Important news from India
1.Bt Brinjal could be back - TAKE ACTION (within India only)
2.India doesn't need a Biotech Regulatory Authority but a Biosafety Protection Authority
3.Seeds of Strife
---
---
1.Bt Brinjal could be back - TAKE ACTION (within India only)
Greenpeace, 18 August 2010
The Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) bill has been approved by the Cabinet and will be tabled in the Parliament soon.
The BRAI bill will clear genetically modified (GM) crops overriding the concerns raised by the general public and state governments against GM food. The Cabinet cleared this bill in a hurried and hushed fashion, denying people a chance to voice their opinion.
But there is a way to change this bill. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of the National Advisory Council (NAC) can force the Government to re-draft the bill with suggestions from the public. It has been done before and can happen again if the opposition to the bill in its current form is known.
Can you sign the open letter to Sonia Gandhi asking the NAC to make the Government consult people before tabling the bill?
http://greenpeace.in/safefood/change-brai-bill-stop-gm-food-india
The NAC had earlier made the Government re-draft the Communal Violence bill and the National Food Security bill. A large number of people asking for change will help convince them about the need for one in this case as well.
If passed, this bill will also allow BRAI to escape the purview of Right to Information. The public will be unable to stop genetic contamination of rice or 56 other crops whose GM versions are in the pipeline.
Time is short. The bill can be tabled in the Parliament any day. Sign the open letter now to save your food from contamination:
http://greenpeace.in/safefood/change-brai-bill-stop-gm-food-india
---
---
2.India doesn't need a Biotech Regulatory Authority but a Biosafety Protection Authority
Press Release: Coalition for a GM-Free India
New Delhi, August 18, 2010: Reacting to reports on the Cabinet clearance given to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, members of the Coalition for a GM-Free India strongly reiterated that this Bill should be stopped in its tracks. Repeating that this Bill has a pro-industry, anti-people mandate to set up a clearing house for approving GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in our food and farming, they said that they would step up pressure on the Government of India to discard this 'wrong bill by the wrong people for the wrong reasons'.
"We believe that any law related to regulation of GM crops/foods should have as its basis the protection of the health and environment of Indians from the risks of biotechnology. In fact, that was the basis of the Environment Protection Act’s 1989 Rules which govern the current regulatory regime in India. If this fundamental shift in the statutory approach to regulation of GMOs is happening now, the Government of India should be able to justify the grounds on which this is happening, especially since more and more evidence is emerging on the adverse impacts of the technology", said Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture.
"Increasingly, we are seeing state governments being bypassed in the law and policy formulation related to various aspects of our agriculture even though Agriculture is a state subject as per the Constitution of India. This is being attempted with the Seeds Bill too, and now the BRAI is expressly seeks to supercede such constitutional authority vested with state governments. This is simply not acceptable obviously, if things go wrong tomorrow, it is the state governments' doors that farmers will be first knocking on. This is also against the spirit of local self-governance enshrined in the Constitution starting from the Gram Panchayat”, said Nilesh Desai, Beej Swaraj Abhiyan, Madhya Pradesh. The Madhya Pradesh government has already fired the first salvo against the Cabinet approval to the Bill and said that it would fight it tooth and nail.
"We do not believe that tinkering with the existing Bill here and there will do we need this Bill to be scrapped, to be replaced by a comprehensive, people-friendly biosafety protection legislation. Further, state governments should come forward to assert their authority and show whether they are on the side of ordinary citizens. Various political parties should also be vigilant about this Bill”, said Umendra Dutt of Kheti Virasat Mission, Punjab. There is just no evidence on the scientific or social fronts to support the government's complacent pro-GM view, he added.
Many analysts see this as the government's and the biotech industry's attempts to bring in Bt Brinjal, stuck in a moratorium for now, through the backdoor. The BRAI being housed under the Department of Biotechnology is being objected to strongly in addition to the lack of mechanisms for transparent and democratic functioning for protecting health and environment from the hazardous technology of Genetic Engineering. It is worthwhile to remember here that the need for an independent and credible regulatory regime was articulated by the 2004 Task Force Report on Agricultural Biotechnology and this report clearly pointed out that the following should be the bottom line for any biotechnology regulatory policy: the safety of the environment, the well being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external trade and the biosecurity of the nation”. These important aspects or
cornerstones do not find any place in the proposed Bill sought to be introduced.
BRAI bill some main objections:
* Mandate is to approve genetically modified (GM) crops and not to safeguard the health of the citizens or the environment. It will become a smooth single window clearance system for GM crops and also poses a question mark on the moratorium imposed on Bt Brinjal on scientific grounds through democratic processes. The approvals also presume that the safety of a GM crop can be best assessed by the company which stands to benefit from the approval.
* BRAI sits inside the Ministry of Science and technology creating serious conflict of interest. Dept of Biotechnology under the Ministry of Science &Technology, has the mandate of promotion of GE crops. DBT funds several GE crop development projects using public funds and is the nodal agency for redirecting funds from foreign governments to GE crop development projects.
* It will leave the decisions in the hands of a few technocrats and neither elected governments nor public will have any say in decisions on GM crops. The bill proposes a centralised, technocratic decision making authority with no scope for democratic intervention. The apex authority is the BRAI with a chairperson and two members, all scientists with either a biotech or a health background.
* State governments who are constitutionally mandated to take decisions on agriculture will be superceded by BRAI.
* Removes BRAI from the purview of the Right to information Act.
* Created through a non-transparent, non consultative process.
What does the Coalition demand instead?
Any regulatory regime around GMOs should have the primary mandate of protecting health of people and the environment from the risks of modern biotechnology. It should necessarily have the following components as cornerstones of the legislation:
* Precautionary Principle as the central guiding principle
* No conflicting interests to be allowed anywhere in the regulation and decision-making
* Transparent functioning: information disclosure and public/independent scrutiny
* Democratic functioning including public participation even here, data to be put out in the public domain and public participation included before the decision-making process and not just informing after a decision is made
* Risk assessment (a) prescribing rigorous, scientific protocols and asking the crop developer to take up studies and then do independent analysis of the dossier supplied by the crop developer and evaluate/review of the same; (b) to also take up independent testing by having all facilities and institutional structures in place for the same and evaluating the results. Separating out very clearly the phases of contained research and deliberate release and distinct regulatory mechanisms for both, in a sequential fashion
* Risk management including monitoring, reviewing, revoking of approvals
* Liability including penal clauses, redressal and remediation
* Labeling regime for informed choices this covers traceability and identity preservation requirements
* Oversight and appellate mechanisms
* In the case of India, given that it is a federal structure and given that Agriculture is a state subject, special clauses which allow the state governments to form their own regulatory systems and mechanisms
* On-going Post Market monitoring of all GMOs
Further, the law should be governed by principles like Polluter Pays, Inter-generational equity (a key principle in environmental jurisprudence now which covers conservation of options, conservation of quality and conservation of access, for present and future generations) etc. In countries like Norway, the law also has provisions to answer questions like "Is this ethically and socially justifiable?", before a GMO is cleared. That would automatically include socio-economic and ethical concerns within the regulatory regime.
For more information, contact: Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu at 09000699702.
---
---
3.Seeds of Strife
Latha Jishnu
Down to Earth, August 31 2010
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/node/1737
*The Seed Bill takes away states' power to regulate seed prices, could lead to Centre-state confrontation
On July 28, close to 40 members of Parliament and state leaders met in Room 124 of Krishi Bhavan, the Delhi headquarters of the Ministry of Agriculture, in what seemed a last-ditch attempt to thrash out the contested points in a proposed law to regulate the seeds trade. The meeting was called by Minister for Agriculture Shared Pawar, who had put together the first draft of the Seed Bill in 2004, and is set on getting it passed during the current session of Parliament.
The amended Seed Bill, 2004, is a critical piece of legislation and could underpin the success””or failure””of Indian farming. The preamble says the bill aims "to provide for regulating the quality of seeds for sale, import and export and to facilitate production and supply of seeds of quality", but its stated objective has not found favour with farmers, several state governments and the Left parties. The reason is simple: missing in this law is any mention of price regulation. That is the core issue, although there are other concerns, ranging from the amount and method of compensating farmers who incur losses on account of poor quality seeds to the bill's conflict with other pieces of legislation.
The July 28 meeting addressed most of the 'other concerns', with Pawar listing out the various amendments that the government would incorporate in the amended bill to be presented to Parliament. But on the question of price regulation, the minister was unwilling to budge. A note circulated by the agriculture ministry at the meeting is categorical that the bill does not envisage any "provision for price control" and is intended purely to regulate the quality of seeds. According to several invitees to the meeting, the agriculture minister told them that "the prime minister is against any price control". This leaves a big question mark hanging over the Seed Bill since opposition to it shows no signs of a let-up.
Leading farmers' organisations accuse the UPA government of Manmohan Singh of selling out the farmer to multinationals. Krishan Bir Chaudhary, president of the Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, believes the bill "is to protect the interests of multinational seed companies like Monsanto", which, he insists, are trying to capture the seed market in India. There are other outfits like the All India Kisan Sabha which voice similar worries””and accusations.
Congress-ruled Andhra Pradesh is the biggest opponent of the bill and its agriculture minister N Raghuveera Reddy has been campaigning ceaselessly for significant changes in the proposed law. Reddy, who participated in the July meeting, told Down to Earth that "states must have the power to fix the price of seed and trait value (the royalty paid on patented seeds) whenever necessary."
As he sees it the system should involve both the Centre and the states. "We would like an independent body similar to CERC (the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission fixes tariffs and other issues related to the power sector), which oversees state regulatory commissions. Otherwise, the seed companies will squeeze the farmer."
Raghuveera Reddy, who has the full backing of his chief minister K Rosiah, points out, "You simply cannot have a free market without a statutory regulator."
This is the quandary that the UPA government finds itself in. Not only is the farm lobby and the Left against the bill but so is a major state ruled by the Congress. Andhra Pradesh's role, in fact, is central to the fight for regulated seed prices in the country. Since 2006, it has been taking on the US biotech giant Monsanto on the trait fees it charges for its genetically engineered cotton seeds (sold as Bollgard and Bollgard II). The state says the trait fees charged by Monsanto's marketing arm in India, Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Limited, are predatory and monopolistic.
But it is a course that has led to a long legal challenge””and a new state law to control prices. Gujarat and Maharashtra, apart from Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka, quickly followed Andhra Pradesh's example. It was a revolt by the states but the Centre did its best to thwart it by deploying the Essential Commodities Act or ECA strategically (see also: Games the Centre plays).
While this backdrop is essential to understand the politics of the Seed Bill, there is another factor: the differences within the Congress high command on the issue of price regulation. The reser- vations of Congress Party chief Sonia Gandhi are said to be instrumental in putting the proposed law in cold storage for the past four years. As chairperson of the National Advisory Committee, Gandhi had, in an October 2005 letter, warned, "There is a growing perception that the Seed Bill, 2004, is anti-farmer and that it favours the seed industry and large seed breeders, including MNCs.
Government has no mechanism to control prices... Seed suppliers are under no obligation to ensure reasonable seed supply to farmers." That concern, however, has not been addressed in India so far, although elsewhere, notably in the US, the runaway price of seeds is inviting judicial scrutiny. Simultaneously, seeds giant Monsanto, a big player in the Indian market, is also being investigated across seven American states for unfair or deceptive practices (see: Prices under the scanner ). Sometime back, the UN's Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food had warned that the increasing dependence on commercial seed varieties, "controlled by a handful of very powerful multinational companies", could have a severe impact on small farmers in developing countries.
Many of the recommendations of the Standing Committee of Parliament, which gave its report in 2006, have been incorporated in the 2010 version of the Seed Bill, but price stubbornly stays out of its ambit. The agriculture ministry's stance is clear. "A free and competitive market environment will spur the growth of the seeds industry. Therefore, price is better left to market forces rather than to artificial controls."
Noted agriculture scientist M S Swaminathan said: "I hope better counsel will prevail." Now a member of the Rajya Sabha, Swaminathan, too, has been demanding price regulation in the bill. "I have said there should be price regulation where appropriate, not everywhere. The government should have the authority to use price controls in certain situations, but not to usurp the role of the market."
The scientist, who is referred to as the Father of India's Green Revolution, worries that lack of price control could have disastrous consequences for the Indian farmer in accessing new technology. "High seed prices and trait fees," he warned, "will come in the way of social inclusion on technology access””and social inclusion is fundamental to growth of the sector."
The government's point that the earlier law””Seed Control Order, 1983, which the Seed Bill will replace””did not have any provision for price control either is specious, said G V Ramanjaneyulu, executive director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture in Hyderabad. "It is clear that the government's objective now is to encourage private trade".
There are concerns, too, about the opening of other doors to private companies, local and foreign. For instance, Swaminathan and CPI leader D Raja say that seed certification issued by foreign agencies should be recognised only if the seed is tested on Indian soil. However, the ministry argues that Clause 30, which allows the Centre to authorise any foreign certification agency working outside India, is intended to allow global trade in seeds, and would come within the scope of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
But Ramanjaneyulu says there is a contradiction on the role of foreign agencies. At one level the ministry has assured the Andhra MPs that their demand that "certification should be carried only by government and semigovernment agencies" would be incorporated in the amendments. Yet, in another instance, it said foreign and foreign- based agencies would be allowed to do so under foreign trade pacts.
"In place of truthful labelling of seed, the government is making certification compulsory, but this is geared to letting in private and foreign seed certification agencies into the business," pointed out Ramanjaneyulu, former ICAR scientist. Besides, it would also permit multi-location trials to be carried out by private agencies on foreign soil. The ministry's justification is that seed imported into India would be subjected to multi-location trials under the rules to be framed under the seed Act.
As for that most vexing issue of compensation to farmers in case of seed failure, an issue that exercises most critics of the bill, the ministry says the quantum of compensation and the mechanism to recover it will also be prescribed under the rules.
imageThe demand for "a role for panchayats, state and district level committees can be considered at that stage," according to the official note. Have the opponents of the bill been assuaged by such promises? Raghuveera Reddy, for one, is mobilising more support from the states. Last week, he wrote to all state agriculture ministers inviting them to Hyderabad for talks. "We should rise to the challenge since our farmers' interests are at stake. I have also asked them to mobilise opinion among their MPs and political leaders."
Whether this seasoned campaigner succeeds in getting like-minded states on board””like he did on the BT cotton issue in 2006””or not, Pawar and the Centre know that the battle could turn bitter. Agriculture is a state subject, and the passage of the bill, which would repeal all other seed laws, including the applicability of ECA and the special ordinances passed by state governments on price regulation, is bound to ruffle constitutional feathers.
In the latest memorandum sent to the prime minister and the agriculture minister, the Andhra Pradesh chief minister has demanded the inclusion of a separate chapter on seed pricing and royalty fees which would give equal powers to the states and the central government. He has also detailed the mechanism for this procedure.
In a telling remark, Andhra Pradesh points out that the power to fix royalty rates is available with member-states of WTO under its TRIPS Agreement on intellectual property issues. It remains to be seen if the Centre can be persuaded by such arguments.