Coalition’s feedback on the 15 April 2013 Report of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) on Western Ghats

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Ramoo

Subject : Comment on the 15 April 2013, Report of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) on Western Ghats ( Part 1 & 2 )

We have perused the Report of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) on Western Ghats and would like to provide specific feedback on the issues of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We are dismayed to find that the HLWG has neither addressed nor provided a roadmap or advice to the government regarding Implementing this recommendation of the WGEEP.

This is a particularly notable and significant omission since the Western Ghats Expert Ecology Panel (WGEEP) had taken an unambiguous and clear stand about GMOs and recommended that the entire Western Ghats should be protected from the introduction of GM crops/trees and animals.

This was rightly done keeping in view the fact that on one hand the Western Ghats is a mega–biodiversity hotspot and the repository of invaluable biota and on the other GMOs is a risky, living, unpredictable and irreversible technology. The inadvertent or unavoidable spread of GMOs can cause irreversible and irreparable damage to the biota of the Ghats.

After carefully examining the HLWG report, it is interesting and pertinent to note the responses received by the HLWG from the six State governments falling in the Western Ghats zone, specifically regarding GMOs;

Out of the six State governments, four have responded on this recommendation. It is commendable that the State governments of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamilnadu have accepted to keep the Western Ghats region falling within their state GMO-free. The Government of Gujarat too has accepted it as a guiding principle. Only the State governments of Maharashtra and Goa have not commented on it.

In addition to this, the HLWG report reveals the fact that the stakeholders, who responded to WGEEP report, have favoured the WGEEP recommendation for GMO-free Western Ghats.

This is a welcome sign and a clear indication that states & people of this unique region understand the importance of keeping the entire Western Ghats free of GMOs. Therefore, steps have to be taken by your Ministry to give full support to the State governments that have agreed and engage with the others to keep the Ghats, free of any genetic interference / modification/contamination.

There is growing evidence about the adverse impacts of GMOs and considerable concern has been raised by nation-states, international bodies, ecologists, scientists and civil society about it. A recent compilation of over 400 scientific papers which point to the adverse impacts of GMOs has been compiled by the Coalition. (attached).

We would like to reiterate that we endorse the recommendation of the WGEEP regarding the Western Ghats free of GMOs and we urge your Ministry to take steps to implement the same at the earliest. There is no need to introduce GM seeds/ crops/ trees/ insects/ land & aquatic animals in Western Ghats. No GM field trials should be allowed at all in the entire region and cultivation of Bt Cotton should be phased out by making desi non-GM cotton seeds available.

It will not be wise to ignore the risks of ‘gene contamination occurring through use of GMOs’, as cautioned by the expert ecologist of our country, appointed by your own Ministry. The support from the states concerned & the public should help the Ministry to expedite action for protection of the Western Ghats from GMOs. With political will it is possible and we extend our wholehearted support to help your Ministry to keep the Western Ghats, an abode of many endemic species and a natural gene bank, free of GMOs.

Thanking You

Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Convener

(Phone : 09995358205)

Please find enclosed;

Our letter dated 3rd July 2012 on the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) Report to MoEF

Compilation of Scientific Papers on Adverse impact of GMOs

CC: Smt. Jayanti Natarajan, Minister for Environment & Forests, Minister of State (Independent Charge) Ministry of Environment and Forests. mosefgoi@nic.in, mosef@nic.in

To:

Dr. Amit Love,

Deputy Director,

Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,

Lodi Road, New Delhi – 110 003

Telephone: 011-24362827,

Telefax: 011-24364594,

Email: amit.love@nic.in

Pressure to withdraw BRAI Bill mounting on Jaipal Reddy

Posted on May 7, 2013 by kavitha

Madhya Pradesh government’s agriculture minister has written to the Union Minister for Science & Technology, Jaipal Reddy, to withdraw the BRAI Bill.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/agri-biz/madhya-pradesh-wants-bill-on-biotech-regulator-withdrawn/article4680471.ece

Further, 16 Parliamentarians, including four floor leaders (of CPI-M, AIADMK, Telugu Desam Party and BJD.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/agri-biz/16-mps-want-govt-to-withdraw-bill-on-biotech-regulator/article4667162.ece

The Communist Party of India leader, D Raja, also wrote to the Minister demanding withdrawal of the Bill.

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/withdraw-biotechnology-regulatory-authority-bill-says-d-raja/article4682162.ece

Conflict of Interest pervades Supreme Court’s expert committee too!

Posted on May 7, 2013 by kavitha

To:

May 6, 2013

Learned Bench of Supreme Court of India,

In Civil Writ Petition 260 of 2005.

Respected Sirs,

Sub: Conflict of interest of a member of the Court’s Technical Expert Committee – reg.

Ref: GMOs PIL, Civil Writ Petition 260 of 2005

Greetings!

Greetings from the Coalition for a GM-Free India !

I wish to introduce the Coalition for a GM-Free India as a broad national network of organizations, scientists, farmer unions, consumer groups and individuals concerned about the adverse implications of transgenic technology in our food and farming, and committed to promoting sustainable ecological solutions to protect India’s food security and sovereignty.

We write to draw your attention to the disturbing news that has been carried in a prominent newspaper (Chetan Chauhan, Hindustan Times, New Delhi, 6th May, 2013) titled “GM panel member in conflict of interest row”. This is with reference to the Public Interest Litigation on GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) being heard by this Honorable Court through Writ Petition No. 260 of 2005, with Aruna Rodrigues and others as the petitioners. During the November 2012 hearing, the Court had inducted a new member, Dr R S Paroda, into a Technical Expert Committee set up in May 2012.

It seems that the Honorable Court has been seriously misled into appointing a member with conflict of interest into its Technical Expert Committee.

We wish to place before you the following facts for your kind consideration:

1. The Orders of 10th May 2012 setting up the TEC were based on a consensus agreement arrived at on 15th March 2011 between the petitioners and respondents, under the authority of the then Union Minister for Environment and Forests, Mr Jairam Ramesh. In its May 10th 2012 Orders appointing the Technical Expert Committee, the court made the following explanatory remarks:

“This has given rise to serious controversies before this Court as to whether or not the field tests of GMOs should be banned, wholly or partially, in the entire country. It is obvious that such technical matters can hardly be the subject matter of judicial review. The Court has no expertise to determine such an issue, which, besides being a scientific question, would have very serious and far-reaching consequences.” (our emphasis).

2. Subsequent to the setting up of the TEC, one member dropped out and the other five gave a unanimous interim report complying with the Court’s Orders, in October 2012. Dr V L Chopra, one of the members appointed into the Committee, because of ‘commitments in hand, both professional and personal’, had declined to serve on the Committee and the same has been conveyed to the Registrar, Supreme Court and the Secretary, MoEF in the month of May 2012 itself.

3. The Ministry of Environment and Forests has always been a respondent (on behalf of Union of India) in this case from the beginning, by virtue of the regulatory mandate and responsibility resting with them. But in the November 2012 hearing, it was the Ministry of Agriculture which stepped in (which incidentally is a ministry that promotes GM crops through various projects and where its NARS [National Agricultural Research System] earns revenues for conducting field trials for other applicants and therefore, carries its own conflict of interest); it was this Ministry which insisted on the appointment of Dr R S Paroda as the sixth member of the Committee, after the interim report was submitted. The 9th November 2012 Orders of the Court said the following:

“Having considered various aspects and with consent of the parties, we hereby appoint Dr. Rajendra Singh Paroda as a member of the Committee who shall participate in place of Mr. Chopra. In the event he is not desirous of participating in the Committee, the Committee shall go on with five members without any further addition.”

In fact, this is surprising given that this Honourable Court in its earlier Orders of the 6th August 2012 said: “The person who has not joined inspite of the order may be dropped from the panel as the vacancy is not causing any prejudice.”

4. While this is the sequence of developments, we would now like to draw your kind attention to the fact that Dr Paroda is not an “independent expert” in any sense of the word, as was exposed by the above mentioned news report. Amongst many other roles that Dr Paroda discharges, his main identity is that of being the Chairperson of TAAS (Trust for Advancement of Agricultural Sciences) since 2002 and he is also the Executive Secretary of APAARI (Asia Pacific Association of Agricultural Research Institutions) from 1993 onwards.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST OF DR R S PARODA:

5. On the Board of TAAS that Dr Paroda heads is the Chairperson of Mahyco Research Foundation, Dr B R Barwale (Source: http://www.taas.in/board_of_trustees.html). “Corporate Members” on this Board include Gyanendra Shukla of Monsanto India, M.Ramasami of Rasi Seeds, M Prabhakar Rao of Nuziveedu Seeds and National Seed Association of India’s Dr N K Dadlani. Mahyco is the main Indian business partner of Monsanto, the American multinational which controls most of the transgenic seed business in the world, in addition to having a large share in proprietary seed business globally.

6. Further, Dr R S Paroda’s organisation (APAARI) receives funding from Monsanto and Mahyco. APAARI runs a programme called APCoAB: Asia Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology, Pusa, New Delhi, with Mahyco, Monsanto etc., as funders. http://www.apcoab.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=5 lists Mahyco as one of the Supporters, under main initiators and supporters of APCoAB/APAARI. Steering Committee Meeting minutes of APCOAB are available on www.apcoab.org which show that Mahyco has been thanked and appreciation recorded for its contribution to APCOAB.

7. Moreover, Dr Paroda has in the past served on the Global Biotech Advisory Council of Monsanto. Needless to say, it is Monsanto which would be the largest beneficiary of any decision that would allow GM crops into the country. As you would kindly be aware, Monsanto’s proprietary Bt cotton has a 93% share in the Indian market today, within just 11 years of the formal approval of Bt cotton in India.

THIS COURT HAS STRESSED ON INDEPENDENT EXPERTS IN THE PAST, REPEATEDLY:

8. We wish to draw your attention to the fact that this Honourable Court in the past on various occasions, in this very case, had stressed upon the need for independence in regulation. On 22nd September 2006, the Court, in its Order, said the following amongst other matters:

“The Government would also consider associating independent experts in GEAC. (The petitioners may give their suggestions to learned counsel for the respondents in this regard within a period of one week from today).”

9. Again on 13th October 2006, the Court Orders read this:

“…. The Government, if it has in its view certain other independent experts, their names shall be placed on record and supplied in advance to learned counsel for the petitioner. Before suggesting the names of independent experts to be associated with GEAC, the Government shall ask prospective persons as to whether they are being funded directly or indirectly by biotech industry. List the applications after five weeks.”

10. Again on 15th December 2006 in the case of a discussion related to a GM mustard field experiment, the Court once again said: “We expect independent expert opinion from GEAC on this subject.”

11. On 13th February 2008, the Hon’ble Court noted the following while directing the Ministry of Environment to invite Dr P M Bhargava and Dr M S Swaminathan to the GEAC meetings as Invitees: “It is also contended that the constitution of GEAC is not proper as it lacks independent experts, thereby leading to lack of transparency.”

THE TEC’S FIRST UNANIMOUS REPORT ALSO STRESSES ON INDEPENDENT EXPERTISE:

12. We wish to point out that the TEC’s interim report, finalized unanimously in October 2012 and submitted to the Court, emphasized the need to remove conflict of interest in regulation! (page 11)

“Need for removing conflicts of interest: For the regulatory process as a whole to have public confidence (this is a must on something as fundamental as food safety), it is important for the regulatory structure to be free of conflict of interest…….The regulatory body for GM products should be located entirely outside of the DBT and a suggestion is that it could be either in the MoEF or Ministry of Health and Family Welfare or both (environmental and health safety respectively). It is also important that members of the regulatory bodies should not have any interests, explicit or implicit, in the development/promotion of transgenic products that would be deployed commercially.”

In the Recommendations section, (Page 14 Point 5 (iii)), the TEC once again says,: “conflict of interest in the regulatory body has been removed as discussed above”, while asking for field trials to be stopped unless conditions like this specific one are met.

THIS COURT WAS MISLED WITH REGARD TO DR PARODA’S APPOINTMENT INTO THE TEC:

13. Sirs, we write to the learned Bench to point out that when the Court had over the years stressed upon independent expertise, and expressly asked the government to first ask prospective persons whether they are being funded directly or indirectly by the biotech industry, the same caution was not applied when Dr R S Paroda was appointed as the sixth member into the TEC!

14. We are worried that the practice of appointing of “experts” into technical committees that advise the Hon’ble Court on complex technical matters would get seriously jeopardised when “experts” who cannot be termed independent and devoid of conflict of interest come into the picture. This would set a bad precedence for S&T jurisprudence in the country. After all, one of the biggest contentions in the case against GMOs is the monopolistic corporate control that goes hand in hand with the technology. If such monopolistic corporate powers find their way into expert committees that the Hon’ble Court turns to, directly or indirectly, can ordinary citizens find justice delivered in the case of some of the most controversial S&T questions of our time?

Respected Sirs, we end by noting that when the five member TEC consisting of independent experts sat down to deliberate on the questions posed to them, it was noteworthy that they came up with a unanimous report that emphasized on the precautionary approach, needs assessment, stringent biosafety assessment etc. This unanimity is noteworthy as it demonstrates clearly the validity of the concerns around this technology.

It is after reading the unanimous TEC report that the Ministry of Agriculture moved in to oppose the TEC report and induct a sixth member, who is not independent of industry interests. It is highly objectionable that these interests were not disclosed by the Ministry at the time of suggesting the name. It is also surprising that Dr Paroda himself did not proactively reveal this conflict of interest and recuse himself. It seems like the government has picked up the name of Dr R S Paroda almost out of desperation, particularly after the interim report of the TEC was released.

It is in this context of deep concern about conflict of interest pervading even the Expert Committees set up by the Highest Court in this country that we write this letter. We urge the Learned Bench not to allow the government to bring in vested interests into this process. We urge you to remove Dr R S Paroda from the TEC and urge you to uphold the principle of “independent expertise” that this Hon’ble Court has been stressing upon over the years in this very PIL. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Sridhar Radhakrishnan

(You can read the Hindustan Times article on Paroda’s conflict of interest here: http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/NewDelhi/GM-panel-member-in-conflict-of-interest-row/Article1-1055255.aspx)

Govt betrays the nation on Earth Day! Tables deeply flawed (Biotech Regulatory Authority of India) BRAI Bill

Posted on April 23, 2013 by kavitha

Bill introduced despite trenchant opposition within and outside the Parliament

New Delhi, 23rd April 2013: The Coalition for a GM-Free India expressed deep disappointment at the Government’s action of sneaking in the controversial Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill 2013, in Parliament today (22nd April, 2013) despite strong opposition from parliamentarians, scientists, civil society groups and other analysts to this controversial and unacceptable Bill. This Bill, dubbed as a “wrong bill by the wrong people for wrong reasons” in its various versions has been extremely controversial due to provisions facilitating the biotechnology industry at the expense of public good. Further, the Bill’s flawed approach to regulation in trying to create a single window clearing house for products of modern biotechnology, instead of an express mandate to protect and uphold biosafety given the acknowledged risks of modern biotechnology, has been opposed time and again.

“As we have reiterated on numerous occasions, the Bill is steeped in conflict of interest as the Ministry promoting biotechnology is about to house the regulator; it undermines the federal polity of our nation by overriding the authority of state governments, even though Agriculture is a State Subject as per the Indian Constitution. It also attempts to circumvent the right to information and transparency laws and is focussed on creating a three member technocratic, undemocratic and centralised decision making body. As the Bt brinjal moratorium decision shows us, even a more broad-based regulatory body had gone wrong with its decision-making – why can’t the government learn lessons from the past and aspire for a progressive legislation in the interest of Indian citizens and environment, rather than promote corporate interests?” said Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Convener of the Coalition.

The problems with this technology particularly in our food and farming systems, where the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are released into the environment are widely known and documented. “The Bill overlooks the ever-increasing evidence on the impacts of GMOs on human health, biodiversity and socioeconomic aspects and lacks any scientific independent, long term assessment to look at the safety as well as the very need of GMOs before their open release. This bill is anti-farmer and anti-consumer; if passed, it will only result in people losing control over food choices and seed sovereignty. The bill should be withdrawn”, asserted Pankaj Bhushan the Co-Convener of the Coalition.

The introduction of this Bill at this juncture is all the more shocking and unacceptable, given the following recommendation from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture which studied the subject in detail and presented its report to the Parliament in August 2012:

The Government have been for some years now toying with the idea of a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority. The Committee feel that regulating biotechnology is too small a focus in the vast canvas of biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health, etc. and a multitude of other such related issues. They have, therefore, already recommended in a previous Chapter setting up of an all encompassing Bio-safety Authority through an Act of Parliament, which is extensively discussed and debated amongst all stakeholders, before acquiring shape of the law. Unless and until such an authority is in place, any further movement in regard to transgenics in agriculture crops will obviously be fraught with unknown consequences. (Section 8.120)

Analysing the lacunae of the existing regulation and studying the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India, the Standing Committee said the following: “In such a situation what the Country needs is not a biotechnology regulatory legislation but an all encompassing umbrella legislation on biosafety which is focused on ensuring the biosafety, biodiversity, human and livestock health, environmental protection and which specifically describes the extent to which biotechnology, including modern biotechnology, fits in the scheme of things without compromising with the safety of any of the elements mentioned above”.

The Coalition for a GM-Free India strongly urges that Parliamentarians cutting across the political spectrum should respond to this retrograde and anti-people bill and prevent the control over our food and seed by a few biotechnology majors. Discussing the Bill in a limited context of a Standing Committee on Science & Technology would not suffice, given the large potential impact of the issue at hand.

We demand that the government show its sensitivity to the broad based opposition by withdrawing the bill. We urge Parliamentarians to ask forcirculation to elicit response and understand the importance and need to set up a Joint Committee in this current instance (ideally headed by the Chairperson of the Agriculture Standing Committee, given its deep links to farmers’ livelihoods, an issue pertaining to the largest number of Indians).

www.indiagminfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/BRAI-critique-coalition-for-gm-free-india.pdf has a detailed critique of the Govt’s BRAI Bill.

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:

Sridhar Radhakrishnan: 9995358205

Pankaj Bhushan : 9472999999

“MOUNTING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON ADVERSE IMPACTS OF GM CROPS/FOODS”: Govt and Proponents should stop fooling public about transgenics

Posted on March 26, 2013 by kavitha

On the 11^th anniversary of the official approval of Bt Cotton in India, Coalition for a GM Free India releases a compilation of more than 400 published papers showing adverse impacts of genetically modified crops / food

New Delhi 26/03/2013: On the 11^th anniversary of the official approval of Bt cotton in India, the Coalition for a GM-Free India released a compilation of scientific papers titled “ADVERSE IMPACTS OF TRANSGENIC CROPS/FOODS: A Compilation of Scientific References and Abstracts” which showcase the mounting evidence on the adverse impacts of transgenic crops and foods on various fronts. “While the government does not hesitate to announce even on the floor of the Parliament that there are no adverse impacts from transgenic crops/foods, with this compilation that we are releasing today, we hope that fooling of the public by the proponents would stop. This is by no means an exhaustive compilation but only illustrative”, said the Coalition in a statement accompanying the release of this compilation. “The implications of this living, irreversible technology have to be understood on different fronts (as much as possible, because there is still a severe dearth of research, that too on long term implications and from independent sources) by policy makers and citizens before GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are released into the environment, particularly on a large scale”. The full compilation is available at this link: http://indiagminfo.org/?attachment_id=557.

“The debate on GM crops is always peppered with statements that opposition to GM crops stems out of “misguided emotion” or “ignorance” and that there is no “scientific evidence” for the negative effects of the technology. But the reality is that there is significant amount of scientific evidence that shows the problems with GM crops. Several studies also point out to the need for further, detailed investigations. It is ironical that the scientists promoting GMOs in India do not want to look at such research and deliberately try to avoid discussions on scientific footing. They should understand that they would drive the nation into a deep and irreversible crisis related to food and farming if they continue this blinkered approach. At this juncture we would also like to reiterate that 150 scientists of repute had recently sent a letter to the Minister for Environment & Forests that GM crops have no connection to food security.

“However, we would like to reiterate, as we have always done, that GM crops is not about technical issues alone. It is a much broader and deeper issue which the industry and GM proponents want to circumscribe in the name of science. In that context we want to showcase that there is enough evidence against this technology even on that front”, said a statement of the Coalition.

We would like to point out, “these studies exist despite vehement opposition to independent research (not allowing access to GM seed, not allowing publication of adverse results, attacking unfavourable papers) on GM crops due to intellectual property right barriers, opposition from the companies that own the technology and merciless attacks on, vilification of and threats to independent scientists who have found negative impacts of this technology. This effectively means that if free and independent research were allowed on GM crops many more such studies will come to light, said Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Convener of the Coalition for a GM-Free India.

“This compilation tries to present a picture of the evidence available on specific fronts like molecular level instability and unpredictability induced by the process of genetic engineering; health implications flowing out of individual genes used as well as the GMO and also because of the chemicals used along with particular GMOs; environmental implications in terms of impacts on biodiversity, soil, pests and diseases, impacts on non-target organisms, creation of “super weeds” etc”, said Kavitha Kuruganti, a member of the Coalition for a GM-Free India, who compiled these studies.

Besides the impact on health and environment the compilation also has studies which have looked at yield myths related to GM crops, regulation and suggested improvements in biosafety assessment regimes, ethical and socio-economic implications of GMOs including building up of seed monopolies into the hands of a few multinational corporations.

The Coalition for a GM-Free India hopes that this compilation will compel sceptics to appreciate the overwhelming evidence that already exists against this technology. It urged scientists and regulators to undertake assessments that consist of sound protocols and designs so that early warnings can be captured for appropriate decision-making. The Coalition demanded that the Minister for Environment & Forests, the Ministry of Agriculture as well as the Ministry of Science and Technology to consider these studies and other emerging evidence and to not allow open air releases of GM crops in our country, in the interests of biosafety and socio-economic and human health considerations.

The full compilation can be accessed at this link: http://indiagminfo.org/?attachment_id=557

For more details contact:

Kavitha Kuruganti – 09393001550

Kapil Shah – 09427054132

Sridhar Radhakrishnan – 09995358205

Coalition for a GM-Free India is a broad national network of organizations, scientists, farmer unions, consumer groups and individuals committed to keep the food and farms in India free of Genetically Modified Organisms and to protecting India’s food security and sovereignty.

Coalition for a GM-free India

A-124/6, First Floor, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi 110 016, Phone/Fax: 011-26517814

Website: www.indiagminfo.org, email : indiagmfree@gmail.com, Follow us on Facebook page – GM Watch India

“BIODIVERSITY AND BIOSAFETY KEY TO FOOD SECURITY”

Posted on February 17, 2013 by kavitha

“TRANSGENICS WILL NOT MEET OUR FOOD SECURITY NEEDS”

National Seminar on GM Crops and Food Security asks for a Biosafety Law to be enacted

New Delhi / Ahmedabad, February 15, 2013: The 2-day national seminar on “GM Crops and Food Security” jointly organized by Jatan Trust, Gujarat Vidyapith and Bharatiya Kisan Sangh concluded in Ahmedabad today by calling for a Biosafety Law to be enacted in the country. Speakers emphasized on Biodiversity and Biosafety being key to food security of the country, whereas the current aggressive promotion of transgenic crops is jeopardizing this.

Speaking on democratizing the debate and decision-making around GM crops, Kartikeya Sarabhai of CEE (Centre for Environment Education) pointed out that debate on GM crops cannot be just about production and yields, and that the discourse around food security as well as GM crops has moved on. “The debate on GM crops is around sustainability of farm livelihoods, sustainable use of environmental resources, control over critical resources like seed resting with community, farmers and consumers having a choice, socio-cultural and ethical issues to be addressed and so on. Talking about GM crops only in the context of improving yields is inadequate and inappropriate”. He stressed upon the need for an informed debate in which all citizens should be able to engage, since this is a matter pertaining to something as fundamental as Food. He pointed out that creating a debate is not about being “anti-science”, but asking for holistic science. A multi-disciplinary approach, which includes social sciences, is needed, since this is about livelihoods and development, he stressed. He called for independent studies and said that research approvals should be conditional on making the findings public.

Earlier inaugurating the seminar, Sri Mohini Mohan Mishra, National Secretary of the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, said that in all his travels across the country and meeting farmers, he has realised that they aspire for their control over the very basic resources of farming – soil, water and seed. “In BKS, we believe that India does not need GM crops. Unfortunately, farmers have become victim of glorified propaganda of the Biotech industry. It is a pity that today non-Bt Seeds of Cotton are not available in the market”, he said.

Dr M H Mehta, former VC of Gujarath Agriculture University (GAU) and Chair of Science Ashram, speaking at the seminar, stressed on the need for focusing on economical and environmental friendly model of agriculture to feed the hungry. This will need an agro-ecological approach and not a GM crop based model. He pointed out that while science and technology need to be encouraged, any technology needs to be holistically viewed and the overall consideration of public good and wisdom must prevail.

Explaining how woefully inadequate the GM crop risk assessment is in India, Dr Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign pointed out that our testing systems are simply not stringent enough and even the prescribed procedures are not followed by the companies or universities. Many scientific studies, including the ones conducted by the biotech companies themselves have shown adverse impacts on health and environment. In India, when the biosafety data of Bt brinjal was brought into the public domain, the inadequacy of the tests and the carelessness of the scientists doing the research, and the regulators reviewing biosafety came to the fore. This is not the way to do science, she stated.

Dr Sudarshan Iyengar, Vice Chancellor of Gujarat Vidyapith, presenting a fact sheet on issues related to Food Security in India, emphasized that there is enough evidence to say confidently that if land use planning is rationalized, land ownership issues are resolved, appropriate agronomical practices are introduced, nature’s own resources are used as farm inputs, the world can produce enough for the growing population.

Speaking on “Science & Technology for Food Security”, Dr Rajeswari Raina of NISTADS (National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, which is a science policy institute of CSIR) pointed out that what we need is “good science”. She explained that ‘good science’ is one that works towards economic, ecological and social progress, something that can tell us whether the existing evidence is enough or not, in terms of risk and impact assessment related to technologies like GM, in addition to giving due recognition and space to other knowledge domains and cultural values that ‘formal science’ has not studied thus far.

Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Convenor of the Coalition for a GM-Free India, said, “Transgenic technology is an unnecessary risk and costly distraction, while solutions for issues in our farming lie elsewhere. In the name of public sector research, resources are being mis-utilised, while something inherently unsafe will remain unsafe, whether it is from the private sector or the public sector”.

Dr Minoo Parabia, renowned botanist, biodiversity expert and Member of State Biodiveristy Board made a presentation on the rich biodiversity of Gujarat, including agro-diversity and expressed caution against transgenics. Dr Atul Mehta, senior rice breeder pointed out that while GM crops are being aggressively pushed, need assessment is sadly lacking, by presenting data of past 50 years to show that pest incidence (stemborer) on rice was low even though corporations are trying to push Bt rice as a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Speaking on the faulty framework of the proposed Biosafety Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, Kavitha Kuruganti of ASHA showcased how improvements in the regulatory regime over the years will be lost if BRAI Bill is allowed to be enacted. “Sustained civil society action, including judicial activism, in addition to the Bt brinjal public debate led by Mr Jairam Ramesh, the then MoEF, brought in some improvements; through the BRAI Bill, the Government of India is trying to lower the regulatory bar which is objectionable and unacceptable”, she said.

Earlier, latest scientific evidence related to adverse impacts of GM crops were shared by Rajesh Krishnan of Greenpeace India. The Seminar also had presentations from the Biotech seed industry representatives, who presented on Bt Cotton in India and GM crop adoption in other countries. Participants of the seminar also included senior scientists from agriculture universities of the state, civil society members, seed and food industry representatives, members of various farmers’ unions and government officials, in addition to Members of the State Biodiversity Board.

For more information, contact:

Kapil Shah: 094-270-54132

Sridhar Radhakrishnan: 099-953-58205

Kavitha Kuruganti: 09393001550

Transgenic Crop (Field Trial)s & Food Security: more than 150 scientists write to MoEF

Posted on February 9, 2013 by kavitha

To: February 8^th, 2013

Ms Jayanti Natarajan,

Hon’ble Minister for Environment & Forests,

Government of India.

Dear Madam,

Sub: TRANSGENIC CROP (FIELD TRIAL)S & FOOD SECURITY

Greetings! This is in the context of the Ministry of Agriculture responding on behalf of the Union of India to the Supreme Court Technical Expert Committee (TEC)’s first set of recommendations. Madam, you would recall that the Members and the TOR of this TEC were decided under the authority of the MoEF and submitted to the Supreme Court by your Counsel as the consensus agreement between Petitioners and your Ministry in compliance with the order of the Court in the PIL (Civil Writ Petition 260 of 2005, Aruna Rodrigues & Ors Vs. Union of India) regarding GM crops in India. In the November 9^th 2012 Hearing, while we did not hear anything from the MoEF, the Ministry of Agriculture argued that transgenic technology is absolutely needed for India’s food security and what’s more, that unsafe field trials of transgenic crops were needed for India’s food security! In this letter, we intend to showcase the many serious scientific and policy fallacies in this argument of the Ministry of Agriculture.

According to the Food & Agriculture Organisation, “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. …Essentially, food security can be described as a phenomenon relating to individuals. It is the nutritional status of the individual household member that is the ultimate focus, and the risk of that adequate status not being achieved or becoming undermined….…The declared primary objective in international development policy discourse is increasingly the reduction and elimination of poverty…”[1].

What is Genetic Engineering, on the other hand?: An alteration of genetic material of an organism by modern biotechnological techniques, whereby new DNA is inserted into the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest and then inserting this construct into the host organism. The technology of Genetic Engineering is often applied to create organisms that do not normally exist in nature (stringing together of viral, bacterial and other genes of interest and insertion or integration into another organism does not happen in Nature, even though proponents are heard to argue that GE is similar to conventional breeding) and crossing natural reproductive barriers, cutting across even kingdom lines.

It is not clear how the Ministry of Agriculture is arguing that this controversial, nascent and unproven technology is the panacea to the problem of hunger. The first commercialized crops came into being around 16 years ago and to this day, only two commercially viable transgenic traits are present, which are cultivated mainly in 3 countries (United States of America, Brazil and Argentina which grow 77% of all GM crops). An overwhelming majority of countries worldwide do not grow GM crops. GM crops are grown on a mere 160 million hectares that comprise 3.2% of the global agriculture land[2]. Just four crops cover 99% of the area under GM crops: soybean (47%), maize (32%), cotton (15%) and canola (5%). The two traits that have been commercialized mostly are: (1) Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops for insect resistance with genes from this soil bacterium inserted for a new toxin to be produced within the plant to kill insects; and (2) HT or herbicide tolerance, where the engineered plant is able to withstand herbicide sprays of particular kinds. Herbicide Tolerance is the overwhelming trait in commercially-grown GM crops today[3].

While that is the situation with GM crop cultivation, reflecting rejection from a majority of countries around the world, let us move to the issue of Hunger.

Examining the food security situation of USA or Brazil, which have adopted GM crops on a massive scale, it is evident that the situation has worsened after the introduction of GM crops. In a country like Argentina, it has remained the same. Clearly, these crops are not meant to address food security or hunger but to fill the coffers of agri-business corporations whose profits during the same period have climbed.

In the USA, in 2011 according to US Economic Research Service, 17.9 million households were food insecure (constituting 14.9% of American households that were food insecure) at some point in the year.[4] This means that an unprecedented 50.1 million people (1 in every 6 Americans) live in food insecure households in this nation that has the largest area under GM crop cultivation in the world, after having begun commercializing crops with this controversial technology way back in 1996. Food insecurity has increased to 15% of the population from where it was at 12% during 1995 and since then there has been a consistent increase.[5] Despite massive adoption of GM technology, the USA does not seem to be able to stem increasing hunger in the country. On the other hand, propping of agriculture with massive subsidies continues with 15 billion dollars given as direct agricultural subsidy in 2011[6].

In Brazil, it is seen that improvements in food security indicators have actually decelerated in the period of expansion of GM crops, compared to the earlier years. An annexure (Appendix 1) gives a picture of food security indicators in some GM-adopting developing countries which have gone in for GM crop cultivation of some food crops along with some other countries which have not, which clearly illustrates that there is no correlation and in fact, in some countries which have opted for GM crops on a large scale, things have only degenerated on the food security front.

THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE’S AFFIDAVIT

In India, the affidavit from the MoA on behalf of the Union of India is arguing that our nation’s food security will be jeopardized without GM crops. It also argues that open-air field trials of GMOs are absolutely essential for this. This note has been prepared to put things in perspective, using scientific evidence in the context of the Government of India incorrectly arguing that biotechnology is mainly or even only about transgenics; and that without transgenic technology, India’s food security would be threatened.

The affidavit on behalf of the Government stated that:

“The demand for food and processed commodities is increasing due to growing population and rising per capita income. There are projections that demand for food grains would increase from 192 million tonnes in 2000 to 345 million tonnes in 2030. Hence in the next 20 years, production of food grains needs to be increased at the rate of 5.5 million tonnes annually……(Para 22);

A real-time analysis of this scenario provides sufficient justification for strengthening, intensifying and introducing cutting edge science and technology for increasing crop productivity in India…..(Para 23);

In the Indian context, with rising population, decreasing size of agricultural holding, reduced soil fertility, resource constraints in terms of land and water coupled with uncertainties arising out of agro-climatic conditions, the blend of genetic modified technology with other conventional tool is the valid solution for ensuring food security for its increasing population….(Para 24)” etc.

Incidentally, this is the same Malthusian argument of feeding the growing millions that has been put forth by global biotechnology majors to convince nations and leaders to iron over opposition to adopt GM crops and to speed up approvals. Further, even as GM crops as a pro-poor solution has been carefully built and propagated studies show that it has “seriously distorted public debate and impeded the development of sound, evidence-based policy.”[7]

In addition to making this fallacious correlation to food security, the Ministry also has misread the SC’s Technical Expert Committee’s first report (referred to as the Interim Report in some cases), by making it look as though the TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GM crops, which is not the case.

Further, the Ministry’s interpretation that the technical expert committee (TEC) has come in the way of agricultural biotechnology development is a gross misrepresentation of facts since transgenics cannot be equated to biotechnology.

LET US ASSUME A SCENARIO WHERE INCREASING CROP YIELDS IS NECESSARY:

1. Yield increases are possible beyond breeding options too: The first question to be asked is whether yields are about increasing genetic potential through breeding alone, or genetic potential to be realized by other expertise/methods. Agro-ecological approaches like System of Rice Intensification[8], Non-Pesticidal Management of crops[9], integrated farming systems[10] etc. are documented to increase yields in sustainable ways. Many of these systems have also proved their resilience to deal with climate change.[11] It has also been established that factors like irrigation, soil productivity restoration and even remunerative markets play a role in improving production and yields.

2. Yield as a “trait” at the molecular level: No genetically engineered crop has been created so far with intrinsic yield increase potential – yield is a complex quantitative trait, requiring several genes to be manipulated, whereas the commercialized transgenic crops deal with qualitative traits (like insect resistance, herbicide tolerance etc.). Moreover, there is also enough evidence to show that greater the number of genes that are manipulated, greater the instability that is induced putting a question mark on the ability of genetic engineering to deal with intrinsic yield potential of a crop. To talk about the need for improving productivity through transgenics is therefore incorrect.

3. Yield increases with non-GE molecular breeding tools: There is significant evidence to show that complex traits can be successfully handled by non-GE molecular breeding tools like Marker Assisted Selection and other methods[12]. Further, the breakthroughs in conventional breeding cannot be neglected either, which in many cases is the basis for the yield of the GM crop (which is then engineered with the GM trait) – however, non-GE breeding methods (molecular non-GE or conventional) is attracting lesser investment and effort both in the private and the public sector.

Appendix 2 of this letter has a compilation of some major non-GM breeding successes in the recent past. India would do well in investing on this front.

4. Experience with various commercially cultivated GM crops in the USA: In the USA, soybean and corn are the two major genetically modified crops (often assumed to be food crops, but actually going into non-food industrial use, livestock feed and fuelling automobiles). Herbicide-tolerant soybean (GM HT soybean) and corn have not increased yields any more than conventional methods that rely on commonly available herbicides. Further, insect-resistant Bt corn varieties have provided an average yield advantage of just 3-4% compared to typical conventional practices, including synthetic insecticide use. Per acre corn production in the US has increased 28% since the early 1990s. GE is responsible for only 14% of that increase, ie., only 4% of total US yield increase. Meanwhile, non-GE plant breeding and farming methods have increased yields of major grain crops by values ranging from 13-25%. Bt corn varieties, engineered to protect plants from either the European corn borer or corn root worm, averaged over 13 years since 1996 when it was first commercialized, resulted in around 0.2 to 0.3% operational yield increase per year (Source: Doug Gurian Sherman (2009). Failure to Yield, Union of Concerned Scientists).

Studies by USDA scientists have shown that the yield benefits of insect resistant crops depend obviously on pest infestation in a given season[13]. On the other hand, in trials of herbicide tolerant soybean, “yield drag” effects were noticed, adversely impacting yields[14].

5. Experience with Bt cotton in India: Bt cotton is the only GM crop approved for commercial cultivation in India. 2012 marks a decade of Bt cotton cultivation in the country. There is much controversy around whether cotton yield increases seen in the early part of the decade can be attributed to Bt technology or not.

Dr K R Kranthi, Director, Central Institute for Cotton Research says that cotton yields have shown an increase between 2002-04 due to IRM/IPM practices, new hybrids, new area under cultivation and new insecticides. No significant yield advantage has been observed between 2004-2011 when area under Bt cotton increased from 5.4% to 96%. His analysis is presented as relevant extracts as Appendix 3.

In an April 2012 discussion paper of IFPRI, Gruere and Sun conclude that Bt cotton contributed (only) 19% of total yield growth over time (with the remaining increase coming from other factors at play)[15]. Besides Bt cotton, the use of fertilizer and in the increased adoption of hybrid seeds appear to have contributed to the yield increase over time, say the authors. Incidentally, the role of increased irrigation in cotton cultivation in India and good seasons/monsoons have not been comprehensively analysed by these authors.

A special case to be looked into is the state of Gujarat in India, which contributes nearly 40% of India’s cotton production. Here, in 2010 (years after Bt cotton expansion in the state), it was reported that the average productivity of cotton lint in irrigated areas was 689 kg/hectare whereas it was a mere 247 kilos in un-irrigated areas, indicating how important irrigation was[16].

A report brought out by a coalition of groups working on GM crop issues, on the occasion of ten years of Bt cotton cultivation in India shows that yields increases in Indian cotton have actually been impressive in the years when Bt cotton expansion did not take place[17].

FOOD SECURITY IS NOT ABOUT FOOD PRODUCTION & YIELD INCREASES

We would like to reiterate that the MoA’s response on behalf of the Government of India was a fallacious techno-centric response to the issue of food security, even though the international discourse, to which India is a party to and signatory of, clearly looks at food security not as a function of food production and crop yield growth, but about poverty/development, access to food etc. In addition, the MoA completely ignores the important aspect that food safety is an integral part of food security and cannot be separated from it.

The ‘International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development’ (IAASTD) report has clearly concluded that smallholder agriculture with access to land, markets and sufficient resources is the best way to ensure food and livelihood security. The report sees no significant role for GM crops in ensuring food or livelihood security for farmers.[18]

The United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, in his report to the UN in March 2011 has stated that agro-ecological approaches with low external inputs, empowering farmers and building their knowledge and skills can effectively increase productivity at the field level, reduce rural poverty, improve nutrition and help adapt to climate change.[19]

Food security, as we are all aware, is a problem not only of production but of distribution and access/purchasing power. Today India’s paradox of overflowing godowns/rotting grains, with 320 million people going hungry is well-known. The world over and in India, most of the hungry people are ironically partaking in the food production process. Clearly hunger is a more multi-faceted problem than what can be fixed by using a particular seed or cocktail of chemicals. Therefore, we seek that the government address the issue of food security in a holistic manner taking into account the issue in its totality rather than look for short cuts and get distracted by red herrings like GM crops and pesticides.

WHAT IS THE CONNECTION BETWEEN GMO FIELD TRIALS & FOOD SECURITY?

The Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, argued in the Supreme Court against the interim report of the Technical Expert Committee. It said in its affidavit, …”the 10 year moratorium on field trials of GM crops recommended by the TEC would mean a complete stop to agri-biotech research applications…” and that it will result in indirectly benefiting MNCs, with India having to import GM technology from abroad (Para 28). The MoA argues that ‘these technologies will hugely benefit in achieving genetic potential of a crop by making cost of cultivation cheaper, which means achieving higher productivity’. This whole argument is flawed.

Firstly, the TEC is not about (all) agri-biotech research applications. The Ministry has in its narrow definition included only GM crops as agriculture biotechnology. The TEC is specific; it is about GM crops and trees and not about other agri-biotechnologies.
Secondly, the TEC has not recommended a 10-year moratorium on field trials of all GM crops. It has specified what kind of GM crops the moratorium recommendation applies to (Bt GM crops, HT GM crops and crops for which India is Centre of Origin or Diversity). Contrary to the assertions by the Ministry of Agriculture, it is in fact the Indian public sector GM crop research that will continue in a scenario where the TEC’s recommendations are accepted. Almost, all multinational GM research is centred around Bt and HT crops (Appendix 4 has a list of GM crops under research) whereas most public sector crops are non-Bt and non-HT and also in crops other than for which India is the Centre of Diversity. While this may be so, we believe that there is much wrong with the public sector GM research too, and many important issues came to the fore in the recent report of the Sopory Committee.
Thirdly, linking field trials of GMOs to food security is absolutely fallacious. In fact, in a situation where commercialized GMOs are yet to prove their success on yield, safety or sustainability fronts, there is no connection between field trials and food security. Therefore field trials of GM crops are an unconnected and independent issue that should be governed based on considerations of biosafety and the precautionary principle.

It is completely unscientific and unbecoming of the Ministry of Agriculture to insist on unsafe field trials.

The TEC recommendation to have a preliminary biosafety assessment before open-air field trials and after establishing the need for a transgenic option is indeed welcome. Further, the TEC is suggesting some policy directives (not for the first time in India and the Parliamentary standing committee in its report had made similar recommendations), on particular GM crops and traits to be discarded, which is also a welcome suggestion.

Madam, it is in the context of the above reality and evidence that we urge you to pro-actively come forward to adopt the sound recommendations already made by the TEC in this matter.

Sincerely,

Sd/-

1. Padmabhushan Dr Pushpa Mittra Bhargava, Founder Director of Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology; Anveshna, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh

2. Padmabhushan Dr Inderjeet Kaur, MBBS, All India Pingalwara Society, Amritsar

3. Padmashri Dr Daljit Singh, MBBS, MS, Amritsar

4. Padmashri Dr M H Mehta, Ex Vice Chancellor, Gujarat Agriculture University, Gujarat

Dr A Biju Kumar, Associate Professor and Head, Department of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries, University of Kerala, Kariavattom, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
Dr A Gopalakrishnan, Former Chairman, Atomic Energy Regulatory Board, Govt. of India
Dr A R Vasavi, Anthropologist, formerly with National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore
Dr Abey George, Assistant Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Dr Abhee Dutt Majumder, Scientist, Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, West Bengal
Dr Adarsh Pal, Head, Dept of Botany & Environmental Sciences, GNDU, Amritsar
Dr Amar Singh Azad, Public Health expert, Punjab
Dr Amarjeet Singh Soodan, Associate Professor, Dept of Botany & Environmental Sciences, GNDU, Amritsar
Dr Amit Basole, Biotechnologist & Economist, Univ. of Massachusetts, Boston
Dr Amruth M, Scientist, Forestry and Human Dimensions, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala
Dr Anbazhagan Kolandaswamy, Post-Doctoral Scientist (Molecular Immunology),
Insitut des Neuroscience de Montpellier Hospital, France
Dr Anil Pande, Associate Professor, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Dr Anish Dua, Dept of Zoology, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar
Dr Ankur Patwardhan, Environmental Sciences, Head of Department of Biodiversity, Abasaheb Garware College, Pune
Dr Anupam Paul, State Agricultural Technologists’ Service Association, West Bengal
Dr Anurag Goel, Molecular Biologist, WAPRED, Madikeri, Karnataka
Dr Arun Mitra, National General Secretary, Indian Doctors for Peace & Development, Punjab
Dr Arun Waghela, BB Chitle Mahavidyalaya, Sangli, Maharashtra
Dr Aruna Chakraborty, Consultant Biochemist, BN Hospital, Kolkata
Dr Arundeep Ahluwalia, Ecologist, Panjab University, Chandigarh
Dr Aseem Shrivastava, Economist, New Delhi
Dr Ashis Ghosh, Former Director, Zoological Survey of India, MoEF; Member, National Bio-Diversity Authority (2003-2009), Member of Task force on Environment and BioDiversity, Planning Commission (11th Five Year Plan), West Bengal
Dr Atul Mehta, Research Scientist (Rice), Anand Agricultural University, Gujarat
Dr Biji Abraham, As. Professor in Economics, Christian College, Chengannur, Kerala
Dr C T S Nair, Former Chief Economist (Forestry Dept), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Former, Exec-Vice President, Kerala State Science Technology and Environment Council, Kerala
Dr Christopher, Reader, Dept of Environmental Sciences, M G University, Kerala
Dr Claude Alvares, Organic Farming Association of India, Goa
Dr Debal Deb, Centre for Inter-disciplinary Studies, Odisha
Dr Deepika Thakur, Environmental Scientist, Chandigarh
Dr Devika, Centre for Development studies, Trivandrum
Dr Dhanya Bhaskaran, Asst Professor (Environmental Science), University of Agriculture Sciences, Raichur, Karnataka
Dr Dhrubajyoti Ghosh, Special Advisor, Agricultural Ecosystems, Commission on Ecosystem Management, IUCN; Former Chief Environment Officer, Govt of West Bengal
Dr Dileep Kumar R, Post Doctoral Fellow, Institute of Venom Science, Centre for Computational Biology and Bio informatics, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram
Dr Dinesh Abrol, Scientist, NISTADS
Dr E Kunhikrishnan, Professor, Dept of Zoology, Kerala University
Dr Elizabeth Joseph, Retd. Scientist (Fisheries), Kerala Agriculture University
Dr G Chandra Sekhar, Agricultural Entomologist, Hyderabad
Dr G P I Singh, Vice Chancellor, Adesh University, Bathinda, Punjab
Dr G Rajasekhar, Agricultural Scientist (Extension), Hyderabad
Dr G S Kaushal, Former Director of Agriculture, Govt of Madhya Pradesh
Dr G S Mohan, Assistant Professor, Agricultural Research Station, UAS, Bangalore
Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, Agriculture Extension Scientist, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad
Dr Ghanshyam Varma, M.B.B.S., Indore
Dr Gurbax Singh, Agriculture Scientist (Agronomy), Amritsar
Dr H R Prakash, Retd. Soil Scientist, Department of Agriculture, Bangalore
Dr H S Prema, Nutritionist, Varenya Nutrition Concepts, Bangalore
Dr Hampaiah, Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Biodiversity Board, Hyderabad
Dr Hari Narayanan, Scientist, Professor, Guruvayoorappan College, Trichur
Dr Indira Devi, Professor (Economics), Kerala Agriculture University
Dr J C Upadhyaya, Retired Professor, Indore, Madhya Pradesh
Dr J Prasant Palakkappillil, Principal, Sacred Heart College, Thevara, Kochi, Kerala
Dr Jyothi Krishnan, Assistant Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Dr K Babu Rao, Professor (Retd), Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad
Dr K C Raghu, Food Technologist, Pristine Organics, Bangalore
Dr K D Yadav, Prof of Agricultural Extension, JNKVV, Madhya Pradesh
Dr K Gunathilagaraj, Retd Professor of Agricultural Entomology, TNAU, Coimbatore
Dr K S Arya, Former Member of Syndicate, Panjab University, Chandigarh
Dr K V Sankaran, Former Director, Kerala Forest Research Institue, Peechi, Kerala
Dr Lahu K. Gaekwad, Kala Vanijya Vigyan Mahavidyalaya, Distt. Pune.
Dr Lalitha Vijayan, Sr Scientist, Salim Ali Foundation and formerly, Acting Director and Senior Principal Scientist, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural Studies (SACON), Coimbatore
Dr Latha Anantha, Director, River Research Centre, Thrissur, Kerala
Dr Leenakumari, Head and Professor, RARS, Mancombu, Kerala Agriculture University
Dr Livtar Singh Chawala, Dr B C Roy Award Winner, Former Chairman of PG Committee of Medical Council of India; Founder and Former Vice Chancellor, Baba Farid University of Health Sciences; All India President, Doctors for Peace & Development, Punjab
Dr M C Varshneya, Former Vice Chancellor, Anand Agriculture University, Gujarat
Dr M Ganapathy, Executive Director, Public Health Resource Network, New Delhi
Dr M Parameswaran, former HOD, Dept. of Biochemistry, Gujarat Agriculture University, Anand
Dr M S Chari, Entomology expert, Former Director-Central Tobacco Research Institute
Dr M Zeenath, Associate Professor, Department of Zoology, MES KVM Colege Valanchery, Kerala
Dr Mammen Chundamannil, Scientist, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala
Dr Manas Pandit, Associate Professor, Dept of Vegetable Crops, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, West Bengal
Dr Minoo Parabiya, Renowned Botanist, Former Head of Dept of Biosciences, South Gujarat University-Surat; Member, State Biodiversity Board, Gujarat
Dr Mira Shiva, Coordinator, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society, New Delhi
Dr N G Malleshi, HOD, Grain Science & Technology (Retd), CFTRI, Mysore and Honorary Adviser at Madras Diabetes Research Foundation, Chennai
Dr N N Panicker, Scientist, Independent Thinker and Innovator (Ocean Engineering)
Dr Nimisha Shukla, Head, Dept. of Economics, Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad
Dr Om Parkash Rupela, Soil Scientist formerly with ICRISAT & consultant to FAO, Hyderabad
Dr P K Prasadan, Botanist, University of Calicut, Kerala
Dr Partha Chakraborty, Scientist, CSIR, IICB, Kolkata
Dr Parthib Basu, Associate Professor, Ecology Research Unit, Dept of Zoology & Centre for Pollination Studies, Calcutta University
Dr Partho Sarothi Ray, Asst Professor; Wellcome Trust-DBT India Alliance Intermediate Fellow, Dept of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Kolkata
Dr Ponnammal Natarajan, Retd. Dean, Anna University, Tamil Nadu
Dr Prabhakar Gadre, Research Officer, Rajwade Sanshodan Mandal, Maharashtra
Dr R Jayaraj, Scientist, Division of Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala
Dr R Jayaraj, Scientist, Division of Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala, India
Dr R S Raghu, Ex-Dean, College of Agriculture, Madhya Pradesh
Dr Rajesh N L, Assistant Professor, Department of Soil science and Agricultural Chemistry, College of Agriculture, UAS, Raichur, Karnataka
Dr Rajeshwari Raina, Scientist, National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, New Delhi
Dr Rajinder Kumar, Dept of Human Biology, Punjabi University, Patiala
Dr Ram Awasthi, Retired Chief Medical Officer, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Dr Ratan Khasnabis, Institute of Developmental Studies, Kolkata
Dr Rudraradhya, Retd Senior Plant Breeder, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore
Dr S C Deshmukh, Retd Chief Scientist, Agricultural University, Madhya Pradesh
Dr S Jeevananda Reddy, Former Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN
Dr S R Sharma, Former Cane Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh
Dr Safique Ul Alam, Vice President, Breakthrough Science Society, West Bengal
Dr Sagari Ramdas, Veterinary Scientist, Hyderabad
Dr Santhi, Ecologist, Trivandrum, Kerala
Dr Sarala Panickar, Entomologist (Retd), Kerala Agriculture University
Dr Saravana Babu, Enviromental Biotechnologist, Erode, Tamil Nadu

104. Dr Satpute, Ex-Dean, College of Agriculture, Madhya Pradesh

105. Dr Seema Purushothaman, Professor (Development Studies) at Azim Premji University, Bangalore

106. Dr Shaji, Expert in Fisheries, Formerly Scientist, Kerala State Biodiversity Board

107. Dr Sheela Mishra, Nutrition Expert, Bhopal MP

108. Dr Shri Gopal Kabra, Toxicology and Epidemiology Expert, Jaipur

109. Dr Shri Ram Parihar, Principal, Govt. Girls Postgraduate College, Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh

110. Dr Shyam Sundar Dipti, Government Medical College , Amritsar

111. Dr Siddhartha Gupta, Pathologist, CPT Hospital, Kolkata

112. Dr Sivaraman, Expert in Indian Systems of Medicine, Chennai

113. Dr Sujata Goel, Molecular Biologist, WAPRED, Madikeri, Karnataka

114. Dr Sujatha Byravan, PhD, Scientist based in Chennai, Former President, Council for Responsible Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts

115. Dr Suresh Mishra, Retired Professor, Bhopal

116. Dr Suresh Verma, Retired Principal, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh

117. Dr T K Maqbool, Professor in Zoology, Calicut University, Kerala

118. Dr T S Channesh, Agriculture Scientist, UAS Bangalore

119. Dr Tarak Kate, PhD in Botany, Dharamitra, Wardha

120. Dr TAVS Raghunath, Agricultural Entomologist, Hyderabad

121. Dr Tejas Borwankar, Molecular Biology & Proteomics, Scientific Lead, Bonanza Labs, Pune, Maharashtra

122. Dr Tejbir Singh, Community Medicine, Govt Medical College, Amritsar

123. Dr Thara K G, Member, Kerala State Disaster Management Authority, Govt. Of Kerala (Head, Disaster Management Centre, Institute of Land and Disaster Management, Revenue Dept. Kerala)

124. Dr Thomas Varghese, Soil Scientist (Retd.), Kerala Agriculture University, Ex-Chairman, Kerala State Agriculture Prices Board

125. Dr Tushar Chakraborty, Principal Scientist, Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Kolkata, West Bengal

126. Dr TV Sajeev, Scientist (Entomologist), Forest Health, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Kerala

127. Dr Usha Balram, Professor and Head (Retd.), Dept of Zoology, All Saints College, Trivandrum, Kerala

128. Dr Utkarsha Ghate, Environmental Sciences, Covenant Centre for Development (CCD), Durg, Chattisgarh

129. Dr V N Shroff, Ex-Dean, College of Agriculture, Madhya Pradesh

130. Dr V S Vijayan, Chairman, Salim Ali Foundation, Former Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board; Former and Founder Director, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural Studies (SACON, a Centre of Excellence of the Govt of India)

131. Dr V T Sundaramurthy, Entomologist and Formerly, Project Coordinator and Head, All India Cotton Coordinated Improvement Project, CICR

132. Dr Vandana Shiva, Navdanya, Magsaysay Award Winner, New Delhi

133. Dr Veena Shatrughna, Deputy Director (Retd), National Institute of Nutrition

134. Dr Vibha Taluja, PhD Genetics, Panchkula

135. Dr W R Deshpande, Ex-Joint Director (Research and Extension), JNKVV, Indore

136. Dr Yashpal Sharma, HoD, Cardiology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh

137. Dr. Nasim Ali, Asst. Professor, Rama Krishna Mission, Vivekananda University

138.

139. Prof A Prasada Rao, Professor of Soil Science (Retd), ANGR Agricultural University, Hyderabad

140. Prof B N Reddy, Professor of Botany, Osmania University, Hyderabad

141. Prof Jagmohan Singh, Formerly with IIT Kharagpur

142. Prof K K Krishnamurthy, Former Dean, TNAU and President, Indian Society for Certification of Organic Products, Coimbatore

143. Prof K R Chowdry, (Retd), Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad

144. Prof K Satya Prasad, Professor of Botany, Osmania University, Hyderabad

145. Prof M K Prasad, Ex-Pro-VC, Calicut University, Ex-Chairman, Information Kerala Mission

146. Prof Mahadev Pramanik, Department of Agronomy, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Vidyalaya, West Bengal

147. Prof Mohan Rao, Centre for Social Medicine and Community Health, JNU, New Delhi

148. Prof N Venugopala Rao, Professor of Entomology (Retd), ANGR Agricultural University, Hyderabad

149. Prof P Malarvizhi, Soil Scientist, Directorate of Natural Resource Management, TNAU

150. Prof Rathindra Narayan Basu, Former Vice Chancellor, Calcutta University

151. Prof Satya Kinkar Pal, (Retd), Dept. of Agriculture Science, University of Calcutta

152. Prof Shambu Prasad, Science, Technology & Society Studies expert, Bhubaneswar

153. Prof Subhasis Mukhopadhyay, Dept of BioPhysics, Molecular Biology and BioInformatics, Calcutta University

154. Prof Sudarshan Iyengar, Vice Chancellor, Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad

155. Prof T K Bose, Horticulture expert, and former Member, West Bengal State Agriculture Commission, West Bengal

156. Prof Umesh Mishra, Retired Professor of Physics, Chandrapur, Maharashtra

Appendix 1: DEVELOPING WORLD’S BIOTECH ADOPTION & FOOD SECURITY INDICATORS

The following table has been created not because we believe that there is a correlation between GMO crop cultivation and food security/hunger indicators, but to show that across countries, there is no trend to show that GM crop adoption and improvements in food security indicators are related. Food Security is obviously a more complex phenomenon than a simple techno-fix in one agricultural input. We have not included India, China and Pakistan in this table, given that they have approved GM cotton, a non-food crop. The case of Brazil shows that improvements in reducing undernourishment in the population were actually better before the GM crop era. In Paraguay and Bolivia, things seem to have worsened while in Argentina, there is no change apparent. However, Peru which rejects GM crops shows significant improvements.

COUNTRY	BIOTECH CROPS ADOPTED (%AGE OF ARABLE LAND, AND OTHER DETAILS)	FIRST YEAR IN WHICH TRANSGENIC CROP ADOPTED	HUNGER/ MALNUTRITION INDEX THAT YEAR	LATEST HUNGER/ MALNUTRITION INDEX	Remarks
PARAGUAY	HT soybean is the main biotech crop, though Bt cottonwas approved in 2012. It has 2% of the global transgenic crop area, with 2.8 mn ha devoted to HT soybean. Total arable land is 4.3 mn ha, with 27% population employed in agriculture	2004 (after several years of illegal cultivation)	12.6% in 2004-06 Global Hunger Index in 2001: 5.4	25.5% in 2010-12 Global Hunger Index in 2012: 5.3	NEARLY 65% OF ARABLE LAND UNDER TRANSGENICS. *Percentage of malnourishment increased during the period of transgenic crop expansion by more than double. No significant change in the GHI.*
BRAZIL	Second largest grower of biotech crops after USA (19% of the global biotech area in 2011 was in Brazil); Soybean, Maize & Cotton on 30.3 mn ha with just HT soybean on 20.6 mn ha. Total arable land is 59.6 mn ha, with 21% population employed in agriculture	2003 (after illegal cultivation?)	8.7% of total population were undernourished in 2004-06 Global Hunger Index in 2003: 5.43	6.9% of total population is undernourished (2010-2012) Global Hunger Index in 2012: <5	MORE THAN 50% OF ARABLE LAND UNDER TRANSGENICS. Between 1999-2001 and 2004-06, the percentage of undernourished in total population reduced from 12.1% to 8.7%. *This decrease in undernourished population has however decelerated in the years of expansion of GM crops!!*
ARGENTINA	Third largest grower of transgenic crops (15% of global biotech area in 2011 was in Argentina); Soybean, Maize and Cotton on 23.7 mn hectares (out of which, 19.1 mn ha is of just HT soybean). Total arable land is 33.2 mn hectares, with 1% population employed in agriculture	1996	Less than 5% in 1999-2001 Global Hunger Index in 1996: <5	Less than 5% in 2010-12, with no change Global Hunger Index in 2012: <5	NEARLY 71% OF ARABLE LAND UNDER TRANSGENICS. No significant change in undernourished in years of expansion of transgenic crops.
BOLIVIA	HT soybean grown on less than 1 million hectares (910,000 hectares in 2011), out of a total arable land of 3.6 mn ha. 43% of population employed in agriculture.	2008 – a new Law of 2011 however prohibits introduction of modified organisms in Bolivia	27.5% of population undernourished in 2007-09. Global Hunger Index in 2008: 11.7	24.1% of population undernourished in 2010-12. Global Hunger Index in 2012: 12.3	AROUND 25% OF ARABLE LAND UNDER TRANSGENIC SOYBEAN. *PERFORMANCE ON GHI WORSENED*
SOUTH AFRICA	1% of global transgenic area in South Africa, on 2.3 million hectares in all, with Maize, Soybean and cotton in their transgenic versions grown (Soybean and cotton are not even on half a million hectares). Total arable land is 14.7 million hectares, with 8% population employed in agriculture	1998	Less than 5% in 1999-2001 Global Hunger Index in 1997: 7.32	Less than 5% in 2010-12 Global Hunger Index in 2012: 5.8	AROUND 16% OF ARABLE LAND UNDER TRANSGENIC CROPS. No significant change in undernourished in years of expansion of transgenic crops.
CHILE	Only 42,300 hectares of transgenic maize, canola and soybean, exclusively for seed exports; total arable land is 1.27 mn hectares in 2009 (1.98 mn hectares in 1996). 11.2% of total employment was in agriculture in 2009.	1996	Less than 5% of population undernourished Global Hunger Index in 1997: <5	Less than 5% population undernourished – no change Global Hunger Index in 2012: <5	No significant change in undernourished in years of expansion of transgenic crops.
PERU	Total arable land is 3.7 million hectares. 0.8% of total employment is in agriculture.	NO GM CROPS	22.5% of population undernourished in 1999-2001 Global Hunger Index in 2003: 7.83	11.2% of population undernourished in 2010-12 Global Hunger Index in 2012: 7.4	ONE OF THE HIGHEST IMPROVEMENTS IN LATIN AMERICA IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE UNDERNOURISHED. THE COUNTRY HAS A POLICY AGAINST TRANSGENICS
VENEZUELA	Total arable land is estimated to be 2.75 million hectares in 2009, according to a World Bank report of 2010. 8.50% of total employment was from agriculture.	NO GM CROPS	15.5% of population undernourished in 1999-2001 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX IN 2003: 7.83	Less than 5% of population undernourished in 2010-12 GLOBAL HUNGER INDEX IN 2012: <5	IMPRESSIVE PROGRESS WITHOUT RESORTING TO GM
BANGLADESH	45% of labour force in agriculture in 2008.	NO GM CROPS	18.4% in 1999-2001	16.8% in 2010-12

Source: Figures related to Proportion of Undernourished To Total Population were taken from Pp 47-49, of “The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012” (FAO, WFP and IFAD. 2012. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012. Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition. Rome, FAO.)

Transgenic crop area adoption figures were taken from ISAAA’s website, accessed on Dec.8, 2012 http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/biotech_country_facts_and_trends/default.asp

Global Hunger Index for 1997 and 2003 drawn from Global Hunger Index 2006, published by Welt Hunger Hilfe and International Food Policy Research Institute. For Bolivia, GHI 2008 was used.

Global Hunger Index for 2012 drawn from Global Hunger Index 2012 – The challenge of Hunger: Ensuring sustainable food security under land, water and energy stresses, Welt Hunger Hilfe, International Food Policy Research Institute and Concern Worldwide.

Appendix 2: Non-GM Breeding Successes

1. Bernard C Y Collard and David J Mackill, 2008. Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 February 2008 vol. 363 no. 1491 557-572

Abstract: DNA markers have enormous potential to improve the efficiency and precision of conventional plant breeding via marker-assisted selection (MAS). The large number of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) mapping studies for diverse crops species have provided an abundance of DNA marker–trait associations. In this review, we present an overview of the advantages of MAS and its most widely used applications in plant breeding, providing examples from cereal crops. We also consider reasons why MAS has had only a small impact on plant breeding so far and suggest ways in which the potential of MAS can be realized. Finally, we discuss reasons why the greater adoption of MAS in the future is inevitable, although the extent of its use will depend on available resources, especially for orphan crops, and may be delayed in less-developed countries. Achieving a substantial impact on crop improvement by MAS represents the great challenge for agricultural scientists in the next few decades.

2. Greenpeace International (2009). “Smart Breeding” http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/smart-breeding/

Marker-assisted selection (MAS) is a modern plant breeding technique that can offer benefits to farmers developing climate or diseases resistant varieties, without the need for genetic engineering. While genetically-engineered plants have gained much public attention, another modern breeding technique called MAS (marker-assisted selection) has gone through a silent revolution in recent years. MAS is a technique that does not replace traditional breeding, but can help to make it more efficient. It does not include the transfer of isolated gene sequences such as genetic engineering, but offers tools for targeted selection of the existing plant material for further breeding. MAS has already proven to be a valuable tool for plant breeders: it requires less investment, raises fewer safety concerns, respects species barriers, and is accepted by the public. This report highlights dozens of examples of already marketed MAS-bred varieties, demonstrating its high potential to meet challenges such as a changing climate, disease resistance or higher nutritional qualities.

Non-GM breakthroughs

A compilation of stories on such breakthroughs from just two years – 2010 and 2009 is presented here.

2010

Late blight resistant non-GM potato improves Andean smallholders’ production (June 2010)

Blight-resistant potato means no need for GM (June 2010)

Making Kenyan maize safe from deadly aflatoxins with non-GM biocontrol (June 2010)
Natural, safe, cost-effective

Africa: researchers start to develop non-GM striga resistant sorghum (June 2010)

US scientists develop low-allergy peanuts (June 2010)
Scientists in the US are developing “low-allergy” peanuts, offering hope to thousands of people with allergies associated with the popular seed.

Drought-tolerant and striga-resistant maize released in Ghana (April 2010)
Ghana has released four Quality Protein Maize varieties tolerant of drought and resistant to striga hermontica -a parasitic weed that reduces maize yield – to farmers to boost maize production in drought-prone areas of the country.

Salt-tolerant wheat developed in Australia (April 2010)
CSIRO researchers have developed a salt tolerant durum wheat that yields 25 per cent more grain than the parent variety in saline soils.

US scientists develop high-yielding tomato (March 2010)
A mutation in a single gene turned hybrid tomato plants into super producers capable of generating more and much sweeter fruit without genetic engineering.

High yielding, multi-disease resistant, non-GM bean success in Rwanda (February 2010)
An excellent example of the success of traditional plant breeding practices – multi-disease resistant, very high yielding, no mention of GM and apparently freely distributed without IP ties. What would the GM lobby give for one good success story like this?

USDA scientists to release drought-resistant soybean line (February 2010)
U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service plant geneticist Tommy Carter, Ph.D., and his team of researchers plan to soon release a soybean breeding line offering drought-tolerant traits.

Non-GM drought-tolerant pigeon peas released in Kenya (February 2010)
Faced with increasingly unreliable rains, farmers in Kenya’s eastern district of Mbeere South have started growing drought-tolerant crops to meet their food and subsistence needs instead of the staple maize.

2009

Scientists closer to developing dual-resistance non-GM cassava (August 2009)
IITA scientists are a step closer to making a breakthrough in developing cassava that is resistant to both the Cassava Brown Streak Disease (CBSD) and the Cassava Mosaic Disease (CMD).

UK scientists breed non-GM purple potato (January 2009)
They have remained an unchanging staple of the British diet for generations with hardly a nod to more health-conscious consumers. But scientists may now have come up with the perfect chip, which not only tastes good, but could prolong your life. The only downside is that it is purple.

German potato breeder launches non-GM high amylopectin potatoes (September 2009)
Starch from these potatoes contains a substance called amylopectin that will be used in food, paper, adhesives, textiles and building applications.

Cibus Global to develop non-GM herbicide tolerant potatoes (December 2009)
A global biotech firm has announced plans to use its patented technology to develop potatoes more tolerant of certain herbicides and less susceptible to blackspot bruise.

US scientists breed non-GM scab-resistant apple (January 2009)
A new, late-ripening apple named WineCrisp which carries the Vf gene for scab resistance was developed over the past 20 plus years through classical breeding techniques, not genetic engineering. License to propagate trees will be made available to nurseries through the University of Illinois.

US researchers develop pest-resistant pepper (September 2009)
A new red-fruited habanero is the latest pepper with resistance to root-knot nematodes to be released by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists.

US scientists develop pest-resistant chickpea (August 2009)
Chickpeas, high in protein, fiber and other nutrients, are important legume crops the world over. But humans aren’t the only consumers: the larval stage of the beet armyworm moth likes to eat the crop’s leaves. But new lines of resistant chickpeas developed by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists and their collaborators could put the kibosh on this crop-damaging pest’s voracious appetite, and potentially save on chemical insecticides used to fight it.

Uganda: new drought-tolerant non-GM rice variety (October 2009)
The first rains arrived in June in Padibe-East County, part of the Kitgum District, close to the border between Uganda and South Sudan. It was a light rain, but a very welcome one for Alphonso Oyo, who had planted a new variety of high yielding NERICA (“New Rice for Africa”) rice, and was waiting impatiently for it to flower.

Flood-resistant non-GM rice (February 2009)
At the Philippines-based International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), scientists have developed a rice variety with high tolerance to submersion under water for extended periods.

New non-GM rice strain could help atopic dermatitis and diabetes (December 2009)
The rice contains highly concentrated Cyanidin-3-Glucoside or C3G which is known to ease symptoms of atopic dermatitis and diabetes.

Christopher.S, Cordero.G et al (2004). Marker assisted selection in rice improvement. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Australian Government.

The molecular marker systems currently available, Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs), or microsatellites, are most suited to routine application in breeding programs. Analysis of SSRs utilises the polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR is relatively simple, quick and safe and requires only small quantities of DNA www.rirdc.gov.au/fullreports/index.html

Rudi N, Norton G (2010). Economic impact analysis of marker-assisted breeding for resistance to pests and postharvest deterioration in cassava. AfJARE Vol 4 No2.

The paper estimates the benefits of using marker-assisted breeding, as compared to conventional breeding alone, in developing cassava varieties resistant to cassava mosaic disease, green mite, whitefly and post-harvest physiological deterioration in Nigeria, Ghana and Uganda. Marker-assistedbreeding is estimated to save at least four years in the breeding cycle for varieties resistant to the pests and to result in incremental net benefits over 25 years in the range of $34 to $800 million depending on the country, the particular constraint and various assumptions. Benefits may reach as high as $3 billion for resistance to post-harvest physiological deterioration, as conventional breeding is not projected to solve the problem within a reasonable time frame. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/93862/2/Economic%20impact%20analysis%20of%20maker.pdf

Blair M, Fergene M etal . Marker-assisted selection in common beans and cassava. The specific genes for MAS selection were the bgm-1 gene for bean golden yellow mosaic virus (BGYMV) resistance and the bc-3 gene for bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) resistance. MAS was efficient for reducing breeding costs under both circumstances as land and labour savings resulted from eliminating susceptible individuals. The use of markers for other simply inherited traits in marker-assisted backcrossing and introgression across Andean and Mesoamerican gene pools is suggested.

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1120e/a1120e02.pdf

Clements R, Haggar J (2011). Technologies for Climate Change Adaption, Agriculture Sector. UNEP. http://ncsp.undp.org/sites/default/files/TNA_Guidebook_AdaptationAgriculture.pdf.

Zhai, W., Wang, W., Zhou, Y., Li, X., Zheng, X.W., Zhang, Q., Wang, G.L. & Zhu LH (2001). Breeding bacterial blight-resistant hybrid rice with cloned bacterial blight resistance gene Xa21. Molecular Breeding 8: 285 – 293. The cloned bacterial blight (BB) resistance gene Xa21 was transferred into Minghui63, a widely used restorer line of indica hybrid rice in China, through an Agrobacterium-mediated system. Molecular and resistance analyses revealed that the Xa21 gene was integrated in the genomes of transgenic plants and their progeny inherited resistance stably. For the purpose of hybrid breeding, Xa21 transgenic homozygous restorer lines were selected through ‘within-lane’ dosage comparison of hybridization signal in combination with PCR and resistance analyses. The selected transgenic restorer lines were then crossed with a commonly used sterile line, Zhenshan97A, to produce Xa21 transgenic hybrid rice, Shanyou63-Xa21. The hybrid rice plants with Xa21 displayed high broad-spectrum resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae (Xoo) races and maintained elite agronomic characters of Shanyou63. The propagation of this BB-resistant hybrid variety with Xa21 will benefit rice production. http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1015234802902

Brown TCW & Thorpe TA. Crop Improvement through Tissue Culture. WorldJournal of Microbiology &Biotechnology 11, 409-415. http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu//syllabi/689plantbreeding/Assigned%20Articles/Tissue%20Culture%20Applications/Crop%20improvement%20through%20tissue%20culture.pdf

Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat Project by Cornell University. The ability of the world’s farmers to meet current and future demand for wheat is threatened by the highly virulent stem rust population emerging from East Africa. This project will mitigate that threat through coordinated pathogen surveillance activities, and breeding initiatives. Together, these efforts will replace susceptible varieties in farmer’s fields with seed of durably resistant varieties, created by accelerated multilateral plant breeding, and delivered through optimized developing country seed sectors.

http://www.wheatrust.cornell.edu/about/index.html

The project uses conventional breeding, where varieties with good drought tolerance characteristics are cross-bred to get final products which are both productive and nutritious and grow well in African conditions. In particular, the DTMA provide farmers with better yields than leading commercial varieties under moderate drought conditions, while giving outstanding harvests when rains are good.

http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=118342&CultureCode=en

Non-GM anti-cancer purple tomato (December 2011). Researchers in Brazil recently developed a new non-genetically modified purple tomato which may help prevent certain diseases. Three scientific researchers from the University of Sao Paulo successfully cultivated the purple tomato, high in anthocyanin, after ten years of research. The new breed is a hybrid between the common tomato, Chilean tomato, and a wild tomato in Galapagos Islands. According to researchers this purple tomato is richer in nutrient compared to the common tomato. http://www.digtriad.com/news/health/article/202115/8/Purple-Tomatoes-May-Fight-Cancer-Other-Diseases

A QUEENSLAND maize breeding program is producing adapted, high yielding lines to enhance export opportunities into non-GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) Asian maize markets. http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/state/cropping/general-news/new-maize-hybrids-to-target-niche-asian-markets/2124544.aspx

Washington, D.C. Scientists have shown for the first time that ‘orange’ maize is a good source of vitamin A. This means that orange maize, a variety of maize bred to improve nutrition, could provide vitamin A through the diet to millions of poor people at risk of vitamin A deficiency. The maize was bred using conventional means (non-GMO) to have higher levels of beta-carotene, which gives it its orange color. The body converts beta-carotene into vitamin A. http://www.harvestplus.org/content/scientists-find-%E2%80%98orange%E2%80%99-maize-good-source-vitamin

Siar SV etal (2011). Papaya ring spot virus resistance in Carica papaya via introgression from Vasconcellea quercifolia. http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/359/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10681-011-0388-z.pdf?auth66=1355054251_8148085189a8ab4ff4b2963f55c40a11&ext=.pdf

CGIAR (2009). More than 50 new non-GM drought-tolerant maize varieties released for African farmers. These varieties yield 20-50% more than others under drought, on hundreds of thousands of hectares. http://www.cgiar.org/web-archives/www-cgiar-org-enews-april2009-story_05-html/

Organic farmer develops aphid-resistant soybeans,(August 2010). http://www.lemarssentinel.com/story/1660505.html

CSIRO develops non GM wheat salt resistant wheat in Australia (2010). A variety of wheat that thrives on salty soils has been bred by scientists who say they will make it freely available to the developing world. The enhanced durum wheat is 25 per cent more productive in saline soils than its normal counterpart, according to Rana Munns, chief research scientist at the Australia-based CSIRO Plant Industry. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/wheat-variety-thrives-on-saltier-soils.html

US scientists develop non-GM high-yielding tomato (March 2010). A mutation in a single gene can turn hybrid tomato plants into super producers capable of generating more and much sweeter fruit without genetic engineering. The mutation in one copy of the gene boosted tomato yield by up to 60 percent and increased sugar content, Lippman and colleagues reported in the journal Nature Genetics.

http://www.planetark.com/enviro-news/item/57360

Bernier, J., Kumar, A., Serraj, R., Spaner, D. & Atlin, G. (2008). Review: breeding upland rice for drought resistance. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 88: 927 – 939. The use of molecular markers to perform selection may eventually provide plant breeders with more efficient selection methods. To date, many quantitative trait loci (QTL) for drought resistance have been identified in rice, but few are suitable for use in marker-assisted selection. However, large-effect drought resistance QTL have now been identified and may enable effective use of marker-assisted selection for drought resistance.

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/348427/smart-breeding.pdf

Bouis HE. (2003). Micronutrient fortification of plants through plant breeding: can it improve nutrition in man at low cost? Proceedings of the Nutrition Society62: 403 – 11.

Some successes in increasing the mineral content of staples can be achieved in the short term through conventional breeding techniques, because of the inherent compatability of high yields and trace mineral density in the seeds. http://eprints.icrisat.ac.in/52/1/micronutreint_fortification.pdf

Collard, B.C.Y. & Mackill, D.J. (2008). Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 363: 557 – 572. Plant breeding will play a key role in this coordinated effort for increased food production. Given the context of current yield trends, predicted population growth and pressure on the environment, traits relating to yield stability and sustainability should be a major focus of plant breeding efforts. These traits include durable disease resistance, abiotic stress tolerance and nutrient and water-use efficiency.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1491/557.full.pdf+html

Salazer L, Winters P, etal (2009). Assessing the impact of late blight resistant varieties on smallholders’ potato production in the Peruvian Andes. International Potato Centre.

A report released by the International Potato Center (CIP) has shown that disease resistant potato cultivars bred by the Center have made an important impact in the Peruvian Andes, with an estimated net benefit accruing to farmers through the adoption of one particular variety, Amarilis, amounting to almost US $ 9 million. The most sustainable means of controlling the disease is by developing resistance in the potatoes. CIP and its partners have been developing and promoting late blight resistant cultivars for over two decades. Recent advances, such as DNA fingerprinting of the pathogen and the genetic sequencing of the potato, have provided vital information for breeders, who use a complex process of recurrent selection to breed varieties with durable late blight resistance. Amarilis, a variety with high-level resistance, was bred by the Center and first released by Peru’s National Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA) in 1993. http://www.cipotato.org/publications/pdf/005381.pdf

Fifteen varieties of beans developed by the Rwandan Agricultural Research Institute (ISAR) in collaboration with the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), could benefit smallholder farmers in similar areas across Central and East Africa. Unlike the more commonly-planted ‘bush beans’, the beans are resistant to legume diseases such as anthracnose, root rot and ascochyta, which are found in damp, higher altitude areas. The new climbing beans are also higher yielding, producing triple and even quadruple the yields of bush beans. http://www.scidev.net/en/news/beans-climb-to-new-heights-in-rwanda.html

The Philippines-based International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), scientists are developing a rice variety with high tolerance to submersion under water for extended periods. IRRI has produce three widely grown varieties of rice that are flood tolerant – the Swarma and Mahsuri from India and the IR64 produced at IRRI’s facility in the Philippines. The new varieties being developed are designed to withstand up to three weeks of submergence and recover after flood waters subside. http://www.irinnews.org/Report/82760/PHILIPPINES-Could-flood-resistant-rice-be-the-way-forward

A new red-fruited habanero is the latest pepper with resistance to root-knot nematodes to be released by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists. PA-559 is the first red-fruited habanero-type pepper released by ARS plant geneticist Richard Fery and plant pathologist Judy Thies-both with the agency’s U.S. Vegetable Laboratory in Charleston, S.C.-that has resistance to the southern root-knot nematode. It is also resistant to the peanut root-knot nematode and the tropical root-knot nematode. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2009/090922.htm

High seed yield and unique resistance to nematodes and several diseases are the key qualities of new soybean lines developed by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and the Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station in Knoxville. According to Prakash R. Arelli, a geneticist at the ARS Nematology Research Unit in Jackson, the new lines have broad resistance to multiple races of soybean cyst nematode (SCN). This is the most destructive soybean pest in the United States, causing an annual estimated loss of $1.1 billion. http://www.ars.usda.gov/IS/pr/2005/050929.2.htm

Gupta, H.S., Agrawal, P.K., Mahajan, V., Bisht, G.S., Kumar, A., Verma, P., Srivastava, A., Saha, S., Babu, R., Pant, M.C. & Mani, V.P. (2009). Quality protein maize for nutritional security: rapid development of short duration hybrids through molecular marker assisted breeding. Current Science 96 (2): 230 – 236. Quality protein maize (QPM) originally developed in the late 1990s at CIMMYT, Mexico possesses roughly twice as much usable protein as normal maize grown in the tropics. The improved quality of the protein in QPM is due to enhancement in lysine and tryptophan – the two limiting amino acids that are known to be regulated by opaque2 gene and associated modifiers. QPM has widely been adopted for cultivation in the developing world to fight protein malnutrition. In India, QPM was released for commercial cultivation almost a decade ago by introducing QPM lines from CIMMYT. However, all these inbred lines are of longer duration and thus, give rise to QPM hybrids of full season maturity. Utilizing marker assisted selection we transferred opaque2, a recessive gene, to two early maturing Indian inbreds that were, in turn, crossed to give rise to an early duration QPM hybrid, Vivek QPM 9, with 30% higher lysine and 40% more tryptophan while retaining the same level of productivity. Vivek QPM 9 yielded at par with Vivek Maize Hybrid 9 in the multilocation yield trials. Vivek QPM 9 has further been found suitable for cultivation under organic farming. http://eprints.iari.res.in/292/1/Curr._Sci._QPM.pdf

Sanchez AC etal (2002). Mapping QTLs associated with drought resistance in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Plant Molecular Biology 48: 713–726, 2002.

Stay-green is one form of drought resistance mechanism, which gives sorghum resistance to premature senescence under soil moisture stress during the postflowering period. Quantitative trait locus (QTL) studies with recombinant inbred lines (RILs) and near-isogenic lines (NILs) identified several genomic regions associated with resistance to pre-flowering and post-flowering drought stress. Four genomic regions associated with the stay-green trait using a RIL population developed from B35 × Tx7000 are identified. These four major stay-green QTLs were consistently identified in all field trials

and accounted for 53.5% of the phenotypic variance.The progress in mapping stay-green QTLs as a component of drought resistance in sorghum is reviewed. The molecular genetic dissection of the QTLs affecting staygreen will provide further opportunities to elucidate the underlying physiological mechanisms involved in drought resistance in sorghum and other grasses. http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023%2FA%3A1014894130270

Jena, K.K. & MacKill, D.J. (2008). Molecular markers and their use in marker-assisted selection in Rice. Crop Science 48: 1266 – 1276. Recent advances in rice genomics research and completion of the rice genome sequence have made it possible to identify and map precisely a number of genes through linkage to DNA markers. Noteworthy examples of some of the genes tightly linked to markers are resistance to or tolerance of blast, bacterial blight, virus diseases, brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens), drought, submergence, salinity, and low temperature and improved agronomic and grain quality traits. Marker-assisted selection (MAS) can be used for monitoring the presence or absence of these genes in breeding populations and can be combined with conventional breeding approaches. Marker-assisted backcross breeding has been used to effectively integrate major genes or quantitative trait loci with large effect into widely grown varieties. Pyramiding different resistance genes using MAS provides opportunities to breeders to develop broad-spectrum resistance for diseases and insects. The use of cost-effective DNA markers derived from the fine mapped position of the genes for important agronomic traits and MAS strategies will provide opportunities for breeders to develop high-yielding, stress-resistant, and better-quality rice cultivars.

Rahman, S., Haque, T., Rahman, M.S. & Seraj, Z.I. (2008). Salt tolerant-BR11 and salt tolerant-BR28 through Marker Assisted Backcrossing (MAB). MAB strategy was therefore under taken to introgress the ‘Saltol’ QTL into the widely accepted two mega rice varieties BR11 (T. Aman, monsoon) and BR28 (Boro, dry, winter). For ‘Saltol’ QTL introgression crossing was done with the donor parent FL378, a near isogenic line (NIL) which was derived from Pokkali (a salt tolerant donor variety) and repeated backcrossing was done with high yielding varieties BR11 or BR28. After releasing of these two salt tolerant mega varieties, it will be very easier for farmers to produce salt tolerant-high yielding rice which will be more beneficial.

(http://www.pbtlabdu.net/abs_rahman_et_al.pdf)

Appendix 3: Bt Cotton & Yields in India

The following is the question asked and answered by Dr K R Kranthi, Director of Central Institute for Cotton Research (Nagpur) on the subject (K R Kranthi, Bt Cotton: Questions and Answers, 2012, Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, Mumbai . Pg 32):

Is the increase in yield because of Bt cotton alone?

Though GM Bt cotton technology has brought down pesticide use by about 50 per cent, it is not correct to assume that cotton yields in India doubled only because of Bt cotton.

Bt cotton was introduced in 2002 primarily for bollworm control. Subsequently, there has been a significant leap in the cotton production. During 2001 India produced about 158 lakh bales, which increased to 243 lakh bales in 2004 and 345 lakh bales by 2011. However, it is interesting to note that the yield increase by 2004 was mainly due to the IPM/IRM strategies, new insecticides, new hybrids, new area in Gujarat, apart from the 5.4% area under Bt cotton. The area under non-Bt straight varieties was about 55.0% in 2004 and non-Bt hybrids at 38.0%. Cotton Advisory Board data show that cotton yields increased by about 60 per cent in three years between 2002 and 2004 when the area under Bt cotton was a meager 5.6 per cent and the area under non-Bt cotton was 94.4 per cent. The yields did not increase significantly more than the pre-Bt era even until 2011 when the Bt cotton area touched 96 per cent.

The area under irrigation increased mainly in Gujarat after the year 2000 especially in the form of check-dams in the Saurashtra belt which had new areas of about 8-9 lakh hectares under cotton. Currently about one-third of India’s production is derived from the state which has one-fourth of the cotton area. Clearly, apart from the contribution of Bt cotton, the increase in yield may have also been due to other major changes in the past 8 years. Some perceptible changes include, implementation on IPM and IRM on a large scale by the Ministry of Agriculture and ICAR, the introduction of some excellent cotton hybrids, increase in cotton area in Gujarat from 15 lakh ha to 26 lakh ha, increase in check dams and drip irrigation systems, increase in hybrid cotton area from 40% to 90% and introduction of 6-7 new effective insecticide molecules for bollworm control and sucking pest management.

Appendix 4:

Transgenic R&D Pipeline in India (if TEC recommendations are accepted in toto)

The following is a table extracted from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture’s report on GM Food Crops (pages 398 to 407), with the last column added to look at the status of this product if the TEC’s first set of recommendations are accepted in toto (moratorium on Bt crops, moratorium till independent review on HT crops and crops for which India is the Centre of Origin/Diversity). For all other products, field trials have to follow new conditions but will not be stopped.

Crops

Company Name

Trail

Train/Gene/Event

REMARK

Cauliflower

Sungro Seeds Research Ltd.

BRL-I

Insect Resistance

cry1Ac event CFE 4

Has to be stopped, because of the Bt gene; However, this is an uninitiated project!

Cauliflower

Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd.

Event Selection

Insect Resistance

RST08-30, 15 events

NO IMPACT, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET; however, unclear if Bt genes are also used in which case it has to stop (96^th GEAC meeting minutes make a mention of Cry gene)

Cotton

Dow AgroSciences India Pvt. Ltd.

BRL-I

BRL-2

Insect Resistance and Herbicide Tolerance

cry1Ac& cry1F (WideStrike = Event 3006-210-23 and Event 281-24-236)

HAS TO STOP, HERBICIDE TOLERANCE TRAIT

Cotton

JK Agrigenetics Ltd.

BRL-I

Insect Resistance

cry1Ac (Event-1) and cry1EC (Event-24)

NO IMPACT, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET

Cotton

MAHYCO

BRL-II

Insect resistance and Herbicide tolerance (Round up Ready Flex)

cry1Ac & cry2Ab (MON 15985) and CP4EPSPS (MON 88913)

IMPACTED: NO HERBICIDE TOLERANT CROPS UNTIL INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Cotton

Krishidhan Seeds Ltd. Jalna

Event selection

Insect resistance

Cry1Ac and cry1

NO IMPACT, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET

Cotton

Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur

BRL-1

Insect resistance and G hirsutum tolerance

cry1Ac gene

NO IMPACT, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET

Cotton

Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur

BRL-1

Insect resistance and G hirsutum tolerance

cry1F gene

NO IMPACT, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET

Cotton

Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR), Nagpur

BRL-1

Insect resistance and G arboretum tolerance

Cry1Ac gene

NO IMPACT, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET

10.

Rice

Bayer Bioscience Pvt. Ltd.

Event selection

Insect resistance

cry 1 Ab, cry 1Ca & bar genes

HAS TO STOP, CROP FOR WHICH INDIA IS CENTRE OF ORIGIN/

DIVERSITY

11.

Rice

Avesthagen Ltd.

Event selection

Hybrid vigour

Oryza sativa taipae 309

HAS TO STOP, CROP FOR WHICH INDIA IS CENTRE OF ORIGIN/

DIVERSITY

12.

Rice

Mahyco

BRL-1

Insect resistance

cry 1Ac gene

HAS TO BE STOPPED: CENTRE OF ORIGIN/DIVERSITY

13.

Rice

Metahelix Life

Science Ltd.

BRL-1

Insect

resistance

Cry 1Ac and Cry1Ab gene

HAS TO BE STOPPED: CENTRE OF ORIGIN/DIVERSITY

14.

Rice

M/s. EI DuPont India Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad

BRL-1

Insect resistance SPT maintainer

ZM-AA1-Os-MSCA1-DsRED2 genes and Os-MSCA-1-ZM-AA1-DsRED2

HAS TO BE STOPPED: CENTRE OF ORIGIN/DIVERSITY

15.

Rice

University of Calcutta, Kolkata

BRL-1

Insect resistance

Ferritin gene

HAS TO BE STOPPED: CENTRE OF ORIGIN/DIVERSITY – ALSO CONFLICT OF INTEREST

16.

Rice

BASF, Mumbai

BRL-1

Insect resistance

OS ARGOS and

containing OS-hox5, Homeobox- Leucine

Zipper gene

HAS TO BE STOPPED: CENTRE OF ORIGIN / DIVERSITY

17.

Tomato

Avesthagen Ltd.

Event selection

Increased lycopene content

unedited NAD9

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET?

18.

Tomato

National Research Centre for Plant Biotechnology (IARI)

Event selection

Stress tolerance

Antisense ACC synthase gene

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET – HOWEVER, RESULTS OF THE STUDY UNTRACEABLE!

19.

Tomato

Mahyco

Pollen flow study

Insect resistance

Cry 2Ab gene

HAS TO STOP: BT FOOD CROP

20.

Tomato

Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore

BRL-1

Insect resistance to Topso virus

Peanut Bud Necrosis virus (PBNV)

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET

21.

Tomato

Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore

BRL-1

Insect resistance to leaf curl virus

TLCV

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET

22.

Tomato

Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore

BRL-1

Insect resistance to PBNV and TLCV

Peanut Bud Necrosis virus (PBNV) & TLCV

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET

23.

Groundnut

ICRISAT

Event Selection

Insect resistance

Chitinase gene

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET

24.

Groundnut

ICRISAT

Event Selection

Coat protein gene (cp) for tobacco streak virus against peanut stem Necrosis Disease

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET

25.

Groundnut

University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Bangalore

Event Selection

Insect resistance

( stress tolerance)

DREB 1A

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET

26.

Groundnut

University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Bangalore

Event Selection

Insect resistance

(stress tolerance & drought tolerance)

DREB 1B

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET

27.

Cabbage

Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd.

Event Selection

Insect Resistance

cry 1b and cry 1c gene.

HAS TO STOP: BT FOOD CROP

28.

Potato

Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla.

Event selection

Insect resistance

RB transgenic

potato clones two lines (904/SP951) of RB

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET

29.

Potato

Central Potato Research Institute, Shimla.

Event selection

Insect resistance Solanum tuberosum subsp. Tuberosum

KchipLnvRNAi-2214

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET?

30.

Potato

Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), New Delhi

BRL-1

Insect resistance to GR=PVY

Potato Virus Y

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS MET?

31.

Corn

Monsanto India Ltd.

BRL-II trials

Insect resistance and herbicide tolerance

cry 2Ab2 and cry 1A.105 genes, (event MON 89034 and CP4EPSPS genes)

HAS TO STOP: Bt AND HT

32.

Corn

Pioneer Overseas Corporation

BRL-1 trials

Insect resistance and herbicide tolerance

Cry1F and CP4EPSPS genes (stacked event of TC 1507 X NK 603)

HAS TO STOP: Bt AND HT

33.

Corn

Dow Agrosciences

BRL-1

Insect resistance

Cry 1F (event TC 1507)

HAS TO STOP: Bt food crop

34.

Corn

M/s. Syngenta Biosciences Pvt Ltd, Pune

BRL-1

Insect resistance

Cry 1Ab gene (Event Bt 11)

HAS TO STOP: Bt FOOD CROP

35.

Sorghum

National Research Centre for Sorghum

BRL-1

Insect resistance

Cry1B gene NRCSCRY1B event 4 and NRCSCRY 1B event 19

HAS TO STOP: BT FOOD CROP

36.

Sorghum

Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture,

(ICAR), Hyderabad

Event selection

Insect resistance

Cry 1B gene

(M35-1)

HAS TO STOP: BT FOOD CROP

37.

Okra

Mahyco

BRL-1

Insect resistance.

Cry 1Ac gene

HAS TO STOP: BT FOOD CROP

38.

Brinjal

Bejo Sheetal Seeds Pvt. Ltd.

BRL-1

Insect resistance

Cry 1Fa1 (event 142)

HAS TO STOP: BT FOOD CROP & CENTRE OF ORIGIN/DIVERSITY

39.

Brinjal

Sungro Seeds Research Limited

BRL-1

Insect resistance

Cry 1Ac gene

HAS TO STOP: BT FOOD CROP & CENTRE OF ORIGIN/DIVERSITY

40.

Mustard

Delhi University

BRL-1

Yield increase
barnase / barstar gene

HAS TO STOP: CENTRE OF ORIGIN/DIVERSITY

41.

Mustard

National Research Centre for Plant

Biotechnology (IARI)

BRL-1

drought stress

Osmotin gene

HAS TO STOP: CENTRE OF ORIGIN/DIVERSITY

42.

Wheat

National Research Centre for Plant Biotechnology (IARI)

BRL-1

Effect of mutant strains

Azotobacter

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET; HOWEVER, EX PROJECT DIRECTOR SAYS RESEARCH RESULTS HAVE GONE MISSING!

43.

Watermelon

Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore

BRL-1

Insect resistance

Bud Necrosis Virus

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET

44.

Transgenic Papaya

Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bangalore

BRL-1

Insect resistance PRSV

cp –gene.

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET

45.

Transgenic

Sugarcane

Sugarcane Breeding Institute (ICAR), Coimbatore

Event Selection

Insect resistance

Cry1Ab gene

HAS TO STOP: BT FOOD CROP

46.

Para Rubber Tree

Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam

BRL-1

Insect resistance

dismutase gene (cDNA)

NOT IMPACTED, IF CONDITIONS ARE MET

[1] Food Security: Concepts & Measurement, FAO (2003) in Trade Reforms & Food Security, (accessed on 1/12/2012) http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4671e/y4671e06.htm. Reiterated in “Food Security” Policy Brief, FAO, June 2006, Issue 2

[2] FAO Statistical Yearbook (2012). Macroeconomy (page 42) Computed from FAO data: total agricultural land is 4.9 billion hectares . http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2490e/i2490e01c.pdf

[3] ISAAA Brief 43-2011 Executive summary (2012, February) . http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp

[4] Food Security Status of US Households in 2011. USDA Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx

[5] ibid

[6] Environmental Working Group (2011) USDA subsidies for farms in United States

[7] Glover.D (2009) Undying Promise: Agriculture Biotechnology’s Pro-poor narrative, 10 years on. http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/BtCottonweb.pdf

[8] http://www.sri-india.net/ has many reports on the subject.

[9] R Ratnakar and M Suryamani. Third Party Evaluation of Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana: Community Managed Organic Farming implemented by SERP. Evaluation Report, Extension Education Institute, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, October 2010 AND Ecologically Sound, Economically Viable, Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh, India http://www.kisanswaraj.in/wpcontent/uploads/Ecologically_sound_economically_viable.pdf

[10] Alex Wijeratna, Fed Up: Now’s the time to invest in agro-ecology. International Food Security Network, June 2012

[11] Altieri.M, Koohafkan P. (2008) Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional farming Communities. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/Enduring_Farms.pdf

[12] Smart Breeding, Greenpeace International, November 2009 www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/348427/smart-breeding.pdf

[13] Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. By Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride, with contributions from Hisham El-Osta, Ralph Heimlich, Meredith Soule, Cassandra Klotz-Ingram, Stan Daberkow, Rachael Goodhue, and Corinne Alexander. Agricultural Economic Report No. 810, ERS USDA, 2002

[14] Benbrook, C.,Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998. Benbrook Consulting Services, Sandpoint, Idaho, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, July 13, 1999 and Deng, Ping-Jian, et al. “The Definition, Source, Manifestation and Assessment of Unintended Effects in Genetically Modified Plants.” Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 88.14 (2008): 2401-2413

[15] Guillaume P Gruere and Yan Sun (2012). “Measuring the contribution of Bt cotton adoption to India’s cotton yields leap”, IFPRI Discussion Paper 01170 – italics are emphasis by the signatories of this letter

[16] V Kumar, Navsari Agriculture University, “Bt cotton – A Gujarat Experience & Issues”, State level dialogue on Emerging Concerns in Gujarat’s Agriculture, Vadodara, 21-22 July 2011

[17] “Ten Years of Bt cotton: False Hype, Failed Promises”, Coalition for a GM Free India, March 2012

[18] Agriculture at Crossroads: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and technology for Development (2009) http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Synthesis%20Report%20%28English%29.pdf

[19] Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter ( 2010) http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf

“FOOD SECURITY THROUGH GM CROPS FALLACIOUS”: SCIENTISTS

Posted on February 9, 2013 by kavitha

National Safe Food Day being celebrated throughout the country, on 3^rd anniversary of Bt brinjal moratorium

(Please read this press release of the Coalition along with this letter : http://indiagminfo.org/?p=540)

New Delhi, February 9^th 2013: On the 3^rd anniversary of a moratorium on Bt brinjal in India, in a letter to the Minister for Environment & Forests (MoEF), more than 150 scientists from across the country pointed out that food security arguments around GM crops are baseless and fallacious, both from the scientific and global experience point of view. These scientists expressed disappointment that the MoEF, responsible for regulation of transgenics, allowed the Ministry of Agriculture to step into the Supreme Court PIL on GMOs on behalf of the Union of India. In their letter, they pointed out that Food Safety is an integral part of Food Security. Earlier in November 2012, the Ministry of Agriculture had argued in the SC that transgenic crops are essential for food security and that India’s transgenic regulatory regime was sound and robust.

The third anniversary of the moratorium on Bt brinjal, being marked as the National Safe Food Day, is witnessing dozens of events and activities around the country. Three years ago, Jairam Ramesh, the then MoEF placed an indefinite moratorium on Bt brinjal stating that as being “responsible to science and responsive to society”.

“We urge Ms Jayanti Natarajan, Minister for Environment & Forests, to show the scientificity and independence that her predecessor showed in placing a moratorium on what would have been India’s first GM food crop, Bt brinjal. In fact, the situation on the regulatory front is worse than it was thought to be during the time the nation-wide public consultations led to the moratorium in 2010. The Bt brinjal moratorium decision has set a good precedence in terms of a precautionary approach. The debate then raised questions around capabilities of biosafety review in an independent and scientific manner, apart from the need for long term independent testing.

It also highlighted the much-required element of needs assessment and assessment of alternatives, before going in for the GM option, which is absent in the current system. This has been pointed out time and again, starting with the Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology, headed by Dr M S Swaminathan in 2003, the report of which was formally accepted by Govt of India in 2004. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture in its report tabled in August 2012, has captured the various nuances to the issue of transgenic food crops in great detail and had asked for a biosafety law to be brought in (instead of the BRAI Bill). The Prime Minister’s Scientific Advisory Council (PM-SAC), listing the key characteristics of an effective regulatory system highlighted the need for sound scientific expertise within the (regulatory) organisation, through independent panels, as well as processes that ensure transparency and freedom from conflict. The Sopory Committee, commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, had pointed out serious and objectionable issues with regard to our transgenic research and regulation, where crores of rupees of taxpayers’ funds have been expended. It also confirmed GM contamination. The Technical Expert Committee of the Supreme Court (SC TEC) also made recommendations on similar lines. It is no coincidence that so many inquiry processes are saying similar things. However, it is surprising that the Ministry of Agriculture ignores all of the above and continues with its biased and unscientific stand on GM crops. The Ministry of Agriculture’s continued aggressive promotion of GM crops is unacceptable and we want the Minister for Environment & Forests to be responsive to society and responsible to science. Therefore, we expect the Environment Minister to accept the first set of recommendations by the TEC”, said Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Convenor, Coalition for a GM-Free India.

Explaining that food security is not connected with faulty techno-fixes like transgenic crops, Kavitha Kuruganti, Member, Coalition for a GM-Free India added: “The attached letter being sent by scientists from around the country to Ms Jayanti Natarajan clearly shows that non-transgenic solutions exist for increasing productivity in agriculture, if the belief is that it is a supply-side problem. However, it is important to realize that today, food security is not about food production, but poverty, livelihoods and development.

“Further, no transgenic crops have been created to increase intrinsic yield potential; as regards operational yields, it is a mixed and unimpressive picture. In the USA, it has been found that in corn, of the 28 percent increase in corn productivity between 1996 and 2008, about 24 or 25 percent was due to factors other than GE. This is about 86 percent of the total increase in yield in corn in those years. GE contributed to a mere 14% of the total yield increase between 1996 and 2008. In the case of soybean, it has been found that the herbicide tolerance gene provided no clear yield advantage, while based on USDA data, yields went up about 16 percent from 1996 – 2008, due to (conventional) breeding and agronomy.

“In India, yield growth of cotton was most impressive in the years prior to the expansion of area under Bt cotton. Yield increases are attributed to many other reasons (other than Bt technology of Bt cotton) by none other than the CICR Director (and state governments too).

“One of the most important things that the scientists’ letter highlights is that from 1995, when 12% of the US population was food insecure, America (the country with largest GM crop adoption) has moved to a situation in 2011 where 15% of the population is food insecure, the same period that they went from zero to the current level of adoption of GM crops. Brazil (the second largest grower of GM crops) continued to see a decline in its hunger profile. However, the pace of decrease has decelerated in the years when GM area expanded (Between 1999-2001 and 2004-06 (which is the pre-GM era), the percentage of undernourished in total population reduced from 12.1% to 8.7%; From then to 2010-12, it decelerated from 8.7% to 6.9%). Argentina, the third largest grower of GM crops, has seen no significant difference in its hunger situation, during the years of expansion of GM crops. Paraguay, which grows GM crops on 65% of its arable land, saw population experiencing hunger spiral up from 12.6% in 2004-06 to 25 % in 2010-12. Countries like Peru and Venezuela have on the other hand experienced tremendous improvement in their hunger situation even though they have not adopted GM crops. It is clear that GM crop adoption has not meant greater improvements in food security. GE, as several scientists have said, is a costly distraction for the solutions that we are seeking in farming. It is time that the Ministry of Agriculture became scientific in its outlook and analysis; it is also important that the MoEF does not allow itself to be misled”.

The Coalition pointed out that citizens are keen to have an informed debate on the subject and it does not help to have a unilateral view presented by the government that too using taxpayers’ funds. On National Safe Food Day, numerous events are being organized by dozens of groups across the country, ranging from public debates, to lectures, to colorful rallies, to poster exhibitions, to film screenings and safe food festivals. The coalition urges citizens to join the events nearest to them and engage with the issue of food safety. More information is available at: http://nationalsafefoodday2013.blogspot.in/

For more information, contact:

Sridhar Radhakrishnan: +91-99953-58205

Kavitha Kuruganti: +91-93930-01550

Coalition condemns MoA’s attempt to bring in controversial people as “eminent speakers” in a Ministry’s Conference

Posted on January 29, 2013 by kavitha

The following is the text of a letter sent by the Coalition to the Minister for Agriculture, in the context of an upcoming Conference by the Ministry called “Doubling Food Production in Five Years”, on Feb. 1-3, 2013 in Delhi. A full page advertisement about this appeared in national newspapers including Economic Times on January 16th 2013.

29-01-2013

Shri Sharad Pawar,

Minister for Agriculture,

Goverrnment of India.

Re: Conference organised by the Ministry of Agriculture on “Doubling Food Production in Five Years” – Ignoring Parliament – In brazen support of corporate interests at the expense of farmers’ – reg.

It has come to our attention that the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is organising a Conference on “Doubling Food Production in Five years” from February 1-3, 2013 at Vigyan Bhavan in New Delhi. On the face of it, it appears to be a regular program of the Ministry. However, two things draw our attention to this particular Conference : first, the predominance of vested interests acting behind it i.e, the ones promoting the Conference with full page advertisements in national newspapers – the Pesticide Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India(PMFAI), the National Seed Association of India(NSAI) and the biotech lobby group-ABLE and second, some of the “eminent” speakers selected to address the Conference – some of them controversial figures well known for their support of GM crops without supporting scientific facts or evidence.

Sir, you know very well that the Standing Committee on Agriculture of the Indian Parliament has in its path-breaking report of August 2012, come down heavily on this dangerous path that your Ministry is leading the country into. It said “In their tearing hurry to open the economy to private prospectors, the Government should not make the same fate befall on the agriculture sector as has happened to the communications, pharma, mineral wealth and several other sectors in which the Government’s facilitative benevelonce preceded setting up of sufficient checks and balances and regulatory mechanisms, thereby, leading to colossal, unfettered loot and plunder of national wealth in some form or the other, incalculable damage to environment, biodiversity, flora and fauna and unimaginable suffering to the common man.” [Para 3.48].

Many of the members of the Committee were UPA Parliamentarians, as you are aware.

It is grossly irresponsible, unscientific, misleading and completely unethical for the Ministry to blatantly promote technologies such as GM crops, when as a country, India is trying to come out of the pesticide tread-mill and make its production, agriculture and its farmers livelihood sustainable, safe and remunerative. It is also reprehensible that the Ministry of Agriculture, which is answerable to the larger public and the farmers is acting at the behest of the industries who stand to profit from these unneeded, hazardous technologies. We would also like to point out that the Ministry’s own inquiry through the Sopory Committee has brought to the fore egregious failings with regard to transgenic research and regulation in this country.

This blatant attempt by the Ministry makes it clear that MoA is not genuinely interested in addressing food security in any lasting fashion or acting in a scientific way when it comes to many problems in our farming, but is interested in blindly promoting certain technologies, for private and possibly vested and corrupt interests.

Food security of a country like India is not an issue the MoA should let vested interests sabotage; it requires serious efforts from the Ministry and its officials to listen to all stakeholders and to arrive at a well thought out and optimal solution to address it, drawing from various areas of expertise, experience and knowledge domains.

We reproduce what the Parliamentary Standing Committee had said on this matter.

“The present worrisome situation” as regards food security is primarily because of “faulty procurement policy, mismanagement of stocks, lack of adequate and proper storage, hoarding and lopsided distribution, massive leakages in the public distribution delivery system, etc.” It also adds categorically that “If these shortcomings and problems are attended to along with liberal financial assistance to agriculture and allied sectors, proactive measures are initiated to arrest the decreasing trend in cultivable area and farmer friendly and sustainable agricultural practices are put in use, there would not be any compelling need for adopting technologies which are yet to be proven totally safe for biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health and which will encourage monoculture, an option best avoided.”

The committee finally recommends that “the Government come up with a fresh road map for ensuring food security in coming years without jeopardizing the vast bio-diversity of the country and compromising with the safety of human health and livestock health.” [Para – 7.71].

It is unclear how your Ministry thinks that food security can be achieved with the help of the pesticide industry, the seed industry (that is increasingly playing into the hands of the biotech majors such as Monsanto) and the biotech industry with a single agenda of promoting genetically modified seed that is not only inadequately tested but also adequately patented so as to ensure a complete rout of our agricultural sovereignty!!!

It is quite perplexing how the post-modern science and discourse in agriculture has evolved towards sustainability and agro-ecology all over the world, but is being denied vehemently by your Ministry in this country. The same applies to the nuanced understanding around the complexity of hunger and malnutrition, including structural poverty-related issues, whereas your Ministry wants unproven techno-fixes to be deployed as a one-size-fits-all solution.

It is surprising that solutions offered by globally recognised initiatives such as the IAASTD do not seem to have attracted your attention at all. And again here the Standing Committee on Agriculture has some excellent suggestions. It says “the Committee would like to remind the Government of India that they are a signatory to this path breaking effort (IAASTD Report) and in the opinion of the Committee, the Government would do well if they adopt this Report as the way forward for development of agriculture and allied sectors in India, in a sustainable and environmental friendly manner, and with no unwanted risks to biodiversity, human and livestock health, flora and fauna. The Committee also desire to be apprised of the concrete action taken by the Government on each of the findings contained in IAASTD Report during the four years after the release of the Report.” [Para 5.52]

All said and done, the Ministry of Agriculture seems to be least interested in anything that is even remotely connected to sustainability (farm as well as farm livelihood) and is only interested in helping corporate and MNC powers to dominate and profit, even at the cost of the lives of farmers and the hapless Indian consumer. There is also deep disrespect being shown towards the Indian Parliament, whose report your Ministry is ignoring and acting in contravention to its recommendations.

Hence, we are writing this letter to express our deep anguish and anger at the really worrying direction that your Ministry and hence the Government of India is leading Indian agriculture into. The fact that you are hosting people like Dennis Avery, Peter Raven, Patrick Moore and Mark Lynas to name a few demonstrates the desperation that your Ministry shares with the GM and pesticides industries to shove such dangerous technologies down the throats of the Indian public. As recently as last week the ruling party in its conclave promised that it will listen more to the people of the country, and this is definitely not the peoples wish!

Therefore, we are sending this letter to express our condemnation of such blatant vested interests being involved in policy-making and within the government. Moreover, there are accountability questions with public funds utilised for such promotional activities of profiteering industries and unscientific worldviews. The government should appreciate that this will only instigate a greater public outcry from citizens for their science, knowledge, experience and worldviews to be heard and taken on board, while shaping future directions.

We urge you not to go ahead with such a wrongly-founded Conference and also urge you to not host these controversial speakers and provide a platform to hazardous industries and waste precious public funds on events such as these.

With due respects and concerns

Sridhar Radhakrishnan

Convener,

Coalition for a GM-Free India.

Copy to :

Dr Manmohan Singh, Prime Minister of India

Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, United Progressive Alliance

Sri.Jaipal Reddy, Minister for Science and Technology

Smt.Jayanti Natarajan, Minister of State for Environment and Forests

Coalition for a GM-free India

c/o INSAF, A-124/6, First Floor, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi 110 016, Phone/Fax: 011-26517814

Website: www.indiagminfo.org, email: indiagmfree@gmail.com, Facebook – GM Watch India

ANNEXURE

The announcement of the Conference lists atleast two Chief Ministers, many ministers and officials from the Ministry of Agriculture. In addition there are representatives from FAO and ILRI. The CEO of one of the largest agro-business corporations in Latin America and the President of EMBRAPA ( Brazil) find a place in the speakers list. It also has four known GM crop promoters. Some information on them is provided below:

A short note on the affiliations of some of the ‘eminent speakers’

Dennis Avery – Director of Hudson Institute1 , considered a conservative think tank, which is supported by large corporations including agri-business corporations2. He is an anti-organic farming advocate and a strong supporter of biotechnology in agriculture, pesticides and a climate change skeptic.3 4

Mark Lynas – The biotech industry’s newly minted star, according to his own profile is a speaker on climate change5, nowhere he is featured as an anti-GM activist. He began promoting GM crops since the last three years.6 He has claimed to have ‘helped start’ the anti-GM movement and also said to have ‘coordinated with Indian groups’- both untrue! The Coalition has already put out a detailed statement which can be accessed here.7

Patrick Moore- Runs his own consulting firm which reportedly does “public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying.8”According to Greenpeace (Moore uses his past link to GP even now) Patrick Moore is , “a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media.”9 Greenpeace says “Patrick Moore frequently portrays himself as a founder or co-founder of Greenpeace, and many news outlets have repeated this characterization. Although Mr. Moore played a significant role in Greenpeace Canada for several years, he did not found Greenpeace.”10 It is interesting to note that even in this profile for the Conference of Ministry of Agriculture, he gives his long ago Greenpeace affiliation( which ended more than 25 years back) rather than his lobbying work of the past 20 years .

Peter Raven- President Emeritus of Missouri Gardens which has a long standing and close relationship with Monsanto and is an advocate of GM crops.11 Missouri Gardens has been working with and receiving funds from Monsanto since 1999. Even as recently as May 2012 Monsanto gifted three million dollars to the Missouri botanical gardens.12 In addition many of the facilities in Missuori Gardens are funded by Monsanto like the Monsanto Hall, Monsanto Center etc.13 Along with Monsanto the Missouri Botanical Gradens was one of the key groups involved in forming the Danforth Plant Science Centre, which promotes GM crop research.14

1 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hudson_Institute

2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute#Funding

3 http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dennis_Avery

4 http://www.desmogblog.com/dennis-avery

5 http://www.marklynas.org/about/

6 http://www.newstatesman.com/environment/2010/01/nuclear-power-lynas-greens

7http://indiagminfo.org/?p=523#more-523

8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29

9 http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/Patrick-Moore-background-information/

10 ibid

11 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/is-the-catholic-church-in-favour-of-gm-crops-2159473.html

12 http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/media/news-releases/article/327/missouri-botanical-garden-receives-3-million-gift-from-monsanto-company-toward.aspx

13http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/things-to-do/events/private-events-rentals/monsanto-hall.aspx

14 http://www.riverfronttimes.com/1999-11-03/feature/peter-and-the-wolf/

Mark Lynas & his support of GM crops – Much ado about nothing!

Posted on January 19, 2013 by kavitha

This note has been prepared in the context of the absolutely vested and purposefully planted story of Mark Lynas and his Confession. The Coalition for GM Free India sees this as a distraction, from the real debate on GM crops and its impacts, and its disturbing to see that even a section of the media fell for this trap. This note is to set right the facts on this matter.

Introduction:
• Mark Lynas made a speech on January 3rd, 2013 claiming that he has changed his mind about GM crops and he now supports GM crops.
• In his speech he claims to have “helped to start the anti-GM movement back in the mid 1990s”- the claim “helped start” is farfetched and doesn’t stand to scrutiny, considering that the anti GM movement in UK and Europe began earlier in the 1980s, and much of the initial work began in the 1970s. They began building coalitions in the late 1980s across countries and continents. Books by activists on the GE problems began to be published in the 1980s. The movement was founded on sound science, path-breaking intellectual work, writings and commitment of groups and individuals on both sides of the Atlantic.
• In India, Lynas speech made its first appearance in IE. The IE article, which disingenuously calls him “voice of the anti-GM campaign”, and calls him “one of the earliest campaigners against GM crops in Europe”, which is complete hyperbole, as it would have been impossible for him as a boy or a teenager to initiate the European anti GM campaign! Also the European anti-GM campaign and the UK anti-GM campaign are different entities.
• In that article, done through an email interview, Lynas claims to “having been part of the campaign, as part of which he coordinated with Indian NGOs, in the process taking the fear of GM crops to India”, yet another tall claim with absolutely no substance. The Indian movement to keep India free of GM crops has had no connection with Mark Lynas; in fact many in the movement have come across his name for the first time after this Oxford speech.

Background:
• His public profiles on Wikipedia, Guardian paper and elsewhere carry his identity and profile as a climate activist, no where is he cited as an anti-GM activist.
• According to his profile he holds a Degree in History and Politics
• His utterances on GM seem to have come only after his much publicised conversion to becoming a supporter of GM crops.
• His first published articles supporting GM crops were published in the New Statesman, UK in January 2010, i.e. 3 years ago! His book “God Species: How the Planet can Survive the Age of Humans” (on climate change), was published in 2011. So this stance supporting GM crops is nothing new or newsworthy.
• In 2010 he appeared in a documentary telecast in Channel 4 called the “What the greens got wrong” (where he spoke in support of nuclear power) and he has been supportive of nuclear energy and GM crops since then. So, this “conversion” is not new, and has been re-invented now with some ulterior motive.

Interesting information from 2011 :
• The Guardian paper reported on a leaked document from the PR agency working for EuropaBio, the most wealthy and influential lobby group for GM crops in Europe (funded by Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow etc). The leaked memo showed that EuropaBio was looking for GM Ambassadors whose task would be to create a positive image about GMOs. The PR firm document says “The most important factor in terms of ensuring the legitimacy and impact of this programme is the quality of the ambassadors and the breadth of positions represented and numbers involved. Provided that a sufficiently strong pool of ambassadors is established – we are very confident that this will be the case – then it will be very difficult for anybody to make the claim that these ambassadors are somehow ‘in the pocket’ of the agricultural science companies.” (‘Biotech group bids to recruit high-profile GM ambassadors’).

• In the draft letter to potential Ambassadors one of the names mentioned for “potential involvement” is Mark Lynas, and as expected, he has denied it. It is interesting to note that the biotech lobby considers him a promising figure to promote their views since 2011, so what is new?

• About EuropaBio: It is the most influential and powerful biotech lobbying group based in Brussels and focused on lobbying in Europe for GM crops. Their corporate members list includes who is who of the biotech industry (Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dow and so on).

The speech:

• Mark Lynas speech at the Oxford farming conference was riddled with inaccuracies and consisted of a series of unsubstantiated broad sweeping statements. He has claimed that he opposed GM in ignorance; this speech makes it clear that his support is also based on the same or greater level of ignorance.

• Below are a sample of responses from reputed scientists, social scientists and ecologists on this speech, which reveals the lack of understanding and depth of the speech. Many more such responses are available :
o Dr.Brian John , Past lecturer,University of Durham- he Lynas School of pseudo-scientific environmentalism -Twenty-two pieces of junk science from the Lynas Manifesto
o Dr.Doug Gurian Sherman , A plant pathologist at Union for Concerned Scientists – Lies, dogma and Mark Lynas
o Prof. John Vandermeer, Professor, Dept of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology – challenges Mark Lynas on GMOs
o Tom Philpott, Writer on food and agriculture , Enviro-cusader turns Pro-GMO, Anti-organic and anti-logic

• Lynas has not responded with science, references or arguments to any of these contentions, as is the case with his original speech as well.

• Why has such an unscientific speech of a conversion of an individual to believing in GM crops attracted such wide circulation, while peer reviewed science that has revealed the problems with GMOs face attacks ? The answer lies in the question – if you support GM crops, you are paraded as a trophy, if you find problems with GM crops, you are tarnished and your professional reputation destroyed.

• The biotech industry has taken the lead in promoting this piece, it is on the front page of all biotech lobby sites and being promoted assiduously.

Does Lynas or this red herring of an individual’s change of views have any relevance in the Indian context? – Yes & No

• The efforts of some members of the Indian media to accept his assertions without any critical questioning, probably in their efforts to further GM, and the consequent spread of half truths necessitates this note.

• As an individual Lynas has a right to take a stance and an individual’s stance does not mean the end of a movement or debate. His stance has absolutely no bearing on the global movement against GM crops or the Indian movement to keep the country GM free. No individual however highly placed can end a movement, and if the individual has had no significant place in the movement the question of discussing his exit does not even arise (particularly two years after he has changed sides !!).

• The movement against GM crops and movements to take sufficient precautions before introducing them into the environment is based on scientific, ecological, socio-economic considerations and issues of fundamental choice about food and farming. It realises that GM is an imprecise, irreversible, uncontrollable living technology which is neither needed nor safe. It is based on facts, scientific evidence, socio-economic realities and ecological and health impacts.

• In the Indian context the timing of this has been carefully chosen because the biotech industry lobby promoting GM crops has been on the back foot since the unanimous report of the Parliamentary Committee which has exposed the hollowness of the GM claims (and asked for a moratorium and investigations into many issues) and the SC TEC interim report has also seen fit to call for a moratorium. This is part of the industry’s effort to try to influence the final report of the SC TEC by PR agencies going into over drive to get some pro-biotech media coverage. Lynas is not a scientist; he has not come up with any new studies or findings, and has merely repeated some of the oft repeated claims by the biotech industry.

In conclusion, this Mark Lynas episode is simply a well-planted distraction from the genuine and highly critical debate that is taking place on the issue of GM crops across Europe, US, Asia, South America and Africa. Wherever GM crops have been adopted, serious environmental and in some cases health problems are being experienced and hence public objections, and where there is pressure for introduction, there is strong public opposition. Mark Lynas is simply a distraction in this debate. However, the sad reality is that many media houses ran after a story like this rather than engage honestly with the issue. Of course many of them have in the process harmed their own reputation by doing blatantly one-sided stories in their rush to help the biotech industry.

Released in Public Interest by Coalition for a GM-Free India
www.indiagminfo.org
email : indiagmfree(at)gmail.com
For contacts – Sridhar Radhakrishnan (09995358205), mail.thanal(at)gmail.com
Sreedevi Lekshmikutty – l_sreedevi(at)rediffmail.com

Letter from Civil Society Organisations on Improving current regulation and implementing a robust regulatory mechanism for GM crops to ensure biosafety

Posted on January 6, 2013 by kavitha

New Delhi

2nd January 2013

To:

Ms. Jayanti Natarajan
Minister for State for Environment & Forests (Independent Charge)
Paryavaran Bhavan, CGO Complex,
Lodi Estate, New Delhi.

Dear Madam,

Re: Improving current regulation and implementing a robust regulatory mechanism for GM crops to ensure biosafety

Greetings! And Happy New Year Wishes !

This is with regard to the first report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) in the Supreme Court PIL on GMOs. We are deeply dismayed that the Ministry of Environment & Forests has been reported to have not backed the recommendations of a Committee of independent experts (whose expertise in safety assessment is invaluable) jointly constituted by itself and the petitioner of the PIL, Ms. Aruna Rodrigues. The matter in question is the impact on biosafety from the deployment of modern biotechnological tools like transgenics.

Your Ministry, which has the authority and responsibility to ensure biosafety and protect biodiversity, instead of taking the lead in this matter, appears to have abdicated its responsibility and let other departments and Ministries, whose role is to promote biotechnology, to seize the initiative with regard to this critical issue under your purview. This is apparent from the affidavit filed by the Ministry of Agriculture’s Joint Secretary (Seeds), on behalf of Union of India. This is indeed unfortunate and unacceptable.

• Prior to the SC TEC report, the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Agriculture tabled its report on GM crops on August 9th, 2012. It is not a coincidence that both these reports have raised similar concerns. In addition to looking at problems with open air field trials, the TEC report has raised the issue of conflict of interest within the regulator, the problems with Bt food crops, the threats from HT crops in the Indian context and the fundamental requirement of need assessment for GM products/crops before they are introduced into the environment.

• Open air field trials of untested and unknown organisms is indeed a problem, given that Genetic Engineering is an imprecise, irreversible and uncontrollable living technology. Over and above the challenge of this living technology, the regulatory regime in the country has proven itself incapable and apathetic towards protection of biosafety during such trials. Numerous instances of violations are in the notice of your Ministry and the Supreme Court, starting from the way Bt cotton began to be cultivated in this country before formal regulatory approval was granted.

• Lack of institutional mechanisms for monitoring, violations of rules, instances of contamination, lack of sufficient protocols and their oversight, use of illegal GMOs, lack of a liability regime and absence of any policy directives before entertaining transgenic applications are among the glaring lacunae afflicting the regulation of GM crops, right from the time field trials were first allowed within the country. There is an overall acknowledgement about the need for improvement on the regulatory front, including by the Chairperson of GEAC, in various fora.

• To that extent, as the only Ministry holding the regulatory mandate, it is only expected that the MoEF will do its best to make the regulatory regime robust, credible, independent of conflict of interest and adopt a precautionary approach as it has done in the case of Bt brinjal. It is therefore quite unexpected that this did not happen on November 9th 2012, during the last hearing of the Supreme Court in the matter.

• The PSC report and the TEC’s first report come at a critical juncture. In 2011 and 2012 alone, we brought to your notice several glaring violations related to biosafety during open-air field trials. No satisfactory response was forthcoming from the regulators.

• The facetious arguments being bandied about by GM crop promoters about GM crops being essential to ensure food security is merely unscientific scare-mongering and that should not deter the Ministry from taking up the all-important task of putting in place a robust regulatory mechanism. As you would agree with us, food security is more than just production of more food, as the paradox of overflowing godowns/rotting food grains and growing hunger in India shows. Further, even on the supply side, productivity improvements can be achieved through many means other than GMOs.

• We would like to bring to your notice that GM crops, particularly BT and HT crops, are not meant to increase yield. This has been unequivocally established time and again in the United States, the largest purveyor of GM crops. In the US, only 3-4% of yield increase in Bt corn is being attributed to GM technology by experts, and even this happens in years of high pest infestation. Further, in the case of GM soy, there have been no significant yield improvements despite the high adoption of GM soy. The herbicide-tolerant gene in GM soy provided no yield gains. The engineered gene in GM drought tolerant corn is estimated to increase productivity by only around 1.2%.

• In the Indian context the Director of CICR has said that Bt cotton is not the sole or main cause for yield improvements in cotton and that not even bollworm incidence coming down can be attributed to Bt cotton and therefore, yields cannot be because of Bt technology (relevant extracts attached as an Annexure). Even according to IFPRI, Bt cotton has not significantly contributed to yield increase in cotton in India. Their study shows that, “Bt cotton contributed 19 percent of total yield growth over time, or between 0.3 percent and 0.4 percent per percentage adoption every year since its introduction. Besides Bt cotton, the use of fertilizer and the increased adoption of hybrid seeds appear to have contributed to the yield increase over time.”

• On the other hand, problems abound with GM crops; ‘super weeds’ (glyphosate-resistant or herbicide-resistant weeds) have infested over 15 million acres in the USA. There has been a cumulative increase in pesticide use by about 174 million kg even though GM crops are often promoted as pesticide-reducing crops. The GM industry’s answer to this crisis is new herbicide resistant crops that are designed to use older and even more toxic herbicides. Development of resistance in target insects to GM crops has been demonstrated by several recent studies and reports from the fields also substantiate this.

In response to the oft-repeated claim that GM crops are needed for India’s food security, we would like to point out that global reports of repute like IAASTD , and the statement of the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food have come to the conclusion that small-holder farming based on agro-ecological principles with good stewardship of land and other resources is the most effective way to eliminate hunger and enhance food security and availability. Techno-fixes like GM crops do not have a role in enhancing food security. This is also evident from the GM crops and traits extensively grown; most of the area under GM crops is commodity crops (cotton, soybean, corn) and they are used for industrial use and animal feed, apart from more than half of America’s corn going into fuelling automobiles!

We understand and recognize the importance of science and technology in nation building; however the basic principle of introducing any risky and controversial technology into a society should be based on a rigorous, independent assessment of its very need. An inherently risky, short-lived and irreversible technology like GM crops, tied up in complicated IPRs seeking to control seed and food chains clearly doesn’t pass muster. On the contrary it is forcing farmers into a treadmill of constant upgradation and higher expenditure – thereby jeopardizing both food security and farmer livelihood stability. Evidence to this effect is emerging from developing countries of South America – food security parameters like calories/person/day are actually declining in countries like Brazil and Paraguay (two countries which have more than 40% of their agriculture under GM crops) while countries like Peru (that have not adopted GM crops) are posting improvements in food security.

On the other hand, ecologically-based farming methods reduce environmental impacts, water, fertilizer and pesticide use. Evidence is coming in from the world over about the efficacy of agro-ecological approaches, the latest is a report from government scientists and researchers in the US who have established that sustainable farming methods can increase yield at zero cost. In India, there is evidence that agro-ecological approaches not only give similar or better yields than conventional technologies but also reduce input costs, use less water and energy, increasing net returns for farmers. The Andhra Pradesh experience of ecological farming on a large scale of 3.5 million acres clearly demonstrates that this does not burden the taxpayer whereas chemical/GM-based farming involves huge subsidies.
India is a signatory to the Convention on Biological Diversity and you are its Chair for the next two years. The TEC and PSC have invoked the precautionary principle as the guiding principle for their recommendations and pointed to India being a signatory of CBD. In this context it behooves upon the Government of India and particularly the Ministry for Environment & Forests under your leadership to take the lead to set up a model regulatory mechanism for dealing with GM crops.

We, the undersigned, therefore appeal to you to seize this opportunity being provided by the two reports (PSC report and the TEC report) to build a robust, biosafety protection mechanism that would ensure sufficient precaution, due oversight, adequate testing, independent evaluation and stringent monitoring of GM crops with an appropriate liability & redressal regime in place, in addition to need assessment and a holistic impact assessment governing the regulation, going beyond biosafety.

Yours sincerely,

(List of Signatories appended below)

S.No., Name, Affiliation, State
1 Balaji Seshadri Research Associate, Centre for Environmental Risk Assessment and Remediation, University of South Australia –
2 Carmen Miranda Chair, Save Goa Campaign, UK –
3 N. V. Subbarow Research & Education Officer, Consumers Association Of Penang (Cap), Malaysia –
4 Dr. G.V. Ramanjaneyalu Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh
5 Capt. J. Rama Rao I. N. (Retd) Advisor, Forum for Sustainable Development, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh
6 Jasveen Jairath Save Our Urban Lakes, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh
7 Dr. K. Babu Rao Convener, Movement for People Centred Development Andhra Pradesh
8 Kirankumar Vissa AID India Andhra Pradesh
9 Kunjam Pandu Dora Convenor, Adivasi Aikya Vedika Andhra Pradesh
10 Madhusudhan Yakshi, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh
11 Narasimha Reddy Donthi Chetna Society Andhra Pradesh
12 Radha Gopalan Ph.D, Rishi Valley Education Centre, Rishi Valley, Madanapalle, Chittoor Andhra Pradesh
13 Dr. Sagari R. Ramdas Director, Anthra, Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh
14 Dr. A K Yadav RAU, Pusa, Samastipur Bihar
15 Akhilesh Kumar Swadeshi jagran Manch, Patna Bihar
16 Aneel Hegde Kisan Swaraj, Patna Bihar
17 Angina Prasad Farmers Club, West Champaran Bihar
18 Anil Kumar General Secretary, Kisan Majdoor Vikas Sangathan, Jehanabaad Bihar
19 Anita Singh Srikrishna Radhika Mahila Sangathan, Jehanabaad Bihar
20 Bandana Sharma Akanksha Seva Sadan, Muzaffarpur Bihar
21 Dr. D.M.Diwakar IMA, Physician, Patna Bihar
22 Jyoti Kumari Women’s Group, Patna Bihar
23 Kiran Ranjan General Secretary, JDU Bihar, Patna Bihar
24 Kumar Indubhushan National President, Akhil Bhartiya Rashtravaadi Kisan Sangathan, Ara Bihar
25 Lalji Prasad Patna Jila Salahkaar Samiti, Patna Bihar
26 Manoj Kumar Hitakaari krishak Club, Minapur, Muzaffarpur Bihar
27 Nagendra Singh Chairperson, Nalanda Bhartiya Kisan Morcha, Biharsharif (Nalanda) Bihar
28 Nitish Kumar World Record Grower Potato, Darveshpura, Nalanda Bihar
29 Pankaj Bhushan Tara Foundation Bihar
30 Parshuram Ojha Sriram Krishak Club, Koilwar, Ara Bihar
31 Prakash Bablu GM Free Bihar Movement, Patna Bihar
32 Dr. R.K.P.Singh ICRA, Patna Bihar
33 Dr. Ram Mohan Singh Doctor, Patna Bihar
34 Dr. Ramadhar Former IAS & Chairperson Bihar farmer Commission, Patna Bihar
35 Ramayan Singh Kisan Cell, Samajvaadi Janta Party, Siwan Bihar
36 Ramesh Kumar Chairman,GPSVS, Madhubani Bihar
37 Rampal Agrawal Nutan Rashtriya Goshala Sangathan Patna Bihar
38 Ravi Kamal Nikhil Rural Development Society, Patna Bihar
39 Rocky Kumar Sodhi Shere Bihar Organic Farmer Group Biharsharif, Nalanda Bihar
40 Dr. S.N.Rai M.S., Muzaffarpur Bihar
41 Dr. Shree Ram Padmadeo Tara Foundation, Patna Bihar
42 Srinivas Chaari Convener, Bihar Suchna Adhikar Manch, Patna Bihar
43 Sumanth Kumar World Record Grower, Paddy, Darveshpura, Nalanda Bihar
44 Suresh gupta Member, State Wild Life Board, Muzaffarpur Bihar
45 Suresh Singh General Secretary, Kisan Prakoshth Bihar, Patna Bihar
46 Surya Narain Singh Farmer’s Club, Aurangabaad Bihar
47 Vidya Bhushan Singh Harit Swaraj, Gopalganj Bihar
48 Vijay Kumar Gandhi Seva Ashram Jalalpur, Saran Bihar
49 Jacob Nellithanam Richharia Campaign Chhattisgarh
50 Ajay Mahajan VIVIDHARA Delhi
51 Gopal Krishna ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) Delhi
52 Jaya Iyer Vividhara and KHANA ( khadhya Nyaya Abhiyan), New Delhi Delhi
53 Krishan Bir Chaudhary President, Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, New Delhi Delhi
54 Nishank Secretariat Coordinator, Alliance For Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) Delhi
55 Rachna Arora Creator – Public Awareness on Genetically Modified Food Delhi
56 Renu Singh Secretariat Coordinator, Coalition for a GM Free India Delhi
57 Shalini Bhutani Legal Researcher Delhi
58 Shalini Bhutani Independent Legal Expert Delhi
59 Suresh Nautiyal Convener, Himalayan Peoples Forum Delhi
60 Suresh Nautiyal Board Member, Democracy International Delhi
61 Dr. Vandana Shiva Navdanya/Research Foundation for Science Technology & Ecology, New Delhi Delhi
62 Vijay Pratap Convenor, SADED Delhi
63 Abhijit Prabhudesai Organic Farmer Goa
64 Anand Mazagaenkar Co-ordinator, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti, Vadodara Gujarat
65 Ashok Bhargav Development Activist Gujarat
66 Dr. B.D.Damore Vice President, Indian National Congress Tribal Wing Gujarat
67 Babubhai Vaghela Secretary, Gujarat Kheti Vikas Parishad, Ahmedabad Gujarat
68 Badribhai Joshi Secretary, Gujarat Khedut Samaj, Tanachha Gujarat
69 Bharat Jambhuha Co-ordinator, People’s Learning Centre-Utthan, Bhavanagar Gujarat
70 Dr. Bharat Shah Trustee, Sarvodaya Parivar Trust, Dharampur, Ahmedabad Gujarat
71 Bhikhu Vyas Trustee, Vanpath Trust Gujarat
72 Chunibhai Vaidya President, Gujarat Lok Samiti Gujarat
73 Dhiru Mistry Secretary, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Vadodara Gujarat
74 Ganpatbhai Gamit President, Gram Seva Samaj, Vyara Gujarat
75 Harshit Rughani Coordinator, Porbander Swimmers Club Gujarat
76 Ilaben Pathak President, Awaz, Ahmedabad Gujarat
77 Indukumar Jani Editor, Nayamarga, Ahmedabad Gujarat
78 Jagdish Shah Managing Trustee, Shivambu Chikitsa Sanshodhan Mandal Gujarat
79 Jagrut Gadit Volunteer, Vadodara Organic Consuner Group Gujarat
80 Kapil Mandawewala Sajeev Fresh, Organic Farmer, Jamnagar Gujarat
81 Kapil Shah Director, Jatan Trust – A Mission For Organic Farming, Vadodara Gujarat
82 Krishnakant Co-ordinator, Mithivirdi Anumukti Andolan Gujarat
83 Lalsing Parghi Sectretary , Bharatiya Adiwasi Sangamam(Westzone) Gujarat
84 Dr. Lataben Medical Professional Gujarat
85 Magandhai Patel President, Bharatiya Kisan Sangh(Gujarat Pradesh),Gandhinagar Gujarat
86 Mahendra Jethmalani Director, Patheya, Ahmedabad Gujarat
87 Mahesh Pandya Chairman, Paryavaran Mitra, Ahmedabad Gujarat
88 Manoj Solanki Trustee, Ramkrishna Trust, Kutch Gujarat
89 Manshukhbhai Suvagiya President, Jalkranti Trust, Rajkot Gujarat
90 Narayanbhai Desai President , Sampoorn Kranti Vidyalaya Vedachhee Gujarat
91 Neeta Hardikar Executive Director, Anandi, Devgadh Bariya Gujarat
92 Prafulbhai Senjahiga President, Mahagujrat Agri Cotton Company Ltd. Gujarat
93 Purvi Vyas Organic Farmer Gujarat
94 Rajni Dave Editor, Bhoomiputra, Vadodara Gujarat
95 Ramesh Sangavi President, Gram Swaraj Sangh, Kutch Gujarat
96 Rohit Prajapati Co-ordinator, Vadodara Kamdar Union, Vadodara Gujarat
97 Sanjay Dave Director, Charakha, Ahmedabad Gujarat
98 Sarvadaman Patel President, Organic Farming Association of India Gujarat
99 Shripal Shah Director, Asal, Ahmedabad Gujarat
100 Dr. Suren-Uma Gadekar Co-ordinator, Anoomukti Andolan Gujarat
101 Trupti Shah Trustee, Sahiyar Stree Sangathan, Vadodara Gujarat
102 Dr. Varsha Shah Managing Trustee, Koshish Milap Trust, Vadodara Gujarat
103 Vijay Shah Vice President, Satvik Promoting Ecological Agriculture Gujarat
104 Vinay-Charul Directors, Sandarbh Studies, Ahmedabad Gujarat
105 Yatri Baxi Co-ordinator, Paryavaran Santri, Ahmedabad Gujarat
106 Sunder Lal SCRIA, Khori Haryana
107 Siddharth Jaiswal Organic Farming Trainer, Ranchi Jharkhand
108 Maj Gen (Retd). S.G. Vombatkere Mysore Karnataka
109 Abhilash G.S. — Karnataka
110 Arvind Das Deccan Herald, Bangalore Karnataka
111 Arvind Shivakumar Greenpeace India, Bangalore Karnataka
112 Channabasappa Kombli President, Desi Cotton Growers Association, Haveri Karnataka
113 Deepa P.Gopinath Bangalore Karnataka
114 Dhanaraj Keezhara Painter and Artist, Bangalore Karnataka
115 Dr. Ashok Kundapur Environment & Energy Activist, Udupi Karnataka
116 G.Krishna Prasad Director, Sahaja Samrudha Organic Producer Company Ltd., Bangalore Karnataka
117 Haridevan A.V. Consultant, Greenpeace India, Bangalore Karnataka
118 Jaganmohan Rao Vangapelly Greenpeace India, Bangalore Karnataka
119 K. Anand Volunteer, Junglescapes Karnataka
120 Kavitha Kuruganti Alliance For Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) Karnataka
121 Neha Saigal Greenpeace India, Bangalore Karnataka
122 Pandurang Hegde Chipko-Appiko Movement, Sirsi Karnataka
123 R.Guruswamy Secretary. Kollegala Organic Farmers Association, Kollegala, Chamarajnagar Dist. Karnataka
124 Rajesh Krishnan Greenpeace India, Bangalore Karnataka
125 Shivayogi Makari Secretary, Desi Krushikara Balaga, Haveri Karnataka
126 — KABANI, The Other Direction, Wayanad Kerala
127 Ashok Kumar Secretary, Nalla Bakshana Prasthanam, Malappuram Kerala
128 Badusha N. Chairman, Wayanad Environmental Protection Committee, Wayanad Kerala
129 Biju Swadeshi Jagran Manch, Kochi Kerala
130 Catherine Lee Social Activist, Statue, Trivandrum Kerala
131 Chadrasekharan Nair Kerala Farmers Internet Forum, Trivandrum Kerala
132 Hariharan Farmer, Secretary, Kissan Jyothi Farmers Club Kerala
133 Jishnu Kumarakom Nature Club, Kottayam Kerala
134 Purushan Eloor Chairman, Periyar Malineekarana Virudha Samithi, Kochi Kerala
135 Robin Editor, Keraleeyam Fortnightly, Thrissur Kerala
136 Sreeja Aarangottukara Krishi Pata Shala, Aarangottukara, Thrissur Kerala
137 Sudheerkumar Kasaragod Environmental Protection Committee, Kasargod Kerala
138 Abdul Rahman C. P. Farmer, Jaiva Karshaka Samithi, Calicut Kerala
139 Abhilash G.S. Software Business, Trivandrum Kerala
140 Ajayan R. Plachimada Support Group, Trivandrum Kerala
141 Ambrose The Lumiere, Organic Hotel, Kochi Kerala
142 Anil Alter Media, Thrissur Kerala
143 Babychen President, Organic Bazaar, Trivandrum Kerala
144 C. K. Sujithkumar CEDAR, Thrissur Kerala
145 C. R. Neelakantan Writer and Environmentalist Kerala
146 Dr. Deepa P. Gopinath Lecturer, College of Engineering Thiruvananthapuram Kerala
147 Deepa V. S. Lecturer, College of Engineering Karunagappalli Kerala
148 E .S. Jayachandran Asst Professor, Model Engineering College, Kochi Kerala
149 Eldo Pachilakkadan Architect, BIRDS, Trivandrum Kerala
150 Geo Jose National Alliance for People’s Movement (NAPM), Kochi Kerala
151 Guruvayurappan Wildlife Preservation Society of India, Palakkad Kerala
152 Harikumar Sound Engineer, National Award Winner-2010 Kerala
153 Harish Vasudevan State Secretary, Jaiva Karshaka Samithi Kerala
154 Hussain Principal, Salsabeel School, Thrissur Kerala
155 Illias Secretary, One Earth One Life Kerala
156 Indinoor Gopi Convener, Bharathapuzha Samrakshana Samithi, Palakkad Kerala
157 J. Prasant Palakkappillil Principal, Sacred Heart College, Thevara Kerala
158 Jacob Lazer PUCL, Kochi Kerala
159 Jacon Vadakkenchery Nature Life Hospitals, Cochin Kerala
160 Jose Kerala Social Service Forum, Wyanad Kerala
161 Adv. Joseph Pillip Ecological Society of Kerala, Changancherry Kerala
162 Dr. K. C. Radhakrishnan Gandhiyan Prakruthi Chikitsa Kendram, Tirur, Malappuram Kerala
163 K. V. Dayal Chairman, Jaiva Karshaka Samithi Kerala
164 Krishna Kumar K. — Kerala
165 Dr. Lalitha Vijayan Sálim Ali Foundation, Thrissur Kerala
166 Latha A. Director, River Research Centre, Thrissur Kerala
167 M. A. Johnson Darsana Samskarika Vedi, Kolandithazham, Kozhikode Kerala
168 M. A. Rahman Professor in English and Film Maker, Kasargod Kerala
169 Dr. M.C. George Advocate, INFAM(IndianFarmersMovement) National Trustee Kerala
170 Mercy Alexander Director, SAKHI Womens Resource Centre, Trivandrum Kerala
171 Sri Mullakara Rathnakaran MLA, Ex-Minister for Agriculture Kerala
172 N. K. Sukumaran Nair Pampa Pari Rakshana Samithi, Thiruvalla Kerala
173 Nalini Nayak Self Employed Womens Association (SEWA) Kerala
174 O. V. Usha Poet and Writer, Trivandrum Kerala
175 Omana P. K. RASTA, Wayanad Kerala
176 P. Jayaprakash Coordinator, Prakrithi Padana Kendram, Nilambur Kerala
177 Pandiode Prabhakaran Secretary, Desiya Karshaka Samrakshana Samithi, Palakkad Kerala
178 Adv. Pouran Chairman, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL-Kerala) Kerala
179 Adv. Pradeepkumar Haritha Sena Farmers Organisation Kerala
180 Renjan Mathew Varghese Director, WWF-India, Kerala Chapter Kerala
181 Resalayyan V. Action Council, Vellarada, Trivandrum Kerala
182 Rony Joseph INFACT, Pala Kerala
183 S. Santhi Freelance Ecologist, Trivandrum Kerala
184 Sabeena Manager, Zero Waste Centre, Kovalam Kerala
185 Shibu K. Nair Programme Director, Thanal Kerala
186 Dr. Sreekumar Kottayam Nature Society, Kottayam Kerala
187 Sridhar Radhakrishnan Thanal Kerala
188 Sri Sudhakaran Nair Secretary, Boomithra Charitable Society, Chadayamangalam Kerala
189 Smt. Sugathakumari Padmasri Awardee and Poet and Environmentalist Kerala
190 T. P. Padmanabhan Director, Society for Environment Education in Keraka (SEEK), Kannur Kerala
191 T. Peter Kerala Swathantra Matsya Thozhilali Federation Kerala
192 Usha S. Save Our Rice Campaign Kerala
193 Dr. V. S. Vijayan Chairman, Salim Ali Foundation and Ex-Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board Kerala
194 Varghese Thoduparambil Karshaka Munnettam, Thrissur Kerala
195 — Beej Swaraj Abhiyan, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh
196 — Hamara Beej Abhiyan , Bhopal Madhya Pradesh
197 — Bhojan Ka Adhikar Abhiyan, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh
198 — Dalit Aadiwasi Mahapanchayat, Bundelkhand Madhya Pradesh
199 — Bhartiya Kisan Sangh, Rewa Madhya Pradesh
200 — Narmada Bachao Aandolan, Badwani Madhya Pradesh
201 — Aadiwasi Mukti Sangathan, Sendhva Madhya Pradesh
202 — Kisan Sangharsh Samiti, Betul Madhya Pradesh
203 — Bargi Bandh Visthapan Morcha Madhya Pradesh
204 Aruna Rodrigues Lead Petitioner, SC PIL, Mhow Madhya Pradesh
205 Dinesh Kothari President, Society for Nature Education & Habitatats, Indore Madhya Pradesh
206 Nilesh Desai Sampark, Jhabua Madhya Pradesh
207 Aarti Pakharaj Center for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) Maharashtra
208 Aneel Hegde Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) Maharashtra
209 Ashish Kothari Kalpvriksh, Pune Maharashtra
210 Chaitanya Kalve Green Current-The Organic Shop, Mumbai Maharashtra
211 Datta Patil YUVA Maharashtra
212 Dilnavaz Variava LEAF Initiative, Mumbai Maharashtra
213 Girish Wadhwani Organic Bazaar Partner, Pune Maharashtra
214 Kavita Mukhi The Farmers’ Market (TFM), Mumbai Maharashtra
215 Krishna Srinivasan Director Law & Advocacy – Econet, Pune Maharashtra
216 Mahrukh Bulsara Ecomantra, Mumbai Maharashtra
217 Meghna Patel Concerned Citizen, Mumbai Maharashtra
218 Narayansingh B. Bhandari Classic Marble, Thane Maharashtra
219 Neesha Noronha Mumbai Organic Farmers and Consumers Association (MOFCA) Maharashtra
220 Nitya Ghotge Anthra, Pune Maharashtra
221 Rama Bishnoi Quasar Associates, Mumbai Maharashtra
222 Sangita Sharma RAYS of HOPE, Thane Maharashtra
223 Saroj Datar Jankidevi Bajaj Institute Of Management, Mumbai Maharashtra
224 Sheela Wadhwani Organic Bazaar Partner, Mumbai Maharashtra
225 Sreedevi Lakshmi Kutty Urban Leaves, Mumbai/Den Haag Maharashtra
226 Tejal Visweshwar GM Free Maharashtra Maharashtra
227 Ujjwala A Pendse Dr. M.L. Dhawale Memorial Trust, Mumbai / Vikramgad Maharashtra
228 Vasudha Sardar Managing Trustee, Nav Nirman Nyas, Pune Maharashtra
229 Vishweshwar Madhav Nurturing Grounds, Mumbai Maharashtra
230 Bharat Mansata Founder-Member, Vanvadi Agro-ecological Regeneration Association(VARA) Maharashtra
231 Geeta Jhamb Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment, Mumbai Maharashtra
232 Dr. Nandita Shah SHARAN, Mumbai Maharashtra
233 Phiroza Tafti The INTACH Convener, Dahanu Chapter Maharashtra
234 Rina Kamath GM Free Maharashtra, Mumbai Maharashtra
235 Shreesh Ponkshe Organic Farmer, Raigad District Maharashtra
236 Suma Josson Film Maker, Mumbai Maharashtra
237 Vasant Futane Trustee, SANVAD, Vidharbha Maharashtra
238 Vipul Sanghavi Mumbai Maharashtra
239 Arunima Swain Organisation for Rural Reconstruction & Integrated Social Service Activities (ORRISSA), Bhubaneshwar Orissa
240 Binayak swain BATNET Orissa
241 Debjeet Sarangi Living Farms Orissa
242 Jagadish pradhan Sahabhagi Vikash Abhiyan Orissa
243 Sankara Narayanan Budheswary Colony, Bhubaneshwar Orissa
244 Saroj Mohanty Western Orissa Farmers Union Orissa
245 Dr. A. S. Mann Association for Scientific Research in Homeopathy, Sangrur Punjab

246 Adv. A.P.S. Shergill Coalition for Social Engineering Punjab

247 Amanjot Kaur Women Action for Ecology Punjab

248 Anil Bharati Pollution Free India Project Intellectual Forum, Patiala Punjab

249 Dr. Arun Mittra Indian Doctors for Peace & Development , Punjanb, Ludhiana Punjab

250 Arvind Rana Cancer-Free World Foundation , Chandigarh Punjab

251 Ashok Garg Grahak Panchayat, Bathinda Punjab

252 Prof. Ashok Kumar Sapolia Mansa Environment Society Punjab

253 Ashwani Kumar Sadvichar Jagriti Sewa Trust , Ludhiana Punjab

254 B. S. Chowdery Social Welfare Society Trust , Abohar Punjab

255 Prof. Bagga Singh State President , Association For Democratic Rights Punjab

256 Bakhsish Singh Pensioner’s Association Barnala Punjab

257 Dr. Balbir Singh Health & Environment Society Patiala Punjab

258 Dr. Balbir Singh Dhart Suhavi, Jalandhar Punjab

259 Balbir Singh Billing Bhaichara Kisan Sangthan, Patiala Punjab

260 Baljinder Singh Border Area Vikas Committee , Fazilka Punjab

261 Baljit Singh Sahibzada Ajit Singh Sewa Dal , Faridkot Punjab

262 Bharat Bir Singh Sobti Haribhari National Environment Protection Society, Ludhiana Punjab

263 Bhupinder Singh Mann Youth Clubs Association, Bathinda Punjab

264 D.S. Kohli Amritsar Vikas Manch Punjab

265 Dr. Daler Singh Society for Sustainable Development , Ludhiana Punjab

266 Darshan Singh Youth Foundation, Kharar Punjab

267 Deepak Babbar Mission Aagaaz, Amritsar Punjab

268 Des Raj Jindal Human Rights Forum Barnala Punjab

269 Devinder Singh Gill RTI Awareness Forum , Moga Punjab

270 Capt. Dharam Singh Gill Sunehara Bharat , Faridkot Punjab

271 Diwan Chand Streamline Welfare Society, Ferozepur Punjab

272 Dr. G.P.I. Singh Vice Chancellor, Adesh University, Bathinda Punjab

273 Gurbhej Singh Jago Party, Amritsar Punjab

274 Gurhakam Singh Scientific Awareness and Social Welfare Forum, Sangrur Punjab

275 Gurjit Singh Dhillon Shaheed Bhagat Singh Youth Club Dhugga Punjab

276 Gurmail Singh Muktsar Vatavaran Sath, Muktsar Punjab

277 Gurmeet Palahi Phagwara Environment Association, Phagwara Punjab

278 Dr. Gurnam Singh Patnjali Yog Samiti , Ferozepur Cantt Punjab

279 Gurpreet Chandbaja Bhai Khaniya Cancer Roko Society Faridkot Punjab

280 Gyani Kewal Singh Maharani Jind Kaur Trust, Punjab

281 Hamir Singh Internationalist Democratic Party Punjab

282 Harajinder Sandhu Nature Care Society, Harike Punjab

283 Harish Monga NGO Cordination Committee Ferozepur Punjab

284 Dr. Harjinder Walia Global Punjab Foundation, Patiala Punjab

285 Harjot Bains United Youth Organization, Ludhiana Punjab

286 Dr. Harminder Sidhu Gadri Baba Dulla Singh Gyani Nihal Singh Foundation, Ludhiana Punjab

287 Hemant Goswami Burning Brain Society Punjab

288 Iqbal Singh Fiddewala Vatavaran Sabmhal Samaj Sewa Sanstha , Fidde Kalan Punjab

289 Dr. Jagdish Pappra Malwa Hek Foundation , Lehragaga Punjab

290 Jagdish Singla Engineers’ Club Barnala Punjab

291 Jagmohan Singh Lok Kalyan Samiti, Amritsar Punjab

292 Prof. Jagmohan Singh Shaheed Bhagat Singh Birth Centenary Foundation, Ludhiana Punjab

293 Jagsir Singh Bhangar Sant S Pratap Singh Memorial Youth Club , Bhangar( Ferozepur) Punjab

294 Jasvir Singh Grewal Youth Clubs Organization, Bathinda Punjab

295 Jaswinder Singh Brar Gangsar Sports Club , Jaitu Punjab

296 Jatinderpreet Media Artists, Ludhiana Punjab

297 Kamal Anand People For Transparency, Sangrur Punjab

298 Kamal Sharma Bhola Patanjali Yog Samiti , Barnala Punjab

299 Kanwaljeet Dhindsa Society for Education and Awareness in Backward Area, Lehragaga Punjab

300 Karamjeet Singh Sran Society for Environment & Ecological Resources, Faridkot Punjab

301 Krishan Chand Sharma Patanjali Yoga Samiti Hoshiarpur Punjab

302 Krishan Singla Lok Chetna Sabha, Fairdkot Punjab

303 Kultar Singh Sandhwan Director, Gyani Zail Singh Center for Rural Development, Faridkot Punjab

304 Kulwant Singh Lehri Prof Mohan Singh Foundation , Ludhiana Punjab

305 Dr. Lakhbir Singh Pehal, Jalandhar Punjab

306 Ludher Ram Nagar Sudhaar Sabha Mansa Punjab

307 Madan Lal Vatawaran Panchayat , VPO Bulhowal , District Hoshiarpur Punjab

308 Mahant Varinder Singh FAPRO Kang Mai, Hoshiarpur Punjab

309 Mahendra Kumar Jain Atam Jeevan Kalyan Mandal, Ropar Punjab

310 Malwinder Singh Malli Punjab Manch , Chandigarh Punjab

311 Dr. Maneel Grover Mohan Nagar SDSG Foundation, Mohali Punjab

312 Manmohan Sharma Director, Voluntary Health Association of Punjab (VHAP), Chandigarh Punjab

313 Manoj Sharma Bhoomi, Hoshiarpur Punjab

314 Naresh Birla Cancer Roko Jagriti Manch , Mansa Punjab

315 Dr. Neelam Sodhi Aashirvaad Trust Punjab

316 Neeraj Atri Citizens’ Voice , Chandigarh Punjab

317 Dr. Nirmal Singh Punjabi Sath, jalandhar Punjab

318 Nirmal Singh Bilaspuri Kudrati Somye Sambhal Sanstha , Moga Punjab

319 P.P.S. Dhillon RTI Awareness Forum Moga Punjab

320 Parkash Singh Bhatti Khudaai Khidmatgaar, Amritsar Punjab

321 Parminder Singh Gill Sewa Punjab, Moga Punjab

322 Parveen Kala Sahara Club Faridkot Punjab

323 Parvinder Singh Kittna Human Empowerment League Of Punjab (Help) Punjab

324 Dr. Pavittar Singh Sarv Sewa Society , Nawanshahar Punjab

325 Pirthipal Singh Dhillon All India Food Processors Association , Punjab Chapter Moga Punjab

326 Poonam Singh Preetlarhi Trust , Preet Nagar , Amritsar Punjab

327 Prabhdial Singh Randhawa Amritsar Pollution Control Committee Punjab

328 Prem Saini Gyan Punj Educational Society Punjab

329 Prithpal Singh Baba Farid Center for Special Children Punjab

330 Promila Kamal Param Vaibhav; Principal, Police DAV Public School, Amritsar Punjab

331 Adv. Purushottam Betab Kotkapura Consumers’ Association Punjab

332 Dr. R. K. Mahajan Swami Vivekanand Study Circle Bathinda Punjab

333 R. K. Kaplash Chairman, Consumer Association , Chandigarh Punjab

334 Dr. R. P. S. Aulakh Bhartiya Jan Gyan Vigyan Jatha, Ludhiana Punjab

335 Maj. R.P.S. Malhotra India Against Corruption, Patiala Punjab

336 Raj Pal Sharma Vyapar Mandal Barnala Punjab

337 Rajdeep Dhaliwal Green Earth Patiala Punjab

338 Rakesh Jain Bhagwan Mahavir Jain Chetna Sabha, Ludhiana Punjab

339 Rakesh Kad Patiala Our Pride Punjab

340 Rakesh Narula Bathinda Vikas Manch Punjab

341 Rashpal Singh Shubhkarman Society, Hoshiarpur Punjab

342 Ravneet Pal Singh Eco Sikh Organization, Ludhiana Punjab

343 Rozi Sareen Sarva Matrai Foundation , Patiala Punjab

344 Saksham Katyal Jan Saksham Ludhiana Punjab

345 Dr. Sandeep Jain Care for Animals and Protection of Environment, Ludhiana Punjab

346 Sanjay Walia Shaheed Bhagat Singh Club, Muktsar Punjab

347 Sanjeev Marshal Social Welfare Society , Fazilka Punjab

348 Sant Krishnanand Bhai Bhagtu Trust , Bhagtuana , Jaitu Punjab

349 Sarabjeet Singh Human Development Organization , Ludhiana Punjab

350 Capt. Sarabjeet Singh Dhillon Chogirdha Bachaao Committee, Jalandhar Punjab

351 Dr. Satinder Singh Agreed Foundation, Ferozepur Punjab

352 Satnam Singh Manak Punjab Jagriti Manch, Jalandhar Punjab

353 Sewa Singh Chawla Bharat Vikas Parishad , Faridkot Punjab

354 Shakti Singh Boarder Area Sangharsh Committee , Fazilka Punjab

355 Sukhdev Singh Bhopal Nature Human Centre Peoples’ Movement(NHCPM), Punjab Punjab

356 Sukhdevsingh Kokri Kalan Moga Punjab

357 Sukhwinder Singh Kalsi Naujawan Lok Bhalai Sabha , Talwandi Bhai Punjab

358 Sukhwinder Singh Sidhu Environment Awareness Association, Bathinda Punjab

359 Dr. Sunny Sandhu Prem Sena , Tarantaaran Punjab

360 Surinder Chohan Jan Ekta, Chandigarh Punjab

361 Surinder Pal Kaushal Ishwar Asha Memorial Environmental Trust , Barnala Punjab

362 Susheel Moudgill Daanish Foundation Punjab

363 Tarsem Singh Haraj Guru Gobind Singh Sports Club VPO Haraj , Talwandi Bhai Punjab

364 Dr. Tejbir Singh National Coordinator, Social Medicine Association, Amritsar Punjab

365 Thakur Baljinder Singh Panchnad Foundation, Patiala Punjab

366 Dr. Ujagar Singh Mann Senior Citizen Society, Barnala Punjab

367 Ujjal Singh Bhai Ghanayia Charitable Trust Tanda Udmad, District Hoshiarpur Punjab

368 Umendra Dutt Kheti Virasat Mission Punjab

369 Prof. V. C. Nanda Azadi Bachhao Andolan, Chandigarh Punjab

370 Varinder Gupta Vishav Yog Sansthan, Khanna Punjab

371 Veena Sharma Human Right Law Network , Chandigarh Punjab

372 Vikam India Against Corruption Goniana Punjab

373 Vikramjit Singh Self employed & Environmental Activist , Mohali Punjab

374 Vinod Kumar Environment Society Bhikhi Punjab

375 Yashwant Bassi Ropar District Youth Clubs Coordination Committee Punjab

376 A R Sharma Awareness Training and Motivation for Action, Jaipur Rajasthan
377 Abhay Singh Gramin avam Samajik Vikas Sanstha, Ajmer Rajasthan
378 Dr. Alok Vyas CECOEDECON, Jaipur Rajasthan
379 Arun Kumawat Navachar Sanstha Kapasan, Chittorgarh Rajasthan
380 Ashok Mathur Kisaan Morcha, Bikaner Rajasthan
381 Babosa KSS, Jaipur Rajasthan
382 Badri narayan Jaat KSS, Tonk Rajasthan
383 Banshi Bairwa Prayas Kendra Sanstha, Jaipur Rajasthan
384 Bhagirath Chodhary Gramin Swabhiman Sansthan, Nagour Rajasthan
385 Bhagwan Sahay KSS, Jaipur Rajasthan
386 Bhanwar Kanwar KSS, Tonk Rajasthan
387 Bhanwar Lal Choudhary Lok Kalyan Sansthan, Barmer Rajasthan
388 Bhanwarlal Tailor Janvikas Sansthan, Ajmer Rajasthan
389 Bhogi lal KSS, Baran Rajasthan
390 Brijbhushan Sharma Daang Vikas Sansthan, Karauli Rajasthan
391 Brijmohan SARD, Sirohi Rajasthan
392 Chail Bihari Sharma Gram Rajya Vikas Evam Prashikshan Sansthan, Karauli Rajasthan
393 Dinesh Kumar Kaushik Action for Welfare and Awareness In Rural Environment, Ajmer Rajasthan
394 Hanuman Sahay Sharma Sevay Jan Samiti, Jaipur Rajasthan
395 Hari narayan sutrakar KSS, Jaipur Rajasthan
396 Indrarao Saarthi Vikas Sansthan, Churu Rajasthan
397 Kailash Gurjar KSS, Tonk Rajasthan
398 Kaushal/Pratap Lal Meena Harotii Adim Janjati Vikas Simiti, Kota Rajasthan
399 Kedar Prasad Shreemal Gramoday Samajik Sansthan, Jaipur Rajasthan
400 Kedarmal Jat Manav Kalyan Vidhyapeeth Sansthan, Jaipur Rajasthan
401 Laduram Varma Gandhi Vikas Samiti Tamdia, Jaipur Rajasthan
402 Madan Ji KSS, Tonk Rajasthan
403 Mathura Lal KSS, Baran Rajasthan
404 Mohan Meena Shri Kalyan Sewa Sansthan, Tonk Rajasthan
405 Mohd. Usmani Suksm Vigyan Samiti, Nagour Rajasthan
406 Moti Lal Kumawat Grameen Ekta Bal Shiksha Samiti, Jaipur Rajasthan
407 Navratnamal Sain Subhash Yuva Mandal, Tonk Rajasthan
408 Pankaj Kumar Pareek Gramin Vikas Samiti Brijlal Nagar, Tonk Rajasthan
409 Pushkar Joshi Yugantar Sansthan, Udaipur Rajasthan
410 Rajendra Sen Sarthi Sanstha Surajgarh, Jhunjhunu Rajasthan
411 Ram Kishor Prajapat Gramothan Sansthan, Ajmer Rajasthan
412 Rama Kishan Jaat KSS, Jaipur Rajasthan
413 Ramavtar Kumawat Samvedna Sansthan, Jaipur Rajasthan
414 Ramesh Chand Sharma Gyanoday Gramin Vikas Evam Shikshan Prashikshan Sansthan, Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan
415 Ramkumar Bairwa Ugriyawas Jagruti kendra sanstha, Jaipur Rajasthan
416 Ramvilas Kumavat Marwad sewa sansthan, Nagour Rajasthan
417 Sanjay Kumar Jain Sadhana Society, Banswara Rajasthan
418 Santosh Bhargav Award Sansthan, Alwar Rajasthan
419 Shankar lal Gurjar SEVA Sansthan, Tonk Rajasthan
420 Shivji ram Yadav Shiv Shiksha Samiti, Tonk Rajasthan
421 Shyoji Ram Gurjar Sangharsh Sansthan , Jaipur Rajasthan
422 Subhash Purohit Gaurwad Gramin vikas Anusandhan Sansthan, Pali Rajasthan
423 Suleman Shekh Gramin Manav Kalyan Shikshan Sanshtan, Jaipur Rajasthan
424 Suresh chand Sharma Shiv Shakti Navyuvak Mandal Samajik Sanstha, Jaipur Rajasthan
425 Suresh Kumar Saini SAJAG – Society for Awareness through Joing Activities and Guidance, Jaipur Rajasthan
426 Virendra Vidrohi Matsya Mewat Shiksha avam Vikas Sanssthan, Alwar Rajasthan
427 — Malliga Kalnjium Women Farmers Association, Thiruvannamalai Tamil Nadu
428 — Annakili Kalanjium Unorganised Workers Union, Vellore Tamil Nadu
429 — Vetriselvan – Lawers Forum For Human Rights Justice, Chennai Tamil Nadu
430 — Hope, Puducherry Tamil Nadu
431 A.M. Raja President CIFA, Tamil Nadu Chapter, Chennai Tamil Nadu
432 Anantha Sayanan Restore/ Safe Food Alliance, Chennai Tamil Nadu
433 Annapoorni Sankaran Safe Food Aliance, Chennai Tamil Nadu
434 Arul Rathinam Secretary, Pasumai Thaayagam Foundation, Chennai Tamil Nadu
435 Arun President, Dharmapuri Dist. Organic Farmers Association Tamil Nadu
436 Babuji Janakarajan Farmer, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu
437 Balaji Shankar Tharchaarbu Iyakkam Tamil Nadu
438 Balasubramanian Thalanmai Organic Farmers Sangam, Madurai Tamil Nadu
439 Bhrathi Thansan Arulagam,Coimbatore Tamil Nadu
440 Boopathi Rajan Social Welfare Trust, Arachalur Tamil Nadu
441 C. Kandasamy President, Vattamalai Odaikkarai Pasan Vivasayegal Sangam, Vellakoil, Tiruppur Dist. Tamil Nadu
442 C. Rathinasamy Thamilaga Vivasayegal Sangam, Erode Tamil Nadu
443 C. Vayapuri President and Former Member of Govt.High level committee; United Farmers Association of Tamil Nadu, Thalaivasal, Salem Dist. Tamil Nadu
444 Chandra Women Education and Economic Development Trust, Redhills, Thiruvallur District Tamil Nadu
445 Cheran President, Cauvery Delta Farmer Organisations Federation, Thiruvarur Dist. Tamil Nadu
446 D.V.Sreedhar Goodnews India Foundation Tamil Nadu
447 Fatma Bernard President, Tamil Nadu Women’s Forum, Arrakonam Tamil Nadu
448 Ganeshamurthi Member of Parliament Tamil Nadu
449 Gomathinayagam President, Vivasaya Seva Samgam, Puliangudi, Thirunelveli Dist. Tamil Nadu
450 Iyal Vagai Environmetal Group, Tiruppur Tamil Nadu
451 Jagannathan Nalla Keerai, Thiuvellore Tamil Nadu
452 Dr. Jeevanantham President Tamilnadu Green Movement, Erode Tamil Nadu
453 Dr. K. Gunathilagaraj Professor of Agricultural Entomology (Rtd), Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu
454 K. Jagadeesan Advisor, Federation of Tamil Nadu Rice Mill Owners Association Tamil Nadu
455 Prof. K. K. Krishnamoorthy President-Indian Society for Certification of organic products, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu
456 K. Mohan Raj Tamil Nadu Green Movement, Chennai Tamil Nadu
457 K. N. Nagarajan Chennai Tamil Nadu
458 Kalaivani President, Organic Farmers Federation, Erode Dist. Tamil Nadu
459 Kalidasan President, OSAI, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu
460 Karpagam Organic Farmer, Point Return, Maduranthagam Tamil Nadu
461 Kazini Global Environment Managers, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu
462 Kongu Kolandaisamy President, Horticultural Farmers Association Tamil Nadu
463 Krishnakumar President, Bharat Kisan Sangh Organic farming Wing, Gobichettipalayam Tamil Nadu
464 Kuppusamy President, Organic Farmers Association, Kullathur Region, Salem Dist. Tamil Nadu
465 KVRK Thirunaranan Founder, The Nature Trust, Chennai Tamil Nadu
466 M. David Amalanadane Pharmacist, ONGC, Karaikal Tamil Nadu
467 Makkal Thamilagam Coordinator, Padam Narayan, Chennai Tamil Nadu
468 Mohan and Devika Advocates, Chennai Tamil Nadu
469 N.S.Palanisamy President, Ex.MLA-Non Political Tamilnadu Vivsayegal Sangam, Tiruppur Tamil Nadu
470 Nallasamy President, Federation of Tamil Nadu Farmers Association, Erode Tamil Nadu
471 Dr. Nammalvar Organisation Indian Organic Farmers Movement Tamil Nadu
472 O.V.Saravanakumar Organiser, Salem Tamil Nadu
473 Pamara Theepam N. Parthipan Iyarkai Nala Vazhvhu Sangam, Mutthur Tamil Nadu
474 Pamayan Thaalanmai Uzhavar Iyakam Tamil Nadu
475 Piyush President, Speak Out Salem, Salem Tamil Nadu
476 Podaran Tamil Nadu Iyarkai Vazhvurimai Sangam, Kangeyam Tamil Nadu
477 Ponnaiyan President-Tamilnadu Tharsarbu Vivasayegal Sangam, Erode Tamil Nadu
478 Dr. Ponnammal Natarajan Retd. Dean, Anna University Tamil Nadu
479 Ramaswamy Selvam State Coordinator, Tamil Nadu Organic Farmers Federation Tamil Nadu
480 Radhika Rammohan Restore Health Livelihoods and Nature, Chennai Tamil Nadu
481 Raja Chidambaram Perambalur, President of Thamilaga Vivasayegal Sangam, Trichyi Tamil Nadu
482 Ram Mohan Hind Mazdor Kisan Panchayat, Coimbatore Tamil Nadu
483 Ramasubramanian Samanvaya Consulting, Chennai Tamil Nadu
484 Ravi President, Care and Love Trust, Erode Tamil Nadu
485 Ravi Sivanandan Friends of Sahtyamangalam Forest, Erode Tamil Nadu
486 Rayyan East Coast Research and Development Organisation, Thoothukkudi Tamil Nadu
487 Sadagopan President, Tamilnadu Vivasayegal Valvurimai Sangam, Chengi Tamil Nadu
488 Dr. Sakthivel President, Care Trust, Erode Tamil Nadu
489 Sakthivel Organic Farmer, Thalavadi Tamil Nadu
490 Sangeetha Sriram Restore Gardens, Chennai Tamil Nadu
491 Shankara Narayanan Thanner Thalam, Kodumudi Tamil Nadu
492 Sheelu President, Women’s Collective, Chennai Tamil Nadu
493 Sundaram R. Humanist Party Member, Salem Tamil Nadu
494 Sundari TamilNadu Resource Team, Chennai Tamil Nadu
495 Sunder Rajan Poovulagin Nanbargal, Chennai Tamil Nadu
496 Sundra Rajan Lawyers for Environmental Justice, Chennai Tamil Nadu
497 T. Sakthivel President, SEWA, Erode Tamil Nadu
498 Thirumalai Nalla Sandhai, Thiruvellore Tamil Nadu
499 Valukkuparai Balasubramanian President, Vivasayegal Sangam, Pollachi Tamil Nadu
500 Vellian President, Tamilnadu Vanigar Peravai, Chennai Tamil Nadu
501 Vengateshwarn Zone President of CII (Zone comprising of Salem, Erode, Dharmapuri, etc.) Tamil Nadu
502 Viswanathan Tree Growers Association, Erode Tamil Nadu
503 Dr. Debal Deb. Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies, Kolkata West Bengal
504 Raj Krishna Mukherjee Development Research Communication and Services Centre(DRCSC), Kolkata West Bengal
505 Vinita Mansata Earthcare Books West Bengal
506 — Breakthrough Science Society, Kolkata West Bengal
507 — Save Our rice Campaign, West Bengal West Bengal
508 — Terai Research Society, Jalpaiguri West Bengal
509 — Palash, Purulia West Bengal
510 — Swanirvar, North 24 Parganas West Bengal
511 — Bagnan Gramin Mahila Sanmilan, Howrah West Bengal
512 — Dhanchabari Sister Nivedita Smriti Sangha (DSNSS), Purba Medinipur West Bengal
513 — Champa Mahila Society (CMS), South 24 Parganas West Bengal
514 — Indraprastha Srijan Welfare Society (ISWS), South 24 Parganas West Bengal
Annexure:
Extracts from “Bt cotton: Questions & Answers” by Dr K R Kranthi, Director of Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR, Nagpur) published by Indian Society for Cotton Improvement, 2012

32. Is the increase in yield because of Bt cotton alone?

Though GM Bt cotton technology has brought down pesticide use by about 50 per cent, it is not correct to assume that cotton yields in India doubled only because of Bt cotton.

The area under irrigation increased mainly in Gujarat after the year 2000 especially in the form of check-dams in the Saurashtra belt which had new areas of about 8-9 lakh hectares under cotton. Currently about one-third of India‟s production is derived from the state which has one-fourth of the cotton area. Clearly, apart from the contribution of Bt cotton, the increase in yield may have also been due to other major changes in the past 8 years. Some perceptible changes include, implementation on IPM and IRM on a large scale by the Ministry of Agriculture and ICAR, the introduction of some excellent cotton hybrids, increase in cotton area in Gujarat from 15 lakh ha to 26 lakh ha, increase in check dams and drip irrigation systems, increase in hybrid cotton area from 40% to 90% and introduction of 6-7 new effective insecticide molecules for bollworm control and sucking pest management.

45. Have bollworm populations declined because of Bt cotton?

Interestingly, H. armigera infestation reduced significantly in cotton ecosystems from 2000, to the point of effective non-existence in some parts of India. It is not clear whether it was the introduction of Bt-cotton or the change in insecticide use pattern in Asia, notably the decrease in pyrethroids, coupled with increase in the new chemistries which impose fitness problems in residual surviving populations, which caused the change, but H. armigera populations rarely exceeded economic threshold levels in Asia, particularly in majority of the cotton growing regions of India. It is now being increasingly felt that bollworm infestations declined significantly over the past 12 years mainly because of a significant decline in the use of the insecticide “synthetic-pyrethroid” coupled with enhanced usage of some potent bollworm-controlling insecticides such as Spinosad, Emamectin and Indoxacarb, which were introduced during 2000-2001. Bt cotton has also played a part in the decline of bollworm populations.

ICAR REPORT ON BNBt Cotton EXPOSES INCOMPETENCE OF GM SCIENTISTS AND REGULATORS TO REGULATE GMOs IN INDIA

Posted on December 15, 2012 by kavitha

Coalition for GM Free India demands withdrawal of Supreme Court affidavit of Ministry of Agriculture that gives clean chit to GM regulators.

Reacting to the Prof.Sopory Committee Report1 that investigated the Bt Bikaneri Narma case, the Coalition for a GM-Free India said that, “We congratulate the Committee for its thorough investigation which exposes one of the worst cases of scientific fraud within the Indian Council for Agriculture (ICAR) institutions. The indictment of the agricultural research establishment and the transgenic regulatory system is a shame to the country and once again points out to the wastage of taxpayers’ funds. We demand stringent action against all people involved in the affair, including senior ICAR people and retired officials, some of who have even been shielded from this enquiry.”

It expressed dismay that the ICAR seems to be protecting its errant officials; apparently the establishment waited for the retirement of a senior official before making the report public. It also observed that another senior technocrat, Dr Bansal, was repeatedly protected by the establishment even though he was the Coordinator of this project; he does not figure either in the enquiry or the report. The long delayed report dated August 2012 is now available on the ICAR website, which means it has been with the Ministry of Agriculture for the last 4 months.

PSC and TEC concerns proven right: The Coalition spokesperson added, “The report underscores and provides evidence that support the serious concerns raised both by the Parliamentary Standing Committee(PSC) report as well as the interim report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) of the Supreme Court, during the last few weeks, about the inability, incapability and unpreparedness of the Indian GM research establishment to deal with this risky and irreversible technology and the gross inadequacy and incompetence of the Indian GM regulatory apparatus to regulate this technology and ensure biosafety.”

Failure of GM crop regulation: A notable failure in the whole incident is that the BNBt contamination had happened prior to commercialisation but went undetected/unrecorded by the regulatory system! The committee also pointed to the conflict of interest in the developers of BNBt sitting in GEAC as regulators and approving their own product. This same regulatory mechanism with its inadequacies had cleared the Bt brinjal dossier. There was virtually no oversight, the raw data had not been even read by the GEAC, there was complete ignorance of the data and the event – again which has happened with BNBt. Clearly the GM regulatory mechanism in the country is either incapable of, or deliberately unwilling to deal with the intricacies of biosafety testing in a rigorous manner and function transparently with the highest standards of governance. “How can the country afford to do open air releases of such a risky, irreversible technology when scientists and regulators dealing with it have shown lack of competence and care compounded by absences of ethics and internal checks and balances?”asked the Coalition spokesperson.

MOA commits perjury: “It is a travesty of honest governance and ethics that the Ministry of Agriculture filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India (in the GMOs PIL), arguing that open air field trials were absolutely essential and the regulatory system is robust and world class, even as it had this damning report, datelined August 2012 lying with it. This amounts to perjury as the affidavit filed in 8th November, 2012 claims that, “no part of the affidavit is false and nothing material has been concealed”.” It said that the Ministry of Agriculture has completely lost its credibility, and India’s farmer livelihoods, consumers’ food safety and the country’s biodiversity is in grave danger due the unjustified promotion of GM crops at the behest of private corporate interests and some public sector agricultural scientists.

Contamination is inevitable and Supreme Court orders violated: The fact that the whole incident emerged from contamination of BNBt by the Monsanto gene, is incontrovertible evidence that contamination is inevitable and unavoidable. The Supreme Court had in its orders of 2007 clearly directed the GEAC to have zero tolerance for contamination in/through trials. This case has demonstrated that contamination did happen at that time and that no contamination testing ever happens and/or the regulator has no means to even check or detect contamination post the event. In this case contamination finally came to light only when Mahyco complained about the illegal use of Monsanto’s gene.

The Coalition feels that given the high stakes in terms of profits and control of India’s huge seed market by private corporations, the entire episode of BNBt seeds raises serious questions on how and why this blatant and easily discernible contamination occurred. At least, this being a public sector seed, the release of data from the agricultural establishment could be ensured and the failure was subjected to thorough investigation.

The Coalition is extremely concerned at the manner in which the international patent protection laws are used by multinational seed companies to prevent access to their seeds for independent research and testing and the reliance on their testing to provide clearance to GM crops without rigorous independent testing facilities being available in India.

We demand that the Ministry of Environment & Forests immediately take cognisance of this, in addition to the reports from the PSC and TEC and immediately stop all field trials and put all applications for commercialisation of GM crops under abeyance until all these issues are dealt with.

We demand that the affidavit submitted by the MoA to the Supreme Court be withdrawn. We are deeply concerned that the Agriculture Minister has written letters to Chief Ministers to permit open air field trials despite the repeated failures of the GM research and regulatory mechanisms. We demand that MoA support the many safe methodologies that are available instead of going all out to support a technology whose need and safety have been shown by independent scientists across the world to be highly debatable if not downright risky.

For more details contact:

Kavitha Kuruganti, Ph : 09393001550

Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Ph : 09995358205

Appendix

Background: The Bt cotton in question is the Bikaneri Narma (BN) Bt (variety) and the Bt NHH-44 (Bt hybrid) touted as the “first indigenous public sector-bred GM crop in India” developed by the Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur (CICR) and University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (UAS) along with Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI). It was approved by the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), the apex regulator in 2008. The developers had claimed that the event engineered into BNBt and Bt NHH 44 is a distinct event called BNLA106. After a year of commercialisation and without any explanation BNBt and Bt NHH44 were withdrawn from the market. It was found to have the event (MON531) originally patented by Monsanto, this came to light after Mahyco complained about it. The Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR) was compelled to institute an enquiry to examine the matter, when it came to light that BNBt was contaminated by a gene patented by Monsanto- whether deliberately or otherwise.

The highlights of the report: The Prof.Sopory committee has strongly and unequivocally indicted the agriculture research establishment for failing on scientific, technical, institutional and ethical fronts and has stated that, “All biosafety studies and field trials conducted with BNBt and Bt NHH 44 are invalid” This report clearly states that contamination has happened, maybe through “out-crossing or admixtures” and states that the possibility of it being accidental is remote. It has also cast doubts on other GM research taking place in the establishment using this or similar constructs.

Technical issues: The committee pointed out that the fundamental flaw on the technical front was that the whole BNBt project rested on a single event and there were no other events to carry out an event selection process. It pointed out that, “Event specific primers were not developed for BNBt” and more worryingly rearrangement of DNA was found –which raises critical questions on stability – particularly problematic in a commercialised event. Questions were raised about the characterisation of the so-called purified BNBt.

Research issues: On the research front the committee has laid bare the lack of processes and absence of due diligence within the ICAR establishment in how project proposals are written and tasks delegated and finally the project executed. The report has pointed out how the ICAR lacks capabilities on many fronts but pretends to have them; for example in this case a scientist who admitted to not having a certain capability was allocated that critical task, thereby jeopardising the safety of the product. The committee also pointed out that the project was “poorly planned” and lacked supervision from the project head and the institution heads despite this being considered “a project of national importance”.

Institutional and other issues: Equally egregious were the failings on the institutional and ethical fronts. ICAR blatantly disregarded the Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) signed by its scientists and claimed somebody else’s materials. In addition it compelled its own scientists to remove the name of the original developer of the construct disregarding the MTA. The committee suggested that, “ICAR should think about not taking policy decisions of this nature that would compromise the ability of its scientists to take ethically correct decisions.” While the motives for such action remain murky, there cannot be a clearer indictment of the lack of ethics in the functioning of the ICAR system.

Regulatory issues: On the GM crop regulatory front instances of regulatory failure are piling up. The report has pointed out the clear conflicts of interest. Developers were sitting in the GEAC meeting as regulators and approved their own product! The committee expressly recommended that conflict of interest of this kind should be weeded out from the system. Molecular characterisation is a crucial and primary component of the biosafety testing regime – the scientists here got away undetected with the Monsanto event in their product!

1 Full report at this link http://www.icar.org.in/en/node/5511

GOVERNMENT’S POSITION IN COURT A LET-DOWN AND UNACCEPTABLE, A BOW TO THE PRESSURE FROM BIOTECH INDUSTRY

Posted on November 9, 2012 by kavitha

In today’s Supreme Court hearing in the PIL on GMOs, the Government of India, through its representative from the Ministry of Agriculture (and not the Ministry of Environment & Forests which has the jurisdiction on regulation of GM crops), opposed the scientifically sound recommendations of the Technical Expert Committee to make the GM regulation and testing more robust and trustworthy. The Coalition for a GM-Free India said that the government’s position is a let-down for all those who expect and demand that it fulfils its responsibility towards the interests of biosafety, public health, environment and farmers. Instead, the government seemed to bow to the pressure of the biotech lobby and object to the interim report of the committee which was constituted through mutual agreement, with 5 eminent highly qualified scientists trusted to provide the best judgment on this issue.

The Coalition demands that the Government of India should pay heed to the groundswell of opinion about the risks of GM crops among the farmer organizations, independent scientists and general public as well as the scientifically sound recommendations of the Technical Expert Committee, and take a position that protects the interests of the citizens and environment and not the biotech industry. The Ministry of Environment and Forests which has the responsibility for regulating GM crops should not take a backseat and allow other ministries to take the foreground.

“While we would have liked an immediate Order from the Court on the issue of field trials, it is clear that this did not happen because the government is coming under pressure from the GM industry and has opposed the findings and recommendations of the TEC, even though it was a mutually-agreed-upon committee with eminent qualified scientists trusted to make proper analysis on the issues involved. Some of the opponents of the recommendations made it seem like this will result in a drastic stoppage of all GM research, whereas the committee actually gave very measured recommendations for specific conditions to be made for our regulatory regime to become robust and trustworthy”, stated the Coalition in a statement.

“We welcome the fact that the Court has directed the TEC, with a new member inducted to give its report in a timebound fashion within 6 weeks’ time and had asked it to hear the petitioners’ concerns as well. We trust that scientific evidence on this imprecise and yet-to-be-proven-safe living technology will continue to prevail in the final report also, in spite of undue pressures from powerful quarters, and that the Court will give an order that safeguards biosafety and sustainable livelihoods of millions of Indians, in the face of highly risky GM crops” it further added.

In the past few days, more than a hundred scientists from across India wrote to the Court urging it to take the TEC recommendations on board. A dozen major farmers’ unions representing crores of farmers also wrote to the Court with the same request. These include some of the biggest farmer unions in the country such as Bharatiya Kisan Union, Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, South India Coordination Committee of Farmers’ Movements, Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangham and All India Shetkari Shet Mazdoor Sabha. The Coalition condemns the attempts by the biotech industry lobby and some of their front organizations to portray that the committee recommendations harm farmers’ interests.

“The GM technology was vetoed out in the people’s court during the public consultations; it was vetoed by the people’s representatives when the Parliamentary Standing Committee made a detailed and comprehensive inquiry into the matter. We welcome the fact that these have already had some impact in the political and people’s decisions. An immediate Order from the SC could have saved us from the threat of open air releases of untested and unknown organisms, in the garb of field trials. Civil society groups have repeatedly brought to the fore instances of problems with field trials taking place parallel to biosafety testing – it is clear that the regulatory regime lacks in institutional capabilities of monitoring such trials, lacks scientific rationale and caution in terms of crops, locations and traits for trials, reflects sheer indifference to violations of various norms, rules and guidelines and is glaringly absent in terms of a liability regime”, said Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Convenor of the Coalition.

For more information, contact:

Sridhar Radhakrishnan: 09995358205, mail.thanal@gmail.com

Kirankumar Vissa: 09701705743, kiranvissa@gmail.com

PRESS RELEASE FROM THE COALITION FOR A GM-FREE INDIA PUT OUT ON 9TH NOVEMBER 2012

Open Letter from Indian Scientists to the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Posted on November 8, 2012 by kavitha

In the case of Aruna Rodrigues Vs. Union of India ( Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005)

November 8, 2012

To:

Hon’ble Justices Swatanter Kumar & S.J Mukhopadhyay

Supreme court of India

In the case of Aruna Rodrigues Vs. Union of India

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005)

Respected Sirs,

Sub: Request to accept the interim report submitted by the court-appointed Technical Expert Committee on the matter of field trials of GM crops and passing Orders on the same

Never in the history of agricultural science had a technology been as controversial as Genetic Engineering/Genetic modification of crops. The unpredictability and irreversible nature of Genetic Modification (GM) as a living technology and the uncontrollability of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in the environment, coupled with scientific studies pointing at the potential risk to human health and environment has resulted in a controversy across the world where questions around the safety as well as the very need for introducing such potentially risky organisms into our food and farming system are being raised. Added to this is also the issue of corporate control of the seeds, the most important input in agriculture, through this technology (rigid Intellectual Property Rights go hand in hand with this technology, given the ease with which tinkering at the level of genes allows exclusive monopolistic rights to accrue to commercial entities; most such IPRs on important components and processes of GM are already in the hands of a handful of MNCs). In the Indian context there are also concerns on massive displacement of farm labour if Herbicide Tolerant GM crops are introduced. Given that the world is heavily tilted against the introduction of the technology at this point of time, with a majority of nations not opting for it, this also raises serious trade security issues. All of these issues have been appropriately taken on board by the TEC appointed by the Court.

The debate around GM crops in India started in late 1990s, around the time when the field trials of Bt cotton, the first and only GM crop to have been commercialised in our country, started. It has grown in sum and substance over time with increasing scientific evidence on the adverse impacts of GM crops, both potential and real, emerging from within the country and outside. This debate was most visible around Bt Brinjal, the first GM food crop that had reached commercial approval stage in 2009 and has only got stronger ever since. It was the scientific concerns on the open releases of GM crops in general and Bt brinjal in particular from both eminent global and Indian Scientists along with specific concerns on the inadequacy of the biosafety assessments for GM crops in our country and the inability of our regulatory system to do assessments and monitoring of GM crops that finally led to the indefinite moratorium on the commercial release of Bt Brinjal by the then Minister for Environment and Forests, Sri Jairam Ramesh. As said in the moratorium order by him, that decision was indeed “responsible to science and responsive to society”.

The debate around Bt Brinjal as well as regular reports from around the country brought out by investigations on field trials by certain state governments and civil society groups also opened up various issues with regard to any open release of GM crops including field trials.

It is necessary to look at the Technical Expert Committee’s recommendations in this context and hence, our letter to the learned judges requesting you to fully appreciate the important and critical recommendations of the Committee.

The fact that members of the TEC, who are eminent scientists in the fields of biodiversity, nutrition science, toxicology, molecular biology etc. were jointly agreed upon by the petitioners and the respondent (Union of India) adds to its credibility. It is worthwhile to remember that safety assessment is the matter in question (not the technologist’s job of creating a GMO) and the TEC members are experts in that field. It is also noteworthy that the committee followed the Terms of Reference given to it by the Court which again was mutually agreed upon by both the parties in the case. Added to this is the process through which the Committee has come to its set of recommendations in this first report. The Committee has heard experts from all fields and interest groups before arriving at its own conclusions. The Committee’s first report submitted to the Hon’ble Court on the 7th of Oct 2012 has a thorough scientific assessment of the situation with regard to various aspects of GM crops and its impact, both potential and actual, in the Indian scenario. The report also does a comprehensive analysis of the regulatory system for any open releases of GMOs in our country.

A lot of us in the scientific fraternity hence feel that this is a Committee which has credibility in its composition, clarity in mandate and has taken up an elaborate and detailed process to come to its conclusions. The conclusions and recommendations themselves are sound and scientific, as the reasoning in the report showcases.

It is no surprise that the Committee has come up with logical recommendations on the matter of field trials of GM crops. To start with, the Committee’s stress on a precautionary approach towards GMOs in which potential risks from such a novel technology and its living products need to be identified and minimised, is a globally accepted norm. So it is completely logical when the committee says that “a comprehensive assessment including the risk assessment should start with a need assessment of the technology/product and should encompass a socio-economic analysis which looks at impact of it on various sections of the society and economy”.

The need for overhauling the unsound regulatory system

Given the serious questions raised on the design, capacity, intention and implementation of our regulatory system (from the time field trials of Bt cotton started), the committee has looked at the various aspects of the existing regime. This included the way approvals for field trials have been given, when they are given and the way they have been conducted besides the manner in which monitoring during and after the trials has happened in the country.

The glaring gaps in the regulatory system whether it is lack of rationale for deciding on a particular crop or a trait, particular time or location, incorrect sequencing of biosafety assessment, lack of comprehensive risk assessment including long term independent testing besides serious issues of conflicts of interest are all real issues that beg for an immediate correction. It is to be remembered that unlike any regulatory mechanism in other sectors, regulation here deals with living organisms that can contaminate, reproduce, spread and remain in the system for ever. Hence utmost care needs to be put in place in keeping them contained, until and unless, based on a credible set of biosafety assessments, one can say with confidence that these novel organisms do not pose a threat to health of humans or environment, now or in future.

The recommendations of the Committee not to permit event selection trials outside contained conditions in greenhouses/glasshouses and the need to do a set of biosafety tests including food safety and toxicity studies including sub-chronic feeding studies on rodents along with molecular characterisation of the Genetically Engineered plant, potential toxicity of the novel protein and potential allergenicity before open field trials merit attention and action from this Court.

The Committee also stresses the need for independent, long-term, inter-generational feeding studies to be conducted as part of the risk assessment as food is something that we consume throughout our life and this would help in determining safety at various stages of development starting from conception till end of the life cycle.

Delving further into the existing risk assessment procedure by looking at the Bt cotton biosafety data, the Committee observed that there were instances where the number of samples were lower than minimum prescribed, thereby affecting the quality and sensitivity of the tests even though such dossiers passed through the lax regulatory system. There were also cases of significant differences in bioindicators like blood cell parameters, tissue and organ health and integrity, milk yield between Bt and control samples. The fact that hundreds of hybrids of Bt cotton have been approved by our regulator over the last 10 years with all these gaps in biosafety assessment is a testament of the weakness in the review of biosafety data in the existing regulatory regime. This had been pointed out many a times in the past including during the Bt Brinjal consultations. The Committee is therefore correct in asking for a review of all biosafety data both of approved GMOs as well as ones in the pipeline.

This, when viewed along with the observation by the Expert Committee that there is a serious issue of conflict of interest, completes the picture of an inadequate and unscientific regulatory regime with clear vested interests. The issue of conflict of interest had come into focus several times in the past too, and has vitiated the entire regulatory process of GMOs in India, including field trials. There have been instances of GM crop developers with their products in the pipeline sitting in both RCGM and GEAC, the two nodal agencies for risk assessment and approval for open releases.

Besides putting in place a rigorous biosafety and risk assessment protocol, the TEC also felt that there is a need for a wider set of representation to be included in the regulatory system including sociologists, agriculture economists, toxicologists, ecologists, plant breeders, representatives from civil society and farmers’ unions to ensure a rigorous assessment of GMOs beyond just biosafety checks.

10-Year Moratorium on Bt crops’ field trials:

The TEC found serious flaws in the safety conclusions from the Bt cotton biosafety dossier as the examples cited in the report indicate. Further, there are several scientific studies which point out to the serious problems with this technology for pest control, including pest resistance, changes in pest ecology, impacts on soil biology etc. This is true with Bt cotton in India too, with pest resistance as well as secondary pests being reflected including in official records. Even after ten years of Bt cotton, there has been no official review and the lack of post-marketing monitoring was clearly noted by the TEC also. Issues around Bt GMOs’ safety to animal and human health are unresolved. The unsustainability of the science of Bt technology for pest management is well-noted in other processes of inquiry too. The then Minister for Environment & Forests is reported to have quipped that “Bt is a solution looking for a problem”, given that highly successful alternatives to chemical pesticides and Bt crops exist for crop pest management, which are farmer-controlled, nature-friendly, safe and affordable. The Bt brinjal biosafety dossier analysed by eminent scientists also pointed to the inadequacies in the safety conclusions of that Bt product which began with something as basic as incorrect molecular characterization! It is all in all very appropriate that the TEC had called for a moratorium on Bt crops’ field trials.

Protecting Centres of Origin and Diversity:

The TEC’s recommendation not to permit field trials of those crops for which India is a Centre of Origin/Diversity is a matter that needs urgent attention. It is a globally accepted norm that regions which are rich genetic pools in the megabiodiversity countries like India need to be protected and enriched. This is essential both for the survival of communities who are dependent on them for their livelihoods and also for the growth of science. GMOs have been acknowledged as one of the main threats to this biodiversity in global treaties like the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) which has stressed on the need for precaution when dealing with GMOs. Given that India hosted the CBD last month and that we are a presiding nation for the next two years, we should take a leadership role in protecting biodiversity from potential threats. It should not be forgotten that we have only seen the ‘tip of the iceberg’ of the wild gene pool that has been the basis of our agricultural breeding and development. It will be an injustice to our future generations if we promote its destruction without even getting a chance to unravel and utilise such diversity sustainably.

Moratorium until a comprehensive independent review of Herbicide Tolerant GM crops:

The other major recommendation is the need to revisit our policy of permitting any open releases of herbicide tolerant GM crops due to various scientific concerns emerging on the impact of such GM crops and the related usage of herbicides, on human health and environment. This is more so in a country like ours where farm sizes are small and application of herbicides cannot be restricted to one’s boundaries. There is also a serious concern on the socioeconomic impact of these crops as they are being brought in to replace farm labour. It is important to remind ourselves that we are still an agrarian country with majority of our population dependent on agriculture. More than 80 percentage of our farmers are small, marginal and landless and depend on agricultural work like weeding for sustenance. So any technology that takes away such employment chances especially for rural women will have serious socioeconomic repercussions. In fact this was pointed out by the Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology led by Dr M.S Swaminathan set up by the government way back in 2003. This Task Force also recommended the avoidance of this technology in India.

TEC recommendations reinforce other such in-depth inquiry processes in India:

The TEC interim report comes after the report on GM food crops by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture on 9th of August, 2012. The Standing Committee, comprising of 31 Parliamentarians from across party lines including those from the ruling coalition, did widespread consultations over two and half years with diverse experts and stakeholders before coming to the conclusion that the country should not embrace GM crops in a haste and that there should be a precautionary-based approach towards GM crops. Identifying the inherent risks of GM crops to human health, that of livestock and biodiversity and the inadequacy of the regulatory system to conduct field trials, the Parliamentary Committee had recommended for a stopping of all field trials.

Several recommendations of the TEC also find resonance in the report of the Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology, set up by the Government of India, whose report was accepted in 2004. Similarly, the Bt brinjal public debate and the subsequent moratorium order also reflected the main concerns and recommendations of this TEC.

It is to be remembered that the scientific debate around environmental release of GMOs is happening around the globe and a majority of countries have decided to stop the open releases of them until the answers to various concerns have been arrived at. Any haste in doing this will not only impact the society and the environment but also impede scientific progress. Already there is a growing concern amongst the scientific community that Genetic Engineering and GMOs are getting undue attention where as other non controversial and sustainable technologies like agro ecology are getting ignored in the process. Within the vast area of biotechnology, there are many safer and proven tools which need to be harnessed better.

All open-air field trials are deliberate releases of untested organisms:

The TEC was absolutely right in recognizing that all field trials are essentially deliberate open air releases of untested and unknown organisms and has correctly given its recommendations based on such an analysis (the issue of open air releases gains more significance in the context of repeated violations of biosafety norms and Rules, with impunity) – the fact that need assessment should take place before clearing all applications, that certain traits and crops should be avoided, that biosafety testing should precede open air testing at least to some extent, that regulation should be devoid of conflict of interest, that safety assessment should be comprehensive with more tests including long term and inter-generational, that monitoring and liability regimes have to be put into place, that biosafety review capabilities have to be built etc. are all welcome suggestions based on the legally and scientifically valid Precautionary Principle.

WE would like to specifically point out that many who argue that ‘America has allowed GM crops on a large scale and so should we’ are fundamentally wrong in making a comparison with America – neither our food production nor our food consumption patterns are comparable, not to mention the socio-economic conditions of our producers and consumers. Further, the American regulatory system is very lax and does not even have any segregation or labeling systems. There are no studies that indicate that some of the increasing health problems in the USA are not connected to GMOs. Chemical use in agriculture has been increasing there, while superweeds and superpests are a major issue that farmers are contending with. Some of the biggest losses of the biotech industry are from the US due to contamination from field trials. America is also facing threat to its agri-trade security by adopting transgenics. Any comparison with America is untenable.

As part of the scientific community in India, we hope that the Hon’ble Court will not overlook important analysis and recommendations of the TEC, and would take a prudent, science-based and precautionary approach. We sincerely hope that the learned judges will accept the recommendations of the court appointed TEC in toto. This is important for upholding the scientific temper in India and most importantly not losing vision of humanity while translating science into technologies.

The Signatories:

Padma Bhushan Dr Pushpa Bhargava, Hon Distinguished Professor, School of Life Sciences, JNIAS, Founder-Director of Centre for Cellular & Molecular Biology (CCMB) – Supreme Court-appointed Observer in India’s apex regulatory body for GMOs (GEAC)
Padma Shri Prof M H Mehta, Former Vice Chancellor, Gujarat Agriculture University
Dr A Biju Kumar, Associate Professor and Head, Dept. of Aquatic Biology & Fisheries, University of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala
Dr A K Yadav, Rajendra Agri University, Pusa, Bihar
Dr Alok Mukhopadhyay, Managing Trustee, Health for the Millions
Dr Amol Patwardhan, Entomology expert, Prof of Zoology, Thane
Dr Amruth M, Scientist, Forestry and Human Dimensions, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi-680653, Thrissur, Kerala
Dr Anbazhagan Kolandaswamy, Molecular Biologist, Post doctoral Research engineer on human immune cells, France
Dr Anish Andheria, Director, Wildlife Conservation Trust and Consultant, Sanctuary Asia, Mumbai
Dr Anupam Paul, Agriculture Scientist, State Agricultural Technologists’ Service Association, West Bengal
Dr Anurag Goel, Agriculture Scientist, WAPRED
Dr Aruna Chakraborty, Consultant Biochemist, BN Hospital, Kolkata
Dr Atul Mehta, Plant Breeder, Anand Agriculture University
Dr B Chaudhary, Former Director Research, RAU, PUSA.
Dr B N Viswanath, Agricultural Entomologist, Consultant in Organic Farming, Bangalore
Dr C T S Nair, Former Chief Economist (Forestry Dept), Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and Former, Exec-Vice President, Kerala State Science Technology and Environment Council
Dr Chandrakant Pandav, Professor & Head, Centre for Community Medicine, AIIMS
Dr D G Bhapkar, Retd. Director of Research, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Maharashtra
Dr Debal Deb, Centre for Inter-disciplinary Studies, Odisha.
Dr Dhanya Bhaskaran, Asst Professor (Environmental Science), University of Agriculture Sciences, Raichur
Dr Dileep Kumar R, Post Doctoral Fellow, Institute of Venom Science, Centre for Computational Biology and Bio informatics, University of Kerala,Thiruvananthapuram
Dr Dinesh Abrol, Scientist, NISTADS
Dr E Kunhikrishnan, Professor, Dept of Zoology, Kerala University
Dr E.M. Muralidharan, Biotechnology Department, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Peechi, Thrissur
Dr Elizabeth Joseph, Retd. Scientist (Fisheries), Kerala Agriculture University
Dr G S Kaushal, Retd. Director Agriculture, Govt of MP
Dr Goldin Quadros, Senior Scientist, Wetland Ecology Division, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History, Coimbatore
Dr H R Prakash, Retd. Soil Scientist, Department of Agriculture, Bangalore
Dr Hrideek T.K, Scientist, Genetics and Tree Breeding, Kerala Forest Research Institute
Dr J K Roy, Joint Director (Retd), Central Rice Research Institute, Cuttack.
Dr J P Yadavendra, Plant Breeder, Gujarat
Dr Jagdish Parikh, Medical Scientist, Ex-Deputy Director, National Institute for Occupational Health (NIOH)
Dr Johannas Manjrekar, Associate Professor, Microbiology Department, MS University
Dr K M Shyamprasad: Chancellor, Martin Luther Christian University, Shillong, India
Dr K V Sankaran, Former Director, Kerala Forest Research Institue, Peechi, Kerala
Dr Lalitha Vijayan, Sr Scientist, Salim Ali Foundation and formerly, Acting Director and Senior Principal Scientist, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural Studies (SACON), Coimbatore
Dr Latha Anantha, Director, River Research Centre, Thrissur, Kerala
Dr M Ganapathy, Executive Director, Public Health Resource Network, New Delhi
Dr M S Chari, Former Director, CTRI ( Managing Trustee, CSA, Hyderebad)
Dr M Seenath, Professor, Zoology, University of Calicut
Dr Madhuri Pejavar, Zoologist, Principal of B. N. Bandorkar College, Thane
Dr Mammen Chundamannil, Scientist, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala
Dr Manas Pandit, Associate Professor, Dept of Vegetable Crops, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, West Bengal
Dr Mangal Borkar, Prof. of Botany, Thane
Dr Meenakshi Gautham, Public Health Specialist
Dr Mira Shiva, Coordinator, Initiative for Health & Equity in Society
Dr Mogalli Ganesh, Hampi University, Karnataka
Dr N Paul Sunder Singh, Karunalaya Social Service Society, Chennai
Dr Nandita Shah, Medical Doctor, Homeopath, SHARAN
Dr Nimisha Shukla, Professor, Gujarat Vidyapeeth
Dr Om Rupela, Soil Microbiology, Formerly with ICRISAT
Dr P K Prasadan, Botanist, University of Calicut
Dr Partha Chakraborty, Scientist, CSIR, IICB
Dr Partha Sarathi Ray Asst Prof, IISER, Kolkata
Dr Ponnammal Natarajan, Retd Dean, Anna University
Dr Priti Joshi, Botany, National Organisation for Community Welfare, Wardha
Dr R K P Singh, ICRA, Patna
Dr Ramanjaneyelu GV, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad
Dr Ravi Narayan, Community Health Advisor, SOCHARA
Dr Rudraradhya, Retd Senior Plant Breeder, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore
Dr S Jeevananda Reddy, Former Chief Technical Advisor – WMO/UN & Expert – FAO/UN
Dr Sagari Ramdas, Veterinary scientist & Director, Anthra
Dr Sant Kunmar Gautam, Plant Breeder, Delhi.
Dr Santhi, Ecologist, Trivandrum
Dr Santosh M. Tungare, Environmental Chemistry, TechnoGreen Environment Solutions, Pune
Dr Sasikumar Menon, Expert in Medicinal Plants & Species Conservation, Univ of Mumbai
Dr Siddhartha Gupta, Pathologist, CPT Hospital
Dr Sivaraman, Siddhha Expert, AROGYA
Dr Sujatha Byravan, PhD, Scientist based in Chennai, Former President, Council for Responsible Genetics, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Dr Sujatha Lakhani, Agriculture Scientist, WAPRED
Dr Sultan Ismail, Soil Biologist & Ecologist, Tamilnadu.
Dr Sunita Rajadhyaksha, Pharmacology, Mumbai University
Dr Sunita Rao, Ecologist, Vanastree and ATREE (Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment), Sirsi
Dr T A V S Raghunath, Entomologist, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad
Dr T K Maqbool, Professor in Zoology, Calicut University
Dr T S Channesh, Agriculture Scientist, UAS Bangalore
Dr Tarak Kate, Organic Farmers’ Association of India, Wardha
Dr Thara K G, Member, Kerala State Disaster Management Authority, Govt. Of Kerala (Head, Disaster Management Centre, Institute of Land and Disaster Management, Revenue Dept. Kerala)
Dr Thelma Narayan, Director, SOCHARA School of Public Health, Equity and Action
Dr Thomas Varghese, Soil Scientist (Retd.), Kerala Agriculture University, Ex-Chairman, Kerala State Agriculture Prices Board
Dr Tushar Chakraborty, Principal Scientist, CSIR, IICB, Kolkata
Dr TV Sajeev, Scientist (Entomologist), Forest Health, Kerala Forest Research Institute
Dr Usha Balram, Professor and Head (Retd.), Dept of Zoology, All Saints College, Trivandrum, Kerala
Dr V S Vijayan, Chairman, Salim Ali Foundation, Former Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board; Former and Founder Director, Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural Studies (SACON, a Centre of Excellence of the Govt of India)
Dr Vanaja Ramprasad, Founding member of Foundation for Genetic resources, Energy, Ecology and Nutrition ( Green Foundation), Bangalore, Karnataka
Dr Vijaya Venkat, Founder of The Health Awareness Centre (THAC), Mumbai, Maharashtra
Dr. Maya Mahajan, Phd Environmental Science, Green Alternatives, Coimbatore
Dr. Neeta Dharamsey, Nutritionist, Mumbai
Dr. R Jayaraj, Scientist, Division of Forest Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation, Kerala Forest Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala, India
Dr. Shaila Wagh, M.D.D.C.H., Mumbai ( Doctor of Medicine. Specialisation: Child health)
Dr. Surendra C. Thakurdesai, Head & Associate Professor, P.G. Department of Rural Development, Jogalekar College, Ratnagiri
Prof A Prasada Rao, Retd Professor, Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University (ANGRAU)
Prof B N Reddy, Professor of Botany, Osmania University
Prof Jalapati Rao, Professor in Agronomy and Registrar (Retd), ANGR Agricultural University, Hyderabad
Prof K K Krishnamurthy, Former Dean, TNAU and President, Indian Society for Certification of Organic Products, Coimbatore
Prof K R Chowdhary, Retd Professor, Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad
Prof K.Gunathilagaraj, Professor of Agricultural Entomology (Rtd), Tamilnadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore
Prof Lalit M Nath, Retd Professor & Dean, Centre for Community Medicine, AIIMS
Prof M K Prasad, Ex-Pro-VC, Calicut University, Ex-Chairman, Information Kerala Mission
Prof M Maheswaran, Professor (Plant Breeding and Genetics), Centre for Plant Breeding and Genetics, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore
Prof Mahadeb Pramanik, Dept of Agronomy, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, WB
Prof N Venugopala Rao, Retd Professor of Entomology, ANGRAU, Andhra Pradesh
Prof P Malarvizhi, Soil Scientist, Directorate of Natural Resource Management, TNAU
Prof R N Basu, Retd. Vice Chancellor, Kolkata University
Prof S Krishnaswamy, Structural Biologist & Former President, Tamil Nadu Science Forum
Prof Satya Prasad, Professor of Botany, Osmania University, Andhra Pradesh
Prof Shree Ram Padmadeo, Convener, Dept of Biotechnology, Patna University, Patna
Prof Sudarshan Iyengar, Vice Chancellor, Gujarat Vidyapeeth
Prof T K Bose, Former Director-Research, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, WB
Prof Veena Shatrughna, Deputy Director (Retd), National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad

NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED WITH THIS IS A LETTER FROM THE VICE CHANCELLOR OF GUJARAT VIDYAPEETH (AN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SET UP BY MAHATMA GANDHI), TO THE SUPREME COURT THE TEXT OF WHICH IS PASTED BELOW:

To,

November 8, 2012.

Hon’ble Justices Swatanter Kumar & S.J Mukhopadhyay

Supreme court of India

New Delhi

In the case of Aruna Rodrigues Vs. Union of India

(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 260 of 2005)

Respected Sirs

Sub: Appeal to judge and order with due consideration to harmonious relationship between nature and human beings in the case of field trials of GM Crops.

Global warming is a reality that all accept today in the world. Need and greed both have contributed to it. However, the justification is mainly done by putting forth the need argument. Exploitation of minerals, land, forest, and water resources to expanding material production is evidently to meet the needs of millions of poor, but in reality it is largely to satisfy limitless wants of affording population. The rising carbon levels are accepted, but for controlling it low carbon technology is sought and there is hardly any discussion on changing the life style by reducing consumption, (As if Gandhi never existed!) Production alone is on agenda, and confidence bordering to arrogance obtains about improving the technology to maintain same levels of more global production of goods and services.

As if the physical resources in the form in which they exist on earth were not enough, the genetic science has worked on technologies that can manipulate genes and/or genetic characteristics to increase the food production. Hunger and food security are the reasons that are advanced to support the GM technology. The Technical committee that the Hon. Court had appointed has given sound reasons for not giving green signals for field trials of GM crops. Based on the experience and understanding that we have developed in Gujarat Vidyapith, which is a university with difference and founded by Mahatma Gandhi in 1920, we are making some more points for pointing out why the approval for field trials of GM crops should not be granted.

There is enough evidence to say confidently the if the land use planning is rationalised, land ownership issues are resolved, appropriate agronomical practices are introduced, nature’s own resources are used as farm inputs including the animal draft power, the world can produce enough for the growing population.
We have conveniently ignored the agri-food production that is fed to animals for meat production. This is grossly energy intensive and wasteful production.
Serious and well-funded research to improve crop productivity in eco-system specific conditions carries promise for better food production. The research and investment in agriculture is dominated by monopolistic multinational seed producers who want to take away permanently the autonomy and control of farmers over seed production and use. Harvard Economics Professor in his book Stephen A. Marglin, The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA, 2008, says,
“The problem with the idea that economics is purely, or even primarily, a descriptive undertaking is that the apparatus of economics has been shaped by an agenda focused on showing that markets are good for people rather than on discovering how markets actually work. And from this normative perspective has come the constructive agenda. If you believe that economics is or should be about describing the world, then it is a case of the tail wagging the dog. If you believe, as I do, that the normative agenda has been central to economics from well before Adam Smith’s time, then it is more understandable why the apparatus of economics is built on foundations that undermine community. Undermining community is the logical and practical consequence of promoting the market system.”

Most importantly, tampering with nature increases the risk and uncertainty beyond human control with best of the brains and technology available. The whole humanity can be in jeopardy.

Closing our plea I wish to bring to your kind notice the Indian heritage we have on human’s relationship with nature. It is the first shloka from Ishavasya Upanishada that Gandhi had readily endorsed to describe harmony between human being and nature.

इशावास्यम इदम सर्वम यत्किंचित जग्त्याम जगत।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुन्झिथा मा गॄद्ध कस्यसविद धनं ॥

This is a plea in the testing times for humanity.

With respects,

Yours Sincerely.

(Sudarshan Iyengar)

Major Farmer Unions Urge Supreme Court To Stop GM Field Trials

Posted on November 7, 2012 by kavitha

Before the crucial hearing on 9th November on the interim report of the Court-appointed Technical Expert Committee (TEC) in the GMOs PIL in the Indian Supreme Court, major farmers’ unions across the country have sent letters to the Court, urging it to put an end to field trials of GM crops. These include many of the biggest and most active farmer unions with many lakhs of farmers as members. Letters asking the Court to take on board all the recommendations made by the TEC were sent by Bhartiya Kisan Sangh (BKS), Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU), All India Shetkari Shet Mazdoor Sangh (AISSMS) affiliated to Hind Mazdoor Sabha, AP Rytu Sangam affiliated to All India Kisan Sabha, All India Kisan Mazdoor Sabha, A.P. Seed Farmers’ Association, Laghu Seemanth Krushak Morcha (Uttar Pradesh), Karnataka Pradesh Red Gram Growers’ Association, Krishak Sangharsh Samithi (Odisha), Gujarat Khedut Samaj, South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements(SICCFM) (consisting of unions like Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha, Tamizhaga Vyavasayigal Sangam, Kerala Coconut Growers’ Association, Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha etc.) amongst others.

The interim report on field trials of GM crops was submitted by the TEC on the 7th October and in the last hearing on the 29th of October the Court said that it wanted to hear the views of stakeholders like farmers’ unions.

South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmer Movements (SICCFM) said: “We believe that transgenics will affect our diversity and that this is an unneeded, hazardous technology. We welcome the interim report of the TEC of the Supreme Court. We believe that given that the Government of India also got to nominate its experts into the TEC, it should abide by the TEC’s recommendations. We urge the Hon’ble Court to immediately pass all appropriate orders based on the recommendations of the TEC”.

Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU), in its letter to the court said “One of the primary concerns of the Bhartiya Kisan Union is the issue of unsafe Field Trials happening in the country. There have been several incidences of illegal Field Trials happening across various parts of the country, by biotech companies like Monsanto, Syngenta, Du Pont etc. and civil society groups and Farmer Unions have repeatedly expressed their dissent towards such unwanted activities.” BKU also stated that “it is apparent that statutory Rules, bio safety norms and simple federal polity are repeatedly being defied. Further, there is no rationale for which crops and which traits and which locations would field trials be allowed. There is neither technical rationale (no need assessment, for instance; field trials allowed in biodiversity hot spots or allowed in university campuses which act as germplasm repositories for example) nor democratic decision-making underpinning any of these trials (trials continuing despite a lack of need expressed by majority farmers’ unions).”

Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) said in its letter to the Court that “India is considered as a country with a rich yet delicate biodiversity heritage. We are also the Centre of Origin and/or Diversity of various crops like rice, brinjal, mustard, many pulses, fruits etc. It is shocking to see that the impact of GM contamination has never been considered while approving open releases of GM crops in the name of field trials.It is to be noted that even USA, which is hailed as the champion of GM crops has a norm of not planting GM cotton south of Florida which is considered as the center of Origin of highland cotton. Similarly China, in their new draft grain law, has decided not to permit any genetic modification in their staple crops”.

Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangham affiliated with All India Kisan Sabha said, “We are concerned that the multinational and big Indian seed companies and their lobbies are pressurizing the Indian government and research institutions, and spreading wrong information to push the GM crops even when their safety is under question. We believe that the recommendations are in the interests of the Indian farmer, who is suffering from the onslaught of anti-farmer policies and technologies.”

All India Shetkari and Shet Mazdoor Sabha (AISSMS) affaliated to Hind Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) in its letter stated that “One of the primary concerns of AISSMS is the capability of our regulatory system to monitor and contain the GM crops being inadequate thus leading to possible contamination. The haste with which the govt has gone ahead in promoting and allowing research as well as open releases shows lack of transparency, rigour and precaution”.

Most of the farmer unions have raised concern about mindless approval of herbicide tolerant GM crops. Strongly supporting the TEC recommendation on this matter the submissions from the Farmer Union urged the court not to permit any open trials of HT crops as they pose a grave threat not just to the health and environment but also to the rural economy and livelihoods of the crores of small, marginal and landless women farmers who depend on farm labour like weeding to make ends meet.

The farmer Unions while making a case in support of the TEC report have also pointed to the Parliamentary standing committee on Agriculture’s report on GM food crops which had recommended the government for an immediate stopping of field trials.

YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE FARMER UNION LETTERS TO SC HERE:

Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangam (AIKS affiliated) letter

Gujarat Khedut Samaj letter

Bhartiya Kisan Union letter

Andhra Pradesh Ryotu Sangam letter

South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers Movement letter

Karnataka Pradesh Redgram Growers Association letter

Laghu Seemant Krushak Morcha letter

Krishak Sangharsh Samithi letter

All India Kisan Mazdoor Sabha Letter

Bhartiya Kisan Sangh letter

All India Shetkari Shet Mazdoor Sangh letter

IndiaGMInfo

Get acquainted with GM crops in India

Coalition’s feedback on the 15 April 2013 Report of the High Level Working Group (HLWG) on Western Ghats

Pressure to withdraw BRAI Bill mounting on Jaipal Reddy

Conflict of Interest pervades Supreme Court’s expert committee too!

Govt betrays the nation on Earth Day! Tables deeply flawed (Biotech Regulatory Authority of India) BRAI Bill

“MOUNTING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON ADVERSE IMPACTS OF GM CROPS/FOODS”: Govt and Proponents should stop fooling public about transgenics

“BIODIVERSITY AND BIOSAFETY KEY TO FOOD SECURITY”

Transgenic Crop (Field Trial)s & Food Security: more than 150 scientists write to MoEF

1. Bernard C Y Collard and David J Mackill, 2008. Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 12 February 2008 vol. 363 no. 1491 557-572

2. Greenpeace International (2009). “Smart Breeding” http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/publications/reports/smart-breeding/

2010

2009

“FOOD SECURITY THROUGH GM CROPS FALLACIOUS”: SCIENTISTS

Coalition condemns MoA’s attempt to bring in controversial people as “eminent speakers” in a Ministry’s Conference

Mark Lynas & his support of GM crops – Much ado about nothing!

Letter from Civil Society Organisations on Improving current regulation and implementing a robust regulatory mechanism for GM crops to ensure biosafety

ICAR REPORT ON BNBt Cotton EXPOSES INCOMPETENCE OF GM SCIENTISTS AND REGULATORS TO REGULATE GMOs IN INDIA

GOVERNMENT’S POSITION IN COURT A LET-DOWN AND UNACCEPTABLE, A BOW TO THE PRESSURE FROM BIOTECH INDUSTRY

Open Letter from Indian Scientists to the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Major Farmer Unions Urge Supreme Court To Stop GM Field Trials

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31