BIOTECH-ROOM2-L Archives

Moderated conference on GMOs in the pipeline, hosted by the FAO Biotechnology Forum in 2012

Biotech-Room2-L@LISTSERV.FAO.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Biotech-Mod2 <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Biotech-Mod2 <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:21:15 +0100
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (26 lines)
This is Neha Saigal again. This is in response to Tom Nickson's response (Message 25).

I think you are right about the case of Bt Brinjal being put on an indefinite moratorium in India being very important. And I think this is for 2 reasons 1) Whether developing countries have the capacity to regulate GM crops 2) Whether there is a need for GM crops in developing countries in relation to food security.

In the case of Bt Brinjal, India is the centre of origin for Bt Brinjal and we have close to 2500 cultivated varieties of Brinjal and as many as 29 wild species. There is a high risk of contamination from Bt Brinjal to the other varieties thus putting at risk the diversity, which is very crucial for food security. Also in India we practice the Non-Pesticide Management in many parts of Andhra Pradesh that actually eliminates chemical pesticides while the Bt technology only reduces this.

The other issue is the capacity to regulate GM crops. The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) which is the apex regulatory body for environmental release of GMOs in India, has faced immense criticism and to state a credible reference Dr Puspha Bhargava who was the Supreme Court appointed member of the GEAC. Some of the credibility issues with respect to Bt Brinjal was the prevalent conflict of interest, the lack of biosafety tests and the lack of chronic toxicity tests. This is the very reason the Government of India is proposing a new regulatory body, the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI), which like the GEAC does not comply with the Cartagena Protocol of Biosafety amongst many other issues.

So in my opinion Bt Brinjal clearing the regulatory process does not mean much as the regulatory procedures are inadequate. Additionally to name a few scientists who clearly warned the Government of India that Bt Brinjal was not a good product: Prof Seralini, David Andow, Doug Sherman, Dr MS Swaminthan, just to name a few. This is referenced from the report by Mr Jairam Ramesh, the then Minister of State for Environment and Forests (reference/link provided in Message 23). I would suggest participants to read this to get a better view of why there was a moratorium on Bt Brinjal in India.

Neha Saigal
Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner,
Greenpeace India,
60 Wellington Street.
Richmond Town,
Bangalore
India
e-mail:neha.saigal (at) greenpeace.org

[To contribute to this conference, send your message to [log in to unmask] For further information on this FAO Biotechnology Forum, see http://www.fao.org/biotech/biotech-forum/]

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the Biotech-Room2-L list, click the following link:
https://listserv.fao.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=Biotech-Room2-L&A=1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2