» WELCOME
» AN INTRODUCTION
» PROFILES
» LM WATCH
» CONTACT
» LOBBYWATCH LINKS
»


Illegal and Unscientific: Field Trials of GM Crops in India (12/1/2006)

Thanks to Kavitha Kuruganti of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture for forwarding the report below on Field Trials of GM Crops in India, which focuses on Monsanto's Bollgard II and highglights many disturbing irregularities, including major biosafety violations.

See also the press release on this: http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6114

The report has particular relevance to the meeting of India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, which is taking place tomorrow (13th January) and which will apparently include a review of the field trials. See the article: http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=114211

For how to express your concern to the Indian authorities, see our previous bulletin of today: GMW: URGENT - TAKE ACTION - BAN FIELD TRIALS IN INDIA.
---

Field Trials of GM Crops in India: Illegal and Unscientific

India is a signatory to the Cartagena Protocol - this international Convention, though primarily focusing on transboundary movement of living modified organisms [LMOs, also popularly referred to as GMOs - Genetically Modified Organisms including GM crops], emphasizes a precautionary approach towards LMOs. The Convention is about 'ensuring adequate levels of protection in the field, of the safe transfer, handling and use of living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health'.

The Convention, in its general provisions, says that 'Parties shall ensure that the development, handling, transport, use, transfer and release of any living modified organisms are undertaken in a manner that prevents or reduces the risks to biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health'. Article 23 of the Protocol expressly provides for facilitating and promoting public awareness and participation concerning safe transfer and use of LMOs. Parties to the Protocol are expected to pro-actively inform their public and to consult their public in decision-making processes related to LMOs.

Even if the Protocol is meant to apply to transboundary movement, handling and use of all LMOs (through the mechanism of Prior Informed Consent), it is only to be expected that such principles as enshrined in the Cartagena Protocol, would also be applied domestically by India, given that India ratified the protocol.

Cartagena Protocol, would also be applied domestically by India, given that India ratified the protocol.

India also uses the Environment Protection Act, 1986, for regulating GMOs and hazardous micro-organisms. The 1989 Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Micro-Organisms, Genetically Modified Organisms or cells were created with a view to protect the environment, nature and health in connection with the application of gene technology and micro-organisms.

These Rules lay down the competent authorities for regulating research and large scale use of GMOs, including experimental field trials. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, constituted under these Rules, is expected to supervise the implementation of terms and conditions laid down by it and has the powers to revoke approvals for non-compliance of stipulations including ones related to biosafety. The RCGM (Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation) established under the Department of Biotechnology (DBT) supervises and accords approval for research activities including small-scale field trials/pre-clinical trials, whereas approvals for large-scale releases and commercialization of GMOs are given by the GEAC, established under the Ministry of Environment and Forests.

The 1989 Rules of EPA have been supplemented by technical guidelines evolved from time to time to address issues/concerns of biosafety. These technical guidelines include "Recombinant DNA guidelines, 1990" and "Revised guidelines for research in transgenic plants & guidelines for toxicity and allergenicity evaluation of transgenic seeds, plants and plant parts, 1998".

The Environment Protection Act also has a Penalties clause (15) which says that "whoever fails to comply with or contravenes any of the provisions of this Act, or the rules made or orders or directions issued thereunder, shall, in respect of each such failure or contravention, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both, and in case the failure or contravention continues, with additional fine which may extend to five thousand rupees for every day during which such failure or contravention continues after the conviction for the first such failure or contravention".

1. HISTORY OF BIOSAFETY VIOLATIONS AND UNSCIENTIFIC FIELD TRIALS IN THE COUNTRY

1.1. 1998 "Bollgard I" trials

Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology [RFSTE], New Delhi brought out a report entitled "Globalisation and the Threat to Seed Security: the case of transgenic cotton trials in India" in which the organization goes into the details of Bt Cotton field trials in various locations in the country conducted in 1998. Field trial farmers from the states of Haryana, Punjab, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh were met by the researchers of the study to look at the scientificity and legality of the trials. One of the main findings of the study of the 1998 trials is that the produce from the trial plots has been allowed to be directly sold in the open market mixed with normal cotton.

The report shows that not only were the wrong regulatory authorities involved in granting permission for large scale trials, the date of sowing (as obtained from farmers of the trial plots) pre-dated the provision of permission. The report points out that SBCC (State Biotechnology Coordination Committee) and DLC (District Level Committee), bodies which are entrusted with ensuring biosafety, were not informed about the trials happening in their jurisdiction.

The study points out that other than seeking information on pest load, agronomic performance etc., from the company, there was no environmental assessment carried out for the trial sites to monitor other possible impacts from the trial.

In terms of violations of guidelines, the study shows that experimental plot size norms, isolation distances to be maintained, norms related to maintenance of full account of all transgenic material produced including destruction of all material etc., were all violated by the company involved [Mahyco].

The study also points out that selection of farmers for trials is als

Go to a Print friendly Page


Email this Article to a Friend


Back to the Archive