GMO in India
Anurag Chaurasia
Thursday, 09 July 2009 09:03 UTC
Genetically modified organisms, it’s trial in India need to be reconsidered keeping in view the developed countries response. Is India & Indian are being used as guinea pig for GMO test. Is our govt regulatory bodies are doing there job carefully or simply they are being used by billion dollor MNC who can have their way just on monetry & not scietific ground.In interest of Nature & humanity lets not do anything which we have to repent latter on as have been with Parthenium weed. Nature has no boundary so in log run it is going to affect world as a whole not any particular country or region or person. So there is still need of debate on such issue.
Anurag chaurasia, NBAIM, ICAR, India
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
I don’t really see how India is a guinea pig for GMOs when the US has been growing thousands of hectares of GM crops for years (not to mention eating them). It’s only in Europe that there is particularly big opposition to GMOs.
-
Opposition to GMO is not always based on science but can be due to many facts, including corporate rivalry. We also should keep in mind that NGOs like Greenpeace is a huge corporate entity and follow almost same corporate structure as many other big MNCs.
Almost all the big GMO producing companies are American while there are many big pesticides, herbicides companies in Europe. If Europe opens up more to GMO, those European chemical companies will loose a lot. Opposition to GMO in India may also be linked to such corporate rivalry.
There is no reported case of human disease, so far, caused by consuming transgenic crop product, although many countries, including USA are using GMO for long. Some report also suggest horizontal gene transfer from transgenic to non-transgenic crop, which potentially can give rise to herbicide resistant or other form of “virulent” plants by cross pollination from transgenic plants. So far there is no reported evidence of emergence of such “super” plant, as I know. Many GMO opponents tell that using GMO with antibiotic resistance gene will lead to antibiotic resistance among human. This is ridiculous. We are eating plant products for millions of years; still we could not acquire the photosynthetic capability!
Yes, there are some very valid questions regarding transgenic crops. For example, many recent reports from Canada and other countries show that yield of transgenic crop is less (about 10-15%) as compared to corresponding non-transgenic crops under “normal” conditions.
Now there are ways to produce transgenic plants without using antibiotic resistance for selection. There are other ways to reduce, if not eliminate, cross pollination from transgenic to wild type plants. Currently work is going on to produce human therapeutic proteins and metabolites/nutraceuticals in transgenic plants. Theoretically it would reduce production cost to a great extent. Those products are and will be extensively tested before granting marketing rights for public use.
In fact transgenic crops are safer in many cases as they are extensively tested before release. Most Indian vegetables and fruits do contain high pesticides/herbicide residues; majority of our water sources including ground water is contaminated by toxic industrial waste and agricultural run off (pesticide and other chemicals used in cultivation). Those are more toxic as compared to GMOs, so far public health and environment is concerned.
If we had a limited world population and reasonably decent distribution of wealth among people in the world, we would have avoided GMOs. Currently we can not afford the luxury to boycott GMO for some hypothetical danger and embrace guaranteed starvation and/or huge hike of global food prices (and other commodities as well).
Lastly, I myself do buy GMO products for my family and never feel threatened, despite of working in the field of plant genetic engineering and also worked in human health for some years. -
I think I should mention about an interesting article and a newly published report on efficacy of GE crops. I also need to remind that useless rhetoric against GMO does distract us from focusing on relevant issues concerning genetic engineering of crops.
Report claims no yield advantage for Bt crops
Nature Biotechnology (2009): 27, 588 – 589
On the afternoon following the report’s publication, St. Louis–based Monsanto’s shares dropped $1.31, or 1.6%, to $81.76 in the New York Stock Exchange. Media outlets and numerous blogs also picked up on the UCS study’s unusual finding, which, rather than disparage the technology as unsafe or environmentally unfriendly, slates it as ineffective.
You can read the reactions of many plant biotechnologists on that issue.
-
I think I should post some comments by scientists on that report (to give a more balanced picture):
Val Giddings, president and CEO of Prometheus AB, a biotech consultancy based in Silver Spring, Maryland. “There are good data on the yield improvements we have seen with biotech cotton and biotech corn in South Africa, India and China,” he says. “A crop doesn’t have to have a higher yield to justify its existence,” Parrott says. Profitability is farmers’ primary concern, and factors such as reduced input requirements, easier crop management and improved performance all feed into farmers’ decision-making processes".
According to Ken Ostlie, a professor in the Department of Entomology at the University of Minnesota in St. Paul, the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin genes introduced to corn hybrids are actually benefitting conventional and organic growers indirectly. “These traits are highly effective against the corn borer, and widespread use of Bt corn has actually collapsed the corn borer population,” he says. “Everybody’s benefitting from that, but you don’t see it looking at operational yield benefits at the current time.”
Mike Gale, an emeritus fellow at the John Innes Centre and a member of the science council for the Washington, DC–based Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research (CGIAR), an international network of agricultural research centers, says market forces need to be considered in any debate on biotech in agriculture. “No one compels farmers in developing or developed countries to buy the generally more expensive biotech seed. Surely if they don’t see an adequate increase in harvestable yield or reduction in inputs, they will not buy that variety next time. Farmers the world over are businessmen, not easily duped idiots.”
Dorchester, UK–based consultancy PG Economics published GM Crops:Global Socio-Economic And Environmental Impacts 1996-2007 (http://www.pgeconomics. co.uk/pdf/2009globalimpactstudy.pdf ) in
May. According to authors Peter Barfoot and Graham Brookes, since 1996, the total cumulative farm income benefit from biotech has been $44.1 billion, and they attribute almost half of this amount ($20.5 billion) to gains in
yield. -
It is unfortunate that Govt of India is planning to introduce GM veggies in the country as announced by Ag Ministr (TOI, 16th July). At a time when Nature is publishing that Insects are developing resistance to bt & crop productivity is not increasing by GMO we should have waited for response of other countries before jumping to this decision.Once these GMO’s are out in nature they will be totally out of control. Anurag chaurasia
-
Debate works.
-
I wish India had the required scientific capability to become the leader in this area of agricultural biotechnology. We do not always have to follow others to play safe. We should be capable to do the research part and evaluate the technology with proper legal framework in place. Imitating others is not always helpful, both scientifically and economically.
-
I want to bring focus two specific issues:
1. GMO corn is widely grown in USA and resulted in higher yield (for reference check “King Corn” documentary search in You Tube, may be there). So, the yield is realistically proven. I will come to the real question that needs to asked below.
2.Even cursory knowledge about DDT and its eventual ban from environment will clearly show their impact on EAGLE population worldwide. The eagle population declined (specially in India and other places, many documentaries are made on this subject so the proof is all open for anyone to see it)
So, my point is two parts,
1.GMO crops will result in higher yield than one can manage. Initially it may look tiny and world food scarcity and so on. But believe me the world will have more problems, if not many many problems, dealing increased food production following the use of GMO. Where is the proof, again see the documentary where the increaseda nd associated problems are discussed in detail. Specially the impact on the human food chain it (increased GMO corn yield) is having right now, as we speak, in the USA. Also recently (there is a news article about this issue in Tamil magazine, Pasumai Vikatan, published by Ananda Vikatan group), USA is having big big trouble getting rid of huge harvest of GMO corn. Literally it is going to waste. So, the point is world will have more problems using GMO than lack of it.
2. Like, DDT, I know its a chemical not a GMO but still the argument is valid) because its acquiring resistance we are talking about when bringing GMO in this context, So, what if (I know at this point this looks like a Big big “IF”) if use of GMO with resistance capabilities end up exactly like DDT. What is the guarantee? The tests done by many many groups, believe they were the similar, if not same groups, who never questioned the use of DDT in the first place. Trusting those test results is simply, I would say turning blind eye. Also the time period GMO being in the environment is not a valid testament (statiscally and otherwise) to treat it as safe.
what is the solution?
1.Do more tests and research, don’t impose use of GMO yet.
2.Better manage the already available food production world wide. Do more collaboration to have better farm practices and trade processes that are mostly agreeable to many countries. Stop unethical farm subsidies that are being practiced in USA and EUROPE. A single unethical, morally misguided farm subsidy results in much more farmer suicides and other damaging outcomes in the opponent country.
3.Use technology to enhance nature not to manipulate nature. Manipulation have always been and will be in future damaging, whether you agree or not. The time will tell, as it have in so many occasions in the past.Having said that, I want to say something about Indian scenario.
India is a Guinea pig for developed western countries no matter we discuss in nature India forum or elsewhere. That’s inevitable and eventual for more than one factor. We can only HOPE (as usual) nothing big damage happens to India.
If only Indian science and its scientists can do something (thats another story for another time!)..hmm.. what a waste!
Jai Bharat !
-
SAFOTEST, a very esential experimental test to study safety of transgenic food on experimental animals. Unfortunately no lab in India working on transgenic is doing this very essential test before human trail with such GMO could be conducted. It seems either we are in hurry for some personal benefit or ignorent about such scientific experiments. Govt of India should have instructed for SAFOTEST before permitting GMO vegetables in food chain. Once these GMO will inter in our food chain it would be almost imposible to stop them. There are also doubt that oil from transgenic crops are being exported to INDIA for conducting human trail using Indian as guinea pig. All latest experiments including safotest could have been performed before releasing GMO’s.
-
Nice points. I like to ask you if you agree that invention of agriculture and then fire have the most impact on nature since human civilization? Maximum soil erosion is caused by agriculture; maximum drinkable, sweet water is consumed to produce crops. Almost all known medicines have side-effects. So will there be any merit to ban those or will it be better to regulate those and use judiciously?
Your information regarding excess corn (GMO or otherwise) production in USA causing massive wastage is not true. In fact there is a huge deficit of corn (mainly due to bio-ethanol production) in USA and many other developed countries.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Corn/2009baseline.htm#DemandDevelopment of resistance against any anti-microbial agent is a natural phenomenon, be it against Bt protein (expressed in transgenic crops) or chemical pesticide (or even human drugs). The time needed to develop that resistance is shorter in case of Bt than chemical pesticides. It creates both problem and opportunity for plant biotechnology. There is enough scope to improve Bt dependent transgenic technology. We also need to find out novel sources of such anti-microbial agents to protect our crops. The same is true for antibiotics for human diseases. Conflict between host and pathogen is always dynamic and will remain so in future. If one party wins permanently then the other one will have hard time to exist in this world! So plant biotechnologists will always have to work to keep one step ahead (in term of both crop management and invention of new ways/products) against our target pathogens to protect our crop.
In many instances crops protected via genetic engineering (GE) is safer than using pesticides. There is not a single case of human disease by consuming GMO food, but there are too many examples of that due to use of chemical pesticides (for quick reference read the book “Silent Spring” by Rachel Carson).
Anurag, don’t you think USA did SAFO test (if it’s so necessary) for its GMOs and then approved those for public use? Is there any report to suggest that SAFO test gave negative result and yet USA or any other government released GE crop? Is there any report published in credible journal to indicate that edible oil from transgenic crops have adverse impact on human health? You can check the “world Development Report -20008” by World Bank (search in Google and you will get it) and find out the added yield and added profit by transgenic crops worldwide, including India.Yes, there are some genuine concerns regarding yield of GM crops. For example, it’s not recommended to use Bt crop where the target insect infestation is negligible (loss remains within 5-15% of yield). The reason is simple; you will not sow draught tolerant variety where water is plentiful. Right? Just like any other commercial product, GE crops are mainly from profit oriented multinational companies and they are doing business, not charity. They surely try to pursue people to use their products more, just like any other product. It’s upto the Government to form a policy regarding its use and most importantly upto the consumers (i.e farmers in this case) whether to use GM crops or not. You cannot blame the product if a bald person starts using hair oil. If there is no significant yield and/or quality improvement of his crop(s) then I do not think any farmer will buy costly GM seeds for next season. Will it be justified for Government to take away that option from the farmers?
The crop that gives maximum net return to farmers is corn, at least in USA (as per USDA). Many countries in the world depend on foreign food aid. USA is the major donor and that donation mainly comprises of corn or corn product. All such activities became feasible mainly because of transgenic crop.
Lastly, is it ethical to force already poor farmers to remain poor for sake of supplying cheap food for us? They should have equal right to use technology to prosper, just like any other people. In the same way we cannot force common citizens to buy highly expensive “organic” foods. You can have a glimpse of what higher food price can create in social and political arena globally (Global demand lifts grain prices, gobbles supplies).
Results
-
