Press Release
Badal pushing poison to favour multinational and foreign interest: Activists
Citizens oppose state government’s favourable stand on GM Maize in Punjab
Chandigarh
June 18, 2010
Eminent citizens, Farmers’ Unions’ representatives and environmental activists from Punjab today questioned the reported government stand in favour of GM crops, reflected in the support sought for Bt Maize by the Chief Minister's delegation to Planning Commission a few days ago. They demanded that the CM explain on what basis/scientific evidence and through what process of decision-making did the government take this stand for the state of Punjab which is already reeling under a severe environmental health crisis and paying a heavy price for its short-sighted vision for farming in the state.
Umendra Dutt of Kheti Virasat Mission said that “GM Maize, as latest scientific studies show, results in adverse health effects including ones associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs; other effects were noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. He quoted the 2009 study by Spiroux et al to support his contention and highlighted that in another study by Dr. Zollac involving GM Maize, transgenic seeds responded differentially to the same environment as compared to their respective isogenic controls, as a result of the genome rearrangement derived from gene insertion, pointing to unintended changes”. Dutt also mentioned that in an official study done by the Austrian government, it was found that GM maize was linked to infertility and reproductive health effects.
He further stated that “The state government, especially the BJP constituents of the government, have to explain their role and stand in this decision of the government to seek support for GM crops. How do they explain this when many BJP-ruled states are clearly directing their state agriculture towards sustainable farming? If the BJP constituents in the government have not been consulted in this process, the CM has to explain how this decision was possible and how does this reflect the stand of the coalition government. It is surprising that even in states where Congress or UPA constituent parties are ruling, the governments, in consultation with farmers' organisations, scientists and civil society groups have taken a cautious stand against this controversial and unproven technology, while the Punjab government (in a state where agricultural technologies have left their adverse effects) is clearly going against common people.”
Questioning the intention of the Punjab CM, social activist Hemant Goswami said that it was apparent that the CM and his family were favoring the industry for reasons best known to them, and they are not at all bothered about the welfare of the people and the farmers in specific. “The Punjab Government is pushing poison down the throat of people of Punjab. I also challenge the partner in Punjab Government, BJP, to clarify its stand on genetically modified crops. We want to know what the Punjab BJP thinks on the issue since other BJP-ruled states are clearly taking a stand against GM technology and we have a coalition government with BJP here. The whole world knows about the harms of Genetically Modified crops, there are reams of scientific documents on this. Still, the Badals are trying to push foreign interest over farmers’ welfare. Punjab farmers are suffering high rates of cancer and other diseases due to unsustainable and unscientific perspectives of the Government. In such a scenario, when Punjab should be pushing for organic and bio-fertilisers, it is inviting an even-bigger disaster in the name of Bt and genetically modified (GM) crops. Punjab should even withdraw Bt Cotton but it appears that Punjab is still to learn from its past mistakes. Such a short-sighted approach will surely put the Punjab farmers and people on an irreversible suicidal path.” Hemant added.
Sukhdev Singh Kokrikalan, General Secretary, Bhartiya Kisan Union Ekta Ugrahan lamented this move and said, "Farmers have been looted and plundered by the MNCs in the name of modern technologies like hybrids and agri-chemicals; now, the Genetically Modified (GM) nexus is further trying to entrap us on the basis of many false claims. Bhartiya Kisan Union opposes the move vehemently".
Neeraj Atri of Bharat Swabhiman Trust mentioned that “Bt is promoted with the claim that it offers resistance against some pests. It does not reduce water consumption or offer better yield than our natural maize. In terms of environmental effects, Bt Maize is shown to simply swap one pest with another as a study from the USA shows. Further, some Bt Maize varieties have been shown to be susceptible to aphid infestation. GM Maize, including herbicide tolerant maize as with other GM crops, is shown to increase overall chemical use in farming and this is leading to resistant weeds in countries like the USA. This will pose more problems for Punjabi farmers than the solution it is purported to be.”
Balkar Singh Dakunda, President, Bhartiya Kisan Union Ekta Punjab said, “It is clear that the government is being run with a short-sighted vision with regard to agriculture and agricultural livelihoods in the state. The Bt in Cotton and Maize could in fact worsen the water situation in Punjab. Citing a few scientific studies Balkar Singh mentioned that leaves or grain from Bt maize have proved to be toxic to aquatic life if it enters streams, by way of dead leaves or grain. So instead of helping people, it can actually spoil the existing water sources too.”
Hemant Goswami further demanded that Manpreet Badal should explain his role in the siphoning off of about 80 crores in the name of experimenting with organic farming. Instead of seriously trying the option of organic farming, it has been reported that crores were spent on the farms of politicians and bureaucrats in the name of organic farming and the rest was siphoned off. “We should understand that the Punjab Government is deliberately making these schemes related to organic farming fail so that there is no option left other than purchasing patented seeds, insecticides and fertilisers from big MNCs. Corruption in the name of organic farming also has a long term effect of weakening the agriculture sector and provide a justification for helping the seed and chemical companies.” Hemant emphasised.
We ask the following questions to the Punjab Chief minister—
1. Is this decision his personal decision or a decision of the Cabinet?
2. Is this decision based on the recommendations of any broad-based body which has representation of scientists, medical experts, farmers’ unions, civil society representatives and consumer groups? If no-why not? If yes which one?
3. Has any committee of scientists given any report on which his decision is based? Such a decision has to be based on the recommendations of Experts including from the fields of Agriculture, Health, Veterinary science, Environment and Peoples Organisations like Peasants, Consumers and NGOs.
4. Has the government studied the whole controversy which is going on in the whole world regarding GM Crops, including trade security implications, the scientific debates etc.?
5. Is this issue (bringing in GM Food Crops) a state matter or a national matter?
6. Does Mr. Badal know that the final agenda of the corporations bringing GM seeds is for MNCs to take total control over Indian agriculture, throwing the peasantry out of the agriculture?
Eminent social activist Dr Gaurav Chhabra and Onkar Chand , R K Kaplash Chairman , Consumer Coordination Council also aired their views.
For Further Information, Please Contact:
Neeraj Atri
Tel: +91-9417111427
Umendra Dutt
Tel: +91-9872682161
Hemant Goswami
Tel: + 91-9779261733
For Alliance for GM Free and Safe Foods
Monday, June 21, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
NEW BIOTECH REGULATOR BILL IS ANTI-PEOPLE , WILL STIFLE ANTI-GM VOICES
NEW BIOTECH REGULATOR BILL IS ANTI-PEOPLE , WILL STIFLE ANTI-GM VOICES:
“INDIA NEEDS A NATIONAL BIOSAFETY PROTECTION AUTHORITY”
Chandigarh, February 16, 2010: Terming the proposed Biotech Regulator Bill (Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill) as a wrong bill by the wrong people for the wrong reasons, several groups across the country called for the setting up of a National Biosafety Protection Authority.
The Supreme Court observer in Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Dr Pushpa Bhargava objected to the fact that the proposed Authority is to be housed under the Department of Biotechnology/Ministry of Science & Technology and said that this in itself is objectionable conflict of interest. “The latest version of the Biotech Regulator Bill in India seems to have draconian clauses to stifle anti-GM voices in the country and is designed to be a Clearing House for GMO applications rather than to protect the health and environment in the country. Further, modern biotechnology is a vast field comprising of more than thirty distinct areas including immuno-technology, stem cell technologies, nano-biotechnology etc., whereas this proposed Biotech Regulator appears to look at just Genetic Engineering. To call it a regulator for modern biotechnology is misleading and only shows the ignorance of the people who drafted this Bill”, pointed out Dr Bhargava, Founder-Director of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology.
There was serious objection to the inclusion of a Section in the proposed Bill which says “whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about safety of GMOs and products thereof shall be punished” with imprisonment and fine! “This is meant to harass civil society groups and scientists who are voicing their concern on this technology and who is to decide on “misleading”, on what basis?”, asked Dr Bhargava. Rather than penalize those who intend to release GMOs without conclusive safety proven, clauses like this are being inserted to harass concerned voices, he said.
“This Biotech Regulator Bill is being pushed by the Department of Biotechnology, a department with the mandate to promote GM crops. It is trying to take advantage of the current debate in the country around Bt Brinjal (a first-of-its-kind Genetically Modified vegetable with a bacterial gene in it) and push its own agenda in the form of this Bill. The nation-wide debate that Bt Brinjal initiated had actually shown the dire need for a regulator who Indians can trust to protect their health and environment – we need a National Biosafety Protection Authority and not another ‘facilitator’ for the industry. The wide-ranging people’s voices all over the country now show that any attempt to allow backdoor entry of Bt Brinjal or other GMOs through BRAI or some such institution will be resisted. The proposed statute also tries to stifle the legitimate authority of state governments over Agriculture and vests decision-making in the hands of just a few technical people whereas the issue of GMOs in our food and farming systems has many facets beyond the purely technical”, said Kavitha Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat Mission.
The Government of India was reminded that the 2004 Task Force Report on Agricultural Biotechnology had highlighted the need for the following in any biotechnology regulatory policy: “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 biosecurity of the nation”. These important aspects or cornerstones do not find any place in the draft Bill sought to be introduced.
Umendra Dutt of Alliance for GM-Free & Safe Foods, Punjab, said that the proposed legislation, instead of expressly having clauses on information disclosure, that too before decision-making takes place for independent/public scrutiny, has brought in clauses on retaining Confidential Commercial Information. As past experience in India has shown with the Right to Information struggle to bring out the biosafety data on Bt Brinjal, this cannot be left to the discretion of the officials in the Authority and all product development and biosafety-related information has to be pro-actively disclosed and placed in the public domain before decision-making.
On Risk Assessment procedures as laid down in the proposed legislation, it’s pointed out that ‘risk assessment should consist not only of an independent, scientific, transparent evaluation of the biosafety dossier submitted by the crop/product developer including mandatory public scrutiny but also independent testing for further verification of results. Any proposed Authority should have the testing capabilities established for this. Dr Bhargava has already submitted a blueprint for the setting up of such a laboratory and the government should proceed to implement this as part of the National Biosafety Protection Authority’.
A set of issues with the current Bill is annexed and it is hoped that Members of Parliament will ensure that a National Biosafety Protection Authority is set up soon in this country to ensure the sustainable development interests of all Indians.
“INDIA NEEDS A NATIONAL BIOSAFETY PROTECTION AUTHORITY”
Chandigarh, February 16, 2010: Terming the proposed Biotech Regulator Bill (Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill) as a wrong bill by the wrong people for the wrong reasons, several groups across the country called for the setting up of a National Biosafety Protection Authority.
The Supreme Court observer in Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Dr Pushpa Bhargava objected to the fact that the proposed Authority is to be housed under the Department of Biotechnology/Ministry of Science & Technology and said that this in itself is objectionable conflict of interest. “The latest version of the Biotech Regulator Bill in India seems to have draconian clauses to stifle anti-GM voices in the country and is designed to be a Clearing House for GMO applications rather than to protect the health and environment in the country. Further, modern biotechnology is a vast field comprising of more than thirty distinct areas including immuno-technology, stem cell technologies, nano-biotechnology etc., whereas this proposed Biotech Regulator appears to look at just Genetic Engineering. To call it a regulator for modern biotechnology is misleading and only shows the ignorance of the people who drafted this Bill”, pointed out Dr Bhargava, Founder-Director of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology.
There was serious objection to the inclusion of a Section in the proposed Bill which says “whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about safety of GMOs and products thereof shall be punished” with imprisonment and fine! “This is meant to harass civil society groups and scientists who are voicing their concern on this technology and who is to decide on “misleading”, on what basis?”, asked Dr Bhargava. Rather than penalize those who intend to release GMOs without conclusive safety proven, clauses like this are being inserted to harass concerned voices, he said.
“This Biotech Regulator Bill is being pushed by the Department of Biotechnology, a department with the mandate to promote GM crops. It is trying to take advantage of the current debate in the country around Bt Brinjal (a first-of-its-kind Genetically Modified vegetable with a bacterial gene in it) and push its own agenda in the form of this Bill. The nation-wide debate that Bt Brinjal initiated had actually shown the dire need for a regulator who Indians can trust to protect their health and environment – we need a National Biosafety Protection Authority and not another ‘facilitator’ for the industry. The wide-ranging people’s voices all over the country now show that any attempt to allow backdoor entry of Bt Brinjal or other GMOs through BRAI or some such institution will be resisted. The proposed statute also tries to stifle the legitimate authority of state governments over Agriculture and vests decision-making in the hands of just a few technical people whereas the issue of GMOs in our food and farming systems has many facets beyond the purely technical”, said Kavitha Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat Mission.
The Government of India was reminded that the 2004 Task Force Report on Agricultural Biotechnology had highlighted the need for the following in any biotechnology regulatory policy: “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 biosecurity of the nation”. These important aspects or cornerstones do not find any place in the draft Bill sought to be introduced.
Umendra Dutt of Alliance for GM-Free & Safe Foods, Punjab, said that the proposed legislation, instead of expressly having clauses on information disclosure, that too before decision-making takes place for independent/public scrutiny, has brought in clauses on retaining Confidential Commercial Information. As past experience in India has shown with the Right to Information struggle to bring out the biosafety data on Bt Brinjal, this cannot be left to the discretion of the officials in the Authority and all product development and biosafety-related information has to be pro-actively disclosed and placed in the public domain before decision-making.
On Risk Assessment procedures as laid down in the proposed legislation, it’s pointed out that ‘risk assessment should consist not only of an independent, scientific, transparent evaluation of the biosafety dossier submitted by the crop/product developer including mandatory public scrutiny but also independent testing for further verification of results. Any proposed Authority should have the testing capabilities established for this. Dr Bhargava has already submitted a blueprint for the setting up of such a laboratory and the government should proceed to implement this as part of the National Biosafety Protection Authority’.
A set of issues with the current Bill is annexed and it is hoped that Members of Parliament will ensure that a National Biosafety Protection Authority is set up soon in this country to ensure the sustainable development interests of all Indians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)