HAMARA BEEJ

Banana fibre in Bihar: the remarkable story of an industry and an entrepreneur!

2011-09-07T10:05:00.000+05:30

Patna: Bihar farmers plant banana in around 28,000 hectares of land every year. The banana plant is the largest herbaceous flowering plant. The plants are normally tall and fairly sturdy and are often mistaken for trees, but their main or upright stem is actually a pseudostem that grows 6 to 7.6 metres (20 to 24.9 ft) tall, growing from a corm.

Each pseudostem can produce a single bunch of bananas. After fruiting, the pseudostem dies, but offshoots may develop from the base of the plant. Many varieties of bananas are perennial.

The relevant point here however is, the stem invariably goes waste. On the whole 22 districts in Bihar grow banana, some of them on a vast scale. Each acre of banana plantation may have up to 1300 tress. This may give you some idea of the banana waste output of entire Bihar. So what should be done?

According to standard data, not widely known in Bihar, a full 1 km of fibre may be extracted from 12-15 banana trees. A plantation thus with 1300 trees can give a producer 85 kms of fibre length. But what are the uses of the banana fibre? And this is where the producer may hit the jackpot.

Banana fibre is used in a variety of industries starting with high quality paper to weaving of saris in South India and Gujarat. The fibre also finds use in high quality security/currency paper, packing cloth, ship towing ropes, wet drilling cables etc.

India also occupies the largest area under Banana cultivation in the world covering approx. 11% of world area of Banana. Banana fiber can partially replace the consumption of Cotton and Jute fiber in India. It has excellent potential for export to Far-east Asian and South Asian countries like Singapore,Taiwan, Japan, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Malaysia.

Banana farmers and entrepreneurs in Bihar are thus sitting on a gold mine that they are not aware of. There is one person however who has taken the initiative in Bihar. Virendra Dayal who has a small scale unit in Bidupur, Vaishali took the trouble to get himself trained in the technique of fibre extraction before he put up his industry. He now says he has captive clients who pick up his produce and he doesn’t have to go chasing after them – a major advantage in the case of Bihar where farmers often find tough to seek markets.

Mr Dayal lays down a simple calculation to explain the profitability of the industry – one acre of land will give you 1200 stems approximately. Roughly 12 stems give you around 1 kilo of fibre. Companies willingly pay Rs 150-200 for a kilo of fibre. He started his industry with a machine he bought for the royal sum of Rs 80,000 and a large room as a factory. He is now planning to upgrade the machine with an investment of Rs 150,000. Does that give you an idea of the scale of investment?

You can do the rest of the calculation yourself. Mr dayal does not forget to add that the banana stem juice may be processed into high value molasses as well. So far we have thought of banana fibre from the entrepreneur’s viewpoint. Once you include the farmer and the local labour employed, you get a complete picture of the potential of this industry.

New WikiLeaks Cables Show US Diplomats Promote Genetically Engineered Crops Worldwide

2011-09-04T21:31:00.000+05:30

by: Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report

Dozens of United States diplomatic cables released in the latest WikiLeaks dump on Wednesday reveal new details of the US effort to push foreign governments to approve genetically engineered (GE) crops and promote the worldwide interests of agribusiness giants like Monsanto and DuPont.

The cables further confirm previous Truthout reports on the diplomatic pressure the US has put on Spain and France, two countries with powerful anti-GE crop movements, to speed up their biotech approval process and quell anti-GE sentiment within the European Union (EU).

Several cables describe "biotechnology outreach programs" in countries across the globe, including African, Asian and South American countries where Western biotech agriculture had yet to gain a foothold. In some cables (such as this 2010 cable from Morocco) US diplomats ask the State Department for funds to send US biotech experts and trade industry representatives to target countries for discussions with high-profile politicians and agricultural officials.

Truthout recently reported on front groups supported by the US government, philanthropic foundations and companies like Monsanto that are working to introduce pro-biotechnology policy initiatives and GE crops in developing African countries, and several cables released this week confirm that American diplomats have promoted biotech agriculture to countries like Tunisia, South Africa and Mozambique.

Cables detail US efforts to influence the biotech policies of developed countries such as Egypt and Turkey, but France continues to stand out as a high-profile target.

In a 2007 cable, the US embassy in Paris reported on a meeting among US diplomats and representatives from Monsanto, DuPont and Dow-Agro-sciences. The companies were concerned about a movement of French farmers, who were vandalizing GE crop farms at the time, and suggested diplomatic angles for speeding up EU approvals of GE Crops.

In 2008 cable describing a "rancorous" debate within the French Parliament over proposed biotech legislation, Craig Stapleton, the former US ambassador to France under the Bush administration, included an update on MON-810, a Monsanto corn variety banned in France.

Stapleton wrote that French officials "expect retaliation via the World Trade Organization" for upholding the ban on MON-810 and stalling the French GE crop approval process. "There is nothing to be gained in France from delaying retaliation," Stapleton wrote.

Tough regulations and bans on GE crops can deal hefty blows to US exports. About 94 percent of soybeans, 72 percent of corn and 73 percent of the cotton grown in the US now use GE-tolerate herbicides like Monsanto's Roundup, according to the US Agriculture Department.

A 2007 cable, for example, reports that the French ban on MON-810 could cost the US $30 million to $50 million in exports.

In a 2007 cable obtained by Truthout in January, Stapleton threatened "moving to retaliate" against France for banning MON-810. Several other European countries, including Germany, Austria, Hungary and Bulgaria, have also placed bans on MON-810 in recent years. MON-810 is engineered to excrete the Bt toxin, which kills some insect pests.

GM crops by backdoor

2011-08-12T21:00:00.000+05:30

By Basudev Acharya

Apart from issues related to seed monopoly and rural livelihood, there are serious biosafety concerns the world over.

Across the world, there is huge controversy around the introduction of genetically modified/engineered (GM/GE) crops. On one hand there are a few biotech crop developers and scientists recommending the use of GM technology as solution for food security and on other there are concerns about its impact on human health, environment and socioeconomy. Added to that is the unpredictability and irreversibility of genetic engineering and the uncontrollability of GM crops once let out in the environment. One of the major concerns about GM crops is that they only serve the purpose of multinational seed giants. All GM technologies come along with Intellectual Property Rights and patent tags of multinational seed companies which would ensure their monopolies as has happened in the case of Bt cotton, the only GM crop commercially cultivated in India. While there were 619 varieties of Bt cotton approved for release until Aug 2009 in the country, 514 of them are owned by Monsanto, the US multinational seed giant, which also holds a global monopoly in the total seed sales of Bt cotton. One has already seen how Monsanto has armtwisted the state governments in India to increase the cotton seed prices this season. Bt Brinjal, the first GM food crop to have reached commercialisation stage in our country, also had a Cry 1Ac gene owned by Monsanto and licenced to Mahyco for developing Bt Brinjal. There is a threat of GM crops becoming the tool for control of the seed and thereby the agriculture sector by multinational seed corporations. Apart from issues related to seed monopoly and rural livelihood, there are serious biosafety concerns being debated world over. Different studies have consistently indicated the possible ill-effects of GMs on health and environment. There is a clear need for an independent report on various effects of GM crops, including long term studies and chronic toxicity studies. Biosafety concerns must be addressed before any open air release of GM crops including field trials. It is in this context that one should look at the growing debate on GM crops in India. The crisis in Indian agriculture needs no further statement, but to attribute it to just technology lag and promote technofixes, like GM crops, as the only solution to it is not only myopic but also criminal and this is precisely what the Indian government seems to be doing. The debate in India on GE crops started with Bt cotton, the only commercially approved GE crop in the country (March, 2002) and had become loud and visible around the approval of Bt Brinjal. During public consultations organised by the Union ministry of environment and forests last year on Bt Brinjal, there were concerns raised by farmers, civil society, and health and environment experts against GM crops and also against the existing regulatory system in the country, the government then rolled back the approval validating these concerns. Field trials While Bt Brinjal is under moratorium, numerous GM crops are being released in to the open fields in the name of field trials, which could lead to contamination of our regular crop varieties by these GM crops whose biosafety is yet to be ascertained. Efforts are also on by GM crop developers like Monsanto to push herbicide tolerant corn and cotton in India. Field trials of these crops have been happening and are expected to come up for commercialisation soon. Recommendations submitted by the Swaminathan Task Force on Agri-Biotechnology, whose report was accepted by the government in 2004, clearly stated that India should adopt such technologies as genetic engineering only where alternatives do not exist. It also categorically rejected technologies that would be detrimental to agriculture labour like the herbicide tolerant crops. To top it all the government is proposing a new regulatory system for GM crops called the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) which is supposed to be tabled in the monsoon session. From what one has seen of the media leaked versions of its drafts, BRAI is going to lower the bar for approvals of GM crops. The problems with the proposed bill starts with the grave conflict of interest where the regulator is proposed to be located in the ministry of science and technology which also has the mandate to promote GM crops in the country. The last version seen in the media paints the picture of a centralised technocratic body with pretty much no role for the elected representatives of the people of this country. It did not have longterm biosafety assessments and also maintains the current system of letting the GM crop developer do the biosafety assessment. It also proposed to circumvent the Right to Information Act, 2005, and went even to the extent of proposing imprisonment and fines for those opposing GM crops without scientific evidence. Thus the BRAI that government plans to put in place, at its onset looks like a non transparent, unquestionable authority. Given that the existing regulatory system is defunct, what needs to be immediately done is stopping the release of any GM crop in to our environment be it for commercialisation or for research. We should not fail to ask fundamental questions like whether there is a need for this technology and whether safer and sustainable alternatives exist for a proposed product. This is what the existing and proposed regulatory systems for GM crops fail to do in India and the fact is that for any GM crop that is being developed in any part of the word right now, there exists ecological alternatives which are economically and socially sustainable. (The writer is the chairman of parliament’s standing committee on agriculture)

Legal action against two firms in BT brinjal case

2011-08-12T13:52:00.001+05:30

NEW DELHI: The BT brinjal case just got murkier.Government's National Biodiversity Authority has decided to take legal action against Mayhco and Monsanto for using Indian varieties of the vegetable without mandatory permissions.

The authority, meant to govern use of Indian genetic resources by business and research groups, decided in its meeting in June to initiate legal action against the companies and their collaborators for violating the Biodiversity Conservation Act and using the genetic material from India without the mandatory permissions from either the state or central board authorised to permit such work.

The last meeting of NBA recorded, "A background note besides legal opinion on Bt brinjal on the alleged violation by the Mahyco/Monsanto, and their collaborators for accessing and using the local brinjal varieties for development of Bt brinjal without prior approval of the competent authorities was discussed and it was decided that the NBA may proceed legally against Mahyco/Monsanto, and all others concerned to take the issue to its logical conclusion."

The move comes after a Bangalore-based NGO, Environment Support Group, filed a case before the state authority - Karnataka Biodiversity Board -- against the companies and consortium of research organizations for using the Indian varieties without mandatory clearances.

Environment Support Group complained to the Karnataka Biodiversity Board on February 15, 2011. The state authority investigated the matter and in May 2011 reported to the national board that six local varieties had been used for development of Bt Brinjal without permissions. Mayhco and its collaborator, the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, defended themselves before the state authority for not seeking permissions stating that the project did not involve profit making or transfer of genetic resources.

Under the Biodiversity Act, violations of this nature can attract up to three years of imprisonment and Rs 5 lakh penalty.

Save our onions from seed predators

2011-08-11T12:24:00.000+05:30

Dinesh C. Sharma | August 11, 2011

An internationally reputed entomologist, Petr Svacha, was arrested and put behind bars in a Darjeeling jail a couple of years ago for allegedly violating the Biodiversity Protection Act 2002. His crime: he was found collecting some moths and insects in forest areas. None of them were endangered species nor was Svacha in a protected forest.

Now contrast this with another case of biopiracy. A multinational seed firm is accused of 'accessing' nine local varieties of eggplant and using this plant material to develop a genetically modified brinjal variety - popularly known as bt brinjal.

One of the state biodiversity boards finds prima facie violation of the Act and forwards the complaint to the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) for further action. NBA not only sits on the complaint for over a year, but also processes a fresh application by the same company to 'access' indigenous germlines of onions. In one case, a scientist is summarily jailed allegedly for being a biopirate, while in the other no action is taken even after evidence of biopiracy is found against a powerful commercial entity.

These two incidents demonstrate how India has made a sham of its biodiversity regulation.

NBA had to be set up to fulfill obligations after India signed the Convention on Biological Diversity. It took a long time for the authority and state boards to become functional.

Once NBA was set up, it was promptly converted into a convenient parking lot for bureaucrats from agriculture and environment ministries. All its chairmen since 2003 have been serving or retired babus, and members are all joint secretary level officers from different ministries.

One can call it a committee of joint secretaries rather than NBA. Even so-called nonofficial members are also drawn from the same pool. In fact, for the first time NBA will have a Chairman from outside the babudom this week. The problem with these people is that they consider the authority as an extension of the government, and have reduced it to a clearing house of applications from multinationals for accessing India's biodiversity.

While applications from commercial firms for accessing biological material are processed with alacrity, complaints against them are not handled with the same level of efficiency. The time taken by NBA in dealing with the complaint of biopiracy against Monsanto, which now wants to access onion parental lines, is a case in point.

The Monsanto application for the use of onion plant material for developing commercial grade onion hybrid seeds also raises some fundamental issues.

How do you arrive at value of plant material and who decides this? The company is going to pay Rupees ten lakh to the Indian Institute of Horticulture Research for 25 grams each of Male sterile (A line) and Maintener (B line) of MS 48 and MS 65 as 'onetime license fee'. Is this the right price for a plant material which would perhaps spin a multi-billion dollar hybrid onion business for Monsanto? Should it be Rs 10 lakh or Rs 100 crore? (the export market alone of Indian onions is in excess of Rs 1000 crore a year).

When hybrids are already being developed in state-funded Directorate of Onion and Garlic Research, should a predatory seed firm be allowed entry at all? All these questions need convincing answers. Onion prices can bring tears in the eyes of politicians at the time of elections and bring down governments.

Hope the issue of biodiversity of onion will be dealt with the same level of gravity.

Kisan Swaraj Yatra enters Bihar – interacts with farmers, farmer leaders and intellectuals in Patna

2010-12-20T14:09:00.000+05:30

The Yatra entered Bihar today and the 3-day trip in Bihar began with a public meeting at Srikrishna Vigyan Kendra, Patna. The meeting was attended by farmers, farmer leaders with various unions, students from schools and colleges, urban consumers, media representatives and an ex-Minister, ex-MLA and so on and was chaired by the Chairperson of the State Farmers’ Commission, Dr Upendranath Verma (an active person in his 90s), who was also a former Minister for Rural Development.

Bihar State President of BKU, Mr Ramanuj Singh observed that no political party included any farmers’ issues in their election manifestos in the recently-concluded election, which is a worrisome factor. He lamented at the fact that lakhs of masoor was lying with very poor price support for farmers. He also questioned the institutional credit policies in relation to farmers – why is it that for every tractor that a farmer gets, the mortgage is worth eight to ten times, whereas it is not the same credit policy for other sectors, he asked. He also told the Yatris that if there is hope for a true farmers’ struggle rising up again in the country along the lines that Gandhiji dreamt of, it would happen from Bihar and West Champaran! Mr Dhirendra Narayan Sharma of Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, said that the “Green Revolution in Eastern India” should be aptly called as “Loot ki kranti” (“exploitation-revolution”). He pointed out that this country never saw even one political leader who said that they will not accept any hikes in their salaries and emoluments unless farmers get proper remunerative prices and that is the misfortune of the farmers in the country. He also questioned the so-called organic farming implementation in the state of Bihar.

Mr Gowrishankar Nagdansh, an ex-Minister in the Bihar government also spoke. He raised issues related to sharecroppers and talked about a sahityakaar Pharmeshwar Nath “Renu” who did not send his children to school – “he understood that sending children to our education institutions will pull them out of farming I guess”, he remarked.

Mr Vijay Pratap of SADED, well known social activist, emphasized on the need to focus on rainfed agriculture – he reminded everyone that the rainfed belts are the ones which provide nutritious food for everyone. He also pointed out that other regions in India will have to experience the same plight as Punjab today, if we don’t correct our path and learn lessons from the earlier Green Revolution. He also questioned the government’s faith in the American farming models and pointed out that these have been proven to be unsustainable and adding to climate change. We have to come out of our aping of the western notions of development and change our thinking with regard to our farming. He said that the nation has to focus on the revival of the rural economy.

Dr Upendranath Verma raised his concerns against Monsanto being given an official status in India. Our decision makers are corrupt and I have no hesitation saying that here, he remarked. He hoped that the fire that will spread from this Yatra will consume the foreign companies in India and make them flee from here. “We need at least hundred such public meetings in Bihar to be organized after this Yatra leaves – we have to go to the villages with this message – let us get everyone here to shun GM seeds and to save their own seeds”, he said.

Yatris explained why the western influenced intense agriculture can never be a solution for the Indian model of small / individual and marginal farmers. The symbiotic relationship between organic farming and small and marginal holdings was explained. That the current crisis in Indian farming is also an issue for the non-farmers like the urban consumers was also explained in detail.

Other farmers, especially from Bihar Kisan Sangharsh Samiti who spoke in the meeting urged the ASHA people to stay away from (party) politics to ensure that farmers’ issues are carried forward in a non-partisanal manner. Pankaj Bhushan of Tara Foundation explained the nature of ASHA and assured them that this is not linked to political parties.

They also pointed out that there has been large scale failure of maize and matar (green peas) and nothing has been done to compensate farmers for the losses that they incurred.

The whole house rejected the Green Revolution proposals in Bihar by the Union Government. The Yatra put forward three main demands to the yet-to-be-formed government in Bihar:

Promote organic farming in the state
Not allow any GM seeds in the state including open air trials and make a legislation to that effect
Pick up lessons from the earlier Green Revolution and ensure that the Green Revolution proposals are in the benefit of farmers and in a sustainable livelihoods framework

There was a rally afterwards uptil Gandhi Statue where Yatris and others paid homage to the Mahatma. “Mahatma Gandhi ka naara goonjega, is desh ke kone kone mein”, was the slogan that rented the skies. Then we moved to Taru Mitra Bioreserve, an ecological ashram set up by thousands of students across the globe. This place which was a rice field till 1996 was converted to the green heaven it is today by sheer labour from students. There is so much thrust on having as many local species of trees as possible and the fact that the students were not only enlightened about the need of such a spread but also other eco-sensitive issues. We interacted with students from different schools in Patna here.

The day ended with a fantastic public meeting in the Musallahpur bazaar with literally thousands of people listening to the Yatris. Leaflets flew in thousands and it was fantastic to watch people read the leaflets with great interest and do slogan-shouting along with us. The best part was that as we closed the meeting, we did not find a single leaflet dropped on the road – people carefully folded the handbills and put them in their pockets and left. We left for Muzaffarpur after this.

Yatra against mutated food, crops

2010-08-26T19:03:00.000+05:30

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1100826/jsp/bihar/story_12855636.jsp

AMIT BHELARI

NGO Lokyan president Vijay Pratap addresses a news meet in Patna on Wednesday. Picture by Ashok Sinha

Patna Aug. 25: GM Free Bihar Movement, spearheading a countrywide campaign against genetically modified food, today announced that it would launch a Kisan Swaraj Yatra on October 2.

The journey by bus, slated to take two months, would cover 19 states across the country. The bus would pass through Patna, Muzaffarpur, Rajendra Agriculture University, Samastipur, and Champaran on the Bihar leg of its tour between November 22 and 24.

GM Free Bihar Movement convener Pankaj Bhusan said: “Kisan Swaraj Yatra is an effort to reach out towards self-reliant, ecological farming and for securing the rights of farmers.”

Bhusan said that the yatra would also help in creating a platform for state governments which want to assert their constitutional authority over agriculture and health as state projects.

The president of an NGO, Lokyan, Vijay Pratap, said: “It is matter of shame that in a country where nearly 70 per cent of the population is still dependent on farming and food production, hundreds of farmers are being forced to commit suicide.”

Social activist Mihir Kumar, who also took part in the seminar, said BT brinjal, the first genetically modified food crop sought to be introduced in India, has been stopped by the central government.

BT brinjal was developed by Monsanto, a multinational company based in the US in partnership with India's Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company and was approved for commercialisation in 2009 but was withdrawn after a public outcry.

Kumar Shubhamoorty, a member of GM Free Bihar Movement, said: “The yatra requires active participation and support of the people.”

Suresh Gupta, a pioneer in organic farming, said: “Throughout the yatra, the campaign is based on the philosophy of Satyameva Jayate.”

Parveen Amanullah, a member of Hum Log Trust, said: “The yatra believes that genetically modified seeds are dangerous.”

He added: “It would have adverse effects on farmers, consumers and our environment. It needs to be resisted.”

The yatra is being organised by the Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture and would be led by the convener of the GM Free Movement, Pankaj Bhusan, and Kavitha Kuruganti from Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab.

The yatra would commence from Sabarmati Ashram in Gujarat and would end in Delhi on December 11.

Sonia’s root concerns stay in new Seeds Bill

2010-08-03T18:14:00.000+05:30

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Sonia-s-root-concerns-stay-in-new-Seeds-Bill/653252

About five years after Sonia Gandhi raised a red flag on the Seeds Bill, 2004, on the grounds of “a growing perception” that it was “anti-farmer”, the Agriculture Ministry is preparing to introduce an amended version in the current session of Parliament.

However, the Seeds Bill, 2010, reportedly also falls short of Congress’ expectations, and it has joined the Left and farmers’ organisations in demanding more changes in it.

Leading the opposition is the Congress regime in Andhra Pradesh. Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar planned to bring the amended Bill in the last session of Parliament, but the move was scuttled after Andhra Congress leaders met PM Manmohan Singh and Sonia to press for more changes in the Bill.

At a meeting convened by Pawar to evolve consensus on the proposed Bill on Wednesday, Andhra Agriculture Minister N Raghuveera Reddy, accompanied by many Congress MPs, demanded setting up of a regulator “to fix prices and royalty, taking into account intellectual property rights”.

बिहार में मक्के के दाने बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनी के हवाले

2010-04-02T17:56:00.001+05:30

cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa us fcgkj ds fdlkuksa dks vius paxqy esa ys gh fy;k

iVuk] 02 vizSy 2010] cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa us ,d ckj fQj lkr o"kksZ ds ckn fcgkj ds fdlkuksa dks vius paxqy esa ys gh fy;k vkSj fcgkj ds fdlkuksa dks eDds dh ,slh cht cspdj pEir gks x, ftlesa vadqj.k rd ugha vk;kA buls mith eDds dh Qly esa nkus ugha vk, vkSj yk[kksa gsDVs;j dh Qly fcgkj esa cckZn gks xbZA lkr lky igys Hkh fcgkj esa eksUlsUVks dEiuh ds dkjfxy cht us ,slk gh xqy f[kyk;k FkkA

,sfrgkfld izns'k fcgkj ds fdlku laHkor% [kwu ilhuk yxkdj egktuksa ls dtZ ysdj ljdkj ds eqvkots ds Hkjksls [ksrh djuk lh[k jgsa gSaA ,slh gkyr jgh rks fcgkj esa Hkh fonHkZ] e/;izns'k] vkU/kzizns'k] dukZVd] tSls jkT;ksa ds leku fdlkuksa dks Hkh vkRegR;k djus ij etcwj gksuk iM+sxk] tks mu txgksa ij chVh cSaxu ds ekeys esa gks pqdk gSA vkt jkT; ljdkj Hkys gh dfVgkj ftys ds n.M[kksM+k iz[k.M ds egs'kiqj fuoklh LoxhZ; txnh'k 'kekZ dh ekSr dks vkRegR;k ekuus dks ugha rS;kj gks jgh gS rFkk [kq¡Vh glSyh xk¡o ds eks0 uthe ds lEcU/k esa Hkh ljdkj [kqydj dqN ugha dg ik jgh gS ysfdu ;s txnh'k 'kekZ ,oa eks0 uthe rks fdlh Hkh <+ax ls cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa ds gh f'kdkj gq, gS pkgs LoxhZ; 'kekZ us eDds dh [ksr cckZn gksus ls vkRegR;k fd;k gks vFkok e[kkuk dh [ksr esa eNyh ds fo"k ds fNM+dko ls ejs gksA bl vk'k; ls ;g izdkf'kr gksrk gSa fd ogh cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;k¡ ,d rjQ dhVuk'kd tgjhyh nokkb;k¡ cuokrh gS vkSj nwljh rjQ gk;fczM] VfeZusVj ,oa th ,e chtksa dk Hkh mRiknu djrh gS vkSj Hkksys&Hkksys fdlkuksa dks yqHkkdj muls ewY; ysdj viuh dekbZ djrs gq, muds [ksrksa esa blrjg ds chtksa dk ijh{k.k Hkh dj ysrh gSA

vkf[kj ,slk gks D;ksa ugha\ fcgkj tSls izxfr'khy d`f"k iz/kku jkT; esa blds jksdFkke ds fy, oÙkZeku esa dksbZ vf/kfu;e ugha cuk gS u gh iqjkus vf/kfu;e dk la'kks/ku gh gqvk gSA jkT; ljdkj izfr gsDVs;j cckZn Qly ij nl gtkj :0 dh jkgr nsus dk QSlyk fd;k gSA bl ij Hkh dbZ iz'u mB [kM+s gksrs gS—

(1) cckZn gq, Qly dh x.kuk esa gh inkf/kdkfj;ska dks dbZ efguksa dk le; yxsxk

(2) D;k eqvkotk ls gh fdlkuksa dh {kfriwÙkZ gks tk,xh \

vkf[kj mu cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa dk D;k gksxk tks lqnqj ns'kksa esa cSBdj uhfr rS;kj djrs gsa fd gekjs [ksrksa esa dkSu lk cht dk iz;ksx gks] lkFk gh ;gk¡ ;g nksgjkuk mfpr gksxk fd iwoZ esa fQjafx;ksa us gekjs efUnjksa dks yqVk vc gekjs [ksrksa dks yqVus vk, gSaA

jktsUnz d`f"k vuqlU/kku dsUnz ds oSKkfudksa }kjk bu eDds esa nkus ugha gksus dh tk¡p djus ds ckn ;g Li"V gks pqdk gS fd eDds ds cht eas xM+cM+h gksus ds dkj.k nkus ugha vk, ysfdu ;g ?kksj vk'p;Z dk fo"k; gSa fd jkT; ds dbZ d`f"k inkf/kdkfj;ksa us laHkor% ,d gh ikB i<+k gS vkSj os bl lEcU/k esa ;g dgdj viuk iYyw >kM+ jgs gSa fd eDds dh Qly esa gqbZ cckZnh dk eq[;k dkj.k lgh rkiØe dk ugha feyuk gSA blh lEcU/k esa th ,e eqDr fcgkj vfHk;ku ds la;kstd Jh iadt Hkw"k.k us tc e/ksiqjk ds d`f"k inkf/kdkjh ls nqjHkk"k ij lEidZ fd;k rc mUgksaus] vius tokc esa dgka fd ftl le; eDds dh cht dh cksvkbZ gqbZ Fkh ml le; rkiØe yxHkx 8^o fMxzh Fkk tcfd rkiØe yxHkx 15^o fMxzh gksuk pkfg, blh dkj.k ls e/ksiqjk ftyk esa eDds dks uqdlku gqvkA ogha nwljh rjQ eqt¶Qjiqj ftys ds ckspgka iz[k.M ds iz[k.M d`f"k inkf/kdkjh us crk;k fd iz[k.M ds lHkh xkaoksa esa ;g f'kdk;r ikbZ xbZ gS vkSj izFke n`"V;k ;g ekSle dk izHkko yx jgk gS tks tk¡p dh fLFkfr ds ckn irk py ik,xkA f'kogj ftys ds d`f"k inkf/kdkjh dk Hkh yxHkx ;gh c;ku gSA eqt¶qQjiqj ds Fkksd cht foØsrk dq'kokgk cht Hk.Mkj] v[kkM+k?kkV eqt¶Qjiqj] Hkh bls ekSle dk izHkko crkrs gSa vc ;g Lor% Li"V gksus dh ckr gS fd ,drjQ jkT; ljdkj dks fn, tk jgs izfrosnu esa fo'ks"kK cht dh [kjkch crk jgs gSa ogha nwljh rjQ cht foØsrk ls ysdj vf/kdka'k d`f"k inkf/kdkjh bls ekSle dh [kjkch crk jgs gS vc blh ls vuqeku yxk;k tk ldrk gS fd cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa us cht cspus ds Øe esa D;k&D;k gFkd.Mk ugha viuk;k gksxk\

vfHk;ku ds la;kstd iadt Hkw"k.k us tc e/ksiqjk ftys ds dqekj[k.M iz[k.M ds vUrxZr Vsaxjkgkifjgkjh iapk;r fx)kiapk;r] e?ksyh iapk;r ds dbZ fdlkuksa ls tc lEidZ fd;k rc ogk¡ ds Jh cyjke;kno] y[ku ;kno] j?kqohj ;kno] nkeksnj ;kno] jk/ks ;kno] ';ke lqUnj ;kno lfgr dbZ fdlkuksa us dgk afd geus vius ifjp;i=ksa dks fn[kkdj 160@& ls 200@& :0 fdyks rd dkjxhy ,oa ik;fu;j eDdk cht dtZ ysdj eos'kh cspdj ,oa vkSjrksa dk xguk fxjoh j[kdj VkVk fdlku cht Hk.Mkj] fla?ks'oj e/ksiqjk ls eDds dk cht ;g lkspdj [kjhnk fd eDds dh ygygkrh Qly gekjs dtksZ dks ikVrs gq, gekjs rdyhQksa dks nwj dj nsxhA ysfdu ,slk ugha gqvkA eqt¶Qjiqj ftyk ds ';keckcqjk;] uoy fd'kksj flag] jktsUnz izlkn ;kno us Hkh deksos'k ;gh f'kdk;r dh gSA vc iqu% ;g eaFku dk fo"k; gS fd cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ka vkf[kj dc rd fdlkuksa ds fdlkuh ls [ksy djrh jgsxh vkSj ljdkj ewd n'kZd cuh jgsxh\ ;gk¡ rks l¡isjk ywVsjk dh yksdksäh pfjrkFkZ gks jgh gS ftlesa lisjk chu ctkrk gS vkSj yqVsjk n'kZdksa dh tsc [kkyh djrk gSA

fdruh vge ckr gS fd ,d rjQ vesfjdk ds fons'k ea=h ds foKku ,oa rduhdh lykdkj uhuk ÝsMjkWQ ds Hkkjr vkxeu] ds lkFk gh dsUnzh; i;kZoj.k ea=h Jh t;jke jes'k us 10 Qjojh 2010 iwoZ ?kksf"kr dk;ZØe ds ,d fnu igys fnukad 9 Qjojh 2010 dks gh Hkkjr dh izFke th,e [kk| Qly chVh cSaxu ij eksjsVksfj;e vFkkZr~ jksd yxk fn;kA ogh cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa ds }kjk VfeZusVj cht] fuoZa'kh cht] gkbczhM cht] voS/k :i ls th,e cht cspus ij ljdkj dh dksbZ ikcUnh ugha gS vkSj vkU/kz izns'k esa tc ljdkj chVh dikl ds ekeys esa eqvkotk dh ?kks"k.kk djuk pkgrh gS rc eksUlSUVks tSlh vesfjdk dh cgqjk"Vªh; dEiuh vkU/kzizns'k esa mPp U;k;y; dh 'kj.k ysrh gSA ealwck rks mu dEifu;ksa dk bruk c<+ x;k gS fd os tc pkgs gekjs ns'k dk lkSnk dj ysosaA

vfHk;ku ds lfØ; lnL; ccyq izdk'k uss dgk ^^nks iSls dh ykyp esa] ns'k dk lkSnk cUn djksA**

vfHk;ku ds izkUrh; v/;{k lqjs'kxqIrk us bl ekeys esa dgk fd ;g iw.kZr;k cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa dh lkft'k gS vkSj tc rd ljdkj psrsxh ugha rc rd ,sls gh mudh lkft'k lQy gksrh jgsxhA lHkh dEifu;k¡ tkurh gS fd jkT;ksa esa ;gk¡ rd dh ns'k esa Hkh oÙkZeku esa bu lc eqÌksa ls tqM+k gqvk dksbZ fu;e] vf/kfu;e ykxw ugha gSa ftldk Qk;nk mu cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa dks fey jgk gS tks vesfjdk esa cSBdj j.kuhfr chtuhfr rS;kj djrs gSA

vfHk;ku ds la;kstd Jh Hkw"k.k us bl ckr ij tksj fn;k fd vkf[kj D;k otg gS fd lu~ 2008 esa dkslh dh fofHkf"kdk ls ekjs gq, fdlkuksa yksxksa ij ;g eDdk ds chtksa dk dgj bl dnj cjlk fd os vius egktu dk dtZ Hkh pqdrk djus ds yk;d ugha jgsA ftlckr dk [kqyklk fcgkj fo/kkulHkk esa 'kqU;dky ds nkSjku ekuuh; fo/kk;dksa us fd;kA D;k dkslh {ks= ds fdlku ,oa turk gh fofHkUu =klfn;ksas dk f'kdkj gksxh\ ;g Hkh ,d iz'u gSA

fofnr gks fd ,drjQ fnukad 09-02-2010 dks dsUnzh; i;kZoj.k ea=h us chVh cSaxu ij jksd yxkrs gq, yksdra= dh xfjek dh j{kk dh vksj nwljh rjQ ;s cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;k¡ lkjs fu;e dkuwu dks rk[k ij j[kdj bu VfeZusVj chtksa dk [kqYye[kqYyk O;kikj dj jgh gSaA

;gk¡ ;g vafdr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk fd ^^us'kuy ckW;ksVsDuksykWth vkWfFkjhVh vkWQ bf.M;k fcy & 2010** oÙkZeku laln esa yfEcr gS ftlesa dbZ [kkfe;k¡ n`f"Vxkspj gqbZ gS] jkT; esa Hkh bl rjg dk dksbZ dkuwu ugha gS ftl otg ls bu cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa dks [kqYye[kqYyk izJ; fey jgk gSA

;g dgus esa vfr'k;ksfDr ugha gksxh fd iM+kslh ns'k usiky ds ckjk] ijlk] jmrkg] ljykgh ,oa uoy ijklh tSls ik¡p rjkbZ ftyksa ds 25 gtkj gsDVs;j [ksrksa esa eDds dh Qly ccknZ gqbZ gSA ;gk¡ Hkh os cht cgqjk"Vªh; dEiuh ds gh FksA Kkr gqvk fd ogk¡ ds fdlkuksa us Hkh ik;ksfu;j dEiuh] lhMVsd dEiuh] ihuSdy dEiuh] la/;k dEiuh ,oa eksUlSuVks dEiuh dk cht iz;ksx esa yk;k x;k FkkA ;g Hkh Kkr gqvk fd ik;ksfu;j gkbfczM ,d cgqjk"Vªh; dEiuh Johnson, Indiana, USA dh gSA blh lUnHkZ esa cautfj;k ds jkefd'kqu ikWy dgrs gS fd eSaus d`f"k fodkl cSad ls pkj yk[k :0 dk dtZ ysdj pkj ch?kk esa eDds dh [ksrh dh Fkh] vc iwjs o"kZ ifjokj dks dgk ls f[kykÅ¡xkA catfj;k ds nwljs fdlku foUnk'kkg us bl ckj eDds dh [ksrh ls viuh csVh dh 'kknh dk [okc ns[kk Fkk tks fd ^^fny dh vjek vk¡lqvksa esa cg x,** esa ifj.kr gks x;kA jksrkgr ¼usiky½ ds ftyk d`f"k fodkl dk;kZy; ds vkseizdk'k d.kZ dgrs gS fd ;gk¡ lk<+s&pkj gtkj gsDVs;j tehu esa ik;ksfu;j dEiuh ds V92 fdLe ds chtksa dk iz;ksx gqvk Fkk ftlesa 90% [ksrksa esa nkuk ugha vk;k vkSj mUgksaus lkFk gh lkFk ;g Hkh Lohdkj fd;k fd if'pe caxky] fcgkj] >kj[k.M ,oa m0 izns'k ds fdlku Hkh blh ds f'kdkj gq, gSA ijlk ¼usiky½ ds ftyk d`f"k dk;kZy; ds lgk;d rduhf'k;u n;k jke gfjtu dgrs gSa fd ;gk¡ ds fdlkuksa us V92 ,oa la/;k czkWUM eDds ds chtksa dk mi;ksx fd;k Fkk vkSj 27 Oct. ls 30 Nov. rd bu chtksa dh cksvkbZ gqbZ Fkh ftlesa nkus fcYdqy gh ugha gSA ljykgh ¼usiky½ ds ftyk d`f"k fodkl dk;kZy; ls jkedSyk'k;kno dgrs gS fd ;gk¡ 15 gsDVs;j ls V92 eDds ds cht cks;k x;k Fkk ftlesa nkus ugha vk,A

mijksDr fo'ys"k.k ls ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd ;s cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;k¡ gekjs ns'k ds lkFk&lkFk dbZ ns'kksa ds [ksrksa ij dCtk tekdj gesa fQj ls xqyke cukuk pkgrh gSaA ;g dguk vuqfpr ugha gksxk fd bu VsfeZusVj chtksa ls iqu% jksiuh ds fy, cht fufeZr ugha fd, tk ldrs vkSj gj Qly ds fy, gekjs fdlkuksa dks mu cgqjk"Vªh; dEifu;ksa ds ryos pkVus gksaxs tks gekjs xjhc fdlkuksa dks vkRegR;k djus ij etcwj djrh vk jgh gSA

blh ifjis{; esa th,e eqDr fcgkj vfHk;ku us fcgkj ds eq[;ea=h] mieq[;ea=h ,oa egkefge jkT;iky dks Kkiu nsrs gq, vuqjks/k fd;k gS fd fcgkj jkT; esa u;k cht vf/kfu;e cuk;k tk, ftlds vUrxZr chtksa dh xq.koÙkk ,oa ewY;ksa dk fu/kkZj.k ljdkj dj ldsA lkFk gh lkFk jkT; esa tsusfVd eksfMQk;M ¼th,e½ chtksa ds O;kikj ,oa muds ijh{k.k ij jksd yxkus ls lEcfU/kr dkuwu cuk;k tk ldsA

;g blfy, vko';d gS fd fnukad 09-02-2010 dks chVh cSaxu ij jksd yxus ds mijkUr Hkh ekWfgdks dEiuh tks vesfjdk dh ekSulsUVks dEiuh ds lkFk tqM+h gqbZ gS] ds ikl vHkh Hkh dqy 684631 xzke chVh cSaxu ds cht gS vkSj rfeyukMq d`f"k fo'ofo|ky; dks;EcVqj ds ikl 100 xzke cht gS rFkk /kkjokM+ d`f"k fo'ofo|ky; ds ikl dqy 417 xzke chVh cSaxu ds cht i;kZIr ek=k esa miyC/k gSA ;g vyx ckr gS fd i;kZoj.k ea=ky; v/khuLFk tsusfVd bfUtfu;jhax ,izwoy dfeVh dh cSBd fnukad 14-02-2010 esa] fu/kkZfjr gqvk Fkk fd bu chtksa dks us'kuy C;wjksa vkWQ IykWUV tsusfVDl ,.M fjlkslsZt us tek dj fn, tk,a ysfdu ;g 'kk;n vHkh rd ugha gqvkA vuqqeku yxkuk vc vkids gkFk esa gSaA

iadt Hkw"k.k

जीएम फसलों से किसानों की बर्बादी पर अनिल प्रकाश की टिप्पणी

2010-03-30T22:31:00.000+05:30

निर्र्वश बीजों से तबाही

देश में बीटी बैगन का विवाद थमा भी नहीं था कि बिहार में एक और बड़ा हादसा हो गया। मक्का यहां की प्रमुख फसल है। जिन किसानों ने पूसा कृषि विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा विकसित बीज या अपने परंपरागत बीज बोए थे उनके पौधों में दाने भरपूर हैं। लेकिन लगभग दो लाख एकड़ भूमि में टर्मिनेटर सीड (निर्वश बीजों) का प्रयोग किया गया। इसके पौधे लहलहाए जरूर लेकिन उनमें दाने नहीं निकले। जिन किसानों ने टर्मिनेटर बीजों का प्रयोग किया, उनके खेतों में पौधों से दाने गायब थे। किसानों ने इन बीजों को 180 से 285 रुपये प्रति किलोग्राम की दर पर खरीदा था। खाद, बीज सिंचाई, मेहनताना सब मिलाकर प्रति एकड़ लगभग 10 हजार रुपये की लागत आई थी। यानी 25 हजार रुपये प्रति हेक्टेयर। 80 प्रतिशत किसानों ने महाजनों से पांच रुपये प्रति सैकड़ा/ महीना की दर पर कर्ज लेकर खेती की थी। बड़ी जद्दोजहद के बाद मुख्यमंत्री ने स्वीकार किया कि एक लाख उनसठ हजार एकड़ (63 हजार हेक्टेयर) में मक्के की फसल में दाने नहीं आए। सरकार ने प्रति हेक्टेयर 10 हजार रुपये (यानी प्रति एकड़ सिर्फ चार हजार रुपये) मुआवजा देने की घोषणा की है। यह रकम खेत में लगी लागत के आधे से भी कम है। मुआवजा तो लागत के अतिरिक्त फसल की संभावित उपज के आधर पर दी जानी चाहिए थी। फिर जो किसान दूसरों से बटाई पर जमीन लेकर खेती कर रहे थे उनको तो एक पाई भी नहीं मिलेगी। आज से सात साल पूर्व 2003 में भी बिहार में ऐसा ही हादसा हुआ था। तब टर्मिनेटर (निर्र्वश) बीजों के प्रयोग के कारण फसल में दाने नहीं आए थे। देश में कई बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनियां टर्मिनेटर बीजों का व्यापार करती हैं। इन बीजों से उत्पादित मक्का, गेहूं, टमाटर या कपास को खेत में दोबारा नहीं उगाया जा सकता। आखिर बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनियों को किसने यह अधिकार दिया कि इस प्रकार किसानों को अंधेरे में रखकर बड़े पैमाने पर अपने बीजों का ट्रायल करें। इन कंपनियों को इस गफलत के लिए कानूनी घेरे में लिया जाना चाहिए और उनसे किसानों के हर्जाने की भरपाई करानी चाहिए। उन पर भारी जुर्माना लगाया जाना चाहिए। इसी तरह कृषि विभाग के जो अधिकारी इन बीजों के प्रयोग की छूट देने के लिए जिम्मेदार हैं उन्हें भी जेल भेजा जाना चाहिए। सन 2002 में मध्य प्रदेश में किसानों को प्रलोभन देकर दस हजार एकड़ में बीटी कपास की खेती करा‌र्‌र्र्ई ग‌र्‌र्र्ई। पूरी फसल बर्बाद हो ग‌र्‌र्र्ई। आंध्र प्रदेश, महाराष्ट्र, गुजरात तथा अन्य राज्यों में भी जीएम बीजों के कारण फसल बर्बाद हुई है और वहां के किसान लगातार इसका विरोध कर रहे हैं। टर्मिनेटर बीज बनाने वाली बड़ी-बड़ी कंपनियां मूलत: रसायन बनाने वाली कंपनियां हैं। इन बड़ी कंपनियों की वैश्विक आय का आधा खरपतवार नाशकों तथा अन्य रसायनों से आता है। आज दुनिया भर के जेनेटिकली मोडिफायड बीजों के व्यापार का अधिकांश इन्हीं कंपनियों के हाथों में है। ये कंपनियां राजनेताओं, नौकरशाहों और कृषि वैज्ञानिकों को आर्थिक लाभ पहुंचाकर अपने पक्ष में फैसले करवाने के लिए कुख्यात हैं। यह ध्यान रहे कि पूरे विश्व में निर्वंश बीजों का विरोध हो रहा है। यूरोप के कई देशों में इन पर प्रतिबंध भी लगाया गया है। खेती में जहरीले रसायनों के प्रयोग से पंजाब में कैंसर तथा अन्य घातक बीमारियों को तेजी से प्रसार हुआ है। वहां के खेत ऊसर होते जा रहे हैं। अनाज का कटोरा कहे जाने वाले इस प्रदेश में किसानों की हालत बिगड़ती जा रही है और वे आत्महत्या के लिए विवश हो रहे हैं। बड़ी-बड़ी बीज कंपनियों की लोलुप नजरें विकासशील देशों की जैव विविधता पर लगी हैं। एक ओर ये जीएम बीज बनाकर उनका पेंटेंट करा रही हैं और दूसरी ओर बीजों का एकाधिकार कायम करने के लिए निर्वंश बीजों के द्वारा हमारे बीजों के भंडार तथा हमारी जैव विविधता को नष्ट कर रही हैं। जिन खेतों में निर्वंश बीजों का प्रयोग होता है उसके आस-पास की दूसरी फसलों पर भी इनके पराग फैल जाते हैं और उन फसलों के बीजों को भी निर्र्वश कर देते हैं। यह माना जा रहा है कि निर्वंश बीजों से उपजे पौधों में जहरीले रसायन उत्पन्न होते हैं, जो किसी खास कीट को तो नष्ट कर देते हैं लेकिन अन्य प्रकार के कीटों को मारने के लिए अन्य जहरीले रसायनों का प्रयोग करना पड़ता है। यही नहीं, रासायनिक फर्टिलाइजर तथा सिंचाई की भी इसमें भरपूर जरूरत पड़ती है। इनके पौधे जहरीले हो जाते हैं इसलिये चारे के रूप में इन्हें खा कर पशु बीमार पड़ते हैं और कई बार मरते भी हैं।
(लेखक स्वतंत्र टिप्पणीकार हैं)

रमेश के सामने ही बीटी बैगन को लेकर घोर विरोध

2010-01-26T10:33:00.000+05:30

आनंद बाज़ार पत्रिका, कोलकाता, १४ जनवरी २०१०

रमेश के सामने ही बीटी बैगन को लेकर घोर विरोध

जीन बदलकर व्यापार हेतू बैगन की खेती को लेकर घोर विरोध की बात पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्री जयराम रमेश खुद सुनकर गए.

बुधवार को विज्ञानं मंदिर में आयोजित बैठक में किसान, वैज्ञानिक, राजनेता और चिकित्सकों की बैठक में पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्री ने कहा की केंद्र ने बीटी बैगन की खेती के बारे में कोई अंतिम फैसला नहीं लिया है. कोलकाता जैसे ही अन्य छ: और शहरों के लोगों की राय जानने के बाद ही इस विषय में फरवरी के मध्य में कोई फैसला किया जायेगा.

बीटी बैगन की खेती को लेकर रमेश नें मुख्यमंत्री बुद्धदेव भट्टाचार्जी से भी चर्चाएं की.

रमेश ने कहा की सात शहरों के लोगों की राय जानने के बाद ही बीटी बैगन की खेती को मंजूरी दी जायेगी या नहीं इसको घोषणा की जायेगी या इसके लिए और वैज्ञानिक परिक्षण की जरुरत है.

बीटी बैगन को लेकर बोलने के लिए बैठक में सौ से अधिक लोग इकठ्ठा हुए थे. बैठक में देरी से पहुँचने के कारण लोगों से माफ़ी मांगते हुए रमेश नें कहा की आप बंगला में भी बोल सकते हैं. मुझे बंगला बोलना आता है. बहुत अच्छी तरह से नहीं आती है लेकिन मैं समझ सकता हूँ.

बीटी बैगन की खेतीको जेनेटिक इंजीनियरिंग कमिटी से मंजूरी मिलने के बावजूद मंत्रीजी आम आदमियों की राय जानना चाहते हैं. इस बैठक में यह ही हुआ. अधिकाँश वैज्ञानिक आंध्र प्रदेश और तमिलनादू से आये थे.

मंत्री जी के साथ इस बैठक में बहुत सारे किसान भी शामिल थे. उत्तर २४ परगना के किसान नारायन चंद्र बाचार नें जानकारी दी की जिसलिए किसानों को बीटी बैगन की खेती के लिए धकेला जा रहा है उस किट को जैविक कीटनाशक से ही मार डाला जा सकता है. उन्होंने बताया की हमलोग अभी बैगन का बीज खुद ही रख सकते हैं. लेकिन बीटी बैगन आने से खेती के खर्च काफी बढ़ जायेंगे जिसके बाद हम खेती करने लायक नहीं रह जायेंगे. हमलोगों को पता नहीं है की बीटी बैगन उबलेगा की नहीं या इसे जलाया जा सकेगा या नहीं या इस बैगन के शरीर पर गाय और बकरियों जैसी बिमारी लग जायेगी.

बीटी बैगन के पक्ष में भी कई वक्तायों नें बैठक में चर्चा की. बैठक में हिस्सा लेने आये नदिया के किसान जलालुद्दीन एवं २४ परगना से आये सुजुद्दीन मंडल ने कहा की बीटी बैगन की खेती से अगर हमें फायदा होता है तो हम बीटी बैगन की ही खेती करेंगे. इससे पर्यावरण या स्वस्थ्य को नुक्सान पहुंचेगा या नहीं यह देखना हमारा काम नहीं हैं. यह वैज्ञानिकों का काम हैं.

बाद में इन किसानों से बातचीत के बाद पता चला की उत्तर २४ परगना के बीटी खेती का पक्ष लेने वाली मोहिको कम्पनी नें इन्हीं किसानों के बलबूते पर बीटी खेती को बढ़ावा देने के लिए मुहीम छेडा था.

बाज़ार में बीटी बैगन के आने से बीजों पर किसानो का नियंत्रण खत्म हो जाएगा यह आशंका एक वैज्ञानिक और राज्य के कृषि कमीशन के सदस्य तरुण कुमार बसु नें जाहिर की.

विशेषज्ञों की एक कमिटी ने रिपोर्ट दी है की जहाँ बीटी बैगन की खेती की जायेगी उसके ३० मीटर के भीतर अन्य किसी फसल को नहीं उगाया जा सकेगा. इसलिए ३० मीटर की जमीन को खाली छोडना होगा.

बंगीय विज्ञानं परिषद की ओर से अरुणभ मिश्रा नें किसानों के मौलिक अधिकार के बारे में प्रश्न करते हुए कहा की बीटी बैगन की खेती शुरू होने से किसान आपने चयन के अधिकार खो देगा.

वैज्ञानिक मुरारी यादव ने बताया की इस राज्य के अधिकाँश किसान गरीब हैं और प्रांतीय हैं. ये लोग सस्ते दाम पर ही खेती चाहते हैं. जीन बदलकर की जानेवाली खेती पर बहुत अधिक खर्च बैठता है जो उनके पहुँच से बाहर है. आंध्र प्रदेश के रुई की खेती करने वाले किसानों की ओर देखने से इस बात को अच्छी तरह से समझा जा सकता हैं.

राज्य के कृषि कमीशन के चेयरमन तथा युवा कृषि वैज्ञानिक रविंद्रनाथ बसु नें जयराम रमेश को यह बता दिया की कमीशन के रिपोर्ट में हमनेंसाफ़ तरीके से यह स्पष्ट कर दिया है की बीटी फसल के उपज के लिए जमीन का परिक्षण या इसकी व्यापारिक खेती पूरी तरह से प्रतिबंधित है.

जीएम्-फ्री बिहार के प्रतिनिधि पंकज भूषण ने जयराम रमेश को स्पष्ट रूप से कहा की बीटी बैगन की खेती को मंजूरी देने के लिए आपलोग तैयार हैं लेकिन ऐसी क्या बाध्यता है कि आपको इसे मंजूरी देनी ही है.

इसके बाद बीटी बैगन की खेती का विरोध करने वाले किसानों के समक्ष जयराम रमेश नें १५ मिनट का भाषण भी दिया.

Bihar says no to Bt brinjal

2010-01-07T19:13:00.000+05:30

NEW DELHI, January 7, 2010

Bihar has become the first State to reject the commercial cultivation of genetically modified or Bt brinjal, if only temporarily.

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has said the issue was carefully considered by the Rajya Kisan Ayog, which, after deliberations with farmers, agricultural scientists and agricultural officers was of the opinion that there should be an adequate number of trials to see its performance in different agro-climatic conditions in the State. Such trials should be held involving agricultural research institutions in the State, the Ayog said in its report.

In a letter to the Minister of State (Independent charge) Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, the Bihar Chief Minister said the Ayog also noted that no data was provided on the commercial aspect of cultivation of Bt brinjal, which was important from the point of view of farmers who are mostly small and marginal farmers. “The Ayog is therefore not in favour introduction of Bt brinjal in the State at this point. The recommendations of the Rajya Kisan Ayog have been considered and fully endorsed by the government,” Mr. Kumar said. Bihar accounts for 11 per cent of brinjal cultivation in the country.

Earlier, Mr. Ramesh sought opinions from the six brinjal-producing States on the issue including West Bengal that produces 30 per cent of brinjal, Orissa accounting for 20 per cent, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh (six per cent each) and Karnataka 4 per cent.

The Minister’s letters to these States were ahead of the public consultations beginning January 13. The Minister has also written to 50 scientists involved in genetic engineering, biotechnology and agriculture in the U.S., UK, France, Australia and India. Opinion has also been sought from the Ministry of Health, Department of Biotechnology and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

बीटी बैगन परार्मश बैठक में भाग लेने जायेगी टीम

2010-01-06T21:41:00.000+05:30

Jan 06, 12:00 am

http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/news/local/bihar/4_4_6080581.html

मुजफ्फरपुर। 13 जनवरी से कोलकता में शुरू होने वाले बीटी बैगन से संबंधित राष्ट्रव्यापी परार्मश बैठक में भाग लेने के लिए जिले से जिले से 12 सदस्यीय टीम कोलकता जायेगी। टीम में शामिल सुरेश गुप्ता, विजय कुमार सिंह, अजय कुमार सिंह, राजेंद्र राय, पंकज भूषण, डा. आरके सिंह, डा. रामाधार, डा. राम पदमदेव, प्रकाश बब्लू के अलावा जहानाबाद जिले के दो कृषक की टीम 12 जनवरी को कोलकता के लिए रवाना होगी। जीएम मुक्त बिहार अभियान के संयोजक पंकज भूषण ने बताया कि केंद्रीय पर्यावरण एवं वन मंत्रालय द्वारा बीटी बैगन के संबंध में लिये जाने वाले अंतिम निर्णय के पूर्व राष्ट्रव्यापी परार्मश बैठक का आयोजन किया है। देश के सात स्थानों, कोलकता, भूवनेश्वर, अहमदाबाद, हैदराबाद, बंगलौर, नागपुर व चंडीगढ़ में आयोजित की गयी है।

Public hearings on Bt Brinjal next month

2009-12-30T21:21:00.000+05:30

STAFF WRITER 13:4 HRS IST

New Delhi, Dec 30 (PTI) A series of public hearings will be held from January on the safety of Bt brinjal, the first genetically modified food crop recently cleared for commercial release by the central bio-tech regulator amid strong protests from environmentalists.

The Environment Ministry will call the first public consultation in Kolkata on January 13 while the next hearing will be held in Bhubaneshwar on January 16 and the third in Ahmedabad on January 19.

The fourth public hearing will be held in Hyderabad (January 22), fifth in Bangalore (January 23), sixth in Nagpur (January 27) and seventh in Chandigarh on January 30, a senior environment ministry official said.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh will personally attend the meetings to be held with scientists, agriculture experts, farmers' organizations, consumer groups and NGOs, the official said.

Funeral procession of Bt-Brinjal

2009-12-30T12:37:00.001+05:30

24th Dec.09, Patna. GM Free Bihar Movement registered a strong protest against the GM Foods in Bihar by taking out a funeral procession of Bt-Brinjal in capital Patna on the national consumers day.

Hundreds of activists joined the 4-km long procession from the Vegetable Market to the capital hub Gandhi Maidan on Dec.24.

On the way, leaflets against Bt-Brinjal were distributed among members of the public and signatures were also collected from them.

Awareness programme with regard to Bt-Brinjal was also organised at north Bihar’s major city Muzaffarpur which was attended among others by Deputy Mayor Md. Nisharuddin and environment expert Mr Suresh Gupta.

The awareness programme was attended by a large number of people, including farmers and women, who were also shown the film Poison on the Platter.

GM-Free Bihar Movement has charged the Union Environment and Forest Minister

2009-12-16T19:53:00.000+05:30

Patna, 16.12.09.

GM-Free Bihar Movement has charged the Union Environment and Forest Minister Mr. Jairam Ramesh with having a bias towards Bihar and being choosy in selecting venues for national consultancy in the run-up to taking the final decision on commercial use of Bt-brinjal crop.

“Bihar is an agriculture-based state with a large number of farmers and consumers being important stakeholders in any decision related to approving or disapproving the sale of the genetically modified brinjal. But, the minister has deliberately ignored Bihar in fixing a venue in the state for consultations with different walks of society,” the Movement said in a press release.

The minister had earlier announced that a national-level consultancy will be launched before the final call is made to decide the issue, after a government-appointed committee approved in October this year the commercial use of BT-Brinjal in the country.

“But the information received from the ministry reveal that only seven places (Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhubneswar, Chandigarh, Hyderabad, Nagpur and West Bengal) have been identified by the Environment Ministry for conducting the consultancy and Bihar does not figure in that list, which shows deliberate act on the part of the Union Minister to ignore Bihar,” the release said.

Pankaj Bhushan of the GM-Free Bihar Movement said hundreds of thousands of farmers and farmer organizations from Bihar had been sending mails and faxes to the Union Ministry against BT-Brinjal which should have been the reason enough for the Union Environment Ministry for consulting the people of Bihar on such an important issue.

“This is total denial of giving proper opportunity to people from Bihar to have their say,” he said, adding his organization will oppose tooth and nail any decision which adversely affected farmers and consumers of Bihar.

How Bt brinjal was cleared

2009-12-15T21:24:00.000+05:30

Anti-GM groups say expert panel acted under pressure
Savvy Soumya Misra

AGNIMIRH BASU

A COALITION of organizations opposed to genetically modified food in India has written to the minister of state for environment and forests seeking withdrawal of clearance given to Bt brinjal. The Coalition for GM-free India alleged the expert committee that cleared the genetically modified brinjal for commercial cultivation in the country was neither impartial nor thorough.

The Expert Committee 2, set up by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the clearing house for all genetically modified crops in India, cleared Bt brinjal on October 14 (see ‘Green signal for Bt brinjal’,Down To Earth, November 1-15, 2009).

Bt brinjal is now awaiting the nod of the environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, after which it will become the first GM food crop to be sold in Indian markets.

The anti-GM coalition alleged the constitution of the expert committee and its terms of reference indicate it was set up to give a go-ahead to Bt brinjal.



	•	All Mahyco’s men

What gave grounds for the allegation is the fact that over a period of time a third of the committee members have been in some way associated with either the seed company Mahyco that developed Bt brinjal or pro-Mahyco organizations (see: All Mahyco’s men). Selecting them for considering Mahyco’s application for commercialization of Bt brinjal raises the question of conflict of interest and violates the principle of fair inquiry, the coalition said.

Chairperson of the expert committee, Arjula R Reddy, said the committee was there to review the data submitted to GEAC. It had no power to decide on tests to be conducted for clearing Bt brinjal, he added.

A member of the committee, who did not want to be named, told Down To Earththat when the meeting was convened on October 14 the mandate was to clear the crop. He said a few members dominated the committee, while others had very little to say.

P M Bhargava, the Supreme Court nominee to GEAC, had also written to the environment minister on October 20, saying the expert panel was under pressure to clear Bt brinjal. Bhargava wrote that Reddy had made a confidential call a couple of weeks before the October 14 meeting to tell him that he agreed with his recommendation for eight tests on Bt brinjal that were not done. Reddy is quoted as saying that even the tests that were done may not have been satisfactory and adequate.

“He (Reddy) was under tremendous pressure to clear Bt brinjal and he had calls from the agriculture minister, GEAC and the industry,” wrote Bhargava, adding that Reddy perhaps succumbed to the pressure. Bhargava had disagreed with the expert committee’s decision.

When Down To Earth spoke to Reddy, who is also vice-chancellor of Yogi Vemana University in Andhra Pradesh, he said he was under tremendous pressure but not in the way Bhargava understood. “There was pressure because of the time that was being taken for reviewing the data. I had to collate all the analyses and that was taking time,” said Reddy.

Although he agreed Bhargava had recommended additional tests, Reddy reiterated that the Bt brinjal developer (Mahyco) had done all the tests recommended by the newly adopted guidelines for GM crops. “There can be innumerable tests but they should have been recommended by the Review Committee of Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) in all these years (since 2000),” said Reddy. RCGM is under the Department of Biotechnology and assesses applications for testing genetically modified crops before GEAC can consider their field trials.

Safety tests dodged

The new guidelines referred to by Reddy were prepared by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in 2008 and adopted by RCGM early this year. The anti-GM group smells foul play in this. The minutes of the GEAC meeting on May 28 last year state, “ICMR was in agreement with the views expressed by Bhargava on (testing) chronic toxicity, especially in GM foods, which are to be used for long periods by human beings.” In the same meeting GEAC asked ICMR to reconsider Bhargava’s suggestion for DNA fingerprinting, study of proteins (Bt brinjal contains a gene from a bacterium that produces a toxic protein that kills pests), study of possible interaction of the Bt protein with commonly used drugs and its effects on reproductive health when amending the guidelines.

“These recommendations were not accepted. For someone to agree to Bhargava’s recommendations and then drop their inclusion (in the guidelines), there must be some strong reason,” said Kavitha Kuruganti, member of the Kheti Virasat Mission, part of the anti-GM coalition.

Even the earlier expert committee, which reviewed Bt brinjal before Expert Committee 2, had recommended independent studies of toxicity in laboratories accredited by the National Accredition Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories. The anti-GM coalition claims the studies have not been done.

The first expert committee also asked the National Institute of Nutrition in Hyderabad to suggest additional tests required for toxicity and allergenicity, and nutritional studies needed after examining the data presented by Mahyco.

A right to information application filed by the coalition showed that the nutrition institute’s director made comments based on only three studies by Mahyco: oral toxicity, acute oral toxicity and allergenicity studies. The director, however, noted that the laboratory that tested Mahyco’s brinjal did not authenticate whether the brinjal it received was genetically modified.

Tests like toxicological impact, biosafety and environmental safety should be done by independent laboratories; GEAC should not rely on the data submitted by the developer, said P C Kesavan, distinguished fellow at M S Swaminathan Research Foundation in Chennai. “This (clearance) is a hurried decision and it seems to be more commerce-driven than having a scientific base.”

Hurried decision

The 16-member Expert Committee 2 was constituted on May 29 this year but it met only twice before clearing Bt brinjal for commercial cultivation. Of the 16 members 13 attended the first meeting and 12 attended the second.

Dhir Singh and S B Dongre, who represented the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, were present only in the second meeting and did not take part in the deliberations. So no questions regarding health were asked on behalf of the public. The two were from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India. Kuruganti said the authority chairman told the anti-GM coalition that Singh and Dongre were present at the meeting only as observers.

Lalitha Gowda, scientist at the Central Food Technological Research Institute in Mysore, and C M Gupta, former director of the Central Drug Research Institute in Lucknow, did not attend either of the meetings.

Scientists are now suggesting the environment ministry organize public hearings with scientists and consumers in cities before taking a decision. They say genetic modification is not an immediate need; there are other methods like conventional breeding for tackling the pest problem. Ramesh has said he will decide after consulting scientists and civil society groups.

ONE PANCHAYAT OF MUZAFFARPUR DISTRICT OF BIHAR (INDIA) DECLARED GM FREE PANCHAYAT

2009-12-13T15:45:00.000+05:30

बीटी बैगन के खिलाफ हस्ताक्षर अभियान

2009-12-12T18:35:00.000+05:30

http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/epaper/index.php?location=42&edition=2009-12-09&pageno=13

पटना, जागरण ब्यूरो : बीटी बैगन के खिलाफ किसानों को जागरूक बनाकर व्यापक विरोध की तैयारी शुरू है। इसके खिलाफ हस्ताक्षर अभियान भी चलाया जा रहा है। इस सम्बन्ध में जीएम मुक्त बिहार अभियान संस्था के संयोजक पंकज भूषण ने मंगलवार को कृषि मंत्री रेणु कुमारी से मिलकर ज्ञापन समर्पित किया। ज्ञापन में कहा गया है कि बीटी बैगन से मनुष्य पर होने वाले असर की जानकारी प्राप्त किए बिना केन्द्र की विवादास्पद समिति ने अनुमति प्रदान कर दी है। राज्य हित में बीटी बैगन की खेती की बिहार में अनुमति नहीं देने का अनुरोध किया गया। इनके अनुसार इस पर रोक नहीं होने की स्थिति में हरित क्रांति का स्थान जीन क्रांति ले लेगी। इसका सीधा असर उपभोक्ताओं व किसानों पर पड़ेगा। संस्था के संयोजक के अनुसार केन्द्रीय पर्यावरण व वन मंत्रालय के अन्तर्गत गठित जेनेटिक इंजीनियरिंग एप्रूवल कमिटी द्वारा बीटी बैगन को भारत की प्रथम जेनिटिकली मोडीफायड खाद्य फसल के रूप में मंजूरी दी गयी है।

बीटी बैगन की खेती को अनुमति नहीं मिलने की संभावना

2009-12-12T17:58:00.000+05:30

http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/news/local/bihar/4_4_5998063_1.html

पटना, बीटी बैगन के उत्पादन की बिहार में अनुमति नहीं मिलने की संभावना है। बीज उत्पादक कम्पनी महिको के दावे पर किसान आयोग ने संदेह व्यक्त किया है। आयोग के स्तर पर बुलायी गयी बैठक में कहा गया है कि बैगन की वर्तमान किस्म ही स्वास्थ्य व स्वाद, दोनों दृष्टिकोण से उपयोगी है। इसका उत्पादन भी पहले से ही काफी अधिक हो रहा है। गौरतलब है कि कृषि सम्बन्धित निर्णय से पूर्व, सरकार किसान आयोग का सुझाव प्राप्त करती है।

कृषि विभाग के प्रधान सचिव केसी साहा ने कहा कि मामला केन्द्र का है। राज्य सरकार इस पर विचार कर रही है। सम्प्रति कोई निर्णय नहीं हुआ है। वैज्ञानिकों के अनुसार, बीटी बैगन के बीज की कीमत 50 हजार रुपये प्रति किलो होने के कारण यह किसानों के लिए काफी महंगा भी पड़ता है। बीटी बैगन के मुद्दे पर कृषि आयोग द्वारा आयोजित बैठक में कृषि विभाग के अधिकारियों, वैज्ञानिकों व स्वयंसेवी संस्थाओं के प्रतिनिधियों ने अपने विचार व्यक्त किए। इसमें विशेषज्ञों ने सुझाव दिया कि राज्य सरकार को बीटी बैगन बीज के उपयोग की अनुमति नहीं देनी चाहिए। इसका उपयोग दस वर्षो के बाद ही होना चाहिए। वैज्ञानिकों के अनुसार बीटी बैगन की आड़ में कई फसलों के आनुवांशिक रूप से संवर्धित (जेनेटिकली माडिफाइड-जीएम) बीज बाजार में लाने की साजिश है। विश्व के मात्र 6 देशों में ही जीएम तकनीक को 99 प्रतिशत तक अपनाया गया है। विशेषज्ञों का मानना है कि भारत में विरोध के बावजूद चोरी छिपे बीटी बैगन की खेती हो रही है। इसको व्यावसायिक मंजूरी नहीं मिली है।

कृषि वैज्ञानिकों के अनुसार जीएम फसलों की संरचना सामान्य पौधों की कोशिकाओं में अलग किस्म का जीन जीवाणु, कीटाणु, मकड़ी, सूअर व कछुआ आदि से लिया जाता है। इसके कारण स्वास्थ्यव पर्यावरण पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव पड़ता है। जीवित पौधा होने के कारण इसका पूरी तरह से नाश संभव नहीं है। कृषि विशेषज्ञों के अनुसार इसका पेटेंट बहुराष्ट्रीय कम्पनियों का होगा जिससे छोटे-छोटे किसानों को इन कम्पनियों पर निर्भर करना पड़ेगा। विकसित अनुवांशिक रूप से वर्धित महिको के बीटी बैगन का विकास हुए नौ साल हो गए हैं। महिको का दावा है कि इस बैगन में कीड़ों को समाप्त करने की क्षमता जीन क्राई 1 एसी है। कीड़ा लगने से 50 से 70 प्रतिशत बैगन की फसल बर्बाद हो जाती है। बीटी हाईब्रिड के प्रयोग से बैगन उत्पादन में 166 प्रतिशत की वृद्धि होगी। कम्पनी के अनुसार जेनेटिक इंजीनियरिंग एप्रूवल कमिटी ने इसको पर्यावरण के लिए सुरक्षित माना है।

कंपनी और कृषि मंत्री के दबाव में की गयी बीटी बैंगन की सिफारिश

2009-12-05T23:06:00.000+05:30

0 November, 2009 16:15;00हरमेल प्रीत

Font size: 107

देश में बीटी बैंगन की व्यापारिक खेती की अनुमति की सिफारिश करने वाले विशेषज्ञ कमेटी के फैसले की स्वतंत्रता व इमानदारी को लेकर विभिन्न संगठनों द्वारा उठाई जा रही शंकाओं को और भी बल मिला जब कमेटी के चेयरमैन ने यह स्वीकार किया कि उन्होने यह फैसला बीटी बैंगन निर्माता कंपनी के दबाव में लिया। यह खुलासा मशहूर जैव वैज्ञानिक पुष्प भार्गव ने किया है.
जानकारी के मुताबिक भारत में जीई तकनीक के पितामह डा पुष्पा भार्गव जिन्हें सुप्रीम कोर्ट द्वारा जीईएसी का सदस्य नियुक्त किया गया है, ने बताया कि 14 अक्तूबर 2009 को विशेषज्ञ समिति द्वारा बीटी बैंगन को मान्यता दिए जाने से कोई दो सप्ताह पूर्व विशेषज्ञ कमेटी के प्रमुख प्रो. अजुला रामचंद्र रेड्डी ने उन्होंने फोन पर बताया था कि बीटी बैंगन को मान्यता देने के लिए निर्माता कंपनी का दबाव तो था ही वहीं जीईएसी तथा कृषि मंत्री का भी फोन आया था। डा. भार्गव का कहना है कि बीटी बैंगन के सुरिक्षत होने की पुष्टि करने के लिए उनके द्वारा सुझाए गए जरूरी आठ तरह के टैस्ट भी नहीं किए गए हैं। डा भार्गव का कहना है कि बीटी बैंगन को लेकर जो टैस्ट किए गए है वह भी संतोषजनक नहीं हैं।
विशेषज्ञ समिति के एक अन्य सदस्य डा. के के त्रिपाठी जो बायोटैक्नालोजी विभाग की एक अहम रिव्यू कमेटी आफ जेनटिक मेनूप्लेशन के सदस्य सचिव हैं। केंद्रीय सतर्कता आयोग में हैदारबाद की एक बीज कंपनी नाजीविडू सीडस द्वारा एक शिकायत की गई जिसमें उन पर माहिको मोनसोंटो के पक्ष कार्य करते हुए अन्य कंपनियों से पक्षपात करने के आरोप लगाए गए हैं। डा. त्रिपाठी के खिलाफ शिकायत का अभी कोई निपटारा नहीं हुआ था कि और उन्हें विशेषज्ञ समिति में बिठा दिया गया. जिसके चलते उन्होंने माहीको के बीटी बैंगन के पक्ष में फैसला करने मे अहम भुमिका अदा की।
इसके अलावा विशेषज्ञ कमेटी में दो ऐसे सदस्य भी थे जो खुद बीटी बैंगन विकसित कर रहे हैं।इनमें से एक डा. मथुरा राय जो कि इंडियन इंस्टिच्यूट वैजीटेबल रिसर्च के निदेशक हैं। जिन्हें अमेरिका सरकार की फंड देने वाली ऐजंसी यूएस ऐड द्वारा माहीको के बीटी बैंगन को मानयता दिलाने के हेतु सभी औपचारिकताएं पूरी करने में सहायता प्रदान करने के लिए एक प्रोजेक्ट `एबीएसपी-2´ के माध्यम से धन दिया गया। ज्ञात हो कि यूएस ऐड को मोनसेंटो धन मुहैया करवाती है। डॉ राय ही माहीको के फील्ड ट्रायलों के मुख्य जांचकर्ता भी थे। यानि वो एक ही समय में एबीएसपी प्रोजेक्ट भी चला रहे थे, ट्रायलों की जांच भी कर रहे थे और फिर वहीं डा राय विशेषज्ञ कमेटी में भी शामिल होते हैं।
यह भी मामला उजागर हुआ है कि स्वास्थ्य मंत्रालय के प्रतिनिधि के तौर पर जो दो सदस्य डा.धीर सिंह व डा एसपी डोगरे कमेटी में थे उन्हें भी उनके आका का हुक्म था कि वो बैठकों में मौन रहें। खेती विरासत मिशन के कार्यकारी निदेशक उमेंद्र दत्त ने कहा है कि कमेटी द्वारा की गई सिफारिश को लेकर पहले से ही शंकाएं व्याक्त की जा रही थीं। कमेटी की सिफारिश मानवीय स्वास्थ्य व पर्यावरण को की दृष्टि से नहीं बल्कि कंपनी के व्यापार को मद्देनजर की गई है। उन्होंने कहा कि अब जब सिफारिश करने वालों की हकीकत सामने आ गई है ऐसे में सरकार को इस सिफारिश को रद्द कर देना चाहिए। श्री दत्त ने कहा कि बीटी फसलों के सामर्थन में खड़े सभी व्याक्ति व संगठन भी इस धोखाधड़ी समझें और इसका विरोध करें। श्री दत्त ने कहा कि सरकार ऐसी कमेटी को भंग करे और उसकी सभी सिफारिशों को भी नामंजूर कर भारतवासियों के स्वास्थ्य व पर्यावरण की सुरक्षा करें।
कोअलिशन फार जीएम फ्री इंडिया की महासचिव कविता कुरूगंटी ने बताया कि बीटी बैंगन को मानवीय स्वास्थ्य व पर्यावरण के लिए सुरक्षित बताने वानी कमेटी ने स्वतंत्र व इमानदार फैसले नहीं लिए हैं। उन्होने कहा कि हकीकत यह है इस कमेटी में निष्पक्ष मेंबर नहीं थे बल्कि कंपनियों के हमदर्द या बिचौलिए ही शामिल किए थे तो फैसले कंपनी के पक्ष में ही होने थे। बीटी फसलों के विरोध में जुटे संगठनों ने मांग की है कि वह सिफारिश तुरंत वापिस ली जाए।

Raw deal

2009-12-04T17:41:00.001+05:30

Home > TheWeek Current Events > Full Story
CONTROVERSY
To eat or not to eat Bt brinjal, that's the question?
By Soni Mishra

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) took just an hour to pass a 102-page report giving the go-ahead to Bt brinjal. The report had been drafted in just two meetings, by an expert committee set up by the GEAC. These are two of several points raised by biologist P.M. Bhargava, a Supreme Court-appointed member of GEAC, raising serious doubts over the manner in which Bt brinjal was cleared for environmental release.

“The GEAC met on October 14 and passed the report within one hour. How is it possible to clear such a voluminous report in an hour? I feel it was all pre-planned. It is unfair, unethical and improper,” said Bhargava, the former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad. The only member of the committee to oppose the decision, Bhargava claimed that GEAC members were given very little time to go through the report. “I proposed that a month’s time should be given to us to analyse it, and people from Monsanto and the other stakeholders should be called to discuss it thoroughly,” he said.

Bhargava claimed that the expert committee held only two meetings before coming up with the report. “How is that possible? This would lead one to conclude that the report was already prepared by someone else,” he said. He also said the report was a bad scientific document and would not pass muster in any scientific organisation anywhere in the world. The need for a foolproof and fair system for giving clearance to GM crops is being emphasised, especially since many more GM food crops are in the pipeline. According to sources in the environment ministry, as many as 56 GM crops, 41 of them food crops, are in different stages of trials. Bt brinjal, developed by Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco), the Indian partner of multinational seed company Monsanto, could be the first GM food crop to be introduced in India. It has been genetically modified to include the bacterial gene Bacillus thuringiensis—the same as in Bt cotton—that makes it pest-resistant.

Farmers’ rights activist Kavitha Kuruganti has questioned the clearance mechanism, saying the expert committee, its terms of reference and processes are all fraught with problems. “Two of the members of the expert committee were earlier involved in studies for Mahyco. So they were assessing their own findings, which is completely unfair,” she said.

Another contention is that the data for the report on Bt brinjal was provided by the company itself. “The biosafety tests that generated the data that was provided to the expert committee were conducted by the company,” said Kushal Pal Singh Yadav of the Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi. “This would obviously give rise to questions. The tests ought to have been conducted by an independent body.”

The government defends the clearance set-up. “The GEAC comprises 25 highly respected experts,” said Dr M.K. Bhan, secretary, department of biotechnology, ministry of science and technology. “They went through all data and conducted a detailed examination of the information at hand. If they were not satisfied with something, they asked the tests to be repeated. The GEAC cannot be expected to look at philosophical and political issues. It will only look into the scientific issue of whether there is any evidence that Bt brinjal poses any risks. We get the best people on the committee and we cannot subject them to mistrust and suspicion.”

Using data from the company was the norm even in the field of pharmaceuticals, said Bhan. The clearance mechanism was so strict that many companies complain that it is easier for them to deal with the US Food and Drug Administration, he added.
Many believe that India is not prepared for GM crops as the country does not have strict provisions for labelling. “There is need for exercising caution while introducing Bt brinjal as it is an edible crop. At present, we do not have any labelling mechanism in place for GM food crops, so the consumer cannot make a choice,” said Yadav.

The expert committee found Bt brinjal safe for environmental release and human consumption; no additional studies or review are required, said the report. According to Mahyco, Bt brinjal would help millions of farmers who have been suffering crop damage caused by the pest brinjal fruit and shoot borer (BFSB). Bt brinjal has been in development for the last nine years. After a series of tests and trials, including 25 environmental biosafety studies, it was cleared by the GEAC, set up by the government. Those opposing Bt brinjal say it could do irreparable damage to health. Critics of GM food crops also cite the absence of a regulatory framework to protect consumer interests.

A study by French scientist Prof. G. Serilini of the University of Cannes has questioned the test results provided by Mahyco to the expert committee, saying the data is questionable with regard to toxicity. The study says it could lead to resistance to antibiotics. Former health minister Dr Anbumani Ramadoss has written to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, cautioning against the introduction of Bt brinjal, saying GM foods are known to cause various health effects like allergies and kidney and liver damage and can affect the immune system.

Experts want the government to pay heed to alternative methods of pest management without pesticides. “Very few countries have gone in for GM crops. Worldwide, only 2.5 per cent of the total arable land is being used to grow GM crops. More than 95 per cent of such crops are grown in the US, Canada, Brazil and Argentina. Instead of opting for GM crops, we should look at pesticide-free methods that have been developed in our country,” said Jai Krishna of Greenpeace.

According to Mahyco, Bt brinjal has been tested in full compliance with the guidelines and directives of the regulatory authorities to ensure its safety. “It is the most rigorously tested vegetable with 25 environmental biosafety studies supervised by independent and government agencies,” said Raju Barwale, managing director. Bt brinjal has the same nutritional value, he added, and is compositionally identical to non-Bt brinjal, except for the additional Bt protein that is specific in its action against the pest.

Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, in the wake of the controversy over Bt brinjal, has decided to hold a public debate on the issue before a final decision is taken. “Strong views have already been expressed on the Bt brinjal issue, both for and against,” he said. “My objective is to arrive at a careful, considered decision in the public and national interest. The decision will be made only after the consultation process is complete and all stakeholders are satisfied that they have been heard to their satisfaction.”

JNU’s Centre for Community Health Warns Against Bt Brinjal Hazards

2009-11-22T15:32:00.000+05:30

http://publichealthwatchjournal.blogspot.com/2009/11/jnus-centre-for-community-health-warns.html
Press Release

New Delhi, 20/11/2009: Responding to the introduction of Bt Brinjal in the country for public discussion by Jairam Ramesh, the Union Environment Minister, the Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health (CSMCH), Jawaharlal Nehru University has sent a letter to the Union Minister saying, “We believe that there are serious issues of safety that are not yet addressed through long term studies. There is some data that these crops could be allergy- inducing, and indeed that they might be mutagenic. It is for these reasons that in the European Union but major countries have a restrictive regulatory regime. Countries in EU have a precautionary approach towards GM crops and major countries like Germany, France, Hungary, Greece etc has a ban on their cultivation.”

CSMCH took cognizance of the reports suggesting that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has decided to approve the environmental release of Bt Brinjal from Monsanto/Mahyco in India which would for all purposes permit the use of transgenic and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and products for edible purposes.

The letter notes that CSMCH is seriously troubled with this move. The letter says, “ First of all, this is entirely unnecessary from a public health perspective, indeed undesirable. The argument that Bt brinjal would not require pesticides is dissembling. There are other, better, pest management methods like non pesticidal management that we need to utilize.”

It refers to “serious methodological flaws in the studies that have been carried out, not to mention ethical ones.”

It takes note of the “profound conflict of interest issues involved in the studies carried out in India. The companies that stand to gain by the introduction of these crops into the market were the sponsors of the studies. This is entirely unacceptable.”

The Prof Mohan Rao, Chairperson, CSMCH says, “There has not been adequate assessment of the ecological consequences of the introduction of this food crop. These concerns regarding the health and environmental risks associated with GM crops are too serious to be disregarded. Given our retailing structure, labeling is impossible in India and contamination is inevitable. Introduction of GM crops would kill the choice of the consumer."

The letter concludes saying that “this policy move is entirely unnecessary, has not been transparent and is potentially injurious to public health. We believe there should be a moratorium on such technologies till their safety both to human beings and the environment is proven.”

PublichealthWatch is a collective of public health researchers.

Four years of bitter harvest

2009-11-20T19:35:00.000+05:30

Renitha RaveendranTags : amravati district, maharashtra, agriculturePosted: Friday , Nov 20, 2009 at 0011 hrsAmravati:

Since the seeds were first sown in their lands four years ago, farmers of Katpur village in Amravati district have been patiently waiting each season for wonders to happen. Nothing of the sort has happened yet. With huge debts taking the lives of many farmers in the district, and even cattle purportedly dying after feeding on the plants, the 5,000-odd farmers of this Maharashtra village have decided to shun the Bt cotton — once introduced to them by seed companies as “miracle” seeds. Most of them are now growing soyabean. Some have also taken to organic farming.
“We were cheated by the seed companies. We did not get the yield promised by them, not even half of it. And the expenditure involved was so high that we incurred huge debts. We have heard that the government is now planning commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal. But we do not want Bt seeds of any crop anymore,” says Sahebrao Yawliker, a farmer.

Bengal puts Bt Brinjal on the backburner

2009-11-20T18:37:00.001+05:30

Sabyasachi Bandopadhyay Posted online: Friday , Nov 20, 2009 at 0314 hrs

Kolkata : Chief Minister Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee has virtually said no to the commercial production of Bt Brinjal in the state.

In a letter to Union Minister for Forests and Environment Jairam Ramesh, the chief minister spelt out the problems in growing GM brinjal and said that he would consult some of the members of the state’s erstwhile agriculture commission on this matter.

Earlier, in a letter to Bhattacharjee on November 10, Ramesh had sought to know the stand of the state government on the issue.

The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Centre has approved the commercial production of Bt Brinjal.

The CPM’s farmers’ wing, Krishak Sabha, has already objected to the proposal.

“There are clear reasons to be concerned about commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal. One of the worries is about ‘gene pills’ or the contamination of the land races by the engineered variety. This means that it has potential to threaten bio-diversity, destabilise important ecosystems, and limit the future agricultural possibilities in a region,” the chief minister said in his letter.

The chief minister also raised questions on the impact of GM crops on human health. “There remain vital questions of the impact of GM crops on human health, particularly when genetic engineering introduces the possibilities of physiologic or bio-chemical effects on target varieties. The current generations of available crops also raises concerns linked to pesticide use as BT crops are designed to internally create their own pesticides. While in the short run one may expect some decrease in use of pesticides, in the long run it may not be very effective,” Bhattacharjee said.

He also said that in developed countries people have a choice between GM food and non-GM food. “In the markets of those countries, the GM food is kept aside and people have a choice of not buying them. But in our retail markets people will be left with no choice,” the chief minister said.

Bhattacharjee also raised concerns about the economics of using GM crops in developing countries. “The commercial producers of Bt Brinjal seeds claim that poor farmers will benefit from cultivation of that crop through higher productivity, but in reality it may not be so in the long run. The farmers may not only become dependent on the monopoly supplier for the seeds but also for other inputs as 98 per cent of the world GM seed market is controlled only by a few companies,” the chief minister added.

Why the US is so keen to sell Bt brinjal to India

2009-11-19T19:04:00.000+05:30

November 19, 2009 12:38 IST
The conversion of Indian farmers from traditional varieties and public hybrids to commercial hybrids and GM seeds could create a market larger than China, notes Bhavdeep Kang

A fortnight ago, the Bharatiya Janata Party [ Images ] headquarters in Delhi [ Images ] received a visit from a representative of a US-based multinational seed subsidiary. His mission: To convince party opinion-makers that Bt brinjal was as swadeshi as baingan ka bharta and should therefore receive their endorsement.
That American agri-companies have intensified lobbying with Indian political parties is not surprising, for two reasons. First, the Indian government has yet to greenlight the commercialisation of Bt brinjal -- crucial for the future of these 'Bt brand' companies -- even after a thumbs up from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).
Also, the winter session of Parliament is to take up two crucial pieces of legislation: The Seed Bill and the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill. Both will profoundly impact the agri-business environment in India [ Images ] for agri-MNCs, by facilitating market access.
Small wonder US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [ Images ] made it a point to visit the Indian Agricultural Research Institute in July and reiterate her country's commitment to bringing about policy changes in the Indian farm sector that US agri-business would like to see.
Clinton said she favoured a strong intellectual property or patent regime (IPR) to safeguard the ownership of agricultural research, as that would be in 'everyone's interest'. A contention rejected by Indian agri-policy analysts who say it would primarily benefit owners of biotechnology research -- the MNCs who produce 'Bt' seeds, as genetically modified or GM crops have come to be popularly known (patents would ensure that no one else would be allowed to produce or sell these seeds).
Her technology advisor, Nina Federoff, is a strong votary of genetically modified crops, to the extent of being regarded as a spokesperson for US seed multinationals like Monsanto, Dow and DuPont.
In fact, Federoff triumphantly pointed out to a group of US agri-scientists last year that although Europe and Japan [ Images ] were cautious about GM foods, Africa and India were clamouring for them!
The MNCs have the advantage of an unabashedly pro-GM Minister for Agriculture in Sharad Pawar [ Images ]. However, the Bt ball is currently in the court of Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh [ Images ], who is under pressure from the public and the scientific community to delay unleashing the Bt blitzkrieg until a consumer protection regime is in place.
The BJP is divided on the issue and its opposition could delay the passage or alter the shape of the pending Bills. The Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, its mentor, has made no secret of its strong opposition to GM crops.
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [ Images ] provided the US-based agri-giants with a readymade vehicle for lobbying with Indian policy-makers during his first term in 2006, when he approved the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture.
It was announced with much fanfare during his visit to the USA and evoked a storm of protest at home, mainly from the Left parties and farmers' bodies.
The AKI, as it is known, boasts MNCs (Monsanto, Walmart, Archer Daniels Midland) as official US representatives on its panel. They have set the agenda for the AKI, with development of transgenic strains of rice and wheat forming a major part of the initiative.
Three-quarters of the Rs 400 crore (Rs 4 billion) commitment by India is earmarked for biotechnology products (the US commitment of $8 million for the year 2006 didn't materialise, prompting Pawar to write to the prime minister, seeking his intervention).
A subsequent attempt was made by the US to alter the focus of the AKI from research to policy issues but was scuttled by the Indian bureaucracy.
The AKI was touted as the next logical step in the '50 years of Indo-US cooperation on agriculture' which started with the Green Revolution that opened the doors to US agro-chemical and seed companies. It is part of the much-hyped 'Second Green Revolution', touted by the PM and his agriculture minister as the answer to India's food security concerns.
The fact that this 'revolution' will be based on bio-technology products owned by private corporations had disturbed Indian farmers' bodies, who have described it as a joint US-India effort to promote the interests of bio-technology-driven MNCs.
The AKI worries Indian agri-policy experts because it gives the MNCs access to India's gene-banks, fuelling fears of bio-piracy. Even more, it also gives them an 'in' to India's enormous agricultural research infrastructure, while the ownership of the collaborative research is not yet clear.
Since they have a clear edge in terms of bio-technology research and are pumping out patented Bt seeds, the MNCs want an IPR regime which would give them a hold on the Indian seed market.
The US already has a significant presence in India's agricultural and food sectors, accounting for more than half of the $1 billion organised seed market. Of course, four-fifths of India's farmers do not purchase seeds. They still follow the traditional system of save, exchange and barter. It is this section that the MNCs would like to target.
The conversion of Indian farmers from traditional varieties and public hybrids to commercial hybrids and GM seeds could create a market larger than China. The Seed Bill, 2004, and the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill are the thin end of the wedge.
The NBRA Bill, if it becomes an Act, would demolish a raft of existing bio-safety regulations, which would enable easier access to the Indian markets.
The Seed Bill has been criticised for diluting many provisions of the existing Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, PPVFR, which safeguards the right of Indian farmers to freely save, exchange and barter seeds.
Bhavdeep Kang

Scientist issues warning on introduction of GM crops

2009-11-17T20:04:00.000+05:30

PTI Tuesday, November 17, 2009 14:59 IST

Thiruvananthapuram: A senior Agriculture Scientist has cautioned the Centre on introduction of GM crops in the country observing that Indian agriculture was 'so diverse and biodiversity very vast.'

'One has to take into consideration all crucial facts before one jumps onto the GM bandwagon", Food and Agriculture Organisation Consultant K P Prabhakaran Nair said while presenting a paper at a national seminar on 'GM crops and Food Security' here today.

On Biotechnology regulator Genetic Engineering Approval Committee clearing Bt brinjal - country's first genetically modified (GM) food- for commercial use, he said the move evoked mixed reaction from scientists, stake holders and civil society. The verdict was against GM crops, he said.

India faced a similar situation in the early sixties when the 'miracle' wheat seeds were introduced in the country.

It was true that the nation harvested large amounts of food grains but paid a heavy environmental toll in terms of degraded soils, dried aquifiers, polluted groundwater and vanished bio diversity, Nair said.

Industrial agriculture, with high input technology, also did not go well with India's ethos and the country was now seeking a different path based on sustainable agriculture. It was at this time that GM crops have made their appearance, he said.

Indian Biodiversity Forum Chairman S Faizi said genetically modified organisms contain inherent risks to biodiversity and human health. The Seminar was jointly organised by Kerala Biotechnology Commission and Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment

GM Foods opponents castigated remarks by the Union Agriculture Minister of State

2009-11-16T20:02:00.000+05:30

Patna,16.11.09. GM Foods opponents here today castigated remarks by the Union Agriculture Minister of State that the country cannot afford to stop the use of genetically modified technology, saying it was “premature” and “unscientific” on the part of a Central Minister to issue such statements.

Minister of State for Agriculture K. V. Thomas had said in New Delhi that India cannot oppose the use of the genetically modified technology as it wants to increase crop yields and manage the present agriculture crisis.

However, the GM-Free Bihar Abhiyaan, which is spreading awareness in Bihar on the disadvantages of GM Foods, said the central minister’s statement was premature and without any scientific basis.

“The minister should have refrained from such statements when a nation-wide debate is going on genetically modified foods, particularly on the aspects of biosafety, environment and consumer choice,” it said, adding, “There are environmental and economic concerns about the GM technology.”

GM-Free Bihar Abhiyaan Convenor Pankaj Bhushan said there are health concerns also being expressed. The World Health Organization has noted that while theoretical discussions have covered a lot of ground, three key concerns were debated - the GM crops' tendencies to provoke allergic reactions, transfer gene to the intestinal bacteria, and the movement of transfer of genes to conventional crops or related species in the wild.

Even scientists, who support genetic engineering in general, are concerned about a world in which a lot of toxin-carrying genes move around. It could pose not only health risk, but also increase resistance among pests.

When it was introduced in

India

, Bt cotton was promoted as a wonder product that would save farmers caught in pesticide resistance, low yields and spiralling debts. But in several places that was not the case.

Bhushan said even the approval of Bt Brinjal by Centre’s Genetic Engineering Approval Committee has drawn a lot of ire.

Even the Muzaffarpur MP Capt. Jai Narayan Nishad, who had been Union Environment and Forests Minister, has written to Bihar CM and the Centre on the issue.

India can't oppose GM tech amid current farm crisis

2009-11-13T21:08:00.000+05:30

STAFF WRITER 17:11 HRS IST

New Delhi, Nov 13 (PTI) The government today said India cannot oppose the use of the genetically modified technology as it wants to increase crop yields.

"The GM technology cannot be avoided," Minister of State for Agriculture K V Thomas said, adding India cannot oppose the use of technology if it wants to increase yields and manage the present agricultural crisis.

The crop shortage of key foodgrains had led to a rise in prices of some food commodities such as sugar and tur dal this year. In Kerala, tur dal is costing Rs 90-100 a kg and sugar has touched Rs 35 a kg this year, he shared.

The minister noted: "The country need to take scientific and practical steps to improve productivity and bring down cost of production. The GM technology is one way to achieve this.

GM CROPS Where is the science?

2009-11-13T09:58:00.001+05:30

The debate in GM plants is deeply suffused by vested interests. In addition to impeding research, companies also exert their influence on review and approval, writes Sujatha Byravan.

Genetically Modified (GM) crops are in the limelight again as the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in India recently permitted commercial cultivation of Bt-brinjal. This brinjal contains the pesticide gene from Bacillus Thuringiensis and has been developed by Mahyco Monsanto Biotech, a joint-venture between Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company and the US seed colossus Monsanto. GEAC is supposedly India's highest regulatory body for genetically engineered plants, but its very name proclaims its charge - to give approval to genetically engineered substances, as opposed to being a disinterested regulatory body.

Given all the confusion regarding GM crops let us recapture a few lessons we have learnt and know for sure in the area of food security and agriculture. Biodiversity is critical to sustainable, healthy agricultural ecosystems; a farmer's ability to control agricultural productivity through ownership of seeds, access to markets and reasonably secure livelihoods is important; and to ensure food security, storage, distribution and purchasing power have to be part of the picture. For instance, India imported lentils recently to tide over its needs. Some agricultural experts suggest that improved storage methods would have made these imports unnecessary.

In essence, we need a systems approach to agriculture and food security instead of viewing them as requiring mere technical fixes. Thus while various technologies and innovations - such as better rural credit systems, improved methods to capture and store rainwater, and development of implements to enable women to work more easily in the fields - will remain crucial to agriculture, these developments must support the critical elements.

Science vs. anti-science?

What has been of particular interest in this and past debates on the subject is the way in which those who oppose GM crops are painted as being against science (see for instance, the editorial in The Hindu on 21 October, 2009 or Starved for Science by R Paarlberg). There is a blatant attempt by GM promoters to polarise the discussion and manufacture a science-vs.-antiscience debate. All those who oppose GM crops are neither anti-science nor luddites. Indeed, many scientists have been, and still are, critical of GM for a number of good reasons. Scientists and scientific academies, including the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences, have expressed serious concerns regarding the scientific rigour of experiments and the impacts of GM crops, especially on biodiversity.
Those who support GM crops generally believe that science and technology can solve most problems, and see crops as requiring tinkering to improve agriculture. It is such short-term and piecemeal thinking that led to the excesses of the Green Revolution causing damage to soils, depletion of ground water and other harms to ecosystems. There are other supporters of GM who continue to believe that private production of goods and services is inherently superior to public ones, even as governments have been bailing out the private sector in the last year! And then there are those who have financial gains to make if the GM industry prospers.
Let me compare the GM debate with the other major scientific debate - global warming. While scientists who work on climate change and global warming rightly embrace the precautionary principle, many who work in the area of GM plant technologies abandon it altogether. A charitable explanation is that this may have to do with differing perceptions of risk in each case. Perhaps global warming is seen as a serious threat to the entire world, and GM crops may not be understood in the same way. Moreover, some benefits have been attributed to these crops by promoters, making it harder for people to reject them.
But while the naysayers of climate change have now been marginalised through more research and data, those who are concerned about GM crops have been silenced through smear campaigns launched against them. Some of the scientists, like Arpad Pusztai, who raised questions regarding the health effects of GM crops, have had their careers turned upside down. In order to learn about the tentacles and might of agribusiness, one must ask Ignacio Chapela from UC Berkeley about his gut-wrenching tenure battle, which followed his publication in Nature on the contamination of wild strains of Mexican maize by GM maize
The mere use of technology does not make an approach scientific, but this is a common fallacy even among scientists. Good science is characterised by transparency and falsifiability. These do not figure in GM. Instead, faith, the antithesis of science, features in a big way. There are few peer-reviewed journal articles on GM crops. When companies make claims about various positive contributions from their engineered crops, their statements cannot be verified or tested independently. Policymakers and even other scientists who work in the same area have to accept the results on faith.
Earlier this year, an anonymous public statement was signed and submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 26 leading scientists, entomologists who work with insects that infect corn. It stated that scientists are unable to conduct independent research on GM crops as patents prevent full access to research materials and the ability to grow and study these plants. As a consequence, the scientists state, the data that the Scientific Advisory Panel of the EPA has available to it is unduly limited. This means the claims of GM proponents cannot be verified independently or indeed be falsified.

GEAC is supposedly India's highest regulatory body for genetically engineered plants, but its very name proclaims its charge - to give approval to genetically engineered substances, as opposed to being a disinterested regulatory body.

• Too risky to tolerate
• Genetically engineered spin
There is general agreement among scientists and academics on the adverse effects on biodiversity as a result of cross-pollination from engineered to non-engineered crops. Still, field trials for GM crops in unmarked areas blow caution and engineered pollen to the winds in closely cultivated fields in India.
The potential damage to human health from GM crops has been shown quite clearly in a few animal systems, but perhaps needs further study. There is good peer-reviewed published evidence to show that Bt toxins are both immunogens (a substance that provokes an immune response) and immunoadjuvants (a substance that enhances immune response) for mammals. Moreover, studies have shown that Bt toxins bind to the mammalian small intestine and have effects on its proper functioning. The concerns raised by the use of viral promoters, which are hotspots for genetic recombination, the use of antibiotic resistance genes, and strong gene promoters (sequences that facilitate the transcription of a gene) to ensure that the foreign genes are expressed, have already been highlighted by many scientists.
The science behind genetic engineering of plants is itself outdated as it continues to view a gene as a single self-contained unit of DNA sequence that transfers information linearly to RNA (ribonucleic acid) and then to proteins. It has now become clear that this picture of gene expression is simplistic and incorrect. There is a complex array of interacting factors that influence gene expression. For instance, even sequences of DNA located at a distance from the gene in question can be involved in regulating it as can other cellular and environmental factors. Further, RNA and protein play a far more important role in gene expression than previously believed.
What this implies is that simply introducing a DNA sequence into a plant and expecting a complex trait to be successfully transferred is not justified. This explains why even after decades of experimentation with numerous traits, only a couple of characteristics (the pesticide gene and herbicide tolerance) have been transferred to plants and that too, many would argue, unsuccessfully.
By any means necessary
The truth is that agribusiness has been doing its best to gain control of food security for profit using many different tactics and it is supported from various quarters. While political coercion and economic pressure have been working to open some European markets to a few GM crops, the vast majority of the people and most of the countries in Europe remain doubtful about GM foods. In case of large-scale industrial farms (which receive generous subsidies from public coffers) in the US, GM crops seem to make farms easier to manage.
The conversion of farmers to using engineered crops in other parts of the world may work for a few seasons, but most of them find that pests grow resistant to the Bt gene compelling the application of more chemicals. This is reported to already be happening in the case of Bt cotton in India. The companies are beginning to respond to the problem by inserting more Bt and other pest-resistant genes.
The debate in GM plants is even more deeply suffused by vested interests than that on global warming. In addition to impeding research, companies also exert their influence on review and approval by way of revolving doors between agribusiness and regulators. Furthermore, outright threats came to light in the UK in 2003 when the government decided to hold panels to review GM foods. According to The Guardian"Dr Andrew Stirling, of Sussex University and a member of the Government's GM science review panel, was warned by a leading member of the scientific establishment his career would be ruined unless he stopped questioning the technology's safety. The pro-GM scientist tried to get Stirling removed from a research project by approaching its funders."
Another leading academic reported that he resigned from the science review after fearing that his funding might be withdrawn. "Professor Carlo Leifert, of the University of Newcastle, also felt it was improper that an employee of GM giant Monsanto had been allowed to draft a key chapter on the safety of GM foods for the science review." Individuals from biotechnology companies often occupy key decision-making positions in regulatory agencies. In India conflicts of interest and straightforward charges of corruption have been made in the appointment of GEAC members.
The battle lines are drawn, but not as visibly as they have been in the case of global warming. Developing countries such as India with its large population and huge potential for markets are very attractive to agribusiness. In India where the vast majority of the people still depend on agriculture for their livelihood, and where diverse ecoystems and crop varieties still thrive, control over food security needs to be a top priority that is not be handed over to anyone: corporations, governments or even civil society for that matter.
The state of Orissa has come out and taken a stand against GM crops. Orissa has over 100 varieties of local brinjal and those may be affected by GM contamination. India might be where the fight for control over food security between corporations and farmers now lies.
Although it seems important to demonstrate that the science and alleged benefits of GM crops are untrue we shouldn't have to invest a whole lot of money to show that GM crops don't cause harm. There is enough evidence to show that they do not increase yield consistently, that they are a serious threat to biodiversity, increase the use of chemicals over time and do not benefit consumers or small farm holdings.
Would we invest a lot of effort to counter claims by oil companies such as Exxon who have poured money into research to show that global warming is not taking place? We have enough work to do mitigating and adapting to climate change. Similarly, we need to focus on the challenge at hand-food security in an uncertain future. And we can do that without GM plants by using proven agricultural practices and other innovations that improve food security. ⊕

BT brinjal clearance ignored dissenters?

2009-11-13T09:40:00.000+05:30

Nitin Sethi, TNN 11 November 2009, 02:54am IST

NEW DELHI: In what is bound to raise the bar for the government to clear GM brinjal, the Supreme Court appointed observer on the GEAC has written to the environment ministry that his and two other members' dissenting voice was ignored while giving a hasty recommendation for the environmental release of the BT brinjal.

Pushpa M Bhargava, appointed to the GEAC by the apex court after a case in which the clearance process was challenged, has warned that enormous scientific literature was ignored in a haste to clear the first genetically modified food crop in India.The former director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology has pointed out that the 102-page report thick with scientific information was cleared without giving adequate time for its scrutiny. He warns that the committee's report has enormous scientific and technical errors and is inconsistent in parts.

The final report of the GEAC did not contain any dissenting report. It instead read like a unanimous view of all the members of the committee. Bhargava has said that he was in no doubt that the clearance of BT brinjal was pre-planned and the committee was an eye-wash.

Bhargava had suggested the postponement of the meeting for a month and suggested a one- or two-day meeting where other experts would also be called for the review. This suggestion, Bhargava said, was ignored in the haste for granting a clean chit to the proposal. He has warned in his missive to the ministry that allowing the release of BT brinjal would be a major national disaster and would open up a Pandora's box. Elsewhere, Bhargava has pointed out that besides him, two other scientists on board had communicated their strong reservations but were ignored. He pointed out that Ramesh Sonti of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Hyderabad, who is a Bhatnagar Prize winner and member of GEAC, was of the opinion that there were fundamental flaws in the technology being cleared. Bhargava had earlier raised objections to the fact that all crucial and necessary tests had not been carried out. Those that were carried out were either done by the company or in the case where the tests were carried out by accredited labs, the company provided selected samples.

He had also pointed out that GM crops were banned in most parts of the world and were predominant only in the US, Canada, Argentina and Brazil.

जीएम फूड के खिलाफ चेतना रैली

2009-11-11T11:28:00.000+05:30

भास्कर न्यूज l लुधियाना. सुरक्षित एंव जीएम (जेनेटिकली मोडिफाईड) मुक्त भोजन हेतु साझा मोर्चा पंजाब ने जीएम फसलों की खेती करने पर प्रतिबंध लगाने की मांग की है। इसके विरोध में सुरक्षित एवं जीएम मुक्त भोजन हेतु सांझा मंच के बैनर तले शहर की प्रमुख सामाजिक संस्थाओं ने चेतना मार्च निकाला और केंद्र सरकार को बीटी बैंगन की खेती पर रोक लगाने की मांग की।
लोगों ने मोमबत्तियां जलाकर केंद्र सरकार को जगाने की कोशिश की। रैली का नेतृत्व शहीद भगत सिंह के भांजे प्रोफेसर जगमोहन सिंह व शहीद सुखदेव थापर के पौत्र भारत भूषण थापर ने किया। प्रो. जगमोहन सिंह ने कहा कि देश को आजाद कराने में लोगों ने अपनी जान कुर्बान कर दी थी। वहीं अब सरकार ऐसे फैसले लेकर एक बार फिर देश को गुलामी की तरफ धकेल रही है।
बाबा फरीदकोट यूनिवर्सिटी के पूर्व कुलपति डा. एलएस चावला ने कहा कि विज्ञान और तकनीक का विकास नैतिक मूल्यों और सामाजिक सरोकार को ध्यान में रखकर किया जाना चाहिए। उन्होंने कहा कि बीटी बैंगन की देश में कोई जरूरत नहीं है। इसलिए सरकार का इसके उत्पादन के लिए मंजूरी देना सरासर गलत है। उन्होंने कहा कि इससे लोगों के स्वास्थ्य पर बुरा असर पड़ेगा इतना ही नहीं यह अगली पीढ़ी पर भी बुरा असर डाल सकता है।
इस मौके पर इंडियन मेडिकल एसोसिएशन के सदस्य डा. अरुण मित्रा ने बताया कि यह किसी भी तरह से देश और देशवासियों के हित में नहीं है। इस मौके पर जिला बार एसोसिएशन के प्रधान परोपकार सिंह घुम्मन ने कहा कि पंजाब सरकार को चाहिए कि भाजपा शासित राज्यों की तर्ज पर इसकी खेती पर प्रतिबंध लगाया जाए। इस मौके पर संदीप जैन, ओसवाल कैंसर अस्पताल के डा. सतीश जैन, प्रसिद्ध साहित्यकार सुरजीत पातर, अमरजीत ग्रेवाल, प्रदीप कुमार व अन्य उपस्थित थे।

Mahesh Bhatt’s “Poison on the Platter” inaugurated

2009-11-08T12:37:00.001+05:30

Mahesh Bhatt’s “Poison on the Platter” was inaugurated at Patna on 7th November 2009 by noted Bhojpuri stars Dines lal Yadav ‘Nirahua’ and Pakhi Hegde.The much talked about film was screened at the Maurya Hotel before a large number of People. The Film targets the bad effects of Genetically Modified Foods & crops and its inauguration marks the launch of state-vide programme by farmers & activists against the BT Brinjal Crop. The timing is significant as the final nod to BT Brinjal is awaiting the Central Government signal. Addressing the audience the Bhojpuri stars said that they were worried over the proposed sale & production of GM Foods & Crops in Bihar in particular.Cine actress Pakhi hedge said she is not going to allow Poisoned Foods at the dining table as she equated GM Foods with Poisonous substances.

Echoing her view, Cine Actor Nirahua said he was very much impressed by the Film “Poison on the Platter” and also said that he was shocked as to how could the Government go ahead with experiments over the dining table.

Convenor, GM Free Bihar Abhiyaan Pankaj Bhushan also addressed the audience and said “GM Crops, BT Brinjal in particular, if allowed would ruin the health and economy of Bihar”.

Frontiers of the future: In-gene-ous modifications

2009-11-07T20:36:00.000+05:30

TOI Crest 7 November 2009

One fertilised human cell divides just 47 times to produce over 100 trillion cells, which make up the remarkable human body. Each cell contains nearly two metres of DNA molecule threads (that's about 20 million km in all). Each DNA molecule has about three billion pairs of four types of molecules called bases. The sequence of these pairs is the genetic code that determines what our body is like. It's the same for all living beings, in different orders of complexity. In a gigantic exercise spread over years, ending 2000, the complete sequence of human DNA (genome) was worked out. Tweak the DNA and you get a different result. That's what happens in nature, which is why there are so many different life forms, surviving by adaptation. But humans have also been altering genetic codes to serve their own ends. Genetically modified (GM) plants, like Bt brinjal or cotton, are examples. The changed gene makes them resistant to some pests and drives up productivity. But protests against ‘Frankenstein food' have kept pace with advances in gene technology.

Genetic engineering - inserting new genetic sequences into viruses, bacteria, plants and other animals - has seen a worldwide explosion of biotechnology. On the one hand, human genes are studied to locate abnormalities, which cause disorders or make an individual more susceptible to various diseases. Switching that gene off can affect the onset of the disease. Conversely, vaccines use genetic pieces of a deadly microbe, like polio, to trigger the body's immune system and protect itself against attack.

Recent discoveries show that RNA (ribonucleic acid), the single strand cousin of DNA, plays an important role in making proteins. This has led to an alternative way of tweaking the genetic code, by silencing selected genes with RNA. This has dramatic potential for application in modifying plant genes for beneficial purposes.

Nobel Prize winner Phillip Sharp, formerly at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told TOI-Crest, "Almost all diseases can be described as a product of the normal or abnormal functioning of specific genes. The ability to silence these specific genes by design of small interfering RNAs opens a new approach to the treatment of a vast number of diseases."

Scientists at the J Craig Venter Institute are working on sequencing and analysis of disease-causing microbes such as anthrax and the mosquito species that carry yellow fever and malaria, and various strains of influenza and corona-virus. This, too, could help in developing new vaccines and treatments.

Monsanto to introduce Bt corn

2009-11-07T12:29:00.000+05:30

CH Prashanth Reddy / Chennai/ Hyderabad November 06, 2009, 0:07 IST

Unfazed by the ongoing opposition to the commercialisation of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) brinjal, Monsanto India Limited (MIL), a subsidiary of US-based global biotech food major Monsanto Company, is planning to introduce genetically modified corn in the country by 2012-13.

The proposed corn seed would be embedded with not only Bt but also with the company's 'Roundup ready' technology that would be helpful in management of weeds and insects, MIL’s director- corporate affairs, Gyanendra Shukla, told Business Standard.

Monsanto envisages a good potential for the Bt corn seed business as the corn market in India is continuously growing due to changing food habits, driving the demand for poultry and livestock products. The starch industry, which primarily uses corn as its input, is also rapidly growing.

Today, according to MIL, over 30 user industries in the country produce more than 1,000 products from corn for textiles, paper, medicinal and other allied industries. By 2011-12, the domestic demand for corn is estimated to be over 22 million tonnes. As against this, the country’s corn production in 2008 stood at 19.31 million tonnes.

At present, MIL sells hybrid corn seeds in the country under the brand name Deklab. It has 14 high-yielding hybrids under this brand. The company's total seed sales in 2008-09 increased 5.6 per cent to Rs 231.8 crore from Rs 219.5 crore in 2007-08.

According to Shukla, India with 130 million hectares of land under cultivation is a “very important” market for the $11.3 billion Monsanto Company. In fact, MIL is the only public-listed company of Monsanto outside USA.

The rapid spread of area under cotton cultivation in the country seemed to have made Monsanto confident on the prospects of its Bt corn in India. In 2008, India planted Bt cotton on 7.6 million hectares equivalent to 82 per cent of the total cotton area in the country.

This year, Shukla said, the area under Bt cotton went up to about 9 million hectares comprising 90 per cent of the total cotton area. Now Monsanto was conducting bio-safety trials on next generation Bt cotton technology, which it was hopeful of introducing by 2012.

With regard to other products in the pipeline, he said Monsanto was currently working on a drought-tolerant corn variety, which would be launched first in the US in 2012. Subsequently, the company would come up with similar varieties of soyabean and cotton

Coming soon...designer food at a dining table near you

2009-11-06T21:00:00.000+05:30

Pesticide banned in 62 countries still used in India

2009-11-06T15:24:00.007+05:30

Endosulfan, a deadly pesticide encouraged by India
Bhubaneswar, October 07: Endosulfan is a pesticide belonging to the organochlorine group of pesticides, under the Cyclodiene subgroup. It has been introduced in the 1950’s and in India has become a leading chemical used against pests in agriculture. It is used as an insecticide and also to kill fishes in lakes and rivers. It is not recommended for household use as it is known as a potent poison that can cause harm upon contact, eating food contaminated by it, swallowing, and even inhaling the odour.
The chemical came into spotlight in India when at Kasargad in Kerala it was sprayed aerially and the local population of many villages was exposed to it. What followed was very shocking. It led to physical and mental defects in poor farmers and their families. Studies have shown endosulfan to accumulate in a mother's breast milk and it has been linked to appalling birth deformities, the like of which are still being observed at Kasargad, “Kerala’s Bhopal”.
Such events have occurred across the Globe and 62 countries all over the world have either banned it or restricted its use. Unfortunately India has done nothing to stem the use of this endocrine disruptor which can cause changes at the genetic level. Only in the state of Kerala where the endosulfan tragedy occurred that activists, scientists and doctors have been able to enforce a ban.
The U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies endosulfan as Category Ib – Highly Hazardous and so does the European Union. Though it is a very great health hazard the WHO calls it only moderately hazardous.
In which crops are endosulfan sprayed? The list is long. It is used in vegetables, fruits, paddy, cotton, cashew, tea, coffee, and tobacco and also timber crops. In the Bolangir district of Orissa this poison is sprayed twice on paddy. It is also being used by farmers in Rayagada. Being a Persistent Organic Pollutant and also a Persistent Toxic Substance it is not easy to remove this poison from the body or from the food crop upon which it is sprayed. The spraying of this pesticide on food crops, particularly paddy, is unpardonable.
Unfortunately India refuses to ban this pesticide and continues to say that it is safe. "The Indian government, a major producer, vigorously opposes any international ban, stymieing efforts by other nations to safeguard human health", writes a report released by the Environmental Justice Foundation in September. India the largest producer of this chemical does not want to disturb the profit it earns by producing and exporting this deadly poison to 70 countries.
Living Farms in Orissa which is opposed against the use of chemical pesticides, calls for an immediate ban on this deadly pesticide. Very recently Pandit Ravishankar has urged, “have some value for life & stop this madness.”. Activists, scientists and doctors round the world areurging the pesticide industry in India to take a decisive role and end the production and use of endosulfan in India, a move which will have global significance.

DO YOU WANT TO BE A LAB RAT? IF NOT, STOP BT BRINJAL: ASSERT YOUR RIGHT TO SAFE FOOD & FOOD CHOICES

2009-11-06T15:12:00.000+05:30

www.iamnolabrat.com

Genetically Modified (GM) foods are created unnaturally by taking genes from unrelated organisms and inserting them into the cells of our food plants like brinjal, rice, bhindi, tomato, cauliflower, potato etc. The science and technology of Genetic Engineering is imprecise and irreversible and is documented to cause many health and environmental impacts.

In India, the first GM food crop--Bt Brinjal (which is incidentally the first ever such GM vegetable crop with the toxic Bt gene in it, anywhere in the world, to be eaten more or less directly by Indians if approved) -- developed by large profit-seeking agri-business corporations, has been cleared hastily for commercial use by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in a closed-door manner without sound scientific evidence to prove its safety on October 14^th 2009. Bt Brinjal has been created to get the brinjal plant to produce a poison inside the plant to kill some pests that attack the crop – the claim is that farmers would not have to spray so much of chemical pesticides in farming with the use of seeds like Bt Brinjal. What is ironical however is that it is the same business players who have made and who continue to make profits out of chemical pesticides that talk about GM seeds today. When chemical pesticides were brought in a few decades ago, they claimed that pesticides will not cause any harm to any organism other than the target pest. However, we now know that this is a lie. Today, they again claim that GM seeds will not harm any organism apart from the target pest – do you want to believe them, knowing that this is in fact an irreversible technology with seeds having their own life and self-propagating ways in nature?

Brinjal has primarily originated in the Indian sub-continent. Nowhere else in the world has a crop been allowed to be genetically modified in its centre of origin and diversity. There are references in classical texts that tell us that brinjal used to be the favorite dish of Lord Krishna, for instance. Brinjal and plants of related species are used extensively in Ayurveda and Siddha and is also documented to have medicinal properties, used for treatment of Diabetes Type B etc. The entry of Bt Brinjal will thus endanger the healing capacity of Indian medicinal systems.

M/s Mahyco, the Indian partner of the world’s largest seed company called Monsanto, has been allowed to develop Bt Brinjal in

India

on claims of pest tolerance to a set of pests. Monsanto is infamous in the world for its anti-farmer operations, including jailing and suing American farmers for saving their own seed! Now, they are seeking to control the agriculture of this country through the means of GM seeds. In the case of Bt Cotton, the only allowed GM crop in

India

, Monsanto is reported to have made crores of rupees of profits by charging exorbitant royalties from poor, debt-ridden Indian farmers, many of whom were left with no option but to commit suicide. It is naïve to believe that these companies are acting in our best interests, whatever their stated claims.

The company has been allowed to do open air field trials from 2004 onwards even though biosafety has not been proven till date. In the process of field trials, Mahyco has also been documented with serious violations of biosafety norms under EPA. In 2007, despite massive public resistance, an expert committee set up by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) recommended that Bt Brinjal be allowed for large scale field trials.

Both in terms of academic literature and field level practice, it has been proven time and again that pest management in Brinjal is quite possible, affordable and profitable for farmers through non-chemical and non-GM means and through ecological practices. Despite the fact that Dr Pushpa Bhargava, Supreme Court appointee to the GEAC, recommending that GMOs should be considered only if no other options exist, Bt Brinjal is being projected as a need for the farmers of the country disregarding other safer options.

For assessing the implications of Bt Brinjal, the regulators had asked the crop developer to undertake some testing and to produce data – these tests are not long term, comprehensive in their assessment or independent. Decision-making has been happening only on the basis of company-produced data when it obviously has a vested interest in the matter. Mahyco was asked to perform some toxicity and allergenicity tests for biosafety assessment on the health front (in addition to some tests for environmental biosafety and for assessing the impact of the Bt Brinjal on the target insects). The biosafety data from these tests was made public by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) in August 2008 after a protracted struggle under Right to Information Act and in a Supreme Court PIL. The fight for this data has been a typical case of public safety vs. commercial interest, with the company seeking to withhold information from the public.

No independent research or independent analysis has been taken up by any concerned Ministry with their own set of experts with regard to Bt Brinjal. However, after independent scientists from all over the world analysed Mahyco’s Bt Brinjal biosafety data and pointed out to problems and concluded that it is unsafe for consumption, an Expert Committee (EC2) was set up by the GEAC which, after two sittings, claimed that Bt Brinjal is safe and ready for commercial cultivation. As various civil society groups protested against the constitution of the EC2, its mandate, its functioning and its so-called findings, the Minister for Environment & Forests has now announced a democratic and transparent process by which the final decision on Bt Brinjal will be taken by February 2010. If Bt Brinjal is allowed into the country, that will be the end of choice for you. Your right to know what you are eating will be violated. Normal brinjal and Bt Brinjal will look the same by appearance and you will not be able to exercise your informed choice of not eating Bt Brinjal.

DON’T YOU THINK IT IS YOUR BASIC RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE EATING, TO DECIDE WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO EAT AND TO HAVE ACCESS TO SAFE FOOD?

IF YES, ASSERT THAT YOU ARE NOT A LAB RAT. COME, LET US STOP THIS BT BRINJAL FROM COMING INTO OUR FIELDS AND ONTO OUR PLATES.

SEND A PETITION ONLINE TO THE PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA from www.iamnolabrat.com

For more information, contact: mail.tarafoundation@gmail.com/iamnolabratbihar@gmail.com/9472999999.

European consumers unite against GE

2009-11-06T14:57:00.000+05:30

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/ge/archives/001506.html#001506

Across Europe greenpeace volunteers and campaigners are keeping up the pressure on the GE food industry, letting them know that consumers don't want GE anywhere near their dinner tables. Today volunteers, representing citizens from the 25 nations of the European Union, made their feelings known by hanging banners in front of important monuments in Portugal, Poland, Germany, Austria, Italy, France, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Hungary, Luxembourg, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. View a slideshow of today's images.

Our volunteers posed with banners in various languages all with the same message NO GE FOOD. Todays demonstrations all took part in places of social importance: In front of Prague Castle in the Czech Republic; the Colosseum Rome, Italy; Stockholm, Sweden; Hungarian Parliament, Hungary; Eiffel Tower Paris, France; the Puerta de Alacalá, Madrid, Spain; the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, the Riesenrad in Vienna, Austria and the Belém Tower, in Lisbon, Portugal.

Labelling Required

It is this consumer rejection that has led to the world's strictest labelling legislation and has forced the vast majority of EU food producers and retailers to stop using GE labelled ingredients in their own brand food products within the EU.

However there is still a major failing in the law, food products made from animals fed on GE do not have to be labelled. Currently, between 20-30 percent of animal feed is GE. As such our offices in the UK and Germany have been targeting dairy companies in a bid to get them to change their policies. This loophole needs to be closed immediately and allow real consumer choice to be extended also to meat and dairy produce.

"Dumping millions of tons of GE crops unseen into animal feed is a dangerous experiment. The meat and diary industry should take immediate action to source guaranteed GE free animal feed, which is in plentiful supply," added Martina Holbach, our International GE campaigner.

Roughly 20 million tons of GE soya and GE maize were imported into the EU last year, mainly for use as feed for the meat and dairy industry. The new GE labelling legislation requires that animal feed needs to be labelled when it contains GMOs.

Furthermore, the EU Commission is currently planning to allow 0.3 - 0.7 percent GE contamination in conventional seeds. The Directive would allow for 0.3-0.5 percent of GMOs to be present in all conventional and organic seeds, without farmers even knowing about it. Legalising GE contamination of the seed stock at the very beginning of the food chain would not only substantially drive up the costs of GE-free food and agriculture. There would be little to no chance for the 'co-existence' between GE and non-GE farming.

Deputy joins CM in allaying farmers fear

2009-11-06T12:32:00.000+05:30

News Desk - November 5, 2009

PATNA — Bihar Deputy Chief Minister Sushil Kumar Modi today joined Chief Minister Nitish Kumar in allaying the fears of the landowners saying that their land would not be usurped by sharecroppers.

“Opposition parties including RJD, LJP and Congress are spreading the canard that the present NDA dispensation was out to usurp the land of upper castes in the name of implementing land reforms. I must say that nobody is going to lose his rights over the land of his forefathers,” Modi said here.

There is no law as such which could ensure that share croppers will have the right on the land which they have been tilling for past several years.

“Even the Bihar Tenancy Act (1986) is silent over the issue,” Modi said.

“How can a government even think in terms of touching the land ownership issue in a state where 92.5% of the total 1.04 crore holdings are of less than 5 acres,” he said adding most of the farmers in Bihar are small and marginal farmers.

– AGENCIES

Organic farmers to mobilise opinion against Bt brinjal

2009-11-04T19:10:00.000+05:30

BS Reporter / Chennai/ Mysore November 04, 2009, 0:13 IST
Organic farmers from the Mysore region have launched a programme to create public awareness on the harmful effects of the bio-tech food and vegetables and mobilise their voice against the introduction of Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) brinjal into the market.

One such awareness programme held recently in Dharwad was a big success with good response from farmers and others, and they plan to have more such programmes in other parts of the state, State Organic Farming Mission member Vivek Cariappa said here in Mysore.

“We plan to distribute handbills and pamphlets warning farmers and the general public of risks to come from genetically-modified organisms in our food,” he said.

Explaining the present position on the release of Bt brinjal seeds, he said the Genetic Engineering Approval (GEAC), the regulatory authority for transgenic crops in India, was only the first step towards commercialisation of the seed. Many steps in the protocol required by law still remain before the seeds can be bought across the counter legally. They comprise of approval by the Environment and Forest, Science and Technology, Agriculture and RDPR ministries. Public hearing is still to be held.

Welcoming public apprehension on the introduction of Bt brinjal, Vivek and Julie Cariappa, organic farmers in H D Kote with over two decades of field experience, said, “It is a wake up call for us to act before politicians, scientists and corporates decide on the future of our food, seeds and genetic security. We must exercise our democratic right to be heard on such an important issue of national security.”

“To do so, we must inform ourselves of the issue of GM food and be ready to counter the GM lobby. We must insist on being informed of all public hearings on the issue well before the date, in all languages and to be held in all gram panchayats to ensure a democratic participation. We must remind the state governments that agriculture is a state subject and states are obliged to take a stand to formulate policies based on public opinion and the genetic security of the state,” the farm activist said.

The bio-diversity rich zones should be looked in the light of them being home to huge germplasm, home to thousands of medicinal plants and heritage sites and ensure any risks of transgenic contamination. The states have to make public the work being done in GM in their agricultural universities.

Vivek warned of the impact and dangers of Bt foods and vegetables on “our internationally acclaimed health systems such as ayurveda, unani, siddha and homeopathy, not to mention our ‘nati’ (local) medicine. We cannot risk losing our precious past to transgenic contamination.”

He warned Bt brinjal, which was not in great demand like any other essential commodity, could increase production, but gene jumping could destroy the rich agricultural system, destroying soil fertility hitting food production and increase health risk chances.

Food security exists in traditional seeds: Tomar

2009-11-03T12:30:00.000+05:30

Category » Bhopal Posted On Monday, November 02, 2009

By Our Staff Reporter
Bhopal, Nov 2:

BJP State President and Member of Parliament Narendra Singh Tomar said that Indian agriculture and food security exists in traditional seeds and traditional farming and not in modified seeds.

He said that the result of BT Cotton was dangerous. Farmers of different states who were engaged in BT Cotton farming became economically weaker. They had to fight with diseases and pests on the crops.

Tomar said that before taking a final decision on BT Brinjal the Central Government should conduct detailed inquiry on the results of BT Cotton. He said that thousands of farmers who took up BT Cotton farming as a pilot project became penniless and are under great financial burden. A lot of BT Cotton producing farmers committed suicide due to financial burden. BT Cotton is not suitable to our land and therefore the yield was not sufficient.

He said that results of BT Cotton farming were very bad in Madhya Pradesh also. Traditional cotton seeds need less water and manure and maintain production capacity of the land. The BT Brinja seeds would be dangerous to food security of the country, he warned.

Thanks to drought, farmers taking to floriculture

2009-11-03T09:59:00.000+05:30

News Desk - November 2, 2009

Chainpur (Bihar), Nov 2: Changeover from traditional crop farming to floriculture by several farmers of Chainpur village in Bihar is taking place, due to drought-like conditions in the region.

An increasing number of farmers in Chainpur village of Masaurhi subdivision near Patna are substituting traditional farming with flower cultivation.

Nawal Kumar, a floriculturist who used to grow wheat and rice earlier feels that growing flowers is more beneficial.

“The production of wheat and rice was not good this year. So we have switched over to flower cultivation. It is beneficial as it is providing profits. The flower cultivation requires less water for irrigation. Hence it is very beneficial,” he said.

He also said that a farmer earns around Rs 30,000 to Rs 40,000 from the cultivation of less than half acre of land.

Traditional harvest of the farmers was damaged due to delayed monsoon and deficient rainwater. Floriculture is the new best alternative for farmers fearing low yield and a heavy loss.

- AGENCIES

Zero tolerance for GM foods in Europe

2009-11-03T09:16:00.000+05:30

http://www.http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2009/11/02/stories/2009110250300900.htm

Mohan Murti

Food is to European culture what free speech is to American culture. There may not always be a good scientific reason for concern, but to consider eating something that has resulted from some laboratory manoeuvring is felt by many Europeans as a kind of refutation of the true self.

Whether judiciously or not, most Europeans are frightened to death of genetically modified food. And, this is not entirely a matter of Europeans’ falling victim to protectionist propaganda or frenzy. Trying to force genetically modified food down European throats is the surest way to guarantee that they swallow neither the potatoes nor a lot of the tactics to dump GM foods.

More than ever today, Europeans are talking about where their food comes from. Food scares push people towards farmers’ markets and more home-cooked fare made with fresh ingredients.

The Atharva Veda 12:1:62, says

O Mother Earth,

Let thy bosom be free

From sickness and decay

May we through long life

Be active and vigilant

And serve thee with devotion

In most of Europe, this Atharva Veda concept of manipulation-free, local-food movement has been gaining momentum in recent years.

Right Decision

Europeans applaud the recent Indian Government’s pronouncement to postpone its decision on the approval of genetically modified Bt aubergines. There are compelling reasons, Europeans feel, why India cannot afford to ignore the environmental and health risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

In Europe, regulations are being imposed in the Parliament, individual European nations, and some stores themselves have all imposed restrictions on GM foods.

There is virtually no market for GM foods in Europe as consumers and farmers have overwhelmingly rejected them. EU labelling and traceability regulations also give consumers better information to decide.

Several European retailers have a policy of not selling, under their own brand name, any product requiring a GM label in their markets. Most have put this policy in place years ago, and all have quality-control tests and audit systems to exclude GM ingredients. Countries that have planted GM crops on a large scale have seen their exports to Europe crash.

European Scenario

European farmers are rejecting GM crops and turning to ecological farming. They do not want to be at the mercy of bullying multinationals which are threatening to take control of food.

Most of the 27 EU nations are opposed to GMOs because of risks to the environment and the kind of cross-pollination, of which the Spanish farmers and others have complained. They have been calling for the EU’s agreement on authorising such crops, and the evaluation methods used by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to be beefed up, notably to put more emphasis on the risks of cross-pollination.

Only a handful of GMOs have been approved for cultivation in the EU; of them, only Monsanto’s MON810 maize, approved in 1998, is so far being grown.

The MON810 case has become a source of transatlantic friction. The US has warned Europe against using environmental issues as an excuse for protectionism.

In Germany, the federal states are responsible for official food surveillance. Each of the 16 states has established at least one laboratory for analysing foods for their content of GMOs and, thereby, for their compliance with labelling regulations. Each year, thousands of foods are tested.

The individual results vary from state to state and year to year, but there is a clear trend.

Foods derived from unauthorised GM crops are usually picked up by the European Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and turned back at the borders. This system prevents unauthorised products from reaching the European market.

GMO-free label

Since May 2008, it has been possible in Germany to apply the label “without gene technology” to food products. Its primary application is in the identification of foods such as milk or meat, derived from animals for which no genetically modified plants such as maize or soy were used in feed.

The criteria are stricter for other foodstuffs: Neither the application of additives obtained through genetic modification nor the accidental admixture of genetically modified plants is allowed.

The standardised logo is making it easier for consumers to choose food products without gene technology in an informed manner.

No more soy shipments are reaching European shores from the US. After several ships were turned away due to traces of Bt maize MON88017 and MIR604 being found in the cargo, all importers are shying away from the risk of such imports.

Europeans are convinced that contamination of the food-chain with GM ingredients and GMOs would create serious and possibly irreversible economic impacts on farmers.

The resulting economic losses — together with patent infringement lawsuits by the biotechnology companies — are likely to lead to a veritable Pandora’s box of legal actions.

Genie in the Bottle

For Europeans, genetic engineering of plant life is ‘sinful’

Europeans believe that the science of genetic engineering is unpredictable and that this ‘Golden Goose’ of industry is laying some stale, mouldy, rotten eggs.

(The author is former Europe Director, CII, and lives in Cologne, Germany.blfeedback@thehindu.co.in)

Invite: Day Long Orientation Session on GMOs

2009-11-02T08:56:00.001+05:30

Invite: Day Long Orientation Session on GMOs

Posted using ShareThis

विरोध के बीच बीटी बैंगन की बुकिंग शुरू

2009-11-01T10:11:00.000+05:30

विजय मनोहर तिवारी Saturday, October 31, 2009 02:59 [IST]

भोपाल. बीटी बैंगन को अनुमति नहीं देने संबंधी कृषि मंत्री डॉ. रामकृष्ण कुसमरिया के वक्तव्य के बावजूद मध्यप्रदेश में इस जेनेटिकली मॉडीफाइड (जीएम) फसल केबीजों की बुकिंग शुरू हो गई है। विशेषज्ञों के ताजे अध्ययन बताते हैं कि बीटी बैंगन और अन्य हाईब्रीड बैंगन के उत्पादन संबंधी आंकड़ों में भी विरोधाभास है और बीटीबैंगन के पर्यावरण, मानव स्वास्थ्य और आर्थिक फायदों के वैज्ञानिक परीक्षण तक नहीं हुए हैं।

सूत्रों के अनुसार बीटी बैंगन की बुकिंग 50 हजार रुपए प्रति किलो की दर से शुरू हो गई है। यह अन्य हाईब्रीड बैंगन के बीजों से पांच गुना ज्यादा महंगा बताया जा रहा है।बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनी मोनसेंटों की भारतीय सहयोगी कंपनी माहिको इसे लांच कर रही है। पहले से ही माहिको की करीब 15 प्रकार के हाईब्रीड बैंगन की किस्में बीज बाजारमें प्रचलित हैं। केंद्र सरकार की नियामक संस्था जेनेटिक इंजीनियरिंग एप्रूवल कमेटी द्वारा बीटी बैंगन को तकनीकी अनुमति देने के साथ ही देश भर में एक तरफइसका तीव्र विरोध शुरू हो गया है और दूसरी तरफ जनवरी 2010 में व्यावसायिक उत्पादन की अनुमति की आशा में बीजों की बुकिंग भी शुरू हो गई है।

आंकड़े विरोधाभासी: मध्यप्रदेश मूल के कृषि विशेषज्ञ सुरेश मोटवानी बीटी बैंगन पर अध्ययन कर रहे हैं। दैनिक भास्कर से चर्चा में उन्होंने बताया कि माहिको ने बीटीबैंगन का उत्पादन सामान्य बैंगन से 50-70 फीसदी अधिक होने का दावा किया है, जो भ्रामक है। इसी कंपनी की दूसरी हाईब्रीड बैंगन प्रजातियों (एमईबीएच-17) काउत्पादन पांच सौ क्विंटल प्रति हेक्टेयर है और कंपनी की रिपोर्ट में बीटी बैंगन के उत्पादन का दावा भी चार-छह सौ क्विंटल प्रति हेक्टेयर है।

इससे स्पष्ट है कि उत्पादन में कोई खास अंतर आने वाला नहीं है। जानकारों का कहना है कि भारत में बीटी और परंपरागत बैंगन की किस्मों के बीच जीन के प्रभाव औरबीटी बैंगन के मानव स्वास्थ्य पर होने वाले असर पर कोई ठोस वैज्ञानिक परीक्षण नहीं हुए हैं।

कठोर कानून बनाएं

बीज स्वराज अभियान के निलेश देसाई और हमारा बीज अभियान के जयंत वर्मा का कहना है कि केरल, उड़ीसा और छत्तीसगढ़ की तर्ज पर मप्र में भी एक पुख्ताकानून बनाने की जरूरत है।

चार हजार साल का इतिहास

बैंगन की उत्पत्ति चार हजार साल पहले भारत में ही मानी जाती है। भारत में इसकी ढाई हजार किस्में संकलित हैं। बीटी बैंगन में तना व फल छेदक कीट के प्रकोप कोकम करने के लिए मिट्टी में पाए जाने वाले एक कीट के जीन को स्थापित किया गया है। बीटी यानी बेसीलस थरिनजींसिस मिट्टी में पाया जाने वाला वही जीवाणु है।बीटी बैंगन उगाने की कोशिशें नौ साल पहले शुरू हुई थीं। इसके खिलाफ स्वयंसेवी संगठनों ने अदालत की शरण ली। फिलहाल व्यावसायिक अनुमति के आवेदन केंद्रसरकार के समक्ष लंबित हैं। जीएम एप्रूवल कमेटी ने इसके उत्पादन संबंधी तकनीकी अनुमति दी है।

बीटी बैंगन समेत सभी जीएम फसलों पर सख्ती से रोक लगनी चाहिए। पर्यावरण और जैव विविधता के लिए यह घातक है। देश भर के जागरूक विशेषज्ञ इसका विरोधकर रहे हैं।''

-पद्मश्री कुट्टी मेनन, संरक्षक, ऑल इंडिया बायोडायनामिक एंड ऑर्गनिक फार्मिंग एसोसिएशन।

Chhattisgarh seeks ban on GM food cultivation

2009-10-31T18:50:00.000+05:30

http://www.ptinews.com/news

STAFF WRITER 17:27 HRS ISTNew Delhi, Oct 31 (PTI) The Chhattisgarh government has sought the intervention of Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh in not allowing commercial cultivation of genetically modified BT brinjal in the country.

"We are seeking the intervention of the environment minister to stop commercial cultivation of BT brinjal. We have already sent a letter to Jairam Ramesh and also the Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar in this regard," Chhattisgarh Agriculture Minister Chandrashekhar Sahu told PTI here today.

Biotechnology regulator Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) on October 14 had cleared Bt brinjal - the country's first genetically modified (GM) food ? for commercial use. The government is, however, yet to take a decision on the matter.

Sahu said the committee's decision was taken in haste so as to serve the "vested commercial interest of multi-national companies such as Monsanto" which are involved in developing genetically-modified crops.

GE cultivation bans in Europe

2009-10-31T18:35:00.000+05:30

Austria: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810, MON 863 and T25

Notified in June 1999, initially under Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC, and subsequently maintained in February 2004 under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;

France: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.

Notified in February 2008, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; and under EU Regulation 1829/2003

Germany: in April 2009 the agriculture Minister, Ms. Aigner, announced a ban on cultivation and sale of MON 810

Greece: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.

Application lodged in April 2005 under Article 18 of Directive 2002/53/EC, and subsequently in January 2006 extended/maintained the measure under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;

Hungary: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.

Notified in September 2006, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC;

Italy: General ban on the cultivation of all genetically engineered (GE) crops.

Notified by ministerial circular in March 2006. This ban will stay in place until the Italian regions have regulated the “coexistence” between GE, conventional and organic crops.

Luxembourg : Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.

Notified in March 2009, under Directive 2001/18/EC

Poland: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810.

Application lodged in March 2005 under Article 16 of Directive 2002/53/EC ( The EU’s Seeds Directive). The ban under the Seeds Directive affects 16 out of 31 MON 810 varieties. However, in May 2006 the Polish government complemented the ban with a general prohibition –based on national law- to sell any GE seeds in Poland.

Romania: Ban on cultivation of MON 810 maize announced by Environment minister Korodi on 27 March 2008.

The Romanian government has indicated that it intends to install the ban on the same legal grounds as France: under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; and under EU Regulation 1829/2003. Enactment of the ban is expected in April 2008.

Switzerland: In 2005, the Swiss voted by referdendum a 5-year moratorium against the commercial cultivation of GM crops and animals. The Suiss government decided to extend this moratorium till 2013.