NEWS : Feel Free To Leave India, Says Government to Monsanto In GM Cotton Row

 Agencies | Last Updated: March 16, 2016 20:18 (IST)

profit.ndtv.com

 

US seed company Monsanto is welcome to leave India if it does not want to lower prices of genetically modified cotton seeds as directed by the government, a minister said on Wednesday, in a sign the rift between New Delhi and the firm is widening.

The comments come as the government expects to develop its own genetically modified (GM) cotton varieties early next year to end Monsanto's dominance; it controls over 90 per cent of cotton seed supply.

Sanjeev Kumar Balyan, Minister of State for Agriculture, told news agency Reuters that the government is trying to rectify what he called past mistakes that allowed a foreign company to dictate seed prices and stifled local crop research.

"It's now upon Monsanto to decide whether they want to accept this rate or not," Mr Balyan said. "If they don't find it feasible, then they are free to take a call. The greed (of charging) a premium has to end. We're not scared if Monsanto leaves the country, because our team of scientists are working to develop (an) indigenous variety of (GM) seeds," he said

The introduction of Monsanto's GM cotton seeds in 2002 helped turn India into the biggest producer of the fibre. Despite the gains GM cotton brought for more than 7 million cotton farmers in India, some of them and their associations have complained Monsanto overprices its products.

Under pressure to assist farmers hit by three straight crop failures due to bad weather, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government has imposed a cut of around 70 per cent in royalties that local firms pay Monsanto for its cotton technology. Monsanto has taken the government to court over the royalty.

India's anti-trust regulator is also investigating whether the company misused its near-monopoly to jack up rates. A Monsanto joint venture with a local company says it is confident the allegations will be proved groundless.

Monsato said in a statement this month it would have to reevaluate its India business, because it was difficult to bring in new technologies in an "environment where such arbitrary and innovation-stifling government interventions make it impossible to recoup research and development investments..."

A Monsanto spokesman declined to comment beyond the statement, but analysts said it was unlikely to withdraw from India lightly given the huge size of the market and its strategic importance now that China has bid to snap up the company's biggest rival, Syngenta, for $43 billion.

The emphasis on home-grown technology could be good news for a GM mustard variety developed by Indian scientists and being considered by the government.

A committee of government and independent experts will have their fifth meeting this year in April to evaluate trial results on what could be India's first lab-altered food crop.

Monsanto is also developing GM corn varieties to be sold in India if allowed, which analysts cite as another reason pulling out would be difficult.       

Story first published on: March 16, 2016 19:52 (IST)

 
SOURCE : http://profit.ndtv.com/news/corporates/article-feel-free-to-leave-india-says-government-to-monsanto-in-gm-cotton-row-1287871

Scientist who discovered that GMO’s cause tumors wins lawsuit

February 19, 2016      

A court has ruled that French Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini was correct when he concluded that GMO food, when fed to rats, caused serious health problems including tumors.

 March-against-monsanto.com reports:
Now, Prof. Séralini is in the news again – this time for winning a major court victory in a libel trial that represents the second court victory for Séralini and his team in less than a month.
On November 25, the High Court in Paris indicted Marc Fallous, the former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for “forgery” and the “use of forgery.” The details of the case have not been officially released.

But according to this article from the Séralini website, Fallous used or copied the signature of a scientist whose name was used, without his agreement, to argue that Séralini and his co-workers were wrong in their studies on Monsanto products, including GM corn.A sentencing for Fallous is expected in June 2016.

Second Court Victory Reached
This was the second such court victory for the professor’s team, following a November 6 victory in a defamation lawsuit over an article in the French Marianne magazine which categorized the Séralini team research as “scientific fraud”.
What few people realize about the original Séralini study on GMOs is that it was only retracted after a serious PR offensive from Monsanto and the Biotech industry, one that included the creation of a whole new position on the original Food and Toxicology journal: Associate Editor for Biotechnology.

The new position was actually filled by a former Monsanto employee who helped convince the journal’s author to retract the study.
Now more than 2 years later, these are the facts: Séralini and his team’s original study has been republished in a different peer-reviewed journal,Environmental Sciences Europe; they have won two key lawsuits against those who have attempted to ruin their reputations; and a recent peer-reviewed letter even asserted that Séralini and his team may have been right after all on their discovery showing tumors in lab rats fed GMOs.

In other words, the jury is still out on GMO safety to say the very least, just as countless independent scientists have warned, and Séralini’s study stands as yet another cause for concern with the ongoing GMO experiment. It also shows the lengths that the Biotech industry will go to in order to discredit any independent science that clashes with their own version of science.

SOURCE : http://jbanews.com/2016/02/19/scientist-who-discovered-that-gmos-cause-tumors-wins-lawsuit/

NEWS : Delhi HC sets stage for price controls on Bt cotton seeds

Last Modified: Sat, Feb 06 2016. 09 56 AM IST

Delhi HC declined to grant a stay moved against the govt’s decision on 27 Jan to set up a central price control panel which would regulate the Bt cotton seeds price

Sayantan Bera &Priyanka Mittal

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Friday cleared the way for the Union government to impose price controls on Bt cotton seeds by declining to stay its 27 January decision to set up a central price control committee.

The committee is tasked with regulating prices of Bt cotton seeds and payment of royalty to technology providers.

The court’s decision is a setback to Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Pvt. Ltd (MMBL), a joint venture between Mahyco and Monsanto, a global technology provider of genetically modified seeds.
The development pertains to a case where MMBL petitioned the court to quash certain provisions in the price control order, specifically those allowing the centre to determine trait or royalty fees.

The price control order was issued by the agriculture ministry on 7 December 2015 and the nine-member committee was set up as a consequence.

The central price control order aims to keep Bt cotton seed prices affordable for farmers and bring uniformity in prices across states.

Around eight million farmers grow cotton in India and the double gene Bt cotton technology supplied by MMBL accounts for 95% of the seed market.

MMBL supplies the genetically modified Bt cotton technology to 49 seed companies in India in exchange for a trait or royalty fee.

While refusing to grant a stay until 4 March, the date of the next hearing in the case, Justice Manmohan said that any further action by the government would be subject to future orders of the court.

MMBL counsel Sandeep Sethi told the court that the centre only had jurisdiction to fix seed prices and not the technology fee that seed companies pay to MMBL.

“While we do not have an objection with price regulation of cotton seeds, but it must be seen that under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, only the price of commodity—the cotton seed—can be regulated. The technology supplied by me (MMBL) is covered under the Patents Act, 1960, and cannot be fixed by the committee,” Sethi argued.

According to the order notifying the setting up of the committee, the price control committee will fix the maximum sale price of cotton seeds, including royalty fees and dealers’ margins before 31 March—ahead of the kharif season.

The first meeting of the committee is likely after 10 February, but by this month-end, after all stakeholders (such as seed associations, farmers and technology providers such as MMBL) submit their inputs, an official with the farm ministry said, requesting anonymity.

The centre earlier told the court (on 23 January) that the efficacy of the genetically modified Bt cotton to resist pest attacks has declined over the years and therefore, royalty or trait fees must also come down.

Besides, on 27 November, the centre wrote to antitrust regulator Competition Commission of India (CCI) to probe if MMBL, which licenses its patented Bollgard II technology to seed companies in India, abused its dominant position in the market.

Presently MMBL charges trait fees of Rs.163 and Rs.175 for Bollgard II Bt cotton seed packets (450 grams) that are sold to farmers (by different seed companies) at Rs.930 and Rs.1,100, respectively.
However, prominent cotton-growing states such as Maharashtra, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh have mandated trait fees be kept at Rs.20, Rs.50 and Rs.90, respectively.

“If they (the government) are interested in setting the price, then they should have first regulated the end price. That’s the one that concerns the farmers. Regulating technology fees should be the last resort,” said an intellectual property expert who did not want to be named.

“Once you regulate the end price, the other players will start renegotiating their prices. It has a huge economic impact. Setting the technology fee will always be arbitrary, which does not take into account the research and development cost of the technology,” the expert added.

“The trait value (royalty fees) comprises only about 1-2% of the total cost of cultivation for farmers in India whereas the benefits to farmers have been transformational,” MMBL told the Delhi high court on 29 January.

“In today’s hearing, the court heard our application requesting that the price control committee avoid interfering with private arrangements between MMBL and its licensees, and asked the centre to respond in the next 10 days,” said an MMBL spokesperson. “We repose complete faith in the courts and remain confident that the government will take into account views of all stakeholders in the spirit of comprehensive consultation and will revise the contentious clauses to encourage innovation in Indian agriculture.”

The case in the Delhi high court and CCI will determine the future of India’s intellectual property rights regime and, in the near term, how the forthcoming kharif season will play out for cotton growers across the country.

Shreeja Sen contributed to this story.

Sayantan Bera &Priyanka Mittal

SOURCE: http://www.livemint.com/Politics/wRfyEO4tnX65VSGqlCMR6J/Delhi-HC-sets-stage-for-price-controls-on-Bt-cotton-seeds.html

Seralini’s team wins defamation and forgery court cases on GMO and pesticide research

On 25 November 2015, the High Court of Paris indicted Marc Fellous, former chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, for “forgery” and “the use of forgery”, in a libel trial that he lost to Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini. The Biomolecular Engineering Commission has authorised many GM crops for consumption.
The details of the case have not yet been publicly released but a source close to the case told GMWatch that Fellous had used or copied the signature of a scientist without his agreement to argue that Séralini and his co-researchers were wrong in their reassessment of Monsanto studies.

The Séralini team’s re-assessment reported finding signs of toxicity in the raw data from Monsanto’s own rat feeding studies with GM maize.  

The sentence against Fellous has not yet been passed and is expected in June 2016.

Defamation case

The latest ruling marks a second court victory for Séralini’s team.

In September 2012, an article written by Jean-Claude Jaillette in Marianne magazine said that “researchers around the world” had voiced “harsh words” about the research of Séralini and his team on the toxic effects of a GMO and Roundup over a long term period – research that was supported by the independent organisation CRIIGEN. The journalist wrote of a “scientific fraud in which the methodology served to reinforce pre-determined results”.

Séralini, his team, and CRIIGEN challenged this allegation in a defamation lawsuit. They were assisted by the notaries Bernard Dartevelle and Cindy Gay.

On 6 November 2015, after a criminal investigation lasting three years, the 17th Criminal Chamber of the High Court of Paris passed sentence. Marianne magazine and its journalist were fined for public defamation of a public official and public defamation of the researchers and of CRIIGEN, which is chaired by Dr Joel Spiroux de Vendômois.

The trial demonstrated that the original author of the fraud accusation, prior to Marianne, was the American lobbyist Henry I. Miller in Forbes magazine.

Miller had previously lobbied to discredit research linking tobacco to cancer and heart disease on behalf of the tobacco industry. Since then he has tried to do the same in support of GMOs and pesticides, through defamation.

The long-term toxicity study by Séralini’s team was republished after the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology retracted it under pressure from lobbyists. Séralini’s team has just published a summary of the toxic effects of Roundup below regulatory thresholds.

Appeal for funding for CRIIGEN

These court actions have taken up an enormous amount of energy and funds. CRIIGEN cannot survive without public support.

This is why the CRIIGEN team is making a call for donations to support past and future legal cases and independent research:
https://www.leetchi.com/c/solidarite-de-le-criigen–association-du-pr-seralini

SOURCE : http://www.gmoseralini.org/seralinis-team-wins-defamation-and-forgery-court-cases-on-gmo-and-pesticide-research/

NEWS: Chief Justice HL Dattu calls GM crops dangerous global experiment

ET Bureau Mar 16, 2015, 04.35AM IST

NEW DELHI: Chief Justice HL Dattu has called for exercising caution while deciding on the future course of action on genetically modified (GM) crops. Speaking at an international conference on environmental issues, he described GM crops as "harmful for human consumption but also for environment".

The Supreme Court is hearing a long-pending public interest litigation opposing GM crops in India. Last year, a bench headed by Justice Dattu refused to give an interim moratorium on field trials of GM crops, saying that all reports had to be discussed.

"Once released, the GM crops cannot be recalled. GM is a dangerous global experiment," the CJI told the conference, 'Global Environment Issues', on Saturday. The two-day event was organised by the National Green Tribunal, in association with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Indian Law Institute and Ficci.

The comments were part of the Chief Justice's elaboration on how environmental protection requires a legal language which is capable of incorporating technical specifications while balancing socio-economic rights as well as protecting bio-diversity. "Indian judiciary", he said is "striving hard to hold at bay the demons of environmental degradation from swallowing its citizenry".

His comments on GM crops come in the backdrop of a recent decision by the Maharashtra government to allow five strains of genetically modified crops for field trials. In July, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the statutory body charged with evaluating and permitting field trials and commercial introduction of transgenic crops, had given the go-ahead for field trials for 15 crops. At a recent meeting, the GEAC took up also another clutch of proposals for field trials.
While the statutory body can give its approval, field trials can go ahead only after the state government concerned gives a no-objection certificate. States like Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Chhattisgarh have denied permission for field trials of genetically modified crops.

The environment ministry, which houses the GEAC, had said that there was no ban on field trials, by either the government or the Supreme Court.

The ruling BJP's position on GM crops has been that there is a need for proper scientific assessment of the impact of these crops on human health, environment, and agriculture. Environment minister Prakash Javadekar has maintained that the field trials for GM crops are part of this assessment effort. It is argued that the field trials will generate bio-safety data, and all precautions would be taken to confine the trials.

On the PIL, a technical committee, comprising biotechnology experts and scientists appointed by the court, had called for an indefinite moratorium on field trials till the deficiencies in the regulatory and safety systems are effectively addressed. A separate report by RS Paroda, former director-general of the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, who had been inducted into the expert committee at the government's request, argues that field trials should be allowed.

SOURCE : http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-03-16/news/60174760_1_field-trials-gm-crops-transgenic-crops

Brazilian farmers demand Monsanto refund their money for GMO crops that don't work

Published time: July 30, 2014 20:53

Brazilian farmers are asking Monsanto and other producers of pest-resistant corn seeds to reimburse them for money spent on additional pesticides when the bugs killed the crops instead of dying themselves.

The so-called BT corn seeds are genetically modified to produce an insecticide that will kill the corn leafworm (also known as the southern grassworm). After the insect eats the corn, the toxin inside paralyzes the insect’s digestive system, forming a hole in the gut wall. This forces the bug to stop eating within a few hours, and subsequently starve to death, according to a Colorado State University fact sheet. The GMO seeds are produced by four major manufacturers: Dow Agrosciences, DuPont, Monsanto and Sygenta AG.

In Brazil, however, the farmers say that the seeds did not deliver as promised.

"The caterpillars should die if they eat the corn, but since they didn't die this year producers had to spend on average 120 reais ($54) per hectare ... at a time that corn prices are terrible," Ricardo Tomczyk, president of Aprosoja farm lobby in Mato Grosso state, said in a statement.

The farmers, who are represented by Association of Soybean and Corn Producers of the Mato Grosso region (Aprosoja-MT) in their battle against the agricultural giants, had to spray up to three coats of additional pesticides after the scourge remained.

But Monsanto and the other seed companies are blaming the farmers, saying they warned them to plant the GMO seeds alongside conventional seeds to prevent bugs from mutating and developing resistance to the toxic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) protein that makes the pesticide effective.

The same mutation and resistance occurred in the US, beginning in 2009. Researchers, led by Aaron Gassmann, an entomologist at Iowa State University, found that GMO corn ‒ specifically two of the three types of Bt corn ‒ is no longer as efficient at killing the bugs. The resistance arose quickly, due to some extent, to farmers avoiding the simple, but profit-cutting precaution of crop rotation. The scientists published their paper online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in March.

image from TestBiotech.org

Large-scale farming in the bug-ridden tropics has always been a challenge, Reuters reported. In Brazil, the dependence on the GMO seeds have left the agricultural industry vulnerable to pest outbreaks and increasingly reliant on the use of toxic chemicals to battle them. Tomczyk, speaking on behalf of the farmers, said that farming with conventional seeds is not a viable option for those Aprosoja-MT represents.

"There are barely any non-GMO seeds available ... it is very uncomfortable that the companies are blaming the farmers," Tomczyk said. It doesn’t help that the four agro companies didn’t give clear instructions to the farmers, he added. Aprosoja hopes to reach a negotiated agreement with the seed companies, but if all else fails farmers may sue to get reparations for pesticide costs, according to Tomczyk.

“Monsanto, et al are unlikely to accommodate the farmers,” according to an article by CommonDreams.org. Instead, their response is likely to be further seed modifications and increased use of pesticides that these companies also produce, regardless of environmental or financial impact..

“Industry tries to tackle this issue by commercialization of so called ‘stacked events’ that produce several different Bt toxins,”GM Watch wrote. “The best known example is Monsanto's SmartStax maize that produces six different Bt toxins.”

Previously, 5 million Brazilian soybean farmers sued US-based Monsanto, claiming the genetic-engineering company was collecting royalties on crops it unfairly claims as its own. In 2012, the Brazilian court ruled in favor of the Brazilian farmers, saying Monsanto owes them at least US $2 billion paid since 2004. The biotech giant promised to appeal, and reached an agreement with the farmers last August to end the litigation, Reuters reported at the time.

In exchange for dropping the suit, Monsanto agreed to lower the price on a new type of genetically modified soybean ‒ not the older RR1 version the case was based on ‒ that the farmers were encouraged to purchase and plant in eight percent of Brazilian fields. Aprosoja represented the plaintiffs in that case as well.

But in October, a judge in that country blocked Monsanto’s attempt to make farmers sign restrictive agreements before being able to purchase the new RR2 Intacta soybean seeds. In December, the soybean farmers again sued the GMO company for about US $1 billion for illegally collecting royalties on the old RR1 seeds and forcing the Brazilians to sign “abusive” purchase contracts for the new ones, according to Sustainable Pulse.

Brazil is harvesting its second of two annual corn crops and expects to produce 78 million tonnes this crop year, slightly less than last season's record. Domestic prices recently fell to their lowest in four years because of abundant supplies, Reuters reported.

SOURCE: http://rt.com/usa/176836-brazil-farmers-gmo-refund/

Farmers fight landmark Oz GMO case

February 9 2014 at 11:49am
By Jane Wardell and Colin Packham

Two neighbouring farmers, a field of canola, and a gust of wind are at the centre of a landmark court case in Australia that could have consequences for the controversial growing of genetically modified crops in the country.

Steve Marsh is suing former childhood friend Michael Baxter after harvested seed heads from Baxter's genetically modified canola crop blew onto Marsh's farm in the state of Western Australia, court documents said, contaminating land used for his organic oat and wheat crops.

Marsh, stripped of his organic certification and export licence for his oats, is claiming unspecified damages for loss of income in the civil negligence case, which opens on Monday in the West Australian Supreme Court.

It is the first time in Australia one farmer has sued another for negligence over contamination of organic crops by genetically modified organisms (GMO) and will set a precedent for future cases, lawyers said.

The case also illustrates the challenge Australia faces developing its agribusiness sector as it looks to become a “food bowl” for Asia amid rapidly growing demand for everything from grains to beef.

“People around the world are going to be looking at this,” said Michael Blakeney, a law professor at the University of Western Australia who does advisory work for the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. “It is testing whether a GMO farmer has a duty of care to a neighbour that's growing organic crops not to contaminate them.”

Baxter's lawyer, Brian Bradley, declined to comment ahead of the trial, which is expected to last three weeks. Marsh and Baxter both declined to speak to Reuters. The former friends have not spoken to each other since the row erupted, local media have reported.

Baxter bought the seeds from Monsanto Co, the world's largest seed company.

After getting legal advice, Marsh opted not to sue the U.S. firm because of a non-liability contract Monsanto signs with all farmers who buy its seeds, said Scott Kinnear, director of the Safe Food Foundation, an organic farming advocacy group collecting donations to help fund Marsh's suit.

The case is likely to lead to regulations outlining boundaries between farms producing genetically modified crops and organic farms, lawyers and agribusiness experts said, potentially reducing the land available for cultivation. It could also change Australia's unique zero tolerance status for contamination of organic crops, they said.

Unlike the United States, the European Union and Japan, which allow trace amounts of GMO in organic foods in acknowledgement of contamination by wind or pollen transfer, Australia maintains a zero threshold.

“If the organic people don't win the case, there will be a lot of pressure brought to bear for a change to the organic standard and that might remove some of the difficulties of co-existence,” said Joe Lederman, managing principal at FoodLegal, a Melbourne law firm specialising in food and agribusiness, which has represented both businesses and farmers in the past.

Kojonup, a wheat and sheep district some 250 km (156 miles) south of the West Australia state capital Perth, is a quiet, tight-knit community of farmers.

But the case brought by Marsh, 49, is splitting loyalties in the pastoral area where many farmers have turned to cutting-edge GMO production.

GMO critics say the spread of genetically modified crops hurts the environment, most notably by fostering herbicide-resistant weeds, and that food made with the crops can harm humans. Proponents say the crops are proven safe and that the proper use of the chemicals associated with the crops by farmers can mitigate environmental problems.

Marsh's decision to sue Baxter, 48, has garnered support from celebrity chefs and gardeners. Law firm Slater and Gordon is working pro bono, on the basis the case has broad public interest.

“We believe it's his right to be able to farm GM-free and have a degree of protection,” said Kinnear, whose Melbourne-based group is collecting money for Marsh's other expenses, such as payments to experts and travel costs.

Marsh's lawsuit alleges that harvested seed heads from Monsanto's laboratory-created Roundup Ready canola seed blew from Baxter's property across a dirt lane and over a boundary fence in November 2010, re-germinating on Marsh's land in January 2011.

Canola is grown for its seed, which is crushed for the oil used in margarine, cooking oils, salad oils, and edible oil blends.

After an inspection by the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA), a certifying agency for the government-backed regulator Standards Australia, Marsh lost organic status for produce from 70 percent of his farm.

In the other corner, the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia is giving financial support to Baxter.

“This is nothing more than anti-GM publicity,” said PGA Western Graingrowers chairman John Snooke, who is also acting as a spokesman for Baxter. “Michael and PGA of Western Australia both believe in the farmers right to choose what he grows.”

An interim ruling from the Supreme Court allowed Baxter to go ahead with his 2013 GMO canola crop, provided he harvest by a more direct method than the so-called swathing that led to the alleged contamination.

Monsanto declined to comment on whether it was giving financial assistance to Baxter for the legal action, an accusation leveled by Marsh's supporters, saying only it was not a party to the case.

Its non-liability contracts were made to “ensure that growers comply with the agreed use of our products, industry stewardship standards and regulatory requirements”, Adam Blight, a Monsanto spokesman in Australia, said by email.

Monsanto was not making any preparations in light of the possible outcomes of the case, he said.

“This is a regrettable situation and it has been a difficult case for the farmers and communities involved,” Blight added.

Organic farmers see the threat from the hearing on two fronts.

In the event Standards Australia does not change its zero tolerance policy, farmers risk losing organic certification due to contamination, particularly as GMO production increases.

Alternatively, an easing of the policy would result in Australia losing its position on world markets as a strict organic producer as demand for GMO-free food increases around the world, particularly in Asia.

Demand for safe and nutritious food is forecast to soar across Asia over the next five years, with consumer spending predicted by the Economist Intelligence Unit to rise to $3.7 trillion from $2.8 trillion in 2012.

Yet laws governing GMO production and contamination are opaque, varying from Australian state to state and crop to crop.

Confusing matters further, there are no regulations on buffer zones between GMO and organic crops, with Standards Australia recommending a minimum of 15 metres, compared with the 5 metre minimum recommended by Monsanto.

Lederman from FoodLegal said the case was likely to result in more formal and homogenous regulations on buffer zones.

In the United States, where more biotech crops are grown than anywhere else in the world, rising cases of contamination by GMO crops led the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association to last week issue new guidelines and protective practices for organic growers.

Those cases have centered around the issue of intellectual property and involved Monsanto directly, rather than the farmer vs farmer negligence issue in the Australian case.

Monsanto has routinely sued U.S. farmers who it says intentionally plant its biotech seeds without paying for the technology.

As those cases have increased in number, the U.S. organic association sought pre-emptive protection for farmers whose fields were inadvertently contaminated with crops containing the company's genetic modifications.

But legal action by the association to try to force Monsanto to issue a “blanket covenant” to promise not to sue for inadvertent contamination was rejected last month by the U.S. Supreme Court, allowing the company to continue to bring lawsuits on a case-by-case basis.

Source: http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/farmers-fight-landmark-oz-gmo-case-1.1644154#.UvfV_mKSza1

Science not clear yet on GM crops: Jaipal Reddy

Press Trust of India

October 29, 2012
New Delhi: Newly-appointed Science and Technology Minister S Jaipal Reddy today said science was not clear yet on the issue of GM crops and it should not be treated as an ideological issue.

"I think the problem of GM crops is under discussion at the global level. Scientific consensus has not finally emerged. Debate is on at a global level. Science is not clear yet," he told reporters here.

He said a panel of experts appointed by the Supreme Court had submitted an interim report on GM crops to the apex court recently.

"I don't think it should be treated as an ideological issue but as a scientific issue... The ministry requires more time to study the interim report," Reddy said, adding that he was not in a position to give a final view on an interim report.

His remarks come in the wake of a statement earlier this month by Scientific Advisory Committee to the Prime Minister, headed by eminent scientist C N R Rao, favouring introduction of GM crops.

The science panel had argued that technology had potential to transform Indian agriculture.

The SAC-PM had underscored the need to improve the regulatory structure on genetically modified farm produce.

Reddy said Indian science was at an advanced stage to engage and participate in the global debate on the issue.

A raging debate is on within and outside the Supreme Court on the safety and efficacy of GM crops with scientists pitted in favour and against transgenic food.

Anti-GM crops activists have launched a shrill campaign to push for a ban on genetically modified crops and the issue is before the Supreme Court.

SOURCE : http://www.business-standard.com/generalnews/news/science-not-clear-yetgm-crops-jaipal-reddy/73893/