SDNP: Major Issues in Biotechnology
Major Issues:
Food Security Vs. Genetically modified food
Some see genetically modified crops opening up opportunities in agriculture, food and medicine. For some it’s a threat to something basic about us and the natural world – harmful, unnecessary and benefiting big business at others expense.
Should we be doing genetic modification?
Some Christians object in principle to genetically modified foods as an unacceptable intervention in God’s creation, violating barriers in the natural world. Others think using God’s gift of our technical skills to change one or two genes is not wrong in itself, unless the change caused a major disruption in the organism. Such basic changes in genes and food require due precaution on food safety and environmental risk , but not out of proportion. SRT has an information sheet on GM animal issues.
GM soya and maize imports used to make soya oil and maize flour used for many processed foods. The companies refused to segregate supplies or label products as GM, being more concerned with winning markets than public attitudes. Questions were also raised about potential risks to health, gene flow to non-GM crops, and a loss of biodiversity. When people realized they were eating GNM foodstuffs whether they liked it or not, with perceived risks but no tangible benefits, and with no say in the decisions, a consumer backlash wasn’t surprising. This led to an unofficial UK moratorium on growing GM crops till 2004.
Will genetic engineering really ‘feed the world’?
Many Christians are concerned that the driving forces of biotechnology create products for western indulgences, neglecting real food shortages else where in the world. The causes of hunger are more about poverty, war, and political and social issues than inefficient production. Often better answer may come from better breeding with indigenous resources, than high tech solutions. Yet GM might help in some situations. GM vitamin A rice might help malnourished communities with no access to fresh vegetables. If genes could be altered to enable staple crops to grow in marginal conditions, it might make differences to countries which struggle to feed themselves. But useful applications are often hard to engineer and offer no profits to private industry. GM has so far mostly been rich man’s technology. To be serious about ‘feeding the world’ means radically reorienting research investment to put top priority on meeting the specific needs of marginal agriculture, using diversity of old and new technologies. GM might be one tool amongst many. But will anyone take up that challenge?
What is being done about the potential risks?
For the Environment
Genes from crops can pass into wild relatives of the crop. This will happen with both conventionally bred and GM crops. The extent of such gene flow and its significance depends on the crop: some have very few or no wild relatives in the UK.
GM crops could be made 'male sterile' so that their genes could no longer be spread through pollen. Or genes could be introduced in such a way that they are not passed on in pollen.
Spread of genes from GM crops that are resistant to a herbicide could create weeds that are resistant to it ('superweeds').
Some conventionally bred crop varieties and weeds are already herbicide-resistant. If GM crops led to herbicide-tolerant weeds they would be tolerant only to that herbicide and could be controlled by others if required. Many wild weeds in the countryside are never sprayed, so whether or not they contain a gene for herbicide tolerance does not affect them. Scientists are currently comparing the behaviour of a non-GM non-tolerant variety and a GM tolerant variety to determine optimal management strategies.
GM crops might grow as weeds (volunteers).
In UK trials, herbicide-tolerant GM oilseed rape does not appear to pose any more problems than conventionally bred varieties. Many crops are relatively poor competitors: wheat for example can only survive for about 2 years in the wild.
GM crops that are resistant to insect pests might deplete pest populations and so damage the natural food chain.
Any form of pest control e.g. mechanical, chemical, organic or GM has the potential to deplete pest numbers and so impact on the food chain. GM crops could be designed so that they switch on the gene that protects against pests only when the crop is under severe attack by the pest. or only when it is sprayed by a harmless compound. This would prevent depletion of pest populations.
GM crops that are resistant to insect pests might accelerate the evolution of pests to overcome this resistance.
Resistant pests evolve in response to any control method. Careful and limited use of spraying and using different sprays in rotation are among the strategies already employed by farmers to minimise this effect. With GM crops there is the potential to use two or more different genes that confer resistance against a pest in tandem in a crop. This would make it much harder for pests to overcome the resistance because they would need to evolve two or more changes at the same time. Alternatively farmers could rotate crops that each contains a different gene conferring resistance against the pest. Scientists are exploring the use of' refuge areas of non-GM plants in and around GM crops, in which populations of pests would be free from any pressure to evolve resistance.
GM crops that are resistant to insect pests might be harmful to other species.
Scientists are conducting laboratory and field trials to study the impact of insect-resistant GM crops on interactions between the plant, its pests and the pest's predators or parasites. The genes used in current GM insect-resistant crops code for natural compounds produced by the bacterium Bocillus thuringiensis (Br) that are used in sprays approved for use in organic farming. These compounds are highly specific: for example, the agent against butterfly and moth larvae does not affect bees.
GM crops will reduce biodiversity
A preliminary trial on GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet has shown that leaving weeds to grow for longer in the crop before, praying increases the number of insect species living on them; after spraying, there is a new range of species that colonise the dying weeds.
For the consumer
Fears have been expressed that: GM foods might result in unexpected health hazards such as I novel allergens, or transfer of antibiotic resistance from marker genes in GM crops to bacteria that live in the human gut.
Allergens can be introduced through conventional breeding. Tests are used routinely to detect and eliminate them. The same tests could be used with GM foods. GM technology could be used specifically to eliminate known allergens from foods.
Foods derived from GM crops may or may not contain any of the inserted gene or the protein for which it codes - it depends on the type of food. Technically it is becoming possible to produce GM crops in which the inserted gene would be active only in nonedible parts of the plants, where this would be appropriate.
Concerns about the long-term dietary effects of eating novel pieces of DNA apply equally to new varieties bred by conventional breeding. As all DNA is made up of the same four building blocks, and DNA sequences are broken down into short pieces of DNA by enzymes in the gut, it is inconceivable that novel combinations of these building blocks would be more likely to arise from GM than non-GM plants. Conventional, non-GM foods carry many unidentified microbial genes, which are consumed along with the genes of the plant or animal material.
Further research into the fate of DNA in the diet would be equally appropriate for GM and non-GM foods.
Alternative technologies have been, and are being developed to replace the use of antibiotic marker genes and eliminate unwanted marker genes from GM plants.
For the farmer
GM crops might show unexpected properties and might not breed true.
Laboratory studies on a range of crops have shown that genes inserted by genetic modification into plants are stable, perform predictably and are inherited normally.
Just like conventional plant breeding, genetic modification may produce some offspring with unstable and undesirable characteristics. In both cases, these can be identified and eliminated from breeding lines.
Scientists have identified mechanisms by which genes inserted by genetic modification may very rarely get switched off. They are developing options for more precise regulation of inserted genes.
The above information is from GM agriculture in the UK? Published in 1999 by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council's (BBSRC). For more information visit their website: www.bbsrc.ac.uk
@ Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)
Genetic modification of Plants and Food Crops?
Why genetically modify plants?
The use of GM in plant breeding aims to:
· Increase crop yields beyond the maximum for existing varieties
· Reduce post-harvest losses
· Make crops more tolerant of stresses (crops, drought, salt, heat)
· make crops that do not exhaust soil fertility (make more better use of nitrogen, phosphorous etc.)
· improve nutritional value of foods
· reduce reliance on chemical pesticides by producing pest resistant crops
· develop alternatives for industry such as starches, fuels, and pharmaceuticals
Some of these aims involve transferring genes across species in a way that cannot be done by plant breeding. Whether it is SAFE to do this depends on which genes are being transferred, and this is addressed by safety assessments and regulations whether it is ETHICAL to do so raises a different set of questions.
How is GM different from ordinary plant breeding?
Because we can identify which genes code for particular characteristics, and move these genes from one organism to another, we can produce a desirable combination of genes more quickly and easily by genetic modification than by breeding. Sometimes genes are moved between closely related organisms - for example, moving a gene from a weed that is naturally resistant to insects to a closely related crop to make the crop pest-resistant. Alternatively, genes can be moved between very different organisms, e.g. production of hepatitis vaccine in plants. In conventional breeding, it is impossible to move just one or two genes. Usually, whole chromosomes, containing thousands of unknown genes, are transferred.
Is plant breeding 'natural', or safe?
Many people are concerned that GM isn't natural and believe that conventional breeding is better because it follows the principles of natural selection, or uses natural mutations. However, it is just as possible, if not more so, to produce undesirable combinations of genes by conventional breeding: potatoes with dangerous levels of toxic glycoalkaloids and celery with high levels of chemical irritants have been produced by conventional breeding.
With cross-breeding, it is difficult to transfer genes between unrelated plants. However, plant breeders have devised ingenious techniques e.g. 'embryo rescue' to force crosses between species that wouldn't normally interbreed.
Plant breeders have for years used techniques to generate more variation than Nature produces: bombardment of a plant with mutagenic chemicals or radiation causes mutations randomly throughout its genes. From the plants that survive this treatment, plant breeders select the mutations they want. So long as the plant grows well and shows no toxicity, other mutations (maybe tens, maybe hundreds) will remain unidentified and uninvestigated.
GM and Farming?
Even before our ancestors settled down to become farmers, humans were busy changing their environment: as bands of roving hunter gatherers, they killed off many of the big mammals, Farming was an attempt to ensure a more secure food supply, and the aim has always been to prevent weeds, pests and diseases from competing with us for our crops, In medieval times in Europe, the farmer expected in a good year to be able to Consume only one-third of his crop: one third was saved for planting the following year and one-third was lost to pests. With the development of higher yielding crops through thousands of years of artificial selection, and intensive agriculture, productivity is higher although, in the developing world, up to 50% of crops are still lost to pests and diseases.
The past 50 years have arguably seen greater changes in agriculture than the previous 1000 years: high intensity agriculture is more efficient and productive, reducing prices and the risk of total crop failures like the potato famine of the 1850s, and consequent hardship and economic collapse. These agricultural changes all aim to achieve the goal of the first farmers: growing crops that only we can eat. Undoubtedly this has had an impact on the wildlife that depends on the same fields to exist the weeds, the insects, birds and mammals - and has made major changes to the environment.
Considering the need to feed the rapidly growing world population and recognising that all agriculture is 'unnatural' and changes the environment, everyone agrees that future fanning must be 'sustainable', but has different visions of what sustainable is, Three basic models can be thought of: high-intensity (high-input) agriculture; organic agriculture; and GM crop-based agriculture.
High intensity:
* High input (i.e. reliant on agrochemicals –fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides), and mechanisation to maintain high yield.
* For many crops, multiple crops can be grown each year.
* Requires new varieties to remain competitive; but many crops are reaching their biological and physical limits to yield. Crossbreeding slow to produced improved varieties; difficult to introduce new characteristics by crossbreeding within limited gene pool.
* Pesticide use can eventually lead to pest resistance, necessitating higher doses and new pesticides
* High-intensity agriculture has a record of producing more than sufficient food to feed the world population, but at high environmental cost.
Organic farming:
· ORGANIC FARMING IS. GAINING gradual momentum across the world. Growing awareness of health and environmental issues in agriculture has demanded production of organic food which is emerging as an attractive source of rural income generation. While trends of rising consumer demand for organics are becoming discernible, sustainability in production of crops has become the prime concern in agriculture development.
Organic farming is being practised in 100 countries of the world. The ill-effects of chemicals used in agriculture have changed the mindset of some consumers of different countries who are now buying organic with high premium for health. Policy makers are also promoting organic farming for restoration of soil health and generation of rural economy apart from making efforts for creating better environment. The global organic area is 26 million hectare roughly along with 61 standards and 364 certification bodies roughly. The world organic market is now 26 billion U5$. The organic area in India is 2.5 million hectare including certified forest areas. Non-certified organic area is more than certified organic area. India has developed National Standard under NPOP programme. The National Centre of Organic Farming under Ministry of Agriculture is promoting organic farming as facilitator across the country and providing various
assistance to organic entrepreneurs, and farmers.
GM Crops:
Genetically modified crops ia category of genetically modified organisms, GMOs) are produced through genetic engineering (a branch of biotechnology known as recombinant DNA technology) involving insertion of a foreign gene construct into the genome (genetic constitution) of a crop plant. Genes from any organism (microbes, plants and animals, including man) can be incorporated into the genome of a crop plant with various objectives such as resistance to insect pests, tolerance to herbicides, enhancement of nutritional value, taste etc. The first GM crop, developed in 1994 by Calgene (since acquired by Monsanto) is a delayed ripening variety of tomato, named Flavr Savr, with longer shelf-life, has now been withdrawn from the market.
A wide range of agriculturally important crops developed mostly by the multinational corporations (MNCs) are now being tested in field trials but only four major crops are grown commercially; these are soyabean, maize, cotton and canola (an oil-yielding crop of the mustard family). The USA, Argentina and Canada having 63, 21 and 6 percent of global GM crop area account for 90% of the total area and three other countries, Brazil (4%), China (4%), South Africa (1%) together account for another 9%; a few other countries including India make up the rest (1%) as per 2003 data.
The major research and developmental work on GMCs have done by three multinational corporations, Monsanto of the USA, the Swiss company Syngenta and the German MNC Bayer CropScience, with Monsanto as the undisputed leader having 90% of the world’s GM crop areas sown with Monsanto’s plant incorporated protectants (PIPs) for imparting resistance to certain insect pests or tolerance to herbicides.
So far no GM crop developed within the country exclusively by Indian scientists has been commercially grown in Tamil Nadu, Maharastra, Rajasthan, Gujrat, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are produced with technology licensed from Monsanto and a range of Bt cotton hybrids by Mahyco and others are under trials. The several other entrants in the Bt cotton development in India are Nath Seeds, Rasi Biotech and JK Agri Genetics etc. In the pipeline is Bt rice, Bt Mustard, Bt. Brinjal, Bt Okra etc. and most GM crop researches in India are insect resistance oriented and based on Bt gene.
· GM could enhance agricultural productivity by introduction of genes from same or other species (very slow, or not possible by crossbreeding) barriers to: break existing variety yield barriers; reduce reliance on agrochemicals by producing diseases, pest resistant varieties; create optimally adapted varieties that do not exhaust soil fertility (i.e. make better use of nitrogen, phosphorus); decrease water requirement by adaptation to drought; reduce post-harvest losses to pests and improve nutritional value of foods; make use of marginal environments through adaptation to salt, cold or heat; develop alternative resources for industry such as fuels, starches, pharmaceuticals.
· As with any other pesticide, pest resistance to GM crops is ultimately likely, and indiscriminate use of pest-resistant plants will hasten their appearance.
· The use of plants as 'factories' to produce renewable, 'clean' resources for industry may help to replace environmentally damaging chemical industries and exhausted fossil-fuel supplies, but will inevitably require land for growing the industrial crops. Developing plants able to use marginal lands (ton dry, salty nr high in aluminium) and currently useless to agriculture, will result in wildlife habitats being lost.
· While pest- and herbicide resistant plants are available, other developments important for securing a food supply (e.g. nitrogen fixation and stress resistance) are way behind: achieving some of these goals is likely to rake another 5-20 years. Field performance, as with any or her variety is likely to vary depending on environmental conditions and farming practice. GM crops are likely to help secure food supplies for future population growth, but the extent to which it will help is unknown.
What is Sustainable?
* Today's high intensity agriculture is not sustainable long-term: in industrialised countries, 10 calories of fossil fuel energy are spent (mechanisation, production of agrochemicals etc.) to produce 1 calorie of food; a century ago during the agricultural revolution, the ratio was 1 calorie per 1 calorie food; and in hunter-gatherer society, it was 0.1 to 1.
* Yesterday's methods of agriculture are not adequately productive to feed today's population, let alone tomorrow's.
* Food production has so far kept pace with population growth with higher yielding crops and agrochemicals, but has incurred environmental damage.
* Economic sustainability in a competitive global market requires a competitive and efficient agriculture.
* Most crops require a lot of water - increasingly, in the next century, unpolluted fresh water will become a limiting resource across the world.
* All farming has some impact on the environment (like most activities to make life more secure for ourselves. farming isn't 'natural'). The best sustainable solution will probably require a combination of methods. Integrated pest management (IPM) uses biocontrols and rotates crops, creates refuges and uses agrochemicals in moderate amounts.
* GM is seen by some as incompatible with organic farming, but a combined GM-organic approach could have environmental benefits in reducing the use of artificial chemicals: for example, GM plants resistant to fungal disease could reduce the use of fungicides. Nematodes destroy nearly £70 billion in crops worldwide annually, and there are few options available for large-scale agriculture for controlling them: crop rotation is only partially successful at best, and crop protection relies on some of the most toxic and environmentally damaging pesticides in widespread use. Classical plant breeding has so far failed to produce effective nematode-resistant varieties, but GM varieties are in development.
Points to consider:
Many foods and other products are marketed as 'natural'. What does this really mean? What is the difference between a 'natural' chemical and any other?
The earth's resources are finite - how can it support an ever-growing human population:
Minor insect- or parasite damage to food grown without pesticides is certainly 'natural', and generally not harmful to people. However, damage allows the growth of fungi, some of which produce mycotoxins - highy toxic 'natural' substances, some of which can cause cancer (e.g. aflatoxins in peanuts).
The above information is from the website www.gmilssues.org/
2000-2004, John Innes Centre, Norwich, UK.
Can GM crops help eradicate poverty?
It is not the interests of poor farmers but the profits of the agrochemical industry that heve been the driving force behind the emergence of GM agriculture. Four multinational corporation – Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer CropScience and DuPont now control most of the GM seed market. Some 91 % of all GM crops grown worldwide in 2001 were from Monsanto seeds. By linking their chemicals to seeds via GM technologies, these corporations have been able to extend markets for their herbicides and pesticides.
GM crops are unlikely to help eradicate poverty because yields seem to be no more than non-GM crops and sometimes need more chemicals. Yields from GM soybeans are no higher than those from high-yield conventional varieties. In one study, Monsanto's GM soya had 6% lower yields than non-GM soya and 11 % less than high-yielding non-GM soya.
Insecticide use on GM cotton has fallen in some locations, but these gains may be short-lived as insects develop resistance to the insecticide that the cotton expresses. In time, farmers may need to invest in more, not fewer, chemicals. This also applies to chemical use on herbicide resistant GM crops, which has gone up rather than down as farmers use chemicals more frequently and/or in greater amounts. Herbicide use per hectare in Argentina has more than doubled on GM fields compared to conventional varieties.
GM crops are ineffective in tackling the underlying political and economic causes of food insecurity: poverty and inequality. The new GM technologies do not address the essential constraints facing poor farmers including lack of access to land, water, energy, affordable credit, agricultural training, local markets, decent roads, grain stores and infrastructure. In fact, GM could be disastrous for small-scale farmers as the costs are much higher and they risk falling into debt.
Do GM crops meet the needs of poor farmers?
GM varieties do not meet the needs of poor farmers who rely on affordable, readily available supplies of seeds for a range of crops to meet diverse environmental consumption and production needs. Poor communities need investment in low cost, low-input farmer-friendly technologies, building on farmers' knowledge. GM seeds, by contrast, are targeted at large-scale commercial farmers growing cash crops in monocultures. GM crops could undermine food security by wasting the scarce resources of poorer farmers and developing countries.
Most research and development in GM agriculture is conducted by the private sector. Less than 1 % of all GM research is directed at poor farmers.
GM research in Africa, for instance, focuses on export crops such as cut flowers, fruit, vegetables, cotton and tobacco, which are grown in large-scale commercial plantations in Kenya. South Africa and Zimbabwe. In Kenya, only one out of 136 intellectual property applications for plants were for a food crop; more than half were for roses.
Do GM threaten basic rights?
Farmers in developing countries have evolved complex, cheap and effective systems to save, exchange and use seeds from one harvest to the next. Patented GM seeds threaten to erode these rights and practices, to displace or contaminate seed supplies, and to increase farmers' dependence on private monopolised agricultural resources.
Up to 1.4 billion people, including up to 90% of farmers in Africa, many of them women, depend oh saved seed. Yet the proliferation of intellectual property regimes that comes with GM seeds threatens centuries-old practices of saving and exchanging seeds.
GM seeds must usually be bought each season. Before they can obtain and use the seeds, farmers have to sign a contract with the company obliging them to pay a royalty or technology fee, to agree not to save or replant seeds from the harvest, to use only company chemicals on them and to give the corporation access to their property to verify compliance.
Having to buy external supplies of seeds and pesticides leaves farmers more economically and agriculturally dependent on corporations. The technology fee makes such seeds prohibitive for the poorest farmers who lack access to credit. The contracts are complex and easily misunderstood by farmers, especially those who are illiterate.
The biotech industry continues to develop a set of GM crop technologies - Genetic Use Restriction Technologies (GURTs), which have been dubbed 'terminator technologies' - that produce sterile seeds: if saved and planted from one year to the next, they would have no yields at all.
Do GM crops threaten biodiversity?
GM crops threaten to reduce the agricultural and crop diversity that is the basis of poor fanner livelihoods and developing country food sovereignty. Three-quarters of the original varieties of agricultural crops have been lost from fanners' fields since 1900 as industrial and exported agriculture has encouraged the widespread monoculture cultivation of a few crop varieties for a more uniform global market. GM crops threaten to erode biodiversity still further.
In addition, GM crops pose known threats to other plants and insects. They can cross-pollinate with non-GM plants, endangering diverse original varieties, particularly in developing countries. They are likely to require bigger and more frequent doses of pesticide as weeds and insects develop resistance to chemicals. They may threaten beneficial insects and thus disrupt natural pest management systems. GM crops engineered to produce pharmaceutical drugs could easily end up in local food supplies.
Bio safety regulations could address some o[these problems and threats to biodiversity, but many countries do not have them, or the capacity to develop them. In Zambia, just one person, who has no previous experience of developing national policy or prior knowledge of the issues, is responsible for drafting national biosafety policy.
Nor is regulation enough where national capacity to evaluate and monitor risks is weak. In Brazil, on the commercial cultivation of GM crops did not stop GM soya seeds being smuggled in from Argentina and planted across huge areas. In Pakistan, ActionAid has investigated the impact of illegally planted GM cotton. Hundreds of fanners who bought the so-called i 'miracle' seed on the black market in the hope it would increase their harvests lost around 70% of their crops.
The widespread adoption of GM crops seems likely to exacerbate the underlying causes of food insecurity
Developing country governments are under huge pressure to accept GM crops, put scarce public resources into GM research and open their doors to biotech corporations before their people have been properly informed, consulted and agreed to accept, or reject, GM. Poorer farmers and communities are being sidelined in debates and decisions about GM technology.
In South Africa, for example, GM crops have been planted without prior public consultation or involvement in decision-making and without environmental studies on their impact.
If GM research takes place in the public sector it may not address the needs of poor farmers because most genes and processes are now patented by corporations. In partnerships between public research organisations and corporations, control and decision-making tend to remain firmly in the hands of corporations who acknowledge that their goal is to create new markets and improve their public image.
If poorer people were more involved in setting agricultural research agendas, they would probably opt not for GM crops, bur for other agricultural solutions.
Conclusion
The widespread adoption of GM crops seems likely to exacerbate the underlying causes of food insecurity, leading to more hungry people, not fewer. To have a lasting impact on poverty, ActionAid believes policy makers must address the real constraints facing poor communities lack of access to land, credit, resources and markets- instead of focusing on risky technologies that have no truck record in addressing hunger.
Recommendations:
* Donors and governments should address the wider causes of food insecurity - land, credit, agricultural training and infrastructure - before putting resources into GM crops.
* They should introduce a moratorium on the further commercialisation of GM crops until more research has been carried out into the socio-economic, environmental and biodiversity impacts of GM crops, particularly in developing countries.
* Poorer farmers and communities should be enabled to participate more in national GM debates and policy-making.
* Genetic resources for food and agriculture should be exempt from intellectual property requirements.
* Farmers' rights to save and exchange seeds should be recognised under the intellectual property rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and should be protected in developing country intellectual property rights legislation.
* Governments should introduce competition rules to prevent private sector monopolies and effective institutions to enforce them.
* The potential impact of GM crops on food security, poor farmers and biodiversity should guide the development and implementation of national biosafety frameworks.
* Funding for public sector agricultural research should be increased and should specialise in support for sustainable, farmer-led agriculture.
The above information is from the Executive summary of GM crops - going against the grain, produced by ActionAid. Visit their website at www.actionaid.org/
Bt - crops
Three Bt transgenic crop species (cotton, corn and potato) have already been commercialized with substantial benefits to farmers. So much so that in 2008 Bt crops occupied an area of 43 million hectares out of the global transgenic area of 125 million hectares. Bt cotton was commercialized in India in year 2002 and has been a spectacular success story. In a short span of six years the area under Bt cotton cultivation has increased from 0.02 million hectares to 8.0 million hectares. In 2008, India occupied the second position in terms of global cotton production by turning out 32 million bales of cotton. The benefits of Bt cotton include increase in yields, reduction in cost of production (including a reduction of at least 50% in insecticide applications) and substantial environmental and health benefits to small producers. Reduction in the use of pesticides leads to lesser levels of insecticide contamination in aquifers, reduced farmer exposure to insecticides and improvement of human health, increased populations of beneficial insects, reduced risk for wildlife, reduced fuel and raw material consumption and decreased pollution. A similar effort is needed to replicate the success of Bt cotton in food crops to meet the challenges of food and nutritional security in the coming decades.
An Indian seed company Mahyco developed transgenic brinjal expressing Cry l Ac protein of Bt. The best transgenic event 'EE-I' chosen out of several events showed a significantly lower number of
Biotechnology Policy
BSFB larvae (0-20) on Bt brinjal, as compared to 3.5-80 larvae on the non-Bt counterpart. Multi-location and large scale trials (2004-2008) conducted by Mahyco, and independently by the Indian Council for Agricultural Research under the All-India Coordinated Research Program for Vegetable Crops confirmed that insecticide requirement for Bt brinjal hybrids was, on an average, 80% less than the same for the non-Bt counterpart. This not only translated into a 42% reduction in total insecticides usage, but also an increase of 100% in the average marketable yield of Bt brinjal compared to its non-Bt counterpart hybrids. It has been estimated that Bt brinjal farmers would enjoy a net gain of Rs. 50,000-60,000 per hectare compared to those cultivating conventional varieties.
An innovative technology platform for translation research on transgenic crops - a department of biotechnology, Govt. of India initiative
Agriculture Biotechnology has been the priority area of research in India. According to data with regulatory agencies, 24 universities, 37 research institutions and 45 private sector companies are working on plant transgenics in about 30 crops involving a dozen of genes for traits related to resistance/tolerance to fungal/bacterial/viral diseases; insects; drought, salinity and alkalinity and herbicide; nutritional factors (Fe, carotene, protein, amino acids); hybrid production etc. however, some of the major bottlenecks in successful transfer of this technology from lab to land revolve around the delays in transferring the products of genetic engineering to the farmers fields or "commercialization".
To fill this interface between lab and land, Department of Biotechnology, has set up an innovative Technology Platform for Translational Research on Transgenic Crops (PTTC) at International Crops Research Institute for Semi-arid Tropies (ICRISAT), Hyderabad. The platform leverages ICRISAT's existing excellence in the areas of transgenic research on crop plants, molecular plant sciences and plant breeding to improve its ability to enhance the delivery of transgenic crops in agriculture. The main mission of this platform is to "translate transgenic technology and harness its products to meet the needs of agricultural growth".
The PTTC is being proposed as an initiative to blend green revolution with gene revolution to enhance agricultural productivity in a sustainable manner. PTTC can be viewed as a "clearing" house for innovative ideas and technologies in plant genetic engineering that could positively impact Indian agriculture, with the objective of providing expertise and facilities for the production and assessment of transgenic plants.
These "evolved" technologies could then be transferred to the private or public sector for advancement to the farmers.
Specifically PTTC will:
- Develop the physical infrastructure to conduct transgenic research
- Evaluate specific concepts, ideas and technologies, and "evolve" the technology to a point where a practical application can be demonstrated and transfer this "evolved" technology to the private or public sector for advancement.
- Carry out detailed examination of IPR issues associated with the transgenic product development and develop bio-safety dossiers for commercialization of the product, and
- Identify partnerships for sharing mechanisms for seed registration and marketing of the final "product".
PTTC would serve as the locus for the basic infrastructure for research, training and outreach activities, with setting up a series of specialized centres which will serve as centers for transfer of proven technologies and also leverage convergence between various fields of related disciplines and provide support in priority areas of transgenic research.
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Govt. of India
Objectives of GEAC
The Ministry under the Environment Protection Act (1986), has notified the "Rules for the Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Microorganisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells 1989" (known as Rules, 1989). The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the apex body under the Rules, 1989 has the mandate to approve the large scale trials and commercial release of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs) and ensure that research and development and testing of LMOs prior to release are conducted in a safe and scientific manner. The rules also cover the application of hazardous microorganisms which may not be genetically modified. Hazardous microorganisms include those which are pathogenic to animals as well as plants. Seven meetings of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee have been held from April, 2007 till date.
Activities Undertaken by GEAC
- Commercial Release of transgenic Crops
- The Bt technology was deployed in cotton crop through genetic engineering techniques for control of bollworms the major pest thereby reducing the risk of crop failures and use of pesticides. Bt cotton producing a natural insecticide that comes from the ubiquitous soil bacterium known as Bacillus Thuringiensis was approved by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) for introduction in India in 2002 after extensive biosafety and agronomic testing. As of date, the GEAC has approved 1 35 Bt cotton hybrids expressing Cry 1 Ac gene (MON 531 event) and stacked genes Cry 1 Ac and Cry 2Ab (MON 15985 event)-BG-II developed by M/s Mahyco, encoding fusion genes (cry 1Ab+Cry Ac) 'GFM developed by M/s Nath Seeds and cry 1 Ac gene (Event-1) developed by Mis J. K. Agrigenetics Ltd of which 73 Bt cotton hybrids were approved for commercial release in the nine cotton growing states namely Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu.
- Accrued benefits of Bt technology in cotton crop include
- The total acreage under Bt cotton has increased from 72000 acres in 2002 to 128,44,000 acres (approximately 5.2 million ha) in 2007.
- The productivity per unit ha has increased from 300 kg in 2002-03 to 520 kg in 2006. As per the Cotton Advisory Board this is expected to increase more than 560 kg per ha.
- The cotton production has increased from 13.6 million bales in 2002 to 28.0 million bales in 2006. As per the Cotton Advisory Board estimates the production is expected to increase 31 million bales in 2007
- During Kharif, 2006, the area, the overall cotton production is up by 3835 K quintals of seed cotton or 788K bales of lint.
. Bt cotton reduced pesticide usage by 2260 MT of pesticides.
- India was a major importer of cotton till 2003. With the introduction of Bt technology India has become a major exporter. The export of cotton has increased from 0.9 million bales in 2005 to 4.7 million bales in 2006. As per the Cotton Advisory Board, the export is expected to increase to 5.5 million bales in 2007.
" Transgenic Bt Brinjal developed by M/s Aahyco-First GM Food crop
The Bt brinjal developed by M/s Mahyco expressing cry 1 Ac gene from Bacillus thuringiensis tolerant to the fruit and shoot borer is the first GM food crop under advanced stage of field testing. The GEAC has approved the large scale field trials of St brinjal in the research farms of Indian Institute of Vegetable Research/State Agricultural Universities/ Indian Council of Agriculture Research based on the recommendations of the Expert Committee on Bt brinjal constituted by the MoEF.
" Capacity Building to facilitate compliance of biosafety regulation
Extensive capacity building activities have been planned for efficient management of field trials of GM crops covering 12 states where the field trials are being undertaken.
Guidelines for confined field trials, safe operational practices (SOPs), formats for monitoring and recording of data etc. are being developed,
Cartagena Biosafety Protocol
Objectives
The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, the first international regulatory framework for safe transfer, handling and use of living Modified Organisms (LMOs) was negotiated under the aegis of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Protocol was adopted on 29th January, 2000. One hundred and forty three countries have signed the Protocol. India has acceded to the Bi6safety Protocol on 17th January 2003. The Protocol has come into force on 11th September, 2003. As of date, 143 countries are Parties to the Protocol.
Liability and redress negotiation under article 27 of the Cartagena Biosafety protocol
The Ad Hoc Group on liability and redress was established by COP /MOP-1 to review information relating to liability and redress for damage resulting from transboundary movements of living modified organisms (LMOs); analyze general issues relating to the potential and/or actual damage scenarios of concern, application of international rules and procedures on liability and redress to the damage scenarios; and elaborate options for elements of rules and procedures on liability and redress, with a view to completing its work in 2007. As on date five meetings of the Ad Hoc Open-ended working Group on Liability and Redress have been convened. The Indian delegation actively participated in all the five meetings. Even though there was no consensus on the substantive issues, the Working Group, in its fourth meeting, was successful in streamlining and consolidating options for operational texts which would be negotiated during the fifth meeting scheduled for 12-19 March, 2008 in Colombia. During the inter-sessional period Parties and Governments have been requested to submit their views on the report of the fourth meeting of the Ad Hoc Open ended Working Group on Liability and Redress.
- The fifth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Open Ended Working Group on Liability and Redress is scheduled for 1 2-1 9 March, 2008 at Cartagena, Colombia. India's country position and negotiating text has been prepared based on a consultative approach. The negotiating text has been extensively discussed in the meetings of the Consultative Group on Biodiversity and Biosafety and the Expert Advisory Group on Liability and Redress. The Ministry had also organized a 'National Consultation on Liability and Redress' on 14.1.2008 at New Delhi.
Information on the biosafety regulations, details of field trials, summary of biosafety data
Bt Crops Under Development
|
|||
Sr. No.
|
Crop
|
Organisation(s)
|
Traits/Gene
|
1
|
Brinjal
|
Mahyco, Mumbai (Recommended or commercialization by GEAC in Oct. 2009 meeting)
|
Insect resistance /cry 1Aa nad cry 1 Asbc
cry 1Ac
cry 1Ac
|
2
|
Cabbage
|
Nunhems India Pvt. Ltd.
|
Insect resistance/cry 1Ba and cry 1CA
|
3
|
Cauliflower
|
Sungro Seeds Ltc., New Delhi
nunhems India Pvt. Ltd.
|
Insect resistance/cry 1Ac, cry 1Ba and cry 1Ca
|
4
|
Cotton
|
Mahyco, Monsanto, Rasi, Nuziveedu, Amkur, JK Seed, CICR, UAS-D
|
Insect Resistance, herbicide tolerance cry 1Ac gene
|
5
|
Groundnut
|
ICRISAT, Hyderabad
|
Virus resistance/Chitinase gene
|
6
|
Maize
|
Monsanto, Mumbai
|
Shoot borer/cry 1Ab gene
|
7
|
Chickpea
|
ICRISAT
|
Insect Resistance/Pod borrer, Cry 1Ac
|
8
|
Mustard
|
UDSC, New Delhi
|
Hybrid seed, barnase/barstar gene
|
9
|
Okra
|
MAHYCO, Mumbai, Beejo Sheetal, Jalna
|
Borer cry 1Ac, cry 2Ab
|
10
|
Pigeon Pea
|
ICRISAT, MAHYCO
|
Pod borer and Fungal pathogene, Cry 1Ac and chitinase
|
11
|
Potato
|
CPRI, Shimla, NIPGR, New Delhi
|
Ama 1 and Rb gene derived from Solanum bulbocastanum
|
12
|
Rice
|
MAHYCO, Mumbai
TNAU, Coimbatore
|
cry 1B-cry 1Aa fusion gene
cry 1Ac, cry2Ab
|
13
|
Sorghum
|
NRCS, Hyderabad
|
Insect Resistance, Shoot borer
|
14
|
Tomato
|
IARI, New Delhi
MAHYCO, Mumbai
NIPGR, New Delhi
|
Antisense replicase gene of tomato leaf curl virus cry 1Ac
(Source: Dr. K.S. Charak, DBT)
|
Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for the Period 2011-2020 (BS-V/16, Annex I)
Index:
1. The Context
2. The Strategic Plan: its Interpretation and Monitoring
3. Assumptions
4. Human Resource Needs to Support the Implementation of the Strategic Plan
5. Elements of Strategic Plan for the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety
I. The Context
1. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted in January 2000 and entered into force on 11 September 2003. The first meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol (COP-MOP) adopted, on the basis of recommendations from the Intergovernmental Committee on the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a medium-term programme of work for the period covering the second to the fifth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
2. Over the past six years since the first meeting of the Parties, significant achievements have been made towards the implementation of the Protocol. The number of Parties has increased by more than 100 since the entry into force of the Protocol. Many decisions have been adopted to facilitate the implementation of the Protocol and the Biosafety Clearing House became fully operational. More than 100 countries received, through the implementing agencies of the Global Environment Facility, capacity-building assistance in support of their efforts to develop and implement their national biosafety legal and administrative frameworks. The number of bilateral, sub-regional and regional cooperative arrangements to support biosafety capacity building activities has also increased in the past years.
3. The medium-term programme of work of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol has been instrumental in guiding the implementation of the Protocol. The medium term programme of work is due to end at the present meeting of the Parties to the Protocol.
4. A process was established to undertake an assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Protocol in accordance with Article 35 of the Protocol. The initiation of the assessment and review process on the one hand, and the completion of the medium term programme of work on the other, presented an opportunity for Parties to consider developing a long term vision for the Protocol in the form of a strategic plan and a corresponding multi-year programme of work. This also coincides with the ongoing process to revise and update the Strategic Plan of the Convention in light of the resolve for action beyond the 2010 biodiversity target.
5. Significant challenges remain as regards the implementation of the Protocol. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol still needs to provide additional guidance and clarify procedures and processes in a number of areas, such as the application of the advance informed agreement procedure, compliance (Article 34), liability and redress (Article 27), risk assessment and risk management (Articles 15 and 16), handling, transport, packaging and identification (Article 18) and capacity-building (Article 22). One of the major prerequisites of successful implementation of planned activities is the provision of sufficient financial resources including alternative mechanisms for funding and technical support especially for developing countries and countries with economies in transition.
6. This Strategic Plan and the multi-year programme of work accompanying it (annex II) have been prepared on the basis of the submissions from Parties, the analysis of the first national reports, the successive decisions taken by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol at its last four meetings, and through general discussions and comments received from Parties, other Governments and stakeholders. The Strategic Plan also takes into account the experience gained through the development, implementation and revision of the Strategic Plan of the Convention.
II. The Strategic Plan: its Interpretation and Monitoring
7. The Strategic Plan consists of a vision, a mission and five strategic objectives. For each strategic objective there are a number of expected impacts, operational objectives, outcomes and indicators. The strategic objectives have been derived and prioritized according to their contribution to the full implementation of the Protocol, taking into consideration the limited implementation as established by the Assessment and Review process. The focal areas underlying the five strategic objectives are, in their order of priority, as follows: 1. Facilitating the establishment and further development of effective biosafety systems for the implementation of the Protocol; 2. Capacity-building; 3. Compliance and review; 4. Information sharing; 5. Outreach and cooperation.
8. The vision and mission are the overarching statements of the desired future state and the purpose that the Strategic Plan strives to achieve in the long run while the five strategic objectives spell out what will need to be met in order for the vision and the mission to be achieved within the ten-year duration of the Plan. In addition, the Strategic Plan has been presented in the form of a logical framework for ease of reference:
a. Each strategic objective has a number of expected impacts that will occur if the strategic objective is achieved;
b. The operational objectives comprise actions that will need to be undertaken in order to realise the impacts;
c. The outcomes are the consequences that would be seen if the operational objectives are achieved, an aggregation of the outcomes will result in the impacts of the strategic goals; and
d. The indicators serve as a monitoring and evaluation tool of the Strategic Plan for measuring achievements.
9. The stakeholders of the Strategic Plan will vary depending on the issues, the actions or activities described in the Plan. Some of the actions will be undertaken by either the Parties or other Governments or the Secretariat or other organizations or individuals or a combination of all.
10. The elements of the Strategic Plan should also be interpreted in light of the text of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. Any interpretation and understanding of the Strategic Plan should be considered only in the context and scope of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
11. This Strategic Plan will be implemented through a ten-year programme of work for the Protocol, supported by biennial work plans. The multi-year programme of work will, if necessary, be adjusted from time to time on the basis of: (i) experience gained in the implementation of the requirements of the Protocol; and (ii) the result of the periodic assessment and review of the effectiveness of the Protocol as provided for in Article 35 of the Protocol. A mid-term evaluation will be undertaken five years after the adoption of the Strategic Plan. This evaluation process will use the indicators in the Strategic Plan to assess the extent to which the strategic objectives are being achieved. Information will be drawn mainly from the national reports and from other sources that are relevant and available to generate the data necessary for the analysis. The evaluation will capture the effectiveness of the Strategic Plan and allow Parties to adapt to emerging trends in the implementation of the Protocol. Sufficient resources will need to be allocated to this process.
III. Assumptions
12. A number of assumptions have been made in the development of the Strategic Plan. First, it is assumed that the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol will adopt a number of decisions including on: common approaches to risk assessment and risk management; identification and documentation; a supplementary protocol on liability and redress; and socio-economic considerations and decision-making. It is also assumed that:
a. Parties and subregional organizations are incorporating rules and procedures from the decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol into their national or regional frameworks;
b. The "Action Plan for Building Capacities for the Effective Implementation of the Protocol" will be regularly updated, agreed upon and implemented;
c. Parties will submit, in a timely manner, national reports and the required information, such as existing laws and regulations, and decisions on living modified organisms, to the Biosafety Clearing-House;
d. Adequate and predictable resources will be made available at the national and international level. It is also noted that biennial detailed budgets presented at each meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol during the duration of the Strategic Plan are essential for the effective implementation of the Strategic Plan.
13. A further assumption is that a baseline of the status of implementation of the Protocol and global indicators will be established after the second assessment and review process of the Protocol at the sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Protocol to establish a global picture. The indicators have been drafted in such a way that they would facilitate measurement of progress against this baseline.
IV. Human Resource Needs to Support the Implementation of the Strategic Plan
14. The implementation of the Strategic Plan calls for adequate financial resources to support relevant activities at the national level as well as activities that are expected to be conducted by the Secretariat.
15. It is recognized that Parties are facing challenges accessing funds available under the existing financial mechanism. It is, therefore, necessary to take measures that improve accessibility of available funds. In this regard, the Global Environment Facility is invited to make funds available to eligible Parties in a facilitated manner and to monitor expeditious accessibility of those funds. Parties are also invited to provide, in their national reports in the section of the reporting format that refers to capacity building, information on their experience in accessing existing funds from the Global Environment Facility.