GeneticallymodifiedcropsinIndia

ThecurrentstatusofGMcropsinIndia
Authors:
ParasChopra,Iyear,
BiotechnologyEngineering
DelhiCollegeofEngineering
And
AkhilKamma,Iyear,
BiotechnologyEngineering
DelhiCollegeofEngineering
Teamname:GeneticFrenetics
Email:paras1987@gmail.com,paras_chopra@fastmail.fm
Phone:+919868221372,01127563421
Agenda
1. WhatisGeneticmodification?
2. IssuesrelatedGeneticmodification.
3. HowIndiafitsinthepictureofGMCrops?
4. FutureofGMcropsinIndiaandtheworld.
WhatisGeneticModification?
Geneticmodificationinvolvesalteringanorganism'sDNA.Thiscanbedoneby
alteringanexistingsectionofDNA,orbyaddinganewgenealtogether.
Ageneisacodethatgovernshowweappearandwhatcharacteristicswehave.
Likeanimals,plantshavegenestoo.Genesdecidethecolourofflowers,and
howtallaplantcangrow.Likepeople,thecharacteristicsofaplantwillbe
transferredtoitschildrentheplantseeds,whichgrowintonewplants.
Whenascientistgeneticallymodifiesaplant,theyinsertaforeigngeneinthe
plant'sowngenes.Thismightbeagenefromabacteriumresistanttopesticide,
forexample.Theresultisthattheplantreceivesthecharacteristicsheldwithin
thegeneticcode.Consequently,thegeneticallymodifiedplantalsobecomes
abletowithstandpesticides.
Notonlygeneticmodificationcanbeusedtochangeanimalandplantgenes.
Spontaneouschanges,radiation,chemicalsandtraditionalprocessingcanalso
alterthecharacteristicsofaplantoranimal.
Spontaneousalterationofgenestakesplacenaturallyandsometimeswithno
effect.Aspontaneousalterationcanleadtothedevelopmentofbothpositiveand
negativecharacteristics.Themethodisnotparticularlygoodiftheintentionisto
createspecificchanges.
Radiationandchemicalscanbeusedinordertoeffectgenealteration.Both
elementsaresometimesusedinplantprocessing.
Withgeneticmodificationitispossibletotransfergenesfromonespeciesto
another.Thisisbecauseallgenes,betheyhuman,plant,animalorbacterialare
createdfromthesamematerial.Geneticscientiststhereforehaveahugeamount
ofgeneticcharacteristicstochoosefrom.
Howdoesageneticscientistwork?
Geneticmodificationofplantsoccursinseveralstages:
1.Anorganism thathasthedesiredcharacteristicisidentified.
2.Thespecificgenethatproducesthischaracteristicislocatedandcutoutofthe
plantsDNA.
3.Togetthegeneintothecellsoftheplantbeingmodified,thegeneneedstobe
attachedtoacarrier.ApieceofbacterialDNAcalledaplasmidisjoinedtothe
genetoactasthecarrier.
4.Atypeofswitch,calledapromoter,isalsoincludedwiththecombinedgene
andcarrier.Thishelpsmakesurethegeneworksproperlywhenitisputintothe
plantbeingmodified.Onlyasmallnumberofcellsintheplantbeingmodifiedwill
actuallytakeupthenewgene.Tofindoutwhichoneshavedoneso,thecarrier
packageoftenalsoincludesamarkergenetoidentifythem.
5.Thegenepackageistheninsertedbackintothebacterium,whichisallowedto
reproducetocreatemanycopiesofthegenepackage.
6.Thegenepackagesarethentransferredintotheplantbeingmodified.Thisis
usuallydoneinoneoftwoways:
Byattachingthegenepackagestotinyparticlesofgoldortungstenand
firingthemathighspeedintotheplanttissue.Goldortungstenareused
becausetheyarechemicallyinertinotherwords,theywon'treactwith
theirsurroundings
Byusingasoilbacterium,calledAgrobacteriumtumefaciens,totakeitin
whenitinfectstheplanttissue.
ThegenepackagesareputintoA.tumefaciens,whichismodifiedtomake
sureitdoesn'tbecomeactivewhenitistakenintothenewplant.
7.TheplanttissuethathastakenupthegenesisthengrownintofullsizeGM
plants.
8.TheGMplantsarecheckedextensivelytomakesurethatthenewgenesare
inthemandworking,astheyshould.Thisisdonebygrowingthewholeplants,
allowingthemtoturntoseed,plantingtheseedsandgrowingtheplantagain,
whilemonitoringthegenethathasbeeninserted.Thisisrepeatedseveraltimes.
Howdoweknowifthegeneticmodificationhassucceeded?
Onlyrarelycanoneseewhetheraplantoranimalhasbeengeneticallymodified,
withthenakedeye.Scientistshavethereforedevelopedsometechniquesto
assistthem.
Forexampleaspecialcolourtestcanidentifywhetheraplantisgenetically
modified.Atthetimewhentheplantisgeneticallymodified,thescientistinserts
anextramarkergeneintotheplant.Themarkergenecanhavedifferent
characteristics,forexample,itcanmaketheplantchangecolourwhenexposed
toachemicaltest.
Inthisway,scientistscanidentifywhethertheplanthasbeengenetically
modifiedornotbyperformingachemicaltestandnotingthecolouroftheplant.
Alteringgenes
Geneticmodificationdoesnotalwaysinvolvemovingagenefromoneorganism
toanother.Sometimesitmeanschanginghowageneworksby'switchingitoff'
tostopsomethinghappening.Forexample,thegeneforsofteningafruitcould
beswitchedoffsothatalthoughthefruitripensinthenormalway,itwillnot
softenasquickly.Thiscanbeusefulbecauseitmeansthatdamageisminimized
duringpackingandtransportation.
Controllingthisgene'switch'mayalsoallowresearcherstoswitchonmodified
genesinparticularpartsofaplant,suchastheleavesorroots.Forexample,the
genesthatgiveaplantresistancetoapestmightonlybeswitchedoninthebitof
theplantthatcomesunderattack,andnotinthepartusedforfood.
FOREXAMPLE:
In2002,researchersatCornellUniversityinNewYorkusedadifferentscientific
approachtodevelophardierbiotechricethatcanresistdroughtandthrivein
marginalsoil.
IntheCornellstudy,researcherstookthegenesthatsynthesizetrehalosea
simplesugarthatisproducedinawidevarietyofplants,includingthe
resurrectionplantandinsertedthemintorice.Theresurrectionplantisadesert
mossthatcanslowitsactivitytozeroduringadroughtandcompletelyrevive
withthereturnofwater.
ButtheUniversityofCaliforniaRiversidemethoddiffersinthatnoforeigngenes
wereintroducedintothetobaccoplantstomakethemdroughtresistant.
Instead,Gallie'sresearchteamwasabletousethetobaccoplant'sowngenesto
reducetheleveloftheenzymedehydroascorbatereductase(DHAR),which
reducesaplant'sabilitytorecyclevitaminC.Andthat,inturn,signalstheplantto
slowthelossofwaterfromitsleaves.
"ThisreductioninvitaminCrecyclingcausesplantstobehighlyresponsiveto
drygrowthconditionsbyreducingtherateofwaterthatescapesfromtheir
leaves,"saidGallie."Thus,theyarebetterabletogrowwithlesswaterand
surviveadrought."
Here'showitworks:
Plantleaveshavetinyporescalledstomatathatopenusuallyinthemorning
whenit'scoolertoallowplantstobreatheincarbondioxide,whichtheyneedto
grow.Intheafternoon,whenit'shotter,thestomataclosetoconservewater.
Thestomataarecontrolledbyguardcellsthatopenandclosethetinypores
basedonthelevelofoxidizerssuchashydrogenperoxide,whoselevel
increaseswhenexposedtoenvironmentalstressessuchasdrought.When
oxidizerlevelsrise,theporesclose.
AnantioxidantsuchasvitaminCdestroystheseoxidizersinplants.Byreducing
thevitaminClevels,oxidizersremainhighenoughtokeepthestomataclosed.
Theplantisessentiallytrickedsoitpreserveswater.
Biotechnologyisanevolutionoftraditionalagriculturalmethods.Overthepast
10,000years,peoplehaveroutinelyusedtheirknowledgeofplantstoimprove
foodproduction.Biotechnologyisthelatestdevelopmentintheevolutionof
agriculturalmethods.Farmersusedtorelyonplantbreedingtoaddoreliminate
specificgenetictraitsinaplant.Thosewithdesirablecharacteristicsareselected
overseveralgenerations.Thecropsandlivestockweseetodayarearesultof
traditionalprocessing.Forexample,becauseofplantbreeding,corntodaylooks
nothinglikeitdidonehundredyearsago.Althoughittypicallytookseveral
growingseasonstoproduceaplantthatexpressedadesiredtrait,farmerswere
eventuallyabletoproducecropsthat:
Wereresistanttodrought,insectpestsordiseases
Possessedstrongerstalkstowithstandstrongwinds
Producedhigheryields
Geneticmodificationisamoreefficientandprecisewaytoachievethebenefits
ofcropimprovement.Usingnewtechnologies,scientistsarenowabletopin
pointthespecificgeneresponsibleforaparticulartraitandthenextractoradd
thatgenetoaspecificplant.
Geneticmodificationisamoreprecisetechnique,whereonecanbeexactin
transferringthedesiredcharacteristics.Intraditionalprocessingonecannotavoid
thepossibilitythatothercharacteristicsmayalsobetransferred.
Geneticmodificationislesstimeconsumingthantraditionalprocessing.
Intraditionalprocessing,characteristicscanonlybeexchangedbetweenspecies
whicharethesameorverysimilar.Itmightbemaizeandnaveworahorseand
adonkey.
Ingeneticmodification,itspossibletotransfergenesfromonespeciesto
anotherfromplanttoplant,fromanimaltoplant,fromplanttoanimalorfrom
animaltoanimal.Thisisbecauseallgenes,nomatterwheretheycomefrom,
aremadeofthesamematerial DNA.
FOREXAMPLE:
Howtoaddafishgenetoatomato
Scientistshavecreatedafrostresistanttomatoplantbyaddinganantifreezegenefromacoldwaterfishtoit.Theantifreezegenecomes
fromthecoldwaterflounder,afishthatcansurviveinverycoldconditions.Thisishowitwasdone.
Theflounderhasagenetomakeanantifreezechemical.Thisisremovedfromthechromosomeswithinafloundercell.
TheantifreezeDNAisjoinedontoapieceofDNAcalledaplasmid.ThishybridDNA,whichisacombinationofDNAfrom2
differentsources,isknownasrecombinantDNA.
TherecombinantDNA,includingtheantifreezegene,isplacedinabacterium.
ThebacteriumisallowedtoreproducemanytimesproducinglotsofcopiesoftherecombinantDNA.
Tomatoplantcellsareinfectedwiththebacteria.Asaresult,theantifreezegeneintheplasmid,inthebacteriabecomes
integratedintothetomatoplantcellDNA.
Tomatocellsareplacedinagrowthmediumthatencouragesthecellstogrowintoplants.
Tomatoplantseedlingisplanted.
ThisGMtomatoplantcontainsacopyoftheflounderantifreezegeneineveryoneofitscells.Theplantistestedtoseeifthe
fishgenestillworks.Isitfrostresistant?Yesitis.
IssuesrelatedtoGeneticmodification
Somemythsrelatedtofoodsproducedusingbiotechnology:
MYTH:Foodsproducedusingbiotechnologyhasnotbeenestablishedassafe
andarenotadequatelyregulated.
FACT:Biotechnologyisoneofthemostextensivelyresearchedandreviewed
agriculturaldevelopmentsinourhistory.TheWorldHealthOrganization,theUS
FoodandDrugAdministration(FDA),theUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)
andtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)haveallcertifiedthesafetyof
thesefoodsandworktogethertoensurethatcropsproducedthrough
biotechnologyaresafetoeat.GovernmentsaroundtheworldincludingCanada,
Australia,Singapore,EuropeandJapanhavereachedagreementonthesafety
ofthesefoods.
MYTH:Cropsproducedusingbiotechnologywillnegativelyimpactthe
environment.
FACT:Biotechnologyisanelementinsustainableagriculturethatwillbenefitthe
environment.Benefitsincludereducedpesticideuse,waterandsoilconservation
andgreatersafetyforworkersandtheecosystem.
Manycropsincludingtomatoes,corn,potatoesandcottonnowhavethe
internalabilitytorepelinsects.Consequently,fewerapplicationsofinsecticide
needtobeappliedtotheplant.Acertaintypeofcornusedtofeedhogswill
reducethephyticacidinanimalwastethattraditionallycausesalgaetogrowin
watersupplies.Finally,theabilitytoobtaingreatercropyieldfromexistingland
decreasestheneedtoconvertforeststofarmland.
MYTH:Theproductionofcropsresistanttocertainpestsandweedswillleadto
"Superbugs"and/or"Superweeds"thatareimmunetoexistingmethodsofpest
andweedmanagement.
FACT:Therearenoscientificstudiessuggestingthiskindofscenariocould
occurasaresultofcropsproducedusingbiotechnology.Thereare,however,
manysystemsinplaceincludingcroprotation,hybridrotationandintegratedpest
managementasaprecautionarymeasuretohelppreventitfromoccurring.
Insectsandweedsalreadyevolveanddeveloptoleranceorresistancetotheir
environment,sobiotechnologycanpotentiallybettermanagethisevolutionin
resistance.
MYTH:GeneticallymodifiedcornkillsMonarchbutterflies.
FACT:InMay1999,Naturemagazinepublishedaletterfromresearchersat
CornellUniversitythatreportedfindingssuggestingfurtherresearchisneeded
intotherelationshipbetweenpollenfromselectstrainsofBtcorn(cornwhichhas
beengeneticallymodifiedtoproduceaproteintoprotectagainstinsects)andthe
Monarchcaterpillar.Sincethatpublication,manyuniversityresearchers,
includingothersatCornell,havesteppedforwardtostressthattheMonarch
studydidnotrepresentnaturalconditionsandthatextensiveenvironmental
researchhasestablishedthesafetyofBtcornonnontargetinsects,suchasthe
ladybirdbeetle,honeybeeandthegreenlacewing,inthenaturalenvironment.
DrJohnLosey,theCornellUniversityentomologyprofessorwhoconductedthe
research,agreedwiththeresearchersandnoted,"Ourstudywasconductedin
thelaboratoryand,whileitraisesanimportantissue,itwouldbeinappropriateto
drawanyconclusionsabouttherisktoMonarchpopulationsinthefield,based
solelyontheseinitialresults."
Aswithanyscientificissue,severalstudiesareneededbeforeconclusionscan
bemade.
MYTH:Biotechnologycannotrelieveworldhunger.
FACT:Biotechnologycanhelpalleviatehungerworldwide.Inthenext50years
theglobalpopulationisexpectedtodouble,reachingmorethan8billionpeople
by2050.Populationgrowthanddietupgradingwillrequiretheworldfoodsupply
toincreaseatleast250percentfromitscurrentquantity.Theamountofland
currentlycommittedtofoodproductionapproximately36percentoftheearth's
cumulativelandareacannotyieldtheamountoffoodneededbythisincreased
population.Althoughforestscouldbeclearedtoobtainneededacreage,abetter
approachistofindwaysofgettinggreatercropyieldfromexistingland.
Biotechnologycanincreasethequantityoftheharvestbyaddressingthefactors
thattraditionallydepletecropssuchaspests,weeds,droughtandwind.Plants
frombiotechnologycandealwiththesehardshipsanddramaticallyincreasethe
percentageofcropsthatsurviveandareharvestedeachyear.
MYTH:Thelongtermeffectsoffoodsdevelopedusingbiotechnologyare
unknown.
FACT:Fromyearsofresearch,scientistsknowthatthebenefitsoffood
biotechnologyareenormous.Thescientificconsensusisthattherisks
associatedwithfoodbiotechnologyproductsarefundamentallythesameasfor
otherfoods.Currentscienceshowsthatfoodsproducedusingbiotechnologyare
safetoconsumeandahostofregulatoryauthoritiesincludingtheUSFDA,the
UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgricultureandtheUSEnvironmentalProtection
Agencyhavedeterminedthattheseproductsaresafetointroduceintothefood
supply.
Whilethereisnosuchthingas"zerorisk"foranyfood,consumerscanbe
confidentthatfoodsproducedusingbiotechnologymeetthesamestringent
safetystandardsasfoodsproducingusingconventionalmethods.
FAQs:
1.Aretheresafeguardstoprotectagainstanewplantvarietyoutcrossing
toweedsandbecoming"outofcontrol?"
Yestherearesafeguardsagainstoutcrossingintheexperimentalstage.
Outcrossingistheunintentionalbreedingofadomesticcropwitharelated
species.
Greatcareistakentodevelopnewplantvarietiesthathavenoweedrelatives,
donotoutcrosstoweedrelativesorwhoseweedrelativesexistonlyinregions
wherethedomesticcropsarenotgrown.Liketraditionallybredplants,anew
plantcannotconferitstraitsonanunrelatedplantspecies.
2.Whatifaplantpestsuchasaninsectoraplantdiseasedevelopsa
resistancetoaprotectivetraitconferredthroughplantbiotechnology?
Adaptingtoachangingenvironmentisthenaturalsurvivalmechanismofall
livingorganisms.Throughthenaturalprocessofgeneticchangeandadaptation,
itisalwayspossibleforaninsectpopulationoraplantdiseasestraintobuilda
resistancetoachemicalinsecticideorfungicide,aprotectivetraitinaplantorto
anynumberofthetechniquesusedtofightplantpests.Nevertheless,tohelp
reducethepotentialforresistancedevelopment,considerationmustbegivento
resistancemanagementtechniquesforgeneticallymodifiedplants.
Traditionalpesticideshavebeenbroughttomarketfordecadeswithoutplansin
placetodelayresistance.Bycontrast,thedevelopmentofsomeofthefirst
geneticallymodifiedplantsincludedalmostadecadeofresearchtominimisethe
potentialofresistancedevelopment.Thiskindofresearchhadneverbeendone
before.Theresearchresultedinstrategiestominimisethepossibilitiesof
resistancethroughconscientiousprogramsandcarefullychosengenetictraits.
3.Willantibioticresistancemarkergenesmakemeresistanttothetarget
antibiotics?
No.Thereisnorelationshipbetweenanantibioticresistancemarkergeneused
inplantsandantibioticresistanceinhumans.Themarkergeneisusedin
researchtohelpresearchersdistinguishanewplantvarietyfromrelatedplants.
Whentheplantsareexposedtothetargetantibioticinthelaboratory,thenew
plantvarietywillcontinuetogrow,unaffectedbytheantibiotic,allowingthe
researchertoidentifyandselectforplantsthathavethedesiredtrait.
Anantibioticresistancemarkergeneisnotanantibiotic.Itproducesaprotein
thatallowsonlyplantscontainingthemarkergenetogrowinthepresenceofa
specificantibiotic.Thisproteinisbrokendowninthedigestivetract.Therefore,
themarkergeneproductcannotfunctioninthehumanbody.Itcannotinactivate
antibioticsandthelikelihoodofanantibioticresistantgenebeingtransferredfrom
foodtobacteriainthehumangutisverysmall.
Thereareafewissues,whicharerelevanttoIndiancontext.Theseare
presentedbelow:
WillGMfoodreducehungerindevelopingcountrieslikeIndia?
Ifhungercouldbeaddressedbytechnology,greenrevolutionwouldhavedone
itlongago.ThefactisthathungerhasgrowninIndiainabsolutetermssome
320millionpeoplegotobedhungryeverynight.Twoyearsback,Indiahada
recordfoodgrainsurplusof65milliontonnes.If65milliontonnessurpluscould
notfeedthe320millionhungry,howwillGMfoodremovehunger?Inreality,GM
fooddivertspreciousfinancialresourcestoanirrelevantresearch,comeswith
strongerintellectualpropertyrights,andisaimedatstrengtheningcorporate
controloveragriculture.
Butwhataboutmalnutrition?Cropslikegoldenricecanhelpremove
blindness.
Thisagainistheresultofmisplacedthinking.Thereare12millionpeopleinIndia
whosufferfromVitaminAdeficiency.Thesepeopleprimarilyliveinfooddeficit
areasoraremarginalised.Thesearepeoplewhocannotbuytheirnormal
requirementoffood,includingrice.Iftheywereadequatelyfed,therewouldbe
nomalnutrition.IfthepoorinKalahandi,forinstance,can'tbuyricethatlies
rottinginfrontoftheireyes,howwilltheybuygoldenrice?
ThenwhyistheIndiangovernmentexperimentingwithGMcropsand
foods?
Fortworeasons:First,Indiaisundertremendouspressurefromthe
biotechnologyindustrytoallowGMcrops.Thesecompanieshavethefinancial
resourcestomobilisescientificopinionaswellaspoliticalsupport.Second,
agriculturalscientistsareusingbiotechnologyasaTrojanhorse.Withnothingto
showbywayofscientificbreakthroughinthepastthreedecades,GMresearch
willensurelivelihoodsecurityforthescientists.
WhatGMcropsandfooditemsisIndiaexperimentingwith?
Besidescotton,geneticengineeringexperimentsarebeingconductedonmaize,
mustard,sugarcane,sorghum,pigeonpea,chickpea,rice,tomato,brinjal,potato,
banana,papaya,cauliflower,oilseeds,castor,soyabeanandmedicinalplants.
Experimentsarealsounderwayonseveralspeciesoffish.Infact,suchisthe
desperationthatscientistsaretryingtoinsertBtgeneintoanycroptheycanlay
theirhandson,notknowingwhetherthisisdesirableornot.
WhatdoesthefieldtrialdataofGMproducts,includingBtcotton,inIndia
reveal?
Btcottonfieldtrialswereasham.Inthreeyearsofresearchtrials,the
experimentswerenotconductedasperscientificnorms.Andyet,theGEAC
(GeneticEngineeringApprovalCommittee,ministryofenvironment&forests)
hadapprovedtheresults.Theexperimentonlyshowedthatsuchproductsare
notsuitableforIndianconditions.Ifonlythesameattentionhadgonetomore
sustainablefarmingsystems,Indiawouldhavebeenabletocreateaunique
modelofagriculturewherefarmersarenotforcedtocommitsuicide,wherethe
landisnotpolluted,andwherewaterisnotpoisoned.GMcropsexperiments
showthatthecountryisfastmovingintoahithertounforeseeneraofbiological
pollution,whichwillbemoreunsustainableandalsodestructivetohumanhealth
andenvironment.
ButIndiasBiologicalDiversityAct2003doesprovideforanenvironmental
assessmentofGMcrops?
No,notatall.Geneticengineeringismovingseveraltimesfasterthanthelegal
instruments.Transgeniccropsandanimalsinessencegoagainstthevery
foundationofthebiologicaldiversitythatwearetryingtoprotect.
WhatroleshouldtheGEACplay?
GEACshouldemphasizebiologicalriskassessment.GEACshouldregulate
genetictechnologyliketheUSRecombinantAdvisoryCommittee(RCA)does
forgeneticallyengineereddrugs.RCAmakesitmandatoryforcompaniesto
providealistofnegativeandharmfulimpactsandminimizesthatimpactbefore
approvingforcommercialsale.Asaresult,theapprovalprocesstakes25years.
Unfortunately,GMresearchinIndiaisnotbeingmadetoevaluatepotentialharm
tohumanhealthandenvironment.ThisisbecausetheGEACdoesnotwantthe
companiestospendmoreonresearch.
DoesGMtechnologythreatenourgeneticresourcesandtraditional
knowledge?
Wehavealreadylostcontroloverourplant,animalandmicrobialgenetic
resources.Acopyofroughly1,50,000plantaccessionsthathavebeencollected
inIndia,arewiththeUSdepartmentofagriculture.Indiahasnocontrolover
theseresources.Atthesametime,Indiaisnowbusydocumentingtraditional
knowledge,soastohelptheAmericancompaniesknowtheusesoftheplant
speciestheyhavegotfromus.Further,TraderelatedIntellectualPropertyRights
(TRIPs)allowspatentsongenesandcelllines,whichwillblockIndia's
agriculturalresearchleadingtowhatIhavealwaystermedasascientific
apartheidagainstthedevelopingcountries.
PositiveImpactsofGMcrops
Forthedevelopmentofimprovedfoodmaterials,GMhasthefollowing
advantagesovertraditionalselectivebreeding:
Allowsamuchwiderselectionoftraitsforimprovement:e.g.notonlypest,
diseaseandherbicideresistance(asachievedtodateinplants)butalso
potentiallydroughtresistance,improvednutritionalcontentandimproved
sensoryproperties
Itisfasterandlowerincost
Desiredchangecanbeachievedinveryfewgenerations
Allowsgreaterprecisioninselectingcharacteristics
Reducesriskofrandomoccurrenceofundesirabletraits.
Theseadvantagescould,inturn,leadtoanumberofpotentialbenefits,
especiallyinthelongerterm,fortheconsumer,industry,agricultureandthe
environment:
Improvedagriculturalperformance(yields)withlesslabourinputandless
costinput
Benefitstothesoilofnotillfarmingpractice
Reducedusageofpesticidesandherbicides
Abilitytogrowcropsinpreviouslyinhospitableenvironments(e.g.via
increasedabilityofplantstogrowinconditionsofdrought,soilsalinity,
extremesoftemperature,consequencesofglobalwarming,etc.)Improved
sensoryattributesoffood(e.g.flavour,texture,etc.)
Removalofallergensortoxiccomponents,suchastheresearchinUSAto
produceanonallergenicGMpeanut(UniversityofArkansas)andanon
allergenicGMprawn(TulaneUniversity)andinJapan,toproduceaGM
nonallergenicrice.
Improvednutritionalattributessuchas:
o IngoPotrykus'sEUresearchprojectjointlyfundedbythe
RockefellerFoundation,resultinginincreasedVitaminAcontentin
rice,whichwillhelptopreventblindnessamongchildrenin
SoutheastAsia
o theannouncementinSeptember2003byEdgarCahoonandhis
teamattheDonaldDanforthPlantScienceCenterinMissourithat
byinsertingageneextractedfrombarleyintoacommontypeof
fieldcorn,theyhavecreatedastrainthatgrowswithsixtimesthe
usualamountofvitaminE,apowerfulantioxidant.
Improvedprocessingcharacteristicsleadingtoreducedwasteandlower
foodcoststotheconsumer.
Preventionoflossofspeciestoendemicdisease(e.g.theCavendish
dessertbananawhichissubjecttotwofungaldiseasesthathavestruck
Africa,SouthAmericaandAsia,butcouldbereprievedbyGM
developmentofadiseaseresistantversion).
GMhashugepotentialformankindinmedicine,agricultureandfood.Infood,the
realbenefitsarenottheearlyinstancesthathavebeenappearingsofar,butits
longertermbenefittotheworldandespeciallythedevelopingcountriesits
potentialfordevelopingcropsofimprovednutritionalquality,andcropsthatwill
growunderpreviouslyinhospitableconditions(seeabove),therebycontributing
toalleviatinghungerandmalnutrition,whilehelpingtopreventtheotherwise
inevitablefuturepressuretoencroachonnaturalresources.Eventoday,there
are840millionpeople.800millionoftheminthedevelopingcountriesand200
millionofthemchildren,whoregularlydonotreceiveenoughfoodtoalleviate
hunger,stilllessprovideadequatenutrition.24,000peopledieofmalnutrition
relatedcausesdaily.Thatsituationwillbegreatlyworsenedasaresultofthe
world'sescalatingpopulationoverthecomingdecades.
TherearethosewhoallegethatscientistsclaimthatGMwillsolvetheproblem
ofworldhunger.Thisisafamiliar"strawman".Itisfrequentlyarguedbysome
thatthereismorethanenoughfoodtofeedtheworldandallthatisneededis
"fairerdistribution"(whichsofarmankindhassignallyfailedtoachieve)ora
variantofthat,"therealproblemisnotshortageoffood,itispoverty".Whatever
maybedonebywayofimprovedyieldsthroughconventionalmethods,
attemptedpopulationcontrolandmoreeffectivedistributionwould,however,be
inadequateforthefuture.Thereareprobablyenoughcerealstofeedthepresent
worldpopulation(ifonlytheycouldbedistributedtotherightplacesattheright
timesandcouldbeafforded).Buttherewillbesubstantialshortfallsincerealsin
thenexttwodecades.Moreover,"worldhunger"isacomplexnotonlyof
inadequatequantitywhereitisneededbutalsoofinadequatequalityi.e.forvast
numbersofpeoplethelackoffoodswiththenecessarymicronutrientsandof
cleanwater,forreasonablenutritionandhealth.
However,indecadestocome,withtheexpectedsubstantialincreaseinthe
worldpopulation,mostlyinthepoorest,leastdevelopedcountries,thedemand
forincreasedagriculturallandandforwaterwillgreatlyincrease.Theimportant
pointisnotonlyhowtofeedtheworldnowbutaddressingandtryingtosolvethe
problemof"Howshallmankindfeedtheworldinafewdecadesfromnow?Of
coursetheproblemthathashugepoliticalandeconomicdimensionswillnotbe
solvedbyGMalone,orevenbysciencealonebutwillcertainlynotbesolved
withoutthecontributionofscience,includingGM.
FoodscientistsandtechnologistscansupporttheresponsibleintroductionofGM
techniquesprovidedthatissuesofproductsafety,environmentalconcerns,
ethicsandinformationaresatisfactorilyaddressed.sothatthebenefitsthatthis
technologycanconferbecomeavailablebothtoimprovethequalityofthefood
supplyandtohelpfeedtheworld'sescalatingpopulationinthecomingdecades.
NegativeImpactsofGMcrops
Therearefollowingunintendedimpactsonenvironment,health,markets
Environment:
Unintendedenvironmentalimpactsincludeharmingnontargetand/orbeneficial
speciesinthecaseofcropswithengineeredinsecticidalproperties,aswellas
thedevelopmentofnewstrainsofresistantpests.Additionallythereisconcern
thatpollenfromgeneticallyengineeredherbicideresistantcropscouldreach
wild,weedyrelativesofthecropandcreatesocalledsuperweeds.Thisisof
particularconcernintheU.S.withcropssuchascanolaandsquash.
Health:
Atpresent,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatGMfoodsareunsafe.However,
therearenoabsoluteguarantees,either.UnintendedhealthimpactsfromGMOs
concernallergens,antibioticresistance,decreasednutrients,andtoxins.
AllergensBecauseproteinsequencesarechangedwiththeadditionof
newgeneticmaterial,thereisconcernthattheengineeredormodified
organismcouldproduceknownorunknownallergens.ArecentNational
ResearchCouncilcommitteereportonGMOsrecommendedthe
developmentofimprovedmethodsforidentifyingpotentialallergens,
"specificallyfocusingonnewtestsrelevanttothehumanimmunesystem
andonmorereliableanimalmodels."
AntibioticresistancePlantgeneticengineershavefrequentlyattached
genestheyaretryingtoinserttoantibioticresistancegenes.Thisallows
themtoreadilyselecttheplantsthatacquirethenewgenesbytreating
themwiththeantibiotic.Sometimesthesegenesremaininthetransgenic
cropthathasleadcriticstochargethattheantibioticresistancegenes
couldspreadtopathogensinthebodyandrenderantibioticsless
effective.However,severalpanelsofantibioticresistanceexpertshave
concludedthattheriskisminiscule.
DecreasednutrientsBecausetheDNAofgeneticallyengineeredplants
isaltered,thereisconcernthatsomeGMOscouldhavedecreasedlevels
ofimportantnutrients,asDNAisthecodefortheproductionofnutrients.
However,itmustbenotedthatnutritionaldifferencesalsohavebeen
documentedwithtraditionallybredcrops.
IntroducedtoxinsResidualtoxinsresultingfromintroducedgenesof
thebacteriaBacillusthuringiensisinsocalledBtcropsareunlikelyto
harmhumans.Thisisbecausethetoxinproducedbythebacteriaishighly
specifictocertaintypesofinsects.PriortoitsinclusioninGE/GMcrops,
Bthasbeenusedasabiologicalinsecticide,causingnoadverseeffectsin
humansconsumingtreatedcrops.SeetheWorldHealthOrganization'sBt
monographforadditionaldetails.
NaturallyoccurringtoxinsThereisconcernthatgeneticengineering
couldinadvertentlyincreasenaturallyoccurringplanttoxins.However,
traditionalplantbreedingalsocanresultinhigherlevelsofplanttoxins.
Markets:
Unintendedmarketimpactsincludelowerpricesandhighercostsforfarmers,as
wellaslostpremiumsandmarkets.BansonGMimportsormoratoriumson
approvingnewGMvarieties/hybridsreducethenumberofexportdestinationsfor
comingledGMandnonGMcrops.Thisresultsindepressedcroppricesduea
greaterpercentageofcropsneedingtobeuseddomestically.Additionally,
moratoriumsonnewGMvarieties/hybridsandmandatorylabelingpracticesin
somecountries,includingsomeoftheU.S.'largerexportpartners,may
necessitateseparatehandlingofgrain.ThecostforthisisultimatelybornbyU.S.
farmers.In1999,A.E.StaleyandArcherDanielsMidlandannouncedthatthey
wouldnotacceptgrainproducedfromhybridscontaininggeneticmaterialthatis
unapprovedforexport.And,IllinoisCerealMills,ownedbyCargillInc.,increased
itscontractsfornonGMOcrops.
PollenfromGMcropscancontaminatenonGMcrops,especiallythosecertified
organic,whicharesubjecttoazeroGMOtolerance.Straypollencouldrendera
cropineligiblefororganicorspecialtypremiumsoncontractsrequiringnonGM
varieties/hybrids.Compoundingtheproblemisthefactthatmanygenetictests
forGMOsresultinfalsepositives.
In1999,FritoLayandNovartisownedGerberannouncedthattheywouldnotbe
purchasingGMcrops/ingredientsfortheirproducts.Internationally,several
companieshavemadesimilarannouncements,thoughnotfortheirU.S.product
lines.InJune2000,Novartisbecamethefirstmultinationaltoannouncethatit
wouldnotbepurchasingGMcrops/ingredientsforanyofitsproductsworldwide,
includingthosefortheU.S.market.
MoralIssues
"Movinggenesfromanimalstoplantsgetsyouintoawholemoral,
religious,andpoliticalfirestorm..."
Thisstatementillustratestheprimarycontentionpointforthemostcommon
ethicalmoralargumentagainstGMOs.Forthosewhobelievethathumansdo
nothavetherighttocreatelifethathumansarestewardsoftheearth'sspecies,
orthathumansareequalswithotherspecies,combininggenesinwaysthat
wouldnotoccurinthenormalprocessofevolutionconflictswiththeirpersonal
philosophyoflife.
However,theargumenthasbeenmadethatgeneticengineeringismorally
justifiedasitcanbeusedtoalleviatediseaseandstarvation.Whiletheargument
foralleviatingdiseaseissupportedbythecaseofgeneticallyengineeredhuman
insulinandnotyetcommercializedprojectsthatseektodelivervaccinesviafood
crops,theargumentforalleviatinghungerhasyettobeborneout.GMcrops
haveyettoincreaseyieldsonparwithhybridizationincorn,anditmustbe
rememberedthatsimplygrowingmoreofacropdoesnotguaranteethatitwill
reachpeoplewhoarestarving.AmemberoftheEuropeanParliament,speaking
attheEuropeanVoiceConferenceonGMOsinBrusselsinMarch1999,blasted
biotech[companies'publicrelationscampaigns]sayingwhilethey"attemptto
convincepeopletheyjustwanttosavetheenvironmentandfeedthestarving,
peopleknowthatwealthycompanieshavenotbeencreatedtofeedthepoor."
Thatsaid,onAugust3,Monsantoannouncedthatitwouldnotchargelicensing
feesfortheuseofitspatentedtechnologyforproducinggoldenrice.
HowIndiafitsinthepictureofGMCrops?
InIndia,experimentshavebeencarriedoutandGMcropsliketheGoldenRice
(whichisrichinproteins)havebeenused.Unfortunately,theGMbusinessis
ownedbytopmultinationalcompaniesandagribusinessisonlyforvested
interests.OneoftheprimefearsrelatedtobiotechnologyisthattheGMcrops
mayleadtoamonocultureanddevastatethebiodiversitythatmaybelikeaself
servingbioweapononatargetnation.ThisdecadeiscrucialforIndiainwhichit
willhavetotakedecisionsontheprospectofGMcrops.Whileexperimentationis
goingoninIndia,weneedtoretainourtraditionalknowledgeandpractices.The
socalledcoarsegrainslikebajraandmilletsmaybemorenutritiousforthe
farmers(oreventheaffluent)thanriceandwheat.Forbetternutritionalsecurity,
wemayneedtraditionalfoodhabitsandfoodgrains,cerealsandmilksuitedto
ouragriculturalzones.
Warningbells
INDIAisthethirdlargestproducerofcottonafterChinaandtheU.S.The
MaharashtraHybridSeedsCo.LtdMahycoisoneofthelargestandmosttrusted
seedcompaniesinIndia.In1998,after8yearsofnegotiation,Monsantobecame
a50%shareholderinthecompanyandreceivedapprovaltoconduct
countrywidefieldtrials.Thedatacompiledwasnevermadepublic.
Onthe26thofMarch2002theGeneticEngineeringApprovalCommitteeof
India,gavetheconditionalclearancetoMonsantoandMahycoforcommercial
plantingofthegeneticallyengineeredBacillusthuringiensis(Bt.)cottoninfour
statesofsouthernandcentralIndia.
InJune2002,about55,000cottonfarmersdecidedtogrowBtcotton,whichwas
developedbyinsertingageneofbacteriaintotheplant'sgenometoenableitto
resistbollworm,amajorpestforcotton.
Inthefirstfewmonthsthefarmersweredelightedwiththecropsinceitgrewfast
andlookedhealthy.Mostsatisfyingwasthattheleaveswerenotbeingeatenby
worms.
Unfortunately,inthefourthmonth,theBtcottonstoppedgrowingandproducing
newbudswhiletheexistingcottonbollsdidnotgetanybigger.Thecropthen
wiltedanddriedupatthepeakbollingstage.Thiswasaccompaniedbyleaf
droopingandshedding.Therewasalsoburstingofimmaturebollsandheavy
infestationofbollworm.InthestateofAndhraPradesh79%ofthecropwaslost.
InMadhyaPradesh100%ofthecropwaslost.InMaharastra,theBtcrophas
failedacross30,000hec.InGujarat,itwascompletelydestroyedbythe
bollworm.Subsequently,about200farmerscommittedsuicide.
TheBt.cottonfailurehascostthefarmingindustryatotallossofRs.1128million
ortwentymillioneuroin105000acresacrossthecountryinonecropping
season.Thelawstatesthatanycompanythatprovidespoorqualityseeds,the
performanceofwhichdoesnotmatchtheclaimsmadebythecompany,istobe
heldliableforthefailureofthevariety.DespitethisMonsantohasrefusedto
acknowledgethefailureorprovideanycompensationtothefarmers.
Monsantoclaimedthatthecropwouldbecompletelypestresistant.Resultshave
clearlyshownthattheBTcottoncropwasdevastatedbypestattacks.Whenthe
BTtoxininthecropprovedineffectivein90daysthefarmersusedpesticides
boughtfromMonsanto.Thesprayingoftheseexpensivepesticideshadan
adverseaffectonthecrop.Theplantsdevelopedtheleafcurlvirusandtheroot
rotdiseaseandweredestroyed.Monsantotooknoresponsibility.
Monsantoclaimedthatthecropwouldberesistanttothebollwormprovidedthat
therewasa20percentrefugecropofnonBTcottonplantedalongsidetheBT
crop.Thiswouldensurethatthebollwormwouldattackonlytheconventional
crop.Inrealityhoweverthebollwormnotonlyattackedtheconventionalcropbut
alsodevastatedthebtcrop.ArelativeoftheAmericanbollwormcalledthepink
bollwormdevelopedwithimmunitytotheBTtoxin.
Alsointheseinstances,the20%refugeofconventionalcropactuallyyieldeda
betterharvest.Inmostcasesitwasonlytheconventionalrefugecropthat
survived.AgainMonsantotooknoresponsibility.
Monsantoclaimedthattherewouldbenoattackfromanyotherpests.Butin
realitysuckingpestslikeJassids,aphidsandThripsthrivedontheBt.Cotton.
ThespraysboughtfromMonsantotocontrolthesepestswereseventimesmore
expensivethanconventionalsprayseventhoughMonsantohadoriginally
claimedthattheywouldnotbenecessary.
Monsantoclaimedthattheyieldsofthebtcottoncropwouldbe15timeshigher
thantheaverageyieldofconventionalcotton.Butnowhereinthesurvivingfarms
didthecropexceedtheaverageyield.Agoodbtcropproduced60cottonbolls
perplantwhiletheconventionalplantproduced250to300.Theseedscostthe
farmersfourtimesmorethantheconventionalseedseventhoughtheyhaveto
beboughtonayearlybasis,astheycannotreproduce.Thelaborcostsalso
increasedby50%.
FollowingthedirepublicityovertheperformanceofitsGM(Bt)cottoninIndia,
andwithmanypoorIndianfarmersfacingruin,MonsantoMahycocameupwith
findingswhichitprovidedtotheIndiangovernmentshowingthatithadbeena
greatsuccess.GreenpeaceIndiasentitsownresearcherstocheckuponhow
thedatahadbeencompiledand,amongstmuchelse,theresearcherscollected
testimoniesfromfarmerswhosaidthattheyhadbeenadvisedbythecompanyto
inflatetheirrealyieldfigures.
Monsantoclaimsthatthenegativepublicityagainstthemhasbeenfabricatedby
competitors.TheydonotbelievethattheyowetheIndianfarmersany
compensationandplantocontinuewiththesaleoftheirseeds.
Instudiescarriedout,ithasbeendemonstratedthatgmcropstransfertheir
genestosoilfungiandbacteria.Theaffectedfungiandbacteriathenbehavein
abnormalwaysanddiminishtheirfunctioninbreakingdownorganicmaterial,
whichmakesnutrientsavailabletoplants.Thesoilwillbecomeprogressivelyless
fertile.Afterafewseasonsofplantingthegmcropthesoilwillnotbeabletohost
anyotherconventionalcrop.Iffarmerswishtoswitchbacktoconventionalcrops
itcouldtakeawholeseasontorehabilitatethesoil.Theeconomicconsequences
ofwhichareclearlyunfavorable.Thereisalsotheaddedcostofnutrientsand
fertilizersnecessarytoregeneratethesoil.Howeverthemostdangerousthreatis
thataftermanyseasonsitcouldbeimpossibletorevertbacktotheplantingof
anyconventionalcrop.Becausebythenthesoilcouldbecompletelyinfertile.
GMcropsaregeneticallymanipulatedsothattheydieafteroneseasonand
cannotreproduce.Thisisreferredtoastheterminatorgeneintheplant.Itis
promotedasameansofpreventingtransgeniccontaminationtoothercrops.This
hasprovedtobefalse.Itactuallyspreadsnotonlymalesterilitybutalso
herbicidetoleranceinothercrops.Thepollenfromthecropscarryingthe
Terminatorwillinfectthefieldsoffarmerswhoeitherreject,orcannotaffordthe
technology.
Anyfarmerwhosecropsarecontaminatedwillthenhavetolabelalltheir
produceas"gmcontaminated".Monsantocanalsosuethemforthetheftof
genes.
Onthe2ndofJanuary2003itwasreportedthattheplanforthe"protato"was
presentedataconferenceinLondonbyG.Padmanabanwhoasdirectorof
India'sprestigiousIndianInstituteofSciencehadsignedasecretdealwith
MonsantothatevenhisfellowscientistsoftheInstituteknewnothingabout.The
geneticallyengineeredpotatothatisnowbeingofferedaspartofanantihunger
strategyhasgenesfromtheplantamaranth.Particularlywhenfedtochildren
undertheageof13thegeneticallyengineeredpotatowillinfactcreate
malnutrition.Itdeniestochildrentheothernutrientsavailableingrainamaranth
andnotavailableinpotato.Thisgeneticallyengineeredpotatowillinfactspread
ironandcalciumdeficiencyinchildren.Thealreadymalnourishedchildrenwho
willbethemainconsumersofthepotatostandtosufferevengreater
deficiencies.
ThecowhasbeenmadesacredinIndiabecauseitisakeystonespeciesfor
agroecosystems.Andcowdung,biomassandbiodiversityarethenonviolent
organicalternativetogeneticengineeringandchemicals.Farmer'sorganizations
inIndiaandinAfricaaresaying"no"toGMO'sonthebasisoftheirfreedomto
choosetobeorganic.Thismeansbeingfreeofgeneticcontaminationthat
resultsfromGMcrops.Geneticcontaminationrobsfarmersoftheirfreedomto
beGMfree.OrganicagricultureinIndiaisincreasingfarmproductivityby2to3
times,increasingfarmersincomes,andprotectingpublichealthandthe
environment.
Amajorfactorinagricultureistheavailabilityofwater.Btcottonconsumesmuch
morewaterthannonBthybridsdo.Theruinfacedbythefarmersisofcritical
interesttoIndia,whichhastheworld'slargestacreageofcotton(25%atnine
millionhectares)butaccountsforjustalittleover12%oftheproduction.TheBT
cottondisasterdecreasedproductiondramaticallycreatinghavocintheIndian
economy.
Onthe5thofJanuary2004,theIndiangovernmentannounceddetailsofasix
yearplantodevelopnewgeneticallyengineeredcropsthatwillprovidebetter
nutrition.Governmentscientistssaythiskindofresearchisurgentlyneededto
improvethehealthofthedevelopingworld.The"PlantGenomeResearchRoad
Map",asit'scalled,wasunveiledattheIndianScienceCongress.
TheIndianmovementagainstGMwillcontinuetofightanygeneticmanipulation
ofcropsthatmightbeproposedbythegovernmentormultinationals.Farmers
acrossthecountryhavedeclaredthemselvesGmfreeandhavebeenstaging
protestsandformingmovementslikeQuitIndiaMonsantoandCremate
Monsanto.ActivistsinIndiabelievethatneitheraffluentpopulationsnorthose
strugglingtosurvivehavetheneedforaninadequatelytestedtechnologythat
hasthepotentialtocausedevastationonaglobalscaleintheyearstocome.We
havenoneedforatechnologythathasprovedbeyonddoubttobefataltothe
environment.
IndiaBecomingaDumpingGroundforGECrops
Astheworldwakesuptohumanhealthandenvironmentnuisancefromthe
geneticallymodified(GM)crops,Indiaisfastturningintoadustbinfor
thenewtechnology.
InMarch,WesternAustraliabecamethefirstAustralianstatetoban
outrightplantingofGMfoodcrops.ItsPremier,GeoffGallop,saidhedid
notwanttojeopardizehisstatescanolaindustryatatimewhen
internationalconsumersentimentwasopposedtoGMcrops.Withinafewdays
ofthisdecision,Victoriaimposedafouryearmoratoriumonthecultivation
ofGMoilseedsrapetoprotectitscleanandgreenimage.SouthAustralia
andTasmaniahavealreadybannedGMcrops.Fourstatesimposeda
moratoriumongrowingGMcropsinaspaceoffivedays.
IntheUnitedStates,MendocinocountyinCaliforniabecamethenations
firsttobantheraisingandkeepingofgeneticallyengineeredcropsor
animals.InMarch,thehillystateofVermont,inahistoricdecision,voted
overwhelminglytosupportabilltoholdbiotechcorporationsliableforunintended
contaminationofconventionalororganiccropsbygeneticallyengineeredplant
materials.Thisbillisthefirstofitskindintheworldthataimstoprotectafarmer
frombeingsuedbytheseedcompaniesifhiscropsarecontaminatedwithGMO
material.
InBritain,thedramaticturnaroundbyBayerCropSciencetogiveup
attemptstocommercializeGMmaize,haveensuredthatthecountryremainsGM
freetillatleast2008.DespiteTonyBlairsblindlovefortheindustry,
toughGMregulatoryregimecameinthewayoftheadoptionofthe
technology.InJapan,consumergroupsannouncedtheirintentiontopresenta
petitionsignedbyover1,000,000peopletoAgricultureandAgriFood
Minister,BobSpeller.ThepetitioncallsforabanonGEwheatinCanada.
JapanisoneofthebiggestmarketsforCanadianwheat.
InApril,however,theGeneticEngineeringApprovalCommittee(GEAC)in
IndiaapprovedanotherBtcottonvarietyforthecentralandsouthern
regionsamidstreportsthatthegoaheadcamewithoutadequatescientific
testing.TheapprovalalsocomesatatimewhentheUSDepartmentof
AgriculturesAnimalandPlantHealthInspectionService(APHIS)isseeking
publiccommentonpetitionsfromMycogenSeedstoderegulatetwolinesof
geneticallyengineeredinsectresistantcotton.APHISisseekingpublic
commentonwhetherthesecottonlinesposeaplantpestrisk.
Suchhasbeenthecasualapproachtoregulatethemostcontroversial
technologythatithasbecomepracticallydifficulttokeeptrackofthenew
GEACchief.Theykeeponchangingatapacefasterthanthatexpectedfrom
musicalchairs.Atthesametime,whileBritainhadsetinplaceatougher
regulatoryregimemakingthecompaniesliableforanyenvironmentalmishap,
Indiacontinuestoignorethewarning.TheregulationsthattheGEAChad
announcedatthetimeofaccordingapprovaltoBtcottonin2002wereonly
aimedatpacifyingthemedia.TheGEAChasnotbeenheldaccountableforthe
deliberateattemptstoobfuscatethepublicopinioninanefforttohelpthe
seedindustrymakeafastbuck.
Itisawidelyacceptedfactthatthesafetyregulations,includingthe
mandatorybufferzoneorrefugearoundtheBTcottonfields,werenot
adheredto.YettheMinistryofEnvironmentandForestsrefrainedfrom
penalizingtheseedcompany.NordiditdirectMahycoMonsantotocompensate
croplossesthatthefarmerssufferedintheveryfirstyearofplantingBt
cottonin200203.Thatthecrophadfailedtoyieldthedesiredresultswas
evenhighlightedinaparliamentarycommitteereport.
NotallGMdecisionsaretakeninaccordancewithscientificprinciples.
WhileaNGOpetitionbeforetheCentralVigilanceCommission(CVC)seeking
anenquiryintotheentiremonitoring,evaluationandapprovalprocesswas
ignored,theUSauthoritieshavelaunchedaninvestigationintoreportsof
allegedbribingofIndonesiangovernmentofficialswhoapprovedBtcotton.
BoththeUSDepartmentofJusticeandtheSecuritiesandExchange
CommissionareexaminingwhetheraformerconsultanttoMonsantomadean
improperUS$50,000paymentinearly2002.
MonsantospokeswomanLoriFisherwasquotedassaying:Theseareserious
allegationsandwewillcontinuetocooperate.Reuterreportsthatthe
companyisoneoftheworldsleadingdevelopersofgeneticallymodified
seeds,buthashadtroublegettingsomeofitsbiotechcropsapprovedin
foreigncountries,includingbiotechcottonintroducedinIndonesiain
2001.Monsantocloseddownthebiotechcottonsalesoperationsin2003after
twounsuccessfulyearsthatcameamidcomplaintsoveryieldsandpricing.
Indiahasmeanwhilebecomeafavoreddestinationforthebiotechnology
industrythatisvirtuallyontherunfromtheUS,EuropeanUnionand
Australia.InEurope,a2002surveyshowed61percentoftheprivatesector
cancelledR&Dasaresultofmoratoriumactions.Withhighlycriticalreportsof
regulatorymechanismcominginfromrespectableindependent
institutions,thetrendinUSisalsotowardsstillmoretougherregulations
therebyforcingbiotechnologycompaniestogrowthenextgenerationofGM
cropsinabandonedmines,usingartificiallightingandairfiltrationto
preventpollenmovement.
InIndiaontheotherhand,besidescotton,geneticengineeringexperiments
arebeingconductedonmaize,mustard,sugarcane,sorghum,pigeonpea,
chickpea,rice,tomato,brinjal,potato,banana,papaya,cauliflower,
oilseeds,castor,soyabeanandmedicinalplants.Experimentsarealso
underwayonseveralspeciesoffish.Infact,suchisthedesperationthat
scientistsaretryingtoinsertBtgeneintoanycroptheycanlaytheir
handson,notknowingwhetherthisisdesirableornot.ThemadraceforGM
experimentsistheoutcomeofmorefundingfromthebiotechcompaniesas
wellassupportfromtheWorldBank,FAOandtheConsultativeGroupon
InternationalAgriculturalResearch(CGIAR).
Interestingly,whiletherestoftheworldisstoppingGMresearchinthe
trackslestitdestroysthefarmtradeopportunitiesduetopublicrejection
ofthegeneticallyengineeredfood,IndianCouncilforAgriculturalResearch
(ICAR)merrilycontinuestosowtheseedsofthornsforagriculturalexports
therebyjeopardizingthefutureofdomesticfarming.Butthen,whocaresfor
thefarmersaslongasGMresearchensuresthelivelihoodsecurityforafew
thousandagriculturalscientists.
FutureofGMcropsinIndiaandtheworld
GeneticallymodifiedcroptechnologyhasrevolutionizedagricultureintheUnited
States,Canada,China,andArgentina.Itexhibitsthepotentialtohavemuch
widerimpact,solvingmanyofthecurrentproblemsinagricultureworldwide.The
typesofGMcropsthatmaybecomeavailableinthefuturecouldboostcrop
yieldswhileenhancingthenutritionalvalueofstaplefoodsandeliminatingthe
needforinputsthatcouldbeharmfultotheenvironment.Whilethe
environmental,health,andeconomicrisksofGMcropsshouldbecarefully
studiedbeforefullscaleadoption,thetypesofGMcropsthatarealready
availablehavethusfarlargelyproventobebeneficialtoagricultureandevento
theenvironment,withoutevidenceofadversehealthorenvironmentalimpacts.
In2002,58.7millionhectaresofGMcropsweregrownworldwidewithtwothirds
intheUS.OtherscountriesgrowingGMcropsareArgentina,Australia,Bulgaria,
Canada,China,Columbia,Honduras,India,Indonesia,Mexico,Romania,South
Africa,SpainandUruguay.
Globally,nearly12millionhectaresofGMmaizeweregrownin2002.IntheUS,
around25%ofthemaizeharvestisgeneticallymodified.InEurope,commercial
growingofGMBtmaizeisalreadyunderwayinSpain.
Around70%oftheUSsoyaplantedisGM.InArgentinathefigureis95%.
Currently,around46%oftheentireglobalsoyacropisGM.
Yet,inotherthanthefourcountriesmentionedabove,theGMcropmovement
hashadlittleornoimpact.Inthosepartsofthedevelopingworldwherean
agriculturalrevolutionmightbemostwelcome,theGeneRevolutionhasyettobe
embraced.Whyisthisso?
Foronething,theGeneRevolutionbeganinadifferentwaythantheGreen
Revolution.GMcropswerefirstcreatedwithinthecontextofthebiotechnology
industrytoprovideenhancedagriculturaltechnologiestotheindustrysprimary
customersfarmersintheindustrialworld.Thesecropswerenotmeantatthe
outsettobealifesavingtechnologyforthedevelopingworld.Althoughitis
almostcertainlypossiblefromascientificandtechnologicalstandpointtocreate
GMcropsthatwouldbebeneficialtodevelopingworldfarmers,neither
producers(thebiotechindustry)norconsumers(developingworldfarmers)have
sufficienteconomicincentivesforthistohappen.Infact,theenormouscostsof
producingeachGMcropvarietycouldprovetobeadisincentivefortheindustry
todeveloporphanGMcropsthatwouldbenefitdevelopingworldfarmers.
Additionally,evenifthebiotechindustryweretodevelopGMcropsthatare
beneficialtofarmersinthedevelopingworld,thepoorestofthosefarmerswould
notbeabletoaffordGMcropseedinsteadofconventionalvarieties,muchless
purchasenewGMcropseedforeveryplantingseason,asbiotechpatentswould
requirethemtodo.
Finally,thecurrentpoliticalsituationisnotasconducivetopromotingthisnew
agriculturalmovementasitwasfortheGreenRevolution.Forallthepotential
thatGMtechnologyholds,therearemanychallengestobeovercomeifGM
cropsaretotrulyintroduceaGeneRevolutionworldwide.
Infuturethefollowinggoalsneedtobemetandtheirrelatedchallenges
overcome:
1.Agriculturalbiotechnologymustbemadeaffordabletodevelopingworld
farmers.Unlessthisconditionismet,farmersmaynotseethatitisintheirbest
interesttouseGMcrops,despitethesignificantbenefitsthosecropscould
provide.
DuringtheGreenRevolution,thenewHYVseedsandaccompanyingchemicals
weremoreexpensivethanthelandraceseedsthatdevelopingworldfarmers
typicallyhadused.Therefore,loansystemsandcostreductionprogramswere
establishedregionallyinwhichfarmerseventualprofitsfromincreased
productioncouldbeusedtoreimburselenders.Inmanysettings,theseprograms
provedtobenolongernecessaryseveralyearsaftertheirsuccessfuladoption.
CurrentR&DcostsforgeneticallymodifiedseedsareevenhigherthantheR&D
costsfortheGreenRevolutionsHYVseeds.AtthepricethatU.S.farmers
currentlypay,GMseedswouldbeunaffordabletomostdevelopingworld
farmers.Costreductionprogramsandloansystemssimilartothosethatwere
establishedduringtheGreenRevolutionmustalsobeestablishedfortheGene
Revolutionhowever,establishingsuchsystemsismoredifficultnowbecauseof
highercostsandbecausetheseedsareproducedbythebiotechindustryrather
thanbyagriculturalscientistsinthepublicsector.
2.Thereisaneedforlargerinvestmentsinresearchinthepublicsector.
Numerousstudies(e.g.,Alstonetal.,1995Conway,1998Shoemakeretal.,
2001)haveshowntheimportanceofpublicsectorR&Dtoagricultural
advancements,includingtheadvancementsoftheGreenRevolution.Duringthe
GreenRevolution,partlybecausetheR&Danditsproductswerealmostentirely
inthepublicdomain,intellectualpropertyissueswerenotabarriertoscientists,
forexample,takingseedsfromoneregionoftheworld,hybridizingthemwith
seedsfromanotherregion,andproducingnewseedstobenefityetanother
region.Today,however,theproductionanddistributionofGMcropsarelargely
withinthedomainofthebiotechindustry,andIPissuesarecentraltothe
developmentofGMseed.WhileIPlawsprotecttherightsofGMseedcreatorsin
industry,thoselawsarecurrentlyanimpedimenttodisseminatingthenecessary
knowledgeandtechnologytothosepartsoftheworldthatneedthem.Therefore,
publicsectorresearchisessentialiftheGMmovementistoassume
revolutionaryproportions.Partnershipsbetweenthepublicandprivatesectors
canresultinthemoreefficientproductionofGMcropsthatareusefultothe
developingworldandexpandtheaccessibilityofthosecropsandtheir
associatedtechnologiestodevelopingworldfarmers.
3.Togarnerthelevelofpublicinterestandsupportthatcansustainan
agriculturalrevolution,agriculturaldevelopmentmustberegardedas
beingcriticallyimportantfromapolicyperspective,inbothdonorand
recipientnations. Withoutpublicpolicysupport,cooperationamongthemany
stakeholdersintheGeneRevolutionwillbestymied.
For30yearsafterWorldWarII,policymakersviewedagriculturaldevelopment
asbeingessentialtoworldpeace.Forthatreason,policymakersinboththe
UnitedStatesandinAsiaandLatinAmericasupportedtheGreenRevolution
fromthestart.TheendoftheColdWar,however,hasnotbroughtaboutan
increaseinglobalstability.WhereastheconflictbetweenEastandWesthas
declined,thereisagrowingdividebetweenrichandpoornations.Unfortunately,
withtheendoftheColdWar,developednationsareconcentratingmoreclosely
ontheirdomesticpoliticalagendasandlessonglobalconcerns,andassuch
havedecreasedtheirfundingtopoorernations.However,thesereductionsinaid
arenotinthebestlongterminterestsofevenindustrializednations.An
increasinglypolarizedworldoftherichversusthepoorwillresultingrowing
politicalunrest.Unlessdevelopingnationsarehelpedtoprovidesufficientfood,
employment,andshelterfortheirgrowingpopulations,thepoliticalstabilityofthe
worldwillbefurtherundermined(Conway,1998).
Aspopulationnumberscontinuetoincrease,agriculturaldevelopmentismore
necessarythanevertoeliminatemalnutritionandpreventfamine,particularlyin
subSaharanAfrica.GMcropsareseenasameansforaddressingthose
problems.However,policymakersworldwidearefarfrombeingacombinedforce
onthisissuethedrivingforcebehindimprovedagricultureislessunifiedthanit
wasduringtheGreenRevolution.Thequestionofwhoshouldassumethetask
ofreestablishingtheimportanceofagriculturaldevelopmentamong
policymakersisanissueforfurtherinquiry.
4.Policymakersinthedevelopingworldmustsetregulatorystandardsthat
takeintoconsiderationtherisksaswellasthebenefitsoffoodsderived
fromGMcrops.Thisgoaliscrucialtothecooperationofthemanystakeholders
thatareaffectedbyGMcropsandalsoforthesustainabilityoftheGMcrop
movementintheforeseeablefuture.Agenerationago,theregulatory
environmentsurroundingtheGreenRevolutionwasextremelypermissive.
ScientistscouldmovefreelyamongnationstohelpbreedandplantHYVcrops,
andtherewasnostigmaattachedtoeatingfoodsdevelopedfromthesecrops.
Today,however,theregulatoryworldisdividedbetweenthosenationsthat
permitGMcropstomovefreelythroughtheirfoodsystem(e.g.,theUnited
States,Canada,China,andArgentina)andthose(primarilytheEU)thathave
strictregulationsregardingGMcropsintheirfoodsystems.Therearemany
possiblereasonsforthedisparityinregulationsdifferingconsumerattitudes,
tradeissues,anddifferencesinregulatoryphilosophyamongthem.
ThediscordregardingGMcropregulationsiscurrentlyplayingitselfout(asof
thiswriting)inacasebeforetheWTOtodeterminewhethertheEUsruleson
GMfoodsconstituteanillegaltradebarrier.Inthemeantime,policymakersin
certainAfricannationshavedecidedthattheycannotaffordtopermitGMcrop
planting,evenifitisbeneficialtotheirgrowersandconsumers,becausetheyare
waryoflosingfinancialaidfromtheEUiftheyareseenastakingaproGMcrop
stance.Withoutregulationsthatexplicitlytakeintoaccountpotentialbenefitsto
bothfarmersandconsumers,thosenationsthatmightstandtobenefitmostfrom
GMcropsmaybediscouragedfromallowingthemtobeplanted.
Atthesametime,policymakersworldwidemustensurethatriskassessmentsof
GMcropsareconductedtoaddressthespecificconcernsoftheirregions.Arisk
assessmentoftransgeneoutflowintheUnitedStates,forexample,isunlikelyto
berelevanttoecologicalconcernsinMexicoorAfrica.Inassessingrisks,
policymakersindevelopingnationsmustconsider,amongotherfactors,the
typesofnativeandagriculturalplantsthatmaybeaffectedbythepresenceof
GMcrops,traditionalfarmingpracticesandthedesiredtraitsofGMcropsthat
maybeplantedintheirregionsintheneartermandlongterm.
References
http://www.zmag.org
http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/asap
http://www.afic.org
http://www.biomedcentral.com
Bibliography
http://www.ucbiotech.org/
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gmfood
http://www.gmissues.org