Dr Bhargava: GM Foods Carry Unknown Health Risks.

[Guest guest]

Genetically modified crops: The risk factor

 

 

 

 

By Rashme Sehgal

 http://infochangeindia.org/200807077208/Agriculture/Features/Genetically-modif\

ied-crops-The-risk-factor.html

Leading scientist Dr P M Bhargava warns that India may be flooded with

genetically modified foods with unknown health risks unless the government takes

urgent action

 

 

 

In this interview, leading scientist Dr P M Bhargava, who first coined the term

'genetic engineering' in a syndicated article in 1973, warns

against genetically modified (GM) foods being pushed into the Indian market

without appropriate safety assessment to ensure that they do not increase

health risks.

Thirty-two genetically engineered crops are presently being researched across

111 government and 50 private institutes, and already 14 have entered the trial

stage. Dr Bhargava says we may be flooded with GM foods with unknown health

risks unless the government ensures otherwise.

 

Dr Bhargava is a scientist, writer, thinker and institution-builder. He is the

founder-director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB),

Hyderabad, and former vice-chairman of the National Knowledge Commission.. He is

currently a member of the National Security Advisory Board, and has chaired

several NGOs, professional organisations and pharmaceutical companies.

Widely regarded as the architect of modern biology and biotechnology in India,

he has authored over 125 major scientific publications and over 400 other

articles on a variety of subjects in some of the best-known publications around

the world. He has written four books, including a 500-page monograph on

‘Proteins of Seminal Plasma’ published by John Wiley, New York, a national

integrated science textbook for 11-12-year-olds; and the highly acclaimed ‘The

Saga of Indian Science Since Independence: In a Nutshell’ (Universities Press,

2003). He has won several awards including the Padma Bhushan.

 

You have consistently warned about scientific norms being flouted in order to

push GM foods into the market.

A very dangerous precedent has been set in the country whereby GM foods like

Doritos corn chips are being sold off the shelf against the law, and Bt cotton

is being cultivated without a comprehensive risk assessment having been

conducted on its effects -- for example on the soil and the surrounding fauna. 

The most disturbing aspect of this trend is that the tests being done on

toxicity are being conducted by the applicant company itself or on samples

supplied by it. Will any applicant for permission to release a genetically

modified organism (GMO) say its GMO is not safe?  Monsanto is the world's

largest seed supplier, and has a vested interest.

Why is this being done?

For profit and, I dare say, nothing else.  Western multinational companies

(MNCs) want to make as much money as they can by exploiting people's ignorance.

The fact of the matter is that we do not need Bt cotton or GM food. Globally,

no major advantage is being conferred by these foods and the damage and harm

they may cause has still to be properly assessed. In the US, GM food does not

require to be labelled, so it is being mixed with other foods. One of the

reasons for the rising health bill in the US could well be GM foods.

So MNCs are continuing with their monopolistic hegemony by selling GM seeds in

third world countries?

Yes. A good part of the first world, including almost all the European

countries, has imposed a ban on them. Switzerland, to cite an example, has put a

moratorium on release of GMOs till 2012.  Most countries across the world have

banned GMOs.

The problem is that no one knows what effect these foods will have on us. In

animals, we have a good idea about their possible ill-effects. In science, we

collect evidence on the basis of which we make predictions. All our predictions

so far are not in favour of GM foods unless they are tested extensively and

exhaustively, which they are not today. Experts are crying themselves hoarse; it

is for the Indian government to listen.

If all our politicians and scientists were committed to their country, not a

single GM product would have been permitted in India as of today.

What harm would occur if Bt crops are grown in India?

The government and scientific bodies have ignored several reports on the

failure of Bt cotton in terms of yield, and how it has adversely impacted lakhs

of farmers, for example in Vidarbha, who are now shifting from cotton to

soyabean.

Bt cotton seeds were supposed to increase yields. This has happened in some

cases, but not in many others where yields have decreased and the cost of

production gone up. The Bt seeds are also more expensive than normal seeds.

The cost of Bt seed started with Rs 1,650 (per standard packet) as opposed to

the cost of normal seed which is Rs 450.

 

The government needs to pay much more attention to the death of over 1,000

cattle that foraged on remnants of Bt cotton plants in some districts of Andhra

Pradesh over the last few years.

Monsanto-Mahyco's new studies have highlighted a gene flow of up to 15-20 metres

(that is, the Bt gene can affect non-Bt plants that are 10-20 metres away) in

the case of Bt brinjal, and 10 metres for Bt cotton. For the majority of

India's farmers, with holdings of less than two hectares of land, a 10-metre

gene flow would render a third of their holdings unviable. That is a huge loss.

Why are so many institutes being allowed to conduct field trials?

The supervisory agencies have turned a blind eye to what is going on.  In West

Bengal, trials of Bt okra, which started in mid-August 2007, were done on the

basis of approval by the panchayat. My question here is: what knowledge do

panchayats have about genetically modified organisms and GM foods, especially

since they are susceptible to all kinds of pressures? The State Biotechnology

Coordination Committee and the District Level Committee have not approved these

trials. West Bengal's agriculture university monitoring the trials has

also given a damning report about the trials.

I have also highlighted before various government agencies the fact that several

of the tests that are claimed to have been conducted may never have been done.

This is because Monsanto-Mahyco itself is conducting the tests for its own

products that it wants approved. The result may have been very different if an

independent professional organisation had conducted the tests – for example,

the toxicity tests.

 

Take, for example, the study on the heat stability of the highly toxic protein

in Bt brinjal which is genetically engineered to contain this insecticidal

protein to help the brinjal plant escape attack by certain pests. The conclusion

of this study is supposed to be that while uncooked Bt brinjal scores positive

for the Bt protein, cooked Bt brinjal scores negative. This statement has no

meaning as no values are given and no indication is given of the sensitivity of

the method used. Thus, if the sensitivity was low, then it is possible that,

on cooking, as much as say 25% of the active protein may have been left, which

could be toxic. 

 

Many tests on GM foods and crops in our country today are taking place in

non-accredited laboratories that may not have the proven expertise and

facilities in the area to test these food and other GM items.

 

You have expressed other reservations too about these tests.

Yes, to recap some of the issues, the West has done a lot of studies on gene

flow. On May 16, 2008, a 147-nation conference in Bonn concluded that GMOs were

responsible for damage to other plants. Understandably, the US was not a party

to this conclusion.

The recent IAASD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science and

Technology for Development) report makes the point that GM foods are not the

solution to the looming agricultural crisis. A review of this report in the

journal Science emphasises that a redirection of science and technology is

needed to move away from processes that have profited primarily large-scale

enterprises, to processes that address the most basic needs of the world's 900

million small farmers. This was partly a reference to GM crops.

Reported cases of Bt allergy in north India have not been investigated. We have

also not investigated in sufficient detail the impact of GM crops on soil

ecology.

There have been recent studies that show that dietary DNA can find its way into

blood. This opens up the possibility that GMO DNA could change the

characteristics of cells of the body.  Such a transformation could have a major

deleterious effect on the host. A recent UN study also states, and I am

quoting, that " India faces a high safety risk because safety norms on

genetically modified crops are not being enforced " .

There seems to be quite a lot of evidence against GM foods.

I would say that as of today we do not have reasonably conclusive evidence that

GM foods are safe.  We should therefore exercise the precautionary principle

and ban their use unless incontrovertible evidence regarding their long-term

safety is obtained, which would take 10 to 25 years.  It is a pity

that alternatives to GM crops such as integrated pest management and the use of

bio-pesticides, which are cheaper and better, and organic agriculture, are being

ignored by our government in spite of the enormous evidence in their favour.

Two other examples of Bt technology which has proved harmful to insects and

animals may be highlighted. Transgenic Research magazine (December 2007, Vol 76,

p 795 onwards) reports that Bt Cry 3A protein has a deleterious effect on

beneficial, non-target beetles. An example of a dramatic metabolic change

following genetic engineering would be the recently reported incidence of

extraneous melanoma (a cancer) in genetically modified animals (Pigment Cell

Research, December 2007, Vol 20(6), p 485 onwards).

I have suggested that the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) should

seriously consider calling a meeting to objectively review all our experiences

with Bt cotton and information that has been obtained over the years on GM

crops, including Bt cotton. This review should involve technical members of the

GEAC and RCGM (Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation), a small number of

carefully selected experts whose knowledge and objectivity have never been in

doubt and who have no vested interests, a small number of reliable and

responsible NGOs, and a few representatives from industry.  It is to the credit

of GEAC that it has agreed to organise such a meeting.

Why has government not taken note of all that I have said above?  The answer

probably lies in the fact that (a) our country appears nearly at the bottom in

the list of corrupt countries, and (b) Remember that Monsanto produced Agent

Orange in the US-Vietnam war (which the US lost) to defoliate thousand of square

kilometres of Vietnam which I myself saw in 1982 in Vietnam.  The combination

of (a) and (b) above could be very profitable for people in the government and

Monsanto, but a disaster for the billion people of India, 78% of whom live on

less than Rs 20 per day and are virtually voiceless. Who cares about them?  I

do, but does that matter?  So some NGOs and concerned individuals have rightly

taken the matter to court. I hope the courts will follow a more balanced

approach than our government has. Genetic engineering is a marvellous

technology.  Let us not use it to make biological time-bombs.

InfoChange News & Features, July 2008

 

 

" The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual

efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization.....There is no

convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with

eliminating any childhood disease. " --Dr Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.

 

 

Unlimited freedom, unlimited storage. Get it now, on

http://help...com/l/in//mail/mail/tools/tools-08.html/