The Geo-politics of GM Crops

By Ashok B Sharma
04 Mar 2010

For any new technology to be accepted by the public at large, it is important that it generates consumer confidence. Like in the case of information technology which was spectacular and led to what we call IT revolution. However, the transgenic technology in agriculture has not made much headway. There are reasons to believe why it is so.

The acceptance of information technology has been swift and its benefits were perceptible at the grassroots level. The IT Revolution was not motivated by politics, unlike that of food and agriculture where politics has always played a key role.

Food security is critical for nation's sovereignty. A food insecure nation cannot maintain its sovereignty. It has to crawl before the providers of food.

In today's globalised world there is a geo-politics for food. The MNCs are making attempts to control the food chain. Incidentally these corporations are based in industrialized countries where corporate farming and industrialized agriculture are largely prevalent, backed by heavy subsidies.

Agriculture in the industrialized countries cannot exist without subsidies. The subsidy regime and protectionist tariffs in the industrialized countries have rendered farmers in the Third World uncompetitive in the global trade. The negotiations for the Doha Development Round at the WTO could not be concluded due to the rigid attitude of the industrialized countries in refusing to ensure a free and fair trade regime by eliminating their subsidies and protectionist measures.

Similar is the geo-politics for the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops. However, industrialized countries remain divided on the issue of GM crops. Europe is against the forceful introduction of GM crops while the US is aggressively promoting it. Leading developers of GM crops like Monsanto are based in the US. Some European multinationals too are developing GM crops, but their businesses of GM crops are largely outside the continent. Some European countries like Spain, Czech Republic, Portugal, Romania, Poland and Slovakia have introduced GM corn only for feed, but the area under cultivation have decreased since 2009.

One of the reasons behind the European countries' stand on the issue is the strong consumer resistance due to their awareness about the health and environmental hazards of the crop, as shown in various studies. In US, however, the consumer resistance is not strong enough to deal with the politics of GM crops, practiced by the multinational corporations in league with the administration.

GM crops have become a tool for the MNCs in controlling the politics of food and agriculture. GM crops through cross pollination can genetically contaminate non-GM crops. There had been instances in Canada where the non-GM corn fields were genetically contaminated by nearby GM corn fields and Monsanto sued these growers of non-GM corn to pay royalty.

Genetic contamination of crops would ultimately lead to monoculture and a serious loss of natural biodiversity. The danger of genetic contamination is more so if a particular crop which is the centre of origin in a particular place is genetically modified and cultivated there. GM corn cultivation in Mexico has genetically contaminated different indigenous corn varieties of Mexico. India is the centre of origin for brinjal and there is a possibility for such consequences once the Bt brinjal is allowed for cultivation in the country.

A false bogey of food and nutritional security is being raised by the protagonists of GM crops. In fact whatever GM crops are commercialized so far are mostly herbicide resistant and insect resistant. None of these commercialized GM crops are for increasing nutritional security.

Largely the commercialized GM crops like corn and soybean are used for feed and not for food and canola for oil.

Similarly false promises are being made that transgenic technology increases yield. The fact is that so far the transgenic technology has not been effective in increasing the potential yield of crops. The insect-resistant Bt gene are resistant to only one or two insects. In the case of Bt cotton in India, bollworms became resistant to Bt gene and the seed company had to introduce Bt cotton with stacked genes to solve the problem. There were new incidences of yet unknown pests like mealy bug on Bt cotton, which never occurred earlier on cotton crops.

In the US the area under herbicide-tolerant GM crops is increasing as compared to insect-tolerant GM crops. The reason is that herbicide tolerant crops are more suited for industrialized agriculture.

Despite 14 years of commercialization of GM crops, the area under transgenic crops is only 2.7% of the world's cropped area. GM crops are cultivated in only 25 countries Commercialised GM crops are soybean, corn, cotton, squash, papaya, alfalfa, sugar beet, tomato, poplar, sweet pepper, canola.

According to the ISAAA data, area under GM crops increased largely in Brazil and the US in 2009. There has been some increase in area under Bt cotton in India and in areas under GM crops in Canada, Argentina and South Africa. There has been a decrease in area under GM crops in China, Paraguay and in Europe. Germany discontinued GM maize cultivation. Earlier Indonesia had pulled out of the global GM crop map. The area under GM crop in Australia remained static at 0.2 million hectare. Thus the latest figures of area under GM crops have suffered a setback in many countries.

Clearly, public opinion across the world is not in favour of GM crops. As the consumer resistance against GM crops is high in developed countries in Europe and other parts of the world, the GM crop industry is aggressively pushing for market in the developing countries. In other words the developing countries are becoming dustbins for hazardous GM crops.

The ISAAA, which is sponsored by the seed multinationals, in its latest report has documented 17 developing countries growing GM crops. "Growth of biotech (GM) crops has been substantially higher in developing nations - 13% or 7 million hectare in 2009 compared to just 3% or 2 million hectare in industrialized countries. As a result, almost half (46%) of the global hectarage of biotech (GM) crops were planted in developing countries….," the ISAAA report said.

The ISAAA report has taken satisfaction over China issuing biosafety certificates for GM rice and GM phytase corn. But the commercial cultivation of these two GM crops is still a long way off as these crops are yet to undergo some years of mandatory field trials. The area under other approved GM crops in China have already declined.

Earlier it was planned that the ISAAA chairman, Clive James would release its 2009 report in India after India allows commercial cultivation of its first GM food crop Bt brinjal. But the dreams of ISAAA did not work. The release of the report was delayed by over a month, eagerly waiting for the green signal for Bt brinjal. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) had approved Bt brinjal, but the environment and forests minister, Jairam Ramesh withheld its release and preferred to go for public consultations. After a series of public consultations, the minister said NO to Bt Brinjal. The ISAAA's hopes were dashed and it preferred to release its report in Beijing in China, only to take the credit for the issuance of biosafety certificates for GM rice and GM phytase corn in that country.

The politics behind the issuance of biosafety certificates for GM rice and GM phytase corn in China can be easily guessed. It followed after the US President Barack Obama's visit to China.

Another aspect which the ISAAA report takes pride in focusing is Burkina Fasco's GM cotton area soaring from 8,500 hectare to "a substantial" 115,000 hectare or from 2% to 29% of the country's total cotton area - the largest percentage growth on record at 1,350%. It may be recalled that Burkina Faso is one of the four major African countries which is distressed by the US subsidy on cotton. The US by heavily subsidizing cotton has rendered African cotton uncompetitive in the global market. Burkina Faso has been politically pressurised to adopt Bt cotton against which some unilateral concessions has been assured by US.

There is a growing pressure on India to speedily adopt GM crops and a mounting pressure for the release of Bt brinjal. The US seed multinational, Monsanto is lobbying hard for its release. And with the US law stating that the multinational can have funds for educating public and lobbying, developing countries are at the receiving end. Now it is for these nations to either make a healthier, informed decision or bow once again be exploited and used, only with much graver consequences.

Thou shalt not question GM food!

By Devinder Sharma
03 Mar 2010

The proposed National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill threatens the very essence of democratic values and freedom.



If Indian govt has its way, such agitations against GM food will land people in jail
The ghost of Emergency is back. In fact, it is going to be much worse than the Emergency period. During the infamous Emergency era, anyone could be arrested for questioning the powers that be. If the Ministry for Science & Technology has its ways, you can be arrested for simply questioning the safety of your own food, if it is genetically modified.

As massive police action against Maoists, called Operation Green Hunt, is underway in the tribal regions of India, the government is now getting ready with yet another policing campaign to silence people's voices demanding safe food. Armed with the proposed NBRA, the government will now unleash a war against its own citizens. Their crime: they demand to know whether what they are being forced to eat is safe or not.

The unprecedented muzzle on the right to freedom of speech of every citizen forms part of the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill that is likely to be introduced in the Budget session in Parliament. Denials notwithstanding, Chapter 13 section 63 of the draft bill says, "Whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about the safety of the organisms and products…shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that shall not be less than six months but which may extend to one year and with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees or with both."

During Emergency, you faced jail for your political differences. But if the proposed BRAI bill becomes legislation, you will have to in addition pay a fine.

Even critical journalist writings can land the writer in jail. And those who dare to protest or cause obstruction to experiments too can be hauled up with imprisonment and/or fine or both. People's right to know more about the experiments conducted to determine environment and health safety too have been taken away. Article 27 (1) of the bill seeks to keep the information related to research, approval and science of the GM products out of the purview of the Right to Information ( RTI) Act.

The National Campaign for People's Right to Information finds the definition of "confidential commercial information" under section 2(h) limiting and restricting in the sense that any and all documents submitted to the Authority for research, transport or import of organisms and products will not be available for public scrutiny. Further, Section 81 overrides the RTI Act 2005 when it says: "the provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act to have overriding effect."

That something as simple as food should invite such coercive measures to stifle critical voices is clearly a pointer at the desperation to push the seemingly unhealthy GM foods down our throat. Otherwise there seems to be no justification for even drafting such a law that gags public opinion. GM crops are known to be devastating to the environment and ecology, and the push for its acceptance undermines the task of biodiversity conservation. This goes against the recommendations of the Swaminathan Task Force Report, which said: "the bottom line for any biotechnology regulatory policy should be the safety of the environment and the economical and ecological sustainability of farming systems."

No wonder, the draft bill also says that the BRAI will set up its own appellate tribunal, which will have the jurisdiction to hear arguments on the issues concerning biotechnology. In case of any disputes, petitioners can only approach the Supreme Court of India.

Any regulatory mechanism should inspire public confidence, and not take away the right to question the science and the process. Already the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), which is the apex body for environmental clearance for the GM crops, has come under a lot of flak for being a rubber stamp for the biotechnology industry. The moratorium on Bt brinjal announced by the Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has clearly brought the need for a more open, transparent and accountable regulatory mechanism.

Still worse, I don't understand the urgent need that is being shown to set up a fast-track single window clearance for the controversial GM crops. Even in the USA, the Mecca for GM crops, the clearance system comprises three windows -- the US Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). Even then, the US regulatory process has been questioned time and again, and has been found to be faulty.

In India, the decision to approve GM crops, would essentially wrest with three member expert committee of the Department of Biotechnology. This has been given a go-bye. Moreover, the fact that the bill has been listed for introduction in Parliament with no space for discussion of its contents shows what is in store ahead.

Bio-coning consumers on GM food

By Bhaskar Goswami
Nov 2009

Amidst increasing discomfort among people about long term health and environment impact of GM food, the biotech industry has now resorted to launch its own 'technology ambassadors' to deceive the unsuspecting consumers.


After scientists and politicians, it is now the turn of biotech pharmaceutical industry to stand up in defence of genetically modified (GM) crops and foods. Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw, Chairman and Managing Director of Biocon, is the latest to board the bandwagon. In an interview to the Bangalore Mirror (October 20, 2009) (http://www.bangaloremirror.com/index.aspx?Page=article§name=News%20-%20City§id=10&contentid=20091020200910200013214377ec3f118), she has offered a six-course feast on how the pro-biotech propaganda works at its best - a bundle of unscientific assertions.

Donning the cap of a scaremongering activist, Mazumdar-Shaw raises the bogey of doubling agriculture production to meet the food requirements of the nation by 2050. She believes that increasing food production is THE problem and not crop management. As a way out, she asserts that production can be increased through the application of GM technologies. Further, pest-resistant GM crops will reduce the application of pesticide and thereby would be less stressful on the ecosystem.

As is the wont, most controversial technologies in agriculture are pushed in the name of alleviating poverty or increasing production, GM crops being no exception. Every scientist worth her/his mettle knows that yield enhancement is a multi-gene phenomenon and till date there is no clear understanding as to how it happens in nature. Yield increases cannot be achieved by merely tinkering with or inserting some alien gene(s) into the plant. In fact, despite vigorous efforts, not a single GM crop developed till date worldwide can increase yield. Yet several distinguished scientists, including business leaders like Mazumdar-Shaw, never shy from peddling this lie. This misconception in turn is considered gospel truth by politicians, policymakers, and the media. That is how and why GM-spin works so effectively across the globe.

Contrary to Mazumdar-Shaw's assertion that crop management is not the reason for declining food production, many scientists and experts across the globe are questioning the production system adopted by India way back in the 1960s. Termed as the Green Revolution, while this technology helped India achieve self sufficiency in food grain production, it also left behind a trail of ecological devastation. Severely eroded natural resource base has caused yield levels to plateau and dip. It is therefore surprising that Mazumdar-Shaw does not call for drawing sobering lessons from this experience. Instead, she believes that yet another technological quick fix - GM crops - will help.

In addition to an unsound model of crop production, a major issue of concern is diversion of prime agriculture land which in turn is impacting food production. In the name of "development", hundreds of thousands of hectares of agriculture land is being acquired by authorities to set up industries, dams, highways, etc. The 90 acres of land where Biocon Park is situated on the outskirts of Bangalore was designated a SEZ in 2005 (more than 2 hundred thousand hectares of land have been earmarked to set up SEZs across the country). Does this sort of land grab not affect food security?

Mazumdar-Shaw also takes a dig at activists saying they ought to support GM crops because application of pesticides will go down. It is nothing but an attempt at reaching a bipartisan consensus: if you do not like pesticides you must love GM crops! In any case, experience worldwide has shown that use of chemicals has gone up with the introduction of GM crops.

The lies do not end with increased productivity and lesser application of chemicals alone. Mazumdar-Shaw says, "GM crops are in layman's speak, nothing but accelerated natural evolution which is also what hybridisation technology is all about". A tenth grade student of biology would also sit up in disbelief: when was the last time in nature bacteria mated with a cotton or egg-plant? or human beings with maize? or an arctic fish with tomato? A scientist equating the process of hybridisation with genetic manipulation wherein an alien gene is being inserted is being patently dishonest with science.

Sidestepping the issue of bio-safety, Mazumdar-Shaw says that there are plenty of peer-reviewed independent studies that establish the safety of GM crops. While most of these reports have been prepared by GM crop developers themselves, the fact also is that there are numerous studies that suggest otherwise. She then further beats up support for those engaged in GM research by saying, "Scientists developing GM crops are all committed to safe science. I do believe every scientist can hold his hands on his heart and vouch for the safety of GM crops."

Yes, there are many scientists engaged in research and development of GM crops who live with a clear conscience. In 1998 Dr. Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Research Institute, Scotland publicly announced that his research demonstrated harm to rats fed on GM potato. He was dismissed. In 1998, Dr. Shiv Chopra along with two co-workers testified to the Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture and Forestry that they were pressurised by senior colleagues to approve the genetically modified Bovine Growth Hormone. In 2004 all three whistleblowers were fired.


Dr. Ignacio Chapela of University of California, Berkeley, reported contamination of wild Mexican Maize with GM Maize in Nature; under pressure from the biotech industry, the prestigious journal retracted the paper - a first in the journal's history. Chapela also criticised the close ties between the university and the biotech industry and was denied a tenure in 2003 (he was finally awarded tenure in 2005 after a public outcry against UCB). In April 2009, Andrés Carrasco, scientist at the Argentine Ministry of Sciences, announced that the herbicide glyphosate, which is widely applied on GM herbicide tolerant crops, can cause brain damage as well as intestinal and heart damage in foetuses. He is facing a smear campaign by biotech corporations and their local allies.

Such cases of intimidation of scientists are becoming so regular that even conscientious ones are hesitant to step up and speak the truth. It is therefore not surprising that hardly any serving scientist in India has ever publicly spoken out against GM crops and foods. The fear of research grants being frozen, derision in public by colleagues and peers, or losing their jobs weighs higher than their conscience. One therefore finds it difficult to share Mazumdar-Shaw's confidence in scientists. After all, is it not the same breed of agriculture scientists who routinely vouch for the safety of pesticides and chemicals in our food?

While asserting that Bt Cotton is bringing prosperity to Indian farmers, Mazumdar-Shaw shies away from stating the obvious. Only a small bunch of medium and large farmers have benefited while small and marginal farmers, who constitute 80 per cent of the farming population, have largely been bypassed. Bt Cotton has spiked cost of inputs and thereby indebtedness. However there is not a kind word for the thousands of indebted Bt Cotton farmers of central and western India who killed themselves with pesticide bought on borrowed money.

While batting for GM crops and their developers, Mazumdar-Shaw must ponder on drawing a distinction between GM pharmaceuticals, a major area of interest of Biocon, and GM crops and foods. If something goes wrong with GM pharmaceuticals, it can be recalled from the shelves, as was done when a GM food supplement - L. Tryptophan - killed 37 people and permanently disabled 1,500 more in USA. In the case of a GM crop, once it is released into the environment, it can never be recalled, which is why there are calls for long-term impact assessment which have fallen on deaf ears. Mazumdar-Shaw's advocating "responsible introduction" of GM crops sounds great so long as there is some "responsible expression" of science instead of lies and deception.