09 Feb 2010
Protests against Bt brinjal have been reported from all over IndiaWhile the world awaits India's crucial decision on Bt brinjal, farmers, activists, and researchers exhort the government to use the historical opportunity to chart out a sustainable path in Indian food & farming systems.
As India awaits the decision of the Minister of State for Environment & Forests on the issue of Bt brinjal, farmers' initiative Kheti Virasat Mission (KVM) has urged him to seize the opportunity to tackle the problem of unsustainable and hazardous agri-technologies head-on and chart out a sustainable development path in Indian food and farming systems by rejecting Bt brinjal's entry into India.
Appreciating the efforts of the concerned minister Jairam Ramesh to consult the stakeholders before taking any decision on Bt brinjal, KVM thanked Mr Ramesh for adopting a democratic process on this crucial matter. "For the first time, a platform was provided for experts and others in the country to come out into the open to share their analyses and views on the subject", KVM Director Umendra Dutt said.
"Though there were some shortcomings in the consultations process adopted, it is indeed a unique initiative of the Minister to listen personally to various views from all quarters. The process allowed many people outside the formal consultations process to engage with the issue in productive ways. We hope these kinds of consultations will be streamlined better in future and made into a systemic process in regulation as required under the Cartagena Protocol", added Kavitha Kuruganti of KVM.
"The Minister is well in his rights and authority to invoke the precautionary principle as required under the Cartagena Protocol and the process of consultations has shown that never before was this approach more relevant than in the case of Bt brinjal, where the scientific community was severely divided on the matter with a majority of scientists who participated in the consultations cautioning the Minister against Bt brinjal", Ms Kuruganti said.
KVM reminded the Environment Minister of the cornerstones set down by the Task Force on Agri-Biotechnology in 2004 as "the safety of the environment, the well-being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external trade and the bio-security of India".
"It was heartening to hear from Mr Ramesh that the Bt brinjal issue was not just a technical matter but had socio-political implications. This was critical because the regulators (GEAC) failed to ensure independent, scientific, transparent and rigorous bio-safety evaluation of Bt brinjal before allowing its commercial cultivation", said KVM leaders.
In the consultations held in seven prominent centres of India, numerous farmers and scientists claimed that Bt brinjal was not needed in India since there were other ecological, safer and affordable ways of pest management. Some FSB (Fruit & Shoot Borer) resistant cultivars who participated in various consultations shared their pest management techniques and challenged the GM crop developers to come and see the effectiveness in the crop-yields. Farm activists also pointed out that the data being shown to rationalize the entry of Bt brinjal in relation to crop damage and pesticide usage was exaggerated and scientifically incorrect. Farmers also highlighted the brinjal glut in the market and the resultant low prices as the main problem repeatedly faced by brinjal growers.
Umendra Dutt said that several farmers want to move towards pesticide free farming and KVM would like the government to move in that direction without introducing more harmful technologies. He said it was high time the government took the problem of chemical pesticides in our farming head-on and ensured that sustainable and successful eco-practices for pest management reach the last farmer without turning to more hazardous and unpredictable technologies like Genetic Engineering. He appealed to Mr Ramesh to use this opportunity to acknowledge the problem of pesticides and to join hands with the Agriculture Ministry to tackle this issue squarely.
Raising the issue of regulatory process, Kavitha Kuruganti said that the issues around lack of credibility in the regulators' intentions and capabilities for objective, scientific and transparent evaluation were brought up time and again in the public consultations and there was an urgent need for a complete recasting of the regulatory system. "The interference of American agencies in Indian regulation should also be addressed squarely", she emphasized.
Mr Dutt said that scientists and others in these consultations repeatedly highlighted the insufficiency of data to back safety claims about Bt brinjal. He alleged that there were problems with the safety tests undertaken so far and the many gaps in evaluation and decision-making were also brought up.
He said KVM wanted the die-hard proponents of GM crops including some media houses to realize that the innumerable concerns on Bt brinjal and its safety assessment were being voiced by scores of scientists across the country and it was unfair to brand Bt brinjal opponents as "anti-science" and "anti-technology". "Several State governments and universities have come out against Bt brinjal's introduction in the past couple of months", he added.
"Farmers and researchers from Bt Cotton cultivation areas raised issues like animal health impacts, soil impacts, erratic crop performance, seed pricing and unviable economics, pest and disease changes in cotton, human health impacts, increased burden on organic farming etc during the consultation process", claimed Ms Kuruganti.
She added that in addition to farmers and scientists, people representing Indian Systems of Medicine also dreaded the potential impacts of Bt brinjal on their treatment systems and medicines.
Similarly, activists mentioned about lack of liability regime and how the entry of GM seeds like Bt brinjal would increase seed monopolies in favour of large corporations like Monsanto", said KVM leader.
It has been reported that several representatives of consumers expressed concerns that their right to eat safe food and to know what they are eating would be violated by introduction of GM food crops. "Since labelling on vegetables is impossible in a vast and poor country like India, giving choices to consumers would not be practically feasible", said Mr Dutt.
Umendra Dutt urged the Environment Minister to invoke the precautionary principle, a legally valid approach and reject Bt brinjal's entry into India on the simple ground that this controversial technology with its inconclusive proof of safety was not needed for pest management given the various alternatives available with the agriculture research establishment and practicing farmers all over the country.
Summary of public consultations held on the issue of Bt brinjal
Details of discussions
Kolkata (West Bengal is the largest producer of brinjal in India and also has the largest diversity.)
13 Jan 2010
Out of 56 people who spoke, 41 were against Bt brinjal, including senior scientists, brinjal farmers and others. The State Agricultural Technologists Service Association consisting of hundreds of agriculture officials declared their opposition to Bt brinjal. Members of the state agriculture commission also recommended a ban on GM seeds.
Bhubaneswar (Orissa is the second largest brinjal producer in the country)
16 Jan 2010
Total 65 persons got opportunity to speak, but only 5 of them spoke in favour of allowing Bt brinjal cultivation. Scientists from the State agriculture university, Orissa University of Agriculture Technology demanded a cautious approach on Bt brinjal.
Ahmedabad (Gujarat has maximum cultivation of Bt Cotton in India)
19 Jan 2010
Out of 28 farmers who spoke, 18 opposed Bt brinjal; 10 out of 15 scientists present argued against and 3 had balanced views on Bt brinjal. All speakers from civil society said No to Bt brinjal.
Nagpur (Vidarbha region of Maharashtra has seen crisis in cotton cultivation)
27 Jan 2010
Here, out of 21 farmers who spoke, 7 seven were in favour of Bt brinjal anticipating higher yields; out of 19 scientists who spoke, 10 were against and 9 in favour of Bt brinjal. Out of 18 others, only 2 favoured Bt brinjal.
Chandigarh (Punjab and Haryana are heartland of intensive agriculture)
29 Jan 2010
Out of 20 farmers, 12 spoke against Bt brinjal’s introduction. Many said how pesticides were also marketed as ‘safe’ and highlighted the present environmental health crisis unfolding in Punjab and the terrible cost being paid by farming families. Out of 10 scientists who spoke, 6 were against Bt brinjal. Few civil society members who got the chance to speak opposed the entry of Bt brinjal.
Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh has seen many successful sustainable farming initiatives)
31 Jan 2010
12 farmers spoke in favour of Bt brinjal and 12 against. Amongst the scientists, 13 spoke against and 5 in support of Bt brinjal. 5 civil society groups present said No to Bt brinjal. The emphasis here was on large scale ecological alternatives being available for pest management in various crops.
Bangalore (Hub of biotech companies)
6 Feb 2010
14 farmers spoke against Bt brinjal, while 16 in its favour. 21 out of the 30 experts (scientists, doctors etc.) spoke against Bt brinjal’s permission and called for conclusive, long term and independent tests to prove its safety. 5 civil society representatives who got a chance to speak were against Bt brinjal’s approval in India. Former PM Deve Gowda also expressed his concerns against Bt brinjal while the Organic Farming Mission Chair pointed out to the recent de-notification of Brinjal from the Biological Diversity Act’s purview in the name of “traded commodity” which is highly questionable. A former Managing Director of Monsanto India spoke against Bt brinjal and advised the Minister not to approve it.
Meanwhile, few selected scientists approached by the Minister are reported to be in favour of conditional release of Bt brinjal in India. However, Dr P M Bhargava and Dr M S Swaminathan, the two Supreme Court observers in the apex regulatory body (GEAC-Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) have opposed the permission to Bt brinjal citing various grounds.
At State level, at least 10 state governments have decided to oppose Bt brinjal's approval - these include Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal, Bihar and Uttarakhand. In addition, some Ministers and officials of Rajasthan, Punjab and Mizoram are also reportedly against Bt brinjal on health and environment concerns.
The three states which grow more than 60% of brinjal in India - West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar - have notably said no to Bt brinjal's approval. Their arguments range from lack of conclusive proof of its safety, to fears of monopolistic control over Indian farming belonging to small and marginal farmers of the country. The public consultations in these majority brinjal producing states reflected this official position of rejection of Bt brinjal.
No comments:
Post a Comment