1.Prime Minister told to drop new regulatory authority
2.Farmers' Union on Seeds Act, GMO authority, and US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture
1.Prime Minister of India told to drop new regulatory authority
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Jul 31, 2008 4:24 PM
Subject: Sub: Drop the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority proposals of Department of Biotechnology.
The proposed National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority bill being contemplated by your Government, is an extraordinary piece of legislation on an issue that critically affects every citizen of this country either directly or indirectly, which should have been subjected to an intensive democratic debate from all quarters of this country.
However, we earnestly feel that it has not been given a chance for a detailed discussion and is being hurriedly pushed through. A huge number of farmers' associations, civil society groups, and consumer organizations who are seriously concerned about the impact of biotechnology on agriculture, human and livestock health and welfare, and its environmental impact, are feeling shortchanged because the proposed legislation has certain serious shortcomings and following objectionable clauses.
The institutional mechanism of decision-making in the NBRA, with a 4-member committee consisting of scientists taking all decisions is undemocratic and authoritarian (Section 11(1)). It has been found time and again that even a broad-based and inter-ministerial body like the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is unable to address all stakes and concerns during decision-making. Even though the NBRA proposals talk about various committees and offices to be set up, all of them have been given only an advisory role and the narrow 4-member 'Products Ruling Committee' clearly is not bound by the advice and recommendations of all these various units and committees.
The NBRA denies and violates the constitutional right of state governments over their agriculture. There is not only no role allowed for state governments in decision-making under the NBRA, there is a denial of their state level mechanisms and regulations over their agriculture pertaining to biotechnology. This is completely unconstitutional (Section 25, 33(2)).
As per the provisions of Section 31 the NBRA is allowed to amend the first schedule, and this defeats the very purpose of a separate legislation for regulation and takes away the power of the elected parliamentarians over this law
The over-riding effect of the NBRA on other existing regulations is a matter of serious concern. It tramples upon the Biological Diversity Act, for instance. (Section 29)
The NBRA proposals do not contain any clauses related to conditional approvals, for a limited period, subject to review and revoking of approvals. It appears that an approval would be valid for all time to come, irrespective of other considerations!
There are no provisions in the NBRA for liability, redressal and remediation. As we know from past experience from across the world, even confined trials could involve losses and damages related to contamination and recalls which will cost a lot in terms of redressal and remediation. NBRA makes no mention of making the GM developer liable for redressal and remediation.
Even the penalty clauses have been left to be evolved in the Rules. Section 16 related to penalties and offence; an offence is narrowly defined to include only offenders "who knowingly fail to comply" and leaves room for misuse.
Under Section (8), no wrongful decision of the NBRA can be invalidated and leaves room to justify almost anything.
The NBRA proposals don't talk about any mandatory prior informed public consent in its decision-making; this is a violation of the principle enshrined in the Cartagena Protocol. The NBRA proposes to make only decisions of the body public, but not the bases on which decision-making took place; it also does not talk about how public will be involved in decision-making. All of this will only reinforce the current non-credible, opaque functioning of regulators.
The NBRA seems to negate and discount the existing systems of seed assessment and regulation by having over-arching and over-riding decision-making authority.
The NBRA seeks to make amendments to the Food Safety & Standards Act with regard to clauses that govern GM foods' regulation. The proposal to alter the definition of GM foods under the FSSA is obviously a way to scuttle the labeling regime of GM foods and this is objectionable.
The Appellate Tribunal proposed to be set up under the NBRA is not acceptable in its constitution and is not broad based to include farmers' and consumers' representatives. Further, an appeal to be filed within 30 days is unreasonable given that GM technology is unpredictable and any appeals mechanism cannot be time-bound with such technologies. Further, bar on judicial reviews on decisions taken by the Appellate Tribunal is objectionable (Section 20(2), (4), 26).
In the wake of the above objections, a single-window, fast-track clearance system proposed in the NBRA draft is not at all necessary and actually leaves much space for unscientific, undemocratic and corrupt functioning with very little checks and balances.
We are very doubtful about the unbiased functioning of the proposed set up of NBRA under the Department of Biotechnology, which has a blind mandate to promote the Biotechnology as the panacea for all the problems.
As you know, a recent United Nations report pointed out the lack of biosafety capabilities in India (like in many other countries) especially with regard to bio-terrorism with the use of biotechnology. In this context, it would be disastrous to go in for a single-window, fast-track clearance system in the form of NBRA, just to appease the biotech industry at the expense of the security, health and environment of the nation.
In fact, till date, there has been no conclusive evidence in India that GE crops are beneficial to human and cattle health. On the contrary, there have been a large number of studies and experiences reported from all over the country which indicate that genetic engineering in agriculture, as evidenced from Bt cotton cultivation, has given rise to huge pest problems, soil toxicity and human health problems.
To mention a few, the resurgence of sucking pests on Bt cotton, the huge incidence of mealy bugs in Punjab, AP and Vidarbha, an alarming rise of root rot disease from 2% in 2002, the year Bt cotton was introduced in AP, to 40% in 2007, and five years later, the early evidences of the development of the resistance by bollworms to the Bt cotton, the death of thousands of small ruminants and allergic reactions to farm labourers who worked on Bt cotton fields have already been recorded evidences in India.
While this is the Indian reality vis-a-vis the impact of genetic engineering on a non-edible crop, it would be extremely dangerous to go ahead with a Bill that will open up the doors for a string of genetically engineered food crops that are waiting in the queue for clearance with the Indian government. Highly respected scientists such as Dr P M Bhargava, former Director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad and a recipient of the Padma Vibhushan, have openly raised questions about the way biosafety issues have been sidelined by the Indian genetic engineering regulators. Similar apprehensions have been expressed by leading environmental scientists such as Dr Vandana Shiva and Dr Suman Sahai. A number of concerned scientists and environmentalists as well as farmers and consumer organisations have also been questioning the way biosafety has become a casualty in the aggressive push for GM trials as well as the commercial approval being considered by the Government
of India, under the relentless pressure exerted by the biotech industry.
In the wake of this situation, we demand that the proposed NBRA be dropped immediately in the larger public interest. India being a basket of biodiverse species and genera, should not hurry for proposals such as NBRA which, in the long run ruthlessly destroy our diverse genetic base, and make us vulnerable to all kinds of threats especially in the wake of bioterrorism.
As a people oriented democratic country, we should raise up to the occasion and learn from across the world's intense scientific processes like the IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science & Technology for Development) are concluding that Genetically Modified crops and foods are not the way forward and that ecological agriculture is the way forward. Any proposal like the NBRA would therefore be unwise and incongruous and we urge you to intervene and get the current proposals dropped immediately.
Sd/[by more than 100 organizations/individuals - first few given as examples]
1.P V Satheesh
Director, Deccan Development Society, 101, Kishan Residency, Street No-5, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16, AP
South Against genetic Engineering, Hyderabad
3.A Giridhar Babu
AP Alliance for Food Sovereignty, Zaheerabad
Andhra Pradesh Coalition in Defense of Diversity, Hyderabad
5.C Suresh Kumar
Millet Network of India, Hyderabad
NATIONAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLES MOVEMENTS-NAPM, MUMBAI
NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL WORKERS FORUM-NAWF
ANDHRA PRADESH VYAVASAYA VRUTHIDARULA UNION-APVVU, Chittor....
2.Farmers' Union on Seeds Act + GMO authority + US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture
BHARATIYA KRISHAK SAMAJ
(Indian Farmers' Organisation)
Bharatiya Krishak Samaj urges UPA government to delete anti-farmer provisions in its proposed amendments to the Seeds Act
Withdraw implementation of US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture
Stop introducing the Bill for setting up of NBRA - Make GEAC accountable for addressing health and environmental concerns relating to GM crops and food
New Delhi, July 24 : We farmers are very concerned over the haste the UPA government is acting to introduce new legislations which are likely endanger our livelihood security.
The UPA government should know that wining trust vote in the Parliament is not enough. It has to face the general elections due in the middle of the next year. Therefore it needs reverse its anti-farmer policies which has favoured the corporate houses at the expense of farmers.
On Proposed Amendments to the Seeds Act :---
The UPA government is planning to move an amendment to the Seeds Act in the winter session of the Parliament to give greater leverage to the corporate houses in the seeds sector. "We would like to caution the government to incorporate the views of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture headed by Ram Gopal Yadav. I had personally appeared before the Parliamentary panel and had suggested that seeds used by farmers should not be registered," said the president of Bharatiya Krishak Samaj, Dr Krishan Bir Chaudhary.
Bharatiya Krishak Samaj firmly believes that there should be only law for regulating the seed sector and the Plant Varieties Protection & Farmers' Rights Act should be the only law for this purpose. The Seeds Act and other laws should be repealed. The Plant Varieties Protection & Farmers' Rights Act should be further strengthened in the interests of farmers. It would be a crime to hand over seed sovereignty to corporate houses
It is the duty of the Samajwadi Party which is now supporting the government and its leading MP, Ram Gopal Yadav in particular to see that the government do not move any amendment to the Seeds Act which would jeopardize the interests of farmers
On US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture ;-----
The UPA government should also withdraw from implementing the IUS-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture as it seeks to an upper hand to the US-based multinationals in Indian agriculture. Agri products would be opened for patent rights by US companies in the name of research. This pact is aimed at thrusting controversial technology for genetically modified (GM) crops in the country
It is strange to note that while the Opposition parties opposed tooth and nail the US-India Civilian Nuclear Deal, they did not say a word on US-India Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture which is aimed at destroying food security and livelihood security of farmers
On the Proposed Setting Up of NBRA :-----
The government must clarify why it is setting up the National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA), replacing the existing regulator Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) which is already acting as a single window clearance for biotech products. If the government feels that the GEAC is incompetent and inefficient, it should bring it to the public knowledge.
The Supreme Court, in the course of hearing a writ petition seeking a moratorium on GM crops, had ordered some improvements for introducing transparency in the functioning of GEAC. The government had always defended the functioning of GEAC in the Supreme Court. Has it got any moral right now to say that GEAC is not functioning well and needs to be replaced by NBRA?
The fact is that the GEAC, without caring for any biosafety norms and transparency, has been very fast in the approval of GM crops with a view to benefit the multinational seed companies. Since 2002, GEAC approved over 175 Bt cotton hybrids, five events and one Bt cotton variety. It has conducted field trials of Bt brinjal, Bt okra, GM mustard, Bt cabbage, GM tomato, GM groundnut and GM potato.
The functioning of GEAC has been questioned by many independent scientists, like the founder director of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), Pushpa Mittra Bhargava. He called for a total review of India's experience with Bt cotton, including how Bt technology was brought into the country. He has also sought a two to three years moratorium on GM crops, unless and until proper independent studies are done on biosafety like pollen flow, seed germination, soil microbial activity, toxicity, allergenicity, DNA finger printing, proteomics analysis, and reproductive interferences.
At the global level, independent scientists like Arpad Pusztai have questioned the safety of GM food. Pusztai has pointed out by saying "Well-designed studies, though few in number, show potentially worrisome biological effects of GM food, which the regulators have largely ignored." In India, there were reports of sheep mortality on account of grazing over Bt cotton fields in Andhra Pradesh, which the GEAC did not consider with seriousness.
There are reported cases of illegal imports of hazardous GM food, which are not approved in the country and the government has remained a mute spectator. Illegal imports of GM food are in violation of the Rules, 1989 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The annual amendments to the Foreign Trade Policy made in April 2006 said unlabelled GM food import would attract penal action under Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. But this is not implemented in absence of guidelines.
The panel of experts and stakeholders headed by the additional director-general of National Institute of Communicable Diseases, Shiv Lal had recommended mandatory labeling of GM food, irrespective of the threshold level. But the recommendations were not implemented either by the health ministry or GEAC. Rather, the GEAC allowed free imports of oil extracted from GM soybeans without any labeling, tests and restrictions.
The plan to set up NBRA is largely based on the recommendations of the two panels headed by MS Swaminathan and RA Mashelkar. The suggestions made and apprehensions raised by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) in its paper Regulatory Regime for Genetically Modified Foods : The Way Ahead have not been considered.
Monsanto is charging a high technology fee, which has raised the prices of Bt cotton seeds and the issue is subjudice before the MRTP Act. There are fears that pollen flow from GM crops to non-GM crops may cause problems for farmers, who may be asked to pay high technology fee for their own seeds as had been the case with the Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser. Indian farmers, in many areas have suffered heavy losses on account of failure of Bt cotton. States like Kerala and Uttarakhand have banned GM crops and the Centre, through the NBRA, is planning to override states governments' power to regulate agriculture.
The government should make GEAC more accountable to address health and environmental concerns, rather than set up NBRA.. If the government cannot ensure health and environmental safety of GM crops then there should be a moratorium on GM crops
Dr KRISHAN BIR CHAUDHARY
BHARATIYA KRISHAK SAMAJ
New Delhi, INDIA