No commercial release of GM Mustard crop sans nod, Centre to SC

The apex court had on October 7 restrained the commercial release of the crop for ten days

Press Trust of India  |  New Delhi  | October 25, 2016 Last Updated at 00:36 IST

The Centre, on Monday, told the Supreme Court that it would not commercially release Genetically Modified (GM) Mustard crop seeds without its permission.

Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi appearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur said if there would be any decision to go ahead with the field trials of the GM crop and for its commercial release, then it would first seek the apex court's permission.

"If we are to proceed with field trials of the GM crops or have to release it commercially, we will like to come back to the court for the permission," Rohatgi told the bench, also comprising Justices D Y Chandrachud and L Nageswara Rao.

The apex court has now posted the matter for further hearing after four weeks.

It had earlier extended the stay on the commercial release of GM Mustard crop till further orders.

The apex court had on October 7 restrained the commercial release of the crop for ten days, saying the stay would continue till the matter is heard next.

The court, at the last hearing, had asked the Centre to seek public opinion on such seeds before releasing it for cultivation purpose, even as government approval is awaited.

Mustard is one of India's most important winter crops which is sown between mid-October and late November.

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner Aruna Rodrigues, alleged that the government was sowing the seeds in various fields and said the bio-safety dossier has to be put on website, which has not been done yet.

Alleging that field trials were being carried out without doing the relevant tests, he sought had a 10-year moratorium on them. Bhushan said a Technical Expert Committee (TEC) report has also said that the entire regulatory system was in shambles and 10-year moratorium should be given.

Rodrigues had filed the plea seeking a stay on the commercial release of Genetically Modified (GM) Mustard crop and prohibition of its open field trials.

He had also urged the court to prohibit open field trials and commercial release of Herbicide Tolerant (HT) crops including HT Mustard DMH 11 and its parent lines/variants as recommended by the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) report.

It said the contamination caused by mustard HT DMH 11 and its HT parents would be "irremediable and irreversible". "The contamination of our seed stock and germ plasm as will happen with mustard HT DMH 11 and its HT parents will be irremediable and irreversible making our food toxic at the molecular level without recourse," it said.




SOURCE: http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/no-commercial-release-of-gm-mustard-crop-sans-nod-centre-to-sc-116102400811_1.html

Government warned of national stir if GM mustard approved

Mayank Aggarwal

First Published: Wed, Oct 26 2016. 01 58 AM IST

Nearly 150 organizations protested in Delhi, warning against govt’s approval of commercialization of the genetically modified mustard

GM mustard has been developed by Delhi University’s Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants. Photo: AF

New Delhi: Nearly 150 organizations from across India protested on Tuesday at Jantar Mantar in Delhi, warning the central government of a stir against it if it approves commercialization of genetically modified (GM) mustard.

GM mustard has been developed by Delhi University’s Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants. On 5 September, the genetic engineering appraisal committee (GEAC), which is India’s nodal regulator for GM crops, made public a safety assessment report prepared by one of its sub-committees which stated that GM mustard technology has been found to be “safe for food/feed and environment”.

The environment ministry invited comments from all stakeholders including public on the report till 5 October. A total of 759 comments were received which were sent to the sub-committee for further examination. Once the sub-committee submits its report, GEAC will take a final decision on whether to allow commercialization of GM mustard.

Environmentalists have, however, been against it and have also approached the Supreme Court where the central government on Monday said that it will not release GM mustard without the court’s nod.

The petitioners had alleged that “various counts of fraud and regulatory collusion in field trials” of GM mustard conducted over the years in multiple locations have made its commercial release a risky proposition.

The protest at Jantar Mantar saw the participation of organizations from across India, including 29 national-level organizations and alliances like Bhartiya Kisan Union, All India Kisan Sabha, Bhartiya Kisan Sangh, Swadeshi Jagran Manch, Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), Organic Farming Association of India, Confederation of Beekeeping Industry of India, Azadi Bachao Andolan, All-India Agricultural Workers’ Union, All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC), National Federation of Indian Women (NFIW) and National Right to Food Campaign.

The protestors were joined by leaders from political parties like Congress, Aam Aadmi Party, Janata Dal (United), Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Dravida Munnetra Kazagham (DMK) and Swaraj India Party.

Ratan Lal of Bhartiya Kisan Sangh said that the threat of GM crops is similar to the threat of East India Company which gradually colonized the entire country, and farmers should band together to stop GM crops.

Other farmer leaders like Hannan Molla and Vijoo Krishnan of All India Kisan Sabha, Rakesh Tikait from Bhartiya Kisan Union, Rampal Jat from Rajasthan and Badribhai from Gujarat declared that if the government doesn’t listen to farmers and stop GM mustard, they would step up the fight and take to the streets.

Bihar chief minister Nitish Kumar, in a video message played at the protest, said a big hoax is being played on farmers by bringing in GM crops.

GM crops have always been a contentious issue in India. The issue flared up a few years ago during Jairam Ramesh’s tenure as environment minister, when he had to put a moratorium on commercialization of Bt brinjal under pressure from non-governmental organizations and activists.

If GM mustard gets approval from the GEAC, it will become the first transgenic food crop to be commercially cultivated in India. At present, only GM cotton is cultivated in the country.

SOURCE : http://www.livemint.com/Politics/OsqFLHhNrae2kFk1bXEIVI/Government-warned-of-national-stir-if-GM-mustard-approved.html

Farmers fear the impact of genetically modified mustard

Members of Kisan Seva Committee hold a protest against commercial cultivation of genetically modified crops (From left to right in third photo) Gurmukh Singh from Gurdaspur, Beant Singh, Bathinda and Balwinder Singh from Bathindah Singh, Gurdaspur

NIKHIL M GHANEKAR | Wed, 26 Oct 2016-07:10am , New Delhi , DNA

Farmers fear the impact of genetically modified mustard

Gurmukh Singh, 52, from Batala in Gurdaspur owns 12 acres of land of which he grows Mustard on four acres. An organic farmer, he saves seeds from his produce for each sowing cycle. Like his fellow farmers in Batala and many others from different parts of Punjab, Singh is miffed with the Centre. The rush to appraise and clear commercial cultivation of the genetically modified (GM) Mustard has brought him to Jantar Mantar in Delhi on Tuesday, to join hundreds from across the country who are demanding that there should be no commercial cultivation of GM Mustard.

"What is this hurry for? We have never had a GM food crop in any field across the country and suddenly they (Centre) want to clear this (GM) Mustard crop. There is no guarantee that it will not harm pollination, honeybees or that it will ensure high yield," said Singh. Major farm unions such as Bharatiya Kisan Union, Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, All India Kisan Sabha and Swadeshi Jagran Manch had joined organizations such as Greenpeace India, Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture to reject the proposal to commercially cultivate GM Mustard.

The campaign is reminiscent of the one against Bt Brinjal, another genetically modified food crop that was eventually not cleared for commercial cultivation by the United Progressive Alliance.

The union environment ministry's lack of transparency in making crucial documents related to health impact of GM Mustard was another talking point among protesting farmers at Jantar Mantar. Beant Singh, 40, a Mustard farmer from Mehma Sarja, Bathinda said, "Farmers in Punjab were not even aware that confined field trials of GM Mustard were carried out in the state. If the Centre is so confident that the crop will not have any impact on human and animal health, why are they unwilling to make its bio-safety document public."

Farmers from Rajasthan, the country's top Mustard producing state said there was no way they would allow cultivation of GM Mustard even if the Centre clears it. "We have read and even seen that Bt Cotton farmers are now facing issues regarding pest attacks. Also, how will we save seeds if we start growing a hybrid crop," said Jagdish Sharma, from Morla, Tonk.

Farm union leader Rakesh Tikait of Bharatiya Kisan Union demanded a larger debate on the issue. "The way Centre wants to commercialize this is wrong. There is no discussion, no debate and no transparency. We will not let this happen. Centre should also begin labeling of imported GM products so that people are aware of GM products," Tikat told DNA.

Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) or GM Mustard was developed by Delhi University's Centre for Genetic Manipulation of Crop Plants with funding from National Dairy Development Board. It is currently being appraised by the environment ministry's Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee. The hybrid's research was headed by Dr.Deepak Pental, ex-vice-chancellor of Delhi University and director of the Centre for Genetic Manipulation. Pental has claimed that GM Mustard will increased yield by 20-25 per cent and reduce India's import dependency for edible oil.

Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh's affiliate Swadeshi Jagran Manch has staunchly opposed GM Mustard.

SOURCE : http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-gm-farmers-miffed-with-centre-2267440

Other environmental concerns apart, GM mustard could also send bees buzzing away

OPINIONS

The government, in its assessment of the transgenic crop, has not adequately looked at the impact it will have on bees, among the most important pollinators.

Wednesday, October 26th 2016

More than six years after a moratorium on Bt Brinjal halted the development of the transgenic vegetable, a sinister game is being played again.

This time, it is the mustard crop that is under the threat of being replaced by an ill-tested, gene-altered version, whose impact on the ecosystem remains unknown.

What primarily motivated the Ministry of Environment and Forest to impose the moratorium on Bt Brinjal was the lack of a suitable bio-safety and risk assessment mechanisms for genetically engineered crops in the country. Over the years, not much has changed on this front.

Why, then, is the government so keen on pressing ahead with the Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11, or DMH-11?

A scrutiny of the Assessment of Food and Environmental Safety document put together by the Ministry of Environment and Forest on the proposal for Authorisation of Environmental Release of Genetically Engineered Mustard (Brassica juncea) Hybrid DMH-11 reveals serious lacunae in the assessment protocols.

The alarming haste with which the government plans to introduce genetically modified mustard to Indian fields shows its sheer disregard for human and environmental concerns.

Impact on bees

Let’s take the case of bees. The yellow mustard flowers in full bloom are not only a treat for the eyes, they are a treat for bees as well, making them a favourite among beekeepers. But the importance of bees to the mustard plant has been completely and conveniently overlooked in the proposal for GM Mustard.

Bees play a crucial role in sustaining life on earth. However small they are, the buzz they create has a wide impact. The pollen grains they carry are responsible for the pollination of 75% of crops globally, including mustard. This is how new seeds are created and this has been nature’s way of striking a delicate balance. For India alone, the worth of insect pollination in important vegetable crops is $726 million.

The mustard crop has 10-20% dependency on bees for pollination, which leads to the creation of new seed sets. Thus, pollen flow from the genetically enhanced mustard is a major concern.

A decrease in pollinator populations can bring about a pollination deficit. This reflects on the health and subsequently, the population of pollinators around the fields. In other words, we need to know how DMH-11 can impact the health of pollinators. Is there an adequate bee population around the DMH-11 fields? Page 84 of the Assessment of Food and Environmental Safety document answers this in one line: "There was no reduction in bee visit."

Such statements indicate the degree of casualness with which the assessment seems to have been made. Our research (recent unpublished data) at the Centre for Pollination Studies, University of Calcutta, reveals for the first time in India that there is significant pollination deficit (when the actual pollination is less than the potential pollination) in conventional mustard grown in intensive agricultural areas where extensive agro-chemicals were used. This was because of the reduction in optimum pollinator population in the landscape that would have been essential for the formation of optimum seed sets in the mustard crop.

In 2005, a major study carried out by a group of American researchers led by Iora Morandin reported a high pollination deficit in genetically modified canola fields (B napus and B rapa) compared to the organic and conventional varieties. This study clearly outlined the effect agrochemicals (including herbicides) would have on pollination. While organic canola had no pollination deficit, the conventional canola (grown with agro-chemicals) had moderate pollination deficit.

In case of the DMH-11, no such pollination deficit study was carried out by comparing it to organic mustard, conventional mustard and the genetically modified hybrid – or even available non-genetically-modified hybrid mustard varieties – across seasons, years and locations.

Further, DMH-11 has been made resistant to a herbicide called gluphosinate, and if the genetically enhanced mustard is commercially released, the farmers are sure to use it generously on the crop. However, the impact of gluphosinate on honeybee health has not been looked at. This is a gaping hole in the assessment protocol.

This is all the more worrisome because very little information is available on the impact of gluphosinate on terrestrial (or aquatic) animals. So nobody really knows what impact the herbicide will have on the bees and other non-target organisms.

Glaring loopholes

As is apparent from the Assessment of Food and Environmental Safety document, although a pollen flow study was conducted for DMH-11, there was no such study conducted for the parent gene – barnase, which comes from soil bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens.

This gene causes male sterility in one parental line of the plant – suppressing its pollen production – and is therefore problematic if it escapes into the wild.

Moreover, the study has been carried out for a single season only, which is grossly inadequate. Such studies need to be carried out over several years. The studies on Bt Brinjal were also carried out over multiple seasons. The single-season study is a prime example of why the move to introduce DMH-11 is hasty.

The pollen flow study reported in the Assessment of Food and Environmental Safety document contains nothing about whether the extent and rate of outcrossing – whether the pollen grains from genetically enhanced mustard were carried by bees to other non-GM mustard varieties or closely-related plant species – was assessed at all.

It appears that the study protocol was limited by a plot distance of only 50 metres surrounding the outer boundary of genetically enhanced crop as specified in Page 85 of the Assessment of Food and Environmental Safety document.

The protocol of fixing the study radius to 50 m is similar to the one used by a group of British scientists led by Jodi Scheffler in 1993. This study was conducted on genetically engineered oil-seed rape (Brassica napus) involving European honey bees (Apismellifera) and the bumble bee (Bombusterrestris).

Although Apismellifera is found in India, the dominant honey bee species are Apiscerana (hive bee) and Apisdorsata (the Indian rock bee). The rock bee, which is larger and feistier than its European counterpart, can carry pollen grains to distances greater than 50m. Unfortunately, this possibility was conveniently forgotten.

Eco-friendly alternatives

The main reason for the aggression and haste in pushing genetically enhanced mustard seems to lie in the (independently unverified) claim that it will increase the yield of the plant by 30%.

But yield can be increased through other pollinator-friendly and eco-agricultural means.

In fact, even if DMH-11 has the potential to increase yield, the deficit in cross-pollination is likely to bring the overall output down.

Instead, yield can be increased by adopting a non-fatal pest-management systems and keeping semi-natural vegetation in the landscape. This technique could be tested on the nearly 12 improved varieties of mustard seeds, (for example, those developed in the Indian Agriculture Research Institute or the Coral 432 hybrid variety developed by Advanta).

In fact, these high-yield hybrid varieties of mustard were also overlooked while testing DMH-11 – no comparison study was carried out between DMH-11 and these varieties.

So the question then arises: do we really need genetically modified hybridisation in the first place?

This poor assessment mechanism was brought up by the environment ministry while imposing the moratorium on Bt Brinjal. The decision document of the ministry had said that “more well designed tests that are independently conducted and widely accepted” would be required before any decision on its release could be considered.

But the case with DMH-11 shows us that six years on, nothing has changed.

Dr Parthib Basu is the associate professor and HoD, Zoology, and Director of Centre for Pollination Studies, University of Calcutta

http://scroll.in/article/819579/other-environmental-concerns-apart-gm-mustard-could-also-send-bees-buzzing-away

Celebrating India’s Rural Women: 3 Inspiring Stories of Women Farmers Bringing About Change

 Sanchari Pal  

 October 15, 2016  

 Agriculture, Inspirational, Women

A ccording to the World Bank, rural women comprise 43 percent of the agricultural labour force that produces, processes and prepares much of the food available in the world. In recognition of the contribution of these women, the UN celebrates the International Day for Rural Women on October 15. This day recognizes the role of rural women, including indigenous women, in enhancing agricultural and rural development, improving food security and eradicating poverty.

With temperatures rising, weather patterns changing and climate-related disasters becoming more frequent, food security has become a major challenge across the world, and especially in India. As key players in the country’s agriculture sector and those in charge of ensuring adequate nutrition for families, rural women are at the centre of this challenge. A FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) report says that if women were given equal access to resources as men, agricultural yield could increase 2.5-4% in developing countries, enough to feed at least 100 million more undernourished people!

Empowering and investing in rural women is also pre-requisite to fulfilling the vision of the Sustainable Development Goals that aims to end poverty and hunger, protect the environment, improve health parameters and empower all women. This fact is reflected in the inspiring stories of women across the globe who have fought legal, social and cultural obstacles to bring about significant social and economical reforms in their communities.

In honour of the International Day of Rural Women 2016, here are three incredible stories of rural women farmers in India who are making a difference in their communities and inspiring others in the process.

1. Rita Kamila

A self-sufficient farmer who has achieved a sustainable source of livelihood in one of the world’s top climate change hotspots, the Sunderbans, Rita Kamila has worked almost single-handedly on her land to achieve the right mix of farming and animal husbandry.

Known locally as a model farmer, Rita has successfully transitioned her farm to organic over the past few years and now grows several varieties of food crops. Using the ecologically sound practices of integrated farming, she has incorporated livestock and fish culture into her farm. She has also installed a bio-digester plant that generates bio gas from farm waste such as livestock manure and fish waste. The biogas is used as cooking fuel and the residue is judiciously recycled to provide nutrients to crops. Rita’s thriving farm has ensured that her family has plenty to eat round the year and she gained the respect of her fellow farmers, who stop by her farm for peer-to-peer exchanges.

2. Atram Padma Bai

The elected Sarpanch of eight villages with more than 2,000 farmers, 37-year-old Padma Bai was a tribal Girijan farmer who only cultivated cotton, oil seeds and pulses on her three acre land. In 2013, she used a Rs. 30,000 loan from the Fairtrade Premiums Committee to launch a Hiring Centre for agricultural tools.

With the support of a Fairtrade India certified producer organisation, she invested in drudgery reducing farming tools such as pick-axes, sickle, spades, hoes and wheelbarrows. Her idea was to lend these tools to poor farmers in neighbouring villages who could not afford them, at a marginal rate, through her hiring centre.

Using the premiums, Padma Bai also set up a drudgery reduction unit, and constructed two concrete roads and a fair weather dry mud road. The hard working sarpanch has also managed to get government funds to make ponds for rainwater harvesting and install a water pump that will make clean water available in the village school.

3. Women Farmers of Medak

Women farmers of the Medak District of Telangana are teaching sustainable rain-fed farming techniques to peasants in the neighbouring Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. Representing the poorest of the poor in their village communities, these women farmers were once landless laborers, but today, thanks to the Deccan Development Society (DDS) village level women’s sanghams (voluntary farmer associations), these women have not only tackled their farming problems effectively but are also generating an additional income through innovative and eco-friendly ways.

Using traditional preservation techniques, these women preserve organic seeds that they barter with farmers in the region. Chandramma, who heads the Seed Bank at Pastapur, explains that they pick and keep the healthy grain in a mud container, layered with neem leaves, ash and dry grass. They then seal the whole box with mud, dry it and keep it at a secure space.

On their month-long seed bartering journey to 30 villages in the region, Chandramma and her fellow women farmers teacher other villagers how to follow organic farming methods and grow climate-resistant crops like traditional varieties of millets. Many of them have become filmmakers (they haven’t been to school!) who have produced documentaries on organic farming, seed sovereignty, bio-fertilisers and good farming practices that have been screened worldwide. They have also launched the Sangham community radio, the first-of-its-kind in India, which is another great initiative that educates farmers in a staggering 200 villages in the region.

There is no doubt about the power that women have in shaping and guiding sustainable development in rural areas. Today, many Indian women farmers are taking the lead in helping to find innovative and lasting solutions for many of the challenges which exist today. All of these women share one thing in common – a passionate and unwavering belief that through their innovative business approaches, they can change things for the better.

Rural communities thrive on the commitment and dedication of these women, and hence, it’s important to acknowledge the contributions of these unsung heroines. On this International Day for Rural Women, we tip our hat to these awesome rural women who are playing such important roles in their community.

SOURCE: http://www.thebetterindia.com/71745/india-women-farmers-international-day-of-rural-women/

OPINION : The battle over Bt cotton

While Monsanto and Indian seed companies spar, more worrying is the confused lawmaking underpinning regulation of patents

OPINION » COMMENT

October 4, 2016

Updated: October 4, 2016 02:34 IST 

• SHAMNAD BASHEER

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) breed controversy like no other. Little wonder then that Monsanto’s much-maligned Bt cotton has spawned the mother of all intellectual property (IP) disputes in India, involving at least 15 different proceedings in various courts, government agencies and tribunals at last count.

Most proceedings appear to have come at the behest of certain seed companies led by Nuziveedu. Its founder, Prabhakar Rao, is leaving no stone unturned to ensure that these seed majors beget a better deal than what they bargained for when they first contracted with Monsanto to licence its proprietary GM technology.

A recent controversy centres around which of the two IP regimes governs the dispute: the Patents Act or the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPVFRA). To me, this appears to be a false dichotomy and a red herring of sorts. Both these legislations apply and one does not necessarily trump the other. But first a word about the technological underpinnings of this dispute, so this point about co-existence can be appreciated better.

Monsanto and patent protection

Monsanto patented a number of components related to Bt cotton, a biotech invention involving the infusion of the Bt gene into the cotton genome. Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a bacteria whose genome codes for a protein that kills the bollworm, a pest that has perennially plagued the cotton plant. The patent does not cover the plant itself, as plants and animals are ineligible for patent protection in India, as are ordinary biological processes for creating them. However, microbiological processes (such as methods of creating transgenic varieties) and microorganisms (such as new and inventive transgenes and their constructs) are patentable under the terms of the Indian Patents Act, and Monsanto’s patents cover most of these components. It bears noting in this regard that Bt cotton technology was never static, but evolved over time to cater to the pest resistance that soon developed. While the technology pertaining to Bollgard-I was never patented in India (since this technology was discovered prior to India’s undertaking of Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or TRIPS commitments), Bollgard-II was, and it is this technology that is in dispute.

Using the patented technology, Monsanto created a host of donor Bt cotton seeds and distributed them to seed companies under specific agreements mandating the payment of royalties (trait fees), etc. Seed companies in turn used these donor seeds to introgress the desirable genetic trait (bollworm resistance) into their own specific hybrid varieties by backcrossing.

Monsanto’s patents cover various components of the technology embedded in the donor seeds handed out to seed companies (the new man-made transgene, the DNA construct and the method of creating the new cotton genome). Any seed company that uses this donor seed and creates a new plant variety is entitled to register such variety under the PPVFRA.

This new plant variety registration, however, does not extinguish Monsanto’s upsteam patent rights. Neither does the patent right override the plant variety protection. They co-exist. As such, seed companies cannot commercialise their hybrids without a patent licence from Monsanto, in much the same way that Monsanto cannot sell or distribute these hybrids without permission from the seed company. If Monsanto refuses to licence the seed companies, they can move for a compulsory licence (CL) under the Patents Act, provided they satisfy the terms of Section 84, which states that a CL could be granted if the patented invention is exorbitantly priced or not available in reasonable quantities to the public or is not being worked in the territory in India.

But this licence application has to be under the terms of the Patents Act, and not the PPVFRA. Given this clear-cut demarcation, one wonders what the legal fracas is all about!

Unless of course one were to invalidate Monsanto’s patent. If news reports are to be believed, there are pending invalidity proceedings before both the IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) as also the DIPP (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion).

At cross-purposes

The DIPP proceeding is a particularly interesting one, given that Section 66 of the Patents Act has been invoked, an exceptional provision that provides for revocation on grounds that the patent is “mischievous to the state or generally prejudicial to the public”. The key contention appears to be that the patent is no longer effective, given the pest resistance that developed over time. A ground not likely to pass muster with a court of law, given the rather high bar for invoking Section 66. Quite apart from the fact that it appears a tad bit paradoxical that while one wing of the government (the Ministry of Agriculture) has recently issued a draft notification qualifying GM technology as an industry “standard” that must mandatorily be licensed on FRAND (Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory) terms to as many seed companies as possible, another one (DIPP) insists that the technology is useless!

More surprising is the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, with no proven expertise or jurisdictional competence over patent issues, would go out on a limb and suggest (in an official draft notification no less) that Monsanto’s patents over upstream GM technology must necessarily yield to downstream plant variety rights.

Whatever be our personal predilections against GMOs, it is a matter of deep concern that government agencies appear to be flouting the rule of law with impunity. While there may be merit in regulating GMO patents, this must be done after following due processes under the law, through the relevant competent authority (such as the Patent Office), and not through abusive lawmaking designed to seemingly favour one set of stakeholders who are essentially engaged in a private commercial dispute.

More importantly, one wonders why the government chooses to concentrate all of its eggs in the Bt cotton basket. Particularly so when its own institutes contend that even Bollgard-II technology is soon succumbing to progressive pest resistance.

Shouldn’t our government be encouraging a diversity of approaches in Indian agriculture, entailing both GM technology and the more traditional processes that have stood the test of time? More so, when nature has taught us time and again that the best of technologies can never really match up to the wisdom of an innate evolutionary process.

In fact, if it wishes to be a bit radical, the government could even encourage what maverick scientists did in Assam recently, when they encouraged farmers to reimagine beetles (that destroyed crops) as protein-laden delicacies to be consumed with relish. And this leaves us with just one real question in the end: can the bollworm be barbecued?

Shamnad Basheer is Honorary Research Chair Professor of IP Law at Nirma University and founder of SpicyIP.

SOURCE : http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/the-battle-over-bt-cotton/article9180979.ece

NEWS: GM mustard may be stalled indefinitely

NEW DELHI, October 7, 2016

Updated: October 7, 2016 00:45 IST 

Jacob Koshy

SC will hear petition on Friday; comments invited by environment ministry have to be vetted

Even though transgenic mustard (GM mustard) may have been declared safe by a government sub-committee, it may yet remain in the can for an indefinite period.

On Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to hear a petition by anti-GMO (genetically modified organism) campaigner Aruna Rodrigues, who argues that the Centre’s preliminary clearance to GM mustard, named Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11), contravenes a 2013 report by a Supreme Court-appointed technical expert committee.

This committee had said, among other things, that herbicide-tolerant crops ought not be permitted in India. One of the genes in DMH-11, developed by researchers at the Delhi University under a publicly-funded project, contains a gene called ‘bar’ that confers herbicide tolerance. This makes plants resistant to a class of weedicide containing the chemical glufosinate. Critics say glufosinate is toxic and makes farmers dependent on certain brands of crop chemicals. “If the court sees merit in the argument, then this could indefinitely stall GM mustard,” said a government official closely involved in the GM mustard-appraisal process.

The Supreme Court is yet to pass an order on an older petition by Rodrigues on whether GM crops ought to be tested at all in India.

A sub-committee of the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) — India’s regulator of GM crops and an environment ministry body — said in August that DMH-11 was an effective hybrid and the ‘bar’ gene’s presence wouldn’t practically affect mustard farmers. They put up their report on the ministry website for public comments until October 5. “The process is ongoing... now we have to take a considered decision,” Environment Minister Anil Dave told The Hindu, adding “the sowing season is almost over... I don’t see it as being available this year.”

800 comments received

In a press statement on Thursday, the Environment Ministry said it had received about 800 comments from farmers, scientists and non-governmental organisations. The GEAC would now go through the comments, convene a full sitting of its members and pass a verdict, and this too will be vetted by the Environment Minister and possibly the Prime Minister’s Office, said a person familiar with the procedure.

Mustard is one of India’s most important winter crops and sown between mid-October and late November.

The technology involves using a complex set of genes, sourced from soil bacterium, which makes it easier for seed developers to develop hybrid varieties of mustard, generally a self-pollinating plant. The technology, its proponents aver, will contribute to increasing yields of such hybrids by 25 per cent when compared with existing varieties. Its detractors contend that the GM seeds so produced aren’t substantially better than existing mustard varieties, and that seed developers and biotechnology regulators have colluded to “push” GM mustard.

Agriculture is a State subject in India, which means that even if a central regulator were to deem a plant as ‘safe’, it would need to be cleared by State authorities.

SOURCE : http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/agriculture/gm-mustard-may-be-stalled-indefinitely/article9193663.ece

NEWS : Government looks to press ahead with GM mustard

TNN | Oct 13, 2016, 05.50 AM IST

NEW DELHI: The government will be guided by scientific evidence and "larger interests" of consumers and farmers in deciding commercial use of GM mustard even as it works to narrow the gap between opponents and supporters of the genetically engineered crops.

In keeping with its commitment to the Supreme Court that has stayed a decision on commercial release till October 17, the government is looking to reengage public opinion and non-government organisations. A sub-committee of the central biotech regulator Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) has, meanwhile, been examining the 800-odd stakeholders' comments it received during the 30-day period (September 5 October 5).

The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee will take its final call only af ter going through the subcommittee's report on stakeholders' comments. A plea claiming that the crop had no advantage over non-GM crops and was, in fact, likely to introduce contaminants is being heard by the SC.

Though the forthcoming Rabi season may be ruled out, the government is trying to tackle differences with anti-GM mustard groups that include the RSS-affiliated Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM). The SJM's decision to join hand with antiGM notables like Vandana Shiva, Kavitha Kuruganti and Aruna Rodrigues does pose a problem for the government but it intends to link its final decision to scientific reports and possible gains of the crop in terms of food security .

Consultations at the highest levels in government have concluded that the GM crop has benefits and it would help farmers as well as consumers and these are strong reasons to move ahead if safety issues are addressed. Though there might be some delay as the government re-engages anti-GM opinion, the direction seems to be in favour of commercial release. The previous UPA government took a different view of GM crops as it was more influenced by NGOs campaigning against genetically modified crops.The GEAC had in 2010 cleared Bt brinjal but the decision was not accepted by then environment minister Jairam Ramesh.

Swaraj Abhiyan leader Prashant Bhushan and others have challenged the release of GM mustard in the SC alleging that the regulatory mechanism was not functional and sought a ruling against Herbicide Tolerant (HT) crops including GM mustard (DMH 11) and its parent lines and variants.

Even if the Centre clears GM mustard, it will be up to states to decide whether to use the seed. But the goahead will mark a big step towards breaking the logjam and open the doors for commercial use for other food crops too.

The opponents of GM mustard have claimed that the technical committee's report was flawed and pointed to SC-appointed member of Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) Pushpa Bhargava's criticism that allowing commercial use would be disastrous as multinational organisations would take over Indian agriculture.

The government, however, feels the concerns are overstated and that scientific evidence would be the arbiter as GM crops can hold out the possibility of increased agriculture production and help reduce food deficits.

SOURCE : http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Government-looks-to-press-ahead-with-GM-mustard/articleshow/54822353.cms

EVENT : VANVADI VANUTSAV, Oct 11-16

VANVADI VANUTSAV, Oct 11-16

Vanvadi heartily welcomes you to join its annual Vanutsav from Oct 11, Dussera, to Oct 16, full moon. This year, we return to the theme of our first Vanutsav, a decade ago -- 'Sharing Creativity, Celebrating Community'. We also propose to revert to our old 'open agenda' format of participants volunteering specific activities, gatherings, workshops, ... without any predetermined agenda.

The REQUESTED CONTRIBUTION is Rs 600 per day for adults, and Rs 300 per day for children, inclusive of food and stay; but more or less are equally welcome! Whatever you contribute -- in cash, kind, work and goodwill -- will help Vanvadi continue its activities, and remain a delightful place for sharing inspiration!

Also, you could come for any number of days through the period 11th to 16th October. You could also consider making a day visit. Oct 11th is Dassera, and it would be lovely to celebrate together.

If you plan to attend, PLEASE EMAIL vanutsav@gmail.com with cc to Nikhil Anand <nikreader@gmail.com>, hormazd m <hormazdmehta@gmail.com>, Kapil Aggarwal <kapil@brosisco.in>, Sneha Shetty <sneha.harinarayan@gmail.com> so that we know how many people to expect, and can plan accordingly.

For all the sense of oneness and connection that the forest offers, there is very little phone and internet connectivity .. (Thus, most of our phones will be unreachable as we leave for vanvadi)

Vanvadi is a collective organic forest farm (more forest than farm) in the foothills of the Sahyadris, between Mumbai and Pune, about 100 km from Mumbai, and 10 km from Neral station. It aspires to evolve into an ecological forest village community. Presently, it offers accommodation (in newly build mud and brick house with a mezzanine floor, with a view of the stream) in a lovely natural environment, without grid electricity or piped water. Staying at Vanvadi is like a nature camping experience! If you would like to spend the night, please do bring along a sleeping bag or at least 2 sheets and a mat, as the nights may begin to get a little cold. Also, bring a torch, swim wear (there is a lovely rock pool), comfortable footwear. If it is convenient for you to bring a tent as well, please do so.

Consider bringing a musical instrument you play, or ingredients for any food item you would like to prepare for the community. Or seeds you have of any natural varieties of useful plants ... Or anything else you would like to share.

And please avoid bringing plastic packaged stuff, chemical products, ... that may pollute the soil or water. There will be healthier alternatives to toothpaste and soap, packaged stuff and computer screens :)

DIRECTIONS TO REACH VANVADI from Mumbai or Pune are provided here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oRhHFslrE9xibMEfQVGCqgPNz1eTwKTTkWcBXZHyscs/pub

Come Come and soak in the bliss of celebrating togetherness and festivity in the forest.... We trust you will find it an experience to cherish and remember!

Vanutsav team

PS: Please feel free to share this invite with any friends who may be interested. Thank You.

Introductory course in Natural Farming

Bhaskar Save Natural Farming Learning Centre

Course Duration: 6^th to 10^th November 2016

                        Participants are expected to reach Kalpavruksha by the evening of 5^th Nov’16

Language:       Hindi

Course fee:  Rs. 3500/- (out of which, Rs.1500/- is confirmation fee. It should be paid in advance to confirm a seat. Remaining Rs. 2000/- should be paid at Kalpavruksha while joining the course.

·         Fee includes food and accommodation, which is very simple.

·         Account details will be provided separately for those interested)

Things to carry: 

1. A small torch

2. A bed-sheet & a shawl/chuddar to cover body

3. Descent and comfortable clothes

4. Basic toiletry

5. Cap/ sweater according to season

6. Necessary medicines, if taking any

Address: Kalpavruksha, Coastal Highway, near Village Dehri, via Umbergaon Station, Dist. Valsad, Gujarat 396170, Phone: 0260-2995177

Website: www.bhaskarsavenftc.in | www.savesanghavi.com  

Contact Persons:

1)      Abhijay Save: Mobile- 09723531071, Email – abhijaysave@gmail.com

2)      Bharat Mansata: Mobile – 09967371183, Email – bharatmansata@yahoo.com