Tag Archives: Biosafety

Hungry for innovation: pathways from GM crops to agroecology

Posted on by
Reply

#GMCrops # #AgroEcology

Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation

David  A.   Quist,   Jack  A.   Heinemann,  Anne   I.   Myhr,   Iulie  Aslaksen   and   Silvio   Funtowicz

Hungry for innovation: pathways from GM crops to agroecology Emerging issues | Hungry for innovation: pathways from GM crops to agroecology download

Innovation’s potential to deliver food security and solve other agriculture-related problems is high on the agenda of virtually all nations. This chapter looks at two different examples of food and agricultural innovation: genetically modified (GM) crops and agroecological methods, which illustrate how different innovation strategies affect future agricultural and social options.

are well suited to high-input monoculture agricultural systems that are highly productive but largely unsustainable in their reliance on external, non-renewable inputs. Intellectual property rights granted for often close down, rather than open up further innovation potential, and stifle investment into a broader diversity of innovations allowing a greater distribution of their benefits.
Science-based agroecological methods are participatory in nature and designed to fit within the dynamics underpinning the multifunctional role of agriculture in producing food, enhancing biodiversity and ecoystem services, and providing security to communities. They are better suited to agricultural systems that aim to deliver sustainable food security than high external input approaches. They do, however, require a broader range of incentives and supportive frameworks to succeed. Both approaches raise the issue of the governance of innovation within agriculture and more generally within societies.
The chapter explores the consequences of a ‘top-down transfer of technology’ approach in addressing the needs of poor farmers. Here innovation is often framed in terms of economic growth in a competitive global economy, a focus that may conflict with efforts to reduce or reverse environmental damage caused by existing models of agriculture, or even deter investment into socially responsible innovation.
Another option explored is a ‘bottom-up’ approach, using and building upon resources already available: local people, their knowledge, needs, aspirations and indigenous natural resources. The bottom-up approach may also involve the public as a key actor in decisions about the design of food systems, particularly as it relates to food quality, health, and social and environmental sustainability.
Options are presented for how best to answer consumer calls for food quality, sustainability and social equity in a wide sense, while responding to health and environmental concerns and securing livelihoods in local small-scale agriculture. If we fail to address the governance of innovation in food, fibre and fuel production now, then current indications are that we will design agriculture to fail.

Though Bt Brinjal banned, Bt Cotton still reaches Indian mouths

Posted on by
Reply

Though banned, still reaches Indian mouths

 DNA | Feb 13, 2013, 05:47AM IST

 http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/GUJ-AHD-though-bt-brinjal-banned-bt-cotton-still-reaches-indian-mouths-4178649-NOR.html

Ahmedabad: The debate over genetically-modified (GM) crops has taken a nasty turn across the globe because a veteran anti-GM activist, Mark Lynas, has switched sides and is now campaigning in favour of the technology.
Indian consumers do not directly consume GM food as the government has not allowed such crops after Bt Brinjal debacle. But as Bt Cotton is present in the country, consumers are passively eating GM food through milk of an animal fed cottonseed meals and food cooked in cottonseed oil. Bt Cotton is not totally pesticide or insecticide-free. All mammals are indirectly vulnerable due to the pesticides used in cotton farming, say scientists.

The debate has gone public in the European Union as the European Commission’s Agriculture and Rural Development is conducting a survey. Noting that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are considered incompatible with organic farming, the survey asks participants whether they specifically buy organic products because they are “GMO-free”. It also asks whether consumers would put up with higher prices if it meant the accidental, low-level presence of GMOs in organic products was clearly labelled.

It should also be noted that though the direct use of Bt food is not allowed in the country, consumers are already exposed to their ill-effects indirectly because of the use of Bt cottonseed as edible oil. Of the total cottonseed production, 90% goes into expeller for production of cottonseed edible oil. What is left after the expeller process — the residue — goes as cottonseed meal which is a widely used as feed for animals.

“There is no doubt that use of pesticide has gone down after the use of transgenic variety but it is not completely free from pesticides. The number of sprays used to grow cotton has come down but it has not stopped attacks by sucking pests,” says Dr KR Kranthi of Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR).

Before the introduction of Bt Cotton, the fibre crop was susceptible to 162 varieties of pests and insects. In 1995, 54% of the total consumption of pesticide in the country was in cotton farming. The ratio had come down to 44% in 2001. After the introduction of two varieties of Bt Cotton seeds, the use of pesticide has further come down to 21%.

“Bt cotton does not need pesticides to protect the plant from bollworms pests. Bollworms were the key pests damaging 80% of the cotton losses in the country. Bt variety has an inbuilt mechanism to protect the plant from these pests. However, the problem of sucking pests is still there,” says agriculture scientist, Dr TL Dholaria.

According to various research studies, the total number of pesticide spray required for cotton has declined from 15 to 9 per crop season earlier.

“The number of spray needed has declined. It has also resulted in lowering the cost of farming. However, no one can claim that cotton farming has become completely pesticide free as farmers must continue to spray pesticide to control sucking pests,” said Dr Kranthi.

If one looks at the value chain of cotton farming, cotton seed is used for production of edible oil as well as cattle feed. Cottonseed is most widely used in cattle feed. These animals produce milk meant for human consumption. Consumption of cottonseed edible oil has also increased in the country.

“We all use milk and edible oil which may have some pesticides in it. As of now, we do not know the effects of this indirect consumption. However, we are also exposed to the consumption of hazardous chemicals used in manufacture of pesticides,” said Dr Dholaria.

“Insecticide costs as a proportion of total costs declined perceptibly in the post-Bt Cotton period, from 8.30% in 1996 to about 5.86% in 2008,” a study by Bhartiya Krishak Samaj and Council for Social Development concludes.

 

GM crops: Promises outweigh perils?

Posted on by
Reply

President of Bharatiya Kisan Sangh in Gujarat, Maganbhai Patel, ardently opposes cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in India. But on his farm in Modasa (Sabarkantha), Maganbhai harvests castor, groundnut, potatoes and well, , too. In a long comment on why need to be avoided at all costs, he said that after a decade of BT Cotton in Gujarat, multiple reports reveal per hectare yield is falling and fertilizer costs increasing.

However, when asked why he cultivates Bt Cotton, he says: “My dear, I don’t have an option. In
Gujarat, it is difficult to get any good quality non-Bt cotton seeds.”

Approximately 97% of seven million bales of cotton produced in Gujarat are from the genetically-modified seed. This cash crop has virtually swept Gujarat’s countryside in the last decade. Going by the increase in per hectare yield of cotton and, therefore, of huge profits, Gujarat farmers with an entrepreneurial bent of mind are now keen to experiment with more GM crops. But as anyone who has even a slim understanding of the issue will agree, this is fraught with dangers.

For the uninitiated, the Union ministry of environment and forest refused to allow the harvesting of GM crops in India after an elaborate public hearing process across the country three years ago. On Saturday, the country ‘celebrated’ three years of moratorium on .

The subject has always provoked contentious debates. In recent times, GM crops have been debated as much globally as in India, following a turnaround by the European anti-GM activist, Mark Lynas, who has ‘unconditionally’ withdrawn his crusade against the controversial technology.

Besides, field trials have been stopped in the country for now following concerns about the technology raised by the Supreme Court-appointed technical experts committee. And that perhaps explains the urgency to this debate right now.

A ‘National Seminar on GM crops and Food Security – Issues and Prospects’ has been organized on February 14-15 at Gujarat Vidyapith in Ahmedabad. Further, the theme of National Science Day on February 28 this year is ‘GM Crops and Food Security – Issues and Prospects’.

The government is confused, scientist are divided, the anti-GM lobby is gaining traction amid the chaos, and seed marketing companies are getting desperate.
The international media is abuzz with debates, and true enough, this has trickled down to Gujarat as well. In a way, Gujarat has been the laboratory of GM crops in India, with the apparent runaway success of Bt Cotton mentioned earlier. If the fears related to genetically-modified food have any basis, Gujarat will be among the first states to be severely affected.Over and above the proliferation of Bt Cotton in our food chain through cattle feed and cottonseed oil, reports of multiple field trials of GM Maize, Brinjal and unconfirmed reports on GM Rice have come in.
Anand Agriculture University conducted field trials of Maize in 2011-12 and Brinjal 2009-10. Activists claim more field trials could have taken place “clandestinely directly with the farmer.” Without scientific monitoring and regulation, open field trials pose the danger of contaminating the surrounding fields and damaging the local ecology.

There is a very vocal section of activists who doubt the technology and actively campaign against it. Three years ago, they tasted victory in the moratorium on Bt Brinjal and, along with it, other GM crops as well. Their argument is that the technology claims to address the problem of low productivity but raises serious concerns about the technology’s long-term impact on human health, sustainability, ecology and environment.

Director of Center for Environment Education Kartikeya Sarabhai rues the fact that in India the debate about GM food is going back to the basics of productivity after reaching a certain level of maturity during the Bt Brinjal consultation process. “It has come back to productivity but that is not the only concern. There is tremendous pressure to restart this debate and I would wish the debate includes bio-safety, environment and ecological vulnerability, long term cost-benefit analysis, farmers’ independence and dependence on multi-national companies for GM seeds,” he said. CEE was the central monitoring authority for organizing public hearings across the country led by the then , Jairam Ramesh.

A very proactive anti-GM crusader in Gujarat, Kapil Shah of Vadodara-based Jatan Trust, claims the whole argument that people will go hungry if GM crops do not come to the rescue of human kind, is extremely exaggerated.

“The problem basically is of wastage, storage and distribution of farm produce. Every day we hear cases of tons of food grains going waste because of hoarding by big corporate houses with the help of politicians. Food scarcity is an artificially created phenomenon. 85% of GM maize goes for industrial use. According to data in the public domain, 12% people in United States faced food insecurity before GM crops were introduced; after GM, 15% people face food insecurity,” he said.

Seed marketing companies and pro-GM crusaders like Lynas quote ‘science’ and ‘scientists’ to defend their position. However, Shah instantly picks a hole in this argument claiming,“We want to believe science, but a close scrutiny invariably reveals they have been compromised. We are open to science, but it fails to reassure us that it is an unbiased independent opinion,” he says.

http://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report_gm-crops-promises-outweigh-perils_1798675

Battle lines harden over GM crops

Posted on by
Reply
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130209/jsp/nation/story_16541614.jsp#.URdabR1ciYV
OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT

New Delhi, Feb. 8: The biotechnology industry and an environmental group have hardened battle lines over the future of genetically modified food crops in India on the third anniversary of the indefinite moratorium on GM brinjal imposed by former environment minister Jairam Ramesh.

The agricultural group of the Association of Biotechnology Led Enterprises (ABLE) today said it was “disappointed over the continued delay” on GM brinjal, and warned the government’s “indecisiveness” was making it difficult for the industry to continue investing in research.

The agricultural focus group of ABLE has urged the Union government to end the moratorium on GM brinjal to draw benefits from crop biotechnology.

Sections of scientists believe India will need to quickly adopt to boost production despite land shortages and climate and environmental stresses.

But an environmental group campaigning against GM crops said there was substantial evidence from several countries to suggest that the adoption of GM crops “has not meant greater improvements in food security”.

The group that calls itself the Coalition for a GM-free India said multiple factors influenced food security and figures from many countries suggested there was little correlation between GM crops and food security.

“Argentina is the third-largest grower of GM crops but has seen no significant difference in its hunger situation during its years of expanding GM crops,” said Sridhar Radhakrishnan, convenor of the coalition.

“While Brazil, the second-largest grower of GM crops, shows a decline in hunger, the pace of this decrease has decelerated during the years when area under GM crops expanded,” he added.

But crop biotechnologists say there is ample evidence GM crops have benefited both farmers and nations. “(GM) cotton has completely transformed India’s cotton industry,” said Seetharama Nadoor, executive director of ABLE’s focus group on agriculture.

“(GM) cotton has been one of the most rapidly adopted crops in the country, a great example of the potential. If we are to become globally competitive in agriculture, predictable regulatory frameworks that support research and timely approvals are critical,” Nadoor said in a statement today.

Ramesh had on February 9, 2010, imposed an indefinite moratorium on the release of GM brinjal after examining documents submitted by sections of the industry as well as several scientists who had urged caution and sought more rigorous evaluation of GM food crops before their release.

But sections of the biotechnology industry have consistently argued the decision to impose the moratorium was “not based on science”.

In October last year, the Scientific Advisory Council to the Prime Minister had released a statement that seemed to question the moratorium imposed on GM brinjal.

The council had said India would need to adopt a “judicious blend” of traditional breeding and GM technology to combat land shortages, low productivity, drought and post-harvest losses.

Study linking GM maize to cancer must be taken seriously by regulators

Posted on by
Reply

Trial suggesting a GM maize strain causes cancer has attracted a torrent of abuse, but it cannot be swept under the carpet Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini, professor of molecular biology at Caen University in France, knows how to inflame the GM industry and its friends.

For seven years he and his team have questioned the safety standards applied to varieties of GM maize and tried to re-analyse industry-funded studies presented to governments.The GM industry has traditionally reacted furiously and personally. Séralini has been widely insulted and smeared and last year, in some desperation, he sued Marc Fellous, president of the French Association of Plant Biotechnology, for defamation, and won (although he was only awarded a nominal €1 in damages). But last week, Seralini brought the whole scientific and corporate establishment crashing down on his head. In a peer-reviewed US journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, he reported the results of a €3.2m study. Fed a diet of Monsanto’s Roundup-tolerant GM maize NK603 for two years, or exposed to Roundup over the same period, rats developed higher levels of cancers and died earlier than controls. Séralini suggested that the results could be explained by the endocrine-disrupting effects of Roundup, and overexpression of the transgene in the GMO.

This was scientific dynamite. It was the first time that maize containing these specific genes had been tested on rats over two years - nearly their full lifespan – as opposed to the 90-day trials demanded by regulators. Around a dozen long-term studies of different havefailed to find similar effects. Séralini’s study also looked at the toxicity of the Roundup herbicide when fed directly to rats.If the study stood up, then the consistent arguments of the industry that its GM maize is safe might be fatally undermined, with immense political, financial and social consequences. But barely had the paper surfaced than it was attracting heavyweight academic criticism.

Commentators variously claimed the study to be “biased”, “poorly performed”, “bogus”, “fraudulent”, “sub-standard”, “sloppy agenda-based science”, “inadequate” and “unsatisfactory”. Séralini was said to have “sought harm” for the rats, the experiment was dismissed as “inhumane” and the research group was called “partisan”. France was voted as “the most anti-science country in anti-science Europe” and vociferous GM supporters such as Mark Lynas urged people to sign a petition demanding full disclosure of the data (only a few hundred have).Meanwhile, GM opponents were said to be the “climate skeptics of the left”, Séralini and his scientists were labelled “crafty activists” and “anti-science” and the group that funded the study was accused of “polluting science communication” by asking for an embargo on the paper.Séralini and the other authors of the study responded that they were surprised at the “violence” of their critics.

But it was a triumph for the scientific and corporate establishment which has used similar tactics to crush other scientists like Arpad Pusztai of the Rowett Institute in Scotland, who was sacked after his research suggested GM potatoes damaged the stomach lining and immune system of rats, and David Quist and Ignacio Chapela, who studied the flow of genes from illegally planted GM maize to Mexican wild maize. But now that the dust is settling, let’s look at some of the criticisms and Seralini’s responses.

“This is not an innocent scientific publication. The study was designed to produce exactly what was observed,” said Dr Bruce Chassy, professor emeritus of food science at the University of Illinois, who has worked as a consultant for GM companies and has been a member of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Food Advisory Council which is fully behind GM.

“This study appears to be without scientific merit,” said Martina Newell-McGloughlin, director of the International Biotechnology Program at the University of California/Davis, which has close links to Monsanto and other GM companies.”Although this paper has been published in a peer–reviewed journal with an [Impact Factor] of about 3, there are anomalies throughout the paper that normally should have been corrected or resolved through the peer-review process,” said Maurice Moloney, InsChief Executive of Rothamsted Research.

“The control group is inadequate to make any deduction,” said Anthony Trewavas, prominent champion of GM food and a former member of the governing council of Britain’s leading plant biotech research organisation, the John Innes Centre.”We have to ask whether a diet with this level of maize is normal for rats. Another control with an alternative diet should have been included,” said Dr Wendy Harwood, senior scientist at the John Innes Centre.

Monsanto was dismissive: ”This study does not meet minimum acceptable standards for this type of scientific research, the findings are not supported by the data presented, and the conclusions are not relevant for the purpose of safety assessment.”

Here are the criticisms in a nutshell and Séralini’s responses:

1. The French researchers were accused of using the Sprague Dawley rat strain which is said to be prone to developing cancers. In response Séralini and his team say these are the same rats as used by Monsanto in the 90-day trials which it used to get authorisation for its maize. This strain of rat has been used in most animal feeding trials to evaluate the safety of , and their results have long been used by the biotech industry to secure approval to market GM products.

2. The sample size of rats was said to be too small. Séralini responded that six is the OECD recommended protocol for GM food safety toxicology studies and he had based his study on the toxicity part of OECD protocol no. 453. This states that for a cancer trial you need a minimum of 50 animals of each sex per test group but for a toxicity trial a minimum of 10 per sex suffices. Monsanto used 20 rats of each sex per group in its feeding trials but only analysed 10, the same number as Séralini.

3. No data was given about the rats’ food intake. Seralini says the rats were allowed to eat as much food as they liked.

4. Séralini has not released the raw data from the trial. In response he says he won’t release it until the data underpinning Monsanto’s authorisation of NK603 in Europe is also made public.

5. His funding was provided by an anti-biotechnology organisation whose scientific board Séralini heads. But he counters that almost all GM research is funded by corporates or by pro-biotech institutions.

So where does that leave the public?

Despite the concerns over Séralini’s methodological flaws, it looks as though the study will not be swept under the carpet. It is the longest study done on this variety of maize and many argue that it must be taken seriously by regulators and governments. French health and safety authorities now plan to investigate NK603 and the study’s findings and the European Food Safety Agency has said it will assess the research. Séralini is now demanding that all the data be assessed by an independent international committee, arguing that experts involved in the authorisation of the maize should not be involved.Equally, the study reopens questions about the regulation of GM crops. There has long been concern that these foods have been evaluated poorly and that the companies have taken advantage of lax regulation. The GM industry, which keeps its own research secret, has resisted investigation or any change.In fact, there is one irony that a few scientists have pointed out but who have been drowned out in the furore. Séralini’s study was not so much about the dangers of GM technology, but the toxicity of the Roundup herbicide used on the crops. Here’s Ottoline Leyser, associate director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of Cambridge:

“Like most of the GM debate, this work has very little to do with GM. The authors of the paper do not suggest that the effects are caused by genetic modification. They describe effects of the roundup herbicide itself and effects that they attribute to the activity of the enzyme introduced into the roundup resistant maize. There is good evidence that introducing genes into crops using GM techniques results in fewer changes to the crops than introducing them using conventional breeding.”

Monsanto’s GM corn Biosafety data raises serious concerns: Report

Posted on by
Reply

Greenpeace India demands the Union Minister for Environment and Forest, Jayanthi Natarajan, under whom sits the GEAC, to stop all open releases of , including those for field trials

New Delhi: Jan 29, 2013: In a startling development an independent scientific analysis released by Greenpeace India exposed major flaws in the Genetically Modified (GM) corn assessment process by the regulatory bodies in India.  Greenpeace India had asked Testbiotech, an independent research agency,  to assess data presented by the US biotech giant, Monsanto, to the Indian authorities ‘for tests prior to commercial approval’ of its variety.

The stacked gene GM corn (MON89034xNK603 ) with bacterial genes for pest resistance and herbicide tolerance leads the GM crop approval pipeline and has been released into fields several times in the past 4 years in the name of field  trials .

The biosafety and field trials data of the said GM corn data was accessed by Greenpeace through RTI procedures from the Department of Biotechnology(DBT) and Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), which is the nodal agency for all environmental releases of GMOs in India. The RTI exercise also saw the CPIO of DBT being reprimanded by the Appellate Authority for providing wrong information to the applicant.

“On one hand the GM regulatory system in our country tries to hide crucial public information like the biosafety data of GM crops and on the other hand allows open field trials of them, which can lead to contamination of our food and seed supply chain. These field trials have been permitted for the last 4 years without biosafety studies being completed” said Shivani Shah, Sustainable Agriculture campaigner, Greenpeace India. According to the response received from DBT, these trials were permitted based on biosafety data generated by Monsanto itself in its labs in USA.

The Testbiotech analysis highlights that even those assessments’ presented have been found to be incomplete and lacking in scientific rigor. Interestingly most of the data provided was for the parent lines with the single genes with almost no studies on the stacked gene corn for which was the application.

The review report concluded that based on the data presented by Monsanto, no decisions can be taken on the safety of the plants. Apart from missing data and inadequate investigations, there are in fact substantial indications for health and environmental risks.

This stacked gene variety of Monsanto’s corn had been in controversy earlier  in 2011 when Greenpeace had exposed grave violations of field trial rules by the company in its trials at Bijapur District in Karnataka.

In the light of increasing evidences of  failure of the GM regulatory system in India and the potential impacts of GM crops to our health, environment and socioeconomic realities   Greenpeace Indiademands the Union  minister for Environment and Forest, Jayanthi Natarajan, under whom sits the GEAC, to stop all open releases of GM crops, including those for field trials.

Notes to the Editor:-

  1. Link to the report- http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/publications/Analysis-of-the-data-submitted-by-Monsanto-to-the-Indian-authorities-on-genetically-engineered-maize-MON89034-x-NK603/

 

ప్రజలకు నిర్ణయాధికారం కావాలి: Ramanjaneyulu

Posted on by
Reply

(ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి, హైదరాబాద్ సిటీ )

ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి: అంతర్జాతీయ జీవ వైవిధ్య సదస్సు వల్ల ఏమైనా ప్రయోజనముందంటారా?

జీవీ రామాంజనేయులు: అభివృద్ధి చెందిన దేశాల్లో జీవ వైవిధ్యం పెద్దగా కనిపించదు. అభివృద్ధి చెందుతున్న దేశాల్లో ఎక్కువగా కనిపిస్తుంది. దీన్ని వాణిజ్య అవసరాల కోసం వాడుకుంటుండటంతో ముప్పు వాటిల్లుతోంది. ఈ ప్రమాదం నుంచి బయటపడే ఉద్దేశ్యంతోనే దాదాపు 193 దేశాలు కలిసి జీవ వైవిధ్య సదస్సును నిర్వహిస్తున్నాయి. ప్రస్తుతం నగరంలో జరుగుతున్న సీఓపీ-11లో కార్టెజెనా బయోసేఫ్టీ ప్రొటోకాల్ గురించి చర్చ జరిగింది. జన్యు మార్పిడి పంటల వల్ల ఉత్పన్నమవుతున్న సమస్యలను గురించి చర్చించిన సదస్సు సామాజిక, ఆర్థిక విషయాలను దృష్టిలో పెట్టుకోవాలని అభిప్రాయపడింది. ఈ పంటల వల్ల జీవ భద్రతకు నష్టం వాటిల్లుతుందని ఒప్పుకుంటే దానికి ఎవరు జవాబుదారీతనం వహించాలనేది ప్రశ్న. ఒకవేళ విత్తనాలను ఎగుమతి చేస్తే అక్కడ నష్టానికి ఎవరిని బాధ్యులను చేయాలనే సమస్య. ప్రస్తుతం బయో డైవర్సిటీ ఆతిథ్య దేశమైన భారతదేశం వచ్చే రెండేళ్లు అధ్యక్ష పదవిలో ఉండనుంది. అంటే ఇక్కడ జరిగిన నిర్ణయాల అమలు పట్ల శ్రద్ధ వహించాల్సి ఉంటుంది. బయో డైవర్సిటీ సదస్సు మూలంగా పెద్దగా ప్రయోజనాలేవీ ఉండే అవకాశం లేదు.

ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి: గతంలో జరిగిన నిర్ణయాలేవైనా అమలు జరిగాయా?

జీవీ: 2010 సీఓపీ జపాన్‌లో జరిగింది. అక్కడ జరిగిన కొన్ని నిర్ణయాలు ఇప్పుడిప్పుడే ఆచరణలోకి వస్తున్నాయి. జన్యుమార్పిడి పంటల విషయంలో ఆర్థిక విషయాలను సైతం పరిగణనలోకి తీసుకోవాలనేది గతంలో జరిగిన నిర్ణయమే. వాటిని ప్రస్తుతం సీరియస్‌గా అందరూ అంగీకరిస్తున్నారు. ఎక్సెస్ బెనిఫిట్ షేర్ గురించి చర్చ జరిగింది. వాణిజ్యం కోసం జీవ వైవిధ్యాన్ని వాడుకుంటే అప్పటి వరకు వాటిని కాపాడిన వారికి ఎలాంటి ప్రతిఫలం అందించాలనే అంశంపై కూడా ఈ సదస్సులో చర్చ జరిగింది.

ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి: సీఓపీలో జరిగే నిర్ణయాలు అమలు చేయడంలో స్థానిక చట్టాలు అంగీకరించకపోతే?

జీవీ: ఎక్కడ ఏ నిర్ణయం జరిగినా స్థానిక ప్రజల భాగస్వామ్యంతో జరగాలి. ప్రజలకు నిర్ణయాధికారం కావాలి. గ్రామస్థాయిలో బయో డైవర్సిటీ మేనేజ్‌మెంట్ కమిటీలు ఉండాలి. అవేవీ లేకుండా, ఎవరితో చర్చించకుండా,ప్రజల భాగస్వామ్యం లేకుండా నిర్ణయాలు తీసుకోకూడదు. ప్రస్తుతం జీవ వైవిధ్య సదస్సు అలాగే నిర్వహిస్తున్నారు. ఎలాంటి ఒప్పందాలైనా ప్రజలదే నిర్ణయాధికారం కావాలి. కేంద్రం, శాస్త్రవేత్తలది కాదు. దేశంలో బీటీ వంగ విషయంలో మాత్రమే ప్రభుత్వం ప్రజాస్వామ్యయుతంగా వ్యవహరించింది. ఇక అన్ని విషయాల్లో ప్రజల అభిప్రాయాలతో సంబంధంలేకుండానే నిర్ణయాలు తీసుకుంది. రాష్ట్రంలో జన్యుమార్పిడిపై జరుగుతున్న ఫీల్డ్ ట్రాయిల్స్ ఇందుకు ఉదాహరణ. అందుకే ఈ సదస్సును వ్యతిరేకిస్తూ ‘పీపుల్స్ బయో డైవర్సిటీ ఫెస్టివల్’ను నిర్వహిస్తున్నాం.

ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి: జీవ వైవిధ్య నష్టానికి కారణాలేంటి?

జీవీ: జీవ వైవిధ్యాన్ని కాపాడుకోవడమంటే సమస్యకు మూలాల్ని వెతకడం. బయో డైవర్సిటీ సదస్సు సందర్భంగా పిచ్చుకలు, రాబందులు అంతరించిపోతున్నాయంటూ భారీ హోర్డింగులు పెట్టారు. కారణమేంటో చెప్పలేదు. అందుకు ప్రభుత్వ నిర్ణయాలు, విధానాలే కారణం. జన్యు మార్పిడి విత్తనాలు, క్రిమి సంహారక మందులు, సెల్‌ఫోన్ టవర్లు పక్షుల మనగడను ప్రశ్నార్థకంగా మార్చాయి. వైవిధ్యాన్ని రక్షించే పంటల్ని ప్రోత్సహించాల్సింది పోయి… అనువుగానివి వేసి రైతులు ఆత్మహత్యలు చేసుకుంటుంటే, అడవుల్ని విధ్వంసం చేసి మైనింగ్‌లకు అనుమతిస్తున్నారు. సోంపేట లాంటి ప్రాంతాల్లో బీల భూముల్ని కాపాడాల్సిన ప్రభుత్వాలే… పవర్ ప్లాంట్‌ల పేరిట ప్రైవేటు వ్యక్తులకు కట్టబెడుతున్నాయి. ఇలాంటి ప్రాజెక్టుల మూలంగా జీవ భద్రతకు ముప్పు వాటిల్లుతోంది.

ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి: జీవ వైవిధ్యాన్ని కాపాడడానికి ఏం చేయాలి?

జీవి: జీవ వైవిధ్యాన్ని కాపాడడానికి ప్రభుత్వం ప్రత్యేక శ్రద్ధ వహించి దీర్ఘకాలిక కార్యక్రమాన్ని చేపట్టాలి. వైవిధ్య పంటల్ని ప్రోత్సహించాలి. రైతులకు ఆర్థిక భద్రత కల్పించాలి. పర్యావరణానికి, జీవ వైవిధ్యానికి నష్టం చేకూర్చే ప్రాజెక్టులను నిలిపివేయాలి. పర్యావరణాన్ని కాపాడే పరిశోధనలను ప్రోత్సహించాలి. అప్పుడే జీవవైవిధ్యాన్ని గుర్తించినవాళ్లమవుతాం. ప్రజలు సైతం జీవవైవిధ్యాన్ని కాపాడడం తమ బాధ్యతగా స్వీకరించాలి.

Meeting of Scientific Advisory Council of PM on Biotechnology and Agriculture

Posted on by
Reply
 With the growing amount of evidences on the problems of and the  talking about liability and redress in case of damage….the meetinicg of scientific committee supports
Press Information Bureau
Government of India
Ministry of Science & Technology
09-October-2012 17:52 IST
Meeting of Scientific Advisory Council of PM on Biotechnology and Agriculture

Scientific and technological breakthroughs of a transformational nature relevant to economic and social development happen only once in a while. The emergence of such technologies evokes responses according to a pattern: initial excitement, followed by strong expression of concern and then emergence of a balanced perspective. Transformational technologies in the past, such as steam engine, electricity and other sources of energy, vaccines & immunization and internet have all followed this trend. Molecular biology and biotechnologies developed through major investments in science and technology globally have a transformational potential for benefitting agriculture and health and it is time now to evolve a balanced perspective.

The members of the Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) to the Prime Minister deliberated on the important issue of application of biotechnology for social and economic advancement of the country particularly in the area of agriculture. There are uncertainties in some segments of society that need to be objectively and fairly addressed. The members of the SAC are concerned that a science informed, evidence based approach is lacking in the current debate on biotechnologies for agriculture. There are some key aspects that merit consideration.

Do we need new technologies for agriculture? Indian agriculture productivity is seen by the less discerning to be adequate for today’s needs but what is ignored is that vast numbers of our countrymen are unable to consume the required food and nutrients because of difficult access. As our current efforts to address the issue of access bear fruit, the need for food and quality nutrients’ will grow rapidly. Land availability and quality, water, low productivity, drought and salinity, biotic stresses, post harvest losses are all serious concerns that will endanger our food and nutrition security with potentially serious additional affects as a result of climate change. Accordingly, strategies for agriculture in future must be based on higher yields, concomitant with reduction in resource inputs. This will require a judicious blend of traditional breeding and new technologies, non-transgenic & transgenic. This situation in developed countries such as in Europe; quite in contrast, as there is no dearth of food and a small proportion of people engage in agriculture.

The assessment of safety and efficacy of biotechnology products has to be evaluated through an appropriate regulatory system on a case by case basis, as for drugs and vaccines. In general, endorsement or opposition to a generic technology is scientifically not rational and safety and efficacy must be judged on product basis. The need for an appropriate regulatory mechanism in the country has been rightly emphasized in the Swaminathan Committee Report. The existing system based on RCGM and GEAC have given us large experience and its operational guidelines are generally sound and as per the best international norms such as guidelines by OECD. The effort now should be on effective implementation. Regulatory systems evolve with experience and review based redesign. Little is served by focusing on the flaws only.

The proposed Bill for establishment of a national Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI), 2012 is with the Parliament, it deserves to be examined on a priority basis. The key characteristics of effective regulatory system hardly need reiteration; sound scientific expertise within the organization and through independent panels, access to scientific tools for assessment of safety and efficacy and processes that ensure transparency, freedom from conflict and competence. This can only be delivered by a robust and independent system. The focus of the regulatory authority has to be on assessment of safety and efficacy. Commercialization and deployment of agriculture biotechnology products requires expertise in social and economic evaluation and post-deployment surveillance. This requires effective inputs of central and state agriculture ministries.

The experience with the deployment of Genetically Modified (GM) crops worldwide is growing at a steady pace and should be taken into consideration. GM crops of maize, soya, potato, sugar beet, canola, cotton and alfalfa and grown across the globe covering 160 million hectares by 2011. While each concern must be addressed through scientific approach, we believe the performance of GM crops released through oversight by regulators has been very positive. This view has been endorsed by major scientific bodies of the world. This is clearly true of our own experience with introduction of in India wherein the benefits have been major. It is our view that biotechnology research and development should target important national needs, products should be developed under careful regulatory oversight and deployed in a way that access and affordability to entire farming community, particularly small and marginal farmers, is ensured.

There are other relevant issues that merit attention. Some of the opposition to GM crops in the country results from fear of domination by multinational companies. One way to address this concern is to invigorate and further strengthen the relevant scientific capacities of our institutions in public sector, universities and Indian companies. The current debate, unfortunately, is demoralizing and isolating our Scientists in the sector whose skills have been built with painstaking effort and large investment. The policy confusion will also keep the brightest away from this field of research. Our Scientists are fully aware of the social realities in this country and have widely endorsed the judicious adoption of traditional breeding with biotechnologies, non-transgenic and transgenic, as appropriate. There is concern about the costs at which seed is available to our farmers, particularly the poor farmers. This requires an appropriate public policy and action. The industry must shoulder responsibility by ensuring this through constructive dialogue with the government. Market mechanisms alone will not be sufficient.

The precautionary approach is inherently sound but it must be applied through a science based safety assessment and social and economic analysis for deployment. We make the following recommendation for kind consideration:-

1) The current regulatory system for recombinant products administered under Rules (1989) of EPA Act, 1986 should be reformed till BRAI is in place.

(i) RCGM and GEAC should be the sole authority for and bio-efficacy assessment of all recombinant products. Decision on commercial use of biotechnology produced crops should be taken by the Agriculture Ministries/Department of Central and State Governments as per existing policies and regulations on crops. For medical products Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India would approve commercialization as of now.

(ii) High Level dialogue with State governments to streamline clearances for conduct of multi-location “Confined field trials” – a scientific pre-requite in all countries for meaningful decision making on approvals or otherwise.

(iii) A Biotechnology Regulatory Secretariat with high level of scientific and technical trained manpower should be established to support RCGM and GEAC.

(iv) GEAC and RCGM should have full time Chairpersons. The Chairman of GEAC, may be of Special Secretary Status for 3 year period and RCGM one level lower. Chairman of RCGM be the Co-Chair in GEAC and not the expert nominee of Department of Biotechnology. For greater synergy at least three members should be common between RCGM and GEAC.

(v) The public needs to be informed of every decision.

2) The Bill pending with Parliament, i.e. BRAI 2012, should be debated with open mind. It would be appropriate if administrative organization could be Cabinet Secretariat because of the involvement of multiple ministries. The Bill when examined by appropriate parliament committee would be opened up for wider debate and discussions for shaping the draft legislation into a model regulatory framework.

3) The capacity for regulatory testing of new technologies in agriculture in public sector laboratories should be strengthened, supplemented with a system of notification and accreditation. This can be initiated even while the BRAI becomes a reality.

4) Research and infrastructure of state agriculture universities and colleges be strengthened for addressing the locations- specific needs of the states and regions and generate expertise.

5) Priority should be given to strengthen State Government departments and laboratories dealing with agriculture inputs, including GM or non GM seeds, extension and education of farmers through major programmes and investments for capacity building tailor made to the needs of the region.

MC/sk http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=88271

Relief as Parties to the Biosafety Protocol adopt key decisions: TWN

Posted on by
Reply

 

Hyderabad, 9 October (Lim Li Ching and Doreen Stabinsky) – There was a palpable sigh of relief as Parties to the Cartagena Protocol on closed their sixth meeting following the adoption of key decisions.

After difficult negotiations, key decisions were adopted on socio-economic considerations and risk assessment. While these may have been weaker than what many Parties would have liked, they advance the work of the Protocol on these issues.

The sixth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity serving as the Meeting of the Parties (COP-MOP6) to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was held in Hyderabad, India from 1st to 5th October 2012.

[The Cartagena Protocol is a protocol under the Convention on Biological Diversity and is the only international treaty specifically regulating genetically modified organisms, or living modified organisms (LMOs) as they are known under the Protocol.]

The decision on socio-economic considerations establishes an Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group (AHTEG) to develop conceptual clarity on the issue. The AHTEG will submit a report to COP-MOP7 in 2014, with a view to enabling Parties to the Cartagena Protocol to deliberate and decide upon appropriate further steps towards the development of guidance for Parties on socio-economic considerations.

The decision on risk assessment commends the progress made on the Guidance of Risk Assessment of Living Modified Organisms, which has been developed and improved following numerous rounds of peer review, over the last four years by an open-ended online forum on risk assessment and the AHTEG on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. However, it stopped short of endorsing or commending the Guidance itself. Nonetheless, the decision also extends the existing online forum and establishes a new AHTEG that will serve until COP-MOP7, to conduct further work related to risk assessment.

Other important decisions were also taken on Article 17 (unintentional transboundary movements and emergency measures), which has links to the risk assessment discussions.

Socio-economic considerations

The issue of socio-economic considerations was one of the most controversial issues during the negotiations of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Developing countries wanted to preserve their right to take socio-economic considerations into account when taking a decision on imports of LMOs. Some developed countries opposed this, and did not view the issue as important, giving it low priority.

The compromise is contained in Article 26 of the Cartagena Protocol. Article 26.1 in particular states that “Parties may take into account, consistent with their international obligations, socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of LMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities, in reaching a decision on import under the Protocol or under its domestic measures to implement the Protocol”.

At COP-MOP5 in 2010, attempts by developing countries to have a decision that established an AHTEG on socio-economic considerations were thwarted. Instead, COP-MOP5 only called for an online forum to discuss the issues, supplemented by online regional conferences and a workshop on capacity building for research and information exchange on socio-economic impacts of LMOs, which was held in New Delhi, India in November 2011. This was the first time intersessional work (between COP-MOP sessions) on socio-economic considerations was conducted under the Cartagena Protocol.

Twelve years after the Cartagena Protocol was adopted in 2000, Parties have finally adopted a decision at COP-MOP6 that advances the issue of socio-economic considerations further.

A principal difference between Parties during the negotiations in Hyderabad was whether or not to set up an AHTEG to carry out further work towards developing guidance on taking into account socio-economic considerations in the context of national decision-making. Parties such as Bolivia, Mexico and Norway were eager to establish the AHTEG and to start substantive work, given the urgency of work needed and in light of already documented adverse socio-economic impacts in some countries growing genetically engineered crops.

Several Parties, notably Paraguay, were fundamentally opposed to the AHTEG as the way to move forward. A number of Parties, including Japan, were concerned about the budgetary implications of an AHTEG.

Other Parties, such as the European Union (EU), Japan and Paraguay, noted the need to proceed in a stepwise manner, rather than immediately initiate development of guidance as the next step. They noted the need for “conceptual clarity” on what constituted socio-economic considerations, as the first step to be taken.

The work at COP-MOP6 to develop a decision on socio-economic considerations was taken into a Contact Group, co-chaired by Gurdial Singh Nijar of Malaysia and Ruben Dekker of the Netherlands. The Contact Group met three times and steady progress was made in outlining what work was necessary in the next intersessional period and which entities would appropriately carry out the work.

The Contact Group concluded with an outline for a multi-step process. First, the Executive Secretary of the Convention (and its Cartagena Protocol) would be requested to compile, take stock of, and review information on socio-economic considerations arising from the impact of LMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, especially with regard to the value of biological diversity to indigenous and local communities. The stocktaking exercise would include a review of existing institutional frameworks, capacity-building activities, existing expertise and experience, and other policy initiatives concerning social and economic impact assessments, in order to develop a global overview.

Online discussion groups and regional online real-time conferences would then be established to facilitate and synthesize the exchange of views among Parties, other governments, relevant organizations and indigenous and local communities.

Finally, an AHTEG would be established to examine the outcomes of the stocktaking exercise and online forums, to develop conceptual clarity on socio-economic considerations. The report of the work of the AHTEG would be submitted to COP-MOP7 for further deliberation and a decision on possible next steps towards developing guidance on taking socio-economic considerations into account in national decision-making on imports of LMOs.

Because of the reluctance of some Parties to explicitly mention the development of guidance, the decision does not do so, but instead relates the next steps to Operational Objective 1.7 of the Strategic Plan of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the period 2011-2020, and its “outcomes”. Operational Objective 1.7 is “to, on the basis of research and information exchange, provide relevant guidance on socio-economic considerations that may be taken into account in reaching decisions on the import of living modified organisms.”

This delicate compromise was then taken forward to Working Group 1 for adoption. One bracket remained, as Japan had raised its concern that Parties, other Governments (that are not Parties) and relevant organizations should not be “urged’ to make funds available to organize a meeting of the AHTEG, but rather be “encouraged” or “invited” to do so. Co-Chair Nijar had wryly observed that “pray” might be a better verb to use. The final decision “encourages” the making available of funds for the AHTEG meeting.

At the Working Group discussion, the governments of Norway and South Korea announced they would provide funding to enable the AHTEG on socioeconomic considerations to meet and carry out its work, alleviating somewhat the concerns of Japan. Furthermore, at the closing plenary, Bolivia, which had been championing the issue, made the offer to host the meeting of the AHTEG on socio-economic considerations, demonstrating its commitment to furthering the work on the issue.

Risk assessment and risk management

Risk assessment and risk management are at the heart of the Cartagena Protocol. Annex III of the Protocol provides a general framework for environmental risk assessment of LMOs. However, Parties have long felt that further guidance is necessary. At COP-MOP4 in 2008, Parties established an AHTEG on Risk Assessment and Risk Management to develop further guidance on specific aspects of risk assessment.

Over the four years since then, the AHTEG, with the assistance of an open-ended online forum, has developed a package of guidance material – the Guidance on Risk Assessment of Living Modified Organisms – which includes the ‘Roadmap’ on steps to take when conducting a risk assessment, along with guidance on living modified (LM) abiotic stress-tolerant plants, LM plants with stacked genes and LM mosquitoes. These initial documents were welcomed by Parties to the Protocol at COP-MOP5 and have benefited from numerous rounds of feedback, peer review and testing. The AHTEG then developed new guidance on LM trees and monitoring of LMOs released into the environment, themselves subject to several rounds of review.

Nonetheless, when Parties came to discuss the issue at COP-MOP6, resistance to endorsing the Guidance and continuing the work of the AHTEG was strong. While all Parties acknowledged the improvements made to the Guidance since COP-MOP5, and that the Guidance was a living document that needed continuous updating and would benefit from testing at the national and regional levels, they disagreed on several fundamental points.

Given the diverging opinions, a Contact Group, co-chaired by Helmut Gaugitsch from Austria and Eliana Fontes from Brazil, was established. The Contact Group met twice during the week.

Discussion first pivoted on whether or not the Guidance should be “endorsed” by COP-MOP6. A seeming conundrum arose, with some Parties like the Philippines, New Zealand, Mexico, Paraguay, Brazil and Japan claiming that since the Guidance was still to be tested, it was incomplete and should not be endorsed. Other Parties such as Bolivia, Norway, Moldova speaking on behalf of the Central and Eastern European (CEE) group, the EU speaking on behalf of its 27 Member States and Croatia, Peru and China wanted to endorse the Guidance so that it could then be used and tested at the national and regional levels.

Another major point of contention was whether or not the AHTEG, established by COP-MOP4 in 2008, should continue, and if so, in what composition, with what mandate and for how long. While there was universal agreement with the AHTEG playing a role in the testing of the Guidance, some Parties were reluctant to agree to the integration of the Guidance with the training manual on risk assessment produced by the Secretariat, while others were adamantly against assigning the AHTEG the task of developing guidance on new topics of risk assessment and risk management.

The eventual compromise weakened the language on integrating the Guidance and the training manual, to aligning them in a coherent and complementary manner. This was further qualified by the phrase “with the clear understanding that the Guidance is still being tested”.

On the issue of guidance on new topics of risk assessment and risk management, the AHTEG is only to “consider” its development. Moreover, the related expected outcome was only a recommendation on how to proceed with respect to the development of further guidance on specific topics of risk assessment, and not guidance in itself, even though several Parties had proposed that the AHTEG take up the development of guidance on at least one new topic.

Given the strong opposition, the final decision adopted by COP-MOP6 was a carefully balanced compromise package. It commends the progress made on the Guidance of Risk Assessment of Living Modified Organisms, but stopped short of endorsing or commending the Guidance itself. However, the decision also extends the open-ended online forum on risk assessment and establishes a new AHTEG, which should have a balance of current and new members, to serve until COP-MOP7.

The terms of reference of the open-ended online forum and new AHTEG on Risk Assessment and Risk Management sets out three tasks, in order of priority: (a) to provide input to assist in the structuring and focusing of the process of testing the guidance, and in the analysis of the results gathered from the testing; (b) to coordinate the development of a package that aligns the Guidance with the training manual in a coherent and complementary manner and (c) to consider the development of guidance on new topics of risk assessment and risk management, based on the Parties’ needs, and their experiences and knowledge concerning risk assessment.

The Working Group 2 session that adopted the text for forwarding to COP-MOP6 ended on Thursday night (4 October) at about 10.30pm. It was a tense session, with a near unraveling of the compromise package. Moldova had proposed the addition of the word “and” in operational paragraph 1, so that the sentence would read, “…commends the progress made on and the resulting Guidance on Risk Assessment of Living Modified Organisms”. This addition would thus commend both the progress made on the Guidance, and the Guidance itself. (Several Parties did not want to commend the Guidance as such.)

Brazil immediately responded that if anyone started to open up text it would also make its additions and changes to the compromise package. Moldova eventually withdrew its suggestion, but only after stressing how they had wanted to strongly endorse the Guidance and this was really a compromise for them.

Bolivia, however, added to paragraph 3(c) of the terms of reference of the AHTEG, a reference to Operational Objectives 1.3 and 1.4 of the Strategic Plan of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and its outcomes. Operational Objective 1.3 relates to risk assessment and risk management and its outcome is guidance on risk assessment and risk management. Operational objective 1.4 relates to LMOs or traits that may have adverse effects, with outcomes spelled out as modalities to identify these LMOs, for which the related indicator is guidance on such LMOs.

This therefore clearly ties the expected outcome of the AHTEG on a recommendation on how to proceed with respect to the development of further guidance, with the relevant outcomes of the Strategic Plan that are in effect, new guidance. This addition will help the AHTEG in its deliberations to proceed on the development of new guidance.

The compromise package on risk assessment was thereafter adopted by the Working Group and eventually by the plenary, with no further changes.

Unintentional transboundary movements

The objective of the Cartagena Protocol is to contribute to ensuring an adequate level of protection in the field of safe transfer, handling and use of LMOs, specifically focusing on transboundary movements. Central to ensuring this protection are both knowing the risks of the LMO in the receiving environment, through a risk assessment, and the advance informed agreement of the Parties of import to accept or reject those risks in their territory and design appropriate risk management procedures in the case of import.

Parties continued in Hyderabad with discussions over the implementation of an important provision of the Protocol related to transboundary movement: Article 17 on Unintentional Transboundary Movements and Emergency Measures.

As unintentional transboundary movements circumvent the central mechanisms for ensuring an adequate level of protection – a risk assessment in the receiving environment and advance informed agreement for importation in light of these risks – consideration of how to prevent such movements is critical for achieving the objective of the Protocol. Parties were guided in their consideration of Article 17 by the operational objective for this work outlined in the current Strategic Plan, which requires Parties to develop tools and guidance that facilitate the implementation of Protocol provisions. The outcome envisaged in the Strategic Plan is guidance to assist Parties to detect and take measures to respond to unintentional releases of living modified organisms.

Japan contributed to the consideration of the agenda item with a brief intervention on its experience in 2011 with unintentional transboundary movements, specifically with the identification of illegal papaya growing in the country from seeds imported from Taiwan. They noted that the more information that is provided in a timely manner, the less mitigation cost an importing country has to take. They noted their position that while existing guidance in the form of decisions and the risk assessment guidance are useful, it is not sufficient to address or prevent unintentional transboundary movements, and they suggested that actual procedures needed to be developed.

Discussion continued among the rest of the Parties as to whether new guidance was needed or whether existing guidance in relevant decisions, rules and guidelines for implementing Article 17 was adequate. The Republic of Korea agreed with Japan that guidelines were needed for emergency measures. Several developing countries, including Jordan, Uganda, Malaysia and Tunisia emphasized that capacity was crucial in order to both detect and respond to unintentional transboundary movements.

Another point of discussion linked with negotiations over the AHTEG on risk assessment, and whether or not the existing Guidance on Risk Assessment of Living Modified Organisms developed by the AHTEG should be referenced in the decision. Paraguay was opposed to the reference. This opposition was overcome after consultations. Paraguay eventually agreed to the reference to the Guidance following the insertion of a preambular paragraph noting that the Guidance is not prescriptive and does not impose any obligations on Parties. This language was part of the compromise package agreed in the decision on risk assessment.

The final decision reflects recognition that the ability to detect unintentional transboundary movements was an important step in prevention and response to such movements, and invited cooperation in building capacity, transferring technology and exchanging information necessary to detect and response to unintentional transboundary movements. The issue will be further considered at COP-MOP7, with a consideration of “challenges and experiences relating to the implementation of Article 17 or the Protocol and on the scope and elements of possible guidance or tools that may facilitate appropriate responses” to unintentional transboundary movements.

It was thus with bated breath that the two key decisions on socio-economic considerations and risk assessment were adopted by COP-MOP6, with fears that the delicate balance achieved could be unraveled at any point. Together with the decision on unintentional transboundary movement, these place great importance on the intersessional period over the next two years in advancing these issues, with a heavy burden put on COP-MOP7 to make the right choices for biosafety

Pro, anti- groups spar over safety of GM corn

Posted on by
Reply

HYDERABAD, OCTOBER 8:

K.V. KURMANATH

A few tiny rats have become the centre of a hot discussion in the global scientific community about the safety of genetically modified corn.

It all started when a group of French scientists published a study last month in the Food and Chemical Toxicology journal that suggested that rats fed with GMOs die earlier and suffer from cancer more often than the others.

This triggered vociferous protests and opposition from pro-GM groups and scientists. This row, in fact, spilled over to the Convention on Biological Diversity () here. While the pro-GM camp is distributing a document to disprove the claims of the French study, the team that conducted the study strongly defended the outcome of their study.

The study titled Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and A Roundup-tolerant GM maize found tumors in rats fed with . Roundup is a seed technology that gives the crop genetic strength to withstand herbicide used to kill weeds.

“The new research took the form of a two-year feeding trial on 200 rats monitored for outcomes against more than 100 parameters. The results, which are of serious concern, included increased and more rapid mortality, coupled with hormonal non-linear and sex-related effects. Females developed significant and numerous mammary tumours, pituitary and kidney problems. Males died mostly from severe hepatorenal chronic deficiencies,” the French research team that conducted the two-year study, said.

The pro-GM Adriana Brondani, who is Executive Director of the Brazilian Council for Biotechnology Information, felt that besides technical errors, there is evidence of an ideological bias in the conclusions of the study. “Some of the scientists involved in the research have a clear history of militancy against GM products,” she said.

The pro-GMO document quoted Tom Sanders, who is the Head of Nutrition Research at Kings College in London. It argued that the strain of mice used by the French team is prone to developing tumors by aging, especially when given unlimited food or maize contaminated by a common fungus that causes hormonal imbalance.

Robin Mesnage, who is part of the research team, told Business Line that they had previously evidenced signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys of rats fed GMO in Monsanto experiments. “We have decided to repeat the experiment, and to go forward with a longer test with additional measurements. We were surprised by tumorigenic effects from the fourth month, which led us to go up to the whole life of the rats (two years),” he said.

“We used rats in the research, and they are talking about mice,” he said, wondering whether the opposite camp had ever read the article in full.

ABLE-AG response

Meanwhile, the Association of Biotech-Led Enterprises has said everyone involved in agri biotech, including academia and industry, are “deeply perturbed by the fallacious ideas being propagated by such studies.”

Quoting the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), it said that an initial review (of the research) found that the design, reporting and analysis of the study, as outlined in the paper, are inadequate.

kurmanath.kanchi@thehindu.co.in