7th May 2012

To,

Smt. Jayanthi Natarajan

The H’ble Minister, MoSEF (Independent Charge)

Government of India.

SUBJECT: YOUR STATEMENT IN PARLIAMENT ON 27 MARCH 2012: ‘DELAY IN NOCS FOR GM CROPS TRIALS’

Dear Madam Minister,

Greetings from the Coalition for GM-Free India.

In your statement in the Rajya Sabha on 27 March 2012, you stated that “the GEAC has been approached by the Seed Industries, Ministry of Agriculture and Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) to reconsider its decision on the need of NOC from the State Government prior to the conduct of GM crop field trial.” Consequently, the GEAC has apparently decided to make presentations to State governments to withdraw their bans on field trials1.

We must point out that in the present circumstances where these GMOs remain untested, this action to promote open field trials by the GEAC if carried out, would be contrary to its mandate under the EPA and consequently illegal. It forsakes the absolute requirement of independence and objectivity in a regulator, as required by law, to instead become a lobbying body to advance the cause of the biotech Industry. Furthermore, to lobby formally at the behest of the seed industry as explicitly admitted in your statement would then prove the serious charge of a blatant conflict of interest in your Regulator and particularly in the present climate of corruption may well raise serious questions.

Should such corporate influence in the decision making process lead in the future to farmers’ losses and even suicides, the consequences can be imagined. After a decade of escalating indebtedness and suicides, and the deliberate elimination of low priced non Bt seeds from the market, Bt cotton has been declared definitely unfit in rain-fed Vidharba by the Maharashtra Ministry of Agriculture. How was Bt cotton approved for rain-fed regions by the Regulators? Responsibility must be fixed for the extreme farmer distress that has followed and the record number of farmer suicides in Vidharba, because the link with Bt cotton is undeniable. This is stated and emphasised given the background that the only Biosafety Dossier prepared till date is of Bt brinjal and that has been comprehensively critiqued in several of its aspects and found to be fraudulent. The essential risk assessment protocols and key testing were not done, but were only claimed to have been done. As a result, open field trials of all crops are now clearly unsafe and contravene the EPA. In addition, surely you must also consider the reasons for the Bt brinjal moratorium and their implications for bio-safety, including the need for stringent, independent testing.

On what basis therefore, is the GEAC deciding to woo State Governments to their point of view? Given their own culpability in approving unsafe open field trials, which are also routinely in breach of biosafety rules, lacking elementary precaution leave alone rigour and oversight, it is ironic that the reasons being put forward for such an approach to State governments is their “lack of awareness on highly technical issues associated with biotechnology and biosafety measures.” Apart from being surprisingly condescending, it has to be said that on the contrary, that the States that have thus far imposed bans have done so acknowledging the uncertainties of GE technology and arising directly from this uncertainty, they thus also recognise the pivotal importance of the precautionary principle enshrined in India’s constitution and upheld in law. There is no gainsaying the fact that GMOs are a powerful, novel and unproven technology, which was commercialised a mere 20 years ago and whose impacts are irreversible. State governments are demonstrating a remarkable acuity of judgment and farsightedness in order to protect their crops and still rich seed diversity in the national interest, in marked contrast to the breach of these principles and the caution and precaution that are obligatory requirements in the apex Regulator.

With regard to the RCGM, it has to be said that this regulatory body that is essentially instructed by the DBT (in the Ministry of Science and Technology) has exhibited an appalling mind-set over the years as a blatant vendor of GM crops and has gone so far as to foster and openly promote PPP (public-private- partnerships) between our public sector agri institutions (supported by the ICAR), and the biotech Industry. By agreeing to such agreements, the former have comprehensively abandoned their mandate to India’s farmers. Their recommendation to cancel the requirement for NOCs is a serious error of judgment and self-revealing. Given that agriculture is a State subject, the decision to require NOCs by the former MoEF Shri Jairam Ramesh was in reality a formality, but a well judged and directed instruction to the GEAC. We would urge you to uphold this principle, which will send the right message of support from the Centre to State governments in their exemplary action on barring field trials.

We therefore, respectfully urge you to bar any move by the GEAC to promote field trials in various States, by mounting what would be tantamount to a road-show on behalf of Monsanto and the Industry. In the year that India is hosting the CBD, this would be a comprehensively wrong message to send out. On the other hand, we further request that the GEAC in a principled initiative halts all field trials given the current situation where a host of bio-safety issues remain unresolved.

With best wishes

Yours faithfully

Sridhar Radhakrishnan

Convener,

Coalition for a GM-Free India

email : indiagmfree@gmail.com

Ph : 09995358205

CC:

Ms Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, National Advisory Council, New Delhi

Sri Basudeb Acharya MP, Chairperson, Parliamentary Standing Committee, Agriculture

Sri M F Farooqui, Chairman, GEAC

Prof M S Swaminathan ( Special Invitee in GEAC as per Supreme Court Order)

Prof Pushpa M Bharghava ( Special Invitee in GEAC as per Supreme Court Order )

Chief Ministers of all States.

Agriculture Ministers of all States

The english version of the report is downloadable here; thehindi version is present here.

THE CONCLUSION OF THIS REPORT:

Our analysis of official data on yields, pesticide consumption, cost of cultivation including fertilizer and pesticides costs etc., clearly points out that in Madhya Pradesh, there have been no gains made as per claims of Bt cotton proponents. In fact, there were better yields in the state before the advent of Bt cotton.

Further, our primary survey that compares performance of Bt cotton in Kharif 2011 with Kharif 2004 also points to increased use of inputs including irrigation water, increased pesticide consumption on Bt cotton, higher costs and declined yields. This is clearly unsustainable.

WE also look with alarm and concern at Madhya Pradesh, which has a declared organic farming policy for the state, losing its advantage when it comes to organic cotton production, since this is being threatened by the takeover of the seed market with Bt cotton seeds and cotton lands and processing facilities with Bt cotton production.

There is no dearth of proven alternatives on the ground and all such farmer-controlled, safe, sustainable and affordable alternatives have to be promoted with greater investment, effort and appropriate institutional mechanisms by the government with all farmers.

There is also an urgent need to learn lessons from this decade of false hype around Bt cotton in particular and GM crops in general and ensure that the true picture of failed promises is brought into the public domain clearly.

In this context, the Madhya Pradesh government is urged to pro-actively educate farmers on the hazards of GM cotton cultivation, encourage organic cotton cultivation with appropriate incentives and support systems put in place and strictly regulate the Bt cotton seed industry to make Madhya Pradesh a truly organic state.

The report, brought out by GM-Free Karnataka Movement also has data from a very small survey taken up in Raichur district to compare Bt cotton with non-Bt cotton there in Kharif 2011. The primary data used in the report points to both Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton presenting the farmers only with negative net returns putting a question mark on cotton-based livelihoods itself even as it shows that riskiness of Bt cotton is higher given its significantly higher cost of cultivation per unit land.

In the face of aggressive PR campaign by the biotechnology industry which is being uncritically accepted by the government and regulators, the Coalition said, “This is a wake-up call for the Government, Parliamentarians, policy-makers, farmer organizations and media to closely examine the crisis in the cotton belt and critically re-assess the 10 years of Bt cotton. The government should stop promoting Bt cotton and pro-actively advise farmers about its unsuitability and risks.”

The cotton farmers are in deep crisis after ten years of Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers. The extensive crop failure has exposed the false hype and advertising, often repeated by policymakers and regulators. In Andhra Pradesh, state government estimates show that out of 47 lakh acres planted with Bt cotton during Kharif 2011 season, the crop failed in 33.73 lakh acres (71% of the area). The state government reported that 20.46 lakh farmers suffered from cotton crop failure and lost Rs.3071.6 cr. In Maharasthra, the cotton crisis forced the government to take the unprecedented step of declaring Rs. 2000 cr. as compensation (the estimated loss is Rs.10,000 cr.). The cotton production estimates had to be downgraded despite the large expansion in cotton cultivation area.

Presenting some of the analysis, Kiran Vissa, co-convener of the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) said, “The real yield gains in the past decade (from 278 kg/ha to 470 kg/ha) happened from 2000-01 to 2004-05, i.e. when Bt cotton area reached only 5.6% of the total cotton area. From 2005-06 to 2011-12, when the Bt cotton area grew to exceed 90% of the total cotton area, there is no sustained yield gain – only going from 470 kg/ha to 481 kg/ha. It is the pre-Bt cotton yield gains that have proved to be stable, resulting from various factors including fresh land brought under cotton cultivation, expansion of irrigation and use of high-yielding hybrids.” The report also refers to the statement of Dr. K.R. Kranthi, Director of Central Institute for Cotton Research(CICR), “The main issue that worries stakeholders is the stagnation of productivity at an average of 500 kg lint per ha for the past seven years. The gains have been stagnant and unaffected by the increase in area of Bt cotton from 5.6% in 2004 to 85% in 2010.”

Regarding pest protection, scientific studies and the company statements show that the target pest bollworm has developed tolerance to Bt cotton, whereas secondary pests like mealy bugs and whiteflies which were hitherto unseen are causing major damage. At the farmer level, pesticide spraying quickly went back to pre-Bt levels after the first three years. Data from Directorate of Plant Protection for six major cotton-growing states shows that in Maharashtra with the largest Bt cotton cultivation area, there has been a steep increase in pesticide volume (3198 MT in 2005-06 to 4639 MT in 2009-10) whereas in four other states (Gujarat, M.P., Punjab, Karnataka) there is a marginal increase. The only decline is in A.P., possibly due to the successful campaign against pesticide use by the government’s Non-Pesticidal Management (NPM) program. At the national level, even in the peak expansion years of Bt cotton, the pesticide usage increased by 10%. This is despite the heavy increase in use of more powerful low-volume pesticides during the same period, which should have reduced the total volumes. This shows that Bt technology is a false solution to the pesticide problem – the NPM methods which eliminate pesticide usage completely have been successfully demonstrated in states like A.P. in large-scale government programs while the Bt technology with all its risks, at best reduces pesticide usage temporarily for a given target pest.

Official information shows that Bt cotton requires more inputs in terms of fertilizers and irrigation, and is particularly susceptible to rainfall shortage at peak bolling period. The costs of cultivation have gone up significantly after the introduction of Bt cotton, leading to increased risk and debt for small farmers. The Coalition’s report also criticizes the false and unethical advertising by the companies like Mahyco-Monsanto whose advertisements were pulled up by Advertising Standards Council of India, earlier this year.

Kishor Tiwari of the Vidarbha Jan Andolan Samiti which has been campaigning for several years on farmer suicides and agrarian crisis in Vidarbha said, “The fact is that the crisis of cotton farmers in Maharashtra has only become deeper after the adoption of Bt cotton. This year, we estimate that Bt cotton farmers have lost Rs.10,000 crores due to crop failure. Even the government compensation of Rs.2000 crores is quite small considering the loss. It is an irony that the state government is compensating for the failure of private company seeds. Maharashtra tops the nation in farmer suicides, with 3181 in 2010, and the number is likely to be worse in 2011. Though studies have shown that Bt cotton is not suitable for rain-fed regions which form majority of the cotton cultivation area, it is promoted aggressively with farmers through misleading advertising. Even the government institutions do not have non-Bt seed available for the farmers. We exposed the false media campaigns of the companies regarding Bhamraja and other villages, and the ground situation in Yavatmal district was also witnessed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture recently.”

Vijay Pratap of the Kisan Swaraj Sampark Kendra added that said, “We are asking farmers around the country to be aware of the dangers of the technology and the manipulations and monopolistic control of these corporations. Farmers who were frustrated with one unsustainable technology of chemical pesticides were asked to adopt another unsustainable technology promoted by the same companies which sold the pesticides. The Bt cotton story also cautions us about the false hype around other Genetically Modified crops being pushed as inevitable, and the bull-dozing of the technology through legal frameworks such as Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill. We will continue to push for food security and sovereignty, sustainable farmer livelihoods, and democratic decision-making on science & technology”.

Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Convener of the Coalition for a GM-Free India demanded, “The government, political parties and scientists should reject the false hype, and perform a comprehensive, independent and participatory review of 10 years of Bt cotton. The Parliament should have a special discussion on cotton farmers’ crisis and 10 years of Bt cotton. Government agencies should stop promoting Bt cotton, and rejuvenate the non-Bt seed production to make it available for farmers. Strict action should be taken against false claims and advertising by the companies. It is shameful that while the Indian farmer is reeling under the crisis and Bt Cotton faced its worst failure, the recent State of Indian Agriculture report talks of Bt Cotton as an unqualified success and promotes GM technology as a magic bullet.”

Coalition for a GM-Free India is a broad national network of organizations, scientists, farmer unions and consumer groups. Website: www.indiagminfo.org,
Contacts:

Sridhar Radhakrishnan (convenor), 09995358205, mail.thanal@gmail.com;

Kavitha Kuruganti, 09393001550, kavitha_kuruganti@yahoo.com

In an order dated 13 March, the Principal Secretary, Agriculture, government of Rajasthan stated “..no trials of GM crops should be conducted in the State until final decision in this matter is taken.”

“The issue (of permitting trials of transgenic crops) indeed being fraught with concerns as no unanimity has arrived at, either in their favour or against them. The government, after considering different aspects of it, has taken a view to wait until a national consensus is evolved. It has also been decided that discussions should be held with all stakeholders and to form a view in this regard keeping in mind the guidelines issued by GEAC and GoI,” the order said.

Significantly, the order comes close on heels of the government’s withdrawal of the controversial no-objection certificate (NoC) recently issued by it to the Delhi University for conduct of GM mustard trials in three locations in Rajasthan. The trials had started in Bharatpur, Alwar and Sriganganagar and were nearing harvest. Responding to media reports and questions raised in the assembly, the government had ordered that the NoC be withdrawn. “On March 9th, the NoC was withdrawn and the crop ordered to be destroyed,” confirmed Anil Gupta, deputy secretary, department of agriculture.

So far, international seed majors Monsanto, Dow Agro Sciences and Pioneer have applied for and got permission from the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) under the centre to conduct trials of Ht/Bt Corn in Rajasthan this year, but this was subject to a mandatory no-objection certificate from the state government. With the state’s recent decision not to permit GM trials for now, the trials planned by these companies in the coming season hangs fire.

The order, for the first time, sends a strong signal that Rajasthan is not up to indiscriminately permitting trials of transgenic crops having questionable environmental consequences, without an informed debate. So far, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Kerala, Odisha and Karnataka have said an outright ‘ no’ to GM crop trials in their respective states, while Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Maharashtra have not yet issued NoCs.

Earlier, GM crop experiments were approved directly by the GEAC under the central govenrment. However, state NoCs became mandatory since July 2011 after Nitish Kumar objected to GM trials taking in Bihar without the state government’s consent, as agriculture is a state subject.

Story by Sowmya Sivakumar, Jaipur edition, DNA dated 20th March 2012

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/epapermain.aspx?pgNo=2&edcode=1310016&eddate=2012-3-20

EXTRACT from the article: “Every experiment I personally reviewed seemed to have some significant flaw, or was only half finished, effectively leaving nothing to support the conclusions of safety. It had the semblance of authority, but lacked the substance.” – Prof. Jack Heinemann

COMMENT of Aruna Rodrigues: Prof. Heinemann has previously provided evidence for India’s Supreme Court concerning the risk assessment and hazard identification of GM crops and in particular the appraisal of Monsanto’s bio-safety dossier of Bt brinjal (molecular analyses). He was also one of the independent academic scientists who responded to the then Minister, Shri Jairam Ramesh, in his review process for Bt brinjal in 2009-2010.

Heinemann’s credentials are well known [see the article below for details]. This document is his further analyses of the molecular characterisation of Bt brinjal and follows from a request that I made last year (ref. the Preamble).

It seemed appropriate to undertake a deeper investigation of Bt brinjal Event EE 1 given the disquiet generated as a result of several separate appraisals of Monsanto’s dossier by leading international scientific experts, which pointed to a shoddy environmental risk assessment, studies that it was claimed had been done, but which were not done or were poorly done, and significant health safety issues.

All these problems were comprehensively denied by the regulators and the EC II (Expert Committee II appointed by the apex regulator the GEAC to deal with various appraisals of the Dossier). The clear need for long term testing for chronic toxicity (cancers and other problems) was also turned down, but which Shri Jairam Ramesh required when he imposed an indefinite moratorium on Bt brinjal pending independent scientific and long term studies.

The implications of Heinemann’s findings are so serious that they raise the charge that must be levied at the regulators and the GEAC in particular, to a new and startling level; that of either rank incompetence or a conflict of interest so deep that there is a great desire to promote GM crops, and Monsanto in particular, at the expense of the public interest. Heinemann’s analyses show that Monsanto’s dossier is fundamentally flawed at its starting point, or to tell it straight, Monsanto’s Bt brinjal dossier is fraudulent.

Heinemann’s report follows on from the Prime Minister’s statement earlier this month espousing the cause of GM crops and claiming that the objections to them were driven by foreign-funded NGOs. The Prime Minister was reminded in a letter signed by well known Justice Krishna Iyer (Retd.), and co-signed by 16 other prominent people, that his Party and the PMO (Prime Minister’s Office) are briefed by industry sources and deeply conflicted regulators, judging from the following facts. The letter said:

In 2009 a letter was written by Shri Prithviraj Chauhan (when he was MOS – Minister of State) in the Prime Minister’s Office, to Dr A Ramadoss, (the erstwhile Minister of Health in the previous Government) who had expressed his grave reservations on the safety of Bt brinjal. In his reply, Shri Prithviraj Chauhan said “the various issues raised in your letter have been examined carefully and by applying the best scientific evidence available today—”. In short, he went on to fully support the safety testing regulations for GM crops and Bt brinjal in particular, pronouncing Bt brinjal comprehensively safe. However, the source of Shri Chauhan’s letter was the biotech industry; sections of it were excerpted directly from promotional materials from the Industry, in particular ISAAA, (the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications), an organisation that at best can be described as pseudo-scientific, funded primarily by Monsanto and other biotechnology
multinational companies, and whose admitted purpose is to promote and facilitate the commercial introduction of GM crops in the developing world. Shri Prithviraj Chauhan is not a scientist; but when six National Academies of Sciences similarly encourage the government to vacate the moratorium on GM crops without first addressing safety concerns, through a document that is purportedly scientific, but which instead turns out to be a similar cut and paste exercise from industry sources, then it becomes clear that the basis for public policy on GM crops is in tatters and that the information flowing to the Prime Minister is quite simply erroneous.
—
—
GEAC, experts slip on basics?
Latha Jishnu
Down to Earth, March 31 2012

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/geac-experts-slip-basics

*As the biotech industry takes heart from the prime minister’s remark, a fresh report shows India’s regulation and expertise on GM crops are sloppy

BOUYED by the prime minister’s remark that NGOs were responsible for the moratorium on the release of GM or Bt brinjal, the biotech industry is stepping up its campaign to get it lifted along with “all constraints in the research and development work of biotech crops”. It is also asking the government to ensure that the regulator, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), carries out its mandated functions without hindrance till such time as the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) becomes operational.

In what it calls the Bangalore Declaration, top industry lobby groups, the Association of Biotech Led Enterprises-Agriculture Group (ABLE-Ag) and the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education (FBAE), also urged the passage of the BRAI bill without further delay. The so-called declaration was made after a series of industry-sponsored conferences held across the country to plug biotechnology as the tool for guaranteeing India’s food security. While this has triggered a predictable counter-campaign by the anti-GM crops movement, an unexpected embarrassment for the government and industry is a fresh report that has exposed more flaws in the data supplied by Mahyco, the developer of the Bt brinjal event EE-1, and the unquestioning acceptance of its claims by GEAC and the two expert committees (EC-I and EC-II) that advised it.

The report by reputed geneticist and biosafety expert Jack A Heinemann has been submitted to the Minister of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Jayanthi Natarajan, under whose charge GEAC functions. Heinemann is professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, and director of its Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety (INBI).

His evaluation has vindicated once again the decision taken by Natarajan’s predecessor Jairam Ramesh in February 2010 to put on hold the commercial release of Mahyco’s Bt brinjal despite GEAC’s approval in 2009. Heinemann is the latest in a series of international scientists who have pointed out flaws in the Mahyco dossier on its EE-1 event (see ‘Holes in risk analysis of Bt brinjal’, Down To Earth (DTE), October 31, 2010). In his “cautious, precautionary principle-based approach” order, Ramesh had said the moratorium would stay “till such time independent scientific studies establish, to the satisfaction of both the public and professionals, the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact on human health and environment”. Ramesh, now minister for rural development, had taken exception to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s implication in an interview given to Science (February 24, 2012) that the moratorium was the result of pressure from NGOs in the
US and
Scandinavian nations. In a rebuttal, Ramesh said his decision was determined by four factors: position of the states, lack of consensus among the scientific community, the fact that the tests were not completed and that there was no independent professional mechanism to instil confidence among people.

The Heinemann evaluation is scathing in its indictment of the developer, the regulators and the experts set by it. The most serious of the flaws, it points out, were the significant anomalies in the reporting of the constructs and in the characterisation of event EE-1. In addition, “it was apparent that critical and fundamental characterisation of the event was not completed, usually because of assumption-based reasoning [for example, the plasmid (or vector) does not transfer because the developer thought that it should not] that was often both faulty and also not confirmed by readily available science. When such fundamental misunderstandings of the basic tools of the procedure demonstrated by the developer seemingly went unchallenged by the regulator, it was very difficult to accept assurances that the other procedures in the evaluation of Bt brinjal could be trusted.” The GEAC comes in for particular censure because it “repeatedly failed to appreciate the significance of th
e
plasmid
map itself which clearly showed only a single T-DNA border sequence and ignored the reports from independent scientists who alerted EC II to this”.

The most alarming finding is that Mahyco’s Bt brinjal uses a binary plasmid vector PVLEBK04 that has at least 10 different DNA elements taken from different species, including soybeans, viruses, plasmids isolated from different species of bacteria, and many of which have also been extensively and separately subject to in-vitro modification after being taken from their natural sources. The commercial trait in Bt brinjal, according to Mahyco, is conferred by the Cry1Ac-like derived protein. However, Heinemann says the protein is not Cry1Ac isolated from natural plasmids of Bt but a protein made from a series of in-vitro modifications. The first 40 per cent of the amino acids found in Cry1Ac2 were replaced with 466 amino acids from Cry1Ab, another insecticidal protein.

Again, while the developer claimed that the fusion construct is 99.4 per cent identical in amino acid order to the natural Cry1Ac protein, the biosafety scientist finds the fusion is a maximum of 94 per cent identical to Cry1Ac and only 95 per cent identical to Cry1Ab. “What appear to be small differences can be physiologically and immunogenically important,” warns the report. Heinemann explains that at 94 per cent identity, there could be up to 70 different amino acids. “To conclude that a novel protein is likely to be of no safety concern because of even as few differences as seven amino acids is not a research-based conclusion” because changes of single amino acids can significantly alter the characteristics of proteins. The impact of poor initial characterisation includes: distrust of the detection method (which EC-II claimed without evidence was specific to Bt brinjal) because failure to properly confirm the number and structure of inserts undermines the design of the to
ols used
to confirm transfer of the recombinant DNA through crosses; and invalidation of conclusions surrounding unintended changes.

In an interview to DTE, Heinemann says, “Every experiment I personally reviewed seemed to have some significant flaw, or was only half finished, effectively leaving nothing to support the conclusions of safety. It had the semblance of authority, but lacked the substance” (see ‘Bt brinjal has no history of safe use’, www.downtoearth.org.in).

Critically and most importantly, the developer used a plasmid that was designed to transfer in toto. This has also been stated clearly by Monsanto which provided the developer with the plasmid. Yet, Mahyco, which is part-owned by Monsanto, and the two expert committees advising GEAC repeatedly failed to appreciate the significance of the plasmid map itself which clearly showed only a single T-DNA border sequence, and ignored the reports from independent scientists who alerted EC-II to this.

Mahyco has yet to respond to questions on these issue sent by DTE.

The Heinemann report, which is a more comprehensive evaluation of findings submitted earlier to MoEF, was prepared following a request to INBI whose mission is to assist civil society to find answers to questions raised by biotechnology. The tools it develops are available for free public use, but are optimised for those countries such as India that have ratified the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The developer claimed that there was a single insert into the brinjal genome and that it corresponded to just the Cry1Ac-like gene intended for insertion, but Heinemann claims there are several reasons this evidence is incapable of demonstrating the required proof. For one, the only probe used was described as just “Bt”. Worse, no information was provided about sensitivity of the probe.

The report comes in the wake of FBAE secretary C Kameswara Rao calling for the removal of “unjustified and arbitrary constraints that jeopardise the functioning and development of agribiotech research such as the requirement of permission of state governments for field testing of biotech crops approved by the regulator, and the threat of legal action against the use of indigenous germplasm to develop biotech crops for indigenous use. Other signatories include B Sesikeran, director of National Institute of Nutrition, who was a member of EC-II; Gurudev S Khush, World Food Prize laureate and adjunct professor, University of California; and Klaus Ammann, honorary professor for biodiversity at University of Bern.

ABLE-Ag’s contention that opposition to biotechnology is driven by vested interests rather than scientific analysis reflects the prime minister’s stance. It says India has “one of most stringent regulatory systems in the world”. But even as ABLE-Ag and FBAE were making a pitch for Bt brinjal, the states’ opposition to even field tests of GM in their backyard was mounting, with Rajasthan becoming the latest to join their ranks (see ‘Rajasthan bans GM trials’).

New Delhi                                                                                                                            March 05, 2012                                                        

Your Comments on the Opposition to GM Crops and Nuclear Power Plants

Dear Mr. Prime Minister

There has been wide coverage of your interview with the journal ‘Science’, on February 24, 2012 concerning the opposition to nuclear power plants and GM crops in India. You choose to resurrect the old bogeyman of a ‘foreign-hand’, this time pointing to external  funding of NGOs to oppose Indian development, as if they are some sort of a 5^th columnist operating to undermine the nation’s interest. This we feel, is a highly inappropriate misrepresentation of facts. The misdemeanours of these NGOs, if any, may well be only minor infringements of the letter of a restrictive law that enables government to harass them as is now being undertaken. In  reality , what we are all fighting against is indeed a foreign-hand operating at the behest of  and  from  within  your government, supported  by  Indian  and  foreign  commercial entities , to corporatise Indian agriculture & farming practices and the energy sector , without in-depth and impartial analyses which prioritise the country’s security and safety. If this is their sin, it is ours too.  Your remarks, in essence, indict every signatory to this letter. Our individual and collective  “unthinking state” , an unlikely charge as that is, does not unduly perturb us ; on the other hand, your charge that all those who  voice dissent of your government’s policy on  GM crops and nuclear power do not belong to the “thinking segment” of society is an indictment of a large section of our citizenry . It betrays an inappropriate distinction between “thinkers” and “non-thinkers” solely on the basis of agreement or disagreement with government policy. Surely, this cannot be. Informed dissent and a healthy response to it by our government through trusted dialogue are vital for a functioning democracy. We are not China. The absurdity of this position is therefore, self-evident and it absolutely requires us to make a measured and robust response through addressing the key issues surrounding GM crops and the nuclear power sector.

The prominently visible foreign hand of the US, in these two greatly important issues with ramifications for our country far into the future (and with regard to GM crops, irreversibly so), is squarely created and abetted by the UPA government.  One  indication  of such  collusion is the line-up of support your  government  has  sought  or received thus far, from ABLE (the Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises) , the Indo-US Knowledge  Initiative on Agriculture, the Indo-US CEOs Forum , the Indo-US  Business  Council , etc. , all of which expose the distinct foreign influence deliberately  brought  into these critical policy areas. Along with your  investigations of the so-called anti-national  misdeeds  of  the  NGOs , why is  your  government  not probing the influence peddled by  these  agencies  and  entities who are  primarily furthering  the  interests of foreign governments and private multinational corporations? Or,  is  it  that  only  those  who  support  your  policies  are  helping  the  nation , while those raising legitimate and  scientifically-based dissent are all branded as traitors working against  the  national  interest ?

Furthermore, several important communications on key issues have been submitted to you in writing over the last two to three years, without even the courtesy of an acknowledgement from the PMO.  We must assume from your remarks to the ‘Science’ journal that the evidence, which has hitherto been offered on the significant gaps in safety and liability surrounding both these technologies, by well informed and deeply concerned individuals and groups in the nation’s interest , has not been seen by you, or else  you would surely have taken cognisance of it.

In the attached Annexure, we have presented some key issues on both these technologies and their profound implications for our country.  Based on this, we urge the UPA government to initiate a truly inclusive process of deliberations with all stake-holders in civil society to help formulate a rational public policy with regard to both the nuclear power sector and GM crops.

With Regards,

Sincerely Yours,

1.

Justice VR Krishna Iyer, former Judge, Supreme Court of India

2.     Dr.A.Gopalakrishnan , Former Chairman , Atomic Energy Regulatory  Board

3.     E.A.S.Sarma,  Former Union Power Secretary, GOI

4.     Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, former Chief of Naval Staff, Mumbai

5.     Dr.Pushpa  Mitra  Bhargava, Former  Vice-Chairman , National  Knowledge  Commission

6.     Praful Bidwai, Writer, Columnist and Researcher

7.     Mr. J.M. Lyngdoh, Former  Chief  Election  Commissioner 

8.     Medha  Patkar, Convenor,  National  Alliance  of  People’s  Movements

9.     Admiral L.Ramdas, Former Chief of Naval Staff and Magsaysay awardee, Alibag

10.  Lalita Ramdas, former Board Chair Greenpeace International, Bhaimala, Alibag

11.  Dr Vandana Shiva, Director, Research Foundation for Science , Technology and Ecology

12.  Admiral  R.H. Tahiliani (Retd.), Former  Chief  of  Naval  Staff & former Chairman Transparency International

13.  Prof. Romila Thapar,  Professor  Emeritus, Jawaharlal  Nehru  University

14.  Aruna Roy, Social activist, MKSS

15.    Dr.V.S.Vijayan, Chairman, Sálim Ali Foundation; former Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board; Thrissur

16.  Aruna Rodrigues, Lead Petitioner GMO PIL in the Supreme Court

17.  Prashant Bhushan, Advocate, Supreme Court (signed)

Cc   Smt. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson, United Progressive Alliance (UPA)

Cc   J Jayalalithaa, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu

ANNEXURE

REASONS WHY THERE IS OPPOSITION TO GM CROPS AND NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

 Genetically Engineered (GE) Crops

• Brief background: GE crops were invented by the US; given their raison detre of profit for the Industry by patent laws in that country and their commercialisation promoted at the behest of the White House to “foster the biotech Industry” led by Monsanto, the international market leader holding 90% of crop patents. No GM crop is approved ‘as safe’ by US regulatory agencies in the US when they are put to market (GM cotton, Soy and Cotton, all of which are animal feeds). The Industry has held sway; there is little regulatory oversight.

• The KIA (Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture) and the conflict of interest within government agencies and our public sector agri-institutions:  India is singled out for the commercialisation of GM crops by the US and Monsanto, an objective that is actively facilitated by the Indian regulators. This is well attested to in court documents. This conflict of interest found official expression in the KIA, which the UPA government sought fit to ink with the USA. The ICAR ( the signatory partner for India), along with its affiliates, provided Monsanto with access to India’s genetic resources (Monsanto was elected to its Board, a company that stands formally indicted for fraud, bribes, hounding farmers and some of the worst crimes against humanity). Though this agreement has since lapsed, formal public-private partnership agreements between the biotech Industry and our agri institutions fully supported by the Department of Biotechnology are accelerating this process. The official push for GM in Indian agriculture means that we are the only country extensively testing untested GM crops in open field trials in virtually all our food, ie our staples in grains, our vegetables, oilseeds and fruit with great risk of contamination. In the matter of brinjal, Monsanto stands accused by the NBA (National Biodiversity Authority) of pirating an Indian brinjal gene.

•  Bt brinjal and Monsanto’s safety dossier: Bt brinjal was self-attested by Monsanto for safety, clearly an approach that invalidates it. Subsequent appraisals of that dossier by scientists which included globally eminent GM scientists concluded that the dossier was gravely deficient, with many safety issues not addressed at all and which remain unresolved, yet the apex regulator, the GEAC approved it for commercialisation. Shri Jairam Ramesh our erstwhile Minister, MoEF, has himself, very quickly following on from your statement, clarified the basis of the moratorium imposed by him in an open statement, citing the need for independent and long term scientific studies

• The PMO and the UPA are briefed by Industry sources and deeply conflicted Regulators. On the 8th February 2010, two letters were addressed to the Prime Minister by first, 17 international and independent academic scientists and secondly, sent in a sign-on letter to the PM (by civil society spokesmen and prominent persons). Judging from the PM’s comments to the ‘Science’ journal, we doubt whether he has indeed   seen them, and yet, these letters are so important for their implications that we request the PM  to kindly access them. They pertain to a letter written by Shri Prithviraj Chauhan in 2009, when he was MOS in the PMO to Dr A Ramadoss who had expressed his grave reservations on the safety of Bt brinjal. In his reply, Shri Prithviraj Chauhan said “the various issues raised in your letter have been examined carefully and by applying the best scientific evidence available today—”. In short, he went on to fully support the safety testing regulations for GM crops and Bt brinjal in particular, pronouncing Bt brinjal comprehensively safe. However, the source of Shri Chauhan’s letter was the biotech industry; sections of it were excerpted directly from promotional materials from the Industry, in particular ISAAA, (the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications), an organisation that at best can be described as pseudo-scientific, funded primarily by Monsanto and other biotechnology multinational companies and whose admitted purpose is to promote and facilitate the commercial introduction of GM crops in the developing world. Shri Prithviraj Chauhan is not a scientist; but when six National Academies of Sciences similarly encourage the government to vacate the moratorium on GM crops without first addressing safety concerns, through a document that is purportedly scientific, that instead turns out to be similar cut & paste exercise from Industry sources, then it becomes clear that public policy and the basis for it on GM crops is in tatters and our situation is precarious indeed. The information flowing to the Prime Minister is quite simply erroneous. It is pertinent to add that Monsanto and our regulators cannot uphold their extravagant claims of the success of Bt cotton since no attempt has been made by an unconscionable regulator to undertake a post market monitoring of it over the last eight years; but based on official statistics of cotton production, there is reason to believe that current yield is falling to pre-Bt cotton years and the reasons for this have been predicted from empirical evidence of the performance of Bt cotton in other countries, including resistance. We request the PM to kindly take note of this.

• Finally, the evidence against GM crops is overwhelming in that it will not feed the world because it has failed to deliver on yield, traits and sustainability; that evidence is in favour of modern organics and small farmers in the developing world, if only our government will heed and redirect investment into these agro-ecological alternatives. This evidence comes from the UN, the FAO, the World Watch Institute and from the World Bank and UN-led IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development). Twice peer-reviewed, this was a rigorous four-year process in which 400 scientists conducted the most comprehensive assessment of international agricultural technology and the path forward for agriculture for the next 50 years.  India is a signatory to the IAASTD. The ability of agroecology to double food production within 10 years was recently re-affirmed by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food.

Nuclear Power Plants

The Prime Minister similarly criticised NGOs for protesting against the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project and stalling development in India, placing the blame on NGOs receiving support from abroad. These are serious charges. We hope very much that there will be no misplaced zeal through a witch hunt of NGOs as a result of your statement. On the other hand, there is genuine and increasing public concern over the potential dangers of nuclear technology, particularly because  the  Indian  nuclear  establishment  is  directed  by  the  government to  expand their nuclear  power  activity on  the  basis  of the  import of untested reactors  and  in the absence of an independent & transparent nuclear safety regulator. No nuclear power plant is 100% safe and for the government to make such statements,  as have been made only recently, stretch  credulity and  come across as glib assurances in the backdrop of especially the  Fukushima (2011) accident, which has  been  particularly devastating and is fresh in people’s minds. The accidents at Three Mile Island (1979) & Chernobyl (1986) also involved human error and weak nuclear safety regulation. Japan is a technologically savvy country. Despite this, they have not been able to respond till date to the sheer scale of the Fukushima disaster to contain its impacts.  In  India ,  with our dense population, our lack of management skills, the unilateral  decision-making  at  the  highest  political  levels  on the purchase of very  complex and  hitherto  untested  nuclear  reactors and technology  systems  without involving the national safety  evaluation  process, refusal  to  constitute  a  totally  independent  and  transparent  nuclear  safety  regulatory  system  in  the  country,  and  our  singularly inefficient disaster mitigation abilities, etc. could  altogether  land  us  in  a  major  nuclear  disaster soon, if these deficiencies are not immediately  corrected. Cost estimates of the Fukushima accident are currently placed at more than US$16 billion and it is still rising. It will take decades to clean up Fukushima and  the  significant  stretch  of  surrounding  areas  of radioactive contamination; and the clean up may never be complete, as evident from the Chernobyl experience  where the Russians are setting up a sarcophagus to shield the stricken reactors from  humanity and the environment.

• Conflict of Interest: Despite an assurance given by the Prime Minister’s office on April 26, 2011 that “Action taken on previous safety reviews will be put in the public domain”, neither the DAE nor NPCIL have complied till date, thereby reinforcing public concern about the safety of nuclear plants. NPCIL seems to make a mockery of the spirit of Article 19 of the Constitution that entitles every citizen, as a fundamental right, to be informed about the functioning of any public authority, to the extent that its acts of omission and commission affect individual life. AERB, which is required to oversee and regulate the activities of DAE and NPCIL, continues to be subordinate to DAE and the new regulatory authority bill introduced by DAE before Parliament, furthermore, does not ensure the independence of the regulator from the executive that controls it.

o

• EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) and secrecy: At  many  of  our  nuclear  sites , including  Kudankulam , no  truthful  and  comprehensive EIAs  have  been  made  and  associated  public  hearings  conducted  as  stipulated  by  law. Where  representatives  of  the  local  population  have  prepared  scientific  reports  to  the  best  of  their  ability , on  their  own, on  pertinent  safety  deficiencies  of  a  nuclear  plant , the  DAE  has  ignored  those  reports  and  not  responded  to  the  concerns expressed. A  typical  example  is  the  recent  PMANE  Expert  Group’s  Report  dated  Feb. 12, 2012, which  the  Kudankulam  protest  groups  prepared  and  submitted  to  the  DAE. This  report  highlights serious  questions  about  the  safety  of  the  Kudankulam  site  based on  geotechnical  and  oceanographic  considerations, backed  by  independent and  scientific  data  and  publications  from  academic  and  research  institutions. Through  all  this , the  AERB  which  must  come  forth  and  defend  the  safety  of  these  plants,  has maintained  a  stony silence , whereas, in  any  civilized  country, it  is  the  regulator’s  duty  to  defend  what  they  have  approved  as  safe. In  India , it  is  because   the  AERB  is  a  captive  regulator  who  seeks  permission  of  the  DAE  before  they  speak  publicly  on  any  issue .

• Safety Issues:  Let us be clear that nuclear power, like most other power technologies, is not 100% safe and can never be. But, given that the downside risk of a nuclear accident can be immeasurable and the empirical evidence from the  past  three core meltdowns the  world  has  witnessed  reinforces such a possibility, how safe it can be will depend on the integrity of our regulators  and  our  leaders  who  on the other hand are  constantly  manipulating  the  system, including  the  safety  regulator. Our  government  has  not  yet  realised  that  there  is  a  strong  positive  correlation  between  the  transparency  of  a  safety  regulator  and  the  degree  of  eventual  safety  obtained. While  the  public  is  kept entirely in  the  dark  on  how  safety  is  assured, the  Prime  Minister   personally continues  to  endorse the  relentless claims  of  the  DAE  and  NPCIL that nuclear power technology is 100% safe. On that basis there is little reason for comfort. The enactment of the current civil liability law by the government betrays the PM’s stance on safety claims. The government has gone out of its  way to bow to the pressures and demands  exerted by the US and western MNCs to ensure that the Civil Nuclear Liability Law shields reactor suppliers from accident liability in excess of the ridiculously low cap of Rs. 1500 crores (equivalent to US$ 300 million). Evidently, foreign reactor suppliers themselves are not as confident as the  PM  seems  to  be  of the safety of their own reactors and want the Indian tax payer to bear what could be an astronomical part  of  the  liability  in  case  of  a  nuclear  accident. The latest estimate of the Fukushima liability has touched US$16 billion, compared to the cap of US$300 million imposed by the civil nuclear liability law that the Indian government has enacted. Furthermore, yielding further to MNCs’ pressures, the government has framed the rules under the liability law, exceeding the limits set by the law itself, imposing limitations on the definition of “consequential” costs and the time span within which the Indian operator can prefer accident claims against reactor suppliers. The easy terms that the Indian   government has agreed to in this matter are truly a national betrayal; a constitutional aberration in letter and spirit.

As far as Kudankulam – Units 1 & 2 are  concerned,  the sketchy  EIA report completed  several  years  ago  does not contain a comprehensive risk analysis, estimation  of the probabilities of  core-meltdown  or  major  radioactive  releases , the  factoring  in  of  potential  human  errors, or  a  proper  site  evaluation  from  the  geotechnical  &  oceanography  points  of  view . We  believe  not  even  a  cursory  examination  of  such  issues  was  done  when  the  site  was  finalised,  or  thereafter. Even if NPCIL claims that such an analysis has been carried out, they have not placed it in the public domain. When DAE & NPCIL choose to function in a shroud of secrecy with the implicit approval of the Prime Minister, it hardly seems fair or prudent on the part of the   government to demand that the people who are going to be directly affected should refrain from raising their concerns. Why should this be? If the government has decided to investigate NGOs who have allegedly received foreign funding, it is appropriate and even more necessary to investigate thoroughly, the circumstances under which unusual accommodation with western MNCs has been made by the same government.

• Contracts, procedural flaws: We have reason to believe that established procedures for awarding contracts to MNCs for the supply of reactors and fuel to Jaitapur, Kovvada and other “nuclear parks” are being   flouted under a cloak of secrecy. We understand that the AERB, which is subordinate ultimately  to  the  PMO, through  the  AEC ,  had no say in these  purchase  decisions  and  they  were  never  asked  to  evaluate  the  safety  of  these  reactors . These are serious matters which require to be scrutinised.

• Sources of power for India and the German example: The German government, heeding the lessons of Fukushima and a citizenry that demanded the required response, has already decided to totally exit nuclear power. With a current share of nuclear energy of 26%, Germany will move to a nuclear share of zero in ten years, substituting instead renewables like wind, PV and solar thermal. India’s share of nuclear by contrast is currently 2.5%, and may rise   to a maximum of around 7% or 64,000 MW by 2032. The contrast with Germany between our nature-endowed potential for renewables excluding big hydro, and of course nuclear, is even greater. A further insight into the energy equation demonstrates that we are one of the least efficient producers and users of electricity. On one dimension alone ie T&D losses, if we move to limit these to 10% in the next ten years (which is still higher than South Korea and the developed countries , where  it  is  about   5 % ), we will save over 150,000 MW of power, completely dwarfing the meagre 64,000 MW that nuclear will produce in aggregate. The key question is why has our government not produced a comprehensive White Paper on India’s Energy Policy, including Nuclear Power? The  blame  for  this  rests  entirely  at  the  Prime  Minister’s  doorstep , because  he  is  not  only  the  PM , but  also  the  responsible  Cabinet  Minister  for  Atomic  Energy. But , with  the  serious  collusions  taking  place  in  this  sector  between  the  government, foreign & Indian  corporate  entities, a  handful  of  bought-out  senior  nuclear scientists  &  bureaucrats, and  others,  the  Prime  Minister  finds  it  convenient  NOT  to  have  a  nuclear  power  policy  on  paper , but  run  this  sector  to  suit  everyone’s  whims  and  fancies. By acceding to importing reactors and fuel on such a large scale from France and other countries, has the government not jeopardised India’s national, and  especially  energy, security? Which  NGO  will  the  PM  point  a  finger  at  for  this  unpardonable  lapse?  Would  the  Prime  Minister consider  initiating  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  omissions  and  commissions  of  officials  in  the  PMO, the  Chairmen &  Members  of  the  Atomic  Energy  Commissions and  the  corporate  business  federations  in  India  and  their  foreign  collaborators and others, during  the 2005-2011  period  when  feverish in-camera  proceedings  were  taken  up  by  the  UPA  governments  on  the  Indo-US  Nuclear  Deal  and  its  implementation?

Meet David Runyon, an “average-sized” farmer with 900 acres from Indiana, USA. He was in India recently and I had a chance to meet and discuss with him various issues related to American farming.  He seemed nervous in the alien setting when I met him in Bangalore – “I had never traveled this far away from home, you know?”, he said.

Why do Indian farmers need to know about stories like that of David Runyon’s? Because it would give us a good glimpse of what lies in store for our farmers here in India, given the way things are being shaped in Indian agriculture at present, and the way Monsanto has already begun monopolizing the markets here, insidiously but very rapidly.

He is an American farmer who had only had a brief encounter with Monsanto while others have been sued and jailed by this corporation[1]!

David Runyon’s brush with Monsanto

In July 2004, two investigators came knocking on Runyon’s doors. They did not reveal that they were affiliated with Monsanto in any way. They wanted to know what Runyon used as seeds, herbicides, who he had his food grain contracts with etc. David Runyon did not give the information they were seeking.

Four months later, he received a letter from Monsanto’s attorney in St. Louis (“they send these kinds of communication by FedEx, you see – you can’t say you didn’t receive it”) asking him to turn over all his business records in a week’s time.

What are these business records, I wanted to know, since one comes across so many Indian farmers who do not keep any records of what they are spending or getting. “Oh, in our country all farmers are supposed to maintain full details of their operations, what you purchased, what you sold etc., for paying income taxes”, David explained.

The week’s time that was given by Monsanto’s attorney covered some holidays too – there are no local farm organizations to help out farmers in such cases, David explained. He contacted Centre for Food Safety and was advised to get an attorney for himself. He put together all the records, including photographs of the extra containers of herbicides he had with him, since he was trying to save money by purchasing bigger containers. He added his seed and herbicide receipts and sent all of the material requested. Note that David Runyon was not planting Monsanto’s seed as all of this was unfolding!

However, the story did not end there. There was one more letter from Monsanto in February 2005. They wanted to inspect his farm. And the letter claimed that this was as per the Agreement between Indiana Department of Agriculture and Monsanto. However, Monsanto’s resorting to deceit is apparent from the fact that there was no Department of Agriculture that existed in Indiana at that point of time!! With the help of his attorney, David wrote back, requesting for a copy of the said Agreement. Predictably, there was no response after that. While that is the brief brush that David Runyon had with this corporation, today he says that he has been ‘blacklisted’, sort of. Getting inputs for his farming is not very easy for him.

“You know, there is much mistrust in the countryside today. You never know who might report on you. It is a sad state of affairs in that part of the world”, he said, bemoaning the fact that farmers don’t trust each other anymore. “You could actually willfully leave or plant unauthorized seed in somebody’s land if you want to destroy them. There is much fear and distrust”, he said again.

WHAT ARE THESE TECHNOLOGY USE AGREEMENTS LIKE?

While David Runyon had not signed onto the Technology Use Agreements that Monsanto puts its farmer-buyers through, a glimpse of Monsanto’s Technology Stewardship Agreement should present a better picture to our farmers here.

For one thing, the liability is not on the seed seller but the grower, with clauses like “In no event shall Monsanto or any seller be liable for any incidental, consequential, special or punitive damages”.  It is also noticed that the grower may terminate the contract but ‘grower’s responsibilities and the other terms herein shall survive’! (www.gentechvrijvoedsel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/WurgContract.pdf retrieved on February 13, 2012 is a 2009 agreement template. Anyone interested in looking at a 2012 contract may visit www.indiagminfo.org)

The Agreement also has the Grower accepting and continuing the obligations under a given Agreement for any new land purchased or sold. It says, “Grower agrees to accept and continue the obligations of this Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement on any new land purchased or leased by grower that has seed planted on it by a previous owner or possessor of land and to notify in writing purchasers or lessees of land owned by the grower that has seed planted on it that the Monsanto Technology is subject to this Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement and they must have or obtain their own Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement’.

These Agreements sometimes come with clauses that say the grower agrees ‘to cooperate fully with any inspections’ and to provide invoices requested in case of reasonable belief by Monsanto (of the grower having planted non-licensed seed) etc.

If the Grower violates the terms, s/he, amongst other things, forfeits the right to obtain a ‘license’ in the future.

The Agreement also says that any law suit is to be filed in St. Louis, for all claims and disputes arising out of the Agreement (except for cotton-related claims). One can imagine what this means in a large country, with the cultivator far away from this location.

AND HERE IN INDIA…..

While the growers in other countries sign on agreements like the above-described ones for being “licensed” to use Monsanto’s technology/products for a given growing season, the various rights of farmers in India are being curtailed in Agreements being signed by state governments and Monsanto under Public Private Partnerships or PPPs (we already have a situation where agri-input retailers on their receipts, in small font, absolve themselves of any responsibility related to the product being sold).

In the PPP agreements, it is found that Monsanto is being made liable only for replacing seed with seed (in the case of Odisha). In the MoU with Rajasthan government, it is stated that Monsanto’s liability “with respect to quality of seeds supplied will be limited to germination and physical & genetic purity standards as outlined above (Germination: Minimum 90% and Physical and Genetic Purity: Minimum of 98% and 95%).

The PPP in Odisha had the following clauses: “In case of failure of germination of seeds, a District Level Monitoring Committee (including a representative of the company) shall verify such cases and take a final decision. If it is established that the failure to germinate is due to poor quality of seeds, Monsanto will replace the seed to the extent decided by the DLMC”; “if samples of the seed lots do not meet the germination standards, Monsanto India will replace the entire lot of sub-standard seed”; “All the parties understand and explicitly agree that the legal course of action will not be adopted or resorted to for settlement of any disputes arising out of this MoU”.

These clauses obviously reduce the liability of the corporation involved to levels lower than what is prescribed in already-weak seed-related regulatory statutes in India! These are not in the interests of farmers but only in the interest of Monsanto.

Let us also remember that there is tremendous lobbying and influencing happening in India, to “harmonise” our agricultural regulation to that of countries like the USA and to take our IPRs regime also into a rigid system that curtails or excludes farmers’ rights.

Let us not forget that in India, Monsanto is a corporation that is supposed to be under investigation by the National Biodiversity Authority for bio-piracy and is reported to have violated many rules and biosafety norms with impunity when it comes to GM crops and so on. When it came to a Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission inquiry into unjustifiable royalty rates charged on its Bollgard technology (related to GM cotton), it slithered away from the case by arguing that it is another associated-entity that is involved and not Monsanto per se.

Monsanto’s associates and industry association bodies in which it is a key member, have challenged even state governments in India in the past, even on issues like compensation being paid up to farmers for losses that they have incurred. Please recall that this is a company that chased its royalties till the ports of import, when farmers defied laws and re-used/exchanged seed elsewhere! For protecting markets and profits, it appears that anything is acceptable, including paying bribes to officials for regulatory clearances.

It is time that the Indian farmers woke up to the danger looming large with predatory corporations like Monsanto and collectively work towards seed self-reliance that takes care of productivity as well as diversity.

- Written by Kavitha Kuruganti (kavitha.kuruganti@gmail.com), February 2012

To:

Shri M F Farooqui,

Chairperson,

Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee,

Ministry of Environment & Forests,

Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi 3.

Dear Shri Farooqui,

Sub: Field Trials of GM Crops in Gujarat violative of EPA 1989 rules

It has come to light through responses to RTI queries that the GM crop field trials that are taking place in the state of Gujarat are violative of the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act , Rules (1989 ). As you are aware, as per the 1989 Rules the State Biotechnology Coordination Committee (SBCC) is supposed to be the state-level implementation arm of the GEAC .

However, when asked about the SBCC in an RTI application, the Forests and Environment Department responded by saying that the Agriculture and Cooperation department is the nodal department in the case of Gujarat vide notification no. EPN-1099-GOI-64-P (Part-II) dated 4^th February 2004, while the Agriculture Department responded first by saying that it pertains to the Forest & Environment Department, and later amended that the work of SBCC meeting is not being done by this (Agriculture & Cooperation) department.

This clearly violates the provisions of the 1989 Rules and thereby the GM crop field trials taking place in Gujarat are illegal. This is dangerous and particularly so in a situation where violations by companies during GM crop field trials have become rampant in different states. In the recent past two instances of violations were notified to GEAC. Field trials taking place without adequate biosafety oversight is a serious threat to biodiversity and could lead to contamination and other problems. The possibility of contamination has been most recently experienced in India,  with the ICAR/UAS Bt cotton Bikaneri Narma incident, where this Bt cotton was found to be contaminated by a Monsanto Bt gene.

Violation during field trials is not the only problem, particularly with respect to Gujarat. The state has the unfortunate distinction of being the origin of illegal GM cotton planting incidents. Both times, with Bt cotton and recently with BT/HT cotton, illegal plantings have been reported to have originated from Gujarat. In this context it is doubly unsafe to allow GM crop field trials in the state without proper oversight as envisaged in the EPA 1989 rules.

In view of this we seek that all GM crop field trials in Gujarat be stopped with immediate effect.

Expecting your response and necessary action

Thanking You

Yours truly,

Sridhar Radhakrishnan

Convener, Coalition for a GM-Free India,

H-3, Jawahar Nagar, Kawdiar,

Trivandrum-695003, Kerala.

CC : Smt.Jayanthi Natarajan, Minister for Environment & Forests

Attachment: RTI responses from Gujarat. ( http://indiagminfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Guj-GM-field-trials-RTI-info-illegal.pdf )

It reeks of an inherent disrespect for  science and democracy

27^th February 2012: The Coalition for a GM-Free India is outraged by the statement made by the Prime Minister Sri.Manmohan Singh on foreign-funded NGOs as being the reason for the moratorium decision on Bt Brinjal.  It is a clear attempt to undermine and disrespect the  exercise of democratic rights by the citizens of this country regarding critical issues that concern one and all. His specifically pointing to the ongoing democratic struggle in Kudankulam and the Bt brinjal decision process two years back are unacceptable as both these are not just instances of public struggles to assert their wishes, but consequences of global experiences, scientific studies and a need to protect public and environmental health and justice.

Clearly the issue is not of NGOs or foreign funding; that is merely a ruse or excuse that the PM has seized to cover his and his government’s unwillingness to listen to the people of the nation. The more troubling aspect of his statement is that he seems to have made up his mind on pushing agricultural biotechnology, ignoring the genuine scientific concerns, with or without the consent of the people of the nation. In the recent past the same approach has been apparent in the issue of Bt brinjal, the Jaitapur & Kudankulam nuclear plants and FDI in retail. It is to be noted that in all these cases transnational corporations, with enormous clout, stand to make tremendous profits by pushing these projects/policies through. In the case of Bt brinjal, the biotechnology industry’s lobby group ABLE immediately came out lauding the PM’s statement, while in the case of Kudankulam  the Russian envoy , whose country is building the power plant, supported his stand.

The opposition to the government policies which threaten the food sovereignty, public health and farmers’ rights has come from all segments of society ranging from politicians to farmers to scientists to civil society. It has taken many forms, all of them legitimate. The decision for a moratorium for Bt brinjal similarly was a result of opposition from the states, disagreement within the scientific community, objections raised by many segments of society and public concern which saw over 8000 people participate in the process of public consultation. The Bt brinjal moratorium decision was taken by then Minister for Environment & Forests, who clearly detailed the rationale for his decision to the nation – which the Prime Minister would be well-advised to read thoroughly. He is now in the unenviable and unpalatable situation of having to defend his own integrity. Is the PM suggesting that his own Minister was compromised?

It is a deep irony that Dr Manmohan Singh is resurrecting the “foreign hand” ruse from the 1970’s and Emergency era – while being at the forefront of inviting foreign investment and control of various parts of Indian economy and allowing the US government and MNCs to push policy changes. It would be instructive to remind ourselves of a few illustrative instances from the recent past:

(1)  In 2006, the Prime Minister, on his U.S. visit, personally signed the US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture whose express purpose is to reorient agricultural research and redesign the agricultural policies of the country. Three US-based corporations were placed on the Board of the K.I.A. – Monsanto, Archers-Daniel Midland and Walmart. Are these the entities that the P.M. believes are “fully appreciative of the development challenges of the country” and can help make the best decisions in the interests of the country?

(2)  In 2008, as part of the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Program funded by US-AID, the testing protocols for GM crops in India were further weakened to make it easier to approve GM crops like Bt Brinjal. Does the PM believe that the appropriate standards for approval of GM crops in India should be decided by US-AID, but not influenced by inputs from transparent public hearings across the country organized by his own government’s Ministry of Environment?

(3)  In the past few years, there were many instances of conflict of interest and malpractice in the government institutions and regulatory bodies regarding GM crops. Monsanto, the biggest corporation pushing GM crops in the world and in India, has been caught red-handed and penalized for using corrupt means to influence GM legislation in some countries, and has been credibly accused of doing the same in India. The seed industry has spawned multiple lobbying agencies which are well-funded from MNCs and have been hyper-active in pushing for weakening regulations and pushing GM crops. While the P.M. is apparently not worried by any of these undemocratic means of influencing the government policies on GM crops and agri-business, he is attacking farmers, scientists, NGOs and people’s organizations for using the democratic means of participating in public hearings, engaging with government officials, and producing scientific reports on the risks of GM crops.

With regard to Bt brinjal, it is not biotechnology and its wizardry sold by multinational corporations that should sway us. It should be an unbiased and independent assessment of what would benefit the poorest and the most marginal farmer, what is safe and sustainable in the long term, what will safeguard the food and seed sovereignty of the nation and what food would be acceptable to the mother to safely feed her child? Preventing the commercialization of Bt brinjal is a right decision on all counts!

We, the Coalition for a GM-Free India seek that the Prime Minister stop using his respectable and high office to divert and sabotage the important debate on safe food and farming  that has been brought out by GM crops debate.  We also seek that the PM respect democratic dissent in the country and remember that the foundational principle of a democracy is ‘by the people, for the people and of the people’, nothing  supercedes that!

For more information:

Sridhar Radhakrishnan (Convener) : 09995358205

website : www.indiagminfo.org