Lead Petitioner to the SC for a moratorium on GM crops
The decision by the GEAC on October 14 approving Bt brinjal
for commercial release, unless reversed by the Centre, will go down as the blackest day in Indian history for its impact on India’s food security, health, farming and environment. We, who are well conversant with the details of the appraisal of the Mahyco-Monsanto safety dossier by four world renowned scientists (Seralini, Carman, Heinemann & Gurian-Sherman), shudder to imagine the extent of the disaster that will unfold. Seralini, of Crigen France, did major assessments for the EU of various Monsanto Bt corn products. These were subsequently banned for planting in most EU countries. He says that Mahyco’s own dossier of rat feeding studies shows worrying results both clinically and statistically, on various parameters of health, in the blood, in the cells and organs of animals being tested. Bt brinjal is toxic and its release must be forbidden. No long-term feeding studies for chronic toxicity have been conducted. The inescapable conclusion of these feeding studies of Mahyco is that they have been ‘engineered’ or designed to throw up ‘no significant differences’.
Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, speaking on contamination from Gene Flow from Bt Brinjal to wild brinjal relatives and eating varieties, says no gene flow studies have been done: “The possibility of harm from gene flow has been widely recognised by many scientists. In the US, this recognition has been a major factor in regulatory action restricting the commercialisation of GE crops (including cotton) with wild relatives. India is a centre of domestication and diversity for brinjal and this adds additional concern. Several wild relatives of brinjal are found in India. Given the widespread concern about gene flow, it is remarkable that there is no assessment of possible harm from gene flow from Bt brinjal to wild brinjal relatives in India. Further, methods to prevent gene flow from crops to wild relatives currently do not exist. Gene flow from Bt brinjal to wild relatives, if commercialised, would therefore be virtually certain”, and this includes contamination of eating varieties. The absence of studies for gene flow must put an absolute bar on the approval of Bt brinjal.
Prof Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, who assessed Mahyco’s molecular transformation methods is uncompromising in his critique of the safety dossier and asserts that Mahyco has failed at the first, elementary step of the safety study. “I have never seen less professionalism in the presentation and quality assurance of molecular data than in this study,” he says. He criticises Mahyco for using outdated studies, testing to below acceptable standards and for inappropriate and invalid test methods: “In my opinion, the studies would not be of sufficient standard to publish in any peer-reviewed journal much less to satisfy the scientific community that a proper molecular and microbiological characterisation of this genetically modified plant had been done”.
These are a damning indictment of Mahyco’s safety dossier and a greater indictment of the government regulator who now must be made to resign. This report of the expert committee, approving Bt brinjal, must be firmly put in the place it deserves, the trash bin. At the outset, the fact that our government accepts the principle that the company itself (Monsanto) should do its own safety testing on its own product and “trusts” them to do it, invalidates the safety dossier. It must be set aside. Is Mahyco-Monsanto expected to say that its Bt brinjal is toxic? The panel members were largely drawn from the regulators. Given the hurried manner in which the report was tabled, it is now absolutely necessary to investigate and probe what the hurry was for, among other matters. Given that any adverse consequence is irreversible, the regulators’ approval defies reason. So we need to ask how Monsanto has a ‘hot line’ with the regulators and is able to pressure them? Mahyco-Monsanto has been bragging that they will be commercialising their Bt brinjal in 2009. How could they be sure? More uncomfortable questions remain and we insist on answers. The issue is why has the blatant conflict of interest in the regulators been allowed to persist? And, what is it in the lives of this bunch of bureaucrats that allows them to be pressured by Monsanto and the ministry of agriculture that has been pushing for GM brinjal?
Unless these questions are answered, a massive fraud will continue to be committed on the people of this country, with unimaginable consequences. If only one in 1,000 of exposed people later gets ill, or has an underlying illness made worse, then over one million Indians would be ill and requiring treatment. This risks a social cost and a health scam of a magnitude that will chicken out every other scam in the country.
The decision by the GEAC on October 14 approving Bt brinjal
for commercial release, unless reversed by the Centre, will go down as the blackest day in Indian history for its impact on India’s food security, health, farming and environment. We, who are well conversant with the details of the appraisal of the Mahyco-Monsanto safety dossier by four world renowned scientists (Seralini, Carman, Heinemann & Gurian-Sherman), shudder to imagine the extent of the disaster that will unfold. Seralini, of Crigen France, did major assessments for the EU of various Monsanto Bt corn products. These were subsequently banned for planting in most EU countries. He says that Mahyco’s own dossier of rat feeding studies shows worrying results both clinically and statistically, on various parameters of health, in the blood, in the cells and organs of animals being tested. Bt brinjal is toxic and its release must be forbidden. No long-term feeding studies for chronic toxicity have been conducted. The inescapable conclusion of these feeding studies of Mahyco is that they have been ‘engineered’ or designed to throw up ‘no significant differences’.Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, speaking on contamination from Gene Flow from Bt Brinjal to wild brinjal relatives and eating varieties, says no gene flow studies have been done: “The possibility of harm from gene flow has been widely recognised by many scientists. In the US, this recognition has been a major factor in regulatory action restricting the commercialisation of GE crops (including cotton) with wild relatives. India is a centre of domestication and diversity for brinjal and this adds additional concern. Several wild relatives of brinjal are found in India. Given the widespread concern about gene flow, it is remarkable that there is no assessment of possible harm from gene flow from Bt brinjal to wild brinjal relatives in India. Further, methods to prevent gene flow from crops to wild relatives currently do not exist. Gene flow from Bt brinjal to wild relatives, if commercialised, would therefore be virtually certain”, and this includes contamination of eating varieties. The absence of studies for gene flow must put an absolute bar on the approval of Bt brinjal.
Prof Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, who assessed Mahyco’s molecular transformation methods is uncompromising in his critique of the safety dossier and asserts that Mahyco has failed at the first, elementary step of the safety study. “I have never seen less professionalism in the presentation and quality assurance of molecular data than in this study,” he says. He criticises Mahyco for using outdated studies, testing to below acceptable standards and for inappropriate and invalid test methods: “In my opinion, the studies would not be of sufficient standard to publish in any peer-reviewed journal much less to satisfy the scientific community that a proper molecular and microbiological characterisation of this genetically modified plant had been done”.
These are a damning indictment of Mahyco’s safety dossier and a greater indictment of the government regulator who now must be made to resign. This report of the expert committee, approving Bt brinjal, must be firmly put in the place it deserves, the trash bin. At the outset, the fact that our government accepts the principle that the company itself (Monsanto) should do its own safety testing on its own product and “trusts” them to do it, invalidates the safety dossier. It must be set aside. Is Mahyco-Monsanto expected to say that its Bt brinjal is toxic? The panel members were largely drawn from the regulators. Given the hurried manner in which the report was tabled, it is now absolutely necessary to investigate and probe what the hurry was for, among other matters. Given that any adverse consequence is irreversible, the regulators’ approval defies reason. So we need to ask how Monsanto has a ‘hot line’ with the regulators and is able to pressure them? Mahyco-Monsanto has been bragging that they will be commercialising their Bt brinjal in 2009. How could they be sure? More uncomfortable questions remain and we insist on answers. The issue is why has the blatant conflict of interest in the regulators been allowed to persist? And, what is it in the lives of this bunch of bureaucrats that allows them to be pressured by Monsanto and the ministry of agriculture that has been pushing for GM brinjal?
Unless these questions are answered, a massive fraud will continue to be committed on the people of this country, with unimaginable consequences. If only one in 1,000 of exposed people later gets ill, or has an underlying illness made worse, then over one million Indians would be ill and requiring treatment. This risks a social cost and a health scam of a magnitude that will chicken out every other scam in the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment