New Delhi / Ahmedabad, February 15, 2013: The 2-day national seminar on “GM Crops and Food Security” jointly organized by Jatan Trust, Gujarat Vidyapith and Bharatiya Kisan Sangh concluded in Ahmedabad today by calling for a Biosafety Law to be enacted in the country. Speakers emphasized on Biodiversity and Biosafety being key to food security of the country, whereas the current aggressive promotion of transgenic crops is jeopardizing this.

Speaking on democratizing the debate and decision-making around GM crops, Kartikeya Sarabhai of CEE (Centre for Environment Education) pointed out that debate on GM crops cannot be just about production and yields, and that the discourse around food security as well as GM crops has moved on. “The debate on GM crops is around sustainability of farm livelihoods, sustainable use of environmental resources, control over critical resources like seed resting with community, farmers and consumers having a choice, socio-cultural and ethical issues to be addressed and so on. Talking about GM crops only in the context of improving yields is inadequate and inappropriate”. He stressed upon the need for an informed debate in which all citizens should be able to engage, since this is a matter pertaining to something as fundamental as Food. He pointed out that creating a debate is not about being “anti-science”, but asking for holistic science. A multi-disciplinary approach, which includes social sciences, is needed, since this is about livelihoods and development, he stressed. He called for independent studies and said that research approvals should be conditional on making the findings public.

Earlier inaugurating the seminar, Sri Mohini Mohan Mishra, National Secretary of the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, said that in all his travels across the country and meeting farmers, he has realised that they aspire for their control over the very basic resources of farming – soil, water and seed. “In BKS, we believe that India does not need GM crops. Unfortunately, farmers have become victim of glorified propaganda of the Biotech industry. It is a pity that today non-Bt Seeds of Cotton are not available in the market”, he said.

Dr M H Mehta, former VC of Gujarath Agriculture University (GAU) and Chair of Science Ashram, speaking at the seminar, stressed on the need for focusing on economical and environmental friendly model of agriculture to feed the hungry. This will need an agro-ecological approach and not a GM crop based model. He pointed out that while science and technology need to be encouraged, any technology needs to be holistically viewed and the overall consideration of public good and wisdom must prevail.

Explaining how woefully inadequate the GM crop risk assessment is in India, Dr Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign pointed out that our testing systems are simply not stringent enough and even the prescribed procedures are not followed by the companies or universities. Many scientific studies, including the ones conducted by the biotech companies themselves have shown adverse impacts on health and environment. In India, when the biosafety data of Bt brinjal was brought into the public domain, the inadequacy of the tests and the carelessness of the scientists doing the research, and the regulators reviewing biosafety came to the fore. This is not the way to do science, she stated.

Dr Sudarshan Iyengar, Vice Chancellor of Gujarat Vidyapith, presenting a fact sheet on issues related to Food Security in India, emphasized that there is enough evidence to say confidently that if land use planning is rationalized, land ownership issues are resolved, appropriate agronomical practices are introduced, nature’s own resources are used as farm inputs, the world can produce enough for the growing population.

Speaking on “Science & Technology for Food Security”, Dr Rajeswari Raina of NISTADS (National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies, which is a science policy institute of CSIR) pointed out that what we need is “good science”. She explained that ‘good science’ is one that works towards economic, ecological and social progress, something that can tell us whether the existing evidence is enough or not, in terms of risk and impact assessment related to technologies like GM, in addition to giving due recognition and space to other knowledge domains and cultural values that ‘formal science’ has not studied thus far.

Sridhar Radhakrishnan, Convenor of the Coalition for a GM-Free India, said, “Transgenic technology is an unnecessary risk and costly distraction, while solutions for issues in our farming lie elsewhere. In the name of public sector research, resources are being mis-utilised, while something inherently unsafe will remain unsafe, whether it is from the private sector or the public sector”.

Dr Minoo Parabia, renowned botanist, biodiversity expert and Member of State Biodiveristy Board made a presentation on the rich biodiversity of Gujarat, including agro-diversity and expressed caution against transgenics. Dr Atul Mehta, senior rice breeder pointed out that while GM crops are being aggressively pushed, need assessment is sadly lacking, by presenting data of past 50 years to show that pest incidence (stemborer) on rice was low even though corporations are trying to push Bt rice as a solution for a problem that does not exist.

Speaking on the faulty framework of the proposed Biosafety Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, Kavitha Kuruganti of ASHA showcased how improvements in the regulatory regime over the years will be lost if BRAI Bill is allowed to be enacted. “Sustained civil society action, including judicial activism, in addition to the Bt brinjal public debate led by Mr Jairam Ramesh, the then MoEF, brought in some improvements; through the BRAI Bill, the Government of India is trying to lower the regulatory bar which is objectionable and unacceptable”, she said.

Earlier, latest scientific evidence related to adverse impacts of GM crops were shared by Rajesh Krishnan of Greenpeace India. The Seminar also had presentations from the Biotech seed industry representatives, who presented on Bt Cotton in India and GM crop adoption in other countries. Participants of the seminar also included senior scientists from agriculture universities of the state, civil society members, seed and food industry representatives, members of various farmers’ unions and government officials, in addition to Members of the State Biodiversity Board.

For more information, contact:

Kapil Shah: 094-270-54132

Sridhar Radhakrishnan: 099-953-58205

Kavitha Kuruganti: 09393001550

The UPA government has confirmed its disdain for agriculture by insisting on introducing the Bio-technology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, 2012. The Bill has faced opposition in every session since the monsoon session of 2011 when it was first scheduled for introduction since it plans to provide a single-window clearance to Genetically Modified (GM) crops.

Despite the moratorium on Bt Brinjal, there have been many attempts to cast aside concerns on GM crops and it is clear that the regulatory system proposed within the Bill is one such effort. An analysis of the Bill reveals its real intent to blatantly defend the interests of agri-businesses by promoting this technology with very limited checks.

The Bill also sidesteps the precautionary approach laid down by the Cartagena Protocol on bio-safety for national laws to regulate GMOs. While the preamble of the Bill claims that it adheres to the principles of bio-safety, an in-depth reading proves that it does not follow the protocol in letter and spirit. There is a clear conflict of interest in the Bill: it is championed by the ministry of science and technology, which is at the forefront of promoting GM crops and has also made significant investments to do the same.

One of the main reasons why Jairam Ramesh, the former minister for environment and forests, put a moratorium on Bt Brinjal was the lack of long-term bio-safety assessment studies. But the BRAI proposals have no provision for independent long-term bio-safety assessments, making this proposed regulatory system no better than the existing Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) mechanism. The BRAI Bill also has no provision for the people to raise their concerns at different points of decision-making, which makes it undemocratic. Worse, the Bill goes a step further to override the Right to Information Act by making the BRAI the final authority to decide whether any information, including bio-safety studies, need to be made public.

Given the nature of damage that can be caused by GMOs, the liability should be high enough to act as a deterrent. The Bill states that the penalty for an unauthorised field trial will be imprisonment of not less than six months and a fine of R2 lakh. This is negligible considering the potential harm field trials could cause. The standard of liability laid down by this Bill is also not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue of absolute liability for hazardous activity. Furthermore, the Bill does not conform to the polluter pays principle laid down by the Supreme Court.

The BRAI proposal takes away the power of states to decide on open releases of GM crops in the name of experiments. Given that agriculture and public health are subjects under the state list and since the open release of GM crops poses a threat to both, taking away the powers of the states on this is in breach of the Constitution’s federal structure.

It is high time that the government listened to the legitimate concerns being raised on GM crops and the BRAI Bill, and ensured that such anti-people laws are not brought to Parliament. The BRAI proposal should undergo a pre-legislative consultation to suitably amend the provisions of the Bill.

Bhupender Yadav is a Rajya Sabha MP and a lawyer. The views expressed by the author are personal.

Justice Sujata Manohar on how the Biotechnology Bill is fundamentally flawed

Illustration: Sanjoy Naorem

IN THE last few years, regulatory systems across the board have been undergoing an overhaul to fit the needs of a new era. Likewise, new laws are being chalked out to meet new needs, and several are receiving flak owing to the loopholes and regressive grounds on which these have been drafted. The relatively more recent one to regulate modern biotechnology is one such case.

This year marks 10 years of commercialisation of Bt cotton, the only commercially cultivated genetically modified (GM) crop in India. Yet there is no effective regulatory mechanism in place to assess their necessity or the long term safety of GM crops, especially food crops, their impact on health, nor a balance sheet being drawn up of benefits versus detriment.

Earlier in June 2004, the Task Force on Application of Biotechnology in Agriculture, led by MS Swaminathan, recommended the setting up of an ‘autonomous, statutory and professionally-led National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority’ (NBRA) that would have ‘two separate wings — one dealing with food and agricultural biotechnology, and the other with medical and pharmaceutical biotechnology.’ The previous drafts of a biotechnology legislation have fallen short of its intended outcomes more than once, and following several rounds back and forth, it has been renamed as the BRAI (Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India) and is being brought back to Parliament, once again in a far from satisfactory state.

Proposed by the Ministry of Science and Technology, the draft BRAI Bill, 2011 does not justify a new legislation, when effective changes in the existing framework — the 1989 Rules issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests — could well be made. In fact, its handling by the Ministry of Science and Technology alone without the association of other ministries dealing with food, agriculture or health is itself a cause for concern.

An assessment titled ‘BRAI Bill: A Threat to Our Food And Farming’ by Supreme Court lawyer Ritwick Dutta ,brought out recently by Greenpeace, underscores that given the serious and possibly irreversible risks genetically modified organisms are associated with, the overall focus of a regulatory regime of this nature should be based on a precautionary approach/principle. In the current draft, however, the approach is adaptive, going on the assumption that modern biotechnology is to be considered necessary and a fait accompli. India is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol, which means we are under the obligation to ensure that our domestic laws are in compliance with the provisions of the Protocol. While the preamble of the Bill mentions this obligation, it fails to reflect it in letter and spirit.

This piece of legislation also circumvents the RTI Act, 2005 curtailing bio-safety information to the public, and safeguarding the interest of commercial entities over larger public interest. Given that the RTI already has provisions for safeguarding information pertaining to ‘commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property’, this clause is not only unnecessary but one which completely disregards larger public interest. Likewise, public participation in decision making has been restricted to only once at the time of the final decision. Since the effects of biotechnology are far reaching, and there is little public confidence in GMOs owing to growing concerns from across the world, public participation in decision making should be made mandatory.

As regards food safety, doctors have sounded warnings and aware consumers across the world are rejecting GM foods. Down to Earth magazine says that genetically modified food is even banned at a canteen of the biggest GM seed producer, Monsanto. The Granada Group, which runs the canteen, says, ‘We have taken the above steps to ensure that you, the customer, can feel confidence in the food we serve.’ A Monsanto spokesperson said that this was done because the firm believes in choice. For the consumers in India to have the choice, it is necessary that all products using GM crops should mandatorily state on the package that GM crops are a part of the ingredients. This entails compulsory packaging and proper monitoring. This is not feasible in a country where most food is sold unpackaged.

The essential role of the state governments in such vital decision making is now proposed to be reduced to a recommendatory capacity, as specified under Clause 35 of the Bill, despite the fact that agriculture is a state issue. One of the key roles of BRAI is to consider applications for initiating research, transport, import and use or manufacture of GMOs. Moreover, a significant number of these applications would be forwarded by the Department of Biotechnology housed under the Ministry of Science and Technology. When the promoter is also the regulator, there is potential for an inherent conflict of interest.

ONE OF the key parameters based on which Bt brinjal was put on a moratorium in 2010, was the absence of independent, long-term tests. This has been completely overlooked in the BRAI. Given the inherent, irreversible and potentially adverse effects of GMOs, these criteria should be made a requisite before taking a decision to introduce GM crops. Jairam Ramesh had wisely stated that India should adopt such technologies as genetic engineering only where alternatives do not exist.

Finally, whether a GMO should be considered for environmental release or not should be based on the Polluter Pays Principle ensuring absolute liability for harm to the environment. The manufacturer and the promoter should compensate victims of pollution as well as pay up for restoring the environment in case of damage. The resistance that GM crops have faced in other countries from consumers and farmers, environmentalists, human rights activists and even from governments, makes India’s enormous seed market of prime interest to GM seed corporates. The contention that high costs of patented Bt cotton seeds and false representations regarding their performance have contributed to increasing debts and despair of farmers needs to be investigated, and severe penalties affixed. Similarly the health and environmental impacts need to be studied. There is no necessity to rush through a Bill that has the potential to empower a small group of persons to clear genetically modified crops which could irreversibly impact consumer health, the economics of small farmers and the environment.

There is little doubt that the Bill needs to be redrafted before being considered for tabling in the Parliament, and for which widespread consultations with all the relevant stakeholders by a broad-based committee should be done as a priority.

Justice Sujata Manohar is a former Supreme Court judge. The views expressed here are personal.

he youths who called on her at her residence on Monday reminded the Chief Minister about the impending danger that the food, farming and environment of the state faces from the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India bill, 2011 which is expected to be tabled in the current parliament session.

The youths presented Banerjee with a bouquet of vegetables and urged her to write to the Central government to stop the BRAI bill from being tabled in the current form.

The BRAI Bill, 2011 was listed for introduction both during the monsoon and winter session of last year but had to be stopped because of the opposition inside and outside the parliament.

The bill is expected to create a single window clearance system that will lower the bar for the approval of genetically modified crops which are in a controversy around the world owing to the potential dangers they pose to human health, environment and livelihoods dependent on farming.

Congratulating the CM on her government’s decision to ban GM seeds in West Bengal, the youths highlighted the fact that current BRAI Bill proposes to override the state governmen’s decision making power on matters related to GM crops.

We believe that our Chief Minister will stand on the side of the people of the state and formally write to the central govt to scrap BRAI said Natasha Upadhyay, a student of Jadavpur University and a member of the youth team who met the CM at her residence on Monday.

The youths also carried banners which said ‘Didi mein hein dum karein BRAI khatam’.

The state governments of Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala have already written to the Central government for the withdrawal of the BRAI bill in its current form given its inadequacies and demanded consultations with all stakeholders before any such proposals are formulated.

The Bill has been widely criticized for its undemocratic nature and promotional approach it has towards GM crops instead of taking a precautionary one.

A legal assessment of the report released by environmental organization Greenpeace last month highlighted the fundamental flaws in BRAI Bill as its provisions do not conform with several principles which form the core of Indian and international environmental jurisprudence like absolute liability for hazardous and dangerous activities, polluter pays principle, precautionary principle, onus of proof on those who want to change the status quo, effective public participation in environmental decision making and access to biosafety information.

BRAI bill is nothing but an effort by the Central govt to circumvent the massive opposition that GM crops are facing in our country from all section of the society and also from state governments said Rajesh Krishnan, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner, Greenpeace India.

He said: It is a pity that instead of focusing on promoting socially and ecologically sustainable farming our union government is gambling with the food safety and food security through such risky technologies like GM crops.(IBNS)

http://www.newkerala.com/news/2011/worldnews-171478.html

Sub: OPPOSE THE INTRODUCTION OF BRAI BILL, SLATED FOR BUSINESS ON 22ND NOV. 2011

Namaste.

The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill is slated for Business on 22nd November 2011 in the Lok Sabha. This Bill and its introduction has already been opposed by several MPs cutting across party lines. While some have expressed their views in opinion pieces, others have written to the Prime Minister asking him to scrap the Bill or not introduce it in haste. These include MPs from BJP, CPM, RJD, JD-U, Independent etc.

Why should the Bill be not introduced?:

- A Ministry promoting modern biotechnology (Ministry of Science & Technology) seeks to house the regulatory authority in this Bill – promoters cannot be regulators since there is an inherent conflict of interest.

- This regulatory Bill has as its objective, ‘promoting the safe use’ of the technology. For promoting a technology, a legislation is not needed. The need for regulation comes for only one reason: to protect our health and environment and people’s livelihoods from the risks of modern biotechnology. The Bill does not have this as an express mandate.

- The Bill has its implications on and impinges upon matters that are monitored by other independent laws, such as Environment Protection Act, Biological Diversity Act, Forest Rights Act, Forest Conservation Act, Food Safety and Standards Act, Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Panchayat Raj Act, Nagarpalika Act, Right to Information Act, to name but a few and keeps the powers of overriding effect on other laws with it. Such an overarching Bill needs greater debates which have not happened so far.

- The BRAI Bill is against the federal polity enshrined in the Constitution of India and the powers vested in the Panchayat Raj Institutions. It denies these institutions their authority over Agriculture, Health and natural resources and centralises decision-making in a narrow, technical body.

You can obtain more information on this Bill and its deep flaws by visiting:http://indiagminfo.org/?page_id=82. Please also let us know if there is any material that you need related to the subject that we might be able to support you with.

This Bill is deeply flawed and we urge you to oppose the introduction of the Bill by writing formally on your letterhead to the Speaker and the Secretary General of Lok Sabha urgently - kindly do so before 10 am on the 22nd of November, on the day when the Bill has been put into the List of Business. 

If it still gets introduced despite opposition from all quarters of society, kindly ensure that it at least goes to a joint committee of Agriculture/Health/Environment and S&T. Thank you.

मान्यवर,

पिछले साल पहली जीएम खाद्द्य फसल को लेकर पूरे देश में जोरदार बहस छिड़ी। बीटी बैंगन के रूप में पहली जीएम (जेनटिक मोडिफाइड) खाद्य फसल को वर्ष2009  में केंद्र सरकार की परिनियमित इकाई (जीइएसी)ने व्यावसायिक खेती की अनुमति दे दी थी। लेकिन इस विवादास्पद खाद्य फसल पर चली देशव्यापी बहस को देखते हुए केन्द्रीय पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्री ने सतर्कता बरती और बीटी बैंगन पर रोक लगा दी। उन्होंने कहा कि जब तक स्वतंत्र वैज्ञानिक अध्ययनों से सार्वजनिक और व्यावसायिक रूप से यह स्थापित नहीं हो जाता कि इस फसल का मानव स्वास्थ्य और पर्यावरण पर कोई दीर्घकालीन दुष्प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा और बैंगन की मौजूदा असीम विविधता को खतरा नहीं है और यह तकनीकी सुरक्षा सम्बंधित मापदंडों पर खरी नहीं उतरती, उसे अनुमति नहीं दी जायेगी। 

बी.आर.ए.आई. की उत्पत्ति

2003-04 में देश में पहली बार नेशनल बायोटेक्नोलाजी रेग्युलेटरी अथारिटी के रूप में एक स्वायत्त नियामक प्राधिकरण बनाने की बात उठी थी। इसकी सिफारिश कृषि मंत्रालय की तरफ से बनाये गये टास्क फोर्स के अध्यक्ष डा० एम० एस० स्वामीनाथन ने की थी। टास्क फोर्स ने बायोटेक्नोलाजी रेग्युलेटरी गठन के लिए कुछ आधारभूत सुझाव भी दिये थे। जैसे-किसी भी बायोटेक्नोलाजी रेग्युलेटरी नीति निर्धारण के लिए पर्यावरण, किसान वर्ग, सतत कृषि प्रणाली, स्वास्थ्य एवं पौष्टिकता को प्राथमिकता देनी चाहिए। साथ में उपभोक्ता एवं राष्ट्र में व्यापार तथा जैव सुरक्षा के हितों को भी ध्यान में रखना चाहिए।

विज्ञान एवं प्रोद्यौगिकी मंत्रालय के जैव प्रोद्यौगिकी विभाग ने वर्ष 2008 में पहली बार एन बी आर ए बिल प्रस्तुत किया और जनता से राय मांगी। इस बिल की प्रक्रिया और विषयवस्तु दोनों की कटु आलोचना हुई और विरोध हुआ। प्रस्तावित बिल का विरोध मुख्य रूप से गलत प्राथमिकता तय करने व जीएम फसलों को बढ़ावा देने वालों को ही नियामक बना देने की वजह से हुआ। सिविल सोसायटी ने तो बिल की प्रमुख खामियों पर चिंता व्यक्त करते हुए लिखित रूप से अपना विरोध दर्ज कराया।

ब्राई का अगला प्रारूप वर्ष 2009 में तैयार किया गया, जिसके गुप्त दस्तावेज मार्च 2010 में लीक हो गये। इस बिल पर भी काफी हंगामा हुआ क्योंकि इसमें जीएम फसलों के खिलाफ आवाज उठाने वालों पर जुर्माना और जेल की सजा का प्रावधान किया गया था। इसे देखकर ऐसा मालूम हुआ कि इस बिल में सुधार की जगह और खतरनाक स्वरुप प्रदान कर दिया गया। इस प्रारूप में ऐसी धाराएँ शामिल थी जो अलोकतांत्रिक और गुपचुप तरीके से पर्याप्त वैज्ञानिक आधार के बिना और दुष्प्रभावों का व्यापक आंकलन किये बिना ही नियमों को शिथिल करके जीएम फसलों को जल्दी मंजूरी देने की वकालत कर रहे थे।

हालांकि अभी कुछ समय पहले ही राज्य सरकारों की सत्ता को मान्यता दी गई है कि अब वे अपने राज्य में जीएमओ (जैव परिवर्धित फसलों) के स्थलीय परीक्षणों को मंजूरी देने और न देने का फैसला खुद ले सकते हैं। ऐसा तब हुआ जब बिहार के मुख्यमंत्री ने बिना राज्य सरकार को जानकारी दिये और बिना उसकी सहमति लिए बिहार में किये जा रहे स्थलीय परीक्षणों का विरोध किया। इससे पहले केरल सरकार ने अपने राज्य के लिए एक जीएम फ्री पॉलिसी की घोषणा कर दी थी जिसे बाद में संसद में भी उचित कदम माना गया।

वर्तमान बी.आर.ए.आई. बिल

यह बिल 22 नवंबर 2011 को लोकसभा की कार्यवाही की दैनिक सूची में चिन्हित है। यहाँ यह बताना जरूरी है कि जिस समय यह बिल पेश करने की तैयारी चल रही है, बिहार, केरल, मध्य प्रदेश, कर्नाटक, छत्तीसगढ़ ओडिशा एवं पश्चिम बंगाल जैसे 7 राज्य जी एम फसलों के परिक्षण को मना कर चुके हैं। अब देश भर के हजारों गांव खुद को जीएम मुक्त घोषित कर रहे हैं।

क्यों महत्वपूर्ण है हमारे लिए इस बिल से जुडना?

• ऐसा लगता है कि हमें कृषि तकनीकों से जुड़ी बहस में शामिल होने की आवश्यकता है। दूसरी अन्य तकनीकों के विपरीत, ये तकनीकें हमारे ऊपर ज्यादा असर डालने जा रही हैं। वो भी सिर्फ इस कारण से कि ज्यादातर जमीन कृषि के अंदर आती है और देश के ज्यादातर लोगों की रोज़ी रोटी करशी से जुडी हुई है। सबसे ज्यादा महत्वपूर्ण बात यह है कि हम जो खाना खाते हैं वह भी कृषि से ही मिलता है। ऐसा लगता है कि अब हमें ट्रांसजेनिक्स जैसी तकनीकों से जुड़ने की जरूरत है।

• यह भी ध्यान रखने योग्य है कि हमारा भोजन असुरक्षित होता जा रहा है। जीएम फसलों व खाद्यान्न के आने से उसके जहरीले होने की संभावना भी बढ़ गई है। इसलिए इस कानूनका एक हीं उद्देश्य होना चाहिए की भारतीयों के स्वास्थ्य और सुरक्षा से जुड़े जोखिमों को रोकना। इसीलिए इस बिल के पेश किये जाने का विरोध करने की जरूरत है।

बिल के महत्वपूर्ण विन्दु जिनपर मुख्य रूप से आपत्ति है

Ø  यह बिल विज्ञान एवं प्रौद्योगिकी मंत्रालय द्वारा लाया जा रहा है जिससे ‘कनफ्लिक्ट ऑफ इंटरेस्ट’ पैदा हो रहा है, चूँकि यह वही मंत्रालय है जो आधुनिक जैव प्रौद्योगिकी को बढ़ावा दे रहा है। ऐसे में क्या प्रोत्साहक हीं नियामक होंगे?

Ø  इस नियामक बिल का मुख्य उद्देश्य प्रौद्योगिकी का सुरक्षित इस्तेमाल और उसे बढ़ावा देना है। किसी भी तकनीक को प्रोत्साहित करने के लिए एक कानून की जरूरत नहीं होती।कानून सिर्फ उसी परिस्थिति में बनाया जाता है जब स्वास्थ्य, पर्यावरण एवं जीविका को आधुनिक जैव प्रौद्योगिकी के खतरे से बचाना हो। परन्तु ऐसा  कुछ भी इस बिल में नहीं कहा गया है।

Ø  इस बिल का वास्तव में परिणाम एवं प्रभाव कई अधिनियमों पर पड़ता है और साथ हीं उन अधिनियमों  के अधिकार क्षेत्र को भी प्रभावित करता है, जैसे पर्यावरण सुरक्षा अधिनियम, जैव विविधता अधिनियम, वनाधिकार अधिनियम, वन संरक्षण अधिनियम, खाद्य सुरक्षा एवं मानक अधिनियम, दवा एवं सौंदर्य प्रसाधन अधिनियम, पंचायती राज अधिनियम, नगरपालिका अधिनियम, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम आदि। अतः जो बिल इतने व्यापक स्तर पर इतने सारे अधिनियमों को प्रभावित करने की क्षमता रखता हो उसके लिए उतनी हीं गंभीरता से व्यापक बहस होनी चाहिए थी, जो अब तक देखने को नहीं मिला।

Ø  यह बिल भारतीय संविधान के संघीय सिधान्तों के भी खिलाफ है तथा पंचायती राज संस्थाओं को भी कमजोर बनाता है। यह बिल हमारे संघीय ढाँचे तथा पंचायती राज जैसी संस्थाओं के कृषि, स्वास्थ्य एवं प्राकृतिक संसाधनों के नियंत्रण को भी गौण करता है तथा हर निर्णय सिर्फ एवं सिर्फ एक केंद्रीय संस्था में हीं निहीत करने की बात करता है। 

साथ हीं
1.गलत उद्देश्यों के साथ गलत मंत्रालय द्वारा पेश किया जाना
2. विज्ञान एवं प्रोद्यौगिकी मंत्रालय के अधीन हितों के टकराव का विरोध
3.कृषि व स्वास्थ्य मामले में राज्य सरकारों के अधिकारों पर अतिक्रमण
4. मूल्यांकन की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं
5. लोकतांत्रिक कार्य शैली का अभाव-जन सहभागिता की कोई व्यवस्था नहीं
6. पारदर्शिता के लिए कोई व्यवस्था नहीं–सूचना पाने वाले नागरिकों के अधिकार का अतिक्रमण बेहद दुर्भाग्यपूर्ण
7. तमाम संस्थाएं मौजूद लेकिन निर्णय लेने की प्रक्रिया केन्द्रीयकृत व संकीर्ण
8. दंतहीन पर्यावरण मूल्यांकन पैनल
9.निर्णय लेने के मापदंडों को शिथिल करना
10. जैव सुरक्षा व जोखिमों से समझौता करना–खुली हवा में हो रहे परीक्षणों पर अंकुश लगाने के लिए कोई कोशिश नहीं की गई है
11. स्वतंत्र परीक्षण बिल का हिस्सा नहीं हैं
12. कोई जोखिम प्रबंधन तंत्र का न होना
13. हितों के टकराव को पूरी तरह दूर न करना
14. पैनल की धाराओं का कमजोर होना
15.जैव प्रोद्यौगिकी नियामक अपीलीय प्राधिकरण कमजोर और लोगों की न्याय व्यवस्था से दूर करनेवाली
16. दूसरे कानूनों पर अतिक्रमण का असर
17. जीएमओ आयात पर खामोश रहना आदि।

इस बिल पर अधिक जानकारी एवं अन्य खामियों को जानने के लिए कृपया इस लिंक पर जाएँ - http://indiagminfo.org/?page_id=82 हमें खुशी होगी यदि और कुछ विशेष जानकारी के लिए एवं किसी सम्बंधित दस्तावेज के लिए आप हमें संपर्क करते हैं। यह बिल गंभीर रूप से त्रुटिपूर्ण है. अतः हम आपसे निवेदन करते हैं कि आप कृपया २२ नवंबर २०११ को प्रातः १० बजे से पहले-पहले माननीय लोकसभा अध्यक्ष एवं महासचिव को लिखित रूप से इस बिल की introduction के विरुद्ध अपना विरोध पत्र अवश्य भेजें।

अगर किन्ही परिस्थितियों में यह बिल फिर भी पेश हो जाता है तो कृपा कर जरूर सुनिश्चित करें कि तब इसे कम से कम कृषि/स्वास्थ्य/पर्यावरण और विज्ञान एवं प्रोद्यौगिकी के संयुक्त समिति में अवश्य भेजा जाये।

निवेदक :

राष्ट्रीय आशा गठबन्धन                                                                         जी एम मुक्त भारतीय गठबन्धन

Last Updated: Wednesday, November 09, 2011, 17:55

 24  0

Tags: MPs,  oppose, biotech,  regulator, BRAI

New Delhi: The Bill to set up a biotech regulator appears to have run into further trouble with some lawmakers opposing the proposal to allow the Ministry of Science and Technology to govern the authority.

The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill was listed for introduction in the Lok Sabha in the Monsoon Session of Parliament but was withdrawn after members of the Congress, BJP and CPI(M) raised objections.

“The Bill was withdrawn after some members, including from the Congress, said they would oppose it at the introduction stage itself,” Science and Technology Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh said here.

Among members having strong reservations were Jyoti Mirdha (Cong), C P Thakur (BJP), Basudeb Acharia (CPM) and Raghuvansh Prasad Singh (RJD), who felt the regulator should be under the Ministry of Environment and Forests or Health and not under the Ministry of Science and Technology, whose role is to promote biotechnology.

Thakur has written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh asking him not to go ahead with the BRAI Bill in its current form.

Deshmukh said the Health Ministry was not too keen on becoming the governing ministry for the BRAI. Mirdha said the Bill was not a good piece of biosafety legislation and stressed on the need to have wider consultations.

“If introduced, the Bill should be referred to a joint select committee, with representatives from Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture and Health,” she told PTI.

At the initial stages of discussions some portions of the proposed Bill were considered to be in conflict with functions of the health and environment ministries and resolving them has put brakes on the Bill’s progress.

The BRAI proposal has had a controversial history with green groups opposing it on various grounds, particularly on the point that it wrests control from state governments over clearances to genetically modified crops.

PTI

there are five bills which are pending before parliament and may come up for approval in this session starting from22nd nov.

We request you to kindly share the following concerns and suggestions on these bills with your MPs and request them to bring them up while during discussion.  This would of great help. We keep you posted on the developments.

Courtesy: Dr. Donthi Narasimha Reddy

BRAI Bill-clausewise problems

Pesticide Bill-clausewise problems

Seed Bill 2010 – Problems and suggestions

Suggestions on LA-APKisan

ASHA response to National Food Security Bill

pls contact ramoo.csa@gmail.com for other language versions

Patna, Nov. 7: Three NDA MPs from Bihar — C.P. Thakur of the BJP, Jai Narayan Nishad and Anil Kumar Sahani of the JD(U)— have written separate letters to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh expressing concern over reports of Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill being introduced in the winter session of Parliament.

They have sought an intervention to stop the process in the interest of farmers. “I have strong objections to it being infringement on the authority of the state on matters related to agriculture and health,” said Thakur in his letter. He also objected to the fact that the proposed bill would be tabled by the ministry of science and technology when it should have been under the ministry of environment or health.

Jai Narayan Nishad, in his letter, has pointed out that seven states — Bihar, Bengal, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka and Kerala — have already objected to genetically modified crop trials. “You must also be aware that during the Bt Brinjal debate, 13 states had objected to the approval for its commercial cultivation,” Nishad said, adding that the bill and its provisions are going to leave behind a large impact because the livelihood of most of the people of the country depends on agriculture.

He has also expressed apprehensions about degradation of environment resources and serious changes in crop because of GM crops. “I believe you will agree that regulatory regime that does not pay attention to these issues, bio-safety-related as well as those beyond bio-safety, will only benefit the industry and fail our vast majority of poor,” Nishad said.

Sahani in his letter stressed that he has found the contents of the proposed bill “too centralised and thereby contradictory to the principle of decentralisation of governance”, he remarked recalling that the Bihar government had not only objected to the trial of genetic seeds within its state but also apprised the environment ministry of its strong objection to GM field trials. He urged the PM to take public opinion through debates and invite critical inputs before the bill is introduced in Parliament.

Chief minister Nitish Kumar has been in the forefront of objecting the proposed bill. A few months ago, he had written letters stressing that the proposed bill infringes on the rights of the state and that there was no provision for timely compensation to the farmers should the GM seeds fail.

He had been swift to oppose GM seed trial in Sabour and had expressed shock that the trials should have been done without the consent of the state government.

The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill surfaced quietly in the List of Business for Lok Sabha in August 2011. It did not however make it for introduction in this session of Parliament. Yet the din about it outside the legislature refuses to settle down.

The Bill once again sets off discussions in India on what a regulatory regime for modern biotechnology in the country ought to be like. If the Authority does see the light of day, it would do so after the very first decade (2002-2012) of India’s experience with GE crops. So one way to view the Bill is to see if its provisions address at least some of the concerns raised by people based on these years of real encounters with GE technology per se and the decision-making processes on it. Also, it is to be seen if the latest version actually improves upon the previous version of the BRAI Bill (2009).

The need to revamp the country’s regulatory regime on biosafety is being raised by people since the 90s. That was when the first 10 grams of Bt – proprietary material of the MNC Monsanto Inc., was brought into the country from the US. And that’s precisely the problem. The country exporting the technology and pushing for its application in agriculture, does not adhere to any global biosafety agreements and on the contrary attempts to influence the kind of regulatory regime our country ought to have on GE.

In 2003 the global Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (under the Convention on Biological Diversity came into force. In the very same year in India a Task Force on the Application of Agriculture Biotechnology was constituted by the Ministry of Agriculture. As mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill (2011), the Task Force recommended (2004) the establishment of an “autonomous, statutory and professionally-led National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority”.

But on the side the US-India Business Council and its members, as well as the USAID through its support programmes on biosafety come to bear on the issue. In this context it is pertinent to note that the scope of the Bill does not cover export of GE from India at all! The opening words of the Bill mention that the BRAI is to regulate research, transport, manufacture, use and import of GE organisms and products. But the term ‘export’ in the preamble and the rest of the text is conspicuous by its absence.

One of the key concerns vis-a-vis biosafety has been the lack of an independent authority to oversee the approval process for the application of biotechnology. The Bill sets up a five-member Authority with a Chairperson with two full time and two part time ‘members’. The Bill makes specific mention of financial or other conflict of interest that has to be considered at the time of appointment. And a member can not hold another position be it in the Government – Centre or State, another organisation or a private company, while in office. Even upon leaving office, a member is debarred from certain positions for a period of two years.

All BRAI members are to be appointed by the Central Government through a Selection Committee. The Authority is to be overseen by an Inter Ministerial Governing Board and a Biotechnology Advisory Committee, both of which are also comprising Central Government officials. Agriculture is a State subject as per the legislative distribution of powers. So merely having an advisory body at the State level – the State Biotechnology Regulatory Advisory Committees (SBRAC) will not tip the balance in favour of localised decision-making. There is no mention of any District level committees as are supposed to exist under the existing GE Rules (1989 issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986). In fact by virtue of the BRAI Bill, any State law in force on the subject would also stand repealed.

The linkage with other laws (Section 81) states the overriding effect of the law-to-be. But Section 86 instead states that the provisions of this Act will be in addition to and not it derogation of any other law for the time being in force. This contradiction has to be resolved. The only other law that talks of biosafety, is the Biological Diversity Act (2002) of India. The said Act makes it mandatory for the Central Government to regulate, manage or control the risks associated with the use and release of living modified organisms resulting from biotechnology likely to have adverse impact on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and human health.

The Bill however resolves at least for the Central Government the dilemma on which Ministry ought to have the last word on decisions on the application of GE. The choice is clearly in favour of the Ministry dealing with science and technology. The Bill thus significantly reduces the say of the Environment Ministry. Of course the BRAI would replace the GEAC, thus far has been under the Environment Ministry. But the Bill makes clear the relationship between the BRAI with the MoEF. The Bill unlike its 2009 version envisages an Environment Appraisal Panel (EAP), with a Chairperson, five members and a Member Secretary located in MoEF. It is mandatory for the BRAI to obtain the opinion of the EAP, but is not bound by it!

The Bill is a carve-out from the coverage of the right to information law in India. While it can be understood why any BRAI member is debarred from disclosing to any third person any matter currently under consideration of the BRAI. But there are strictures against the disclosure of confidential commercial information. With more and more aspects of modern biotechnology (processes and products) being brought under intellectual property (IP) coverage, IPR can become a veil to hide behind. And in what can only be read as a deft political move, the text of the Bill makes it the responsibility of the SBRAC to ensure that information of the BRAI and its activities are made available to the public in a transparent and accessible manner in the State [Section 35(6)(e)].

How people participate in the decision-making is another crucial issue. BRAI is mandated to obtain the objections or suggestions from the public; but the letter of the law does not indicate that it is bound by them. Actual practice has shown otherwise. Also people protesting against GE in agriculture were outraged by a Section 63 in the earlier version of the BRAI (2009) Bill, which made it a punishable offence (6 months to 1 year prison with fine upto two lakh rupees) to “mislead(s) the public about the safety of the (GE) organisms and products”. Though that section has been done away with, but farmers and activists opposing GE may still find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they either provide any false or misleading information (Section 62) or if they attempt to obstruct any official discharging any function under the Act (Section 64).

Both the Bills talk of the Central Government setting up a Biotechnology Regulatory Appellate Tribunal (BRAT) that will have the power to regulate its own procedure and would function like a civil court. Thus the bar on jurisdiction on all civil courts on any matter that the BRAT is empowered to deal with. So an entire new parallel quasi-judicial structure is envisaged as part of the regulatory regime.

Yet the jury is still out on the safety of the technology sought to be regulated under the BRAI Bill. That in itself is a fundamental issue to address. As is said, no technology is neutral. (Particularly, if it emanates from the USA.) And in India we are yet to democratise any of our regulatory regimes. Today it is GE, tomorrow there will be nanotechnology et al, will a whole new Bill and with it an other technocracy then emerge?

About the author – Shalini Bhutani

Shalini is a lawyer based in Delhi, India. She is working independently on issues of trade, agriculture and biodiversity. She has worked in several national and international NGOs in the last fifteen years including the Centre for Environmental Law at WWF-India, Navdanya and GRAIN. Currently along with others in India she is involved in the Campaign for Conservation and Community Control over Biodiversity. She is also part of the Forum Against FTAs in India. In the Asia region she is also associated with Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific.

–

http://www.cseindia.org/node/3192