|
.
(BIO)safety first
Bt Cotton: don't politicise an issue of public safety
We would like to commend the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment and Forests of the Central Government, for its decision to order the destruction of the Bt Cotton found to be illegally growing in Gujarat, and at the same time would like to urge that the issue not be made into a political one about Centre vs. State or one party vs. another.
Whether Bt cotton, or other genetically engineered (GE) crops, should be grown in India, is a serious question with ecological, social, and economic dimensions. Before going in for any such technology, we
must be sure of at least the following:
1. That the GE crops will not cause, in the short and long run, damage to biological diversity, soils, and water;
2. That GE crops and food products, once they enter the bodies of human beings and other animals, will not cause negative health impacts;
3. That GE crops will not drive the small and marginal farmers of India to further debilitating dependence on the market and on governments, and rob them of any chance of having control over their farming systems.
It is a simple fact that GE crops have not yet been shown to stand up to the above tests, and that world-wide, there is increasing evidence that in fact they may be causing long-term damage. We are playing with fire if we allow such technologies and products, without knowing how to deal with the consequences. In that sense, the GEAC decision is both scientifically sound and legally correct.
We would also like to demand that:
1. The entire system by which seed certification and monitoring is done in India, should be overhauled, given the obvious failure of the system to detect this illegally sold transgenic seed.
2. No GE crops or food products be allowed to enter India without independent risk assessment through studies over several years, on human, animal, soil, and water health impacts.
3. Much greater transparency, and public participation (of farmers, scientists and NGOs), should
be mandatory in the system of testing, screening, certification, and
monitoring. More non-official members should be included in the relevant Committees that screen applications for releases of GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
4. For a start, the test results so far obtained for Bt cotton should be made
publicly available for peer review.
5. Assessments should also be done on the social, economic and political dimensions of GE crops, in particular the impacts on the rights and social structures of small and marginal farmers, especially women.
6. Much greater stress (including R&D) should be put into
organic cultivation methods, which totally avoid pesticides and chemical fertilisers.
The indigenous systems of mixed and rotational cropping with polyculture having a proven track record of minimising pest and disease attack without any use of pesticides must be enhanced by the Government of India by a system of rewards and subsidies to
farmers. There are, for instance, hundreds of farmers in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh who are getting high yields of cotton through organic cultivation, yet the government has ignored them and is unnecessarily tending towards hi-tech and high-cost "solutions" like genetic engineering.
Bt crops are found in some cases to have necessitated increased pesticide use, contrary to the biotech claim.
7. In Andhra Pradesh early this year, a farmers' jury composed of small farmers, women and dalits categorically rejected GM crops saying that it opposes GM crops including Vitamin A Rice and Bt Cotton. Such normally
unheard voices must be carefully taken into consideration in policy
decisions.
8. Renewed stress on public control over agricultural R&D, rescuing it from increasing domination and monopoly by vested trade and corporate interests.
9. The Government of India ratify the Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety to which it is a signatory and which explicitly mandates a precautionary approach, and having done so,
review and update domestic law on biosafety.
10. Till a comprehensive review of biosafety legislation is effected criminal/corporate liability of the seed company for the current situation be ascertained under the existing laws. Any further impact of this current situation should be resolved by adopting the
polluter-pays-principle. And that the Government use the opportunity to evolve clear guidelines for
liability and compensation. The GE crops be destroyed and that farmers be compensated. The modalities and the process of operationalising this
compensation be a public/transparent
process.
We urge the Government of Gujarat, and relevant farmers' movements, not to complicate this issue by invoking false honour and to instead pay heed to the rational voice that demands abundant precaution while dealing with such inherently dangerous
technologies.
******
Ashish Kothari / Kanchi Kohli / Shalini Bhutani
Kalpavriksh - Environmental Action Group
J 20 Jungpura Extension, New Delhi 110014
Aptmt. 5 Shree Datta Krupa, 908 Deccan Gymkhana, Pune 411004
PV Satheesh
Deccan Development Society, A-6 Meera Apartment, Basheer Bagh, Hyderabad
Debal Deb
Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies, Barrackpore 743 187, West Bengal
For further information you may please contact:
Shalini Bhutani
(In Delhi) Tel: 011-4316717, e-mail: shalinibhutani@indiatimes.com
Ashish Kothari
(In Pune) Tel/Fax: 020-5654239, e-mail: ashish@nda.vsnl.net.in
| 
