FBAE Blog

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India
krao@vsnl.com, www.fbae.org, www.fbaeblog.org

http://www.fbae.org/Channels/Views/bee_colony_collapse_disaster_was.htm

Colony Collapse Disaster (CCD), the desertion and death of almost all the bees in a colony, occurs now and then, sometimes in epidemic proportions, in all countries resulting in 50 to 90 per cent losses. While several causes for CCD were identified, no specific reason or reliable remedies are known.

There was a collapse of Honey Bee colonies in the US and Europe in the middle of last year, causing enormous losses. The anti-Genetic Engineering (GE) activists were quick to attribute the CCD to the pollen of Bt crops, and used it vigorously in their campaign.

As there are several Bt transgenics in cultivation in the US, it is not odd to consider them as one of probable causes of the CCD. But in the case of the EU countries and elsewhere that argument is absurd, as there is a distinct lack of Bt pollen in the environment.

Poisoning by agricultural chemicals, unusually higher than normal winter damage and natural age dependent colony degeneration, are often confused with CCD.

A detailed write up by Christian Evans in News Target (March 2007) analyzed the various possible causes for last year’s bee colony disaster and considered that the heavy chemical inputs in modern agricultural practices as responsible for the problem

A very large number of detailed studies have shown that the Bt proteins in Bt transgenic crops are not dangerous to bees, as also emphasized by the consensus Document No. 42 (July 2007), released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. So far not even a single peer reviewed report has proved that the products of Bt genes in GE crops are harmful to honey bees, bumble bees or such other insect pollination vectors.

At a hearing at the US House Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture about CCD (April 5, 2007), three experts testified that the pollen from GE crops was not one of the causes for the disaster. Nicotinoid pesticides, which may affect honey bee’s learning ability, were suggested as one of the probable causes. The general impression at the Committee hearings was that the problem was overblown from the level of normal over-winter losses.

The Irish Times (April 06, 2007) attributed bee colony losses to either the usually inexplicable CCD or a new form of Varroa destructor, a mite that attacks bees, which was prevalent for the past four or five years in Ireland.

The Omega News (April 15, 2007) raised the question if mobile phones are wiping out the bees, by scrambling their signals and same was reiterated in June 2007, in an article in the Independent (UK).

Using DNA sequencing and analytical methods, recently a team of scientists has found a significant connection between the Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) and honey bee CCD (Science Daily, September 6, 2007).

While it would require some more investigations and time to confirm the role of Varroa mites and/or the IAPV, it is now certain that Bt proteins are not the cause of CCD.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India
krao@vsnl.com, www.fbae.org, www.fbaeblog.org

http://www.fbae.org/Channels/Views/bombs.htm

The GM Watch honored me by the ‘Pants on Fire Award’ for the ‘Biggest pack of lies—2006’, for writing in a blog on November 3, 2006, that the Golden Rice was protected from vandalism in a bomb-proof bunker in an unspecified place in Switzerland. I wrote much the same earlier in 2001 and 2002, but that did not attract the ire of GM Watch then.

GM Watch has brought out the issue of the Award and the ‘biggest pack of lies’ again on November 9, 2007. I would like my readers to know that I was neither the first nor the only one, who wrote about the extreme measures taken to protect Golden Rice.

I quote below and provide links to four of several articles that were my sources:

1. New York Times, November 21, 2000
2. AGNET, November, 21, 2000
3. Biotech Info, November 27, 2000

‘Golden Rice in a Grenade-Proof Greenhouse: In a quiet village on the outskirts of Zurich, a genetically engineered strain of rice, that its creator says could save millions of children's lives, is locked up in a grenade-proof greenhouse, as if it were the Frankenstein monster.’

4. Reason online, December 6, 2000

‘These groups (referring to the Institute of Science in Society, Greenpeace and some others, detailed in another part of the article) are adept at sketching out scary scenarios. They're also known for their "decontamination" raids on biotech crop fields throughout Europe, where they rip up or vandalize genetically modified crops. Thus, the Ft. Knox treatment for golden rice. Researchers are afraid that activists will try to take the product out before it's even able to get to markets in the developing world. It's locked away in a grenade-proof greenhouse in Switzerland.’

There were some other articles published during November-December 2000 or later, one or two of which used the word ‘bomb’ and ‘bunker’ but the links are not working now.

A personal communication from Professor Ingo Potrykus, the force behind Golden Rice, avers that by 1986 opposition to plant genetic engineering in Switzerland was so fierce that the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology decided to construct a grenade poof bacteria-tight glass green house (up to biosafety level 4) for him to continue his work on transgenic crops, more particularly Bt rice and Golden Rice, without fear from physical disturbance. This green house is still functioning since 1988, to protect the crops in development.

This greenhouse is outside Zurich and the actual location is unspecified. A grenade is a small bomb, hand thrown or machine discharged and an explosive-proof structure is a bunker, greenhouse or not.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 5:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Below is a blog entry that I found from fellow biotechnology blogger C.S. Prakash on his blog GMO Food for Thought. He posts weekly summaries of what his group, AgBioWorld, is discussing.

Dr. C Kameswara Rao

AgBioWorld Members Discuss Pope’s Message, Norman Borlaug and Holiday Gift Ideas

Pope’s Message Positive Towards Biotechnology

Abstract: A member posted a link to an excerpt of the Pope’s "Message of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for the Celebration of the World Day of Peace." The member noted that this was a positive piece and encouraged others to distribute it widely. He pulled on a specific quote from the piece that he felt best represented the positive aspect of the message.

"We need to care for the environment: it has been entrusted to men and women to be protected and cultivated with responsible freedom, with the good of all as a constant guiding criterion. Human beings, obviously, are of supreme worth vis-à-vis creation as a whole. Respecting the environment does not mean considering material or animal nature more important than man. Rather, it means not selfishly considering nature to be at the complete disposal of our own interests, for future generations also have the right to reap its benefits and to exhibit towards nature the same responsible freedom that we claim for ourselves."

Source: Vatican Web site

Norman Borlaug Nominated as Possible Washington Post “Noblest People of the Year”

Abstract: A member posted a link and short excerpt from a Technology Review article on the accomplishments of Norman Borlaug, founder of modern biotechnology. The article discusses his first attempts at breading a better wheat crop. The article also discusses the criticism he received from around the world. In response to this article another member posted a link to a Washington Post contest, Noblest People of the Year, in which Borlaug is part of. Readers of the Washington Post have been asked to pick three from the list. The member encouraged fellow members to vote for Borlaug.

Sources: Technology Review
Washington Post

Books as a Holiday Gift

Abstract: Members discussed the idea of giving books as a holiday gift for the person who “has everything.” One member suggested the book “On Bullshit” by Harry G. Frankfurt. He notes that while giving books as a gift can be “iffy” this book is only 67 pages long and since it is hard-bound, “it will look good on any shelf.” Another member suggested the book "Bad Thoughts", by Jamie Whyte.

Resources:
Bad Thoughts on Amazon
On Bullshit on Amazon

AgBioWorld is comprised of ag-biotech experts who take a keen interest in the latest news and events important to ag-biotech. This blog aims to be a reflection of those events and news stories that have captured our attention. Please share your comments and feelings on the current climate for biotech with us as well.

Best regards,

C.S. Prakash

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 4:26 PM | Permalink

For those of you subscribing to our web site through our RSS Feed, we have some news for you. We've recently moved over to Feedburner to better serve our visitors. You can reach this new feed by clicking the "Subscribe to RSS Feed" link on the right or by going to http://feeds.feedburner.com/FbaeBlogRssFeed. If you are currently subscribing to FBAE Blog, we ask that you move over to this new system.

Thank you.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:28 PM | Permalink

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
Bangalore, India
May 21, 2007

Here’s an article on agricultural biotechnology by Dr. C Kameswara Rao of the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education…

Lately, the Warangal District, in the semi-arid Telengana region of the State of Andhra Pradesh (AP), India, has become the epicenter of everything going bad in the cultivation of Bt cotton. Reports of phenomenal failure of Bt cotton, farmer distress, death of sheep, death of cattle and alleged farmer suicides have show cased the Warangal District as an example of all that could go wrong with modern agriculture. Anti-tech activism has extrapolated all this to the other parts, in and out of AP, such as Vidharbha region of Maharashtra. A rational and scientific assessment does not support such an intensely negative outcome from Bt cotton cultivation. To assess the ground realities first hand, Professor Ronald Herring, Cornell University, Ithaca, Dr S Shantharam, Biologistics International, of USA, and I, have visited the Warangal District for about a week in the middle of December 2006.

Before going to Warangal, we visited the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), Hyderabad/ Secunderabad and the Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency, Hyderabad, for a first hand assessment of opinions and reports.

Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA)

The CSA are the main anti-Bt cotton activists in AP. The two functionaries of CSA we met raised the following issues against Bt cotton:

a) Economical and technical features not up to the mark: What is the mark and whose mark? There is certainly no serious deficiency in basic technical features and performance of Bt cotton. Achieving maximum economic benefits from a crop’s potential depends upon several local factors, such as the soil type, irrigation facility, weather conditions in a particular season that influence pest pressure, and the awareness of the farmer in adopting appropriate cultivation practices. There has been a phenomenal increase in the acreage under Bt cotton, year after year, even in Warangal District. The Bt cotton acreage increased from 2.27 lakh in 2005 to 8.30 lakh in 2006 in the AP, from 6.23 to 18.40 in Maharashtra, and from 1.27 million to 3.8 million in the country, during the same period. The horror stories of failure of Bt cotton in AP and Maharashtra do not reconcile with statistics from diverse sources.

b) Promises on reduction of pesticide use, yield increase and higher profit not realized: No evidence was offered other than perceptions and opinions. This is contrary to all reports, and feed back from the farmers, which indicate that Bt cotton, did substantially reduce pesticide use, increased yield by preventing loss due to bollworm, which enhanced profits, all reflected in the increase of acreage.

c) There was no environmental and socio-economic impact assessment: Studies prior to commercialization in India and elsewhere for over a decade, have not indicated any adverse environmental impact. The socio-economic impact is rooted in a tension free cultivation and higher financial returns, which were realized by the farmers to a great extent, when the cultivation conditions and practices were right and the expectations were not unrealistic. If the farmers from any part of the country suffer losses, they would immediately dump any technology and this has not happened.

d) Spurious seed in authentic packaging: This is a serious problem of marketing throughout the country. Some greedy farmers and unscrupulous dealers have sustained a vast market for illegal and/or spurious Bt cotton seeds, which has affected all others. Scientists of the Agricultural Research Station (ARS), of the Acharya NG. Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU, Hyderabad), at Warangal, also expressed concern over this issue. The Governments in different States have taken remedial measures, but there was some laxity on account of political compulsions.

e) No authentic information on cultivation practices: This is partly true, as the seed dealers did not always provide adequate and appropriate post-sale monitoring and guidance in most places. There were mistakes in choosing the Bt varieties suitable for a particular area. A large proportion of the farmers did not plant refugia, which should have been enforced. The Officers of the ARS, ANGRAU at Warangal, also feel that the farmers need regular guidance on the choice of seed varieties and on crop cultivation methods.

Continue reading "Agricultural Biotechnology: Bt Cotton In Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, India:The NGO Charge Sheet Part 1" »

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 8:54 AM | Permalink

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
Bangalore, India
May 21, 2007

Here's an article on agricultural biotechnology by Dr. C Kameswara Rao of the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education ...

At Hyderabad, we visited the Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency. We met with Scientific Officers of the Warangal Research Station of the Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University of AP., the Officers at the District Office of the Government Department of Agriculture, Warangal and the dealers of Seeds and Pesticides, Warangal.

1. Andhra Pradesh State Seed Certification Agency, Hyderabad

The Seed Certification Agency of the Government of AP is totally out of the picture as Bt cotton seed was not officially notified. Certification of any seed is voluntary and no one applied for certification of Bt cotton seed. While there are facilities with the Agency for testing genetic purity including the Bt event, most of the time seed certification is confined to seed viability and germination studies. Only six to eight parental lines, some imported from Russia and Cambodia, seem to be involved in the production of over 200 cotton hybrids in the country. With no information on the pedigree of most of these varieties, there appears to be some confusion in understanding and distinguishing varieties and hybrids.

2. Scientific Officers of the Agricultural Research Station, of the Acharya NG Ranga Agricultural University of AP, at Warangal

The Scientific Officers of the Agricultural Research Station, ANGRAU at Warangal, informed us that public institutions did not go all out to recommend Bt cotton nor spoke against it, as they do not wish to get involved in any kind of public controversy. In addition, the level of understanding of transgenic technology, even among the agricultural scientists, is often far from desirable.

Officers know that most farmers, not being sure of any, used two or three different Bt varieties. Generally, refugium was not planted as farmers do not want to lose that much of the crop and also because there is a considerable area under non-Bt around the Bt cotton fields, which they inappropriately considered as the refugium. Since 2006-07 was a low pest pressure year, chemical inputs on Bt crop were considerably lower than even the previous year. In the Warangal district, cotton was recently afflicted with a) the black arm bacterial disease, b) grey mildew and c) the tobacco streak virus, rarely known in earlier years. A soil borne root rot disease affected not just cotton, but also maize, red gram and chillies. The Scientists do not relate any of these diseases to the Bt gene.

3. Warangal District Office of the Department of Agriculture

The Officers of the District Agricultural Office (DAO), Warangal, told us that the seed sellers inform them about the Bt seed varieties being marketed. One Joint Director and four Deputy Directors monitor cultivation. The DAO confirmed that for the past two years 95 per cent of cotton in the Warangal District was Bt and that chemical pesticide application came down by over 50 per cent. The yield averaged eight quintals per acre of Bt while it was two to three quintals from non-Bt varieties.

The DAO does not consider that sheep death can be attributed to Bt cotton as sheep used to die even before, may be due to pesticides.

A local agriculture correspondent of a vernacular daily also told us that he does not believe that the Bt crop failed or sheep die due to foraging on Bt cotton stubble.

The DAO has records of payment of compensation on claims of cotton crop failure to the tune of Rs. 3.27 crore, at the rate of Rs. 1,400 per acre, during the past couple of years, of which the Excel Company alone paid Rs. 2.5 crore. With such a big incentive, most of the protests appear to be orchestrated and even those farmers, who did not suffer crop losses, either willingly or under pressure claimed compensation or got it.

In the Warangal field trials of several varieties of BGI and BGII (with two Bt genes) are going on with appropriate check varieties.

Continue reading "Agricultural Biotechnology: Bt Cotton In Warangal District, Aindhra Pradesh, India: The Perception of the Establishment Part 2" »

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 8:52 AM | Permalink

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education
Bangalore, India
May 21, 2007

Here's an article on agricultural biotechnology by Dr. C Kameswara Rao of the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education...

We met about 20 Bt cotton growing farmers from different villages such as Kadipikonda (Hanumakonda Mandal), Kapulakanaparthi (Sangyem Mandal), Dharmaram (Beejakonda Mandal), Uggonipalli and Ustarapalli (both in Atmakur Mandal), and Yellampalli (Chityala Mandal) in the Warangal District. Three or four farmers we met have abandoned their non-Bt crop in the face of very severe pest infestation, though this was a low-pest pressure year. Rain fed crop allows only two pickings while the irrigated crop provides for at least three pickings. The acreage of each farmer varied from one to five, though a few cultivate 10 acres or more. Not being properly guided and not being sure of what to choose, in the face of several Bt varieties, the farmers planted a different variety on each acre, in the hope of choosing the best for the next year.

Almost no one planted a refugium. Three pesticide sprays being the norm, one did not spray any pesticide at all, while one sprayed eight times in an anxiety to ‘provide greater protection to the crop’. Untimely rain damaged the crop in several places in the District. There were problems of germination, some varieties were susceptible to virus disease or the grey mildew and there was a higher incidence of jassid and white fly in some areas. They expect an income of Rs. 6,000 (rain fed) to 10,000 (irrigated) per acre and seemed satisfied with it. Some farmers are cultivating even the illegal Bt bought in Maharashtra in the hope of realizing an unrealistically high yield of up to 15 quintals. Farmers do not believe that sheep died out of eating Bt cotton and asserted that no farmer committed suicide on account of Bt cotton.

One farmer owning 12 acres grows cotton on eight acres. On three acres, he is growing Bollgard II (the two gene stacked BGII). He bought the seed in Nanded, Maharashtra, as BGII was not approved for AP and is very happy with this variety. On one acre he is growing Bt cotton variety Brahma, and on another MECH 12, both of which also were not approved for AP.

Continue reading "Agricultural Biotechnology: Bt Cotton In Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, India: The Farmers' Story Part 3" »

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 8:50 AM | Permalink

Yaenabaavi farmers have cited several reasons for not cultivating Bt cotton:
expensive seed; more sucking pests; new root and drying diseases; reduced soil fertility; death of sheep and damage to the health of the cattle that ate Bt cotton plants; causes allergy. Yaenabaavi farmers said that they are not against new technology. They would take a chance with new varieties of crops even when the previous year’s experience was disappointing but Bt cotton failed consistently, in Narasapeta (where illegal Bt cotton is grown), Lingala Ghanapur, Ranganathapalli and Devarappula Mandals of the Warnagal district and in most of Karnool district.

The causes for not cultivating Bt cotton given by the farmers are based on heresy as no Bt cotton was never grown there and they have no first hand experience about it. Their assertion that Bt cotton consistently failed in the neighbouring areas was also based on information they were provided, although they cited one farmer of the village who cultivated Bt cotton with disastrous results.

Yaenabaavi farmers analyzed for us the causes for farmers’ suicides: There have been more farmer suicides in the recent years (this may partly be due to more extensive press coverage), than in the earlier years. Crops failed during the previous three years or so. High costs of company seeds, chemical fertilizers and pesticides did not yield proportionate returns. Monoculture (means cultivation without crop rotation?) reduced yields year by year. Market forces conspired to pay the farmer less and less. There is no price difference between Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton, in the market. Chemical inputs reduced soil fertility resulting in bad crop yield. All this has increased indebtedness. Of course, there were alcohol and family problems to add. Although they cited several causes for farmers’ suicides, there is a serious implication of Bt cotton in this tragedy. Same with the death of sheep.

Continue reading "Organic Cultivation and Non-Pesticidal Management at Yaenabaavi, Andhra Pradesh, India: The Impressions" »

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 3:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yaenabaavi (Eenabaavi, Enabavi), a hamlet of the Kalyanam Revenue village, Lingala Ghanapur Mandal, Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh, has recently become famous. A Press Release of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA), Secunderabad, announced that ‘Enabavi village goes GM free; (the village) says that food security has not suffered by shifting to organic’ (GM Watch, October 12, 2006). The Hindu (October12, 2006) pronounced that ‘Enabavi farmers create history’ and NDTV (October 13, 2006) called this place ‘An island of prosperity’. These three reports are more or less identical. The unbelievable story of Yaenabaavi made some wonder if this place were a ‘heaven on earth’.

Curious to know the ground realities first hand, Professor Ronald Herring (Cornell University, Ithaca, USA), Dr S Shantharam (Biologistics International, Ellicott City, USA) and I went to Yaenabaavi, on December 16, 2006.

Yaenabaavi is a proclaimed ‘chemical and GM free’ hamlet. The Centre for Rural Operations and Programmes Society (CROPS), Janagam, and the Centre for World Solidarity (CSW), Secunderabad, monitor the agricultural operations at Yaenabaavi and other places in the Warangal and Khammam Districts in Andhra Pradesh. The CSA closely interacts with the farmers and guides them, with support from Aide à l'enfance de l'Inde (AEI), Luxembourg. Before going to Yaenabaavi, we visited CSA’s office in Secunderabad and discussed this hamlet, among other issues.

Continue reading "Organic Cultivation and Non-Pesticidal Management at Yaenabaavi, Andra Pradesh, India: The Story of the Farmers" »

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 3:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The success of North America in developing GE Brassicas using the barnase/barstar gene system, gave an impetus to develop GE mustards in India.

GE Brassicas in India:
ProAgro, a private seed company in India, obtained from Belgium, a high yielding GE mustard based on the barnase/barstar gene system, in 1966. After several years’ of back crossing with the Indian varieties, ProAgro was permitted by the Review Committee for Genetic Manipulation (RCGM), to conduct field trials at 50 locations in Gujarat, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, with seven entries of three test GE hybrids and four check varieties for comparison. The field trials were co-ordinated by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), which submitted a report to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). However, ProAgro’s application for commercialization of the high yielding GE mustard got caught in procedure and there ever so many new questions each time in the GEAC, leading to protracted delays. ProAgro got frustrated and withdrew its application.

Continue reading "Genetically Engineered Mustard in India:India's Effort in Developing Genetic Engineered Brassicas" »

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 8:25 AM | Permalink

For several reasons inherent in the reproductive biology of the oil rapeseed and mustard, it was near impossible to produce hybrids among varieties of these crops, using conventional plant breeding techniques. For a time, plant breeders tried to use male sterility, the absence of functional pollen while the female gametes were normal.

Naturally occurring male sterility in crop plants:
Naturally occurring gene controlled male sterility is not common among crop plants, as they were always selected for high levels of fertility. However, natural male sterility sporadically occurs due to spontaneous mutations or hybridization, but can also be chemically induced. Natural male sterile plants were exploited in hybrid seed production in such crops as cotton, tomato, sunflower, cucurbits, tobacco, rice, wheat, barely, maize, sorghum and pearl millet.

Continue reading "Genetically Engineered Mustard in India: Genetic Engineering Technology to Produce Hybrids" »

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 8:05 AM | Permalink

In consideration of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed on May 1, 2006, seeking a ‘ban on the release of genetically modified organisms/seeds having the potential of causing major health hazards’, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) directed the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) on September 22, 2006, not to give new approvals to genetically modified products until further orders. On October 13, 2006, the SCI, however, permitted the University of Delhi, South Campus (UDSC) to go ahead with field trials of a genetically engineered (GE) variety of mustard.

The Petitioner of the PIL has vehemently reacted alleging that the UDSC ‘may have suppressed important scientific information’, and that this ‘has consequently undermined and compromised a critical bio-safety order of the Court’. A number of issues were raised, with little evidence of understanding the science and modern technology behind developing hybrid mustards. The allegations of the Petitioner were widely reported in the Press and are likely to mislead the public. It is necessary that the entire background of cultivation of rapeseed and mustards, the problems in producing hybrids among them, the importance of the recent technology used, and the irrelevance of the allegations made by the activists, are made known to the public.

Continue reading "Genetically Engineered Mustard in India: Anti-GE Activists Open a New Front" »

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 7:48 AM | Permalink

A few years ago activists, allegedly belonging to the Karnataka Rytha Sangha, the State farmers’ organization, burned Mahyco’s trial Bt cotton fields in Karnataka, India.

On October 28, 2006, in Rampura village in Karnal, Haryana State, the Bharatiya Kissan Union (BKU), a farmers’ organization, using some 400 local farmers torched Mahyco's Bt rice under field trials. Mahyco suffers a loss of Rupees one million, and needs to restart the process.

A BKU leader threatened to burn all such fields in the country where trials are underway, and said that ‘On Friday (October 27), we got a tip-off from Hyderabad that such tests were underway in Karnal’. In all probability, the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, an active anti-biotech group, could be the source of the tip-off. BKU seems to have also sent a team to Gorakhpur (Uttar Pradesh), where similar trials are going on in a field.

A source considers that ‘it's plain and simple misinformation that led to this’. But this is a case where ignorance is no bliss.

Though the police were informed of the threat to burn the crop an hour in advance, they seem to have reached the field an hour after the damage was done.

The destroyed rice crop was a Bt transgenic with Cry 1Ac gene, to control the shoot-borer disease, where conventional measures have largely failed. The trials are legal for two reasons: a) on July 11, 2006, the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) permitted Mahyco to conduct multi-location limited field trials of this transgenic, at 12 sites in Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh, and b) Mahyco got on lease a two-acre plot of farm land of a Haryana farmer for Rs. 15,000, to conduct these trials.

The activists cited several reasons in defense of their action:

That the farmer who leased the land was not informed of what seeds were sown and for what purpose, but one wonders if Mahyco was obliged to do this. This farmer who joined the arsonists does not lose anything, as he gets his lease money and gains the appreciation of the BKU for joining them.

The Haryana President of BKU said that the ‘tests were being conducted in violation of the rules’. What and whose rules were violated? Under the statutory norms, the RCGM and other expert Committees monitor these trials for compliance of regulations and results. Mahyco maintains that they adhered to all precautions essential for conducting the field tests.

The BKU leader declared that ‘such trials will be disastrous for the farmers as they will not only contaminate the soil, but also adversely affect yield from existing rice varieties’. If he meant that Bt proteins get into the soil, he is ignorant that there is ever so much of Bt proteins in the soil, as Bt is an ubiquitous soil bacterium. The leader certainly cannot explain how the yield from the existing rice varieties would be adversely affected.

Another concern expressed was that ‘on-field GM trials in a region, which is the Centre of Origin, are fraught with risks to the bio-diversity of that crop and can contaminate the rice gene pool’. No part of India is the sole Centre of Origin of rice. Except the north eastern part of India and remotely possibly some districts in Orissa, no Indian region can claim to be the Centre of Diversity. For the past several decades, all rice growing regions in India have been growing different varieties of rice developed in the Green Revolution packages, and the kind of change or ‘damage’ to the diversity feared from GE crops, has already happened.

The statement that ‘its (the GM rice’s) pollen could contaminate other non-GM paddy fields in the vicinity’ reflects sheer ignorance of the reproductive biology of the rice plant. Field trials are carefully planned with adequate separation distances and a refugium. The rice pollen are viable only for about five minutes during which they cannot be carried over more than a few meters and after that period they cannot ‘contaminate’ any other rice variety.

The farmers said multinational companies were trying to destroy Indian seeds by bringing in GM seeds. GE crops are introduced into the country adopting scientific and legal procedures and it was the private seed companies that largely sustained Green Revolution, resulting in surplus production of food grains in the country.

The statement that ‘such trials were being done surreptitiously without taking into account the consequences’ does not mean anything, when the feared consequences are not spelt out. Even when unadvertised field are destroyed, what would be the fate of advertised trial fields?

GE crop vandalization occurred earlier also in Europe. In the event of Golden Rice, research laboratories, trial fields and even scientific workers were attacked, striking such a fear that led to hiding a handful of prototype Golden Rice seed in a bombproof bunker in an unspecified place in Switzerland.

In the European Union countries, the Law often caches up. The Danish Terror Law was invoked in May 2006 against Greenpeace and the French Court of appeal convicted 49 activists for destroying GE maize in June 2006.

In New Zealand, in 1999 the Wild Greens Group destroyed a GM potato trial at Lincoln. In 2002, protesters trashed three years of research on GM potatoes by the Crop and Food Research (CFR). Whenever field tests were done, CFR fences the area and keeps it under 24-hour surveillance. Tight security will now be in place to protect field tests for GE vegetables.

This time in India, fortunately there is some reaction from the Official quarters: a) about a 100 arsonists and their BKU leader were booked by the Karnal District Police, on October 30, on charges of criminal intimidation and damage to property by fire; b) Karnal Superintendent of Police said the role of the police would also be probed and if they were found erring, action would be taken; c) the Haryana Government stated on October 31 that it will inquire into the burning of genetically modified (GM) crops by protesting farmers near Karnal city; and d) the Chief Minister of the State of Haryana stated that the incident of burning of the GM crops was unfortunate and it will be probed.

When the GEAC ordered to burn illegal Bt cotton crop some years ago, farmers’ organizations prevented it, as any crop is sacred and cannot be destroyed. Often farmers who are expected to respect a crop are instigated to vandalize it. But destroying a legally grown private crop is a criminal act, which should not go unpunished.

Dr. Rao is also the executive secretary of the Indian-based Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education(FBAE)

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 1:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Commission on Green Biotechnology is a constituent of the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities (UGASH). The InterAcademy Panel (IAP), a worldwide network of 92 Academies of Sciences, with its Secretariat in Trieste/Italy, advises citizens and politicians in their home countries on current problems of global relevance. The ‘Berlin Group’ are the participants of a workshop on ‘Genetically modified crops in developing countries’, jointly conducted by UGASH and IAP in Berlin (May 27-29, 2006). The statement of the Berlin Group on GE crops in the developing countries was discussed on this site earlier.

The Berlin Group has now released two well discussed position papers, one on ‘Are there health hazards for the consumer from eating genetically modified food?’ and the other on ‘Genetically modified insect resistant crops with regard to developing countries’. The significant points from these papers are summarized here.

On the question of health hazards for the consumer from eating genetically modified food, the paper states that the campaigns of opponents of agricultural biotechnology have deliberately provoked widespread public anxiety by asserting that food from genetically modified organisms is a health hazard. ‘Organic’ products are advertised as especially healthy. The paper asserts that evidence suggests it to be most unlikely that the consumption of the well-characterized transgenic DNA from approved GMO food harbours any recognizable health risk.

Since absolute safety is never possible, the basis for approving GM food products is the failure (after extensive prescribed testing) to find any adverse indicators. Such tests have shown that these foods are at least as safe and nutritious as the corresponding products from conventionally produced crops.

The present regulations for the approval of GM plants and their product have established a framework which a) affords an effective safety evaluation on the basis of scientific data before marketing; b) requires GM products to be labelled by law, so offering the consumer an informed choice; c) specifies monitoring procedures which will reveal unexpected effects after the introduction of GM products onto the market; and d) permit the regulatory authorities to evaluate these data at any time.

Because of the rigour with which they must be tested and the controls to which they are subject, it is extremely unlikely that GMO products approved for market in the European Union and other countries present a greater health risk than the corresponding products from conventional sources. On the contrary, in some cases such as maize, food from GM plants appears to be superior with respect to health. Since 1996, millions of people in the Americas and elsewhere have regularly been consuming GM products as part of their normal diets without any proven evidence of adverse health effects.

The second paper relates to the issue of GM insect resistant crops with regard to developing countries. Citing extensive literature, the ecological and economical aspects of the cultivation of genetically modified insect-resistant varieties of maize, rice and cotton, were evaluated, to conclude that the cultivation of these crops by smallholder farmers in developing countries can be beneficial for their earnings, their health and also the ecosystem.

Seeds incorporating Bt technology are particularly suitable for smallholder farmers, because they do not require the equipment and knowledge necessary for pesticide applications, and reduce farmers’ exposure to insecticides, particularly for those using hand sprayers.

As conventional practices of the application of pesticides kill a very broad spectrum of non-target insects and have adverse effects on the agricultural ecosystems, an alternative approach is the use of GM crops resistant to pests. In just over ten years since the first GM crops were introduced, they are very popular with farmers. Some 90 per cent of those benefited were resource-poor farmers from developing countries whose increased incomes from biotech crops contributed to the alleviation of their poverty. However, the benefits of genetically modified crops in comparison with their conventional counterparts and conventional practices of cultivation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Bt technology can indeed be valuable in economic terms to smallholder farmers with relatively small fields in developing countries as well as to the large farms in developed countries. However, pest control will have to rely on integrated pest management practices, which include crop rotation, biological control, Bt technology and the sparing use of pesticides.

Against the background of an overwhelmingly negative campaign on GE crops in Europe, the Berlin Group’s efforts to strike a rational balance are to be much appreciated. It is very necessary in the interests of crop biotechnology, that the scientific community from outside Europe supported the efforts of the Berlin Group. The developing countries, in whose interests the Group is deliberating, should strengthen the hands of the Berlin Group in significantly modifying public opinion in favour of modern crop biotechnology in Europe and elsewhere. Those who are interested in supporting the Group’s efforts may communicate with Professor Hans-Walter Heldt, Universität Göttingen, the Co-Ordinator of the Berlin Group via e-mail at HansWalterHeldt@aol.com.

The full text of the two papers can be accessed using the following links:
http://www.fbae.org/Channels/agri_biotech/general_topics/are_there_health_hazards_for_the.htm and http://www.fbae.org/Channels/agri_biotech/general_topics/genetically_modified_insect_resi.htm.

Dr. Rao is also the executive secretary of the Indian-based Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education(FBAE)

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over one million children die weakened by vitamin A deficiency and about 3,50,000 others go blind, every year worldwide. Several thousands of adults too suffer from vitamin A deficiency diseases (VADs)). The World Bank estimated that VAD is an important health problem in the developing world, accounting for the loss of over 11.8 million Disability Adopted Life Years (DALY) plus 39.1 million DALY of associated disorders making for one quarter of global burden of diseases from malnutrition.

The staple food cereal grains, more particularly rice, do not contain much of nutrients, other than starch. Consequently, vast numbers of people in the developing countries who do not take diverse items of food, out of ignorance or a lack of availability or accessibility, risk a severe of vitamin A deficiency.

Beta-carotene, produced primarily exclusively by plants, is essential to our health as it is converted by our body system into vitamin A. Although two more carotenoids, alpha-carotene and beta-cryptoxanthine, are also vitamin A precursors, beta-carotene is metabolically efficient as one molecule of it results in two molecules of vitamin A, while the other two yield only one molecule per molecule.

Incorporation of the genes for beta-carotene synthesis in food grains, which contained none, has thus become an important innovation in genetically engineered crops. Those who consume beta-carotene enriched foods would get some amount of the pro-vitamin into their system, without an additional expense or effort.

Having realized the seriousness of the problem and the inadequacy of conventional interventions, India has been developing three different genetically engineered (GE) crops with enriched beta-carotene, to ameliorate vitamin A deficiency in the country. Such an effort is not possible by conventional crop breeding practices. However, there is still a long regulatory process and none of the products is likely to reach the market in this decade.

Golden Rice
In the year 2000, Ingo Potrykus and his team developed the Golden Rice (GR), which contained genes from the temperate garden plant daffodil and a fungus, for the synthesis of beta-carotene in the grain. In 2001, the GR technology was offered to the developing countries such as India, free of technology costs and freedom to operate, under the ‘Golden Rice Humanitarian Board’, constituted with an active participation of Syngenta, a partner in the development of GR. There is an attached condition that GR should not cost more than a comparable variety of rice in the market, in order to make it affordable to the masses.

There has been severe, often absurd criticism, of the very concept of GR and its usefulness to the masses, from anti-tech activists and the affront continues. In addition to the objection to the participation of the multinational company Syngenta, an important argument was that the quantity of beta-carotene in GR was too low to confer any benefits on the consumer, unless consumed in impractically large quantities. From the original two microgram/gram, the level of beta-carotene in GR has been enhanced to 46 micrograms/gram, which is more than adequate for a day’s individual requirement of beta-carotene. In response to several other questions raised, critical studies, that resulted in convincing scientific data, were conducted at the International Rice Research Institute, near Manila, on the bioavailability, stability in storage and food preparation, of beta-carotene in GR.

Since 2001, efforts are being made in India, to incorporate the GR gene construct into suitable Indian rice cultivars, at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad and Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. The Director General of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), stated recently that ‘India is not lagging behind in developing its versions of the genetically modified (GM) Golden Rice’ and that large-scale field trials of GR will happen within a year. However, with details of progress under the wrap, there was more room for suspicion and criticism.

The Department of Biotechnology, Government of India, has now constituted the ‘Indian Rice Project Development Group’ to consolidate the progress and implement the programme on development of Indian GR.

Beta-carotene enriched mustard
TERI (The Energy and Resources Institute), New Delhi, an autonomous institution, has developed a GE mustard containing high levels of beta-carotene, with the support of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and in collaboration with Michigan State University. Although the development process was completed, this product has long way to go through the regulatory process, before it reaches the market.

Beta-carotene enriched peanut
Since 2003, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, has been developing a GE peanut with beta-carotene genes from corn. ICRISAT considers that their GE peanut holds a higher potential than the other GE beta-carotene crops, as they have targeted 500 to 600 microgram/gram content of beta-carotene in this product and hope that this will be developed much faster than the others. However, their testing would take another three years or so, followed by the GEAC’s regulatory regime. ICRISAT is also planning to study the bioavailability of the beta-carotene in the GE peanut, along with biosafety testing on animals. After a satisfactory regulatory testing, this gene construct would be available to other countries too, to be put into their own peanut background.

ICRISAT feels that ‘Stricter government regulation is hindering commercialization of GMOs’, a frustration shared by many other developers of GE crops.

ICRISAT’s peanut project is financed by Harvest Plus, supported by the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR) and the William and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Dr Rao is also the executive secretary of the Indian-based Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education(FBAE)

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 3:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) of brinjal causes crop losses of 50 to 70 per cent. Farmers are prone to an indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides around 25 to 80 sprays and this involves heavy expenditure and results in blemished fruits. Excessive chemical use also leads to a build up of pesticide residues in the produce, destruction of beneficial insects, pest resurgence, exposure of farm workers to pesticides and environmental pollution. Cry 1 Ac gene from Bacillus thuringiensis inserted into brinjal varieties (Bt brinjal), like genetically modified cotton, provides an inbuilt pest control mechanism to save the crop from damage, reduce cultivation costs and prevent the incidental health and environmental hazards.

Mahyco have developed Bt Brinjal hybrids, and also have entered into a partnership with public institutions to develop local varieties with the Bt gene.

Mahyco approached the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for permission to conduct large-scale open field trials. No sooner, the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad and Greenpeace India trashed the concept of Bt brinjal, brought out position papers and represented to the GEAC against Mahyco’s request. Though there were also representations to the GEAC in favour of Bt brinjal, the GEAC was fair to the anti-biotech lobby, and constituted a committee to look into this contentious issue. Not satisfied with the composition of GEAC’s Committee, the anti-biotech lobby has constituted its own ‘independent committee of experts’, a sort of a parallel ‘GEAC’. Although apparently this committee is meant to block genetically modified brinjal, nothing prevents it from gaining fresh lease of life to pontify on other genetically engineered crops.

A number of questions raised by the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture and Greenpeace regarding genetically modified brinjal were discussed on this site earlier.

Bt brinjal was subjected to a variety of tests and analyses and the details are available on the website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. None of these studies have indicated any negative possibilities that warrant banning Bt brinjal from commercial cultivation.

During the development of Bt brinjal by Mahyco since the year 2000, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR, Government of India) and the Review Committee on Genetic Modification (RCGM, Department of Biotechnology, Government of India) were monitoring multi-location field trials. The Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, an ICAR institution, which has a considerable experience with Bt brinjal, is also associated. A number of private and public sector institutions/organizations are involved in the mandatory and supplementary tests and analyses, as below:

a) Acute oral toxicity in rats, mucous membrane irritation tests in female rabbits, and primary skin irritation tests in rabbits: Intox, Pune.
b) Effects on non-target and beneficial insects: All India Co-ordinate Research Project (Vegetable Crops), Varanasi.
c) Assessment of allergenicity: Rallis India Ltd., Bangalore.
d) Dietary feed responses of the common carp and growth performances: Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai.
e) Effects on broiler chickens: Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar.
f) Subchronic feeding tests on rabbits and goats: Advinus Therapeutic, Bangalore.
g) Feeding experiments on cows: GB Pant University of Agricultural Sciences, Pantnagar.
h) Molecular finger printing and chemical studies: Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad.

This belies the charge that open field trials of Bt brinjal are being conducted by the companies and without independent verification of the safety claims made by the product developers. If one believes the anti-tech lobby, all these public and private sector investigating agencies are in collusion with the product developers.

Efficacy studies showed that Bt brinjal varieties effectively controlled the brinjal stem and fruit borer and the American bollworm, with an insect mortality of 98 per cent.

Various other parameters comparing Bt and non-Bt varieties of brinjal, such as pollen flow, seed germination and weediness, aggressiveness, accumulation of Bt proteins in the soil, soil micro-biota, Substantial Equivalence, protein expression, baseline susceptibility, the extent of refugium needed and its benefits and socio-economic and risk assessment, etc., were examined, none of which indicates that Bt brinjal is undesirable.

The Bt brinjal varieties were found to be Substantially Equivalent to their non-Bt isogenics in such factors as chemical constituents, moisture, proteins, oil, ash, carbohydrates, calories per fruit, nitrogen, ash and crude fiber contents in leaf, stem and root tissues, cooking qualities and protein estimation in cooked fruits.

None of this goes well with the protesters.

While considering a Public Interest Litigation against all genetically engineered (GE) products, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) directed the GEAC recently, not to accord approval for fresh field trials of GE crops and this has put Mahyco’s application for large-scale open field trials of Bt brinjal on hold. Though the ruling of the SCI, however, does not bar the GEAC’s brinjal Committee from functioning, Bt brinjal has still a long rough road to travel to commercialization.

Dr Rao is also the executive secretary of the Indian-based Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education(FBAE) .

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 10:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Supreme Court of India (SCI, September 22, 2006) directed the country's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), not to give approvals to genetically modified products until further orders. This has perplexed the biotech community but pleased the anti-biotech lobby, which seems to read too much into this two-week restriction. The SCI’s directive is in consideration of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed on May 1, 2006, seeking a ‘ban on the release of genetically modified organisms/seeds having the potential of causing major health hazards’. The SCI’s directive has been widely reported in the Indian Press (Indo Asian News Service, The Times of India, The HIndu, Financial Express), which would not have happened if the directive were to be against the petitioners.

Fixing October 13, 2006 for the next hearing on the PIL, the SCI stated that 'we are not inclined to direct stoppage of all field trials at this stage without (considering) the stand of the respondents. At the same time we deem it appropriate to direct GEAC to withhold the approvals till further directions are issued on hearing all concerned’. The SCI’s order would thus not apply to field trials of genetically modified products, which were already approved by the GEAC.

The SCI’s directive is sub judice to comment, but the implications of the petition need to be considered, in public interest.

The petitioners pleaded for a ‘stay against grant of fresh approvals and of all field trials on genetically modified crops, alleging that the policy of the government was to give speedy clearance to genetically modified organisms even before putting in place a mechanism to test their bio-safety value’. The fact is that there is a well-appreciated and robust multi-step mechanism for biosecurity evaluation of genetically engineered (GE) crops in the country.

The petitioners said that the ‘use of technology of genetic engineering and release of GM organisms into the environment would require application of precautionary principle, which mandated that every possible precaution must be taken to ensure that no harmful effects are caused to human and animal health and environment’. This is overstretching the import of the Precuationary Principle (PP), which advises only a cautious approach, and was not intended to block deployment of genetically engineered products altogether on objections not supported by science. Precautionary principle was also not meant to be invoked ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

The petitioners alleged that ‘GE, if allowed to proceed unchecked would change the molecular structure of the world's food’. This is a highly imaginative and misleading assumption to paint a scary scenario, which does not make any scientific sense. It was further said that ‘if the GEAC's reckless rush into genetically modified foods were not checked, this process would be the fastest and riskiest experiment anywhere with irreversible impacts on our farmers, their crop choices, our food and health’.

The GEAC is composed of competent experienced agricultural scientists and other experts who know their responsibility and they have been doing their job as per the rule of law. What might have disturbed the anti-agribiotech lobby in India is that the present GEAC is more pro-active and does not dilly-dally, like its predecessor.

The petition is projected as the ‘apprehension of agriculturalists about possible mutilation of domestic seed variety by the onslaught of genetically modified seeds’. All along, the farmers chose what was best for them and discarded thousands of varieties of crops that were in cultivation at the given time. The farmer will continue to exercise a similar choice and if there were no demand for GE varieties, the market forces will push them out. Even when the genetically engineered seed is on the market, the farmer has the freedom to choose the non-GE seed.

The charge that ‘genetically modified products being introduced by some of the MNCs posed serious threat to ecology, crops and human lives’, is emotionalization and sensationalization of the issue stemmed in the bogie of MNC domination and is bereft of any rational science. The Indian public sector institutions have been developing about 39 genetically engineered traits in 23 crops, much more than the private companies.

The petitioners alleged that ‘open field trials of genetically modified Okra, Brinjal and Rice are being conducted in various parts of the country on the basis of the safety tests conducted by the companies and without any independent verification of their safety claims about GM seeds’.

Throughout the world, the product developers provide the basic biosecurity data based on existing governmental guidelines. They are verified and supplemented by public institutions and/or accredited private establishments. In India there are no independent private institutions to conduct biosecuirty evaluations. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India, is now in the process of putting such a mechanism in place. Currently, the independent public sector research institutions of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) conduct biosecurity evaluations.

The advice of the SCI to the Government to ‘consider associating independent experts in the field with the GEAC’ is not an issue with the GEAC, as they had earlier involved other outside experts. The anti-tech activists too were given an opportunity to present their point of view before the GEAC.

While the final decision of the SCI is anybody’s guess at the moment, waiting for it is inevitable.

Dr. Rao is the executive secretary of the Indian-based Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education (FBAE). He can be reached at krao@vsnl.com.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 4:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Commission on Green Biotechnology is a constituent of the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities (UGASH). The InterAcademy Panel (IAP), a worldwide network of 92 academies of sciences, with its secretariat in Trieste/Italy, advises citizens and politicians in their home countries on current problems of global relevance.
The Berlin Group comprises of participants in a workshop on ‘Genetically modified crops in developing countries’, jointly conducted by UGASH and IAP in Berlin between May 27 and 29, 2006. The Berlin Group has now issued a statement that is being circulated for adoption by various academies in Europe and elsewhere.

The Berlin Group has taken the position that “molecular engineering of crops has brought revolutionary advances in agriculture.”

The group notes that in just ten years since their introduction, many genetically modified crop varieties have been grown on about 5 per cent of all global arable land. Genetically modified crops are now being grown in 21 countries by 8.5 million farmers, 90 per cent of them being resource-poor.

Some developing countries, the group further observes, have benefited from genetically modified crops and are now in a position to affirm their need and their will to adopt them. Based on this assertion, the Berlin Group states:

1. Foods from GM crops are more extensively tested than any other and have been shown to be as safe as, or even sometimes safer than, foods derived from the corresponding conventional plants. Ten years of human consumption and extensive nutritional testing amply support this conclusion. Any food, GM or not, may certainly involve some risks for human health. There is presently not the least scientific and/or medical evidence that the risks possibly entailed by the former would be higher than those entailed by the latter.

2. The environmental impact of GM crops is no greater than that of traditional crops. In some cases GM crops have diminished the negative effects of current agricultural practices. Insect-resistant cotton requires substantially decreased applications of chemical pesticides while herbicide-tolerant crops permit no-till practices, cutting energy use and promoting healthy soils. Seed-incorporated technology is particularly suitable for small farmers in developing countries. GM crops resistant to pests and diseases reduce farmers’ exposure to chemical pesticides, particularly when applied by hand sprays. The successful cultivation of GM cotton in the developing countries shows how subsistence farmers have significantly increased their income and improved the quality of their life.

3. In both developed and some developing countries, organic farmers have already been operating in an environment subjected to influences from neighbouring activities. With proper separation safeguards, the presence of genes encoding GM traits in organic products is trivial. Nothing in GM agriculture prevents organic farmers from pursuing their normal practices. There is no evidence-based justification in the rules of organic farming to exclude the use of GM crops.

4. GM crops can make a major global contribution to the quantity and quality of food. In developing countries, farmers suffer major crop losses caused by insects and diseases. GM technology has already shown that such losses can be significantly reduced, leading directly to improvements in food quality and safety (e.g. insect-resistant maize has appreciably lower levels of highly carcinogenic fungal toxins).

5. Just as each consumer ought to have the right to adopt or reject GM food, farmers should be able to decide for themselves whether to plant conventional, organic or GM crops. For such a choice, appropriate regulations including labelling of GM products must be in place, and such regulations should be proportionate and not excessive. The safety assessment procedures now enacted in developed countries for GM crops and products result in needlessly high costs and hinder the application of this valuable technology to the many crops grown in the developing world. For developing countries to have access to crop biotechnology for their own agriculture, international and non-profit organizations must help governments to formulate appropriate regulations and assist with the training of personnel to administer them.

6. It is frequently argued that farmers growing GM crops loose their freedom when they are obliged to buy their seeds annually. However, in most developing countries farmers are accustomed to using farmer saved seeds that is in many cases allowed by law, and this could also be applied to GM cultivars.

The Berlin Statement denounces the unsupported arguments used against GM crops and calls upon governments and environmental nonprofits to end unjustified campaigns against GM crops.

Such a firm and positive stance covering all contingent issues is most welcome, more particularly since it comes from Europe, often cited as vehemently opposed to genetically modified food.

Dr. Rao is the executive secretary of the Indian-based Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education(FBAE), Bangalore, India. He can be reached at krao@vsnl.com

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 2:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco) sought the permission of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of India, for large-scale open field trials of eight genetically modified brinjal hybrids. This threw opponents of genetically modified food in India into a tizzy. ‘Position papers on genetically modified brinjal’, spiced with a lot of pseudo-science have been widely circulated, demanding GEAC’s ban of all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in India. The GEAC placed the biosecurity data provided by Mahyco on their website for public comment. The propaganda machinery has now drafted, anti-GMOs experts/scientists from the US, UK and New Zealand.

Brinjal (aubergine, egg plant, Solanum melongena) is a vegetable in Asia and Europe. The original Persian/Arabic name al-bAdhinjAn, gave rise to, a) with the al, the French name 'aubergine' derived from Catalan albergínia, and b) without the al, the Portuguese berinjela, and the Spanish berenjena, which became brinjal in Indian and Sri Lankan English. The samskrith name vatinganah, produced baingan in Hindi, van(g)kayi in Telugu (-kayi is raw fruit), badanekaryi in Kannada and similar names in Indian languages.

Centres of Origin of cultivated plants are determined on a variety of circumstantial evidence, especially on the number and diversity of related wild species. In most cases there is hardly any sound scientific proof for the conclusions drawn.

Overall evidence strongly suggests that South America was the Centre of Origin of the species of the genus Solanum, to which both potato (Solanum tuberosum) and brinjal belong.

The exact origin of Solanum melongena is uncertain. It probably originated from the African wild species Solanum incanum. Solanum melongena was first domesticated in Southeast China, and taken to the Mediterranean region during the Arab conquests in the 7th century. If brinjal was mentioned in ancient Indian literature, it only indicates that it was naturalized, having been introduced into India, a long time ago and this in itself is not an evidence of its origin in India.

Centres of Diversity are determined on the basis of the number and diversity of related species or varieties in the wild. The fundamental criterion of relationship is that two or more species or varieties freely interbreed producing fertile offspring. The number and diversity of cultivated varieties of a crop species in a country is not the basis to determine origin and diversity, as developing such varieties is an essentially human activity.

A decade or so ago, considerations of origin and diversity were of some significance in crop plant breeding, to aid the choice of species/varieties with desirable genes and to produce fertile hybrids with the cultivated varieties of the related crops. With several techniques of molecular biology and genetic engineering available now, the relevance of theoretical and academic inferences on the Centres of Origin and Diversity has diminished considerably.

Several species of Solanum occur in the wild in India. Cytogeneticists have artificially produced interspecific hybrids of species of Solanum. It was not so difficult to produce first generation hybrids, which generally suffered from chromosomal instability and pollen sterility, hardly resulting in any fertile hybrids.

Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA analysis (RAPD, a technique in genome comparisons) shows that Solanum incanum and then Solanum viarum are the closest to Solanum melongena. Solanum incanum and Solanum viarum occur infrequently in the wild in India, but are hardly sympatric and panmictic with the cultivated varieties. When artificial hybrids were produced, the progeny were sterile, leaving no chances for gene flow among these related species.

In nature, species of Solanum do not normally hybridize, as they are predominantly (over 90 per cent) self-pollinated. Anthers that open by small apical pores are the characteristic feature of the genus Solanum, unlike in many other plant species where the anthers open dehiscing longitudinally to fully expose the pollen to the air and pollinators. Solanum pollen are sticky and do not travel long distances, even if they become airborne. Insects visit Solanum flowers but their role in pollination is insignificant.

There are many cultivated varieties of brinjal in India, some of which are restricted to specific regions, as for example the ‘Udupi gulla’ variety of Mangalore. Wild species of Solanum and several cultivated varieties of brinjals co-exist. However, farmers and scientists are not aware of any hybrids between the two groups and no effort is made to protect different varieties of cultivated brinjals from hybridizing among themselves or with the wild Solanums.

The floral structure and the reproductive biology of brinjals and experience in cultivating them for several centuries in India, do not suggest any possibility of gene flow from transgenic brinjals to normal brinjals.

The biosecurity of Bt insecticidal proteins in genetically engineered crops is thoroughly assured by evidence on the use of genetically modified pesticides for over 60 years and the cultivation and consumption of Bt transgenics for a decade. None of the extensive studies on the safety of genetically modified proteins conducted in various countries has indicated any possibility of their being harmful to animals and humans or the environment.

Cry 1 Ac is toxic only under specific conditions. It is non-toxic to all organisms with an acidic stomach and with no binding sites for the crystal protein, which includes all mammals and non-target organisms.
Brinjal fruits are not toxic to mammals. But, all the other parts of the brinjal palnt are toxic, due to several alkaloids. Cattle are not deliberately fed on brinjal plants. Grown under water scarcity, even the fruit accumulates alkaloids and phenolic compounds, which give a bitter taste and make the fruit inedible.
Scientific evidence does not indicate any possibility of Bt brinjals posing serious or unmanageable risks to the farmers, consumers or the environment.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 2:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India krao@vsnl.com, www.fbae.org, www.fbaeblog.org

The Indian private seed companies profited till now from the basic technology and crop breeding material from the public sector, be it the research & development institutions of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, or State Agricultural Universities and their stations, or the Agricultural Research Stations of the State Governments. While a good part of this technology transfer was above board, some seed companies were often accused of appropriating the technology without authorization or recompense. Even some of the scientists involved in research and development in the public sector were accused of having kept their research under wrap till retirement, and of selling it to the private sector post-retirement.

Now the first step in changing this practice is being taken by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco), the target board of opponents of genetically modified foods in India. Mahyco is transferring the technology and basic breeding material of genetically engineered brinjal to two public sector institutions (PSIs), the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore (TNAU) and the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (UASD), though the ownership of the genetic engineered event EE-1 still rests with Mahyco. This partnership arrangement will be extended to the Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi, University of Philippines, Los Banos, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute and a private seed company, East West Seeds, Bangladesh.

The genetically engineered brinjal contains a gene construct of Cry 1 Ac from Monsanto, the American MNC, which has a 26 per cent stake in Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech (MMB). The public sector institutions will now use the Mahyco material to backcross with their own brinjal varieties to incorporate the genetic event into them, imparting tolerance to the fruit and stem borers of brinjal that cause severe damage to the produce.

In India alone, 25 million farmers cultivate brinjal on over 5.1 lakh hectares with an annual production of about 8.2 million tonnes. Even after continuous insecticide application, the stem and fruit borers affect 50 to 70 per cent of the crop annually.

Mahyco has integrated EE1 into eight of its own brinjal hybrids (MHB 4, 9, 10, 80, 99, 11, 39, 111) and sought permission of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for large scale open field trials (LSOFT). The activists contested the move, but not on any sound scientific grounds. The GEAC has put all the biosecuirty data provided by Mahyco on its website for public comment. The approval of the GEAC for LSOFT has to come yet.

The TNAU will use brinjal hybrids Co-1, PLR-1, MDU-1 and KKM-1 while the UASD will use Manjari Gota, Udupi Gulla, Malapur local, Kudachi local, 112-GO hybrids and Rabkavi local, together covering a large part of the needs of the four southern States.

So long as the public sector institutions do not involve in commercializing these genetically engineered varieties, no royalties need be paid. The farmers can save the seed to raise the subsequent season’s crop, unlike the genetically modified cotton hybrids. What costs the farmers would have to pay for different varieties of genetically engineered brinjal is yet unknown.

It is not clear if the public sector institutions made any lumpsum payment for the transfer of technology, which seems to have been effected through the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USaid).

The situation is a welcome change as the development of none of the 60 or so genetically modified hybrids involved the public sector institutions. There were very steep royalty or trait charges paid by the farmers, which was one of the most serious criticisms against MMB. In addition, there is the inadvisability of recycling the seed.

While this much-awaited private and public partnership is refreshing, celebration should be put on hold for several reasons.

The genetically modified brinjal EE1 event did not originate with PSIs, not even with Mahyco; it is Monsanto’s technology. The Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) has been developing a genetically modified brinjal with Cry1Ab for nearly a decade, and its progress is anybody’s guess.

Of the 67 or so GE crop traits registered for development in India, the largest number (39) are from about 20 PSIs. In spite of working for 10 to 15 years, not even a single trait is likely to be commercialized in this decade, not withstanding the enthusiastic announcements on their marketing soon. None of the events that are now being commercialized or in the process of commercialization in the near future have originated in this country; it is imported technology, bought or even pirated, directly or indirectly.

It is hard to believe that this new largesse of Mahyco is due to a change of heart; business compulsions and strategies cannot be ruled out. People who forget history will be condemned to repeat it.

India’s Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) ruled against MMB on charges of monopoly, which virtually ended this year. Distributing the genetically engineered brinjal event to a few other seed developers may avoid a repetition of such an allegation.

The original four genetically engineered cotton varieties of Mahyco were neither genetically superior nor suited to all cotton growing regions. Even with some 40 to 60 different Bt cotton varieties today, one is not sure that every cotton-growing region in the country is being served well. One would wish that more varieties of genetically engineered brinjal with superior genotypes would be developed for the other regions of the country as well.

The royalty or trait charge component of genetically modified cotton was high. Hopefully, MMB would take note of the rough weather faced by its genetically engineered cotton and fix reasonable costs.

The move to allow some public sector institutions to share the Bt brinjal technology is good for the public image of Mahyco, viewed as contributing to the much-aspired private-public partnership. And it would certainly take a lot of wind out of the anti-tech activists’ tirade against MMB.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 2:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India krao@vsnl.com, www.fbae.org, www.fbaeblog.org

http://www.fbae.org/Channels/agri_biotech/general_topics/genetically_engineered_crops_in.htm

In India, 65 per cent of the population is involved in agriculture, directly or indirectly. About 15 per cent are landless labour, earning less than a dollar a day. About 65 per cent of the farmers own less than one hectare of land. The past scientific and technological advances and financial inputs have hardly reached the poor farmer.

Green Revolution transformed India from a food-importing nation into a food-exporting nation. However, an overzealous and inappropriate management practices denied the country the full benefits of Green Revolution.

During the past four decades, cash crops such as cotton, sugarcane and tobacco took precedence over dry land crops like pulses, oil seeds and millets. Rice cultivation increased from 227 mill. acres in 1960, to 2518 mill. acres by 2000. Cultivation of wheat increased three times and that of cotton two times. Simultaneously, the cultivation of pulses fell from 836 mill. acres to 13 mill. acres, that of pearl millet fell down by 20 times and that of groundnut by 15 times. This trend seriously affected the small farmer and rural economy.

The Indian agriculture needs quantitative and qualitative enhancement of production without increasing arable or irrigated land. The resource poor farmer needs to be protected and the Indian farmer should put on an internationally competitive technological and commercial base. All this can be achieved only with the aid of modern technology, as conventional strategies have largely failed.

Various public and private sector institutions undertook the development of several genetically engineered (GE) crops, under a pro-active policy of the Government of India.

GE CROP DEVELOPMENT IN PUBLIC SECTOR

The Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi (IARI), Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bangalore (IHRI), National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow (NBRI), National Centre for Plant Genome Research, New Delhi (NCPGR), National Research Centre for Weed Science, Jabalpur (NRCWS), Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack (CRRI), Directorate of Rice Research, Hyderabad (DRR), Central Potato Research Institute, Simla (CPRI), and Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore (SBI), are important public sector institutions involved in GE crop development.

Institutions such as the University of Delhi (UDSC), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi (JNU), Madras University, Chennai (CAS), Osmania University, Hyderabad (OUH), Madurai-Kamaraj University, Madurai (MKU), Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore (TNAU), University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore and Dharwad (UASB, UASD), and some others are also involved in GE crop development.

The autonomous institutions engaged in GE crop development are the International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics, Hyderabad (ICRISAT), The Energy Research Institute, New Delhi (TERI), M S Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai (MSSRF), and Entomology Research Unit, Loyola College, Chennai (ERLCC).

GE CROP DEVELOPMENT IN PRIVATE SECTOR

In the private sector the Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech, Mumbai (MMB), is the largest player. Meta-Helix, Bangalore, Avestagen, Bangalore, Dow Agrosciences, Bangalore, Sungrow Seeds Ltd., New Delhi, and several other companies are also developing GE crops.

CROPS AND TRAITS

There are 23 crops, involving 67 GE traits, in different stages of development. Contrary to the general belief, the public sector is involved in the development of the largest number of GE traits (39). The autonomous institutes are developing 8 traits and the private sector 20 traits.

COTTON

With 12 Bt hybrids on 72,000 acres in 2002-03, Bt cotton cultivation grew to 40 approved varieties on about 4.5 mill. acres in 2006-07. Another 20 varieties with Cry 1 Ac and two gene stacked varieties with Cry 1Ac + Cry 1Ab would be commercialized next year.

In 2005-06, only 09 per cent of cotton acreage is under legal Bt cotton while 26 per cent is under the illegal Bt cotton sold as the Navbharath 151 seed. About 65 per cent cotton acreage was under spurious Bt or non-Bt cotton.

RICE

GE varieties rice are being developed for pest tolerance (Galanthus nivalis lectin, gna) by the Osmania University; by DRR for bacterial blight and pest resistance (Cry 1AC, gna); IARI for pathogen resistance (chitinase) and pest resistance (Cry 1Ac, Cry 1AB, Cry 1Aa); MKU for pathogen resistance (chitinase, glucanase) and drought resistance (osmotin); MSSRF for salinity resistance; TNAU for pathogen resistance (chitinase); and Mahyco for pest resistance (Cry 1 Ac).

A GE variety of the fragrant Basmathi rice, with stacked genes to control bacterial blight and another to control post-harvest damage by Coleopteran pests, are in development.

Local varieties of Golden Rice that contain genes for β-carotene in the grain are being developed at the CRRI, DRR and TNAU.

MILLETS

MMB is developing GE maize for herbicide tolerance and a variety of sorghum for pest tolerance.

PULSES

ICRISAT is involved in the production of a pest tolerant chickpea and pigeon pea with Cry 1 Ab and soybean trypsin inhibitor. MMB is developing a pigeon pea with Cry 1 Ac.

OIL SEEDS

ICRISAT is developing groundnut varieties resistant to the Indian peanut clump virus.

Mustard is receiving a greater attention for stress resistance (IARI: CodA, osmotin), herbicide tolerance (UDSC and NRCWS: bar, barnase, barstar) and β-carotene content (TERI).

VEGETABLES

GE potato with Cry 1 Ab (CPRI) and high protein (NCPGR and JNU: Ama-1) and tomato for fungal resistance (NCPGR and JNU): Oxalate decarboxylase) and for pest tolerance (MMB, Cry 1 Ac) are being developed. The other GE vegetables are cauliflower (MMB and Sungrow Seeds with Cry 1 Ac), cabbage (Sungrow Seeds, Cry 1 Ac) and okra for virus resistance (IHRI and MKU).

Pest tolerant GE varieties of brinjal (MMB) are ready for large-scale open field trials.

SUGARCANE

A GE variety of sugarcane with resistance to the fungal disease red rot by SBI, is a recent and interesting development.

While most of these GE crop varieties would take some years before they are commercialized, the prospects for GE crops in India appear to be very bright, in spite of the cacophony of activism.

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 2:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ignoring a number of pro-genetic engineering (GE) developments in the European Union (EU), anti-tech activists assert that the EU has closed its doors to GE, but facts speak otherwise.

GE PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
Despite a very vehement and active anti-tech propaganda, the European Commission (EC) has approved over 190 GE crops for field-testing during the past three years. In 2006 it self, the EC has approved 98 GE crops for field-testing in Spain (38), France (19), Germany (10), Hungary (7), Portugal (5), Sweden (4), Czech Republic (3), Poland (3), Denmark (2) and Ireland (1). The traits include herbicide tolerance, pest tolerance, high enzyme levels, high yield, photosynthetic efficiency, explosive detection and others, in transgenic corn, potato, rye, rapeseed, cotton, tobacco, flax and sugar beet. Both public institutions and biotech corporations are involved in developing these transgenics.

Continue reading "IS EUROPEAN UNION REALLY ANTI-GENETIC ENGINEERING?" »

Posted by Dr. C Kameswara Rao at 11:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

China is now the rallying point and model in all discussions on Bt cotton in India. While identifying the ills of Bt cotton economics in India, the President of the Indian Seed Industry Association (ISIA) made certain incongruous remarks citing China as an example.

He stated that affordable prices of Bt cotton technology in China had helped it become a global leader in cotton production, with almost twice the average yield