Greenpeace activists greet delegates at the FICCI auditorium, the venue for the three-day conference ‘Agricultural Bio-technology - Ushering in the Second Green Revolution’
Divya Raghunandan, GE Campaigner, Greenpeace India, said, "We're
appalled at the flippancy with which delegates have discussed the
most serious issues of biosafety. Although they've practically
admitted that our worst fears are a reality, they have been
dismissive about them, and continue to plow ahead
relentlessly."
Contamination is a Reality: On Day Two of the
conference, Mr Raju Barwale, Chief Managing Director of
Monsanto-Mahyco spoke at the session on IPRs, Legal Framework and
Agri- Biotechnology Transfer. When was asked whether a Bt Cotton
field could contaminate a neighboring organic cotton field, he
responded with a simple "yes".
Not only did this belated acknowledgement of Bt Cotton
contamination fail to provoke outrage as it should have, it raises
serious questions about the 36 new Bt cotton varieties that were
announced at the conference.
GMOs are Out of Control: In the same session Dr. S.
Nagarajan, Director of the Indian Agriculture Research Institute
(IARI) mentioned that a genetically modified papaya - resistant to
the ring spot virus - is already in India, though he does not know
how it entered the country.
This statement (and the impassive silence that followed) is
particularly shocking at a conference that claims that GMOs can be
regulated in name of Biosafety. Even more so considering the
illegal GM Papaya scandal currently gripping Thailand.
Risk Assessment ‘not taken seriously’: Dr. S.
Nagarajan also stated that risk analysis programmes in the country
are "not taken seriously". Considering he is a leading proponent of
GMOs, this statement seems an admission of guilt. But considering
that risk assessment is based on the substantial equivalence
theory, where GMOs are evaluated to check that they are no
different from their non-GM counterparts except in the modified
trait, this mere procedural risk assessment can surely not be taken
seriously. For risk assessment to be meaningful, it must be based
on the precautionary principle and involve a comprehensive approach
to assessing the long-term ecological impact of GMOs.
Segregation, labeling and regulation of GMOs ‘not practical’:
On Day Two, in the session discussing the recommendations of the
Task Force on the Application of Biotechnology on Agriculture, Dr.
Arvind Kapur, Secretary General, Seed Association of India,
criticized the recommendation that strict labeling of GMOs and
segregation from producer to consumer be followed. He objected on
the grounds that this was not practical.
Greenpeace is concerned that, to the industry, Consumers' Right
to Know and their Right to Say No to GMOs appears a liability.
Also, by admitting that segregation is impossible in this country,
they are effectively admitting what Greenpeace has said all along -
if you grow GMOs, contamination is inevitable.
…and a Regulatory Process?! Let’s just ignore it:
Dr. C Kameshwara Rao of the Foundation for Biotechnology Education
and Awareness, openly ridiculed the Genetic Engineering Approval
Committee, holding up a news clipping that said GEAC's wings would
be clipped. Worse, he quipped that GEAC is a "sitting duck" and
never had wings.
"Under the pretext of discussing Biosafety, the discussion at
this conference has focused on accepting contamination and further
weakening regulations," said Divya Raghunandan, "Instead of
discussing the need to strengthen the regulatory process and bodies
like the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the delegates at
this closed-door conference have ridiculed these. All the more
reason for these issues to be opened up to serious public
debate."
For further information, please contact:
Divya Raghunandan, GE Campaigner, Greenpeace India:
+919845535406
Namrata Chowdhary, Media Officer, Greenpeace India:
+919810850092 