Plant Biotech Blog

The fruit and shoot borer (Leucinodes orbonalis) of brinjal causes crop losses of 50 to 70 per cent. Farmers are prone to an indiscriminate use of chemical pesticides around 25 to 80 sprays and this involves heavy expenditure and results in blemished fruits. Excessive chemical use also leads to a build up of pesticide residues in the produce, destruction of beneficial insects, pest resurgence, exposure of farm workers to pesticides and environmental pollution. Cry 1 Ac gene from Bacillus thuringiensis inserted into brinjal varieties (Bt brinjal), like genetically modified cotton, provides an inbuilt pest control mechanism to save the crop from damage, reduce cultivation costs and prevent the incidental health and environmental hazards.

Mahyco have developed Bt Brinjal hybrids, and also have entered into a partnership with public institutions to develop local varieties with the Bt gene.

Mahyco approached the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for permission to conduct large-scale open field trials. No sooner, the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad and Greenpeace India trashed the concept of Bt brinjal, brought out position papers and represented to the GEAC against Mahyco’s request. Though there were also representations to the GEAC in favour of Bt brinjal, the GEAC was fair to the anti-biotech lobby, and constituted a committee to look into this contentious issue. Not satisfied with the composition of GEAC’s Committee, the anti-biotech lobby has constituted its own ‘independent committee of experts’, a sort of a parallel ‘GEAC’. Although apparently this committee is meant to block genetically modified brinjal, nothing prevents it from gaining fresh lease of life to pontify on other genetically engineered crops.

A number of questions raised by the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture and Greenpeace regarding genetically modified brinjal were discussed on this site earlier.

Bt brinjal was subjected to a variety of tests and analyses and the details are available on the website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. None of these studies have indicated any negative possibilities that warrant banning Bt brinjal from commercial cultivation.

During the development of Bt brinjal by Mahyco since the year 2000, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR, Government of India) and the Review Committee on Genetic Modification (RCGM, Department of Biotechnology, Government of India) were monitoring multi-location field trials. The Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, an ICAR institution, which has a considerable experience with Bt brinjal, is also associated. A number of private and public sector institutions/organizations are involved in the mandatory and supplementary tests and analyses, as below:

a) Acute oral toxicity in rats, mucous membrane irritation tests in female rabbits, and primary skin irritation tests in rabbits: Intox, Pune.
b) Effects on non-target and beneficial insects: All India Co-ordinate Research Project (Vegetable Crops), Varanasi.
c) Assessment of allergenicity: Rallis India Ltd., Bangalore.
d) Dietary feed responses of the common carp and growth performances: Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai.
e) Effects on broiler chickens: Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar.
f) Subchronic feeding tests on rabbits and goats: Advinus Therapeutic, Bangalore.
g) Feeding experiments on cows: GB Pant University of Agricultural Sciences, Pantnagar.
h) Molecular finger printing and chemical studies: Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad.

This belies the charge that open field trials of Bt brinjal are being conducted by the companies and without independent verification of the safety claims made by the product developers. If one believes the anti-tech lobby, all these public and private sector investigating agencies are in collusion with the product developers.

Efficacy studies showed that Bt brinjal varieties effectively controlled the brinjal stem and fruit borer and the American bollworm, with an insect mortality of 98 per cent.

Various other parameters comparing Bt and non-Bt varieties of brinjal, such as pollen flow, seed germination and weediness, aggressiveness, accumulation of Bt proteins in the soil, soil micro-biota, Substantial Equivalence, protein expression, baseline susceptibility, the extent of refugium needed and its benefits and socio-economic and risk assessment, etc., were examined, none of which indicates that Bt brinjal is undesirable.

The Bt brinjal varieties were found to be Substantially Equivalent to their non-Bt isogenics in such factors as chemical constituents, moisture, proteins, oil, ash, carbohydrates, calories per fruit, nitrogen, ash and crude fiber contents in leaf, stem and root tissues, cooking qualities and protein estimation in cooked fruits.

None of this goes well with the protesters.

While considering a Public Interest Litigation against all genetically engineered (GE) products, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) directed the GEAC recently, not to accord approval for fresh field trials of GE crops and this has put Mahyco’s application for large-scale open field trials of Bt brinjal on hold. Though the ruling of the SCI, however, does not bar the GEAC’s brinjal Committee from functioning, Bt brinjal has still a long rough road to travel to commercialization.

Dr Rao is also the executive secretary of the Indian-based Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education(FBAE) .

The Supreme Court of India (SCI, September 22, 2006) directed the country’s Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), not to give approvals to genetically modified products until further orders. This has perplexed the biotech community but pleased the anti-biotech lobby, which seems to read too much into this two-week restriction. The SCI’s directive is in consideration of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed on May 1, 2006, seeking a ‘ban on the release of genetically modified organisms/seeds having the potential of causing major health hazards’. The SCI’s directive has been widely reported in the Indian Press (Indo Asian News Service, The Times of India, The HIndu, Financial Express), which would not have happened if the directive were to be against the petitioners.

Fixing October 13, 2006 for the next hearing on the PIL, the SCI stated that ‘we are not inclined to direct stoppage of all field trials at this stage without (considering) the stand of the respondents. At the same time we deem it appropriate to direct GEAC to withhold the approvals till further directions are issued on hearing all concerned’. The SCI’s order would thus not apply to field trials of genetically modified products, which were already approved by the GEAC.

The SCI’s directive is sub judice to comment, but the implications of the petition need to be considered, in public interest.

The petitioners pleaded for a ‘stay against grant of fresh approvals and of all field trials on genetically modified crops, alleging that the policy of the government was to give speedy clearance to genetically modified organisms even before putting in place a mechanism to test their bio-safety value’. The fact is that there is a well-appreciated and robust multi-step mechanism for biosecurity evaluation of genetically engineered (GE) crops in the country.

The petitioners said that the ‘use of technology of genetic engineering and release of GM organisms into the environment would require application of precautionary principle, which mandated that every possible precaution must be taken to ensure that no harmful effects are caused to human and animal health and environment’. This is overstretching the import of the Precuationary Principle (PP), which advises only a cautious approach, and was not intended to block deployment of genetically engineered products altogether on objections not supported by science. Precautionary principle was also not meant to be invoked ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

The petitioners alleged that ‘GE, if allowed to proceed unchecked would change the molecular structure of the world’s food’. This is a highly imaginative and misleading assumption to paint a scary scenario, which does not make any scientific sense. It was further said that ‘if the GEAC’s reckless rush into genetically modified foods were not checked, this process would be the fastest and riskiest experiment anywhere with irreversible impacts on our farmers, their crop choices, our food and health’.

The GEAC is composed of competent experienced agricultural scientists and other experts who know their responsibility and they have been doing their job as per the rule of law. What might have disturbed the anti-agribiotech lobby in India is that the present GEAC is more pro-active and does not dilly-dally, like its predecessor.

The petition is projected as the ‘apprehension of agriculturalists about possible mutilation of domestic seed variety by the onslaught of genetically modified seeds’. All along, the farmers chose what was best for them and discarded thousands of varieties of crops that were in cultivation at the given time. The farmer will continue to exercise a similar choice and if there were no demand for GE varieties, the market forces will push them out. Even when the genetically engineered seed is on the market, the farmer has the freedom to choose the non-GE seed.

The charge that ‘genetically modified products being introduced by some of the MNCs posed serious threat to ecology, crops and human lives’, is emotionalization and sensationalization of the issue stemmed in the bogie of MNC domination and is bereft of any rational science. The Indian public sector institutions have been developing about 39 genetically engineered traits in 23 crops, much more than the private companies.

The petitioners alleged that ‘open field trials of genetically modified Okra, Brinjal and Rice are being conducted in various parts of the country on the basis of the safety tests conducted by the companies and without any independent verification of their safety claims about GM seeds’.

Throughout the world, the product developers provide the basic biosecurity data based on existing governmental guidelines. They are verified and supplemented by public institutions and/or accredited private establishments. In India there are no independent private institutions to conduct biosecuirty evaluations. The Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India, is now in the process of putting such a mechanism in place. Currently, the independent public sector research institutions of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) conduct biosecurity evaluations.

The advice of the SCI to the Government to ‘consider associating independent experts in the field with the GEAC’ is not an issue with the GEAC, as they had earlier involved other outside experts. The anti-tech activists too were given an opportunity to present their point of view before the GEAC.

While the final decision of the SCI is anybody’s guess at the moment, waiting for it is inevitable.

Dr. Rao is the executive secretary of the Indian-based Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education (FBAE). He can be reached at krao@vsnl.com.

The Commission on Green Biotechnology is a constituent of the Union of the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities (UGASH). The InterAcademy Panel (IAP), a worldwide network of 92 academies of sciences, with its secretariat in Trieste/Italy, advises citizens and politicians in their home countries on current problems of global relevance.
The Berlin Group comprises of participants in a workshop on ‘Genetically modified crops in developing countries’, jointly conducted by UGASH and IAP in Berlin between May 27 and 29, 2006. The Berlin Group has now issued a statement that is being circulated for adoption by various academies in Europe and elsewhere.

The Berlin Group has taken the position that “molecular engineering of crops has brought revolutionary advances in agriculture.”

The group notes that in just ten years since their introduction, many genetically modified crop varieties have been grown on about 5 per cent of all global arable land. Genetically modified crops are now being grown in 21 countries by 8.5 million farmers, 90 per cent of them being resource-poor.

Some developing countries, the group further observes, have benefited from genetically modified crops and are now in a position to affirm their need and their will to adopt them. Based on this assertion, the Berlin Group states:

1. Foods from GM crops are more extensively tested than any other and have been shown to be as safe as, or even sometimes safer than, foods derived from the corresponding conventional plants. Ten years of human consumption and extensive nutritional testing amply support this conclusion. Any food, GM or not, may certainly involve some risks for human health. There is presently not the least scientific and/or medical evidence that the risks possibly entailed by the former would be higher than those entailed by the latter.

2. The environmental impact of GM crops is no greater than that of traditional crops. In some cases GM crops have diminished the negative effects of current agricultural practices. Insect-resistant cotton requires substantially decreased applications of chemical pesticides while herbicide-tolerant crops permit no-till practices, cutting energy use and promoting healthy soils. Seed-incorporated technology is particularly suitable for small farmers in developing countries. GM crops resistant to pests and diseases reduce farmers’ exposure to chemical pesticides, particularly when applied by hand sprays. The successful cultivation of GM cotton in the developing countries shows how subsistence farmers have significantly increased their income and improved the quality of their life.

3. In both developed and some developing countries, organic farmers have already been operating in an environment subjected to influences from neighbouring activities. With proper separation safeguards, the presence of genes encoding GM traits in organic products is trivial. Nothing in GM agriculture prevents organic farmers from pursuing their normal practices. There is no evidence-based justification in the rules of organic farming to exclude the use of GM crops.

4. GM crops can make a major global contribution to the quantity and quality of food. In developing countries, farmers suffer major crop losses caused by insects and diseases. GM technology has already shown that such losses can be significantly reduced, leading directly to improvements in food quality and safety (e.g. insect-resistant maize has appreciably lower levels of highly carcinogenic fungal toxins).

5. Just as each consumer ought to have the right to adopt or reject GM food, farmers should be able to decide for themselves whether to plant conventional, organic or GM crops. For such a choice, appropriate regulations including labelling of GM products must be in place, and such regulations should be proportionate and not excessive. The safety assessment procedures now enacted in developed countries for GM crops and products result in needlessly high costs and hinder the application of this valuable technology to the many crops grown in the developing world. For developing countries to have access to crop biotechnology for their own agriculture, international and non-profit organizations must help governments to formulate appropriate regulations and assist with the training of personnel to administer them.

6. It is frequently argued that farmers growing GM crops loose their freedom when they are obliged to buy their seeds annually. However, in most developing countries farmers are accustomed to using farmer saved seeds that is in many cases allowed by law, and this could also be applied to GM cultivars.

The Berlin Statement denounces the unsupported arguments used against GM crops and calls upon governments and environmental nonprofits to end unjustified campaigns against GM crops.

Such a firm and positive stance covering all contingent issues is most welcome, more particularly since it comes from Europe, often cited as vehemently opposed to genetically modified food.

Dr. Rao is the executive secretary of the Indian-based Foundation for Biotechnology Awareness and Education(FBAE), Bangalore, India. He can be reached at krao@vsnl.com