Gene mutation and food - Kavitha Kuruganthi

[Guest guest]

Gene mutation and foodKavitha KurugantiThe Asian Age, September 30 2009 http://203.197.197.71/presentation/leftnavigation/opinion/op-ed/gene-mutation-and-food.aspxDr

M.S. Swaminathan, considered the Father of the Green Revolution in

India, finally stated his views on genetically-modified (GM) crops in

an opinion piece published on August 26, 2009, in this newspaper. GM

crops are produced by inserting foreign genes, mostly non-plant genes

(bacterial, viral and animal genes) for obtaining hitherto

non-existent, new characteristics in a crop. For instance, the Bt class

of GM crops like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, have been engineered at the

genetic level by the insertion of a bacterial gene so that the plant

produces its own poison against chosen pests that feed on the crop.Dr

Swaminathan, who headed a task force on agri-biotechnology which gave

its report in 2004 to the ministry of agriculture, began his report by

reiterating what many of us believe: That "if agriculture goes wrong,

nothing else will have a chance to go right". The report emphasises

that the bottomline with regard to any policy on agri-biotechnology is

"the safety of the environment, the well-being of farming families, the

ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health

and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external

trade and the bio-security of our nation".After presenting such

a comprehensive requirement around any policy-making on GM crops in

that report, it was surprising to see this recent article hype up the

so-called benefits of GM crops and play down valid concerns.Let me begin with some fundamental issues that Dr Swaminathan did not touch upon:l

Genetic modification by insertion of new genes is now known to cause

mutations all along the genome of an organism and at the site of

insertion.l We have not yet understood the full complexity of

the genomic regulation in an organism and, therefore, the changes

brought about by genetic modification are unknown and also

unpredictable. This is where the primary concern about this technology

stems from — scientific evidence exists to show that the changes made

are unsafe from an environmental and human health perspective. A

fundamental flaw in Dr Swaminathan’s article was to make it appear that

what is inherently unsafe can be made safe through regulation!At

another level, Dr Swaminathan talks about various GM crops and their

benefits — it is interesting to note that except for the

insect-resistance trait that he expands upon, none of the other crops

actually exist! In reality, two kinds of GM crops exist — those that

produce a pesticide from within the plant, like Bt cotton and Bt

brinjal (sought to be introduced in India for the first time in the

world, developed mostly by American agencies), and those that

assimilate application of more pesticides and confer

herbicide-tolerance characteristic to a crop. In fact, herbicide

tolerance is the trait in nearly 81 per cent of the GM crop cultivation

in the world today. Dr Swaminathan’s report talks about how this should

be of low priority given the large number of agricultural labourers in

various regions of the country. Today, several field trials of GM crops

in India are centered around this trait — does it make sense to destroy

existing opportunities of employment in agricultureand then create more and more budgets for National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) kind of programmes?Coming

to crops like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, where pesticide is now inside

the plant, the central question is why such solutions are needed when

safer ways of pest management are known and practiced. Within the

National Agricultural Research System (NARS), from where

recommendations to be carried to farmers about various desirable

practices emerge, there are numerous examples of successful

non-chemical pest management practices. In addition, hundreds of

farmers practicing organic/ecological farming have their own successful

experiences and innovations to share about non-chemical pest

management. The problem is that people like Dr Swaminathan compare one

evil with the other rather than look for real solutions — the evil of

pesticides was initiated by the Green Revolution started by Dr

Swaminathan and others and has caused great suffering to farmers in

terms of increasing the cost of cultivation and debts. This has been

linked to the environmental health disaster unfolding in Punjabwhere hundreds are falling prey to the ill-effects of pesticides which have contaminated our resources etc.What

is ironical is that today, the people who brought in pesticides are the

ones saying that pesticides are bad — we agree wholeheartedly —

however, they don’t close down their chemical businesses while talking

about how farmers should opt for GM crops to get out of the pesticides

trap!Fears with regard to environmental and health impacts are

not unfounded even though Dr Swaminathan brushed these aside. It has

been established through various studies that GM foods could cause

allergies, affect the immunity system, damage organs like kidneys and

liver, stunt an organism’s growth and development and impair

reproductive health. The answer to pesticides is, therefore, not to

come up with another technology, irreversible this time, with several

potential negative impacts.If we really want to pride ourselves

in our scientific prowess, it is important to understand that breeding

technologies have moved on from hazardous technologies like GM. Methods

like marker-assisted selection (MAS) are being deployed for faster and

accurate breeding. Dr Swaminathan’s concerns about patents are, indeed,

valid and, therefore, public sector should snatch back spaces that have

been hijacked by profit-seeking corporations. Better yet, farmers

should be allowed to direct such research based on their localised

needs.Coming to the regulatory regime in India, Dr Swaminathan

seems to have given a clean chit to it even though scores of instances

show serious flaws in our regulation. He says that once a regulatory

approval is accorded, we should assume that a GM crop has been

subjected to stringent scrutiny and is safe for commercial release. He

ignores the fact that in the case of Bt cotton, this country saw

large-scale illegal Bt cotton proliferation much before the approval

was accorded. After such a widespread unapproved cultivation, the

regulators had no choice but to approve! He ignores the fact that

several problems pointing to Bt cotton's so-called safety have emerged

from the ground which have either been ignored, discounted or

rubbished. Better regulation does not make an inherently unsafe

technology into a safer one.What Dr Swaminathan should really

talk about is a liability regime when things go wrong. He should also

answer in a convincing fashion why GM crops should be opted for when

other safer and better alternatives exist, given that the bottomline

for biotech, according to him, includes things like well-being of

farming families, sustainability, health and nutrition security, trade

security and bio-security of the country.Kavitha Kuruganti is a trustee of Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab Western or allopathic medicine is always saying they have to have proof, double-blind studies, and yet, has your pediatrician ever shown you proof that vaccinations work? - Pat Mckay

Now, send attachments up to 25MB with India Mail. Learn how.