Strive All out to Stop the BRAI Bill
Just some months back, on Aug 17, when the area around Parliament was swamped by crowds of Anna Hazare's supporters and the mighty Media was glued to it, very little attention was paid to the small flock of environmental activists staging demonstration against a different bill, the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill, 2011 and police, it was alleged, arrested some geernpeace activists who were trying to unfurl an anti-GM banner. Minister of Science and Technology Vilasrao Deshmukh was scheduled to introduce the controversial BRAI Bill in the Lok Sabha that day. But the House could not conduct its regular business due to the heat generated by the Anna fasting episode and the government's response to his agitation. So almost accidentally the country was saved for time being. However the govt is ready to table the BRAI Bill in this winter session of the parliament and both the govt and the GM business lobby is hell bent to make the BRAI Act as soon as possible. This BRAI Act will enable the govt and GM business to introduce Genetically Modified cropping in our country. We call for an all out effort to stop the passage of that bill. But, why we must?
§The govt is saying that population of India as well as of the world as a whole is increasing fast; to feed all the mouths the present agricultural practice will not suffice, hence we need a 2nd Green Revolution through Genetically Modified cropping. Are these true?
§During the last 5 years the lowest food-grain producing year was 2009-2010 when due to a severe draught only 121.28 million tonnes of food-grain could be produced in India. Let us assume that this production level of 121.28 million tonnes of food-grains remain the same for coming 25-30 years - an absurd idea though it is - because in 2008-09 about 234.47 million tonnes of food-grains were produced and in the last agricultural year the figure was about 240.00 million tonnes. Now, the population of India as per census 2011 stands at 121 crores. But even if we assume the production is static at 121.28 million tonnes then also per capita availability of food-grains will be = 493 grams per day or we already have almost 500 grams per day per head if food-grains are not let to rot or lost in transportation and are distributed evenly. So there is nothing to worry at least for this year. Now, assume that after 25-30 years India's population rises to become 150 crores; but food-grain production remain static at that 121.28 million tonnes. Then per capital availability of food-grains per day will come down to 398 grams or " 400 grams per head per day - but it is still not a figure implying starvation death - not a figure to nervously jump on to some queer and possibly disastrous cropping process by killing a time-tested 10,000 year old agricultural practice!
If instead of the lower figure of 121.28 million tonnes the latest food-grain production level of some 241 million tonnes is assumed to be static for next 25-30 years the per capita availability of food-grains " 500 grams per day at present, and for 150 crores people it becomes " 400 grams per day.
Renowned food-expert Devinder Sharma has shown that in the world level too there are enough provisions produced each year to nourish all the world population by much more than 4,000 Calories a day, a figure that is luxury to almost 80% of Indians. The Times of India, on the eve of birth of the 700,000,000,000th (7 billionth) citizen of the world, perhaps to ally apprehension of food-scarcity in the face of ever rising population showed by graphics that per capita availability of food-value or calorie has been on the increase since last 50 years.
§But the cultivation of Genetically Modified or GM Seeds would have increase production to a very high level and thus would reduce pressure of farmers and land too - isn't it!
§ That GM cultivation gives better yield is a hoax - the GM industry, the big corporate houses behind the GM business and also governments friendly to them could not produce a single evidence to show that GM cultivation increases yield. The GM lobby says - then why are Indian farmers opting more and more for GM seeds in case of cotton? The answer is plain and simple - because the GM corporate houses in connivance with businessmen, some scientist and perhaps some govt officials too are making less and less non-GM cotton seeds available in the market. Plus, GM crops in fields have already contaminated a lot the non-GM cotton seeds in nearby fields and made them unproductive. Let us now see the cultivation result of the only permitted GM crop in India - the Bt cotton - from what we got from internet (cotton-balance-sheet.jpg).
Year | Area under production (Million Ha) | Production (Million Bales) | Yield (Kg/Ha) |
2005-06 | 8.68 | 24.4 | 478 |
2006-07 | 9.14 | 28.0 | 521 |
2007-08 | 9.41 | 30.7 | 554 |
2008-09 | 9.41 | 29.0 | 524 |
2009-10 | 10.31 | 29.5 | 486 |
2010-11 | 11.16 | 31.2 | 475 |
We see from their data that total cotton production (in Bales, where 1 bale = 170Kg) has been increasing while the yield (in Bales/Hectare), which increased from 2002 till 2008, has actually been decreasing steadily since last 4 years, that is since the heydays of Bt cotton started, whatever might have been the fluctuation of weather!
§But will GM cultivation not reduce the cost of production by reducing the need of pesticides etc chemicals because GM seeds are pest-resistant themselves?
§ NO. Let us present a proof from Devinder-ji's blog, "Another argument that I often hear is that GM crops reduce the application of chemical pesticides as a result of which the environment becomes much safer and cleaner. Given the acreage presently under Bt cotton, the use of pesticides on cotton should have come down by now. But it hasn't. According to the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR) Nagpur, the usage of pesticides too has gone up. In 2005, `649 crore worth of chemical pesticides was used on cotton. In 2010, when roughly 90 per cent area under cotton is of Bt cotton variety, the pesticides usage has gone up to `880.40 crore."
Then, Monsanto had claimed that Bt cotton was resistant to bollworms since they started pushing Bt variety in Indian market. Besides what happened in Warangal district of AP in the first year when it Bt cotton cultivation started there we may look at Monsanto's latest Bt-fiasco at Gujarat: the Times of India, by no means a media house against GM cultivation, reported in early May this year that Bt cotton failed to resist Pink Bollworms in 4 districts in Gujarat. Perhaps Monsanto will tell farmers to buy some new 'improved' variety of Bt cotton seeds which will be 'resistant' to both white and pink bollworms!
§If GM cultivation, which is a product of development of science and technology, is not allowed, then further development of science and technology will be thwarted - isn't that? Will it be fair?
§ To raise the question of fairness or further development of science and technology through GM cultivation and permit GM cultivation on this ground will lead to dangerous and un-thought-of consequences. For an analogy, ? suppose a very prominent and respected scientist, a Nobel Laureate, Dr Krugmann placed an idea of reducing global warming by dimming the sunlight - by sodium sulphate injection in the lowest level of atmosphere, the stratosphere. Some scientists also calculated probable cost of such a venture, possible reduction of global warming and so on. But many more scientists could not jump in the fray, because there are some possible and some probable consequences. Possible consequences are - acid rain, or at least sulphate-salted rainfall that is surely unwanted; localised dimming in some zones resulting in major weather and climate change in some regions and what these regions are cannot be exactly predicted beforehand and so on so forth; consequences may also include further damage of the ozone layer. So, even if the question of 'further development of science and technology' is there in this case too, it is indeed difficult to permit this dimming experiment even in a 'small scale'. Then, ? we know that many scientists are there who are capable of producing cloned babies from some mother without needing any 'father' - long ago some of those scientists made "Dolly", the first artificial i.e. cloned she-sheep. But though for the sake of purported development of science and technology world governments could have permitted clone-manufacturing of human or domestic-animal babies in reality it was not permitted, because we do not yet know for certain the long term biological and social consequences, because we really do not really need them and so many other factors. Then, ? after producing Atom-Bombs scientists made more powerful Hydrogen-Bombs. After that, already in the 1980s, scientists thought of developing a further developed bomb - a bomb that will kill just living beings but will not destruct properties - the Neutron-Bomb. But for the sake of 'development of science and technology' world powers couldn't give green signal to manufacturing N-Bombs yet. Do you think they should have proceeded to produce N-Bombs?
So we see that there are lots of considerations to be made, not just the excuse of 'development of science and technology'. And technology is not colour-less - it is not correct that 'technology' as such is good, how mankind uses it is different - there are good technologies and bad ones.
§But what is so wrong with GM? Is it really that bad or harmful?
§ GM cultivation is really bad, really catastrophic. ? Once you plant some GM seeds in a field it contaminates natural seeds in nearby farms - contamination here spreads by air, by pollination, which you cannot stop - then ? natural plants of same species in nearby fields gets contaminated by alien genes and produce such seeds that are not capable of reproduction, capable of producing natural plants again - and you force other farmers fell into the 'seed trap' - they also will then have to buy GM seeds. Moreover? as the GM variety seeds have some insect and pest resistant genes, as for example in the Bt cotton seeds there are anti-white-bollworm genes, they can kill not only white bollworms but also other very useful insects like grasshoppers, spiders, butterflies and etc because you cannot 'program' a gene to kill only white-bollworm and not butterflies; though in cases like that of 4 Gujarat districts the Bt plants could not stop pink-bollworm attacks. Then, ? we really do not know the short and long term consequences of GM seeds which were manufactured totally un-naturally (!) by planting 'animal' or 'zoological' genes into 'plant' or 'botanical' seeds. The whole HYV episode never tried such unnatural phenomenon, though for the sake of increasing production (said) and making agriculture more chemical-dependent (unsaid) they really performed genetic-enhancement. But though HYV seeds were not as terrible and catastrophic as GM seeds ? we have seen what the effects of the so called Green Revolution are from experiences begotten from the last 30-40 years. We are witnessing the grey and black effects of the green revolution: becoming more and more chemical fertiliser-insecticide-pesticide-weedicide-diesel dependent, depletion of underground water level to a devastating level, depletion of micro-nutrients in soil, utter degeneration of Humus and other useful soil ingredient, destruction of peasant-friendly and naturally invaluable insects and worms like earthworms, destruction of many kinds of birds and etc etc. after witnessing so many ill effects of the imperialist corporate-led green revolution will we jump again in the fray of the so called 2nd Green Revolution?
§So these are the reasons why environmental organisations are agitating against the BRAI bill!
§ No, these are not the only reasons; organisations like geernpeace, GM-Free Coalition and others can tell you many more scientific and socio-economic reasons. But the BRAI bill is perhaps more dangerous than GM cultivation!? The first draft of the bill contained a provision by which the police can arrest persons speaking against GM cultivation and impose hefty fines and jail terms! We do not know whether the final version too has that clause. ? But then also, the later version gives the BRAI authority the power to discard and disregard any evidences they do not like and accept evidence that they like. ? Next, you cannot know what the BRAI is doing and why they are doing so because they are not subservient to the RTI act, they are not legally bound to show reasons to public, they can keep many things as 'secret' and so on. The BRAI authority will be that much powerful - they can just 'pooh pooh' what you see. ? Even the so called peoples' representatives, our MPs, and the parliament as a whole will not have any jurisdiction to interfere in inside-affairs of the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India.
Now decide - will you not strive to block the passage of the BRAI bill?
Comments:
No Comments for View