While US forced to import organic foods on consumer preference, India is pushing for GM crops

While Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar is known to be aggressively pushing for more State Governments granting permission to hold field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops, the United States is being forced by growing consumer demand to import more of organic foods.

According to trade data compiled by the US Organic Trade Association and the Pennsylvania State University, the rising demand for organic foods has pushed the import bill for corn and soybean, the two most important GM crops being cultivated in America. Although corn and soybean go primarily into cattle and poultry feed, consumers are increasingly wanting milk and food products to be free of GM ingredients.

While import of soybean from India has more than doubled to $ 73.8 million in 2014, import of organic corn into US from Romania has risen from $545,000 in 2013 to more than $ 11.6 million in 2014, just in a gap of one year.

Most imports of organic corn and soybean into US is from Romania, Turkey, Netherlands, Canada, Argentina and India.

In India, 4 State Governments – Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Punjab – have allowed field trials of GM crops. Pressure is mounting on other State Governments to fall in line. The biotech industry led by the Association of Biotec Led Enterprises (ABLE) has reportedly written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to expedite the regulatory process for clearing the field trials.

Sales of foods free of synthetic chemicals and GM ingredients in the US have reached $ 35.9 billion in 2014, Bloomberg reports. It shows an annual increase of 11 per cent, which is indicative of the rising preference for organically produced foods. Led by the White House where the First lady Michelle Obama grows only organic food in the sprawling gardens and is also known to serve organic food to guests, the consumer preference for safe and healthy foods in the US is growing rapidly.

Since most of the GM crops have led to the doubling in the application of chemical herbicides like Glysophate – whose use has increased to over 283.5 million pounds in 2012 – and has also led to the emergence of superweeds in some 60 million acres of crop land, there are questions being asked on the need to promote GM crops which exacerbate environmental damages. More so with WHO classifying Glysophate as a probable carcinogen, public opinion as seen in grocery sales data is indicates a gradual shifting to safe foods grown without the use of chemicals and GM.

While the export of soymeal from India to US has shown an increase, India’s soymeal exports for feed purposes are down to a 26-year low with Iran and Japan shifting to cheaper supplies from China, Brazil and Argentina.  This is worrying considering that India had dominated the soymeal market all these years.

It was primarily because of the resistance from the Soybean Processor Association of India (SOPA) that former Agriculture Minister Ajit Singh during his tenure had opposed research trials of GM Soybean. The industry had claimed that importers preference for Indian Soymeal would be lost once contamination from GM crops becomes obvious.

This is also true for exports of commodities like rice, including basmati, for which GM crops are being readied. Allowing GM rice field trials, even if its cultivation was excluded from the biodiversity rich hotspots including in Orissa where it is believed to have originated, would not be able to curtail contamination. One the genie is out, it is out. Considering that rice and corn shipments detected with GM ingredients have been sent back by some countries in the recent past, India’s rice exports too could face a formidable challenge. India is at present the biggest exporter of rice. 

At a time when no GM crop is known to increase crop productivity, utmost caution has to be adopted before the country is opened up for field trails. India cannot allow its agricultural commodity exports to suffer. Research can easily be conducted under contained conditions, and it is open secret that the push for field trials (in large areas) is primarily for seed production interests. #

While US forced to import organic foods on consumer preference, India is pushing for GM crops

ABPLive.in May 8, 2015. http://goo.gl/tygCKF

 

India's BRAI Bill will allow GM companies to tamper with food, health and environment

In March, US President Barack Obama signed the HR 933 continuing resolution -- popularly called ‘Monsanto Protection Act’—that effectively divests the federal courts of their constitutional power to stop the planting or sale of genetically modified (GM) seeds and crops regardless of the health and environmental consequences. In other words, whether you like it or not, despite the havoc it plays with your life and environment, you have no choice but to quietly accept GM foods.

On April 22, amidst the din and noise over the 2G Spectrum and Coal-Gate scams, the government introduced in parliament the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill 2013. No sooner the bill was introduced the Association for Biotechnology Led Enterprises (ABLE) expressed jubilation thereby making obvious the incestuous relationship industry has with the government. Setting aside all concerns expressed by the 2004 Task Force on Agricultural Biotechnology led by Dr M S Swaminathan, which stated:  “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”, the bill is an hurried attempt to remove all possible obstacles in the promotion of the risky and controversial technology.

In lot many ways, I find the BRAI bill 2013 to be a precursor to the ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ in the US. While the US government has removed all regulatory hurdles in the promotion of GM crops, the BRAI bill too makes the task much easier and quick by providing a single-window, fast-track clearance for GM crops. While in the garb of ‘confidential commercial information’, the BRAI bill imposes restriction on the application of Right to Information Act, it also has certain clauses that limit the jurisdiction of the courts over the decisions taken. The BRAI bill therefore provides a strong and legally-tight protective shield to the biotechnology companies and the conspiring government officials.

The need to curb transparency and accountability arises only when something dangerous has to be kept hidden from the public glare. It first begins by the pro-industry scientists, occupying senior government and university positions, to create scare by misrepresenting facts in the name of a ‘science-based’ debate.  I have seen luminaries, many of whom are part of the science advisory panel to prime minister, leading this brigade. It happens elsewhere too. Writing in The Guardian, George Monbiot points to the particular instance when the chief veterinary officer of UK had ‘discounted fears that BSE could jump from one species to another’. The failure to acknowledge the scientific fact and take remedial measures led to the emergence of mad cow disease.

In India, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) has been aggressively pushing for the spread of GM crops in the name of food security. When the Ministry of Environment & Forests questioned the veracity of scientific claims, and imposed in 2010 a moratorium on the genetically engineered food crop – Bt Brinjal, the GM industry was pushed on the back foot. Adding to its woes was the 2012 report of the Standing Parliamentary Committee, which in its exhaustive report found biotechnology regulation to be too small a focus on the vast canvas of biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health and therefore recommended an all-encompassing Biosafety Authority.

Subsequently, after seven states – West Bengal, Bihar, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgrah, Karnataka and Kerala – refused to go in for open field trails of GM crops, the only option left was to bulldoze public resistance through a legally binding mechanism. The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) then swung into action, and knowing that the Ministry of Environment & Forests is no longer a natural ally, moved the introduction of the bill to the Department of Science & Technology, which incidentally is a promoter of the technology. The conflict of interest therefore is clearly visible. But a defiant PMO continues to look the other side.

At the same time, citing ‘public interest’, the BRAI bill has taken away the role the states have over agriculture and health. The states can no longer refuse permission. They are left with only an advisory role. What makes the BRAI bill a perfect subject for a serious, healthy and widespread national debate, besides of course looking into the role being played by PMO in promoting corporate welfare, is that it concerns as well as impacts everyone in the country. Whether you want to know or not, the bill provides biotechnology companies with unlimited powers to tamper with your food, health and environment. I therefore leave you to decide whether you would like the government and the GM companies to exercise complete control over what you eat. #

Source: Tehelka, May 11, 2013. Issue 19 Volume 10

http://tehelka.com/who-decides-what-we-eat/