|
By Devinder Sharma The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee has deferred granting commercial approval to a genetically-modified mustard. But are these just delaying tactics? Could we soon see the release of the first genetically-engineered food crop in India?
 If the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the ministry of environment and forests has its way, the next time you eat your favourite sarson ka saag, or enjoy the delicacy of a sambar, you will not know whether you are endangering your health. Such are the potential hazards of industrial prescriptions for the food menu that the gullible and ignorant consumer will never know what has caused his/her ill health.
Seven months after it gave the nod to the sale of genetically-modified Bt cotton seed, and that too under dubious circumstances and without adequate testing, the GEAC is now ready to grant commercial approval to a genetically-modified mustard -- the first genetically-engineered food crop with a few alien genes to be released in India. The GEAC's decision to `defer' approval is merely a ploy to buy time and escape the fury of public opinion. At the heart of the controversy is the genetically-modified mustard developed by the Pro-Agro Seeds India Private Limited -- the Indian arm of the multinational Aventis -- with PGS, a Belgian company. This GM mustard is said to be resistant to glufosinate, a broad-spectrum herbicide. The company claims that the gene modification will help increase mustard productivity by 20-25 per cent. Initially, seed manufacturers had dovetailed pesticides and fertilisers with the sale of improved seeds. Now, companies are incorporating the genetic character for herbicide-tolerance that, in reality, helps increase sales of their own brand of chemicals. Numerous studies have shown that the use of chemicals actually increases in herbicide-tolerant plants thereby negating the industry's claim that it is producing crops that require fewer pesticides and therefore do less harm to the environment. Pro-Agro has developed a genetically-modified mustard that resists glufosinate, its own brand of herbicide. So, in reality, Pro-Agro will kill two birds with one stone -- it will sell the GM seed as well as the herbicide. For, if you don't use glufosinate you will not be able to control weeds. Farmers buying GM seeds will now be left with the Hobson's choice of also purchasing Pro-Agro's herbicide. Thanks to the GEAC, GM mustard will ensure `profit security' for the company. Pro-Agro denies this, saying that glufosinate is not registered for use on mustard. However, the herbicide has already been approved for tea gardens and it could easily find its way into mustard fields. The five alien genes (the company claims there are three alien genes) that are being introduced in mustard are: Bar (for glufosinate tolerance), Barnase (male sterility), Barstar (fertility restoration), PssuAra (a promoter gene) and PTA29 (another promoter gene). These genes have been taken from the following five external sources, including bacteria: Streptomyces hygroscopicus, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Arabidopsis thaliana and, from the tobacco plant, Nicotiana tabacum. Notwithstanding the GEAC's excitement over the development of the genetically-modified mustard, the fact remains that these alien genes in mustard, which is an important food crop in India, offers no advantages to the consumer. On the other hand, it comes laced with all kinds of potential dangers that the committee wishes to gloss over. Surprisingly, the average citizen who uses mustard for various purposes -- including its common use as edible oil, for body and hair massage and for fodder -- is not even being consulted. GM mustard is being developed to increase the productivity of mustard to meet the ever-growing demand for edible oil in the country. This contradicts the government's own policy of opening up the edible oil sector to the import of cheaper oils. Strange that the government's policies are actually aimed at destroying the gains of the Technology Mission on Oilseeds, launched by the late prime minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1985. The doubling of oilseed production during 1985-1993 enabled the country to avoid its humiliating dependence on oil imports that cost the exchequer between Rs 1,500 crore and Rs 3,000 crore annually. From 11 million tonnes in 1986-87, oilseed production zoomed to 22 million tonnes by 1994-95. India moved from being a net importer of oilseed to a net exporter, with only negligible imports. Then began a dramatic turnaround that destroyed the strong foundation of our oilseed self-sufficiency. India deliberately began lowering import duties, enabling cheaper edible oil to flow in. The country now imports, on an average, five million tonnes of edible oil, roughly 50 per cent of its domestic requirement, costing the state exchequer more than Rs 9,000 crore. If India were serious about increasing the production of edible oil, the first step should be to stop unwanted imports. The government's policy, therefore, seems clear: help sustain farmers outside the country. Cheaper imports help private companies in edible-oil-exporting countries. And, the introduction of genetically-engineered crops helps private seed companies. Safeguards for farmers by way of procurement and assured prices are slowly being dismantled to enable the corporate sector to move in and push farming communities out of agriculture. In the past four years, with the European Union's moratorium on new GM crops, and its reluctance to buy GM food, the grindingly slow, impossibly twisting, European road to legal acceptance of these crops gets more and more bumpy. The companies claim they have lost sales of US $12 billion in the past four years, and the commission is now coming under mounting pressure from impatient US trade officials. With the EU still holding on to the moratorium, the focus has shifted to countries like India to open up to GM foods and crops and thereby add to the countless problems that already confront its farmers. In Canada, scientists have found that a related species of engineered canola (rapeseed) has become an uncontrollable weed. At least three `superweeds' have already sprung up with regard to canola. Considering the small farm size and diversity in India, the probability of such superweeds developing is much greater. Scientific studies also reveal that genetically-engineered crops can cause insecticides to build up in the soil, affect the food chain, transfer genes to wild relatives and contaminate natural crops. Says Martin Entz, professor of agronomy at the University of Manitoba in Canada: "GM canola has, in fact, spread much more
rapidly than we thought it would. It's absolutely impossible to control...It's been a great wake-up call about the side effects of these GM technologies." The threat posed by pollen from GM varieties blowing into organic fields is now being viewed in Europe as a potentially significant hazard. Seed pollution, the so-called `pollution' from GM crops, has also given rise to a fierce debate in Canada after Monsanto successfully prosecuted a 70-year-old Canadian farmer for growing his crop without paying the usual fees to the company. The farmer, Percy Schmesier, accepted that Monsanto's patented gene was present in his crop of oilseed rape, which is known in America as canola. But Schmesier claimed that Monsanto's gene had got there by accident after being blown in from neighbouring fields. `Gene stacking' in GM crops is a major concern, more so for mustard/rapeseed. Stacking is what happens when more than one GM trait is found in the same plant, as a result of cross-pollination in the field. The agronomic and ecological impact of cumulative transgene stacking is poorly understood and this may lead to farmers using more herbicides, potentially resulting in increased damage to biodiversity. It can also lead to `the gradual development of `weediness' in native species'. If a neighbouring farm also unknowingly used GM-contaminated seed, this would be an obvious way for stacking to occur. The genetically-modified mustard is, in reality, a hybrid. And, like any other hybrid it requires to be cultivated under more intensive farming practices. At a time when sustainable farming and low-input agriculture are becoming the buzzwords, it is surprising that agricultural scientists continue to
recommend crop varieties that will end up doing more harm to the environment and crop fields. GM mustard will require almost double the quantity of fertiliser and water, thereby accentuating the sustainability barriers that green revolution areas already face. On the one hand, the government is asking farmers in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh to diversify from the exhaustive wheat-rice rotation. On the other hand, it is recommending crops that damage soil ecology and health, just to appease the industry. Health concerns include: allergenicity; gene transfer, especially of antibiotic-resistant genes, from GM foods to cells or bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract; and `outcrossing', or the movement of genes from GM
plants to conventional crops, posing indirect threats to food safety and security. If food additives like artificial sweeteners are required to be subject to both long-term animal and human volunteer trials prior to their approval, then why aren't GM foods? Food additives, so it would appear from the British Food Standards Agency's comments, have to undergo testing to establish possible damaging effects from long-term exposure. These trials can take years. Unlike GM material, food additives, once created, do not have the ability to spread to the environment and the food chain. GM mustard can affect honeybees directly and indirectly through effecting flowering and pollen production. Protease inhibitors have proved detrimental to the longevity and behaviour of bees. GM crops with protease inhibitors, released for commercial production, include potato, canola (rapeseed) and creeping bent grass. The sound and logical approach would be to totally ban commercial production of GM crops modified with protease inhibitor genes, to protect bees and to prevent long-term damage to the environment. Honeybees carry pollen over long distances. The alien gene gets deposited in the honey produced and through it passes into the human gut. Here, the DNA remains alive for a while, long enough to create reactions and actions that have not yet been adequately studied. The Royal Society of England has asked for more tests to assess the impact of GM food on infants and children. Dr Vivian Howard, a toxicologist at Liverpool University, recently told the BBC's World Business Review programme that there was a need to check if the new foods were toxic for infants. And what other biological effects there might be. Dr Howard used the example of the thalidomide drug that was widely used in the 1960s before it was discovered to be dangerous. Haven't millions of Americans been eating genetically-modified food, for several years? Let us be very clear. First, the Food and Drug Administration of the US conducts no safety tests whatsoever on these foods. Indeed, its 1992 regulations specify that the agency will not exercise any active oversight of the industry or its products. Secondly, the US government reports 70 million cases of `food poisoning' per year. How can one say with certainty that genetically-engineered foods are not responsible for this so-called food poisoning? What about the rise in autism, childhood attention deficit disorders and the like? It's possible that something in the environment is contributing to these alarming statistics. How do we know whether genetically-altered foods are implicated or not? There is `no evidence' because neither the government nor the industry is looking for any. Don't look, don't find. No evidence of harm is not the same as evidence of no harm. InfoChange News & Features, November 2002
|
