Five FAQs On The MPs’ Report On GM Foods
Pressure tactics, protests, phone calls from powerful politicos, the ‘foreign hand’—it’s been a bruising battle to decide whether GM foods can be served at dining tables in India. But now, two years after a moratorium was imposed by then environment minister Jairam Ramesh on the commercial release of Bt brinjal seeds, a parliamentary committee has upped the ante further, questioning the suitability of GM technology for India. The fact that this comes a good 10 years after India allowed genetically modified cotton varieties for cultivation now looks like the square peg in the whole issue.
The 492-page report submitted earlier this month is no hurried job. The 31-member parliamentary committee headed by Basudeb Acharia has spent two years on the task, with depositions by 50 scientific institutions, academicians, activists and agriculture writers. It recommends stopping field trials of all GM crops at a time when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been hinting at a “foreign hand” behind the widespread protests.
Of course, the report also puts on record that the GEAC has been at the receiving end of pressure tactics—not just from corporates, but also from vested interests within the scientific community and even political bosses: “The committee has been highly disconcerted to know that Prof Arjula Reddy (GEAC co-chairman) had been under tremendous pressure as he was getting calls from the industry, GEAC and the minister to approve Bt brinjal.”
People in the know claim the minister referred to by Prof Reddy was none other than agriculture minister Sharad Pawar (who did not speak to Outlook despite several attempts), a strong supporter of GM technology. Interestingly, though political parties are divided on the GM issue across states, the report has received unanimous approval from all members representing varied parties—the Congress, Samajwadi Party, BSP, BJP, TMC, Forward Bloc and the DMK.
Questioning the absence of strong processes, the report elucidates how slack monitoring translates into rules being routinely flouted. Which is precisely why Bt cotton was found on farmers’ fields much before formal approvals were granted a decade back. “We have a regulatory body (GEAC), but it faces tremendous conflict of interest,” says Prof P.M. Bhargava, the Supreme Court nominee on GEAC. The report also says that tests asked by Bhargava and the GEAC for assessing Bt brinjal weren’t carried out.
“Our study shows that initially there was some benefit when Bt cotton production started. But soon the costs rose with the appearance of new pests leading to increased use of pesticides,” Acharia says. “What is more disturbing is that a monopolistic situation has been created by the multinational seed companies. Farmers told us they were compelled to buy seeds of particular brands.”
Acharia is hopeful of getting a response from the many concerned ministries in some three months, saying it will lead to a more objective look at the whole issue and a proper regulatory mechanism being put in place. Calling the report a “victory of democracy”, Sridhar Radhakrishnan, convenor for GM Free India, says it has brought to the table literally every little issue related to GM crops. “It is unprecedented that this subject is being raised in Parliament. We expect Parliament to take it up for discussion so that the whole debate on GM matures in India,” says Radhakrishnan.
Obviously, the probe has had an impact. The ministry of consumer affairs, in a gazette notification, has now made labelling mandatory for every package containing GM food from January 1, 2013. Currently, it’s not just GM cottonseed oil that’s made it to our tables, but a whole host of imported products which come without labelling. The debate now boils down to providing that most fundamental of rights: for consumers to have the choice, one way or the other.
The GM crop issue is not new & had by now adequately researched world over including the United States of America. It is now abundantly clear the long term cost to benefit in use of genetically modified seeds is contra-indicative of their use . Except for one or two seeds, attempt to introduce GM seeds world over has not found favor. While seed companies keep coming back with the same wine in new bottles, farmers in advanced agricutures are now well educated & experienced not to go for GM crop.
It is India seed companies are trying to make it big. These attempts are always surreptious & through back door. But farmer'sare also sensible people & instictively resist GM seed. In parts of south Bengal attempts to introduce GM rice did not succeed. Civil society also has displayed tremendous grit in keeping vigil & repeatedly frustrating these attempts.
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT