Say No to Genetic Engineering
In 2002, the GEAC had sent across a clear pro farmer signal when
it prevented the introduction of GE mustard - the first GE food
crop in the country - affirming the precautionary principle, a
decision hailed by Greenpeace. However, with every passing year
since, the GEAC has demonstrated lesser caution and become more
ambivalent.
In keeping with its "one progressive step forward and two
regressive steps backward" policy, the GEAC has tried to appease
every stakeholder in its recent meetings. On the one hand it is
under immense pressure from giant agrichem corporations, on the
other it sees its role as a progressive body ushering Indian
agriculture into a bright new dawn. This schizophrenic conflict of
interest tends to cloud the Committee's judgement.
For instance, the economic ruin and despair of farmers in
Warangal (GE exposed jda_briefing.doc) leads the GEAC to reject
Monsanto's seed varieties in Andhra Pradesh. Yet, irrationally, the
same GEAC allows Monsanto to market its seed varieties in other
States.
Greenpeace maintains that GEAC decisions are not based on sound
information. Warangal represents the unreliability in data
collection for so crucial an issue. Farmers in Madhya Pradesh also
made a representation to the GEAC (MP farmers memorandum).
Predictably, nothing happened. Which leads one to the conclusion
that perhaps the despair quotient there is not high enough for the
GEAC.
This lack of objectivity is only expected from a body that calls
itself the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee. Like the genes
it is supposed to regulate, the GEAC is programmed to approve.
unless ugly facts like Warangal prevent it from doing so.
As Greenpeace recently found out, some farmers had decided not
to be further victims of corporate greed and regulatory failure,
and chose to fight back. Learning from their example, we decided to
take the message to other farmers across the country. In April,
(PR) Greenpeace launched the
Farmer Protection Shield (Kisan Suraksha Kawatch eng/hindi), a
legal manual to help farmers understand and reclaim their rights.
In Punjab, our partners Kheti Virasat released a local version of
this manual. And as you read this, more farmers are using this
manual to embrace the anti-GE struggle.
When the GEAC only approves, farmers will have to fight their
battle on their own. And win.
GEAC Decisions on Bt Cotton - as on May 2005
North India (Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan):
Approvals:
Ankur 651 Bt, Ankur 2534Bt. MRC 6301 Bt, MRC 6304 Bt, RCH 134 Bt and RCH
317 Bt for 2 years on March 4th 2005.
Central India (Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Chattisgarh)
Approvals:
RCH 138 Bt on April 13th 2005.
MECH-12, MECH-162 &MECH-184 are renewed permission on 3rd May 2005 for 2
years.
RCH-144 Bt and RCH-118 Bt of Rasi Seed, MRC-6301 Bt of Mahyco, Ankur-681
and Ankur-09 of Ankur Seeds on 3rd May 2005.
South India (Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu)
Andhra Pradesh:
Rejections: MECH-12, MECH-162 &MECH-184 are not renewed permission on
3rd May 2005.
Approvals: MRC-6322 Bt and MRC-6918 Bt of Mahyco, RCH-20 Bt and RCH-368
B for 2 years on 3rd may 2005.
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu:
Rejections: Mech-12 is not renewed permission on 3rd May 2005.
Approvals: MRC-6322 Bt and MRC-6918 Bt of Mahyco, RCH-20 Bt and RCH-368
B for 2 years on 3rd May 2005.