Punjab: Sindh valley civilization again ready to die
By Umendra Dutt
About two years back my friend the famous singer Rabbi Shergill in one of his Punjabi article says “There is no doubt that it was just because of a major environmental change that the great civilization of Indus valley had completely vanished. The same reasons, in the same form are today existed before us. The only difference between the both situations is this that in those times it was a natural disaster but this time it is of man made”. Rabbi equated present situation of Punjab with Sindh valley which destroyed because of water scarcity.
Rabbi concluded his article by saying ‘Sindh ghaatti aj fir maran nu tyaar hai’ which means Sindh valley is again prepared to die . “Will this really happen?” I asked my co-passengers.” Of course, it is a fading ecosystem, a dying civilization; a whole community was put on slow death” affirmed Dr Amar Singh Azad, my senior colleague in Kheti Virasat Mission. “It is crime against humanity and nature by our own governments that too on the name of development” I supported him by adding these words. We all are upset and full of anger after visiting villages near Dhakansu drain and Ghaghar River in Patiala and Sangrur districts.
This was our third visit to any river or drain area to educate ourselves on environmental toxicity and its multiple impacts. For me its second river I have tried to followed after Jayanti in Ropar district, where I did a padyatra about eight years back. I found several similarities between disappearance of Jayanti and Ghaghar. Both rivers have lost their “relevance”, when its people forgot what they stood for. Over the years, the river eco-system at both places has been ravaged and ruined by the developmental activities carried out in the name of modern thinking.
Let me share some more about our recent yatra which if simply transcribed was a field visit to learn of multiple crises of water, environmental toxicity, condition of agriculture, biodiversity, health crisis on vast spectrum and socio- economic stress around the Ghaghar River. In all what we say can be described as an ecological disaster.
Villages Up for Sale
The vision and riverscape is extremely frightening. In recent times, there has been much more talk about severe health and water tragedy going on in few districts of Malwa region. But we all need to stand corrected. The deadly devastation has spread to all of Punjab now. Even as this is happening, some of our well-wishers continue to ask us – “Why are you activists are creating much scare”. Let me respond in the words of Dr. Azad – “Yes we want to create a scare, because it is real and because situation far more destructive then our government can think of.”
To say the least, it is a question of life and death in Punjab; and it is becoming evident that Punjab is a dying civilization. Several people may find this offending, ugly and uncalled for. But the indications we are getting from across the Punjab are writing death sentence for Whole River and related ecosystem in this part of country and particularly for this brave community.
The very fact that villages up for sale symbolises of the deep distress and devastation spread across in Punjab. Let me illustrate with a real example. It was March 2002, and it was first of its kind of protest in India, around that time in Harkishanpura of Bathinda district. This was followed by Malsingh Wala in Mansa district in 2005. Both of these villages are situated in cotton belt of Malwa and have one thing in common: their acute water crisis. It is this situation that forced both villages to put their land on sale. It was a desperate step. But now such water-distress has engulfed the villages of ecologically more prosperous area of Puadh. A village in Patiala district near Chandigarh - Mirzapur Sandharsi is willing to put itself on sale too.
After reading about this in media reports when we visited this village we found that what was bluntly visible was that Punjab is fast turning into a waterless region. It can be Harkishanpura, Mandi Khurd or MalSingh Wala or Teja Rohella, Dona Nanka near Fazilka or Mirzapur Sandharsi - villages after villages are captured by severe water crisis.
There are several indicators to reaffirm of why Dr. Amar Singh Azad said that Punjab is a dying civilization. The symptoms of this slow death is common in the life situations that one can find in our journey from Mirzapur Sandharsi , Harpalpur to Shahpur Theri and Makrodr Sahib in Sangrur. We can classify these symptoms as: severe multiple environmental toxicity. After confirmation of presence of uranium traces in hair samples of children from Baba Farid Centre for Special Children and water and soil samples it is certain that Punjab is in midst of multiple environmental toxicity. This is an indicator that it is situation of extreme emergency in Punjab.
There is drinking water crisis due to drying-up of upper aquifers, water quality going drastically going down; destruction of river eco-system and vanishing aquatic life; and loss of biodiversity and crop diversity. This is along with increasing health problems particularly those related to reproductive health, falling immune capacity, early ageing and cancers. The same pattern is found in domestic animals their reproductive system which is also under serious threat. Falling agriculture productivity, increase in external inputs and rising debts, growing disconnects between farmer and his land are realities that run along. As a result farmers selling their farms and it have led to the emergence of loss of self confidence among affected people to tackle this formidable challenge and restore ecological health of their homes.
Acute Water Stress and its Impacts
I often say in Punjabi that Punj”aab” is fast turning into Be-aab and Punjabis of Be-aab Punjab are bound to become Be-abaad (displaced). The Mirzapur Sandharsi and near by villages are setting the fittest example for this idiom. Surinder Singh, Sarpanch of Mirzapur Sandharsi told us “There is no proper water and such water stress has forced us to sell our land. We are all ready to even sell our entire village.” As there is no water left in two upper aquifers – at 70 feet and 150 feet respectively, villagers are facing unprecedented hardship to meet basic needs.
Infect the aquifer at 70 feet had gone dry about 10years back and about five years back the second aquifer which was at 150 too went gone dry. “We are forced to dig 12 to 20 feet every year”; told Harbans Singh, Chairman of village cooperative society.
When the Ghaghar River was “alive” about 15 year back and its people full of zest, they never anticipated they would face with such acute depletion of water. Bu, as Ghaghar died slowly, the villagers were forced to draw water from third aquifer to be found at the depth of 400 to 450 feet. But unfortunately, this water unfit to even irrigate their farms, leave alone drinking purposes. So its discovery is of no use.
A question you may ask at this stage, is who is ready to buy these villages and agricultural land. The farmers of Mirzapur Sandharsi sold their land to establish a distillery company, which is set to draw water from 1200 feet deep aquifers. Villagers are hopeful that company will change their lives after getting water from 1200 feet deep bore-wells. What is ironic is that after exhausting all upper aquifers, the villagers are finding solution in a factory producing alcohol, as if they are the harbingers of hope. What they perhaps choose not to see is that it is a distillery which has primarily caused destruction of all water sources and contaminated Ghaghar River and its banks.
From the agriculture point of view, the water that a distillery will access is not the same as the upper aquifers. Although, farmers are able to cultivate wheat and paddy, there is no scope for vegetables as the water is extremely hard. It is no surprise then that no farmer is growing vegetables for the last ten years in Mirzapur Sandharsi village. As one farmer remarked,” We have forgetten the taste of our own grown vegetables”
Infect this is a common trend in all villages of this area who are not purchasing vegetables from as far as Ambala. Not to far back this area produced several kinds of vegetables for market as well for self consumption such realities are common even in several villages of Ghannour area of Patiala district. Farmers from Harpalpur situated in that area, says it all “Earlier we use to sell our vegetables in Rajpura and Chandigarh market, but now we are not able to cultivate vegetables anymore. As the water quality deteriorated significantly, it is just not possible.” Farmers of Shahpur Their, Mandavi, Chandu, Makrodr Sahib and Foold will all tell the same story. From growers of food, they are now consumers. The impacts are not just on land quality, family income and self confidence; such a situation has deeply affected household food and nutritional security. Farmers have lost their self reliance, and at the same time there is an additional economic burden to buy food from the market.
On an average wheat yield dropped drastically in last few years in almost all villages we visited. Few farmers are getting as low as 5 quintal per acre wheat. We were told by number of farmers that as ground water going deeper and deeper it is also loosing its quality. It often spoils the crop.” This is yet again a common perception amongst farmers from different villages. Such a situation has another significant and related impact which is a massive increase in the usage of Chemical fertilizer; which in turn works up the costs of agriculture inputs even more. Farming then becomes an even more costly affair. Now, this results in the economics of agriculture takes a serious beating leading farmers further into debt. Almost the entire agriculture land is being mortgaged. “We were happy and prosperous those days. Using Ghaghar water and getting higher yields in comparison of today. We use to grow Basmati about 15- 20 years back with very less water from Ghaghar getting 16 to 20 quintal per acre yield, 14 to 16 quintals of wheat and even 10 to 12 quintals of Grams. And this we are getting without using a drop of urea in our fields.” said Gyani Subeg Singh, a 70 year old farmer from village Shahpur Theri .
When is comes to the unstated related impacts, the loss of agro-biodiversity is another huge issue of concern. We have ascertained found that in last 20 years there is a drastic loss in diversity of species of both crops and livestock. A Till about 25-30 years back, most of farmers used to grow a variety of grams in their fields. Slowly they found grams loosing yield, as other crops were becoming dominant. So the farmers discontinued gram cultivation. What is ironic is that in the monoculture landscape of Punjab, not too far, biodiverse farming was a norm. Farmers were growing through combination inter-cropping of single crops like corn, Basmati rice, Cotton, Sugarcane, Wheat, Musterad; millets such as Pearl Millet, Barley and pulses such as Toria , Moong, Masar, Moth, Alsi, Til, Tara-Mira, Gwara, Arhar as well as Chilies.
Biodiversity and Riverscape Lost
Farmers and people living in those times will vouch for the fact that all these crops were grown without any chemical inputs simply by irrigating their farms with Ghaghar water. But as Ghaghar gone dry the biodiverse farming system which flourished here for hundred of years also shriveled -up. The real and life sustaining wealth of the farmers – water, earth and diversity stand plundered.
This has also eroded traditional knowledge system of farming and farming techniques which relied on low or no cost utilisation of natural materials around a household or fields. Now farmers are entirely dependent on externally purchased seeds, chemical fertilizers, pesticides and weedicides. They are now so captured with the idea of chemical farming that they have lost the confidence of thinking out of that box “We cannot grow any thing without chemicals. We know it is poison – but we have no other alternative” said Jaswant Singh of Shahpur Theri, while doing preparation to apply chemical fertilizers in this farm.
When we probed further the realities of farm related debt, Harvinder Singh, Youth Club President of Shahpur Theri spoke with grief “Death of Ghaghar has destroyed both our wealth and health. Now entire village is under debt. Not a single acre of land is free from loan. Several farmers forced to sell their farm land. About 35 to 40 people sold their village entire property and shifted out of village. That’s for those who have land, but there are many others who are just landless farm laborer.
This situation is very much similar to my earlier experience in Mirzapur Sandharsi and Harpalpur. In these villages quite large number of farmers had already sold their land. When I asked farmers at Harpalpur in Patiala on what their opinion is about the offer of Mirzapur Sandharsi villagers to put their village on sale; more then three farmers replied at once in a collective voice – “We are also ready to sell our village.” Then one farmer added with utmost anguish “Why are asking about these two villages, the whole belt of around 40 villages is ready for sell out, only we are not declaring it openly. If we got choice we all are ready to quit agriculture and move out of here”. Another farmer one sitting around there supported his views. These farmers are no more feel any attachment to their village. Surprisingly, the connection and affinity with their land no longer exists.
The most painful experience is yet to come. It is witnessing in real time the murder of a river and her bounties. It was such a chilling truth that made me more worrisome that how an entire society, otherwise known to have evolved around the hydrology of the area has been broken from its water heritage. Everyone whom we met during our visit told us “When Ghaghar River was full of life 15 years back, we use to drink the water directly. It was clear, sweet and tasty.” Vaid Piyara Singh, 55 years of Makrodr Sahib said with glitter in his eyes “Ghaghar was clean and whole village is use to drink Ghaghar water, I used to drink Ghaghar water almost daily while returning from fields – I never felt any problem, but that was about 20 years back.” In village Phoolad which is just 300 meters from Ghaghar we were surprised to see that except two young men all persons sitting in front of us had even consumed Ghaghar water. They told us that ‘Entire population of above 30 has tasted Ghaghar water at some time of their life. It was very tasty.’
More losses, I share with you. At one time the fish from Ghaghar River was very famous. People traveled from near and far to purchase it. Infact, several farmers told us that they had seen fish of 25 to 30 kg. Thousands of fish of different species, tortoise small and bigger were once in large numbers in Ghaghar. Apart from this several wild and domesticated animals freely roamed around the are just twenty years back. Said Kulwant Singh of, 52 years from Makrod Sahib village grief-stricken, “We have let Ghaghar is died in front of our eyes”.
Once Albert Einstein has said “If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live." We really feels this happening right here. In every village we visited, we asked about honeybees and earthworms and sadly we got the negative answer every where ‘Now honeybees and earthworms are almost gone, hives are almost disappeared.’ indicating more vast destruction of life. Every time when we got depressing answer about presence of honeybees, Dr Azad reminds me of Albert Einstein’s prediction.
Like earthworms and honeybees several other insects were thrown out of web of life. And the younger generation of farmers even does not know the names of several friendly-insects
In adjoining Chandu village, all the households used to irrigate their farms from Ghaghar water, but now they are forced to scout for other options. “Earlier our animals went there for grazing, bathing and drink Ghaghar water, but now we cannot even think of it. There is only acid there.” Said Vaid Subhash,37 years.
It is not an exaggeration to state that the entire belt of villages on the bank of Ghaghar in Sangrur district was using Ghaghar water not only for irrigation; but also for other domestic usages. Some people also pointed out that River bed has several perennial springs like Nadiya Taal from where they used to get water for the entire year. There were large numbers of Dhaak and Dhaki trees, Jand, Kiker, and bushes of Duaansa in local language. Their loss only indicates that along with destruction of Ghaghar, the existence native plants and trees has also been ruined.
“In those days several species of birds were found around our villages, but now we hardly see even the most common ones like the crow or sparrow. All are gone.” are synonymous observations almost everyplace we traveled. Hearing this familiar expression, Dr Azad murmured – “It is our Silent Spring happening in Punjab.” I stood speechless and thought to myself whether we are heading towards doom or are in it already. What has happened and continues unabated is an extreme form of violence against the nature, and perhaps in time nature will avenge itself.
There was a time when despite of floods every year, Ghaghar was generous enough with life and prosperity. But now it is, to say the least hell, which we are all forced to live with. Perhaps it is only reflective of the hell that have nurtured within us. . Ghaghar's pollution began 15 to 20 back with toxic effluent from a wine factory at Main, near Patiala and Chambowali drain which joins Ghaghar at Chandu village. It is black, with bad smell. There is no life at all in water. Touching leads to irritation, itching, skin rashes. It is nothing more than acid flowing in a drain,
“Punjab is going to be a state of sick people highly dependent on medicines”, these were the words of Dr Amar Singh Azad. He has been repeating this untirelessly for last few years. His words were reinforced during this tour as we witnessed the ongoing massacre of health. What we have seen during this study visit has reaffirmed our earlier hypothesis: Punjab is passing through multiple levels of environmental toxicity. Every village we had visited speaks about the same tragedy. As Dr Azad often says that “The whole ecosystem of the earth is interwoven in a web of highly sensitive interdependence, any toxin in the environment –air, water and soil affects all the forms of life right from microbes to human beings. Almost all the observations conclude that wherever the toxicity is high; humans, cattle, wild animals, other animals including microbes and plants are gravely affected. The whole spectrum of ill effects on human health which various studies have shown is visible in Punjab. The Immunity of the Punjabis is being ruthlessly damaged.”
Disease on the Rise for Humans and Animals alike
In each village we got high number of cancer deaths, with every village having a number of cancer patients under medication. What we get from villagers is stunning statistics on instances of cancers, rising infertility and other reproductive health disorders. This is along with increasing number of neurological disorders, allergies and a severely injured immunity. The farmers gave this information of their memory during our face to face interactions, so possibly there might be some numerical errors. But the spread and widespread occurrence is an indicator that not only cancer, but reproductive health problems are also on the rise at an alarming pace and too in all parts of Punjab. We found quite large number of childless couples, cases of miscarriages, spontaneous abortions and premature deliveries. In each village we also found cases of neurological disorders, children with mental retardation and congenital abnormalities, cerebalpalsy, autism, learning and behavioral disabilities. It is hard to believe that the list of illness is much longer then we thought.
Skin diseases are very common in all villages; to which Dr Azad reacts by saying that this is first signal of diminishing immune system in people of Punjab. Then we also found large number of patients with kidney problems, stones in kidney and gall bladder. Digestive system disorders are another common ailment we came across in our tour. This is tremendously visible disease pattern that can be correlated with body toxicity load caused by environmental toxicity and prevalence of toxins in our eco-system and food chain. During group discussion it was also noticed that number of young deaths in last ten years is also on rise.
Poisoning of ecology has deep impact on animal health as well; This is more severe and destructive. It is not rhetoric that what we have given to nature, is bound to come back to us with more velocity. When we poisoned Ghaghar with toxics, it returns to us in the form of both human and animal health being marred. The status of animal health indicates that toxicity has reached its threshold level. We are fast moving towards total collapse of reproductive system. Apart from human beings, cows and buffalos are also losing their reproductive capacity. Now they have a lesser lactation period, lesser reproduction cycles. From 15, it has now come down to 5 reproduction cycles. More and more cow and buffalos are becoming sterile. With, toxicity on all time high as these animals are also facing extreme miscarriages and abortions. At least 70% animals are become unproductive and sterile. Their milk productivity is also going down. Moreover even Mare – female horses are becoming sterile. Indigenous hens are also not producing eggs as they used to . When pasturelands in and around villages thrived, so did the cattle there. The loss of Ghaghar has also added to the financial burden of water. Said one farmer, “earlier our animal use to go Ghaghar, now we have to run a pump to fetch water. Water from 150 feet is contaminated, its taste is not appropriate. We are ruined due to poisonous water was allowed to flow in Ghaghar”.
Question of Accountability
But question is - who is responsible for this ecological destruction. How we are going to give justice to river Ghaghar, her inhabitants and the nature. Who has to blame for putting this whole area into severe environmental health crisis? What has made river Ghaghar dead and vanished life of thousands of animals, fishes, tortoise, birds and other creatures, It has very simple answer - The Development with the focus on increasing GDP .
The factories of liquor and wine at Banaur, Patiala, Patran had caused death of Ghaghar. The owners of these factories , there management , the departments which gave No objection certificates (NOCs) to establish and run these factories , the officers with whose signatures these factories came into existence, the Punjab Pollution Control Board which is primarily responsible for monitoring pollution and effluent , the Revenue department and Directorate of excise and taxation , the finance ministry of Punjab which is filling its pockets from taxes on these factories thus giving them legal status and lastly the people who purchase and drink wine made at these factories are all responsible. They have all contributed to the death of a river and her ecosystem , all the impacts of health, water toxicity and displacement of farmers . These are environmental criminals who need to be punished.
Today, Punjab needs a true and honest people’s movement to take up the issue of environmental toxicity, high use of pesticides, life of water resources - rivers and life of Punjabi civilization. By giving a strong call to the public Sant Balbir Singh Seenchewal has already taken initiative in this direction. The situation demands that we have to go much further. We need to start talking the political ecology and political economy of decision making. People have to start thinking politically to punish the environmental culprits of Punjab. We have to evolve newer ways to punish those who are responsible for this devastation. I include myself in the list as one who had also in my earlier days contributed to irresponsible acts, and sometimes even now too. But all guilty, must be punished
The killers are of the same genre as those who drew to death Kali Bein, East Bein, Budha driya, Satluj and other rivulets of Punjab. One can find almost similar water crisis in districts of Faridkot, Muktsar, Bathinda and Mansa. I recall my visit to Burj Bhalaike, Nandgarh and Malsingh Wala villages of Mansa where water crisis is ruining the villages and I found same was the situation at over dozens of villages adjoining the world famous Ramsan Site, the Harike Wetland.
My friend in understanding and thought understands the connection with ecological issues. Prof Shubh Prem Brar from Bathinda has rightly said “The Southern Punjab is surrounded by toxic water ways; It is like garland of poisonous water encircling the large area of Punjab.” If you see the map of Punjab you see poisonous water is encircling entire south, south-eastern and south-western region of Punjab. It is absolutely terrifying. My heaven Punjab is on slow death.”
So, I ask one and all, is it possible to bring back the land and river scapes of Punjab from the clutches of death. Is their any life saving philosophies and techniques? Is it possible for a drawing Punjab to seek help through a life jacket? , Even as I wait for the answer, 63 year young revolutionary Dr Amar Singh Azad is more eager to step on a strategy in real time. He always says “Punjab is dying civilization and time is running out hands.” None of us want Punjab to die, do we?
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Monday, June 21, 2010
Citizens oppose state government’s favourable stand on GM Maize in Punjab
Press Release
Badal pushing poison to favour multinational and foreign interest: Activists
Citizens oppose state government’s favourable stand on GM Maize in Punjab
Chandigarh
June 18, 2010
Eminent citizens, Farmers’ Unions’ representatives and environmental activists from Punjab today questioned the reported government stand in favour of GM crops, reflected in the support sought for Bt Maize by the Chief Minister's delegation to Planning Commission a few days ago. They demanded that the CM explain on what basis/scientific evidence and through what process of decision-making did the government take this stand for the state of Punjab which is already reeling under a severe environmental health crisis and paying a heavy price for its short-sighted vision for farming in the state.
Umendra Dutt of Kheti Virasat Mission said that “GM Maize, as latest scientific studies show, results in adverse health effects including ones associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs; other effects were noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. He quoted the 2009 study by Spiroux et al to support his contention and highlighted that in another study by Dr. Zollac involving GM Maize, transgenic seeds responded differentially to the same environment as compared to their respective isogenic controls, as a result of the genome rearrangement derived from gene insertion, pointing to unintended changes”. Dutt also mentioned that in an official study done by the Austrian government, it was found that GM maize was linked to infertility and reproductive health effects.
He further stated that “The state government, especially the BJP constituents of the government, have to explain their role and stand in this decision of the government to seek support for GM crops. How do they explain this when many BJP-ruled states are clearly directing their state agriculture towards sustainable farming? If the BJP constituents in the government have not been consulted in this process, the CM has to explain how this decision was possible and how does this reflect the stand of the coalition government. It is surprising that even in states where Congress or UPA constituent parties are ruling, the governments, in consultation with farmers' organisations, scientists and civil society groups have taken a cautious stand against this controversial and unproven technology, while the Punjab government (in a state where agricultural technologies have left their adverse effects) is clearly going against common people.”
Questioning the intention of the Punjab CM, social activist Hemant Goswami said that it was apparent that the CM and his family were favoring the industry for reasons best known to them, and they are not at all bothered about the welfare of the people and the farmers in specific. “The Punjab Government is pushing poison down the throat of people of Punjab. I also challenge the partner in Punjab Government, BJP, to clarify its stand on genetically modified crops. We want to know what the Punjab BJP thinks on the issue since other BJP-ruled states are clearly taking a stand against GM technology and we have a coalition government with BJP here. The whole world knows about the harms of Genetically Modified crops, there are reams of scientific documents on this. Still, the Badals are trying to push foreign interest over farmers’ welfare. Punjab farmers are suffering high rates of cancer and other diseases due to unsustainable and unscientific perspectives of the Government. In such a scenario, when Punjab should be pushing for organic and bio-fertilisers, it is inviting an even-bigger disaster in the name of Bt and genetically modified (GM) crops. Punjab should even withdraw Bt Cotton but it appears that Punjab is still to learn from its past mistakes. Such a short-sighted approach will surely put the Punjab farmers and people on an irreversible suicidal path.” Hemant added.
Sukhdev Singh Kokrikalan, General Secretary, Bhartiya Kisan Union Ekta Ugrahan lamented this move and said, "Farmers have been looted and plundered by the MNCs in the name of modern technologies like hybrids and agri-chemicals; now, the Genetically Modified (GM) nexus is further trying to entrap us on the basis of many false claims. Bhartiya Kisan Union opposes the move vehemently".
Neeraj Atri of Bharat Swabhiman Trust mentioned that “Bt is promoted with the claim that it offers resistance against some pests. It does not reduce water consumption or offer better yield than our natural maize. In terms of environmental effects, Bt Maize is shown to simply swap one pest with another as a study from the USA shows. Further, some Bt Maize varieties have been shown to be susceptible to aphid infestation. GM Maize, including herbicide tolerant maize as with other GM crops, is shown to increase overall chemical use in farming and this is leading to resistant weeds in countries like the USA. This will pose more problems for Punjabi farmers than the solution it is purported to be.”
Balkar Singh Dakunda, President, Bhartiya Kisan Union Ekta Punjab said, “It is clear that the government is being run with a short-sighted vision with regard to agriculture and agricultural livelihoods in the state. The Bt in Cotton and Maize could in fact worsen the water situation in Punjab. Citing a few scientific studies Balkar Singh mentioned that leaves or grain from Bt maize have proved to be toxic to aquatic life if it enters streams, by way of dead leaves or grain. So instead of helping people, it can actually spoil the existing water sources too.”
Hemant Goswami further demanded that Manpreet Badal should explain his role in the siphoning off of about 80 crores in the name of experimenting with organic farming. Instead of seriously trying the option of organic farming, it has been reported that crores were spent on the farms of politicians and bureaucrats in the name of organic farming and the rest was siphoned off. “We should understand that the Punjab Government is deliberately making these schemes related to organic farming fail so that there is no option left other than purchasing patented seeds, insecticides and fertilisers from big MNCs. Corruption in the name of organic farming also has a long term effect of weakening the agriculture sector and provide a justification for helping the seed and chemical companies.” Hemant emphasised.
We ask the following questions to the Punjab Chief minister—
1. Is this decision his personal decision or a decision of the Cabinet?
2. Is this decision based on the recommendations of any broad-based body which has representation of scientists, medical experts, farmers’ unions, civil society representatives and consumer groups? If no-why not? If yes which one?
3. Has any committee of scientists given any report on which his decision is based? Such a decision has to be based on the recommendations of Experts including from the fields of Agriculture, Health, Veterinary science, Environment and Peoples Organisations like Peasants, Consumers and NGOs.
4. Has the government studied the whole controversy which is going on in the whole world regarding GM Crops, including trade security implications, the scientific debates etc.?
5. Is this issue (bringing in GM Food Crops) a state matter or a national matter?
6. Does Mr. Badal know that the final agenda of the corporations bringing GM seeds is for MNCs to take total control over Indian agriculture, throwing the peasantry out of the agriculture?
Eminent social activist Dr Gaurav Chhabra and Onkar Chand , R K Kaplash Chairman , Consumer Coordination Council also aired their views.
For Further Information, Please Contact:
Neeraj Atri
Tel: +91-9417111427
Umendra Dutt
Tel: +91-9872682161
Hemant Goswami
Tel: + 91-9779261733
For Alliance for GM Free and Safe Foods
Badal pushing poison to favour multinational and foreign interest: Activists
Citizens oppose state government’s favourable stand on GM Maize in Punjab
Chandigarh
June 18, 2010
Eminent citizens, Farmers’ Unions’ representatives and environmental activists from Punjab today questioned the reported government stand in favour of GM crops, reflected in the support sought for Bt Maize by the Chief Minister's delegation to Planning Commission a few days ago. They demanded that the CM explain on what basis/scientific evidence and through what process of decision-making did the government take this stand for the state of Punjab which is already reeling under a severe environmental health crisis and paying a heavy price for its short-sighted vision for farming in the state.
Umendra Dutt of Kheti Virasat Mission said that “GM Maize, as latest scientific studies show, results in adverse health effects including ones associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs; other effects were noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. He quoted the 2009 study by Spiroux et al to support his contention and highlighted that in another study by Dr. Zollac involving GM Maize, transgenic seeds responded differentially to the same environment as compared to their respective isogenic controls, as a result of the genome rearrangement derived from gene insertion, pointing to unintended changes”. Dutt also mentioned that in an official study done by the Austrian government, it was found that GM maize was linked to infertility and reproductive health effects.
He further stated that “The state government, especially the BJP constituents of the government, have to explain their role and stand in this decision of the government to seek support for GM crops. How do they explain this when many BJP-ruled states are clearly directing their state agriculture towards sustainable farming? If the BJP constituents in the government have not been consulted in this process, the CM has to explain how this decision was possible and how does this reflect the stand of the coalition government. It is surprising that even in states where Congress or UPA constituent parties are ruling, the governments, in consultation with farmers' organisations, scientists and civil society groups have taken a cautious stand against this controversial and unproven technology, while the Punjab government (in a state where agricultural technologies have left their adverse effects) is clearly going against common people.”
Questioning the intention of the Punjab CM, social activist Hemant Goswami said that it was apparent that the CM and his family were favoring the industry for reasons best known to them, and they are not at all bothered about the welfare of the people and the farmers in specific. “The Punjab Government is pushing poison down the throat of people of Punjab. I also challenge the partner in Punjab Government, BJP, to clarify its stand on genetically modified crops. We want to know what the Punjab BJP thinks on the issue since other BJP-ruled states are clearly taking a stand against GM technology and we have a coalition government with BJP here. The whole world knows about the harms of Genetically Modified crops, there are reams of scientific documents on this. Still, the Badals are trying to push foreign interest over farmers’ welfare. Punjab farmers are suffering high rates of cancer and other diseases due to unsustainable and unscientific perspectives of the Government. In such a scenario, when Punjab should be pushing for organic and bio-fertilisers, it is inviting an even-bigger disaster in the name of Bt and genetically modified (GM) crops. Punjab should even withdraw Bt Cotton but it appears that Punjab is still to learn from its past mistakes. Such a short-sighted approach will surely put the Punjab farmers and people on an irreversible suicidal path.” Hemant added.
Sukhdev Singh Kokrikalan, General Secretary, Bhartiya Kisan Union Ekta Ugrahan lamented this move and said, "Farmers have been looted and plundered by the MNCs in the name of modern technologies like hybrids and agri-chemicals; now, the Genetically Modified (GM) nexus is further trying to entrap us on the basis of many false claims. Bhartiya Kisan Union opposes the move vehemently".
Neeraj Atri of Bharat Swabhiman Trust mentioned that “Bt is promoted with the claim that it offers resistance against some pests. It does not reduce water consumption or offer better yield than our natural maize. In terms of environmental effects, Bt Maize is shown to simply swap one pest with another as a study from the USA shows. Further, some Bt Maize varieties have been shown to be susceptible to aphid infestation. GM Maize, including herbicide tolerant maize as with other GM crops, is shown to increase overall chemical use in farming and this is leading to resistant weeds in countries like the USA. This will pose more problems for Punjabi farmers than the solution it is purported to be.”
Balkar Singh Dakunda, President, Bhartiya Kisan Union Ekta Punjab said, “It is clear that the government is being run with a short-sighted vision with regard to agriculture and agricultural livelihoods in the state. The Bt in Cotton and Maize could in fact worsen the water situation in Punjab. Citing a few scientific studies Balkar Singh mentioned that leaves or grain from Bt maize have proved to be toxic to aquatic life if it enters streams, by way of dead leaves or grain. So instead of helping people, it can actually spoil the existing water sources too.”
Hemant Goswami further demanded that Manpreet Badal should explain his role in the siphoning off of about 80 crores in the name of experimenting with organic farming. Instead of seriously trying the option of organic farming, it has been reported that crores were spent on the farms of politicians and bureaucrats in the name of organic farming and the rest was siphoned off. “We should understand that the Punjab Government is deliberately making these schemes related to organic farming fail so that there is no option left other than purchasing patented seeds, insecticides and fertilisers from big MNCs. Corruption in the name of organic farming also has a long term effect of weakening the agriculture sector and provide a justification for helping the seed and chemical companies.” Hemant emphasised.
We ask the following questions to the Punjab Chief minister—
1. Is this decision his personal decision or a decision of the Cabinet?
2. Is this decision based on the recommendations of any broad-based body which has representation of scientists, medical experts, farmers’ unions, civil society representatives and consumer groups? If no-why not? If yes which one?
3. Has any committee of scientists given any report on which his decision is based? Such a decision has to be based on the recommendations of Experts including from the fields of Agriculture, Health, Veterinary science, Environment and Peoples Organisations like Peasants, Consumers and NGOs.
4. Has the government studied the whole controversy which is going on in the whole world regarding GM Crops, including trade security implications, the scientific debates etc.?
5. Is this issue (bringing in GM Food Crops) a state matter or a national matter?
6. Does Mr. Badal know that the final agenda of the corporations bringing GM seeds is for MNCs to take total control over Indian agriculture, throwing the peasantry out of the agriculture?
Eminent social activist Dr Gaurav Chhabra and Onkar Chand , R K Kaplash Chairman , Consumer Coordination Council also aired their views.
For Further Information, Please Contact:
Neeraj Atri
Tel: +91-9417111427
Umendra Dutt
Tel: +91-9872682161
Hemant Goswami
Tel: + 91-9779261733
For Alliance for GM Free and Safe Foods
Friday, March 5, 2010
Ecological Farming in Punjab: Issues, Strategies and the way forward
Punjab is sitting on a volcano of environmental health disaster, waiting to erupt. The serious social, ecological and livelihood impacts have already started manifesting. Rather Punjab is already amidst this crisis.This is the clear message from the report of epidemiological study by School of Public Health, PGIMER and sponsored by PPCB on the effects of effluents on water quality and human health recently submitted to government of Punjab. Agrochemical-centric agriculture has taken centre stage in the country's planning and perception and Punjab has become most vital component of this chemical-based agriculture system. Since then, Punjab was projected as the model state for the success of green revolution; it has become the centre of intensive agriculture practices since the 50's. During last five decades, India has increased the consumption of pesticides from 154 MT in 1953-54 to 73,000 MT in 1994-95. Similar patterns were followed in Punjab, which become biggest consumer of technical grade pesticides in country. Punjab has highest per hectare usage of pesticides 923 grammes and chemical fertilizers 192.5 kg, in India. 1 State of Environment 2007, Published by PSCS&T
This also indicates thatPunjab has the highest pesticide body load among the Indian states. Moreover the cotton belt of Malwa has the highest pesticide consumption density in the country. Punjab is just 2.5% area of the total agricultural land in India and it consumes nearly 18% of the pesticides in the country, where as the cotton belt comprises nearly 15% of the area of Punjab and it consumes nearly 70% of the pesticides in the state, thus making the equation more dangerous.
Economics of agrochemical based highly mechanized agriculture:
The agrochemicals and particularly pesticides are not only impacting the ecology and environmental health of Punjab, but these are also taking away economic self-reliance of Punjab farmers. On an average in Punjab farmers are spending Rs. 5000 on chemical inputs per acre annually where as Malwa's cotton belt farmers are spending Rs. 7000 in normal conditions. If there are more pest attacks, then there may be no limit to this amount. There is a rough estimate that every village is spending a large sum of money -- from Rs. 40 lakhs to Rs. 6 crores -- purchasing agrochemicals, depending upon area of cultivation and cropping pattern.
If we calculate this figure from last four decades it may last into hundreds of crores from a single village. This is a clear plunder of village wealth.
According to PAU study done by Prof. Sukhpal Singh and others, Punjab farmers are spending 44.1% of total loans on agri-inputs and 12% on farm machinery. This is clear indication that the chemicalisation and mechanization of agriculture pushed most of the farmers into a debt trap, which leads to the exodus and displacement of farmers and ultimately creates the situation of suicides.
Chemical-centric agriculture is not sustainable at all, it prescribes a kind of extortion in the name of modern agriculture practices, and it is drains money from villages to make agro-chemical manufacturers more and more rich. The present technological regime persuaded by PAU and State Agriculture Department and backed by agribusiness corporations is exploitative for farmers and abusive to the Nature and ecology.
In the last few years after witnessing thousands of farmer suicides, our worthy experts started talking about the agrarian crisis. We all are witnessing a deep crisis in the agrarian sector all around us, in all states of the country. We are seeing farmers commit suicides in thousands all around. Though we call this 'Agrarian Distress', we are yet to come across any cases of the owner/senior manager of an agribusiness enterprise committing suicide because of the unviablity of their enterprise. We are yet to see which industry - seed, pesticides, agricultural machinery etc. - is not witnessing growth trends. If it is agrarian distress, why is it not reflected in agribusiness economics? Why is it reflected only in farmers? Therein lays the crux of the role of agri-business in starting and compounding the agrarian distress around us.
We have to evolve a different paradigm of agriculture that can liberate our farmers from exploitation. Defiantly, the ecological agriculture has answer to this.
Why should Ecological Farming be promoted in Punjab[1]?
- To restore the culture and dignity of our farmers – those who have been traditionally doing natural farming need to be given back their confidence; the many customary agricultural practices of the people of Punjab prior to the “green revolution” which has made it a rich society need to be revived.
- To revive soil health – this is a dire need in Punjab if Punjab is to continue to be the food bowl of India and if the technology fatigue related to stagnation in production/productivity is to be overcome.
- To protect and revive the health of farming community members and consumers – the impact of pesticides after the heavy pesticide load in Punjab farming is apparent and getting out of the trap of chemical pesticides is an urgent need.
- To revive the livelihoods and reduce the debt burden of Punjabi farmers, by reducing the cost of cultivation dramatically. This ensures better net incomes for farmers and practiced well, this also ensures self-reliance of farmers when it comes to inputs needed for farming. The internalisation of inputs into the farming systems incrementally reduces the cost of cultivation for farmers. Organic farming that serves corporate interests of newer markets for organic products will not serve the purpose.
- To allow for premium prices for high-quality produce by tapping into the “enlightened self interest” of Punjabi consumers, wherever possible, so that the livelihoods of farmers are improved.
- Wherever possible, to address the water crisis in farming through methods like System of Rice Intensification.
- To ensure that there is no threat to the trade security of the state – by default as well as design, since GM crops are disallowed in organic farming. This ensures trade security of the state, which right now exports various agriculture products including the famous Basmati rice.
An immediate shift to ecological and natural farming can bring Punjab out of impending ecological, agricultural and environmental health crisis.
HOW CAN ECOLOGICAL AGRICULTURE BE PROMOTED?
- By supporting small peasants in their OWN agriculture with their OWN seeds, this would require assistance in the shape of re-introducing lost traditional varieties from the National Agriculture Research System and even repatriating seeds from any state or private seed collections
- Set up a Punjab Institute for Natural and Ecological Agriculture, fully equipped with human and financial resources to promote organic farming with farmers of the state. This Institution should have agriculture scientists as well as other renowned resource persons (including practicing farmers from Punjab and other states) so that a mandate related to awareness building; capacity building and extension can be fulfilled. The Institution should have clear targets over a time line of converting a specific number of farmers each year to natural/sustainable farming. Financial allocations for awareness materials, training materials, kisan melas, workshops, demonstrations, monitoring, some scientific studies, farmers’ exposure visits etc., should be clearly earmarked for effective functioning of this Institution. If needed, district resource centres of this Institution should be created, to start with in the ‘cancer belt’ of Punjab. This should be an autonomous body which can report directly to the Agriculture Minister.
- This Institute should have funds to take up specific research studies including studies on pesticide residues, pesticide health impacts, and the impacts of organic/natural farming, etc,
- Train agriculture department officials in Natural/Sustainable Farming and convert the IEC material of the department into messages related to organic farming. To begin with, in select districts of the state, agriculture department officials can adopt a village each and start converting them to organic/natural farming. For this, proper institutional structures and processes are needed at the village level so that knowledge related to organic/natural farming spreads faster and the process scales out.
- Organize farmers into collectives, if needed with the help of NGOs wherever present or where not possible, through lead banks in each location, so that establishing the alternative on the ground becomes easier. It is usually found from experiences elsewhere that groups of about 15-20 farmers will be ideal for democratic institutional processes, knowledge sharing and collective work. Even issues like agricultural credit for those farmers/tenants who are unable to access institutional credit, can be based on peer collateral that will emerge from such institutions.
- Extension support is critical for ecological farming, which is a knowledge-intensive model. Let the existing natural and organic farmers of Punjab be the lead extension workers at the village level to motivate and train other farmers around them.
- Facilitating a community-driven certification scheme – there are several examples & ongoing experiences from different parts of India & the world to learn from
- Making “NO to GE” a reality in Punjab – as there an be no co-existence of organic & GM agriculture
The Strategies
Some of the very important strategies that are needed to be incorporated into any large scale programme of organic farming include:
a. Large scale and effective campaigns to convince all stakeholders about the ill-effects of chemical farming and the possibilities and opportunities of non-chemical farming; the government should employ a variety of means and media to put out messages to farmers urging them to give up chemical farming and opt for non-chemical approaches
b. Capacity building of farmers who are coming forward to take up organic farming: a variety of modules and structures to be created for the capacity building of farmers related to pest and disease management without synthetic pesticides, soil fertility management without chemical fertilizers (especially in terms of promoting soil biological activity and thereby addressing soil chemical and physical properties), agro-diversity and the need to conserve it etc. Such capacity building efforts should include bringing in resource persons from all over the country as well as taking farmers on exposure visits to places where organic farming is being practiced successfully. There should also be opportunities created for farmer to farmer extension on organic farming. Further, Punjabi material meant for farmers' use should be created and disseminated as part of capacity building.
c. Creating farmers' institutions from village upwards including farmers' field schools. Such institutions with hand-holding by external support agencies initially in creating systems for farmers' own management of these institutions will act as the sustainable fora to carry the work forward later on with or without external support.
d. Set up constant extension services on organic farming, with the extension structures beginning at the village level; this is a very critical component. When farmers shift to organic farming, a knowledge intensive process, they look towards someone to support them with advice at all stages. Extension personnel in a programme like this are practicing farmers themselves in the case of Andhra Pradesh and are paid a nominal honorarium for facilitating the farmer field schools and for visiting all fields regularly so that proper advice can be extended to individual farmers.
e. Creating other support systems for credit for organic farming and for marketing support for organic produce. Village level enterprises can be set up for processing and value addition for organic produce.
f. Setting up village & household level seed banks which offer diversity of crops and varieties of seeds to farmers in the village. As mentioned earlier, agro-diversity and the revival of traditional landraces constitute a critical part of ecological farming. When each farm exhibits mixed cropping, pest and disease management as well as soil productivity management are left more to natural processes than to chemicals as is the case now.
g. Further, in the case of Punjab, it is important that all departments concerned, including the Health Department, Agriculture Department, Rural Development Department, S&T and Environment Departments to come together to form the State Level Secretariat and to allocate resources from all the departments for this large scale organic farming to be taken up.
h. A comprehensive water policy should be evolved with specific attention on water management (local water management as opposed to grandiose water solutions like linking the rivers); detoxification of all rivers, rain-fed nullahs; and strict monitoring of all industrial discharge into the state's rivers and drains.
i. The soil and water resources in Punjab have been severely degraded over the last several decades. Facilities for toxicity testing, specifically for pesticide residues, of soil and water should be made available at nominal costs to farmers at the district level with specific suggestions on how to reduce/ counter the ill-effects of chemical farming on these resources by use of organic practices/ inputs.
j. At a later stage, right after launching the programme straightaway (the environmental health crisis is so acute that there is no time to be lost), a state level policy on organic farming should be evolved and adopted in Punjab as is happening with many other states. Apart from Central Government, five states have their state policies on organic farming. This includes Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttaranchal, while Andhra Pradesh is in the midst of the drafting process. Moreover, Himachal Pradesh has initiated a state level project on organic farming. The Northeastern states have also prepared an elaborative plan for the promotion of organic farming. Every policy has a few indispensable components- the vision, the ultimate objective and the inbuilt capacity to fulfill peoples' aspirations. The policy should address its core issue holistically. Its guiding principal lies in the well-being of community and the nation at large. It reflects the tradition, the heritage and socio-economic and civilization thought process, perceptions and progressive unfolding of the society. For this, policy has to be evolved by the involvement of community and its inputs. These are the fundamental of participatory democracy - a key word for sustainable development in true sense.
k. Develop a Strategy and Action Plan for Sustainable Agriculture:The agriculture of Punjab needs a fresh vision for its sustainability, as well as the sustainability of its natural resources. Currently, agriculture has not only destroyed the household nutritional security of farmers but has also made them dependent on the market for daily needs.
Such an approach will need a paradigm shift in approach and thinking. To take up this issue with urgent priority, the Government should formulate a policy and action plan with a fixed time frame to promote sustainable agricultural practices and eco-friendly methods of farming like organic and natural farming. Special budget allocations shall be made available for the purpose. The major focus of this strategy should be:
- To draw a balance sheet of the collapse of Green Revolution. We need to know what went wrong with agriculture, so that we don't repeat the same mistakes. A post-mortem of the Green Revolution is absolutely necessary.
- To draw a map of the soil health of Punjab. In the future, all crop introductions should be based on soil health. If a crop (including cash crops) has the possibility of destroying the soil fertility and thereby accentuating the ecological crisis, that cropping system should not be allowed.
- A biodiversity-based system of agriculture should be promoted, with support for indigenous varieties of cattle, other animals, and seeds. Awards, incentives and recognition should be offered to those farmers who practice biodiverse farming.
- Attracting youth through awareness building, and making agriculture economically viable, and hence attractive as a livelihood option. This means there must be support for the youth to take up agriculture and related activities.
- A cultural revival focused on reviving the farming culture of the state and upholding its heritage and pride as an agrarian state and food supplier to the nation.
- A farm-based approach rather than a crop-based approach in agriculture planning and supports.
- Support to form framers’ collectives in production, farm management and marketing, and ensuring procurement by government agencies, to avoid price fluctuations.
- Awareness-building about the harmful effects of chemical fertilizers and pesticides and the phasing-out of chemical pesticides through capacity-building among farmers, women’s groups and local entrepreneurs to produce organic inputs locally. All these have already been successfully developed and tried in many states without reducing the outputs.
- Changing the syllabus of Agriculture University to suit to this approach, meaning building the capacity of agriculture students to understand the local ecology and needs for an ecological revival of Punjab. This can include forestry and fisheries students also.
- The phasing-out of investments and increased outlays for agricultural research based on external chemical inputs like fertiliser and pesticides. Instead, financial allocations should be made for reviving low-input agriculture, which uses cheap and locally available technology and, in turn, improves production, reduces the cost of production and protects the environment.
- Agricultural research must reorient itself to learn from the existing sustainable farming models. The focus of genetically modified crops must immediately stop as it is risky and expensive for the farmer. This has been amply demonstrated in several parts of the world. Water productivity and efficiency has to be the hallmark of agricultural research based on the local conditions.
- Involvement of Women: Women are playing a very significant role in restoring nature and making organic farming a success in several places throughout the country. As organic farming can be termed as family enterprise, the involvement of women can provide organic farming the requisite motherly care. Women-power has immense scope and strength for scientific mass-production of compost, bio-fertilizers, bio-control agents, antagonists and other benevolent organisms through a structured entrepreneurship along with post-harvest handling of crops including value-added product production. This shall also provide the enhanced opportunity for women to take part in this endeavor of transforming the agro-cultural scenario. Civilization and its spontaneous evolution cannot be imagined without the active participation of a major part of the population, which is a woman.
- Incentive and subsidies: The subsidies and other incentives shall play a crucial role for the promotion of organic farming and it becomes more relevant in the present WTO regime. In fact, the subsidies paid by the American and European governments are indeed very high and form the backbone of their farmers. Government schemes for promotion of organic farming should consider this aspect. Appropriate schemes and policies for the development of organic farming in the state are needed. These must be farmer oriented and may require rising of special funds. Rising incidents of suicides by the Punjabi farmers is another pointer of their woes. The cost of inputs is increasing day by day, the pests attacking the crops are becoming resistant to even the most lethal chemicals insecticide, pesticides and other synthetic pyreathroids agents, thus creating huge losses to already struggling Punjabi farmer.
1. The Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture programme [CMSA] in Andhra Pradesh, taken up by the Rural Development department of the state government is a large programme setting up non-chemical, self-reliant farming for the improvement of farmers’ livelihoods in around 25 lakh acres of the state, covering all crops and districts. This is a programme being implemented by women’s self help groups. The institutional set up consists of one village level activist [who is a practicing farmer, who will also receive additional capacity building inputs and training aids], a cluster coordinator for a cluster of five villages and a district level coordinator of the programme. Further, there is a state level secretariat which plans, reviews and monitors the entire programme and leads the capacity building effort. Probably a small team of agriculture department officials and other concerned people from Punjab, including ones who could potentially be part of the proposed Institute for Natural and Sustainable Farming can be sent to Andhra Pradesh to look at this programme.
2. Inputs are provided by the state government through the Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty [a GO-NGO] mainly for capacity building of the human resources mentioned above, for constant extension support to farmers, for campaigns and exposure trips, for trainings and training material production, for collective enterprises to be set up at the village level for input production, for collective marketing support etc.
3. States like Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttaranchal, Maharastra, Kerala, Nagaland and Sikkam have all ready formulated organic farming polices and programmes. Several other states have also initiated the process. This has moved beyond the debate over the need for organic farming and has begun with a stated stand that organic farming is indeed needed and profitable. Large scale programmes have been initiated without the need for the conventional approach of agricultural universities first having to endorse such programmes.
4. It is not an option between NPM or organic or natural farming but a mix of all of these and if needed, an incremental movement from one to the other (as in the case of Andhra Pradesh where the Community Managed Sustainable Agriculture programme, or CMSA, evolved from NPM or No-Pesticides Management of crops). Even in "natural farming," though the concept is understood as "do-nothing," many practitioners use some natural resource-based products initially. Similarly, "organic farming" is not to be understood only in one rigid sense of externally-certified production system – there are models of "declared organic" too, which run on corporatisation between consumers and producers.
Recommendations of Task Force on Organic Farming: From last five years there are number of documents brought up by various government agencies and institutions. In 2001 Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation, Government of India had formed a Task Force on Organic Farming headed by Dr. Kunwarji Bhai Jadav that brought out its report in November 2001. In September 2001, the Working Group on Organic and Biodynamic Farming, constituted by Planning Commission submitted another report.
The Task Force on Organic Farming had made several recommendations, few are very important, as:
- The economic value of chemical fertilizers and organic manures may be equated in terms of their overall effect on soil productivity and crop production, and the Government may provide support accordingly.
- The technology packages on organic farming as developed by farmers, NGOs and others may be evaluated and the successful technology may be expanded in larger areas.
- Bullock-drawn implements should be encouraged.
- Each of the agricultural universities in the country may start a course at the Post-Graduation level on organic farming.
- Each Krishi Vigyan Kendra may set up a vermin-compost unit and a biological control unit for demonstration and dissemination of the techniques. These centres may also provide bioagents / antagonist and earthworms to the farmers after their training.
- Each state may set up a state level cell or create a suitable unit at the Headquarter of Directorate of Agriculture to oversee the promotion of organic farming in the State.
Ecological Agriculture: The International scenario
The role of technology, too, needs to be ascertained. Pesticides were promoted blindly on rice, for instance. The International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines now says that pesticides on rice were a waste of time and effort in Asia. But meanwhile, pesticides usage has already taken a huge toll, and pushed farmers in a debt trap.
Studies done by ICRISAT and IRRI clearly demonstrate the sustainability, viability and successful economics of Non-Pesticide Management practices. Farmers in Bangladesh, Philippines and Vietnam have successfully opted for pesticide free rice cultivation. Cuba has also shown the way. Former Director General of IRRI, Dr. Robert Cantrell had this to say: "It shows that the mistakes of the Green Revolution where too much emphasis was sometimes put on the use of chemicals for pest control have clearly been recognized and corrected".
The FAO also in its report on International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security held at Rome on 3 to 5 July 2007 clearly says that Organic Can feed the World. The report states that the use of chemical agriculture inputs has been increasing in the last two decades but grain productivity keeps declining. Report also says more knowledge is readily available through fast information technologies but nutrition related diseases are increasing; industrialized food systems have environmental and social costs that threaten food security (e.g. occupational deaths through pesticides poisoning, farmers’ suicides due to debts, and loss of million jobs in rural areas).
The example of Cuba is known to every one. The Philippines, Indonesia and South Korea are the most progressive countries in terms of perusing ecological agriculture.
In 1986 Indonesia banned 28 pesticides on rice by a Presidential decree. Making it the first country in the world where pesticides were banned under a Presidential decree. Further more, these pesticides were then completely banned and phased out in Indonesia in 1996. In 1986 The South Korean Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry announced national targets for reducing pesticide use by 50% and fertilizer use by 40% by the year 2004.
Other Steps must be taken by Punjab Government
Research Project on Pesticide Consumption and Residue:As Punjab has one of highest levels of pesticide consumption in India, it subsequently has the highest pesticide load on its people and ecosystem. Punjab is already facing severe adverse impacts of agro-chemicals used in last four decades. Now at this crucial juncture, the Punjab Government should take bold steps to ensure a safe environment and ecosystem to the future of generations of Punjab. For this the Punjab Government should take these steps:
1. Complete a detailed study on pesticide consumption patterns in Punjab.
2. The government should immediately ban the aggressive marketing of pesticides including all forms of advertisements, publicity and promotion schemes for pesticides and other agro-chemicals along with all incentives given to the pesticide and agro-chemical dealers’ network.
3. Raise awareness about the dangers of pesticide use through well-financed education campaigns. These must ensure the dissemination of information on the ill effects of pesticides on all users.
4. The government should evolve an action plan for the immediate and time-bound phasing out of the most deadly pesticides: class I a, I b and II.
5. The vital task of properly compiling residue data, already generated by the agriculture universities.
Issues of Concern in Organic:
Develop an alternative local (domestic) marketing strategy, especially for Organic Produce:The government must take steps to ensure the right price for the produce, without the exploitation of middlemen, including the big retail companies, (the shopping malls and supermarkets) that are now monopolizing the markets. It is possible to develop an alternative domestic market for food produce, especially organic through the concepts like an Organic Bazaar (running in five cities in India) and the Participatory Guarantee System of Organic Standards Certification (accepted by IFOAM), which is not costly and exploitative and is based on a faith, accountability and an integrity based system. The idea is to grow organic for the health of our own soils and own people not for export.
It has to be noted here that those ecological farming models which are created to provide business opportunities in the form of bio-inputs once again for agri-business companies or for services like expensive certification, will once again take away from the potential benefits for farmers. The whole effort should be farmer-centric and led by them with as many employment/enterprise opportunities as possible created for them and managed by them.
GE Crops and Ecological Agriculture:
Punjab is the probably the only state in India which has promoted Bt cotton with Chief Minister’s photograph. The entire agriculture establishment in Punjab has taken a pro-GM stance forgetting its other falls outs.
Genetic Engineering in agriculture is being imported as the solution (BT Cotton for example) whereas it has the potential to further worsen the situation through its severe environmental and health consequences. No one should be misled by the propaganda of GE seed companies taking Bt.crops as pesticide-free organic crops, where as Bt crops have also a pesticides, preotein (delta endotoxin) that have a disputed effect on human health. So, at no point can Genetically Engineered or Bt. Crops be considered as organic under any circumstances.
It is alarming that the agriculture establishments of Punjab are seeking alternatives to pesticides for GM crops. In the last two years the state government has made several statements on their interest in GM crops as well as organic crops.. This reflects the government’s confusion on the issue. It seems that the government has neither understood the basic differences between Ecological / Organic and Transgenic agriculture, nor has it understood the similarity between pesticides and BT crops.
The similarities of transgenic agriculture, especially GM crops developed for insect resistance, with pesticides are uncanny. The same companies are involved, with similar kinds of dangers inherent in the technologies – they are also promoted with the same claims! It has to be remembered that they are both irreversible technologies with a high likelihood of “ending up everywhere.”
Co-existence of GM crops with organic agriculture, given the reality of our growing and post-harvest conditions, this is impossible. Both biological and physical contamination of other crops is a distinct possibility. Segregation of GM and non-GM crops is not possible even at the farmer household level. Isolation distances required for such segregation cannot be maintained at the field level, because this is not a choice that pertains to a single farmer but is something that is impacted by choices exercised by neighboring farmers too. While this is not possible for non-GM, it should be remembered that organic standards are pretty rigid and set very high, mainly to protect the trust and interests of consumers. After harvest too, at various stages like storage, transportation, at the local market yards, at the ginning and spinning mills and so on, it is impossible to maintain segregation. Implementation of a rigorous system of “identity preservation” [IP] and “traceability” would be virtually impossible in India, Punjab included. No amount of labeling requirements and legislations (an end of the pipe solution, rather than a clean production solution, to draw an analogy from other sectors of production) can control the situation that we would land ourselves in.
As other analysts have argued earlier, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that Identity Preservation was possible to implement in India, the excessive operational costs involved would make agriculture a very expensive and unaffordable activity. As it is, spiraling costs of cultivation with dismantled public support are pushing many farmers to the brink of suicides every day.
Contamination of GM produce with non-GM produce is unavoidable and this would endanger the trade prospects of an entire nation, in addition to exposing its population to a variety of risks.
Is this what Punjab should show to the rest of the country as a leader in farming innovations? Is this how Punjab should evolve future directions for Indian agriculture?
It would do well for Punjab to remember that it is for a very good reason that the entire world, barring a handful of countries, is taking a precautionary approach to GM crops. It is particularly foolish to promote Bt crops given that alternative pest management models in the form of IPM, NPM, Organic etc., has been successfully established all over the country and across the world. These farmer-centric alternatives have proven themselves time and again to be economically, environmentally and socially beneficial. It is indeed unfortunate that Punjab, which has always been in the forefront of agricultural development, has not yet learnt any lessons from such positive experiences.
To conclude, we would like to inform the state government that there is one more similarity between GM crops and pesticides – both are completely dispensable in agriculture and it has been shown to be so by many farmers in Punjab!
PAU and Ecological Agriculture:
The PAU has also come up with a project on organic farming in the Department of Agronomy, though it is still in its infant stage. However, we must understand PAU’s perspective and approach towards organic farming. PAU scientists openly show their apprehensions regard potentials of organic farming. They even put limitations of organic farming in their official presentation on organic farming. It is ironic that while PAU scientists knows that very much about residues of pesticides in food chain etc but they always conclude with the one liner – Pesticides are indispensable. It seems that political factor -There is No Alternative TINA is ruling the PAU vision.
Secondly, they are even equating Bt cotton with organic cotton. Senior officials from the Agriculture Department have shown their doubts for the productivity and yield of organic cotton. PAU and the Agriculture department both are working half-heartedly and there is clear misunderstanding of the yield potentials of organic. Moreover, agriculture scientists are not so open to learn from the experiences of farmers from other Indian states. However, if it the United States proposes something, then they readily follow it. There is a false self-pride in Punjab that we have to feed rest of the country, that we have to grow more and more, and that this is only possible with chemicalised agriculture.
Punjab must take note of example of Cuba becoming self-sufficient in food and vegetables by organic farming and that too with in three to four years of time. Cuba has opted for organic in 1990-91 and by mid-1995; the food shortage had been overcome. It is general opinion that a nation cannot feed its people without synthetic agro-chemicals, yet today Cuba is self-reliant in food security without using these deadly agro-chemicals. This is a result of a change in mindset and agricultural vision, and Punjab needs the same.
Punjab State Policy on Natural and Ecological Agriculture:Lastly, about two years ago the last government announced that it will form an Organic Farming Policy for the state. But this policy has not materialized and as of yet, there is no such policy for the state. As ecologically sustainable agriculture is the need of the hour for Punjab, Punjab should have a proper organic farming policy. It is time to take the initiative to formulate a policy framework for the promotion of natural and organic farming.. Punjab government should invite suggestions and inputs from all the stakeholders and partners for sustainable development before formulating any policy. Public hearings and dialogue must be initiated to make the policy people-oriented and realistic. Moreover, the policy formulation process should be farmer-centric and must be with a bottom-up approach. Again this task can not be entrusted to Green Revolution mindset experts; it has been entrusted to individuals who want to see the new paradigm implemented.
This is the appropriate time to raise the public debate on state policy for organic farming in Punjab. Punjab State Farmers’ Commission intends to formulate a state policy, therefore one can hope that a Punjab state policy on organic farming will soon become a reality. Nevertheless, we musk ask the important question of what our priorities should be in Punjab. What is the meaning and relevance of organic farming for Punjab?
As eminent agriculture scientist and policy expert Dr. Devinder Sharma rightly says, “Emphasis on commodities approach during the Green Revolution has encouraged monocultures, loss of biodiversity, encouraged food trade in some commodities, distorted domestic markets, and disrupted the micro-nutrient availability in soil, plant, animals and for humans. Thrust on farm commodities has also pushed in trade activities, encouraged food miles, adding to greenhouse emissions, water-mining, and destruction of farm incomes. The need is to revert back to the time-tested farming systems that relied on mixed cropping and its integration with farm animals, thereby meeting the household and community nutrition needs from the available farm holdings. “
Such an approach will need a paradigm shift in approach and thinking.
Natural Farming in Punjab
KVM feels that there is an urgent need of Swadeshi agriculture movement to decolonize Indian agriculture and to liberate Indian farmer from clutches of westernized agriculture and developmental paradigm being convinced by ICAR and State Agriculture Universities. This prototype is philosophically alien to our cultural roots and stranger to ecological ethos and believes of our society.
The KVM’s natural farming movement has also brings another significant change in mindset of farmers. Now they are not looking towards Agriculture University or departmental experts for expert advice any more. every farmer of this movement is an expert in himself, he practice this science of natural farming, he lives natural farming every day, he is totally engulfed with the philosophy of natural farming. The modern agriculture paradigm has limited all expertise to Agriculture Universities only. The chemicalised agriculture model has made farmers scientifically illiterate – who presumed to be ignorant in every aspect of science and agri-technology. This is a conspiracy which has made farmers dependent on universities, departments, companies and even pesticide retailers. It is a cruel joke that those who get a three or five year degree in agriculture with a alien kind of agriculture knowledge are known as experts, who are practicing a agriculture knowledge of only 40 years old, where as farmers who inherent the agriculture wisdom of at least 10,000 years are made commoners. We are not going to accept this nonsense any more. We are working to build self-confidence of our farmers on their own agriculture heritage and wisdom. We are the nation with abundance in farm produces, agro-biodiversity and prosperity.
There are scores of ecological [natural/organic] farmers in Punjab today, who have successfully demonstrated that a shift to ecological approaches will mean better economics, including on the yields’ front after a small initial transition period. It is also seen from the experience of organisations like Kheti Virasat Mission that farmers of Punjab are really keen on alternatives because the current agricultural models have turned out to be very unfavorable to them. Therefore, the experience from the ground shows that the debate really is not about whether organic farming will help farmers and whether there are scientific studies around it (which can also be shown, of course), but about how to establish organic farming on the ground.
New agricultural paradigm for Punjab: Nanak Kheti
The farmers practicing Natural farming are neither environmentalists, nor economists nor religious preachers nor trained agriculture experts nor a health professionals, but they still posses and practice the wisdom of all these. They practice Guru Nanak’s precept of Sarbat da Bhala meaning the wellbeing of all, in their farming –Nanak Kheti.
Their farms are laboratories of happiness for all and encompass every living creature on earth, every life form. It is farming with passion for the wellbeing of all; one can call it spiritual farming, natural farming, non-violent agriculture or simply Nanak Kheti. These farmers are even taking care of a large verity of birds, earthworms, honey bees, butterflies and fireflies and many more magnificent life forms. For these farmers all living creatures are part of a family and - it is their family.
KVM preaches to adopt famous verses of Guru Granth Sahib in farming practices: “Pavnu Guru, Panni Pita Matta Dharat Mahat”, Air is Guru, Water is father and Earth is mother. This holy guiding principal should be part of the life, practice and mission of farmers who want to do natural farming- Nanak Kheti.
Future lies in the natural farming also known as sustainable, organic and ecological agriculture and in Punjab call it agriculture embodied with the philosophy of Guru Nanak Dev - The Nanak Kheti only. It is native paradigm of Punjab; it comes out of our cultural, social and ecological roots and heritage [1] Organic farming is a term used here to mean natural and sustainable farming which is not just certified organic as is conventionally understood
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
BRAI Bill - WHY NOT A NATIONAL BIOSAFETY PROTECTION AUTHORITY?
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,Government of India
February 14, 2010
1
RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED
BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA BILL, 2009:
WHY NOT A NATIONAL BIOSAFETY PROTECTION AUTHORITY?
The purpose of any regulation around Genetic Engineering and related modern biotechnology
applications flows from the inherent risks and hazards associated with these technologies.
India does not have a separate statute to govern the regulation of GMOs in our food and farming
systems. This means that we have only executive orders/rules under the Environment Protection
Act 1986 and these rules are easily changeable and altered by the regulators whereas having a
proper statute would ensure that frequent, undemocratic changes in rules, guidelines and
protocols will not be made too easily.
Requisite components of any biotech regulatory regime
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 principles as cornerstones of the legislation:
• Precautionary Principle as the central guiding principle
• Going in for the GM option only in case other alternatives are missing
• Separating out very clearly the phases of contained research and deliberate release and
distinct regulatory mechanisms for both, in a sequential fashion
• 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
• 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
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.
Almost everything listed above, as ideal pre-requisites of any statute governing modern
biotechnology applications in our food and farming systems, are missing in the Indian regulatory
system right now.
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,
Government of India by Kavitha Kuruganti, February 14, 2010
2
The lack of a proper statute and the absence of a credible regulatory regime is something that
everyone is concerned about and using the opportunity of the current debate generated around
Bt Brinjal, the Department of Biotechnology is trying to introduce a BIOTECHNOLOGY
REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (BRAI) BILL soon.
The following are the important concerns around this Bill.
1. The mandate of this Bill in its current version is for the “establishment of the
Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India to regulate the research, transport, import,
manufacture and use of organisms and products of modern biotechnology and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto in order to promote the safe use of
modern biotechnology by enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory
procedures”.
The Bill therefore pre-supposes a clearing house/facilitator/approver role to the Authority
of applications that it would receive and that is sought to be made into the main purpose
of this legislation.
However, this very mandate is wrong and assumes that an inherently unsafe technology
can be made safe by making the regulation effective and efficient! The main purpose
of Biotechnology Regulation should be “to protect the health (human and
animal) and environment of India from the risks posed by modern
biotechnology and its applications”. To that extent, this Bill should be called
by some other name like “Gene Technology and Biosafety Protection Act,
2010”.
It is worthwhile to remember here that 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
draft Bill sought to be introduced.
2. This so-called autonomous regulatory authority should NOT be housed under the Ministry
of Science & Technology or more specifically within the Department of Biotechnology
(the draft Bill emerged from the DBT). This will be a major conflict of interest in itself and
if it is housed under this Ministry, the mandate itself becomes questionable. This
Authority should be under the Ministry of Environment & Forests or under the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
3. This statute should not in any way take away from the Constitutional
authority that state governments have over their Agriculture and Health in the
Indian federal structure. However, the current Bill envisages only an advisory role
for the state governments in the form of “State Biotechnology Regulatory Advisory
Committees” with no decision-making powers. Worse, as per Section 87 (2), it asks for
a repealing of any law in force for the time being in any State corresponding to
this Act (including any licensing authority that the state government’s concerned
agencies might have under any other Law). Section 81 also expressly states that this Act
will have an over-riding effect (on other Acts). This is simply not acceptable on at
least two counts: this ignores the constitutional powers that state governments have
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,
Government of India by Kavitha Kuruganti, February 14, 2010
3
over their Agriculture & Health; it also ignores and could impinge on or override the
somewhat progressive legislations like Biological Diversity Act, with a mandate also to
conserve and sustainably use biological diversity.
4. The proposed legislation also makes modern biotechnology regulation into only a
technical risk assessment and risk management. It ignores the bottom line set out in
the Task Force report on Agri-Biotechnology and operationalising the same.
5. The legislation, instead of expressly having clauses on information disclosure,
that too before decision-making and independent or public scrutiny, has brought in
clauses on retaining Confidential Commercial Information. As past experience in
India has shown, this cannot be left to the discretion of the officials in the Authority and
all product development and biosafety-related information has to be pro-actively
disclosed and placed in the public domain before decision-making.
6. It is also important to operationalise in this statute some key principles, as
part of the regulations to be notified, that should be guiding decision-making
in this area: (a) Precautionary principle; (b) Inter-generational equity; (c)
Going in for the GM option only in case other alternatives are missing. This third
principle is what eminent molecular biologist and Supreme Court observer in the apex
regulatory authority right now had proposed too, as the first parameter for assessment
of a GMO. “ascertain after careful analysis of existing information (and, if need be,
relevant new information that could be generated within a short period) that there are no
alternatives to the GMO and that the GMO will, if it meets the stipulated requirements,
bring substantial benefit to the country and to one or more classes of its citizens. And if
the GMO is truly required, carry out rigorous risk assessment”. Dr Bhargava has then
gone on to lay down what such a risk assessment should consist of. Therefore, every
application has to be rejected or accepted based on this main parameter right at the
beginning.
7. Final decision-making, especially in the case of environmental release cannot be left to
technical experts alone. An alternate structure is proposed in Point 13 for this.
8. Chapter V: Risk assessment cannot be left to the proposed three Divisions, Risk
Assessment (and Enforcement Unit with its Monitoring Officers) and Products Ruling
Committee for a ‘science-based evaluation of the application’ whether it is for import or
manufacture or for any other purpose. As the Supreme Court observer had pointed out
time and again, there is a need for independent testing itself and independent testing
facilities. Risk assessment should therefore consist of an evaluation of the
biosafety dossier submitted by the crop/product developer including
mandatory independent, public scrutiny but also independent testing for
further verification of results. Any proposed Authority should have the testing
capabilities established for this.
9. Risk Management aspects have been neglected in the proposed legislation. It
is not enough to have an Enforcement Unit with empowered Monitoring Officers. There
should be clear clauses for reviewing of approvals and permissions, timebound
permissions in each case and clauses for revoking and cancellations of
approvals.
10. For some inexplicable reason, a Risk Assessment Unit is brought into the picture for
the applications pertaining to research, transport or import which is supposed to present
its “clear assessment” to the Authority and further, a Products Ruling Committee is
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,
Government of India by Kavitha Kuruganti, February 14, 2010
4
brought into the picture for manufacture or use of GMOs and products thereof, for
making recommendations to the Authority. This clearly assumes that import may not
pose much threat and this may not be the case for large scale imports or GMOs getting
imported (not just products thereof). There is no need for a Risk Assessment Unit and a
Products Ruling Committee separate from each other. There can be only one Risk
Assessment Unit and no Ruling should be allowed by anyone who is supposed to assess
and evaluate. This Unit is only required to place its assessment report and
recommendations.
11. It would be important to make a distinction for regulation of contained use
and deliberate environmental release. There should be a sequential mode of
regulation of any GMO, from contained use or containment to environment release, if at
all. The environmental release should be permitted ONLY after biosafety has been
conclusively established as per the Risk Assessment Unit.
12. The final decision on environmental releases of GMOs (manufacture and use)
should come from the Inter-Ministerial Products Ruling Committee – the inter-
ministerial body in the current proposals only has an advisory role. However, it should
have the final decision-making authority, along with the Chairperson of the Authority, the
three Chief Regulatory Officers who should head the three different Risk Assessment
Units. Decision-making has to be from a broad-based body which studies aspects beyond
technical biosafety too and should have an inter-ministerial composition for the obvious
reason that GMOs in our food and farming systems have implications beyond biosafety.
13. The following structure for the National Biosafety Protection Authority is
demanded – that all contained use applications be routinely processed by the 3-
member Authority (Chairperson PLUS two members), based on risk assessment and
independent testing wherever required by the concerned Division. The Enforcement Unit
with its Monitoring Officers also has a role during this phase.
However, for all deliberate environmental releases, especially pertaining to Division 1
(Agriculture, Fisheries, Animals and Forestry), such approvals may come only from the
Inter-Ministerial Product Rulings Committee, based on recommendations by the
concerned Division on proof of biosafety, after both science-based evaluation of the
applicant’s data as well as mandatory independent testing and through public
participation mechanisms in addition to consideration of other parameters that are to be
evaluated (beyond biosafety).
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,
Government of India by Kavitha Kuruganti, February 14, 2010
5
14. The proposed legislation has no clauses on public participation. The Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety’s (under the Convention on Biological Diversity) Article 23.2 says that
‘Parties…shall consult the public in decision-making process regarding living modified
organisms…’ and India is a signatory to this. Any statute on this matter should
have systemic mechanisms built for public participation in decision-making
including having representatives from credible and committed farmers’ and consumers’
groups in the decision-making bodies, apart from larger public consultations.
15. Chapter XIII on Offences & Penalties: It is not clear who Section 61 related to False or
Misleading Information will be applicable to! Any person producing any document that is
known to be false or misleading, it says. If this is not specifically meant for applicants to
the National Biosafety Protection Authority, then this is to be construed as harassment of
the public! Similarly, Section (63) is completely objectionable and is meant to
harass civil society groups concerned about the application of this hazardous
technology. This clause says: Whoever, without any evidence or scientific record
misleads the public about safety of GMOs and products thereof shall be punished with
imprisonment and fine!
16. In fact, the liability clauses in this proposed legislation are very weak. To begin
with, there need not be any distinction made between companies, universities, society,
trust, government departments etc. The penal clauses should apply uniformly. Two, the
legislation should have express clauses on Redressal or Compensation and
Remediation or Cleaning up. The legislation should also have a clause that makes the
crop developer solely liable for any leakage, contamination and so on throughout every
stage of the product development cycle. Further, the penalty of one year imprisonment
and two lakh rupees fine is no deterrent and this should be made more rigorous.
17. Chapter VI pertains to provisions related to Import of Organisms and Products
thereof. Here, apart from authorization to detain imported packages suspected to contain
organisms and products thereof, there should be an express provision for
Importer’s Declaration & Certification at the time of import that the
Chairperson, National Biosafety Protection Authority PLUS 2 members
Inter-ministerial Products Ruling Committee
1. Division on Agriculture,
Forestry,
Animals & Fisheries
2. Division on Human &
Veterinary Health
3. Division on industrial &
environmental applications
Biotechnology Advisory Council
Risk Assessment Unit
Enforcement Unit
Risk Assessment
Unit
Enforcement Unit
Risk Assessment
Unit
Enforcement Unit
Independent testing
facilities
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,
Government of India by Kavitha Kuruganti, February 14, 2010
6
consignment does not contain any GMOs or products thereof, for every
consignment coming into India.
18. Provisions related to Biotech Regulatory Appellate Tribunal: As pointed out in
response to the 2008 draft NBRA Bill, to appeal within 30 days after a decision is made
by the Authority may not be possible for everyone and there is absolutely no reason why
this provision should be incorporated into Section 42 (1). This Tribunal should be more
broad based and consist of people beyond certain technical expertise. Further Section 55
(1) on Jurisdiction, Powers and Authority of the Appellate Tribunal where the Tribunal is
expected to have jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question related to
modern biotechnology is involved is not fair for the ongoing PILs on the issue. The
Appellate Tribunal should pick up cases which come in appeal to it only. Further, Section
55 (3) with its time bar of two years from the date of the cause of action for an appeal
on a substantial question is not to be allowed. There should be no time bar, for the
simple reason that some unpredictable effects might start showing up any time beyond
two years too.
19. Section 56’s clauses related to the Tribunal not being guided by Code of Civil Procedure
1908 but by principles of natural justice, not bound by the rules of evidence contained in
the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and its proceedings deemed to be judicial proceedings
under particular sections of Indian Penal Code and some Chapter of Criminal Procedure
Code have to be studied further by legal experts.
20. The amendments being proposed to the Food Safety & Standards Authority (FSSA) Act
2006, so that no provisions of this Act may apply to FSSA needs to be revisited,
especially given that the labeling regime comes under the FSSA and a narrow definition
of GM food under FSSA will leave out many GM foods from a labeling regime.
21. Under Chapter X on Notification of Laboratories, it is not at all acceptable that non-
accredited labs may also be notified “having regard to the emerging nature of modern
biotechnology and facilities and equipment in labs”. If it is such an emerging technology,
one just has to wait!
22. Welcome clauses in this proposed Bill: Restriction on employment after cessation of
office for different posts for at least two years from the Authority and its Tribunal etc.,
are welcome moves.
February 14, 2010
1
RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED
BIOTECHNOLOGY REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA BILL, 2009:
WHY NOT A NATIONAL BIOSAFETY PROTECTION AUTHORITY?
The purpose of any regulation around Genetic Engineering and related modern biotechnology
applications flows from the inherent risks and hazards associated with these technologies.
India does not have a separate statute to govern the regulation of GMOs in our food and farming
systems. This means that we have only executive orders/rules under the Environment Protection
Act 1986 and these rules are easily changeable and altered by the regulators whereas having a
proper statute would ensure that frequent, undemocratic changes in rules, guidelines and
protocols will not be made too easily.
Requisite components of any biotech regulatory regime
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 principles as cornerstones of the legislation:
• Precautionary Principle as the central guiding principle
• Going in for the GM option only in case other alternatives are missing
• Separating out very clearly the phases of contained research and deliberate release and
distinct regulatory mechanisms for both, in a sequential fashion
• 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
• 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
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.
Almost everything listed above, as ideal pre-requisites of any statute governing modern
biotechnology applications in our food and farming systems, are missing in the Indian regulatory
system right now.
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,
Government of India by Kavitha Kuruganti, February 14, 2010
2
The lack of a proper statute and the absence of a credible regulatory regime is something that
everyone is concerned about and using the opportunity of the current debate generated around
Bt Brinjal, the Department of Biotechnology is trying to introduce a BIOTECHNOLOGY
REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA (BRAI) BILL soon.
The following are the important concerns around this Bill.
1. The mandate of this Bill in its current version is for the “establishment of the
Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India to regulate the research, transport, import,
manufacture and use of organisms and products of modern biotechnology and for
matters connected therewith or incidental thereto in order to promote the safe use of
modern biotechnology by enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory
procedures”.
The Bill therefore pre-supposes a clearing house/facilitator/approver role to the Authority
of applications that it would receive and that is sought to be made into the main purpose
of this legislation.
However, this very mandate is wrong and assumes that an inherently unsafe technology
can be made safe by making the regulation effective and efficient! The main purpose
of Biotechnology Regulation should be “to protect the health (human and
animal) and environment of India from the risks posed by modern
biotechnology and its applications”. To that extent, this Bill should be called
by some other name like “Gene Technology and Biosafety Protection Act,
2010”.
It is worthwhile to remember here that 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
draft Bill sought to be introduced.
2. This so-called autonomous regulatory authority should NOT be housed under the Ministry
of Science & Technology or more specifically within the Department of Biotechnology
(the draft Bill emerged from the DBT). This will be a major conflict of interest in itself and
if it is housed under this Ministry, the mandate itself becomes questionable. This
Authority should be under the Ministry of Environment & Forests or under the
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare.
3. This statute should not in any way take away from the Constitutional
authority that state governments have over their Agriculture and Health in the
Indian federal structure. However, the current Bill envisages only an advisory role
for the state governments in the form of “State Biotechnology Regulatory Advisory
Committees” with no decision-making powers. Worse, as per Section 87 (2), it asks for
a repealing of any law in force for the time being in any State corresponding to
this Act (including any licensing authority that the state government’s concerned
agencies might have under any other Law). Section 81 also expressly states that this Act
will have an over-riding effect (on other Acts). This is simply not acceptable on at
least two counts: this ignores the constitutional powers that state governments have
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,
Government of India by Kavitha Kuruganti, February 14, 2010
3
over their Agriculture & Health; it also ignores and could impinge on or override the
somewhat progressive legislations like Biological Diversity Act, with a mandate also to
conserve and sustainably use biological diversity.
4. The proposed legislation also makes modern biotechnology regulation into only a
technical risk assessment and risk management. It ignores the bottom line set out in
the Task Force report on Agri-Biotechnology and operationalising the same.
5. The legislation, instead of expressly having clauses on information disclosure,
that too before decision-making and independent or public scrutiny, has brought in
clauses on retaining Confidential Commercial Information. As past experience in
India has shown, this cannot be left to the discretion of the officials in the Authority and
all product development and biosafety-related information has to be pro-actively
disclosed and placed in the public domain before decision-making.
6. It is also important to operationalise in this statute some key principles, as
part of the regulations to be notified, that should be guiding decision-making
in this area: (a) Precautionary principle; (b) Inter-generational equity; (c)
Going in for the GM option only in case other alternatives are missing. This third
principle is what eminent molecular biologist and Supreme Court observer in the apex
regulatory authority right now had proposed too, as the first parameter for assessment
of a GMO. “ascertain after careful analysis of existing information (and, if need be,
relevant new information that could be generated within a short period) that there are no
alternatives to the GMO and that the GMO will, if it meets the stipulated requirements,
bring substantial benefit to the country and to one or more classes of its citizens. And if
the GMO is truly required, carry out rigorous risk assessment”. Dr Bhargava has then
gone on to lay down what such a risk assessment should consist of. Therefore, every
application has to be rejected or accepted based on this main parameter right at the
beginning.
7. Final decision-making, especially in the case of environmental release cannot be left to
technical experts alone. An alternate structure is proposed in Point 13 for this.
8. Chapter V: Risk assessment cannot be left to the proposed three Divisions, Risk
Assessment (and Enforcement Unit with its Monitoring Officers) and Products Ruling
Committee for a ‘science-based evaluation of the application’ whether it is for import or
manufacture or for any other purpose. As the Supreme Court observer had pointed out
time and again, there is a need for independent testing itself and independent testing
facilities. Risk assessment should therefore consist of an evaluation of the
biosafety dossier submitted by the crop/product developer including
mandatory independent, public scrutiny but also independent testing for
further verification of results. Any proposed Authority should have the testing
capabilities established for this.
9. Risk Management aspects have been neglected in the proposed legislation. It
is not enough to have an Enforcement Unit with empowered Monitoring Officers. There
should be clear clauses for reviewing of approvals and permissions, timebound
permissions in each case and clauses for revoking and cancellations of
approvals.
10. For some inexplicable reason, a Risk Assessment Unit is brought into the picture for
the applications pertaining to research, transport or import which is supposed to present
its “clear assessment” to the Authority and further, a Products Ruling Committee is
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,
Government of India by Kavitha Kuruganti, February 14, 2010
4
brought into the picture for manufacture or use of GMOs and products thereof, for
making recommendations to the Authority. This clearly assumes that import may not
pose much threat and this may not be the case for large scale imports or GMOs getting
imported (not just products thereof). There is no need for a Risk Assessment Unit and a
Products Ruling Committee separate from each other. There can be only one Risk
Assessment Unit and no Ruling should be allowed by anyone who is supposed to assess
and evaluate. This Unit is only required to place its assessment report and
recommendations.
11. It would be important to make a distinction for regulation of contained use
and deliberate environmental release. There should be a sequential mode of
regulation of any GMO, from contained use or containment to environment release, if at
all. The environmental release should be permitted ONLY after biosafety has been
conclusively established as per the Risk Assessment Unit.
12. The final decision on environmental releases of GMOs (manufacture and use)
should come from the Inter-Ministerial Products Ruling Committee – the inter-
ministerial body in the current proposals only has an advisory role. However, it should
have the final decision-making authority, along with the Chairperson of the Authority, the
three Chief Regulatory Officers who should head the three different Risk Assessment
Units. Decision-making has to be from a broad-based body which studies aspects beyond
technical biosafety too and should have an inter-ministerial composition for the obvious
reason that GMOs in our food and farming systems have implications beyond biosafety.
13. The following structure for the National Biosafety Protection Authority is
demanded – that all contained use applications be routinely processed by the 3-
member Authority (Chairperson PLUS two members), based on risk assessment and
independent testing wherever required by the concerned Division. The Enforcement Unit
with its Monitoring Officers also has a role during this phase.
However, for all deliberate environmental releases, especially pertaining to Division 1
(Agriculture, Fisheries, Animals and Forestry), such approvals may come only from the
Inter-Ministerial Product Rulings Committee, based on recommendations by the
concerned Division on proof of biosafety, after both science-based evaluation of the
applicant’s data as well as mandatory independent testing and through public
participation mechanisms in addition to consideration of other parameters that are to be
evaluated (beyond biosafety).
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,
Government of India by Kavitha Kuruganti, February 14, 2010
5
14. The proposed legislation has no clauses on public participation. The Cartagena Protocol
on Biosafety’s (under the Convention on Biological Diversity) Article 23.2 says that
‘Parties…shall consult the public in decision-making process regarding living modified
organisms…’ and India is a signatory to this. Any statute on this matter should
have systemic mechanisms built for public participation in decision-making
including having representatives from credible and committed farmers’ and consumers’
groups in the decision-making bodies, apart from larger public consultations.
15. Chapter XIII on Offences & Penalties: It is not clear who Section 61 related to False or
Misleading Information will be applicable to! Any person producing any document that is
known to be false or misleading, it says. If this is not specifically meant for applicants to
the National Biosafety Protection Authority, then this is to be construed as harassment of
the public! Similarly, Section (63) is completely objectionable and is meant to
harass civil society groups concerned about the application of this hazardous
technology. This clause says: Whoever, without any evidence or scientific record
misleads the public about safety of GMOs and products thereof shall be punished with
imprisonment and fine!
16. In fact, the liability clauses in this proposed legislation are very weak. To begin
with, there need not be any distinction made between companies, universities, society,
trust, government departments etc. The penal clauses should apply uniformly. Two, the
legislation should have express clauses on Redressal or Compensation and
Remediation or Cleaning up. The legislation should also have a clause that makes the
crop developer solely liable for any leakage, contamination and so on throughout every
stage of the product development cycle. Further, the penalty of one year imprisonment
and two lakh rupees fine is no deterrent and this should be made more rigorous.
17. Chapter VI pertains to provisions related to Import of Organisms and Products
thereof. Here, apart from authorization to detain imported packages suspected to contain
organisms and products thereof, there should be an express provision for
Importer’s Declaration & Certification at the time of import that the
Chairperson, National Biosafety Protection Authority PLUS 2 members
Inter-ministerial Products Ruling Committee
1. Division on Agriculture,
Forestry,
Animals & Fisheries
2. Division on Human &
Veterinary Health
3. Division on industrial &
environmental applications
Biotechnology Advisory Council
Risk Assessment Unit
Enforcement Unit
Risk Assessment
Unit
Enforcement Unit
Risk Assessment
Unit
Enforcement Unit
Independent testing
facilities
Response to the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill 2009 crafted by the Dept of Biotechnology,
Government of India by Kavitha Kuruganti, February 14, 2010
6
consignment does not contain any GMOs or products thereof, for every
consignment coming into India.
18. Provisions related to Biotech Regulatory Appellate Tribunal: As pointed out in
response to the 2008 draft NBRA Bill, to appeal within 30 days after a decision is made
by the Authority may not be possible for everyone and there is absolutely no reason why
this provision should be incorporated into Section 42 (1). This Tribunal should be more
broad based and consist of people beyond certain technical expertise. Further Section 55
(1) on Jurisdiction, Powers and Authority of the Appellate Tribunal where the Tribunal is
expected to have jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question related to
modern biotechnology is involved is not fair for the ongoing PILs on the issue. The
Appellate Tribunal should pick up cases which come in appeal to it only. Further, Section
55 (3) with its time bar of two years from the date of the cause of action for an appeal
on a substantial question is not to be allowed. There should be no time bar, for the
simple reason that some unpredictable effects might start showing up any time beyond
two years too.
19. Section 56’s clauses related to the Tribunal not being guided by Code of Civil Procedure
1908 but by principles of natural justice, not bound by the rules of evidence contained in
the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and its proceedings deemed to be judicial proceedings
under particular sections of Indian Penal Code and some Chapter of Criminal Procedure
Code have to be studied further by legal experts.
20. The amendments being proposed to the Food Safety & Standards Authority (FSSA) Act
2006, so that no provisions of this Act may apply to FSSA needs to be revisited,
especially given that the labeling regime comes under the FSSA and a narrow definition
of GM food under FSSA will leave out many GM foods from a labeling regime.
21. Under Chapter X on Notification of Laboratories, it is not at all acceptable that non-
accredited labs may also be notified “having regard to the emerging nature of modern
biotechnology and facilities and equipment in labs”. If it is such an emerging technology,
one just has to wait!
22. Welcome clauses in this proposed Bill: Restriction on employment after cessation of
office for different posts for at least two years from the Authority and its Tribunal etc.,
are welcome moves.
NEW BIOTECH REGULATOR BILL IS ANTI-PEOPLE , WILL STIFLE ANTI-GM VOICES
NEW BIOTECH REGULATOR BILL IS ANTI-PEOPLE , WILL STIFLE ANTI-GM VOICES:
“INDIA NEEDS A NATIONAL BIOSAFETY PROTECTION AUTHORITY”
Chandigarh, February 16, 2010: Terming the proposed Biotech Regulator Bill (Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill) as a wrong bill by the wrong people for the wrong reasons, several groups across the country called for the setting up of a National Biosafety Protection Authority.
The Supreme Court observer in Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Dr Pushpa Bhargava objected to the fact that the proposed Authority is to be housed under the Department of Biotechnology/Ministry of Science & Technology and said that this in itself is objectionable conflict of interest. “The latest version of the Biotech Regulator Bill in India seems to have draconian clauses to stifle anti-GM voices in the country and is designed to be a Clearing House for GMO applications rather than to protect the health and environment in the country. Further, modern biotechnology is a vast field comprising of more than thirty distinct areas including immuno-technology, stem cell technologies, nano-biotechnology etc., whereas this proposed Biotech Regulator appears to look at just Genetic Engineering. To call it a regulator for modern biotechnology is misleading and only shows the ignorance of the people who drafted this Bill”, pointed out Dr Bhargava, Founder-Director of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology.
There was serious objection to the inclusion of a Section in the proposed Bill which says “whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about safety of GMOs and products thereof shall be punished” with imprisonment and fine! “This is meant to harass civil society groups and scientists who are voicing their concern on this technology and who is to decide on “misleading”, on what basis?”, asked Dr Bhargava. Rather than penalize those who intend to release GMOs without conclusive safety proven, clauses like this are being inserted to harass concerned voices, he said.
“This Biotech Regulator Bill is being pushed by the Department of Biotechnology, a department with the mandate to promote GM crops. It is trying to take advantage of the current debate in the country around Bt Brinjal (a first-of-its-kind Genetically Modified vegetable with a bacterial gene in it) and push its own agenda in the form of this Bill. The nation-wide debate that Bt Brinjal initiated had actually shown the dire need for a regulator who Indians can trust to protect their health and environment – we need a National Biosafety Protection Authority and not another ‘facilitator’ for the industry. The wide-ranging people’s voices all over the country now show that any attempt to allow backdoor entry of Bt Brinjal or other GMOs through BRAI or some such institution will be resisted. The proposed statute also tries to stifle the legitimate authority of state governments over Agriculture and vests decision-making in the hands of just a few technical people whereas the issue of GMOs in our food and farming systems has many facets beyond the purely technical”, said Kavitha Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat Mission.
The Government of India was reminded that the 2004 Task Force Report on Agricultural Biotechnology had highlighted the need for the following in 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 draft Bill sought to be introduced.
Umendra Dutt of Alliance for GM-Free & Safe Foods, Punjab, said that the proposed legislation, instead of expressly having clauses on information disclosure, that too before decision-making takes place for independent/public scrutiny, has brought in clauses on retaining Confidential Commercial Information. As past experience in India has shown with the Right to Information struggle to bring out the biosafety data on Bt Brinjal, this cannot be left to the discretion of the officials in the Authority and all product development and biosafety-related information has to be pro-actively disclosed and placed in the public domain before decision-making.
On Risk Assessment procedures as laid down in the proposed legislation, it’s pointed out that ‘risk assessment should consist not only of an independent, scientific, transparent evaluation of the biosafety dossier submitted by the crop/product developer including mandatory public scrutiny but also independent testing for further verification of results. Any proposed Authority should have the testing capabilities established for this. Dr Bhargava has already submitted a blueprint for the setting up of such a laboratory and the government should proceed to implement this as part of the National Biosafety Protection Authority’.
A set of issues with the current Bill is annexed and it is hoped that Members of Parliament will ensure that a National Biosafety Protection Authority is set up soon in this country to ensure the sustainable development interests of all Indians.
“INDIA NEEDS A NATIONAL BIOSAFETY PROTECTION AUTHORITY”
Chandigarh, February 16, 2010: Terming the proposed Biotech Regulator Bill (Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill) as a wrong bill by the wrong people for the wrong reasons, several groups across the country called for the setting up of a National Biosafety Protection Authority.
The Supreme Court observer in Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Dr Pushpa Bhargava objected to the fact that the proposed Authority is to be housed under the Department of Biotechnology/Ministry of Science & Technology and said that this in itself is objectionable conflict of interest. “The latest version of the Biotech Regulator Bill in India seems to have draconian clauses to stifle anti-GM voices in the country and is designed to be a Clearing House for GMO applications rather than to protect the health and environment in the country. Further, modern biotechnology is a vast field comprising of more than thirty distinct areas including immuno-technology, stem cell technologies, nano-biotechnology etc., whereas this proposed Biotech Regulator appears to look at just Genetic Engineering. To call it a regulator for modern biotechnology is misleading and only shows the ignorance of the people who drafted this Bill”, pointed out Dr Bhargava, Founder-Director of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology.
There was serious objection to the inclusion of a Section in the proposed Bill which says “whoever, without any evidence or scientific record misleads the public about safety of GMOs and products thereof shall be punished” with imprisonment and fine! “This is meant to harass civil society groups and scientists who are voicing their concern on this technology and who is to decide on “misleading”, on what basis?”, asked Dr Bhargava. Rather than penalize those who intend to release GMOs without conclusive safety proven, clauses like this are being inserted to harass concerned voices, he said.
“This Biotech Regulator Bill is being pushed by the Department of Biotechnology, a department with the mandate to promote GM crops. It is trying to take advantage of the current debate in the country around Bt Brinjal (a first-of-its-kind Genetically Modified vegetable with a bacterial gene in it) and push its own agenda in the form of this Bill. The nation-wide debate that Bt Brinjal initiated had actually shown the dire need for a regulator who Indians can trust to protect their health and environment – we need a National Biosafety Protection Authority and not another ‘facilitator’ for the industry. The wide-ranging people’s voices all over the country now show that any attempt to allow backdoor entry of Bt Brinjal or other GMOs through BRAI or some such institution will be resisted. The proposed statute also tries to stifle the legitimate authority of state governments over Agriculture and vests decision-making in the hands of just a few technical people whereas the issue of GMOs in our food and farming systems has many facets beyond the purely technical”, said Kavitha Kuruganti of Kheti Virasat Mission.
The Government of India was reminded that the 2004 Task Force Report on Agricultural Biotechnology had highlighted the need for the following in 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 draft Bill sought to be introduced.
Umendra Dutt of Alliance for GM-Free & Safe Foods, Punjab, said that the proposed legislation, instead of expressly having clauses on information disclosure, that too before decision-making takes place for independent/public scrutiny, has brought in clauses on retaining Confidential Commercial Information. As past experience in India has shown with the Right to Information struggle to bring out the biosafety data on Bt Brinjal, this cannot be left to the discretion of the officials in the Authority and all product development and biosafety-related information has to be pro-actively disclosed and placed in the public domain before decision-making.
On Risk Assessment procedures as laid down in the proposed legislation, it’s pointed out that ‘risk assessment should consist not only of an independent, scientific, transparent evaluation of the biosafety dossier submitted by the crop/product developer including mandatory public scrutiny but also independent testing for further verification of results. Any proposed Authority should have the testing capabilities established for this. Dr Bhargava has already submitted a blueprint for the setting up of such a laboratory and the government should proceed to implement this as part of the National Biosafety Protection Authority’.
A set of issues with the current Bill is annexed and it is hoped that Members of Parliament will ensure that a National Biosafety Protection Authority is set up soon in this country to ensure the sustainable development interests of all Indians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)