Is there anything wrong with genetically modified crops?

Prof Marc Van Montagu, founder of the
Institute of Plant Biotechnology Outreach
(IPBO), Belgium, winner of the 2013 World
Food Prize
http://www.bibalex.org/cssp/Presentations/P
resentations.aspx?
ID=qkIpW2G2X2uSQVuszsxYEQ==
Randal Keynes, great-great-grandson
Who pushed me for this day?

Is there anything wrong withIs there anything wrong with
genetically modified cropsgenetically modified crops
Amitava Rakshit
amitavar@bhu.ac.in

from Teosinte Maize
By artificial selection that
began ~10,000 years ago.

The March of Genetic Technology
1860 Mendel: making crosses, introducing genes
1920 Discovery of hybrid vigor
1950 Inducing mutations
1960 Tissue culture and embryo rescue
1980 Plant transformation and GMOs
2000 Genomics

The scientific basis of all crop
improvement is the identification of the
genes that encode certain phenotypic
characteristics.
Those genes can now be transferred
more easily (via marker assisted
breeding - no GM) or directly (through
genetic engineering - GM)

• Can change plant so that it has
new or different characteristics
–Produce needed protein
–Insect resistance
–Herbicide resistance
–Drought or other stress resistance
Why Change a Plant’s DNA?

Genetically Modified Crops: Why and What to Know About
• One most epoch-making development of science and technology,
biological technology to be precise, that is going to shape the history
of civilization
• Use-applications of the products of GM technology concern every
man, not alone the knowledgeable few or the promoters
• Passionate debates about the foreseen prospects and unforeseen
problems of the technology is raging the country, if not the whole
world
• Being at the interface of science and society, it is our duty to be aware
and make people aware of the technology and its implications
• We need to know the concept behind the technology, and where the
confusion and confidence come from about its use

Creation of a GM plant
relies on a natural gene
transfer mechanism

Genetically Modified Crops : Concept
• History of agricultural civilization is the history of progressive
domestication of plants via genome modification through natural
crossing of “species having recent common ancestor”, by and large,
homologous recombination via inter- & intra-species hybridization
• Rediscovery of Mendel’s tenets in early 20th
century lead to intensive
plant selection for desirable traits following planned intra- and
interspecies crossing between parents linked by “recent common
ancestor”
• Most food crops, including rice, wheat, oats, maize potatoes,
brassicas and tomatoes are products of crossing, initially natural, then
deliberate and planned hybridization
• Modern day S. tuberosum is just one example of a crop carrying
manipulated genome – R genes for resistance against Late Blight disease
introduced from non-edible wild Solanum spp.
‘Recent’ is too short a time frame in terms of ‘our common ancestor’;
GMOs have crossed the evolutionary time frame of
‘Recent common ancestry’

Genetically Modified Crops : Historical Landmarks
1940 20101975
1944
1953
1957
1966
1970 - 73
1977
1981
1983-85
1994
1996
2006: GM crop cultivation
crosses 100m ha world wide
Avery, McLeod, McCarty: DNA as hereditary carrier – DNA Transformation of bacteria
Kornberg: DNA polymerase enzyme discovered
Weiss & Richradson : DNA ligase enzyme discovered
Cohen et al. : Recombinant plasmid DNA synthesis & gene cloning
Berg : Recombinant DNA molecule synthesized;
Hamilton Smith : Restriction endonuclease discovered;
Gilbert / Sanger DNA sequencing perfected;
Nester et al.: A. tumifasciens genetically transforms host
cells
Insulin production in GM E.coli cells
Hall : GM sunflower with soybean gene
produced; First GM crop field tested in UK
Slow ripening GM tomato approved
for food use in USA
Commercial cultivation of GM
maize & soybean
Watson & Crick: DNA structure elucidated

0
30
60
90
120
150
180
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010
Total
Industrial
Developing
160 million hectares
395 million acres
Source: C.James, ISAAA. 2006
Global area of GM crops: 1996 – 2010
Industrial vs. developing countries (m ha)

Global area of crops with Bt technology is nearing half of total area in the world planted to
biotech crops (James, 2009). Meanwhile, the graph below shows that Bt technology is steadily
adopted globally, along with other traits from biotechnology.
Global area of GM crops: 1996 – 2009

Area under GM crops: 1996 – 2009
By country (in million hectares)

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Soybean Cotton Canola Maize
91
35
27
148
64% 38% 18% 17%
Conventional
GM
Global adoption – overall and as percentage, for
Principal GM crops in 2009 (m ha)
>10 million farmers growing GM crops, of whom 90% are in developing
countries, majority with small holdings, viz Bt cotton in China and India.
Million
Hectares

What are people’s concerns
• Is this food safe?
• Should food be labeled?
• Are there adverse
environmental effects?
• Patenting of seeds
• Discrimination against the
poor
• Who benefits?
All of these concerns
apply to food and
agriculture in general

These concerns are generally true
for all innovations.
 Promote the general welfare
 Maintain people’s rights
(individuals, groups, corporations)
 Ensure justice: burdens and
benefits must be fairly shared
Governments create policies based
on the following principles:

Agriculture is the main cause of
environmental change and degradation

Agriculture has narrowed the gene
pool and caused a loss of biodiversity
Wild Progenitors and Relatives
Land Races
Elite Lines

Environmental Hazards from Pesticides
• Substantial health
impacts on workers
• Pollution of natural
ecosystems/
waterways
• Loss of insect
biodiversity in
agroecosystems
• Creation of secondary
pests
• Creation of insect
races resistant to
pesticides

Genetics is always better than chemicals:
GM Cotton with a Bacillus thuringiensis Cry gene is
resistant to Cotton Bollworm. Cry encodes an
insecticidal protein

Reduced Pesticide Use with Insect-Protected Cotton
Insect Control Ledger for Bt Cotton
Manufacturing Distribution Application Financial Benefit Stewardship
Applies ? million
fewer pounds of
insecticide in 2.5 fewer
applications per acre
Disposes of ? fewer
insecticide containers
Saves ? hour farm
work days
Conserves ? million
gallons of fuel and ?
million gallons of water
Accrues
? Million INR
in economic
benefits from
lower production
costs and
increased
cotton yield
Reduces pesticide
exposure risk
Preserves
beneficial insect
populations
Creates wildlife
benefits
Gives cotton
producers more
time for family
and community
activities
Gives cotton
producers peace
of mind
Transports and
stores ? fewer
gallons of
insecticide
Conserves ?
gallons
of fuel oil
Produces fiber
equivalent to that
found in all
consumer
products derived
from cotton
Consumer
Benefit
Saves ? million
pounds of raw
material
Conserves ?
million gallons of
fuel oil
Eliminates ?
million pounds of
industrial waste
Net
Bt Cotton

Some GM crops have the potential
to mitigate the environmental impact
of agriculture: less pesticide, less
dust, more biodegradable herbicides
““Roundup” tolerant soybeansRoundup” tolerant soybeans
can be Planted with no-tillcan be Planted with no-till
procedures, which eliminateprocedures, which eliminate
plowing (dust),Save water andplowing (dust),Save water and
use a biodegradableuse a biodegradable
herbicideherbicide

Genetically Modified Crops: Dissection of the Polemics
What is the Debate About ?
Heterologous recombination –
virtues or vicissitude ?
• So long as genetic modification was based on gross genetic
homology between parents, there was no objection; objection
is now primarily against heterologous recombination, and to
some extent against the mechanics of recombination
• What the proponents see as virtues, opponents project as
vices
• Difference in value judgment – proponents justify by ‘need
perception’ whereas opponents justify by ‘threat perception’
• Both proponents and opponents belong to well-informed
minority (consumers), not the non-informed majority
(producers)
Conflict of consumer – producer interest

Seed Companies
US Consumer
Technology
Inventor
US Farmer
Total Benefits
200M 400M 600M 800M 1000M
100%
76%
7%
4%
3%
ESTIMATED BENEFITS IN MILLION DOLLARS
DISTRIBUTION OF
BENEFITS
FROM HT (RR) SOYBEAN
SOURCE: Falck-Zepada,J.B., G. Traxler and R.G. Nelson. 1999, Rent Creation and Distribution From Biotechnology
Innovations: The Case of Bt Cotton and Herbicide Tolerant Soybeans in 1997.Agribusiness.
$1,061M
$796M
$74M
$42M
$32M
GM crops – Benefit Sharing among the Stakeholders :
US experience with 1st
generation GM crops
Who gains from the GM technology?

Genetically Modified Crops
Two sides of the Debate
Confusion & Confidence
“ Genetic engineering is imprecise and unpredictable; By inserting
foreign genes into the DNA of a host, new life forms are created that
have never occurred in nature. Long term impacts of such
manipulations are unknown” – Green Alternatives to Globalization – A
Manifesto, M. Woodwin & C. Lucas, Pluto Press, 2006.
“ The serious issues are getting lost in all the extreme statements
(about GM crops) …. No one is trying to redesign nature or humanity. It
is absurd to say that we have left everything in its natural state until
now, we haven’t. What biotechnology is doing is targeting nature in a
more precise and specific way than before” Patrick Bateson, VP, Royal
Society, UK, www.guardian.co. uk, June 23, 2002

The ‘Need’ Perception – Proponents’ Viewpoints
• There is fundamental ‘genetic homology’ in terms of chemical
basis of heredity among all organisms
• The technology is the same as done by man since time
immemorial, only the modification has become more precise
and predictable, less cost and time intensive
• Strategically placed to increase global food production by
reducing crop losses and increasing yields while conserving
precious farmland
• Shall reduce the need for chemical pesticides, tillage, irrigation,
and free agriculture from over dependence on fossil fuel
energy

Where the Benefits Come From
• Increased and more durable Biological Tolerance to specific pests ,
diseases and viruses to reduce the need for chemical pesticides -
In Africa, sweet potato yield doubled in 5 years by adoption of feathery mottle virus
resistant GM varieties, resistance of papaya to Ring spot virus, Bt cotton against bollworm
• Adaptability to abiotic stresses – drought, salinity, water logging,
extreme temperature etc. -
Cold tolerance of GM Canola with higher linoleic acid content
• Tolerance to environmentally safe herbicides –
‘Round up Ready’ maize and soybean
• Desirable functional characteristics –
Delayed ripening, longer shelf life, reduced allergenicity / toxicity etc
• Desirable nutritional characteristics – altered protein and fat content,
increased essential amino acids, vitamins and mineral content –
Increased provitamin A content of ‘Golden Rice’, increased starch content of ‘chips’
making potato
• Convenient medium for drug & vaccine delivery through edibles

Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in
Developing Countries
M. Qaim & D. Zilberman, Science 299: 900-2, 2003. <www.sciencemag.org>
“On-farm field trials carried out with Bt-cotton in
different states of India show that the technology
substantially reduces pest damage and increases yield.
The yield gains are much higher than what has been
reported for other countries where GM crops were used
to replace and enhance chemical pest control. In many
developing countries small-scale farmers especially
suffer big pest-related yield losses because of technical
and economic constraints. Pest-resistant genetically
modified crops can contribute to increased yields and
agricultural growth in those situations, as the case of Bt-
cotton in India demonstrates”.

Bt Cotton Yield Advantage: Indian Experience
* Mean values are different from those of non-Bt counterparts and popular
checks at a 5% significance level
Mean values for
Bt
(n = 157)
Non – Bt
counterpart
(n = 157)
Popular check
(n = 157)
No. of sprays against
bollworm
0.62 * (1.28) 3.68 (1.98) 3.63 (1.98)
No. of sprays against
sucking pests
3.57 (1.70) 3.51 (1.66) 3.45 (1.62)
Amount of insecticide,
kg/ha
which is in
1.74 * (1.86) 5.56 (3.15) 5.43 (3.07)
Toxicity class I
Toxicity class II
Toxicity class III
0.64 * (1.10) 1.98 (1.78) 1.94 (1.78)
1.07 * (1.27) 3.55 (2.66) 3.46 (2.06)
0.03 (0.08) 0.03 (0.08) 0.03 (0.08)
Amount of active
ingredients, kg /ha
0.48 * (0.55) 1.55 (0.96) 1.52 (0.95)
Yield, kg /ha 1501 * (857) 833 (572) 802 (571)
M. Qaim & D. Zilberman, Science 299: 900-2, 2003.

Disease control in a GM crop
Papaya transformed with viral CP gene
Field reaction of GM & non-GM papaya crop compared at various stages
6 MAP
12 MAP
24 MAP Field View

The ‘Threat’ Perception – Opponents’ Viewpoints
• Environmental Concern: Risks to the environment and
economics of food production – Development of resistant
organisms, weeds & pests, and loss of biodiversity
• Concern about health and hygiene: Potential risks to
human health, mainly through impacts on food safety -
allergenicity, acute toxicity of GM products, evolution of
resistant pathogenic microflora etc
• Economic and social Concern: Direct costs of investment
and production, particularly for less developed countries
• Political concern: Designed to suit globalization,
corporate exploitation and capitalism
•

Key Issues Behind Concern
Environmental concern
• Effect of GM crops on non-target organisms
• Impacts of GM crops on soil ecosystems
• Gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives
• Invasiveness of GM crops into natural habitats
• Impacts of GM crops on pest and weed management

Sanvido O, Stark M, Romeis, J., and Bigler F. (2006)
Ecological impacts of genetically modified crops :
experiences from ten years of experimental field research
and commercial cultivation, Agroscope Reckenholz Tanikon
Research Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland.
Summary of Conclusions from 10 years data
Switzerland is one EU country that is yet to adopt GM crops in large scale

Genetically Modified Crops vs. Environment
Concern 1: Effect on non-target organisms
There are concerns that insect-resistant GM crops
expressing Bt-Cry proteins could directly harm organisms
other than the pest(s) targeted by the toxin and thus affect
biological diversity in a region.
No adverse effects on non-target natural enemies,
pollinators and other micro- and meso- fauna resulting from
direct toxicity of the expressed Bt toxins have so far been
observed in laboratory studies and in the field. There is
evidence that the Bt crops grown today are more target-
specific and have fewer side effects on non-target
organisms than most current insecticides used.

Concern 2: Impacts of GM crops on soil ecosystems
Concerns are raised that Bt crops can have adverse effects on soil organisms. Bt
toxins enter the soil via root exudates, crop debris. Degradation and inactivation of
the toxin vary, depending on agro-ecological factors. Initial degradation of the toxin
is rapid, a low percentage (< 2%) may remain in the soil after one growing season.
However, No accumulation of Bt toxins has been observed after several
years of cultivation of Bt crops.
Population sizes and community structure of soil organisms are subject to both
seasonal variation and to variations caused by the agricultural system (soil type,
plant age, crops, cultivars, and crop rotation). Neither laboratory nor field
studies have shown lethal or sub-lethal effects of Bt toxins on non-target soil
organisms such as earthworms, collembola, mites, woodlice, or nematodes.
Some differences in total numbers and community structure have been described
for microorganisms, but whether the differences between Bt and non-Bt crops were
exceeding the natural variation is doubtful . The only study considering natural
variation suggests that observed effects lie within this variation and that the
differences between conventional cultivars outweigh the observed influences
of Bt crops.

Concern 3:Gene flow from GM crops to wild relatives
There is general scientific agreement that gene flow from GM crops to sexually
compatible wild relatives can occur. GM crops are capable of spontaneously
mating with wild relatives, however, at rates in the order of what would be
expected for non-transgenic crops. Questions remain whether these
transgenes would cause ecologically relevant changes in recipient plant
populations. Although there is a low probability that increased weediness due to
gene flow could occur, it is unlikely that GMHT weeds would create greater
agricultural problems than conventional weeds. Fitness of a weed in natural
ecosystems is not necessarily due to one or two genes factoring for specific
toxin proteins, enzymes etc.
In natural habitats, no long-term introgression of transgenes into wild plant
populations leading to the extinction of any wild plant taxa (biodiversity
loss) has been observed to date. Transgenes conferring herbicide tolerance are
unlikely to confer a benefit in natural habitats because these genes are selectively
neutral in natural environments, whereas insect resistance genes could increase
fitness if pests contribute to the control of natural plant populations.

Hmm… I wonder if
there could be
gene
flow?
Gene flow occurs when crops cross with wild relatives growingGene flow occurs when crops cross with wild relatives growing
in relative close proximity to the fields.in relative close proximity to the fields.
Gene flow requires sexual compatibilityGene flow requires sexual compatibility
Gene persistence requires an evolutionary advantage for the new traitGene persistence requires an evolutionary advantage for the new trait

Concern 4:Invasiveness of GM crops into natural habitats
Concern that GM crops, when released could invade natural
habitats to be a potential risk to nature. It seems that modern crop
varieties generally stay domesticated and ‘volunteer’ crops as
weeds are rare in natural ecosystems. There is no evidence at
present that the cultivation of GM crops has resulted in
widespread dispersal of volunteer crops carrying transgenic traits
and becoming weeds.
Furthermore, there is currently no evidence that HT crops
have become feral and invaded natural habitats.
Whether a crop will become a weed in an arable ecosystem
depends on the attributes of the crop, the ecosystem and the introduced
gene, and is not a generic character of all GM crops.

Concern 5: Impacts of GM crops on pest and weed management –
evolution of resistant population
Impacts of GM crops on pest and weed management practices
and their potential ecological consequences are being debated.
Numerous weed and pest species evolved resistance to a
number of herbicides and pesticides long before the introduction of
GM crops. Such resistance is an evolutionary process to acquire survival
fitness in organisms and is not unique for ‘genetic modification’.
Large-scale GM crops cultivation confirms that development of
herbicide or pesticide resistances in target weeds or pests is not primarily
a question of ‘genetic modification’, but of the crop and management
practices. Despite extensive cultivation of GMHT oilseed rape in
Canada and Bt maize in USA / China, no weed or pest species has
so far been observed being tolerant to the herbicides glyphosate
and glufosinate or the Bt transgene. The problem, if it surfaces can be
tackled by conventional approaches.

KEY ISSUES BEHIND CONCERN
Food Safety Concerns
• Transgene (DNA) itself may be toxic, may be transferred
to the consumer
• Transgene product (protein) may be toxic / allergic to
consumers / handlers
• Transgene may increase hazard from toxins or
pharmacologically active substances present in the host
• The antibiotic marker / viral gene promoter etc.may pass
on to human / animal gut microbes to create hazard
• Nutritional value of the transgenic crop may change

Social – Economic Concern
• GMCs are cost intensive, especially for the resource
poor farmers in countries like ours
• Entry of and virtual control of world seed / input market
by exploitative private capital
• Reversal of subsistence polyculture farming with
attendant ecological benefits of the East-Southeast to
input intensive monoculture farming of the West-
Northwest
• Shall not solve hunger / poverty as access, not
availability of food is the real issue
KEY ISSUES BEHIND CONCERN

GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS
Concerns How Real?
Three publications in Nature 1999-2001 that spoke of
environmental danger of GM crops:
• JE Losey et al. “ Transgenic pollen harms Monarch larvae”
Nature 399: 214, 1999
• D Saxena et al. “ Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt
corn” Nature 399: 402, 1999
• D Quist & I Chapella “ Transgenic DNA introgressed into
traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico” Nature 414:
541-43, 2001
These and such other publications are translated as:
“ The End of the World as we Know it”!
(Greenpeace Brief on GM Crops)

Concerns How Real ?
• Monarch butterfly, the ‘Conservation Flagship species’ of the USA
was seen to be low on survival & consumption rates when
laboratory fed with milkweed leaves (natural weed host) dusted
with Bt-maize pollen (Losey et al. Nature 399: 214, 1999)
•Several independent field and laboratory investigations later
showed that the ruling Bt- hybrid maize pollen was neither toxic
nor the possibly toxic Cry genes expressed in pollens. Further
studies showed that Bt-expressing crops posed little risk to non-
target insects, pollinators, natural enemies (Ref. Angharad MR et al.
2002. The case of the Monarch butterfly: a verdict returned. Trends
in Genetics 18:249-251)
•Nature in its long history of service to science and society had to
express regrets for publishing the paper without appropriately
verifying the details - design, methodology, and findings of the
laboratory experiment

Genetically Modified Crops :
How Confusions Spread
Greenpeace (China) review document prepared by Prof.
Xue Dayuan of Nanjing Institute of Environmental Science
claimed “ Bt-cotton has destabilized China’s insect ecology
and perpetuated farmers’ reliance on harmful pesticides”.
When challenged by CAAS with contrary data the author
agreed “I think I’m a little biased, I didn’t use research
evidence that showed advantages of Bt-cotton because I
was focusing on adverse effects” (Biotechnology Update 4,
June 2002, Biotechnology Information Center, Mumbai)
Incidentally, China grows the largest area of
GM cotton in the world

Genetically Modified Crops -
Concerns How Real?
Cases of human allergy to traces of Bt proteins in Starlink maize
(expressing Cry9C gene) was announced by Friends of the Earth
(USA) leading to withdrawal of all Bt maize food / feed products by
the US FDA
17 persons who reported allergy upon ingestion of Bt-Cry9C maize
found ELISA negative for IgE antibodies against Cry9C proteins by
CDC, USA, casting doubt about FDA spot tests for allergenicity.
A double blind placebo trial commissioned by EPA-SAP found the
patient who reported repeated allergy as ‘wholly allergy negative to
Starlink maize protein’ (containing Cry9C protein) by intra-dermal
test while positive to standard histamine check.
(Sutton SA et al. 2003. A negative double blind placebo controlled
challenge to GM corn. J. Allergy Clinical Immunology 112: 1011-12)

Genetically Modified Crops -
Concerns How Real?
Ewen S & Pusztai A (1999) Effects of diets containing
genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthaus nivalis
lectin on rat small rat intestine. The Lancet 354: 1353-54
The Royal Society commissioned independent investigation
that later debunked the findings that led to scare and
public outcry (Halford NG, Plant Biotechnology, P. 24, John
Wiley, 2006)
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reported (2007)
that “there is no evidence the GM animal feed can have
harmful effects on meat & egg. The recombinant DNA did
not survive passage through the intact GI tract of healthy
human subjects fed GM soya. To date large number
experimental studies have shown that DNA fragments or
proteins derived from GM plants have not been detected in
tissues, fluids, eggs or other other edible products of farm
animals”
http://www. Worldpoultry.net/news/id2205-26307/efsa

Concerns How Real ?
Quist & Chapella’s data ( PCR detection of DNA signature
diagnostic of genetic engineering) to claim horizontal gene
transfer from transgenic maize to traditional maize landraces in
Mexico (D Quist, IH Chapella, Nature 414: 541:2001) were later
found as interpretations based on “ PCR artefacts” and
commented by independent scientists / reviewers as “worst
science” (Metz & Fütterer, Nature, Apr’02).
As a sequel, Nature had to somewhat retract by saying
“evidence available is not sufficient to justify publication”of the
paper.
The fate of the other paper (Saksena et al., 1999, Nature, 399: 402,
1999) on Bt toxin root exudates of Bt maize harming soil
biodiversity was similar.

What are the main food issues?
The # 1 safety issue is bacteria
The # 1 health issues are fat, sugar and salt
What about their nutritional value and safety?

Compositional equivalence of Bt and non-Bt crops –
Food quality of GM and non-GM counterpart (Proximate analysis data)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Percent
Non Bt
Bt11
Fibre Fat Protein Carbohydrate
Results generated on GM maize event Bt 11 and its conventional counterpart: No
difference for other nutritional factors (protein quality, minerals & vitamin content)
has been found

Are GM foods safe and
nutritious?
1. All GM foods have been extensively tested
and they are as safe as other foods in the
market place.
2. GM crops can be made into convenience
and “junk” food just like organic crops and
other crops!
3. Nutrition depends on the food, not the
method of crop breeding

Every year 250,000 children become blind
because of vitamin A deficiency

Some GM crops will improve the
nutritional quality of foods. Such
foods are now in the pipeline.

A GM soybean line, developed as a
collaboration between the USDA and
DuPont, is hypoallergenic in humans.
The approach is to down regulate the expression of the gene encoding the major allergenic protein
(antisense)

How to Label?
Conventionally grown GMO
Pesticides, twice a week Pesticide free

So, what’s the bottom line?
1. GM foods are as safe and there is promise for
more nutritious food.
2. For some crops, environmental impacts are
similar or less than conventional agriculture.
3. GM is an important tool for the plant breeder
4. GM technology can solve problems that can’t be
solved in other ways at present.
5. The benefits will be spread between biotech
companies, farmers and consumers.

How confusions spread : Campaign against GMC
& GR technology in crop production
Rural poverty ratio in Punjab stood at 7.21 % against all India average of 35.25% in 2001-2002
Food Security in Exchange of Cancer?
Photo: Rice transplantation in Punjab
Anandabazar Patrika, Calcutta, 30-06-2010

Genetically Modified Crops: How Confusion Spreads
Campaign against GM Rice in West Bengal
Anandabazar Patrika, Calcutta, 31-12-2010
Starvation Death Threat For Farmers With GM Crops

The Frame for Dialogue & Debate
“When discussing the risks of GE crops, one has to
recognize that the real choice for farmers and consumers is
not between a GE technology that may have risks and a
completely safe alternative. The real choice is between GE
crops and current conventional pest and weed
management practices, all possibly having positive and
negative outcomes. To ensure that a policy is truly
precautionary, one should therefore compare the risk of
adopting a technology against the risk of not adopting it. We
thus believe that both benefits and risks of GE crop
systems should be compared with those of current
agricultural practices”.

Confidence
“There is no free lunch in Nature’s Reception Party”
All technologies are preset with risks that was not there
without the technology
Biotechnology, for that matter Green Technology, may not be
an exception also
Benefit: cost ratio (social cost not excluded)
to determine utility
Risk is a product of hazard X exposure
can be minimized by reducing either potential hazard or
potential exposure or both
While concerns about GMCs arise from potential hazards,
confidence arises from reducing potential exposure and /
or hazard

Consumer Convenience Dictates Acceptance of a
Technology ------ as for example
“Risks associated with mobile phone use are arguably higher than they are for the
current commercialized GMCs, yet because of the convenience that mobile phones
provide to the user, they are much more acceptable to users”
TOI, Calcutta, 03-02-11

Abstract: Use of the insecticidal cry proteins from the bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in cotton has
raised a number of concerns, including the ecological impact on soil ecosystems.Greenhouse study was
conducted during the 2011 wet season (March to August) at the Institute of Agricultural Sciences of
Banaras Hindu University. It was carried out on three different soil orders that includedentisol, inceptisol
and alfisol. Bt cotton (var.NCS-138) and its non-transgenic isoline (var.NCS-138) were grown until
maturity. A no crop pot was maintained for all the three soil orders. The highest rate of decomposition was
found in alluvial soil compared to black and red soils in 50 days after incorporation (DAI). Thereafter the
rate of decomposition was slowed downby100 DAI and the constant rate of decomposition was found in
150 DAI. The rate of decomposition was higher in non Bt than Bt crop residues.
Keywords: Bt cotton, soil types, decomposition
DECOMPOSITION OF BT COTTON AND NON BT COTTON RESIDUES
UNDER VARIED SOIL TYPES
Authors: Sujata Kumari, Amitava Rakshit, Kasturikasen Beura
Article type: Regular Article of Biotechnology
Articels in next issue
The Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Foof Sciences

DO WE NEED THEM
?

Final submission
It does become necessary to take decisions
in the best interest of the nation, guided by
genuine scientific inputs, rather than
attempting a consensus.
Agriculture is not just about technology,
since it embodies a culture and there are
political and sociological over tones. It needs
to be realized that GM is only an innovative
approach to provide a technological solution,
but it should not be made a scape goat if
there is failure else where.

EPILOGUE
“I am pleased to hear that the Government of India had finally
approved the cultivation of Bt cotton. Congratulations!
Now that the door has been opened for the use of transgenic
biotechnology on one crop, I hope it will soon be approved for
other traits on other crops, wherever there is proven advantage
within acceptable levels of risk.
As an enthusiastic friend of India, I have been dismayed to see it
lagging behind in the approval of transgenic crops, while China
forges ahead. I hope India’s recent approval of Bt cotton is
indicative of a change toward more progressive leadership in
agricultural policy.
I am convinced that wise use of biotechnology will be crucial to
India’s food security”
Nobel Peace Laureate Norman Borlaug – letter to the Indian
scientific community < http://www.agbioview.org>2008

PM BRINGS HOPE FOR SCIENTISTS OVER INTRODUCING GM FOOD CROPS IN
INDIA AFTER SAFETY TRIALS
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said his government remained
committed "to promoting the use of these new technologies for
agricultural development". NEW DELHI: IN A REMARK WHICH MAY
BRING SMILE ON THE FACE OF THOUSANDS OF AGRICULTURE
SCIENTISTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THE PRIME MINISTER
MANMOHAN SINGH ON MONDAY SAID THAT THE GOVERNMENT
SHOULD NOT SUCCUMB TO "UNSCIENTIFIC PREJUDICES" AGAINST
GENETICALLY MODIFIED (GM) CROPS. GIVING A STRONG SIGNAL TO
GREEN ACTIVISTS WHO HAVE BEEN OPPOSED TO THE TRANSGENIC
CROPS WITHOUT ANY SCIENTIFIC BACKING, SINGH SAID HIS
GOVERNMENT REMAINED COMMITTED "TO PROMOTING THE USE OF
THESE NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT".
HIS REMARKS, CAME WHILE DELIVERING INAUGURAL SPEECH AT
THE 101ST INDIAN SCIENCE CONGRESS (ISC) IN JAMMU, MAY SEND A
SENSE OF RELIEF TO SCIENTISTS COMMUNITY IN GENERAL AND
AGRICULTURE SCIENTISTS IN PARTICULAR WHO HAD DEVELOPED
MANY TRANSGENIC SEEDS OVER THE YEARS BUT COULD NOT GO
FOR FIELD TRIAL DUE TO MORATORIUM ON SUCH ACTIVITIES.
TOI, Varanasi, 03-02-14

AcknowledgementAcknowledgement
Ministry of Science & Technology, DST,Government of India
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY
MSc Students: Kasturi, Sujata and Prachi

Is there anything wrong with genetically modified crops?

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Is there anything wrong with genetically modified crops?

Ähnlich wie Is there anything wrong with genetically modified crops? (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)