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

“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

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.

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.

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.

COALITION FOR A GM-FREE INDIA WELCOMES THE PARLIAMENTARY STANDING COMMITTEE’S REPORT ON GM CROPS

Posted on August 9, 2012 by kavitha

ASKS GOVERNMENT TO IMMEDIATELY STOP ALL FIELD TRIALS.

ALSO DEMANDS GOVT THROW OUT THE BRAI BILL AND BRING IN A BIOSAFETY STATUTE,
AND STOP CALLING BT COTTON IN INDIA A SUCCESS

New Delhi, August 9, 2012: Calling the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture’s report on GM crops a historic, comprehensive and well-grounded document, the Coalition for a GM-Free India welcomed the report and hoped that the governments in India, especially the Union Government, would change their perspective on the subject at least now. It is clear that the government’s views are uninformed and biased on the matter, and the blind promotion of the technology is unscientific to say the least, said the Coalition. It is symbolic that the Standing Committee’s report comes out on August 9^th, observed as “Quit India” day in the country – it is time that GM crops are thrown out of our food and farming systems, a Press Release said. The Coalition asked for the immediate implementation of one of the key recommendations of the Committee, which is to stop all field trials of GM crops.

“This report vindicates the concerns and positions taken by many State Governments in India, such as Bihar, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh etc which have disallowed GM crops, including field trials. It also vindicates the larger public demand not to allow GM crops into our food and farming systems” said Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Convener of the Coalition.

It is evident that the Chair and members of the Standing Committee have gone into the finer details of this controversial technology and studied it from all angles, including the socio-economic, so that the interests of the Indian farmer are upheld ultimately. The report looks at regulation and its shortcomings and questions the Ministry of Agriculture on its policy-making related to transgenics in Indian agriculture. The Coalition sincerely hoped that the nation as a whole takes pointers from this analysis and requests law makers and the government to throw out the deeply flawed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill and start at the drawing board afresh, with the correct mandate and therefore, the correct ministries.

“We also agree with the Standing Committee recommendation that the current “collusions of the worst kind” in the regulatory system be probed thoroughly”, added Sridhar Radhakrishnan.

The Agriculture Standing Committee has 31 members and is headed by veteran parliamentarian Basudeb Acharia. Interestingly enough, this report was unanimously adopted by the Committee, cutting across party lines.

Kavitha Kuruganti, Member of the Coalition added that the report comes at the right time, when the biotech industry with its deep pockets is exerting pressure in overt and subtle ways on governments. “Ignoring the ground reality of the plight of rainfed smallholder farmers in the country, the biotech industry is busy profiteering at their expense. The analysis of the Standing Committee when it comes to Bt cotton performance in the country, backed up by field visits by committee members, is that it has aggravated agrarian distress rather than helped farmers. We demand that liability for this be fixed on promoters and regulators. The irresponsible hype and promotion of this technology has cost many farmers their lives and this cannot continue”, she said.

The Coalition noted that it is only a public debate facilitated by the then Union Minister for Environment & Forests, Jairam Ramesh, that stopped another disaster in the form of Bt brinjal descending upon our farmers and citizens who would have been forced to consume it. The Standing Committee report takes cognizance of this too. Keeping in view the risks involved in open-air field trials of GMOs the committee has recommended that all field trials be stopped immediately; we wholeheartedly welcome the recommendation of the Committee. It is time that Punjab, Haryana, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, which have given permissions for such trials stop the open air release of GMOs in their states”, the Coalition stated.

The Coalition hopes that the report will form the basis for a deep and widespread debate on the subject of GMOs in our food and farming in the country and said that India should be proud of this historic, well-analysed report coming out in the year that the country is hosting the Convention on Biological Diversity’s COP-MOP in Hyderabad later this year. “We hope that this report will guide the thinking in other countries as well, including our neighbouring countries with similar socio-economic conditions for their farming communities”, said the Coalition.

For more information, contact:

Sridhar Radhakrishnan at 09995358205

Kavitha Kuruganti at 09393001550

YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE PRESS RELEASE PUT OUT BY THE STANDING COMMITTEE HERE.

SOME OF THE IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PART OF THE SCANNED DOCUMENT PRESENT HERE.

(Rajasthan) Government bans GM trials, to burn standing crop

Posted on March 20, 2012 by kavitha

The Rajasthan government has put on hold all trials of genetically modified (GM) crops in the state.

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

Mr Prime Minister, Your comments on the opposition to GM crops & Nuclear power plants

Posted on March 6, 2012 by kavitha

Dr Manmohan Singh,
Hon’ble Prime Minister of India,
# 7, Race Course Road,

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,

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.

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?

PM’s statement a purposive attempt to prevent a healthy debate on GM crops in India

Posted on February 29, 2012 by kavitha

Prime Ministers Statement – Is a purposive attempt to prevent a healthy debate on GM crops in India

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

Kerala Govt reiterates its stand against GM crops

Posted on January 6, 2012 by kavitha

In a letter to activists, the Kerala Government’s Secretary, Agriculture, reiterates the government’s stand against GM crops and informs that the state government has already conveyed its stand of not permitting any GM research or even trial, within the boundaries of Kerala to Government of India.

Letter of Secretary-Agriculture-kerala can be downloaded here.

Chattisgarh will not allow GM crops

Posted on October 21, 2011 by kavitha

Chhattisgarh will not allow GM crops
Author(s): Jyotika Sood
Issue: Oct 31, 2011

Chandrasekhar Sahu, agriculture minister of Chhattisgarh, is passionate about making farming a viable proposition for farmers. He has written several books on the subject and is a frequent contributor to environmental journals. Talking to Jyotika Sood, he says the challenges in a state where 80 per cent of the population depends on agriculture are tremendous. He plans a separate agriculture budget and wants organic farming to be a cornerstone of the policy he is formulating.

There is a demand to shift agriculture from the State List to the Concurrent List. Is this a good move?

There is no harm in including agriculture in the Concurrent List. By doing so, it becomes the joint responsibility of the Centre and states to help farmers and save farming. Agriculture is the foundation of India’s economy and it is necessary that while formulating policies Centre and states should be involved.

You said Chhattisgarh is not looking for need-based, but production-based technology. Please explain.

Today research and development are mainly with industry. Be it seed or chemicals, private companies have the technology and they are deciding what farmers should use; they spread it indiscriminately across the country. This approach has to change. For example, hybrid seeds are not applicable and successful everywhere but farmers are falling prey to it. The need of the hour is different approach for sustainable agriculture in different regions. One solution is not applicable all over India.

What is your view on GM crops?

Chhattisgarh has said no to GM (genetically modified) crops. A lot of research is still required on its safety and we oppose the way GM crops are being rushed through. In August we wrote to the environment ministry rejecting GM crops trials and clearing our stand. Such trials will not be accepted by farmers because of adverse effects on ecology and human health. It also raises issues of seed monopolies and trade security. We are formulating an organic policy, so it will not allow such trials in the state.

Why do you oppose this technology? Farmers are happily growing Bt cotton.

Economics is a big issue. Take the example of brinjal. There is no shortage of it. Then what is the need for a new technology? It comes at a price and the farmer is already reeling under debt. Today farmers are not getting adequate prices for their produce. They even have to fight for minimum support price. At the time when agriculture is becoming unviable, instead of decreasing input costs, we are increasing it by bringing in GM technology. We are having bumper crops and our cereals are rotting. At such a time focus should not be on GM crops, but on economically viable inputs.

What are the challenges for agriculture in Chhattisgarh?

We have a lot of surface water but are unable to use it for irrigation. We can exploit around 45 per cent of water but it requires planning and funds. In the 12th Five Year Plan, we have asked for Rs 10,000 crore for increasing the irrigated area by 10 per cent. The biggest challenge, however, is the Naxalite movement. That makes it difficult for tribal farmers to continue cultivation.

Tell us about your plans for agriculture development.

From 2012-13, we are going to have a separate agriculture budget as 80 per cent of the population depends on agriculture. We plan to introduce an organic farming policy. We offer a lot of subsidies but farmers fail to get it due to difficult procedures and red tape. We wish to introduce a single-window system so that they can get subsidies directly. Developing market chains and a post-harvest marketing cell are on our agenda.

Several states are promoting maize. Is Chhattisgarh following suit?

Maize production in our state has increased by 66 per cent. But we are not buying seeds from multinational companies. Most seeds being distributed come from the state seed corporation. Maize is replacing uneconomic and non-marketable crops in the uplands.

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/chhattisgarh-will-not-allow-gm-crops

BRAI BILL 2011 A BLATANT ATTEMPT TO BULLDOZE RESISTANCE & CONCERNS

Posted on August 17, 2011 by kavitha

Press Release: COALITION FOR A GM-FREE INDIA

BRAI BILL 2011 IS NO BETTER THAN ANTI-PEOPLE, ANTI-NATURE BRAI 2009: IT IS A BLATANT ATTEMPT TO BULLDOZE STATE GOVTS’ & CITIZENS’ RESISTANCE AGAINST AND CONCERNS ABOUT GM CROPS:

“WRONG BILL BY WRONG PEOPLE FOR WRONG REASONS: ALL PROGRESSIVE PARTIES AND THEIR MPs SHOULD REJECT THE VERY INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL”

New Delhi, August 16th 2011: The BRAI Bill is a blatant attempt to bulldoze through the public resistance and genuine concerns about Genetically Modified crops, and to deny state governments their Constitutional authority over Agriculture and Health, said the Coalition for a GM-Free India in its reaction to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India 2011 Bill to be introduced in the Parliament tomorrow. The Coalition urged Parliamentarians to object to the very introduction of the Bill in the Parliament tomorrow, stating that ‘it is a wrong bill by the wrong people for the wrong reasons’. The scam-ridden UPA government will only take a further beating in the eyes of the public if it tries to introduce and pass this Bill, warned the Coalition.

“This BRAI mechanism makes the regulatory system even weaker than the existing GEAC mechanism. As the nation remembers, the Bt Brinjal public hearings process saw state governments, farmer organizations, scientists, environmentalists, health experts and rest of civil society come out with huge concerns about GM crops, and the Government through its moratorium decision admitted the failure of GEAC regulatory mechanism and promised to strengthen the regulatory system. How can the same Government bring in a regulatory mechanism which is actually much weaker than GEAC and which overrides the state governments, local governments and public inputs?” demanded the Coalition.

“As we have said all along, regulation of modern biotechnology is not like regulation as in other sectors like telecom, where corrupt politicians and bureaucrats can hope to make money. The fundamental basis of regulation lies in the risks associated with modern biotechnology, and the requirement is for a prudent and responsible regulation based on precautionary principles. Therefore, there should only be one primary mandate or objective to this statute: to prevent risks to the health and safety of people of India, its environment and its biological diversity in particular, from the development, handling, transport, use, transfer and release of any living modified organisms. Given such a mandate, this Bill should be introduced not by the Ministry of Science and Technology whose very mandate is to advance biotechnology, but by the Ministry of Health or Ministry of Environment & Forests. The current Bill is objectionable on such fundamental grounds apart from its other failings,” said the Coalition in a press release.

The following are the main objections listed out by the Coalition in response to this Bill: (available at http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Biotech/Biotech%20Regulatory%20Auhority%20Bill,%202011.pdf )

1. Wrong Ministry introducing it with wrong objectives: As mentioned above, there should be only one reason why this Bill should be enacted and that should be to uphold the biosafety of the people of India and its environment from the risks of modern biotechnology. If a technology is inherently unsafe, no amount of regulation can make it safer as is the case with the use of Genetic Engineering in our food and farming systems. Given that this statute is trying to replace the current regulatory regime as governed by the EPA’s 1989 Rules which have been expressly formulated to protect health, Nature and environment from the risks of modern biotechnology, there should be a strong, rational reason why the same will not be the objective for BRAI. What new scientific evidence or other evidence has emerged since then that this objective is being changed to also introduce fast-track clearance systems in the name of ‘effective and efficient’ regulatory procedures?

2. Over-riding state governments’ authority over their agriculture and health: This Bill has a clause in the very first chapter (Section (2)) which seeks to keep the regulatory control in the hands of Union Government, in the name of “public interest”. This is unconstitutional and retrogressive, especially given the recent change in regulatory norms in India, rightfully so for the first time, allowing state governments to have a greater say in the deployment of modern biotechnology especially in the context of field trials/environmental release of GMOs.

3. Bypassing the citizens’ Right to Information: This Bill, through Section 28, expressly seeks to classify some information as Confidential Commercial Information and leaves it to the discretion of officials of the Authority to share or not share this information. This once again is regressive, given that the Bt brinjal controversy saw express Supreme Court orders to the regulators asking them to put out all the biosafety data in the public domain. What is the point in incorporating a component of obtaining public feedback through Section 27 (5) if the biosafety data is not put out in the public domain? This is completely objectionable and no political party should support clauses like this.

The same is true to the Oath of Secrecy that the Authority Chair and Members are expected to take in addition to other officials. Why is modern biotechnology and its deployment a secret affair, unless there is something to hide from the public? How can this Authority be trusted to act in the best interest of Indians with such clauses built in?

4. 3-member Authority to decide for all of us?: The Bill essentially proposes that a 3-member Authority, with support from 2 other part-time members will take decisions, even though certain new mechanisms like the Environment Appraisal Panel have been introduced, compared to the last version of the Bill seen in 2010. However, this Authority has been vested with all powers to decide and while it appears that the authority will take recommendations of Risk Assessment Unit and Products Ruling Committee, the entire authority of decision-making rests with this small group of scientists! There are even clauses which prevent invalidation of the proceedings of the Authority by mere vacancies (sic) etc., in this Bill. When an inter-ministerial body 30-member body like the GEAC, which was also taking biosafety recommendations from a group of scientists called the RCGM and acting accordingly, could be found lacking rigour or independence so often in the past, how can this Biotech Regulatory Authority with its 3 full-time and 2 part-time members be trusted and how can Indians place their faith on them? Further, biotech regulation is not just about biosafety for decisions to be taken based on someone declaring something to be ‘safe’. There are issues related to farmers’ rights, consumers’ rights, trade security, sustainable development etc., all linked to modern biotechnology and its applications.

5. Conflict of Interest issues: The clauses meant to prevent conflict of interest are quite weak and only involve restrictions on future employment for one year after cessation of office. Therefore nothing prevents some appointee getting a hefty sum before joining the authority and then clearing applications in the corruption-laden systems all around us. There are not even such restrictions for the officials in the Biosafety Assessment Units or Product Rulings Committee etc., even though they would be doing the recommendations that would form the basis of decision-making later on! As we know, conflict of interest has emerged as a major concern in the current regulatory system.

6. No Needs Evaluation: One of the fundamental recommendations of the Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology led by Dr.Swaminathan was that “transgenics should be resorted to when other options to achieve the desired objectives are either not available or not feasible.” The BRAI doesn’t talk about any needs evaluation and assessment of alternatives, which was also stressed by the Government in its Bt brinjal moratorium decision – and assumes that all biotechnology and GM crops are a fait accompli.

7. There are no proposals at all for independent testing which is a great problem witnessed time and again in the current regulatory regime too. Worse, there are proposals of notifying labs under this Act that have not even been accredited!

8. There are no improvements being made in terms of open air trials not happening before biosafety is thoroughly, independently and democratically assessed. Using quaint terms like ‘environmental release’ for actual commercial cultivation and using other terms like field trials for open air releases even though they are environmental releases too, the proposed Bill has no improvements to suggest to address the serious lacunae with field trials which are making state government after state government reject the possibility of any open air trials taking place in their state.

9. The Bill has very weak penal clauses (Chapter XII on Offences and Penalties) and in fact does not address liability issues at all: without a liability regime in place, no regulatory regime is complete on this issue. Liability should put the onus of violations on the crop developer primarily and not the users. Further, liability should cover criminal and civil liability as well as redressal/compensation to affected parties like farmers in addition to remediation for damage caused.

10. It is unacceptable that the Bill has a clause (70) which says that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act save on a complaint made by the Authority or any officer or person authorized by it! What is the rationale for this other than to protect offenders? Equally objectionable is Section 77 which prevents civil courts to have jurisdiction on any matter which the Appellate Tribunal under the Act is empowered to determine, wherein there is a bar on any injunction to be granted by any court in respect of any action taken by the Authority.

11. It is also objectionable that this Act will have an over-riding effect over other laws in force since this Bill is indeed inconsistent with legislations like the Biological Diversity Act.

The above few points are only some of the main objections. There are several other problems with the Bill in terms of the Appellate Authority proposed, in its Inter-Ministerial Governing Board and its role and constitution etc. etc.

IndiaGMInfo

Get acquainted with GM crops in India

Tag Archives: GM crops