीटनाशक और हाइब्रिड बीजों ने मिट्टी की सेहत खराब कर दी है और भूजल को सोख लिया है। किंतु इससे पहले मैं यह बताऊं कि हरित क्रांति ने कृषि को कैसे तबाह किया है फिलहाल यह समझना जरूरी है कि कृषि-व्यापार उद्योग ने किस तरह हमारी सोच को बदल दिया है। किसी न किसी तरह हमारे दिमाग में यह बात बैठा दी है कि प्रौद्योगिकी हमेशा मुक्तिदाता होती है। यह देखना अहम है कि वर्तमान संकट को बढ़ाने में हमारी सोच में बदलाव का कितना बड़ा हाथ है।
बेहद चालाकी से यूएस एजेंसी फार इंटरनेशनल डेवलपमेंट ने अमेरिका के लैंड ग्रांट माडल के आधार पर भारत में कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों की स्थापना की है। यह भारत की आवश्यकताओं के बजाए मुख्यत: अमेरिका की इच्छा के अनुरूप स्थापित किए गए हैं। हमें बताया गया है कि कृषि घटिया और पिछड़ा धंधा है और अकुशल लोगों का काम है। अमेरिकी तर्ज पर हमारे कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों में यही सिखाया जाता है।
कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों में यह भी सिखाया जाता है कि अगर आप भारतीय कृषि में सुधार लाना चाहते हैं तो अमेरिकी कृषि माडल अपनाना होगा। हम आंख मूंदकर अमेरिकी कृषि प्रौद्योगिकी को अपना रहे हैं, नतीजे में भारतीय कृषि को भयानक संकट झेलना पड़ रहा है। अगर कृषि अनुसंधान और शिक्षा का अमेरिकी माडल इतना ही बेहतर है तो खेती बर्बादी के कगार पर क्यों है? किसान आत्महत्या क्यों कर रहे हैं और अन्नदाता भूखा क्यों है? क्या इसका यह मतलब नहीं है कि कोई भयावह गड़बड़ी हो रही है? एक राष्ट्र के रूप में हमें इसकी पड़ताल करनी चाहिए और पलटकर पीछे देखना चाहिए।
किसान जानते हैं कि उन्होंने धरती माता को लूट लिया है और वे अधिक समय तक इससे उपज हासिल नहीं कर सकते। कृषि वैज्ञानिकों को यह स्वीकार करना चाहिए कि जिस प्रौद्योगिकी की वे वकालत कर रहे थे, उसने धरती को बंजर बना दिया है और धीरे-धीरे यह रेगिस्तान में तब्दील होती जा रही है। उन्हें भारत की परखी हुई प्रौद्योगिकी पर भरोसा रखना चाहिए, जिन पर आयातित सोच से आघात पहुंचा है।
अब लैब से जमीन प्रौद्योगिकी की आवश्यकता है। हमने सबसे बड़ी गलती यह की कि परंपरागत खेती और किसानों से सीखने की कोशिश नहीं की। कृषि संकट के तमाम हल उनके पास हैं। हम यह मानकर उन्हें दरकिनार कर देते हैं कि उन्हें कुछ पता ही नहीं। नतीजा यह है कि किसान साल दर साल परंपरागत ज्ञान से विमुख होते जा रहे हैं। हम सब अंधेरे में भटक गए हैं।
कृषि वैज्ञानिक नहीं जानते कि बंजर जमीन में कैसे उर्वरता लाई जाए। कृषि को बचाने के सरल उपाय के रूप में वे परदेसी प्रौद्योगिकी के आयात पर निर्भर रहना चाहते हैं और इसीलिए बीटी बैगन पर जोर लगा रहे हैं। एक बार बीटी बैगन को अनुमति मिल जाती है तो यह अनेक जीएम फसलों की बाढ़ ला देगा। इस प्रकार की फसलें, चाहे इनकी आवश्यकता न हो और इनसे उत्पादन भी न बढ़े, कम से कम कृषि विश्वविद्यालयों का तो कल्याण कर ही देंगी। तब कोई भी यह नहीं कह पाएगा कि ये विश्व विद्यालय हाथ पर हाथ धरे बैठे रहे।
पिछले 40-50 साल से हमें बताया गया है कि जितना रासायनिक खाद डालोगे उपज में उतनी ही बढ़ोतरी होगी। यह एक गलत सोच है और इसने हमारी आशंका से अधिक नुकसान पहुंचाया है। अध्ययन से पता चलता है कि भारत के जिन जिलों में खाद की खपत अधिक है, उनमें उत्पादकता उतनी ही कम है। दूसरी तरफ, जिन जिलों में अधिक उत्पादकता है, वहां खाद की खपत कम है। देश में प्रति हेक्टेयर सर्वाधिक उपज वाला जिला केरल का वायानाद है। जबकि खाद की खपत में इसका स्थान 600 जिलों में से 315वां है। इससे क्या आपको नहीं लगता कि खाद की खपत घटनी चाहिए। किंतु जैसे ही आप यह बात कहेंगे, कृषि वैज्ञानिक हायतौबा मचाना शुरू कर देंगे कि इससे राष्ट्र की खाद्य सुरक्षा खतरे में पड़ जाएगी।
यही हाल बीटी बैगन का है। यह भी कृषि-व्यवसाय उद्योग की पैदावार है। इसीलिए राजनेताओं और कृषि वैज्ञानिकों का इसे जबरदस्त समर्थन हासिल है। हमें इस पर ध्यान देना चाहिए कि औद्योगिक उत्पादों से नुकसान अधिक होता है। अगर आप सही फैसला नहीं लेते तो दूसरो को दोष न देना। हम सबको इसलिए परेशानी उठानी पड़ सकती है कि यह महत्वपूर्ण और नाजुक फैसला वैज्ञानिकों और नीति निर्माताओं के हाथ में है।
Feb 19, 2010
India seeks jail for GM food critics
I am not sure whether you would believe your ears. You can't probably imagine that any sensible government (except for USA, of course) can try to gag your voice. If you thought that your fundamental right to speech and freedom is guaranteed under the Constitution, you need to think again. The proposed National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) bill is actually trying not only to silence the opposition to GM foods, but also has provisions that can put you in jail for a minimum of six months.
Look at the power of the GM companies, the ghost of the Emergency era is back. During the Emergency, all those who opposed Mrs Indira Gandhi were jailed. But the proposed NBRA goes still further. In addition to putting you in jail, it also imposes a fine of Rs 2 lakh. And if you hold a demonstration against a university or try to 'obstruct' research, you face imprisonment for three months and/or a fine of Rs 5 lakh.
This is the power and reach of the GM companies. The US is already contemplating legal provisions which will outlaw organic farming. In India, the Department of Biotechnology, which has possibly framed this legislation, is aiming at turning Indian science into a ghetto.
If the bill was already in force, you and me (those who opposed the introduction of Bt brinjal) would have been in jail by now. Dr M S Swaminathan and Dr Pushpa Bhargava too would have been in jail. Interestingly, and as I told Mail Today: "Environment minister Jairam Ramesh, who has questioned the safety of GM crops, would have been behind bars because he would have violated it.”
Here is the report from the front page of Mail Today:
GOVT MOOTS JAIL FOR GM FOOD CRITICS
By Dinesh C Sharma in New Delhi
http://epaper.mailtoday.in/epaperhome.aspx?issue=1922010
Draconian clause in biotech regulatory Bill aims at muzzling debate on safety of GM products
IF THE ministry of science and technology has its way, criticising genetically- modified ( GM) products could land you in jail.
An Indian citizen who questions the safety of any GM food or medicine could be put behind bars for a minimum period of six months under a new law proposed by the ministry.
The clause to silence critics of GM food is contained in the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India ( BRAI) Bill,2009 prepared by the Department of Biotechnology, which is a wing of the ministry of science and technology headed by Prithviraj Chavan.
'Misleading public about organism and products’ is one of the crimes for which punishment has been prescribed in Section 63, Chapter 13 of the Bill which deals with various “ offences and penalties”. The clause specifically deals with critics of biotech products including GM food crops.
Look at the power of the GM companies, the ghost of the Emergency era is back. During the Emergency, all those who opposed Mrs Indira Gandhi were jailed. But the proposed NBRA goes still further. In addition to putting you in jail, it also imposes a fine of Rs 2 lakh. And if you hold a demonstration against a university or try to 'obstruct' research, you face imprisonment for three months and/or a fine of Rs 5 lakh.
This is the power and reach of the GM companies. The US is already contemplating legal provisions which will outlaw organic farming. In India, the Department of Biotechnology, which has possibly framed this legislation, is aiming at turning Indian science into a ghetto.
If the bill was already in force, you and me (those who opposed the introduction of Bt brinjal) would have been in jail by now. Dr M S Swaminathan and Dr Pushpa Bhargava too would have been in jail. Interestingly, and as I told Mail Today: "Environment minister Jairam Ramesh, who has questioned the safety of GM crops, would have been behind bars because he would have violated it.”
Here is the report from the front page of Mail Today:
GOVT MOOTS JAIL FOR GM FOOD CRITICS
By Dinesh C Sharma in New Delhi
http://epaper.mailtoday.in/epaperhome.aspx?issue=1922010
Draconian clause in biotech regulatory Bill aims at muzzling debate on safety of GM products
IF THE ministry of science and technology has its way, criticising genetically- modified ( GM) products could land you in jail.
An Indian citizen who questions the safety of any GM food or medicine could be put behind bars for a minimum period of six months under a new law proposed by the ministry.
The clause to silence critics of GM food is contained in the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India ( BRAI) Bill,2009 prepared by the Department of Biotechnology, which is a wing of the ministry of science and technology headed by Prithviraj Chavan.
'Misleading public about organism and products’ is one of the crimes for which punishment has been prescribed in Section 63, Chapter 13 of the Bill which deals with various “ offences and penalties”. The clause specifically deals with critics of biotech products including GM food crops.
Feb 18, 2010
Indian S & T Minister uses GM lobby data to justify Bt brinjal
If you ever attend a conference where an Advisor from the Department of Biotechnology or a member of the discredited Genetic Engineering Approval Committee is making a presentation, you will invariably find that they rely heavily on the data provided by the GM lobby group ISAAA. They claim to take views of all stakeholders into consideration but have no capability to look beyond ISAAA.
For the proponents of GM technology, ISAAA annual publication is the holy book.
But I am rather surprised to know that even the Science and Technology Minister Prithviraj Chavan has fallen into this trap. I have always respected Mr Chavan for his sensitivity, and his concern for the real issues. For years, before he became a Minister without portfolio in the Prime Minister's Office in 2004, I must acknowledge that he was among the saner voices in the Congress Party. In fact, he had been a strong critic of the World Trade Organisation and Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights, and has campaigned on these issues for long.
I am therefore quite surprised at his recent statements about the biosafety of Bt brinjal. I can understand that being the Minister, it is his duty to defend the position/recommendations of the DBT, which falls under his ministry. But I fail to comprehend how could he simply overlook the veracity of the claims that his department was making, and more importantly put his signatures to a letter prepared by the DBT for him.
As has now become evident, the Minister has simply lifted bulk of the material verbatim from a report called 'The Development and Regulation of Bt Brinjal in India' produced by ISAAA. Even the annextures have been lifted from the report.
If this is science, the Minister owes a lot of explanation to the nation.
Prithvi used GM lobby data to push Bt brinjal
By Dinesh C Sharma
The pro-Bt brinjal view in the ministry of science and technology seems to be on shaky ethical ground.
Investigations reveal that the department's minister Prithviraj Chavan - a vocal supporter of genetically engineered crops - copied and quoted in an official letter material from reports published by a lobbying outfit funded by seed companies including Monsanto and Mahyco.
Monsanto and Mahyco are respectively the patent holders and the Indian distribution rights holders of Bt Brinjal.
Chavan lifted paragraph after paragraph in a letter (a copy of which is in Mail Today's possession) that he wrote to his former colleague Dr Anbumani Ramadoss in July 2009, to defend Bt brinjal. Ramadoss had written to the prime minister in February 2009, in his capacity as health minister, raising health concerns about the introduction of genetically modified (GM) food crops in India. Curiously, Chavan - on behalf of the prime minister - replied in July 2009 when Ramadoss was no more a member of the Union Cabinet.
The four-page letter is accompanied an annexure containing eight pages.
Both the letter and the annexure draw liberally from two 'reports' prepared by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a US-based charity whose aim is to "facilitate transfer and sharing of crop biotechnology applications" in developing countries. The outfit has an active office in New Delhi.
Among the major donors of ISAAA - as listed on its website - are Barwale Foundation (earlier known as Mahyco Research Foundation), Monsanto, Bayer Crop Science, Bejo Sheetal Seeds (India), J. K. Organisation, CropLife International, Raasi Seeds Limited, Vibha Agrotech, Cornell University, US Department of Agriculture and USAID. The bulk of Chavan's letter has been lifted verbatim from a report called 'The Development and Regulation of Bt Brinjal in India' authored by Bhagirath Choudhary and Kadambini Gaur.
Ironically, amongst the reviewers of this 102-page report is Dr Ananda Kumar, a member of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee - the regulatory body that cleared Bt brinjal in October 2009.
The second paragraph in the letter has been lifted fully - including a reference - from the first report on Bt brinjal.
The key argument advanced in this para is how development of GM crops with traits like "tolerance to drought and salinity, improved nitrogen use efficiency, enhanced yield, quality and nutritional properties", coupled with existing traits, would be "real value addition for India". It also says these crops will help India the challenges of "hunger, poverty, malnutrition and food security in tomorrow's world". This para appears on page 27 of the ISAAA report.
The second page of Chavan's letter talks about how the introduction of Bt cotton has helped Indian farmers.
Material on this page has been copied from page 37 of the ISAAA report in three chunks. One of them reads "Bt technology has a long history of safety, proven efficacy and benefits. Bt brinjal promises to be of great value to Indian farmers." Chavan had reached this conclusion several months ahead of the GEAC's regulatory approval for the commercial release of Bt brinjal - which came only in October 2009.
Chavan has given some new arguments in favour of GM crops. He seems to believe that "biotech crops are environmentally friendly and have contributed significantly to reducing emission of greenhouse gases from agricultural practice". Needless to say, this is what the biotech industry has argued in the ISAAA reports used by Chavan to draft his reply to Ramadoss.
The eight-page annexure to Chavan's letter has been taken entirely from a report called 'Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2008', which is also published by ISAAA. The annexure is actually a photocopy of pages 76 to 83 of this report. Chavan's letter says on Page 3 that "biotech crops have also reduced pesticide spraying considerably (publications are attached in Annexure-1)". The "publications" referred to here are nothing but quotations from the president, the prime minister, the finance minister and the agriculture minister (all supporting biotech crops) as well as testimonials of farmers using Bt cotton.
Read the full report at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/84529/LATEST%20HEADLINES/Prithvi+used+GM+lobby+data+to+push+Bt+brinjal.html
You can also follow Dinesh C Sharma's blog:
http://columncm.blogspot.com/
For the proponents of GM technology, ISAAA annual publication is the holy book.
But I am rather surprised to know that even the Science and Technology Minister Prithviraj Chavan has fallen into this trap. I have always respected Mr Chavan for his sensitivity, and his concern for the real issues. For years, before he became a Minister without portfolio in the Prime Minister's Office in 2004, I must acknowledge that he was among the saner voices in the Congress Party. In fact, he had been a strong critic of the World Trade Organisation and Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights, and has campaigned on these issues for long.
I am therefore quite surprised at his recent statements about the biosafety of Bt brinjal. I can understand that being the Minister, it is his duty to defend the position/recommendations of the DBT, which falls under his ministry. But I fail to comprehend how could he simply overlook the veracity of the claims that his department was making, and more importantly put his signatures to a letter prepared by the DBT for him.
As has now become evident, the Minister has simply lifted bulk of the material verbatim from a report called 'The Development and Regulation of Bt Brinjal in India' produced by ISAAA. Even the annextures have been lifted from the report.
If this is science, the Minister owes a lot of explanation to the nation.
Prithvi used GM lobby data to push Bt brinjal
By Dinesh C Sharma
The pro-Bt brinjal view in the ministry of science and technology seems to be on shaky ethical ground.
Investigations reveal that the department's minister Prithviraj Chavan - a vocal supporter of genetically engineered crops - copied and quoted in an official letter material from reports published by a lobbying outfit funded by seed companies including Monsanto and Mahyco.
Monsanto and Mahyco are respectively the patent holders and the Indian distribution rights holders of Bt Brinjal.
Chavan lifted paragraph after paragraph in a letter (a copy of which is in Mail Today's possession) that he wrote to his former colleague Dr Anbumani Ramadoss in July 2009, to defend Bt brinjal. Ramadoss had written to the prime minister in February 2009, in his capacity as health minister, raising health concerns about the introduction of genetically modified (GM) food crops in India. Curiously, Chavan - on behalf of the prime minister - replied in July 2009 when Ramadoss was no more a member of the Union Cabinet.
The four-page letter is accompanied an annexure containing eight pages.
Both the letter and the annexure draw liberally from two 'reports' prepared by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a US-based charity whose aim is to "facilitate transfer and sharing of crop biotechnology applications" in developing countries. The outfit has an active office in New Delhi.
Among the major donors of ISAAA - as listed on its website - are Barwale Foundation (earlier known as Mahyco Research Foundation), Monsanto, Bayer Crop Science, Bejo Sheetal Seeds (India), J. K. Organisation, CropLife International, Raasi Seeds Limited, Vibha Agrotech, Cornell University, US Department of Agriculture and USAID. The bulk of Chavan's letter has been lifted verbatim from a report called 'The Development and Regulation of Bt Brinjal in India' authored by Bhagirath Choudhary and Kadambini Gaur.
Ironically, amongst the reviewers of this 102-page report is Dr Ananda Kumar, a member of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee - the regulatory body that cleared Bt brinjal in October 2009.
The second paragraph in the letter has been lifted fully - including a reference - from the first report on Bt brinjal.
The key argument advanced in this para is how development of GM crops with traits like "tolerance to drought and salinity, improved nitrogen use efficiency, enhanced yield, quality and nutritional properties", coupled with existing traits, would be "real value addition for India". It also says these crops will help India the challenges of "hunger, poverty, malnutrition and food security in tomorrow's world". This para appears on page 27 of the ISAAA report.
The second page of Chavan's letter talks about how the introduction of Bt cotton has helped Indian farmers.
Material on this page has been copied from page 37 of the ISAAA report in three chunks. One of them reads "Bt technology has a long history of safety, proven efficacy and benefits. Bt brinjal promises to be of great value to Indian farmers." Chavan had reached this conclusion several months ahead of the GEAC's regulatory approval for the commercial release of Bt brinjal - which came only in October 2009.
Chavan has given some new arguments in favour of GM crops. He seems to believe that "biotech crops are environmentally friendly and have contributed significantly to reducing emission of greenhouse gases from agricultural practice". Needless to say, this is what the biotech industry has argued in the ISAAA reports used by Chavan to draft his reply to Ramadoss.
The eight-page annexure to Chavan's letter has been taken entirely from a report called 'Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2008', which is also published by ISAAA. The annexure is actually a photocopy of pages 76 to 83 of this report. Chavan's letter says on Page 3 that "biotech crops have also reduced pesticide spraying considerably (publications are attached in Annexure-1)". The "publications" referred to here are nothing but quotations from the president, the prime minister, the finance minister and the agriculture minister (all supporting biotech crops) as well as testimonials of farmers using Bt cotton.
Read the full report at: http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/84529/LATEST%20HEADLINES/Prithvi+used+GM+lobby+data+to+push+Bt+brinjal.html
You can also follow Dinesh C Sharma's blog:
http://columncm.blogspot.com/
RBI wakes to the errant ways of micro-finance
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) seems to be finally taking notice of the usurious micro-finance sector. After the Code of Conduct it had laid down for MFIs several years back, it is surely time RBI brings in strict guidelines for taming the MFIs.
This loot has to be stopped, the sooner the better.
I still don't know how can any sensible person justify 24-36 per cent interest on loans to poor clients. For Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000 loan, the MFIs literally extract its pound of flesh and that too with a pious claim of helping the poor to emerge out of poverty.
It is no less than a crime. The only difference being that you don't use a gun in this case.
Readers would remember sometimes back I had brought to you the successful Akhuwat model from Pakistan. Under this micro-finance model, no interest rate is charged. Instead, community has become a source of continuing funding. In a recent communication from Akhuwat, I am told that over the years through its transparency and accountability, it has gained solid credibility. more funds are pouring in from from individual donors, institutional donors, borrowers (which have gained economic stability through Akhuwat micro-credit schemes) and now even the Government of Pakistan; in particular from Punjab, have shown interest in partnership.
The RBI needs to take a leaf out of the Akhuwat model. It cannot remain a mute spectator while the MFIs fleece the poor with impunity.
I am drawing your attention to an editorial in The Economic Times (Feb 18, 2009). Reading between the lines (and minus the bias for corporates that the business papers are known for), it becomes quite obvious that the RBI is concerned at the MFIs thirst for profits from the poor.
Not quite a micro-issue
Micro-Financing Macro Problems?
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is right to worry about the burgeoning micro-finance sector. A key takeaway from the recent financial crisis is
that systemically large non-bank financial sector players can endanger financial stability. As the US Federal Reserve bailout of the mega US insurance player AIG shows, it is not the banking system alone that can threaten financial stability. Risk can come from non-bank players because of their inter-linkages with the banking system.
In India, though the RBI’s natural caution had kept the non-bank sector under check, extraordinary liquidity facilities had to be provided to mutual funds and to NBFCs in the early days of the crisis, suggesting the RBI cannot relax its vigil over non-bank players. It is in this context that the role of micro-finance institutions (MFIs), particularly profitmaking MFIs, becomes relevant.
This is not to say ‘profit’ is a bad word in micro-finance or that this is only for ‘not-for-profit’ entities. Many banks have partnered with MFIs that provide financial services to high risk segments of the population. Indeed MFIs do a great job in providing credit to sections that are unable to access the formal banking system and need encouragement. Above all, MFIs have shown how lowincome categories are a ‘bankable’ proposition.
However , as pointed out by former RBI governor Y V Reddy, there is a risk of profit-making MFIs being tempted to charge exorbitant rates of interest on loans made from funds lent to them by banks as part of their priority sector commitment. While MFI interest rates, 24-30 %, may seem fairer than the rates charged by the informal sector, ideally, the rate of interest charged should not be out of alignment with the cost of funds, transaction costs, risk costs and a certain margin.
In any case, there is a need for transparency. At present, the scale of bank lending to MFIs is not large enough to endanger the banking system. But it could be a potential source of instability if MFIs go the way of some western financial sector entities and in their search for high returns, lend to sub-prime entities. With sub-prime consequences!
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Not-quite-a-micro-issue-Micro-financing-macro-problems/articleshow/5586091.cms
This loot has to be stopped, the sooner the better.
I still don't know how can any sensible person justify 24-36 per cent interest on loans to poor clients. For Rs 5,000 to Rs 10,000 loan, the MFIs literally extract its pound of flesh and that too with a pious claim of helping the poor to emerge out of poverty.
It is no less than a crime. The only difference being that you don't use a gun in this case.
Readers would remember sometimes back I had brought to you the successful Akhuwat model from Pakistan. Under this micro-finance model, no interest rate is charged. Instead, community has become a source of continuing funding. In a recent communication from Akhuwat, I am told that over the years through its transparency and accountability, it has gained solid credibility. more funds are pouring in from from individual donors, institutional donors, borrowers (which have gained economic stability through Akhuwat micro-credit schemes) and now even the Government of Pakistan; in particular from Punjab, have shown interest in partnership.
The RBI needs to take a leaf out of the Akhuwat model. It cannot remain a mute spectator while the MFIs fleece the poor with impunity.
I am drawing your attention to an editorial in The Economic Times (Feb 18, 2009). Reading between the lines (and minus the bias for corporates that the business papers are known for), it becomes quite obvious that the RBI is concerned at the MFIs thirst for profits from the poor.
Not quite a micro-issue
Micro-Financing Macro Problems?
The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is right to worry about the burgeoning micro-finance sector. A key takeaway from the recent financial crisis is
that systemically large non-bank financial sector players can endanger financial stability. As the US Federal Reserve bailout of the mega US insurance player AIG shows, it is not the banking system alone that can threaten financial stability. Risk can come from non-bank players because of their inter-linkages with the banking system.
In India, though the RBI’s natural caution had kept the non-bank sector under check, extraordinary liquidity facilities had to be provided to mutual funds and to NBFCs in the early days of the crisis, suggesting the RBI cannot relax its vigil over non-bank players. It is in this context that the role of micro-finance institutions (MFIs), particularly profitmaking MFIs, becomes relevant.
This is not to say ‘profit’ is a bad word in micro-finance or that this is only for ‘not-for-profit’ entities. Many banks have partnered with MFIs that provide financial services to high risk segments of the population. Indeed MFIs do a great job in providing credit to sections that are unable to access the formal banking system and need encouragement. Above all, MFIs have shown how lowincome categories are a ‘bankable’ proposition.
However , as pointed out by former RBI governor Y V Reddy, there is a risk of profit-making MFIs being tempted to charge exorbitant rates of interest on loans made from funds lent to them by banks as part of their priority sector commitment. While MFI interest rates, 24-30 %, may seem fairer than the rates charged by the informal sector, ideally, the rate of interest charged should not be out of alignment with the cost of funds, transaction costs, risk costs and a certain margin.
In any case, there is a need for transparency. At present, the scale of bank lending to MFIs is not large enough to endanger the banking system. But it could be a potential source of instability if MFIs go the way of some western financial sector entities and in their search for high returns, lend to sub-prime entities. With sub-prime consequences!
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Opinion/Not-quite-a-micro-issue-Micro-financing-macro-problems/articleshow/5586091.cms
Feb 17, 2010
Biofuels: Driving over the hungry
John Vidal is an intrepid journalist, always on the environment trail. I have admired his work, and in fact I feel he has single-handedly brought environment into the centrestage of the public discourse in the North.
In the morning today, when I opened my newspapers I was drawn to a news report "100 million to go hungry to drive Europe's cars" reproduced from The Guardian. It didn't take me a minute to realise that the byline couldn't be of anyone else but John Vidal. I wasn't wrong.
John Vidal' report is based on a study released by ActionAid yesterday in London. If you remember I had mentioned about this study in my blog yesterday.
Interestingly, New Delhi also hosted the 7th International Biofuels conference yesterday (coinciding with the release of ActionAid's report in London). I didn't know about this conference till I read a detailed report on the d-sector website. As expected, this international conference pleaded to implement biofuels programme urgently. This is nothing new. Whenever businessmen and academicians meet, they only call for policies and decisions that hasten the demise of Planet Earth !
In the evening yesterday, I also attended a roundtable with a Dutch team on how to accelerate trade in agriculture between India and the Netherlands. In my brief presentation I did bring up the subject of farm land grab that is taking place in Africa, Latin America and Asia and on the need to understand the implications of such a massive takeover of land (of the size equivalent of Germany) on international trade in agriculture.
Unfortunately, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is not at all concerned about the land grab. Nor is the WTO willing to open up discussion on the massive bailout packages that have been doled out by the OECD countries (estimated to be around $ 20 trillion) during the economic meltdown and the swing it has provided in favour of the trading companies in the North. The developing countries would be marooned if they do not analyse quickly the implications of the bailout packages before agreeing to complete the unjust Doha Development Round.
I find the G-20 and G-33 countries not even caring to put both these issues on to the negotiating table in WTO. This is not only a reflection of their incompetence but is also indicative of the negotiating-fatigue that has built in over the years. While the developing world simply appears to be tired of the negotiating process, the developed countries are aggressively pushing the trade agenda through the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
Either way, free trade is striking a death knell for the people living in the majority world.
Coming back to the issue of bio-fuels, I am pasting below JohnVidal's news report about hunger and cars. Also, you can read through the report of yesterday's proceedings of the 7th International Biofuels conference beinh held in New Delhi (link provided if you scroll down this post).
100 mllion to go hungry to drive Europe’s cars
By John Vidal
In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and American power.
EU companies have taken millions of acres of land out of food production in Africa, central America and Asia to grow biofuels for transport, according to development campaigners.
The consequences of European biofuel targets, said the report by ActionAid, could be up to 100 million more hungry people, increased food prices and landlessness.
The report says the 2008 decision by EU countries to obtain 10 per cent of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020 is proving disastrous for poor countries. Developing countries are expected to grow nearly two-thirds of the jatropha, sugar cane and palm oil crops that are mostly used for biofuels.
“To meet the EU 10 per cent target, the total land area directly required to grow industrial biofuels in developing countries could reach 17.5m hectares, over half the size of Italy. Additional land will also be required in developed nations, displacing food and animal feed crops onto land in new areas, often in developing countries,” says the report.
Read the full report:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/europe/100-million-to-go-hungry-to-drive-Europe-s-cars/Article1-509645.aspx
Implement biofuels program swiftly
http://www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=983
In the morning today, when I opened my newspapers I was drawn to a news report "100 million to go hungry to drive Europe's cars" reproduced from The Guardian. It didn't take me a minute to realise that the byline couldn't be of anyone else but John Vidal. I wasn't wrong.
John Vidal' report is based on a study released by ActionAid yesterday in London. If you remember I had mentioned about this study in my blog yesterday.
Interestingly, New Delhi also hosted the 7th International Biofuels conference yesterday (coinciding with the release of ActionAid's report in London). I didn't know about this conference till I read a detailed report on the d-sector website. As expected, this international conference pleaded to implement biofuels programme urgently. This is nothing new. Whenever businessmen and academicians meet, they only call for policies and decisions that hasten the demise of Planet Earth !
In the evening yesterday, I also attended a roundtable with a Dutch team on how to accelerate trade in agriculture between India and the Netherlands. In my brief presentation I did bring up the subject of farm land grab that is taking place in Africa, Latin America and Asia and on the need to understand the implications of such a massive takeover of land (of the size equivalent of Germany) on international trade in agriculture.
Unfortunately, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is not at all concerned about the land grab. Nor is the WTO willing to open up discussion on the massive bailout packages that have been doled out by the OECD countries (estimated to be around $ 20 trillion) during the economic meltdown and the swing it has provided in favour of the trading companies in the North. The developing countries would be marooned if they do not analyse quickly the implications of the bailout packages before agreeing to complete the unjust Doha Development Round.
I find the G-20 and G-33 countries not even caring to put both these issues on to the negotiating table in WTO. This is not only a reflection of their incompetence but is also indicative of the negotiating-fatigue that has built in over the years. While the developing world simply appears to be tired of the negotiating process, the developed countries are aggressively pushing the trade agenda through the Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).
Either way, free trade is striking a death knell for the people living in the majority world.
Coming back to the issue of bio-fuels, I am pasting below JohnVidal's news report about hunger and cars. Also, you can read through the report of yesterday's proceedings of the 7th International Biofuels conference beinh held in New Delhi (link provided if you scroll down this post).
100 mllion to go hungry to drive Europe’s cars
By John Vidal
In a federal budget filled with mind-boggling statistics, two numbers stand out as particularly stunning, for the way they may change American politics and American power.
EU companies have taken millions of acres of land out of food production in Africa, central America and Asia to grow biofuels for transport, according to development campaigners.
The consequences of European biofuel targets, said the report by ActionAid, could be up to 100 million more hungry people, increased food prices and landlessness.
The report says the 2008 decision by EU countries to obtain 10 per cent of all transport fuels from biofuels by 2020 is proving disastrous for poor countries. Developing countries are expected to grow nearly two-thirds of the jatropha, sugar cane and palm oil crops that are mostly used for biofuels.
“To meet the EU 10 per cent target, the total land area directly required to grow industrial biofuels in developing countries could reach 17.5m hectares, over half the size of Italy. Additional land will also be required in developed nations, displacing food and animal feed crops onto land in new areas, often in developing countries,” says the report.
Read the full report:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/rssfeed/europe/100-million-to-go-hungry-to-drive-Europe-s-cars/Article1-509645.aspx
Implement biofuels program swiftly
http://www.d-sector.org/article-det.asp?id=983
Feb 16, 2010
The Jatropha bubble is at the verge of bursting
I am not the least surprised. This was bound to happen sooner or later. The 'miracle' crop has failed to deliver. The claims made by investing firms have fallen flat. Reports appearing from across the world now show that more and more farmers are getting disillusioned with jatropha.
India had also jumped on the jatropha bandwagon in haste. You have probably followed reports on this blog earlier. In case you missed it, here is the link: Jatropha seeds fuelling another scandal?
http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/05/biofuels-scandal-jatropha-dream-dying.html
The Independent (Feb 15) now says In India, forecasted annual yields of three to five tonnes of seeds per hectare have been scaled back to 1.8 to two tonnes. It quoted Raju Sona, a farmer in north-east India who gave up land that usually produces vegetables to grow jatropha, said: "No one will buy jatropha. People said if you have a plantation then surely you have a good market. But we didn't see such a market. I threw the seeds away."
The Ecologist cites land evictions in India and people being forced to grow jatropha in Burma as particularly problematic. You can see The Ecologist report at http://bit.ly/cOtWf9
I bring you The Independent report below:
Seeds of discontent: the 'miracle' crop that has failed to deliver
A new 'ethical' biofuel is damaging the impoverished people it was supposed to help\
By Cahal Milmo and Andrew Wasley
A "miracle" plant, once thought to be as the answer to producing renewable biofuels on a vast scale, is driving thousands of farmers in the developing world into food poverty, a damning report concludes today.
Five years ago jatropha was hailed by investors and scientists as a breakthrough in the battle to find a biofuel alternative to fossil fuels that would not further impoverish developing countries by diverting resources away from food production.
Jatropha was said to be resistant to drought and pests and able could grow on land that was unsuitable for food production. But researchers have found that it has increased poverty in countries including India and Tanzania.
Millions of the plants have been grown in anticipation of rich returns, only for growers to be hit by poor yields, conflict over land and a lack of infrastructure to process the oil-rich seeds.
Oil giant BP, which planned to spend almost £32m on a joint venture to set up jatropha plantations, has now pulled out and the charity ActionAid today warns that jatropha needs to be cultivated on prime food-growing land to produce significant yields.
According to one estimate, up to one million hectares of jatropha – an area equivalent to Devon and Cornwall combined – are being cultivated around the globe, despite little evidence that it can produce enough oil to make the crop commercially sustainable.
Read the full report at http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/tim-rice-the-growing-concerns-about-jatropha-1899531.html
India had also jumped on the jatropha bandwagon in haste. You have probably followed reports on this blog earlier. In case you missed it, here is the link: Jatropha seeds fuelling another scandal?
http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/05/biofuels-scandal-jatropha-dream-dying.html
The Independent (Feb 15) now says In India, forecasted annual yields of three to five tonnes of seeds per hectare have been scaled back to 1.8 to two tonnes. It quoted Raju Sona, a farmer in north-east India who gave up land that usually produces vegetables to grow jatropha, said: "No one will buy jatropha. People said if you have a plantation then surely you have a good market. But we didn't see such a market. I threw the seeds away."
The Ecologist cites land evictions in India and people being forced to grow jatropha in Burma as particularly problematic. You can see The Ecologist report at http://bit.ly/cOtWf9
I bring you The Independent report below:
Seeds of discontent: the 'miracle' crop that has failed to deliver
A new 'ethical' biofuel is damaging the impoverished people it was supposed to help\
By Cahal Milmo and Andrew Wasley
A "miracle" plant, once thought to be as the answer to producing renewable biofuels on a vast scale, is driving thousands of farmers in the developing world into food poverty, a damning report concludes today.
Five years ago jatropha was hailed by investors and scientists as a breakthrough in the battle to find a biofuel alternative to fossil fuels that would not further impoverish developing countries by diverting resources away from food production.
Jatropha was said to be resistant to drought and pests and able could grow on land that was unsuitable for food production. But researchers have found that it has increased poverty in countries including India and Tanzania.
Millions of the plants have been grown in anticipation of rich returns, only for growers to be hit by poor yields, conflict over land and a lack of infrastructure to process the oil-rich seeds.
Oil giant BP, which planned to spend almost £32m on a joint venture to set up jatropha plantations, has now pulled out and the charity ActionAid today warns that jatropha needs to be cultivated on prime food-growing land to produce significant yields.
According to one estimate, up to one million hectares of jatropha – an area equivalent to Devon and Cornwall combined – are being cultivated around the globe, despite little evidence that it can produce enough oil to make the crop commercially sustainable.
Read the full report at http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/tim-rice-the-growing-concerns-about-jatropha-1899531.html
Feb 15, 2010
GM Crops: All that you want to know but were never told
Brinjal is in the eye of a storm. With the Environment & Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh putting a moratorium on the introduction of what could have been India’s first genetically modified food crop – Bt brinjal -- the nation has been saved from a poisonous food.
Based on a wide ranging public consultations held across the country, Jairam Ramesh’s decision has also come as an indictment of the scientific regulatory process. At the same time, the Minister has for the first time questioned the need to go in for Bt brinjal when there were other alternatives, much safer environmentally and for human health, available.
As expected, the historic decision has opened up a can of worms. Agricultural scientists and the private seed companies have come under a clout, and therefore an orchestrated media campaign has been launched. It is therefore important to explain some of the hotly debated aspects of the decision, which are getting lost in the media trial. Let me answer some of the frequently asked questions.
Bt brinjal and GM crops are important for a country which has more than 1 billion people to feed.
There is no GM crop in the world which increases productivity. In fact, most of the GM crops we have actually reduce productivity. The US Department of Agriculture admits that the productivity of GM corn and GM soya is less than that of the normal varieties.
There is no shortage of food in the world. We have 6.5 billion people on Earth, and we produce food for 11.5 billion people. If more than 1 billion people are going to bed hungry globally, it is because of the faulty distribution process rather than the unavailability of food. The same holds true for India, where one third of the population cannot even buy food that is available. Poor people find it even difficult to but wheat and rice at Rs 2 a kilo. The question therefore is not of production but access and distribution.
Bt brinjal increases productivity. So why stop it?
First, Bt cotton was also released under a false pretext of increasing productivity. Now we are being told that Bt brinjal will increase crop yield. This is not true. Bt gene acts like a pesticide, and therefore only reduces crop losses. It acts more or less like a chemical pesticide which is sprayed from outside, whereas Bt produces a toxin within the plant.
If the Bt gene increases productivity, we should also accept that chemical pesticides increase productivity. Why do scientists not accept that chemical pesticides increase productivity? But in case of Bt crops, they don’t mind creating a false illusion to misguide the farmer.
How can Bt brinjal adversely affect farmers?
Bt is a biological pesticide. It releases poison in the plant. It has been established that compared to Bt biopesticide sprays, the concentration of Bt toxin in Bt brinjal is one thousand times more. Bt biopesticide sprays are harmful, imagine the impact Bt brinjal toxin will have on the environment.
Bt crops releases a toxin in soil through the roots. It has adversely affected beneficial soil microflora, and studies at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) have proved this. There have been animal deaths from grazing on Bt cotton leaves in Andhra Pradesh, and Haryana. The GEAC has simply brushed this aside even though the Andhra Animal husbandry department has warned farmers not to let their livestock graze in Bt cotton fields.
Genetically modified crops also create superweeds, which are not controlled by any chemical. Georgia province in America is fast turning into a wasteland due to massive infestation of superweeds. World-over, 26 countries are now facing the menace of superweeds. GM crops also destroy biodiversity by contamination. India is the Centre of Origin for brinjal, and therefore needs to be more than cautious.
Bt is supposed to kill sucking pests like pink bollworm in cotton, and fruit and shoot borer in brinjal, thereby reduce pesticides consumption. This however does not hold true for long. In China, which was promoted as a silver-bullet case, cotton farmers growing Bt cotton are now reported to be spraying 8 per cent more pesticides and thereby incurring losses. Resurgence of secondary pests has been observed in China (like mealy bug in Punjab) as a result of which farmer’s total usage of pesticides increases. This report is based on a study conducted by the Cornell University.
In India too, insects are developing resistance to Bt cotton. That is why the need to bring in Bollgard-II with two Bt genes. But no scientific study is being undertaken on pest resistance in Bt cotton.
Even in America, where herbicide-tolerant crops are prevalent, the usage of herbicides has increased. There are several USDA reports stating this.
Bt crops are safe for human consumption. So why are people expressing concern?
Numerous experiments all over the world have shown that Bt in particular and GM in general poses tremendous health risks. Even Monsanto's own studies on rats in Europe have demonstrated that the animals have terrible problems with their body organs- kidney, liver, pancreas, blood etc, and also can result in serious diseases and allergies. Some studies in Austria have recently shown that GM also leads to infertility.
All those scientists who dared to question the human safety aspect were hounded out of their jobs by the proponents of the GM industry. The only human safety trial conducted so far establishes that the alien gene in the human body does transfer to the gut bacteria. This can have serious implications. But no further tests are allowed to be conducted anywhere in the world on human safety.
The concentration of Bt gene in the plant is one thousand times more than what is normally in the Bt biopesticide sprays, which means Bt brinjal is one thousand times more poisonous than the Bt sprays. If Bt biopesticide sprays can kill insects, imagine what would happen to human bodies after consuming food that has one thousand times more toxins inside.
These deformities can pass on from generation to generation, like some studies on pesticides have now shown.
But the GEAC, the regulatory authority, had conducted enough tests on human safety. So why worry?
Adequate scientific tests to determine human safety of the genetically modified food were not performed. Instead of the 29 tests that should be conducted before GM food is allowed to be served, the GEAC had expressed ‘satisfaction’ with some 4 to 5 tests and that “too done in a shoddy manner. Interestingly, the GEAC says that it had conducted tests as per the international protocols, but the fact is that there are no accepted international scientific protocols so far.
Even in tests on rats, the tests have been conducted only on ten rats for 90 days. The results show that the rats did suffer serious abnormalities in kidney, liver and blood. These have been simply brushed aside as ‘biologically insignificant’. This is shocking considering that Bt gene releases poison in the plant. How can the GEAC simply ignore the health abnormalities seen in rats, even if it is on one rat?
The normal life span of rats, corresponding with the human beings, is for 2 years. Since it has now been found that the impact of chemical pesticides for instance are passed on from generation to generation, and are even felt in the third generation, the human safety tests for Bt brinjal need to conducted for several generations. After all, we are going to eat Bt brinjal all through our life. How can its safety be determined by rat studies for only 90 days and that too inconclusively?
Dr M S Swaminathan has himself said that smoking cigarettes for 2-3 weeks does not cause cancer. To know whether smoking cigarettes can cause cancer you have to tests for several generations. Why is the industry not willing to perform tests for several generations in rats to know the health impacts from continuously consuming genetically modified crops?
GEAC is an expert committee. Why doubt the recommendations of the expert committee?
The GEAC recommendations were rigged. The GEAC had set up an Expert Committee –II (called EC-II) which had some members who were also involved in developing Bt crops. This was a sure case where a conflict of interest was evident. How can people who develop GM crops also sit on the approval process?
The norms and bylaws of the EC-II were lowered to suit the interests of the private seed companies. All experiments were conducted by the private companies, and the GEAC had accepted the data provided by the private seed company. Let us also not forget that the private seed company had refused to share the analysis with the general public, and it was only after the Supreme Court’s directive that the research data was made public.
The entire regulatory process is a sham. Jairam Ramesh’s decision is clearly an indictment of the GEAC. The report is full of unscientific and inaccuracies. At the same time, the report blatantly ignores the dangerous impact of Bt brinjal on the body organs of rats and other animals, and also the environment. The chairman of EC-II himself has said that he is not sure of the health impact of Bt brinjal.
Let us have an open and trasparent debate on the regulatory process. If the GEAC decision is found to be wrong and unscientific, the chairman of GEAC should be put behind bars. After all, we cannot allow anyone to play havoc with the lives of the masses.
Farmers are better judge of a technology. Why not leave Bt brinjal as an option for the farmers to use, if he finds it useful?
This is a joke. If we leave harmful technologies in the hands of people, the world would die an unnatural death sooner than later. Cigarette smoking for instance cannot be left to people. Even though every packet contains a bold statement 'cigarette smoking in injurious to health' and yet its sales goes on increasing. Because it was unhealthy and dangerous, governments have stepped in and banned its usage in public places. Was that a wrong decision?
Similarly, GM crops cannot be left to the farmers to decide as an option. Farmer too gets lured by the marketing blitz of the companies. The entire State machinery -- Agri Universities, Farm extension depts, companies and the media have been promoting GM crops. With such a powerful marketing blitz how do you expect the farmer to make informed choices? Also, if the farmer was so sensible, the usage of chemical pesticides should not have multiplied to the present dangerous levels?
Already farmers are committing suicide because of the faulty technologies imposed upon them. How many more farmers do we want to be killed before stopping the killer technologies from being used?
Based on a wide ranging public consultations held across the country, Jairam Ramesh’s decision has also come as an indictment of the scientific regulatory process. At the same time, the Minister has for the first time questioned the need to go in for Bt brinjal when there were other alternatives, much safer environmentally and for human health, available.
As expected, the historic decision has opened up a can of worms. Agricultural scientists and the private seed companies have come under a clout, and therefore an orchestrated media campaign has been launched. It is therefore important to explain some of the hotly debated aspects of the decision, which are getting lost in the media trial. Let me answer some of the frequently asked questions.
Bt brinjal and GM crops are important for a country which has more than 1 billion people to feed.
There is no GM crop in the world which increases productivity. In fact, most of the GM crops we have actually reduce productivity. The US Department of Agriculture admits that the productivity of GM corn and GM soya is less than that of the normal varieties.
There is no shortage of food in the world. We have 6.5 billion people on Earth, and we produce food for 11.5 billion people. If more than 1 billion people are going to bed hungry globally, it is because of the faulty distribution process rather than the unavailability of food. The same holds true for India, where one third of the population cannot even buy food that is available. Poor people find it even difficult to but wheat and rice at Rs 2 a kilo. The question therefore is not of production but access and distribution.
Bt brinjal increases productivity. So why stop it?
First, Bt cotton was also released under a false pretext of increasing productivity. Now we are being told that Bt brinjal will increase crop yield. This is not true. Bt gene acts like a pesticide, and therefore only reduces crop losses. It acts more or less like a chemical pesticide which is sprayed from outside, whereas Bt produces a toxin within the plant.
If the Bt gene increases productivity, we should also accept that chemical pesticides increase productivity. Why do scientists not accept that chemical pesticides increase productivity? But in case of Bt crops, they don’t mind creating a false illusion to misguide the farmer.
How can Bt brinjal adversely affect farmers?
Bt is a biological pesticide. It releases poison in the plant. It has been established that compared to Bt biopesticide sprays, the concentration of Bt toxin in Bt brinjal is one thousand times more. Bt biopesticide sprays are harmful, imagine the impact Bt brinjal toxin will have on the environment.
Bt crops releases a toxin in soil through the roots. It has adversely affected beneficial soil microflora, and studies at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) have proved this. There have been animal deaths from grazing on Bt cotton leaves in Andhra Pradesh, and Haryana. The GEAC has simply brushed this aside even though the Andhra Animal husbandry department has warned farmers not to let their livestock graze in Bt cotton fields.
Genetically modified crops also create superweeds, which are not controlled by any chemical. Georgia province in America is fast turning into a wasteland due to massive infestation of superweeds. World-over, 26 countries are now facing the menace of superweeds. GM crops also destroy biodiversity by contamination. India is the Centre of Origin for brinjal, and therefore needs to be more than cautious.
Bt is supposed to kill sucking pests like pink bollworm in cotton, and fruit and shoot borer in brinjal, thereby reduce pesticides consumption. This however does not hold true for long. In China, which was promoted as a silver-bullet case, cotton farmers growing Bt cotton are now reported to be spraying 8 per cent more pesticides and thereby incurring losses. Resurgence of secondary pests has been observed in China (like mealy bug in Punjab) as a result of which farmer’s total usage of pesticides increases. This report is based on a study conducted by the Cornell University.
In India too, insects are developing resistance to Bt cotton. That is why the need to bring in Bollgard-II with two Bt genes. But no scientific study is being undertaken on pest resistance in Bt cotton.
Even in America, where herbicide-tolerant crops are prevalent, the usage of herbicides has increased. There are several USDA reports stating this.
Bt crops are safe for human consumption. So why are people expressing concern?
Numerous experiments all over the world have shown that Bt in particular and GM in general poses tremendous health risks. Even Monsanto's own studies on rats in Europe have demonstrated that the animals have terrible problems with their body organs- kidney, liver, pancreas, blood etc, and also can result in serious diseases and allergies. Some studies in Austria have recently shown that GM also leads to infertility.
All those scientists who dared to question the human safety aspect were hounded out of their jobs by the proponents of the GM industry. The only human safety trial conducted so far establishes that the alien gene in the human body does transfer to the gut bacteria. This can have serious implications. But no further tests are allowed to be conducted anywhere in the world on human safety.
The concentration of Bt gene in the plant is one thousand times more than what is normally in the Bt biopesticide sprays, which means Bt brinjal is one thousand times more poisonous than the Bt sprays. If Bt biopesticide sprays can kill insects, imagine what would happen to human bodies after consuming food that has one thousand times more toxins inside.
These deformities can pass on from generation to generation, like some studies on pesticides have now shown.
But the GEAC, the regulatory authority, had conducted enough tests on human safety. So why worry?
Adequate scientific tests to determine human safety of the genetically modified food were not performed. Instead of the 29 tests that should be conducted before GM food is allowed to be served, the GEAC had expressed ‘satisfaction’ with some 4 to 5 tests and that “too done in a shoddy manner. Interestingly, the GEAC says that it had conducted tests as per the international protocols, but the fact is that there are no accepted international scientific protocols so far.
Even in tests on rats, the tests have been conducted only on ten rats for 90 days. The results show that the rats did suffer serious abnormalities in kidney, liver and blood. These have been simply brushed aside as ‘biologically insignificant’. This is shocking considering that Bt gene releases poison in the plant. How can the GEAC simply ignore the health abnormalities seen in rats, even if it is on one rat?
The normal life span of rats, corresponding with the human beings, is for 2 years. Since it has now been found that the impact of chemical pesticides for instance are passed on from generation to generation, and are even felt in the third generation, the human safety tests for Bt brinjal need to conducted for several generations. After all, we are going to eat Bt brinjal all through our life. How can its safety be determined by rat studies for only 90 days and that too inconclusively?
Dr M S Swaminathan has himself said that smoking cigarettes for 2-3 weeks does not cause cancer. To know whether smoking cigarettes can cause cancer you have to tests for several generations. Why is the industry not willing to perform tests for several generations in rats to know the health impacts from continuously consuming genetically modified crops?
GEAC is an expert committee. Why doubt the recommendations of the expert committee?
The GEAC recommendations were rigged. The GEAC had set up an Expert Committee –II (called EC-II) which had some members who were also involved in developing Bt crops. This was a sure case where a conflict of interest was evident. How can people who develop GM crops also sit on the approval process?
The norms and bylaws of the EC-II were lowered to suit the interests of the private seed companies. All experiments were conducted by the private companies, and the GEAC had accepted the data provided by the private seed company. Let us also not forget that the private seed company had refused to share the analysis with the general public, and it was only after the Supreme Court’s directive that the research data was made public.
The entire regulatory process is a sham. Jairam Ramesh’s decision is clearly an indictment of the GEAC. The report is full of unscientific and inaccuracies. At the same time, the report blatantly ignores the dangerous impact of Bt brinjal on the body organs of rats and other animals, and also the environment. The chairman of EC-II himself has said that he is not sure of the health impact of Bt brinjal.
Let us have an open and trasparent debate on the regulatory process. If the GEAC decision is found to be wrong and unscientific, the chairman of GEAC should be put behind bars. After all, we cannot allow anyone to play havoc with the lives of the masses.
Farmers are better judge of a technology. Why not leave Bt brinjal as an option for the farmers to use, if he finds it useful?
This is a joke. If we leave harmful technologies in the hands of people, the world would die an unnatural death sooner than later. Cigarette smoking for instance cannot be left to people. Even though every packet contains a bold statement 'cigarette smoking in injurious to health' and yet its sales goes on increasing. Because it was unhealthy and dangerous, governments have stepped in and banned its usage in public places. Was that a wrong decision?
Similarly, GM crops cannot be left to the farmers to decide as an option. Farmer too gets lured by the marketing blitz of the companies. The entire State machinery -- Agri Universities, Farm extension depts, companies and the media have been promoting GM crops. With such a powerful marketing blitz how do you expect the farmer to make informed choices? Also, if the farmer was so sensible, the usage of chemical pesticides should not have multiplied to the present dangerous levels?
Already farmers are committing suicide because of the faulty technologies imposed upon them. How many more farmers do we want to be killed before stopping the killer technologies from being used?
Feb 12, 2010
As I bid adieu to 'Coalition for GM Free India', The Economist acknowledges its role
For quite some time, I had been thinking of saying goodbye to the 'Coalition for GM Free India'. I know it is not easy to leave an organisation/grouping that one has put together with lot of care and nurtured it over the years but there comes a time when one must leave it to those who have grown as we moved forward.
I would have said goodbye much earlier but the quick turn of events made me realise that I still had an incomplete task on hand. We all worked very hard, and finally with the Environment & Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh announcing a moratorium on Bt brinjal the other day, I think this is the right time for me to call it a day.
It is time for me to move on.
I take this opportunity to thank each and every colleague, and wish you still more success in the days ahead. Only a few days back I had traced the history and evolution of the 'Coalition for GM Free India' in one of my blogs. I had also applauded the role played by all of you. The only word of caution I have for you is to see through the efforts that are being made (and will be made more aggressively in future) to take control of this amazing Coalition. If you allow yourself to be dictated, and play in the hands of the divisive forces, the future of the Coalition will be doomed sooner than later.
Thank you very much once again.
Meanwhile, here is a very interesting and quite a true account from The Economist on how the 'Coalition for GM Free India' galvanized the nation, creating awareness and building peoples' resistance to a risky and harmful technology.
India and GM food
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15498385
Without modification
A setback for GM in India
Feb 11th 2010 | BANGALORE | From The Economist print edition
HUNDREDS of farmers in long, faded cotton sarongs swarmed outside an auditorium at Bangalore University on February 6th. They were waiting for India’s Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh. This was the last of his public consultations on the commercial release of Bt Brinjal, a genetically modified (GM) aubergine, created by Mahyco, an Indian hybrid-seed company, and Monsanto, an American biotech giant. Waving placards and appetising images of aubergines, known in India as brinjal, they shouted themselves hoarse praising the transgenic vegetable.
But most of these men, registered at the consultation as farmers, were in fact landless labourers with no aubergine experience. Mr Ramesh was the first to call their bluff. The companies, he said, without naming any, had bussed farmers from rural districts, to play the pro-GM crowd at the hearing that day.
The tactic failed miserably. On February 10th Mr Ramesh announced that he would not allow Bt Brinjal to be grown or consumed in India until independent studies could show that it would have no adverse impact on human health, the environment or biodiversity. This overruled the recommendation last October by India’s Genetically Engineered Approvals Committee (GEAC) that Bt Brinjal was safe, in spite of being modified with a gene from the soil bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis.
Mr Ramesh’s seven-city roadshow to canvas public views was unusual. And many were surprised at his decision to snub the seed companies and powerful domestic and American biotech lobbies. GM crops have always been highly controversial in India. But they already account for about 85% of the cotton grown there. Supporters claim that Bt Brinjal could cut losses from insect damage by over 50%, and pesticide usage by 80%.
The moratorium is a victory for what has become India’s first nationwide anti-GM movement. After the GEAC judgment, consumers, medical groups, farmers and state governments mobilised at once to campaign against Bt Brinjal. Hindu-nationalist and Communist politicians rallied to the unmodified brinjal’s cause. Anti-GM groups cried foul over India’s lack of an independent biosafety regulator. They also argued that the guidelines for trials of GM foods are flawed and that studies revealing more about the long-term health dangers had been ignored.
Environmental groups claimed Bt Brinjal might, through cross-pollination, wipe out thousands of indigenous brinjal varieties. Throughout November and December the “Coalition for a GM-Free India”, grouping more than 100 NGOs from 15 states, campaigned at village councils and farmers’ meetings, political rallies and in the non-English press and blogosphere. They held countless protests, fasts and educational drives in public schools.
The crucial step, however, was to enlist the support of the chief ministers of the state governments—a requirement the seed companies seem to have overlooked Under India’s federal constitution, agriculture is a “state subject”. States have the authority to regulate the planting or importing of GM crops. In mid-January the states, one after another, began to declare themselves against the release of Bt Brinjal. With nearly half of India’s 29 states opposed, “a lack of consensus in the scientific community” and an unusually well-organised national protest movement, Mr Ramesh, said his official statement, felt obliged to be “responsible to science and responsive to society” and impose an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal.
I would have said goodbye much earlier but the quick turn of events made me realise that I still had an incomplete task on hand. We all worked very hard, and finally with the Environment & Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh announcing a moratorium on Bt brinjal the other day, I think this is the right time for me to call it a day.
It is time for me to move on.
I take this opportunity to thank each and every colleague, and wish you still more success in the days ahead. Only a few days back I had traced the history and evolution of the 'Coalition for GM Free India' in one of my blogs. I had also applauded the role played by all of you. The only word of caution I have for you is to see through the efforts that are being made (and will be made more aggressively in future) to take control of this amazing Coalition. If you allow yourself to be dictated, and play in the hands of the divisive forces, the future of the Coalition will be doomed sooner than later.
Thank you very much once again.
Meanwhile, here is a very interesting and quite a true account from The Economist on how the 'Coalition for GM Free India' galvanized the nation, creating awareness and building peoples' resistance to a risky and harmful technology.
India and GM food
http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15498385
Without modification
A setback for GM in India
Feb 11th 2010 | BANGALORE | From The Economist print edition
HUNDREDS of farmers in long, faded cotton sarongs swarmed outside an auditorium at Bangalore University on February 6th. They were waiting for India’s Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh. This was the last of his public consultations on the commercial release of Bt Brinjal, a genetically modified (GM) aubergine, created by Mahyco, an Indian hybrid-seed company, and Monsanto, an American biotech giant. Waving placards and appetising images of aubergines, known in India as brinjal, they shouted themselves hoarse praising the transgenic vegetable.
But most of these men, registered at the consultation as farmers, were in fact landless labourers with no aubergine experience. Mr Ramesh was the first to call their bluff. The companies, he said, without naming any, had bussed farmers from rural districts, to play the pro-GM crowd at the hearing that day.
The tactic failed miserably. On February 10th Mr Ramesh announced that he would not allow Bt Brinjal to be grown or consumed in India until independent studies could show that it would have no adverse impact on human health, the environment or biodiversity. This overruled the recommendation last October by India’s Genetically Engineered Approvals Committee (GEAC) that Bt Brinjal was safe, in spite of being modified with a gene from the soil bacterium, bacillus thuringiensis.
Mr Ramesh’s seven-city roadshow to canvas public views was unusual. And many were surprised at his decision to snub the seed companies and powerful domestic and American biotech lobbies. GM crops have always been highly controversial in India. But they already account for about 85% of the cotton grown there. Supporters claim that Bt Brinjal could cut losses from insect damage by over 50%, and pesticide usage by 80%.
The moratorium is a victory for what has become India’s first nationwide anti-GM movement. After the GEAC judgment, consumers, medical groups, farmers and state governments mobilised at once to campaign against Bt Brinjal. Hindu-nationalist and Communist politicians rallied to the unmodified brinjal’s cause. Anti-GM groups cried foul over India’s lack of an independent biosafety regulator. They also argued that the guidelines for trials of GM foods are flawed and that studies revealing more about the long-term health dangers had been ignored.
Environmental groups claimed Bt Brinjal might, through cross-pollination, wipe out thousands of indigenous brinjal varieties. Throughout November and December the “Coalition for a GM-Free India”, grouping more than 100 NGOs from 15 states, campaigned at village councils and farmers’ meetings, political rallies and in the non-English press and blogosphere. They held countless protests, fasts and educational drives in public schools.
The crucial step, however, was to enlist the support of the chief ministers of the state governments—a requirement the seed companies seem to have overlooked Under India’s federal constitution, agriculture is a “state subject”. States have the authority to regulate the planting or importing of GM crops. In mid-January the states, one after another, began to declare themselves against the release of Bt Brinjal. With nearly half of India’s 29 states opposed, “a lack of consensus in the scientific community” and an unusually well-organised national protest movement, Mr Ramesh, said his official statement, felt obliged to be “responsible to science and responsive to society” and impose an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal.
Feb 11, 2010
Sugar Destroys Our Health
Utusan Konsumer, a publication from the formidable group -- Consumer Association of Penang (in Malaysia) -- has in its latest edition published a four page pullout on sugar. As you would see from the poster above, it lists out the number of teaspoonfuls (tsp) of sugar in some of the popular brands of foods and drinks.
In another poster, which I found it difficult to extract, it says: Sugar Destroys Our Health and lists more than 60 ailments linked to sugar. Some of the important ailments are: cancer, diabetes, obesity, heart disease, arthritis, gall-stones, asthma, chromium deficiency, premature ageing, high cholestrol, high blood pressure, migraine, and Parkinson's disease.
If you recall, sometime back, I had written an article on the need to reduce sugar consumption. I think it is time again to tell people to stop consuming sugar if they care for their own health and also that of their family. The sugar industry has of course been building up political pressure to ensure more sugar is made available at a cheaper price for the consumer. But we, as a discerning consumer, have to be cautious enough to see what more sugar consumption means for us.
Sugar is a slow poison. Avoid sugar if you want to live long and healthy. The choice is yours.
Regarding my article on sugar, if you missed reading it, here it is:
Sweet Mass Poison
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/main-article_sweet-mass-poison_1285985
If 'paid news' is bad for democracy, how come 'paid science' is not
I received an angry call early in the morning today. The caller, a housewife from New Delhi, wanted me to do 'something' to stop newspapers from a vicious campaign to discredit Environment & Forest Minister Jairam Ramesh. "Some newspapers are black-mailing the nation, forcing poisonous food down our throat," she blurted.
"Look, without any shame, these newspapers are saying that the scientists were not heard in the national consultations," and then without any pause, she added: "The GEAC had only heard them, and that is why its scandalous verdict was based on the flawed scientific thinking. ... How can they be so dumb?'
Howsoever I tried to calm her, she was not willing. She was livid, and I could sense the reason for her justifiable anger. Finally, when I told her that we are living in an era when 'paid news' is becoming the norm, she asked: "Oh, you mean you can publish news reports by paying money?"
"Yes", I replied.
"How much would it cost me if we were to also buy news space? she asked.
"Well, why don't you call the editor and ask him?" I told her.
"Oh dear ! How can I ever match the MNCs or the private companies when it comes to paying money?" she said quite helplessly, and then hung up.
I picked up my morning newspapers, and it didn't take me much time to realise why the lady felt outraged. It was only after I was through with my morning chores, and sat down in my terrace to soak a little bit in the sun, with a hot cup of tea in hand, I again opened the newspapers for some serious reading. Tucked in the inner pages of The Hindu I read an interesting report on the new and dominating phenomenon of 'paid news.'
The Hyderabad-dated news report Paid news harming democracy itself, says Press Council states: "The sub-committee constituted by the Press Council of India to examine the phenomenon of 'paid news' during the recent Lok Sabha elections has expressed concern that some media organisations which are expected to set standards have themselves taken the lead in accepting money for the publication of news."
"The paid news phenomenon is not only eroding the confidence of the people in the media, but is hurting and harming democracy itself," sub-committee member Pranjoy Guha Thakurta was quoted as saying in the report. Mr Thakurta was also quoted saying the examination of the phenomenon posed a big problem as "there will be no material evidence and whatever is available is circumstantial." There is no cheque payment and the receipts the panel managed to get were not genuine, he added.
Now I am not suggesting that the orchestrated media reports that we see are 'paid' but certainly you can not rule out the possibility. We also know that many media houses have got into collaboration with business houses in the name of marketing and promotion.
Well, this also takes me back to another phenomenon that the world is increasingly witnessing (and not only in India). This is the phenomenon of 'paid science'.
Just think. When a private company invests money in a particular research subject, its interest is obviously to ensure that the final product is commercialised. Under the so-called public-private partnership (PPP) in research, the private company makes an investment only in that kind of research where it expects profits to flow. We have ample examples when the data is manipulated or shrouded under cover by these private companies. We also have numerous examples of how the companies tailor their research to suit a specific objective.
Well, shouldn't that be called 'paid science'?
If 'paid news' is bad for the democracy, I wonder how 'paid science' is acceptable. Or is it that we didn't ever think of private investment in science as 'paid science'.
"Look, without any shame, these newspapers are saying that the scientists were not heard in the national consultations," and then without any pause, she added: "The GEAC had only heard them, and that is why its scandalous verdict was based on the flawed scientific thinking. ... How can they be so dumb?'
Howsoever I tried to calm her, she was not willing. She was livid, and I could sense the reason for her justifiable anger. Finally, when I told her that we are living in an era when 'paid news' is becoming the norm, she asked: "Oh, you mean you can publish news reports by paying money?"
"Yes", I replied.
"How much would it cost me if we were to also buy news space? she asked.
"Well, why don't you call the editor and ask him?" I told her.
"Oh dear ! How can I ever match the MNCs or the private companies when it comes to paying money?" she said quite helplessly, and then hung up.
I picked up my morning newspapers, and it didn't take me much time to realise why the lady felt outraged. It was only after I was through with my morning chores, and sat down in my terrace to soak a little bit in the sun, with a hot cup of tea in hand, I again opened the newspapers for some serious reading. Tucked in the inner pages of The Hindu I read an interesting report on the new and dominating phenomenon of 'paid news.'
The Hyderabad-dated news report Paid news harming democracy itself, says Press Council states: "The sub-committee constituted by the Press Council of India to examine the phenomenon of 'paid news' during the recent Lok Sabha elections has expressed concern that some media organisations which are expected to set standards have themselves taken the lead in accepting money for the publication of news."
"The paid news phenomenon is not only eroding the confidence of the people in the media, but is hurting and harming democracy itself," sub-committee member Pranjoy Guha Thakurta was quoted as saying in the report. Mr Thakurta was also quoted saying the examination of the phenomenon posed a big problem as "there will be no material evidence and whatever is available is circumstantial." There is no cheque payment and the receipts the panel managed to get were not genuine, he added.
Now I am not suggesting that the orchestrated media reports that we see are 'paid' but certainly you can not rule out the possibility. We also know that many media houses have got into collaboration with business houses in the name of marketing and promotion.
Well, this also takes me back to another phenomenon that the world is increasingly witnessing (and not only in India). This is the phenomenon of 'paid science'.
Just think. When a private company invests money in a particular research subject, its interest is obviously to ensure that the final product is commercialised. Under the so-called public-private partnership (PPP) in research, the private company makes an investment only in that kind of research where it expects profits to flow. We have ample examples when the data is manipulated or shrouded under cover by these private companies. We also have numerous examples of how the companies tailor their research to suit a specific objective.
Well, shouldn't that be called 'paid science'?
If 'paid news' is bad for the democracy, I wonder how 'paid science' is acceptable. Or is it that we didn't ever think of private investment in science as 'paid science'.
Feb 10, 2010
Bt brinjal: Good sense prevails over bad science
As I sat glued to the television set, waiting impatiently for the final word on the contentious Bt brinjal approval, my thoughts wandered to a scene from a popular TV show Kaun Banega Carorepati. I found myself sitting in the hot seat, waiting for the response from the host of the show (Minister for Environment & Forests Jairam Ramesh replacing the iconic Amitabh Bachchan in my thoughts).
I can now imagine the mental tension that Harshvardhan (I guess that was probably the name of the person who won Rs One crore) must have undergone before Amitabh Bachchan exclaimed: You have made history !
No sooner the Breaking News flashed on the screen: India says No to Bt brinjal, I heard Jairam Ramesh in my dream sequence getting up from his seat and exclaiming the magical words You have made history before hugging me (representing the Coalition for GM Free India).
Yes, it truly is a historic decision. It is a triumph of good sense over bad science.
As Jairam Ramesh enshrines his name permanently in history, for the exemplary courage he demonstrated in standing up for truth and honesty, for putting society before mad science, for protecting environment from genetic pollution, and thereby showing the pathway for a better world, I am sure the ripples would be felt across the continents.
Jairam Ramesh has done what Michael Meacher, the former Environment Minister of UK had tried to do, but was summarily removed by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair before he could strike the last nail. I am sure my friend Michael Meacher must be today very proud of Jairam Ramesh.
Anyway, the phone hasn't stopped ringing since then. I am no exception, all my colleagues and friends in different parts of the country too have been inundated with calls and messages. Even our friends in the media (except for a few industry takers) are thrilled. The response from the people for a just cause has been simply overwhelming. It has given us tremendous hope, and reinforces confidence at a time when everything looks so bleak.
While the celebrations were on, a friend from the media called and reminded me of what I must have said after the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) had accorded environment clearance for Bt brinjal on Oct 14, 2009. Accordingly, when he had told me that with the GEAC giving the nod, and nothing can be done now, I had replied: "Don't worry, Main Hoon Naa."
My conviction came from the strength that the Coalition for GM Free India provided. I think it is important to acknowledge the role the Coalition played in building up a nationwide campaign over the years. It has been a relentless struggle, often exasperating, at times frustrating, to forge on with the single objective of creating wider awareness about the dangers of the risky and harmful transgenic technology. Behind the euphoria that we witness today lies the strenuous but quiet role the Coalition for GM Free India played, a loose network of people and groups who believe in good science, who believe in building sustainable livelihoods, protecting and conserving biodiversity, and restoring the pride in farming.
The journey actually began four years ago, on Jan 26, 2006. I had gone to deliver a public lecture on WTO and agriculture at Thiruvanthapuram in Kerala. It was there that I suggested to Jayakumar, head of a local NGO -- Thanal -- that we need to bring some like-minded groups and people together on the issue of agriculture. We need to form a national alliance of people who are striving to work for sustainable agriculture, which in our thinking is the surest way to ameliorate poverty and hunger.
In the next few months we were able to identify a few NGOs/groups across the country, who we thought had the same wave length. Picking one, then other, and another, a movement had slowly but steadily taken roots. The Coalition today spans across the country, and has a huge reach through the farmer organisations, women groups and movements, NGOs, civil society groups, doctors, nutritionists, scientists, actors and film makers, consumers, students, teachers and even spirtual leaders.
I don't know at what stage the alliance thought of formalising its activities under the banner of a Coalition for GM Free India, but I remember that we were concerned at the way the agricultural universities were engaged in developing transgenic seeds, and knew that it was probably the biggest threat the country was likely to be faced with in the years to come. With the government facilitating the takeover of agriculture by the private companies, there was no other way than to educate the people of the dangers ahead. I have tremendous faith in the sangunity of the people, and have always believed that when people stand up nothing can stop them.
As I said earlier, it wasn't an easy task. But it became possible only with the kind of commitment demonstrated by my colleagues. I haven't seen such a dedicated and committed lot, and I take this opportunity to salute each and every member of the Coalition for GM Free India who have worked tirelessly to make the dream possible, often at the cost of family priorities. And it was primarily because of the underlying strength and conviction that I was hopeful.
As we moved along, the Coalition also drew strength. More and more people joined, all of them volunteering their time and effort. Yesterday, when film maker Mahesh Bhatt called to thank me for introducing him to the subject, I was humbled when he said: You created a wall against this unwanted technology. I only added a brick to it, and then went on to say: But I cannot tell you the sense of achievement that I derive today. I think Mahesh Bhatt is simply being kind with words. His documentary (and much of the credit would go to the director Ajay Kanchan) Poison on the Platter has been perhaps the most powerful tool that we had in our hands to educate the masses.
Selvam from Tamil Nadu was able to sensitise film actors Revathi and Rohini. I spoke with Revathi the other day, and was so delighted to learn how angry she feels at the way the government was willing to contaminate our food. Among the political leaders, I think there cannot be anyone like the Kerala Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran, who is simply amazing. His deep sense of involvement stems from his innate stimulation to protect the environment, which he thinks is possible by reversing the modern paradigm of industrial farming. With the backing of his chief minister, Ratnakaran has been striving hard to keep Kerala GM Free. If India has to escape the doomsday, it needs Mullakkara Ratnakaran as Agriculture Minister.
I remember when I first met Swami Ramdev and Sri Sri Ravi Shanker (and both these times I had accompanied Ajay Kanchan), it was such an overwhelming experience to know that we have the blessings of the divine. Only two weeks back when I again met Sri Sri Ravi Shanker at his ashram in Bangalore, he was so outraged at the way Bt brinjal was being thrust that he wanted to immediately hold a press conference decrying the move. And yesterday, when Swami Ramdev called to congratulate me, I wasn't surprised when he said we have many more battles ahead, and we are with you.
Earlier, I had travelled to Kerala to meet the hugging saint, Maa Amrita, and returned back equally charged. The unequivocal support extended by Bibi Inderjeet Kaur, the head of the Amritsar-based philanthropic organisation Pingalwara, have been among the strong influences.
Not only the celebrities, there have been innumerable support coming in from all sections of the society. Dr GPI Singh, for instance, who took up in all ernest the issue of GM crops and health, has today emerged on the national scene. I remember at a national conference in Kerala a few days ago, he said that he was ashamed to acknowledge that at a conference of 600 doctors that he had addressed in Punjab recently, not even one of them knew what GM crops were. It was therefore a challenge for him to take the issue to the health fraternity.
It will be practically impossible for me to name each and every one who have made this day possible. Please pardon me, if I have missed out on some of the outstanding contributions. To err is human, and I am no exception. At the same time, I am not going to take you into the merits of the historical decision, you have probably read it all by now in the newspapers, but to let you know that after you have taken off the dancing shoes, it will be time to get back to work. We have the monumental responsibility now to show an ecologically sustainable path of agricultural development to the nation. We have to draw the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) to see and appreciate the ground realities, and to make that scientifically possible.
We also need to continue build up pressure to show the exit to the multinational seed companies. We don't need them in India. Let us ensure that they remain confined to places like St Louis. In fact, I am sure the day is not far off when America too would become disillusioned with these seed and agribusiness giants, but perhaps after these companies have plundered and done irretrievable damage. I am sorry for America, but let us not allow that to happen in India.
You can do it. To know your inner strength is the first step to success. And I know for sure that like what I told my friend from the media, you too have that feeling somewhere deep in you: Main Hoon Naa.
I can now imagine the mental tension that Harshvardhan (I guess that was probably the name of the person who won Rs One crore) must have undergone before Amitabh Bachchan exclaimed: You have made history !
No sooner the Breaking News flashed on the screen: India says No to Bt brinjal, I heard Jairam Ramesh in my dream sequence getting up from his seat and exclaiming the magical words You have made history before hugging me (representing the Coalition for GM Free India).
Yes, it truly is a historic decision. It is a triumph of good sense over bad science.
As Jairam Ramesh enshrines his name permanently in history, for the exemplary courage he demonstrated in standing up for truth and honesty, for putting society before mad science, for protecting environment from genetic pollution, and thereby showing the pathway for a better world, I am sure the ripples would be felt across the continents.
Jairam Ramesh has done what Michael Meacher, the former Environment Minister of UK had tried to do, but was summarily removed by the British Prime Minister Tony Blair before he could strike the last nail. I am sure my friend Michael Meacher must be today very proud of Jairam Ramesh.
Anyway, the phone hasn't stopped ringing since then. I am no exception, all my colleagues and friends in different parts of the country too have been inundated with calls and messages. Even our friends in the media (except for a few industry takers) are thrilled. The response from the people for a just cause has been simply overwhelming. It has given us tremendous hope, and reinforces confidence at a time when everything looks so bleak.
While the celebrations were on, a friend from the media called and reminded me of what I must have said after the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) had accorded environment clearance for Bt brinjal on Oct 14, 2009. Accordingly, when he had told me that with the GEAC giving the nod, and nothing can be done now, I had replied: "Don't worry, Main Hoon Naa."
My conviction came from the strength that the Coalition for GM Free India provided. I think it is important to acknowledge the role the Coalition played in building up a nationwide campaign over the years. It has been a relentless struggle, often exasperating, at times frustrating, to forge on with the single objective of creating wider awareness about the dangers of the risky and harmful transgenic technology. Behind the euphoria that we witness today lies the strenuous but quiet role the Coalition for GM Free India played, a loose network of people and groups who believe in good science, who believe in building sustainable livelihoods, protecting and conserving biodiversity, and restoring the pride in farming.
The journey actually began four years ago, on Jan 26, 2006. I had gone to deliver a public lecture on WTO and agriculture at Thiruvanthapuram in Kerala. It was there that I suggested to Jayakumar, head of a local NGO -- Thanal -- that we need to bring some like-minded groups and people together on the issue of agriculture. We need to form a national alliance of people who are striving to work for sustainable agriculture, which in our thinking is the surest way to ameliorate poverty and hunger.
In the next few months we were able to identify a few NGOs/groups across the country, who we thought had the same wave length. Picking one, then other, and another, a movement had slowly but steadily taken roots. The Coalition today spans across the country, and has a huge reach through the farmer organisations, women groups and movements, NGOs, civil society groups, doctors, nutritionists, scientists, actors and film makers, consumers, students, teachers and even spirtual leaders.
I don't know at what stage the alliance thought of formalising its activities under the banner of a Coalition for GM Free India, but I remember that we were concerned at the way the agricultural universities were engaged in developing transgenic seeds, and knew that it was probably the biggest threat the country was likely to be faced with in the years to come. With the government facilitating the takeover of agriculture by the private companies, there was no other way than to educate the people of the dangers ahead. I have tremendous faith in the sangunity of the people, and have always believed that when people stand up nothing can stop them.
As I said earlier, it wasn't an easy task. But it became possible only with the kind of commitment demonstrated by my colleagues. I haven't seen such a dedicated and committed lot, and I take this opportunity to salute each and every member of the Coalition for GM Free India who have worked tirelessly to make the dream possible, often at the cost of family priorities. And it was primarily because of the underlying strength and conviction that I was hopeful.
As we moved along, the Coalition also drew strength. More and more people joined, all of them volunteering their time and effort. Yesterday, when film maker Mahesh Bhatt called to thank me for introducing him to the subject, I was humbled when he said: You created a wall against this unwanted technology. I only added a brick to it, and then went on to say: But I cannot tell you the sense of achievement that I derive today. I think Mahesh Bhatt is simply being kind with words. His documentary (and much of the credit would go to the director Ajay Kanchan) Poison on the Platter has been perhaps the most powerful tool that we had in our hands to educate the masses.
Selvam from Tamil Nadu was able to sensitise film actors Revathi and Rohini. I spoke with Revathi the other day, and was so delighted to learn how angry she feels at the way the government was willing to contaminate our food. Among the political leaders, I think there cannot be anyone like the Kerala Agriculture Minister Mullakkara Ratnakaran, who is simply amazing. His deep sense of involvement stems from his innate stimulation to protect the environment, which he thinks is possible by reversing the modern paradigm of industrial farming. With the backing of his chief minister, Ratnakaran has been striving hard to keep Kerala GM Free. If India has to escape the doomsday, it needs Mullakkara Ratnakaran as Agriculture Minister.
I remember when I first met Swami Ramdev and Sri Sri Ravi Shanker (and both these times I had accompanied Ajay Kanchan), it was such an overwhelming experience to know that we have the blessings of the divine. Only two weeks back when I again met Sri Sri Ravi Shanker at his ashram in Bangalore, he was so outraged at the way Bt brinjal was being thrust that he wanted to immediately hold a press conference decrying the move. And yesterday, when Swami Ramdev called to congratulate me, I wasn't surprised when he said we have many more battles ahead, and we are with you.
Earlier, I had travelled to Kerala to meet the hugging saint, Maa Amrita, and returned back equally charged. The unequivocal support extended by Bibi Inderjeet Kaur, the head of the Amritsar-based philanthropic organisation Pingalwara, have been among the strong influences.
Not only the celebrities, there have been innumerable support coming in from all sections of the society. Dr GPI Singh, for instance, who took up in all ernest the issue of GM crops and health, has today emerged on the national scene. I remember at a national conference in Kerala a few days ago, he said that he was ashamed to acknowledge that at a conference of 600 doctors that he had addressed in Punjab recently, not even one of them knew what GM crops were. It was therefore a challenge for him to take the issue to the health fraternity.
It will be practically impossible for me to name each and every one who have made this day possible. Please pardon me, if I have missed out on some of the outstanding contributions. To err is human, and I am no exception. At the same time, I am not going to take you into the merits of the historical decision, you have probably read it all by now in the newspapers, but to let you know that after you have taken off the dancing shoes, it will be time to get back to work. We have the monumental responsibility now to show an ecologically sustainable path of agricultural development to the nation. We have to draw the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) to see and appreciate the ground realities, and to make that scientifically possible.
We also need to continue build up pressure to show the exit to the multinational seed companies. We don't need them in India. Let us ensure that they remain confined to places like St Louis. In fact, I am sure the day is not far off when America too would become disillusioned with these seed and agribusiness giants, but perhaps after these companies have plundered and done irretrievable damage. I am sorry for America, but let us not allow that to happen in India.
You can do it. To know your inner strength is the first step to success. And I know for sure that like what I told my friend from the media, you too have that feeling somewhere deep in you: Main Hoon Naa.
Feb 9, 2010
How GM companies control research as well as germplasm
The National Consultation on Bt brinjal at Bangalore on Feb 6 kicked off a row over certain provisions of the National Biodiversity Act. According to The Telegraph (Feb. 7): The Bt brinjal furore has brought to light a little-known government notification that plucked 190 species of plants out of the protective sphere of a law on biodiversity, triggering fears among some environmental groups that these biological resources may now be plundered with ease.
The environment ministry had declared in the notification last year that the provisions of the National Biodiversity Act — India’s only legislation to protect its biodiversity — would not apply to dozens of species of fruits and vegetables, spices, medicinal plants and flowers, plantations and aromatic crops when they were traded as commodities.
Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh appeared unaware of the gazette notification issued by his own ministry on October 26, 2009, until activists alerted him in Bangalore on Saturday. While the final word on the provisions is still awaited, I would like to bring to your notice the surruptious manner in which the GM companies control research on plant and animal germaplsm. Journalist Nagesh Hegde has dug out this editorial from the pages of Science journal. It explains very clearly the modus operandi adopted by the GM companies through the license agreements to block any inquiry into the veracity of their claims.
I hope the Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh looks into this. Biodiversity protection is his domain, and he can over-ride objections from his colleagues from Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Science & Technology, and the Ministry of Human Resource Development. However, agriculture research is in the hands of the ICAR (under Ministry of Agriculture) as well as Ministry of HRD, and these ministeries are encouraging public-private partnership thereby bringing public research under private control.
Scientific American August 13, 2009
Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end.
By The Editors
Advances in agricultural technology—including, but not limited to, the genetic modification of food crops—have made fields more productive than ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed more people using less land. They are able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech companies plan to introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important in a world marked by a changing climate.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research.
Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.
“It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech nology.”
It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find—imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.
Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech’s successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market. The agricultural revolution is too important to keep locked behind closed doors.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "A Seedy Practice."
The environment ministry had declared in the notification last year that the provisions of the National Biodiversity Act — India’s only legislation to protect its biodiversity — would not apply to dozens of species of fruits and vegetables, spices, medicinal plants and flowers, plantations and aromatic crops when they were traded as commodities.
Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh appeared unaware of the gazette notification issued by his own ministry on October 26, 2009, until activists alerted him in Bangalore on Saturday. While the final word on the provisions is still awaited, I would like to bring to your notice the surruptious manner in which the GM companies control research on plant and animal germaplsm. Journalist Nagesh Hegde has dug out this editorial from the pages of Science journal. It explains very clearly the modus operandi adopted by the GM companies through the license agreements to block any inquiry into the veracity of their claims.
I hope the Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh looks into this. Biodiversity protection is his domain, and he can over-ride objections from his colleagues from Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Science & Technology, and the Ministry of Human Resource Development. However, agriculture research is in the hands of the ICAR (under Ministry of Agriculture) as well as Ministry of HRD, and these ministeries are encouraging public-private partnership thereby bringing public research under private control.
Scientific American August 13, 2009
Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?
Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end.
By The Editors
Advances in agricultural technology—including, but not limited to, the genetic modification of food crops—have made fields more productive than ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed more people using less land. They are able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech companies plan to introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important in a world marked by a changing climate.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research.
Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.
“It is important to understand that it is not always simply a matter of blanket denial of all research requests, which is bad enough,” wrote Elson J. Shields, an entomologist at Cornell University, in a letter to an official at the Environmental Protection Agency (the body tasked with regulating the environmental consequences of genetically modified crops), “but selective denials and permissions based on industry perceptions of how ‘friendly’ or ‘hostile’ a particular scientist may be toward [seed-enhancement] technology.”
Shields is the spokesperson for a group of 24 corn insect scientists that opposes these practices. Because the scientists rely on the cooperation of the companies for their research—they must, after all, gain access to the seeds for studies—most have chosen to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals. The group has submitted a statement to the EPA protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the tech nology.”
It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find—imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.
Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech’s successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market. The agricultural revolution is too important to keep locked behind closed doors.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "A Seedy Practice."
Feb 8, 2010
GM Contamination: Turning a blind eye to bio-terrorism
This is the real bio-terrorism. Allowing genetically modified crops to contaminate the non-GM varieties, besides the traditional native strains, is nothing short of a crime against humanity. Yet, the international scientific community and policy planners remain quite oblivious to the grave threat. In fact, it is the other way around. Agricultural scientists and the agricultural bodies (and that includes the US Department of Agriculture and the Indian Council for Agricultural Research) are actually trying their best to promote genetic pollution.
Ten year later, when the world leaders meet in 2020 to combat genetic pollution, they would realise the folly of turning a blind eye to GM contamination. There is no way the international community can then work towards reversing the trend, or to come up with 'emission' cuts. It will be too late then.
And that is what the GM industry wants.
The growing menace of superweeds hasn't yet shaken up the scientific community. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) would however treat this as an excellent example of boosting agricultural growth. Even the USDA, which is implementing a Bio-terrorism Act, remains a mute spectator to the devastation superweeds have brought to their farm landscape. To know how and why the superweeds are emerging as a major threat to farming, I draw your attention to my recent article on GM contamination. To read, click on the link
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/49632/gm-contamination.html
Meanwhile, GM contamination is already playing havoc with the fortunes of organic foods and agriculture. I remember sometimes back a Japanese company had detected DNA of the organic cotton imported from India to be contaminated. It was primarily for the reasons of GM contamination and the harm it would do to the soyameal exports that India did not allow the GM soya to be imported despite tremendous pressure from the USDA.
The Indian rice millers however were smart enough to use the NGOs to stop GM research and field trials on the premium scented basmati rice grains. Pressure built by NGOs helped the rice millers and exporters to extract a ban on GM basmati rice research on the plea that it hits exports. But the fact remains that rice millers are not concerned about GM contamination but only their export revenues. You don't hear them anymore extending support to the campaign against Bt brinjal.
I think it is unfair to stop GM research on basmati rice. If GM rice is good for the Indians (as the scientists and government officials believe), why should we stop research on GM basmati rice? So what if the rice exporters suffer? If they are not concerned of the health of the people back home, why should we bother about their export revenues?
Meanwhile, an interesting controversy has broken out on a report produced by a German company FT Deustchland alleging that some popular organic cotton brands worldwide have been selling GM contaminated clothes, the source of the organic cotton raw material of which has been traced to India. You can read about the controversy in a detailed analysis GM Fly in the Organic Soup published in the DNA newspaper. Here is the link: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_gm-fly-in-the-organic-soup_1344343-all
In the days to come, you will read more about such cases of GM contamination. So far it is clothes, but let me warn you the day is not far away when your food too would be contaminated by alien genes. We already have had some cases of GM food contamination, but in a country like India where almost all kinds of foods being sold in market are adulterated, the industry will respond by saying that if you can eat the adulterated stuff why can't you take in a few alien genes that produce poison in your body.
IFPRI will tell us that food contaminated with alien genes (from other GM crops/foods) only help to reduce prices. The IFPRI orchestra is already in full form, trying to build up an economic justification for the unwanted and poisonous Bt brinjal. You can read this report Bt brinjal's acceptance hinges on price in the Economic Times today. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/commodities/Bt-brinjals-acceptance-hinges-on-price/articleshow/5546692.cms
Ten year later, when the world leaders meet in 2020 to combat genetic pollution, they would realise the folly of turning a blind eye to GM contamination. There is no way the international community can then work towards reversing the trend, or to come up with 'emission' cuts. It will be too late then.
And that is what the GM industry wants.
The growing menace of superweeds hasn't yet shaken up the scientific community. The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) would however treat this as an excellent example of boosting agricultural growth. Even the USDA, which is implementing a Bio-terrorism Act, remains a mute spectator to the devastation superweeds have brought to their farm landscape. To know how and why the superweeds are emerging as a major threat to farming, I draw your attention to my recent article on GM contamination. To read, click on the link
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/49632/gm-contamination.html
Meanwhile, GM contamination is already playing havoc with the fortunes of organic foods and agriculture. I remember sometimes back a Japanese company had detected DNA of the organic cotton imported from India to be contaminated. It was primarily for the reasons of GM contamination and the harm it would do to the soyameal exports that India did not allow the GM soya to be imported despite tremendous pressure from the USDA.
The Indian rice millers however were smart enough to use the NGOs to stop GM research and field trials on the premium scented basmati rice grains. Pressure built by NGOs helped the rice millers and exporters to extract a ban on GM basmati rice research on the plea that it hits exports. But the fact remains that rice millers are not concerned about GM contamination but only their export revenues. You don't hear them anymore extending support to the campaign against Bt brinjal.
I think it is unfair to stop GM research on basmati rice. If GM rice is good for the Indians (as the scientists and government officials believe), why should we stop research on GM basmati rice? So what if the rice exporters suffer? If they are not concerned of the health of the people back home, why should we bother about their export revenues?
Meanwhile, an interesting controversy has broken out on a report produced by a German company FT Deustchland alleging that some popular organic cotton brands worldwide have been selling GM contaminated clothes, the source of the organic cotton raw material of which has been traced to India. You can read about the controversy in a detailed analysis GM Fly in the Organic Soup published in the DNA newspaper. Here is the link: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_gm-fly-in-the-organic-soup_1344343-all
In the days to come, you will read more about such cases of GM contamination. So far it is clothes, but let me warn you the day is not far away when your food too would be contaminated by alien genes. We already have had some cases of GM food contamination, but in a country like India where almost all kinds of foods being sold in market are adulterated, the industry will respond by saying that if you can eat the adulterated stuff why can't you take in a few alien genes that produce poison in your body.
IFPRI will tell us that food contaminated with alien genes (from other GM crops/foods) only help to reduce prices. The IFPRI orchestra is already in full form, trying to build up an economic justification for the unwanted and poisonous Bt brinjal. You can read this report Bt brinjal's acceptance hinges on price in the Economic Times today. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/commodities/Bt-brinjals-acceptance-hinges-on-price/articleshow/5546692.cms
Feb 6, 2010
Bring science under public scanner, as Jairam Ramesh has shown
Finally, the last of the 7 national consultations on Bt brinjal ends today. As I write this, the Bangalore consultation is underway, and preliminary reports indicate of some high-voltage action. While we await the outcome of the consultation process, the real battle will begin once these consultations are over.
India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has already announced that he will make his decision public on Feb 10.
While the people have very loudly and clearly given their verdict against the introduction of Bt brinjal, the next few days will see a hectic lobbying by the seed companies and their votaries seeking an aprobal for the controversial GM food crop. Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has already been critical of the public consultations, and has been quoted as saying that the decision of the GEAC would be final. His colleague Minister for Science & Technology Prithviraj Chavan has given a clean chit to the safety of Bt brinjal even as the GEAC report is being widely considered to be rigged.
Whatever be the outcome, the fact remains that Jairam Ramesh has initiated a public consultation process that will go down in India's history as the rightful approach to decision making. In a peoples' democracy like India, ignoring public opinion, has already cost the nation dearly and led to an unprecedented crisis in sustainable development. The blind push towards industrialisation and globalisation has already caused immense devastation to the natural resources -- soil, water and forests, leading to further marginalisation of the communities. If only successive governments had followed the path shown by Jairam Ramesh, India's socio-economic landscape wouldn't have been so dark.
In a way, historians of the future will remember Jairam Ramesh for bringing the science of agriculture under the public scanner. And as a recent editorial in The Guardian (Feb 4, 2010) said: Ten years of ill-tempered debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has had many malign effects, not least adding to public scepticism about science and scientists. But it has had one benign one. It has pumped dye into the veins of the globalfood business, graphically illustrating the monopolistic ambitions of agribusiness and ultimately, perhaps, its ability to control the very food we eat.
Growing scepticism of agricultural science considering its covert relationship with the food and seed industry is making people realise that the recommendations emanating from the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), the Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the plethora of agricultural universities cannot be simply accepted without public scrutiny. Scientists are no longer holy cows. In fact, in many ways they are worse than politicians. The way they have been manipulating scientific claims for the sake of the industry, it is high time that scientists be held accountable, and if need be, publicly tried.
If a bridge or a fly-over falls down, we hold the engineers accountable. If a patient dies because of medical negligence, we seek toughest punishment for the concerned doctor. But when hundreds of farmers take the fatal route to escape the humiliation of growing indebtedness, an outcome of flawed technology interventions in agriculture, no scientist has been put behind bars. I feel outraged to see that while 200,000 farmers have committed suicide in the past 15 years, no scientific organisation or its head has been held responsible.
The Ministry of Agriculture and the ICAR should own responsibility for the blood-bath being enacted in the farms.
Similarly, there is a dire need to bring in a liability clause for the seed industry. The GM companies should be held responsible (with a provision for punitive action and compensation) if the GM seeds lead to contamination. The nation cannot be a mute spectator to the games the agribusiness industry plays, nor it should allow the scientists to get away with recommendations that leads to destruction of livelihoods and human suffering.
We are all for good science. But this can only be possible if the black sheep among the scientific community are not allowed to get away with murder. This is more so in the case of GM crops research where the stakes are very high.
Let us all work towards ensuring that science works for human welfare and not for corporate interests, for protecting the environment and strengthening the foundations of sustainable and equitable development.
India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has already announced that he will make his decision public on Feb 10.
While the people have very loudly and clearly given their verdict against the introduction of Bt brinjal, the next few days will see a hectic lobbying by the seed companies and their votaries seeking an aprobal for the controversial GM food crop. Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar has already been critical of the public consultations, and has been quoted as saying that the decision of the GEAC would be final. His colleague Minister for Science & Technology Prithviraj Chavan has given a clean chit to the safety of Bt brinjal even as the GEAC report is being widely considered to be rigged.
Whatever be the outcome, the fact remains that Jairam Ramesh has initiated a public consultation process that will go down in India's history as the rightful approach to decision making. In a peoples' democracy like India, ignoring public opinion, has already cost the nation dearly and led to an unprecedented crisis in sustainable development. The blind push towards industrialisation and globalisation has already caused immense devastation to the natural resources -- soil, water and forests, leading to further marginalisation of the communities. If only successive governments had followed the path shown by Jairam Ramesh, India's socio-economic landscape wouldn't have been so dark.
In a way, historians of the future will remember Jairam Ramesh for bringing the science of agriculture under the public scanner. And as a recent editorial in The Guardian (Feb 4, 2010) said: Ten years of ill-tempered debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has had many malign effects, not least adding to public scepticism about science and scientists. But it has had one benign one. It has pumped dye into the veins of the globalfood business, graphically illustrating the monopolistic ambitions of agribusiness and ultimately, perhaps, its ability to control the very food we eat.
Growing scepticism of agricultural science considering its covert relationship with the food and seed industry is making people realise that the recommendations emanating from the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), the Council for Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) and the plethora of agricultural universities cannot be simply accepted without public scrutiny. Scientists are no longer holy cows. In fact, in many ways they are worse than politicians. The way they have been manipulating scientific claims for the sake of the industry, it is high time that scientists be held accountable, and if need be, publicly tried.
If a bridge or a fly-over falls down, we hold the engineers accountable. If a patient dies because of medical negligence, we seek toughest punishment for the concerned doctor. But when hundreds of farmers take the fatal route to escape the humiliation of growing indebtedness, an outcome of flawed technology interventions in agriculture, no scientist has been put behind bars. I feel outraged to see that while 200,000 farmers have committed suicide in the past 15 years, no scientific organisation or its head has been held responsible.
The Ministry of Agriculture and the ICAR should own responsibility for the blood-bath being enacted in the farms.
Similarly, there is a dire need to bring in a liability clause for the seed industry. The GM companies should be held responsible (with a provision for punitive action and compensation) if the GM seeds lead to contamination. The nation cannot be a mute spectator to the games the agribusiness industry plays, nor it should allow the scientists to get away with recommendations that leads to destruction of livelihoods and human suffering.
We are all for good science. But this can only be possible if the black sheep among the scientific community are not allowed to get away with murder. This is more so in the case of GM crops research where the stakes are very high.
Let us all work towards ensuring that science works for human welfare and not for corporate interests, for protecting the environment and strengthening the foundations of sustainable and equitable development.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)