[In India, where the findings of excess lead in
Maggi sparked nationwide recall of the product, the World Health Organisation’s
declaration that glyphosate was carcinogenic to humans could seal the fate of
GM food crops]
By Sandhya Jain
 |
| Picture credit : Nature |
Thousands of people in 428 cities across 38
countries joined the ‘March Against Monsanto’ on May 23, to support the right
to naturally grown food amidst rising concerns about the safety of
genetically-modified organisms on the health of humans, animals, and the
environment. Earlier, on March 15, the World Health Organisation declared that
glyphosate (key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup) was ‘probably carcinogenic to
humans,’ after a study by scientists at its International Agency for Research
on Cancer; the report was published in the prestigious The Lancet Oncology.
The announcement led
several countries (Switzerland, Germany, Colombia, Sri Lanka) to immediately
ban glyphosate due to its alleged links with cancer, birth defects, kidney
failure, celiac disease, colitis and autism. Denmark has officially declared
glyphosate as a human carcinogen. As most GM crops are engineered to be
tolerant of glyphosate, sales are plunging steeply, causing Monsanto to demand
a retraction from the WHO. The IARC scientists found ‘mechanistic evidence’
such as DNA damage to human cells exposed to glyphosate.
The IARC will next examine the herbicide
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (Agent Orange of Vietnam fame). If Agent Orange
is shifted to the category of ‘dangerous chemical’, dow chemical may face
similar bans and consumer boycotts. Plastic and Reconstructive
Surgery, the official medical journal of the American Society of
Plastic Surgeons, said in a study last year that Vietnam war veterans with
prior exposure to Agent Orange may be at a higher risk for certain types of
skin cancer even four decades after exposure.
In India, where findings
of excess lead in noodle brand Maggi sparked nationwide recall of the product,
the WHO decisions could seal the fate of GM food crops that have been promoted
by an entrenched lobby for over a decade. In an exhaustive four-year study with
400 experts from all regions, the World Bank’s International Assessment of
Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development examined the
scientific understanding of biotechnology, particularly transgenics (GMOs). The
executive summary of the Synthesis Report was approved by all Governments
attending the Intergovernmental Plenary in Johannesburg, South Africa in April
2008, barring Australia, Canada, and the United States. India approved the
report and participated in the writing team.
The IAASTD takes its definition of
biotechnology from the Convention on Biological Diversity and Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety, which covers the manipulation of living organisms. The
synthesis report noted that GM crops are contentious, the evidence to date is
variable, many risks are still unknown, and there are concerns regarding
intellectual property, restriction on seed saving and exchange, and liabilities
for farmers. For instance, GM farmers could be liable for accidental presence
of GM material in neighbouring fields which cause organic farmers to lose
market certification; conventional farmers could be sued by GM seed producers
if transgenes are detected in their crops via wind
pollution (a bitter experience Western farmers have had with Monsanto). Hence,
the summary for decision-makers recommended strengthening focus on
agro-ecological sciences rather than GMOs for food security.
Indian environmentalists
approached the Supreme Court in 2005 (the case is continuing) amidst mounting
evidence of the risks from GM crops; their significantly lower yields as
compared to non-GM crops; and escalating use of pesticides. The first Bt cotton
was harvested in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in 2003; Gene campaign found
that GE seeds do not increase yield; it joined the public interest litigation
with the backing of 6.5 lakh farmers.
In 2012, the Supreme
Court appointed a five-member Technical Experts Committee to report on GM
crops, but after the interim report, the Union Ministry of Agriculture got a
sixth member added (with known links to the GM lobby). Environmentalists lament
that the Ministry provided Monsanto access to premier public agri-research
institutions such as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and enabled
the biotechnology industry to impact agri-policy in India. Currently, Monsanto
decides which Bt cotton hybrids are planted and where, and owns over 90 per
cent of planted cotton seed, all Bt cotton. They warn that if a GMO is unsafe,
it is irreversibly unsafe and lingers in the environment forever.
The original five TEC
members signed the final report in 2013; the sixth dissented. The report
recommended a moratorium on open field trials of GM crops until: (i) definitive
studies are available on the long-term safety of Bt in food crops, and (ii) a
proper regulatory and safety mechanism is in place. It said that
herbicide-tolerant crops are unsuitable in the Indian context and would most
likely exert a highly adverse impact on sustainable agriculture, rural
livelihoods, and the environment. Finally, it said GM crops for which India is
a centre of origin, such as rice, brinjal and mustard, should not be allowed.
Yet, open field trials have been mooted.
The ‘Jairam Ramesh
report’ (February 2010) imposed an indefinite moratorium on Bt brinjal and
cancelled the approval to commercialise it. But, in July 2014, the Genetic
Engineering Appraisal Committee recommended field trials for 13 GM crops
including rice, brinjal, chickpea, mustard and cotton. In January 2015,
Maharashtra granted no-objection certificates for open field trials of GM rice,
chickpea, maize, brinjal and cotton, at the recommendation of a State-level
committee headed by Mr Anil Kakodkar, former chairman, Atomic Energy
Commission. The committee’s expertise in agriculture and biotechnology is
unknown. This was condemned by the coalition for a GM-free India, Swadeshi
Jagran Manch, and others.
A task force under
National Institution for Transforming India (Niti) Aayog vice chairman Mr
Arvind Panagariya, comprising Mr Ashok Gulati, former chairman, Commission for
Agricultural Costs and Prices; Mr CD Mayee, former chairman, Agricultural
Scientists Recruitment Board; Mr P Chengal Reddy, president of the Hyderabad-based
Federation of Farmers’ Associations; Mr Ajay Vir Jakhar, chairman, Bharat
Krishak Samaj; all staunch votaries of GM crops, is currently examining the
issue.
But with the Centre
receiving reports about the direction the WHO is taking, a note of caution has
crept in. Maharashtra has quietly halted field trials and asked the Kakodkar
committee to revisit the issue on grounds of impact on India’s agricultural export
trade, farmers’ livelihood. Union Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar
assured that sanction for commercialisation of GM crops would be given only
after studying the outcome of field trials and all available scientific
research.
