Bt Brinjal can awaken a sleeping poison.

[Guest guest]

Bt brinjal can awaken a sleeping poison

 

November 5th, 2009

By Suman Sahai

Tags: Bt

Brinjal, bt gene,

codex, prevention of food

adulteration

What, you may ask, is common between potatoes, tomatoes, brinjal, chilli,

datura, tobacco and the deadly nightshade (belladonna)? They all belong to a

plant family called Solanaceae. The Solanaceae family contains a number of important

agricultural plants as well as many psychoactive and toxic plants. Solanaceae

species are rich in complex chemicals called alkaloids and contain some of the

most poisonous plants known to mankind. They produce alkaloids in their roots,

leaves and flowers. These alkaloids can be hallucinogens, stimulants or

outright toxic. For example, when potatoes are exposed to light, a chemical

called solanin is produced which appears as a green tinge. Green potatoes can

be toxic, damage an unborn fetus and cause abortions. Other plants of this

family known for their toxic qualities are belladonna, datura and tobacco

..

Farmers have been working for thousands of years to domesticate wild plants

like those of the Solanaceae family, to make them safe for eating. Much of this

exercise involved breeding out the toxins contained in the wild plants.

Scientists too have used careful, selective breeding to “clean up†crop

varieties which had good qualities but contained toxins. Now brinjal, a member

of this family, has been genetically engineered (GE) to produce a toxin to

protect itself against a particular pest. This seems to be a process working to

reverse several thousand years of efforts to detoxify natural plants to make

them fit for human consumption!

 

Genetic engineering in plants has not been mastered enough to rule out the

creation of dangerous new products in the cells when genes are muddled during

the insertion of new, usually foreign genes. Several cases are known when new

proteins and toxins were produced in plants which were genetically engineered.

For example, when genetically modified (GM) peas were being developed by the

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia to

protect peas from the pest pea weevil, it was found that newly-formed proteins

in the GM peas repeatedly caused immunity problems and lung inflammation when

fed to mice. The experiments had to be abandoned. In another case, when mice

were fed the genetically engineered Flavr Savr tomato, seven out of 40 experimental

animals died within 14 days and the others suffered stomach lesions.

 

Genetic engineering in plants of the Solanaceae family could be dangerous since

disturbing their genetic material through the process of inserting new gene

constructs containing a battery of genes — including the toxin producing Bt

gene — may trigger off metabolic processes that have been lying dormant. There

are apprehensions that not only could new toxins develop but that old toxins

that were removed by selective breeding may reappear. Disturbing the cell

metabolism (by genetic engineering) of species that are naturally genetically

hardwired to produce toxins, is likely to call up old plant toxins in these

species.

 

Testing for food safety is key in genetically engineered plants; it becomes

more so with the Solanaceae family. At present biotechnology companies rely on

the concept of “substantial equivalence†to demonstrate the safety of

genetically engineered foods. In this method, the overall chemical composition

of the genetically engineered food is compared to an equivalent conventional

food. If there is no significant difference between the two, the GE plant is

considered to be safe.

 

The Mahyco seed company has also tested its Bt brinjal in the same way.

However, substantial equivalence is a highly contested paradigm, favored by the

biotech industry but rejected by most countries. This is because there is no

mechanism in such an approach to detect unexpected or unintended changes like

new toxic compounds in the cell.

 

Apart from the critical safety issues, there are other questions that arise

with the impending release of India’s

first genetically engineered food crop. There is no system in place for

labeling these foods. Indeed, how can one in the Indian situation label a

vegetable that will be sold from farmers’ fields, laden into trucks and taken

to wholesale mandis. How will the vegetables on the vendor’s cart or the corner

shop be labeled as GM? The Government of India recognises the need to label GE

food, and its position in the meetings of the Codex Alimentarius has been

consistently in favor of mandatory labeling.

 

Accordingly, the ministry of health has drafted rules under the Prevention of

Food Adulteration Act to include labeling of GE food and food ingredients. But

there is as yet no mechanism in place to label GE food, nor have any awareness

programs been conducted to explain the nature of GE foods and the need for

labeling them. For most consumers, especially rural consumers, GE foods are a

black box and unless they are made aware of the nature of GE foods, labelling

would be meaningless. Despite these big gaps in preparedness, the Genetic

Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has approved Mahyco’s Bt brinjal for

commercial production.

 

Does this mean that the consumer’s right to informed choice about their food is

about to be trashed? This right is enshrined in India’s Consumer Protection Act and

the GEAC approval will violate the provisions of this Act. Further, labeling is

not just about pasting a colored sticker on a brinjal, it involves a rigorous

process of segregation and identity preservation (IP) to keep Bt and non-Bt

food segregated. IP is a complex and expensive process requiring separation of

a GM food from non-GM food, starting from farmers’ fields, all the way to vegetable

shops. Without going through this process, labeling cannot be done. Or has the

GEAC planned that all brinjals cultivated in this country henceforth will be

genetically engineered?

 

And what about fixing liability for damage? There is no liability law in India. In the

event of contamination of organic brinjal with Bt brinjal, what will be the

process of recall? Who will be liable to the producers of organic brinjal?

There are no provisions for monitoring the long-term impact of GE foods on the

health of consumers. In case adverse health impacts are reported from eating Bt

brinjal, who would be liable to pay compensation? How would the liability be

fixed and what would be the quantum? In the absence of any kind of preparedness

or safeguards, what would be the liability of the government for approving such

food crops? And in the event of damage caused by Bt brinjal, will Mahyco be put

in the dock?

* Dr Suman Sahai, a genetic

scientist who has served on the faculty of the Universities of Chicago

and Heidelberg,

is convenor of the Gene Campaign

 

 

 

Connect more, do more and share more with India Mail. Learn more.

[Guest guest]

Let us all strive to get this contaminated, unhygenic, " against the

Laws of God and Universe " seeds not only out of India but off the face

of our beloved planet " Earth " too.

It is going to affect each and everyone of us. Why are we allowing

greedy people to take over the planet?

 

 

On 11/6/09, Jagannath Chatterjee <jagchat01 wrote:

> Bt brinjal can awaken a sleeping poison

>

> November 5th, 2009

> By Suman Sahai

> Tags: Bt

> Brinjal, bt gene, codex, prevention of food

> adulteration

> What, you may ask, is common between potatoes, tomatoes, brinjal, chilli,

> datura, tobacco and the deadly nightshade (belladonna)? They all belong to a

> plant family called Solanaceae. The Solanaceae family contains a number of

> important

> agricultural plants as well as many psychoactive and toxic plants.

> Solanaceae

> species are rich in complex chemicals called alkaloids and contain some of

> the

> most poisonous plants known to mankind. They produce alkaloids in their

> roots,

> leaves and flowers. These alkaloids can be hallucinogens, stimulants or

> outright toxic. For example, when potatoes are exposed to light, a chemical

> called solanin is produced which appears as a green tinge. Green potatoes

> can

> be toxic, damage an unborn fetus and cause abortions. Other plants of this

> family known for their toxic qualities are belladonna, datura and tobacco

> .

> Farmers have been working for thousands of years to domesticate wild plants

> like those of the Solanaceae family, to make them safe for eating. Much of

> this

> exercise involved breeding out the toxins contained in the wild plants.

> Scientists too have used careful, selective breeding to “clean up” crop

> varieties which had good qualities but contained toxins. Now brinjal, a

> member

> of this family, has been genetically engineered (GE) to produce a toxin to

> protect itself against a particular pest. This seems to be a process working

> to

> reverse several thousand years of efforts to detoxify natural plants to make

> them fit for human consumption!

>

> Genetic engineering in plants has not been mastered enough to rule out the

> creation of dangerous new products in the cells when genes are muddled

> during

> the insertion of new, usually foreign genes. Several cases are known when

> new

> proteins and toxins were produced in plants which were genetically

> engineered.

> For example, when genetically modified (GM) peas were being developed by the

> Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in

> Australia to

> protect peas from the pest pea weevil, it was found that newly-formed

> proteins

> in the GM peas repeatedly caused immunity problems and lung inflammation

> when

> fed to mice. The experiments had to be abandoned. In another case, when mice

> were fed the genetically engineered Flavr Savr tomato, seven out of 40

> experimental

> animals died within 14 days and the others suffered stomach lesions.

>

> Genetic engineering in plants of the Solanaceae family could be dangerous

> since

> disturbing their genetic material through the process of inserting new gene

> constructs containing a battery of genes — including the toxin producing Bt

> gene — may trigger off metabolic processes that have been lying dormant.

> There

> are apprehensions that not only could new toxins develop but that old toxins

> that were removed by selective breeding may reappear. Disturbing the cell

> metabolism (by genetic engineering) of species that are naturally

> genetically

> hardwired to produce toxins, is likely to call up old plant toxins in these

> species.

>

> Testing for food safety is key in genetically engineered plants; it becomes

> more so with the Solanaceae family. At present biotechnology companies rely

> on

> the concept of “substantial equivalence” to demonstrate the safety of

> genetically engineered foods. In this method, the overall chemical

> composition

> of the genetically engineered food is compared to an equivalent conventional

> food. If there is no significant difference between the two, the GE plant is

> considered to be safe.

>

> The Mahyco seed company has also tested its Bt brinjal in the same way.

> However, substantial equivalence is a highly contested paradigm, favored by

> the

> biotech industry but rejected by most countries. This is because there is no

> mechanism in such an approach to detect unexpected or unintended changes

> like

> new toxic compounds in the cell.

>

> Apart from the critical safety issues, there are other questions that arise

> with the impending release of India’s

> first genetically engineered food crop. There is no system in place for

> labeling these foods. Indeed, how can one in the Indian situation label a

> vegetable that will be sold from farmers’ fields, laden into trucks and

> taken

> to wholesale mandis. How will the vegetables on the vendor’s cart or the

> corner

> shop be labeled as GM? The Government of India recognises the need to label

> GE

> food, and its position in the meetings of the Codex Alimentarius has been

> consistently in favor of mandatory labeling.

>

> Accordingly, the ministry of health has drafted rules under the Prevention

> of

> Food Adulteration Act to include labeling of GE food and food ingredients.

> But

> there is as yet no mechanism in place to label GE food, nor have any

> awareness

> programs been conducted to explain the nature of GE foods and the need for

> labeling them. For most consumers, especially rural consumers, GE foods are

> a

> black box and unless they are made aware of the nature of GE foods,

> labelling

> would be meaningless. Despite these big gaps in preparedness, the Genetic

> Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has approved Mahyco’s Bt brinjal for

> commercial production.

>

> Does this mean that the consumer’s right to informed choice about their food

> is

> about to be trashed? This right is enshrined in India’s Consumer Protection

> Act and

> the GEAC approval will violate the provisions of this Act. Further, labeling

> is

> not just about pasting a colored sticker on a brinjal, it involves a

> rigorous

> process of segregation and identity preservation (IP) to keep Bt and non-Bt

> food segregated. IP is a complex and expensive process requiring separation

> of

> a GM food from non-GM food, starting from farmers’ fields, all the way to

> vegetable

> shops. Without going through this process, labeling cannot be done. Or has

> the

> GEAC planned that all brinjals cultivated in this country henceforth will be

> genetically engineered?

>

> And what about fixing liability for damage? There is no liability law in

> India. In the

> event of contamination of organic brinjal with Bt brinjal, what will be the

> process of recall? Who will be liable to the producers of organic brinjal?

> There are no provisions for monitoring the long-term impact of GE foods on

> the

> health of consumers. In case adverse health impacts are reported from eating

> Bt

> brinjal, who would be liable to pay compensation? How would the liability be

> fixed and what would be the quantum? In the absence of any kind of

> preparedness

> or safeguards, what would be the liability of the government for approving

> such

> food crops? And in the event of damage caused by Bt brinjal, will Mahyco be

> put

> in the dock?

> * Dr Suman Sahai, a genetic

> scientist who has served on the faculty of the Universities of Chicago and

> Heidelberg,

> is convenor of the Gene Campaign

>

>

> Try the new India Homepage.

> http://in./trynew