Showing posts with label agriculture; GM crops. Show all posts
Showing posts with label agriculture; GM crops. Show all posts

An Experiment in Scientific Truth: GM wheat yields 48-56 % less in field experiments

As a student of agriculture, I had worked on a research project on genotype x phenotype interaction in some of the traditional cultivars of wheat found in the hilly State of Himachal Pradesh in northwest India, leading to my master's degree. My research project, supported by a GTZ sponsored fellowship, entailed conducting field trials on 30-odd wheat cultivars that I had painstakingly collected from different regions, for two consecutive years. I wish I had the time and the inclination to continue with the same research project for my doctorate thesis.

It was quite a laborious job. The similarly designed experiments were laid out at three different locations (from three different ecological zones) and altitude in Himachal Pradesh. The frequent travels especially to the higher reaches of Himachal Pradesh (where roads would open for not more than 6-8 months in a year) made it quite a difficult task to monitor the experiments, but at the same time posed a challenge.

Why I am telling you this is to highlight the importance of genotype x environment interactions, which receive less attention nowadays. In my opinion, the absence of multi-locational field trials under diverse environments, is what is leading to the failure of crop varieties, including transgenes, in several parts of the globe. In India, multi-location trials especially in case of genetically modified crops are being used primarily to build on seed supply. There is not enough scientific literature on genotype x environment interactions. "Breeding trials to select lines for further investigation do not need full replication randomization, yet for an assessment of the ecological behaviour of such lines, replicated and randomized ecological experiments would be required. (see the study below)"

It is after long that I have come across an excellent scientific paper that needs proper understanding and more scientific investigation. It has thrown up so many questions, and good science is all about enquiry, that the GM industry may find it difficult to fathom. And knowing its muscle-power, I am sure the GM industry will throttle the scientific community into silence. It knows how to bribe and manipulate the regulatory system (and US FDA as well as India's GEAC are classic examples) into submission, and therefore good science will remain buried.

I draw your attention to a research experiment being reported from Switzerland for transgene x environment interactions in genetically modified wheat. The team of researchers, led by Simon L Zeller from the Institute of Evolutionary Ecology and Environment Studies at the University of Zurich, had used the transgene wheat variety Bobwhite SH 98 26 transformed with a powdery mildew resistance gene Pm3b. They grew four offspring pairs, each consisting of a GM line and its corresponding non-GM line, under different soil nutrient conditions and also treated for fungicide treatments in the glasshouse as well as in the field.

What is interesting is to see the performance of the transgene in the glasshouse conditions and in the fields. It differed quite significantly. This is what the researchers found: Without fungicide treatment, in the glasshouse GM lines had increased vegetative biomass and seed number and a twofold yield compared with control lines. In the field these results were reversed. Fertilization generally increased GM/control differences in the glasshouse but not in the field. Two of four GM lines showed up to 56% yield reduction and a 40-fold increase of infection with ergot disease Claviceps purpurea compared with their control lines in the field experiment; one GM line was very similar to its control.

Interestingly, when you dwell deep, you find that in the glasshouse experiments, the researchers found that while the control lines benefited from the fungicide treatment, the GM lines reacted negatively. The next line is more significant. It says: The yield of GM lines dropped lower than the yield of the sprayed controlled lines. According to researchers, it means that the cost of resistance might be high if the pathogen is absent. I think we need more explanation for this interaction.

Unintended effects of single gene transfers, says the researchers, are always smaller in experiments using naturally occurring genetic variation and wild plants. I agree. "Even when we included crop plants, we could not find any publications where single genes reduced quantitative fitness traits in a plant as strongly as in the present case, yet only in the field and not in the glasshouse."

"Commercial glyphosate-resistant soybean cultivars were found to suffer from a 5 per cent yield depression that might be caused by the transgene or its insertion process; One study tested wheat varieties with introduced resistant genes against leaf and stripe rust and reported a 12 per cent reduction in yield, which was considered to be a very large effect. Compared with these, the yield reductions of 48 to 56 per cent in our two GM lines of wheat expressing the Pm3b gene are much larger."

The researchers also found that differences between GM plants and non-GM plants increased with nutrient levels (read fertiliser application, in the glasshouse). I am so glad that the researchers were honest in admitting that they have no explanation for this result, and have suggested more such tests across a range of environments.

Let me draw out some other salient points from this study:

1. GM plants had significantly fewer seeds and lower seed yield than control plants.

2. In the field, GM plants showed increased infestation by ergot fungus compared with control plants. In the glasshouse, soils were free of ergot fungus.

3. Like in the glasshouse, mildew infection increased with fertiliser application in the field.

4. In the field, yield of GM lines significantly differed when compared with the corresponding control lines.

5. High fungicide dose increased the extent of the stress reaction of GM plants.  In the field too, environment stress reduced the fitness of the GM plants. In other words, GM plants were increasingly prone to biotic and abiotic stress.

6. GM plants differ in morphological, fitness and pathogen-related traits from their control plants.

7. The four GM lines, although with identical transgenes in homozygous condition, significantly differed among themselves. Although the researchers have given several explanations to address this mystery, including the disruption of the native genes by the insertion of the transgene, but have refrained from pointing to any definite reason.

8. There is still a question whether the over expression of the transgene led to an overabundance of its protein product and the subsequent phenotypic effects or of other mechanisms would be involved.

9. Plant morphology changed when the GM plants were exposed to field conditions, with significant differences in the flowering time, and the level of ergot infection.

10. The study concludes by saying that the lines that perform particularly well in a specific environment may perform poorly in other environments.

You can view the scientific paper at:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011405

The scientific community definitely needs to have a fresh look at GM crops in view of the disruptions that ecological and environmental factors can cause to its genetic makeup resulting in serious distortions in performance. This has grave implications for farmers, consumers and the environment. Scientists cannot be pardoned for deliberately ignoring genotype x environment interactions.

ICAR is the shadow warrior for GM companies

From the 'Letters' page of the popular weekly Outlook (May 31, 2010)

Helping Hands

"You did not highlight the role agricultural scientists and economists play in lobbying. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) is the shadow warrior for big agribusiness and biotechnology companies. The moratorium on Bt brinjal has already disheartened the scientific community; it is now pitching for an independent scientific review to bring it back into the market. For years, these scientists have promoted chemical pesticides and fertilisers; now they are promoting GM crops. While farmers are dying, the stocks of agribusiness companies are going up. And while close to 200,000 farmers have committed suicide since 1997, ICAR and the universities have not held even one major national conference/seminar on the issue. Every third day, however, you find them holding conferences and workshops on GM crops, biosafety and the glorious future these biotech seeds and foods hold for our farmers."

Devinder Sharma, on email  

Michelle Obama Can Lead a Global Movement for Organic Food

By Devinder Sharma
Huffington Post

When Michelle Obama laid out an organic garden in the White House, and that was in March 2009, I must admit I was very excited. I thought the U.S. first lady, drawing from what Mahatma Gandhi had once said, was trying to be the change that she wanted the United States to be. "I want to make sure that our family, as well as the staff and all people who come to the White House and eat our food, get access to really fresh vegetables and fruits," she was quoted in a news agency report.

My excitement was, however, short-lived. Unmindful of the initiative the First Lady had taken to provide safe food, President Barack Obama appointed Michael Taylor, a lawyer by training and a former Vice-President of Monsanto, to oversee food safety. Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Michael Taylor, but considering his background -- he is known to be the person behind the unwanted introduction of bovine growth hormone in dairy milk -- I wasn't expecting the U.S. President to be so taken in by the industry propaganda.

Knowing that the U.S. population is bulging at the extreme, and aware of the epidemic of obesity and diabetes that sweeps the world's lone superpower, I am sure you will agree that it desperately needs a healing touch, a semblance of which was provided by Michelle Obama. Never before was the need so great as it is today. An environmentally devastating food production system, sustained artificially by the power of massive farm subsidies, has not only played havoc with human health and pushed farmers out of agriculture, but also exacerbated global temperatures. Instead of rectifying the folly, the multi-billion dollar food industry is using all legal routes to strengthen its control over the global food supply chain.

After passing The Food Safety Enhancement Act (HR 2749) in July last year, the Senate is deliberating on The Food Safety Modernization Act (S 510), which many believe will allow the multinationals to tighten control over food supply and even outlaw organic food production. What makes it draconian is the provision that does not allow its decisions open to any form of judicial review. Already, consumer groups, farmer organizations and health activists are questioning the need for such a draconian law that takes away the democratic and fundamental rights of the people.

Far away in India, a similar Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill is likely to be introduced in Parliament, which when enacted will take away the right of the people to question what is being served in the name of GM foods. Anyone who critiques the veracity of claims that the biotech industry makes can be imprisoned and fined. Strange isn't it that in the world's two biggest democracies, the food industry should manage to gag freedom of speech and expression? How can the democratically-elected governments -- in the U.S. and in India -- facilitate an undemocratic control over food supply, and that too in the name of food safety?

We are what we eat. It is because what we eat is highly unsafe and unhealthy that the health industry has grown out of proportion. The growth of the pharmaceutical industry is directly linked to the contaminated food that laces the markets. The pharmaceutical industry in turn backs on an emerging health insurance industry. No wonder, the insurance industry is now investing heavily in food stocks, knowing well that its growth is directly proportionate to the junk foods that we are forced to consume.
Food is, in fact, fast-emerging as a killer. And as my doctor told me the other day: "We have learned the art of keeping a sick population alive for long." How true?

Read the full article at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/devinder-sharma/michelle-obama-can-lead-a_b_568741.html

जीएम उत्पादों पर जोर-जबरदस्ती

This article of mine appeared in Dainik Jagran, Mar 17, 2010

आपातकाल का भूत फिर से जाग गया है। वास्तव में, अब हालात आपातकाल से भी बदतर होने जा रहे हैं। कुख्यात इमरजेंसी काल में सत्ता से सवाल करने वाले किसी भी व्यक्ति को सलाखों के पीछे कर दिया जाता था। अगर विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग की चले तो आपको अपने आनुवांशिकीय संवर्धित भोजन की सुरक्षा पर सवाल उठाने पर गिरफ्तार किया जा सकता है। जिस प्रकार आदिवासी बाहुल्य इलाकों में नक्सलवादियों के खिलाफ भारी पुलिस अभियान 'आपरेशन ग्रीनहंट' चलाया जा रहा है, उसी प्रकार सरकार सुरक्षित खाद्य पदार्थ की मांग उठाने वालों को चुप करने के लिए एक और पुलिस अभियान चलाने की तैयार कर रही है। प्रस्तावित बायोटेक्नोलाजी रेगुलेटरी अथारिटी बिल पारित होने के बाद सरकार अपने ही नागरिकों के खिलाफ एक और युद्ध छेड़ने वाली है। इन लोगों का अपराध यह पूछना है कि जिस भोजन को खाने के लिए उन्हें बाध्य किया जा रहा है, वह स्वास्थ्य के लिए सुरक्षित है भी या नहीं।

प्रस्तावित बिल में बहुराष्ट्रीय कंपनियों और बड़े औद्योगिक घरानों को सूचना छिपाने, अनुसंधान के नतीजों में छेड़छाड़ करने और भोले-भाले नागरिकों को नुकसानदायक उत्पाद पेश करने से रोकने का कोई प्रावधान नहीं है। न ही किसी हादसे के लिए कंपनी को जिम्मेदार ठहराया जा सकता है। स्पष्ट है कि यह बिल बड़ी कृषि-उद्योग कंपनियों के हित में और उनका मुनाफा बढ़ाने के उद्देश्य से लाया गया है। संभवत: बजट सत्र में पेश होने वाले बीआरएआई बिल के कुछ अंश प्रत्येक नागरिक को संविधान द्वारा दी गई बोलने की स्वतंत्रता पर एक अभूतपूर्व छींका लगाते हैं। सेक्सन 63 के चैप्टर 13 में लिखा है, 'जो व्यक्ति बिना साक्ष्यों या वैज्ञानिक रेकार्ड के जनता को उत्पादों की सुरक्षा के बारे में गुमराह करेगा उसे कम से कम छह माह और अधिक से अधिक एक साल की कैद या दो लाख रुपए तक के अर्थदंड या फिर दोनों सजाएं सुनाई जा सकती हैं।'

इमरजेंसी के दौरान राजनीतिक मतभिन्नता के कारण लोगों को महज जेल ही जाना पड़ा था, किंतु अगर बीआरएआई बिल कानून बन गया तो जेल जाने के साथ-साथ अर्थदंड भी चुकाना पड़ेगा। यहां तक कि आलोचनात्मक लेख के लेखक को भी जेल में डाला जा सकता है। जो प्रयोगों का विरोध करेगा या फिर इसमें बाधा उत्पन्न करेगा, उसे भी जेल की हवा खानी पड़ सकती है। प्रयोगों का स्वास्थ्य और पर्यावरण पर पड़ने वाले दुष्परिणाम जानने के लोगों के अधिकार को भी कुंठित कर दिया गया है। विधेयक के आर्टिकल 27 के अनुसार जीएम उत्पादों के शोध, अनुमोदन और विज्ञान के विषय में जानकारी हासिल करना भी सूचना के अधिकार के दायरे से बाहर किया जा रहा है। नेशनल कैंपेन फार पीपल्स राइट टु इंफोर्मेशन के अनुसार सेक्सन 2 (एच) 'गोपनीय व्यावसायिक सूचना' की परिभाषा को इस रूप में सीमित और निषिद्ध करती है कि अथारिटी के पास उत्पादों के शोध, परिवहन या आयात संबंधी किसी भी दस्तावेज को जनता को उपलब्ध नहीं कराया जाएगा। यही नहीं, इसका सेक्शन 81 सूचना के अधिकार 2005 के प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन करता है। प्रस्तावित विधेयक के अनुसार, 'इस एक्ट के प्रावधान किसी भी रूप में प्रचलित कानून से किसी भी प्रकार प्रभावित होते हैं तो इन्हें ही प्रभावी व बाध्यकारी माना जाएगा।'

भोजन जैसी साधारण चीज के संबंध में भी आलोचना के स्वर दबाने का सीधा सा मतलब है की स्वास्थ्य के लिए नुकसानदायक जीएम खाद्य पदार्र्थो को जनता के हलक के नीचे उतारने का सरकार ने इरादा बना लिया है। जीएम फसलें पर्यावरण और पारिस्थिकी पर गंभीर नकारात्मक प्रभाव डालने के लिए जानी जाती हैं। इसकी स्वीकार्यता के लिए मजबूर करने से जैवविविधता संरक्षण कम हो जाएगा। यह स्वामीनाथन टास्क फोर्स रिपोर्ट की अनुशंसाओं के खिलाफ है, जो कहती है- किसी भी जैवविविध नियामक नीति को हर हाल में पर्यावरण और कृषि के किफायती व पारिस्थितिकी टिकाऊ तंत्र की सुरक्षा करनी चाहिए। बेशक, विधेयक का मसौदा यह भी कहता है कि बीआरएआई अपनी खुद का पुनर्विचार संबंधी ट्रिब्यूनल गठित करेगा, जो बायो प्रौद्योगिकी संबंधी किसी भी मामले की सुनवाई करेगा। किसी भी विवाद की स्थिति में याचिकाकर्ता केवल सुप्रीम कोर्ट में ही अपील कर सकेगा। दूसरे शब्दों में, विवादों का निपटारा केवल सुप्रीम कोर्ट में करने के प्रावधान के कारण प्रस्तावित विधेयक आम आदमी की कानूनी सहायता तक पहुंच दूभर कर देता है। हर कोई आसानी से सुप्रीम कोर्ट तक पहुंचने के साधन व पैसा नहीं जुटा सकता। किसी भी नियामक तंत्र को विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी के संबंध में लोगों की जबान पर ताला लगाने के बजाए इनमें जनता का विश्वास पैदा करना चाहिए। पहले ही भारत में जीएम फसलों के पर्यावरण पर प्रभाव के संबंध में अनुमति देने वाली जेनेटिक इंजीनियरिंग अप्रूवल कमिटी (जीईएसी) बायोटेक्नोलाजी उद्योग की पिट्ठू बनने के कारण अपनी भद पिटवा चुकी है।

यह भी समझ से परे है कि विवादास्पद जीएम फसलों के लिए एकल खिड़की त्वरित अनुमति व्यवस्था की क्या जरूरत है। यहां तक कि अमेरिका में जीएम फसलों को अनुमति प्रदान करने के लिए त्रीस्तरीय व्यवस्था काम कर रही है। फिर भी, अमेरिकी नियामक प्रक्रिया पर समय-समय पर सवाल उठाए जाते रहे हैं और इसे दोषपूर्ण बताया जाता रहा है। सबसे पहले तो जीईएसी को बीटी बैगन को अनुमति प्रदान करने के घपले के लिए जिम्मेदार ठहराया जाना चाहिए और इसके अधिकारियों को दंडित किया जाना चाहिए।

[देविंदर शर्मा: लेखक कृषि एवं खाद्य मामलों के विशेषज्ञ हैं]http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/news/opinion/general/6_3_6260690.html