Care for some Bt with your brinjal?

The approval of Bt Brinjal by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) has exposed the unscientific basis on which genetically-engineered crops are being commercialised, and it raises questions about the entire bio-safety process.

The admission by the chair of the Expert Committee-II (EC-II), Dr Arjula Reddy, that Union agriculture minister pressurised the panel to approve Bt Brinjal is a symptom of the corruption that needs investigation. Dr Reddy admitted this in a television interview.

The Bt Brinjal debate is not just about a vegetable. It is a test for our food sovereignty and our democracy. This is why it was so important to take it to the public through a series of public hearings that had been organised by the ministry of forest and environment. The results of these public hearings will be out today and should be treated like a referendum on genetically-modified organisms (GMO). This is vital for democracy in the most vital aspect of life — the food we eat.

Genetic engineering needs careful assessment because it allows the transfer of genes from one organism to a totally unrelated organism, crossing species barriers. The impacts are totally unpredictable. It were these unpredictable consequences that led the founding fathers of genetic engineering, or recombinant DNA research, to call for a moratorium on genetic engineering at Asilomer, California, in 1972. However, Wall Street and the biotechnology industry hijacked genetic engineering and started to rush genetically-modified (GM) crops with false promises to the market.

Not only are the consequences of genetic engineering unpredictable, the technology itself is unpredictable. It has been falsely projected by the biotechnology industry that because the manipulation of plants is at the genetic level, genetic engineering is more accurate and precise than conventional breeding. This is not true.

There are only two tools used for current genetic engineering — one is the gene gun, the other is a plant cancer, Agrobacterium tumefacieus.

The uncertainty of the technology is the reason that antibiotic resistance marker genes are used to separate the cells whose genome absorbed the foreign gene from those that do not.

The Bt Brinjal uses a gene, Cry 1 Ac, to produce a toxin from a soil organism — Bacillus Thurengensis (Bt) — as well as two antibiotic resistance marker genes. The NPT11 gene confers resistance to the antibiotics Kanamycin and Neomycin; The AAD gene confers resistance to antibiotic resistance marker genes to separate the cells that absorbed the Bt gene from those that did not.

But to assess bio-safety, safety tests also need to assess the transgene, i.e the Bt Gene Cry 1Ac plus antibiotic resistance marker genes (NPT11 plus AAD) plus the viral promoter (Ca MV3 35S) plus the vector (Agrobacterium, which is used to carry the Bt gene into the brinjal).

However, the tests on bio-safety of Bt Brinjal done by Monsanto/Mahyco and approved by GEAC have not tested Bt Brinjal at all. They have only tested the naturally-occurring and safe microbial Bt. This is a “don’t look, don’t see” policy.

The safety of microbial Bt sprays cannot be used as proof of safety of transgenic Bt. Bt sprays are composed primarily of endotoxins in an inactive crystalline form. Bt crops on the other hand are genetically-engineered to produce the Bt toxin, which is active without processing.

The “rationale for the development of Bt Brinjal” presented by EC-II is based on the false assumption that genetically-engineered Bt crops like Bt Brinjal are an alternative to the use of chemical pesticides for pest control. The panel does not address the real alternative to chemical agriculture, which is organic farming based on the principles of agro-ecology.

Bt Cotton, like Bt Brinjal, was supposed to control the lepidopteron insects. In case of cotton, the pest was the bollworm. In case of Bt Brinjal, it is the fruit and shoot borer.

In Bt Cotton we have witnessed the emergence of new non-target pests and diseases such as aphids, jassids, army bug, mealy bug and “laliya”. This has led to an increase, not a decrease, in pesticide use.

Navdanya, a movement that has created 55 community seed banks and works with 500,000 farmers, has carried out studies that show a 13-fold increase in pesticide use in Vidharba after the introduction of Bt Cotton. (I am the executive director of the Navdanya Trust.)

Genetically-engineered Bt Brinjal can lead to genetic pollution and contamination. Here too the panel, to deny the ecological risks of genetic pollution, has used totally unscientific arguments. The panel cannot even make up its mind whether brinjal is self-pollinated or cross-pollinated.

Indian researchers have reported two to 48 per cent out crossing in brinjal varieties in India. The Mahyco results on cross-pollination vary from 1.4 per cent to 2.7 per cent in 2002, and drop to 0.14 per cent to 85 per cent in the 2007 studies.

These unscientific claims go counter to the established science of plant breeding which has established 200 metres as the isolation distance for breeding foundation seeds and 100 metres for breeding certified seeds for brinjal. Bees pollinate over larger distances. Britain’s former minister for environment, Michael Meacher, had to admit that bees, which may fly up to nine km (six miles) in search of nectar, cannot be expected to observe a “no-fly zone”. A study by the UK-based National Pollen Research Unit in 1999 showed that wind can carry viable maize pollen hundreds of kilometres in 24 hours. Transgenic pollen was found 4.5 km (nearly three miles) from a field of GM oilseed rape in Oxfordshire — at least 20 times over the limit set by the regulatory agencies.

This level of genetic pollution will destroy our organic farmers who with love and care produce pesticide-free, GMO-free vegetables for citizens.

Instead of recognising that approval for commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal is a threat to organic growers, the panel carelessly and callously states that the responsibility of avoiding pollution lies with organic producers.

Why should our small organic growers have to bear the burden of avoiding contamination of their crops? Liability systems need to be evolved which make pollinators pay and make the company liable for economic damages. Until then, there should be a moratorium on Bt Brinjal.

During the moratorium, the government needs to set up interdisciplinary bio-safety assessment systems and inter-ministerial bio-safety regulatory processes which should be independent of the biotechnology industry. It also needs to have a system of labelling GMOs to respect the right of citizens to know what they are eating and make informed choices. This is imperative to protect our food sovereignty and our food democracy.

- Dr Vandana Shiva is the executive director of the
Navdanya Trust