The 'open dialogue' was attended by scientists, representatives
of the Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Mahyco, members of the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee
(MEC), scientists from the Central Institute of Cotton Research and
farmers from various parts of the country.
Greenpeace pointed out that the major environmental concerns
raised were simply not addressed (1).
Though they claimed that data had been collected over a period
of three years, was comprehensive and had been rigorously monitored
by eminent scientists (2), no primary data was used to counter any
of the concerns raised at the meeting, stated Greenpeace.
"Bt cotton could seriously threaten Integrated Pest Management
practices that are demonstrated to reduce pesticide use in cotton
significantly. Scientific studies show that Bt cotton can harm
beneficial insects and lead to an increase in other pests, possibly
leading to increased pesticide use. The scientists at the meeting
refused to even acknowledge these very real possibilities", stated
Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, Science Advisor with Greenpeace
International.
Greenpeace pointed out that some of the large scale Bt cotton
field trials were held in several central and southern states
between 2000-2001. In Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, they were
carried out much later than the sowing season, due to a delay in
permissions. This is contrary to standard agricultural practice,
and the Bt plants did not experience the normal pest load. Any
claims made about the efficacy of Bt cotton and pest resistance
could be refuted
"There has been no public disclosure or scrutiny to date of
empirical evidence showing that our scientific concerns have been
addressed by Monsanto-Mahyco. This is deplorable. In the interest
of transparency and credible scientific review, it is imperative
that data from the field studies be made available to the public
and independent scientists. In effect, the non-transparent
processes have only increased suspicion and misgivings", stated
Michelle Chawla, Greenpeace's Genetic Engineering Campaigner.
Greenpeace emphatically stated that peer review of data is the
only valid means of verification generally accepted by the
scientific community. Anything less than an external scientific
review of data and methodology will be seen by the public as
suspect.
Greenpeace fears that a move to commercialise Bt cotton will be
taken at tomorrows meeting of the GEAC in the absence of any
transparency, opening the flood gates to a variety of other GM
crops.
India, is still at a fairly nascent stage with regard to the
required levels of scientific expertise required to understand
GMO's(Genetically Modified Organisms) as well as the legal and
regulatory provisions for adequate risk assessment.
Notes:
(1)(i). Increased resistance development of the Bollworm is the
most common problem that is likely to occur. What was the
Resistance Management Plan that Monsanto-Mahyco had submitted to
counter this? It is mandatory in countries like the US to submit a
plan for resistance management. No such plan had been submitted
here.
(ii) The ‘aad’ gene present in Bt cotton confers resistance
to streptomycin. Streptomycin is a very common antibiotic used in
the treatment of Tuberculosis. Had Mahyco ascertained the possible
impact on public health, if resistance were to occur?
(iii) No studies had been conducted on the impact of Bt cotton
on non-target species such as lacewing, spiders, parasitoids â€"
all beneficial species used in Intergrated Pest Management and
Organic farming systems. Bt would therefore be a direct danger to
these farming practices.
(iv) Gene flow both to wild and cultivated relatives has not
been addressed. The scientists ignored scientific evidence that
gene flow can happen. Research reveals that cotton pollen can be
carried by bees up to three miles.
(2) Results of the field trials including pest resistance,
expression levels of the Bt toxin during its life cycle, reduction
in number of sprays, yield data, toxicity to animals, gene flow,
effects on non-target species have been conducted and submitted to
the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation and the Genetic
Engineering Approval Committee. The Monitoring and Evaluation
Committee (MEC) set up under the Department of Biotechnology has
independently reviewed the field trials and also submitted a
report. Additionally, the ICAR has carried out independent field
trials of Bt in several research station across the country and
submitted its findings.