Plant Biotech Blog

Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco) sought the permission of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of India, for large-scale open field trials of eight genetically modified brinjal hybrids. This threw opponents of genetically modified food in India into a tizzy. ‘Position papers on genetically modified brinjal’, spiced with a lot of pseudo-science have been widely circulated, demanding GEAC’s ban of all genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in India. The GEAC placed the biosecurity data provided by Mahyco on their website for public comment. The propaganda machinery has now drafted, anti-GMOs experts/scientists from the US, UK and New Zealand.

Brinjal (aubergine, egg plant, Solanum melongena) is a vegetable in Asia and Europe. The original Persian/Arabic name al-bAdhinjAn, gave rise to, a) with the al, the French name ‘aubergine’ derived from Catalan albergínia, and b) without the al, the Portuguese berinjela, and the Spanish berenjena, which became brinjal in Indian and Sri Lankan English. The samskrith name vatinganah, produced baingan in Hindi, van(g)kayi in Telugu (-kayi is raw fruit), badanekaryi in Kannada and similar names in Indian languages.

Centres of Origin of cultivated plants are determined on a variety of circumstantial evidence, especially on the number and diversity of related wild species. In most cases there is hardly any sound scientific proof for the conclusions drawn.

Overall evidence strongly suggests that South America was the Centre of Origin of the species of the genus Solanum, to which both potato (Solanum tuberosum) and brinjal belong.

The exact origin of Solanum melongena is uncertain. It probably originated from the African wild species Solanum incanum. Solanum melongena was first domesticated in Southeast China, and taken to the Mediterranean region during the Arab conquests in the 7th century. If brinjal was mentioned in ancient Indian literature, it only indicates that it was naturalized, having been introduced into India, a long time ago and this in itself is not an evidence of its origin in India.

Centres of Diversity are determined on the basis of the number and diversity of related species or varieties in the wild. The fundamental criterion of relationship is that two or more species or varieties freely interbreed producing fertile offspring. The number and diversity of cultivated varieties of a crop species in a country is not the basis to determine origin and diversity, as developing such varieties is an essentially human activity.

A decade or so ago, considerations of origin and diversity were of some significance in crop plant breeding, to aid the choice of species/varieties with desirable genes and to produce fertile hybrids with the cultivated varieties of the related crops. With several techniques of molecular biology and genetic engineering available now, the relevance of theoretical and academic inferences on the Centres of Origin and Diversity has diminished considerably.

Several species of Solanum occur in the wild in India. Cytogeneticists have artificially produced interspecific hybrids of species of Solanum. It was not so difficult to produce first generation hybrids, which generally suffered from chromosomal instability and pollen sterility, hardly resulting in any fertile hybrids.

Random Amplification of Polymorphic DNA analysis (RAPD, a technique in genome comparisons) shows that Solanum incanum and then Solanum viarum are the closest to Solanum melongena. Solanum incanum and Solanum viarum occur infrequently in the wild in India, but are hardly sympatric and panmictic with the cultivated varieties. When artificial hybrids were produced, the progeny were sterile, leaving no chances for gene flow among these related species.

In nature, species of Solanum do not normally hybridize, as they are predominantly (over 90 per cent) self-pollinated. Anthers that open by small apical pores are the characteristic feature of the genus Solanum, unlike in many other plant species where the anthers open dehiscing longitudinally to fully expose the pollen to the air and pollinators. Solanum pollen are sticky and do not travel long distances, even if they become airborne. Insects visit Solanum flowers but their role in pollination is insignificant.

There are many cultivated varieties of brinjal in India, some of which are restricted to specific regions, as for example the ‘Udupi gulla’ variety of Mangalore. Wild species of Solanum and several cultivated varieties of brinjals co-exist. However, farmers and scientists are not aware of any hybrids between the two groups and no effort is made to protect different varieties of cultivated brinjals from hybridizing among themselves or with the wild Solanums.

The floral structure and the reproductive biology of brinjals and experience in cultivating them for several centuries in India, do not suggest any possibility of gene flow from transgenic brinjals to normal brinjals.

The biosecurity of Bt insecticidal proteins in genetically engineered crops is thoroughly assured by evidence on the use of genetically modified pesticides for over 60 years and the cultivation and consumption of Bt transgenics for a decade. None of the extensive studies on the safety of genetically modified proteins conducted in various countries has indicated any possibility of their being harmful to animals and humans or the environment.

Cry 1 Ac is toxic only under specific conditions. It is non-toxic to all organisms with an acidic stomach and with no binding sites for the crystal protein, which includes all mammals and non-target organisms.
Brinjal fruits are not toxic to mammals. But, all the other parts of the brinjal palnt are toxic, due to several alkaloids. Cattle are not deliberately fed on brinjal plants. Grown under water scarcity, even the fruit accumulates alkaloids and phenolic compounds, which give a bitter taste and make the fruit inedible.
Scientific evidence does not indicate any possibility of Bt brinjals posing serious or unmanageable risks to the farmers, consumers or the environment.

C Kameswara Rao
Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education, Bangalore, India krao@vsnl.com, www.fbae.org, www.fbaeblog.org

The Indian private seed companies profited till now from the basic technology and crop breeding material from the public sector, be it the research & development institutions of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, or State Agricultural Universities and their stations, or the Agricultural Research Stations of the State Governments. While a good part of this technology transfer was above board, some seed companies were often accused of appropriating the technology without authorization or recompense. Even some of the scientists involved in research and development in the public sector were accused of having kept their research under wrap till retirement, and of selling it to the private sector post-retirement.

Now the first step in changing this practice is being taken by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company (Mahyco), the target board of opponents of genetically modified foods in India. Mahyco is transferring the technology and basic breeding material of genetically engineered brinjal to two public sector institutions (PSIs), the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore (TNAU) and the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (UASD), though the ownership of the genetic engineered event EE-1 still rests with Mahyco. This partnership arrangement will be extended to the Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi, University of Philippines, Los Banos, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute and a private seed company, East West Seeds, Bangladesh.

The genetically engineered brinjal contains a gene construct of Cry 1 Ac from Monsanto, the American MNC, which has a 26 per cent stake in Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech (MMB). The public sector institutions will now use the Mahyco material to backcross with their own brinjal varieties to incorporate the genetic event into them, imparting tolerance to the fruit and stem borers of brinjal that cause severe damage to the produce.

In India alone, 25 million farmers cultivate brinjal on over 5.1 lakh hectares with an annual production of about 8.2 million tonnes. Even after continuous insecticide application, the stem and fruit borers affect 50 to 70 per cent of the crop annually.

Mahyco has integrated EE1 into eight of its own brinjal hybrids (MHB 4, 9, 10, 80, 99, 11, 39, 111) and sought permission of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for large scale open field trials (LSOFT). The activists contested the move, but not on any sound scientific grounds. The GEAC has put all the biosecuirty data provided by Mahyco on its website for public comment. The approval of the GEAC for LSOFT has to come yet.

The TNAU will use brinjal hybrids Co-1, PLR-1, MDU-1 and KKM-1 while the UASD will use Manjari Gota, Udupi Gulla, Malapur local, Kudachi local, 112-GO hybrids and Rabkavi local, together covering a large part of the needs of the four southern States.

So long as the public sector institutions do not involve in commercializing these genetically engineered varieties, no royalties need be paid. The farmers can save the seed to raise the subsequent season’s crop, unlike the genetically modified cotton hybrids. What costs the farmers would have to pay for different varieties of genetically engineered brinjal is yet unknown.

It is not clear if the public sector institutions made any lumpsum payment for the transfer of technology, which seems to have been effected through the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USaid).

The situation is a welcome change as the development of none of the 60 or so genetically modified hybrids involved the public sector institutions. There were very steep royalty or trait charges paid by the farmers, which was one of the most serious criticisms against MMB. In addition, there is the inadvisability of recycling the seed.

While this much-awaited private and public partnership is refreshing, celebration should be put on hold for several reasons.

The genetically modified brinjal EE1 event did not originate with PSIs, not even with Mahyco; it is Monsanto’s technology. The Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) has been developing a genetically modified brinjal with Cry1Ab for nearly a decade, and its progress is anybody’s guess.

Of the 67 or so GE crop traits registered for development in India, the largest number (39) are from about 20 PSIs. In spite of working for 10 to 15 years, not even a single trait is likely to be commercialized in this decade, not withstanding the enthusiastic announcements on their marketing soon. None of the events that are now being commercialized or in the process of commercialization in the near future have originated in this country; it is imported technology, bought or even pirated, directly or indirectly.

It is hard to believe that this new largesse of Mahyco is due to a change of heart; business compulsions and strategies cannot be ruled out. People who forget history will be condemned to repeat it.

India’s Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) ruled against MMB on charges of monopoly, which virtually ended this year. Distributing the genetically engineered brinjal event to a few other seed developers may avoid a repetition of such an allegation.

The original four genetically engineered cotton varieties of Mahyco were neither genetically superior nor suited to all cotton growing regions. Even with some 40 to 60 different Bt cotton varieties today, one is not sure that every cotton-growing region in the country is being served well. One would wish that more varieties of genetically engineered brinjal with superior genotypes would be developed for the other regions of the country as well.

The royalty or trait charge component of genetically modified cotton was high. Hopefully, MMB would take note of the rough weather faced by its genetically engineered cotton and fix reasonable costs.

The move to allow some public sector institutions to share the Bt brinjal technology is good for the public image of Mahyco, viewed as contributing to the much-aspired private-public partnership. And it would certainly take a lot of wind out of the anti-tech activists’ tirade against MMB.