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 Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Date:
Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:20:22 +0100
Reply-To:
Biotech-Mod2 <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Message-ID:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Sender:
"Moderated conference on GMOs in the pipeline, hosted by the FAO Biotechnology Forum" <[log in to unmask]>
From:
Biotech-Mod2 <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
This is from Aruna Rodrigues. I am the lead Petitioner in the Supreme Court of India for a moratorium on GM crops in the absence of proper regulation and rigour in the oversight of GM crops, (on-going since 2005). I am submitting the following facts based on affidavits to the Supreme Court. There have been several comments on the case of Bt brinjal in India (message nos: 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59). This is a reply to them collectively; and necessary in order to set the record straight in this international conference because of assumptions and suppositions being made without the science to back these statements, by several proponents of GM crops. 

For those who have asked the question: are there problems with the safety of Bt brinjal, (?) the answer is an unqualified "yes", based on the assessment of the Mahyco-Monsanto safety dossier by eminent independent international scientists and based on the fact that Monsanto have quite simply not done the tests required in a stringent risk assessment and hazard identification protocol; the dossier is also not compliant with the letter and spirit of the Codex Alimentarius and the Convention on Biological Diversity. 

The scientists who appraised various section of the raw data of the dossier include (but are not limited to), Profs Dave Schubert, Jack Heinemann, David Andow, Arpad Pusztai, Gilles-Eric Seralini, Judy Carman, Lou Gallagher, Doug Gurian-Sherman. It is also necessary to also put the record straight about Prof Balasubramanian's strong insinuation that casts aspersions on both Prof Andow and me - ref Message 30. This is uncalled for, because it is quite simply in deliberate error. It is also therefore, in poor taste. The slur on Prof Andow is particularly unfortunate as he has done India a great service. The US National Academies of Science on behalf of Minister Jairam Ramesh (erstwhile Minister of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, MoEF) who had requested the US NAS to ask leading scientists to respond to his review process of Bt brinjal), approached Prof Andow. Given his undeniable credentials, I too requested Prof Andow whether he would take up the ERA (environment risk assessment) of Bt brinjal, not merely a tome-of-an-undertaking, but to boot that I could not offer him a fee for doing so! In return however, I would publish his research. It is odd indeed that Prof Balasubramaniam emphasises peer review for Prof Andow's ERA of Bt brinjal. Peer review is necessary in certain cases as an absolute requirement. Such an absolute requirement was Monsanto's dossier of Bt brinjal for the obvious reason that the food and diet of over 1 billion people would be affected by such a release. This dossier based on the appraisal of it by several leading scientists mentioned above would fail peer review. Monsanto of course habitually keeps its dossiers secret (ref the case of Mon 863. They tried to do the same with bt brinjal -see below). It is also relevant to clarify that the thrust of the Supreme Court process for the last 8 years has been to prove (a) inadequacies in regulation (b) the serious conflict of interest that exists in the regulators and (c) provide documented evidence of the significant gaps in risk assessment protocols exemplified by the case of Bt brinjal. The need and challenge was to find scientists who have an impeccable record as independent scientists and who are internationally renowned for their work in GM science in their respective fields. 

The case of Bt brinjal is the test case for India. It is the only event for which a biosafety dossier was executed by the crop developer Mahyco-Monsanto and put into the public domain by the MoEF because of an Order of the Supreme Court in the case of Aruna Rodrigues (AR) & others. Even so it took 15 months for the Regulator and Monsanto to comply with this Order under threat of contempt of court (eventually in August 2008). Its assessment as stated above by several independent international scientists must be balanced against a self-assessed dossier by Monsanto and as it is now known, with virtually no regulatory oversight by the Indian regulators. The Mahyco-Monsanto Bt brinjal dossier was found formally deficient by the erstwhile Minister of the MoEF Shri Jairam Ramesh on serious grounds of a lack of independent studies and studies not done, particularly long term studies for chronic toxicity. The moratorium on Event EE 1 is indefinite until risk assessment is addressed to the satisfaction of the scientific community. 

Subsequently, a two year enquiry by India's Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on the 'Cultivation of Genetically Modified Food Crops - Prospects and Effects' completed in Aug 2012, has been severely critical of India's regulatory system with its heavy entanglement in conflict of interest across connected institutions: The official press release of the PSC (9 August 2012) says: "----these developments are not merely slippages due to oversight or human error but indicative of collusion of a worst kind, they have recommended a thorough probe into the Bt. brinjal matter from the beginning up to the imposing of moratorium on its commercialization by the then Minister of Environment and Forests (I/C) on 9 February, 2010, by a team of independent scientists and environmentalists". (Ref. PSC Recommendation: Para No. 2.79).

The PSC in the matter of the Department of AYUSH (traditional Indian Systems of Medicine), a matter which has also been raised in this forum, states: "In view of the serious reservations expressed by the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy about the likely impact of transgenics in agricultural crops on the medicinal value of various plants, the Committee have sought a detailed explanation from GEAC about action they had taken on the advice of Department of AYUSH while approving commercial release of Bt. brinjal. The Committee have also sought a detailed explanation from Ministry of Environment and Forests on their refusal to co-opt the representative of Department of AYUSH to the GEAC right away, when Bt. brinjal was approved for commercial release and several other crops having medicinal propriety are already being assessed/approved by RCGM/GEAC" (the regulators). (Ref. PSC Recommendation: Para No. 6.149 and 6.150). [The quotation is also from the same press release as above...Moderator].

In the final analyses, civil society requires it to be demonstrated by Regulators they can impose trust in, that Bt brinjal is safe on multiple dimensions. I will post emails, separately addressing various aspects of the appraisal of Bt brinjal, of clear relevance to this forum's objectives under 4.2 and several posted messages.   

Aruna Rodrigues
Sunray Harvesters,
Bungalow 69
Mhow - 453441
M.P. India
e-mail: arunarod (at) gmail.com

[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