Taking the GE debate to the people
|
COMMENTS 
So far it's been multinational corporations, governments, CSOs and scientists who've been guiding the debate on genetically engineered crops. It's time to let people decide for themselves whether GE technology is safe, says Suman Sahai, convener of Gene Campaign
Suman Sahai has been a professor of genetics at universities in the United States and Germany, and is currently convener and director of the Delhi-based civil society organisation Gene Campaign. Sahai was identified as an Ashoka Fellow in 1990. Her work in the area of food security is recognised worldwide; in 2004 she won the Norman Borlaug Award.
Sahai is credited with raising public debate on the ethics of biotechnology, the dangers of seed patents and their application, and the process of policy formulation in this controversial area.
Gene Campaign was founded in 1993 by a group of scientists and experts. It is a leading research and advocacy organisation whose main objective is to start a nationwide movement to protect food and livelihood security. Today, Gene Campaign works in 17 states in India, preparing and disseminating information on relevant themes to civil society groups, farmers and concerned citizens. It is closely involved in policymaking with respect to biological resources.
Why is Gene Campaign holding public discussions on GE crops?
The main objective of such an effort is to inform the public about various aspects related to GE research, science, policy, trade, effects on small farmers, cost and safety. There are many aspects of GE technology that people are unaware of. The main issue is that whatever decisions are being taken in our country on GE crops do not necessarily have any inputs from the public.
We need to sensitise people to the many facets surrounding the GE crops debate. We want to take this issue to the people because, at the moment, everything seems to be going wrong. People do not have the option of deciding whether they want to use this technology or not.
Although information is available from sources such as Monsanto, CSOs and NGOs, the press etc, they are exaggerated. We want the people themselves to check whether GE technology is safe at the ground level. Once the facts are made available to the people, they can decide for themselves whether or not they want to use GE technology. It is our duty to hold such public campaigns in a responsible way. Once people are well-informed they can take active part in the decision-making process, and debates of this kind become more relevant. We have seen that such group effort does work.
According to you what are the important issues related to GE crops? Are these issues different for developed and developing countries?
People do not know to what extent this technology is safe and relevant. GE technology is against nature and is unsafe for human health and the environment. The technology alters the speed of evolutionary change in crops, which is unnatural. There are a number of case studies that support the fact that GE food is dangerous. In tests done by Monsanto on the health effects of GE crops on rats it was found that the rats' kidneys and immune system failed. The report, which was leaked from the company, was quite shocking.
There are some herbicide-tolerant varieties that have been developed by Monsanto using GE technology. If such varieties are adopted, it could lead to the destruction of biodiversity of fodder, medicinal herbs and wild vegetables. GE crops could destroy the balance of the ecosystem, and this could cause serious problems that are still unknown. The results of tests done on GE crops have not been made available to farmers. The tests are not monitored. We do not know who does the testing and who conducts the field trials.
More importantly, the adoption of these practices will take landless labourers away from agriculture; people who otherwise would have been employed in weeding. I think such considerations are important for a country like India which is labour-intensive and where rural employment is a serious problem.
In addition, the technology is costly. For example GE cotton seed, such as Bt cotton, costs as much as Rs 1,850 compared to local seed varieties that are between Rs 300 and Rs 400. We do not know what policy decisions will be taken on the import and export of GE crops; whether they will be in our interest or not. So far, the process has not been very transparent.
There are issues related to patenting. GE has become a private activity now and patents have become an instrument to control this sector. In the case of Bt cotton seed, almost 75% of the cost has to be paid as royalty to Monsanto. Just a few multinational companies (MNCs) (Dupont, Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta and Doagro) control the world's gene supply. They are the ones that have all the required processes and products. The problem becomes more serious as the patents they hold are not for limited periods of time, as they used to be earlier, but for perpetuity. This implies that every time a farmer in India has to buy seeds he has to pay their cost to these companies. This is very serious -- the farmer's traditional right to save, exchange, sell and re-use seeds will be under threat, thereby endangering his self-sufficiency and security.
We do not know which crops GE technology should be applied to. We do not know who is deciding the research agenda. Research should benefit the majority small farmer. As far as the issue of 'centre of origin' goes, it is foolish of India to initiate moves to start and support GE research on Basmati rice. India is the centre of origin for rice. Nowhere in the world has a country that is the centre of origin of a particular crop supported GE research of that crop in its own country!
Problems in developed and developing countries are different because their agricultural situations vary. In developing countries, most farmers are marginal and small farmers. Landholdings are fragmented; their average size is around half an acre. On the other hand, farmers in developed countries are big farmers; the size of their land runs into hectares, and their farming methods are mechanised.
Further, in developed countries, farmers are given huge agricultural subsidies. Therefore, their risk-taking capacity is also high. Farmers in developing countries cannot afford to take risks and their technology adoption is low. There are also differences in compensation patterns in developed and developing countries. On the whole, GE crop varieties are unsuitable for developing countries.
The problems related to agriculture in developed and developing countries are also very different. To give one example: in the case of Bt cotton it is necessary to keep 50% of the land area under refuge crops. For India, the limit was kept at 20% of the total cultivated area under cotton. However, farmers with very small areas available for cultivation cannot afford to set aside 20% of their land for refuge crops.
What stand has the Indian government taken on the issue, and why?
I don't know why the government is participating or investing in GE crops in India . In the European Union, it is banned. I suspect one of the reasons could be huge vested interests...
GE technology is now privately owned; it has everything to do with the market and selling. This facilitates corruption. When we are in such a situation, the people's needs and desires seldom get accommodated. Further, the government is not homogeneous; there are so many arms of government and a lack of coordination among the different heads. And there is another reason: most political leaders think the Green Revolution was fantastic and that it has addressed the issue of food security. The political leaders of this country are now trying to come up with a link between biotechnology and the Green Revolution. They sometimes call it the GE Revolution or the Second Green Revolution, which is very wrong.
In the Green Revolution, HYV seeds were used and most of those seeds were developed in agriculture universities. They were publicly owned. Farmers had a right to use, re-use, exchange and sell these seeds. There is no link between GE crops and food security. And no link between GE and incomes, as the policymakers would have us believe. Farmers are left with little choice when such technology is strongly promoted by government agencies. They are heavily influenced by government campaigns. In the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra , where Gene Campaign carried out a pre-launch survey, most farmers believed that unless they accepted this seed they would not get loans and other facilities offered by the government.
There are three regulatory bodies in India , but according to us they lack the necessary technical competence.
What will your future course of action be?
I think we will have to continue collecting and compiling facts from the ground level, and analysing them with scientists. We need to start with a public campaign. We will continue producing information material for the education of consumers, farmers and policymakers on GE crops. People should become more vigilant. Similarly, there should be a public debate on the issue to create public pressure. I think the first thing to do is to say 'No' to GM food. We should not allow such food to enter, without adequate safety precautions and labeling.
(Rajashree Joshi is a Pune-based researcher working on development issues)
InfoChange News & Features, May 2006