Agriculture scientist and president of Indian Organic Farmers’ Association, G. Nammalwar, has called upon the farmers to shun genetically modified (GM) seeds being marketed by multinational companies, and continue to raise traditional crops. Mr. Nammalwar was addressing a seminar on ’Save our rice campaign,’ and ’Impact of GM technology,’ jointly organised here on Saturday by the Federation of Consumer Organisations - Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry (FEDCOT), the Consumer Research Education Action Training and Empowerment Trust (CREATE) and Thanal, Kerala.

After five straight years of rapid expansion, India’s biotechnology industry slowed to 20% growth in the year to March, down from more than 30% in the previous years, largely due to a rising rupee and price pressures in the global market. The industry earned Rs10,273 crore, up from Rs8,541 crore in the fiscal year that ended in March 2007, according to an annual biotech industry survey conducted by industry body Association of Biotech Led Enterprises (ABLE) and trade journal BioSpectrum.

The government must clarify why it is setting up the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA), replacing the existing regulator Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) which is already acting as a single window clearance for biotech products. If the government feels that the GEAC is incompetent and inefficient, it should bring it to the public knowledge.

Since April 2 this year, there has been a palpable air of tension at the meetings of the Genetic Engineering Approvals Committee (GEAC) at Paryavaran Bhavan in Delhi. That’s when Pushpa Mitter Bhargava, regarded by many as the architect of biotechnology in India, began attending the meetings of the apex regulatory body on genetic engineering as a special nominee of the Supreme Court. Known for his role in setting up the country’s premier research institution, the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, Bhargava is taken aback by the lax ways of the GEAC and ”going purely on the documentation provided by it” is surprised that no one has pointed out the serious lapses in the testing of genetically modified (GM) crops.

Scientists across the globe are at work yet again, dealing with the Malthusian apprehensions of likely food shortages from rising population pressures on land. Thomas Robert Malthus, who expounded his theory in the 19 th century, is no more, but his warnings still ring prophetic. Around mid-20 th century, scientists had responded to the warnings by ushering in the Green Revolution that pushed yields. Today, the world, facing another food crisis, awaits another long-term solution to the problem.

”Just rolling out the technology is not the answer as an enormous number of people are resistant to it. In the absence of a biosafety mechanism, people are justified in worrying about the impacts of genetically modified technologies.” This certainly is the case in India where protests from a host of voluntary organisations, scientists and farmers has been the norm since Bt cotton made its appearance in 2001. Three public interest litigations (PILs) have been filed since 2002, starting with that of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology headed by environmentalist Vandana Shiva, followed in 2004 by Suman Sahai’s Gene Campaign and in 2006 by a group of food and environmental activists led by Aruna Rodrigues.

The data on heat stability studies carried out on Bt protein in brinjal serve to highlight the serious lapses in the way the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) examines the biosafety data of genetically modified plants, leading to overlooking of key facts. Heat stability study is conducted to show how the Bt protein gets destroyed when it is cooked. This study is done to demonstrate the safety of genetically modified (GM) food. The summary of the study by the company states that Bt protein found before cooking is absent once it is cooked, in the case of Bt brinjal. Oops, the slip shows — Bt protein is reported to be present even in non-GM brinjal before cooking!

Indian farmers will soon get access to a new variety of groundnut that is drought-resistant and can be cultivated even in areas where water is scarce. ”Genetic mapping has discovered certain genes in groundnut that are drought- resistant. The testing of seeds of this variety is at an advanced stage,” Rajeev K. Varshney, a senior scientist at Hyderabad’s International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), said. [...] According to ICRISAT, groundnut is the 13th most important food crop of the world, the fourth most important source of edible oil and the third most important source of vegetable protein.

Teething problems which may pose difficulties for the birth of the proposed National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) have begun to surface. Experts have begun questioning the need for setting up of such an authority when existing regulator, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), is already acting as a single-window clearance for genetically modified (GM) food products. ”We have been very swift in granting our process of approval. Since 2002, we have approved over 150 GM cotton hybrids, one transgenic cotton variety and five events. Our functioning has become more transparent following the orders of the Supreme Court. The GEAC meeting takes place every second Wednesday of the month and that of Review Committee on Genetic Manipilation (RCGM), every fourth Tuesday,” said a GEAC official.

The Supreme Court nominee to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Dr. P.M. Bhargava, has called the bluff of the committee. [...] The GEAC had concluded that the death might have been due to high content of nitrates/nitrites, residues of hydrocyanide (HCN) and organophosphates, [...] However, Dr. Bhargava, had found the reports of the two institutes as also the State Government’s letter totally contradicting the GEAC’s version. For instance, the State Government’s letter to the GEAC had stated that the samples were ”negative for HCN, Nitrates, Nitrites, Alkaloids and Glycocide.”