Encourage sustainable farming, not GM: KVM

By d-sector Team
09 Feb 2010


Protests against Bt brinjal have been reported from all over India

While 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.

GM push will crush traditional farming

By Claude Alvares
09 Feb 2010


Indian farmers taking out death procession of Bt Brinjal

Facing tremendous pressure from the very influential agri-business lobby, the Government of India was keen to introduce GM food crops but nationwide protests and strong opposition from various quarters might force it to take a decision in the interest of the people.

The green revolution which was set in motion in 1966 was engineered outside the country. It was implemented within by the then agricultural establishment without a thought to its environmental consequences. With genetically modified crops we have a repeat, with one crucial difference. This time the technology comes with private ownership as part of its baggage and naturally, a demand for royalty and fees.

The question on everyone's lips is why is the Government of India so keen to allow powerful and ruthless US corporations like Monsanto (represented in India by companies like Mahyco) to privatise the basis of our food production system - the seed?

Monsanto has gone on record saying that it is working towards creating a world in which all farmers everywhere will only use Monsanto seed (and naturally pay it fees for doing so). Since when did Monsanto's aims become those of the Government of India as well?

Take the priorities facing us (and the govt including Jairam Ramesh) in the environmental arena today. Measures to deal with climate change - which is endangering the planet - deferred. Actions to tackle issues like sewage, garbage, polluted rivers, critically polluted areas, tiger loss - all deferred. But the introduction of GM brinjal has convulsed the Government into action. But is brinjal production one of the Government's priorities? Since when? There is hardly any one connected with agriculture in the country today who would venture to plead that there is any crisis in brinjal production. In fact, we have more than enough of brinjal that we make it into pickles. So why the hyperdrive? Who decided the brinjal agenda? The answer is Monsanto and USAID.

Speed has always been a key element of Monsanto strategy. Before Americans could even know it (and protest), GM foods were upon them. Today, 85-91% of corn, cotton and soybean are planted with Monsanto engineered seed. Now the company is gunning for America's wheat as well. With less than 1% of the US population left as farmers, it's easy to get them all to purchase seeds dutifully every year from corporations. They have no alternative.

Could that happen in India? Well, it appears that the Government of India is trying very hard.

Already in some cotton growing areas in the country today, only GM seed is available for farmers - spurious or authentic nobody seems to care. Once every other variety of cotton seed is out of the market, we are at Mahyco's mercy. For good reason the Andhra Government acted sternly against Mahyco for extortionate cotton seed prices and the Monopolies Commission had to move against the same company to prevent monopoly price fixing.

At a time when rising costs of inputs are making agriculture unviable and are one of the reasons for farmer suicides, it is absurd to promote a seed replacement system in which seeds can only be frightfully expensive. GM seeds are many times more expensive than normal certified seed due to extortionate royalty charges. This is because they carry proprietary patented genes. The sale and profiting out of life commenced when the Supreme Court of the United States decided that corporations could patent genetically altered organisms which none of them created in the first place.


All GMOs come in with stringent Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws. The US Supreme Court has in a recent case held that a farmer whose crop had been contaminated by pollen from an adjacent crop which used patented genes would not be able to use the resulting seed to plant a new crop even though he was the owner of the seed and it had grown on his land. If he did this nonetheless, he would be violating the provisions of the US Patent Act which does not permit illegal, unauthorised use of patented goods without payment of charges.

How would that scenario emerge in India?

Begin with brinjal since it is eaten by almost everyone. Introduce it through popular varieties like the Udipi Gulla or the Agassaim variety from Goa. The Bt versions cannot be distinguished from the farmers' non-Bt varieties. However, the Bt gene is bound to cross over into the non-Bt varieties where it can be easily identified by looking for its markers. After a period of 3-5 years, all brinjal growing in an area will be contaminated and will carry the proprietary gene (belonging to the corporate concerned). Besides contaminating common brinjal varieties, the gene will have also crossed over into tomato, potato and other solanaceous crops. Wherever it goes, the IPR would apply.

After Bt brinjal, they are planning to tamper with bhendi, rice and 52 other crops with the same methods. These varieties will carry either proprietary genes that kill insects or proprietary genes that will make crops safe from Monsanto's proprietary chemicals (like weedicides).

Imagine a situation in which more than 50 of India's major food and commercial crops come under the ownership of one or two or three companies because they carry willy-nilly proprietary genetic material and every seed for these crops will carry a tax to be paid to Monsanto, Cargill or their agents.

Can someone tell me how this predictable scenario is incorrect, false, distant, unrealistic?

So what's the immediate plan to get this scenario in motion?

Introduce genetically modified brinjal before people have time to think. Take them by surprise. Disarm them with sponsored scientists claiming that GM food is needed for increased production (false) and that it is safe (false). Once its cultivation becomes widespread, there is no looking back because genes released into the environment cannot be recalled even by God. What is more important, they will cause so much of contamination of other crops that India's agriculture and food will never be the same again.


For organic farmers as a class, GM crops spell a bleak and grim future. Organic farming certification standards do not permit the use of GMOs. Already certifying agencies are refusing to certify organic farms that are adjacent to farms using Bt cotton. States like Gujarat, where most of cotton grown is of the Bt variety, will soon lose organic status completely. In April 2009, European markets found to their horror that 30% of Indian certified organic cotton exports were contaminated with Bt genes. (India produces more than half the world's organic cotton.) We have carefully built up an export market of over Rs.500 crore for organic cotton (growing leaps and bounds every year) which we now see collapsing before our eyes. I am not referring to the crores being spent by both Central and State governments to promote organic farming within the country which is additional.

The tragedy is that by killing organic farming in this manner we are killing ecological agriculture and turning our backs on ecology. Ecological agriculture has always been a win-win proposal. It builds the soil instead of depleting it; it takes the assistance of soil fauna including earthworms and beneficial microbes. It rejects synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and thereby grows safe and nutritious food. It preserves biodiversity and insect balance. It encourages best use of resources as it encourages farmers to generate all their inputs on the farm.

Genetically modified agriculture turns its back on all this. It replaces farmer-generated seeds with corporate owned seed. It promotes more intensive use of chemical fertilizers. It claims to reduce the use of pesticides. In fact the entire genetically modified plant (in this case, Bt Brinjal) has been made into a toxic: every cell reproduces the Bt toxin. As organic farmers we use naturally occurring Bt sometimes to get rid of unwelcome pests, but then this is not to be consumed and we wash it off the plant when its use is done. No one in his right mind would want to use a brinjal whose every cell reproduces the Bt toxin.

The most careful assessment of sustainable use technology for agriculture was carried out by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), a UN group which studied all options including GMOs. India is a participant and therefore signed the final report (2008). The report in fact recommends more reliance on non-GM technologies, especially ecological agriculture. If the government of India promotes GM based agriculture, it will be turning its back on the most up to date assessment of agricultural technologies done under the UN system.