Mail to Health Ministry, India, opposing policy on GMO/LMO

[Guest guest]

Dear Aruna : I fully agree with the contents of your letter below and as such have d my name as required. I am circulating this widely including to the so-called consumer organisations/activists some of whom are sold out to GM food lobby. Big money you see. Liquor bills, party bills, office expenses are high you see. Who bothers about future generation, liquor has clouded our thinking you see !!! But do NOT worry Aruna, I am with you and on the internet there are any number of right-thinking persons who will NOT allow the hidden manipulations to take place. Best, Leo ------------- April 25, 2006 The Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Government of India Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 011 Dear Madam/Sir, Sub: Response To The Labelling of GMOs and LMOs [DRAFT RULES TO AMEND PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION Rules 1955: (Copy of notification dated 10th March ‘06)] We, the undersigned, have gone through the draft rules notified to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1955 which seek to make the labelling of GM foods mandatory in the country. Unfortunately, we

cannot accept your Ministry’s draft rules. It is clear, that they have been devised to accommodate a GM policy for India based on an ‘approval’ agenda for genetic engineering (GE), including LMOs (Living Modified Organisms, i.e. animals including aquatic life), by the regulatory bodies of the GEAC and DBT. These will open the floodgates of GM contamination of this country. It is therefore, evident, from the ‘Draft Rules’ that your Ministry cannot have arrived at an independent assessment of the hazards of this risky technology, which include serious health-safety concerns with GM foods and animal feed. Yet, your Ministry has independent responsibility and commensurate with this, the authority to oversee and ensure food safety and public health.

It is an established fact that there can be no co-existence between GM and Non-GM crops. Contamination is a biological and physical certainty. Our well-founded fears, with regard to the proposed draft rules for labelling GM crops, food/feed and the listing must logically include LMOs, are based on the fact that plans for a full-scale launch of GMO/LMO products both within India and through imports are part of the GEAC/DBT ‘approval agenda’. Labelling, then, instead of being a restrictive and safety mechanism for the Indian people, to safeguard the countryside, the wildernesses and the food chains from transgenic contamination, becomes the means for

legalising contamination through underpinning a regulatory system that is deeply flawed, from the view-point of both logic and science. In other words, the proposed draft rules for the compulsory labelling of GMO/LMO products, “without exception”, will essentially serve to provide the legal face to GEAC approvals for GM/LMO imports and locally produced GM crops, (both food & feed) and LMOs. Furthermore, there is now proven contamination of organic and conventional farms in the US, Canada, Argentina and Spain. The threat to its own organic and non-GM export trade has prompted the US to attempt to change the definition of organic to include GM content. India cannot to this kind of chicanery, where the law is constantly undermined to serve biotech interests. Again, your Ministry has particular responsibility for Ayurvedha and other Indian systems of alternative medicine, in which

the purity of organic standards allows for no compromise. It is absolutely essential therefore for India to ‘hold the line’ on certified organic standards. The issues raised by GE transcend the definitions of authority & responsibility of individual Ministries. India’s public policy to guard the country’s significant comparative and competitive advantage in an exploding world demand for ‘organic’ also dictates that India must ensure a NO-GMO/LMO policy. Thus, the ‘draft rules’ do not address or promote food/feed safety, food security and health. They will also negate consumer choice, because of the certainty of transgenic contamination. By supporting a thoroughly erroneous “end-of-the-pipe” approach rather than precautionary, “clean production technologies” to use an appropriate analogy, the ‘draft rules’ showcase the faulty and dangerous assumptions of India’s proposed rules for GMO/LMO labelling. The points below clarify the dangers of the proposed labelling for GMOs/LMOs. 1. Imports 1.1 The current draft rules do not address widespread contamination in a GM producing nation, that has no labelling laws, as for example, in the US

and Canada. Up to 85% of soy, corn and rape in foods/feed including processed foods is GM or contaminated with GM content. Similarly, Argentinian imports of soy crude and oil is also GM and unlabelled. This is well known by both the Ministry of Agriculture and the regulatory authority, the GEAC; it has been going on for years and has contaminated cooking oils sold in India, despite the illegality of these imports. This is the official Nelson’s eye. Given the evident ‘approval’ agenda of the GEAC and DBT, such imports will no doubt be approved, heading a long line of approvals, to provide various and proven multiple violations of EPA rules the garb of legality. Is the Ministry proposing to fall in line with such contamination in such countries through the use of a mere GM label? 1.2 Furthermore, no GM crop has been formally approved as safe for human consumption in, for example, the US, where the FDA merely acknowledges the crop developer’s assurance that “foods marketed by

the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements”. By the most lax yardstick for bias and ‘conflict of interest’ this is unacceptable. Is India therefore planning to accept the crop developer’s assurance of safety, or even the EU’s safety approval process, which is demonstrably compromised, through the inclusion of the words as required by the draft rules: “cleared for marketing and use in the country of origin”? 2. The Production Of GMOs/LMOs In The Country 2.1 The Draft Rules do not acknowledge that faulty Bt cotton approvals, the complete laxity of the regulatory process and the resultant non-compliance

with even minimum biosafety safeguards, has resulted in the certain contamination of the food chain through derivatives of Bt cotton. The GEAC maintains that no GM food has been approved for production and release in India. This is of course disingenuous and may not be accepted on grounds of health safety by your Ministry. Cottonseed oil contamination from Bt cotton means that vanaspati, pickles and food containing cottonseed oil have GM content; so also, milk and a huge multi-million crore trade including export in milk and milk-based processed foods. Cottonseed cake is the 2nd highest source of animal feed in the world and in India cottonseed is traditionally valued as feed for milch cattle to increase the fat content of milk. The cotton textile and clothing industry on grounds of allergenicity is also affected. The most serious cases of contamination involve medical bandages, sanitary towels etc, because of direct contact with the blood stream. What labelling and testing is the Ministry proposing? Is it the Ministry position that ‘baby foods’ contaminated with GM content can be presumed safe? 2.2 The amendment pre-supposes co-existence between GM and Non-GM and therefore, that segregation of GM and non-GM would offer benefits to consumers through labelling. However, given that co-existence is a proven impossibility and even a token attempt at segregation in India to slow down the process of transgenic contamination, a pipe dream, the draft rules burden non-GM producers with the cost of testing and labelling. This is true for India based producers as well as exporting countries. Thus, non-GM producers lose either way – if they cannot bear the cost of testing for a non-GM label, then their products must necessarily be labelled as GM! 2.3 The “MAY CONTAIN” option is untenable. There is every danger of all produce from India getting labelled as “MAY CONTAIN, because of cost considerations as a

direct result of the impossibility of co-existence: and it may well suit producers and traders at various levels of the distribution chain to mark in this way, almost all food/feed including processed and packaged food products. In such a situation, consumer choice is negated and the only option may well be an imported Non-GM product. 2.4 The draft rules in any case, are incomplete as they stand as they do not for example, address trade

losses, liability, including loss of premium organic markets and tort laws, for farmers, and traders, which require time and discussion with civil society in an inclusive way, in order to arrive at fair and comprehensive legislation whose aim must be the serious discouragement of GM contamination of India and of non-GM farmers’ fields, through punitive measures. 3. Consumer/Trader Rights and Choices 3.1 The objective of labelling is to provide and secure consumer choice about GM foods. Thus a food that carries no label (for Indian produce), should mean that it is free of GM content and there must be such a choice. However, given the complete breakdown in the regulatory mechanism in India, and the lax approach to GM safety, this clearly is and will not be the case. 3.2 To reiterate, the “MAY CONTAIN” label is the predicted fall out which would both deny consumer choice with regard to ethical and healthy food choices. It would also lead to the rapid contamination of the food chain without the possibility of redressing the situation. 3.3 The amendment pre-supposes a particular level of knowledge, information and awareness amongst both consumers and producers on the issue of GM foods; however, this is manifestly not so. 3.4 As importantly, much of the consumption in this country would be outside the ambit of labelling. How does the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare propose to protect the health and welfare of consumers and producers in such a case, leave alone protect their right towards choice? Amendments Sought: The Basis The draft rules for the labelling of GM food/feed and LMOs, imported and locally produced, pre-suppose in essence, that GM crops are a foregone conclusion. It is acknowledged by us that this ‘foregone conclusion’ is clearly the objective of a regulatory body that has paid no heed to the evidence placed before it by farmer and civil society groups, of serious concerns with genetic engineering. On the

other hand, your Ministry must safeguard public health and food safety as a first order of priority, because this is your Ministry’s clear duty and ‘raison detre’. There is well-established evidence from 10 years of the commercialisation of GM crops in the US and India’s experiment with Bt cotton, of serious health and biosafety concerns including well-documented evidence for the toxicity of GM crops, particularly Bt crops and that they must be tested like pesticides and/drugs.. It is a truism that the goal of health safety-assessment is that a “food should not cause harm when prepared, used or eaten according to its intended use” (Codex Alimentarius guideline 2003). We are sure that this is also the objective of India’s food laws and particularly the ‘Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules’. Thus, if GMOs cause cancer in rats, as has been firmly demonstrated along with other significant health risks, then, eminent world scientists are absolutely right to call for stringent, independent and peer-reviewed long-term animal feeding studies to determine the health safety of GM crops. Until then, they have called for a global moratorium. It is impeccable logic, which we fully endorse for India. Therefore, it is the ‘Precautionary Principle’ that is the superior scientific principle that must be followed most urgently for GMOs/LMOs, because their spread will alter the

molecular structure of the world’s food in PERPETUITY. Even if eventually, for the sake of argument, the evidence against GE were proved wrong on all dimensions of health and biosafety, it would still prove to be ‘right action’ based on prudence, for India to apply the precautionary principle in the SHORT TERM in order to be reasonably sure of the safety of GMOs/LMOs. Therefore, our national laws and rules, including labelling rules for GMOs/LMOs must reflect the unique risks of genetic engineering. This is the secure ground for our insistence that the draft rules for labelling products derived from genetic engineering products should therefore serve to safeguard a moratorium and underpin the precautionary path, pending a rigorous protocol of safety testing of each GMO/LMO that is to

be released into the environment. Required Amendments Therefore, we require: On all agricultural commodity imports, including seeds & plants: LOs including animals/marine life: also food/feed, processed & / packaged, into the country: a. A ban on the import of any product, including derivatives of such products (whether obtained as part of trade or aid and whether it is primary or processed and as listed above), that is GE or derived from genetic engineering, unless it is certified and labelled to have “NO GMO/LMO CONTENT” by the exporting country/agency. It is also required that the ‘country of origin’ is specified for the product and derivatives of products. Such a ban is particularly critical for infant and baby foods. b. A blanket ban on the import of a listed range of products, like for example, soy, corn and rape, and

derivatives of these products, including cosmetics, and as specified above, from GM producing countries of these GM crops, which have no GM labelling laws in place for GM content. Due diligence on a continuous basis of a country-wise update with regard to new releases of GMOs/LMOs is imperative and will be required, to secure the ban on such imports. c. There must be zero tolerance for transgenic contamination, particularly from GMOs/LMOs of pharm products and primary products’ imports [seed and planting materials], which would put at risk, the country’s seed stock and genetic diversity. Such

products must carry additional certification that they have been tested for, “Zero GM Content” by the Exporting Country. Such imports must also be subjected to independent sample testing in India where our labs must be upgraded as necessary, to be routinely capable of testing to 0.01% of GMO/LMO content, matching the current performance of the best international laboratories. On all products derived from Bt Cotton in India: a. An immediate cleanup of the contamination from Bt Cotton: farmlands, cotton, seed and seed cake, to halt on-going contamination of the food chain and cotton products including wearing apparel and medical products. Pending such a clean-up, strict and compulsory labelling of all food/ feed products and derivatives, indicating that the product has GM content. A ban on the release of any GMO/LMO into the Indian Environment and into the food/feed chain. Therefore, it is our demand that the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare take an approach to labelling for GMO/LMO content, as provided in this response, which underpins and secures a GMO/LMO-Free policy for India. There can be no wishful thinking that the ‘Draft Rules’ as devised for labelling, will protect India’s sovereign interests of public health safety, farmer and consumer rights and choice to grow, produce and consume non-GM food/feed including LMOs, and derivatives of GMOs like cosmetics, cotton apparel and medical products. S NO NAME ORGANISATION 1 Aruna Rodrigues Sunray Harvesters 2. Dr. Leo Rebello Natural Health Centre,

Bombay 3. Jagannath Chatterjee Bhubaneswar. ANNEXURE: INFORMATION ON THE DRAFT AMENDED RULES DRAFT RULES TO AMEND PREVENTION OF FOOD ADULTERATION RULES, 1955 Copy of NOTIFICATION dated 10th March 2006

The following draft of certain rules further to amend the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which the Central Government, after consultation with the Central Committee for Food Standards, proposes to make, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954), is hereby published, as required by the said sub-section, for the information of all persons likely to be affected thereby, and notice is hereby given that the said draft rules will be taken into consideration after the expiry of a period of sixty days from the date on which copies of the Official Gazette in which this notification is published, are made available to the public. 2. (1) Objections or suggestions, if any, in respect of the draft rules, may be addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, Nirman Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 011. (2) The objections and suggestions, which may be received from any person with

respect to the said draft rules before the expiry of the period so specified, will be considered by the Central Government. DRAFT RULES 1.(1) These rules may be called the Prevention of Food Adulteration (Amendment) Rules, 2006. (2) They shall come into force on the date of their final publication in the Official Gazette. 2. In the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said rules,) after rule 37D, the following shall be inserted, namely, - (i) “37- E Labeling of Genetically Modified Food – Genetically engineered or modified Foods means food and food ingredients composed of or containing genetically modified or engineered organisms obtained through modern biotechnology, or food and food

ingredients produced from but not contained genetically modified or engineered organisms obtained through modern biotechnology; In addition to the labeling provisions as prescribed under these rules, the Genetically Modified Food shall also conform to the following labeling requirements:- (a) a GM Food, derived there from, whether it is primary or processed or any

ingredient of food, food additives or any food product that may contain GM material shall be compulsorily labeled, without any exceptions; (b) the label of all package (s) of GM Food(s) or foods containing ingredients, derived from Biotechnology or Bioengineering or food additives or any food product that may contain GM material shall indicate that they have been subject to genetic modification. These provisions will be applicable to all such products both imported or domestically produced; and © the label of imported GM Food or derived there from, whether it is primary or processed or any ingredient of food, food additives or any food product that may contain GM material shall also indicate that the product has been cleared for marketing and use in the country of origin so that the verification, if needed can be taken up with that country without having to resort to testing.” (ii) After rule 48-E of the said rules, the following shall be inserted, namely, - “48-F Restriction on Sale of Genetically Modified Food: - No person shall except with approval of and subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) constituted under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, manufacture, import, transport, store, distribute or sell raw or processed food or any ingredient of food, food additives or any food product that may contain GM material in the country: Provided

that in case of imported genetically modified foods, the importer shall submit documents supporting the purported clearance at the time of import.” Sd/- (Rita Teaotia) Jt.Secretary G.S.R.152(E) F.No.P.15014/14/2005-P.H. (Food) Issued by: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of Health) New Delhi. "Our ideal is not the spirituality that withdraws from life but the conquest of life by the power of the spirit." - Aurobindo.

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Messenger with Voice.