Scoop  World

Kheti Virasat Mission


“Jairam Ramesh Should Seize Historical Opportunity To Chart Out A Sustainable Path In Indian Food & Farming Systems”

New Delhi, February 8, 2010: As the country waits to hear the decision of the Minister of State for Environment & Forests on the issue of Bt Brinjal, Kheti Virasat Mission (KVM) urged him to seize the opportunity to tackle the problem of unsustainable and hazardous agri-technologies head-on and chart out a sustainable development path in Indian food and farming systems by rejecting Bt Brinjal’s entry into India. “The Minister is well in his rights and authority to invoke the precautionary principle as required under the Cartagena Protocol and the process of consultations has shown that never before was this approach more relevant than in the case of Bt Brinjal, where the scientific community was severely divided on the matter with a majority of scientists who participated in the consultations cautioning the Minister against Bt Brinjal”, said the organisation.

KVM thanked Mr Jairam Ramesh for holding public consultations all over the country and adopting a democratic decision-making process on this matter of crucial importance to Indians. For the first time, a platform was provided for scientists and others in the country to come out into the open to share their analyses and views on the subject, it said.

“Though there were some shortcomings in the consultations process adopted, it is indeed a path-breaking effort by the Minister to listen personally to various views from all quarters. It is true that a more detailed articulation of the several facets of the debate could have taken place if not for the constraints posed by the process; however, the process initiated has allowed many Indians outside the formal consultations process also to engage with the issue in numerous ways and these kinds of consultations should be streamlined better in future and made into a systemic process in regulation as required under the Cartagena Protocol”, the organization said in a press statement issued today. KVM defended the Minister’s views and right to hold the consultations and take up a democratic decision-making process, which was sought to be de-legitimised by the Minister for Agriculture & Food, Sharad Pawar. It sought to inform Sharad Pawar that the Committee itself had put the onus of final decision-making on the Environment Minister and therefore, Pawar who is so supportive of the GEAC, should respect this too!

KVM reminded the Environment Minister of the cornerstones set down by the Task Force on Agri-Biotechnology in 2004 as “the safety of the environment, the well-being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external trade and the bio-security of India ”. Mr Jairam Ramesh was very right in concluding that this is not just a technical matter but also has socio-political implications and it is obvious that even in the case of independent, scientific, transparent and rigorous biosafety evaluation, the regulators fell seriously short of their mandate and failed the nation.

“This Bt Brinjal is unneeded as has been articulated by numerous farmers and scientists in the consultations. Scientists and farmers have pointed out that there are other ecological, safer and affordable ways of pest management and that FSB-(Fruit & Shoot Borer) resistant cultivars were also available in various consultations. It was also pointed out to the Minister that the very data being shown to rationalize the entry of Bt Brinjal in relation to pesticide use and damage to the crop is exaggerated and not scientifically correct – a majority of brinjal production actually in outside such growing conditions. Farmers also pointed out to glut in the market and low prices as the main problem with brinjal cultivation right now.

It is true that several farmers also talked about how they want to get off the pesticides treadmill and this is precisely what we would like the government to do too. It is time that the government took the problem of chemical pesticides in our farming head-on and ensured that sustainable and successful eco-practices for pest management reach the last farmer without turning to more hazardous and unpredictable technologies like GE. This is the best opportunity to do so, with an all-round acknowledgement of the problem of pesticides and the Environment Minister should recommend to the Agriculture Ministry to tackle this issue squarely.

Issues around complete lack of credibility in the regulators’ intentions and capabilities for objective, scientific and transparent evaluation were brought up again and again and these point to an urgent need for a complete recasting of the Indian regulatory system. The interference of American agencies in Indian regulation should also be addressed squarely.

The lack of proof of the safety of Bt Brinjal was brought up again and again and scientists and others pointed to problems with the tests undertaken so far and the gaps in evaluation and decision-making so far.

In this context, KVM wanted the die-hard proponents of GM crops including some media houses to realize that the concerns on Bt Brinjal and its safety assessment were being voiced by scores of scientists from across the country and it is unfair to brand everyone as “anti-science” and “anti-technology”. Entire universities have come out against Bt Brinjal’s introduction in the past couple of months.

In Bt Cotton cultivation areas, farmers had pointed out various pending and unresolved issues around this non-edible GM crop allowed for cultivation in India . Farmers and agricultural workers pointed to animal health impacts, soil impacts, erratic crop performance, seed pricing and unviable economics, pest and disease changes in cotton, human health impacts, suicides, increased burden on organic farming and contradictory policies of the government etc.

People representing Indian Systems of Medicine brought out the potential impacts of Bt Brinjal on their treatment systems and medicines, a neglected area of evaluation so far.
Consumers pointed out that their rights to safe food and to know what they are eating would be violated. As the Environment Minister rightly underscored himself, labeling on vegetables is impossible in our situation to give choices to consumers and would not really be a solution.

Similarly, activists pointed out to a lack of liability regime and how the entry of GM seeds like Bt Brinjal would increase seed monopolies in favour of large corporations like Monsanto”, said KVM, summing up some of the main points that came up in the consultations. Many responses on Bt Brinjal from Indian and international experts have also been uploaded on www.indiagminfo.org website.

In Kolkata on 13th January, out of 56 people who spoke, 41 were against Bt Brinjal, including senior scientists, experienced farmers and others. The State Agricultural Technologists Service Association consisting of hundreds of agriculture officials said No to Bt Brinjal here. Members of the state agriculture commission also recommended a ban. West Bengal is the largest producer of brinjal in India and also has the largest diversity.

In Bhubaneswar on 16th January (the Minister apparently wanted to cover this state since it is the second largest producer of brinjals in the country), 3 scientists out of 15 spoke in favour with the state agriculture university, Orissa University of Agriculture Technology sounding a note of caution on Bt Brinjal. Only 2 of the farmers who spoke here articulated views in favor of Bt Brinjal. In all, around 65 persons got a chance to speak in this consultation, with five persons speaking in favor of the entry of Bt Brinjal.

In Ahmedabad on 19th January (where the Minister reportedly wanted to understand the success of Bt Cotton while taking a decision on Bt Brinjal), out of 28 farmers who spoke, 18 were against Bt Brinjal; out of 15 scientists who had a chance to speak, 10 were against and three gave a neutral picture of both sides. The remaining speakers including in the civil society category said No to Bt Brinjal.

In Nagpur on 27th January (the Minister wanted to study the crisis in cotton cultivation in Vidarbha and chose Nagpur as one of the consultation points), the meeting was attended by a lot of farmers and supporters of Shetkari Sanghatan led by Sharad Joshi. Here, out of 21 farmers who spoke, seven were in favor of Bt Brinjal citing high pesticide use in brinjal and anticipated higher yields as their reason; out of 19 scientists who spoke, ten were against and nine in favor of Bt Brinjal. Out of eighteen others who spoke under the civil society category, only two were in favor of Bt Brinjal.

In the Chandigarh consultation on 29th January (this location was apparently chosen to represent the intensive agriculture heartland of the country – Punjab and Haryana), around twenty farmers spoke and 12 were against Bt Brinjal’s introduction. Many spoke about how pesticides were also introduced in the past as being safe and pointed out to the present environmental health crisis unfolding in Punjab and the terrible cost being paid by farming families. Out of 10 scientists who spoke, 6 were against Bt Brinjal. The limited number of civil society groups who spoke had things to say against the entry of Bt Brinjal.

In the Hyderabad consultation on 31st January, where the Minister sought to understand from scientists their analysis and also to glean from the Bt Cotton experience in the state, 12 farmers spoke in favor of Bt Brinjal and 12 against. Amongst the scientists, thirteen spoke against and five in support of the need and safety of Bt Brinjal. Around five civil society groups said No to Bt Brinjal in the last category of speakers. The emphasis here was on large scale ecological alternatives being available for pest management in various crops.

In Bangalore, the last stop in the consultations process on February 6th, 14 farmers spoke against Bt Brinjal while a larger number of farmers (16) wanted the government to permit Bt Brinjal. 21 out of the 30 experts (scientists, doctors etc.) spoke against Bt Brinjal’s permission and several called for conclusive, long term and independent tests to prove its safety. Five of the civil society representatives who got a chance to speak were against Bt Brinjal’s approval in India. Former Prime Minister Mr Deve Gowda also expressed his concerns against Bt Brinjal here while the Organic Farming Mission Chair pointed out to the recent de-notification of Brinjal from the Biological Diversity Act’s purview in the name of “traded commodity” which is highly questionable. Another notable feature in this consultation was a former Managing Director of Monsanto India speaking out against Bt Brinjal and advising the Minister not to approve it.

Meanwhile, while there are unconfirmed reports that many of the fifty scientists that the Minister wrote to for their opinion and feedback on Bt Brinjal’s safety and safety evaluation were in favor of the Minister approving its release in India (it is unclear how these scientists were selected for feedback), the two Supreme Court observers in the apex regulatory body (GEAC-Genetic Engineering Approval Committee) were against the entry of Bt Brinjal citing various grounds. This includes Dr P M Bhargava and Dr M S Swaminathan.

On another front, at least ten state governments have spoken against Bt Brinjal’s approval – these include Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, West Bengal, Bihar and Uttarakhand. In addition, some Ministers and officials of Rajasthan, Punjab and Mizoram are also reportedly concerned about Bt Brinjal’s approval for commercial cultivation in India on various grounds.

The three states which grow more than 60% of brinjal in India – West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar – have noteably said no to Bt Brinjal’s approval and ranged from wanting conclusive proof of its safety, to taking a stand against monopolistic control over Indian farming belonging to small and marginal farmers of the country. The public consultations reflected this official mood from these majority brinjal producing states – an overwhelming rejection of Bt Brinjal and its very need.

KVM urged the Minister to remain faithful to the democratic processes that he has undertaken and not be concerned about the adversarial stand taken by colleagues in the UPA government. They urged him to invoke the precautionary principle, a legally valid approach and reject Bt Brinjal’s entry into India on the simple ground that this controversial technology with its inconclusive proof of safety is not needed for pest management in brinjal given the various alternatives available with the agriculture research establishment and practicing farmers all over the country.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 

World Headlines