It is being projected as the Big Mummy of All Welfare Schemes. I am talking of the draft Food Security Bill that the Ministry of Food and Consumer Affairs is trying to bring out. The bill guarantees 35 kg of foodgrains to every person belonging to the priority household and 15 kg to general households every month at a subsidised price. Dressed up as if is ambitious in size and detail, the fact remains it is as good as any dressed chicken that you get in a restaurant -- only the taste is finger licking, the content is no different and the quality may be worse.
According to The Economic Times priority household, the main beneficiaries of the bill, will be selected from the poorest 46 per cent in rural areas and 26 per cent in urban areas. Another 29 per cent and 22 per cent from rural to urban areas, respectively will be treated as general category. Well, before you get lost in the complex mire of figures, let me tell you what it entails. It says nothing new that was not existing in the earlier public distribution system that prevailed except that under the proposed Food Security bill the actual number of beneficiaries have been reduced and also the quantum of grain to be provided has also been curtailed.
Earlier, more than 900 million people officially had access to the PDS now it will be close to 75 per cent of the population. Also, every above poverty line (APL) family was earlier getting 25 kg of grains which has now been reduced to 15 kg for the 'general' category. The bill also calls for improved 'modern and scientific storage' and doorstep delivery of grain to targeted PDS outlets, which for those of you who have followed the way the government works, means nothing in reality.
I have earlier analysed the food crisis and the way we are addressing the monumental problem and therefore will not go into it again. Do look at my one of my latest postings How to Feed the Hungry http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-to-feed-hungry.html and other blogposts under the labels Hunger. What I want to draw your attention is to the recommendation that I had feared most. I have a number of times warned that the primary objective of this entire redrafting exercise is to create a new set up for a favoured few who occupy the position of National Food Security Commissioner at the national level, and also provides an opening of 28 State Food Security Commissioners at the State level.
So here we are. The draft Food Bill according to the newspaper report (http://bit.ly/l13Ekr) proposes: "the draft bill is that it pushes for the creation of an advisory body called the National Food Security Commission to help the central government implement the landmark welfare scheme. The commission will advise the central government on "synergising existing schemes and framing news ones for entitlements". It will also recommend steps for effective implementation of schemes through greater government oversight by dramatically overhauling the nation's food distribution system, says the draft.
Under the food commission's watch, guidelines will be issued for the training, capacity building and performance management of people involved in the implementation of welfare schemes, says the draft. The commission will also prepare annual reports on implementation of the Act.
The commission will be headquartered in Delhi and comprise a chairperson, a vice-chairperson and five other members, provided that there at least two women and at least one person each from the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The centre will pay the salaries of the commission's bosses, support staff and administrative expenses, says the draft."
Every crisis is an opportunity. Hunger too has come in handy for some members of the National Advisory Council to find a cushy job. It also provides for a Secretariat at the national and also at the State levels -- all to be paid for from taxpayers money. I am sure the Right To Food movement must now be feeling elated. After all, the State Advisers to the Supreme Court appointed Commissioner on Hunger can now look forward to a highly paid bureaucratic job. I am told the original demand has to been to extend the status and perks of a Supreme Court judge to the National Food Security Commissioner. Similarly, the State Food Security Commissioners would be accorded the rank of a High Court judge.
What I fail to understand is how do we expect the proposed National Food Security Commission to make a difference when the Supreme Court appointed Commissioners failed to make any tangible difference to the plight of the poor and hungry, and that too despite the Supreme Court monitoring it periodically?
Each State has a Food Secretary and a full-fledged department that caters to food supply and has a mandate to ensure that no one goes to bed hungry. How will the creation of another set of bureaucracy help in better monitoring of the existing schemes? In any case, the State Food Security Commission will have to get the delivery done through the same system that it considers ineffective and unworthy of the great humanitarian task.
The National Food Security Commission would comprise a chairperson, vice-chairperson and five other members. It must include at least two women and at least one person each from the scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. A similar structure would be created at the state level. If only the crores to be spent on the new bureaucratic set up to monitor the effectiveness of the provisions of the proposed national Food Security Act is to be spent instead on feeding the hungry, I am sure hundreds of thousands more can be fed every year.
Didn't someone say that every disaster provides an opportunity?
A farmer in the supermart
Devinder Sharma on how FDI in retail could break the backbone of Indian agriculture
A CRUCIAL development in organised retail took place in Scotland recently. Low supermarket prices in the country led to an exodus of dairy farmers from the value chain. It also led to irate farmers forming a coalition, Fair Deal Food, to seek better price for their farm produce. It is ironical that at this time, India’s Minister for Food and Consumer Affairs, KV Thomas, thought of asking for incentives for the organised retail sector in an effort to make direct purchases from farmers.
Thomas made this suggestion recently in a letter to the Prime Minister. Although he did not mention the contentious term “FDI in retail”, his proposal seems to be clearly aimed at opening up the domestic farm sector to the organised big retail.
Ever since British Prime Minister David Cameron pitched for the further opening up the retail sector in India during his visit in July 2010, New Delhi has been bending backwards to justify the need to allow big retail. It all began with a discussion paper floated by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, which said, “The agriculture sector needs well-functioning markets to drive growth, employment and economic prosperity in rural areas.” Soon, a number of economists and researchers began joining the chorus on the role the supermarkets can play in promoting Indian growth.
The International Food Policy Research Institute says: “So far, in India, while Wal-Mart has succeeded in opening one cash-and-carry outlet since its alliance with Bharati Telecom, Tesco has entered into a franchise agreement with Tata Trent, and Carrefour is still scouting for a suitable partner. In the meantime, farmers are robbed in the mandis while consumers pay through their nose to retail vendors.” This is a flawed argument. Past experience shows that big food retail has neither benefited the farmer nor the consumer. Nor has big retail helped create jobs.
Related Claims by the big supermarkets to be driving economic growth by creating thousands of jobs have been exposed as a sham. In the UK, it has now been shown that supermarket chains, like Tesco and Sainsbury, have failed to live up to the promise of creating thousands of jobs and thereby driving up the economy. In the past two years, Tesco had promised to create 11,000 jobs and Sainsbury another 13,000. Newspaper reports say that instead of creating 24,000 jobs in two years, the big retail actually laid off 874 already employed. Tesco had created only 726 jobs, while Sainsbury laid off 1,600 of its existing employees, leaving 874 people unemployed.
If not creating any additional employment, do supermarkets help remove poverty? Based on biased studies by consultancy firms and some institutes, the government believes that supermarkets will create employment and therefore help in ameliorating poverty. This too is a flawed assumption. Lessons need to be drawn from a 2004 study done by Stephen J Goetz and Hema Swaminathan of Pennsylvania State University. This eye-opening study, titled Wal-Mart and Poverty, clearly brings out that those American states that had more Wal-Mart stores in 1987 had higher poverty rates by 1999 than the states where fewer stores were set up. “Equally important, the counties which built new Wal-Mart stores during the period 1987 to 1998 also had high poverty rates,” the report concludes.
Does big retail help farmers realise a better price? I have already talked about the experience of dairy and pig farmers in the UK, but the picture is no different elsewhere. In fact, ever since big retail – dominated by multi-brand retailers like Wal-Mart, Tesco and Carrefour – has entered the market, farmers have disappeared, and poverty has increased. Today, not more than 7 lakh farmers live on the farm in America. In fact, the number of farmers has come down to such a low level that the US has stopped counting its farmers since its last census in 2000.
In Europe, despite the dominance of big retail, every minute a farmer quits agriculture. According to a report, farmer’s income in France has come down by 39 per cent in 2009, having already slumped by 20 per cent in 2008. Farmer’s income in Europe is being sustained by huge subsidies in the form of direct income support otherwise agriculture would have collapsed by now. It is therefore futile to expect the supermarkets to rescue farmers in India.
The argument is that the supermarket chains will squeeze out the middlemen thereby providing higher prices to farmers and at the same time provide large investments for the development of post-harvest and cold chain infrastructure. All these claims are untrue, and big retail has not helped farmers anywhere in the world. Even in Latin American countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Colombia, where supermarkets, most of them owned by multinational giants, now control 65 to 95 per cent of supermarket sales, farmers have been forced to quit agriculture.
If the supermarkets were so efficient and provided dynamism, why is the US providing massive subsidy for agriculture. After all, the world’s biggest retail giant Wal-Mart is based in the US and it should have helped American farmers to become economically viable. But, it has not happened. American farmers have instead been bailed out by the government, providing a subsidy of `12.50 lakh crore between 1995 and 2009, and this includes direct income support as well.
The situation is no better in Europe. A 2010 report by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development states explicitly that farm subsidies rose by 22 per cent in 2009, up from 21 per cent in 2008. In just 2009, industrialised countries provided a subsidy of `1,260 billion. And, it is primarily for this reason that the farm incomes are lucrative. Take the Netherlands; the average farm family income is 275 per cent of average household income. This is because of the farm subsidies, and not because of supermarkets.
Big fish is known to eat the smaller ones. Supermarkets exactly perform that function. They replace the plethora of small middlemen. The arthiya clad in a dhoti kurta is replaced by a smartly dressed middleman. An illusion is, therefore, created that the supermarkets have removed the middleman from trading. But, in reality, the big boys now share the commission between them. The new battery of middlemen, who replace the traditional middlemen, are the quality controller, certification agencies, packaging industry, processors, wholesalers, etc.
The drop in the farmers’ income that I talked about earlier is, therefore, shared by the new battery of middlemen, who come under the same retail hub. So, while the farmer is pauperised, the profit of supermarkets multiply. In India too, the supermarkets are coming with the same intention.
Source: Financial World and Tehelka.com
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Fw250511AfarmerSupermart.asp
Hunger for more or more for hunger?
Incessant grabbing of productive farmland for more industry is a recipe for disaster
RURAL INDIA is on the boil. What we have seen in Greater Noida, Aligarh, Agra, Allahabad and Mathura in UP or Mansa in Punjab or Jaitapur in Maharashtra or Mangalore in Karnataka are mere representations of what’s happening far away from the glare of the national media. Pitched battles are being fought across the country by the poor who fear further marginalisation when their land is grabbed by the government on behalf of the industry. Even a state like Madhya Pradesh, which otherwise seems relatively calm and untouched by the turmoil, has seen violent protests against forcible takeover of land. In five years, the clashes have multiplied from 67 in 2005 to 252 in 2009.
The builder-industrialist-politician nexus, often held responsible for landrelated agitations, finds a new player now. Ever since economists began telling us that land is an economic asset, which unfortunately, is in the hands of the inefficient, there has been a scramble by industry, driven by real estate, to procure as much as possible. Surprisingly, it is the World Bank that is backing this strategy. The World Development Report 2008 calls for land rentals and setting up training centres to train displaced farmers in industrial work.
State governments are facilitating the process of takeover. Whether it is for Special Economic Zones (SEZ) or IT parks or nuclear reactors or airports or even for bio-fuel plantations, the battle for land has become fierce. So powerful are these economic interests that many chief ministers have also been found suspect. Thanks to economists, the argument that industry is important for economic growth is coming in handy to usurp land, water and other natural resources.
Over the years, agriculture has been deliberately turned into a losing proposition. As a result, farmers in most places are keen to move out, provided they get a better price for their land. This is a global phenomenon. It is primarily for this reason that even in a highly subsidised Europe, where farmers receive direct income support, one farmer every minute is forced to quit farming. Agriculture is increasingly coming under big agribusinesses. The same trend is being adopted in India, which alone has one-fourth of the world’s farmers.
While good productive farmland is being diverted for non-agricultural purposes, there is no mention of the resulting disaster awaiting the nation as far as food security is concerned. As per rough estimates, 6.6 million hectares would be taken out of farming in UP, which would mean a production loss of 14 million tonnes of foodgrains. In other words, UP will be faced with a terrible food crisis in the years to come, the seeds for which are being sown now. The question no one is asking is who will feed UP?
What is not being realised is that crisis in that state alone will make all estimates of the proposed National Food Security Act go topsy-turvy. An economic superpower cannot be built on hungry stomachs. The need, therefore, is to immediately ban the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. This has to be followed with a comprehensive development planning Act that is people-friendly and replaces the draconian Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Devinder Sharma is food policy analyst.
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Op210511Hunger.asp
RURAL INDIA is on the boil. What we have seen in Greater Noida, Aligarh, Agra, Allahabad and Mathura in UP or Mansa in Punjab or Jaitapur in Maharashtra or Mangalore in Karnataka are mere representations of what’s happening far away from the glare of the national media. Pitched battles are being fought across the country by the poor who fear further marginalisation when their land is grabbed by the government on behalf of the industry. Even a state like Madhya Pradesh, which otherwise seems relatively calm and untouched by the turmoil, has seen violent protests against forcible takeover of land. In five years, the clashes have multiplied from 67 in 2005 to 252 in 2009.
The builder-industrialist-politician nexus, often held responsible for landrelated agitations, finds a new player now. Ever since economists began telling us that land is an economic asset, which unfortunately, is in the hands of the inefficient, there has been a scramble by industry, driven by real estate, to procure as much as possible. Surprisingly, it is the World Bank that is backing this strategy. The World Development Report 2008 calls for land rentals and setting up training centres to train displaced farmers in industrial work.
State governments are facilitating the process of takeover. Whether it is for Special Economic Zones (SEZ) or IT parks or nuclear reactors or airports or even for bio-fuel plantations, the battle for land has become fierce. So powerful are these economic interests that many chief ministers have also been found suspect. Thanks to economists, the argument that industry is important for economic growth is coming in handy to usurp land, water and other natural resources.
Over the years, agriculture has been deliberately turned into a losing proposition. As a result, farmers in most places are keen to move out, provided they get a better price for their land. This is a global phenomenon. It is primarily for this reason that even in a highly subsidised Europe, where farmers receive direct income support, one farmer every minute is forced to quit farming. Agriculture is increasingly coming under big agribusinesses. The same trend is being adopted in India, which alone has one-fourth of the world’s farmers.
While good productive farmland is being diverted for non-agricultural purposes, there is no mention of the resulting disaster awaiting the nation as far as food security is concerned. As per rough estimates, 6.6 million hectares would be taken out of farming in UP, which would mean a production loss of 14 million tonnes of foodgrains. In other words, UP will be faced with a terrible food crisis in the years to come, the seeds for which are being sown now. The question no one is asking is who will feed UP?
What is not being realised is that crisis in that state alone will make all estimates of the proposed National Food Security Act go topsy-turvy. An economic superpower cannot be built on hungry stomachs. The need, therefore, is to immediately ban the conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. This has to be followed with a comprehensive development planning Act that is people-friendly and replaces the draconian Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Devinder Sharma is food policy analyst.
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main49.asp?filename=Op210511Hunger.asp
Monsoon blues
In 2009 when India was faced with one of its worst droughts, the monsoon forecast was for an 'almost normal' rainfall season.
You must have heard of the meteorological department’s monsoon forecast. It promises to be a near normal monsoon season from June-September with rains expected to be 98 per cent of the long period average with a 5 per cent variation. Sounds good.
But if you are a farmer, keep your fingers crossed. Instead of depending on the first monsoon forecast that was given out in April, I suggest you keep on praying before rain gods to be kind to you. Pray with folded hands that the rains do not deceive you once again as it did two years back in 2009. You haven’t yet recovered from the economic distress that the 2009 drought had inflicted, and if the monsoon fails again you will be in dire straits.
The near-normal forecast certainly brought respite to the policymakers struggling to check rising food inflation. To industrialists it brought hope of a positive business and market sentiments meaning more consumer goods can be sold in rural areas. But let me warn you. You need not be too hopeful. Don’t read too much into the first official monsoon forecast of the year.
The day the forecast came I was in a TV studio. The anchor asked me as to what I read of a 98 per cent normal monsoon prediction. My answer to him was that I am disappointed. If this is all that the meteorological department is capable of predicting then I would rather trust my grandmother. Her predictions, not as sharp in quantitative terms as that of the meteorology department, but have rarely gone wrong. She has never let me down. I would stand by her. So should you.
First, the meteorological department itself has conceded that the accuracy of its prediction is only 53 per cent correct, which means it has 50:50 probability of going wrong. This is where I said that my grandmother’s traditional instincts are much trustworthy. Secondly, the department says that it can’t tell us exactly as to how much rainfall would come in each of the three months of the monsoon season — July, August and September. That is what you need it most.
The meteorological department will therefore be able to tell in June as to how much rainfall you can expect the next month in July; in July they will tell us about the intensity expected in August; and in August they can make a prediction about September. Now, don’t get me wrong but if you were to yourself stand on your rooftop in June, the chances are that you too can predict with quite a broad assessment about the coming rains in the next few weeks.
Uncertainty
For the farmers, the monsoon forecast makes little sense. It is the timeliness and the geographical spread that is more important. If the rains come on time in June and then disappear for the next few months, and then again there is a heavy downpour in August, the average performance would be near normal. But in the process the entire freshly sown crop would have withered away necessitating either re-sowing or for many abandoning the kharif crop altogether.
This year also indications are that the rainfall will be deficient in north-western parts of the country as well as the northeast. But in the absence of any definite assessment it is difficult to know how spatially it would be distributed and for how long. There have been times earlier when the country as a whole gets normal or above normal rains, some parts/regions go dry. It has happened a few years in Rajasthan, and there have been cases when rains have bypassed the central region of the country altogether. Last year, Bihar and Jharkhand were faced with drought while the rest of the country received bountiful rains.
Although the meteorological department has been promising to provide block-level forecasts, I wonder how it can when it even fails to make a correct macro prediction for the country as a whole. Don’t forget, in 2009 when the country was faced with one of its worst droughts, the monsoon forecast was for an ‘almost normal’ rainfall season with 96 per cent overall rainfall expected. It is however another matter that the country received a deficit of 22 per cent in rains causing a severe drought across the country. Moreover, despite all the technological sophistication it may surprise you to know that the department has never been able to predict a drought or impending floods.
When asked as to give the exact date of monsoon hitting the Kerala coast in India, minister for science and technology Pawan Bansal said that based on the averages of the past, he was expecting rains to arrive on June 1 in Kerala and June 29 over Delhi. He wasn’t sure but he was banking his assessment on the past averages. Well, I am sure you would agree that our grandmother too knows when the rains would normally appear. She too banks upon the past averages. That is why I am asking you to keep your fingers crossed, and pray.
Source: Deccan Herald, May 10, 2011
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/160159/monsoon-forecast.html
So far you were worried about DDT traces in blood; Now you have Bt insecticides in human blood
Environmentalists have been telling us about the presence of DDT residues in human milk. We also know that DDT has been found in the blood of Penguins, which tells us how rampant and widespread the use and abuse of the deadly chemical was (and still is despite the worldwide ban with some exceptions). It is because of the renewed interest and concern over the excessive use of persistent organic pollutants that the Stockholm Convention, which has representatives from 127 Governments who met in Geneva last week at the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties, agreed to add endosulfan to the list of POPs to be eliminated worldwide.
According to the Stockholm Convention website: "The action puts the widely-used pesticide on course for elimination from the global market by 2012. The Parties agreed to list endosulfan in Annex A to the Convention, with specific exemptions. When the amendment to the Annex A enters into force in one year, endosulfan will become the 22nd POP to be listed under the Convention."
All this seems to be on the expected lines. Decades after these were pressed into use, the negative impact of chemical pesticides have now become known. International effort is to phase out these deadly chemicals. But while we phase out the harmful chemicals, newer and more potent chemicals are being pushed into the market. Stockholm Convention will therefore continue to have a lot of work on hand and for many years ahead.
Wikipedia defines POPs as organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes.[1] I am not sure whether biological toxins -- like Bt -- would also fall in the same broader definition or probably we will have to carve out a new category for them, but the world is now beginning to wake up to the threat Bt toxins pose to human health and environment. I am not talking of the ongoing debate over the harmful health impacts of Bt toxins in GM foods (or other transgenes used for developing GM crops), but a recent Canadian study that points to the widespread presence of Bt-related insecticide in the blood of 93 per cent pregnant women and 80 per cent of fetuses.
As Glenn Davis Stone, Professor of Anthropology and Environmental Studies at the University of Washington in St Louis, asks: "What does this mean for health impacts? Nobody knows. There are some signs that high levels of glyphosate and gluphosinate disrupt fetal development, but the levels in the women in this study were low. I know of no evidence that Bt proteins in the blood are harmful, and Bt is quite safe for humans in most contexts. (And as one of our graduate students just suggested, we should look on the bright side — the babies should be protected from caterpillar bites.) But there’s no contesting the authors’ conclusion: “Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed.” A lot more.
As long as we don't know what the Bt insecticide proteins are doing in our body we can surely remain in stage of ignorant bliss. But I am sure this is reason enough for us to sit up and feel concerned. I am sure you don't want your body to sooner or later turn into an insecticide factory.
Prof Glenn Davis Stone has analysed this issue in his excellent blog post. [For those who would like to view his blog Fieldquestions, here is the link: http://fieldquestions.com/]
Blood type: Bt
By Glenn Davis Stone
A new study by toxicologists and obstetricians looks in the bloodstreams of a sample of Canadians for pesticides associated with genetically modified foods (new acronym alert: PAGMF). They studied pregnant women, their fetuses (actually umbilical cord blood after delivery), and also a group of non-pregnant women. GM-associated insecticide was widespread in the blood samples; GM-associated herbicide was present but rare.
Some background: the overwhelming majority of GM crops grown in the world today are either herbicide tolerant (HT) or insect resistant (IR). Herbicide tolerance is from a gene for immunity to glyphosate (Roundup) or gluphosinate (Liberty) weedkiller, allowing the farmer to spray weeds without harming the crop. Insect resistance is via a gene from the soil microbe Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which produces an insecticide — hence the name “Bt crops.” Canada mainly grows a lot of HT canola, but it grows other GM crops too including some Bt maize (details here).
Bt insecticidal proteins were found in the blood of 93% of the pregnant women and 80% of the fetuses. The current thinking is they get into humans via meat from animals fed Bt crops — these proteins have been found in the guts of pigs and calves.
Evidence of weedkiller in the blood was much more scant. None of the samples from pregnant women or fetuses were contaminated; 5% of nonpregnant women had glyphosate and 18% had gluphosinate.
What does this mean for health impacts? Nobody knows. There are some signs that high levels of glyphosate and gluphosinate disrupt fetal development, but the levels in the women in this study were low. I know of no evidence that Bt proteins in the blood are harmful, and Bt is quite safe for humans in most contexts. (And as one of our graduate students just suggested, we should look on the bright side — the babies should be protected from caterpillar bites.) But there’s no contesting the authors’ conclusion: “Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed.” A lot more.
Should this affect what we eat? Or what we think about GM crops? Ah, as with so many things, it all depends on the counterfactual — i.e., what you compare it to. You can buy organic produce that is free of weedkiller, and organic or most grassfed beef will be Bt-free. You pay more for these foods, but then again they offer benefits beyond the avoidance of pesticides.
On the other hand, while low levels of Roundup in adult blood and the common occurrence of Bt in fetal blood may give us pause, try wrapping your mind around some of the findings on other pesticides. Start with this article by Rauh et al. that just came out in Environmental Health Perspectives. They have been studying the effects of exposure to chlorpyrifos in the womb.
Years ago Rauh et al. started looking at umbilical cord blood for chlorpyrifos in several hundred births. They found some problems right off the bat — for example, the babies whose mothers had chlorpyrifos in their systems were smaller. They checked the kids at 3 years, and found the chlorpyrifos kids had cognitive and behavioral problems. Now the kids are 7 and this new study shows the exposed kids to have slightly lower IQ’s and poorer memories.
The spread HT crops into Canada and several other countries has not reduced weedkiller use — actually it has led to increases especially in the use of Roundup, but also to less use of other more toxic sprays. The spread of Bt crops has reduced the use of chlorpyrifos and many other toxic insecticides, but we now know it means most babies (in Quebec anyway) are born with Bt in their blood. What that means for our health and our babies, we really don’t know, but it’s hard to resist the conclusion that it’s better than organophosphates in the blood, and worse than neither.
According to the Stockholm Convention website: "The action puts the widely-used pesticide on course for elimination from the global market by 2012. The Parties agreed to list endosulfan in Annex A to the Convention, with specific exemptions. When the amendment to the Annex A enters into force in one year, endosulfan will become the 22nd POP to be listed under the Convention."
All this seems to be on the expected lines. Decades after these were pressed into use, the negative impact of chemical pesticides have now become known. International effort is to phase out these deadly chemicals. But while we phase out the harmful chemicals, newer and more potent chemicals are being pushed into the market. Stockholm Convention will therefore continue to have a lot of work on hand and for many years ahead.
Wikipedia defines POPs as organic compounds that are resistant to environmental degradation through chemical, biological, and photolytic processes.[1] I am not sure whether biological toxins -- like Bt -- would also fall in the same broader definition or probably we will have to carve out a new category for them, but the world is now beginning to wake up to the threat Bt toxins pose to human health and environment. I am not talking of the ongoing debate over the harmful health impacts of Bt toxins in GM foods (or other transgenes used for developing GM crops), but a recent Canadian study that points to the widespread presence of Bt-related insecticide in the blood of 93 per cent pregnant women and 80 per cent of fetuses.
As Glenn Davis Stone, Professor of Anthropology and Environmental Studies at the University of Washington in St Louis, asks: "What does this mean for health impacts? Nobody knows. There are some signs that high levels of glyphosate and gluphosinate disrupt fetal development, but the levels in the women in this study were low. I know of no evidence that Bt proteins in the blood are harmful, and Bt is quite safe for humans in most contexts. (And as one of our graduate students just suggested, we should look on the bright side — the babies should be protected from caterpillar bites.) But there’s no contesting the authors’ conclusion: “Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed.” A lot more.
As long as we don't know what the Bt insecticide proteins are doing in our body we can surely remain in stage of ignorant bliss. But I am sure this is reason enough for us to sit up and feel concerned. I am sure you don't want your body to sooner or later turn into an insecticide factory.
Prof Glenn Davis Stone has analysed this issue in his excellent blog post. [For those who would like to view his blog Fieldquestions, here is the link: http://fieldquestions.com/]
Blood type: Bt
By Glenn Davis Stone
A new study by toxicologists and obstetricians looks in the bloodstreams of a sample of Canadians for pesticides associated with genetically modified foods (new acronym alert: PAGMF). They studied pregnant women, their fetuses (actually umbilical cord blood after delivery), and also a group of non-pregnant women. GM-associated insecticide was widespread in the blood samples; GM-associated herbicide was present but rare.
Some background: the overwhelming majority of GM crops grown in the world today are either herbicide tolerant (HT) or insect resistant (IR). Herbicide tolerance is from a gene for immunity to glyphosate (Roundup) or gluphosinate (Liberty) weedkiller, allowing the farmer to spray weeds without harming the crop. Insect resistance is via a gene from the soil microbe Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which produces an insecticide — hence the name “Bt crops.” Canada mainly grows a lot of HT canola, but it grows other GM crops too including some Bt maize (details here).
Bt insecticidal proteins were found in the blood of 93% of the pregnant women and 80% of the fetuses. The current thinking is they get into humans via meat from animals fed Bt crops — these proteins have been found in the guts of pigs and calves.
Evidence of weedkiller in the blood was much more scant. None of the samples from pregnant women or fetuses were contaminated; 5% of nonpregnant women had glyphosate and 18% had gluphosinate.
What does this mean for health impacts? Nobody knows. There are some signs that high levels of glyphosate and gluphosinate disrupt fetal development, but the levels in the women in this study were low. I know of no evidence that Bt proteins in the blood are harmful, and Bt is quite safe for humans in most contexts. (And as one of our graduate students just suggested, we should look on the bright side — the babies should be protected from caterpillar bites.) But there’s no contesting the authors’ conclusion: “Given the potential toxicity of these environmental pollutants and the fragility of the fetus, more studies are needed.” A lot more.
Should this affect what we eat? Or what we think about GM crops? Ah, as with so many things, it all depends on the counterfactual — i.e., what you compare it to. You can buy organic produce that is free of weedkiller, and organic or most grassfed beef will be Bt-free. You pay more for these foods, but then again they offer benefits beyond the avoidance of pesticides.
On the other hand, while low levels of Roundup in adult blood and the common occurrence of Bt in fetal blood may give us pause, try wrapping your mind around some of the findings on other pesticides. Start with this article by Rauh et al. that just came out in Environmental Health Perspectives. They have been studying the effects of exposure to chlorpyrifos in the womb.
Years ago Rauh et al. started looking at umbilical cord blood for chlorpyrifos in several hundred births. They found some problems right off the bat — for example, the babies whose mothers had chlorpyrifos in their systems were smaller. They checked the kids at 3 years, and found the chlorpyrifos kids had cognitive and behavioral problems. Now the kids are 7 and this new study shows the exposed kids to have slightly lower IQ’s and poorer memories.
The spread HT crops into Canada and several other countries has not reduced weedkiller use — actually it has led to increases especially in the use of Roundup, but also to less use of other more toxic sprays. The spread of Bt crops has reduced the use of chlorpyrifos and many other toxic insecticides, but we now know it means most babies (in Quebec anyway) are born with Bt in their blood. What that means for our health and our babies, we really don’t know, but it’s hard to resist the conclusion that it’s better than organophosphates in the blood, and worse than neither.
GM Rubber interview Part II: "Learn from Global Experience"
The bitter experience with genetically modified crops the world over is a wake-up call for the rest to move away from the potential havoc GM technology could wreak across the plantation sector. Dr Devinder Sharma, a renowned food policy analyst, environmental campaigner, writer and columnist, says GM experiments should not be allowed to be taken out of the lab. In the second and concluding part of the interview, he urges researchers to change their mindset and quit promoting the commercial interests of fertiliser and pesticide companies. The first part appeared in the Feb/March issue
Learn from Global Experiences
In India, the introduction of genetically-modified rubber is caught in the crossfire of science and politics. While the government of the rubber-growing state of Kerala is opposed to GM, the federal government has given its official body, the Rubber Board the clearance to conduct field trials. Although the federally-funded Board has received the permission, it is yet to conduct field trials. Parliament has been officially informed that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Ministry of Environment has allowed it to take up field trials in 0.5 hectares each in the research farms of Rubber Research Institute of India (RRII) in Kerala and Maharashtra. However, it has not conducted any field trials so far.
It shows that the pressure on the government by environmental activists against GM rubber is working. But they are watching how long the government would put on hold field trials. One of the persons on the forefront opposing the introduction of GM rubber is Dr Devinder Sharma, who himself is a trained scientist. Explaining the flaws in GM research, he told Polymers & Tyre Asia about the falsehoods propagated by interested parties.
He recalled that ‘pharming’ was trumpeted in the initial stages, but researchers themselves had realised its futility and dangers. Several pharma crops had been developed but all of them got entangled in controversy. For example, GM banana with a gene for hepatitis-B was attempted to be pushed in India by none other than John Hopkins University, but it was eventually turned down, Dr Sharma explained.
“Even at that time I had questioned the need for GM banana,” he pointed out. At that time the proponents were trying to market the product, which had still not been approved for biosafety in the US. “They were exploiting public emotions whereas in reality they were treating India as a giant field testing laboratory,” Dr Sharma charged.
“I am of the opinion that any GM pharma rubber possibilities should remain confined to the laboratories and should not be allowed to be taken out of the lab,” he cautioned. “The possibility of a pharma gene escaping (knowing the danger it poses by contaminating our food and feed supplies) into the environment, is very likely, and India cannot afford to add onto its human health and environmental problems. The precautionary principle must be adhered to.”
Wrong notions
Rubber researchers have been saying that the GM experiment is not intended to create transgenic tree as it has incorporated the target gene (MnSOD) from rubber itself and not from any other species. But Dr Sharma fiercely says that such statements are untrue. "MnSOD gene is certainly from the rubber plant itself. But it uses virus gene as a promoter and bacteria gene as a marker,” he explained.
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV 35S) gene is being used as a promoter and npt II Kanamycin resistance and GUS reporter genes from bacteria (E. coli) as markers.
“We need to know that both CaMV 35S and npt II genes are the same genes that have been used in several field crops as well as edible crops. Notwithstanding the denial by the Rubber Board, there is enough scientific evidence that shows that these genes can cause adverse effects on both human beings and animals,” Dr Sharma asserted.
In any case, the use of the virus and bacteria gene constructs for inserting the MnSOD gene into the rubber plants makes the plant transgenic. “It, therefore, has to follow the biosafety norms that are prescribed for any GM plant,” he demanded. Commenting on a point of view that Gene cDNA or MnSOD can trigger human hazards, he explained that scientists have observed low expression of MnSOD enzyme in different cancer tissues.
Studies conducted by the Department of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health has conclusively shown that the MnSOD gene, which works as an antioxidant in human cells to defend against diseases, does modify breast cancer risk among women.
Later, another study in 2008 observed that men with MnSOD gene variant (MnSOD gene is passed from parents to children in three forms) in their body and who also had long-term lycopene (it is not an essential nutrient, but is commonly found in diets rich in tomato) status had more possibility of prostate cancer.
Output increase
Then what is the alternative strategy that India should adopt to increase rubber output in view of the current deficit of 55,000 tonnes of natural rubber? To increase the rubber output, there should be a change in the mindset of RRII scientists, Dr Sharma has argued. “They have so far backed and promoted the commercial interests of fertiliser and pesticide companies. This is true of agricultural scientists elsewhere too,” he explained.
Considering the rising concerns from global warming, soil destruction and stagnating yields, it is time that RRII scientists go in for a complete overhaul of the package of practices that they promote.
Dr Sharma cited two sensible approaches that can bring a turnaround to the rubber plantation sector. He gave an example of a rubber farmer in Kerala. Chandrasekharan Nair, a small rubber farmer near Thiruvanthapuram in Kerala, has abandoned the cultivation practices that the Rubber Board would come up with, and since 2005 had gone into organic cultivation of rubber. "Today he follows the rubber cultivation practices that RRII scientists would not endorse,” Dr Sharma said.
“But the fact is that Chandrasekharan has a higher productivity than the average yield attained in Kerala,” he said. He suggested that doubters should log on to the rubber farmer’s website http://keralafarmeronline.com to learn about his practices.
Another example that Dr Sharma gave was that of Dr Laxmi Thankamma, who had retired as a mycologist from the RRII.
“It is quite obvious that the RRII may not like to acknowledge her achievements. But with the help of an NGO – Integrated Rural Technology Centre – she has demonstrated that the latex productivity can be enhanced by an average of 75%, with the productive lifespan of the trees also doubling thereby bringing more revenue in the hands of the tappers.”
Her technology, based on simple grafting techniques, has been tried in eight districts in Kerala with excellent results. Significantly, no tree goes into tapping panel dryness (TPD) when farmers follow the approach she advocates.
Dr Sharma vows that if the incidence of TP is brought down drastically, and with the available height of the tree for drawing latex also doubling, there is no need to experiment with risky and hazardous technologies like GM rubber. But he is wondering whether the scientific community is willing to listen to saner voices. He is also asking whether the rubber industry is prepared to look beyond its immediate profits.
These are the questions that need to be answered objectively before considering whether India should go for GM rubber, Dr Sharma said.
Learn from Global Experiences
In India, the introduction of genetically-modified rubber is caught in the crossfire of science and politics. While the government of the rubber-growing state of Kerala is opposed to GM, the federal government has given its official body, the Rubber Board the clearance to conduct field trials. Although the federally-funded Board has received the permission, it is yet to conduct field trials. Parliament has been officially informed that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee of the Ministry of Environment has allowed it to take up field trials in 0.5 hectares each in the research farms of Rubber Research Institute of India (RRII) in Kerala and Maharashtra. However, it has not conducted any field trials so far.
It shows that the pressure on the government by environmental activists against GM rubber is working. But they are watching how long the government would put on hold field trials. One of the persons on the forefront opposing the introduction of GM rubber is Dr Devinder Sharma, who himself is a trained scientist. Explaining the flaws in GM research, he told Polymers & Tyre Asia about the falsehoods propagated by interested parties.
He recalled that ‘pharming’ was trumpeted in the initial stages, but researchers themselves had realised its futility and dangers. Several pharma crops had been developed but all of them got entangled in controversy. For example, GM banana with a gene for hepatitis-B was attempted to be pushed in India by none other than John Hopkins University, but it was eventually turned down, Dr Sharma explained.
“Even at that time I had questioned the need for GM banana,” he pointed out. At that time the proponents were trying to market the product, which had still not been approved for biosafety in the US. “They were exploiting public emotions whereas in reality they were treating India as a giant field testing laboratory,” Dr Sharma charged.
“I am of the opinion that any GM pharma rubber possibilities should remain confined to the laboratories and should not be allowed to be taken out of the lab,” he cautioned. “The possibility of a pharma gene escaping (knowing the danger it poses by contaminating our food and feed supplies) into the environment, is very likely, and India cannot afford to add onto its human health and environmental problems. The precautionary principle must be adhered to.”
Wrong notions
Rubber researchers have been saying that the GM experiment is not intended to create transgenic tree as it has incorporated the target gene (MnSOD) from rubber itself and not from any other species. But Dr Sharma fiercely says that such statements are untrue. "MnSOD gene is certainly from the rubber plant itself. But it uses virus gene as a promoter and bacteria gene as a marker,” he explained.
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV 35S) gene is being used as a promoter and npt II Kanamycin resistance and GUS reporter genes from bacteria (E. coli) as markers.
“We need to know that both CaMV 35S and npt II genes are the same genes that have been used in several field crops as well as edible crops. Notwithstanding the denial by the Rubber Board, there is enough scientific evidence that shows that these genes can cause adverse effects on both human beings and animals,” Dr Sharma asserted.
In any case, the use of the virus and bacteria gene constructs for inserting the MnSOD gene into the rubber plants makes the plant transgenic. “It, therefore, has to follow the biosafety norms that are prescribed for any GM plant,” he demanded. Commenting on a point of view that Gene cDNA or MnSOD can trigger human hazards, he explained that scientists have observed low expression of MnSOD enzyme in different cancer tissues.
Studies conducted by the Department of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology of the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health has conclusively shown that the MnSOD gene, which works as an antioxidant in human cells to defend against diseases, does modify breast cancer risk among women.
Later, another study in 2008 observed that men with MnSOD gene variant (MnSOD gene is passed from parents to children in three forms) in their body and who also had long-term lycopene (it is not an essential nutrient, but is commonly found in diets rich in tomato) status had more possibility of prostate cancer.
Output increase
Then what is the alternative strategy that India should adopt to increase rubber output in view of the current deficit of 55,000 tonnes of natural rubber? To increase the rubber output, there should be a change in the mindset of RRII scientists, Dr Sharma has argued. “They have so far backed and promoted the commercial interests of fertiliser and pesticide companies. This is true of agricultural scientists elsewhere too,” he explained.
Considering the rising concerns from global warming, soil destruction and stagnating yields, it is time that RRII scientists go in for a complete overhaul of the package of practices that they promote.
Dr Sharma cited two sensible approaches that can bring a turnaround to the rubber plantation sector. He gave an example of a rubber farmer in Kerala. Chandrasekharan Nair, a small rubber farmer near Thiruvanthapuram in Kerala, has abandoned the cultivation practices that the Rubber Board would come up with, and since 2005 had gone into organic cultivation of rubber. "Today he follows the rubber cultivation practices that RRII scientists would not endorse,” Dr Sharma said.
“But the fact is that Chandrasekharan has a higher productivity than the average yield attained in Kerala,” he said. He suggested that doubters should log on to the rubber farmer’s website http://keralafarmeronline.com to learn about his practices.
Another example that Dr Sharma gave was that of Dr Laxmi Thankamma, who had retired as a mycologist from the RRII.
“It is quite obvious that the RRII may not like to acknowledge her achievements. But with the help of an NGO – Integrated Rural Technology Centre – she has demonstrated that the latex productivity can be enhanced by an average of 75%, with the productive lifespan of the trees also doubling thereby bringing more revenue in the hands of the tappers.”
Her technology, based on simple grafting techniques, has been tried in eight districts in Kerala with excellent results. Significantly, no tree goes into tapping panel dryness (TPD) when farmers follow the approach she advocates.
Dr Sharma vows that if the incidence of TP is brought down drastically, and with the available height of the tree for drawing latex also doubling, there is no need to experiment with risky and hazardous technologies like GM rubber. But he is wondering whether the scientific community is willing to listen to saner voices. He is also asking whether the rubber industry is prepared to look beyond its immediate profits.
These are the questions that need to be answered objectively before considering whether India should go for GM rubber, Dr Sharma said.
Hazards of GM crops: An Interview with Polymers & Tyre Asia -- Part I
Trained as an agricultural scientist, Devinder Sharma is an internationally recognised food policy analyst, environmentalist, writer and columnist. He has delivered nearly 100 keynote addresses at international conventions, congresses, summits and seminars in past two decades. The Week magazine profiled him as one of the 25 most valuable Indians. In this first part of the interview, he says the scientific community is simply turning a blind eye to the hazards of genetically modified rubber plants and acting more on behalf of the GM industry to the detriment of farmers.
HAZARDS OF GM CROPS
There is rising opposition to the introduction of genetically modified (GM) rubber trees, which researchers claim would help increase output and allow it to withstand adverse weather conditions.
On the campus of the government-run Rubber Research Institute of India (RRII), GM rubber trees are experimentally being grown, which some plantation owners have welcomed as a precursor to enhancing the rubber economy of Kerala, the southern region where it is generally grown.
But Davinder Sharma, renowned food policy analyst and environmentalist told Polymers & Tyre Asia (Feb-March 2011) that the prospects of GM rubber are dangerous to the environment and the rubber economy.
“Over the past few years, the introduction of GM crops has been shrouded in controversy,” he said in an interview. “In India, the moratorium on Bt brinjal in early 2010 – which if approved for commercialisation would have been the first GM food crop – has created wide awareness about the hazards of GM crops for humans, animals and the environment.”
He said the second-generation environmental impact of the First Green Revolution has led to a terrible agrarian crisis with more than 250,000 farmers committing suicide in the past 15 years. Technology failure is the reason behind mounting indebtedness that drives farmers to end their lives.
GM crops are simply an extension of the same technology approach that has led to the farm crisis in the first place.” This should be kept in mind in any debate on GM rubber, he cautioned.
Rubber is primarily a crop of Kerala and the northeast regions of the country. “Kerala, therefore, has been on the forefront of the opposition to GM crops,” he said primarily because the local government wants to retain the pristine environment in ‘God’s Own Country’ as the state is being promoted among tourists.
Moreover, the Task Force on Application of Biotechnology in Agriculture chaired by well-known agriculture scientist Prof MS Swaminathan has recommended that mega biodiversity hot-spots like the Western Ghats be preserved as a GM-Free Zone.
Kerala has also been demanding a GM-Free status, and the state government’s opposition to GM rubber research trials is therefore expected.
He said: “The tragedy is that with agricultural universities often making false and biased claims, and the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) acting as rubber stamp for the biotech industry, people’s trust and confidence on GM claims has been eroded.”
Available alternatives
Kerala government believes that there are simple and environmentally-sound alternatives available to enhance rubber productivity, and the scientific community is simply turning a blind eye and is acting more on behalf of the GM industry.
RRII has been saying that its BT rubber plant has better drought- resistance and increased environmental stress tolerance. When asked why these good attributes are being opposed, Dr Sharma said these are wild claims.
First of all, let us be very clear that drought- tolerance, salt- resistance, and plants that can bear biotic and abiotic stresses are some of the wild claims that have been made for several years now. Even the claims that GM crops increase productivity have fallen flat. There is no GM crop in the world that actually increases crop yield.”
In fact, according to the US Department of Agriculture, the productivity of GM corn and GM soybean is less than that of its normal variants. GM rubber, therefore, cannot be an exception. These claims are simply made to hoodwink the regulators and justify the need to continue with the GM crop research trials for which there is abundant money available.
Incidentally, rubber is a crop of the tropics and therefore requires continuous rainfall. It is in fact cultivated in those areas that have high rainfall. Drought is a climatic condition created by several factors, and the most important way to address it is through soil and agronomy management, including the application of manganese micro-nutrient that rubber soils are deficient in and conservation of agro-ecological systems.
Moreover, the resulting Tapping Panel Dryness (TPD) is a physiological disorder that is the outcome of wrong tapping methods, over-exploitation and is not linked to stress alone. “What we need is to develop and promote sustainable tapping systems, which fortunately many farmers are following with a great success,” Dr Sharma said.
Unfortunately, it is the unsustainable tapping methods that RRII promotes that have led to the problem. The institute continues to follow the highly damaging and unsustainable tapping technology that was developed way back in 1890-91. “These technologies are still in practice because it brings benefits for the fungicide and pesticides manufacturers, and also help in the marketing of harmful stimulants,” Dr Sharma emphasised.
There are numerous safer options that are available. But unfortunately, agricultural scientists across the globe seem less interested in looking at economically viable and environmentally sustainable alternatives.
When asked to comment about the assurance that BT rubber would be used for commercial cultivation only after final approval, which might take as much as ten years or more, Dr Sharma recalled the policies regarding granting of permission to the Korean steel giant Posco to set up its manufacturing plant in the northern Indian state of Orissa.
Allowing BT rubber based on the assurance of scientists is like permitting Posco set up its steel plant in Jagatsinghpurm with 60 conditionalities. Inquiry committees set up by the Ministry of Environment & Forests have shown that even prior to the launch of the project, Posco is alleged to have concealed, fabricated facts and committed gross irregularities.
Food bowl
“Why I talked about Posco is because the approval for field trails for GM crops too comes with similar monitoring and evaluation conditions. In the past, there have been numerous instances when GM field trials were held without informing the farmers about the dangers and thereby seeking pre-informed consent,” Dr Sharma noted.
Several GM rice trials for instance had been uprooted and burnt by farmers’ organisations in different parts of the country primarily because the companies had not divulged what was being cultivated nor any precautions undertaken. “GM rubber research trials will not be any exception,” he said.
At a meeting called by the Kerala Chief Minister some weeks back, RRII scientists were asked about the possible biosafety, health and environmental concerns. They were also quizzed about the possible impact of the virus and bacteria gene that goes into the construct. The answer: had been: Nothing to worry. It is safe.
When asked about gene flow by honeybees, for instance, the researchers replied that there was a provision for a 50 mts buffer. And when asked whether this was sufficient, they said that they also knew that bees could travel up to 3 kms, but all “precautions” would be taken.
Further, I am appalled by the manner in which approval for field trials is granted. In case of other GM field crops under research, the approval for field studies normally extends to 100,000 acres in multi-location trials, which for all practical purposes is a de facto approval for seed multiplication. It is as good as any approval for commercialisation.”
He reminded that there is no mechanism by which adequate protection measures can be assured in such large-scale trials. In case of GM rubber, field trials are being sought in an area of 0.4 hectares each in Kerala and Maharashtra. The peculiar nature of homestead farming, and gene flow would pose an environmental- threat. GM- Free status of Western Ghats would surely be compromised.
Other reasons for the researchers to favour such experiments are that the GM rubber tree could be adapted for growing in non-traditional areas so that the country’s rubber output could be increased, which is a necessity in view of the high growth in demand for natural rubber. Reacting to this Dr Sharma said that this is indeed an interesting argument.
“Not only rubber, there is a demand for increasing area and production of several other commercial crops, including jatropha,” he said.
While some 13 million hectares is to be brought under jatropha by the end of 2011, the area under cut-flower cultivation is being increased with a lot of subsidies. Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia is inviting Omani firms for farming in India with the output exclusively shipped to foreign markets.
“All this is happening at a time when food inflation hovers in the double-digits and the government promises to increase food production to meet the growing demand,” Dr Sharma regretted.
With farm lands increasingly coming under industry, and being acquired at a rapid pace for non-farm activities, the question that needs to be asked is where will food crops be grown? Why should rubber cultivation be extended to non-traditional areas? If yes, then who will feed India?
Global food prices in 2011 have already touched a historic high, crossing the 2008 food index which led to food riots in 37 countries. Rising food prices have been among the triggers for current protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria.
“Do we want public protests to happen in India? Do we want India to be standing again with a begging bowl?” he asked.
Said Dr Sharma: “I think it makes terrible sense to import rubber, if need be rather than to import food. The country’s food security cannot be sacrificed for the sake of GM rubber,” he argued.
[Continued in Part II]
HAZARDS OF GM CROPS
There is rising opposition to the introduction of genetically modified (GM) rubber trees, which researchers claim would help increase output and allow it to withstand adverse weather conditions.
On the campus of the government-run Rubber Research Institute of India (RRII), GM rubber trees are experimentally being grown, which some plantation owners have welcomed as a precursor to enhancing the rubber economy of Kerala, the southern region where it is generally grown.
But Davinder Sharma, renowned food policy analyst and environmentalist told Polymers & Tyre Asia (Feb-March 2011) that the prospects of GM rubber are dangerous to the environment and the rubber economy.
“Over the past few years, the introduction of GM crops has been shrouded in controversy,” he said in an interview. “In India, the moratorium on Bt brinjal in early 2010 – which if approved for commercialisation would have been the first GM food crop – has created wide awareness about the hazards of GM crops for humans, animals and the environment.”
He said the second-generation environmental impact of the First Green Revolution has led to a terrible agrarian crisis with more than 250,000 farmers committing suicide in the past 15 years. Technology failure is the reason behind mounting indebtedness that drives farmers to end their lives.
GM crops are simply an extension of the same technology approach that has led to the farm crisis in the first place.” This should be kept in mind in any debate on GM rubber, he cautioned.
Rubber is primarily a crop of Kerala and the northeast regions of the country. “Kerala, therefore, has been on the forefront of the opposition to GM crops,” he said primarily because the local government wants to retain the pristine environment in ‘God’s Own Country’ as the state is being promoted among tourists.
Moreover, the Task Force on Application of Biotechnology in Agriculture chaired by well-known agriculture scientist Prof MS Swaminathan has recommended that mega biodiversity hot-spots like the Western Ghats be preserved as a GM-Free Zone.
Kerala has also been demanding a GM-Free status, and the state government’s opposition to GM rubber research trials is therefore expected.
He said: “The tragedy is that with agricultural universities often making false and biased claims, and the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) acting as rubber stamp for the biotech industry, people’s trust and confidence on GM claims has been eroded.”
Available alternatives
Kerala government believes that there are simple and environmentally-sound alternatives available to enhance rubber productivity, and the scientific community is simply turning a blind eye and is acting more on behalf of the GM industry.
RRII has been saying that its BT rubber plant has better drought- resistance and increased environmental stress tolerance. When asked why these good attributes are being opposed, Dr Sharma said these are wild claims.
First of all, let us be very clear that drought- tolerance, salt- resistance, and plants that can bear biotic and abiotic stresses are some of the wild claims that have been made for several years now. Even the claims that GM crops increase productivity have fallen flat. There is no GM crop in the world that actually increases crop yield.”
In fact, according to the US Department of Agriculture, the productivity of GM corn and GM soybean is less than that of its normal variants. GM rubber, therefore, cannot be an exception. These claims are simply made to hoodwink the regulators and justify the need to continue with the GM crop research trials for which there is abundant money available.
Incidentally, rubber is a crop of the tropics and therefore requires continuous rainfall. It is in fact cultivated in those areas that have high rainfall. Drought is a climatic condition created by several factors, and the most important way to address it is through soil and agronomy management, including the application of manganese micro-nutrient that rubber soils are deficient in and conservation of agro-ecological systems.
Moreover, the resulting Tapping Panel Dryness (TPD) is a physiological disorder that is the outcome of wrong tapping methods, over-exploitation and is not linked to stress alone. “What we need is to develop and promote sustainable tapping systems, which fortunately many farmers are following with a great success,” Dr Sharma said.
Unfortunately, it is the unsustainable tapping methods that RRII promotes that have led to the problem. The institute continues to follow the highly damaging and unsustainable tapping technology that was developed way back in 1890-91. “These technologies are still in practice because it brings benefits for the fungicide and pesticides manufacturers, and also help in the marketing of harmful stimulants,” Dr Sharma emphasised.
There are numerous safer options that are available. But unfortunately, agricultural scientists across the globe seem less interested in looking at economically viable and environmentally sustainable alternatives.
When asked to comment about the assurance that BT rubber would be used for commercial cultivation only after final approval, which might take as much as ten years or more, Dr Sharma recalled the policies regarding granting of permission to the Korean steel giant Posco to set up its manufacturing plant in the northern Indian state of Orissa.
Allowing BT rubber based on the assurance of scientists is like permitting Posco set up its steel plant in Jagatsinghpurm with 60 conditionalities. Inquiry committees set up by the Ministry of Environment & Forests have shown that even prior to the launch of the project, Posco is alleged to have concealed, fabricated facts and committed gross irregularities.
Food bowl
“Why I talked about Posco is because the approval for field trails for GM crops too comes with similar monitoring and evaluation conditions. In the past, there have been numerous instances when GM field trials were held without informing the farmers about the dangers and thereby seeking pre-informed consent,” Dr Sharma noted.
Several GM rice trials for instance had been uprooted and burnt by farmers’ organisations in different parts of the country primarily because the companies had not divulged what was being cultivated nor any precautions undertaken. “GM rubber research trials will not be any exception,” he said.
At a meeting called by the Kerala Chief Minister some weeks back, RRII scientists were asked about the possible biosafety, health and environmental concerns. They were also quizzed about the possible impact of the virus and bacteria gene that goes into the construct. The answer: had been: Nothing to worry. It is safe.
When asked about gene flow by honeybees, for instance, the researchers replied that there was a provision for a 50 mts buffer. And when asked whether this was sufficient, they said that they also knew that bees could travel up to 3 kms, but all “precautions” would be taken.
Further, I am appalled by the manner in which approval for field trials is granted. In case of other GM field crops under research, the approval for field studies normally extends to 100,000 acres in multi-location trials, which for all practical purposes is a de facto approval for seed multiplication. It is as good as any approval for commercialisation.”
He reminded that there is no mechanism by which adequate protection measures can be assured in such large-scale trials. In case of GM rubber, field trials are being sought in an area of 0.4 hectares each in Kerala and Maharashtra. The peculiar nature of homestead farming, and gene flow would pose an environmental- threat. GM- Free status of Western Ghats would surely be compromised.
Other reasons for the researchers to favour such experiments are that the GM rubber tree could be adapted for growing in non-traditional areas so that the country’s rubber output could be increased, which is a necessity in view of the high growth in demand for natural rubber. Reacting to this Dr Sharma said that this is indeed an interesting argument.
“Not only rubber, there is a demand for increasing area and production of several other commercial crops, including jatropha,” he said.
While some 13 million hectares is to be brought under jatropha by the end of 2011, the area under cut-flower cultivation is being increased with a lot of subsidies. Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia is inviting Omani firms for farming in India with the output exclusively shipped to foreign markets.
“All this is happening at a time when food inflation hovers in the double-digits and the government promises to increase food production to meet the growing demand,” Dr Sharma regretted.
With farm lands increasingly coming under industry, and being acquired at a rapid pace for non-farm activities, the question that needs to be asked is where will food crops be grown? Why should rubber cultivation be extended to non-traditional areas? If yes, then who will feed India?
Global food prices in 2011 have already touched a historic high, crossing the 2008 food index which led to food riots in 37 countries. Rising food prices have been among the triggers for current protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Algeria.
“Do we want public protests to happen in India? Do we want India to be standing again with a begging bowl?” he asked.
Said Dr Sharma: “I think it makes terrible sense to import rubber, if need be rather than to import food. The country’s food security cannot be sacrificed for the sake of GM rubber,” he argued.
[Continued in Part II]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)