GeneticallymodifiedcropsinIndia

ThecurrentstatusofGMcropsinIndia

Authors: ParasChopra,Iyear, BiotechnologyEngineering DelhiCollegeofEngineering And AkhilKamma,Iyear, BiotechnologyEngineering DelhiCollegeofEngineering Teamname:GeneticFrenetics Email:paras1987@gmail.com,paras_chopra@fastmail.fm Phone:+919868221372,01127563421

Agenda

1. 2. 3. 4.

WhatisGeneticmodification? IssuesrelatedGeneticmodification. HowIndiafitsinthepictureofGMCrops? FutureofGMcropsinIndiaandtheworld.

WhatisGeneticModification?
Geneticmodificationinvolvesalteringanorganism'sDNA.Thiscanbedoneby alteringanexistingsectionofDNA,orbyaddinganewgenealtogether. Ageneisacodethatgovernshowweappearandwhatcharacteristicswehave. Likeanimals,plantshavegenestoo.Genesdecidethecolourofflowers,and howtallaplantcangrow.Likepeople,thecharacteristicsofaplantwillbe transferredtoitschildrentheplantseeds,whichgrowintonewplants. Whenascientistgeneticallymodifiesaplant,theyinsertaforeigngeneinthe plant'sowngenes.Thismightbeagenefromabacteriumresistanttopesticide, forexample.Theresultisthattheplantreceivesthecharacteristicsheldwithin thegeneticcode.Consequently,thegeneticallymodifiedplantalsobecomes abletowithstandpesticides. Notonlygeneticmodificationcanbeusedtochangeanimalandplantgenes. Spontaneouschanges,radiation,chemicalsandtraditionalprocessingcanalso alterthecharacteristicsofaplantoranimal. Spontaneousalterationofgenestakesplacenaturallyandsometimeswithno effect.Aspontaneousalterationcanleadtothedevelopmentofbothpositiveand negativecharacteristics.Themethodisnotparticularlygoodiftheintentionisto createspecificchanges. Radiationandchemicalscanbeusedinordertoeffectgenealteration.Both elementsaresometimesusedinplantprocessing. Withgeneticmodificationitispossibletotransfergenesfromonespeciesto another.Thisisbecauseallgenes,betheyhuman,plant,animalorbacterialare createdfromthesamematerial.Geneticscientiststhereforehaveahugeamount ofgeneticcharacteristicstochoosefrom.

Howdoesageneticscientistwork?
Geneticmodificationofplantsoccursinseveralstages: 1.Anorganism thathasthedesiredcharacteristicisidentified. 2.Thespecificgenethatproducesthischaracteristicislocatedandcutoutofthe plantsDNA.

3.Togetthegeneintothecellsoftheplantbeingmodified,thegeneneedstobe attachedtoacarrier.ApieceofbacterialDNAcalledaplasmidisjoinedtothe genetoactasthecarrier. 4.Atypeofswitch,calledapromoter,isalsoincludedwiththecombinedgene andcarrier.Thishelpsmakesurethegeneworksproperlywhenitisputintothe plantbeingmodified.Onlyasmallnumberofcellsintheplantbeingmodifiedwill actuallytakeupthenewgene.Tofindoutwhichoneshavedoneso,thecarrier packageoftenalsoincludesamarkergenetoidentifythem.

5.Thegenepackageistheninsertedbackintothebacterium,whichisallowedto reproducetocreatemanycopiesofthegenepackage.

6.Thegenepackagesarethentransferredintotheplantbeingmodified.Thisis usuallydoneinoneoftwoways: Byattachingthegenepackagestotinyparticlesofgoldortungstenand firingthemathighspeedintotheplanttissue.Goldortungstenareused becausetheyarechemicallyinertinotherwords,theywon'treactwith theirsurroundings

Byusingasoilbacterium,calledAgrobacteriumtumefaciens,totakeitin whenitinfectstheplanttissue.

 ThegenepackagesareputintoA.tumefaciens,whichismodifiedtomake sureitdoesn'tbecomeactivewhenitistakenintothenewplant.

7.TheplanttissuethathastakenupthegenesisthengrownintofullsizeGM plants.

8.TheGMplantsarecheckedextensivelytomakesurethatthenewgenesare inthemandworking,astheyshould.Thisisdonebygrowingthewholeplants, allowingthemtoturntoseed,plantingtheseedsandgrowingtheplantagain, whilemonitoringthegenethathasbeeninserted.Thisisrepeatedseveraltimes. Howdoweknowifthegeneticmodificationhassucceeded? Onlyrarelycanoneseewhetheraplantoranimalhasbeengeneticallymodified, withthenakedeye.Scientistshavethereforedevelopedsometechniquesto assistthem. Forexampleaspecialcolourtestcanidentifywhetheraplantisgenetically modified.Atthetimewhentheplantisgeneticallymodified,thescientistinserts anextramarkergeneintotheplant.Themarkergenecanhavedifferent characteristics,forexample,itcanmaketheplantchangecolourwhenexposed toachemicaltest. Inthisway,scientistscanidentifywhethertheplanthasbeengenetically modifiedornotbyperformingachemicaltestandnotingthecolouroftheplant.

Alteringgenes
Geneticmodificationdoesnotalwaysinvolvemovingagenefromoneorganism toanother.Sometimesitmeanschanginghowageneworksby'switchingitoff' tostopsomethinghappening.Forexample,thegeneforsofteningafruitcould beswitchedoffsothatalthoughthefruitripensinthenormalway,itwillnot softenasquickly.Thiscanbeusefulbecauseitmeansthatdamageisminimized duringpackingandtransportation. Controllingthisgene'switch'mayalsoallowresearcherstoswitchonmodified genesinparticularpartsofaplant,suchastheleavesorroots.Forexample,the genesthatgiveaplantresistancetoapestmightonlybeswitchedoninthebitof theplantthatcomesunderattack,andnotinthepartusedforfood.

FOREXAMPLE:
In2002,researchersatCornellUniversityinNewYorkusedadifferentscientific approachtodevelophardierbiotechricethatcanresistdroughtandthrivein marginalsoil. IntheCornellstudy,researcherstookthegenesthatsynthesizetrehalosea simplesugarthatisproducedinawidevarietyofplants,includingthe resurrectionplantandinsertedthemintorice.Theresurrectionplantisadesert mossthatcanslowitsactivitytozeroduringadroughtandcompletelyrevive withthereturnofwater. ButtheUniversityofCaliforniaRiversidemethoddiffersinthatnoforeigngenes wereintroducedintothetobaccoplantstomakethemdroughtresistant. Instead,Gallie'sresearchteamwasabletousethetobaccoplant'sowngenesto reducetheleveloftheenzymedehydroascorbatereductase(DHAR),which reducesaplant'sabilitytorecyclevitaminC.Andthat,inturn,signalstheplantto slowthelossofwaterfromitsleaves. "ThisreductioninvitaminCrecyclingcausesplantstobehighlyresponsiveto drygrowthconditionsbyreducingtherateofwaterthatescapesfromtheir leaves,"saidGallie."Thus,theyarebetterabletogrowwithlesswaterand surviveadrought." Here'showitworks: Plantleaveshavetinyporescalledstomatathatopenusuallyinthemorning whenit'scoolertoallowplantstobreatheincarbondioxide,whichtheyneedto grow.Intheafternoon,whenit'shotter,thestomataclosetoconservewater. Thestomataarecontrolledbyguardcellsthatopenandclosethetinypores basedonthelevelofoxidizerssuchashydrogenperoxide,whoselevel increaseswhenexposedtoenvironmentalstressessuchasdrought.When oxidizerlevelsrise,theporesclose. AnantioxidantsuchasvitaminCdestroystheseoxidizersinplants.Byreducing thevitaminClevels,oxidizersremainhighenoughtokeepthestomataclosed. Theplantisessentiallytrickedsoitpreserveswater.

Biotechnologyisanevolutionoftraditionalagriculturalmethods.Overthepast 10,000years,peoplehaveroutinelyusedtheirknowledgeofplantstoimprove foodproduction.Biotechnologyisthelatestdevelopmentintheevolutionof agriculturalmethods.Farmersusedtorelyonplantbreedingtoaddoreliminate specificgenetictraitsinaplant.Thosewithdesirablecharacteristicsareselected overseveralgenerations.Thecropsandlivestockweseetodayarearesultof traditionalprocessing.Forexample,becauseofplantbreeding,corntodaylooks nothinglikeitdidonehundredyearsago.Althoughittypicallytookseveral growingseasonstoproduceaplantthatexpressedadesiredtrait,farmerswere eventuallyabletoproducecropsthat: Wereresistanttodrought,insectpestsordiseases Possessedstrongerstalkstowithstandstrongwinds Producedhigheryields Geneticmodificationisamoreefficientandprecisewaytoachievethebenefits ofcropimprovement.Usingnewtechnologies,scientistsarenowabletopin pointthespecificgeneresponsibleforaparticulartraitandthenextractoradd thatgenetoaspecificplant. Geneticmodificationisamoreprecisetechnique,whereonecanbeexactin transferringthedesiredcharacteristics.Intraditionalprocessingonecannotavoid thepossibilitythatothercharacteristicsmayalsobetransferred. Geneticmodificationislesstimeconsumingthantraditionalprocessing. Intraditionalprocessing,characteristicscanonlybeexchangedbetweenspecies whicharethesameorverysimilar.Itmightbemaizeandnaveworahorseand adonkey. Ingeneticmodification,itspossibletotransfergenesfromonespeciesto anotherfromplanttoplant,fromanimaltoplant,fromplanttoanimalorfrom animaltoanimal.Thisisbecauseallgenes,nomatterwheretheycomefrom, aremadeofthesamematerial DNA.

FOREXAMPLE:
Howtoaddafishgenetoatomato Scientistshavecreatedafrostresistanttomatoplantbyaddinganantifreezegenefromacoldwaterfishtoit.Theantifreezegenecomes fromthecoldwaterflounder,afishthatcansurviveinverycoldconditions.Thisishowitwasdone.

Theflounderhasagenetomakeanantifreezechemical.Thisisremovedfromthechromosomeswithinafloundercell.

TheantifreezeDNAisjoinedontoapieceofDNAcalledaplasmid.ThishybridDNA,whichisacombinationofDNAfrom2 differentsources,isknownasrecombinantDNA.

TherecombinantDNA,includingtheantifreezegene,isplacedinabacterium.

ThebacteriumisallowedtoreproducemanytimesproducinglotsofcopiesoftherecombinantDNA.

Tomatoplantcellsareinfectedwiththebacteria.Asaresult,theantifreezegeneintheplasmid,inthebacteriabecomes integratedintothetomatoplantcellDNA.

Tomatocellsareplacedinagrowthmediumthatencouragesthecellstogrowintoplants.

Tomatoplantseedlingisplanted.

ThisGMtomatoplantcontainsacopyoftheflounderantifreezegeneineveryoneofitscells.Theplantistestedtoseeifthe fishgenestillworks.Isitfrostresistant?Yesitis.

IssuesrelatedtoGeneticmodification
Somemythsrelatedtofoodsproducedusingbiotechnology:
MYTH:Foodsproducedusingbiotechnologyhasnotbeenestablishedassafe andarenotadequatelyregulated. FACT:Biotechnologyisoneofthemostextensivelyresearchedandreviewed agriculturaldevelopmentsinourhistory.TheWorldHealthOrganization,theUS FoodandDrugAdministration(FDA),theUSDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA) andtheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA)haveallcertifiedthesafetyof thesefoodsandworktogethertoensurethatcropsproducedthrough biotechnologyaresafetoeat.GovernmentsaroundtheworldincludingCanada, Australia,Singapore,EuropeandJapanhavereachedagreementonthesafety ofthesefoods.

MYTH:Cropsproducedusingbiotechnologywillnegativelyimpactthe environment. FACT:Biotechnologyisanelementinsustainableagriculturethatwillbenefitthe environment.Benefitsincludereducedpesticideuse,waterandsoilconservation andgreatersafetyforworkersandtheecosystem. Manycropsincludingtomatoes,corn,potatoesandcottonnowhavethe internalabilitytorepelinsects.Consequently,fewerapplicationsofinsecticide needtobeappliedtotheplant.Acertaintypeofcornusedtofeedhogswill reducethephyticacidinanimalwastethattraditionallycausesalgaetogrowin watersupplies.Finally,theabilitytoobtaingreatercropyieldfromexistingland decreasestheneedtoconvertforeststofarmland. MYTH:Theproductionofcropsresistanttocertainpestsandweedswillleadto "Superbugs"and/or"Superweeds"thatareimmunetoexistingmethodsofpest andweedmanagement. FACT:Therearenoscientificstudiessuggestingthiskindofscenariocould occurasaresultofcropsproducedusingbiotechnology.Thereare,however, manysystemsinplaceincludingcroprotation,hybridrotationandintegratedpest managementasaprecautionarymeasuretohelppreventitfromoccurring. Insectsandweedsalreadyevolveanddeveloptoleranceorresistancetotheir environment,sobiotechnologycanpotentiallybettermanagethisevolutionin resistance.

MYTH:GeneticallymodifiedcornkillsMonarchbutterflies. FACT:InMay1999,Naturemagazinepublishedaletterfromresearchersat CornellUniversitythatreportedfindingssuggestingfurtherresearchisneeded

intotherelationshipbetweenpollenfromselectstrainsofBtcorn(cornwhichhas beengeneticallymodifiedtoproduceaproteintoprotectagainstinsects)andthe Monarchcaterpillar.Sincethatpublication,manyuniversityresearchers, includingothersatCornell,havesteppedforwardtostressthattheMonarch studydidnotrepresentnaturalconditionsandthatextensiveenvironmental researchhasestablishedthesafetyofBtcornonnontargetinsects,suchasthe ladybirdbeetle,honeybeeandthegreenlacewing,inthenaturalenvironment. DrJohnLosey,theCornellUniversityentomologyprofessorwhoconductedthe research,agreedwiththeresearchersandnoted,"Ourstudywasconductedin thelaboratoryand,whileitraisesanimportantissue,itwouldbeinappropriateto drawanyconclusionsabouttherisktoMonarchpopulationsinthefield,based solelyontheseinitialresults." Aswithanyscientificissue,severalstudiesareneededbeforeconclusionscan bemade. MYTH:Biotechnologycannotrelieveworldhunger. FACT:Biotechnologycanhelpalleviatehungerworldwide.Inthenext50years theglobalpopulationisexpectedtodouble,reachingmorethan8billionpeople by2050.Populationgrowthanddietupgradingwillrequiretheworldfoodsupply toincreaseatleast250percentfromitscurrentquantity.Theamountofland currentlycommittedtofoodproductionapproximately36percentoftheearth's cumulativelandareacannotyieldtheamountoffoodneededbythisincreased population.Althoughforestscouldbeclearedtoobtainneededacreage,abetter approachistofindwaysofgettinggreatercropyieldfromexistingland. Biotechnologycanincreasethequantityoftheharvestbyaddressingthefactors thattraditionallydepletecropssuchaspests,weeds,droughtandwind.Plants frombiotechnologycandealwiththesehardshipsanddramaticallyincreasethe percentageofcropsthatsurviveandareharvestedeachyear. MYTH:Thelongtermeffectsoffoodsdevelopedusingbiotechnologyare unknown. FACT:Fromyearsofresearch,scientistsknowthatthebenefitsoffood biotechnologyareenormous.Thescientificconsensusisthattherisks associatedwithfoodbiotechnologyproductsarefundamentallythesameasfor otherfoods.Currentscienceshowsthatfoodsproducedusingbiotechnologyare safetoconsumeandahostofregulatoryauthoritiesincludingtheUSFDA,the UnitedStatesDepartmentofAgricultureandtheUSEnvironmentalProtection Agencyhavedeterminedthattheseproductsaresafetointroduceintothefood supply. Whilethereisnosuchthingas"zerorisk"foranyfood,consumerscanbe confidentthatfoodsproducedusingbiotechnologymeetthesamestringent safetystandardsasfoodsproducingusingconventionalmethods.

FAQs:
1.Aretheresafeguardstoprotectagainstanewplantvarietyoutcrossing toweedsandbecoming"outofcontrol?" Yestherearesafeguardsagainstoutcrossingintheexperimentalstage. Outcrossingistheunintentionalbreedingofadomesticcropwitharelated species. Greatcareistakentodevelopnewplantvarietiesthathavenoweedrelatives, donotoutcrosstoweedrelativesorwhoseweedrelativesexistonlyinregions wherethedomesticcropsarenotgrown.Liketraditionallybredplants,anew plantcannotconferitstraitsonanunrelatedplantspecies. 2.Whatifaplantpestsuchasaninsectoraplantdiseasedevelopsa resistancetoaprotectivetraitconferredthroughplantbiotechnology? Adaptingtoachangingenvironmentisthenaturalsurvivalmechanismofall livingorganisms.Throughthenaturalprocessofgeneticchangeandadaptation, itisalwayspossibleforaninsectpopulationoraplantdiseasestraintobuilda resistancetoachemicalinsecticideorfungicide,aprotectivetraitinaplantorto anynumberofthetechniquesusedtofightplantpests.Nevertheless,tohelp reducethepotentialforresistancedevelopment,considerationmustbegivento resistancemanagementtechniquesforgeneticallymodifiedplants. Traditionalpesticideshavebeenbroughttomarketfordecadeswithoutplansin placetodelayresistance.Bycontrast,thedevelopmentofsomeofthefirst geneticallymodifiedplantsincludedalmostadecadeofresearchtominimisethe potentialofresistancedevelopment.Thiskindofresearchhadneverbeendone before.Theresearchresultedinstrategiestominimisethepossibilitiesof resistancethroughconscientiousprogramsandcarefullychosengenetictraits. 3.Willantibioticresistancemarkergenesmakemeresistanttothetarget antibiotics? No.Thereisnorelationshipbetweenanantibioticresistancemarkergeneused inplantsandantibioticresistanceinhumans.Themarkergeneisusedin researchtohelpresearchersdistinguishanewplantvarietyfromrelatedplants. Whentheplantsareexposedtothetargetantibioticinthelaboratory,thenew plantvarietywillcontinuetogrow,unaffectedbytheantibiotic,allowingthe researchertoidentifyandselectforplantsthathavethedesiredtrait. Anantibioticresistancemarkergeneisnotanantibiotic.Itproducesaprotein thatallowsonlyplantscontainingthemarkergenetogrowinthepresenceofa specificantibiotic.Thisproteinisbrokendowninthedigestivetract.Therefore, themarkergeneproductcannotfunctioninthehumanbody.Itcannotinactivate antibioticsandthelikelihoodofanantibioticresistantgenebeingtransferredfrom foodtobacteriainthehumangutisverysmall.

Thereareafewissues,whicharerelevanttoIndiancontext.Theseare
presentedbelow:

WillGMfoodreducehungerindevelopingcountrieslikeIndia? Ifhungercouldbeaddressedbytechnology,greenrevolutionwouldhavedone itlongago.ThefactisthathungerhasgrowninIndiainabsolutetermssome 320millionpeoplegotobedhungryeverynight.Twoyearsback,Indiahada recordfoodgrainsurplusof65milliontonnes.If65milliontonnessurpluscould notfeedthe320millionhungry,howwillGMfoodremovehunger?Inreality,GM fooddivertspreciousfinancialresourcestoanirrelevantresearch,comeswith strongerintellectualpropertyrights,andisaimedatstrengtheningcorporate controloveragriculture. Butwhataboutmalnutrition?Cropslikegoldenricecanhelpremove blindness. Thisagainistheresultofmisplacedthinking.Thereare12millionpeopleinIndia whosufferfromVitaminAdeficiency.Thesepeopleprimarilyliveinfooddeficit areasoraremarginalised.Thesearepeoplewhocannotbuytheirnormal requirementoffood,includingrice.Iftheywereadequatelyfed,therewouldbe nomalnutrition.IfthepoorinKalahandi,forinstance,can'tbuyricethatlies rottinginfrontoftheireyes,howwilltheybuygoldenrice? ThenwhyistheIndiangovernmentexperimentingwithGMcropsand foods? Fortworeasons:First,Indiaisundertremendouspressurefromthe biotechnologyindustrytoallowGMcrops.Thesecompanieshavethefinancial resourcestomobilisescientificopinionaswellaspoliticalsupport.Second, agriculturalscientistsareusingbiotechnologyasaTrojanhorse.Withnothingto showbywayofscientificbreakthroughinthepastthreedecades,GMresearch willensurelivelihoodsecurityforthescientists. WhatGMcropsandfooditemsisIndiaexperimentingwith? Besidescotton,geneticengineeringexperimentsarebeingconductedonmaize, mustard,sugarcane,sorghum,pigeonpea,chickpea,rice,tomato,brinjal,potato, banana,papaya,cauliflower,oilseeds,castor,soyabeanandmedicinalplants. Experimentsarealsounderwayonseveralspeciesoffish.Infact,suchisthe desperationthatscientistsaretryingtoinsertBtgeneintoanycroptheycanlay theirhandson,notknowingwhetherthisisdesirableornot.

WhatdoesthefieldtrialdataofGMproducts,includingBtcotton,inIndia reveal? Btcottonfieldtrialswereasham.Inthreeyearsofresearchtrials,the experimentswerenotconductedasperscientificnorms.Andyet,theGEAC (GeneticEngineeringApprovalCommittee,ministryofenvironment&forests) hadapprovedtheresults.Theexperimentonlyshowedthatsuchproductsare notsuitableforIndianconditions.Ifonlythesameattentionhadgonetomore sustainablefarmingsystems,Indiawouldhavebeenabletocreateaunique modelofagriculturewherefarmersarenotforcedtocommitsuicide,wherethe landisnotpolluted,andwherewaterisnotpoisoned.GMcropsexperiments showthatthecountryisfastmovingintoahithertounforeseeneraofbiological pollution,whichwillbemoreunsustainableandalsodestructivetohumanhealth andenvironment. ButIndiasBiologicalDiversityAct2003doesprovideforanenvironmental assessmentofGMcrops? No,notatall.Geneticengineeringismovingseveraltimesfasterthanthelegal instruments.Transgeniccropsandanimalsinessencegoagainstthevery foundationofthebiologicaldiversitythatwearetryingtoprotect. WhatroleshouldtheGEACplay? GEACshouldemphasizebiologicalriskassessment.GEACshouldregulate genetictechnologyliketheUSRecombinantAdvisoryCommittee(RCA)does forgeneticallyengineereddrugs.RCAmakesitmandatoryforcompaniesto providealistofnegativeandharmfulimpactsandminimizesthatimpactbefore approvingforcommercialsale.Asaresult,theapprovalprocesstakes25years. Unfortunately,GMresearchinIndiaisnotbeingmadetoevaluatepotentialharm tohumanhealthandenvironment.ThisisbecausetheGEACdoesnotwantthe companiestospendmoreonresearch. DoesGMtechnologythreatenourgeneticresourcesandtraditional knowledge? Wehavealreadylostcontroloverourplant,animalandmicrobialgenetic resources.Acopyofroughly1,50,000plantaccessionsthathavebeencollected inIndia,arewiththeUSdepartmentofagriculture.Indiahasnocontrolover theseresources.Atthesametime,Indiaisnowbusydocumentingtraditional knowledge,soastohelptheAmericancompaniesknowtheusesoftheplant speciestheyhavegotfromus.Further,TraderelatedIntellectualPropertyRights (TRIPs)allowspatentsongenesandcelllines,whichwillblockIndia's agriculturalresearchleadingtowhatIhavealwaystermedasascientific apartheidagainstthedevelopingcountries.

PositiveImpactsofGMcrops
Forthedevelopmentofimprovedfoodmaterials,GMhasthefollowing advantagesovertraditionalselectivebreeding:

Allowsamuchwiderselectionoftraitsforimprovement:e.g.notonlypest, diseaseandherbicideresistance(asachievedtodateinplants)butalso potentiallydroughtresistance,improvednutritionalcontentandimproved sensoryproperties Itisfasterandlowerincost Desiredchangecanbeachievedinveryfewgenerations Allowsgreaterprecisioninselectingcharacteristics Reducesriskofrandomoccurrenceofundesirabletraits.

Theseadvantagescould,inturn,leadtoanumberofpotentialbenefits, especiallyinthelongerterm,fortheconsumer,industry,agricultureandthe environment:

Improvedagriculturalperformance(yields)withlesslabourinputandless costinput Benefitstothesoilofnotillfarmingpractice Reducedusageofpesticidesandherbicides Abilitytogrowcropsinpreviouslyinhospitableenvironments(e.g.via increasedabilityofplantstogrowinconditionsofdrought,soilsalinity, extremesoftemperature,consequencesofglobalwarming,etc.)Improved sensoryattributesoffood(e.g.flavour,texture,etc.) Removalofallergensortoxiccomponents,suchastheresearchinUSAto produceanonallergenicGMpeanut(UniversityofArkansas)andanon allergenicGMprawn(TulaneUniversity)andinJapan,toproduceaGM nonallergenicrice. Improvednutritionalattributessuchas: o IngoPotrykus'sEUresearchprojectjointlyfundedbythe RockefellerFoundation,resultinginincreasedVitaminAcontentin rice,whichwillhelptopreventblindnessamongchildrenin SoutheastAsia o theannouncementinSeptember2003byEdgarCahoonandhis teamattheDonaldDanforthPlantScienceCenterinMissourithat byinsertingageneextractedfrombarleyintoacommontypeof fieldcorn,theyhavecreatedastrainthatgrowswithsixtimesthe usualamountofvitaminE,apowerfulantioxidant. Improvedprocessingcharacteristicsleadingtoreducedwasteandlower foodcoststotheconsumer. Preventionoflossofspeciestoendemicdisease(e.g.theCavendish dessertbananawhichissubjecttotwofungaldiseasesthathavestruck Africa,SouthAmericaandAsia,butcouldbereprievedbyGM developmentofadiseaseresistantversion).

GMhashugepotentialformankindinmedicine,agricultureandfood.Infood,the realbenefitsarenottheearlyinstancesthathavebeenappearingsofar,butits longertermbenefittotheworldandespeciallythedevelopingcountriesits potentialfordevelopingcropsofimprovednutritionalquality,andcropsthatwill growunderpreviouslyinhospitableconditions(seeabove),therebycontributing toalleviatinghungerandmalnutrition,whilehelpingtopreventtheotherwise inevitablefuturepressuretoencroachonnaturalresources.Eventoday,there are840millionpeople.800millionoftheminthedevelopingcountriesand200 millionofthemchildren,whoregularlydonotreceiveenoughfoodtoalleviate hunger,stilllessprovideadequatenutrition.24,000peopledieofmalnutrition relatedcausesdaily.Thatsituationwillbegreatlyworsenedasaresultofthe world'sescalatingpopulationoverthecomingdecades. TherearethosewhoallegethatscientistsclaimthatGMwillsolvetheproblem ofworldhunger.Thisisafamiliar"strawman".Itisfrequentlyarguedbysome thatthereismorethanenoughfoodtofeedtheworldandallthatisneededis "fairerdistribution"(whichsofarmankindhassignallyfailedtoachieve)ora variantofthat,"therealproblemisnotshortageoffood,itispoverty".Whatever maybedonebywayofimprovedyieldsthroughconventionalmethods, attemptedpopulationcontrolandmoreeffectivedistributionwould,however,be inadequateforthefuture.Thereareprobablyenoughcerealstofeedthepresent worldpopulation(ifonlytheycouldbedistributedtotherightplacesattheright timesandcouldbeafforded).Buttherewillbesubstantialshortfallsincerealsin thenexttwodecades.Moreover,"worldhunger"isacomplexnotonlyof inadequatequantitywhereitisneededbutalsoofinadequatequalityi.e.forvast numbersofpeoplethelackoffoodswiththenecessarymicronutrientsandof cleanwater,forreasonablenutritionandhealth. However,indecadestocome,withtheexpectedsubstantialincreaseinthe worldpopulation,mostlyinthepoorest,leastdevelopedcountries,thedemand forincreasedagriculturallandandforwaterwillgreatlyincrease.Theimportant pointisnotonlyhowtofeedtheworldnowbutaddressingandtryingtosolvethe problemof"Howshallmankindfeedtheworldinafewdecadesfromnow?Of coursetheproblemthathashugepoliticalandeconomicdimensionswillnotbe solvedbyGMalone,orevenbysciencealonebutwillcertainlynotbesolved withoutthecontributionofscience,includingGM. FoodscientistsandtechnologistscansupporttheresponsibleintroductionofGM techniquesprovidedthatissuesofproductsafety,environmentalconcerns, ethicsandinformationaresatisfactorilyaddressed.sothatthebenefitsthatthis technologycanconferbecomeavailablebothtoimprovethequalityofthefood supplyandtohelpfeedtheworld'sescalatingpopulationinthecomingdecades.

NegativeImpactsofGMcrops
Therearefollowingunintendedimpactsonenvironment,health,markets Environment: Unintendedenvironmentalimpactsincludeharmingnontargetand/orbeneficial speciesinthecaseofcropswithengineeredinsecticidalproperties,aswellas thedevelopmentofnewstrainsofresistantpests.Additionallythereisconcern thatpollenfromgeneticallyengineeredherbicideresistantcropscouldreach wild,weedyrelativesofthecropandcreatesocalledsuperweeds.Thisisof particularconcernintheU.S.withcropssuchascanolaandsquash. Health: Atpresent,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatGMfoodsareunsafe.However, therearenoabsoluteguarantees,either.UnintendedhealthimpactsfromGMOs concernallergens,antibioticresistance,decreasednutrients,andtoxins.

AllergensBecauseproteinsequencesarechangedwiththeadditionof newgeneticmaterial,thereisconcernthattheengineeredormodified organismcouldproduceknownorunknownallergens.ArecentNational ResearchCouncilcommitteereportonGMOsrecommendedthe developmentofimprovedmethodsforidentifyingpotentialallergens, "specificallyfocusingonnewtestsrelevanttothehumanimmunesystem andonmorereliableanimalmodels." AntibioticresistancePlantgeneticengineershavefrequentlyattached genestheyaretryingtoinserttoantibioticresistancegenes.Thisallows themtoreadilyselecttheplantsthatacquirethenewgenesbytreating themwiththeantibiotic.Sometimesthesegenesremaininthetransgenic cropthathasleadcriticstochargethattheantibioticresistancegenes couldspreadtopathogensinthebodyandrenderantibioticsless effective.However,severalpanelsofantibioticresistanceexpertshave concludedthattheriskisminiscule. DecreasednutrientsBecausetheDNAofgeneticallyengineeredplants isaltered,thereisconcernthatsomeGMOscouldhavedecreasedlevels ofimportantnutrients,asDNAisthecodefortheproductionofnutrients. However,itmustbenotedthatnutritionaldifferencesalsohavebeen documentedwithtraditionallybredcrops. IntroducedtoxinsResidualtoxinsresultingfromintroducedgenesof thebacteriaBacillusthuringiensisinsocalledBtcropsareunlikelyto harmhumans.Thisisbecausethetoxinproducedbythebacteriaishighly specifictocertaintypesofinsects.PriortoitsinclusioninGE/GMcrops, Bthasbeenusedasabiologicalinsecticide,causingnoadverseeffectsin humansconsumingtreatedcrops.SeetheWorldHealthOrganization'sBt monographforadditionaldetails. NaturallyoccurringtoxinsThereisconcernthatgeneticengineering couldinadvertentlyincreasenaturallyoccurringplanttoxins.However, traditionalplantbreedingalsocanresultinhigherlevelsofplanttoxins.

Markets: Unintendedmarketimpactsincludelowerpricesandhighercostsforfarmers,as wellaslostpremiumsandmarkets.BansonGMimportsormoratoriumson approvingnewGMvarieties/hybridsreducethenumberofexportdestinationsfor comingledGMandnonGMcrops.Thisresultsindepressedcroppricesduea greaterpercentageofcropsneedingtobeuseddomestically.Additionally, moratoriumsonnewGMvarieties/hybridsandmandatorylabelingpracticesin somecountries,includingsomeoftheU.S.'largerexportpartners,may necessitateseparatehandlingofgrain.ThecostforthisisultimatelybornbyU.S. farmers.In1999,A.E.StaleyandArcherDanielsMidlandannouncedthatthey wouldnotacceptgrainproducedfromhybridscontaininggeneticmaterialthatis unapprovedforexport.And,IllinoisCerealMills,ownedbyCargillInc.,increased itscontractsfornonGMOcrops. PollenfromGMcropscancontaminatenonGMcrops,especiallythosecertified organic,whicharesubjecttoazeroGMOtolerance.Straypollencouldrendera cropineligiblefororganicorspecialtypremiumsoncontractsrequiringnonGM varieties/hybrids.Compoundingtheproblemisthefactthatmanygenetictests forGMOsresultinfalsepositives. In1999,FritoLayandNovartisownedGerberannouncedthattheywouldnotbe purchasingGMcrops/ingredientsfortheirproducts.Internationally,several companieshavemadesimilarannouncements,thoughnotfortheirU.S.product lines.InJune2000,Novartisbecamethefirstmultinationaltoannouncethatit wouldnotbepurchasingGMcrops/ingredientsforanyofitsproductsworldwide, includingthosefortheU.S.market.

MoralIssues
"Movinggenesfromanimalstoplantsgetsyouintoawholemoral, religious,andpoliticalfirestorm..." Thisstatementillustratestheprimarycontentionpointforthemostcommon ethicalmoralargumentagainstGMOs.Forthosewhobelievethathumansdo nothavetherighttocreatelifethathumansarestewardsoftheearth'sspecies, orthathumansareequalswithotherspecies,combininggenesinwaysthat wouldnotoccurinthenormalprocessofevolutionconflictswiththeirpersonal philosophyoflife. However,theargumenthasbeenmadethatgeneticengineeringismorally justifiedasitcanbeusedtoalleviatediseaseandstarvation.Whiletheargument foralleviatingdiseaseissupportedbythecaseofgeneticallyengineeredhuman insulinandnotyetcommercializedprojectsthatseektodelivervaccinesviafood

crops,theargumentforalleviatinghungerhasyettobeborneout.GMcrops haveyettoincreaseyieldsonparwithhybridizationincorn,anditmustbe rememberedthatsimplygrowingmoreofacropdoesnotguaranteethatitwill reachpeoplewhoarestarving.AmemberoftheEuropeanParliament,speaking attheEuropeanVoiceConferenceonGMOsinBrusselsinMarch1999,blasted biotech[companies'publicrelationscampaigns]sayingwhilethey"attemptto convincepeopletheyjustwanttosavetheenvironmentandfeedthestarving, peopleknowthatwealthycompanieshavenotbeencreatedtofeedthepoor." Thatsaid,onAugust3,Monsantoannouncedthatitwouldnotchargelicensing feesfortheuseofitspatentedtechnologyforproducinggoldenrice.

HowIndiafitsinthepictureofGMCrops?
InIndia,experimentshavebeencarriedoutandGMcropsliketheGoldenRice (whichisrichinproteins)havebeenused.Unfortunately,theGMbusinessis ownedbytopmultinationalcompaniesandagribusinessisonlyforvested interests.OneoftheprimefearsrelatedtobiotechnologyisthattheGMcrops mayleadtoamonocultureanddevastatethebiodiversitythatmaybelikeaself servingbioweapononatargetnation.ThisdecadeiscrucialforIndiainwhichit willhavetotakedecisionsontheprospectofGMcrops.Whileexperimentationis goingoninIndia,weneedtoretainourtraditionalknowledgeandpractices.The socalledcoarsegrainslikebajraandmilletsmaybemorenutritiousforthe farmers(oreventheaffluent)thanriceandwheat.Forbetternutritionalsecurity, wemayneedtraditionalfoodhabitsandfoodgrains,cerealsandmilksuitedto ouragriculturalzones.

Warningbells
INDIAisthethirdlargestproducerofcottonafterChinaandtheU.S.The MaharashtraHybridSeedsCo.LtdMahycoisoneofthelargestandmosttrusted seedcompaniesinIndia.In1998,after8yearsofnegotiation,Monsantobecame a50%shareholderinthecompanyandreceivedapprovaltoconduct countrywidefieldtrials.Thedatacompiledwasnevermadepublic. Onthe26thofMarch2002theGeneticEngineeringApprovalCommitteeof India,gavetheconditionalclearancetoMonsantoandMahycoforcommercial plantingofthegeneticallyengineeredBacillusthuringiensis(Bt.)cottoninfour statesofsouthernandcentralIndia. InJune2002,about55,000cottonfarmersdecidedtogrowBtcotton,whichwas developedbyinsertingageneofbacteriaintotheplant'sgenometoenableitto resistbollworm,amajorpestforcotton. Inthefirstfewmonthsthefarmersweredelightedwiththecropsinceitgrewfast

andlookedhealthy.Mostsatisfyingwasthattheleaveswerenotbeingeatenby worms. Unfortunately,inthefourthmonth,theBtcottonstoppedgrowingandproducing newbudswhiletheexistingcottonbollsdidnotgetanybigger.Thecropthen wiltedanddriedupatthepeakbollingstage.Thiswasaccompaniedbyleaf droopingandshedding.Therewasalsoburstingofimmaturebollsandheavy infestationofbollworm.InthestateofAndhraPradesh79%ofthecropwaslost. InMadhyaPradesh100%ofthecropwaslost.InMaharastra,theBtcrophas failedacross30,000hec.InGujarat,itwascompletelydestroyedbythe bollworm.Subsequently,about200farmerscommittedsuicide. TheBt.cottonfailurehascostthefarmingindustryatotallossofRs.1128million ortwentymillioneuroin105000acresacrossthecountryinonecropping season.Thelawstatesthatanycompanythatprovidespoorqualityseeds,the performanceofwhichdoesnotmatchtheclaimsmadebythecompany,istobe heldliableforthefailureofthevariety.DespitethisMonsantohasrefusedto acknowledgethefailureorprovideanycompensationtothefarmers. Monsantoclaimedthatthecropwouldbecompletelypestresistant.Resultshave clearlyshownthattheBTcottoncropwasdevastatedbypestattacks.Whenthe BTtoxininthecropprovedineffectivein90daysthefarmersusedpesticides boughtfromMonsanto.Thesprayingoftheseexpensivepesticideshadan adverseaffectonthecrop.Theplantsdevelopedtheleafcurlvirusandtheroot rotdiseaseandweredestroyed.Monsantotooknoresponsibility. Monsantoclaimedthatthecropwouldberesistanttothebollwormprovidedthat therewasa20percentrefugecropofnonBTcottonplantedalongsidetheBT crop.Thiswouldensurethatthebollwormwouldattackonlytheconventional crop.Inrealityhoweverthebollwormnotonlyattackedtheconventionalcropbut alsodevastatedthebtcrop.ArelativeoftheAmericanbollwormcalledthepink bollwormdevelopedwithimmunitytotheBTtoxin. Alsointheseinstances,the20%refugeofconventionalcropactuallyyieldeda betterharvest.Inmostcasesitwasonlytheconventionalrefugecropthat survived.AgainMonsantotooknoresponsibility. Monsantoclaimedthattherewouldbenoattackfromanyotherpests.Butin realitysuckingpestslikeJassids,aphidsandThripsthrivedontheBt.Cotton. ThespraysboughtfromMonsantotocontrolthesepestswereseventimesmore expensivethanconventionalsprayseventhoughMonsantohadoriginally claimedthattheywouldnotbenecessary. Monsantoclaimedthattheyieldsofthebtcottoncropwouldbe15timeshigher thantheaverageyieldofconventionalcotton.Butnowhereinthesurvivingfarms didthecropexceedtheaverageyield.Agoodbtcropproduced60cottonbolls perplantwhiletheconventionalplantproduced250to300.Theseedscostthe farmersfourtimesmorethantheconventionalseedseventhoughtheyhaveto beboughtonayearlybasis,astheycannotreproduce.Thelaborcostsalso increasedby50%. FollowingthedirepublicityovertheperformanceofitsGM(Bt)cottoninIndia, andwithmanypoorIndianfarmersfacingruin,MonsantoMahycocameupwith findingswhichitprovidedtotheIndiangovernmentshowingthatithadbeena

greatsuccess.GreenpeaceIndiasentitsownresearcherstocheckuponhow thedatahadbeencompiledand,amongstmuchelse,theresearcherscollected testimoniesfromfarmerswhosaidthattheyhadbeenadvisedbythecompanyto inflatetheirrealyieldfigures. Monsantoclaimsthatthenegativepublicityagainstthemhasbeenfabricatedby competitors.TheydonotbelievethattheyowetheIndianfarmersany compensationandplantocontinuewiththesaleoftheirseeds. Instudiescarriedout,ithasbeendemonstratedthatgmcropstransfertheir genestosoilfungiandbacteria.Theaffectedfungiandbacteriathenbehavein abnormalwaysanddiminishtheirfunctioninbreakingdownorganicmaterial, whichmakesnutrientsavailabletoplants.Thesoilwillbecomeprogressivelyless fertile.Afterafewseasonsofplantingthegmcropthesoilwillnotbeabletohost anyotherconventionalcrop.Iffarmerswishtoswitchbacktoconventionalcrops itcouldtakeawholeseasontorehabilitatethesoil.Theeconomicconsequences ofwhichareclearlyunfavorable.Thereisalsotheaddedcostofnutrientsand fertilizersnecessarytoregeneratethesoil.Howeverthemostdangerousthreatis thataftermanyseasonsitcouldbeimpossibletorevertbacktotheplantingof anyconventionalcrop.Becausebythenthesoilcouldbecompletelyinfertile. GMcropsaregeneticallymanipulatedsothattheydieafteroneseasonand cannotreproduce.Thisisreferredtoastheterminatorgeneintheplant.Itis promotedasameansofpreventingtransgeniccontaminationtoothercrops.This hasprovedtobefalse.Itactuallyspreadsnotonlymalesterilitybutalso herbicidetoleranceinothercrops.Thepollenfromthecropscarryingthe Terminatorwillinfectthefieldsoffarmerswhoeitherreject,orcannotaffordthe technology. Anyfarmerwhosecropsarecontaminatedwillthenhavetolabelalltheir produceas"gmcontaminated".Monsantocanalsosuethemforthetheftof genes. Onthe2ndofJanuary2003itwasreportedthattheplanforthe"protato"was presentedataconferenceinLondonbyG.Padmanabanwhoasdirectorof India'sprestigiousIndianInstituteofSciencehadsignedasecretdealwith MonsantothatevenhisfellowscientistsoftheInstituteknewnothingabout.The geneticallyengineeredpotatothatisnowbeingofferedaspartofanantihunger strategyhasgenesfromtheplantamaranth.Particularlywhenfedtochildren undertheageof13thegeneticallyengineeredpotatowillinfactcreate malnutrition.Itdeniestochildrentheothernutrientsavailableingrainamaranth andnotavailableinpotato.Thisgeneticallyengineeredpotatowillinfactspread ironandcalciumdeficiencyinchildren.Thealreadymalnourishedchildrenwho willbethemainconsumersofthepotatostandtosufferevengreater deficiencies. ThecowhasbeenmadesacredinIndiabecauseitisakeystonespeciesfor agroecosystems.Andcowdung,biomassandbiodiversityarethenonviolent organicalternativetogeneticengineeringandchemicals.Farmer'sorganizations inIndiaandinAfricaaresaying"no"toGMO'sonthebasisoftheirfreedomto

choosetobeorganic.Thismeansbeingfreeofgeneticcontaminationthat resultsfromGMcrops.Geneticcontaminationrobsfarmersoftheirfreedomto beGMfree.OrganicagricultureinIndiaisincreasingfarmproductivityby2to3 times,increasingfarmersincomes,andprotectingpublichealthandthe environment. Amajorfactorinagricultureistheavailabilityofwater.Btcottonconsumesmuch morewaterthannonBthybridsdo.Theruinfacedbythefarmersisofcritical interesttoIndia,whichhastheworld'slargestacreageofcotton(25%atnine millionhectares)butaccountsforjustalittleover12%oftheproduction.TheBT cottondisasterdecreasedproductiondramaticallycreatinghavocintheIndian economy. Onthe5thofJanuary2004,theIndiangovernmentannounceddetailsofasix yearplantodevelopnewgeneticallyengineeredcropsthatwillprovidebetter nutrition.Governmentscientistssaythiskindofresearchisurgentlyneededto improvethehealthofthedevelopingworld.The"PlantGenomeResearchRoad Map",asit'scalled,wasunveiledattheIndianScienceCongress. TheIndianmovementagainstGMwillcontinuetofightanygeneticmanipulation ofcropsthatmightbeproposedbythegovernmentormultinationals.Farmers acrossthecountryhavedeclaredthemselvesGmfreeandhavebeenstaging protestsandformingmovementslikeQuitIndiaMonsantoandCremate Monsanto.ActivistsinIndiabelievethatneitheraffluentpopulationsnorthose strugglingtosurvivehavetheneedforaninadequatelytestedtechnologythat hasthepotentialtocausedevastationonaglobalscaleintheyearstocome.We havenoneedforatechnologythathasprovedbeyonddoubttobefataltothe environment.

IndiaBecomingaDumpingGroundforGECrops
Astheworldwakesuptohumanhealthandenvironmentnuisancefromthe geneticallymodified(GM)crops,Indiaisfastturningintoadustbinfor thenewtechnology. InMarch,WesternAustraliabecamethefirstAustralianstatetoban outrightplantingofGMfoodcrops.ItsPremier,GeoffGallop,saidhedid notwanttojeopardizehisstatescanolaindustryatatimewhen internationalconsumersentimentwasopposedtoGMcrops.Withinafewdays ofthisdecision,Victoriaimposedafouryearmoratoriumonthecultivation ofGMoilseedsrapetoprotectitscleanandgreenimage.SouthAustralia andTasmaniahavealreadybannedGMcrops.Fourstatesimposeda moratoriumongrowingGMcropsinaspaceoffivedays.

IntheUnitedStates,MendocinocountyinCaliforniabecamethenations firsttobantheraisingandkeepingofgeneticallyengineeredcropsor animals.InMarch,thehillystateofVermont,inahistoricdecision,voted overwhelminglytosupportabilltoholdbiotechcorporationsliableforunintended contaminationofconventionalororganiccropsbygeneticallyengineeredplant materials.Thisbillisthefirstofitskindintheworldthataimstoprotectafarmer frombeingsuedbytheseedcompaniesifhiscropsarecontaminatedwithGMO material. InBritain,thedramaticturnaroundbyBayerCropSciencetogiveup attemptstocommercializeGMmaize,haveensuredthatthecountryremainsGM freetillatleast2008.DespiteTonyBlairsblindlovefortheindustry, toughGMregulatoryregimecameinthewayoftheadoptionofthe technology.InJapan,consumergroupsannouncedtheirintentiontopresenta petitionsignedbyover1,000,000peopletoAgricultureandAgriFood Minister,BobSpeller.ThepetitioncallsforabanonGEwheatinCanada. JapanisoneofthebiggestmarketsforCanadianwheat. InApril,however,theGeneticEngineeringApprovalCommittee(GEAC)in IndiaapprovedanotherBtcottonvarietyforthecentralandsouthern regionsamidstreportsthatthegoaheadcamewithoutadequatescientific testing.TheapprovalalsocomesatatimewhentheUSDepartmentof AgriculturesAnimalandPlantHealthInspectionService(APHIS)isseeking publiccommentonpetitionsfromMycogenSeedstoderegulatetwolinesof geneticallyengineeredinsectresistantcotton.APHISisseekingpublic commentonwhetherthesecottonlinesposeaplantpestrisk. Suchhasbeenthecasualapproachtoregulatethemostcontroversial technologythatithasbecomepracticallydifficulttokeeptrackofthenew GEACchief.Theykeeponchangingatapacefasterthanthatexpectedfrom musicalchairs.Atthesametime,whileBritainhadsetinplaceatougher regulatoryregimemakingthecompaniesliableforanyenvironmentalmishap, Indiacontinuestoignorethewarning.TheregulationsthattheGEAChad announcedatthetimeofaccordingapprovaltoBtcottonin2002wereonly aimedatpacifyingthemedia.TheGEAChasnotbeenheldaccountableforthe deliberateattemptstoobfuscatethepublicopinioninanefforttohelpthe seedindustrymakeafastbuck. Itisawidelyacceptedfactthatthesafetyregulations,includingthe mandatorybufferzoneorrefugearoundtheBTcottonfields,werenot adheredto.YettheMinistryofEnvironmentandForestsrefrainedfrom penalizingtheseedcompany.NordiditdirectMahycoMonsantotocompensate croplossesthatthefarmerssufferedintheveryfirstyearofplantingBt cottonin200203.Thatthecrophadfailedtoyieldthedesiredresultswas evenhighlightedinaparliamentarycommitteereport.

NotallGMdecisionsaretakeninaccordancewithscientificprinciples. WhileaNGOpetitionbeforetheCentralVigilanceCommission(CVC)seeking anenquiryintotheentiremonitoring,evaluationandapprovalprocesswas ignored,theUSauthoritieshavelaunchedaninvestigationintoreportsof allegedbribingofIndonesiangovernmentofficialswhoapprovedBtcotton. BoththeUSDepartmentofJusticeandtheSecuritiesandExchange CommissionareexaminingwhetheraformerconsultanttoMonsantomadean improperUS$50,000paymentinearly2002. MonsantospokeswomanLoriFisherwasquotedassaying:Theseareserious allegationsandwewillcontinuetocooperate.Reuterreportsthatthe companyisoneoftheworldsleadingdevelopersofgeneticallymodified seeds,buthashadtroublegettingsomeofitsbiotechcropsapprovedin foreigncountries,includingbiotechcottonintroducedinIndonesiain 2001.Monsantocloseddownthebiotechcottonsalesoperationsin2003after twounsuccessfulyearsthatcameamidcomplaintsoveryieldsandpricing. Indiahasmeanwhilebecomeafavoreddestinationforthebiotechnology industrythatisvirtuallyontherunfromtheUS,EuropeanUnionand Australia.InEurope,a2002surveyshowed61percentoftheprivatesector cancelledR&Dasaresultofmoratoriumactions.Withhighlycriticalreportsof regulatorymechanismcominginfromrespectableindependent institutions,thetrendinUSisalsotowardsstillmoretougherregulations therebyforcingbiotechnologycompaniestogrowthenextgenerationofGM cropsinabandonedmines,usingartificiallightingandairfiltrationto preventpollenmovement. InIndiaontheotherhand,besidescotton,geneticengineeringexperiments arebeingconductedonmaize,mustard,sugarcane,sorghum,pigeonpea, chickpea,rice,tomato,brinjal,potato,banana,papaya,cauliflower, oilseeds,castor,soyabeanandmedicinalplants.Experimentsarealso underwayonseveralspeciesoffish.Infact,suchisthedesperationthat scientistsaretryingtoinsertBtgeneintoanycroptheycanlaytheir handson,notknowingwhetherthisisdesirableornot.ThemadraceforGM experimentsistheoutcomeofmorefundingfromthebiotechcompaniesas wellassupportfromtheWorldBank,FAOandtheConsultativeGroupon InternationalAgriculturalResearch(CGIAR). Interestingly,whiletherestoftheworldisstoppingGMresearchinthe trackslestitdestroysthefarmtradeopportunitiesduetopublicrejection ofthegeneticallyengineeredfood,IndianCouncilforAgriculturalResearch (ICAR)merrilycontinuestosowtheseedsofthornsforagriculturalexports therebyjeopardizingthefutureofdomesticfarming.Butthen,whocaresfor thefarmersaslongasGMresearchensuresthelivelihoodsecurityforafew thousandagriculturalscientists.

FutureofGMcropsinIndiaandtheworld
GeneticallymodifiedcroptechnologyhasrevolutionizedagricultureintheUnited States,Canada,China,andArgentina.Itexhibitsthepotentialtohavemuch widerimpact,solvingmanyofthecurrentproblemsinagricultureworldwide.The typesofGMcropsthatmaybecomeavailableinthefuturecouldboostcrop yieldswhileenhancingthenutritionalvalueofstaplefoodsandeliminatingthe needforinputsthatcouldbeharmfultotheenvironment.Whilethe environmental,health,andeconomicrisksofGMcropsshouldbecarefully studiedbeforefullscaleadoption,thetypesofGMcropsthatarealready availablehavethusfarlargelyproventobebeneficialtoagricultureandevento theenvironment,withoutevidenceofadversehealthorenvironmentalimpacts. In2002,58.7millionhectaresofGMcropsweregrownworldwidewithtwothirds intheUS.OtherscountriesgrowingGMcropsareArgentina,Australia,Bulgaria, Canada,China,Columbia,Honduras,India,Indonesia,Mexico,Romania,South Africa,SpainandUruguay. Globally,nearly12millionhectaresofGMmaizeweregrownin2002.IntheUS, around25%ofthemaizeharvestisgeneticallymodified.InEurope,commercial growingofGMBtmaizeisalreadyunderwayinSpain. Around70%oftheUSsoyaplantedisGM.InArgentinathefigureis95%. Currently,around46%oftheentireglobalsoyacropisGM. Yet,inotherthanthefourcountriesmentionedabove,theGMcropmovement hashadlittleornoimpact.Inthosepartsofthedevelopingworldwherean agriculturalrevolutionmightbemostwelcome,theGeneRevolutionhasyettobe embraced.Whyisthisso? Foronething,theGeneRevolutionbeganinadifferentwaythantheGreen Revolution.GMcropswerefirstcreatedwithinthecontextofthebiotechnology industrytoprovideenhancedagriculturaltechnologiestotheindustrysprimary customersfarmersintheindustrialworld.Thesecropswerenotmeantatthe outsettobealifesavingtechnologyforthedevelopingworld.Althoughitis almostcertainlypossiblefromascientificandtechnologicalstandpointtocreate GMcropsthatwouldbebeneficialtodevelopingworldfarmers,neither producers(thebiotechindustry)norconsumers(developingworldfarmers)have sufficienteconomicincentivesforthistohappen.Infact,theenormouscostsof producingeachGMcropvarietycouldprovetobeadisincentivefortheindustry todeveloporphanGMcropsthatwouldbenefitdevelopingworldfarmers. Additionally,evenifthebiotechindustryweretodevelopGMcropsthatare beneficialtofarmersinthedevelopingworld,thepoorestofthosefarmerswould

notbeabletoaffordGMcropseedinsteadofconventionalvarieties,muchless purchasenewGMcropseedforeveryplantingseason,asbiotechpatentswould requirethemtodo. Finally,thecurrentpoliticalsituationisnotasconducivetopromotingthisnew agriculturalmovementasitwasfortheGreenRevolution.Forallthepotential thatGMtechnologyholds,therearemanychallengestobeovercomeifGM cropsaretotrulyintroduceaGeneRevolutionworldwide. Infuturethefollowinggoalsneedtobemetandtheirrelatedchallenges overcome: 1.Agriculturalbiotechnologymustbemadeaffordabletodevelopingworld farmers.Unlessthisconditionismet,farmersmaynotseethatitisintheirbest interesttouseGMcrops,despitethesignificantbenefitsthosecropscould provide. DuringtheGreenRevolution,thenewHYVseedsandaccompanyingchemicals weremoreexpensivethanthelandraceseedsthatdevelopingworldfarmers typicallyhadused.Therefore,loansystemsandcostreductionprogramswere establishedregionallyinwhichfarmerseventualprofitsfromincreased productioncouldbeusedtoreimburselenders.Inmanysettings,theseprograms provedtobenolongernecessaryseveralyearsaftertheirsuccessfuladoption. CurrentR&DcostsforgeneticallymodifiedseedsareevenhigherthantheR&D costsfortheGreenRevolutionsHYVseeds.AtthepricethatU.S.farmers currentlypay,GMseedswouldbeunaffordabletomostdevelopingworld farmers.Costreductionprogramsandloansystemssimilartothosethatwere establishedduringtheGreenRevolutionmustalsobeestablishedfortheGene Revolutionhowever,establishingsuchsystemsismoredifficultnowbecauseof highercostsandbecausetheseedsareproducedbythebiotechindustryrather thanbyagriculturalscientistsinthepublicsector. 2.Thereisaneedforlargerinvestmentsinresearchinthepublicsector. Numerousstudies(e.g.,Alstonetal.,1995Conway,1998Shoemakeretal., 2001)haveshowntheimportanceofpublicsectorR&Dtoagricultural advancements,includingtheadvancementsoftheGreenRevolution.Duringthe GreenRevolution,partlybecausetheR&Danditsproductswerealmostentirely inthepublicdomain,intellectualpropertyissueswerenotabarriertoscientists, forexample,takingseedsfromoneregionoftheworld,hybridizingthemwith seedsfromanotherregion,andproducingnewseedstobenefityetanother region.Today,however,theproductionanddistributionofGMcropsarelargely withinthedomainofthebiotechindustry,andIPissuesarecentraltothe developmentofGMseed.WhileIPlawsprotecttherightsofGMseedcreatorsin industry,thoselawsarecurrentlyanimpedimenttodisseminatingthenecessary knowledgeandtechnologytothosepartsoftheworldthatneedthem.Therefore, publicsectorresearchisessentialiftheGMmovementistoassume revolutionaryproportions.Partnershipsbetweenthepublicandprivatesectors

canresultinthemoreefficientproductionofGMcropsthatareusefultothe developingworldandexpandtheaccessibilityofthosecropsandtheir associatedtechnologiestodevelopingworldfarmers. 3.Togarnerthelevelofpublicinterestandsupportthatcansustainan agriculturalrevolution,agriculturaldevelopmentmustberegardedas beingcriticallyimportantfromapolicyperspective,inbothdonorand recipientnations. Withoutpublicpolicysupport,cooperationamongthemany stakeholdersintheGeneRevolutionwillbestymied. For30yearsafterWorldWarII,policymakersviewedagriculturaldevelopment asbeingessentialtoworldpeace.Forthatreason,policymakersinboththe UnitedStatesandinAsiaandLatinAmericasupportedtheGreenRevolution fromthestart.TheendoftheColdWar,however,hasnotbroughtaboutan increaseinglobalstability.WhereastheconflictbetweenEastandWesthas declined,thereisagrowingdividebetweenrichandpoornations.Unfortunately, withtheendoftheColdWar,developednationsareconcentratingmoreclosely ontheirdomesticpoliticalagendasandlessonglobalconcerns,andassuch havedecreasedtheirfundingtopoorernations.However,thesereductionsinaid arenotinthebestlongterminterestsofevenindustrializednations.An increasinglypolarizedworldoftherichversusthepoorwillresultingrowing politicalunrest.Unlessdevelopingnationsarehelpedtoprovidesufficientfood, employment,andshelterfortheirgrowingpopulations,thepoliticalstabilityofthe worldwillbefurtherundermined(Conway,1998). Aspopulationnumberscontinuetoincrease,agriculturaldevelopmentismore necessarythanevertoeliminatemalnutritionandpreventfamine,particularlyin subSaharanAfrica.GMcropsareseenasameansforaddressingthose problems.However,policymakersworldwidearefarfrombeingacombinedforce onthisissuethedrivingforcebehindimprovedagricultureislessunifiedthanit wasduringtheGreenRevolution.Thequestionofwhoshouldassumethetask ofreestablishingtheimportanceofagriculturaldevelopmentamong policymakersisanissueforfurtherinquiry. 4.Policymakersinthedevelopingworldmustsetregulatorystandardsthat takeintoconsiderationtherisksaswellasthebenefitsoffoodsderived fromGMcrops.Thisgoaliscrucialtothecooperationofthemanystakeholders thatareaffectedbyGMcropsandalsoforthesustainabilityoftheGMcrop movementintheforeseeablefuture.Agenerationago,theregulatory environmentsurroundingtheGreenRevolutionwasextremelypermissive. ScientistscouldmovefreelyamongnationstohelpbreedandplantHYVcrops, andtherewasnostigmaattachedtoeatingfoodsdevelopedfromthesecrops. Today,however,theregulatoryworldisdividedbetweenthosenationsthat permitGMcropstomovefreelythroughtheirfoodsystem(e.g.,theUnited States,Canada,China,andArgentina)andthose(primarilytheEU)thathave strictregulationsregardingGMcropsintheirfoodsystems.Therearemany

possiblereasonsforthedisparityinregulationsdifferingconsumerattitudes, tradeissues,anddifferencesinregulatoryphilosophyamongthem. ThediscordregardingGMcropregulationsiscurrentlyplayingitselfout(asof thiswriting)inacasebeforetheWTOtodeterminewhethertheEUsruleson GMfoodsconstituteanillegaltradebarrier.Inthemeantime,policymakersin certainAfricannationshavedecidedthattheycannotaffordtopermitGMcrop planting,evenifitisbeneficialtotheirgrowersandconsumers,becausetheyare waryoflosingfinancialaidfromtheEUiftheyareseenastakingaproGMcrop stance.Withoutregulationsthatexplicitlytakeintoaccountpotentialbenefitsto bothfarmersandconsumers,thosenationsthatmightstandtobenefitmostfrom GMcropsmaybediscouragedfromallowingthemtobeplanted. Atthesametime,policymakersworldwidemustensurethatriskassessmentsof GMcropsareconductedtoaddressthespecificconcernsoftheirregions.Arisk assessmentoftransgeneoutflowintheUnitedStates,forexample,isunlikelyto berelevanttoecologicalconcernsinMexicoorAfrica.Inassessingrisks, policymakersindevelopingnationsmustconsider,amongotherfactors,the typesofnativeandagriculturalplantsthatmaybeaffectedbythepresenceof GMcrops,traditionalfarmingpracticesandthedesiredtraitsofGMcropsthat maybeplantedintheirregionsintheneartermandlongterm.

References
http://www.zmag.org http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/asap http://www.afic.org http://www.biomedcentral.com

Bibliography
http://www.ucbiotech.org/ http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gmfood http://www.gmissues.org