1. Engineered ban
It is unfortunate that policy makers are disregarding peer-reviewed scientific opinion on GM crops, says Surinder Sud.
Indian plant biotechnologists feel demoralised and displeased at the recent developments concerning genetically modified (GM) crops. Their dismay is chiefly because the indefinite moratorium on the release of genetically engineered Bt-brinjal has clouded the prospects for several other GM crops that are in the pipeline.
Intensive scientific effort and heavy investments have gone into the development of these crops. Their displeasure is largely because the present opposition to the GM technology is based chiefly on misconceived apprehensions and not on proven facts. A good deal of disinformation has been doled out to the unwary public on GM crops by detractors of biotech products. By thwarting the gainful application of biotechnology, these activists are curtailing the technology options available to farm scientists to ensure that agricultural growth keeps pace with increasing demand. Failure on this front will result in widespread shortages of farm goods, high prices and public distress.
It is unfortunate that a section of politicians holding policy-making positions are disregarding peer-reviewed scientific opinion on GM crops and are, instead, falling for disputable dissenting viewpoints. Moreover, the logic-based explanations offered by the scientific community on GM technology and its potential to empower agriculture to meet the future needs of food, fuel and fibre are invariably drowned by the anti-GM din raised by environment and health activists.
Realising this, some local and transnational agricultural research promotion bodies have come forward to disseminate accurate and unbiased information on GM technology. As a first step, a “stakeholders interface on GM food crops” was organised in Delhi last week by the Asia-Pacific Consortium on Agricultural Biotechnology (APCoAB) and the Trust for Advancement of Agricultural Sciences (TAAS). This meet was attended by several well-regarded agricultural scientists, biotechnologists, policy makers, biosafety experts, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), representatives of the seed sector and, most importantly, farmers who have already used transgenic Bt-cotton hybrids with spectacular results.
The consensus among the stakeholders was that clearing misconceptions on this count was necessary to safeguard farmers’ interests and to prepare for the formidable challenge of ensuring sustainable food security.
The green revolution of the 1960s became possible because of unflinching public and political support and policy backing for the new technology. Had that technology faced this kind of resistance from the activists, the green revolution would never have materialised. Unless similar public, political and policy support is forthcoming again for the promotion of the contemporary state-of-the-art technology, the much-needed second green revolution may remain elusive.
It may be recalled that when approval to Bt-brinjal was withheld, an impression was created that the noted farm expert, M S Swaminathan, was opposed to GM technology. This is far from true, as is clear from the message he sent for circulation at the stakeholders’ conference. He wrote: “Bt-brinjal need not be banned, but there should be caution that one or two hybrids do not replace hundreds of native varieties which all have distinct quality characters.” Besides, he suggested that studies should be carried out on the chronic effects of consuming Bt brinjal throughout one’s life. He also argued for putting in place a system of testing environmental and health aspects of the GM products of the kind that exists in the US. That country has three different public agencies to examine transgenic crops against any adverse impact on human health, biodiversity and the environment.
Surprisingly, instead of revamping the GM crop-testing infrastructure and procedure, the government has chosen to thwart the very evolution of GM seeds. The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, which seeks to set up a competent and autonomous regulator for safety assessment and approval of biotech products, has for long been awaiting Parliamentary approval, for lack of any initiative by the government to expedite it. Worse, even the existing Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has been made redundant with the environment minister usurping the power for approval of such crops, overruling GEAC decisions. This is truly bizarre.
Source: Surinder Sud / New Delhi May 31, 2011; e-mail: surinder.sud@gmail.com
From: http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/surinder-sud-engineered-ban/437210/
2. European Union Contributes to New International Network on Tropical Root Crops
The European Union (EU) has contributed €3 million over five years to the newly formed International Network for Edible Aroids (INEA). INEA is a consortium of scientists and growers from all over the world. The aim of the Network is to implement a project entitled: Adapting Clonally Propagated Crops to Climatic and Commercial Change. Clonally propagated crops are important to the world’s poor, but because they rarely flower or set seed they are slow to respond to changing environments. Edible aroids – taro, tannia, swamp taro, giant taro, elephant foot yam, and more – are the focus of the project. The inaugural meeting of INEA was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 13 and 14 April 2011. The meeting heard from participants on their achievements to date in the area of edible aroids and their expectations of INEA.
“We are very pleased for participating countries that INEA has come to fruition”, said Dr Vincent Lebot, technical coordinator of the project from CIRAD, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement. “We can now develop a global network of scientists and farmers, freely exchanging plants and seeds, information and technologies to improve these crops everywhere they are grown”, he added.
Dr Lebot was speaking at the opening of INEA’s inaugural meeting. SPC Fiji, together with CIRAD France and Vanuatu, are implementing agencies of the project, in charge of financial and scientific matters, respectively.
The participating countries in INEA are: Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Cuba, Germany, Ghana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Samoa, Slovenia, South Africa, and Vanuatu. There are two regional organisations: SPC and CARDI, the Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute, Trinidad; and two international agricultural research organisations: CIRAD and Bioversity International, Italy.
Further information on INEA and details of the inaugural meeting are available on the INEA website http://www.ediblearoids.com/
Source: Mary Taylor (Dr), Genetic Resources Coordinator/Centre for Pacific Crops and Trees Manager, Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), Private Mail Bag, Suva, Fiji, Tel: (679) 3379271. Fax: (679) 3370021; e-mail: MaryT@spc.int; Website: http://www.spc.int
3. ICRISAT Forms South-South Initiative to Fight Poverty in the Drylands.
