Lessons from the Bt brinjal consultations
|
COMMENTS 
The consultations on Bt brinjal held across seven cities in India were important not only for the moratorium on the production of India’s first genetically modified food crop that resulted. The process also established that if development is for all, and technology is being touted as its vehicle, then people (be it farmer or consumer) should be included in its design
The moratorium on commercialisation of Bt brinjal announced by the Minister of Environment and Forests on February 9, 2010 is commendable. Though the decision itself was path-breaking, it was the process used to come to this decision that was more noteworthy.
Between January 13 and February 6, 2010, Jairam Ramesh, the minister of environment and forests in the Government of India, travelled to Kolkatta in West Bengal, Bhubaneswar in Orissa, Ahmedabad in Gujarat, Nagpur in Maharashtra, Chandigarh in the north, Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh and Bangalore in Karnataka seeking opinions from a diverse group of people on Bt brinjal. At the consultation in Nagpur on January 27, he gave the rationale for the choice of places. Almost 60% of India’s brinjal crop is grown in the states of West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar, making it necessary to get feedback from that region. The states of Maharashtra and Gujarat have had different stories to tell about Bt cotton - success in Gujarat and failure in Maharashtra. Hyderabad and Bangalore were chosen because they have many scientists, and Chandigarh was chosen to represent the North.
From these consultations it is patently apparent that national policy decisions cannot be made in the isolated confines of an air-conditioned room. What was also crystal clear was that scientific results obtained in the seclusion of a laboratory and conducted by experts in pure science is an insufficient argument to sell a technology.
What also came out was that proponents of this technology in business and science use the same arguments, that of ‘food security’, ‘helping the farmer’, ‘reduction of pesticide use’, ‘need for a second green revolution’. However, they want those opposed to it to use scientific arguments. Industrialists like Kiran Majumdar-Shaw who are pro-Bt said that arguments on this subject have to be based on science. She even charged that false propaganda was being spread to stop the commercialisation of Bt brinjal. An article in the The Telegraph headlined ‘Scientists slam Brinjal talk bazaar’, quotes scientists stating among other things that science and policy decisions cannot be made through popular votes and that ‘truth is getting drowned out by rhetoric’.
Reasons for the moratorium
The 19-page argument given by Jairam Ramesh makes for interesting reading. In paragraph 9 he states that though genetic engineering reduces the use of pesticide, NPM (non-pesticide management) ‘eliminates chemical pesticide use completely.’ He acknowledges the problems with pesticides and cites the instance of Bhatinda, a ‘major cancer-afflicted region’ due to pesticide use. Even while dismissing the argument that Bt is necessary to reduce pesticide use, he suggests a completely different approach to agriculture – Non Pesticide Management.
Further, in paragraph 11, he highlights the threat of agriculture coming under the control of multinational companies and points to the kind of doubtful agreements that government-run agricultural universities have with companies like Monsanto. He goes on to say that there is need for publicly funded biotechnology research. This is interesting because it indicates the lack of government aid for research in government institutions resulting in private funder driven research which can jeopardise health, biodiversity and agricultural freedom.
Many arguments (paragraphs 10, 14, 16 17) are focused on the process used by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), India’s biotechnology regulator, in coming to its decision. The fact that the GEAC accepted the results of tests carried out by MAHYCO, the producer who sought permission for commercialisation, and not by an independent agency, is not lost on the minister.
Ramesh points out that the second Experts Committee (EC-2) rejected further tests demanded by the first Expert Committee (EC-1). He states that this was because a third of the members of EC-2 were in EC-1. Ramesh acknowledges that the standards set by the GEAC for deciding on Bt brinjal do not meet ‘global regulatory norms that India is a party to’ which, therefore, questions the capacity and credibility of this body to make such decisions. Further on he quotes from international experts like Professor Seralini, Professor Doug Gurain-Sherman and others who raise doubts about the way the tests were done, reported and then evaluated and accepted by the GEAC.
In his summation he states that the word ‘approval’ in GEAC will be replaced by ‘appraisal’.
The Bt brinjal consultations
Jairam Ramesh states that he met over 8000 people during his consultations and his 19-page argument touches only the surface of the myriad arguments against Bt brinjal. The consultation in Nagpur gives an idea of the battle. Though Nagpur is in the backyard of the pro-biotech farmer’s leader Sharad Joshi and MAHYCO, it also gave an opportunity for farmers and others to speak about their experiences with Bt cotton.
Shalini Bonde from Madegaon, Karanjala taluka, Wasim district told the minister that she had planted Bt cotton, and the first year’s yield tempted her to plant Bt in her entire field. Then, her crop failed. She also introduced the minister to two widows whose husbands had committed suicide after their Bt cotton crop failed.
Avinash of Kisan Adhikar Abhiyan questioned the need for Bt brinjal when there was more than enough brinjal being produced in the country. Another participant asked the reasons for the increase in sales of pesticides if there was no need for it in Bt cotton. People equated Bt technology to that of the cellphone, a technology widely accepted and used.
Sharad Joshi spoke for Bt saying that like the Green Revolution, genetic engineering can give India food security. But the Vidharbha Industries Association (VIA) in a written representation to the minister pointed out that improving production does not necessarily mean improving the income of the farmer. The letter goes on to say: ‘In fact such high tech seeds will necessarily be costly and will increase the cost of production. We see no reason why present productivity needs to be improved. We have never experienced any shortage of brinjals in the market neither have we experienced that the price of brinjals have sky rocketed at any time in the past.’
In other cities Ayurvedic doctors questioned whether the medicinal properties of brinjal would remain the same with Bt technology. Dr Veeresh, the former vice-chancellor of the University of Agriculture Sciences when questioned about the change in his stance from pro to anti Bt brinjal said that scientists are forced to toe the official line even if they have different views.
There were people who defended GEAC and Bt brinjal: C Kameshwar Rao of the Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education is quoted as saying, “By initiating the consultation process, Ramesh appears to be casting aspersions on the integrity of the GEAC”.
The rationale for Jairam Ramesh’s decision is available on his ministry’s website. His decision not only sums up the voices of dissent but is also a vindication of one point: that science and business are not enough to make policy decisions.
Though there were farmers and scientists on both sides of the divide, it was only business that was for this technology. Those who opposed it included doctors, scientists, farmers, consumers, and vegetable sellers.
Centre and state discord
What is interesting to note is that while these consultations were going on, states on their own accord were coming out against Bt brinjal. On February 8, PTI quoted the Karnataka horticulture minister, Umesh Katti, saying: "We will ban commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal. We have already written to the Centre seeking its deferment."
While opposing Bt brinjal in October 2009, Madhya Pradesh’s agriculture minister, Dr Ramakrishna Kusmariya, had said, “The only way to keep Indian farming alive is to keep the traditional seed exchange systems alive.”
A panel appointed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh recommended that Bt brinjal not be cultivated in the state. The chief minister of Kerala said, "GM foods will lead to colonisation of the food sector. We shouldn't be a part of a system that will destroy traditional seeds and crops and allow MNCs to infringe on agriculture sector."
Altogether, 10 states have official positions against Bt brinjal. They include West Bengal, Orissa, Bihar, Uttarakhand, Chhattisgarh and Tamil Nadu. In a meeting of state agricultural officials and ministers held in Kerala on February 2 and 3, 2010, officials from Punjab, Mizoram and Rajasthan came out against Bt brinjal. Sikkim has more ambitious plans; it intends to become completely organic by 2015.
Policies and the public
After these consultations there is a better understanding of the concept of a ‘stakeholder’. The narrow and incorrect definition of a stakeholder being the scientist and those who profit from it is redundant. Now it rightly includes the users and those impacted by it. The promulgation and the silent acceptance of technologies like pesticides and nuclear energy is not possible any longer. People are more informed, and question and demand answers.
It would not be too far-fetched to suggest that this consultative process has jeopardised the control that industry and science had over Indian national policy. The seven-city consultation process highlights the fact that besides the usual suspects - the developer/scientist and the seller/company - who always had a say, there are a myriad different types of end users who have always had an opinion but never an opportunity to voice it.
The consultative process questions the current policy making paradigm. It argues that if development is for all and technology is being touted as its vehicle then people (be it farmer or consumer) should be included in its design. This month long consultative process will go a long way in ensuring that technology for the people, of the people and by the people is created.
Questioning the data The Bt brinjal saga began many years before when a Right to Information (RTI) application was filed at the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) to get bio-safety data for Bt brinjal. This data was presented by Monsanto’s Indian partner Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (MAHYCO) to the DBT as part of the process to get regulatory approval for open air field trials and commercial cultivation and sale of any genetically modified crop. DBT refused the request on the grounds that disclosure would harm the company’s commercial interests. The case went to the chief information commission (CIC) and high court. During all this, a public interest litigation demanding a moratorium on release of GM crops was being heard by the Supreme Court. Finally, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) made the data public in August 2008. The data was given to Prof Gilles-Eric Seralini at University of Caen, France, a well known French expert. His January 2009 report, ‘Effects On Health And Environment Of Transgenic (Or Gm) Bt Brinjal’, points out the shoddy manner in which the MAHYCO report was prepared and the irregularities in research carried out by the company. Prof Seralini writes in his summary: ‘The dossiers submitted by MAHYCO in support of their application for commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) Bt brinjal raise serious concerns. Most of these are not signed by researchers that have performed the tests on pages where they should be’. On the impacts of feeding Bt brinjal to laboratory rats he notes: ‘Rats GM-fed had diarrhoea, higher water consumption, liver weight decrease as well as relative liver to body weight ratio decrease.’ On the discrepancies between information presented and laboratory findings he writes: ‘These differences are most often than not reported in the summaries of the different experiments but are in the raw data.’ He also points out that the longest toxicity test was done for a period of 90 days which ‘do not assess long-term effects like the development of tumours or cancers’. The professor concludes with ‘The agreement for Bt brinjal release into the environment, for food, feed or cultures, may present a serious risk for human and animal health and the release should be forbidden’. Due to the Seralini report the GEAC, on January 14, 2009, decided to constitute an Expert Committee to review the matter. The Committee gave its recommendations to GEAC who gave the go ahead for commercialisation of Bt brinjal in its October 2009 meeting. A CNN-IBN investigation brought to light a conflict of interest in this Committee as some of its members had developed Bt brinjal. CNN-IBN also reported that some members are being investigated by the Central Vigilance Committee. Another member stated that the Committee was under immense pressure from industry and the agriculture ministry to give Bt brinjal the go-ahead. The resulting outrage forced Jairam Ramesh, the Minister for Environment and Forests, to announce that the GEAC approval was only a recommendation. |
(Samir Nazareth is an independent researcher and writer. He worked with national and international environmental organisations for over a decade before this career shift)
InfoChange News & Features, February 2010