Impact of GM

Chapter V

Impact of GM

Broad Contents on Genetic Modification tentative

1. General Information on GM science,
What is the idea behind GM? How it is done? What are the GM products? what are the new research in GM?

2. GM and idea of food security
money means food security, as soon as we have purchasing power we are secured.
the whole approach is to increase food production.

3. National and International Legislation

International bodies- WTO, US Food and Drugs Administration FDA, WHO

National Bodies- Ministry of Health, Ministry of Biotechnology, Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Ministry of Forest and Environment

Approaches of European countries, Approaches of USA, Indian Approach

4. Politics in GM
Who all are governing GM/food related policies?
Few GM companies, How are field trials done? Who does field trials?
Patent Issue, seed bill 2004 and critics

5. Impact of GM
- Health Impact
- Environmental Impact (lose of bio-diversity, quality of soil etc)
- Socio-economic Impact (crop failure and farmers suicides in Bt cotton region)

6. Alternatives
Isolation of GM from traditional agriculture
GM vs Organic/Natural farming
Implications to Genetic Modification

Implication to Health

On 13th Febuary 2008, during the hearing of the PIL on Genetically Modified crops, the Chief Justice of India stated that GM crops give higher yields. The Prime Minister and his cabinet believe it, as is evident from the Centre’s policy to promote GM crops in India. This is an astonishing notion, with no factual basis. It would therefore be well to bell this particular cat and others, by making a start with separating the facts from fiction with regard to Genetic Engineering (GE) and its products GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms).

GM crops have been tested as safe for human consumption At a time when other countries are getting tougher about GM crops, India is relaxing norms; pushing ahead with reckless haste. India generally follows the US regulation on GM and borrows wholesale from it. It might then come as a surprise that the US Food and Drug Administration does not approve any GM crop as safe for human consumption. Members of the European Parliament have called for a Community response to the threat posed by the introduction of “invasive alien species and alien genotype;” “to ban the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms and evaluate the potential threat to biodiversity posed by their introduction.”

Yet India is trail-blazing with this hazardous technology, with a staggering range of every conceivable GM vegetable, grain and oilseed, in effect, all our food, such as no government anywhere has contemplated. We are the first country to undertake large-scale pre-commercial trials of Bt brinjal; Bt Bhindi (okra) in field trials is also a universal first.1

Fatal Bt. Cotton
According to worldwide data compiled by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), the total acreage planted under all GM crops amounted to 114.3 million hectares (mh) in 2007. India accounted as fifth largest grower having 6.3 mh area under the cultivation of GM crops.

In both India as well as China, the entire GM area is under a single crop – cotton. In fact, the 6.2 mh under GM cotton in India represents two-thirds of the total 9.4 mh under the crop, “a remarkable achievement in a period of just six years”, Dr James said.^²

Independent Animal studies shows that workers in India handling Bt cotton while picking, loading, weighing and separating the fiber from seeds developed allergies. They began with 'mild to severe itching,' then redness and swelling, followed by skin eruptions. These symptoms affected their skin, eyes (got red and swollen with excessive tearing) and upper respiratory tract causing nasal discharge and sneezing. In some cases, hospitalization was required. At one cotton gin factory, workers take antihistamines daily.

Sheep grazing on Bt cotton developed 'unusual systems' before dying 'mysteriously.' Reports from four Indian villages revealed 25% of them died within a week. Post mortems indicated a toxic reaction. The study raises questions about cottonseed oil safety and human health for people who eat meat from animals fed GM cotton. It's crucial to understand that what animals eat, so do people.

Nearly all 100 Filipinos living adjacent to a Bt corn field became ill. Their symptoms appeared when the crop was producing airborne pollen and was apparently inhaled. Doing it produced headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever, and allergies plus respiratory, intestinal and skin reactions. Blood tests conducted on 39 victims showed an antibody response to Bt-toxin suggesting it was the cause. Four other villages experienced the same problems that also resulted in several animal deaths.^³

Controversy continues to plague Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh. After field trials, crop failures and price wars, Mahyco-Monsanto's genetically modified cotton is at the centre of a row over livestock morbidity. Questions concerning bio-safety arose after high sheep and goat mortality rates were reported over the past two months in Adilabad and Khammam districts, where the animals grazed on Bt cotton fields. The Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) and Anthra, visited three villages of three mandals (taluks) in Warangal district. The team estimated that a total of 1,800 sheep and goats had perished after grazing on Bt cotton residues. At a conservative estimate of Rs.1,500 an animal, the shepherds' losses amount to Rs.1.80 crore. In drought-hit areas such as Warangal, these hardy animals are often the shepherds' only source of income. ^⁴

On may 9, 2007, the department of Animal Husbandry of Andhra Pradesh said cattle deaths reported from a few parts in the state could have been caused by toxics from Bt cotton. The department informed the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) that tests of Bt samples taken in 2006 by laboratories indicated that the deaths could have been caused by the high content of nitrates and nitrites, hydrogen cyanide and organophosphate.

GEAC, however, recently approved about 160 new Bt cotton hybrids for commercial cultivation in India. The approval comes after a Supreme Court order in May eased a ban on trials of genetically modified (GM) crops. Many NGOs have criticised GEAC’s move and sought a detailed inquiry into the cattle deaths. “There is no concern for human or animal life. A slew of hybrids have been approved even when government bodies have confirmed the animal deaths,” says Devinder Sharma, international food policy analyst and a known GM critic.^⁵

The GEAC's response to the deaths in Warangal was belated. It said that it had debated the issue "at length" and dismissed the CSA's reports as "exaggerated" and "based more on hearsay than scientific facts". It pointed out that Bt cotton had been released for commercial cultivation only after the evaluation of its bio-safety data, including feeding studies. A 90-day animal feeding study conducted at the Industrial Toxicological Research Centre in Lucknow, and feeding studies at G.B. Pant University of Agriculture, Pantnagar, on lactating cows, and on fish at the Avian Research Institute indicated no toxic effect, it said.

The statements of Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech (India) on the livestock deaths quote extensively from the GEAC report. This has raised concerns in some NGOs that the GEAC and biotech companies are working together without addressing public apprehensions on the safety of Bt cotton.

Many NGOs disagree with the GEAC and the company's observations. They point out that it was unfortunate that the GEAC investigated only Cry1Ac and its toxicity, while the fact-finding team of the CSA reported the apparent toxicity of the Bt cotton plant and not just the Bt protein.^⁶

However, the Andhra Pradesh government has advised farmers not to allow animals to graze on Bt cotton fields after four institutes reported the presence of toxins in them.

Dr L Mohan, director, Andhra Pradesh animal husbandry department, said: “The deaths have resulted in huge economic losses for farmers.”

Andhra Pradesh, which had earlier moved the Monopolistic and Restrictive Trade Practices tribunal against the high price of Bt seeds, said no bio-safety studies of Bt cotton seeds had yet been conducted.

MK Sharma, managing director, Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech India Ltd, makers of the genetically modified Bt cotton, said: “Bt cotton is being grown in nine states, and no such complaint has come except from a few villages in Andhra. We conducted safety studies before the trials and all Bt seeds were found to be safe.”^⁷

Bt cotton is always in controversy not only in crop safety but also in yield and its pest resistance capacity. The non Bt cotton crops does not have the risk of animal mortality. If food and Drug Administration of US says that it was not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, then how has the death occurred from Bt cotton. Jaffery Smith the author of the book ‘food of deception’ noted that policy makers in other countries trust FDA and wrongly assume their assessments are valid. They're disproved when independent studies are matched against industry-run ones. The differences are startling. The former report adverse affects while the latter claim the opposite. It's no secret why. Agribusiness giants allow nothing to interfere with profits, safety is off the table, and all negative information is quashed.^⁸

ISIS Press Release 13/01/04
Cows Ate GM Maize & Died
Twelve diary cows died after being fed GM maize and silage. This happened on a farm in Woelfersheim in the state of Hesse, Germany.

According to the report by Greenpeace Germany, "common errors in feeding and infections had by and large been ruled out as the cause of death", and the farmer involved, Gottfried Gl�ckner, a supporter of GM crops, now suspects that Syngenta’s GM maize Bt 176 is to be blamed.

Cause of death unknown

The Robert Koch Institute impounded neither the dead cows nor the GM feed from the farm and carried out no comprehensive tests on the soil from the farm or any dung samples from the cows in question. What investigations they made on the GM maize feed from the farm ended in December 2002 with inconclusive evidence as to what caused the death of the cows. This was backed up by the local district council in Giessen who issued a statement in August 2003 that "the cause of the incidents referred to could not be determined."

But only one of the five dead cows in 2001 was examined at the pathology institute at Giessen. Additional tissue samples were sent to the University of G�ttingen, "where they vanished in unexplained circumstances", according to Greenpeace’s report.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CAGMMAD.php

GMO Compass, 14 March 2007

Dead cows: Court dismisses Bt maize case
According to a report in the German newspaper Wetzlarer Neue Zeitung, the regional court in Gie�en will dismiss a plaint by farmer Gottfried Gl�ckner from W�lfersheim (Hesse) against the agro-company Syngenta. As part of field trials between 1997 and 2002, Gl�ckner had grown genetically modified maize from Syngenta and had fed it to his cows. When some of his cows died, Gl�ckner declared the Bt maize in their feed as the cause. However, follow-up investigations were unable to support this assumption: the death of the cows was considered more likely to be the consequence of mistakes in husbandry.

Gl�ckner had claimed damages from Syngenta in the amount of 700,000 euros. Since no cogent proof for a connection between the Bt maize in the feed and the deaths of the cows could be presented, the regional court rejected the case.
http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/messages/200703.docu.html

Bio-safety Issue

As various reports indicate, especially the human health study and the livestock mortality reports, there are serious shortcomings in the biosafety testing of the country. In terms of the enforcement of the regime as it exists, there are numerous reports which have repeatedly pointed to serious biosafety violations and the regulators have proven themselves incapable of fixing accountability in each such case.

Biosafety tests very often are flawed in their protocol and scope for safety testing with regard to the environment, other unintended living organisms, human health, etc. These tests do not capture any medium- or long-term impacts.

To take a few examples, feeding tests have so far been done only on cotton seed in the case of Bt cotton and fruit in the case of Bt brinjal, forgetting that in reality, farmers graze their animals on foliar material in an open grazing situation. Further, such feeding tests are done on goats, which are known to be hardy animals and not sheep. This was one of the lessons learnt from the sheep mortality reports that emerged after grazing on Bt cotton.^⁹

Recorded Deaths from GM In 1989, dozens of Americans died and several thousands were afflicted and impaired by a genetically altered version of the food supplement � L-tryptophan. A settlement of $2 billion dollars was paid by Showa Denko, Japan's third largest chemical company. (Mayeno and Gleich, 1994).^¹⁰

Direct Cancer and Degenerative Disease Links In 1994, FDA approved Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically produced growth hormone, for injection into dairy cows � even though scientists warned the resulting increase of IGF-1, a potent chemical hormone, is linked to 400-500% higher risks of human breast, prostrate, and colon cancer. According to Dr. Samuel Epstein of the University of Chicago, it "induces the malignant transformation of human breast epithelial cells." Rat studies confirmed the suspicion and showed internal organ damage with rBGH ingestion. In fact, the FDA's own experiments indicated a spleen mass increase of 46% - a sign of developing leukemia. The contention was that the hormone was killed by pasteurization. But in research conducted by two Monsanto scientists, Ted Elasser and Brian McBride, only 19% of the hormone was destroyed despite boiling milk for 30 minutes when normal pasteurization is 30 seconds. Canada, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have banned rBGR. The UN's Codex Alimentarius, an international health standards setting body, refused to certify rBGH as safe. Yet Monsanto continues to market this product in the US.

Several other GM approved products involve herbicides that are commonly known carcinogens - bromoxynil used on transgenic cotton and Monsanto's Roundup or glufonsinate used on GM soybeans, corn, and canola. Furthermore and according to researcher Sharyn Martin, a number of autoimmune diseases are enhanced by foreign DNA fragments that are not fully digested in the human stomach and intestines. DNA fragments are absorbed into the bloodstream, potentially mixing with normal DNA. The genetic consequences are unpredictable and unexpected gene fragments have shown up in GM soy crops.^¹¹

Despite nationwide protests by consumer groups, Monsanto and the FDA forced onto the US market the world's first GE animal drug, recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH, sometimes known as rBST).

BGH is a powerful GE drug produced by Monsanto which, injected into dairy cows, forces them to produce 15%-25% more milk, in the process seriously damaging their health and reproductive capacity.

Despite warnings from scientists, such as Dr. Michael Hansen from the Consumers Union and Dr. Samuel Epstein from the Cancer Prevention Coalition, that milk from rBGH injected cows contains substantially higher amounts of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1, and despite evidence that rBGH milk contains higher levels of pus, bacteria, and antibiotics, the FDA gave the hormone its seal of approval, with no real pre-market safety testing required.^¹²

The mysterious DNA was found in the Monsanto Company's Roundup Ready soybeans by Belgian government and university scientists, who described their findings in a paper published August 2001 in the journal European Food Research and Technology. Greenpeace called for countries to re-evaluate the regulatory approvals of the soybeans, saying that Monsanto did not know as much as it should about its product. The unknown DNA could possibly affect the safety of the beans, the group said.

Products made from Roundup Ready soybeans have been eaten by people and animals for five years with no reports of health problems. Still, the findings could cause some embarrassment for Monsanto and the agricultural biotech industry because they raise questions about how well the molecular makeup of the products is characterized.^¹³

Superviruses Viruses can mix with genes of other viruses and retroviruses such as HIV. This can give rise to more deadly viruses � and at rates higher than previously thought. One study showed that gene mixing occurred in viruses in just 8 weeks (Kleiner, 1997). This kind of scenario applies to the cauliflower mosaic virus CaMV, the most common virus used in genetic engineering - in Round Up ready soy of Monsanto, Bt-maise of Novaris, and GM cotton and canola. It is a kind of "pararetrovirus" or what multiplies by making DNA from RNA. It is somewhat similar to Hepatitis B and HIV viruses and can pose immense dangers.

Birth Defects and Shorter Life Spans As we ingest transgenic human/ animal products there is no real telling of the impact on human evolution. We know that rBGh in cows causes a rapid increase in birth defects and shorter life spans.

Lowered Nutrition A study in the Journal of Medicinal Food (Dr. Marc Lappe, 1999) showed that certain GM foods have lower levels of vital nutrients � especially phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect the body from heart disease and cancer. In another study of GM Vica Faba, a bean in the same family as soy, there was also an increase in estrogen levels, what raises health issues - especially in infant soy formulas. Milk from cows with rBGH contains substantially higher levels of pus, bacteria, and fat. Monsanto's analysis of glyphosate-resistant soya showed the GM-line contained 28% more Kunitz-trypsin inhibitor, a known anti-nutrient and allergen.^¹⁴

Genetic crops as a solution to malnutrition

After years of research, agricultural scientists are on the verge of developing the much talked about new strain of rice. This genetically modified (GM) strain tentatively called Golden Rice if allowed to be grown on a commercial scale will totally eliminate Vitamin A deficiency across the globe. In the Indian context, a few agricultural universities have formally completed trials on animals using this new strain. According to the Vice-Chancellor of University of Agricultural Sciences Dr PG Chengappa the first stage of animal trail has shown up very high compliance factor. If everything goes on dot, the first bio-fortification rice crop will hit the masses in just over two years flat. With Golden Rice people will be able to stick to their preferred recipes-because of taste or as a matter of affordability-but with the difference that they will at the same time be able to cover some of their most important dietary needs. Simultaneously tests will soon be carried out in humans to determine the amount of vitamin A that may be derived from the beta-carotene in golden rice strain.^¹⁵

However, plants naturally produce thousands of chemicals to enhance health and protect against disease. However, changing plant protein may alter these chemicals, increase plant toxins and/or reduce its phytonutrients. For example, GM soybeans produce less cancer-fighting isoflavones. Overall, studies show genetic modification produces unintended changes in nutrients, toxins, allergens and small molecule metabolism products.

To create a GM soybean with a more complete protein balance, Pioneer Hi-Bred inserted a Brazil nut gene. By doing it, an allergenic protein was introduced affecting people allergic to Brazil nuts. When tests confirmed this, the project was cancelled. GM proteins in other crops like corn and papaya may also be allergenic. The same problem exists for other crops like Bt corn, and evidence shows allergies skyrocketed after GM crops were introduced.^¹⁶

Biofortification is a novel mantra conceived by agricultural scientists to address the menace of rampant malnutrition and micronutrient deficiency in India, especially among the poor. This basically involves the enhancement of essential mineral and vitamin content of staple foods like rice, wheat, maize, bajra (pearl millet), pulses and the like so that people could get the required amounts of these micronutrients through their normal diets. A recent World Bank study has reckoned that as many as 75 per cent of the pre-school children in India suffer from iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) and 57 per cent have sub-clinical vitamin A deficiency. Iodine deficiency is endemic in nearly 85 per cent of all the districts in the country.

Cottonseed could soon become a source of protein-rich food for billions in the developing world, thanks to the work of an India-born scientist in the US. Subhra Priyadarshini reports

Dining out? Try cottonseeds by Subhra Priyadarshini, The Telegraph, 04/12/2006
[ C.eldoc1/d70b/04dec06tel1.html]

GAIN Business Alliance believes food fortification can play a key role in halting India's chronic problem of malnutrition, currently affecting nearly half its population. Food fortification means the introduction of additional nutrients into food products, including milk, rice, wheat and flour, on a costeffective basis. GAIN, which stands for the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, is expected to play a catalytic role in spearheading a move to provide complementary food in the key initiatives of the ministry of women and child welfare, including ICDS, midday meal and publicdistribution system. Speaking at a press conference, GAIN'S executive director Marc Van Ameringen pointed out that his organisation would like to ensure that in the next two years, 10 per cent of the 36 million children who are fed under the ICDS scheme should receive complementary foods containing supplements of Vitamin A and iron.

'Food fortification helps fight malnutrition' by Rashme Sehgal, The Asian Age, 22/03/2007
[ C.eldoc1/d70b/22mar07aa1.pdf]

To combat this problem, a collaborative programme has recently been initiated to step up the nutritional status of some key foods. Called the 'India Biofortification programme', this initiative will be carried out jointly by a large number of Indian research institutions and HarvestPlus, an international research programme being managed by the Washington-based International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). This will be entirely a public funded research programme supported by the Indian government and HarvestPlus which, in turn, runs on donations from the member countries of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). A memorandum of understanding has already been signed to this effect between the government and HarvestPlus.^¹⁷

A NEW study claims to turn toxic cottonseeds into nutritious dinners for millions of under nourished people across the world. Keerti Rathore, a scientist at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, has tinkered with the genes in cottonseeds to stop the release of gossypol,its naturally-occurring toxin. If cottonseeds become edible, it is estimated that the protein needs(cotton seeds contain 22 per cent high-quality protein) of over 500 million people will be met. Andit will make cotton a multi-utility crop—use the cotton for textiles and the seed as food.

Cottonseeds for starters by Subhra Priyadarshini, Down to Earth, 30/04/2007
[ C.eldoc1/d70b/30apr07dte1.pdf]

Cloning and food

American scientists have concluded there is no difference between food from cloned animals and food from conventional livestock, setting the stage for the government to declare on that cloned animals are safe for the human food supply The Food and Drug Administration planned to brief industry groups in advance of an announcement. The Food and Drug Administration indicated it would approve cloned livestock in a scientific journal article published online earlier in December 2006.

Critics of cloning say the verdict is still out on the safety of food from cloned animals. "Consumers are going to be having a product that has potential safety issues and has a whole load of ethical issues tied to it, without any labeling," said Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Centre for Food Safety Carol Tucker Foreman, director of food policy at the Consumer Federation of America, said the FDA is ignoring research that shows cloning results in more deaths and deformed animals than other reproductive technologies.^¹⁸

European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies group’s assertions come after a separate preliminary report by the European Food Safety Authority. That group, which advises members of the European Commission and governments, said that cloned products appeared to be safe for human consumption. The food authority’s definitive report is expected in May 2008.

The group on ethics consists of 15 experts appointed by the commission and reports directly to its president, Jos� Manuel Barroso.
The group said that surrogates carrying cloned embryos could suffer and that the clones themselves experienced a high rate of disease and other health problems that include increased weight, malformations, respiratory problems, enlarged livers, hemorrhaging and kidney abnormalities. In cattle, the group’s statement said, about 20 percent of cloned calves do not survive the first 24 hours after birth and an additional 15 percent die before weaning.^¹⁹

After years of debate, the Food and Drug Administration of US in January 2008 declared that food from cloned animals and their progeny is safe to eat, clearing the way for milk and meat derived from genetic copies of prized dairy cows, steers and hogs to be sold at the grocery store.

The decision was hailed by cloning companies and some farmers, who have been pushing for government approval in hopes of turning cloning into a routine agricultural tool. Because clones are costly, it is their offspring that are most likely to be used for producing milk, hamburgers or pork chops, while the clones themselves are reserved for breeding.

The F.D.A. tentatively declared food from cloned animals safe in 2003 and then came to the same conclusion after a draft risk assessment at the end of 2006.

The agency said it received more than 30,500 comments on that risk assessment, many of them form letters. It took some of those comments into account and added data from new studies to come out with the final risk assessment issued.

The agency said that while some cloned animals have birth defects, presumably because genes are turned on or off at the wrong times, the ones that survive past a few weeks appear to be as healthy as conventional animals. And whatever those genetic abnormalities are, it said, they are not passed on to the conventionally bred offspring of clones.^²⁰

Last month the US Food and Drug Administration gave the green light to food made from cloned cows, pigs and goats, with the agency's top food-safety expert, Stephen Sundlof, declaring, "It is beyond our imagination to even have a theory for why the food is unsafe". Opponents of biotechnology immediately let out a collective groan of disapproval — among them Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry's ice cream.^²¹

This simplification of food safety will be dangerous for people as it neglects the need to label the cloned food products. The consumers are opposing cloned food products for ethical and religious reason. It will be better for the consumers if they look at the safety of food as well. The labeling of the food may ensure that people know what they are eating but The F.D.A. said that meat and milk from cloned animals and their offspring would not be labeled because it was the same as conventional food and did not pose a safety risk.

Why do you need the label?
GM = Natural food= conventional food= Organic Food

Labeling of GM foods and food products is also a contentious issue. On the whole, agribusiness industries believe that labeling should be voluntary and influenced by the demands of the free market. If consumers show preference for labeled foods over non labeled foods, then industry will have the incentive to regulate itself or risk alienating the customer. Consumer interest groups, on the other hand, are demanding mandatory labeling.

People have the right to know what they are eating, argue the interest groups, and historically industry has proven itself to be unreliable at self-compliance with existing safety regulations. The FDA's current position on food labeling is governed by the Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act which is only concerned with food additives, not whole foods or food products that are considered "GRAS" - generally recognized as safe. The FDA contends that GM foods are substantially equivalent to non-GM foods, and therefore not subject to more stringent labeling. If all GM foods and food products are to be labeled, Congress must enact sweeping changes in the existing food labeling policy.^²²

However, In India the Union ministry of health and family welfare (MOH & FM), on March 10, 2006, accepted the Indian Council for Medical Research’s (ICMR) recommendations on labelling genetically modified (GM) food. This was the first decisive move towards a GM food regime in the country. But the wisdom of the move has been questioned. While some have welcomed it, others say it is retrograde because the new regime will make it impossible in future to ban GM food, which raises serious health questions. The Central Committee for Food Standards, a statutory body under Prevention of Food Adulteration (PFA) Act, 1954, had asked for recommendations from ICMR, so that PFA rules could be amended to incorporate gm labelling.^²³

If GM food labelling is to occur, policymakers need to consider: Should it be mandatory or voluntary? What foods should be labelled? What pieces of information should be placed on the label? Who should be in charge of monitoring? In the end, is it worth labelling at all?

Sonu Jain in her article on GM food for thought explains that A few years ago, the Indian Council of Medical Science had come up with some recommendations on labelling. It said labels need to disclose necessary information about the origin of genetic modification. The suggested permissible levels were marginally higher than the EU norms. For labels to be effective, tests would have to be conducted for allergens, potential toxicity, nutritional composition. So far India has no lab that can actually do large-scale testing for food with low GM traces. The Act will establish the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSA), which would lay down scientific standards of food safety. The FSSA would be assisted by a central advisory committee, a scientific committee and a number of scientific panels in specifying standards.

She further explains the reason for delay in establishing the body that after the bill was passed by Parliament in August 2006, there has been turf war between two ministries for the control of the authority: The ministry of health and family welfare versus the ministry of food processing. A committee under R.A. Mashelkar suggested that it should go to the ministry of health. Since then, the government has not been able to appoint a chairman and members of the authority. And since the authority is not in place, the rules are not in place either.^²⁴

The Union health ministry is reluctant to go ahead with its earlier proposal pertaining to a mandatory labelling of genetically modified (GM) food. It has kept in abeyance the report of the expert committee headed by Shiv Lal, the additional director-general of the National Institute of Communicable Diseases.

A senior official of the health ministry, when asked to comment on the future of the Lal panel report, said, “The labelling norms suggested by the panel are too stringent and difficult for implementation. We have not yet referred to the Central Committee of Food Standards.” The health ministry had earlier proposed to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 to include the provisions for mandatory labelling of GM food.

The health ministry had set up the Lal panel in response to the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2006, which said that all imported GM products should be labelled.

It further said, “If the consignment does not contain such a label and is later found to contain traces of GM material, the importer is liable for penal action under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992.”^²⁵

Currently, when goods reach Indian shores, there is no mechanism for the government to ascertain the nature of the ingredients used. Also, the country’s borders are porous and clearance procedures at various entry points are far from strict. Quarantine and Port Health Offices are inadequately equipped with testing instruments and human resources. The only way consumers can get information on ingredients used in a food product, and make an informed purchase is through the declaration of contents, including ingredients, on the labels of food items on the store shelves.

The sooner this labelling requirement is enforced the better. Ironically, it is not only imported food, but also domestically produced GM food that is not labelled. For instance, the country produces over 6 lakh tonnes of cottonseed oil, over half of which is from GM seed. Soyabean oil (15-20 lakh tonnes a year) is imported from countries that are known to produce GM soyabean. Yet, consumers here have no knowledge at all about what they are eating.

A draft notification for labelling of GM foods/ingredients under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 was published as far back as March 2006 inviting objections and suggestions from the public; but for reasons far from clear, the draft rules were not finalised. In August 2006, an integrated food law in the form of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 was enacted and a final notification on regulations for labelling and disclosing the ingredients of products was issued, to come into effect on August 20, 2007. Now, under pressure from the food industry, which could not comply with the labelling requirement despite a 12-month lead time, the Government has deferred implementation of the provisions till February 20, 2008. So much for consumer protection.^²⁶

There are various question related to the labelling of GM food products. One is how it will help consumers in long run because cross contamination is bound to happen. Once the GM crop enter into food chain it is hard to identify or isolate from conventional crops. Anti GM organizations are opposing GM, however the act will allow GM products in the market. Making Acts and legislation itself is not enough we need to creat a strong infrastructure to examine

That the GM food product has label with its key ingredients and genes which are used in the product
That the GM food is safe for human as well as animal consumption
That there has to be regular check and inspection of the GM products
That the study or research on GM products must be available for public safety purpose and it should be published time to time
That the list of approved or rejected GM product must be available publicly.

Environmental Impact

Risk with Nature

Genetically modified crops, contrary to what we are told, do not increase yields. They require more inputs, including more herbicides, whose use they are supposed to reduce significantly. They lead to profits, but only for the manufacturers, not for the farmers and certainly not for the consumers.

And they pose dangers which have never been properly assessed, largely because the only organisations with the resources to assess them properly do not consider it to be in their interests to carry out the work. No one knows for sure what will be consequences of introducing, by a very crude technique, a specific gene (or rather a specific piece of DNA, which is not the same thing) into the genome of a very different creature. It's something we should certainly be trying to find out – but not by rushing transgenic crops into production and letting the genes loose in the environment.

The problems that GM solves are often merely consequences of industrial agriculture anyway. In Southeast Asia, where rice is the staple crop, they have been genetically modifying rice to be resistant to bacterial blight. On the face of it, that sounds like an advance. But while bacterial blight has been around for a long time, it's only recently become a serious problem. When you grow rice in the traditional way, in small paddy fields alongside other crops, and with each village growing a slightly different variety, you may get an occasional outbreak, but it won't spread. Industrial agriculture means you use large fields, you don't intercrop, and you grow a single variety of rice throughout a large region. Just the conditions in which bacterial blight and all sorts of other nasties can prosper.

What is more, they had trouble finding a variety of rice from which they could isolate the gene they wanted, so if bacterial blight becomes resistant, they'll be no further ahead, and the result could be disaster for the farmers and the people who depend on them.^²⁷

Same has happened to cotton crops in India. Most GM crops use bt gene—a toxin-producing gene from a soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis—to become resistant to pests. A wide variety of crops have been infused with this gene including Bt cotton. However, the Bt gene is used extensively, and sometimes indiscriminately and researchers, particularly in India, fear pests will become resistant to the toxin.

A group of scientists, led by Mario Soberon at Instituto de Biotecnologia in Mexico, and Bruce E. Tabashnik from the University of Arizona in Tucson, Arizona, has shown that insects develop resistance to the toxin due to a mutation in a protein called cadherin found in the pest’s stomach. There is a universal fear of pests becoming resistant to GM crops created to kill those very pests. If farmers produce GM cotton in large scale there is high risk of crop failure. Also GM seeds are immune to one or two pest and if another pest attacks crop there are chances of crop destruction. The recent news came in which new bt cotton has been immune to ten pest. The question is how much pest resistance in future?

The debate on the use of GM crops continues in India. The best-known GM crop in the country is Bt cotton and its use was prompted by pests becoming increasingly resistant to traditional insecticides—in some cases, a pest that could have once been killed with a single dose of insecticide needed 21,000 doses.

The impact of this could be significant because more than 40% of genetically engineered crops under development in India use the Bt gene (cabbage, cauliflower, tomato, potato, brinjal, okra, rapeseed, mustard, etc., and even staple crops such as rice, maize and wheat) and if this toxin loses its potency, these crops could become vulnerable to pests.^²⁸

Superweeds It has been shown that genetically modified Bt endotoxin remains in the soil at least 18 months (according to Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey) and can be transported to wild plants creating superweeds - resistant to butterfly, moth, and beetle pests � potentially disturbing the balance of nature.

The National Academy of Science's study stated that "concern surrounds the possibility of genes for resisting pests being passed from cultivated plants to their weedy relatives, potentially making the weed problem worse. This could pose a high cost to farmers and threaten the ecosystem." (quoting Perry Adkisson, chancellor emeritus of Texas A&M University, who chaired the National Academy of Science study panel). An experiment in France showed a GM canola plant could transfer genes to wild radishes, what persisted in four generations. Similarly, and according to New Scientists, an Alberta Canada farmer began planting three fields of different GM canola seeds in 1997 and by 1999 produced not one, but three different mutant weeds - respectively resistant to three common herbicides (Monsanto's Roundup, Cyanamid's Pursuit, and Aventis' Liberty). In effect genetic materials migrated to the weeds they were meant to control. Now the Alberta farmer is forced to use a potent 2,4-D what GM crops promised to avoid use of. Finally Stuart Laidlaw reported in the Toronto Star that the Ontario government study indicated herbicide use was on the rise primarily largely due to the introduction of GM crops.^²⁹

Lose of bio-diversity

India is home to a large reservoir of biological wealth. The diversity of this biological or genetic wealth is the foundation of sustainable food and nutritional security for India and other countries as well. Access to a broad genetic base enables us to cope with challenges to food production that can arise from varied biotic and abiotic stresses. Changes in soil and water conditions, new pest attacks, niche climate changes would all require new varieties.

Breeding these varieties is only possible if a range of genes is available. Take for example the threat of global warming. Scientists the world over are dipping into wild and cultivated gene pools in order to breed crop varieties that will have to replace existing varieties in disturbed agro-climatic zones, should the climate change significantly. If the gene pool that we have were to be lost, and new genes could not be located to breed varieties suited to the altered conditions, then this single factor - global warming - could cause largescale starvation by lowering food productivity. This could happen with any number of causative agents.^³⁰

Shrinking bio-diversity is a major treat of Genetic Modification. From thousands of years we are developing the varieties of crops locally.

One striking example of shrinking diversity is Latin America's beans. Peter Jones, a scientist at the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) in Columbia, says that of the 17 wild species of the Arachis genus — the pea family that includes the peanut — 12 will be extinct by 2055 due to climate change.

The world's livestock are also in the danger zone. A 2006 assessment of global animal genetic resources by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that 70 per cent of the world's unique livestock are in developing countries. Many breeds already risk extinction. On average, one livestock breed is lost every month, mainly due to globalization of livestock markets.^³¹

The most common argument of the Biotechnology industry is that genetic engineering is the only way to feed people. However, an analysis of the trends and impacts of genetic engineering make it evident that genetic engineering in agriculture is a guarantee for creating scarcity and hence increasing food insecurity because it is evolving in the monoculture paradigm which focuses on single functions of single species, and fails to take the yields of diverse species and diverse functions of species into account. In fact the genetic engineering can only displace and destroy the diverse foods that account for food security in diverse food cultures.

Vandana Shiva put the argument of increased food availability through industrial breeding including genetic engineering is illusionary, on four counts.

1. Industrial breeding both in genetic engineering and the green revolution focusses on partial aspects of single crops rather than total system yields of multiple crops and integrated systems.

2. Industrial breeding focuses on yields of one or two globally commodities, not on the diverse crops that people eat. Industrial breeding focuses on quantity per acre rather than nutrition per acre. In fact nutrition per acre has come down as a result of industrial agriculture.

3. Industrial breeding including genetic engineering uses natural resources intensively and wastefully. If productivity is defined on the basis of resource use, industrial agriculture has very low productivity and it undermines food security by using up resources that could if not wasted in a non-sustainable system of production have been directly used to produce more food.

4. Ecological alternatives can increase food supply through biodiversity intensification instead of chemical intensification and genetic engineering.^³²

Given the high level of exploitation of genetic resources from forests and open areas, the fragile ecosystems in several parts of the country and the availability of genetic diversity in several useful, coexisting biological species, there is an urgent need to conserve plant species themselves, together with coexisting species and ecosystems. This would need a variety of conservation approaches depending on specific biological factors. Such approaches should include conservation of ecosystems/agro eco systems, specific habitats, naturally occurring gene pools, special genetic stocks such as the tubers and roots used by communities during famines etc.^³³

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho also explains in his paper published in Financial Agriculture, “It is now indisputable that monoculture crops introduced since the "Green Revolution" had adversely affected bio-diversity and food security all over the world. According to FAO report, by the year 2000, the world will have lost 95% of the genetic diversity utilised in agriculture at the beginning of this century. Monoculture crops are genetically uniform, and therefore notoriously prone to disease and pest outbreaks. The corn belt of the United States was last devastated by corn blight in 1970-1971, and in 1975, Indonesian farmers lost half a million acres of rice to leaf hoppers. Genetic modification for disease or pest resistance will not solve the problem, as intensive agriculture itself creates the conditions for new pathogens to arise. In 1977, a variety of rice, IR-36, created to be resistant to eight major diseases and pests including bacterial blight and tungro, was nevertheless attacked by two new viruses called 'ragged stunt' and 'wilted stunt'. Thus, not only do new varieties have to be substituted every three years, they require heavy input of pesticides to keep pests at bay.” He too finds the key for food security lies in bio-diversity and not monoculture of genetically modified variety. ^³⁴

Diversity has been destroyed in agriculture on the assumption that it is associated with low productivity. This is however, a false assumption both at the level of individual crops as well as at the level of farming systems. Diverse native varieties are often as high yielding or morehigh yielding than industrially bred varieties.

In addition, diversity in farming system has higher output at the total systems level than one-dimensional monocultures.

Comparative yields of native and Green Revolution varieties in farmers’ fields have been assessed by Navdanya, a National Seed Conservation Programme. Green Revolution varieties are not higher yielding under the conditions of low capital availability and fragile ecosystems. Farmers varieties are not intrinsically low yielding and Green Revolution varieties or industrial varieties are not intrinsically high yielding.^³⁵

GM Verses/For Chemical fertilizers
The President of the Royal Society, UK, Lord May's point was that it was not the GM introduction that was the problem. In all cases, the quantity and type of herbicide used and when it was applied was the decisive factor. Conventional crops - where the land had been heavily dosed with herbicide before planting - also suffered dramatic loss of wildlife.

Lord May said: "The most pressing question arising from the farm-scale evaluations is not whether GM plants are better or worse for the environment than conventional crops, but instead what type of modern agriculture we want.

The UK had already experienced a pronounced loss of biodiversity, he said. "If this trend is to be halted, we need to decide how best to achieve that. It could be through working with the grain of nature, such as targeting land for non-agricultural purposes, or by growing our food more efficiently, such as using techniques like genetic modification to develop crops that require fewer chemicals.^³⁶

The report supported the use of GMOs in cultivation but opposed the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides but use of GM seed does not guarantee that there will be less chemical use in agricultural production.

However, Toxicity to Soil the industry marketing pitch to the public is that bioengineered seeds and plants will help the environment by reducing toxic herbicide/pesticide use. Isolated examples are given, but the overall reality is exactly opposite. The majority of GM agricultural products are developed specifically for toxin-resistance - namely for higher doses of herbicides/ pesticides sold by the largest producer companies � Monsanto, Dupont Novaris, Dow, Bayer, Ciba-Geigy, Hoescht, AgroEvo, and Rhone-Poulenc. Also the majority of research for future products involves transgenic strains for increased chemical resistance. Not to be fooled, the primary intent is to sell more, not less of their products and to circumvent patent laws.^³⁷

Klaus Ammann, from university of Bern in his paper claims that knowledge based agriculture, including GM crops, can reduce the threat of bio-diversity. He has given the case of bt toxins which is as follow:

The use of GM crops can positively impact agricultural species biodiversity if the GM crops enable the management of weeds and insect pests in a more specific way than chemical herbicides and pesticides. In particular, the adoption of insect-resistant Bt crops, expressing highly specific Bt proteins, represents an opportunity to replace broad-spectrum insecticide use. The insecticidal proteins expressed in Bt crops such as Bt maize and Bt cotton are so narrow in their activity that they have little or no activity against non-target organisms.

A variety of studies of Bt cotton in the USA, Australia and China have all demonstrated that populations of many non-target species are higher in Bt cotton fields than in sprayed conventional cotton fields Likewise, work on potato fields in the northeastern USA has revealed larger populations of many generalist predators in Bt potato fields than in conventional potato fields treated with appropriate broad-spectrum insecticides. In contrast to Newleaf potatoes and microbial Bt formulations, however, the broad-spectrum insecticide, permethrin, had much broader and more severe unintended impacts on non-target arthropods. ^³⁸

However, Aruna Rodrigues in her article ‘Dancing With Frankenstein’ in Tehalka magazine on 29 March 2008 highlighted the myth that less pesticide, herbicide use, better economics with GM crops. What can be said straight off is that scientists’ warnings of ‘resistance’ (a response of nature) to both Bt and Ht crops, with super bugs, super weeds and also insect shifts filling an ecological gap, are very much in existence worldwide, and are only growing with each passing year.

Quite contrary to what GM companies are saying therefore, worldwide, herbicide and insecticide use have not gone down with the adoption of GM crops. The experience of the US, Canada and Argentina are amply documented and are clear pointers to the dangers for India if we go down this path. US government data shows a 15 fold increase in herbicide use by 2005, (over a 10 year period), with the adoption of GM herbicide crops in the US. First quarter sales of Monsanto’s herbicide ‘RoundupReady’ are up by just under 50 percent.

This is a good business to be in: you sell a Ht GM crop; but spraying goes up because farmers don’t have to be too careful. The crop won’t die. Remember that it is resistant; after a few years when resistance sets in with super weeds, then the progression is to fiercer spraying and eventually moving on to the next, more lethal class of herbicides. So farmers get trapped on an herbicide treadmill.

GM crops are a hard-nosed business for biotech corporations, based on patents and profits, which farmers must pay for. Without patents, this business would die. This is the litmus test of ‘who really benefits from GM crops’. In the killing fields of Vidharbha for example, about 70 percent of farmer suicides represent Bt cotton farmers, reeling under both crop failures and the unbearable burden of higher input costs, a fact attested by the Tata Institute for Social Sciences and the Mumbai High Court.

The deeper goal is however insidious, and much more serious: nothing less than control over third world agriculture and the world’s food supply by a handful of private Transnational Agribusiness Corporations. Why our government should allow this, or fall for it, is the mystery.^³⁹

This two opposite views based on studies has once again created controversy whether genetically engineered crop varieties increases the scope for bio-diversity because of the less pesticide use or whether it needs more pesticide and other resources to grow.

Wild Life
Killing Beneficial Insects Studies have shown that GM products can kill beneficial insects � most notably the monarch butterfly larvae (Cornell, 1999). Swiss government researchers found Bt crops killed lacewings that ate the cottonworms which the Bt targeted. A study reported in 1997 by New Scientist indicates honeybees may be harmed by feeding on proteins found in GM canola flowers. Other studies relate to the death of bees (40% died during a contained trial with Monsanto's Bt cotton), springtails (Novartis' Bt corn data submitted to the EPA) and ladybird beetles.^⁴⁰

The controversy surrounding the fate of Monarch butterfly larvae in US Bt cornfields seems to be solved. Losey’s publication revealed that the Bt protein built in transgenic corn resulted in toxic effects to the Monarch larvae, and triggered a worldwide protest against GM crops. Later, extensive field work demonstrated no significant impact of the Bt protein on Monarch larvae. Parallel to this, results from laboratory experiments on forced-fed predators such as lacewing larvae showed significant impact of the Bt toxin. Recently, further laboratory work on the same predator under morerealistic conditions did not yield the same results, and in fact the lacewing larvae remained healthy. Romeis et al. explained this discrepancy by the fact that prey fed to the larvae was fully vital in contrast to prey affected by Bt toxin in the previous experiments.^⁴¹

The Nature study was published after several Bt-corn varieties had been approved by the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) and over 20 million acres of Bt corn were planted in the United States. The big question was why the EPA had not addressed the threat to monarchs before approval of Bt corn. From a scientific standpoint, it is not surprising that a toxin aimed at the European corn borer (moth larvae) would also affect the larvae of the monarch butterfly. The tests required by the EPA prior to approval of Bt crops included a few trials in which Bt toxin was fed to honeybees and lacewings, among other organisms, but did not include tests on any non-pest moths and butterflies.

The paper “Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Food Crops-Recent Experiences” June 2003 written by Margaret Mellon, Ph.D., J.D., Jane Rissler, Ph.D. Union of Concerned Scientists has highlighted the case of Monach Butterfly.^⁴²

Animal Abuse Pig number 6706 was supposed to be a "superpig." It was implanted with a gene to become a technological wonder. But it eventually became a "supercripple" full of arthritis, cross-eyed, and could barely stand up with its mutated body. Some of these mutations seem to come right out of Greek mythology - such as a sheep-goat with faces and horns of a goat and the lower body of a sheep. Two US biotech companies are producing genetically modified birds as carriers for human drug delivery � without little concern for animal suffering. Gene Works of Ann Arbor, Michigan has up to 60 birds under "development." GM products, in general, allow companies to own the rights to create, direct, and orchestrate the evolution of animals.^⁴³

Cross contamination

About 130 major cases of environmental contamination by GM crops have already been registered around the world.

In India, safety norms are set and enforced by the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation under the Department of Environment, Forest and Wildlife. It has representatives from the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Indian Council of Medical Research, Indian Council of Agricultural Research and independent experts. It approves release of genetically engineered organisms and products into the environment, including in field trials. Critics say norms are hardly ever enforced on ground. “In Japan, the field trail is done with great safety precautions and complete isolation is ensured,” says Davinder Sharma, a visiting fellow at the International Rice Research Institute in Philippines. “But we don’t have any such practice in India. Instead, we have awarded lakhs of hectares for field trials to MNCs.”

Rakesh Tikait, leader of the Bharatiya Kisan Union whose activists torched the sole field in Rampura village, Haryana where tests for GM rice were being carried out by Monsanto’s Indian partner Mahyco, says, “We destroyed the crop to prevent contamination from the trial fields. The safety guidelines of the DBT clearly say that the experimental GM crop has to be burnt down after the trial. We have made sure these guidelines are not flouted.”^⁴⁴

Transgenic contamination (contamination of the natural environment by GM crops, or genetically modified organisms or GMOs) by cross-pollination, by wind or in other ways is well established. The unintended effects of GM crops on environment and normal crops are of crucial significance. As a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India by Aruna Rodrigues and others has argued, The GE (genetic engineering) process itself is achieved through Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) because it moves genetic material between organisms, which are asynchronous with the reproduction of the organism, so genes can also be transferred between distant species that would never interbreed in nature. For example, human genes are transferred into rice and those from pig, sheep, fish and bacteria are transferred into plants. Thereafter, secondary, unintended HGT can take place from GE crops released into the environment and several serious examples of this insidious hazard connected with the GE process are available as evidence of the grave risks they pose for human and animal health and for the environment, including new strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria, new viruses and bacteria arising from those introduced into the transgenic plants, random secondary insertion into other unrelated organisms, causing harmful effects including cancer, reactivation of dormant viruses etc. For these reasons, concerns with HGT make the technology of GE highly unpredictable and also extremely dangerous and puts in doubt the safety of the GE process itself.

Due to the threat of contamination, it is difficult for normal crops or organic crops to remain free from the impact of GM crops once these have been released. As worldwide concern for food safety grows, it is likely that there will be increasing demand for organically grown crops and crops which are not contaminated by GM crops. Therefore we will be surrendering premium world markets if we allow our crops to be contaminated by GMOs. This is why organisations like those of rice exporters have also got involved in the campaigns against GMOs.^⁴⁵

The future disaster is unavoidable if we keep on encouraging GM crops because it is hard to isolate GM crops from conventional crops. That time labeling of GM crops will not work because it won’t be an issue of choice anymore.

Cross Breeding

It is claimed that GM food is not different from conventional food but Disturbance of Nature's Boundaries Genetic engineers argue that their creations are no different than crossbreeding. However, natural boundaries are violated � crossing animals with plants, strawberries with fish, grains, nuts, seeds, and legumes with bacteria, viruses, and fungi; or like human genes with swine.^⁴⁶

“Genetic engineering and selective breeding is not the same thing, as a few people seem to have claimed here. Natural reproduction involves dozens of biochemical control systems to govern the process and to ensure that the new genetic code is stable, to oversee the complex interplay of dominant and recessive genes, etc. That's why pigs give birth to piglets rather than ducklings, and why each new generation of pigs doesn't have to be rigorously tested as a new food product.

Shoe-horning the genes from one species into the DNA of another is completely different. The new organism can be radically different from the parent, and that's why it has to be thoroughly tested before it can be sold as food.

I'm not against GM food, quite the opposite. The potential benefits are enormous. But you can't generalise and say all GM food is good, or all GM food is bad. So long as each new organism is tested for safety and environmental impact, the research should continue. Stopping scientific progress is never the answer.” Says Simon, UK. ^⁴⁷

In the new world of biotechnology and Genetically Modified (GM) food, the insertion of a certain fish gene into the tomato genome can make the produce water-resistant and therefore less perishable. Critics say vegetarianism is one of the long list of areas under threat from the controversial technology. GM food is certified to be “substantially equivalent” to its non-GM counterpart. Many experts say there is a growing body of scientific evidence to show that GM food instead of being “substantially equivalent” is in fact “unambiguously harmful”.^⁴⁸

Unpredictable Consequences of a Gunshot Approach DNA fragments are blasted past a cell's membrane with a "gene gun" shooting in foreign genetic materials in a random, unpredictable way. According to Dr. Richard Lacey, a medical microbiologist at the University of Leeds, who predicted mad cow disease, "wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random mannercauses some degree of disruption. It is impossible to predict what specific problems could result." This view is echoed by many other scientists, including Michael Hansen, Ph.D., who states that "Genetic engineering, despite the precise sound of the name, is actually a very messy process."

Effect of GM Tree

The effect of GM tree is same as effect of GM crops such as degradation of biodiversity, reducing resistance of plants to pest in long run, harm to insect and question of quality of soil but the impact is assume to be more sever than impact of GM crops because frees stay longer in the environment than crops.

Destruction of Forest Life GM trees or "supertrees" are being developed which can be sprayed from the air to kill literally all of surrounding life, except the GM trees. There is an attempt underway to transform international forestry by introducing multiple species of such trees. The trees themselves are often sterile and flowerless. This is in contrast to rainforests teaming with life, or where a single tree can host thousands of unique species of insects, fungi, mammals and birds in an interconnected ecosphere. This kind of development has been called "death-engineering" rather than "life-" or "bio-engineering." More ominously pollen from such trees, because of their height, has traveled as much as 400 miles or 600 kilometers - roughly 1/5 of the distance across the United States.^⁴⁹

Fifty years of relentless development has forced China’s forests into retreat. Inevitable environmental consequences such as desertification and flash floods have resulted in China becoming a net importer of wood. The Great Green Wall project (2001) sponsored by the Government aims at planting a 2800-mile long shelterbelt of trees across the northwest rim skirting the Gobi desert. This is intended to combat sandstorms blowing closer to Beijing, at a cost of 96.2b yen.

Over one million GM trees have been planted in "reforestation" initiatives since commercialisation was approved by The Chinese State Forestry Administration in 2002. In the northwest regions of Xinjiang province 8 000 square kilometres of farmlands are given over to GM tree mono-plantations. A further 400 000 GM poplars planted around the headlands of the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers continue to be plagued by insect pests although they are engineered to be pest resistant. GM trees introduced into the environment without any proper controls have subsequently been "lost" to monitoring.

Wang Huoron from the Chinese Academy of Sciences told the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in 2003 that the GM poplars "are so widely planted in China that pollen and seed dispersal cannot be prevented." He also reported to the FAO that without any licensing system and exchanges between nurseries of traditional and GM plant varieties has made it "extremely difficult to trace" the location of GM trees.

Poplars, whether GM or non-GM, are susceptible to pathogens and the more varieties of poplars introduced into forests, the greater the risk of pathogens. Leaf rust is the most significant disease of poplars worldwide. Yousry-El-Kassaby, a forest geneticist at the University of British Columbia response to China’s rapid reforestation projects was cautious, he said "Instead of going through the more labourious process of traditional breeding for disease and pest resistances, these quick fix, single-gene technologies are really attractive, in the same way they are for [GM] crops."

The Chinese State Forestry Bureau effectively has no licensing system over GM trees and The Department of Agriculture is powerless to control GM trees because they are not classified as crops. According to the Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences there is an urgent need for communication between the two government departments as genes from GM poplars have transferred to nearby natural trees.

GM Trees Lost in China’s Forests by Sam Burcher, Institute of Science in Society, 01 March 2005
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMTGL.php

Trees are genetically modified to reduce the amount of fibrous lignin that is the substance of the wood of trees, providing strength and resistance to pests and disease. GM trees may contain up to 50% less lignin than their conventional counterparts, which reduces the ability of the plant to reach optimum levels of fitness in the environment. This reduced capacity leads to decreased biomass and degraded biodiversity.

It is thought that reducing lignin in trees will make wood easier and cheaper to pulp and paper, especially soft woods, as well as creating faster growing trees. But a forest of slow decaying trees is a major carbon sink whereas fast decaying forests will result in carbon dioxide being returned to the atmosphere too rapidly.^⁵⁰

Extensive efforts have been made to genetically modify trees so that they have reduced lignin to facilitate pulp production. Forage crops have also been modified to facilitate grazing and to allow animals to digest more of the forage or silage. Most of the genetic modifications included the use of anti-sense gene constructs to inhibit particular gene products in the metabolic path of lignin production.

Anti-sense modifications use the insertion of genes that produce messenger RNA with a sequence complementary to the messenger RNA of the gene, thereby binding to it to form double-stranded RNA, which is destroyed by the plant cell as part of the plant’s defence against viral infection.

Lignin is important to the plant, as it is implicated in plant resistance to stress and pathogens so the low lignin tree or forage crop may be too delicate to thrive in the real world (outside the green house).

Low lignin anti-sense transgenic poplars were grown for four years, and reported to produce high quality pulp without interfering with plant growth and fitness. Another low lignin anti-sense poplar was found to have low lignin content but the structure of the lignin was altered in a manner that was less amenable to industrial lignin degradation than the normal tree. An extensive study of low lignin perennial herbaceous plants (including alfalfa, brome grass and orchard grass) that had been selected using conventional breeding identified problems including decreased winter survival and decreased biomass.^⁵¹ ^⁵²

Socio Economic Impact of GM

Bt cotton Cultivators in India

In what could have far-reaching implications, the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (MRTP) Commission in 2006 asked Monsanto, the American multinational seed company, to rework the trait value of Bt cotton seed sold in India in line with the trait value charged in China and the US.
The commission's decision is expected to save the farming community hundreds of crores of rupees. The Andhra Pradesh government has accused Monsanto, which operates in India through its joint venture company Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Pvt Ltd (MMBPL), of resorting to restrictive practices by entering into a 'conspiracy' with domestic seed companies in Bt cotton seed pricing. Monsanto has also been accused of fixing a very high trait value and smothering competition by entering into agreements with local companies.

Monsanto charges Rs 1,250 per 450 gm as royalty, which is much higher than that charged in China and the US. Farmers are paying a high price of about Rs~1 ,600- 1,700 for Bt seed which has led to Bt acreage to be just 2.5 lakh of the 25 lakh acres under cotton crop.

The state government challenged the pricing of Bt cotton seed before the MRTP Commission terming the trait value fixed by Monsanto as nothing but monopoly and a restrictive trade practice.

Normally, 450 gm of the hybrid seeds, sufficient for half an acre of land, costs Rs 350-450. But Monsanto charge an additional Rs 1,250 as trait value. Total royalty in the form of trait value till 2005 is estimated to be about Rs 650 crore.

Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (MMB) has decided to challenge in the court the order issued today by the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission (MRTPC) to review the prices of its Bt cotton seeds. The order came in response to the application filed by the Andhra Pradesh government. In a statement issued after the MRTPC verdict, MMB managing director M K Sharma said the ruling could have an adverse effect on the flow of many investments in India if the companies felt that the government would set prices for them.^⁵³

Genetically modified cotton seeds or Bt cotton is one of the major reasons for the spate of farmers' suicides in Vidarbha over the last two years, say experts. This year seeds are available at Rs 750 per packet, still pricier by Rs 300 compared to the hybrid seeds, says Tiwari. Tiwari argues that the combination of high seed price and withdrawal of the monopoly state purchase scheme is what drove the farmers in the area to suicide.^⁵⁴

Monsanto's BT cotton is the only genetically modified crop allowed in India. BT stands for bacillus thuringiensis, a bacterium whose gene is injected into cotton seeds to make them resistant to boll worms, which are common in India. Since its launch in India in 2002, Bollgard has been planted by over a million farmers across 3.1 million acres in nine cottongrowing States. Monsanto sold 1.3 million packets of BT cotton in 2004. But critics say the seeds are environmentally hazardous and could contaminate the genes of native varieties through cross pollination and eventually make farmers poorer.^⁵⁵

Other Articles related to Bt Cotton in India and other countries

Genetically engineered crops, will they feed the hungry and reduce poverty by Peter Rosset, LEISA Magazine, December 2001 [ C.eldoc1/g74a/01dec01LEISA2.pdf]

BURSTING the GM bubble by Vandana Shiva and Afsar H. Jafri, The Ecologist Asia, 01/07/2003 [ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jul03eca1.pdf]

Good global crop is bad news for Vidarbha’s cotton farmers, Infochange Website, 15 November 2006 [ C.eldoc1/0611/15nov06inf3.html]

Moving out of cotton, The Business Standard, 04/01/2007 [C.eldoc1/k32a/04jan07bsb1.pdf]

Killing with kindness by Sanjeev Nayyar, The Business Standerd, 02/02/2007 [C.eldoc1/k32a/02feb07bs1.pdf]

Bt cotton has failed say farmers, The Asian Age, 08/12/2007 [C.eldoc1/k32a/08dec07aa1.pdf]

WHO BENEFITS FROM GM CROPS? THE RISE IN PESTICIDE USE
Friends of the Earth International, January 2008
[ C.eldoc1/KICS/who-beni-from-gm-crops.pdf]

Bt Cotton cultivation in India: Some facts by Kavitha Kuruganti, The Deccan Herald, 11/02/2008 [ C.eldoc1/k32a/11feb08dch2.html]

Bt Cotton: Counter factoids by Shanthu Shantharam, The Deccan Herald, 25/02/2008
[ C.eldoc1/k32a/25feb08dch3.html]

ISAAA claims that 2.3 million small holder farmers in India benefited from planting GM crops in 2006 (ISAAA, 2006a). ISAAA’s report does not acknowledge any failures or problems related to the adoption of Bt cotton in India, even those documented by Indian government officials and published in leading scientific journals (e.g. Jayaraman, 2005). ISAAA’s deeply biased treatment ignores not only scientific and agronomic deficiencies of GM cotton, but also fails to account for broader socioeconomic impacts, such as those related to the extremely high cost of Bt cotton seed and the continuing tragedy of debt-driven farmer suicides. For a balanced treatment of Bt cotton in the context of the agrarian crisis gripping India, and the many failures and problems affecting the majority of India’s small farmers. ^⁵⁶

Over the past years, small/scale Indian farmers have faced hard times due to rising input prices combined with falling output. In 2007, cotton farmer suicides continued to rise in some of the main cotton growing areas of India. The states of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra have experienced the highest number of cotton farmer suicides. Vidarbha, a region in the eastern part of the State of Maharashtra, also called India’s cotton belt, has become widely known again this year for the large number of suicides that have occurred. ^⁵⁷

There are some who thinks that Bt cotton has changed the lives of farmers and farmers has benefited a lot from Bt cotton seeds. One way of farmers saving is through reduction in the use of pesticides which are high in conventional crops. Many studies have proved this therefore, it has become very controversial issue whether bt. Cotton has put positive or negative impact.

Bt cotton has spun Aakkapalli Ramadevi's fortunes around. The Andhra farmer can now send her children to school.

The family, including the children, used to work as daily wagers till Ramadevi decided to plant BT Cotton in her fields. Her luck changed and the profits rolled in - their monthly income increased by Rs 500-600; and the annual, by Rs 10,000-15,000.

"I don't need my children to work anymore to sustain my family. What I earn is enough to educate them," she says.

Ramadevi's is one of the countless small farmer families in India who have gained from the biotech crop revolution, which was criticised by NGOs over safety and long-term implications of Genetically Modified crops. "Cotton impacts the life of 60 million people in India, including farmers and legion of workers," said Clive James, chairman of International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, a not-for-profit biotech organisation.

The organisation estimated that between 2004 and 2005, the number of farmers growing BT cotton increased from three lakh to one million. The figure in 2007 rose to 3. 8 million. Maharashtra saw the maximum increase followed by Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat.

Farmers bask in BT cotton comfort by Chetan Chauhan and Cooshalle Samuel, The Hindustan Times, 20/02/2008 [C.eldoc1/k32a/20feb08ht2.html]

The advantages of growing Bt cotton vis-a-vis the non-Bt cotton hybrids and traditionally-bred varieties, have now been borne out by a systematic study carried out by the Hyderabad- based Centre for Economic and Social Studies (CESS). It has concluded that the Bt-cotton technology is superior to the conventional cotton hybrids in terms of both yield and net returns despite relatively higher production costs. The details of the study have been published in a monograph titled "Socioeconomic Impact of Bt Cotton" authored by CESS director S Mahendra Dev and its fellow-cum-associate professor N Chandrasekhara Rao.

The farm business income from Bt-cotton, as measured by the difference between the gross income and the paid-up costs, came to Rs 5,166 per acre (roughly Rs 12,700 per hectare), 143 per cent higher than that from non-Bt cotton.

Indeed, the findings of the study are quite revealing. Though the expenditure on pesticides sprays turned out to be 17 per cent lower in Bt-cotton fields, the overall cost of production was up by 18 per cent as compared to that of non-Bt cotton ton. The high cost of seed was among the factors responsible for the higher total expenses on Bt-cotton cultivation.

But what set the Bt-cotton apart was the 32 per cent excess yield which brought the per quintal cost of cotton production down by significant 11 per cent, or Rs 223 per quintal, leading ultimately to relatively higher net returns.

Thanks to Bt cotton, farmers are now able to save up to Rs 3,094 per hectare due to reduced pesticide spraying.

There has also been a marginal increase in yield, according to a study conducted by scientists at the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Dharwad. Speaking to the newspaper, one of the investigators, L B Hugar says, "Our study was able to show a direct benefit to the farmer as well as an indirect benefit to society from Bt crop.

Not only does the farmer save money on extra sprayings, he also gains in yield of four quintals per hectare."^⁵⁸

Indian Bt cotton growers reaped an additional income of Rs. 10,000 per hectare from their cultivation. One should wonder why cotton farmers keep growing Bt cotton seeds if they are not beneficial. In a recent remark, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice observed that the Rs 4,500 crore pesticide industry has suffered huge losses since the advent of Bt cotton. It has been designed to cut down the pesticide input, not to speak of environmental gains, health and social side benefits.

These facts can be verified through numerous studies conducted by IIM-Ahmedabad and Bangalore, besides Andhra University at Visakhapatnam, and other prestigious centres of learning in Hyderabad and Pune. ^⁵⁹

Shanthu Shantharam the author of the article also allege that the Bt cotton yield has decreased in Madhya Pradesh. If Bt cotton yield has decreased in Madhya Pradesh, then cotton growers will and should stop buying Bt cotton seeds, and go back to non-Bt cotton seeds. It is not true that non-Bt cotton seeds have vanished from the market. Then, why are farmers buying these allegedly poor yielding Bt cotton seeds? ^⁶⁰

A study conducted by Dr. Abdul Qayoom, formerly Joint Director, Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Mr. Sakkari Kiran, an agricultural scientist and Dr G.V. Ramanjaneyaloo, among 21 individual farmers and farmers groups in 11 villages of Warangal District, found that there was only a marginal difference in the quantity of pesticide used on Bt and non-Bt cotton. While farmers sprayed Bt cotton 4-6 times this season, they sprayed non-Bt cotton only 5-7 times, just one more spray!

Mahyco has said in its promotional cassette (given along with Bt seeds) that if the Economic Threshold Limit (ETL) level in Bt Cotton, defined as 20 bollworms in one acre, is crossed, farmers have to spray to control pests. Their own promotional material proves that they knew their claim of pest resistance was false and they made this false claim only to get commercial clearance on false grounds to misguide farmers and to make illegitimate profits at the cost of innocent farmers. Bt cotton has also been attacked by wilt (fusarium oxysporumfsp. Vasinfectum) and root-rot (Rhizoctoria bactaticola) in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka. This has also been confirmed by the Dr. S.W. Khodke, Assistant Professor and Plant Pathologist at the Zonal Agriculture Research Center (ZARC) in Yawatmal, A.M. Ingle, Agriculture Development Officer of Yawatmal as well as Dr. Jalapathi Rao, Principal Scientist and Head of the Agriculture Research Centre in Warangal. These diseases were limited to Bt cotton varieties.^⁶¹

The only study that bolsters Monsanto's claims vis-a-vis Bollgard is by Matin Qaim (University of Bonn's Centre for Development Research) and David Zilberman (Professor at the University of California in Berkeley), published in the journal Science. This paper states that the Indian experience with Bt is positive and yields have increased by 80%. Qaim and Zilberman have used data provided by Mahyco-Monsanto, which is still not in the public domain, to substantiate their claims. These claims have been rebutted by internationally renowned scientists and experts. Shanthu Shantharam, a scientist who has worked as a regulator with the USDA and is an authority on 'pest resistant genes in managed ecosystems' states that such increase cannot be attributed to a single Bt gene, calling it a "preposterous idea".^⁶²

Qaim's study is also rebutted by Dr. Suman Sahai of Gene Campaign, who said that the paper is based exclusively on data supplied by the company that owns Bt cotton, Mahyco-Monsanto, and as such will be biased. Yet the data presented in this 'sensational' paper is not based on the harvest that year, as one would expect, but on a few select trial plots belonging to the company! No data from farmers' fields or from the All India Coordinated Variety trials conducted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research have been included.^⁶³

This amounts to manipulating data since trial plots are experimental fields with optimal conditions, whereas performance in real fields under normal cultivation conditions can be, and usually is, very different. The kind of results quoted by Qaim has not been seen anywhere else in the world where Bt cotton is being cultivated.

In the US and China, a 10 to 15 percent yield increase has been recorded. Such sensational data has led to a spate of media reports about the 'superlative' performance of Bt cotton, both nationally and internationally. Such misleading reports end up influencing policy makers in a direction that could ultimately be detrimental to farmers.^⁶⁴

Contrary to the GEAC's statements that they would earn an additional income of Rs. 10,000 per acre with Bt cotton, farmers have actually lost more than this amount. Not only is the cost of the seed higher than of non-Bt varieties, Monsanto's varieties also need more inputs in terms of fertilisers and water. The Indian experience with Bt cotton shows that it neither gives higher yields nor does it increase farmers' incomes. This finding is in keeping with the USDA report on the economics of GM crops. ^⁶⁵

The issue is whether saving money or reducing cost of production is what we give priority in our food production system or do we care about the sustainable livelihood to farmers and health of consumer and environment first. It has yet not proved whether Bt. Cotton increase the yield of cotton. It is also not proved whether it increases farmer’s income. We also need to think who conduct the study. Those who produce genetically modified food would highlight its utility and benefits. Thousands of experiments on GM crops takes place and very few are successful. If we highlight successful seeds why not also show failure experiments? There is need for study by the people.

Bt Cotton Adoption in Vidarbha
March 11, 2008

Documentary film narrating the story of how Bt Cotton was adopted, the key players responsible for it & the socio economic consequences

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TX5pFbT1eI

Bt Cotton

Fighting for the right to grow natural crops, in India. One of the most powerful nations in Asia has more...to protect the right and ability to grow natural crops and foods, to avoid a worldwide disaster. You think Chinese imports were bad? They are considering growing Liberty Link, which is a type of rice that decreases nutrients in each crop, by as much as half. If that strikes India, then what is happening in Africa might pale in comparison.

http://www.livevideo.com/video/mercofspeech/D67943ACBEC04DC6B8D322A576290B38/bt-cotton.aspx

Health Impact (cases)
So-called "pharma crops" can offer advantages over current methods of drug manufacture. Vaccines produced this way could be grown cheaply in developing countries and simply given to patients in the food. That would remove the need for sterile needles and refrigerators to keep vaccine doses cold - a major obstacle for delivering therapies in poor countries.
Consequences of GM crop contamination 'are set to worsen' by James Randerson in Boston, Gardian.co, 18 February 2008
[ C.eldoc1.KICS/conse-GM-crop-contamination.html ]

GM crops entre in the food chain and destroy the variety.
Case study AndraPradesh- Warangal district 1800 sheep and goats perished after grazing bt.cotton residues.
controversy- problems with pesticides/problems with bt.cotton seed.
whether to use the to increas the productivity? why no studyies in open fields? why in closed laboratary? why the findings and research are not publicized? why information is not decentralized?
Fatal feed, frontline, 04 May 2007 G47a [ C.eldoc1/g74a/04may07frn1.html]

This article discusses the potential health risks of genetically engineered foods (GMOs). It draws on some previously used material because its importance bears repeating. It also cites three notable books and highlights one in particular - Jeffrey Smith's 'Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.' Detailed information from the book is featured below. Genetically engineered foods saturate our diet today. In the US alone, over 80% of all processed foods contain them. Others include grains like rice, corn and wheat; legumes like soybeans and soy products; vegetable oils, soft drinks; salad dressings; vegetables and fruits; dairy products including eggs; meat, chicken, pork and other animal products; and even infant formula plus a vast array of hidden additives and ingredients in processed foods (like in tomato sauce, ice cream, margarine and peanut butter). Consumers don't know what they're eating because labeling is prohibited, yet the danger is clear. Independently conducted studies show the more of these foods we eat, the greater the potential harm to our health.
Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods by Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 22 February 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8148 [ C.eldoc1.KICS/potent-health-hazards-GE-foods.html ]

Last month the US Food and Drug Administration gave the green light to food made from cloned cows, pigs and goats, with the agency's top food-safety expert, Stephen Sundlof, declaring, "It is beyond our imagination to even have a theory for why the food is unsafe". Opponents of biotechnology immediately let out a collective groan of disapproval -among them Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Cloning, after all, will now join genetically modified crops as yet another threat to organic agriculture. I, too, let out a groan, but for a different reason.
Cloning and GM crops by James E McWilliams, The Deccan Herald, 08/02/2008 [ eldoc1.d70b/08feb08dch1.pdf ]

Biofortification is a novel mantra conceived by agricultural scientists to address the menace of rampant malnutrition and micronutrient deficiency in India, especially among the poor. This basically involves the enhancement of essential mineral and vitamin content of staple foods like rice, wheat, maize, bajra (pearl millet), pulses and the like so that people could get the required amounts of these micronutrients through their normal diets. A recent World Bank study has reckoned that as many as 75 per cent of the pre-school children in India suffer from iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) and 57 per cent have sub-clinical vitamin A deficiency. Iodine deficiency is endemic in nearly 85 per cent of all the districts in the country.
Killing deficiencies by Surinder Sud, The Business Standard, 24/04/2007 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/24apr07bsb1.pdf]

GAIN Business Alliance believes food fortification can play a key role in halting India's chronic problem of malnutrition, currently affecting nearly half its population. Food fortification means the introduction of additional nutrients into food products, including milk, rice, wheat and flour, on a costeffective basis. GAIN, which stands for the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition, is expected to play a catalytic role in spearheading a move to provide complementary food in the key initiatives of the ministry of women and child welfare, including ICDS, midday meal and public distribution system. Speaking at a press conference, GAIN'S executive director Marc Van Ameringen pointed out that his organisation would like to ensure that in the next two years, 10 per cent of the 36 million children who are fed under the ICDS scheme should receive complementary foods containing supplements of Vitamin A and iron.
'Food fortification helps fight malnutrition' by Rashme Sehgal, The Asian Age, 22/03/2007 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/22mar07aa1.pdf]

Cottonseed could soon become a source of protein-rich food for billions in the developing world, thanks to the work of an India-born scientist in the US. Subhra Priyadarshini reports
Dining out? Try cottonseeds by Subhra Priyadarshini, The Telegraph, 04/12/2006 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/04dec06tel1.html]

A NEW study claims to turn toxic cottonseeds into nutritious dinners for millions of under nourished people across the world. Keerti Rathore, a scientist at the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, has tinkered with the genes in cottonseeds to stop the release of gossypol,its naturally-occurring toxin. If cottonseeds become edible, it is estimated that the protein needs(cotton seeds contain 22 per cent high-quality protein) of over 500 million people will be met. Andit will make cotton a multi-utility crop—use the cotton for textiles and the seed as food.
Cottonseeds for starters by Subhra Priyadarshini, Down to Earth, 30/04/2007 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/30apr07dte1.pdf]

At a stylish city store last Thursday, a visitor from Goa examined a bottle of palm vinegar,and announced: "See the price.It's Rs 60 for a 500-gm bottle. In Goa, we get the same thing, home-made, for Rs 20." She rejected the vinegar, but picked up the higher-than-usually-priced packs of unrefined sugar and wholewheat atta (flour). All, organically produced.
A plateful of nature by Rucha Biju Chitrodia, The Times of India, 29/04/2007 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/29apr07toi1.pdf]

IN 1998 researcher Arpad Pusztai claimed that Genetically Modified (GM) potatoes stunted rats' growth and damaged their immune system. When the research was published, it turned out to be significantly flawed. But during the two days after the story broke, not one of the news articles, opinion pieces or editorials on the subject was written by a science journalist, and because the work was unpublished, no one could comment on the science anyway. It was the turning point in public opinion against GM crops. And now we have 'Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes' by the deputy political editor of the Independent, about cancers and tumours in rats fed a genetically modified potato in Russia.
The truth behind the GM foods fiasco by Ben Goldacre, The Hindustan Times, 06/03/2007
[ C.eldoc1/d70b/06mar07ht1.pdf]

SWITCHING OVER to chemical fertilizers might have cut down the cost of agricultural production in India, but human health has been badly affected by food products contaminated by these chemicals. People now prefer organic food over the conventional stuff. "People want to consume organic food, but because of the lack of awareness they don't have access to it," AC Neilson, a US based agency which conducted a survey, said. Organic food products are gaining ground across the world. Experts claim that agricultural foods produced using chemical fertilizers are responsible for many diseases.
Saying no to fertilizers by Neetu Chandra, Sahara Time, 17/06/2007 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/17jun07sah1.pdf]

Safe, healthy, tasty and cloned by James E McWilliams, Asian Age, 19/02/2008 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/19feb08aa1.pdf]

Last month the US Food and Drug Administration gave the green light to food made from cloned cows, pigs and goats, with the agency's top food-safety expert, Stephen Sundlof, declaring, "It is beyond our imagination to even have a theory for why the food is unsafe". Opponents of biotechnology immediately let out a collective groan of disapproval -among them Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Cloning, after all, will now join genetically modified crops as yet another threat to organic agriculture. I, too, let out a groan, but for a different reason.
Cloning and GM crops by James E McWilliams, The Deccan Herald, 08/02/2008 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/08feb08dch1.pdf]

Myth No. 4: GM crops have been tested as safe for human consumption At a time when other countries are getting tougher about GM crops, India is relaxing norms; pushing ahead with reckless haste.
Dancing With Frankenstein by Aruna Rodrigues, Tehelka, 29/03/2008 [ C.eldoc1/g74a/29mar08teh6.html]

¹ Dancing With Frankenstein by Aruna Rodrigues, Tehelka, 29/03/2008 [ C.eldoc1/g74a/29mar08teh6.html]

²‘India has fifth largest area under GM crops’, The Hindu, 19 February 2008, g74a (not indexed)

³ Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods by Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 22 February 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8148
[ C.eldoc1.KICS/potent-health-hazards-GE-foods.html ]

⁴ Fatal feed, frontline, 04 May 2007 G47a [ C.eldoc1/g74a/04may07frn1.html]

⁵ Cattle deaths at Bt cotton fields trigger biosafety fear, Down to Earth, 15/07/2007 [ C.eldoc1/g74a/15jul07dte3.html]

⁶ Fatal feed, frontline, 04 May 2007 G47a [ C.eldoc1/g74a/04may07frn1.html]

⁷ Bt cotton can kill farm animals, Andhra Govt cautions farmers by Chetan Chauhan, THE HINDUSTAN TIMES, 18/06/2007 [ C.eldoc1/k32a/18jun07ht1.html]

⁸ Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods by Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 22 February 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8148
[C. eldoc1.KICS/potent-health-hazards-GE-foods.html ]

⁹ Biosafety and Beyond by Kavitha kuruganti, Economic and Political Weekly, 07/10/2006 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/071006EPW4245.pdf]

¹⁰ 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion, Lightwatcher.com, 01 January 2000
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jan00lig1.html]

¹¹ 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion, Lightwatcher.com, 01 January 2000
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jan00lig1.html]

¹² BGH: Monsanto and the Dairy Industry's Dirty Little Secret, Marcola.com, February 27 2002
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/02/27/rbgh.aspx

¹³Mystery DNA Is Discovered In Soybeans By Scientists by ANDREW POLLACK, The New York Times, August 16, 2001
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EEDE143EF935A2575BC0A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

¹⁴50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion, Lightwatcher.com, 01 January 2000
[C.eldoc1/g74a/01jan00lig1.html]

¹⁵ Golden Harvest by B Shekhar, Sahara Time, 25/11/2007 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/25nov07sah1.html]

¹⁶ Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods by Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 22 February 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8148
[ C.eldoc1.KICS/potent-health-hazards-GE-foods.html ]

¹⁷ Killing deficiencies by Surinder Sud, The Business Standard, 24/04/2007 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/24apr07bsb1.pdf]

¹⁸ America says yes to foodcloned animals by Jenny Hope, The Times of India, 29/12/2006 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/29dec06toi1.pdf]

¹⁹ Europe’s Ethics Panel Says Cloning Harms Animals by By JAMES KANTER, The NewYork Times, 18 January 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/business/worldbusiness/18clone.html

²⁰ F.D.A. Says Food From Cloned Animals Is Safe by By ANDREW MARTIN and ANDREW POLLACK, The New York Times, January 16, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/business/16clone.html

²¹ Cloning and GM crops by James E McWilliams, The Deccan Herald, 08/02/2008 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/08feb08dch1.pdf ]

²² Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful? by Deborah B. Whitman, April 2000 (not indexed)
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/review.pdf

²³ Legally modified by Sourav Mishra, Down to Earth, 30/04/2006 [ C.eldoc1/d70b/30apr06dte1.html]

²⁴ GM food for thought by Sonu Jain, The Indian Express, September 28, 2007
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/221921.html

²⁵ Government hesitant on labelling genetically modified food by ASHOK B SHARMA, The Financial Express, October 01, 2007
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/Government-hesitant-on-labelling-genetically-modified-food/223027/

²⁶ GM foods: Label and tell, Business Line, 17 December, 2007
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2007/12/17/stories/2007121751070800.htm

²⁷ Industrial Agriculture and Global Warming by Peter Saunders. Independent Science Panel, 20/10/ 2004
[C.eldoc1/e31d/20oct04isp1.html]

²⁸ New Bt toxin developed to fight immunity in cotton pests by Seema Singh, Mint, 02/11/2007
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/02nov07mnt1.html]

²⁹ 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion, Lightwatcher.com, 01 January 2000
[C.eldoc1/g74a/01jan00lig1.html]

³⁰ Conserving Wild Crop Germplasm by Dr. Suman Sahai, The Ecologist Asia, 01/07/2003
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jul03eca4.pdf]

³¹ Can crops be climate-proofed? by T.V. Padma. Science and Development Network, 11/01/2008
[C.eldoc1/k30_/11jan08sdn1.html]

³² Manufacturing the Illusion of Groth, this chaptor is taken from report G74a(21) by Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Scienc, 01/01/1999
[ C.eldoc1/KICS/manufacturing_the_Illusion.pdf]

³³ Conserving Wild Crop Germplasm by Dr. Suman Sahai, The Ecologist Asia, 01/07/2003
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jul03eca4.pdf]

³⁴ Perils Amid Promises of Genetically Modified Foods by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Financial Agriculture, 01/07/2001
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jul01fia1.pdf]

³⁵ Manufacturing the Illusion of Groth, this chaptor is taken from report G74a(21) by Vandana Shiva, Research Foundation for Scienc, 01/01/1999
[ C.eldoc1/KICS/manufacturing_the_Illusion.pdf]

³⁶ Debate on GM crops 'beset by confusion' by Paul Brown, environment correspondent The Guardian, Tuesday November 25 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/nov/25/gm.greenpolitics

³⁷ 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion, Lightwatcher.com, 01 January 2000
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jan00lig1.html]

³⁸ Effects of biotechnology on biodiversity: herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GM crops by Klaus Ammann University of Bern, Botanic Garden, Altenbergrain 21, CH-3013 Bern, Switzerland, TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol.23 No.8 August 2005

³⁹ Dancing With Frankenstein by Aruna Rodrigues, Tehelka, 29/03/2008 [ C.eldoc1/g74a/29mar08teh6.html]

⁴⁰ 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion, Lightwatcher.com, 01 January 2000
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jan00lig1.html]

⁴¹ Effects of biotechnology on biodiversity: herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GM crops by Klaus Ammann University of Bern, Botanic Garden, Altenbergrain 21, CH-3013 Bern, Switzerland, TRENDS in Biotechnology Vol.23 No.8 August 2005

⁴² Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified Food Crops-Recent Experiences, Margaret Mellon, Ph.D., J.D., Jane Rissler, Ph.D. Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/
environmental-effects-of-genetically-modified-food-crops-recent-experiences.html#ENVIRONMENTAL_IMPACTS

Paper presented by Margaret Mellon at a conference, Genetically Modified Foods—the American Experience, sponsored by the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark, June 12-13, 2003.

⁴³ 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion, Lightwatcher.com, 01 January 2000
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jan00lig1.html]

⁴⁴ FISH GENE IN MY TOMATO SOUP by Mihir Srivastava, TEHELKA, 28/04/2007
[ C.eldoc1.d70b/28apr07teh1.html ]
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main29.asp?filename=Ne280407Fish_gene.asp

⁴⁵ How GM Crops Endanger Environment and Agriculture by Bharat Dogra. Mainstream Weekly Magazine, 25/01/2008
[C. eldoc1.g74a/25jan08mns1.html ]
http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article522.html

⁴⁶ 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion, Lightwatcher.com, 01 January 2000
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jan00lig1.html]

⁴⁷ Would you avoid GM food? Your reaction, BBC News, February 16, 1999
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/280527.stm

⁴⁸ FISH GENE IN MY TOMATO SOUP by Mihir Srivastava, TEHELKA, 28/04/2007
[ C.eldoc1.d70b/28apr07teh1.html ]
http://www.tehelka.com/story_main29.asp?filename=Ne280407Fish_gene.asp

⁴⁹ 50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods By Nathan Batalion, Lightwatcher.com, 01 January 2000
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jan00lig1.html]

⁵⁰ No to GM Trees by Sam Burcher, The Institute of Science in Society, 01/08/2004
[ C.eldoc/g74a/TOD-G74a-GMtrees.doc]

⁵¹ GM Trees Alert by Prof. Joe Cummins, Institute of Science in Society, 01 January 2002 (need to index) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMtrees.php

⁵² Low Lignin GM Trees and Forage Crops by Prof. Joe Cummins, Institute of Science in Society, 05 June 2004 http://www.i-sis.org.uk/LLGMT.php

⁵³ MRTPC raps Monsanto over Bt cotton royalty, The Business Standard, Bombay, 12 May 2006, [C.eldoc1/k34_/12may06bsb1.pdf]

⁵⁴ Vidarbha farmers' suicides,Bt cotton linked: Experts. By-Makarand Gadgil, The Business Standard, Mumbai, 04 Jul 2006, [C.eldoc1/k34_04jul06bs1]

⁵⁵ 16 Bollgard cotton hybridscleared, The Hindu, Chennai, 06 May 2006,
[C.eldoc1/k34_06may06h1.pdf]

⁵⁶ Who Benefits from GM Crops?, friends of the earth, 01/01/2008
[ C.eldoc1/KICS/who-beni-from-gm-crops.pdf]

⁵⁷Who Benefits from GM Crops?, friends of the earth, 01/01/2008
[ C.eldoc1/KICS/who-beni-from-gm-crops.pdf]

⁵⁸ Bt cotton beneficial to farmers: study by Jayalakshmi K, The Deccan Herald, 01/02/2008
[ C.eldoc1/k32a/01feb08dch1.pdf]

⁵⁹ Bt Cotton: Counter factoids by Shanthu Shantharam, The Deccan Herald, 25/02/2008
[ C.eldoc1/k32a/25feb08dch3.html]

⁶⁰ Bt Cotton: Counter factoids by Shanthu Shantharam, The Deccan Herald, 25/02/2008
[ C.eldoc1/k32a/25feb08dch3.html]

⁶¹ BURSTING the GM bubble by Vandana Shiva and Afsar H. Jafri, The Ecologist Asia, 01/07/2003 [C.eldoc1/g74a/01jul03eca1.pdf]

⁶² BURSTING the GM bubble by Vandana Shiva and Afsar H. Jafri, The Ecologist Asia, 01/07/2003
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jul03eca1.pdf]
Original Source: A Study claims the yield from Bt cotton is 80% higher. AP says it is below normal;
The Business World, 31st March 2003, page 26-28.

⁶³ BURSTING the GM bubble by Vandana Shiva and Afsar H. Jafri, The Ecologist Asia, 01/07/2003
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jul03eca1.pdf]
Original Source: Bt cotton: Seeds of Plenty; Empty Promise; The Times of India, New Delhi,
12th March 2003

⁶⁴ BURSTING the GM bubble by Vandana Shiva and Afsar H. Jafri, The Ecologist Asia, 01/07/2003
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jul03eca1.pdf]

⁶⁵ BURSTING the GM bubble by Vandana Shiva and Afsar H. Jafri, The Ecologist Asia, 01/07/2003
[ C.eldoc1/g74a/01jul03eca1.pdf]
Original Source: USDA Report Exposes GM Crop Economics Myth, 22nd August 2002,
www.btinternet.com/-nlpwessex/Documents/usdagmeconomics.ht