Good news for Indian agriculture
B. B. Goel
Thursday, 15 October 2009 01:00 UTC
Good news for Indian agriculture. Panel clears Bt brinjal, govt nod may take a while.
It’s long awaited good news and we still have to wait a bit longer to see such genetically modified brinjal (eggplant) plants in our fields. The technology and the base material is from American MNC, Monsanto.
According to initial reports, the biosafety data has been made public and found satisfactory by organizations like Greenpeace.
No, it does not indicate any achievement for Indian research (although some Indian Govt agencies spent many millions of rupees to develop transgenic Bt plants but no success so far).
This new genetically modified crop will help Indian agriculture and may inspire next generation of young Indian scientists to take serious research in plant biotechnology and come up with new technology, products and novel knowledge.
Updated 15 October 2009 01:00 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
I have my doubt about the quality of debate and understanding of scientific facts, research data and its interpretation among many opponents of GM crop in India and abroad. No, it’s not because I am from plant biology but because I am deeply pained that such baseless and aggressive opposition is becoming a major headache for the scientists working in the field of agriculture and plant biotechnology. It not only has a severe impact on our future food supply and plant related research but also on overall culture culture of research and social evolution in a country.
I like to mention a couple of articles published in journal Nature in this regard.
“These people have to endure bomb threats, insulting letters and telephone calls, destruction of their fields (almost no UK field experiment has survived since 2000) and harassment of their children at school. As author of a UK Food Standards Agency report concluding that organic food provides no additional nutritional or health benefit, Alan Dangour was bombarded with hate mail from activists.” Nature (2009) 461, 875 (15 October 2009 issue) and GM crops: Battlefield Nature 461, 27-32 (2009) (2 September 2009 issue). -
I should specifically mention the response by Piero Morandini (at the the end of “GM Crop: Battlefield” article) and his relevant publication in Trends in Biotechnology: 26(3), 122-125 (March 2008 issue).
“Primarily outside the scientific community, misapprehensions and misinformation about recombinant DNA-modified (also known as ‘genetically modified’, or ‘GM’) plants have generated significant ‘pseudo-controversy’ over their safety that has resulted in unscientific and excessive regulation (with attendant inflated development costs) and disappointing progress. But pseudo-controversy and sensational claims have originated within the scientific community as well, and even scholarly journals’ treatment of the subject has been at times unscientific, one-sided and irresponsible. These shortcomings have helped to perpetuate ‘The Big Lie’ – that recombinant DNA technology applied to agriculture and food production is unproven, unsafe, untested, unregulated and unwanted. Those misconceptions, in turn, have given rise to unwarranted opposition and tortuous, distorted public policy”.
-
Success of such GM crops in India depends mainly on the cost of the GM seed (as marketed by MNCs) and Govt initiative to bring those seed to target farmers. In a country like India where an average farmer earns less than Rs 1000 per month, hardly can afford GM seeds unless some form of Govt assistance and strict supervision (unlike Govt minikit and many others programs where rampant corruption allows almost nothing to the target farmers). This Rs 1000 data includes many big farmers and corporate farmers. In reality, common Indian farmers earn about Rs 450/- per month (considering average land holding of an Indian farmer and deducting cost of farm inputs. Cost of labor of the family members are not included in calculating the “cost of farm inputs”!).
I also like to mention that in a country like India, corporate farming must not be allowed. In US, only 4% of corporate producers (of farm products) control more than 80% of US agri market. Such consolidation is not a good news for local producers and consumer. Fear of food security and deterioration of local agricultural economy has prompted USDA to undertake know your farmer, know your food initiative.
Cheap food is always not good for the country, and more so for the common population that directly depends on farming. -
Anonymous
In US, the revolution of plant transgenic research was possible because of huge corporate entities (Monsanto, Dupont, Bayer, Cargill etc) present in agri-business. Most of the Plant Biotech companies were traditionally in seed and/or agro-chemical business.
We do not and will not have such big agro industries willing to invest in novel research in India. Indian govt research institutes need to fill that gap and come up with solution for India specific problems in agriculture. That will enable Indian farmers to get GM crop seed at an affordable price and India can earn a good lot from licensing and royalty and/or exporting such novel technology/product abroad. -
1. India a net exporter of agri.commodities is a good news. But if the export benefits are not reaching the ultimate producer – the farmer then there is no incentive for the farmers to participate in export.
2. Trade negotiations and the impact are not fully understood by the farmers in India. The consequence of which some times results in a shift in focus from one commodity to other at trade level as the awareness level at traders is fairly good. This badly hits the farmers as they cannot reorient their crop plan in a short notice. Examples are many, even in the organised plantation sector. A damage done or loss incurred by a farmer in Indian context needs a pretty long time to correct or make good.
3. Therefore, is it not prudent to help the large section of farmers in India who have very less menouvering capacity to orient their production to meet the ever growing domestic demand through supply chain systems, market focus, reduction of transit miles,value adition etc.,
4.PERHAPS AFTER THE STABILISATION OF GLOBAL TRADE TERMS, THERE CAN BE MORE FOCUS ON EXPORT.……………………..
[url=http://magic-jack.me/]magic jack[/url]
[url=http://magic-jack.me/try-magicjack-today/]buy magic jack[/url]
[url=http://magic-jack.me/magicjack/]magic jack review[/url] -
Hi! I’m joining in late. I am confused and so are my children about the “good” or the “bad” aspects of Bt Brinjal.
Dr. PM Bhargava did caution the public in the television interview and asked Mahyco-Monsanto to publish their multi-parameter studies so that the public understands the merits and demerits (if any) of this GM Food.
Greenpeace, on the other hand has been campaigning against the introduction of BtBrinjal (contrary to the claim of BB Goel).
So, please state clearly all the facts about the merits and demerits of BtBrinjal, what precautions should the farmers take to get a good crop, to prevent resistant strains of insects, etc. -
Dear Bulusu. I mentioned the link in the post, “biosafety data has been made public and found satisfactory by organizations like Greenpeace”.
You also can go through the post, GMO in India , mainly jayanta’s responses. -
Dear Goel,
Thanks for your reply.Please read this link vis-a-vis the link you gave. http://www.greenpeace.org/india/press/releases/geac-fails-the-nation
While I do not represent Greenpeace, I love ‘brinjal’ cuisine and therefore interested in the biosafety data. What would a ‘bacterial toxin’ do to animals and humans?
Biologists are discovering new omics and mechanisms within the living cell and it has become increasingly clear that the living cell is ‘intricately’ wired. Though it can tolerate perturbations, some perturbations can be fatal. The pharma companies worldwide are struggling to minimise adverse events of their approved as well as prospective therapeutic (chemical and biological) agents. The Reductionist approaches of scientists, while providing crucial snapshots of various pathways in the cell, have not been very clear yet about the many interactions between the pathways.
We do have a duty to our children and the lay public and to explain to them that the GM/GE food that is being proposed is safe. Can we do it? Please. -
Thanks Bulusu for the link. The link I sent was originally published in “The Hindu” and I consider that as responsible and reputed news paper. It’s always better to have an opposition view (in this case Green Peace).
Our science does not know all the networks and pathways in any living organism, including plants. That’s why controls (both positive and negative) are so important to interpret experimental data. So far I know, there is no scientific evidence that GM crop or products from such crops have any adverse impact on human health, although we cannot rule out a very remote possibility in long term experiments. I also should acknowledge that many big corporate houses that make GM crops do not always publish full trial results, just like pharmaceutical companies. But I am reasonably confident that US is using GM crops for decades. No human health or negative environmental impact has been reported so far, particularly considering that slightest indication would have attracted many to win million dollar law suits in a country like US. -
Thanks, Goel. You are saying, ‘so far so good… can’t say what the future holds".
That’s what happened with the ‘mad’ cows! And then, John Major lost the elections, after millions of cows were slaughtered, for no fault of theirs.
I like the aubergine ‘brulee’ with cream. I would not like the ‘Bt’ to become a ‘super toxin’ in that process and kill me or nucleate amyloidosis that would senilate me.
Results
-
