ESG press release on Bt Brinjal moratorium

I’m delighted by Mr. Jairam Ramesh’s moratorium on the commercial utilisation of Bt Brinjal. The public consultations held on the issue establish a valuable precedent in democratic accountability that one hopes will be Mr. Ramesh’s most enduring legacy. Towards the end of a well reasoned, carefully worded order, he summarises his reasons:

Based on all the information presented in the preceding paragraphs and when there is no clear consensus within the scientific community itself, when there is so much opposition from the state governments, when responsible civil society organisations and eminent scientists have raised many serious questions that have not been answered satisfactorily, when the public sentiment is negative and when Bt-brinjal will be the very first genetically modified vegetable to be introduced anywhere in the world and when there is no over-riding urgency to introduce it here,

it is my duty to adopt a cautious. precautionary principle-based approach and impose a moratorium on the release of Bt-brinjal. till such time independent scientific studies establish. to the satisfaction of both the public and professionals. the safety of the product from the point of view of its long-term impact on human health and environment. including the rich genetic wealth existing in brinial in our country.

I’m republishing the Environment Support Group‘s Press release on the environment ministry’s moratorium on the commercialisation of Bt Brinjal. The notice raises some critical issues about the Bt Brinjal debate that I think are important not to lose sight of.

Environment Minister’s Decision on Bt Brijal Welcome, Scientifically Sound, but Sketchy and Legally Weak

Press Release: 10 February, 2010 : Bangalore
The decision of the Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests (I/C), Mr. Jairam Ramesh, to place a moratorium on the clearance accorded by Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), to the environmental release of the Bt brinjal variety developed by M/s Mahyco (an Indian seed company with substantial investment from US multinational, Monsanto) is without doubt an historic decision that is a triumph for public opinion and rational decision-making. We acknowledge the unprecedented action of Mr. Ramesh in undertaking an arduous process of public consultations across India in arriving at this conclusion.

The decision is based primarily on the opinion of scientists, various state governments, and the general public, that not enough is known about the environmental, economic, and health risks involved in introducing GMO foods in India. The Precautionary Principle is invoked, in particular based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the State of Andhra Pradesh vs. M.V. Nayudu and ors., and also the ongoing litigation in the Hon’ble Supreme Court about the absolute lack of safeguards in current clearance mechanisms on Genetic Engineering.

A significant limitation of this decision is that while arguing in favor of the wider public interest, based entirely on the Precautionary Principle, the Minister has unnecessarily decided that he does “not propose to do a post-mortem on the way the GEAC has functioned”, even as he admits that “(i)t is incumbent upon us as an accountable and transparent administration to respond to these concerns in a serious manner.”

This raises a whole series of issues why Mr. Jairam Ramesh is willing to submit his decision to scientific opinion and public opinion, but not to the basic question of whether the approval granted by GEAC met with the standards of public accountability and administration and also statutory compliance as required by law. Also not addressed is the issue of contamination of Certified Organic Produce, as well as the gaps that exist in regulating their safety and security of livelihoods and status of Organic Farmers.

The annexures to the Environment Minister’s report confirm that issues have been raised relating to the very legality of the research undertaken by M/s Mahyco in collaboration with the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Dharwad, and M/s Sathguru (a front company of USAID and Cornell University, USA). These concerns primarily addressed the fundamental violation of the Biological Diversity Act of India, 2002, which is a representation of India’s commitment to fully and meaningfully implement the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Rio Declaration, and the Cartagena Protocol.

The particular issue raised was that when the research project was initiated, admittedly on the voluntary initiative of UAS, Dharwad, the guidelines under the BD Act to monitor such an international collaborative effort involving transfer of local biodiversity, import of transgenic material, and commercialisation of the product did not exist, as required under Sec. 5 of the Act. It was the mandatory obligation on the part of the collaborative partners and also the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) to not have initiated this research project until such time the Guidelines were formulated or the Central Government took the precautionary measure of singularly approving this project, based on the need for abundant caution given the risks involved. Consequently, since the research project involved a company with substantial foreign involvement (that too, of three US institutions), the project was clearly required to be approved under Sec. 3 and 4 of the BD Act, even if in retrospect. (Accessible at http://moef.nic.in)

Six popular and traditional varieties of brinjal grown in Karnataka were involved in the experimentation, and thereby the approval of the Karnataka Government and the State Biodiversity Board was mandatory as per the BD Act. It is an incontrovertible fact that none of the contracting parties to this research project ever approached the Central or State governments, and also the local Biodiversity Management Committee, as required per the Act, to collect local varieties of brinjal for experimentation and commercial production using GMO technology. This fact was highlighted in the Bangalore consultation and has not at all been addressed by the Minister in his report. In fact, the issue was also addressed as an open-door policy facilitating biopiracy and undermining the due right of the local people and the State in being a part of this decision.

Another serious matter that concerns us is the fact that the Minister, in acknowledging the monopolistic possibility of “Monsanto controlling our food chain if Bt brinjal is approved”, based on the wider experience of the monopolisation of the Bt cotton seeds, states “it would not be an exaggeration to say that public concerns about Bt brinjal have been influenced very heavily by perceptions of Monsanto itself.” Such articulation clearly gives Monsanto and Mahyco an unnecessary privilege to claim that they are being discriminated against, while allowing local universities to continue their research on Bt brinjal for the market. On the other hand, the reports from all states and general public have categorically rejected all Bt brinjals and other GM foods, irrespective of nature of the promoters. It is a fact that the same GEAC which approved Mahyco’s product is also monitoring all other research on GMO under the very same unscientific and legally weak norms.

This brings us to the issue that the Minister is also administrator in charge of the effective implementation of the BD Act and its implications to GMO and other matters such as “normally traded commodities”. In the first footnote of the Minister’s report (p. 2), it is claimed that “a wholly unjustified controversy was generated by two individuals at the Bangalore consultations … by their claim that a Gazette Notification of October … 2009, exempting trade in 190 agricultural commodities from the ambit of Sec. 40 of Biological Diversity Act 2002 made these Bt brinjal consultations a sham.” The Minister goes on to justify that this has nothing to do with genetic engineering issues on hand and that the species listed in the Notification “are used as bioresources, permission of National Biodiversity Authority is still needed as export takes place.” This is a wholly incorrect representation of the concern raised. The undersigned being those who also raised this concern had unequivocally stated that the 190 plants listed completely lost protection under the BD Act as stated in the deliberately inadequate Preamble of the Notification. It was also raised that this list was prepared intransparently, based on exclusive interaction with industry and some Ministry officials, and not one State Biological Diversity Board or Biodiversity Protection Committee was ever consulted in the formulation of this list, as required under the Act. Besides the fact that brinjal figures in the list, what is more alarming is that many of our endemic and endangered species with high religious, cultural, environmental, and medicinal value are now without any protection under the BD Act. It is a fact that several of these 190 plant species are not normally traded commodities, which raises a deep suspicion over the process, content and timing of the Notification. It is truly unfortunate that the Minister has sidestepped this key issue, and even attempted to silence such concerns. (The Notification dated 26 October 2009 is accessible at http://www.nbaindia.org)

All things considered, India has truly taken an historic step in saying “no” to Bt brinjal, and we hope that the people of India, through their representatives in the local governments, state legislatures, and parliament will demand a thorough review of the existing statutory processes relating to our biological diversity and also on GMO, and ensure public interest of present and future generations is not compromised in any manner whatsoever.

Leo F. Saldanha,	Bhargavi S. Rao	Vivek CariappaMember, Organic Farming Mission, Govt. of Karnataka	Juli Cariappa
Environment Support Group,1572, 36th Cross, Ring Road,Banashankari II Stage,Bangalore 560085.Tel: 91-80-26713559-61, Email: bhargavi@esgindia.org / leo@esgindia.org,Web: www.esgindia.org		Krac-a-Dawna Organic Farm, H.D.Kote Taluk 571121, Karnataka India.ph.+91-8221-210101, e-mail krac_a_daw

Asli Nakli

There’s been a slew of interesting OriginalFake court rulings over the last few days:

• The Supreme Court has held that only licensed allopathic manufacturers can sell Viagra.. The accused were engaged in the manufacture of supposedly Ayurvedic Ozomen capsules and Ozomen forte which contained quantities of “sildenafil citrate” – one of the primary ingredients of Viagra. Section 18(a) (i) read with Section 17B(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act prohibits manufacture and sale of certain drugs and cosmetics which are ‘misbranded, spurious and substituted wholly or in part by another drug or substance’.

The AP High Court had quashed the proceedings holding that the Drugs Inspector appointed under Section 21 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act had no jurisdiction to launch prosecution under Section 32 of the Act (which deals with offences pertaining to Ayurvedic drugs).The Supreme Court held that this was not a case of an Ayurvedic drug, but clearly one involving an allopathic drug which was sought to be passed off as Ayurvedic.

• In M/S PARAKH FOODS LTD v. STATE OF A.P. & ANR, the Supreme Court held that a company cannot be blamed and found guilty of misbranding a food article if the picture on its label has nothing to do with the food article concerned. From the Indian Express news report:

The product in question was soyabean oil and the label, as noticed by the High Court, contained pictures of vegetables like cabbage, carrot, brinjal, capsicum, cauliflower, tomato and onions, which it found “are in no way connected with soyabean oil”.

While the High Court held that this was a case of misbranding, the Supreme Court took an opposite view

“In our opinion, the High Court has committed a serious error in arriving at a finding that the article of food (soyabean oil) was misbranded, since the picture contained on the label has nothing to do with the article of food in question, ignoring the fact that the article of food can be used for cooking the vegetables shown in the picture which cannot be said to be exaggerating the quality of the food in question.”

• The third case involves the advertisements of a pain balm called Volini manufactured by Ranbaxy which was accused of disparaging its rivals. Business Standard reports:
  

  The Supreme Court today directed Ranbaxy Laboratories to drop the word asli from its advertisement for Volini pain balm but allowed it to run the rest on television despite the protest of the manufacturers of a rival product, Moov.

  The Gujarat High Court had prevented Ranbaxy from running the advertisement which said that its product gives asli aaram while another product shown in purple is thrust away.
  Paras Pharmaceuticals, manufacturers of Moov, sued Ranbaxy for disparaging its product. The high court granted an injunction against Ranbaxy. Harish Salve, counsel for Ranbaxy, argued that hyperbole is allowed in a market which is not for the ‘faint-hearted’.

Biodiversity Information System to be created

From the Hindu, the Chairman of the National Biodiversity Authority, Mr. S. Kannaiyan has announced the initiation of steps to create “a Biodiversity Information System, a meta database of biodiversity and bio-resources in the country”

The Union Government has allotted Rs. 10 crore for carrying out a pilot project in this regard.

The system will link all the databases and information sources related to bio-diversity and bio-resources including plant, animal, marine and microbial resources in various parts of the country.

Research scientists, policy makers and common man will be able to get information at a single point after the creation of the system.

GI registration for crop varieties

The Hindu reports today that the Karnataka Government is seeking GI registratino for 21 crops in addition to 9 crops that it has already registered.

The crops for which the Geographical Indication tag is sought are: Byadagi Chilli, Devanahalli Chakkota, Kamalapura Red Banana, Sagar Appe Midi Mango, Mattu Gulla Brinjal, Bangalore Rose Onion, Totapuri Mango, Bangalore Blue Grapes and Janagere Jackfruit.

Why?

Mr. Ganeshan said the Horticulture Department wanted to create a brand value to the unique crops of the State through GI registration. This would go a long way in getting remunerative prices to farmers, especially in the international market, he said.

What else?

Karnataka is leading other States in getting GI tags for its crops as six out of the 10 crops in the country for which GI tag has been provided are from the State.

Like a race.

See my previous post and Icommons article on Cultural and Biological Heritage and IP.

‘Palakkadan matta,’ ‘Navara’ rice get Geographical Indication registration

From the Hindu

PALAKKAD: Two unique rice varieties in the district, ‘Palakkadan matta’ and the medicinal ‘Navara rice,’ have received the Geographical Indication Registry of Intellectual Property India right under the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

This is the first time that two rice varieties of the State have received Geographical Indication Registry. The registry will be declared by Chief Minister V.S. Achuthanandan at a function at Town Hall here on March 20, organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII).

As per the certificate (No.40 dated November 20, 2007), the registration for Navara rice was obtained by the Navara Rice Farmers Society, Karukamanikalam, near Chittur. The certificate of registry issued by V. Ravi, Registrar of Geographical Indications, Chennai, says “the Navara Rice Farmers Society, Chittur, Kerala, is the registered proprietor of G.I. Navara Rice.”

Two varieties of Navara, the medicinal rice used in Ayurveda treatment, have secured registration. They are: black glumed and golden yellow glumed Navara rice varieties, which are cultivated in parts of Palakkad district.

The popular rice variety of ‘Palakkadan matta’ has also secured registration. Palakkad Matta Farmers Producer Company Ltd. has become the registered proprietor of the G.I. Palakkad matta rice.

Under the registry, there are 10 varieties of Palakkadan matta, which will now be considered as the popular Palakkadan matta rice variety. They are: Aryan, Aruvakkari, Chitteni, Chenkazhama, Chettadi, Thavalakanna, Eruppu, Poochamban, Vattan Jyothy, and Kunjukunj. The Palakkaddan matta is described as bold red rice with a unique taste because of its special geographical area and peculiar weather of Eastern wind. Only these 10 rice varieties cultivated in Palakkad will be considered as ‘Palakkadan matta.’ However, more rice varieties with matta properties cultivated in Palakkad can be added to this list after detailed examinations, Narayanan Unni of Palakkadan Matta Farmers Producer Company Ltd said.

He said after getting the registration, matta rice produced outside Palakkad cannot be marketed as ‘Palakkadan matta.’

Likewise, the organically cultivated Navara rice also can be grown only by farmers of Palakkad after getting its registry by the Navara Rice Farmers Society, Chittur.

Thus the registry will help both the farmers and the consumers. The consumer can now get genuine products of Palakkadan Matta and the medicinal Navara rice.

© Copyright 2000 – 2008 The Hindu