Community | February 09, 2010 | 32 comments

Victory! India bans planting of first GMO food crop ( Bt brinjal)

source: http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/413214/india_bans_planting_of_first_gm_food_c...

Image
JanforGore
This is big news! Should this have been approved, Monsanto would have gotten its foot in the door to push other GM crops on India to the detriment of its biodiversity and the livelihood of farmers. Due to the resistance of farmers, consumers, environmentalists and the protests against it there is at least a tentative victory on this being stopped.

Thank you India!
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Current Tonight,   Earth and Science,   5 more
  2. tags:
    India,  Activism,  Monsanto,  GMOs,  4 more
  3.     
    |

32 comments // Victory! India bans planting of first GMO food crop ( Bt brinjal)

  • SeaJade
  • jubal
  • SalvadoreSouza
    • +4
      SalvadoreSouza  

    • great job standing up for yourself India! now the US just needs to follow your footsteps. What's sooo wrong with the food mother nature gave us that we have to fuck with genes & years & years of eveloution? this is wrong, and sadly India is the only one who seems to know it.

    • 2 years ago
  • bethopea
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  
    • JanforGore:

      http://www.raw-wisdom.com/50harmful.

      GMOS haven't saved ONE LIFE.

      "Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered products to dependent farmers."

      David Ehrenfield: Professor of Biology, Rutgers University

    • 2 years ago
  • stolenapples
    • 0
      stolenapples  
    • bethopea:

      You're right they were made to help us, they actually do but Monsanto has found a way to enslave the indian farmers into buying these crops. If you would like to kow more you should search for Vandana Shiva on the web or even here on Current, she's a great environmentalist who fights the Monsanto corporation, she's the example of the environmentalist who gets some results.

    • 2 years ago
  • jubal
    • +1
      jubal  
    • bethopea:

      What matters more is quality of life than quantity. What does it matter to extend your life if you have to live in abject poverty? I would much rather starve to death than be an economic slave.

    • 2 years ago
  • patriotaxe
  • bethopea
    • 0
      bethopea  
    • jubal:

      Yes, on the outside, logically, GMO makes sense. Better yeild & durable crops = lives saved.

      But like most things, the deeper you get the more corruption and fiction you find.
      I need to do more reasearch mind you.

    • 2 years ago
  • patriotaxe
    • +1
      patriotaxe  
    • bethopea:

      The problem - OK, one of the problems - is that Monsanto has become at least a 75% shareholder in the production of foods, primarily grains. Their proprietary GMO strains are responsive to one, and only one herbicide - RoundUp. That represents a double-monopoly and far too much control for even a good company to have. And over the years, Monsanto has proved to be the Darth Vader of corporate agriculture.

    • 2 years ago
  • bethopea
    • 0
      bethopea  
    • patriotaxe:

      Thanks
      Makes sense, but there are monopolies all over the world, and I do not see people protesting those monopolies like they do for GMO (take I.C.E. for example - Costa Rica's sole ISP and DWP provider)...granted they are two different subjects - but still, if this is about being anti-corporate why not hit it from a different angle. Mostly I hear crazy stories from Greenpeace how scientists are injecting crops with all sorts of inedible muck. Oh, but this Monsanto promblem seems to be one of many...There are other farming techniques for these impoverished countries to use...
      ...bottom line is someone has to profit (in a perfect world the profiting would be in the form of crops) but that is never the case, is it?

    • 1 year ago
  • patriotaxe
    • 0
      patriotaxe  
    • bethopea:

      I don't think it's the profit motive that's the issue, although we share the belief that it is better to profit by doing good than to profit by doing bad. And yes, there are many monopolies, more than I could list given even an hour or two. But we must each act where we can. If I'm battling Monsanto I hope that someone else is taking on ADM or AT&T or Exxon/Mobil. Each of these corporations have committed serious breaches of national and international law in order to control more share of the market, set prices, control stock, drive out unions, drive down workers' pay, cut benefits ... all to be more profitable.

      Sometimes we pick our battles and sometimes our battles choose us. Monsanto has become a threat to large to ignore.

    • 1 year ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.saynotogmos.org/global_south2.htm

      This is nothing more than an attempt by the Monsantos in collusion with governments and other entities (The Gates Foundation is one of them BTW) to control the world seed and food market. Once you do that, you also control the water market, the economy, and the people. There is nothing altruistic about it.

      Excerpt:

      'Force-Feeding The World
      Robert Vint, UK Coordinator of Genetic Food Alert

      America's 'GM or Death' ultimatum to Africa
      reveals the depravity of its GM marketing policy

      Zambia has been told by the USA to use $50 million to buy America's GM maize through the World Food Programme or face starvation. When The US tried to force GM food aid on India an unnamed USAID spokesman told the media "beggars can't be choosers".1

      In 1998 Monsanto sent an appeal to all Africa's Heads of State, entitled 'Let The Harvest Begin',2 which called upon them to endorse GM crops. Monsanto were following the advice of the world's leading PR company to avoid the 'killing fields' of health and environmental issues in the GM debate, such as the absence of independent safety testing, and to shift the debate to focus on supposed benefits for the poor. Western 'greens' should be singled out for demonisation for preventing biotech corporations from 'feeding the world'.

      Ministers in Western governments have been bombarded with propaganda calling upon them to ignore the 'selfish' objections of their own citizens - consumers, health advocates, environmentalists and food retailers - because this technology was the only hope for the world's poor. American TV audiences have seen hundreds of adverts depicting smiling well-fed Third World farmers joyfully growing GM crops. None of this propaganda is based on fact and, significantly, none of it originates from the nations that would supposedly benefit from this technology.

      Monsanto's letter-writing exercise could well have been the most catastrophic PR stunt in history. In response the Food and Agriculture representative of every African nation (except South Africa) signed a joint statement called 'Let Nature's Harvest Continue' that utterly condemns Monsanto's policy. It stated: "[We] strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us",y "we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millenia, and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves".'

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • Scathian
  • JanforGore
  • HowdyDo
    • 0
      HowdyDo  
    • Scathian:

      B.S. - the non-GMO crops are more healthy than GMO crops, even if GMO crops are bigger (more crap that isn't healthy accounts for this) and they yield seeds you can plant for next season.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mcellie
    • 0
      Mcellie  

    • That article doesn't convince me that this is great news (tho it does sound like the government is looking into both arguments for and against).
      Of course all GM food should be tested for any negative effects to the environment and people. But pests and crop diseases are causes of famine in poverty stricken areas, so development from lab to crop tests into the technology should be allowed.

      Would you say genetically modifying crops is better or worse than using pesticides?

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Mcellie:

      I would say sustainable pest control through permaculture and biodynamics are better than dying of cancer and other pesticide related diseases. But hey, if you ( in general) want to ingest it, you might as well just drink down some Round Up cocktails because that is what eating their crap amounts to. There are sustainable ways to control pests. GM crops KILL BIODIVERSITY, and without that we die. Would you rather have GM crops in a poisoned monoculture world, or be able to grow enough food for all with a better assurance you aren't posioning yourself? Because to be honest, I am getting so sick of the false propaganda being spread that GM is going to feed the world. It is not. Organic has been proven to be cheaper in the longrun, and yielding just as much if not more than GM. GM is an unnecessary pseudo technology foisted on an unsuspecting populace for profit only. And people are waking up and fighting it because they KNOW they can grow enough food to feed people WITHOUT GM. It is not the yield it is access to food that is the greatest problem in feeding people in this world, and that food access is being controlled by only a few rich countries in league with the IMF and WTO. Look at Haiti as a stark example of how that works, and where it leads.

    • 2 years ago
  • Mcellie
    • 0
      Mcellie  
    • JanforGore:

      Sorry if I've come across as too pro GM, but I'm trying to say is that all technologies into solving world agricultural problems need to get a high level of research. So that a mixture of solutions fitting each situation can be found, to prevent a feast or famine issue.

      I agree that sustainable pest control through permaculture and biodynamics needs more funding, because it sounds like a potential solution to stop food waste in the west, and would work here due to our natural climates being easier for growing.
      Though in some places of the world, nature is making it hard to grow sustainable food organically, since pests and fungus are parts of nature (tho some of are mans fault also.) So far one solution is a nudge from plants that have genes from other plants, which will make crops survive better. However, GM tech isn't perfect and could make matters worse, only independent research away from companies can tell (like governments or alternative groups).
      These are just personal opinions, so I'll understand if I've missed out any documents with good facts, figures and physical evidence.

      On propaganda I would call the banner 'GM will save the world' as OTT and sounding like PR propaganda. But I would also say that phrases like 'GM is poison' exaggerates the argument, and might put people off because it also sounds like PR propaganda.

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
    • +1
      JanforGore  
    • Mcellie:

      Actually BT corn is registered as a pesticide with the EPA. So to say it is poison is actually quite factual if you are dealing with reality and not their "substanital equivalence" rhetoric.

    • 2 years ago
  • treewolf39
  • csmonut
  • CalgarC
  • ColossalView
  • fullcd
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • http://www.gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/11916-monsanto-faked-data-for-...

      Ex Monsanto Chief claims Monsanto faked data to get approvals.

      All empires eventually fall. Their day is coming.

      Excerpt:

      'New Delhi - The debate on genetically modified (GM) brinjal variety continues to generate heat. Former managing director of Monsanto India, Tiruvadi Jagadisan, is the latest to join the critics of Bt brinjal, perhaps the first industry insider to do so.

      Jagadisan, who worked with Monsanto for nearly two decades, including eight years as the managing director of India operations, spoke against the new variety during the public consultation held in Bangalore on Saturday.

      On Monday, he elaborated by saying the company "used to fake scientific data" submitted to government regulatory agencies to get commercial approvals for its products in India.

      The former Monsanto boss said government regulatory agencies with which the company used to deal with in the 1980s simply depended on data supplied by the company while giving approvals to herbicides.

      "The Central Insecticide Board was supposed to give these approvals based on the location and crop-specific data from India. But it simply accepted foreign data supplied by Monsanto. They did not even have a test tube to validate the data and, at times, the data itself was faked," Jagadisan said.

      "I retired from the company as I felt the management of Monsanto, USA, was exploiting our country," Jagadisan, 84, said from his home in Bangalore.'

    • 2 years ago
  • SeaJade
    • +2
      SeaJade  
    • Image

    • Great news!

      and the story from the BBC

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8506047.stm

      India puts on hold first GM food crop on safety grounds

      The cultivation of the BT brinjal aubergine variety has divided opinion
      India has deferred the commercial cultivation of what would have been its first genetically modified (GM) vegetable crop due to safety concerns.
      Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh said more studies were needed to ensure genetically modified aubergines were safe for consumers and the environment.
      The GM vegetable has undergone field trials since 2008 and received approval from government scientists in 2009.
      But there has been a heated public row over the cultivation of the GM crop.
      The BBC's Geeta Pandey, who was at the news conference in Delhi, says Mr Ramesh's decision has put any cultivation of GM vegetables in India on hold indefinitely.
      'Difficult decision'
      "Public sentiment is negative. It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary, principle-based approach," Mr Ramesh said.
      The decision is responsible to science and responsive to society
      Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh

      India in battle over GM aubergine
      He said the moratorium on growing BT brinjal - as the variety of aubergine is known in India - would remain in place until tests were carried out "to the satisfaction of both the public and professionals".

    • 2 years ago
  • JanforGore
  • JanforGore
    • 0
      JanforGore  

    • Excerpt:

      'Campaigners welcome decision to put on hold cultivation of genetically modified (GM) aubergine crop, Bt Brinjal, until 'safety of product' established
      India has banned the planting of the country's first edible GM crop, a type of aubergine modified to produce Bt toxin.

      The seed, developed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company, which is part owned by US biotech giant Monsanto, was said to be more resistant to natural pests.

      However, against a backdrop of protest from farmers and leaders of aubergine-growing states, the Indian Environment Minister said today that he was adopting a 'cautious precautionary principle':

      ...till such time as 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 brinjal in our country.'

      Biodiversity threat

      Bt Brinjal would have been the first GM food crop approved for release in India, which has allowed the use of GM seeds for cotton production since 2002.

      But campaigners said the possibility of cross-contamination would have threatened the 2,000 or more traditional varieties of aubergine currently grown in India.

      'India is the origin of the brinjal family of plants, so containing the GM trait once the GM brinjal is released could prove impossible,' said GM Freeze campaigner Peter Riley.

      'There are also doubts about how effective the insect resistance would be in the long term,' he added.

      Friends of the Earth's food campaigner Kirtana Chandrasekaran said the GM crop would benefit 'big business and not local farmers or hungry people'.'

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos